Abstract
This article presents a comparative reading of Micah 5.9-14 [10-15] and Isaiah 2.6-22. The article demonstrates the contribution of comparative reading to the understanding of each text. The discussion opens by outlining the clear lexical and thematic similarities between the units. While some of the similarities have been previously noted by scholars, this article expands on the range of verses analyzed and method of presenting similarities, for a more accurate picture. Based on the similarities between the units, the discussion turns to the lexical, structural, and content differences between them. Finally, this analysis of similarities and differences is a tool for uncovering essential ideological differences between the texts. The literary and ideological study in this article reveals the worldviews expressed in the units, such as the attitude toward idolatry, the God of Israel, and other gods.
Micah 5.9-14 [10-15] describes divine destruction of elements such as horses, chariots, cities and fortresses, which symbolize the belief in human ability to attain material and military achievements on their own. 1 Other elements mentioned in the unit that are also destroyed by God, such as images, soothsayers, or sorcery, are symbols of idolatry. 2 These two groups of elements are mentioned also in Isaiah 2.
The similarity between Micah 5.9-14 and Isaiah 2.6-8 has been previously noted by scholars, and in this article I intend to explore the similarity further. 3 However, this observation should be reinforced at a variety of levels: first, there is a need to broaden the range of verses, and discuss the lexical and content similarities between the unit in Micah and Isaiah 2.6-22, as briefly noted by Hoffman. 4 Next, there is a need for an analysis of the ramifications of lexical and content links on defining ideological and theological perceptions as expressed in the units. These ramifications have not been addressed to date. 5 There is also a need to expand on the previously unaddressed differences between the units.
Despite the prevalent perception following Duhm’s claim that Isaiah 2 is the worst preserved text in the book, I intend to discuss the text in its current condition, and as such I will examine the similarities and differences between this text in Isaiah and the unit in Micah. 6 This article will not reference in depth the presumed layers of composition and editing in the texts or the chronological relationship between the units in Micah and Isaiah, as detailed below.
1. Similarities between the units
Both units, Micah 5.9-14 and Isaiah 2.6-22, discuss the eradication of idolatry alongside symbols of human power. Both units include elements that represent each of these phenomena. In fact, both units assume that the eradication of idolatry is desired, and will happen ‘on that day’. 7 While the symbols do not appear in identical form in the two units, a number of shared words and roots are contained therein: 8
In addition, both units relate to the fact that idolatry is manmade: ‘and you shall bow down no more to the work of your hands’ (Micah 5.12), ‘they bow down to the work of their hands’ (Isaiah 2.8), and similarly in Isaiah 2.20. 9
The parallels and similarity of words and roots in units which discuss similar content, and their high percentage of shared verbiage (25% of the words in the Micah unit also appear in Isaiah), all justify a comparative reading of the two units, and an examination of the insights of each unit, and their reflection on one another. The integration of the entirety of elements uniquely links the two units, more so than the groups in which the units were previously included, such as the texts presented by Frish in relation to the ‘law of the king’ in Deut. 17, or elements that relate to the Extermination Formula as defined by Wagenaar, which discuss the Day of the Lord tradition. 10
Beentjes defined a phenomenon he called Inverted Quotations. He posited that the lexical similarity and the reversed order of words attest to an intentional connection between the texts, whose purpose is to catch the reader’s attention, and enables the author to express his position on an earlier text. 11 He briefly references the relationship between the unit in Micah and Isaiah 2.6-8, as demonstrated in the following table, and claims that the order of the elements is significant. 12
Can we be sure that the content of one text is responding to the content of the other? If the answer is positive, the similarity is presumably deliberate. The similarity is the result of a discourse between prophets, one preceding and the other reacting. 13 In this case, the ideological discussion between the texts can also contribute to understanding the chronological relationship between them, and to understanding the stages of formation of each individual text, especially when the original composition of the two texts is under discussion. However, other explanations can be offered, such as two prophets who independently drew from an earlier source. 14 Alternatively, is it possible that the similarity between the units is the result of later redactor’s attempt to link the units? 15 Or perhaps the units make use of common phrases, and it is only modern scholarship that attributes significance to the connections? It is my belief that in the absence of clear lexical and ideological evidence it is difficult to determine unequivocally which alternative is most convincing. In order to adopt one of the hypotheses one must rely on various premises regarding the historical and literary phenomenon of biblical prophecy in general, and regarding the two units in particular, and that is beyond the scope of this article. 16 Here, I intend to focus on the clear similarities between the two units I presented above as a justification of the comparative reading. This reading will contribute to the mutual understanding of the two units, 17 without determining what led to the linking of the texts. This approach correlates with the intertextual school, which avoids historical determination, and does not necessarily attribute the intertextuality to the intention of the author, but rather emphasizes the perspective of the modern reader. 18
2. The difference between the units
As Beentjes commented, the similarity between the units is not the whole picture. In fact, while the similarities lead the reader to note the connection, they also emphasize the essential differences between the units. These differences are primarily linguistic and structural, and largely relate to content.
The root כרת (‘cut off’) is repeated four times in Micah 5.9-14 (9, 10, 11, 12). In fact, the root opens each of the four verses, relating to a variety of symbols in each verse. This impression is reinforced with the appearance of the roots אבד (‘destroy’) (9), הרס (‘devastate’) (10), נתש (‘uproot’) (13), and שמד (‘annihilate’) (13). 19 The semantic field reflects the violence directed at the symbols of idolatry and human success. 20 While the unit in Isaiah 2 contains expressions of a harsh relationship between man and God such as פחד (‘fear’) (10, 19, 21) or ערץ (‘terrorize’) (19, 21), the semantic field is different: the root מלא (‘fill’) appears four times (6, twice in 7, 8) and is supported by the dual appearance of the phrase אין קצה (‘no end’) in v. 7, and the root שפק (‘fill’) in v. 6. 21 Another semantic field that characterizes the verses relates to superiority and humiliation: שחי/חוי (‘bow down’) (8, 20); שחח (‘brought low’) (9, 11, 17); שפל (‘humbled’) (9, 11, 12, 17); נשא (‘lifted up’) ([9], 12, 13, 14); טמן (‘hide’) (10); שגב (‘exalted’) (11, 17); גאי (‘pride’) (10, 12, 19, 21); רום (‘lofty’) (11, 12, 13, 14, 17); גבה (‘high’) (11, 15, 17). 22 Additional terminology from this semantic field includes terms related to inanimate and living parts of nature—mountains, hills, and cedars—as well as manmade objects, such as towers and walls, that represent heights destined to be ‘pulled down’. 23 In contrast with the unit in Micah 5, where the semantic field characterizes the entire unit, in Isaiah 2 the semantic field attests to a division of the broader unit into two sub-units: 6-8 is characterized by the semantic field of ‘filling’, whereas 9-22 is superiority vs humiliation.
The unit in Micah reflects on the future, ‘on that day’. The first unit in Isaiah describes the present, while the second describes the future, ‘on that day’. Another noteworthy difference reinforces the contrast between Micah and Isaiah, as well as the demarcation of the two units in Isaiah: the phrase מִקִּרְבֶּךָ (‘from your midst’) appears in vv. 9, 12, 13 in Micah 5, including the second person singular suffix ‘ך’ which is prevalent throughout the unit (אַרְצֶךָ, עָרֶיךָ, מִבְצָרֶיךָ, and so forth), describing the essence of the process that will take place in Israel. 24 Isaiah 2.6-8 also relates to the Nation of Israel, albeit in the third person, expressed in the triple repetition of the terms אַרְצוֹ (‘their land’) in vv. 7-8, and the beginning of v. 6 relating to ‘your people’ and ‘the house of Jacob’. 25 In contrast, vv. 9-22 are not about Israel, but rather about ‘man’ (אָדָם), a term that appears five times in this unit. 26 The term ‘man’ denotes ‘humanity’, without specific ethnic identification, as in the parallel term אִישׁ / אֲנָשִׁים (‘person’ / ‘people’), which appears three times as well. 27
Thus, despite the clear similarity between the units in Isaiah and Micah, Isaiah 2 should be divided into two separate units, which discuss related but different topics. This difference is of real significance for the current discussion, but before delving in, I will present one more essential distinction between the units.
The unit in Micah, like the one in Isaiah, presents divine involvement that precedes human action: the unit in Micah opens with the words ‘On that day, says the Lord’, preceding the first person conjugation of all the verbs in the unit: וְהִכְרַתִּי, וְהַאֲבַדְתִּי, וְנָתַשְׁתִּי, וְהִשְׁמַדְתִּי. 28 The prophet could have attributed the same verbs to God in the third person. The choice of first person formulation emphasizes God’s active role and correlates with the content of the unit. 29
And what is that action, according to the unit in Micah? God will actively and violently destroy idolatry and the symbols of human military and civil success. 30 The semantic field of destruction mentioned above reinforces the violent atmosphere that stems from the divine action throughout the unit. 31 Similarly, in the Isaiah unit God is also acting in a negative environment, but the specific characteristics should be noted: first, while God is described as the one to instill fear in the hearts of men and bring them low, there is no detailed account of what He intends to do, nor a description of practical violent actions He will take. 32 In addition, the fear God will instill relates to symbols of human pride and success, without relating to idolatrous symbols. Abolishing human pride, which is the result of these Divine actions, depends on acknowledgment of God’s superiority. 33 One example of this idea can be found in v. 12: ‘For the Lord of hosts has a day against all that is proud and lofty, against all that is lifted up and high’, or 19: ‘Enter the caves of the rocks and the holes of the ground, from the terror of the Lord, and from the glory of his majesty, when he rises to terrify the earth’. Who will destroy idolatry according to the Isaiah unit? The unit describes an annulment of idolatry initiated by the man who fears God, as detailed in vv. 17-21. Man is active in the eradication of idolatry, instead of God; the human eradication of idolatry is the result of the emotion God has placed in him. Man’s role in Micah is different: since God is the active party in the unit, there is nothing left for man to do but affirm the divine eradication of idolatry: ‘and you shall bow down no more to the work of your hands’ (12). 34 Comparing this verse with v. 20 in Isaiah demonstrates the abovementioned difference: ‘On that day people will throw away to the moles and to the bats their idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship’. Both verses describe idolatry as manmade, but while Micah views man’s role as simply refraining from worshipping idols, Isaiah views man’s role as abolishing idolatry himself. It is noteworthy that in Isaiah there is no parallel human action to the violent destruction described in Micah. The eradication of idolatry in Isaiah is simply the abandoning of idolatry by the humbled man.
3. Perceptions of gods and idolatry
The differences presented above enable us to define the different perceptions of idolatry that emerge from each of the units. I will first analyze the perception that emerges from Isaiah 2, and will then be better able to present the perception that arises from Micah 5.
As explained above, the verses in Isaiah 2 can be divided into two units based on content and formulation. Vv. 6-8 discuss idolatry: the prophet notes the present reality of a diffusion of idolatry throughout Israel, explains how he believes the nation arrived at this low point, and expresses his own position (justifying a semantic field of ‘filling’ and the repetition of ‘land’). The following unit, 9-22, discusses the future solution to the problem: the universal rejection of symbols of idolatry and human power (justifying the semantic field of superiority vs humiliation, which is the means to invalidate these phenomena, as well as terminology that describes fear of God).
Devoting separate verses to the idolatry and pride issues (6-8) before the description of their eradication (9-22) attests to the importance attributed to these phenomena by the prophet, and to his attitude toward the problem. How does the prophet relate to the core of the problem that characterizes the nation? How is his attitude unique? Isaiah’s perception of idolatry is often described as intertwined with the problem of human arrogance. Having introduced the filling of the earth with idolatry and wealth in vv. 6-7, the prophet then proceeds to portray idolatry as human worship of the work of their hands in v. 8. Herein lies the heart of the matter: ‘they bow down to the work of their hands to what their own fingers have made’. Brueggemann and Aster, for example, outlined a natural course that links human pride and idolatry: this process occurs when man is successful in personal security and finance, becomes confident in his own strength, and forgets about God. 35 However, vv. 9-22 have critical ramifications for the way that idolatry is conceived in Isaiah; these verses create an essential link between the two phenomena, leading scholars to understand that idolatry in Isaiah is in fact conceived as pride. 36 Isaiah 2.9-22 describes a joint process by God and man. The verses describe a cognitive change initiated by God, resulting in acknowledgment of His existence and superiority, and conversely, man’s inferiority. This change will lead to the abandonment of idolatry. Based on these verses, God, who will place fear in the hearts of men, will induce recognition of the greatness of the divine, and man’s inferiority. This will naturally, without need for any other action, lead to abandoning idol worship. As noted above when outlining the differences between Isaiah and Micah, God does not abolish symbols of idolatry, but rather focuses his efforts on the eradication of human pride and man’s belief in his own power. God’s role ends with man’s acknowledgment of his inferiority, and idolatry will naturally be abolished once man abandons it. The abolishment of idolatry is therefore done by the abandonment of human pride; coping with one eliminates the other (see vv. 19-21, among others). Based on vv. 6-8 and 9-22 and the details therein, one might say that Isaiah views the external act of making idols with one’s hands—an apt description for all those who worship a man made image—as a reflection of human belief in human power and ability to create. 37 In other words, worshiping manmade idols which are the product of human effort embodies the act of ascribing to man divine status. Instead of acknowledging the God of Israel as standing at the head of the human-divine relationship, and as the source of all power, human beings regard themselves as possessing this status. Otherwise, one might have expected God to eliminate signs of idolatry as well. Otherwise, there is no purpose to the humiliation of man—an amplification of divine power or emphasis on the inferiority of other gods would have sufficed. Otherwise, one might have expected additional action by man or God to precede the annulment, or active eradication of idolatry. Isaiah thus regards idolatry not as the worship of a god other than the God of Israel but as human self-worship. According to this attitude, idolatry is only a side effect of the primary issue discussed by the prophet: the problem of pride. 38 The way the prophet addresses idolatry in the unit also reflects a refusal to acknowledge the existence of other gods, or in worshipping them in place of the God of Israel. 39 Based on this unit, man, who perceived himself as an idolater, replaces the acknowledgment of God’s superiority and unequivocal authority with self-worship. The fact that the prophet ignores the gods and avoids describing a direct war with them reinforces the assumption that he does not acknowledge their existence and power.
As emphasized above, this unit does not address idolatry directly, but rather human pride; idolatry is only an expression of human pride. Can this perception also be derived from the unit in Micah, as Hoffman and others claim? 40 Does the fact that the two units combine human pride and idolatry indicate that they both perceive idolatry as an expression of human pride?
The unit in Micah includes terms which are used in Isaiah 2.6-22, and discusses idolatry and man’s belief in his own power; however, these are used in a different way, which reflects ideological differences and assists in their definition. The clear connection between Micah and Isaiah in these units creates the impression that a mutual dialogue exists between these two units regarding the attitude toward the essence of idolatry and the means to abolishing it. Micah does not confront the phenomena theoretically before he describes its eradication. Contrary to the division of the units in Isaiah, Micah includes only one unit. The semantic field of destruction that characterizes this unit demonstrates that the unit discusses solutions without a preceding discussion of the actual problems. The unit in Micah includes terms from the two units in Isaiah (6-8, 9-22), but they are all referenced in the context of destruction. 41 For example, in Isaiah 2, horses and chariots are part of the discussion regarding the sin and its meaning: ‘their land is filled with horses, and there is no end to their chariots’ (7). Conversely, Micah 5 uses these symbols as a representation of human pride that will be eradicated: ‘I will cut off your horses from among you and will destroy your chariots’ (9). 42 The parallel verses ‘and you shall bow down no more to the work of your hands’ (Micah 5.12), ‘they bow down to the work of their hands’ (Isaiah 2.8), also reflect this distinction: in Micah this is part of the description of the eradication of—or to be more accurate, the permanent discontinuation of—idolatry. The clause in Isaiah is part of the definition of the phenomenon. This is reinforced by Isaiah 2.20, which is formulated similarly to both clauses, and is presented as part of the eradication of idolatry: ‘On that day people will throw away to the moles and to the bats their idols of silver and their idols of gold, which they made for themselves to worship’.
The different methods of eradication in each of the units is significant as well: First, as mentioned above, according to the approach described in Micah it is God Himself who will destroy the idolatrous elements mentioned throughout the unit, whereas man does not play a role in the process. Destruction by God’s hand represents the significance God attributes to both phenomena in this unit. 43 The portrayal of God’s intervention in the world, which is emphasized in the formulation of the unit, symbolizes and reinforces the principle of God’s centrality, which is already present in the content of the unit. Second, while in Isaiah the eradication of idolatry will be the direct result of the annulment of pride, according to the unit in Micah, both phenomena require direct divine intervention. The annulment of one cannot result in the eradication of the other: ‘and I will cut off the cities of your land and throw down all your strongholds’, stands side by side with ‘and I will cut off your images and your pillars among you’. Presenting the two issues in parallel demonstrates that Micah views these as two separate, albeit related, problems. Both matters are a separate contradiction to worshiping God, acknowledging His centrality, and depending upon Him, 44 and each demands individual attention. In contrast with Isaiah, dealing with one problem will not affect the existence of the other, and the comparison to Isaiah emphasizes the significance of the different formulation in Micah.
Two important points emerge from the analysis above: first, comparative reading shows that based on the lexical and structural differences, idolatry cannot be defined in the same way according to the two texts. Despite the lexical similarity between the units and the parallel intertwining of idolatry and man’s reliance on his own strength, the unique definition of idolatry that is formed in Isaiah cannot be applied to Micah. In Isaiah, idolatry is an expression of human pride, whereas in Micah idolatry and pride are perceived as two separate phenomena.
Second, as mentioned above, the unit in Isaiah absolutely denies the existence of foreign gods. While the unit in Micah does not clearly reflect acknowledgment of the existence of other gods, the absolute dismissal in Isaiah cannot be found in this unit in Micah. This statement has important ramifications for the interpretation of other units in Micah, such as 4.1-5, and this should be expanded on in another context. 45
4. The purpose of the units
In light of the different conceptions of idolatry and the relationship between idolatry and pride in the units, one may conclude that the context of eradication and the purpose it serves differ in each of the units.
Without addressing the controversy mentioned above regarding the nature of the unit—whether the messages are meant to be destructive or comforting to Israel—the analysis above demonstrates that Micah 5.9-14 emphasizes God’s authority. The two phenomena contradict God’s absolute authority, each in its own way. Eradicating the phenomena with violent divine intervention emphasizes not only severe objection, but also the severe harm to divine authority. Conversely, the units in Isaiah discuss human cognition: the perception of his power and the relationship between human power and divine supremacy. This trend is apparent in the unique treatment of the negative phenomena and the relationship between them, and in the way in which they are to be eradicated. Idolatry is thus only a human cognition, which parallels pride; therefore, it will not be eradicated violently, or through direct divine intervention, but rather through human cognition; through a change in the way man perceives himself in relation to God. Note that the Isaiah unit broadly discusses man’s emotion and reaction to the occurrences (vs 17, 19, 20, 21), while the Micah unit omits all of these and focuses only on God’s action. This distinction reflects the different trends in the units as formulated above.
5. The conclusion of the units
The essential differences presented above also find expression in the verses that conclude each of the texts in their present form.
In Micah, the ending in v. 14 presents God acting independently and aggressively: ‘And in anger and wrath I will execute vengeance’. The ending also presents the purpose of God’s action—to induce acknowledgment of God and His binding authority: ‘on the nations that did not obey’. 46 Indeed, there is a gap between this and the preceding verses, not only in style, but also in content: the entire unit relates to Israel, and the final verse is about the nations. This incongruence affects the demarcation of the unit—does the unit end in v. 13 or 14? The change also affects the understanding of the universal nature of the God of Israel: does the invalidation of the negative phenomena in the verses apply only to Israel, or to the other nations as well? According to the unit, is God’s involvement only in the narrow sphere of his nation, or is he actively involved in the universal sphere as well? 47 Without taking an absolute stand on the status of v. 14, it seems clear that the verse demonstrates a similar principle to the one expressed throughout the unit: reinforcement and emphasis on God’s authority and supremacy through his independent and decisive action. 48 To this end, God expresses his firm objection to symbols of idolatry and man’s belief in his own power throughout the unit; God Himself will violently destroy these symbols and act to destroy nations that will not obey Him. 49
Isaiah 2.22 concludes the second of the two units discussed above, but demonstrates the common topic and cry: ‘Turn away from mortals, who have only breath in their nostrils, for what is their value?’ 50 This verse calls on man to acknowledge his insignificance and prevent his self-dependency, due to his powerlessness. 51 The conclusion of the chapter in Isaiah correlates with the unit’s discussion of human consciousness, and the way in which it reflects on humanity’s relationship with God and the existence of idolatry. The purpose of the description in Isaiah is to lead man to recognize his limitations, which correctly define the relationship between man’s strength and God’s power, ultimately invalidating idolatry and all related phenomena, and leading to an exclusive commitment to the God of Israel.
6. Conclusion
This article has presented a comparative reading of Micah 5.9-14 [10-15] and Isaiah 2.6-22. Initially I introduced the lexical and thematic links between the units, reinforced by the relative percentage of repeated words and unique nature of some of the expressions (e.g. ‘and you shall bow down no more to the work of your hands’ / ‘they bow down to the work of their hands’). The connections were presented partially and briefly in previous studies, but here were given a fuller and more precise treatment. The relationship between the units led me to examine not only the similarities between the units, but the contrasts as well. The differences between the units are, first and foremost, lexical and structural, but I sought to further expand the discussion. I also did not settle for discussion of the differences in content, such as the definition of the method of eradication of idolatry, or of the human group from which idolatry will be eradicated, which are defined differently in the units. An examination of the similarities between the units alongside the differences was a tool for defining the central worldviews reflected in each of the units, and the ideological differences between them. These definitions could not have been clarified in the context of each individual unit alone; they emerged from the comparative reading of the three units.
My analysis in this article suggests that the differences between the units in Micah and Isaiah might be best understood in terms of a quasi-dialogue, primarily regarding the definition of idolatry and the reason the prophet objects to the existence of idolatry in human society; in each of the units the phenomenon is linked with different negative elements, which leads to the prophet’s objections. This article adopted a synchronic approach, examining the contribution of every verse in the unit to the content, and the mutual contribution of the units to one another. The dialogue between the units was presented in this article as a legitimate outcome of the comparative reading, based on clear similarities and differences that emerge from the comparison. I used the dialogue between the units as an interpretive tool to shed light on each text, and presented an array of positions regarding common issues.
The units discussed in this article reflect a number of principles I believe should be applied when reading other prophetic units. First, the analysis of the units in the article highlights the contribution of a comparative reading to understanding biblical textual units. A comparative reading does not lead to filling in gaps, but rather emphasizes the existing content in each of the units, by highlighting similarities and differences. A comparative reading of textual units enables clarification of unique features in each of the units, and highlights issues that are not emphasized when reading the unit independently. A comparative reading sometimes illuminates specific meanings in the formulations and details included in the unit, even details not afforded any significance when reading the unit independently. For example, when reading Micah 5.9-14, one might posit that the separate descriptions of the destruction of representations of pride and idolatry reflect a reality in which both representations existed in a known city, and the prophet wishes to declare that they will all be destroyed. However, a comparative reading shows that destruction of the two representations can be described together (as in Isaiah), hence a separation of the two phenomena may reflect the prophet’s attitude toward them.
The comparative reading is based on the existence of similarities and differences between the units, and here the second principle derived from the analysis above emerges: a comparative reading shows that a lexical similarity between the units cannot be perceived as the whole picture. Scholars who only note the similarity between the units do not present the links connecting the units sufficiently precisely. While similarity focuses the attention on the relationship between the units, it is also fundamental to the discernment of differences between them. The unique and prominent lexical similarity doesn’t necessarily reflect an ideological identity, which brings me to the third principle: this article attributed an essential significance to the lexical and structural differences between the units. These differences are not perceived as technical, stylistic, or as a reflection of the reality in which the units were written or edited. The formulation of the units reflects an ideology which is, in fact, the purpose of the prophetic act; through the entirety of details and the design of the prophecies, the prophet transmits his message to the listeners and readers. Therefore, I concluded that the formulation of the units in general, and the differences between them in particular reflect the way in which each prophet understands the idolatry phenomena, side by side with the primary characteristics with which they attribute God. At times, repeated words demonstrate a discussion occurring outside the units as well, for example, the debate whether the Day of the Lord events will be applied to Israel or the nations. While Micah directs the units inwardly at Israel, the similar language of Isaiah paints the Day of the Lord as directed toward all the nations. Therefore, a discussion of the units may demonstrate a variety of biblical positions regarding recurring issues, and clarifies the existence of a debate between the different units whether at the time of authorship or redaction, or as a result of modern analysis of the units. The details cannot always all be explained precisely, and one cannot always reach a unified conclusion regarding their meaning; however, the differences between the units cannot be ignored and the units cannot be read entirely harmoniously. A comparative reading enables us to note and emphasize the differences, and therefore ascribe the appropriate significance to the details.
Footnotes
1.
On the option of understanding “Horses” as a cultic object and the rejection of this position, see: Waltke 2007: 321-22; Andersen and Freedman 2000: 491. For “Horses” as a foundation for dating the verses in relation to economic success, see: Roberts 1985: 304. Horses and chariots often appear together as a symbol of human power, for example: Zech. 9.10 or Hag. 2.22. These are considered to attest to the post exilic writing of the unit. Mays 1976: 125; Lescow 1972: 77-8. Smith-Christopher 2015: 181-82, views these symbols as a representation of foreign armies, but accepts the possibility that Judah’s chariots may be included. 
: 44, views the relationship between the elements as technical: it was the horses and chariots of foreign armies, which enabled idols to enter Israel.
2.
Uffenheimer 1963: 61-2; Vargon 1994: 157-58, 162-63. Cf. Willis 1965: 367. The word ‘עָרֶיךָ’ (‘your cities’) in v. 13 is mentioned in the context of idolatry, and various emendments were suggested accordingly. See overview in: Bryant 1978:229; Willis 1965: 354-55; Waltke 2007: 327-28; Andersen and Freedman 2000: 492. Conversely, Jeppesen 1984: 464 prefers to maintain the MT version, but understands the word differently, as an expression of local idols. : 489) view the Asherim and cities in verse 13 not as parallelism but as a summary of the two groups included in the unit – idolatry and symbols of human self-reliance.
3.
Scholars who have briefly noted the similarity between Micah 5.9-14 and Isaiah 2.6-8 include among others: Willis 1965: 367; Mays 1976: 124; Renaud 1977: 267; Sweeney 2001: 112, 119; Andersen and Freedman 2000: 491; Hillers 1984: 73; Beentjes 1982: 515; Waltke 2007: 333-34; Vargon 1994: 157-58; Blenkinsopp 2000: 195. Waltke and Willis assume the similarity supports dating the prophecy to Micah’s time. Wagenaar 2001: 313 following Beentjes, views Micah as a direct quote of Isaiah. Based on the linguistic and thematic connections, Vermeylen suggests viewing the two units as one, divided between the two books (Vermeylen 1977: 139). This theory is based on linguistic corrections (see pp. 137-38) and verse shifting. The theory also ignores the ideological disparity between the units. : 217-19, discusses the linguistic and ideological connections between Micah 5.9-14 [10-15] and pericopes in Jeremiah and Deuteronomy in order to exemplify Deuteronomistic redaction.
4.
Hoffman 2017: 220-21. Blenkinsopp 1981: 53-4, also expanded the boundaries, and highlighted the linguistic relationship between the unit in Micah and Is 2.6-8a, 10, and 12-16. He claims that these connections link the units and strengthen his definition of the original verses in the Isaianic unit. Cf. for example: : 60.
5.
There is a lexical similarity between the two units and Hosea 14.4 (3). Various scholars have noted this similarity, e.g. Vuilleumier 1971: 66 n. 3; Wagenaar 2001: 313; Kruger 1988: 38; Jeremias 1996: 82-4; : 163. The texts include differences that indicate ideological gaps, but I will expand on this issue elsewhere.
6.
Duhm 1902: 17. The connections between the different units in Isaiah 2, their composition, dating, and layers of redaction, have been discussed at length. E.g. Blenkinsopp 1981; Aster 2007: 257-64; Sweeney 1996: 88-95; Uffenheimer 1994: 99-102; Childs 2001: 31-3; .
7.
Childs 1979: 434-36, regards this expression as an indication of a common redaction of both books. See Smith-Christopher 2015: 180-81; Isahi-Rosenboim 2006: 395-401 regarding the meaning of the term in the unit in particular and in the Bible in general. For a brief overview of the Day of the Lord, see: Hiers 1992: 81-4; Barton 2004: 68-79; : 21-3.
8.
Wagenaar 2001: 195-96, notes the similarity between the words נטש and נתש, (see also Blenkinsopp 1981: 53), and the four occurrences of the verb מלא in Is 2 which parallel the four occurrences of the root verb כרת in Micah. See also : 515 n. 26.
9.
Vuilleumier 1971: 66 n. 3, states that this similarity is the result of an insertion from the Isaiah text into Micah. Cf. Renaud 1977: 266, who regards this expression as an original part of the unit in Micah. Williamson 2004: 62, believes Is 2.8b is a later insertion by the redactor (see also among others : 52-3). He posits that this is an expression of the uselessness of the idols. This article does not discuss the process of text composition, but I will suggest an alternative interpretation of v. 8 below.
10.
Frish 2005: 263-81; : 305-308.
11.
Beentjes 1982: 523; ibid 1996: 31-50. See also Wagenaar 2001: 197. In a far less developed and theoretical way, two additional researchers have noted the fact that quotations are usually cited in chiastic order: Seidel 1978: 2-4; Weiss 1981: 259-73. For discussion of additional uses of the quotation method see: : 44-6.
13.
Hoffman 2017: 221. For another angle see: Blenkinsopp 1981: 54. Dating of the Micah unit continues to be debated, and depends on other questions, such as whether Micah addresses Israel or the nations, as well as the question of whether the prophecy is one of comfort or doom. These two questions also depend on the position of the scholar – whether s/he reads the unit in isolation, or in the context of chs. 4-5 or 1-5. Additionally, the historical background reflected in the unit may influence scholars’ positions. For thorough surveys of dating possibilities see, among others: Willis 1965: 361-67; Smith-Christopher 2015: 186-88; Hoffman 2017: 222-24. Some scholars posit a later date based on considerations of language and content. For a review and critique of the arguments see: Bryant 1978: 227-28. For discussion of the unity of the section see among others: Smith 1959: 113-14; : 138-39. See also: Jeppesen 1984, who supports dating the prophecy to the eighth century BCE. References to other scholars who are open to this possibility can be found in Shaw 1993:139. The date of the authorship of the Isaiah text is also controversial, as mentioned above. This fact, together with the lack of resolution regarding the reason behind the similarity between the units, makes determining the chronological and content relationship between the units more difficult.
15.
For example: Williamson 2004: 62; : 52-3.
16.
On the problems with the assumption that lexically similar texts were linked deliberately and an interesting solution, see: Myers 2016: 254-64. See also: : 27-46.
17.
Moyise 2016: 3-4. It is important to distinguish between this method and ‘gap filling’ in one unit by reading another. Cf. : 491, who explain the connection between Micah 5.9-13 and v. 14 by means of Isaiah 2.6-8. The unit in Isaiah mentions the foreign influence that created the problematic situation. This influence is not mentioned in Micah, but nonetheless, Andersen and Freedman view this as an explanation for the connection between the verses.
18.
Conversely, compare Leene 2014: 4-8, who utilizes the intertextual method, based on chronological perceptions. : 202-203, distinguishes between diachronic and synchronic intertextuality.
19.
20.
The atmosphere of the unit rules out the option that this is an oracle of comfort and redemption for the future (e.g. Willis 1969: 209-10, 214; Lescow 1972: 77; Barker 1998: 105). Wagenaar 2001: 308-10, and many others, reject this assumption and recognize the unit as a prophecy of judgment and doom. A good survey of the scholarly debate regarding the aim of this unit can be founded in : 171-75.
21.
The root שפק denoting ‘to fill’ is documented, among other places, in I Kgs 20.10. See, for example: Vermeylen 1977: 137; Blenkinsopp 1981: 52; Roberts 1985: 301; Uffenheimer 1994: 107-108 n. 32; Bartelt 1996: 194-95. See : 100 who rejects this explanation.
22.
For the identification of the semantic field, see for example Bartelt 1996: 202. For this feature as demarcating the division of the chapter, see Childs 2001: 32-3. For discussion of the root of השתחוה, see HALOT, 1:295-296; DCH 7:316; Wildberger 1991: 110; Waltke 2007: 324. For the meaning of the root גאי in the unit, see Aster 2007: 259 n. 42. For the allusions to mountains and hills in vv. 12-15 and their significance, see : 65-6, 83-4.
23.
It is noteworthy that in contrast with other biblical descriptions of the Day of the Lord, Isaiah 2 emphasizes man’s inferiority versus God’s power, and not human distress or fear of God as independent objectives. See: von Rad 1959:99-103; see reservations by : 329-337), regarding the assumption that there is a standard tradition for Day of the Lord descriptions in the bible.
24.
See for example: Jeppesen 1984: 462; Hoffman 2017: 220. Mays 1976: 125-26 understands the annihilation described in the unit, and especially the verb root כרת, as testimony to the Israelite nature of the unit. However, cf. Hasel 1995: 345-46, who outlines the variety of meanings of the verb root כרת in the Bible – both national and international. See the verb root כרת in the preceding verse in the chapter, emphasizing God’s control (cf. Alfaro 1989: 60). Wagenaar 2001: 193, 305-308 notes that the כרת +מקרבך denotes the use of the Bannformel, or its variation, ‘the extermination formula’. Renaud 1977: 267, 270 follows the Tg version and claims that verses 9-13 refer to the nations, and so does Blenkinsopp 1981: 53. Conversely, see the objection in Waltke 2007: 321-22; Wagenaar 2001: 308. For a very different relationship between Israel and the nations within this unit, see: Runions 2001: 230. This debate might be related to the broader scholarly and biblical debate regarding whether the Day of the Lord describes events that will occur to Israel or to the nations (: 81-3). Based on the MT of Micah, the events pertain to Israel, while in Isaiah they apply to the nations.
25.
Conversely, see Roberts 1985: 229-300; Ibid 2015: 45-6, who regards verse 6 as part of the previous unit, and understands these words as a reference to the northern kingdom. See also : 50-2 who claims that verses 6-8 relate to the foreign army that brought human power to Israel, and worship idols themselves.
26.
The different realms of the two units in Is 2 caused Williamson 2004: 61 to separate them and attribute each one to a different author. He defines verse 9 as the link between the units, which was added by the redactor. Aster 2017: 293 claims that all of the passage (6-22) is directed at Israel. The use of general expression is the result of using the Assyrian motif ‘sovereign’s day of conquest,’ which required general language because of its universal nature. Sweeney 2001: 117-18 understands the process described in the unit of chapters 2-4 as one process, and hence designates parts of the process to Israel and others to the Nations. Nonetheless, he emphasizes the national nature of Micah’s chapters and the universal nature of the chapters in Isaiah. Cf. Hoffman 2017: 221 who on the one hand recognizes the different addressees of the two units in Isaiah, but on the other hand claims that Isaiah 2.6-22 as a whole has a universal aim, and accordingly defines the unit in Micah as such. As stated above, defines the original Isaianic unit only in verses 6-8a and 10, 12-16, thus excluding any mention of the nations in the second unit (9-22), and changing its meaning from universal to national.
27.
28.
29.
Shaw 1993: 155. This emphasis is different from the surrounding units which emphasize man’s actions. This tension requires a separate discussion. See: : 227-28.
30.
32.
von Rad previously noted the differences between the characteristics of the Day of the Lord in this text compared to those found in others, among other things noting the nature of divine action (von Rad 1959: 105. See also his comment on Isaiah: von Rad 1991: 108). The differences between this chapter and other Day of the Lord texts are indicative of the fact that a different perception is at the core of the chapter in Isaiah. I will relate to these distinctions below as part of the prophet’s attitude toward idols and idolatry. However, compare : 71, who views Isaiah 2 as a typical expression of the Day of the Lord.
34.
35.
Brueggemann 1998: 28-9; Aster 2017: 292-93. See also Vargon 1994: 159; : 262.
36.
37.
Aster 2017: 293; Hurowitz 2012: 26. Conversely, see for example: Kaiser 1983: 60; Oswalt 1986: 123; Blenkinsopp 2000: 194; Williamson 2004: 64-5; Wildberger 1991: 109-110; Smith 2007: 137, who define the perception of idolatry represented in these verses differently. Cf. , who regards this approach as a political strategy for coping with the nations rather than a religious issue.
38.
Childs 2001: 32; Uffenheimer 1994: 112-14. : 298-302, demonstrates parallels between this primary perception and the neo-Assyrian perceptions.
39.
Cf. Wildberger 1991: 109. See also Aster 2017: 277-78. According to Goldstein’s analysis of the pericope, (2004: 127-28), there are verses in the Isaianic passage that vividly describe the existence of other gods, e.g. v. 18. Contrary to Goldstein’s suggestion see: Aster 2017: 296. Cf. : 52, who claims from a rhetoric perspective that Isaiah is not making a religious-philosophical argument in these verses.
40.
Hoffman 2017: 220-21. Similarly see Vargon 1994: 162. Cf. Kaiser 1983: 60; : 110, who mention the similarity between Isaiah and Micah’s attitude toward idolatry, but define it differently.
41.
See: Waltke 2001: 333-34; Renaud 1977: 267; : 77.
42.
43.
Some scholars emphasize the importance of the annihilation of idolatry in the unit; see for example discussion and references in Wagenaar 2001: 313-15. This importance can reinforce the presumed date of the unit (cf. : 223).
44.
Wessels 1999: 638, emphasizes the centrality of God that emerges from this pericope. See also Willis 1969: 209; Bryant 1978: 229; : 321.
46.
47.
Discussions of the status of verse 14 in relation to the entire unit can be found among others in Wagenaar 2001: 200-201, 310-11. Wagenaar claims that the extermination formula can be found only in 9-13, and he therefore considers v. 14 as an addition. Similarly, Mays 1976: 124, claims a discrepancy between verses 9-12a [10-13a] and the rest of the unit, based on linguistic incongruence. See also Andersen and Freedman 2000: 489; Willis 1965: 355-56. Wessels 1999: 638, believes the verse addresses the nations – but as a demand to obey the God of Israel, which is unrelated to the eradication of idolatry. Their mention here is perceived as a warning to Israel, who will see how God treats those who will not obey. : 230, suggests two readings for the concluding verse, one which emphasizes the lack of obedience, and the other that describes the revenge God will take on the nations.
48.
Wolff 1981: 97, emphasizes the similar description of God in the unit as a whole and in the last verse. See also Wessels 1999: 637-38; : 321-22.
49.
Although in my opinion the exact definition of the relationships between verse 14 and the rest of the unit does not affect my statements above, I will clarify my position on this verse below. Verse 14 represents another stage of the process described in the main section of the prophecy, or a different demand to which the nations are committed. One cannot read the entire unit as addressing the nations according to verse 14 (for example Blenkinsopp 1981: 53), just as one cannot understand ‘nations’ in verse 14 as describing ‘Israel’ (for example: Vargon 1994: 161) or understand the verses as depicting one process. Regardless, v. 14 clearly reflects the control the God of Israel has over the nations (: 235-36), but without explicit demand to eradicate idolatry.
50.
Oswalt 1986: 128-29. From another point of view, see Smith 2007: 141 n. 61. Cf. Aster 2007: 263 n. 58. Most scholars regard this verse as a late interpolation, for example: Blenkinsopp 1981: 58; Roberts 1985: 292, 308; Wildberger 1991: 102 (but compare : 196, 201-204). This verse is absents from the LXX, but appears in 1QIsaa.
51.
Oswalt 1986: 128; : 142.