I Isa 57:19 in Eph 2:17 (cf also 2:13) forms the general background

to the pericope. Rather than becoming ensnarled by this debate, | our remarks will be limited to observations about Mic 5:4 and ^

Eph 2:14. I

■i

At the outset, two observations can be made. First, concern- 4 g ing the Ephesians passage, the author follows the general NT r

i

practice of interpreting OT passages or concepts christologically;

I

-"i

Mic 5:4 paraphrases the enigmatic phrase by XJ"? NOVw ’il’l . 4' Note especially the addition ofxaV , and cf. ijpÛV in Eph 2:14.

In Micah and Isaiah, several passages link peace with messi­ anic expectation. In Isa 57:19 peace is promised to him who is

69

"far off" and him who is "near"; in Mic 5:4 the "ruler" brings ^ peace amidst the "Assyrian" threat; Isa 9:5 promises the birth of

a child (cf. Mic 5:2) who will be called "Prince of Peace" (cf. Isa 52:7 which mentions one who brings "good tidings" and "peace").

If, as Barth argues, the author of Ephesians "more than once reflects traces of rabbinic commentation and goes beyond or corrects its results" (p. 31), then the loose strands noted above can be threaded to form a possible link. Since peace is the theme that runs throughout the pericope, and since an OT passage concerning peace is explicitly quoted (Isa 57:19 at Eph 2:17), then other texts

81 relating to this theme and falling within established "text-plots"

could be drawn upon to support the development of thought in the f passage. Moreover, since the author draws upon rabbinic tradition,

in the light of the Tg on Mic 5:4 where is added, the author may once again be drawing upon the tradition at his disposal (cf. especially the change from "you" in 2:13 to "our" in 2:14).

Whether or not the author is indeed drawing upon Mic 5:4, the fulfilment in Eph 2:14 is greater than the individual OT prophecies as Christ is said to bring peace both between his

people (the Jews) and their neighbours (the Gentiles), and between God and Man.

flj % Several observations and questions emerge from the study of

these texts— not all of which receive clear or sufficient answers. The foremost issue is the text; does the NT text uphold the MT or reflect a nonrMT Vorlage? What influence, if any, do the versions exert on the NT text? On the basis of this study, three general statements about the texts will be defended. First, there is no compelling reason to suppose a different textual tradition than that

's O'

il

%

found in the MT. Second, with the exception of Luke 12:53, the LXX exerts no discernible influence on the NT use of Micah. Third, when there is a demonstrable influence on the NT, the same influence also appears in the Tg. The reverse of this is not true; not all of the T g ’s theological reworking of the Mican text appears in the NT.

First, the probable Vorlage of the NT text gives no reason for

emending the MT. The principal text is Matt 2:6; the other refer- Î ences are so allusive that retroversion for purposes of emendation

is highly speculative. Matt 2:6 differs considerably from the MT but the differences can be explained on the basis of Matt's christo- logical exegesis of Micah's text. The most probable alternative reading to the MT is?g(T)bNa for • However, the christological

implications of Matt's interpretation militates against even positing 4 this as an alternative reading, let alone using the NT to emend the

MT (which has full support from the versions). Moreover, even the enigmatic jUin"? T»yï has the support, albeit diverse, of the ver­

sions, and Matt's interpretation need not imply a different Vorlage. 4 Concerning this text, Stendahl concluded, "Yet this does not mean

that Matthew had a Hebrew text other than the MT. His different reading should rather be understood as an ad hoc interpretation of

82

Z

the MT's consonantal text." To this we could ad that the ad hoc interpretation shows a blending of raidrashic and christological exegesis; Matt is not merely translating but reinterpreting while he translates.

What is true of Matt 2:6 can be extended to the allusions to Mican texts in the NT. Even the allusion to Mic 7:6, which is

treated so diversely by the Evangelists, does not suggest a differ­ ent text so much as the liberty the NT authors took with the OT text.

71

I

3

Secondly, the knowledge or influence of the LXX translation

does not appear in any of the allusions to Micah, with the possible ÿ exception of Luke 12:53. To state this positively, when there is a

real point of comparison between the NT and the LXX of Micah, the NT shows remarkable independence from the text of the LXX. This is true in the formal quotation in Matt 2:6 where "land of Judah"

is read over against "house of Ephrathah" of the LXX. Also, Matt I has a negative emphatic particle where the LXX has ôAlYO0t6ç-

Moreover, Matt has "leaders" where the LXX has "thousands" (for tgYxj ), andnYOÛ|J£VOÇ(Matt) and âpXOVTQ (LXX) are read for YwiD • Similarly Matt 10:35 and 36 differ both in structure and transla­ tion from the LXX of Mic 7:6; and Matt 23:23 employs different words where one might well expect an agreement (e.g., KptoLV [Matt] and KpCpa [LXX] for paiÿp of the M T ) .

Outside Matt's Gospel, Luke 1:33 shows minor differences

with the text of the LXX on Mic 4:7; Luke 1:55 employs £LQ IÔV f r aCwva over against the LXX, xâç ^pépaç Tâç §MnpO00£V for MT's f Oil? at 7:20. John 4:37 translates “iSj? by 8£p[^WV where the | LXX has àpijoOQ; and finally, Eph 2:14 differs markedly from the

LXX of Mic 5:4.

The one text that does show a possible influence from the LXX

is Luke 12:53. The textual tradition that underlies the three allu- # sions to Mic 7:6 in the Synoptics appears to be mixed. The passages

support the eschatological interpretation of Mic 7:6, though each in a different setting. Neither Mark nor Luke view the allusion as fulfilled prophecy, which Matt evidently does (Matt's text conforms most closely to the MT, to the extent that he adds the final stichos

to the prophecy which is absent from Mark and Luke). Mark shows the least proximity to the Mican text. One possible explanation of this

is that the words are part of the dominical tradition, as preserved by Mark. Matt, recognizing the affinities with Mic 7:6, anchors

the words in the OT text (laying claim to Jesus' messianic author­ ity). Thereupon Luke, aware of Matt's rendering (and perhaps less familiar with the Mican text and especially Jewish exegesis of it — Tg's eschatological interpretation and the Jewish apocalyptic texts) draws upon the LXX to render his translation.

The observation that the LXX of Micah does not appear to exert much influence on the NT use of Micah raises the question of whether the LXX was widely circulated in Palestine, or, if it was, whether it was highly regarded as a translation. With so little evidence and with so elusive citations, this is all but impossible to answer with any degree of certainty. A. Baumstark's examination of the non-LXX quotations in Matt from the Minor Prophets indicates that the textual variations between Matt and the MT have a parallel

84

in the Tg. He further argues that Matt's Vorlage is based upon a lost Targum which is similar to the Vorlage of the Samaritan Penta­ teuch (p. 313). The observation that the NT use of Micah is not influenced by the LXX, and the results of Baumstark's study, lead us to the final statement, namely, that the Tg and the NT show remark­ able affinities in certain texts. The most explicit example is Mic 7:6 which is given an eschatological twist— "In that day"— by

the Tg and is in an eschatological setting in the Synoptics. There are also similarities in the explicitly messianic interpretation of Mic 5:1 in the Tg and Matt 2:6. Moreover, ;,-j7n'7 is paraphrased by the qualifying particle kaf in the , which Matt carries one step further by oÙÔOHÛÇ- 'W'e argued that this had christological implications, but we may also see where translators were, at an early stage in the transmission of the text, already trying to bring

out the contrast implied in the Hebrew text. We see this in the LXX, ÔÀLYOGTÔÇ £Î TOO GtVQl K.X.A. , which might be rendered as a question, or in the Lucianic texts which insert the negative jJH before ÔÂOYOOIÔÇ . Might we also see a connection between the Tg's

m m ’ il’m K ’bVn i and Matt's f)YSp6GLV ? Finally, there are also the affinities between the Tg of Mic 5:4 and Eph 2:14 (especially the possessive pronoun "our").

This is not to say that the NT always follows the exegetical traditions that are preserved in the Tg. For example, the Tg of Mic 7:20 has an homiletical expansion on the traditions of the patriarchs that does not appear in Luke or Paul. This again shows the freedom that the NT authors exercise when dealing with the OT texts and the traditional interpretations which surround them.

Another observation which emerges from the study is that the citations, whether formal or allusive, fall within certain text- plots which the early Christians understood as having special reference to the life and ministry of Jesus Christ and the events

85