Micah in Ancient Christianity: Reception and Interpretation [Illustrated] 3110663406, 9783110663402

Table of contents :
Preface
Contents
Abbreviations
I. Introduction
II. Micah in the New Testament
III. Church Fathers: Introduction
IV. Heterodox views
V. Patristic interpretation of Micah
VI. Liturgical use of Micah
VII. Jesus’ quotation of Mic 1:7 in b‘Abodah Zarah
Epilogue
Bibliography
Index of Subjects

Citation preview

Riemer Roukema Micah in Ancient Christianity

Studies of the Bible and Its Reception

Edited by Christine Helmer, Steven McKenzie, Thomas Römer, Jens Schröter, Barry Dov Walfish, and Eric Ziolkowski

Volume 15

Riemer Roukema

Micah in Ancient Christianity Reception and Interpretation

ISBN 978-3-11-066340-2 e-ISBN (PDF) 978-3-11-066602-1 e-ISBN (EPUB) 978-3-11-066391-4 ISSN 2195-450X Library of Congress Control Number: 2019944384 Bibliographic information published by the Deutsche Nationalbibliothek The Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston Logo: Martin Zech Printing: CPI books GmbH, Leck www.degruyter.com

To the memory of Tjitze Baarda (1932– 2017)

Preface The origin of this book lies in Strasbourg, where I worked as professor in the history of ancient Christianity and patristic studies at the Faculty of Protestant Theology of the – then so called – Université Marc Bloch from 2000 to 2002. I was invited to participate in a team that was to compose the volume on Micah in the series La Bible d’Alexandrie, which consists of French translations of the Septuagint, including extensive annotations and introductions. My task would be to research the patristic interpretation of Micah, so that its results could be included both in the annotations to the translation and in the introduction. I accepted the invitation, and as a team we continued to work on the project after I returned to the Netherlands, where – for the time being – I finalized my research. However, for reasons that are not relevant here, the completion of the volume Michée of La Bible d’Alexandrie was delayed. When it was clear to me that for the coming years its publication could not be expected, I decided to rewrite my French document in English, to add detailed references to the ancient sources – footnotes that were not required in the French series – and to expand it with other material. This has resulted in this book, whose scope considerably exceeds my original French introduction and notes. For my research I have benefited from the help of several colleagues. My thanks go to Jan Joosten for drawing my attention to the book of Micah and for sharing his insights into its version in the Septuagint; to Mats Eriksson for sending a copy of his PhD thesis on Hesychius of Jerusalem’s Scholia on the Twelve Prophets; to Adelrich Staub osb for lending a copy of his PhD thesis on Jerome’s Commentary on the Twelve Prophets; to Thomas Scheck for sending the translation of Jerome’s Commentary on Micah before it was published; to Hans van Loon for elucidating some passages of Cyril of Alexandria; to Frans van Liere for a scan of Rahmer’s book on Jerome’s use of Jewish sources and for his reference to Andrieu’s Ordines Romani; to Lucas Van Rompay for his information on Syriac literature and some recent publications; to Gerard Rouwhorst for his comments on my earlier paper on the Improperia; to Stefan Royé for clarifying my questions about the Byzantine Typika; to Barry Hartog for his remarks on Jesus’ alleged quotation from Mic 1:7 in Jewish sources; to the librarians of the Protestant Theological University in Amsterdam and Groningen for supplying many books and articles from our own and other libraries; to the librarians of the Theological University in Kampen (‘Broederweg’), the University of Groningen, and VU University in Amsterdam; to Jacob Faber for improving the English style of some of the shorter chapters; to Anthony Runia who has checked and corrected my English in the whole book (though I am responsible for rehttps://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-001

VIII

Preface

maining errors); to Jesse de Bruin for his assistance in compiling the bibliography; and to Lily Burggraaff who has always shown her interest in the progress of this work.

Contents Abbreviations

XIII 1

I

Introduction

II II. II. II.

Micah in the New Testament 5 Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Christ (Mic 5:1 [5:2]) The families divided (Mic 7:6) 7 9 Conclusion

III III. III. III. III.

Church Fathers: Introduction 10 10 Ancient Christian authors on the Twelve Prophets The need for interpretations of the Twelve Prophets 13 17 Criteria for the selection of patristic interpretations Translations of the ancient Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets 20

5

IV Heterodox views 22 22 IV. Introduction IV. Heterodox references to Micah 24 IV.. Irenaeus on the Ophites’ view of Micah 24 25 IV.. Micheus and Michar in Sethian works IV.. Heterodox interpretations of Micah 31 31 IV... Evil coming down from the Lord (Mic 1:12b) IV... Spears and swords transformed (Mic 4:3c [Isa 2:4c]) 32 IV... Should Christians abstain from procreation? (Mic 6:7cd) 33 35 IV.. Heterodox reminiscences (Mic 7:6) 35 IV. Conclusion V V. V. V. V. V. V. V.

37 Patristic interpretation of Micah 38 Micah’s name and identity (Mic 1:1a) The historical context of Micah’s prophecies (Mic 1:1bc) 42 43 Hear the words, all peoples (Mic 1:2) The Lord descending on the mountains and valleys (Mic 1:3 – 5) 45 Samaria’s destruction because of its idolatry (Mic 1:6 – 7) 51 Samaria’s captivity and Jerusalem’s siege (Mic 1:8 – 9) 55 58 Gath and Akim addressed (Mic 1:10 – 11)

X

V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V. V.. V..

Contents

Jerusalem threatened by the Assyrians (Mic 1:12 – 13a) 63 Lachis and Odollam (Mic 1:13b–15b) 65 67 The eagle’s widowhood or baldness (Mic 1:15c–16) 70 The fields divided up (Mic 2:1 – 5a) No tears! (Mic 2:5b–8) 73 78 Everlasting mountains (Mic 2:9 – 11a) 81 Spirit, lie, and captivity (Mic 2:11b–12) The capture of Jerusalem (Mic 2:13) 88 90 Israel’s unrighteous leaders (Mic 3:1 – 4) The false prophets (Mic 3:5 – 8) 93 Jerusalem ploughed like a field (Mic 3:9 – 12) 99 The nations will go up to the mountain of the Lord (Mic 4:1 – 3 // 102 Isa 2:2 – 4) The Lord will reign on Mount Zion (Mic 4:4 – 7) 114 117 The kingdom from Babylon (Mic 4:8 – 10) A clash between Zion and the nations (Mic 4:11 – 14 124 [4:11 – 5:1]) The future ruler from Bethlehem (Mic 5:1 – 2 [5:2 – 3]) 128 The Lord will shepherd his flock (Mic 5:3 – 4c [5:4 – 5c]) 136 The fate of Assyria and the land of Nimrod (Mic 5:4d–5 [5:5d– 141 6]) Israel’s remnant unassailable among the nations (Mic 5:6 – 8 [5:7 – 9]) 146 Destruction and vengeance (Mic 5:9 – 14 [5:10 – 15]) 153 157 The Lord’s lawsuit against Israel (Mic 6:1 – 2) The Lord’s interrogation and retrospective (Mic 6:3 – 5) 160 166 What should we do? (Mic 6:6 – 7) 169 This is what the Lord requires (Mic 6:8) The voice of the Lord (Mic 6:9ab) 174 175 Injustice and punishment (Mic 6:9c–16) 182 Micah’s lament (Mic 7:1 – 3d) Like a moth on a rod (Mic 7:3e–4) 186 191 Distorted relationships (Mic 7:5 – 6) Israel’s salvation and its enemy’s devastation (Mic 7:7 – 13) 194 202 Israel’s peace and vindication (Mic 7:14 – 17) God’s compassion and forgiveness (Mic 7:18 – 20) 211 Conclusions 216 216 Diverging punctuation and delimitation Syntactical difficulties 217

XI

Contents

V.. V.. V.. V..

The meaning of specific words 219 The ‘literal’ and ‘historical’ interpretations in general 220 221 Christianizing, ‘spiritual’ interpretations Jewish interpretations, and non-Christian Jews in the Roman empire 225 226 Christians in the Roman empire 227 Trinitarian and Christological testimonies The relationship between the patristic interpretations 227 229 Assessment of the Christological reading of Micah

V.. V.. V.. V.. VI VI. VI. VI. VII VII. VII. VII.

Liturgical use of Micah 231 231 Ancient readings from Micah in the liturgy The reception of Mic 6:3 – 4a (or 6:1 – 8) in liturgies of Good Friday 235 243 Conclusion 245 Jesus’ quotation of Mic 1:7 in b‘Abodah Zarah An encounter between Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and a Jewish Christian 245 248 Assessment of historical reliability 251 Conclusion

Epilogue

253

255 Bibliography Primary Sources 255 255 . Ancient Greek and Roman authors 256 . The Old Testament and Jewish works . New Testament, Patristic and Medieval Christian works 269 . Gnostic works 270 Handbooks and secondary literature Index of Subjects

281

258

Abbreviations ABD ABRL ACCS.OT ACT ACW AGLB AKG ALW AnBib AncB ArBib ATD Aug. AW BCNH.E BCNH.T BdA BECNT BEL BEThL BGL BibAr BibM BJS BK.AT BKP BP BT BZNW CAGr CBET CCCM CCSG CCSL CEA CFi CHL CSCO.I CSCO.S CSEL CSHJ CThM DACL DJD

Anchor Bible Dictionary Anchor Bible Reference Library Ancient Christian Commentary on Scripture. Old Testament Ancient Christian Texts Ancient Christian Writers Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft Analecta Biblica Anchor Bible The Aramaic Bible Das Alte Testament Deutsch Augustinianum Athanasius Werke Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi. Section Études Bibliothèque Copte de Nag Hammadi. Section Textes La Bible d’Alexandrie Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament Bibliotheca “Ephemerides Liturgicae” Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium Bibliothek der griechischen Literatur The Bible in Aramaic Biblioteca Midrásica Brown Judaic Studies Biblischer Kommentar. Altes Testament Beiträge zur klassischen Philologie Biblioteca Patristica Bibliothèque de théologie Beihefte zur Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft Commentaria in Aristotelem Graeca Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis Corpus Christianorum Series Graeca Corpus Christianorum Series Latina Collection d’études anciennes Cogitatio Fidei Commentationes Humanarum Litterarum Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Scriptores Iberici Corpus Scriptorum Christianorum Orientalium Scriptores Syri Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism Calwer theologische Monographien Dictionnaire d’archéologie chrétienne et de liturgie Discoveries in the Judaean Desert

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-002

XIV

Abbreviations

EdF EKK EncJud EPRO EtAug.SA EvTh FaCh FC GCP GCS GCS NF HAW HThR HTS IEJ IP IThS JNSL JCP JLH JPTh JQR JThS JudChr KEK Lat. LCL LeDiv LLJC LNTS LXX.H MHS.L MMB.L NETS NHC NHMS NHS NICNT NIGTC NPB NThT NTOA NT.S OECS OECT OrChr OrChrA OSA

Erträge der Forschung Evangelisch-Katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament Encyclopedia Judaica Études préliminaires aux religions orientales dans l’empire romain Études augustiniennes. Série Antiquité Evangelische Theologie Fathers of the Church Fontes Christiani Graecitas Christianorum Primaeva Die Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller Die Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller Neue Folge Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft Harvard Theological Review Hervormde Teologiese Studies Israel Exploration Journal Instrumenta Patristica Innsbrucker theologische Studien Journal of Northwest Semitic Languanges Jewish and Christian Perspectives Jahrbuch für Liturgik und Hymnologie Jahrbuch für Protestantische Theologie Jewish Quarterly Review Journal of Theological Studies Judaica et Christiana Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar über das Neue Testament Lateranum Loeb Classical Library Lectio Divina The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization Library of New Testament Studies Handbuch zur Septuaginta / Handbook of the Septuagint Monumenta Hispaniae Sacra. Series Liturgica Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae. Lectionaria New English Translation of the Septuagint Nag Hammadi Codex Nag Hammadi and Manichaean Studies Nag Hammadi Studies New International Commentary of the New Testament New International Greek Testament Commentary Nova Patrum Bibliotheca Nederlands Theologisch Tijdschrift Novum Testamentum et Orbis Antiquus Novum Testamentum Supplements Oxford Early Christian Studies Oxford Early Christian Texts Oriens Christianus Orientalia Christiana Analecta Œuvres de Saint Augustin

Abbreviations

OstKSt PG PL PO POT PTA PTS REAug REJ REL RGr RSR RTR SC SCS SJLA SÖAW.PH SPMed SSL StAns StBibLit StPatr SVTP TB TBN TECC TEG ThH ThQ ThZ TRE TSAJ TU VetChr VigChr VigChr.S VKCLK VT VT.S WUNT ZAC ZAW ZKTh ZNW

XV

Ostkirchliche Studien Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Latina Patrologia Orientalis Prediking van het Oude Testament Papyrologische Texte und Abhandlungen Patristische Texte und Studien Revue des études Augustiniennes Revue des études juives Revue des études latines Revue Grégorienne Recherches de science religieuse Reformed Theological Review Sources Chrétiennes Septuagint and Cognate Studies Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity Sitzungsberichte der österrreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien. Philosophisch-historische Klasse Studia Patristica Mediolanensia Spicilegium Sacrum Lovaniense Studia Anselmiana Studies in Biblical Literature Studia Patristica Studia in Veteris Testamenti Pseudepigrapha Theologische Bücherei Themes in Biblical Narrative Textos y Estudios “Cardenal Cisneros” Traditio Exegetica Graeca Théologie historique Theologische Quartalschrift Theologische Zeitschrift Theologische Realenzyklopädie Texte und Studien zum antiken Judentum Texte und Untersuchungen Vetera Christianorum Vigiliae Christianae Vigiliae Christianae Supplements Veröffentlichungen der Kommission zur Herausgabe des Corpus der lateinischen Kirchenväter Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für antikes Christentum Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft

I Introduction Micah the Morasthite acted as a prophet when Jotham (750 – 735 BCE), Ahaz (735 – 715 BCE), and Hezekiah (715 – 687 BCE) were kings of Judah, the southern kingdom of the Hebrews whose capital was Jerusalem.¹ In 931– 930 BCE, during the reign of king Solomon’s son Rehoboam, Samaria (or Israel, or Ephraim, the northern kingdom of ten tribes), led by Jeroboam, had split off from the tribes of Judah and Benjamin,² but although Micah originated from Moreshet in Judah, his prophecies addressed the two kingdoms, ‘Samaria and Jerusalem’ (Mic 1:1). Since in 722 BCE, after a siege of two or three years, the Assyrian king Shalmaneser V captured Samaria and transported its inhabitants to Assyria, Micah apparently started to prophesy to Samaria before its fall.³ Yet, although we may assume that the three kings of Judah mentioned in the beginning of Micah’s book do indicate the general historical context of his preaching, it is hard to date most of his prophecies precisely and to relate them to specific historical events. Jeremiah confirms that Micah the Morasthite prophesied during the reign of king Hezekiah, and he reminds his audience of Micah’s announcement of the destruction of Jerusalem (Jer 26:18; Mic 3:12). The passage in Mic 1:10 – 16 is often placed against the Assyrian invasion of Judah led by Sennacherib in 701 BCE, but some scholars also argue that it refers to earlier threats.⁴ The present study, however, does not focus on such problems pertaining to the original historical context and meaning of Micah’s book. Concerning the Hebrew book of Micah, I limit myself to the observation that Mic 1– 3 mostly consists of severe warnings,⁵ which are followed by visions of peace, salvation and vindication in Mic 4– 5, after which new warnings and promises of salvation conclude the book in Mic 6 – 7. It has been argued that the last two chapters  According to Mic 1:1; 2 Kings 15:32– 16:20; 18:1– 20:21. For the dates see F.I. Andersen, D.N. Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB 24E), Doubleday etc. 2000, xvii–xviii, who follow W.F. Albright, but they relate the different dates given by other scholars as well.  According to 1 Kings 11:26 – 12:34. For the date, see e. g. C.D. Evans, ‘Jeroboam’, in D.N. Freedman et al. (eds), ABD 3, New York etc. 1992, 742– 745.  2 Kings 17:1– 6; A.K. Grayson, ‘Mesopotamia, History and Culture of Assyria’, in Freedman et al. (eds), ABD 4, New York etc. 1992, 732– 755 (744). After Shalmaneser V, Sargon II (721– 705 BCE) continued to lead the Israelites into exile; see A.K. Grayson, ‘Sargon’, in Freedman et al. (eds), ABD 5, New York etc. 1992, 984– 985.  Andersen, Freedman, Micah, 113; 205; 211– 212; cf. A.K. Grayson, ‘Sennacherib’, in Freedman et al. (eds), ABD 5, 1088 – 1089 (1088). For Sennacherib’s invasion see 2 Kings 18:13 – 19:36.  Only Mic 2:12– 13 seems to contain a promise of liberation. Andersen, Freedman, Micah, 130, call Mic 1:2– 3:12 ‘The Book of Doom’, and entitle Mic 2:12– 13 as ‘Promise of restoration’ (331). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-003

2

I Introduction

do not stem from Micah the Morasthite, but from a prophet in the northern kingdom of Israel who acted prior to his colleague from Moreshet.⁶ Other commentators hold that Micah’s book contains oracles from more prophets stretching over three centuries.⁷ To such hypotheses, however, I shall not pay any further attention in this book. In the first half of the second century BCE, the collection of the Twelve Prophets, to which the book of Micah belongs, was translated into Greek, as a part of the Septuagint.⁸ Specialists conclude that the Twelve Prophets were translated by one person, who lived in Alexandria.⁹ However, many details of this Greek version diverge from the Hebrew text that is known today, the Masoretic Text based on Codex Leningradensis.¹⁰ It is not sure whether the translator had the same Hebrew consonant text in front of him – it is even unlikely – and in any case the divergences demonstrate that regularly he either had difficulty making sense of it or thought he understood it, but was mistaken according to present-day scholars. It is acknowledged that in various places the Hebrew text of the book of Micah is difficult.¹¹ Much research has been done and may still be done in reconstructing the translator’s understanding of the Hebrew text, but the present monograph is not devoted to this effort. The reconstruction of the

 See e. g. A.S. van der Woude, Micha (POT), Nijkerk 19772, 195 – 199; J. Joosten, ‘YHWH’s Farewell to Northern Israel (Micah 6,1– 8)’, ZAW 125 (2013), 448 – 463 (457– 458). However, Andersen, Freedman, Micah, 20; 27– 29; 500 – 501, take the book of Micah as a literary unity.  Thus H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 4: Micha (BK.AT 14, 4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982, xiii; xxvii– xxxviii.  J.M. Dines, The Septuagint, London/New York 2004, 46, tentatively dates the translation of the prophetic books to the mid-second century BCE; C. Dogniez, ‘Dodekapropheton – Überblick’, in S. Kreuzer (ed.), Einleitung in die Septuaginta (LXX.H 1), Gütersloh 2016, 461– 473, tentatively argues for the first half of the second century BCE (468); thus also G. Dorival, M. Harl, O. Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante. Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancient (Initiation au christianisme ancient), Paris 1988, 97; 107.  See e. g. T. Muraoka, ‘Introduction aux douze petits prophètes’, in E. Bons et al., Les douzes prophètes. Osée (BdA 23, 1), Paris 2002, i–xxiii (ix–x), with references to previous scholars; Dorival, Harl, Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante, 106 – 107.  K. Elliger, W. Rudolph et al. (eds), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart 19832, 1034– 1044.  On the one hand, the assessment of Micah’s text by D.R. Hillers, ‘Micah, Book of’, in Freedman et al. (eds), ABD 4, 807– 810, reads, ‘The Hebrew text of Micah is badly preserved, among the worst in the Bible in this respect’ (809); on the other hand, Dogniez, ‘Dodekapropheton – Überblick’, 466, notes surprisingly, concerning the Twelve Prophets, ‘Die Geschichte des hebräischen Textes weist in der Tat eine hervorragende Qualität der Textüberlieferung bei einer großen Stabilität der Überlieferung der Konsonantenschrift auf.’

I Introduction

3

original (‘Old Greek’) Septuagint version of Micah is not the subject of my research either.¹² My interest in Micah concerns the reception and interpretation of this prophet and his book in this first five centuries of Christianity, and occasionally beyond, up to the twelfth century. It is a fascinating, amazing, and sometimes saddening story how Christians of those centuries adopted and appropriated such Old Testament works as Holy Scripture and gave them a Christian meaning, besides their original, historical meaning in which most authors were interested as well. It is amazing as well that the history of the Christian interpretation of the Old Testament has not yet been described and analyzed systematically. It is to this description and analysis that I wish to contribute the present research. My focus on the ancient Christian reception and interpretation of Micah implies that I will use the Septuagint text of the ancient Christian authors as my starting point. Latin translations based on the Septuagint are naturally included in my research, first of all Jerome’s translation of the Septuagint version of Micah. Although Jerome’s translation of Micah from Hebrew into Latin is also part of the ancient Christian reception and interpretation of this book, I will not systematically investigate this remarkable achievement, since it would require a more profound examination of the Hebrew text than I envisaged. Yet my analysis of his comments will regularly draw my attention to his observations on the Hebrew text. This book contains seven chapters and an epilogue. After the present Introduction, chapter II will be devoted to the two texts from Micah that are quoted or alluded to in the synoptic Gospels in the New Testament. Chapter III gives an introduction to the ancient Christian authors called Church Fathers and their works, to their general understanding of the Twelve Prophets and their difficulties with them, and to the need they felt to explain the relevance of such books to Christians. In this chapter I will also expound which criteria I have used in my selection of the vast patristic material. But before presenting the patristic interpretations of Micah I will first, in chapter IV, pay attention to ‘heterodox’ references to this prophet. Since the remains of ‘heterodox’ reception of Micah are far less extensive than the patristic testimonies, partly since much of it is lost to us, the length of this chapter is relatively modest. Chapter V contains my description and analysis of the patristic interpretations of Micah from the second to the fifth centuries. Since much of it has survived, this chapter is by far the longest one of the whole book. Besides my analysis of the patristic works, I will also

 Therefore I will not discuss the scroll from Naḥal Ḥever either; see E. Tov, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection) (DJD 8), Oxford 1990.

4

I Introduction

search for Jewish parallels to the ancient Christian expositions, especially when the latter include explicit references to Jewish interpretations. Chapter VI surveys the readings and other inclusions of texts from Micah in ancient liturgies. Most of the available testimonies to the liturgical use of Micah date to the period following the centuries studied in chapter V, but I will still present these data because sometimes their origin may lie in an earlier period, as I intend to demonstrate. In addition to the ancient Christian material, a quotation from Micah (1:7de) attributed to Jesus is found in the Babylonian Talmud, in the treatise ‘Abodah Zarah. Although its historical authenticity is rather doubtful, this testimony will be discussed in chapter VII. In the epilogue I will give some concluding considerations. Two practical remarks conclude this introduction. First, since the Septuagint is the starting point of my research, I will follow its numbering of chapters and verses, which particularly has consequences for the references to Psalm 10 to 147 whose numbers are one lower than in the Hebrew Bible. For the same reason I will refer to the books 1– 4 Kingdoms (Kgdms) instead of 1– 2 Samuel and 1– 2 Kings. Second, for the sake of convenience or in order to prevent ambiguity, in my quotations of Hebrew words and clauses from the Old Testament I will usually add the vowels of the Masoretic Text, although the Hebrew scrolls of the patristic period were still unvocalized.¹³

 E. Würthwein, A.A. Fischer, The Text of the Old Testament: An introduction to the Biblia Hebraica (transl. from German), Grand Rapids, Mich. 20143, 24– 30.

II Micah in the New Testament The reception and interpretation of Micah in ancient Christianity starts in the Gospels that were included in the New Testament. Because of the special authority that was soon attributed to these writings as primary testimonies to the New Covenant (or New Testament) that, according to the first Christians, had been established by Jesus, their use of Micah will be examined apart from the other ancient Christian writings. Two texts of Micah are quoted or alluded to in the New Testament; one is a prophecy concerning the birth and birthplace of the Christ, the other is an alarming prediction adopted by him in one of his discourses.¹

II.1 Bethlehem, the birthplace of the Christ (Mic 5:1 [5:2]) In early Christianity Micah was considered the prophet par excellence who had announced the place where the Christ would be born. In Matt 2:1– 6 the evangelist relates that, after the arrival of magi from the East in Jerusalem who asked where the king of the Jews had been born, king Herod turned to the chief priests and scribes for the answer. They referred him to ‘Bethlehem of Judea’ (Matt 2:5), quoting from Mic 5:1 (5:2), ‘And you, Bethlehem, [in the] land of Judah, are by no means least among the rulers of Judah; for from you will come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel’ (Matt 2:6).² Although it is obvious that the quotation derives from the book of Micah, his name is not mentioned, since in Matthew’s story the chief priests and scribes only refer to ‘the prophet’ (Matt 2:5).  Some exegetes consider that Matt 5:14b, ‘A city built on a hill cannot be hidden’, may allude to the pilgrimage of the gentile nations announced in Isa 2:2– 3 // Mic 4:1– 2; thus G. von Rad, ‘Die Stadt auf dem Berge’, EvTh 8 (1948/49), 439 – 447 (447); also in idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (TB 8), München 19612, 214– 224 (224); E. Lohmeyer, Das Evangelium des Matthäus (KEK), Göttingen 1967, 102; D.L. Turner, Matthew (BECNT), Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008, 155; C. Grappe, ‘Royaume de Dieu, Temple et Cité de Dieu dans la prédication de Jésus et à la lumière de Matthieu 5,13 – 16’, in M. Hengel, S. Mittmann, A.M. Schwemer (eds), La Cité de Dieu. Die Stadt Gottes. 3. Symposium Strasbourg, Tübingen, Uppsala 19.–23. September 1998 in Tübingen (WUNT 129), Tübingen 2000, 147– 193 (167). In my view, however, the relationship with Mic 4:1– 2 is too weak to be convincing, so that I will not discuss it in this chapter. For this view, see e. g. U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 1 – 7) (EKK I, 1), Düsseldorf/Neukirchen-Vluyn 20025, 299; J. Nolland, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC), Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge 2005, 214.  The last words, ‘who will shepherd my people Israel’, are borrowed from 2 Kgdms 5:2, although the verb ‘to shepherd’ is also found in Mic 5:4 (5:3). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-004

6

II Micah in the New Testament

Another remarkable aspect of the quotation is that according to Matthew these leaders do not quote the Septuagint – which, for this verse, largely corresponds to the Hebrew text – but a different version. In the Septuagint the prophet calls Bethlehem ‘the house of Ephratha’ and addresses it saying, ‘you are very few in number to be among the thousands of Judah’ (ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ τοῦ εἶναι ἐν χιλιάσιν Ιουδα), but in the Gospel of Matthew the name ‘Bethlehem’ is followed by the apposition ‘land of Judah’ and by the affirmation ‘you are by no means least among the rulers of Judah’ (οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ ἐν τοῖς ἡγεμόσιν Ιουδα). Especially the negation οὐδαμῶς is striking, since it reverses Bethlehem’s insignificance that is attested both by the Hebrew text and the Septuagint. The provenance of this quotation is assessed in different ways. On the one side, Martin Albl suggests that the evangelist found the quotation of Micah 5:1 (5:2) in a collection of Old Testament testimonia, in which it served to prove that the Messiah would be born in Bethlehem.³ On the other side, Maarten Menken argues that the evangelist had borrowed the story about Herod asking the Jewish experts where the Messiah was to be born from an older source, including the particular quotation of Micah 5:1 (5:2). Menken concludes that this verse does not belong to Matthew’s other fulfilment quotations.⁴ Notwithstanding the differences between their analyses, both scholars agree that at the time when the Gospel of Matthew was written the tradition of referring to this prophecy as a proof text for Christ’s birthplace existed already. This messianic interpretation of Mic 5:1 (5:2) corresponds with Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, which reads here, ‘And you, O Bethlehem Ephratha, you who were too small to be numbered among the thousands of the house of Judah, from you shall come forth before me the anointed One, [‫משיחא‬, ‘Messiah’] to exercise do-

 M.C. Albl, “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections (NT.S 96), Leiden 1999, 182– 184. R.E. Brown, The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (ABRL), New York etc. 1993 (rev. ed.), 184– 187, also classifies the quotation as a fulfilment citation added by the evangelist; he suggests that Micah 5:1 came to Matthew in a form already fixed by Christian usage (186).  M.J.J. Menken, Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (BEThL 173), Leuven 2004, 255 – 263. No position in this matter is taken by M.B. Shepherd, The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament (StBibLit 140), New York etc. 2011, 40 – 42 and G.J. Steyn, ‘Dodekapropheton Quotations in Matthew’s Gospel’, in W. Kraus, M.N. van der Meer, M. Meiser (eds), XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (SCS 64), Atlanta 2016, 741– 761 (751– 752, 760 – 761).

II.2 The families divided (Mic 7:6)

7

minion over Israel, he whose name was mentioned from of old, from ancient times.’⁵ The tradition of Bethlehem as Christ’s birthplace appears also in Luke 2:4– 11 and John 7:41– 42, but these texts do not refer to Micah’s prophecy explicitly.⁶

II.2 The families divided (Mic 7:6) The second text from Micah found in the New Testament is not a prophecy of Jesus’ coming or ministry, but a disturbing saying that, in various forms, figures in Jesus’ discourses in the synoptic Gospels. However, nowhere is this saying identified as a quotation from the prophets, let alone that Micah is referred to by name. In Matt 10:35 – 36, at the end of Jesus’ missionary discourse, he warns his twelve disciples saying, ‘For I have come to divide a person against his father and a daughter against her mother and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law, and a person’s foes [will be] members of his household.’⁷ These words about the younger generation resisting the older generation are clearly inspired by Mic 7:6 which reads, according to Rahlfs’ edition of the Septuagint, ‘For a son dishonours [his] father, a daughter will rise up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s foes [will be] all

 Ed. A. Sperber, The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan (BibAr 3), Leiden 19922, 446; transl. K.J. Cathcart, R.P. Gordon, The Targum of the Minor Prophets (ArBib 14), Edinburgh 1989, 122, italics included. The Dead Sea Scrolls do not testify to a messianic interpretation of this text; see J. Lust, ‘Micah 5,1– 3 in Qumran and in the New Testament and Messianism in the Septuagint’, in K. Hauspie (ed.), Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays by J. Lust (BEThL 178), Leuven 2004, 87– 112. For other Jewish receptions see P. Mandel, ‘Bethlehem and the Birth of the Messiah in the Eyes of a Byzantine Jewish Storyteller: Rebuke or Consolation’, in A. Houtman et al. (eds), Religious Stories in Transformation: Conflict, Revision and Reception (JCP 31), Leiden 2016, 234– 259, and § V.23.  Brown, The Birth of the Messiah, 423, suggests that the shepherds who kept watch over their flocks near Bethlehem (Luke 2:8) reflect the Tower of the Flock mentioned in Mic 4:8, ‘And you, O Migdal Eder, hill of the daughter of Zion, to you will come back the former dominion, the kingdom of the daughter of Jerusalem’ (Brown’s translation), which Luke may have paralleled with Mic 5:1 (5:2), understanding that the Tower of the Flock should be near Bethlehem rather than at Jerusalem. This is very ingenious but hard to prove; in any case it is not a clear allusion, let alone an explicit reference to Micah. For John 7:42 see M.J.J. Menken, ‘Allusions to the Minor Prophets in the Fourth Gospel’, Neotestamentica 44 (2010), 67– 84 (78).  Most of this translation is borrowed from Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 244.

8

II Micah in the New Testament

the men in his house.’ This version generally follows the Hebrew text.⁸ Matt 10:35 is paralleled by Luke 12:53, where Jesus says, ‘they will be divided: father against son, mother against daughter and daughter against mother, mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and daughter-in-law against mother-in-law’. This version deviates more from Micah 7:6 than the Matthean version, since it also mentions the older generation opposing the younger one. In these words Jesus warns his disciples that his coming will raise tensions and hostility even within households. Since the saying is found both in Matthew and in Luke, New Testament scholars usually conclude that both evangelists found it in their source Q and adapted it in different ways. Probably Matthew’s last words, ‘and a person’s foes [will be] members of his household’ (Matt 10:36), were missing in Q, so that Matthew added them from Micah 7:6. This would testify to his awareness of the source of this saying.⁹ In addition, the Gospel of Mark has a similar saying in Jesus’ apocalyptic discourse to four of his disciples in which he foretells, ‘Brother will betray brother to death, and a father [his] child, and children will rise up against [their] parents and have them put to death’ (Mark 13:12). This version is even more divergent from Mic 7:6 than the sayings found in Matt 10:34– 35 and Luke 12:53, but one may still conclude that it is inspired by the same prophetic text and alludes to it.¹⁰ Remarkably, Matthew included the Markan version of this prediction in his missionary discourse (Matt 10:21), so that this sermon contains a doublet.¹¹

 Only the term ‘all’ (πάντες) is not found in the Hebrew text; Ziegler does not include it in his edition but only mentions its attestations in his critical apparatus. For my use of Rahlfs’ edition see § III.3.  F. Bovon, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 9,51 – 14,35) (EKK III,2), Düsseldorf/NeukirchenVluyn 1996, 346 – 347, 354– 355; C. Heil, ‘Die Rezeption von Micha 7, 6 LXX in Q und Lukas’, ZNW 88 (1997), 211– 222; Menken, Matthew’s Bible, 244– 247; H. Utzschneider, ‘Flourishing Bones – The Minor Prophets in the New Testament’, in W. Kraus, R. Glenn Wooden (eds), Septuagint Research. Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (SCS 53), Atlanta 2006, 273 – 292 (286 – 287); Steyn, ‘Dodekapropheton Quotations’, 751– 752, 760 – 761.  A. Yarbro Collins, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis Minn. 2007, 607, characterizes Mark 13:12 as ‘apocalyptic commonplaces’, but admits that the ‘motif may have been inspired in part from Mic 7:6’.  P. Grelot, ‘Michée 7, 6 dans les évangiles et dans la littérature rabbinique’, Biblica 67 (1986), 363 – 377; U. Luz, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 8 – 17) (EKK I, 2), Düsseldorf/NeukirchenVluyn 20074, 106, 112– 113.

II.3 Conclusion

9

II.3 Conclusion In the New Testament the book of Micah has a modest position, since it is quoted explicitly only once, in the Gospel of Matthew, though without mentioning the prophet’s name; the quotation concerns the birth of Christ (Mic 5:1 [5:2]; Matt 2:5 – 6). Another, implicit quotation from Micah is found in a discourse of Jesus in the same Gospel, which has several, both clear and weak, synoptic parallels; they predict the dissension within families and households as a consequence of Jesus’ message (Mic 7:6; Matt 10:35 – 36; Luke 12:53; Matt 10:21; Mark 13:12). These two quotations reflect the two sides of the book of Micah, viz. divine salvation and divine punishment.

III Church Fathers: Introduction III.1 Ancient Christian authors on the Twelve Prophets Subsequent ancient Christian reception and interpretations of Micah have been transmitted in various ways. The richest sources consist of four running Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets written by Theodore of Mopsuestia (from 370 – 380),¹ Jerome (393 – 406),² Cyril of Alexandria (ca 420),³ and Theodoret of Cyrus (430 – 433).⁴ Among these four authors Jerome distinguishes himself both by writing in Latin and by his knowledge of Hebrew, so that he is able to indicate the divergencies between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint. As a fifth source, Hesychius of Jerusalem’s short notes (scholia) and catena fragments on the Twelve Prophets (410 – 450) have been preserved.⁵ Hesychius is the last author I will discuss systematically, which means that my research on the ancient Christian reception and interpretation of Micah generally extends from the first to the mid-fifth centuries. Later Greek, Syriac, and Latin Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets will not, or only rarely, be investigated in this study.⁶ In

 Ed. H.N. Sprenger, Theodori Mopsuesteni Commentarius in XII Prophetas. Einleitung und Ausgabe (Göttinger Orientforschungen V: Biblica et Patristica 1), Wiesbaden 1977.  Ed. M. Adriaen, S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera I, 6. Commentarii in Prophetas Minores (CCSL 76 – 76A), Turnhout 1969. Unfortunately, Adriaen’s edition of Jerome’s Commentary on Micah (CCSL 76, 421– 524) contains several printing errors, which I will discuss in the footnotes.  Ed. Ph.E. Pusey, Sancti Cyrilli Alexandrini in XII Prophetas, Oxford 1868, reprint Brussels 1965 (On Micah in vol. I, 599 – 740); R.C. Hill (transl.), St. Cyril of Alexandria: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets 1 (FaCh 115), Washington D.C. 2007, 4 and 18, dates this Commentary before 428 because of the absence of any polemics with Nestorius, who was elected bishop of Constantinople in this year and whose view of Mary als Christotokos instead of Theotokos raised Cyril’s anger.  Ed. PG 81, 1545 – 1988; In Michaeam 1741– 1786.  Ed. M. Eriksson, The Scholia by Hesychius of Jerusalem on the Minor Prophets, Uppsala 2012. The period between 410 and 450 is not given by Eriksson but may be derived from his p. 25 – 27.  E. g. Hypatius of Ephesus (6th c.), Fragmenta in duodecim prophetas, ed. F. Diekamp, ‘Hypatius von Ephesus’, in idem, Analecta Patristica. Texte und Abhandlungen zur griechischen Patristik (OrChrA 117), Rome 1938, 109 – 153 (catena fragments on ten of the Twelve Prophets 130 – 151; three fragments on Micah 141); Ps-.Ephraem (6th-8th c.), In Hoseam, Joelem, Amos, Abdiam, Micheam, Zachariam, Malachiam, ed. and transl. P. Benedictus, Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia quae extant Graece, Syriace, Latine II, Rome 1740, 234– 315 (on Micah 272– 284); Ishodad of Merv (9th c.), ed. and transl. C. Van den Eynde, Commentaire d’Išo‘dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament IV. Isaïe et les Douze (CSCO.S 303 – 304 / CSCO.S 128 – 129), Louvain 1969, In Michaeam ed. 99 – 105, transl. 126 – 134; Haimo of Auxerre (9th c.), Enarratio in XII Prophetas minores (PL 117, 11– 294; In Michaeam 141– 168); Basilius Neopatrensis’ Commentary on the https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-005

III.1 Ancient Christian authors on the Twelve Prophets

11

2003 Alberto Ferreiro included four fragments from the Commentary on Micah ascribed to Ephraem the Syrian (ca 306 – 373) in his anthology of the patristic comments on Micah,⁷ but given the various Christological interpretations in this Commentary it cannot be that it really stems from Ephraem, who rather stood in the Antiochene tradition. Occasionally I will refer to Theophylact’s Commentary on Micah, from the eleventh century, because it was written in Greek and stands in the tradition of the earlier Greek commentators.⁸ Yet the first Commentary on these prophets, though without Obadiah and most of Hosea, was written by Origen of Alexandria, probably in 245 – 246, but except for two fragments it is lost to us in its original shape.⁹ As for Micah (and other prophets), this does not imply that we are totally ignorant of Origen’s interpretations, since some elements have been preserved in his extant works, and far more of them have been adopted in the works of later authors, especially in Jerome’s Commentaries on the Minor Prophets. ¹⁰ Yves-Marie Duval published studies on Origen’s lost Commentaries on Joel, Jonah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Malachi,¹¹ and in his wake one of my objectives is to identify Origen’s inter-

Twelve Prophets (10th c.) has not yet been published except for the Prologue and a fragment on Mic 6:9 in A. Mai (ed.), Theodori Mopsuesteni in XII Prophetas Commentaria et Alia. Praeit Basilii Neopatrensis in omnes Prophetas Specimen (NPB 7, 1), Roma 1854, vii–viii (the Prologue also in PG 111, 411– 416); Rupertus of Deutz (early 12th c.), In duodecim prophetas minores (PL 168, 9 – 856; In Michaeam 441– 526); Andrew of St. Victor (12th c.), ed. F.A. van Liere, M.A. Zier, Andreae de Sancto Victore Expositio super Duodecim Prophetas (CCCM 53G), Turnhout 2007 (Super Micheam 182– 212).  A. Ferreiro (transl.), The Twelve Prophets (ACCS.OT 14), Downers Grove, Ill. 2003, 162– 163. For the Commentary ascribed to Ephraem, see the previous footnote.  Theophylact of Achrida, In Oseam, Habacuc, Jonam, Naum, Michaeam (PG 126, 563 – 1190; In Michaeam 1049 – 1190).  P. Nautin, Origène. Sa vie et son œuvre, Paris 1977, 228, 248 – 249, 382– 383. The two fragments concern Origen’s interpretation of Hosea 12:5 in Philocalia 8 (SC 302, 336 – 341) and his interpretation of Joel 1:7– 8 in Papyrus Oxyrhynchus 13, 1601, ed. R. Reitzenstein, ‘Origenes und Hieronymus’, ZNW 20 (1921), 90 – 93.  Jerome, Epistulae 33, 4 (CSEL 54), writes that Origen’s Commentary on Micah comprised three books. In De uiris illustribus 75, 2 (BP 12) he describes that he found 25 volumes of Origen’s original Commentary on the Twelve Prophets in the library of Caesarea. For the designation ‘Minor Prophets’ besides the older appellation of the ‘Twelve Prophets’ (already in Sirach 49:10) see A. Hilhorst, ‘De benaming grote en kleine profeten’, in F. García Martínez, C.H.J. de Geus, A.F.J. Klijn (eds), Profeten en profetische geschriften (Festschrift A.S. van der Woude), Kampen/ Nijkerk [1987], 43 – 54.  Y.-M. Duval, Le Livre de Jonas dans la littérature chrétienne grecque et latine. Sources et influence du Commentaire sur Jonas de Saint Jérôme 1– 2 (EtAug.SA 53 – 54), Paris 1973; ‘Jérôme et Origène avant la querelle origéniste. La cure et la guérison ultime du monde et du diable dans l’In Nahum’, Aug. 24 (1984), 471– 494; ‘Jérôme et les prophètes. Histoire, prophétie et actualisation

12

III Church Fathers: Introduction

pretations of Micah in the works of later authors as much as possible. When Jerome wrote his Commentary on Micah in 393, he did not yet have any hesitations in drawing on Origen’s works, although at that time a fierce controversy on the latter’s works and theology had flared up.¹² This is reflected in Jerome’s prologue to his second volume on Micah, where he writes that he was slandered for plagiarizing (compilare) the volumes of Origen. He admits that he used Origen’s works, considering that it is not objectionable but laudatory to imitate him.¹³ Chapter V will contain numerous observations on specifically Origenian interpretations of Micah that have been preserved in Jerome’s Commentary. Theodore of Mopsuestia regularly refers to other interpreters (usually characterized as τινες, ‘some’) with whom he disagrees,¹⁴ but generally it is unclear whom he is referring to. In any case it cannot be that he only means Origen’s lost Commentary, since in several instances he refers to the commentators’ knowledge of Syriac, a language that Origen did not know.¹⁵ Besides the four running Commentaries that have been preserved and Hesychius’ scholia, interpretations of individual passages can be found in the works of other Church Fathers. For such occasional references to Micah I will particularly pay attention to authors who precede the aforementioned commentators, dans les Commentaires de Nahum, Michée, Abdias et Joël’, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Salamanca 1983 (VT.S 36), Leiden 1985, 108 – 131; ‘Vers le Commentaire sur Aggée d’Origène’, Origeniana Quarta (IThS 19), Innsbruck/Wien 1987, 7– 15; ‘Vers le Commentaire sur Joël d’Origène’, Origeniana Sexta (BEThL 118), Louvain 1995, 393 – 410; ‘Vers l’In Malachiam d’Origène. Jérôme et Origène en 406’, Origeniana Septima (BEThL 137), Louvain 1999, 233 – 259; ‘Vers le Commentaire sur Sophonie d’Origène. L’annonce de la disparition finale du mal et le retour dans la Jérusalem céleste’, Origeniana Octava (BEThL 164), Louvain 2003, 625 – 639.  P. Nautin, ‘Études de chronologie hiéronymienne (393 – 397) (suite et fin)’, REAug 20 (1974), 251– 284 (252); see also J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies, London 1975, 163 – 167; A. Fürst, Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike, Freiburg 20162, 123 – 124, 258 – 259; M.H. Williams, The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship, Chicago/London 2006, 119.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, prologus, 226 – 238 (CCSL 76). With reference to this passage and Rom 2:21, Rufinus of Aquileia, Apologia contra Hieronymum 25 (CCSL 20), accuses Jerome of stealing from Origen. Jerome reacts to such accusations in his Apologia contra Rufinum 2, 14 (SC 303) and in his Epistulae 61, 1– 2; 84 (CSEL 54, 55). For Jerome’s position in the Origenist controversy see E.A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate, Princeton 1992, 121– 151 (126 on his Commentary on Micah).  Theodore, In Osee 13, 15 (Sprenger, 73, 16); In Amos 9, 7 (Sprenger, 153, 1); In Michaeam 1, 15 (Sprenger, 196, 19 – 197, 18); 4, 1– 3 (Sprenger, 207, 15 – 208, 13); 4, 8 (Sprenger, 210, 11– 13); 5, 5 – 6 (Sprenger, 218, 16 – 25); In Nahum 3, 8 (Sprenger, 253, 2); and the references in the following footnote.  Theodore, In Habacuc 2, 11 (Sprenger, 270, 22); In Sophoniam 1, 4– 6; 3, 2 (Sprenger, 283, 20 – 21; 295, 17).

III.2 The need for interpretations of the Twelve Prophets

13

such as Justin Martyr (ca 150), Irenaeus of Lyons (ca 180), Clement of Alexandria (ca 180 – 202), Tertullian of Carthage (ca 197– 215), Origen, and Eusebius of Caesarea. In this respect Eusebius is an important author, because he referred to a large number of texts from Micah in his apologetic work The Proof of the Gospel (Demonstratio euangelica) from ca 318, in which he showed in which way Christ’s coming and ministry had been announced in the Old Testament.¹⁶ Whenever his interpretations of Micah correspond to Jerome’s Commentary, it is likely that both authors borrowed them from Origen. Ambrose of Milan also deserves to be mentioned here, since in ca 387 he wrote a pastoral epistle to the priest Orontianus, full of quotations from Micah and allusions to it. In this letter he interprets Micah as a testimony to the conversion, subsequent fall, and new repentance of the soul.¹⁷ Other patristic authors from the third to fifth centuries will be considered as far as their references to Micah seemed relevant to me, e. g. when a passage was quoted in a dogmatic debate. In such cases I occasionally searched in the digital Thesaurus Linguae Graecae in order to find more testimonies¹⁸. These observations imply that I do not pretend to discuss the vast patristic literature exhaustively. I will expound my selection criteria below, in § III.3.

III.2 The need for interpretations of the Twelve Prophets Before expounding my criteria for the selection of the patristic material, I will discuss the position of the Old Testament in ancient Christianity. Since Christian authors of the first centuries who spoke Greek or Latin (or both) generally did not read Hebrew, they read the Old Testament in the Greek version of the ‘Seventy’, the Septuagint, or in Latin translations based on the Septuagint. Sometimes they also refer to the other Greek translations by Aquila, Symmachus, and Theodotion, edited by Origen in his Hexapla, the sixfold edition of the Old Testament, including the Greek translation called the Fifth Edition. ¹⁹ Origen must have  Ed. I.A. Heikel, Eusebius Werke VI. Die Demonstratio Evangelica (GCS 23), Leipzig 1913; transl. W.J. Ferrar, The Proof of the Gospel Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea 1 – 2, London/New York 1920, reprint Cincinnati, Ohio 2000.  Ambrose, Epistularum Liber V, 18 (Maur. 70; CSEL 82, 1, 128 – 141); transl. M.M. Beyenka, Saint Ambrose. Letters (FaCh 26), Washington D.C. 19872, 231– 241, where the epistle is numbered 45. For the date see J. Palanque, ‘Deux correspondants de Saint Ambroise: Orontien et Irénée’, REL 11 (1933), 153– 163 (153 – 157), followed by Beyenka, Saint Ambrose, 231.  M. Pantelia et al., Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, online on stephanus.tlg.uci.edu.  F. Field (ed.), Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt Veterum Interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta I–II, Oxford 1875, reprint Hildesheim 1964; J. Trebolle Barrera, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible, Leiden etc. 1998,

14

III Church Fathers: Introduction

known Hebrew to some degree, but Jerome is the only Church Father who had learned Hebrew to the extent that, with the help of his Jewish teachers and the Greek translations besides the Septuagint, he was able to make a – more or less – independent translation of the Hebrew books (called Vulgata since the sixteenth century²⁰) and to present detailed comparisons between the Greek translations and the Hebrew text. In his Commentary on the Minor Prophets he usually first translates the Hebrew text and subsequently the Septuagint into Latin. In his comments he usually distinguishes between his more literal and historical interpretation of the Hebrew text and his Christian interpretation of the Septuagint, for which – as we shall see – he frequently draws on Origen, yet without mentioning his name. There are at least three reasons why it was considered necessary to write commentaries on the Septuagint version of the Twelve Prophets.²¹ These reasons also apply, of course, to the books of the other prophets and even to the Septuagint as a whole. In the first place many passages were considered difficult and even enigmatic by Greek readers. In his apology Against Celsus Origen writes, ‘we have done the best we could when verse by verse we explained “the incoherent and utterly obscure utterances”, as Celsus calls them, in our Commentaries on Isaiah and Ezekiel and some of the Twelve Prophets’.²² Jerome, who translated both the Hebrew text and the Greek version, sometimes complains that the Septuagint is difficult to understand.²³ Theodoret of Cyrus writes that the Twelve Prophets are

312– 317. According to Jerome’s prologue to his translation of Origen’s Hom. in Canticum (SC 37bis, 63), Origen had found the Fifth Edition at the coast of Actium; a Greek fragment quoted in SC 37bis, 63, refers to Nicopolis near Actium.  P.-M. Bogaert, ‘The Latin Bible’, in J. Carleton Paget, J. Schaper (eds), The New Cambridge History of the Bible I: From the Beginnings to 600, Cambridge 2013, 505 – 526 (510 – 511); see also A. Kamesar, ‘Jerome’, in Carleton Paget, Schaper (eds), The New Cambridge History of the Bible I, 653 – 675. Bogaert notes (510 – 511) that in Jerome’s time, Vulgata was the term for the translations that are called Vetus Latina nowadays.  The following paragraphs correspond to my paper ‘Patristic Interpretation of Micah: Micah read as a book about Christ’, in W. Kraus, M. Karrer, M. Meiser (eds), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse (WUNT 252), Tübingen 2010, 702– 719 (704– 705).  Origen, Contra Celsum VII, 11 (SC 150); transl. H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum. Translated with Introduction and Notes, Cambridge etc. 1965, 404, adapted. Celsus’ remark on ‘incoherent and utterly obscure utterances’, though, originally concerned the sayings of contemporaneous Christian prophets whom he had heard prophesying in public in Phoenicia and Palestine (Contra Celsum VII, 9). By applying this characteristic to the Biblical prophets as well, Origen acknowledges that the Greek version of their books is often obscure.  E. g. Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 6 – 8, 185 – 186 (Septuaginta interpres in hoc loco sibi penitus non cohaerent); 194 (in loco uel difficillimo) (CCSL 76).

III.2 The need for interpretations of the Twelve Prophets

15

‘shrouded in obscurity’, and that people were impatient that they be rendered clear and obvious.²⁴ Similar remarks on the difficulty of the Greek text can be found in Cyril of Alexandria’s Commentary. ²⁵ Therefore, authors who had taken upon themselves to write complete Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets were forced to solve the philological and syntactical problems they encountered. In the second place, even when the Greek text was clear from a syntactical and semantic point of view, many words and phrases needed to be explained with regard to the history of Israel and the Christian faith. In order to understand what was or might have been the original historical context of the prophecies, one needed a profound knowledge of the Old Testament, especially of the books of Kingdoms, Chronicles, and of other prophetical books. In addition, in the first centuries of our era most Christian commentators considered it indispensable to clarify in which sense the Old Testament prophecies were relevant for Christians, who mostly were not Jews by descent.²⁶ When texts from the prophets were quoted in the New Testament, such as Mic 5:1 (5:2) concerning Bethlehem as Christ’s birthplace, the relationship with the Christian faith was apparent, but in many other cases the connection was not clear at first sight. Some of the early Christian readers who were struck by the strangeness of the Septuagint and by its rude image of God, concluded that it was mostly inspired by a God who was inferior to the God represented by Jesus Christ. However, this view was considered heretical by the leaders of the early Catholic Church. This leads us to the third reason why a need was felt to write Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets (and other Old Testament books), or to quote them in other contexts. It was necessary to clarify how these Old Testament prophets testified to Jesus Christ and, consequently, in which sense their books were relevant for the Christian Church. By founding the Christian faith on the books of the Old Testament, the Church from the second century onward intended to demonstrate that its convictions had not been invented recently, but went back to a religion and to scriptures that were respectable for their antiquity. By acknowledging the books of the prophets as holy Scripture testifying to the God of Israel who had manifested himself in Jesus Christ, the Christian authors ran counter to the Marcionites and other ‘heterodox’ believers, usually called ‘gnostics’, who generally believed that Israel’s prophets had mostly been inspired by a god or several gods or rulers inferior to the truly transcendent God, the Father of the Saviour Jesus or  Theodoret, In Psalmos, praefatio (PG 80, 860B); see also In Michaeam I, 12 (PG 81, 1748B). See J.-N. Guinot, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr (ThH 100), Paris 1995, 151– 164 on Theodoret’s view of the obscurity of Scripture.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 4; I, 1, 10; III,7, 4 (Pusey, 605, 4– 5; 615, 12– 13; 714, 3 – 4).  Further on I will come back to Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is most reticent in this regard.

16

III Church Fathers: Introduction

Christ. As we shall see in chapter IV, in the ‘heterodox’ view these prophets do not testify, or testify only indirectly, to the God that had been revealed by Jesus or Christ and to his salvation. From the late third century onward, Mani and the Manichaeans confirmed and reinforced the most critical view of the God of the Jews and of the Old Testament that was current in the Marcionite and older gnostic congregations. The example of the young Augustine who was a Manichaean ‘hearer’ for some nine years (from 373), and his subsequent fascination for bishop Ambrose’s allegorical interpretations of Scripture²⁷ demonstrate that as late as the fourth century the recognition of the Old Testament was not taken for granted, even though in this respect the position of the Catholic Church of that time was definitely affirmative. However, even for Catholic Christians the question of the significance and meaning of the Old Testament books remained. A consequence of the ancient Christian interpretations of the Old Testament with regard to Christ is that in this way they not only dismissed the Marcionite, Manichaean, and other ‘gnostic’ views of the Old Testament, but at the same time also refuted the persuasions of the Jews who did not believe in Jesus Christ and therefore interpreted their own Scriptures very differently. In addition, the Christian authors did not hesitate to extend the prophets’ vituperations of the Israelites to those Jews who did not believe in Christ, which implies that these authors read many Old Testament passages in an anti-Jewish sense. However, among the commentators on the Twelve Prophets Theodore of Mopsuestia is the exception because, as a rather rigid representative of Antiochene exegesis, he restricted himself almost completely to ‘literal’ and ‘historical’ explanations, so that he was extremely reticent in applying texts to Christ.²⁸ For the book of Micah this means that he almost completely interprets it with regard to Micah’s own historical context, in which the Assyrians occupied Samaria and threatened Jerusalem, and the following period of the Babylonian exile of the Ju-

 Augustine, Confessiones III, v–x, 9 – 18; V, xiv, 24; VI, iii–v, 4– 7 (OSA 13); P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo, London 1967, 46 – 60 (esp. 49 – 50); 79 – 84. In Confessiones III, x, 18 he says, Haec ego nesciens inridebam illos sanctos servos et prophetas tuos, ‘Ignorant of these things, I laughed about your holy servants and prophets.’  M.F. Wiles, ‘Theodore of Mopsuestia as Representative of the Antiochene School’, in P.R. Ackroyd, C.F. Evans (eds), The Cambridge History of the Bible I: From the Beginnings to Jerome, Cambridge 1970, 489 – 510; D.Z. Zaharopoulos, Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible: A Study of his Old Testament Exegesis, New York/Mahwah, N.J. 1989, 103 – 175; H.T. Ondrey, The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture in the Commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria, Oxford 2018, 18 – 30. Ondrey concludes, however, that ‘the term “Antiochene” [should not] be used in reference to a clearly defined school spanning centuries’ (217) and that the ‘traditional antithesis between Alexandrian and Antiochene exegesis … should be abandoned entirely’ (238). I hold that it is still appropriate to make this distinction.

III.3 Criteria for the selection of patristic interpretations

17

deans and their return to the land of Israel. Only once does Theodore apply Micah to Jesus Christ, namely where the Gospel of Matthew quotes the prophetic address of Bethlehem as the birthplace of a new ruler, understood as the Christ (Mic 5:1 [5:2]). In the Antiochene tradition, Theodoret of Cyrus too is strongly inclined to focus on ‘literal’ and ‘historical’ explanations, for which he usually draws on Theodore, but more often than Theodore he aligns himself with other commentators by elucidating in which sense the prophet also speaks about Christ and the Church.²⁹

III.3 Criteria for the selection of patristic interpretations The ancient Christian reception and interpretation of the book of Micah is vast and often very elaborate, so that it is unavoidable to be selective in discussions and analyses of this material. Although a certain personal predilection or even arbitrariness is inevitable, I do have some criteria. First, as observed in chapter II, I will focus on the Septuagint version of Micah in its ancient Christian reception. This has at least two implications. In the first place, I will not pay attention to a possibly original Septuagint version of Micah, for I will concentrate on the text that was read and interpreted in the first to fifth centuries of our era. For this reason I use the edition of Rahlfs, which is mainly based on Codices Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and Washingtonianus (Freer), manuscripts that are relatively close to the patristic texts.³⁰ Sometimes I will note revisions made on the basis of the Hebrew text, but I will not go back to an ‘unrestored’ text if the patristic authors did not use it.³¹ This does not mean that I will ignore Ziegler’s critical edition of the Twelve Prophets,

 This concerns Mic 1:15, 4:1– 3, 5:1– 3 (5:2– 4), 5:6 – 8 (5:7– 9), 5:11– 14 (5:12– 15), and 7:19 – 20 (§§ V.9, 19, 23, 26, 27, 39). See Guinot, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, 72– 76; 312– 322.  R. Hanhart’s revised edition of A. Rahlfs’ Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Stuttgart 2006, contains exactly the same text of Micah as the first edition (Stuttgart 1935). For this reason I use Rahlfs’ first edition, in a reprint of 1979 (editio minor).  For notes on the relationship between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint see See J.Z. Schuurmans Stekhoven, De Alexandrijnse vertaling van het Dodekapropheton, Leiden 1887; H. Utzschneider, ‘Michaias Micha’, in W. Kraus, M. Karrer (eds), Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament II, Stuttgart 2011, 2362– 2380; C. Dogniez, J. Joosten, ‘Michaias / Micha’, in S. Kreuzer (ed.), Einleitung in die Septuaginta (LXX.H 1), Gütersloh 2016, 490 – 496; papers like H.-J. Stipp, ‘Bemerkungen zum griechischen Michabuch aus Anlass des deutschen LXX-Übersetzungsprojekts’, JNSL 29 (2003), 103 – 132; J. Joosten, ‘L’ondée et les moutons. La Septante de Michée 5, 6 et l’exégèse juive traditionnelle’, REJ 162 (2003), 357– 363; and the expected volume Michée in the series La Bible d’Alexandrie.

18

III Church Fathers: Introduction

but I have mainly used it because of its critical apparatus.³² Either in the main text or in the footnotes I will discuss the patristic variant readings of Micah’s Septuagint text that diverge from Rahlfs’ edition, insofar as they are relevant for the interpretations. This implies that I will ignore minor details that – as far as I could see – do not influence the meaning of the text and its exposition. In addition, in my focus on the Septuagint version of Micah I will include the Latin translations based on the Septuagint, but I will not study their translation technique and the differences among the various Latin translations. The second implication of my focus on the Septuagint version of Micah is that – as I wrote in the Introduction –, notwithstanding Jerome’s tremendous achievement of making a Latin translation of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, I do not intend to research it systematically. This might have led to an analysis of his understanding of the Hebrew text, and a comparison with the translation technique of the Septuagint translator, but this is not my aim here. I will regularly refer to Jerome’s translations of the Hebrew text when this is useful for my expositions of his interpretation of Micah, but I do not pretend to any completeness in this respect. Second, I will pay attention to philological and syntactical matters of the Septuagint version of Micah, as well as diverging delimitations, that are either noted explicitly by the ancient authors, or can be deduced from their interpretations. Of course it is possible, or even likely, that I overlooked some of such cases, but anyhow, in this respect I will discuss what I could find. Third, in their interpretations the ancient commentators often refer to numerous other Biblical texts in order to clarify the passages under discussion. However, I do not pretend to include all those secondary Biblical texts in my analyses, because if I should do so the extent of this book would largely exceed the size that I envisaged. I admit, however, that my selection of such Biblical texts and their interpretations may be considered arbitrary by critical readers who check my sources. I can only recommend they do so, and thus become convinced of the impressive richness of the patristic material. Fourth, since Biblical interpretation is always contextual, whether commentators and exegetes are aware of it or not, I intend to pay attention to the historical context of the ancient expositions as often as this comes to light or seems relevant otherwise. This may concern the societal position of the Jews or the Christians in the Roman empire, or dogmatic debates within the Church, or controversies with currents that Catholic Christians considered heretical. However, I

 J. Ziegler (ed.), Duodecim prophetae (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis 13), Göttingen 1943.

III.3 Criteria for the selection of patristic interpretations

19

do not intend to exaggerate in this respect, so that, e. g., a mention of the Trinity will not be commented on by referring to the councils of Nicaea (325) and Constantinople (381). Fifth, as noted above, since Origen’s Commentary on Micah as such is lost but has obviously been used by later authors, especially Jerome, I am interested in the identification of Origenian interpretations. Often I will refer to parallels in Origen’s extant works in order to demonstrate that a particular exposition most likely derives from his Commentary on Micah. In this respect I will note what I could find, which does not warrant that my research on Origenian traditions is complete. Sixth, as often as the patristic commentators quote or refer to contemporaneous Jewish interpretations, I will note them, and look for parallels in targums and other rabbinic literature.³³ Seventh, as a Protestant, I was sometimes struck by patristic reception of Pauline texts and concepts that have played an important role in the sixteenth-century Reformation and in the churches that issued from it. A patristic scholar with another affiliation might have ignored such testimonies, but I will note some of them in order to demonstrate that even a difficult text like Micah in the Septuagint elicited such associations with Pauline theology. Eighth, ancient Christian reception of the book of Micah is broader than its patristic interpretations if we take ‘heterodox’ movements and traditions into account, namely the aforementioned Marcionites, gnostics, and Manichaeans who were considered ‘heretical’ by the ‘orthodox’ and ‘Catholic’ leaders of the Church, named Church Fathers. In the perspective of the history of religion these diverging groups and their interpretations belong to ancient Christianity in a broad sense if they refer to Christ or Jesus as the (or a) Saviour. Whereas the patristic reception and interpretations of Micah will be discussed in chapter V, the ‘heterodox’ traditions concerning his book that have been preserved will be presented in an individual chapter, IV. Since a large part of the ‘heterodox’ works is lost, my selection criterion for these traditions is that I will present whatever I could find.

 In the last stage of my research Dr. Frans A. van Liere sent me a file of M. Rahmer, [Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus durch eine Vergleichung mit den jüdischen Quellen.] Die Commentarii zu den zwölf kleinen Propheten I–II, Berlin 1902, which had been inaccessible to me until then. Rahmer discusses Micah in Vol. II, 25 – 49. For medieval Jewish commentators like Rabbi Salomon ben Isaak (Rashi; 1040 – 1105) and Rabbi David Kimkhi (Radak; 1160 – 1235) I have consulted A.J. Rosenberg, Twelve Prophets II: A New English Translation. Translation of Text, Rashi, and Other Commentaries, New York 1992.

20

III Church Fathers: Introduction

For finding the references to Micah in the second and third centuries I have used the first three volumes of the series Biblia Patristica. ³⁴ For the fourth century I have analyzed Theodore’s and Jerome’s Commentaries and consulted volumes 4 to 7 of Biblia Patristica and the Scripture Index on John Chrysostom’s works.³⁵ For the fifth century I have found my material in Cyril of Alexandria’s and Theodoret’s Commentaries and in Hesychius’ scholia, presented in § III.1. For Augustine I have used the Scripture Index on his works and a survey of his references to the Twelve Prophets.³⁶ Occasionally I have searched for more testimonies in indices and in the digital Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, as often as I was interested in other voices on a particular interpretation.

III.4 Translations of the ancient Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets Before describing and analyzing the ancient Christian reception and interpretations of Micah, I add a note on my use of the existing translations of the running Commentaries and of the Septuagint. As a non-native user of English, I will gratefully yet critically make use of the existing translations. Robert C. Hill published translations of Theodore’s, Cyril’s, and Theodoret’s Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets which are generably reliable, although sometimes he passed over a few words or I saw other reasons not to follow him.³⁷ When explicitly quoting passages from the patristic Commentaries and agreeing with an existing translation, or agreeing with it for the most part, I will mention the translator, if necessary with the addition ‘adapted’. For my translation of the Greek text of Micah I benefited from George E. Howard’s translation in the New English Trans-

 J. Allenbach et al., Biblia Patristica. Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique 1 – 3, Paris 1975, 1977, 1980.  J. Allenbach et al., Biblia Patristica. Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique 4 – 7, Paris 1987– 2000; R.A. Krupp, Saint John Chrysostom: A Scripture Index, Lanham etc. 1984.  J.W. Wiles, A Scripture Index to the Works of St. Augustine in English Translation, Lanham etc. 1995; A.-M. La Bonnardière, Biblia Augustiniana A.T. Les douze petits prophètes, Paris 1963. Augustine’s homilies published by F. Dolbeau (ed.), Augustin d’Hippone. Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique. Retrouvés à Mayence, édités et commentés (EtAug.SA 147), Paris 20092, do not contain any reference to Micah.  R.C. Hill (transl.), Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets (FaCh 108), Washington D.C. 2004; Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentaries on the Prophets III: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Brookline Mass. 2006; St. Cyril of Alexandria: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets 1 – 3 (FaCh 115, 116, 124), Washington D.C. 2007, 2008, 2012 (Micah in Vol. 2, FaCh 116).

III.4 Translations of the ancient Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets

21

lation of the Septuagint (NETS),³⁸ from W. Edward Glenny’s work on Micah in Codex Vaticanus,³⁹ and from Hill’s translations in the respective Commentaries, but often I adapted them or preferred my own wording, which was sometimes inspired by Septuaginta Deutsch. ⁴⁰ Unfortunately, Anthony Cazares’ and Thomas Scheck’s translation of Jerome’s Latin Commentary on Micah is unreliable.⁴¹ It has been made without insight into the meaning of Jerome’s expositions and teems with faulty translations due to misunderstandings of his syntax. Although this translation is practically useless for someone who does not check the Latin original, I have benefited from it insofar as sometimes – if the translation is correct or more or less so – I have adopted its English idiom that I would not always have found myself. In case of difficulties in Jerome’s Commentary on Micah, however, I have rewardingly consulted Bareille’s nineteenth-century French translation.⁴²

 In A. Pietersma, B.G. Wright (eds), A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title, New York/Oxford 2007, 795 – 800.  W.E. Glenny, Micah. A Commentary based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series), Leiden/Boston 2013.  W. Kraus, M. Karrer (eds), Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, Stuttgart 2009, 1185 – 1190.  A. Cazares, T.P. Scheck (transl.), ‘Commentary on Micah’, in T.P. Scheck (ed.), Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets Volume 1. Jerome (ACT), Downers Grove, Ill. 2016, 40 – 113.  Abbé [J.F.] Bareille (ed., transl.), ‘Commentaires sur le prophète Michée en deux livres’, in idem, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, Paris 1881, 1– 91.

IV Heterodox views IV.1 Introduction The foregoing chapter referred to the Marcionites, gnostics, and Manichaeans who had a far more critical or sceptical view of the Old Testament and the God of Israel than those authors who are generally called Church Fathers because their views and works were acknowledged by the Church. Although the recognition of Tertullian and Origen was sometimes limited because of their presumed heretical opinions or allegiance, nevertheless they are generally counted among the Church Fathers because in the conflicts with Marcionites and gnostics they sided with the broader Christian tradition.¹ Admittedly, the characterization of deviating groups and their interpretation of Scripture as ‘heterodox’ is contestable, because it seems to presume that ‘orthodox’ authors are good and authoritative, whereas ‘heterodox’ authors should be considered heretical and unreliable. However, as I indicated in § III.3, in their own way many of such authors and groups considered Christ the (or a) Saviour, and therefore they can be considered branches of ancient Christianity. I do not want to pursue the debate of classification here,² for I aim to present the scarce data of the divergent ‘heterodox’ or ‘heretical’ references to Micah that have survived. We have to be aware that most of the ‘heterodox’ literature of the first centuries of the Christian era is lost to us. This is also true of numerous books of ‘Catholic’, ‘orthodox’ authors of the same period, but to a lesser extent. Not all writings have been carefully preserved and stored and copied in time, before the material – papyrus or parchment – had deteriorated. Although even papyrus was ‘remarkably durable’, in the end it became friable when exposed to dampness.³ Preservation of texts for centuries either depended on copying them from time to time, or on fortuitous conservation in dry circumstances,

 Tertullian had a strong sympathy for the Montanist ‘New Prophecy’, but most probably this does not imply that he consciously left the ‘Catholic’ Church; see D. Rankin, Tertullian and the Church, Cambridge 1995, 27– 38; for Origen, J. Trigg, ‘Origen Man of the Church’, in R.J. Daly (ed.), Origeniana Quinta (BEThL 105), Leuven 1992, 51– 56.  For this debate see e. g. M.A. Williams, Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, Princeton 1996; K.L. King, What is Gnosticism?, Cambridge, Mass./London 2003; I. Dunderberg, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus, New York 2008, and my books Gnosis and Faith in Early Christianity: An Introduction to Gnosticism, London/Harrisburg 1999, and Jesus, Gnosis and Dogma, London 2010.  Thus H.Y. Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts, New Haven/London 1995, 42– 48 (45). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-006

IV.1 Introduction

23

for example by being covered by desert sand. Works written by authors who were considered heretical by ‘orthodox’ Christians were even less likely to survive because of their unacceptable contents, so that they were destined to be burned,⁴ or because there were no new generations of followers who were interested in reading, preserving, and copying them. Given these unfavourable conditions for ‘heterodox’ writings, it is fortunate that many fragments of this literature have survived because Church Fathers quoted them or gave general outlines of them in order to inform their own readers and to refute such writings as being ‘heretical’. For getting an impression of what was lost to later generations, Eusebius of Caesarea’s Church History (from 311– 317) is an important source. This work contains numerous quotations from ancient Christian works that have not been preserved apart from Eusebius’ excerpts. For example, he quotes a work of Agrippa Castor, who had written a refutation of Basilides of Alexandria – who is known as a gnostic teacher – which is lost except for the lines that Eusebius devoted to it. His short notice informs us that, according to Agrippa Castor, Basilides had written ‘24 books on the Gospel’.⁵ These books are also lost, although it is likely that two excerpts have been transmitted, one in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis, which refers to the 23rd book of Basilides’ Exegetica, and another in Hegemonius’ Acta Archelai, which quotes the 13th book of Basilides’ Treatises (Tractatus).⁶ We have no indication whether these 24 books contained any reference to Micah, but this is certainly possible, since the two remaining excerpts from Basilides’ works do include references to other Old Testament books like Genesis, Deuteronomy, Job, and Proverbs.⁷

 See e. g. a letter of emperor Constantine in Athanasius, De decretis Nicaenae synodi 39, 2 (AW 2, 1) and in Socrates, Historia ecclesiastica I, 9, 30 (SC 477) saying that Arius’ books should be burned; Eusebius, Vita Constantini III, 64– 66 (SC 559), on Constantine’s legislation against Novatians, Valentinians, Marcionites, and Paulinians and their books; Codex Theodosianus XVI, 5, 34, 1– 2; 5, 66, 1 (SC 497) on burning the books of Eunomians, Montanists, and Nestorians; Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legis Collatio XV, 3, 6 (Hyamson) on burning the books of Manichaeans. This policy certainly applied to all gnostic books. See D. Rohmann, Christianity, Bookburning and Censorship in Late Antiquity: Studies in Text Transmission (AKG 135), Berlin 2016, 32– 34; 114– 115.  Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica IV, 7, 6 – 7 (LCL 153).  W.A. Lohr, Basilides und Seine Schule. Eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts (WUNT 83), Tübingen 1996, 5 – 14 (11– 12); 122 – 137; 219 – 249.  See Lohr, Basilides und seine Schule, 61; 124; 172; 190 – 192; 206 – 207.

24

IV Heterodox views

IV.2 Heterodox references to Micah As I noted in § III.3, because the surviving heterodox references or inconspicuous allusions to Micah are rare, I will present all I could find. To a certain extent, these remnants demonstrate in which exegetical debate Church Fathers of the second and third centuries gave their own explanations. I will first pay attention to general references and allusions to the prophet Micah and subsequently to a few interpretations of individual texts from his book.

IV.2.1 Irenaeus on the Ophites’ view of Micah Irenaeus’ exposition of heretical doctrines describes a group that is generally identified as Ophites, although this designation is not found in his account but only in works of later authors. It is improbable that the adherents used this name as a self-designation; probably they called themselves ‘Gnostics’,⁸ and therefore the term is here printed with capital G. The so-called Ophites worshipped the serpent of Paradise because he had revealed the true knowledge to Eve and Adam (Gen 3:1– 6). Irenaeus gives a meticulous description of the primordial theogony in the supracelestial realm of the First Human or Father of all, which is similar to contemporaneous gnostic myths.⁹ When Sophia, one of the divine offspring, left the supracelestial realm and descended to the waters and the abyss below, she shaped the visible heaven and got a son, Ialdabaoth. In turn Ialdabaoth brought forth sons and grandsons named Iao, Sabaoth, Adoneus, Eloeus, Horeus, and Astaphaeus, who together created the inferior world and mankind.¹⁰ The first four names of Ialdabaoth’s offspring represent designations of the God of the Jews, Horeus refers to the Egyptian God of Heaven usually named Hor or Horus, and the name of Astaphaeus seems to originate from

 For this designation see Irenaeus, Aduersus Haereses I, 29, 1 (SC 264) and A. Rousseau, L. Doutreleau, Irénée de Lyon. Contre les hérésies Livre I. Tome I: introduction, notes justificatives, tables (SC 263), Paris 1979, 296 – 300; D.J. Unger, J.J. Dillon, St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies (ACW 55), New York/Mahwah N.J. 1992, 261– 262; B.A. Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism. Traditions and Literature, Minneapolis Minn. 2007, 45 – 48; 56 – 58.  See e. g. G. Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, Oxford/Cambridge Mass. 1990, 54– 86; A.H.B. Logan, Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism, Edinburgh 1996, 29 – 165; Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism 101– 121.  Irenaeus, Aduersus Haereses I, 30, 1– 10 (SC 264); English translation Unger, Dillon, St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies, 95 – 100.

IV.2 Heterodox references to Micah

25

magic.¹¹ The Ophites held that these seven gods or rulers (‘archons’) had their own heralds among the Jews, which implied that each of the Jewish prophets proclaimed and glorified his own ruler as Father and God.¹² A difficulty in Irenaeus’ report is that, whereas these heralds or prophets usually belong to only one of the seven rulers, Micah is first attributed to Iao and subsequently to Horeus. Perhaps the Ophites attributed Micah the Morasthite to the one ruler, and Micah the son of Imlah (3 Kgdms 22:8 – 28) to the other. Other possibilities are that either Irenaeus, or his Latin translator, or a copyist, confused Micah and Malachi, for in the repartition of the prophets Malachi is omitted.¹³ The Ophites held that these prophets were not only inspired by one of the seven rulers, but sometimes also by Sophia, who induced them to speak about the First Human – the Father of all –, the incorruptible Aeon, and Christ from on high.¹⁴ As for Micah, it may be surmised that the Ophites attributed his frequent announcements of divine punishment and judgment to the inferior ruler Iao – YHWH – and prophecies of salvation, e. g. concerning the birth of the ruler in Bethlehem, who would come forth ‘from the origin, from days of yore’ (Mic 5:1 [5:2]), and of forgiveness of sins (Mic 7:18 – 19) to Sophia.

IV.2.2 Micheus and Michar in Sethian works In Irenaeus’ account the heterodox traditions are transmitted by an opponent, but in the Nag Hammadi Codices and other Coptic codices we hear the voices of the different gnostic authors themselves. None of them refers to the person of Micah as an Old Testament prophet or quotes his book, except for two inconspicuous reminiscences that will be discussed in § IV.2.4. Yet several works of the so-called ‘Sethian’ tradition of the second and third centuries (or perhaps first to fourth centuries) are worth considering, although their relevance is, admittedly,

 Iao corresponds to the tetragrammaton YHWH; see F. Shaw, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Iαω (CBET 70), Leuven 2014, esp. 191. The Latin form Horeus also corresponds with ὡραῖος which means ‘seasonal’, ‘timely’, ‘beautiful’. Origen, Contra Celsum VI, 32 (SC 147), in his passage about the Ophites, writes that they took the names of Ialdabaoth, Astaphaios, and Horaios from magic. For the seven powers’ relationship with the seven planets see R. van den Broek, ‘The Creation of Adam’s Physic Body in the Apocryphon of John’, in R. van den Broek, M.J. Vermaseren (eds), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions (EPRO 91), Leiden 1981, 38 – 57.  Irenaeus, Aduersus Haereses I, 30, 10 – 11 (SC 264).  It must be admitted, however, that among the Twelve Prophets Hosea and Obadiah are missing as well in Irenaeus’ account. For a confusion of Micah and Malachi, see Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem III, 22, 6 (SC 399, 192; 261).  Irenaeus, Aduersus Haereses I, 30, 11 (SC 264).

26

IV Heterodox views

hypothetical.¹⁵ In Sethian works Seth, the son of Adam (Gen 4:25; 5:3) is the supracelestial Saviour who reveals the true knowledge through which one can leave behind the present material world and find back one’s origin in the highest Father. Like the so-called Ophites, these groups probably did not call themselves ‘Sethians’; it is more likely that they too designated themselves as ‘Gnostics’.¹⁶ Several Sethian works do not refer to Christian tenets, but other Sethian books do mention Jesus, or the heavenly Christ, or both. The reason to pay attention to a few Sethian works is that in them variants of Micah’s name refer to two supracelestial powers involved in a baptism administered to those who strive for the ascent to the true God. In the Sethian work Three Forms of First Thought (also called Trimorphic Protennoia) the divine Mother Barbelo, who is the First Thought (or Protennoia) of the highest Father, tells that she descended from the supracelestial realm to the material world without being recognized by the evil powers, and revealed ‘five seals’ which represent a fivefold baptismal ritual for those who wanted to be initiated into the salvific knowledge. After First Thought delivered the person to be baptized to three powers who clothed him with the robes of light, which is the first seal, the text continues, ‘I (i. e. First Thought) delivered him to the baptizers (ⲛ̅ ⲃⲁⲡⲧⲓⲥⲧⲏⲥ), and they baptized him, Micheus (ⲙⲓⲭⲉⲩⲥ), Michar (ⲙⲓⲭⲁⲣ), Mnēsinous, and they immersed him in the spring of the [water] of life.’¹⁷ This baptism is the second of the five seals. Since First Thought also refers to Jesus, affirming that she ‘bore him from the cursed wood and established him in the dwelling places of his Father’,¹⁸ and to the supracelestial Christ as the begotten God,¹⁹ this work can be called Christian or Christianized in a certain way. A similar tradition is found in the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (also called the Gospel of the Egyptians), according to which ‘Seth has instituted the holy baptism that surpasses heaven by means of the incorruptible one, begotten by the Word, the living Jesus, with whom great Seth has been clothed.’²⁰ In a

 For a broader discussion of the following hypothesis see my paper, ‘The Sethian Figures Micheus and Michar and their Relationship to Micah the Morasthite’, Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 2 (2017), 1– 14.  Irenaeus, Aduersus Haereses I, 29, 1 (SC 264); Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism 51– 100; 124– 126.  Nag Hammadi Codex XIII, 1, 48, 18 – 21 (NHS 28); translation J.D. Turner, in M. Meyer (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, New York 2007, 733. See J.-M. Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien. Études sur la sacramentaire gnostique (BCNH.E 2), Québec 1986, 65 – 70.  Nag Hammadi Codex XIII, 1, 50, 12– 15 (NHS 28).  Nag Hammadi Codex XIII, 1, 39, 5 – 13; also 38, 22– 26; 49, 7– 8; and probably 37, 30 – 33 (NHS 28).  Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2, 63, 23 – 64, 3 and IV, 75, 11– 17 (NHS 4); translation M. Meyer, in idem (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Scriptures 265.

IV.2 Heterodox references to Micah

27

long list of names of supracelestial powers who are supposed to be involved in this baptism, the fifth to seventh (in NHC III, 2) or sixth to eighth (in NHC IV, 2) are ‘they who preside over the spring of the truth, Micheus (the two manuscripts have the Greek accusative ⲙⲓⲭⲉⲁ) and Michar and Mnēsinous’.²¹ A few lines later ‘they who preside over the gates of the waters, Micheus/Miseus and Michar’, are mentioned.²² With reference to ablutions in the name of the Self-Generated God the Untitled Text in the Coptic Bruce Codex reads, ‘These are the names of the powers who are over the living water: Michar and Micheu (ⲙⲓⲭⲉⲩ), and they are purified by Barpharanges.’²³ The Nag Hammadi treatise Zostrianus which, unlike the Untitled Text, does not have any Christian features, yet stands in the same tradition, for with regard to the first of five baptisms Zostrianus tells that in his ascent out of the present world, ‘I was baptized in the [name of] the divine Self-Generated One [by] those powers that preside [over the] living water, Michar and Mi[cheus].’²⁴ In these four works Micheus (or Micheu) and Michar have positive roles in the administration of baptism which leads to salvation, but in a fifth work, the Nag Hammadi Revelation of Adam, their role is dubious. This work does not have explicit references to Christ, but it may hint at him implicitly.²⁵ At the end of this Revelation people on earth admit their wrongdoings and pray for pity. Subsequently, the Coptic text reads, ‘Then a voice came to them saying: “Micheus (ⲙⲓⲭⲉⲩ; here this is the Greek vocative) and Michar and Mnēsinous, who are over the holy baptism and the living water, why were you crying out against the living God with lawless voices, and unlawful tongues, and souls full of blood and

 Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2, 64, 14– 16 and IV, 76, 2– 4 (NHS 4). Perhaps the accusative ⲙⲓⲭⲉⲁ was appropriate in the Greek original and adopted by the translator despite its poor fit in the Coptic sentence where the nominative ‘Micheus’ would have been more appropriate.  Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2, 64, 19 – 20 and IV, 2, 76, 8 – 10 (NHS 4). For Miseus, the editors A. Böhlig, F. Wisse, and P. Labib, Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2: The Gospel of the Egyptians (The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit) (NHS 4), Leiden 1975, 149, refer to E. Schwyzer, Griechische Grammatik I, München 1968, 210, but probably they mean 206: ‘…koptische Transkriptionen geben χ vor hellem Vokale…durch š.’ See also their comments on p. 195, and Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien, 95, 102, 107.  Untitled Text 20, in Codex Brucianus 51 (NHS 13, 288 – 289). See Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien, 212, 216 – 217.  Nag Hammadi Codex VIII, 1, 6, 7– 10; [Michar] and Mi[ch]eus also in 6, 14– 16 (NHS 31). See Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien, 187– 188.  G.G. Stroumsa, Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (NHS 24), Leiden 1984, 98 – 99; Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism 69 – 74 (73).

28

IV Heterodox views

foulness?”’²⁶ The three powers are accused of defiling the water of life,²⁷ which means that they neglected their duty. This is so divergent from the other Sethian testimonies that several specialists assume that the Coptic text is corrupt and should read, ‘Then a voice came to them Micheus, Michar, and Mnēsinous, who are over holy baptism and living water, saying …’²⁸ We see that in the Sethian imagination Micheus and Michar were spiritual powers or angels involved in the baptism of those who wished to be initiated into the salvation that would enable them to ascend to a higher spiritual level. Since 1975, when Alexander Böhlig admitted his perplexity about the identity of Micheus and Michar and the significance of their names,²⁹ all scholars whose publications I consulted only compared the writings in which these powers are mentioned, without any further comments. Only the French translation of Micheus in Zostrianus as ‘Michée’, which is French for Micah, gives a hint that there might be a relationship with the Biblical prophet, but in the comments on the text this remarkable translation does not receive any attention.³⁰ But indeed, the name Micheus comes close to Micah in the Septuagint, Μειχαίας or Μιχαίας, which could be written as Μιχέας as well.³¹ The genitive Μιχέου is also found.³² Furthermore, the name of Micheus’ partner Michar resembles the Hebrew form of Micah, Mikhah (‫)מיכה‬. In oral instruction the final Hebrew hē may have been converted to a burred Greek rho.

 Nag Hammadi Codex V, 5, 84, 4– 14 (NHS 11).  Nag Hammadi Codex V, 5, 84, 18 (NHS 11).  Thus M. Scopello in Meyer (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, 355; also Stroumsa, Another Seed, 102– 103; B.A. Pearson, ‘Baptism in Sethian Gnostic Texts’, in D. Hellholm et al. (eds), Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity I (BZNW 176), Berlin/New York 2001, 119 – 143 (130); a similar interpretation is proposed by Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien, 165 – 169. F. Morard, L’Apocalypse d’Adam (NH V 5) (BCNH.T 15), Québec 1985, 14, 58 – 59, 116 – 119, does not correct the text, but considers it a later interpolation.  A. Böhlig, ‘Der Name Gottes in Gnostizismus und Manichäismus’, in H. von Stietencron (ed.), Der Name Gottes, Düsseldorf 1975, 131– 155 (151); also in A. Böhlig, Gnosis und Synkretismus. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur spätantiken Religionsgeschichte 1. Teil (WUNT 47), Tübingen 1989, 71– 102 (97); he wrote, ‘Wir wissen nicht, wer … Michar und Micheus sind. Auch ihre Eigenschaften oder Aufgabenbereiche helfen uns nicht zu weiterem Namensverständnis.’  See C. Barry, W.-P. Funk, P.-H. Poirier, J.D. Turner, Zostrien (NH VIII, 1) (BCNH.T 24), Québec/ Louvain/Paris 2000, 247 (translation), 503 (Turner’s comments).  Ziegler, 205; H.A. Redpath, ‘Supplement’, in E. Hatch, H.A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) II, Oxford 1906, reprint Graz 1975, 113, s.v. Μιχαίας.  Redpath, ‘Supplement’, 111, s.v. Μειχαίας. It should be added that most of these references concern the Micah of Judges 17– 18, but this does not change the fact that this name could be spelled and declined in different ways.

IV.2 Heterodox references to Micah

29

My hypothesis is that both Micheus and Michar are corruptions of the name of the Biblical prophet Micah the Morasthite. Such corruptions of names are not rare in Sethian texts. For example, in the context of Sethian baptism Iesseus Mazareus Iessedekeus is mentioned as another supracelestial power.³³ The first two names are considered a ‘barbarization of Jesus of Nazareth’ (Ναζωραῖος), and dekeus seems a corruption of δίκαιος, ‘righteous’.³⁴ Wherever Sethian gnosticism may have originated – either in Hellenistic Judaism or in early Christianity –,³⁵ it might be surmised that at an early stage of its baptismal instruction Mikha or Michar was added to Micheus in order to clarify which was the Hebrew version of the Greek name, and that this clarification was misunderstood as a reference to another spiritual power beside Micheus. However, how likely is it to see a relationship between such spiritual powers and Micah the Morasthite? I would give two reasons why we should take this possibility seriously. In the first place, there are various examples of Biblical persons who in later traditions were transposed to a heavenly or supracelestial sphere. In Genesis 14:18 – 19 Melchizedek is the king of Salem and a priest of God Most High, but in one of the Dead Sea scrolls he has the role of the angel Michael in heaven who will free the pious from Belial.³⁶ Moreover, the adoptionist Theodotus the Banker (ca 200 CE) and the third- or fourth-century gnostic Books of Jeu and Pistis Sophia present Melchizedek as a heavenly or supracelestial power.³⁷ Genesis 25 – 49 describes the patriarch Jacob as an earthly man, but in the Jewish writing Prayer of Joseph he is considered an archangel of God, ‘the chief commander (ἀρχιχιλίαρχος) among the sons of God’, who had descended to  Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit (NHC III, 2) 64, 10 – 11; 66, 10; (NHC IV, 2) 75, 25 – 26; 78, 12– 13 (NHS 4); Revelation of Adam (NHC V, 5) 85, 30 – 31 (NHS 11); Zostrianus (NHC VIII, 1) 47, 6 – 7 (NHC 31).  Thus J.D. Turner, in Barry et al., Zostrien (NH VIII, 1), 561, and in Meyer (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, 265.  Many scholars are convinced of the first option or are inclined to it, e. g. Sevrin, Le dossier baptismal séthien, 284– 290; Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism 101– 105; J. Lahe, Gnosis und Judentum. Alttestamentliche und jüdische Motive in der gnostischen Literatur und das Ursprungsproblem der Gnosis (NHMS 75), Leiden/Boston 2012. However, G.P. Luttikhuizen, ‘Sethianer?’, ZAC 13 (2009), 76 – 86, considers second-century Christianity to be the context in which these writings originated, and in my view this option should certainly not be ruled out, despite the Jewish elements in ‘Sethian’ works. Heterodox Christians may have written quasi-ancient Jewish or Hellenistic books in order to underpin the antiquity of their persuasions.  11Q13 or 11QMelchizedek, ed. and translation in F. García Martinez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition II, Leiden/Boston/Köln 1998, 1206 – 1209.  Hippolytus, Refutation omnium haeresium VII, 36, 1 (PTS 25); Second Book of Jeu 46 (NHS 13, 110); Pistis Sophia I, 25 – 26; II, 86; III, 112, 128, 129, 131 (NHS 9, 34– 36, 194– 195, 291, 324, 326, 333 – 334).

30

IV Heterodox views

earth.³⁸ Origen considers it possible that the prophet Malachi and John the Baptist were incarnated angels.³⁹ In the Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit ‘James the Great’ also figures among the supracelestial powers who assist at the Sethian baptism; there he is called one of the ‘great commanders’ (ⲥⲧⲣⲁⲧⲏⲅⲟⲥ).⁴⁰ In this work Isaouēl (ⲓ̈ⲥⲁⲟⲩⲏⲗ) is mentioned as one of the supracelestial powers in the same context. The editors of this work comment that the name may be derived from Jezebel (Ἰεζάβελ), the wife of King Ahab, ‘which was re-interpreted to refer to a good person’.⁴¹ Ioēl (ⲓ̈ⲱⲏⲗ) is another biblical name listed among the enumeration of supracelestial powers that appear to the person to be baptized. This figure is described as the one ‘who presides over the name of the one to whom it will be granted to baptize with the holy baptism that surpasses the heaven, the Incorruptible One’.⁴² This name probably refers to the supracelestial archetype of the prophet Joel, who, according to the canonical Acts, prophesied the descent of the Holy Spirit.⁴³ This descent of the Holy Spirit may be identified with the baptism with the Holy Spirit announced by John the Baptist in the Synoptic Gospels.⁴⁴ We may conclude, therefore, that it is quite possible that gnostics considered the prophet Micah the incarnation of an angel of the same name. The second reason supporting the hypothesis that the prophet Micah was associated with a Sethian baptismal ritual is found in the conclusion of his book. After the exclamation, ‘who is a god like you, removing injustices and passing over impieties for the remnant of his possession?’, the prophet affirms, ‘He will turn and have compassion upon us; he will sink our injustices and cast all our sins into the depths of the sea’ (Mic 7:18 – 19, NETS). In a gnostic reading this exclamation and confession could be interpreted with reference to the true God who is different from the inferior, jealous Demiurge Ialdabaoth and his off-

 In Origen, In Ioannem II, 188 – 190 (SC 120); introduction and translation by J.Z. Smith, in J.H. Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2, London 1985, 699 – 714.  Concerning Malachi, this was Origen’s view according to Jerome, Comm. in Malachiam I, prologus, 5 – 8; 41– 48 (CCSL 76A). For John the Baptist, see Origen, Comm. in Ioannem II, 186 – 187 (SC 120).  Nag Hammadi Codex III, 2, 64, 12– 13 (ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃⲟⲥ ⲡⲛⲟϭ); IV, 2, 75, 28 (ⲡⲓⲛⲟϭ ⲓ̈ⲁⲕⲱⲃ) (NHS 4); Böhlig, Wisse, Labib, Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2, 16, 194, hold that these designations refer to ‘James the Great’ in early Christianity (i. e. James the Greater or Major) and not to Israel’s patriarch.  Nag Hammadi Codex III, 2, 64, 14; IV, 2, 76, 1 (NHS 4); Böhlig, Wisse, Labib, Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2, 194; 3 Kgdms 16:31.  Nag Hammadi Codex III, 2, 65, 23 – 26 (NHS 4).  Acts 2:17– 21; cf. Joel 3:1– 5 LXX.  Matt 3:11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16.

IV.2 Heterodox references to Micah

31

spring. The image of casting sins into the depths of the sea may have reminded the Sethians of baptism. Remarkably, in the Sethian Apocryphon of John ‘the depth of the abyss’ is assigned to five of Ialdabaoth’s ‘kings’ to reign over;⁴⁵ this would imply that the sins to which Micah refers will be removed to the realm of the Demiurge and his rulers who, in Sethian belief, had inspired those sins in the first place. Later on, the interpretation of this text with regard to baptism was given by Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret, and Hesychius,⁴⁶ who most probably preserved an older tradition.⁴⁷ If Micheus and Michar do indeed refer to Micah the Morasthite, it is conceivable why in the Revelation of Adam they are reproached for having cried out against the true, living God and defiled the water of life;⁴⁸ for in the gnostic understanding Micah did not always transmit the words of the true God but also spoke words in the name of the inferior Ialdabaoth or one of the powers subjected to him. Irenaeus ascribed such a distinction between prophecies inspired by Sophia and by the inferior powers to the sect that other authors called ‘Ophites’.

IV.2.3 Heterodox interpretations of Micah Heterodox works do not contain any explicit references to the book of Micah, but three of such interpretations have been transmitted by Church Fathers.

IV.2.3.1 Evil coming down from the Lord (Mic 1:12b) The first text to be considered is Mic 1:12b, ‘for evil things (κακά) came down from the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem’. Origen informs us that, according to the heretics, this text testifies to the imperfect Demiurge venerated by the Jews.⁴⁹ Concerning Mic 1:12b–13a, ‘for evil things came down from the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem, a noise of chariots and horsemen’, he also surmises that such texts  Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1), 11, 5 – 9; ed. and transl. M. Waldstein, F. Wisse, The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III 1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2 (NHS 33), Leiden 1995, 69.  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 24 (CSEL 82, 1); Jerome, Epistulae 69, 6, 9 (CSEL 54); Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 113A, 4 (OSA 66); Theodoret, Comm. in Michaeam 7, 19 – 20 (PG 81, 1785A–C); Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 214 (Eriksson, 163). See also § V.39.  Cf. a free quotation from Micah 7:19 in Origen, Hom. Luc. 23 (GCS 49, 143), in a passage on the baptism proclaimed by John the Baptist.  Nag Hammadi Codex V, 5, 84, 4– 26 (NHS 11).  Origen, De principiis IV, 2, 1 (Behr); Comm. in Psalmos 4, in Philocalia 26, 8 (SC 226), where he erroneously ascribes the text to Jeremiah. For Origen’s own interpretation see § V.8.

32

IV Heterodox views

raised the objection of the philosopher Celsus, who said, ‘How can it be that God should make what is evil (κακά)?’⁵⁰ In Origen’s wake, Jerome writes that Marcionites and Manichaeans quote this text to demonstrate that the God of the (Mosaic) law is the creator of evil (malorum).⁵¹ Basil of Caesarea also mentions this interpretation.⁵²

IV.2.3.2 Spears and swords transformed (Mic 4:3c [Isa 2:4c]) In the second place a clear allusion to Micah’s vision of the nations that will peacefully beat their swords into ploughs and their spears into sickles (Mic 4:3c) is found in Hippolytus’ treatment of a work attributed to Simon Magus, the Great Revelation (ἡ ᾿Aπόϕασις ἡ μεγάλη), and probably dating to the second century.⁵³ In fact, the quotation (see below) derives from Isa 2:4 LXX, which contains a parallel to Mic 4:3. According to modern editions of the Septuagint, Isa 2:4c reads καὶ συγκόψουσιν τὰς μαχαίρας αὐτῶν εἰς ἄροτρα καὶ τὰς ζιβύνας αὐτῶν εἰς δρέπανα (‘they will beat their swords into ploughs and their spears into sickles’), whereas Mic 4:3c reads καὶ κατακόψουσιν τὰς ῥομφαίας αὐτῶν εἰς ἄροτρα καὶ τὰ δόρατα αὐτῶν εἰς δρέπανα, which has the same meaning. Understandably, in the textual transmission the two texts were conflated, so that in the second century Justin Martyr quotes Isaiah’s text while he explicitly refers to Micah (see § V.19). The third-century Codex Washingtonianus reads ζιβύνας (‘spears’) in Mic 4:3c, which according to modern editions derives from Isa 2:4c. Because of such conflations, and because so few ‘heterodox’ testimonies to ancient interpretations of Micah have survived, I will include this text attributed to Simon Magus in this survey.

I will not expound the contents of this Great Revelation – considered heretical by Hippolytus and indeed very different from the early ‘Catholic’ Christian teaching – but only the passage that refers to Isa 2:4c/Mic 4:3c. Simon allegedly said that all unbegotten things are in us potentially (δυνάμει), not actually (ἐνεργείᾳ), like grammar and geometry. If one receives the proper instruction and teaching, what is bitter will be

 Origen, Contra Celsum VI, 55 (SC 147); translation Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum, 371. See also § V.8 and Plato, Respublica 379C; 617E, about God not being responsible for evil.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 448 – 450 (CCSL 76). Cf. B. Jeanjean, Saint Jérôme et l’hérésie (EtAug.SA 161), Paris 1999, 210 – 211. For Jerome’s own interpretation see § V.8.  Basil, Homiliae 9 (PG 31, 336A).  See Filoramo, A History of Gnosticism, 150 – 151; Pearson, Ancient Gnosticism, 32– 33. For the distinction between two authors called Hippolytus see C. Moreschini, E. Norelli, Handbuch der antiken christlichen Literatur (transl. from Italian), Gütersloh 2007, 122 – 126. I will distinguish between Hippolytus the heresiologist and Hippolytus the exegete.

IV.2 Heterodox references to Micah

33

transformed to something sweet, that is, the spears to sickles and the swords to ploughs (τουτέστιν, αἱ ζιβύναι εἰς δρέπανα καὶ αἱ μαχαίραι εἰς ἄροτρα).⁵⁴

Thus the author inverts the order of the prophets’ image of the swords transformed to ploughs and the spears transformed to sickles, and applies it allegorically to the inner, peaceful transformation of a disciple who adheres to the Great Revelation. Similar applications of this image were also proposed by ecclesiastical authors, as we shall see in § V.19.

IV.2.3.3 Should Christians abstain from procreation? (Mic 6:7cd) A third trace of a heterodox exegesis of Micah may be deduced from Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis, where he discusses the views of Julius Cassianus, an ascetic, gnostic Christian who assumed that marriage, sexual intercourse, and birth were evil things that were inspired by the Creator God, whom he considered an inferior deity.⁵⁵ In the passage preceding the quotation from Micah, Clement comments on sayings of Jeremiah, Ezra, Job, and David who, apparently in Cassianus’ view, seemed to testify that being born is evil. Concerning David he quotes Ps 50:7 in a version slightly diverging from the Septuagint, ‘I was brought into being in sin, and my mother conceived me in lawlessness.’ Clement explains that the mother referred to by David is Eve, who is called ‘the mother of the living’ (Gen 3:20), and he comments that if David was conceived in sin, this does not imply that he was in sin or sin himself.⁵⁶ Then he introduces the question whether everyone who turns from sin to faith is turning from the habits of a sinner, as if from mother Eve (οἷον μητρός), to life.⁵⁷ I assume that Clement would answer this question in the affirmative, and that by ‘life’ he means the true life in its Johannine sense.⁵⁸ This implies that in Clement’s view a sinner who converts is not bound to sin anymore. As an enigmatic testimony (μαρτυρήσει μοι) to this consideration he quotes the rhetorical question in Mic 6:7cd as follows, ‘Should I give [my] firstborn (plural) for impiety, the fruit of my womb for the sin of my

 Hippolytus, Refutatio omnium haeresium VI, 16, 5 (PTS 25).  Clement, Stromateis III, 91– 102 (GCS 15/52). See D. Wyrwa, ‘Julius Cassian’, in S. Döpp, W. Geerlings (eds), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, Freiburg im Breisgau 20023, 409.  Clement, Stromateis III, 100 (GCS 15/52). Besides Ps 50:7 LXX and Gen 3:20 he quotes Jer 20:14, 18; 4 Ezra 5:35; Job 14:4– 5.  Clement, Stromateis III, 101, 1 (GCS 15/52). He does not repeat the name of Eve here, but given the preceding passage it is evident that his term ‘mother’ refers to her.  See e. g. John 1:4; 3:15 – 16; 5:40.

34

IV Heterodox views

soul?’⁵⁹ He refers to the heterodox – apparently Cassianus’ – interpretation that this text contradicts the Creator who said after the creation of male and female, ‘Be fruitful and multiply’ (Gen 1:28), but Clement himself denies that Micah’s text is an attack on the Creator.⁶⁰ We may conclude that Clement wants to correct a reading of Mic 6:7cd supported by Cassianus, to whom this text meant that one should abstain from the procreation of children (‘my firstborn’) and thus from sexual intercourse, as a consequence of one’s impiety and of the original sin of one’s soul. This implies that Cassianus did not take into account that Micah’s rhetorical question refers to the actual sacrifice of children and that the subsequent words in Mic 6:8 (‘Or what does the Lord require of you except to practice justice and to love mercy and to be ready to walk with the Lord your God?’) demonstrate that the intended answer should be negative.⁶¹ In my interpretation, Clement is aware that the question of Mic 6:7cd implies a negative answer, so that it should be understood in the following sense: ‘No, I should not abstain from begetting children, or from conceiving children in my womb’, for the Lord requires something else, viz. to practice justice, to love mercy and to walk with him. Next, Clement clarifies that the term ‘impiety’ (Mic 6:7d) refers to ‘the first impulses (ὁρμαί) after birth, which do not help us to knowledge of God’, but that this does not imply that birth itself is evil.⁶² On the contrary, according to Clement birth is something good, for thanks to our birth (ἐν αὐτῇ) we come to know the truth.⁶³ This implies that in Clement’s view Christians should not generally give up the procreation of children; for although children can be inconvenient and troublesome through their ‘first impulses’, thanks to being born they can come to know the truth about God.

 Clement, Stromateis III, 101, 1 (GCS 15/52). He reads, εἰ δῶ πρωτότοκα ὑπὲρ ἀσεβείας, καρπὸν κοιλίας μου ὑπὲρ ἁμαρτίας ψυχῆς μου. The first words diverge slightly from Rahlfs’ and Ziegler’s editions which read, εἰ δῶ πρωτότοκά μου ἀσεβείας. See § V.30.  Clement, Stromateis III, 101, 2 (GCS 15/52).  W.E. Glenny, Micah. A Commentary based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series), Leiden/Boston 2015, 31; 161– 162.  Clement, Stromateis III, 101, 2– 3 (GCS 15/52). Transl. J. Ferguson, Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis Book One to Three (FaCh 85), Washington, D.C. 1991, 320.  Clement, Stromateis III, 101, 3 (GCS 15/52). Stählin’s conjecture αὐτῇ is generally accepted; the only manuscript reads αὐτῷ. See also § V.30.

IV.3 Conclusion

35

IV.2.4 Heterodox reminiscences (Mic 7:6) In the fourth place, two fully inconspicuous and unconscious reminiscences of Mic 7:6 have been preserved in Coptic works thanks to Jesus’ use of Micah’s words.⁶⁴ In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus is quoted saying, Perhaps people think that I have come to impose peace upon the world. They do not know that I have come to impose conflicts upon the earth: fire, sword, war. For there will be five in a house: there will be three against two and two against three, father against son and son against father, and they will stand alone.⁶⁵

Only the italicized words remind us of Mic 7:6, but they are not borrowed from Micah directly, but from Matt 10:35, Luke 12:53, or Q. A similar reminiscence of the last words in Micah 7:6 is found in the third- or fourth-century work Pistis Sophia, where Mary Magdalene reacts to Jesus’ teaching. She reminds him of his saying, ‘a person’s foes [will be] members of his household’ (Matt 10:36), and interprets the members of one’s household as the hostile inhabitants of the soul, namely the counterfeit spirit (ⲁⲛⲧⲓⲙⲓⲙⲟⲛ ⲡⲛⲉⲩⲙⲁ) and fate (ⲙⲟⲓⲣⲁ), who induce the soul to sin.⁶⁶ However, the author of this work does not show any awareness that these words derive from an Old Testament prophet.

IV.3 Conclusion From the scarce ‘heterodox’ texts referring to the prophet Micah it may be concluded that the Gnostics who have been called ‘Ophites’ considered him a Jewish prophet of one of Ialdabaoth’s rulers. Only some of his prophecies may have been inspired by Ialdabaoth’s Mother Sophia, who originated from the Father of all. Gnostics who have been dubbed ‘Sethians’ probably attributed to Micah a role in their view of a supracelestial baptismal ceremony that should lead to salvation. However, they altered and doubled his name, so that the human prophet Micah was transposed to the two powers Micheus and Michar in the supracelestial sphere.

 See § II.2.  Gospel of Thomas 16; Nag Hammadi Codex II, 2, 35, 31– 36, 6 (NHS 20); translation M. Meyer in idem (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, 141.  Pistis Sophia III, 113 (NHS 9, 294).

36

IV Heterodox views

In patristic works a few isolated heterodox interpretations of Micah have been preserved. These testimonies deal with the Creator as the origin of evil (Mic 1:12b), with the inner, peaceful transformation of the disciple who adheres to the Great Revelation attributed to Simon Magus (Mic 4:3c [Isa 2:4c]), and with Julius Cassianus’ view that sexual intercourse and birth are evil (Mic 6:7cd). Moreover, both the Gospel of Thomas and Pistis Sophia contain reminiscences of Jesus’ implicit quotation of Mic 7:6 about the dissension among members of the same household. As a matter of course, the harvest of the ‘heterodox’ reception of Micah would have been richer if more of the original works of ‘heretical’ authors had been preserved.

V Patristic interpretation of Micah As discussed in chapter III, patristic interpretations of Micah are incomparably more numerous, explicit, and extensive than the ‘heterodox’ testimonies that were examined in chapter IV. The present chapter starts with a survey of patristic views of Micah’s name, identity and afterlife, and subsequently it analyzes the patristic interpretations of his book. The sections will first give translations of the Septuagint texts, and continue with the patristic comments on the ‘literal’ meaning of the text in the prophet’s own historical context. As noted in § III.3, sometimes attention will be paid to ancient philological and syntactical decisions – whether explicit or implicit – which may be relevant for present-day research of the Septuagint text. Next, after a blank line, the sections of this chapter will present the ancient interpretations of Micah with regard to the Christian faith and the consequences of Christ’s coming for Jews and the Roman empire. Regularly the Christianizing interpretations are called ‘spiritual’, but as we shall see, other terms are used as well. It should be admitted that the order of the ‘literal’ and ‘historical’ and subsequently the typically Christian, ‘spiritual’ interpretations is not meant to be chronological. Besides the New Testament testimonies, the first typically Christian interpretations of Micah date from the second century and precede the attention paid to the prophet’s historical context, which started with Origen¹ in the third century and was continued by commentators of the fourth and fifth centuries. But since most of their Commentaries usually start with the literal, historical interpretations of the passages and subsequently apply them to Christians, I adopt the same order in this book. My delimitation of smaller passages of Micah in the Septuagint is eclectic and does not necessarily correspond to the divisions in the patristic Commentaries, since these vary widely. Sometimes, however, their delimitations agree and differ from the Hebrew text. In such cases I will always follow the patristic arrangement of the text.

 Origen’s attention to the literal and historical meaning of this prophet can be concluded from Jerome’s Commentary in which many Origenian interpretations can be recognized, and from Origen’s interest in the historical sense of Scripture in his other exegetical and homiletical works. See e. g. H. de Lubac, Histoire et Esprit. L’intelligence de l’Écriture d’après Origène, Paris 1950 (reprint 2002), 92– 138. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-007

38

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

V.1 Micah’s name and identity (Mic 1:1a) In Rahlfs’ edition the first words of Micah’s book may be translated as, And the word of the Lord came to Micah of Morasthi (Mic 1:1a).²

Jerome offers several interpretations of Micah’s name, which is Michaeas in Latin and ‫ מיכה‬in Hebrew. In his Book on the Interpretation of Hebrew Names (from 389 – 391) he proposes two translations, namely quis hic (aduerbium loci), ‘who [is] here? (adverb of place)’ and quis iste, ‘who [is] this one?’³ The first translation is based on ‫ִמי ָכּה‬, in which ‫ ִמי‬is Hebrew (‘who’) and ‫‘( ָכּה‬here’) is actually Aramaic (cf. Hebrew ‫ ;)ּכֹה‬the second translation seems based on ‫ ִמי‬plus the definite article ‫ַה‬, which originally meant ‘this’.⁴ In 393, however, Jerome had changed his mind, for in the prologue to his Commentary on Micah he says that this name means ‘humility’. This implies that he now derives it from ‫מוך‬, ‘to be low’.⁵ Perhaps he was told that these views were not correct, for later on, in the prologue to his Commentary on Joel (from 406) he gives a fourth interpretation which he apparently borrows from a Greek work, since he writes that it means τίς ὡς, or in Latin quis quasi or quis uelut, ‘who [is] as…?’;⁶ this is based on ‫ ִמי‬and ‫ ָכּ‬in the sense of ‘as’. Around 387 Ambrose, who contrary to Jerome did not know Hebrew, transmits two possibilities for the meaning of Micah’s name, namely quis a deo, ‘who [is] from God?’ and quis iste, ‘who [is] this one?’⁷ For the first option I refer to the following paragraph. In 393 Ambrose’s second option was also proposed by Jerome, which suggests that both authors found it in an older source. Theodore, Theodoret, Cyril, and Hesychius do not discuss the meaning of Micah’s name.

 Unlike NETS, which translates ‘a word of the Lord’, and with Brenton, Giguet, Septuaginta Deutsch, and Glenny, Micah, 19, I translate λόγος κυρίου with a definite article; see F. Blass, A. Debrunner, F. Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Göttingen 199017, § 252; T. Muraoka, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek, Leuven 2016, 10 – 11. Thus also in Mic 4:2e (§ V.19).  Jerome, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, s.v. De Michaea (CCSL 72, 123).  L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament I, Leiden 19673, 225 – 226.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, prologus, 8 – 9 (CCSL 76). Hesychius (or Ps.-Hesychius?) also gives the interpretation ‘humility’ (ταπείνωσις), or ‘the humbled one’ (ταπεινούμενος) in Capita Michaeae prophetae (PG 93, 1357A), not edited by Eriksson. Cf. Eriksson, The Scholia by Hesychius, 39.  Jerome, Comm. in Joelem I, prologus, 17– 18 (CCSL 76).  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 3 (CSEL 82, 1).

V.1 Micah’s name and identity (Mic 1:1a)

39

We may conclude that the common insight of present-day scholars, that the name ‫ מיכה‬is short for ‫ִמיׇכ ׇיהוּ‬, ‘who is as YHWH?’, which we find in 2 Chr 13:2 and 17:7 MT,⁸ was unknown to these ancient Christian authors. Only Ambrose’s first – and faulty – interpretation of Micah’s name as quis a deo, ‘who [is] from God?’, might go back to someone who knew that the second syllable of the prophet’s name originally referred to the God of Israel. In Rahlfs’ edition the prophet is called, ‘the one of Morasthi’ (τὸν τοῦ Μωρασθι), which agrees with Codex Vaticanus (τὸν τοῦ Μωρασθει).⁹ Codices Washingtonianus, Alexandrinus, and Cyril read, ‘the one of Morathi (τὸν τοῦ Μωραθι)¹⁰. Theodore, however, calls him ‘the Moraithite’ (τὸν Μωραιθίτην)¹¹ and Jerome translates ad Michaeam Morasthiten. ¹² In the Hebrew text Micah is called ‫ַה ֺמּ ַר ְשׁ ִתּי‬, which means that he originated from Moresheth Gath (‫מוֹ ֶר ֶשׁת ַגּת‬, Mic 1:14), but in the Septuagint the name of this village has not been preserved, which explains that the ancient commentators did not see the connection. Eusebius, who lived in Caesarea Maritima in Palestine, says in his Onomasticon that Μωρασθει is where Micah came from, and that it is situated east of Eleutheropolis.¹³ Eleutheropolis was situated halfway the ancient road from Gaza to Jerusalem,¹⁴ so Eusebius’ information on the position of Micah’s village is correct. Jerome, who lived in Bethlehem, confirms in his Commentary that up till his days Morasthi was a little village near Eleutheropolis, and adds that it means ‘heir’ (heres).¹⁵ A few years before (389 – 391), in his Book on the Interpretation of Hebrew Names, he interpreted Morasthi as ‘my heir’.¹⁶ Apparently he related Morasthi to ‫מוֹ ָר ָשׁה‬, ‘inheritance’, ‘heritage’, or to ‫מוֹ ִרישׁ‬, ‘testator’; in fact, in Hebrew ‘heir’ is ‫יוֹ ֵרשׁ‬. In the Hebrew text of Mic 1:14 Jerome does not recognize the toponym ‫ מוֹ ֶר ֶשׁת‬in ‫מוֹ ֶר ֶשׁת ַגּת‬, for his translation reads hereditas Geth, ‘the heritage of Geth’ (Gath in the Masoretic Text).¹⁷

 See e. g. F.I. Andersen, D.N. Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncBib 24E), Doubleday etc. 2000, 108 – 109.  Glenny, Micah, 18. Strangely enough Ziegler reads τὸν Μωρασθι, without discussing the reading with the article τοῦ in his critical apparatus. Probably his omission of τοῦ is an error. It is followed in NETS, which translates ‘Michaias, the Morasthi’.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, prologus – 1, 1(Pusey 602, 5 – 7).  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 1 (Sprenger, 191, 20).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 1, 1– 2 (CCSL 76).  Eusebius, Onomasticon s.v. Μωρασθει (GCS NF 24, 174, 3; Eusebius III, 1).  R.J.A. Talbert (ed.), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton/Oxford 2000, 70 F2.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, prologus, 9 – 11 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, s.v. De Michaea (CCSL 72, 123).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 280; 372– 374 (CCSL 76).

40

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

A few years before Jerome, Ambrose translates τοῦ Μωραθι as Morathi filius, ‘the son of Morathi’, which he considers the answer to the question quis iste, ‘who [is] he?’, and which he interprets as ‘the son of the heir’. He adds that this heir refers to the Son of God, i. e. Christ (cf. Matt 21:38, ‘This is the heir’), who made ‘us’, the Christians, his fellow heirs (Rom 8:17). Continuing this spiritual interpretation, Ambrose notes that the words quis iste imply that the prophet ‘is not one of the people, but one chosen to receive the grace of God, in whom speaks the Holy Spirit’.¹⁸ Like Jerome, Cyril considers Morathi Micah’s native village. He denies emphatically that it is the name of Micah’s father, which is the interpretation given by Ambrose and which probably goes back to an older source, perhaps Origen. Cyril pretends that the Hebrew text reads τὸν Μωραθίτην.¹⁹ In fact, this reading is found in Jer 33:18 LXX, which refers to Μιχαίας ὁ Μωραθίτης (cf. Jer 26:18 MT). According to a tradition preserved in a work from Palestine, The Lives of the Prophets (in Greek; dated either to the first or to the fifth century),²⁰ Micah the Morasthite (or Morathite) belonged to the tribe of Ephraim. It has been concluded that its author identified him with the Micah from Ephraim who figures in Judg 17– 18,²¹ but Anna Maria Schwemer criticizes this conclusion because the prophet has nothing to do with this person. Since The Lives of the Prophets subsequently dates Micah to the time of king Ahab, and tells that he was killed by Ahab’s son Joram, this implies that in any case its author identifies Micah the Morasthite with Micah the son of Imlah (3 Kgdms 22:8 – 28). Schwemer underlines that Micah the son of Imlah also came from Ephraim, and concludes that in this work only the identification of Micah the Morasthite with Micah

 Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 3 (CSEL 82, 1); transl. Beyenka.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1 (Pusey, 602, 9 – 15). For Cyril’s references to the Hebrew text, which he could not read himself, see M. Simonetti, ‘Note sul commento di Cirillo d’Alessandria ai Profeti minori’, VetChr 14 (1977), 301– 330 (315 – 316).  A.M. Schwemer, Studien zu den frü hjü dischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae prophetarum. Einleitung, Ü bersetzung und Kommentar I (TSAJ 49), Tübingen 1995, vi; 68 – 69, dates this work – as most scholars do – to the first half of the first century, and holds that it originates from Palestine. She does not agree with D. Satran, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 11), Leiden etc. 1995, who considers it a Christian composition from the fifth century because, among other arguments, testimonies to it older than the sixth century do not exist (78).  E. g. P.W. van der Horst, De profeten. Joodse en christelijke legenden uit de oudheid, Amsterdam 2001, 35, 139 – 140. He dates this work to the first century (19 – 22).

V.1 Micah’s name and identity (Mic 1:1a)

41

the son of Imlah is intended.²² This identification is presupposed by 1 Kgs 22:28 in the Masoretic Text and the Vulgate (but not in the Septuagint) and by 2 Chr 18:27 in the Septuagint, the Masoretic Text, and the Vulgate, where the first words of Micah the Morasthite’s prophecies, ‘Hear, all people’ (Mic 1:2a) are ascribed to Micah the son of Imlah as well. However, this identification is not found in the running patristic Commentaries on Micah, but it has been adopted in a work attributed to Athanasius of Alexandria.²³ Yet the identification of the two Micahs is contested in an anonymous, fourth-century introduction to the prophets, perhaps of Donatist provenance.²⁴ In addition, the author of The Lives of the Prophets also tells that Micah was buried in his own land, near the graveyard (of) Enakim (σύνεγγυς πολυανδρίου Ἐνακείμ).²⁵ A version ascribed to Epiphanius of Salamis adds that his grave is known ‘to this very day’.²⁶ Another reading of Ἐνακείμ is ἐν ᾿Aκείμ or ἐν Aκιμ, ‘in Akim’, a presumed place mentioned in Mic 1:10 LXX,²⁷ which does not correspond, though, to a toponym in the Hebrew text. Probably the Septuagint translator supposed that Akim was situated near Geth (Gath MT), the Canaanite town situated ca 10 km west of Morasthi/Moresheth and mentioned in Mic 1:10 LXX before Akim. In The Lives of the Prophets and works that depend on it, Enakim or Akim is considered the graveyard where Micah was buried,²⁸ but given the origin of this name the trustworthiness of this tradition is extremely doubtful. The confusion appears again in Cyril’s and Theodoret’s comments on Mic 1:10. According to Cyril, Enakim is a small town like Geth, on the borders of Judea,²⁹ but Theodoret is convinced that ‘Enakim was not, as some people supposed, a different city from Geth, but he  Vita prophetarum 6, 1; A.M. Schwemer, Studien zu den frü hjü dischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae prophetarum. Einleitung, Ü bersetzung und Kommentar II (TSAJ 50), Tübingen 1996, 23 – 25. Micah ben Imlah’s Ephraimite origin appears from his reputation with king Ahab, king of Israel in Samaria (3 Kgdms 21:17; 22:1– 8).  Ps.-Athanasius, Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae 28 (PG 28, 360BC; 5th c.); the identification is implied by the observation that the prophet of Mic 1:1 also spoke to king Ahab, which was true for Micah the son of Imlah.  Prophetae ex omnibus libris collectae (PLS 1, 1740).  Vita prophetarum 6, 2 (ed. Schwemer).  Ps.-Epiphanius, De prophetis eorumque obitu ac sepultura 13 (PG 43, 408A; another version in 415BC). The same tradition, but without ‘to this very day’, in (Ps.?) Hesychius, Capita Michaeae prophetae (PG 93, 1357A).  Thus Rahlfs’, Ziegler’s, and Glenny’s editions. In addition, Ziegler’s critical apparatus gives several other variant readings of this name. See H. Utzschneider, in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare II, 2366.  Vita prophetarum 6, 2 (ed. Schwemer); Ps.-Epiphanius, De prophetis eorumque obitu ac sepultura 13 (PG 43, 408A; 415BC); (Ps.?) Hesychius, Capita Michaeae prophetae (PG 93, 1357A).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 (Pusey, 616, 5 – 6).

42

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

(i. e. Micah) calls the inhabitants of Geth Enakim, who are descendants of the giant Enak’.³⁰ Jerome writes, in a letter of 404, that in the past Micah’s tomb was found in Morasthi, and that in his own days – Jerome then describes a pilgrimage of 385 – 386 – a church had been built there.³¹ In the fifth century Sozomenus notes that during the reign of emperor Theodosius (379 – 395) Micah’s relics had been discovered by Zebennus, the bisschop of Eleutheropolis, in Berathsatia,³² which is otherwise unknown. One might suppose that previously Micah’s alleged tomb was a Jewish monument which, by the end of the fourth century, was appropriated by the Church.³³

V.2 The historical context of Micah’s prophecies (Mic 1:1bc) According to the heading of Micah’s book, the word of the Lord came to him in the days of kings Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah, about what he saw concerning Samaria and concerning Jerusalem (Mic 1:1bc).

The authors of the running Commentaries correctly situate Micah the Morasthite in the period in which the Assyrian armies invaded Samaria, exiled its population, and threatened Jerusalem, which happened when Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah reigned over Judah (Mic 1:1b), but they also refer to the later exile that the Babylonians imposed on the Judeans. Jerome specifies that Micah prophesied after Hosea, Amos, and Isaiah who were active during the reign of Uzziah, and Theodoret mentions Hosea, Joel, and Amos as Micah’s predecessors in Uzziah’s time.³⁴ Theodore and Jerome underline that the reference to Samaria and Jerusalem (Mic 1:1c) means that Micah addressed the two kingdoms, in Theodore’s words, both the ten tribes of Samaria and the two tribes led by Judah.³⁵

 Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 10 (PG 81, 1748A); for Enak and Enakim see e. g. Num 13:22 (13:23); 13:28 (13:29); Deut 2:10 – 11; 9:2; Josh 11:21– 22. See also § V.7.  Jerome, Epistulae 108, 14, 1 (CCSL 55). He does not mention the name Akim or Enakim; for his reading Bachim in Mic 1:10 see § V.7.  Sozomenus, Historia ecclesiastica VII, 29, 2 (SC 516).  Thus Schwemer, Studien zu den frühjüdischen Prophetenlegenden II, 29 – 31.  Theodore, In Michaeam prologus – 1, 1 (Sprenger, 191, 8 – 18); Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 1, 1– 10 (CCSL 76); Cyril, In Michaeam prologus (Pusey, 600, 22– 602, 4); Theodoret, In Michaeam prologus; 1, 9 (PG 81, 1741AB; 1745C); In Joelem prologus (PG 81, 1633A).  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 1 (Sprenger, 191, 22– 30); Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 1, 10 – 14 (CCSL 76).

V.3 Hear the words, all peoples (Mic 1:2)

43

Ambrose sees a spiritual meaning in the order of the three kings. He holds that their order signifies the ‘progress of the vision, for it goes from the evil kings to the times of the good king.’ He concludes that ‘the afflicted soul’ – which is the subject of Ambrose’s interpretation – ‘was first oppressed under evil kings’, before experiencing ‘progress in conversion’ (processum conversionis).³⁶ Jerome adds that mystically (quantum … ad mysticos intellectus), which means spiritually, Samaria is always to be interpreted in terms of the heresies, and Jerusalem as the Church.³⁷ Jerome undoubtedly derives this hermeneutical rule from Origen’s Commentary. ³⁸ In this way Origen and Jerome clarify in which way Micah’s prophecies are relevant for Christians.³⁹

V.3 Hear the words, all peoples (Mic 1:2) In the Greek patristic Commentaries the beginning of Micah’s prophecies reads, Hear the words, all peoples, and let the land pay attention, and all those in it. And the Lord will be a testimony among you, the Lord from his holy house (Mic 1:2).

Although modern editions read, ‘Hear the words, peoples’,⁴⁰ the Greek commentators read ‘Hear the words, all peoples’ (λαοὶ πάντες), which agrees with the Hebrew text. To Theodore and Theodoret the term ‘all’ means that Micah’s words are directed to Israel’s two kingdoms,⁴¹ i. e. the ten tribes in the North and the two tribes in the South, which corresponds to the mention of Samaria and Jerusalem in Mic 1:1. Concerning Micah’s following words, ‘The Lord will be a testi-

 Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 3 – 4 (CSEL 82, 1); transl. Beyenka, adapted. For kings Jotham and Ahaz see 4 Kgdms 15:32– 16:20; for the ‘good king’ Hezekiah see 4 Kgdms 18 – 20.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 1, 14– 16 (CCSL 76) For this spiritual interpretation of Samaria/Ephraim and Jerusalem see his In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 5, 128 – 129; 1, 6 – 9, 205 – 206; In Osee I, prologus, 119 – 124; II, 7, 1, 20 – 39; 8, 5 – 6, 132– 142; III, 10, 7– 8, 247– 254; 14, 1, 20 – 43; In Amos I, 3, 9 – 10, 222– 244; II, 4, 1– 3, 66 – 110; 6, 1, 18 – 28; 8, 11– 14, 306 – 320; In Abdiam 19, 667– 669 (CCSL 76). For Jerome’s view of heresies see B. Jeanjean, Saint Jérôme et l’hérésie (EtAug.SA 161), Paris 1999, especially 308 – 309.  See Origen, Hom. in Ezechielem 9, 1, 92– 101; 10, 2, 32 (SC 352).  For the following pages see also my paper, ‘Patristic Interpretation of Micah: Micah read as a book about Christ’, in W. Kraus, M. Karrer, M. Meiser (eds), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse (WUNT 252) Tübingen 2010, 702– 719.  ἀκούσατε, λαοί, λόγους according to, e. g., Codices Washingtonianus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus.  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 2 (Sprenger, 191, 31– 192, 7); Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 2 (PG 81, 1741B–1744A).

44

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

mony among you, the Lord from his holy house’ (Mic 1:2cd), Theodore explains that the addition, ‘the Lord from his holy house’, was necessary because the ten tribes worshipped idols and had made houses for them; the prophet, however, addressing all people in common, was sent by the Lord who had his own holy house in Jerusalem.⁴² Jerome writes that the historical meaning (iuxta historiam) of Mic 1:2ab is clear, but he does not discuss the ambiguity that the term ἡ γῆ (terra) might mean either ‘land’ (i. e. the land of Israel) or ‘earth’. From his allegorical interpretation (iuxta tropologiam) it can be deduced that he understood ἡ γῆ as the earth.⁴³ Likewise, Cyril does not apply Mic 1:2 to all tribes in the land of Israel, but to the whole earth (ἡ γῆ), where the Most High does not dwell in handmade temples of stone, but fills the heavens, the earth, and the nether regions.⁴⁴ Jerome explains that spiritually (iuxta tropologiam) the ‘peoples’ refer to the churches of the whole world, and the ‘earth’ to the heresies. He wishes that the heretics may receive the Lord’s testimony only from his house, i. e. the Church, or through the Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, who is the temple of God the Father (cf. John 2:19 – 21), and through whose mouth the Father speaks.⁴⁵ A similar interpretation of ἡ γῆ in this verse is already found in Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis (around 200), in a chapter on the meaning of ‘heaven’ and ‘earth’ in which he explains that ‘earth’ refers to people who prefer ignorance and hardness of heart. He then freely quotes an abbreviated text of Mic 1:2a and 1:12a (yet omitting the term ‘earth’), ‘Hear the word of the Lord, you people who dwell with pains.’⁴⁶ Eusebius and Cyril have another spiritual interpretation. They explain that by these words Christ did not only call the Jews to salvation, but the whole earth.⁴⁷ This implies that this book concerns all its readers, to whatever nation they may belong. Cyril acknowledges that Micah refers to the temple in Jerusalem, but he adds that the Lord’s house may also be interpreted as heaven or as the Church. He clarifies that it is not unworthy of the God of all to dwell in

 Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 2 (Sprenger, 192, 14– 22); shorter, without reference to the idols, Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 2 (PG 81, 1744A).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 2, 47– 53 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 2 (Pusey, 603, 3 – 604, 9).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 2, 47– 75 (CCSL 76).  Clement of Alexandria, Stromateis IV, 169, 2– 3 (SC 463).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VI, 13, 20 (GCS 23); Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 2 (Pusey 604, 10 – 15).

V.4 The Lord descending on the mountains and valleys (Mic 1:3 – 5)

45

the holy houses erected to his glory, by which he means the Christian church buildings.⁴⁸ Hesychius interprets the ‘testimony’ as the mystery of the Gospel through which Christ testified how ‘we’ must be saved.⁴⁹

V.4 The Lord descending on the mountains and valleys (Mic 1:3 – 5) Then Micah testifies, 3

For behold, the Lord comes out of his place and will descend and tread upon the heights of the earth, 4and the mountains will be shaken under him, and the valleys will melt like wax in front of fire and like water flowing down a slope. 5All this is for the impiety of Jacob and for the sin of the house of Israel. What is the impiety of Jacob? Is it not Samaria? And what is the sin of the house of Judah? Is it not Jerusalem? (Mic 1:3 – 5).

To the patristic commentators this plastic description of the Lord’s descent was problematic. Cyril calls it ‘very obscure and full of riddles’,⁵⁰ and Theodoret explicates the reason of his uneasiness with this text by reminding his readers that according to the divine Scripture the God of all does not occupy a place, since he is incorporeal and infinite (ἀπερίγραφος), and bears all things by his powerful word.⁵¹ Therefore, although in their historical comments the commentators hold that God’s ‘place’ refers to his temple in Jerusalem (cf. ‘his holy house’ in Mic 1:2d), they subsequently resort to figurative interpretations of the heights, mountains, and valleys, in the sense of powerful and lowly people respectively, so that the shaking, melting and water flowing down refer to the punishments that the people deserve.⁵² In this way the commentators intended to avoid the impression that the Lord literally came down from heaven.⁵³ Cyril specifies that the punishment will consist of the invasion by the Assyrians, who would

 Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 2 (Pusey, 603, 11– 604, 24).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 2; Catena II, 1 (Eriksson, 154; 239).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 4 (Pusey, 605, 4– 9).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 3 – 4 (PG 81, 1744AB); cf. Heb 1:3.  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 3 – 4 (Sprenger, 192, 23 – 193, 9); Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 5, 83 – 105 (CCSL 76); Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 4 (Pusey, 605, 10 – 606, 17); Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 3 – 4 (PG 81, 1744A–C).  Thus already in Origen, Hom. in Genesin 4, 5 (SC 7bis), who gives a Christological interpretation of this passage (see below).

46

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

plunder the land, deport some of the kings, and kill all the leaders.⁵⁴ Remarkably, medieval Jewish interpretations also read that the heights of the earth mean the rulers or the haughty and wicked of the land.⁵⁵ Most likely these Jewish comments go back to the period of the ancient Christian commentators, so that one of them – perhaps Origen – may have borrowed them from contemporaneous rabbis. Thanks to an incidental passage in Origen’s Homilies on Genesis his historical observation on ‘the impiety of Jacob’ and ‘the sin of the house of Jacob’ (Mic 1:5a–c) is known. In his view, this refers to the two golden heifers introduced by king Jeroboam of the northern kingdom of Israel or Samaria, destined to be worshipped in Dan and Bethel, as a substitute of the worship in Jerusalem.⁵⁶ Cyril shares this interpretation, referring not only to the heifers but also to the idols Chamos and Baal; moreover, he notes that the prophet scorns the rulers’ oppression of the poor and their fraudulent trade on the Sabbath.⁵⁷ Theodore and Theodoret refer more generally to Samaria’s idol worship.⁵⁸ Concerning the following words about the sin of the house of Judah, which is Jerusalem (Mic 1:5de), Theodore, Jerome, Theodoret, and Cyril note that idols were worshipped even in Jerusalem.⁵⁹ Most likely the Marcionites and gnostic Christians explained the frightening words on the Lord’s descent as a testimony to the inferior Demiurge or one of his rulers (cf. IV.2.1), but such ‘heterodox’ interpretations have not been preserved. From an allusion to Mic 1:4b, ‘like wax in front of fire’, in Hippolytus’ comments on Christ’s eschatological discourse in Matt 24, it may be concluded that the author understood Mic 1:3 – 4 as a prediction of Christ’s second coming. His text reads that then ‘Christ, when he comes, will frighten the sinners through his

 Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 4 (Pusey, 606, 17– 25).  A.J. Rosenberg, Twelve Prophets II: A New English Translation. Translation of Text, Rashi, and Other Commentaries, New York 1992, 197.  Origen, Hom. in Genesin 15, 7 (SC 7bis); 3 Kgdms 12:28 – 30.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 5 (Pusey, 608, 23 – 609, 12), quoting Amos 2:7; 8:5. Chamos (or Chemosh) was the god of the Moabites (e. g. Num 21:29; 3 Kgdms 11:5); Baal (‘Lord’) was the god of the Canaanites and Ammonites (e. g. 3 Kgdms 18:21– 26; Hos 2:8; 13:1).  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 5 (Sprenger, 193, 14– 18); Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 5 (PG 81, 1741C).  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 5 (Sprenger, 193, 18 – 20); Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 5, 101– 105 (CCSL 76); Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 5 (PG 81, 1741C); Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 5 (Pusey, 609, 12– 610, 3).

V.4 The Lord descending on the mountains and valleys (Mic 1:3 – 5)

47

majesty and make them like wax in front of fire’.⁶⁰ We will see that this eschatological interpretation was only rarely shared by other authors. Origen’s interpretation of Mic 1:2– 4 has been preserved in several of his works. In his Commentary on John he explains Jesus’ words in John 8:42, ‘I proceeded forth and came from God’, by quoting the full text of Mic 1:2– 4 and by applying them to the Son of God who, before emptying himself, was in the form of God (Phil 2:6 – 7). He concludes that for the Son of God, God the Father is ‘the place’ (Mic 1:3a) in whom he was before he came forth from God by emptying himself.⁶¹ In his Homilies on Genesis Origen quotes Micah 1:3 with respect to God’s descent to see the iniquity of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18:20 – 21). He warns his audience not to imagine that this descent is spatial, for when God is said to descend this means that he wants to take care of weak humans. Here also Origen refers to the Saviour emptying himself (Phil 2:6 – 7).⁶² We may assume that Origen gave such interpretations in his Commentary on Micah too. Origen’s interpretation concerning the coming of the Saviour, Jesus Christ, was adopted by Eusebius, Jerome, Cyril, and Hesychius.⁶³ Although in his Eclogae propheticae Eusebius interprets this text as a testimony to Christ’s second coming,⁶⁴ in his work The Proof of the Gospel he relates it to Christ’s incarnation. He emphasizes that the Lord who descends is the Word of God – Christ – who alone is God and Lord after the Most High.⁶⁵ He specifies that ‘the place’ refers to the Kingdom of heaven and to the throne of the divine Word. As a literal, historical interpretation (ῥητῶς), Eusebius considers that the hills and mountains of Israel were destroyed after the Saviour’s coming and the bad treatment that he received, when the hills were besieged and utterly desolated.⁶⁶ This refers to the siege of Jerusalem by the Romans and their victory over the Jews in 70 CE. Eusebius continues that metaphorically (τροπικῶς) the mountains that

 Hippolytus, Fragmenta in Matthaeum 24, 27– 28 (GCS Hippolytus Werke 1, 2, 204). This text has been preserved in Ethiopian and has been translated by H. Achelis. However, the words ‘like wax in front of fire’ are also found in Ps 67:3b. For the two authors called Hippolytus see § IV.2.3.2; the present Hippolytus is the exegete, not the heresiologist.  Origen, In Ioannem XX, 152– 156 (SC 290); also Fragmenta in Ezechielem 3, 12 (PG 13, 776AB).  Origen, Hom. in Genesin 4, 5 (SC 7bis); also Hom. in Isaiam 1, 1 (Origenes: Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung 10, 196).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 3 (Eriksson, 154).  Eusebius, Eclogae propheticae III, 17 (PG 22, 1140D–1141A; this agrees with Hippolytus, Fragmenta in Matthaeum 24, 27– 28 (GCS Hippolytus Werke 1, 2, 204).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VI, 13, 2 (GCS 23). His reference to God’s λόγος in Mic 1:3a is almost paralleled by Targum Ps.-Jonathan, which has in Mic 1:2c, ‘Let the Memra of the Lord God be a witness against you’ (transl. Cathcart, Gordon, including italics).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VI, 13, 2– 4 (GCS 23).

48

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

were shaken by the descent of the Lord denote the rulers of the Jews, their previous kingdom, their priesthood, and the seats of their teachers; for after Christ’s coming ‘all these things were not only shaken, but abolished’. In Eusebius’ view, the melting valleys are ‘the synagogues established in all cities instead of Jerusalem and Mount Zion, which are lamenting, wailing, and melting as wax in front of the fire with grief and extreme sorrow for the desolation of their homes and their long and lasting slavery’.⁶⁷ Although it cannot be excluded that these historical and metaphorical interpretations stem from Eusebius himself, it is more likely that he borrowed them from Origen’s Commentary on Micah. Even though this work is lost, similar passages on the Jews in Origen’s extant works suggest the Origenian provenance of Eusebius’ observations.⁶⁸ Eusebius’ following interpretations seem Origenian as well. He explains that in another sense the divine Word did not tread on chasms and valleys, nor on lowly and earth-bound thoughts, but dwelled in exalted thoughts, by which he means exalted souls.⁶⁹ He continues that the mountains might also refer metaphorically to the idolatry that used to be practiced on them, and to the powers that invisibly worked in it and were overthrown by the teaching and miracles of the Saviour. The valleys melting like wax in front of fire might be understood as the infernal and earth-bound demons upon whom Christ cast his fire (Luke 12:49), so that they withdrew from human bodies. Eusebius adds that the chief reason why the Lord descended from heaven was that such demons had not only corrupted the other nations, but also plotted against God’s people and had tried to seduce them into various kinds of impiety. In his view, this is confirmed by the words about Jacob’s impiety and the sin of the house of Israel (Mic 1:5); for as a consequence of the impieties of the Jews, they had been struck by destruction, whereas the Lord had called to him the nations of the whole world.⁷⁰

 Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VI, 13, 5 (GCS 23); translation Ferrar, adapted.  See Origen, Comm. Series in Matthaeum 25 – 27 (GCS Origenes Werke 11); Hom. in Ezechielem 12, 5 (SC 352); more texts in G. Sgherri, Chiesa e Sinagoga nelle opere di Origene (SPMed 13), Milano 1982, 96 – 107; R. Roukema, ‘Origen, the Jews, and the New Testament’, in R. Roukema, H. Amirav (eds), The ‘New Testament’ as a Polemical Tool: Studies in Ancient Christian Rhetoric and Beliefs (NTOA 118), 241– 253.  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VI, 13, 6 (GCS 23); ‘in exalted souls’ is Ferrar’s translation of ἐν [διανοίαις] ἐπηρμέναις τὸ φρόνημα. For the relationship with Origen see S. Morlet, La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée. Étude sur l’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin (EtAug.SA 187), Paris 2009, 611.  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VI, 13, 7– 11; VIII, 3, 1; 3, 6 – 8 (GCS 23). For Origen’s view of spiritual powers see J. Daniélou, Origène, Paris 1948, 229 – 235.

V.4 The Lord descending on the mountains and valleys (Mic 1:3 – 5)

49

Jerome’s comments on this passage are very diverse. Even in his ‘literal’ explanation (iuxta litteram) he interprets the mountains and valleys metaphorically as leaders and peoples respectively. In this sense the valleys melting like wax refer to the pride of the impious people that melts once the Lord comes.⁷¹ In his allegorical interpretation (tropologice) Jerome explains that ‘the place’ refers either to the Son⁷² or to ‘all the saints’, from whom the Lord comes forth, yet without leaving them. These saints are the places where God dwells, they have risen with Christ, and are seated with him in the heavenly places (Eph 2:7). Yet Christ is said to descend to those who cannot hear his teaching on the mountain (cf. Matt 8:1). When he descends, he will not tread upon the humble and lowly, but those who are called ‘the heights of the earth’ and ‘the mountains’ will be shaken up by the majesty of this charioteer.⁷³ These explanations partly coincide with Eusebius’ comments, and most likely they derive from Origen.⁷⁴ In any case this holds for Jerome’s subsequent observation that the valleys may also be interpreted as the souls that have been sown into the bodies of dust (χοϊκοῖς), and have not risen with the man from heaven, Christ, whose presence or coming they cannot bear, so that like water they will be thrust headlong into the depths.⁷⁵ This clearly refers to 1 Cor 15:47– 49, a passage quoted frequently in Origen’s works.⁷⁶ In addition, this interpretation alludes to Origen’s view of the incarnation of the ‘pre-existent’ souls into human bodies.⁷⁷ The formulation that these souls were sown or planted (insertae) into earthly bodies, is inspired by Plato’s Timaeus. ⁷⁸ Coming back to his previous interpretation on the Lord descending to the mountains and valleys Jerome explains that this happens on account of Jacob’s impiety and Israel’s sin (Mic 1:5). He allegorically interprets Jacob’s impiety as the assemblies of the heretics, which are called Samaria. Concerning ‘Judah’s sin’ he admits that ‘Judah’ means ‘the one who confesses the Lord’, and he understands that this refers to Jerusalem. Jerome notes, however, that many crimes were committed there. He reminds his readers that ‘the

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 5, 89 – 105 (CCSL 76).  See below for my assessment of this curious interpretation.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 5, 105 – 120 (CCSL 76). In l. 116 – 117 Jerome writes ascendet, which I interpret as his translation of ἐπιβήσεται, ‘he will tread upon’.  See Morlet, La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée, 611.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 5, 119 – 125 (CCSL 76); Jerome’s term praesentia (l. 120) most probably renders παρουσία, which means ‘presence’ or ‘arrival’, ‘coming’.  See e. g. H. Crouzel, Théologie de l’image de Dieu chez Origène, Paris 1956, 182– 189.  Daniélou, Origène, 209 – 210; M. Harl, ‘La préexistence des âmes dans l’œuvre d’Origène’, in L. Lies (ed.), Origeniana Quarta (IThS 19), Innsbruck/Wien 1987, 238 – 258.  Plato, Timaeus 41C–E; 42A (ὁπότε δὴ σώμασιν ἐμφυτευθεῖεν …); 42D.

50

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

house of Judah’ refers to Christ, to whom belongs the Church.⁷⁹ Jerome clearly feels some difficulties with this application, and therefore he proposes yet another interpretation, which reads that the Lord coming out of his place is to be related to Jesus’ saying to the Jews, ‘See, your house is left to you, desolate’ (Matt 23:38). This implies that the Lord leaving his place is interpreted here with regard to Jesus leaving the temple at the end of his public ministry, after he had severely rebuked the scribes and the Pharisees (Matt 21:23; 23:1– 24:1). Now Jerome explains ‘the heights of the earth’ upon whom Christ trod as those who believed in him out of the humble condition of the gentiles, who deserved to be exalted. In this interpretation the mountains that are shaken up are the doctrines of the philosophers and eminent kingdoms, and those people who had a low position are consumed and contrite through the coming of the Saviour. Whereas the Church grows and mountains rise (the rising mountains apparently represent the growing Church), the idols fall down into the depths. Jerome concludes that the Lord has come forth from his place, and that – as a consequence of this, we may assume – a Church has been constructed out of the gentiles, since Jacob acted impiously, Israel sinned, and all its tribes denied the Lord.⁸⁰ Jerome’s exposition of this passage is rich and multifaceted, but also confused. Apparently he made use of Origen’s Commentary, but without translating all of it or even leaving out essential elements. Especially his explanation that ‘the place’ from which the Lord comes forth may be considered the Son is incomprehensible.⁸¹ Probably he misrepresented one of Origen’s interpretations, namely that the Lord coming forth from ‘the place’ is God’s Son. Cyril, after his historical interpretation of Mic 1:3 – 4 (see above), also applies it to the descent of the Word of God who became man. He agrees with other commentators that the heights of the earth upon which the Word trod are the evil spiritual powers, and the mountains shaken are the demons who lose authority over ‘us’. In this sense the melting valleys are mean demons flowing into Hades. Cyril also renders the interpretation that the heights, mountains, and valleys are the Jewish teachers and the crowds subjected to them. Because of their frenzy against Christ, the teachers lost their authority and melted like wax in the war against the Romans.⁸² Theodoret of Cyrus is generally not prone to allegorical interpretations, but as we saw above, he still warns, like Origen, of too simple a view of God’s de-

   

Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 5, 125 – 134 (CCSL 76). Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 5, 134– 147 (CCSL 76). Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 5, 106 (CCSL 76). Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 3 – 4 (Pusey, 606, 26 – 607, 24).

V.5 Samaria’s destruction because of its idolatry (Mic 1:6 – 7)

51

scent, by noting that the God of all does not occupy a place, since he is incorporeal and infinite. We also saw that in his view the mountains and valleys may be interpreted as the powerful and the lowly people respectively. He explicates that both a literal (κατὰ τὸ ῥητόν) and a metaphorical – or: allegorical – interpretation (τροπικῶς) are correct.⁸³ Hesychius confirms the interpretation concerning the coming of the Saviour from heaven. One of his notes that is not found in the previous Commentaries (as far as extant) reads that the mountains were shaken under the Lord on the day of the cross, by which he means Christ’s crucifixion (cf. Matt 27:51).⁸⁴

V.5 Samaria’s destruction because of its idolatry (Mic 1:6 – 7) The oracle continues, 6

I shall turn Samaria to an orchard-guard’s shed (ὀπωροφυλάκιον) in a field and to a planting of a vineyard, and I shall pull down her stones into an abyss and uncover her foundations. 7And all her carved images they will knock down and all her wages they will burn with fire, and all her idols I shall turn to destruction, because from the wages of prostitution she gathered [them] and from the wages of prostitution she collected [them] (Mic 1:6 – 7).

The four patristic commentators understand that this passage announces Samaria’s destruction because of its fornication in the sense of idolatry.⁸⁵ Jerome explains that Samaria’s wealth and considerable furniture that it allegedly owed to its idolatrous fornication, would be led to the other prostitute, Nineve, that is, to the Assyrians. In Jerome’s view, the words, ‘and I shall pull down her stones into a valley’ (Mic 1:6b according to the Hebrew text) refer to the town of Sebaste of his days (Samaria’s former capital), where John the Baptist was buried.⁸⁶ In his Commentary on Zachariah (from 406), however, Jerome notes that these words refer to Jerusalem.⁸⁷

 Theodoret, In Michaeam I, 3 – 4 (PG 81, 1744A–C).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 5; Catena II, 2 (Eriksson, 154; 239). Concerning Catena II, 2 Eriksson, 63 – 64, observes that the beginning of this fragment does not resemble Hesychius’ style but rather derives from Cyril’s Commentary. Therefore I pass over this fragment as far as it is not confirmed by Scholia in Michaeam 5.  Thus Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 6 – 7 (Sprenger, 193, 22– 194, 10).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 6 – 9, 159 – 165; 169 – 187 (CCSL 76); Eusebius, Onomasticon s.v. Σαμάρεια, says that ‘Samaria, a royal city of Israel, is now called Sebaste, including its surroundings (GCS NF 24, 217; Eusebius Werke III, 1; also ed. and transl. Notley, Safrai, JCP 9, 152).

52

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Cyril interprets the image of the orchard-guard’s shed in the sense of angels who attended on Samaria, but abandoned it because of its idolatry. Therefore Samaria would be ploughed and its cities destroyed. What is said about Samaria, Cyril holds true for ‘the Jews’ in general, mentioning their foolishness because of their spiritual (νοητός) prostitution.⁸⁸ Theodoret interprets the image of fornication not only with regard to Samaria’s idolatry, but also as a reference to actual prostitutes who offer the first-fruits of their wages to the intemperate demon. He adds that some of them practice this habit to his own day.⁸⁹ What is an ὀπωροφυλάκιον?⁹⁰ Sometimes patristic Commentaries can be helpful in establishing the meaning of a term that is questionable to modern scholars. Ὀπωροφυλάκιον in Mic 1:6a (for ‫ִעי‬, ‘heap of stones’ in the Hebrew text) is an example of such a term. Above it was translated as ‘an orchard-guard’s shed’, which corresponds with NETS and Muraoka’s dictionary.⁹¹ Theodore briefly interprets it, in plural, as ‘sheds … for the surveillance of the fruits’ (σκηνάς … ἐπὶ φυλακῇ τῶν καρπῶν), which implies watchers responsible for the surveillance.⁹² Jerome gives the literal translation pomorum custodia, which can mean ‘protection’ or ‘custody’ or ‘guard-post of the fruits’. In passing he uses the term pomarium as its equivalent; this means orchard or fruit-shed, but in Jerome’s interpretation apparently the sense of orchard is meant.⁹³ He does not give the impression that this term raises any questions. This is different with Cyril, who gives a more elaborate explanation. It reads, ‘For some people preserve what grows in the fields by weaving sheds (σκηνάς) and sitting in them, thus warding off all harm from it; but when the fruit is gathered, the guards cease their labour and go off home after upturning their sheds.’⁹⁴ Theodoret takes ὀπωροφυλάκιον together with the following words ‘and a planting of a vineyard’ and explains that Samaria will turn into a vineyard in which watchers of the vines will set up sheds.⁹⁵ We may conclude that the explanations in the three Greek Commentaries imply that the sheds were not destined for storing the crops but for the watchers who had to protect the crops that were still on the field. Present-day scholars generally come to the same conclusion. For the Septuagint texts in which the term ὀπωροφυλάκιον is found (Ps 78:1; Isa 1:8; 24:20; Mic 1:6; 3:12) the translations

 Jerome, In Zachariam III, 14, 3 – 4, 124– 125 (CCSL 76A).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 6 – 7 (Pusey, 610, 13 – 613, 14).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 6 – 7 (PG 81, 1744D–1745B).  Also in R. Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation in the Septuagint Version of Micah According to Patristic Commentaries’, in M. Meiser et al. (eds), Die Septuaginta – Geschichte, Wirkung, Relevanz (WUNT 405), Tübingen 2018, 777– 797 (778 – 780).  Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon, s.v. Cf. Lust, Eynikel, and Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon, s.v., ‘hut for one who guards a garden or orchard’; Montanari, Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, s.v., ‘orchard guardian’s hut’.  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 6 (Sprenger, 193, 27).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 6 – 9, 160; 207– 208; 211; 232– 233 (CCSL 76); see Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary, s.v.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 6 – 7 (Pusey, 610, 20 – 25).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 6 (PG 81, 1745A).

V.5 Samaria’s destruction because of its idolatry (Mic 1:6 – 7)

53

read, e. g., ‘garden-watcher’s hut’,⁹⁶ ‘Wachhütte’,⁹⁷ and ‘Wächterhütte’.⁹⁸ However, sometimes other meanings are considered as well. Andersen and Freedman translate ‘fruit shed’.⁹⁹ A note to Ps 78:1 in Septuaginta Deutsch says that in Orthodoxy this term is understood as ‘Gemüselager’.¹⁰⁰ In the comments on Ps 78:1 Eberhard Bons states that ὀπωροφυλάκιον probably refers to a shed for watching over the crops and vegetables on the field, which leaves room for doubt.¹⁰¹ Jennifer Dines proposes that ὀπωροφυλάκιον alludes here to the statues of the fertility god Priapus who served as a sort of guardian and scarecrow.¹⁰² She does quote Cyril’s explanation, but does not give him the last word. In spite of the gap of roughly six centuries between the Septuagint translator and Cyril, there may be sufficient cultural continuity between them to give credit to his interpretation, given the fact that such sheds are attested even in the first half of the twentieth century, witness the picture of a grape vineyard made by the Old Testament scholar John C. Trevor.¹⁰³

In Jerome’s spiritual interpretation of Samaria that will be turned into an orchard-guard’s shed and a planting of a vineyard (Mic 1:6) he notes that Samaria stands for the ‘church of the heretics’.¹⁰⁴ He recommends to overthrow a useless city – Samaria, the heretics – and to drag her stones so that it can be transformed to an orchard (pomarium) and a planting of vines.¹⁰⁵ Remarkably, he turns this image into something positive. When the foundations of such a city – that is, of an heretical community – are destroyed and laid bare, that is, when its (heretical) mysteries, teachings, and idols will be removed by God’s servants, that is, by men of the Church, then various fruits of the Church will grow and be guarded there. The vine Sorec will be planted there, the vine from which the wine is made that the Lord promised to drink in the Kingdom of his Father (Matt 26:29).¹⁰⁶ This Hebrew term (‫)שׂ ֵרק‬, which means ‘bright red

 Glenny, Micah, 19; NETS, 797 (Mic 3:12).  Septuaginta Deutsch, 833; 1186 – 1187 (Ps 78:1; Mic 1:6; 3:12).  Septuaginta Deutsch, 1231; 1250 (Isa 1:8; 24:20).  Andersen, Freedman, Micah, 133.  Septuaginta Deutsch, 833.  Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen II, 1728.  J. Dines, ‘What was an ὈΠΩΡΟΦΥΛΆΚΙΟΝ?’ in G. Khan, D. Lipton (eds), Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon (VT.S 149), Leiden/Boston 2012, 197– 210. Glenny, Micah, 45 – 47, declines her interpretation.  In H.N. & A.L. Moldenke, Plants of the Bible, New York 1952, figure 71 (see the following page). Unfortunately the picture is not located.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 6 – 9, 205 – 208 (CCSL 76); cf. V.2 for this hermeneutical rule. For Jerome’s use of the term ecclesia as a designation of the heretics, see Jeanjean, Saint Jérôme et l’hérésie, 309.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 6 – 9, 208 – 212 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 6 – 9, 212– 221 (CCSL 76).

54

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Guardian’s shed in a grape vineyard. Picture: John C. Trevor

choice of vine’,¹⁰⁷ has been rendered as ἄμπελος σωρεχ in Isa 5:2 LXX. In his Commentary on the Minor Prophets Jerome identifies it as the wine of God’s Kingdom and of the Eucharist, and thus as Christ who said, ‘I am the vine’ (John 15:1).¹⁰⁸ Undoubtedly he found this interpretation in Origen’s Commentary on the Twelve Prophets. ¹⁰⁹ Hesychius’ concise interpretations are quite different. He notes about the orchard guard’s shed (ὀπωροφυλάκιον, Mic 1:6a) that ‘they’ – apparently the Israelites – observe only the letter of the law as a temporary and poisonous fruit (ὀπώρα). The planting of the vineyard he interprets as the people of the gentiles (i. e. the gentile Christians) which has been planted far from Israel’s law and prophets. Samaria’s carved images that will be knocked down and its wages that will be burned (Mic 1:7a) refer, in Hesychius’ view, to the evil teachings

 L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament IV, Leiden etc. 19903, 1269: ‘hellrote, geschätzte Traubenart’.  Jerome, In Amos III, 9, 13 – 15, 439 – 441 (CCSL 76); In Aggaeum 2, 11– 15, 440 – 441; In Zachariam I, 3, 10, 245 – 246 (CCSL 76A); Epistulae 120, 2, 3; 121, 2, 8 (CSEL 55 – 56).  See R. Roukema, ‘L’interprétation patristique de quelques mots hébraïques de la Septante’, in J. Joosten, Ph. Le Moigne (eds), L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité (LeDiv 203), Paris 2005, 269 – 288 (282– 284).

V.6 Samaria’s captivity and Jerusalem’s siege (Mic 1:8 – 9)

55

that ‘they’ presented to seduce the people; ‘for they will be burned by the fire of the Spirit’.¹¹⁰

V.6 Samaria’s captivity and Jerusalem’s siege (Mic 1:8 – 9) The prophet announces that Samaria’s destruction will also reach Judah. 8

Therefore she will lament and wail; she will go barefoot and naked; she will make lamentation like that of serpents and mourning like that of daughters of sirens. 9For the affliction has overwhelmed her, for it has come as far as Judah and has reached as far as the gate of my people, as far as Jerusalem (Mic 1:8 – 9).

Theodore and Cyril explain that Mic 1:8ab describes the condition of captives.¹¹¹ For the serpents (δράκοντες) and sirens Theodore vaguely refers to fables told (τὸ μυθολογούμενον) by some people, and comments that Samaria will endure what is related in such fables.¹¹² Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew text of Mic 1:8 reads, ‘I shall lament and howl about this, I shall go stripped and naked; I shall make a wailing like [that] of serpents and a mourning like [that] of ostriches’. He explains that the prophet says so in the name of God who mourned because he destroyed the ten tribes. Referring to books about natural history Jerome notes that serpents (dracones) hiss terribly when they are conquered by elephants, and with reference to Job he notes that ostriches (struthiones) forget their own eggs, so that animals trample them in the sand, and the ostriches seem not to have given birth; thus God will be without children.¹¹³ With reference to ‘some’ (τινες) Cyril states that a serpent laments when it is threatened, strikes the ground with its tail and produces a loud noise. In his in-

 Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 10 – 12 (Eriksson, 154).  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 8 (Sprenger, 194, 11– 15); Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 8 – 9 (Pusey, 613, 25 – 614, 5).  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 8 (Sprenger, 194, 16 – 22). Likewise, Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 8 – 9 (PG 81, 1745CD).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 6 – 9, 189 – 200 (CCSL 76). For the serpents and elephants see e. g. Theophrastus, in Philo, De Aeternitate Mundi 117; 128 – 129 (LCL 363); Pliny the Elder, Historia Naturalis VIII, 32– 34 (LCL 353). See below for Jerome’s interpretation of the serpents and sirens in the Septuagint version. For the struthiones cf. Job 39:13 – 15 LXX, whose Hebrew text of Job 39:13 Jerome translated as pinna strutionum (Vulgata, ed. R. Weber I, 763). Although both στρουθός and its diminutive στρουθίον are translated as ‘sparrow’, and ‘ostrich’, the transliteration struthio seems to mean only ‘ostrich’; see A. Blaise, Dictionnaire Latin-Français des auteurs chrétiens, Turnhout 1954, s.v.

56

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

terpretation of the sirens (Mic 1:8d) he first notes the opinion of Greeks who say that sirens are birds that can charm the listeners with their songs. Secondly, he notes – but without any references – that in Scripture sirens are sparrows that loudly sing their pleasant songs, or nightingales that lay eggs in hollows by the see and sing a sad tune when their nest is taken by the waves, mourning the loss of their young. Likewise, Samaria will mourn the destruction of its children.¹¹⁴ In his Greek garment, the prophet continues, ὅτι κατεκράτησεν ἡ πληγὴ αὐτῆς (Mic 1:9a). In this clause the function of αὐτῆς is ambiguous, for it might be conceived, 1. as an objective genitive¹¹⁵ depending on ἡ πληγή (‘for her affliction has prevailed’), so that κατεκράτησεν is intransitive, or 2. as a an objective genitive depending on κατεκράτησεν as a transitive verb (‘for the affliction has overwhelmed her’). The translations by Brenton, Anderson and Freedman, NETS, Septuaginta Deutsch, and Glenny opt for the first possibility, which is sustained by the Hebrew original ‫ַמכּוֶֹתָה‬, ‘her wounds’. Although this option must have been the intention of the Septuagint translator, one modern translator, Giguet, opts for the second possibility: ‘Car la plaie l’accable’, which indeed may be the understanding of someone who does not know or regard the Hebrew text. We shall see how the patristic commentators understood the syntax and the historical reference of this clause. Theodore briefly comments on Mic 1:9 that the affliction that began with Samaria would reach even to Jerusalem, since later on the Babylonians took it. He understands αὐτῆς as an objective genitive depending on κατεκράτησεν, for he writes, τῷ βαρεῖαν αὐτοῖς ἐπαχθῆναι παρ’ ἐμοῦ τὴν πληγήν, ‘when the severe affliction is imposed on them by me’, in which αὐτῆς is rendered by αὐτοῖς.¹¹⁶ Cyril shares Theodore’s understanding of the syntax, for he renders Mic 1:9a as κατεκράτησε αὐτῆς γὰρ ἡ πληγή φησι, ‘for the affliction has overwhelmed her, he says’. He explains more elaborately that the Assyrians not only conquered Samaria and led the ten tribes off as captives, but also sacked Judah and besieged Jerusalem, yet without seizing it (4 Kgdms 18 – 19).¹¹⁷ Theodoret shares Cyril’s his-

 Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 8 – 9 (Pusey, 614, 5 – 18). His information about the sparrows might be inspired by Eccl 12:4, ‘one will rise up at the sound of the sparrow’; the nightingale (ἀηδών) does not figure in the Septuagint, so Cyril’s knowledge of Scripture appears defective in this respect.  An objective genitive, because the blow or affliction has been dealt to her. See T. Muraoka, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek, Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT, 2016, 507– 508, although he does not pay attention to this text.  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 8 – 9 (Sprenger, 194, 22– 25); translation Hill.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 8 – 9 (Pusey, 614, 17– 25); translation Hill, adapted.

V.6 Samaria’s captivity and Jerusalem’s siege (Mic 1:8 – 9)

57

torical explanation, but does not give any hint about the function of αὐτῆς.¹¹⁸ Jerome’s translation reads, quia obtinuit plaga eius, ‘for her affliction has prevailed’, relating αὐτῆς to ἡ πληγή, which is not surprising since he knew the Hebrew text. For the historical context he also refers to the Assyrians and the Babylonians.¹¹⁹ Hesychius also connects αὐτῆς with ἡ πληγή, because he takes them together in the lemma ἡ πληγὴ αὐτῆς on which he succinctly comments, ‘clearly the impiety’.¹²⁰ In addition, in the eleventh century Theophylact reads αὐτῆς as an objective genitive depending on κατεκράτησεν, for with regard to Samaria’s captivity by the Assyrian kings he writes, ταύτην γὰρ πληγὴν ὀνομάζει, κατακρατήσασαν αὐτῆς, ‘for this [captivity] he calls affliction, which overwhelmed her’.¹²¹ Most likely the reason why the Greek commentators interpreted αὐτῆς as the object of κατεκράτησεν is that otherwise κατακρατεῖν was used as an intransitive verb, which did not sound acceptable to them. Hesychius’ succinct notes demonstrate that he is an original exegete. He explains that sirens (Mic 1:8d) are a lamentable kind of demons. Concerning the historical context of Mic 1:9 he observes that the inhabitants of Samaria started with idolatry, so that inspired by them ancient Jerusalem also participated in it.¹²² In Jerome’s spiritual interpretation, the whole passage about Samaria in Mic 1:6 – 9 refers to the heretics who will regret their earlier error and cast away the cloths of their (spiritual) fornication, so that they can put on the garment of Christ. They will lament as serpents (Mic 1:8), when they see the greatest serpent captured (Rev 20:2) and hanging from a fish hook (Job 40:25 LXX). In the sirens too (Mic 1:8) Jerome sees an image of the heretics, whose songs are sweet and deceptive. He observes that one cannot pass by their songs unless by plugging the ears and evading as a deaf man (Odyssee 12, 39 – 54). That the affliction has come as far as Judah, the gates of God’s people, and Jerusalem (Mic 1:9), means that heretical Samaria even wanted to introduce her iniquity into Jerusalem, which stands for the Church, the gates being her ears. Samaria could not enter the midst of the city, but according to Jerome this describes that men of

 Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 9 (PG 81, 1745C–1748A).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 6 – 9, 167– 168; 200 – 204 (CCSL 76).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 15 (Eriksson, 154).  Theophylact, In Michaeam 1, 9 (PG 126, 1064D–1065A).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 14; 16; Catena II, 3 (Eriksson, 154; 239). For the sirens as demons, see Isa 13:21.

58

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

the Church are shocked by the words of the heretics and search for how they may respond to their arguments, yet without leaving the Church.¹²³ Cyril does not apply Mic 1:8 – 9 to the heretics, but to his own community. He writes that if ‘we’ abandon the Lord and devote ourselves to demons, we shall have to lament our foolishness and be deprived of the Lord’s grace and help. Instead, we shall be subject to Satan.¹²⁴

V.7 Gath and Akim addressed (Mic 1:10 – 11) The next verse might be translated as, 10

You who are in Gath, do not be conceited; you who are in Akim, do not rebuild mockery from a house, sprinkle earth on your mockery. 11Inhabiting well her cities, she who inhabits Sennaan did not come out to mourn (κόψασθαι) a house next to her; she will receive painful affliction from you (ἐξ ὑμῶν, plural; Mic 1:10 – 11).

The Greek commentators do not agree with Rahlfs’ twofold reading κατὰ γέλωτα, ‘with laughter’ (Mic 1:10b),¹²⁵ for, as Ziegler does, they treat καταγέλωτα as a noun, ‘mockery’, to which Theodore and Theodoret add the preposition εἰς in the second occurrence.¹²⁶ Jerome observes that the Hebrew text of Mic 1:10 – 15 strongly diverges from the Septuagint and acknowledges that it is difficult to translate.¹²⁷ Cyril also notes that ‘the language is obscure and the sense of the

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 6 – 9, 229 – 268 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 8 – 9 (Pusey, 614, 26 – 615, 4).  Rahlfs’ reading is not impossible, however, for Ps.-Basil, In Isaiam V, 152 (PG 30, 368BC), quotes μὴ ἀνοικοδομεῖτε ἐξ οἴκου κατὰ γέλωτα ὑμῶν with regard to those who built ridiculous houses, in the sense of ludicrous teachings, in contradistinction to the sole foundation which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor 3:11– 12).  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 10 (Sprenger, 194, 26 – 27; 195, 1: γῆν καταπάσασθε εἰς καταγέλωτα ὑμῶν); Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 10 (PG 81, 1748A: γῆν καταπάσσασθε εἰς τὸν καταγέλωτα ὑμῶν). Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 (Pusey, 615, 5 – 6; cf. 616, 14– 17), reads γῆν καταπάσασθε καταγέλωτα ὑμῶν. A different and more interpretative translation is given in Septuaginta Deutsch, 1186: ‘Ihr in Gath, tut nicht groß! Ihr in Akim, baut die Häuser nicht wieder auf, ihr macht euch dadurch lächerlich. Mit Erde deckt zu was euch zum Gespött macht.’ See Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen II, 2367 and H.-J. Stipp, ‘Bemerkungen zum griechischen Michabuch aus Anlass des deutschen LXX-Übersetzungsprojekts’, JNSL 29 (2003), 103 – 132 (116 – 117).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 270 – 295 (CCSL 76). For an analysis of the relationship between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint see J.P. Oberholzer, ‘Miga 1:10 – 16 en die Septuagint’, HTS 28 (1972), 74– 85.

V.7 Gath and Akim addressed (Mic 1:10 – 11)

59

passage and of what follows is very hard to grasp’.¹²⁸ According to Adriaen’s edition, Jerome translates the first occurrence of καταγέλωτα as the genitive plural derisuum (‘of mockeries’), or as the accusative singular derisum (‘mockery’) according to some manuscripts, which seems preferable because this reading agrees with the Greek commentators; for the second occurrence of καταγέλωτα Jerome has the accusative singular derisum. In his translation of the Septuagint he does not read ‘in Akim’, but in Bachim, which name he translates as ‘lament’ (planctus et fletus). He argues that, except the Septuagint, all other Greek versions translate it as κλαυθμός, ‘lament’ (fletus).¹²⁹ Bachim seems the participle plural ‫בִּכים‬ ֹ , ‘weeping’. The Greek commentators understand that Mic 1:10 addresses Samaria’s and Judah’s neighbours, the Philistines, who were warned not to be conceited, since they would suffer the same things from the Assyrians¹³⁰ (see § V.8) and – thus Cyril – the Babylonians as the Israelites had suffered.¹³¹ Jerome first comments on the Hebrew text. He notes that Gath was the capital of the five towns in Palestine, situated near the border of Judea, on the way from Eleutheropolis to Gaza, that it was known for Goliath who originated from it, and that it was still an important town in his days.¹³² For Sennaan he reads Sennan; he explains that it means either ‘exit’ (exitus) or, according to Symmachus, ‘abundant’ (abundans), and identifies it as a designation of Samaria that the Assyrians will lead into captivity.¹³³ Cyril also explains that Gath was the capital of the Philistines. He considers ἡ Ἐνακείμ a small town at the border of Judea, in the desert to the south, near to

 Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 (Pusey, 615, 5 – 8).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 283 – 284; 405 – 408 (CCSL 76). See F. Field, Origenis Hexaplorum … Fragmenta II, Oxford 1875, reprint Hildesheim 1964, 988. For the first occurrence of καταγέλωτα, PL 26, 1159A; 1162A, and Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 9, read the accusative singular derisum.  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 10 – 11 (Sprenger, 194, 26 – 195, 16); Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 9 – 11 (PG 81, 1745C–1746B).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 (Pusey, 615, 5 – 616, 22). Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 18 – 19; Catena II, 4 (Eriksson, 154; 239) briefly gives similar comments, yet without referring to the Assyrians or Babylonians.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 300 – 304; 350 – 351 (CCSL 76); cf. 1 Kgdms 5:5 (Γεθθα); 17:4 (Γεθ).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 311– 316; 323 – 331 (CCSL 76). For his interpretation of Sennan as exitus he seems to rely on Micah’s wordplay on ‫ ַצֲא ָנן‬and ‫ ָיְצָאה‬, ‘she goes out’ (Mic 1:11). Symmachus’ translation is based on the alternative spelling ‫ ַשֲׁא ָנן‬which means ‘at ease’, ‘secure’; see L.M. Luker, ‘Zaanan’, in Freedman et al. (eds), ABD 6, New York etc. 1992, 1029.

60

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

the Moabites and Idumeans.¹³⁴ For Sennaan Cyril reads Sennaar, but he also notes that Aquila writes Senan, and that Symmachus reads εὐσθενοῦσα, ‘vigorous’ (apparently the origin of Jerome’s translation abundans). The identification of this place is problematic for Cyril, for he writes that, if Senaar [sic] is meant, ‘it is a region of many towns and villages inhabited by foreigners, though in the territory of Judea’; but if Senan is correct, it designates ‘a fine and important town in Egypt’. That Cyril is not sure about the location of Senaar or Sennaar appears from his subsequent statement that it is near to Judea. In any case he understands that, like Gath and Enakim, it took satisfaction in the fall of Israel, but will be plundered along with the others, on account of Israel; for in his interpretation ἐξ ὑμῶν (‘from you’, Mic 1:11c) means δι᾽ ὑμᾶς (‘on account of you’). Cyril adds that, in case the Egyptian town was meant, it was invaded by (the Assyrian king) Sennacherib.¹³⁵ Theodoret, who reads οἱ Ἐνακίμ in Mic 1:10b, does not agree with the interpretation given by ‘some’ (τινες, probably Cyril) that it is a town near Gath, but – as we saw in § V.1 – thinks that οἱ Ἐνακίμ refers to the inhabitants of Gath, who descended from the giant Enak. For Sennaan he reads Ainan which, according to Theodoret, is situated close to the other towns.¹³⁶ In Mic 1:11b he reads κόψασθε, in agreement with Codices Washingtonianus, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus, and other manuscripts, which may either be interpreted as an aorist imperative,¹³⁷ or a mere spelling variation of the aorist infinitive κόψασθαι (‘to beat oneself’, ‘to mourn’) that we find in modern editions. Given his succinct comment (‘she [Ainan] did not wish to grieve (συναλγῆσαι) with you [the Enakim] …’), it is more likely that his reading κόψασθε should be understood as the infinitive κόψασθαι.¹³⁸

 Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 (Pusey, 615, 5 – 616, 22); cf. § V.1.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 11 (Pusey, 617, 7– 618, 7). Even present-day exegetes do not know where Zaanan was situated; see Andersen, Freedman, Micah, 209. For Σεννααρ see Gen 10:10; 11:2 LXX (the land Sennaar); 14:1– 2, 9 (Amarphal king of Sennaar and Barsa king of Gomorra and Sennaar). – Sennacherib’s invasion of Egypt is unknown to historians, but Cyril may have confused it with Sennacherib’s son Esarhaddon’s conquest of Egypt (not related in Scripture), or more probably with Nebuchadnezzar’s invasion of Egypt, according to 4 Kgdms 24:7. See A.K. Grayson, ‘Mesopotamia, History of’, in Freedman (ed.), ABD 4, New York etc. 1992, 714– 777 (745 – 746; 765).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 9 – 10 (PG 81, 1748AB). For οἱ Ἐνακίμ see Deut 2:10 – 11, 21; 9:2; Jos 11:21– 22; 14:12, 15 and J.N. Guinot, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr (ThH 100), Paris 1995, 674.  This is Jerome’s interpretation (see below).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 11 (PG 81, 1748B); Hill also translates ‘to mourn’. See A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville, Tenn. 1934, 186.

V.7 Gath and Akim addressed (Mic 1:10 – 11)

61

Jerome explains that Gath means ‘wine press’ (torcular), so that those who are in Gath (Mic 1:10a) ‘think that they have gathered the fruit of life and trodden the grapes of the vine Sorec’ (i. e. Christ); but they are conceited and do not know that the grapes of the land of Judea are not found among the Philistines.¹³⁹ Instead, Jerome states that their vine belongs to ‘the vine of Sodom’ and their branch originates ‘from Gomorra’ (cf. Deut 32:32), which is bitter like gall, and he calls their wine ‘the fury of serpents, the incurable fury of asps’, and ‘the poison of asps’.¹⁴⁰ The conceited inhabitants of Gath should ‘rather humble themselves under the powerful hand of the Lord’ (1 Pet 5:6).¹⁴¹ This metaphorical, Biblical language refers to the heretics and their doctrines of Jerome’s days; most likely he borrowed this interpretation from Origen’s Commentary. Next, Jerome refers to evildoers who say, ‘We have been destroyed, but let us return and rebuild what has been destroyed’ (Mal 1:4), and explains that to them it is said, ‘you who are in Bachim, do not rebuild mockery from a house’ (Mic 1:10b).¹⁴² As we saw above, Jerome interprets Bachim as ‘lament’; in his view, such evildoers whose deeds deserve to be lamented should not restore an evil building, and they should not build it on sand so that it falls down when the rain comes and makes the onlookers mock at it (cf. Matt 7:26 – 27); rather they should sprinkle their heads with dust and repent (Mic 1:10c).¹⁴³ In Mic 1:11ab Jerome reads, ‘She who dwells well in her cities, she who dwells in Sennan did not come out’.¹⁴⁴ He explains that this is said to the conceited inhabitants of Gath and

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 380 – 384 (CCSL 76). Indeed, ‫ ַגּת‬means wine press; see Koehler, Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament I, 198, ‘Kelter’. For the vine Sorec see § V.5.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 385 – 396 (CCSL 76). In Origen’s works the expression ‘vine of Sodom’ refers to heresy and sin; see his Fragmenta in Iob 20, 13 (PG 17, 73A); 20, 15 (PG 12, 1033D); Comm. in Canticum II, 3, 11– 12 (SC 375); III, 6, 7– 8 (SC 376; Hom. in Ieremiam 12, 1 (SC 238). The expression is adopted by Jerome in his In Isaiam II, 45; VIII, 5; XVI, 16 (AGLB 23; 30; 36), on Isa 5:10; 24:7– 13; 58:2– 4, and also comes back in § V.33.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 396 – 397 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 400 – 406 (CCSL 76). I read the accusative singular derisum, not the genitive plural derisuum; see footnote 129.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 406 – 416 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 416 – 417 (CCSL 76). Here Jerome’s translation reads, Quae habitat bene in ciuitatibus suis, non est egressa habitans in Sennam [sic], but in his lemma this clause reads, quae habitas bene ciuitates eius, non est egressa habitatrix Sennan (l. 285 – 286), ‘you who inhabit well its cities, the inhabitant of Sennan did not come out’. My translation of l. 417, ‘she who dwells in Sennan did not come out’ (instead of the other possibility, ‘the inhabitant did not come out to Sennan’) is confirmed by l. 285 – 286 and l. 427, quia habitat in Sennan, ‘because she dwells in Sennan’.

62

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Bachim (i. e. the heretics and evildoers) who should repent. In his view, this clause means, The Church of Christ, which dwells well and possesses churches in the whole world, has been unified by the Spirit, and it has the cities of the law, the prophets, the gospel, and the apostles. It did not leave its territory, i. e. the holy Scriptures, but it retained its original property because it dwells in Sennan which, as we said above, Symmachus translated as ‘abundance’; for it has both the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, with whom are all the spiritual graces and plenty of virtues.¹⁴⁵

Then Jerome confirms explicitly that he addresses the heretics, those who ‘live next to Sennan, i. e. next to the flourishing (abundantem) Church’. In Mic 1:11b his translation reads the imperative plangite (‘mourn’), which implies that he reads the aorist imperative κόψασθε, not the aorist infinitive κόψασθαι. Jerome appeals the heretics to ‘mourn the house that is next to her, i. e. next to Sennan’,¹⁴⁶ by which he means the houses in which the heretics gather outside the Catholic churches. He explains that the following clause, ‘she will receive painful affliction from you’ (Mic 1:11c), is said to these heretics, and enjoins them again to mourn the house next to the Church (i. e. their own congregations), because the devil will afflict them because of their evil building. If they grow aware of their sins, however, they may repent, so that their dwelling in pain may be an opportunity of salvation.¹⁴⁷ Next, Jerome also offers an alternative interpretation. It holds that in Mic 1:11c the pain of the Church is meant, since the Church mourns for those who used to be its children, and it is the cause of salvation of the heretics if they are willing to return to their mourning mother.¹⁴⁸ Cyril sees a correspondence between the Babylonian menace of the Israelites and their Philistine neighbours and the persecution of the churches by those who do not know Christ. He says that their mockery, however, ends in tears since Christ alleviates the troubles and extends joy to the Christians.¹⁴⁹ From Mic 1:11 Cyril draws the lesson that the one who stands should take care not

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 418 – 430 (CCSL 76); quotation l. 422– 430. In fact, in Jerome’s period ‘the Spirit’ is the subject and ‘the Church of Christ’ the direct object. I prefer to keep ‘The Church of Christ’ at the beginning of the sentence.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 286; 431– 438 (CCSL 76); plangite in l. 433; 437.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 438 – 445 (CCSL 76); the last words read, … et habitatio dolorum sit eis bonorum occasio (l. 444– 445). For the Origenian origin of the view that pain may lead to something good see also Origen’s interpretation of Mic 1:12 in § V.8.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 445 – 448 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 (Pusey, 616, 23 – 617, 6).

V.8 Jerusalem threatened by the Assyrians (Mic 1:12 – 13a)

63

to fall (cf. 1 Cor 10:12) and that one should not mock those who suffer. One should rather ‘weep with those who weep’ (Rom 12:15) and fear to encounter the same misfortunes.¹⁵⁰ Hesychius interprets the words, ‘she who inhabits Sennaan’ (Mic 1:11b) as the Church, and states that Σαιννάν means ‘rock’ (πέτρα); he adds that ‘she (i. e. the Church) did not mourn the Jewish house that was adjacent [to her] because of Christ’s descendence’. He also considers the Church the subject of ‘she will receive’ (Mic 1:11c), and explains, ‘because [the Church] relieves the Jews from the affliction of the cross, [i. e.] those who draw near to the [Christian] faith through the [faithfulness] of the Lord.¹⁵¹

V.8 Jerusalem threatened by the Assyrians (Mic 1:12 – 13a) Among the cities addressed in Mic 1:10 – 15 Jerusalem figures as well: 12

Who began a turn to the good for her who dwells in pain? Because evil things have come down from the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem, 13athe noise of chariots and of horsemen (Mic 1:12– 13a).

Mic 1:12a, τίς ἤρξατο εἰς ἀγαθὰ κατοικούσῃ ὀδύνας; is flatly interpreted by Theodore as follows, ‘It is not possible for those living in pain to have an experience of any good on account of the magnitude of the troubles besetting them.’¹⁵² Theodoret observes that this is said to Jerusalem but admits that the syntax of the sentence is unclear. Therefore he rearranges it so that the question reads, ‘Who began a turn to pain for her who dwells in good things?’ (τίς ἤρξατο εἰς ὀδύνας ἀγαθὰ κατοικούσῃ;), to which the answer should be, in his view, that it is God who brings about calamities to those who live in peace and prosperity.¹⁵³ Apparently Jerome reads τίς ἤρξατο εἰς ἀγαθὰ κατοικοῦσα ὀδύνας; which he translates as, quis cepit in bonum quae habitat in doloribus?(‘Who that dwells in pain began a turn to the good?’). He explains that for those who grow aware of their sins and do penance, dwelling in pain may be an opportunity of good

 Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 11 (Pusey, 618, 8 – 12).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 20 – 21 (Eriksson, 155). For his view of the Jews see M. Van Parys, ‘Hésychius de Jérusalem face à la Synagogue’, in J.-M. Auwers, R. Burnet, D. Luciani (eds), L’antijudaïsme des Pères: Mythe et/ou réalité? (ThH 125), Paris 2017, 159 – 182.  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 12 (Sprenger, 195, 17– 19); translation Hill.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 12 (PG 81, 1748BC). For his metathesis see also Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 782.

64

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

things (bonorum occasio).¹⁵⁴ Cyril has the same reading with κατοικοῦσα, but he thinks that the turn to the good alludes to the Assyrians’ sudden withdrawal from Jerusalem, which dwelled in pain because of the siege (4 Kgdms 19:35 – 36).¹⁵⁵ In § IV.2.3.1 we saw that ‘heretics’ quoted Micah’s words about ‘evil things’ that ‘have come down from the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem’ (Mic 1:12b) as a testimony to the imperfect Creator venerated by the Jews. Origen thinks that Celsus’ idea that according to Scripture God created (ἐποίει) evil things is inspired by such texts. He explains that in its proper sense (κυρίως) God did not make evil things or evil as such, but he admits that in an improper sense (καταχρηστικῶς) one might say that God sometimes ‘made’ physical and external evils in order to bring about the conversion and education of humans, as fathers, teachers, schoolmasters, and doctors do.¹⁵⁶ According to Theodore, Mic 1:12b–13a speaks about God’s wrath against Jerusalem.¹⁵⁷ With reference to Isa 10:5 – 6, Theodoret specifies that the Assyrians are the instruments of God’s wrath.¹⁵⁸ Jerome interprets the Hebrew text of Mic 1:12b (from which the Septuagint is only slightly divergent) with regard to the Assyrians’ siege of Jerusalem.¹⁵⁹ Cyril, in his comments on Mic 1:12b–13a, also refers to this siege.¹⁶⁰ In an application of this passage to the period after Christ’s coming, Eusebius interprets the ‘evil things’ (κακά) that ‘have come down from the Lord to the gates of Jerusalem’ and ‘the noise of chariots and of horsemen’ (Mic 1:12b–13a) as a prediction of the Romans’ siege of Jerusalem.¹⁶¹ Jerome, in his interpretation of the Septuagint version, reacts to the Marcionite and Manichaean interpretation of Mic 1:12b as a proof text of the wickedness of the Creator (see § IV.2.3.1). He considers this saying a testimony to Lucifer’s fall from heaven, as the Saviour said, ‘I watched Satan fall from heaven like a flash of lightning’ (Luke 10:29). He holds that the evil things that came down from the Lord to  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 287; 443 – 445 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 12– 13 (Pusey, 618, 12; 619, 2– 7; 22– 28).  Origen, Contra Celsum VI, 55 – 56 (SC 147); Comm. in Psalmos 4, in Philocalia 26, 8 (SC 226).  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 12 (Sprenger, 195, 21– 25).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 12– 13 (PG 81, 1748CD); he quotes Isa 10:5 – 6 as follows, ‘Woe to the Assyrians! The rod of my anger is in their hands. I shall send my anger against a lawless nation, and I shall command to plunder and loot among my people (ἐν τῷ ἐμῷ λαῷ).’  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 276 – 277 (quia descendit malum a Domino in portam Hierusalem); 339 – 343 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 12– 13 (Pusey, 619, 7– 22).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VI, 13, 13; 15 (GCS 23).

V.9 Lachis and Odollam (Mic 1:13b–15b)

65

the gates of Jerusalem were not evil before they fell, but became evil (facta sunt mala) because they fell away from the Lord. Having fallen, however, they found the gates of Jerusalem – which symbolizes the Church – closed by the apostles, but they kill those who go out from it.¹⁶² This interpretation of the fall of the devil and the hostile spirits is typically Origenian, for it corresponds with Origen’s exposition on this theme in his work On First Principles. ¹⁶³ Next, Jerome confirms that these evil things that caused an uproar of chariots and horses kill all those who leave Jerusalem,¹⁶⁴ i. e. the Church.

V.9 Lachis and Odollam (Mic 1:13b–15b) Subsequently the prophet addresses 13b

the inhabitant of Lachis, she is the leader of sin for daughter Zion, because in you were found the impieties of Israel. 14Therefore you will give envoys as far as the inheritance of Gath, [to] useless houses. It turned to emptiness for the kings of Israel. 15Until I lead the heirs to you, the inheritance that inhabits Lachis will come as far as Odollam (Mic 1:13b–15b).¹⁶⁵

Theodore explains that Lachis, a lawless city representing the kingdom of Judah, will be led into exile like Samaria; the words ‘you will give envoys’ refers to the captives. Its houses built for impious, idolatrous purposes will be destroyed. Instead of Rahlfs’ reading, ‘Until I lead the heirs to you’ (ἕως τοὺς κληρονόμους ἀγάγω σοι), Theodore reads, ‘Until I lead your heirs’ (ἕως τοὺς κληρονόμους ἀγάγω σου). In his view, these heirs that the Lord will lead are the enemies who will inherit Lachis’ possessions.¹⁶⁶ Apparently Theodore derived this interpretation from someone who knew Hebrew, for the Hebrew text reads ‫ַהיּ ֵֹרשׁ‬, which can mean both ‘the heir’ and ‘the conqueror’.¹⁶⁷ From his interpretation of Mic 1:10 – 11 we can derive that by Lachis’ and Judah’s enemies he still means the Assyrians (see § V.7). Unlike the other commentators, Theodore con-

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 447– 461 (CCSL 76).  Origen, De principiis I, 5, 3 – 5 (Behr).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 467– 470 (CCSL 76).  For the attribution of the following words, ‘the glory of daughter Israel’, see § V.10.  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 13 – 15 (Sprenger, 195, 28 – 196, 13; 197, 14– 18). In Mic 1:14b he reads οἶκοι ματαίων εἰς κενὸν ἐγένοντο, ‘houses of the useless turned to emptiness’.  L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament II, Leiden 19743, 421, qal ‘in Besitz nehmen’, ‘beerben’, ‘enteignen’, participle ‘Eroberer’. See also Oberholzer, ‘Miga 1:10 – 16 en die Septuagint’, 82.

66

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

nects the following words with this passage, reading ‘the inheritance that inhabits Lachis will come as far as Odollam, the glory of daughter Zion’. Ignoring the Greek cases, he comments that they (the enemies) will occupy Lachis, Odollam, and even Jerusalem, which seems glorious because of its temple.¹⁶⁸ He quotes and rejects an interpretation that he ascribes to ‘some’ (τινες) according to whom this passage refers to the murder of Judah’s king Amaziah, who fled to Lachis and was killed there (4 Kgdms 14:19).¹⁶⁹ With some variations, Cyril and Theodoret also read this passage as an announcement of the invasion by the Assyrians and the exile of the people. According to Cyril, the references to Lachis and Odollam mean that the Assyrians were on the point of taking control of the two cities lying at the extremities of the whole country of the Jews. He explains, ‘For she – apparently the Assyrian authority – will inherit Lachis even though it is highly fortified (…), and will extend as far as Odollam.’¹⁷⁰ This interpretation betrays his lack of geographical knowledge, for the distance between Lachis and Odollam was circa 20 km. Theodoret may have perceived this mistake, for he only mentions the devastation that will be extended as far as Odollam and Jerusalem, without specifying any distance. In his view, the envoys are Lachis’ captives taken by the enemies, and ‘your (σου) heirs’ refer to their liberation from captivity. He rejects the interpretation of ‘some’ (τινες) who thought that ‘your heirs’ are the enemies, which is found in Theodore’s Commentary. ¹⁷¹ According to Jerome, Lachis means πορεία ἐστιν, ‘it is a walk’ (derived from ‫הלך‬ and ‫) ֵישׁ‬. He explains that the leaders of sin for daughter Zion were the charioteers and horsemen who caused the uproar and useless noise (Mic 1:13a), trusted in chariots and horses instead of the Lord (Ps 19:8), were blown about by every wind of false doctrine (Eph 4:14), and wanted to leave the Church, called Zion here. Israel’s impieties (Mic 1:13c) are found in Lachis, which Jerome now interprets as ‘worst walk’ (ambulatio pessima) because its step is always faltering and the feet of its inhabitants are always moving.¹⁷² This metaphorical interpretation implies that these ‘leaders of sin’ (cf. Mic 1:13b) are heretics. Jerome explains that

 Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 15 (Sprenger, 196, 14– 19). In Mic 1:15c he reads Σιων instead of Ισραηλ.  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 15 (Sprenger, 196, 19 – 197, 14).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 13 – 15 (Pusey, 620, 1– 623, 9; quotation 622, 22– 24). Translation Hill, adapted.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 13 – 15 (PG 81, 1749A–C); see Guinot, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, 674– 675.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 470 – 485 (CCSL 76).

V.10 The eagle’s widowhood or baldness (Mic 1:15c–16)

67

these inhabitants of Lachis will send envoys to Gath which built useless houses (Mic 1:14a) in opposition of God’s house; metaphorically (quantum … ad anagogen) this refers to the heretics whose teachings are ‘useless houses built in vain’. In Jerome’s understanding the Lord will lead heirs who belong to the Church to these heretical houses in order to occupy them. Thus in the end even heretical Lachis will belong to the Lord’s heritage.¹⁷³ Exceptionally, Theodoret gives a short spiritual interpretation of one element of this passage. Concerning ‘the heirs’ (Mic 1:15a) he notes that Aquila read the singular term ‘the heir’ (which agrees with the Hebrew reading ‫)ַה ֺיּ ֵרשׁ‬. According to Theodoret, this refers to ‘the heir’ (ὁ κληρονόμος) in Christ’s parable about the wicked tenants, whom the tenants intended to kill so that the inheritance of the vineyard would fall to them (Matt 21:33 – 41). As a matter of fact, this heir, the landowner’s son, should be understood as Christ himself. Theodoret adds that when this heir came, ‘he freed not only Lachis but also the whole world from the bondage to useless idols’.¹⁷⁴ A short historical interpretation concerning the Roman period is found in Hesychius’ notes, although he does not say explicitly which period he means. He holds that the ‘useless houses’ (Mic 1:14a) that ‘turned to emptiness’ are the synagogues that were led into captivity from Jerusalem to the gentiles. In his view, ‘the heirs’ are the gentiles that the Lord will lead to Israel’s inheritance.¹⁷⁵

V.10 The eagle’s widowhood or baldness (Mic 1:15c–16) According to Rahlfs’ edition, yet following the deviating partition of the patristic commentators except Theodore, the prophet continues, 15c

Glory of daughter Israel, 16shave and cut your hair for your delicate children; broaden your widowhood like an eagle, because they were taken captive from you (Mic 1:15c–16).

Jerome observes that in the Hebrew text the words ‘the glory of Israel’ belong to the preceding passage, whereas in the Septuagint, which reads ‘the glory of daughter Israel’, they are taken with the following sentence.¹⁷⁶ In addition, he

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 10 – 15, 485 – 495; 504– 505 (CCSL 76).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 14– 15 (PG 81, 1749B).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 25 – 27; Catena II, 5 (Eriksson, 155; 239).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 16, 511– 517 (CCSL 76); cf. his translation of the Hebrew text in In Michaeam I, 1, 15, 282– 283, usque Odollam ueniet gloria Israel. In the editions of Brenton, Ti-

68

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

does not read ‘your widowhood’ (τὴν χηρείαν σου) but ‘your baldness’ (caluitium tuum, τὴν ξύρησίν σου), like Theodore and Theodoret, which corresponds to the Hebrew text (‫ )ָק ְרָחֵתְך‬and Aquila’s, Symmachus’, and Theodotion’s translations.¹⁷⁷ Since Theodore connected the first words (Mic 1:15c) with the preceding passage (see § V.9), his interpretation of Mic 1:16 diverges from the other Commentaries. In his view, the prophet is speaking to himself, complaining about the captivity of his people. He notes that the eagle is said to cast off all its feathers at a certain stage.¹⁷⁸ Jerome explains that Israel, either in the sense of the ten tribes or in the sense of the whole people, should complain about the captivity of its children and Judea’s devastation by the Assyrians and the Babylonians. He comments that, as at a certain time an eagle loses its feathers, thus Israel loses its former glory when its children are subjected to the enemies. For his information on the eagle he refers to Ps 102:5 and to the poet Terence.¹⁷⁹ Theodoret, who like Theodore reads, ‘the glory of daughter Zion’, conceives ‘the glory’ as a vocative and comments that Zion is exhorted to mourn like an eagle that loses its feathers so that it cannot hunt and inspires no fear. Thus Zion will be bereft of God’s providence and will be vulnerable to the enemy because it is devoid of its inhabitants.¹⁸⁰ Among the four commentators Cyril is the only one who does not read ‘your baldness’ but ‘your widowhood’ (τὴν χηρείαν σου). He dwells on the eagle’s love for its chicks and applies the image to glorious Jerusalem or Samaria mourning its lost children.¹⁸¹ Hesychius also reads ‘your widowhood’, and notes that the eagle is said to persevere in its widowhood.¹⁸²

schendorf, Swete, Rahlfs, Ziegler, and Glenny, and in the translations by Giguet and Oberholzer (‘Miga 1:10 – 16 en die Septuagint’, 83, 85), Anderson and Freedman, NETS, and Septuaginta Deutsch Mic 1:15c is connected with the preceding clause, unlike the patristic commentators and Theophylact (In Michaeam 1, 6 [PG 126, 1073D]) except Theodore. See also Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 783 – 784.  Field, Origenis Hexaplorum … Fragmenta II, 990, mentions for Aquila and Symmachus: φαλάκρωσιν, ‘baldness’, and for Theodotion: rasuram, ‘scraping’ or ‘shaving’.  Theodore, In Michaeam 1, 16 (Sprenger, 197, 20 – 27).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 16, 520 – 532 (CCSL 76); Ps 102:5, ‘your old age (senectus!) will be renewed like an eagle’s’; Terence, Heautontimoroumenos 520 – 521, (LCL 22) ‘What is usually called an eagle’s old age has truly appeared.’  Theodoret, In Michaeam 1, 15 – 16 (PG 81, 1749CD). Although Theodoret often agrees with Theodore’s text, he does not follow the latter’s attribution of Mic 1:15c to the preceding passage.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 15 – 16 (Pusey, 623, 10 – 624, 19).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 32 (Eriksson, 155).

V.10 The eagle’s widowhood or baldness (Mic 1:15c–16)

69

In Jerome’s application of daughter Israel shaving and cutting her hair, and of her widowhood as of an eagle (Mic 1:15c–16b) to his own time he refers to the ‘Jewish destruction’, which signifies that all the grace, by which she once flourished before God, has completely departed from them. For where is the prophet? Where the teacher of the law? Where the protection by angels? Where is the victory hoped for by the few against the many? Jerusalem has been shaven bald, and she has lost all hair of her former glory, and her children, who cried out against the Lord, ‘Crucify, crucify him’, were led into captivity.¹⁸³

Subsequently Jerome quotes the commentary of someone – undoubtedly Origen – who suggested that the words, ‘shave and shear the children of your delights’ (Mic 1:16a according to Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew text) can be understood with regard to the human condition, so that God’s oracle is directed to Adam or to the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22; Gal 4:26). O human soul, o city formerly mother of the saints, you who previously were in Paradise and enjoyed the delights of various trees (Gen 2:9) and had most beautiful hair, now, since you have been rejected from the heights (cf. Ezek 28:17) and led away into Babylon and arrived into the place of captivity and lost your hair, scratch yourself and assume the demeanour of a penitent; and you who previously flew in the heights like an eagle, lament your children, lament your offspring that has been led into captivity away from you.¹⁸⁴

Most likely this passage is a literal or almost literal translation from Origen’s Commentary on Micah. It refers to the primordial fall of Adam as the representative of the rational creatures who dwelled in the heavenly Jerusalem. They were removed from this heavenly Paradise and exiled to the earth, here called Babylon, where as souls they were attached to human bodies. Beside the Biblical references, it alludes to Plato’s myth in Phaedrus 246 – 248, where the immortal soul in heaven is compared to a pair of winged horses and their charioteer (246A). The soul loses its feathers and falls down to the earth, where it puts on an earthly body (246C, 248C). In the interpretation of Mic 1:16 the eagle losing its hair is implicitly associated with Plato’s image of the soul losing its feathers. This view, including references to Ezek 28:11– 19 and allusions to Plato’s Phaedrus, is also attested in Origen’s works.¹⁸⁵

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 16, 532– 539 (CCSL 76); translation Cazares and Scheck, slightly adapted. Cf. 1 Cor 1:20; John 19:6.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 1, 16, 540 – 550 (CCSL 76).  Origen, Contra Celsum IV, 40; VI, 43 – 44 (SC 136; 147); De principiis I, 5, 4– 5; I, 8, 3; II, 8, 3 – 4; II, 9, 6 – 7 (Behr). See also R. Roukema, ‘The Retrieval of Origen’s Commentary on Micah’, StPatr 94 (2017), 131– 142; idem, ‘Origen on the Origin of Sin’, in H. Patmore, I. Rosen-

70

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Cyril applies Israel’s loss of its children also to the fate of the Jews who had Christ crucified and had to undergo the misfortunes of dispersion and exile as a result of this.¹⁸⁶

V.11 The fields divided up (Mic 2:1 – 5a) The second chapter deals with the troubles and wrongdoings that took place among Micah’s audience. I will mainly discuss the ancient interpretation of Mic 2:4– 5a. 1

They turned to devising troubles and working out evil things on their beds, and at break of day they executed them, for they did not lift up their hands to God. 2And they desired fields and robbed orphans and oppressed houses and robbed a man and his house, a man and his inheritance. 3Therefore this says the Lord, Behold, I devise evil things against this tribe, from which you will not remove your necks, and you will not walk upright immediately, because the time is evil. 4In that day a parable will be taken up upon you and a lament will be wailed in a song saying, ‘We were distressed by distress. The portion of my people was measured with a rope, and there was no one to prevent him from turning away. Our fields were divided up.’ 5aTherefore there shall be no one for you one who casts a cord by lot (Mic 2:1– 5a).

For the historical interpretation of Mic 2:4 I also render Jerome’s translation of its Hebrew text which reads, In that day, a parable will be taken up upon you and a song will be sung with sweet melody by those who say: ‘We are laid waste and spoiled; the portion of my people has been changed. How shall he depart from me, whereas he is returning who will divide our lands?’¹⁸⁷

According to Jerome, this means that the temple will be destroyed and that ‘the Assyrian’ is the subject of Israel’s question, ‘How shall he depart from me?’, ‘when he returns in order to divide my fields for himself by lot’.¹⁸⁸ Only further on, in his recapitulation, does Jerome refer to Israel’s ‘first exile by the Assyrians and the Babylonians’.¹⁸⁹

Zvi, J.K. Aitken (eds), The Origins of Evil in Early Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, Cambridge, forthcoming.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 1, 16 (Pusey, 624, 20 – 26).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 1– 5, 10 – 14 (CCSL 76); transl. Cazares, Scheck, modified.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 1– 5, 49 – 54 (CCSL 76); transl. Cazares, Scheck, modified.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 1– 5, 125 – 126 (CCSL 76).

V.11 The fields divided up (Mic 2:1 – 5a)

71

Cyril comments on the Septuagint version that Israel’s portion was measured by enemies and subjected to taxes and tribute, no one preventing them. The heifers (in Bethel and Dan), the idols Chamos, Dagon, Baal of Peor, Baal, and Samaria’s handmade idols were of no avail.¹⁹⁰ Theodoret, who reads ‘of those saying’ (λεγόντων for λέγων), explains that the hostile foreigners divided up the land that used to be farmed by the exiles, ‘with no one checking and stopping their greed’.¹⁹¹ After Jerome’s interpretation of the parable in Mic 2:4 in Hebrew, he proposes that the Septuagint version can also, in the second place, be understood with reference to Israel’s final and lasting captivity among the gentile nations, because ‘all things’ (described in the foregoing verses) happened to them because they crucified the Lord. He holds that, whatever the Jews attempted, failed immediately when Christ’s light and vengeance appeared. For up to the present (i. e. Jerome’s) time they have been subjected to the Roman empire, the Romans have divided their land among the gentiles, and Jews do not freely possess their ancient soil anymore.¹⁹² In Jerome’s ‘third exposition’ of this passage he comes back to the fall and exile of the human soul (see § V.10) and, moreover, he refers to its return to Paradise. All of this ‘third exposition’ is typically Origenian again. Alluding to Mic 2:1– 2 and other Biblical texts Jerome explains that the whole oracle is directed to the human soul, about which I have spoken above, which, falling from Paradise, arrived into the captivity in this world. We will see that all our reasoning consists of toil and trouble (Ps 89:10c), and our beds are full of evils (Mic 2:1b), and even the light that shines is mixed with obscurity, and what we consider by night, we accomplish in darkness (cf. Mic 2:1bc). For who of us lifts up holy hands to God without anger or reasoning (Mic 2:1d; 2 Tim 2:8)? Who does not desire the estates of this age (Mic 2:2a), having forgotten the enjoyment of Paradise?¹⁹³

This element of oblivion corresponds with Plato’s Phaedrus 248C and some of his other dialogues, according to which the soul has forgotten its heavenly origin.¹⁹⁴

 Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 4 (Pusey, 628, 14– 24); for the idols cf. § V.4.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 4 (PG 81, 1752BC); likewise Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 4 (Sprenger, 198, 22– 199, 1); he also reads λεγόντων.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 1– 5, 55 – 92 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 1– 5, 92– 101 (CCSL 76) G. Grützmacher, Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte II, Berlin 1906, 117– 118, already noted the Origenian purport of this passage.  Plato, Phaedo 75E; Respublica 621AB.

72

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

In his interpretation of Mic 2:4– 5a Jerome refers to the image of baldness in Mic 1:16, saying, Because all our glory has been shorn and we broadened our baldness or widowhood – for thus it is found in some manuscripts¹⁹⁵ – people are sent to lament us with Jeremiah and to apply a parable to us, and to say with the apostle, ‘I will grieve over many who have sinned and did not repent’ (2 Cor 12:21). For who would not lament, seeing the human souls as the varied furniture possessed by demons and various vices? One of the demons throws the cord of fornication, another the cord of greed, this one the cord of murder, that one stretches strings of perjury. The portion of God’s people has been divided by a cord, and the fields of its former holiness and of Paradise, in whose scent Isaac delighted, [smelling it] in his son Jacob (Gen 27:27), have been handed over to the Assyrians and to the Babylonian king.¹⁹⁶

The fields of the souls’ former holiness and of Paradise refer to the souls’ heavenly origin from which they have been removed, so that they live in exile under the dominion of the devil and his demons, represented by the Assyrians and the Babylonian king. In this passage Origen’s views can easily be recognized.¹⁹⁷ When, in conclusion of his comments on Mic 2:1– 5, Jerome characterizes his third, spiritual interpretation, he once more betrays Origen’s thoughts, according to which with Adam each of us has fallen from Paradise and is turned into the captivity in this world, from which the Lord, when he comes, will raise those who were crushed and will release the prisoners (Ps 144:14; 145:7– 8); and those who were once the captives of the devil he will lead back to his property, and thus the word of the Psalmist will be fulfilled, saying, ‘Ascending on high, he led captivity captive’ (Eph 4:8; Ps 67:19).¹⁹⁸

This quotation from Ps 67:19 (which reads, in fact, ‘you ascended on high, you led captivity captive’) in the reformulation of Eph 4:8 implies that in his ascension Christ led those who were the devil’s captives as his own captives back to the heavenly Paradise. This conclusion has its parallels in Origen’s works.¹⁹⁹

 See § V.10.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 1– 5, 111– 123 (CCSL 76).  See e. g. Origen, De principiis IV, 3, 9 (Behr); Hom. in Ieremiam (Lat.) 2, 2 (SC 238); Hom. in Ezechielem 11, 2; 12, 2– 3; 13, 1– 4 (SC 352). For Jacob’s inner field according to Gen 27:27, related to the heavenly Jerusalem, see his Comm. in Canticum III, 10, 4– 6 (SC 376); Hom. in Psalmos 36, 1, 2 (GCS NF 19, Origenes 13). A similar reference to the Garden of Eden is found in Genesis Rabbah 65, 22 (transl. H. Freedman, Midrash Rabbah. Genesis in Two Volumes II, London 1939, 599).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 1– 5, 127– 133 (CCSL 76).  E. g. Origen, Comm. in ep. ad Romanos V, 1, 556 – 565; V, 4, 23 – 32 V, 10, 149 – 152 (the last passage with a reference to the heavenly Jerusalem; AGLB 33); Comm. in Ioannem VI, 292 (SC 157); Comm. Series in Matthaeum 132 (GCS 38, Origenes 11, 269, 29 – 270, 4).

V.12 No tears! (Mic 2:5b–8)

73

To this ‘third exposition’ on the captivity of the soul Jerome proposes a fourth interpretation concerning the ‘captivity regarding the Church’. He explains that through sin each person leaves the Church, but later on Ezra, whose name means ‘helper’ and who stands for the Word of God, leads him back to Jerusalem.²⁰⁰ In this fourth interpretation it is not clear what it means that through sin each person leaves the Church. It is hardly imaginable that according to Jerome each person originally belonged to the Church but left it. However, this would be understandable if the pre-existent Church in heaven were meant, from which all souls – except the soul of Christ – fell away through sin.²⁰¹ Probably the lack of clarity is due to Jerome’s abbreviation of a longer passage in Origen’s Commentary. Cyril contrasts the evil time in which Israel will not walk up upright (Mic 2:3) with the removal of the burden and the rest given by Jesus Christ (Matt 11:28). He continues that some Jews honoured Christ in faith and shook off the weight, whereas the scribes, the Pharisees and the multitude that followed them remained burdened and could not walk upright. Thus the latter cannot look up with their mind to see the heavenly city.²⁰² Like Jerome, he also applies Mic 2:4 f–5a to the Jews who rejected Christ and thus forfeited their heavenly inheritance, so that it was given to the gentiles.²⁰³

V.12 No tears! (Mic 2:5b–8) The subsequent passage continues in the same vein, criticizing the people’s practices. 5b

In the assembly of the Lord 6do not weep with tears nor let them shed tears over these things, for he will not reject scorn, 7the one who says, ‘The house of Jacob provoked the Spirit of the Lord to anger.’ Are these things his practices? Are not his words good with him and have they not proceeded upright? 8And previously my people resisted in hostility to its peace; they stripped off its skin to remove hope, the ruin of war. (Mic 2:5b–8)

Jerome admits that the Hebrew text is clearer to him and that in the Septuagint this passage is incoherent and very difficult.²⁰⁴ He notes that the words ‘in the

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 1– 5, 133 – 136 (CCSL 76); for Ezra, who led the Israelite captives back to their land, see Ezra 7– 10.  See Roukema, ‘Origen on the Origin of Sin’, forthcoming.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 3 (Pusey, 626, 19 – 627, 25).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 5 (Pusey, 629, 8 – 630, 13).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 6 – 8, 184– 196 (CCSL 76).

74

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

assembly of the Lord’ (ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ κυρίου) conclude the passage in Hebrew, and are the beginning of the subsequent passage in the Septuagint.²⁰⁵ His observation that in the Septuagint these words belong to the following clause is confirmed by Theodore,²⁰⁶ Cyril,²⁰⁷ and Theodoret.²⁰⁸ The editions by Tischendorf, Swete, Rahlfs, Ziegler, and Glenny, and the translations by Andersen and Freedman, NETS, and Septuaginta Deutsch connect the words, ‘in the assembly of the Lord’ (Mic 2:5b), with the preceding clause, ‘Therefore there shall not be for you one who casts a cord by lot.’ As for Tischendorf and Glenny this is particularly strange, because their editions are based on Codex Vaticanus which, in agreement with the patristic partition, has a high dot between ἐν κλήρῳ (‘by lot’) and ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ, and not between ἐν ἐκκλησίᾳ κυρίου and the subsequent words. Among the translators that I consulted, only Brenton and Giguet align with the patristic tradition. My translation of Mic 2:8a, ‘And previously my people resisted in hostility to its peace’, is based on the partition of the four patristic commentators,²⁰⁹ and of Codices Washingtonianus and Vaticanus, which have a high dot after κατέναντι τῆς εἰρήνης αὐτοῦ, ‘opposite to its peace’. This partition is followed in the editions and translations by Brenton (who has a comma after ἀντέστη, ‘resisted’, however) and Glenny, and the translations by Giguet and by Andersen and Freedman. Unlike the patristic reading, Tischendorff, Swete, Rahlfs, and Ziegler read a high dot after ἀντέστη, and relate κατέναντι τῆς εἰρήνης αὐτοῦ with the following words. This partition is followed by NETS and Septuaginta Deutsch.

Theodore’s interpretation reads that when they – the people – gather, they should not weep without repentance.²¹⁰ Cyril agrees, noting that repentance is useless if one does not stop committing the evil deeds.²¹¹ He identifies the people’s ‘skin’ (Mic 2:8b) with its ‘hope in God’ that its leaders had taken away from it.²¹² Theodoret interprets ‘its skin’ as God’s providence and as ‘the good hope’.²¹³

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 1– 8, 15; 27– 30; 151– 152 (CCSL 76). The question mark that Adriaen put at the end of, In Ecclesia Domini nolite flere lacrimis, neque plorent super his? (l. 151– 152), is erroneous. See also Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 784.  Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 5 – 7 (Sprenger, 199, 14).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 6 – 7 (Pusey, 630, 14; 631, 11– 12).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 6 – 7 (PG 81, 1752C); also in Theophylact, In Michaeam 2, 6 (PG 126, 1081C).  Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 8 (Sprenger, 200, 8 – 9); Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 6 – 8, 155 – 156; 192– 193 (CCSL 76); Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 7– 8 (Pusey, 632, 10 – 11; 19 – 20); Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 8 (PG 81, 1753A); thus also Theophylact, In Michaeam 2, 7– 8 (PG 126, 1084C).  Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 5 – 7 (Sprenger, 199, 14– 25).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 6 – 7 (Pusey, 630, 18 – 631, 14); likewise, Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 6 – 7 (PG 81, 1752D).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 8 (Pusey, 634, 8 – 635, 14).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 8 (PG 81, 1753A).

V.12 No tears! (Mic 2:5b–8)

75

After his observation on the incoherence and difficulty of Mic 2:5b–8 in the Septuagint, Jerome applies the exhortation, ‘In the assembly (ecclesia) of the Lord do not weep with tears nor let them shed tears over these things’ (Mic 2:5b– 6b), to the Church. Its members should not be sad and anxious about the things of the world and about the loss of properties, for they are exhorted to rejoice always (Phil 4:4) and to be thankful for God’s judgments. Christians are not forbidden to weep, however, since ‘blessed are those who weep, for they will laugh’ (cf. Luke 6:21), but Jerome admonishes them not to weep for present things like the death of a relative, taxes, or illnesses. Instead, they must consider the things that are to come, and regret that they still have to live in this ‘tent of death’ (i. e. the body; cf. 2 Cor 5:1).²¹⁴ With reference to the clause, ‘the house of Jacob provoked the Spirit of the Lord to anger’ (Mic 2:7a), Jerome warns his Christian readers not to apply these words to the Jews because they killed the prophets, worshipped idols, and crucified the Son of God. A Christian who does so will suffer scorn (cf. Mic 2:6c), will be judged with the measure with which he has judged (Matt 7:2) and will be mocked because of his own fall. With a rhetorical question Jerome wonders what kind of justice this is, that the branches of the wild olive tree (i. e. the gentile Christians) insult the branches of the olive that were broken off (i. e. non-Christian Jews) because of their unbelief (Rom 11:17– 20).²¹⁵ Jerome’s translation of Mic 2:7bc may be rendered as, ‘if these are his practices, are not his words good with him and have they not walked upright?’ In his understanding, this refers to God’s ‘practices’ (adinuentiones, ἐπιτηδεύματα) and thoughts or dispensation, which held that the Jewish people stumbled so that the fullness of the gentiles might come in and later on, when Israel comes to believe, all may be saved through God’s mercy (cf. Rom 11:11, 25 – 26).²¹⁶ Jerome continues that, if the branches of the olive were broken off and branches of the wild olive were grafted, ‘you’ (i. e. the gentile Christian) should not insult the former and imagine that ‘you’ please God by reading ‘his words’ (Mic 2:7c), i. e. his Scriptures. These Scriptures are only useful to the reader who also puts them into practice. Jerome explains that God’s words are ‘good’ if they are ‘with him’ (Mic 2:7c), which means, with the preacher of the good news, ‘whose heart and lips are in agreement’. For if the heart of a preacher is far from God

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 6 – 8, 196 – 207 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 6 – 8, 207– 217 (CCSL 76). Adriaen’s comma after alienus in l. 214 should be deleted.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 6 – 8, 217– 221 (CCSL 76). The references to Rom 11:11, 17– 20, 25 – 26 have clearly been inspired by Origen; see his Comm. in ep. ad Romanos VIII, 11– 12 (AGLB 34); J. Cohen, ‘The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation: Romans 11:25 – 26 in Patristic and Medieval Exegesis’, HThR 98 (2005), 247– 281 (255 – 263).

76

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

and he is defiled by sins and does not have the gifts of prophecy, teaching, and interpretation (1 Cor 12:8, 10, 28; Rom 12:7), and only speaks from his own experience, ‘God’s good words are not with him’.²¹⁷ Jerome interprets the clause, ‘my people resisted in hostility to its peace’ (Mic 2:8a), as words of Christ concerning Israel’s opposition during his passion, so that it acted against its own peace. In keeping with this interpretation, Jerome quotes Christ’s saying to Jerusalem, ‘If you had known what would bring you peace’ (Luke 19:42).²¹⁸ Jerome’s comment on the words, ‘they stripped off his skin to remove hope, the ruin of war’ (Mic 2:8b), reads that, once peace was lost, they (i. e. the Jews) stripped off their own skin, which refers to God’s protection, so that their beauty that was due to God’s mercy changed to hideousness. Lacking peace and God’s protection, in wars they could not withstand their enemies, neither those who led them into captivity nor those who daily ruined their souls by means of blasphemy.²¹⁹ Jerome does not explicate what he means by this blasphemy; he, or Origen from whom he probably borrowed the interpretation of this passage, probably had in mind the alleged cursing of the Christians in the Jewish synagogues. In that case, the intended enemies are evil spirits that inspired the Jews to pronounce such curses.²²⁰ We may note a contrast between Jerome’s initial admonition that a Christian should not insult the Jews because they do not believe in Christ and his concluding harsh words on them. Undoubtedly, he thought that he was just interpreting Micah’s text in the light of its fulfilment. An isolated, free quotation from Mic 2:7– 8 is found in a writing attributed to Hippolytus of Rome and refuting the monarchianist Noetus. Although Hippolytus’ authorship of this work has been contested,²²¹ it has also been defended.²²²

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 6 – 8, 222– 251 (CCSL 76). In l. 238, for iniquinatur one should read inquinatur; as in PL 25, 1170C and Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 21.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 6 – 8, 251– 255 (CCSL 76). Jerome ignores the term prius (ἔμπροσθεν, ‘previously’) from his translation of the Septuagint and, by using the term contrarius (l. 252), alludes to his translation of the Hebrew text (l. 148 – 149: Et e contrario populus meus in adversarium consurrexit; ‘and on the contrary, my people has risen up as an enemy’).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 6 – 8, 255 – 267 (CCSL 76). In l. 256, the words pellem suam excoriauerunt, ‘they stripped off their own skin’, imply that Jerome interpreted τὴν δορὰν αὐτοῦ, ‘his skin’, as τὴν δορὰν αὑτοῦ, ‘his own skin’ (pellem suam), although ἐξέδειραν would require the plural αὑτῶν. Apparently, he had forgotten that in his translation of the lemma, in l. 156 – 157, he had written pellem eius excoriauerunt, ‘they stripped off his skin’.  See Justin Martyr, Dialogus cum Tryphone 16, 4 (Bobichon). Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 22, correctly interprets the second category of enemies as ‘les puissances infernales’.  See J. Frickel, ‘Hippolyts Schrift Contra Noetum: ein Pseudo-Hippolyt’, in H.C. Brennecke, E.L. Grasmück, C. Markschies (eds), Logos. Festschrift für Luise Abramowski zum 8. Juli 1993

V.12 No tears! (Mic 2:5b–8)

77

I take it as a contemporaneous refutation of Noetus, from the beginning of the third century. The author argues that the impassible Word of God suffered in his flesh, as the prophets testify. The adapted quotation reads, For thus speaks the blessed Micah: ‘The house of Jacob provoked the Spirit of the Lord to anger. These things are their practices. [Are] not his words good with them and do they not proceed (πορεύονται) upright? And they resisted in hostility the countenance (κατὰ πρόσωπον) of his peace, they stripped off his glory (δόξαν).’²²³

According to a brief comment, ‘this means that he suffered in the flesh’, to which the author adds a quotation of Rom 8:3 – 4 (about God sending his Son in the likeness of sinful flesh) as a subsequent argument.²²⁴ One may surmise that the author applied his version of Mic 2:7– 8 to the Jewish resistance to Christ as the representative of God’s peace, and in any case accused Noetus of this resistance. The final reference to Christ’s glory replaces the original term ‘skin’ (δοράν). In the context of the Trinitarian debates, Basil of Caesarea quotes the clause, ‘The house of Jacob provoked the Spirit of the Lord to anger’ (Mic 2:7a), as a warning against the view that the Holy Spirit is inferior to God the Father (ca 374).²²⁵ Quite differently, Hesychius applies this text to those who irritated Christ by saying that he cast out the demons by Beelzebul.²²⁶ In Hesychius’ notes, other elements of this passage are also applied to Christ. Thus the clause, ‘his words are good with him’ (Mic 2:7c), are interpreted with regard to Christ’s words with the people. The ‘hostility’ (Mic 2:8a) concerns Christ, ‘opposite to his peace’ means ‘against the peace that he proclaimed’, ‘they stripped off his

(BZNW 67), Berlin/New York 1993, 87– 123, who holds that it defends the Christology of Apollinaris against Marcellus of Ancyra, ca 374.  M. Simonetti, Ippolito. Contro Noeto (BP 35), Bologna 2000, 70 – 139 (however, he calls his conclusion ‘quanto mai provvisoria’, 127). H.-J. Sieben, Tertullian. Aduersus Praxean. Gegen Praxeas (FC 34), Freiburg etc. 2001, 72, attributes it to another, eastern Hippolytus who was contemporaneous with his namesake from Rome. Cf. § IV.2.3.2; C. Moreschini, E. Norelli, Handbuch der antiken christlichen Literatur (transl. from Italian), Gütersloh 2007, 132, ascribe Contra Noetum to Hippolytus the exegete.  Hippolytus, Contra Noetum 15, 4 (BP 35).  Hippolytus, Contra Noetum 15, 4– 5 (BP 35).  Basil, De Spiritu Sancto XIX, 50 (SC 17bis; erroneously with reference to Ps 105:32). As other warnings he also quotes Eph 4:30; Acts 7:51; Isa 63:10. A similar, though abbreviated passage in Ps.-Athanasius, De Communi Essentia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti 25 (PG 28, 57A). Ps.-Didymus, De Trinitate II, 18 (PG 39, 724C–725A), quotes Mic 2:7a as a testimony to the equality of the Spirit and God the Father.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 41 (Eriksson, 155). Cf. Matt 9:34; 12:24.

78

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

skin’ (Mic 2:8b) concerns his sufferings, and ‘to remove hope, the ruin of war’ (Mic 2:8b) means that they – Christ’s adversaries – tried to remove the hope in Christ which crushed the warfare of the demons.²²⁷ We may conclude that Mic 2:7– 8 was interpreted both with regard to the Jews who rejected Christ and in Christological debates of the third and fourth centuries.

V.13 Everlasting mountains (Mic 2:9 – 11a) The leaders of the people are addressed critically in these words, 9

Therefore the leaders of my people will be thrown out from the houses of their luxury, because of their wicked practices they were rejected. Draw near to the everlasting mountains. 10 Arise and go, because this rest is not for you. Due to uncleanness you were corrupted with corruption. 11You were pursued without anyone pursuing (Mic 2:9 – 11a).

In Theodore’s understanding, the ‘everlasting mountains’ (ὄρεσιν αἰωνίοις, Mic 2:9c) to which the leaders should draw near refer to the territory (ὅρια) of the enemies which long ago God prepared for his people so as to dwell there in captivity; so they will not live quietly here, that is, in their own land.²²⁸ Cyril explains that the leaders of the peoples (λαῶν: Judah and Samaria) had to go to the enemies because this seemed attractive to them; more precisely, he holds that Ararat (τὰ ᾿Aραράτ) in the land of the Persians and the Armenians is meant, called ‘everlasting’ either because these leaders had to spend a long time there, or because these mountains were famous since the beginning (ἐξ αἰῶνος), perhaps because Noah’s ark rests there.²²⁹ Theodoret’s interpretation reads that, with the others, the kings and priests had to live in a foreign land because of their lawlessness, and had to go to these mountains which the Creator planted there from the beginning (ἄνωθεν), for they (the exiles) were deprived of living here (in their own land) because of their sin.²³⁰ In my translation of Mic 2:10, ‘Arise and go, because this rest is not for you. Due to uncleanness you were corrupted with corruption’, the words ‘Due to uncleanness’ are connected with the fol-

 Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 42– 43, 45 – 48 (Eriksson, 156).  Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 9 (Sprenger, 200, 27– 201, 1). In Mic 2:10a, Theodore, Cyril and Theodoret read αὕτη ἀνάπαυσις, not αὕτη ἡ ἀνάπαυσις as Rahlfs and Ziegler do with Codex Alexandrinus.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 9 – 10 (Pusey, 636, 14– 637, 2); Gen 8:4.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 10 – 12 (PG 81, 1753AB).

V.13 Everlasting mountains (Mic 2:9 – 11a)

79

lowing clause. This choice is based on Theodore, Didymus, Jerome, Cyril, and Theodoret,²³¹ and deviates from the modern editors Brenton, Tischendorf, Swete, Rahlfs, Ziegler, and Glenny, and from the translations by Brenton, Giguet, Andersen and Freedman, NETS, and Glenny, all of whom relate the words ‘due to uncleanness’ with the foregoing clause, ‘this rest is not for you’. Codex Alexandrinus does not have any punctuation here, and Codex Vaticanus reads a high dot after φθορᾶ (‘corruption’). Only Septuaginta Deutsch relates ‘Wegen der Unreinheit’ with the following words, yet without referring to the patristic tradition.²³²

Origen quotes the clause, ‘Therefore the leaders of my people will be thrown out from the houses of their luxury’ (Mic 2:9a), in his interpretation of Jesus’ cleansing of the temple in Jerusalem (Matt 21:12). He interprets the dove-sellers of this story as ‘those who entrust the churches to greedy, tyrannical, insensitive, and irreverent bishops, presbyters, or deacons’, and then quotes Jer 4:22 and Mic 2:9a as prophetic testimonies to such leaders.²³³ Jerome first briefly applies Mic 2:9a to the Jewish scribes and Pharisees who after Christ’s passion were thrown out from Jerusalem, and then, like Origen and far more extensively, to leaders of the Church who lead luxurious society lives instead of taking care of the widows and the poor. Such clerics will be cast out to the ‘outer darkness’ (Matt 22:13).²³⁴ As we may expect, the exhortation to draw near to the everlasting mountains has been interpreted in a spiritual sense. Gregory of Nazianzus quotes, ‘Draw near to the everlasting mountains. Arise and go, because this rest is not for you’ (Mic 2:9c–10a), when he explains his feeling about being ordained a bishop. He means that his pastoral ministry should not be orientated to the earthly things that do not give rest, but on the heavenly things.²³⁵ Ambrose quotes the exhortation, ‘Draw near to the everlasting mountains’ (Mic 2:9c), in his discourse on the Flight from the World, in which he opposes  Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 9 – 11 (Sprenger, 201, 1– 4); Didymus, In Psalmos 34, 7 (Toura Papyrus 209, 8; 13; 18; PTA 8); Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 9 – 10, 355 – 363; 372– 373 (CCSL 76); Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 10; II, 3, 5 (Pusey, 638, 4– 11; 347, 13 – 14); Glaphyra in Leuiticum 3 (PG 69, 572B); Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 10 (PG 81, 1753B); also Theophylact, In Michaeam 2, 10 (PG 126, 1088C–1089A).  In Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen II, 2370, Utzschneider only notes that Ziegler’s and Rahlfs’ syntactical attribution of the first three words of Mic 2:11 to v. 10 differs from Codex Vaticanus, which, as noted above, according to my consultation of the manuscript (online), reads a high dot after φθορᾶ. See also Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 785.  Origen, Comm. in Matthaeum XVI, 22 (GCS 40). For a survey of Origen’s view of the clergy of his days see A. von Harnack, Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes I–II (TU 42, 3 – 4), Leipzig 1918 – 1919, vol. I, 65 – 87; vol. II, 129 – 141.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 9 – 10, 298 – 332 (CCSL 76).  Gregory of Nazianzus, Orationes 9, 3 (SC 405); also 14, 21 (PG 35, 885A).

80

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

these mountains, understood spiritually as a preparatory stage on the way to heaven, to the vanity of the present world from which a Christian should hold himself aloof. In this sense he also quotes the following words, ‘Arise from here (surgite hinc), for this is not a rest for you. Due to uncleanness you have been corrupted with corruption; you have suffered pursuit’ (Mic 2:10 – 11a).²³⁶ Jerome interprets the ‘everlasting mountains’ (Mic 2:9c) as either angels or prophets, with reference to Ps 86:1 (‘His foundations are on the holy mountains’) and Ps 120:1 (‘I lift up my eyes to the mountains’). To these mountains the Christian draws near as Moses drew near to God, not spatially but by merit.²³⁷ Elsewhere, however, Jerome interprets the ‘everlasting mountains’ as the apostles.²³⁸ Like Ambrose, Jerome explains the following words, ‘Arise and go, because there is no rest for you here (hic requies)’ (Mic 2:10ab), as an appeal not to seek one’s rest in this world but to strive for heaven.²³⁹ Cyril holds that the exhortation to ‘draw near to the everlasting mountains’ (Mic 2:9c) may be applied to the Jews who followed the scribes and Pharisees and did not believe in Christ; then the ‘everlasting mountains’ emerged, namely the heralds and ministers of the new covenant. By drawing near to these spiritual mountains unbelievers will find the rest and freedom from sin that the literal law of Moses could not give. According to Cyril, the incitement, ‘Arise and go, because this rest is not for you’ (Mic 2:10a), means that you do not find rest in the law, but you should ‘move on and transfer through faith to the teachings of Christ’.²⁴⁰ Hesychius interprets the everlasting mountains only as ‘the prophets’, as we also found it with Jerome. Like Cyril, Hesychius notes that the words ‘Arise and go’ are said to the Synagogue, and that ‘this rest’ refers to the rest ‘that rests in the shadow of the law’, i. e. the spiritual rest that is hidden in the literal law.²⁴¹ Jerome’s translation of Mic 2:11a LXX reads, fugistis nemine persequente, ‘you have fled without anyone pursuing’, although in fact the Septuagint reads, κατεδιώχθητε οὐδενὸς διώκοντος, ‘you were pursued, without anyone pursuing’. He explains that this is said to those who are corrupted because of their uncleanness (Mic 2:10c) and do not dare to fight with their enemies, as it is also said

 Ambrose, De fuga saeculi 5, 31 (SC 576); transl. M.P. McHugh, Saint Ambrose: Seven Exegetical Works (FaCh 65), Washington D.C. 1972, 305, adapted, as I adopted the patristic punctuation as expounded above.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 9 – 10, 333 – 345 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Isaiam XIV, 18 (AGLB 35), on Isa 52:7– 8.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 9 – 10, 346 – 354 (CCSL 76). Like Ambrose, Jerome reads αὕτη ἀνάπαυσις, ‘this rest’, as ταύτῃ ἀνάπαυσις, ‘here … rest’.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 9 – 10 (Pusey, 637, 3 – 638, 3); translation Hill.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 50 – 52 (Eriksson, 156); cf. Heb 4:3 – 11; 8:5; 10:1.

V.14 Spirit, lie, and captivity (Mic 2:11b–12)

81

in Lev 26:36, ‘the sound of a fluttering leaf will pursue you, and you will flee, without anybody (nullo, οὐθενός) pursuing’.²⁴² Jerome does not explicate which period of Israelite or Jewish history he has in mind. More interesting is his theological comment for which he refers to ‘the commentary of someone’ – undoubtedly Origen – who explained John 1:3, ‘all things came into being through him (the Logos, Christ), and without him nothing (nihil, οὐδὲ ἕν) came into being’, in the sense that ‘nothing’ refers to evil (malitia), which in turn means the devil who, then, had come into being without Christ. Commenting on Mic 2:10c–11a Jerome writes, ‘If therefore evil, or the devil, is nothing, and those who have been corrupted by corruption have fled while nobody, which is nothing, pursues, it is the devil who pursues them in this nothing.’²⁴³ This interpretation of the devil as ‘nothing’ is also found in Origen’s Commentary on John, so that in Jerome’s comment on Mic 2:10c–11a we can clearly recognize his master’s hand.²⁴⁴ Like Jerome, Cyril first interprets Mic 2:11a with regard to the captivity and flight to foreigners without any historical specification, but subsequently he applies it to the Jews who fell into apostasy although they might have lived in prosperity if they had honoured Christ.²⁴⁵ Hesychius briefly explains Mic 2:11a in the sense that ‘they (the Jews) flee Christ although he does not pursue [them]’.²⁴⁶

V.14 Spirit, lie, and captivity (Mic 2:11b–12) The critical, but also puzzling words continue, 11b

A spirit established a lie; it dripped on you as wine and intoxicating drink. And it will be from the drop of this people; 12when Jacob is being gathered, he will be gathered together with all. Receiving I shall receive the remnant of Israel; I shall establish their removal at the same place, like sheep in distress, like a flock in the middle of its stall that will leap away from people (Mic 2:11b–12).

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 9 – 10, 372– 379 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 9 – 10, 379 – 387 (CCSL 76).  Origen, Comm. in Ioannem II, 92– 99 (SC 120). It is not absolutely certain, however, that Jerome found this interpretation in Origen’s Commentary on Micah, since strictly speaking he refers to someone’s exposition of John 1:3, by which he meant Origen’s Commentary on John. Yet we may assume that Origen repeated his interpretation of ‘nothing’ in John 1:3 in his comments on ‘nobody’ in Mic 2:11a.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 11 (Pusey, 638, 22– 639, 7).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 53 (Eriksson, 156).

82

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

The translation, ‘A spirit established a lie’ (Mic 2:11b), follows NETS and the editions of the Septuagint, all of which read πνεῦμα ἔστησε (or ἔστησεν) ψεῦδος.²⁴⁷ This reading is found in Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus and is confirmed by Cyril’s and Theophylact’s Commentaries,²⁴⁸ but Theodore,²⁴⁹ Jerome, and Theodoret²⁵⁰ read πνεῦμα ἔστησε ψευδές, in agreement with Codex Washingtonianus and many later manuscripts.²⁵¹ Jerome observes that according to most expositors πνεῦμα ἔστησε ψευδές means ‘a lying spirit stood up’ (spiritus stetit mendax), but he states that one should understand and translate these words as ‘the Spirit made stand the lie’ (spiritus statuit mendacium), because ψευδές is to be understood as τὸ ψεῦδος, ‘the lie’.²⁵² His exposition demonstrates that in Jerome’s understanding the text refers to God’s Spirit who made stand or stopped the lie. He explains that, just as doctors set (statuunt) a putrid wound and burn it by cauterizing powder, ‘thus by God’s Spirit he – apparently: God – puts an end to the lie (ita spiritu Dei finem posuit mendacio), so that God’s people should not be overturned by the words of the false prophets any longer’.²⁵³ Since for ‘cauterizing’ Jerome uses not only a Latin but also a Greek term (cauterio uel puluere καυστικῷ), it is likely that he borrowed this interpretation from Origen’s Commentary, written in Greek. The expositors to whom Jerome refers may have interpreted these words by aligning them with the πνεῦμα ψευδές that stood up (ἔστη) mentioned in 3 Kgdms 22:21– 23 and 2 Chr 18:20 – 22, but he does not refer to these texts here.²⁵⁴ The interpretation of πνεῦμα as the spirit of false prophets comes to light in Theodore’s succinct explanation, which reads, ‘trusting in the deceit of the false prophets (τῇ τῶν ψευδοπροφητῶν ἀπάτῃ) became the cause of all [this] for you’.²⁵⁵ This may be the interpretation that Jerome ascribed to ‘most exposi-

 Thus Brenton, Tischendorf, Swete, Rahlfs, Ziegler, and Glenny. See also Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 785 – 786.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 11; II, 3, 5 (Pusey, 639, 12; 647, 15); Theophylact, In Michaeam 2, 11 (PG 126, 1092A).  Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 11 (Sprenger, 201, 7).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 11 (PG 81, 1753B; in fact, he reads πνεῦμα γὰρ ἔστησε ψευδές).  See Ziegler’s critical apparatus.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 454– 458 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 458 – 463; 477– 478 (CCSL 76).  In his translation of these books Jerome reads stetit and spiritus mendax (Vulgata, ed. Weber).  Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 11 (Sprenger, 201, 8 – 9); translation Hill, adapted.

V.14 Spirit, lie, and captivity (Mic 2:11b–12)

83

tors’.²⁵⁶ Theodoret comments, ‘the spirit of deceit (ἐξαπάτης) that speaks in the false prophets imparted to you false (ψευδεῖς) prophecies’.²⁵⁷ Apparently he considered ψευδές the direct object, not the adjective to πνεῦμα. Cyril, who reads ψεῦδος, comments that ‘an evil spirit established a lie as a snare for Ephraim’.²⁵⁸ Theodore, Cyril, Theodoret, and Hesychius interpret the following words, ‘it dripped (ἐστάλαξεν) on you as wine and intoxicating drink’ (Mic 2:11c) with regard to these false prophecies.²⁵⁹ Theodore and Theodoret read the clauses, ‘And it will be from the drop (ἐκ τῆς σταγόνος) of this people, when Jacob is being gathered, he will be gathered together with all’ (Mic 2:11d–12a), as one sentence. According to Theodore, ‘the drop of this people’ refers to the deceit of the false prophets (Mic 2:11bc) through which all of the people unescapably had to undergo the current punishment.²⁶⁰ Theodoret thinks that this deceit of the false prophets will effectuate that ‘you too’ will reach the ten tribes in captivity;²⁶¹ this implies that in his view these words address the southern kingdom of Jerusalem, and that ‘with all’ (σὺν πᾶσιν) refers to both the northern and the southern kingdoms. More elaborately, Cyril interprets the ‘drop’ as the rapid aggravation of Ephraim’s (i. e. the northern kingdom’s) idolatry and allegiance to the false prophets in which the whole people was united.²⁶² Jerome gives a spiritual interpretation of Mic 2:11d–12a in two lemma’s which I shall discuss below. Here it may be noted that unlike the Greek commentators he connects ‘with all’ with the following words (cum omnibus suscipiens suscipiam reliquias de Israel).²⁶³

 My search in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae demonstrated that Jerome’s observation on the expositors reading ‘a lying spirit stood up’, which is syntactically possible, has not been preserved explicitly in other extant Greek works.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 11 (PG 81, 1753B); translation Hill.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 11 (Pusey, 639, 20 – 21). I do not follow Hill’s translation (208 – 209) here. See also Pusey 640, 1– 8 (with the Pharisees a spirit established a lie).  Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 11 (Sprenger, 201, 14– 18); Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 12 (Pusey, 639, 21– 24; 641, 4– 5); Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 11 (PG 81, 1753B); Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 55 (Eriksson, 157).  Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 11 (Sprenger, 201, 14– 18).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 11– 12 (PG 81, 1753C), where I doubt the correctness of the attribution of the words ‘with all’ (σὺν πᾶσιν) to the following words. More likely, Theodoret followed Theodore and Cyril. The attribution of σὺν πᾶσιν to the preceding words is also found in Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 57 (Eriksson, 156), and Theophylact, In Michaeam 2, 11 (PG 126, 1092BC).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 12; 3, 5 (Pusey, 640, 12– 641, 8; 647, 11– 648, 3).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 492; cf. 504– 505 (CCSL 76). See also Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 786 – 787.

84

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

According to Theodore, the clauses, ‘Receiving I shall receive the remnant of Israel; I shall establish their removal together (ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ θήσομαι τὴν ἀποστροφὴν αὐτῶν)’ (Mic 2:12bc), mean that the Lord will lead both those taken previously by the Assyrians and those taken later (i. e. by the Babylonians) away from their own places into captivity (ἀποστραφήσεσθε εἰς αἰχμαλοσίαν).²⁶⁴ More concisely, Theodoret gives the same interpretation.²⁶⁵ Likewise, Cyril explains that the Lord will punish all together, both the remnant of Israel and those brought in addition (i. e. the southern kingdom); unlike Theodore and Theodoret, however, he interprets ἀποστροφή as God’s aversion from all of his people, which happens after he demonstrated his patience, waiting for the conversion (ἐπιστροφή) of the deceived. If this does not happen, God reluctantly withdraws (ἀποστρέφεται) so that those who experience it suffer from his ‘aversions’ (ἀποστροφαί).²⁶⁶ Concerning Jerome, for this paragraph it is noteworthy that he translates ἀποστροφή as auersio (ponam auersionem eorum sicut oues in tribulatione, ‘I shall put their turning away like sheep in affliction’). His interpretation reads that meanwhile, as long as God did not yet receive the remnant of Israel, he will put them in tribulation because they have turned away (auersi sunt) from him.²⁶⁷ He does not note the difference to the Hebrew text of Mic 2:12, which does not have an equivalent to ἀποστροφή. Hesychius explains ἀποστροφή as ‘the flight (φυγή) from the lie to the truth’.²⁶⁸ The commentators do not acknowledge any embarrassment about the meaning of ἀποστροφή, but this feeling may be deduced from the fact that their expositions of this term vary considerably. According to Theodore and Theodoret, it refers to God sending his people away into captivity. According to Cyril, it means that in the end God shows his aversion from his people that is unwilling to convert. According to Jerome, it implies that the people itself had turned away from God. Hesychius interprets it as ‘the flight from the lie’. In addition, Theophylact aligns with Theodore and Theodoret by referring to the captivity, but moreover he gives ἐγκατάλειψις (‘abandonment’) as a synonym to ἀποστροφή.²⁶⁹ Unfortunately, however, he does not clarify whether this has to be understood in its active sense of the people that abandons God or in its passive sense of the people being abandoned by God.²⁷⁰ Yet in spite of this variety of

      

Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 12 (Sprenger, 201, 19 – 24). Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 11– 12 (PG 81, 1753C). Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 12 (Pusey, 641, 8 – 20). Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 506 – 509 (CCSL 76). Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 59 (Eriksson, 156). Theophylact, In Michaeam 2, 11– 12 (PG 126, 1092C). See G.W.H. Lampe, A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961, 400.

V.14 Spirit, lie, and captivity (Mic 2:11b–12)

85

interpretations of ἀποστροφή, it is noteworthy that the general patristic understanding of this term is ‘turning away’, ‘removal’, in whichever sense this should be conceived. Remarkably, however, this general patristic understanding is not shared by the translations by Brenton, Giguet, NETS, Septuaginta Deutsch, Muraoka,²⁷¹ and Glenny, who understand ἀποστροφή as ‘return’. Only Andersen and Freedman unconsciously align with the patristic understanding, for they translate τὴν ἀποστροφὴν αὐτῶν as ‘their turning aside’.²⁷² Origen, in his expositions of the Song of Songs, interprets ‘the drop of this people’ from which ‘Jacob will be gathered’ (Mic 2:11d–12a) as an allusion to Christ’s descent to the earth and incarnation. He did not only gather Jacob, but even all the nations that ‘are considered like a drop from a bucket’ (Isa 40:15); according to Origen, ‘the drop’ refers at the same time to Christ who emptied himself (Phil 2:6 – 7), to the gentiles, and to the remnant of Jacob.²⁷³ Eusebius explains that ‘the drop’ corresponds with the remnant of those who will receive salvation, like the apostles through whom Christ was made known throughout the world, so that they are included in the gathering of Jacob.²⁷⁴ Jerome, who reads Mic 2:11b as, ‘the Spirit made stand the lie’ (spiritus statuit mendacium; see above), explains that ‘the Spirit of God who put an end to the lie in the false prophets, he himself will drip for you into wine and drunkenness’. He interprets this as an image of God’s wisdom which can be found in humans as a minuscule drop, which even the apostles knew in part (1 Cor 13:9).²⁷⁵ Jerome’s interpretation of ‘the drop’ (Mic 2:11d) is similar to Eusebius’ view; most probably both Eusebius and Jerome derive their observations from Origen’s Commentary on Micah. Alluding to Christ, Jerome says that ‘from this wisdom, that is, from the drop of the Jewish people – for he came only for the lost sheep of the house of Israel (Matt 10:6; 15:24) – Jacob has been gathered’.²⁷⁶ His interpretation of the next lemma clarifies that by the gathering of Jacob he means the gathering of the Jews who believed in Christ.²⁷⁷ His following lemma reads, ‘Receiving with all I shall receive the remnant of Israel’ (Cum omnibus suscipiens suscipiam reli-

 T. Muraoka, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Louvain 2009, 85.  Andersen, Freedman, Micah, 332.  Origen, Comm. in Canticum II, 10, 8 – 9 (SC 375); Hom. in Canticum II, 3 (SC 37bis, 110).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica II, 3, 145 – 147 (GCS 23).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 477– 487 (CCSL 76). Although his translation of Mic 2:11c reads Stillauit in uinum et ebrietatem (l. 454– 455), in his interpretation he changes the perfect tense to a future tense: ipse stillabit in uinum et ebrietatem (l. 478 – 479).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 487– 489 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 498 – 501 (CCSL 76).

86

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

quias de Israel; Mic 2:12b).²⁷⁸ In his understanding, cum omnibus (‘with all’) refers to ‘the fullness of the gentiles’ (Rom 11:25); only after all these gentiles will have believed in Christ will also the remnant of Israel be saved. Jerome explains that ‘the remnant of Israel’ does not refer to contemporaneous Christians from the Jews, about whom Paul wrote, ‘So too at the present time a remnant is saved according to the election by grace’ (Rom 11:5), but to the remnant which in the end will be gathered by God, after all gentiles will have been gathered, i. e. included in God’s salvation. The interpretation is concluded by a mixed quotation of Rom 11:32 and Gal 3:22 which expresses the expectation that ‘God, shutting up all under sin, may be merciful to all’.²⁷⁹ This universalistic outlook clearly reflects Origen’s views.²⁸⁰ We may conclude that Origen also connected σὺν πᾶσιν (‘with all’) with the next words. As we saw above, this punctuation was not followed by Theodore, Cyril, and Theodoret. In his translation of the Septuagint version Jerome skips the words ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό (‘at the same place’ or ‘at the same time’), and continues, ‘I shall put their turning away like sheep in affliction’²⁸¹ (Mic 2:12c). His comment on these incoherent words reads, The remnant of Israel [means those] whom I shall receive after I shall have received all (i. e. the gentiles); now, in the meantime, because they have turned away from me, I shall put them in affliction and enclose them and I shall settle them without priest, without altar, and without prophet, so that the one whom they did not discern through benefactions, they may understand through punishments.²⁸²

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 492; 503 – 504 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 492– 505 (CCSL 76). Two textual remarks: 1. Whereas Paul wrote, ‘until the fullness of the gentiles has come in, and so all Israel will be saved’ (Rom 11:25 – 26), Jerome paraphrases this as, ‘the fullness of gentiles will have come in, and then also the remnant of Israel will be saved’ (intrauerit plenitudo gentium, tunc etiam reliquiae saluabuntur Israel; l. 494– 495). Actually Paul speaks about Israel’s remnant that will be saved in Rom 9:27 and 11:5. 2. In Rom 11:32 Paul wrote, ‘For God shut up all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all’, but Jerome (and, most probably, Origen) borrowed ‘under sin’ from Gal 3:22 (‘But Scripture shut up all things under sin’) and left out ‘in disobedience’. See C.P. Hammond Bammel, Der Römerbrieftext des Rufin und seine Origenes-Übersetzung (AGLB 10), Freiburg 1985, 417.  Origen, Comm. in ep. ad Romanos VIII, 11– 12 (AGLB 34); see Cohen, ‘The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation’, 255 – 263, although he underestimates the extent of Origen’s universalism. For the philosophical sources and Origen’s view of this theme see I.L.E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (VigChr.S 120), Leiden 2013, 3 – 10; 137– 215, and my critical review of this work in Augustiniana 64 (2014), 282– 287.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 506 (CCSL 76): Ponam auersionem (for ἀποστροφήν) eorum sicut oues in tribulatione.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 506 – 511 (CCSL 76). For ‘without priest, without altar’ cf. Hos 3:4.

V.14 Spirit, lie, and captivity (Mic 2:11b–12)

87

‘The one’ (quem) may refer to God, the Lord in whose name Micah spoke, but probably Jerome particularly means Christ, who was rejected by most contemporaneous Jews, for which reason they had to undergo the exile in the Roman empire to which this passage refers, in Jerome’s understanding. Next, Jerome explains that ‘I shall put’ (ponam, θήσομαι) regards the following words too, so that he translates, ‘[I shall put them,] like a flock, in the middle of their stall’ (Mic 2:12d). He explains that, after the tribulation and distress, they (i. e. the Jews) will be put in rest, which is meant by ‘their stall’.²⁸³ Jerome’s following observation is typically Origenian: And then they will migrate away from humans and exceed the state of the human condition, and they will fulfil what follows, ‘they will leap up, away from humans’ (Mic 2:12d). But not only they will leap up and depart, but all to whom the Word of God comes and who, leaving behind the human faults, imitate the divine life and hear, ‘I said, you are gods, and all sons of the Most High’ (Ps 81:6) – they ‘will leap up, away from humans’, and they will, as it were, be conveyed to heaven.²⁸⁴

Although both the idea of the believers’ eschatological assumption to heaven and the appeal to Ps 81:6 can be found before Origen,²⁸⁵ it is typical of Origen to quote this text when he interprets the term ‘human’ (ἄνθρωπος) in the sense of sinner.²⁸⁶ Therefore it is most probable that he also appealed to Ps 81:6 in his interpretation of Mic 2:12, and that Jerome in his Commentary therefore copied Origen’s. The qualification ‘as it were’ (quasi) betrays Origen’s caution that the believers’ ascension to heaven should not necessarily be understood in a spatial sense. This interpretation holds that both the Jews and the gentiles to whom God’s Word came will leave their purely human – and therefore sinful – condition behind them and will be divinized. Cyril interprets the clauses, ‘A spirit established a lie; it dripped on you as wine and intoxicating drink’ (Mic 2:11bc), not only with regard to the false prophets of Micah’s time (see above), but also with reference to the devil, who ‘made drip to the Pharisees’ a false opinion about Christ. Consequently, in Cyril’s view,

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 512– 516 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 516 – 522 (CCSL 76).  See e. g. 1 Thess 4:17 and A. van den Hoek, ‘“I said, you are gods…” The significance of Psalm 82 for some early Christian Authors’, in L.V. Rutgers et al. (eds), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World (CBET 22), Leuven 1998, 203 – 219; she discusses John 10:34– 36, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus of Lyons, and Clement of Alexandria.  Origen, Hom. in Leuiticum 9, 11 (SC 287); Hom. in Ieremiam 15, 6 (SC 238); Comm. in Ioannem XX, 242; 266 (SC 290); Comm. in Matthaeum XVII, 19 (GCS 40); Comm. in ep. ad Romanos III, 1, 8 – 9 (AGLB 16).

88

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

the Jewish people received the verdict of ‘condemnation and removal (ἀποστροφή)’.²⁸⁷ This implies that, unlike his initial interpretation of ἀποστροφή as God’s aversion from his people (see above), Cyril here interprets this term as a reference to the banishment of the Jews from their own land after the Romans destroyed their temple in Jerusalem in 70 CE, which gentile Christians generally considered a punishment of the Jews who rejected Christ. According to Hesychius, the spirit that established a lie (Mic 2:11b) refers to ‘the Synagogue of the false teaching’; ‘the drop’ (Mic 2:11d) is what ‘Christ dripped from his side, in the middle of the Jewish people’ (cf. John 19:34); ‘Jacob with all’ (Mic 2:12a) predicts (in line with Jerome’s Origenian comments) ‘the one who came to believe from Israel with the gentiles’; ‘receiving I shall receive the remnant of Israel’ (Mic 2:12b) means that God says, ‘I shall be patient with all from Israel who will believe’; and, as noted above, Hesychius explains ἀποστροφή (Mic 2:12c) as ‘the flight (φυγή) from the lie to the truth’.²⁸⁸

V.15 The capture of Jerusalem (Mic 2:13) The fate of Jerusalem and its king is recognized in these words: Rise up through the breach before them; they broke through and passed through the gate and went out through it, and their king went out before them, and the Lord will lead them (Mic 2:13).

Three of the four patristic commentators plus Hesychius read ἀνάβηθι (‘rise up’) in the beginning of this verse,²⁸⁹ which translates ‫ עלה‬in the Hebrew text.²⁹⁰ In Mic 2:13a–c Theodore reads a prophecy concerning the Babylonians, who would besiege Jerusalem and break through its wall. Through the gate they would lead the inhabitants and their king into captivity (4 Kgdms 25).²⁹¹ Theodoret refers to the same capture of Jerusalem, in which king Zedediah broke through the wall, ran off with a few others but was captured and then led into exile (cf. 4

 Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 12 (Pusey, 640, 1– 11; 641, 23 – 642, 3).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 54; 56 – 59 (Eriksson, 156).  For Hesychius see his Scholia in Michaeam 63; Catena II, 10 (Eriksson, 156; 240). He only gives a spiritual interpretation of this verse (see below).  The Masoretic Text, however, reads ‫ָעָלה‬, ‘he will go up’, instead of the imperative ‫ֲעֵלה‬.  Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 13 (Sprenger, 201, 31– 202, 11). His text of Mic 2:13a reads ἀνάβηθι διὰ τῆς κοπῆς ἀπὸ προσώπου αὐτῶν διέκοψαν…

V.15 The capture of Jerusalem (Mic 2:13)

89

Kgdms 25:4– 7).²⁹² Jerome observes that the words, ‘Rise up through the breach’ (Ascende per diuisionem) are an apostrophe of the prophetic speech directed to the one who wants to be saved.²⁹³ His interpretation of the term diuisio deals with Christ and the Church (see below). Cyril, who does not read ἀνάβηθι, first relates this prophecy to the tumult in the cities in Samaria from which the inhabitants try to flee, leaping through walls and ditches, while the enemies – obviously the Assyrians – are breaking through the gates. Subsequently, he also applies this text to the campaign of the Babylonians.²⁹⁴ Theodore and Cyril interpret the words, ‘and the Lord will lead them’ (Mic 2:13d), in the sense that the Lord will lead Israel’s enemies.²⁹⁵ Theodoret’s interpretation holds that the Lord will lead the exiles, not to help them but to send them into captivity.²⁹⁶ Jerome relates the exhortation, ‘Rise up through the breach’, to the dividing wall between Jews and gentiles that Christ has broken down (Eph 2:14), so that the gentiles could enter through the wall and one flock could be formed (John 10:16). He underlines that someone who desires to be saved should not ‘rise up’ through the old people (i. e. of the Jews), but through the new one (of the Church) in which Christ is the way and the gate who gives access to the Father (John 10:7, 9; 14:6).²⁹⁷ Cyril sees a new fulfilment of this prophecy in Vespasian’s and Titus’ plundering of the Jewish towns and villages (in 70 CE), after the Jews had rejected Christ.²⁹⁸ According to Hesychius, ‘Rise up’ is said to Israel; ‘the breach’ refers on the one hand to ‘the grace of the gospel that broke through the wall of the law’; on the other hand, the subject of ‘they broke through’ are the Jewish apostles; ‘the gate’ refers to Christ through whom one can receive sal-

 Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 13 (PG 81, 1753D–1756A). He reads ἀνάβηθι διὰ τῆς διακοπῆς πρὸ προσώπου αὐτῶν διέκοψαν… and refers to Ezekiel’s prediction in Ezek 12:1– 16.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 523 – 526 (CCSL 76). An apostrophe (diversion) is an aside in which the speaker does not directly address his audience, but someone else, present or absent, which has a pathetic effect; see H. Lausberg, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, München 19732, 377– 378. Remarkably, the term ἀποστροφή is found in Mic 2:12c (§ V.14), where Jerome translated it as auersio, but he does not note a connection between this text and the rhetorical device that he sees in the subsequent verse.  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 12– 13 (Pusey 642, 5 – 7; 643, 2– 17). He reads, διὰ τῆς κοπῆς πρὸ προσώπου αὐτῶν διέκοψαν… (‘Through the breach before them they broke through…’).  Theodore, In Michaeam 2, 13 (Sprenger, 201, 202, 13 – 15); Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 12– 13; 3, 1– 4 (Pusey, 643, 17– 20; 644, 12– 16).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 2, 13 (PG 81, 1756A).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 2, 11– 13, 523 – 555 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 2, 12– 13 (Pusey, 643, 20 – 24).

90

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

vation (John 10:9); and the titles ‘king’ and ‘Lord’ designate Christ who leads the flock of those who received salvation through him.²⁹⁹ Since Jerome’s interpretation resonates in Hesychius’ notes, and it is unlikely that the latter consulted the former’s Latin Commentary, we may conclude that Hesychius, directly or indirectly, derived his notes from Origen’s Commentary, which was, therefore, also the source of Jerome’s comments.

V.16 Israel’s unrighteous leaders (Mic 3:1 – 4) Israel’s leaders and the consequence of their cruel behaviour are addressed in these words, 1

And he will say, Hear these things, authorities of the house of Jacob and remnant of the house of Israel. Is it not for you to know judgment? 2You who hate the good things and seek the evil things, robbing their skins from them and their flesh from their bones? 3 Just as they devoured the flesh of my people and stripped off their skins from their bones and crushed their bones and cut them in pieces like flesh in a cauldron and like meat in a pot, 4thus they will cry to the Lord, and he will not listen to them, and he will turn his face away from them at that time, because in their practices they did evil against them (Mic 3:1– 4).

The four commentators understandably interpret this passage as the prophet’s criticism of the cruel behaviour of Israel’s leaders, but except for Jerome they do not explicate whether only the northern or also the southern kingdom is addressed.³⁰⁰ In a general sense, Cyril speaks about ‘the leaders and the remnant of the people’, and he explains, with reference to Mic 2:13, that the Lord is the subject of ‘he will say’ (Mic 3:1a).³⁰¹ Jerome also notes that Mic 3:1– 4 is directed to Israel’s leaders, as he observes in his interpretation of the Hebrew text. He considers the ‘cauldron’ an image of Jerusalem in which these leaders afflicted its deplorable inhabitants (cf. Ezek 11:3 – 11), and says that as a consequence of this they were punished with the captivity, either the one carried out by the Babylonians (a Nabuchodonosor) or the other one imposed by the Romans (a Vespasiano et Tito).³⁰² In his comments on the Septuagint version he observes that in Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 63 – 67 (Eriksson, 156 – 157). Cf. Targum Ps.-Jonathan Mic 2:13, ‘and the Memra of the Lord will be their support’ (transl. Cathcart, Gordon, including italics).  Theodore, In Michaeam 3, 1– 4 (Sprenger, 202, 13 – 203, 19); Theodoret, In Michaeam 3, 1– 4 (PG 81, 1756A–C).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 3, 1– 4 (Pusey, 644, 1– 645, 26).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 1– 4, 1– 20 (CCSL 76).

V.16 Israel’s unrighteous leaders (Mic 3:1 – 4)

91

stead of the Septuagint reading, ‘the remnant (οἱ κατάλοιποι) of the house of Israel’ (Mic 3:1b), all other translators have ‘leaders (duces) of the house of Israel’,³⁰³ which corresponds with the Hebrew text (‫)ְקִצי ֵני‬. A particular element of Jerome’s interpretation is his understanding of the words, οὐχ ὑμῖν ἐστι τοῦ γνῶναι τὸ κρῖμα, ‘Is it not for you to know judgment?’ (Mic 3:1d).³⁰⁴ Among the Greek commentators, Theodoret is the only one who notes explicitly that this clause is to be read as a question, κατ’ ἐρώτησιν.³⁰⁵ In the editions and translations of Theodore’s and Cyril’s Commentaries these words are also printed with a question mark, and their following explanations demonstrate that this choice was most probably correct.³⁰⁶ As for Jerome, in his translation of the Hebrew text he is aware that a question is meant there, since he translates ‫ֲהלוֹא‬, of which ‫ ֲה‬introduces a question, as numquid: Numquid non uestrum est scire iudicium, ‘is not it yours to know judgment’?³⁰⁷ However, his translation of the Septuagint version reads, ‘It is not yours to know judgment (non uestrum est scire iudicium), you who hate the good things and seek the evil things’ (Mic 3:1d–2a), and his comments demonstrate that he did not read these words as a rhetorical question. He explains, ‘you do not deserve to know God’s judgment which is a great abyss, and a crooked mind does not discover the depth of his righteousness’.³⁰⁸ His following sentence, however, is formulated as a question, but not as the rhetorical question that we find in the other Commentaries. It reads, ‘Or how can you know God’s judgment, you who hate the good and seek the evil?’³⁰⁹ Jerome does not justify his translation and interpretation of Mic 3:1d LXX as an affirmation and does not note the difference to the Hebrew text. He may simply have borrowed his interpretation from Origen’s Commentary. In that case it is remarkable that

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 1– 4, 21– 26 (CCSL 76). Cf. M. Rahmer, [Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus durch eine Vergleichung mit den jüdischen Quellen.] Die Commentarii zu den zwölf kleinen Propheten II, Berlin 1902, 31.  Also in Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 787– 788.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 3, 1– 4 (PG 81, 1756B). Theophylact, In Michaeam 3, 1– 4 (PG 126, 1097B) also notes explicitly that the Lord will ask a question (ἐρωτήσει). For rhetorical questions introduced by οὐ / οὐχί see Muraoka, Syntax of Septuagint Greek, 719.  Theodore, In Michaeam 3, 1 (Sprenger 202, 17– 22: ‘You most of all should have discerned what was to be done’; translation Hill); Cyril, In Michaeam I, 3, 1– 4 (Pusey 644, 2; 645, 2– 20; 11– 13: It is therefore necessary … for you to learn judgment through what will befall you’; transl. Hill). John Chrysostom, Hom. in Ioannem 52, 1 (PG 59, 288), quotes οὐχ ὑμῶν ἐστι γνῶναι τὸ κρῖμα, apparently as a reproachful question to the Jewish rulers (the variant reading ὑμῶν [for ὑμῖν] is confirmed by Savile’s edition, II, 769).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 1– 4, 2– 3 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 1– 4, 32– 35 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 1– 4, 36 – 38 (CCSL 76).

92

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

the two expositors who had access to the Hebrew text did not interpret the Septuagint version of Mic 3:1d accordingly, as a rhetorical question.³¹⁰ Jerome’s following interpretation of Mic 3:2b–4 according to the Septuagint only concerns Israel’s leaders, without any Christianizing actualization.³¹¹ Hesychius’ fragmentary notes hold an allegorization of the references to the human body. It says that ‘their skins’ (Mic 3:2b, 3b) refer to ‘the divine commandments by which the virtues, as it were the flesh (καθάπερ σάρκες), protect themselves’; ‘they devoured the flesh’ (Mic 3:3a) is said to mean, ‘the teachers of evil consumed [the flesh]’, which seems to imply that these teachers destroyed the virtues; ‘their bones’ (Mic 3:3b) stands for ‘the powers of the soul’; and ‘they cut them in pieces like flesh’ (Mic 3:3d), means, apparently with reference to the bad teachers, that they are ‘seducing (διασπῶντες) the people into their disgusting traditions, and dividing it’.³¹² Since these allegorical interpretations do not allude to Christ or the Church, they should probably be applied to the behaviour of Israel’s leaders in Micah’s time. As we saw above, Jerome applies the troubles mentioned in Mic 3:1– 4 (according to the Hebrew text) to the captivity carried out by the Babylonians or by the Romans.³¹³ Alluding to the preceding passage he observes that the Lord, who made the way for his people and has gone out before them (Mic 2:13d) as the leader of a simpler people that he calls ‘flock’ (Mic 2:12d), now addresses the leaders of the house of Jacob and Israel (Mic 3:1ab), who are haughty and unwilling to follow him.³¹⁴ This explanation might concern the people and its leaders of Micah’s time, but considering Jerome’s interpretation of Mic 2:13 with regard to Christ and his flock, it is likely that here too he has in mind Christ’s disciples and the contemporaneous Jewish leaders. Unlike Jerome who – as we saw above – did not relate Mic 3:2b–4 LXX to Christ and the Church, Cyril proposes to apply these words concerning Israel’s leaders to ‘the crimes of the scribes and Pharisees’, who, as leaders of the people and guardians of the sheep flocks,

 In modern editions and translations Mic 3:1d is generally understood as a rhetorical question. Brenton, Tischendorf, Swete, Rahlfs, Ziegler, and Glenny add a question mark to this clause, although the Codices Vaticanus and Alexandrinus do not give it, but this is usual in these manuscripts. All translators that I consulted follow these editions in reading a rhetorical question, like ‘is it not for you to know judgment?’ (Glenny), or: ‘Should you not know judgment?’ (cf. NETS).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 1– 4, 41– 67 (CCSL 76).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 68 – 71 (Eriksson, 157).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 1– 4, 1– 20 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 1– 4, 21– 31 (CCSL 76).

V.17 The false prophets (Mic 3:5 – 8)

93

cruelly abused those who believed in Christ, stripping off, cutting in pieces, and devouring the saints.³¹⁵

V.17 The false prophets (Mic 3:5 – 8) Next, the prophet addresses the false prophets, 5

This says the Lord to the prophets who lead my people astray, who bite with their teeth and proclaim peace to it, and it has not been given into their mouth, they have raised up war against it. 6Therefore it will be night for you without vision, and there will be darkness for you without divination, and the sun will set on the prophets and the day will become dark on them. 7And those who see dreams will be ashamed and the diviners will be mocked, and they will all speak against them because there is no one who listens to them, 8unless I, I fill [them with] strength by the Spirit of the Lord and of judgment and of power to declare to Jacob his impieties and to Israel his sins (Mic 3:5 – 8).

As may be expected, the patristic commentators interpret Mic 3:5 – 7 as a reproach to the false prophets.³¹⁶ In Mic 3:5d Theodore and Theodoret have the ‘Lucianic’ reading ἡγίασαν, ‘they (the false prophets) have consecrated (war)’ instead of ἤγειραν, ‘they have raised up’.³¹⁷ The reading ἡγίασαν is found in Aquila’s and Theodotion’s translations,³¹⁸ corresponds with the Hebrew text (‫)ִק ְדּשׁוּ‬, and was also accepted by Jerome, who reads sanctificauerunt in his translation of the Septuagint.³¹⁹ Theodore, however, interprets ἡγίασαν in terms of the alternative (and likely original) reading ἤγειραν, for he explicates it as ἐπήγειραν, ‘though promising peace, they have brought war upon them’.³²⁰ Theodoret also feels the need to explain the term ἡγίασαν. Correctly he says that this stands for ἀφώρισαν, ‘they have set apart’, but since in this context this is puzzling as well, he gives προὐξένησαν, ‘they have caused’, as its actual meaning in

 Cyril, In Michaeam I, 3, 1– 4 (Pusey, 645, 27– 646, 5).  Theodore, In Michaeam 3, 5 – 7 (Sprenger, 203, 20 – 204, 19); Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 5 – 8, 68 – 100 (CCSL 76); Cyril, In Michaeam II, 3, 5 – 7 (Pusey, 647, 3 – 648, 11; 648, 20 – 649, 12; 650, 9 – 22); Theodoret, In Michaeam 3, 5 – 7 (PG 81, 1756C–1757A); Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 72– 76 (Eriksson, 157).  For the debate on the so-called ‘Lucianic’ or ‘Antiochene’ recension see S. Kreuzer (ed.), Einleitung in die Septuaginta (LXX.H 1), Gütersloh 2016, 69 – 73.  See Ziegler’s critical apparatus. ἡγίασαν is also found in Ps.-Hippolytus, De consummatione mundi 6 (GCS Hippolytus Werke 1, 2, 291).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 5 – 8, 82 (CCSL 76).  Theodore, In Michaeam 3, 5 (Sprenger, 203, 30 – 204, 3)

94

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

this text.³²¹ Cyril explicates that the war raised up by the false prophets did not so much refer to the Assyrians but rather to ‘the holy wrath’,³²² by which he apparently means God’s wrath. In Mic 3:7ab the prophet announces that the false prophets will be put to shame and the diviners will be mocked. In the following clause καὶ καταλαλήσουσι κατ’ αὐτῶν πάντες αὐτοί (Mic 3:7c) it might be wondered to whom the subject πάντες αὐτοί refers, but the patristic commentators did not feel this problem.³²³ According to Theodore, Jerome, Cyril, and Theodoret,³²⁴ this means that all people will speak against the false prophets. This implies that in their view πάντες αὐτοί does not refer to the false prophets (as it has been translated in Septuaginta Deutsch), so that καταλαλήσουσι should be understood as suddenly having another subject than the two preceding verbal forms καταισχυνθήσονται (‘they will be ashamed’) and καταγελασθήσονται (‘they will be mocked’).³²⁵ The interpretation that ‘all people will speak against them’, i. e. against the false prophets, is confirmed by the following clause, ‘because there is no one who listens to them’ (Mic 3:7d).³²⁶ In the editions by Brenton, Tischendorf, Swete, Rahlfs, Ziegler, and Glenny Mic 3:8a reads, ἐὰν μὴ ἐγὼ ἐμπλήσω ἰσχύν ἐν πνεύματι κυρίου, translated above as ‘unless I, I fill [them with] strength by the Spirit of the Lord’. Both the text and its translation are puzzling, however.³²⁷ Codex Vaticanus has a high dot before ἐάν, and Codex Alexandrinus (which reads ἐὰν μὴ ἐμπλήσω Ἐγώ, with a large capital E at the beginning of a new line) has a considerable

 Theodoret, In Michaeam 3, 5 (PG 81, 1756CD). For ἀφώρισαν cf. Rom 1:1; Gal 1:15.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5 (Pusey, 648, 11– 14).  See also Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 788 – 789.  Theodore, In Michaeam 3, 6 – 7 (Sprenger, 204, 16 – 17); Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 5 – 8, 86; 124– 125 (CCSL 76); Cyril, In Michaeam II, 3, 7 (Pusey, 650, 15 – 22); Theodoret, In Michaeam 3, 6 – 7 (PG 81, 1757A; ‘those misled by their oracles will belabor them with many insults’, translation Hill). Likewise Theophylact, In Michaeam 3, 7 (PG 126, 1101AB).  The patristic interpretation is shared by Brenton, Giguet, and Glenny, Micah, 82, but as said above, according to Septuaginta Deutsch πάντες αὐτοί refers to the false prophets: ‘und sie alle werden sich gegenseitig widersprechen’. This implies that κατ’ αὐτῶν is conceived as κατ’ αὑτῶν, although the breathing in Codex Vaticanus, albeit added later on, reads αὐτῶν. This interpretation of Septuaginta Deutsch is fully isolated and unconvincing.  Yet Rahlfs’ reading ὁ εἰσακούων, ‘the one who listens’, which is based on Codices Washingtonianus and Vaticanus, is not shared exactly by the Greek commentators. Theodore, In Michaeam 3, 6 – 7 (Sprenger, 204, 10) reads ὁ ἐπακούων (also ‘the one who listens’), Cyril, In Michaeam II, 3, 7 (Pusey, 650, 11) ὁ ὑπακούσων (‘the one who will give heed’), and Theodoret, In Michaeam 3, 6 – 7 (PG 81, 1757A) ὑπακούων (‘someone who gives heed’).  For the modern translations see the end of this section. See also Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 789 – 791.

V.17 The false prophets (Mic 3:5 – 8)

95

space before ἐάν, which demonstrates that according to the copyist a new sentence begins here. The Greek commentators have different variant readings, which confirms that this text was considered difficult. Theodore has the ‘Lucianic’ reading ἀλλὰ μὴν ἐγώ ἐνεπλήσθην ἰσχύος ἐν πνεύματι κυρίου, ‘but as for me, I was filled with strength in the Spirit of the Lord’ and conceives Micah as the subject, in contradistinction to the false prophets of the preceding passage.³²⁸ Cyril reads, with Codex Alexandrinus, ἐὰν μὴ ἐμπλήσω ἐγὼ ἰσχύν ἐν πνεύματι κυρίου, ‘unless I, I fill [with] strength by the Spirit of the Lord.’³²⁹ Cyril’s comments clarify that he conceives the Lord as the subject of this clause. He discusses the conflict between the false prophets and those who, inspired by God, speak the truth. Concerning the latter category he observes, ‘So how, he (i. e. God) asks, could the word of prophecy in some people fail to be false unless I fill them through my spirit (εἰ μὴ ἐμπλήσαιμι διὰ τοῦ ἐμοῦ πνεύματος) with power and righteousness?’³³⁰ Cyril’s aorist optative ἐμπλήσαιμι replaces the aorist subjunctive ἐμπλήσω with ἄν of the Septuagint text. Theodoret reads ἐγὼ δὲ ἐνεπλήσθην ἰσχύος ἐν πνεύματι κυρίου, ‘but I, I was filled with strength in the Spirit of the Lord’. In line with Theodore and contrary to Cyril he interprets these words as a statement of the prophet about himself. He explains that the prophet means, ‘For I will not dare to perform things similar to those transgressions; but inspired by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and filled with such power, I shall frankly reprimand the people’s impiety.’³³¹ Hesychius, whose reading of Mic 3:8 is not given in Eriksson’s edition, interprets ἐγώ as God. His scholion reads, ‘Prophecy is not acceptable unless I, I fill the speaker with the Spirit of the Lord, the Son, [the spirit] of power and justice, that is, righteousness.’³³² In his comments on the Hebrew text Jerome observes that after the passage on the false prophets the prophet

 Theodore, In Michaeam 3, 8 (Sprenger, 204, 20 – 29); translation Hill, adapted. John Chrysostom, In secundam ep. ad Corinthios 24, 3 (PG 61, 567), quotes ἀλλὰ μὴν ἐγώ ἐνεπλήσθην ἰσχύος κυρίου ἐν πνεύματι καὶ δυναστείᾳ, ‘but as for me, I was filled with strength of the Lord through spirit and power’ (for the last words cf. 2 Cor 2:4), which he interprets as being said by Micah.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 3, 8 (Pusey, 650, 23). I do not agree with Hill’s translation, ‘Unless I am filled with strength by the Spirit of the Lord.’ Cyril’s namesake Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad illuminandos 16, 29 (Reischl, Rupp) also reads ἐὰν μὴ ἐγὼ ἐμπλήσω ἰσχύν ἐν πνεύματι κυρίου. He considers it a testimony to the Holy Spirit, Micah speaking in the name of God. He does not give any further explanation.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 3, 8 (Pusey, 651, 1– 14). Transl. Hill, with a minor modification.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 3, 8 (PG 81, 1757AB). Cf. Hill’s translation. Theophylact, In Michaeam 3, 8 (PG 126, 1101C), reads ἐὰν μὴ ἐγὼ ἐμπλήσω ἰσχύν ἐν πνεύματι κυρίου (as in Codex Vaticanus and modern editions) and considers Micah the subject of the clause.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 77 (Eriksson, 157).

96

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

speaks about himself, emphasizing that he is inspired by the Holy Spirit.³³³ His explanation of the Septuagint text is different. His translation of Mic 3:7d–8a reads, without punctuation, quia non est qui exaudiat eos nisi ego impleuero fortitudinem in spiritum Domini. His comments demonstrate that this means, in his understanding, ‘for there is no one who listens to them except I (i. e. the Lord). I shall fill [them] with strength through the spirit of the Lord.’³³⁴ Perhaps Cyril was inspired by Origen (whose interpretation was adopted by Jerome as well) in conceiving the Lord as the subject of ἐὰν μὴ ἐμπλήσω ἐγὼ ἰσχύν. Subsequently, Hesychius may have been inspired by Cyril or directly by Origen. The difficulty of Mic 3:8a is reflected in the varying translations of the Septuagint: Brenton: Surely I will strengthen myself with the Spirit of the Lord Giguet: Pour moi, je me remplirai de force, inspiré par le Seigneur Andersen, Freedman: However, I shall be filled with strength with the spirit of Kyrios NETS: Otherwise I will replenish strength in the spirit of the Lord Glenny: However, I will be full of strength by the spirit of the Lord LXX.D: es sei den, ich erfülle (sie [i. e. the false prophets]) mit Stärke im Geiste des Herrn. Only in Septuaginta Deutsch it is clear that the Lord is meant to be the subject of this clause,³³⁵ and in NETS this is possible but not explicated. According to all other translations, it is the prophet who speaks about himself, which corresponds with the Hebrew text. It is remarkable that most translators render the active form ἐμπλήσω, understood as a future indicative, in the sense of the middle voice; only NETS and Septuaginta Deutsch respect its active meaning, ἰσχύν being its direct object. Yet Septuaginta Deutsch does not translate a future, but seems to parse ἐμπλήσω as an aorist subjunctive because of ἐάν. It may be concluded that the translation of Septuaginta Deutsch, in which ἐγώ refers to the Lord, has three or possibly four patristic predecessors, namely Jerome, Cyril, Hesychius, and perhaps Origen.

Jerome holds that Micah, whom he considers the subject of Mic 3:8 in the Hebrew text (see above), fearlessly announced to Jacob its crime and to Israel its sin (cf. Mic 1:5), either because they worshipped idols instead of God (which applies to the prophet’s own time) or because they crucified God’s Son. He explains that the false prophets of this passage may be interpreted as the heretics of his own time. According to this hidden meaning (mystice), they kill the souls of

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 5 – 8, 77– 79; 100 – 104 (CCSL 76). His translation of the Hebrew text reads, Verumtamen ego repletus sum fortitudine spiritus Domini (‘However, I, I am filled with the strength of the Spirit of the Lord’).  In Michaeam I, 3, 5 – 8, 86 – 87; 126 – 127 (CCSL 76). This implies that the edition should have a full stop after ego, instead of putting a comma after eos and relating nisi me with the following verb impleuero, as the editor Adriaen decided.  See also Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen II, 2372.

V.17 The false prophets (Mic 3:5 – 8)

97

God’s people, and ‘promise them peace (Mic 3:5c) and heavenly realms (regna caelestia), and say, “it is not necessary that you lead a continent and holy life; have the faith that we teach, and you will obtain all the promises of the Lord”’. Thus, according to Jerome, they stir up the Lord’s wrath against them (aduersum eos) and ‘consecrate a war against them’ (proelium in illos sanctificant; Mic 3:5e).³³⁶ Paraphrasing Mic 3:6, Jerome addresses the heretics (o haeretici), saying that the sun of justice (Mal 3:20 [4:2]) will set on such prophets; since they (the heretics) are diviners rather than prophets, they will be mocked because of their dreams, and the people who had first been deceived by them will speak against them.³³⁷ The interpretation of ‘the sun’ that will set on these false prophets (Mic 3:6c) as the ‘sun of justice’ (Mal 3:20 [4:2]) refers to Christ who does not enlighten these heretics, and derives from Origen’s Commentary. This is demonstrated by Origen’s comment on Eph 4:26b (‘do not let the sun go down on your anger’), where he interprets the sun as ‘the true sun’ (ὁ ἀληθινὸς ἥλιος), with reference to Mic 3:6c. This explanation comes back in Eusebius and in Jerome’s Commentary on Ephesians. ³³⁸ Likewise, Cyril also interprets Mic 3:6c with regard to the spiritual (νοητός) sun and the divine light, Christ, who set on the Jews who rejected him and on the inventors of heresies.³³⁹ Jerome’s following considerations on the Septuagint version deal with the expected repentance of the heretics; here he considers Lord the subject of Mic 3:8 (see above). He announces, Then even the teachers themselves will do penance, and no one will listen to them except I whom they had offended (Mic 3:7d–8a). And because I am merciful and do not want the death of the sinner but wish that he return and live (Ezek 18:23, 32; 33:11), when I shall listen to them, I shall give them the strength of my Spirit, and I shall fill them will my judgment and vigour (Mic 3:8a), so that they who were formerly deceiving the people with flattery, afterwards, by announcing the truth, inspire fear and call back to an upright life, and those who were the cause of error start to heal the wounds that they inflicted and start to be an opportunity for healing. Pay attention to the present passage, that someone can teach after sin, but only if he washes away his former vices with a suitable penance.³⁴⁰

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 5 – 8, 100 – 118 (CCSL 76); quotation in l. 113 – 116. ‘them’ (eos and illos) refers to those who followed the heretics.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 5 – 8, 118 – 125 (CCSL 76). For the term sanctificant see above.  Origen, Fragmenta in ep. ad Ephesios 4, 26b (ed. Gregg, 420); Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica V, 29 (GCS 23); also Eclogae propheticae III, 32 (PG 22, 1160A); Jerome, Comm. in ep. ad Ephesios 4, 26 (PG 26, 510B–511A). On the correspondence between Origen’s and Jerome’s Commentaries on Ephesians see R.E. Heine, The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (OECS), Oxford 2002.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 3, 6 (Pusey, 649, 13 – 650, 8).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 5 – 8, 125 – 135 (CCSL 76). Cf. Cazares’ and Scheck’s translation.

98

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Again, this passage on the possibility of repentance even for heretics most likely stems from Origen.³⁴¹ A discourse on the end of the world attributed to Hippolytus quotes Mic 3:5 – 7b as a testimony to the suffering, confusion, envy, hatred, and strife that will occur in the last times, including – focussing on the Church – the negligence of the shepherds towards the sheep and the unwillingness of the people to obey the priests.³⁴² This passage does not apply Micah’s criticism of the false prophets to contemporaneous heretics, but to negligent Church leaders and insubordinate lay people. Didymus quotes this passage as a testimony to the divinity of the Holy Spirit and his close collaboration with God the Father and the Son. He argues that ‘Christ, with the power of his noble Spirit, performed signs and miracles and cast out demons’, as Micah said, ‘This says the Lord to the prophets who lead my people astray’ (Mic 3:5a), and ‘because there is no one who listens to them, unless I, I fill [them with] strength by the Spirit of the Lord and of judgment and of power’ (Mic 3:7d–8a). Didymus concludes that ‘the Lord (Christ) performs power in the Spirit of the Lord (God the Father)’, which demonstrates ‘the Trinity and the bond of its nature’. In addition, he explains that Micah alludes to the final judgment in which there will be no repentance anymore and no one who listens (i. e. to those who want to repent); but the words ‘I shall fill with strength’ mean, in his understanding, that ‘together with (μετά) the divine Spirit I (i. e. Christ) shall afford a great recompense (ἀνταπόδοσις)’.³⁴³ This implies that, according to Didymus, the Spirit is involved in the final judgement as well. Cyril applies Mic 3:8 not only to the conflict between the false and the true prophets in Micah’s days (see above), but also to the sufferings of the apostles who, ‘full of power, justice, and righteousness, brought the flocks of the Jews to God through faith in Christ’.³⁴⁴

 See Origen, Hom. in Ezechielem 10, 2, 30 – 37 (SC 352), and K. Rahner, ‘La doctrine d’Origène sur la pénitence’, RSR 37 (1950), 47– 97; 252– 286; 422– 456 (61).  Ps.-Hippolytus, De consummatione mundi 6 (GCS Hippolytus Werke 1, 2, 291).  Ps.-Didymus, De trinitate II, 7, 1 (Seiler, 220). His text of Mic 3:8a reads, ἐὰν μὴ ἐγὼ ἐμπλήσω ἰσχύν ἐν πνεύματι κυρίου. Instead of κρίματος he reads κρίσεως. Seiler dates this work after 381, perhaps to 395 – 398 (vii).  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 3, 8 (Pusey, 651, 24– 652, 4); transl. Hill, adapted.

V.18 Jerusalem ploughed like a field (Mic 3:9 – 12)

99

V.18 Jerusalem ploughed like a field (Mic 3:9 – 12) The prophet announces that the consequence of the behaviour of Israel’s leaders, priests, and prophets is devastating for Jerusalem, 9

Hear these things, leaders of the house of Jacob and remnant of the house of Israel, who abhor judgment and pervert all the upright things, 10who build Zion with murders and Jerusalem with injustice. 11Her leaders judged for gifts, and her priests answered for a reward, and her prophets divined for money, and they relied on the Lord, saying, ‘Is not the Lord among us? Evil things will not come upon us.’ 12For this reason on your account Zion will be ploughed like a field, Jerusalem will be like a orchard-guard’s shed, and the mountain of the house will be a wooded grove (Mic 3:9 – 12).

The four patristic commentators paraphrase Mic 3:9 – 11 while paying attention to its original context;³⁴⁵ Jerome observes that ‘the house of Jacob’ and ‘the house of Israel’ refer to the two and the ten tribes.³⁴⁶ In addition, Hesychius notes that the prophets who say, ‘Is not the Lord among us?’ (Mic 3:11d), ironically (ἐν εἰρωνείᾳ) put forward their trust in God.³⁴⁷ The brevity of this scholion, however, leaves room for uncertainty about its meaning; perhaps Hesychius finds it ironical that these prophets express their trust in God, but the interpretation that they express their trust with irony is possible as well. Some variation is found with regard to the predicted fate of Jerusalem in Mic 3:12. Theodore does not explicitly relate the destruction of Jerusalem to a particular event; yet given his previous comments he undoubtedly had in mind Jerusalem’s seizure by the Babylonians.³⁴⁸ Jerome hardly explicates which historical devastation of Jerusalem he has in mind, the one perpetrated by the Babylonians or the other carried out by the Romans, but he does clarify that the prediction has been fulfilled particularly because of the death of Christ.³⁴⁹ This points to Jerusalem’s destruction by the Romans in 70 CE. Cyril only pays attention to the destruction of Jerusalem after the Jews rejected Christ³⁵⁰ (see below). Theodoret explicitly interprets Mic 3:12 in the first place as a reference to Nebuchad-

 Theodore, In Michaeam 3, 9 – 11 (Sprenger, 205, 3 – 25); Cyril, In Michaeam II, 3, 9 – 12 (Pusey, 652, 5 – 653, 11; 654, 4– 655, 26); Theodoret, In Michaeam 3, 9 – 11 (PG 81, 1757BC).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 3, 9 – 12, 142– 197; 235 – 260; 263 – 274 (CCSL 76).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 79 (Eriksson, 157).  Theodore, In Michaeam 3, 12 (Sprenger, 205, 26 – 206, 8). He referred to the Babylonians’ capture of Jerusalem in his comments on Mic 1:8 – 9 (see § V.6) and Mic 2:11– 13 (see §§ V.14– 15).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 3, 9 – 12, 170 – 176; 192– 202 (CCSL 76). For his distinction between the two events, see his comments on Mic 3:1– 4 (§ V.16).  Cyril, In Michaeam I, 3, 12 (Pusey, 655, 27– 656, 14).

100

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

nezzar’s conquest of Jerusalem and the capture of its inhabitants.³⁵¹ Hesychius elucidates that the old Jerusalem is meant here³⁵² which, considering his following note on this text (see below), must be understood as the historical Jerusalem. Probably the term ‘old’ (ἡ ἀρχαία) should be understood in contradistinction to the new Jerusalem that comes down from heaven (Rev 21:2). In fact, Eusebius is the first whose interpretation of the prediction in Mic 3:12 has been preserved, but as we may expect, he is not interested in its first fulfilment through the Babylonians, but relates it to the period after Christ’s coming. His touching testimony deserves to be quoted in full. … which was only truly fulfilled after the daring treatment of our Saviour. For from that time to this, utter desolation has possessed the land; their once famous Mount Zion, instead of being, as it once was, the centre of study and education based on the divine prophecies, which the children of the Hebrews of old, their godly prophets, priests, and teachers of the whole nation loved to interpret, is cultivated by Romans like the rest of the country; with my own eyes I have seen the bulls ploughing there, and the site sown with seed. And Jerusalem itself has become ‘like an orchard-guard’s shed’ of its fruit of old days now destroyed, or rather, a stone-quarry, according to the Hebrew text.³⁵³

Cyril of Jerusalem also points to the fulfilment of Mic 3:12a in his own days.³⁵⁴ Likewise, Jerome considers that the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem addresses the Jewish people, whose captivity and final downfall (extremae ruinae) took place because of their crimes described in the previous verses, but particularly because they shed the blood of the Lord, Christ.³⁵⁵ However, Jerome also applies this passage to bishops, priests, and deacons of the Church who judge injustly for money or ‘pervert every rule of the Scriptures with wrong interpretations’; thus they ‘build Zion with murders and Jerusalem with injustice’ (Mic 3:10). He criticizes bishops who ordain their own hangers-on as clerics and lead scandalous lives, and he denounces priests who behave as

 Theodoret, In Michaeam 3, 12 (PG 81, 1757D–1760A). His second interpretation aligns with Jerome and Cyril; see below.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 80 (Eriksson, 157).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VIII, 3, 9 – 10 (GCS 23); translation Ferrar, adapted. Eusebius’ reference to the Hebrew text either derives from Origen’s Commentary, or from Origen’s Hexapla. Cf. § V.5 for ‫ִעי‬, ‘heap of stones’, in the Hebrew text of Mic 1:6, which is found in Mic 3:12 as well. See also Eusebius, Eclogae propheticae III, 18 (PG 22, 1141AB). bMakkoth 24b tells that, according to rabbi Aqiba, Mic 3:12 was fulfilled when the Romans destroyed the temple (yet erroneously Aqiba ascribes the prophecy to Uriah [Jer 26:20]).  Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad illuminandos 16, 18 (Reischl, Rupp).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 9 – 12, 197– 202 (CCSL 76).

V.18 Jerusalem ploughed like a field (Mic 3:9 – 12)

101

the prophets who divined for money, even at the price of villas. Jerome says that a priest is allowed to ‘live of the altar’ (cf. 1 Cor 9:13 – 14), but not to lead a luxurious life.³⁵⁶ This criticism of the clergy has certainly been inspired by Origen’s Commentary (cf. § V.13). Jerome also applies the judgment that ‘Zion will be ploughed like a field’ (Mic 3:12) to Christ’s temple, the Church, since in the end of times love will grow cold (Matt 24:12) and faith will be rare (cf. Luke 18:8).³⁵⁷ Cyril of Alexandria observes that the Jews pulled down Zion with murders (cf. Mic 3:10) because they killed the prophets and Christ, whereas the Christians accept him as king and, as living stones, are being built into a spiritual (πνευματικός) house and a holy temple (1 Pet 2:5; Eph 2:21– 22).³⁵⁸ Cyril too holds that the destruction of Jerusalem announced in Mic 3:12 was fulfilled after the Jews rejected Christ. Furthermore, he exhorts the Church that ‘God will be with us too, not if we have faith only (…), but if proving ourselves through works is added to faith’.³⁵⁹ As we saw above, Theodoret first explains that Mic 3:12 was fulfilled in the time of Nebuchadnezzar, but in line with his predecessors he thinks that ‘it is possible to see a more exact fulfilment (…) after the rage and frenzy of the Jews against our Saviour: that celebrated temple was uprooted and consigned to utter devastation so that to the present day onlookers are uncertain what the place of the saints of old was’.³⁶⁰ Hesychius notes that the ‘orchard-guard’s shed’ (Mic 3:12b), as an image of Jerusalem, was deserted because there was no fruit anymore, which means that the reign of the letter (of the Mosaic law) had ceased (cf. Rom. 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6). In his view, the term ‘a wooded grove’ refers to ‘a dwelling place of spiritual (νοητῶν) animals’,³⁶¹ by which he means demons. Jerome’s (and probably Origen’s) comment on Mic 3:10 with regard to wrong interpretations of the Scriptures is also found in the Commentary on Isaiah attributed to Basil of Caesarea. The author quotes Mic 3:9 – 10, saying that in these words the prophet ‘criticizes faulty teachings’. ‘For everyone who devises the

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 9 – 12, 202– 227; 260 – 263; 275 – 303 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 3, 9 – 12, 303 – 310 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 3, 9 – 10 (Pusey, 653, 10 – 654, 3).  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 3, 11– 12 (Pusey, 656, 9 – 21); translation Hill, adapted. For Cyril’s evaluation of the role of faith see D. Fairbairn, ‘Justification in St. Cyril of Alexandria, with some Implications for Ecumenical Dialogue’, Participatio: Journal of the Thomas F. Torrance Theological Fellowship 4 (2013), 123 – 146.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 3, 12 (PG 81, 1758D–1760A); translation Hill. For Theodoret’s antiJewish polemics see Guinot, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, 484– 522.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 81– 82 (Eriksson, 157).

102

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

other doctrines (τὰ ἀλλότρια δόγματα) builds Zion (…) with murders, and the one who established a church of evildoers builds Jerusalem with injustice.’³⁶²

V.19 The nations will go up to the mountain of the Lord (Mic 4:1 – 3 // Isa 2:2 – 4) The prediction of Jerusalem’s destruction is followed by a hopeful prophecy saying, 1

And in the last days the mountain of the Lord will be manifest, established on the tops of the mountains, and it will be raised up above the hills; and peoples will hasten to it, 2and many nations will come and say, ‘Come, let us go up to the mountain of the Lord and to the house of the God of Jacob, and they will show us his way and we shall walk in his paths.’ For out of Zion will go forth the law and the word of the Lord³⁶³ from Jerusalem. 3And he will judge between many peoples and prove guilty mighty nations as far as a distant land. And they will beat their swords into ploughs and their spears into sickles, and nation will no longer lift sword against nation, and no longer will they learn to make war (Mic 4:1– 3).

Origen notes that this passage is very similar to Isa 2:2– 4, and states that all believers know it.³⁶⁴ Among the four authors whose Commentaries have been preserved, Theodore is the only one who restricts his interpretation to the Israelites’ return from their exile in Babylon and vehemently denies that this passage also describes a type of what would happen after Christ’s coming, which was, as we shall see, the common Christian interpretation. He argues that Christ did not teach to worship the Father in Jerusalem, but to worship God ‘in spirit and truth’ (John 4:21, 24).³⁶⁵ As we shall see, Cyril applies this prophecy to the time of Christ and the peace of the Roman empire, but he admits that before Christ’s coming ‘some idolaters made their approach and lived by the laws of the

 Ps.-Basil, In Isaiam V, 152 (PG 30, 368BC).  For the translation of νόμος καὶ λόγος κυρίου with definite articles, see § V.1, footnote 2, with regard to Mic 1:1.  Origen, Ep. ad Africanum 21 (15) (SC 302). Also, e. g., Eusebius, Eclogae propheticae IV, 1 (PG 22, 1200B); Jerome, In Michaeam I, 4, 1– 7, 198 – 213 (CCSL 76).  Theodore, In Michaeam 4, 1– 3 (Sprenger, 206, 18 – 208, 22). Influenced by the parallel text in Isa 2:2– 4, Theodore’s text has several variant readings in comparison with Rahlfs: the insertion of τοῦ οἴκου after τὸ ὄρος in Mic 4:1a (‘the mountain of the house of the Lord’; cf. Isa 2:2, ‘the mountain of the Lord and the house of God’), ἐπ’ αὐτό instead of πρὸς αὐτό in Mic 4:1d, and the insertion of καί after δεῦτε in Mic 4:2b. Furthermore, in Mic 4:3b he reads ἕως μακράν instead of Rahlfs’ text ἕως εἰς γῆν μακράν.

V.19 The nations going up to the mountain of the Lord (Mic 4:1–3 // Isa 2:2–4)

103

Jews’.³⁶⁶ Thus he refers to the proselytes and God-fearers who turned to the Jewish religion. Theodoret, who shares the application of this passage to Christ and the Roman empire, observes that Jews take it as a prophecy of their return from Babylon, but he considers this a foolish interpretation because at that time the Jews were attacked by Gog and Magog and other neighbouring nations. Yet to his horror the Jewish interpretation is even adopted by ‘some (τινες) of the teachers of piety’.³⁶⁷ This undoubtedly refers to Theodore.³⁶⁸ This prophecy has particularly drawn the attention of the ancient Christian authors. For isolated references to this passage in a typically Christian sense I will also take into account some early testimonies that are based on the text of Isaiah or have mixed texts, since we may reasonably assume that these authors would not interpret Micah’s version differently. However, I will leave running Commentaries on Isaiah aside. From the mid-second century onward, patristic authors generally consider this passage a prophecy of the gentile nations coming to believe the gospel and changing their lives accordingly, but the details of the interpretations vary considerably. The patristic reception of this passage has been analyzed by Manlio Simonetti, by Gerhard Lohfink, and by Martine Dulaey.³⁶⁹ Unlike the thematic structure of Dulaey’s analysis of the various interpretations I will first, as Lohfink does in his way, give a chronological survey of the different authors, and present some systematic conclusions at the end of this section.

 Cyril, In Michaeam II, 4, 2– 3 (Pusey, 660, 8 – 9); transl. Hill.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 4, 1– 3 (PG 81, 1760D–1761B). For Gog and Magog see § V.22. For the Jewish interpretation cf. Sifre Deuteronomy 1; translations H. Bietenhard, Sifre Deuteronomium (JudChr 8), Bern etc. 1984, 9, and J. Neusner, Sifre to Deuteronomy: An Analytical Translation I (BJS 98), Atlanta, Georgia 1987, 22. In addition, Targum Ps.-Jonathan Mic 4:8 refers to the Messiah, which may also cover Mic 4:1– 3 (ed. Sperber, 445; transl. Cathcart, Gordon, 120). See also Rosenberg, Twelve Prophets II, 213 – 214.  J.-N. Guinot, ‘La cristallisation d’un différend: Zorobabel dans l’exégèse de Théodore de Mopsueste et de Théodoret de Cyr’, Aug. 24 (1984), 527– 547 (esp. 535 – 537); also idem, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, 675.  M. Simonetti, ‘La spada e l’aratro. Nota sull’interpretazione di Is. 2, 4’, Lat. 44 (1978), 411– 424; G. Lohfink, ‘“Schwerter zu Pflugscharen”. Die Rezeption von Jes 2, 1– 5 par Mi 4, 1– 5 in der Alten Kirche und im Neuen Testament’, ThQ 166 (1986), 184– 209, who is particularly interested in the patristic views on peace and politics. M. Dulaey, ‘“Venez, montons à la montagne du Seigneur”. Is 2, 2– 6 (Mi 4, 1– 3) dans l’exégèse paléochrétienne’, in B. Caseau, J.-C. Cheynet, V. Déroche (eds), Pèlerinages et lieux saints dans l’antiquité et le Moyen Âge. Mélanges offerts à Pierre Maraval, Paris 2006, 159 – 178, gives more patristic references and a detailed analysis of the different elements of this passage.

104

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Justin Martyr quotes Mic 4:1– 7 in his Dialogue with Trypho, and says to his Jewish interlocutors that according to their teachers this passage refers to the Christ – the Messiah – who has not yet come or, if he has come, is unknown but will be known once he will be manifest and glorious.³⁷⁰ Justin however distinguishes two comings of the Christ, one in his suffering (which refers to Jesus’ suffering) and another in glory from heaven. His second coming will take place when the ‘man of apostasy’ (cf. 2 Thess 2:3) will persecute the Christians who have learned godliness from the word that Jesus’ apostles preached from Jerusalem and who have fled to the God of Jacob. Justin claims that those who were once filled with war and wickedness, now (i. e. as Christians) fulfil the prophecy of swords beaten into ploughs and spears into agricultural tools (γεωργικά), because they cultivate (γεωργοῦμεν) the virtues of piety, righteousness, benevolence (φιλανθρωπία), faith, and hope thanks to him who was crucified.³⁷¹ This implies that according to Justin the prophecy has been partially fulfilled since gentiles have come to believe and practice the gospel, whereas its complete fulfilment is expected at Christ’s second coming. Earlier in his Dialogue, Justin already alluded to Mic 4:2e/Isa 2:3e, saying that now another, new law has gone forth from Zion, which implies that it differs from the Jewish law.³⁷² In his First Apology Justin also expounds the argument of the peacefulness of the Christians, to the extent of their readiness to undergo martyrdom, on the basis of Isa 2:3e–4.³⁷³ Melito of Sardes alludes to Isa 2:3e/Mic 4:2e by arguing that ‘the law became Word, the old became new, together going forth from Zion and Jerusalem’.³⁷⁴ The context confirms that by the Word he means Jesus Christ. Irenaeus’ treatment of the passage is more elaborate. With reference to ‘the prophets’ he gives an abbreviated quotation of Isa 2:3e–4/Mic 4:2e–3 in a section directed against the Marcionites. He argues that with the coming of the Lord a new covenant and a life-giving law went forth from Jerusalem to the whole earth, but he contests the view that the prophets referred to another Lord (as

 Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 109, 1– 110, 1 (Bobichon). His text of Mic 4:1– 3 has been conflated with Isa 2:2– 4, but the text of Mic 4:3 that has been preserved in Codex Naḥal Ḥever (see ch. I footnote 12) largely agrees with Justin’s reading. For Jewish interpretations see footnote 367 on Theodoret and bShabbat 63a.  Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 110, 2– 3 (Bobichon).  Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 24, 1; 34, 1; see also 43, 1 (Bobichon).  Justin, I Apologia 39, 1– 3 (SC 507). For the role of Isa 2:3e/Mic 4:2e in Justin’s view of Christ as νόμος and λόγος see C. Andresen, Logos und Nomos. Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum (AKG 30), Berlin 1955, 326 – 327; 333 – 334.  Melito, De Pascha 7 (SC 123).

V.19 The nations going up to the mountain of the Lord (Mic 4:1–3 // Isa 2:2–4)

105

Marcion believed), since they spoke about ‘our Lord’ (Jesus Christ) who brought about these things. Irenaeus underlines the peace received by the gentiles and the conviction of the ‘large people’ (i. e. the Jews; Isa 2:4b)³⁷⁵ because of its lack of intelligence. As an example of the peacefulness of the Christians Irenaeus testifies that, when they are struck, they tend the other cheek (Matt 5:39). Continuing his demonstration of the harmony between the old and new covenants, he explicates that it is ‘our Lord’ ‘who made the plough and brought the sickle’, in the beginning when he sowed and created Adam, and in the last times when he will reap the harvest through the Word. Irenaeus’ explication of the image goes even further, in that he notes that the plough consists of wood fixed on iron, which means that the solid Word was united with the flesh and in this capacity cleansed the overgrown earth (silvestrem terram). The sickle stands for Abel, who represents the harvest of the righteous people who are killed; this has been proclaimed by the prophets, has come true in the Lord, and also ‘in us’ (the Christians), since the body follows its head.³⁷⁶ Jean Daniélou observes that the ancient plough was cruciform, and that Justin already considered it a symbol of the cross of salvation, so that Irenaeus follows him in this respect.³⁷⁷ Clement of Alexandria exhorts the Greeks to give up their myths and ‘to dwell in Zion’, ‘for out of Zion will go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem’ (Isa 2:3e/Mic 4:3e), namely ‘the heavenly Word, the true champion, who is being crowned upon the stage of the whole world’; later on he identifies him as Christ.³⁷⁸ To Christians he explicates that the law and the word (νόμος καὶ λόγος) designate the Saviour, for which he refers to the Preaching of Peter and to Isa 2:3e.³⁷⁹  Isa 2:4ab reads, ‘And he will judge between the nations and will prove guilty a large people (λαὸν πολύν)’.  Irenaeus, Aduersus Haereses IV, 34, 4 (SC 100). He also quotes Isa 2:3e in Praedicatio apostolica 86 (SC 406). For the peace of the Roman empire see also Aduersus Haereses IV, 30, 3 and W.C. van Unnik, ‘Irenaeus en de Pax Romana’, in A. van den Beld, E. Schroten (eds), Kerk en vrede. Opstellen aangeboden aan Prof. dr. J. de Graaf, Baarn 1976, 207– 222.  J. Daniélou, ‘La charrue symbole de la croix’, RSR 42 (1954), 193 – 203; both complemented and criticized by J. Doignon, ‘Le salut par le fer et le bois chez Irénée’, RSR 43 (1955), 535 – 544. For the plough as a symbol of the cross Daniélou refers to Justin, I Apologia 55, 3 (SC 507), and to several later authors, but without reference to Mic 4:3 / Isa 2:4.  Clement, Exhortatio ad Graecos 2, 3; 7, 1 (Marcovich); transl. Butterworth (LCL 92, 7). Since the first words of his quotation read ἐκ γάρ, not ὅτι ἐκ as in Mic 4:2e, it is clear that he quotes Isa 2:3e.  Clement, Eclogae propheticae 58 (BP 4); Stromateis I, 182, 3; II, 68, 2 (SC 30; 38). See J. Daniélou, Théologie du judéo-christianisme, Paris etc. 1958, 216 – 218. The Preaching of Peter is known fragmentarily thanks to such quotations; see J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament, Oxford 1993, 20 – 24.

106

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Tertullian shares the view we found in Justin and Irenaeus and implicitly in Clement, that Isa 2:2– 4 has been fulfilled ‘in the last days’, when gentiles came to believe in Christ. In his work Against the Jews he discusses Isa 2:2– 4 as being fulfilled by the Christians who have been called out of the nations. Their mountain is Christ and they practice the new law of clemency and peacefulness, contrary to the old law of the Jews that taught to revenge oneself with a sword and ‘an eye for an eye’.³⁸⁰ In his work Against Marcion he interprets ‘the mountain of the Lord’ as God’s highness (sublimitas), ‘the house of God’ as Christ, God’s temple, the ‘tops of the mountains’ as the highest angels, and ‘the law’ as the new law of the gospel. Like Irenaeus, he considers the ‘large people’ which the Lord will prove guilty (reuincet; Is 2:4b) to be the Jews and the proselytes, and he applies the following words to the peacefulness of Christ and the Christians; but inconsistently he explains later on that this ‘large people’ refers rather to the gentiles who gave up their former error and converted to the peaceful virtues of the gospel (here his translation of ἐλέγξει reads traducet, ‘[the Lord] will convert’).³⁸¹ The plural ‘mighty nations’ in the parallel version of Mic 4:3b may have inspired Tertullian to construct this different exegesis. In his work Against Marcion Tertullian does not oppose the old and the new law as he did in Against the Jews, for here this argument would play into the Marcionites’ hands. Origen quotes Isa 2:2– 4 in his reply to Celsus’ questions where Christians come from and who is the author of their traditional laws. Celsus is aware of their Jewish origin, but he also knows that Christians separated from the Jews. Origen’s reply consists of an interpretation of Isaiah’s prophecy. ‘In the last days’, when Jesus came, ‘all of us’ (the Christians) came to ‘the famous mountain of the Lord’ (τὸ ἐμφανὲς ὄρος κυρίου), which Origen explains as ‘the Word above every word’, and to the ‘house of God’ (Isa 2:2b), which is God’s Church. In his view, ‘the tops of the mountains’ are the words of the prophets. ‘The hills’ above which this house will be raised refer to those who seem to be experts in wisdom and truth (but are not so in reality). ‘The law’ that went forth from the inhabitants of Zion is transformed into a spiritual law for Christians. Moreover, ‘the word of the Lord’ went forth from Jerusalem in order to be spread everywhere, to judge ‘the nations’, to choose out those who are obedient, and to prove guilty the ‘large people’ that is disobedient. Christians came to beat the spiritual (λογικάς) swords of hostility and violence into ploughs and to transform the spears of their former battles into sickles; Origen highlights their peacefulness that they

 Tertullian, Aduersus Iudaeos 3, 8 – 10 (CCSL 2); Lev 24:20; Matt 5:38.  Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem III, 21, 3; IV, 1, 4– 5 (SC 399; 456); also V, 4, 2 (SC 483).

V.19 The nations going up to the mountain of the Lord (Mic 4:1–3 // Isa 2:2–4)

107

owe to their leader, Jesus, who went forth from the Jews and occupies the whole world with his teaching.³⁸² Cyprian quotes Mic 4:2e–3b and Isa 2:3e–4b as testimonies announcing that a new law was to be given, and holds that the mountain that has been made manifest refers to Christ.³⁸³ His friend and colleague Firmilian, bishop in Caesarea, Cappadocia, writes to Cyprian that, although they are far from each other, they live in the same and only spiritual house of God, for which he quotes Isa 2:2ab.³⁸⁴ Anonymous and pseudepigraphic writings of the third or fourth century also refer to Isaiah’s and Micah’s vision. A Pseudo-Cyprianic homily entitled Against the Jews quotes Isa 2:3e–6, commenting that foreigners (i. e. gentiles) have become the Lord’s people (genus) and urging the Jews to enter as well and to be baptized.³⁸⁵ The Pseudo-Cyprianic treatise On Mounts Sinai and Zion opposes Sinai, from which the law of Moses went forth, and Zion, from which the law will go forth (exiet; Isa 2:3e/Mic 4:2e); this new law refers to the holy cross of Christ. The author holds that Jerusalem from which the word of the Lord will go forth designates Jerusalem that descends from heaven, i. e. the Church.³⁸⁶ The Didascalia quotes Isa 2:2– 3d as a testimony to the Church, since the Lord left the Jewish people and its temple; furthermore, the author stresses that the Church is one, over against the heretics who think that there are other churches.³⁸⁷ The Dialogue of Adamantius emphasizes, in reaction to a Marcionite interlocutor, the harmony between God’s old and new legislation. It argues that Christ

 Origen, Contra Celsum V, 33 (SC 147).  Cyprian, Testimonia ad Quirinium I, 10; II, (16–)18 (CCSL 3). That Christ is ‘the mountain of the Lord’ that has been made manifest (Isa 2:2a/Mic 4:1a) is also found in Hippolytus (the exegete), De benedictionibus Moysis (PO 27, 1, 128).  Firmilian, in Cyprian, Epistulae 75, 1 (CCSL 3C).  Aduersus Iudaeos 9 (CCSL 4, 276 – 277). See Dulaey, ‘Venez, montons à la montagne du Seigneur’, 174– 175; D. van Damme, Pseudo-Cyprian: Aduersus Iudaeos. Gegen die Judenchristen. Die älteste lateinische Predigt (Paradosis 22), Freiburg 1969, 42– 43; 87– 91; 134– 135 (§ 73 in his edition), who dates this work between 175 and 212; and W. Horbury, ‘The Purpose of Pseudo-Cyprian Aduersus Iudaeos’, StPatr 18 (1989), 291– 317, who dates it between the end of the second century and the middle of the third (311).  De montibus Sina et Sion 1, 2; 9, 5 – 10, 1 (BP 25). For the reading exiet see C. Burini, Pseudo Cipriano. I due monti Sinai e Sion (BP 25), Fiesole 1994, 190 – 191. For a discussion of the two laws and the heavenly Church see A.M. Laato, Jews and Christians in De duobus montibus Sina et Sion: An Approach to Early Latin Adversus Iudaeos Literature, Åbo 1998, 120 – 138; 154– 158.  Didascalia apostolorum 23 (6, 5, 5 – 6); translation A. Stewart-Sykes, The Didascalia apostolorum: An English version edited, introduced and annotated (Studia Traditionis Theologiae. Explorations in Early and Medieval Theology 1), Turnhout 2009, 228.

108

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

sent his apostles from Jerusalem to proclaim the message of peace, which was to be done without weapons, in agreement with Isa 2:3e–4.³⁸⁸ Lactantius, who wrote his Divine Institutes during the great persecution of the Church in the early fourth century, confirms the Jewish criticism that Christ had tried to do away with the Mosaic law, and quotes Mic 4:2e–3b to demonstrate that a new law would be given that corresponds to the Mosaic law in its spiritual interpretation.³⁸⁹ Like previous authors, Eusebius of Caesarea quotes this vision as a testimony to the vocation of the gentile nations to the new, heavenly Jerusalem and to salvation by the spiritual mountain, the Word or Christ, who taught in Jerusalem but left it, which implies that the Jews would be rejected.³⁹⁰ What is new in his interpretation of this passage is that he considers the prediction of peace in Mic 4:3 – 4 fulfilled thanks to the Roman supremacy (κατὰ τὴν τῶν Ῥωμαίων ἐπικράτησιν). He writes this a few years after the end of the great persecution, and therefore he apparently refers to the freedom of religion that emperor Constantine allowed to the Christians in 313.³⁹¹ Roughly contemporaneously Athanasius of Alexandria argues that the prediction of peace in Isa 2:4c–f is being fulfilled in his own time, when peoples stop to wage war against each other when they come to know Jesus Christ and, through him, learn to worship God the Father. Athanasius testifies that as a consequence of Christ’s teaching barbarians start to cultivate the land, pray, and arm against the devil.³⁹² On the word of the Lord going forth from Jerusalem (Mic 4:2e), Hilary of Poitiers says (ca 365) that this is the Word that became flesh (John 1:14). Furthermore (and curiously), he explains that this flesh is Zion and Jerusalem (i. e. in its spiritual sense), ‘the city of peace for us’. Concerning ‘the law from Zion’ Hilary holds that it ‘did not bring salvation, for although it gave life through activity,

 Dialogus Adamantii 10 (GCS 4).  Lactantius, Divinae institutiones IV, 17 (CSEL 19).  Eusebius, Eclogae propheticae II, 2; III, 18; IV, 1 (PG 22, 1093BC; 1141B–1144A; 1194D–1196B); Demonstratio euangelica I, 4, 7– 9; II, 3, 67; VI, 13, 19 – 20; VI, 18, 50; VII, 2, 18 – 19; VIII, 3, 12– 15 (GCS 23). The interpretation of the mountain of the Lord as Christ, the Son of God, is also adopted by Didymus, In Zachariam I, 302 (SC 83).  Eusebius, Praeparatio euangelica I, 4, 4– 5 (SC 206); Demonstratio euangelica VIII, 14– 16 (GCS 23). For the date of these works see Ferrar, The Proof of the Gospel, xii–xiii; J. Sirinelli, É. des Places, Eusèbe de Césarée. La Préparation évangélique. Introduction générale. Livre I (SC 206), Paris 1974, 8 – 15. See the observations by Lohfink, ‘Schwerter zu Pflugscharen’, 195 – 201, on the influence of Eusebius’ political interpretations on the Greek Church.  Athanasius, De incarnatione Verbi 51, 4– 52, 4 (SC 199). For comments see E.P. Meijering, J.C.M. van Winden, Athanasius: De incarnatione Verbi. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Amsterdam 1989, 344– 350.

V.19 The nations going up to the mountain of the Lord (Mic 4:1–3 // Isa 2:2–4)

109

it did not bring justification by faith’.³⁹³ Thus he devalues the Jewish notion of salvation (at least in his understanding) and highlights the Pauline view (cf. Rom 3:28).³⁹⁴ Most of the references to Mic 4:1– 3 and Isa 2:2– 4 discussed so far served as arguments in polemical contexts, not in word by word Commentaries. Chronologically, we now reach the period of the running Commentaries on Micah. I will discuss Jerome in particular because of his detailed exegesis, and more briefly the other commentators, without paying attention to the numerous references to this passage in other authors, since they hardly present anything new. Jerome relates the term ‘mountain of the Lord’ (Mic 4:1a) to what was said to the ruler of Tyre, or rather the devil, in Ezek 28:16, which he reads as, ‘you have been wounded on the mountain of the Lord’. He explains that this ‘mountain of the Lord’ has been made manifest in the last days, when the kingdom of heavens has come near, namely when the Saviour came to sacrifice his life for sinners. The ‘tops of the mountains’ on which this ‘mountain of the Lord’ will be established represent the predictions by Moses and the prophets concerning the coming of the Saviour; in comparison with these predictions all their other subjects are low and do not belong to ‘the top’. Alluding to Phil 2:7– 9, Jerome interprets the words, ‘it will be raised up above the hills’ (Mic 4:1b), as a reference to the Saviour’s exaltation after he humbled himself (so that instead of our ‘it’ he reads ‘he’). It is to this mountain (Christ) that the peoples will hasten, as the enumeration of the peoples at Pentecost in Acts 2:9 – 11 illustrates.³⁹⁵ For Jerome the mountain of the Lord to which one has to go up (Mic 4:2b) in order to reach Christ is identical with ‘the house of the God of Jacob’, which stands for the Church. The subject of the clause, ‘so that they will show us his way’ (Mic 4:2c), is either the angels that govern the churches, or the Scriptures that foretold the way of the Lord, who said, ‘I am the way’ (John 14:6).³⁹⁶ According to Jerome, ‘his paths’ in which ‘we shall walk’ (Mic 4:2d) refer to the apostles. The

 Hilary, In Psalmos 52, 18 (CSEL 22); the last clause reads, lex autem ex Sion non fuit salutaris, opere quidem uiuificans, sed non iustificans ex fide.  In the same time Marius Victorinus wrote his Commentaries on Ephesians, Galatians, and Philippians, which testifies to an emerging new interest in the Pauline epistles.  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 4, 1– 7, 1– 93 (CCSL 76). The identification of the mountain of the Lord as Christ also in Jerome, Epistulae 78, 22 (CCSL 55) (from 400). In his later commentary In Zachariam II, 8, 1– 3 (CCSL 76A) (from 406) he identifies the mountain of Isa 2:2– 3b/ Mic 4:1– 2b with ‘Mount Zion, the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem’, to which the faithful have come (Heb 12:22– 23a).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 4, 1– 7, 93 – 104; 146 – 152 (CCSL 76). For the Origenian reference to the angels that govern the churches cf. Rev 1:20 – 2:1 and see A. Monaci Castagno, ‘Angelo’, in eadem (ed.), Origene. Dizionario. La cultura, il pensiero, le opere, Rome 2000, 6 – 13 (11).

110

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

law that went forth from Zion is the spiritual law, and the word of the Lord that has passed from Jerusalem to the nations (Mic 4:2e) will judge and distinguish between people who are worthy of salvation and others who are unworthy. Jerome affirms that Christ will bring about the peace announced in Mic 4:3c–e. First he expounds that, in a literal sense (iuxta litteram), before Christ the whole world was originally filled with bloodshed. Even the Roman Republic was torn apart by civil wars. But when, with the reign of Christ (ad imperium Christi), Rome established one single empire (singulare imperium), the whole world became accessible for the apostles so that the Roman empire served the proclamation of the one God.³⁹⁷ Jerome does not say that after Christ’s coming the Roman empire as such lived in peace, as Eusebius suggested for his own time. Subsequently Jerome gives an allegorical interpretation (tropologice) of the swords beaten into ploughs and the spears into sickles with regard to Christians. It holds that through faith in Christ wrath and rudeness have been done away, in order that each one ‘puts a hand to the plough’, does not ‘look back’ (Luke 9:62), breaks the javelins and spears of insulting language, and desires to harvest spiritual fruits.³⁹⁸ At the end of his exposition of Mic 4:1– 7 Jerome ascribes an interpretation to Jews and some Christians who held that this is said about the millenarian reign of Christ and the saints (cf. Rev 20:4– 6). He rejects this view and holds that this is said about the first coming of Christ.³⁹⁹ Apparently, Jerome derived most of his interpretations from Origen’s Commentary, which is confirmed by the correspondences to Origen’s passage in his work Against Celsus discussed above. This may be one of the reasons why Jerome does not emphasize that the prophecy of peace has been fulfilled in the Roman empire as such, since in Origen’s time Christians did not always live in peace with the Roman authorities. Another reason must be that Jerome was aware that the Roman empire did not fully live in peace.⁴⁰⁰ Augustine highlights the aspects that the mountain of the Lord will be manifest and that all nations will come to it (Isa 2:2) in his controversy with the Donatists who split off from this mountain, the Catholic Church, and limited it geographically to Africa.⁴⁰¹ Against the Jews, he opposes the view that the nations should literally go up to the mountain of the Lord (Isa 2:3b/Mic 4:2b) and prepare

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 4, 1– 7, 104– 129 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 4, 1– 7, 130 – 135 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 4, 1– 7, 189 – 198 (CCSL 76).  Cf. Simonetti, ‘La spada e l’aratro’, 421, noting with regard to Jerome’s comments on Isa 2:1– 4, from 408 – 410, that barbarians invaded the Roman empire.  Augustine, Sermo 147A, 3 – 4 (ed. Morin, 52– 53; also PL 46, 853 – 854); In primam ep. Ioannis 1, 13 (SC 75). More references in Dulaey, ‘Venez, montons à la montagne du Seigneur’, 168; 171.

V.19 The nations going up to the mountain of the Lord (Mic 4:1–3 // Isa 2:2–4)

111

their ships and beasts of burden, for in order ‘to go up’ they can stay where they are, since God can be worshipped wherever people believe in him.⁴⁰² Like previous authors, Augustine considers the mountain of the Lord (Mic 4:1a) an image of Christ, and he juxtaposes the law of Moses given on Mount Sinai and the new law given by Christ as predicted in Isa 2:3e/Mic 4:2e.⁴⁰³ Augustine observes that ‘the way’ that the Lord will proclaim to the nations (Isa 2:3c) does not belong to one people, but to all the nations, and that the law and word of the Lord went forth from Zion and Jerusalem (Isa 2:3e/Mic 4:2e) to be spread over the world; for Christ had told his apostles to preach repentance to all nations, ‘beginning from Jerusalem’ (Luke 24:47).⁴⁰⁴ Remarkably, Augustine stops his quotation of Mic 4:1– 3b before the vision of peace formulated in Mic 4:3c–e,⁴⁰⁵ which is not found in his works at all. This suggests that he does not align with those authors who considered that this peace had come in their own days. For Augustine, peace belongs to the afterlife.⁴⁰⁶ Much of Cyril’s comments may be called traditional. For example, he interprets ‘the last days’ as the end of this age, i. e. when Christ came, and ‘the mountain of the Lord’ to which the nations will come (Mic 4:1– 2) as the Church from the gentiles who have come to the house of God, which represents Christ. Like Jerome, he interprets ‘his paths’ (Mic 4:2d) as Christ’s disciples, who were commanded to baptize the nations (Matt 28:19 – 20).⁴⁰⁷ Similarly, a baptismal application of the appeal to ‘go up to the mountain of the Lord’ (Mic 4:2b) is found in Cyril’s Paschal Letters. ⁴⁰⁸ In his Commentary on Micah Cyril explains that the law and word of the Lord that will go forth from Zion or Jerusalem (Mic 4:2e) stand for Christ who came down from heaven. He also concludes from Mic 4:2e that

 Augustine, Aduersus Iudaeos 9, 14 (PL 42, 63).  Augustine, De ciuitate Dei XVIII, 30, 1; 54, 1 (OSA 36). See A.-M. La Bonnardière, Biblia Augustiniana A.T. Les douze petits prophètes, Paris 1963, 31.  Augustine, De ciuitate Dei X, 32, 2; XVIII, 50; 54, 1 (OSA 34; 36); Aduersus Iudaeos 7, 9 (PL 42, 57– 58).  Augustine, De ciuitate Dei XVIII, 30, 1 (OSA 36).  Lohfink, ‘Schwerter zu Pflugscharen’, 202, with reference to Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 48, 6, 17 (CCSL 38), pacem in hac terra et requiem in hac uita non promisit. (…) Non est pax in hac vita, ‘He (i. e. God) did not promise peace on this earth and rest in this life. (…) There is no peace in this life.’ Simonetti, ‘La spada e l’aratro’, 420, points to the contemporaneous invasions by barbarians in the Western part of the Roman empire.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 4, 1– 3 (Pusey, 656, 22– 659, 10).  Cyril, Epistulae paschales 5, 7 (SC 372); see Dulaey, ‘Venez, montons à la montagne du Seigneur’, 174– 176, for more baptismal interpretations of Mic 4:1– 2 and Isa 2:2– 3. In his Epistulae paschales 1, 1 and 16, 1 (SC 372; 434) Cyril reads Isa 2:3 as an appeal to go up to the spiritual Jerusalem and to celebrate Easter.

112

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Zion will be bereft of the law and Jerusalem will be stripped of God’s words. The Lord’s judgment between many nations (Mic 4:3a) refers, in his view, to God rendering justice to the numerous gentiles by justifying them through mercy and faith; but the ‘mighty nations’ that are proved guilty (Mic 4:3b) are the demons that were active to the ends of the earth.⁴⁰⁹ Unlike Jerome and Augustine, Cyril does not hesitate to explain that the subsequent peace predicted in Mic 4:3 – 4 has come not only through Christ but also thanks to the Roman empire, which gained control of the earth.⁴¹⁰ Likewise, Theodoret affirms that this prophecy foreshadows the period after the coming of Christ, the baptism of the gentile nations, and the profound peace of the Roman empire.⁴¹¹ Hesychius has an interpretation of ‘the mountain of the Lord’ (Mic 4:1a) that we did not find with previous authors; he says that it is Golgotha. He interprets ‘the word of the Lord’ (Mic 4:2e) as ‘the [word] of grace’. In Mic 4:3b he reads ἕως εἰς μακράν (not ἕως εἰς γῆν μακράν, ‘as far as a distant land’) in a temporal sense, for he explains, ‘the teaching lasts to the end; for the law of the Gospels is not temporary’. The transformation of swords and spears (Mic 4:3c) means, in his view, that ‘the Greek disputations that cause wars to the souls they (i. e. apparently the apostles) will transform into teachings that transmit the spiritual (νοητός) seed and harvest’.⁴¹² In conclusion, the general understanding of this passage is shared by all patristic authors except Theodore, in so far as it predicts the dissemination of the gospel among the gentile nations. However, the interpretations of the different elements of Micah’s and Isaiah’s vision vary widely, although sometimes they remain implicit. In my survey of the various explanations I will follow the order of the clauses and terms as they occur in the passage. ‘The last days’ are generally interpreted as a reference to the first coming of Christ and the subsequent period in which the authors lived, which is a remarkable testimony to realized eschatology (Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Eusebius, Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret and others with whom this view remains implicit). Among the authors studied above, only Justin says explicitly that the complete fulfilment of the prophecy is to be expected at Christ’s second coming. ‘The mountain of the Lord’ is interpreted as ‘God’s highness’ (Tertullian), the heaven-

 Cyril, In Michaeam II, 4, 1– 3 (Pusey, 659, 11– 662, 13).  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 4, 3 – 4 (Pusey, 662, 14– 664, 13).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 4, 3 – 5 (PG 81, 1761B–D).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 83; 86; 89; 90 (Eriksson, 157). Unlike Rahlfs, Ziegler rightly considers γῆν in Mic 4:3b a later addition. It is not found in Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 109, 2 (Bobichon), Origen, Ep. ad Africanum 21 (15) (SC 302), Theodore, In Michaeam 4, 1– 3 (Sprenger, 206, 28), and Theodoret, In Michaeam 4, 1– 3 (PG 81, 1760B) either.

V.19 The nations going up to the mountain of the Lord (Mic 4:1–3 // Isa 2:2–4)

113

ly kingdom (Jerome, Cyril), the Word, i. e. Christ (Tertullian, Hippolytus, Origen, Cyprian, Eusebius, Didymus, Jerome), the Church (Firmilian, Jerome, Augustine, Cyril), or Golgotha (Hesychius). ‘The tops of the mountains’ stand for the highest angels (Tertullian) or Moses and the prophets who predicted the coming of the Saviour (Origen and Jerome).⁴¹³ Origen considers ‘the hills’ a metaphor for those who are seemingly experts in wisdom and truth. Jerome explains that the clause, ‘he will be raised up above the hills’, refers to Christ’s exaltation after he humbled himself. The announcement that ‘many nations will come’ is generally understood in the sense of the gentiles who come to believe in Christ. The appeal to the nations to ‘go up to the mountain of the Lord’ was considered an allusion to baptism (Against the Jews, Cyril) and an incitement to worship God wherever they lived, and should not be taken in a spatial sense (Augustine). ‘The house of God’ (Isa 2:2b) represents Christ, God’s temple (Tertullian) or the Church (Origen, Firmilian), and ‘the house of the God of Jacob’ too is interpreted as the Church (Jerome). The subject of the words, ‘they will show us his way’, is either the governing angels or the Scriptures (Jerome), and ‘his paths’ refer to the apostles (Jerome, Cyril). The clause, ‘For out of Zion will go forth the law and the word of the Lord from Jerusalem’, was particularly favourite. Writing against Marcion, Irenaeus relates it to the new covenant and speaks about a life-giving law which was in agreement with the Old Testament prophets. This law and word were interpreted as references to Jesus Christ (Melito, Clement, Hilary, Cyril), or to a new or spiritual law (Cyprian, Origen, Lactantius, Jerome). This law was also conceived as Christ’s cross, Jerusalem as the Church (On Mounts Sinai and Zion), and ‘the word’ as the word of grace (Hesychius). That the Lord ‘will judge between many nations’ and ‘prove guilty mighty nations’ refers to God distinguishing between people worthy or unworthy of salvation (Jerome) or to the gentiles who received God’s mercy and to the demons (Cyril). Isaiah’s version, ‘And he will judge between many nations and he will prove guilty a large people’ (Isa 2:4ab) is interpreted with regard to the gentiles who receive peace and the Jewish people that is convicted respectively (Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen). The end of war promised in Mic 4:3c–e is believed to refer to the peacefulness of Christ and the Christians in contradistinction to their pagan past and environment (Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Origen, Dialogue of Adamantius, Athanasius, Jerome), but authors writing after Constantine’s turn and even more after the eventual triumph of Catholic Christianity over paganism also apply it to the peace reigning

 Origen, Contra Celsum V, 33 (SC 147), only mentions ‘the words of the prophets’, but I assume that Jerome’s comments go back to Origen, so that I attribute Jerome’s fuller interpretation to Origen as well.

114

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

in the Roman empire (Eusebius, Cyril, Theodoret). In addition, the image of the swords beaten into ploughs and the spears transformed into sickles was given various allegorical interpretations concerning Christ and the righteous people (Irenaeus) and the inner transformation of the Christians (Origen, Jerome, Hesychius).⁴¹⁴

V.20 The Lord will reign on Mount Zion (Mic 4:4 – 7) The prophet continues to present his hopeful perspective: 4

And each one will rest under his vine and each one under his fig tree, and there will be no one who frightens, for the mouth of the Lord Almighty has spoken these things. 5For all the peoples will walk, each in its own way, but we shall walk in the name of the Lord our God, for ever and ever. 6On that day, says the Lord, I shall gather her who was shattered and I shall receive her who was rejected, those whom I rejected. 7And I shall make her who was shattered to a remnant and her who was rejected to a strong nation, and the Lord will reign over them on Mount Zion from now and forever (Mic 4:4– 7).

As can be expected, Theodore applies this passage too to the period after the Israelites returned from Babylon.⁴¹⁵ His comment on Mic 4:5 reads, ‘Now that all are enjoying peace, they will perform the works appropriate to them, some turning to farming, some to seafaring, and others to whatever trade each happens to be involved in. But all alike we will have the task to live according to God’s will for all the subsequent (ἑξῆς) time.’⁴¹⁶ Remarkably, Theodore’s use of the first person plural (ἕξομεν) demonstrates that in spite of his application of this passage to the Jews he also – and exceptionally – includes his Christian readers in this short homiletic exhortation. His words ‘for all the subsequent time’ are his interpretation of the concluding words of Mic 4:5, ‘for ever and ever’, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα καὶ ἐπέκεινα. That the Lord will reign on Mount Zion ‘forever’ (καὶ ἕως εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, Mic 4:7c) clearly means, in his opinion, ‘for a long time’ (μέχρι πολλοῦ),

 See also Ps.-Simon Magus, ἡ A ᾿ πόϕασις ἡ μεγάλη (§ IV.2.3.2).  Theodore, In Michaeam 4, 3 – 4 (Sprenger, 208, 15 – 209, 1).  Theodore, In Michaeam 4, 5 (Sprenger, 209, 2– 9; quotation 209, 5 – 9); translation Hill, adapted. In line 8 he ignores the first person plural ἕξομεν and translates ‘But all alike will have a task…’ H.T. Ondrey, The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture in the Commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria, Oxford 2018, 147– 166, does not refer to this text, although it would have fitted in very well with her exposition of the Christian character of Theodore’s Commentary on the Twelve Prophets. Perhaps she overlooked it because she only saw Hill’s erroneous translation and did not consult the Greek text.

V.20 The Lord will reign on Mount Zion (Mic 4:4 – 7)

115

for it is clear that the circumstances changed in the time of the Maccabees, and even more and definitely ‘when after their crimes against Christ the Lord they (i. e. the Jews) were altogether made to endure captivity under the Romans, expelled from their own land and reduced to a long period of servitude’.⁴¹⁷ Other authors relate this passage more exclusively to the Christians and to Christ. Justin gives two interpretations of the vine under which each one will rest (Mic 4:4a). First, it means that a Christian man has only one wife (cf. Ps 127:3); second, the vine represents the Christians whose number increases in spite of cruel persecutions; thus they are like a vine that is pruned so that it bears fruit (cf. John 15:1– 2).⁴¹⁸ Justin notes that the following prediction (Mic 4:6 – 7) will be fulfilled at Christ’s second coming. He says that according to the Jews they are the people who were rejected from the world. Justin comments that if this happens to them, they deserve it, but he rather holds that this is said about the Christians, for they are taken away from the earth, in the sense of Isa 57:1, ‘righteous men are being taken away, and no one takes notice’.⁴¹⁹ According to Origen the vine and the fig tree (Mic 4:4a) designate Jesus Christ (John 15:1) and the Holy Spirit respectively.⁴²⁰ Didymus holds that this text refers to the tranquillity (ἀταραξία) of the soul given to the saints; the vine stands for the contemplative life, and the fig tree for the active life.⁴²¹ Jerome adopts Origen’s interpretation of the vine and the fig tree as Christ (John 15:1) and the Spirit and its fruits of ‘love, joy, peace, etcetera’ respectively.⁴²² Concerning his translation of the Hebrew version of Mic 4:6a (congregabo claudicantem, ‘I shall gather the lame one’) he explains that this does not refer to the Jews who do not believe in Christ, but to the first Church of Jewish believers. He notes that the prophet does not say that the lame one is saved in his entirety but, ‘I (the Lord) shall make the lame one to a remnant’ (Mic 4:7a

 Theodore, In Michaeam 4, 6 – 7 (Sprenger, 209, 10 – 32; quotation 209, 29 – 32); translation Hill. According to my check in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (1st Febr. 2017), this is Theodore’s only explicit reference to the Romans in his Commentary on the Twelve Prophets. Ondrey, The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture, 198, interprets this passage as a testimony to Theodore’s supersessionist view of the relationship between the Church and the Jews, since he nowhere discusses the eschatological restoration of the Jews.  Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 110, 3 – 4 (Bobichon). Ps 127:3a reads, ‘Your wife is like a thriving vine’. Justin’s text of Mic 4:4– 7 diverges considerably from Rahlfs’ edition.  Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 110, 5 – 6 (Bobichon).  Origen, Hom. in Iesu Nave 15, 7 (SC 71); Comm. Series in Matthaeum 53 (GCS 38, 120).  Didymus, In Iob III, 11, 19 (PTA 3).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 4, 1– 7, 140 – 144 (CCSL 76).

116

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

according to the Hebrew text), so that the remnant that is elected will be saved. According to Jerome, this means that the first Jewish Christians would become a ‘strong nation’ (Mic 4:7b), although they were persecuted so that some of them underwent martyrdom. That ‘the Lord will reign over them’ (Mic 4:7c) refers both to the ‘many nations’ (Mic 4:2a) and to the remnant of ‘the lame one’, while ‘Mount Zion’ refers to the Church.⁴²³ Jerome also offers his interpretation of the Septuagint version of Mic 4:6ab, ‘I shall gather her who was shattered (eam quae contrita fuit) and I shall receive her who was rejected’. In his view – most probably translated from Origen’s Commentary –, this version designates the human soul that was a slave to passions and vices before Christ came; like a lost sheep, mangled by the wolves (cf. John 10:12), it is destined to live under the reign of the Lord, the good shepherd (John 10:11), in Zion.⁴²⁴ As we saw in § V.19, Jerome rejects the view that Mic 4:1– 7 predicts the millennium of Christ and the saints at the end of the ages (Rev 20:4– 6). He ascribes this interpretation to Jews and to those Christians who inherited their error. In his view, this is said about Christ’s first coming, when (in quo) the remnant of ‘the lame one’ is gathered, and the gentiles are saved first (cf. Rom 11:25 – 26).⁴²⁵ Cyril explains that spiritually (πνευματικῶς) Mic 4:3 – 4 means that through the peace given by Christ ‘we gather the fruits of righteousness and now rest under fig tree and vine’; in his view, the fig tree symbolizes sweetness, and the vine stands for spiritual gladness. He applies the words, ‘we shall walk in the name of the Lord our God’ (Mic 4:5b), to the decision to live with Christ. Like Jerome, Cyril interprets ‘her who was shattered’ (Mic 4:6a) as the Jewish people that even crucified the Saviour, whereas the ‘strong nation’ (Mic 4:7b) refers to the Jewish remnant (Mic 4:7a) that was saved and received justification in Christ. Unlike Jerome, Cyril interprets Mount Zion in Mic 4:7c as ‘the heavenly Jerusalem, the mother of the first-born, in whom we shall be with Christ himself’.⁴²⁶ Commenting on Mic 4:3 – 5, Theodoret repeats (cf. § V.19) that this does not apply to the Jews, but to the period after Christ’s coming which coincided with the increasing power of the Roman empire, so that profound peace reigned

 Jerome, In Michaeam I, 4, 1– 7, 158 – 181 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 4, 1– 7, 181– 189 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam I, 4, 1– 7, 189 – 198 (CCSL 76). In l. 197 the reading collegantur (‘are gathered’?) is strange; ms. A (10th c.) reads colliguntur, which is also given in PL 25, 1190A and by Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 44. For the ‘Jewish’ and Christian millenaristic interpretation see also A. Staub, Die exegetische Methode des Hieronymus im Kommentar zum Zwölfprophetenbuch, Rome 1977, 240 – 241.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 4, 3 – 7 (Pusey, 664, 1– 666, 16); also Glaphyra in Leuiticum 3 (PG 69, 573D–576A).

V.21 The kingdom from Babylon (Mic 4:8 – 10)

117

over the whole world. Contrary to Theodore, but also unlike Jerome and Cyril, Theodoret holds that Mic 4:6 – 7 does not concern the Jews at all, since their former kingdom has come to an end and they live far from Jerusalem in slavery. Again he urges the teachers of the Church to defend the truth;⁴²⁷ thus he clearly dissuades his colleagues from following Theodore’s interpretation of this passage. In Theodoret’s understanding (like Jerome’s), the one ‘who was shattered and rejected’ (Mic 4:6ab) refers to the souls for whom God’s Word came to the earth to heal them and to call sinners to repentance. Thus Christ brought to light the Church in which he reigns over them ‘from now and forever’. All this concerns the Church from the gentiles, in Theodoret’s view.⁴²⁸ According to Hesychius, the vine and the fig tree (Mic 4:4a) refer to ‘the spiritual (νοητά) and mystical fields (μυστικὰ γεώργια) of the soul’. That ‘there will be no one who frightens’ (Mic 4:4b) means that Christ has eliminated the fear of demons. As with Theodoret, in Hesychius’ view too, the one ‘who was shattered and rejected’ (Mic 4:6ab) is ‘the Church from the gentiles, for having been shattered by error it has been repelled (ἀποβέβλητο) because of it’. Perhaps this puzzling clause refers to the pagan past of these Christians. In his interpretation, ‘to a remnant’ (Mic 4:7a) refers to their salvation, and he says about ‘Mount Zion’ (Mic 4:7c), ‘for there are administered the mysteries (or, sacraments) of the Church’.⁴²⁹

V.21 The kingdom from Babylon (Mic 4:8 – 10) After the prophecy of peace and salvation, Jerusalem is addressed in less peaceful words, but the prophet also announces redemption. 8

And you, dirty (αὐχμώδης) tower of the flock, daughter Zion, to you will come and enter the first authority (ἀρχή), the kingdom from Babylon to daughter Jerusalem. 9And now, why did you know evil things? Did not you have a king? Or did your counsel perish because birth pangs overwhelmed you like a woman in labour? 10Suffer birth pangs and be courageous and draw near, daughter Zion, like a woman in labour; for now you will go forth from the city and you will tent in the plain, and you will come as far as Babylon. From there the Lord your God will rescue you and from there he will redeem you from the hand of your enemies (Mic 4:8 – 10).

 Theodoret, In Michaeam 4, 3 – 7 (PG 81, 1761B–1764B); See Guinot, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, 675 – 676.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 4, 6 – 7 (PG 81, 1764AB).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 91– 92; 94– 96 (Eriksson, 158).

118

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Theodore is the only commentator who connects αὐχμώδης with ‘daughter Zion’: ‘And you, tower of the flock, dirty daughter Zion’ (Mic 4:8a). He rejects the interpretation given by ‘some’ that the prophet addresses king Zedekiah (4 Kgdms 24:17– 25:7) and explains that this is said to Jerusalem, because of whose wrongdoings the king of Babylon will arrive and dispose of the city as a mighty king is used to.⁴³⁰ Cyril and Theodoret agree that Mic 4:8 announces the arrival of the Babylonians to Jerusalem.⁴³¹ Jerome mainly comments on his translation of the Hebrew text of Mic 4:8 which reads, ‘And you, misty (nebulosa) tower of the flock of daughter Zion, unto you he will come; and the first authority will come, the kingdom of daughter Jerusalem.’ His translation of the Septuagint corresponds with the version given above.⁴³² In his comments on the Hebrew text he notes that the misty or dirty (squalens) tower is the house of Israel to which God will come as a human.⁴³³ It is rare that he gives such a Christological interpretation in his comments on the Hebrew text; it will be repeated below. Next, instead of commenting on the Septuagint version, he quotes a variant reading found ‘in some books’, viz. ‘and the first authority will enter the kingdom of daughter Zion from Babylon’, and observes that ‘it has been added, because it is found neither in Hebrew nor in other translators’.⁴³⁴ Perhaps he means that the addition only consists of the words ‘from Babylon’ which are not indeed found in the Hebrew text; yet they are found in the Septuagint. Unlike the Greek commentators he thinks that this refers to the Babylonian captivity, from which the people would return to Jerusalem.⁴³⁵

 Theodore, In Michaeam 4, 8 (Sprenger, 210, 6 – 25). My interpunction of Mic 4:8a, which diverges from Sprenger, is based on l. 18: ‘as a reproach he calls her (i. e. daughter Zion) dirty’ (αὐχμώδη δὲ αὐτὴν ὀνειδίζων φησίν).  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 4, 8 (Pusey, 666, 17– 19; 667, 6 – 10); Theodoret, In Michaeam 4, 8 (PG 81, 1764CD).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 8 – 9, 241– 243; 246 – 248 (CCSL 76). I do not follow Adriaen’s punctuation in turris gregis, nebulosa filiae Sion and turris gregis, caligosa filia Sion (l. 241; 246), for Jerome’s comments (l. 250 – 261; 326) demonstrate that we should read, turris gregis nebulosa filiae Sion and turris gregis caligosa, filia Sion.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 8 – 9, 250 – 281 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 8 – 9, 282– 285 (CCSL 76); the variant reading, et ingredietur principatus primus regnum filiae Sion de Babylone, is only slightly different from his translation of the Septuagint, which reads, et ingredietur principatus primus regnum de Babylone filiae Hierusalem.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 8 – 9, 285 – 286 (CCSL 76).

V.21 The kingdom from Babylon (Mic 4:8 – 10)

119

Theodore, Jerome, and Theodoret interpret the Hebrew idiom of the question, ‘why did you know (ἔγνως) evil things?’ (Mic 4:9a) as the experience of the troubles that beset the people;⁴³⁶ Hesychius considers it their own choice.⁴³⁷ NETS and Glenny translate the question, μὴ βασιλεὺς οὐκ ἦν σοι; (‘Did not you have a king?’), as, ‘You did not have a king, did you?’ (Mic 4:9b).⁴³⁸ In this sense the rhetorical question would be puzzling, for when Jerusalem was taken by the Babylonians, it did have a king, namely Zedekiah (4 Kgdms 25). The Greek commentators did not understand this clause in the sense of NETS and Glenny, for Theodore paraphrases, ‘you who obtained even a king capable of leading the battles for you’;⁴³⁹ Cyril, noting the irony of the question, elaborately explains how Israel asked Samuel for a king who would fight their battles;⁴⁴⁰ and Theodoret also briefly interprets it in this sense.⁴⁴¹ Jerome translates, Numquid rex non erat tibi? (‘Did not you have a king?’), but his interpretation differs from his Greek-writing colleagues. He considers this clause the immediate answer to the preceding question, ‘And now, why did you know evil things?’, namely, ‘For you do not have a king (Quia rex non est tibi) and your counsellor perished, because sorrow seized you like a woman in labour. Or certainly, since you have all these things by your own fault, you deserve the aid of neither king nor counsellor.’⁴⁴² Subsequently, Jerome explains that the king and ‘Angel of great counsel’ (cf. Isa 9:5 [9:6]) is to be understood as the Saviour,⁴⁴³ i. e. Christ. Probably the cause of the discrepancy between Jerome’s correct translation and his diverging interpretation is that in his comments he drew on Origen’s Commentary, in which

 Theodore, In Michaeam 4, 9 (Sprenger, 210, 26 – 30); Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 8 – 9, 294– 303 (CCSL 76); Theodoret, In Michaeam 4, 9 (PG 81, 1763D–1765A).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 100 (Eriksson, 158); it reads, τουτέστιν εἵλου τὰ κακά.  Likewise Andersen, Freedman, Micah, 441, ‘Thou didst not have a king, didst thou?’, and Hill in his translations of Cyril’s and Theodoret’s lemmas, ‘Surely there is [sic] no king in you’. Differently Brenton, ‘Was there not a king to thee?’, Giguet, ‘n’avais-tu pas un roi?’, and Septuaginta Deutsch, ‘Hattest du keinen König?’  Theodore, In Michaeam 4, 9 (Sprenger, 210, 26 – 211, 1). For the syntactical construction see Muraoka, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek, 712– 713.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 4, 9 – 10 (Pusey, 668, 1; 11– 669, 24); see 1 Kgdms 8. In his interpretation Cyril transposes the negation οὐκ and reads, μὴ οὐκ ἦν σοι βασιλεύς; (Pusey, 669, 18 – 19). H.W. Smyth, Greek Grammar (rev. G.M. Messing), Cambridge, Mass. 195610, 401, § 1772: ‘Such sentences [with μὴ οὐ] are often regarded as questions with the effect of doubtful affirmation.’  Theodoret, In Michaeam 4, 9 (PG 81, 1764D–1765A). In this vein also Theophylact, In Michaeam 4, 9 (PG 126, 112C).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 8 – 9, 248 – 249; 287– 294 (CCSL 76); translation Cazares and Scheck, adapted. The present tense in Quia rex non est tibi is inspired by Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew text, Numquid rex non est tibi? (ibid., l. 244– 245).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 8 – 9, 303 – 304 (CCSL 76).

120

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

the words μὴ βασιλεὺς οὐκ ἦν σοι were apparently explained in the sense that Jerusalem did not have the true king, Christ.⁴⁴⁴ Concerning Mic 4:10, Theodore, Jerome, Cyril, and Theodoret agree that this text announces the people’s journey from Jerusalem to Babylon, the captivity in Babylon, and the subsequent liberation and return.⁴⁴⁵ Hesychius explains that ‘the city’ refers to Jerusalem and ‘the plain’ to the captivity.⁴⁴⁶ An exceptional early Christian reception of the Hebrew text of Mic 4:8 may be perceived in Hegesippus’ testimony to James the Just, the brother of Jesus, which has been preserved in Eusebius’ Church History. Hegesippus’ work is dated around 180.⁴⁴⁷ He writes that James was called the Just and ὠβλίας, which he translates as περιοχὴ τοῦ λαοῦ καὶ δικαιοσύνη, ‘rampart of the people and righteousness’, to which he adds, ‘as the prophets declare about him’.⁴⁴⁸ Epiphanius of Salamis also mentions that James was called ὠβλίας, but he translates it only as τεῖχος, ‘wall’.⁴⁴⁹ In the epithet ὠβλίας one may find a corruption of ‫עֶֹפל‬, ‘hill’,⁴⁵⁰ or of ‫עֶֹפל ָיּה‬, ‘hill of Yah (YHWH)’. As Hegesippus refers to the prophets speaking about James the ὠβλίας, and if this epithet indeed contains the term ‫עֶֹפל‬, the only text to be considered is Mic 4:8 (in Hebrew), ‘And you, tower of the flock, hill of daughter Zion…’, since this is the only prophetical testimony to a ‫ עֶֹפל‬that might be given a positive, metaphorical sense.⁴⁵¹ In Mic 4:8 this hill denotes the temple mount, and it was walled.⁴⁵² The impression that ὠβλίας derives from ‫ עֶֹפל‬is confirmed by a comparable transcription by Flavius Josephus, who calls this walled hill ‘the so-called Ὀφλᾶς’.⁴⁵³ Therefore we may conclude that Jewish Christians called James ‘the Hill’, in the sense of ‘the wal-

 A few lines before, in In Michaeam II, 4, 1– 7, 226 – 238 (CCSL 76), Jerome had referred to Origen.  Theodore, In Michaeam 4, 10 (Sprenger, 211, 6 – 22); Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 10, 333 – 362 (CCSL 76); Cyril, In Michaeam II, 4, 9 – 10 (Pusey, 668, 4– 6; 669, 25 – 670, 8); Theodoret, In Michaeam 4, 10 (PG 81, 1765AB).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 103 – 104 (Eriksson, 158).  M. Durst, ‘Hegesipp’, in Döpp, Geerlings (eds), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, Freiburg etc. 20023, 315.  Hegesippus, Memorabilia, in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica II, 23, 7 (LCL 153).  Epiphanius, Panarion haeresium 78, 7, 7 (GCS 37; Epiphanius 3).  Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. ὠβλίας. His first interpretation reads ‫עֶֹפל ַעם‬, ‘hill of the people’, in the second place he mentions only ‫עֶֹפל‬, with reference to Epiphanius.  The other prophetic texts are Isa 32:14 and, if one counts the book of Kings among the prophets, 2 Kings 5:24.  Andersen, Freedman, Micah, 439; for the wall see 2 Chr 27:3; 33:14; Neh 3:26 – 27.  Flavius Josephus, De bello judaico II, 448; V, 145; 254; VI, 354 (LCL 203; 210).

V.21 The kingdom from Babylon (Mic 4:8 – 10)

121

led hill’, ‘the rampart’, as with his prayer he protected the Christian community of Jerusalem.⁴⁵⁴ Remarkably, this use of Mic 4:8 is paralleled by a Messianic reading in Targum Ps.-Jonathan,⁴⁵⁵ and by the Messianic interpretation of the ‘tower of the flock’ mentioned in Gen 35:21, the only Old Testament text in which this expression figures besides Mic 4:8. In Targum Ps.-Jonathan Gen 35:21, the ‘tower of the flock’ is called ‘the place from which the King Messiah will reveal himself at the end of days’.⁴⁵⁶ Ambrose, in his epistle on the conversion of the soul, relates the ‘dirty tower’ (Mic 4:8a) to the tower in the midst of the Lord’s vineyard (Isa 5:1– 2). He does not quote the full expression of Mic 4:8a, ‘dirty tower of the flock’, but alluding to it he states that its sheep is wandering (ouis sua errat). This sheep symbolizes the afflicted, sinful soul whose stronghold (cf. Mic 5:10b) has been invaded by passions. Likewise, the tower of the soul had become dirty because of the soul’s iniquity. To this tower the sheep – or soul – is called back from its fall, and when it returns to it, the tower grows bright again, and in this sheep returns the reign of Christ which is the beginning (Mic 4:8; initium, ἀρχή); for Christ is ‘the beginning and the end’ (Rev 21:6), and the beginning of salvation (cf. Heb 5:9). But first, the soul is asked because of its transgression, ‘Why did you know evil things? Did not you have a king?’ (Mic 4:9ab), ‘for you did have a king (i. e. the Lord) to rule and guard you’, and ‘you should not have left the ways of the Lord.’ The interrogation continues, ‘Where were your counsels’ (cf. Mic 4:9c) by which you might have warded off iniquity? Why ‘have birth

 See Hegesippus, Memorabilia, in Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica II, 23, 6 (LCL 153), for James’ continuous prayer for forgiveness of the people. A different interpretation of ὠβλίας is given by F. Schleritt, Hegesipp. Übersetzt und eingeleitet, Göttingen 2016, 28. He considers ΩΒΛΙΑΣ a writing error for ΩΒΔΙΑΣ which he interprets as Obadiah, and suggests that an early reader wrote ΩΒΔΙΑΣ in the margin of Hegesippus’ text because Obad :1 LXX contains the word περιοχή, ‘rampart’; so this reference to Obadiah is intended by Hegesippus’ words ‘as the prophets declare about him’. However, Schleritt’s interpretation is unconvincing because he needs to resort to a writing error and an intrusion of a marginal gloss into the text; moreover, in the Septuagint Obadiah reads Αβδιος, not Ωβδιας.  Sperber (ed.), The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan, 445; Cathcart, Gordon (transl.), The Targum of the Minor Prophets, 120: ‘And you, O anointed One (‫ )משיחא‬of Israel, who have been hidden away because of the sins of the congregation of Zion, the kingdom shall come to you, and the former dominion shall be restored to the kingdom of the congregation of Zion’ (italics Cathcart, Gordon).  A. Diez Macho (ed., transl.), Targum palestinense in Pentateuchum. Additur Targum Pseudojonatan eiusque hispanica versio 1 (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia Series IV), Madrid 1988, 110; M. Maher (transl.), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (ArBib 1B), Edinburgh 1992, 121. For the ‘tower of the flock’ or Migdal Eder cf. § II.1, fn. 6, and see R. Le Déaut, La nuit pascale. Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42 (AnBib 22), Rome 1963, 276 – 277.

122

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

pangs overwhelmed you like a woman in labour?’ (Mic 4:9d). In Ambrose’s interpretation it is said to this soul, ‘be courageous and draw near, daughter Zion, so that you give birth (ut parturias)’ (Mic 4:10a), for the birth pangs of a woman in labour work tribulation, patience, and hope that will not disappoint forever (Rom 5:3 – 4).⁴⁵⁷ For the Origenian origin of these interpretations a comparison with Jerome’s exposition is indispensable. Jerome also relates the ‘tower of the flock’ (Mic 4:8a) to the tower in the midst of the vineyard of the Lord, which represents the house of Israel (Isa 5:1– 2, 7), but his first elaboration is different from Ambrose. He says that the tower is ‘dirty’ because the bad tenants of God’s people killed the son of the owner (Mark 12:1– 8), by whom he means Christ, the true vine (John 15:1), in whom God came as a human. In his view, Christ is called ‘the first authority’ (Mic 4:8a) because of his primordial origin.⁴⁵⁸ As we saw above, Jerome interprets the question, ‘Did not you have a king?’ (Mic 4:9b), in the sense that Zion did not have its counsellor, by whom he means ‘the Angel of great counsel’ (Isa 9:5 [9:6]), the Saviour Christ who perished on behalf of a nonbelieving people. The inevitable birth pangs (Mic 4:9d) refer to the imminent captivity and the unavoidable siege of the city (namely by the Romans).⁴⁵⁹ At the end of his comments on Mic 4:8 – 9 Jerome quotes a view that clearly derives from Origen. It reads, Some suppose that the dirty or dark (squalentem siue tenebrosam) tower and daughter Jerusalem should be understood of the heavenly Jerusalem, which is the mother of the saints (Gal 4:26), about which even the apostle says, ‘You have come to Mount Zion and to the city of the living God, the heavenly Jerusalem’ (Heb 12:22), which is dirty as long as her children are not brought back to her, and there is neither a king nor a counsellor in her, and the pangs seize her like a woman in labour (Mic 4:9b–d), because she has given birth in vain, seeing that so many children have been killed.⁴⁶⁰

Origen supposed that the human souls originate from the heavenly Jerusalem and fell away from it.⁴⁶¹ This implies that, as long as the original inhabitants of the heavenly city have not returned to it, it is, so to say, dilapidated and clouded in darkness. An Origenian interpretation is also found in Jerome’s spiritual comments on the comparison of Zion to a woman in labour who will have to leave its city, trav    

Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 4– 6 (CSEL 82, 1). Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 8 – 9, 250 – 281 (CCSL 76). Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 8 – 9, 291– 306 (CCSL 76). Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 8 – 9, 325 – 332 (CCSL 76). See Origen, Contra Celsum VII, 29 (SC 150); cf. De principiis I, 8, 4; IV, 3, 8 (Behr), § V.10.

V.21 The kingdom from Babylon (Mic 4:8 – 10)

123

el to Babylon but also will be rescued from there (Mic 4:10). Jerome applies these words to the soul that was expelled from the Church because of its sin, and was handed over to the enemy (i. e. Satan) for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved (1 Cor 5:5); such a soul does not live on the mountain anymore (cf. Mic 4:2b), but in the field (Mic 4:10b) where the Assyrian army wanders. When like the prodigal son such a soul returns to its house the most merciful father welcomes it (Luke 15:11– 24). Jerome notes that the words, ‘Suffer birth pangs and be courageous, like a woman in labour’ (Mic 4:10a) do not refer to punishment but to the soul’s advantage, namely its penance and healing.⁴⁶² This interpretation reminds us of Ambrose’s application of this passage to the penitent soul. This implies that, like Jerome, Ambrose too was inspired by Origen. Cyril gives only a short spiritual interpretation of this text. He urges to remain subject to God in order not to be subjected to the ‘spiritual (νοητούς) … Babylonians’, by whom he means ‘the opposing and unclean powers’, i. e. demons. Unlike Jerome, he holds that Satan is ‘the first authority’ (Mic 4:8a) to whom Christians should not be subjected, in order not to be ‘cast out from the holy city’ and dwell in Babylon.⁴⁶³ Theodoret does not give any Christianizing interpretation of Mic 4:8 – 14 [4:8 – 5:1].⁴⁶⁴ Some of Jerome’s (or Origen’s) considerations seem reflected in Hesychius’ notes. In Hesychius’ view, the dirty tower refers to the Church that is covered by filthiness (ἐν αὐχμῷ). He interprets the ‘authority’ (ἀρχή) that will come to Zion as Christ who is the beginning (ἀρχή) and was in the beginning (John 1:1). Reading ‘the first kingdom’ (Mic 4:8; ἡ πρώτη βασιλεία) instead of ‘the first authority, the kingdom from Babylon’, he notes that this means ‘the kingdom of Christ; for he, the king from before the ages, has been appointed to the daughter of Jerusalem, evidently the Church’. Likewise, Hesychius considers Christ the Lord who rescued those who believed in him (Mic 4:10c).⁴⁶⁵

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 10, 362– 381 (CCSL 76). In his translation of Mic 4:10a Jerome omits the words καὶ ἔγγιζε, ‘and draw near’, in agreement with the Hebrew text (l. 333; 337; 374). For the Origenian origin of this view of penance see K. Rahner, ‘La doctrine d’Origène sur la pénitence’, RSR 37 (1950), 47– 97; 252– 286; 422– 456 (e. g. 86 – 97; 428).  Cyril, In Michaeam, II, 4, 9 – 10 (Pusey, 670, 9 – 20).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 4, 8 – 5, 1 (PG 81, 1764C–1768A).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 97– 99; 106 (Eriksson, 158).

124

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

V.22 A clash between Zion and the nations (Mic 4:11 – 14 [4:11 – 5:1]) It is puzzling how the following words fit in this context. The prophet says there, 11

And now many nations were assembled against you, who say, ‘We shall rejoice, and our eyes will look upon Zion.’ 12But they did not know the reasoning of the Lord and they did not understand his counsel, that he has gathered them as sheaves of a threshing floor. 13 Arise and thresh them, daughter Zion, because your horns I shall make iron and your hoofs I shall make bronze, and with them you will melt down nations and you will dissolve many peoples and you will dedicate their multitude to the Lord and their strength to the Lord of the whole earth. 14 [5:1]Now daughter Ephraim will be obstructed with an obstruction. He set up a siege against us; with a rod they will strike the tribes of Israel on the cheek (Mic 4:11– 14 [4:11– 5:1]).

Theodore holds that ‘then’ (τότε) the savage Scyths will come, those who belong to Gog (Ezek 38 – 39); this implies that he sets their coming after the Israelites’ return from the Babylonian captivity. He adds, however, that the Israelites will trample and crush them (Mic 4:13).⁴⁶⁶ In Theodore’s view, Mic 4:14 (5:1) continues with a description of the attack by the adversaries. He does not elucidate who is the subject in Mic 4:14b (5:1b), συνοχὴν ἔταξεν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς (‘he [?] set up a siege against you’), but apparently he has in mind Israel’s Scythian adversaries.⁴⁶⁷ Jerome holds that in spite of Jerusalem’s liberation from the Babylonian captivity (predicted in Mic 4:10), in his own period (nunc interim) ‘many nations are assembled against’ it and ‘look down upon Zion’ (Mic 4:11). Yet he acknowledges that these nations ‘did not know the reasoning and counsel of the Lord’ (Mic 4:12ab), viz. that these nations are assembled so that Zion should crush and thresh them (Mic 4:12c–13). Jerome knows that according to the Jews this refers to their victory over the Romans which will be fulfilled when the Messiah comes, but he rejects this view since he holds that this passage has to be inter-

 Theodore, In Michaeam 4, 11– 13 (Sprenger, 211, 23 – 212, 27). In the prologue to his commentary In Joelem (Sprenger, 79, 28 – 80, 5) Theodore had written that after the Jews had returned from Babylon the Scyths had attacked them ‘under Gog’s men’, and that the Jews had been superior to them thanks to God’s help. He derived this view from Ezek 38 – 39; see D.Z. Zaharopoulos, Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible: A Study of his Old Testament Exegesis (Theological Enquiries), New York/Mahwah, N.J. 1989, 129 – 130; R.C. Hill, Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, 23. See also § V.23.  Theodore, In Michaeam 4, 13 – 5, 1 (Sprenger, 212, 26 – 213, 5). In Mic 4:14 (5:1) Theodore does not read Εφραιμ (as in Codex Vaticanus) and reads ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς (‘against you’) instead of ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς (‘against us’).

V.22 A clash between Zion and the nations (Mic 4:11 – 14 [4:11 – 5:1])

125

preted spiritually with regard to the Church (see below).⁴⁶⁸ Jerome’s comment on Mic 4:14c (5:1c) reads that this does not mean that one tribe will strike the cheek of the other, but that others will strike the tribes of Israel on the cheek. He does not explain to which event in Micah’s age this refers, but gives a longer exposition of its fulfilment in the Roman period.⁴⁶⁹ Cyril admits that one may be bewildered by the sudden change of perspective, and holds that one has to discern between the different periods. He explains that Mic 4:11– 13 refers to the time of king Hezekiah, when the Assyrians besieged Jerusalem and 185,000 of them were killed by the angel (4 Kgdms 18 – 19), and that there were four kings after Hezekiah’s death. Under the reign of the fifth king, Jeconiah, the Babylonians deported Israel into captivity. Cyril thinks that Mic 4:14 (5:1), however, refers to Samaria that was captured and destroyed, and will be ruled by the descendants of the tribe of Ephraim. He explains that God is the subject of Mic 4:14b (5:1b), συνοχὴν ἔταξεν ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς (‘he set up a siege against you’), but he does not elucidate which particular historical event he has in mind.⁴⁷⁰ If Theodoret knew Cyril’s interpretation of Mic 4:11– 13, he apparently was not convinced by it, for he accepts Theodore’s interpretation concerning the Scyths who campaigned against the Jews after their return from Babylon, and were destroyed by them. He also applies Mic 4:14 (5:1) to the attack by the Scyths, whom he implicitly considers the subject of συνοχὴν ἔταξεν.⁴⁷¹ Ambrose’s epistle about the penitent soul deserves to be discussed here as well (cf. § V.21). Ambrose states that after its conversion, the soul receives horns and hoofs, so that it may thresh all the sheaves of the threshing floor (Mic 4:12c–13c), which stand for excessive passions, and the fruit or corn (fructus) may appear. The ‘counsellor of the soul’ (i. e. the Lord, cf. Mic 4:12b) then wishes to restrain (ut concludat) it in its sinful pleasures and to cut off (intercludat) its desires; this alludes to the obstruction or enclosure (φραγμός) with which Ephraim will be  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 11– 13, 382– 416 (CCSL 76). For the Jewish interpretation cf. bErubin 101a (transl. Slotki, 700). Jerome’s translation of Mic 4:13 LXX lacks the words, ‘and with them you will melt down nations’ (καὶ κατατήξεις ἐν αὐτοῖς ἔθνη).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 1, 1– 6 (CCSL 76); the fulfilment in the Roman period in l. 6 – 64. Like Theodore, Jerome omits Εφραιμ.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 4, 11– 13; 5, 1 (Pusey, 670, 21– 673, 19). Like Jerome, in Mic 4:13 Cyril does not read the words, ‘and with them you will melt down nations’. Like Theodore in Mic 4:14 (5:1), Cyril reads ἐφ’ ὑμᾶς (‘against you’) instead of ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς (‘against us’). He is the only one among the four commentators who reads θυγάτερ Εφραιμ, ‘daughter Ephraim’.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 4, 11– 13; 5:1 (PG 81, 1765B–1768A). Like Theodore and Jerome, Theodoret omits Εφραιμ.

126

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

obstructed (Mic 4:14a [5:1a]). Ambrose continues that ‘someone who strikes the cheek of an Israelite soul (cf. Mic 4:14b [5:1b]), instructs her by the Lord’s punishment in the discipline of patience’.⁴⁷² This means that even the soul of a true Israelite, i. e. of a Christian, still needs to be disciplined. In Jerome’s spiritual interpretation of this passage, daughter Zion (Mic 4:13a) is the Church. He explains that ‘many nations’ (Mic 4:11a) of demons are gathered against it, mocking at it and rejoicing (Mic 4:11b) over the killing of its children, since they do not know the reasonings and counsel of the Lord (Mic 4:12ab); ‘for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory’ (1 Cor 2:8).⁴⁷³ The ‘killing of its (i. e. the Church’s) children’ refers to the Christian martyrs and refers to a period that preceded Jerome’s days. In Jerome’s understanding, Mic 4:13 means that the demons will be threshed, so that a ‘pure cereal’ will remain, which will be offered to the Lord.⁴⁷⁴ This implies that the demons will be punished with a view to their purification. Jerome clearly derives this typically Origenian view⁴⁷⁵ from Origen’s Commentary on Micah. In his comments on Mic 4:14 (5:1) Jerome clarifies that this will happen when ‘the fullness of the gentiles will have entered and all Israel will be saved’ (Rom 11:25 – 26).⁴⁷⁶ As we saw in § V.14, by ‘Israel’ in this Pauline text he means the Jews who believe in Christ. The impression that in his understanding, only this part of Israel will be saved is confirmed by his subsequent comments on his translation of the Hebrew text of Mic 4:14 (5:1), ‘Now you will be laid waste, daughter of a robber; they have set a siege against us, with a rod they will strike the cheek of the judge of Israel’. Jerome holds that here the Lord says to the Jews of the present time (nunc interim), ‘I do not call you “my daughter”, but “daughter of a robber”’, which is Jerome’s translation of ‫ ; ַבּת־ ְגּדוּד‬the robber he interprets as the devil. In this capacity this daughter made the Lord’s house a ‘den of robbers’ (Matt 21:13) and her children ‘set up a siege (obsidionem posuerunt) against me (the Father) and against the Son and my Spirit’.⁴⁷⁷ In this interpretation of the Hebrew text he conceives the people of Israel as the subject of ‘they set up a siege’ and he explains

 Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 7– 8 (CSEL 82, 1).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 11– 13, 416 – 423; 5, 1, 6 – 10 (CCSL 76). In his lemma Jerome translates Mic 4:11b LXX as, Insultemus et uideant in Sion oculi nostri (‘let us leap up and let our eyes look in Zion’; l. 392), but in his comments he reads, Insultemus et gaudeamus, et despiciant super Sion oculi nostri (‘let us leap up and rejoice, and let our eyes look down upon Zion’; l. 403 – 404).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 4, 11– 13, 423 – 440 (CCSL 76).  Origen, De principiis I, 6, 3 (Behr); Philocalia 27, 3 (SC 226, 110 – 118; 276 – 283); cf. Plato, Phaedo 69C; 113D.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 1, 6 – 12 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 1, 1– 3; 12– 19 (CCSL 76).

V.22 A clash between Zion and the nations (Mic 4:11 – 14 [4:11 – 5:1])

127

‘against us’ (super nos) as a reference to the Trinity. Although he says that the meaning of the Septuagint version of Mic 4:14 (5:1) is ‘much higher’ (multo altior sensus est), it corresponds with his previous interpretation in so far as now he explains ‘daughter’ as the Synagogue. Following his translation of Mic 4:14a (5:1a) LXX he says that ‘now the Synagogue is obstructed with an obstruction’, and that those who have been enclosed in it will say, ‘he set up an imprisonment (angustiam) against us’. Jerome continues that ‘subdued to the Roman authorities, the tribes of Israel will be stricken on the cheek’.⁴⁷⁸ The impression that he conceived the Lord as the subject of the clause, ‘he set up an imprisonment against us’, is confirmed by the following sentence, which reads, ‘For the Lord has taken away from Judea and from Jerusalem the strong and powerful one, and the wise architect and the intelligent listener (cf. Isa 3:1– 3), and its roads are closed and blocked up to today. It cannot escape from captivity but is oppressed by a most harsh dominion.’⁴⁷⁹ Next, Jerome also considers the possibility to apply the clause, ‘now the daughter is obstructed with an obstruction’ (Mic 4:14a [5:1a]) to the Church, with reference to Hosea’s adulterous wife, whose ways the Lord obstructs so that she cannot go to her lovers anymore and will return to her husband (Hos 2:7– 9 [2:5 – 7]). Jerome knows that this is said about the people of Israel according to the flesh, but he also notes that the spiritual Israel is the Church, so that ‘we are Israel, we who discern God with the mind’.⁴⁸⁰ Therefore, in his understanding, Mic 4:14 (5:1) applies to the Church if it is unfaithful towards its husband, the Lord. Jerome’s, or rather Origen’s, interpretation can be recognized in Hesychius’ notes. He interprets the ‘many nations’ (Mic 4:11a) as differents sorts of demons. Concerning Mic 4:12 Hesychius too quotes 1 Cor 2:8, ‘for if they had understood it, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory’. In his view, the threshing of the nations (Mic 4:13a) refers to the punishment of the demons through the cross. In agreement with this, he reads ‘your horns’ (Mic 4:13b) as a reference to ‘the power of the cross about which Habakkuk says, “horns in their hands”’ (Hab 3:4).⁴⁸¹ He explains the Lord’s words, ‘your hoofs I shall make bronze’

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 1, 25 – 30 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 1, 30 – 34 (CCSL 76). In Origen’s and Jerome’s understanding, the ‘wise architect’ and the ‘intelligent listener’ taken away from the Jews are (among other people) Christ’s apostles; Origen, In Ieremiam 10, 4 (SC 232); In ep. ad Romanos II, 10 (14), 76 – 90 (AGLB 16); Jerome, In Isaiam II, 6 – 7 (AGLB 23).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 1, 34– 64 (CCSL 76).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 107– 110 (Eriksson, 158). Hesychius’ reference to ‘the horns in their hands’ in Hab 3:4 as a testimony to Christ’s cross may be Origenian as well, for in Jerome’s commentary In Habacuc II, 3, 3 – 4, 235 – 237 (CCSL 76A) this text (actually ‘the horns in his

128

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

(Mic 4:13c), in the sense that ‘I shall fortify the steps of the apostles’, and adds, ‘for like horses they traversed the whole earth’. His interpretation of the words, ‘you will melt down many peoples’ (Mic 4:13c) reads, (this will happen) ‘when they will be disembarrassed of the error of the idols, for which reason they are said to be dissolved (λεπτύνεσθαι)’. Hesychius’ very brief note on the words that he reads as θυγάτηρ ἐμφραγμῷ, ‘daughter by (?) an obstruction’ (Mic 4:14a [5:1a]), reads, ‘Jerusalem by the lawyer’ (Ἰερουσαλὴμ τῷ νομικῷ) – or in whichever sense the datives should be translated – which refers to the experts in the Mosaic law. He interprets συνοχή, ‘detention’ (translated as ‘siege’ above, Mic 4:14b [5:1b]), as ‘life (πολιτεία) according to the (Mosaic) law’, to which he adds, ‘for the prophet counted himself among the Jews’.⁴⁸² Apparently the full clause, συνοχὴν ἔταξεν ἐφ’ ἡμᾶς, should be considered, so that in Hesychius’ understanding this means that the Lord ‘established an enclosure for us’, namely life in obedience to the law of Moses, destined for the Jews among whom the prophet counted himself. This reminds us of the rabbinic designation of tradition as ‘a hedge for the Torah’.⁴⁸³ Hesychius’ last note on this passage concerns the clause, ‘with a rod they will strike the tribes of Israel on the cheek’ (Mic 4:14c [5:1c]), and reads, ‘because they slapped Christ’s cheeks (ἀνθ’ ὧν αὐτοὶ τοῦ Χριστοῦ τὰς σιαγόνας ἐρράπισαν)’.⁴⁸⁴ This means that the Israelites will be struck on the cheek as retribution for the slaps that some Jews handed out to Christ at his trial (Matt 26:67).

V.23 The future ruler from Bethlehem (Mic 5:1 – 2 [5:2 – 3]) As we saw in § II.1, the prophecy in Mic 5:1 (5:2) was quoted in the Gospel of Matthew 2:6 with regard to Christ. According to Rahlfs’ edition, the full text of Mic 5:1– 2 (5:2– 3) reads, 1 [2]

And you, Bethlehem, house of Ephratha, are very few in number (ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ) to be among the thousands of Judah; from you will come forth for me [someone] to be a ruler in Israel and his origins are from the beginning (ἀπ’ ἀρχῆς), since the days of eternity. 2 [3] Therefore he will give them up until the time when she who is in labour will give

hands’) is interpreted as ‘the banners and trophies of the cross’. Most likely Jerome derived this interpretation from Origen, whose Commentary on Habakkuk is lost.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 111– 114 (Eriksson, 159).  bPirqē Aboth 1, 1; 3, 17; see R.T. Herford, Pirke Aboth: The Ethics of the Talmud. Sayings of the Fathers. Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, New York 1945, 19; 21; 84– 85.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 115 (Eriksson, 159).

V.23 The future ruler from Bethlehem (Mic 5:1 – 2 [5:2 – 3])

129

birth, and the rest (οἱ ἐπίλοιποι) of their brothers will return to the sons of Israel (Mic 5:1– 2 [5:2– 3]).

As for its historical meaning, I mainly have to discuss Theodore’s text and interpretation. Instead of ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ Theodore has the ‘Lucianic’ reading μὴ ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ. Since μή cannot have the function of a plain negation, its insertion changes the original affirmation into a hesitating question, to be translated as, ‘are not you very few in number?’ or ‘are not you the smallest?’, and to be answered in the negative.⁴⁸⁵ Faithful to his Antiochene exegetical roots, Theodore is the only exegete of his time who first interprets Mic 5:1a (5:2a) as a prophecy about Zerubbabel, a descendant of David, who reigned over the Israelites after their return from Babylon. He explains that, ‘even though you (i. e. the people of Bethlehem) seem easy to count (εὐαρίθμητοί τινες, few in number) in comparison with the enemies’, for your present ruler from Bethlehem your number will be enough to attack them. Theodore identifies the enemies as the men of Gog; for as we saw in § V.22, in his view, Gog had attempted to attack Jerusalem after the Jews had returned from Babylon, but with God’s help they had been able to accept the Davidic rule (ἀρχή) and to ward off the enemy. In this sense the words that were translated above as, ‘his origins are from the beginning since the days of eternity’, refer to Zerubbabel’s Davidic descent.⁴⁸⁶ Remarkably, Theodore does not interpret the words ‘are not you the smallest?’ with regard to ‘the thousands of Judah’, but in comparison with Israel’s adversary Gog. Next, he admits that the true fulfilment of these words is achieved in Christ. As I observed in § III.2, this is the only text in Micah’s book that Theodore interprets as a prophecy about Christ. Yet for this interpretation he does not refer to Matt 2:6, but he quotes the Messianic Psalm 88:30 – 34a, 37– 38.⁴⁸⁷ Theodore’s interpretation of

 See A.T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville, Tenn. 1934, 1168.  Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 2 (Sprenger, 213, 8 – 23; 214, 26 – 215, 6). For Zerubbabel see 2 Esdras (Ezra MT) 4:1– 3; 5:2; Hag 1:1, 12, 14; 2:2, 4, 21– 23; Zech 4:6 – 10, and Zaharopoulos, Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible, 162– 163. Theodore conceives ἀρχή not only in the sense of ‘beginning’ but also, with regard to Zerubbabel, as ‘rule’, ‘dominion’. Therefore I do not agree with Hill’s translation of εἰς τὴν ἀρχήν in Sprenger, 215, 5, as ‘from the beginning’. In the 9th century Ishodad of Merv, In Michaeam 5, 2 (CSCO 303 [Scriptores Syri 128], 102 / CSCO 304 [Scriptores Syri 129], 131), adopts Theodore’s interpretation that this text refers to Zerubbabel, but he also holds that its true meaning has appeared in Christ.  Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 2 (Sprenger, 213, 23 – 214, 26). As I noted in § II.1, Targum Ps.-Jonathan (ed. Sperber, 446) also interprets Mic 5:1 (5:2) as a prophecy of the Messiah whose name was known from ancient times, or, since the days of eternity; see furthermore Pirqē de Rabbi El-

130

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Mic 5:2 (5:3), however, concerns only the troubles caused by Gog’s assault on Jerusalem from which God saved it, which in his view is expressed by the image of birth pangs and delivery. In Theodore’s understanding the clause, διὰ τοῦτο δώσει αὐτοὺς, translated above as, ‘Therefore he will give them up’ (Mic 5:2a [5:3a]), means that ‘he – apparently Zerubbabel – will surrender (παραδώσει) the adversaries to destruction’. He explains that through God’s grace Jerusalem gave birth to delivery from Gog, and that all those who were then returning from captivity, not only the tribes of Judah and Benjamin but also the ten tribes (‘the rest of his brothers’, Mic 5:2c [5:3c]), will consider Zerubbabel their king.⁴⁸⁸ Theodoret’s comments on this passage should be discussed here in so far as he ascribes the interpretation of Mic 5:1 (5:2) with regard to Zerubbabel to the Jews of his own time. In line with John Chrysostom,⁴⁸⁹ he considers this interpretation foolish, because even the Jews of the past knew that this passage spoke about the birthplace of the Christ, as their answer to king Herod testified (Matt 2:6).⁴⁹⁰ Since in rabbinic literature the application of this text to Zerubbabel cannot be found,⁴⁹¹ we may surmise that Theodoret dismissed not so much the alleged Jewish interpretation, but rather Theodore’s view without mentioning his name.⁴⁹² All other ancient Christian authors who refer to Mic 5:1– 2 (5:2– 3) only consider it a prophecy about Jesus Christ. Inevitably, in this view they were guided by the quotation of Mic 5:1 (5:2) in Matt 2:6, but a problem was that Matthew’s text of the prophecy diverged from the Septuagint. Sometimes the difference is ignored iezer 3 (transl. Ouaknin, Smiléwitch, 31); bPesakhim 54a (transl. Freedman, 265); bNedarim 39b (transl. Freedman, 125).  Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 3 (Sprenger, 215, 7– 216, 8). In keeping with the Hebrew text (‫ֶאָחיו‬, ‘his brothers’) he reads, οἱ ἐπίλοιποι τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ (‘the rest of his brothers’), not αὐτῶν (‘their’). In Theodore’s interpretation this αὐτοῦ refers to Zerubbabel. Cf. Rosenberg, Twelve Prophets II, 220, who notes Rashi’s and Redak’s interpretation of Mic 5:2 (5:3), ‘Judah and Benjamin shall join the other tribes and become one kingdom and they shall no longer be divided into two kingdoms’ (italics Rosenberg).  John Chrysostom, Hom. in Matthaeum 7, 2 (PG 57, 74), from ca 390.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 5, 2 (PG 81, 1768BC).  In ancient Jewish literature, a Messianic understanding of Mic 5:1– 2 (5:2– 3) is found in Targum Ps.-Jonathan; bSanhedrin 98b (transl. Shachter, Freedman, 665); pBerakhot 2, 3 (transl. Zahavy, 88); Pirqē de Rab Eliezer 3 (transl. Ouaknin, Smiléwitch, 31). See chapter II.1; H.L. Strack, P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch I. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, München 1926, 83; and P. Mandel, ‘Bethlehem and the Birth of the Messiah in the Eyes of a Byzantine Jewish Storyteller: Rebuke or Consolation’, in A. Houtman et al. (eds), Religious Stories in Transformation: Conflict, Revision and Reception (JCP 31), Leiden 2016, 234– 259.  See Guinot, ‘La cristallisation d’un différend’, 535; 538.

V.23 The future ruler from Bethlehem (Mic 5:1 – 2 [5:2 – 3])

131

so that only Matthew’s version is quoted as Micah’s text (thus Justin Martyr, Tertullian, and Origen once).⁴⁹³ Irenaeus probably quoted μὴ ἐλαχίστη εἶ, ‘are not you the smallest…?’, giving Matthew’s text except for οὐδαμῶς which he replaced by μή; but this can only be derived from the Armenian translation, so that this text may represent a later adaptation.⁴⁹⁴ Although Origen once quotes Matthew’s version as Micah’s text,⁴⁹⁵ in other works he quotes the Septuagint, without noting the difference.⁴⁹⁶ Most probably he did discuss the divergence in his Commentary on Matthew, in the chapter on Matt 2, and in his Commentary on Micah, but these volumes are lost. In reply to Celsus’ criticism, Origen maintains that the prophecy really foretold the birth of Christ and not of any other person who pretended to be God’s Son coming from above. He argues that the truth of Micah’s prediction is proven by the cave and the manger in it that are still shown at Bethlehem, in agreement with the prophecy and the Gospels.⁴⁹⁷ He states that after Christ’s coming Jews who denied that his birth at Bethlehem had been prophesied from early times, took away such teaching from the people.⁴⁹⁸ Cyprian quotes an Old Latin translation of the Septuagint including numquid, which translates μή: numquid exigua es, ‘are not you small…?’⁴⁹⁹ Eusebius quotes the Septuagint’s and Matthew’s versions in the same context yet without paying attention to the different texts.⁵⁰⁰ In his epistle on Micah, Ambrose at least notes the divergence between the Septuagint’s and Matthew’s versions of

 Justin, I Apologia 34, 1 (SC 507); Dialogus cum Tryphone 78, 1 (Bobichon); Tertullian, Aduersus Iudaeos 13, 1– 3 (CCSL 2). For Justin, see M. Meiser, ‘Die Septuaginta-Zitate des Neuen Testaments bei Justin’, in J. de Vries, M. Karrer (eds), Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity / Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum (SCS 60), Atlanta 2013, 323 – 348 (333 – 334). For Origen see below.  Irenaeus, Demonstratio apostolica 63 (SC 406); for the retranslation into Greek see A. Rousseau (transl.), Irénée de Lyon. Démonstration de la prédication apostolique (SC 406), Paris 1995, 320 – 321.  Origen, De principiis IV, 1, 5 (Behr). The Greek text is confirmed by the Latin translation of Pamphilus, Apologeticum pro Origene 84 (SC 464), nequaquam exigua es (l. 99 – 100).  Origen, Contra Celsum I, 51 (SC 132); Hom. in Leuiticum 8, 4 (SC 287). Origen, Fragmenta in Lucam 55 (GCS 492) has the ‘Lucianic’ reading μὴ ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ, but in the older edition (GCS 35, 77) M. Rauer omitted μή.  Origen, Contra Celsum I, 50 – 51 (SC 132). For the plural ‘Gospels’ see Matt 2:1– 11; Luke 2:4, 11, 15; John 7:42; for the manger see Luke 2:7, 12; for the cave see Proteuangelium Jacobi 18, 1; 19, 1– 3 (Smid, 125); Justin, Dialogus cum Tryphone 78, 5 – 6 (Bobichon).  Origen, Contra Celsum I, 51 (SC 132); transl. H. Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum. Translated with Introduction and Notes, Cambridge etc. 1965, 47– 48.  Cyprian, Testimonia ad Quirinium II, 12 (CCSL 3).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VII, 2, 1; 2, 11 (GCS 23).

132

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

the prophecy, but he does not consider it important.⁵⁰¹ Jerome, however, does note and discuss the divergence of Matthew’s version both from the Hebrew text and from the Septuagint.⁵⁰² He thinks that Matthew quoted the prophecy as it had been advanced by the scribes and priests, in order to expose their negligence with regard to the Scriptures. Yet he also mentions those who assert that such errors in Old Testament testimonies are common, because the apostles and evangelists quoted them by heart instead of consulting a book.⁵⁰³ Jerome does not refute this view.⁵⁰⁴ Concerning Mic 5:1– 2 (5:2– 3), Eusebius has an exceptional observation on the structure of the book of Micah. He explains that up to this passage the prophet propaedeutically (προπαιδεύσας) spoke about the existence of God’s Word, his descent from heaven (cf. Mic 1:3 – 4; § V.4), and the reasons of his coming to mankind, whereas now he announces his birth and birthplace.⁵⁰⁵ Having quoted Mic 5:1– 2 (5:2– 3), Eusebius comments that this prophecy announces the Saviour’s twofold provenance, for in Bethlehem Christ was born from a virgin, whereas it also testifies to his generation before eternity (τὴν πρὸ αἰῶνος οὐσίωσιν αὐτοῦ) and his pre-existence (προΰπαρξις). He holds that Ephratha and Bethlehem are identical, and – like Origen – he informs his readers that the inhabitants of Bethlehem of his own time can show the cave where Christ had been born.⁵⁰⁶ Alluding to Mic 5:2a (5:3a), Eusebius writes that until Christ’s birth from the virgin ‘the appointed time was given to them’, i. e. to the Jewish people. This is how he interprets the clause, διὰ τοῦτο δώσει αὐτοὺς ἕως καιροῦ τικτούσης τέξεται, translated above as, ‘Therefore he will give them up until the time when she who is in labour will give birth’. Eusebius however understands αὐτούς (‘them’) in the sense of αὐτοῖς (‘to them’), saying that the appointed time

 Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 11 (CSEL 82, 1). For the Septuagint he quotes ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ, which he translates as in paucioribus es, ‘you are among the few’, and for Matthew he quotes non es in paucioribus, ‘you are not among the few’.  His translation of the Hebrew texts reads, Et tu Bethleem Ephrata paruulus es in millibus Iuda; ex mihi egreditur qui sit dominator in Israel et egressus eius ab initio a diebus aeternitatis (Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 2, 65 – 68 [CCSL 76]). His version of the Septuagint corresponds with the translation given above. See also his Epistulae 57, 8 (CSEL 54, 1).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 2, 68 – 86 (CCSL 76).  Therefore I do not agree with Bareille’s translation in Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 52, ‘Mais il y a des gens qui affirment à tort que…’ Jerome discusses more examples of such divergences in his Epistulae 57, 7– 11 (CSEL 54, 1).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VI, 13, 21 (GCS 23); see Morlet, La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée, 492.  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica II, 3, 148; 150 – 151; III, 2, 46 – 48; VI, 13, 21– 23; VII, 2, 1– 15; 2, 35 – 38 (GCS 23).

V.23 The future ruler from Bethlehem (Mic 5:1 – 2 [5:2 – 3])

133

(προθεσμία) was given to them until the virgin gave birth to the Saviour, and that subsequently their kingdom has been taken away from them. In his view, ‘the rest of their brothers’ (Mic 5:2b [5:3b]) are those who believed in Christ and turned to him, namely the apostles, disciples, and evangelists.⁵⁰⁷ In an Armenian fragment that has been attributed to Dionysius of Alexandria, but most likely does not originate from him, the clause, ‘from you will come forth for me [someone] to be a ruler (εἰς ἄρχοντα)’ (Mic 5:1b [5:2b]) is quoted against Paul of Samosata’s adoptionist view of Jesus as a human being. Critically the author urges Paul to acknowledge that the prophet spoke about an ἄρχων, which implies, in his view, that there is no ruler who preceded him. Therefore he calls him ‘the Son who existed before the whole world’.⁵⁰⁸ Ambrose writes that the addressee of his epistle on Micah, the priest Orontianus, had asked him how it is possible that Christ is born in ‘Bethlehem, the house of Ephratha’, since this means ‘the house of wrath’. In his discussion of these names Ambrose explains the house of Ephratha more precisely as ‘the house of the one who sees wrath’, which in his view pertains to the slaughter of the innocent children ordered by king Herod (Matt 2:16). With reference to Gen 35:19 he identifies Ephratha with Bethlehem, and explains that this name means ‘house of bread’. Therefore, although Christ was born in the house of wrath, it became a house of bread because it received the Bread that came down from heaven, i. e. Christ (John 6:33, 41, 51), so that ‘in the place of cruelty, there is now piety’. Alluding to the Eucharist, Ambrose states that every soul that receives the heavenly bread is a house of bread, Bethlehem. Furthermore, he knows another interpretation according to which Ephratha (or ‘Ephrata’) means ‘fruitful’ or ‘filled with fruits’. He explains this in the sense that Ephratha became fruitful because it received the fruit of Mary’s womb.⁵⁰⁹ Ambrose notes that Christ has come forth ‘from the days of eternity’, ‘until the time of the woman who gives birth’ (Mic 5:1c–2a [5:2c–3a]), but in a parenthesis he clarifies

 Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VII, 2, 15 – 16 (GCS 23).  Ps.-Dionysius of Alexandria, Fragmentum confutationis Pauli Samosateni 2 (ed. J.B. Pitra, Analecta Sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi 4, 176 [Armenian text]; 417– 418 [Latin translation]). W.A. Bienert, Dionysius von Alexandrien. Zur Frage des Origenismus im dritten Jahrhundert (PTS 21), Berlin/New York 1978, 66 – 67, argues that Dionysius cannot be the author of this text.  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 2; 9 – 10; 12– 14 (CSEL 82, 1). The interpretation of ‘Ephrata’ derives from ‫ַאף‬, ‘wrath’, and ‫ ָרֲאָתה‬, ‘she sees’; the name of Bethlehem is composed of ‫ ֵבּית‬, ‘house’, and ‫ֶלֶחם‬, ‘bread’. Ambrose’s second interpretation of Ephratha derives from ‫פרה‬, ‘to be fruitful’. Since he did not know Hebrew and he refers to the Fifth Translation (Quinta traditio) of the Septuagint (§ 14), he may have found these explanations in Origen’s Hexapla, or Origen’s Commentary on Micah. See also Jerome, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum (CCSL 72, 65, 24– 25; 99, 10 – 11; 119, 17), from 389.

134

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

that ‘for us’ this eternity (saeculum) starts with the days of salvation and Christ’s ministry to Israel. Applied to the soul, this means that when Christ comes to it, he brings fruitfulness and childbearing, so that Christ is formed in it (Gal 4:19).⁵¹⁰ Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew text of Mic 5:1 (5:2) may be translated as, ‘And you, Bethlehem Ephratha, are small among the thousands of Judah; out of you will he come forth to me who is to be a ruler in Israel, and his origin is from the beginning, from the days of eternity.’ In his comments on this version Jerome refers, like Eusebius, to Christ’s twofold provenance. He also holds that Bethlehem and Ephratha are the same place. Like Ambrose, he notes that ‘Bethlehem’ means ‘house of bread’, and ‘Ephratha’ (or ‘Ephrata’) he first interprets as ‘he sees wrath’, because of king Herod’s rage (Matt 2:16), and later on as ‘abundant’, ‘fruitful’.⁵¹¹ In his comments on Mic 5:2 (5:3), Jerome does not distinguish between the Hebrew text and the Septuagint, whose contents are very similar. He explains that Christ, whose origin was from eternity (Mic 5:1d [5:2d]), was always speaking through the prophets and became the Word of God in their hands. Therefore it is the pre-existent Christ who will give up (dabit) the Jews but will allow them to reign until the time of the woman who gives birth. He offers two interpretations of this text. First he explains that this refers to the barren, desolate woman of Isa 54:1 who will have more children than the one who is married; these women represent the gentiles and the Jews respectively. Jerome comments that she who had many children (i. e. the Jews), grew weak and that by her transgression the ‘fullness of the gentiles will come in’. Then ‘all Israel will be saved’ (Rom 11:25 – 26), ‘the rest of its brothers’ (Mic 5:2b [5:3b]) will convert to the sons of Israel (i. e. the Church), and the new people (of gentile Christians) will be joined to the old one (i. e. the Jewish Christians).⁵¹² This means that soon the gentiles would produce more children, i. e. Christians, than the Jews, and that only those Jews and gentiles who believed in Christ will be saved. In other terms, Jerome says, ‘when the people of the gentiles were born out of the barren one, the Synagogue lost its sons’.⁵¹³ Jerome’s second  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 16 (CSEL 82, 1).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 2, 65 – 68; 86 – 128 (CCSL 76). For the identification of Bethlehem and Ephrata he refers to Gen 35:19; Jos 15:59 LXX.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 3, 129 – 148 (CCSL 76). In his translation of the Hebrew text of Mic 5:2b (5:3b) he reads reliquiae fratrum eius, ‘the rest of its/her/his brothers’, but in his translation of the Septuagint he has no personal pronoun here: reliquiae fratrum. – For his use of Isa 54:1 Jerome was inspired by Paul’s use of this text in Gal 4:27; see his In Isaiam XV, 2 (AGLB 35) and In ep. ad Galatas II, 4, 27 (CCSL 77A). Most likely he derives this interpretation from Origen’s Commentary on Micah; cf. e. g. Origen, Hom. in Ieremiam 9, 3 (SC 232); In Ioannem XXVIII, 211 (SC 385); In ep. ad Romanos VI, 7, 115 – 125 (AGLB 33).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 3, 156 – 157 (CCSL 76).

V.23 The future ruler from Bethlehem (Mic 5:1 – 2 [5:2 – 3])

135

interpretation reads that the Lord will give up (dabit) the temple, Jerusalem, and the Jews until the virgin (apparently Christ’s mother) will give birth. When her ‘boy will have received the spoils of Samaria and the strength of Damascus’ (Isa 8:4; this refers to his authority over the gentile nations), the Jewish people will be put to death (interfecto populo Iudaeorum), but the remnant of Israel will be saved. Then ‘the brothers of Christ, namely the apostles, will convert to the faith of the prophets and the patriarchs who predicted Christ’s coming’.⁵¹⁴ Jerome does not explain what the death of the Jewish people refers to; apparently he means that its role in salvation history is over, but it may also refer to its gradual outlawing in his own time. Most probably the correspondences between Eusebius’, Ambrose’s, Jerome’s interpretations imply that the three of them drew on Origen’s Commentary. Cyril agrees that Mic 5:1 (5:2) testifies to Christ’s divine, timeless generation from God the Father and his human birth in Bethlehem. He puts forward that originally, before Israel asked for a human king, God himself was its king, and that this is restored in Christ. Originally God also reigned over the whole earth, but its inhabitants preferred the yoke of Satan. Therefore ‘God restored (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) all things in Christ’, the Saviour (Eph 1:10) and ‘good shepherd’ (John 10:11).⁵¹⁵ Besides Mic 5:3a (5:4a), ‘the Lord will shepherd his flock’, this reference to the ‘good shepherd’ may also derive from Matt 2:6c (‘a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel’) which, remarkably, Cyril does not quote in this context. In any case this omission releases him from accounting for Matthew’s divergence from the Septuagint text of the prophecy. In Mic 5:2a (5:3a) Cyril reads, ‘Therefore you will give them up (δώσεις)’. Like Jerome’s second interpretation, he supposes that the prophet addresses God who, because of Israel’s sins, will surrender them to the enemies until the virgin will give birth to the divine infant. Then ‘the final redemption will occur and they will enjoy secure prosperity’.⁵¹⁶ However, Cyril does not explain what prosperity (εὐημερία) he has in mind. That ‘the rest of their brothers will return to the sons of Israel’ (Mic 5:2b [5:3b]) refers, in agreement with Jerome, to the numerous Jews who accepted faith in Christ, although others did not believe in him and forfeited hope. Yet Cyril is convinced that in the end the latter will join the former.⁵¹⁷ He does not quote any Scriptural testimony to this expectation.

   

Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 3, 157– 164 (CCSL 76). Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 2 (Pusey, 674, 1– 677, 15). Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 3 (Pusey, 677, 16 – 678, 10). Hill’s translation of the quotation. Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 3 (Pusey, 678, 14– 22).

136

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Like Theodore, Theodoret reads μὴ ὀλιγοστὸς εἶ, ‘are not you very few in number?’ (Mic 5:1a [5:2a]). He shares the view that the prophecy of Mic 5:1 (5:2) is fulfilled in the birth of Christ, and that moreover it testifies to Christ’s generation from the Father before the ages.⁵¹⁸ Like Cyril, Theodoret reads ‘you will give them up (δώσεις)’ in Mic 5:2a (5:3a). Unlike the other commentators, Theodoret understands that the prophet addresses God who will give the Jews a share (μεταδώσεις) in his care until the one who is in labour shall give birth. For his interpretation of this woman and of the subsequent clause (Mic 5:2b [5:3b]) he quotes Isa 54:1, as Jerome does in his first interpretation discussed above (which probably derives from Origen). Theodoret explains that the children of the barren, desolate woman (i. e. the gentile Christians) will be joined with those from Israel who believe in Christ, so that there will be one Church.⁵¹⁹ Hesychius explains that in Mic 5:1a (5:2a) Bethlehem is the town, and Ephratha the region; thus he corrects the identification of the two names as we find it in Eusebius and Jerome. In keeping with previous interpretations, according to Hesychius’ notes too ‘the ruler’ (Mic 5:1b [5:2b]) is Christ, and Mic 5:1c (5:2c) refers to his ‘generation from the Father before the ages’. He holds that ‘them’ in Mic 5:2a (5:3a; ‘he will give them up’) are the Jews, but he does not explain the meaning of δώσει or δώσεις. The one who gives birth (Mic 5:2a [5:3a]) is ‘the virgin’, to which he adds, ‘up to her (time) the laws of the Jews were effective’. ‘The rest of their brothers’ (Mic 5:2b [5:3b]) are the gentiles, and ‘the sons of Israel’ (Mic 5:2b [5:3b]) are the prophets.⁵²⁰ This reminds us of Jerome, who interpreted the sons of Israel as ‘the prophets … who predicted Christ’s coming’ (see above). But rather than concluding that Hesychius consulted Jerome’s Latin Commentary, it is more likely that he knew Origen’s Commentary, which was written in Greek.

V.24 The Lord will shepherd his flock (Mic 5:3 – 4c [5:4 – 5c]) For the following sentences neither Eusebius nor any of the four patristic commentators agrees with the text given in Rahlfs’ edition, and among each other they also have different texts. These five authors agree, however, in reading κύριος, ‘the Lord’, instead of κυρίου (‘the Lord’s; thus Rahlfs and Ziegler) in  Theodoret, In Michaeam V, 2 (PG 81, 1768A–C); Epistulae 151 (PG 83, 1436C).  Theodoret, In Michaeam V, 3 (PG 81, 1768C–1769A). Like Theodore, Theodoret reads οἱ ἐπίλοιποι τῶν ἀδελφῶν αὐτοῦ (‘the rest of his brothers’), not αὐτῶν (‘their’), but he does not pay attention to this detail.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 116; 118 – 123 (Eriksson, 159).

V.24 The Lord will shepherd his flock (Mic 5:3 – 4c [5:4 – 5c])

137

Mic 5:3a (5:4a), although their interpretations are different and therefore one translation that fits all is impossible. I will first follow Rahlfs except for κυρίου. 3 [4]

And he will stand and see, and the Lord (κύριος) will shepherd his flock in strength, and they will exist in the glory of the name of the Lord their God. Therefore now he will be magnified to the ends of the earth. 4 [5]And this will be peace, when the Assyrian comes to your land and when he treads on your region (Mic 5:3 – 4c [5:4– 5c]).

In Theodore’s view Mic 5:3a (5:4a) refers to the return of the Israelites from their captivity in Babylon, when God shepherds them through the ruler of that time, Zerubbabel. Given his interpretation of the preceding verse with regard to Zerubbabel, Theodore considers this ruler the subject of the words, ‘he will stand and see’. Again (cf. §§ V.22– 23) Theodore refers to the attack and defeat of Gog, which pertained to the future in Micah’s perspective. He argues that for the prophet the liberation of Jerusalem from the Assyrians in the time of Hezekiah (4 Kgdms 18 – 19) and thus of Micah himself was the proof of what would happen in Zerubbabel’s time.⁵²¹ Theodore needs this link between the defeat of the Assyrians and Zerubbabel’s reign after the Babylonian captivity in order to explain why Mic 5:4a–c (5:5a–c) suddenly refers to the Assyrians. In Mic 5:4c (5:5c) he does not read ἐπιβῇ, ‘he treads on’, but ἀποβῇ, ‘he departs’. In his view, the unexpected peace that occurred after the retreat (or departure) of the Assyrians from Jerusalem announced the peace (Mic 5:4a [5:5a]) that would be established after Zerubbabel’s victory over Gog.⁵²² Jerome briefly mentions and rejects the Jewish view that ‘all these things’ mentioned in Mic 5:4a–c (5:5a–c) should be interpreted literally concerning the coming of the Messiah.⁵²³ Cyril informs us that the delimitation of the Hebrew text diverges from the Septuagint, or at least from his copy of the Septuagint. His lemma contains Mic 5:3 (5:4) plus 5:4a (5:5a), ‘and this will be the peace (ἡ εἰρήνη)’. His next lemma starts with Mic 5:4b (5:5b), ‘When the Assyrian comes to your land’, etc. He notes that the Hebrew edition begins the present section with the words, ‘And this will be the peace, when the Assyrian comes to your land’,

 Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 4 (Sprenger, 216, 9 – 217, 26). Unlike Rahlfs, Theodore reads ἡ εἰρήνη, with the article.  Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 4 (Sprenger, 218, 1– 11). Theodore reads ὁ ᾿Aσσύριος instead of Aσσουρ (Rahlfs, Ziegler). Apparently Theodore’s reading ἀποβῇ, which refers to the Assyrians’ defeat and withdrawal, fitted better with his interpretation. Hill erroneously translates ἀποβῇ as ‘ascends’, which corresponds to the common reading ἐπιβῇ.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 5, 214– 216 (CCSL 76).

138

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

etc.⁵²⁴ Apparently the delimitation of Mic 5:3 – 4 (5:4– 5) in Cyril’s copy of the Septuagint diverges from the copies that were available to Theodore, Jerome, and Theodoret, for they connect the words, ‘and this will be the peace’, with the subsequent clause about the Assyrian coming to your land, which agrees with Cyril’s information about the Hebrew text.⁵²⁵ However, Cyril’s delimitation is also found in Eusebius,⁵²⁶ which demonstrates that the partition of his copy of the Septuagint was not fully exceptional.⁵²⁷ The following interpretations of the passage concern Christ, the Church, and its faith. An isolated reference to this passage is found in Hippolytus’ work On Antichrist. In a collection of biblical texts that, in his view, refer to Antichrist he quotes Isa 8:6 – 7, which concludes with ‘the king of the Assyrians’. He explains that ‘the king of the Assyrians symbolizes Antichrist, as another prophet too says, “And this will be the peace from me (παρ’ ἐμοῦ), when the Assyrian comes to your land and treads on your territories (τὰ ὅρια)”’ (cf. Mic 5:4a–c; 5e [5:5a–c; 6e]).⁵²⁸ Apparently the author might have given a more elaborate explanation of ‘the peace from me’, but this has not been preserved. From Eusebius’ quotation of Mic 5:3a (5:4a) one may conclude that he considers ‘the Lord’ the subject of the three verbs in the clause, ‘the Lord will stand and see and shepherd his flock in strength’ (Mic 5:3a [5:4a]). He quotes Mic 5:3c (5:4c) as follows, ‘Therefore now they will be magnified (μεγαλυνθήσονται)’. In his view, the ‘peace’ mentioned in Mic 5:4a (5:5a) is destined for the earth on which the flocks of the Lord will be magnified. He holds that this has been fulfilled after the coming of Christ, when the Roman emperor Augustus conquered the nations so that the variety of governments in different countries and their wars were ended and peace extended over the whole world.⁵²⁹

 Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 4– 5 (Pusey 678, 23 – 679, 2) and II, 5, 5 – 6 (Pusey, 680, 1– 11). For Cyril’s references to the Hebrew text, which he could not read himself, see Simonetti, ‘Note sul commento di Cirillo d’Alessandria ai Profeti minori’, 315 – 316. See also Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 791– 792.  Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 5 (Sprenger, 218, 1– 3); Jerome, In Michaeam 5, 5, 194– 195 (CCSL 76); Theodoret, In Michaeam 5, 5 (PG 81, 1769B). This delimitation is shared by Theophylact, In Michaeam 5, 5 (PG 126, 1137A).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VII, 2, 20 (GCS 23).  Codices Washingtonianus, Vaticanus, and Alexandrinus do not start a new section before or after καὶ ἔσται αὕτη [ἡ] εἰρήνη.  Hippolytus (the exegete), De Antichristo 57 (GCS Hippolytus Werke 1, 2).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VII, 2, 20 – 22 (GCS 23). His interpretation of Mic 5:4bc (5:5bc) will be discussed in the following section.

V.24 The Lord will shepherd his flock (Mic 5:3 – 4c [5:4 – 5c])

139

Ambrose reads Mic 5:4a (5:5a) as, ‘and it will have peace’ (et erit ei pax, ‘and there will be peace to it’), which implies that he does not read καὶ ἔσται αὕτη εἰρήνη (‘and this will be peace’) but καὶ ἔσται αὐτῇ εἰρήνη. He applies these words to the penitent soul that received salvation through Christ’s coming (see §§ V.21– 23), and notes that it still has to subdue the temptations of vain thoughts, passions, and distress (Rom 8:35). If thanks to Christ’s love (Rom 8:37) it overcomes them, it will have peace.⁵³⁰ Jerome’s translation of the Hebrew text of Mic 5:3 (5:4) reads, ‘And he will stand and shepherd in the strength of the Lord, in the magnanimity of the name of the Lord God, and they will convert, because now he will be magnified as far as the ends of the earth.’ He explains that after the events described in Mic 5:2 (5:3), the Lord (Christ) who previously walked with his people ‘will stand and shepherd them in the strength of the Lord, so that they can say, “The Lord shepherds me” (Ps 22:1)’, and underlines that the Lord (Christ) will shepherd them ‘not only in the strength of the Lord, but also in the magnanimity (in sublimitate) of the name of the Lord God’.⁵³¹ Concerning the words, ‘and they will convert’ (et convertuntur, Mic 5:3b [5:4b]) he notes however that Symmachus’ translation, viz. ‘they will dwell’ (habitabunt), is preferable and that iasubu (‫) ָי ֻשׁבוּ‬ can mean both.⁵³² Jerome explains that ‘they will dwell in the Church of the Lord, because Christ is magnified to the end of the earth’. Following the Septuagint he writes that ‘they themselves will be magnified with their shepherd as far as the end of the earth, so that ‘their sound goes out to all the earth and their words to the ends of the earth’ (Ps 18:5).⁵³³ This interpretation clearly reflects the triumphant position of the Church in the Roman empire of Jerome’s days. Commenting on Mic 5:4a–c (5:5a–c) he explains that ‘the Assyrian’ stands for the devil who assaults the Christians; then ‘the peace of Christ, or rather Christ himself will be in us’, and in all temptations and dangers Christians – Jerome takes Paul as an example – conquer them because of Christ who loved them (cf. Rom. 8:37).⁵³⁴ Since Hippolytus’ interpretation of the Assyrian as Antichrist has been preserved, we see that Jerome’s explanation in terms of the devil goes back to an older tradition; undoubtedly this was also Origen’s interpreta-

 Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 17 (CSEL 82, 1).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 4, 166 – 181. He quotes Ps 22:1– 3a.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 4, 166 – 169; 184– 187 (CCSL 76). In fact, Symmachus followed another vocalization that we also find in the Masoretic Text, ‫ ְו ָי ָשׁבוּ‬, ‘and they will dwell’, which agrees with the Septuagint, which reads ὑπάρξουσιν, ‘they will exist’.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 4, 187– 191 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 5, 192– 214; 5, 6, 235 – 238 (CCSL 76).

140

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

tion.⁵³⁵ His reference to temptations and the love of Christ corresponds to Ambrose’s exhortation to the soul; here too we may conclude that both authors drew on Origen’s Commentary. Cyril also regards the Lord, i. e. Christ, as the subject of the three verbs in Mic 5:3a (5:4a), and as the peace mentioned in Mic 5:4a (5:5a).⁵³⁶ In his view too, the Assyrian (Mic 5:4b (5:5b) represents Satan and his demons who fight the Church.⁵³⁷ Theodoret states that the Jews cannot demonstrate that Mic 5:4a–c (5:5a–c) was fulfilled before the coming of the Lord, i. e. Christ; in fact, thus he again criticizes Theodore’s interpretation given above (and cf. §§ V.19; V.23). Yet Theodoret maintains the meaning for Micah’s own time, in the sense that the destruction of the Assyrian and the subsequent peace (Mic 5:4a–c [5:5a–c]) are a pledge of the future glory of God’s Church.⁵³⁸ Hesychius’ interpretation of the words, ‘he will stand and see’ (Mic 5:3a [5:4a]), is not found in previous Commentaries; it reads, ‘on Golgotha’, which implies that he considers Christ to be the subject.⁵³⁹ Further on in Mic 5:3a (5:4a) he reads ἐν ἰσχύι κυρίου, ‘in the strength of the Lord’, and notes, ‘on the cross about which David [said], “you will shepherd them with an iron rod”’ (Ps 2:9).⁵⁴⁰ ‘Them’ in this Psalm are the gentile nations. Hesychius interprets the words, ‘in the glory of the name of the Lord their God’ (Mic 5:3b [5:4b]), as ‘in the name of Christ. For this [name is] more glorious than all [other names]’.⁵⁴¹ He glosses the clause, ‘he will be magnified to the ends of the earth’ (Mic 5:3c [5:4c]) as if he reads the plural, ‘they will be magnified’, and notes, ‘those who believe in Christ’.⁵⁴² This interpretation agrees with Eusebius and Jerome, and probably Origen. For Hesychius, ‘peace’ (Mic 5:4a [5:5a]) is the peace of the gospel, and the words on ‘Assur’ that ‘comes to our (ἡμῶν) land and when it treads on

 See Origen, Fragmenta in Ieremiam 28 (GCS Origenes Werke 3, 213, 7– 23).  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 4 (Pusey, 678, 23 – 679, 25). For this peace (like Theodore he reads ἡ εἰρήνη) Cyril refers to Eph 2:14– 15.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 5 (Pusey, 680, 1– 681, 4).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 5, 4 (PG 81, 1769A–C). In Mic 5:4c (5:5c) Theodoret reads ἡ εἰρήνη, ‘the peace’ and ἐπιβῇ, ‘treads upon’.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 124 (Eriksson, 159). Cf. his interpretation of ‘the mountain’ in Mic 4:1 as Golgotha, in § V.19.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 125 (Eriksson, 159). For an early Christological interpretation of Ps 2:9 see Rev 2:27; 12:4; 19:15, and cf. Hesychius’ similar interpretation of Mic 7:14 (§ V.38).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 126 (Eriksson, 159). The last words read, πάντων γὰρ ἐνδοξότερον. I assume that ἐνδοξότερον refers to ὄνομα, ‘name’, although in the previous clause ‘name’ occurs in the dative case. Cf. Isa 24:15; 59:19; Phil 2:9 – 11.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 127 (Eriksson, 159).

V.25 The fate of Assyria and the land of Nimrod (Mic 5:4d–5 [5:5d–6])

141

our (ἡμῶν) region’ (Mic 5:4bc [5:5bc]) refer to the devil who will be destroyed when he comes.⁵⁴³

V.25 The fate of Assyria and the land of Nimrod (Mic 5:4d–5 [5:5d–6]) The prophet continues, 4d [5d]

And seven shepherds will be raised up against him and eight bites of people. 5 [6]And they will shepherd Assur with a sword and the land of Nimrod in its trench; and he will rescue [you] from Assur, when he comes to your land and when he treads upon your territories (Mic 5:4d–5 [5:5d–6]).

Eusebius’ interpretation of Mic 5:4b–d (5:5b–d) reads that after the Assyrians conquered Judea, the number of rebellions against them is indicated by the seven shepherds and the eight bites, and that those who research the history of Assyria can be aware of this. At the end of the Assyrian rule, according to Eusebius, the one who had been predicted to come from Bethlehem (Mic 5:1 [5:2]) was born.⁵⁴⁴ Since it is indefensible that Christ was born right after the rule of the Assyrians, Eusebius may have in mind a leader of Israel following Micah’s own time, but unfortunately he does not clarify what he means. Theodore informs us that according to ‘some’ (τινες) the ‘seven shepherds’ refer to seven prophets, and the ‘eight bites’ to king Hezekiah and his ministers, but he fiercely rejects this interpretation, arguing that it does not fit with the idiom of divine Scripture.⁵⁴⁵ Apparently these interpreters knew that ‘bites’ (δήγματα) was the (erroneous) translation of ‫ ְנִסיֵכי‬, ‘rulers’, so Theodore should not have been so severe on his anonymous predecessors.⁵⁴⁶ Such interpretations of the seven shepherds and eight rulers are also found in the Babylonian Talmud and other rabbinic sources.⁵⁴⁷ Theodore argues that in Scripture seven is the per-

 Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 128 – 129 (Eriksson, 159).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VII, 2, 26 – 27 (GCS 23).  Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 5 – 6 (Sprenger, 218, 12– 25); also In Zachariam 1, 18 – 21 (Sprenger, 334, 13 – 18).  The Septuagint translator derived ‫ ְנִסיֵכי‬from ‫נשׁך‬, to bite (cf. Mic 3:5), or he found another term in their Hebrew text. See also Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen II, 2375.  According to bSukkah 52b, (transl. Slotki, 251) the seven shepherds are David, Adam, Seth, Methuselah, Abraham, Jacob and Moses, and the eight rulers are Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Zedekiah, the Messiah, and Elijah. See also Rahmer, Die Commentarii zu den zwölf kleinen Propheten II, 36; Rosenberg, Twelve Prophets II, 221; L. Ginzberg, The Legends of

142

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

fect number and eight is excessive. He himself relates the ‘seven shepherds’ to the Assyrians’ perfect punishment by God’s angel (4 Kgdms 19:35) and the ‘eight bites of people’ to the excessive troubles after their flight, when fugitives were killed and their king Sennacherib was slain by his own sons (4 Kgdms 19:36 – 37).⁵⁴⁸ That, besides their king, Assyrian fugitives were killed is not told explicitly in Scripture, but this is how Theodore interprets Mic 5:5a (5:6a), which in his view announces the extermination of the Assyrians and the devastation of their land by the Babylonians. He explains that Nimrod is the giant hunter whose kingdom started with Babylon (Gen 10:9 – 10) and that, since the Assyrians boasted of him and his power, their land is called ‘the land of Nimrod’; yet it would be destroyed. Theodore does not explain the term ‘trench’ (τάφρος). In Mic 5:5c (5:6c) he reads, ‘he will rescue you (σε)’, but since he does not give any comments on Mic 5:5c–e (5:6c–e), it remains unclear to whom this ‘you’ refers, in his view.⁵⁴⁹ Jerome notes that (in Mic 5:4d [5:5d]) the Hebrew text reads nesiche adam (‫) ְנִסיֵכי ָא ָדם‬, which he translates as primates homines, ‘principal people’, whereas Symmachus translates christos hominum, ‘anointed ones among people’,⁵⁵⁰ which implies that he read ‫ְמ ִשׁיֵחי ָא ָדם‬. According to Jerome’s information (which derives from Origen’s Hexapla), Theodotion and the Fifth Edition read principes hominum, ‘chiefs of people’, and Aquila read graues uel constitutos homines, id est καθεσταμένους, ‘weighty or appointed people’.⁵⁵¹ Jerome does not explicate that the Septuagint translates nesiche adam as ‘bites of people’ (δήγματα ἀνθρώπων). A similar omission holds for the expression ‘in its trench’ (ἐν τῇ τάφρῳ αὐτῆς) in Mic 5:5a (5:6a). Without any reference to these words in the Septuagint he notes that Aquila’s translation and his own one of the Hebrew text is in lanceis eius, ‘with its lances’, whereas Symmachus translates ἐντὸς πυλῶν αὐτῆς, id est intra portas eius, ‘within its gates’. Theodotion has in portis eorum, ‘in their gates’, and the Fifth Edition has ἐν παραξίφεων αὐτῶν, which means in sicis eorum, ‘with their daggers’, and which is similar to Aquila’s

the Jews 5, Baltimore/London 1998 (reprint), 130. See below for another, Messianic Jewish interpretation attested by Jerome.  Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 5 – 6 (Sprenger, 218, 25 – 220, 11).  Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 5 – 6 (Sprenger, 220, 12– 31).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 6, 225 – 227 (CCSL 76). I assume that in l. 227 of Adriaen’s edition Christus contains a printing error and should be read as the accusative plural christos, as in l. 248 (ut Symmachus interpretatus est, Christos); cf. the genitive plural christorum in l. 284. PL 25, 1200D; 1201B and Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 56 – 57, also read christos/ Christos twice.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 6, 227– 229 (CCSL 76).

V.25 The fate of Assyria and the land of Nimrod (Mic 5:4d–5 [5:5d–6])

143

and Jerome’s translations. In the end, Jerome notes that the Hebrew text reads baphethee. ⁵⁵² This is his transcription of ‫בפתחיה‬, which the Masoretic Text vocalizes as ‫ ִּבְפָתֶחיָה‬, ‘in its gates’, and in which Aquila, the Fifth Edition, and Jerome read ‫ ִּבְפִתיֶחָה‬, ‘with its daggers’ or ‘with its lances’. Implicitly Jerome thus criticizes the Septuagint translations of ‘bites of people’ and ‘in its trench’, but as we shall see, he still refers to them in his spiritual interpretation. As for the interpretation of this passage in its original context it may be noted here that Jerome, in his spiritual exposition (see below), explains that the seven shepherds represent all patriarchs, prophets, and saints of the Old Testament.⁵⁵³ This comes close to the interpretation dismissed by Theodore. Likewise Cyril, who also gives a spiritual interpretation, includes a comment on the seven shepherds as the saints of the time of the Mosaic law.⁵⁵⁴ In his comments on Mic 5:5a (5:6a), ‘they shall shepherd Assur with a sword and the land of Nimrod in its trench’, Cyril explains that ‘the land of Nimrod’ means Assyria or Babylon, which was surrounded by a deep trench. Like Theodore, he refers to Nimrod in Gen 10:7– 10 (‘the beginning of his [i. e. Nimrod’s] kingdom was Babylon, Erech, and Calneh’) from which he concludes that Nimrod means Babylon. That Assur and Nimrod will be shepherded ‘in its trench’ is said to mean that they will remain within it and will no longer expand their towns and territories.⁵⁵⁵ Theodoret states that ‘we are clearly taught by this that the Assyrian also reigned over Babylon’ and quotes Gen 10:10 as his argument. In his view, the seven shepherds refer to seven kings and the eight bites to human plagues and hostile assaults. He explains that the passage announces the conquest of Babylon, which will find no advantage in its walls and the trench that surrounded it. In Mic 5:5c–e (5:6c–e) Theodoret reads, like Theodore, ‘he will rescue you (σε)’. Apparently he reads ‘you’ as a reference to Jerusalem which will be rescued from the Assyrians, not only ‘then’ (τότε), when God shall raise up other enemies against them, but also ‘at the present time’, when God’s angel shall destroy them (cf. 4 Kgdms 19:35).⁵⁵⁶ We see the trouble that Theodore, Cyril, and Theodoret had in establishing the historical context of the prophetical text. Jerome, in his spiritual interpretation, quotes his translation of the Hebrew text of Mic 5:4d (5:5d), ‘And we shall raise over it seven shepherds and eight princi-

    

Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 6, 229 – 234 (CCSL 76). Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 6, 244– 246 (CCSL 76). Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 6 (Pusey, 682, 1– 2). Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 6 (Pusey, 684, 1– 21). Theodoret, In Michaeam 5, 5 – 6 (PG 81, 1769C–1772A).

144

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

pals of people’, to which he adds the version of the Septuagint, ‘or bites of people’.⁵⁵⁷ He explains that ‘the Lord (God) himself’ is speaking here and is saying, I and my Son and the Holy Spirit, we shall raise according to that which is written in Genesis, ‘let us make people according to our image and likeness’ (Gen 1:26). And in the beginning of Obadiah, ‘Rise up, and let us go up against it for battle’ (Obad 1). I (i. e. Jerome) think that the seven shepherds are all the patriarchs, prophets, and saints who served the seven, i. e. the Old Testament (hebdomadi, id est ueteri … instrumento). But the eight bites of people, or the eight principal people and, as Symmachus translated it, anointed ones (christos), represent all people of the new covenant (noui testamenti), who from the apostles up to this age have bitten the Assyrian and have lacerated him with their teeth.⁵⁵⁸

As we saw in Jerome’s interpretation of Mic 5:4a–c (5:5a–c), in his spiritual understanding the Assyrian stands for the devil.⁵⁵⁹ After some Old Testament references to the meaning of the numbers seven and eight he resumes that ‘these seven shepherds and eight bites of people will shepherd Assur with a sword’. He explains that this sword is ‘the living and active Word of God which is sharper than any two-edged sword, and which is sent by him (Christ) who came to bring a sword to the earth, that two may be divided against three’.⁵⁶⁰ He continues that the seven shepherds and eight bites of people will also ‘shepherd the land of Nimrod in its trench’, clarifying that ‘Nimrod’ means ‘descending temptation’.⁵⁶¹ The land of this ‘giant hunter’ who ‘was opposed to God’ (Gen 10:9 LXX) is not on the mountains but in trenches. Since Jerome says about Nimrod that ‘he fell from heaven like a flash of lightning’,⁵⁶² which refers to Satan in Luke 10:18, Jerome apparently considers Nimrod another metaphor for the devil. Alluding to Mic 5:5b–d (5:6b–d) he testifies that ‘Christ has rescued us from the hand of Assur (i. e. the devil) who came upon our land and desired to tread upon Israel’s (i. e. the Church’s) territories’. He observes that in the case of Symmachus’ translation ‘within its gates’ (see above), Mic 5:5a (5:6a) means that the strong one is tied up in his own house (cf. Matt 12:29) and the enemy (i. e. the devil) is wounded. Following Aquila and the Fifth Edition, he adds that the enemy is stabbed

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 6, 239 – 240 (CCSL 76). Here his translation reads, primates hominum, whereas in the lemma (l. 218) it reads primates homines (see above).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 6, 238 – 250 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 5, 196 (CCSL 76); see § V.24.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 6, 250 – 261 (CCSL 76). He alludes to Heb 4:12; Matt 10:34– 35.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 6, 261– 263 (CCSL 76). The second element of his interpretation of ‘Nimrod’ derives from ‫ירד‬, ‘to descend’. The origin of the first element is not clear to me, unless Jerome confounded the ‫ מ‬and the ‫ ס‬and had in mind the verb ‫נסה‬, ‘to tempt’.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 6, 263 – 265 (CCSL 76).

V.25 The fate of Assyria and the land of Nimrod (Mic 5:4d–5 [5:5d–6])

145

with the daggers and lances of the seven shepherds and of the eight anointed people.⁵⁶³ Jerome is most critical about a Jewish interpretation of this passage, which is more elaborate than the rabbinic one given above, in the paragraph on Theodore. According to Jerome, the Jews hold that, after the seven shepherds and the eight principals will have triumphed over the Assyrians⁵⁶⁴ and shepherded the land of Nimrod with their swords, so that this will have happened after the Assyrian came to the land of Judah, then the Messiah will come.⁵⁶⁵ As we saw in the previous section, Cyril shares the interpretation of the ‘Assyrian’ in Mic 5:4b (5:5b) as the devil and his demons. He also surmises that the ‘seven shepherds and eight bites of people’ (Mic 5:4d [5:5d]) stand for the saints before, during, and after Christ’s incarnation, or in other words, the prophets, the apostles, evangelists, and the teachers of the churches. He relates the number ‘eight’ to Christ’s resurrection on the eighth day and adds that all these saints are called to oppose the devil and drive him off when he attacks one of the believers. Like Jerome, he considers the ‘sword’ (Mic 5:5a [5:6a]) a metaphor for the Word of God that fights the devil. He interprets the ‘land of Nimrod’ as the land of the Assyrians and Babylon, and explains that a deep trench had been dug around it. That ‘they will shepherd Assur and the whole land of Nimrod’ means that ‘it will remain within the trench and no longer expand its cities and region’. Cyril applies this to the demons that will no longer oppress the

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 6, 277– 284 (CCSL 76).  Adriaen’s edition (CCSL 76, 491) reads, Postquam septem … pastores, et octo principes homines Assyriorum uicerint (l. 412– 413; thus also PL 25, 1204D and Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 61), which is ambiguous. The translation, ‘After seven shepherds and eight principal people of the Assyrians will have triumphed’, seems obvious (thus Bareille), but does not make sense, for one may expect that the shepherds and principal people of Israel are meant, in agreement with the rabbinic interpretation cited in fn. 547 (bSukkah 52b). Therefore the correct translation is, ‘After seven shepherds and eight principals will have triumphed over people of the Assyrians’. This interpretation agrees with the variant reading of ms. A, uicerint assirium, which results in the following translation: ‘After seven shepherds and eight principal people will have triumphed over the Assyrian’. My translation and the variant reading correspond to the subsequent words, et terram Nemrod in gladiis suis pauerint (l. 413 – 414), ‘and they will have shepherded the land of Nimrod with their swords’.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 411– 415 (CCSL 76). For the continuation of this interpretation see the paragraphs on Jerome in §§ V.26 – 27. C. Siegfried, ‘Midraschisches zu Hieronymus und Pseudo-Hieronymus’, JPTh 9 (1883), 346 – 352 (348), notes Rabbi David Qimchi’s (Radaq’s) interpretation, which parallels the Jewish interpretation rendered by Jerome. According to Qimchi the seven shepherds are David, Seth, Enoch, Methuselah, Abraham, Jacob, and Moses, and the eight rulers are Jesse, Saul, Samuel, Amos, Zephaniah, Hizkia, Elijah, and the Messiah. Cf. footnote 547.

146

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

earth as they did before Christ’s incarnation, so that now the saints can live a peaceful life.⁵⁶⁶ Theodoret does not give a spiritual application of this passage, but Hesychius does, and once again some of his interpretations cannot be found in previous authors. In Mic 5:4d (5:5d) he interprets the ‘seven shepherds’ as the seven activities (ἐνέργειαι) of the Spirit (cf. Isa 11:2– 3), and the ‘eight bites’ as Christ’s beatitudes (Matt 5:3 – 10) which bite the devil. The ‘sword’ (Mic 5:5a [5:6a]) is the preaching (λόγος) of the gospel, and ‘the land of Nimrod in its trench’ refers to ‘the sin in its ditch (ἐν τῷ βόθρῳ); for – according to Hesychius – land (γῆ) was the sin of the spiritual (νοητός) Nimrod about whom it has been said, “he was the first giant on the earth (γῆ), a hunter before the Lord”’ (Gen 10:8 – 9).⁵⁶⁷ Hesychius does not clarify what he means by this last observation; perhaps the term βόθρος refers to the pit of the devil, called ἄβυσσος in Scripture.⁵⁶⁸

V.26 Israel’s remnant unassailable among the nations (Mic 5:6 – 8 [5:7 – 9]) Next, the prophet addresses the position of ‘the remnant of Jacob’, 6 [7]

And the remnant of Jacob among the nations, in the midst of many peoples, will be like dew falling from the Lord and like lambs⁵⁶⁹ in the grass, so that no one may be gathered nor resist among the sons of humans. 7 [8]And the remnant of Jacob among the nations, in the midst of many peoples, will be like a lion among cattle in the forest and like a lion’s whelp among flocks of sheep, as when it passes through and, having made a choice, snatches away, and there is no one to deliver. 8 [9]Your hand will be lifted up over those who oppress you, and all your enemies shall be destroyed (Mic 5:6– 8 [5:7– 9]).

To Theodore, this means that the Israelites will suffer no more harm from the Assyrians once these will have been destroyed and fled (cf. 4 Kgdms 19:35 – 36). Those who had remained in Judea and Jerusalem would, like sheep grazing on grass (Mic 5:6 [6:7]), fall upon the spoils of the killed Assyrians and the fugi-

 Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 5 – 6 (Pusey, 680, 15 – 685, 5).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 130 – 133 (Eriksson, 159; 216 – 217).  See Luke 8:31; Rev 11:7– 8; 20:1, 3; Origen, Expositio in Proverbia 22, 14 (PG 17, 220B), βόθρος βαθὺς ὁ διάβολός ἐστιν, ‘the devil is a deep pit’; Cyril of Jerusalem, Catecheses ad illuminandos 2, 3 (Reischl, Rupp), κατασπᾷ σε εἰς βόθρον κακῶν, ‘[covetousness inspired by the devil] pulls you down into the pit of evil’.  For the translation of ‫ ְרִביִבים‬, ‘showers’, by ἄρνες, ‘lambs’, see J. Joosten, ‘L’ondée et les moutons. La Septante de Michée 5, 6 et l’exégèse juive traditionnelle’, REJ 162 (2003), 357– 363.

V.26 Israel’s remnant unassailable among the nations (Mic 5:6 – 8 [5:7 – 9])

147

tives, and all people would be afraid of declaring war on them. His interpretation implies that he considers ‘your hand’ (Mic 5:8a [5:9a]) the hand of the Israelites.⁵⁷⁰ Does ἄγρωστις mean dog’s tooth grass? (Mic 5:6b [5:7b])⁵⁷¹ As we saw in § V.5, patristic Commentaries can sometimes shed light on the meaning of a particular Greek term. This also holds for ἄγρωστις in Mic 5:6b (5:7b), which I rendered as ‘grass’; it is the translation of the Hebrew term ‫ֵע ֶשׂב‬, ‘herb’, ‘herbage’. Theodore and Theodoret only repeat the term without any explanation.⁵⁷² Jerome translates it by gramen, which means ‘grass’ or ‘herb’.⁵⁷³ Only in 406, in his comments on Hos 10:4 (‘judgment will spring up like grass upon a dry clot of a field’, NETS) does he explain that ἄγρωστις is a herb that resembles reed. It has knots and shoots from which other plants sprout up (alterius herbae seminaria), and if it is not eradicated, it overgrows complete fields.⁵⁷⁴ In his comments on Mic 5:6 (5:7) he has nothing particular to say about it.⁵⁷⁵ Cyril characterizes ἄγρωστις as ‘grass’ (βοτάνη), ‘abundant and ample pasture (νομή)’, ‘a meadow (πόα) full of flowers’, and as ‘rich and abundant meadows’.⁵⁷⁶ Cyril does not discuss the question whether a particular sort of grass is meant, and his characterizations suggest that he understood the term in a general sense, as a derivation from ἀγρός, ‘field’. In present-day dictionaries, however, ἄγρωστις is identified as ‘dog’s tooth grass’, Cynodon Dactylon,⁵⁷⁷ a translation that found its way to Deut 32:2 in NETS (‘let my words come down like dew, like a rainstorm on dog’s tooth grass’), although in Hos 10:4, Isa 9:18 (9:17), and 37:27 NETS translates ‘grass’ or ‘wild grass’. In these texts Septuaginta Deutsch has ‘Gras’, ‘Unkraut’, and ‘Feldgras’.⁵⁷⁸ The identification as ‘dog’s tooth grass’ is based on descriptions by ancient authors, who declare that it served as fodder for cattle.⁵⁷⁹

 Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 7– 9 (Sprenger, 221, 1– 29).  Also in Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 780 – 782.  Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 7 (Sprenger, 221, 11); Theodoret, In Michaeam 5, 7 (PG 81, 1772B).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 305 – 306 (CCSL 76). In l. 418 he writes super herbam.  Jerome, In Osee II, 10, 3 – 4, 99 – 106 (CCSL 76). For the date see A. Fürst, Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike, Freiburg 20162, 123 – 125.  Cf. Jerome’s spiritual interpretation in In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 332– 336 (CCSL 76) where he parallels gramen and herba.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 7 (Pusey, 686, 7– 8; 24– 25; 687, 21– 22).  Liddell, Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, Montanari, Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, and Muraoka, Greek-English Lexicon, s.v.  Likewise C. Dogniez, M. Harl, Le Deutéronome (BdA 5), Paris 1992, 322: ‘l’herbe sauvage’; E. Bons et al., Les douze prophètes. Osée (BdA 23, 1), Paris 2002, 133: ‘l’herbe’.  Theophrastus (4th–3th c. BCE), Historia plantarum I, vi, 7; I, vi, 10; IV, vi, 6 (LCL 70); Strabo, Geographia (1st c. BCE – 1st c. CE), IV, I, 7 (LCL 50); Dioscorides Pedanius (1st c. CE), De Materia medica IV, 29 (ed. Wellmann II, 192); Diodorus Siculus (1st c. CE), Bibliotheca historica I.43.1– 2 (LCL 279). Aristophanes of Byzantium (3rd–2nd BCE), Historiae animalium epitome II, 239 (ed. Lampros) and Nepualius, Περὶ τῶν κατὰ ἀντιπάθειαν καὶ συμπάθειαν 1 (ed. Gemoll) say that sick dogs eat ἄγρωστις.

148

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Cynodon Dactylon, Dog’s tooth grass. © Alamy, Abingdon, Oxon, UK Glenny’s translation of Mic 5:6 (5:7) reads ‘grass’, but in his comments he identifies it as dog’s tooth grass.⁵⁸⁰ We may note a tension between the precise identification of this kind of grass and Cyril’s broad interpretation in terms of a meadow full of flowers. Likewise, in his Commentaries on Hosea 10:4– 5 and on Luke 10:1 Cyril conceives ἄγρωστις as a general term for weed.⁵⁸¹ This confirms present-day translations of ἄγρωστις in the Septuagint in a general sense, which was known since Homer;⁵⁸² it is unlikely indeed that the Septuagint translator intended to refer to a particular kind of grass. Therefore it may be doubted that Glenny’s interpretation of the term as ‘dog’s tooth grass’ is to the point, and this also applies to Deut 32:2 in NETS. In addition, Muraoka’s translation as ‘dog’s tooth grass’ should at least be supplemented with the more general meaning of ‘grass’.⁵⁸³

Eusebius interprets the ‘remnant of Jacob’ (Mic 5:6a [5:7a]) as Christ’s apostles and other disciples who proclaimed his message to the whole world. On the one hand he highlights that among the gentile nations (Mic 5:7a [5:8a]) they are like ‘dew from the Lord’ and like ‘lambs in the grass’ (Mic 5:6b [5:7b]), on the other hand he interprets the image of the ‘lion’ and the ‘lion’s whelp’ (Mic 5:7ab [5:8ab]) as referring to the audacity and intrepidity with which they approached the ‘forest of the gentiles and the flocks of human sheep’, ‘separat   

Glenny, Micah, 124. Cyril, In Osee I, 10, 4– 5 (Pusey, 208, 5 – 10); In Lucam 10, 1 (Sickenberger, 99, 11– 15). Odyssee 6, 90 (Bruijn, Spoelder). Thus Lust, Eynikel, Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon s.v.: ‘grass, weed’.

V.26 Israel’s remnant unassailable among the nations (Mic 5:6 – 8 [5:7 – 9])

149

ing the worthy from the unworthy, and subjected them to Christ’s word’. He interprets ‘Your hand’ (Mic 5:8a [5:9a]) as the hand of Christ that will be lifted up, and comments that one can see that he is stronger than all those who oppressed him. Eusebius underlines that all his enemies who from time to time rise up against his Church are said to be destroyed.⁵⁸⁴ This observation reflects the end of the persecutions. Ambrose’s epistle on the penitent soul that received salvation and peace (last mentioned in § V.24) now says that those who overcome the temptations will receive ‘dew from the Lord’ (Mic 5:6b [5:7b]) and rest, and ‘then the soul of the righteous one will be like a lion’s whelp among sheep’ (cf. Mic 5:7ab [5:8ab]). He interprets these words by referring to Christ’s saying, ‘then the righteous will shine in the Kingdom of their Father’ (Matt 13:43),⁵⁸⁵ which is slightly puzzling, however, since these words do not clarify who is meant by the ‘lion’s whelp among sheep’. Like Eusebius, Jerome also reads this passage as a testimony to the spreading of the gospel. In his view too, the ‘remnant of Jacob’ (Mic 5:6a [5:7a]) refers to the apostles and the first Church from the Jews, and the ‘dew’ (Mic 5:6b [5:7b]) is their teaching. The ‘grass’ stands for those gentiles who are unwilling to believe their message, and therefore the apostles, like grazing lambs, will cut them off with their teeth. Thus these unbelievers who do receive the spiritual dew will not be gathered among humans (i. e. sinners who will be saved)⁵⁸⁶, and it will be said about them, ‘They do not have the trouble of humans and with humans they will not be scourged’ (Ps 72:5).⁵⁸⁷ This means that these unbelievers will not be disciplined so as to be corrected. Apparently Jerome renders an abbreviated version of Origen’s comments, in which the Alexandrian maintained, with reference to Ps 72:5, that those humans who are disciplined by the Lord are better off, whereas the unbelievers who are not willing to be disciplined will be punished.⁵⁸⁸ Next, Jerome interprets the ‘lion’ and the ‘lion’s whelp’ (Mic 5:7ab [5:8ab]) in the sense of Judah who is called a ‘lion’ and a ‘lion’s whelp’ in Gen  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica II, 3, 149 – 151; 153 – 156 (GCS 23). For the Origenian origin of the gist of Eusebius’ interpretations see the following paragraph on Jerome.  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 18 (CSEL 82, 1).  Cf. Jerome’s and Origen’s interpretations of Mic 2:12d in § V.14.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 304– 311; 319 – 340; 403 – 405 (CCSL 76). His translation of Mic 5:6c (5:7c), ὅπως μὴ συναχθῇ μηδεὶς μηδὲ ὑποστῇ ἐν υἱοῖς ἀνθρώπων, reads, ut non congregetur quisquam neque sit in filiis hominum, ‘so that no one may be gathered nor be among the sons of humans’. This implies that he understood ὑποστῇ (from ὑφίστημι) in the sense of ‘to be under’.  Cf. Origen’s use of Ps 72:5 in Hom. in Exodum 3, 3, 68 – 81 (SC 321); Fragmenta in Psalmos 22, 4 (PG 12, 1261AB); Hom. in Psalmos 37, 2, 5; 38, 2, 7 (SC 411).

150

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

49:9, which he reads as a prophecy of ‘the Lord Jesus’ (cf. Rev 5:5). He continues that Jesus ordered his apostles to baptize all the nations (Matt 28:19), and that they too were like a lion that the cattle could not resist, and like a lion’s whelp among the sheep. This implies that in Jerome’s view the cattle and sheep represent these gentile nations. The apostles snatched them away from the hand of the Assyrian, i. e. the devil, for ‘the Lord will save humans and cattle’ (Ps 35:7), and no one could resist them in doing so.⁵⁸⁹ Again this quotation is Origenian, although for Origen the cattle stand for the plain, simple believers.⁵⁹⁰ Jerome continues that while the lion and the lion’s whelp (i. e. the preachers of the gospel) wander among the cattle and sheep (i. e. the gentiles), God’s hand (Mic 5:8a [5:9a]) is lifted up against those who previously afflicted God or the remnant of Jacob. All God’s enemies will perish, not that they will be annihilated, but they will be destroyed as far as they are enemies, which means that the impiety that is in them will be consumed.⁵⁹¹ This is an Origenian consideration.⁵⁹² At the same time, the formulation of ‘those who previously (ante) afflicted God or the remnant of Jacob’ reflects the end of the persecutions and the triumph of Catholic Christianity in Jerome’s own days. Given the similarities between Eusebius’ and Jerome’s comments we may conclude that not only Jerome, but also Eusebius drew on Origen’s Commentary, although he was far more selective than Jerome. However, Jerome may have adopted Eusebius’ interpretation of Mic 5:8 [5:9]) as a testimony to the end of the persecutions, to which Origen could not allude yet. In addition, Jerome transmits and denounces a Jewish, Messianic interpretation of this passage, which continues the Jewish interpretation given in § V.25. It reads that, when the Messiah comes, all the remnant of Jacob that was able to survive among the gentiles will be blessed (erunt in benedictione) as a dew coming from the Lord and as rain upon the grass. And they will not hope in humans and in the children of humans, but in God. And in the midst of the

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 340 – 353 (CCSL 76). Cf. Num 23:24, where Balaam prophesies about Israel, ‘Behold, a people will rise up like a whelp and behave proudly like a lion’, which Origen, Hom. in Numeros 16, 8, 1– 2 (SC 442) applies to those who trust in Christ.  Origen, Hom. in Genesin 12, 5; 13, 4 (SC 7bis); Fragm. in Leuiticum 5, 2 (PG 12, 400B); Hom. in Leuiticum 3, 3 (SC 286); Hom. in Numeros 14, 4, 2 (SC 442); Fragm. in Psalmos 4, 3 (PG 12, 1140A); Hom. in Psalmos 77, 7, 6 (GCS NF 19, Origenes 13); In Ioannem I, 122; 190 (SC 120); XXVIII, 216 (SC 385).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 353 – 368 (CCSL 76). For another interpretation of ‘Your hand’ (Mic 5:8a [5:9a]) as ‘Israel’s hand’ see the subsequent passage discussed in the following section (V.27) and the Jewish interpretation in the following paragraph.  Origen, De principiis III, 6, 5 (Behr).

V.26 Israel’s remnant unassailable among the nations (Mic 5:6 – 8 [5:7 – 9])

151

gentiles and of the peoples they will be bloody and cruel, taking vengeange upon their former masters, as a lion among the cattle of the forests and as a lion’s whelp among the flocks of sheep, and there will be no one who can resist their strength. Then, o God, or o Israel, will your hand be lifted up over the Assyrians, and all your adversaries and enemies who now possess you will perish.⁵⁹³

Like Jerome, Cyril interprets ‘the remnant of Jacob’ (Mic 5:6a [5:7a]) as the first Jewish Christians; he writes that they were saved through faith before the gentile Christians. In his view, these Jewish Christians were the ‘dew’ (Mic 5:6b [5:7b]) coming down on the fields so as to revive its grass and flowers from the heat of the sun; spiritually this grass and the flowers stand for the souls of the gentiles that are bedewed by God’s Word. Thus the Jewish Christians will shepherd the believers from the gentiles, while no one can be gathered to resist them (Mic 5:6c [5:7c]).⁵⁹⁴ This reflects the unstoppable growth of the Church in its beginning and – as we shall see – also in Cyril’s days. Cyril interprets the image of the lion and the lion’s whelp (Mic 5:7a [5:8a]) with regard to these first Jewish Christians who will instil an unbearable fear, so that nobody will be able to resist them or to extricate their prey (i. e. their converts). Cyril admits that Christ said to his apostles, ‘I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves’ (Matt 10:16), and he explains that this implies that they should be meek and gentle. Elaborating on the Gospel text, Cyril also attributes the following words to Christ, ‘And even if some people in the world are ready to kill and indulge in the cruelty of wolves, I myself shall crush the hearts of those who make war. I shall make them fearful and cowardly, and I shall cause them to respect you greatly.’⁵⁹⁵ He holds that this is how the apostles, like Paul, gained control of their enemies, although they took the role of sheep. Yet rather like lions, the apostles seized the herds of the gentiles, and Satan could not pluck them from their hands. This also applies, in Cyril’s view, to ‘the ministers of the evangelical oracles’ in general. Unlike Jerome (who interpreted ‘your hand’ as ‘God’s hand’), Cyril holds that it is the Lord (i. e. Christ) who says to these preachers, ‘Your hand will be lifted up over those

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 415 – 425 (CCSL 76). In the Jewish interpretation ‘Your hand’ appears to be interpreted as ‘Israel’s hand’. This is confirmed by Targum Ps.-Jonathan Mic 5:8, which also contains the addition ‘Israel’ in comparison with the Hebrew text: ‘Indeed henceforth, o Israel (‫)ישראל‬, your hand shall prevail over your foes’ (transl. Cathcart, Gordon, including italics). This corresponds to Rosenberg, Twelve Prophets II, 223.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 7; 5, 8 – 9 (Pusey, 685, 6 – 687, 8; 687, 17– 22).  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 8 – 9 (Pusey, 687, 9 – 688, 10). I thank Dr Hans van Loon for his translation and the interpretation that Cyril expands Christ’s words and is not speaking about himself (e-mail 29th July 2017).

152

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

who oppress you, and all your enemies will be destroyed’ (Mic 5:8 [5:9]).⁵⁹⁶ These comments reflect the rise and victory of Christianity in the Roman empire of Cyril’s days. Theodoret agrees with the interpretation of the ‘remnant of Jacob’ as the apostles and their companions who will preach the gospel to the gentiles, so that as dew from heaven they will irrigate the world. As hungry lambs they will consume the grass of impiety that had been planted in barren souls, ‘so that no company of impious people would in the future be found gathered’ (cf. Mic 5:6b [5:7b]). However, Theodoret observes that the comparisons with dew and lambs do not sufficiently demonstrate the power that God had given them, although he admits that the second image corresponds with Jesus’ saying about the apostles as sheep being sent in the midst of wolves (Matt 10:16). Therefore, in his view, the prophet also compared the remnant of Jacob to a lion and a lion’s whelp (Micah 5:7a [5:8a]). Theodoret explains that, when the world had accepted the preaching, and generals and kings joined the Church, fear overtook the adversaries of the gospel. The preachers behave like lions in freely combatting the exponents of falsehood with the word of truth. The words, ‘Your hand shall be lifted up over those who oppress you, and all your enemies shall be destroyed’ (Mic 5:8 [5:9]) mean to Theodoret that the Christians will destroy the pagan temples, and that Jews who do not accept the Christian faith will be bereft of a kingdom of their own and will not have any cavalry, infantry, or walled cities.⁵⁹⁷ Hesychius’ notes generally correspond to comments made by his predecessors. He explains that the ‘dew’ (Mic 5:6b [5:7b]) refers to the words of the apostles that softened (ἁπαλύνοντα) the gentiles who are compared to ‘grass’.⁵⁹⁸ This means that the dew of their words made the gentiles flexible and willing to accept their message. That ‘nobody’ may be assembled (Mic 5:6c [5:7c]) means that nobody may be assembled with a view to impiety. That nobody ‘may resist’ (ὑποστῇ) is interpreted as ‘may contend’ (μὴ ἀνταγωνίσηται). Hesychius’ note on the image of the ‘lion among cattle in the forest’ and the ‘lion’s whelp among flocks of sheep’ (Mic 5:7a [5:8a]) reads, ‘the signs (or, miracles, viz. performed by the apostles) made the apostles frightening to the gentiles’. The clause about the lion who, ‘having made a choice, snatches away, and there is no one to deliver’ (Mic 5:7cd [5:8cd]), is understood as, ‘the apostles, separating (διαστέλλοντες) the sinners, snatched them from error; and the demons were not able to take

 Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 8 – 9 (Pusey, 688, 10 – 689, 10).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 5, 7– 9 (PG 81, 1772A–1773A)  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 134 (Eriksson, 159).

V.27 Destruction and vengeance (Mic 5:9 – 14 [5:10 – 15])

153

them back’. He explains the words, ‘your hand will be lifted up over those who oppress you’ (Mic 5:8b [5:9b]), as the hand ‘of the believer over the demons’.⁵⁹⁹

V.27 Destruction and vengeance (Mic 5:9 – 14 [5:10 – 15]) The subsequent passage announces the Lord’s judgment, apparently on Israel, but also on the other nations.⁶⁰⁰ 9 [10]

And it will happen in that day, says the Lord, [that] I shall destroy your horses from your midst and demolish your chariots 10 [11]and destroy the cities of your land and remove all your strongholds. 11 [12]And I shall take away your magic potions from your hands, and there will be no soothsayers among you, 12 [13]and I shall destroy your carved images and your steles from your midst, and you will no longer venerate⁶⁰¹ the works of your hands. 13 [14] And I shall cut off your groves from your midst and annihilate your cities, 14 [15]and in anger and wrath I shall execute vengeance on the nations, because they did not listen (Mic 5:9 – 14 [5:10 – 15]).

Exceptionally, Theodore does not quote this passage but only paraphrases it. He reads it as a prediction of the punishment imposed on the Assyrians because of their attack on Jerusalem (i. e. during the reign of king Zedekiah; 4 Kgdms 18 – 19).⁶⁰² Cyril holds that, unlike the preceding verses, this passage is not speaking about Christ anymore, but about Israel’s fate after the entrance of the Babylonians (related in Mic 4:8), who will destroy its horses, chariots, cities, strongholds, and objects of idolatry. The neighbouring nations will witness this vengeance, but they will have to suffer vengeance as well ‘because they did not listen’ (Mic 5:14b [5:15b]), namely to the accusations of disobedience.⁶⁰³

 Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 135– 139; Catena II, 11– 12 (Eriksson, 159 – 160; 240).  Thus Glenny, Micah, 127, ‘the prophecy turns to the victory of the Lord over his own enemies within and outside of Israel’.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 9 – 14 (Pusey, 689, 17), and Theodoret, In Michaeam 5, 9 – 15 (PG 81, 1773B), read the future indicative προσκυνήσεις, not the aorist subjunctive προσκυνήσῃς as in Rahlfs’ and Ziegler’s editions. Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 316, also translates the future adorabis. Theodore does not quote this passage. The reading οὐκέτι μὴ προσκυνήσῃς conveys a stringent prohibition, to be translated as, ‘you shall no longer venerate’; see Muraoka, Syntax of Septuagint Greek, 311– 313.  Theodore, In Michaeam 5, 7– 9 (Sprenger, 221, 30 – 222, 21).  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 10 – 15 (Pusey, 689, 11– 691, 9). He quotes Prov 1:24– 27 and Rom 2:8 – 9 as illustrations. For the neighbouring nations witnessing Israel’s downfall see Obad 10 – 14; Lam 1:2, 17, 21.

154

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Ambrose’s epistle on the conversion of the soul (last mentioned in § V.26) says that the soul’s chariots will be suppressed (cf. Mic 5:9c [5:10c]); Ambrose interprets these chariots (quadrigae) as ‘the irrational impulses and movements of its body’.⁶⁰⁴ For the Platonic origin of this image and the Origenian origin of this view I refer to the following paragraphs on Jerome’s exposition. The clause that I translated as, ‘and there will be no soothsayers (ἀποφθεγγόμενοι) among you’ (Mic 5:11b [5:12b]), is rendered and expanded as, ‘and there will be no one who refutes (respondeat) and resists the good will’, i. e. of the soul, when it shall be in tranquillity and peace.⁶⁰⁵ Jerome says that the Septuagint version of this passage is to be interpreted spiritually;⁶⁰⁶ in fact, this observation concerns the whole of Mic 5:6 – 14 (5:7– 15), the first part of which was discussed in the preceding section V.26. In his interpretation of Mic 5:9 (5:10) Jerome now holds that Israel is addressed in the clause about ‘your hand’ in Mic 5:8 (5:9), although he first thought that God’s hand was meant there (see V.26). Initially he does not explain here to which community this designation of Israel refers, in his view. Most likely he means the ‘remnant of Jacob’ of Mic 5:6 – 7 (5:7– 8), which he interpreted as the first Jewish Christians, but only in his comments on Mic 5:13 (5:14) does he write explicitly that this text addresses this remnant. Since in his comments on Mic 5:11– 12 (5:12– 13) he also mentions the ‘human condition’ in general, I conclude that Jerome does not clarify whom he has in mind as the addressees of Mic 5:9 – 12 (5:10 – 13): Israel in the sense of the Jews, Israel as the Jewish Christians, or human beings in general.⁶⁰⁷ His paraphrastic interpretation of Mic 5:9 – 10a (5:10 – 11a) reads, And it will happen in that day, when your hand will be lifted up against your adversaries, o Israel, and all your enemies will perish (cf. Mic 5:8 [5:9]), [that] I (i. e. the Lord) shall destroy your horses from your midst, that is, the undisciplined impulses of the principal part of your heart that, with broken fetters, rush forward in the manner of horses, and [I shall destroy] your chariots by which you were pleasing your own vices, and in which you were borne around, associating sins with sins, as it were triumphant in your four-in-hand chariots. And I shall demolish the cities of your land (ciuitates terrae tuae); for you did not build the town that the torrent of God’s river gladdens (cf. Ps 45:5) and that is situated on the mountains (cf. Ps 86:1; Mic 4:1), namely the heavenly Jerusalem (Heb 12:22), but

 Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 18 (CSEL 82, 1).  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 18 (CSEL 82, 1).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 408 – 410 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 370 (o Israel); 394 (humana conditio); 398 – 408 (ad reliquias … Iacob) (CCSL 76).

V.27 Destruction and vengeance (Mic 5:9 – 14 [5:10 – 15])

155

[you built the city] that Cain built (Gen 4:17). Hence they are called ‘cities of the earth’ (ciuitates terrae, Mic 5:10a [5:11a]), constructed with earthly deeds.⁶⁰⁸

This passage alludes to Plato’s myth in Phaedrus 246 – 248 in which the soul is represented as a charioteer with two winged horses (the difference being that the passage just quoted speaks about quadrigae, chariots with four horses). In Phaedrus 248 the horses that are not well driven tend to evil, lose their feathers and fall down to earth. We see that the image of horses and chariots in Mic 5:9 (5:10) evoked this Platonic myth. Since we saw in § V.10 another and clearer reference to Phaedrus, which undoubtedly went back to Origen, we may conclude that the passage translated here also draws on his Commentary. This also holds for Ambrose’s brief reference to the chariots that will be suppressed (see above). Next, Jerome explains that the ‘strongholds’ that will be removed (Mic 5:10b [5:11b]) refer to ‘the riches, the pomp of the world, the rhetoric of orators, the tricks of dialecticians, in which you trusted as in strongholds’. He interprets the ‘misdeeds’ that will be taken away (Mic 5:11a [5:12a]; he translates τὰ φάρμακα as maleficia, ‘misdeeds’ or ‘sorceries’) in terms of deception and false doctrines. The ‘carved images’ and ‘steles’ are interpreted as words and objects that are forbidden in the Mosaic law (Lev 26:1). Then Jerome states that the foolish and ‘unhappy human condition’ is well aware that doctrines and idols have been invented by humans, so that they worship their own products instead of God, and thus deceive themselves.⁶⁰⁹ Since the expression humana conditio also occurs in previous texts that I identified as Origenian,⁶¹⁰ I conclude that here again we find an indication that Jerome draws on Origen. Apparently Origen’s interpretation addressed Jews and gentiles. Finally Jerome clarifies, ‘It is added in the promise that is directed to the remnant of Jacob,’ viz., ‘And I shall cut off your groves from your midst and destroy your cities’ (Mic 5:13 [5:14]). Jerome explains that this refers to the groves that were forbidden to be planted in God’s temple (Deut 16:21) and to the badly built cities of the land (cf. Deut 3:4– 6).⁶¹¹ In his view, After he (i.e. the Lord) will have done so to the remnant of Jacob, then they (i. e. the first Jewish Christians) will be directed to the gentiles whom the apostles grazed as lambs graze grass (Mic 5:6 [5:7]). And since they (i. e. the gentiles) were unwilling to receive the

   

Jerome, Jerome, Jerome, Jerome,

In In In In

Michaeam Michaeam Michaeam Michaeam

II, 5, 7– 14, 369 – 379 (CCSL 76). II, 5, 7– 14, 379 – 398 (CCSL 76). I, 1, 16, 541– 542; 2, 11– 13, 517 (CCSL 76; see §§ V.10 and V.14). II, 5, 7– 14, 398 – 403 (CCSL 76).

156

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

dew of the Word (Mic 5:6 [5:7]), I will execute vengeance, he says, on the gentiles because they were unwilling to listen (Mic 5:14 [5:15]).⁶¹²

For the gentiles who refuse the dew of God’s Word see § V.26. We see that Jerome applies the clause on ‘vengeance on the nations’ (Mic 5:14 [5:15]) to those gentiles who refused to listen to the preaching of the apostles. In his continuation of the Jewish interpretation of Mic 5:4d–14 (5:5d–15; see §§ V.25 – 26) Jerome describes that ‘in that day’ (Mic 5:9a [5:10a]) Israel will be freed from the gentile nations, and the Lord will take away the horses and chariots that the Assyrians drove in Israel’s cities. The Lord will destroy all its ‘cities’ and ‘strongholds’ that Israel consecrated to idols, he will take away the magicians and ‘soothsayers’ from its land, demolish all ‘carved images’, ‘statues’ and ‘groves’, and the people ‘will no longer venerate the works of its hands’. Then on behalf of Israel the Lord will take revenge on all the gentiles who were unwilling to listen to his Word.⁶¹³ Having concluded the Jewish interpretation, Jerome interrogates ‘carnal Israel’ as to whether this has happened already or whether it will happen in the future. In the first case, the Jews should prove from books when all gentiles, including the Assyrians, were Israel’s subjects. If the prophecy concerns the future coming of the Messiah, Jerome asks which idols should be removed, since Israel does not venerate idols now, and which woods, towns and soothsayers should be taken away from the land, whereas daughter Zion has been abandoned and sits without altar and without priests, while other people eat its crops.⁶¹⁴ Despite Cyril’s view that Mic 5:9 – 14 (5:10 – 15) does not speak about Christ anymore (see above), he admits that it may still be applied to the Jewish people after it rejected Christ, when its cities were left desolate since the Romans had won the war against it.⁶¹⁵ Theodoret, quoting Mic 5:11– 14 (5:12– 15) and skipping Mic 5:9 – 10 (5:10 – 11), also refers to the Jews after Christ, but his first point is different from Cyril’s. About the Jews he writes, ‘seeing the piety of the gentile nations and their freedom from error, against their will they too were rid of the worship of the idols. For they were ashamed to practice impiety openly, seeing that

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 403 – 407 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 425 – 438 (CCSL 76). The interpretation of the horses as those of the enemies corresponds with Targum Ps.-Jonathan (‘I will make an end of the horses of the peoples in your midst’, transl. Cathcart, Gordon). Likewise, in Targum Ps.-Jonathan the Lord’s vengeance on the gentile nations is motivated by the reason that they ‘have not obeyed the teaching of the law’.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5, 7– 14, 438 – 450 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 5, 9 – 14 (Pusey, 691, 10 – 19).

V.28 The Lord’s lawsuit against Israel (Mic 6:1 – 2)

157

those outside the (Mosaic) law refrained from it.’ In line with Cyril, Theodoret adds that this passage forecasts that the Jews would be driven out of their cities and dispersed among the gentile nations, and thus freed from the error of idols.⁶¹⁶ This corresponds with Jerome’s observation that the Jews of his days did not worship idols anymore. Hesychius interprets ‘your horses’ and ‘your chariots’ (Mic 5:9 [5:10]) as ‘the voluptuous thoughts’ and ‘the bestial inclinations’ respectively. In his reading, ‘the cities of your land’ (Mic 5:10a [5:11a]) are ‘the various sorts of pleasures that the devil plants in the flesh of prostitutes’. Likewise, ‘all your strongholds’ (Mic 5:10b [5:11b]) stand for the ‘omens and oracles with which the enemy (i. e. the devil) fortified the error’.⁶¹⁷ These notes reflect Jerome’s, or rather Origen’s, Commentary.

V.28 The Lord’s lawsuit against Israel (Mic 6:1 – 2) In a new section the prophet addresses Israel and the nations saying, 1

Hear the word of the Lord. The Lord said, ‘Stand up, come to judgment (κρίθητι) before the mountains, and let the hills hear your voice. 2Hear, hills, the judgment (κρίσις) of the Lord, and the valleys, foundations of the earth, because the Lord has a lawsuit (κρίσις) against his people, and there will be a dispute with Israel (Mic 6:1– 2).

Theodore omits the words, ‘Hear the word of the Lord. The Lord said’, which enables him to explain that it is the prophet who conducts a lawsuit between God and Israel. In his view, Micah charges Israel with ingratitude (ἀγνωμοσύνη) despite its liberation from the Assyrians and holds that for this reason it will endure the Babylonian captivity. The witnesses called to the lawsuit are the hills and valleys that first received the host of Assyrians attacking Jerusalem, and subsequently bore their dead bodies (4 Kgdms 18 – 19).⁶¹⁸ Jerome notes that for the Hebrew expression, ‘strong foundations of the earth’ (Mic 6:2b), the Septuagint reads, ‘valleys, foundations of the earth’, whereas Symmachus and Theodotion have ‘ancient foundations of the earth’ and the Fifth Edition kept the Hebrew term ethanim (‫)ֵאָת ִנים‬. Jerome explicates the image of the Lord’s lawsuit against his people and of the witnesses that are summoned,

 Theodoret, In Michaeam 5, 9 – 15 (PG 81, 1773A–C).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 140 – 143 (Eriksson, 160).  Theodore, In Michaeam 6, 1– 2 (Sprenger, 222, 20 – 223, 12). I assume that ὑπομένουσιν, ‘they endure’ (Sprenger, 223, 1), should be read as the future ὑπομενοῦσιν.

158

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

but he does not situate it in a particular context. He emphasizes that in his judgment God does not want to seem powerful, but righteous (iustus).⁶¹⁹ John Chrysostom quotes the Lord’s summons of the valleys and foundations of the earth because of his lawsuit against his people (Mic 6:2bc) as a testimony to human insensitivity. He explains, ‘for people are more insensitive than the foundations of the earth’.⁶²⁰ This means that the Lord summoned these foundations instead of humans, because the former were more sensitive than the latter. Likewise, Cyril says in his introduction to this passage that it inspires shame (ἐντρεπτικὸς … ὁ λόγος) because of the insensitivity of the Jews (i. e. Israelites) towards God’s goodness. In his detailed comments he interprets the ‘mountains’ and ‘hills’ as ‘the spiritual (νοητάς) powers that have care of everything according to God’s will’ and repel the demons, and explains that the lawsuit should take place in their presence.⁶²¹ He continues that Israel’s idolatry is the reason for the lawsuit on the mountains and hills, for that was where the Israelites offered sacrifices to the demons. Then Cyril gives another interpretation of the ‘hills’ and, in addition, of ‘the foundations of the earth’, in the sense of the highranking people who were a snare for their subjects. For this interpretation he informs his readers that the Hebrew text does not have the term ‘valleys’ but ‘hills’ and ‘foundations of the earth’.⁶²² Quite differently, and probably in opposition to the metaphorical reading of the ‘mountains’, Theodoret denies that they should be interpreted as animate and gifted with reason. In his view, and in agreement with Theodore, the mountains are inanimate, and with the valleys they are summoned because they held the corpses of the Assyrians, to which he adds the numerous Scythian victims.⁶²³ Jerome interprets the words, ‘Stand up’ (Mic 6:1b), in a Christian sense as an exhortation to ‘rise from the dead’ and to ‘walk in newness of life’ (Eph 5:14; Rom 6:4). He holds that spiritually the mountains (Mic 6:1b) refer to the angels to

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 1– 2, 1– 28; 70 – 77 (CCSL 76).  John Chrysostom, In ascensionem Domini nostri Iesu Christi 3 (PG 50, 447).  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 6, 1– 2 (Pusey, 691, 20 – 692, 23). Hill’s translation reads that ‘he (i. e. God) bids the judgment be conducted by them’ (i.e. the spiritual powers), but I interpret ἐπ’ αὐτῶν (Pusey, 692, 22– 23) in the sense of ‘in their presence’. I do not follow Hill’s translation of ἐντρεπτικός (Pusey, 691, 25) as ‘exhortatory’ either.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 6, 1– 2 (Pusey, 692, 23 – 693, 27). He does not note, however, that the Hebrew text reads, ‘strong foundations of the earth’, which has been rendered as ‘valleys, foundations of the earth’ in the Septuagint. Cyril may have consulted Origen’s Commentary on Micah or his Hexapla, or he may have asked an assistant to consult Jerome’s Commentary for him, but the information he got was not fully reliable (see § V.40.9).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 5, 13 – 6, 2 (PG 81, 1773C–1776A). For the Scyths see §§ V.22– 23.

V.28 The Lord’s lawsuit against Israel (Mic 6:1 – 2)

159

whom the guidance of human affairs has been entrusted (Deut 32:8; Hebr 1:14), or who preside over particular churches (Rev 1:20 – 2:1 etc.). These angels are guilty if they have not performed their duty.⁶²⁴ This interpretation reflects Origen’s angelology,⁶²⁵ so that most likely Jerome derived it from Origen’s Commentary. Jerome also relates another explanation, which holds that the mountains, hills, and foundations of the earth (Mic 6:1b, 2ab) refer to Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and other patriarchs who are summoned to the lawsuit so that the case of Israel may be displayed to them.⁶²⁶ He does not give his opinion on this view; in fact, it is the contemporaneous Jewish interpretation of this passage.⁶²⁷ In the third place, Jerome gives an interpretation that he ascribes to ‘other people’ (alii). It continues his first interpretation and holds that the mountains, hills, and valleys refer to the angels who either serve God in heaven, or preside over human beings on this earth. A third category of angels, called the ‘foundations of the earth’, are those located in the underworld (apud inferos), and in charge ‘of those who by their own fault proved to be earthly’. With regard to this category of ‘foundations’ Jerome quotes Deut 32:22, ‘For a fire has lit up from my anger, it will burn as far as the underworld below; it will devour the earth and its foundations.’⁶²⁸ This quotation in this sense is Origenian.⁶²⁹ It demonstrates that ‘those who by their own fault proved to be earthly’ and even descended to the underworld are the spiritual creatures or souls who, in Origen’s view, fell away from their original heavenly condition to the earth and its lower regions.⁶³⁰ Yet this does not imply that this was Origen’s only interpretation of the term ‘foundations’ in Mic 6:2b, for Jerome subsequently explains that ‘the strong and ancient foundations of the earth’ stand for the merits of the righteous, about whom the apostle said, ‘built upon the foundations of

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 1– 2, 28 – 51 (CCSL 76).  See Daniélou, Origène, 222– 235; Monaci Castagno, ‘Angelo’; ‘Angelo delle nazioni’, in eadem (ed.), Origene. Dizionario, 6 – 15, and cf. § V.19.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 1– 2, 51– 54 (CCSL 76).  See bRosh HaShanah 11a (transl. Simon, 40); Exodus Rabbah 15, 4; 15, 7; 15, 26; 28, 2 (transl. Lehrman); Pesiqta deRab Kahana, Supplement 5, 2 (transl. Braude, Kapstein, 481); Tanhuma Yelammedenu Exod 9, 28 (transl. Berman, 612); Rahmer, Die Commentarii zu den zwölf kleinen Propheten II, 39; Rosenberg, Twelve Prophets II, 224.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 1– 2, 54– 61 (CCSL 76).  Origen, Comm. in ep. ad Romanos IV, 12, 84– 95 (AGLB 33).  Origen, De principiis, I, 5, 3 – 5 (Behr). I agree with Bareille’s interpretative translation in Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 63: ‘ceux qui, étant dans les enfers, sont appelés les fondements des âmes qui ont été terrestres par leurs fautes’; in this vein also Grützmacher, Hieronymus II, 117. Cazares’ and Scheck’s translation of this passage is inaccurate.

160

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

the apostles and prophets’ (Eph 2:20).⁶³¹ Distinguishing between ‘strong foundations of the earth’ and other foundations he continues, As therefore the apostles and prophets and the whole choir of martyrs are the strong foundations of the earth, thus – according to the Septuagint – the valleys and precipices, which are meaningfully called φάραγγες in Greek, are the foundations of those who received the image of the man of dust (χοϊκοῦ; 1 Cor 15:49).⁶³²

This characterization of ‘those who received the image of the man of dust’ implies that they did not yet receive the image of the man from heaven, Christ (1 Cor 15:49). As we saw in § V.4, in the interpretation of Mic 1:2– 4, this appeal to 1 Cor 15:49 is typical of Origen,⁶³³ so that here again we find a fragment of his Commentary on Micah. According to Hesychius, the summons, ‘Stand up, come to judgment’ (Mic 6:1b), addresses the Synagogue. That the Synagogue, i. e. the Jewish people, is summoned to come ‘before the mountains’ means in Hesychius’ view that the Jews have to appear before the apostles, for although these apostles came forth from the Jews, the Jews did not receive them. Hesychius notes that the hills are the prophets. In Mic 6:2a he reads, ‘Hear, peoples’; in his view, these ‘peoples’ are the churches, whereas he interprets ‘his people’ (Mic 6:2c) as the Jewish people.⁶³⁴

V.29 The Lord’s interrogation and retrospective (Mic 6:3 – 5) In the lawsuit the Lord is introduced saying, 3

My people, what have I done to you, or wherein have I saddened you, or wherein have I annoyed you? Answer me! 4For I have brought you up from the land of Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I have sent before you Moses and Aaron and Miriam. 5My people, remember what Balak king of Moab planned against you, and what Balaam son of Beor answered him, from the reeds up to Gilgal, that the righteousness of the Lord might be known (Mic 6:3 – 5).

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 1– 2, 61– 65 (CCSL 76). In his translation of the Hebrew text (In Michaeam II, 6, 1– 2, 4) Jerome reads ‘strong foundations of the earth’ (fortia fundamenta terrae).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 1– 2, 65 – 69 (CCSL 76).  See Crouzel, Théologie de l’image de Dieu chez Origène, 182– 189.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 146 – 150; Catena II 13 (Eriksson, 160; 240).

V.29 The Lord’s interrogation and retrospective (Mic 6:3 – 5)

161

Because of the Christian interpretation discussed below it is noteworthy that Origen considers ‘God’ (not Christ) the subject of Mic 6:3, but he does not give any precise comments on this text or on the following verses, except a short discussion of ‘the righteousness of the Lord’ made known in Balaam’s words.⁶³⁵ Theodore holds that in Mic 6:3 God reminds his people of what happened to the Assyrians (4 Kgdms 19:35), as a demonstration of his care for his people. Because the people had nothing to answer, God reminded them of the previous events described in Mic 6:4– 5.⁶³⁶ Jerome, in his interpretation of the Hebrew text, more appropriately relates the Lord’s address of his people in Mic 6:3 to its liberation from Egypt.⁶³⁷ Concerning Mic 6:5 Jerome notes that ‘from the reeds’ (ἀπὸ τῶν σχοίνων) is the Septuagint’s translation of de Settim in Hebrew, and that this name is found in all other Greek translations. (This is ‘Shittim’ in translations based on the Masoretic Text). He correctly observes that this toponym is homonymic with the trees that up to his days grow in the desert of Mount Sinai and that he identifies as spina alba, ‘white thorn-bush’, which is a kind of acacia.⁶³⁸ Indeed, ‫ ִשָּׁטה‬means acacia, so ‫ ַה ִשּּׁטים‬might be interpreted as ‘the acacias’.⁶³⁹ However, σχοῖνοι, reeds, are not acacias.⁶⁴⁰ Therefore Jerome thinks that the Septuagint translator originally put σχῖνος, the lentisk or mastic tree, and that later on copyists read σχοῖνοι instead of σχῖνοι, ‘reeds’ instead of ‘mastic trees’.⁶⁴¹ We may add – what Jerome does not note – that in his time through iotacism the pronunciation of the two terms had become virtually identical.⁶⁴² In his comments on the Hebrew text, Jerome syntactically connects the words ‘from Shittim to Gilgal’ with the foregoing clause about Balaam’s answer: ‘remember … what Balaam son of Beor answered him (i. e. king Balak) from Shittim to Gilgal’ (Mic 6:5c).⁶⁴³ He paraphrases that the

 Origen, In ep. ad Romanos V, 3, 19 – 20 (Scherer, 146); Hom. in Numeros 15, 1, 2 (SC 442).  Theodore, In Michaeam 6, 3 – 5 (Sprenger, 223, 9 – 224, 11).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 78 – 85; 104– 131 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 89 – 100 (CCSL 76); see Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary, s.v. This paragraph and the following one also in Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 792– 794.  Thus H. Seebass, Numeri. 3. Teilband: Numeri 22,2 – 36,13 (BK.AT 4, 3), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007, 111.  See J.K. Aitken, ‘ΣΧΟΙΝΟΣ in the Septuagint’, VT 50 (2000), 433 – 444 for a semantic study of this term.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 101– 103 (CCSL 76). Cf. Moldenke, Plants, 22 (fig. 15); 110; fig. 74.  For this reason Utzschneider proposes the same conjecture in Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen II, 2376.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 89 – 91 (CCSL 76).

162

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

soothsayer Balaam, who against his own will blessed Israel (Num 24), was ‘from Shittim to Gilgal looking (lustrans) with his eyes over the whole host of Israel, and was moving on (mutans loca)’.⁶⁴⁴ However, he adds a Jewish interpretation in which the words ‘from Shittim to Gilgal’ are connected with the following clause in the Hebrew text, ‘that you might know the righteous acts of the Lord’, from Shittim where the Israelites committed fornication with Moabite women (Num 25:1) to Saul who was anointed in Gilgal (1 Kgdms 10:1, 8).⁶⁴⁵ To this historical interpretation Jerome clearly prefers the spiritual exposition based on the Septuagint (see below), in which he reads the same syntactical connection as in the Hebrew text (as he understands it), so that he connects ‘from the reeds to Gilgal’ with Balaam answering Balak by blessing the Israelites.⁶⁴⁶ Cyril gives an elaborate historical exegesis of this passage. Corresponding with Jerome’s interpretation, he writes that Balaam ‘continued blessing everywhere, though moving about (περιθέων) from what was called Reeds, a place in Moab, to the mountains of Gilgal’.⁶⁴⁷ This implies that he interpreted σχοῖνοι as Shittim, which may indeed be situated in Moab’s territory.⁶⁴⁸ Hesychius also notes on the lemma ἀπὸ … Γαλγαλ (Mic 6:5c) that this refers to ‘the places where Balaam, being called to curse, unintentionally pronounced the blessings of Israel’.⁶⁴⁹ In order to make sense of the words, ‘what Balaam son of Beor answered him, from the reeds up to Gilgal’ (Mic 6:5c), two modern translators of the Septuagint add some words. Septuaginta Deutsch has, ‘(Gedenke des Weges) vom Binsenort bis Gilgal’, and Glenny reads, ‘the things that happened from the reeds as far as Galgal’. It is noteworthy that Jerome and Cyril did not feel any need for such an addition. Their interpretation of the words, ‘from the reeds to Gilgal’, as a reference to Balaam moving about while pronouncing his blessings, which is adopted by Hesychius (and Theophylact), seems possible at least. In line with these ancient authors, but probably without knowing their paraphrases, Brenton, Giguet, NETS, and Andersen and Freedman⁶⁵⁰ give a translation without any interpretative clarification.

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 116 – 120; 153 (CCSL 76). For lustro Blaise, Dictionnaire, s.v., gives ‘regarder’, ‘chercher’; cf. Num 24:2, about Balaam looking upon Israel (καθορᾷ).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 124– 131 (CCSL 76). Cf. the medieval Jewish interpretations in Rosenberg, Twelve Prophets II, 226.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 131– 173 (CCSL 76); the syntactical connection appears in l. 156 – 172.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 3 – 5 (Pusey, 694, 1– 695, 16; 696, 15 – 698, 5); quotation Pusey, 697, 11– 13; translation Hill.  See Seebass, Numeri. 3. Teilband, 137.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 152 (Eriksson, 160). Theophylact, In Michaeam 6, 5 (PG 126, 1149D–1152A), also relates the toponyms with Balaam moving from one place to another.  Andersen, Freedman, Micah, 503.

V.29 The Lord’s interrogation and retrospective (Mic 6:3 – 5)

163

From Theodoret’s concise paraphrase of this passage I note his acute interpretation of the term ‘righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη) in the conclusion of God’s address to Israel (Mic 6:5), which reads, ‘In doing each of these things I was not offering you wages for [your] righteousness, but making clear my own righteousness; having made a promise to your ancestor, I was honouring my covenant with him.’⁶⁵¹ As we shall see in § VI.2, this passage was incorporated into the liturgy of Good Friday as a reproach of Christ to the Jewish people, but although the origin of this usage probably goes back to the fourth or fifth century, the quotations and interpretations of this passage from those centuries do not testify explicitly to its liturgical function, which may have been introduced in this period. In the present section I will discuss such testimonies, leaving later, liturgical attestations for § VI.2. Ambrose quotes the interrogation in Mic 6:3 – 4b as words of the Lord who requires that the human being (hominem) be judged. Ambrose reminds his audience that the Lord ‘created you’, which might refer either to God the Father or to Christ (cf. John 1:3). That he has Christ in mind becomes clear when he continues, ‘he has redeemed you by his blood, and you, you submit yourself to serve his enemy? He has forgiven you all your sins, and you commit even graver sins?’⁶⁵² Elsewhere Ambrose applies the reproaches of the Lord to heretics who are said to be ungrateful for the liberation from Egypt and for the salvation by Christ’s passion and death.⁶⁵³ Again this implies that according to Ambrose it is Christ who is speaking in Mic 6:3.⁶⁵⁴ John Chrysostom quotes the words, ‘My people, what have I done to you, or how did I sadden you?’ (Mic 6:3a–c), with regard to Christ who, speaking to a Jewish audience, compares himself to ‘the stone that the builders rejected’ (Matt 21:42).⁶⁵⁵ He also parallels Mic 6:3a–c, which he then attributes to God the Father addressing the Jews, with the words that the risen Christ spoke to Saul, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ (Acts 9:4).⁶⁵⁶

 Theodoret, In Michaeam 6, 4 (PG 81, 1776AB); quotation 1776B, translation Hill, adapted. Cf. Deut 9:4– 5.  Ambrose, Explanatio Psalmorum duodecim 36, 71– 72 (CSEL 64).  Ambrose, De fide II, 120 – 121 (CSEL 78).  This is also implied in Ambrose, Epistulae extra collectionem 1 (41), 23 – 24 (CSEL 82, 3); Expositio in Lucam VI, 77 (SC 45bis).  John Chrysostom, Hom. in Matthaeum 68, 2 (PG 58, 642).  John Chrysostom, De mutatione nominum 3 (PG 51, 140); Hom. in Matthaeum 29, 2 (PG 57, 361). In De futurae vitae deliciis 5 (PG 51, 351) John also considers Mic 6:3 to be spoken by

164

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Jerome’s interpretation of the Septuagint version of Mic 6:3 – 5 follows his discussion of the Hebrew text (see above). For his Christian audience he explains that ‘when we have sinned, God argues against us and convicts us in respect of the greatness of his benefits’. He explains that spiritually ‘we once served Pharaoh and made mud and bricks (Ex 1:14), and we were redeemed by the one who gave himself as redemption for all’. The last words clearly allude to the redemption by Christ (cf. Gal 1:4; Eph 5:2; 1 Tim 2:6). Jerome continues that spiritually God sent to ‘us’ Moses, in the sense of the spiritual law, and Aaron and Miriam, and that he delivered ‘us’ from the enemies. According to Jerome, Balak represents the devil who lay in ambush against us, by means of Balaam, whose name he interprets as ‘vain people’, but God did not allow us to be exposed to Balaam’s curses. On the contrary, ‘the vain people of the gentiles, being compelled by the truth of this matter, blessed us’. Jerome holds that Beor means ‘in the skin’, which implies that he was always devoted to the flesh and the works of death.⁶⁵⁷ In this interpretation, Beor’s son Balaam, the vain people, corresponds to ‘us’, born from the one who is completely in the skin (or, in the flesh), always moving on (commutans loca), either standing on thorns (super spinas) or on cords (super funiculos); Jerome notes that ‘cords’ is the common, but erroneous Latin translation (of σχοῖνοι) of his days.⁶⁵⁸ He associates the thorns with Christ’s interpretation of the thorns in his parable of the sower, where they stand for ‘the cares of this world, riches, and pleasures’ (Mark 4:18 – 19; Luke 8:14), the things in which the ‘vain people’ lives. Although Jerome disapproves of the translation ‘cords’, he still gives an interpretation of it, viz. in terms of the fetters of sins, for ‘each one is bound by the cords of his own sins’ (Prov 5:22).⁶⁵⁹ He notes that if God the Father to the Jews. In De paenitentia 4, 5 (PG 49, 306) he ascribes Mic 6:3ab to ‘God’, apparently the Father.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 131– 155 (CCSL 76). Philo of Alexandria, De cherubim 32 (LCL 227), also interprets Balaam as μάταιος λαός, ‘vain people’. The interpretation of this name (‫ ִבְּלׇעם‬in Hebrew) derives from ‫ֶהֶבל‬, ‘vanity’, and ‫ַעם‬, ‘people’. Jerome derives Beor (‫) ְבּעֺור‬ from ‫ ְבּ‬, ‘in’, and ‫ע ֺור‬, ‘skin’. See also Jerome, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, De Numeris (CCSL 72, 79): Beor in pelle.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 155 – 158 (CCSL 76). Basically, the translation of σχοῖνοι as funiculi, ‘cords’, is also possible. The name of the Latin translation referred to by Jerome is Vulgata editio, called Vetus Latina nowadays. See P.-M. Bogaert, ‘The Latin Bible’, in J. Carlton Paget, J. Schaper (eds), The New Cambridge History of the Bible I, Cambridge 2013, 505 – 525 (510 – 511), and cf. § III.2.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 158 – 164 (CCSL 76); he also quotes Isa 5:18, ‘Woe those who draw their sins as a long cord, and [their] iniquities as a strap of a heifer’s yoke’. In fact, Prov 5:22 LXX has the term σειραῖ, ‘cords’, ‘ropes’ (not σχοῖνοι), and Isa 5:18 LXX has σχοινίον, ‘rope’, ‘cord’. It seems that Jerome had the common Latin translation in mind, in which the quoted texts read funis, ‘rope’, ‘cord’.

V.29 The Lord’s interrogation and retrospective (Mic 6:3 – 5)

165

someone stands still, he finds himself between thorns and is bound by cords, and if he wants to go around, he is unsteady and, being tossed to and fro (Eph 4:14), he arrives in Gilgal which, according to Jerome, means κυλισμός, i. e. rolling.⁶⁶⁰ This alludes to what Balaam did when he moved on from the reeds or cords up to Gilgal. Jerome’s conclusion refers to the unexpected blessing that Balaam pronounced over Israel instead of the curse for which Balak had summoned him (Num 24). He writes that if we see some people rising up against ‘us’, greedy for our blood, and by God’s unforeseen dispensation they turn to be for us although they were against us when they came, then we may say that Balaam came from the cords up to Gilgal, so that God’s righteousness would be known.⁶⁶¹ This conclusion may reflect the experience that former persecutors of the Church became its benefactors. Because of its ingenuity I surmise that most of this interpretation derives from Origen.⁶⁶² Even the reference to the common Latin translation of σχοῖνοι as funiculi, ‘cords’, may go back to a Greek interpretation of σχοῖνοι in this sense, which is possible besides ‘reeds’.⁶⁶³ Like Jerome, but less elaborately, Cyril also applies God’s reproachful reminder of the liberation of his people from Egypt (Mic 6:4) to the Christians who were led out of spiritual (νοητῆς) Egypt, which he interprets as ‘the darkness and oppression by demons’; they were rescued from mud and bricks (Exod 1:14), which stand for ‘fleshly passions and hedonism’, and crossed the Red Sea of the disturbances in this world. The divine laws were carved on their minds, Jesus was sent as their priest and Miriam as the Church that glorifies God for its salvation.⁶⁶⁴ Apparently the ‘divine laws’ refer to Moses, and Jesus took the place of Aaron. In his Commentary on Micah Cyril warns his audience that they should not, like the Jews, be indifferent towards God’s and Christ’s

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 164– 168 (CCSL 76). His interpretation of Gilgal (Galgal in his text) derives from ‫ ַגְּל ַגּל‬, ‘wheel’, and ‫גלל‬, ‘to roll’. Cf. Jerome, Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum, De Deuteronomio (CCSL 72, 87): Galgal rota uel reuelatio.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 168 – 173 (CCSL 76).  Origen, Hom. in Numeros 15, 1, 2 (SC 442) quotes Mic 6:3 – 5 to demonstrate that, according to Micah, Balaam answered king Balak in order that ‘the righteousness of the Lord might be known’ (Mic 6:5d). However, in Hom. in Numeros 14, 4 Origen considers Balaam, the ‘vain people’, a reference to the Jewish scribes and Pharisees. If he gave the same interpretation in his Commentary on Micah, Jerome did not follow him in this respect; but perhaps Origen himself was not consistent.  Montanari, Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, s.v.  Cyril, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 4 (Pusey, 695, 17– 696, 6). Cf. Ondrey, The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture, 209 – 210.

166

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

commandments.⁶⁶⁵ In his earlier work Glaphyra, in the volume on the spiritual interpretation of Exodus, his interpretation of Mic 6:4c is slightly different. He says that in these words the prophet addresses the undisciplined Jerusalem. Reading πρὸ προσώπου instead of πρὸ προσώπου σου (‘before you’), he explains that Moses is the representative (πρόσωπον) of the law, Aaron of the priesthood, and Miriam of worship according to the law because she took the tambourine and sang to the Lord (Exod 15:20 – 21). However, with regard to both Aaron and Miriam, Cyril points to the prefigurative character of their worship (ἐν τύποις and ἐν σκιαῖς καὶ τύποις respectively).⁶⁶⁶ A homily that has incorrectly been attributed to Basil of Caesarea, and may have been given by Proclus of Constantinople (thus the editor, Stig Rudberg), gives a similar though different interpretation of the three personages of Mic 6:4c. The homilist briefly mentions three of Jesus’ healings, of two men and one woman, and his resurrection of three deceased persons, again of two men and one woman. Then he refers to the parallel of the three leaders appointed over the people, two men and one woman, namely Moses, Aaron, and Miriam, whom he considers representatives (πρόσωπον) of the law, the prophets, and the Church respectively. He elaborates only on the Church, which like Miriam, praises God for being set free from the spiritual (νοητοῦ) Pharao, the devil, and sees that ‘the old man’ (Eph 4:22 KJV) has been drowned in baptism as the Egyptian was drowned in the Red Sea (Exod 14:26 – 15:1).⁶⁶⁷

V.30 What should we do? (Mic 6:6 – 7) The answer to the Lord’s complaint reads, 6

By what means do I lay hold of the Lord, shall I entrust myself to my God most high? Shall I lay hold of him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? 7Will the Lord accept [me] with thousands of rams or ten thousands of fat he-goats (χιμάρων)? Should I give my firstborn (πρωτότοκα) for [my] impiety,⁶⁶⁸ the fruit of my womb for the sin of my soul? (Mic 6:6 – 7).

 Cyril, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 4 (Pusey, 696, 6 – 14). Likewise, In Michaeam II, 6, 5 (Pusey, 697, 21– 698, 5).  Cyril, Glaphyra in Exodum III, 2 (PG 69, 493A–C); cf. Heb 8:5.  Consolatoria ad aegrotem 124– 154 (ed. Rudberg). The three sick people healed by Jesus are ‘the leper, the paralytic, and Peter’s mother-in-law’ (Matt 8:1– 4; 9:1– 8; 8:14– 15); the three deceased people resurrected by Jesus are ‘Lazarus, the son of the widow, and the daughter of Jairus’ (John 11; Luke 7:11– 16; Luke 8:41– 42, 49 – 56).  ‘for [my] impiety’: ἀσεβείας, an genetive of price according to Muraoka, Syntax of Septuagint Greek, 133.

V.30 What should we do? (Mic 6:6 – 7)

167

Theodore explains that it is the prophet who speaks here in the name of the people as its advocate, and asks what it should do to reach out (ἵνα … ἐπιλάβωμαι) to God and propitiate (ἐξιλάσομαι) him. Like the other patristic commentators he reads ἐν μυριάσι χιμάρων πιόνων, ‘with ten thousands of fat he-goats’⁶⁶⁹ and not, as in Rahlf’s and Ziegler’s editions, ἐν μυριάσι χειμάρρων πιόνων (‘among ten thousands of swollen streams’, NETS), a reading that corresponds with the Masoretic Text (‫) ַנֲחֵלי־ ָ ֑שֶׁמן‬.⁶⁷⁰ In Jerome’s understanding it is the people itself that speaks here, yet without having confidence in its own prayers. In his interpretation of the Hebrew text he refers to the king of Moab who offered his firstborn son and to Jephthah who offered his daughter.⁶⁷¹ Cyril explains that in this passage the people of Israel replies as a penitent and would like to be accepted to a spiritual familiarity with God.⁶⁷² Theodoret shares Theodore’s view that the prophet speaks on behalf of the people.⁶⁷³ Hesychius thinks that the verbal forms ‘I lay hold of’ (καταλάβω) and ‘I shall entrust myself’ (ἀντιλήμψομαι) are in need of clarification, for he explains them as ἐπιλήμψομαι (‘I shall reach out’; cf. Theodore) and κατάσχω (‘may I hold fast’).⁶⁷⁴ What is a χίμαρος? (Mic 6:7b) The term χίμαρος, ‘he-goat’ (Mic 6:7b), deserves an exegetical note. Theodore paraphrases its genitive plural as προβάτων;⁶⁷⁵ πρόβατα are ‘livestock’, ‘animals’, particularly sheep.⁶⁷⁶ Likewise, Cyril speaks about ‘a vast number of animals (θρεμμάτων)’;⁶⁷⁷ θρέμματα is a general

 Theodore, In Michaeam 6, 6 (Sprenger, 224, 15 – 225, 3). For Rahlfs’ reading δῶ (‘should I give’; aor. subj.), he reads the future indic. δώσω, and for ἀσεβείας (‘for impiety’) he reads ὑπὲρ ἀσεβείας μου.  In Codex Vaticanus the epsilon and first rho of the original reading χειμάρρων have been erased, which results in χιμάρων πιόνων, ‘of fat he-goats’. Glenny, Micah, 31, 155 – 156, 161, who reads χειμάρρων, translates, ‘ten thousands of rows of fat lambs’ (italics Glenny). The reading χιμάρων was preferred by Brenton, Tischendorf, and the Septuagint edition of the Greek Church, Athens 199112, which usually follows Rahlfs, but diverges from him in this case.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 6 – 7, 174– 195 (CCSL 76); see 4 Kgdms 4:27 and Judg 11:29 – 40. He reads χιμάρων πιόνων, which he translates as hircorum pinguium, ‘of fat he-goats’. Remarkably, even his translation of the Hebrew text reads hircorum pinguium. Furthermore, in his translation of the Hebrew text Jerome reads the singular primogenitum meum, in his translation of the Septuagint the plural primogenita mea.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 6, 6 – 8 (Pusey, 699, 3 – 700, 12). Cyril is the only one among the patristic commentators who reads ἀσεβείας in Mic 6:7c without preposition.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 6, 6 – 7 (PG 81, 1776C). His text corresponds with Theodore’s (see above).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 153 (Eriksson, 160).  Theodore, In Michaeam 6, 6 – 7 (Sprenger, 225, 1– 2).  Montanari, Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, s.v. πρόβατον.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 6, 6 – 8 (Pusey, 700, 9).

168

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

term for ‘creatures’, ‘animals’.⁶⁷⁸ It seems that Theodore and Cyril considered the term χίμαρος not well-known anymore, so that they rendered it in these more general terms. This is confirmed by Theodoret. He circumscribes the μυριάδες χιμάρων πιόνων as ‘ten thousands of young goats (ἐρίφων)’ and explains in a parenthesis, χιμάρους γὰρ τοὺς ἐνιαυσίους ἐρίφους καλεῖ, ‘for the yearling goats he calls χίμαροι’.⁶⁷⁹ In his Quaestiones in Leviticum he gives the same interpretation of χίμαρος as ‘a yearling goat’.⁶⁸⁰ We may conclude that Theodore, Cyril, and Theodoret considered this term obsolete and therefore in need of clarification.⁶⁸¹

In § IV.2.3.3 I discussed a heterodox Christian interpretation of Mic 6:7cd transmitted by Clement of Alexandria. It held that one should abstain from the procreation of children because this urge stems from the Creator, who was considered an inferior deity. As Clement’s own interpretation is inextricably bound up with the heterodox view that he opposes, it was analyzed in that section. Cyprian’s quotation of Mic 6:6 – 9b will be briefly discussed in § V.32. In his work The Proof of the Gospel Eusebius quotes an abbreviated version of Mic 6:6, 7c as follows, ‘By what means do I lay hold of the Lord, shall I reach out (ἐπιλήμψομαι) to my God most high? Shall I lay hold of him with burnt offerings, with yearling calves? Should I give the firstborn of my womb for the sin of my soul?’ His introduction to this quotation reads that the prophet is speaking in the name of the people, and that his words suggest the curtailing and abolition of the religion of the Mosaic law. The implicit Christian intent of this observation is that the prophet alludes to the abolition of the animal offerings prescribed by Moses. Thus Eusebius invokes Micah to demonstrate that Christian worship, which does not include such offerings, was announced by the prophet. However, Eusebius does not comment on the subsequent words concerning the offering of the firstborn as a propitiation of one’s sin, a practice that was forbidden by the Mosaic law.⁶⁸² In a Christian sense, Jerome considers the words, ‘By what means do I lay hold of the Lord, shall I receive (suscipiam) my God most high?’ (Mic 6:6ab), to be an expression of penance. He paraphrases, ‘How shall I be able to hold

 Montanari, Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, s.v. θρέμμα.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 6, 6 – 7 (PG 81, 1776C).  Theodoret, Quaestiones in Leuiticum 1 (ed. Fernández Marcos, Sáenz-Badillos, 159). Thus also Diodore of Tarsus, In Psalmos 49, 9b (CCSG 6), χιμάρους καλεῖ τοὺς ἐρίφους ἐνταῦθα, ‘the goats he calls χίμαροι here’.  My search in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (1st Aug. 2017) confirmed that in the fourth and fifth centuries the term χίμαρος was only used for the interpretation of ancient books, mainly the Septuagint.  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VI, 13, 24 (GCS 23); see Lev 18:21; 20 – 5:2; Deut 18:10; furthermore 4 Kgdms 16:3; 17:17; 21:6. For the continuation, see § V.31.

V.31 This is what the Lord requires (Mic 6:8)

169

him who flees [me]? (cf. Cant 8:14). How much purity shall I need to prepare lodging for the Trinity?’ Understanding the deliberations on the different sacrifices proposed in Mic 6:6 – 7 and all the sacrifices prescribed in Leviticus in a spiritual sense, so that the speaker wonders whether he has to sacrifice himself completely, Jerome infers that one cannot give anything worthy by which one can lay hold of God or receive him. He considers that for the sin of one’s soul only a sacrifice of blood is sufficient, not blood of animals, but one’s own. ‘However, even this blood we do not give, but we give it back.’ Jerome concludes his comments on this passage by asking, ‘Since the righteous one died for sinners (Rom 5:8), [namely] God’s Son for humans, should we, sinners and humans, die for the confession of his name?’⁶⁸³ This reflects the period of Christian martyrs, and suggests that this passage stems from Origen, in whose days there were intermittent persecutions; yet as an exegete, Jerome may have had the same deliberations even though martyrdom had grown rare in the Roman empire. Augustine gives short homiletical expositions of Mic 6:6 – 8 in two of his sermons, which will be referenced in the following section and in § VI.1. For his Christian audience Cyril explains that the sacrifice that is dear and acceptable to God is expressed in the answer that the prophet gives to his deliberations.⁶⁸⁴ The correspondence that Cyril sees between this answer (Mic 6:8) and the teachings of Paul and Christ will be discussed in the following section.

V.31 This is what the Lord requires (Mic 6:8) According to Rahlfs’ edition, the reaction to the foregoing considerations reads, Has it been told to you, human (εἰ ἀνηγγέλη σοι, ἄνθρωπε), what is good, or what the Lord requires of you, but to do judgment and to love mercy (ἔλεον) and to be ready to walk with the Lord, your God? (Mic 6:8).

However, like numerous other witnesses, Theodore, Jerome, and Theodoret have a ‘Lucianic’ reading without the interrogative particle εἰ.⁶⁸⁵ Although it is still possible to read their version without εἰ as a question, it should rather be con-

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 6 – 7, 195 – 224 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 6, 6 – 8 (Pusey, 700, 13 – 701, 20).  Theodore, In Michaeam 6, 8 (Sprenger, 225, 5; unlike Rahlfs’ text Theodore reads ἀπηγγέλη (also ‘it has been told’). Likewise, Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 19 (CSEL 82, 1; renuntiatum est tibi); Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 8, 227 (CCSL 76; annuntiatum est tibi); Theodoret, In Michaeam, 6, 8 (PG 81, 1776D; ἀνηγγέλη).

170

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

ceived as an affirmation: ‘It has been told to you, human…’, which corresponds with the lack of an interrogative particle in the Hebrew text. It is noteworthy, however, that the Septuagint translator reads the hof‘al ‫‘( ֻה ַגּד‬it has been told’), whereas the later Masoretic Text has the hif‘il ‫‘( ִה ִגּיד‬he has told’). Theodore explains that in these words the prophet reacts to the anxiety of the people. He observes that in order to propitiate (ἐξιλάσασθαι) God, one has to forget about sacrifices and to live according to the instructions that God gave through Moses, especially the commandments to love God and one’s neighbour.⁶⁸⁶ Jerome does not explicate who is speaking here, but it is clear that in his understanding it is Micah who addresses the people (o popule Israel). In his translation of the Hebrew text he reads the first person singular, ‘I shall declare to you’ (indicabo tibi), but he does not note the divergence between his Hebrew text and the Septuagint. From the vocative ἄνθρωπε he derives that the prophet does not at all (nequaquam) speak these words to the Jewish people but to all humankind, but most likely he means that Micah is absolutely not speaking only to the Jewish people. In Jerome’s paraphrase, the prophet addresses the uncertainty of how to appease (placare) God for your sins if you do not have sacrifices to compensate the impiety. The answer consists of a reference to the Mosaic law, in particular Deut 10:12– 13, a passage in which the Lord requires of Israel to fear, to love, and to serve him with all your heart and soul, to walk in his ways, and to keep his commandments.⁶⁸⁷ After a short homiletic exposition (see below) Jerome discusses the difficulty of the Hebrew verb esne (‫ַהְצ ֵנ ַע‬ MT; hif‘il infinitive absolute), translated as ἕτοιμον εἶναι (‘to be ready’) in the Septuagint. His own translation from Hebrew is sollicitum, ‘attentive’, but he also appreciates Theodotion’s translation ἀσφαλίζου, ‘be sure’, which he translates as caue diligenter, ‘take care’, and moreover he quotes the translation of

 Theodore, In Michaeam 6, 6 – 8 (Sprenger, 225, 3 – 21); see Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18. Besides the omission of εἰ and the reading ἀπηγγέλη Theodore’s text diverges in some other details from Rahlfs’ edition. – Hill, Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, 15, observes, ‘Passages that are susceptible of parenesis and pastoral elaboration, like … Mi 6.8, Theodore at his desk passes over to keep the focus on the historical situation, and is never found moralizing in the manner of a preacher in his pulpit.’ However, Hill overlooked Theodore’s exhortation quoted in § V.20.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 8, 225 – 242 (CCSL 76). I assume that in l. 227, printed as Annuntiatum est tibi, homo, qui bonum, we should read quid bonum; thus also PL 25, 1210D and Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 68.

V.31 This is what the Lord requires (Mic 6:8)

171

the Fifth Edition, φροντίζειν, ‘to think about’ (agere sollicite in Jerome’s wording).⁶⁸⁸ Unlike the other commentators, Cyril reads Mic 6:8 as a question introduced by εἰ. He explicates that it is the prophet who replies to the foregoing deliberations, saying ‘in the Spirit’ that ‘it is not something hard to discern and not achieved by hard labour’. Cyril explains that ‘to do judgment’ (κρίμα) means to practice righteousness (δικαιοσύνη) and paraphrases the other terms of loving mercy and obediently walking with the Lord.⁶⁸⁹ Theodoret explains that in Mic 6:8 the prophet gives ‘the divine response’ to ‘the human reflections’. He quotes Ps 49:9 – 10, 14– 15; 50:18 – 19, texts that deal with the insufficiency of animal sacrifices, and notes that this can be found ‘in all the prophets’. Like Theodore, he also refers to the Mosaic commandments to love God and one’s neighbour.⁶⁹⁰ So far, we met Tertullian in the interpretation of only two favourite texts, Mic 4:1– 3 and 5:1– 2 (5:2– 3; §§ V.19 and V.23). Here he deserves to be discussed for the third time. In his work Against Marcion he argues that Christ has not come to abolish the law and the prophets but to fulfil them (Matt 5:17). In order to demonstrate the correspondence between the law and Christ’s teaching he quotes Mic 6:8 in a particular way. In general his Latin translation follows the Septuagint, so that ἕτοιμον εἶναι (‘to be ready’) is rendered as paratum esse. The first words read, si adnuntiauit tibi homo, in which si has the function of the interrogative particle εἰ. As such, this reading might be translated as, ‘Has it been told to you, human?’, but Tertullian does not conceive homo as a vocative but as a nominative, and he explains that this human is Christ. This means that he understands Micah to say, ‘Has the human (i. e. Christ) told you what is good, or what the Lord requires of you, but to do judgment, to love mercy and to be ready to follow (sequi) the Lord, your God?’ Combining Mic 6:8 with Luke 18:22, Tertullian continues that ‘the good’ that Christ taught is the knowledge of the law, which means, to do judgment, to sell what you have, to love mercy, to give to the poor, to walk with the Lord, and to follow Christ (sequere me).⁶⁹¹ This interpretation of homo as a nominative that refers to Christ is only possible in the Latin version. Apparently Tertullian, who read Greek fluently, did not take

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 8, 263 – 269 (CCSL 76). Cf. Rahmer, Die Commentarii zu den zwölf kleinen Propheten II, 42– 43.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 6 – 8 (Pusey, 699, 7– 10; 700, 13 – 701, 1). Instead of Rahlfs’ reading ἔλεον he has the neuter variant reading ἔλεος.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 6, 7– 8 (PG 81, 1776D–1777B); see Deut 6:5 and Lev 19:18.  Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem IV, 36, 6 – 7 (SC 456).

172

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

pains to check the Greek text. It is noteworthy that Cyprian, who frequently consulted Tertullian’s works, does not follow his master’s reading of Mic 6:8a.⁶⁹² Origen quotes Mic 6:8 in a lengthy chapter in which he argues that according to the teaching of the Church human beings have a free will (αὐτεξούσιον, τὸ ἐφ’ ἡμῖν) to do good or evil.⁶⁹³ His quotation of Mic 6:8 is introduced by the observation that ‘it is our doing to live in a good manner’ so that this does not depend on fate, as some people think.⁶⁹⁴ It should be added that later on Origen clarifies that one may gratefully ascribe achievements to God, but he notes that the human being also has to contribute his own part to whatever is to be achieved.⁶⁹⁵ In his work The Proof of the Gospel Eusebius continues his quotation of Mic 6:6, 7c (see § V.30) by adding Mic 6:8, which he considers the prophet’s answer in God’s name to the preceding deliberation. In this work he does not quote any subsequent texts from Micah. As a summary of his discussion of texts concerning Christ’s descent (Mic 1:2– 5), the rejection of the Jews because of their impiety and unbelief (Mic 1:5 – 6, 12b–13a), the destruction of Jerusalem (Mic 3:12), the abolition of its worship in the temple (Mic 6:6, 7c), and the promises to the gentile nations, Eusebius concludes that these promises entail ‘the knowledge of God, a new mode of piety, a new law and teaching coming forth from the land of the Jews’.⁶⁹⁶ These last words allude both to Mic 4:1– 3 (§ V.19) and to Mic 6:8. Apparently he considers Mic 6:8 a summary of the prophet’s teaching of the new piety to be adopted by the Christians from the gentiles. In a work against the Manichaeans (written after 363), Titus of Bostra quotes the full passage of Mic 6:6 – 8 among other Old Testament testimonies that criticize the Israelite sacrifices, and explains that God used them to educate mankind.⁶⁹⁷ Ambrose quotes Mic 6:8 in his epistle on the conversion of the penitent soul (last mentioned in § V.27). He addresses the possibility that a weak soul may

 Cyprian, Testimonia ad Quirinum III, 20, 96 (CCSL 3), reads, Renuntiatum tibi est, homo, quod bonum, ‘It has been announced to you, human, what is good.’ For his daily consultation of Tertullian’s works see Jerome, De uiris illustribus 53, 3 (BP 12).  Origen, De principiis III, 1– 24; also I praefatio 5 (Behr).  Origen, De principiis III, 1, 6 (ed. and transl. Behr). Origen refers to heterodox gnostics who, in his view, abrogate human free will and hold that people have a nature (φύσις) that is either bound to perish or to be saved; see e. g. De principiis III, 1, 8.  Origen, De principiis III, 1, 19 (Behr).  Eusebius, Demonstratio euangelica VI, 13, 25 – 26 (GCS 23). He reads Mic 6:8a with εἰ: εἰ ἀνηγγέλη σοι, ἄνθρωπε. Instead of ἔλεον he reads ἔλεος (this is also Cyril’s reading, see fn. 689).  Titus of Bostra, Contra Manichaeos III, 56 (CCSG 82). See N.A. Pedersen, Demonstrative Proof in Defence of God: A Study of Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos. The Work’s Sources, Aims and Relation to its Contemporary Theology (NHMS 56), Leiden/Boston 2004, 44– 45.

V.31 This is what the Lord requires (Mic 6:8)

173

stumble because of persecutions and separate itself from Christ’s love so that she falls back to the vanities of this world. He observes that in such a case the soul does not need to offer gifts or to sacrifice bulls (cf. Mic 6:6 – 7), but it is only requested to do judgment and righteousness and to love mercy and to be ready to walk with the Lord, its God (Mic 6:8).⁶⁹⁸ Jerome does not make a clear distinction between his literal interpretation of Mic 6:8 and its spiritual meaning for Christians. He explains that the Lord requires of ‘us’, Christians, ‘to do judgment’, which means to him that we do nothing without reason and counsel, so that the mind first judges what it should do and then realize it; that we love mercy, and not that we are merciful as if we are forced to it, or from necessity, since ‘God loves a cheerful giver’ (2 Cor 9:7). Let us not say, ‘Go today, and come back tomorrow, and [then] I shall give you’ (Prov 3:28). And when we do judgment and love mercy, which reward shall we receive? We shall walk with the Lord God, as – according to the trustworthy Hebrew books – Enoch walked with God and pleased him, and he was found no more, because God took him’ (Gen 5:24; Heb 11:5).⁶⁹⁹

Jerome adds that ‘to walk with God is not a reward but an instruction’.⁷⁰⁰ This correction might be his own comment on the preceding passage that he may have borrowed from Origen’s Commentary. He relates the following instruction ‘to be prepared to walk with the Lord our God’ (Mic 6:8) to Christ’s warning not to sleep, but always to expect the father of the household (Matt 24:43), to fear the day of judgment, and to say during the night of this world, ‘I sleep, but my heart is awake’ (Cant 5:2).⁷⁰¹ Augustine’s two sermons on Mic 6:6 – 8 (see § V.30) from 418 briefly confront his audiences in Carthage with this passage.⁷⁰² Cyril observes that Micah’s reply to the foregoing deliberations corresponds to Paul’s teaching about putting on the breastplate of righteousness, being shod with readiness for Christ’s gospel of peace (Eph 6:14– 15), and about compassion (Col 3:12). Furthermore, he refers to Christ’s words, ‘be merciful, just as your Fa-

 Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 19 (CSEL 82, 1).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 8, 242– 253 (CCSL 76); quotation l. 244– 253; translation Cazares, Scheck, adapted.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 8, 253 – 257 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 8, 257– 263 (CCSL 76).  Augustin, Sermo 48, 2; 49, 1 (CCSL 41, 606; 614) For the date see P.-P. Verbraken, Études critiques sur les sermons authentiques de saint Augustin (IP 12), Steenbrugge/’s-Gravenhage 1976, 64; M. Margoni-Kögler, Die Perikopen im Gottesdienst bei Augustinus. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der liturgischen Schriftlesungen in der frühen Kirche (VKCLK 29 / SÖAW.PH 810), Vienna 2010, 242– 243. See also § VI.1.

174

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

ther is merciful’ (Luke 6:36). Cyril notes that these things are a sacrifice that is dear to God and a fragrance of spiritual offerings that surpasses blood, smoke, and incense, as Hosea also said, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice, and knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings’ (Hos 6:6). Cyril holds that in such words God announces that the sacrifices of the law are ineffective and insufficient for the purification of the sin. He concludes that the things mentioned in Mic 6:8 are the pride of life in Christ.⁷⁰³

V.32 The voice of the Lord (Mic 6:9ab) In modern editions a new pericope is introduced by the following words, The voice of the Lord will be invoked for the city, and he will save those who fear his name (Mic 6:9ab).

This arrangement agrees with the Masoretic Text and Codex Alexandrinus and is shared by Brenton, Swete, Rahlfs, Ziegler, NETS, and Septuaginta Deutsch, but it diverges from Cyprian, the four patristic commentators and Codex Vaticanus.⁷⁰⁴ They consider Mic 6:9ab the conclusion of the preceding words, so that the new pericope starts with ἄκουε, ‘hear’, in Mic 6:9c.⁷⁰⁵ Theodore explains that ‘if you do these things, the city that does what is pleasing to him (i. e. God) will appear as a voice (φωνή τις) of God’ and can count on his care.⁷⁰⁶ By ‘these things’ he means the contents of Mic 6:8. Jerome observes that in Hebrew Mic 6:9ab is the beginning of a new chapter, whereas in the Septuagint it is the conclusion of the preceding section. For the Septuagint version he quotes Mic 6:8 – 9b, applying ‘the city’ to the Church, but for the division of the Hebrew text he presents an interpretation concerning Micah’s historical context. His translation of the Hebrew text of Mic 6:9a reads, ‘The voice of the Lord cries to the city’. In Jerome’s understanding, the city denotes Samaria, the capital of the ten tribes, which was captured in Micah’s days. Thus the Lord rebuked Samaria so that the people of Judah – ‘those who fear the name of the  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 6 – 8 (Pusey, 699, 7– 10; 701, 1– 20). Hesychius has nothing to note on Mic 6:8.  Theophylact, In Michaeam 6, 9 (PG 126, 1153C–1156A) too is in agreement with the patristic authors. See also Roukema, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation’, 794– 795.  It is remarkable that not only Theodore and Theodoret, who regularly have short lemmas, but also Jerome and Cyril, whose lemmas are usually longer, take Mic 6:9ab as a separate lemma, short though it may be. I follow their partition.  Theodore, In Michaeam 6, 9 (Sprenger, 225, 22– 28).

V.33 Injustice and punishment (Mic 6:9c–16)

175

Lord’ – hearing this should be struck with fear and gain salvation. Jerome argues that the torture of some may become an example for others.⁷⁰⁷ Cyril explains that, unlike animal sacrifices, spiritual worship, expressed by the invocation of God’s name for the city, will suffice for its salvation. Only then (and not in his comments on Mic 6:8) does Cyril quote Ps 49:7– 8, 14– 15 concerning the inadequacy of animal sacrifices.⁷⁰⁸ Theodoret’s comment holds that Mic 6:9ab depends on practicing the teaching of Mic 6:8.⁷⁰⁹ Hesychius gives the impression that the formulation of Mic 6:9a is strange (perhaps particularly the use of ἐπικληθήσεται), for he reformulates it in these words, ‘this means that the city will be called (κληθήσεται) through the voice of the Lord’.⁷¹⁰ As a testimony for Christians, Cyprian quotes Mic 6:6 – 9b among many other Old Testament texts, under the heading, ‘That fear is the foundation and strength of hope and faith’.⁷¹¹ This implies that he quotes this passage especially because of the last words, ‘he (i. e. the Lord) will save those who fear his name’. This quotation is the first testimony to the delimitation in which Mic 6:9ab belongs to the foregoing passage, as noted above. Jerome concludes his interpretation concerning Micah’s context (see above) by referring to Christ’s saying on those who were killed when the tower of Siloam fell on them (Luke 13:4). Christ meant that these people were not the only sinners among the people, but that their punishment should urge the others to repentance.⁷¹² This is the message that Jerome reads in Mic 6:9b, ‘he will save those who fear his name’. Cyril briefly applies this text to Christians too, with reference to their spiritual worship (πνευματική λατρεία).⁷¹³

V.33 Injustice and punishment (Mic 6:9c–16) The new pericope, in the patristic delimitation, reads according to Rahlfs’ edition,

      

Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9, 272– 292 (CCSL 76). For his continuation, see below. Cyril, In Michaeam 6, 9 (Pusey, 701, 21– 702, 24). Theodoret, In Michaeam 6, 8 – 9 (PG 81, 1777B). Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 154 (Eriksson, 160). Cyprian, Testimonia ad Quirinum III, 20, 90 – 100 (CCSL 3). Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9, 292– 295 (CCSL 76). Cyril, In Michaeam 6, 9 (Pusey, 702, 13 – 15); cf. Rom 12:1; 1 Petr 2:5.

176

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

9c

‘Hear, tribe, and who will adorn (κοσμήσει) the city? 10Would it be (μή) fire, and the house of a lawless one, which stores up lawless treasures, and [would it be] injustice with insolence? 11Will the lawless one be justified by a balance, while [there are] false weights in [his] bag 12from which they filled their wealth with impiety? And its inhabitants were speaking lies, and their tongue was exalted in their mouth. 13And I, I shall begin to strike you, I shall annihilate you because of your sins. 14You, you will eat and not be filled; and it will grow dark in you and turn away, and you will not be saved; and as many as will be saved will be given over to the sword. 15You, you will sow and not reap, you will press the olive and not anoint yourself with oil, and [make] wine and not drink [it], and the customs (νόμιμα) of my people will be annihilated. 16And you kept the decrees (δικαιώματα) of Zambri (i. e. Omri) and all the works of the house of Ahab, and you walked in their counsels, that I might give you over to annihilation and its inhabitants to hissing; and you shall receive the peoples’ scorn (Mic 6:9c–16).

In several details Theodore’s text differs from Rahlfs’ edition, and more than a detail is the fact that he does not have the words, ‘And you kept the decrees of Zambri’ (Mic 6:16a).⁷¹⁴ His brief comments on this passage consist of a paraphrase rather than a precise interpretation, which must be due to the trouble that he had with it. I will pass over Theodore’s variant readings and his paraphrase, except for his note on ‘the customs (or, ceremonies)⁷¹⁵ of my people’ that ‘will be annihilated’ (Mic 6:15d). In Theodore’s view this refers to the people’s idol worship in imitation of king Ahab and other kings of his kind, which shall be done away and raise the scorn of outsiders.⁷¹⁶ Jerome’s translation of the Septuagint also diverges here and there from Rahlfs’ text. In Mic 6:14bc he reads ‘and I shall cast you out into yourself, and you will seize and will not save’ (et eiciam te in temetipsam et apprehendes et non saluabis).⁷¹⁷ Like Theodore, he does not have the words, ‘And you kept the decrees of Zambri’ (Mic 6:16a), and reads, ‘and the customs (legitima) of my people will be annihilated and all the works of the house of Ahab’ (Mic 6:15d, 16b). He observes that the Septuagint version of this passage differs much from ‘the Hebrew truth’. He starts his comments on the passage with his  Stipp, ‘Bemerkungen zum griechischen Michabuch’, 109 – 112, demonstrates that these words are a doublet of the preceding words, ‘and the statutes of my people shall be annihilated’ (Mic 6:15). In the ‘Lucianic’ revision of the Septuagint the Hebrew name Omri was rendered as Ζαμβρει, which is also the name of his predecessor (3 Kgdms 16:8 – 28).  Nόμιμα derives from νόμος, usually translated as ‘law’ in a Jewish context, but which originally means ‘usage’, ‘custom’. Outside the Jewish context νόμιμα means ‘customs’, ‘sacred rites’; see Montanari, Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, s.v. νόμιμος.  Theodore, In Michaeam 6, 9 – 16 (Sprenger, 225, 29 – 227, 17). For king Ahab of Israel in Samaria see 3 Kgdms 16:28 – 33.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 10 – 16, 319; 398 – 399 (CCSL 76). The Greek text reads, καὶ ἐξώσω σε ἐν σοὶ καὶ καταλήψῃ καὶ οὐ μὴ διασωθῇς; cf. the discussion of Cyril below.

V.33 Injustice and punishment (Mic 6:9c–16)

177

translation of Mic 6:16a from Hebrew, ‘and you kept the precepts (praecepta) of Amri’ (i. e. Omri), admitting that in fact the Hebrew text reads, ‘and the precepts of Amri are kept, and all the works of the house of Ahab’.⁷¹⁸ He understands that instead of ‘Amri’ (‫)ָעְמ ִרי‬, the father of Ahab (3 Kgdms 16:28 – 29), the Septuagint translator erroneously read ammi (‫)ַע ִמּי‬, ‘my people’, and that the Hebrew text first mentions the father, Amri (Omri), and subsequently the son, Ahab.⁷¹⁹ After this textual clarification Jerome explains that the Hebrew text censures the ten tribes of Samaria because of their iniquities, the idolatrous ceremonies introduced by Amri (Omri), and the works of Ahab and Jezebel (3 Kgdms 16:30 – 33). As a consequence, the ten tribes will be captured by the Assyrians and ‘bear the scorn of my people’ (Mic 6:16e in Hebrew). Jerome does not explain to whom ‘my people’ refers, but he does note that the Hebrew text reads ammi, ‘of my people’, whereas the Septuagint has ‘of the peoples’ (populorum, λαῶν), and he repeats that the previous reading ammi, ‘my people’, for Amri was wrong.⁷²⁰ Cyril does not read, ‘who (τίς) will adorn the city?’, but ‘what (τί) will adorn the city?’ (Mic 6:9c). In his lemma, instead of the nominative ἀδικία (Mic 6:10b) he reads the accusative plural ἀδικίας, so that Mic 6:10 may be translated as, ‘the house of lawless people (ἀνόμων), which stores up lawless treasures and injustices with insolence’. In his comments, however, he quotes the nominative ἀδικία.⁷²¹ Besides some other minor divergences from Rahlfs’ edition, his text has a variant reading for ‘and it will grow dark in you and turn away’ (Mic 6:14b). Like Jerome, he reads ‘and I shall cast you out in yourself, and you will seize and not be saved’ (καὶ ἐξώσω σε ἐν σοὶ καὶ καταλήψῃ καὶ οὐ μὴ διασωθῇς).⁷²² He is the only one among the four patristic commentators who reads the doublet, ‘And you kept the decrees of Zambri’, in Mic 6:16a.⁷²³ He explains that the address ‘tribe’ in Mic 6:9c is not to one tribe but to all of the twelve tribes of Judea and Samaria. He relates the wrongdoings and the consequent disasters described in this passage to the mutual strife (ἐν σοί, Mic 6:14b, interpreted as ἐν ἑαυτοῖς) between the ten tribes and Judah and to

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 10 – 16, 297– 331 (CCSL 76). The Masoretic Text also reads, ‫ ְויִ ְשׁ ַתּ ֵמּר ֻחקּוֹת ָעְמ ִרי‬, ‘and the precepts of Omri are kept’.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 10 – 16, 331– 336 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 10 – 16, 336 – 368 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 6, 10 – 12 (Pusey, 702, 25 – 703, 3; 703, 13 – 14; 705, 6 – 8). In his comments in Pusey, 703, 13 – 14, Cyril slightly rephrases Mic 6:9c–10 as, ‘what will adorn the city? A house of lawless people, or injustice (ἀδικία) with insolence?’  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 6, 13 – 16; III, 7, 4 (Pusey, 705, 13 – 14; 706, 24; 713, 12).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 6, 13 – 16 (Pusey, 705, 17– 19; 707, 20 – 22).

178

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

the invasions by foreign nations that will lead them into captivity. Like Jerome, he interprets the ‘νόμιμα of my people’ as the idol worship for which Zambri (i. e. Omri), his son Ahab, and Jezebel were responsible, so that God would make them an object of scorn to the others.⁷²⁴ Theodoret’s comments are short and rather general; he does not even quote the full passage.⁷²⁵ Most of Hesychius’ notes on this passage concern its historical context. He holds that the tribe addressed in Mic 6:9c is ‘the Jewish [tribe] (πρὸς τὴν Ἰουδαικὴν λέγει)’. In his view, the ‘fire’ (Mic 6:10a) is ‘lewd concupiscence’, and about ‘injustice with insolence’ (Mic 6:10b) he says, ‘for these things are very frequent in you’, ‘you’ probably being the Jewish people. In Mic 6:13 he reads, ἐγὼ ἐβασάνισα ἐπὶ σὲ ἀφανισμῷ, literally, ‘I tortured on you with annihilation’; Hesychius rephrases this awkard formulation to, τουτέστιν ἐμάστιξά σε μέχρις ἀφανισμοῦ, ‘i. e. I flogged you to the point of annihilation’. He does not explain the words, ‘and you will not be saved’ (Mic 6:14c), but concerning those who ‘will be saved’ and ‘will be given over to the sword’ (Mic 6:14d) he writes that ‘they will escape the menace for a short time’, ‘since nobody who does not repent will completely escape God’s wrath’. The expression, ‘all the works of the house of Ahab’, is interpreted as, ‘the idolatrous and lewd [works]; for Ahab was corrupted by both [sorts of works]’.⁷²⁶ Jerome explains that in the Septuagint version of this passage the tribe addressed in Mic 6:9c is Samaria, which cut itself off from God’s people. As we saw in § V.2, according to Jerome, following Origen, Samaria stands for the heretics. He says that in vain Samaria made its idols, the golden heifers, and wished to build another capital city in imitation of Jerusalem (i. e. the Church); thus Jerome interprets the rhetorical question, slightly rephrased, ‘for who can adorn the city?’ (Mic 6:9c). He asks whether this can be done by the ‘fire’, ignited by the burning arrows of the devil (Eph 6:16), or by the ‘house of the lawless one’ (Mic 6:10a), which ‘stores up wrath for itself on the day of wrath’ (Rom 2:5).⁷²⁷ All this alludes to the opposition of heretics to the Church, which means that Jerome is not explicit about it yet. For the words, καὶ μετὰ ὕβρεως ἀδικία (Mic 6:10b in Rahlfs’ edition) he reads, et cum iniuria iniquitates, ‘and iniquities with injustice’; probably he considers these words the object dependent on ‘the house that

 Cyril, In Michaeam III, 6, 10 – 16 (Pusey, 702, 25 – 704, 19; 705, 12– 708, 7 [ἐν ἑαυτοῖς 706, 19; cf. 713, 21– 23]). For his interpretation of Mic 6:13 see § V.35.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 6, 9 – 16 (PG 81, 1777C–1780A).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 155 – 158; 162– 163; 166 (Eriksson, 160 – 161).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9c–16, 312– 325; 370 – 378 (CCSL 76). In l. 313 iniquit should be read as iniqui; thus PL 25, 1212C and Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 70.

V.33 Injustice and punishment (Mic 6:9c–16)

179

stores up…’, so that he does not read the nominative ἀδικία but the neuter plural ἀδίκια. He comments that it (i. e. the house of the lawless one, the heretic) increases iniquity with injustice (iniquitatem auget iniuria), so that it not only snatches away from God’s house, which is the Church, but also destroys the property of others with arrogance and haughtiness.⁷²⁸ Thus Jerome refers to the proselytism perpetrated by heretics. In this sense he also rephrases Mic 6:11– 12a, asking whether someone can be justified who fraudulously gathers his riches from Scripture, yet without a (correct) balance and weight. Rephrasing Mic 6:12bc, Jerome writes that the inhabitants of this city (i. e. the heretics), who think that they can adorn it with wrong beliefs (dogmata) and a distorted doctrine, are speaking lies, lift up their voices (or mouth, os suum) and despise the simplicity of Church people. Therefore, according to Jerome, God will strike them, but since he is merciful he will not strike them in one stroke, but strives to warn them little by little, saying, ‘And I, I shall begin to strike you with perdition because of your sins’ (Mic 6:13). This means that the Lord says, ‘o city that the heretics want to rebuild, I shall strike you so that you perish, not to the end of your annihilation (non in abolitionem), but as far as you are a sinner (iuxta id quod peccatrix es)’.⁷²⁹ Remarkably, in this exposition Jerome’s translation of Mic 6:13 LXX reads, Et ego incipiam te percutere perditione propter peccata tua, whereas in his lemma he reads Et ego cruciaui te perditione propter peccata tua; here cruciaui, ‘I tortured’, is the translation of the variant reading ἐβασάνισα. In addition, instead of Rahlfs’ reading ἀφανιῶ, ‘I shall annihilate’, Jerome reads ἀφανισμῷ, ‘with annihilation’, translated twice as perditione and, third, as in abolitionem. ⁷³⁰ Another remarkable aspect of Jerome’s interpretation is that Mic 6:13 LXX speaks about the Lord annihilating the addressees because of their sins, whereas Jerome’s interpretation reads that the Lord will strike them not to the end of their annihilation. He neither pays attention to the divergences between his lemma and the quotation of Mic 6:13 in his exposition, nor does he account for his denial of the Lord’s intention to annihilate the unrighteous. Most likely, the divergences demonstrate that the Septuagint text that he translated was different from the text in Origen’s Commentary from which he borrowed most of his comments, and that he did not note the textual differences. In Jerome’s view the following words, ‘you will eat and not be filled’ (Mic 6:14a), mean that the heretics read the Scriptures, but without understanding because they do not have the truth. As we saw above, in Mic 6:14b, ‘and it will grow    σμῷ

Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9c–16, 378 – 380 (CCSL 76). Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9c–16, 380 – 396 (CCSL 76). Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9c–16, 317– 318; 393 – 395 (CCSL 76). For ἐβασάνισα and ἀφανιsee Ziegler’s critical apparatus.

180

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

dark in you and turn away’ in Rahlfs’ edition, Jerome translates the variant reading καὶ ἐξώσω σε ἐν σοὶ καὶ καταλήψῃ, ‘and I shall cast you out in yourself, and you will seize’, followed by, ‘and you will not keep (or, save; et non saluabis) [anything]; and as many as will have been saved will be given over to the sword’ (Mic 6:14cd). According to Jerome, this means that the Lord will abandon the heretical city to its own judgment. Then, understanding its own error, it will see that it cannot be saved by its beliefs (dogmata). Those who think that they are satisfied (cf. Mic 6:14a), and were not cast out from themselves (et non eiecti fuerint a se), and did not understand the truth, will be given over to the sword, i. e. ‘they will be instructed by punishments’.⁷³¹ Probably Jerome conceives the words, they ‘were not cast out from themselves’, in the sense that these heretics were not excluded from their schismatic group. That they ‘will be instructed by punishments’ means that through punishment they should learn the truth. This is a typically Origenian view.⁷³² Jerome continues that this heretical city, built with fire, iniquity, insolence, and fraud, will sow and not reap, press the olive and not be anointed with oil, press grapes and not drink wine (Mic 6:15a–c). He explains that it is preferable for this city, once it acknowledges its error, not to have disciples, not to anoint its head with the oil of sins, and not to intoxicate people with the wine of Sodom (Deut 32:32),⁷³³ which stands for heresy and sin. Undoubtedly Jerome borrowed this allusion from Origen’s Commentary, changing ‘vine’ into ‘wine’, though. He interprets the ‘customs of my people’ – or ‘of Amri’, as he notes – that will be annihilated, and ‘all the works of the house of Ahab’ (Mic 6:15d–16b), as references to heretical leaders or to hostile powers. As for the heresiarchs he mentions Marcion, Basilides, Arius, and Eunomius. The heretical city ‘walked in their wishes’ or ‘in their counsels’ (Mic 6:16c), i. e. of Amri and Ahab, which refers to the wicked, self-invented doctrines of the heretics.⁷³⁴ According to Jerome, the Lord will give over the city to perdition ‘as far as you are heretical’ (iuxta id quod haeretica es), and he will give over its inhabitants to hissing (Mic 6:16d); this is the hissing of the serpent, the devil, which leads to ‘the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit may be saved’ (1 Cor 5:5), and the heretics, ‘having been rebuked, may learn not to blaspheme’

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9c–16, 394– 406 (CCSL 76).  See §§ V.17, 21, 26 and below in the present section.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9c–16, 406 – 412 (CCSL 76); for the wine or vine of Sodom in Origen’s works see § V.7.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9c–16, 412– 419. Jerome’s lemma of Mic 6:16c reads, et ambulasti in consiliis eorum (l. 323), which corresponds with καὶ ἐπορεύθητε ἐν ταῖς βουλαῖς αὐτῶν, but in his exposition he reads, et ambulastis in uoluntatibus eorum (l. 416 – 417).

V.33 Injustice and punishment (Mic 6:9c–16)

181

anymore (1 Tim 2:20).⁷³⁵ This implies that the Lord will not condemn the heretics forever, but will give them the possibility to repent and be saved. Again, this view is Origenian.⁷³⁶ Alluding to Mic 6:16e, Jerome concludes that the heretics will suffer all this, ‘so that they may acknowledge their error, because they have carried the scorn and sins of all the gentiles and of many peoples’.⁷³⁷ He does not explain, however, in what sense the heretics have carried not only the peoples’ scorn – which is inspired by Mic 6:16e – but also their sins. Having concluded his own interpretation, Jerome informs his readers about other commentators who did not apply this passage to heretics but to the Church. He admits that he does not understand how the names of the Samaritan leaders Amri and Ahab might be interpreted as referring to Jerusalem and Juda which stand for the Church.⁷³⁸ It is unknown to which commentators he is referring; perhaps he just read the alternative interpretation in Origen’s Commentary, and was amazed that Origen did not refute it. Like Jerome, Cyril applies this passage to heretics. In his comment on the ‘false weights’ (Mic 6:11) he calls them ‘inventors of unholy teachings (δογμάτων)’, by which they deceive ‘the mind of the simple’ believers. He interprets the ‘fire’ (Mic 6:10a) as the punishment that awaits them.⁷³⁹ Cyril clearly knows Jerome’s or Origen’s Commentary, for much of it comes back in his application of Mic 6:13 – 16. What is new is that he ascribes to these ‘enemies of the truth’ the ‘persecutions of the saints’, i. e. the ‘orthodox’ Christians. He states that in the end these enemies will be scorned, cursed, and annihilated (Mic 6:16de).⁷⁴⁰ A few of Hesychius’ notes on this passage have a Christian connotation. On Mic 6:14a, ‘you will eat and not be filled’, he comments, ‘for you avoided the table of life’. Although, according to my search in the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, ‘the table of life’ was not a common designation of the Eucharist in Hesychius’ time, it most likely refers to this.⁷⁴¹ In Mic 6:14b the reading, ἐξώσω σε

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9c–16, 420 – 425 (CCSL 76).  Origen, Hom. in Ieremiam 1, 3; 19, 14 (SC 232; 238); Fragmenta in Ieremiam 2, 48 (GCS Origenes 32); Philocalia 27, 8 (SC 226); Fragmenta in Psalmos 118, 121 (SC 189). Cf. §§ V.21, 26 and Rahner, ‘La doctrine d’Origène sur la pénitence’.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9c–16, 425 – 427 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 9c–16, 427– 431 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 6, 11– 12 (Pusey, 704, 4– 5; 704, 20 – 705, 11).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 6, 13 – 16 (Pusey, 708, 8 – 709, 2).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 159 (Eriksson, 160). In the Thesaurus I searched for τράπεζα, -ης and ζωή, ζωῆς (7th August 2017) and only found Eugenius of Palermo (12th c.), Versus iambici 12 (ed. Gigante), which reads, Ἰδοὺ τράπεζα καὶ τροφὴ προκειμένη, ζωῆς τράπεζα καὶ τροφὴ Θεὸς Λόγος, ‘Behold, the table and the food set forth, the table of life, and the food, God the Word.’

182

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

ἐν σοί, ‘I shall cast you out in yourself’, means to Hesychius, ‘I (i. e. the Lord) shall repel you, and allocate your inheritance to those among you (ἐν σοί) who believed; for you were not willing to imitate those who believed.’⁷⁴² This means that Jews who refuse to believe in Christ would not receive the inheritance promised by God, unlike those who do believe in him. Hesychius interprets καταλήψῃ (‘you will seize’), which he reads like Cyril in Mic 6:14b (see above) instead of ἐκνεύσει (‘it will turn away’), as, ‘you will know the law of God’.⁷⁴³ Given the preceding note, this probably addresses the non-Christian Jews. In that case the scholion might mean that these Jews will come to know God’s will as it is described in his law, and bear the consequences of their unbelief. Hesychius’ interpretation of the clause, ‘you will sow and not reap’ (Mic 6:15a), reads, ‘through the preparation of the law and the prophets they sow God’s mysteries, but they do not reap [them] because they turn away from the grace of the gospel through which the mystical harvest [is gathered]’.⁷⁴⁴ This concerns the Jews who do not believe in Christ; yet by their adherence to the Mosaic law and the prophets they prepared the harvest of those who do believe in him (cf. John 4:37). The expression, νόμιμα λαοῦ μου, ‘the customs (or, laws) of my people’ (Mic 6:15d), is interpreted as, ‘all those [customs] of the slavery of the letter’, i. e. of the literal observation of the Mosaic law.⁷⁴⁵ Once again we see that Hesychius was an original, creative expositor.

V.34 Micah’s lament (Mic 7:1 – 3d) Suddenly the prophet laments himself and the state of his people, 1

Woe is me, because I have become like one gathering stubble at the harvest and like grape gleanings at the vintage, there being no bunch to eat the firstlings. Woe is me, soul, 2 because the pious one has disappeared from the land, and there is no upright person among humans; all go to law aiming at blood, they oppress, each his neighbour, with oppression. 3They prepare their hands for evil; the ruler requests, and the judge spoke peaceful words; it is the desire of his soul (Mic 7:1– 3d).

Theodore and Theodoret observe that this is the prophet’s lament because of the aforementioned punishment that would strike the people. Both have the ‘Lucian Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 160; Catena II 14 (Eriksson, 161; 240).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 161 (Eriksson, 161).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 164 (Eriksson, 161).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 165 (Eriksson, 161); cf. Rom 2:29; 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6 – 7; Gal 5:1, and scholion 168 in the following section, V.34.

V.34 Micah’s lament (Mic 7:1 – 3d)

183

ic’ addition, ‘my soul desired’ after ‘firstlings’ (Mic 7:1c; without a relative pronoun), which is in agreement with the Hebrew text. According to Theodore, the prophet meant that he suffered from not finding any fruit of justice and only little goodness that he desired to see.⁷⁴⁶ He explains that these wrongdoings occur because there is no fear of God. The ruler desires money, i. e. bribes, and the judge speaks peaceful, soothing words in order ‘to wangle unjust gains for himself’.⁷⁴⁷ Jerome reads a similar addition to Mic 7:1c, viz. ‘which my soul suffered’. In his interpretation of the Hebrew text he situates Micah’s lament after his prediction of the captivity of both the ten and the two tribes and explains that the prophet mourned for having spoken in vain. Jerome sees a difference between rulers who accept gifts from those who offer them and others – criticized here – who compel their subjects to give.⁷⁴⁸ Cyril, who does not have the ‘Lucianic’ addition, unpacks the image of collecting stubble and second-rate gleanings instead of sheaves and the firstlings of grapes (Mic 7:1). In his understanding, this refers to the scarcity of holy and good people in Israel.⁷⁴⁹ He explicates that the prophet’s second lament (Mic 7:1d–3) concerns the land of the Jews, but his elaborate exposition of these complaints suggest that he also had his own context in mind. He denounces the bribes requested by rulers and the peaceful words spoken to wrongdoers.⁷⁵⁰ Quite differently, Origen denies explicitly that Micah was lamenting himself in this passage, and asks rhetorically whether the prophet had a field to gather its harvest. In his view, it is obviously (σαφῶς) Christ’s soul that is speaking here; for when Christ comes to reap, he finds many sinners, both among the gentiles and among those who belong to the Church.⁷⁵¹ This implies that Origen does not only situate these words of Christ in his earthly ministry, but also after his

 Theodore, In Michaeam 6,15 – 7, 1 (Sprenger, 227, 18 – 228, 15); after πρωτόγονα (without the article τά) he reads ἐπεθύμησεν ἡ ψυχή μου. Theodoret, In Michaeam 7, 1 (PG 81, 1780AB); after τὰ πρωτόγονα he reads ἐπεπόθησεν ἡ ψυχή μου.  Theodore, In Michaeam 7, 1– 3 (Sprenger, 228, 17– 229, 4); quotation: translation Hill. Similarly, though shorter, Theodoret, In Michaeam 7, 2– 3 (PG 81, 1780BC). Likewise, Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 169 – 170 (Eriksson, 161).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 4, 1– 47 (CCSL 76); his addition to Mic 7:1c LXX reads, quae passa est anima mea (l. 13 – 14).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 1 (Pusey, 709, 3 – 710, 10).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 2– 3 (Pusey, 710, 11– 713, 6); also in Glaphyra in Leuiticum 2 (PG 69, 568D); Homiliae paschales 8, 3, 61– 65 (SC 392).  Origen, Hom. in Ieremiam 14, 6; 15, 3 – 4 (SC 238); Hom. in Ezechielem 1, 5 (SC 352); Hom. in Numeros 23, 2, 5 (SC 461); Comm. in Matthaeum XVI, 21 (GCS 40); Comm. Series in Matthaeum 135 (GCS 38, Origenes 11).

184

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

resurrection, as this complaint applies to the Church. To Origen it is meaningful that these words are spoken by Christ’s soul, i. e. his human side, not his divine side. It may be relevant to observe that in Origen’s view Christ’s soul was the only one among the reasonable creatures that had not been stained by sin. Therefore it could be joined with the divine Wisdom and Word.⁷⁵² A collection of Biblical texts on penance, erroneously attributed to Cyprian, includes Mic 7:1d–3a, without any comment. The text is meant to be appropriated by Christian penitents, and to be spoken in the name of a community.⁷⁵³ Ambrose refers to this passage in his epistle about the penitent soul (last mentioned in § V.31) that stumbled after its initial conversion and did not keep the Lord’s commandments. In this situation the Lord complains, ‘Woe is me, because I have become like one gathering stubble at the harvest and like grape gleanings at the vintage’ (Mic 7:1ab). In Ambrose’s translation, through the prophet God then addresses this soul in the following words, Heu me, anima, quod non est plenus timoris a terra, which means,‘Woe is me, soul, because the man full of fear is not from the earth’ (Mic 7:1d–2a).⁷⁵⁴ Ambrose adds that thus the Lord himself ‘pities the coming punishments for [our] sins and weeps over our transgressions’.⁷⁵⁵ This implies that he ascribes these words to Christ who foresees the punishments he will undergo for the sins of mankind (cf. Isa 53:4– 5). The attribution of these words to Christ agrees with Origen’s interpretation, although Ambrose applies them differently. Jerome observes that the Septuagint diverges from the Hebrew text. He holds that the prophetic or apostolic speech laments humankind in general, since it sowed the seed of the doctrines in vain and finds nothing to reap. In his understanding, this may be said by a prophet or an apostle whose words fall on deaf ears.⁷⁵⁶ Jerome also transmits the view that this is said in the name of the Saviour (ex persona Saluatoris), who complains that among so many believers and in the whole world he hardly finds any works worthy of his blood.⁷⁵⁷ This clearly reflects Origen’s interpretation. Jerome informs his readers that this interpretation  Origen, De principiis II, 6, 3 – 7; II, 8, 2– 4 (Behr). For Origen’s view of Christ’s two natures see the comments made by E. Schadel, Origenes. Die griechisch erhaltenen Jeremiahomilien (BGL 10), Stuttgart 1980, 299 – 303; 312.  Ps.-Cyprian, Exhortatio de paenitentia (PL 4, 1156B). In Mic 7:2a it reads, quia periit ueritas a terra, ‘because the truth has disappeared from the land’.  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 19 (CSEL 82, 1). Ambrose’s curious rendering of ἀπόλωλεν, ‘disappeared’ or ‘perished’, by non est, ‘is not’, is caused by his careless reading of the text, for instead of ἀπόλωλεν he translates οὐχ ὑπάρχει from Mic 7:2b. This is an example of παράβλεψις.  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 19 (CSEL 82, 1).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 4, 47– 59 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 4, 59 – 63 (CCSL 76).

V.34 Micah’s lament (Mic 7:1 – 3d)

185

raised a debate, since other people held that it does not fit the Saviour’s persona at all to say, ‘Woe is me, because I have become like one who gathers stubble at the harvest’ (Mic 7:1a), since in the Gospel he speaks about the fields that are ripe for harvesting (John 4:35) and about the harvest that is plentiful, although the labourers are few (Matt 9:37). Those who agreed with Origen’s interpretation replied that it is not strange that the Saviour says, ‘Woe is me’, as he wept over Jerusalem and over the death of Lazarus (Luke 19:41; John 11:35). They held that the words, ‘I have become like one who gathers stubble at the harvest’, refer to the end of the age, which is called a harvest (Matt 13:39). In their view, this prophecy may be fulfilled when the lawlessness increases, the love of many grows cold (Matt 24:12), and the Son of Man hardly finds any faith on earth when he comes (Luke 18:8). In Origen’s vein – although his name is not mentioned in Jerome’s report of this debate – these people stated that this is said in the name of Christ as a human being (ex persona assumpti hominis), since he says, ‘Woe is me, soul’ (Mic 7:1d), which agrees with Christ’s saying, ‘My soul is deeply grieved, even to death’ (Matt 26:38).⁷⁵⁸ Jerome does not give his own opinion here, but in his later Commentary on Jeremiah he clearly aligns with Origen’s interpretation. Commenting on Jeremiah’s lament in Jer 15:10a, he says that it is not the Son in his capacity of Word of God who complains here, but the Son of God according to the flesh.⁷⁵⁹ In his Commentary on Micah Jerome continues that ‘the pious one has disappeared from the land’ (Mic 7:2a), because either Antichrist kills the saints, or all people fall over stumbling-blocks.⁷⁶⁰ He has no difficulty applying the charges in Mic 7:2b–3d to his own time.⁷⁶¹ Didymus also adopts the interpretation that it is the Saviour, Christ, who utters this lament (Mic 7:1– 3a).⁷⁶² Except for Cyril’s suggestion, related above, that the evils mentioned in Mic 7:2– 3 also occurred in his own context, he does not interpret this passage with regard to Christ or the Christians. Hesychius has one note in this respect. He explains that ‘stubble and grape gleanings’ (Mic 7:1ab) refer to ‘the letter of the law’, whereas ‘grain (σῖτος) and bunch’ refer to its ‘spirit which the slaves

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 4, 63 – 81 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Ieremiam III, 15, 10a, 2 (CCSL 74).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 4, 81– 83 (CCSL 76); cf. Mark 9:42– 48. Instead of Adriaen’s reading reuertens (thus also in PL 25, 1217A) I read reuerens as in Ms A, in Jerome’s lemma (l. 14), his quotation in In Michaeam II, 7, 5 – 7, 286, and in Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 75.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 4, 83 – 96 (CCSL 76).  Didymus, In Zachariam IV, 214 (SC 85).

186

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

(παῖδες) of the Jews did not want to cultivate’.⁷⁶³ Remarkably, the term σῖτος is not found in Micah at all. The expression ‘the παῖδες of the Jews’ might also be translated as ‘the children of the Jews’, but it should not be considered synonymous with the frequent designation οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ, the ‘sons’ or ‘children of Israel’, i. e. the Israelites (e. g. Exod 1:1, 7). In Hesychius’ note, the term παῖδες refers to the alleged slavery of the Jews because of their literal observation of the Mosaic law, unlike the Christians, who interpret it spiritually and cultivate the fruit of the Spirit.⁷⁶⁴

V.35 Like a moth on a rod (Mic 7:3e–4) According to the Septuagint, Micah announces that as a consequence of these wrongdoings the Lord’s reaction will be, 3e

And I shall take away 4their goods like a moth gnawing and advancing on a rod on the day of examination (σκοπιᾶς). Woe, woe, your vengeance has come, now their weeping shall occur (Mic 7:3e–4).

Theodore interprets the moth as the enemies sent by God; all Israel’s goods will be destroyed little by little, as a moth does by making its way in a wooden rod. In Mic 7:4a he reads ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σκοπιᾶς σου, which agrees with the Hebrew text as for the possessive pronoun σου (‫י ֺום ְמַצ ֶפּיָך‬, ‘your watchmen’) and might be translated as, ‘on the day of your examination’. It is a puzzling expression, for the common meaning of σκοπιά is ‘look-out’, ‘watch-tower’.⁷⁶⁵ Theodore does not discuss its difficulty, but his paraphrase demonstrates how he understands it. It reads, ‘examining (περισκοπήσας) the magnitude of your sins, I (i. e. God) shall impose [on you] a punishment corresponding with your deeds’.⁷⁶⁶ This implies that Theo-

 Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 168 (Eriksson, 161).  See Rom 2:29; 7:6; 2 Cor 3:6 – 7; Gal 3:24– 25; 4:22– 23; 4:30 – 5:1; 5:22. Cf. Hesychius’ scholion 165 in the preceding section, V.33.  The translation ‘on the day of your examination’ derives from Hill. Liddell, Scott, Greek-English Lexicon, Lust, Eynikel, Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Muraoka, GreekEnglish Lexicon of the Septuagint, and Montanari, Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, do not give this meaning of σκοπιά. Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, does not have this lemma. The diverging translations of the Septuagint confirm its difficulty. Brenton: ‘in a day of visitation’; Giguet: ‘au jour de la visite’; Andersen, Freedman: ‘in the day of visitation’; NETS: ‘in the day of your watching’; Septuaginta Deutsch: ‘am Tage deines Wachens’; Glenny: ‘in the day of your keeping watch’. For a discussion of ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σκοπιᾶς see Glenny, Micah, 192.  Theodore, In Michaeam 7, 3 – 4 (Sprenger, 229, 5 – 13).

V.35 Like a moth on a rod (Mic 7:3e–4)

187

dore conceives σκοπιά in the sense of περισκοπεῖν, ‘to look around’, ‘to examine’, God being the one who examines.⁷⁶⁷ Jerome notes that in these lines the Septuagint is very different from the Hebrew text. His translation of Mic 7:4a from Hebrew reads, ‘The best one among them is like a briar and the righteous one is like a thorn of a hedge.’⁷⁶⁸ This clause concludes Jerome’s lemma of the Hebrew text (Mic 7:1– 4a). His next lemma of the Hebrew text begins with the words, ‘The day of your examination (speculationis tuae), your visitation comes; now it will be their desolation’ (Mic 7:4a–c).’⁷⁶⁹ Besides other divergences, this delimitation differs from the Septuagint, in which the expression, ‘the day of your examination’, concludes the preceding passage. Jerome uses speculatio both for his translation of the Hebrew text and for the Septuagint version. As its common meaning Blaise gives ‘lookout’, ‘watch-tower’, and for Mic 7:4 in a metaphorical sense, ‘the day announced by your sentries (your prophets)’, but this is clearly based on the Hebrew text.⁷⁷⁰ In his interpretation of the Septuagint version Jerome also uses the term specula, which usually means ‘look-out’ or ‘the act of observing’.⁷⁷¹ In his comments on the Hebrew text Jerome briefly explains that on the historical level ‘the day of your examination’ refers to Samaria’s or Jerusalem’s coming visitation (uisitatio) and captivity,⁷⁷² whereas he gives only a spiritual interpretation of the Septuagint version (see below). Cyril does not explicate who is the subject of the words, ‘I shall take away’ (Mic 7:3e), but his comments demonstrate that he understands that it is God who spoke through Micah. He explains that all ‘their goods’ (Mic 7:4a) that will be taken away and consumed as by a moth refer to the lost harvest announced in Mic 6:13 – 14c, 15a–c. Next, in Mic 7:4a Cyril reads, ὡς σὴς ἐκτρώγων καὶ βαδίζων ἐπὶ κανόνος ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σκοπιᾶς, ‘like a moth gnawing and advancing on a rod as on the day of σκοπιά’, and he admits that this phrase is difficult to understand. He thinks that it refers to the slaughter among the tribe of Benjamin after it had violated and killed the concubine of the Levite from Ephraim, which happened in Gibeah (Judg 19 – 20). The reason for his association with this story is

 Montanari, Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, s.v. περισκοπέω and σκοπιά.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 4, 9 – 11; 47– 49 (CCSL 76); transl. Cazares, Scheck (adapted).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 4, 110 – 111 (CCSL 76).  Blaise, Dictionnaire Latin-Français, s.v. speculatio; ‘lieu d’observation, lieu où l’on se poste pour chasser ou surveiller’, ‘tour de garde’, ‘le jour qu’ont annoncé tes sentinelles (tes prophètes)’.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 4, 107– 108 (CCSL 76). Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary, s.v. specula.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 7, 110 – 111; 125 – 132 (CCSL 76).

188

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

that, as he notes, Gibeah means βουνὸς καὶ σκοπιά, ‘hill and look-out’. In his view, Hos 9:9, ‘they corrupted themselves on the days of the hill (τοῦ βουνοῦ)’, also recalls this incident, and as a confirmation he quotes 3 Kgdms 15:22, which reads that king Asa of Jerusalem built πᾶν βουνὸν Βενιαμιν καὶ τὴν σκοπιάν, ‘each hill of Benjamin and the look-out’.⁷⁷³ This leads Cyril to conclude that the terms βουνός and σκοπιά can be considered synonymous. Indeed, the Hebrew toponym Gibeah (‫ ) ִגְּבָעה‬means ‘hill’. The Hebrew text of 1 Kings 15:22, however, reads, ‘king Asa built Geba (‫ ) ֶגַּבע‬of Benjamin and Mizpah (‫’)ַה ִמְּצ ָפּה‬, but ‫ֶגַּבע‬ does mean ‘hill’, and ‫ ִמצ ֶפּה‬means ‘watch-tower’, ‘look-out’,⁷⁷⁴ so his conclusion may seem understandable. Yet due to Cyril’s ignorance of Hebrew he was not able to explain convincingly that the words ὡς ἐν ἡμέρᾳ σκοπιᾶς should be interpreted as ‘as on the day of the look-out, i. e. Gibeah’, in the sense of the slaughter in Gibeah related in Judg 19 – 20. In fact, the Hebrew text of Mic 7:4 does not read, ‘the day of Gibeah’ but ‘the day of your watchmen’, as we saw above. In any case Cyril’s forced exegesis confirms that σκοπιά is puzzling here and it demonstrates that he was not convinced by Jerome’s or rather Origen’s interpretation as ‘examination’ or ‘visitation’. – To continue Cyril’s historical interpretation, he thinks that ‘the day of the look-out’ announced in Mic 7:4a and the subsequent words, rephrased as ‘I shall advance as on a rod’, confirm what was said in Mic 6:13, ‘I shall begin to strike you, and I shall annihilate you because of your sins.’ He interprets ‘advancing on a rod’ as God’s straight way of retribution imposed on the impious king Ahaz of Jerusalem (cf. Mic 1:1), when the king of Syria took captive a great number of his people and the army of king Pekah of Samaria killed 120,000 of his soldiers (2 Chr 28:5 – 6). In Cyril’s view, the ‘vengeance’ and ‘weeping’ (Mic 7:4bc) concern these events and, in addition, the attacks by the Assyrians and the Babylonians.⁷⁷⁵ Theodoret’s interpretation is short and not related to any historical events. In line with Theodore he holds that it is God’s judgment that comes like a devouring moth on the day of punishment; this is Theodoret’s interpretation of ‘the day of σκοπιά’.⁷⁷⁶ Hesychius interprets ‘like a moth gnawing’ as, ‘destroying completely as moths destroy’. This sober, literal explanation is followed by a metaphorical interpretation of the expression ‘on a rod (ἐπὶ κανόνος)’ as, ‘advancing with the cri Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 4 (Pusey, 713, 7– 715, 19).  Koehler, Baumgartner, Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament I, 167: ‘Hügel’; II, Leiden 19743, 590: ‘Beobachtungsstelle, Warte’.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 4 (Pusey, 715, 20 – 716, 16; 717, 7– 718, 2).  Theodoret, In Michaeam 7, 4 (PG 81, 1780CD).

V.35 Like a moth on a rod (Mic 7:3e–4)

189

terion of justice; for a rod (κανών) is justice for people’.⁷⁷⁷ These two notes seem rather incongruous. His note on the genitive σκοπιᾶς reads, in one word, ἐξετάσεως.⁷⁷⁸ Ἐξέτασις means ‘examination’, ‘investigation’, ‘inspection’,⁷⁷⁹ which implies that in this respect Hesychius aligns with the interpretations given by Theodore and Jerome. Jerome, in his spiritual interpretation, holds that the ‘goods’ that the Lord threatens to take away from the unjust rulers and judges (mentioned in Mic 7:3bc) are not truly ‘good things (bona)’, so that it is a blessing that these bad things be removed from them. In his view, the moth stands for the Lord, the divine Word (i. e. Christ), who enters their consciences and eats away whatever is corrupted. He ‘walks on the norm and rule of the truth, and draws them back to rectitude (rectum)’. In that day (i. e. the ‘day of examination’), ‘the saints, the elect of the Church, will ascend to the watch-tower (ad speculam)’, where they will discuss the heavenly things in the sublime light of their doctrines and works.⁷⁸⁰ Apparently Jerome means that the unjust rulers and judges, from whom the Lord threatens to take away their bad possessions, will convert to the Christian faith and join the Church. The expression ‘norm and rule of the truth (norma et regula ueritatis)’, in Greek ὁ κανών τῆς ἀληθείας, also called ‘the rule of faith’ (regula fidei), designates the summary of Christian beliefs, which is attested since Irenaeus.⁷⁸¹ Jerome’s term rectum may also have the connotation of the right, ‘orthodox’ faith’.⁷⁸² The occurrence of the term κανών in Mic 7:4a caused his (and probably Origen’s) association with this turn to the ‘rule of the truth’ and salvation. Jerome does not clarify in what sense the saints will then ascend to the watch-tower (specula, σκοπιά) and discuss heavenly things there. He may mean their eschatological existence in heaven, but he may also have in mind its anticipation in the present life and the discernment

 Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 171– 172; Catena II 15 (Eriksson, 161; 240); Catena II 15 reads, βαδίζων ἐν τῷ ὅρῳ τοῦ δικαίου· κανὼν γὰρ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις τὸ δίκαιον (also scholion 172, yet without βαδίζων).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 173 (Eriksson, 161).  Montanari, Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, s.v.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 4, 97– 109 (CCSL 76). Although, like Theodore and Theodoret, Jerome reads speculationis tuae, ‘of your examination’, in his lemma of Mic 7:1– 4 LXX (l. 20), the possessive pronoun does not recur in his spiritual interpretation.  E. g. Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses I, 9, 4 (SC 264); see J. Fantino, La théologie d’Irénée. Lecture des Écritures en réponse à l’exégèse gnostique. Une approche trinitaire (CFi 180), Paris 1994, 15 – 34.  See Blaise, Dictionnaire Latin-Français, s.v. rectus; Lampe, Patristic Greek Lexicon, s.v. ὀρθός.

190

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

of the spiritual, heavenly sense of Scripture.⁷⁸³ In Jerome’s delimitation Mic 7:4bc LXX (‘Woe, woe, your vengeance has come, now their weeping shall occur’) is the beginning of a new lemma. He explains that the Lord’s ‘vengeance’ for those who call upon him and the ensuing ‘weeping’ of those who first laughed refer to the judgment at the moment of death or at the end of times. As an example of those who will have to undergo tortures then, he mentions the rich man of the parable in Luke 16:19 – 31.⁷⁸⁴ The fact that Mic 7:4bc belongs to a new lemma may be the reason why Jerome does not explicate the connection of these clauses with his interpretation of the preceding lemma about the unjust rulers and judges and the saints who will ascend to the watch-tower and discuss heavenly things there. Cyril explains that those who offend God will lack what is good and will be struck with a terrible hunger for divine and spiritual goods; for Christ does not give his peace to those who are enemies of the truth. The expression ‘a moth gnawing and advancing on a rod’ (Mic 7:4a) induces Cyril to charge these enemies with ‘cannibalism, as it were’ (ἀλληλοφαγίαν δὲ ὥσπερ), which consists of rivalry and schisms.⁷⁸⁵ We may conclude that he is thinking of heretics and Christians whom he considers heterodox. Cyril applies the threat of ‘vengeance’ and the ensuing ‘weeping’ (Mic 7:4bc) to those who distort what is right (τὰ ὀρθά) and undermine the faith of the simple believers (τῶν ἁπλουστέρων). Quoting 1 Cor 8:11, Cyril observes that in doing so they sin against Christ. Interestingly, with regard to them he also quotes Prov 1:32, ‘because they harmed the childish (νηπίους) they will be killed, and examination (ἐξετασμός) will destroy the impious’.⁷⁸⁶ One may observe that Cyril does not share Jerome’s interpretation of ἐπὶ κανόνος as referring to the ‘rule of truth’, but he does mention those who are enemies of the truth. He does not adopt Jerome’s hopeful perspective for sinners who are drawn back to rectitude or the right faith (rectum), but conversely he does accuse those who distort what is right (τὰ ὀρθά), in others words, the right or orthodox faith. Cyril’s reference to the ‘simple believers’ is typically Origenian.⁷⁸⁷ His quotation of Prov. 1:32 is interesting because it refers to the ἐξετασμός (‘examination’) of the impious, which seems an echo of the ‘day of exami-

 See e. g. texts like Eph 2:6, God ‘seated us with him (i. e. Christ) in the heavenly places’, and Col 3:1, ‘seek the things that are above, where Christ is’, in Origen’s interpretation: Hom. in Genesin 7, 4 (SC 7bis); Hom. in Exodum 2, 1 (SC 321); Contra Celsum VIII, 22 (SC 150).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 1– 4, 156 – 171 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 4 (Pusey, 716, 17– 717, 5)  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 4 (Pusey, 718, 3 – 16).  See G. af Hällström, Fides Simpliciorum according to Origen of Alexandria (CHL 76), Helsinki 1984.

V.36 Distorted relationships (Mic 7:5 – 6)

191

nation’, interpreted by Hesychius as the day of ἐξέτασις. I suggest that all these elements could be found in Origen’s Commentary, from which Jerome, Cyril, and to a much lesser extent, Hesychius, derived their comments.

V.36 Distorted relationships (Mic 7:5 – 6) Then the prophet warns, 5

Do not trust in friends and do not hope in leaders; guard yourself against your bedmate, lest you communicate anything to her. 6For a son dishonours [his] father, a daughter will rise up against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man’s enemies [will be] all the men in his household (Mic 7:5 – 6).

Theodore and Theodoret relate this passage to the evils of the foregoing lines; remarkably, they do not note that in the Gospels Jesus quoted Mic 7:6 (see § II.2).⁷⁸⁸ Jerome, commenting on the Hebrew text, explains that Samaria and Jerusalem should not believe the false prophets and diviners. He gives several Scriptural examples of distorted relationships, viz. between Ahithophel and David, Samson and Delilah, the men of Shechem and Abimelech, Absalom and David, Esau’s wife (uxor, singular) and her mother-in-law Rebecca.⁷⁸⁹ According to Cyril, Micah denounces Israel’s trust in neighbouring nations and their rulers, in order to escape God’s wrath and to win wars. When God gives effect to his wrath, even spouses and family members will turn to enemies.⁷⁹⁰ Hesychius qualifies the warning, ‘Do not trust in friends’ (Mic 7:5a) by noting that one should not trust in friends ‘as much as in God’. Similarly, on the counsel, ‘guard yourself against your bedmate, lest you communicate anything to her’ (Mic 7:5c), he comments, ‘because she certainly does not keep it to herself; but it is better to trust and hope in God and to communicate with him’.⁷⁹¹ In his work Against Marcion, Tertullian quotes Jesus’ saying about the division between family members (Luke 12:53) to demonstrate that – as he formulates  Theodore, In Michaeam 7, 5 – 6 (Sprenger, 229, 20 – 230, 1); Theodoret, In Michaeam 7, 5 – 6 (PG 81, 1780D–1781A), does not even quote the lemma but only paraphrases it. Hill, Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, 241, notes, ‘He (i. e. Theodore) is consistently anxious not to lend an NT dimension to these OT texts.’  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 5 – 7, 112– 154 (CCSL 76); see 2 Kgdms 15:12, 31; Judg 9:1– 5, 22– 25; 16:1– 19; 2 Kgdms 16:15 – 23; Gen 26:34– 35 (which mentions Esau’s two wives) respectively.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 5 – 6 (Pusey, 718, 17– 719, 25).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 175, 177 (Eriksson, 161; 217).

192

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

it ironically – Micah predicted Marcion’s Christ (Mic 7:6). Thus he argues, in opposition to Marcion, that Christ’s teaching corresponds with this Old Testament prophet.⁷⁹² Origen quotes Mic 7:5ab with regard to bishops and priests who had excommunicated him.⁷⁹³ This took place during a synod in Alexandria around 231.⁷⁹⁴ Micah’s warning not to trust in friends, leaders, and wives finds a particular echo in Jerome. Besides his exposition of Old Testament examples in his comments on the Hebrew text (see above), his comments on the Septuagint version are very elaborate. First, he admits that Pythagoreans gave positive examples of friendship, but in general Jerome is rather pessimistic about faithfulness in friendships, with references to Theophrastus, Cicero, Horace, and Paul (2 Tim 3:1– 4). He holds that true friendship is friendship with God and Christ.⁷⁹⁵ Second, Jerome applies the injunction not to trust in leaders to the leaders of God’s people, so that one should not trust in a bishop, a priest, a deacon, or in ‘whichever human rank’. He adds that one should be subject to those ranks in the Church, and honour a bishop, show deference to a priest, and stand up for a deacon, yet one should not hope in them but in the Lord.⁷⁹⁶ Undoubtedly he found such critical observations on the clergy in Origen’s Commentary. Apparently Jerome’s mention of ‘whichever human rank’ denotes the political leaders, but he cautiously pays no further attention to them. Third, concerning bedmates he reminds his readers that husbands should honour and love their wives, just as wives must love and fear their husbands, but with reference to Solomon (Eccl 7:29), Lucillus (in fact, Horace), Virgil, and once again Samson and Delilah he underlines the unreliability of wives.⁷⁹⁷ Jerome admits that the division in families mentioned in Mic 7:6 does not seem an adequate reason for the proposition in Mic 7:5, but he solves the incongruity by stressing that even sons and daughters may forget their education and rise up against their parents. He acknowledges that this does not hold for mothers-in-law and daughters-in-law, but quoting Terence he states that it is almost natural that they hate each other. However, he adds that this text holds for the end of the world and the generation that pre-

 Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem IV, 29, 14 (SC 456).  Origen, Epistula ad caros, in Jerome, Contra Rufinum II, 18 (SC 303); Fragmenta in Psalmos 117, 9a (Cadiou). For Origen’s critical view of the clergy of his days cf. § V.13.  See J.A. Fischer, ‘Die alexandrinischen Synoden gegen Origenes’, OstKSt 28 (1979), 3 – 16.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 5 – 7, 171– 216 (CCSL 76); see Exod 33:11; John 15:15.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 5 – 7, 216 – 236 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 5 – 7, 236 – 263 (CCSL 76).

V.36 Distorted relationships (Mic 7:5 – 6)

193

cedes the coming of Antichrist.⁷⁹⁸ Then Jerome applies Mic 7:5 – 6 to the heretics and the Church, in line with his interpretations of Mic 6:9c–7:4. The heretics pretend to be friends, and simple believers are warned not to trust in these bad leaders. In this interpretation, the bedmate that cannot be trusted is the flesh and its blandishments. As an example of heresy that illustrates the clause ‘a son dishonours [his] father’ (Mic 7:6a), Jerome refers to the view that the Son who is born from God denies and blasphemes the Creator.⁷⁹⁹ Alluding to the clause, ‘a daughter will rise up against her mother’ (Mic 7:6b), Jerome writes that a soul despises the heavenly Jerusalem, which is its mother, the Church, so that it dies. He admits that it seems difficult to propose a figurative interpretation (iuxta tropologiam) of the tense relationship between daughter-in-law and mother-in-law (Mic 7:6c), but he has one. In a spiritual reading of the Song of Songs the bridegroom of the soul is the Word of God, Christ. From the Gospel according to the Hebrews and Luke 1:35 Jerome derives that Christ is the Son of the Holy Spirit, which implies that the soul, which is Christ’s bride, has the Holy Spirit as its mother-in-law; Jerome adds that in Hebrew ‘spirit’ is feminine, rua (‫)רוּ ַח‬. He concludes that heretics who used to believe in the Scriptures, but then turn to new doctrines, do wrong to their mother-in-law, namely the Spirit who inspired the Scriptures.⁸⁰⁰ Jerome surely borrowed this interpretation from Origen, in whose works this saying from the Gospel according to the Hebrews is found already.⁸⁰¹ In the clause, ‘a man’s enemies [will be] the men in his household’ (Mic 7:6d), he interprets ‘man’ as Christ.⁸⁰² Jerome notes that ‘Christ is the head of every man’ (1 Cor 11:3) and ‘Christ is the head of the Church’ (Eph 5:23). People who are supposed to be in his house, the Church, are often his enemies. They do not withdraw from the head, but their self-willed interpretations of Scripture and dis-

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 5 – 7, 263 – 281 (CCSL 76). His quotation from Terence reads, Quid est hoc? Omnes socrus oderunt nurus (‘What is this? All mothers-in-law hate daughters-in-law’); cf. Terence, Hecyra 201 (LCL 23).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 5 – 7, 282– 301 (CCSL 76). He seems to allude to the gnostic view that Jesus, considered the Son of God, mocked at the Old Testament Creator. This may refer, e. g., to works in which Jesus calls the Creator Saklas, which means ‘Fool’ in Aramaic (‫)סכלא‬, as in Apocryphon of John (NHC II,1), 11, 17 (ed. and transl. M. Waldstein, F. Wisse, 71); Gospel of Judas 51, 8 – 23 (ed. and transl. Kasser, Wurst et al., 223).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 5 – 7, 301– 320 (CCSL 76). In the Gospel according to the Hebrews Christ says (l. 308 – 309), Modo tulit me mater mea sanctus Spiritus in uno capillorum meorum, ‘Just now my mother, the Holy Spirit, took me by one of my hairs’. Jerome notes that recently he translated this Gospel (l. 306 – 307). See J.K. Elliott, The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, Oxford 1993, 5; 9.  Origen, In Ioannem II, 87 (SC 120); Hom. in Ieremiam 15, 4 (SC 238).  In Mic 7:6d Jerome does not read ‘all’; In Michaeam II, 7, 5 – 7, 123; 321 (CCSL 76).

194

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

putes demonstrate that in fact they are enemies of the truth. At the end of his exposition Jerome notes that almost the same words (as in Mic 7:6) are found in the Gospel (he quotes Matt 10:35 – 36), although due to the different context they have another meaning there; but unfortunately he does not explain which other meaning he has in mind.⁸⁰³ He is not even sure whether the saying in the Gospel has been taken from the prophet or was spoken on Christ’s own authority; this is only known to the Lord, who has spoken both in the prophets and in the Gospels.⁸⁰⁴ Cyril observes that the separation referred to here – in fact, he writes ῥᾳθυμία, ‘indifference’ – can be conceived in two ways. Some people may show ‘unholy antipathy to their parents, while others do so to bring gladness to God and save their own souls’.⁸⁰⁵ For the second category, Cyril alludes to anchorites and monks. He argues that this is meant by Christ when he announced not to bring peace to the earth but division in the households (Luke 12:51– 53). Cyril highly recommends ‘such a splendid lack of affection’, and refers to David’s words, ‘My father and my mother abandoned me, but the Lord took me up’ (Ps 26:10).⁸⁰⁶

V.37 Israel’s salvation and its enemy’s devastation (Mic 7:7 – 13) Then suddenly the focus switches to a hopeful perspective and the downfall of the enemy. 7

But I, I shall look to the Lord, I shall wait upon God my Saviour; my God will listen to me. Do not rejoice over me, my enemy, because I have fallen, and I shall rise. For though I sit in darkness, the Lord shall enlighten me. 9I shall bear the wrath of the Lord because I sinned against him, until he justifies my sentence, and he will accomplish my judgment and lead me out into the light; I shall see his righteousness. 10And my enemy will see and will be covered with shame, she who says to me, ‘Where is the Lord your God?’ My eyes will look upon her. Now she will be trampled like mud in the streets, 11in a day of the plastering of brick. That day will be your destruction, and 12athat day 11cwill repudiate⁸⁰⁷ your customs

8

 Jerome does not give any clarification either in his In Matthaeum I, 10, 35 – 36 (SC 242).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 5 – 7, 320 – 337 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 5 – 6 (Pusey, 719, 26 – 720, 2); transl. Hill.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 5 – 6 (Pusey, 720, 2– 14); transl. Hill.  The four patristic commentators read ἀπώσεται instead of Rahlfs’ reading ἀποτρίψεται, ‘shall rub out’.

V.37 Israel’s salvation and its enemy’s devastation (Mic 7:7 – 13)

195

(νόμιμα). 12bAnd your cities will meet with levelling and with partition by the Assyrians, and your fortified cities with a partition from Tyre as far as the river of Syria and from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain⁸⁰⁸ – a day of water and confusion. 13And the land will be annihilated with its inhabitants for the fruits of their practices (Mic 7:7– 13).

Theodore does not explicitly identify the first-person speaker, but we may assume that in his understanding the prophet is speaking here in the name of Jerusalem. He explains that the speaker particularly addresses the Idumeans as his enemies who took pleasure in his fall (cf. Obad 10 – 14). Theodore interprets the image of the plastering of brick in terms of mud trampled and broken to pieces from which bricks are made, and applies it to the devastation of the speaker’s enemy. He comments that its laws (νόμοι) will be abolished and its cities destroyed by the Assyrians.⁸⁰⁹ In Jerome’s delimitation, Mic 7:7 belongs to the preceding lemma (Mic 7:5 – 7). In a short paraphrase of the Hebrew text he identifies ‘God my Saviour’ (‫יִ ְשִׁעי‬, ‘my salvation’, in the Masoretic Text) with ‘my Jesus’. Apart from a new paraphrase of the Greek version he hardly pays any attention to this verse.⁸¹⁰ In his literal interpretation (iuxta litteram) of the Hebrew text of his subsequent lemma (Mic 7:8 – 13), he clarifies that first (in Mic 7:8 – 10) Jerusalem, or the prophet in the name of the people, addresses the Babylonians and other nations, affirming that it will be led out of its captivity. His translation of the Hebrew text of Mic 7:11– 12 reads, 11

the day that your walls be built (ut aedificentur); in that day the law will be removed far away (in die illa longe fiet lex). 12In that day, even up to you Assur will come, and up to the fortified cities, and from the fortified cities up to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.

According to Jerome, this means that God answers Jerusalem that its walls that were destroyed by the Babylonians will be rebuilt. He notes that for ‘law’ one should rather understand, with Symmachus and Theodotion, ‘precept and order’ (ἐπιταγήν καὶ πρόσταγμα), which is said to refer to the oppression by

 The words, ‘and from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain’ (καὶ ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἕως θαλάσσης καὶ ἀπὸ τοῦ ὄρους ἕως τοῦ ὄρους), absent in Rahlfs’ edition, are found in the four patristic Commentaries, in agreement with the Hebrew text.  Theodore, In Michaeam 7, 7– 13 (Sprenger, 230, 3 – 232, 7). In several details, Theodore’s text diverges from Rahlfs’ edition.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 5 – 7, 154– 156; 343 – 349 (CCSL 76). For his interpretation of ‫יִ ְשִׁעי‬ as Jesus cf. his translation of Hab 3:18, exultabo in Deo Iesu meo, ‘I shall exult in God, my Jesus’ (Weber, Vulgata II, 1411).

196

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

the Babylonians. Mic 7:12 means, in Jerome’s view, that once Jerusalem’s walls will be rebuilt, it will not be subjected to the Babylonian empire anymore, but people will come to Jerusalem, from Assur and the fortified cities to the Jordan and from the Red Sea and from all the nations to the Dead Sea, and to Mount Zion from the mountains of the Persians and the Medes to which they had been deported; and the land of the Chaldeans and of those who destroyed Jerusalem will be laid waste.⁸¹¹ Jerome adds that according to the Jews of his days this text predicts that the walls of Jerusalem will be rebuilt by the Messiah, and that the holy Scriptures of the law and the prophets will be taken away from the Christians and handed over to the Jewish people.⁸¹² Jerome notes that, unlike Mic 7:11 in Hebrew which was directed to Jerusalem, his translation of Mic 7:11a in the Septuagint, ‘the day of the plastering of brick, your destruction’ (dies liturae lateris deletio tua), is said to Babylon that is due to be destroyed.⁸¹³ In that day Babylon’s customs or laws (legitima) that opposed God’s law will be removed, the Assyrians will fight its cities, the enemies will subjugate Mesopotamia and all of the Babylonian territories, from Tyre to the Tigris, from the Great Sea up to the Red Sea and India, from the Judean mountains to the mountains of the Medes and the Persians, and its land shall be laid waste.⁸¹⁴ Jerome hardly discusses the divergence between the Hebrew text and the Greek version of Mic 7:11– 12. He only pays attention to the toponym ‘from Tyre’ (de Tyro) in Mic 7:12c LXX, which is masor (‫ )ׇמצוֹר‬in the Hebrew text, as he notes. He explains that the Septuagint translator read two words here, ma and sor (rather ‫ ֵמ‬and ‫)צוֹר‬, ‘from Tyre’, whereas ‫ ׇמצוֹר‬read as one word means munitio, ‘fortification’; therefore the other Greek translations read περιοχή (‘fortification’), περίφραγμα

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 8 – 13, 350 – 404 (CCSL 76). The quotation of Mic 7:11– 12 according to the Hebrew text in l. 358 – 362.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 8 – 13, 404– 410 (CCSL 76). According to Midrash Rabbah Exodus 47, 1 (transl. Lehrman), God foresaw that the gentiles, i. e. Christians, will take the Scriptures from the Jews, but this passage does not refer to Mic 7:11– 12. Targum Ps.-Jonathan Mic 7:11 reads, ‘At that time the congregations of Israel shall be rebuilt; at that time the decrees of the nations shall be abolished’ (transl. Cathcart, Gordon, 127, including italics; ed. Sperber, 450).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 8 – 13, 410 – 414 (CCSL 76). The translation of latus, lateris as ‘brick’ is given neither in Blaise, Dictionnaire Latin-Français nor in Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary. However, in Jerome’s translation of the Old Testament latus is the common rendering of ‫ְלֵב ָנה‬, ‘brick’; see Gen 11:3; Exod 1:14; 5:7– 8, 16, 18 – 19; Isa 9:10 (9:9); 65:3; Ezek 4:1 (Vulgata, ed. Weber). Likewise, latus is his translation of πλίνθος, ‘brick’, in Mic 7:11 LXX.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 8 – 13, 414– 427 (CCSL 76).

V.37 Israel’s salvation and its enemy’s devastation (Mic 7:7 – 13)

197

(‘enclosure’) or πολιορκία (‘siege’), as renderings of the term ‫ׇמצוֹר‬.⁸¹⁵ Undoubtedly Jerome derives this information from Origen’s Commentary. Cyril comments on Mic 7:7– 11b that repentant Jerusalem anticipates the end of its captivity and Cyrus’ victory over the Babylonians, thanks to God’s compassion. Jerusalem would not ask for assistance by Egypt and Assyria and trust in idols anymore, but it would expect its salvation from the Lord. Babylon is the enemy that is addressed and that will be destroyed by the Persians and Medes under the command of Cyrus.⁸¹⁶ In Cyril’s view this passage on repentant Jerusalem is an intermezzo, for the following lines in Mic 7:11c–13 take up what was said in Mic 7:5 – 6, so that he interprets the customs (νόμιμα) that will be repudiated in terms of the dysfunctional family relationships within Israel. He also proposes to interpret the νόμιμα with regard to the people’s idol worship, as he did in his comments on Mic 6:15 (§ V.33). In his view, the announcement of partition and destruction of the land (Mic 7:12b) means that the whole land will be invaded and completely plundered.⁸¹⁷ However, Cyril’s comments lack precision because he does not clarify the role of the Assyrians in Mic 7:12. Perhaps the reference to this people made him understand that the prophet’s attention switched from Israel’s liberation from the Babylonians in Mic 7:7– 11b to the disorder and disasters – caused by the Assyrians – that it would have to undergo first, but on this point his comments are vague. In any case Cyril does not give Jerome’s (or possibly rather Origen’s) unhistorical interpretation that Babylon would be conquered by the Assyrians. Theodoret does not share Cyril’s comments, for he falls back on Theodore’s interpretation concerning the Idumeans. He explicates that in Mic 7:7 the prophet speaks in the name of Jerusalem. Theodoret clarifies Theodore’s understanding of the image of clay and brick: ‘just as mud that is used for plastering and sealing of bricks is trampled by all passersby when thrown out of the window so that the clods are broken as required, so you (i. e. Idumea) will be … trampled by all the neighbours.’ Idumea’s ‘lawless laws (οἱ παράνομοι νόμοι) will come to an end’, its cities will be sieged. Because Tyre and Syrian cities too took pleasure in the misfortunes of the Jews, the prophets says – in Theodoret’s understanding – that they would also be plundered by the Assyrians and Babylonians, from the Red Sea in the east as far as the west, and from the mountain of the Idumeans as

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 8 – 13, 427– 433 (CCSL 76). In present-day translations ‫ ׇמצוֹר‬is conceived as a less common name for ‘Egypt’; see Andersen, Freedman, Micah, 586.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 7– 11 (Pusey, 720, 15 – 725, 7). Cf. e. g. 2 Chr 36:22– 23; Isa 45:1– 3.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 12– 13 (Pusey, 727, 22– 729, 11).

198

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

far as Lebanon.⁸¹⁸ Apparently Theodoret felt the difficulty of the Assyrians in this context and solved it by adding the Babylonians. The collection of Biblical texts on penance attributed to Cyprian that was quoted in § V.34, also includes Mic 7:8 – 9a as a testimony to God’s forgiveness of sins for penitent Christians.⁸¹⁹ Likewise, in a work addressing Novatian of Rome and also allegedly written by Cyprian, Mic 7:8 – 10b serves as an argument against Novatian’s stern position towards Christians who had sinned severely. The passage is considered to be spoken by the Holy Spirit in the name of such fallen Christians (lapsi), which implies that the author proposes that they pray these words as a plea for God’s mercy.⁸²⁰ Likewise, Ambrose reads Mic 7:8 as the testimony attributed to the soul that, in spite of its previous conversion, stumbled and fell back (cf. §§ V.31 and 34). Alluding to the soul’s mishaps formulated in Mic 7:2, 5 – 6, he writes that (once again) it ‘is converted (convertitur) and begins to expect God’. In his view, the soul then addresses its true enemy, the flesh, with the words of Mic 7:8.⁸²¹ This implies that he was lenient towards fallen but penitent Christians and admitted them to be reconciled with the Church. He continues that in the fight with the evil power that resists the soul it speaks the following words, ‘“I shall bear the wrath of the Lord” (Mic 7:9a) – for either he chastises the fallen [soul] or he gave you a[n evil] power to afflict [you] – “because I sinned” (Mic 7:9b); yet I shall bear [this], “until he justifies my case”’ (Mic 7:9c). Ambrose adds that only after confessing its sins and paying their price (i. e. doing penance) can the soul be justified. Once it is justified, it can say, in Ambrose’s translation, ‘he (i. e. the Lord) will bring forth (educet) my judgment’ (cf. Mic 7:9d) and ‘he will lead me out (educet) into the light’ (Mic 7:9e) so that ‘I see his righteousness’ (Mic 7:9 f).⁸²² The soul’s enemy (inimica), i. e. the depravity of the devil, will see the light of its reconciliation, ‘and she who now says, “where is your God?”, will be covered with shame’ (Mic 7:10a–c); for in the soul its enemy will see the

 Theodoret, In Michaeam 7, 7– 13 (PG 81, 1781A–1784A); quotation: transl. Hill, adapted. Theodoret’s text of this passage largely coincides with Theodore’s.  Ps.-Cyprian, Exhortatio de paenitentia (PL 4, 866C).  Ps.-Cyprian, Ad Nouatianum 12 (CCSL 4, 146).  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 20 (CSEL 82, 1).  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 21 (CSEL 82, 1). His rendering of ποιήσει τὸ κρίμα μου, ‘he will accomplish my judgment’ (Mic 7:9d), as educet iudicium meum, ‘he will bring forth my judgment’, is due to his twofold use of ἐξάξει, ‘he will lead out’, in Mic 7:9e, καὶ ἐξάξει με εἰς τὸ φῶς, ‘he will lead me out into the light’. This is another example of Ambrose’s hasty reading of the text, as in Mic 7:2a (§ V.34).

V.37 Israel’s salvation and its enemy’s devastation (Mic 7:7 – 13)

199

Lord’s mercy and love.⁸²³ Ambrose clarifies that this enemy says, ‘where is your God?’, when the soul suffers temptations like bodily pain or the loss of children; but it should not listen to her.⁸²⁴ The application of this passage to the vicissitudes of the soul comes back in Jerome’s comments. After his ‘literal’ interpretation of the Hebrew text, he proceeds to his spiritual interpretation (ad intelligentiam spiritalem) based on the Septuagint.⁸²⁵ Although Jerusalem is not mentioned explicitly in this passage, in his comments on the Hebrew text Jerome had explained that this city is speaking here. Now he proposes that Jerusalem represents each soul in which the temple of the Lord has been built. Later on it was overcome by sins and led into captivity in Babylon, which means the disorder of the present world. In this sense it is the soul that addresses the hostile power that exercises control over this world (Mic 7:8). But in its darkness it will be enlightened by the Lord and repent, so that it can say, ‘I shall bear the wrath of the Lord, because I sinned against him, until he justifies my cause, and accomplishes my judgment and leads me out into the light; and I shall see his righteousness’ (Mic 7:9). Jerome explains that Christ is righteousness (1 Cor 1:30) for the penitent soul whose wounds, i. e. sins, are healed.⁸²⁶ Most likely Jerome borrowed this exposition from Origen’s Commentary. ⁸²⁷ He continues that Babylon will see this and be covered with shame (Mic 7:10ab), Babylon that first said to Jerusalem, ‘where is your God?’ (Mic 7:10c), thinking that it could not be healed. Then ‘our eyes’ will look back at Babylon, seeing that is trampled like mud in the streets (Mic 7:10de). However, because the aim of punishments is something good and sorrow leads to healing, bricks will be made of its mud (Mic 7:11a).⁸²⁸ Apparently Jerome means that the production of bricks out of mud is a symbol of the good effect of Babylon’s (i. e.

 Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 21 (CSEL 82, 1). Because Mic 7:10a introduces a female enemy (ἡ ἐχθρά μου, inimica mea), Ambrose identifies it as the depravity of the devil (diaboli nequitia), not as the devil himself. In Mic 7:8a, however, he identified ἡ ἐχθρά μου as the flesh (see § V.37).  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 22 (CSEL 82, 1).  Jerome’s translation of Mic 7:8 LXX reads, ‘Do not dance over me (ne insultes mihi), my enemy, because I have fallen, and I shall rise’ (In Michaeam II, 7, 8 – 13, 364– 365 [CCSL 76]). Both Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 82, and Cazares, Scheck, Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets 106, interpret ne insultes mihi as ‘do not insult me’ (‘ne m’insultez point’). This translation is possible, but since the Septuagint reads μὴ ἐπίχαιρέ μοι, ‘do not rejoice over me’, it is unlikely that Jerome gave this twist to the unambiguous Greek words. Therefore the meaning of ‘to leap, jump, dance’ given by Glare, Oxford Latin Dictionary, 933, is preferable.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 8 – 13, 435 – 488 (CCSL 76).  See e. g. Origen, Hom. in Ezechielem 1, 3, 74– 88; 12, 2, 34– 46 (SC 352).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 8 – 13, 488 – 496 (CCSL 76).

200

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

the present world’s) punishments. The view of the wholesome consequence of punishments is typically Origenian,⁸²⁹ so that it is clear that Jerome is still following Origen’s Commentary. Then he explains that in that day Babylon will abandon its old errors, which is in line with his observation on the positive effects of the punishments it must undergo, but the following comments do not fit in this approach. Alluding to Mic 7:11– 13 he describes that Babylon’s cities will be besieged and split up by the Assyrians, and from Tyre – whose name he interprets as συνοχή or angustia, ‘narrowness’⁸³⁰ – other powers will rise, and there will be tensions and wars from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain. All this refers to warfare in the spiritual domain, which is confirmed by Jerome’s subsequent observation that when Satan has been divided against himself, his reign will be destroyed (cf. Matt 12:26). He announces terrible conflicts at the end of the world, when the walls of Jerusalem will be built, Babylon will fall and the Assyrians and Tyrians will fight each other as well, but this concerns the fights of demons (id est uniuersae inter se pugnabunt daemonum nationes, ‘all the nations of demons will fight each other’). Then the reign of the Lord Jesus will be established and all creatures will confess that he is Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:10 – 11). To conclude, Jerome assures that the revolt of the demons advances the virtues, since Babylon and its inhabitants will be destroyed so that it will no longer produce Babylonian (i. e. demonic) fruits (cf. Mic 7:13).⁸³¹ The incoherence between these observations and the foregoing comments that dealt with the positive effect of Babylon’s punishments and its rejection of former errors is problematic. Furthermore, Jerome does not clarify what the reconstruction of Jerusalem’s walls (‘in a day of plastering of brick’, Mic 7:11a) means spiritually. I assume that Jerome hastily and carelessly drew on Origen’s Commentary, and forgot to include some essential elements of the latter’s allegorization of this passage. As for Jerusalem, it cannot be that Origen hinted at the concrete reconstruction of its walls,⁸³² but in Jerome’s days this clause may have evoked the wall built at the end of the third century.⁸³³ Cyril, having interpreted Mic 7:7– 11b factually and historically (ἱστορικῶς), also applies this passage to the victory over the enemy by the spiritual Zion, i. e. to the Church’s victory over its persecutors and heretics, and to the victory

 See §§ V.17, 21, 26, 33.  This explanation derives from ‫צור‬, ‘einschliessen, belagern’; see L. Koehler, W. Baumgartner et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament III, Leiden 19833, 952.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 8 – 13, 496 – 523 (CCSL 76); quotation l. 516.  See Origen, De principiis II, 11, 2– 3; IV, 3, 8 – 10 (Behr).  See M. Broshi, Y. Tsafrir, ‘Excavations at the Zion Gate, Jerusalem’, IEJ 27 (1977), 28 – 37 (34– 35), despite Eusebius’ observations quoted in § V.18.

V.37 Israel’s salvation and its enemy’s devastation (Mic 7:7 – 13)

201

of the human soul that repented from its sins and received the grace of salvation through Christ. He argues that Christ is the righteousness of God (Mic 7:9 f; 1 Cor 1:30), who came to justify sinners by faith (Mic 7:9bc). The inventor of lawlessness (i. e. the devil) was shamed (Mic 7:10ab), and the day of Christ means destruction of lawlessness (Mic 7:11b) when those who come to him are baptized, sealed with the Spirit (Eph 1:13), and enrolled among God’s children.⁸³⁴ This baptismal interpretation is inspired by Mic 7:8b, ‘the Lord shall enlighten me’, and Mic 7:9e, ‘(he will) lead me out into the light’, since in the ancient Church illumination (φωτισμός and φώτισμα) was a common term for baptism.⁸³⁵ As in his historical interpretation, Cyril sees a shift between Mic 7:7– 11b and 7:11c–13, for he applies the latter section to people who distort the right teachings (τὰ ὀρθὰ … δόγματα) of the Church. Like cities they have fallen captive and met with partition by the enemies (Mic 7:12b), i. e. the cosmic powers of this age (cf. Eph 6:12).⁸³⁶ Cyril does not explicate which ecclesiastical opponents in dogmatic debates he has in mind, but instead he states that this also applies to the Jews who outraged Christ and handed him over to be crucified. He explains that because of ‘the fruits of their practices’ (Mic 7:13) they have been plundered and destroyed.⁸³⁷ Most of Hesychius’ notes on this passage have a Christian purport. He rephrases Mic 7:7 as, ‘I shall look up and I fix the eye of hope on him (i. e. God).’ On Mic 7:8a, ‘Do not rejoice over me, my enemy’, he observes, ‘the Church speaks to the Synagogue’, i. e. to the Jews. He briefly comments on the following words in Mic 7:8 as follows. ‘I have fallen’, he explains as ‘through sin’; ‘I shall rise’ as, ‘turning back’ (ἐπιστρέφουσα); ‘though I sit in darkness’ as, ‘in the time of sin’; and, ‘the Lord shall enlighten me’, as, ‘through repentance and baptism’ (cf. Cyril). In Mic 7:9 Hesychius interprets ‘the wrath of the Lord’ by referring to ‘the corrective chastisement emanating from wrath (τὴν ἐκ τῆς ὀργῆς παιδείαν)’, which implies that the Lord’s wrath has a positive purpose; ‘until he justifies my cause’, by rephrasing it as, ‘until he declares me free from sin’; ‘he will accomplish my judgment’, as, ‘condemning the one who erred’; ‘the light’ as ‘the spiritual [light]’ (τὸ νοητόν); ‘his righteousness’ refers to ‘Christ; for he is given us as righteousness from God’ (1 Cor 1:30; cf. Cyril). In Mic 7:10, the reason why ‘my enemy (i. e. still the Synagogue) will be covered with shame’ is that she is ‘seeing the glory with which I (i. e. the Church) have been clothed after my repentance’. Then, ‘My eyes will look upon her’, viz., ‘in the time of the coming judgment’;  Cyril, In Michaeam 7, 10 – 11 (Pusey, 725, 8 – 727, 21).  J. Ysebaert, Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origins and Early Development (GCP 1), Nijmegen 1962, 173 – 176.  Cyril, In Michaeam 7, 12– 13 (Pusey, 729, 12– 16).  Cyril, In Michaeam 7, 12– 13 (Pusey, 729, 19 – 730, 7).

202

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

‘like mud in the streets’ is clarified as, ‘for such mud is forcefully trampled on’. In Mic 7:11, ‘That day’ is interpreted as, ‘in which people will trample on you (ἐν ᾗ γενήσῃ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰς καταπάτημα)’, apparently on the Synagogue; the ‘customs (νόμιμα)’ are those, according to Hesychius, ‘through which you (i. e. the Jews) served the shadow and the idols’ (for ‘the shadow’ of the law, cf. Col 2:17; Heb 10:1). He holds that in Mic 7:12 ‘the Assyrians’ are meant spiritually (τῶν νοητῶν); his comment on the words, ‘from Tyre as far as the river’, probably means, ‘for in those [areas] Israel had acquired [land]’ (ἐν τούτοις γὰρ ὁ Ἰσραὴλ ἐκέκτητο). In Mic 7:13 ‘their practices’ are qualified as ‘clearly of evil’.⁸³⁸

V.38 Israel’s peace and vindication (Mic 7:14 – 17) The perspective of salvation and victory is pursued. 14

Shepherd your people with your rod, the sheep of your inheritance, dwelling alone in a forest in the midst of Carmel. They will graze on Bashan and Gilead as the days of eternity. 15 And as in the days of your departure from Egypt you will see marvels. 16Nations will see and be ashamed of all their might, they will put [their] hands on their mouth, their ears will be deafened. 17They will lick dust like snakes trailing earth along, they will be confounded in their confinement; they will be astonished at the Lord our God and they will be afraid of you (Mic 7:14– 17).

According to Theodore, who reads, ‘shepherd your people with a rod of your tribe’ (Mic 7:14a), this is said to the people after God had freed it from the enemy and made it live in peace.⁸³⁹ He does not explicate which historical context he has in mind, but given his reference to the Idumeans taking pleasure in Jerusalem’s fall in his interpretation of Mic 7:7 (§ V.37) he was clearly thinking of Israel’s return from the captivity in Babel. Unlike my translation of Mic 7:14c, ‘dwelling alone in a forest in the midst of Carmel’ (which agrees with all modern translations of the Septuagint), Theodore has one lemma that runs up to ‘forest’, so that the beginning of his following lemma reads, ‘In the midst of Carmel they will graze on Bashan and Gilead as the days of eternity (καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ αἰῶνος)’ (Mic 7:14c–e). He does not discuss the geographical problem created by this delimitation, and only observes that the people will obtain the same places as it received after coming from Egypt (i. e. when it conquered Canaan under

 Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 178 – 196 (Eriksson, 161– 162).  Theodore, In Michaeam 7, 12– 17 (Sprenger, 232, 7– 233, 13). His reading of Mic 7:14a is, Ποίμαινε τὸν λαόν σου ἐν ῥάβδῳ φυλῆς σου (Sprenger, 232, 10).

V.38 Israel’s peace and vindication (Mic 7:14 – 17)

203

Joshua). We may conclude that he reads the words, καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ αἰῶνος, as a reference to this period.⁸⁴⁰ Like Theodore, Theodoret reads, ‘shepherd your people with a rod of your tribe’ (Mic 7:14a). He explicitly interprets this passage as the proclamation of peace after the people’s return from Babylon. He thinks that it refers to the tribe of Judah, which had become the leader of the other tribes after their return, and that the division between the tribes did not exist anymore. Like Theodore, he connects the words ‘in the midst of Carmel’ with the following clause, and he interprets the toponyms of Carmel, Bashan, and Gilead as the extent of the land they would then receive, as after its departure from Egypt.⁸⁴¹ Hesychius notes that ‘dwelling alone’ (Mic 7:14c) means that they do not want to have fellowship (ἐπιμιγνῆναι) with the gentiles (but see below for a ‘Christian’ interpretation of this scholion),⁸⁴² and that ‘Carmel’ (Mic 7:14c) is the residence of the prophets. Given Elijah’s words and actions at Mount Carmel according to 3 Kgdms 18:17– 40 the prophets living at Carmel served Baal. This must be the reason why Hesychius adds, ‘for they made it a forest (δρυμός, Mic 7:14c), that is, a wood (ὕλη) fruitless because of [their] unbelief’.⁸⁴³ This confirms that in Hesychius’ view these prophets did not represent the God of Israel. Jerome and Cyril give only spiritual interpretations of this passage (see below). Cyprian includes Mic 7:14– 18a in his collection of testimonies under the heading, ‘That fear is the foundation and strength of hope and faith’.⁸⁴⁴ This means that he quotes this passage because of the fear of the nations expressed in Mic 7:16 – 17, especially at the end, ‘and they will be afraid of you’. Jerome explains that in Mic 7:14a (‘Shepherd your people with your rod’), ‘God the Father speaks to the Son, i. e. to our Lord Jesus Christ, … because he is the good shepherd and lays down his life for his sheep’ (John 10:11).⁸⁴⁵ With

 Theodore, In Michaeam 7, 14– 15 (Sprenger, 232, 18 – 25). The translation ἐν μέσῳ τοῦ Καρμήλου goes back to the Hebrew words ‫ ְבּתֺוְך ַּכ ְרֶמל‬, which may also be interpreted as ‘in the midst of an orchard’; see Wolff, Micha, 187; 201– 202. Carmel is in north-west Israel, Bashan and Gilead are situated east of the river Jordan.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 7, 11– 17 (PG 81, 1784BC).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 198 (Eriksson, 162).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 199 (Eriksson, 162). The second part of the scholion reads, δρυμὸν γὰρ αὐτὴν τουτέστιν ὕλην ἄκαρπον ἀπιστίας ἐποίησαν.  Cyprian, Testimonia ad Quirinum III, 20, 102– 111 (CCSL 3). Cf. § V.32.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 14– 17, 541– 546 (CCSL 76). To this Christological interpretation Targum Ps.-Jonathan Mic 7:14a, ‘Sustain your people by your Memra’ (transl. Cathcart, Gordon, including italics) gives a remote parallel.

204

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

reference to Ps 78:13, ‘But we are your people and the sheep of your pasture’, he distinguishes between ‘people’ and ‘sheep’ (Mic 7:14ab). ‘People’ (populus, λαός) is said to refer to all who use their reason (rationabiles), whereas ‘sheep’ are those who do not yet use their reason and content themselves with simplicity; however, they also belong to God’s inheritance. Jerome argues that both the people and the sheep need the rod of the shepherd, as Paul says, ‘What do you prefer? Am I to come to you with a rod, or with love in a spirit of gentleness?’ (1 Cor 4:21).⁸⁴⁶ Jerome’s distinction between people and sheep is Origenian,⁸⁴⁷ and therefore we may assume that he also found it in Origen’s Commentary on Micah. Next, Jerome interprets ‘the people’ in the sense of the people of Israel that was ‘stiff-necked’ (e. g. Exod 33:3). He explains that for this reason Moses beat them with the rod of the law, whereas this rod was thrown out of the hands of the apostles who ‘spoke wisdom among the mature (perfectos)’ (1 Cor 2:6), and because ‘perfect love (perfecta dilectio) casts out fear’ (1 John 4:18). Jerome reacts to the objection how it is possible that God said to Christ, the good shepherd, to use a rod, since it is better not to use one than to rebuke peoples (populos) and sheep with it. He explains that Christ had promised his apostles that they would do greater signs than he had done (cf. John 14:12) and that here the Lord ‘still spoke to the carnal Israel, and not yet to the Israel that was able to know the mysteries completely’ (i. e. the mature, perfect Christians); therefore this rod, i. e. the severity of the law, was taken away from the apostles, as its severity was tempered by the mildness of the gospel.⁸⁴⁸ It is strange that Jerome does not differentiate between his two interpretations of ‘people’, first in the positive sense of rational beings who use their reason, second in the sense of carnal, stiff-necked Israel, and third as a reference to the peoples in plural. If the supposition that he derived these interpretations from Origen’s Commentary is correct, we may assume that in this work the different interpretations of ‘people’ were more clearly distinguished. In addition, Jerome gives yet another interpretation, pointing out that ‘these peoples (populi) and these sheep’ will be beaten with a rod because they had lived ‘alone in a forest’ (Mic 7:14c). He associates these words first with those who withdrew from the

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 14– 17, 546 – 553 (CCSL 76).  Origen, Hom. in Genesin 2, 3, 39 – 53 (SC 7bis); Hom. in Leuiticum 3, 3, 64– 86 (SC 286); Selecta in Psalmos 22, 4– 5 (PG 12, 1261B; 1261D); Selecta in Psalmos 99, 3 (J. Pitra, Analecta Sacra spicilegio Solesmensi parata 3, 190); see F. Ledegang, Mysterium Ecclesiae: Images of the Church and its Members in Origen (BEThL 156), Leuven 2001, 374– 375; 572; 589 – 590; for the plain believers see af Hällström, Fides Simpliciorum according to Origen of Alexandria. Cf. Origen, Fragmenta in Psalmos 2, 9 (PG 12, 1108D) for his use of 1 Cor 4:21.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 14– 17, 553 – 572 (CCSL 76).

V.38 Israel’s peace and vindication (Mic 7:14 – 17)

205

Church to participate in banquets of their pagan friends, and second, with those who seek a solitary life out of hatred for humankind, like Timon of Athens.⁸⁴⁹ Jerome clarifies that the solitary lives of Elijah and John the Baptist should not be condemned, but he states that an arrogant anchorite who lives in a forest of vices (in saltu uitiorum) needs to be corrected with a rod.⁸⁵⁰ In this critical remark on anchorites he allegorizes the term ‘forest’ by qualifying it as ‘a forest of vices’, but it seems inevitable that he also has in mind the forests to which contemporaneous anchorites had withdrawn. He praises the virtues of anchorites who do not live in a forest, but probably this refers to the ‘forest of vices’ again.⁸⁵¹ In any case Jerome criticizes the anchorite who merely seeks the pleasure of rest, does not sweat in the labour of Christ, does not work for food with his own hands (1 Cor 4:12), and is arrogant. Such an anchorite ‘dwells in a forest and among unfruitful trees’.⁸⁵² Like Theodore and Theodoret, Jerome connects the words, ‘in the midst of Carmel’, with the following sentence. Thanks to his spiritual explanation he does not feel a geographical problem here. He interprets Carmel as ‘knowledge of the circumcision’, Bashan as ‘shame’ (confusio), and Gilead as ‘transfer of the testimony’ (transmigratio testimonii). He explains that God’s people and sheep that first grazed away from the Lord’s flock, and lived outside his Church in a forest of errors, will be transferred to the knowledge of the spiritual circumcision (cf. Rom 2:29). Then they will be embarrassed about their sins, and this embarrassment will lead them to life.⁸⁵³ This interpretation applies to the Jews who practiced physical circumcision, and subsequently understood that only spiritual circumcision in a Christian sense would lead them to salvation. Without marking a clear transition Jerome then switches to the first person plural, writing that ‘when we know the true circumcision and are

 For the legendary misanthrope Timon of Athens (5th c. BCE) see e. g. Lucian of Samosata, Timon (LCL 54, 325 – 393); Diogenes Laertius, Vitae philosophorum IX, 112– 115 (LCL 185).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 14– 17, 572– 580 (CCSL 76). For Elijah and John the Baptist see 3 Kgdms 17:2– 5; Matt 3:1; 11:7.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 14– 17, 581– 582 (CCSL 76). Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 88, translates Qui solus habitat, et non habitat in saltu as ‘Celui qui habite seul, sans habiter dans la forêt des vices’.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 14– 17, 582– 586 (CCSL 76). Circa 375 – 377 Jerome himself led a solitary life near Chalcis ad Belum in Syria, east of Antioch, where he came to know other hermits; see J.N.D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies, London 1975, 46 – 56; Fürst, Hieronymus, 50 – 52; 153.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 14– 17, 586 – 600 (CCSL 76). His interpretation of Carmel derives from ‫ נכר‬hif‘il, ‘to know’, and ‫מול‬, ‘to circumcise’, of Bashan from ‫בושׁ‬, ‘to be ashamed’, and of Gilead from ‫ גלה‬hif‘il, ‘to deport’, and ‫ֵעד‬, ‘testimony’. For the interpretation of these toponyms see below for Cyril, who preserved their Greek versions.

206

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

ashamed of our sins, then we will be in Gilead, which means “transmigration of the testimony”, in the Church of Christ, to which the testimonies of the law and the prophets have passed on (transcenderunt)’. This will happen to ‘us’ as in days of old (secundum dies antiquos) when we (spiritually) left Egypt (Mic 7:14e–15).⁸⁵⁴ Here Jerome apparently speaks for the gentile Christians, unless he identifies himself with the Jewish Christians for whom he suddenly – and surprisingly, in that case – uses the first person plural. Probably this transition was marked more clearly in Origen’s Commentary from which he drew this interpretation.⁸⁵⁵ Following the sequence of Micah’s book, Jerome notes that then the nations will see and be ashamed of all the violence that they blindly enforced on God’s people (Mic 7:16ab), but their shame (confusio) will make them realize their own evils. For that reason they will put their hands on their mouth (Mic 7:16c), feeling no freedom to speak, but ‘the hands of the righteous will open their mouths, receiving the possibility of speaking with God because of the good work (ex opere bono)’. Also the ears of the nations will be deafened (Mic 7:16d), because evil not only made them blind but deaf as well, ‘for they did not want to hear the voice of the enchanters and of the sorcerer who enchants wisely’ (cf. Ps 57:6). Jerome adds that, ‘according to Isaiah (6:9 – 10), with their ears they will hear heavily, although it is a far lesser evil to hear heavily than not to hear at all, and to become deaf so that one does not hear the word of truth’.⁸⁵⁶ The beginning of this interpretation reflects the end of the persecution of the Church thanks to Constantine and the freedom of speech that the Christians had received since then. Jerome does not explain what he means by the ‘good work’ (opus bonum). It may refer to this shift of the former enemies of the Church, when they changed their policy towards the Christians, but it may also refer to salvation by Christ (cf. opus Dei, Rom 14:20). After this allusion to the freedom given to the Church, Jerome comments on the subsequent words on the nations being deafened by evil, which goes back to the preceding period, before the gentiles granted freedom of religion to the Christians. The reason for their deafening that he gives by referring to Ps 57:6 in a positive understanding of the enchanters and the wise sorcerer is Origenian.⁸⁵⁷ Likewise, Jerome applies

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 14– 17, 605 – 610 (CCSL 76). In his lemma Jerome translates καθὼς αἱ ἡμέραι τοῦ αἰῶνος (Mic 7:14e) as iuxta dies pristinos (l. 536), but in his comments he reads secundum dies antiquos (l. 609).  For Augustine’s quotation of Mic 7:15 – 16 see § V.39.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 14– 17, 615 – 631 (CCSL 76).  Origen, Dialogus cum Heraclide 17– 18 (SC 67); Hom. in Iesu Nave 20, 2 (SC 71); Philocalia 12 (SC 302); Jerome also adopted Origen’s interpretation of Ps 57:6 in his In Isaiam II, 7 (AGLB 23), on Isa 3:3b.

V.38 Israel’s peace and vindication (Mic 7:14 – 17)

207

the image of the snakes (Mic 7:17ab) to these gentiles who do earthly works and will have to undergo God’s judgment. They will be astonished, not at the Lord their God, for he is not their God yet, but ‘at the Lord our God’ (Mic 7:17c),⁸⁵⁸ i. e. of the Christians whom they had harassed. Jerome considers the last words, ‘and they will be afraid of you’ (Mic 7:17d), an ἀποστροφή, an aside spoken to Christ, which he underlines by quoting Ps 110:10a, ‘The beginning of wisdom is fear of the Lord.’⁸⁵⁹ This implies that according to Jerome both the first and the last words of this passage are spoken to Christ. Exceptionally Cyril does not first situate this passage in the context of Israel’s history. He holds that in the exhortation that he reads as, ‘Shepherd your people, your tribe, with your rod, the sheep of your inheritance’ (Mic 7:14ab), it is either God the Father who speaks to the Son, or the prophet who addresses Emmanuel (i. e. Christ). In his view, the ‘people’ and ‘sheep’ are the two peoples of Jews and gentiles who came to believe in Christ and were reconciled by him (Eph 2:14– 16), the ‘sheep’ representing the Jews.⁸⁶⁰ Cyril explains that Christ’s people, tribe, sheep, and inheritance have not been justified by works of the law, but rather by faith.⁸⁶¹ Christ does not shepherd them with an iron rod, as Ps 2:9 says, but with gentleness and ‘using moderate fear to check the tendencies of the believers to indifference’. So while he crushes with an iron rod those who do not believe in him, he pastures the believers among lilies and leads them to good grazing and a rich place (cf. Ps 22:1– 2). Cyril explicates this image of the rich pasture as a reference to the inspired Scripture whose hidden meaning is clarified by the Spirit.⁸⁶² He applies the words, ‘dwelling alone’ (Mic 7:14c), to the Christians in general who ‘parted company with others whose concern is

 Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 14– 17, 631– 642 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 14– 17, 642– 643 (CCSL 76). For Jerome’s (and probably Origen’s) emphasis on the fear of the gentiles, cf. Cyprian above. For another ἀποστροφή in Jerome’s comments see § V.15.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 14– 15 (Pusey, 730, 8 – 12; 730, 22– 731, 12). In Mic 7:14a he reads, Ποίμαινε λαόν σου ἐν ῥάβδῳ φυλήν σου. It is puzzling that in this passage Cyril interprets John 10:16, where Christ says, ‘I have other sheep as well’, with regard to ‘the circumcision’, i. e. the Jews, whereas in his In Ioannem VI, 10, 16 (ed. Pusey, 236 – 238) he correctly explains it as a reference to the gentiles. In Glaphyra in Genesim I, 3 (PG 69, 40C), Cyril explains that in Mic 7:14ab the prophetic speech addresses Emmanuel; according to PG 69 he reads there Ποίμαινε τὸν λαόν σου ἐν ῥάβδῳ φυλακῆς σου, ‘Shepherd your people with the rod of your surveillance.’  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 14– 15 (Pusey, 731, 13 – 15). Cf. Gal 2:16; Rom 3:28 – 30; § V.18; Fairbairn, ‘Justification in St. Cyril of Alexandria’, and Ondrey, The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture, 192– 193.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 14– 15 (Pusey, 731, 19 – 732, 10). Quotation: transl. Hill.

208

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

only for the things of the earth’. According to Cyril, the ‘forest’ refers to moral and doctrinal instruction, and instead of commenting on the words, ‘in the midst of Carmel’ (Mic 7:14c), he explains that Christians dwell ‘on a mountain’, in the spiritual sense of what is elevated. Those who have been instructed by Christ ‘will graze on Bashan and Gilead’ (Mic 7:14d), places that have abundant fodder for the flocks. Then Cyril defends his spiritual instead of a ‘corporeal and as it were sensory’ reading of the Scriptures, which does not hold for a short time but ‘as the days of eternity’ (Mic 7:14e),⁸⁶³ i. e. forever. We see that, unlike Theodore and Jerome, Cyril does not connect the words, ‘in the midst of Carmel’ (Mic 7:14c), with the following sentence but with the preceding expression ‘in a forest’, although he ignores the toponym Carmel and only says that Christians dwell ‘on a mountain’. Before considering the meaning of Carmel, Cyril applies the reference to Israel’s liberation from its slavery in Egypt (Mic 7:15) to the Christians whom Christ freed from the hand of Satan, has baptized in his name, gives himself for food, and leads to the heavenly Jerusalem.⁸⁶⁴ Only then does Cyril return to the meaning of the three toponyms, which corresponds with Jerome’s Commentary, and implies that he consulted either this work or, more probably because of the original Greek terms, Origen’s Commentary. Carmel he interprets as ‘knowledge of the circumcision’ (περιτομῆς ἐπίγνωσις), Bashan as ‘shame’ (αἰσχύνη) and Gilead as ‘transfer of the covenant’ (διαθήκης μετάθεσις). Like Jerome, but more coherently, he explains that, with Christ shepherding ‘us’, we shall know the spiritual circumcision, be ashamed of our sins, repent, and undergo ‘a transfer of legislation or covenant’, living under Christ, no longer in the way of the law (νομικῶς) in its literal sense, but according to the gospel (εὐαγγελικῶς) and its spiritual worship.⁸⁶⁵ Remarkably, in this interpretation Cyril does relate the toponym Carmel to Bashan and Gilead, as Theodore and Jerome did. This confirms that he borrowed this interpretation from either Origen’s or Jerome’s Commentary. Unlike Jerome, Cyril does not consider the gentiles the principal subject of Mic 7:16 – 17, but the demons that ‘see those called in Christ to justification, sanctification, redemption (1 Cor 1:30), sonship, incorruptibility, glory, and to a liberated and free life’. These demons will be ashamed of their loss of power (Mic 7:16b) and will be trampled (Luke 10:19). Yet Cyril might at the same time be alluding to human beings – namely the former persecutors of the Church – when he mentions those who previously were victorious but will be prostrate under the feet of the Christians. However, concerning the de-

 Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 14– 15 (Pusey, 732, 15 – 733, 21).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 14– 15 (Pusey, 733, 22– 734, 21).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 14– 15 (Pusey, 734, 22– 336, 7).

V.38 Israel’s peace and vindication (Mic 7:14 – 17)

209

mons he observes that they will put their hands on their mouths (Mic 7:16c), no longer being allowed to accuse sinners, ‘for it is God who justifies; who is to condemn?’ (Rom 8:33 – 34). The demons will be deafened (Mic 7:16d), for the news about ‘us’, the Christians, is extraordinary since Christ died for the ungodly (Rom 5:6), while now we are called to be sanctified, not by our own righteousness (Tit 3:5) but through mercy and grace, so that we are ‘heirs of God and joint heirs of Christ’ (Rom 8:17).⁸⁶⁶ According to Cyril, the demons ‘will lick dust like snakes trailing earth along’ (Mic 7:17a) because they will no longer find nourishment, which used to consist of all the inhabitants of the earth, because all these people have been saved by Christ. As a consequence, the demons ‘will be confounded in their confinement’ (Mic 7:17b), i. e. besieged by Christ and therefore suffering weakness and distress. In Cyril’s view, the prophet alludes to Christ’s invisible command that the demons go down into Hades and be shut up in the abyss, so that he might rid the earth and humanity of them.⁸⁶⁷ In a new lemma, Cyril explains that the astonishment and fear mentioned in Mic 7:17cd concerns the incarnation of God’s only-begotten Son who, being equal to God, became poor to make us rich (Phil 2:6; 2 Cor 8:9), i. e. to save what was lost. Cyril does not explicate whether he conceives demons or gentiles as the subject of Mic 7:17cd; he only quotes Habakkuk’s fear and astonishment (Hab 3:2) about the Incarnation.⁸⁶⁸ The difference between Jerome’s and Cyril’s expositions of Mic 7:16 – 17 enables us to retrieve the gist of Origen’s interpretation. While Jerome holds that these verses deal with the gentile nations that had to give up their oppression of the Christians, Cyril mainly reads the text as a testimony to the defeat of the demons through Christ’s ministry. Given Cyril’s quotation of the Greek meaning of the names of Carmel, Bashan, and Gilead in Mic 7:14, which rather derives from Origen’s Greek Commentary (and not from Jerome’s Latin work), we may conclude that most probably he did have access to Origen’s work. I suggest that Cyril also borrowed from Origen the interpretation of Mic 7:16 – 17 with regard to the defeat of the demons. Jerome knew this interpretation, but because in his time the gentiles had allowed freedom to the Christians, and paganism had strongly decreased in the Roman empire, he adapted Origen’s interpretation to the new political situation. Yet, a few decades after Jerome, Cyril fell back on Origen’s original interpretation, which did not deal with the defeat of the gentiles  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 16 – 17 (Pusey, 336, 8 – 737, 13). For this passage see Fairbairn, ‘Justification in St. Cyril of Alexandria’, 140 – 141. It is also discussed by Ondrey, The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture, 177– 178.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 16 – 17 (Pusey, 737, 13 – 738, 21).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 17– 20 (Pusey, 738, 22– 23; 739, 6 – 19).

210

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

because this had not yet taken place at that time. Therefore I conclude that Origen interpreted Mic 7:16 – 17 as a testimony to the defeat of the demons through Christ and to the salvation of those who believe in him. This conclusion is confirmed by Hesychius, whose notes on Mic 7:16 – 17 also concern the demons. However, I will first pay attention to his spiritual interpretations of Mic 7:14– 15. According to Hesychius, ‘your rod’ (Mic 7:14a) refers to ‘the cross, for it has become a rod for those who are disobedient (τοῖς παρακούσασι)’, or according to two manuscripts, ‘for you who are disobedient (σοι παρακουσάσῃ)’, which may address the ‘tribe’ in Hesychius’ text of Mic 7:14.⁸⁶⁹ This implies that he shares Jerome’s, Cyril’s, and undoubtedly Origen’s view that these words are said to Christ. As noted above, the words ‘dwelling alone’ (κατασκηνοῦντας καθ’ ἑαυτούς, Mic 7:14c) mean to Hesychius that ‘they do not want to have fellowship (ἐπιμιγνῆναι) with the gentiles’.⁸⁷⁰ Given the previous note, the Christians seem to be the intended subject of this clause, although it might also be understood with regard to the Israelites. The clause, ‘They will graze on Bashan and Gilead’ (Mic 7:14d), refers, according to Hesychius, to ‘the new and old covenant, when they begin to be shepherded by the cross’.⁸⁷¹ This is an echo of Cyril’s interpretation of Bashan and Gilead as metaphors for the Scriptures, which implies that ‘the new and old covenant’ refer to ‘the New and Old Testament’, whose spiritual sense will be perceived by the Christians. On the words, ‘as in the days of your departure’ (Mic 7:15a), Hesychius notes, ‘in which Christ has appeared (παραγέγονεν)’.⁸⁷² This implies that he understands the ‘departure from Egypt’ in its spiritual sense as a reference to salvation by Christ (cf. 1 Cor 10:1– 4). He explains ‘nations’ (Mic 7:16a) as ‘the [nations] of the demons and all those that remained obedient to them’. The clause, ‘they will be ashamed of all their might’ (Mic 7:16b), means, ‘for all sorts of error in which they (i. e. the demons) were strong will disappear’. That ‘they will put [their] hands on their mouth’ (Mic 7:16c), means, ‘not daring to speak’, and ‘their ears will be deafened’ (Mic 7:16d), ‘because of fear of the threats’. These demons ‘will lick dust’ (Mic 7:17a) ‘for they will not find any food from people anymore’ (cf. Cyril’s interpretation), and ‘in their confinement’ (Mic 7:17b) means, ‘in which the gospel confined them’. According to Hesychius, that the demons ‘will be astonished at the Lord our God’ (Mic 7:17c) means that they will be astonished ‘at Christ

 Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 197 (Eriksson, 162; 217).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 198 (Eriksson, 162).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 200 (Eriksson, 162).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 201 (Eriksson, 162). Because this interpretation fits well, it is less likely that this note belongs to ‘the days of eternity’ (Mic 7:14e), which Eriksson suggests as a second possibility.

V.39 God’s compassion and forgiveness (Mic 7:18 – 20)

211

when they will see him incarnate’, and the ‘you’ (Mic 7:17d) of whom the demons will be afraid is ‘the Father, when they learn that the Father is in him (i. e. Christ) and he (Christ) is in the Father’ (John 14:10).⁸⁷³

V.39 God’s compassion and forgiveness (Mic 7:18 – 20) The conclusion of the book is recomforting: 18

Who is God like you, removing iniquities and bypassing impieties for the remnant of his inheritance? And he did not retain his wrath as a testimony, for he is one who desires mercy. 19He will turn back and have compassion on us, he will submerge our iniquities and they will be cast into the depths of the sea, all our sins. 20You will give truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham, as you swore to our fathers in former days (Mic 7:18 – 20).

Theodore limits his comments to Israel and its historical context. He observes that God who sent his people into exile also brought them back.⁸⁷⁴ Likewise, Theodoret is aware that in this passage the prophet first of all announces God’s forgiveness of ‘their sins’ (cf. Mic 7:19c), which refers to Israel’s sins, but unlike Theodore he also applies this promise to Christians (see below).⁸⁷⁵ Jerome observes that the Hebrew text reads, ‘he will no longer (non… ultra) send his anger’ (Mic 7:18d). He adds that Symmachus translates ultra as ‘forever’ (in sempiternum) and Theodotion ‘to the end’ (in finem), whereas the Septuagint and the Fifth Edition have ‘as a testimony’ (in testimonium; εἰς μαρτύριον). He holds that the Hebrew term laed can mean ‘longer’ (ultra), ‘forever’ as well as ‘testimony’.⁸⁷⁶ This demonstrates that he did not distinguish between ‫ָלַעד‬, ‘forever’ (as in the Masoretic Text), and ‫ְלֵעד‬, ‘as a witness’. Cyril notes that ‘as a testimony’ (Mic 7:18d) means ‘to the end’ (εἰς τέλος) or ‘forever’ (μέχρι παντός);⁸⁷⁷ apparently he derived this interpretation from Origen’s Commentary or Hexapla. In Mic 7:19c he does not read ἀπορριφήσονται, ‘they will be cast’, but ἀπορρίψει, ‘he will cast’.⁸⁷⁸ Like Cyril, Hesychius notes

 Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 202– 209 (Eriksson, 162).  Theodore, In Michaeam 7, 18 – 20 (Sprenger, 233, 16 – 234, 15, especially 234, 3 – 4). In Mic 7:19b he reads ἁμαρτίας, ‘sins’, instead of ἀδικίας, ‘iniquities’, and in Mic 7:19c the nominative πᾶσαι αἱ ἁμαρτίαι ἡμῶν, ‘all our sins’, instead of the accusative πάσας τὰς ἁμαρτίας ἡμῶν.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 7, 18 – 20 (PG 81, 1784D–1785C). In Mic 7:19 he agrees with Theodore’s reading (see the previous footnote).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 18 – 20, 694– 699 (CCSL 76).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 17– 20 (Pusey, 740, 3 – 4).  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 17– 20 (Pusey, 739, 2).

212

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

that ‘as a testimony’ means ‘forever (εἰς ἀεί); for thus the other Hebrew translators interpreted it’.⁸⁷⁹ These comments on ‘as a testimony’ by Jerome, Cyril, and Hesychius prove that (understandably) they found this expression problematic. Furthermore, Hesychius explains the expression, ‘He (i. e. God) will turn back’ (Mic7:19a), by noting, ‘from [his] wrath’.⁸⁸⁰ From the second century onward, this passage was interpreted in a Christian sense. Irenaeus, in his refutation of the ‘heretics’ of his days, quotes Mic 7:19 as a testimony to salvation by Christ.⁸⁸¹ Tertullian quotes Mic 7:18 – 19 in his refutation of Marcion, demonstrating that Christ’s remission of sins in Luke 5:20 corresponds with the message of the Creator.⁸⁸² Origen, however, uses some words of this passage in another context. Freely quoting, ‘as it is written, that we should throw our sins into the depths of the sea’ (cf. Mic 7:19c), he explains that thus ‘we’ must throw our sins onto him who caused us to sin, i. e. the devil.⁸⁸³ We see that Origen transformed Micah’s words about God who will cast human sins into the sea into an exhortation to Christians (or perhaps candidates for baptism) to renounce their sins and do away with them.⁸⁸⁴ Since the last decades of the fourth century Mic 7:19 is quoted as a testimony to the Christian baptism, but this interpretation may be much older. Basil of Caesarea († 379) relates Ps 28:10, ‘the Lord will settle the flood’, to baptism, to which he adds (among other texts) a free quotation of Mic 7:18e–19.⁸⁸⁵ Around 387, Ambrose alludes to Mic 7:19bc with regard to baptism in his epistle on Micah (last mentioned in §§ V.37, 39), but he seems hesitant about this interpretation since he writes, ‘This may also refer to baptism’.⁸⁸⁶ In order to clarify the reason for

 Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 211 (Eriksson, 163).  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 212 (Eriksson, 163).  Irenaeus, Aduersus haereses III, 20, 4 (SC 211). However, he erroneously attributes the text to Amos.  Tertullian, Aduersus Marcionem IV, 10, 1– 2 (SC 456).  Origen, Hom. in Lucam 23 (GCS 49, 143).  It is difficult to clarify this interpretation within its broader context. In a homily on Luke 3:9 – 12 Origen gives a spiritual exposition of John the Baptist’s saying that whoever has two coats must give one to the person who does not have one (Luke 3:11). Origen explains that to have no coat means not to have God, and says that the one who has a coat should take it off and give it to the one who is naked. In his view, the one who does not have God is the devil. Subsequently he refers to Mic 7:19c. This transition is awkward, which may be due to the translator, Jerome. The Greek fragments do not help to produce coherence either.  Basil, Hom. in Psalmos 28, 10 (PG 29, 304C).  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 24 (CSEL 82,1). The quotation reads, Quod potest et ad baptismum referri.

V.39 God’s compassion and forgiveness (Mic 7:18 – 20)

213

his hesitation, I bring to mind that Ambrose associated the initial conversion and salvation of the soul with the divine promises in Mic 5 (see §§ V.23 – 24, 26 – 27), whereas he interpreted some passages in Mic 6 – 7 as testimonies to the soul’s subsequent fall and new penance and justification (§§ 31, 34, 37). According to Ambrose, then the soul does not listen to the devil who attacks it, and sees the devil ‘as a snake creeping on the earth’ (cf. Mic 7:17a), and it will say, ‘Who is God like you, removing sins and bypassing iniquities?’ (Mic 7:18a–c). This soul acknowledges that God submerged ‘our iniquities’ into the sea and showed his mercy (Mic 7:19b–20b). Ambrose distinguishes between ‘removing sins’ (auferens peccata; Mic 7:18b), which in his view pertains to God’s remission of sins washed by the blood of his Son, and ‘bypassing iniquities’ (transferens iniquitates; Mic 7:18c), which regards the failings (lapsus) confessed by the fallen soul and covered with good deeds; these iniquities ‘are charged to the author of the fault and the instigator of sin’, i. e. the devil.⁸⁸⁷ This last interpretation derives from Origen, as we saw above. Ambrose’s distinction between ‘removing sins’ and ‘bypassing iniquities’ confirms the distinction he makes throughout his epistle on Micah, namely between the soul’s initial conversion and salvation, and its subsequent fall and new penance. Continuing his exposition he says that this soul gives thanks that the Lord removes sins, bypasses iniquities, and ‘throws them into the depths of the sea’ (Mic 7:19c). Only then does Ambrose admit that this can also refer to baptism, as noted above.⁸⁸⁸ This implies that, although at first he does not give the baptismal interpretation of Mic 7:19, he does not wish to withhold it because in his time it was traditional. In fact, however, it does not fit with his spiritual interpretation of Micah in this epistle, since a reference to baptism would be more appropriate in his discussion of Mic 5, the chapter that he associated with the soul’s initial conversion and salvation. If Ambrose had at once and wholeheartedly accepted the baptismal interpretation of Mic 7:19, it would seem that the soul – or rather the Christian – was usually baptized only after it had fallen back from its initial conversion and done a new penance, quod non. – He concludes his exposition by referring to ‘the mercy of our God’ who remembers his promise to Abraham (Mic 7:20bc) and does not allow that a soul who is Abraham’s heir will perish.⁸⁸⁹ Remarkably, a reference to baptism is absent in Jerome’s Commentary. In his view, the prophet understood that the gentile nations that he perceived in Mic 7:16 – 17 are amazed and praise the Lord for removing their iniquities

 Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 23 (CSEL 82,1).  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 24 (CSEL 82,1).  Ambrose, Epistulae V, 18, 24 (CSEL 82,1).

214

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

(Mic 7:18ab), as in Israel’s liberation from Egypt. Referring to the Hebrew term phasa or pascha which means ‘passing by’ (‫פסח‬, transitus), Jerome explains the term ‘bypassing’ (ὑπερβαίνων, transcendens) in Mic 7:18c in the sense of the Lord passing over the people of Israel in Egypt by not striking them; likewise, he also spares the gentiles.⁸⁹⁰ The reference to the remnant (Mic 7:18c) confirms, according to Jerome, that the Lord’s mercy will hold for gentiles and for the remnant of his people (i. e. the Jews), as he himself will bear ‘our grave sins’ and will submerge them into the sea (Mic 7:19bc). Reading ‘he will give (dabit) truth to Jacob, mercy to Abraham’ (Mic 7:20ab), Jerome interprets ‘Jacob’ as the Jewish people to which the Lord will render his truth in Christ, and ‘Abraham’ as ‘the father of many nations’ (Gen 17:5) to which the Lord will show mercy, so that of mankind he will save some in truth and others in mercy.⁸⁹¹ To conclude this volume of the Commentary, Jerome rephrases Mic 7:18 – 20 and 7:10 as his own prayer and testimony.⁸⁹² We can only speculate about the reason why in his comments on Mic 7:18 – 20 Jerome does not refer to Christian baptism; perhaps it is because he did not find this interpretation in Origen’s Commentary. A few years later, however, in an epistle to Oceanus dated to 395 or 397– 398, he does quote Mic 7:19 as a prophecy of baptism.⁸⁹³ Around 404, Augustine quotes Mic 7:15 – 19 in his comments on Ps 113. He interprets Micah’s words about the departure from Egypt, the marvels, and the shame of the nations (Mic 7:15 – 16b) as a prediction of the salvation of his audience, since spiritually they descend from Abraham and Jacob, and left Egypt in the sense of their renunciation of the world. Their own sins were the enemies who intended to kill them, but like the Egyptians who were drowned in the sea (Exod 14:26 – 28), these iniquities were submerged in baptism, as Mic 7:19 testifies.⁸⁹⁴ Thus Augustine confirms the baptismal interpretation of this text. Cyril interprets ‘the remnant of his inheritance’ (Mic 7:18c) as the Israelites who came to believe in Christ, to which he adds that the majority has been destroyed for not believing. After his comments on the expression ‘as a testimony’  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 18 – 20, 654– 677 (CCSL 76). See e. g. Exod 12:27. In fact, the Hebrew text of Mic 7:18 does not have the verb ‫ פסח‬but ‫עבר‬. – In l. 676 Adriaen reads non accepit, which does not make sense in this sentence; therefore I follow the reading nomen accepit, ‘receives [its] name’, in PL 25, 1229C and Bareille, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, 90. Adriaen does not account for his reading in his critical apparatus, which implies that non is a printing error.  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 18 – 20, 677– 694 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, In Michaeam II, 7, 18 – 20, 699 – 717 (CCSL 76).  Jerome, Epistulae 69, 6, 9 (CSEL 54). For Oceanus and the date see Fürst, Hieronymus, 219 – 220.  Augustine, Enarationes in Psalmos 113A, 4– 5 (OSA 66).

V.39 God’s compassion and forgiveness (Mic 7:18 – 20)

215

in Mic 7:18d (see above), he applies this text on the end of God’s wrath to ‘us’, the Christians, who were cast out in Adam and welcomed in Christ, as Rom 5:15 – 18 testifies (‘for just as the many died through the one man’s trespass, so also the many will live through the one man’s righteousness’). Concerning this end of God’s wrath and the mercy that he desires (Mic 7:18de) Cyril says that ‘at the time of the conversion of all – namely, [at the time] of the Incarnation – he will as it were immerge (βαπτιεῖ) the sins of all in the sea’.⁸⁹⁵ Cyril’s universalism is remarkable, for a few lines before he had written about the destruction of Israelites who had not believed in Christ.⁸⁹⁶ His remark on the immersion of the sins of all alludes to baptism, but in fact he refers to the decisive moment of Christ’s incarnation which – in his view – basically changed humankind. The future tense of the clause on the immersion of sins at the time of the Incarnation (βαπτιεῖ) must be due to the perspective of the prophet that Cyril takes. According to Cyril, the promise to Abraham and Jacob holds for both Jews and gentiles who believe in Christ.⁸⁹⁷ As noted above, Theodoret not only interprets this passage with regard to God’s forgiveness of Israel’s sins, but explains that this is also true for ‘our sins’, which are cast into ‘the sacred and divine bath’ of baptism ‘of which the Red Sea was a type’.⁸⁹⁸ Hesychius explains that ‘the remnant’ (Mic 7:18c) refers to ‘all those who are saved because they stayed away from the error of the enemies’.⁸⁹⁹ Probably he has in mind the Jews who believed in Christ and left those Jews who did not believe in him and were therefore considered ‘enemies’ (cf. Rom 11:28; Phil 3:18). Hesychius shares the view that ‘the sea’ (Mic 7:19c) refers to baptism. Concerning ‘truth to Jacob’ (Mic 7:20a) he notes, ‘so that the blessing for Jacob proves to be true’. His last note on Micah concerns ‘to Abraham’ (Mic 7:20b), which he inter-

 Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 17– 20 (Pusey, 739, 19 – 740, 11). Just as Cyril interprets this passage with regard to Christ’s redeeming death, Targum Ps.-Jonathan relates it to God’s Memra that ‘will again have mercy on us’ and with the binding of Isaac on the altar as the reason of God’s kindness.  Cyril testifies to a similar universalistic view in his Fragmenta in ep. primam ad Corinthios 15, 20 – 23; 28 (ed. Zawadzki, 220 – 229; comments, 486 – 489; 491– 494). See also Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis, 598 – 602.  Cyril, In Michaeam III, 7, 17– 20 (Pusey, 740, 11– 23). Hill, St. Cyril of Alexandria: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets 2, 278, l. 21, erroneously translates ἀκροβυστία (‘foreskin’, ‘the uncircumcised’, cf. Rom 3:30) in l. 18 as ‘circumcision’.  Theodoret, In Michaeam 7, 18 – 20 (PG 81, 1785C). Cf. 1 Cor 10:1– 2. This is Theodoret’s only reference to Christ or the Gospel in his comments on Mic 6 – 7.  Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 210 (Eriksson, 163).

216

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

prets as, ‘to Abraham’s descendants’ (τῷ σπέρματι).⁹⁰⁰ This should be understood as a reference to the Jewish and gentile Christians (cf. Rom 4:13 – 17; Gal 3:7, 29).

V.40 Conclusions These analyses of the patristic interpretation of Micah in this chapter lead me to the following conclusions, which will occasionally refer to chapters II and III as well. I start with four sub-sections concerning the ‘literal’ and ‘historical’ interpretation of the Greek text. Then I will proceed with surveys of the Christianizing, ‘spiritual’ interpretations, Jewish interpretations, the position of Jews and Christians in the Roman empire, Trinitarian and Christological testimonies, and an analysis of the relationship between the patristic interpretations.

V.40.1 Diverging punctuation and delimitation The patristic Commentaries give some interesting insights into the punctuation and delimitation of the Septuagint version of Micah in contradistinction to the Hebrew text and most modern editions and translations.⁹⁰¹ Except for Theodore, the patristic commentators and Theophylact read the words, ‘the glory of daughter Israel’ (Mic 1:15c), as addressing Israel and relate them to the following sentence (‘glory of daughter Israel, shave and cut your hair…’), instead of reading them as the subject of the preceding clause. However, all editions and translations of the Septuagint align with Theodore, who agrees, in his turn, with the Hebrew text (§ V.10). The four commentators plus Theophylact connect the words, ‘In the assembly of the Lord’ (Mic 2:5b), with the following passage (‘In the assembly of the Lord do not weep with tears’), unlike the Hebrew text and the modern editors and translators of the Septuagint except Brenton (§ V.12). The four commentators plus Didymus and Theophylact connect the words, ‘due to uncleanness’ (Mic 2:10c), with the following clause, reading ‘Due to uncleanness you were corrupted with corruption’. Except for Septuaginta Deutsch,

 Hesychius, Scholia in Michaeam 214; 217 (Eriksson, 163).  When in this section I refer to modern editions and translations, I mean the ones I consulted.

V.40 Conclusions

217

this unanimous patristic attribution is not followed by other modern editors and translators, who connect it with the preceding words (§ V.13). Generally the patristic authors and modern scholars connect the final words of Mic 2:12a, ‘with all’, with the preceding clause, ‘when Jacob is being gathered, he will be gathered together with all’, but Jerome and most probably Origen have a different punctuation, reading ‘Receiving with all I shall receive the remnant of Israel’ (Mic 2:12ab; § V.14). According to Eusebius and Cyril, the clause, ‘and this will be the peace’ (Mic 5:4a [5:5a]), belongs to the preceding sentence, unlike the Hebrew text, which connects it with the following clause about the coming of the Assyrian. This partition of the Hebrew text is also found in Theodore, Jerome, Theodoret, and Theophylact, so that the patristic tradition is divided (§ V.24). Cyprian, the four patristic commentators plus Theophylact consider Mic 6:9ab, ‘The voice of the Lord will be invoked for the city, and he will save those who fear his name’, to be the conclusion of the preceding passage (Mic 6:6 – 8), which differs from the Hebrew text and several modern editions (§ V.32). In my view, such patristic testimonies to diverging punctuations and delimitations need to be accounted for in modern editions and translations.

V.40.2 Syntactical difficulties The patristic Commentaries on Micah sometimes shed light on the authors’ understanding of the syntax of a difficult sentence. The Septuagint text of Mic 1,9a, ὅτι κατεκράτησεν ἡ πληγὴ αὐτῆς, is ambiguous, since αὐτῆς may depend on ἡ πληγή (‘for her affliction has prevailed’) or on κατεκράτησεν (‘for the affliction has overwhelmed her’). Following the Hebrew text, Jerome understandably opts for the first possibility, just as most modern translators do. The Greek-writing authors Theodore, Cyril, and Theophylact, however, read the text according to the second possibility, but among the modern translators this choice is shared only by Giguet (§ V.6). Mic 1:12a, τίς ἤρξατο εἰς ἀγαθὰ κατοικούσῃ ὀδύνας; might be translated as, ‘Who began a turn to the good for her who dwells in pain?’ However, because of its difficulty, Theodoret proposes a metathesis, reading τίς ἤρξατο εἰς ὀδύνας ἀγαθὰ κατοικούσῃ; which means, ‘Who began a turn to pain for her who dwells in good things?’ It is quoted by Theophylact, yet alongside the uncorrected text. Jerome and Cyril read, τίς ἤρξατο εἰς ἀγαθὰ κατοικοῦσα ὀδύνας;, which means, ‘Who that dwells in pain began a turn to the good?’ (§ V.8).

218

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

Mic 3:1d, οὐχ ὑμῖν ἐστι τοῦ γνῶναι τὸ κρῖμα, is read as a rhetorical question by the Greek commentators and by modern editors and translators: ‘Is it not for you to know judgment?’ The exception, however, is Jerome. He knows that the Hebrew text is meant as a question, but he interprets the Septuagint translation as an affirmation. Since he often draws on Origen’s Commentary on Micah, it is quite possible that Origen also read the clause in this sense (§ V.16). Mic 3:7c, καὶ καταλαλήσουσι κατ’ αὐτῶν πάντες αὐτοί, is clear as such, for it means, ‘and they will all speak against them (i. e. the false prophets)’. The problem is that these false prophets are the subject of the preceding verbs, so that one may wonder who are πάντες, ‘all’. The patristic commentators, Theophylact, and most modern translators hold that ‘all’ refers to those who criticize the false prophets, but Septuaginta Deutsch translates that all the false prophets speak against each other, which implies that κατ’ αὐτῶν should be read as κατ’ αὑτῶν. Given the patristic understanding and most modern translations, this interpretation is fully isolated and unconvincing (§ V.17). Mic 3:8a, ἐὰν μὴ ἐγὼ ἐμπλήσω ἰσχύν ἐν πνεύματι κυρίου, is more puzzling. It may be translated as, ‘unless I, I fill [them with] strength by the spirit of the Lord’, but since the Greek commentators have different variant readings, this shows that this text was considered difficult. The question is whether, in agreement with the Hebrew text, Micah is meant to be the subject, or the Lord, which is Jerome’s, Cyril’s, and Hesychius’ view, and most likely goes back to Origen. If we assume that the Septuagint translator intended to follow the Hebrew text so that Micah is to be understood as speaking about himself, the patristic interpretation with regard to the Lord, which is shared by Septuaginta Deutsch, demonstrates that the Septuagint version is ambiguous (§ V.17). Mic 4:9b, μὴ βασιλεὺς οὐκ ἦν σοι;, should be translated as, ‘did not you have a king?’ and to be answered by, ‘yes, we did have a king’, if we follow the four patristic commentators and Theophylact. Brenton, Giguet, and Septuaginta Deutsch agree with this interpretation. However, Jerome also knows the interpretation that the people did not have a king, namely Christ, which he probably derived from Origen. This implies that Andersen/Freedman’s, NETS’, and Glenny’s rendering, ‘you did not have a king, did you?’, to be answered by, ‘no, we did not’, does not align with the general patristic understanding, but still has an ancient precedent (§ V.21). Mic 6:5a–c reads, ‘My people, remember what Balak king of Moab planned against you, and what Balaam son of Beor answered him, from the reeds up to Gilgal.’ Septuaginta Deutsch and Glenny suppose that the expression, ‘from the reeds up to Gilgal’, depends on the injunction ‘remember’, and therefore their translations include an interpretative addition. However, Jerome, Cyril, Hesychius, and Theophylact interpret ‘from the reeds up to Gilgal’ as a modifier of

V.40 Conclusions

219

the preceding clause, so that it clarifies where Balaam moved about while pronouncing his blessings (§ V.29). I would not conclude that unanimous or almost unanimous patristic interpretations of difficult clauses in the Septuagint version of Micah should always be followed, but in my view they deserve to be taken into account in present-day research.

V.40.3 The meaning of specific words A few times the patristic commentators shed light on their understanding of Greek words that have been interpreted in various ways. The Greek commentators conceive ὀπωροφυλάκιον in Mic 1:6a and 3:12 as an ‘orchard-guard’s shed’ put up for the surveillance of the crops in the field. Most modern translations agree with this. This implies that the few scholars who consider that such sheds served or may have served to store the harvested crops disregard or decline the patristic understanding (§ V.5). In modern translations of Mic 2:12c, ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ θήσομαι τὴν ἀποστροφὴν αὐτῶν, the term ἀποστροφή is mostly conceived as ‘return’, so that this clause would mean, ‘I (i. e. the Lord) shall establish their return at the same place’, which apparently refers to the people’s return from captivity. However, the patristic commentators do not give this meaning. Theodore and Theodoret hold that ἀποστροφή refers to the people’s removal to captivity, Jerome interprets it as the people’s turning away from God, Cyril takes it as God’s aversion and withdrawal from his people, and Hesychius explains it as the flight from the lie to the truth. The common denominator of the patristic understanding of this term is ‘turning away’, ‘removal’. Among the modern translations, only Andersen and Freedman align with this, translating ‘their turning aside’ (§ V.14). Mic 5:6 (5:7) says that the remnant of Jacob will be ‘like lambs in the grass’. Some modern dictionaries, among which Muraoka’s Lexicon of the Septuagint, interpret the term for grass, ἄγρωστις, as dog’s tooth grass. The patristic commentators, however, do not give the impression that they conceive ἄγρωστις as a particular kind of grass, but rather understand it in a general sense, as a derivation from ἀγρός, ‘field’ (§ V.26). Of course, scholars should not necessarily follow patristic interpretations of Septuagint terms, but sometimes the ancient Commentaries do contain interesting observations that deserve to be taken seriously.

220

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

V.40.4 The ‘literal’ and ‘historical’ interpretations in general The foregoing sub-sections exemplify a few particular testimonies to the attention that the patristic authors paid to the ‘literal’ meaning of Micah’s text in its own context. This chapter demonstrates that many authors were also more generally interested in Micah’s historical background and context (e. g. §§ V.1, 2, 34), in the fulfilment of his prophecies in the coming centuries, and thus in the divine economy of salvation history.⁹⁰² Theodore’s comments concern almost exclusively Micah’s historical context of the Assyrians, who had captured and exiled the population of Samaria and threatened Judea. Several times he refers to the siege of Jerusalem by the Assyrians and their sudden withdrawal (4 Kgdms 18 – 19). His comments also include references to the future exile of the Judeans to Babylon and their return from it. Such historical interpretations, including references to Samaria’s and Judea’s idolatry and the injustice of their leaders, are also given by Jerome, Cyril, and Theodoret, and sometimes by Hesychius (§§ V.2– 11, 13 – 18, 21, 22, 24– 29, 33, 35, 37). Undoubtedly they were already found in Origen’s lost Commentary. A particular feature of Theodore’s and Theodoret’s interpretations is their assumption that after the Jews returned from the Babylonian exile to the land of their ancestors they were attacked by the people of Gog, which these two commentators identify as Scyths (§§ V.19, 22, 23, 28). Their assumption is inspired by a prophecy of Ezekiel which they take as having been realized after the exile (Ezek 38 – 39). Jerome denotes the literal and historical interpretations as iuxta litteram and iuxta historiam (§§ V.3, 4, 19, 37). Theodoret once uses the expression κατὰ τὸ ῥητόν to characterize a literal interpretation (§ V.4). Eusebius uses the similar adverb ῥητῶς, but not to refer to Micah’s own context or near future, but to his prediction of the coming of Christ (§ V.4). For ‘historically’, Cyril uses the term ἱστορικῶς (§ V.37). This chapter discussed interpretations of the literal and historical meaning of Micah’s book right after the translations of the lemmas and before the Christianizing interpretations and applications. The same order is found in Jerome’s, Cyril’s, and sometimes Theodoret’s Commentaries, and undoubtedly in Origen’s Commentary as well. However, the first Christian authors whose quotations and interpretations of Micah have been preserved, namely the author of the Gospel of Matthew (§ II.1), Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian, were not interested in the prophet’s historical context but in the meaning of this book, or rather particular texts from it, for the Church. Thus they also offered an

 Cf. Ondrey, The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture, 218 – 219.

V.40 Conclusions

221

alternative to the competing ‘heretical’ view of Israel’s prophets as servants of the inferior Demiurge. The allegorical interpretations of Micah attested since Justin (§§ V.19, 20) and, more elaborately, Origen (see § V.40.5) provoked the reaction of Antiochenes like Theodore, who confined himself almost exclusively to literal and historical comments. To a lesser extent this holds for Theodoret as well. We should note, however, that in their time – the last decades of the fourth and the first decades of the fifth centuries – the Catholic Church had acquired a firm position in the Roman empire, and no longer felt severely threatened by the competing ‘heretical’ views of the Old Testament as a testimony to the inferior Demiurge, as e. g. the Marcionites, Ophites, Valentinians, and Manichaeans thought.⁹⁰³ For this reason the Antiochene commentators could afford a far more historical interpretation of Micah – and other Old Testament books – with regard to Israel’s history before Christ, and culminating in Christ.

V.40.5 Christianizing, ‘spiritual’ interpretations Ancient Christian authors read the book of Micah, or at least isolated passages from it, to highlight its relevance for Christians – although Theodore was extremely reticent in this respect. This means that to different extents they were inclined to explain in which way, prophetically or allegorically, it announces Christ, the Church, and the Christian faith. This sub-section will give a comprehensive, but still incomplete survey of such interpretations. From Origen onward, the distinction between Samaria and Jerusalem in Mic 1:1 (and other Old Testament texts) was allegorically applied to the heretics and the Church respectively. We find such interpretations in Jerome’s, Cyril’s, and Hesychius’ comments (§§ V.2, 4– 6, 33). Other towns besides Jerusalem that are criticized by the prophet for their idolatry and other evils, and idolaters and evildoers in general, are also considered prototypes of heresies (§§ 7, 9, 17, 19, 29, 33, 36, 37, 39). Likewise, the Assyrian or Assyrians in Mic 5:4– 5 (5:5 – 6), 7:12 are interpreted as representatives of Antichrist (thus Hippolytus) or the devil, Satan, and the demons (Jerome, Cyril, Hesychius; §§ V.24– 26, 37). As the beginning of Micah’s book describes the Lord’s descent from heaven to the earth (Mic 1:3 – 4), this passage was particularly apt to be interpreted with  Theodoret’s criticism of Marcion and the gnostics is usually implicit; see Guinot, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, 530 – 535. Yet in Epistulae 81 (SC 98, 196 – 197) he testifies that he incorporated eight Marcionite villages into his own diocese, which implies that he personally knew people who had adhered to the Marcionite doctrines; see also Guinot, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, 554– 557.

222

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

regard to Christ’s descent and incarnation (Origen, Jerome, Eusebius, Cyril, Hesychius; § V.4). The prophecy on Bethlehem as the birthplace of Israel’s new leader, generally interpreted as the Christ (Mic 5:1– 3 [5:2– 4]), confirmed that Micah announced the coming of Jesus Christ (§§ II.1; V.23, 24). Even Theodore agrees with this interpretation of Mic 5:1 (5:2). Apart from Theodore, for all other authors Mic 4:1– 3 (paralleled by Isa 2:2– 4) is another favourite text, which predicts that the law and word of the Lord – interpreted as Christ – will go forth from Jerusalem and that the gentile peoples will come to accept its – or rather his – teachings. Then war will come to an end and peace will be established. Exceptionally, in his comments on Mic 4:5 even Theodore inconspicuously addresses his Christian readers in a short homiletic exhortation (§§ V.19, 20). Many other expressions and passages are interpreted with regard to Christ. Thus e. g. ‘the heir’ in Aquila’s translation of Mic 1:15a, adopted by Theodoret (§ V.9); ‘the drop of this people’ in Mic 2:11d (Origen, Jerome, and Hesychius; § V.14); ‘the gate’ through which the people passed (Mic 2:13b; Jerome, Hesychius, and probably Origen; § V.15); ‘the reasoning of the Lord’ (Mic 4:12a) as a reference to Christ’s crucifixion (Jerome, Hesychius, and probably Origen; § V.22); ‘the sword’ (Mic 5:5a [5:6a]) as reference to Christ or God’s word (Jerome, Cyril, Hesychius, and probably Origen; § V.25); ‘your hand’ (Mic 5:8a [5:9a]) as the hand of Christ (Eusebius; § V.26). Christ is considered to ask his people, ‘what have I done to you?’ (Mic 6:3), according to Ambrose, John Chrysostom, and Jerome (§ V.29). Tertullian considers Christ the ‘human’ who told what is good (Mic 6:8; § V.31). The lament ‘woe is me’ (Mic 7:1a) is ascribed to Christ (Origen, Jerome, Didymus; § V.34). In ‘the moth’ that is ‘gnawing and advancing on a rod’ (Mic 7:4a) Jerome (and probably Origen) sees Christ (§ V.35). The address, ‘shepherd your people with your rod’ (Mic 7:14), is considered to be said to Christ (Jerome, Cyril, Hesychius, probably inspired by Origen; § V.38); the submersion of iniquities and sins (Mic 7:19) is related to salvation through Christ (Irenaeus) and read as a testimony to baptism (Basil, Ambrose, Jerome, Augustine, Theodoret, Hesychius; § V.39). Other spiritual interpretations concern the first Jewish Christians. Eusebius, Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret, and Hesychius interpret, either consistently or occasionally, the texts on the ‘remnant’ (Mic 2:12b; 4:7a; 5:2b [5:3b]; 5:6a [5:7a]; 7:18c) with regard to the first Jewish Christians, like the apostles (§§ V.14, 20, 23, 26, 39). Likewise, the ‘dew falling from the Lord’ (Mic 5:6b [5:7b]) was identified as these first Jewish Christians, or their teachings (Eusebius, Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret, Hesychius; § V.26). Cyril refers to the apostles and the first Jewish Christians in his interpretation of Mic 3:8 and 7:14 (§§ V.17, 38). Sometimes Jerome interprets the ‘remnant’ as a reference to the eschatological conversion of Israel that will be saved after the gentiles (§§ V.14, 23). This expectation was based on

V.40 Conclusions

223

Rom 11:25 – 26, which Jerome quotes in other passages as well (§§ V.12, 20, 22, 23). These interpretations concerning the Jewish Christians have an Origenian origin. Micah’s book is not only applied to the first Jewish Christians, but also to the gentile Christians, especially in the comments on the gentile nations that will go up to the mountain of the Lord in Jerusalem (Mic 4:1– 3; § V.19). Other texts that are interpreted with regard to the gentile Christians are e. g. Mic 1:3 – 5 (Jerome; § V.4), 1:6 (Hesychius; § V.5), 1:15 (Hesychius; § V.9), 2:4– 5 (Cyril; § V.11), 2:5 – 8 (Jerome; § V.12), 2:12 (Jerome and Hesychius; § V.14), 2:13 (Jerome; § V.15), 4:5 (Theodore [!]; § V.20); 4:6 (Theodoret and Hesychius; § V.20), 5:2 (5:3; Hesychius; § V.23), 5:6 (5:7; Cyril; § V.26), 6:8 (Eusebius; § V.31), 7:14– 15 (Jerome and Cyril; § V.38), and 7:20 (Cyril, Theodoret, and Hesychius; § V.39). Jerome’s Commentary contains several applications to the human soul (e. g. §§ V.20, 28, 36). Especially his allusions to the fall of the souls from heaven to the earth and into terrestrial bodies are remarkable, and it need not be doubted that his references to ‘someone’ or ‘other people’ from whom he borrowed such passages point to Origen and his Commentary (§§ V.4, 10, 11, 28). When, in 393, Jerome included such Origenian speculations into his own Commentary, he naïvely appears not yet to be aware of their controversial contents and presumed heterodoxy, measured according to late fourth-century orthodoxy. In 406, in the prologue to his Commentary on Malachi, he straightforwardly denies Origen’s notion of the fall of the souls from heaven (animarum de caelo ruinas).⁹⁰⁴ In addition, this survey of Jerome’s adoption of Origenian allusions to the premundane fall of the souls confirms that, if Nautin is correct in dating Origen’s Commentary on the Twelve Prophets to 245 – 246, when Origen was 60,⁹⁰⁵ at that age he had remained faithful to his speculative, both Biblical and Platonic theology. This conclusion agrees with Yves-Marie Duval’s observations in his studies on some of Origen’s Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets,⁹⁰⁶ and it disagrees with the view of scholars who downplay the Platonic character of Origen’s theology, suggesting that he has always been misunderstood in this respect.⁹⁰⁷ Another typi Jerome, In Malachiam prologus 5 – 8; 41– 48 (CCSL 76A); cf. § IV.2.2.  See § III.1; Nautin, Origène, 228; 248 – 249; 382– 383.  Especially Y.-M. Duval, ‘Jérôme et Origène avant la querelle origéniste. La cure et la guérison ultime du monde et du diable dans l’In Nahum’, Aug. 24 (1984), 471– 494; ‘Jérôme et les prophètes. Histoire, prophétie et actualisation dans les Commentaires de Nahum, Michée, Abdias et Joël’, in J.A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Salamanca 1983 (VT.S 36), Leiden 1985, 108 – 131 (119 – 121); ‘Vers le Commentaire sur Aggée d’Origène’, Origeniana Quarta (IThS 19), Innsbruck/Wien 1987, 7– 15 (10 – 12); ‘Vers l’In Malachiam d’Origène. Jérôme et Origène en 406’, Origeniana Septima (BEThL 127), Louvain 1999, 233 – 259 (235 – 236; 254; 258).  Thus e. g. J. Laporte, ‘La chute chez Philon et Origène’, in P. Granfield, J.A. Jungmann (eds.) Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten I, Münster 1970, 320 – 335; M.J. Edwards, Origen against

224

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

cally Origenian idea found in Jerome’s comments is that in the end demons can be purified and God’s enemies will not be annihilated, but only the impiety that is in them (Mic 4:11– 13; 5:8; §§ V.22, 26). Sometimes references to the vicissitudes of the human soul are found in Eusebius and Cyril as well (§§ V.4, 37). A particular case is Ambrose’s epistle to Orontianus in which quotations of numerous texts from Micah – or allusions to it – are applied to the afflicted soul, initially living under evil kings (Mic 1:1), its repentance and conversion to Christ, its salvation and peace (Mic 5:4 [5:5]), its subsequent fall nonetheless (Mic 7:8), new penance, and God’s forgiveness (Mic 7:18 – 20; §§ V.2, 21– 24, 26, 27, 31, 34, 37, 39). In his application of Micah’s book to the soul, Ambrose was certainly inspired by Origen, but he did not follow his speculations about its fall before its existence in a human body. Various terms are used for the spiritual, allegorical interpretations. Jerome characterizes them as mystici intellectus or mystice (§§ V.2, 17), tropologia or tropologice (§ V.3, 4, 19, 36), anagoge (ἀναγωγή, § V.9), and intelligentia spiritalis (§ V.37). Eusebius and Theodoret use the term τροπικῶς (§ V.4), in Cyril we find πνευματικῶς (§ V.20), both Cyril and Hesychius regularly propose a νοητός (‘noetic’, ‘spiritual’) meaning of the words and names commented on (§§ V.5, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 25, 28, 29, 37), and like Jerome, Hesychius also employs the term μυστικός (§§ V.20, 33). The variety of terms is striking. Undoubtedly they derive from Origen, in whose works we find the same expressions for his spiritual, allegorical interpretations.⁹⁰⁸

Plato, Aldershot 2002; P. Tzamalikos, Origen: Philosophy of History and Eschatology (VigChr.S 85), Leiden 2007; J. Behr, Origen: On First Principles I (OECT), Oxford 2017, lxii–lxxxviii. Cf. Roukema, ‘Origen on the Origin of Sin’, forthcoming. However, H. Crouzel, Origène, Paris/Namur 1985, 229 – 230; 268 – 284, rightly observes that Origen proposed his Platonic interpretations and speculations as possibilities, not as a doctrine to be adopted by the Church.  See de Lubac, Histoire et Esprit, 141– 150. A Staub, Die exegetische Methode des Hieronymus im Kommentar zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. Eruditio saeculi und scientia Scripturarum (PhD thesis), Rome 1977, 208 – 215, also concludes that Jerome uses the different designations of the spiritual interpretation interchangeably. P. Jay, ‘Le vocabulaire exégétique de saint Jérôme dans le Commentaire sur Zacharie’, REAug 14 (1968), 3 – 16, perceives a little more consistency in Jerome’s use of exegetical terms in his Commentary on Zechariah (from 406), but he also notes his ‘imprécision de termes interchangeables’, ‘l’ambiguïté de certains termes’, and ‘l’impression d’inconséquence’ (16); likewise, J. Gribomont, ‘La terminologie exégétique de S. Jérôme’, in C. Curti et al. (eds), La terminologia esegetica nell’antichità. Atti del Primo Seminario di antichità cristiane. Bari, 25 ottobre 1984, Bari 1987, 123 – 134; see also M. Simonetti, ‘Sul significativo di alcuni termini tecnici nella letteratura esegetica greca’, in ibidem, 25 – 58.

V.40 Conclusions

225

V.40.6 Jewish interpretations, and non-Christian Jews in the Roman empire Since Micah was an Israelite prophet and Jews of the first centuries of the Christian era also read and interpreted his book, most patristic commentators are aware of their interpretations and transmit a few of them, although they do not always agree with them. Sometimes the Christian authors are or seem inspired by Jewish interpretations yet without referring to them. The first Jewish interpretation of Micah is attested in Matt 2:6, which quotes Mic 5:1 (5:2) as a testimony to the birthplace of the Messiah (§ II.1). Targum Ps.Jonathan corresponds to this. Patristic interpretations that have ancient Jewish parallels and probably are inspired by them concern the heights of the earth, the mountains, and the valleys in Mic 1:3 – 4 (Theodore, Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret; § V.4); the seven shepherds and eight bites (or principals) of people in Mic 5:4d (5:5d; Theodore, Jerome; § V.25); the mountains, hills, and foundations of the earth in Mic 6:1– 2 (Jerome; § V.28), and the address ‘Shepherd your people’ in Mic 7:14 as being said to Christ, where Targum Ps.-Jonathan includes a reference to the Lord’s Memra or Word. Theodoret informs us that contemporaneous Jews read the vision of Mic 4:1– 3 as a prophecy of their return from Babylon. This interpretation is shared by Theodore but rejected by Theodoret himself. Justin Martyr relates that according to Jewish teachers Mic 4:1– 7 refers to the coming of the Messiah, and to the Jews who were rejected from the world (Mic 4:7). This Messianic interpretation has a few parallels in ancient Jewish works and is attested by medieval Jewish authors (§§ V.19 – 20). Jerome relates and rejects the Jewish view that Mic 4:13, on Zion’s victory over the gentile nations, will be fulfilled when the Messiah comes (§ V.22). Theodoret states that contemporaneous Jews regard Zerubbabel as the leader of Israel, who was born in Bethlehem according to Mic 5:1 (5:2), which he considers a foolish interpretation. However, most probably he only found this view in Theodore’s Commentary, so that actually he thus dismissed the comment of his ‘Antiochene’ master without mentioning his name (§ V.23). Jerome is acquainted with a Jewish interpretation of Mic 5:4d–14 (5:5d–15) as a prophecy of the events that will take place when the Messiah comes, but he fiercely disagrees with it (§§ V.25 – 27). Jerome also knows a Jewish reading of Mic 6:5 in Hebrew which does not connect ‘from Shittim to Gilgal’ with the preceding words about Balaam, as in the Septuagint, but with the following clause, ‘that you might know the righteous acts of the Lord’ (§ V.29, cf. V.40.2). Another Jewish interpretation transmitted by Jerome concerns the Hebrew text of Mic 7:11– 12 as a prophecy of the Messiah’s reconstruction of the walls of Jer-

226

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

usalem; then the Scriptures will be taken away from the Christians and handed over to the Jews. Jerome considers this a silly lie (§ V.37).⁹⁰⁹ In line with such critical remarks on Jewish interpretations, Jerome and Cyril often apply Micah’s reproaches to his compatriots and his admonitory predictions of their fate to those Jews who refused to believe in Christ during his life and in subsequent centuries. To a lesser extent, this also holds for Hippolytus, Theodoret, and Hesychius. One should conclude, therefore, that these authors regularly interpret Micah in an anti-Jewish sense (§§ V.4, 5, 9 – 14, 16 – 19, 21– 23, 27– 29, 33, 34, 37). Either in connection with such interpretations of particular texts, or on other occasions, Eusebius, the four commentators, and Hesychius recurrently refer to the siege and destruction of Jerusalem by the Romans in 70 CE, and to – as they see it – the desolate and vulnerable situation of the synagogues, i. e. the Jewish communities, dispersed over the Roman empire (§§ V.4, 8 – 10, 12, 14– 16, 18, 20 – 23, 27, 28, 37, 39).

V.40.7 Christians in the Roman empire The changing societal position of the Christians in the Roman empire is also reflected in the interpretation of Micah. Before the Constantinian turn in 312 Justin and (probably) Origen refer to the persecution of Christians (§§ V.20, 30), and even after this turn Ambrose, Jerome, and Cyril suggest that persecutions continued. Ambrose relates them to the ‘vanities of this world’ and Cyril also accuses heretics of persecuting the orthodox Christians (§§ V.7, 30, 31, 33). Several authors of the fourth and fifth centuries interpret Micah’s predictions of peace and of the defeat of the enemies and their shame (Mic 4:3 – 4; 5:4 [5:5]; 5:7– 8 [5:8 – 9]; 7:16) as being fulfilled after the end of the persecutions, in the triumph of Catholic Christianity, and – to various degrees – in the peace of the Roman empire of their days (Eusebius, Athanasius, Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret; §§ 19, 20, 24– 26, 38). However, Augustine finishes his quotation of Mic 4:1– 3b before the description of peace in Mic 4:3c–e, which suggests that he is not inclined to relate the

 G. Stemberger, ‘Hieronymus und die Juden seiner Zeit’, in D.-A. Koch, H. Lichtenberger, K. & T. Lehnardt (eds), Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter. Festschrift für Heinz Schreckenberg, Göttingen 1993, 347– 364, concludes that for his knowledge of Jewish traditions Jerome mainly drew on literary sources, not on personal contacts. Although Stemberger does not refer to Jerome’s Commentary on Micah, his conclusion may hold for this work as well, since all the Jewish interpretations transmitted in it might stem from Origen’s Commentary.

V.40 Conclusions

227

complete fulfilment of this vision to his own time and rather expects the predicted peace in the afterlife.

V.40.8 Trinitarian and Christological testimonies Micah’s text was quoted a few times in the doctrinal debates of the late fourth century. Other interpretations testify unpolemically to the doctrinal views of the fourth and fifth centuries. Basil of Caesarea quotes Mic 2:7a, ‘The house of Jacob provoked the Spirit of the Lord to anger’, as a warning against the view that the Holy Spirit is inferior to God the Father (§ V.12). Didymus quotes Mic 3:7– 8, ‘I (i. e. the Lord) fill [them with] strength by the Spirit of the Lord’, as a testimony to the divinity of the Holy Spirit and his close collaboration with God the Father and the Son (§ V.17). Jerome interprets the Hebrew text of Mic 4:14b (5:1b), ‘they have set a siege against us’, as a testimony to the Jewish hostility towards the Trinity, and he finds another reference to the Trinity in the plural subject ‘we’ speaking in the Hebrew text of Mic 5:4 (5:5) (§§ V.22; 25). In Mic 5:1 (5:2), the prophecy of Christ’s birthplace Bethlehem, which also refers to his origins from the beginning, Eusebius, Ps.-Dionysius of Alexandria, Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret, and Hesychius read a reference to his twofold provenance, both to his birth from the virgin Mary and to his eternal generation from the Father before the ages (§ V.23). As we saw in § V.40.5, Jerome and Hesychius hold that in Mic 7:14a, ‘Shepherd your people with your rod’, God the Father is speaking to his Son, Jesus Christ; Cyril also considers this interpretation besides the other possibility that it is Micah who addresses Christ (§§ V.38, 40.5).

V.40.9 The relationship between the patristic interpretations Since many interpretations of Micah come back in later works, it is evident that authors were regularly inspired by the interpretations of their predecessors. First, there is a clear connection between Theodore’s and Theodoret’s Commentaries. Theodore’s comments often reappear in Theodoret, but the latter does not uncritically follow the former. Theodoret has more interpretations that pertain to Christ (see § V.40.5), and sometimes he clearly criticizes Theodore, though without mentioning his name (Mic 1:15; 4:1– 3; 5:1– 4 [5:2– 5]; §§ V.9, 19, 23, 24). It is possible that Theodoret also knew Origen’s and Cyril’s Greek Commentaries,⁹¹⁰

 We may rule out that Theodoret could read Jerome’s Latin Commentary, although it cannot

228

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

since most of his succinct metaphorical or Christianizing interpretations correspond with these works, but if he adopted some of his interpretations from them, all in all such borrowings are limited and may also be mediated through other works (e. g. the metaphorical interpretation of Mic 1:3 – 4; the Messianic interpretation of Mic 5:1– 2 (5:2– 3); the baptismal interpretation of Mic 7:19; §§ V.4, 23, 39). As I noted in § III.1, Theodore, for his part, also refers to previous expositors, but it is unknown who they are (Mic 1:15; 4:8; 5:4– 5 [5:5 – 6]; §§ V.9, 21, 25) Second, there are many resemblances between the interpretations of Eusebius, Ambrose, Jerome, Cyril, and Hesychius. In most cases there are good reasons to consider Origen’s Commentary on Micah the origin of such interpretations, for although this work is lost, his extant works testify to similar comments and views that later authors most likely found in his Commentary on Micah as well. The relationship between Origen and Jerome is particularly strong. We can even safely conclude that Jerome derived the majority of his comments from Origen. This is confirmed by Jerome’s prologue to his second volume on Micah, where he admits his use of Origen (§ III.1). In addition, as we saw in § V.40.5, he sometimes refers to the interpretation of ‘someone’ or ‘other people’, by whom he always means Origen (§§ V.4, 10, 11, 28). However, we also saw that Jerome’s comments repeatedly contain inconsistencies. Most probably they were caused by his hasty and careless reading of Origen’s Commentary (§ V.4, 33, 37, 38). The similarities between Jerome’s and Cyril’s comments might be explained in two or even three ways; either Cyril consulted Origen’s Greek Commentary, or, since he could not read Latin himself, he had the help of assistants who informed him about Jerome’s Latin Commentary, or – theoretically – he drew both on Origen’s and on Jerome’s Commentaries. With regard to Cyril’s Commentary on Isaiah, Norman Russell concludes that Cyril had the help of translators who made Jerome accessible to Cyril, and that Jerome’s influence seems to have been more direct than that of Eusebius’ Greek Commentary on Isaiah. ⁹¹¹ As for Cyril’s Commentary on Micah it cannot always be decided whether he derives his expositions from Origen or Jerome, but in one instance it seems clear. In

be ruled out that he asked an assistant to consult it for him. I. Pásztori-Kupán, Theodoret of Cyrus, London/New York 2006, 4, notes that Theodoret knew Syriac, Greek, and Hebrew, but Guinot, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr, 183 – 185; 190 – 197, concludes that his knowledge of Hebrew was limited, although it is difficult to point out to which extent.  N. Russell, Cyril of Alexandria, Oxford 2000, 70 – 71, also quoted by R.C. Hill (transl.), St. Cyril of Alexandria: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets 1 (FaCh 115), Washington D.C. 2007, 7. Likewise, Ondrey, The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture, 37– 38; 60 – 70 assumes that Cyril used Jerome’s commentaries.

V.40 Conclusions

229

his interpretation of the toponyms Carmel, Bashan, and Gilead in Mic 7:14, Jerome only gives their meaning in Latin, but Cyril gives the original Greek translations (§ V.38). Although it is theoretically possible that he found these renderings into Greek in another reference work, I consider it more likely that he directly found this information in Origen’s Commentary. Therefore I consider it more probable that Cyril directly consulted Origen’s Commentary than Jerome’s one, for which he would have needed the help of a translator. This implies that I disagree with Hauna Ondrey’s observation, ‘Cyril’s debt to Jerome is now taken as standard.’⁹¹² In addition, given some similarities between Theodore’s and Cyril’s historical comments (e. g. §§ V.9, 12, 15, 21, 25), the latter appears to have benefited from the Commentary of the former, although Cyril does not allude to it.⁹¹³ Hesychius’ Christianizing notes often stand in the Origenian tradition, from which we may conclude that he either knew Origen’s or Cyril’s Commentary, or both. However, he regularly proposes interpretations that are not found in his precedessors, which demonstrates that he is an original exegete (e. g. §§ V.4– 7, 12, 14, 16, 20, 24, 25, 33).

V.40.10 Assessment of the Christological reading of Micah Among the numerous ‘spiritual’ interpretations of Micah, the far-reaching applications of his book to Christ are the most conspicuous, although such interpretations are not surprising for those who are acquainted with the New Testament and patristic literature. I conclude this chapter with a few observations on the Christological interpretations.⁹¹⁴ The view that Jesus Christ is the Lord, in the sense of YHWH, originated in the first decades of Christianity. On several occasions Paul quotes Old Testament YHWH texts and applies them to Jesus.⁹¹⁵ Philippians 2:9 reads that God gave to the exalted Jesus the name that is above every name, which, according to respected modern commentaries, (most likely) refers to the name YHWH.⁹¹⁶ This

 Ondrey, The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture, 60.  Likewise, Hill, St. Cyril of Alexandria: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets 1, 6; see also Ondrey, The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture, who notes, ‘Cyril mentions his predecessors in his commentary ony generally, not revealing any specific sources’ (37).  Cf. Roukema, ‘Patristic Interpretation of Micah’, 717– 719.  Rom 10:13 (Joel 3:5); 14:11 (Isa 45:23); 1 Cor 1:31 (Jer 9:22– 23); for other texts see D.B. Capes, Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology (WUNT 2, 47), Tübingen 1992, 90 – 145.  See G.D. Fee, Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT), Grand Rapids, Mich. 1995, 222.

230

V Patristic interpretation of Micah

is confirmed by the following confession that Jesus Christ is the Lord, to the glory of God the Father (Phil 2:11). The Gospel of John also describes Jesus in terms of the Old Testament Kurios. ⁹¹⁷ For Justin Martyr and other Christian authors of the second century it was common to interpret Old Testament texts about the Lord revealing himself to humans as references to the pre-existent Word and Lord, Jesus Christ.⁹¹⁸ This implies that they made a distinction between God who, as the Word and Lord, revealed himself to humans, and God the Father. Once one accepts that Septuagint texts about the Kurios revealing himself to humans essentially speak about the pre-existent Lord Jesus Christ, it is a logical consequence to interpret the prophecy of the Lord’s descent from heaven to the earth in Mic 1:2– 4 as a testimony to the coming of Jesus Christ. As we saw in footnotes to §§ V.4, 15, 38, 39, similar interpretations were given in Judaism in Targum Ps.-Jonathan, which repeatedly refers to the Memra of the Lord. Likewise, the interpretation of Mic 1:5 – 6 discovered in Qumran applies the references to Samaria and Jerusalem to the ‘Spreader of the Lie’ – probably the ‘Wicked Priest’ – and the ‘Teacher of Righteousness’ respectively.⁹¹⁹ Once it is accepted that the beginning of Micah speaks about Jesus Christ, it is not strange to read the subsequent chapters too as prophecies about him – especially since this is confirmed by the quotation from Mic 5:1 (5:2) in Matthew’s narrative of Jesus’ birth. This corresponds with Targum Ps.-Jonathan’s reading of this text as a prophecy of the Messiah (§ II.1). We may conclude that in the ancient Christian perspective the ‘spiritual’, Christological interpretation of this prophet was not arbitrary, but was based on a well-thought-out hermeneutics, even though the ancient authors differed widely on the extent to which this sort of explanations had to be applied.

 R. Roukema, ‘Jesus and the Divine Name in the Gospel of John’, in G.H. van Kooten (ed.), The Revelation of the Name YHWH to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity (TBN 9), Leiden 2006, 207– 223; J.J.F. Coutts, The Divine Name in the Gospel of John (WUNT 2, 447), Tübingen 2017.  Justin Martyr, I Apologia 62, 3 – 63, 17 (SC 507); Dialogus cum Tryphone 56, 11; 58, 3; 60, 2; 61, 1; 63, 5 (Bobichon); Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum II, 22 (Grant); Irenaeus, Praedicatio Apostolica 6 (SC 406); Aduersus Haereses IV, 10, 1; 20, 7– 11 (SC 100); Tertullian, De praescriptione haereticorum 13, 3 (CCSL 1).  1QpMic = 1Q14, Fragments 8 – 10 (ed. and transl. F. García Martínez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition I, Leiden 1997, 8 – 9); cf. 1QpHab I, 13 (ibidem, 10 – 11).

VI Liturgical use of Micah In addition to running Commentaries and short notes on Micah, and quotations from this book for apologetical, doctrinal, and devotional purposes, passages of it were read during the Christian worship services. Little is known about early, pre-Constantinian lectionaries, and if they existed they have not been transmitted.¹ In the fourth and fifth centuries partial or even complete lectionaries were developed. This chapter will present a survey of occasional observations on readings from Micah, and of the readings from this book in the lectionary of the church in Jerusalem, the Byzantine lectionary, and the Roman Missal (§ VI.1). In addition, as announced in § V.29, an important liturgical reception of Mic 6:3 – 4a (or 6:1– 8) is attested in the liturgies of Good Friday, in which the Lord’s complaint, ‘My people, what have I done to you…’, was ascribed to Christ who, during his crucifixion, accuses his people of their ungratefulness for his salutary deeds among them. Because of the anti-Jewish impact of this penetrating liturgical reception of this one passage from Micah, I will largely pay attention to this tradition in various liturgies and its possible provenance (§ VI.2).

VI.1 Ancient readings from Micah in the liturgy As we saw in § V.19, Origen suggests that every Christian knows the passage in Isa 2:2– 4 and its parallel in Mic 4:1– 3 concerning the nations coming to the mountain of the Lord in Jerusalem to learn the law and word of the Lord.² Martine Dulaey rightly observes that the notoriety of this text must be due to the place it had

 With regard to Origen in Caesarea Maritima, W. Schütz, Der christliche Gottesdienst bei Origenes (CThM 8), Stuttgart 1984, 73, refers to a triennial cycle of readings in lectio continua, but he does not give any source for this information. Apparently he draws on P. Nautin, Origène. Sa vie et son œuvre, Paris 1977, 395, who suggests that the reading of the Bible lasted circa three years, as long as the three-year catechumenate according to the Apostolic Tradition 17, 1 (SC 11bis). However, P.F. Bradshaw, M. E. Johnson, and L.E. Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2002, 96 – 98, argue that this element of the duration of baptismal preparation stems from the fourth century. In any case the existence of a three-year catechumenate does not imply that a triennial lectionary was followed. J.C. Salzmann, Lehren und Ermahnen. Zur Geschichte des christlichen Wortgottesdienstes in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (WUNT 2, 59), Tübingen 1994, 430 – 438, does not follow Nautin’s hypothesis of a triennial cycle either.  Origen, Ep. ad Africanum 21 (15) (SC 302). https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-008

232

VI Liturgical use of Micah

already received in the liturgical readings.³ Origen’s testimony is found in a letter to Julius Africanus which probably dates to 248 – 250.⁴ Most likely, in this period Micah’s prophecy about the birth of the Saviour in Mic 5:1– 2 (5:2– 3) was equally well-known because it was read in the liturgy, but as far as I know ancient attestations to this presumed usage have not survived. The first lectionary that has been preserved originates from Jerusalem. Although its Greek text is lost, it has survived in Armenian and Georgian translations whose contents, however, are divergent. Charles Renoux argues that the Armenian translation stems from the period between 417 and 439, so that it is based on the liturgy of the early fifth century, whose origin goes back to the fourth century. The Georgian version, however, testifies to the development of the Jerusalem liturgy from the fifth to eighth centuries.⁵ According to the Armenian translation, the reading of Mic 5:1– 6 (5:2– 7) was prescribed for the eve of Epiphany, the 6th of January, on the Site of the Shepherds near Bethlehem.⁶ In the Georgian translation this reading is given for Christmas eve, the 24th of December.⁷ This reflects the introduction of the celebration of Christ’s birth on the 25th of December, which had been accepted in Jerusalem in the early fifth century, subsequently disappeared, and was reintroduced in the time of emperor Justin II (565 – 578).⁸ For Epiphany the Georgian translation prescribes the reading of Mic 7:16 – 20.⁹

 M. Dulaey, ‘“Venez, montons à la montagne du Seigneur”. Is 2, 2– 6 (Mi 4, 1– 3) dans l’exégèse paléochrétienne’, in B. Caseau, J.-C. Cheynet, V. Déroche (eds), Pèlerinages et lieux saints dans l’antiquité et le Moyen Âge. Mélanges offerts à Pierre Maraval, Paris 2006, 159 – 178 (160).  Thus N. de Lange, in M. Harl, N. de Lange (ed., transl.), Origène. Philocalie, 1 – 20 Sur les Écritures. La lettre à Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne (SC 302), Paris 1983, 498 – 501.  Ch. Renoux, ‘The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Liturgy of Jerusalem’, in P. Blowers (ed., trans.), The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity, Notre Dame, Ind. 1997, 399 – 414 (393 – 394); Ch. Renoux, Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie. Le Čašoc‘. II. Édition synoptique des plus anciens témoins (PO 214 / 48, 2), Turnhout 1999, 101; also A. Renoux, Le Codex arménien Jérusalem 121 I. Introduction. Aux origines de la liturgie hiérosolymitaine. Lumières nouvelles (PO 163 / 35, 1), Turnhout 1969, 21– 24.  Renoux, Le codex arménien Jerusalem 121 II (PO 168 / 36, 2), 210 – 213; Renoux, Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie. Le Čašoc‘ II (PO 214 / 48, 2), 151.  Ed. and transl. M. Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (Ve–VIIIe siècle) I (CSCO.I 188 – 189 / 9 – 10), Louvain 1959, § 16 (CSCO.I 189, 11).  S.R. Roll, Toward the Origin of Christmas (Liturgia Condenda 5), Kampen 19962, 199 – 200.  Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem I, § 103 (CSCO.I 189, 23). The reading of Mic 7:16 – 20 is introduced by the words, ‘This says the Lord, I will show you marvels (cf. Mic 7:15) …’

VI.1 Ancient readings from Micah in the liturgy

233

The Armenian version mentions Mic 4:1– 7 for the 10th hour on Wednesday in the second week of Lent.¹⁰ For this day one manuscript of the Georgian version gives Mic 4:1– 5.¹¹ Moreover, the Georgian version prescribes the reading of Mic 6:1– 9b on the third Tuesday of Lent and Mic 7:7– 20 for the sixth Monday of Lent.¹² According to the Armenian translation, Micah’s exclamation in Mic 7:7– 9 was read on the 20th of arac‘, the feast of the Twelve Prophets.¹³ The Georgian version prescribes this feast for the 4th of December, and gives more readings from Micah than its Armenian counterpart, viz. Mic 4:6 – 13, 6:1– 9b, 7:7– 20, and 4:1– 5.¹⁴ Furthermore, the Armenian translation notes the reading of Mic 7:18 – 20 for the 23rd of areg, the commemoration of the Armenian David who had converted from Islam in 665 and died as a martyr since he was not willing to deny his baptism.¹⁵ From Jerusalem, Armenia, and Georgia we go to North Africa, where Augustine’s homilies contain some relevant observations concerning his choice of the readings. It has been noted that ‘Augustine often selected his own readings for the liturgy, unless local tradition had already assigned specific readings to that day’, and that ‘the development of a fixed lectionary had already begun in Augustine’s time’.¹⁶ Such a local tradition may be the reading of Mic 6:6 – 8 on which Augustine gave a sermon on a Sunday in 418, probably briefly after the 26th of May, the day of Pentecost, in the basilica Celerina in Carthage.¹⁷ In another sermon held at the mensa Cypriani in Carthage, apparently a week later, he

 Renoux, Le codex arménien Jerusalem 121 II (PO 168 / 36, 2), 242– 243; Renoux, Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie. Le Čašoc‘. II (PO 214 / 48, 2), 166 – 167.  Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem I, § 381 (CSCO.I 189, 54– 55).  Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem I, § 412; 535 (CSCO.I 189, 59; 75 – 76). For the concluding delimitation of Mic 6:1– 9b see § V.32.  Ch. Renoux (ed., transl.), Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie. Le Čašoc‘ III. Le plus ancien Čašoc‘ cilicien le Érévan 832 (PO 221 / 49, 5), Turnhout 2004, 590 – 591.  M. Tarchnischvili (ed., transl.), Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (Ve–VIIIe siècle) II (CSCO.I 204– 205), Louvain 1960, § 1396; 1618 – 1621 (CSCO 205, 55, 79).  Renoux, Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie. Le Čašoc‘ III (PO 221 / 49, 5), 598.  Thus M. Schrama, ‘Prima lectio quae recitata est. The liturgical pericope in light of Saint Augustine’s sermons’, Augustiniana 45 (1995), 141– 175 (144; 151).  Augustin, Sermo 48, 2 (CCSL 41, 606); he calls Mic 6:6– 8 the first reading. For the date of the sermon see P.-P. Verbraken, Études critiques sur les sermons authentiques de saint Augustin (IP 12), Steenbrugge/’s-Gravenhage 1976, 64; M. Margoni-Kögler, Die Perikopen im Gottesdienst bei Augustinus. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der liturgischen Schriftlesungen in der frühen Kirche, Vienna 2010, 242– 243. Cf. § V.31.

234

VI Liturgical use of Micah

preached about the same text.¹⁸ In a short homily given in an Easter vigil in Hippo, Augustin quotes Mic 4:1ab, with reference to ‘the prophet’, which implies that most likely this text was the beginning of one of the readings.¹⁹ The Byzantine Prophetologion, which appeared in the eighth century and whose oldest manuscripts date from the ninth century,²⁰ prescribes the reading of Mic 5:1– 3 (5:2– 4) for the first of the ‘Great Hours’ of the preparation of Christmas (23rd of December). On Christmas eve Mic 4:6 – 7 and once again Mic 5:1– 3 (5:2– 4) are read. In the evening office on Wednesday in the fourth week after Easter the Prophetologion proposes the reading of Mic 4:2e–3b, 5, 7c; 6:2 – 5b, 6:8 and a free rendering of 5:3 (5:4).²¹ One group of the Ordines Romani – medieval liturgical manuscripts of the Roman Catholic Church – gives the general prescription that the Minor Prophets be read in the nocturnal offices in November.²² This instruction may be dated to the first half of the eighth century, but the practice itself must be older.²³ According to other Ordines, also dated to the eighth century, the Minor Prophets were to be read in the period after Epiphany until mid-February or from Christmas until

 Augustin, Sermo 49, 1 (CCSL 41, 614). See Verbraken, Études critiques sur les sermons authentiques de saint Augustin, 64, and Margoni-Kögler, Die Perikopen im Gottesdienst bei Augustin, 242– 243.  Augustine, Sermo 223H (ed. Morin, 716). Morin refers to Isa 2:2, but the quoted text includes the term paratus, which is only found in Mic 4:1 (ἕτοιμον in the Septuagint), not in Isa 2:2. See Verbraken, Études critiques sur les sermons authentiques de saint Augustin, 195.  Thus A.A. Alexeev, ‘The Old Testament Lections in Orthodox Worship’, in I.Z. Dimitrov et al. (eds), Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht. Zweite europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz im Rilakloster vom 8.–15. September 2001 (WUNT 174), Tübingen 2004, 91– 117 (92– 96); G. Rouwhorst, ‘The liturgical reading of the Bible in Early Eastern Christianity. The protohistory of the Byzantine lectionary’, in K. Spronk, G. Rouwhorst, S. Royé (eds), Challenges and Perspectives: Collected Papers, resulting from the expert meeting of the Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts programme held at the PThU in Kampen, the Netherlands on 6th–7th November 2009, Turnhout 2013, 155 – 171 (155).  C. Høeg, G. Zuntz, G. Engberg (eds.), Prophetologium I. Lectiones anni mobilis (MMB.L I, 1; 6), Copenhagen 1939, 1970, 38 – 39; 526 – 527.  M. Andrieu (ed.), Les Ordines Romani du haut Moyen Âge II. Les Textes (Ordines I–XIII) (SSL. Études et documents 23), Louvain 1948, 475 – 476; 485; 500; 514; 523; 525 (Ordines 13A, 11; 13B, 12; 13C, 13; 13D, 13; 13D, 32).  Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du haut Moyen Âge II, 478. In the first half of the sixth century Benedict of Nursia, Regula 9, writes, Codices autem legantur in vigiliis diuinae auctoritatis tam ueteris testamenti quam novi (‘Let the divinely inspired books, both of the Old and New Testaments, be read at the Night-Office’); O.H. Blair (ed., transl.), The Rule of St. Benedict, London 19344, 58 – 59.

VI.2 The reception of Mic 6:3 – 4a (or 6:1 – 8) in liturgies of Good Friday

235

two weeks before Lent.²⁴ None of the fifty Ordines that were preserved contains an explicit reference to Micah.²⁵ The Missale Romanum of Milan, from 1474, only prescribes the reading of Mic 7:14, 16, 18, 20 for Ember Saturday in the third week of September.²⁶

VI.2 The reception of Mic 6:3 – 4a (or 6:1 – 8) in liturgies of Good Friday In the Septuagint, Micah 6:3 – 4a reads: ‘3My people, what have I done to you? Or wherein have I saddened you or have I annoyed you? Answer me! 4aFor I have brought you up from the land of Egypt.’ In several ancient liturgies for Good Friday these or similar words are used as Christ’s reproaches (or Improperia) to those who crucified him even though in the past he set them free from slavery in Egypt. I will investigate the question when and where this particular reception of a passage of Micah may have originated.²⁷ Since it is not fully clear when this tradition started, my treatment of the sources will deviate from the historical order applied in chapter V, where I usually started with the earliest interpretations of a passage, to continue with the subsequent ones. In this section I will first discuss some younger liturgies and then search for the possible origin of these traditions. I will start with a Latin liturgy from Spain. In older research Latin liturgies for Good Friday or Lent that included the reproaches of Mic 6:3 or 6:3 – 4a were dated between 400 and 600, but such early dates have been abandoned nowadays.²⁸ It is generally accepted that the earliest  M. Andrieu (ed.), Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen âge III. Les Textes (Ordines XIV– XXXIV) (SSL. Études et documents 24), Louvain 1951, 25 – 27; 34– 35; 40; 147; 170 – 171; 184 (Ordines 14, 8; 16, 3; 17, 69).  Apart from Andrieu’s volumes II and III (see the previous footnotes) I have checked his volumes IV and V (SSL. Études et documents 28, 29), Louvain 1956, 1961. Only in the tenth-century Ordo 50, 35 (published in volume V) we find an implicit quotation of Mic 6:3 – 4a in the Improperia of Good Friday, which are discussed in the following section.  R. Lippe (ed.), Missale Romanum Mediolani I, London 1899, 287.  See also R. Roukema, ‘‘Mijn volk, wat heb ik u gedaan?’ Micha 6:3 – 4a in de Improperia voor Goede Vrijdag en bij de kerkvaders’, NThT 64 (2010), 200 – 217.  H. Leclerq, ‘Impropères’, DACL 17, Paris 1926, 471– 476, dates several Latin Improperia manuscripts that include Mic 6:3 around or before 600, and once even before 400. J. Drumbl, ‘Die Improperien in der lateinischen Liturgie’, ALW 15 (1973), 68 – 100, dates such texts to the ninth to eleventh centuries (75, 87). L. Brou, ‘Les Impropères du Vendredi-Saint. VIII’ [4th part], RGr 22 (1937), 44– 51, accepts the traditional attribution of the Liber responsalis sive antiphonarius to Gregory the Great at the end of the sixth century; in this work the Responsoria de Josue, which include Mic 6:3 – 4a (PL 78, 757D–758A), are given for the fourth Sunday of Lent

236

VI Liturgical use of Micah

Latin witness to the use of Mic 6:3 – 4a – even of Mic 6:1– 8 – on Good Friday is found in the Mozarabic (or Visigothic, Hispanic) liturgy, in the Antiphonarium Visigothicum of the cathedral of León, which dates to the beginning of the seventh century.²⁹ For the ninth hour of this day it prescribes the erection of a cross on the altar, after which the bishop says or rather sings (dicere)³⁰ alternately with the other clergy,³¹ My people, what have I done to you, or wherein have I saddened you? Answer me! For I have brought you up from the land of Egypt, [but] you have prepared a cross for me. Hear what the Lord says. Stand up, plead a case against the mountains, and let the hills hear your voice. For I have brought you… Hear, mountains, the judgment (iudicium) of the Lord, and the strong foundations of the earth, for the Lord has a trial (iudicium) with his people, and with Israel he will contend, saying, For I have brought you… My people, what have I done to you, or wherein have I saddened you or wherein have I annoyed you? Answer me! For I have brought you up from the land of Egypt, and redeemed you from the house of slavery, and I sent before you Moses and Aaron and Miriam, [but] you have prepared [a cross for me]. My people, I ask [you], remember what Balak king of Moab planned, and what Balaam son of Beor answered him, from Settim to Gilgal, that you might know the righteous acts of the Lord. For I have brought you… What shall I offer to the Lord as a worthy [sacrifice]? Shall I bow my knees before God the Most High? For I have brought you… Shall I offer him burnt-offerings or yearling calves? Can the Lord be appeased with thousands of rams or with many thousands of fat he-goats? For I have brought you… Shall I give him my firstborn for my impiety, the fruit of my womb for the sin of my soul? For I have brought you… I shall declare you, o human, what is good and what the Lord requires from you; especially

(44– 45). However, W. Schütz, ‘“Was habe ich dir getan, mein Volk?” Die Wurzeln der Karfreitagsimproperien in der alten Kirche’, JLH 13 (1968), 1– 38, dates this work to the late ninth century (13). See also G. Römer, ‘Die Liturgie des Karfreitags’, ZKTh 77 (1955), 39 – 93 (81– 86).  Ed. L. Brou, J. Vives, Antifonario visigotico mozarabe de la Catedral de León (MHS.L V, 1), Barcelona/Madrid 1959. Schütz, ‘Was habe ich dir getan, mein Volk?’, 9, considers that the Improperia in this liturgy may stem even from the sixth or fifth century.  For dicere in the sense of singing a psalm or hymn see F. Vollmer, E. Bickel, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae V,1, Leipzig 1934, 977, and A. Blaise, Dictionnaire Latin-Français des auteurs chrétiens, Turnhout 1954, 269.  Quotations from Mic 6:3 – 4a are italicized.

VI.2 The reception of Mic 6:3 – 4a (or 6:1 – 8) in liturgies of Good Friday

237

that you do judgment, and love mercy, and walk attentively with the Lord your God. For I have brought you…³²

For the most part this antiphonal song is based on Mic 6:1– 8 in Jerome’s translation from the Hebrew text, the version called Vulgata since the sixteenth century (see § III.2). To this origin, however, there is one notable exception, since the text of Mic 6:3 consists of three questions, ‘what have I done to you, or wherein have I saddened you, or wherein have I annoyed you?’, which corresponds with the Septuagint, whereas the Hebrew text has two questions here.³³ The second question, ‘wherein have I saddened you?’ (in quo te contristabi [or contristavi]), derives either from a Latin translation based on the Septuagint³⁴ or directly from the Septuagint, or – which seems most likely – from a hymn based on the Septuagint. In the last case the use of Mic 6:3 in the context of Good Friday was inspired by a Church that celebrated its liturgy in Greek. The Greek liturgy according to the Byzantine Triodion (for the celebrations of the ten weeks before Easter) does indeed include twelve troparia (short hymns) for Good Friday, two of which include elements from Mic 6:3, which will be put in italics in my translation. A troparion for the sixth hour reads, This says the Lord to the Jews, ‘My people, what have I done to you (σοι), or wherein have I annoyed you (σοι)? I have given light to your blind; I have cleansed your lepers; I have raised up the bedridden man. My people, what have I done to you? And what did you give me in return? For the manna, [you gave back] bile; for the water, vinegar; instead of loving me, you nailed me to a cross. I do not endure it anymore. I shall call my nations, and they will glorify me with the Father and the Spirit, and I shall give them eternal life.’³⁵

 Vives, Brou (eds), Antifonario visigotico mozarabe, 272. For the date and the text itself see Drumbl, ‘Die Improperien in der lateinischen Liturgie’, 68 – 100 (95 – 96); Schütz, ‘Was habe ich dir getan, mein Volk?’, 9. Similar responses are found in the Missale Mixtum (PL 85, 421C– 422B) and in the Breviarium Gothicum (PL 86, 610C–611A), both ascribed to Isidore of Sevilla.  Antiphonarium Visigothicum: Popule meus quid feci tibi aut in quo te contristabi aut in quo tibi molestus fui? Septuagint: λαός μου, τί ἐποίησά σοι ἢ τί ἐλύπησά σε ἢ τί παρηνώχλησά σοι; Hebrew (MT): ‫ַע ִמּי ֶמה־ׇע ִשִׂתי ְלָך וָּמה ֶהְלֵאִתיָך‬, ‘My people, what have I done to you and in what have I wearied you?’ Jerome’s Vulgate: populus meus quid feci tibi et quid molestus fui tibi?  Thus also e. g. Ambrose, Explanatio Psalmorum XII, 36, 71 (CSEL 64) and Jerome, In Michaeam II, 6, 3 – 5, 85 (CCSL 76).  Τριῴδιον κατανυκτικὸν περιέχον ἅπασαν τὴν ἀνήκουσαν ἀκολουθίαν τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μεγάλης τεσσαρακόστης, Rome 1869, 692– 693 / Athens 2003, 933.

238

VI Liturgical use of Micah

This troparion includes Mic 6:3abd. For the ninth hour a related troparion with another allusion to Mic 6:3 is given. It reads, When the transgressors nailed the Lord of glory to the cross, he cried out to them,³⁶ ‘wherein have I saddened you (ὑμᾶς), or wherein have I grieved you (ἤ ἐν τίνι παρώργισα)? Who before me delivered you from oppression? And now, what do you give me in return? Evil for goodness; for a pillar of fire, you have nailed me to a cross; for a cloud, you have dug a tomb for me; for the manna, you have offered me bile; for the water, you have given me vinegar to drink. Therefore I shall call the nations, and they will glorify me with the Father and the Spirit.³⁷

This hymn includes Mic 6:3c and another version of Mic 6:3d, ‘wherein have I grieved you?’ These twelve Byzantine troparia are also found in the Typikon of Jerusalem from 1122,³⁸ but the fact that this liturgical handbook includes them suggests that they originate from an earlier period. The question is, how far can we reach back to their origin? The earliest witness of the liturgy of Jerusalem, which precedes its lectionary preserved in Armenian (§ VI.1), is the pilgrim Egeria or Aetheria, who visited Jerusalem at the end of the fourth century, probably from 381 to 384. She writes that from the sixth to the ninth hour of Good Friday, besides readings about Christ’s passion, hymns were sung (dicuntur ymni) on Golgotha, but she does not relate anything about their contents.³⁹ The Armenian translation of Jerusalem’s liturgy does not contain such troparia for Good Friday, but the Georgian version does. As we saw in § VI.1, this translation reflects the development of the liturgy in Jerusalem from the fifth to the eighth centuries. Like the Typikon of 1122, for the sixth hour of Good Friday the Georgian version prescribes twelve troparia that are shorter than the Byzantine texts. The third and eighth of them include Mic 6:3abd and 6:3cd respectively. They read, Thus the Lord addressed the Jews, ‘My people, wherein have I saddened you (vos), or wherein have I annoyed you? I have given light to your blind and I have raised up the bedridden

 Another reading is, ‘When the transgressors nailed you, the Lord of glory, to a cross (σὲ σταυρῷ instead of τῷ σταυρῷ), you cried out (ἐβόας instead of ἐβόα) to them’; thus Τριῴδιον, Athens 2003, 940. S. Janeras, Le Vendredi-Saint dans la tradition liturgique byzantine. Structure et histoire de ses offices (StAns 99 / Analecta Liturgica 13), Rome 1988, 246, prefers the text with τῷ and ἐβόα on the basis of his assessment of the manuscripts.  Τριῴδιον, Rome 1869, 699; cf. the edition of Athens 2003, 940.  See J.-B. Thibaut, Ordre des offices de la Semaine Sainte à Jérusalem du IVe au Xe siècle, Paris 1926, 109 – 111; A. Rücker, ‘Die Adoratio Crucis am Karfreitag in den orientalischen Riten’, Miscellanea Liturgica in honorem L. Cuniberti Mohlberg (BEL 22), Rome 1948, 379 – 406 (383 – 386; troparia 3 and 8).  Egeria, Itinerarium 37, 1. 5 – 6 (SC 296).

VI.2 The reception of Mic 6:3 – 4a (or 6:1 – 8) in liturgies of Good Friday

239

man. For the manna, you offered me bile; for the water, vinegar; for my love you nailed me to a cross. Now I shall call the nations, and they will praise me, and I shall give them eternal life.’ When the transgressors nailed you, the Lord of glory, to a cross, you cried out to them, ‘wherein have I saddened you (vos), or wherein have I grieved you? Who before me delivered you from oppression? And now, why do you return to me evil for goodness? For that pillar of fire, you have nailed me to a cross; for that luminous cloud, you have dug a tomb for me; instead of the manna, you have given me bile to drink; for the water, vinegar. Now I shall call the nations, and they will praise me with the Father and the Holy Spirit.’⁴⁰

Another, contemporaneous witness to these troparia in Jerusalem is found in the Georgian translation of the Hymnal of Saint Sabas, for the Great Laura near Jerusalem, dating from the fifth to eighth centuries and depending on the ‘hagiopolitan’ liturgy.⁴¹ In Greek Typikon manuscripts the twelve troparia are ascribed either to Cyril of Alexandria or to Sophronius of Jerusalem (ca 550 – 638).⁴² Syriac liturgical manuscripts of the Jacobite church mention Cyril of Jerusalem as their author.⁴³ In 1988, Sebastià Janeras concluded that the attribution to Sophronius seems

 Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem II, § 123; 139 (CSCO.I 205, 109 – 110; 112). My translation is based on Tarchnischvili’s Latin translation of the Georgian version. A short survey of the liturgy in Tarchnischvili, Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem I, § 668, 682 (CSCO.I, 189, 97; 101).  Ch. Renoux (ed., transl.), L’hymnaire de Saint-Sabas (Ve–VIIIe siècle): Le manuscrit géorgien H 2123 I. Du samedi de Lazare à la Pentecôte) (PO 224 / 50, 3), Turnhout 2008. The beginning of the third antiphony for midday of Good Friday reads, in Renoux’s translation, ‘Tu parlais ainsi aux juifs, Seigneur: “Mon people, en quoi vous ai-je attristé, Ou en quoi vous ai-je opprimé? Vos aveugles, je les ai illuminés” etc. (375), and the eighth antiphony, ‘Lorsqu’à la croix, Les impies clouèrent le Roi de gloire, Tu leur crias : “En quoi vous contristai-je Ou en quoi vous irritai-je? Avant moi, qui vous délivra du malheur?”’ etc. (378). For the Great Laura see e. g. B. Flusin, ‘L’essor du monachisme oriental’, in L. Pietri et al. (eds), Les Églises d’orient et d’occident (Histoire du christianisme des origines à nos jours 3), [Paris] 1998, 545 – 608 (586 – 587).  Thus Rücker, ‘Die Adoratio Crucis am Karfreitag in den orientalischen Riten’, 383.  Thus A. Baumstark, Liturgie comparée. Principes et méthodes pour l’étude historique des liturgies chrétiennes, Chèvetogne 1939, 3rd ed. revised by B. Botte 1953, 105, who does not completely reject this attribution. In an earlier article, A. Baumstark, ‘Die Idiomela der byzantinischen Karfreitagshoren in syrischer Überlieferung’, OrChr 3rd series 3 – 4 (1930), 232– 247, points out that the Jacobite liturgy is younger than the Georgian translation of the liturgy of Jerusalem. Its seventh and twelfth troparia include Mic 6:3 (240 – 243; 246– 247). For Cyril of Jerusalem’s texts that resemble the Improperia see H. Auf der Maur, Die Osterhomilien des Asterios Sophistes als Quelle für die Geschichte der Osterfeier, Trier 1967, 145 – 146, and Schütz, ‘Was habe ich dir getan, mein Volk?’, 20; but Cyril does not allude to Mic 6:3.

240

VI Liturgical use of Micah

most credible.⁴⁴ If this estimation is correct, we should conclude that in the liturgy of Jerusalem the use of Mic 6:3 as words attributed to Christ during his crucifixion stems from roughly the same period as the Mozarabic liturgy in Spain. Since the text of Mic 6:3 in the Mozarabic antiphonal song goes back to the Septuagint version, we might conclude that it was inspired by the liturgy of the church in Jerusalem. However, could another, earlier candidate be found? Although older liturgies or hymns for Good Friday have not been preserved, other works of the late fourth century do testify to the use of Mic 6:3 as words of Christ, as we saw in § V.29. We will take a closer look at such testimonies. As far as known, Ambrose is the first author who quotes Mic 6:3 – 4b as Christ’s complaint related to his suffering and death. In his work On the Faith (378 – 380) he has Christ say to various heretics, ‘My people, what have I done to you, or wherein have I saddened you? Have I not brought you up from Egypt and redeemed you from the house of slavery?’⁴⁵ Ambrose replies, But it is not enough to have redeemed [us] from Egypt and to have saved [us] from the house of slavery. It is more important that you have given yourself for us. Therefore you will say, ‘Have not I borne all your wrongs? Have not I given up my body for you? Have I not sought death, which did not correspond to my divinity, but served your salvation? Are these the thanks that I receive? Of what avail is my blood, as I myself have already spoken through the prophet, “What profit is there in my blood? For I have gone down to corruption” (Ps 29:10)? Is its avail that you, for whom I suffered these things, denied me impiously?’⁴⁶

In his Exposition of Twelve Psalms (387– 397) Ambrose quotes Mic 6:3 – 4a in his comments on Psalm 36⁴⁷ and continues that the Lord, having destroyed the Egyptians, i. e. the enemies who had subjected the reader to serve them, ‘has redeemed you with his blood’. Again this implies that Ambrose ascribes Mic 6:3 – 4a to Christ and relates these words to his crucifixion that brought about

 Janeras, Le Vendredi-Saint dans la tradition liturgique byzantine, 258 – 259; thus also, six decades before Janeras, Thibaut, Ordre des offices de la Semaine Sainte à Jérusalem, 101.  Ambrose, De fide II, 13, 120 (CSEL 78); a quotation of Mic 6:3a–c and a rephrasing of Mic 6:4ab.  Ambrose, De fide II, 13, 121 (CSEL 78). Also quoted by Schütz, ‘Was habe ich dir getan, mein Volk?’, 13, and by A. Karim, “My People, what have I done to you?”: The Good Friday Popule Meus Verses in Chant and Exegesis, c. 380 – 880 (PhD thesis Case Western Reserve University), 2014, 28 – 37.  Ambrose, Explanatio Psalmorum XII, 36, 71 (CSEL 64); his text of Mic 6:3 reads, populus meus, quid feci tibi aut in quo contristavi te aut quid molestus tibi fui? Given chapter 36, 25, Ambrose probably commented on this Psalm after emperor Theodosius’ victory over emperor Eugenius on the 6th of September 394.

VI.2 The reception of Mic 6:3 – 4a (or 6:1 – 8) in liturgies of Good Friday

241

salvation.⁴⁸ However, in these comments Ambrose does not allude to the liturgy of Good Friday. In the same period John Chrysostom gave a sermon in which he discussed the (alleged) change of Saul’s name to Paul when Christ addressed him saying, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ (Acts 9:4). Chrysostom parallels this question with the words of God to the Jews, ‘My people, what have I done to you, or wherein have I saddened you?’ (Mic 6:3a–c).⁴⁹ In other works Chrysostom quotes Mic 6:3 as being spoken by God the Father,⁵⁰ but this sermon stands out since shortly before his quotation of this text he attributes a few questions to Christ that remind us of the later troparia for Good Friday, quoted above. Chrysostom explains and paraphrases Christ’s question to Saul in these words, ‘Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?’ This is not so much spoken by one who blames [others], as by one who defends himself. ‘Why do you persecute me? For which small or great thing must you blame me? In which respect did you suffer injustice from me? Because I have raised your dead? Because I have cleansed the lepers? Because I have expelled the demons? But for these reasons I should have been worshipped, not persecuted.’⁵¹

The question, ‘Because I have raised your dead?’ (ὅτι τοὺς νεκροὺς ὑμῶν ἀνέστησα;) comes back in a slightly longer version in another troparion for Good Friday that has not yet been quoted. Jesus is quoted there as saying, ‘For which deed do you want to crucify me, Jews? … Because I have raised the dead as from sleep?’ (ὅτι τοὺς νεκροὺς ὡς ἐκ ὕπνου ἀνέστησα;).⁵² As we have seen, the question, ‘Because I have cleansed the lepers?’ (ὅτι τοὺς λεπροὺς ἐκαθήρα;) has been taken up as a reproach in the troparion for the sixth hour of Good Friday, ‘I have cleansed your lepers’ (τοὺς λεπροὺς σου ἐκαθήρα).⁵³ However, similar clauses are found already in Melito of Sardes’ Paschal homily (ca 160 – 170) which reads, ‘And where has he been killed? In the midst of Jerusalem. Why? Because he has healed their lame, cleansed their lepers, led their blind to the light,

 Ambrose, Explanatio Psalmorum XII, 36, 72 (CSEL 64). In De interpellatione Iob et Dauid IV, 8, 29 (CSEL 32, 2) and Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam VI, 77 (CCSL 14) Ambrose also quotes Mic 6:3, and in Epistulae 1 (41), 23 – 24 (CSEL 82, 3) Mic 6:3 – 5, as words of Christ, but without referring to his crucifixion.  John Chrysostom, De mutatione nominum 3 (PG 51, 140, l. 17– 23).  E. g. John Chrysostom, De poenitentia 5 (PG 49, 306); De futurae uitae deliciis 5 (PG 51, 351); Hom. in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum 29, 3; 68, 2 (PG 57, 361; 58, 642).  John Chrysostom, De mutatione nominum 3 (PG 51, 140, l. 10 – 16).  Τριῴδιον, Rome 1896, 689; Athens 2003, 929.  Τριῴδιον, Rome 1896, 692; Athens 2003, 933.

242

VI Liturgical use of Micah

and raised their dead.’⁵⁴ New in Chrysostom’s sermon is that he parallels such reproachful questions with Mic 6:3. In another sermon, given in Constantinople in 399, Chrysostom criticizes those Christians who, on Good Friday, preferred the horse races and the theatre to the worship services. The beginning of the sermon reads, ‘Is this tolerable? Is this bearable? For I want to plead against you! Thus God also did with the Hebrews; for pleading against them he said, “My people, what have I done to you? Or wherein have I saddened you or wherein have I annoyed you? Answer me!”’⁵⁵ To be sure, Chrysostom attributes these words from Mic 6:3 – 4a to ‘God’, not explicitly to Christ, but nevertheless it is striking that on Good Friday he quotes these words which, a few centuries after him, were included in the troparia. We may conclude that Chrysostom’s sermons contain the elements that have been taken up in the later troparia for Good Friday which also include Mic 6:3 as words of Christ. Moreover, it is quite possible that in Constantinople earlier versions of such hymns for Good Friday already existed at the end of the fourth century. This would imply that the use of Mic 6:3 in the Mozarabic liturgy may also be inspired by the early liturgy of the Constantinopolitan church. Other versions of the Improperia for Good Friday including Mic 6:3 – 4a are found in Latin liturgies of a younger date than the Mozarabic liturgy.⁵⁶ Their relationship with the Greek liturgies will not be discussed here because I am mostly interested in the older versions that originate from the churches whose language for worship was Greek. The application of Mic 6:3, or 6:3 – 4a, or even 6:1– 8 in the Mozarabic liturgy, as Christ’s reproaches to the Jews when he was being crucified, has a regrettable anti-Jewish tendency. This understanding of the passage is confirmed by Isidore of Sevilla (ca 560 – 639), who quotes Mic 6:1– 5 as Christ’s words to the Jews.⁵⁷ Several medieval expositions of the liturgy of the Western, Latin church confirm

 Melito of Sardes, De Pascha 72, 523 – 528 (SC 123). H. Sasse, ‘Concerning the Origin of the Improperia’, RTR 16 (1957), 65 – 76, and G. Vittorino, ‘Melitone di Sardi, Perì Pascha 72– 99, 523 – 763. Sull’origine degli Improperia nella liturgia del Venerdì Santo’, in Dimensioni drammatiche della liturgia medioevale: Atti del I Convegno di studio: Viterbo, 31 maggio, 1 – 2 giugno 1976, Rome 1977, 203 – 216, trace back the origin of the Improperia to Melito. Yet Melito does not allude to Mic 6:3.  John Chrysostom, Contra ludos et theatra 1 (PG 56, 263); cf. Schütz, ‘Was habe ich dir getan, mein Volk?’, 37. The date of the sermon appears from Contra ludos et theatra 4 (PG 56, 268); in Constantinople Chrysostom was ordained a bishop the 26th of February 398.  See e. g. Römer, ‘Die Liturgie des Karfreitags’; Drumbl, ‘Die Improperien in der lateinischen Liturgie’; Schütz, ‘Was habe ich dir getan, mein Volk?’; H. Merkel, ‘Feste und Feiertage IV. Kirchengeschichtlich’, in G. Krause, G. Müller et al. (eds), TRE 9, Berlin/New York 1983, 115 – 132 (122– 123).  Isidore of Sevilla, De fide catholica contra Iudaeos I, 24, 2 (PG 83, 480AB).

VI.3 Conclusion

243

that the Improperia for Good Friday were conceived as Christ’s reproaches to the Jews, and not to the Christians as well.⁵⁸ Rupertus of Deutz interprets Mic 6:3 – 4a in this sense, both in his explanation of the liturgy (from 1111/1112) and in his Commentary on Micah. ⁵⁹ In his discussion of the liturgy for Good Friday he explains that the response ‘Holy, holy’ is sung in Greek and Latin, but not in Hebrew, because the Jewish people denies that Jesus is their king and curses and detests the inscription on his cross, ‘Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews’ (John 19:20). Rupertus continues, ‘While the aforementioned antiphonies (beginning with, ‘My people…’, Mic 6:3) are sung, the cross is taken there where it receives a faithful answer in Greek and Latin, because the crucified Lord leaves the Jews who deny him and moves on to the gentiles who acknowledge him.’⁶⁰ In the same vein, John Beleth notes in his work on the liturgy (1160 – 1164) that Christ’s reproaches to his people concern the Jews.⁶¹ This view is also found in the works by Sicardus of Cremona (before 1195) and William Durandus (1286).⁶² Still, as we saw in § V.29, Jerome and Cyril, who spiritually interpreted Mic 6:3 – 5 with regard to the redemption by Christ, also read it as God addressing the Christians. Haimo of Auxerre and Theophylact agree with this.⁶³ Likewise, Rupertus adds in this Commentary – but not in his work on the liturgy – that the Lord’s complaints also concern the Christians.⁶⁴

VI.3 Conclusion In ancient and early medieval liturgies the most favourite readings from Micah are the passages about the nations coming to the mountain of the Lord in Jerusalem and learning the law and word of the Lord, after which peace will be es-

 The scope of this historical conclusion differs from M. Poorthuis, ‘The Improperia and Judaism’, Questions Liturgiques. Studies in Liturgy 72 (1991), 1– 24, and R. Meßner, Einführung in die Liturgiewissenschaft, Paderborn 20092, 349 – 355, who interpret the Improperia in the present Roman Catholic liturgy as addressing the Church as God’s people. It is possible indeed to conceive these liturgical reproaches in this sense, but my point is that the medieval authors understood them as addressing the Jews.  Rupertus of Deutz (or Tuitensis), In Michaeam III, 6 (PL 168, 503A–504D).  Rupertus of Deutz, Liber de diuinis officiis 6, 19 (FC 33, 3).  John Beleth, Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis 98q (CCCM 41A).  Sicard of Cremona, Mitralis de officiis VI, 13, 285 – 301 (CCCM 228); William Durandus, Rationale diuinorum officiorum VI, 77, 13 – 15 (CCCM 140A).  Haimo of Auxerre, In Michaeam 6 (PL 117, 161C); Theophylact, In Michaeam 6, 1– 5 (PG 126, 1152AB).  Rupertus of Deutz, In Michaeam III, 6 (PL 168, 504D–505A).

244

VI Liturgical use of Micah

tablished (Mic 4:1– 3), and about the birth of the Christ in Bethlehem (Mic 5:1– 3 [5:2– 4]). Prolonged readings of these texts and other passages according to the lectionaries include Mic 4:1– 7; 4:6 – 13; 5:1– 6 (5:2– 7); 6:1– 9b; 7:7– 20, or selected verses from these readings. This implies that, according to the data discussed above, the first three chapters of Micah did not receive any attention in the services, not even Mic 1:3 – 4, which was spiritually interpreted as a description of Christ’s descent. Remarkably, from the first five centuries only two homilies on Micah have survived. They were given by Augustine in 418, and both of them dealt with Mic 6:6 – 8. Another liturgical use of Micah that did not mention the prophet’s name but was influential nevertheless, was the appropriation of the Lord’s complaints to his people as Christ’s reproaches (Improperia) to the Jews who rejected him and were considered responsible for his crucifixion, during its commemoration on Good Friday (Mic 6:3, 6:3 – 4a, or 6:1– 8). The inclusion of this passage in hymns for Good Friday is attested with certainty for the first decades of the seventh century, both in Greek and Latin liturgies, but most likely their origin dates back to an earlier period, perhaps even to the end of the fourth century, when an early form of such hymns may have been created for the liturgy of Constantinople.

VII Jesus’ quotation of Mic 1:7 in b‘Abodah Zarah In § II.2 we saw that the only text from Micah that Jesus quoted according to the New Testament Gospels was the saying about the divided families from Mic 7:6. Yet there is one more attestation of Jesus quoting Micah, namely in the Babylonian Talmud and a related text. Although it cannot be established for sure whether this tradition originated from the historical Jesus, it is worthwhile to discuss it, because several scholars do take it seriously as a source that may go back to Jesus. If it was possibly transmitted by Jewish Christians, it deserves to be investigated in this study of the ancient Christian reception and interpretation of Micah.

VII.1 An encounter between Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and a Jewish Christian In the Mishna, ‘Abodah Zarah is a treatise on idolatry. In its discussion in the Babylonian Talmud (b‘Abodah Zarah) Jesus is introduced as quoting, ‘For from the fee of a prostitute she gathered [them] and to the fee of a prostitute they will return’ (Mic 1:7de MT).¹ In Micah’s context this means that Samaria gathered her idol images (Mic 1:6a, 7a–c) from the wages she had earned by prostitution. In the words, ‘to the fee of a prostitute they will return’, the idol images seem to be the subject. The reference to prostitution is used in its figurative sense of idolatry, which may have included cultic prostitution, and the term has also been interpreted as an allusion to Samaria’s reliance on Assyria.² In order to assess the meaning of this quotation in b‘Abodah Zarah it is necessary to discuss its context, which is a story (a baraita) about Eliezer ben Hyrcanus, a tannaitic rabbi who lived roughly from the 30s in the first century to ca 115.³ He dwelled in Lod (Lydda), but also travelled through Palestine.⁴ The

 b‘Aboda Zara 17a; ed., transl. A. Mishcon, A. Cohen, I. Epstein, Abodah Zarah (Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud), London 1988.  A.S. van der Woude, Micha (POT), Nijkerk 19772, 36; H.W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 4. Micha (BK.AT 14, 4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982, 27; Andersen, Freedman, Micah, 183 – 185; cf. Hos 9:1.  Cf. D. Jaffé, Le judaïsme et l’avènement du christianisme. Orthodoxie et hétérodoxie dans la littérature talmudique Ier-IIe siècle (Patrimoines: judaïsme), Paris 2007, 151– 152 and T. Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud et la littérature rabbinique ancienne (Judaïsme ancien et origines du christianisme), Turnhout 2014, 167. The whole story is found in b‘Aboda Zara 16b–17a (ed. Jaffé, Le judaïsme, 121– 122; transl. Mishcon, Cohen, 84– 85).  Jaffé, Le judaïsme, 152; Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, 167. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-009

246

VII Jesus’ quotation of Mic 1:7 in b‘Abodah Zarah

story has been investigated by numerous scholars, whose interpretations are quite divergent.⁵ Benefiting from their various insights I will paraphrase the narrative and comment on it as far as is necessary for the understanding of the quotation from Mic 1:7 and its provenance, which implies that I will generally refrain from taking a position on the various other difficulties raised by this tradition. My interest is to find out whether we plausibly find here an element of the early Jewish-Christian reception of Micah. The story tells that rabbi Eliezer was arrested because of heresy (‫)מינות‬, and therefore he was led before the Roman governor to be judged. Further on it appears that the heresy he was accused of was his association with a Jewish Christian, so that he was under suspicion of being a Christian himself. Therefore the story seems to be situated during a persecution of Christians, probably in the beginning of the second century.⁶ The governor called him an old man and asked why he had occupied himself with such idle things. Eliezer professed his trust in the judge, by whom – according to a parenthesis – he meant his heavenly Father, but since the governor understood that he was referring to him, he acquitted the rabbi. When Eliezer came home his disciples wanted to comfort him, but he would not accept their consolation. Then rabbi Aqiba asked Eliezer whether perhaps he had ever heard a heretical teaching that had pleased him and might therefore be the reason for the denunciation and his arrest. Eliezer acknowledged that he suddenly remembered an encounter with one of the disciples of Yeshu ha-notsri (Jesus the Nazarene), called Jacob of Kefar Sekhaniah, in the upper market of Sepphoris. This Jacob had quoted the interdiction, ‘You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute…’ This has to be completed by the following words, ‘… and the hire of a dog⁷ into the house of the Lord your God to pay any vow’ (Deut 23:19 [23:18]). Jacob asked whether – in spite of this prohibition – it was permitted to use the fee of a prostitute for building a latrine for the high priest, apparently on the temple site.⁸ Eliezer did not reply to this, and Jacob continued that Jesus the Nazarene had taught him, ‘For from the fee of a prostitute  See the bibliography in Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, 165 – 166.  With reference to other scholars, Jaffé, Le judaïsme, 130 – 131, proposes 109 CE. J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, London 1925, 19473, 40, opts for 90 CE as the date of the arrest. Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, 190, suggests 95 CE, around the time when Eliezer was excommunicated by the Jewish Sages, but he admits that if the story is legendary, a dating is doomed to failure (171).  ‘Dog’ means a sacred prostitute, perhaps either male or female, as Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, 161, holds, which is confirmed by G. von Rad, Das erste Buch Mose (ATD 8), Göttingen 1964, 106. A more general interpretation, however, is that it particularly refers to a male prostitute; see J.R. Lundbom, Deuteronomy: A Commentary, Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge 2013, 660.  P. Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton/Oxford 2007, 45.

VII.1 An encounter between Eliezer ben Hyrcanus and a Jewish Christian

247

she gathered [them] and to the fee of a prostitute they will return’ (Mic 1:7de), which meant, ‘they came from a place of filth, let them go to a place of filth’. The story does not explicate what this saying refers to, but apparently it means that – according to this story – Jesus had agreed with the spending of the fee of a prostitute on building a latrine for the high priest. It is told that at that time this view had pleased Eliezer, and that now – apparently years later – he grew aware that this must have been the reason for his arrest because of heresy, since he had transgressed the words, ‘Keep your way from her’, namely heresy, ‘and do not go near to the door of her house’ (Prov 5:8). The story identifies the adulterous woman of this text as heresy, so Eliezer’s quotation implies that he should not have conversed with a disciple of Jesus, who was a heretic, even though Eliezer could agree with Jacob’s view on spending the fee of a prostitute for a latrine for the high priest. If this report describes a real, historical conversation, it might have taken place in the 60s of the 1st century, before the destruction of the temple in 70 CE.⁹ With some variations the story is also found in Qohelet Rabbah I, 24 on Eccl 1:8.¹⁰ According to this version, Jacob ascribed the quotation of Deut 23:19 (23:18) to ‘So-and-so’ (‫פלוני‬, a rabbinic designation of Jesus¹¹) and asked what was to be done with these things, i. e. the fees of a prostitute. Eliezer replied that they are forbidden, which means that it is forbidden to offer them to the temple to pay a vow. Jacob said that they are forbidden as an offering (‫)קרבן‬¹², but allowed for destruction (‫)אבדן‬¹³. Eliezer asked what this meant, to which Jacob replied, ‘Let bath-houses and latrines be made with them.’ Eliezer agreed with this and admitted that this halakha had escaped his memory. When Jacob saw that Eliezer agreed, he quoted the argument of ‘So-and-so’ (‫)פלוני‬, ‘From excrements they (i. e. the fees of a prostitute) came, and to excrements they will go out’, as it is said, ‘For from the fee of a prostitute she gathered [them] and to the fee of a

 Jaffé, Le judaïsme, 134.  Ed. and transl. M.d.C. Motos López, Las vanidades del mundo. Comentario rabínico al Eclesiastés, Estella 2001, 84– 86 and Jaffé, Le judaïsme, 123 – 124.  Jaffé, Le judaïsme, 123, and Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, 160 – 161, refer to the editions that give the name ‘Yeshua ben Pandera/Pandira’ and ‘Ben Pandera/Pandira’ instead of ‫פלוני‬.  Cf. κορβᾶν, Mark 7:11, and κορβανᾶν, Matt 27:6.  ‫אבדן‬, which is Jaffé’s, Murcia’s and other editors’ restitution of the reading ‫ ;אבדם‬see Jaffé, Le judaïsme, 123 – 124 (‘[comme] perte’); Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, 161, who also considers ‫אבדן‬ a noun, whereas ‫ אבדם‬means ‘pour les détruire’. Motos López, Las vanidades del mundo, 85, retains the reading ‫אבדם‬, and translates, ‘están prohibidos como ofrenda, (pero,) ¿estaría permitido confiscarlos?’ For the noun ‫ ָאְב ׇּדן‬see M. Jastrow, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, London/New York 1903, 3a: ‘ruin, destruction’.

248

VII Jesus’ quotation of Mic 1:7 in b‘Abodah Zarah

prostitute they will return’ (Mic 1:7de). The conclusion reads that they should be used for latrines for the people (‫לרבים‬, ‘for the many’). Eliezer liked this view, and much later he acknowledged that for this reason he was arrested because of heresy. It is difficult to date such stories. It is assumed that the Babylonian Talmud was composed in the fifth century and Qohelet Rabbah in the seventh or eighth century,¹⁴ but the individual traditions may be much older. However, before we continue to assess the possibly historical context of Eliezer’s encounter with Jacob, a third version of this story must be mentioned, which is found in the Tosefta treatise Ḥullin II, 24.¹⁵ The Tosefta (which means ‘addition’, namely to the Mishna) is dated ca 300, so that it is older than b‘Abodah Zarah and Qohelet Rabbah. ¹⁶ In Ḥullin the story about Eliezer’s arrest because of his presumed heresy due to his encounter with Jacob in Sepphoris is similar to the other versions, including a short reference to Yeshua (Jesus) ben Panthira, but the contents of the latter’s words is absent there. This might suggest that the references to Deut 23:19 (23:18) and Mic 1:7 were not found in the original version of this story and were added to the version found in b‘Abodah Zarah and the still later rendering in Qohelet Rabbah. If this were the case, it would be most unlikely that the quotation from Mic 1:7 might go back to an early Jewish-Christian tradition or even to Jesus himself. However this may be, the patristic authors do not show any awareness of this tradition.¹⁷

VII.2 Assessment of historical reliability Yet – as I noted above – several scholars take this story seriously as an early and reliable tradition. Dan Jaffé considers it likely that Jacob’s view on the use of a prostitute’s fee and his reference to Jesus might be older than the synoptic Gospels. He argues that Jesus’ saying about the food that passes out into the latrine (Mark 7:19) and his attention paid to prostitutes (e. g. Matt 21:31; Luke 7:37– 50) confirm that Jesus did not mince his words about such realities. Jaffé holds

 J. Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (ABRL), New York 1994, 183, 185; Motos López, Las vanidades del mundo, 21.  Ed. M.S. Zuckermandel, Tosephta based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices: With “Supplement to the Tosephta” by S. Liebermann, Jerusalem 1970 (original edition Trier 1882), 503; transl. J. Neusner, The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew: Fifth Division, Qodoshim (The Order of Holy Things), New York 1979, 74– 75; ed. and transl. Jaffé, Le judaïsme, 117– 120.  Neusner, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature, 127.  Cf. § V.5.

VII.2 Assessment of historical reliability

249

that the question of a latrine for the high priest could be urgent on Yom Kippur, when he had to stay in the temple day and night in order not to make himself unclean.¹⁸ Therefore it was not strange in itself that Eliezer and Jacob discussed this topic in a debate on halakha, for which the latter referred to Jesus. The quotation of a prophetic text, i. e. Mic 1:7de, as a clarification of a prohibition from the Torah is quite common in the Talmud. For such reasons – in Jaffé’s opinion – the view ascribed to Jesus does not necessarily originate with Jews who wanted to discredit him, as Joachim Jeremias thought.¹⁹ Thierry Murcia notes that, prior to Jaffé, Joseph Derenbourg, Heinrich Laible, Joseph Klausner, Robert Eisler, Saul Lieberman, Morris Goldstein, Marcel Simon, Moshe David Herr, Salomon Malka, and René-Samuel Sirat considered the episode of Eliezer’s arrest, including his debate with Jacob, authentic or probably authentic,²⁰ and that according to Morton Smith the teaching attributed to Jesus may be early and resembles the sayings in Q.²¹ We may add the name of Hans Bietenhard, who wrote that the story might be authentic.²² With regard to the halakha attributed to Jesus, how-

 Jaffé, Le judaïsme, 141, refers to the Temple Scroll, 11Q19, 46, 13 – 18, which prescribes that latrines be made outside, to the north-west of the city; ed. and trans. F. García Martínez, E.J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition II, Leiden 1998, 1264– 1265. Indeed, Josephus, Antiquitates judaicae 17, 165 – 166 (LCL 410) and the Mishnah, Yoma 1, 4– 7, demonstrate that the high priest also had to spend the night preceding the Day of Atonement in the temple; the problem of uncleanness, however, was that he was not allowed to have a nocturnal emission (cf. bYoma 18a; transl. Jung, 78). See D. Stökl Ben Ezra, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity (WUNT 163), Tübingen 2003, 22– 23. I owe this reference to Dr P. Barry Hartog.  Jaffé, Le judaïsme, 139 – 142; with reference to J. Jeremias, Unknown Sayings of Jesus, London 1957, 10 – 12 (non vidi; in German: Unbekannte Jesusworte, Zürich 1948, 15 – 16; Gütersloh 19633, 33 – 35). Jeremias does not doubt Eliezer’s encounter with Jacob of Kefar Sekhaniah.  Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, 177– 180, with reference to J. Derenbourg, Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine d’après les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques I: Histoire de la Palestine, Paris 1867, 357– 360; H. Laible, Jesus Christus im Thalmud, Berlin 1891, 58 – 62; J. Klausner, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, London 1925, 40 (37– 44); R. Eisler, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, London 1931, 593 – 594; S. Lieberman, ‘Roman Legal Institutions in Early Rabbinics and in the Acta Martyrum’, JQR 35 (1944– 1945), 19 – 24; M. Goldstein, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, New York 1950, 39 – 44; M. Simon, Verus Israel. Étude sur les relations entre chrétiens et juifs dans l’Empire romain (135 – 425), Paris 19642, 219 – 220 (217– 218 according to Murcia); M.D. Herr, ‘Jacob of Kefar Sakhnayya’, in EncJud 9 (1972), 1233; S. Malka, Jésus rendu aux siens – Enquête en Israel sur une énigme de vingt siècles, Paris 1999, 172– 173; R.-S. Sirat, ‘Le dialogue entre Rabbi Éliezer et le disciple de “Jésus le Nazaréen”’, in S. Trigano (ed.), Le christianisme au miroir du judaïsme (Pardès 35), Paris 2003, 51– 55.  Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, 178 – 179; M. Smith, Jesus the Magician, New York/London 1978, 46, 178.  H. Bietenhard, ‘Kirche und Synagoge in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten’, ThZ 4 (1948), 174– 192 (185).

250

VII Jesus’ quotation of Mic 1:7 in b‘Abodah Zarah

ever, Murcia refers to other scholars who contest or doubt its authenticity, such as – to mention only a few – Robert Travers Herford, Lawrence H. Schiffman, Daniel Boyarin, John P. Meier, and Simon Claude Mimouni.²³ Furthermore, Jacob Neusner concludes from his extensive research on Eliezer that very little is known for sure about the historical Eliezer, which also applies, therefore, to his encounter with Jacob and the latter’s reference to Jesus.²⁴ Likewise, Johann Maier denies the historical reliability of the whole story,²⁵ and Peter Schäfer considers the historical encounter between Eliezer and Jacob highly improbable, ‘let alone that the halakhic decision with regard to the hire of the harlot refers to an authentic saying of Jesus’.²⁶ Joshua Schwartz and Peter J. Tomson do not defend the historicity of the story and situate the halakha attributed to Jesus in a Babylonian context, which does not support a first-century Palestinian provenance.²⁷ If we should try to find an historical context for Jesus’ view of the use of the fee of the prostitute as an offering for the temple, we might think of a prostitute who complained that her gift was rejected on the basis of Deut 23:19 (23:18). When Jesus heard this, he was upset and quoted the words from Mic 1:7, meaning that the priest who had rejected the offering should have been more inventive and compassionate with the prostitute by accepting her offering for an appropriate purpose, such as a latrine. In a similar way, the Gospel of Matthew relates that the chief priests found a destination for the thirty pieces of silver brought back by Judas after his betrayal of Jesus. They considered it inappropriate to put them into the temple’s treasury, and decided to spend them on the purchase of a field for the burial of foreigners (Matt 27:3 – 10).²⁸ As for Jesus’ attitude to Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, 180 – 182, with reference to R.T. Herford, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London 1903, 137– 145 (143 – 144); J.P. Meier, A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. The Roots of the Problem and the Person 1, New York 1991, 97; L.H. Schiffman, Who was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the Jewish-Christian Schism, Hoboken N.J. 1985, 71– 73; D. Boyarin, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism, Stanford Calif. 1999, 97– 98; S.C. Mimouni, Les chrétiens d’origine juive dans l’Antiquité, Paris 2004, 111– 116, and other scholars.  J. Neusner, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man I–II (SJLA 4), Leiden 1973, II, 294– 298. His references to the story about Eliezer and Jacob are found in I, 400 – 403; II, 199, 366 – 367.  J. Maier, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überliefering (EdF 82), Darmstadt 1978, 144– 181 (173 – 174). Maier’s standpoint holds for all references or allusions to Jesus in the Talmud, which he considers later alterations or additions (268 – 275).  Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 47. I will not discuss his view that the heresy of which Eliezer was suspected was connected with prostitution or even sexual orgies (46).  J. Schwartz, P.J. Tomson, ‘When Rabbi Eliezer was Arrested for Heresy’, Jewish Studies: an Internet Journal 10 (2012), 145 – 181 (148, 166 – 167).  Jaffé, Le judaïsme, 140.

VII.3 Conclusion

251

ward prostitutes, the same Gospel relates that in his view they are going into the Kingdom of God ahead of the chief priests and elders of the people (Matt 21:23, 31). For assessing the credibility of his reference to Micah, we can compare it with another quotation from the Twelve Prophets, ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice’ (Hos 6:6; Matt 9:13; 12:7). Concerning the ancient and present-day debate whether Jesus was able to read the Scriptures at all, as the Gospel of Luke testifies most explicitly (4:16 – 20), I refer to Chris Keith’s conclusions that in any case Jesus was remembered as being literate, in spite of the fact that most likely he was illiterate.²⁹ Even if he were not able to study the Scriptures himself – a position I would not defend, though – he had ample opportunity to listen to public readings and to get acquainted with them.

VII.3 Conclusion However, although perhaps the historical context of Jesus’ halakha based on Mic 1:7de sketched above is imaginable as such, I tend to side with those scholars who hold that this element of the whole story (or all of it) is legendary. An important reason is that it is not found in its oldest version, the Tosefta treatise Ḥullin. Furthermore, it is unlikely that Eliezer was arrested because of an encounter that had taken place years or even decades before.³⁰ Concerning Eliezer’s pretended forgetfulness, Murcia refers to the Mishna, Aboth 2, 8, which says that Eliezer was famous for his excellent memory (‘he is a plastered cistern which loses not a drop’), and Parah 2, 3, which deals with the prescriptions on the offering of the red heifer in Num 19:1– 10. It is said there that if ‘it was (i. e. was paid with) the fee (of a harlot) or the hire (of a dog), it is invalid’.³¹ Rabbi Eliezer, however, declared it valid despite Deut 23:19 (23:18), ‘You shall not bring the fee of a prostitute or the hire of a dog into the house of the Lord your God’, arguing that the heifer was not brought into the temple. This demonstrates that Eliezer found a way to accept an offering paid with the fee of a prostitute, which is the view ascribed to Jesus in b‘Abodah Zarah and Qohelet Rabbah. So, how likely is it that Eliezer had forgotten this halakha, so that he needed to be reminded of it by Jacob, a Jewish Christian who attributed it to

 C. Keith, Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee (LNTS 413), London etc. 2011.  Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 47.  H. Danby (transl.), The Mishna: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes, Oxford 198716, 448; 698.

252

VII Jesus’ quotation of Mic 1:7 in b‘Abodah Zarah

Jesus?³² Most probably, therefore, the reference to Jesus was invented by a rabbi who added it to the story in b‘Abodah Zarah, in the first place intending to discredit Eliezer, who was suspected of heresy, i. e. Christian sympathies, and moreover of magic, for which reasons he had allegedly been excommunicated by the tannaitic Sages.³³ In the second place, however, the consequence was that Jesus and his disciple Jacob were discredited as well.³⁴ It is striking that Jesus reportedly quoted Micah’s words about the fee of a prostitute, while in the early Jewish tradition he was born out of an adulterous relationship. The quotation from Mic 1:7 might be considered an insinuation of his alleged origin.³⁵

 Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, 198; cf. Neusner, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus II, 366.  Murcia, Jésus dans le Talmud, 196; Neusner, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus II, 410 – 416, who considers it unlikely that these events go back to Eliezer’s own life (415).  Cf. Jeremias, Unbekannte Jesusworte, 19633, 35.  I owe this suggestion to Dr P. Barry Hartog. See John 8:41; Celsus, Λόγος ἀληθής, in Origen, Contra Celsum I, 28; 32 (SC 132); bShabbat 104b (transl. Freedman 504 with footnote 2); Schäfer, Jesus in the Talmud, 15 – 24.

Epilogue At the end of this investigation of the ancient Christian reception and interpretation of the Septuagint version of the book of Micah – only seven and a half pages in Rahlfs’ edition – I would observe how astonishing it is that so much ancient Christian literature has been produced in response to this modest work – modest, at least, as regards its length. Micah was a ‘minor’ prophet from the eight century BCE whose Hebrew oracles were translated into Greek as part of the Scriptures of the Jews, and were later on appropriated by the Christians, who considered him a witness to the incarnation, birth, and teaching of Christ, all of which was relevant, in their eyes, not only for the Jews but also for all the gentile nations. Because Christians had accepted and appropriated Micah’s prophecies as part of their Scriptures, they not only quoted and commented on his most conspicuous sayings, but they were also interested in all the other passages, even when these texts were complicated and less appealing at first sight. As a matter of course, these observations on Micah hold for all the other Old Testament prophets as well, and for the Pentateuch and the other Jewish Scriptures. This research into the ancient Christian reception and interpretation of one prophetic book may be considered a pars pro toto, although it would be worthwhile if other scholars were ready to analyze the Christian appropriation of other prophetic books in due time. The ancient Christian reception and interpretation of Micah was not in unison, but many-voiced. Gnostic Christians considered Micah a prophet of one of the lower Jewish deities, and – as far as we know – usually interpreted his sayings as being inspired by the inferior Creator and his offspring. Marcionites also were critical about Micah’s God. Christians belonging to the mainstream Church had a positive appreciation of the God of the Jews and interpreted Micah in line with the coming and appearance of their Saviour Jesus Christ, but the extent to which the commentators interpreted Micah’s book as a testimony to their Christian convictions varied significantly. Origen and Jerome were certainly interested in Micah’s ‘literal’ meaning and his historical context, but as often as possible they also resorted to spiritual, typically Christian expositions of his text. Their far-reaching allegorizations were rejected by Antiochene exegetes like Theodore of Mopsuestia, who is the most sober commentator as far as Christianizing interpretations are concerned. Although Theodore’s Commentary on Micah is relatively concise, it is still a remarkable effort of a Christian exegete to understand this Jewish booklet in its original context, which he considered important enough for Christian readers, although in his view it contained only one single reference to Christ, viz. to his birth in Bethlehem. Cyril of Alexandria and Theodoret of Cyrus also paid attention https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-010

254

Epilogue

to Micah’s original context, but they did not follow Theodore’s stern limitation to historical interpretations, since more than Theodore they were interested in the implications of his book for Christians – though Cyril to a much larger extent than Theodoret. Hesychius of Jerusalem also drew on both exegetical traditions, of historical and spiritual interpretations. Besides these authors who commented on the whole book of Micah or supplied exegetical notes on it, numerous other Christians picked out from this work what they could use, and it is remarkable how many of such individual passages have been exploited for the sake of edification, exhortation, warning, or doctrinal teaching. However, in spite of the efforts of several authors to write precise Commentaries on Micah in order to demonstrate the relevance – in whichever sense – of this book for Christians, it is striking that, besides occasional references, only two short homiletical expositions based on a liturgical reading from this prophet have survived, both given by Augustine on the same text, Mic 6:6 – 8, on ‘walking with the Lord’, which is precisely the passage favoured by many Christians of the present time. Most of the time I have studied the various ancient Christian comments, references, and allusions relating to Micah with interest, wonder, pleasure, or even with appreciation, but in one respect it was unpleasant to research the patristic reception and interpretation of this book. Eusebius, Jerome, Cyril, Theodoret, and Hesychius recurrently extend Micah’s critical words to his contemporaries not only to their own Christian audience, but also to the Jews who had rejected Christ and suffered from the Roman siege and destruction of Jerusalem in 70 CE and from their dispersion over the Roman empire. Characterizations of their synagogues as ‘lamenting, wailing, and melting as wax’ (§ V.4), ‘useless houses that turned to emptiness’ (§ V.9), ‘obstructed with an obstruction’ (§ V.22), and ‘people will trample on you’ (§ V.37) testify to a harsh pity or rather triumphalism on the part of Christian leaders of the fourth and fifth centuries that is most deplorable. It may be true that in their synagogues Jews cursed the Christians or Christ (§§ V.12; VI.2), but one would wish that gentiles who had found salvation in Christ had also learned from him to love their neighbours and even their enemies.¹ In the texts analyzed in this research we have also found expressions of Christian triumphalism toward their former Roman persecutors (§ V.40.7), but although, in the perspective of Christ’s teaching, this attitude may be considered doubtful at least, from a present-day – and therefore anachronistic – standpoint it is more understandable. Recycling such an Old Testament prophet for the edification of Christians is a hazardous enterprise.

 See my paper ‘Reception and Interpretation of Jesus’ Teaching of Love for Enemies in Ancient Christianity’, in A.C. Geljon, R. Roukema (eds), Violence in Ancient Christianity: Victims and Perpetrators (VigChr.S 125), Leiden 2014, 198‐214.

Bibliography Primary Sources 1. Ancient Greek and Roman authors Aristophanes of Byzantium Historiae animalium epitome: Lampros, Spyridon P. (ed.), Excerptorum Constantini de natura animalium libri duo. Aristophanis historiae animalium epitome (CAGr suppl. 1, 1), Berlin 1885 Diodorus Siculus Bibliotheca historica: Oldfather, Charles H. (ed., transl.), Diodore of Silicy in Twelve Volumes I (LCL 279), London/Cambridge, Mass. 1933 Diogenes Laertius Vitae philosophorum: Hicks, Robert D. (ed., transl.), Diogenes Laertius: Lives of Eminent Philosophers II (LCL 185), Cambridge, Mass./London 1925 Dioscorides Pedanius De materia medica: Wellmann, Max (ed.), Pedanii Dioscuridis Anazarbei de materia medica libri quinque II, Berlin 1906 Homer Odysseia: Bruijn, J.C., C. Spoelder (eds), Homerus. Ilias Odyssee, Haarlem 197010 Lucian of Samosata Τίμων ὁ μισάνθρωπος: Harmon, A.M. (ed., transl.), Lucian in Eight Volumes II (LCL 54), Cambridge, Mass./London 1915, 325 – 393 Nepualius Περὶ τῶν κατὰ ἀντιπάθειαν καὶ συμπάθειαν: Gemoll, W. (ed.), Nepualii fragmentum Περὶ τῶν κατὰ ἀντιπάθειαν καὶ συμπάθειαν et Democriti Περὶ συμπαθειῶν καὶ ἀντιπαθειῶν, Striegau 1884 Plato Phaedo: Burnet, Ioannes (ed.), Platonis Opera I, Oxford 1900, 57 – 118 Respublica, Timaeus: Burnet, Ioannes (ed.), Platonis Opera IV, Oxford 1902, 327 – 621, 17 – 92 Pliny the Elder Historia Naturalis: Rackham, H. (ed., transl.), Pliny: Natural History with an English Translation in Ten Volumes III. Libri VIII–XI (LCL 353), London/Cambridge, Mass. 1940 Strabo Geographia: Jones, Horace L. (ed., transl.), The Geography of Strabo II (LCL 50), Cambridge, Mass./London 1923 Terence Heautontimoroumenos: Sargeaut, John (ed., transl.), Terence with an English Translation in Two Volumes I (LCL 22), Cambridge, Mass./London 1912, 113 – 229 Hecyra: Sargeaut, John (ed., transl.), Terence with an English Translation in Two Volumes II (LCL 23), Cambridge, Mass./London 1912, 121 – 211 Theophrastus Historia plantarum: Hort, Arthur (ed., transl.), Theophrastus: Enquiry into Plants and Minor Works on Odours and Weather Signs I (LCL 70), London/Cambridge, Mass. 1916 https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-011

256

Bibliography

2. The Old Testament and Jewish works Babylonian Talmud b‘Aboda Zara : Mishcon, A., Albert Cohen, Isidore Epstein (ed., transl.), Abodah Zarah (Hebrew-English Edition of the Babylonian Talmud), London 1988 b‘Erubin: Slotki, Israel W. (transl.), ‘‘Erubin Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices’, in Epstein, Isidore (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo‘ed in Four Volumes II, London n.d. (1st ed. 1938) bNedarim: Freedman, Harry (transl.), ‘Nedarim Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices’, in Epstein, Isidore (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Nashim in Four Volumes III, London n.d. (1st ed. 1938) bPesakhim: Freedman, Harry (transl.), ‘Pesaḥim Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices’, in Epstein, Isidore (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo‘ed in Four Volumes II, London n.d. (1st ed. 1938) bPirqē Aboth: Herford, R. Travers (ed., transl.), Pirke Aboth. The Ethics of the Talmud: Sayings of the Fathers: Edited with Introduction, Translation and Commentary, New York 1945 bRosh HaShanah: Simon, Maurice (transl.), ‘Rosh Hashanah Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices’, in Epstein, Isidore (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo‘ed in Four Volumes IV, London n.d. (1st ed. 1938) bSanhedrin : Shachter, Jacob, Harry Freedman (transl.), ‘Sanhedrin Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices’, in Epstein, Isidore (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Neziḳin in Four Volumes III, London n.d. (1st ed. 1938) bShabbat: Freedman, Harry (transl.), ‘Shabbath Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices’, in Epstein, Isidore (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo‘ed in Four Volumes I, London n.d. (1st ed. 1938) bSukkah : Slotki, Israel W. (transl.), ‘Sukkah Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices’, in Epstein, Isidore (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo‘ed in Four Volumes III, London n.d. (1st ed. 1938) bYoma: Jung, Leo (transl.), ‘Yoma Translated into English with Notes, Glossary and Indices’, in Epstein, Isidore (ed.), The Babylonian Talmud: Seder Mo‘ed in Four Volumes III, London n.d. (1st ed. 1938) Dead Sea Scrolls García Martinez, Florentino, Eibert J.C. Tigchelaar, The Dead Sea Scrolls Study Edition I–II, Leiden/Boston/Köln 1998 Tov, Emmanuel, The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Naḥal Ḥever (8ḤevXIIgr) (The Seiyâl Collection) (DJD 8), Oxford 1990 Flavius Josephus Antiquitates judaicae: Marcus, Ralph, Allen Wikgren (eds, transl.), Josephus in Ten Volumes VIII: Jewish Antiquities Books XV–XVII (LCL 410), Cambridge, Mass./London 1963 De bello judaico: Thackeray, H.S.J. (ed., transl.), Josephus in Nine Volumes II–III: The Jewish War (LCL 203; 210), London/Cambridge, Mass. 1927 – 1928 Hebrew Bible Elliger, K., W. Rudolph et al. (eds), Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia, Stuttgart 19832 Midrash Rabbah Genesis Rabbah: Freedman, Harry (transl.) Midrash Rabbah: Genesis in Two Volumes II, London 1939 Exodus Rabbah: Lehrman, S.M. (transl.), Midrash Rabbah Exodus, London 19613

Primary Sources

257

Qohelet Rabbah: Motos López, Maria del Carmen (ed., transl.), Midrás Qohélet Rabbah. Las vanidades del mundo. Comentario rabínico al Eclesiastés (BibM 22), Estella 2001 Mishnah Danby, Herbert (transl.), The Mishnah Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes, Oxford 198716 Palestinian Talmud pBerakhot: Zahavy, Tzvee (transl.), The Talmud of the Land of Israel: A Preliminary Translation and Explanation 1: Berakhot (CSHJ), Chicago/London 1989 Pesiqta deRab Kahana Braude, William G., Israel J. Kapstein (transl.), Pĕsiḳta dĕ-Raḇ Kahăna: R. Kahana’s Compilation of Discourses for Sabbaths and Festal Days (LLJC), London 1975 Philo of Alexandria De Aeternitate Mundi: Colson, F.H. (ed., transl.), Philo in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes) with an English Translation IX (LCL 363), Cambridge, Mass./ London 1941, 171 – 291 De Cherubim: Colson, F.H., G.H. Whittaker (ed., transl.), Philo in Ten Volumes (and Two Supplementary Volumes) with an English Translation II (LCL 227), Cambridge, Mass./ London 1927, 1 – 85 Pirqē de Rabbi Eliezer Ouaknin, Marc-Alain, Éric Smiléwitch (transl.), Chapitres de Rabbi Éliézer. Pirqé de Rabbi Éliézer. Midrach sur Genèse, Exode, Nombres, Esther, Lagrasse 19922 Prayer of Joseph Blanc, Cécile (ed., transl.), Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean I (SC 120), Paris 1966, 334 – 337 Smith, J.Z. (trans.), ‘Prayer of Joseph’, in Charlesworth, James H. (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2, London 1985, 699 – 714 Septuagint Codex Washingtonianus: Sanders, Henry E., Carl Schmidt (eds), The Minor Prophets in the Freer Collection and the Berlin Fragment of Genesis, London 1927 The Codex Alexandrinus (Royal Ms. 1 D v–viii) in Reduced Photographic Facsimile: Old Testament Part III. Hosea-Judith, London 1936 Codex Vaticanus, Vat.gr. 1209 online on https://digi.vatlib.it Brenton, Launcelot L. (ed., transl.), The Septuagint Version of the Old Testament and Apocrypha with an English Translation, London 1844, 1976 Tischendorf, Constantinus (ed.), Vetus Testamentum Graece iuxta LXX Interpretes II, Leipzig 18694 Giguet, P. (transl.), La Sainte Bible. Traduction de l’Ancien Testament d’après les Septante III, Paris 1872 Swete, Henry B. (ed.), The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint III, Cambridge 1912 Rahlfs, Alfred (ed.), Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Stuttgart 1935, editio minor 1979 Rahlfs, Alfred, Robert Hanhart (eds), Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes, Stuttgart 2006 (revised ed.) Ziegler, Joseph (ed.), Duodecim prophetae (Septuaginta. Vetus Testamentum Graecum auctoritate Societatis Litterarum Gottingensis 13), Göttingen 1943

258

Bibliography

Ἡ Ἁγία Γραφή. Ἡ Παλαιὰ Διαθήκη κατὰ τοὺς Ἡβδομήκοντα καὶ ἡ Καινὴ Διαθήκη, Athens 199112 Howard, George E. (transl.), ‘Michaias’, in Pietersma, Albert, Benjamin G. Wright (eds), A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title, New York/Oxford 2007, 795 – 800 Pietersma, Albert, Benjamin G. Wright (eds, transl.), A New English Translation of the Septuagint and the Other Greek Translations Traditionally Included under that Title, New York/Oxford 2007 Kraus, Wolfgang, Martin Karrer (eds, transl.), Septuaginta Deutsch. Das griechische Alte Testament in deutscher Übersetzung, Stuttgart 2009 Sifre Deuteronomy Bietenhard, Hans, (transl.) Sifre Deuteronomium (JudChr 8), Bern etc. 1984 Neusner, Jacob (transl.), Sifre to Deuteronomy: An Analytical Translation I (BJS 98), Atlanta, Georgia 1987 Tanḥuma Yelammedenu Berman, Samuel A. (transl.), Midrash Tanhuma-Yelammedenu: An English Translation of Genesis and Exodus from the Printed Version of Tanhuma-Yelammedenu with an Introduction, Notes, and Indices, Hoboken, N.J. 1996 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Diez Macho, Alejandro (ed., transl.), Targum palestinense in Pentateuchum. Additur Targum Pseudojonatan eiusque hispanica versio 1 (Biblia Polyglotta Matritensia Series IV), Madrid 1988 Maher, Michael (transl.), Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Genesis (ArBib 1B), Edinburgh 1992 Sperber, Alexander (ed.), The Latter Prophets according to Targum Jonathan (BibAr 3), Leiden 19922 Cathcart, Kevin J., Robert P. Gordon (transl.), The Targum of the Minor Prophets: Translated, with a Critical Introduction, Apparatus, and Notes (ArBib 14), Edinburgh 1989 Tosefta Ḥullin Zuckermandel, Moses S. (ed.), Tosephta based on the Erfurt and Vienna Codices: With “Supplement to the Tosephta” by Sha’ul Liebermann, Trier 1882 / Jerusalem 1970 Neusner, Jacob (transl.), The Tosefta Translated from the Hebrew: Fifth Division, Qodoshim (The Order of Holy Things), New York 1979 Vitae prophetarum Schwemer, Anna M. (transl.), Studien zu den frü hjü dischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae prophetarum. Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar I–II (TSAJ 49 – 50), Tübingen 1995 – 1996 van der Horst, Pieter W. (transl.), De profeten. Joodse en christelijke legenden uit de oudheid, Amsterdam 2001

3. New Testament, Patristic and Medieval Christian works Ambrose of Milan Epistulae: Faller, Otto (ed.), Sancti Ambrosii Opera 10. Epistularum libri I–VI (CSEL 82, 1), Vienna 1968 Zelzer, Michaela (ed.), Sancti Ambrosii Opera 10. Epistularum liber X (CSEL 82, 3), Vienna 1982

Primary Sources

259

Beyenka, Mary M. (transl.), Saint Ambrose: Letters (FaCh 26), Washington D.C. 19872 Explanatio Psalmorum duodecim: Petschenig, M. (ed.), Sancti Ambrosii Opera 6. Explanatio Psalmorum XII (CSEL 64), Vienna/Leipzig 1919 Expositio euangelii secundum Lucam: Tissot, Gabriel (ed., transl.), Ambroise de Milan. Traité sur l’Évangile de S. Luc I (SC 45bis), Paris 1971 De Fide: Faller, Otto (ed.), Sancti Ambrosii Opera 8. De Fide ad Gratianum Augustum (CSEL 78), Vienna 1962 De fuga saeculi: Gerzaguet, Camille (ed., transl.), Ambroise de Milan. La fuite du siècle (SC 576), Paris 2015 McHugh, Michael P. (transl.), Saint Ambrose: Seven Exegetical Works (FaCh 65), Washington D.C. 1972, 277 – 323 De interpellatione Iob et Dauid: Schenkl, Carolus (ed.), Sancti Ambrosii Opera 2. De Iacob … De interpellatione Iob et Dauid (CSEL 32, 2), Vienna 1897, 211 – 296 McHugh, Michael P. (transl.), Saint Ambrose: Seven Exegetical Works (FaCh 65), Washington D.C. 1972, 325 – 420 Andrew of St. Victor Expositio super Duodecim Prophetas: van Liere, Franciscus A., Marcus A. Zier (eds), Andreae de Sancto Victore Expositio super Duodecim Prophetas (CCCM 53G), Turnhout 2007 Antiphonarium Visigothicum Vives, José, Louis Brou, (eds.), Antifonario visigotico mozarabe de la Catedral de León (MHS.L V, 1), Barcelona/Madrid 1959 Athanasius of Alexandria De Decretis Nicaeni Synodi: Opitz, Hans-Georg (ed.), Die Apologien 1. De Decretis Nicaeni Synodi (AW II, 1, 3), Berlin/Leipzig 1935 De incarnatione Verbi: Kannengiesser, Charles, Athanase d’Alexandrie. Sur l’incarnation du Verbe (SC 199), Paris 1973 Meijering, E.P., J.C.M. van Winden (transl.), Athanasius: De incarnatione Verbi. Einleitung, Übersetzung, Kommentar, Amsterdam 1989 See also Pseudo-Athanasius Augustine of Hippo Aduersus Iudaeos: PL 42, 51 – 64 De ciuitate Dei: Bardy, G., G. Combès (eds, transl.), La Cité de Dieu Livres VI–X. Impuissance spirituelle du paganisme (OSA 34), [Paris] 1959 Bardy, G., G. Combès (eds, transl.), La Cité de Dieu Livres XV–XVII. Luttes des deux cités (OSA 36), [Paris] 1960 Confessiones: Skutella, Martin et al. (eds, transl.), Les Confessions Livres I–VII (OSA 13), [Paris] 1962 Enarrationes in Psalmos: Dekkers, Eligius, John Fraipont (eds), Sancti Aurelii Augustini Enarrationes in Psalmos I–L (CCSL 38), Turnhout 1956 Dulaey, Martine, Pierre-Marie Hombert (eds, transl.), Les Commentaires des Psaumes. Enarrationes in Psalmos. Ps 108 – 117 (OSA 66), Paris 2013 Homiliae in primam epistulam Ioannis: Agaësse, Paul (ed., transl.), Augustin d’Hippone. Commentaire de la Première Épître de saint Jean (SC 75), Paris 1961 Sermones: Lambot, Cyrille (ed.), Sancti Aurelii Augustini Sermones de Vetere Testamento (1 – 50) (CCSL 41), Turnhout 1961

260

Bibliography

Morin, Germanus (ed.), Sancti Augustini Sermones post Maurinos repertos (Miscellanea Agostiniana 1), Rome 1930 Basil of Caesarea In illud, Quod Deus non est auctor malorum: PG 31, 329 – 353 Homiliae in Psalmos: PG 29, 209 – 493 De Spiritu Sancto: Pruche, Benoît (ed., transl.), Basile de Césarée. Sur le Saint-Esprit (SC 17bis), Paris 2002 See also Pseudo-Basil Basilius Neopatrensis Prologus in duodecim prophetas. Fragmentum in Michaeam: Mai, Angelo (ed.), Theodori Mopsuesteni in XII Prophetas Commentaria et Alia. Praeit Basilii Neopatrensis in omnes Prophetas Specimen (NPB 7, 1), Roma 1854, vii–viii PG 111, 411 – 416 Benedict of Nursia Regula: Blair, Oswald H. (ed., transl.), The Rule of St. Benedict, London 19344 Clement of Alexandria Exhortatio ad Graecos: Butterworth, G.W. (ed., transl.), Clement of Alexandria: The Exhortation to the Greeks. The Rich Man’s Salvation, and the Fragment of an Address Entitled To the Newly Baptized (LCL 92), Cambridge, Mass./London 1919 Marcovich, Miroslav (ed.), Clementis Alexandrini Protrepticus (VigChr.S 34), Leiden etc. 1995 Eclogae propheticae: Nardi, Carlo (ed., transl.), Clemente Alessandrino. Estratti profetici (BP 4), Firenze 1985 Stromateis: Stählin, Otto, Ludwig Früchtel, Ursula Treu (eds), Clemens Alexandrinus II. Stromata Buch I–VI (GCS 15/52), Berlin 19854 Ferguson, John (transl.) Clement of Alexandria: Stromateis Book One to Three (FaCh 85), Washington, D.C. 1991 van den Hoek, Annewies, Claude Mondésert (eds, transl.), Clément d’Alexandrie. Stromate IV (SC 463), Paris 2001 Codex Theodosianus Delmaire, Roland, François Richard, Jean Rougé (eds, transl.), Les lois religieuses des empereurs romains, de Constantin à Théodose II (312 – 438) I : Code Théodosien, Livre XVI (SC 497), Paris 2005 Cyprian of Carthage Epistulae: Diercks, G.F. (ed.), Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Epistularium. Epistulae 58 – 81 (CCSL 3C), Turnhout 1996 Testimonia ad Quirinium: Weber, Robert, Maurice Bévenot (eds), Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera Ad Quirinium. Ad Fortunatum. De lapsis. De ecclesiae catholicae unitate (CCSL 3), Turnhout 1972 See also Pseudo-Cyprian Cyril of Alexandria Commentarii in duodecim prophetas: Pusey, Philip E. (ed.), Sancti Cyrilli Alexandrini in XII prophetas 1 – 2, Oxford 1868, Brussels 1965 (In Michaeam vol. 1, 599 – 740) Hill, Robert C. (transl.), St. Cyril of Alexandria: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets 1 – 3 (FaCh 115, 116, 124), Washington D.C. 2007, 2008, 2012 (Micah in vol. 2, FaCh 116, 179 – 278) Commentarii in evangelium secundum Ioannem: Pusey, Philip E. (ed.), Cyrilli Archiepiscopi Alexandrini in D. Joannis Evangelium II, Oxford 1872, Brussels 1965

Primary Sources

261

Commentarii in evangelium secundum Lucam : Sickenberger, Joseph (ed.), Fragmente der Homilien des Cyrill von Alexandrien zum Lukasevangelium (TU 34), Leipzig 1909, 76 – 107 Epistulae paschales: Arragon, Louis et al. (eds, transl.), Cyrille d’Alexandrie. Lettres festales I–VI (SC 372), Paris 1991 Fragmenta in epistulam primam ad Corinthios : Zawadzki, Konrad F. (ed., transl.), Der Kommentar Cyrills von Alexandrien zum 1. Korintherbrief (TEG 16), Leuven 2015 Glaphyra in Genesim: PG 69, 13 – 386 Glaphyra in Exodum: PG 69, 385 – 538 Glaphyra in Leuiticum: PG 69, 539 – 590 Cyril of Jerusalem Catecheses ad illuminandos: Reischl, Wilhelm C., Joseph Rupp (eds), Cyrilli Hierosolymorum archiepiscopi opera quae supersunt omnia 1 – 2, Munich 1848, 1860, Hildesheim 1967 Dialogus Adamantii van de Sande Bakhuyzen, W.H. (ed.), Der Dialog des Adamantius Περὶ τῆς εἰς θεὸν ὀρθῆς πίστεως (GCS 4), Leipzig 1901 Didascalia apostolorum Stewart-Sykes, Alistair (transl.), The Didascalia apostolorum: An English version edited, introduced and annotated (Studia Traditionis Theologiae. Explorations in Early and Medieval Theology 1), Turnhout 2009 Didymus of Alexandria Commentarii in Iob: Hagedorn, Ursula & Dieter et al. (eds, transl.), Didymus der Blinde. Kommentar zu Hiob III (PTA 3), Bonn 1968 Commentarii in Psalmos: Gronewald, Michael, Adolphe Gesché (eds, transl.), Didymos der Blinde. Psalmenkommentar (Tura-Papyrus) Teil III. Kommentar zu Psalm 29 – 34 (PTA 8), Bonn 1969 Commentarii in Zachariam: Doutreleau, Louis (ed., transl.), Didyme l’Aveugle. Sur Zacharie I (SC 83), Paris 1962 Diodore of Tarsus Commentarii in Psalmos: Olivier, Jean-Marie (ed.), Diodori Tarsensis Commentarii in Psalmos I (CCSG 6), Turnhout, Leuven 1980 Egeria Itinerarium: Maraval, Pierre, (ed.), Égérie. Journal de voyage (Itineraire). Introduction, texte critique, traduction, notes, index et cartes (SC 296), Paris 1982 Epiphanius of Salamis Panarion haeresium: Holl, Karl, Jürgen Dümmer (eds), Panarion haer. 65 – 80. De fide (GCS 37; Epiphanius 3), Berlin 19852 See also Pseudo-Epiphanius Eugenius of Palermo Versus Iambici: Gigante, Marcello (ed.), Eugenii Panormitani Versus Iambici (Testi e Monumenti 10), Palermo 1964. Eusebius of Caesarea Demonstratio Euangelica: Heikel, Ivar A. (ed.), Die Demonstratio Evangelica (GCS 23 Eusebius Werke 6), Leipzig 1913 Ferrar, William J. (transl.), The Proof of the Gospel Being the Demonstratio Evangelica of Eusebius of Caesarea 1 – 2, London/New York 1920, reprint Cincinnati, Ohio 2000 Eclogae propheticae: PG 22, 1017 – 1262

262

Bibliography

Historia ecclesiastica: Lake, Kirsopp (ed., transl.), Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History I–II (LCL 153, 265), Cambridge, Mass./London 1926, 1932. Praeparatio euangelica: Sirinelli, Jean, Édouard des Places (eds, transl.), Eusèbe de Césarée. Préparation évangélique. Introduction générale. Livre I (SC 206), Paris 1974 Vita Constantini: Pietri, Luce, Marie-Joseph Rondeau (eds, transl.), Eusèbe de Césarée. Vie de Constantin (SC 559), Paris 2013 Onomasticon: Notley, R. Steven, Ze’ev Safrai (eds, transl.), Eusebius: Onomasticon. The Place Names of Divine Scripture. Including the Latin Edition of Jerome Translated into English and with Topographical Commentary (JPS 9), Boston/Leiden 2005 Timm, Stefan, (ed.), Eusebius. Das Onomastikon der biblischen Ortsnamen. Kritische Neuausgabe des griechischen Textes mit der lateinischen Fassung des Hieronymus (GCS NF 24; Eusebius Werke III, 1), Berlin 2017 Gospel according to the Hebrews Elliott, J.K. (transl.), The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, Oxford 1993, 9 – 10 Gregory of Nazianzus Orationes: Calvet-Sebasti, Marie-Ange (ed., transl.), Grégoire de Nazianze. Discours 6 – 12 (SC 405), Paris 1995 Oratio XIV de pauperum amore: PG 35, 857 – 910 Haimo of Auxerre Enarratio in duodecim prophetas minores: PL 117, 11 – 294 Hegesippus Memorabilia: Lake, Kirsopp (ed., transl.), Eusebius: The Ecclesiastical History I (LCL 153), Cambridge, Mass./London 1926, 170 – 175 Schleritt, Frank (transl.) Hegesipp. Übersetzt und eingeleitet, Göttingen 2016 Hesychius of Jerusalem Capita Michaeae prophetae: PG 93, 1355 – 1358 Scholia in prophetas minores: Eriksson, Mats (ed.), The Scholia by Hesychius of Jerusalem on the Minor Prophets, Uppsala 2012 Hilary of Poitiers Tractatus super Psalmos: Zingerle, Anton (ed.), S. Hilarii Episcopi Tractatus super Psalmos (CSEL 22), Vienna 1891 Hippolytus of Rome, the exegete Achelis, Hans (ed.), Hippolyt’s kleinere exegetische und homiletische Schriften (GCS Hippolytus Werke I, 2), Leipzig 1897 Benedictiones: Brière, Maurice, Louis Mariès, B.-Ch. Mercier (eds., transl.), Hippolyte. Sur les Bénédictions d’Isaac, de Jacob et de Moïse (PO 27, 1), Paris 1954 Contra Noetum: Simonetti, Manlio, Ippolito. Contro Noeto (BP 35), Bologna 2000 Hippolytus, the heresiologist Refutatio omnium haeresium: Marcovich, Miroslav (ed.), Hippolytus. Refutatio omnium haeresium (PTS 25), Berlin/New York 1986 Hypatius of Ephesus Fragmenta in duodecim prophetas: Diekamp, Franz (ed.), ‘Hypatius von Ephesus’, in idem, Analecta Patristica. Texte und Abhandlungen zur griechischen Patristik (OrChrA 117), Rome 1938, 130 – 151

Primary Sources

263

Irenaeus of Lyons Aduersus Haereses: Rousseau, Adelin, Louis Doutreleau (eds, transl.), Irénée de Lyon. Contre les hérésies Livre I. Tomes I–II (SC 263, 264), Paris 1979 Unger, Dominic J., John J. Dillon (transl.), St. Irenaeus of Lyons Against the Heresies Volume I Book I (ACW 55), New York/Mahwah N.J. 1992 Rousseau, Adelin, Louis Doutreleau (eds, transl.), Irénée de Lyon. Contre les hérésies Livre III. Tomes I–II (SC 210, 211) Paris 1974 Rousseau, Adelin et al. (eds, transl.), Irénée de Lyon. Contre les hérésies Livre IV. Tomes I–II (SC 100, 1 – 2), Paris 1965 Praedicatio apostolica: Rousseau, Adelin (transl.), Irénée de Lyon. Démonstration de la prédication apostolique (SC 406), Paris 1995 Ishodad of Merv Commentarii in Isaiam et in prophetas minores: Van den Eynde, Ceslas (ed., transl.), Commentaire d’Išo‘dad de Merv sur l’Ancien Testament IV. Isaïe et les Douze (CSCO.S 303 – 304 / 128 – 129), Louvain 1969 Isidore of Sevilla De fide catholica contra Iudaeos: PG 83, 449 – 538 See also Pseudo-Isidore Jerome Apologia contra Rufinum: Lardet, Pierre (ed., transl.), Jérome. Apologie contre Rufin (SC 303), Paris 1983 Biblia Vulgata: Weber, Robertus et al. (eds), Biblia Sacra iuxta Vulgatam Versionem I–II, Stuttgart 1969 Commentarii in epistulam ad Ephesios: PG 26, 467 – 590 Heine, Ronald E. (ed., transl.) The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (OECS), Oxford 2002 Commentarii in euangelium secundum Matthaeum: Bonnard, Émile (ed., transl.), Jérôme. Commentaire sur saint Matthieu I (SC 242), Paris 1977 Commentarii in prophetas minores: PL 25, 805 – 1578 Adriaen, Marc, (ed.), S. Hieronymi Presbyteri Opera I, 6. Commentarii in Prophetas Minores (CCSL 76 – 76A), Turnhout 1969 – 1970 (In Michaeam vol. 76, 421 – 524) Bareille, [J.F.] (ed. and transl.), ‘Commentaires sur le prophète Michée en deux livres’, in idem, Œuvres complètes de Saint Jérôme IX, Paris 1881, 1 – 91 Cazares, Anthony, Thomas P. Scheck (transl.), ‘Commentary on Micah’, in Scheck, Thomas P. (ed.), Commentaries on the Twelve Prophets 1. Jerome (Ancient Christian Texts), Downers Grove, Ill. 2016, 40 – 113 Commentarii in Isaiam: Gryson, René et al. (eds), Commentaires de Jérôme sur le prophète Isaïe. Introduction, Livres I–IV (AGLB 23), Freiburg 1993 Gryson, René, et al. (eds), Commentaires de Jérôme sur le prophète Isaïe. Introduction, Livres XII–XV (AGLB 35), Freiburg 1998 De uiris illustribus: Cerese-Gastaldo, Aldo (ed., transl.), Gerolamo. Gli uomini illustri. De uiris illustribus (BP 12), Firenze 1988 Epistulae: Hilberg, Isidorus (ed.), Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae II–III (CSEL 55 – 56), Vienna 1912, 1918

264

Bibliography

Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum: de Lagarde, P. (ed.), Hieronymus. Hebraicae quaestiones in libro Geneseos. Liber interpretationis Hebraicorum nominum. Commentarioli in Psalmos. Commentarius in Ecclesiasten (CCSL 72), Turnhout 1959 John Beleth Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis: Douteil, Herbert (ed.), Iohannis Beleth Summa de ecclesiasticis officiis (CCCM 41A), Turnhout 1976 John Chrysostom Contra ludos et theatra: PG 56, 263 – 270 De futurae vitae deliciis: PG 51, 347 – 354 De mutatione nominum: PG 51, 113 – 156 De paenitentia: PG 49, 277 – 350 Homiliae in epistulam secundam ad Corinthios: PG 61, 381 – 610 Homiliae in Evangelium secundum Ioannem: Σαβιλιου, Ἐρρικου τοῦ [Savile, Henri] (ed.), Τοῦ ἐν ἁγίοις Πατρὸς ἡμῶν Ἰωάννου ἀρχιεπισκόπου Κωνσταντινουπόλεως τοῦ Χρυσοστόμου τῶν εὑρισκομένων τόμος δεύτερος, Eton 1612 PG 59, 23 – 482 Homiliae in Evangelium secundum Matthaeum: PG 57 – 58 In ascensionem Domini nostri Iesu Christi: PG 50, 441 – 452 Justin Martyr Apologia prima: Munier, Charles (ed., transl.), Justin. Apologie pour les chrétiens (SC 507), Paris 2006 Dialogus cum Tryphone: Bobichon, Philippe (ed., transl.), Justin Martyr. Dialogue avec Tryphon 1 – 2 (Paradosis 47, 1 – 2), Fribourg 2003 Lectionary of the Jerusalem Church Renoux, Athanase (ed., transl.), Le codex arménien Jerusalem 121 II. Édition comparée du texte et de deux autres manuscrits (PO 168 / 36, 2), Turnhout 1971 Renoux, Charles (ed., transl.), Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie. Le Čašoc‘. II. Édition synoptique des plus anciens témoins (PO 214 / 48, 2), Turnhout 1999 Renoux, Charles (ed., transl.), Le lectionnaire de Jérusalem en Arménie. Le Čašoc‘. III. Le plus ancien Čašoc‘ cilicien le Érévan 832 (PO 221 / 49, 5), Turnhout 2004 Renoux, Charles (ed., transl.), L’hymnaire de Saint-Sabas (Ve–VIIIe siècle): Le manuscrit géorgien H 2123 I. Du samedi de Lazare à la Pentecôte) (PO 224 / 50, 3), Turnhout 2008 Tarchnischvili, Michel (ed., transl.), Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (Ve–VIIIe siècle) I (CSCO.I 188 – 189), Louvain 1959 Tarchnischvili, Michel (ed., transl.), Le grand lectionnaire de l’Église de Jérusalem (Ve–VIIIe siècle) II (CSCO.I 204 – 205), Louvain 1960 Melito of Sardes De Pascha: Perler, Othmar (ed., transl.), Méliton de Sardes. Sur la Pâque (et fragments) (SC 123), Paris 1966 Lactantius Diuinae institutiones: Brandt, Samuel (ed.), L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera Omnia I. Diuinae Institutiones et Epitome Diuinarum Institutionum (CSEL 19), Vienna 1890 Missale Romanum Mediolani Lippe, Robert (ed.), Missale Romanum Mediolani I, London 1899 Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legis Collatio Hyamson, Moses (ed.), Mosaicarum et Romanarum Legis Collatio, Oxford etc. 1913

Primary Sources

265

New Testament Aland, Barbara & Kurt et al. (eds), Novum Testamentum Graece. Begründet von Eberhard und Erwin Nestle, Stuttgart 201228 Ordines Romani Andrieu, Michel (ed.), Les Ordines Romani du haut Moyen Âge II–V. Les Textes (SSL. Études et documents 23, 24, 28, 29), Louvain 1948 – 1961 Origen of Alexandria Commentarii in Canticum Canticorum: Brésard, Luc, Henri Crouzel, Marcel Borret (eds, transl.), Origène. Commentaire sur le Cantique des Cantiques I–II (SC 375 – 376), Paris 1991 – 1992 Commentarii in epistulam ad Romanos: Scherer, Jean (ed., transl.), Le Commentaire d’Origène sur Rom. III.5-V.7 d’après les extraits du Papyrus No 88748 du Musée du Caire et les fragments de la Philocalie et du Vaticanus gr. 762, Cairo 1957 Hammond Bammel, Caroline P. (ed.), Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes. Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins Buch 1 – 3 (AGLB 16), Freiburg 1990 Hammond Bammel, Caroline P., H.J. Frede, H. Stanjek (eds), Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes. Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins Buch 4 – 6 (AGLB 33), Freiburg 1997 Hammond Bammel, Caroline P., H.J. Frede, H. Stanjek (eds), Der Römerbriefkommentar des Origenes. Kritische Ausgabe der Übersetzung Rufins Buch 7 – 10 (AGLB 34), Freiburg 1998 Commentarii in euangelium secundum Ioannem: Blanc, Cécile (ed., transl.), Origène. Commentaire sur saint Jean I, II, IV, V (SC 120, 157, 290, 385), Paris 1966 – 1992 Commentarii in euangelium secundum Matthaeum: Klostermann, Erich (ed.), Matthäuserklärung I (GCS 40, Origenes Werke 10), Leipzig 1935 Commentarii in Oseam: Harl, Marguerite, Nicholas De Lange (eds, transl.), Origène. Philocalie 1 – 20 et Lettre à Africanus (SC 302), Paris 1983, 336 – 341 Commentarii in Ioelem: Reitzenstein, Richard, ‘Origenes und Hieronymus’, ZNW 20 (1921), 90 – 93 Commentariorum Series in Matthaeum: Klostermann, Erich, (ed.), Origenes Matthäuserklärung II. Die lateinische Übersetzung der Commentariorum Series (GCS 38, Origenes Werke 11), Leipzig 1933 Contra Celsum: Borret, Marcel (ed., transl.), Origène. Contre Celse Tomes I–IV (SC 132, 136, 147, 150), 1967 – 1969 Chadwick, Henry (transl.), Origen: Contra Celsum. Translated with Introduction and Notes, Cambridge etc. 1965 De Principiis: Behr, John (ed., transl.), Origen: On First Principles 1 – 2 (OECT), Oxford 2017 Dialogus cum Heraclide: Scherer, Jean (ed., transl.), Origène. Entretien avec Héraclide (SC 67), Paris 1960 Epistula ad Africanum: Harl, Marguerite, Nicholas De Lange (ed., transl.), Origène. Philocalie 1 – 20 et la Lettre à Africanus sur l’histoire de Suzanne (SC 302), Paris 1983, 471 – 573 Epistula ad caros: Lardet, Pierre (ed., transl.), Saint Jérôme. Apologie contre Rufin (SC 303), Paris 1983, 148 – 155 Expositio in Proverbia: PG 17, 161 – 252 Fragmenta in epistulam ad Ephesios : Gregg, J.A.F. (ed.), ‘The Commentary of Origen upon the Epistle to the Ephesians’, JThS 3 (1902), 233 – 244, 398 – 420, 554 – 576

266

Bibliography

Heine, Ronald E. (ed., transl.) The Commentaries of Origen and Jerome on St Paul’s Epistle to the Ephesians (OECS), Oxford 2002 Fragmenta in euangelium secundum Lucam: Rauer, Max (ed.), Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des LukasKommentars (GCS 49, Origenes Werke 9), Berlin 1959, 225 – 336 Fragmenta in Ieremiam: Klostermann, Erich, Pierre Nautin (eds), Jeremiahomilien. Klageliederkommentar. Erklärung der Samuel- und Königsbücher (GCS, Origenes Werke 3), Berlin 19832, 199 – 232 Fragmenta in Leuiticum: PG 12, 397 – 404 Fragmenta in Psalmos: PG 12, 1053 – 1686 Pitra, Joannes B. (ed.) Analecta Sacra spicilegio Solesmensi parata III, Monte Cassino 1883 Cadiou, René (ed.), Commentaires inédits des Psaumes. Étude sur les textes d’Origène contenus dans le Manuscrit Vindobonensis 8 (CEA), Paris 1936 Harl, Marguerite (ed., transl.), La Chaîne palestinienne sur le Psaume 118 I (SC 189), Paris 1972 Hexapla: Field, Frederick (ed.), Origenis Hexaplorum quae supersunt Veterum Interpretum Graecorum in totum Vetus Testamentum Fragmenta I–II, Oxford 1875, reprint Hildesheim 1964 Homiliae in Canticum: Rousseau, Olivier, (ed., transl.), Origène. Homélies sur le Cantique des Cantiques (SC 37bis), Paris 1966 Homiliae in euangelium secundum Lucam: Rauer, Max (ed.), Die Homilien zu Lukas in der Übersetzung des Hieronymus und die griechischen Reste der Homilien und des LukasKommentars (GCS 49, Origenes Werke 9), Berlin 1959, 1 – 222 Homiliae in Exodum : Borret, Marcel (ed., transl.), Origène. Homélies sur l’Exode (SC 321), Paris 1985 Homiliae in Ezechielem: Borret, Marcel (ed., transl.), Origène. Homélies sur Ézéchiel (SC 352), Paris 1989 Homiliae in Genesin: de Lubac, Henri, Louis Doutreleau (eds, transl.), Origène. Homélies sur la Genèse (SC 7bis), Paris 1976 Homiliae in Ieremiam: Husson, Pierre, Pierre Nautin (eds, transl.), Origène. Homélies sur Jérémie I–XI, tome I (SC 232), Paris 1976 Husson, Pierre, Pierre Nautin (ed., transl.), Origène. Homélies sur Jérémie XII–XX et Homélies latines, tome II (SC 238), Paris 1977 Schadel, Erwin (transl.), Origenes. Die griechisch erhaltenen Jeremiahomilien (BGL 10), Stuttgart 1980 Homiliae in Iesu Nave: Jaubert, Annie (ed., transl.), Origène. Homélies sur Josué (SC 71), Paris 1960 Homiliae in Isaiam: Fürst, Alfons, Christian Hengstermann (eds, transl.), Origenes. Die Homilien zum Buch Jesaja (Origenes: Werke mit deutscher Übersetzung 10), Berlin etc. 2009 Homiliae in Leuiticum: Borret, Marcel (ed., transl.), Origène. Homélies sur le Lévitique tomes I–II (SC 286 – 287), Paris 1981 Homiliae in Numeros: Doutreleau, Louis (ed., transl.), Origène. Homélies sur les Nombres II– III (SC 442, 461), Paris 1999, 2001 Homiliae in Psalmos: Crouzel, Henri, Luc Brésard, Emanuela Prinzivalli (eds, transl.), Origène. Homélies sur les Psaumes 36 à 38 (SC 411), Paris 1995

Primary Sources

267

Perrone, Lorenzo et al. (eds), Die neuen Psalmenhomilien. Eine kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314 (GCS NF 19, Origenes Werke 13), Berlin etc. 2015 Philocalia: Harl, Marguerite, Nicholas De Lange (eds, transl.), Origène. Philocalie 1 – 20 et Lettre à Africanus (SC 302), Paris 1983 Junod, Éric, (ed., transl.), Origène. Philocalie 21 – 26 (Sur le libre arbitre) (SC 226), Paris 1976 Pamphilus Apologeticum pro Origene: Amacker, René, Éric Junod (eds, transl.), Pamphile, Eusèbe de Césarée. Apologie pour Origène. Texte, tome 1 (SC 464), Paris 2002 Proclus of Constantinople (?) Consolatoria ad aegrotem: Rudberg, Stig Y. (ed., transl.), ‘L’homélie pseudo-basilienne “Consolatoria ad aegrotem”’, Muséon 72 (1959), 301 – 322 Prophetae ex omnibus libris collectae PLS 1, 1738 – 1741 Prophetologion Høeg, Carsten, Günther Zuntz, Gudrun Engberg (eds.), Prophetologium I. Lectiones anni mobilis (MMB.L I, 1; 6), Copenhagen 1939, 1970 Proteuangelium Jacobi Smid, H.R. (ed.), Protevangelium Jacobi: A Commentary, Assen 1965 Pseudo-Athanasius De Communi Essentia Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti: PG 28, 29 – 80 Synopsis Scripturae Sacrae: PG 28, 283 – 438 Pseudo-Basil Commentarii in Isaiam: PG 30, 117 – 668 See also Proclus of Constantinople Pseudo-Cyprian Ad Nouatianum: Diercks, G.F. (ed.), Novatiani Opera quae supersunt (CCSL 4), Turnhout 1972, 129 – 152 Aduersus Iudaeos: Diercks, G.F. (ed.), Novatiani Opera quae supersunt (CCSL 4), Turnhout 1972, 253 – 288 Van Damme, Dirk, Pseudo-Cyprian: Aduersus Iudaeos. Gegen die Judenchristen. Die älteste lateinische Predigt (Paradosis 22), Freiburg 1969 De montibus Sina et Sion: Burini, Clara (ed. transl.), Pseudo Cipriano. I due monti Sinai e Sion (BP 25), Fiesole 1994 Exhortatio ad paenitentiam: PL 4, 859 – 868 Pseudo-Didymus De trinitate: PG 39, 600 – 769 Seiler, Ingrid (ed., transl.), Didymus der Blinde. De trinitate Buch 2, Kapitel 1 – 7 (BKP 52), Meisenheim am Glan 1975 Pseudo-Dionysius of Alexandria Fragmentum confutationis Pauli Samosateni : Pitra, Joannes B. (ed., transl.), Analecta Sacra Spicilegio Solesmensi IV, Monte Cassino 1883, 176; 417 – 418 Pseudo-Ephraem Commentarii in Hoseam, Joelem, Amos, Abdiam, Micheam, Zachariam, Malachiam: Benedictus, Petrus (ed., transl.), Sancti Patris Nostri Ephraem Syri Opera Omnia quae extant Graece, Syriace, Latine II, Rome 1740, 234 – 315 (In Michaeam 272 – 284)

268

Bibliography

Pseudo-Epiphanius De prophetis eorumque obitu ac sepultura: PG 43, 393 – 428 Pseudo-Isidore Breviarum Gothicum: PL 86, 48 – 1314 Missale Mixtum dictum Mozarabes: PL 85, 109 – 1036 Rufinus of Aquileia Apologia contra Hieronymum: Simonetti, Manlio, (ed.), Tyrannius Rufinus. Apologia contra Hieronymum (CCSL 20), Turnhout 1961, 29 – 123 Rupertus of Deutz Commentarii in duodecim prophetas minores: PL 168, 9 – 856 Liber de diuinis officiis: Haacke, Hrabanus, Helmut & Ilse Deutz (eds., transl.), Rupert von Deutz. Liber de divinis officiis. Der Gottesdienst der Kirche III (FC 33, 3), Freiburg etc. 1999 Sicard of Cremona Mitralis de officiis: Sarbak, Gábor, Lorenz Weinreich (eds), Sicardi Cremonensis Episcopi Mitralis de officiis (CCSM 228), Turnhout 2008 Socrates of Constantinople Historia ecclesiastica: Maraval, Pierre, Pierre Périchon (eds, transl.), Socrate de Constantinople. Histoire ecclésiastique, Livre I, tome I (SC 477), Paris 2004 Sozomenus Historia ecclesiastica: Festugière, André-Marie J. et al. (eds, transl.), Sozomène. Histoire ecclésiastique, Livres VII–IX, tome IV (SC 516), Paris 2007 Tertullian of Carthage Aduersus Iudaeos: Kroymann, Aemilius (ed.), Aduersus Iudaeos, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II. Opera Montanistica (CCSL 2), Turnhout 1954, 1337 – 1396 Aduersus Marcionem: Braun, René (ed., transl.), Tertullien. Contre Marcion III–IV (SC 399, 456), Paris 1994, 2000 Moreschini, Claudio, René Braun (eds, transl.), Tertullien. Contre Marcion, Livre V (SC 483), Paris 2004 Aduersus Praxean: Sieben, Hermann-Josef (ed., transl.) Tertullian. Aduersus Praxean. Gegen Praxeas (FC 34), Freiburg etc. 2001 De praescriptione haereticorum: Refoulé, R. François (ed.), De praescriptione haereticorum, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars I. Opera Catholica. Aduersus Marcionem (CCSL 1), Turnhout 1954, 185 – 224 Theodore of Mopsuestia Commentarii in duodecim prophetas: Sprenger, Hans N. (ed.), Theodori Mopsuesteni Commentarius in XII Prophetas. Einleitung und Ausgabe (Göttinger Orientforschungen V: Biblica et Patristica 1), Wiesbaden 1977 Hill, Robert C. (transl.), Theodore of Mopsuestia: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets (FaCh 108), Washington D.C. 2004 (On Micah 206 – 244) Theodoret of Cyrus Epistulae: PG 83, 1173 – 1494 Azéma, Yvan (ed., transl.), Théodoret de Cyr. Correspondance (1 – 95) II (SC 98), Paris 1964 Commentarii in Michaeam: PG 81, 1741 – 1786 Hill, Robert C. (transl.), Theodoret of Cyrus: Commentaries on the Prophets III: Commentary on the Twelve Prophets, Brookline Mass. 2006 (On Micah 149 – 175)

Primary Sources

269

Interpretatio in Psalmos: PG 80, 857 – 1998 Quaestiones in Leuiticum: Fernández Marcos, Natalio, Angel Sáenz-Badillos (eds), Theodoreti Cyrrhensis Quaestiones in Octateuchum (TECC 17), Madrid 1979 Theophilus of Antioch Ad Autolycum: Grant, Robert M. (ed., transl.), Theophilus of Antioch: Ad Autolycum (OECT), Oxford 1970 Theophylact of Achrida Commentarii in Oseam, Habacuc, Jonam, Naum, Michaeam: PG 126, 563 – 1190 Titus of Bostra Contra Manichaeos: Roman, Agathe et al., (eds), Titi Bostrensis Contra Manichaeos Libri IV Graece et Syriace (CCSG 82), Turnhout 2013 Triodion Τριῴδιον κατανυκτικὸν περιέχον ἅπασαν τὴν ἀνήκουσαν ἀκολουθίαν τῆς ἁγίας καὶ μεγάλης τεσσαρακόστης, Rome 1869 / Athens 2003 William Durandus Rationale diuinorum officiorum: Davril, Anselme, T.M. Thibodeau (eds), Guillelmi Duranti Rationale divinorum officiorum V–VI (CCCM 140A), Turnhout 1998

4. Gnostic works Books of Jeu Schmidt, Carl (ed.), Violet MacDermot (transl.), The Books of Jeu and the Untitled Text in the Bruce Codex (NHS 13), Leiden 1978 Gospel of Judas Kasser, Rodolphe et al. (eds, transl.), The Gospel of Judas together with the Letter of Peter to Philip, James, and a Book of Allogenes from Codex Tchacos: Critical Edition, Washington D.C. 2007, 184 – 235 Nag Hammadi Codices Robinson, James M. (ed.), The Coptic Gnostic Library 1 – 5, Leiden etc. 2000 Meyer, Marvin (ed.), The Nag Hammadi Scriptures, New York 2007 Waldstein, Michael, Frederik Wisse (eds, transl.), The Apocryphon of John: Synopsis of Nag Hammadi Codices II,1; III 1; and IV,1 with BG 8502,2 (NHS 33), Leiden 1995 Layton, Bentley et al. (eds, transl.), Nag Hammadi Codex II,2 – 7 together with XIII,2*, Brit. Lib. Or. 4926(1), and P. Oxy. 1, 654, 655 (NHS 22), Leiden etc. 1989 Böhlig, Alexander, Frederik Wisse, Pahor Labib (eds, transl.), Nag Hammadi Codices III, 2 and IV, 2. The Gospel of the Egyptians (The Holy Book of the Great Invisible Spirit) (NHS 4), Leiden 1975 Parrott, Douglas M. et al. (eds, transl.), Nag Hammadi Codices V, 2 – 5 and VI with Codex Berolinensis 8502, 1 and 4 (NHS 11), Leiden 1979 Morard, Françoise (ed., transl.), L’Apocalypse d’Adam (NH V 5) (BCNH.T 15), Québec 1985 Sieber, John H. et al. (eds, transl.), Nag Hammadi Codex VIII (NHS 31), Leiden etc. 1991 Barry, Catherine et al. (eds, transl.), Zostrien (NH VIII, 1) (BCNH.T 24), Québec/Louvain/Paris 2000 Hedrick, Charles H. et al. (eds, transl.), Nag Hammadi Codices XI, XII, XIII (NHS 28), Leiden etc. 1990

270

Bibliography

Pistis Sophia Schmidt, Carl (ed.), Violet MacDermot (transl.), Pistis Sophia (NHS 9), Leiden 1978 Pseudo-Simon Magus Ἡ ᾿Aπόϕασις ἡ μεγάλη Marcovich, Miroslav (ed.), Hippolytus. Refutation omnium haeresium (PTS 25), Berlin/New York 1986, 214 – 228

Handbooks and secondary literature af Hällström, Gunnar, Fides Simpliciorum according to Origen of Alexandria (CHL 76), Helsinki 1984 Aitken, James K., ‘ΣΧΟΙΝΟΣ in the Septuagint’, VT 50 (2000), 433 – 444 Albl, Martin C., “And Scripture Cannot Be Broken”: The Form and Function of the Early Christian Testimonia Collections (NT.S 96), Leiden 1999 Alexeev, Anatoly A., ‘The Old Testament Lections in Orthodox Worship’, in Dimitrov, Ivan Z. et al. (eds), Das Alte Testament als christliche Bibel in orthodoxer und westlicher Sicht. Zweite europäische orthodox-westliche Exegetenkonferenz im Rilakloster vom 8.– 15. September 2001 (WUNT 174), Tübingen 2004, 91 – 117 Allenbach, J. et al., Biblia Patristica. Index des citations et allusions bibliques dans la littérature patristique 1 – 7, Paris 1975 – 2000 Andersen, Francis I., David N. Freedman, Micah: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AncB 24E), Doubleday etc. 2000 Andresen, Carl, Logos und Nomos. Die Polemik des Kelsos wider das Christentum (AKG 30), Berlin 1955 Auf der Maur, Hans-Jörg, Die Osterhomilien des Asterios Sophistes als Quelle für die Geschichte der Osterfeier, Trier 1967 Baumstark, Anton, ‘Die Idiomela der byzantinischen Karfreitagshoren in syrischer Überlieferung’, OrChr 3rd series 3 – 4 (1930), 232 – 247 Baumstark, Anton, Liturgie comparée. Principes et méthodes pour l’étude historique des liturgies chrétiennes, Chèvetogne 1939, 3rd ed. revised by B. Botte 1953 Bienert, Wolfgang A., Dionysius von Alexandrien. Zur Frage des Origenismus im dritten Jahrhundert (PTS 21), Berlin/New York 1978 Bietenhard, Hans, ‘Kirche und Synagoge in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten’, ThZ 4 (1948), 174 – 192 Blaise, Albert, Henri Chirat, Dictionnaire Latin-Français des auteurs chrétiens, Turnhout 1954 Blass, Friedrich, Albert Debrunner, Friedrich Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, Göttingen 199017 Bogaert, Pierre-Maurice, ‘The Latin Bible’, in Carleton Paget, James, Joachim Schaper (eds), The New Cambridge History of the Bible I: From the Beginnings to 600, Cambridge 2013, 505 – 526 Böhlig, Alexander, ‘Der Name Gottes in Gnostizismus und Manichäismus’, in von Stietencron, H. (ed.), Der Name Gottes, Düsseldorf 1975, 131 – 155 Böhlig, Alexander, Gnosis und Synkretismus. Gesammelte Aufsätze zur spätantiken Religionsgeschichte 1. Teil (WUNT 47), Tübingen 1989 Bons, Eberhard, et al., Les douze prophètes. Osée (BdA 23, 1), Paris 2002

Handbooks and secondary literature

271

Bovon, François, Das Evangelium nach Lukas (Lk 9,51 – 14,35) (EKK III,2), Düsseldorf/ Neukirchen-Vluyn 1996 Boyarin, Daniel, Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism, Stanford Calif. 1999 Bradshaw, Paul F., Maxwell E. Johnson, L. Edward Phillips, The Apostolic Tradition (Hermeneia), Minneapolis 2002 Broshi, Magen, Yoram Tsafrir, ‘Excavations at the Zion Gate, Jerusalem’, IEJ 27 (1977), 28 – 37 Brou, Louis, ‘Les Impropères du Vendredi-Saint’, RGr 20 (1935), 161 – 179; 21 (1936), 8 – 16; 22 (1937), 1 – 9; 44 – 51 Brown, Peter, Augustine of Hippo, London 1967 Brown, Raymond E., The Birth of the Messiah: A Commentary on the Infancy Narratives in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke (ABRL), New York etc. 1993 (rev. ed.) Capes, David B., Old Testament Yahweh Texts in Paul’s Christology (WUNT 2, 47), Tübingen 1992 Clark, Elisabeth A., The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate, Princeton 1992 Cohen, Jeremy,‘The Mystery of Israel’s Salvation: Romans 11:25 – 26 in Patristic and Medieval Exegesis’, HThR 98 (2005), 247 – 281 Coutts, JoshuaJ.F., The Divine Name in the Gospel of John (WUNT 2, 447), Tübingen 2017 Crouzel, Henri, Origène, Paris/Namur 1985 Crouzel, Henri, Théologie de l’image de Dieu chez Origène, Paris 1956 Daniélou, Jean, Origène, Paris 1948 Daniélou, Jean, ‘La charrue symbole de la croix’, RSR 42 (1954), 193 – 203 Daniélou, Jean, Théologie du judéo-christianisme (BT), Paris etc. 1958 de Lubac, Henri, Histoire et Esprit. L’intelligence de l’Écriture d’après Origène, Paris 1950, reprint 2002 Derenbourg, Joseph, Essai sur l’histoire et la géographie de la Palestine d’après les Thalmuds et les autres sources rabbiniques I: Histoire de la Palestine, Paris 1867 Dines, Jennifer, ‘What was an ὈΠΩΡΟΦΥΛΆΚΙΟΝ?’ in Khan, Geoffrey, Diana Lipton (eds), Studies on the Text and Versions of the Hebrew Bible in Honour of Robert Gordon (VT.S 149), Leiden/Boston 2012, 197 – 210 Dines, Jennifer M., The Septuagint, London/New York 2004 Dogniez, Cécile, ‘Dodekapropheton – Überblick’, in Kreuzer, Siegfried (ed.), Einleitung in die Septuaginta (LXX.H 1), Gütersloh 2016, 461 – 473 Dogniez, Cécile, Marguerite Harl, Le Deutéronome (BdA 5), Paris 1992 Dogniez, Cécile, Jan Joosten, ‘Michaias / Micha’, in Kreuzer, Siegfried (ed.), Einleitung in die Septuaginta (LXX.H 1), Gütersloh 2016, 490 – 496 Doignon, Jean, ‘Le salut par le fer et le bois chez Irénée’, RSR 43 (1955), 535 – 544 Döpp, Siegmar, Wilhelm Geerlings (eds), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, Freiburg im Breisgau 20023 Dorival, Gilles, Marguerite Harl, Olivier Munnich, La Bible grecque des Septante. Du judaïsme hellénistique au christianisme ancient (Initiation au christianisme ancient), Paris 1988 Drumbl, Johann, ‘Die Improperien in der lateinischen Liturgie’, ALW 15 (1973), 68 – 100 Dulaey, Martine, ‘“Venez, montons à la montagne du Seigneur”. Is 2, 2 – 6 (Mi 4, 1 – 3) dans l’exégèse paléochrétienne’, in Caseau, Béatrice, Jean-Claude Cheynet, Vincent Déroche

272

Bibliography

(eds), Pèlerinages et lieux saints dans l’antiquité et le Moyen Âge. Mélanges offerts à Pierre Maraval, Paris 2006, 159 – 178 Dunderberg, Ismo, Beyond Gnosticism: Myth, Lifestyle, and Society in the School of Valentinus, New York 2008 Durst, Michael, ‘Hegesipp’, in Döpp, Siegmar, Wilhelm Geerlings (eds), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, Freiburg etc. 20023, 315 Duval, Yves-Marie, ‘Jérôme et les prophètes. Histoire, prophétie et actualisation dans les Commentaires de Nahum, Michée, Abdias et Joël’, in Emerton, J.A. (ed.), Congress Volume Salamanca 1983 (VT.S 36), Leiden 1985, 108 – 131 Duval, Yves-Marie, ‘Jérôme et Origène avant la querelle origéniste. La cure et la guérison ultime du monde et du diable dans l’In Nahum’, Aug. 24 (1984), 471 – 494 Duval, Yves-Marie, Le Livre de Jonas dans la littérature chrétienne grecque et latine. Sources et influence du Commentaire sur Jonas de Saint Jérôme 1 – 2 (EtAug.SA), Paris 1973 Duval, Yves-Marie, ‘Vers le Commentaire sur Aggée d’Origène’, in Lies, Lothar (ed.), Origeniana Quarta. Die Referate des 4. Internationalen Origeneskongresses (Innsbruck, 2.–6. September 1985) (IThS 19), Innsbruck/Wien 1987, 7 – 15 Duval, Yves-Marie, ‘Vers le Commentaire sur Joël d’Origène’, in Dorival, Gilles, Alain Le Boulluec (eds), Origeniana Sexta. Origène et la Bibel / Origen and the Bible. Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum Chantilly, 30 août – 3 septembre 1993 (BEThL 118), Leuven 1995, 393 – 410 Duval, Yves-Marie, ‘Vers le Commentaire sur Sophonie d’Origène. L’annonce de la disparition finale du mal et le retour dans la Jérusalem céleste’, in Perrone, L., P. Bernardino [Bernardini], D. Marchini (eds), Origeniana Octava: Origen and the Alexandrian Tradition (BEThL 164), Leuven 2003, 625 – 639 Duval, Yves-Marie, ‘Vers l’In Malachiam d’Origène. Jérôme et Origène en 406’, in Bienert, Wolfgang A., Uwe Kühneweg (eds), Origeniana Septima. Origenes in den Auseinandersetzungen des 4. Jahrhunderts (BEThL 137), Leuven 1999, 233 – 259 Edwards, Mark J., Origen against Plato (Ashgate Studies in Philosophy and Theology in Late Antiquity), Aldershot 2002 Eisler, Robert, The Messiah Jesus and John the Baptist, London 1931 Elliott, J.K., The Apocryphal New Testament: A Collection of Apocryphal Christian Literature in an English Translation, Oxford 1993 Evans, Carl D., ‘Jeroboam’, in Freedman, David N. et al. (eds), ABD 3, New York etc. 1992, 742 – 745 Fairbairn, Donald ‘Justification in St. Cyril of Alexandria, with some Implications for Ecumenical Dialogue’, Participatio. Journal of the Thomas F. Torrance Theological Fellowship 4 (2013), 123 – 146 Fantino, Jacques, La théologie d’Irénée. Lecture des Écritures en réponse à l’exégèse gnostique. Une approche trinitaire (CFi 180), Paris 1994 Fee, Gordon D., Paul’s Letter to the Philippians (NICNT), Grand Rapids, Mich. 1995 Filoramo, Giovanni, A History of Gnosticism (transl. from Italian), Oxford/Cambridge Mass. 1990 Fischer, Joseph A., ‘Die alexandrinischen Synoden gegen Origenes’, OstKSt 28 (1979), 3 – 16 Flusin, Bernard, ‘L’essor du monachisme oriental’, in Pietri, Luce et al. (eds), Les Églises d’orient et d’occident (Histoire du christianisme des origines à nos jours 3), [Paris] 1998, 545 – 608

Handbooks and secondary literature

273

Frickel, Josef, ‘Hippolyts Schrift Contra Noetum: ein Pseudo-Hippolyt’, in Brennecke, Hans C., Ernst L. Grasmück, Christoph Markschies (eds), Logos. Festschrift für Luise Abramowski zum 8. Juli 1993 (BZNW 67), Berlin/New York 1993, 87 – 123 Fürst, Alfons, Hieronymus. Askese und Wissenschaft in der Spätantike, Freiburg 20162 Gamble, Harry Y., Books and Readers in the Early Church: A History of Early Christian Texts, New Haven/London 1995 Ginzberg, Louis, The Legends of the Jews 5, Baltimore/London 1998 (reprint) Glare, P.G.W. Oxford Latin Dictionary, Oxford 1982 Glenny, W. Edward, Micah: A Commentary based on Micah in Codex Vaticanus (Septuagint Commentary Series), Leiden/Boston 2013 Goldstein, Morris, Jesus in the Jewish Tradition, New York 1950 Grappe, Christian, ‘Royaume de Dieu, Temple et Cité de Dieu dans la prédication de Jésus et à la lumière de Matthieu 5,13 – 16’, in Hengel, Martin, Siegfried Mittmann, Anna M. Schwemer (eds), La Cité de Dieu. Die Stadt Gottes. 3. Symposium Strasbourg, Tübingen, Uppsala 19.–23. September 1998 in Tübingen (WUNT 129), Tübingen 2000, 147 – 193 Grayson A. Kirk, ‘Mesopotamia, History and Culture of Assyria’, in Freedman, David N. et al. (eds), ABD 4, New York etc. 1992, 732 – 755 Grayson A. Kirk, ‘Sargon’, in Freedman, David N. et al. (eds), ABD 5, New York etc. 1992, 984 – 985 Grayson A. Kirk, ‘Sennacherib’, in Freedman, David N. et al. (eds), ABD 5, New York etc. 1992, 1088 – 1089 Grayson, A. Kirk, ‘Mesopotamia, History of’, in Freedman, David N. et al. (eds), ABD 4, New York etc. 1992, 714 – 777 Grelot, Pierre, ‘Michée 7, 6 dans les évangiles et dans la littérature rabbinique’, Biblica 67 (1986), 363 – 377 Gribomont, Jean, ‘La terminologie exégétique de S. Jérôme’, in Curti, Carmelo et al. (eds)., La terminologia esegetica nell’antichità. Atti del Primo Seminario di antichità cristiane. Bari, 25 ottobre 1984, Bari 1987, 123 – 134 Grützmacher, Georg, Hieronymus. Eine biographische Studie zur alten Kirchengeschichte II, Berlin 1906 Guinot, Jean-Noël, ‘La cristallisation d’un différend: Zorobabel dans l’exégèse de Théodore de Mopsueste et de Théodoret de Cyr’, Aug. 24 (1984), 527 – 547 Guinot, Jean-Noël, L’exégèse de Théodoret de Cyr (ThH 100), Paris 1995 Hammond Bammel, Caroline P., Der Römerbrieftext des Rufin und seine Origenes-Übersetzung (AGLB 10), Freiburg 1985 Harl, Marguerite, ‘La préexistence des âmes dans l’œuvre d’Origène’, in Lies, Lothar (ed.), Origeniana Quarta. Die Referate des 4. Internationalen Origeneskongresses (Innsbruck, 2.–6. September 1985) (IThS 19), Innsbruck/Wien 1987, 238 – 258 Heil, Christoph, ‘Die Rezeption von Micha 7, 6 LXX in Q und Lukas’, ZNW 88 (1997), 211 – 222 Herford, R. Travers, Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London 1903 Herr, Moshe D., ‘Jacob of Kefar Sakhnayya’, in Wigoder, Geoffrey (ed.), EncJud 9 (1972), 1233 Hilhorst, Anton, ‘De benaming grote en kleine profeten’, in García Martínez, F., C.H.J. de Geus, A.F.J. Klijn (eds), Profeten en profetische geschriften (Festschrift A.S. van der Woude), Kampen/Nijkerk [1987], 43 – 54 Hillers, Delbert R., ‘Micah, Book of’, in Freedman, David N. et al. (eds), ABD 4, New York etc. 1992, 807 – 810

274

Bibliography

Horbury, W., ‘The Purpose of Pseudo-Cyprian Aduersus Iudaeos’, StPatr 18 (1989), 291 – 317 Jaffé, Dan, Le judaïsme et l’avènement du christianisme. Orthodoxie et hétérodoxie dans la littérature talmudique I er-II e siècle (Patrimoines: judaïsme), Paris 2007 Janeras, Sebastià, Le Vendredi-Saint dans la tradition liturgique byzantine. Structure et histoire de ses offices (StAns 99 / Analecta Liturgica 13), Rome 1988 Jastrow, Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim, the Talmud Babli and Yerushalmi, and the Midrashic Literature, London/New York 1903 Jay, Pierre, ‘Le vocabulaire exégétique de saint Jérôme dans le Commentaire sur Zacharie’, REAug 14 (1968), 3 – 16 Jeanjean, Benoît, Saint Jérôme et l’hérésie (EtAug.SA 161), Paris 1999 Jeremias, Joachim, Unbekannte Jesusworte, Zürich 1948, Gütersloh 19633 Jeremias, Joachim, Unknown Sayings of Jesus (transl. from German), London 1957 Joosten, Jan, ‘L’ondée et les moutons. La Septante de Michée 5, 6 et l’exégèse juive traditionnelle’, REJ 162 (2003), 357 – 363 Joosten, Jan, ‘YHWH’s Farewell to Northern Israel (Micah 6,1 – 8)’, ZAW 125 (2013), 448 – 463 Kamesar, Adam, ‘Jerome’, in Carleton Paget, James, Joachim Schaper (eds), The New Cambridge History of the Bible I: From the Beginnings to 600, Cambridge 2013, 653 – 675 Karim, Armin, “My People, what have I done to you?”: The Good Friday Popule Meus Verses in Chant and Exegesis, c. 380 – 880 (PhD thesis Case Western Reserve University), 2014 Keith, Chris, Jesus’ Literacy: Scribal Culture and the Teacher from Galilee (LNTS 413), London etc. 2011 Kelly, John N.D., Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies, London 1975 King, Karen L., What is Gnosticism?, Cambridge, Mass./London 2003 Klausner, Joseph, Jesus of Nazareth: His Life, Times, and Teaching, London 19473 Koehler, Ludwig, Walter Baumgartner et al., Hebräisches und aramäisches Lexikon zum Alten Testament I–IV, Leiden 1967 – 1990 Kreuzer, Siegfried (ed.), Einleitung in die Septuaginta (LXX.H 1), Gütersloh 2016 Krupp, Robert A., Saint John Chrysostom: A Scripture Index, Lanham etc. 1984 Laato, Anni M., Jews and Christians in De duobus montibus Sina et Sion: An Approach to Early Latin Adversus Iudaeos Literature, Åbo 1998 La Bonnardière, Anne-Marie, Biblia Augustiniana A.T. Les douze petits prophètes, Paris 1963 Lahe, Jaan, Gnosis und Judentum. Alttestamentliche und jüdische Motive in der gnostischen Literatur und das Ursprungsproblem der Gnosis (NHMS 75), Leiden/Boston 2012 Laible, Heinrich, Jesus Christus im Thalmud, Berlin 1891 Lampe, G.W.H., A Patristic Greek Lexicon, Oxford 1961 Laporte, Jean, ‘La chute chez Philon et Origène’, in Granfield, Patrick, Joseph A. Jungmann (eds.) Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten I, Münster 1970, 320 – 335 Lausberg, Heinrich, Handbuch der literarischen Rhetorik. Eine Grundlegung der Literaturwissenschaft, München 19732 Le Déaut, Roger, La nuit pascale. Essai sur la signification de la Pâque juive à partir du Targum d’Exode XII 42 (AnBib 22), Rome 1963 Leclerq, Henri, ‘Impropères’, in Cabrol, Fernand, Henri Leclerq (eds), DACL 17, Paris 1926, 471 – 476 Ledegang, Fred, Mysterium Ecclesiae: Images of the Church and its Members in Origen (BEThL 156), Leuven 2001

Handbooks and secondary literature

275

Liddell, Henry G., Robert Scott et al., Greek-English Lexicon: With a Supplement, Oxford etc. 1968 (revised and augmented ed.) Lieberman, Saul, ‘Roman Legal Institutions in Early Rabbinics and in the Acta Martyrum’, JQR 35 (1944 – 1945), 19 – 24 Logan, Alastair H.B., Gnostic Truth and Christian Heresy: A Study in the History of Gnosticism, Edinburgh 1996 Lohfink, Gerhard, ‘“Schwerter zu Pflugscharen”. Die Rezeption von Jes 2, 1 – 5 par Mi 4, 1 – 5 in der Alten Kirche und im Neuen Testament’, ThQ 166 (1986), 184 – 209 Lohmeyer, Ernst, Das Evangelium des Matthäus (KEK), Göttingen 1967 Lohr, Winrich A., Basilides und Seine Schule. Eine Studie zur Theologie- und Kirchengeschichte des zweiten Jahrhunderts (WUNT 83), Tübingen 1996 Luker, Lamontte M., ‘Zaanan’, in Freedman, David N. et al. (eds), ABD 6, New York etc. 1992, 1029 Lundbom, Jack R., Deuteronomy: A Commentary, Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge 2013 Lust, Johan, ‘Micah 5,1 – 3 in Qumran and in the New Testament and Messianism in the Septuagint’, in Katrin Hauspie (ed.), Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays by J. Lust (BEThL 178), Leuven 2004, 87 – 112 Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, Katrin Hauspie, Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Stuttgart 2003 (revised ed.) Luttikhuizen, Gerard P., ‘Sethianer?’, ZAC 13 (2009), 76 – 86 Luz, Ulrich, Das Evangelium nach Matthäus (Mt 8 – 17) (EKK I, 2), Düsseldorf/NeukirchenVluyn 2007 Maier, Johann, Jesus von Nazareth in der talmudischen Überliefering (EdF 82), Darmstadt 1978 Malka, Salomon, Jésus rendu aux siens – Enquête en Israel sur une énigme de vingt siècles, Paris 1999 Mandel, Paul, ‘Bethlehem and the Birth of the Messiah in the Eyes of a Byzantine Jewish Storyteller: Rebuke or Consolation’, in Houtman, Alberdina et al. (eds), Religious Stories in Transformation: Conflict, Revision and Reception (JCP 31), Leiden 2016, 234 – 259. Margoni-Kögler, Michael, Die Perikopen im Gottesdienst bei Augustinus. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der liturgischen Schriftlesungen in der frühen Kirche (VKCLK 29 / SÖAW.PH 810), Vienna 2010 Meier, John P., A Marginal Jew: Rethinking the Historical Jesus. The Roots of the Problem and the Person 1, New York 1991 Meiser, Martin, ‘Die Septuaginta-Zitate des Neuen Testaments bei Justin’, in de Vries, Johannes, Martin Karrer (eds), Textual History and the Reception of Scripture in Early Christianity / Textgeschichte und Schriftrezeption im frühen Christentum (SCS 60), Atlanta 2013, 323 – 348 Menken, Maarten J.J., ‘Allusions to the Minor Prophets in the Fourth Gospel’, Neotestamentica 44 (2010), 67 – 84 Menken, Maarten J.J., Matthew’s Bible: The Old Testament Text of the Evangelist (BEThL 173), Leuven 2004 Merkel, Helmut, ‘Feste und Feiertage IV. Kirchengeschichtlich’, in Krause, Gerhard, Gerhard Müller et al. (eds), TRE 9, Berlin/New York 1983, 115 – 132 Meßner, Reinhard, Einführung in die Liturgiewisenschaft, Paderborn 20092 Mimouni, Simon C., Les chrétiens d’origine juive dans l’Antiquité, Paris 2004

276

Bibliography

Moldenke, Harold N. & Alma L., Plants of the Bible, New York 1952 Monaci Castagno, Adele, ‘Angelo’, in eadem (ed.), Origene. Dizionario. La cultura, il pensiero, le opere, Rome 2000, 6 – 13 Monaci Castagno, Adele, ‘Angelo delle nazioni’, in eadem (ed.), Origene. Dizionario. La cultura, il pensiero, le opere, Rome 2000, 13 – 15 Montanari, Franco et al., Brill Dictionary of Ancient Greek, Leiden/Boston 2015 Moreschini, Claudio, Enrico Norelli, Handbuch der antiken christlichen Literatur (transl. from Italian), Gütersloh 2007 Morlet, Sebastien, La Démonstration évangélique d’Eusèbe de Césarée. Étude sur l’apologétique chrétienne à l’époque de Constantin (EtAug.SA 187), Paris 2009 Muraoka, Takamitsu, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, Louvain 2009 Muraoka, Takamitsu, A Syntax of Septuagint Greek, Leuven/Paris/Bristol, CT 2016 Muraoka, Takamitsu, ‘Introduction aux douze petits prophètes’, in Bons, Eberhard et al., Les douzes prophètes. Osée (BdA 23, 1), Paris 2002, i–xxiii Murcia, Thierry, Jésus dans le Talmud et la littérature rabbinique ancienne (Judaïsme ancien et origines du christianisme), Turnhout 2014 Nautin, Pierre, ‘Études de chronologie hiéronymienne (393 – 397) (suite et fin)’, REAug 20 (1974), 251 – 284 Nautin, Pierre, Origène. Sa vie et son œuvre, Paris 1977 Neusner, Jacob, Eliezer ben Hyrcanus: The Tradition and the Man I–II (SJLA 4), Leiden 1973 Neusner, Jacob, Introduction to Rabbinic Literature (ABRL), New York 1994 Nolland, John, The Gospel of Matthew: A Commentary on the Greek Text (NIGTC), Grand Rapids, Mich./Cambridge 2005 Oberholzer, J.P. ‘Miga 1:10 – 16 en die Septuagint’, HTS 28 (1972), 74 – 85 Ondrey, Hauna T., The Minor Prophets as Christian Scripture in the Commentaries of Theodore of Mopsuestia and Cyril of Alexandria, Oxford 2018 Palanque, Jean-Rémy, ‘Deux correspondants de Saint Ambroise: Orontien et Irénée’, REL 11 (1933), 153 – 163 Pantelia, Maria et al., Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, online on stephanus.tlg.uci.edu Pásztori-Kupán, István, Theodoret of Cyrus (The Early Church Fathers), London/New York 2006 Pearson, Birger A., Ancient Gnosticism: Traditions and Literature, Minneapolis Minn. 2007 Pearson, Birger A., ‘Baptism in Sethian Gnostic Texts’, in Hellholm, David et al. (eds), Ablution, Initiation, and Baptism: Late Antiquity, Early Judaism, and Early Christianity I (BZNW 176), Berlin/New York 2001, 119 – 143 Pedersen, Nils A., Demonstrative Proof in Defence of God: A Study of Titus of Bostra’s Contra Manichaeos. The Work’s Sources, Aims and Relation to its Contemporary Theology (NHMS 56), Leiden/Boston 2004 Poorthuis, Marcel, ‘The Improperia and Judaism’, Questions Liturgiques. Studies in Liturgy 72 (1991), 1 – 24 Rahmer, Moritz, [Die hebräischen Traditionen in den Werken des Hieronymus durch eine Vergleichung mit den jüdischen Quellen.] Die Commentarii zu den zwölf kleinen Propheten I–II, Berlin 1902 Rahner, Karl, ‘La doctrine d’Origène sur la pénitence’, RSR 37 (1950), 47 – 97; 252 – 286; 422 – 456 Ramelli, Ilaria L.E., The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena (VigChr.S 120), Leiden 2013

Handbooks and secondary literature

277

Rankin, David, Tertullian and the Church, Cambridge 1995 Redpath, Henry A., ‘Supplement’, joined to Hatch, Edwin, Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint and the other Greek Versions of the Old Testament (Including the Apocryphal Books) II, Oxford 1906, reprint Graz 1975 Renoux, Athanase, Le Codex arménien Jérusalem 121 I. Introduction. Aux origines de la liturgie hiérosolymitaine. Lumières nouvelles (PO 163 / 35, 1), Turnhout 1969 Renoux, Charles, ‘The Reading of the Bible in the Ancient Liturgy of Jerusalem’, in Blowers, Paul M. (ed. and trans.), The Bible in Greek Christian Antiquity, Notre Dame, Ind. 1997, 399 – 414 Robertson, A.T., A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, Nashville, Tenn. 1934 Rohmann, Dirk, Christianity, Bookburning and Censorship in Late Antiquity: Studies in Text Transmission (AKG 135), Berlin 2016 Roll, Susan R., Toward the Origin of Christmas (Liturgia Condenda 5), Kampen 19962 Römer, Gerhard, ‘Die Liturgie des Karfreitags’, ZKTh 77 (1955), 39 – 93 Rosenberg, Abraham J., Twelve Prophets II: A new English translation. Translation of Text, Rashi, and other commentaries, New York 1992 Roukema, Riemer, Gnosis and Faith in Early Christianity: An Introduction to Gnosticism (transl. from Dutch), London/Harrisburg 1999 Roukema, Riemer, ‘Jesus and the Divine Name in the Gospel of John’, in George H. van Kooten (ed.), The Revelation of the Name YHWH to Moses: Perspectives from Judaism, the Pagan Graeco-Roman World, and Early Christianity (TBN 9) Leiden 2006, 207 – 223 Roukema, Riemer, Jesus, Gnosis and Dogma (transl. from Dutch), London 2010 Roukema, Riemer, ‘L’interprétation patristique de quelques mots hébraïques de la Septante’, in Joosten, Jan, Philippe Le Moigne (eds), L’apport de la Septante aux études sur l’Antiquité (LeDiv 203), Paris 2005, 269 – 288 Roukema, Riemer, ‘‘Mijn volk, wat heb ik u gedaan?’ Micha 6:3 – 4a in de Improperia voor Goede Vrijdag en bij de kerkvaders’, NThT 64 (2010), 200 – 217 Roukema, Riemer, ‘Origen on the Origin of Sin’, in Patmore, Hector, Ishay Rosen-Zvi, James K. Aitken (eds), The Origins of Evil in Early Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity, Cambridge, forthcoming Roukema, Riemer, ‘Origen, the Jews, and the New Testament’, in Roukema, Riemer, Hagit Amirav (eds), The ‘New Testament’ as a Polemical Tool: Studies in Ancient Christian Rhetoric and Beliefs (NTOA 118), Göttingen 2018, 241 – 253 Roukema, Riemer, ‘Patristic Interpretation of Micah: Micah read as a book about Christ’, in Kraus, Wolfgang, Martin Karrer, Martin Meiser (eds), Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. 2. Internationale Fachtagung verantstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23. – 27. 7. 2008 (WUNT 252), Tübingen 2010, 702 – 719 Roukema, Riemer, ‘Philological Observations, Syntax, and Delimitation in the Septuagint Version of Micah according to Patristic Commentaries’, in Meiser, Martin et al. (eds), Die Septuaginta – Geschichte, Wirkung, Relevanz (WUNT 405), Tübingen 2018, 777 – 797 Roukema, Riemer, ‘Reception and Interpretation of Jesus’ Teaching of Love for Enemies in Ancient Christianity’, in Geljon, Albert C., Riemer Roukema (eds), Violence in Ancient Christianity: Victims and Perpetrators (VigChr.S 125), Leiden 2014, 198‐214 Roukema, Riemer, ‘The Retrieval of Origen’s Commentary on Micah’, StPatr 94 (2017), 131 – 142

278

Bibliography

Roukema, Riemer, ‘The Sethian Figures Micheus and Michar and their Relationship to Micah the Morasthite’, Gnosis: Journal of Gnostic Studies 2 (2017), 1 – 14 Roukema, Riemer, Review of Ilaria L.E. Ramelli, The Christian Doctrine of Apokatastasis: A Critical Assessment from the New Testament to Eriugena. Augustiniana 64 (2014), 282 – 287 Rouwhorst, Gerard, ‘The liturgical reading of the Bible in Early Eastern Christianity: The protohistory of the Byzantine lectionary’, in Spronk, Klaas, Gerard Rouwhorst, Stephan Royé (eds), Challenges and Perspectives: Collected Papers, resulting from the expert meeting of the Catalogue of Byzantine Manuscripts programme held at the PThU in Kampen, the Netherlands on 6 th-7 th November 2009, Turnhout 2013, 155 – 171 Rücker, Adolf, ‘Die Adoratio Crucis am Karfreitag in den orientalischen Riten’, Miscellanea Liturgica in honorem L. Cuniberti Mohlberg (BEL 22), Rome 1948, 379 – 406 Russell, N., Cyril of Alexandria (The Early Church Fathers), Oxford 2000 Salzmann, Jorg C., Lehren und Ermahnen. Zur Geschichte des christlichen Wortgottesdienstes in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten (WUNT 2, 59), Tübingen 1994 Sasse, H., ‘Concerning the Origin of the Improperia’, RTR 16 (1957), 65 – 76 Satran, David, Biblical Prophets in Byzantine Palestine: Reassessing the Lives of the Prophets (SVTP 11), Leiden etc. 1995 Schäfer, Peter, Jesus in the Talmud, Princeton/Oxford 2007 Schiffman, Lawrence H., Who was a Jew? Rabbinic and Halakhic Perspectives on the JewishChristian Schism, Hoboken N.J. 1985 Schrama, Martijn, ‘Prima lectio quae recitata est: The liturgical pericope in light of Saint Augustine’s sermons’, Augustiniana 45 (1995), 141 – 175 Schütz, Werner, ‘“Was habe ich dir getan, mein Volk?” Die Wurzeln der Karfreitagsimproperien in der alten Kirche’, JLH 13 (1968), 1 – 38 Schütz, Werner, Der christliche Gottesdienst bei Origenes (CThM 8), Stuttgart 1984 Schuurmans Stekhoven, J.Z., De Alexandrijnse vertaling van het Dodekapropheton, Leiden 1887 Schwartz, Joshua, Peter J. Tomson, ‘When Rabbi Eliezer was Arrested for Heresy’, Jewish Studies: an Internet Journal 10 (2012), 145 – 181 Schwemer, Anna M., Studien zu den frü hjü dischen Prophetenlegenden Vitae prophetarum. Einleitung, Übersetzung und Kommentar I–II (TSAJ 49 – 50), Tübingen 1995 – 1996 Schwyzer, Eduard, Griechische Grammatik I: Allgemeiner Teil, Lautlehre, Wortbildung, Flexion (HAW 2, 1), München 1939, reprint 1968 Seebass, Horst, Numeri. 3. Teilband: Numeri 22,2 – 36,13 (BK.AT 4, 3), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2007 Sevrin, Jean-Marie, Le dossier baptismal séthien. Études sur la sacramentaire gnostique (BCNH.E 2), Québec 1986 Sgherri, Giuseppe, Chiesa e Sinagoga nelle opere di Origene (SPMed 13), Milano 1982 Shaw, Frank, The Earliest Non-Mystical Jewish Use of Iαω (CBET 70), Leuven 2014 Shepherd, Michael B., The Twelve Prophets in the New Testament (StBibLit 140), New York etc. 2011 Siegfried, Carl, ‘Midraschisches zu Hieronymus und Pseudo-Hieronymus’, JPTh 9 (1883), 346 – 352 Simon, Marcel, Verus Israel. Étude sur les relations entre chrétiens et juifs dans l’Empire romain (135 – 425), Paris 19642

Handbooks and secondary literature

279

Simonetti, Manlio, ‘La spada e l’aratro. Nota sull’interpretazione di Is. 2, 4’, Lateranum 44 (1978), 411 – 424 Simonetti Manlio, ‘Note sul commento di Cirillo d’Alessandria ai Profeti minori’, VetChr 14 (1977), 301 – 330 Simonetti, Manlio, ‘Sul significativo di alcuni termini tecnici nella letteratura esegetica greca’, in Curti, Carmelo et al. (eds), La terminologia esegetica nell’antichità. Atti del Primo Seminario di antichità cristiane. Bari, 25 ottobre 1984, Bari 1987, 25 – 58 Sirat, René-Samuel, ‘Le dialogue entre Rabbi Éliezer et le disciple de “Jésus le Nazaréen”’, in Trigano, Shmuel (ed.), Le christianisme au miroir du judaïsme (Pardès 35), Paris 2003, 51 – 55 Smith, Morton, Jesus the Magician, New York/London 1978 Smyth, Herbert W., Greek Grammar (rev. G.M. Messing), Cambridge, Mass. 195610 Staub, Adelrich, Die exegetische Methode des Hieronymus im Kommentar zum Zwölfprophetenbuch. Eruditio saeculi und scientia scripturarum (PhD thesis Pontificium Athenaeum S. Anselmo), Rome 1977; partially published in Uznach 1978 Stemberger, Günter, ‘Hieronymus und die Juden seiner Zeit’, in Koch, Dietrich-Alex, Hermann Lichtenberger, Karina & Thomas Lehnardt (eds), Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter. Festschrift für Heinz Schreckenberg (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum 1), Göttingen 1993, 347 – 364 Steyn, Gert J., ‘Dodekapropheton Quotations in Matthew’s Gospel’, in Kraus, Wolfgang, Michaël N. van der Meer, Martin Meiser (eds), XV Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (SCS 64), Atlanta 2016, 741 – 761 Stipp, Hermann-Josef, ‘Bemerkungen zum griechischen Michabuch aus Anlass des deutschen LXX-Übersetzungsprojekts’, JNSL 29 (2003), 103 – 132 Stökl Ben Ezra, Daniel, The Impact of Yom Kippur on Early Christianity (WUNT 163), Tübingen 2003 Strack, Hermann L., Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch I. Das Evangelium nach Matthäus, München 1926 Stroumsa, Guy G., Another Seed: Studies in Gnostic Mythology (NHS 24), Leiden 1984 Talbert, Richard J.A. (ed.), Barrington Atlas of the Greek and Roman World, Princeton/Oxford 2000 Thibaut, Jean-Baptiste, Ordre des offices de la Semaine Sainte à Jérusalem du IV e au X e siècle, Paris 1926 Trebolle Barrera, Julio, The Jewish Bible and the Christian Bible: An Introduction to the History of the Bible (transl. from Spanish), Leiden etc. 1998 Trigg, Joseph, ‘Origen Man of the Church’, in Daly, Robert J. (ed.), Origeniana Quinta: Historica – Text and Method – Biblica – Philosophica – Theologica – Origenism and Later Developments. Papers of the 5 th International Origen Congress Boston College, 14 – 18 August 1989 (BEThL 105), Leuven 1992, 51 – 56 Turner, David L., Matthew (BECNT), Grand Rapids, Mich. 2008 Tzamalikos, P., Origen: Philosophy of History and Eschatology (VigChr.S 85), Leiden 2007 Utzschneider, Helmut, ‘Flourishing Bones – The Minor Prophets in the New Testament’, in Kraus, Wolfgang, R. Glenn Wooden (eds), Septuagint Research: Issues and Challenges in the Study of the Greek Jewish Scriptures (SCS 53), Atlanta 2006, 273 – 292

280

Bibliography

Utzschneider, Helmut, ‘Michaias Micha’, in Kraus, Wolfgang, Martin Karrer (eds), Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament II, Stuttgart 2011, 2362 – 2380 van den Broek, Roelof, ‘The Creation of Adam’s Physic Body in the Apocryphon of John’, in van den Broek, R., M.J. Vermaseren (eds), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religions (EPRO 91), Leiden 1981, 38 – 57 van den Hoek, Annewies, ‘“I said, you are gods…” The significance of Psalm 82 for some early Christian Authors’, in Rutgers, Leonard V. et al. (eds), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World (CBET 22), Leuven 1998, 203 – 219 van der Woude, Adam S., Micha (POT), Nijkerk 19772 Van Parys, Michel, ‘Hésychius de Jérusalem face à la Synagogue’, in Auwers, Jean-Marie, Régis Burnet, Didier Luciani (eds), L’antijudaïsme des Pères: Mythe et/ou réalité? (ThH 125), Paris 2017, 159 – 182 van Unnik, W.C., ‘Irenaeus en de Pax Romana’, in van den Beld, A., E. Schroten (eds), Kerk en vrede. Opstellen aangeboden aan Prof. dr. J. de Graaf, Baarn 1976, 207 – 222 Verbraken, Pierre-Patrick, Études critiques sur les sermons authentiques de saint Augustin (IP 12), Steenbrugge/’s-Gravenhage 1976 Vittorino, Grossi, ‘Melitone di Sardi, Perì Pascha 72 – 99, 523 – 763. Sull’origine degli Improperia nella liturgia del Venerdì Santo’, in Dimensioni drammatiche della liturgia medioevale: Atti del I Convegno di studio: Viterbo, 31 maggio, 1 – 2 giugno 1976, Rome 1977, 203 – 216 Vollmer, Friedrich, Ernst Bickel, Thesaurus Linguae Latinae V,1, Leipzig 1934 von Harnack, Adolf, Der kirchengeschichtliche Ertrag der exegetischen Arbeiten des Origenes I–II (TU 42, 3 – 4), Leipzig 1918 – 1919 von Rad, Gerhard, Das erste Buch Mose (ATD 8), Göttingen 1964 von Rad, Gerhard, ‘Die Stadt auf dem Berge’, EvTh 8 (1948/49), 439 – 447 von Rad, Gerhard, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament (TB 8), München 1961 Wiles, James W., A Scripture Index to the Works of St. Augustine in English Translation, Lanham etc. 1995 Wiles, M.F., ‘Theodore of Mopsuestia as Representative of the Antiochene School’, in Ackroyd, P.R., C.F. Evans (eds), The Cambridge History of the Bible I: From the Beginnings to Jerome, Cambridge 1970, 489 – 510 Williams, Michael A., Rethinking “Gnosticism”: An Argument for Dismantling a Dubious Category, Princeton 1996 Williams, Megan H., The Monk and the Book: Jerome and the Making of Christian Scholarship, Chicago/London 2006 Wolff, Hans W., Dodekapropheton 4: Micha (BK.AT 14, 4), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982 Würthwein, Ernst, Alexander A. Fischer, The Text of the Old Testament. An introduction to the Biblia Hebraica (transl. from German), Grand Rapids, Mich. 20143 Wyrwa, Dietmar, ‘Julius Cassian’, in Döpp, Siegmar, Wilhelm Geerlings (eds), Lexikon der antiken christlichen Literatur, Freiburg im Breisgau 20023, 409 Yarbro Collins, Adele, Mark: A Commentary (Hermeneia), Minneapolis Minn. 2007 Ysebaert, Joseph, Greek Baptismal Terminology: Its Origins and Early Development (GCP 1), Nijmegen 1962 Zaharopoulos, Dimitri Z., Theodore of Mopsuestia on the Bible: A Study of his Old Testament Exegesis (Theological Enquiries), New York/Mahwah, N.J. 1989

Index of Subjects For references to Church Fathers (not included in this index), see §§ III.1 and V.40.

Alexandrian interpretation 16; see also spiritual interpretation Allegorical interpretation, see spiritual interpretation Anchorites, hermits 194, 205 Angels 28, 30, 52, 69, 80, 106, 109, 113, 158 f. Antichrist 138 f., 185, 193, 221 Antiochene interpretation 11, 16 f., 129, 221, 225, 253 Aquila (translator) 13, 60, 67 f., 93, 142 – 144, 222 Arius 23, 180 Baptism 26 – 31, 35, 107, 111 – 113, 150, 166, 201, 208, 212 – 215, 222, 228, 231, 233 Basilides (gnostic) 23, 180 Bethlehem 5 – 7, 15, 17, 25, 39, 128 – 136, 141, 222, 225, 227, 232, 244, 253 Bishops 10, 16, 79, 100, 107, 192, 236, 242 Celsus (philosopher) 14, 32, 64, 106, 110, 131, 252 Christ, crucifixion / cross 51, 69, 70 f., 75, 96, 104 f., 116, 126 f., 140, 201, 210, 222, 231, 235 – 244 Christ, incarnation 47, 50 f., 85, 131 – 136, 145 f., 209 – 211, 215, 222, 253 Christ, pre-existence 73, 132 – 136, 227, 230 Christ, redemption / salvation by 16, 44, 85, 90, 105, 108 f., 117, 121, 134 f., 139, 149, 163 f., 189, 195, 201, 205 f., 208, 210, 212 f., 215, 222, 224, 240 f., 243, 254 Christ, resurrection 145, 163, 184 Constantine (emperor) 23, 108, 113, 206 Creator, see Demiurge Cross, see Christ Crucifixion, see Christ Deacons

79, 100, 192

https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110666021-012

Demiurge, Creator 30 – 34, 36, 46, 64, 78, 168, 193, 212, 221, 253 Demons 48, 50, 52, 57 f., 72, 77 f., 98, 101, 112 f., 117, 123, 126 f., 140, 145, 152 f., 158, 165, 200, 208 – 211, 221, 224, 241 Devil, Satan 57 f., 62, 64 f., 72, 81, 87, 108 f., 123, 126, 135, 139, 140 f., 144 – 146, 150 f., 157, 164, 166, 178, 180, 198 f., 200 f., 208, 212 f., 221 Donatists 41, 110 Eleutheropolis 39, 42, 59 Eliezer ben Hyrcanus 245, 250, 252 Eucharist 54, 133, 181 Eunomius 180 Gnosticism 15 f., 19, 22 – 36, 46, 172, 193, 221, 253 Gog and Magog, see Scyths Golgotha 112 f., 140, 238 Hades, underworld 50, 159, 209 Hermits, see anchorites Ialdabaoth 24 f., 30 f., 35 Idolatry, idols 44, 46, 48, 50 – 53, 57, 65, 67, 71, 75, 83, 96, 102, 128, 153, 155 – 158, 176 – 178, 197, 202, 220 f., 245 Improperia 235 – 239, 242 – 244 Incarnation, see Christ James the Just 120 f. Jerusalem, Zion 1, 5, 7, 10, 16, 31, 39, 42 – 49, 51, 55 – 57, 63 – 68, 73, 76, 79, 83, 88, 90, 99 – 102, 104 – 114, 116 – 130, 135, 137, 143, 146, 153, 156 f., 166, 172, 178, 181, 185, 187 f., 191, 195 – 197, 199 f., 202, 220 – 223, 226, 230 – 233, 238 – 241, 243, 254 Jerusalem (heavenly) 69, 72, 108 f., 116, 122, 154, 193, 208

282

Index of Subjects

Jewish Christians 86, 116, 120, 134, 148, 149, 151, 154 f., 206, 214 f., 222 f., 245 Jewish interpretations 4, 19, 46, 103 f., 125, 130, 142, 145, 150 f., 156, 159, 162, 216, 225 f. Jews, see Roman empire John the Baptist 30 f., 51, 205, 212 Julius Cassianus 33, 36 Justification (by faith) 101, 109, 116, 198, 207 f., 213 Lectionaries 231 – 234, 238, 244 Lucianic revision 93, 95, 129, 131, 169, 176, 183 Magic, magicians 25, 153, 156, 252 Manichaeans 16, 19, 22 f., 32, 64, 172, 221 Marcion, Marcionites 15 f., 19, 22 f., 32, 46, 64, 104 – 107, 113, 180, 192, 212, 221, 253 Martyrdom, martyrs 104, 116, 126, 160, 169, 233 Mary (mother of Jesus) 10, 132 f., 135 f., 227 Memra 47, 90, 203, 215, 225, 230 Micah from Ephraim 28, 40 Micah son of Imlah 25, 40 f., Micah the Morasthite 1 f., 25, 29 – 31, 34 f., 38 – 42, 95 f., 182 f., 218, 225, 233, 253 Michar, see Micheus Micheus and Michar 25 – 29, 31, 35 Millenarianism 110, 116 Novatian, Novatians

23, 198

Ophites 24 – 26, 31, 35, 221 Origenist controversy 12, 223 Paradise 24, 69, 71 f. Penance, penitence, repentance 13, 61 – 63, 74, 97 f., 111, 117, 123, 168, 175, 178, 181, 184, 197 – 199, 201, 208, 213, 224 Persecution of Christians 62, 108, 115, 149 f., 169, 173, 181, 206, 226, 246, 254 Plato, Platonism 32, 49, 69, 71, 126, 154 f., 223 f. Pre-existence of souls 49, 69, 72 f., 122, 159, 223

Pre-existence, see also Christ Priests, high priest (Jewish) 5, 48, 78, 86, 99 f., 101, 132, 156, 165 f., 230, 246 f., 249, 251 Priests (Christian) 13, 98, 100 f., 133, 192 Rabbis 19, 46, 100, 145, 245 – 252 Redemption, see Christ Repentance, see penance Resurrection, see Christ Roman empire, Jews in the 18, 37, 47, 50, 64, 67, 71, 87 f., 90, 92, 100, 115, 122, 124 f., 156, 127, 216, 226, 246, 254 Roman empire, peace of the 102 f., 105, 108, 110 – 114, 116, 138 f., 152, 221, 226 Sacrifices 34, 109, 158, 169 – 175, 236, 251 Salvation, see Christ Satan, see devil Scyths (Gog and Magog) 103, 124 f., 129 f., 137, 158, 220 Sethians 26 – 31, 35 Simon Magus 32, 36, 114 Spiritual (allegorical) interpretation 33, 37, 40, 43 f., 49 – 51, 53, 57, 67, 72, 79 f., 83, 88, 92, 97, 101, 106 – 108, 110 – 114, 116 f., 122 f., 125 f., 143 f., 146 f., 149, 151, 154, 158, 162, 164 – 166, 169, 173 f., 186 f., 189 f., 193, 199 – 203, 205 f., 208, 210, 212 – 214, 216, 221 – 224, 229 f., 243 f., 253 f. Symmachus (translator) 13, 59 f., 62, 68, 139, 142, 144, 157, 195, 211 Synagogue 48, 67, 76, 80, 88, 127, 134, 160, 201 f., 226, 254 Temple in Jerusalem 44 f., 50, 66, 70, 79, 88, 100 f., 107, 120, 135, 155, 172, 246 f., 249 – 251 Temple (Christ or the Church) 44, 101, 106, 113, 199 Temples (pagan) 44, 152 Theodotion (translator) 13, 68, 93, 142, 157, 170, 195, 211 Trinity 19, 62, 77, 98, 126 f., 169, 203, 207, 227, 237 – 239

Index of Subjects

Underworld, see Hades Universalism 86, 215 Valentinians

23, 221

Zerubbabel 129 f., 137, 225 Zion, see Jerusalem

283