Wednesday, January 12, 2022

Micah 5:1-3 being Less "Messianic" in the LXX than in the MT

  

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)