iately before, is too evident.

Footnote 2: Ver. 6 must be translated thus: _Not shall ye drop_
(prophesy),--_they_ (the false prophets) _drop; if they_ (the
individuals addressed, the true prophets) _do not drop to these_ (the
rapacious great), _the ignominy will not cease_, _i.e._, the
ignominious destruction breaks in irresistibly. The fundamental passage
in Deut. xxxii. 2, and ver. 11 of the chapter before us, show that
[Hebrew: hTiP] has not the signification, "to talk," which is assigned
to it by _Caspari_. The false prophets must be considered as the
accomplices of the corrupted great, especially as to the bulwark which
they opposed to the true prophets, and their influence on the nation,
and on their own consciences,--as indeed material power everywhere
seeks for such a spiritual ally. If this be kept in view, the censure
and threatening acquire a still greater unity.

Footnote 3: To a certain extent, however, verse 11 forms the
transition: "If one were to come, a wind, and lie falsely: I will
prophesy to thee of wine and of strong drink,--he would be the prophet
of this people." Such a prophet Micah, indeed, is not; but although he
neither can nor dare announce salvation _without_ judgment, he has, in
the name of the Lord, to announce salvation _after_ the judgment. The
very singular opinion, that in vers. 12, 13, the false prophets are
introduced as speaking, is refuted by the single circumstance that, in
ver. 12, the gathering of the _remnant_ of Israel only is promised, and
hence the judgment is supposed to have preceded. It is no less
erroneous if, instead of considering ver. 11 as introductory to vers.
12, 13, the latter be made to depend upon ver. 11, and be therefore
considered as, to a certain extent, accidental.

Footnote 4: After the example of _v. Raumer_, _Robinson_, _Ritter_
(_Erdk._ 14, 101), it has now become customary to distinguish between
two Bozrahs,--one in Auranitis, and the other in Edom. But the
arguments adduced for this distinction are not of very great weight.
Nowhere is a "high situation" in reality ascribed to the Bozrah in
Edom. The assertion, that Edom was always limited to the territory
between the Dead Sea and the Red Sea, is opposed to Gen. xxxvi. 35,
according to which passage, even in the time before Moses, the Edomitic
king, Hadad, smote Midian in the field of Moab; and further, to Lam.
iv. 21, according to which Edom dwells in the land of Uz, which can be
sought for only