"IMPROVING" THE BIBLE: MICAH 5

It must be admitted that there are certain portions of the Hebrew text of the Old Testament which are difficult to understand in the form that has come down to us. This happens especially in the case of Hebrew poetry, which has a tendency to use words which were archaic even at the time they were written. In addition to the language itself, there is sometimes the suspicion that the exact wording of the text has suffered from accidental or purposeful changes occurring over the centuries during which it was transmitted.

So on occasion, scholars feel it is necessary to correct the traditional Hebrew text (abbreviated as Heb. or MT) by resorting to the wording present in either the Hebrew version in fragments found in the Dead Sea caves (Q) or in the ancient translations such as the Greek Septuagint (LXX), Aramaic (Syr.) version, or the Latin (Vulg.). In addition, for poetic texts, at least one modern translation rearranges the order of the lines so that the whole scan better and make more logical sense. In that manner, they feel that they can restore the hypothetical original order of the text.

Much of such scholarly endeavor in this direction is actually quite necessary before even beginning the process of translation itself. If you wish to learn more about the rationale and methodology behind the whole field of such textual criticism, see my post titled “Introduction to Textual Criticism.”

The question remains, however, whether such “improvements” in the Hebrew text are really justified. Much of the debate over this issue is a matter better suited for the experts in the field to argue out. But I thought it might be instructive to pick out one particular chapter, Micah 5, to illustrate how three different translations deal with such “problem” texts.

The first question should, of course, be: Is there in fact any problem with the text? On that subject, the conservative scholar Leslie C. Allen states, “The Hebrew text is fairly well preserved,” as can be seen by comparing it with the Dead Sea scrolls. However, he admits that there are sections and verses where the text may have suffered in transmission. In these cases the ancient translations prove helpful in restoring the original meaning. Interestingly, of the specific verses in Micah which he places in this “doubtful” category, not one is in Micah 5.

Similarly, Ralph Smith notes, “The MT of Micah shows signs of corruption in a few cases.” Of the places he mentions, only in 5:5 does he feel the text needs to be emended. However, there are two other places in which he opts to go with the LXX reading in place of the Hebrew text.

A good modern translation will indicate through footnotes where difficulties in the standard Hebrew text appear that forced the translators to resort to alternative sources. The most conservative translation in this regard (at least for this particular chapter) is the New English Bible, which has no textual footnotes at all for Micah 5. This indicates that the translators felt that they could make adequate sense of the Hebrew text as is, or at the most by making some minor changes.

Moving next to the Revised Standard Version, we see that there are four textual or translation footnotes to Micah 5:

Micah 5:1

The Hebrew text reads “small of the clans of Judah.” This is taken to be an idiom meaning “the least of the clans of Judah” as also found in LXX. Andersen and Freedman compare other occurrences of the pertinent word sa'ir in the Bible and note that it can mean either “youngest” or “young” depending on the context. So this is not really an example of altering the Hebrew text at all.

Micah 5:5

In place of “when he shall tread in our palaces,” RSV reads “treads upon our soil.” This is in line with both the Syr and LXX understanding of the disputed word. However, Archer feels that 'palaces' “faithfully renders the Hebrew text, and fits in perfectly well with the context.” The confusion either way is due to the similarity in Hebrew between be'armenotenu (“in our palaces”) and be'admatenu “upon our soil.” The judgment of Hulst is that the latter is “perhaps preferable.”

Micah 5:6a

In the RSV rendering, the Hebrew “the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof” becomes “the land of Nimrod with the drawn sword.” This reading comes from LXX and is also found in one isolated Hebrew manuscript.

Micah 5:6b

The translation note at this point indicates that the Hebrew wording “and he shall deliver us from the Assyrian” has been changed to “and they shall deliver us from the Assyrian.” Hulst also opts for the translation 'they,' “which could then be taken to refer back to 'the shepherds and princes' mentioned in the previous verse. The statement would then be understood as a reckless claim of the people.”Archer, however, points out that there is no textual warrant for changing either 5a or 5b.

Lastly, consider The Jerusalem Bible translation, which in addition to making the same four changes above, marks the following places where it departs from the Hebrew wording:

Micah 5:4

The phrase “the majesty of the name of YAHWEH his God” is shortened to “the majesty of the name of his God” in agreement with the LXX reading.

Micah 5:8

JB makes a similar deletion in this verse so that one of the two Hebrew phrases meaning “in the midst of many peoples/nations/Gentiles” is omitted. By contrast, Allen carefully analyzes the stanzas of Micah 5:7-8 to demonstrate that the Hebrew is carefully composed in terms of parallel expressions and orderly rhythms, thus invalidation the need for the gratuitous alteration made by JB.

Micah 5:14b

In this verse JB alters “destroy your cities” to “destroy your idols.” The reason for such confusion here is the fact that the pertinent Hebrew word here, 'areyka, is rather obscure. It may or may not be related to 'are, meaning “cities,” which is found in verse 11. The reasoning is as follows: If the two words are synonyms, then its appearance in both these verses serves to bracket the whole passage.

However, an alternative line of reasoning says that if 'areyka indicates some sort of idol, then it would form a perfect parallel to the asherim (“sacred poles”) in the first part of verse 14. Thus, prominent scholars such as Andersen and Freedman are among those who see no reason to adopt “idols.”

Besides all these departures from the Hebrew text, the Jerusalem Bible also rearranges the order of whole verses in the chapter with absolutely no manuscript evidence from any other ancient version. The only justification for such a drastic move on the part of the translators appears to be in order that the adjacent lines of the poetic text will line up better (in their mind, at least) as parallel thoughts and flow in a more natural manner.

Thus, without quoting these changes in detail, JB comes up with the following new orders to the verses: Micah 4a-5b-4b-5a and Micah 5:12a-13-12b.

Regarding such changes in the poetic portions of Micah to obtain a closer parallelism, Allen wisely notes, “Such exact parallelism is not required, and the change bears the hallmark of an easier and so inferior reading.” Allen is alluding to the fact that it is highly doubtful that any scribe would take a crystal-clear passage and turn it into one that made less sense. The opposite is generally the rule.

The bottom line is that one should be at least a little suspicious of such departures from the standard Hebrew text. On the other hand, one should note such disputed passages as those about which we are in no position to make dogmatic pronouncements. Fortunately, such cases in the Bible are not that numerous and seldom if ever involve any important doctrinal issues.