<TEI xmlns="http://www.tei-c.org/ns/1.0" xmlns:py="http://codespeak.net/lxml/objectify/pytype" py:pytype="TREE"><text><body><div type="commentary" subtype="notes" n="urn:cts:greekLit:tlg0527.tlg048.1st1K-eng1a" xml:lang="eng"><div type="textpart" subtype="paragraph" n="66"><p>II. 1. The Lxx. paraphrases this heading to the chapter, and
loses the important word ‘saw,’ for which cf. i. ι, xiii. 1, xxx. 10, and
the opening words of Amos, Obadiah, Micah, Nahum, and Habakkuk.
Ezekiel, i. 1, uses a different verb, the same as in Isai. vi. 1, Amos ix. 1
cf. 1 Sam. ix. 9.</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="paragraph" n="67"><p>2—4. Opinions differ as to these verses, as to whether they
original here, or in Micah iv. 1—3, or copied by both prophets from
earlier source. Many authorities think them more naturally placed in
Micah, as regards sequence of thought: “the passage ﬁts naturally
into its context” (Sinker); “in any case they are not original in
Isaiah” (Delitzsch). On the other hand, Micah appears to have been
a younger contemporary of Isaiah, and Mic. iii., iv. to date from the
time of Hezekiah; whereas Isa. ii.—iv. are placed by practically
authorities not later than the beginning of Ahaz’ reign. The
that both prophets borrowed from an earlier source is adopted by
many critics as a way out of the dilemma; or else that the passage
“was assigned by some collectors to Isaiah and by others to Micah”
(Prof. A. B. Davidson, in the Temple ample Bible). Other passages are
found, common to two prophets; in which case decision is difficult, but
there is a tendency, if one prophet uses the words as a sort of starting-
point, to suppose them original in the other; see, for instance, Joel iii. 16
and Amos i. 2. But the adapter of the words would be likely to take
some care in placing them; as Micah may have done, see Prof. Cheyne,
ad loan; and many commentators, later as well as earlier, think they
detect likeness to the style of Isaiah here. Isaiah's transitions, moreover,
are frequently and markedly abrupt. On the whole, his claim to
the original authorship has scarcely been disproved.</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="paragraph" n="68"><p>2. τὸ ὅρος τοῦ Κυρίου καὶ ὅ οἶκος τοῦ Θεοῦ] Both here and in Micah
the Heb. has this as one expression, ‘the mountain of the Lord's
house,’ which is afterwards divided into a parallel.</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="paragraph" n="69"><p>ἐμφανὲς] ἕτοιμον in Micah has this as a duplicate rendering of
<foreign xml:lang="abbr">ABBREV</foreign>, ‘established’: cf. Hosea</p></div><div type="textpart" subtype="paragraph" n="70"><p>ἥξουσιν] In Micah, σπεύσουσιν. Vulgate, fluent, better gives the
force of the Hebrew, shall ‘ﬂow’ or ‘stream’; and so in Jerem. xxxi.
(xxxviii.) 12 ἥξουσιν, li. xxviii.) 44 συναχθῶσιν, Vulg. confluent</p><pb n="112"/></div></div></body></text></TEI>