Verse 1
According to the MT, the origins
of the new ruler are situated in “Bethlehem of Ephrathah”. This recalls the Ephratite
David from Bethlehem: see 1 Sam 17,12. In the story of his election (1 Sam 16)
the “littleness” of David was emphasised. Similarly, in Micah 5,1, his birthplace,
Bethlehem, is described as a small village, in contrast with the capital and
its leader (שׁפט) under siege (4,14). Here, as in 1 Sam, God chooses the small
in order to shame the great. He shall come forth “for me”, says the Lord. This unusual
expression probably indicates that the Lord will be the real king and that the
new human ruler will be his lieutenant.
The LXX provides a rather wooden
translation in this verse. Deviations are rare. We noted the puzzling rendition
of בית לחם. The Greek text inserts οικος (του) between the two proper nouns Βηθλεεμ and εφραθα extending to Ephrathah the notion
of בית found in בית לחם. This probably implies that he understood Ephrathah as
a name of a clan or tribe. It does not seem to have any direct implications on
his grasping of the messianic character of the text. On the other hand, it
probably influenced his rendition of the term צעיר “little”.
The Greek term ολιγοστος, with its
most current meaning “least numerous”, is used nowhere else as an equivalent of
צעיר. Its choice must have been inspired by the connotation “tribe”
recognised in “Bethlehem, house of Ephrata”. The Hebrew צעיר recalls the story
of the Lord’s election of Gideon and the latter’s objection: “But sir, how can
I deliver Israel? My clan is the weakest in Manasseh, and I am the last (הצעיר,
A: μικρος, B: ο μικροτερος) in my family” (Judg 6,15), and
the account of Saul’s election and his objection: “I am only a Benjaminite,
from the least of the tribes of Israel, and my family is the humblest (הצעיר, της ελαχιστης) of all
the families of the tribe of Benjamin” (1 Sam 9,12). Without overemphasizing the
point, it may be noted that the selection of the Greek term ολιγοστος does not help the reader to
recognise the allusions to these stories featuring saviours who can be seen as
models of the Messiah.
Verse 2
According to Wellhausen and many
others, such as Westermann, v. 2 is to be understood as an allusion to Isa 7,14
and to the birth of an individual Messiah. Lescow is of another opinion. In his
view, the one in labour is Zion. Her birth pangs symbolise the oppression of
the enemy and the end of these pangs refer to the deliverance characterised by
the return of the exiles. Similar imagery, mingled with its interpretation,
occurs in the immediate context, especially 4,9.10. Note that, according to
Lescow, the term יולדה is always used in the metaphorical sense. Lescow’s
collectivising interpretation is probably correct. Nevertheless, the puzzling
third person singular pronoun in “his brothers” or “his kindred”
most likely alludes to the individual saviour announced in v. 1.
The LXX does not facilitate the
individual messianic interpretation. One should perhaps pay not too much
attention to the fact that the translation speaks about “the time of the one in
travail, (when) she shall give birth” rather than “the time that she who is in travail
shall give birth”. It is more significant that the LXX, using the plural form
of the pronoun αυτων, changes the MT’s “his brothers”
into “their brothers”, thus eliminating a possible reference to the new
leader. The translation alludes rather to the return of the exiles announced in
4,8. They will bring back the “dominion” and the “sovereignty” to their
brothers who remained in Jerusalem.
Verse 3
We already noticed that the LXX
exhibits numerous deviations from the MT in this part of the oracle. For our inquiry
it is important to establish the extent to which these particularities enhance
or diminish the messianic connotations of the passage. In this perspective,
more attention ought to be given to the first occurrence of the name of the
Lord. Opting in favour of the nominative κυριος, the translator made it clear in his view
the Lord and not the new ruler, was the subject of the verbs στησεται and ποιμανει. With this interpretation he diminished
the tension with v. 2 where the Lord is also subject. More important for us is
that it implies a shift in attention, away from the new leader or Messiah, and
towards the Lord. In the LXX, the Lord himself is going to be the shepherd of
his people, not the Messiah.
The second part of the first
distich confirms this shift. In the MT it continues the thought of the first
part, announcing that the new ruler will feed his flock “in the majesty of the
name of the Lord his God”. The translator again discards the reference
to the Messiah, changing the personal pronoun his into their. He
breaks the parallelism and begins a new sentence through the insert of the conjunction
και: “and in the glory of the
name of the Lord their God they shall dwell”. In this sense, the glory
of the name of the Lord is no longer connected with the coming saviour, but
with the people who will be pastured by the Lord himself. In the MT the end of
the verse also refers to the Messiah of whom it is said that “he will be great
(יגדל)”. In the LXX it most likely describes the nation, or more exactly those
who “returned”: “They shall be magnified (μεγαλυνθησονται) to the end of the earth”.
The conclusion of this reading of
Micah 5,1-3 is that the LXX does not enhance the messianic connotations of the
passage. In the Greek translation, both its text and its context are less open
to a messianic interpretation than in the MT. (Johan
Lust, “Micah 5,1-3 in Qumran and in the New Testament and Messianism in the
Septuagint,” in Messianism and the Septuagint: Collected Essays by J. Lust,
ed. K. Hauspie [Bibliotheca Ephemeridium Theologicarum Lovaniensium
CLXXVIII; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 2004], 109-12, emphasis in bold
added)