[774] See above, pp. 6 f.
[775] Note that the Hebrew and English divisions do not coincide between chaps. iv. and v. In the Hebrew chap. iv. includes a fourteenth verse, which in the English stands as the first verse of chap. v. In this the English agrees with the Septuagint.
[776] Caspari.
[777] In the fourth edition of Bleek's _Introduction_.
[778] _Z.A.T.W._, Vols. I., III., IV.
[779] See also Cornill, _Einleitung_, 183 f. Stade takes iv. 1-4, iv. 11-v. 3, v. 6-14, as originally one prophecy (distinguished by certain catchwords and an outlook similar to that of Ezekiel and the great Prophet of the Exile), in which the two pieces iv. 5-10 and v. 4, 5, were afterwards inserted by the author of ii. 12, 13.
[780] _Einleitung in das A.T._, pp. 690 ff.
[781] _Einleitung._
[782] _Untersuchungen über dis Textgestalt u. die Echtheit des Buches Micha_, 1887.
[783] _De Profetie van Micha_, 1891, which I have not seen. It is summarised in Wildeboer's _Litteratur des A.T._, 1895.
[784] _Introduction_, 1892.
[785] _Litteratur des A.T._, pp. 148 ff.
[786] Wildeboer (_De Profet Micha_), Von Ryssel and Elhorst.
[787] Cheyne, therefore, is not correct when he says ("Introduction" to second edition of Robertson Smith's _Prophets_, p. xxiii.) that it is "becoming more and more doubtful whether more than two or three fragments of the heterogeneous collection of fragments in chaps. iv.-vii. can have come from that prophet."
[788] See above, p. 311.
[789] Wildeboer seems to me to have good grounds for his reply to Stade's assertion that the occurrence of promises after the threats only blunts and nullifies the latter. "These objections," says Wildeboer, "raise themselves only against _the spoken_, but not against the written word." See, too, the admirable remarks he quotes from De Goeje.
[790] See below, pp. 383 ff.
[791] x. 18.
[792] Smend assigns the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem in iii. 14, along with Isaiah xxviii.-xxxii., to 704-701, and suggests that the end of chap. i. refers to Sennacherib's campaign in Philistia in 701 (_A. T. Religionsgeschichte_, p. 225, _n._). The former is possible, but the latter passage, following so closely on i. 6, which implies the fall of Samaria to be still recent, if not in actual course, is more suitably placed in the time of the campaign of Sargon over pretty much the same ground.
[793] See above, p. 363, _n._ 2.
[794] So Hitzig ("ohne Zweifel"), and Cheyne, _Introduction to the Book of Isaiah_; Ryssel, _op. cit._, pp. 218 f. Hackmann (_Die Zukunftserwartung des Jesaia_, 127-8, _n._) prefers the Greek of Micah. Ewald is doubtful. Duhm, however, inclines to authorship by Isaiah, and would assign the composition to Isaiah's old age.
[795] Hitzig; Ewald.
[796] As against Duhm.
[797] So rightly Duhm on Isa. ii. 2-4.
[798] Amos i. and ii. See above, pp. 124, 133.
[799] Isa. xxiii. 17 f.
[800] Jer. xvii.
[801] Wellhausen indeed thinks that ver. 8 presupposes that Jerusalem is already devastated, reduced to the state of a shepherd's tower in the wilderness. This, however, is incorrect. The verse implies only that the whole country is overrun by the foe, Jerusalem alone standing, with the flock of God in it, like a fortified fold (cf. Isaiah i.).
[802] Roorda, reasoning from the Greek text, takes _House of Ephratha_ as the original reading, with Bethlehem added later; and Hitzig properly reads Ephrath, giving its final letter to the next word which improves the grammar, thus: הצעיר אפרת
[803] Isa. xix. 19.
[804] So also Wellhausen.
[805] _E.g._ Ewald and Driver.
[806] For עמי read עמים with the LXX.
[807] Wellhausen states four. But תושיה of ver. 9 is an uncertain reading. רמיה is found in Hosea vii. 16, though the text of this, it is true, is corrupt. זכה in another verbal form is found in Isa. i. 16. There only remains מטה, but again it is uncertain whether we should take this in its late sense of tribe.