In Habakkuk, a slender book of 56 verses, one encounters glorious passages, such as 2:4, 14, 20; 3:2, and sparkling apothegms, 1:11; 2:2, 11, which beckon one to learn more about the book and its author.
The Hebrew proper name Habakkuk (from root hābák, “to embrace”) occurs only in Habakkuk 1:1 and 3:1 and apparently means “embrace” or “ardent embrace.” A few savants regard it as a nickname or pseudonym or the Assyrian name for a garden plant. The Septuagint equivalent Ambakoum (= abba koum) is defined “father rising up” by some of the patristic writers.
On the basis of the rubrics in 3:1 and 19, Keil and Delitzsch infer that Habakkuk was a member of the temple choir and therefore a Levite. On the other hand, Hezekiah, credited with a psalm to the accompaniment of stringed instruments (Isa. 38:20), was clearly not a Levite.
All that can be said with certainty about Habakkuk is that he is specifically termed “the prophet” in 1:1 and 3:1. The book bears marks of prolonged mental struggle and may have been committed to writing without having been delivered orally. Its author can appropriately be described as prophet, poet, and philosopher.
CRITICAL PROBLEM INTRODUCED
Some scholars allow Habakkuk all three chapters of the book, and others concede only nine or ten verses at the most to him. Chapter 3 in particular is held to be the work of a later hand or hands. Furthermore, there is no unanimity as to the time of writing. Dates varying from 701 to 170 B.C. have been proposed. The traditional interpretation of Part I regards the righteous in Israel as suffering at the hands of wicked fellow countrymen (v. 4) and the Chaldeans as being raised up to punish Israelite wickedness (v. 13). Recent critics, dissatisfied with this explanation press the questions: Are the righteous and the wicked the same in verses 4 and 13? and who are raised up to punish whom? First, we shall survey the interpretations and backgrounds suggested for the three sections of the book; then the literary structure will be examined and the religious ideas.
Chapters 1:2–2:5 have elicited the most divergent conclusions. The earliest date proposed for the book of Habakkuk is the year 701, after Hezekiah had received Merodach Baladan’s Chaldean embassy. Betteridge (1903) held that the Chaldeans were raised up to punish Assyrian oppressors of Israel. By transposing 1:5–11 after 2:4, Budde (1901) maintained that the Chaldeans were the instrument to harass the Assyrians of 621–615 B. B., and George Adam Smith (1929), using the same transposition, viewed the Egyptians from 608–605 as menacing the Assyrians. Duhm (1906) and C. C. Torrey (1935) emend the Hebrew Masoretic Text to Kittîm and Yāwān (1:6; 2:5) and date the book in the time of Alexander the Great, around 332 B.C. Happel (1900) characterized the book as an eschatological oracle at the rise of Antiochus Epiphanes, around 170 B.C. Other attempts have been made to explain Part I, but actually there is no need to resort to omission, partition, transposition, or violent emendations.
AN ANSWER OF FAITH
There are no insuperable obstacles to dating Part I in 605 B.C., just after Nebuchadnezzar’s victory at Carchemish. The Assyrian empire had already crumbled, and Nebuchadnezzar had defeated the Egyptians to become master of the world (cf. Jer. 46:2). Habakkuk bewails domestic oppression in 1:2–4, such as accords with the tyranny of Jehoiakim (Jer. 22:12–19, 26). The Chaldeans, well known to Israel from the time of Merodach Baladan and Nabopolassar, now are being raised up to punish Judah, an imminent invasion, 1:5–11 (cf. Jer. 25:9; 36:29). The prophet argues that a wicked Judah is more righteous than a wicked Chaldean and utters his second query, 1:12–17. God’s use of a nation to chasten his people and then his destroying that instrument had already been pictured in Isaiah 8:9 f; 10:15–27; 14:24–27, and so forth. Therefore, to the puzzled prophet comes the answer of faith, 2:1–5.
Stade in 1884 concluded that all of Part II, 2:6–20, was secondary. Most critics find a large amount of post-exilic material in the section and concede only a few verses to Habakkuk. Nevertheless, 2:6 is closely connected with the preceding verse, and placing the maledictions in the mouth of the oppressed is a skillful device. The historical allusions can all be explained as coming from the period between the fall of Ninevah, 612 B.C., to the battle of Carchemish, 605 B.C. The taunt-songs are intended for the Chaldean nation and are comprehensible only as the sequel of what has preceded. Objections to the genuineness of this section are not of overwhelming force.
THIRD CHAPTER QUESTION
Again, Stade in 1884 was the first to deny the Habakkukan authorship of chapter 3. The chapter is rejected because (1) it is a psalm, (2) it has a different historical background, (3) it is of composite character, (4) it has linguistic and stylistic peculiarities, (5) it exhibits a difference in temper and aim, and (6) it is characterized by a difference in religious concepts.
With the publication of the Dead Sea Scroll Habakkuk Commentary (cf. W. H. Brownlee, “The Jerusalem Habakkuk Scroll,” BASOR 112, Dec. 1948, pp. 8–18) containing only chapters 1–2, a number of scholars concluded that the psalm had not yet been added to the book of Habakkuk when the commentary was composed.
Brief replies can be made seriatim to the objections listed. (1) Why may not a prophet compose a psalm? (2) There are no allusions in the psalm inconsistent with the prophet’s days. (3) The “late liturgical appendix,” verses 17–19, is a typical psalm epilogue and describes sufferings such as would follow in the wake of a destructive army. (4) The so-called late words all appear in earlier poetry. “Thine anointed” (v. 13) is not a post-exilic reference to the nation, for nowhere is the nation Israel called “the anointed.” It is normal to expect in a theophany a style different from that in chapters 1–2. (5) The psalm is an expansion of the text, “The just shall live by his faithfulness.” (6) The “late apocalyptic” ideas in chapter 3 appear in Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 33, and Judges 5, which are not late. There is no incongruity in language, style, or circumstances between the psalm and the rest of the book. The psalm, as well as the first two chapters, fit the period just after the battle of Carchemish 605 B.C.
The Masoretic Text has a number of problematic readings, particularly at 1:11; 2:4, 5, 10, 18; 3:8, 9 (over 100 translations had been suggested in Delitzsch’s day), 13, and 16. The use of versions and textual emendations have not completely cleared up these difficulties. The Dead Sea Scroll Habakkuk displays 50 variant readings from the Masoretic Text in chapters 1–2. Generally these variants are not significant, though a smoother reading is obtained in 1:17; 2:15, 16, as seen in the RSV. It is noteworthy that the Dead Sea Scroll and the versions support the M.T. of 1:12, “we shall not die,” as over against the tikkun sōpherîm (“correction of the scribes”), “thou shalt not die” (cf. W. E. Barnes, “Ancient Corrections in the Text of the Old Testament,” JTSI, 1900, pp. 387–414).
Dr. Albright’s reconstruction of the text of chapter 3 based on Ugaritic parallels proposes 38 corrections in the M. T. (W. F. Albright, “The Psalm of Habakkuk,” in H. R. Rowley, ed., Studies in Old Testament Prophecy. Scribner’s, 1950, pp. 1–50). Even this resultant text is still conjectural.
The LXX of Habakkuk is markedly inferior to the M. T. Some of its readings are startling: “look, ye despisers,” 1:5; “wolves of Arabia,” 1:8; “beetle from the wood,” 2:11; “with a song,” 3:1; “in the midst of the two beasts thou shalt be known,” 3:2; “tents of the Aethiopians,” 3:7; “that I may conquer by his song,” 3:19.
LITERARY STRUCTURE
Since Lowth’s pioneer work on parallelism (1753) and Jebb’s treatment of chiasmus (1820), scholars have recognized that much of Old Testament prophecy is couched in poetic style. Poetry is a fit vehicle for the prophet’s message.
In the book of Habakkuk the normal poetic devices are employed: parallelism, alliteration, hapax legomena, and a host of poetic figures, such as, simile, metaphor, metonymy, oxymoron, personification, and so forth (cf. F. T. Kelly, “The Strophic Structure of Habakkuk,” AJSL 18, 1902, pp. 94–119).
The outline of the book reveals the carefully wrought structure of 1:2–2:5. In this section we note a combination of national dirge and oracle (employed in Mic. 7:7–20; Ps. 24; Isa. 26:8–21; Joel 1:5–2:27) which constitutes Part I a closely-knit unity.
The strophical structure of 2:6–20 is apparent. There are five maledictions of three verses each. The first four all begin with “woe,” and the last verse in each begins with “for.” The pride and fall of the Chaldean is pictured in five different images. The woes correspond to the first clause of 2:4, while chapter 3 is an elaboration of the second clause of 2:4.
Habakkuk’s “Pindaric Ode” in Chapter 3 ranks with the finest that Hebrew poetry has produced. Without chapter 3, the book appears truncated. The elaborate chiastic structure of the book admits no deleting of a chapter, much less of verses (cf. Walker and Lund, “The Literary Structure of the Book of Habakkuk,” JBL 53, 1934, pp. 355–370).
RELIGIOUS IDEAS
Habakkuk discloses a number of powerful religious truths, some of which we shall consider briefly.
1. Tyranny is suicide. In chapter 1:13–17, there is an inspired appeal against man’s inhumanity to man, against crimes committed in the name of empire. The conqueror who “makes his might his god” (1:11) has his prototype in Lamech’s “Song of the Sword” (Gen. 4:23 f) and in the autotheism of Babylon (Isa. 47:2 ff). The concept that pride goes before destruction, that hybris draws divine wrath is an ancient one. In the affairs of nations a lex talionis is assumed: “Because thou hast plundered many nations, all the remnant of the peoples shall plunder thee” (2:8). The warning of Christ, “All they that take the sword shall perish with the sword” (Matt. 26:52), sounds a knell to the nations’ warring madness.
2. The Book of Habakkuk is a Theodicy. Despite the Greek genius for philosophical inquiry, the classic statement of the problem of evil appeared in the Hebrew tradition. The question in 1:13 becomes a difficult one to reconcile with the concept of the Holy God in 1:12, 13a. The prophet, aiming to justify the ways of God to man, presents us an incipient theodicy. In the midst of stress, he has a pou stō appointed of God (2:1–4). He sounds forth his conviction that above all earthly power, the glory of the God of Israel shall flow like the waves of the sea (2:14). The song in chapter 3 ends in a note of victory, “God is enough.”
3. “The righteous shall live by his faithfulness.” The Hebrew word ’emunāh comprises the idea of “steadiness” (Exod. 17:12), “trustworthiness” (2 Kings 12:15), and “faithfulness” (Ps. 89:1, 35c). J. B. Lightfoot has thoroughly discussed “faith” in its Hebrew, Greek and Latin usages (St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians. Draper, 1891, pp. 341–346).
Habakkuk, employing the word in its passive sense, declared, “The just shall live by his faithfulness” (2:4). In that statement, avers the Babylonian Talmud, he reduced all the 613 precepts of the Mosaic Law into one (Makkoth 24a).
The New Testament word pistis is used in the active sense, “faith, belief” (Gal. 2:16), and the passive, “fidelity, constancy, faithfulness” (Rom. 3:3), and several other shades of meaning. Paul renders the prophet’s words, “The just shall live by faith” (Rom. 1:17; Gal. 3:11). He enlarges the Old Testament passages and shows its fulfillment in the light of the gospel revelation. Faith means belief in Christ which justifies (Rom. 4:23–25) and union with Christ which sanctifies (Rom. 6:4).
This Pauline concept is implicit in Habakkuk. For to the faithfulness of God that verifies his work corresponds that of man which trusts God’s word unwaveringly despite all contrarient appearances.
Faith of this kind issues in life says Habakkuk. The magnificent declaration of 2:4 is enlarged upon in chapter 3, especially verses 17–19 where, despite the loss of all things, the prophet rests in the Lord and waits patiently for him. The term “live” carries the germs of belief in future life, thus being both qualitative and quantitative (cf. John 10:10; 1 John 2:17).
Small wonder that these glorious words of Habakkuk have been a foundation stone and a lodestone to the Church throughout the ages!
BIBLIOGRAPHY
In addition to the references in the article, the following works in English are highly recommended:
Davidson, A. B., The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah. (Cambridge Bible). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1920.
Driver, S. R., The Minor Prophets: Nahum to Malachi (The New Century Bible). New York: Frowde, 1906.
Keil, C. F., The Twelve Minor Prophets, vol. II. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1880.
Kirkpatrick, A. F., The Doctrine of the Prophets. London: Macmillan, 1932.
Kleinert, P., The Book of Habakkuk (Lange’s Commentary). New York: Scribner’s, 1876.
Leslie, E., The Prophets Tell their Own Story. New York: Abingdon, 1939.
Pilcher, C. V., Three Hebrew Prophets and the Passing of Empires. London: Religious Tract Society, 1921.
Smith, G. A., The Book of the 12 Prophets (Expositor’s Bible). Garden City: Doubleday, 1929.
Stonehouse, G. G. V., The Book of Habakkuk. London: Rivingtons, 1911.
ANTON T. PEARSON
Professor of Old Testament Language
Bethel Theological Seminary
St. Paul, Minnesota
