the catholic university of america theophanies in the
TRANSCRIPT
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
Theophanies in the Minor Prophets:
A Cross-Analysis of Theophanic Texts in Micah, Habakkuk, and Zechariah
A DISSERTATION
Submitted to the Faculty of the
School of Theology and Religious Studies
Of The Catholic University of America
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree
Doctor of Philosophy
By
Jamie Aislinn Banister
Washington, D.C.
2013
Theophanies in the Minor Prophets:
A Cross-Analysis of Theophanic Texts in Micah, Habakkuk, and Zechariah
Jamie Aislinn Banister, Ph.D.
Director: Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M., Ph.D.
Storm-god and warrior-god theophanic motifs were widely used throughout the
Ancient Near East (ANE), both in mythological and historical texts. Theophanies and
theophanic motifs in the Old Testament (OT) are often found in passages, especially hymns,
whose originality within the surrounding literary context is questionable; one example in the
Twelve (Minor) Prophets is Habakkuk 3. A detailed cross-analysis of three theophanic texts
found in Micah 7, Habakkuk 3, and Zechariah 9 provides insights into the use of storm-
/warrior-god theophanic motifs within the Twelve Prophets.
This study begins with an overview of theophanies in the OT and the use of the
storm-/warrior-god motifs in the ANE, followed by a survey of the history of research
pertaining to compilation/redaction theories for the Twelve Prophets and to each book in
which the three passages of interest appear (Mic 7:7-20; Hab 3:1-19; Zech 9:9-16). Then, I
provide a close exegetical reading for each of the three passages with special attention to the
use of the storm-/warrior-god motifs within each, followed by a summary of findings.
Habakkuk 3 (at least vv. 3-15) is likely the earliest of these three texts. The core
theophanic material (vv. 3-15) reveals strong mythological connections with other ANE
texts, including personifications of cosmic phenomena which also could be references to
attendant deities. In contrast, Mic 7:7-20 and Hab 3:2, 16-19 carefully avoid any implication
that Yhwh has a physical form even while employing similar vocabulary and motifs, such as
a clear modification of the battle-against-the-sea motif in Mic 7:7-20 in which Yhwh battles
sin and iniquity rather than mythological or historical enemies, albeit without any mention of
the deity’s weapons. Finally, Zech 9:9-16 reintroduces Yhwh’s weapons; however, rather
than Yhwh using traditional theophanic weapons, Yhwh’s people will function as his
weapons against their enemies. Thus, a cross-analysis of these three passages specifically
with respect to the storm-/warrior-god motifs reveals a pattern that parallels the theological
development from a polytheistic or henotheistic perspective (which is deeply rooted in ANE
mythology) to one that is more strictly monotheistic (which avoids mythological aspects of
the storm-/warrior-god motifs).
ii
This dissertation by Jamie Aislinn Banister fulfills the dissertation requirements for the
doctoral degree in Biblical Studies approved by Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M., Ph.D. as
Director, and by Christopher T. Begg, S.T.D., Ph.D. and Joseph Jensen, O.S.B., S.T.D. as
Readers.
_______________________________________
Alexander A. Di Lella, O.F.M., Ph.D., Director
_______________________________________
Christopher T. Begg, S.T.D., Ph.D., Reader
_______________________________________
Joseph Jensen, O.S.B., S.T.D., Reader
iii
Dedicated to
Amelia Pauline (Holzwarth) Banister
July 4, 1910 – _________
in memoriam
Robert (Bob) James Banister
November 19, 1909 – August 14, 1999
iv
Ø lvwrym swsw ~yrpam bkr-ytrkhw ~ywgl ~wlv rbdw hmxlm tvq htrknw
And I will expel the chariot from Ephraim, And the horse from Jerusalem.
And the bow of war will be expelled, And he will proclaim peace to the nations.
Zech 9:10a-b
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abbreviations ……………………………………………………………………………… xi
Acknowledgments ……………………………………………………………………….... xii
Chapter I: Introduction: Theophanies ……………………………………………………… 1
1. Form / Structure of Theophanies ………………………………………………......... 3
1.1. Theophany as a Literary Genre ……………………………………………….. 3
1.2. Theophany as Part of ANE / Israelite Tradition ………………………………. 5
1.3. Theophany as Type Scene …………………………………………………….. 7
2. Sitz im Leben of Theophanies in the Old Testament ………………………………... 9
3. Theophanies in the Old Testament …………………………………………………. 11
3.1. Sinai Theophanies & Moses ………………………………………………….. 11
3.2.“Old Poetry” in Prose Passages ……………………………………………….. 13
3.3. Theophanies in the Psalms …………………………………………………… 17
3.4. Theophanies in the Prophetic Literature ……………………………………… 21
3.5. Appearances to the Patriarchs & Call Narratives …………………………….. 23
3.6. Mt. Horeb and Elijah: 1 Kings 19 …………………………………………….. 25
4. Storm-god and Warrior-god Motifs in the ANE …………………………………..... 26
4.1. Atmospheric and Natural Elements as Weapons …………………………. 27
4.2. Mythic Battles …………………………………………………………….. 29
4.3. Effects on Nature ………………………………………………………….. 30
4.4. Smiting Enemies ………………………………………………………….. 31
4.5. Storm- and/or Warrior-gods and Mountains …………………………….... 31
5. Conclusion ………………………………………………………………………….. 32
vi
Chapter II: Background Research on Micah, Habakkuk, Zechariah, and Redaction
of the Twelve Minor Prophets ……………………………………………… 34
1. Redaction / Formation of the Twelve Minor Prophets ……………………………… 34
1.1. David Noel Freedman ………………………………………………………… 35
1.2. James Nogalski ……………………………………………………………….. 38
1.3. Barry Alan Jones ……………………………………………………………… 40
1.4. Aaron Schart ………………………………………………………………….. 42
1.5. Erhard S. Gersternberger ……………………………………………………… 43
1.6. Jacob Wöhrle ………………………………………………………………….. 44
1.7. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………….. 46
2. Micah ………………………………………………………………………………… 47
2.1. Hermann Gunkel (1924) ………………………………………………………. 48
2.2. Artur Weiser (1967) …………………………………………………………… 48
2.3. Theodor Lescow (1972; 1995) ………………………………………………… 49
2.4. Bernard Renaud (1977) ……………………………………………………….. 50
2.5. Hans W. Wolff (1982) ………………………………………………………… 51
2.6. Burkard M. Zapff (1997) ……………………………………………………… 51
2.7. Jörg Jeremias (2007) ………………………………………………………….. 53
2.8. Bruce Waltke (2007) …………………………………………………………. 53
2.9. Alain Decorzant (2010) ……………………………………………………….. 55
2.10. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………… 56
3. Habakkuk ……………………………………………………………………………. 56
3.1. Bernhard Stade (1884) ………………………………………………………… 57
vii
3.2. Bernhard Duhm (1906) ……………………………………………………….. 57
3.3. Paul Humbert (1944) …………………………………………………………. 58
3.4. William F. Albright (1950) …………………………………………………… 59
3.5. Sigmund Mowinckel (1953) ………………………………………………….. 60
3.6. John H. Eaton (1964) …………………………………………………………. 61
3.7. Theodore Hiebert (1986) ……………………………………………………… 63
3.8. Henrik Pfeiffer (2005) ………………………………………………………… 64
3.9. John E. Anderson (2011) ……………………………………………………… 65
3.10. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………… 66
4. Zechariah ……………………………………………………………………………. 66
4.1. Bernhard Stade (1881-1882) ………………………………………………….. 67
4.2. Hinckley G. Mitchell (1912) ………………………………………………….. 68
4.3. Paul Lemarche (1961) ………………………………………………………… 70
4.4. Benedikt Otzen (1964) ………………………………………………………... 71
4.5. Henning Graf Reventlow (1993) …………………………………………….... 72
4.6. Paul L. Redditt (1995) ……………………………………………………….... 73
4.7. Byron G. Curtis (2006) ………………………………………………………... 73
4.8. Ina Willi-Plein (2007) …………………………………………………………. 75
4.9. Anthony R. Petterson (2009) ………………………………………………….. 75
4.10. Conclusion …………………………………………………………………… 77
5. Summary ……………………………………………………………………………. 77
Chapter III: Micah 7:7-20 …………………………………………………………………. 80
1. Text, Syntax, and Translation ……………………………………………………. 82
viii
2. Authenticity and Dating …………………………………………………………. 95
3. Exegetical Analysis and Commentary …………………………………………... 96
3.1. Introduction / Bridge (7:7) ………………………………………………….. 97
3.2. Strophe I: Zion/Jerusalem’s Song of Trust in Yhwh (7:8-10) ……………... 99
3.3. Strophe II: Oracle of Promise in Response to Zion/Jerusalem (7:11-13) …. 102
3.4. Strophe III: Petition to Yhwh (7:14-17) …………………………………… 109
3.5. Strophe IV: Song of Praise (7:18-20) ……………………………………… 113
4. Storm-/Warrior-god Theophanic Motifs and Vocabulary ……………………….. 116
4.1. Effects upon Nature …………………………………………………………. 117
4.2. Effects upon Humans ……………………………………………………….. 117
4.3. God’s Anger / Wrath ………………………………………………………... 118
4.4. God as Savior, Rock, etc. …………………………………………………… 119
4.5. Place Names ………………………………………………………………… 119
5. Summary …………………………………………………………………………. 119
Chapter IV: Habakkuk 3 …………………………………………………………………. 121
1. Text, Syntax, and Translation ……………………………………………………. 122
2. Authenticity and Dating …………………………………………………………. 158
3. Exegetical Analysis and Commentary …………………………………………… 163
3.1. Heading/Superscription (3:1) ……………………………………………….. 165
3.2. Strophe I: Introduction (3:2) ……………………………………………….... 166
3.3. Strophes II-III: Theophany: Coming of the Deity & Reaction (3:3-7) ……… 170
3.4. Strophes IV-V: Theophany: Divine Warrior (3:8-15) ………………………. 175
3.5. Strophe VI: Conclusion (3:16-19) …………………………………………... 183
ix
4. Storm-/Warrior-god Theophanic Motifs and Vocabulary ………………………... 185
4.1. Effects upon Nature ………………………………………………………….. 186
4.2. Effects upon Humans ………………………………………………………... 187
4.3. God’s Anger / Wrath ………………………………………………………… 188
4.4. God’s Weapons / Battle Motifs ……………………………………………... 189
4.5. God as Savior, Rock, etc. ………………………………………………….... 190
4.6. Place Names ……………………………………………………………….... 190
5. Summary …………………………………………………………………………. 191
Chapter V: Zechariah 9:9-16 …………………………………………………………….. 195
1. Text, Syntax, and Translation ……………………………………………………. 198
2. Authenticity and Dating …………………………………………………………. 207
3. Exegetical Analysis and Commentary …………………………………………... 215
3.1. Strophe I: Coming of the King (9:9-10) ……………………………………. 218
3.2. Strophe II: Restoration of Yhwh’s People (9:11-13) ……………………….. 221
3.3. Strophe III: The Victorious Divine Warrior (9:14-16) ……………………… 226
4. Storm-/Warrior-god Theophanic Motifs and Vocabulary ……………………….. 231
4.1. Effects upon Nature …………………………………………………………. 232
4.2. Effects upon Humans ………………………………………………………... 232
4.3. God’s Anger / Wrath ………………………………………………………… 233
4.4. God’s Weapons / Battle Motifs ……………………………………………… 233
4.5. God as Savior, Rock, etc. …………………………………………………… 234
4.6. Place Names ………………………………………………………………… 234
5. Summary …………………………………………………………………………. 235
x
Chapter VI: Conclusion ………………………………………………………………….. 237
1. Intertextuality and Inner-Biblical Allusions ……………………………………… 237
2. Cross-analysis of Mic 7:7-20, Habakkuk 3, and Zech 9:9-16 ……………………. 242
2.1. Quotations and Non-Theophanic Linguistic Similarities …………………… 242
2.2. The Storm-/warrior-god Motif ……………………………………………… 246
3. Summary of Findings …………………………………………………………….. 254
Appendix A: Theophanic Vocabulary – Nouns and Verbs ………………………………. 261
Appendix B: Theophanic Vocabulary – By Thematic Categories ……………………….. 265
Select Bibliography ………………………………………………………………………. 269
xi
ABBREVIATIONS
General Abbreviations and Publications
General abbreviations and those for publications are based on “The Instructions
for Contributors to the Catholic Biblical Quarterly,” CBQ 65 (2003) 682-710. The
instructions are also available online at <http://cba.cua.edu/cbqinstructions.cfm>.
Syntactical Analysis
A = adverb
I = indirect object
Int = interrogative particle
N = nomen
O = (direct) object
P = prepositional phrase
Pred = predicate
S = subject
V = verb
Voc = vocative
xii
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This dissertation could not have been completed without the support and
encouragement from both faculty and students of the Department of Biblical Studies at
the Catholic University of America. First and foremost, I am truly honored to have
studied under and benefited from the guidance of my director, Fr. Alexander A. Di Lella,
O.F.M., who has persevered with me throughout the dissertation process. Although my
dissertation does not follow in the footsteps of Fr. Di Lella’s significant studies on the
deuterocanonical books, it is my sincere wish that this opus at least reflects, if only dimly,
Fr. Di Lella’s broader legacy of academic excellence and scholarly precision, which he
endeavored to impart upon his students. I am grateful to my readers, Fr. Christopher T.
Begg and Fr. Joseph Jensen, O.S.B., for their insightful comments and corrections, as
well as their endurance over the past several years that it has taken to complete this
dissertation. I am also appreciative of the enthusiasm and encouragement received from
Dr. Robert D. Miller, II, Dr. David Bosworth, Dr. Michael Patrick O’Connor (1950 –
2007), Fr. Frank Matera, and especially Fr. Francis T. Gignac, S.J., who has seen me
through the Biblical Studies doctoral program.
Dr. Monica Blanchard, CUA Department of Semitics, also deserves special
recognition for going above and beyond the call of duty in helping me gain access to
needed resources in the Semitics/ICOR Library, especially whenever we were unable to
arrange a time for me to access the materials in person. I cannot thank her enough for her
invaluable assistance, without which this dissertation would not have been completed
within the University’s deadline.
xiii
I am indebted to Dr. Michael Weigl, who inspired the topic for this dissertation. It
was he who first introduced me to the fascinating (and challenging) world of research
regarding the theophany in Habakkuk 3. It is also thanks to him that I was able to
participate in the Wadi ath-Thamad excavation project in Jordan, through which I am
better able to bring “text” and “stone” together in my teaching and research.
I would like to extend special thanks to the faculty at Aquinas Institute of
Theology (who encouraged me to pursue doctoral studies), especially Fr. Seán Charles
Martin, Fr. George Boudreau, O.P., Sr. Catherine Vincie, R.S.H.M., and Sr. Jean deBlois,
C.S.J. Other professors whom I wish to thank specifically include Dr. Eugene Bales and
Rev. Dr. Ronald MacLennan of Bethany College (KS).
Finally, I would like to express deep appreciation to my friends and family for
their love and support throughout my educational career and, particularly, during the
dissertation process. I am especially grateful to my mother for her assistance with some
of the German secondary sources. This dissertation is dedicated to my paternal
grandparents, Bob and Amelia Banister, from whom I received my first Bible as well as
inherited my love for Scripture.
1
Chapter I
Introduction: Theophanies
The term “theophany” (Gk to. qeofa,nia; La theophania) is etymologically derived
from two Greek words: qeo,j (“god”) and fai,nw (“bring to light, reveal, make known”).1
Thus, a basic meaning for “theophany” is “manifestation/appearance of (a/the) god.”2
Perhaps the earliest known use of the term was with reference to a religious festival at Delphi
during which time the statues of the gods were shown to the people.3
More recently, “theophany” has been adopted in the fields of both Ancient Near
Eastern (ANE) studies and biblical studies to refer, not to a human being revealing the image
of a deity (as occurred during the Greek festival at Delphi), but to a divine appearance and/or
self-revelation initiated by the deity. However, much confusion exists regarding the precise
use of the term due to the inconsistent manner in which “theophany” has been defined by
scholars and the different perspectives from which this topic has been approached.4 Although
1 In Gk, the neuter form (ta. qeofa,nia; always in the plural) refers to the theophanic cultic festival at
Delphi, while the feminine (h` qeofa,neia) is the generic term for “theophany” (see LSJ, 792).
2 See J. Hamilton, “Theophany,” in Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings (ed.
T. Longman, III; Downers Grove, IN: IVP Academic, 2008) 817-20, here 817; N. F. Schmidt and P. J. Nel,
“Theophany as Type-scene in the Hebrew Bible,” Journal for Semitics 11 (2002) 256-81, here 256-57; D. W.
Suter, “Theophany,” in HBD (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986) 1062-63, here 1062; “Theophany,” in
Catholic Bible Dictionary (ed. S. Hahn; New York: Doubleday, 2009) 904-5, here 904.
3 LSJ, 792; T. Hiebert, “Theophany in the OT,” in ABD 6. 505-11, here 505; E. Pax, EPIFANEIA: Ein
religionsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie (M nchener theologische Studien , Historische
Abteilung 10; Munich: Karl Zink Verlag, 1955) 20-21.
4 This problem has already been noted by several scholars, including C. S. Grizzard and M. E. Tate
(“Theophany,” in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible [ed. W. E. Mills; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990]
908); H. M. Ohnmann ("Some Remarks on the Use of the Term ‘Theophany’ in the Study of the Old
Testament," in Unity in Diversity [ed. R. Faber; Hamilton: The Senate of the Theological College of the
Canadian Reformed Churches, 1989] 1-12, esp. 2-5); and Schmidt and Nel (“Theophany as Type-scene,” 257).
2
most scholars limit the application of the term to exclude dreams and visions, other scholars
do not.5 Some scholars differentiate between “theophany” and “epiphany,” often by
appealing to the purpose of the revelation and/or the manner in which it occurs.6 The result is
that what one scholar calls an “epiphany,” another scholar might call a “theophany” or vice
versa.
In the present study, “theophany” is used in the broader sense of a divine
manifestation, particularly as it involves physical effects and/or visual descriptions, and is not
dependent upon the presence of direct verbal communication between the deity and human
beings. Thus, some of the passages that are treated as “theophanies” in this work may be
classified as “epiphanies” instead by some scholars.
5 Some scholars who recognize the potential for a theophany to be part of a dream or vision include M.
Eliade (The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion [Evanston: Harper & Row, 1961] 26-27, though he
also uses the term “hierophany”); R. K. Gnuse (“A Reconstruction of the Form-Critical Structure in 1 Samuel 3:
An Ancient Near Eastern Dream Theophany,” ZAW 94 [1982] 379-90, esp. 380); W. J. Harrelson (“Theophany
in the OT,” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5 [Nashville: Abingdon, 2009] 566-69); C. P.
Staton, Jr. (“Theophany,” in Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible [ed. D. N. Freedman; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2000] 1297-98, here 1298); and G. W. Savran (Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative
[JSOTSup 420; New York: T & T Clark, 2005] 16). Also, G. H. Davies (“Theophany,” in IDB 4. 619-20, here
619) notes that “it is not always possible to distinguish between vision and theophany.”
6 Eliade (Sacred and the Profane, 111-12, 121) considers a “theophany” to be a manifestation of divine
presence, whereas “epiphany” is a manifestation of divine power. For C. Westermann (Elements of Old
Testament Theology [Atlanta: John Knox, 1982] 25-27), the difference lies in whether God is speaking
(“theophany”) or acting (“epiphany”) as the primary mode in which the revelation occurs. Similarly, J. K.
Kuntz (The Self-Revelation of God [Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967] 12) focuses on the spoken word as the
central element of a “theophany.” Meanwhile, F. M. Cross (Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [Cambridge:
Harvard University Press, 1973] 255-57) recognizes two patterns based on the movement of the Divine Warrior;
an “epiphany” occurs when the Divine Warrior marches into battle with his weapons (e.g., lightning), while a
“theophany” occurs when the Divine Warrior returns from battle to his holy mountain temple, though Cross
notes that these patterns can occur in mixed form as well as separately. According to Schmidt and Nel
(“Theophany as Type-scene,” 260), a theophany “contains elements of the epiphany,” but “the epiphany
excludes elements of the theophany.”
3
1. Form / Structure of Theophanies in the OT
There are several different approaches that have been used with regard to analyzing
the form and structure of theophanies, particularly as they appear in the OT. One method is
to treat theophanies as having a specific form and thus as a distinct literary genre. Another
method instead focuses more on the content, rather than literary form of the theophanies, the
content of which is then linked to historical and/or cultic traditions. A third method treats
theophanies as a “type scene” in biblical narrative. A brief overview of each approach will
be provided here based on the work of at least two different scholars who have endorsed a
particular method.
1.1. Theophany as a Literary Genre
Several theories have been proposed in which “theophany” is treated as a literary
genre using form criticism.7 Probably the most extensive and influential work about
theophanies in the OT was published in 1965 by J. Jeremias, who uses Formgeschichte and
Überlieferungsgeschichte to analyze theophanic passages.8 Jeremias thinks that the Song of
Deborah in Judges 5 contains the original theophanic form (specifically in vv. 4-5) from
which all other OT theophanies have developed.9 This original form, according to Jeremias,
consists of two parts: (1) the coming of Yhwh from a certain place, and (2) an uproar in
7 A related method, used by N. C. Habel (“The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” ZAW 77
[1965] 297-323), places “theophany” as one part of a larger call narrative genre within the OT. One obvious
weakness of this method is that not all theophanies are found within call narratives, thus limiting its usefulness
in analyzing theophanic texts. See also the brief summary and critique of Habel’s method by Schmidt and Nel
(“Theophany as Type-scene,” 263-64).
8 J. Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung (WMANT 10;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965) 6.
9 Ibid., 7.
4
nature (e.g., earthquakes, lightning) as a result of Yhwh’s coming.10
From the original form,
four developments took place: (1) a two-part short form in which at least one of the parts
contains new content (e.g., Amos 1:2); (2) a two-part form where one or both parts have been
greatly expanded (e.g., Hab 3:3-15); (3) a form in which the first part, the coming of Yhwh,
stands on its own (e.g., Zech 9:14); (4) and a form where the second part, describing the
uproar of nature, stands by itself (e.g., Hag 2:6, 21).11
Jeremias’s study focuses heavily on
theophanies in Hebrew poetry, including two of the three passages under consideration in this
study, rather than divine revelations found in prose passages (e.g., God’s self-revelations to
the patriarchs in Genesis).
J. K. Kuntz traces the “clearest actualization” of the complete and unexpanded
theophanic form to a prose passage in Gen 26:23-25.12
He discerns six formal elements
within this theophany: (1) an introductory description, (2) divine self-asseveration, (3)
quelling of human fear, (4) assertion of gracious divine presence, (5) “hieros logos” (divine
speech addressed to the particular situation), and (6) a concluding description.13
However, he
also notes that both contraction and expansion of this basic form are found within the
10
As Jeremias explains: “In zwei gleich langen Teilen … reden sie von einem Kommen Jahwes vom
einem Ort, und von dem Aufruhr der Natur, der bei seinem Nahen entsteht. Aus dieser zweigliedrigen Form mit
zweigliedrigen Inhalt, die in Am. 1,2; Mi. 1,3f.; Ps. 46,7 und Js 64,19b vorliegt und sich hinter Ri 5,4f. und Ps.
68,8f. zu erkennen gibt, läßt sich die Form aller anderen Theophanieschilderungen erklären” (ibid., 15).
11
A summary list of these four developments is found ibid., pp. 15-16; see pp. 16-69 for a detailed
analysis and examples of each type.
12
Kuntz, Self-Revelation of God, 58-59.
13
Ibid.; the elements of the proposed theophanic form are listed on p. 59 and Kuntz further describes
each element individually on pp. 60-69.
5
Israelite tradition and that the proposed form is more easily recognized in prose passages than
in poetry.14
F. M. Cross identifies two genre patterns of theophanies both of which follow the
archaic mythic pattern of: (1) the Divine Warrior goes into battle against chaos; (2)
convulsion of nature when the Divine Warrior manifests his wrath; (3) return of the Divine
Warrior to take a place of kingship among the gods and be enthroned on his mountain; (4)
the Divine Warrior speaks from his temple, again causing nature to respond.15
The first
genre pattern identified by Cross is the Divine Warrior’s march into battle, of which he
considers Exod 15:1-18 to be the oldest and fullest example.16
The other genre pattern is best
exemplified in Psalm 29 in which the Divine Warrior returns from the battle to manifest his
kingship.17
Cross locates the normative and primary locus of OT prose theophanies in the
revelation at Sinai, which he counts among the second genre type even though he admits that
the first genre type includes the oldest hymns of the OT.18
1.2. Theophany as Part of ANE / Israelite Tradition
Other scholars have used a tradition-historical method, treating theophanies primarily
as an element of Ancient Near East and/or Israelite tradition, with or without a connection to
cultic practices (depending upon the scholar and/or particular passage under discussion).
14
Ibid., 59-60, 70.
15
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic,162-63.
16
Ibid.,157. Cross also includes as part of the first genre “virtually all of srael’s oldest hymns” such as
Deut 32:2-3, 26-29; Judg 5:4-5; Pss 68:9-8, 18; 77:15-20; 114; Hab 3:3-15 (p. 157).
17
Ibid.,160; some other examples cited by Cross are Pss 89:9-19; 93; 96; 98 (pp. 160-62).
18
Ibid., 163-64.
6
Three scholars whose assessment of theophanies fall into this category are G. von Rad, J.
Van Seters, and E. Kingsbury.
Both von Rad and Van Seters trace the familiar elements of the storm/warrior-god
motif to the Israelite tradition of Yhwh’s holy wars which was then later adapted for various
purposes. For example, it is from this holy war tradition that the concept of the “Day of
Yahweh” was derived, according to von Rad.19
With regard to the Sinai tradition in Exodus
19–20, Van Seters sees a later transformation of these theophanic motifs away from the
context of the holy war/cosmic conflict and into the context of covenant and law giving
instead, with the result that several new elements (e.g., commandments, human mediator)
were introduced into the Sinai theophany account in the post-exilic period that had not been
present previously in similar OT theophany narratives prior to the Babylonian Exile.20
Kingsbury distinguishes between the storm theophany and the earthquake theophany,
each of which he thinks reflects separate literary and cultic traditions and were later conflated
and sometimes harmonized in the OT.21
He traces the storm theophany to a northern tradition
connected with Mt. Horeb (which he thinks is in a different location from Mt. Sinai), the
Elohist tradition, and the story of the calf (reinstituted by Jeroboam I in the Northern
Kingdom), and sees it as displaying clear affinities with Canaanite poetry. He also claims that
the imagery of Yhwh coming from a certain general area is originally found in the storm
theophany; in contrast, in the earthquake theophany, Yhwh is portrayed as coming from
19
G. von Rad, “The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh,” JSS 4 (1959) 97-108, here 104.
20
J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: John
Knox, 1994) 263, 267-70.
21
E. C. Kingsbury, “The Theophany Topos and the Mountain of God,” JBL 86 (1967) 205-10.
Kingsbury (p. 205 n. 1) calls the two types of theophanies “topics,” by which he means “rhetorical patterns
which may be used as building blocks for literary structures.”
7
Jerusalem or the Temple.22
However, in order to maintain his hypothesis, Kingsbury has to
treat exceptions to his observations (e.g., Judg 5:4; Ps 68:7; Deut 32:2) as later glosses by
appealing to what he perceives as their disruptive effects, metrically or otherwise, in their
present contexts.
1.3. Theophany as a Type Scene
A more recent method seeks to treat theophany as a type scene in the Old
Testament.23
This method differs from form criticism in that it views the texts purely from a
synchronic viewpoint, thus avoiding any diachronic analyses that may be based on
problematic or questionable premises. Also, what might be treated as a recurring pattern
among form-critics is instead viewed as “manifold variations of literary convention” used as
part of “a tacit agreement between the artist and his audience.”24
Two approaches are
discussed below; one by N. Schmidt and P. Nel, the other by G. Savran.
The theophanic type scene as proposed by Schmidt and Nel consists of five elements:
(1) background, (2) manifestation, (3) dialogue, (4) intrigue, and (5) conclusion.25
First, the
background provides the reason (e.g., chaos, evil) for the imminent divine manifestation.
Second, the divine manifestation gives rise to the phenomenological reaction of nature (e.g.,
22
Ibid., 209.
23
The use of the type-scene concept as applied to biblical literature can be traced back to R. Alter (The
Art of Biblical Narrative [New York: Basic Books, 1981] 47-62).
24
Schmidt and Nel, “Theophany as Type-scene,” 264; see also Adler, Art of Biblical Narrative, 47-49.
25
Schmidt and Nel, “Theophany as Type-scene,” 265.
8
thunder, wind, fire) and of the human party in fear or awe.26
Third, there is the
communication between deity and the human party, often in the form of question-answer
dialogue. The fourth element contains the plot of the theophany, which makes the theophany
“unique and mysterious.”27
Finally, the conclusion indicates the departure of Yhwh or the
resulting response of the human party, told from the narrator’s perspective. Schmidt and Nel
then apply this model to several Hebrew texts: Exodus 3–4; 19–23; 24–31; 32–34; Numbers
22–24; and 1 Kings 19.28
One drawback of this method, insofar as this study is concerned, is
that texts which do not include a verbal exchange between deity and human are excluded a
priori from consideration, having been classified by Schmidt and Nel as “epiphanies” rather
than “theophanies.”29
More recently, Savran has proposed his own four-part theory regarding the basic
elements of a theophany type scene, which is quite similar to that of Schmidt and Nel.30
He
calls the first component “setting the scene,” which focuses on the solitude of the human
recipient and the location of the theophany (often in what is, or subsequently becomes, a holy
place). Second is the “appearance and speech” of Yhwh which may commence with a visual
element that later fades from the picture once the divine-human communication begins. Third
26
This second “element” of the proposed type scene corresponds with the “elements” described under
the comprehensive list of theophanic elements identified by A. Scriba (Die Geschichte des Motivkomplexes
Theophanie [FRLANT 167; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995] 14-79).
27
Schmidt and Nel, “Theophany as Type-scene,” 265.
28
Ibid., 266-77.
29
See ibid., 259-60 for their distinction between “theophany” and “epiphany,” as well as the discussion
above regarding the use of the term “theophany.”
30
Savran, Encountering the Divine, 13-25. However, Savran notes that not every theophany narrative
develops the elements equally, if at all, and it is in comparing the differences that one is able to discern
important elements that the biblical author wished to emphasize given the unique aspects he chose to either
enhance or suppress vis-à-vis other theophany narratives (pp. 25-26).
9
is the human response to the divine presence, which can take the form of fear and fascination,
and/or an expression of doubt or anxiety. The final element is what Savran calls
“externalization,” the continuing effect resulting from the theophany even after the departure
of the deity. However, Savran focuses on theophanies that occur in narratives, thus excluding
texts which lack a clear narrative character, such as Habakkuk 3, from his analysis.31
Although viewing theophany as a type scene may have some interesting and useful
aspects, neither of the models offered by Schmidt and Nel or Savran are directly applicable to
the three theophanic texts that will be my primary focus (Micah 7; Habakkuk 3; Zechariah 9).
2. Sitz im Leben of Theophanies in the OT
There are two major theories regarding the Sitz im Leben of theophany accounts. One
theory is that theophanies can be traced to the context of Holy War and the imagery of the
victorious Divine Warrior.32
After rejecting Jerusalem worship festivals as the original Sitz
im Leben of theophanic accounts, Jeremias concludes that the genre pertains originally to
hymns (as opposed to prose passage) and traces the development of theophanic accounts
back to a “Song of Victory” celebrating Yhwh’s triumphant Holy War; Jeremias suggests
that Judg 5:4-5 and Ps 46:7 reflect the original Sitz im Leben of the theophany accounts.33
31
Unlike Schmidt and Nel, Savran considers these other passages as “theophanies”; Savran restricts his
application of the term solely in the interest of focusing on theophanies that appear within a clear narrative
context (Savran, Encountering the Divine, 6; see esp. n. 6 which lists Judges 5 and Habakkuk 3 among texts that
lack a clear narrative context).
32
Other scholars who reject the cult as the original Sitz im Leben of the theophany in addition to those
mentioned below include P. C. Craigie (“The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta,” JBL 88 [1969]
253-65, esp. 254-55), W. R. Herman (“The Kingship of Yahweh in the Hymnic Theophanies of the Old
Testament,” Studia Biblica et Theologica 16 [1988] 169-211, esp. 208-9), and F. Schnutenhaus (“Das Kommen
und Erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament,” ZAW 76 [1964] 1-22, esp. 19-21).
33
Jeremias, Theophanie, 122, 138-44. Jeremias also attempts to trace the subsequent detachment of
theophanic descriptions from this original Sitz im Leben (ibid., 158-63).
10
Cross traces OT theophany accounts to the language of Canaanite storm-god mythology that
has been transformed from myth into an epic pattern focusing on the wars of Exodus and
Conquest which began with the victory at the sea (in which passages Cross admits that the
two motifs, the epic Exodus-Conquest motif and the mythic Battle with the Sea motif, often
merge), but written from the perspective of “the league cultus in a shrine in Canaan.”34
Another theory seeks to connect theophanies specifically to cultic festivals.35
Weiser
formulated what has become a classic argument in favor of dramatic cultic covenant renewal
festivals as the Sitz im Leben of theophanic tradition.36
Mowinckel thinks that the coming and
manifestation of Yhwh at the cultic festivals, announcing the enthronement of Yhwh as king,
was central to the festal experience.37
Kuntz views theophany accounts as particularly
(though not solely) focused on the temple cult at Jerusalem during the monarchy and
especially as functioning to draw attention to the deity’s presence during the annual Feast of
Tabernacles.38
Van Seters notes that the use of the shofar in the Exodus 19 – 20 theophany
account (in particular) indicates the theophany account’s use in post-exilic cultic festivals,
34
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 157, 163-65 (quotation on p. 163). A similar position is
also held by M. Coogan (“Warrior, Divine,” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5 [Nashville:
Abingdon, 2009] 815-16, here 816) regarding the Israelite historicization of the mythic battle between the
storm-god and the sea into Yhwh’s victory over Pharaoh and the Egyptian army at the Red/Reed Sea, poetically
described in Exodus 15, which uses the storm-god imagery for Yhwh.
35
Scholars who hold this view include J. Gray (Joshua, Judges, Ruth [NCBC; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1986] 203-5) and Kingsbury (“Theophany Topos,” 205). Cf. H.-P. Müller, “Die kultische Darstellung der Theophanie,” VT 14 (1964) 183-91.
36
A. Weiser, “Zur Frage nach der Beziehungen der Psalmen zum Kult: Die Darstellung der
Theophanie in die Psalmen und im Festkult,” in Festschrift für Alfred Bertholet (ed. W. Baumgartner, et al.;
Tübingen: Mohr, 1950) 513-31.
37
S. Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship (2 vols.; Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962), 1. 142-43.
38
Kunz, Self-Revelation of God, 222-23; a full discussion of the cultic context of theophany accounts
is found on pp. 215-31.
11
resulting from a combination of the storm-god motif and that of the enthronement of God on
Zion.39
3. Theophanies in the OT
Theophanic texts are found throughout all major sections of the OT. Below is a
sampling of some of the different types of theophanies (broadly defined) in the OT. Passages
that have connections to the three passages on which this study focuses (Micah 7; Habakkuk
3; and Zechariah 9) will be discussed more thoroughly than those that are significantly
different in content and form.
3.1. Sinai Theophanies and Moses 40
The theophany at Sinai in Exodus 19 is often considered the most well-known and
perhaps most significant theophany in the OT41
; it is part of a larger narrative which contains
other theophanic scenes (e.g., in Exodus 24).42
In Exodus 19, Moses converses with Yhwh
39
Van Seters, Life of Moses, 268.
40
Another theophany involving Moses at Mt. Horeb (= Sinai?) in Exodus 3 is mentioned below under
“Call Narratives.”
41
Regarding the significance of Exodus 19 and theophanies, see Grizzard and Tate, “Theophany,” 908;
“Theophany,” Catholic Bible Dictionary, 905; G. Windsor, “Theophany: Traditions of the Old Testament,”
Theology 75 (1972) 411-16, here 412. In fact, the approach used by J. Niehaus in his book on theophanies (God
at Sinai: Covenant & Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995]) focuses
on an analysis of passages, from “pre-Sinai” to “post-Sinai,” which contain what he calls “Sinaitic
characteristics” (i.e., characteristics of a storm theophany; see p. 142).
42
For more detailed analyses of Exodus 19 and its context, see Th. Booij, “Mountain and Theophany
in the Sinai Narrative,” Bib 65 (1984) 1-26; W. Brueggemann, “The Book of Exodus: ntroduction,
Commentary, and Reflection,” in NIB (12 vols.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 1. 675-981, esp.
831-39 (Exodus 19) and 879-83 (Exodus 24); W. Janzen, Exodus (Believer’s Church Bible Commentary;
Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2000) 234-49; Jeremias, Theophanie, 100-114; Kunz, Self-Revelation of God, 72-
103; C. L. Meyers, Exodus (NCBC; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005) 141-56; Niehaus, God at
Sinai, 195-200; F. Polak, “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus,” in
Studies in the Book of Exodus (BETL 126; ed. M. Vervenne; Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 113-47,
12
several times after the arrival of the Israelites at Mt. Sinai, but the focus is the encounter on
the third day during which the people are consecrated, which leads up to the communication
of the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20.43
Exodus 19:16 mentions lightning ( *~yqrb),
thunder (twlq), and a thick cloud (dbk !w[) over the mountain, all of which (combined
with a trumpet blast) cause the people to tremble (drx). Two verses later (v. 18), Yhwh
descends in fire (va) upon the smoke-enveloped (!v[) mountain that, like the people in v.
16, trembles (drx).44
Elohim responds to Moses via thunder (lq) in v. 19, after which the
narrative quickly moves to a focus on God’s verbal revelation. Later in 24:15-18, during a
subsequent trip of Moses to the mountain, the glory of Yhwh (hwhy dwbk) is described as
covering the mountain in a cloud (!w[) and in fire (va).45
esp. 129-41; W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 19-40 (AB 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006) 101-623, especially 619-23;
Scriba, Geschichte, 177-82; Van Seters, Life of Moses, 245-89; A. Wénin, “La théophanie au Sinaï: Structures
littéraires et narration en Ex, 19.10-20, 21,” in Studies in the Book of Exodus (BETL 126; ed. M. Vervenne;
Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996) 471-80; E. Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum
jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk (FB 3; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1971).
43
Unless otherwise noted, all Hebrew (Heb) texts are taken from BHS and all English translations are
my own. The critical edition of the Greek (Gk) text used for Exodus is J. W. Wevers, Exodus (Septuaginta 2/1;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). The La text is from R. Weber, Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam
versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994).
44
Although the LXX agrees with the MT in 19:16 with regard to the people trembling, it deviates from
the Hebrew in v. 18 where the same verb root (drx) is used of the mountain. In place of the MT statement that
dam rhh-lk drxyw (“and the whole mountain trembled greatly”), the LXX reads kai. evxe,sth pa/j o lao.j sfo,dra (“and all the people were greatly amazed”). However, there is one Gk MS (F
b) which uses evptoh,qh
(“were terrified”) of v. 16 in place of evxe,sth in v. 18. Both Latin (La) and Syriac (Syr) have the mountain as the
subject in the last clause like the Heb of v. 18. If it assumed that the MT reflects the original text, the change in
the LXX may indicate an intentional movement away from using mythical language whereby objects, such as
mountains, are personified and described as reacting similarly to human beings (e.g., using the same verb for
each that indicates an emotional reaction). t is also possible, as indicated in Wever’s (Exodus, 238) critical
notes regarding the variant in Gk MS Fb, that the LXX’s phrasing in v. 18 was taken over from v. 16. The
question then is whether the apparent influence of v. 16 upon v. 18 in the Gk was accidental or intentional.
45
One may notice a potential pattern regarding the imagery associated with each of the names, Yhwh
and Elohim, which I have retained in my discussion where appropriate. The storm imagery (thunder [19:16, 19]
and probably also the lightning in 19:16, given that the following verse uses Elohim) seems associated with
Elohim, whereas Yhwh is associated with smoke and/or fire (19:18; 24:17). This distinction is most clear in
Exodus 19. If one takes into account Exodus 24, the only term used in passages with both of the names is !w[
(“cloud”); however, in Exodus 19, the cloud associated with Elohim is clearly described as a storm/thunder
13
Mountains are a common location where theophanies often occur in the OT (cf. Gen
12:8; Psalms 48, 68). Ancient cosmology often included a belief that the sacred/holy realm
was in the heavens. Given such a view, mountains would be a natural holy place due to their
height and closeness to heaven – i.e., the place where heaven and earth meet – and, hence,
provide a logical locale for theophanies to occur. Eliade discusses several examples from
multiple cultures (Indian, Iranian, Norse, Palestinian, etc.) whose cosmologies include this
notion of a holy mountain as a common phenomenon in the cosmologies of several ancient
cultures.46
3.2. “Old Poetry” in Prose Passages
There are several places in the Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic literature in which a
primarily prose narrative is interrupted by the inclusion of Hebrew poetry, often in the form
of a hymn or song. These poetic passages occur in: Gen 49:1-17; Exod 15:1-18, 21; Num
23:8-10, 18-24; Deut 32:1-47; 33:2-29; Judg 5:2-31; 1 Sam 2:1-10; 2 Sam 1:19-27; 22:2-51
(// Psalm 18); 23:2-7; and possibly Num 24:3-9, 15-24. The most pertinent of these passages
for the current study are discussed below.47
cloud (dbk !w[) accompanied by thunder and lightning, whereas the description of the cloud in Exodus 24
(associated with Yhwh) contains no such ominous overtones (cf. Exod 13:21-22 where Yhwh leads the
Israelites by a !w[ dwm[ [“pillar of cloud”] which also is not suggestive of a threatening thunderstorm cloud).
The pattern in question could indicate two separate traditions that have been combined in this narrative;
however, one also should note that the same verb drx (“tremble”) is used with both sets of imagery (storm in
19:16; fire in 19:18) to describe a reaction to the divine presence.
46
M. Eliade, Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1961)
41-44.
47
For 2 Samuel 22, see the discussion below on the parallel passage in Psalm 18.
14
3.2.1. Exodus 15: “Song of Moses” / “Song of the Sea”
This passage is a hymn of victory, celebrating Yhwh’s triumph over the Egyptian
army at the Reed Sea.48
Yhwh is called “(my) salvation” (h[wvy) in v. 2, “man of war”
(hmxlm vya) in v. 3,49
and one who redeems (lag) his people in v. 13. The Egyptians are
tossed into the Sea (v. 4) where the deep (~wht) covers them and they sink into the depths
(tlwcm) like a stone (v. 5). Yhwh’s right hand shatters (#[r) the enemy (v. 6), and the
deeps (tmht), as well as waters (~ym) and flowing waters (~ylzn), react to the breath (xwr)
of Yhwh’s nostrils/anger. The peoples (presumably the nations given the context and
indicated in Gk by e;qnh) heard and shook (zgr),50
while anguish (lyx) seized the inhabitants
of Philistia (v. 14). The chiefs of Edom were terrified (lhb), trembling (d[r) seized the
Moabite rulers, and the inhabitants of Canaan melted away (gwm, niphal) (v. 15); terror
(hmya) and dread (dxp) fall upon them (v. 16).
3.2.2. Deuteronomy 32: “Song of Moses”
This “song” includes proclamations of Yhwh’s greatness, denunciations of Israel for
its unfaithfulness toward Yhwh, and a promise that Yhwh will yet have compassion on
48
For more information about this hymn in Exodus 15, see M. Brenner, The Song of the Sea: Ex. 15:1-
21 (BZAW 189; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 1991); Brueggemann, “The Book of Exodus,” 797-804; Cross,
Canaanite Myth, 112-44; Meyers, Exodus, 109-11, 116-23; P. D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel
(HSM 5; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 113-17; W. H. C. Propp, Exodus 1 – 18 (AB 2; New
York: Doubleday, 1999) 502-72; B. D. Russell, The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of
Exodus 15:1-21 (Studies in Biblical Literature 101; New York: Peter Lang, 2007); Van Seters, Life of Moses,
147-48.
49
The Gk in v. 3 has suntri,bwn pole,mouj (“crushing/shattering wars” with pole,mouj as the direct
object and suntri,bwn as a participle modifying ku,rioj [“Lord”]) where hmxlm vya (“man of war”) appears in
the Heb.
50
Most Gk witnesses have wvrgi,sqhsan (“they were angry”) in place of the Heb !wzgry (“they shake”); however, Alexandrinus and a few other MSS use evfobh,qhsan (“they were afraid”) instead, which more closely
agrees with the Heb.
15
Yhwh’s people despite their previous unfaithfulness.51
Several times Yhwh is referred to as
the “Rock” (rwc; vv. 4, 15, 18, 30, 31).52
Yhwh’s anger against the unfaithful sraelites is
likened to a fire (va) that burns to the bottom of Sheol, devours the land and its produce, and
sets fire to the foundations of the mountains (~yrh ydswm) (v. 22). Yhwh sends his arrows
(~ycx) against them (v. 23), along with famine (b[r), flame (@vr), pestilence (bjq), and
teeth of animals with poison (hmx) of crawling things (v. 24). However, Yhwh rejects the
notion of completely destroying them (v. 26) lest the other nations think that they and/or their
gods were responsible instead of Yhwh (v. 27-33), and Yhwh’s flashing (qrb; lit.
“lightning”) sword (brx) is directed against his adversaries instead (v. 41). Yhwh will make
his arrows (~ycx) drunk with blood, his sword (brx) shall devour flesh (v. 42). Thus, in the
end, Yhwh avenges the blood of his servants/people (v. 43).
3.2.3. Deuteronomy 33: “Moses’ Final Blessing”
The final blessing given by Moses to the tribes of Israel in Deuteronomy 33 begins
and ends with theophanic imagery commonly associated with a Divine Warrior motif, with
the blessings for each tribe located in the middle.53
Yhwh comes from Sinai, dawned on his
51
The critical edition of the Gk text of Deuteronomy used is J. W. Wevers, Deuteronomium
(Septuaginta 3/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977). For more detailed analyses of Deuteronomy 32,
see W. Brueggemann, Deuteronomy (Abingdon Old Testament Commentary; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001) 277-
84; R. E. Clements, “The Book of Deuteronomy: ntroduction, Commentary, and Reflection,” in NIB (12 vols.;
Nashville: Abingdon, 1998: 2.269-538) 2. 522-30; S. R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Deuteronomy (ICC; 3rd
ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986) 344-85.
52
The Gk consistently uses qeo,j (“God”) where rwc appears in the Heb text as a reference to God (as
opposed to a literal “rock” as in v. 13).
53
For more detailed analyses of Deuteronomy 33, see Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, 284-87; Clements,
“Book of Deuteronomy,” 531-37 (esp. 534); Driver, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy,
385-417 (esp. 390-93); H. Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen von Süden: Jdc 5; Hab 3; Dtn 33 und Ps 68 in ihrem
literatur- und theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (FRLANT 211; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005)
178-203.
16
people from Seir, and shone forth from Mt. Paran, with fire (va) possibly being associated
with his right hand (!ymy, v. 2).54
Later, God (“El”) is described as one who rides through the
skies (~ymv bkr, v. 26), the Eternal God (~dq yhla) who is srael’s dwelling place and
drives out (vrg, piel) their enemies (v. 27), and Yhwh who is their shield (!gm) and sword
(brx) by which they triumph over their enemies (v. 29).
3.2.4. Judges 5: “Song of Deborah”
Although the bulk of this song recounts the events of the preceding narrative
involving Deborah, Barak, and the death of Sisera by Jael’s hand in Judges 4, there is a brief
theophanic description near the beginning in vv. 4-5.55
Yhwh is said to have come forth from
Seir, marching from Edom, with the result that the earth trembles (v[r) and the clouds
(~yb[) drop rain (~ym; “water”) (v. 4). The mountains trickled (lzn)56 before Yhwh, this
One of Sinai (ynys hz), the God of Israel (larfy yhla, v. 5). As mentioned above, it is to
these two verses that Jeremias traces the original literary form of theophanies in the OT.57
54
Note: there is some textual instability in the Heb for the latter part of this verse. The Samaritan
Pentateuch mentions td va (“fire of law”; cf. La ignea lex) but, like the MT, neither the Gk nor the Syr
mention “fire.” Even without the explicit mention of “fire” (or another element commonly associated with a
warrior-god’s arsenal), the imagery of Yhwh coming from Sinai and associated with mountains is consistent
with the warrior-god and storm-god motifs in the OT.
55
For more detailed analyses of Judges 5, see M. D. Coogan, “A Structural and Literary Analysis of
the Song of Deborah,” CBQ 40 (1978) 143-66; P. C. Craigie, “Deborah and Anat: A Case Study of Poetic
magery [Judges 5],” ZAW 90 (1978) 374-81; Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen von Süden, 19-116.
56
The RSV uses “quaked” and the NAB “trembled” to describe the mountain’s reaction to Yhwh, a type
of reaction which is more common (e.g., drx in Exod 19:8; zgr and v[g in Ps 18:8) and what one would expect
given the context; also, the Gk has evsaleu,qhsan (“they were shaken”), which is used to translate the hithpael of
v[g in Ps 18:8.
57
Jeremias, Theophanie, 7.
17
3.2.5. 1 Samuel 2: “Song / Prayer of Hannah”
This short prayer/song has a couple of noteworthy elements of relevance to my
study.58
Yhwh’s salvation (h[wvy) is mentioned in v. 1 among the reasons why Hannah is
rejoicing and praising Yhwh, and v. 2 affirms that there is no “rock” (rwc) like Yhwh.59
Later, it mentions that Yhwh’s adversaries shall be shattered (ttx, niphal) and Yhwh
thunders (~[r, hiphil) in the skies/heaven against them (v. 10). Thus, we find a combination
of warrior- and storm-god motifs, particularly in v. 10.
3.3. Theophanies in the Psalms60
Several Psalms are also of interest due to their affinities with the “Old Poetry in
Prose” passage mentioned above, as well as all three of the passages under consideration in
this study (Micah 7; Habakkuk 3; Zechariah 9). Brief observations and analyses of the
theophanic language in a few of these Psalms are given below but are by no means
exhaustive of all Psalms which contain theophanic imagery and vocabulary.61
58
For more detailed analyses of 1 Samuel 2, see R. W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; 2nd
ed.; Waco:
Word, 2008) 12-20.
59
As in Deuteronomy 32, the Gk avoids literal translations of rwc when used as a title or epithet for
God.
60
One scholar who has done a lot of research specifically on theophanies in the Psalms is J. H. Hunter,
who wrote his (unpublished) doctoral thesis on the subject as well as a couple of articles, the latter of which
were utilized for the current study (“The Literary Composition of Theophany Passages in the Hebrew Psalms,”
JNSL 15 [1989] 97-107 [p. 106 mentions the unpublished doctoral thesis]; idem, “Theophany Verses in the
Hebrew Psalms,” Old Testament Essays 11 [1998] 255-70). Hunter cites Jeremias quite frequently but
concludes that theophanies texts were a literary and theological device used by poets for various purposes and
in a manner that transcends any single form-critical genre (“Theophany Verses,” 265-66).
61
See also M. Z. Brettler, “Images of YHWH the Warrior in Psalms,” Semeia 61 (1993) 135-65; M.
Klingbeil, Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter and
Ancient Near Eastern Iconography (OBO 169; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999) esp. 55-157; T.
Longman, , “Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song,” JETS 27 (1984) 267-74; Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen
von Süden, 204-57 (Psalm 68); B. Renaud, “Le Psaume 85 et son caractère théophanique,” in Ouvrir les
18
3.3.1. Psalm 18 (// 2 Samuel 22)
Psalm 18 begins with several epithets for God that are similar to titles or imagery
found elsewhere in similar theophanies, including the descriptions in some of the “Old
Poetry” in prose passages discussed above. In v. 3, Yhwh is described as a rock ([ls and
rwc), a mountain/high stronghold (hdwcm and bnfm), a shield (!gm), and a “horn of
salvation” ([vy-!rq) who saves the speaker/author from his enemies (v. 4). In danger of
death and in distress (vv. 5-6), the petitioner calls upon Yhwh who hears from Yhwh’s
Temple (v. 7).62
Yhwh’s subsequent anger is described in v. 8 as causing the earth to
convulse (v[g) and shake (v[r) and likewise causing the foundations of the mountains to
quake (zgr) and convulse (v[g).63 Smoke (!v[) comes from his nose and a fire (va) from
his mouth that devours (lka, v. 9).
Verses 10-14 shift to imagery typically associated with a storm-god motif before the
slight shift back to warrior-god type imagery in v. 15. Yhwh bends down (hjn) the heavens
and a dark cloud (lpr[) is under his foot (v. 10). Yhwh rides upon a cherub and upon the
“wings of the wind” (xwr-ypnk, v. 11). Darkness ($vx) is his hiding place and thick
thunderclouds (lit. ~yqxv yb[ ~ym-tkvx; “darkness of rain, clouds of clouds”) are his
canopy (v. 12); there follow references to brightness (hgn), hail (drb), and possibly
lightning (lit. va-ylxg; “coals of fire”) in v. 13. Yhwh thunders (~[r) in the heavens,
Écritures (ed. P. Bovati and R. Meynet; LD 162; Paris: Cerf, 1995) 133-49, esp. 141-48; S. Shnider, “Psalm
XV : Theophany, Epiphany, Empowerment,” VT 56 (2006) 386-98.
62
Cf. vv. 5-7 with Jonah 2 and Psalm 116 in particular with regard to the precise phrasing used for this
imagery. However, for the purpose of this study, the general idea of petitioning for God’s intervention in the
context of danger from one’s enemies is what is noteworthy.
63
It is intriguing that the verb v[g is used in the qal with #ra (“earth”) as subject but in the hithpael
when ~yrh (“mountains”) are the subject. However, there does not seem to be a significant difference in
meaning and the LXX uses the aorist passive of saleu,w to translate both stems of v[g in this verse. Note that
the parallel verse in 2 Sam 22:8 has ~ymv (“heavens”) rather than ~yrh (“mountains”).
19
giving his voice (lq, v. 14).64
Then, in v. 15, Yhwh sends out his arrows (~ycx) by which
he scatters (#wp) “them” [enemies] and shoots his lightning (~yqrb) by which he confuses
(~mh) them.65
The channels of the waters (~ym yqypa) are made visible and the
foundations of the world (lbt twdswm) uncovered (hlg) by Yhwh’s rebuke, also
described as the “blowing of breath/wind of his nose/anger” ($pa xwr tmvnm, v. 16).
3.3.2. Psalm 68
Elohim goes out (acy) before his people, marching (d[c) in the wilderness (!wmyvy)
(v. 8). The earth quakes (v[r) in Elohim’s presence (v. 9).66
Rain falls from the sky (vv. 9-
10).67
The kings of enemy armies flee (ddn) from Adonai (vv. 12-13)68
and Shaddai scatters
(frp) kings (v. 15). The mountain of Bashan is asked why it looks with envy toward the
mountain which is the dwelling place of Yhwh (vv. 16-17). Elohim’s chariots (bkr) are
64
The same phrase va-ylxgw drb (“hail and coals of fire”) is also repeated at the end of this verse in
Hebrew (cf. v. 13); however, the LXX does not reflect the repetition, and it is possible that the repetition is due
to a scribe accidentally recopying the phrase from the previous verse.
65
Note that the shift in imagery is slight; the storm-god imagery is still present, given the mention of
“lightning,” but the warrior-god aspect has been added (“arrows”) with the probable reemergence of the
enemies (v. 4) via the use of the otherwise unspecified third-person object pronouns in v. 15.
66
As does (Mt.) Sinai, if Sinai is understood as standing in parallel position with #ra (“earth”) and the
verb v[r is implied on the basis of the parallelism in Hebrew (“gapping” of the verb between parallel poetic
lines).
67
In v. 9, the phrase indicating rain is wpjn ~ymv-@a (literally: “the nose of the heavens/skies
dripped”); this expression is found only here in the TANAKH. Verse 10 uses a more common word, ~vg, meaning “rain shower,” “rain.” These rains are portrayed favorably – i.e., rain as necessary to support plant and
animal life and, hence, the lives of God’s people – as opposed to destructive rains. Cf. the discussion below
regarding ANE storm-gods.
68
Note that the LXX reads avgaphtou/ (“beloved”) for !wddy, as if from the noun ddy (“beloved”), which completely changes the tone and meaning of this verse in Greek.
20
mentioned in connection with Sinai (v. 18). El is called “(our) salvation” (h[wvy) in v. 20
and an escape from death (twm) belongs to Yhwh Adonai in v. 21.69
The warrior imagery returns in v. 22, where Elohim is described as shattering /
smashing (#xm) the heads of his enemies (wybya var).70
Adonai brings back (his people?)
from the depths of the sea (~y twlcm) in v. 23.71
Later, in v. 31, there is a petition for God
to scatter (rzb) people who delight in battle. There is a reference to the one who “rides in
the heaven of heavens of ancient times” (~dq-ymv ymvb bkr) in v. 34, followed by an
assertion that Elohim’s power (z[) is in the clouds (~yqxv) in v. 35.
3.3.3. Psalm 77
As with Psalm 18 above, in Psalm 77 a petitioner is crying out in distress (hrc) with
the hope that God may hear (vv. 2-4). This leads to a recollection of the wonders God had
done in the past for Israel (vv. 12-21), in particular those of the Exodus tradition.
69
The terms “El” and “Adonai” are used in both verses in the following chiastic pattern:
Adonai (v. 20a)
El (v. 20b)
El (v. 21a)
Adonai (v. 21b)
However, the second use of Adonai is also accompanied by Yhwh. (Note that the shortened form of Yhwh [Yh]
occurs with Elohim in v. 19 immediately before v. 20 begins.) On the one hand, there is much diversity in
Psalm 68 with regard to the name/designation of the deity; however, on the other hand, the above pattern
indicates that the uses might not be completely random.
70
dqdq [“crown of the head”] is also used in this verse in the following poetic line as a reference back
to var. The term dqdq is noteworthy in that it only occurs in ten other verses in the MT, three of which were
discussed above (Gen 49:26; Deut 33:16, 20).
71
The plural term twlcm is also used in Exod 15:5 and Mic 7:19 (among other verses); however, in
Micah 7, it is used more literally in the sense of the depths of the sea whereas in Psalm 68 it is probably used as
a metaphor for death (cf. Ps 88:7; Jonah 2:4). Exodus 15 could be taken either way – literally and/or
metaphorically (i.e., the Egyptian army was covered by the waters in the Reed Sea, thus resulting in their
deaths). Also cf. Ps 68:21, mentioned above, with regard to God’s dominion over death; it is interesting to note
that Mot and Yam were both names of ANE deities as well, which raises the question regarding the connection
of this psalm with ANE mythology.
21
Both the storm-god and warrior-god imagery occur. God redeemed (lag) the sons of
Jacob and Joseph with his arm/strength ([wrz, v. 16). The waters (~ym) writhed (lyx) when
they saw Elohim and the deep (~wht) quaked (zgr, v. 17). The clouds (twb[) poured rain
(~ym wmrz) and were accompanied by thunder (lit. ~yqxv wntn lwq, “the clouds gave
voice”) while arrows (~ycx, probably indicating lightning) went back and forth (v. 18).
Verse 19 also mentions thunder (~[r; but this time linked to chariot wheels [lglg]) and
lightning (~yqrb), and now the earth also trembles/quakes (zgr) and shakes (v[r).
3.4. Theophanies in Prophetic Literature
In addition to the three passages of particular interest for this study in Micah 7,
Habakkuk 3, and Zechariah 9, many similar theophanic descriptions also occur elsewhere in
prophetic literature. Some examples are provided below; however, these are not exhaustive
of all theophanies in the prophetic literature or in the individual books discussed below.
3.4.1. Isaiah
A brief theophanic passage is found in Isa 30:27-33, though theophanic imagery is
used elsewhere in Isaiah as well. The coming of the name of Yhwh brings thick clouds
(hafm dbk), his tongue is likened to a devouring fire (tlka va,72
v. 27) and breath as
an overflowing stream reaching as high as the back of the neck (rawc, v. 28). There is a
reference to the mountain of Yhwh, the Rock (rwc) of Israel (v. 29).73
Yhwh causes his voice
(lwq) to be heard and his arm ([wrz) descends in raging anger (@a @[z), a flame of
devouring fire (hlkwa va bhl), a driving storm (#pn), a downpour (~rz) and hailstones
72
Cf. Ps 18:9.
73
As I noted previously (particularly in Deuteronomy 32, see n. 51), the Gk uses qeo,j (“God”) where
the Heb uses rwc (“rock”).
22
(drb !ba, v. 30). The Assyrians will be filled with terror (ttx, niphal) at the sound of
Yhwh’s voice when Yhwh smites (hkn, hiphil) with his rod (v. 31). The breath (hmvn) of
Yhwh is described as kindling the pyre prepared for the [Assyrian] king (v. 33).
3.4.2. Joel
The metaphor of God as a lion occurs in a theophanic passage in Joel 4. Yhwh roars
(gav) from Zion and gives his voice (wlwq !ty) from Jerusalem (v. 16),74
causing the
heavens and earth to shake (v[r, v. 16);75
Yhwh is called a refuge (hsxm) and mountain
stronghold (zw[m) for the people of Israel (v. 16). Also noteworthy is the apparent influence
of Yhwh over the elements (the darkening of the sun, moon, and stars) in v. 15 and the
reference to Zion as “my [Yhwh’s] holy mountain” (yvdq-rh) in v. 17.
3.4.3. Nahum
Much of the imagery and vocabulary in Nahum 1 makes use of the warrior-god and
storm-god motifs. From the beginning, Yhwh is portrayed as avenging and wrathful toward
his enemies (v. 2), and later Yhwh’s wrath is likened to a pouring out like fire (va) and
rocks are demolished (#tn, niphal) by Yhwh (v. 6).76
Yhwh is also referred to as a
stronghold (zw[m, v. 7). The storm-god imagery particularly becomes apparent in v. 3b,
which states that Yhwh’s way is in the “destructive wind-storm” (hpws) and the “tempest”
(hr[f), with the clouds (!n[) as dust of his feet. Yhwh rebukes the sea, making it dry;
74
The exact same grouping of poetic lines (wlwq !ty ~Ølvwrymw / gavy !wycm hwhy) also occurs in
Amos 1:2.
75
Cf. Hag 2:6.
76
The content of v. 2 is tempered a bit in the following verse, which mentions the mighty Yhwh’s
sense of justice (not sparing the guilty) and compassion (slow to anger, v. 3a).
23
Bashan and Carmel wither, and the bloom of Lebanon fades (v. 4). The mountains shake
(v[r), hills melt (gwm, hithpolel), the earth is laid waste from before him [Yhwh] (v. 5).
Yhwh uses an overflowing flood (@jv) as a weapon against his adversaries in v. 8.
3.5. Appearances to the Patriarchs and Call Narratives
Theophanies involving the appearances to the patriarchs and call narratives have been
grouped together due to the fact that these passages often contain a different type of
theophanic experience; the focus in these passages tends to be upon the verbal revelation to a
particular individual, not the appearance of the deity itself which may only be noted briefly
and often without any description of the actual appearance. Some appearances of the deity to
the patriarchs include Abraham at Shechem (Gen 12:6-7), Abraham and Sarah at Mamre
(Gen 18:1-33), Isaac at Beersheba (Gen 26:24-25), Jacob at Bethel (Gen 28:10-22), and
Jacob at Peniel (Gen 32:23-33).77
Some famous prophetic call narratives include those of
77
Even among these examples, there is quite a bit of variation. The stories of Abraham at Shechem and
saac at Beersheba only mention that God “appeared” (har) to the patriarch and spoke. The appearance of God
to Jacob at Bethel was during a dream (and, hence, is not classified as a true “theophany” by some scholars;
e.g., Davies, “Theophany,” 619). The other two stories (Abraham and Sarah at Mamre and Jacob at Peniel) are
unusual in that they seem to involve an appearance of God in actual human form, though the appearance to
Abraham and Sarah is somewhat ambiguous since it involved three strangers (presumably God and two angels);
E. J. Hamori (“When Gods Were Men”: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature [BZAW
384; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008]) has written a detailed analysis of these passages, including a
comparison with other ANE theophanies. See also B. T. Arnold, Genesis (NCBC; New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2009) 174-87 (Genesis 18) and 277-87 (Genesis 32); J. Barr, “Theophany and
Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament,” in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 (ed. G. W. Anderson, et al.;
VTSup 7; Leiden: Brill, 1960) 31-38; T. E. Fretheim, “The Book of Genesis: ntroduction, Commentary, and
Reflections,” in NIB (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1994) 1. 319-674, esp. 1. 461-65 (Genesis 18) and 564-70
(Genesis 32); J. Skinner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis (ICC; New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1910) 298-306 (Genesis 18; esp. p. 298) and 405-12 (Genesis 32); E. A. Speiser, Genesis (AB
1; New York: Doubleday, 1964) 128-35 (Genesis 18) and 252-57 (Genesis 32); S. Spero, “But Abraham Stood
Yet Before the Lord,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 36 (2008) 12-14; M. D. Wessner, “Toward a Literary
Understanding of ‘Face to Face’ (~ynIP'-la, ~ynIP') in Genesis 32:23-32,” ResQ 42 (2000) 169-77; C.
Westermann, Genesis 12 – 36 (Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985) 272-93 (Genesis 18) and 502-11 (Genesis 32).
24
Moses (Exodus 3), Gideon (Judges 6), Samuel (1 Samuel 3), Isaiah (Isaiah 6), Jeremiah
(Jeremiah 1), and Ezekiel (Ezekiel 1 – 3).78
Given the significant differences, these passages are not as important for the current
study as are the other theophanic passages which have been discussed above in more detail;79
however, it is interesting to note a few broad points of similarity. Mountains are a common
motif and are found in the story of Abraham’s (almost) sacrifice of Isaac on a mountain near
Moriah (Gen 22:2), and the call narratives of Abraham (Gen 12:9) and Moses (Exodus 3).80
Also, whereas the appearance of the deity featured in storm-god and warrior-god motifs
inspires fear and trembling (of both nature and people), a similar reaction often occurs on an
individual, personal level in the patriarchal and call narratives. These include Jacob’s
reaction to his dream “theophany” at Bethel (Gen 28:17), Moses’ reaction to the burning
bush (Exod 3:6), Gideon’s reaction to the angel of Yhwh (Judg 6:22-23), Manoah and his
78
For more detailed analyses of one or more of these call narratives, see J. O. Akao, “Yahweh and
Mal’ak in the Early Traditions of srael: A Study of the Underlying Traditions of Yahweh/Angel Theophany in
Exodus 3,” IBS 12 (1990) 72-85; L. C. Allen, Ezekiel 1 – 19 (WBC 28; Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994) 1-45;
Brueggemann, “Book of Exodus,” 707-21 (esp. 712); R. K. Gnuse, The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its
Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and Its Theological Significance (Lanham: University
Press of America, 1984), esp. pp. 134-40 regarding the structure of call narratives, and “Dreams in the Night –
Scholarly Mirage or Theophanic Formula? The Dream Report as a Motif of the So-called Elohist Tradition,” BZ
39 (1995) 28-53; Habel, “The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives,” 297-323; Klein, 1 Samuel, 27-35,
esp. 30; P. K. McCarter, Jr., 1 Samuel (AB 8; New York: Doubleday, 1980) 94-101; Meyers, Exodus, 46-62
(esp. 51-57); Polak, “Theophany and Mediator,” 118-26; Propp, Exodus 1 – 18, 180-243; J. D. W. Watts, Isaiah
1 – 33 (WBC 24; Waco: Word, 1985) 66-77. B. C. Birch (“The First and Second Books of Samuel:
Introduction, Commentary, and Reflections,” in NIB (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998) 2. 989-95, here 2.
991) thinks that “theophany” is a better designation for this passage than “call narrative.”
79
Differences such as these are what prompt some scholars to make a distinction between “epiphany”
and “theophany.” See also the section titled “Use of the Term ‘Theophany’” above.
80
Several patriarchal and call narratives occur at other specific “holy” sites, particularly sanctuaries
(e.g., Shechem, Bethel), instead of mountains. See also J. Lindblom, “Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew
Religion,” HUCA 32 (1961) 91-106.
25
wife’s reactions to the angel of Yhwh (Judg 13:6, 20), and Ezekiel’s reaction to his vision of
Yhwh (Ezek 1:28).81
3.6. Mt. Horeb and Elijah (1 Kings 19:9-18)
Another well-known theophany occurs in 1 Kgs 19:9-18.82
Elijah has just fled from
Queen Jezebel shortly after the showdown with the prophets of Ba‘al culminating in their
death as ordered by Elijah (18:20-40), in retaliation for which Jezebel has threatened to have
him killed (19:1-2). Elijah flees to Mt. Horeb where the Word of Yhwh (hwhy-rbd)
instructs him to stand upon the mountain before Yhwh (vv. 9-11). Yhwh passes by (rb[)
and there is a great and severe wind (qzhw hlwdg xwr) that tears apart the mountains
(~yrh qrpm) and shatters rocks (~y[ls rbvm, v. 11). Then there is an earthquake
(v[r), followed by a fire (va, vv. 11-12). In each case – wind, earthquake, and fire – the
text specifies that Yhwh was not in any of them. nstead, Yhwh’s presence is indicated by the
voice of a slight whisper (hqd hmmd lwq), at which point Elijah covers his face and steps
out the cave to speak with Yhwh (vv. 12-13).
81
It is also common for the verbal revelation from God (directly or via a messenger) to begin with an
admonition for the individual not to be afraid (e.g., Gen 15:1; 21:17; 26:24; 46:3; Exod 20:20; Judg 6:23), thus
again associating fear with contact or communication with the divine.
82
For more detailed analyses, see M. Cogan, 1 Kings (AB 10; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 449-58; S.
J. De Vries, 1 Kings (WBC 12; Waco: Word, 1985) 232-37; P. R. House, 1, 2 Kings (New American
Commentary 8; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995) 222-24; Kunz, Self-Revelation of God, 147-54; J. A.
Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark,
1951, 19762) 312-18; C.-L. Seow, “The First and Second Book of Kings,” in NIB (12 vols.; Nashville:
Abingdon, 1999) 3. 1-295, here 141-45; J. T. Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996)
264-82.
26
I discuss this passage last because it shows an interesting development from the usual
pattern. The theophany on a mountain is a common motif (e.g., Exodus 3; 19 – 24).83
Also
common are the natural phenomena that accompany the theophanic experience (here: wind,
earthquake, fire), and the vocabulary is similar to that of other theophanic passages.84
However, whereas Yhwh spoke to Moses from the fire (e.g., Exod 3:2, 4), the author of the
theophany in 1 Kings emphasizes that Yhwh is not in any of these natural phenomena, not
even the fire.
4. Storm-god and Warrior-god Motifs in the ANE
Both storm-god and warrior-god motifs occur frequently in the texts and iconography
of various ANE cultures. Many storm-gods were often portrayed with warrior imagery;
however, not all warrior-gods were storm-gods.85
Also, questions have recently been raised,
particularly by Daniel Schwemer, regarding the appropriate distinction between genuine
“storm-gods” and powerful deities who occasionally use storm-related weapons as part of
their warrior-based arsenal but otherwise do not have any responsibilities typically associated
83
See also the discussion regarding the importance of mountains and divine encounters in the section
titled “Sinai Theophanies and Moses” above.
84
The corresponding verbal root (v[r) for v[;r; (“earthquake”) in 1 Kgs 19:11 occurs in Judg 5:4; 2
Sam 22:8 (// Ps 18:8); Pss 68:8; 77:19; Joel 4:16, all of which are theophanic passages that speak of the earth
“shaking” as a result of the divine presence.
85
For example, the Mesopotamian god Erra was a god of “violence, warfare, pestilence, and ‘scorched
earth’” (B. R. Foster, “Mesopotamia,” in A Handbook of Ancient Religion [ed. J. R. Hinnells; New York:
Cambridge University Press, 2007: 161-213] 178), a god of plague and the underworld (S. Daley, Myths from
Mesopotamia [New York: Oxford University Press, 1989] 282-315, here 282), but not a storm-god. Likewise,
the Mesopotamian sun-god Shamash was often portrayed as a warrior-god (Foster, “Mesopotamia,” 176), which
is also indicated by an iconographic depiction on a ninth-century B.C.E. Neo-Assyrian cylinder (Klingbeil,
Yahweh Fighting from Heaven, 197; fig. 28). In contrast to the storm-god, terrestrial or subterranean water-gods
(as opposed to celestial or atmospheric weather-gods) were more likely to be portrayed as peaceful, particularly
toward humanity (e.g., the Sumerian water-god Enki // Akkadian god Ea [A. Cotterell, A Dictionary of World
Mythology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986) 25-26; Foster, “Mesopotamia,” 176]).
27
with a “storm-god” (e.g., fertilizing rains).86
Since it is the combination of these motifs in
their application to one deity that is of primary (though not exclusive) interest for the current
study, it is not necessary to distinguish precisely what constitutes a genuine “storm-god”
here. However, Schwemer’s observation may be important later with regard to whether
Yhwh is intended to be portrayed as a genuine “storm-god” or rather primarily as a warrior-
god who has merely assumed weaponry typically associated with storm-gods (e.g., lightning,
storms) as part of Yhwh’s dominion over everything.87
4.1. Atmospheric and Natural Elements as Weapons
Perhaps the most prominent atmospheric weapon used by ANE gods is lightning,
often depicted or described as the “arrows” of the god. In ANE iconography, as Klingbeil
86
D. Schwemer, “The Storm-gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies, Part
I,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 7 (2007) 121-68, here 123-29. According to Schwemer, the list of
gods “misleadingly addressed as ‘storm-gods’ in secondary literature” include: Enlil, Ninurta (Ningirsu),
Marduk, Anzu(d)-Anzû, Dagān, and tūrmēr (not to be confused with the actual storm-god W/Mēr) (ibid., 125-
29; quotation from p. 125). In his article, Schwemer criticizes works such as A. R. W. Green’s The Storm-God
in the Ancient Near East (Biblical and Judaic Studies 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003) as being
methodologically flawed by an overly-broad definition of “storm-god” (Schwemer, “Storm-gods, Part 1,” 125
n. 2) and, thus, Schwemer limits the most important ANE storm-gods to: the Semitic Haddu (West Semitic
Hadda, Haddu, Hadad [Syria-Palestine, Upper Mesopotamia]; Akkadian Adad, Addu [Babylonia, Assyria]),
Syro-Palestinian Ba‘lu (Ba‘al), Hurrian Teshub (Teššub [Teššob], with Urartian Teišeba [Syria, Mesopotamia,
Kurdish mountain area, Anatolia]), Hattian Taru, and Hittite-Luwian Tarhun(t) (ibid., 125).
87
Unlike the Canaanite storm-god Ba‘al, Yhwh is not depicted as a fertility-god in the OT nor as
having a female consort. However, archeological evidence has raised the question whether Asherah may have
been viewed as Yhwh’s consort (perhaps due to an association of Yhwh with El, whose consort was Asherah) in
the folk religion (i.e., not sanctioned by the official religious institution) of ancient Israel; for more detailed
discussion, see W. G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005) esp. 176-51; J. M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah
(Cambridge: University Press, 2000); O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in
Ancient Israel (trans. T. H. Trapp; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998) 177-281; M. S. Smith, The Early History
of God (The Biblical Resource Series; 2nd
ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002) 108-47; Z. Zevit, The Religions
of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (New York: Continuum, 2001) 650-51.
28
notes, the bundle of lightning is the most important identifier of a weather-god.88
Some
deities who are described or depicted as wielding lightning include: Adad, Ba‘al, Hadad,
škur, Marduk, Ninurta, and the Hittite Storm-god (dU). Thus, there is a passage in which the
Hittite Storm-god helps defeat the enemy of Muršiliš with a lightning bolt:
The proud Weather god, my Lord, showed his divine power, and he violently threw
down a thunderbolt, and Arzawa land saw it, too, and the thunderbolt went forth and
smote Arzawa land, and also smote Apasa, the city of Uhha-LU-iš.89
Also, note the following description of Ba‘al’s arsenal:
Seven lightning bolts he casts,
Eight magazines of thunder;
He brandishes a spear of lightning.90
These deities are also often associated with thunder, thunderstorms, rain and/or floods; see
for example, below from the description of Marduk preparing to battle Tiamat:
He fashioned a bow …
Feathered the arrow, set it in the string,
He lifted up a mace and carried it in his right hand,
Slung the bow and quiver at his side,
Put lightning in front of him,
88
Klingbeil, Yahweh Fighting from Heaven, 246. He also notes that three-forked lightning bundle is
typically Hittite or Assyrian, while a two-forked bundle is usually Babylonian (ibid., 244). Several seals and
cylinders with this motif from the eleventh-eighth centuries B.C.E. have been found (ibid., 244-46).
89
Annals of Muršiliš II 17.16-19 (Niehaus, God at Sinai, 129).
90
Cross, Canaanite Myth, 148; Cross notes that “the last line is filled out with the denominative verb
ymm, ‘to do with the right hand,’ used both in Hebrew and at Ugarit (cf. CTA 23.37-38) of throwing or shooting
darts” (ibid, n. 5).
29
His body was filled with an ever-blazing flame.
He made a net to encircle Tiamat with it,
Marshalled [sic] the four winds so that no part of her could escape:
…
He created the imhullu-wind … the tempest, the whirlwind,
…
The lord raised the flood-weapon, …
And mounted the frightful, unfaceable storm-chariot.91
Various Assyrian gods are portrayed using atmospheric/natural elements in battle
against Kashtiliash V of Babylon in the “Tukulti-Ninurta Epic.”92
Assur kindles a “biting
flame” against the enemies and Enlil fans the “burning flame” in the midst of the enemy. 93
Adad sends a “flood-wind” against them.94
4.2. Mythic Battles
One type of ANE mythic battle that is particularly noteworthy is a storm-/sky-
/warrior-god against the sea and/or (possibly sea-)serpent/dragon. Theodor H. Gaster cites
various parallelisms among the following myths based on this common motif: Sumerian god
Ninurta vs. Azag, Akkadian god Marduk vs. Tiamat, Indian god Indra vs. Vritra, Canaanite
god Ba‘al vs. Yam (sea), Greek god Zeus vs. Typhon, Hittite storm-god vs. dragon Illuyanka,
91
Enuma Elish, Tablet IV (Daley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 251).
92
Niehaus, God at Sinai, 133.
93
Cf. Ps 18:9; Isa 30:27, 30.
94
Cf. Isa 30:30.
30
and the Phoenician god Kronos vs. dragon Ophion.95
Examples of possible parallels to this
motif in the OT include Yhwh’s victory over the dragons/serpents Rahab (Job 26:12; Ps
89:11; Isa 51:9) and Leviathan (Ps 74:14; Isa 27:1).
4.3. Effects on Nature
Theophanic descriptions of the appearance of warrior-like storm-gods have a similar
effect on nature to Yhwh’s impact as noted above. For example, in the Ugaritic “Ba‘al
Cycle,” we find the following:
So now may Baal make his rain abundant,
May he make the water greatly abundant in a downpour,
And may he give his voice in the clouds,
May he flash to the earth lightning.96
Then later:
Baal opened a break in the clouds,
Baa[l] gave forth his holy voice.
Baal repeated the is[sue of (?)] his [li(?)]ps
His ho[ly (?)] voice covered (?) the earth,
[At his] voice … the mountains trembled.
The ancient [mountains?] leapt [up?],
95
T. H. Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Dreams in the Ancient Near East (New York: Schuman,
1950) 140-51. Another sky-god vs. a serpent(-god) myth involves the Egyptian god Re (Ra) vs. the serpent
Apophis (Cotterell, World Mythology, 43-44). Also, the Canaanite warrior-goddess Anat claims victory over the
serpent associated with Yam (N. Wyatt, “Religion in Ancient Ugarit,” in A Handbook of Ancient Religion (ed. J.
R. Hinnells; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007: 105-60) 116.
96
KTU 1.4 V.6-9 (translation: M. Smith and W. T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Vol. II [VTSup
114; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009] 81).
31
The high places of the ear[th] tottered.
The enemies of Baal took to the woods, …97
n the first passage, Ba‘al is portrayed as controlling the rain/downpours and lightning, with
his voice in the clouds, presumably thunder (cf. Ps 18:14). In the second passage, Baal’s
voice causes the mountains to tremble (cf. Exod 19:18; Ps 18:8) and his enemies flee (cf. Ps
68:13). A frequent title for Ba‘al is the “Cloud-Rider.”98
4.4. Smiting Enemies
In several texts, a storm-/warrior-god is depicted as smiting (smashing, shattering,
etc.) an enemy, including the human enemies of their worshippers. It was mentioned above
that the Hittite Storm-god “smites” the enemy of Muršiliš with lightning.99
n the “Tukulti-
Ninurta Epic,” Ninurta is mentioned as “shattering” the weapons of the Babylonians.100
This
imagery has parallels in OT passages such as Exod 15:6, 14-16; Deut 32:23, 41-43; 1 Sam
2:10; Pss 18:15; 68:22; and Isa 30:31.
4.5. Storm- and/or Warrior-gods and Mountains
Several ANE storm-/warrior-gods were thought to dwell in, or otherwise be closely
connected with mountains; Schwemer notes that the connection of storm-gods with
mountains is very frequent in geographic regions where cloud-topped mountains are
97
KTU 1.4 VII.28-35 (translation: Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Vol. II, 84).
98
For example: KTU 1.2 IV.8; 1.3 IV.4; cf. Deut 33:26; Pss 18:11; 68:34.
99
Annals of Muršiliš II 17.16-19 (Niehaus, God at Sinai, 129).
100
Cf. Exod 15:6; 19:6; 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 68:22; Isa 30:31.
32
visible.101
The sanctuary of Enlil, Sumerian god of earth (but with power over the skies), was
located at Nippur in northern Sumer and called Ekur (“mountain-house”).102
The Canaanite
god Ba‘al was closely connected with Mt. Saphon.103
5. Conclusion
As this Introduction has indicated, there is a lot of diversity of scholarly opinion with
regard to the form, development, original Sitz im Leben, and even definition of “theophany.”
In the present study, the primary interest is with theophanic descriptions in which God is
portrayed using storm-god and/or warrior-god motifs in particular. These specific theophanic
motifs are found throughout the OT and were widely used throughout the ANE; the latter
solidly indicates mythological (e.g., Marduk vs. Tiamat in the Enuma Elish creation myth)
and historical uses of the storm-/warrior-god motif (e.g., Muršiliš crediting the Hittite storm-
god for striking an enemy with a lightning bolt, thus leading to victory over the enemy). The
theories and insights of authors (e.g., Jeremias) that are directly applicable to the storm-
/warrior-god theophany accounts will potentially be more valuable for my exegesis of the
theophanies in Mic 7:7-20; Hab 3:1-19; and Zech 9:9-16 and in the cross-analysis of these
passages in the final chapter than those who do not directly address this type of theophany.
Chapter Two will discuss the history of research on the books of Micah, Habakkuk,
and Zechariah, as well as theories about composition and redaction of the Twelve (Minor)
Prophets. Then I shall present exegetical analyses of Mic 7:7-20 (Chapter Three); Hab 3:1-19
101
Schwemer, “Storm-gods, Part 1,” 130.
102
Foster, “Mesopotamia,” 175; see also Green, Storm-god, 35.
103
Wyatt, “Religion in Ancient Ugarit,” 118.
33
(Chapter Four); and Zech 9:9-16 (Chapter Five), in terms of the historical-critical and text-
critical issues they pose and evaluating their theophanic characteristics based on the
observations made in this introduction. The study of these passages will focus on the Hebrew
text; however, I shall also pay attention to the Greek, Syriac, and Latin translations as early
witnesses to the text of these passages. Chapter Six will synthesize the data from the previous
chapters as part of a cross-analysis of the three texts with emphasis on their theophanic
motifs. Intertextual connections and possible implications of this study with regard to
redaction criticism of the three books individually and collectively within the Twelve
Prophets will be addressed as well.
The purpose of this study is to investigate what insights may emerge from a cross-
analysis of these three theophanic texts in the Twelve Prophets whose attributed authors span
three different centuries. I chose these three passages as the result of an analysis of similar
vocabulary directly with one another and indirectly through some of the Psalms. This study
may provide insights into the use or incorporation of theophanic imagery in the Twelve
Prophets and the possible implications for redactional studies of these texts individually and
within the larger context of the Twelve Prophets. For example, if a text of uncertain dating
can be shown to have connections with other texts which are more reliably dated to the exilic
or postexilic period (e.g., Micah 7 and Zechariah 9) according to the overall scholarly
consensus, this study could have an impact on the dating of a text whose dating remains
controversial (e.g., Habakkuk 3).
34
Chapter II
History of Research
This chapter will provide an overview of the history of research with regard to four
subjects relevant to this study: (1) theories regarding the redaction/compilation of the Twelve
Prophets; (2) previous research regarding Micah, especially 7:7-20; (3) previous research
regarding Habakkuk 3; and (4) previous research regarding Zechariah, especially 9:9-16. The
history of research regarding Micah, Habakkuk, and Zechariah focuses largely on delimiting
pericopes, structure of the passage, and dating. I have not included individual analyses of the
various scholars’ proposals summarized in this chapter because a more detailed discussion
and critique regarding delimitation, structure, and dating for each passage are provided in the
corresponding chapters (Chapters III – V) instead.
1. Redaction/Compilation of the Twelve Prophets
Many theories have been proposed regarding the composition and redaction history of
the Twelve Prophets. This section will summarize some of the theories proposed thus far.1 A
brief analysis of the various theories is provided in the conclusion of this section; for
practical purposes, a more detailed analysis is not included because the focus of this study is
1 The focus of this section will be on theories that provide a comprehensive view of proposed stages
for the compilation/redaction of the Twelve Prophets. This is not to downplay the value of synchronic
treatments of the Twelve (e.g., P. R. House, The Unity of the Twelve [JSOTSup 97; Bible and Literature Series
27; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990]), intertextual comparisons (e.g., E. W. Conrad, “Forming the
Twelve and Forming Canon,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve [ed. P. L. Redditt and A. Schart;
BZAW 325; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 2003] 90-103; R. L. Schulz, “The Ties that Bind: Intertextuality,
the Identification of Verbal Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads
in the Book of the Twelve [ed. P. L. Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 2003]
27-45), or thematic studies (e.g., P.-G. Schwesig, Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheton
[BZAW 366; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 2006]), each of which can also provide useful insights regarding
the organization of the Twelve Prophets and whether the Twelve Prophets should be read individually or as a
collective whole – or both.
35
not to create a new theory for the compilation or redaction of the Twelve but to investigate
the use of the storm-/warrior-god motif within the Twelve, specifically in the three passages
of interest (Mic 7:7-20; Habakkuk 3, and Zech 9:9-16). However, a general familiarity with
the various redaction/compilation theories may assist in relating the passages to one another
or, at least, provide a means of comparison for the findings of this study when trying to
provide a date of composition for each passage relative to the other two.
1.1. David Noel Freedman (1991)2
There are couple of things that are particularly notable about Freedman’s work, The
Unity of the Twelve. One notable aspect involves what he calls the Primary History (Genesis
– Kings, primarily consisting of the Priestly Work [P-work] and the Deuteronomist’s work
[D-work]) and the Chronicler’s work (C-work) compared to the Latter Prophets, which forms
a bridge between the Primary History and Writings. The other notable aspect is the
connections he makes between each book of the “minor” prophets and a book of the “major”
prophets.
Although Freedman thinks the present form of the C-work is postexilic in date and
that Ezra might have been the ultimate editor of the previous C-work, Freedman suggests that
perhaps there was a preexilic version of the work that ended with the reign of the
Chronicler’s hero, King Hezekiah.3 He connects the C-work with Isaiah; meanwhile, he
connects First Isaiah with the eighth-century prophets Hosea, Amos, and Micah, and Second
2 D. N. Freedman, The Unity of the Hebrew Bible (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991).
Below is a summary of his lecture on the Latter Prophets (pp. 41-73) as it pertains to the composition and
redaction of the Twelve.
3 Ibid., 48-49, 72.
36
Isaiah with the postexilic prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.4 Thus, he views the two
groups of minor prophetic books as forming an envelope around the Twelve Prophets, just as
First Isaiah and Second Isaiah chronologically form an envelope around Jeremiah.5
Freedman dates the major editorial activity responsible for the Primary History, the P-
work and the D-work, to the seventh century B.C.E.6 He thinks that the Deuteronomist Group
was based in Egypt during the Exile, thus explaining its connections with Jeremiah.7
However, he also does not think that while Jeremiah had anything to do with the D-work
itself, but that perhaps his scribe, Baruch, was part of a small group of Deuteronomists who
were responsible for its promulgation.8 In any event, the parallel content between 2 Kings 25
and Jeremiah 52 indicates that a redactor wanted to link the books; Freedman dates this
redaction to ca. 562/1 B.C.E. In addition, Freedman connects Jeremiah to the seventh-century
minor prophets Nahum, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk.9
Freedman thinks that the Priestly Group was based in Babylon during the Exile, thus
explaining its connections with Ezekiel.10
However, he does not think that Ezekiel himself
was part of the Priestly Group; rather, that the latter co-opted Ezekiel and his work for their
4 Ibid., 49-52. Note: Freedman’s grouping of Hosea, Amos, and Micah as forming the first part of the
“envelope” around the minor prophets disregards the placement of Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah, all of which
precede Micah in the MT’s order. However, it fits perfectly well with the LXX’s order.
5 Ibid., 51.
6 Ibid., 46.
7 Ibid., 48.
8 Ibid., 47.
9 Ibid., 51.
10
Ibid., 48.
37
objectives, despite some differences between Ezekiel and the P-work.11
The Minor Prophets
that Freedman connects with Ezekiel are Obadiah, Joel, and Jonah; however, this is primarily
via a process of elimination based on the connections already established among the other
books mentioned above.12
Of the three, the closest connection to Ezekiel is with Obadiah, but
Freedman admits that Obadiah is more closely connected with Jeremiah than Ezekiel.13
He
mentions that Jonah is commonly dated to the late exilic or postexilic period, though the
prophet’s lifetime in the book would be dated to the eighth century (see 2 Kgs 14:25). The
dating of Joel is left indeterminate as Freedman considers any attempt to date it as
problematical.14
With regard to the formation of the Latter Prophets complex, Freedman suggests
three chronological phases focusing around the Fall of Jerusalem and the Babylonian Exile.15
Phase One consists of the antecedent events of the eighth century and includes First Isaiah,
Amos, Hosea, and Micah. Phase Two is the Fall of Jerusalem and the Exile (late seventh –
early sixth centuries); the associated prophetic books include Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Nahum,
Zephaniah, Habakkuk, Obadiah, and possibly Joel and Jonah. Phase Three, which overlaps
with the end of Phase Two and dates to ca. 550 B.C.E. but possibly into the fifth century,
relates to the return from Exile and the rebuilding of the city and temple in Jerusalem; the
11
Ibid., 71. However, Freedman elsewhere claims that Ezekiel was a “dominant voice in the
preparation and production of … the Primary History and the exilic Prophetic Corpus” (ibid., 47).
12
Ibid., 52. In contrast, a connection between Ezekiel and the “Haggai-Zechariah corpus” (Haggai,
Zechariah 1–8) is made by S. S. Tuell (“Haggai-Zechariah: Prophecy after the Manner of Ezekiel,” in Thematic
Threads in the Book of the Twelve [ed. P. L. Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter,
2003] 273-91).
13
Freedman, Unity of the Hebrew Bible, 52.
14
Ibid.
15
Ibid., 63-64.
38
associated works are Second (and possibly Third) Isaiah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi.
Freedman thinks that the original collection of the Twelve ended with Zechariah 7–8 and had
been compiled by the late sixth century; Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi, which Freedman views
as a collection of three anonymous prophecies ranging from the eighth century to the end of
the sixth century or later, were added sometime later.16
1. 2. James Nogalski (1993)17
Focusing largely on “catchwords” functioning as seams between prophetic books,
Nogalski has written two books devoted to exploring the transmission/redaction of the
Twelve Prophets into a single compilation: The Twelve. Nogalski suggests that there were
two multi-volume prophetic corpora in circulation independently before they were later
compiled into a single prophetic corpus. He calls one of these multi-volume precursors of the
Twelve the “Deuteronomistic Corpus,” containing Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah; as
the name suggests, Nogalski thinks that these books bear the marks of Deuteronomistic
theology which indicates (along with other observations) their common literary
transmission.18
Nogalski thinks that the contents of the “Deuteronomistic Corpus” presume a
time after 587 B.C.E. and that the use of Northern and Southern traditions is intended to
16
Ibid., 50-51.
17
J. Nogalski, Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 217; Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter, 1993) and Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 218; Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter, 1993). For a critique of the methodology used by Nogalski, see E. Ben Zvi, “Twelve Prophetic Books
or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and
the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (ed. J. W. Watts and P. R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996) 125-56.
18
Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 18, 278. Regarding the theory of a four-volume precursor of the
Twelve consisting of Amos, Hosea, Micah, and Zephaniah (or parts thereof), see also R. Albertz, “Exile as
Purification: Reconstructing the ‘Book of the Four,’” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. P. L.
Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003) 232-51 (cf. R. Bornand, “Un ‘livre des
quatre’ précurseur des douze petits prophètes?” ETR 82 [2007] 549-66).
39
address the concerns of exilic and postexilic Judah.19
The other multi-volume precursor is
called the “Haggai-Zechariah Corpus,” containing Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 and
documenting “the prophetic impetus which led to the reconstruction of the temple.”20
Later, in connection with the “Joel-related Layer,” the two multi-volume corpora
were combined while also merging and adapting Joel, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and
Malachi into their present locations.21
Nogalski thinks that the formative compilation of the
larger corpus presupposes Joel as a literary corpus and he agrees with those who date Joel to
the first half of the fourth century B.C.E.; thus, the suggestion is that the compilation took
place sometime after Joel was already in existence.22
He dates the final additions of Jonah
and Zechariah 9–14 to sometime after 332 B.C.E.23
One of the adaptations that Nogalski
attributes to the editors who added Jonah to the corpus is the incorporation of the hymn in
chap. 2 with an addendum in 2:9-10 that anticipates Micah.24
Nogalski agrees with the
assessment that Zechariah 9–14 reflects more than one layer of material and exhibits
“canonical awareness as a major element” in its formation; he suggests two editorial
movements to account for these chapters in their current context: (1) Zechariah 9–13 was
added as a transition from the hopeful message in Zechariah 7–8 to the negative tone
19
Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 279; idem, Literary Precursors, 278.
20
Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 278; quote from Redactional Processes, 274.
21
Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 275-76.
22
Ibid., 279. For another perspective on the role of Joel in the Twelve, see M. A. Sweeney, “The Place
and Function of Joel in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. P. L.
Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 2003) 133-54.
23
Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 280.
24
Ibid., 278.
40
evidenced by Malachi and was possibly added to the prophetic corpus at the same time as
Jonah; (2) Zechariah 14 was added as a redactional continuation of Zechariah 9–13.25
1. 3. Barry Alan Jones (1995)26
Jones proposes at least five stages of the formation of the Book of the Twelve based
on the manuscript evidence available and, more specifically, the order of books attested in
4QXIIa, the LXX, and the MT. The first two proposed stages are purely theoretical. Citing
previous scholarship on a possible “Book of the Nine” consisting of “three highly integrated
literary compilations,” Jones suggests that the earliest traceable stage in the formation of the
Twelve consists of the three chronological sub-groupings of Hosea-Amos-Micah, Nahum-
Habakkuk-Zephaniah, and Haggai-Zechariah-Malachi combined together into a prophetic
corpus.27
Later, in stage two, Joel and Obadiah were added between Micah and Nahum,
creating a “Book of the Eleven” (still without Jonah); Jones notes a high degree of literary
affinity between Joel, Obadiah, and Nahum that may reflect a possible unifying redactional
activity in these books.28
The third stage proposed by Jones is the addition of the unique book of Jonah to the
prophetic corpus, initially as the final book after Malachi as attested in 4QXIIa.29
Although
Jones notes that the order in 4QXIIa could be anomalous or erroneous, he cites two factors
that support the position of Jonah in 4QXIIa as a scribal tradition: (1) the multiplicity of
25
Ibid., 278-79.
26
B. A. Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve (SBLDS 149; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995).
27
Ibid., 55.
28
Ibid., 200, 227.
29
Ibid., 130.
41
ancient textual forms attested in Qumran; and (2) Jonah’s placement as last of the Twelve in
4QXIIa as being consistent with scholarship’s recognition regarding the uniqueness of Jonah
within the prophetic corpus, Jonah’s probable late date, and difference in primary themes of
Jonah compared to the other Minor Prophets.30
Jones notes that Jonah is the only book in the
Twelve to occupy three different positions within the manuscript witnesses and suggests that
4QXIIa represents the earliest of these three attested placements.
31
Stage four is represented by the LXX order, in which Jonah is placed between
Obadiah and Nahum. Jones thinks that the LXX’s order is a deliberate alteration of the
arrangement found in the proposed third stage above.32
He also suggests that the placement
before Nahum could be viewed as an appropriate twist, indicating that Nineveh’s repentance
(as described in Jonah) was short-lived, given the fate of Nineveh described in Nahum.33
Jones further suggests that the order found in the MT reflects a final, fifth stage. Here,
Joel was moved to the second place, between Hosea and Amos. Obadiah was moved to
fourth place, after Amos, followed by Jonah and then finally Micah. Jones suggests that the
placement of Jonah within the series of eighth-century prophets in the MT order seems to be
a further development in the interpretive history of Jonah with its eighth-century main
character prophet.34
With regard to Obadiah and Joel, Jones thinks that they were
30
Ibid., 130-31. For a summary concerning the Qumran MSS pertaining to the Twelve, see R. Fuller,
“The Text of the Twelve Minor Prophets,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 7 (1999) 81-95.
31
Jones, Formation, 129, 132.
32
Ibid., 170-71. Cf. Nogalski (Literary Precursors, 2), who thinks that the alternate LXX order is
derived from the MT’s order.
33
Jones, Formation, 214. On the relationship between Jonah and Nahum, see also B. Ego, “The
Repentance of Nineveh in the Story of Jonah and Nahum’s Prophecy of the City’s Destruction – A Coherent
Reading of the Book of the Twelve as Reflected in the Aggada,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve
(ed. P. L. Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003) 155-64.
34
Jones, Formation, 238.
42
intentionally composed in a style imitative of the eighth-century prophets with whom they
were subsequently grouped as a way of adding authority to the texts.35
This observation is
true for the LXX’s order, in which Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah appear consecutively between
the eighth-century prophets (Hosea, Amos, Micah) and the seventh-century prophets
(Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah). However, Jones also suggests that the insertion of the
(purportedly) later books of Joel, Obadiah, and Jonah into positions that mix them among the
eighth-century prophets in the MT’s order could not only be viewed as intended to make
them equal to the eighth-century prophets but perhaps even to give the impression of their
being the predecessors of the eight-century prophets (particularly in the case of Micah, which
is placed at the end of the first half of the Twelve).36
1. 4. Aaron Schart (1998, 2008)37
Schart proposes a six-step process in the compilation/redaction history of the
Twelve.38
First, an early form of Hosea and Amos were brought together into a Book of the
Two. Second, an early form of Micah and Zephaniah were added while Hosea and Amos
themselves were expanded as part of this “D-Corpus.” Third, the Nahum – Habakkuk
Corpus, believed by Schart to have already been compiled previously into a single work, was
added along with further expansions of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah. Fourth, the
Haggai – Zechariah Corpus (at least including Zechariah 1–8), also believed to have been
35
Ibid., 241.
36
Ibid.
37
A. Schart, Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im Rahmen
schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse (BZAW 260; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1998); idem, “Das
Zwölfprophetenbuch als redaktionelle Großeinheit,” TLZ 133 (2008) 227-46.
38
Schart, Entstehung, 315-17.
43
compiled into a single work prior to its incorporation into the larger corpus, were added
along with further additions to Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Nahum. Fifth, Joel and Obadiah
were added, increasing the number of component books to ten; also included in this layer are
additions to Hosea, Amos, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah. Sixth, Jonah and
Malachi were added, possibly with an addition to Zephaniah, thus creating the extant
collection of the Twelve Prophets.
1.5. Erhard S. Gersternberger (2003)39
Gersternberger merits a brief note regarding his alternative perspective regarding the
placement of psalm-like elements in the Twelve Prophets, which are of direct interest to this
study given the liturgical notations in Habakkuk 3 and possible psalm-like elements in Micah
7 and Zechariah 9. As noted by Gerstenberger, the common perspective of biblical scholars is
to treat these elements (especially those that have a clear cultic origin) as having been added
by later redactors to the prophetic discourses in which they appear. In contrast, Gerstenberger
proposes that perhaps it was the psalms (and similar elements) that comprised the original
foundation for the Twelve to which prophetic sayings and speeches were later added,
possibly as “retro-projected compositions of the late community, rather than the ‘classical’
prophetic authors mentioned in the superscriptions.”40
Gerstenberger does not develop this
idea in great detail; however, it may be useful to keep his theory in mind when analyzing the
three texts of interest in this study (Micah 7, Habakkuk 3, Zechariah 9), given the psalm-like
39
E. S. Gerstenberger, “Psalms in the Book of the Twelve: How Misplaced Are They?” in Thematic
Threads in the Book of the Twelve (ed. P. L. Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter,
2003) 72-89.
40
Ibid., 73, 85 (quoted text), 88.
44
elements in these passages, particularly in Habakkuk 3. One benefit of this approach is that,
if the psalms (and similar elements) were original to the texts of which they are currently a
part, it would help explain why the passages with hymns (or elements thereof) often suffer
from a higher degree of textual corruption than other texts (e.g., longer transmission process,
allowing more opportunities for scribal errors).
1. 6. Jakob Wöhrle (2006, 2008)41
Wöhrle proposes his own theory of the compilation and redaction of the Twelve in his
dissertation and Habilitationsschrift. The dissertation covers the early compilations and
redactions of the Twelve, particularly as they involve Hosea, Joel, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah,
Haggai, and Zechariah (at least chaps. 1–8).42
Wöhrle accepts the theory of an exilic Book of
the Four that included components of Hosea, Amos, Micah, and Zephaniah, to which was
added a DtrG (Deuteronomist) layer. In the first half of the fifth century, Joel (and its related
redactional corpus) was added to the Book of Four with Joel placed before Amos and taking
the place of Hosea; as a result, Wöhrle thinks that Hosea was separated from the group,
circulated independently, and only later was reintegrated into the collection. Also circulating
in the first half of the fifth century was a Book of Two, the Haggai – Zechariah corpus that
was eventually added to the modified Book of the Four (i.e., with Joel replacing Hosea).
41
J. Wöhrle, Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition
(BZAW 360; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2006); idem, Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches:
Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen (BZAW 389; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter,
2008). For a response to Wohrle’s proposal, see K. Spronk, “Jonah, Nahum, and the Book of the Twelve: A
Response to Jakob Wöhrle,” Journal of Hebrew Scriptures 9 (2009) Article 8 [online:
<http://www.jhsonline.org> accessed Dec. 28, 2010].
42
Wöhrle, Frühen Sammlungen, 462-67.
45
Wöhrle’s Habilitationsschrift extends his earlier theory, discussing the later
development of the Twelve.43
Around the turn of the fifth – fourth centuries, Nahum and
Deutero-Zechariah (chaps. 9–14) were added to the Joel-Corpus and the Haggai-Zechariah-
Corpus. Wörhle calls the resultant complex the Fremdvölker-Korpus I, beginning with Joel
and continuing with Amos, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Deutero-
Zechariah. Verses concerning a coming David and restoration of the monarchy were added to
Amos 9; Micah 4 and 5; and Zechariah 9 in the fourth century. Between the fourth – third
centuries, another redactional layer (Fremdvölker-Korpus II) was added; this included the
addition of Obadiah (composed at this time) and Malachi (part of which previously existed)
to the prophetic corpus. Wöhrle thinks that Habakkuk originated and circulated
independently and was only incorporated into the collection around the same time as the
Fremdvölker-Korpus II.
In the first half of the third century, the Heil-für-die-Völker-Korpus redactional layer
was added in Joel 3–4; Obadiah 17; Micah 4; 5; 7; Zephaniah 3; Zechariah 2; 8; 14. Then, in
the middle – second half of the third century, a Gnaden-Korpus based on Exod 34:6 was
inserted in Joel 2; Micah 7; Nahum 1; and Malachi 1. Jonah was also incorporated at this
time with the addition of the Gnaden-Korpus to the prophetic texts. Finally, Hosea was
reincorporated into the prophetic corpus as the last stage of the compilation and redaction of
the Twelve.
43
Wöhrle, Abschluss, 439-46.
46
1. 7. Conclusion
As one can see from the survey of the various compilation and redaction theories
regarding the Twelve Prophets, many scholars think that the bulk of Micah, Habakkuk, and
(Deutero-) Zechariah were incorporated at different stages in the compilation process.
However, there may be connections among verses in these different books that were added
during the same redactional phase (e.g., see Wöhrle). One scholar who has seen potential
connections among elements in Micah 7, Habakkuk 3, and Zechariah 9 (along with other
psalm-like passages) is Gerstenberger. However, Gerstenberger does not develop his idea
beyond the basic notion that the psalm-like elements were original to the books of which they
are a part and the other parts were added later.
As one would expect, each of the theories summarized above has both strengths and
weaknesses. The theories proposed by Freedman and Jones are concerned with an overall
incorporation of the Twelve Prophets into a single compilation; although they do not deny
the presence of later additions resulting from redactional activity, they do not focus in detail
on which parts of which books were later additions and if any of those later additions share a
common redactor. In contrast, Schart and Wöhrle each painstakingly attempt to trace the
different redactional layers among the books and, in doing so, each scholar proposes a very
complex redactional history for the Twelve. The benefit of this more detailed type of
approach, as with Nogalski’s use of “catchwords,” is that it recognizes specific linguistic
connections among the books and seek explanations for those connections. However, the
weakness of this approach is that there are possible explanations for many of the linguistic
similarities other than a common redactor as proposed by Schart, Wöhrle, and Nogalski –
e.g., perhaps separate authors were independently drawing from a common tradition or
47
source, or a later author could have intentionally borrowed material from (or been influenced
by) an earlier work. In other words, it is difficult to determine the source of intertextual
connections and, thus, conclusions based upon linguistic similarities attributed to a common
redactor are often tenuous, especially when taken to such a degree that a single verse is
broken down into multiple redactional layers. Also, a potential weakness of Nogalski’s use of
“catchwords” is that many of the “catchwords” identified by Nogalski are very common
words in the MT (e.g., “mountain,” “earth,” “hand”) and the clustering of certain words (e.g.,
“grain,” “vine,” “wine”) within a pericope could be the result of different authors borrowing
from a similar (e.g., agrarian) motif.44
As mentioned above, the primary weakness of
Gerstenburger’s theory that the psalm-like elements were original to the books of which they
are a part is that he does not try to develop the theory much beyond this basic suggestion.
Nevertheless, each of these scholars has made significant contributions to the study of the
Twelve Prophets and their works should be taken into consideration whenever the
composition or redaction of the Twelve is a possible factor in one’s study of the Twelve.
2. Micah
This section will provide a select survey of the history of research pertaining to Mic
7:7(8)-20. Of particular interest is scholarship on the incorporation of this pericope into the
book of Micah. Priority is given to scholars not already discussed in the section regarding
compilation/redaction theories of the Twelve Prophets.
44
For examples, see Nogalski, Literary Precursors, 20-57.
48
2.1. Hermann Gunkel (1924)45
Gunkel’s form-critical analysis of Mic 7:7(8)-20 as consisting of four parts has
become a standard in studies on this passage, even though the precise analysis and
interpretation may differ among subsequent scholars. The first part consists of vv. 7-10,
which form a dirge/lament (Klagelied) of the people/Zion. A response to Zion’s dirge follows
in vv. 11-13, which Gunkel characterizes as a prophetic oracle promising a positive future. A
communal dirge/lament (Volksklagelied) appears in vv. 14-17, albeit expanded beyond Zion
to all of Israel. The passage ends with an eschatological hymn in praise of Yhwh’s
forgiveness and assurance of future salvation (vv. 18-20). Gunkel treats the passage as a
unified liturgy dating from the time of Trito-Isaiah and believes that a dating to the
Maccabean period as proposed by some of his predecessors is unfounded.46
2.2. Artur Weiser (1967)47
In looking at the book of Micah synchronically, Weiser sees a two-fold pattern of
movement between “threat” (chaps. 1–3; 6:1-7:6) and “promise” (chaps. 4–5; 7:8-20).
Diachronically, Weiser considers 7:8-20 as an early postexilic prophetic liturgy which
presupposes the destruction of Jerusalem and whose contents are related to Isaiah 33 and 56–
66, and thus does not stem from the hand of the prophet Micah himself. Weiser divides the
passage into four parts. First, in vv. 8-10, God’s community responds to an enemy who
45
H. Gunkel, “Der Micha-Schluß: Zur Einführung in die literaturgeschichtliche Arbeit am Alten
Testament,” Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete 2 (1924) 145-78.
46
Ibid., 175-76.
47
A. Weiser, Das Buch der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten I: Die Propheten Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadja,
Jona, Micha (ATD 24/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967) 228-32, 287-90.
49
scoffs at the fallen community, saying that although the community must suffer God’s wrath,
God will again show favor and the community will rise from its shame and her enemy will be
trampled. Second, vv. 11-13 contain an oracle-style prophetic promise that God will
understand, encouraging the people in their hope. Third, vv. 14-17 in the form of a
lamentation, is the community’s appeal to God for help as in days past. Fourth, the prophetic
liturgy is concluded with a hymn in vv. 18-20 regarding the greatness of forgiveness of sin
based on the mercy of God.
2.3. Theodor Lescow (1972; 1995)48
Lescow’s analysis of Micah focuses heavily upon liturgical considerations. With
regard to Micah 7, Lescow traces an original tripartite early exilic liturgy that included: (1)
Zion’s complaint (vv. 1-2, 5, 6); (2) Zion’s trust (vv. 7-10a), and (3) Zion’s hope (vv. 18, 20).
When read with Mic 6:9-12, which Lescow labels a “penitential call,” Micah 7 is seen to
represent an early exilic prophetic penitential liturgy. A “wall-building oracle” (7:11-12) was
later added during the postexilic period, perhaps around the time of Nehemiah and the
rebuilding of the walls of Jerusalem, although an early postexilic date is also a possibility.
Another section, 7:14-17, was also added, consisting of two stanzas with an original Sitz im
Leben in a penitential liturgy. Lescow suggests that the aggressive tone of the second stanza
(vv. 16-17) may reflect a longer history of disappointed expectations and, hence, may
indicate a date around the fourth century B.C.E. He also suggests that Mic 6:1-7:20 was added
to chaps. 1–5 around the time of the Samaritan schism (ca. 330 B.C.E.).
48
T. Lescow, “Redaktiongeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 6–7,” ZAW 82 (1972) 182-212; idem, “Zur
Komposition des Buches Micha,” SJOT 9 (1995) 200-222.
50
2.4. Bernard Renaud (1977)49
Renaud proposes four stages in the composition of Micah, with the first being the
passages that are traced back to Micah himself: chaps. 1–3 (minus some redactional layers)
and 6:9-15. During the exilic second stage, some Deuteronomistic additions were added to
Micah 1–3, and 6:2-8 and 7:1-6 were placed around 6:9-15; at some point, 7:7 was added as
the end of this Deuteronomistic redaction.50
Some restructuring occurred during the
postexilic period (third stage), with 1:1-2 added to chaps. 1–3 while Mic 7:4b, 11-13, 15, and
17b were added to 6:1-7:7. Renaud thinks that Mic 7:8-10, 14-20 circulated independently in
Palestine as a song of confidence by the end of the exile and was appended by a major
redactor to the rest of Micah, along with chaps. 4–5. Renaud divides Mic 7:8-10, 14-20 into
four parts, which together form an easily recognizable psalmic pattern: evocation of enemies
(vv. 8-10 and vv. 16-17), prayer/supplication (vv. 14-15), and a hymn (vv. 18-20). As
indicated above, when the unit 7:8-10, 14-20 was added to Micah, vv. 11-13 and v. 17b were
incorporated into the structure and there was a revision of the wording of v. 15. Some final
editing (stage four) of Micah occurred sometime after 312 B.C.E.
49
B. Renaud, Formation du livre de Michée: Tradition et actualisation (EBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1977)
364-423.
50
For other perspectives regarding a Deuteronomistic redaction of Micah, see E. Ben Zvi, “A
Deuteronomistic Redaction in/among ‘The Twelve’? A Contribution from the Standpoint of the Books of
Micah, Zephaniah, and Obadiah,” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists (eds. L. S. Schearing and S. L. McKenzie;
JSOTSup 238; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 232-61; S. L. Cook, “Micah’s Deuteronomistic
Redaction and the Deuteronomists’ Identity,” in Those Elusive Deuteronomists (eds. L. S. Schearing and S. L.
McKenzie; JSOTSup 238; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 216-31. In contrast, J. Wöhrle (“‘No
Future for the Proud Exultant Ones’: The Exilic Book of the Four Prophets [Hos., Am., Mic., Zeph.] as a
Concept Opposed to the Deuteronomistic History,” VT 58 [2008] 609-27, esp. 626) suggests that the redactors
of the Book of the Four (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Zephaniah) present a different interpretation of the history told
in Kings whereby the poor of the land who remained during the exile constitute the remnant, not the return of
the upper-class exiles who were responsible for the cultic and social offenses that led to the Exile.
51
2.5. Hans W. Wolff (1982)51
Wolff traces parts of Micah 1–3 back to Micah himself; however, all other passages
are assigned by him to early exilic – postexilic stages, in which chaps. 4–5 were first added
to chaps. 1–3, followed by 6:1–7:7, and finally 7:8-20 (excluding vv. 11-13). He considers
Mic 7:8-20 to be a late addition to the text in order to make the book of Micah suitable for
liturgical use by the community. His exegesis of the segment distinguishes three different
psalms that have been combined into a single liturgical work whose speakers alternate
between a prophetic voice and the community. The first psalm is a song of confidence/trust
(vv. 8-10) conceptually similar to chaps. 1–3 and 4:9-13 from the early exilic period. The
second psalm is a prayer (vv. 14-17), which Wolff thinks is closer to chaps. 4–5 than to
chaps. 1–3 and thus to be dated to the exilic – postexilic period. The final psalm is a hymn
(vv. 18-20). Wolff considers 7:11-13 to be a commentary gloss that was added in the last
stage of the book’s redaction, along with 5:4b-5 and 7:4b, no earlier than the fifth century
B.C.E.
2.6. Burkard M. Zapff (1997)52
In his Habilitationsschrift, Zapff provides a detailed analysis of the redaction history
of Micah as an entire work and as part of the Twelve Prophets, especially in relation to its
canonical location between Jonah and Nahum. Zapff suggests a core text of Micah that
included the bulk of chaps. 1–3 as well as chap. 6, to which chaps. 4–5 were subsequently
51
H. W. Wolff, Dodekapropheton 4: Micha (BKAT 14/4; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag,
1982) xxvii - xxxvii.
52
B. M. Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton
(BZAW 256; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 1997) 206-7, 221-40, 280-93, 296-97.
52
added during the late preexilic – exilic periods. He considers Mic 7:7-20 as part of a mid-
third century B.C.E. expansion (Fortschreibung) layer added to the exilic form of Micah,
along with 1:2; 2:12-13; 3:11ab; 4:1-4, 6-7; 5:6-9a, 14; and 7:4b. Zapff departs from the
usual division of 7:8-20 into four parts, although the primary difference is that he breaks up
vv. 14-17, which most scholars keep together. Thus, Zapff divides the passage into the
following basic six parts:53
(1) A confession of faith (Vertrauensbekenntnis) in Yhwh by Zion (vv. 8-
10)54
(2) A promise of salvation (Heilsverheißung) by an unknown speaker to Zion
(vv. 11-13)
(3) A request/petition for Yhwh to embrace his flocks (v. 14), spoken by a
different speaker than in vv. 11-13
(4) A promise of salvation (Heilsverheißung), this time by Yhwh, that the
people will see the wonderful deeds such as occurred during the Exodus
from Egypt (v. 15)
(5) A description of the future reaction of the people to Yhwh’s salvific acts
(Heilstaten) (vv. 16-17)
(6) A song of praise (Loblied) about Yhwh’s forgiveness (vv. 18-20).
Zapff also notes an interesting connection between vv. 8-10 and vv. 14-17 when one leaves
aside vv. 11-13, finding a direct parallel between vv. 9c/10a and vv. 15/16a and an overall
repetition in the AB-C-A′-B′-C′-D′ pattern.55
53
Ibid., 206-7.
54
Verse 7 is not included with vv. 8-10 by Zapff because of a perceived shift in speaker (ibid., 206).
53
2.7. Jörg Jeremias (2007)56
Jeremias divides Micah into four parts (chaps. 1–3; chaps. 4–5; 6:1–7:7; and 7:8-20),
of which chaps. 1–3 form the core text with the rest of the material added during the exilic –
Hellenistic periods. He also divides 7:8-20 into four parts: (1) vv. 8-10 mention the “shame”
(Schmach) of the female enemy (presumably Edom); (2) vv. 11-13 describe the return of the
Diaspora; (3) vv. 14-17 focus on the image of the shepherd (God) and flock; and (4) vv. 18-
20 offer praise of the forgiving God. Jeremias considers vv. 8-10 and vv. 11-12 to be older
than vv. 14-17, but suggests that the latter verses are intended to be read with the former
verses as part of a reinterpretation. The inclusion of a final hymn (vv. 18-20) is not unusual
as a conclusion to prophetic books; Jeremias particularly notes the theophanic hymn in Hab
3:3-15 as an “incomparable” (unvergleichbar) example.57
Verse 13 was added during the
final redaction of the book, along with several other verses earlier in Micah (1:2; 5:8, 14;
6:1).
2.8. Bruce K. Waltke (2007)58
Waltke is among a few scholars who reject dating 7:7(8)-20 as postexilic. On the
contrary, he sees no reason to rule out the possibility that the passage is from the eighth
century itself, noting that the language of Micah as a whole is characteristically preexilic,
rather than postexilic, and that the “allegedly later religious ideas in Micah are found in
55
Ibid., 227.
56
J. Jeremias, Die Propheten: Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha (ATD 24/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 2007) 114-21, 219-32.
57
Ibid., 229.
58
B. K. Waltke, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007) 8-19, 429-66.
54
preexilic Jeremiah.59
Waltke’s analysis of Micah is similar to that of Weiser above, except
that Waltke analyzes the book into three cycles of “doom” and “hope” rather than two.
According to his analysis, Mic 7:7(8)-20 is part of the third doom-hope cycle, which starts
with some diverse doom oracles (beginning with a legal lawsuit [6:1-8] and ending with a
song of lament [7:1-7]). The final pericope (7:8-20) provides the element of hope in the cycle
in the form of a song of victory with the motif of confidence in 7:7 as a transition between
doom and hope.
Waltke further breaks down the song of victory into four stanzas, consisting of three
salvation oracles and a climatic hymn of praise. The first salvation oracle is in vv. 8-10,
which contains Lady Zion’s two-fold confession of faith in Yhwh. The second salvation
oracle (vv. 10-13), which Waltke calls “Micah’s Prophecy,” discusses both the restoration of
Zion and the destruction of the rest of the earth, thus providing a two-fold response to Zion’s
two-fold confession of faith in the previous oracle. The third salvation oracle features an
interplay between Yhwh and Micah, with Micah’s voice emerging in vv. 14 and 16-17, and
Yhwh’s in v. 15. The climatic hymn of praise (vv. 18-20) begins with a question (“Who is a
god like you?”) found in other ANE literature, stressing the supremacy of the deity, and
emphasizing Yhwh’s forgiveness and kindness, particularly as part of the covenant with the
patriarchs Abraham and Jacob.
59
Ibid., 11, 13.
55
2.9. Alain Decorzant (2010)60
Decorzant divides the book of Micah into three sections (chaps. 1–2, 3–5, 6–7), each
of which comprises a sequence of disaster and salvation announcements. Throughout chaps.
6–7, the prophet functions as a mediator between God and God’s people, playing various
roles. Decorzant subsequently divides the last section (chaps. 6–7) into five parts (6:1-8, 9-
14; 7:1-7, 8-13, 14-20), beginning with a summon to hear a legal dispute against Israel in 6:1.
The segment’s first three parts (6:1–7:7) contain negative statements (ending with the
prophet’s declaration that he alone will wait for Yhwh), while the final two parts (7:8-20)
consist of statements of promise.
The first part of the final subsection (7:8-13) begins with a declaration of
confidence/trust in Yhwh, followed by Jerusalem making a confession of sin and profession
of faith (7:8-9): she will receive God’s justice and salvation while God humbles her enemy
(7:8a, 10). The response to Jerusalem’s expression of hope in 7:8-10 follows in 7:11-13,
describing the future rebuilding of her walls and people streaming to her (man wird zu ihr
strömen).61
The final subsection opens with a prayer of the prophet (v. 14) followed by
Yhwh’s answer in vv. 15-17. The conclusion of the section, and also the book of Micah as a
whole, is a song of praise for Yhwh’s mercy (vv. 18-20), comparing the forgiveness of sin
with the events during the Exodus from Egypt.
Decorzant urges caution with regard to the dating of Micah 6–7. On the one hand, the
repeated references to Assyria could reflect the experience of the siege of Jerusalem in 701
B.C.E. Nevertheless, he thinks that there are several observations that would point to a (late)
60
A. Decorzant, Vom Gericht zum Erbarmen: Text und Theologie von Micha 6–7 (FB 123; Würzburg:
Echter Verlag, 2010).
61
Ibid., 240.
56
postexilic final redaction of chaps. 1–7, in which “Assyria” functions as a symbol of threat
and violence in chaps. 6–7. Also, Decorzant finds multiple points of contact between chaps.
6–7 and chaps. 1–5 which he thinks demonstrates that the final redaction had taken place
while the final redactor was considering the book of Micah as a whole. 62
2.10. Conclusion
As indicated in the survey above, the most common division of Mic 7:7(8)-20 is into
the following parts: vv. (7)8-10, vv. 11-12(13), vv. 14-17, and vv. 18-20. Several scholars
(e.g., Renaud, Wolff, Zapff) propose that vv. 8-10 and vv. 14-20 originally circulated
together, apart from vv. 11-13. There is a consensus that the passage functions as a message
of hope following the doom oracles in 6:1–7:6. Although most assign this passage and/or its
incorporation into Micah to the postexilic period, Waltke is among those who defend the
possibility of its origin from Micah himself in the eighth century B.C.E.
3. Habakkuk
This section will provide a select survey of the history of research pertaining to
Habakkuk 3. Of particular interest is the history of research with regard to incorporation of
this chapter into the book of Habakkuk. Priority is given to scholars not already discussed in
the section regarding compilation/redaction theories of the Twelve Prophets.
62
Ibid.
57
3.1. Bernhard Stade (1884)63
Stade wrote what has been called the “most notable nineteenth-century source-critical
study of the book” of Habakkuk, which has continued to be influential in subsequent source
criticism of Habakkuk.64
Stade proposed that only 1:2 -2:8 can be traced back to the seventh-
century prophet, Habakkuk; he thinks the remainder of the book represents later additions to
this core text. He does not offer any source-critical analysis of the components of Habakkuk
3 itself but claims that the tone is entirely that of postexilic psalmic poetry/writing (ganz im
Tone nachexilischer Psalmendichtung).65
He thinks that several features of the chapter likely
point to a later author: hwla for God in v. 3; Israel as God’s xyvm (“anointed”) in v. 13; and
the expression ~ynv brqb in v. 2.66
3.2. Bernhard Duhm (1906)67
Duhm divides Hab 3:2-16 into twelve strophes. The first consists of v. 2, which he
considers a liturgical addition. The second strophe is v. 3, which begins the description of the
vision. The third is vv. 4-5, discussing the coming of Yhwh in a way that does not directly
depict his person. The fourth is v. 6; Duhm notes that the shattering of the earth and splitting
of the mountain are not new motifs (see, e.g., Judges 5, Micah 1) and still surface in later
apocalyptic literature but without a personal appearance of Yhwh (e.g., Isa 24:18). The fifth
63
B. Stade, “Miscellen. 3. Habakuk,” ZAW 4 (1884) 154-59.
64
M. P. Graham, “Habakkuk,” in Hebrew Bible: History of Interpretation (ed. John H. Hayes;
Nashville: Abingdon, 2004) 289-93, here 290.
65
Stade, “3. Habakuk,” 157.
66
Ibid., 157-58.
67
B. Duhm, Das Buch Habakuk: Text, Übersetzung, und Erklärung (Tübingen: Mohr, 1906).
58
is vv. 7-8a, which paints a wider picture of the theophanic scene using half-mythological
features. The sixth is vv. 8b-9a, which begins the description of the action of Yhwh. The
seventh is vv. 9b-10 (as far as ~wr), which, Duhm observes, is slightly reminiscent of the
theophanies in the Song of Deborah (Judges 5) and Micah 1. The eighth contains the rest of
v. 10 (from ~wr) - v. 11, describing the effect on nature evoked by the presence of Yhwh.
The ninth is vv. 12-13a in which Duhm connects the nations to the allies of Alexander. Duhm
considers the climax of the vision to be its tenth strophe, vv. 13b-14, featuring the primary
objective of Yhwh’s departure (i.e., defeating the enemy). He connects the eleventh strophe
(vv. 15-16a) with Alexander’s delay in Egypt (ca. 332 B.C.E.). The final/twelfth strophe is v.
16b-c, which describe further aftereffects of the poet’s visionary experiences. Another
liturgical addition (vv. 17-19) ends the chapter (cf. v. 2).
Duhm concludes that Habakkuk 3, including vv. 2-16 and not just the later text in vv.
17-19, must come from the postexilic period, to which he also dates the entire book of
Habakkuk. More specifically, he thinks that Habakkuk reflects the aggression of Alexander
the Great in the fourth century and that it is a younger text than the poem in Isa 14:29-32,
which he thinks originated just before Alexander’s appearance in Philistia.
3.3. Paul Humbert (1944)68
Humbert divides Habakkuk into seven sections: Heading/Title (1:1), First Complaint
(1:2-4), First Oracle (1:5-10), Second Complaint (1:11-17), Second Oracle (2:1-5), Five
Imprecations / Curses (2:5-20), and a Psalm of Supplication (3:1-19). With regard to
Habakkuk 3, he divides the psalm itself (minus the heading/title in 3:1 and the musical
68
P. Humbert, (Neuch tel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1 ).
59
notation in v.19c) into an introduction (v. 2), the body of the psalm (vv. 3-15), and a
conclusion (vv. 16-19). He further divides the body of the psalm into three parts: theophany
(vv. 3-7), panic of nature (vv. 8-11), and Yhwh’s combat against his enemies (vv. 12-15).
Much of Humbert’s work focuses upon the vocabulary present in Habakkuk, relating
it not only to other parts of Habakkuk, but to other sections of the TANAKH as well. He
notes that Habakkuk 3 conforms to sacred poetry (e.g., Psalms) while also presenting points
of contact with prophetic vocabulary in general and especially the prophets of the end of the
seventh century B.C.E., leading up to the exile.69
3.4. William F. Albright (1950)70
Albright divides Hab 3:2-19 into four parts (excluding the superscription/title in v. 1).
The first part consists of v. 2, which he suggests came from a very ancient prayer for the
prolongation of a king’s life (see, e.g., hymn to Ishtar praying for the life of Ammiditana, ca.
1600 B.C.E.) but with a distinctive Yahwistic flavor in its last colon, which he thinks may be
due to the author of Habakkuk. Albright thinks that the second part (vv. 3-7) was “probably
taken with little alteration from a very early Israelite poem on the theophany of Yahweh as
exhibited in the south-east storm” with close affinities to some poems that date from the
eleventh – tenth centuries (i.e., Song of Deborah in Judges 5, Song of Moses in Deuteronomy
33, and Psalm 68).71
He suggests that part three (vv. 8-15) was “adapted from an early poem
69
Ibid., 244-45.
70
W. F. Albright, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy: Presented To
Professor Theodore H. Robinson By The Society For Old Testament Study On His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, August
9th, 1946 (ed. H. H. Rowley; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950) 1-18.
71
Ibid., 8.
60
or poems of Canaanite origin, celebrating the triumph of Baal over Judge River, Prince Sea
and Death … variant names of a single primordial dragon of chaos.”72
In contrast to the
chapter’s other parts, Albright considers part four (vv. 16-19) as “poetically inferior” without
any archaic material, with v.16a coming from a prototype that differs from the putative
source of vv.16b-17, and being reminiscent of the eighth-seventh century prophets.73
Albright considers the book of Habakkuk “substantially” the work of a single author
who possessed literary appreciation in a “strongly archaizing period.”74
Additionally, he
accepts the tradition that the author was a prophet and musician during the last years of the
First Temple, suppositions which he thinks are consistent with the literary evidence
presented.
3.5. Sigmund Mowinckel (1953)75
Mowinckel divides Habakkuk 3 into five basic parts. The first is the superscription in
v. 1, which he thinks serves to identify the passage as a psalm of lament, based on its use of
twnygv (cf. !ygv in Ps 7:1) and the Akkadian cognate šegû. The second part is a short hymn
in v. 2; the first two cola (v. 2a-b) describe the earlier works of Yhwh and, according to
Mowinckel, correspond to the invocation found at the beginning of psalms of lament, while
v. 2c-d contain a prayer for Yhwh’s intervention which closes the first hymn. Mowinckel
broadly describes the third part (vv. 3-15) as a motif of trust and honor/glory (Vertrauens-
72
Ibid., 8-9.
73
Ibid., 9.
74
Ibid.
75
S. Mowinckel, “Zum Psalm des Habakuk,” TZ 9 (1953) 1-23.
61
und Ehrmotiv),76
which he divides into at least two strophes (vv. 3-7, 8-15). Verses 16-17
form a transitional fourth part of the psalm, with v. 16 connected to v. 14 and v. 17 to v. 18.
A proclamation of certainty of a favorable hearing from God (Gewißheit der Erhörung) in
vv. 18-19 ends the psalm.77
Mowinckel dates the book of Habakkuk to the seventh century, the traditional date
given for the prophet Habakkuk, who Mowinckel thinks was a temple prophet; however,
Mowinckel dates it earlier (i.e., 629/8 – 622 B.C.E.) than Albright’s suggestion of 605–589
B.C.E.78
Mowinckel thinks that chap. 3 comes from the same author as the rest of the book
and that it was used as part of a liturgy for the autumnal New Year festival celebrating the
feast of the coming and epiphany of Yhwh.
3.6. John H. Eaton (1964)79
Eaton divides Habakkuk into three primary sections: (1) “Intercessions and Answers”
(1:2-2: ); (2) “Execration of the Oppressor” (2:5-20); and (3) “Prayer for the Life-giving
Victory of God” (chap. 3). He further divides Hab 3:2-19 into four parts, starting with a
prelude in v. 2. This is followed by a “Vision of God’s Advance” (vv. 3-7) and a “Vision of
God’s Battle” (vv. 8-15). The psalm concludes with “Confidence in the Face of Death” (vv.
16-19).80
76
Ibid., 7.
77
Ibid.
78
Ibid., 2; cf. Albright, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,” 2.
79
J. H. Eaton, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: Introduction and Commentary (London:
SCM Press, 1961); idem, “Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk 3,” ZAW 76 (1964) 144-71.
80
Idem, Obadiah, 81-118.
62
Eaton’s work on Habakkuk 3 is noteworthy because he takes Mowinckel’s suggestion
a step further by forcefully asserting that, not only is it plausible that the psalm was used
during the autumnal/New Year festival, but it is also exegetically necessary to understand it
within the Sitz im Leben of the Autumnal Festival in order to be able to make sense of the
psalm as a coherent whole. It is within this cultic context, for example, that one can
understand the references to the warm winds from the deserts in the east and south in vv. 3-7,
followed by references to westerly rainstorms in vv. 8-15: Eaton notes that in October there
is a sudden shift between the warm desert air from the east and south to the cool, fresh winds
from the Mediterranean Sea in the west from which may be followed by thunder and rain. In
connection with the saving work of God featured in Habakkuk 3, Eaton suggests that the
desert winds imply “his advent from the Sinai deserts with escort of Plague and Fever, while
the torrential Mediterranean storms display the climax of his battle with the primeval foe.”81
Thus, Eaton concludes that Habakkuk 3 was intended as a liturgical text specifically for the
celebration of the Autumnal Festival. He also roughly dates Habakkuk to the third quarter of
the seventh century and sees no reason to doubt the attribution of chap. 3 to the prophet
Habakkuk himself.82
81
Idem, “Habakkuk 3,” 163.
82
Idem, Obadiah, 82-83, 108.
63
3.7. Theodore Hiebert (1986)83
Hiebert divides Habakkuk 3 (excluding the superscription/title in v.1, which he takes
as secondary and as indicating a later use of material in a context different than its original
composition) into four strophes (or “stanzas” to use his term). The first (v. 2) and the fourth
(vv. 16-19) strophes provide a literary framework that encompasses the theophany in vv. 3-
15. He divides the theophany into two strophes: vv. 3-7 (the “March from the Southeast”)
and vv. 8-15 (“Battle with the Dragon”), which are distinguished from each other by form
and content while still forming a coherent unity.
Hiebert classifies Habakkuk 3 as an example of the literary genre of a “hymn of
victory,” as opposed to the lament or vision genres suggested by other scholars. He finds
literary coherency within Habakkuk 3 itself, as indicated by the use of inclusion as the
primary structuring device throughout the passage as well as other literary features that also
contribute to the unity of the poem (e.g., alternating use of prefix and suffix conjugations and
key words). Although Hiebert argues for the literary unity of Hab 3:2-19, he concludes that
the differences (e.g., content, style, vocabulary, etc.) between Habakkuk 1–2 and Habakkuk 3
are too significant to allow one to posit single authorship for the book as a whole. Rather, he
thinks that Habakkuk 3 is genuinely archaic, constituting a composition “much older than the
seventh century prophet Habakkuk.”84
83
T. Hiebert, God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn in Habakkuk 3 (HSM 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1986); idem, “The Use of Inclusion in Habakkuk 3,” in Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry (JSOTSup 40; ed.
E. R. Follis; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987) 119-40.
84
Hiebert, God of My Victory, 82.
64
3.8. Henrik Pfeiffer (2005)85
Pfeiffer divides Habakkuk 3 into three basic parts (excluding v. 1), with a subdivision
of the middle part. The first part consists of v. 2 and forms the front frame, which
corresponds to the back frame in vv. 16-19a, thus encompassing the main corpus of the
passage (vv. 3-15) that stands between the two (cf. Hiebert above). Pfeiffer also notes that
vv. 3-15 can be subdivided into two parts. The first subdivision involves vv. 3-7, which
describe the theophany from the south and form an inclusio with the use of the place names
in v. 3 and v. 7. The second division also shows evidence of a vocabulary-based inclusio in v.
7 and v. 15; however, he also notes another frame featuring the anger motif in v. 8 and v. 12.
He suggests that there is a break from preexisting tradition after v. 12, leaving vv. 13-15 as
part of the linking elements in the book of Habakkuk. Throughout his translation (pp. 128-
30), Pfeiffer indicates by font size and style to which literary stratum he assigns a given
word/colon as part of: the preexisting tradition (vorgegebene Überlieferung); a linking
(Einbindung) element within the book of Habakkuk; a younger hinge/joint (Scharnier)
encompassing Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah; a later addition; an element of an
individual psalm; the psalmic framework; or minor additions.
Pfeiffer considers Habakkuk 3 to be of recent origin, i.e., the early-Hellenistic Period
(last third of the fourth century B.C.E.). He thinks that the author combined elements of the
eschatological judgment of the nations (using mythological primordial imagery) with the
presentation of a judgment-theophany from the south, which is itself rooted in the tradition
regarding the judgment of Edom.86
85
H. Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen von Süden: Jdc 5; Hab 3; Dtn 33 und Ps 68 in ihrem literatur- und
theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (FRLANT 211; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005).
86
Ibid., 176-77.
65
3.9. John E. Anderson (2011)87
Anderson proposes three stages of development for the composition and reshaping of
Habakkuk 3. First, he identifies a core theophany (vv. 3-15) that is actually comprised of two
traditions that have been combined to create a unified literary text: a theophany based on the
coming of Yhwh from the south (vv. 3-7) and a portrayal of Yhwh as divine warrior with
likely ties to the Chaoskampf motif in the ANE (vv. 8-15). Anderson dates the core
theophany to the preexilic period and suggests that perhaps it either drew upon traditions that
predate the monarchy or, given its similarities with premonarchic Hebrew poetry (e.g.,
Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 33; and Judges 5), itself has a terminus ad quem predating the
monarchy, a supposition which, if correct, would make it “one of the most ancient texts in
the Hebrew Bible.”88
The second stage is a psalmic redaction which Anderson dates to the
early Persian period with a terminus ad quem no later than the late fifth or early fourth
century B.C.E. The psalmic elements added in this stage consist of the superscription
identifying the text as “prayer” that is “according to Shigionoth” (v. 1), a frame (vv. 16a, 18-
19) which transforms the theophanic core into the genre of a psalm of complaint, and the
insertion of hls which is otherwise only found in the Psalter. The final stage, according to
Anderson, was the incorporation of Habakkuk 3 into Habakkuk 1–2 as well as the Book of
the Twelve. The final additions made at this stage include the name “Habakkuk” in 3:1,
connections with Joel 1–2 (v. 17), and a reinterpretive key in Hab 3:16b focusing on the
“future” Babylonian onslaught. With Nogalski, Anderson dates this final stage to “‘a time
87
J. E. Anderson, “Awaiting an Answered Prayer: The Development and Reinterpretation of
Habakkuk 3 in its Context,” ZAW 123 (2011) 57-71.
88
Ibid., 62.
66
well into the Persian period,’” as the postexilic community reflects upon the significance of
the Babylonian Exile in its history.89
3.10. Conclusion
As indicated in the survey above, most scholars agree upon the basic divisions of the
psalm in Habakkuk 3: v. 2, vv. 3-15 (subdivided into vv. 3-7 and vv. 8-15), and vv. 16-19.
Some scholars break these down even further (e.g., Duhm, Mowinckel). Opinions regarding
authorship, dating, and authenticity are more diverse. Several scholars accept the attribution
of Habakkuk 3 to the traditional seventh-century prophet (e.g., Humbert, Albright,
Mowinckel, Eaton), even while recognizing its archaizing tendencies (see Albright). Others
suggest that at least the core theophanic material (vv. 3-15) may not only be preexilic, but
perhaps even premonarchic (e.g., Hiebert, Anderson), even if there was also a later redaction
(see Anderson). Others argue for postexilic dates (e.g., Stade), from the Persian (e.g.,
Anderson [final redaction]) or the Hellenistic (e.g., Duhm, Pfeiffer) periods.
4. Zechariah
This section will provide a select survey of the history of research pertaining to Zech
9:9-16. Of particular interest is the history of research with regard to incorporation of this
pericope into the book of Zechariah. Priority is given to scholars not already discussed in the
section regarding compilation/redaction theories of the Twelve Prophets.
89
Ibid., 70; quoting Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 181.
67
4.1. Bernhard Stade (1881-1882)90
In a three-part article, published in the first two volumes of Zeitschrift für die
alttestamentliche Wissenschaft, Stade offers a critical study of “Deutero-Zechariah”
(Zechariah 9–14). His work builds upon that of earlier scholars, particularly J. G. Eichhorn
(1787). Stade’s study became representative of the dominant scholarly position for the better
part of the late nineteenth and well into the twentieth century regarding the authenticity and
dating of the last six chapters of Zechariah. However, the precise dating of Deutero-
Zechariah has continued to be a subject of debate among his successors.
Stade questions the simple division of Zechariah 9–14 into two parts based on the
superscriptions in 9:1 (introducing chaps. 9–11) and 12:1 (introducing chaps. 12–14);
instead, he concludes that only the superscription in 9:1 was original to the entire collection
of chaps. 9–14 and that the superscription in 12:1 was copied from 9:1.91
He delimits three
prophecies that have a conclusion (chaps. 9–10; 12:1–13:6; chap. 14), while noting that chap.
11 lacks a conclusion (and, hence, suggests the attachment of 13:7-9 as its conclusion).92
Specifically with regard to chaps. 9–10, Stade breaks up the passage into the following units:
9:1-8; 9:9–10:2 (subdivided as: 9:9-10; 9:11-12; 9:13-16; 9:17–10:2); 10:3-12 (subdivided
into vv. 3-7, 8-12).93
Noteworthy are the divisions he makes between 9:8 and 9:9, as well as
9:16 and 9:17, the latter of which he connects with 10:1-2.
90
B. Stade, “Deuterosacharja: Eine kritische Studie,” ZAW 1 (1881) 1- 6; idem, “Deuterosacharja:
Eine kritische Studie,” ZAW 2 (1882) 151-72, 275-309.
91
Stade, “Deuterosacharja” (1881), 1 .
92
Ibid., 29-32.
93
Ibid., 14-25, 52.
68
Stade points to the reference to the “sons of Yavan [Greece]” in :13 as providing
solid ground for dating Zechariah 9–14 within the Hellenistic period.94
He believes that it
was composed after the time of Alexander the Great (ca. 333 B.C.E.), more specifically
around the time of the struggle for power among the Diadochi (306-278 B.C.E.).95
He also
sees the references to Assyria and Egypt (e.g., Zech 10:11) as symbolic of the Seleucids and
Ptolemies (respectively) rather than to the powerful preexilic empires denoted by those
names.96
4.2. Hinckley G. Mitchell (1912)97
As most other scholars by his time, Mitchell considers Zechariah 9–14 to be of
different authorship than the first eight chapters of Zechariah.98
One of the major differences
between them adduced by him is that Zechariah 9–14 contains elements typical of
apocalyptic literature (e.g., pessimism about the present), which are absent in Zechariah 1–
8.99
Mitchell divides the last six chapters of Zechariah into two parts: (1) chaps. 9–11 and
13:7-9; and (2) 12:1–13:6 and chap. 14.100
He then subdivides the first part into four sections:
(1) 9:1-10; (2) 9:11-17; (3) 10:1–11:3; and (4) 11:4-17, 13:7-9. However, while he thinks that
94
Stade, “Deuterosacharja” (1882), 290.
95
Ibid., 305.
96
Ibid., 290-306.
97
H. G. Mitchell, “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah,” in A Critical and
Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah (ICC; New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons,
1912) 218-362.
98
For a list of reasons for positing separate authorship of Zechariah 9–14, see Mitchell, “Haggai and
Zechariah,” 236.
99
Mitchell, “Haggai and Zechariah,” 239-41.
100
Ibid., 219.
69
the division between 9:10 and 9:11 is clear, he admits that determining the end of the second
section (i.e., whether the end should be at 9:17 or 10:2) is difficult.101
After considering the various arguments proposed by other scholars for a preexilic
dating, Mitchell concludes that Zechariah 9–14 cannot have been written prior to or during
the Babylonian Exile. He also holds 9:1-10 is the oldest passage in Zechariah 9–14 and that
its author borrowed material and ideas from both Ezekiel and Second Isaiah, creating a
prophecy that is distinct in form and content vis-à-vis what follows, starting with 9:11.102
Citing M. Kuiper (1894), Mitchell concludes that the original form of Zech 9:1-10 probably
was written in 333 B.C.E. following the battle of Issus. 103
Part of the justification for this
dating is that the reference to Tyre in Zech 9:3 seems to indicate a time prior to Alexander
the Great’s successful conquest of that city in 332 B.C.E., the first time in history that the city
had been conquered. Mitchell then argues that Zech 9:11–11:3 is from a different author than
either 9:1-10 or 11:4-17 + 13:7-9. He dates 9:11–11:3 during the time of Ptolemy III (247–
222 B.C.E.), seeing it as an expansion of 9:1-10.104
Finally, a third author wrote and added
11:4-17 and 13:7-9 shortly after the battle of Raphia in 217 B.C.E.105
101
Ibid., 219-20. However, in his exegesis section, Mitchell does separate 9:1-8 from vv. 9-10 (p. 260)
and treats vv. 9-17 as a unit (p. 277).
102
Ibid., 249-51.
103
Ibid., 252-53.
104
Ibid., 258.
105
Ibid., 258-59.
70
4.3. Paul Lamarche (1961)106
Lamarche focuses on Deutero-Zechariah (i.e., Zechariah 9–14) in which he discerns
an overall chiastic structure indicating unity among the chapters.107
In his discussion of the
chapters, he follows other scholars in proposing a division into two parts of three chapters
each (i.e., chaps. 9–11 and 12–14). He divides the first part into six smaller units: 9:1-8; 9:9-
10; 9:11–10:1; 10:2-3a; 10:3b–11:3; and 11:4-17.108
Unlike some scholars, Lamarche sees a
strong break between 9:8 and 9:9.109
Within 9:11–10:1, he discerns four strophes, with the
first (9:11-12) and last (9:17b–10:1) strophes corresponding to each other and encompassing
the second (9:13-14) and third (9:15-17a) strophes.110
Because Lamarche views all six chapters of Deutero-Zechariah as being unified via
their chiastic structure, he also proposes a single author for all of the chapters.111
He thinks it
is certain that Deutero-Zechariah was written after the Exile.112
Although he acknowledges
that a date around the time of Alexander the Great (late fourth century B.C.E.) is the one
favored by contemporary scholars because of the mention of “Greece” in :13, he prefers
instead an interpretation that connects the chapters’ King-Shepherd imagery to Zerubabbel
106
P. Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV: Structure littéraire et Messianisme (Ebib; Paris: Librairie
Lecoffre/J. Gabalda, 1961).
107
For an outline of the chiastic structure, see p. 11 and pp. 112-13 (ibid.).
108
Ibid., 34-71.
109
Ibid., 25; of these two verses, he writes: “le sens nous demande de voir une coupure” (ibid.). In
contrast, see the summary of Mitchell’s position above.
110
Ibid., 49-50; for a more detailed discussion of the strophes in 9:13-17a, see pp. 50-52 (ibid.).
111
Ibid., 153.
112
Ibid., 148.
71
and, thus, proposes that Deutero-Zechariah was written sometime 500–480 B.C.E., possibly
during the lifetime of Zechariah himself.
4.4. Benedikt Otzen (1964)113
Otzen divides Deutero-Zechariah into fifteen pericopes, which he discusses
thematically throughout his work. Of particular interest is his delimitation of Zechariah 9–10,
which comprises the segment’s first eight pericopes: 9:1-8; 9:9-10; 9:11-12; 9:13-15; 9:16–
10:3a; 10:3b-5; 10:6-10; and 10:10-11. Of these, the division between 9:8 and 9:9 is
noteworthy, as is the proposed pericope consisting of 9:16–10:3a. He delimits the rest of
Deutero-Zechariah as follows: 11:1-3; 11:4-17; 12:2-7; 12:8–13:1; 13:2-6; 13:7-9; chap. 14.
Contrary to many scholars since Stade, Otzen questions the postexilic dating of the
entirety of Deutero-Zechariah.114
However, like many scholars, he does propose several
authors for Deutero-Zechariah. He considers Zechariah 9–10 to be the earliest part of the
segment, which he dates during the time of King Josiah (seventh century B.C.E.). Rather than
seeing the apparent reference to the Greeks (!wy) in 9:13 is a later interpolation or gloss as
some scholars propose, he gets around the problem it poses for a preexilic dating by
suggesting that it refers to the presence of Greek mercenaries in Egypt during preexilic times,
of whom the Israelites could have been aware.115
He thinks that the segment’s next two large
113
B. Otzen, Studien über Deutero-Sacharja (ATDan 6; Copenhagen: Prostant apud Munksgaard,
1964).
114 An overview of his dating is provided in the Forward to the book (ibid.).
115
Otzen provides a detailed discussion about “Die »Söhne Joniens«” on pp. 5-58 (ibid.), esp. pp. 55-
58.
72
parts (chap. 11 and chaps. 12–13) come from the preexilic – exilic period. Finally, he dates
chap. 14 to the late postexilic period.
4.5. Henning Graf Reventlow (1993)116
Reventlow thinks that Zechariah 9–14 is a later work than the first eight chapters of
Zechariah. However, he questions the validity of presupposing separate authorship for
Zechariah 9–11 and 12–14 based on the superscription in 12:1 (although he admits this could
indicate a separate work).117
He divides Deutero-Zechariah into the following pericopes: 9:1-
8; 9:9-10; 9:11-17; 10:1-2; 10:3-12; 11:1-3; 11:4-17; 12:1–13:1; 13:2-6; 13:7-9; and 14:1-21.
Reventlow dates Deutero-Zechariah to the first decades of the fifth century B.C.E.118
With regard to the apparent reference to Greece (Yavan) in 9:13, he considers the colon as an
“obvious” (offensichtlich) gloss because he thinks that it disrupts the meter.119
Thus, he
avoids having to explain the problem posed by the mention of “Greece” for his fifth-century
dating of the text, given that the scholars who propose a Hellenistic dating often point to
“sons of Yavan [Greece]” in 9:13 as proof of that dating (cf. Stade above).
116
H. G. Reventlow, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja, und Maleachi (ATD 25/2; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993).
117
Ibid., 86-87.
118
Ibid., 88.
119
Ibid., 98.
73
4.6. Paul L. Redditt (1995)120
Redditt accepts the majority opinion among scholars that distinguishes Zechariah 1–8
from 9–14. He divides the latter into four primary collections: (1) 9:1-17; (2) 10:3b-12; (3)
12:1-4a, 5, 8-9; and (4) 14:1-13, 14b-21.121
He further subdivides the first collection into the
following parts: 9:1-8, 9-13, and 14-17. However, he also notes that 10:1-3a appears to be a
redactional creation designed to introduce 10:3b-12 and connecting it with 9:1-17.122
Redditt concludes that the first three collections above fit well in the early Persian
period, while the fourth is from a later period, but all prior to Nehemiah. Later, after the time
of Nehemiah (but before the time of Alexander the Great), a redactor combined the four
collections and added 12:6-7, 12:10–13:6, the shepherd materials (10:1-3a; 11:4-17; and
13:7-9), and possibly also 11:1-3. Thus, he concludes that Zechariah 9–14 was written by
more than one author and that the chapters were later additions to the book named
Zechariah.123
4.7. Byron G. Curtis (2006)124
Curtis analyzes Zechariah 9–14 as two large units, the beginning of each of which is
indicated by the use of afm in 9:1 and 12:1, and consisting of six major units and “five brief
120
P. L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995).
121
Ibid., 102-3.
122
Ibid., 118. In contrast, while D. Rudman (“The Warhorse of the Lord,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 28
[2000] 163-68) admits a possible redactional function of Zech 10:1-2/3a, he also raises the question regarding
whether “the author/anthologist of Second Zechariah should not also be identified as its redactor” (p. 168).
123
Redditt, Haggai, 37-38, 94-99.
124
B. G. Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location and Social
Location Trajectory Analysis (Society of Biblical Literature Academia Biblica 25; Leiden: Brill, 2006).
74
thematic connecting poems.”125
The six major units are: 9:1-8; 9:11-17; 10:3-12; 11:4-16;
12:1–13:6; and 14:1-21. The five brief connecting poems are: 9:9-10; 10:1-2; 11:1-3; 11:17;
and 13:7-9. Specifically with regard to chap. 9, Curtis considers 9:1-8 as an introduction both
to the first afm and the “compound poetical unit of : -10 + 9:11-17.”126
Curtis challenges the general consensus that more than one author was involved in
writing Zechariah 1–14 and that chaps. 9–14 are substantially different than chaps. 1–8; he
provides a substantial critique of previous arguments used to differentiate between Zechariah
1–8 and 9–14, especially those adduced by Mitchell which have often been taken as
definitive proof for separate authorship.127
Using lexical and stylistic evidence, including
linguistic statistical analysis to calculate Density per Thousand (DPT), as well as building
upon R. Mason’s “continuing lines” in Zechariah, Curtis makes a good case for single
authorship of Zechariah as a whole.128
Thus, he concludes that Zechariah 9–14 should be
dated to the early Persian period (ca. 515–475 B.C.E.), although he also notes the possibility
that Zechariah 9 could be an early Persian adaptation/expansion of an exilic or even preexilic
text.129
He explains the apparent reference to Greece in 9:13 as reflective of Persian-Greek
conflicts in the Eastern Mediterranean world (particularly following the campaign of Cyrus
against King Croesis of Lydia in the mid-sixth century B.C.E. which led to confrontations
with Greek forces continuing for a century until the Peace of Callias apparently ended the
hostilities ca. 449 B.C.E.), thus opening the possibility of composition prior to Alexander the
125
Ibid., 163.
126
Ibid., 162.
127
Ibid., 232-40. 128
Ibid., 241-65. 129
Ibid., 182, 277.
75
Great and the Hellenistic period -- contrary to those scholars who use 9:13 as evidence of the
text’s Hellenistic origin.130
4.8. Ina Willi-Plein (2007)131
Willi-Plein addresses Zechariah 9–14 separately from Zechariah 1–8 in her 2007
commentary, thus accepting different authorship for the two parts of Zechariah. She divides
Deutero-Zechariah into the following units: 9:1-8 (vv. 1-4, 5-8); 9:9-10; 9:11-17 (vv. 11-13,
14-15, 16-17); 10:1-12 (vv. 1-2, 3-12); 11:1-3; 11:4-17 (vv. 4-16, 17); 12:1-14 (vv. 1, 2-3, 4-
5, 6-7, 8, 9-10, 11-14); 13:1-6; 13:7-9; 14:1-21 (vv. 1-9, 10-19, 20-21). Noteworthy is her
division between 9:8 and 9:9, as well as between 9:17 and 10:1. Throughout her translation
and exegesis, she indicates which phrases or cola she believes to be later glosses.
Willi-Plein thinks that Deutero-Zechariah developed at the earliest in the second half
of the fourth century B.C.E. and was written entirely during the Hellenistic period.132
She
thinks these later prophecies originated in Jerusalem or at least in the land of Judah.
4.9. Anthony R. Petterson (2009)133
In his thematic study focusing on king- and shepherd-related passages with respect to
Davidic hope, Petterson identifies the following pericopes within their corresponding themes
in Zechariah’s last six chapters: The Coming King (9:1-8, 9-10, 11-17); The Shepherd (10:1–
130
See pp. 174-81 (ibid.) for a detailed discussion.
131
I. Willi-Plein, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi (ZBAT 24/4; Zurich: TVZ, 2007).
132
Ibid., 152.
133
A. R. Petterson, Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah
(Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies [formerly JSOTSup] 513; New York: T & T Clark, 2009).
76
11:3; 13:7-9); and The Pierced One (12:1–13:1; chap. 14). With regard to his division of
chap. 9 specifically, he calls attention to the following structural markers that indicate
divisions in the text: weak paragraph marker (s) in the MT’s 9:8; the imperatives in 9:9;
ta-~g in 9:11; and the imperative in 10:1, the last of which he thinks signals a new unit.134
However, he also notes structural links between the sections within Zechariah 9 (e.g.,
continuity in speakers versus shifts in person from first person to third) and, thus, argues that
chap. 9 functions as a coherent unit.
Petterson takes the approach of reading Zechariah in its entirety (without creating
distinctions between “Proto-Zechariah” and “Deutero-Zechariah”), as apparently it was read
by the final redactor(s) who viewed all of the chapters as belonging to “Zechariah.” He finds
continuity in the motif of Davidic hope present throughout the book; for example, he
suggests that the “Shoot” in chap. 6 is developed further in the imagery about the future king
and shepherd in chaps. 9–14 even though the term “shoot” is not used in the later chapters.135
Thus, he views the entirety of Zechariah as an example of “later messianic hope in the
postexilic period.”136
4.10. Conclusion
There are a variety of opinions regarding the structure of the pericopes within
Zechariah 9–10. Most of the scholars surveyed above do see a break between 9:8 and 9:9
134
Ibid., 129-30.
135
Ibid., 248.
136
Ibid., 252. He addresses the presence of “Greece” in :13 by appealing to ANE records indicating
that Greece was considered a hostile power at least by the early Persian period (ibid., 144), contrary to those
who date the passage closer to the time of Alexander the Great (or later).
77
(Mitchell being the one exception). Many also place a break between 9:10 and 9:11
(exceptions are Stade’s larger units and Redditt). However, much more controversial is
where to end the pericope (starting with v. 11) somewhere between 9:16–10:2. The most
popular placement is to break the pericope between 9:17 and 10:1 (e.g., Curtis, Mitchell,
Petterson, Redditt, Reventlow, Willi-Plein); however, other scholars suggest starting the new
pericope at 9:16 (Otzen), 9:17 (Stade), or 10:2 (Lamarche).
Although there is a general consensus regarding the existence of a “Deutero-
Zechariah” (Zechariah –14) that is of different origin than Zechariah 1–8, particularly since
the work of Stade, there are some scholars who challenge that view and instead try to make
an argument for the unity of Zechariah as a whole (e.g., Curtis, and Petterson). The dating of
Zechariah 9, in particular, has ranged from the preexilic (e.g., Otzen) to the Persian period
(e.g., Curtis, Lamarche, Redditt, Reventlow) to as late as the Hellenistic period (e.g., Stade,
Mitchell, Willi-Plein). One potential clue is the reference to “sons of Yavan [Greece]” in
9:13, which would seem to point to the time during or after Alexander the Great’s conquest
of the region; however, Petterson does make a plausible case that the reference need not be
derived from the Hellenistic period and, instead, could refer to Greco-Persian tensions during
the Persian period. Thus, any dating of the text will have to remain tentative.
5. Summary
Among the redaction/compilation theories discussed in section one above, there was a
general consensus that Micah 7, Habakkuk 3, and Zechariah 9 were added to the Twelve
Prophets during different stages of the redaction/compilation process. The only scholar who
explicitly mentioned a potential link among all three passages of interest is Gersternberger.
78
However, Gersternberger merely suggests the idea that the poetic hymn-like elements in the
Twelve Prophets may predate the rest of those books without developing the theory in detail.
With regard to the authorship and dating, each passage has at least one supporter for
its authenticity as a product of a single author for the entire book, although some admit that
the prophet/author could have incorporated older material in the process of writing the book
to be called by his name. Among those surveyed above, Waltke is the sole supporter for an
eighth-century date for Micah 7:7-20; the rest believe the passage to be a later addition to the
book of Micah. Most of the scholars date the passage to the exilic – early postexilic period
(Lescow, Renaud, Gunkel, Jeremias, Weiser, Wolff), with some proposing a final redaction
as late as the Hellenistic period (Jeremias, Lescow, Renaud). Decorzant dates it to the late
postexilic period, while Zapff suggests the latest date for Mic 7:7-20 of those surveyed, i.e.,
the mid-third century.
Habakkuk 3 has the most supporters for its traditional seventh-century dating
(Humbert, Albright, Mowinckel, Eaton), though a few scholars consider that parts of this
may date well before the time of the prophet (Hiebert, Anderson). Only three of the scholars
surveyed date Habakkuk 3 as a whole to the postexilic (Stade) or early Hellenistic period
(Duhm, Pfeiffer), though Anderson did suggest a final redaction during the Persian period.
Zechariah’s traditional date is the sixth century and there is support for an early
postexilic/Persian dating for Zech 9:9-16, particularly among those who propose a single
authorship for the book of Zechariah as a whole (Curtis, Petterson). The earliest dating of
Zechariah 9 in particular is by Otzen, who argues for a seventh-century date. Reventlow
dates the chapter to the early decades of the fifth century, while Redditt places it solidly
within the Persian period. Of the three passages featured in this study, Zech 9:9-16 has the
79
most supporters for a Hellenistic dating, ranging from early Hellenistic (Mitchell, Stade,
Willi-Plein), to final redaction as late as 217 B.C.E. (Mitchell).
Thus, a tentative relative date of composition for the three passages based on the
scholars surveyed in sections two – four above would place Habakkuk 3 as the earliest text,
followed by Micah 7, then Zechariah 9. Schart’s detailed analysis tentatively supports the
Habakkuk 3 Mic 7:7-20 Zechariah 9 sequence as part of his redaction/compilation
theory of the Twelve.137
In contrast, a general canonical order (Micah Habakkuk
Zechariah) for their dates is favored by Freedman and Nogalski.138
Wöhrle suggests the order
of the materials’ incorporation was Micah Deutero-Zechariah Habakkuk. However,
Wöhrle also thinks that Habakkuk circulated independently prior to being added to the
prophetic corpus in the fourth–third centuries; thus, the incorporation of Habakkuk would be
later than the time of its composition.
The next step of this study will be to analyze more closely the three passages of
interest, starting with Mic 7:7-20 in Chapter III, followed by Habakkuk 3 in Chapter IV, and
Zech 9:9-16 in Chapter V. I will conclude this study with my own comparative analysis of
the three passages and summary of findings in Chapter VI.
137
Schart, Entstehung, 317.
138
See also P. L. Redditt, “Zechariah -1 , Malachi, and the Redaction of the Book of the Twelve,” in
Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (ed. J. W. Watts
and P. R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 245-68, here 261.
80
Chapter III
Micah 7:7-20
The delimitation of the units making up Micah 7 has been a point of controversy
among many scholars. Chapter 7 begins with negative comments regarding the lack of
righteous and faithful people, resulting in the breakdown of even the family unit (vv. 1-6[7]).
The remaining verses (vv. [7]8-20) shift to a more positive outlook of hope, looking forward
to a time when Yhwh will restore Israel to favor and grant them justice.
The primary issue debated is whether v. 7 should be associated with vv. 1-6 or vv. 8-
20.1 The most obvious reason to connect v. 7 with the preceding verses is the adversative w
1 Scholars who connect v. 7 with the preceding verses (vv. 1-6) include A. Decorzant (Vom Gericht
zum Erbarmen: Text und Theologie von Micha 6–7 [FB 123; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2010] 122-41); A.
Deissler (Zwölf Propheten II: Obadja, Jona, Micha, Nahum, Habakkuk [NEchB 8/2; Würzburg: Echter Verlag,
1984] 168, 196-97); D. R. Hillers (Micah [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984] 83); P. P. Jenson (Obadiah,
Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary [Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 496; London/New
York: Clark, 2008] 182); J. Jeremias (Die Propheten: Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha [ATD 24/3; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007] 219); T. Robinson (Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten: Hosea bis Micha [HAT 1,
Reihe 14; Tübingen: Mohr, 1954] 148); W. Rudolph (Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja [KAT 13/3;
Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975] 24); E. Sellin (Das Zwölfprophetenbuch: Übersetzt und erklärt [KAT 12;
Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1922] 299-301); C. S. Shaw (The Speeches of Micah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis
[JSOTSup 145; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993] 161-65); D. J. Simundson (Hosea, Joel, Amos,
Obadiah, Jonah, Micah [Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005] 342); A. Weiser
(Das Buch der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten I: Die Propheten Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadja, Jona, Micha [ATD 24/1;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967] 228-32, 287-90, here 287); H. W. Wolff (Dodekapropheton 4:
Micha [BKAT 14/4; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982] 174-85).
Scholars who connect v. 7 with the following verses (vv. 8-20) include: F. Andersen and D. N.
Freedman (Micah [AB 24E; New York: Doubleday, 2000] 574-75); T. K. Cheyne (Micah [CBSC; Cambridge:
University Press, 1921] 57); H. Gunkel (“Der Micha-Schluß: Zur Einführung in die literaturegeschichtliche
Arbeit am Alten Testament,” Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete 2 [1924] 145-78, here 147); K.
Marti (Dodekapropheton [Kurzer Hand-kommentar zum Alten Testament 13; Tu bingen: Mohr, 1904] 298); D.
E. Miller (Micah and Its Literary Environment: Rhetorical Critical Case Studies [Ann Arbor: UMI, 1992] 169);
W. Nowack (Die kleinen Propheten [HKAT 3/4; 2nd
ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903] 239); B.
Renaud (Formation du livre de Michée: Tradition et actualisation [EBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1977] 364-423, here
357); J. M. P. Smith (“A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Micah, Zephaniah, and Nahum,”
in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah, and Joel [ICC;
New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911] 144); R. L. Smith (Micah-Malachi [WBC 32; Waco: Word, 1984]
55-57); M. A. Sweeney (The Twelve Prophets, vol. 2: Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi [Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000] 408); J. Wellhausen (Die Kleinen
Propheten: Übersetzt und erklärt [Berlin: Reimer, 1898] 26-27, 149).
81
that begins its opening colon (ynaw), thus presupposing that there is something in the previous
context that is being contrasted with the statement that begins with this adversative w.2
Although the tone of v. 7 better matches that of vv. 8-20 than of vv. 1-6, it is not unusual to
find a shift in tone from lament or complaint to an affirmation of faith in God, especially at
the end of lament psalms (see, e.g., Pss 13:6; 17:13-15; 26:11; 40:17-18; cf. Hab 3:18). On
the other hand, vv. 7-20 function together in providing an overall message of hope and
restoration, not just with respect to the immediate context but also for the book of Micah as a
whole. Thus, perhaps the best solution is the one offered by E. Ben Zvi and B. Waltke, who,
independently, suggest that v. 7 rhetorically functions as a janus (double-duty) device and,
hence, is meant to be read with what precedes and follows.3 It is with this function in mind
that I include v. 7 in my delimitation of Mic 7:7-20.
2 For a list of additional reasons for reading v. 7 in relation to the preceding verses, see E. Ben Zvi,
Micah (FOTL 21B; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 166.
3 Ben Zvi, Micah, 166, 173; B. K. Waltke, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007)
430. See also D. G. Hagstrom, The Coherence of the Book of Micah: A Literary Analysis (SBLDS 89; Atlanta:
Scholars, 1988) 97-98.
82
1. Text, Syntax, and Translation4
The Hebrew (Heb) text presented here primarily follows the Masoretic Text (MT) as
found in BHS. However, the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Latin Vulgate have also been
taken into consideration and minor emendations to the MT are proposed in v. 12. Any
emendations have been included in the Heb text and the translation is based on the text here
given; in these cases, the MT is provided in the corresponding footnote. Words in my Heb
text that differ from the MT, including places where I am reading a different vowel pointing
of the same consonantal text, are indicated by an asterisk (*).
Introduction/Bridge
SPV VP y[vy yhlal hlyxwa hpca hwhyb ynaw 7
VS `yhla yn[mvy
4 Unless otherwise noted, all Hebrew (Heb) texts are taken from BHS and all English translations are
my own. The critical edition of the Greek (Gk) text used for Micah is J. Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae
(Septuaginta 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). The Latin (La) text is from R. Weber, Biblia
sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (Stüttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994). The Syriac (Syr) text is from A.
Gelston, “Dodekapropheton,” in Dodekapropheton – Daniel - Bel – Draco (Peshitta Institute; The Old
Testament in Syriac 3/4; Leiden: Brill, 1980). The text of the Syro-Hexapla is from A. M. Ceriani, Codex Syro-
hexaplaris Ambrosianus: Photolithographic editus. Monumenta Sacra et Profana ex Codicibus praesertim
Bibliotheca Ambrosianus VII (Milan: Impensis Bibliothecae Ambrosianae; Turin and Florence: Hermannum
Loescher; London: Williams et Norgate, 1874). The syntactical analysis used here is based upon the system
developed by M. P. O’Connor (Hebrew Verse Structure [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997]; see also W. L.
Holladay, “Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (I): Which Words ‘Count’?” JBL 118 [1999] 19-32; idem,
“Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (II): Conjoint Cola, and Further Suggestions,” JBL 118 [1999] 401-16).
However, I use the term “colon” in place of O’Connor’s term “line.” Also, I have divided the passage into
“strophes,” rather than O’Connor’s designations of “batches” and “staves.” For a list of abbreviations used for
the syntactical analysis, see the Abbreviations page.
83
Translation and Notes
ay[vy yhlala hlyxwa hpca hwhyb ynaw 7
7But as for me, I shall watch for Yhwh, I shall wait for the
aGod of my salvation;
a
`yhla yn[mvy
My God will hear me.
Strophe I
VVocP VV ytmq ytlpn yk yl ytbya yxmft-la 8
VP SPredP s `yl rwa hwhy $vxb bva-yk
OV VP wl ytajx yk afa hwhy @[z 9
VO VO yjpvm hf[w ybyr byry rva d[
VP VP `wtqdcb hara rwal ynaycwy
VS VSO yla hrmah hvwb hsktw ytbya artw 10
IntO SVP hb hnyart yny[ $yhla hwhy wya
VP P `twcwx jyjk smrml hyht ht[
a-a
The Gk, La, and Syr all have “God, my savior” (tw/| qew/| tw/| swth/ri, mou; Deum salvatorem
meum; yQwrP )hL)), perhaps as a result of pointing yhla as “my God” in apposition with y[vy, and treating
the y in yhla as the 1st sg. possessive suffix (cf. the next colon) instead of the construct form as pointed in the
MT. Although the Gk, La, and Syr are consistent in replacing “salvation” ([vy) with “savior,” the concept of
“savior” in Heb is generally rendered with a hiphil participle of the verb [vy (e.g., Judg 3:9), albeit never with
a possessive suffix. The phrase y[vy yhla is used four times in the TANAKH, twice without a preposition
(Pss 25:5; 27:9) and twice with a preposition (here with l, in Hab 3:18 with b). It is also found once with the
plene spelling (yhwla) in Ps 18:47. In all of these verses, the meaning is “God of my salvation.” Thus, the MT
has been retained here and my translation is intended to reflect the syntax of the construct chain, though “my
saving God” could also be a valid rendering.
84
Translation and Notes
ytmq ytlpn yk yl ytbya yxmft-la 8
8 Do not rejoice over me, my enemy, Though I have fallen, I shall rise;
s `yl rwa hwhy $vxb bva-yk
Though I sit in darkness, Yhwh is my light.
wl ytajx yk afa hwhy @[z 9
9 I shall bear the rage of Yhwh Because I sinned against him,
yjpvm hf[w ybyr byry rva d[
Until the time he pleads my case, And executes justice for me.
`wtqdcb hara rwal ynaycwy
He will bring me out to the light; I shall look upon his righteousness.
byla hrmah hvwb hsktw b ytbya artw 10
10 When my enemy sees (this),
bShame will cover her who said to me:
b
hb hnyart yny[ $yhla hwhy cwya
“Wherec is Yhwh, your God?” My eyes shall gloat over her,
b-b
Heb and Syr both use an active verb in this clause (Heb = piel impf. 3rd
fem. sg.; Syr = pe’al impf.
3rd
fem. sg.), thus logically treating “shame” as the subject and the relative clause as in apposition to the 3rd
-fem.
sg. object suffix on the verb. The Gk uses a middle verb form (peribalei/tai) while the La uses a passive
(operietur), thus switching the subject and direct object (i.e., “she will be covered/clothed in shame, the one (f.)
who said to me …”) as compared with the Heb and Syr. Given the use of the 3rd
-fem. sg. object suffix attached
to the verb in both Heb and Syr, which only makes sense as a reference to the enemy being described (“… her
who said to me”), I retain the MT.
c BHS suggests reading hya in place of MT way without any MS evidence. The same form wya appears
in Exod 2:20; 2 Kgs 19:13; Job 14:10; 20:7; and Jer 37:19. BHS notes that Isa 37:13 and two MSS in 2 Kgs
19:13 use hya instead. The Masoretes give hyaw as the qerê for wyaw in Jer 37:19, BHS also suggests removing
the 3rd
-masc. sg. object suffix or changing it to a pl. (yyaw), given that the subject is pl., not sg. No emendation
or alternate readings are listed for Exod 2:20; Job 14:10; and 20:7, in each of which way has to be what was
intended because it is the only word that forms the question (“Where is he?”).
85
`twcwx jyjk smrml hyht ht[
Now she will be trampled, Like the mud of the streets.
Strophe II
SP SVO `qx-qxry awhh ~wy $yrdg twnbl ~wy 11
SPred PV awby $yd[w awh ~wy 12
P P rhn-d[w *rwc ynmlw rwcm yr[ *(d[)w rwva ynml
P P `rhh rhw ~ym ~yw
VSP PP ~hyll[m yrpm hybvy-l[ hmmvl #rah htyhw 13
86
Translation and Notes
f`qx-qxry f eawhh ~wye $yrdg twnbl ~wyd 11
11 dA day to build your (f.) walls;
eOn that day
e the
fboundary will be far.
f
d-d
The Gk includes an additional colon between the two Heb cola in v. 11, thus prompting the
Göttingen LXX to shift the placement of h` h`me,ra evkei,nh in v. 11 to the middle colon, as well as h` h`me,ra evkei,nh
from MT v. 12aa as part of the third Gk colon in v. 11: h`me,raj avloifh/j pli,nqou / evxa,leiyi,j sou h` h`me,ra evkei,nh / kai. avpotri,yetai no,mima, h` h`me,ra evkei,nh (“a day of laying of bricks” / “that day is your destruction” /
“and that day the laws will be abolished [rubbed out]”).
e-e
The syntax is unusual here. When the demonstrative pronoun is being used adjectively (“this day”),
one would expect that it agree with the noun in definiteness (or lack thereof); see T. O. Lambdin, Introduction
to Biblical Hebrew (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971) §40. In contrast, if the pronoun is used
predicatively (“this is the day”), the primary noun will have the definite article while the pronoun will not
(ibid.). Here, however, the pronoun has the definite article (awhh) while the noun (~wy) does not (cf. v. 12
where both lack the article). GKC (§126 x) includes this verse among several about which it writes “either the
text is corrupt, or the expression incorrect” (p. 409). P. Joüon (A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: Part Three:
Syntax: Paradigms and Indices [trans. T. Muraoka; Subsidia Biblica 14/2; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
2003] §143 j) considers awhh a “quasi-demonstrative” or “weak demonstrative” that is an adjective of identity
(“the same [day],” which with a “weakened” meaning yields “(on) that [day]”); however, the definite article is
used (or can be viewed as being present, when following the pointing of the Masoretes for prefixed prepositions
+ definite article) with the noun in his examples.
f-f
The Heb noun qx carries a variety of meanings, including “statute,” “limit,” and “boundary.” The
Heb verb qxr means “be far / distant.” Both the Gk and La interpret qx as “law” (no,mima; lex). However, the
Gk uses the verb avpotri,bw (“rub off”) to translate qxr, thus indicating that the laws will be abolished
(avpotri,yetai no,mima), i.e., the law will be so far away that, in effect, it is removed. In contrast, the La renders
the phrase more literally (maintaining the original ambiguity of the verb): longe fiet lex (“the law will be
far/long”). If “law/statute” is intended (as understood in La), the concept of its being removed/abolished would
make better sense than its literally or figuratively being “far.” However, interpreting qx as “boundary” is to be
preferred given that it is conceptually parallel to “your walls” ($yrdg) in the previous colon. If qx is meant as a
geographic or political “boundary,” then “far” in the sense of “extended” could make sense, as could the notion
of a “boundary” being “removed.” HALOT (p. 1221) notes that the verb could be repointed to an impf. niphal
(3rd
masc. sg.), meaning “be removed,” though the niph. of this verb is not attested in the MT. The Syr offers a
completely different alternative with oYLQt$t (“you will be exalted”).
87
awby $yd[wh dgawh ~wyg 12
12 gThat/it is the day
gd
hAnd he [God’s people?] will come to you
[hrwcm yr[ *(d[)w rwva ynml]
[From Assyria and (to) cities of Egypth]
g-g
Unlike the case of awhh ~wy in v. 11ab, the definite article is lacking in v. 12aa, which provides a
more regular syntactical construction. However, without a definite article attached to ~wy, one might initially
take awh as adjectival (“that day”); this, however, poses problems with regard to the placement of the phrase
among the cola. The preceding colon (v. 11ab) in Heb already has awhh ~wy and ~wy begins v. 11aa. Thus, it
would not make sense to add awh ~wy to the previous colon (except in Gk, due to a third colon in v. 11 of the
Gk text; see n. d-d above); however, cf. Hillers, Micah, 88 nn. e, g. The w-conjunction on the following word
($yd[w) results in another unnatural connection. Thus, awh ~wy must be understood as a verbless clause
(supposing the MT not to be corrupt). The fact that the two preceding cola also begin with ~wy supports the
conclusion that the colon in v. 12aa should also begin with ~wy, though it is interesting that none of the three
cola exactly match (~wy stands by itself in v. 11aa, is used with awhh in v. 11ab, and with awh in v.12aa).
h-h
The Gk provides an alternate reading for these two cola: kai. ai` po,leij sou h[xousin eivj omalismo.n kai. eivj diamerismo.n @VAssuri,wn# / kai. ai` po,leij sou ai` ovcurai. eivj diamerismo,n (“And your cities will be for
leveling and into the division [of Assyria]” / “and your fortified cities into division”). In place of $yd[w (“and
unto/toward you”), the Gk is apparently reading $yr[w (“your cities”; ai` po,leij sou) as the subject in v. 12ab,
doing so as a result of d/r confusion vis-à-vis the MT (cf. next colon). The BHS editors wish to repoint the 2nd
-
masc. sg. suffix on $yd[ to a 2nd
-fem. sg. suffix (cf. MT’s pointing of $yrdg in v. 11ab); so also Gunkel,
“Micha-Schluß,”158; Hagstrom, Coherence, 100 n. c; Hillers, Micah, 88 n. h); T. Lescow,
“Redaktiongeschichtliche Analyse von Micah 6–7,” ZAW 82 (1972) 182-212, here 198; D. E. Miller, Micah and
Its Literary Environment, 175 n. 238; J. M. P. Smith, “Critical and Exegetical Commentary,” 149. The Gk also
presupposes a pl. verb in place of the sg. awby of MT, perhaps either as a result of metathesis of the a and w (awby [MT] ↔ waby [Gk]) or a missing w at the end of the word (wawby), either of which possibilities would
yield the 3rd
masc. pl. of awb (the latter using the plene spelling). The pl. is tempting (even without accepting
“your cities” as the subject) given that it would make for a smoother reading (“and they will come to you [from
…]”), and several English translations favor this (e.g., RSV, NABRE, JPS) as do BHS and various scholars (e.g.,
Gunkel, “Micha-Schluß,” 158; Hagstrom, Coherence, 100 n. d; Hillers, Micah, 88 n. h; Lescow,
“Redaktiongeschichtliche,” 198; Renaud, Formation, 360; Robinson, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 150; Sellin,
Zwölfprophetenbuch, 301-2; J. M. P. Smith, “Critical and Exegetical Commentary,” 149; R. L. Smith, Micah-
Malachi, 56-57; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 27, 150). However, the La and Syr both support a sg. verb,
albeit with different subjects (!); the La has et usque ad te veniet Assur (“and Assyria will come all the way to
you”), while the Syr has )t)N yKNBz (“your time will come”). As several scholars have pointed out,
emendation to the pl. is unnecessary if one interprets the sg. verb in the MT as a collective or an indefinite
impersonal form (see Ben Zvi, Micah, 176; Shaw, Speeches of Micah, 194 n. 4; Waltke, Commentary on Micah,
438; Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche, 153). The Gk phrase eivj diamerismo,n is presumably translating ynml in
Heb (which can indicate division of a whole into parts [HALOT, 509]); a Heb source for eivj omalismo,n in Gk is
unclear.
88
[rhn-d[w *rwc ynmlw] hirwcm yr[ *(d[)wi rwva ynml
From Assyria and i(to) cities of Egypt
ih [And from Tyre and to the River]
i-i
The MT has the phrase rwcm yr[w, which can be understood in two ways as pointed in the MT: (1)
fortified cities (cf. 2 Chr 8:5; Ps 60:11); or (2) cities of Egypt. If one presupposes a d/r confusion, yr[ becomes yd[ or d[ (“until,” “to”) if one drops the y; in this case, the probable reading would be “and until/to
Egypt.” The latter option is appealing for several reasons. First, it is consistent with the use of d[ in the
preceding (v. 12ab) and following colon (v. 12bb). Second, reading yr[ as d[ or yd[ would make v. 12ba
syntactically parallel to v. 12bb. Third, the use of usque ad in La could reflect a Hebrew d[. However, the Gk,
Syr, and even La all support the MT reading of “fortified cities” (rwcm yr[ // ai po,leij sou ai` ovcurai, // )tNY*$( )tN*YdM // civitates munitas) in v. 12ba. Since the La supports both [y]d[ and yr[, it is possible
that d[ initially stood before yr[ but was accidentally omitted due to haplography. Given the implications of
the La witness and the structural context that supports the inclusion of d[, I have put d[ in parentheses
between w and yr[. Most scholars emend yr[ to either d[ (R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 56-57 [however,
Smith also includes “cities” in his English translation on p. 56]) or yd[ (Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II, 199;
Gunkel,“Micha-Schluß,”158; Hagstrom, Coherence, 100 n. e; Hillers, Micah, 88 n. i; Jeremias, Die Propheten,
220; Lescow, “Redaktiongeschichtliche,” 198; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 300; Nowack, Die Kleinen Propheten,
241; Robinson, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 150; Rudolph, Micha, 129; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 301-2; J. M.
P. Smith, “Critical and Exegetical Commentary,” 149; Waltke, Commentary on Micah, 438; Wellhausen,
Kleinen Propheten, 150); the latter of these two proposed readings is found in one of Kennicott’s MSS but is
vocalized by the scribe as “cities” (D. Barthelémy, Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, tome 3: Ézéchiel,
Daniel et les 12 Prophètes [OBO 50/3; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1992] 778). Supporters of the MT’s yr[ include D. E. Miller, Micah and Its Literary Environment, 175; Shaw,
Speeches of Micah, 194 n. 5; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, vol. 2, 411.
89
krhn-d[w j
*rwc ynmlw [rwcm yr[ (d[)w rwva ynml]
[From Assyria and (to) cities of Egypt] And from Tyrej and to the River;
k
j The MT has rAcm', meaning “fortified”/”siege”/”rampart,” “afflicted,” or perhaps reflecting rather a
reference to Egypt (against the latter option, see P. J. Calderone, “The Rivers of ‘Mas or’,” Bib 42 [1961] 423-
32; however, against Calderone, see D. A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry
[SBLDS 3; Missoula: University of Montana, 1972] 105-6). This word is also found in the preceding colon of
the MT (12ba) rwcm yr[ (“fortified cities” or “cities of Egypt”; see n. i-i); however, yr[ (“cities”) is not
repeated in v. 12bb. The La supports the understanding of “fortified cities” in v. 12bb (civitates munitas), and
supplies the missing word “cities.” However, both the Syr and Gk translate rwcm as “from Tyre” (rwcY oM;
avpo. Tu,rou), as does the Syro-Hexapla. It is possible to understand the m as the proclitic form of the preposition
!m and, thus, point rwcm as rwOCmi (“from Tyre”; cf. Jer 18:14). The potential problem with this suggestion is
that the proclitic form of !m is redundant since !m is already a part of the previous word ynml (!m+l), which can
also be understood as meaning “from.” Confusion between h and m is unlikely because the definite article is
never attested with rwc when it refers to Tyre in the MT (Josh 19:29; 2 Sam 5:11; 24:7; 1 Kgs 5:1; 7:13; 9:11-
12; 1 Chr 14:1; 2 Chr 2:2; Pss 45:13; 83:8; 87:4; Isa 23:1, 5, 8, 15, 17; Jer 25:22; 27:3; 47:4; Ezek 26:2-4, 7, 15;
27:2-3, 8, 32; 28:2, 12, 18; Hos 9:13 (unclear); Joel 4:4; Amos 1:9, 10; Zech 9:2-3). Thus, either: (1) the Syr
and Gk ignored the redundancy in taking the m in rwcm as the proclitic preposition (although the Gk translator
may have missed the redundancy since the Gk translates ynml as eivj diamerismo,n [“toward division”]); or (2)
the Heb Vorlage (at least that of the Syr) only had rwc without a m. With regard to the second possibility, it is
possible that a scribe accidentally copied rwcm from v. 12ba in place of rwc. Calderone (“Rivers of ‘Masor’,”
431) suggests placing the m in both instances of rwcm with the previous word as an enclitic m; thus, he
suggests reading rwOc (“rock”) and rWc (“Tyre”) respectively in v. 12ba-b. Other scholars who support the
reading of rwc in v. 12bb include: Gunkel, “Micha-Schluß,” 159; Lescow, “Redaktiongeschichtliche,” 198;
Renaud, Formation, 358, 361; Robinson, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten , 150-51; Rudolph, Micha, 127, 129, 133;
Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 301-2; Shaw, Speeches of Micah, 194, 205. See exegesis and commentary section
for further discussion regarding the case for “Tyre” in this colon.
k “The River” referring to the Euphrates River, which can be designated by name (trp[-rhn]; e.g.,
Gen 2:14; 15:18; Deut 1:7; 11:24; Josh 1:4; 2 Kgs 23:29; Jer 13:4-7), as the “Great River” (lwdgh/ldgh rhnh;
Gen 15:18; Deut 1:7; Josh 1:4), and/or just “the River” (rhnh; Exod 23:31; Deut 11:24; 1 Kgs 5:1 // 2 Chr
9:26). One exception is in Dan 10:4, where the author refers to the Tigris River (lqdx) as the “Great River”
(lwdgh rhnh); elsewhere in the MT, the Tigris is mentioned only in Gen 2:14 in which it is listed as one of the
four rivers of Eden (as is the Euphrates). Elsewhere whenever rhn follows d[, it always refers to the Euphrates
(Gen 15:18; Exod 23:31; Deut 1:7; Josh 1:4). However, Calderone (“Rivers of ‘Masor’,” 431) suggests that rhn in Mic 7:12 may refer to the Nile instead; Decorzant (Vom Gericht zum Erbarmen, 29) includes the Nile (citing
Isa 19:5 for comparison) and the Tigris (citing Dan 4:10) as other possibilities in addition to the Euphrates
(citing Gen 15:18).
90
lm`rhh rhwm ~ym ~ywl
lAnd [to?] sea from sea,
mAnd [to?] mountain [from] mountain;
ml
`~hyll[m yrpm hybvy-l[ hmmvl #rah htyhw 13
13And the earth will be desolate On account of its inhabitants, from the
fruit of their deeds.
Strophe III
VOP O $tlxn !ac $jbvb $m[ h[r 14
l-l
In place of this bicolon in the MT, the Gk has h`me,ra u[datoj kai. qoru,bou (“a day of water and
turmoil”). “Day of water” is obviously based on a different pointing of the MT Heb consonants (~yIm; ~[wO]y rather than ~Y"mi ~y"). Presumably, a similar mistake was made with regard to qoru,bou, though its Heb
equivalent is unclear. Whenever two seas are used in the OT as part of a directional or boundary formula, the
Mediterranean Sea is always the western boundary/sea, while another sea (often the Dead Sea) forms the
eastern direction/boundary (e.g., Exod 23:31; Joel 2:20; Zech 14:18); for suggestions regarding which seas are
meant in Mic 7:12, see Cheyne, Micah, 58; Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II, 199; Jenson, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah,
185; J. M. P. Smith, “Critical and Exegetical Commentary,” 149.
m-m
The syntax of the MT is odd here, lit. “and mountain (of?) the mountain.” A few scholars suggest
that it should be understood as a superlative genitive, “the loftiest mountain,” and/or possibly a reference to
Mount Zion; see Renaud, Formation, 361; Shaw, Speeches of Micah, 194; Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche,
155. See n. l-l above regarding the Gk. The Syr reads )rw+ rwhL )Md(w (“and as far as Mount Hor”). The
Syr is correct in that everywhere else that rhh rh appears in the MT, Mount Hor is intended (Num 20:22, 23,
25, 27; 21:4; 33:37, 38, 39, 41; 34:7, 8; Deut 32:50). However, the context does not support this interpretation
here, given the similar double use of ~y in the preceding colon; it is likely that the preposition in v.12ca should
be viewed as “gapped” to v.12bb, or perhaps a m should be read in place of the definite article on rhh (cf. ~ym
in the previous colon; see Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II, 199; Gunkel, “Micha-Schluß,” 159; Jeremias, Die
Propheten, 220; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 300; J. M. P. Smith, “Critical and Exegetical Commentary,” 149; R.
L. Smith, Micah – Malachi, 57; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 150). The La translates the bicolon of v.12c as
et ad mare de mari / et ad montem de monte (“and to sea from sea / and to mountain from mountain”), thus
treating both cola as having a parallel structure and supplying some prepositions not found in the MT. The
Syro-Hexapla contains the more traditional “from … to” construction in both cola: )MYL )Md(w )MY oMw
)rw+ )Md(w )rw+ oMw / (“from sea and as far as [the] sea” / “and from mountain as far as [the] mountain”).
Some scholars and BHS want to read rh d[ rhmw ~y d[ ~ym (cf. Syro-Hexapla) or a similar
variation for v.12c (e.g., Hagstrom, Coherence, 100; Hillers, Micah, 88 n. k; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 300;
Robinson, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 150), thus supplying prepositions on the basis of the traditional d[…!m
directional formula used earlier in v.12bb (and possibly v.12ba). Decorzant (Vom Gericht zum Erbarmen, 29)
suggests a combination of “[to] ... from” in v. 12ca and “[from] ... [ to]” in v. 12cb. However, such extensive
emendation is not necessary when one observes with Andersen and Freedman (Micah, 586) that the prepositions
are used chiastically between v. 12b and v. 12c, with some prepositions missing but logically implied (cf. La).
For suggestions about what mountains may be intended, see Cheyne, Micah, 58; Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II,
199; Jenson, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, 185.
91
VP SP lmrk $wtb r[y ddbl ynkv
VOO P `~lw[ ymyk d[lgw !vb w[ry
PP VO `twalpn wnara ~yrcm #ram $tac ymyk 15
VS VP ~trwbg lkm wvbyw ~ywg wary 16
VOP SV `hnvrxt ~hynza hp-l[ dy wmyfy
VOP P #ra ylxzk vxnk rp[ wkxly 17
VP PV wdxpy wnyhla hwhy-la ~hytrgsmm wzgry
VP `$mm waryw
Translation and Notes
$tlxn !ac $jbvb $m[ h[r 14 14
Shepherd your people with your staff, The flock of your inheritance,
olmrk $wtb r[y ddbl nynkv
Who dwellsn alone, A forest in the midst of Carmel.
o
`~lw[ ymyk d[lgw !vb w[ry
May they graze upon Bashan and Gilead, As in the days of old.
n Both the Gk and La use a pl. ptc. instead of the MT’s sg. (kataskhnou/ntaj; habitantes), while the Syr
uses a pe’al impf. 3rd
masc. pl. (nwr$N). Accordingly, BHS wishes emend the MT to a plural (see also Gunkel,
“Micha-Schluß,” 163; Lescow, “Redaktiongeschichtliche,” 198; Robinson, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 150;
Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 301-2). However, such emendation is not necessary since the antecedent !ac
(“flock”) in the previous colon (or possibly $m[ in v. 14aa) is singular (although it also can be understood in a
collective sense).
o Scholars are divided as to whether lmrk should be interpreted here as the proper name, “Carmel,” or
according to its common meaning, “garden.” The proper name interpretation is supported by the Gk, Syr, and
La, but this interpretation is far from certain. Scholars who support the common meaning of the word include
Gunkel, “Micha-Schluß,” 163; Hillers, Micah, 87; Jeremias, Die Propheten, 220; Renaud, Formation, 362;
Rudolph, Micha, 127; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 301; Shaw, Speeches of Micah, 206; R. L. Smith, Micah -
Malachi, 56; Waltke, Commentary on Micah, 432, 441; Weiser, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 288; Wolff, Micha,
187; Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche,140, 157.
92
`twalpn pwnara ~yrcm #ram $tac ymyk 15
15As in the days when you went out from
the land of Egypt, I will show himp wonders.
~trwbg lkm wvbyw ~ywg wary 16
16 The nations will see And they will be ashamed from all
their strength / might.
`hnvrxt ~hynza hp-l[ dy wmyfy
They will place (their) hand upon (their) mouth; Their ears will be deaf.
#ra ylxzk vxnk rp[ wkxly 17
17 They will lick dust as a snake, Like crawling things of the earth.
p The La agrees with the MT here (ostendam ei mirabilia). The Syr almost agrees with the MT, except
that it changes the object pronoun from 3rd
sg. to 3rd
pl. ()tD8Mdt nwN) )wX)); however, the Syr also uses a
3rd
pl. verb in v. 15aa (wQPN; “they went out”), whereas the Heb, Gk, and La all use a 2nd
sg. The Gk uses a 2nd
sg. verb in v. 15ab and lacks the pronominal object: o;yesqe qaumasta, (“you will see wonders”), thus avoiding
the rough transition from 2nd
sg. to 3rd
sg. in the Heb and La. BHS and several scholars emend wnara to wnarh
(“show us”); thus: Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II, 200; Gunkel, “Micha-Schluß,” 163; Hillers, Micah, 87-88;
Jeremias, Die Propheten, 220; Lescow, “Redaktiongeschichtliche,” 198; Renaud, Formation, 362; Rudolph,
Micha, 130; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 301-302; R. L. Smith, Micah - Malachi, 56, 58; Weiser, Zwölf Kleinen
Propheten, 288; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 150; Wolff, Micha, 187, 189. For more details and other
suggested emendations, see Barthelémy, Critique Textuelle, tome 3, 779-81.
93
rwdxpy wnyhla hwhy-lar q~hytrgsmm wzgry q qThey will quake from their strongholds;
q
rThey will turn in dread to Yhwh,
our God,r
`s$mm waryw
And they will be afraid of you.s
Strophe IV
SP $wmk la-ym 18
VO VPP wtlxn tyravl [vp-l[ rb[w !w[ afn
VO VOS `awh dsx #px-yk wpa d[l qyzxh-al
VV VO wnytnw[ vbky wnmxry bwvy 19
VP O `wntwajx-lk ~y twlcmb $ylvtw
q-q
HALOT (p. 604) suggests “prisons” as the meaning of trgsm in this passage, whereas BDB (p. 689)
offers “fastnesses.” The context would seem to indicate a type of enclosure within which the people have
barricaded themselves for protection (so also 2 Sam 22:46 // Ps 18:46, even though HALOT cites both verses in
support of “prisons”). The Gk comes closest the Heb with sugcuqh,sontai evn sugkleismw/| auvtw/n (“they will be
stirred up in their confinements/encirclements”). The La has proturbabuntur de aedibus suis (“they will be
driven out in confusion from their households/dwellings”), which deviates slightly from the war imagery,
though this may be one way to understand the Heb. The Syr is the most different with nwhYLY*B$ oM nwzGrN
(“they will part in anger from their paths”).
r-r
There are some slight variations among the traditions for this phrase. The Syr most closely
approximates the Heb with its nw(wzN nhL) )YrM oMw (“They will tremble from the Lord our God”; the
Heb root dxp can also be translated as “tremble”). The Gk uses the fut. ind. mid. 3rd
pl. of the verb evxi,sthmi; hence, “they will be amazed/confused because of the Lord our God,” though evxi,sthmi can also indicate “awe” in
the sense of fear. In contrast to the verbs indicating a reaction of fear, the La uses desiderabunt (“they will
desire/long for”). Given the context, the idea of “tremble”/“be in dread of” is likely in view of the presence of
zgr (“quake,” “shake”) in the previous colon. Noteworthy is the attestation of the 1st pl. pronoun used to modify
“God” in all four versions; inconsistencies in the use of pronouns in this passage often prompt scholars to
emend the MT to create a smoother reading. Robinson (Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 150) suggests deleting
wnyhla hwhy from the above text.
s Although some scholars wish to emend the MT’s 2
nd-sg. object suffix here (e.g., Gunkel, “Micha-
Schluß,” 163), the Gk and La both agree with the Heb (though the La lacks the preposition). The Syr only has
nwLXdNw (“and they will be afraid”), with no indication of the cause of the fear.
94
VOP OP ~hrbal dsx bq[yl tma !tt 20
[VP] [P] `~dq ymym wnytbal t[bvn-rva
Translation and Notes
$wmk la-ym 18
18
Who is a god like you?
twtlxn tyravl [vp-l[ rb[w !w[ afn
Pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the
remnant of hist inheritance?
`awh dsx #px-yk wpa d[l qyzxh-al
He does not retain his anger forever Because he delights in steadfast love.
wnytnw[ uvbky wnmxry bwvy 19
19 He will again have compassion on us; He will tread
u upon our offenses.
`vwntwajx-lk ~y twlcmb $ylvtw
And you will throw into the depths of the sea All ourv sins.
t Both Gk and Syr support the MT’s use of the 3
rd-masc. sg. possessive pronoun; however, the La uses
the 2nd
sg. (tuae).
u Or, “subdue.” HALOT (p. 460) suggests emending to the verb sbk (“to wash”); however, this
emendation is unnecessary, as noted by R. P. Gordon (“Micah 7:19 and Akkadian KABĀSU,” VT 28 [1978]
355). Moreover, the Gk katadu,sei (“will make sink”) and La deponet (“will put away”) correspond more
closely to vbk than sbk. The Syr uses $wNKN (“gather”).
v Only the Heb uses a 3
rd-pl. possessive pronoun (~twajx; “their [sins]”); Gk, Syr, and La each uses
the 1st-pl. possessive pronoun (“our”), which does make better sense in the context. On the other hand, the MT
is consistently inconsistent with regard to the use of the pronouns for the different persons in this passage; thus,
the other versions may be smoothing out perceived difficulties in the Heb. Some scholars who support
emending to the 1st-person pronoun include Gunkel, “Micha-Schluß,” 168; Hillers, Micah, 87, 89; Jeremias, Die
Propheten, 221; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 301-2; R. L. Smith, Micah - Malachi, 56, 58; Weiser, Zwölf
Kleinen Propheten, 288; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 150; Wolff, Micha, 187, 189. R. Weiss (“On
Ligatures in the Hebrew Bible (wn = ~),” JBL 82 [1963] 188-94) suggests that sometimes scribal errors caused wn
95
~hrbal dsx bq[yl tma !tt 20
20 You will give truth to Jacob, Steadfast love to Abraham
`~dq ymym wnytbal t[bvn-rva
Which you swore to our ancestors From the days of old.
2. Authenticity and Dating
Most scholars date Mic 7:7(8)-20 to the exilic or (more often) postexilic period. One
of the few scholars who argues for an eighth-century B.C.E. date is B. Walke, who makes the
claim (citing D. A. Robinson) that the “grammar of Micah is preexilic, displaying none of the
characteristic features of postexilic Hebrew.”5 Robinson, however, only identifies one
indication of early Hebrew poetry in Mic 7:11-20, which he lists as an archaism given the
lack of other indicators of old poetry.6 The word cited by him is ynkv, a qal ptc. masc. sg.
with a y added, in v. 14ba. Robinson does mention that a y added to a noun or participle in
Hebrew poetry could be indicative of early poetry if it is bound; however, use of this form in
apposition to another word is common in standard poetic Hebrew (eighth century – late
postexilic).7 In Mic 7:14ba, ynkv is used in apposition with !ac in the previous colon (v.
14ab) and, hence, is not a strong indicator of early poetry. Accordingly, the text shows no
signs of being in circulation before the time of Micah (eighth century); however, the
to be confused with ~; see also Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, 88-89. Thus, although the 3
rd-pl. suffix ~ is not
impossible in this context, a 1st-pl. wn makes better sense.
5 Waltke, Micah, 11.
6 Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, 136.
7 Ibid., 70, 72-73, 76; see dates for standard poetic Hebrew on p. 3.
96
linguistic evidence cited by Robinson also does not help to determine whether the text is
preexilic, exilic, or postexilic.
Words in Mic 7:7-20 that are found in late and poetic texts include: @[z (v. 9aa),
hvwb (v. 10ab), smrm (v. 10ca), jyj (v. 10cb), and lxz (v. 17ab); all appear in either Isaiah
(@[z in 30:30; smrm in 5:5; 7:25; 10:6; 28:18; jyj in 57:20) and/or later texts. However,
several of these words are rare, and it is possible that some were used during the time of
Classical Biblical Hebrew (CBH) but are not found in any extant texts, given the limited
corpus that is extant. Thus, the above vocabulary does not prove a Late Biblical Hebrew
(LBH) origin for Mic 7:7-20 but tentatively pushes the balance in that direction.
Thematically, the text also seems to fit best in an early postexilic context (i.e., after the Fall
of Jerusalem but before the rebuilding of the wall at Jerusalem), given the many similar
themes and vocabulary in Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel, especially with regard to the future
restoration of Israel.
3. Exegetical Analysis and Commentary
Although some scholars divide Mic 7:7(8)-20 differently or wish to exclude certain
verses (esp. vv. 11-13) from the original liturgical text, the entirety of the passage can be
understood as fitting together in a logical pattern in its canonical form, as Gunkel noted in
1924, even if some parts are later additions.8 The strophic division used in my work was
determined largely based on change in speakers and/or tone, independently of Gunkel’s
analysis even though my divisions correspond with the divisions that he proposed. Verse 7
8 See the section on Micah in the history of research (chap. 2, section 2) above for a summary of
Gunkel’s (“Micha-Schluß”) strophic analysis, as well as some of those who exclude vv. 11-13 from the original
liturgical form of Mic 7:7(8)-20 (e.g., Renaud, Formation; Wolff, Micha).
97
serves as a bridge or transition from 7:1-6 to 7:8-20. The first strophe (vv. 8-10) is a song of
trust/confidence in Yhwh spoken by Zion/Jerusalem, which is followed by an oracle of
promise (second strophe) in vv. 11-13 as a response to Zion/Jerusalem by either the prophet
or Yhwh. The third strophe (vv. 14-17) is a petition to Yhwh from the community, which
leads into the concluding song of praise (vv. 18-20; fourth strophe), affirming that Yhwh will
respond to the people.
3.1. Introduction / Bridge (7:7)
7But as for me, I shall watch for Yhwh, I shall wait for the God of my salvation.
Verse 7 provides a transition from oracles of doom (6:1-7:6) to a proclamation of
hope and trust in Yhwh (vv. 8-20, along with v. 7 itself). It is unclear whether v. 7 was part
of the text prior to the addition of the final verses of Micah, either at the same time as 7:1-6
or by a later redactor. Although v. 7’s tone and content are different than vv. 1-6, a sudden
expression of faith, often introduced with an adversative w, is not uncommon in laments and
hymns.9 A similar phrase is also found near the end of the hymn in Habakkuk 3:
`y[vy yhlab hlyga hzwl[a hwhyb ynaw18
But I myself will exult in Yhwh; I will rejoice in the God of my salvation.
The function of the adversative w in such contexts is to create a contrast between either
disbelievers/evil ones/enemies (e.g., Ps 5:8) and/or unfavorable circumstances, such as
drought/famine (e.g., Hab 3:18), and the affirmation of faith by the psalmist or prophet that
Yhwh will hear and respond to his prayer.10
In the verses preceding Mic 7:7, the situation of
9 See, for example: Pss 5:8; 13:5; 26:11; 31:7, 15; 52:10; 59:17; 69:14; 73:28; Hab 3:18.
10
Among the Twelve (Minor) Prophets, only Mic 7:7; Hab 3:18; and Jonah 2:10 use ynaw in this
manner. Elsewhere, the 1st-sg. pronoun with the w conjunction is used primarily by Yhwh (Hos 5:2, 12; 7:15;
98
the speaker is likened to barren vines following a harvest, leaving nothing to eat (v. 1) and
with the community having become corrupt and untrustworthy even toward relatives and
neighbors (vv. 2-6). The presence of ynaw with an adversative w used in this type of context
fits well with the hymnic style, as does the phrase y[vy yhla (“God of my salvation”;
found elsewhere only in Pss 18:46 (yhwla); 25:5; 27:9; and Hab 3:18).11
There are some interesting patterns in the content and structure of the cola in this
verse viewed in relation to one another. Syntactically, v. 7aa and v.7ab match chiastically
with gapping of the subject pronoun (SPV::VP[S]), followed by an inverted order in v. 7b
[VS] relative to the two units in v. 7aa [SV], as well as a repetition of the same two units in
v. 7ab [VS], one of which includes a gapped subject from v. 7aa. Conceptually, the pattern is
even more pronounced, especially when one takes into account the uses of the pronominal
suffixes12
:
7aa A - 1st person pronoun: ynaw
B+C - Preposition + word for God (Yhwh): hwhyb
D - Verb: hpca
7ab D′ - Verb: hlyxwa
B′ +C′ - Preposition + word for God (Elohim): y[vy yhlal
A′ - 1st person pronoun: suffix on y[vy (or yna gapped from v. 7aa)
10:11; Joel 2:27; Jonah 4:11, Hag 2:6; Zech 2:9; 8:8; 13:9; Mal 1:4), with the exception of Jonah 2:5, where
Jonah uses ynaw in a simple continuative sense (“and I”).
11
wn[vy yhla (“God of our salvation”) is found in 1 Chr 16:35 (a prayer); Pss 65:6; 79:9; 85:5.
$[vy yhla (“God of your salvation”) appears only in Isa 17:10; w[vy yhla (“God of his salvation”) is used
only in Ps 24:5. There are no occurrences of the phrase in the MT without a pronominal suffix (i.e., [vy yhla
[“God of salvation”]). There are, however, many other variations of the phrase using words like !rq (“horn”;
e.g., Ps 18:3) or rwc (“rock”; e.g., Ps 95:1) in place of yhla.
12
This pattern in Mic 7:7a is also present in Hab 3:18.
99
7b D′ - Verb: yn[mvy
A′ + C′ - 1st person pronoun + word for God (Elohim): suffix on yhla
Another way of looking at v. 7b is as a combination of the 1st person pronoun and a word for
God with elements of the previous two cola while omitting the prepositions (since God
functions as a subject in v. 7b rather than an object of a preposition as in the previous two
cola).
3.2. Strophe I: Zion/Jerusalem’s Song of Trust in Yhwh (7:8-10)
8 Do not rejoice over me, my enemy, Though I have fallen, I shall rise;
Though I sit in darkness, Yhwh is my light.
9 I shall bear the rage of Yhwh Because I sinned against him,
Until the time he pleads my case, And executes justice for me.
He will bring me out to the light; I shall look upon his righteousness.
10 When my enemy sees (this), Shame will cover her who said to me:
“Where is Yhwh, your God?” My eyes shall gloat over her,
Now she will be trampled, Like the mud of the streets.
There is a shift in speaker in vv. 8-10 in comparison to v. 7, which is one indication
that v. 7 was not originally part of vv. 8-10 and, hence, should be treated separately. In v. 7,
the voice of the prophet is recognizable; here, in vv. 8-10, we hear the words of
Zion/Jerusalem (or perhaps Samaria, if one accepts a northern origin). The key to this
interpretation is that the term “enemy” (ytbya) and the associated verbs and pronouns are
feminine, alluding to an enemy city (representing its ruler and citizens), which is left
100
unspecified. For those who accept an eighth-century date for this passage, the logical choice
for the personified enemy would be Nineveh.13
Given the context, the yk in both v. 8ab and
v. 8ba probably carries a concessive nuance. If so, the second verb in v. 8ab (ytmq) would
be the apodosis and, although both verbs are perfects, the second verb should be interpreted
as a future tense relative to that of the first verb (ytlpn) in the protasis which is also perfect;
thus: “Though I have fallen (ytlpn), I will rise (ytmq).”14
Since this imagery along with the
reference to sitting in darkness in the following colon most strongly evokes association with
the Fall of Jerusalem to Babylon (587 B.C.E.), an exilic or early postexilic socio-historical
context appears more likely.15
In that context, the personified enemy in vv. 8-10 could be
Babylon, or perhaps a neighboring nation that is conceptualized as having benefited (and,
hence, rejoiced) at the destruction of Jerusalem. A popular suggestion for the personified
enemy is Edom.16
It is also possible that the enemy is intended to have a collective, general
meaning.
13
See Waltke, Micah, 433.
14
More literally, the Heb could be translated as “Though I fell, I rose,” which would still seem to recall
the Fall of Jerusalem. The yk could also yield other translations, such as conditional (“If I fall, I will rise”) or
temporal (“When I fall, I will rise”; as in Syr), either of which makes the statement hypothetical and, hence,
could just as easily fit a preexilic context. Both the Gk and La interpret the yk as causative (o[ti; quia) and
understand it in connection with the previous colon (“Do not rejoice over me, my enemy, because I have
fallen”). Both Gk and La also use the perfect tense to translate ytlpn (pe,ptwka; cecidi) and the future tense to
translate ytmq (avnasth,somai; consurgam).
15
For a comparison of verses in Mic 7:7-20 with the book of Lamentations, see Shaw, Speeches of
Micah, 198.
16
For examples, see Decorzant, Vom Gericht zum Erbarmen, 158 (he also suggests Babel and
Philistia); Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II, 198 (he also suggests Babel); Gunkel, “Micha-Schluß,” 157; Jeremias,
Die Propheten, 224 (he also suggests Babel); Robinson, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 150; Shaw, Speeches of
Micah, 198; Weiser, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 289 (he also suggests Babel), Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche,
175 (he also suggests Babel).
101
The word jyj (v. 10) means “clay” or “mud” and is only found in hymns and
prophetic writings.17
The exact phrase twcwx jyjk only appears elsewhere in Ps 18:43 // 2
Sam 22:43 and Zech 9:3. As with Mic 7:10, the parallel passages in Psalm 18 and 2 Samuel
22 use the phrase to describe the downfall of an enemy. In Zech 9:3, the phrase is used with
reference to Tyre.18
Given the plausible use of “Tyre” in v. 12 (see below), perhaps Tyre is
intended as the personified enemy in this verse (or at least one such enemy).
The movement in this strophe begins with an admonition to Zion/Jerusalem’s enemy
not to rejoice over her (v. 8), followed by mention of the reason for Zion/Jerusalem’s
punishment from Yhwh and an affirmation of faith that Yhwh will vindicate her (v. 9). It
then continues with a renewed reference to the female enemy who will be humiliated and
made like the mud of the streets (v. 10). The primary recurring themes focus around light
(rwa; v. 8bb; v. 9ca) and seeing (har; v. 9cb; v. 10aa; v. 10bb). Though Zion/Jerusalem has
fallen and sits in darkness in v. 8, Yhwh will bring her into the light (v. 9) and her enemy will
see her arise again and Zion/Jerusalem will gloat over her enemy (v. 10). Also to be noted is
the presence of court language in v. 9b, which includes a play-on-words between the verb
byr (“strive,” “contend”; “carry on / judge a legal dispute”) and the accusative cognate noun
byr (“strife,” “contention”; “legal case”) in v. 9ba, as well as a proclamation of faith that
Yhwh will execute jpvm (“justice”) for Zion/Jerusalem.
17
2 Sam 22:43; Job 41:22; Pss 18:43; 40:3; 69:15; Isa 41:25; 57:20; Jer 38:6; Nah 3:14; Zech 9:3;
10:5.
18
Zech 9:3 reads twcwx jyjk #wrxw rp[k @sk-rbctw hl rwcm rc !btw (“Tyre has built a
rampart for herself, and heaped up silver like dust and gold like the mud of the streets”), which is followed by
an announcement that “she” will be destroyed by Yhwh (Zech 9:4).
102
3.3. Strophe II: Oracle of Promise in Response to Zion/Jerusalem (7:11-13)
11A day to build your (f.) walls; On that day the boundary will be far.
12That/it is the day And he [God’s people?] will come to you
From Assyria and (to) cities of Egypt And from Tyre to the River;
And [to?] sea from sea, And [to?] mountain [from] mountain;
13And the earth will be desolate On account of its inhabitants, from the fruit of
their deeds
This strophe provides a response to the previous strophe in which Zion/Jerusalem
expresses confidence that, despite her having “fallen,” Yhwh will make her triumphant over
her enemy. The first person shifts from Zion/Jerusalem in the previous strophe to that of
either the prophet or Yhwh who addresses Zion/Jerusalem in the second person.
The strophe opens with three cola that each begin with ~wy (“day”), albeit in three
different constructions (v. 11aa ~wy; v. 11ab awhh ~wy; v. 12aa awh ~wy).19 Despite the
textual difficulties and variations among the ancient versions (Heb, Gk, La, and Syr), all
three formulations describe the future day when Israel (or Zion/Jerusalem) will be restored to
a position of prominence among the nations.20
The “walls” will be rebuilt (v. 11aa), thus
possibly referring to physical city walls or more figuratively to boundaries of the nation (the
latter understanding would tie in well with the use of qx [“boundary”] in the following
19
See textual notes with translation above in section 1 of this chapter. For another alternative, see
Hillers, Micah, 88 n. e.
20
However, the LXX clearly interprets vv. 11-12 in a negative light – i.e., that Jerusalem/Israel will be
destroyed. This would fit better with Micah’s time; however, the placement of these verses understood in this
way in their current context does not make sense following the song of confidence in Yhwh in vv. 8-10, which
ends with an image of hope and restoration. A negative interpretation of vv. 11-12 might provide another reason
for viewing vv. 11-12(13) as not original to the rest of vv. 7(8)-20; however, it seems unlikely that a later
redactor would intentionally have inserted something that contrasts so radically with the immediate context and
disrupts any sense of logical flow. On the other hand, a positive interpretation of these verses (as offered above
in the commentary) does fit well with the overall movement and imagery in vv. 7-20.
103
colon).21
The boundary will be far (v. 11ab), perhaps referring to expansion/restoration of
Israel’s ideal boundaries (see, e.g., Josh 1:4).
Verse 12a grammatically and conceptually provides a link between v. 11, which
mentions restoration of walls and boundaries, and vv. 12b-c, which uses boundary/directional
formulas. Grammatically, v. 12aa ends a sequence of three cola beginning with ~wy, while v.
12ab initiates a sequence of three cola that use d[ (“until,” “as far as”), if one accepts that
d[ should be understood in v. 12ba either via gapping from v. 12ab or as having been lost in
the MT due to a scribal error (d/r confusion yielding MT’s yr[ or haplography).22
The
boundary/directional formulas in vv.12b-c are used to further describe from where “he” (a
collective designation for Israelites in the Diaspora, or perhaps a reference to the nations that
will pay tribute/honor to Israel) will come to “you” (Israel). Before discussing the locations
cited in the boundary/directional formulas, it will be useful to more fully examine the
presence of “Tyre” in v. 12bb.
EXCURSUS: TYRE IN MIC 7:12
In addition to the support of the Gk and Syr witnesses, the choice of rwc (“Tyre”) in
place of the MT’s rwcm in 12bb is further supported because its presence can explain two
unusual phenomena in v. 12ba as part of a boundary/directional formula: (1) the use of
(rwcm) yr[ (“cities [of Egypt]”) instead of (~yrcm) lwbg / lxn / rhn (“river/wadi/border
[of Egypt”) or ~yrcm (“Egypt”) by itself, especially when paired with rwva; and (2) the
21
The word translated “wall” in this verse is rdg, which is not the common Heb word used for
protective city walls (hmwx). HALOT (p. 181) defines rdg as a “dry-stone wall, made without mortar from
loose stones from a field.” In other passages, it is often used to indicate a “wall” along a road and/or around a
vineyard (e.g., Num 22:24; Ps 80:12; Isa 5:5). The author of Mic 7:11 could have a vineyard metaphor in mind.
Both rdg and smrm (v. 10 above) appear together in Isa 5:5, which states that the vineyard’s rdg (“wall”) will
be torn down and the vineyard will be smrml (“for trampling”).
22
See n. i above in the translation/critical notes (section 1 of this chapter).
104
choice of rwcm in place of the more common ~yrcm for “Egypt.”23
Neither of the terms
(~yrcm/rwcm) yr[ or rwcm are attested elsewhere as part of a boundary or directional
formula. However, neither is rwc attested in this type of context; thus, we must first
establish the case for the inclusion of rwc apart from the uses of the terms yr[ and rwcm.
There are two arguments that can be made for the reading rwc, apart from its
potential connections with yr[ and rwcm. First, whenever four directional toponyms or
generic terms are used in the OT, they are always used in the sense of four different
directions: north, south, east, west (not necessarily in that order), often with north-south and
east-west pairings.24
The majority of scholars agree that the MT’s rwcm is a reference to
“Egypt” in both Mic 7:12ba and 7:12bb, and that rwva (“Assyria”) and rhnh (“the River,”
i.e., Euphrates) are parallel between the two cola. Thus, the movement can be diagramed as:
north : south :: south : north
rwva : rwcm :: rwcm : rhnh
However, I have been unable to find any examples of this kind of chiasm as part of
directional designations, especially in the context of a “from A until/to B” formula.25
Thus,
23
For uses of ~yrcm (by itself) with rwva as part of a boundary or directional formula, see Isa 19:23a.
The phrase ~yrcm lwbg (“boundary of Egypt”) is used in connection with rhnh (“the River” – i.e., Euphrates)
in 1 Kgs 5:1 // 2 Chr 2:9. The phrase ~yrcm rhn (“River of Egypt”) is used with trp-rhnh ldgh rhnh
(“the Great River, the River Euphrates”) in Gen 15:18 and with rhnh in Isa 27:12 (again, paired with the
Euphrates) . The phrase ~yrcm lxn (“Wadi of Egypt”) is used with trp-rhn (“River Euphrates”) in 2 Kgs
24:7. In many cases, no other directional terms are provided; however, this makes sense since
Assyria/Euphrates can represent NE (not just N) while Egypt can represent SW (not just S), thus encompassing
all the area in between the two regions (see also Decorzant, Vom Gericht zum Erbarmen, 165). For more
general pairings or comparisons of Egypt and Assyria (or their rivers), see: Josh 24:14; Isa 7:18; 11:11, 15, 16;
19:24, 25; 27:13; Jer 2:18, 36; Ezek 16:26-28; 23:5-8; Hos 7:11; 9:3; 11:5, 11; 12:2; Zech 10:10, 11.
Other verses in which rwcm is understood as referring to Egypt include 2 Kgs 19:24; Isa 19:6; 37:25.
24
For examples, see Gen 28:8; Exod 23:31; Deut 11:24; Josh 1:4; Ps 75:7.
25
The closest equivalent is Isa 19:23, which mentions a highway hrwva ~yrcmm (“from Egypt to
Assyria”), followed by ~yrcmb rwva-ab (“Assyria[ns] will come into Egypt”) and rwvab ~yrcm
(“Egypt[ians] into Assyria”), and rwva-ta ~yrcm wdb[ (“Egypt[ians] will serve Assyria”). However, the
105
when four directional-related terms are cited, one would expect the designations to
correspond to north, south, east, and west directions. Some examples (order of appearance in
the passage indicated by means of parentheses):
Passage South North East West
Gen
28:14
hbgn hnpc hmdq hmy to the Negev (4) to (3) to the east (2) to the sea (1)
Exod
23:31
rbdm rhnh @ws-~y ~ytvlp ~y wilderness (3) the River
(Euph.) (4) Reed Sea (1) Sea of
Philistines (2) Deut
11:24
rbdmh !wnblh trp-rhn rhnh !wrxah ~yh
wilderness (1) Lebanon (2) Euphrates (3) Western Sea (4)
Josh
1:4
rbdmh hzh !wnblh lwdgh rhnh trp-rhn
lwdgh ~yh
wilderness (1) Lebanon (2) Euphrates (3) Great Sea (4)
In the above examples, south is consistently represented by the Negev/wilderness, while the
western point is the Mediterranean Sea (albeit designated in four different ways). Depending
upon the context, there is some variety with regard to northern and eastern designations;
among these, the use of Lebanon to indicate “north” and the Euphrates to indicate “east” in
the same context is of primary interest (Deut 11:24; Josh 1:4).
This leads to the second reason in favor of reading “Tyre” in Mic 7:12bb apart from
the use of yr[ and rwcm in v. 7:12bb. Although in Deut 11:24 and Josh 1:4 Lebanon is
paired with the wilderness in the south north movement as the northern point, the
Euphrates follows Lebanon and the relationship between the Lebanon and the Euphrates is
(north)-west (north-)east. Moreover, in Josh 1:4, Lebanon and the Euphrates are
connected by use of d[ (“until,” “as far as”):
primary chiastic parallelism here involves the two nations entering each other’s land, not the designation of
some broader directional boundaries. The pattern in the use of the terms for “Egypt” and “Assyria” could be
diagramed as: AB (BA :: A′ B′) A′ B′, with the first and fourth cola having a matching “AB” pattern that
encompasses the inner BA:A′ B′ chiasm.
106
trp-rhn lwdgh rhnh-d[w hzh !wnblhw
and this Lebanon as far as the Great River, the River Euphrates
The same pattern also occurs in Deut 1:7: 26
ldgh rhnh-d[w !wnblhw
and Lebanon as far as the Great River
Thus, we have OT examples of Lebanon and the Euphrates being used in a west east
relationship relative to each other. Tyre is located in SE Lebanon; thus, it is possible that an
author could substitute “Tyre” for “Lebanon” while maintaining the geographical
relationship with rhn (Euphrates). A motivation for such a substitution could be that Tyre
was significant during the time of writing. If so, its presence in v. 12bb would provide
assistance in a tentative dating of this text.
[END OF EXCURSUS]
Having established the plausibility for a mention of Tyre in 7:12bb, we can now
reconsider the peculiarities in 7:12ba with regard to its uniqueness in the choice of words in
this directional/boundary formula. First, since Tyre is a city, the use of yr[ in 7:12ba
provides a chiastic parallelism with Tyre (NE region : city :: city : NE region). Second, the
choice rwcm instead of the more common ~yrcm makes sense if the author wanted a word
for “Egypt” that would provide closer assonance with rwc. A similar kind of play-on-words
is found in Zech 9:3a27
:
26
This passage was not included in the table due to the different pattern used; rather than north-south
and east-west pairings of four directional toponyms, the locations occur in a clock-wise order: Amorites (E,
given their association with the Transjordan) Arabah/Negeb (S) sea shore / Canaanites (W) Lebanon
(NW) River Euphrates (NE).
27
Although rwcm in Zech 9:3a clearly carries the general meaning “stronghold/rampart,” E. W. Conrad
(Zechariah [Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999] 157-58)
perceives a possible allusion to the destruction of Egypt at the Reed Sea in Exodus 15.
107
hl rwcm rc !btw
And Tyre (rc) built a stronghold/rampart (rwcm) for herself
The proposed understanding of Tyre and the River (Euphrates) forming a west-east pair
corresponding with the north-south pair of Assyria and Egypt in v. 12b is further supported
when one notices that v. 12c potentially exhibits the same trend despite certain textual
difficulties, except that the order of the pairs is reversed, as are the prepositions given the
placement of the proclitic form of !m in v. 12ca.28
Whenever two seas are used as part of a
directional formula in the OT, they always appear in a west-east (or east-west) relationship
between the Mediterranean Sea and another sea.29
Thus, ~ym ~yw would indicate a west-east
(or east-west) pair that includes the Mediterranean Sea as the western boundary/directional
point. The most logical way to understand the textually difficult rhh rhw in v. 12cb is to
view it as parallel to ~ym ~yw in the previous colon and, hence, either to treat the proclitic
form of !m as gapped between the cola or perhaps emend the text to rhm rhw. Since the
primary mountain ranges in ancient Israel run north-south and because Mount is
often used for “north,” it is logical that v. 12cb should be understood as reflecting a north-
south (or south-north) pair, perhaps between Mount (N) and Mount Sinai (S).30
Since
v. 12ca involves a reversal of the usual d[ … !m formula found in v. 12bb (and probably
28
For a discussion of implied prepositions used chiastically in v. 12, see Andersen and Freedman,
Micah, 586.
29
The Dead Sea (Joel 2:20; Zech 14:18) and Reed Sea (Exod 23:32) are been paired with the
Mediterranean Sea in directional formulas; though not used together in a direction formula, the Dead/Salt Sea is
described as forming the eastern boundary of the Promised Land while the Mediterranean Sea forms its western
boundary (Num 34:3-6). See also M. Saebø, “Vom Grossreich zum Weltreich: Erwägungen zu Pss. 72:8; 89:26;
Sach. 9:10b,” VT 28 (1978) 83-91.
30
For some examples of (Mount) phon being used to designate the north, see Gen 13:14; 28:14;
Exod 36:25; Lev 1:1; Num 34:9; Deut 3:27; 1 Kgs 7:25; Ps 89:13; Isa 43:6; Jer 1:13; Ezek 48:17; Dan 8:4;
Amos 8:12; Zeph 2:13; Zech 6:6.
108
implied in, if not original to, v. 12ba), it is possible that the directional points in v. 12c are
also reversed in a chiastic manner, though this cannot be proven.31
The resulting structure of
v.12b-c would then be:
AB – v. 12ba: from Assyria (N) [to] Egypt (S) [d[] … !m
CD – v. 12bb: from Tyre (W) to the River (E) d[ … !m
D′ C′ – v. 12ca: [to] sea (E) from sea (W) !m …[d[]
B′ A′ – v. 12cb: [to] mountain (S) [from] mountain (N) [!m] …[d[]
The significance of the pattern is that it probably intends to convey directional extremities,
thus indicating that the “he” who will come to “you” in v. 12a is coming from the far reaches
of the region. If the subject of awby is intended to refer to God’s people (cf. “your flock” in
v. 14), then the imagery could very well indicate an exilic or early postexilic context
referring to the return of God’s people from the Diaspora.
The only possible logical connection between v. 13 and vv. 11-12 is that the mention
of #rah (“the land”) in v. 13 could refer back to the nations/lands listed in v. 12. Verse 13
predicts that the earth (location unspecified) will be desolate because of the deeds of its
inhabitants. If one assumes a negative interpretation of vv. 11-12 (as occurs in the LXX; see
n. 24), the land could refer to Israel and its punishment for sinning against Yhwh (also
mentioned in v. 9) and v. 13 would fit in quite well. However, as already mentioned, the
31
Given the reversal of the (often implied) prepositions, treating the locations as also chiastic would
actually yield the same directional patterns (which would not be chiastic; note the direction of the arrow): NS,
WE, E W, S N. Thus, in both N/S pairings, the movement is always from N toward S; likewise, in both
E/W pairings, the movement is always from W to E. In contrast, if the directional locations follow an AB : CD
:: C′ D′ : A′ B′ repetitive pattern, the chiasm would be found in the directional movements themselves: N S,
W E, W E, N S (conceptually = N to S, W to E, E to W, S to N, once one adjusts for the chiastic use of
the prepositions between v. 12b and v. 12c). Either option seems equally valid. The primary issue is that one has
two N/S pairings and two E/W pairings, contrary to those who wish to read v. 12b as a N:S::S:N pattern (e.g.,
Barthelémy, Critique Textuelle, tome 3, 779).
109
overall movement in vv. 7-20 does not logically support a negative interpretation of vv. 11-
12 within this larger context. Accordingly, v. 13 is probably intended to refer to the other
nations. In doing so, v. 13 functions in the second strophe similarly to how v. 10 functions in
the first strophe; both strophes end (in v. 10 and v. 13, respectively) with a reference to the
destruction/downfall of Israel’s enemies.
3.4. Strophe III: Petition to Yhwh (7:14-17)
14Shepherd your people with your staff, The flock of your inheritance,
Who dwells alone, A forest in the midst of Carmel.
May they graze upon Bashan and Gilead, As in the days of old.
15As in the days when you went out from
the land of Egypt, I will show him wonders.
16 The nations will see And they will be ashamed from all
their strength / might.
They will place (their) hand upon (their) mouth; Their ears will be deaf.
17 They will lick dust as a snake, Like crawling things of the earth.
They will quake from their strongholds; They will turn in dread to Yhwh, our God,
And they will be afraid of you.
The perspective shifts again in v. 14, where Yhwh is addressed by the speaker,
probably the prophet representing the community, given that the latter is referred to in the 3rd
person using pastoral imagery. Yhwh is asked to shepherd his people, the flock of his
inheritance (v. 14a). This imagery of God as shepherd and the people as sheep is common
throughout the OT (e.g., Gen 48:15; Isa 40:11; Ezek 34:13-16) and a similar petition also
110
occurs in Ps 28:9 (~lw[h-d[ ~afnw ~[rw; “shepherd them [your people] and
sustain/carry them forever”). The “flock” is further described in v. 14b as dwelling alone
(ddbl), a forest in the midst of Carmel (or a garden/fertile land). The word ddb
(“solitude,” “isolation”) can be used positively (as in Num 23:9, where Balaam observes that
Israel is a people “alone” [ddbl] – i.e., set apart from the other nations) or negatively (as in
Isa 27:10, which speaks of a city being deserted and forsaken). It is possible to interpret Mic
7:14b either way, though the mention of the people as God’s “inheritance” (hlxn) makes it
plausible that description of the people being “alone” in Micah is intended in a manner
similar to its use in Num 23:9, i.e., distinguishing the people from the other nations (just as
being God’s “inheritance” constitutes their unique position among the nations).
The choice of the place names in Mic 7:14 has prompted some scholars to suggest a
northern origin or focus for this strophe (and sometimes for the entire litany in vv. 8-20).32
Bashan and Gilead are located across the Jordan River, with Bashan further north and Gilead
extending to the south through western Ammon. Both are known for their fertile lands.
Likewise, Carmel (if lmrk is to be taken as the proper noun; see n. o) is also located near a
fertile region north of Israelite territory, near the Mediterranean Sea and Mount Carmel.
Bashan and Carmel (as a proper noun) are often paired together in the OT, including texts
that post-date the Fall of Samaria in 722 B.C.E. (see, e.g., Isa 33:9; Jer 50:19; Nah 1:4). All
three place names (Bashan, Carmel, and Gilead) occur together elsewhere only in Jer 50:19.
Bashan and Gilead are otherwise never mentioned together in poetry or prophetic texts in the
MT. Given that these place names occur in prophetic texts that were written after the Fall of
32
See S. Vargon, “The Prayer for the Restoration of the Israelite Kingdom in the Book of Micah – Literary Analysis and Historical Background,” in Homeland and Exile: Biblical and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Honour of Bustenay Oded (ed. G. Galil, M. Geller, and A. Millard; VTSup 130; Leiden: Brill, 2009) 597-618. Vargon suggests that Micah is praying for the restoration of the Northern Kingdom in response to its annexation by Tiglath-Pileser III and before the revolt by Hoshea, son of Elah, against Pekah (ibid., 615).
111
Samaria, it is not necessary to posit an eighth-century date for Mic 7:(7)8-20 on the basis of
these names alone -- as some scholars attempt to do (see n. 32).
Verse 15 has received a lot of attention due to another probable shift in speakers,
though some have tried to argue that the “you” in v. 15a is Yhwh – i.e., when Yhwh went up
from the land of Egypt – rather than the Israelites.33
However, this understanding only works
if one emends the verb wnara in v. 15 to wnarh (“show us”) or something similar.34
Otherwise, the 1st-person verb (as pointed in the MT and supported by the La and Syr) in v.
15b must have Yhwh as its subject, thus making it likely that Yhwh is speaking to Israel in
the 2nd
person in v. 15a. This understanding does create a small problem in v. 15b in that
there Israel is referred to in the 3rd
person (“I will show him wonders”) rather than the 2nd
person, which is why many scholars wish to emend the text. However, if Yhwh is retained as
the speaker in v. 15, it can serve as a response to v. 14. It also provides an interesting
development vis-à-vis v. 9c, where it is stated that “He [Yhwh] will bring me out [hiphil of
acy] to the light / I will look [qal of har] upon his righteousness.”35
Compare this to v. 15,
which states, “As in the days of your [sg.; Israel] going out [qal of acy] of the land of Egypt /
I [YHWH] will show[hiph. of har] him [Israel] wonders.” The two verbs are used in the
same order in each bicolon but with the speakers and binyanim (stems) reversed. By itself, v.
9c has loose connections with the Exodus motif (the hiph. of acy is frequently used of Yhwh
bringing Israel out of Egypt; see, e.g., Exod 7:5; Deut 8:14; Josh 24:6; Jer 7:22; Ezek 20:10).
However, the presence of the motif there is strengthened given the verbal connection with v.
33
For example, Hillers, Micah, 91.
34
Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 150. For a list of other scholars who support emendation of the text
here, see n. p above in the translation and textual notes for this chapter.
35
See also Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche, 193.
112
15, which itself is obviously referring to the Exodus (“going out of the land of Egypt”
combined with showing “him” wonders “as in the days of old”).
The final verses of this strophe (vv. 16-17) seem to shift back to the words of the
prophet/community, given the mention of Yhwh in the 3rd
person in v. 17bb and in the 2nd
person in v. 17c. The nations will “see” (qal of har) and “be ashamed” (vwb) “from all their
strength” (v. 16aa-b); it is unclear whether “their” here refers to Israel’s strength (i.e., they
will be ashamed because of Israel’s strength) or their own strength (i.e., they will be ashamed
of or despite their own strength). The statement that the nations will be ashamed (vwb) in v.
16a could be viewed as an expansion of the sentiment in v. 10a which speaks of the shame
(hvwb) that will cover the feminine enemy.
The statement that they (the nations) will lick ($xl) dust (rp[) like a snake (v.
17aa) is similar to two passages in Isaiah, i.e., 49:23 and 65:25:
hwhy yna-yk t[dyw wkxly $ylgr rp[w $l wwxtvy #ra ~ypa 49:23b-c
ywq wvby-al rva
49:23b-c With their (kings and queens’) faces on the ground, they will bow to you and
lick ($xl) the dust (rp[) of your feet. And you will know that I am Yhwh, those
who wait for me will never be ashamed (vwb).
hwhy rma yvdq rh-lkb wtyxvy-alw w[ry-al wmxl rp[ vxnw 65:25c-d
65:25c-d “… and dust will be the snake’s food. And they will not hurt or destroy on all
of my holy mountain,” says Yhwh.
Both passages in Isaiah refer to a time when Israel will be restored and there will be
peace, even among animals (as in Isa 65:25). Isaiah 49:23 specifically indicates that
other nations’ kings and queens will lick dust at Israel’s feet, while 65:25 makes a
113
connection with snakes (literally) licking dust. The imagery in Mic 7:17a contains a
combination of both motifs present in the two Isaiah passages.
Verse 17b contains language typical of storm-/warrior-god imagery; this will be
discussed in more detail in the section below regarding this motif. The nations will react in
fear, as is also stated in v. 17c (which switches to the 2nd
person for Yhwh): $mm waryw
(“and they will be afraid of you [Yhwh]”). It is possible that the first word (verb ary; “be
afraid”) in this final colon of v. 17 may be intended as a play-on-words with the first word of
the opening colon in v. 16 (verb har; “to see”), given the similar spelling for both and the
mention of “nations” as the subject of both verbs (albeit implied in v. 17).
As in Strophe I (vv. 8-10), the theme of “seeing” (har) is also quite prevalent in this
strophe, while absent in the intervening strophe (vv. 11-13). It is quite possible, given the
connections noted above, that vv. 14-17 may have originally followed vv. 8-10 in an earlier
version of the text prior to its incorporation into Micah, as suggested by some scholars.36
3.5. Strophe IV: Song of Praise (7:18-20)
18
Who is a god like you?
Pardoning iniquity and passing over the transgression of the
remnant of his inheritance?
He does not retain his anger forever Because he delights in steadfast love.
19 He will again have compassion on us; He will tread upon our offenses.
And you will throw into the depths of the sea All our sins.
20 You will give truth to Jacob, Steadfast love to Abraham
36
See the introductory comments in this chapter as well as the history of research on Micah 7 in
Chapter II.
114
Which you swore to our ancestors From the days of old.
This strophe switches between addressing God in the 2nd
person (v. 18a) to using the
3rd
person (vv. 18ba – 19ab), and back to the 2nd
person (vv. 19ba-20bb). The speaker
throughout most of the passage is the community (as indicated by the 1st-person plural
pronominal suffixes in vv. 19aa-b and v. 20ba). One exception is v. 19bb, where suddenly the
3rd
-person plural pronominal suffix is used for the community (“their sins”); as noted above
in the textual notes, the Gk, La, Syr, and many scholars prefer to read the 1st-person pronoun
here, which does make better sense and, hence, I have emended the text accordingly on the
basis of a probable wn / ~ confusion. However, given the liturgical nature of this passage, it is
possible that a liturgical leader (perhaps representing the prophet) would have recited v. 19bb
as part of a dialogue with the community, which would make the use of the 3rd
-person suffix
plausible.
Verse 18 begins with a question in a rhetorical style that is not infrequent in psalms
and hymns: $wmk la-ym (“Who is a god like you?”), this often accompanied by mention of
traits or deeds of the deity (see v. 18b). Similar rhetorical questions regarding God are found
in Exod 15:11; 2 Sam 22:32 // Ps 18:32; Ps 113:5.37
There is also a variation in Deut 33:23,
in which Israel is the subject of the question hwhyb [vwn ~[ $wmk ym (“Who is like you,
a people saved by Yhwh?”). The incomparable traits ascribed to Yhwh here (v. 18b) are of
one who pardons guilt and passes over the transgression of wtlxn (“his inheritance”). The
mention of wtlxn recalls the petition in v. 14ab that Yhwh remember $tlxn (“your
inheritance”).
37
For a more detailed discussion, see Waltke, Micah, 462-63; Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche, 199-
200.
115
The following bicolon in v. 18c is reminiscent of v. 9 above. In v. 9, Zion/Jerusalem
mentions bearing the fury/wrath of Yhwh until he executes justice and brings her into the
light. Now, in v. 18c, we find an affirmation that Yhwh will not be angry forever because he
delights in steadfast (covenantal) love (dsx). The focus on God’s compassion and steadfast
love (dsx) continues throughout the remainder of the strophe. In v. 19ba, Yhwh is depicted
as throwing all their/our(?) sins ~y twlcmb (“into the depths of the sea”). Again, we find a
connection with Exodus 15, specifically with 15:5 which states that the Egyptians “went
down into the depths (twlcmb) like a stone.” The word twlcm can be used literally to refer
to the deepest part of a body of water (e.g., the Nile River in Zech 10:11) or figuratively for
death or despair (e.g., Ps 69:3, 16) or both (e.g., Exod 15:5).38
In Mic 7:19, the imagery is
such that Israel’s sins will be cast into the deepest part of the sea and, hence, will figuratively
die (i.e., be forgotten/forgiven).
Covenant-related language appears again in the final verse (v. 20). Here one finds
mention of God’s “faithfulness/truth” (tma) and “steadfastness” (dsx) to two of the
patriarchs (Jacob and Abraham, v. 20aa-b). This is followed by a recollection of “that which
you [Yhwh] swore [niphal of [bv] to our ancestors, from the days of old” (v. 20ba-b). The
niphal of [bv is frequently used to refer to the covenant made with the patriarchs; the exact
form found in Mic 7:20 (t[bvn) also occurs in Exod 32:13 where all three patriarchs are
listed (Abraham, Isaac, and Israel [Jacob]).39
The final colon (v. 20bb) is similar to an
38
twlcm is only found in poetic and prophetic writings: Exod 15:5; Neh 9:11; Job 41:23; Pss 68:23;
69:3, 16; 88:7; 107:24; Jonah 2:4; Mic 7:19; Zech 1:8; 10:1. A more common Heb word for the deep/abyss is
~wht, sometimes found in conjunction with twlcm (see, e.g., Exod 15:5; Jonah 2:6) or by itself (Hab 3:10);
~wht is also found primarily in poetic and prophetic writings.
39
See also similar uses of this exact form of [bv in Num 11:12; Deut 26:15; Ps 89:50; Jer 32:22.
116
expression used in v. 14cb, but with slightly different phrasing (~dq ymy in v. 20 vs.
~lw[ ymy in v. 14).
4. Storm-/Warrior-god Theophanic Motifs and Vocabulary
Several common motifs in OT storm-/warrior-god theophanies are absent in Mic 7:7-
20. There is no description of divine weapons or of Yhwh’s descent from his holy mountain
or temple, no mythic battle, and no effects upon nature are ascribed specifically to the
coming/appearance of Yhwh. This is in stark contrast to the theophany in Mic 1:2-4, where
Yhwh is described as descending from his holy temple (vv. 2-3) to tread upon the earth (v.
3), with direct effects upon the mountains and valleys (v. 4). Although no body parts are
explicitly mentioned, the description of Yhwh in Micah 1 implies some kind of physical
presence of the deity (e.g., feet would be needed to tread upon the earth in v. 3). This is not
the case in Micah 7; the closest the passage comes to implying a physical body for Yhwh is
in v. 19 where it says that Yhwh will subdue/tread upon (vbk) Israel’s iniquities and throw
($lv) their sins into the depths of the sea; however, since “iniquity” (!w[) and “sin”
(tajx) are hypothetical constructs without corporeal forms (and are not clearly personified
as having such a form in this passage), the imagery is merely analogical, though it has clearly
been borrowed from theophanic motifs.40
Micah 7:7-20 does contain other language and motifs common in theophanic
passages, which I categorize thematically below.
40
Cf. Mic 1:3 where Yhwh is described as treading upon ($rd) the earth. Also, everywhere else in the
OT where something is described as being cast down/going down into the deep (twlcm)/depths of the sea, it is
a person or group of persons (Exod 15:5; Neh 9:11; Pss 69:3, 16; 88:7; Jonah 2:4).
117
4.1. Effects upon Nature
There is one effect on nature in the passage that is similar to what one finds in other
theophanic accounts, except that here no direct connection is made between the effect and the
coming or presence of Yhwh. Verse 13 says that the land will be for “desolation” (hmmv), a
concept common in theophanic passages but also found in general pronouncements directed
against a nation (see, e.g., Lev 26:33).41
The use of hmmv in the context of Mic 7:7-20 is
similar to the pronouncement against Mount Seir (Edom) in Ezek 35:14-15 which states
Mount Seir will be “desolate” (hmmv) because it rejoiced at the “desolation” (hmmv) of
Israel. A similar scenario occurs in Mic 7:8, where Zion/Jerusalem tells her enemy not to
rejoice even though she has fallen, and Mic 7:13 where the target of the announced
devastation is now the rest of the earth (corresponding to the description of the enemy city’s
downfall in v. 10). Although hmmv is found in a few earlier texts (unless these occurrences
are themselves from a later redactor), most uses of hmmv in the MT date during and
following the time of Isaiah, with its peak usage in Ezekiel.42
4.2. Effects upon Humans
Most of the theophanic vocabulary in Mic 7:7-20 focuses on the theophany’s effects
upon humans; however, as noted above, any implication of God having a physical form is
absent (unlike more traditional theophanies). Verses 10 and 16 both mention humiliation (the
noun hvwb in v. 10 with regard to the female enemy; the verb vwb in v. 16 in reference to
41
hmmv is found in/near theophanic accounts in Joel 2:3; Mic 1:7; Zeph 2:13; however, other
theophanies also record similar effects upon the land (e.g., Hab 3:17) .
42
In the OT, Ezekiel uses hmmv the most, with 22 uses out of 53 occurrences in the MT. Ezekiel is
followed by Jeremiah (15 uses), Isaiah (6 uses), Joel and Zephaniah (4 uses each), and Micah (twice). The term
is used once in each of the following: Exodus, Leviticus, Joshua, and Malachi.
118
the nations); though not exclusive to theophanic passages, this imagery fits in well with the
image of a storm-/warrior-god who fights against enemies of his faithful ones (see, e.g., Pss
35:4; 83:18; 89:46). The reaction of the nations in their fear of Yhwh is described using three
different verbs in v. 17: ary (“be afraid”), dxp (“dread”), and zgr (“tremble,” “quake”).
Although zgr and dxp do appear in a few prose passages (see, e.g., zgr in 1 Sam 14:15),
both are primarily concentrated in poetry and prophetic writings and are frequent in
theophanic texts, sometimes being paired together as they are in Mic 7:17 (and Exod 15:14-
15). The other term, ary, is the common Heb verb meaning “to fear,” found abundantly in
both prose and poetry. The last effect upon a human (albeit a city/nation personified as a
female enemy) occurs in v. 10, which states that the enemy will be a “trampled place”
(smrm).43
4.3. God’s Anger/Wrath
One cause of trampling enemies and reaction in fear is God’s anger/wrath, which can
be expressed in several ways. The word chosen in Mic 7:9 for such anger/wrath is the noun
@[z, where it is mentioned as part of the reason for Zion/Jerusalem’s punishment (because
she has sinned against Yhwh, eliciting his wrath). When used for God’s rage, @[z connotes a
kind of storming rage that is explicitly connected with theophanic imagery in Isa 30:30. It is
also used of stormy waters in Jonah 1:15. According to BDB (p. 277), @[z is found only in
poetic and late texts.44
43
Cf. Isa 28:3; 63:3.
44
@[z (in the sense of rage) appears in 2 Chr 16:10; 28:9; Prov 19:12; Isa 30:30; Jonah 1:15; Mic 7:9.
119
4.4. God as Savior, Rock, etc.
There is one occurrence in Mic 7:7-20 where Yhwh is called y[vy yhla (“God of
my salvation”; Mic 7:7). This construct chain is used exclusively in prophetic writings and
poetry (Pss 18:47 [yhwla]; 25:5; 27:9; Hab 3:18). The concept of God as bringer of
salvation, of course, is not exclusive to theophanic texts; however, it is a frequent component
of theophanies, especially where warrior-god motifs occur.45
4.5. Place Names
Several places are named in Mic 7:7-20: Assyria, Bashan, Carmel (?), Egypt, Gilead,
the River Euphrates, and Tyre (?). Of these, Bashan, Carmel, and Gilead are of particular
interest. All three appear in Jer 50:19, where Yhwh promises that Israel will feed in these
locations; also as in Mic 7:14, the imagery is pastoral with Israel likened to Yhwh’s flock.
Both Bashan and Carmel are said to be withered by Yahweh in the theophany in Nahum 1
(specifically, v. 4). Also noteworthy (given the possible reference to Tyre in Mic 7:12) is
how often Lebanon appears with one or more of the above three places in prophetic writings
(Isa 2:13; 33:9; Jer 22:6, 20; Nah 1:4; Zech 10:10).
5. Summary
Although dating Mic 7:7-20 on linguistic grounds is tenuous, an early postexilic
context seems the most likely given the passage’s content and connections with other texts of
the late preexilic to early postexilic period. It is possible to read the entire passage as a
45
See, e.g., Deut 33:29; 2 Sam 22:3, 47; Pss 7:11; 18:3; 62:8; 76:10; 106:8, 10, 21; Hos 13:4; Hab
3:13; Zeph 3:17; Zech 9:9.
120
liturgical text with v. 7 as a bridge to the preceding pericope. However, there are some
textual indicators that a version lacking vv. 11-13 may have been in circulation, perhaps
independently, at some point prior to the finalization of the canonical form of Micah.46
Theophanic vocabulary and motifs appear periodically throughout Mic 7:7-20 and at
least once in every strophe (vv. 7, 10, 13, 16-17, and 19), often at the end of the given
strophe (vv. 10, 13, and 16-17). However, there is also a tendency in the text to take
traditional theophanic language and apply it figuratively to abstract concepts (e.g., iniquity
and sin in v. 19). Although the description of the nations reacting in fear to Yhwh uses some
of the language found in other passages that describe the effect of the coming of Yhwh on
nature or people, there is no description of the coming of Yhwh in this passage. This
contrasts significantly with the more traditional theophanic motifs found in Mic 1:2-4, thus
indicating that in the time between the composition of these two texts, there may have been a
movement away from imagery that implied a physical form of Yhwh even as some of the
typical theophanic vocabulary was retained. This perhaps corresponded with the movement
in Israelite religion toward true monotheism and/or an increased interest in distinguishing
Yhwh from other ANE deities, especially those associated with the traditional theophanic
storm-/warrior-god imagery.
46
See the section on Micah in Chapter II for theories about a version of Mic 7:7-20 that may have
circulated independently prior to its incorporation into the book of Micah.
121
Chapter IV
Habakkuk 3:1-19
The delimitation of Habakkuk 3 from the rest of the book is clearly indicated by the
superscription/heading that begins the chapter in v. 1 and the liturgical subscription that
closes the passage (and also the book) at the end of v. 19. Classification of the hymn is a
matter of scholarly debate. There is a possible clue in the superscription itself given the use
of the term !wygv, which appears in only one other verse in the MT (Ps 7:1); in both
superscriptions, it apparently describes some kind of song but is of uncertain meaning and
etymology.1 Many scholars suggest that it is a psalm of lament, sometimes appealing to an
Akkadian cognate.2 T. Hiebert and M. L. Barré are among the few who classify Habakkuk 3
as a hymn of victory or triumph.3 A few others, such as R. L. Smith, try to avoid the “hymn
of victory vs. lament” debate by classifying Habakkuk 3 as a “liturgy,” given the technical
psalmodic notations that are included throughout the chapter, which suggest it was used with
musical accompaniment.4
1 See the discussion below in the exegesis section.
2 See F. Horst, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten: Nahum bis Maleachi (HAT 1/14; Tübingen: Mohr, 1954)
182; P. Humbert, euch tel Secr tariat de l niversit , , S.
Mowinckel, “Zum Psalm des Habakuk,” TZ 9 (1953) 1-23, here 7; M. A. Sweeney, “Structure, Genre, and
Intent in the Book of Habakkuk,” VT 41 (1991) 63-83, here 78.
3 T. Hiebert, God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn in Habakkuk 3 (HSM 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1986) 1; M. L. Barré, “Habakkuk 3 Translation in Context,” CBQ 50 (1988) 184-197, here 184 n. 2.
4 R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984) 114- . J. H. Eaton “Origin and
Meaning of Habakkuk 3,” ZAW 76 [1964] 144-171, here 163) posits that Habakkuk 3 was a liturgical text from
its very beginning.
122
1. Text, Syntax, and Translation5
The Hebrew (Heb) text presented here primarily follows the Masoretic Text (MT) as
found in BHS. However, Mur XII, the LXX, the Barberini Greek text, the Syriac Peshitta,
and the Latin Vulgate have also been taken into consideration and I make minor emendations
to the MT in vv. 9, 10, 11, 13, 15, and 16. The emendations have been included in the Heb
text and the translation is based on the text here given; in these cases, the MT is provided in
the corresponding footnote. Words in the Heb text that differ from the MT, including places
where I am reading a different vowel pointing of the same consonantal text, are indicated by
an asterisk (*). Because the text is particularly problematic, especially in vv. 3-15 where the
storm-/warrior-god motif is the strongest, a detailed analysis is provided in order to account
5 Unless otherwise noted, all Hebrew (Heb) texts are taken from BHS and all English translations are
my own. The Latin (La) text is from R. Weber, Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche
Bibelgesellschaft, 1994). The Syriac (Syr) text is from A. Gelston, “Dodekapropheton,” in Dodekapropheton –
Daniel - Bel – Draco (Peshitta Institute; The Old Testament in Syriac 3/4; Leiden: Brill, 1980). The Greek (Gk)
tradition requires a special note: in addition to the Septuagint (LXX), there is a translation specifically of
Habakkuk 3 known as the “Barberini” Barb version that seems independent of the LXX and all other Gk
translations. The critical edition of the LXX used for Habakkuk is J. Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae (Septuaginta
13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967 . The Barb text is from E. M. Good, “The Barberini Greek
version of Habakkuk 3,” VT 9 (1951) 11-30; for more information and/or analyses of the Barb version, see also
H. B venot, “Le Cantique d Habacuc,” RB 42 (1933) 499-525; C. Dogniez, “La version Barberini. Él ments
pour une tude litt raire d un autre texte grec d Habacuc 3,” in Die Septuaginta – Entstehung, Sprache,
Geschichte (ed. S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, and M. Sigismund; WUNT 286; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 295-
310; H.-J. Fabry, “‘Der Herr macht meine Schritte sicher Hab 3, Barb. Die Versio Barberini, eine
liturgische Sondertradition von Hab 3?” in Die Septuaginta – Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse (ed. W. Kraus and
M. Karrer; WUNT 252; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010) 223-37; M. L. Margolis, “The Character of the
Anonymous Greek Version of Habakkuk, Chapter 3,” in Old Testament and Semitic Studies, vol. 1 (ed. R. F.
Harper, et al.; Chicago: University of Chicago, 1908) 133-42. Dogniez “Version Barberini,” 295-96) notes that
the Barb version probably dates back to the first – second century C.E., even though the extant MSS are from the
eighth – thirteenth centuries. Where both the LXX and Barb agree, I will refer to the text as the “Gk” text.
Where there are differences, the LXX and Barb will be indicated separately by their corresponding
abbreviations.
The syntactical analysis used here is based upon the system developed by M. P. O Connor Hebrew
Verse Structure [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997]; see also W. L. Holladay, “Hebrew Verse Structure
Revisited I Which Words ‘Count ?” JBL 118 [1999] 19-3 idem, “Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (II):
Conjoint Cola, and Further Suggestions,” JBL 118 [1999] 401- 6 . However, I use the term “colon” in place of
O Connor s term “line.” Also, I have divided the passage into “strophes,” rather than O Connor s categories of
“batches” and “staves.” For a list of abbreviations used for the syntactical analysis, see the Abbreviations page.
123
for the different textual possibilities, given the importance of establishing the text for analysis
of the storm-/warrior-god vocabulary.
Superscription/Heading
` atwnygv l[ aybnh qwqbxl hlpt 1
1A prayer of Habakkuk the Prophet, according to shigyonoth.
a
Strophe I: Introduction
VocVO VVocO $l[p hwhy ytary $[mv yt[mv hwhy 2
a The Gk reads meta. wv|dh/j “with song” cf. LXX 3:19 where ytwnygnb is translated as evn th/| wv|dh/| auvtou
[“in/by his song”] the Gk is used as a basis by some scholars who wish to emend the text in v. 1 to twnygn; see
A. Condamin, “La forme chorale du ch. III d Habacuc,” RB 8 (1898) 133-140, here 137 W. A. Irwin, “The
Psalm of Habakkuk,” JNES 1 (1942) 10-40, here 17 n. 17; P. Riessler, Die kleinen Propheten oder das
Zwölfprophetenbuch Rottenburg Bader, W. H. Ward, “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on
Habakkuk,” in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah, and
Joel (ICC; New York Charles Scribner s Sons, ) 20; J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und
erklärt (Berlin: Reimer, 1898) 35. The La has pro ignorationibus “for ignorances” related to the Gk
translation evpi. avgnohma,twn “upon/concerning ignorances” in Aquila and Symmachus. This is in contrast to
Theodotion which has upe.r tw/n evkousiasmw/n “for/concerning a free-will offering” , for which Jerome gives
the La as pro voluntariis (D. Barthelémy, Critique t xt ’An n T t nt, tome 3: Ézéchiel, Daniel et
les 12 Prophètes [OBO 50/3; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992] 857).
The Peshitta lacks the phrase twnygv l[; however, a few Syr MSS include either )(+d L( “upon going
astray” or )+Xd L( “upon sin” .
I see no reason to emend the text (cf. Ps 7:1); however, due to the uncertain meaning of twnygv, I have
followed the tradition of some scholars who transliterate the Heb instead of attempting a translation; see A. B.
Davidson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (CBSC 53; Cambridge: University Press, 1920) 86;
A. Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II: Obadja, Jona, Micha, Nahum, Habakkuk (NEchB 8/2; Würzburg: Echter
Verlag, 1984) 230; F. Delitzsch, Der Prophet Habakuk (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Propheten des Alten
Bundes; Leipzig: K. Tauchnitz, 1843) 125; R. Haak, Habakkuk (VTSup 44; Leiden: Brill, 1992) 27; H. Pfeiffer,
Jahwes kommen von Süden: Jdc 5; Hab 3; Dtn 33 und Ps 68 in ihrem literatur- und theologiegeschichtlichen
Umfeld (FRLANT 211; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005) 8 G. T. M. Prinsloo, “Reading
Habakkuk 3 in its literary context A worthwhile exercise or a futile attempt?” Journal for Semitics 11 (2002)
83-111, here 88; J. J. M. Roberts, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary (OTL; Louisville: John
Knox, 1991) 128; O. P. Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (NICOT; Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1990) 214; R. Sinker, The Psalm of Habakkuk: A Revised Translation, with Exegetical and Critical
Notes on the Hebrew and Greek Texts (Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1890) 6; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 112;
H. H. Walker and . W. Lund, “The Literary Structure of the Book of Habakkuk,” JBL 53 (1934) 355-70, here
368. See especially the discussion of twnygv in F. I. Andersen, Habakkuk (AB 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001)
268-73; Andersen also transliterates the Heb.
124
PV PV [ydwt ~ynv brqb whyyx ~ynv brqb
POV `rwkzt ~xr zgrb
Translation and Notes
[b$l[p hwhy ytary] d$[mv yt[mv hwhycb 2
[cwhyyx ~ynv brqb]
2 bcYhwh, I heard your report;
d [I feared, Yhwh, your works.
b]
[In the midst of years sustain him/it;c]
b-b
The LXX has a longer reading for this bicolon, starting with the inclusion of the verb “to fear” as
part of the first colon rather than the second (contrary to Heb): ku,rie eivsakh,koa th.n avkoh,n sou kai. evfobh,qhn “Lord, I have heard your report and I was afraid” / kateno,hsa ta. e;rga sou kai. evxe,sthn “I considered your
works and I was amazed” ; see also nn. c-c and e below. Barb differs only in reading euvlabh,qhn “I revered” in
place of evfobh,qhn “I feared” in the first colon and including ku,rie “Lord” as the first word in the second
colon.
c-c
As formatted in Weber s text of the Vg and in the Leiden Peshitta, both the La and Syr include
“fear” as part of the first colon (cf. Gk in n. b-b, but La and Syr have different content for the second colon due
to their including material from v. 2ba in Heb) with the result that three cola in Heb appear as two in La and
Syr. The La has Domine audivi auditionem tuam et timui “Lord, I have heard your report and I have feared” /
Domine opus tuum in medio annorum vivifica illud “Lord, make that work of yours live in the midst of years”
however, the La could be divided differently to more closely fit the Heb: Domine audivi auditionem tuam
“Lord, I have heard your report” / et timui Domine opus tuum “and I have feared, Lord, your work” . The
Syr has tLXdw kM$ t(M$ )YrM; “Lord, I heard your name and was afraid” / )YN*$ wGB kYdB8( )YrM )YX*d “Lord, your works in the midst of years of life” ; however, the Syr could also be divided in such a way to
more closely fit the Heb: kM$ t(M$ )YrM; “Lord, I heard your name” / kYdB8( )YrM tLXdw “and I
feared, Lord, your works” . The different divisions in the La and Syr and also perhaps to some degree in the
first colon in the Gk could be the result of the inclusion of the conjunction “and” Gk kai,, La et, Syr w) not
found in the MT; it is difficult to determine whether the inclusion of the conjunction is due to an attempt to
smooth out the text or whether rather the Heb Vorlage for the other versions read ytaryw with the possibility
that the w was accidentally dropped in the MT due to the proximity with y, with which w was often confused.
Although many scholars appeal to the LXX to support emendation of the MT in v. 2ab (see n. e below), most
keep the MT s division of the bicolon in v. a.
d The Syr reads kM$ “your name” .
125
$l[p hwhy eytary [$[mv yt[mv hwhy] 2
2 [Yhwh, I heard your report;] I feared,
e Yhwh, your works.
e BHS and many scholars wish to emend the MT s ytary (qal perf. 1
st sg. from ary “I feared” to
ytyar (qal perf. 1st sg. from har “I saw” , largely based on the presence of kateno,hsa “I considered” in the
Gk (see n. b-b above for the first bicolon in the Gk), even though the Gk text is much longer than any of the
other versions in v. 2. Scholars who emend the text to ytyar include W. F. Albright “The Psalm of
Habakkuk,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy Presented To Professor Theodore H. Robinson By The
Society For Old Testament Study On His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, August 9th, 1946 [ed. H. H. Rowley; Edinburgh:
T & T Clark, 1950] 1-18, here 11-13), . Cassuto “Il capitolo 3 di Habaquq e i testi di Ras Shamra,” Annuario
di Studi Ebraici 2 [1935-37] 7-22, here 14- , T. K. Cheyne “An Appeal for a More Complete Criticism of
the Book of Habakkuk,” JQR 20 [1907] 3-30, here 23), A. Deissler (Zwölf Propheten II: Obadja, Jona, Micha,
Nahum, Habakuk [NEchB 8/2; Stuttgart: Echter Verlag, 1984] 230), Delitzsch (Prophet Habakuk, xxix), B.
Duhm (Das Buch Habakuk: Text, Übersetzung, und Erklärung [Tübingen: Mohr, 1906] 72), K. Elliger (Die
Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi [ATD 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1982] 49), Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182), Humbert ( , 77, 79), Irwin (“Psalm of
Habakkuk,” 17), T. Lescow “Die Komposition der Bücher ahum und Habakuk,” BN 77 [1995] 59-85, here
83), B. Margulis “The Psalm of Habakkuk A Reconstruction and Interpretation,” ZAW 82 [1970] 409-41, here
433), K. Marti (Dodekapropheton [Kurzer Hand-kommentar zum Alten Testament 13; Tu bingen: Mohr, 1904]
349-50), Mowinckel “Psalm des Habakuk,” , J. Nogalski (Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve
[BZAW 218; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1993] 174 , O Connor Hebrew Verse Structure, 234), W. Rudolph
(Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja [KAT 13/3; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975] 233), E. Sellin (Das
Zwölfprophetenbuch: Übersetzt und erklärt [KAT 12; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1922] 356-66 ,Ward “Habakkuk,”
20), J. Wöhrle (Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den
späten Sammlungen [BZAW 389; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008] 3 . In Ward s “Habakkuk,”
opinion, “fear is not appropriate till after the theophany.”
Scholars who support the MT s ytary include Andersen (Habakkuk, 277-78), Condamin “Forme
chorale,” 36 , Eaton “Habakkuk 3,” 144, 146-47; Eaton considers ytyar a “marginal possibility” [ibid., ]),
M. H. Floyd (Minor Prophets, Part 2 [FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000] 150), Haak (Habakkuk, 79),
Hiebert (God of My Victory, 5, 11-12), W. Nowack (Die kleinen Propheten [HKAT 3/4; 2nd
ed.; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903] 289), R. D. Patterson (Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah: An Exegetical
Commentary [Dallas(?): Biblical Studies Press, 2003] 208), L. Perlitt (Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk,
Zephanja [ATD 25/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004] 84; however, Perlitt also notes that ytary could be a scribal error for ytyar [ibid.]), Pfeiffer (Jahwes kommen von Süden, 128, 130), Roberts (Nahum,
130-31), O. P. Robertson (Habakkuk, 215-16), R. L. Smith (Micah-Malachi, , Walker and Lund “Literary
Structure,” 368 Wellhausen Kleinen Propheten, 35). See the exegesis section below for further discussion.
126
[f[ydwt ~ynv brqb whyyx ~ynv] hbrqbgf
fgIn the midst
h [of years sustain him/it; In the midst of years make (it) known.
f]
[
g`rwkzt ~xr zgrb]
[In rage remember to have compassion.g]
f-f
The Gk reads four cola in place of these two cola in Heb: evn me,sw| du,o zw,|wn gnwsqh,sh| “in the midst of two lives, you will be known” / evn tw/| evggi,zein ta. e;th evpignwsqh,sh “when the years draw near, you
will be recognized” / evn tw/| parei/nai to.n kairo.n avnadeicqh,sh| “when the time comes, you will be revealed” /
evn tw/| taracqh/nai th.n yuch,n mou “when my soul is troubled” .
g-g
Following the division in Weber s Vg and the punctuation in the Leiden Peshitta, both La and Syr
have a single bicolon here due to their making the first colon in Heb (v. 2ba) part of the previous bicolon (cf.
Humbert [ , 77] who has four cola in v. 2 rather than five). However, as indicated in n.c-c, it is
possible to divide the La and Syr in a manner that corresponds to the division of the Heb in BHS.
h Some scholars propose repointing br,q,bi “in the midst” [prepositional use of noun with -b]) in the
MT to broq.bi “in/when the approach/coming [of years]” [infinitive construct] cf. a′ see Albright, “Psalm of
Habakkuk,” , 3; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Humbert, , 77, 79; Margulis, “The Psalm of
Habakkuk,” 3 Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 191; Roberts, Nahum, 130-31. O Connor Hebrew Verse
Structure, 234) translates brqb as “in the upheaval,” thus apparently pointing br'q.bi; according to HALOT (p.
1135), br'q. means “battle” or “hostile approach” and it is primarily found in poetic and prophetic texts Sam
Job 38 3 Pss 68 3 8 Qoh 8 Zech 3 . O Connor s suggestion is tempting
because it would fit well as a lead into the Divine Warrior motif in Habakkuk 3. Also, br'q. in the MT is quite
rare whereas the other two words (br,q, and broq.) are much more common; thus, it would be easy for a later
scribe to confuse br'q . for either of the other readings (MT or a′ . I consider O Connor s suggestion plausible
however, unlike the other two possibilities, it lacks any textual support among the ancient witnesses, all of
which support “in the midst/middle” Gk evn me,sw| [cf. n. k]; La in medio; Syr wGB) for this colon. Also, “battle
of years” using HALOT s meaning for br'q. is just as enigmatic as “midst of years,” though Barré (“Habakkuk
3 ,” could be correct in interpreting “battle of years” as referring to a battle in the distant past; cf. Irwin,
“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 8. For detailed discussions of this colon, see Barr , “Habakkuk 3 ,” 8 -97; P. E.
Copeland, “The Midst of Years,” in Text as Pretext: Essays in Honor of Robert Davidson (ed. Robert Carroll;
JSOTSup 138; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 91-105.
127
[[ydwt] ~ynv kbrqb jwhyyx i~ynv [brqb]
[In the midst of] yearsi sustain him/it;
j In the midst
k of years you will make (it) known.
i The Gk has du,o, thus reading the number “two” based on a different pointing of ~ynv. In Gk as well,
the number is modifying zw,|wn “lives” perhaps reading twyx in Heb, which Hiebert [God of My Victory, 13]
suggests may be a corruption of tyyx [piel perf. 2nd
masc. sg. “you sustained life”] due to w/y confusion). Thus,
for the first part of this colon the Gk reads “in the midst of two lives.” After discussing the problem of
understanding ~ynv as “years,” Andersen Habakkuk, 278-80) suggests that the numeral “two” may indicate “a
second time” thus, he offers “once more” as a possible translation . Margulis “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 3
proposes emending the text to ~yyx-ynv “twin-life,” referring to a multiple birth . Cheyne “Appeal,”
suggests that both occurrences of ~ynv (here and in the next colon) should be corrected to !mvy, a regional name
representing “Ishmael.” Haak Habakkuk, 79-80), following Reider and Wieder, translates ~ynv as “Exalted
Ones,” based on the gartic šnm. One tempting emendation, proposed by A. Pinker “‘Captive for ‘years in
Habakkuk 3 ,” RB112 [2005] 20-26), is to read ~ybv “captivity/captors” in place of ~ynv here and in the
next colon; cf. 2 Chr 6:37-38; Isa 14:2; Jer 30:10; 46:27.
j The MT s reading whyyx here is puzzling; the text is pointed as a piel impv. masc. sg. with a 3
rd masc.
sg. object suffix thus, “preserve/let live him/it” . The La supports the MT with vivifica illud “make that one
live” . The pronoun in both Heb and La could refer back to the “work” Heb l[p; La opus) mentioned in the
previous colon. However, both Gk and Syr have “lives”/“living ones” Gk zw,|wn; Syr )YX*), which may reflect a
Heb Vorlage of twyx (see n. h above). The Gk also has gnwsqh,sh “you will be known” as its verb in this colon
thus, “in the midst of two lives you will be known” . Albright “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11, 13) deletes a
“superfluous phonetic y” =whyx) but otherwise agrees with the MT. BHS suggests reading whwx “declare it”
instead; similarly, Barré (“Habakkuk 3 ,” 195) and Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 191) suggest whywx “he
declared it” . Hiebert God of My Victory, 13) proposes tyyx “you sustained life” . O Connor Hebrew Verse
Structure, 234) breaks whyyx into two words: why yx “[as] Yhwh lives” cf. Andersen, Habakkuk, 273; Haak,
Habakkuk, 80-81. Cheyne “Appeal,” divides and emends whyyx to awh yyx, while considering yyx a
corrupt form of xry (= Yerah me el, a synonym to Ishmael thus he reads the entire colon as “In the midst of
Ishman. That is, Yerahme el” see also n. i .
k The Gk appears to have read the infinitive construct for brqb with its translation evn tw/| evggi,zein ta.
e;th “when the years draw near” taking ta. e;th as the accusative subject of the infinitive). The La and Syr again
are consistent with the pointing in the MT (La in medio; Syr wGB). See n. h for scholarly suggestions and
emendations regarding the MT s brqb.
128
l[ydwt [~ynv brqb whyyx ~ynv brqb]
[In the midst of years sustain him/it; In the midst of years] you will make (it) known.l
mn`rwkzt o~xr zgrb m
mIn rage remember
n to have compassion.
om
Strophe II: Theophany: Coming of the Deity
SPV SP hls !rap-rhm vwdq wawby !mytm hwla 3
VOS SVO `#rah halm wtlhtw wdwh ~ymv hsk
l As pointed in the MT, [ydwt is a hiph. impf. 2
nd masc. sg. verb “you will make known/declare” .
The hiphil is problematic because one would expect a direct object in order for this to make sense (i.e., what
will be made known/declared?) as in fact occurs in the La notum facies “you will make it known” to counter
this problem, Barré (“Habakkuk 3 ,” 196 n. 64) suggests that the masc. sg. object suffix in the previous colon
is implied in the remaining cola of v. 2, which is certainly possible. Both Gk and Syr render the verb as a 2nd
person passive (perhaps reading the niph. impf. 2nd
masc. sg. [dwt instead); Gk reads evpignwsqh,sh| “you will
be recognized/acknowledged” , while Syr has 9dYtt “you will be known” . Based on the Gk and Syr, BHS
and several scholars read [dwt here; see Cheyne, “Appeal,” ; Duhm, Buch Habakuk, 72; Hiebert, God of My
Victory, 5, 13-14; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Margulis, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 3 Marti,
Dodekapropheton, 349-50; Mowinckel, “Psalm des Habakuk,” -10; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 289;
Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 191; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 171. Irwin
“Psalm of Habakkuk,” proposes [wrt “you shatter / break” .
m-m
Several scholars consider this colon a later addition or gloss, sometimes by appealing to the
disruption of the verse s alleged meter. For examples, see Elliger, Propheten, 49; Perlitt, Propheten, 84; Sellin,
Zwölfprophetenbuch, 356-60.
n Barré (“Habakkuk 3 ,” 195-96) suggests reading rykzt or possibly rkzt here, which in the hiphil
means “make known,” “announce,” or “proclaim” e.g., Isa 1).
o In order to create a better parallel with ~ynv in the previous bicolon, Barré (“Habakkuk 3 ,” 192-93,
196) reads ~xr<y> from the Heb word for “months” thus, with zgrb = “in [your] ancient fury” . Humbert
( , 77, 79) supports emending to ~xry “months” , but also emends zgrb to zgb (presumably from the
verb zwg , thus “in the course of coming/impending months” au cours des mois prochains). Andersen
(Habakkuk, 283) posits that ~xr is intended as a vocative epithet for God–i.e., “Compassionate One,” which
would fit well with the mythological elements elsewhere in Habakkuk 3. Margulis “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 3
understands ~xr as “womb” here i.e., “when a womb throbs You remember” so also Haak Habakkuk, 81-
82) who translates ~xr zgrb as “when the womb is shaking.” Hiebert God of My Victory, 4) translates ~xr as
an infinitive, noting that the common noun for “compassion” is ~ymxr ibid., . Irwin “Psalm of Habakkuk,”
18) suggests m/b confusion and thus proposes to read bxr “Rahab” [the dragon]) here. As pointed in the MT,
~xr is a piel infinitive absolute (hence, my translation); however, the other versions have a noun meaning
“mercy/compassion” instead Gk evle,ouj; Syr kYMXD8; La misericordiae), as does Riessler (Kleinen Propheten,
191) who repoints the Heb as the noun ~xr “compassion” .
129
SPV SPP wl wdym ~ynrq hyht rwak hgnw 4
PredS `hz[ !wybx ~vw
Translation and Notes
shls r!rap-rhm vwdqw awby q!mytm phwla 3
3 Eloah
p from Teman
q comes; The Holy One from Mt. Paran.
r Selah.
s
p The Heb hwla here is the singular form for “god”/“God” rather than the more common MT plural
form ~yhla; the singular is only used one other time in the Twelve Minor Prophets, specifically in Hab 1:11
where it is spelled defectively as hla and does not refer to the Israelite God. The versions all use the common
term for “God” Gk qeo,j, Syr )hL), La Deus) in Hab 3:3. I have chosen to transliterate hwla in order to
distinguish it from ~yhla and la, all of which could be translated as “God” depending upon the context.
q This word can also have a general directional meaning, i.e., “south.” The La thus translates it as ab
austro “from the south” . The Syr also uses a directional translation )NMYt oM (“from the south” M.
Sokoloff (A Syriac Lexicon [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009] 1642) does
not indicate any uses of !myt as the proper noun Teman. The LXX supports the understanding of !myt as a
proper noun, given that it transliterates the Heb as Qaiman; however, Barb has avpo. li,boj “from [the] south” .
Also, the parallelism with Paran in the next colon lends support to the understanding of !myt as the proper noun
here. The phrase “Yhwh of Teman” !myt hwhy) appears in texts from Kuntillet ‘Ajrud M. Weinfeld,
“Kuntillet ‘Ajrud Inscriptions and Their Significance,” Studi epigrafici e linguistici 1 [1984] 121-30, here 125-
27).
r The La, Syr, and Barb follow the Heb by translating this word as the proper noun “[Mount] Paran”
(La Pharan; Syr nrP; Barb fara,n). However, the LXX has two adjectives instead, kataski,ou dase,oj “dark/shaded, thick/hairy” , modifying “mountain.” The possible Heb Vorlage for the Gk is uncertain; for
suggestions, see Roberts, Nahum, 133.
s Outside of Habakkuk 3, hls is only used in the Psalter in the MT. Its meaning is unknown but
presumably represents some type of liturgical notation. It is used elsewhere in Habakkuk 3 in v. 9 and v. 13; in
each case, I have transliterated the Heb due to the uncertain meaning of the word. The Gk uses dia,yalma
(indicating a musical interlude or break); the LXX consistently uses the form dia,yalma in all three verses, while
Barb has metabolh. dia,yalmatoj in v. 3, dia,yalma in v. 9, and lacks an equivalent in v. 13. The La uses semper
“always,” “forever” . The Syr does not include a translation for hls in any of the three verses.
130
u`#rah halm wtlhtwu twdwh ~ymv hskt
tHis splendor covered the heavens
t
uAnd His praise filled the earth;
u
t-t
The Syr translates the colon as )XB$Md hwYz oM )YM$ wYSKt) “the heavens were covered
from his brightness which [is] eminence” , thus using the passive verb wYSKt) and treating “heavens”
()YM$) as the subject cf. next colon rather than the direct object. Likewise, Barb treats “heaven” as the
subject in its rendering evka,luyen o` ouvrano.j th.n euvpre,peian th/j do,xhj auvtou / (“heaven covered the
dignity/beauty of his glory” . In contrast, the LXX and La grammatically agree with the Heb LXX evka,luyen ouvranou.j h` avreth. auvtou [“his moral excellence covers the heavens”] La operuit caelos gloria eius [“his glory
has covered the heavens”] . Haak Habakkuk, 82-85) extends this colon to include wtlhtw in the following
colon thus, “his majesty and his radiance covered the heavens” .
u-u
Since both hlht “praise” and #ra “earth” are feminine, either could be the intended subject of
the feminine verb “filled [+ direct object]” or “is filled [with object of measure]” . The parallelism with the
previous colon would suggest that wtlht “his praise” should be treated as the subject. However, the other
versions treat “earth” as the subject: LXX kai. aivne,sewj auvtou/ plh,rhj h` gh/ “and the earth [is] filled with his
praise” Barb kai. aivne,sewj auvtou/ evplh,sqh h` oivkoume,nh “and the inhabited earth is filled with his praise”
regarding the choice of oivkoume,nh in place of the more common gh/, see Fabry, “Versio Barberini,” 3 ); Syr
)(r) tYLMt) htXwB$tw “and the earth is filled [with] his praise” La et laudis eius plena est terra “and
the earth is filled with his praise” see also Albright, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” Andersen, Habakkuk, 294;
Condamin, “Forme chorale,” 36 Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 290; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 36.
Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 13) deletes the w conjunction in wtlhtw for “metrical and stylistic reasons,”
suggesting that its presence is a result of dittography from the last word of the previous colon. Roberts (Nahum,
133) suggests that the definite article h on #rah “earth” is secondary as a result of dittography of h from
the previous word (halm); cf. lack of the definite article on ~ymv “heavens” in the previous colon. Haak
(Habakkuk, 83-85) joins #rah halm with the following colon as part of v. thus, “the earth is full, indeed,
of brightness, true light!” .
131
[wl wdym ~ynrq] whyht xrwak vhgnw 4
4And brightness
v will be
w as light
x, [He has twin-horns/rays from his hand;]
v The LXX, La, and Syr add the pronoun “his” LXX fe,ggoj auvtou/ [“his radiance”] La splendor eius
[“his splendor”] Syr hrhz [“his splendor”] . Accordingly, several scholars wish to emend the text to whgnw “his brightness/gleaming” see Humbert, P , 77, 79; F. T. Kelly, “The Strophic Structure of Habakkuk,”
AJSL 18 (1902) 94-119, here 114; Lescow, “ ahum und Habakuk,” 83; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 351; Nowack,
Kleinen Propheten, 290; Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 192. Barb uses a dative pronoun rather than a genitive:
diau,gasma fwto,j e;stai avutw|/ “splendor/brilliance will be light to/for him” Good “Barberini,” 3 speculates
that its Heb Vorlage was wl rwa hgn. Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11-14) suggests reading xgny “he gored” after proposing that hwhy should be understood as the first word of the colon that was possibly dropped
due to homoioarkton thus, Albright s translation is “<Yahweh> attacked.”
w BHS and several scholars wish to emend the text to wytxt/wtxt “under him” see Duhm, Buch
Habakuk, 78; Elliger, Propheten, 49; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Mowinckel, “Psalm des Habakuk,”
12; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357. T. H. Gaster (“On Habakkuk 3 ,” JBL 62 [1943] 345-46, here 345)
suggests that hyht “is an infelicitous ‘correction of an original archaic !yht * of yht *, i.e., 3rd
fem. du.”
Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11) moves hyht to the beginning of the following colon.
x rwa could refer to daylight/sunlight (cf. Gen 1:3; Isa 5:30) or lightning (cf. Job 36:32; 37:11, 15), the
latter possibility would be made more likely by the following colon if its imagery is related to ANE
iconography of two-pronged lightning projecting from the hand of a deity see also Eaton, “Habakkuk 3,” 8
Roberts, Nahum, 128, 133-34). Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 14) emends rwak to rbak “like a bull” .
Margulis (“The Psalm of Habakkuk,” places rwak in the following colon and substitutes wdym for rwak in
this colon.
132
wl wdym y~ynrq [hyht rwak hgnw] 4
[And brightness will be as light,] He has twin-horns/raysy from his hand;
y The MT s ~ynrq is the dual form for “horn,” not the plural twnrq). The Gk (ke,rata) and the La
(cornua translate “horns” as a regular plural, without any indication of the dual form in Heb. The Syr has
)tYrQB possibly “in the town/village” if fem. or “in the horn [sg]” if masc.). Most scholars understand ~ynrq
as “rays [of light],” often used to depict a solar deity see Condamin, “Forme chorale,” 36 Deissler, Zwölf
Propheten II, 3 Gaster, “Habakkuk 3 ,” 3 -46; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 8 Kelly, “Strophic
Structure,” Lescow, “ ahum und Habakuk,” 83 Margulis, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,” Marti,
Dodekapropheton, 351; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 290; Patterson, Nahum, 210, 213; Rudolph, Micha, 231;
Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 112; M. A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, vol.
2: Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical
Press, 2000) 484; Ward, “Habakkuk,” ; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 36. Prinsloo (“Reading Habakkuk
3,” 94) compares the imagery to depictions of the ANE deity Shamash in which rays project from both
shoulders. Others suggest “lightning” given its association with an ANE storm-god (cf. n. x above), including
Davidson, Nahum, 89 (however, he translates ~ynrq simply as “rays” Eaton, “Habakkuk 3,” 8 Irwin,
“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 13 (who suggests a possible corruption of an original ~yqrb [ibid., 20]); Riessler,
Kleinen Propheten, 192; Roberts, Nahum, 134-35. For discussion of the problems involved with one or both of
these proposals, see Haak, Habakkuk, 85-89; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 17-18; N. Shupak,“The God from
Teman and the Egyptian Sun God: A Reconsideration of Habakkuk 3:3- ,” JANES(CU) 28 (2001) 97-116, here
100-102 (however, Shupak later argues for “rays” as the meaning here after making a connection to the solar-
related imagery used of the Egyptian god Aten).
Appealing to Arabic cognates, W. R. Arnold “The Interpretation of wl wdym ~ynrq, Hab. 3 ,” AJSL
21 [1905] 167-72, here 171-72) suggests that “horns” here is a reference to locks of hair similar to those of
Samson, whose hair was connected to his strength cf. next colon thus, he proposes to read this line as “he
hath horns that reach below his hands” ibid. cf. Irwin s [“Psalm of Habakkuk,” , n. ] comment that
Arnold s suggestion “cannot merit serious consideration”). Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 12, 14) is one of
the few scholars who support reading “horns” rather than “rays.” D. T. Tsumura “Janus parallelism in Hab III
,” VT 54 [2004] 124-28, here 126) may be on the correct track with his proposal that there is a play-on-words
in which both meanings “rays” and “horns” are intended “rays” is parallel to “brightness” hgn) in the first
colon, while “horns” which often is used as a symbol for power is parallel to “strength” hz[) in the following
colon. In support of “horns,” Haak (Habakkuk, 87) cites several Ugaritic texts (e.g., CTA 10.2.21-23; 12.1.3;
12.2.40; 17.6.22) where horns are connected with the strength of a specific deity (esp. CTA 10.2.21-23). It is
also interesting to note that in the blessing of Joseph in Deut 33 , “horns” ~ynrq) are cited as a weapon
against other people.
133
wl zwdym ~ynrq [hyht rwak hgnw] 4
[And brightness will be as light,] He has twin-horns/rays from his hand;z
aa`hz[ !wybx ~vwaa
aaAnd the hiding place of his strength is there.
aa
z The LXX and La read the preposition “in” LXX evn; La in) as if from wdyb rather than wdym;
however, Barb uses evk ceiro.j auvtou/ “from his hand” , thus supporting wdym. All three of the other versions use
the plural “hands” LXX cersi,n; La manibus; Syr yhwdY*)) rather than the singular. The one emendation
Shupak (“God from Teman,” ) suggests for this colon is that the m in wdym is the result of dittography from
the previous word ~ynrq; thus, the colon would read wl (hyht) wdy ~ynrq “his hand will be rays” meaning
“God s rays are his hands” cf. Delitzsch, Prophet Habakuk, xxix. Appealing to Ugaritic texts, H. Cazelles
“Sur mdl à garit, en Is et Hab 3 ,” Maarav 5-6 [1990] 49-52) tries to link wdym with the root ldm,
used metaphorically as a luminous phenomenon attributed to a storm-god who uses a mdl as a leash while
leading his mount and straddling the clouds. O Connor Hebrew Verse Structure, 235) redivides the last few
words, eliminating some vowel letters, thus yielding wldm “his lightning” which he connects as the Heb
cognate to mdl “lightning bolt” in garitic. Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11-12, 14) emends the MT to
<t>wdym, thus modifying horns “with tossing [horns]” . Other scholars understand wdy as “his side” rather than
“his hand” see Davidson, Nahum, 89; Duhm, Buch Habakuk, 79; Kelly, “Strophic Structure,” 114; Lescow,
“ ahum und Habakuk,” 83; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 351; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 290; Sellin,
Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357.
aa-aa
The LXX and Syr both read ~fw “put”/“place” LXX e;qeto; Syr mYSN) here instead of ~vw; see
also Condamin, “Forme chorale,” 38 Gaster, “On Habakkuk 3 ,” 3 Marti, Dodekapropheton, 351;
Mowinckel, “Psalm des Habakuk,” owack, Kleinen Propheten, 290; Roberts, Nahum, 135; Wellhausen,
Kleinen Propheten, 36, 171. Barb reflects both readings of ~f / ~v with its evkei/ evpesth,riktai h` du,namij th/j do,xhj auvtou/ “there the power of his glory is placed” . O Connor Hebrew Verse Structure, 235) repoints ~vw as
the noun “name” see also Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 192. In place of !wybx, the LXX has avga,phsin krataia,n “powerful love” , perhaps reading a form or cognate of the verb bbx “love” , while the Syr reads
)XQLB “in the confines of the city/city limits” . The La most closely reflects the full Heb colon with its ibi
abscondita est fortitudo eius “there his strength is hidden/concealed” . Haak Habakkuk, 90) translates !wybx as
“Crawler,” a reference to a deity mentioned in garitic texts. The pronominal masculine suffix on hz[ is an
archaic form; however, Patterson (Nahum, 213) notes that it is also used in the “later” Lachish letters.
Following Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11), Hiebert (God of My Victory, 5, 18-19) suggests a
redivision of the MT s first two words !wybx ~vw !wyb xmvw) and proposes m/n confusion in !wyb as well as
y /w confusion in ~vw, given the similarities of these letters in the ancient Hebrew script ca. the seventh century
B.C.E.; thus, he suggests reading the line as hz[ ~wyb xmvy “He rejoiced in the day of his strength” cf.
Ward, “Habakkuk,” .
Cheyne “Appeal,” -25), after noting that the phrase is probably an interpolated gloss, suggests this
colon came from an original !wy yrz[ ~vw “there were the helpers of Yavan” [p. ] , thus linking the colon to
the attendant deities Deber and Resheph mentioned in v. 5.
BHS considers this entire colon as a gloss; see also Elliger, Propheten, 49; Horst, Zwölf kleinen
Propheten, 182; Pfeiffer, Jahwes kommen von Süden, 128-29; Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 192.
134
Strophe III: Theophany: Effect upon Nature
PVS VSP `wylgrl @vr acyw rbd $ly wynpl 5
VVO VVO ~ywg rtyw har #ra ddmyw dm[ 6
VS VS ~lw[ tw[bg wxv d[-yrrh wccptyw
SPredP PV ytyar !wa txt 7 `wl ~lw[ twkylh
SV S s `!ydm #ra tw[yry !wzgry !vwk ylha
Translation and Notes
`wylgrl cc@vr acyw bbrbd $ly wynpl 5
5Before him Deber/pestilence
bb goes And Resheph/plague
cc goes out from his
feet.
bb
The La and Syr both translate rbd as “death” La mors, Syr )twM); Barb uses ptw/sij “destruction” . In contrast, the LXX reads a different pointing of the MT, yielding lo,goj “word,” “report”
instead. The connection of “pestilence” with “death” makes sense, given the poetic parallelism between rbd
(Deber/pestilence) here and @vr (Resheph/plague) in the following colon; N. Wyatt “Religion in Ancient
garit,” in A Handbook of Ancient Religion (ed. John R. Hinnells; New York: Cambridge University Press,
2007] 105-60, here 122) suggests that Resheph s role in garitic rituals may account for the absence of Mot
from the Ugaritic cult, especially given the identification of Resheph with Nergal, the Mesopotamian god of the
underworld. Based on the tendency in Canaanite mythology for deities to appear in pairs, W. F. Albright
(Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting Faiths [Garden City: Doubleday,
1968] 186) suggests that, like Resheph, Deber may be the name of a deity; Hiebert (God of My Victory, 92-94,
esp. 93) notes the possibility, following the claim of G. Pettinato and M. Dahood, that Deber may have been the
patron god of ancient Ebla, as seemingly identified in the archives from Tell Mardikh. For a more detailed
discussion of attendant deities in this passage, see Andersen, Habakkuk, 500-507; Cheyne, “Appeal,” .
Nogalski (Redactional Processes, 162) admits that both Deber and Resheph once functioned as minor/attendant
gods that accompanied the arrival of another deity; however, he also asserts that they had lost this function by
the time of Hab 3:5 and, thus, are only personifications of plague and pestilence there.
cc
@vr can also mean “flame” Roberts Nahum, 135) suggests that the connection with fire/flame could
be related to the West Semitic god Resheph s association with fever as well as pestilence. None of the versions
exactly match the Heb. The La uses diabolus “devil” . The Syr has )rY+ “bird” or “insect” it also has the
singular hLGr “his foot” rather than the plural “feet” found in the La pedes) and Gk (oi po,dej). The LXX has
the peculiar phrase kai. evxeleu,setai evn pedi,loij oi po,dej auvtou/ “and he will go out, his feet in sandals” . Barb
has kai. kata. po,daj auvtou avkolouqh,sei ta. me,gista tw/n peteinw/n “and the greatest of winged ones follow after
his feet” Good “Barberini,” 3 notes that the phrase ta. me,gista tw/n peteinw/n probably was used as an
identification for Resheph, given similar translations in Aquila, Symmachus, Theodocian, Quinta (reported by
Jerome as volucer), Peshitta, Achmimic, Sahidic, and a citation in Shenoute. Sinker (Psalm of Habakkuk, 17)
translates @vr as “lightning.”
135
~ywg eertyw har #ra ddddmyw dm[ 6
6He stood and shook
dd the earth; He looked and startled
ee the nations.
dd
There are at least two ways to read this verb. One, proposed by BDB (p. 551), is to treat it as a poel
from the root ddm “he measured” this reading is supported by La mensus est), Syr (h[X$M), and Barb
(dieme,trhse). The second, which is preferred by HALOT (p. 555), is to view it as a polel from the root dym “he
shook” , a rendering supported by the LXX even though it treats “earth” as the subject rather than object and,
hence, translates the verb as passive rather than active (evsaleu,qh h` gh [“the earth was shaken”] see also
Albright, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 14 (who also suggests dd(w)nyw from dwn [“sway,” “shake”] as a possibility
Condamin, “Forme chorale,” 38 he suggests either d[myw [“he caused to shake”] or ynddw [“he swayed/shook”] as the possible Heb Vorlage for the LXX); Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II, 231; G. R. Driver,
“Hebrew otes,” ZAW 52 (1934) 51-56, here 54-55; Duhm, Buch Habakuk, 80 (d[myw); Horst, Zwölf kleinen
Propheten, 182; Lescow, “ ahum und Habakuk,” 83; Margulis, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” -16; Mowinckel,
“Psalm des Habakuk,” 13 (suggests rrmy from rwm [“shake”] Patterson, Nahum, 213-14; Sellin,
Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357 (d[myw). Wellhausen (Kleinen Propheten, 36, 171) suggests ggmyw “[die Erde]
zagte” “[the earth] was faint-hearted” so also Kelly, “Strophic Structure,” . Nowack (Kleinen Propheten,
290-91) reads jjmyw “[macht die Erde] erbeben” “[he made/caused the earth] to tremble” . Marti
(Dodekapropheton, 351) suggests reading d[myw “he caused to shake” cf. Ps 6 as another possibility in
addition to the previous two suggestions. Given its parallel position with rtn in the following colon as well as
traditional theophanic motifs, “shake” better fits the context see also Humbert, Pro , 77, 79; Perlitt,
Propheten, 85.
ee
More literally, “he caused [the nations] to jump” Hiebert God of My Victory, uses “startled,”
which I have adopted here. Both the LXX and La treat the verb as meaning “melted,” but the LXX uses
“nations” as the subject of a passive verb (LXX dieta,kh e;qnh [“the nations were melted”] La dissolvit gentes
[“he melted the nations”] . Sinker Psalm of Habakkuk, 48) suggests that the LXX confused rtn with $tn. Like
the La, the Syr preserves God as the subject; however, the Syr verb lGd here has the sense “aim at” or “direct a
dart toward” ()MM8( lGd [“he shot a dart toward the nations”] . Although the Syr provides a fitting warrior-
motif, the Heb rtn hiphil “caused to jump” better parallels the most likely meaning of the verb ddmy in the
previous colon. Barb uses a verb (evxeika,zw) that is a hapax legomenon: katanoh,saj evxei,kase ta. e;qnh “looking,
he compared/likened the nations” Good “Barberini,” suggests that evxei,kase could reflect rthw “he spied
out/explored” . G. R. Driver “Difficult Words in the Hebrew Prophets,” in Studies in Old Testament Prophecy
Presented To Professor Theodore H. Robinson By The Society For Old Testament Study On His Sixty-Fifth
Birthday, August 9th, 1946 [ed. H. H. Rowley; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950] 52-72, here 70-72) suggests
“drove asunder” as an appropriate translation for rty, partially based on the Arabic verb نتر (natara, “dragged
violently, snatched in the fingers or teeth, tore” . Sinker (Psalm of Habakkuk, 18) suggests that there are two
separate roots of rtn involved by appealing to the “Chaldee” meaning of the root rtn to support “drove
asunder.” Margulis (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” , 33 emends the text to ~ywg wryty whar, thus making
“nations” the subject “nations behold Him and quake” cf. LXX .
136
gg~lw[ tw[bg wxvgg ffd[-yrrh wccptywff
ffPerpetual mountains were shattered;
ff
ggEternal hills were humbled.
gg
ff-ff
The La and Syr agree with the MT here: La et contriti sunt montes saeculi “and ancient mountains
were crushed” Syr mL( oMd )r*w+ wrdBt) “eternal/ancient mountains [lit. ‘mountains from old ] were
shattered” . The LXX varies slightly with its kai. dieqru,bh ta. o;rh bi,a| “and the mountains were broken by/with
force” . Barb has dieqru,bh kai. ta. o;rh qrausqh,setai “it was broken and/also the mountains will be shattered” .
gg-gg
As in the previous colon, the La and Syr fundamentally agree with the MT: La incurvati sunt
colles mundi “hills of the world are bent down” Syr oYML( oMd )tMr* kKMt) “eternal hills were
humbled” cf. Barb tapeinoqh,sontai ai` na,pai evk tou/ aivw/noj “the wooded valleys of the ages were
humbled” . The LXX has evta,khsan bounoi. aivw,nioi “eternal hills were melted” .
137
[ytyar !wa txt 7] ii`wl ~lw[ twkylhii hh
hh iiHis ways were of old.
ii [
7 Under distress,
I saw]
[` hh!ydm #ra tw[yry !wzgry !vwk ylha]
[The tents of Cushan quake, The curtains of the land of Midian.hh
]
hh
Following Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11-12, 14-15), Hiebert (God of My Victory, 5, 21-22)
suggests a redivision and slight emendation of these three cola as follows:
!atxt ()l ~lw[ twkylh “Eternal orbits were destroyed.”
!wzgry !vwk ylha “Tents of Kushan shook,”
!ydm #ra tw[yry “Tent curtains of the land of Midian” .
Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11-12), however, emends the last bicolon (v. 7) into a tricolon and retains the
verb ytyar:
!vwk ylha ytyar “I saw the tents of Cushan”
(?)<!wzgry !vwk> ylha “<Tents of Cushan> ? quivered,” !ydm #ra t[ry “In fear was the land of Midian”
With regard to treating !atxt as a verb in the last colon of v. 6, see also Haak, Habakkuk, 91; Lescow,
“ ahum und Habakuk,” 83. Ward (“Habakkuk,” - considers these cola “untranslatable,” but suspects two
cola rather than three should be read. Condamin (“Forme chorale,” 36 repositions vv. b -10 between v. 6 and
v. 7. Margulis (“The Psalm of Habakkuk,” 8, -30) thinks that v. 7a has been dislocated from a later
position in proximity to vv. 8-9 + vv. 15-16b (which he combines) and corrupted from ytyar rva ytxtw “As
did my bowels, from what I behold” [p. 436]).
ii-ii
The Syr agrees with the MT (mL( oMd )tKLh8 oYN) hLYd [“his ways were from old / eternity”] .
The Gk and La almost agree as well; however, the LXX has porei,aj aivwni,aj auvtou/ “at his eternal way/journey” although porei,aj could be an accusative plural, a genitive singular makes more sense in the
context) while the La reads ab itineribus aeternitatis eius “by the journeys of his eternity [his eternal
journeys]” , thus linking this colon to the previous one in Heb. Barb has a bicolon here: ai` odoi, ai` evx avrch/j avlloiwqh,sontai / auvtou/ e;neka seisqh,setai h` oivkoume,nh “the beginning/former ways will be changed”/ “the
inhabited world will be shaken because of him” . Wellhausen (Kleinen Propheten, 36, 171) omits this colon
from his translation p. 36 , noting that it overloads “überfüllt” the verse p. see also Horst, Zwölf
kleinen Propheten, 182. Pfeiffer (Jahwes kommen von Süden, 128-29) considers the colon a later addition.
Cheyne “Appeal,” -26) views it as a gloss, but also proposes emending twkylh to twkalm “his ancient works” .
138
kkytyar jj!wa txtjj 7 [`wl ~lw[ twkylh]
[His ways were of old.] 7 jj
Under distress, jj
I sawkk
jj-jj
The LXX has avnti. ko,pwn “because of troubles” La pro iniquitate “for iniquity” and Syr tYXt nw) “under On” . Either Barb lacks this phrase, or possibly this may be reflected in its seisqh,setai h` oivkoume,nh of the previous colon in v. 6 (see n. ii-ii above), perhaps reading #ra txt wl in place of the phrase
!wa txt wl as suggested by B nvenot “Cantique,” 6-7). Some scholars propose !watxt “they are
shattered” instead see Albright, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11-12; Elliger, Propheten, 49; G. R. Driver, “On
Habakkuk 3:7,” JBL 62 [1943] 121. Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182) suggests hnatxt niphal “was
crushed” from the root atx, which is otherwise not attested in the MT. Shupak (“God from Teman,”
repoints the Heb to read “On will fear” cf. “On” in Syr she notes that On Gk name = Heliopolis was the
place where Akenaten was raised, which she suggests supports her argument to read vv. 3-7 as having
connections with the Amarna period in Egypt and the worship of Aten cf. Kelly, “Strophic Structure,” , n.
54; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 351-52; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 171-
72). Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 192) reads !a txt, which he considers a scribal note that the final ! in !vwk is to be deleted. Patterson (Nahum, 213-14) suggests the possibility that !wa txt is intended as a geographical
name parallel to Cushan and Midian. Cheyne “Appeal,” 6-27) thinks that !wa, along with ytyar, is part of a
corrupted form (see n. kk) and that txt is the result of a scribal gloss on twnmra “castles” , reading ylkyh “palaces” “instead” txt).
kk
Hiebert (God of My Victory, 22) deletes ytyar as a gloss that was inserted into the text to create a
1st-person framework with v. 2 and vv. 16-19. Other scholars also find the presence of ytyar troublesome; see
Driver, “Habakkuk 3 ,” Elliger, Propheten, 49; Humbert, , . However, “I saw” is attested in
the LXX (ei=don), Barb (kataneno,hka), La (vidi), and Syr (tYzX). Gaster “Habakkuk 3 ,” 346) suggests that
ytyar perhaps could be a corrupted form of the verb ttr “to quiver” , which would be parallel to zgr. Cheyne
“Appeal,” 6-27) traces the allegedly corrupted form ytyar back to twnmra, thus reading the colon as “The
palaces of Cushan trembled.” Horst Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182) proposes reading tw[yry, while deleting
ylha in the next colon (Horst only has a bicolon for v. 7). Sellin (Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357) emends the text to
wary “they feared” . Roberts Nahum, 137) suggests that ytyar is an unmarked relative clause, and thus
translates the colon as “because of the iniquity that I saw” or “instead of the iniquity that I saw,” citing a similar
use of txt in Isa 60:15.
139
s `!ydm mm#ra tw[yry ll!wzgry !vwk ylha
The tents of Cushan quake,ll The curtains of the land
mm of Midian.
Strophe IV: Divine Warrior Prepares for Battle
PVVoc hwhy hrx ~yrhnbh 8
PS PS $trb[ ~yb-~a $pa ~yrhnb ~a
VO O `h[wvy $ytbkrm $ysws-l[ bkrt yk
VO OV hls *rmt twjm *t[bv $tvq rw[t *hr[ 9
IVO VVS ~yrh wlyxy $war 10 `#ra-[qbt twrhn
VOS VSO wlwq ~wht !tn *twb[ ~ym *wmrz
AdvOVS SVAdv hlbz dm[ xry11 *vmv afn whydy ~wr
PSV PS `$tynx qrb hgnl wklhy $ycx rwal
ll As the MT stands, this verb (3
rd masc. pl.) most logically would have ylha (masc. pl.) as its subject,
rather than tw[yry (fem. pl.) in the next colon, even though it is tempting to put !wzgry as the beginning of the
next colon and treat v. 7 as a bicolon in order to supply a verb in each colon “I saw the tents of Cushan in
distress” / “The curtains of the land of Midian quake” . The position of the verb corresponding to !wzgry in the
LXX (ptohqh,sontai), Barb (taracqh,sontai), and La (turbabuntur) is ambiguous enough that it could be read
with either colon; however, the LXX does include the conjunction kai, after the verb, which could indicate an
intentional break between the cola (thus, supporting the inclusion of !wzgry with what precedes it); alternatively,
it could be interpreted as an adverbial kai, in which case, the meaning would be “the curtains of the land of
Midian also [kai,] will be terrified” . In contrast, o(wz*N “tremble/trembling” fem. pl. in Syr has to be
connected with the last colon because it can only be viewed as modifying )t(Yr*Y “curtains [of the land of
Midian]” fem. pl. . Driver (“Habakkuk 3:7,” suggests switching the positions of tw[yry and ylha in an
attempt to fix the gender problem and provide a verb in the last colon; so also Humbert, , 77, 79.
Elliger (Propheten, 49) includes the corresponding place names in the switch proposed by Driver, thus putting
the phrase “tents of Cushan” !vwk ylha in the second colon and “curtains of Midian” !ydm tw[yry; Elliger
omits #ra) in the first colon.
mm
BHS and some scholars find the presence of #ra problematic and accordingly propose deleting it;
see Driver, “Habakkuk 3 ,” Elliger, Propheten, 49; Gaster, “Habakkuk 3 ,” 3 6 Marti,
Dodekapropheton, 352 (who finds it questionable . However, “land” is found in the LXX gh/j), La (terrae), and
Syr ()(r)); it also might be reflected in the use of oi` katoikou/ntej “dwellings” in Barb oi katoikou/ntej ta.j de,rreij Madiam) as a free translation of the Heb.
140
Translation and Notes
hwhy nnhrx oo~yrhnbh 8
8Why did it burn
nn against the rivers,
oo Yhwh?
$trb[ ~yb-~a $pa pp~yrhnb ~a pp
Your anger pp
against the rivers? pp
Your rage against the sea?
nn
This verb is a qal perf. 3rd
masc. sg.; in both the Heb and Syr (zGr), Yhwh/Lord could be treated as a
nominative e.g., “against the rivers Yhwh/Lord burned” or a vocative see translation above . Both Gk and La
understand the divine name as a vocative (Gk ku,rie; La Domine), which makes more sense, given that God is
addressed in the 2nd
person in the following two cola. The implied logical subject of the first colon would be
God s anger @a) and rage (hrb[) as cited in the following two cola. Against reading the vocative, see Sinker,
Psalm of Habakkuk, 23-24.
oo
The h at the beginning is an interrogative marker. Both the Gk and La indicate that a negative
response to the question is expected, given the use of mh, in Gk and numquid in La.
The proper plural form of rhn “river” is twrhn (used below in v. 9), not ~yrhn; however, the other
three versions translate it as a regular plural (Gk potamoi/j; La fluminibus; Syr )twr*hN . A. Pinker “Problems
and Solutions of Habakkuk 3 8,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 31 [2003] 3-8, here 7) repoints the MT as the dual
form thus, “two rivers” , which, he suggests, refers to Babylon, given that Babylon is located between two
rivers (the Tigris and Euphrates). In doing so, Pinker suggests a historical interpretation of this verse rather than
the more common mythological interpretation. In contrast, Roberts (Nahum, 137-38 does connect “River” to
Canaanite mythology and suggests that the unusual plural is a secondary form. O Connor Hebrew Verse
Structure, 236) suggests that the m both here and in the next colon on ~yrhn is merely emphatic and, thus,
translates both with the singular “River” against an enclitic m in this verse, see D. A. Robertson, Linguistic
Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry (SBLDS 3; Missoula: University of Montana, 1972) 100.
pp-pp
BHS suggests deleting this phrase, treating it as a variant reading of ~yrhnbh in the previous
colon; cf. Pfeiffer, Jahwes kommen von Süden, 132. In addition to deleting the phrase, some scholars also move
the Tetragrammaton to a position before ~yb (e.g., Marti, Dodekapropheton, 352) or to the end of the verse
(BHS; Humbert, P , 77-78). Others delete hwhy as well as ~yrhnb ~a; see Horst, Zwölf kleinen
Propheten, 182. In contrast, Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11) adds hrx before $pa.
141
`h[wvy ss$ytbkrm qq$ysws-l[ rrbkrt ykqq
qqWhen you mount
rr your horses,
qq Your victorious chariots
ss?
qq-qq
Barb reads avne,bhj evpi. ta. a[rmarta, sou “you ascended upon your war-chariot” , which excludes
the MT s yk and has a[rmarta where the MT has $ysws “your horses” . Good “Barberini,” nn. 3-4) notes
that a[rma is never used elsewhere to translate sws and would rather correspond better to hbkrm in the
following colon; thus, Good suggests that the terms may have been switched in Barb. However, the Gk term
used in the following colon to translate hbkrm in both Barb and the LXX is i`ppasi,a, which according the LSJ
(p. 883) can refer to either horse-riding or chariot-riding. In contrast, the LXX uses the more natural translation
i[ppoj for sws in the above colon.
rr Both Barb (avne,bhj) and Syr (tBKr) seem to be translating the perfect here, rather than the imperfect
of the MT. The LXX (evpibh,sh|) and La (ascendes) both use the future tense, thus supporting the MT. As noted
by W. B. Barrick (“The Meaning and sage of RKB in Biblical Hebrew,” JBL 101 [1982] 481-503, esp. 492-
98; see also Hiebert, God of My Victory, 24), the connotation of bkr in Heb tends to indicate a vertical
“mount” rather than a horizontal meaning “ride” the vertical meaning is strongly supported in this colon by
the LXX, Barb, and La, all of whose renderings literally mean “to ascend” note “mount” is also a possible
connotation of the Syr).
ss
The MT has the plural $ytbkrm “your chariots” , which is supported by the La quadrigae tuae).
However, the Gk (h` i`ppasi,a sou swthri,a [Barb adds o[ proe,bhj at the end]) and La (et quadrigae tuae salvatio)
both treat the colon as a verbless clause, with “chariots” as the nominative subject and “salvation”/“victory” as
the predicate. The Gk singular for “chariot” h` i`ppasi,a) is also supported by the Syr ()tBKrM). Since Heb
poetry often gaps prepositions between cola, it is logical that the preposition l[ “upon”) is implied in this
colon; this understanding is supported by the Syr, which includes the preposition l( in both of the cola
(kNQrwPd )tBKrM l(w / k$Kr* l( tBKr). The remaining question is whether $ytbkrm should be
rendered singular or plural. The singular is tempting in this context and several scholars propose emending the
text to either $tbkrm (Albright, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Riessler,
Kleinen Propheten,192) or $bkrm (Humbert, P , 77-78). Hiebert (God of My Victory, 7, 24) proposes
emending to tbkrm and moving the 2nd
masc. sg. possessive suffix to h[wvy ($t[wvy) in order to conform
to the expected formation of a construct chain. However, the only other place where hbkrm is clearly used of
God s chariots is in Isa 66 , which also uses a plural, albeit with a 3rd
masc. sg. suffix (wytbkrm). The
presence of the suffix could be interpreted as epexegetical hence, “victorious chariots” above rather than
“chariots of victory” as noted in GKC § 3 r; for a summary of the interpretations of other grammars, including
some which treat the phrase as a construct chain regardless of the suffix, see Kelly, “Strophic Structure,” n.
56. Thus, I cautiously retain the MT s $ytbkrm.
142
[hls *rmt twjm *t[bv] tt$tvq rw[t *hr[tt 9
9ttYou indeed laid bare
your bow,
tt [You poisoned (your) seven rods/arrows. Selah.]
tt-tt
The MT has $tvq rw[t hyr[ which might be rendered “naked(ness)/exposed your bow was
aroused/awakened” if rw[t is taken to be from the verb rw[ meaning “to arouse/awaken” cf. Barb, La, Syr
contrary to the theory that here it represents a homonym meaning “lay bare” otherwise unattested in the MT.
The LXX has evntei,nwn evntenei/j to. to,xon sou “stretching out, you will stretch out your bow” . Barb reads
evxhge,rqh to. to,xon sou “your bow was raised/awakened” . The La translates the colon as et suscitans suscitabis
arcum tuum “and stirring up, you will stir up/arouse/awaken your bow” . Syr has kt$Q rY(tt wr(ttM
“your bow was indeed aroused/awakened” . Thus, Barb and Syr take “your bow” to be the subject hence,
reading a 3rd
fem. sg. verb), while LXX and La apparently read a 2nd
masc. sg. verb. However, the 2nd
masc.sg.
would make better sense in context given the use of the 2nd
masc. sg. elsewhere in vv. 8-9. Another important
observation is that the LXX, La, and Syr all appear to be reading an infinitive absolute of rw[ + finite verb of
rw[ where rw[t hyr[ appears in the MT (the ptc + noun of the same verb is a common way of translating the
Heb infinitive absolute + finite verb construction into Gk and La; the Syr does use an infinitive + finite verb
from the same root), rather than the noun + verb as pointed in the MT. Even Barb lacks any noun that
corresponds to hyr[ in the MT. Thus, it is logical to conclude that the original text contained an infinitive
absolute (in place of hyr[) that is based on the same root as the finite 2nd
masc. sg. verb which follows it; see
also Hiebert, God of My Victory, 7, 28 (r[t hr[). Against this line of argumentation, see D. T. Tsumura,
“ iphal with an Internal Object in Habakkuk 3 a,” JSS 31 (1986) 11-16 (who proposes “Your bow is
uncovered the nakedness ” as a probable translation of the MT [p. 16]).
M. Barré (“Yahweh Gears p for Battle Habakkuk 3, a,” Bib 87 [2006] 75-84, here 76) traces the
original text back to hr[t hr[ (piel infinitive absolute of yr[ + normal piel 2nd
masc. sg. impf of yr[); thus,
he proposes as an idiomatic translation “you withdrew your bow from its case ” ibid. . Sellin
(Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357) suggests rw[ tyr[t “you exposed from the case [skin]” .
143
hls uu*rmt twjm *t[bvuu [$tvq rw[t *hr[]
9
[You indeed laid bare your bow,]
uuYou poisoned (your) seven rods/arrows.
uu Selah.
uu-uu
Delitzsch (Prophet Habakuk, 165) is well-known for his comment about this colon (excluding
hls) possibly being the most difficult colon in the entire prophetic corpus and that, as of his time, one hundred
solutions/emendations had already been proposed (also cited in Hiebert, God of My Victory, 26; A. Pinker, “The
Lord s Bow in Habakkuk 3 a,” Bib 84 [2003] 417-20, here 417). As pointed in the MT, the colon consists of
three nouns, all in their absolute forms: rma twjm tw[bv “oaths” [fem. pl.] “tribes/rods/sticks” [masc. pl.];
“speech” [masc. sg.] . The LXX has e`pta. skh/ptra le,gei ku,rioj “seven scepters says the Lord” , while Barb
has evko,rtasaj boli,daj th/j fare,traj auvtou “you sated the missiles of your quiver” . The La reads iuramenta
tribubus quae locutus es “the oaths to the tribes which you have spoken” . The Syr translates the colon as
)XB$M krM)MB )r*)G nw(BSNw “And the arrows were full with your glorious speech” .
One of the rare attempts to make sense out of the MT without any emendation is by H. St. J. Thackeray
“Primitive Lectionary otes in the Psalm of Habakkuk,” JTS 12 [1911] 191-213), who suggested that the three
words are “an intrusive poetic gloss” p. 6 ; this theory has not gained much acceptance (for a concise but
excellent critique, see Eaton, “Habakkuk 3,” ). Thus, it is clear that the MT requires some emendation in
order to make sense. Although the La comes across as a nonsensical attempt within the context to read a text
similar to the MT, its 2nd
-person translation locutus es is noteworthy because it could be attesting a verb that
began with t (e.g., rmat). Understanding twjm as “arrows” “rods” cf. Barb and Syr makes the most sense in
this context given the Divine Warrior motif and the mention of Yhwh s bow in the previous colon. In support of
reading “arrows,” see Barré, “Yahweh Gears p,” 8 Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II, 232; Hiebert, God of My
Victory, 27-28; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 486. Against reading twjm as “arrows,” see D. T. Tsumura, “The
‘word pair qšt and mt in Habakkuk 3 in the Light of garitic and Akkadian,” in Go to the Land which I Will
Show You (ed. J. E. Coleson and V. H. Matthews; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996) 353-61; Tsumura
proposes “mace” as a parallel weapon to bow in other A E texts. Cassuto “Ras Shamra,” 8 notes that in
Ugaritic literature Sea and River were killed with two rods.
Thus, either tw[bv or rma must be a corrupted verb form. Many scholars choose to emend tw[bv to
a verb (cf. Barb) and propose another emendation for rma (see nn. vv and ww . Albright “Psalm of
Habakkuk,” 11-12) reads the entire line as rmat wjm tw[bf “sated by the fight which Thou has decreed” .
Condamin (“Forme chorale,” 139) suggests rma twjm tw[wvy “command the triumph of the tribes”
[commande le triomphe des tribus]).
144
hls vv*rmt twjm ww
*t[bv [$tvq rw[t *hr[] 9
[You indeed laid bare your bow,]
You poisoned
vv (your) seven
ww rods/arrows. Selah.
vv
The word in the MT is rma “speech” . Proposed emendations for rma include: $tpva “your
quiver” Hiebert, God of My Victory, 7, 28; J. Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen
Gattung [WMANT 10; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965] 41; Kelly, “Strophic Structure,”
Marti, Dodekapropheton, 352, Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 292); wrty “its chord” Humbert, , 79);
rmat “you decree” Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Pfeiffer, Jahwes kommen von Süden, 132); rbat
“you made fly” Rudolph, Micha, 236); $rtym “your chord” Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357). Sinker
(Psalm of Habakkuk, 26) interprets twjm as being in construct with rma i.e., “the rod of the decree” .
O Connor Hebrew Verse Structure, 236) revocalizes as a qal impf. 1st sg. with the meaning “I see” see also
Haak, Habakkuk, 95-96). Patterson (Nahum, 219) speculates that perhaps rma is the name of God s war club
and is derived from the verb rrm “to drive out” , which perhaps could be a “scribal pun on Baal s war weapon
Aymur ‘Expeller ” cf. Cassuto, “Ras Shamra,” 8.
Given the likelihood of twjm is referring to arrows (see n. uu-uu above) and the problems with
emending tw[bv to a verb (see n. ww below), rma iis left as the most likely candidate for a verb in this colon.
Barré (“Yahweh Gears p,” -83) provides detailed support for emending the colon to rmt twjm t[bv
“you poisoned [your] seven arrows,” where “poisoned” literally means “smear with [serpent s] gall” based on
the Semitic root rrm [often “be bitter”] and the use serpent s venom in the A E . The proposal rmt is partially
supported by the La as well as by the possible t/a confusion in the early- and paleo-Hebrew script; for
information about t/a confusion, see E. Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd
rev. ed.; Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2001) 244-45. Because of the minimal emendations required and its contextual appropriateness,
I agree with Barr s proposal as most likely reflecting the original text and have adopted it in the text above.
ww
The word in the MT is tw[bv “oaths” in the absolute form. Several scholars emend tw[bv to
t[bf “you sated” Elliger, Propheten, 50; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 7, 26-27; Humbert, , 79;
Jeremias, Theophanie, 41; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 352-53; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 292; Patterson,
Nahum, 219; Roberts, Nahum, 139; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357. Sinker (Psalm of Habakkuk, 24-25) thinks
the best option is to read tw[bv as a fem. pl. qal ptc. (so also Haak, Habakkuk, 94-95). Although the
emendation of tw[bv to a verb from the root [bf due to v/f confusion is tempting, this proposal tends to lead
either to extensive emendations to rma, one of the most popular of which is $tpva (but which has only one
letter in common with the consonantal MT!), or to a text that does not fit the motif and context very well (e.g.,
rmat). Thus, it seems likely that tw[bv could be the number seven (t[bv; cf. LXX and the description of
Ba‘al s seven lightnings/arrows [cited in F. M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1973) 148] . Other supporters of “seven” include Andersen, Habakkuk, 312, 320- 3 “seven
clubs” Barré, “Yahweh Gears p,” 83 “seven arrows” J. Day, “Echos of Baal s Seven Thunders and
Lightnings in Psalm and Habakkuk 3 and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah 6,” VT 29 (1979) 143-51,
here “seven arrows” O Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 36 “seven staffs” Pinker, “Lord s Bow,”
composite bow of “seven strips” .
145
yy~yrh zzwlyxy $warzz 10 xx`#ra-[qbt twrhnxx
xxYou cleft the earth with rivers;
xx
10The mountains
yy zz
saw you and writhed.zz
xx-xx
The verb [qbt could be repointed as a niphal 3rd
fem. sg., in which case the colon could be read
as “the earth was split with rivers” see also Hiebert, God of My Victory, 8, 28; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch,
357. Either option (3rd
fem. sg. or 2nd
masc. sg.) is possible; the 2nd
masc. sg. fits with the rest of the verbs in v.
9; however, if v. 9c is intended as part of a bicolon with v. 10a (as organized above), a 3rd
-person verb would
match the verb in v. 10a. However, it is possible that this bicolon is intended as a transition between 2nd
- and
3rd
-person verbs, in which case there is not necessarily a problem with the different persons for the verbs. Sinker
(Psalm of Habakkuk, 27) notes that in eleven of the twelve times that the piel of [qb is used in the MT, the
verb is followed by the direct object (i.e., that which is torn), thus making a further case for the 2nd
-person verb
here.
yy
The LXX apparently replaces “mountains” with “people/nations” laoi,) as the subject of the colon
a similar substitution occurs in Exod 8 , though it is possible that the LXX s Vorlage could have read
~ym[ “peoples” . However, Barb agrees with the MT s reading (ta. o;rh), as do the La (montes) and Syr
()r*w+).
zz-zz
The lack of verbal agreement (perfect followed by imperfect) is noteworthy, but is probably an
archaic (or archaizing) poetic feature already witnessed elsewhere in this passage. The La and Syr render both
verbs as perfect (La viderunt and doluerunt; Syr kw)zX and w(z), while the LXX uses two future forms
(o;yontai, and wvdinh,sousi) which are typically used to render the Heb imperfect. Barb has a more idiomatic Gk
translation using a prepositional infinitive phrase (evn tw/| avntofqalmei/n lit., “in the looking at” = “when the
mountains look at” and a future tense for the second verb (taracqh,sontai “will be troubled” , which again
presumably renders a Heb imperfect.
146
wlwq ~wht !tn A*twb[ ~ym B
*wmrz
CloudsA poured out
B water/rain; The deep gave its voice.
A The MT has the verb rb[ “passed over” . It has been emended to the noun twb[ “clouds” based
on the text of Hab 3:10 in Mur XII and the parallel phrase in Ps 77:18 (twb[ ~ym wmrz), albeit with caution.
As observed by Eaton (“Habakkuk 3,” 153 , “it is hard to say whether the greater difficulty of [the MT] should
be counted for or against it.” Other scholars who support the emendation to t(w)b[ include Albright, “Psalm
of Habakkuk,” Cassuto, “Ras Shamra,” Hiebert, God of My Victory, 30; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten,
182; Margulis, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,” 3 Roberts, Nahum, 140; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357.
B The MT has the noun ~rz “downpour/rainstorm,” with violent overtones [see Sinker, Psalm of
Habakkuk, 28]). It has been emended to a verb based on the text of Hab 3:10 in Mur XII (Mur 88) and the
parallel phrase in Ps 77:18 (twb[ ~ym wmrz), albeit with caution (see also previous note). The verb ~rz meaning “flood” [qal] is found in Ps 8 poel and Ps qal , whereas the noun ~rz is found once in
Job (24:8) and several times in Isaiah (Isa 4:6; 25:4; 28:2; 30:30; 32:2). Since the noun is more common and is
used several times in another prophetic text (i.e., Isaiah), it is more likely that the verb would be confused for
the noun rather than vice versa. However, since the verb is used in the theophanic text of Ps 77:18 and the noun
appears in the storm-god motifs of Isa 8 and 3 3 , either form would fit the context. The MT s ~ym ~rz “downpour/rainstorm of water” , while not necessarily illogical, is redundant, whereas the phrase in Mur XII
and Ps 8 is not. Other scholars who support the emendation to a verb include Albright, “Psalm of
Habakkuk,” Cassuto, “Ras Shamra,” Hiebert, God of My Victory, 30; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten,
182; Margulis, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 3 Roberts, Nahum, 140; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357.
147
[hlbz dm[ xry11] C
*vmv Dafn whydy ~wr
SunC raised
D its hands on high; [
11Moon stood [in] its lofty residence.]
C The MT includes vmv with v. 11, thus creating a double subject with a singular verb (note: Pfeiffer
[Jahwes kommen von Süden, 133] thinks xry is a later addition). As noted by Eaton (“Habakkuk 3,” 153), the
use of a double subject is attested elsewhere in the MT; e.g., Isa 51:11 hxnaw !wny wsn “sorrow and sighing
fled” . However, Isa uses a plural verb not singular and includes the w conjunction connecting the two
subjects unlike the MT s Hab 3 . Eaton “Habakkuk 3,” 153 explains the MT s peculiarities by appealing
to the lack of a w conjunction elsewhere in Habakkuk 3 and by suggesting that the singular verb dm[ would
have been attracted to the closer noun even though the verse he cites as containing a double subject (Isa 51:11)
has a plural verb rather than a singular see above . Although Eaton s observations are plausible and the implied
subject of afn could be ~wht “the deep” from v. bb, the other cola in v. 10 provide an explicit subject in the
text with the logical pairings of ~ym/twb[ “water”/“clouds” and ~wht “deep” in the bicolon in v. b, just
as vmv “sun” and xry “moon” would constitute a logical pairing for another bicolon in vv. 10c-11a. Both
the LXX and Barb treat vmv as the subject of afn; the LXX appears to be reading a niphal of afn with its
evph,rqh o h[lioj “the sun was lifted” , while Barb has fw/j to. lampro.n tou/ h`li,ou evpe,sce “the glorious light of
the sun spread out” . Both the La and the Syr add “and” La et; Syr w between “sun” and “moon,” and correct
the verb to a plural (La steterunt; Syr wMQ , thus keeping “sun” and “moon” in the same colon as the MT.
Other scholars who treat vmv as part of the last colon in the MT s v. include Andersen, Habakkuk, 312,
330-332; Duhm, Buch Habakuk, 88; Elliger, Propheten, 50; Haak, Habakkuk, 97; Horst, Zwölf kleinen
Propheten, 182; Humbert, , 78-79; Jeremias, Theophanie, 42; Lescow, “ ahum und Habakuk,” 83
Marti, Dodekapropheton, 353; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 293; O Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 237;
Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 190; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 486.
A. Pinker “God s C3 in Habakkuk 3,” ZAW 115 [2003] 261-65) suggests that Yhwh is the implied
subject in afn whydy ~wr “He raised His hands high up” p. 6 , functioning as part of battlefield
communication signals in vv.10d-11. Although the persons in Habakkuk 3 do shift between referring to Yhwh
in the 3rd
person and the 2nd
person, the text is at least consistent within its individual strophes/units (with the
possible exception of wyjmb in v. 14). The pattern of addressing Yhwh is: v. 2 = 2nd
person; vv. 3-7 = 3rd
person; vv. 8-15 = 2nd
person; vv. 16-19 = 3rd
person. Pinker s suggestion is disruptive of that pattern because it
introduces a 3rd
-person reference to Yhwh in the midst of a larger section (vv. 8-15) where Yhwh is otherwise
addressed in the 2nd
person, including in v. 11 where even Pinker translates the last colon in direct address “…
a glint of Your spear” ibid., emphasis added .
D Several scholars emend afn to hvn “it forgot” ; see Elliger, Propheten, 50; Horst, Zwölf kleinen
Propheten, 182; Jeremias, Theophanie, 42; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 353; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 293;
Rudolph, Micha, 236; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357. Humbert ( , 78-79) also assumes f/v
confusion but repoints the verb as a niphal and adds a conjunction (avnw), while Riessler (Kleinen
Propheten,193) repoints afn to a niphal. Although the versions do not agree upon their subjects or voice of the
verb (passive vs. active), most clearly reflect a form of afn “lift up” “raise” in translation see also previous
note): LXX evph,rqh; La levavit; Syr lQ$. As noted by Sinker (Psalm of Habakkuk, 29), it is possible to
understand ~wr as a nominative substantive rather than an adverb.
148
Fhlbz dm[ xry11 *vmv afn Ewhydy ~wrE
Sun raised Eits hands on high;
E 11Moon stood [in] its lofty residence.
F
`$tynx qrb Ghgnl wklhy $ycx Grwal
At light,G your arrows went forth; At brightness,
G the lightning of your spear.
E-E
Elliger (Propheten, 50) and Marti (Dodekapropheton, 353) emend this phrase to hxrzm “in/toward
the east” “rising” “sunrise” . Sellin Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357) proposes whyd[wm “its appointed rotations” .
Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182) suggests twmmwr “praises” . Riessler Kleinen Propheten,193) reads hydy ~myr “[it] raised its hands” . Kelly “Strophic Structure,” follows G. A. Smith s emendation wxzdm
“his [mourning] cry”).
F The h is here understood as the archaic, preexilic 3
rd-masc. sg. suffix “his” cf. Job 3 Ezek
43:17; Nah 2:4); see also Hiebert, God of My Victory, 31. BHS, Elliger (Propheten, 50), Horst (Zwölf kleinen
Propheten, 182), and Jeremias (Theophanie, 43) add a proclitic preposition, thus yielding hlbzb, which would
provide for a smoother reading “in its lofty residence” . Marti Dodekapropheton, 353) and Riessler (Kleinen
Propheten, 193) suggest wlwbz “its lofty residence” .
G On the basis of the use of rwal in Zeph 3:5 and Job 24:14 with the meaning “at dawn” see also
HALOT, p. 24), I propose that a similar use is intended here for both rwal and its parallel hgnl. Thus, I
maintain that “at light” rwal and “at brightness” hgnl are parallel temporal expressions for “at dawn” even
though b is more often used in a temporal sense than l (Joüon §133d); see the exegesis section below for
further implications of the proposal within the context. The LXX translates the preposition l as eivj “into” ,
Barb as kata, “according to,” which can be used in a temporal sense “at/on/during” , Syr as B “in/on” , and La
as in “in/into” . It is uncertain whether the Syr and La presuppose a Vorlage that used b or if they understood l
in a temporal sense more typical of b. Sinker (Psalm of Habakkuk, 3 also uses “at” to translate l; however, he
understands it as possibly having the sense of “because of” if connected to diminished light from the sun and
moon in the previous colon or “in the presence of” if connected to the victory at Gibeon . Hiebert (God of My
Victory, 31-32) suggests that the l is used adverbially and, hence, proposes “brightly” rwal and “brilliantly”
(hgnl) as translations (also Haak, Habakkuk, 92; Prinsloo, “Reading Habakkuk 3,” . Citing Isa 60:19,
Roberts (Nahum, 141) takes both as idiomatic references to God s lightning, which provides the only remaining
light after the sun and moon have been blocked out by Yhwh s thick clouds [note ironically, Isa 6 is part of
a passage describing the peace that will occur once Yhwh restores Zion, not as part of a passage describing
Yhwh s battle tactics].
149
Strophe V: Divine Warrior is Victorious
PVO PVO `~ywg vwdt @ab #ra-d[ct ~[zb 12
VP P $xyvm-ta [vyl $m[ [vyl tacy 13
VOP VOP `hls rawc-d[ dwsy twr[ [vr tybm var tcxm
VPO VOAdv ~tcyl[ yncyphl wr[sy wzrp var wyjmb tbqn 14
P[VOP] `rtsmb yn[ lkal-wmk
VOI [O] `~ybr ~ym *rmxb $ysws ~yb tkrd 15
Translation and Notes
`~ywg vwdt H @ab #ra- I d[ct H~[zb 12
12In wrath,
H you marched
I on the land; In anger,
H you trampled the nations.
H The translation of ~[zb and @ab respectively in the translations are: LXX evn avpeilh/| (“in threat”)
and evn qumw/| “in fury” Barb meta. qumou/ (“with fury”) and met ovrgh/j (“with anger”); Syr )tMXB “in
fury/heat” and )zGwrB “in wrath/anger” cf. v. La in fremitu “in roaring” and in furore “in rage/fury” .
Barb has a less literal translation of the prepositions than the other versions, but does choose two Gk words that
are more commonly used to translate ~[z and @a in the LXX. In contrast, the LXX does use qumo,j (albeit for
@a rather than ~[z, contrary to Barb) but chooses an unusual word for ~[z (avpeilh, [threat]); of the 24 times
avpeilh, is used in the LXX, only seven have a parallel Heb term in the MT and Hab 3:11 is the only time when
avpeilh, is used to translate ~[z (statistics and usage determined using Bibleworks 9.0 [Norfolk: Bibleworks,
LCC, 2011] in conjunction with E. Hatch and H. A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint [2nd
ed.; Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2005]). In contrast, qumo,j is used 333 times in the LXX and ovrgh, 303 times. On the other hand,
the LXX is consistent in that it previously used qumo,j to translate @a in Hab 3:8 and ovrgh, was already used to
translate zgr in Hab 3:2; thus, perhaps the LXX translator was trying to distinguish the three anger-related Heb
terms in Habakkuk 3 (~[z, @a, and zgr) by using a different Gk term for each.
I Barb translates the verb as evgerqh,sh “you will arise” Good “Barberini,” 6 suggests rw[t as the
possible Heb Vorlage for Barb in place of the MT s dcct.
150
K$xyvm J[-ta] [vylJ $m[ [vyl tacy 13
13 You went forth for the deliverance
JFor the deliverance
J of your Anointed One.
K
of your people,
J-J
Both the Gk and Syr have an infinitive here (LXX sw/sai [“to save”] Barb r`u,sasqai [“to rescue”];
Syr qrPM [“to redeem”] , while the La (salutem) reflects the MT s noun. The apparent problem is the presence
of the direct object marker (ta) in the MT, which generally is out of place in poetry and, thus, is probably a
corruption or a gloss [hence I have placed it in brackets], but which may have been the catalyst for why both the
LXX and Barb translates [vyl in this colon differently than in the previous one. The deletion of ta would
solve the textual problem, though some scholars opt to emend the text. Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11),
Hiebert (God of My Victory, 7), and Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182) emend ta to ~[ “people” . Since
[vyl as a qal infinitive is problematic ([vy is never elsewhere used in the qal, only in the niphal and hiphil),
several scholars emend [vyl to a hiphil infinitive [yvw(h)l; see Elliger, Propheten, 50; Marti,
Dodekapropheton, 354; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 293; Rudolph, Micha, 237; Wellhausen, Kleinen
Propheten, 142.
K Both Gk versions have a plural here; however, the LXX has tou.j cristou,j “anointed ones” while
Barb has tou.j evklektou,j “elected/chosen ones” . The choice of evklekto,j in Barb could be a Jewish reaction
against Christian interpretation of the OT in which cristo,j was linked to the belief in Jesus of Nazareth as the
Messiah/Christ/Anointed One, even though the plural is used in the LXX of Hab 3:13.
151
`hls Mrawc-d[dwsy *tyr[M L[vr tybm var tcxmL
LYou shattered the head from the
MYou laid bare the base as far as the neck.
M
house of the wicked; L
Selah.
L-L
The MT has [vr tybm var tcxm “You shattered the head from/of the house of the wicked
one” . The LXX reads e;balej eivj kefala.j avno,mwn qa,naton “You threw/cast/brought death onto the heads of
the lawless” , thus reading tybm as twm “death” also the name of a Canaanite god, Mot; see Albright, “Psalm
of Habakkuk,” 11, 13; cf. Cassuto, “Ras Shamra,” ). Barb has kateto,xeusaj kefala.j avnqrw,pwn uperhfa,nwn
“You shot [with arrows] the heads of wicked humans” , perhaps reading tybm as ytm “men/people” see also
Humbert, , 79). Both the La and Syr have a translation similar to the MT: La percussisti caput de
domo impii “You struck/pierced the head from the house of the wicked” Syr )Lw(d htYB oM )$Yr tQSP
“You cut off the head of the house of the wicked” . F. J. Stephens (“The Babylonian Dragon Myth in
Habakkuk 3,” JBL 43 [1924] 290-93) uses the LXX as a basis for proposing that the original Heb could have
been twmhb (twmh [LXX] twmhb [proposed original] twmb [drop h] twbm [metathesis of b and m]
tybm [w/y confusion = MT] thus, “Thou didst strike through the head of Behemoth” ibid., . Andersen
(Habakkuk, 337) solves the problemic colon by deleting tybm.
Hiebert (God of My Victory, 9, 36-40) suggests tbm (3rd
fem. sg. construct “back” see pp. 3 -38 for
an explanation regarding how tbm could have generated the other variants reflected in the MT and Gk
translations , although he acknowledges that Albright s reading “Mot/Death” [A E deity] is also appealing.
One problem is that hbm in Heb more often means “height/high places” while “back” is more common in
Ugaritic according to Hiebert (ibid., 39). Even in the few places where “back” might be more fitting e.g., Deut
33:29; Job 9:8; Isa 14:14), which often do have possible connections with Ugaritic mythology, hbm is used
with verbs of motion ($rd [“tread upon” Deut 33 Job 8 ] and hl[ [“ascend” Isa ] and with the
preposition l[ in the sense “on/upon” hbm (cf. Hab 3:19); hbm is never used as the object of an attack (e.g.,
“smash/strike” . Examples of direct objects of #xm elsewhere in the MT include: hap “side of the head,”
“temple,” “forehead” um ~yntm “loins/hips” Deut 33 var “head” Judg 6 Pss 68:22;
110:6); bhr “Rahab” [mythological being] Job 6 ~yklm “kings” Ps .
M-M
For this colon, the LXX has evxh,geiraj desmou.j e[wj trach,lou “you raised up chains as far as the
neck” La denudasti fundamentum usque ad collum “you laid bare the foundation up to the neck” Syr
hrwcL )Md(w yhwS)8t$ oM yhYtXL$)w “you stripped him/it from the foundation and as far as the neck” .
Barb appears to be reading a non-MT Vorlage with its e[wj avbu,ssou th/j qala,sshj katadusontai (“they will
sink as far as the depths/abyss of the sea”); for possible connections to the MT consonantal text, see Good,
“Barberini,” .
152
`hls Prawc-d[ Odwsy N*tyr[ [[vr tybm var tcxm]
[You shattered the head from the You laid bareN the base
O as far as the
house of the wicked;] neck.P Selah.
[~tcyl[ yncyphl wr[sy] Rwzrp Qvar wyjmb tbqn 14
14 You pierced the head
Q of his warrior
R [[They stormed to scatter me [in] their
with his [own] shafts; arrogance/rejoicing]]
N The MT reads the piel inf. abs. twr[. However, the LXX, La, and Syr all have a 2
nd masc. sg. verb
(see n. M-M), thus presumably reading the 2nd
masc. sg. piel tyr[ which better fits the context and to which I
have emended the text accordingly; so also BHS; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 40; cf. Sellin,
Zwölfprophetenbuch, 3 O Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 238. Humbert ( , 79) proposes a more
radical emendation with ~trrc “you tied/wrapped/chained them” cf. LXX .
O The Syr reads a plural (yhwS)8t$), as does the LXX albeit with a different meaning (desmou,j;
“bonds” “chains” ; La (fundamentum) agrees with the singular in the MT.
P A few scholars and BHS emend rawc to rwc “rock” see Elliger, Propheten, 50; Horst, Zwölf
kleinen Propheten, 182; Kelly, “Strophic Structure,” ; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 354; Sellin,
Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357.
Q Several scholars wish to add a 3
rd masc. sg. personal pronominal suffix (wvar) here; see Albright,
“Psalm of Habakkuk,” Duhm, Buch Habakuk, 92; Elliger, Propheten, 50; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten,
182; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 354; Mowinckel, “Psalm des Habakuk,” 8 Rudolph, Micha, 237; Sellin,
Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357.
R The noun zrp is a hapax legomenon in the MT [note: the qerê reads the plural noun wyzrp]; its
meaning is uncertain. Translations in the other versions include “rulers” LXX dunastw/n; Syr yhwN+YL$8), “warriors” La bellatorum , and “sinners” Barb tw/n a`martwlw/n), all using the genitive case. Humbert
( , 79) proposes reading ~ynzr “dignitaries/princes” based on the LXX.
153
T~tcyl[ yncyphl wr[syT wzrp var Swyjmb tbqn 14
14 You pierced the head of his warrior
T[[They stormed to scatter me [in] their
with his shafts;S arrogance/rejoicing]]
T
S The LXX has evn evksta,sei “in/with amazement/terror” Barb meta. duna,mew,j sou (“with your
power” La sceptris eius “his scepters” Syr yhwr*+wXB “with/by his staffs” . Thus, both the La and Syr
include the 3rd
-person personal pronoun, Barb uses the 2nd
-person pronoun, while the LXX does not reflect the
presence of a pronoun. The 2nd
-person pronoun would better fit the context since it is more logical that Yhwh
would use his own weapon to attack the enemy. Thus, several scholars propose emending the MT to $(y)jmb
“your staff/rod/spear/shaft” see Elliger, Propheten, 50; Humbert, , 79; Kelly, “Strophic Structure,”
115; Mowinckel, “Psalm des Habakuk,” 18; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 294-95; Roberts, Nahum, 144; Sellin,
Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 172. Marti (Dodekapropheton, 354) suggests
$ytjmb “with your shots” [mit deinen Geschossen]). Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182) and Rudolph
(Micha, 237) propose hjmb “with the arrow/dart” . Albright “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 11, 13) advocates wjmb
“in the fight” . A. Pinker “On the Meaning of wytm in Habakkuk 3,14a,” Bib 86 [2005] 376-86) argues for
transposing the last two letters into the construct ywjmb, with the meaning “into the spun s [braids] of the
head” in the context and appealing to iconographic representations and textual descriptions indicative of how
some ANE cultures valued long hair on men (pp. 382-83). Andersen (Habakkuk, 338) suggests reading the w as
a dual suffix attested in the Gezer Calendar “two maces” .
T-T
This colon is so textually problematic that some scholars refuse to attempt a translation (e.g.,
Andersen, Habakkuk, 313; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 9) or admit that any suggested translation will be highly
speculative (e.g., Roberts, Nahum, 144). The MT reads ~tcyl[ yncyphl wr[sy “they stormed to
scatter/smash me [in?] their arrogance/rejoicing” however, the last word is sometimes placed with the
following colon). The LXX has seisqh,sontai evn auvth, “they will be shaken by it” / dianoi,xousi calinou.j auvtw/n “they will open their bridles” Barb tou.j pepoiqo,taj evpi. th|/ auvqadei,a| auvtw/n “the ones who trust [have
been convinced/persuaded] in their arrogance” La venientibus ut turbo ad dispergendum me “to the ones
coming as a whirlwind to scatter me” Syr nwhtwNXY$B wLKtt)d “who trust in their savagery” .
There are several proposals to emend yncyphl. BHS, Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182), and
Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 194) suggest #(y)phl. Humbert ( , 79) proposes $cyphl “[when] you
cause to scatter” . Duhm Buch Habakuk, 92), Patterson (Nahum, 230), and Sellin (Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357)
divide yncyphl into two words with various emendations: wnycpy wl (“to/for him/it” + “they hide” Duhm);
[ync cwp “to scatter the humble” Patterson wnycpy hl (“to/for her/it” + “they hide” Sellin).
A few scholars have also proposed emendations for ~tcyl[. Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182)
corrects it to twcyl[ “exultation” . Humbert ( , 79) suggests ~tycwlh “valiant ones” , while
Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 194) proposes ~twcylh “their booty/loot” . Based on an Arabic cognate noted by
Driver, Eaton “Habakkuk 3,” leaves the MT unchanged but understands ~tcyl[ as “their throats” and
connects it to the following colon.
154
U`rtsmb yn[ lkal-wmkU
UAs to devour the poor in secret.
U
`~ybr ~ym W*rmxb $ysws ~yb Vtkrd 15
15You tread
V upon the sea with your horses, Upon the surge
W of many waters.
U-U
Although not quite as troublesome as the previous colon, this colon is also sometimes left
untranslated (e.g., Hiebert, God of My Victory, 9) or omitted as a probable gloss (e.g., Humbert, , 78-
79). The MT has rtsmb yn[ lkal-wmk “as to devour the poor in secret” . The LXX reads w`j e;sqwn ptwco.j la,qra| “as a poor man eating in secret” Barb e[neken tou/ katafagei/n tou.j ptwcou.j la,qra| “on account of the
poor ones devouring in secret” ; La exultatio eorum sicut eius qui devorat pauperem in abscondito “their joy
[is/was] just as he who devours the poor in secret” this translation includes ~tcyl[); Syr )Y$w+B nwLK)Nd
)NKS8ML “that they devour the poor in secret” .
Marti (Dodekapropheton, 354 and Mowinckel “Psalm des Habakuk,” 8 emend wmk to #mk “like
chaff” . Eaton “Habakkuk 3,” -56) suggests either repointing wmk to an elided verb form “they crave” or
possibly an original infinitive absolute hmk. For yn[ lkal, Rudolph (Micha, 238) proposes yd[l abl “as a
lion to his prey” . O Connor Hebrew Verse Structure, 238) takes the l on lkal as an emphatic l introducing
wlka “they consume” .
V Some scholars want to read the hiphil tkrdh in place of the MT s tkrd; see Humbert, Prob ,
79. However, evpibai,nw is used several times elsewhere to translate the qal of $rd (Deut 1:36; 11:25; 33:29;
Josh 1:3; 1 Sam 5:5; Ps 91:13; Mic 5:4-5). If there is any support for a hiphil Vorlage, La viam fecisti “you
made a way” comes the closest. The Syr uses the cognate tKrd (“you tread” .
W
The MT points rmx as a masc. sg. construct noun “foaming” “heap” . The Syr comes closest to
this with the noun )$NK “gathering” “collection” , though the La also has a noun, albeit in a prepositional
phrase in luto “in mud” which possibly attests to a Vorlage that read rmxb. In contrast, the LXX translates
rmx with the participle tara,ssontaj “disturbing” while Barb has a finite verb evtara,cqh “[the violent waters
of the abyss] were disturbed” aor. ind. pass. 3rd
sg. with a collective neut. pl. subject). Some possibilities for
verb forms that would only require repointing the MT include a masc. sg. ptc. or 3rd
masc. sg. finite verbs.
However, none of these options would fit very well because ~ybr ~ym takes a plural verb elsewhere in MT
whenever it is the subject (e.g., Num 20:11; Ps 32:6; Cant 8:7; Ezek 31:15) and if Yhwh were the subject, a
hiphil would be more appropriate “he disturbed” . Another option is represented by the possible Vorlage of the
Vg (rmxb), given that ~ybr ~ym appears as part of other construct chains (e.g., Ps 93:4; Isa 17:13; Ezek 1:24;
31:15) and that rmxb ~ybr ~ym would create a nice parallel to ~yb in the previous colon that would be typical
of Heb poetry. Others who support the emendation to rmxb include BHS; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 47-48;
Roberts, Nahum, 145.
155
Strophe VI: Conclusion
VVS PVS ytpf wllc lwql ynjb zgrtw yt[mv 16
VSP PVO(?) *rva zgra ytxtw ymc[b bqr awby
VP POV `wndwgy ~[l twl[l hrc ~wyl xwna
SV PredSP ~ynpgb lwby !yaw xrpt-al hnat-yk 17
VS SVO lka hf[-al twmdvw tyz-hf[m vxk
VPS PredSP `~ytprb rqb !yaw !ac hlkmm rzg
SPV VP `y[vy yhlab hlyga hzwl[a hwhyb ynaw 18
SPred VOP twlyak ylgr ~fyw ylyx ynda hwhy 19
PV [ytwnygnb xcnml] ynkrdy ytwmb l[w
Translation and Notes
ytpf Zwllc Ylwql ynjb zgrtw Xyt[mv 16
16I heard
X and my belly shook; At the sound
Y my lips quiver.
Z
X The LXX has evfulaxa,mhn “I observed/watched” , perhaps reading ytrmv
; Barb has evtaxa,mhn “I
stationed [myself]” , perhaps reading ytmf. Both La (audivi) and Syr (t(M$) support the MT.
Y Both Gk versions have avpo, “from” , perhaps reading lwqm. The Syr has lBQwL “against” . The La
renders the Heb most literally with ad “to” .
Z The MT s wllc is not reflected in Barb or Syr. The LXX translates it as proseuch/j “prayer”
Patterson (Nahum, 233) suggests that the LXX was reading the Aramaic root al[ “pray” . Again, the La most
closely resembles the Heb with contremuerunt “they trembled” .
156
BB*rva AAzgra ytxtw ymc[b bqr awby
Rottenness comes into my bones; I quakeAA
under me, walking.BB
[wndwgy ~[l twl[l] hrc ~wyl CCxwna
I restCC
for the day of distress [To go up to the people [who] attack us.]
AA
The versions are inconsistent regarding the person of the verb. The MT s st-person zgra is only
clearly supported by Barb (evtara,cqhn “I was troubled” , which seems to be reading the st sg. perf. ytzgr. The
Syr colon (z yKr*wBw “and my knees shook” could be an idiomatic rendering for the MT or maybe a slightly
different Vorlage. Both the La and LXX read a 3rd
-person verb, the La with an implied subject (et subter me
scateat “and it swarms under me” , whereas the LXX includes a subject kai. upoka,twqe,n mou evtara,cqh h` e[xij mou; “and under me my condition was troubled/stirred up” .
Several scholars emend zgra to wzgry (3rd pl.); see Elliger, Propheten, Kelly, “Strophic Structure,”
116; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 355; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357. Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” ) and
Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 184) suggest zgrt (3rd
fem. sg.). Duhm (Buch Habakuk, 96), Humbert
( , 79) and Nowack (Kleinen Propheten, 296) propose zgry (3rd masc. sg.).
BB
If rva is taken as the relative marker as pointed in the MT, it should logically be placed with what
follows it. However, the relative marker is uncommon in Heb poetry and it does not work well within this
context, while placing it with what follows disrupts what appears to be a consistent 3/3 pattern for the bicola in
this verse (see also Patterson, Nahum, 233). Most of the versions do read the relative marker (and, hence, put it
with the following colon): La ut; Syr -d; Barb tau/ta (=rva?). In contrast, the LXX does not include any
indication of a relative pronoun in v. 16bb and may have translated rva (or a different Vorlage) using h` e[xij mou “my condition” , which the LXX treats as the subject of v. 16ba.
Several scholars emend rva to yrva “my step[s]”); see Albright, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” Duhm,
Buch Habakuk, 96; Elliger, Propheten, 50; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 184; Humbert, , 79;
Kelly, “Strophic Structure,” 6 Marti, Dodekapropheton, 355; Perlitt, Propheten, 93; Roberts, Nahum, 147;
Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357; Ward, “Habakkuk,” Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 172. One problem
with this emendation is that the extant portions of Mur XII do not allow for another letter between rva and the
following word, xwna. Thus, Eaton “Habakkuk 3,” proposes repointing rva as an infinitive absolute from
the verb “to go.” Pfeiffer Jahwes kommen von Süden, 134) and Rudolph (Micha, 238) suggest revocalizing as
simply the noun “step” without the addition of a pronoun; see also Andersen, Habakkuk, 345; Haak, Habakkuk,
103; Patterson, Nahum, 233. In support of rva as a relative marker, see R. D. Holmstedt, “Habakkuk 3 6 –
where did the rva go?” HS 44 (2003) 129-38; Sinker, Psalm of Habakkuk, 38-39.
CC
Both the LXX (avnapau,somai) and La (requiescam) support the MT with their 1st-sg. verbs meaning
“I will rest.” In contrast, Barb reads a nd
-person verb (fula,xeij; “you will watch” , while the Syr has a 3rd
-
person verb (qdB “he explained” . Elliger Propheten, 50), Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 184), and BHS
emend xwna to hkxa “I will wait” and Duhm (Buch Habakuk, 96) to xnaa “I sigh/moan” ; Ward
“Habakkuk,” 8 reluctantly adopts the latter proposal because “nothing better occurs.” Albright and Sellin
each draw on the following word to create a different division of words; Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” 12-13,
17) suggests emending the text to ~wy yl vna “painful to me [is] the day [of distress]”), while Sellin
(Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357) suggests ~wy lyxwa “I wait for [the] day” .
157
DDwndwgy ~[l twl[l [hrc ~wyl xwna]
[I rest for the day of distress] To go up to the people [who] attack us.DD
~ynpgb lwby !yaw xrpt-al hnat-yk 17
17Though the fig tree does not bud And there is no produce of the vines,
lka hf[-al twmdvw tyz-hf[m vxk
The yield of olives fails And fields do not make food,
EE~ytprb rqb !yawEE !ac hlkmm rzg
Flocks are cut off from the enclosure EE
And there is no herd in the stable,EE
FFy[vy yhlab hlyga hzwl[a hwhyb ynaw 18
18But I will exult in Yhwh; I will rejoice in the God of my salvation.
FF
GGtwlyak ylgr ~fywGG ylyx ynda hwhy 19 19
Yhwh, my Lord, is my strength, GG
And he puts my feet as stags/deer; GG
DD
Barb comes closest to the MT s meaning with its polemou/n to.n lao.n sou “making war on your
people” except that it adds an extra word for “people” to.n lao,n) and uses the 2nd
-sg. personal pronoun sou
instead of the 1st-pl. pronoun. The LXX has paroiki,aj mou “[people] of my sojourning” . La reads accinctum
nostrum “our girded [people]” . Syr does not have a verb in this colon but has an extra verb in the previous
colon that perhaps should be included in this colon). Albright (“Psalm of Habakkuk,” corrects the MT to
yndwgy (1st-sg. pronominal suffix). Humbert ( , 79) suggests dwdg “troop of warriors” .
EE-EE
Syr has )r*QBB )r*wt tYLw “there are no bulls in the herd” instead.
FF
The La reads Iesu “Jesus” instead of “salvation.”
GG-GG
Though the phrasing here is somewhat strange, it is similar to 2 Sam 22:34 // Ps 18:34. The LXX
has kai. ta,xei tou.j po,daj mou eivj sunte,leian “and he will place my feet toward completion” , while Barb reads
kai. kate,sthse tou.j po,daj mou avsfalei/j “he set my feet firm” . The other versions support the MT La et
ponet pedes meos quasi cervorum; Syr )lY)d kY) yLGr* dB(d.
158
II[ytwnygnb xcnml]
II ynkrdy HHytwmb l[w
And upon myHH
high places he leads me. II[To the director with music/strings.]
II
2. Authenticity and Dating
There has been much debate regarding whether Habakkuk 3 is original vis-à-vis the
rest of the book. Although the absence of Habakkuk 3 in the Pesher on Habakkuk (1QpHab)
found among the Dead Sea Scrolls might indicate that it was not yet a fixed part of the book
of Habakkuk, many scholars reject its absence as evidence against the incorporation of
Habakkuk 3 by the time 1QPHab was written.6 Perlitt thinks that the liturgical notes indicate
that the text was originally part of the Psalter and the superscription in 3:1 was added later,
attributing the poem to Habakkuk.7 Similarly, Nogalski points to the liturgical notations,
especially the use of hls, as an indication that Habakkuk 3 was redacted to include those
liturgical features and had a separate literary origin from the rest of the book of Habakkuk.8
HH
Some scholars wish to remove the 1st-sg. suffix; see Elliger, Propheten, 50 Kelly, “Strophic
Structure,” 6 Marti, Dodekapropheton, 355; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 297; Perlitt, Propheten, 95.
However, the 1st-person pronoun is present in the other versions except the LXX (Barb tw/n evcqrw/n mou; La
excelsa mea; Syr yMwr). Patterson (Nahum, 238) suggests that ytwm is a “frozen form based an old genitive
case.”
II-II
Each of the versions has something different in place of the MT subscription: LXX tou/ nikh/sai evn th/| wv|dh/| auvtou/ “to conquer by his song” Barb taci,saj katepau,sato “taci,saj [“swiftly”?] it was brought to an
end” La in psalmis canentem “in singing songs” , Syr htXB$8tB rMz)d “that I will sing his praises” . The
word taci,saj in Barb is a hapax legomenon, not only in the OT, but in the entire Gk corpus of literature (Good,
“Barberini,” the LSJ p. 6 hypothesizes that it is from the verb taci,zw “to make swift” this would
make taci,saj an aor. ptc.) and for this suggestion cites only Hab 3:19.
6 Against the Pesher as evidence for the earlier absence of Habakkuk 3 from the book, see Deissler,
Zwölf Propheten II, 219; Elliger, Propheten, 55; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 95. Habakkuk 3 is included in
Mur XII and 8H evXIIgr with the rest of the fragments of Habakkuk.
7 Perlitt, Propheten, 83. He also thinks that comparison with other Jewish literature indicates that the
Book of Habakkuk was “finished” in the fourth century B.C.E. (ibid., 43), presumably including Habakkuk 3.
8 Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 156-59.
159
Although O. P. Robertson thinks that Habakkuk 3 did circulate separately, he also thinks that
it belonged to the original form of the book of Habakkuk.9 Ward favors common authorship
of Habakkuk 2–3, which he dates to “a period later than the first standard collection of
Sacred Books”; he notes that the author of both chapters appears to be familiar with
Deuteronomy, 2 Samuel, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Micah.10
Albright sees no reason why the
entire book could not substantially be the work of a single author who reused and
reinterpreted earlier poetic ANE material to create the first three parts (v. 2, vv. 3-7, vv. 8-15)
of Habakkuk 3.11
Perhaps the most famous argument for the literary unity of the book of
Habakkuk comes from Humbert, whose study focuses largely on the similar vocabulary
within the three chapters of Habakkuk.12
Others have also argued that the psalm in Habakkuk
3 fulfills an essential function in the book, particularly as a response to Habakkuk 1, thus
pointing to a single author.13
The date of composition for Habakkuk 3 is also highly debated. One of the earliest
proposed datings for Habakkuk 3 is Hiebert s conclusion that the poem can be dated back to
premonarchic Israel (i.e., thirteenth – tenth centuries B.C.E.).14
D. A. Robertson uses
9 O. P. Robertson, Habakkuk, 214.
10
Ward, “Habakkuk,” .
11
Albright, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 9; cf. Haak, Habakkuk, 110-11; Roberts, Nahum, 85; Prinsloo,
“Reading Habakkuk 3,” 8 J. W. Watts, “Psalmody in Prophecy Habakkuk 3 in Context,” in Forming
Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts (ed. J. W. Watts and P. R.
House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996) 209-23, esp. 221.
12
Humbert, , 245.
13
For examples, see Eaton, “Habakkuk 3,” 66-67; D. Markl, “Hab 3 in intertextueller und
kontextueller Sicht,” Bib 85 (2004) 99-108; Prinsloo, “Reading Habakkuk 3,” -7; M. E. W. Thompson,
“Prayer, Oracle and Theophany: The Book of Habakkuk,” TynBul 44 (1993) 33-53.
14
Hiebert, God of My Victory, 120-22.
160
linguistic clues to tentatively date Habakkuk 3 to the eleventh century B.C.E.15
Similarly,
Anderson thinks that the core theophany (vv. 3-15) can be dated confidently to the preexilic,
perhaps even premonarhic, period with subsequent redactions and incorporation into a larger
corpus during the Persian Period, thus giving it a place in the Twelve Prophets.16
The phrase
!mytm hwla in Hab 3:3 is similar to !mt hwhy found in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions,
which Lemaire dates to the reign of Jeroboam II, probably between 776-750 B.C.E.17
Sweeney suggests that Yhwh s “anointed one” in v. 3 refers to the king and, hence, that
Habakkuk 3 reflects the preexilic monarchic period.18
Humbert finds the vocabulary of
Habakkuk 3 to be consistent with sacred lyric poetry, while also having affinities with the
prophets of the late seventh century B.C.E.19
Albright thinks that the presence of the archaic
masculine singular suffix on hz[ “his strength” in v. “points to a date not later than the
sixth century for composition” of Habakkuk 3, given the similar orthography in
contemporary texts such as the Lachish Ostraca; thus he suggests 605-589 B.C.E. as a
probable date of composition for the bulk of the book.20
Haak narrows the time frame further
15
D. A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, 155. He also tentatively dates Deuteronomy 32, 2 Samuel 22
// Psalm 18, and Job in the same century as Habakkuk 3, with Exodus 15 and Judges 5 dated in the twefth
century, and Psalm 78 in the late tenth – early ninth centuries (ibid.).
16
J. E. Anderson, “Awaiting an Answered Prayer The Development and Reinterpretation of
Habakkuk 3 in its Context,” ZAW 123 (2011) 57-71.
17
A. Lemaire, “Date et origine des inscriptions hebraiques et pheniciennes de Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” Studi
epigrafici e linguistici 1 (1984) 131- 3, here 3 see also Weinfeld, “Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” -27. Ironically, B.
Stade (“Miscellen. 3. Habakuk,” ZAW 4 [1884] 154-59) points to the use of hwla as indicating a postexilic
author.
18
Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 486. Against this suggestion, see Marti, Dodekapropheton, 327;
Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 169; Stade, “3. Habakuk,” 157-58; Thompson, “Prayer,” 3.
19
Humbert, , 245.
20
Albright, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 9-10, 14; cf. Mowinckel, “Psalm des Habakuk,” 2. W. L. Holladay
(“Plausible Circumstances for the Prophecy of Habakkuk,” JBL 120 [2001] 123-30) extends the dates slightly to
605-594 B.C.E. based on the references to an apparent drought in Hab 3:17-18 similar to the one mentioned in
161
in proposing 605-603 B.C.E.21
Andersen thinks that the uses of “Eloah” and the “Holy One”
in v. 3 indicate a time of composition “before the widespread or at least dominant use of
Yahweh.”22
If Pinker s proposed emendation of “years” (~ynv) to “captors” (~ybv) in Hab
3:2 reflects the original text, that would point to a time during or after the Babylonian Exile;
however, Pinker notes that ~ybv could be referring to the first wave of exiles in 597 B.C.E.,
thus fitting within a ministry of Habakkuk that began during or just before the reign of King
Jehoiakim (608-598 B.C.E.) and lasted until the fall of Jerusalem in 587 B.C.E.23
Several scholars reject such a preexilic dating. Nogalski appeals to the identification
of Habakkuk as a aybn “prophet” in 3 as problematic for a preexilic dating and, instead,
favors the late exilic or early postexilic period as the time of original composition.24
Nogalski
also considers hls to be a later redactional element in the chapter and, hence, connects the
redactional layer of Habakkuk 3 in which hls appears to the limited time period that hls
was used in the Psalter (i.e., during the Persian period).25
In its final form, Pfeiffer dates
Habakkuk 3 to the early Hellenistic period (i.e., last third of the fourth century B.C.E.).26
Duhm thinks that the aggressor in Habakkuk is Alexander the Great and thus, dates the entire
Jer 6. Against Holladay, A. Pinker “Infertile Quartet of Flora,” ZAW 115 [2003] 617-23, here 623)
concludes that Jeremiah s description focuses around the absence of water whereas in Habakkuk 3 the issue is
the loss of productivity as the result of war, not drought.
21
Haak, Habakkuk, 154.
22
Andersen, Habakkuk, 289.
23
A. Pinker, “Historical Allusions in the Book of Habakkuk,” Jewish Bible Quarterly 36 (2008) 143-
52, here 146-47. Although Pinker thinks it is possible that Hab 3:2 refers to the first wave of exiles, he
concludes that the second, massive wave of exiles in 586 B.C.E. is the more likely possibility (ibid., 147).
24
Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 157, 180.
25
Ibid., 156.
26
Pfeiffer, Jahwes kommen von Süden, 176-77.
162
book to the fourth century B.C.E.27
Peter Jöcken has a detailed summary for which scholars
date the book to which time period, from preexilic to postexilic.28
Although these two debates may never be resolved, the level of textual corruption in
Habakkuk 3 (even relative to the rest of Habakkuk), the presence of some archaic forms
(even if archaized in the preexilic period), the various linguistic and thematic connections
with similar OT poetry and ANE writings, would all point to at least a preexilic date for the
core theophanic material in vv. 3-15 and perhaps even to a date in the early monarchic or
premonarchic period. It is possible that someone, perhaps Habakkuk himself, borrowed from
or imitated an earlier text(s) as a basis for Habakkuk 3, adding the framing elements in vv. 2,
7, and 16-19. The presence of the liturgical notations, especially hls, makes a period of
independent circulation likely. Otherwise, if Habakkuk 3 was original to the book of
Habakkuk, why is hls found only in Habakkuk 3 outside of the Psalter?29
Why is it singled
out among the several hymns or hymn fragments found throughout the Pentateuch,
Deuteronomistic History, and the Prophets for inclusion of liturgical notations such as hls,
if it did not share at least a common cultic/liturgical editing process (if not its original
composition) with the psalms that also use hls (primarily restricted to the first three books
of the Psalter)? Given that hls only appears in vv. 3-15 (i.e., vv. 3, 9, 13) in Habakkuk 3, it
would be tempting to suggest that perhaps hls was already part of the text when the prophet
Habakkuk or a later redactor incorporated it into the book of Habakkuk; one potential
27
Duhm, Buch Habakuk, 3, 6-7, 70.
28
P. Jöcken, Das Buch Habakuk: Darstellung der Geschichte seiner kritischen Erforschung mit einer
eigenen Beurteilung (BBB 48; Cologne-Bonn: Hanstein, 1977). See also W. Herrmann, “Das unerledigte
Problem des Buches Habakkuk,” VT 51 (2001) 481-96.
29
J. W. Watts (“Psalmody,” 8 does give a few examples where hymns within prose passages were
either taken over from the Psalter (e.g., parts of Psalms 96, 105, 106 are used in 1 Chr 16:8-36) or incorporated
into the Psalter (e.g., 2 Samuel 22 becomes Psalm 18).
163
problem with this suggestion is explaining how (or, more precisely, when) the other liturgical
notations (vv. 1 and 19) came to be, unless they too were initially connected only to vv. 3-15
before the prophet/redactor inserted the framing material (vv. 2, 7, 16-19) and perhaps also
the attribution to Habakkuk in v. 1.30
Thus, it seems most likely that either the prophet or a
redactor reused/edited/borrowed from earlier material for vv. 3-15 and then added the
framing material.31
This supposition also explains the unusual combination of a victory hymn
(vv. 3-15) surrounded by elements typical of a lament (vv. 2, 16-19).
3. Exegetical Analysis and Commentary
Several scholars have attempted to link the theophanic language and imagery in
Habakkuk 3 to similar motifs in other ANE texts, including Babylonian (e.g., Irwin,
Stephens), Canaanite (e.g., Albright, Anderson, Cassuto, Day, May), and even Egyptian (e.g.,
Shupak).32
Although the theophanic nature of the passage is not debated, the question
remains regarding what type of deity is portrayed: solar-, storm-, and/or warrior-god? These
issues will be discussed throughout the following exegesis where appropriate.
Habakkuk 3 can be divided into the following structural components, with the core
theophanic motifs appearing in vv. 3-15:
30
It is interesting to note that when the text of Habakkuk 3 was copied into the fourth chapter of the
LXX book of “Odes,” the liturgical notations in vv. and 19 were eliminated but dia,yalma (= hls) was
retained.
31
However, M. Barré (“ ewly Discovered Literary Devices in the Prayer of Habakkuk,” CBQ
forthcoming [personal correspondence with author on 7/30/12]) places a break between v. 17 and v. 18,
partially as a result of his analysis of some previously unrecognized structuring devices (anagrams and
repetition). Thus, he concludes that only vv. 18-19a form a framing element with v. 2. Unfortunately, the
contents of his forthcoming article were made available too late to be fully incorporated into my discussion in
this chapter.
32
For a detailed critique of the use of Ugaritic texts in particular to interpret (and sometimes emend)
Habakkuk 3, see D. T. Tsumura, “ garitic Poetry and Habakkuk 3,” TynBul 40 (1989) 24-48.
164
[Superscription/heading (v. 1)]
Strophe I: Introduction (v. 2)
[Theophany: Appearance of Deity & Reaction (vv. 3-7)]
Strophe II: Coming of the Deity (vv. 3-4)
Strophe III: Reaction of Nature/People (vv. 5-7)
[Theophany: Divine Warrior (vv. 8-15)]
Strophe IV: Divine Warrior Prepares for Battle (vv. 8-11)
Strophe V: Divine Warrior is Victorious (vv. 12-15)
Strophe VI: Conclusion (vv. 16-19)
As indicated by the above structure, Strophes II and III together form a unit that describes the
coming of the deity and nature s reaction. Likewise, Strophes IV and V function together to
describe the Divine Warrior in battle and his subsequent victory. Framing the core theophany
are Strophes I and VI.
The number of bicola and the existence of possible tricola have been a matter of
debate among scholars, some of whom reject the presence of tricola in Habakkuk 3 and thus
use that assumption as one basis for emending the text. Although Mowinckel does accept the
existence of real tricola in Heb poetry, he considers the apparent tricola in Hab 3:2b, 4, 6b, 7,
and 8 to be “archaistically [sic] formed.”33
I have retained tricola in all verses except vv. 6b-
7, although I admit the possibility that also these could also be analyzed as two tricola rather
than the three bicola in my text above. My translation is provided in italics at the beginning
of the exegesis for each strophe.
33
S. Mowinckel, Real and Apparent Tricola in Hebrew Psalm Poetry (Avhandlinger Norske
videnskaps-akademi i Oslo: II--Hist.-filos. klasse 1957, no. 2; Oslo: I kommisjon hos Aschehoug, 1957) 53-54.
165
3.1. Superscription/Heading (v. 1)
1A prayer of Habakkuk the Prophet, according to shigyonoth.
Aside from the attribution to Habakkuk, the primary word of interest in the poem s
superscription is !wygv, which appears to function as a type of classification of the hymn that
follows. HALOT (pp. 1414-15) considers !wygv as a technical term used for a “specific type of
cultic song,” while BDB p. 993) suggests that it is a “wild, passionate song, with rapid
changes of rhythm.”34
The latter suggestion is based on the theory that the word is derived
from the root hgv, meaning “to go astray, err,” “swerve i.e., in drunkenness ,” “commit sin
of ignorance” cf. La . The root has also been analyzed in relation to the cognate root in
Akkadian, where it refers to a “lamentation” or “dirge.”35
However, both HALOT and BDB
admit that such theories are based largely on speculation and, hence, the meaning should be
considered uncertain. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew offers three possible meanings: (1)
song of ecstasy (from the root hgv); (2) song of lamentation; and (3) song of excitement.36
Contextually, the Akkadian meaning – although the more appealing possibility – does
not seem to fit very well, primarily because the classification of the texts (i.e., as laments) is
questionable in the two passages where !wygv appears in the MT (Ps 7:1; Hab 3:1). Overall,
neither Habakkuk 3 nor Psalm 7 evidences a mournful tone that would fit the style of a
lament or dirge (compare Lamentations), nor is any special “lament”-like vocabulary present,
although the latter text does ask for God to rise up and destroy the unrighteous enemies (Ps
34
See also Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 171.
35
HALOT, 1414-15. Some scholars also appeal to the Akkadian to support understanding Habakkuk 3
as a lament; see Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182.
36
D. J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (8 vols.; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix,
1993-2011) 8. 264-65.
166
7:6; cf. v. 9) while the former mentions that the author is “resting” for the day when the
invaders will be destroyed (Hab 3:16b). Both extol their perception of a warrior-god and
describe “His” battle tactics against the unrighteous Hab 3 -15; Ps 7:13-14) and end with a
sudden proclamation of praise toward God (Hab 3:18-19; Ps 7:17), albeit with different
vocabulary, which follows negative imagery.37
However, whereas Habakkuk 3 focuses
mainly on God and “His” warrior-like traits, Psalm 7 devotes more attention to describing the
deeds of the unrighteous by which they merit the wrath of the righteous God. On the other
hand, it is possible that if !wygv is from a separate hand responsible for the few lament-like
passages which surround the bulk of the poem, the interpretation of the entirety of Habakkuk
3 as a lament may work as part of either a reinterpretive spin on the victory hymn section of
the poem, or perhaps a rhetorical device of the author if the lament and victory hymn were
incorporated together by the same author.
3.2. Strophe I: Introduction (v. 2)
2Yhwh, I heard your report; I feared, Yhwh, your works.
In the midst of years sustain him/it; In the midst of years make (it) known.
In rage remember to have compassion.
This strophe contains words of the prophet/author in the first person addressing Yhwh
in the second person. Whether v. 2 was composed by the same author as vv. 3-15 or by a
later redactor, it serves to introduce some primary themes of the passage, particularly the
reactions of fear found in the first part of the theophany (vv. 3-7, esp. vv. 6- and God s
37
A description of events related to famine in Habakkuk 3 (v. 17) and the characteristics of the wicked
ones in Psalm 7 (vv. 14-16).
167
fury/rage found in the second part of the theophany (vv. 8-15, esp. vv. 8 and 12).38
Despite
these thematic connections, the presence of ytary “I feared” and zgrb “in
raging/turmoil”) in v. 2 have been questioned by some scholars.
As indicated in the textual notes above, most scholars prefer to emend the verb ytary
“I feared” to ytyar “I saw” based on possible textual support from the Gk and, in some
cases, appeal to the other use of the first person ytyar in v. 7 as part of a framing device for
the first part of the theophany. However, the primary reason for the emendation is the
argument that har “see” creates a better parallelism with the use of [mv “hear” in the
previous colon than ary “fear” does.39
Although [mv and har appear together more often
in the MT (69 verses) than do [mv and ary (27 verses), this is not surprising since ary only
appears ca. 320 times in 309 verses while har appears more than 1,300 times in 1,200+
verses in the MT.40
Thus, 9% of the uses of ary occur with [mv in the same verse, while
only ca. 6% of the uses of har occur with [mv in the same verse.
The structure for the Heb MT (v. 2a) could be analyzed as follows, if one does not
take ytary as part of the first colon but rather of the second:
$[mv yt[mv hwhy Voc V DO
$l[p hwhy ytary V Voc DO
38
However, it is interesting to note that neither the verb ary or the noun zgr appear again in
Habakkuk 3; the specific vocabulary is different. There is, however, the verb zgr, which is used once in v.7 and
twice in v. 16; this distribution of words based on the root zgr is also noteworthy given that all three verses (2,
7, 16) are often viewed as containing framing elements for the core theophanic material in vv. 3-15.
39
Rudolph (Micha, 33 goes so far as to write “Der Parallelismus verlangt ytyar” emphasis mine .
40
Word searches were done using Bibleworks 9.0. HALOT (p. 1157) estimates the uses of har to be
ca. 1,129 in the qal alone but records ca. 320 uses of ary (p. 432).
168
This kind of structure is not uncommon in Hebrew poetic texts: three components each, with
a stylistic inversion of the first two components.
The structure of the first bicolon in the LXX would be:
ku,rie Voc
eivsakh,koa th.n avkoh,n sou kai. evfobh,qhn V DO V
kateno,hsa ta. e;rga sou kai. evxe,sthn V DO V
The result is an exact structural parallelism for each colon, minus ku,rie (which could be
understood as implied in the second colon and which is supplied in Barb):
1st-person sg. verb (hear/fear)
definite article + direct object + 2nd
-person sg. gen. pronoun
conjunction + 1st-person sg. verb (observe/amazed)
The second verb in each Gk colon expresses the speaker s reaction to the first part of each
colon, describing what the speaker heard or saw. Both combinations, [mv + ary and har +
ary, are not unusual in the HB.41
However, the Gk version of Habakkuk, as evidenced by
both the LXX and Barb, seems to contain a plethora of doublets throughout the passage and,
hence, should be used with caution.
The question regarding zgrb, aside from those who think the entire colon (v. 2c) is a
gloss and should be omitted, is whether it refers to God s “anger/raging” or the prophet s or
people s “trembling/turmoil.”42
For example, Andersen thinks zgrb in v. 2c refers to the
reaction of the prophet (i.e., distress), not the anger of God.43
The noun zgr is only used
41
[mv and ary occur together in 27 verses in the MT; har and ary in 25 verses.
42
See textual notes for those scholars who suggest omitting this colon.
43
Andersen, Habakkuk, 281-82.
169
seven times in the MT including Hab 3:2 (all but two of which are in Job) and once in the
extant Heb fragments of Sirach.44
When used of humans, the meaning tends toward the
connotation of “agitation” or “turmoil” Job 3:17, 26; 14:1; Isa 14:3) and is often juxtaposed
with rest or peace (Job 3:17, 26; Isa 14:3). When used of God, the term more clearly depicts
a type of raging anger (Job 39:24; Sir 5:6) or thunder (Job 37:2), which itself could also be
connected with divine wrath. Although LXX Isa 14:3 uses qumo,j “rage,” “indignation,”
“passion” and there is a double translation using qumo.n ovrgh/j “rage/passion of
wrath/anger” in Job 3:17, the LXX s preferred translation for the noun zgr elsewhere is ovrgh,
“wrath,” “anger” .45
Ben Sira s grandson uses qumo,j for zgr and ovrgh, for @a “anger” in Sir
5:6.46
The text of Sir 5:6 merits further consideration given that, like one possible
interpretation of Hab 3:2, it juxtaposes God s mercy (~xr) and God s anger/wrath (@a/zgr):
xlsy 48ytwnw[ bwrl 47~ybr wymxr trmaw
wzgr 50xwny ~y[Xr 49l[w w[m][ @aw ~ymxr yk
44
It is used clearly with a human subject three times (Job 3:17; 14:1; Isa 14:3), three times clearly with
God as the subject (Job 37:2; 39:24; Sir 5:6), and twice it is used ambiguously (Job 3:26 [probably human
subject]; Hab 3:2).
45
The critical editions used for the Gk of Job and Isaiah are J. Ziegler, Iob (Septuaginta 11/4;
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982); idem, Isaias (Septuaginta 14; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1983).
46
The Heb text of MS A and MS C for Sir 5:6 is from A. A. Di Lella, The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A
Text-critical and Historical Study (London: Mouton, 1966) 108. The Heb text given here is an eclectic reading
given that both MSS contain errors see Di Lella s analysis of the text on pp. -15). The critical edition of the
Gk text of Sirach used is J. Ziegler, Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach (Septuaginta 12/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1980).
170
And you say, “His mercy is abundant47
for my many sins48
he will forgive.”
For mercy and anger (are) with him and upon49
the wicked his wrath settles.50
There is a poetic elegance in the movement between the cola from only mercy (~xr) in v.
6a, to mercy (~xr) and (@a) anger in v. 6ba, to only God s wrath/rage (zgr) upon the
wicked in v. 6bb.51
Thus, ~ymxr and @a are juxtaposed (no possessive suffixes on either) in
v. 6ba; however, this is encompassed by another juxtaposition between wymxr “his mercy”
in v. 6aa and wzgr “his wrath/rage” in v. 6bb. Given that only Hab 3:2 and Sir 5:6 evidence
juxtapositions between roots involving ~xr and zgr, it is highly likely that Ben Sira s choice
of words in Sir 5:6 was inspired by Hab 3:2.
3.3. Strophes II-III: Theophany (3:3-7)
Strophes II and III function together to create a traditional theophanic motif as
identified by Jeremias: (1) coming of the deity (vv. 3-4); and (2) reaction of nature/people
47
As found in MS A; MS C switches the positions of wymxr and ~ybr in v. 6aa.
48
MS C uses the different spelling ytwnww[, which Di Lella (Hebrew Text of Sirach, 114) notes is
normal Qumran orthography.
49
So in MS C; MS A reads law instead.
50
So in MS A; MS C has xyny “he caused to rest/settle” .
51
There is also a nice syntactic ABC C′B′A′ pattern in v. 6a of MS A:
A: verb
B: thing that is much/many
C: form of br C′ form of br
B′ thing that is much/many
A′ verb
This also creates juxtaposition between the two things that are “many/much” – i.e., God s abundant
mercy (v. 6aa and the person s many sins v. 6ab).
171
(vv. 5-7).52
These strophes are set apart from the surrounding strophes due to the shift in
person from addressing God in the second person in v. 2, to third person in vv. 3-7, and back
to second person in vv. 8-15. Also, Strophes II-III are framed with references to proper place
names (Teman and Mount Paran in v. 3; Cushan and Midian in v. 7); these are the only place
names used in Habakkuk 3, a consideration which supports the delimitation of the strophe, as
I have suggested, despite the sudden intrusion of the first person in v. 7, which had been
absent since v. 2. The use of the first person in v. 7 could, however, also be interpreted as a
framing device, given that the first person is used heavily in v. 2 and vv. 16-19, which
encompasses the primary theophanic material in vv. 3-15; if so, v. 7 could be viewed as a
divider or transition between vv. 3-6 and vv. 8-15.
The vocabulary in vv. 3-7 lacks overt references to either storm-god or warrior-god
type imagery (e.g., lightning, thunder, types of weapons); however, there are several possible
points of contact with the motif as discussed below. Because of the lack of overt references,
several scholars suggest that the imagery is closer to that of a solar deity than a storm- or
warrior-god per se. For example, Shupak suggests that the worship of the Egyptian sun-god
Aten could have influenced vv. 3-7 in particular.53
Andersen also notes the association of
God with the sun throughout the passage; however, he rejects the conclusion that a hymn to a
sun god (e.g., Mesopotamian sun-god Shamash or Egyptian deities) must lie behind the
imagery in these verses.54
52
Jeremias, Theophanie, 15.
53
Shupak, “God from Teman,” -16.
54
Andersen, Habakkuk, 290-99, esp. 298.
172
3.3.1. Strophe II: Coming of the Deity (vv. 3-4)
3’E h f T n ; The Holy One from Mt. Paran. Selah.
His splendor covered the heavens And His praise filled the earth;
4And brightness will be as light, He has twin-horns/rays from his hand;
And the hiding place of his strength is there.
This strophe focuses on the appearance of the deity, referred to as “Eloah” and “the
Holy One” cf. the use of the Tetragrammaton in v. 2). The two locations from whence the
deity is mentioned as coming are Teman and Mount Paran. As indicated in the textual notes,
“Teman” can also be used to indicate the direction “south” and the territory is often
associated with Esau/Edom (e.g., Gen 36:11; Jer 49:7; Ezek 25:13; Obad 9).55
Even less is
known about the location of Paran, but it would seem to be situated somewhere between
Egypt and Midian (see, e.g., Gen 21:21; 1 Kgs 11:18), perhaps in/near the Sinai Peninsula,
given the similar imagery used in the beginning of Deut 33:2:
wml ry[fm xrzw ab ynysm hwhy
!rap rhm [ypwh
Yhwh came from Sinai And he dawned on him [his people] from Seir
He shone from Mount Paran
The connection of Paran with light imagery in Deut 33 is striking given that “light” is also
a predominant theme in Hab 3:4. Words connected with “light” in the latter verse are hgn,
rwa, and ~ynrq (if taken as “rays” rather than “horns”). All three can be connected
specifically to the sun/sunlight. However, hgn is used later in Hab 3:11 with Yhwh s
55
Andersen (ibid., 292-93) argues for an understanding of Teman as indicating a point east relative to
the geographical perspective presented (e.g., Teman is east of Sinai), rather than south; thus, he views the path
of Yhwh as being from east to west, rather than south to north.
173
“lightning”/flashing spear and rwa can also be associated with lightning (e.g., Job 36:32;
37:11). The use of the dual form ~ynrq could be interpreted as referring to either rays of
light or as a two-forked lightning prong, a frequent weapon of both storm- and warrior-
gods.56
The connection with these references to God s “strength” in v. c could further
support an implicit reference to the deity s cosmic arsenal. Thus, although the more explicit
word for lightning (qrb) is not used here, it is possible to interpret the passage as referring
to a storm-/warrior- god who is beginning his march into battle (cf. Deut 33:2).
3.3.2. Strophe III: Effect upon Nature (vv. 5-7)
5Before him Deber/pestilence goes And Resheph/plague goes out from his feet.
6He stood and shook the earth; He looked and startled the nations.
Perpetual mountains were shattered; Eternal hills were humbled.
His ways were of old. 7Under distress, I saw
The tents of Cushan quake, The curtains of the land of Midian.
In this strophe, the deity continues what could be viewed as a march into battle,
perhaps with two attendant deities. The parallelism between rbd and @vr in the bicolon of
v. 5 is potentially significant. While it is possible to understand the terms in their common
meanings “pestilence” and “plague,” respectively , the apparent personification of the terms
points to their both portraying, in effect, attendant deities to Yahweh.57
Of these, Deber is
56
Prinsloo (“Reading Habakkuk 3,” ) cites “depictions of Shamash rising triumphantly between
two mountains with rays radiating from both shoulders.” On the other hand, there is a passage in the
Mesopotamian Epic of Naram-Sin cited by S. Kang (Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near
East [BZAW 177; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1989] 45 in which “Zababa protected with two horns” is
part of the description of divine participation in a military campaign.
57
For a similar example elsewhere, the Egyptian “qudshu” type goddess iconography during the New
Kingdom Period often includes two male deities, usually Resheph and Min, in flanking positions relative to the
goddess (O. Keel and C. Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel [Minneapolis:
174
relatively unknown as an ANE deity outside of possible allusions in the Hebrew Bible and
extra-biblical references to him as the patron god of Ebla.58
In contrast, Resheph was a well-
known West Semitic deity of war and thunder who was identified with the Mesopotamian
deity Nergal, an underworld god of war and pestilence.59
Perhaps introduced into Egypt by
the Hyskos, Resheph was incorporated into the Egyptian pantheon by the time of the New
Kingdom Period; Resheph was connected to similar Egyptian deities, such as Seth and
Montu, and was often depicted with a variety of weapons, including a spear, mace, axe, or
sickle sword in his right hand and a shield, a was scepter, or ankh in his left hand.60
Given
this Egyptian connection, Shupak suggests that the portrayal of Resheph in Hab 3:3-7 may
actually be one of several indicators of Egyptian influence within these verses.61
In contrast,
J. Day supports the theory that the background of Hab 3:3-15 is to be found in the Canaanite
myth of Ba‘al s conflict with the sea/dragon, noting in particular the role of the Canaanite
plague god Resheph in fighting alongside Ba‘al.62
Mention of the effects of the deity upon nature and the other nations in vv. 6-7
follows the description of the divine procession in v. 5. God causes the earth to shake and the
Fortress Press, 1998] 66-67). Also, the Babylonian gods Kittu “Righteousness” and Misharu “Justice”
parallel to the West Semitic gods Sedheq and Misor, respectively) were portrayed as attendant deities to
Shamash L. K. Handy, “Sedheq,” in ABD, vol. 5 [New York: Doubleday, 1992] 1065-66; see also J. A.
Banister, “Sedheq,” in N w Int p t ’ D t n y f th B , vol. 5 [Nashville: Abingdon, 2009] 154); cf.
Pss 85:14; 89:15.
58
Hiebert, God of My Victory, 92-94, esp. 93.
59
R. H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames & Hudson,
2003) 126-27; Albright, Gods of Canaan, 186.
60
Wilkinson, Complete Gods and Goddesses, 126-27.
61
Shupak, “God from Teman,” -13.
62
UT 1001 // PRU II, 1 // RS 15.134, lines 1-3; cited in J. Day, “New Light on the Mythological
Background of the Allusion to Resheph in Habakkuk III ,” VT 29 (1979) 353-55.
175
nations to jump (v. 6a). Mountains are shattered; hills are brought low (v. 6b). Tents in
Cushan and curtains in Midian shake (v. 7). Much of the imagery focuses upon earthquakes
(v. 6a; 7). However, causing the nations to jump could also be interpreted as a reaction of
fear by the nations (hence, the translation proposed above “he startled the nations” . Also, the
imagery of “shattering” something is reminiscent of the deity using weapons in battle (cf.
Hab 3:14). Thus, it is possible to view this strophe as fitting in well with a warrior-god motif,
even though no weapons are specifically mentioned.
3.4. Strophes IV- V: Theophany: Divine Warrior (vv. 8-15)
Strophes IV and V function together to describe the Divine Warrior preparing for and
engaging in battle, culminating in victory. These strophes are delimited from the surrounding
context by the shift in verbs from addressing God in the third person in vv. 3-7 to the second
person in vv. 8-15, after which the first-person prophet suddenly returns (cf. vv. 2, 7) and
addresses God in the third person again (vv. 16-19). Also, the strophes are framed by the
similar imagery of God riding his horses/chariots into the sea (vv. 8, 15). The vocabulary
used throughout both strophes is rooted in theophanic descriptions of a Divine Warrior, with
some possible connections to storm-god imagery (e.g., qrb in v. 11 used to describe one of
Yhwh s weapons .
3.4.1. Strophe IV: Divine Warrior Prepares for Battle (vv. 8-11)
8Why did it burn against the rivers, Yhwh?
Your anger against the rivers? Your rage against the sea?
When you mount your horses, Your victorious chariot?
176
9You indeed laid bare your bow, You poisoned (your) seven rods/arrows. Selah.
You cleft the earth with rivers; 10
The mountains saw you and writhed.
Clouds poured out water/rain; The deep gave its voice.
Sun raised its hands on high; 11
Moon stood [in] its lofty residence.
At light, your arrows went forth; At brightness, the lightning of your spear.
This strophe begins with rhetorical questions directed at Yhwh in v. 8–why is his
anger against the rivers/sea? Some scholars see here influence from the Ba‘al/Yam conflict in
garitic texts in which Ba‘al fights River and Sea; these scholars often propose that the m on
~yrhn should be read as emphatic, thus reading “River” in Hab 3:8.63
However, “river s ”
and “sea” are often paired, especially in poetry, and the more common plural for “rivers”
(twrhn) does occur in parallel position with the singular “sea” in Ps 8 6; Isa 50:2; and Nah
1:4.
Another proposed emendation in v. 8 is to change the MT s plural “your chariots”
into a singular, which on the surface would seem to make more sense since Yhwh probably
can only ride one chariot at time (unless perhaps there is a chariot for each foot). However,
compare the following passage from Isa 66:15:
wytbkrm hpwskw awby vab hwhy hnh-yk
`va-ybhlb wtr[gw wpa hmxb byvhl
For behold, Yhwh in fire comes And his chariots like the stormwind
To bring back in rage his anger And his rebuke with flames of fire.
Here is an example where a singular pronominal suffix referring to Yhwh is attached to the
plural word “chariots” wytbkrm). The plural could refer, not just to Yhwh, but also to all
63
For examples, see Albright, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” O Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 236.
177
chariots under his command as part of the divine battalion. If the author of vv. 8-15 was
aware of the contents of vv. 3-7 (either because he wrote both parts of the core theophany or
because he added vv. 8-15 to a pre-existing version of vv. 3- , the “chariots” in v. 8 could
also refer to those of any attendant deities, such as Deber and Resheph in v. 5. If attendant
deities are in mind, then this would push the interpretation of v. 8 more toward the
probability of mythological language, in which case River and Sea (personified or deified)
would be plausible interpretations of the passage. Either way, v. 8 already looks ahead to the
description of the final victory over the sea in v. 15.
Although v. 9 has some major textual issues, particularly in the middle colon, the
basic idea is that Yhwh is preparing to do battle. The first colon very clearly is talking about
Yhwh taking his bow from a case, which would have been attached to the outside of his
chariot cab.64
Thus, it is logical that the obscure second colon would be describing some of
the weapons associated with chariotry, which initially was used as a mobile platform for
archers but later developed into a more offensive weapon in some ANE cultures.65
The
weapon most commonly associated with chariotry would be arrows; however, one wonders
why the author does not use the more common word for “arrow” #x) which occurs in v. 11
here. evertheless, “arrows” is a plausible contextual interpretation for twjm (more literally
“rods” in v. 9. Also, if the emendation of tw[bv “oaths” to t[bv “seven” correctly
reflects the original text and given the common association of a storm-god s lightning with
64
R. H. Beal, “Hittite Military Organization,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vols. 1-2 (ed. J.
M. Sasson; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006) 1. 545-54, here 1. 548.
65
A. R. Schulman, “Military Organization in Pharaonic Egypt,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East, vols. 1-2 (ed. J. M. Sasson; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006) 1. 289-301, here 295-96; see also: S.
Dalley, “Ancient Mesopotamian Military Organization,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, vols. 1-2 (ed.
J. M. Sasson; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006) 1. 413-22, esp. 1. 416-17.
178
arrows, similar imagery occurs in the Ugaritic text RS 24.245, lines 3b- , describing Ba‘al s
arsenal:
Seven lightnings (he had),
Eight storehouses of thunder were
The shafts of (his) lightnings.66
Similar possibilities for twjm would include any type of medium- to long-range projectiles
that could also be used from a chariot, such as javelins or throwing spears (however, a word
for “spear” [tynx] also appears in v. 11). Another popular suggestion is that twjm in Hab
3:8 would better be interpreted as a “mace,” given the association of “mace” mit t u) and
“bow” q št ) in Akkadian texts.67
This latter suggestion requires, however, reading a
singular instead of the plural for twjm and does not as naturally fit with the number “seven”
(unless perhaps it is a mace with seven heads or something similar).
As is typical in theophanies, the coming of the deity elicits reactions in nature, these
being described in vv. 9b-11a. First, there is the effect upon land, with Yhwh splitting the
earth (v. 9b) and the mountains writhing (v. 10a). This is followed by the effect upon water in
the bicolon in v. 10b the clouds give rain or “rainstorms/floods of water pass over” without
emendation) and the deep gives its voice. Finally, the effect upon the sky is described: the
sun raises its hands (v. 10c) while the moon stands still (v. 11). Thus, Yhwh is able to affect
all aspects of the cosmos: earth, water, sky.
My proposal to read rwal and hgnl as temporal references meaning “at dawn” in the
bicolon of v. 11b could find support in other ANE texts in which a battle begins at dawn
66
Day, “Echos,” 3-44.
67
See especially Tsumura, “Word Pair,” 3 -61.
179
and/or is completed in one day.68
One example is in the Mesha Stele (ca. 830 B.C.E.), lines
14-16, as narrated by King Mesha:
And Chemosh said to me, “Go, take Nebo from Israel!” So I went by night
and fought against it from the break of dawn until noon, taking it and slaying
all.69
A much earlier example comes from Thutmose III s words preceding the battle at Megiddo
(ca. 1479 B.C.E.), lines 83-84:
Prepare yourselves! Make your weapons ready!
For one will engage in combat with the wretched foe in the morning …70
Moreover, although the battle described takes places over several days, Kirta s initial attack
occurs at sunrise in the Ugaritic “Epic of Kirta” (col. IV, lines 40-50; ca. mid-second
millennium B.C.E.).71
Thus, we have examples from Ugarit, Egypt, and Moab referring to
battles beginning at dawn. The same could be applied to the imagery in Hab 3:10-11. The sun
“raising his hands” v. c while the moon “stands” in its place v. a would then refer to
the rising of the sun. With the rising of the sun (“at light/brightness” rwal and hgnl in v.
11b), the Divine Warrior begins the battle with his arrows and “lightning” spear. Moon
stands still; thus, night will not come until the Divine Warrior is victorious.
68
See n. G above in the text and translation. For a survey of texts which refer to victorious battle
occurring within the span of one day, see D. Stuart, “The Sovereign s Day of Conquest,” BASOR 221 (1976)
159-64.
69
ANET, 320.
70
Cited in Kang, Divine War, 102.
71
E. L. Greenstein, “Kirta,” in Ugaritic Narrative Poetry (ed. S. B. Parker; SBLWAW 9; Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1997) 20.
180
3.4.2. Strophe V: Divine Warrior is Victorious (vv. 12-15)
12In wrath, you marched on the land; In anger, you trampled the nations.
13You went forth for the deliverance For the deliverance of your Anointed One.
of your people,
You shattered the head from the house You laid bare the base as far as the neck. Selah.
of the wicked;
14You pierced the head of his warrior [[They stormed to scatter me [in] their
with his [own] shafts; arrogance/rejoicing]]
As to devour the poor in secret.
15You tread upon the sea with your horses, Upon the surge of many waters.
As with the previous strophe, this strophe begins with a description of Yhwh s anger,
this time as he marches over the land and tramples the nations (rather than the sea and rivers
as in v. 8). The two terms used for God s anger/indignation ~[z and @a) in v. 12 are paired
together in eight other verses in the MT, mostly in prophetic texts.72
The common word for
“anger” is @a, which also means “nostrils/nose” and tends to be used in the phrase that
Yhwh s @a was burning/ inflamed (ca. 80 times according to HALOT, p. 76). In contrast, the
noun ~[z is only used 22 times in the MT and is often translated as “indignation.”
The purpose of Yhwh s coming is revealed in the beginning of v. 3–i.e., for the
salvation of Yhwh s people and his Anointed One xyvm). As indicated in the discussion
above regarding dating and authenticity, scholars disagree whether xyvm should be
interpreted in light of its preexilic or postexilic use. If preexilic, it would most likely refer to
an Israelite/Judean king. If postexilic, it would be tied to the belief in a future restorer of
72
Pss 69:25; 78:49; Isa 10:5, 25; 30:27; Lam 2:6; Nah 1:6; Zeph 3:8.
181
Israel and thus, connected to Messianic prophecies/interpretation, although King Cyrus of
Persia is also called a xyvm (Isa 45:1) since he liberated the Israelites from the Babylonian
Exile, allowing them to return home.
The rest of v. 13 and the beginning of v. 14 describe Yhwh s smiting the enemy. The
troublesome phrase in v. 13 is [vr tybm var tcxm “you smashed the head from the
house of the wicked” , which has led to several emendations, some supporting “back” (tbm
emended from tybm) and others “head” which is used elsewhere as the direct object of the
verb #xm; e.g., Judg 5:26; Pss 68:22; 110:6). “Head” would be consistent with other uses of
#xm; however, head-smashing is subsequently mentioned two cola later, which raises the
question: why would Yhwh smash the enemy s head twice? Patterson lists parallels in
several ANE texts in which a strike to the body is followed by a crushing blow to the head;
examples cited include Marduk s slaying of Tiamat in Babylonian mythology, the Egyptian
Sinuhe s dispatching of an Amorite foe, and Ba‘al s victory over Yam in garitic texts.73
The strike to the body here is found in v. 13bb, which describes the enemy s back being slit
from bottom to neck. Thus, a piercing strike to the body in v. 13ba which initiates the wound
described in v. 13bb would make sense, leaving the final head blow in v.14aa, perhaps as the
result of Yhwh turning the enemy s weapon “his shafts” against him, if one follows the
MT. On the other hand, “head from the house” in v. 13bb could refer to a
leader/commander/king of an enemy being eliminated (generally speaking), while the second
head-smashing could refer more specifically to the method by which the enemy is killed
(which would fit the pattern noticed by Patterson).74
Another possibility, if one accepts a
73
Patterson, Nahum, 229.
74
For interpretations of “head” as symbolic of a person in a position of power in this verse, see Eaton,
“Habakkuk 3,” .
182
strong mythological theme in this strophe, would be Albright s suggestion, based on the
LXX, to read “wicked Death” Death = Mot .75
The rest of v. 14 is obscure. Literally (albeit not without problems or other possible
options), it reads “they stormed to scatter me [in] their arrogance/rejoicing / As to devour the
poor in secret.” This could mean that they attacked quickly and in a dishonorable or immoral
manner (cf. Syr). In any case, this is just speculation. These cola seem out of place or
corrupted in a strophe that otherwise uses second-person masculine singular verbs
throughout, referring to Yhwh. Thus, we would expect something like “You [Yhwh] stormed
…,” which would fit well with a storm-god motif. However, most proposed readings of these
cola require a significant amount of emendation, which is not necessarily a better option than
the MT.
The strophe closes with v. 15, which has ties to the first verse (v. 8) of the previous
strophe: Yhwh treads upon the sea with his horses, though this time there is the addition
“[upon the surge of] many waters (~ybr ~ym)” in parallel position with “sea” (~y). Similar
parallelisms between ~ybr ~ym and ~y occur in Pss 29:3 and 93:4. ~ybr ~ym could refer
to the deep and/or to chaotic or tumultuous waves.76
Also, whereas in v. 12, Yhwh trampled
the nations, now he treads upon the sea in v. 15; thus, the object that is being tread upon or
trampled shifts from the sea (v. 8) to the nations (v. 12), and back to the sea (v. 15). The
poetic narrative has come full circle with Yhwh victorious over the sea/enemies.
75
Albright, “Psalm of Habakkuk,” 3, .
76
For a more detailed study of ~ybr ~ym, see H. G. May, “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim
Rabbîm, ‘Many Waters ,” JBL 74 (1955) 9-21.
183
3.5. Strophe VI: Conclusion (vv. 16-19)
16I heard and my belly shook; At the sound my lips quiver.
Rottenness comes into my bones; I quake under me, walking.
I rest for the day of distress To go up to the people [who] attack us.
17Though the fig tree does not bud And there is no produce of the vines,
The yield of olives fails And fields do not make food,
Flocks are cut off from the enclosure And there is no herd in the stable,
18But I will exult in Yhwh; I will rejoice in the God of my salvation.
19Yhwh, my Lord, is my strength, And he puts my feet as stags/deer;
And upon my high places he leads me. [To the director with music/strings.]
This strophe concludes the hymn, moving back to the first-person verbs reflecting the
prophet/author in the introduction (v. 2) and what is probably a framing device in v. 7
(ytyar). Another connection among these three verses (vv. 2, 7, 16) is the use of a form of
the root zgr in each verse; the noun appears in v. 2 and the verb in vv. 7 and 16. Though not
exclusive to theophanic passages, the root zgr does occur in several theophanies either as a
description of God s actions/presence (e.g., Job 9:6; Isa 13:13) or, more often, as a response
to them (e.g., Exod 15:14; 2 Sam 22:8 // Ps 18:8; Pss 77:17, 19; 99:1; Isa 5:25; Joel 2:1).
Verse 16 begins similarly to v. 2 with the use of yt[mv “I heard” ; whereas the
prophet/author “feared” ytary) in v. 2, a similar reaction occurs in v. 16 but now with a
fuller description of the effect upon the prophet/author s body. The prophet/author s belly
shakes and lips quake, rottenness enters his bones, his body shakes beneath him. The final
bicolon of v. 16 is obscure. One literal possibility of translation is that he “rests xwna) for
the day of distress to go up against the people [who] attack us.” In this context, xwn would
184
seem to indicate that the prophet/author has accepted that the day of distress will come at a
time of God s choosing and, thus, he awaits/rests for that day.77
Verse 17 begins a list of references to a famine throughout the land, leading up to an
affirmation of faith in v. 18. Cassuto attributes the famine to a drought caused by Yhwh s
withholding the rain as a way of punishing Judah.78
In contrast, Pinker sees the emphasis in
v. 17 as being on the loss of productivity resulting in the trees/fruits not being tended
properly so as to yield fruit.79
Nogalski notes affinities with Joel 1–2 and thinks that v. 17
“serves a redactional unifying function” and is not merely an “isolated gloss.”80
Joel 1
describes the effects upon the land following a military invasion (likened to locusts) while
Joel 2 portrays the restoration of the land by Yhwh; there are several similarities in agrarian
vocabulary with Hab 3:17 (e.g., hnat [“fig tree”] and !pn [“vine”] in Joel 1:7, 12; 2:22; !az
[“sheep” “flocks”] and rqb [“cattle”] in Joel 1:18). Similar mention of adverse effects upon
agriculture within the Twelve Prophets are found in Hos 2:14; Amos 4:9; and Hag 1:10-11.
Restorative motifs in which Yhwh will cause agriculture to flourish are found in Hos 9:10;
14:8; Mic 4:4; Hag 2:19; Zech 8:12; and Mal 3:11. Despite the lack of agrarian productivity
mentioned in Hab 3:17, the prophet/author maintains his faith in Yhwh, using words in v. 18
that are similar to those found in Mic 7:7.81
77
References to the hrc ~wy “day of distress/turmoil” occur elsewhere in the prophetic literature in
Isa 37:3; Jer 16:19; Obad 12, 14; Nah 1:7; Zeph 1:15.
78
Cassuto, “Ras Shamra,” -22.
79
Pinker, “Infertile Quartet,” 6 3.
80
Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 177-78.
81
Ward (“Habakkuk,” thinks that Hab 3 8 was based on Mic , but states that it was “not a
close translation.” The connection between Mic and Hab 3 8 will be discussed more fully in Chapter VI.
185
The hymn concludes in v. 19 with an affirmation of God as the prophet/author s
“strength” (lyx , who makes the prophet/author s feet like a deer, setting him upon his high
places. Ward thinks the deer imagery in v. 19 was “taken almost directly” from Sam 3
// Ps 18:34:82
yndm[y ytwmb l[w twlyak 83ylgr hwfm Ps 18:34
Who makes my feet as deer And sets me upon my high places.
In addition to the connection with Psalm 18, Nogalski also finds similarities with Deut 33:29
particularly the “treading” upon “high places” :84
$rdt wmytwmb-l[ htaw
… and you (masc. sg.) will tread upon their high places.
The final colon of v. 19 is a subscription containing a musical notation, thus complementing
the liturgical notation in the superscription of v. 1.
4. Storm-/Warrior-god Theophanic Motifs and Vocabulary
The poem s primary theophanic motifs are largely focused in the core theophany,
itself consisting of two parts: vv. 3-6/7 and vv. 8-15. However, some important theophanic
terms and imagery also occur within verses that are thought to constitute framing devices
around the core theophanies (i.e., vv. 2, 7, 16-19), such as the prophet s reaction of fear (vv.
2, 16) and the use of the root zgr. Warrior-god imagery is predominant, but there are
connections to the storm-god imagery as well; also, it is very common for the two motifs to
82
Ward, “Habakkuk,” .
83
The ketib of 2 Sam 22:34 has wylgr “his feet” here while the qerê agrees with Ps 18:34; otherwise,
the two verses are identical. I quote Psalm 18 above because its form of ylgr agrees with Habakkuk 3.
84
Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 179.
186
overlap e.g., “arrows” can be a reference to lightning, and “lightning” can be a reference to a
deity s weapon, even if not of a “storm-god” per se).
4.1. Effects upon Nature
Although there are references to Eloah/The Holy One s splendor (dwh) covering the
heavens (~ymv) and his praise (hlht) filling the earth (#ra) already in v. 3, the more
traditional effects upon nature associated with theophanic encounters occur elsewhere in the
poem. Both land and sea are affected by the deity s presence. The first part of the theophany
in vv. 3-7 focuses heavily on effects upon the land (including mountains and hills), whereas
the second part in vv. 8-15 focuses much more on the sea and rivers (although writhing
mountains are also mentioned in v. 10). Celestial effects are also mentioned briefly in each
part (vv. 3, 10-11). Thus, Yhwh s presence affects the whole cosmos–earth, skies, and
sea/water.
There are several different effects upon the land, mountains, and hills. The earth
shakes (ddm v. 6) and tents in Midian and Cushan quake (zgr v. 7); Yhwh clefts the earth
([qb v. 9) with rivers and he marches (d[c v. 12) upon it. Mountains are shattered (ccp v.
6) and writhe (lwx v. 10) at the sight of Yhwh. Hills are humbled (xxv v. 6). Pestilence
(rbd) and plague (@vr) preceed the deity in v. 5, though these phenomena could also be
interpreted as attendant deities in service to Eloah/the Holy One. Outside of the theophany
proper, the land s lack of productivity is mentioned in v. 17; this could be due to a drought
caused by the deity or is perhaps just a consequence of war (e.g., not enough people to
properly tend to the fields, trees, and animals).
187
With the beginning of the third strophe in v. 8, the attention shifts from land to water.
There is mention of Yhwh s trampling upon the sea (~y) at the beginning (v. 8) and end (v.
15) of this strophe, the latter causing a surge (rmx) of many waters (~ybr ~ym). Both the
sea and rivers are objects of Yhwh s anger/rage v. 8 . The deep (~wht) gave its voice (v.
10); ~wht is often found in other theophanic passages (e.g., Exodus 15; Psalms 33; 77; 78).
As noted above, there are a few celestial effects mentioned periodically, but with less
emphasis than in the case of the effects upon the sea/rivers or land. The references to “light”
(vv. 3- , could be connected to Yhwh s lightning illuminating the heavens, albeit not
necessarily. The clouds (twb[) poured (wmrz) water/rain (~ym) or a “flood/rainstorm (~rz)
of water passed over” if one follows the MT (v. 10). The sun raised its hands and the moon
stood still (vv. 10-11).
4.2. Effects upon Humans
The effects upon humans can be divided into three basic categories: response of the
prophet/author (in fear), the general effect upon the nations, and the more detailed attack of
the deity upon the enemy. Within the verses (vv. 2, 16) that directly frame the primary
theophany, the prophet/author writes that he fears (ary) Yhwh s works v. , while in v. 16,
his belly and legs (?) trembled (zgr) and lips quivered (llc). The word zgr in v. 2 also
could be interpreted as “trembling,” thus referring either to the prophet or Yhwh s people,
rather than as an allusion to Yhwh s anger. Thus, this effect upon the prophet is limited to the
verses framing the core theophany.
The nations (~ywg) are mentioned twice, both in the core theophany, once in each of
its parts. The first occurance is in v. 6 in which Eloah / the Holy One looked and caused the
188
nations to jump (rtn; cf. Job 37:1). The second occurance is in v. 12, where Yhwh trampled
(vwd) the nations in anger (cf. Isa 25:10).
Descriptions of the deity attacking a specific enemy are all found in the second part of
the theophany and all in Strophe V, vv. 13-14. The specifics are difficult to pin down with
any certainty due to the textual issues within these verses; however, some tentative
observations can be made. In v. 13, Yhwh shatters (#xm either the “head from the house of
the wicked” perhaps referring to the leader/commander of the enemy or the wicked s
“back” if one emends the MT . The head of a warrior is also described as being pierced
(bqn) by Yhwh in v. 14. Between these two references, there is a description of Yhwh
slicing “laying bare” hr[) the enemy from the lower back up to the neck (v. 13). These
verses vividly describe the Divine Warrior in battle against the enemy.
4.3. God s Anger/Wrath
There are several words used for God s anger throughout Habakkuk 3. The most
frequent term for anger in Habakkuk is @a (vv. 8, 12), which more literally means “nose”
(burning/hot nose = anger and is also the most common word for “anger” in the MT overall.
In parallel position to @a in v. 8 is the word hrb[, evoking an image of overflowing rage or
outburst (cf. Pss 7:7; 78:49; 85:4; 90:11; Isa 9:18; 13:13). The parallel word to @a in v. 12 is
~[z, which is associated with indignation (cf. Pss 69:25; 78:49; Isa 10:5) and occurs in the
similar theophany of Nahum 1 (v. 6). A fourth possible reference to Yhwh s anger could be
zgr in v. 2 (cf. Sir 5:6); however, zgr is elsewhere associated with agitation and, hence, could
be a reference to the prophet or people s own agitation/trembling (cf. Isa 14:3).85
85
The verb zgr occurs three times in Habakkuk 3, either with land v. or the prophet/author s body
v. 6 [x ] as the subject in those cases, the meaning is “tremble/shake.”
189
4.4. God s Weapons/Battle Motifs
There are several different types of weapons mentioned throughout Habakkuk 3.
Although some are more explicitly associated with a storm-god motif and others with a
warrior-god motif, often there is overlap between the two. Nevertheless, an attempt will be
made to analyze the passage distinguishing the two motifs.
The storm-god motif is less recognizable or, at least, more ambiguous. The several
references to light (rwa) and brilliance (hgn) in vv. 4 and 11 could be interpreted as the result
of the deity s lightning, one of the most famous weapons associated with ANE storm-gods
(albeit not exclusively to them).86
“Lightning” (qrb) is itself used in v. 11 in reference to the
deity s spear tynx); thus, the verse could be describing a spear of lightning (as is typical in
ANE iconography) or qrb could be used adjectively to describe the deity s “glittering”/
“gleaming” spear, without necessarily being a reference to lightning per se. The peculiar use
of ~ynrq lit. “two horns” or possibly “rays”) in v. 4 could refer to a double-forked lightning
bolt, often depicted in ANE iconography. Outside of the core theophany in v. 16, the
prophet/author describes quivering at the “sound” lwq); lwq elsewhere refers to God s
thunder (e.g., Exod 19:16) and, hence, tentatively could be tied to the imagery of trembling in
Hab 3:16, albeit not with any certainty.
The warrior-god weapon motifs are more obvious, albeit restricted to the second part
of the theophany (vv. 8-15) and not without numerous textual problems. The first clear
reference to a weapon is tvq “bow” in v. aa, which connects nicely to the chariot
(hbkrm) mentioned in v. 8. Other clear references to weapons are to a spear (tynx) and
arrows (#x) in v. 11. More of a mystery is hjm “rod” “shaft” it is used in the plural
86
Although it is possible to read rwa and hgn in v. 11 in relation to lightning, I still think that my
proposal that both are being used in a temporal manner “at dawn” is the more likely option.
190
(twjm in the same bicolon as bow in v. a, thus “arrows” would be a logical implication,
given the proxmity to “bow.” However, twjm is never clearly used for “arrows” elsewhere
in the MT and the more common word for “arrow” #x) is found in v. 11. Also, one must
consider the use of wyjm “his shafts” in v. 14; on the basis of the MT, the implication
would be that Yhwh has used the enemy s own weapons against him to “pierce” (bqn) the
head of the enemy warrior. The verb bqn is connected to making a hole in something; thus,
understanding twjm as “arrows” would work well since they “pierce” and make holes – as
would a javelin or similar weapon.
4.5. God as Savior, Rock, etc.
Acclamations of God s benevolent role toward the prophet/author only occur in the
concluding strophe of Habakkuk 3. The first such element occurs in v. 18 as part of an
apodosis following the observation that there is a lack of agrarian produce (v. 17); despite the
famine, the prophet/author affirms that he will rejoice y[vy yhlab “in the God of my
salvation” cf. Mic . In the following verse (v. 19), the prophet/author states that Yhwh is
his strength (lyx; cf. 2 Sam 22:33 // Ps 18:33). It is noteworthy that lyx can also refer to an
army, as occurs in the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15 (v. 4); the military connotation of lyx is
reminiscent of the Divine Warrior motif so prevalent in Hab 3:8-15.
4.6. Place Names
There are four place names mentioned in Habakkuk 3, all within Strophe II. They
provide a framing element to the strophe, given that two place names are found at the
beginning of the strophe in v. 3 while the remaining two close the strophe in v. 7. The two
191
place names in v. 3 identify the place from which the deity comes–i.e., Teman (!myt) and
Mount Paran (!rap), both generally taken as references to the “south” and often connected
with Edom.87
The second pair of place names occurs in v. 7; the curtains of Midian and the
tents of Cushan quake as a result of the coming of the deity. Based on references elsewhere
in the MT, Midian (!ydm) is often thought to be somewhere in the southern Transjordan area.
The location of Cushan (!vwk) is unknown; !vwk does not appear elsewhere in the MT.
However, the references to tents/curtains is reminiscent of a nomadic community; thus, as
Hiebert suggests, !vwk and !ydm in this context could refer to groups of nomads, perhaps
associated with the southern region, thus explaining why they are affected by God s
movements.88
5. Summary
Although it cannot be known for certain, it seems likely that Habakkuk 3 (at least vv.
3-15) circulated independently for a time before either the prophet himself or a redactor
edited it and added it to the book of Habakkuk. The archaic language and forms, the level of
textual corruption, the liturgical notations (most notably hls, found only within Hab 3:3-15
outside of the Psalter), and the superscription attributing the psalm to Habakkuk all point to a
core text that is probably older than the seventh-century prophet and which circulated
independently for a time before being added to the rest of the book. It is, however, plausible
that the prophet himself is the one who edited the core theophanic hymn and incorporated it
into his book. The major argument against the prophet s own involvement in the process
87
See Pfeiffer, Jahwes kommen von Süden, 258-60. Hiebert (God of My Victory, 83-86) makes a more
specific case for the meaning “southeast.”
88
Hiebert, God of My Victory, 88-90.
192
would be the superscription in 3:1; superscriptions/headings are considered as later additions
to the texts rather than from the attributed author s own hand.89
If the prophet himself
integrated Habakkuk 3 (minus the superscription in v. 1) into the rest of his book, why would
a later scribe insert a superscription both in chap. 1 and chap. 3? Perhaps the liturgical
notation in 3:1 disrupted the text to such an extent that the scribe felt some explanatory
transition to the psalm in chap. 3 was necessary. Or, it is possible that Habakkuk 3 was
circulating separately when the attribution to Habakkuk was added in v. 1 and subsequently
became the catalyst by which Habakkuk 3 was added to Habakkuk 1–2. Either way, the
psalm itself (at least vv. 3-15, possibly also vv. 2-19) could predate the exile, even if the
superscription and/or the text s incorporation into the book of Habakkuk does not.
The core theophanic elements in Habakkuk 3 occur in vv. 3-15, surrounded by
framing devices in vv, 2, 7 (end of first part of the theophany), and 16. The first part of the
theophany (vv. 3-7) describes the coming/appearance of the deity (idenitifed as Eloah/the
Holy One) from the south; this theophany is full of light-related imagery, which could
connect either to a solar-god or storm-god (i.e., “light” referring to “lightning”). The warrior-
god imagery is the focus of the second part of the theophany (vv. 8-15), which describes
Yhwh s weapons and battle against the enemy; however, there are also possible connections
to a storm-god in this part as well e.g., “lightning of your spear” in v. 11). Both parts
describe the effect of the deity upon land and the nations. Thus, there are strong, traditional
theophanic motifs in vv. 3-15.
89
For example, see G. M. Tucker, “Prophetic Superscriptions and the Growth of a Canon,” in Canon
and Authority (ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Long; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977) 56-70. D. N. Freedman
(“Headings in the Books of the Eighth-Century Prophets,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 25 [1987] 9-
26) comes to a similar conclusion regarding the headings of the eighth-century prophets (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah,
and Micah).
193
There are also some theophanic-related motifs in the outer framing sections (vv. 2,
16), albeit in ways that differ from the more traditional motifs in vv. 3-15. Instead of the land
shaking or the nations reacting in fear, it is the prophet/author himself who reacts in fear in
both v. 2 and v. 16. The use of the root zgr, found only in vv. 2, 7, and 16, reveals that the
author of the framing elements, as indicated by the use of the first person for the prophet, was
consciously incorporating this frame with traditional theophanic motifs in mind.90
However,
if read on their own, the content of these framing verses lack any implication that God has a
physical form, much like Mic 7:7-20 and in contrast to the vivid anthropomorphic imagery
found in the core theophanic texts in Hab 3:3-15.
Many of these observations build upon the works of previous scholars, particularly
with regard to the authenticity and dating aspects of the passage, as well as the framing
elements in vv. 2, 7, and 16-20. However, previous discussions that compare Mic 7:7-20 and
Habakkuk 3 focus largely around the similar phrasing in Mic 7:7 and Hab 3:18. Although the
connection between those two verses is intriguing, my study is also interested in the broader
similarities and differences between the use of typical storm-/warrior-god theophanic
language in these two passages (and also later ones including Zech 9:9-16). As far I am
aware, no other scholar has observed a potential connection between the framing elements in
Habakkuk 3 and the use of the theophanic language in Mic 7:7-20 which, contrary to the
more traditional theophanies found within the same canonical books (Mic 1:2-4 and Hab 3:3-
15), avoid any implication that God has a physical form.91
In the next chapter (Chapter V), I
90
Other notable uses of zgr occur in: Exod 15:4; 2 Sam 22:8 // Ps 18:8; Pss 77:17, 19; 99:1; cf. Mic
7:17.
91
Verses from Micah 7 are not even listed in the scriptural index to Jeremias, Theophanie (p. 180),
which is one of the most (if not the most) detailed and authoritative studies on theophanies in the OT. However,
given that Micah 7 only uses theophanic language but lacks the traditional elements of the theophanic form
194
will analyze Zech 9:9-16 with regard to its use of theophanic language and motifs, thus
leading into my final comparison of the theophanic language and motifs in my three selected
passages (Mic 7:7-20; Hab 3:1-19; Zech 9:9-16) in the final chapter (Chapter VI).
idenitified by Jeremias, it is not surprising that Micah 7 is not mentioned by him. With regard to Habakkuk,
Jeremias was only interested in vv. 3-15; verses outside that segment only get mentioned in his introduction in
which he discusses the reasons for limiting his discussion to only vv. 3-15 (ibid., 5). In contrast, my study is
interested in the application of theophanic language/motifs even outside of the traditional theophany form
identified by Jeremias.
195
Chapter V
Zechariah 9:9-16
The delimitation of pericopes within Zechariah 9–10 is difficult, primarily with
regard to how the strophes combine to form a larger self-contained unit. In contrast,
delimiting some of the individual strophes is more easily determined based on shifts in
speakers. However, scholars remain divided regarding how to delimit pericopes and even
some strophes within the last six chapters of Zechariah.
Delimiting the beginning of a pericope after Zech 9:8 is easier than determining
where to end it. The first eight verses in Zechariah 9 constitute an oracle against several other
nations. The tone and content change in v. 9, which addresses Daughter Zion/Jerusalem in
the second person and focuses upon the peace that her king will proclaim as part of his
dominion (vv. 9-10), thus setting these two verses apart from vv. 1-8. There is a strophe
break between v. 10 and v. 11, indicated by a shift of focus away from the king to a focus
upon God’s protective relationship with his people; however, the two strophes are closely
connected, given the use of the feminine pronouns (e.g., ta [“you” fem. sg.]; $tyrb
[“your (fem. sg.) covenant”]) in v. 11, which logically refers back to Daughter
Zion/Jerusalem. Hence, the strophe beginning with v. 11 is dependent on the previous
strophe to supply the necessary information in order to accurately interpret the passage. Also,
the use of the first person in v. 10 (often emended to third person1) connects well with the use
the first person for God in vv. 11-13. Thus, in order to address the theophanic imagery found
in vv. 11-16(17), one needs to take into account the strophe in vv. 9-10 that provides the
necessary context. However, some scholars insist that 9:1-10 is certainly separate from the
1 See the “Text, Syntax, and Translation” section below.
196
rest of chap. 9, perhaps from a different time and author.2 On the other hand, most scholars
do see a break between 9:8 and 9:9.3
The problem with delimiting the end of the passage largely hinges around what to do
about v. 17 (a problem that is sometimes extended to include v. 16 and/or 10:1-2).4 Many
2 For examples, see H. G. Mitchell, “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and
Zechariah,” in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah (ICC; New
York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912) 218-59; E. G. H. Kraeling, “The Historical Situation in Zech 9:1-10,”
AJSL 41 (1924) 24-33; N. Rubinkam, The Second Part of the Book of Zechariah: With Special Reference to the
Time of Its Origin (Basel: R. Reich, 1892) 28-35.
3 J. G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (TynOTC 28; Downers Grove, IL: Inner-Varsity Press,
1972; repr., 2009) 176; M. J. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 2004) 414; M. Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah (JSOTSup 130; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1992) 72-73; E. W. Conrad, Zechariah (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary;
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 159; B. G. Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of
Zechariah in Social Location and Social Location Trajectory Analysis (Society of Biblical Literature Academia
Biblica 25; Leiden: Brill, 2006) 166; K. Elliger, Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja,
Maleachi (ATD 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982) 144; M. H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2
(FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000) 464-65; F. Horst, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten: Nahum bis
Maleachi (HAT 1/14; Tübingen: Mohr, 1954) 246; P. Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV: Structure littéraire et
Messianisme (Ebib; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre/J. Gabalda, 1961) 25; R. Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah,
and Malachi (CBC; Cambridge: University Press, 1977; repr. 1980) 87-88; E. H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah,
Malachi (Dallas[?]: Biblical Studies Press, 2003) 219; C. L. Meyers and E. M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14 (AB
25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 87-88; J. Nogalski, Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve
(BZAW 218; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1993) 228-29; J. M. O’Brien, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah,
Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Abingdon Old Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon, 2004) 233; B.
Otzen, Studien über Deutero-Sacharja (ATDan 6; Cophenhagen: Prostant apud Munksgaard, 1964) 62-123,
134-42; D. L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi (OTL; Louisville: John Knox, 1995) 24; P. L. Redditt,
Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995) 102-3; H. G. Reventlow, Die Propheten
Haggai, Sacharja, und Maleachi (ATD 25/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 94; M. Saebø,
Sacharja 9–14 (WMANT 34; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969) 175; R. L. Smith, Micah-
Malachi (WBC 32; Waco, TX: Word, 1984) 254; B. Stade, “Deuterosacharja: Eine kritische Studie,” ZAW 1
(1881) 14-25; M. A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, vol. 2: Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000) 658; I. Willi-Plein, Haggai, Sacharja,
Maleachi (ZBAT 24/4; Zurich: TVZ, 2007) 161. Although A. R. Petterson (Behold Your King: The Hope for
the House of David in the Book of Zechariah [Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies (formerly
JSOTSup) 513; New York: T & T Clark, 2009] 129-30) recognizes a break between 9:8 and 9:9, he also views
9:1-17 as a coherent unit.
4 Scholars who break the pericope after 9:17 (thus taking it together with the preceding verses) include:
Boda, Haggai, 419; Butterworth, Structure, 74; Curtis, Stony Road, 172; Elliger, Propheten, 151; Horst, Zwölf
kleinen Propheten, 246; Merrill, Haggai, 226-33; Mason, Haggai, 90-91; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14,
88; Mitchell, “Haggai and Zechariah,” 219-20 (he thinks that 9:17 leads into 10:1 but also that the latter verse
begins the next “section” in the text; cf. Conrad, Zechariah, 161-64; Redditt, Haggai,102-3); Petterson, Behold
Your King, 129-30; Reventlow, Propheten, 97; R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 257-59 (he considers 10:2 as the
possible end of a pericope beginning with 9:16 [p. 259]); Willi-Plein, Haggai, 165. Lamarche (Zacharie IX–
197
scholars include v. 17 with what precedes, even though it has more in common with 10:1
which, like 9:17, exhibits an agrarian motif (e.g., !gd [“corn”] 9:17 and bf[ [“vegetation”]
in 10:1). However, 10:1 begins with an imperative, which is often used to begin strophes in
these chapters of Zechariah (e.g., 9:9; 11:1). The Leiden Peshitta recognizes the delimitation
problem involving v. 17, seeing that it places a major section divider both before and after v.
17, thus setting it apart from the surrounding verses and strophes. There is a clear break in
strophes between 10:2 and 10:3, given the shift in person referring to God in the third person
in v. 2 to first person in v. 3. However, both verses discuss bad shepherds, thus making one
reluctant to separate the two strophes. In contrast, there are no strong connections between
9:16 and 9:17; thus, I propose that either 9:17 was added as a transition to 10:1-2 or
alternatively that 9:17-10:2 should be treated as a single strophe that is more closely
connected to the strophe beginning in 10:3 than to the previous strophe in Zechariah 9.
Although it would be tempting to include the clear storm-god motif in 10:2 as part of the
passage for analysis, that verse does not provide a good conclusion for a pericope (given that
it is tied closely with 10:3) and extending the analysis to include much of Zechariah 10
would overextend the limits of this inquiry. In contrast, 9:16 does provide a fitting conclusion
to the verses which precede v. 16 in a way that does not lead one to expect anything more.
XIV, 35) delimits the passage as 9:11–10:1 (see also Baldwin, Haggai, 180); however, Lamarche also considers
9:17a to belong to a different strophe (9:13-17a) than 9:17b (9:17b–10:1), the latter of which forms the final
strophe of the pericope (pp. 50-52). Otzen (Deutero-Sacharja, 216-18) delimits 9:16–10:3a as a chiastic
pericope, while Saebø (Sacharja 9–14, 201-14) divides the text as 9:16b-17 and 10:1-2 (cf. Nogalski,
Redactional Processes, 228-29). Stade (“Deuterosacharja” [1881], 14-25, 52) considers 9:9–10:2 as a unit of
which 9:17–10:2 forms the final subdivision. Petersen (Zechariah 9–14, 24) sees 9:9-17 as constituting a single
poem; see also W. E. Barnes, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (CBSC; Cambridge: University Press, 1934) 74-
78; O’Brien, Nahum, 233 (however, O’Brien treats vv. 14-16 as a subunit within vv. 9-16); Sweeney, Twelve
Prophets, 658-59 (he subdivides the unit into vv. 9-13, 14-17). Floyd (Minor Prophets, 467) considers 9:11–
10:12 as one large literary entity, although he does break it into two parts (9:11–10:2 and 10:3-12) “for the sake
of convenience” in his discussion of the passage.
198
1. Text, Syntax, and Translation5
The Hebrew (Heb) text presented here primarily follows the Masoretic Text (MT) as
found in BHS. However, the LXX, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Latin Vulgate have also been
taken into consideration and I make a minor emendation to the MT in v. 15. Any
emendations have been included as part of the Heb text and the translation is based on the
text here given; in these cases, the MT is provided in the corresponding footnote. Words in
my Heb text that differ from the MT, including places where I am reading a different vowel
pointing of the same consonantal text, are indicated by an asterisk (*).
Strophe I: Coming of the King
VAdvVoc VVoc ~Ølvwry tb y[yrh !wyc-tb dam ylyg 9
SVP PredS awh [vwnw qydc $l awby $klm hnh
AdjVP P twnta-!b ry[-l[w rwmx-l[ bkrw yn[
VOP OP ~Ølvwrym swsw ~yrpam bkr-ytrkhw10
VOP VOP ~ywgl ~wlv rbdw hmxlm tvq htrknw
VPP PP `#ra-yspa-d[ rhnmw ~y-d[ ~ym wlvmw
5 Unless otherwise noted, all Hebrew (Heb) texts are taken from BHS and all English translations are
my own. The critical edition of the Greek (Gk) text used for Zechariah is J. Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae
(Septuaginta 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). The Latin (La) text is from R. Weber, Biblia
sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994). The Syriac (Syr) text is from A.
Gelston, “Dodekapropheton,” in Dodekapropheton – Daniel - Bel – Draco (Peshitta Institute; The Old
Testament in Syriac 3/4; Leiden: Brill, 1980). The syntactical analysis used here is based upon the system
developed by M. P. O’Connor (Hebrew Verse Structure [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997]; see also W. L.
Holladay, “Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (I): Which Words ‘Count’?” JBL 118 [1999] 19-32; idem,
“Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (II): Conjoint Cola, and Further Suggestions,” JBL 118 [1999] 401-16).
However, I use the term “colon” in place of O’Connor’s term “line.” Also, I have divided the passage into
“strophes,” rather than O’Connor’s designations “batches” and “staves.” For a list of abbreviations used for the
syntactical analysis, see the Abbreviations page.
199
Translation and Notes
~Ølvwry tb y[yrh !wyc-tb dam ylyg9
9 Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout for joy, Daughter Jerusalem!
awh b[vwnw qydc $l aawby $klm hnh
See, your king is cominga to you; He is just and saved/victorious,
b
ctwnta-!b ry[-l[w rwmx-l[c bkrw yn[
Humble and riding cupon an ass, Upon a male ass, the offspring of a she-ass.
c
a The imperfect Heb verb, as well as the Syr ()t)), can be interpreted either as present (“comes/is
coming”) or future (“will come”); the Gk uses a present verb (e;rcetai), while La employs a future (veniet). The
La is most likely influenced by a Messianic interpretation of the passage, given the quotation of this verse in
Matt 21:4-5 and John 12:14-15 as applied to Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem.
b The Heb uses a niphal participle (“[one] having been saved,” though HALOT [p. 448] also lists “be
victorious” as a possible meaning, citing Ps 33:16 and Deut 33:29; see also B. Köhler, “Sacharja 9:9: ein neuer
Übersetzungsvorschlag,” VT 21 [1971] 370), thus treating the king as a passive recipient of salvation/victory. In
contrast, the Gk uses an active participle (sw,|zwn, “saving”), indicating that the king is the one who brings about
salvation/victory; A. van der Kooij (“The Septuagint of Zechariah as Witness to an Early Interpretation of the
Book,” in The Book of Zechariah and its Influence [ed. Christopher Tuckett; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003]
53-64, here 58) suggests that the Gk may have read [vwm. Both the La (salvator) and Syr ()QwrP) use a noun
meaning “savior.”
c-c
I treat the w conjunction in this phrase as an explanatory copulative (see GKC §154a); thus I
interpret twnta-!b ry[ in the second colon as providing further clarification regarding the type of rwmx in the
first colon; the w has been left untranslated to avoid implications that more than one animal is involved. I have
intentionally avoided the term “foal” (or other terminology indicating a young animal) based on the semantic
research done by K. C. Way (“Donkey Domain: Zechariah 9:9 and Lexical Semantics,” JBL 129 [2010] 105-
14), despite the translation of the second colon in Gk with pw/lon ne,on (“young foal”), La with et super pullum
filium asinae (“and upon a foal, the son of a she-ass”), and Syr with )Nt) rB )LY( L(w (“and upon a young
animal, the son of a she-ass”). As noted by Way (“Donkey Domain,” 106), the second colon appears to be
specifying that the ass mentioned in the first colon is a purebred male ass.
200
~Ølvwrym swsw ~yrpam bkr- dytrkhw10
10And I will expel
d the chariot from And the horse from Jerusalem.
Ephraim,
e~ywgl ~wlv rbdwe
hmxlm tvq htrknw
And the bow of war will be expelled, eAnd he will proclaim peace to the nations.
e
`#ra-yspa-d[ grhnmw ~y-d[ ~ym fwlvmw
And his dominionf [will be] from sea to sea, And from the River
g to the ends of the earth.
Strophe II: Restoration of Yhwh’s People
VocI VOP wb ~ym !ya rwbm $yrysa ytxlv $tyrb-~db ta-~g11
d Both the Gk (evxoleqreu,sei) and Syr (dBwN) have a 3
rd-person verb here (“he will destroy”), perhaps
reading tyrkhw. The La disperdam could be read as a 3rd
sg. pres. subj. act. or a 1st sg. fut. ind. act.; I read it as
the latter, given the context. Following the Gk and Syr, BHS and several scholars wish to read the
corresponding 3rd
-person Hebrew verb tyrkhw; see Elliger, Propheten, 149; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten,
246; K. Marti, Dodekapropheton (Kurzer Hand-kommentar zum Alten Testament 13; Tu bingen: Mohr, 1904)
430; Mason, Haggai, 88; W. Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten (HKAT 3/4; 2nd
ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1903) 390; P. Riessler, Die kleinen Propheten oder das Zwölfprophetenbuch (Rottenburg: Bader,
1911) 253; E. Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch: Übersetzt und erklärt (KAT 12; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1922)
496; Stade, “Deuterosacharja” (1881), 17; J. Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin:
Reimer, 1898) 189. As noted by D. Barthelémy (Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, tome 3: Ézéchiel,
Daniel et les 12 Prophètes [OBO 50/3; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht,
1992] 977), the 3rd
-person verb is the easier reading, given the use of the 3rd
-person verb rbd and the 3rd
-sg
suffix on wlvm later in v. 10. However, given the close contextual connection between this and the following
strophe, the latter of which has God speaking in the 1st
person, the sense here is that God (1st person) is speaking
about the new king: God is the one who will effect the expulsion of the military arsenal from Ephraim and
Jerusalem, after which the (messianic?) king will proclaim peace and have dominion over the earth. See also the
exegesis section below.
e The Gk differs the most for this colon with its kai. plh/qoj kai. eivrh,nh evx evqnw/n (“and a multitude and
peace from the nations”). Otherwise, there are some minor variations among the versions regarding how the l preposition is translated (dative noun gentibus in La [“to/for the nations”]; m( [“with”] in Syr).
f The La comes closest to the MT with its potestas eius (“his power/authority”). In contrast, both the
Gk and the Syr use a verb meaning “he will rule” (Gk kata,rxei; Syr =L$N).
g Referring to the Euphrates River; see Barnes, Haggai, 75; Elliger, Propheten, 150; M. Saebø, “Vom
Grossreich zum Weltreich: Erwägungen zu Pss. 72:8; 89:26; Sach. 9:10b,” VT 28 (1978) 83-91; Redditt,
Haggai,115.
201
VPVoc AdvV[VOI] $l byva hnvm dygm ~wyh-~g hwqth yrysa !wrcbl wbwv12
VIO OVO ~yrpa ytalm tvq hdwhy yl ytkrd-yk13
VO O !wy $ynb-l[ !wyc $ynb ytrrw[w
VP rwbg brxk $ytmfw
Translation and Notes
kwb ~ym !yak rwbm j$yrysa iytxlv h$tyrb-~db ta-~g11
11As for you, by the blood of your
h covenant, I have freed
i your
j captives from
ka
waterlessk pit.
h Most Gk MSS lack the 2
nd-person possessive pronoun.
i The Gk uses a 2
nd-person verb evxape,steilaj (“you will send out”) instead of a 1
st-person verb. The La
(emisisti; “I have sent out”) and Syr (tYr$; “I freed”) both use a 1st-person verb in accordance with the Heb.
j The Syr ()D*YS)) lacks the 2
nd-person possessive pronoun of the Heb.
k-k
More literally, “a pit/cistern, there is no water in it.” The other versions have similar phrasing: Gk la,kkou ouvk e;contoj u[dwr (“a pit/cistern not-having-water”); La lacu in quo non est aqua (“a pit/cistern in
which [there] is no water”); Syr )YM8 hB tYLd )BwG (“a pit/cistern [in] which there is not water in it”).
Several scholars omit this phrase as a gloss; see Elliger, Propheten, 151; P. D. Hanson, “Zechariah 9 and the
Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern,” JBL 92 (1973) 37-59, here 45; Mason, Haggai, 90; Nowack,
Kleinen Propheten, 391; Reventlow, Propheten, 97; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 501. The phrase does make
the colon a little long; however, the attestation of the phrase in all four versions makes it difficult to dismiss.
202
$l byva hnvm ndygm ~wyhn -~g mhwqth yrysa !wrcbl lwbwv12
12Return
l to a fortress, Captives of Hope;
m Indeed
ntoday I declare
n I am restoring double to
you.
o~yrpa ytalm tvq hdwhy yl ytkrd-yko13
13oIndeed, I bent Judah to me ([as] a bow), [As] a bow I filled Ephraim.
o
l The Gk has a 2
nd sg. fut. ind. act. verb kaqh,sesqe (“you will sit/dwell”) rather than an imperative as
found in the Heb, La (convertimini; “return”) and Syr (wBt; “return”).
m Both the Heb and La have “[prisoners of] hope” (La spei). In contrast, both Gk (th/j sunagwgh/j) and
Syr ()t$wNK) use a word meaning “assembly, community, congregation, synagogue.” In the case of the Gk,
the phrasing could be influenced by the Gk expression sunagwgh, pole,mou (= “levying of war”); see LSJ, 1692;
however, this phrase is not attested in the LXX.
n-n
The La comes closest to the Heb with its hodie … adnuntians (“today … [I am] declaring”), using a
present participle in place of the hiphil participle dygm (“declaring”) in Heb. In contrast, the Gk reads kai. avnti. mia/j h`me,raj paroikesi,aj sou dipla/ avntapodw,sw soi (“and for one day of the captivity/sojourning”), while Syr
has the shorter, albeit similar, reading mwY dX pLXw (“and for one day”). In both Gk and Syr, the meaning is
that God will repay double for each day (presumably of the captivity [= exile]).
o-o
It is difficult to know where to divide the cola within this bicolon; tvq could be read with either
colon. For scholars who also put “bow” in the second colon, see Elliger, Propheten, 151; Horst, Zwölf kleinen
Propheten, 246; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 88; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 54-55; Reventlow,
Propheten, 97. However, the basic interpretation according to which Judah is treated as a bow that is filled with
Ephraim (as its arrow) is also tempting and most scholars translate the bicolon accordingly; see Curtis, Stony
Road, 171; Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV, 47; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 431; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 392;
Petterson, Behold Your King, 143; Smith, Micah-Malachi, 257-58; Willi-Plein, Haggai,165. Otzen (Deutero-
Sacharja, 194, 242) discusses both options, noting that the idea (bow and implied arrow applied to Judah and
Ephraim) is unique in the OT.
My division of the Heb above follows BHS; one benefit of this division is that it yields a more evenly
balanced bicolon. However, the verb $rd (lit., “walk, tread upon”) is used with tvq in the sense of “bending”
a bow fifteen other times in the MT (see 1 Chr 5:18; 8:40; 2 Chr 14:7; Pss 7:13; 11:2; 37:14; Isa 5:28; 21:15; Jer
9:2; 46:9; 50:14, 29; 51:3; Lam 2:4; 3:12). On the other hand, the piel of alm (which appears in the second
colon) is also used with tvq as its object in 2 Kgs 9:24. For Zech 9:13a, the NABRE has “For I have bent Judah
as my bow, I have set Ephraim as its arrow” (cf. NRSV). However, the only OT verses in which “arrow”
(#x/ycx) occurs with the verb alm are 2 Kgs 9:24 and Jer 51:11, and in neither context is “arrow” the object
(direct or indirect) of alm. Because $rd + tvq is more common (and, hence, tvq could be interpreted as
implied in the first colon, given the common expression with tvq as the object of $rd, meaning “bend a
bow”) while tvq + alm is less common but also attested elsewhere, I have placed tvq as part of the second
colon in Heb to maintain a better balance. I suspect this may be an instance of janus parallelism, in which case
tvq should be understood with both cola – hence, I have included “bow” in parentheses in the first colon of the
translation. I reached this conclusion independently of S. M. Paul (“A Technical Expression from Archery in
Zechariah IX 13a,” VT 39 [1989] 495-97), who comes to the same option after considering the Akkadian
expression qašta mullû (“to nock [fill] the bow”); see also Barnes, Haggai, 76; Butterworth, Structure, 178.
Both the Gk and the La are as ambiguous as the Heb in their placement of “bow”; in contrast, the Syr clearly
places “bow” with “Judah” ()dwhY L( yt$Q tXtMd l+M [“because I bent my bow over Judah”]).
203
q!wy p$ynb-l[ !wyc $ynb ytrrw[w
And I will rouse your sons, Zion, Against yourp sons, Yavan;
q
rwbg brxk $ytmfw
And I will wield you [Zion] as a warrior’s sword.
Strophe III: The Victorious Divine Warrior
SPV VPO wcx qrbk acyw hary ~hyl[ hwhyw14
SOV VP !myt twr[sb $lhw [qty rpwvb hwhy yndaw
SVP VVI [lq-ynba wvbkw wlkaw ~hyl[ !gy twabc hwhy15
VVP VPP xbzm twywzk qrzmk walmw !yy-wmk *wmhw wtvw
VS PPO wm[ !ack awhh ~wyb ~hyhla hwhy ~[yvwhw16
P VO `wtmda-l[ twsswntm rzn-ynba yk
p The Gk lacks the 2
nd-person possessive pronoun (see also n. q below); see also Nowack, Kleinen
Propheten, 392; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 54-55; Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 250.
q The Gk has a genitive here (tw/n ~Ellh,nwn), whereas the Heb, La (Graecia) and Syr (nwY) use a
vocative. Both the Gk and the La clearly understand “Greeks/Greece” where the Heb has !wy. The Syr appears to
be a transliteration; I have been unable to locate a meaning for nwY that fits this context ()NwY = “dove”), but
there are several related cognate words in Syr that would indicate a connection with Greek/Greece: the adj.
)YNwY means “Greek, Byzantine”; the verb yNwY means “to Grecize”; and the verb oNwY means “to speak
Greek” (M. Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009]
569). The proper name !wy is used in Genesis (10:2, 4) and 1 Chronicles (1:5, 7) to refer to the fourth son of
Japheth, son of Noah; elsewhere, it is used to designate a land or people (Isa 66:19; Ezek 27:13, 19; Dan 8:21;
10:20; 11:2; Zech 9:13), which HALOT (p. 402) connects with Greek Asia Minor in Isaiah and Ezekiel, and
with the Greeks themselves in Joel, Zechariah, and Daniel. Curtis (Stony Road, 173) notes that !wy is a cognate
of “Ionia,” representing the Aegean Islands and the Greek mainland, while “sons of Yavan” refers to “all the
native Greek-speaking peoples of the Aegean world.” BHS and a few scholars think this entire colon is a gloss;
see Elliger, Propheten, 151; Hanson, “Zechariah 9,” 45; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 246; Mason, Haggai,
91; Mitchell, “Haggai and Zechariah,” 279; Reventlow, Propheten, 97-98; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 502.
204
Translation and Notes
wcx qrbk acyw hary ~hyl[ rhwhyw14
14And Yhwh
r will appear over them, And his arrow will go out as lightning.
v!myt utwr[sb $lhw [qty trpwvb shwhy yndas
The sLord Yhwh
s will sound the ram’s horn,
t And he will come in the storms
u of the south.
v
r The La has Dominus Deus (“Lord God”); cf. next bicolon.
s-s
The La comes the closest to the Heb with its Dominus Deus (“Lord God”). The Gk reads ku,rioj pantokra,twr (“Lord Almighty”), while the Syr has )twD*M )rMw (“Lord of Hosts”; cf. next bicolon).
t The Gk (sa,lpiggi) and La (tuba) use a word meaning “trumpet” or “horn” (in general); the Syr
)NrQB can also have the basic meaning of “horn.”
u Tempest, storm wind, whirlwind; similar translations occur in the other versions (Gk sa,lw| [“surge”;
“tumult”]; La turbine [“whirlwind”]; Syr )L(L(B [“storm”])
v !myt could also be the proper name “Teman”; for examples, see Amos 1:2; Obad 9; Jer 47:7, 20;
Ezek 25:13; Hab 3:3. Although !myt does appear in these other texts, Wellhausen (Kleinen Propheten, 190)
takes special note of a possible connection with Hab 3:3, specifically, with his question “weil er vom Sinai
kommt?” (“because he comes from Sinai?”); cf. Stade (“Deuterosacharja” [1881], 56), who connects this verse
with Deut 33:2 and Judg 5:4-5; Baldwin (Haggai, 182), who cites Judg 5:4, 5 and Hab 3:3; Barnes (Haggai,
77), citing Isa 21:1 and Hab 3:3; Conrad (Zechariah, 164), citing Deut 33:2 and Judg 5:4-5 in addition to Hab
3:3. However, in the context of Zech 9:14, the general meaning “south” fits slightly better (albeit not
conclusively), given that it is describing a storm; cf. R. L. Smith (Micah-Malachi, 258-60), who does translate
the term as a proper noun (“storms of Teman”) and connects it with Hab 3:3. For further discussion of !myt
here, see also Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 666-67.
205
y[lq-ynbay wvbkw xwlkaw ~hyl[ !gy wtwabc hwhy15
15Yhwh Seba’oth
w will protect them, And they will consume
x and subdue
y(with?)
sling stones.y
w I have transliterated the Heb rather than translate it, given its use as part of Yhwh’s title as well as the
loss of the military connotations (relative to modern usage) in the most common English translation for twabc,
i.e., “hosts”; scholars who transliterate twabc include Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 246; Lamarche,
Zacharie IX–XIV, 48; Willi-Plein, Haggai,165. The La comes closest to the Heb with Dominus exercituum
(“Lord of armies/hosts”). The Gk has ku,rioj pantokra,twr (“Lord Almighty”), while the Syr reads )NtLYX )YrMw (“strong Lord” [=Lord Almighty?]).
x Several scholars propose emendations for wlkaw even though “they will consume/eat” is attested in
the other versions (Gk katanalw,sousin; La devorabunt; Syr nwLK)N). Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 254)
suggests the least radical emendation with ~wlka (“they consumed them”). Stade (“Deuterosacharja” [1881],
18) proposes reading ~wlkyw (“they will prevail [over] them”). The 3rd
-pl pronominal suffix on Riessler’s and
Stade’s emendations are apparently influenced by the presence of auvtou,j (“them”) in Gk. Marti
(Dodekapropheton, 432), Nowack (Kleinen Propheten, 393), and Wellhausen (Kleinen Propheten, 190) propose
wlkyw (“they will prevail”); cf. Mason, Haggai, 91. Elliger (Propheten, 151) leaves “they eat” (fressen) but
wants to read rfb (“flesh”) as its object, presumably in place of wvbkw; see also Horst, Zwölf kleinen
Propheten, 246; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 496.
y-y
Given the lack of a preposition before [lq-ynba (“stones of a sling”), it difficult to determine
whether [lq-ynba should be understood as a direct or indirect object (the latter could be taken as a dative of
means), or even perhaps as the subject (see Barnes, Haggai, 77; Barnes associates the imagery with hailstones).
The Gk (evn li,qoij sfendo,nhj) and La (lapidibus fundae) both treat “stones” as a dative of means. The Syr
()(LQB )P)8K) is as ambiguous as the Heb in that “stones” in its rendering could be read as a direct or
indirect object. Stade (“Deuterosacharja” [1881], 18) adds a preposition to the Heb to create the reading
[lq-ynbak (“as stones of a sling”). Marti (Dodekapropheton, 432), Nowack (Kleinen Propheten, 393), and
Wellhausen (Kleinen Propheten, 190) emend ynba to ynb (“sons”).
206
xbzm aatwywzk qrzmk walmw !yy-wmk z*wmhw wtvw
And they will drink and be rowdyz as with And they will be full as a bowl, as the
wine, cornersaa
of an altar.
z The MT has the verb wmh (“they groaned, made noise”); its presence is problematic given the context
and the lack of a conjunction between wmh and the previous verb wtvw (“they will drink”) within the same
colon. A few important Gk MSS (B, S*, W) omit the second verb and have a 3rd
-person pl. pronoun in place of
the direct object of “drink” (kai. evkpi,ontai auvtou.j w`j oi=non [“and they will drink them as wine”]). However,
other Gk MSS read to. ai-ma auvtw/n (“their blood”) in place of auvtou,j, probably attesting to a Heb Vorlage that
read ~md (“their blood”). The La fixes the problem by reading a participle for “drink” (bibentes) followed by
the finite verb inebriabuntur (“they will be drunk”), yielding “and drinking, they will be drunk as if with wine.”
The Syr keeps “drink” as a finite verb (nwt$N), but reads )YXwLd (“confusion/disorder”) as the direct object
of “drink.” Thus, none of the versions (Heb, Gk, Syr, or La) agrees regarding what comes after the verb “drink.”
On the basis of the majority of Gk MSS which read to. ai-ma auvtw/n, several scholars propose emending
the text to match the Gk. Most emend wmh to ~md; see Marti, Dodekapropheton, 432; Nowack, Kleinen
Propheten, 393; Peterson, Zechariah 9–14, 54-55; Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 254; Wellhausen, Kleinen
Propheten, 190. Another proposal is to read just ~d (“blood”); see BHS; Elliger, Propheten, 151; Horst, Zwölf
kleinen Propheten, 246; Reventlow, Propheten, 97; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 496; Stade, “Deuterosacharja”
(1881), 18. There are OT other passages which mention Israel drinking the blood of an enemy (Num 23:34;
Ezek 39:17, 18, 19), but none of the passages liken drinking blood to drinking wine specifically. The only text
in which blood (~d) and wine (!yy) are mentioned together in adjacent cola is in Gen 49:11 wvbl !yyb sbk
htws ~ybn[-~dbw / (“he washed his clothing in wine” / “and his garment in the blood of grapes”); however,
“blood” in this context refers to grapes (“blood of grapes” = “wine”), not the actual blood of people/enemies.
A different option is offered by the NABRE, which has “and [they] become heated,” perhaps
presupposing a h/x confusion and reading wmx (“they are heated”?) in place of wmh, given that the noun hmx
means “heat,” “rage,” or “poison.” Somewhat similarly, Lamarche (Zacharie IX–XIV, 48) proposes a translation
that most closely resembles the interpretation of the La and maintains the second verb: tituberont (“they will
stagger”). I agree with Meyers and Meyers (Zechariah 9–14, 88), who simply add a w conjunction to yield
wmhw; that conjunction could have been lost due to haplography with the w on the previous verb (wtvw). aa
Not in Gk, which only has w`j fia,laj qusiasth,rion (“[they will fill] the altar as a bowl”). Both La
and Syr include the conjunction “and” (La et; Syr w) before the last prepositional phrase (La et quasi cornua
altaris [“and as the horns of an altar”]; Syr )XBdMd )tYwz kY)w [“and as the corner of an altar”]).
207
wm[ !ack ccawhh ~wybcc bb~hyhla hwhybb ~[yvwhw16
16And
bbYhwh their God
bb will save them;
ccOn that day,
cc his people (will be) as sheep,
ddwtmda-l[ twsswntm rzn-ynba ykdd
ddIndeed, gemstones of a crown Shining upon his land.
dd
2. Authenticity and Dating
As noted in Chapter II, B. Stade wrote a landmark three-part article in 1881-1882 that
set the tone for “Deutero-Zechariah” studies for the better part of following century, that
itself was largely influenced by the previous work of Eichhorn.6 Those who disagreed with
Stade’s conclusions felt compelled to write formal refutations of Stade’s arguments (and/or
similar arguments from other scholars before and after Stade) as early as the turn of the
century; one early critique was by G. L. Robinson in 1895-96, just a few years after Stade’s
bb-bb
The La and Syr match the Heb respectively with Dominus Deus eorum and nwhhL) )YrM (“the
Lord their God”). The Gk simply reads ku,rioj (“Lord”).
cc-cc
awhh ~wyb could also be read with the first colon, as indicated by the punctuation in the
Göttingen LXX. In his edition of the La Vulg., Weber begins the second colon with in die illa (“on that day”),
as I have done above, given that it creates a better balanced bicolon. The Leiden Peshitta does not include any
punctuation that would indicate a division between the cola in Syr.
dd-dd
This bicolon could also be combined into a single colon. For the first colon, the Gk, La, and Syr all
use the adjective “holy” to describe the “stones” but they all differ from the Heb and one another in the second
colon (which, again, could be read as a single colon): Gk dio,ti li,qoi a[gioi / kuli,ontai evpi. th/j gh/j auvtou/ (“for
holy stones / are rolled upon his land”); La quia lapides sancti / elevantur super terram eius (“because holy
stones / [they] are raised above his land”); Syr h(r)B ywh8 oYd$8d / )t$8YdQ ywh8 )P)8Kd l+M (“because
the stones are holy / which are cast/thrown upon his land”). Several scholars emend ynba yk to ynbak (“as
stones”); see Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 246; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 432; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten,
394; Peterson, Zechariah 9–14, 54-55; Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 254; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 190-
91. J. A. Bewer (“Two suggestions on Prov 30:31 and Zech 9:16,” JBL 67 [1948] 61-62, here 62) suggests that
the verb #ycy (“shall shine”) is missing before the yk.
6 Stade, “Deuterosacharja” (1881), 1-96; idem, “Deuterosacharja: Eine kritische Studie,” ZAW 2 (1882)
151-72, 275-309; citing: J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. 3 (Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben
und Reich, 1787).
208
article appeared.7 Stade’s influence extends both to the issue of authenticity of Zechariah 9–
14, particularly in relation to Zechariah 1–8 and its prophetic author, as well as to the dating
of Zechariah 9–14.
Stade argued that Zechariah 9–14 is definitely from a separate author than the first
eight chapters of Zechariah, thus proposing the name “Deutero-Zechariah”
(Deuterosacharja) for these last six chapters of the extant book. This position has become the
consensus among most scholars since Stade’s time. There remains some debate among
scholars regarding whether or not Zechariah 9–14 is the product of a single author/redactor;
single authorship is argued extensively by Lamarche even though his chiastic structure has
not been widely accepted.8 However, even among those scholars who think that different
authors were involved in the composition/redaction of Zechariah 9–14, most accept single
authorship for Zechariah 9 (sometimes including chapter 10 or parts thereof).9 Thus,
regardless of how many authors scholars have proposed (one, two, or many) for Deutero-
Zechariah, there is little disagreement with regard to the probable single authorship of at least
Zech 9:9-16.
Proposed dates for Zechariah 9 in particular have ranged from the time of King Josiah
in the seventh century B.C.E. to the Maccabean period in the second century B.C.E. Linguistic
7 G. L. Robinson, “The Prophecies of Zechariah: With Special Reference to the Origin and Date of
Chapters 9–14,” AJSL 12 (1895-1896) 1-92; repr. (Chicago: University Press, 1896).
8 Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV, 153; however, the dates proposed by Lamarche would place the
composition of Zechariah 9–14 during the time of Zechariah himself (pp. 148-53). Reventlow (Propheten, 86-
87) argues for (at least probable) single authorship for Deutero-Zechariah (but not for Zechariah as a whole). A.
F. Schellenberg (“One in the Bond of War: The Unity of Deutero-Zechariah,” Didaskalia 12 [2001] 101-15)
also argues for unity within Zechariah 9–14 largely by appealing to the Divine Warrior motifs (particularly in
chaps. 9–10 and 14).
9 For examples of those who propose single authorship for Zechariah 9, but not for all of Deutero-
Zechariah, see Otzen, Studien, 45-58; Redditt, Haggai,102-3.
209
analyses are inconsistent in their findings with regard to dating or single authorship.10
However, the preexilic dating has few followers after the time of Stade, although some admit
the possibility that perhaps parts of Zechariah 9 might be postexilic reworkings of earlier
material.11
One of the most obvious problems with a preexilic dating for Zechariah 9 is that it
clearly has the Babylonian Exile in mind when it talks about prisoners being freed and Yhwh
restoring double to the people (Zech 9:11-12). Another weakness of such a dating is the
failure to adequately address the reference to Greece in Zech 9:13, given that treating it as a
gloss is purely speculative (often based on a scholar’s analysis of the passage’s alleged
“meter”) and Otzen’s theory that it refers to Greek mercenaries in Egypt, while interesting
and perhaps possible, seems highly unlikely.12
Several scholars support a Persian date for Zechariah 9, some of whom place it during
the time of the prophet Zechariah. Hanson thinks that Zechariah 9 is a prophetic adaptation of
a Divine Warrior hymn/motif, probably close to the time of Deutero-Isaiah; thus, he suggests
10
Two often-cited linguistic studies on Deutero-Zechariah resulted in different conclusions,
particularly with regard to unity/authorship. Y. T. Radday and D. Wickmann (“The Unity of Zechariah
Examined in Light of Statistical Linguistics,” ZAW 87 [1975] 30-55) concluded that Zechariah 9–11 have a high
probability of being from the same author as Zechariah 1–8 whereas it is highly improbable that Zechariah 12–
14 is from the same author as Zechariah 1–11 (p. 54). In contrast, A. E. Hill (“Dating Second Zechariah: A
Linguistic Reexamination,” HAR 6 [1992] 105-34) determined that Zechariah 10–14 are linguistically similar to
Zechariah 1–8 and, hence, he proposes a date ca. 520-450 or, more precisely, 515-458 B.C.E. (pp. 131-32) for
both segments. However, both studies would seem to date Zechariah 9 to the Persian period if one assumes a
traditional date of authorship (and accepts Radday and Wickmann’s conclusion that Zechariah 9 was probably
by the same author as Zechariah 1–8) as well as Hill’s findings for Zechariah 10–14 as applicable to Zechariah
9 as well (Zechariah 9 was excluded in Hill’s study because it is poetry, not prose). D. A. Robertson (Linguistic
Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry [SBLDS 3; Missoula: University of Montana, 1972] 109) notes that
Zech 9:15 contains a feature (enclitic m) of standard Hebrew poetry (eighth century and later).
11
One of the strongest post-Stade supporters of a preexilic date for Zechariah 9 is Otzen (Studien,
212); see also Kraeling, “Historical Situation,” 24-33. For a detailed critique of pre-twentieth century
scholarship that argued for preexilic dating, see Robinson, “Prophecies of Zechariah,” 16-52.
12
Otzen, Studien, 45-58; cf. Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 253-54) who takes “sons of Yavan” as a
reference to Greek pirates that would be prior to 550 B.C.E.
210
a tentative date for the chapter in the mid-sixth century B.C.E.13
Robinson claims that the
description of the coming king’s dominion as being “from sea to sea, and from the River
[Euphrates] to the ends of the earth” best describes (and is really applicable to only) the reign
of King Darius I of Persia between 518-516 B.C.E.14
Boda suggests a slightly later date for
Zechariah 9 at around 515-510 B.C.E., and sees the chapter as probably by Zechariah
himself.15
Meyers and Meyers suggest that Zechariah 9 is likely from the first half of the fifth
century, even though an earlier form of it might have been reworked at that time.16
Jones
holds that the author of Zechariah 9–11 was an Israelite “of the northern dispersion” who was
active in or near Damascus in the fifth century.17
Horst thinks that 9:1–11:3 can be dated near
the end of the Persian period or beginning of the Hellenistic period, specifically during the
last half of the fourth century.18
Redditt notes three additional observations that he believes lend support to a Persian
dating (in his case, an early Persian period date for Zechariah 9).19
First, the authors of
Deutero-Zechariah made use of previous prophetic material, especially Jeremiah, Ezekiel,
and Proto-Zechariah. Second, the weighing of shekels mentioned in 11:14 more likely points
to a time before coins became more prevalent (i.e., during the Hellenistic period), even
13
P. D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979) 322-24.
14
Robinson, “Prophecies of Zechariah,” 73; see also Sweeney, Twelve Prophets,664-66.
15
Boda, Haggai, 410.
16
Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 26-27.
17
D. R. Jones, “A Fresh Interpretation of Zechariah 9–11,” VT 12 (1962) 241-59, here 258.
18
Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 213-14; however, he also thinks that preexilic elements have been
incorporated.
19
Redditt, Haggai, 98-100.
211
though he admits that metal was not coined in Palestine until the Maccabean period. Third,
the boundaries of the New Jerusalem in Zechariah 14 are described in preexilic terms, and it
mentions two gates (Zech 14:10) that were not rebuilt by Nehemiah (thus implying that the
author was writing during a time when the walls were still in ruins, i.e., prior to Nehemiah).
Redditt proposes a date of composition for 9:1-17 as being probably sometime between 515
B.C.E. and the time of Nehemiah (ca. 445 B.C.E.).20
The problem with Redditt’s first observation is that it only indicates that the author(s)
of Deutero-Zechariah came after the prophets whom he/they quote, which could include any
time after those prophets (including the Hellenistic Period). He admits that the second
observation is tenuous; weighing silver could have continued in Palestine even after the
Greeks arrived (however, his observation would seem to point at least to a pre-Maccabean
date). A potential problem with Redditt’s third observation is that if Zechariah 14 is looking
forward to a future eschatalogical Jerusalem, the author may intentionally be using the
preexilic boundaries as the “ideal” restoration of the walls, regardless of the current status of
the walls. Perhaps the author was not satisfied with previous results of the rebuilding of the
temple or walls of Jerusalem and believed that God would restore both to their original glory
and size as they existed prior to the Babylonian conquest of Jerusalem.
One of the most often cited arguments in favor of a Hellenistic (or later) dating is the
reference to the !wy ynb (“sons of Yavan [Greece]”) in Zech 9:13. In fact, Stade proposes that
the reference to Greeks in 9:13 clearly places Deutero-Zechariah in the context of the
Hellenistic period; more specifically, he narrows the date to 306-278 B.C.E. during the
20
P. L. Redditt, “Nehemiah’s First Mission and the Date of Zechariah 9–14,” CBQ 56 (1994) 664-78,
here 675-76.
212
struggle for power among the Diadochi.21
Several scholars, however, have challenged the
reference to !wy ynb as evidence of Hellenistic composition. A frequent, albeit feeble, claim
is that the colon in which !wy ynb appears is a “gloss.” The strongest argument against 9:13
necessarily being evidence of Hellenistic composition comes from those scholars who
suggest that the reference could in fact be reflective of Greco-Persian conflicts during the
Persian period.22
However, Floyd rightly questions whether the fifth-century conflicts
between Persia and Greece would have had any direct impact on Judah; rather, he argues that
the best interpretation is the most obvious one: the passage (9:11–10:12) is describing
Jerusalem’s ability “to resist direct threats from the Greeks” as a result of “opposition
between the Greeks and Jews themselves.”23
Another attempt to divorce 9:13 (and its
surrounding context) from a necessarily Hellenistic interpretation is Jones’s suggestion that
the author was merely using biblical allusions in which !wy refers to “distant nations” (cf. Isa
41:1; 66:19).24
Jones also suggests that, rather than the Greeks being portrayed as enemies in
9:13, they are “the means of restoring the lost sons of Zion”; thus he proposes reading the last
21
Stade, “Deuterosacharja” (1882), 290, 305. See also Marti, Dodekapropheton, 396; Nogalski,
Redactional Processes, 216; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 378.
22
Curtis, Stony Road, 174-81; Petterson, Behold Your King, 144; Robinson, “Prophecies of
Zechariah,” 67-75. Although R. H. Pfeiffer (“Hebrews and Greeks before Alexander,” JBL 56 [1937] 91-101)
notes archeological evidence of Aegean influence in Syria, Phoenicia, and Palestine dating back to ca. 2000
B.C.E. and continuing through the fifth century B.C.E., he admits that we remain in the dark with regard to the
exact means of cultural transmission and the level of direct contact between the Hebrews and Greeks.
23
Floyd, Minor Prophets, 456. However, E. Meyers (“The Crisis of the Mid-fifth Century B.C.E.
Second Zechariah and the ‘End’ of Prophecy,” in Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish,
and Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom [ed. D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman,
and A. Hurvitz; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995] 713-23, here 715-16), citing K. Hoglund, argues that
Palestine was probably most affected by the mid-fifth century Egyptian satrapal revolts which prompted Persia
to build fortresses in the Levant ca. 450 B.C.E. to keep the local populations from aligning themselves with
Greece. See also Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 18-22.
24
Jones, “Fresh Interpretation,” 247-49.
213
colon of the verse as “Upon (l[;) thy sons, O Jawan.”25
However, in order to maintain his
thesis that the author is using a military metaphor without implying a military role for
“Jawan,” Jones has to appeal to a “glossator’s touch” to explain the transformation of the
metaphor into a literal reference to warfare against the Greeks in a later century.26
There are other reasons that have been proposed in favor of a Hellenistic dating for
Zechariah 9. Delcor perceives references to Alexander the Great in the list of nations in vv.
1-8; he suggests that Alexander is portrayed favorably in these verses and as acting as
Yhwh’s instrument, in contrast to the rest of the chapter in which he is supplanted by a new
Davidic king.27
In addition to the mention of Greece in 9:13, Floyd appeals to two other
reasons why a time after Alexander the Great would provide the best context for Zechariah
9:1–11:17 as from ca. 330 – 300 B.C.E.: (1) the king described in 9:9-10 is likely to be based
on the type of king Alexander was (i.e., able to bring general peace for the first time since the
middle of Darius I’s reign); and (2) the real but unrealized hope for unification between the
southern (Judah/Jerusalem) and northern (Israel/Samaria) kingdoms is more appropriate in a
later period, given the squabbles between the returning exiles and Samaritans during the
Persian period as noted in Ezra and Nehemiah.28
One problem with Floyd’s first suggestion
is that it is quite possible that, as noted by Jones, one only needs to look to the descriptions of
25
Ibid., 248. However, Jones also thinks that the colon “overloads the line and is metrically
superfluous” (ibid.).
26
Ibid., 248-49.
27
M. Delcor, “Les Allusions à Alexandre le Grand dans Zach IX 1-8,” VT 1 (1951) 110-24, esp. 123;
see also I. Willi-Plein, “Prophetie und Weltgeschichte: Zur Einbettung von Sach 9,1-8 in die Geschichte
Israels,” In Davidshaus und Prophetie: Studien zu den Nebiim (Biblisch-Theologische Studien 127;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2012) 243-62. However, several scholars have critiqued the
applicability of Zech 9:1-8 to the march of Alexander; see Curtis, Stony Road, 166-70; Redditt, “Nehemiah’s
First Mission,” 665-67.
28
Floyd, Minor Prophets, 454-57.
214
King David himself and the Suffering Servant passages as a basis for the description of the
king in Zech 9:9-10.29
Floyd’s suggestion further presupposes that the expectation is not
intended as a Messianic hope for a new Judean king in the line of David but merely for any
monarch who can bring peace to the land, including foreign monarchs.
Only a few scholars attempt to date Zechariah 9 as late as the Seleucid/Ptolemaic or
Maccabean periods.30
Although Rubinkam proposes a date for Zech 9:1-10 to the time of the
approach of Alexander the Great, he thinks that Zech 9:11–chap. 14 overall reflect the
Maccabean period.31
Similarly, Mitchell suggests that Zech 9:1-10 was written ca. 333
B.C.E., whereas Zech 9:11–11:3 is from the time of Ptolemy III (247–222 B.C.E.).32
Marti
dates the material in Zechariah 9 to “none other than the Seleucid Empire” (nichts andres als
das Seleucidenreich) and, more specifically, to ca. 197–142 B.C.E.33
Nowack also supports a
dating in the time of the Seleucids and Ptolemies.34
However, the above scholars who support
a Seleucid/Ptolemy – Maccabean date all published their works in the early twentieth century
or earlier, thus attesting to the movement in biblical scholarship away from proposing such
late dates for the OT material after that time. This is perhaps due, at least in part, to an
increase in scholarship regarding Sirach, in which the Twelve Prophets are mentioned
29
Jones, “Fresh Interpretation,” 248-49, 256-58.
30
For a general critique of methods used to date OT texts to the Maccabean period, see P. R. Ackroyd,
“Criteria for the Maccabean Dating of Old Testament Literature,” VT 3 (1953) 113-32; although Ackroyd
primarily addresses the dating of the Psalms and Sirach, he also mentions Deutero-Zechariah (specifically, Zech
12:10-14) as a further example on pp. 129-31.
31
Rubinkam, Book of Zechariah, 83-84.
32
Mitchell, “Haggai and Zechariah,” 252-58.
33
Marti, Dodekapropheton, 396.
34
Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 378.
215
collectively in Sir 49:10. Thus, Sirach provides a terminus ad quem for the compilation of the
Twelve Prophets, i.e., prior to the publication of Sirach ca. 180 B.C.E.35
Given the variety of suggestions, it is no wonder that R. L. Smith observes that an
attempt to determine the historical context for Zechariah 9–14 is likely to end in failure.36
The most likely time of composition of Zechariah 9 would seem to be the Persian – early
Hellenistic Period. On the one hand, the more obvious interpretation that the “sons of Yavan
[Greece]” in Zech 9:13 are the direct enemies of Israel, over whom Yhwh will grant victory,
makes the Hellenistic period tempting. However, without knowing the impact (or lack
thereof) that the Greco-Persian conflicts had in Palestine during the fifth century, the
possibility of those conflicts providing the basis for the reference in Zech 9:13 remains
plausible. Thus, both periods will be kept in mind throughout this study.37
3. Exegetical Analysis and Commentary
As indicated at the beginning of this chapter, the delimitation of pericopes in
Zechariah 9–10 is difficult. More than a few scholars suggest that Zechariah 9 constitutes a
single, self-contained unit, while others expand it to include all or part of chapter 10. Most
scholars are in agreement that there is a break between 9:8 and 9:9, a position I adopt. There
is a shift in focus from an oracle against the nations in 9:1-8, which is not of primary interest
in this study, to a strophe describing a coming king in vv. 9-10, which likewise shifts to
35
P. W. Skehan and A. A. Di Lella, The Wisdom of Ben Sira (AB 39; New York: Doubleday, 1987)
16, 40-45. Among the Twelve Prophets, Di Lella notes that Ben Sira cites or alludes to Haggai and Malachi
(ibid., 41) – thus spanning both sides of Zechariah within the OT canon.
36
R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 249.
37
A. M. Leske (“Context and Meaning of Zechariah 9:9,” CBQ 62 [2000] 663-78, here 664) notes that
a date between 400–350 B.C.E. is just as likely as a 515–445 B.C.E. one.
216
addressing Zion/Jerusalem in the second person. Given the first-person verb ytrkh (“I will
expel/cut off”) in v. 10 found in the MT, the likely speaker in vv. 9-10 is Yhwh.
I have designated vv. 9-10 as Strophe I (Coming of the King). Although it is possible
that vv. 1-8 are intended to be read with vv. 9-10 as part of a larger whole, there is no
obvious linguistic or contextual reason why they need to be read together. In contrast,
Strophe II (vv. 11-13; Restoration of Yhwh’s People) is contextually dependent upon Strophe
I: Yhwh (first person) is still addressing Jerusalem/Zion (second person feminine), but this
strophe is distinguished from the previous one, given its shift in focus from the new king to
the restoration of God’s people as a whole (without any mention of the new king). It is
certain that a new strophe (Strophe III; The Victorious Divine Warrior) begins in v. 14, given
the sudden shift from Yhwh in the first person to a third person description of Yhwh, with the
tetragrammaton appearing in the first colon of all three verses that I have included in Strophe
III (vv. 14-16). There is no mention of Yhwh at all in 9:17, which contains an exclamatory
statement about abundance of grain and wine and which connects well with 10:1 (which also
mentions grain), although wine is mentioned in both 9:15 and 9:17. It is possible that 9:17
was added as a transition to 10:1; however, it does not seem original to Strophe III (which, as
just pointed out, has a poetic three-fold use of “Yhwh” in the first colon of each verse that is
not continued in v. 17). Although 10:1 does include storm-god imagery, its focus shifts away
from the Divine Warrior victory motif in 9:14-16 to a more agrarian motif involving an
analogy about “bad shepherds” beginning in 10:2 (the yk which begins 10:2 syntactically
connects it to the previous verse).
The three strophes in Zech 9:9-16 function together to provide an image of the
restoration of God’s people and victory over their enemies. Yhwh promises a king who will
217
proclaim peace in Strophe I. Then Yhwh describes the larger restoration of the people that he
will cause in Strophe II. Finally, the victory of the Divine Warrior is described using the third
person for Yhwh in Strophe III.
One particularly noteworthy proposal is that of P. D. Hanson, who suggests that
Zechariah 9 is an early apocalyptic “recapitulation of an archaic mythic pattern” using a
Divine Warrior hymn.38
He structures the entire chapter as follows39
:
Conflict-Victory (vv. 1-7)
Temple Secured (v. 8)
Victory Shout and Procession (v. 9)
Manifestation of Yhwh’s Universal Reign (v. 10)
Salvation: Captives Released (vv. 11-13)
Theophany of Divine Warrior (v. 14)
Sacrifice and Banquet (v. 15)
Fertility of Restored Order (vv. 16-17)
Hanson compares this pattern to what he considers the classical formation of a conflict myth
in the Mesopotamian Enuma Elish and other ANE mythology, as well as the use of the motif
in some of the psalms (e.g., Psalm 68). He connects the use of the motif in Zechariah 9 with
the “optimism” of Deutero-Isaiah in the mid-sixth century B.C.E.40
Some scholars recognize
the potential contribution of Hanson’s work while simultaneously finding fault with it,
particularly with regard to Hanson’s categorization of Zechariah 9 as “apocalyptic,” his
38
Hanson, “Zechariah 9,” 53-54; see also idem, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 292-324.
39
Hanson, “Zechariah 9,” 53.
40
Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 324.
218
structural divisions, and, as Curtis notes, his attempt to trace the use of the Divine Warrior
motif and the development of “apocalyptic” literature over time without a “sufficient
comparative base.”41
3.1. Strophe I: Coming of the King
9Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout for joy, Daughter Jerusalem!
See, your king is coming to you; He is just and saved/victorious,
Humble and riding upon an ass, Upon a male ass, the offspring of a she-ass.
10And I will expel the chariot from Ephraim, And the horse from Jerusalem.
And the bow of war will be expelled, And he will proclaim peace to the nations.
And his dominion [will be] from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the earth.
The opening commands to Daughter Zion and Daughter Jerusalem in Zech 9:9 are
reminiscent of similar imperatives in Zeph 3:1442
:
larfy w[yrh !wyc-tb ynr
~Ølvwry tb bl-lkb yzl[w yxmf
Shout for joy, Daughter Zion; Rejoice, Israel;
Be glad and exult with all [your] heart, Daughter Jerusalem.
As in Zechariah 9, the exhortations to rejoice are here followed by the mention of a king;
however, in Zephaniah 3, the “King of Israel” (larfy $lm) in their midst is Yhwh (Zeph
3:15; cf. Zech 2:14). In contrast, Zech 9:9 is describing a future human king, presumably in
41
Curtis, Stony Road, 156-60, here 158-59; see also Floyd, Minor Prophets, 441-42, 446, 454.
42
Daughter Zion and Daughter Jerusalem are also paired in 2 Kgs 19:21 // Isa 37:22; Lam 2:13; Mic
4:8. The combination of the coming of a savior for Daughter Zion (Zech 9:9) and the mention of the “ends of
the earth” (Zech 9:10) also occurs in Isa 62:11 ab $[vy hnh !wyc-tbl wrma #rah hcp-la hymvh hwhy (“Yhwh proclaimed to the ends of the earth, ‘Say to Daughter Zion, your savior comes.’”).
219
the line of David; that the king is human and not Yhwh himself is indicated by the use of the
niphal participle [vwn, which more likely means “[one who is] saved” (although “victorious”
has also been suggested).43
The implication of the niphal form is that the salvation/victory of
the king was not brought about by the king himself, but by Yhwh. The king’s legitimacy to
rule is thus not based on his military strength, as is explicitly affirmed in Ps 33:16:
`xk-brb lcny-al rwbg lyx-brb [vwn $lmh-!ya
The king is not saved by his great army; A warrior is not delivered by his
great strength.
This interpretation is further supported by the description of the coming of the king as
“humble” (yn[) and “riding on a donkey” (rwmx/ry[). Mason connects the terms [vwn,
qydc, and yn[ with the description of the Servant in Deutero-Isaiah as well as the portrayal
of the king in some of the Psalms.44
Several scholars have noted the potential significance of
the donkey as the king’s mount rather than a horse (sws) or chariot (bkr), both of which
Yhwh himself will expel according to Zech 9:10.45
Ziba offers donkeys (~yrwmx) to King
43
See n. b in the “Text, Syntax, and Translation” section above. Floyd (Minor Prophets, 454-55) does
note that, technically, the text is ambiguous with regard to whether a new Davidic king is intended or just a
“new imperial overlord”; Floyd chooses the latter option and suggests that Alexander the Great provides the
background image for the type of king described in Zech 9:9-10. Leske (“Context and Meaning,” 665) rejects
the interpretation of this passage as referring to a “future messianic Davidide.”
44
R. A. Mason, “Why is Second Zechariah so Full of Quotations?,” in The Book of Zechariah and its
Influence (ed. Christopher Tuckett; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003) 21-28, here 24. For a detailed study on the
influence of Deutero-Isaiah on Deutero-Zechariah, see C. R. Sosa, “La influencia de Isaías II en Zecarías II,”
Kairos 37 (2005) 39-57.
45
The plausibility of this interpretation supports the retention of the MT’s 1st-person verb against the
versions and those scholars who prefer a 3rd
-person verb (see n. d above). For scholars who contrast the donkey
vs. the horse/chariot as a means of royal transportation, see Boda, Haggai, 416-18; Leske, “Context and
Meaning,” 672-73; R. A. Mason, “The Relation of Zech 9–14 to Proto-Zechariah,” ZAW 88 (1976) 227-39, here
236-37; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 129-31; Petterson, Behold Your King, 140; C. W. F. Smith, “The
Horse and the Ass in the Bible,” ATR 27 (1945) 86-97; R. L. Smith, Micah – Malachi, 256; Wellhausen,
Kleinen Propheten, 189. Cf. also Jer 17:25 and 22:4 where it is stated that the kings who sit on the throne of
David will ride on their chariot and horses.
220
David’s household to ride during the coup begun by Absalom (2 Sam 16:2), this being the
one other possible reference to a king riding a donkey in the MT (cf. Gen 49:10-11);
however, the sons and/or grandsons of the judges Jair (Judg 10:4) and Abdon (Judg 12:14)
are mentioned as riding on donkeys (~[y]ry[) during the period of prosperity when Jair and
Abdon “judged” Israel.46
The adjective yn[ can mean “humble,” “poor,” or “afflicted,”
depending upon the context (albeit not necessarily without ambiguity); it occurs as a
reference to those saved (root [vy) by Yhwh in David’s Song of Thanksgiving in 2 Sam
22:28 (// Ps 18:22) as well as in Ps 34:7. Thus, the coming king is one who knows that real
strength is in Yhwh, not his own power or military assets.
The MT’s first-person verb ytrkh in v. 10 indicates that Yhwh is the one who will
expel military assets (represented by the horse [sws], chariot [bkr], and bow [tvq]) from
both Ephraim and Jerusalem (i.e., the northern and southern kingdoms, thus envisioning a
restored united kingdom). Within the context of the strophe, the imagery used could be
drawing upon passages in which faith in “horse” and “chariot” is to be rejected in favor of
faith in Yhwh (e.g., Ps 20:8; Isa 31:1). This action by Yhwh thus enables the king to
proclaim “peace” (~wlv; also “prosperity”) to the nations. The text also mentions that the
king’s dominion will be from “sea to sea” (~y-d[ ~ym) and from “the River to the ends of
the earth” (#ra-yspa-d[ rhnmw).47 As noted previously in Chapter III (specifically in the
discussion of Mic 7:12), when in the OT two seas are used in a directional formula, one sea is
46
Jones (“Fresh Interpretation,” 256-57) discusses the contrast between King David and Absalom
during the latter’s attempted coup against King David; see also R. L. Smith, Micah – Malachi, 256.
47
T. Collins (“The Literary Contexts of Zechariah 9:9,” in The Book of Zechariah and its Influence
[ed. Christopher Tuckett; Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003] 29-40, here 39) notes that the last bicolon appears to
be drawing upon, perhaps even citing, Ps 72:8. Schellenberg (“One in the Bond of War,” 106) suggests that the
mention of the two seas could refer to the cosmic oceans, noting that the equivalent expression is also found in
Enuma Elish VI:95.
221
always the Mediterannean Sea (representing the west) while the other sea (representing the
east) could be the Red Sea, the Dead Sea, or possibly even the Persian Gulf. In any event, the
imagery clearly refers to the west-east extent of the king’s domain. This leaves the second
colon as a north-south pair; the “River” (Euphrates) forms the northern point, while the “ends
of the earth” presumably indicate the southern point, the end of the known world as this
extended at least down through Egypt.48
3.2. Strophe II: Restoration of Yhwh’s People
11As for you, by the blood of your covenant, I have freed your captives from a waterless
pit.
12Return to a fortress, Captives of Hope; Indeed today I declare I am restoring double
to you.
13Indeed I bent Judah to me ([as] a bow), [As] a bow I filled Ephraim.
And I will rouse your sons, Zion, Against your sons, Yavan;
And I will wield you as a warrior’s sword.
“Covenant” language is quite prevalent throughout the OT with respect to Yhwh’s
covenants with Israel and various individuals. Although tyrb is used with the promises that
Yhwh makes to Noah (Gen 6:18; 9:11-13, 15-17) and Abraham (Gen 15:18), the tyrb that
God is said to have made with the Israelites’ ancestors often refers specifically to the
covenant established following the Exodus from Egypt (e.g., Exod 34:27; Deut 5:3; 28:69;
Judg 2:1; 1 Kgs 8:21; Jer 31:32; 34:13) or sometimes the covenant with David (e.g., 2 Sam
48
Assyria and Egypt are often paired in the OT, as are their respective rivers (Euphrates and Nile); for
examples, see Josh 24:14; Isa 7:18; 11:11, 15, 16; 19:24, 25; 27:13; Jer 2:18, 36; Ezek 16:26-28; 23:5-8; Hos
7:11; 9:3; 11:5, 11; 12:2. Redditt (Haggai, 115) suggests that the author may have in mind the Davidic
kingdom, rather than a larger area; see also Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 664.
222
23:5; Ps 89:4). However, the phrase “blood of the covenant” (tyrb ~d) occurs elsewhere
only in Exod 24:8; here, Moses splashes blood on the people of Israel after reading the “book
of the covenant” (tyrb rps) to them. Thus, the “blood of your covenant” mentioned in
Zech 9:11 most likely is drawing upon the covenant made with Israel following the Exodus,
although there could also be a connection with covenantal circumcision (e.g., Genesis 17;
Exod 4:26).49
Although rysa (“prisoner”) is used to describe the confinement of Joseph in Egypt
(Genesis 39) and of Samson by the Philistines (Judges 16), the word is used most often used
with reference to “prisoners” upon whose behalf Yhwh acts or to whom he at least shows
favor (e.g., Job 3:18; Pss 68:7; 69:34; 79:11; 102:21; Isa 42:7; Lam 3:34; Zech 9:11-12).
However, in the earlier chapters of Isaiah (i.e., Isa 10:4; 14:17; 24:22), rysa is used more
negatively in the context of divine judgment against other nations, in contrast to the imagery
in Isa 42:7 in which Yhwh will bring the prisoners out from the dungeon. Of particular
interest is Isa 24:22a which, like Zech 9:10, also mentions captives in a cistern/pit (rwb):
rwb-l[ rysa hpsa wpsaw
And they will be gathered together [as/like] a prisoner into a pit.
Thus, whereas Isa 24:22 indicates that Yhwh will gather the kings of the earth as prisoners in
a pit, Zech 9:10 states that Yhwh will free prisoners from the pit. A pit without water (-!ya
~ym) is specifically mentioned in Jer 38:6 when Jeremiah himself is lowered into such a pit
as a place of imprisonment (and eventually death had he not been rescued).50
Some scholars
49
For research regarding the “blood of the covenant,” see E. Kutsch, “Das sog. Bundesblut in Ex 24:8
und Sach 9:11,” VT 23 (1973) 25-30; E. W. Nicholson, “The Covenant Ritual in Exodus 24:3-8,” VT 32 (1982)
74-86.
50
For a more detailed discussion regarding Jeremiah and Zechariah 9–11, see E. Tigchelaar, “Some
Observations on the Relationship between Zechariah 9–11 and Jeremiah,” in Bringing out the Treasure: Inner
223
have also noted connections between the above phrase and Jacob’s son Joseph being lowered
into a pit by his brothers (Genesis 37), given that Gen 37:24 uses a similar phrase (wb !ya
~ym) to specify that there was no water in the pit, albeit with a slightly different word order
than found in Zech 9:11 (wb ~ym !ya).51
Not only does Yhwh free his people from the “pit” in Zech 9:11-12, they also return
to a !wrcb (“stronghold”/“fortress”?) and Yhwh restores double to them. The word !wrcb
is a hapax legomenon. BDB (p. 131) has “stronghold.” HALOT (p. 149) suggests that a
metathesis of two of the term’s letters has occurred and, hence, proposes reading !wrbc
(“[in] throngs”) instead. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew lists “stronghold” as the
meaning, but also considers as possible renderings the proper noun “Bizzaron” (perhaps
referring to Samaria) or textual emendations to either !wyc-tb (“daughter Zion”) or !wrbc
(cf. HALOT).52
Meyers and Meyers suggest that the MTs reference to “strongholds” reflects
the situation in Judah in the mid-fifth century when Persia had erected fortresses to exercise
its dominion and enforce loyalty against the Greeks.53
There is also a possible connection
with Jeremiah, in view of the reference to Yhwh’s people and “repaying double” in Jer 16:18
(hnvm … ytmlv); however, the “double” spoken in Jer 16:14-18 is against the Israelites’
enemies for their sins and profaning the land. Nevertheless, Yhwh proclaims in Jer 16:19-21
Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14 (ed. M. J. Boda and M. H. Floyd; New York: T & T Clark/Continuum,
2003) 260-70.
51
For discussions of possible connections between Zechariah 9 and the story of Joseph, see Boda,
Haggai, 419-20; K. J. A. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a
Mantological Wisdom Anthology (CBET 6; Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994) 80-81; Merrill, Haggai, 227.
52
D. J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (8 vols.; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix,
1993-2011) 2. 247.
53
Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 142; they also note the possible play-on-words in Zechariah 9
between !wrcb (“stronghold”), !wyc (“Zion”), and possibly rwc (“Tyre”).
224
that the nations will come to Israel “from the ends of the earth” (#ra-yspam; cf. Zech
9:10), seeking to know Yhwh’s name and power. There is also a promise that Yhwh will
“restore double” to the Israelites in Isa 66:7, in which shame will be replaced by joy.
The imagery in Strophe II shifts more explicitly to a military motif at the end (Zech
9:13). However, the imagery is distinct from a traditional theophanic motif in that here Yhwh
describes turning people, specifically Judah and Ephraim, into weapons that he will use in
place of the more traditional theophanic weapons (e.g., lightning; cf. Zech 9:14 in the next
strophe) or his own weapons in general (e.g., Ps 7:13).54
It is unclear whether Judah will be
the bow and Ephraim its (implied) arrows, or if the metaphor of the bow extends to both
Judah and Ephraim (thus my poetic analysis and translation above).55
The closest parallel to
the imagery of the MT is in Lam 2:4 in which Yhwh bends his bow (wtvq $rd) against
Zion (cf. Lam 3:12) “as an enemy” (bywak) or perhaps, as noted by Leske, in Isa 49:2 in
which the speaker says that Yhwh makes his mouth as sword while making the speaker
himself like an arrow, which is kept in Yhwh’s quiver until Yhwh uses him as a light to the
nations.56
As do Jerusalem and Ephraim in Strophe I, Judah and Ephraim here represent the
southern and northern kingdoms, respectively, with the implication that they together
represent a new united kingdom such as Israel had been during the golden years of King
54
The potential significance of the difference between the theophanic imagery here in contrast to more
traditional theophanies is also noted by Collins (“Literary Contexts,” 29-40, here 31).
55
For a fuller discussion, see n. o-o in the “Text, Syntax, and Translation” section above; see also
Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 145-47.
56
Leske, “Context and Meaning,” 670.
225
David and King Solomon. In contrast, Hanson links the bow and arrow imagery to the
Enuma Elish (IV:35-36) myth.57
In addition to bending Judah and Ephraim as a bow, Yhwh also declares that he will
wield the “sons of Zion” as a warrior’s sword against the “sons of Yavan” (Zech 9:13).
“Yavan” (!wy) refers to Greece, or at least Greeks in Asia Minor.58
Assuming the colon is
original in the passage (contrary to those who suggest that it is a later gloss), the issue is
whether the text reflects the Greco-Persian conflicts in the fifth century B.C.E. or a time
during or after the conquest of Alexander the Great in the late fourth century.59
Given that the
passage would seem to imply hostilities between Greece and Judah itself, the Hellenistic
period is the more obvious choice as a date.60
Even if one attempts to interpret the passage
eschatologically, without reference to a specific historical event, the fact that Greece
specifically is chosen still reflects a time (past or present) when Greek presented a direct
threat to Israel/Judah on the basis of which the Greeks would merit future destruction.61
57
Hanson, “Zechariah 9,” 52.
58
See n. q in the “Text, Syntax, and Translation” section above.
59
See the “Authenticity and Dating” section above for a more detailed discussion regarding the
potential implications of the mention of Greece in this verse.
60
Curtis (Stony Road, 178-81) makes an argument in favor of Judean support of the Persians, partially
supported by the OT’s positive view of Cyrus (e.g., Isa 44:24–45:7) in which Davidic language is applied to
Cyrus that could have inspired Judean loyalty to Persia even after his death (cf. Ezra 6:14-15), in contrast to the
negative reference to the Greeks in the exilic texts Ezek 27:13 and 27:19, as well as in the early postexilic
(Curtis’s dating) text of Joel 4:6. See also Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 147-49.
61
For an eschatological interpretation of the passage that seeks to divorce the text from a specific
historical context, see Hanson, “Zechariah 9,” 37-38; Merrill, Haggai, 229; Schellenberg, “One in the Bond of
War,” 103.
226
3.3. Strophe III: The Victorious Divine Warrior
14And Yhwh will appear over them, And his arrow will go out as lightning.
The Lord Yhwh will sound the ram’s horn, And he will come in the storms of the south.
15Yhwh Seba’oth will protect them, And they will consume and subdue (with?)
sling stones.
And they will drink and be rowdy as with And they will be full as a bowl, as the
wine, corners of an altar.
16And Yhwh their God will save them; On that day, his people (will be) as sheep,
Indeed, gemstones of a crown Shining upon his land.
This strophe continues the military imagery present near the end of the previous
strophe; however, there is a change in person for Yhwh (first person in Strophe II to third
person here) and the Divine Warrior imagery becomes more pronounced in vv. 14-15a. The
first colon of each verse contains some form of the tetragrammaton, each time with a
variation (i.e., “Yhwh” in v. 14, “Yhwh S eba’oth” in v. 15, and “Yhwh their God” in v. 16);
each of these cola also expresses Yhwh’s protection of his people (“appear over” in v. 14;
“will protect” in v. 15; and “will save them” in v. 16). As part of this protection, Yhwh’s
“arrow” goes out “as lightning” (v. 14). Lightning (qrb) is one of Yhwh’s weapons (e.g., 2
Sam 22:15 // Ps 18:15; Pss 77:19; 144:6; Ezek 21:20) and “arrow(s)” (#x) is sometimes used
in contexts that would be suggestive of lightning (e.g., 2 Sam 22:15; Pss 7:14; 77:17).
However, references to Yhwh’s “arrows” alone are often more ambiguous (e.g., Deut 32:23,
42; Ps 38:3; Job 6:4; Hab 3:11). However, ANE deities are often portrayed with lightning in
the form of either arrows or spears in ANE iconography, even in the case of deities that were
227
not “storm-gods” per se.62
Thus, the image of Yhwh’s “arrows” could implicitly be tied to
lightning even without a more explicit connection. Also, the mention in v. 15 that Yhwh will
come in the “storms of the south” (!myt twr[s) does provide a context for viewing the
“arrow” as lightning. Although this is the only place in the MT where Yhwh is described as
blowing a ram’s horn (rpwv), a blast from a rpwv is heard during the theophanies on Sinai
in Exodus 19–20.63
In a military context, the rpwv is used to signal battle, particularly in
Joshua and Judges.64
EXCURSUS: “YHWH SEBA’OTH”
The title “Yhwh S eba’oth” (twabc hwhy) is quite prevalent in Zechariah (where it
is used 53 times), which ranks third among all books in the MT in the use this of title both
with regard to number of times the phrase is used, as well as the concentration of the title
within an individual book based on the book’s approximate word count.65
The statistics are
summarized in the tables below:
62
Hanson (“Zechariah 9,” 52) ties the imagery of arrows going out as lightning and the southern
storm-wind both to the battle between Marduk and Tiamat in the Enuma Elish myth and to that of Ba‘al and
Yam in Ugaritic mythology. As noted in Chapter I, D. Schwemer (“The Storm-gods of the Ancient Near East:
Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies, Part I,” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 7 (2007) 121-68, here
123-29) considers the following gods to be mistakenly classified as “storm-gods” in the secondary literature:
Enlil, Ninurta (Ningirsu), Marduk, Anzu(d)-Anzû, Dagān, and Itūrmēr (not to be confused with the actual
storm-god W/Mēr). See also Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 150.
63
Specifically, Exod 19:16, 19; 20:18; cf. Ps 47:6. Conrad (Zechariah, 163) notes the possible
connection between the rpwv and thunder, given the storm imagery used in the context of Zechariah 9.
64
For examples, see Joshua 6; Judg 3:27; 6:34; 7:18-22; 1 Sam 13:3; Jer 4:5; Zeph 1:16. The rpwv
was also used to sound a warning (e.g., Jer 6:1; Ezek 33:3), as an appeal to the people to pay attention (e.g., 1
Kgs 1:34; Isa 18:3; 27:13), or in the context of celebrating an important event and/or of praising Yhwh (e.g., 2
Sam 6:15; Ps 98:6).
65
The above statistical analysis was done using Bibleworks 9.0 (Norfolk: Bibleworks, LCC, 2011).
228
Times twabc hwhy Appears in Book66
Top Ten Highest Concentrations within
Individual Book (Uses / Words in Book)
Rank Book # of Uses Rank Book %
1 Jeremiah 77 1 Malachi 2.718%
2 Isaiah 62 2 Haggai 2.303%
3 Zechariah 53 3 Zechariah 1.671%
4 Malachi 24 4 Nahum 0.354%
5 Haggai 14 5 Isaiah 0.337%
6 Psalms 8 6 Jeremiah 0.323%
7 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel 5 7 Zephaniah 0.258%
8 1 Chronicles 3 8 Habakkuk 0.147%
9 Nahum, Zephaniah 2 9 Micah 0.071%
10 Psalms 0.041%
10 1 Kings, 2 Kings,
Micah, Habakkuk 1
Isaiah ranks second in number of times the phrase is used with 62 occurrences (all but six in
Isaiah 1–39), only nine more than Zechariah, while Jeremiah ranks first with 77 uses. It is
also noteworthy that the books surrounding Zechariah rank fourth (Malachi, 23 uses) and
fifth (Haggai, 14 uses) in the MT. Within the rest of the Twelve Prophets, twabc hwhy
occurs twice each in Nahum and Zephaniah, and once each in Micah and Habakkuk. With
regard to the frequency that the phrase appears within an individual book, Malachi ranks the
highest, followed by Haggai then Zechariah. However, it is interesting that all but nine of the
53 uses of twabc hwhy in Zechariah occur in Zechariah 1–8.67
If we use the word counts
done by Radday and Wickmann to analyze Zechariah 1–8 and Zechariah 9–14 separately,
66
Only occurrences of the exact phrase twabc hwhy are represented in the figures above. However, it
should be noted that the longer form twabc yhla hwhy (“Yhwh, God of Hosts”) has the following
occurrences: once each in 2 Samuel and Psalms; twice in 1 Kings; five times in Jeremiah; and six times in
Amos.
67
The nine verses in “Deutero-Zechariah” (Zechariah 9–14) in which this title appears are 9:15; 10:3;
12:5; 13:2, 7; 14:16, 17, 21 (twice). For other studies that include statistical analyses of twabc hwhy, see W. H.
McClellan, “Dominus Deus Sabaoth,” CBQ 2 (1940) 300-307; T. N. D. Mettinger, “Yhwh Sabaoth: The
Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne,” in Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays (ed.
T. Ishida; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982) 109-38.
229
Zechariah 1–8 would rank second in frequency between Malachi and Haggai, with 2.527%.68
Although the frequency for Zechariah 9–14 alone would only be 0.652%, this would still fall
between Haggai and Nahum; however, its percentage would significantly drop, placing it
much closer to the frequency found in Nahum.
The statistical connection between Haggai and Zechariah 1–8 is not surprising, given
the theory that at one point they circulated as a separate collection. More surprising is the fact
that Malachi also shows a high percentage of uses of twabc hwhy, slightly higher than
Zechariah 1–8 and Haggai, and significantly higher than Zechariah 9–14, with which
Malachi is often connected, given the use of afm in superscriptions in Zech 9:1 and 12:1,
and Mal 1:1 to begin an oracle. However, further investigation of the possible significance or
implications of this observation is beyond the scope of the present study.
[END OF EXCURSUS]
After the declaration that Yhwh S eba’oth will protect them, Zech 9:15 mentions that
they (presumably Judah and Ephraim) will consume and subdue (with?) sling stones. Both
bows/arrows and slings/sling stones were long-range weapons in antiquity but the former was
considered superior to the latter.69
Lawlor notes that slingers are depicted alongside archers
on the reliefs of Sennacherib’s palace (late eighth – early seventh century B.C.E.), Herodotus
(fifth century B.C.E.) mentions slingers in the Greek military (Hist. 7.158), and Roman armies
68
Radday and Wickmann, “Unity of Zechariah,” 31. The total number of words in Zechariah in
Radday and Wickmann’s study is 3122, whereas Bibleworks counts 3171 words; however, this does not
significantly affect the statistics, given that the frequency percentage for Zechariah using Radday and
Wickmann’s numbers would be 1.633% (compared to 1.671% using Bibleworks). Radday and Wickmann
counted 1741 words for Zechariah 1–8 and 1381 for Zechariah 9–14.
69
A. R. Schulman, “Military Organization in Pharaonic Egypt,” in Civilizations of the Ancient Near
East, vols. 1-2 (ed. J. M. Sasson; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006) 1. 289-301, here 1. 290-91.
230
hired foreign mercenaries as slingers.70
It is unclear whether the sling stones in Zech 9:15 are
the means by which Yhwh’s people will subdue their enemies or if they function rather as the
direct object of the verbs and, hence, belong to the people’s enemy. If slings stones are the
means (“with sling stones”), the prophet/author could be connecting the passage to David’s
use of a sling stone against Goliath (1 Sam 17:40-50). However, it is also possible that this
verse creates a contrast between sling stones and bows/arrows in light of the previous
strophe’s claim that Judah and Ephraim will be Yhwh’s bow (or possibly arrow in the case of
Ephraim; v. 13).
The meaning of the second bicolon in v. 15 is somewhat obscure due to possible
textual corruption. The general sense is indicative of a victory celebration, given that Yhwh’s
people will drink and be full, like bowls or corners of an altar. The reference to !yy (“wine”)
could be intended as a play-on-words with !wy (“Yavan” [Greece]) in the previous strophe.
The word translated as “corners” (twywz) appears elsewhere in the MT only in Ps 144:12
where it refers to (corner?) pillars of a palace or temple. A bowl (qrzm) is listed as one of the
utensils associated with an altar in Exod 38:3 and Numbers 7. The altar (xbzm), of course, is
associated with sacrifice and offerings to Yhwh. Hanson interprets the passage as reflecting a
fertility rite in which offering the enemies’ blood as part of a sacrifice restores the land’s
fertility.71
Accepting the emendation to “blood,” some scholars have noted a potential
70
J. L. Lawlor, “Sling,” in New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5 (Nashville: Abingdon,
2009) 308.
71
Hanson, “Zechariah 9,” 52-53 (this interpretation requires the emendation of wmh to “blood”; see n. z
in the “Text, Syntax, and Translation” section above). Schellenberg (“One in the Bond of War,” 107-8)
correctly notes that Hanson fails to provide evidence in the MT for this rite (see also R. L. Smith, Micah –
Malachi, 260); thus, she suggests that the MT’s text should be retained and the passage understood as referring
to a victory feast as does Isa 25:6. On the other hand, Merrill (Haggai, 230-31) thinks that “flesh” and “blood”
are clearly implied in this passage (thus, eating the enemies’ flesh and drinking their blood), given the sacrificial
imagery of the altar; cf. Conrad, Zechariah, 163.
231
mythological connection to Anath’s victory banquet during which Ba‘al’s body and blood are
consumed.72
On the other hand, Sweeney suggests that the imagery is that of victorious
warriors throwing wine (not blood) upon the altar, thus symbolizing Yhwh’s protection.73
The strophe closes with the promise that Yhwh will save his people (v. 16). It
incorporates a shepherd motif, given the apparent reference to Yhwh’s people as “sheep”
(!ac). Like the previous verse (v. 15), v. 16 is not entirely clear and could involve some
textual corruptions. However, a general understanding of the last bicolon (which could be
treated as a single colon) is that Yhwh’s people are being likened to gemstones of a crown
that shine upon Yhwh’s land (cf. Isa 62:3); Sweeney likens this imagery to the description of
the diadem of the high priest who was responsible for the sacrificial blood rite at Yhwh’s
altar.74
Mitchell notes that the combination of the crown imagery with that of the flock could
be reflective of an agrarian sociohistorical context – i.e., “one of the little plains of Palestine,
dotted with sheep, white and brown, grazing under a brilliant oriental sun.”75
4. Storm-/Warrior-god Theophanic Motifs and Vocabulary
There are some motifs and vocabulary in Zech 9:9-16 that are related to the storm-
and/or warrior-god motif. The pericope includes some basic traditional theophanic motifs
that are concentrated in v. 14, specifically the allusion to Yhwh as coming from the
south/Teman and the mention of Yhwh’s arrow going out as lightning. However, the passage
72
Larkin, Eschatology, 79. Against the interpretation of this passage as reflective of a victory banquet,
see Redditt, Haggai, 117.
73
Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 667.
74
Ibid.
75
Mitchell, “Haggai and Zechariah,” 281.
232
also reflects an interesting modification of the motif whereby human beings function as
Yhwh’s weapons (v. 13); in older poetic theophanic motifs, even those directed against a
historical enemy (e.g., Exodus 15 against the Egyptians), the focus tends to be the deity’s
actions (and use of his own weapons), not human participation in the salvific acts.
4.1. Effects upon Nature
There is only one reference to the deity’s effect upon nature in Zech 9:9-16. It occurs
in v. 14 which describes Yhwh coming from the “whirlwind/storm of the south [Teman]”
(!myt twr[s). This imagery fits well with the storm-god motif, as well as the traditional
connection of Yhwh with the southern region.76
However, unlike earlier traditional
theophanies, there is no description of the earth or mountains shaking/quaking or of any other
direct effect upon nature aside from the statement that Yhwh comes in the whirlwinds/storms
of the south. Thus, presumably, Yhwh causes the whirlwinds/storms, but no other effect upon
the land is described here.
4.2. Effects upon Humans
As with the effects upon nature, the deity’s effects upon humans in this passage are
noticeably different than in earlier, more traditional theophanic images. For example, there is
no description of fear that normally accompanies a theophanic experience. Rather, the first
effect possibly related to humans is the statement in Zech 9:10 that Yhwh will cut off (trk)
the war chariot (bkr), horse (sws), and bow of war (hmxlm tvq) (i.e., implements of
war) from Ephraim and Jerusalem; if this is interpreted as an expulsion of an enemy military
76
The word for “south” is !myt, which can also be interpreted as the proper name, “Teman” (e.g., as in
Hab 3:3).
233
force, then humans would be directly affected, but it is possible to interpret it more neutrally
– i.e., that Yhwh will expel all weapons (including Judean ones), thus ushering in the era of
peace proclaimed by the coming king, an era in which weapons will no longer be needed.
The latter interpretation is less likely when the verse is read with the following strophe,
which mentions that Yhwh will make Judah and Ephraim as a bow (tvq) (and arrow?), with
the “sons of Zion” against the “sons of Yavan (Greece)” and Yhwh’s wielding Zion as a
warrior’s sword (rwbg brx). Thus, in the second strophe, it is people who will function as
the deity’s weapons against their human enemy. This is highly unusual in a poetic theophanic
account, in which the focus tends to be on the deity’s actions alone; however, the imagery
resonates well with the understanding of divine assistance during the battles recorded in
Joshua and Judges. The final description of an effect upon humans is the victorious
celebration by Yhwh’s people in v. 15 as a result of Yhwh’s protection (here, the effect is
more indirect).
4.3. God’s Anger / Wrath
Any mention of Yhwh’s anger or wrath is absent in Zech 9:9-16. However, one use of
@a (“anger”) in Zechariah is found nearby in 10:3.
4.4. God’s Weapons / Battle Motifs
As noted above in the “Effects upon Humans” section, the second strophe uses
unusual imagery for Yhwh’s weapons in that Yhwh declares that Judah and Ephraim will be
his bow (tvq) and Yhwh will wield the “sons of Zion” as a warrior’s sword (rwbg brx).
However, the third strophe reverts back to more traditional theophanic imagery, in which
234
Yhwh’s arrow (#x) is described as being like lightning (qrb), thus evoking a possible
storm-god motif in addition to the warrior-god motif. Several weapons of the enemies are
also mentioned: bkr (“chariot”), sws (“horse”), and tvq (“bow”) in v. 10, and possibly
[lq-ynba (“sling-stones”) in v. 15 (if taken as the direct object). Thus, the storm-god motif
is briefly incorporated into the pericope.
4.5. God as Savior, Rock, etc.
The only salvific epithet for Yhwh used in the pericope is the title twabc hwhy
(“Yhwh S eba’oth”). However, vis-à-vis the common military connotation of twabc,
McClellan argues that the title involves a genitive of attribution resulting in a meaning
“Yhwh whose nature it is to be served,” based on his observation that the root abc does not
always refer to military service but may allude to some form of compulsory service in
general (e.g., temple service [Exod 38:8]).77
On the other hand, Mettinger agrees with von
Rad who suggests that the search for the meaning of this title is “due to the false supposition
that an element of cultic epiklesis as old as this is in all circumstances capable of rational
explanation.”78
4.6. Place Names
Most of the place names in Zech 9:9-16 are used as references to Yhwh’s people:
Jerusalem (vv. 9, 10), Judah (v. 13), Ephraim (vv. 10, 13), and Zion (vv. 9, 13). Similarly, the
term Yavan (“Greece”) is used to designate their enemy, albeit in a colon sometimes
77
McClellan, “Dominus Deus,” 306-7.
78
Mettinger, “Yhwh Sabaoth,” 111; G. von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 (trans. D. M. G.
Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1967) 19.
235
considered a later gloss or interpolation (v. 13). The only other possible references to places
are “River” (Euphrates) in v. 9 and perhaps “Teman” in v. 14 (although the more general
meaning “south” is probably to be preferred here). Several place names, including Tyre (vv.
2-3), are listed in the oracle against the nations in Zech 9:1-8, just prior to the passage that is
our focus.
5. Summary
There are good reasons to accept the existence of Deutero-Zechariah and thus placing
the composition (or possible reworking of older material) of Zech 9:9-16 sometime after
Proto-Zechariah (Zechariah 1–8); even the brief excursus on the distribution of the use of the
divine title twabc hwhy (“Yhwh S eba’oth”) supports this supposition (i.e., the title is used
so frequently in Zechariah’s first eight chapters [44 times; 2.527%] that it would be odd for a
single author to suddenly reduce its use so drastically in the last six chapters [9 times;
0.652%]). However, the question remains whether, supposing the reference to Greece (!wy) in
9:13 to be original in the text, its presence reflects the most obvious choice – i.e., sometime
during or just prior to the Hellenistic period (starting in the late fourth century B.C.E.) – or
rather a Judean reaction to the Greco-Persian conflicts of the fifth century B.C.E. and an
expression of Judean loyalty to the Persian Empire. Both suppositions are plausible and those
scholars summarized in the “Authenticity and Dating” section have provided good reasons to
support (or reject) both possible dates. In any event, Zech 9:9-16 is very likely to be later
than Habakkuk 3 and somewhat likely to postdate Mic 7:7-20 (if, in fact, the latter is exilic –
early postexilic).
236
As noted by J. O’Brien, the divine warrior imagery functioned in different ways in
different periods of Israel’s history (cf. Nahum 1, Habakkuk 3, and Zechariah 9); she also
points out that fewer mythological images are invoked in Zechariah 9 than in Habakkuk 3.79
The most traditional theophanic description in the former text occurs in Zech 9:14 – the deity
coming from the south with his arrow likened to lightning. However, within this specific
context, there is no direct enemy against whom the deity is fighting – no reference to
smashing heads or mountains, smiting enemies, or driving his chariot while raging against
the sea. Rather, it is Yhwh’s people in who will subdue and consume (v. 15), having been
turned into Yhwh’s weapons (v. 13). Thus, instead of the deity alone fighting the battle, the
role of the people is also highlighted (albeit with the deity’s power making them victorious,
just as the king mentioned in v. 9 is “saved/victorious” by the power of Yhwh). This
depiction aligns more closely with the interpretation of holy war in the prose of Joshua and
Judges than in traditional theophanic poetry, an observation made even more interesting
given the mention of the coming king riding a donkey in Zech 9:9 (as is used by the sons of
some of the judges in the book of Judges; see above).
Some scholars, such as O’Brien, also have noticed a different application (e.g., fewer
mythological aspects) of the divine warrior motif in Zechariah 9 than is found in older
theophanies (such as Habakkuk 3). However, this study will focus on the similarities and
differences in more detail, and in comparison with a text (Mic 7:7-20) that is not usually
included in theophanic comparisons. This more detailed analysis of the three passages (Mic
7:7-20, Habakkuk 3, and Zech 9:9-16) will occur in the next, and final, chapter (Chapter VI).
79
J . M. O’Brien, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Abingdon Old
Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004) 238, 241-42; see also Meyers and Meyers,
Zechariah 9–14, 150.
237
Chapter VI
Conclusion: Cross-analysis of the Theophanic Texts
This final chapter will focus on a cross-analysis of the three texts of interest (Mic 7:7-
20; Habakkuk 3; and Zech 9:9-16). First, I shall provide an overview regarding theories and
methodologies for detecting intertextuality and inner-biblical allusions. Then, the texts will
be analyzed for direct verbal connections (e.g., quotations) followed by use of a common
motif – i.e., the storm-/warrior-god motif. I shall conclude this chapter with a summary of the
findings of this investigation.
1. Intertextuality and Inner-Biblical Allusions
Intertextual studies have become a popular topic among biblical scholars despite
some ambiguities and inconsistencies regarding the definition and application the term
“intertextuality.”1 For purposes of the current study, the term “intertextuality” will be used in
1 A fuller discussion regarding the definition and application of the terms “intertextuality,” “inner-
biblical allusion,” and/or “inner-biblical exegesis” is beyond the scope of this study. For more information, see
R. J. Bautch, “Intertextuality in the Persian Period,” in Approaching Yehud (ed. J. L. Berquist; SBLSS 50;
Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007) 25-35; T. K. Beal, “Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of
Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production,” in Reading Between Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew
Bible (ed. D. N. Fewell; Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation; Louisville: John Knox, 1992) 27-39; J.
Day, “Inner-biblical Interpretation in the Prophets,” in “The Place is Too Small for Us”: The Israelite Prophets
in Recent Scholarship (ed. R. P. Gordon; Sources for Biblical and Theological Study 5; Winona Lake, IN:
Eisenbrauns, 1995) 230-46; C. Edenburg, “Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of
Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,” JSOT 35 (2010) 131-48; T. R. Hatina, “Intertextuality and
Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is there a Relationship?” Biblical Interpretation 7 (1999) 28-43;
J. M. Leonard, “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Case Study,” JBL 127 (2008) 241-65; H.
Koehl-Krebs, “L’intertextualité comme méthode d’investigation du texte biblique: L’exemple de Malachie
3,20,” BN 121 (2004) 61-76; G. D. Miller, “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,” Currents in Biblical
Research 9 (2011) 283-309; R. L. Schultz, “The Ties that Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal
Parallels, and Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve,” in Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve
(ed. P. L. Redditt and A. Schart; BZAW 325; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 2003) 27-45, esp. 27-33; P. Tull,
“Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures,” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 8 (2000) 59-90; K. W.
Weyde, “Inner-Biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the Relationship between Texts in the
Hebrew Bible,” SEÅ 70 (2005) 287-300.
238
the broad sense to refer to linguistic and/or thematic connections between two or more texts
in which one text may or may not have influenced the other(s). Although there has been a
recent upsurge of interest in intertextual studies of prophetic literature, discussion of how one
prophetic text relates to a similar prophetic text can be found as early as in the Talmud;
however, it was not until the works of H. Ewald, A. Küper, and C. P. Caspari in the
nineteenth century that the issue of prophetic quotation was more thoroughly addressed.2
Caspari identified seven ways to account for the similarity between passages: 3
1. … the similarity of subject which both prophets are addressing in their respective
prophecies, as well as the fact that the prophet’s conceptual, imagistic and
linguistic world is relatively limited in scope, often resulting in the use of the
same expressions.
2. The author of A, having read B’s prophecies, unconsciously or intentionally
employed the appropriate concepts, images and expressions of the latter which
remained in his memory in presenting the substance of his prophecy.
3. B read A’s prophecies and borrowed concepts, images and expressions from the
latter.
4. An oracle of an older prophet formed the basis for the prophecies of both
prophets, each drawing upon it independently.
2 R. L. Schulz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup 180; Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic Press, 1999) 20-23.
3 Ibid., 23; the list is reproduced from Schulz’s summary of Caspari’s work (“Jesajanische Studien. I.
Jeremia ein Zeuge für die Aechtheit von Jes. C. 34 und mithin auch für die Aechtheit von Jes. c. 33, c. 40–60, c.
13–14, 23 und c. 21, 1-10,” Zeitschrift für die Gesamte Lutherische Theologie und Kirche 6 [1845] 1-73, here 4-
8), which was unavailable to me.
239
5. The passage was introduced from an earlier oracle into a later prophecy through
revision and interpolation.
6. The passage was interpolated into an earlier prophecy from a later prophecy.
7. Both passages are by the same prophet.
These possible relationships between similar texts will be kept in mind during the cross-
analysis of the three passages of interest in this study, though it is quite possible that the
similarities are merely due to the three authors drawing from a similar theophanic motif that,
as noted in Chapter I, was common in the ANE (and, thus, would fit with #1 in Caspari’s list
above).
Nevertheless, attention will also be given to detecting possible verbal parallels in
these passages. R. L. Schulz has developed some criteria to assist in detecting quotations of
one text in another, employing both diachronic and synchronic analyses:4
1. Verbal and syntactical correspondence: both vocabulary and syntax are examined
together to distinguish a quotation from a common motif, theme, image, or key
concept, though one must also keep in mind the possibility of phrasing that is
merely formulaic, idiomatic, or proverbial (which naturally will generate very
close verbal and syntactical correspondence).
2. Contextual awareness, including interpretive use: knowledge of the quoted
context is assumed by the speaker/author where awareness of the source is
essential for understanding or interpreting the passage in which the material is
quoted, or which may indicate reinterpretation or even rejection of the original
saying on the part of the later author.
4 Schulz, Search for Quotation, 222-39; criteria summarized below.
240
3. Diachronic analysis: given the chronological aspect inherent in quotation (the
quoted text/saying had to precede the quoting text), one must consider historical
factors that may have produced or influenced the use of quotation (e.g.,
comparing the Sitz im Leben of the two texts) as well as the literature in which the
quotation is embedded to try to determine, if possible, which source is quoting
which, when, and for what reason.
4. Synchronic analysis: one should consider the function and interpretation of the
quotation within its canonical location (internally and externally) as well as its use
as a rhetorical device and the resulting effect upon the reader.
5. Multi-functionality: one must be aware of the various ways in which the quotation
may function simultaneously as a rhetorical device (e.g., oral function vs. function
within the canonical text).
Another noteworthy study, building upon the qualitative and quantitative criteria for
intertextuality developed by M. Pfister for literature, is D. Markl’s intertextual study of
Habakkuk 3.5 Markl narrows Pfister’s six qualitative criteria to five that he finds applicable
to rating intertextual references within biblical studies: (1) Referentialität – the more strongly
the pretext is used as a theme rather than merely employed, the more likely there is an
intertextual connection; (2) Kommunikatavität – the clearer the author of the intertextual
reference communicates transparency, indicating a conscious use; (3) Strukturalität – the
more the structural function of the old is carried over to the new context; (4) Selektivität – the
more terse the linguistic shape of the intertextual reference; and (5) Dialogizität – the
5 D. Markl, “Hab 3 in intertextueller und kontextueller Sicht,” Bib 85 (2004) 99-108; M. Pfister,
“Konzepte der Intertextualität,” in Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien (ed. U. Broich
and M. Pfister; Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1985) 1-30.
241
stronger the original and new contexts stand in semantic and ideological tension.6
Quantitative criteria include density and frequency on the one hand, and number and
distribution on the other.7
Finally, J. Nogalski has done much work regarding intertextuality in the Twelve
Prophets specifically.8 He identifies at least five types of intertextuality in the Twelve
Prophets: (1) quotations – reuse of a pre-existing phrase, sentence, or paragraph, including
cases in which an author quotes the source imprecisely perhaps due to citing from memory or
intentionally altering the text to fit the new context; (2) allusions – “one or more words
whose appearance intends to elicit the reader’s recollection of another text (or texts) for a
specific purpose” (italics Nogalski’s; p. 109); (3) catchwords – use/reuse of significant words
between texts, creating internal logic within the Twelve Prophets; (4) motifs – or themes,
which are devices for story-telling or conveying meaning; and (5) framing devices – a broad
category that in the case of the Twelve Prophets includes at least “superscriptions, genre
similarities, structural parallels, juxtaposition of catchwords, and canonical allusions” (p.
119). However, Nogalski admits that some types overlap and some are more objectively
recognizable than others.
Thus, my comparative analysis will use a multifaceted approach in cross-analyzing
the theophanic accounts of interest in Micah 7, Habakkuk 3, and Zechariah 9 utilizing both
diachronic and synchronic analyses as needed. First, I shall investigate any direct textual
6 Markl, “Hab 3,” 100.
7 Ibid.
8 J. Nogalski, “Intertextuality and the Twelve,” in Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and
the Twelve in Honor of John D.W. Watts (ed. J. W. Watts and P. R. House; JSOTSup 235; Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996) 102-24.
242
connections between two or among all three passages. However, the bulk of the analysis will
focus on the use of the storm-/warrior-god motif as the primary basis of comparison.
2. Cross-analysis of Mic 7:7-20, Habakkuk 3, and Zech 9:9-16
There are very few direct linguistic connections among all three passages. For
example, although at least six names or epithets for the Israelite God are used in the three
passages, the only two names that appear in more than one passage are the tetragrammaton
hwhy (“Yhwh”) and the common term ~yhla (“Elohim”), both of which appear in all three
passages; however, ~yhla is more common in Mic 7:7-20 (four times) than in the other two
passages in which it only appears once. The number of possible direct connections increases
a little when comparing just two of the passages at a time. Thus, I will first address any direct
textual connections that do not specifically pertain to a storm- or warrior-god imagery.
However, the majority of connections between these passages are to be found in the shared
use of the storm- and/or warrior-god motif.
2.1. Quotations and Non-Theophanic Linguistic Similarities
One of the most obvious linguistic connections occurs in Mic 7:7 and Hab 3:18. God
as a saving figure is not unique but, as noted in Chapter III, the phrase y[vy yhla (“God of
my salvation”) is used only four times in the TANAKH, twice without a preposition (Pss
25:5; 27:9) and twice with a preposition (Mic 7:7 with l, in Hab 3:18 with b). It is also
found once with the plene spelling (yhwla) in Ps 18:47. Thus, this construct chain is quite
rare and appears outside of Mic 7:7 and Hab 3:18 only in the Psalms.
243
The phrase functions in both Mic 7:7: and Hab 3:18 with a first-person
speaker/prophet as a way of proclaiming faith in Yhwh despite unfavorable circumstances
spoken of in the preceding contexts. The only differences are the verbs chosen. However, the
phrase is used near the end of Habakkuk 3, whereas in Micah 7, it forms a bridge between
Mic 7:1-6 and 8-20, thus beginning the pericope in Mic 7:7-20. Let us compare the two
verses:
y[vy yhlal hlyxwa hpca hwhyb ynaw Mic 7:7
But as for me, I shall watch for Yhwh; I shall wait for the God of my salvation.
y[vy yhlab hlyga hzwl[a hwhyb ynaw Hab 3:18
But as for me, I shall exult in Yhwh; I shall rejoice in the God of my salvation.
The structure of the two verses is exactly the same. The first colon consists of a first-person
pronominal subject with adversative w (ynaw), followed by the preposition b (“in”) with hwhy
(“Yhwh”), and a first-person verb. The second colon begins with a first-person verb,
followed by a preposition (l [“for”] in Mic 7:7; b [“in”] in Hab 3:18) with ~yhla (“God”)
as part of a construct chain y[vy yhla (“God of my salvation”).
If we were to accept the traditional authors/dating of the texts, then Habakkuk could
have been quoting, or at least imitating, Micah. However, the relative dating established in
Chapters II–IV places Habakkuk 3 as most likely the oldest of the three passages (granted,
this is more certain with regard to Hab 3:3-15 and less so with the “framing” elements in the
rest of Habakkuk 3, of which v. 18 is a part). It is noteworthy that the verbs used in Mic 7:7
are “watch” (hpc) and “wait” (lxy); the imagery of “watching” (hpc) [and implicitly
waiting] specifically for Yhwh is a strong theme in Hab 2:1, which is one of only two other
verses in which the first person piel imperfect hpca (“I will keep watch”) is used in the
244
entire TANAKH (the third is in Ps 5:4).9 Thus, it seems plausible that when a redactor added
Mic 7:7 as a bridge to connect Mic 7:8-20 to Mic 7:1-6, the choice of the verbs could have
been influenced by the theme of keeping watch in Hab 2:1 while the redactor incorporated a
proclamation of faith similar to Hab 3:18. If so, this would indicate that Habakkuk 3 was part
of Habakkuk before the time Mic 7:7-20 was added to Micah and that Habakkuk 3 (as a
whole) predated Mic 7:7-20 or, possibly, that the framing elements of Habakkuk 3 were part
of the same redactional process as was the addition of Micah 7 if the similar structure
between Mic 7:7 and Hab 3:18 is the work of the same redactor (cf. Caspari’s option #7
above).
In contrast to “watching” and “waiting” for Yhwh in Mic 7:7, the prophet/author of
Hab 3:18 “exults” (zl[) and “rejoices” (lyg) in Yhwh, which is similar to the pairing of lyg
with another synonym meaning “rejoice/exult” (xmf) in Hab 1:15 (albeit there used of
God).10
Interestingly, one of the synonyms for “rejoice” (xmf) occurs as an imperative in
Mic 7:8, just after the verse beginning the pericope (v. 7) that is very similar to Hab 3:18
(which also uses two other synonyms for “rejoice” as noted above). Another pairing of
synonyms for “rejoice,” which includes lyg (cf. Hab 3:18), is found in Zech 9:9 (which, like
Mic 7:7, begins a pericope):
~Ølvwry tb y[yrh !wyc-tb dam ylyg Zech 9:9
Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout for joy, Daughter Jerusalem!
9 Although both verbs hpc and lxy appear once each elsewhere in Micah (7:4 and 5:6, respectively),
they are not used with respect to keeping watch or waiting for Yhwh there (unlike hpc in Hab 2:1).
10
The pairing of zl[ and xmf specifically also occurs in Zeph 3:14.
245
However, Zechariah uses imperatives rather than first-person verbs found in Hab 3:18 and,
thus, is probably drawing from a larger poetic tradition of placing two synonyms in parallel
positions in Hebrew poetry.
There is a different parallel phrase among our passages, this time found in Mic 7:12
and Zech 9:10. Both use directional formulae for two seas and include “the River”
(Euphrates):
rhn-d[w *rwc ynmlw rwcm yr[ *(d[)w rwva ynml Mic 7:12
`rhh rhw ~ym ~yw
From Assyria and (to) cities of Egypt And from Tyre to the River;
And [to?] sea from sea, And [to?] mountain [from] mountain
`#ra-yspa-d[ rhnmw ~y-d[ ~ym wlvmw Zech 9:10
And his dominion [will be] from sea to sea, And from the River to the ends of the
earth.
However, there are some distinct differences. Zechariah 9 uses a fuller form of the directional
formula that includes the proclitic preposition m (“from”) and the preposition d[ (“until”),
thus “from sea to sea,” in contrast to Mic 7:12 which places the proclitic m on the second
word, yielding “(to) sea from sea.” The use of the Euphrates River is also different; in Micah,
it forms a west-east directional pair with Tyre (if one accepts the emendation of rwcm to
rwc; otherwise, it would form a south-north pair with Egypt), whereas the Euphrates in
Zechariah forms a north-south pair with “ends of the earth,” which presumably would
extend, not just into Egypt, but beyond Egypt. Thus, the similarities between the above
passages can be attributed to their use of directional formulae in general, using several
locations that are commonly found in directional formulae. However, Zechariah envisions a
246
more universal set of boundaries that goes beyond those mentioned in Micah, thus perhaps
indicative of a different Sitz im Leben.
The linguistic similarities mentioned above capture most of the similarities not
specific to a storm- and/or warrior-god motif that could potentially be illuminating in relating
the texts to one another. Next, I shall analyze the use of the storm-/warrior-god motif in these
passages and how the motif functions in each of the passages.
2.2. The Storm-/warrior-god Motif
In this section, I shall compare the use of the storm-/warrior-god motif on the basis of
its function, centrality/frequency within the given passage, and the specific contents of the
motif (mythological elements, effects upon nature or humans, God’s anger/wrath, God’s
weapons/battle motifs, God as Savior/Rock [etc.], and use of place names). I use the tentative
relative dates proposed in chapters II – IV for each of the passages (Habakkuk 3, Mic 7:7-20,
and Zech 9:9-16) as the basis for the order in which I discuss the passages in the first few
sections. In the remaining sections, I discuss the passages in whichever order seems most
logical given the section heading.
2.2.1. Function of the Storm-/warrior-god Motif
As noted by O’Brien, divine warrior imagery functioned in different ways during
different periods of Israel’s history.11
Within Habakkuk 3, the storm-/warrior-god motif is
found primarily in vv. 3-15 where its function can vary depending upon whether one views it
11
J . M. O’Brien, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Abingdon Old
Testament Commentaries; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004) 238, 241-42; see also C. L. Meyers and E. M.
Meyers, Zechariah 9–14 (AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993) 150.
247
diachronically on its own or synchronically within the context of the framing devices in v. 2
and vv. 16-19. On their own, the theophanies in vv. 3-15 very closely resemble
mythologically-based theophanies in other ANE cultures and vv. 8-15 specifically exhibit
imagery reminiscent of the ANE motif of a storm-/warrior-god battling against the sea (or
sea-serpent/dragon), which is also used in the Song of Moses in Exodus 15 celebrating
Yhwh’s victory over the Egyptians at the Reed Sea. However, the nations also appear in both
vv. 3-7 and vv. 8-15 as affected by the deity, while v. 13 mentions that the deity has gone
forth for the salvation of his people and his anointed one against their enemies. Thus, by
itself, Hab 3:3-15 functions primarily as a hymn of victory for the deity, who alone brings
about salvation without any implication that the people have previously been defeated by the
enemy over whom they are now victorious. When read synchronically within the context of
the framing elements, vv. 3-15 function to recall the deity’s former deeds as part of a petition
to the deity to make them known again and have mercy (v. 2) while the prophet/author,
despite dismal conditions, faithfully waits for the deity to bring about destruction upon the
enemies who are attacking the prophet/author and his people (vv. 16-19).
The context within Micah is a little different in that v. 7 begins with an affirmation of
faith in Yhwh that the deity will restore his people who already have been defeated by the
enemy. The shame of the people’s defeat is interpreted as a result of the wrath/anger of
Yhwh, which his people will bear until he decides to have mercy and vindicate them.
However, in the end, it is the nations who will feel shame and tremble before Yhwh, and
Yhwh’s people will be restored as part of the promise to the patriarchs. As in the synchronic
reading of Habakkuk 3, there is a recollection of former divine deeds in Micah that provides
a basis for how the deity might act in the future to restore his people; however, in Mic 7:15,
248
there is an explicit mention of the exodus from Egypt employing traditional language of the
exodus motif (e.g., acy [“come out”], often used in the hiphil of Yhwh’s “bringing out” the
people from Egypt but here used in the qal because the Israelites are the subject).
In Zech 9:9-16, the storm-/warrior-god imagery functions to describe Yhwh’s freeing
and protecting Judah and Ephraim. Thus, the people had been taken captive but now Yhwh
will expel the (presumably enemy) military assets from the land (v. 10) and wield his people
as weapons against their enemies (identified as Greece in v. 13). As noted in Chapter V, the
mention of Yhwh’s people as having a military role in the deity’s salvific activity is unusual
in theophanic poetry.12
Instead, the imagery has more in common with the conquest of
Canaan in Joshua and the military victories in Judges against real enemies; as Craigie puts it,
“God was not primarily to be seen in miraculous events, but simply in his working through
the human activities of his chosen people.”13
This is not to suggest that conquest-related
prose and theophanic poetry are antithetical; rather, the two could be viewed as
complementary. The prose records the victories of Yhwh’s people, with the understanding
that it is only by the power of Yhwh himself that they are victorious. Traditional theophanic
poetry recognizes and celebrates that power of Yhwh, often using familiar ANE storm- and
warrior-god motifs. Thus, Zechariah 9 has combined the language of poetry with the
understanding of the prose conquest narratives that it is the deity’s power alone that brings
about salvation.
12
G. von Rad (Holy War in Ancient Israel [trans. M. J. Dawn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991] 111-
14) also notes a difference between the “traditional” motif of holy war (its involving divine terror, earthquakes,
hail, and panic among the enemies [p. 111]) that is brought about by Yhwh alone versus adaptations of the
motif that include military participation of Israel.
13
P. C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978) 40.
249
2.2.2. Centrality of the Storm-/warrior-god Motif
There is a difference in the centrality or prevalence of the storm-/warrior-god motif in
each of the passages. Habakkuk 3 relies heavily on the motif, most prominently in vv. 3-15,
but also found in its use of the root zgr (“tremble,” “quake”), often employed in theophanic
poetry as part of a storm-/warrior-god motif (e.g., Exod 15:15; 2 Sam 22:8 // Ps 18:8; Ps
77:17, 19) in the framing elements (Hab 3:2, 16). In contrast, Micah 7 only briefly utilizes
storm-/warrior-god vocabulary and motifs, particularly in v. 17 where it describes the
reaction of the nations, using ary (“be afraid”), dxp (“dread”), and zgr (“tremble,”
“quake”), but also in the application of the motif in v. 19 with abstract concepts as the
“enemies” (e.g., Yhwh will subdue/tread upon [vbk] Israel’s iniquities and throw [$lv]
their sins into the depths of the sea). Like Micah 7, Zechariah 9 only briefly uses storm-
/warrior-god imagery; the most traditional use is found in v. 14 (deity’s arrow as lightning;
Yhwh coming from the south), while a modification of the motif is found in v. 13 in which
Yhwh uses his own people as his weapons against their enemies. Thus, the storm-/warrior-
god motif is central/predominant only in Habakkuk 3; the other two passages include the
motif to a lesser degree, doing so sometimes in a traditional manner but often with
modifications.
2.2.3. Mythological Elements
O’Brien notes that there are fewer mythological images invoked in Zechariah 9 than
in Habakkuk 3.14
In fact, the only “mythological” elements in Zechariah 9 are in v. 14 – i.e.,
deity’s arrow as lightning and deity coming from the storm winds of the south. However,
14
O’Brien, Nahum, 150.
250
neither in Zechariah 9 nor Micah 7 are natural phenomena personified or reminiscent of
attendant deities for Yhwh. In fact, Micah lacks any mythological references. In contrast,
Habakkuk 3 (specifically, vv. 3-15) frequently mentions natural phenomena that could be
interpreted as representing ANE deities given the names used for these phenomena:
Deber/pestilence (rbd) and Resheph/plague (@vr) in v. 5; Yam/sea (~y) in v. 8;
Shamash/sun (vmv) in v. 10/11, and Yareaµ/moon (xry) in v. 11.15
This usage indicates
strong influence from ANE mythology, even if the words lost their divine connotations over
time (perhaps even by the time the framing elements in Habakkuk 3 were added). It is
noteworthy that this influence does not appear at all in either Micah 7 or Zechariah 9, a state
of affairs which is perhaps indicative of a time when the Israelite religion was moving (or
had moved) toward a truly monotheistic (as opposed to henotheistic) theology.
2.2.4. Effects upon Nature and/or Humans
A common theophanic effect upon nature and humans is trembling/quaking/shaking,
often in fear (at least for humans). Habakkuk 3 mentions at least a dozen effects of Yhwh’s
appearance upon nature (all in vv. 3-15; see Appendix B). In contrast, the only effect cited
upon nature in Micah 7 is the mention of the earth being desolate (v. 13) and the only such
reference in Zechariah 9 concerns the deity’s coming in a storm-wind of the south (v. 14). In
neither Micah 7 nor Zechariah 9 is there any mention of anything in nature shaking, quaking,
being smashed, or any other similar effect resulting from the deity’s actions or presence.
With regard to humans, Habakkuk 3 mentions both reactions indicating fear (vv. 2, 6,
7, 16), as well as the trampling of the nations in v. 12 and slaughter of the enemy by the deity
15
For further discussion about the density of mythological language in Habakkuk 3, see P. D. Miller,
The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973) 118-21.
251
(vv. 13-14). It is interesting that the descriptions of fear in Habakkuk 3 primarily occur in
verses thought to constitute framing elements for the primary theophanies in vv. 3-15 (if v. 7
is understood as containing framing elements); in contrast, the only description of the deity
fighting/killing a human enemy is in vv. 3-15. The primary effect upon humans in Micah 7 is
that the nations and enemies will be ashamed and afraid (vv. 10, 16, 17), although the
feminine enemy is also described a “trampled place” in v. 10 (where it is not clear by whom
she has been trampled; cf. Hab 3:12). In contrast to both Habakkuk 3 and Micah 7, Zechariah
9 does not mention anyone reacting in fear to the presence or actions of the deity. Rather, the
effects upon humans are limited to the metaphor of Yhwh using his people as weapons
against the Greeks (v. 13) and the following victory celebration by Yhwh’s people (v. 15).
There is also no description of a direct attack of the deity upon humans in Zechariah 9; the
mention of Yhwh’s arrow/lightning in v. 14 does not have a direct object and it is the “sons
of Zion” (humans) who function as the deity’s “weapons” against Greece and, hence, are the
ones who are actually going to strike/attack the enemy.
It should also be noted that other vocabulary often used of nature or humans in
theophanies occurs in Micah 7; however, it is applied to abstract concepts rather than either
mythological or human enemies. Thus, instead of “trampling” nations (cf. vwd in Hab 3:12)
or “casting” the enemy into the depths of the sea (cf. hmr in Exod 15:1), Mic 7:19 describes
Yhwh “treading upon” (vbk) his people’s iniquities and “throwing” ($lv) their sins into
the depths of the sea.
252
2.2.5. God’s Anger/Wrath
Another frequent feature of theophanies is mention of the deity’s wrath or anger, for
which several different synonyms may be used. In Habakkuk 3, Yhwh’s anger/wrath (@a and
hrb[) is directed against the rivers and sea in v. 8, mentioned in v. 12 (@a and ~[z) as
Yhwh marches upon the land and tramples the nations, and there is a possible reference to
God’s wrath (zgr) in general in v. 2, depending upon one’s interpretation of that term. Thus,
Yhwh’s wrath features predominantly in the second theophany (vv. 8-15), but may also be
mentioned in the opening framing device in v. 2 where zgr is juxtaposed with having
compassion (~xr). The most common Hebrew word for anger, @a, also appears in Micah 7,
specifically in v. 18 which juxtaposes Yhwh’s anger with his steadfast love (dsx). Another
reference to Yhwh’s anger occurs in Mic 7:9; however, in this case it is the speaker,
representing Yhwh’s people, who has been the object of Yhwh’s @[z (stormy rage) as a
punishment for sinning against Yhwh. Thus, anger/wrath occurs less prominently in Micah 7
than in Habakkuk 3, but is still present; however, in Micah, Yhwh’s anger/wrath is directed
at people only, whereas in Habakkuk 3 both the land and nations are its targets. In contrast,
no word for Yhwh’s anger occurs in Zech 9:9-16.
2.2.6. God’s Weapons/Battle Motifs
Given the centrality of the storm-/warrior-god motif in Habakkuk 3 compared to the
other two passages, it is not surprising that Habakkuk 3 mentions the deity’s weapons and
related items most frequently among the three passages, albeit almost entirely in Hab 3:8-15.
The deity’s weaponry mentioned in Habakkuk 3 includes: chariot (hbkrm) and horse (sws)
in v. 8; bow (tvq) and rod/shaft (hjm) in v. 9; lightning (qrb), spear (tynx), and arrow
253
(#x) in v. 11; rod/shaft (hjm) in v. 14 (albeit this time the rods/shafts of the enemies are
turned against them by the deity if one follows the MT); and another mention of the deity’s
horse (sws) in v. 15. Also, one possible interpretation of the “two horns” (~ynrq) in v. 4 is
that it reflects the image of an ANE deity with a two-pronged lightning bolt. In contrast,
several of the same types of weapons when mentioned in Zechariah 9 are those of the enemy
and not the deity: bkr (“chariot”), sws (“horse”), and tvq (“bow”) in v. 10, and possibly
[lq-ynba (“sling-stones”) in v. 15. The one traditional theophanic weapon mentioned in
Zechariah 9 is Yhwh’s arrow (#x) that is likened to lightning (qrb) in v. 14. However,
Zechariah 9 also includes a modification of the storm-/warrior-god motif in that the deity
uses Judah and Ephraim as his weapons, namely, a bow (tvq) and sword (brx). No
weapons of the deity are mentioned at all in Mic 7:7-20.
2.2.7. God as Savior, Rock, etc.
Although the only two names for God found in all three passages are the commonly
used tetragrammaton hwhy (Yhwh) and ~yhla (“God”), Yhwh’s salvific role is reflected in
all three passages with the use of the root [vy (“save”). In both Mic 7:7 and Hab 3:18, the
prophet/author calls Yhwh the “God of my salvation” (y[vy yhla).16
In Zech 9:16, the
prophet/author declares that Yhwh their God (~hyhla hwhy) will “save” them, using the
verb [vy. The salvific nature of God is, of course, not unique to theophanic accounts, but is
quite common in them.
16
See also the discussion above in the section titled “Quotations and Non-Theophanic Linguistic
Similarities” regarding the similarly structured bicola in which the phrase appears.
254
2.2.8. Place Names
The only place name used in common by two of the three passages is Teman (!myt),
which also means “south.” It occurs in Hab 3:3 as a proper name, while in Zech 9:14 it is
used of the originating location of a storm wind, which could be interpreted either as the
proper name or more generally as “south.” Either way, both passages describe the coming of
the deity from the south/Teman, which is common in theophanies involving Yhwh and is
sometimes connected to the Sinai tradition as well.
3. Summary of Findings
The storm-/warrior-god motif was commonly employed in ANE writings, both with
regard to mythological accounts of deities battling one another (e.g., Ba‘al vs. Yam in
Ugaritic texts) and with respect to their fighting against their people’s enemies (e.g., the
Hittite storm-god helping to defeat the enemy of Muršiliš in Annals of Muršiliš II 17.16-19).
Common storm-god imagery includes lightning, hail, and thunder. Common warrior-god
imagery includes typical military assets, such as arrows, bows, spears, chariotry, and horses.
Often, however, the two motifs are merged in such a way that their boundaries become
blurred (e.g., sometimes “arrows” can refer to lightning) and some gods are portrayed as
using atmospheric weapons similar to those of storm-gods (especially lightning), even if the
god was not a “storm-god” per se (e.g., Marduk).
The three passages investigated in this study are important for the use of the storm-
/warrior-god motif in the Twelve Prophets, both individually and in comparison with one
another. Habakkuk 3 is indispensable because it contains a traditional theophanic description,
as identified by Jeremias, which involves the coming of the deity from the south and the
255
effects upon nature as a result of that coming.17
Although there are other traditional
theophanies in the Twelve Prophets (e.g., Amos 1:2, Nahum 1, Mic 1:3-4), several of which I
considered for use in this study, using Habakkuk 3 has the following advantages over the
others: (1) the theophanic language is used consistently throughout the core material in vv. 3-
15 and related vocabulary is used intermittently in the framing elements (vv. 2, 16-19); (2) it
uses both storm- and warrior-god imagery; and (3) the heavily mythological character of Hab
3:3-15 links it to similar motifs in other ANE texts, especially the battle of a storm-/warrior-
god against the sea (or sea-serpent), and lends credibility to the proposed antiquity of this
psalm. Thus, Habakkuk 3 provides an early example of the appropriation of the ANE storm-
/warrior-god motif into Israelite religion.
Although scholars have previously noted the linguistic similarities between Hab 3:18
and Mic 7:7, Mic 7:7-20 is important because it is often neglected in theophanic studies
precisely because it does not exhibit a traditional theophanic structure. However, the
reference to casting sins into the sea (Mic 7:19) is reminiscent of Yhwh’s victory over the
Egyptians at the Reed Sea in Exodus 15, which also uses the battle-against-the-sea motif (as
does Habakkuk 3). The difference is that Micah 7 has applied the imagery to an abstract
concept (i.e., sin) and carefully avoids any implication that God has a physical form (e.g., the
text says that Jerusalem’s enemy will be trampled [Mic 7:10] but does not say how or by
whom). Thus, Mic 7:7-20 is important for this study because: (1) it uses an adaptation of the
same battle-against-the-sea motif found in Habakkuk 3; (2) the linguistic similarities between
Habakkuk 3 and Micah 7 (most notably, Hab 3:18 and Mic 7:7, as well as their common use
of the root zgr) merit attention since these could indicate either a common redactor/author or
17
J. Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung (WMANT 10;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965) 15.
256
at least intertextual awareness of one text by the other; and (3) it has largely been neglected
in previous theophanic studies.
Finally, Zech 9:9-16 is vital for this study because it, too, reveals important (albeit
brief) connections to Habakkuk 3, while also manifesting yet another application of the
storm-/warrior-god motif that is different from a traditional theophany (as occurs in
Habakkuk 3) or from an abstract use of that motif (as in Micah 7). Zechariah 9 stands out
from other similar passages in that it is the only other passage in the Twelve Prophets besides
Habakkuk 3 that utilizes the imagery of God coming from Teman (or the “south”)
specifically. In addition, Zechariah 9 also includes references to God’s arrows likened to
lightning (v. 14; cf. Hab 3:11), a traditional storm-/warrior-god image, as well as other
weapons used by the deity. However, in contrast to traditional theophanic poetry, Yhwh’s
people function metaphorically as the deity’s weapons in Zech 9:13, rather than the deity
acting alone using his own military arsenal. Also, Zechariah 9 lacks any indication that the
author has in mind the battle-against-the-sea motif found in Habakkuk 3 and modified in
Micah 7.
Thus, an analysis of Mic 7:7-20, Habakkuk 3, and Zech 9:9-16 reveals three different
uses of a storm-/warrior-god motif. A relative dating of the passages indicates that Hab 3:3-
15 contains the oldest material, which has its foundation in traditional theophanic imagery,
including several mythological points of contact (e.g., the personifications of natural
phenomena could be interpreted as references to ANE deities instead). Both nature and
humans react to the presence and actions of the deity, especially in fear and trembling. The
actions of the deity imply some kind of physical form which causes the earth to quake at his
coming from the south and by which the deity brings about victory. The passage is more
257
mythological than historical, albeit not without historical aspects, given that Yhwh’s anger
against the sea could allude to the splitting of the Reed Sea during the exodus from Egypt.
Within the primary theophanic material in Hab 3:3-15, there is no indication that the deity’s
people have suffered a previous defeat or are in need of restoration. Yhwh is simply
victorious over nature and the nations. Thus, the use of the storm-/warrior-god motif in Hab
3:3-15 conforms well to the oldest type of use of that motif in the OT.
Another use of the storm-/warrior-god motif can be detected both in the outer framing
devices in Habakkuk 3 (i.e., vv. 2, 16-19) and in Mic 7:7-20. There is still a reaction of fear
by humans (e.g., the prophet/author or the nations) and vocabulary common to theophanic
experiences (e.g., zgr). However, there is no coming of the deity which causes the earth to
quake, no weapons, and no battle against nature or enemies. Instead of trampling the nations
or land, Yhwh metaphorically defeats iniquity and sin in Micah 7. Thus, any implication that
Yhwh could have a physical form is avoided in Hab 3:2, 16-19, and Mic 7:7-20 even though
the theophanic vocabulary is still present and Yhwh is portrayed as acting alone (without any
military role for his people). This observation, combined with the similarities in content and
structure between Mic 7:7 and Hab 3:18 (noted above), could indicate that these verses stem
from an author(s)/redactor(s) or school of thought that sought to divorce the storm-/warrior-
god motif from the polytheistic/henotheistic connotations present in its mythologically-based
origin (cf. Hab 3:3-15). The avoidance of any implication that God has a physical form in
Micah 7 is perhaps somewhat similar to what the author of 1 Kgs 19:9-18 had in mind in
describing Elijah’s theophanic encounter in which the author carefully distinguishes the true
theophanic experience from the natural phenomena that were traditionally associated with a
storm-god (wind, earthquake, fire).
258
A third use of the storm-/warrior-god motif occurs in Zech 9:9-16. As with the
previous use (i.e., in Hab 3:2, 16-19; Mic 7:7-20), there is no trampling of the earth or
nations, or possible allusions to other deities. However, unlike the other two uses, there is
also no reaction in fear to the deity’s presence or actions. Also, very few mythological
elements remain; the only traditional elements of the motif are the deity’s arrow likened to
lightning and the deity coming from the south. Rather than Yhwh acting alone against an
enemy, Yhwh uses his own people as weapons against a historical enemy – i.e., Yhwh
empowers his people to defeat the Greeks. While unusual for poetic theophanies, viewing the
deity’s actions in terms of the historical military campaigns of his people corresponds well to
the theology found in Joshua and Judges. In applying the storm-/warrior-god motif in this
manner, the text’s language about weapons (aside from perhaps the arrow/lightning in v. 14)
metaphorizes the theophany in such a way that, like the second use discussed above, a
physical form of the deity is no longer necessarily implied by the use of the motif, even
though the enemies whom the deity is smiting are not limited to abstract concepts (e.g.,
iniquity and sin) as in Mic 7:7-20.
As a result of this study, a development in the use of the storm-/warrior-god motif can
be tentatively traced using the relative datings for the three passages. First, Hab 3:3-15 would
represent the earliest type of OT theophany, based in a preexilic theology that is not yet
monotheistic and still deeply rooted in mythology. Mark S. Smith has noted that most
monotheistic references in the OT “derive from the exilic period or later.”18
This fits at least
with Mic 7:7-20 in which the storm-/warrior-god motif relates to abstract concepts,
completely eliminating any mythological aspects, and which I had dated to either the exilic
18
M. S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001) 153.
259
or early postexilic period in Chapter III. It is possible that the framing elements of Habakkuk
3 were added around the same time (perhaps even by the same author/redactor as Mic 7:7-
20); however it also possible that the framing elements represent one of the rare, earlier (late
preexilic) attempts to move toward a monotheistic theology (perhaps by Habakkuk himself),
which was then taken up by the author/redactor of Mic 7:7-20.
The reincorporation of more concrete imagery (e.g., weapons, lightning) later in Zech
9:9-16 could reflect a time in which a monotheistic theology among the Israelites/Judeans
had become better established such that the storm-/warrior-god motif could be used more
freely without fear that their hearers/readers would revert back to a mythological and more
corporeal understanding of Yhwh. This supposition seems more plausible the closer Zech
9:9-16 is dated to the Hellenistic period; however, as noted in Chapter V, a date in the fifth-
century Persian period cannot be ruled out, which would place this use of the motif in Zech
9:9-16 fairly close to the suggested date for Mic 7:7-20 and its use of the motif. It is also
possible that the theological concerns reflected in the different applications of the motif in
each passage are the result of different schools of thought whose existence may have
overlapped within postexilic Judah.
However, the general trend proposed here would make sense; first, there is the
heavily mythological and early use of the motif in Hab 3:3-15 – one extreme of a pendulum’s
arc, figuratively speaking, within a theology that is polytheistic or possibly henotheistic.
Then, there is a strong reaction against the mythological, polytheistic/henotheistic elements
among those who are promoting a more monotheistic theology – the other extreme of the
pendulum’s arc in which the motif has been stripped of all mythological elements or
implications that Yhwh has a physical form (Mic 7:7-20; possibly Hab 3:2, 16-19), thus
260
distinguishing it from “pagan” theologies. Finally, the pendulum comes to rest somewhere in
the middle, in which the historical use of the motif vastly outweighs any remnants of the
mythological use, but the latter has been reincorporated into the imagery without danger of
readers falling back into polytheism or henotheism.
Due to the impossibility of pinpointing the precise dating of the passages (and, in
doing so, confirm the relative dating proposed here), the development of the storm-/warrior-
god motif I have suggested remains tentative. However, the existence of these three different
uses of the motif is now more clearly recognizable. The next step would be to analyze the
other theophanic passages within the Twelve Prophets (and perhaps throughout the entire
OT) to see where they fall within the figurative pendulum arc; such additional information
would assist in tracing the development and application of the storm-/warrior-god motif.
Such information could also assist with at least a relative dating for the passages in which the
motif appears, reveal other points of contact possibly indicative of common redactional
layers, and perhaps confirm the general development proposed in this study. However, such
an endeavor is beyond the scope of the current investigation.
261
Appendix A: Theophanic Vocabulary –Nouns and Verbs
Key to Sigla:
* based on textual emendation
† not referring to the deity (e.g., bow that will be expelled by Yhwh rather than Yhwh’s bow)
Common Nouns
Heb Meaning Related
Subject
Related
Object Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
[lq-ynba sling stones [Yhwh’s people subdue/
consume (with?)] 15
!wa distress, trouble [Cushan/Midian] 7
rwa light - - 8 11
@a anger
[Yhwh /
Elohim] - 18
Yhwh rivers 8(x2)
Yhwh nations 12
hvwb shame [cover ] enemy (f.) 10
!wrcb fortress; stronghold [Yhwh’s people return to] 12
qrb lightning spear - 11
arrow 14
rbd pestilence (Deber) [goes out before God] 5
@[z fury; wrath (stormy) Yhwh - 9
~[z wrath; anger [Yhwh] 12
~rz flood; downpour;
rainstorm water - 10?
lyx strength Yhwh - 19
tynx spear [Yhwh] - 11
#x arrow(s) Yhwh - 11 14
brx sword [Yhwh wields sons of Zion] 13
[vy salvation
Elohim [prophet] 7 18
[Yhwh] people 13
[Yhwh] anointed one 13 Yhwh
chariot - 8
hjm rod; shaft [Yhwh] - 9, 14
hbkrm chariot [Yhwh] - 8
262
Heb Meaning Related
Subject
Related
Object Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
smrm trampled place enemy (f.) - 10
hgn splendor; brightness [Eloah/
Holy One]
[like light
(rwa)] 4
brightness // position to light (rwa) 11
sws horse [war context] 8, 15 10†
hr[s whirlwind; tempest;
storm Lord Yhwh - 14 (pl.)
hrb[ rage; fury; outburst [Yhwh] sea / Yam 8
hz[ strength [Eloah/
Holy One] - 4
~ynrq horns (lit.) [Eloah/
Holy One] 4?
tvq bow [Yhwh] - 9 13
[expelled by Yhwh] 10†
zgr
raging; fury;
agitation; anger [Yhwh] - 2?
trembling [prophet/
people] - 2?
bkr chariot; chariotry [expelled by Yhwh 10†
@vr plague (Resheph) [goes out before God’s feet] 5
hmmv devastation earth / land - 13
rpwv ram’s horn (shofar) Lord Yhwh - 14
~wht (the) deep - voice 10
Verbs
Heb Meaning Subject Object Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
lka eat; devour
[enemies?] poor;
afflicted 14
[Yhwh’s people] sling stones
(?) 15
vwb be ashamed nations - 16
[qb be cleft (niph) earth - 9? cleft; cut to pieces
(piel) [Yhwh] earth 9?
dwg attack [people]? [prophet’s
people]? 16
!ng defend; protect Yhwh Seba’oth
them
[Judah/
Ephraim] 15
263
Heb Meaning Subject Object Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
vwd trample, tread (upon) [Yhwh] nations 12
$rd tread (upon) [Yhwh] sea/Yam 15
bend a bow (idiom.) [Yhwh] [Judah] 13
hmh make noise [Yhwh’s people] - 15
~rz flood; pour rain clouds water 10?
lwx writhe; tremble mountains - 10
hrx be kindled, burn Yhwh’s anger rivers 8
sea / Yam 8
ary be afraid
nations [Yhwh] 17
prophet [Yhwh’s
deeds] 2
[vy be saved (niph.) king [by Yhwh] 9
save Yhwh them [ppl] 16
vbk tread upon; subdue
[Yhwh] iniquity /
guilt 19
[Yhwh’s people] sling stones
(?) 15
trk cut off/expel (hiph.) [Yhwh] chariot/bow 10
dwm shake [Eloah] earth 6
#xm smash [Yhwh] head
(back*) 13
alm fill (a bow) [Yhwh] Ephraim 13
*[rrm] be bitter; poison
(smear with serpent’s
gall)
[Yhwh] shafts 9
bqn pierce [Yhwh] head 14
rtn cause to jump/startle [Eloah] nations 6
r[s storm [they/wicked
ones?] [prophet?] 14
rw[
lay bare (?) [Yhwh] bow 9? be awakened; stirred
up (niph.) [Yhwh] bow 9?
awaken; stir up; rouse
(polel) [Yhwh]
[sons of
Zion] 13
hr[ lay bare (piel) [Yhwh] back
neck 13
#wp scatter [wicked ones?] [prophet?] 14
dxp be trembling, be in
dread nations
(in dread of
Yhwh) 17
#cp be shattered mountains - 6
llc quiver, tingle,
tremble lips [prophet] - 16
264
Heb Meaning Subject Object Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
d[c march [Yhwh] land 12
zgr tremble, quake (verb)
nations - 17
Midian/Cushan 7
[speaker] - 16
(x2)
bkr mount; ride [Yhwh]
horses 8
chariot 8
king donkey 9
~xr to have compassion [Yhwh, Elohim] 19
Yhwh - 2
xxv be humbled/lowered hills - 6
xlv free/send out (piel) [Yhwh] prisoners 11
$lv throw [Yhwh] sins 19
Names / Epithets for God
Heb Translation Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
ynda Adonai 19 14
hwla Eloah 3
~yhla Elohim 7(x2), 10, 17 18 16
rwa Light 8 [cf. 4]
hwhy Yhwh 7, 8, 9, 10, 17 2(x2), 8, 18, 19 14(x2), [15], 16
twabc hwhy Yhwh Seba’oth 15
vwdq Holy One 3
Possible Mythological Deities or Personifications
Heb Translation Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
rbd Deber (pestilence) 5
~y Yam (sea) 8, 15
xry Yareah (moon) 11
@vr Resheph (plague) 5
vmv Shamash (sun) 10*/11
265
Appendix B: Theophanic Vocabulary – By Thematic Categories
Key to Sigla:
* based on textual emendation
† not referring to the deity’s own weapon (e.g., bow that will be expelled by Yhwh)
X = primarily associated with the indicated motif (e.g., “arrow” is typical of warrior-god)
(X) = secondarily associated with the indicated motif (e.g., “arrow” can be associated with
lightning, a typical weapon of a storm-god, but not all references to “arrows” as a
deity’s weapon refer to a storm-god)
Effects upon Nature
Heb Meaning Subject Object Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
[qb be cleft (niph) earth - 9? cleft; cut to pieces
(piel) [Yhwh] earth 9?
rbd pestilence (Deber) [goes out before God] 5
$rd tread (upon) [Yhwh]
sea/Yam 15 surge* of
many waters 15
~rz flood, pour rain (v.) clouds water 10* flood; downpour;
rainstorm (n.) water - 10?
lwx writhe; tremble mountains - 10
hrx be kindled, burn Yhwh’s anger rivers 8
[sea / Yam] 8
dwm shake [Eloah] earth 6
afn raise sun* hands 10/11
hr[s whirlwind; tempest;
storm Lord Yhwh - 14 (pl.)
dm[ stand moon (+sun?) - 11
#cp be shattered mountains - 6
d[c march [Yhwh] land 12
xxv be humbled/lowered hills - 6
hmmv devastation earth / land - 13
~wht (the) deep [gave its voice] 10
266
Effects upon Humans (or Related Objects)
Heb Meaning Subject Object Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
vwb be ashamed nations - 16
hvwb shame [cover ] enemy (f.) 10
vwd trample, tread (upon) [Yhwh] nations 12
$rd bend a bow (idiom.) [Yhwh] [Judah] 13
hmh make noise [Yhwh’s ppl] - 15
ary be afraid nations [Yhwh] 17
[prophet] Yhwh’s deeds 2
trk cut off/expel (hiph.) [Yhwh] chariot; horse;
bow 10
#xm smash [Yhwh] head (back*) 13
alm fill (a bow) [Yhwh] Ephraim 13
smrm trampled place enemy (f.) - 10
bqn pierce [Yhwh] head 14
rtn cause to jump/startle [Eloah] nations 6
rw[ awaken; stir up (polel) [Yhwh] sons of Zion 13
hr[ lay bare (piel) [Yhwh] back neck 13
dxp be trembling, be in
dread nations
(in dread of
Yhwh) 17
llc quiver, tingle, tremble lips [prophet] - 16
zgr tremble, quake (verb)
nations - 17 Midian/Cush
an - 7
body
[prophet] - 16(x2)
zgr trembling (noun) [prophet/ppl] - 2?
@vr plague (Resheph) [goes out before God’s feet] 5
Effects upon Nature / Humans Vocabulary with Abstract Concepts as Object
Heb Meaning Subject Object Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
vbk tread upon; subdue [Yhwh] iniquity /
guilt 19
$lv throw [Yhwh] sins 19
267
God’s Anger / Wrath
Heb Meaning Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
@a anger 18 8(x2), 12
@[z fury; wrath (stormy) 9
~[z wrath; anger 12
hrb[ rage; fury; outburst 8
zgr raging; fury; agitation; anger 2?
God’s Mercy/Kindness/Favor
Heb Meaning Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
tma truth; faithfulness 20
dsx loving kindness; faithfulness (n.) 18, 20
[vy salvation; deliverance 7 8, 13 (x2),
18
~xr to have compassion (v.) 19 2
xlv free/send out (piel) 11
God as Savior / Rock (etc.)
Heb Meaning Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
rwa Light 8 [cf. 4]
y[vy yhla God of my salvation 7 18
lyx Strength 19
Place Names
Heb Meaning Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
rwva Assyria 12
!vb Bashan 14
lmrk Carmel (“garden”) 14(?)
!vwk Cushan 7
rwcm Egypt (late & poetic;
“fortified”) 12(?)
~yrcm Egypt (proper name) 15
~yrpa Ephraim 10, 13
268
Heb Meaning Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
d[lg Gilead 14
~Ølvwry Jerusalem 9, 10
hdwhy Judah 13
!ydm Midian 7
!rap Paran (Mount) 3
rhn River (Euphrates) 12 10
!myt Teman (“south”) 3 [14]
rwc Tyre 12(?)
!wy Yavan (Greece) 13
!wyc Zion 9, 13
~wht (the) deep 10
twlcm depths, the deep 19
Weapons / Battle Motifs
Heb Meaning Storm-god Warrior-god Mic 7 Hab 3 Zech 9
[lq-ynba sling stones (X) (X) 15†
rwa light (X) 11
qrb lightning X (X) 11 14
tynx spear (X) X 11
#x arrow(s) (X) X 11 14
brx sword (X) X 13
hjm rod; shaft (X) X 9 (pl.),
14 (pl.)
hbkrm chariot X 8
*[rrm] poison X 9?
hgn brightness (X) 11
[cf. 4]
sws horse (X) X 8, 15 10†
rw[ lay bare (?);
arouse; awake 9
~ynrq horns (“lit.”) 4?
tvq bow (X) X 9 10†, 13
bkr war-chariot;
chariotry (X) 10†
269
Select Bibliography
(only most pertinent cited works listed)
Primary Sources
Arnold, Bill T., and Bryan E. Beyer. Readings from the Ancient Near East: Primary Sources
for Old Testament Studies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2002.
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th
ed. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997. [BHS]
Ceriani, Antonio Maria. Codex Syro-hexaplaris Ambrosianus: Photolithographice editus.
Monumenta Sacra et Profana ex Codicibus praesertim Bibliotheca Ambrosianus VII.
Milan: Impensis Bibliothecae Ambrosianae; Turin and Florence: Hermannum
Loescher; London: Williams et Norgate, 1874.
Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989.
Di Lella, Alexander A. The Hebrew Text of Sirach: A Text-critical and Historical Study.
London: Mouton, 1966.
Gelston, A. “Dodekapropheton.” In Dodekapropheton – Daniel - Bel - Draco. Peshitta
Institute. The Old Testament in Syriac 3/4. Leiden: Brill, 1980.
Greenstein, Edward L. “Kirta.” In Ugaritic Narrative Poetry. Ed. Simon B. Parker.
SBLWAW 9. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997: 9-48.
Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating To The Old Testament. 3rd
ed.
Princeton: University Press, 1969. [ANET]
Smith, Mark S., and Wayne T. Pitard. The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Vol. II. VTSup 114.
Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009.
Tov, Emmanuel. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXIIgr). DJD 8.
Oxford: Clarendon, 1990.
270
Weber, Robert. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft,
1994.
Ziegler, Joseph. Duodecim Prophetae. Septuaginta 13. 2nd
ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1967.
Lexica / Dictionaries
Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs
Hebrew and English Lexicon. Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, and Co., 1906. Repr.
Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 20037. [BDB]
Clines, David J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield
Phoenix, 1993-2011.
Cotterell, Arthur. A Dictionary of World Mythology. New York: Oxford University Press,
1986.
Danker, Frederick William, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other
Early Christian Literature. 3rd
ed. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000.
[BDAG]
Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old
Testament. Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001. [HALOT]
Scott, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Sir Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon.
Rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996. [LSJ]
Sokoloff, Michael. A Syriac Lexicon. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway, NJ:
Gorgias Press, 2009.
271
Traupman, John C. The New College Latin and English Dictionary, Revised and Enlarged.
New York: Bantam, 1995.
Secondary Sources
Albright, William F. “The Psalm of Habakkuk.” In Studies in Old Testament Prophecy
Presented To Professor Theodore H. Robinson By The Society For Old Testament
Study On His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, August 9th, 1946. Ed. H. H. Rowley. Edinburgh: T
& T Clark, 1950. Repr. 1957: 1-18.
________. Yahweh and the Gods of Canaan: A Historical Analysis of Two Contrasting
Faiths. Garden City: Doubleday, 1968.
Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk. AB 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001.
________. “Reading the Book of Zechariah: A Review Essay.” Ancient Near Eastern Studies
37 (2000) 229-40.
________, and David Noel Freedman. Micah. AB 24E. New York: Doubleday, 2000.
Anderson, John E. “Awaiting an Answered Prayer: The Development and Reinterpretation of
Habakkuk 3 in its Context.” ZAW 123 (2011) 57-71.
Arnold, William R. “The Interpretation of wl wdym ~ynrq, Hab. 3:4.” AJSL 21 (1905) 167-
72.
Baars, W. “A New Witness to the Text of the Barberini Greek Version of Habakkuk III.” VT
15 (1965) 381-82.
Baldwin, Joyce G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. TynOTC 28. Downers Grove, IL: Inner-
Varsity Press, 1972. Repr. 2009.
272
Barnes, W. Emery. Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. CBSC. Cambridge: University Press,
1934.
Barr, James. “Theophany and Anthropomorphism in the Old Testament.” In Congress
Volume: Oxford 1959. Ed. G. W. Anderson, et al. VTSup 7. Leiden: Brill, 1960: 31-
38.
Barré, Michael L. “Habakkuk 3:2: Translation in Context.” CBQ 50 (1988) 184-97.
________. “Newly Discovered Literary Devices in the Prayer of Habakkuk.” CBQ.
Forthcoming. [Personal correspondence with author on 7/30/12.]
________. “Yahweh Gears Up for Battle: Habakkuk 3,9a.” Bib 87 (2006) 75-84.
Barthelémy, Dominique. Critique Textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, tome 3: Ézéchiel, Daniel
et les 12 Prophètes. OBO 50/3. Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992.
Bautch, Richard J. “Intertextuality in the Persian Period.” In Approaching Yehud. Ed. Jon L.
Berquist. SBLSS 50. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007: 25-35.
Beal, Richard H. “Hittite Military Organization.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East,
vols. 1-2. Ed. Jack M. Sasson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006: 1. 545-54.
Ben Zvi, Ehud. Micah. FOTL 21B. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
________. “Twelve Prophetic Books or ‘The Twelve’: A Few Preliminary Considerations.”
In Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John
D.W. Watts. Ed. J. W. Watts and P. R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996: 125-56.
Bévenot, Hugues. “Le Cantique d’Habacuc.” RB 42 (1933) 499-525.
Bewer, Julius A. “Two suggestions on Prov 30:31 and Zech 9:16.” JBL 67 (1948) 61-62.
273
Beyerlin, Walter. Die Kulttraditionen Israels in der Verkündigung des Propheten Micha.
FRLANT 72. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959.
Bliese, Loren F. “The Poetics of Habakkuk.” Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics 12
(1999) 47-75.
Boda, Mark J. Haggai, Zechariah. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
2004.
Butterworth, Mike. Structure and the Book of Zechariah. JSOTSup 130. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1992.
Calderone, Philip J. “The Rivers of ‘Mas or’.” Bib 42 (1961) 423-32.
Cassuto, Umberto. “Il capitolo 3 di Habaquq e i testi di Ras Shamra.” Annuario di Studi
Ebraici 2 (1935-37) 7-22.
Cazelles, Henri. “Sur mdl à Ugarit, en Is 40:15 et Hab 3:4.” Maarav 5-6 (1990) 49-52.
Cheyne, Thomas Kelly. “An Appeal for a More Complete Criticism of the Book of
Habakkuk.” JQR 20 (1907) 3-30.
________. Micah. CBSC. Cambridge: University Press, 1921.
Collins, Terry. “The Literary Contexts of Zechariah 9:9.” In The Book of Zechariah and its
Influence. Ed. Christopher Tuckett. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003: 29-40.
Condamin, Albert. “La forme chorale du ch. III d’Habacuc.” RB 8 (1898) 133-40.
Conrad, Edgar W. Zechariah. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1999.
Coogan, Michael D. “Warrior, Divine.” In New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5.
Nashville: Abingdon, 2009: 815-16.
274
Copeland, Paul E. “The Midst of Years.” In Text as Pretext: Essays in Honor of Robert
Davidson. Ed. Robert Carroll. JSOTSup 138. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press,
1992: 91-105.
Craigie, Peter C. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978.
Cross, Frank Moore. Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Cambridge: Harvard University
Press, 1973.
Cuffy, Kenneth Hugh. The Coherence of Micah: A Review of the Proposals and a New
Interpretation. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1987.
Curtis, Byron G. Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location
and Social Location Trajectory Analysis. Society of Biblical Literature Academia
Biblica 25. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006.
Dalley, Stephanie. “Ancient Mesopotamian Military Organization.” In Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East, vols. 1-2. Ed. Jack M. Sasson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006:
1. 413-22.
Dangl, Oskar. “Habakkuk in Recent Research.” Currents in Research: Biblical Studies 9
(2001) 131-68.
Davidson, Andrew B. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah. CBSC 53.
Cambridge: University Press, 1920.
Davies, G. Henton. “Theophany.” In IDB, vol. 4. Nashville: Abingdon, 1962: 619-20.
Day, John. “Echoes of Baal’s Seven Thunders and Lightnings in Psalm 29 and Habakkuk 3:9
and the Identity of the Seraphim in Isaiah 6.” VT 29 (1979) 143-51.
275
________. “Inner-biblical Interpretation in the Prophets.” In “The Place is Too Small for
Us”: The Israelite Prophets in Recent Scholarship. Ed. Robert P. Gordon. Sources
for Biblical and Theological Study 5. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995: 230-46.
________. “New Light on the Mythological Background of the Allusion to Resheph in
Habakkuk III 5.” VT 29 (1979) 353-55.
Decorzant, Alain. Vom Gericht zum Erbarmen: Text und Theologie von Micha 6–7. FB 123.
Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2010.
Deissler, Alfons. Zwölf Propheten II: Obadja, Jona, Micha, Nahum, Habakkuk. NEchB 8/2.
Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984.
Delitzsch, Franz. Der Prophet Habakuk. Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Propheten des Alten
Bundes. Leipzig: K. Tauchnitz, 1843.
Dogniez, Cécile. “La version Barberini. Éléments pour une étude littéraire d’un autre texte
grec d’Habacuc 3.” In Die Septuaginta – Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte. Ed.
Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund. WUNT 286. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2012: 295-310.
Driver, Godfrey Rolles. “Difficult Words in the Hebrew Prophets.” In Studies in Old
Testament Prophecy Presented To Professor Theodore H. Robinson By The Society
For Old Testament Study On His Sixty-Fifth Birthday, August 9th, 1946. Ed. H. H.
Rowley. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1950: 52-72.
________. “Hebrew Notes.” ZAW 52 (1934) 51-56.
________. “On Habakkuk 3:7.” JBL 62 (1943) 121.
Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Habakuk: Text, Übersetzung, und Erklärung. Tübingen: Mohr,
1906.
276
Eaton, John Herbert. Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: Introduction and
Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1961.
________. “Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk 3.” ZAW 76 (1964) 144-71.
Elliger, Karl. Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. ATD
25. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982.
Everson, A. Joseph. “The Canonical Location of Habakkuk.” In Thematic Threads in the
Book of the Twelve. Ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin/New
York: de Gruyter, 2003: 165-74.
Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “‘Der Herr macht meine Schritte sicher’ (Hab 3,19 Barb.): Die Versio
Barberini, eine liturgische Sondertradition von Hab 3?” In Die Septuaginta – Texte,
Theologien, Einflüsse. Ed. Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer. WUNT 252.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010: 223-37.
Floyd, Michael H. “Deutero-Zechariah and Types of Intertextuality.” In Bringing out the
Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14. Ed. Mark J. Boda and Michael
H. Floyd. London/New York: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2003: 260-70.
________. Minor Prophets, Part 2. FOTL 22. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.
Fohrer, Georg. “Das ‘Gebet des Propheten Habakuk’ (Hab 3:1-16).” In Mélanges bibliques et
orientaux en l’honneur de M. Mathias Delcor. Ed. A. Caquot, S. Légasse, and M.
Tardieu. AOAT 215. Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1985: 159-67.
Foster, Benjamin R. “Mesopotamia.” In A Handbook of Ancient Religion. Ed. John R.
Hinnells. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007: 161-213.
277
Freedman, David Noel. “The Formation of the Canon of the Old Testament.” In Religion and
Law: Biblical-Judaic and Islamic Perspectives. Ed. E. B. Firmage, et al. Winona
Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990: 315-31.
________. The Unity of the Hebrew Bible. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1991.
________, A. Dean Forbes, and Francis I. Anderson, eds. Studies in Hebrew and Aramaic
Orthography. Biblical and Judaic Studies 2. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992.
Fuller, Russell. “The Text of the Twelve Minor Prophets.” Currents in Research: Biblical
Studies 7 (1999) 81-95.
Gaster, Theodor H. “On Habakkuk 3:4.” JBL 62 (1943) 345-46.
Gerstenberger, Erhard S. “Psalms in the Book of the Twelve: How Misplaced Are They?” In
Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart.
BZAW 325. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003: 72-89.
Good, Edwin M. “The Barberini Greek version of Habakkuk 3.” VT 9 (1951) 11-30.
Gordon, Robert P. “Micah 7:19 and Akkadian KABĀSU.” VT 28 (1978) 355.
Graham, M. P. “Habakkuk.” In Hebrew Bible: History of Interpretation. Ed. John H. Hayes.
Nashville: Abingdon, 2004: 289-93.
Green, Alberto R. W. The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East. Biblical and Judaic Studies 8.
Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003.
Grizzard, Carol Stuart, and Marvin E. Tate. “Theophany.” In Mercer Dictionary of the Bible.
Ed. Watson E. Mills. Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990: 908.
Gunkel, Hermann. “Der Micha-Schluß: Zur Einführung in die literaturgeschichtliche Arbeit
am Alten Testament.” Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete 2 (1924) 145-
78.
278
________. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Go ttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1895.
Haak, Robert. Habakkuk. VTSup 44. Leiden: Brill, 1992.
Hagstrom, David Gerald. The Coherence of the Book of Micah: A Literary Analysis. SBLDS
89. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988.
Hamilton, J. “Theophany.” In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings.
Ed. Tremper Longman, III. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2008: 817-20.
Hanson, Paul D. The Dawn of Apocalyptic. Rev. ed. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979.
________. “Zechariah 9 and the Recapitulation of an Ancient Ritual Pattern.” JBL 92 (1973)
37-59.
Harrelson, Walter J. “Theophany in the OT.” In New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible,
vol. 5. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009: 566-69.
Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint. 2nd
ed. Grand
Rapids: Baker, 2005.
Hays, Christopher B. “Echoes of the Ancient Near East? Intertextuality and the Comparative
Study of the Old Testament.” In Word Leaps the Gap. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
2008: 20-43.
Herman, Wayne R. “The Kingship of Yahweh in the Hymnic Theophanies of the Old
Testament.” Studia Biblica et Theologica 16 (1988) 169-211.
Herrmann, Wolfram. "Das unerledigte Problem des Buches Habakkuk.” VT 51 (2001) 481-
96.
Hiebert, Theodore. God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn in Habakkuk 3. HSM 38. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1986.
279
________. “Theophany in the OT.” In ABD, vol. 6. New York: Doubleday, 1992: 505-11.
________. “The Use of Inclusion in Habakkuk 3.” In Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry.
JSOTSup 40. Ed. Elaine R. Follis. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987: 119-40.
Hill, Andrew E. “Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Reexamination.” HAR 6 (1992)
105-34.
Hillers, Delbert R. Micah. Hermeneia. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984.
Holladay, William L. “Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (I): Which Words ‘Count’?” JBL
118 (1999) 19-32.
________. “Hebrew Verse Structure Revisited (II): Conjoint Cola, and Further Suggestions.”
JBL 118 (1999) 401-16.
________. “Plausible Circumstances for the Prophecy of Habakkuk.” JBL 120 (2001) 123-
30.
Holmstedt, Robert D. “Habakkuk 3:16 – where did the rva go?” HS 44 (2003) 129-38.
Horst, Friedrich. Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten: Nahum bis Maleachi. HAT 1/14. Tübingen:
Mohr, 1954.
Humbert, Paul. Probl mes du li re d abacuc Neuch tel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1944.
Hunter, J. H. “The Literary Composition of Theophany Passages in the Hebrew Psalms.”
JNSL 15 (1989) 97-107.
________. “Theophany Verses in the Hebrew Psalms.” Old Testament Essays 11 (1998) 255-
70.
Hurowitz, Victor. “From Storm God to Abstract Being: How the Deity Became More Distant
from Exodus to Deuteronomy.” Bible Review 14 (1998) 40-47.
280
Huwyler, Beat. “Habakuk und seine Psalmen.” In Prophetie und Psalmen. Ed. B. Huwyler, et
al. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001: 231-59.
Irwin, William Andrew. “The Mythological Background of Habakkuk, Chapter 3.” JNES 15
(1956) 47-50.
________. “The Psalm of Habakkuk.” JNES 1 (1942) 10-40.
Jenson, Philip Peter. Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary. Library of
Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies 496. London/New York: Clark, 2008.
Jeremias, Jörg. Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverku ndigung in der spa ten Ko nigszeit Israels.
WMANT 35. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1970.
________. Die Propheten: Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha. ATD 24/3. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck
& Ruprecht, 2007.
________. Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung. WMANT 10.
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965.
Jöcken, Peter. Das Buch Habakuk: Darstellung der Geschichte seiner kritischen Erforschung
mit einer eigenen Beurteilung. BBB 48. Cologne-Bonn: Hanstein, 1977.
Jones, Barry Alan. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve. SBLDS 149. Atlanta: Scholars
Press, 1995.
Jones, Douglas R. “A Fresh Interpretation of Zechariah 9–11.” VT 12 (1962) 241-59.
Joüon, Paul. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew: Part Three: Syntax: Paradigms and Indices.
Trans. and rev. T. Muraoka. Subsidia Bib 14/2. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute,
2003.
Kang, Sa-Moon. Divine War in the Old Testament and in the Ancient Near East. BZAW 177.
Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1989.
281
Kautzsch, E. Gesenius’ ebrew Grammar Trans. A. E. Cowley. 2nd
ed. Oxford: Clarendon
Press, 1910.
Keel, Othmar, and Christoph Uehlinger. Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient
Israel. Trans. Thomas H. Trapp. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1998.
Kelly, Fred T. “The Strophic Structure of Habakkuk.” AJSL 18 (1902) 94-119.
Klingbeil, Martin. Yahweh Fighting from Heaven: God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in
the Hebrew Psalter and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography. OBO 169. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1999.
Koehl-Krebs, Hélène. “L’intertextualité comme méthode d’investigation du texte biblique:
L’exemple de Malachie 3,20.” BN 121 (2004) 61-76.
Köhler, B. “Sacharja 9:9: ein neuer Übersetzungsvorschlag.” VT 21 (1971) 370.
Kraeling, E. G. H. “The Historical Situation in Zech 9:1-10.” AJSL 41 (1924) 24-33.
Kutsch, Ernst. “Das sog. Bundesblut in Ex 24:8 und Sach 9:11.” VT 23 (1973) 25-30.
Lamarche, Paul. Zacharie IX–XIV: Structure littéraire et Messianisme. EBib. Paris: Librairie
Lecoffre/J. Gabalda, 1961.
Larkin, Katrina J. A. The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a
Mantological Wisdom Anthology. CBET 6. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1994.
Lawlor, John L. “Sling.” In New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible, vol. 5. Nashville:
Abingdon, 2009: 308.
Leonard, Jefferey M. “Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Case Study.” JBL
127 (2008) 241-65.
Lescow, Theodor. “Die Komposition der Bücher Nahum und Habakuk.” BN 77 (1995) 59-
85.
282
________. “Redaktiongeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 6–7.” ZAW 82 (1972) 182-212.
________. “Zur Komposition des Buches Micha.” SJOT 9 (1995) 200-222.
Leske, Adrian M. “Context and Meaning of Zechariah 9:9.” CBQ 62 (2000) 663-78.
Lindblom, Johannes. “Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion.” HUCA 32 (1961)
91-106.
Margolis, Max L. “The Character of the Anonymous Greek Version of Habakkuk, Chapter
3.” In Old Testament and Semitic Studies, vol. 1. Ed. R. F. Harper, et al. Chicago:
University of Chicago, 1908: 133-42.
Margulis, Baruch. “The Psalm of Habakkuk: A Reconstruction and Interpretation.” ZAW 82
(1970) 409-41.
Markl, Dominik. “Hab 3 in intertextueller und kontextueller Sicht.” Bib 85 (2004) 99-108.
Marti, Karl. Dodekapropheton. Kurzer Hand-kommentar zum Alten Testament 13.
Tu bingen: Mohr, 1904.
Mason, Rex A. The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. CBC. Cambridge: University
Press, 1977. Repr. 1980.
________. “The Relation of Zech 9–14 to Proto-Zechariah.” ZAW 88 (1976) 227-39.
________.“Why is Second Zechariah so Full of Quotations?” In The Book of Zechariah and
its Influence. Ed. Christopher Tuckett. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003: 21-28.
May, Herbert G. “Some Cosmic Connotations of Mayim Rabbîm, ‘Many Waters’.” JBL 74
(1955) 9-21.
Meier, Samuel A. “Theophany.” In The Oxford Companion to the Bible. Ed. Bruce M.
Metzger and Michael D. Coogan. New York: Oxford University Press, 1993: 740-41.
283
Melugin, Roy F. “Prophetic Books and the Problem of Historical Reconstruction.” In
Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker. Ed. S. B. Reid.
JSOTSup 229. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996: 63-78.
Merrill, Eugene H. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Dallas(?): Biblical Studies Press, 2003.
Meyers, Carol L., and Eric M. Meyers. Zechariah 9 – 14. AB 25C. New York: Doubleday,
1993.
Meyers, Eric M. “The Crisis of the Mid-fifth Century B.C.E. Second Zechariah and the ‘End’
of Prophecy.” In Pomegranates and Golden Bells: Studies in Biblical, Jewish, and
Near Eastern Ritual, Law, and Literature in Honor of Jacob Milgrom. Ed. D. P.
Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995: 713-
23.
Miller, Dane Eric. Micah and Its Literary Environment: Rhetorical Critical Case Studies.
Ann Arbor: UMI, 1992.
Miller, Geoffrey David. “Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.” Currents in Biblical
Research 9 (2011) 283-309.
Miller, Patrick D. The Divine Warrior in Early Israel. HSM 5. Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1973.
Mitchell, Hinckley G. “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai and Zechariah.” In
A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi, and Jonah.
ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912.
Morgenstern, Julian. “Biblical Theophanies.” ZA 25 (1911) 139-93.
284
Mowinckel, Sigmund. Real and Apparent Tricola in Hebrew Psalm Poetry. Avhandlinger
Norske videnskaps-akademi i Oslo: II--Hist.-filos. klasse, 1957, no. 2. Oslo: I
kommisjon hos Aschehoug, 1957.
________. “Zum Psalm des Habakuk.” TZ 9 (1953) 1-23.
Müller, Hans-Peter. “Die kultische Darstellung der Theophanie.” VT 14 (1964) 183-91.
Niehaus, Jeffrey J. God at Sinai: Covenant & Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East.
Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995.
Nogalski, James. “Intertextuality and the Twelve.” In Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays
on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts. Ed. J. W. Watts and P. R.
House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996: 102-24.
________. Literary Precursors to the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 217. Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter, 1993.
________. Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 218. Berlin/New York:
de Gruyter, 1993.
Nowack, Wilhelm. Die kleinen Propheten. HKAT 3/4. 2nd
ed. Göttingen: Vandenkoeck &
Ruprecht, 1903.
O’Brien, Julia M. Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. Abingdon
Old Testament Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004.
O’Connor, Michael Patrick. Hebrew Verse Structure. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1997.
Ohnmann, Heinrich M. “Some Remarks on the Use of the Term ‘Theophany’ in the Study of
the Old Testament.” In Unity in Diversity. Ed. R. Faber. Hamilton: The Senate of the
Theological College of the Canadian Reformed Churches, 1989: 1-12.
285
Otzen, Benedikt. Studien über Deutero-Sacharja. ATDan 6. Cophenhagen: Prostant apud
Munksgaard, 1964.
Patterson, Richard D. Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah: An Exegetical Commentary. Dallas(?):
Biblical Studies Press, 2003.
________.“The Psalm of Habakkuk.” Grace Theological Journal 8 (1987) 163-94.
Paul, Shalom M. “A Technical Expression from Archery in Zechariah IX 13a.” VT 39 (1989)
495-97.
Pax, Elpidius. EPIFANEIA: Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie.
M nchener theologische Studien I, Historische Abteilung 10. Munich: Karl Zink,
1955.
Perlitt, Lothar. Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja. ATD 25/1. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004.
Person, Raymond F. Second Zechariah and the Deuteronomistic School. JSOTSup 167.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Petersen, David L. Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi. OTL. Louisville: John Knox, 1995.
Petterson, Anthony R. Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of
Zechariah. Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies (formerly JSOTSup) 513.
London/New York: T & T Clark, 2009.
Pfeiffer, Henrik. Jahwes Kommen von Süden: Jdc 5; Hab 3; Dtn 33 und Ps 68 in ihrem
literatur- und theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld. FRLANT 211. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005.
286
Pfister, Manfred. “Konzepte der Intertextualität.” In Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen,
anglistische Fallstudien. Ed. Ulrich Broich and Manfred Pfister. Tübingen:
Niemeyer, 1985: 1-30.
Pinker, Aron. “‘Captive’ for ‘years’ in Habakkuk 3:2.” RB 112 (2005) 20-26.
________. “God’s C3 in Habakkuk 3.” ZAW 115 (2003) 261-65.
________. “Historical Allusions in the Book of Habakkuk.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 36
(2008) 143-52.
________. “Infertile Quartet of Flora.” ZAW 115 (2003) 617-23.
________. “The Lord’s Bow in Habakkuk 3:9a.” Bib 84 (2003) 417-20.
________. “On the Meaning of wytm in Habakkuk 3,14a.” Bib 86 (2005) 376-86.
________. “Problems and Solutions of Habakkuk 3:8.” Jewish Bible Quarterly 31 (2003) 3-
8.
Polak, Frank. “Theophany and Mediator: The Unfolding of a Theme in the Book of Exodus.”
In Studies in the Book of Exodus. BETL 126. Ed. M. Vervenne. Leuven: Leuven
University Press, 1996: 113-47.
Prinsloo, G. T. M. “Reading Habakkuk 3 in its literary context: A worthwhile exercise or a
futile attempt?” Journal for Semitics 11 (2002) 83-111.
Rad, Gerhard von. Holy War in Ancient Israel. Trans. Marva J. Dawn. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991.
________. Old Testament Theology, vol. 1. Trans. D. M. G. Stalker. New York: Harper &
Row, 1967.
Radday, Yehuda T., and Dieter Wickmann. “The Unity of Zechariah Examined in Light of
Statistical Linguistics.” ZAW 87 (1975) 30-55.
287
Redditt, Paul L. “The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Review of Research.” In
Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart.
BZAW 325. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003: 1-26.
________. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. NCB. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.
________. “Nehemiah’s First Mission and the Date of Zechariah 9–14.” CBQ 56 (1994) 664-
78.
________. “Zechariah 9-14, Malachi, and the Redaction of the Book of the Twelve.” In
Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D.
W. Watts. Ed. J. W. Watts and P. R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield
Academic Press, 1996: 245-68.
________ and Aaron Schart, ed. Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. BZAW 325.
Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003.
Reicke, Bo. “Liturgical Traditions in Mic. 7.” HTR 60 (1967) 349-67.
Renaud, Bernard. Formation du livre de Michée: Tradition et actualisation. EBib. Paris:
Gabalda, 1977.
Reventlow, Henning Graf. Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja, und Maleachi. ATD 25/2.
Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993.
Riessler, Paul. Die kleinen Propheten oder das Zwölfprophetenbuch. Rottenburg: Bader,
1911.
Roberts, J. J. M. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary. OTL. Louisville: John
Knox, 1991.
Robertson, David A. Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry. SBLDS 3.
Missoula: University of Montana, 1972.
288
Robertson, O. Palmer. The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. NICOT. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990.
Robinson, George L. “The Prophecies of Zechariah: With Special Reference to the Origin
and Date of Chapters 9–14.” AJSL 12 (1895-1896) 1-92. Repr. Chicago: University
Press, 1896.
Robinson, Theodore. Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten: Hosea bis Micha. HAT 1/14. Tübingen:
Mohr, 1954.
Rubinkam, Nathaniel. The Second Part of the Book of Zechariah: With Special Reference to
the Time of Its Origin. Basel: R. Reich, 1892.
Rudolph, Wilhelm. Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja. KAT 13/3. Gütersloh: Gerd
Mohn, 1975.
Saebø, Magne. “Die deuterosacharjanische Frage: eine forschungsgeschichtliche Studie.” ST
23 (1969) 115-40.
________. Sacharja 9–14. WMANT 34. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969.
________. “Vom Grossreich zum Weltreich: Erwägungen zu Pss. 72:8, 89:26; Sach. 9:10b.”
VT 28 (1978) 83-91.
Sasson, Jack M., ed. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. (2-vol. set.) Peabody,
MA: Hendrickson, 2006.
Savran, George W. Encountering the Divine: Theophany in Biblical Narrative. JSOTSup
420. London/New York: T & T Clark, 2005.
Schart, Aaron. Die Entstehung des Zwölfprophetenbuchs: Neubearbeitungen von Amos im
Rahmen schriftenübergreifender Redaktionsprozesse. BZAW 260. Berlin/New York:
de Gruyter, 1998.
289
________. “Das Zwölfprophetenbuch als redaktionelle Großeinheit.” TLZ 133 (2008) 227-
46.
Schellenberg, Angeline Falk. “One in the Bond of War: The Unity of Deutero-Zechariah.”
Didaskalia 12 (2001) 101-15.
Schnutenhaus, Frank. “Das Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament.” ZAW 76
(1964) 1-22.
Schmidt, N. F., and P. J. Nel. “Theophany as Type-scene in the Hebrew Bible.” Journal for
Semitics 11 (2002) 256-81.
Schulman, Alan R. “Military Organization in Pharaonic Egypt.” In Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East, vols. 1-2. Ed. Jack M. Sasson. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2006:
1. 289-301.
Schultz, Richard L. The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets. JSOTSup
180. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999.
________. “The Ties that Bind: Intertextuality, the Identification of Verbal Parallels, and
Reading Strategies in the Book of the Twelve.” In Thematic Threads in the Book of
the Twelve. Ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter, 2003: 27-45.
Schwemer, Daniel. “The Storm-gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent
Studies, Part I.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 7 (2007) 121-68.
________. “The Storm-gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies,
Part II.” Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8 (2008) 1-44.
Scriba, Albrecht. Die Geschichte des Motivkomplexes Theophanie. FRLANT 167. Göttingen:
Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995.
290
Sellin, Ernst. Das Zwölfprophetenbuch: Übersetzt und erklärt. KAT 12. Leipzig: A.
Deichert, 1922.
Shaw, Charles S. The Speeches of Micah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis. JSOTSup 145.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993.
Shupak, Nili. “The God from Teman and the Egyptian Sun God: A Reconsideration of
Habakkuk 3:3-7.” JANES(CU) 28 (2001) 97-116.
Simundson, Daniel J. Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah. Abingdon Old Testament
Commentaries. Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2005.
Sinker, Robert. The Psalm of Habakkuk: A Revised Translation, with Exegetical and Critical
Notes on the Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1890.
Skehan, Patrick W., and Alexander A. Di Lella. The Wisdom of Ben Sira. AB 39. New York:
Doubleday, 1987.
Smith, John Merlin Powis. “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Books of Micah,
Zephaniah, and Nahum.” In A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah,
Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah, and Joel. ICC. New York: Charles
Scribner’s Sons, 1911.
Smith, Ralph L. Micah-Malachi. WBC 32. Waco, TX: Word, 1984.
Sosa, Carlos Raúl. “La influencia de Isaías II en Zecarías II.” Kairos 37 (2005) 39-57.
Stade, Bernhard. “Deuterosacharja: Eine kritische Studie.” ZAW 1 (1881) 1-96.
________. “Deuterosacharja: Eine kritische Studie.” ZAW 2 (1882) 151-72, 275-309.
________. “Miscellen. 3. Habakuk.” ZAW 4 (1884) 154-59.
Staton, Cecil P., Jr. “Theophany.” In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. David Noel
Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000: 1297-98.
291
Stephens, Ferris J. “The Babylonian Dragon Myth in Habakkuk 3.” JBL 43 (1924) 290-93.
Suter, David W. “Theophany.” In HBD. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986: 1062-63.
Sweeney, Marvin A. Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature.
Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010.
________. “Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk.” VT 41 (1991) 63-83.
________. The Twelve Prophets, vol. 2: Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai,
Zechariah, Malachi. Berit Olam. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000.
Thackeray, Henry St John. “Primitive Lectionary Notes in the Psalm of Habakkuk.” JTS 12
(1911) 191-213.
“Theophany.” In Catholic Bible Dictionary. Ed. Scott Hahn. New York: Doubleday, 2009:
904-5.
Thompson, Michael E. W. “Prayer, Oracle and Theophany: The Book of Habakkuk.” TynBul
44 (1993) 33-53.
Tov, Emmanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd
rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress,
2001.
Tromp, Johannes. “Bad Divination in Zechariah 10:1-2.” In The Book of Zechariah and its
Influence. Ed. Christopher Tuckett. Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2003: 41-52.
Tsumura, David Toshio. “Janus parallelism in Hab III 4.” VT 54 (2004) 124-28.
________. “Niphal with an Internal Object in Habakkuk 3:9a.” JSS 31 (1986) 11-16.
________. “Ugaritic Poetry and Habakkuk 3.” TynBul 40 (1989) 24-48.
________. “The ‘word pair’ qšt and mt in Habakkuk 3:9 in the Light of Ugaritic and
Akkadian.” In Go to the Land which I Will Show You. Ed. Joseph E. Coleson and
Victor H. Matthews. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996: 353-61.
292
Tull, Patricia. “Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures.” Currents in Research: Biblical
Studies 8 (2000) 59-90.
Walker, Henry Hammersley, and Nils Wilhelm Lund. “The Literary Structure of the Book of
Habakkuk.” JBL 53 (1934) 355-70.
Waltke, Bruce K. A Commentary on Micah. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007.
Ward, William Hayes. “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Habakkuk.” In A Critical
and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah, and
Joel. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1911.
Watts, James W. “Psalmody in Prophecy: Habakkuk 3 in Context.” In Forming Prophetic
Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts. Ed.
James W. Watts and Paul R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic
Press, 1996: 209-23.
Way, Kenneth C. “Donkey Domain: Zechariah 9:9 and Lexical Semantics.” JBL 129 (2010)
105-14.
Weiser, Artur. Das Buch der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten I: Die Propheten Hosea, Joel, Amos,
Obadja, Jona, Micha. ATD 24/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967.
________. “Zur Frage nach der Beziehungen der Psalmen zum Kult: Die Darstellung der
Theophanie in die Psalmen und im Festkult.” In Festschrift für Alfred Bertholet. Ed.
W. Baumgarnter, et al. Tübingen: Mohr, 1950: 513-31.
Wellhausen, Julius. Die Kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1898.
Weyde, Karl William. “Inner-Biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the
Relationship between Texts in the Hebrew Bible.” SEÅ 70 (2005) 287-300.
Willi-Plein, Ina. Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi. ZBAT 24/4. Zurich: TVZ, 2007.
293
________. “Prophetie und Weltgeschichte: Zur Einbettung von Sach 9,1-8 in die Geschichte
Israels.” In Davidshaus und Prophetie: Studien zu den Nebiim. Biblisch-Theologische
Studien 127. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie, 2012: 243-62.
Wilkinson, Richard H. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. London:
Thames & Hudson, 2003.
Windsor, Gwyneth. “Theophany: Traditions of the Old Testament.” Theology 75 (1972) 411-
16.
Wo hrle, Jakob. Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende
Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen. BZAW 389. Berlin/New York: de
Gruyter, 2008.
________. Die frühen Sammlungen des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Entstehung und Komposition
BZAW 360. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2006.
Wolff, Hans Walter. Dodekapropheton 4: Micha. BKAT 14/4. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1982.
Wyatt, Nicolas. “Religion in Ancient Ugarit.” In A Handbook of Ancient Religion. Ed. John
R. Hinnells. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007: 105-60.
Zapff, Burkard M. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des
Dodekapropheton. BZAW 256. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1997.