coming of the Chaldeans; in 113 they are the foreign and idolatrous oppressors themselves. This inconsistency has led some scholars, as Giesebrecht and Wellhausen, to throw out 15-11 as an earlier prophetic fragment which has been intruded here; while Budde puts it after 2*. Ewald regards the present order as correct and the text genuine up to 2o. Budde offers a curious explanation, supposing that Habakkuk's prophecy is directed against the Assyrians of Josiah's time, who are about to be punished by the Babylonians. The language of complaint in 1 makes no mention of a foreign invader. There are people guilty of Don violence, 18 wrong, by trouble, pillage, strife, and 1 Law is paralysed and As a result the 5-11 contention. justice fails. It is in this way that native oppression and not a foreign invader would be described. Then follows in vv. a description of the Chaldeans whose invasion would be a punishment for such sins. The transition from the complaint of the prophet to Yahweh's answer is not unusually abrupt, although the latter has no such formal introduction as in 22. Yahweh's answer is addressed to -who will not believe it, an expression natu (בגוים) בוגדים the rally applicable to those who have some faith in Yahweh. In 6 5-11 v. the Chaldeans are about to be raised up; but they are well known and well characterised. They have been in the habit of gathering captives (v.) and conquering cities (v.10). There is no internal reason for separating vv. from vv.14. The crimes of the wicked Jews (vv. 2. 3) are to be punished by the impending attack of the Chaldeans (v.). The time is between the battle of Carchemish, 605 B.C., and the first Captivity, 597 B.C., and so about 600 B.C., or during the reign of Jehoiakim, unless (Kuenen) we take vv. 1-11 as written after the event dramatically described as future. Thus far nothing implies a condition of captivity. In 112-17 the condition changes. The oppressions of the wicked Jews are forgotten, and the complaint is against the invader, who gathers captives like fishes in a net. This must have been written after the first Captivity. Were the last half of v.12 genuine it would closely connect the second complaint with the preceding v."; but it is out of place, answering a question asked in the next verse. The my God of v.12, however, seems to refer back to the 78 his god of v." by way of contrast; and the y wrong, y wicked, p righteous, and D evil-doers of v. 13 seem an echo of corresponding words in vv. 3-5; and the sacrifices of v. 16 seem to refer to the sacrifices which an emendation finds in v. 11. But the wicked one of vv. 14-17 is a foreign invader, a different person from the wicked one of vv. 14. 6. 6 In the reply of Yahweh (22-8) a foreign foe is described, such as the Assyrian power, or the Babylonian kingdom of Nebuchadnezzar. A single clause, "All the rest of the peoples shall spoil thee," brings a slight support to Budde's theory that we have here a prophecy of the overthrow of the Assyrians, inasmuch as it was by such a league that the Assyrian power was destroyed. Vv. 2. 3 have not a poetic form; the vision written on a tablet, therefore, began with v. and seems to continue through v. 8, embracing the first malediction. The "parable" of v. is found in the description (vv. . 7) of the Babylonian power under the figure of a usurer; the “interpretation", which was to be inexplicable to him, "a riddle," is found in v. as a definite prophecy of ruin. The data given above strictly interpreted would make it appear that 11-1, containing the first complaint and Yahweh's answer, belongs to the period of Jehoiakim. With v." begins a second complaint, with Yahweh's answer, modelled on or closely related to the earlier prophecy, and copying its expressions, but referring to a later period during the Captivity, while the Babylonian power was approaching its fall. There is thus no need of dislocating the order of the verses by dropping 15-11, and uniting the two complaints into one. 8 It is possible to escape the conclusion that we have here a composite by two authors of different dates, by assuming a dramatic form to these chapters. It is not impossible that the prophet, considering the evils of his own day, discovers the occasion for them in the divine retribution for the sins of the people. He thus defends the justice of God in bringing the Jews into captivity, because of the oppression and disregard of the Law by his ancestors; but now he appeals to Yahweh against the new oppressors. This possible view gives us two scenes in the drama: the one (12-11) retrospective and introductory, while the other (11-28) pleads against the continuance of the present distress. So long as the word Chaldean (v.) remains unchallenged we are compelled to refer this section to the period of the Captivity. It is by a very hazardous conjecture that Duhm makes the prophet refer to the coming invasion of Alexander. To do this he has changed Chaldeans to D Greeks, and in 1° he changes nap to 3p and translates, From Gomer their direction is eastward, and finds thus an absolute proof that this was no Chaldean invasion. While Duhm may be right in assuming but one writer, his textual evidence is inconclusive as to date. The first of the five maledictions of ch. 2 is closely connected with Yahweh's preceding answer. The second malediction has no logical connection with the first, but is closely connected with the third, which contains the utterance of the stone and the D' brace (v.1). But the third contains three quotations, two of them direct, from Mi. 810 Je. 5158 and Is. 119. This probably brings down the date of both the second and third maledictions nearly or quite to the Maccabean period; and to a similar date we may assign the fourth and fifth maledictions. 19 The third chapter is a separate production, arranged for temple worship, and may or may not be by one of the authors to whom we owe 112-220. It belongs to a troubled period following the Captivity but contains no definite indications of its age beyond its quotations. It takes v. 3 from Dt. 332; and v. 10 is based on 2 S. 2234 (Ps. 1833), which in turn is taken from Dt. 332. Vv. 10, 11, 15 have a close relation with Ps. 7717-20; but here the psalm is the later production. In Habakkuk these lines are in couplets; in Ps. 77 a third line has been added to each couplet, and the fragment differs in this triple structure from the rest of the psalm. In Habakkuk they belong to a song of vengeance; in Ps. 77 to a song of reminiscent triumph. In Habakkuk there is no reference to past history; while in Ps. 77 these verses are inserted in the midst of an account of the victories of the Exodus. Logically 315 should follow v. ", precisely as in Ps. 77 v. 20 follows v. 19. Either vv. are a later insertion, or v. should pre 12-14 15 cede them. TOPICAL ANALYSIS. The Oracle begins with the complaint of Israel personated by the prophet, occupying 114; followed by the response of Yahweh, embracing vv. 5-11. In these eleven verses the wrong-doer is to be punished by the invasion of the Chaldeans, and therefore he is the wicked Jewish court and princes. This puts the date about 600 B.C., in the reign of Jehoiakim. With v. 12 begins a second complaint against the foreign heathen oppressor, here necessarily the Babylonians themselves, concluding with 21. This must be later than the time of Jehoiakim, as the Babylonians have now made their invasion. Yahweh's response begins with v. 2; and this and v. 3 announce the vision to be fulfilled at a later period. It is to be preserved legibly written on clay tablets of the Babylonian style, and consists of two parts, one about the preservation of the righteous, and the other the overthrow of the wicked oppressor. The prophet has not made it quite clear where the inscribed vision ends. Indeed he seems to have continued the last part, that about the wrong-doer, into the first malediction. The second and third maledictions are too closely connected together to be separated; but the third contains three quotations from as many other prophets, and must therefore be later than the first malediction; and the fourth and fifth also seem to belong to a period considerably later than the Babylonian Captivity. The third chapter is intended for musical recitation in the temple worship, and may well be of the period of the last part of the second chapter. Being assigned to Habakkuk, we may presume that Habakkuk was the last compiler and editor of the first two chapters, and may have been the author of the last part of the second chapter. It is impossible in translation to reproduce the abounding alliterations of the original, or the prevailing poetic measure, consisting of three principal words in a line. COMMENTARY. THE ORACLE. 1. The Oracle which Habakkuk the prophet did see. verse is probably a later editorial title. THE COMPLAINT. 124. '. How long, Yahweh, must I call, and thou hearest not, And there is strife, and contention ariseth. !. Therefore the law is benumbed, And judgment goeth forth no more. This [For the wicked circumventeth the righteous; therefore justice goeth forth perverted.] 2-4. The conditions in these verses are plainly not those of war, but of domestic oppression. The law in v. is not the Torah, but the religious institutions, corresponding to justice in the next line. When coupled with boy, means trouble. The latter part of v. is not rhythmic, and is a marginal gloss. It is meant to elucidate the second member of the couplet, but it is a weak statement that the perversion of justice consists in circumventing the righteous. THE RESPONSE. 15-11 . Look, ye wrong-doers, and behold, and be greatly amazed; for I am about to do a work in your days which ye will not believe though it be told you.. For, Behold I raise up the Chaldeans, That violent and vehement nation, Which marcheth along the far regions of the earth To hold the homes that are not his. 7. Dreadful and terrible is he; From him judgment goeth forth. 8 |