[881] Schultz, _A. T. Theol._, p. 722.
[882] See above, pp. 276 ff.
[883] Wellhausen declares that this is unsuitable to the position of Jerusalem in the eighth century, and virtually implies her ruin and desolation. But, on the contrary, it is not so: Jerusalem is still standing, though alone (cf. the similar figure in Isa. i.). Consequently the contradiction which Wellhausen sees between this eighth verse and vv. 9, 10, does not exist. He grants that the latter may belong to the time of Sennacherib's invasion--unless it be a _vaticinium post eventum_!
[884] See above, p. 32.
[885] This in answer to Wellhausen, who thinks the two oracles incompatible, and that the second one is similar to the eschatological prediction common from Ezekiel onwards. Jerusalem, however, is surely still standing.
[886] Even Wellhausen agrees that this verse is most suitably dated from the time of Micah.
[887] Those who maintain the exilic date understand by this Jehovah Himself. In any case it may be He who is meant.
[888] The words in parenthesis are perhaps a gloss.
[889] Uncertain.
[890] The name Bethlehem is probably a later insertion. I read with Hitzig and others הצעיר אפרת, and omit להיות.
[891] Smallest form of district: cf. English _hundreds_.
[892] Cf. the prophecy of Immanuel, Isa. vii.
[893] This seems like a later insertion: it disturbs both sense and rhythm.
[894] So LXX.
[895] Take this clause from ver. 4 and the following oracle and put it with ver. 3.
[896] Wellhausen alleges in the numbers another trace of the late Apocalyptic writings--but this is not conclusive.
[897] So LXX. Cf. the refrain at the close.