The God of Thunder and War in Micah, Habakkuk, and Zechariah 9781463206116, 1463206119

Citation preview

The God of Thunder and War in Micah, Habakkuk, and Zechariah

Jamie A. Banister

gp 2018

Gorgias Press LLC, 954 River Road, Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2018 by Gorgias Press LLC All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. ‫ܙ‬

1

2018

ISBN 978-1-4632-0611-6

ISSN 1935-6870

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A Cataloging-in-Publication Record is Available from the Library of Congress. Printed in the United States of America

The God of Thunder and War in Micah, Habakkuk, and Zechariah

Do not delete the following information about this document. Version 1.0 Document Template: Template book.dot. Document Word Count: 12772 Document Page Count: 208 In Memoriam

Amelia Pauline (Holzwarth) Banister July 4, 1910 – February 15, 2013

g Robert (Bob) James Banister November 19, 1909 – August 14, 1999

TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ..................................................................................... v Acknowledgments ................................................................................... ix Abbreviations ........................................................................................... xi Chapter One: Storm-god and Warrior-god Motifs ............................. 1 1. Storm-/Warrior-god Motifs in Ancient Near Eastern Texts ......................................................................................... 3 1.1. Atmospheric and Natural Elements as Weapons ............................................................................ 3 1.2. Mythic Battles ..................................................................... 5 1.3. Effects on Nature .............................................................. 6 1.4. Smiting Enemies ................................................................ 7 1.5. Storm- and/or Warrior-gods and Mountains ................ 7 2. Storm-/Warrior-god Motifs in the Hebrew Bible ................. 8 2.1. Sinai Theophanies and Moses ........................................ 12 2.2. Exodus 15: ‘Song of Moses’ / ‘Song of the Sea’......... 15 2.3. Deuteronomy 32: ‘Song of Moses’................................ 16 2.4. Deuteronomy 33: ‘Moses’ Final Blessing’ .................... 16 2.5. Judges 5: ‘Song of Deborah’........................................... 17 2.6. 1 Samuel 2: ‘Song / Prayer of Hannah’ ........................ 18 2.7. Psalm 18 (// 2 Samuel 22) ............................................. 18 2.8. Psalm 68 ............................................................................ 20 2.9. Psalm 77 ............................................................................ 21 2.10. Isaiah ................................................................................ 22 2.11. A Counter-image: Mt. Horeb and Elijah (1 Kings 19:9–18) ........................................................... 22 3. Conclusion.................................................................................. 23 Chapter Two: Micah 7:7–20 ................................................................. 27 1. Text, Syntax, and Translation .................................................. 29 2. Authenticity and Dating ........................................................... 39 3. Storm-/Warrior-god Theophanic Motifs and Vocabulary ............................................................................. 41 v

vi

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

3.1. Effects upon Nature ........................................................ 42 3.2. Effects upon Humans ..................................................... 42 3.3. God’s Anger/Wrath ........................................................ 43 3.4. God as Savior, Rock, etc. ................................................ 43 3.5. Place Names...................................................................... 44 4. Micah 7 and Monotheism ........................................................ 44 5. Summary ..................................................................................... 46 Chapter Three: Habakkuk 3:1–19 ........................................................ 47 1. Text, Syntax, and Translation .................................................. 48 2. Authenticity and Dating ........................................................... 78 3. Storm-/Warrior-god Theophanic Motifs and Vocabulary ............................................................................. 85 3.1. Effects upon Nature ........................................................ 87 3.2. Effects upon Humans ..................................................... 89 3.3. God’s Anger/Wrath ........................................................ 90 4.4. God’s Weapons/Battle Motifs....................................... 90 3.5. God as Savior, Rock, etc. ................................................ 92 3.6. Place Names...................................................................... 92 4. Habakkuk 3 and Monotheism ................................................. 93 5. Summary ..................................................................................... 94 Chapter Four: Zechariah 9:9–16 .......................................................... 97 1. Text, Syntax, and Translation ................................................101 2. Authenticity and Dating .........................................................109 3. Storm-/Warrior-god Theophanic Motifs and Vocabulary ...........................................................................118 3.1. Effects upon Nature ......................................................120 3.2. Effects upon Humans ...................................................120 3.3. God’s Anger / Wrath ....................................................121 3.4. God’s Weapons / Battle Motifs ..................................121 3.5. God as Savior, Rock, etc. ..............................................124 3.6. Place Names....................................................................127 4. Zechariah 9 and Monotheism ...............................................128 5. Summary ...................................................................................128 Chapter Five: Conclusion....................................................................131 1. Intertextuality and Inner-Biblical Allusions ........................131 2. Cross-analysis of Mic 7:7–20, Habakkuk 3, and Zech 9:9–16 ...................................................................................135 2.1. Quotations and Non-Theophanic Linguistic Similarities ......................................................................136

TABLE OF CONTENTS

vii

2.2. The Storm-/warrior-god Motif....................................139 3. Connections with the Development of Monotheism .......146 4. Summary of Findings .............................................................147 Appendix A: Theophanic Vocabulary (Nouns and Verbs) ...........153 Appendix B: Theophanic Vocabulary (by Thematic Categories) ....................................................................................159 Bibliography ..........................................................................................165 Primary Sources ...........................................................................165 Lexica / Dictionaries ..................................................................166 Secondary Sources .......................................................................167

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work could not have been completed without the support and encouragement from professors, colleagues, friends, and family. 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. Although this work 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 Fr. Christopher T. Begg and Fr. Joseph Jensen, O.S.B., for their insightful comments and corrections of the initial dissertation manuscript. I am also appreciative of the enthusiasm and encouragement received from Dr. Robert D. Miller, II, Dr. David Bosworth, Fr. Frank Matera, as well as the late Dr. Michael Patrick O’Connor and Fr. Francis T. Gignac, S.J. 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. I am indebted to Dr. Michael Weigl, who inspired the topic for this work. 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 and Fr. George Boudreau, O.P. Other professors whom I wish to thank specifically include Dr. Eugene Bales and Rev. Dr. Ronald MacLennan, both retired from Bethany College (KS). ix

x

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

In addition to those who supported the writing process of the dissertation itself, there are several people whose assistance was invaluable in the process of transitioning this work from a dissertation to a book. Regular Skype meetings with Dr. Shannon McAlister kept me on track throughout the revision and editing process. I am also thankful for the editors at Gorgias Press who accepted this work for publication and, along with the peer-review, provided further insights into improving this work. 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 writing and revision processes. I am especially grateful to my mother, Kathy, for her assistance with some of the many German secondary sources. *** This work 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.

ABBREVIATIONS AB ABD AcBib AJSL ANES ANET AOTC ATD ATDan ATR AUSS Barb BASOR BBB BDAG

BDB

BETL BHS Bib BibInt

Anchor Bible Anchor Bible Dictionary. Edited by D. N. Freedman (et al.). Academia Biblica American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Ancient Near Eastern Studies Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating To The Old Testament. Edited by J. B. Pritchard. 3rd ed. Abingdon Old Testament Commentary Das Alte Testament Deutsch Acta theological Danica Anglican Theological Review Andrews University Seminary Studies Barberini version (Habakkuk 3) Bulletin of the American Schools of Orientation Research Bonner biblische Beiträge Danker, Frederick William, et al. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Brown, Francis, Samuel Rolles Driver, and Charles A. Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Reprint: Hendrickson, 2003 Bibliotheca Ephemeridum theologicarum Lovaniensium Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia. 5th ed. Biblia Biblical Interpretation xi

xii BN BRev BZ BZAW CahRB CANE

CBC CBET CBQ CBSC COS CurBR CurBS DJD EBib ETR FB FOTL FRLANT Gk HALOT

HAR HAT HB Heb HKAT HS

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR Biblische Notizen Bible Review Biblische Zeitschrift Beihefte zur ZAW Cahiers de la Revue biblique Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Edited by J. M. Sasson. 4 vols. Repr. in 2 vols. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006. Cambridge Bible Commentary on the New English Bible Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology Catholic Biblical Quarterly Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges The Context of Scripture. Edited by W. W. Hallo. 3 Vols. Currents in Biblical Research Currents in Research: Biblical Studies Discoveries in the Judaean Desert Études bibliques Études théologiques et religieuses Forschung zur Bibel Forms of the Old Testament Literature Forschungen zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments Greek Koehler, Ludwig, and Walter Baumgartner. The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament. Study Edition. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 2001 Hebrew Annual Review Handbuch zum Alten Testament Hebrew Bible Hebrew Handkommentar zum Alten Testament Hebrew Studies

ABBREVIATIONS HSM HTR HUCA IBS ICC IDB JANES(CU) JBL JBQ JETS JHebS JNES JNSL JOTT JQR JSOT JSOTSup JSS JTS KAT KHC La LHBOTS LSJ

LXX MT NAC NCB

xiii

Harvard Semitic Monographs Harvard Theological Review Hebrew Union College Annual Irish Biblical Studies International Critical Commentary Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by G. A. Buttrick Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society (of Columbia University) Journal of Biblical Literature Jewish Bible Quarterly Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society Journal of Hebrew Scriptures Journal of Near Eastern Studies Journal of Northwest Semitic Languages Journal of Translation and Textlinguistics Jewish Quarterly Review Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series Journal of Semitic Studies Journal of Theological Studies Kommentar zum Alten Testament Kurzer Hand-Commentar zum Alten Testament Latin Library of Hebrew Bible/Old Testament Studies Scott, Henry George, Robert Scott, and Sir Henry Stuart Jones. A Greek-English Lexicon. Rev. ed. Oxford: Clarendon, 1996 Septuagint Masoretic Text New American Commentary New Century Bible

xiv NCBC NEchB NIB NICOT NIDB OBO OT OTE OTL RB ResQ RevExp SBLDS SBLSS SBLWAW SEÅ SJOT ST StBibLit Syr TBT TynBul TynOTC TZ VT VTSup WBC WMANT WTJ

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR New Cambridge Bible Commentary Neue Echter Bibel New Interpreter’s Bible New International Commentary on the Old Testament New Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible. Edited by Katharine Doob Sakenfeld. 5 vols. Orbis biblicus et orientalis Old Testament Old Testament Essays Old Testament Library Revue biblique Restoration Quarterly Review & Expositor Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation Series Society of Biblical Literature Semeia Studies Society of Biblical Literature Writings from the Ancient World Svensk exegetisk årsbok Scandinavian Journal of the Old Testament Studia theological Studies in Biblical Literature Syriac The Bible Today Tyndale Bulletin Tyndale Old Testament Commentaries Theologische Zeitschrift Vetus Testamentum Vetus Testamentum Supplements Word Biblical Commentary Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen Testament Westminster Theological Journal

ABBREVIATIONS WUNT ZA ZAW ZBAT ZS

Wissenschalftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament Zeitschrift für Assyriologie Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft Zürcher Bibelkommentare, Altes Testament Zeitschrift für Semitistik und verwandte Gebiete

xv

CHAPTER ONE: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS Both storm-god and warrior-god motifs occur frequently in the texts and iconography of various Ancient Near East (ANE) cultures. Many storm-gods were often portrayed with warrior imagery; however, not all warrior-gods were storm-gods. 1 Questions have also 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 responsibili-

For example, the Mesopotamian god Erra was a god of ‘violence, warfare, pestilence, and “scorched earth”’ (Benjamin R. Foster, ‘Mesopotamia,’ in A Handbook of Ancient Religion [ed. John R. Hinnells; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007: 161–213], 178), a god of plague and the underworld (Stephanie Dalley, 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 BCE Neo-Assyrian cylinder (Martin 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], 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 [Arthur Cotterell, A Dictionary of World Mythology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986), 25–26; Foster, ‘Mesopotamia,’ 176]). 1

1

2

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

ties typically associated with a ‘storm-god’ (e.g., fertilizing rains). 2 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. 3 Daniel Schwemer, ‘The Storm-gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies, Part I,’ Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 7 (2007): 121–168, here 123–129. According to Schwemer, the list of gods ‘misleadingly addressed as “storm-gods” in secondary literature’ include: Enlil, Ninurta (Ningirsu), Marduk, Anzu(d)-$Q]Ø 'DJćQ DQG ,WŠUPĔU QRW WR EH FRQIXVHG ZLWK WKH DFWXDO VWRUP-JRG :0ĔU  LELG 125–129; quotation from p. 125). In his article, Schwemer criticizes works such as Alberto 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 I,’ 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 Tarh`un(t) (ibid., 125). 3 Unlike the Canaanite storm-god Ba‘al, Yhwh is not depicted as a fertility-god in the HB 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 William G. Dever, Did God Have a Wife? Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005), esp. 176–251; Judith M. Hadley, The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah (Cambridge: University Press, 2000); Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel (trans. Thomas H. Trapp; Min2

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

3

This chapter will discuss characteristics of storm-/warrior-god motif as found in non-biblical ANE texts, followed by an analysis of the language and imagery in several noteworthy theophanic passages in the Hebrew Bible (HB). These characteristics and vocabulary are used in later chapters to identify and analyze similar motifs in the Twelve Prophets, especially focusing on Mic 7:7–20; Habakkuk 3; and Zech 9:9–16 as test cases. By tracing the use of the storm-/warrior-god motif and language associated with it, one is able to detect a shift in the use of the motif in the HB that corresponds with the development of monotheism within Ancient Israelite religion. Due to the interest in different adaptations of the storm-/warrior-god motif, this study presupposes a fairly broad definition of the motif in order to detect its use in passages even where the motif is not the primary focus. 4

1. STORM-/WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS IN ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN TEXTS Similar characteristics occur throughout the various storm/warrior-god motifs in ANE texts, particularly vocabulary and imagery, such as type of weapons used and in what context(s). The enemy targets of the storm-/warrior-god can range from other gods to geographical landscapes to human enemies of the deity’s people. As with many ancient religions, mountains can also be important aspects of theophanic descriptions. 1.1. 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 neapolis: Fortress Press, 1998), 177–281; Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God (The Biblical Resource Series; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 108–147; Ziony Zevit, The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches (New York: Continuum, 2001), 650–651. 4 For an overview and analysis of different definitions used for ‘Divine Warrior,’ see Charlie Trimm, “YHWH Fights for Them!” The Divine Warrior in the Exodus Narrative (Gorgias Biblical Studies 58; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2014), 1–6, 35–41.

4

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

god. In ANE iconography, as Klingbeil notes, the bundle of lightning is the most important identifier of a weather-god. 5 Some deities who are described or depicted as wielding lightning include: Adad, Ba‘al, Hadad, Iškur, Marduk, Ninurta, and the Hittite Stormgod (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. 6

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. 7

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,

Klingbeil, Yahweh Fighting from Heaven, 246. He also notes that three-forked lightning bundle is typically Hittite or Assyrian, while a twoforked bundle is usually Babylonian (ibid., 244). Several seals and cylinders with this motif from the eleventh-eighth centuries BCE have been found (ibid., 244–246). 6 Annals of Muršiliš II 17.16–19 (Jeffrey Niehaus, God at Sinai: Covenant & Theophany in the Bible and Ancient Near East [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1995], 129). 7 Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 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). 5

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

5

Put lightning in front of him, 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. 8

Various Assyrian gods are portrayed using atmospheric/natural elements in battle against Kashtiliash IV of Babylon in the ‘TukultiNinurta Epic.’ 9 Assur kindles a ‘biting flame’ against the enemies and Enlil fans the ‘burning flame’ in the midst of the enemy. 10 Adad sends a ‘flood-wind’ against them. 11 1.2. 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, and the Phoenician god Kronos vs. dragon Ophion. 12 Another sky-god vs. a serpent(-god) myth involves the Egyptian god Re (Ra) vs. the serpent Apophis. 13 The Canaanite warrior-goddess Anat claims victory over the serpent associated with Yam. 14 Similarly, Adad, Enuma Elish, Tablet IV (Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia, 251). Niehaus, God at Sinai, 133. 10 Cf. Ps 18:9; Isa 30:27, 30. 11 Cf. Isa 30:30. 12 Theodor H. Gaster, Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Dreams in the Ancient Near East (New York: Schuman, 1950), 140–151. 13 Cotterell, World Mythology, 43–44. 14 Nicolas Wyatt, ‘Religion in Ancient Ugarit,’ in A Handbook of Ancient Religion (ed. John R. Hinnells; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007: 105–160), 116. 8 9

6

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Lord of Aleppo, mentions his own fight against the Sea as revealed by the prophet Abiya to Nur-Sîn. 15 Examples of possible parallels to this motif in the HB 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). 1.3. Effects on Nature The appearance of warrior-like storm-gods affects the land and nature. 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. 16

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?], The high places of the ear[th] tottered. The enemies of Baal took to the woods, … 17

In 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. Ex 19:18; Ps 18:8) and his

Mari letters, Nur-Sîn to Zimri Lim (Martti Nissinen, Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East [SBLWAW 12; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003], 21–22). 16 KTU 1.4 V.6–9 (translation: Mark Smith and Wayne T. Pitard, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Vol. II [VTSup 114; Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2009], 81). 17 KTU 1.4 VII.28–35 (translation: Smith and Pitard, Ugaritic Baal Cycle, Vol. II, 84). 15

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

7

enemies flee (cf. Ps 68:13). A frequent title for Ba‘al is the ‘CloudRider.’ 18 1.4. 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. 19 In the ‘Tukulti-Ninurta Epic,’ Ninurta is mentioned as ‘shattering’ the weapons of the Babylonians. 20 This imagery has parallels in HB 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. 1.5. 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 visible. 21 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’). 22 The Canaanite god Ba‘al was closely connected with Mt. Zaphon. 23 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, 18

For example: KTU 1.2 IV.8; 1.3 IV.4; cf. Deut 33:26; Pss 18:11;

68:34. Annals of Muršiliš II 17.16–19 (Niehaus, God at Sinai, 129). Cf. Exod 15:6; 19:6; 1 Sam 2:10; Ps 68:22; Isa 30:31. 21 Schwemer, ‘Storm-gods, Part I,’ 130. 22 Foster, ‘Mesopotamia,’ 175; see also Alberto R. W. Green, The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East (Biblical and Judaic Studies 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 35. 23 Wyatt, ‘Religion in Ancient Ugarit,’ 118. 19 20

8

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Palestinian, etc.) whose cosmologies include this notion of a holy mountain as a common phenomenon in the cosmologies of several ancient cultures and also found in the HB (cf. Gen 12:8; Psalms 48, 68). 24

2. STORM-/WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS IN THE HEBREW BIBLE Probably the most extensive and influential work about theophanies in the HB was published in 1965 by Jörg Jeremias, who uses Formgeschichte and Überlieferungsgeschichte to analyze theophanic passages. 25 Jeremias thinks that the Song of Deborah in Judges 5 contains the original theophanic form (specifically in vv. 4–5) from Mircea Eliade, Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism (New York: Sheed & Ward, 1961), 41–44. 25 Jörg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung (WMANT 10; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 6. 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]; J. H. Hunter, “Theophany Verses in the Hebrew Psalms,” OTE 11 [1998]: 255–270). 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,’ 265–266). For other works about theophanies in the psalms, see also Marc Zvi Brettler, ‘Images of YHWH the Warrior in Psalms,’ Semeia 61 (1993): 135–65; Klingbeil, Yahweh Fighting from Heaven, esp. 55–157; Tremper Longman, III, ‘Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song,’ JETS 27 (1984): 267– 274; Henrik 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), 204–257 (Psalm 68); Bernard Renaud, ‘Le Psaume 85 et son caractère théophanique,’ in Ouvrir les Écritures (ed. P. Bovati and R. Meynet; LD 162; Paris: Cerf, 1995) 133–149, esp. 141–148; Steven Shnider, ‘Psalm XVIII: Theophany, Epiphany, Empowerment,’ VT 56 (2006): 386–398. 24

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

9

which all other HB theophanies have developed. 26 This original form, according to Jeremias, consists of two parts: (1) the coming of Yhwh from a certain place, and (2) an uproar in nature (e.g., earthquakes, lightning) as a result of Yhwh’s coming. 27 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., Am 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). 28 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). Frank Moore 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. 29 The first genre pattern identified by Cross is the Divine Warrior’s march into battle, of which he considers Ex 15:1–18 to be the oldest and fullest ex-

Jeremias, Theophanie, 7. 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). 28 A summary list of these four developments is found Jeremias, Theophanie, 15–16; see pp. 16–69 for a detailed analysis and examples of each type. 29 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 162–163. 26 27

10

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

ample. 30 The other genre pattern is best exemplified in Psalm 29 in which the Divine Warrior returns from the battle to manifest his kingship. 31 Cross locates the normative and primary locus of HB 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 HB. 32 Both Gerhard von Rad and John 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 Yhwh’ was derived, according to von Rad. 33 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 HB theophany narratives prior to the Babylonian Exile. 34 Edwin C. 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. 35 He traces the storm

Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 157. Cross also includes as part of the first genre “virtually all of Israel’s oldest hymns” such as Deut 32:2–3, 26–29; Judg 5:4–5; Pss 68:8–9, 18; 77:15–20; 114; Hab 3:3–15 (p. 157). 31 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 160; some other examples cited by Cross are Pss 89:9–19; 93; 96; 98 (pp. 160–162). 32 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 163–164. 33 Gerhard von Rad, ‘The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh,’ JSS 4 (1959): 97–108, here 104. 34 John Van Seters, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers (Louisville: John Knox, 1994), 263, 267–270. 35 Edwin C. Kingsbury, ‘The Theophany Topos and the Mountain of God,’ JBL 86 (1967): 205–210. Kingsbury (p. 205 n. 1) calls the two types 30

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

11

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 Jerusalem or the Temple. 36 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. Although some scholars have proposed a cultic Sitz im Leben for theophanic accounts, 37 the present study favors the other major theory which traces theophanies to the context of Holy War and the imagery of the victorious Divine Warrior. 38 After rejecting Jerusalem worship festivals as the original Sitz im Leben of theophanic accounts, Jeremias concludes that the genre pertains originally to of theophanies ‘topics,’ by which he means ‘rhetorical patterns which may be used as building blocks for literary structures.’ 36 Kingsbury, ‘The Theophany Topos,’ 209. 37 Scholars who support a cultic sitz im leben include John Gray (Joshua, Judges, Ruth [NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986], 203–205), Kingsbury (‘Theophany Topos,’ 205), and Artur 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 [eds W. Baumgartner, et al.; Tübingen: Mohr, 1950], 513–531). Cf. Hans-Peter Müller, ‘Die kultische Darstellung der Theophanie,’ VT 14 (1964): 183– 191. 38 Scholars who reject the cult as the original Sitz im Leben of the theophany in addition to those mentioned below include Peter C. Craigie (‘The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta,’ JBL 88 [1969]: 253–265, esp. 254–255), Wayne R. Herman (‘The Kingship of Yahweh in the Hymnic Theophanies of the Old Testament,’ Studia Biblica et Theologica 16 [1988]: 169–211, esp. 208–209), and Frank Schnutenhaus (‘Das Kommen und Erscheinen Gottes im Alten Testament,’ ZAW 76 [1964]: 1–22, esp. 19–21).

12

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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. 39 Cross traces HB 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.’ 40 2.1. Sinai Theophanies and Moses 41 The theophany at Sinai in Exodus 19 is often considered the most well-known and perhaps most significant theophany in the HB; 42 it

Jeremias, Theophanie, 122, 138–144. Jeremias also attempts to trace the subsequent detachment of theophanic descriptions from this original Sitz im Leben (ibid., 158–63). 40 Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic, 157, 163–165 (quotation on p. 163). A similar position is also held by Michael Coogan (‘Warrior, Divine,’ in NIDB, vol. 5 [Nashville: Abingdon, 2009]: 815–816, 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. 41 Another famous theophany involving Moses at Mt. Horeb (= Sinai?) occurs in Exodus 3 as part of Moses’ ‘call narrative.’ 42 Regarding the significance of Exodus 19 and theophanies, see Carol Stuart Grizzard and Marvin E. Tate, ‘Theophany,’ in Mercer Dictionary of the Bible (ed. Watson E. Mills; Macon: Mercer University Press, 1990), 908; ‘Theophany,’ in Catholic Bible Dictionary (ed. Scott Hahn; New York: Doubleday, 2009), 904–905, here 905; Gwyneth Windsor, ‘Theophany: Traditions of the Old Testament,’ Theology 75 (1972): 411–416, here 412. In fact, the approach used by Jeffrey Niehaus in his book on theophanies (God at Sinai) focuses on an analysis of passages, from ‘pre39

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

13

is part of a larger narrative which contains other theophanic scenes (e.g., in Exodus 24). 43 In Exodus 19, Moses converses with Yhwh 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. 44 Exodus 19:16 mentions lightning (-'9:), thunder (=+9), and a thick cloud ()013) over the mountain, all of which (combined with a trumpet blast) cause the people Sinai’ to ‘post-Sinai,’ which contain what he calls ‘Sinaitic characteristics’ (i.e., characteristics of a storm theophany; see p. 142). 43 For more detailed analyses of Exodus 19 and its context, see Thijs Booij, ‘Mountain and Theophany in the Sinai Narrative,’ Bib 65 (1984): 1– 26; Walter Brueggemann, ‘The Book of Exodus: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflection,’ in NIB (12 vols; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 1. 675–981, esp. 831–839 (Exodus 19) and 879–883 (Exodus 24); Waldemar Janzen, Exodus (Believer’s Church Bible Commentary; Scottdale, PA: Herald Press, 2000), 234–249; Jeremias, Theophanie, 100– 114; J. Kenneth Kuntz, The Self-Revelation of God (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967), 72–103; Carol L. Meyers, Exodus (NCBC; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 141–156; Niehaus, God at Sinai, 195–200; Frank 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), 113–147, esp. 129–141; William H. C. Propp, Exodus 19–40 (AB 2A; New York: Doubleday, 2006), 101–623, especially 619–623; Albrecht Scriba, Die Geschichte des Motivkomplexes Theophanie (FRLANT 167; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 177–182; Van Seters, Life of Moses, 245–289; André 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): 471–480; Erich Zenger, Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk (FB 3; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1971). 44 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 John W. Wevers, Exodus (Septuaginta 2/1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991). The La text is from Robert Weber, Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994).

14

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

to tremble (:%). Two verses later (v. 18), Yhwh descends in fire (f) upon the smoke-enveloped (0f3) mountain that, like the people in v. 16, trembles (:%). 45 Elohim responds to Moses via thunder (+9) 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 (!#!' #)) is described as covering the mountain in a cloud (013) and in fire (f). 46 Although the LXX agrees with the MT in 19:16 with regard to the people trembling, it differs from the Hebrew in v. 18 where the same verb root (:%) is used of the mountain. In place /:!!¡+):%'# (‘and the whole mountain trembled greatly’) in the MT, the LXX reads Á¸Ė ëÆñÊ̾ ÈÜË ĝ ¸ġË ÊÎĠ»É¸ (‘and all the people were greatly amazed’). However, there is one Gk MS (Fb) which uses ëÈÌÇû¿¾ (‘were terrified’) of v. 16 in place of ëÆñÊ̾Éin 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 is 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). It 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. 46 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 013 (‘cloud’); however, in Exodus 19, the cloud associated with Elohim is clearly described as a storm/thunder cloud () 013) 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 013#/3 [‘pillar of cloud’] which also is not suggestive of a threat45

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

15

2.2. 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. 47 Yhwh is called ‘(my) salvation’ (!3#f') in v. 2, ‘man of war’ (!/%+/f') in v. 3, 48 and one who redeems (+) his people in v. 13. The Egyptians are tossed into the Sea (v. 4) where the deep (-#!=) covers them and they sink into the depths (=+#8/) like a stone (v. 5). Yhwh’s right hand shatters (73:) the enemy (v. 6), and the deeps (=/!=), as well as waters (-'/  ) and flowing waters (-'+$1), react to the breath (%#:) of Yhwh’s nostrils/anger (0#:% v. 7; 5 v. 8). The peoples (presumably the nations given the context and indicated in Gk by ì¿Å¾) heard and shook ($:), 49 while anguish (+'%) seized the inhabitants of Philistia (v. 14). The chiefs of Edom were terrified (+!), trembling (3:) seized the Moabite rulers, and the inhabitants of Canaan melted ening 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 :% (‘tremble’) is used with both sets of imagery (storm in 19:16; fire in 19:18) to describe a reaction to the divine presence. 47 For more information about this hymn in Exodus 15, see Martin 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, 109–111, 116–123; Patrick D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 113–117; William H. C. Propp, Exodus 1 –18 (AB 2; New York: Doubleday, 1999), 502–572; Brian 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); Trimm, ‘YHWH Fights for Them!’, esp. 43–75 ; Van Seters, Life of Moses, 147–148. 48 The Gk in v. 3 has ÊÍÅÌÉĕ¹ÑÅ ÈÇÂñÄÇÍË (‘crushing/shattering wars’ with ÈÇÂñÄÇÍË as the direct object and ÊÍÅÌÉĕ¹ÑÅ as a participle modifying ÁįÉÀÇË [‘Lord’]) where !/%+/f' (‘man of war’) appears in the Heb. 49 Most Gk witnesses have ĴɺĕÊ¿¾Ê¸Å (‘they were angry’) in place of the Heb 0#$:' (‘they shake’); however, Alexandrinus and a few other MSS use ëÎǹû¿¾Ê¸ÅÉ (‘they were afraid’) instead, which more closely agrees with the Heb.

16

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

away (#/, niphal) (v. 15); terror (!/'  ) and dread (%6) fall upon them (v. 16). 2.3. 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 Yhwh’s people despite their previous unfaithfulness. 50 Several times Yhwh is referred to as the ‘Rock’ (:#8; vv. 4, 15, 18, 30, 31). 51 Yhwh’s anger against the unfaithful Israelites is likened to a fire (f) that burns to the bottom of Sheol, devours the land and its produce, and sets fire to the foundations of the mountains (-':!'2#/) (v. 22). Yhwh sends his arrows (-'8%) against them (v. 23), along with famine (3:), flame (5f:), pestilence (&9), and teeth of animals with poison (!/%) 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 (9:; lit. “lightning”) sword (:%) is directed against his adversaries instead (v. 41). Yhwh will make his arrows (-'8%) drunk with blood, his sword (:%) shall devour flesh (v. 42). Thus, in the end, Yhwh avenges the blood of his servants/people (v. 43). 2.4. 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 The critical edition of the Gk text of Deuteronomy used is John W. Wevers, Deuteronomium (Septuaginta 3/2; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977). For more detailed analyses of Deuteronomy 32, see Walter Brueggemann, Deuteronomy (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2001), 277– 284; Ronald E. Clements, ‘The Book of Deuteronomy: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflection,’ in NIB (12 vols; Nashville: Abingdon, 1998: 2.269–538), 2. 522–530; Samuel R. Driver, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy (ICC; 3rd ed.; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986), 344–385. 51 The Gk consistently uses ¿¼ĠË (‘God’) where :#8 appears in the Heb text as a reference to God (as opposed to a literal ‘rock’ as in v. 13). 50

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

17

associated with a Divine Warrior motif, with the blessings for each tribe located in the middle. 52 Yhwh comes from Sinai, dawned on his people from Seir, and shone forth from Mt. Paran, with fire (f) possibly being associated with his right hand (0'/', v. 2). 53 Later, God (‘El’) is described as one who rides through the skies (): -'/f, v. 26), the Eternal God (-9 '!+  ) who is Israel’s dwelling place and drives out (f:, piel) their enemies (v. 27), and Yhwh who is their shield (01/) and sword (:%) by which they triumph over their enemies (v. 29). 2.5. 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 5:4–5. 54 Yhwh is said to have come forth from Seir, marching from Edom, with the result that the earth trembles (f3:) and the clouds (-'3) drop rain (-'/; ‘water’) (v. 4). The mountains trickled (+$1) 55 before Yhwh, this One of Sinai ('1'2!$), For more detailed analyses of Deuteronomy 33, see Brueggemann, Deuteronomy, 284–287; Clements, ‘Book of Deuteronomy,’ 531–537 (esp. 534); Driver, Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy, 385–417 (esp. 390–93); Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen von Süden, 178–203. 53 Note: there is some textual instability in the Heb for the latter part of this verse. The Samaritan Pentateuch mentions = f (‘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 warriorgod and storm-god motifs in the HB. 54 For more detailed analyses of Judges 5, see Michael D. Coogan, ‘A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah,’ CBQ 40 (1978): 143–166; Peter C. Craigie, ‘Deborah and Anat: A Case Study of Poetic Imagery [Judges 5],’ ZAW 90 (1978): 374–381; Pfeiffer, Jahwes Kommen von Süden, 19–116. 55 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., :% in Ex 19:8; $: and f3in Ps 18:8) and what one would expect 52

18

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

the God of Israel (+:g''!+  , v. 5). As mentioned above, it is to these two verses that Jeremias traces the original literary form of theophanies in the HB. 56 5F

2.6. 1 Samuel 2: ‘Song / Prayer of Hannah’ This short prayer/song has a couple of noteworthy elements of relevance to my study. 57 Yhwh’s salvation (!3#f') is mentioned in v. 1 among the reasons why Hannah is rejoicing and praising Yhwh, and v. 2 affirms that there is no ‘rock’ (:#8) like Yhwh. 58 Later, it mentions that Yhwh’s adversaries shall be shattered (==%, niphal) and Yhwh thunders (-3:, hiphil) in the skies/heaven against them (v. 10). Thus, we find a combination of warrior- and storm-god motifs, particularly in v. 10. 2.7. 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 (3+2 and:#8), a mountain/high stronghold (!#8/ and 1g/), a shield (0/), and a ‘horn of salvation’ ('3f'¡0:9) 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). 59 Yhwh’s subsequent anger is described in v. 8 as causing the earth to convulse (f3) and shake (f3:) and likewise causing the

given the context; also, the Gk has ëʸ¼į¿¾Ê¸Å (‘they were shaken’), which is used to translate the hithpael of f3in Ps 18:8. 56 Jeremias, Theophanie, 7. 57 For more detailed analyses of 1 Samuel 2, see Ralph W. Klein, 1 Samuel (WBC 10; 2nd ed.; Waco: Word, 2008), 12–20. 58 As in Deuteronomy 32, the Gk avoids literal translations of :#8 when used as a title or epithet for God. 59 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.

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

19

foundations of the mountains to quake ($:) and convulse (f3). 60 Smoke (0f3) comes from his nose and a fire (f) from his mouth that devours (+), 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 (!=1) the heavens and a dark cloud (+6:3) is under his foot (v. 10). Yhwh rides upon a cherub and upon the “wings of the wind” (%#:¡'61), v. 11). Darkness ((f%) is his hiding place and thick thunderclouds (lit.  -'/¡=  )f% -'9%f'3; “darkness of rain, clouds of clouds”) are his canopy (v. 12); there follow references to brightness (!1), hail (:), and possibly lightning (lit. f  ¡+%; “coals of fire”) in v. 13. Yhwh thunders (-3:) in the heavens, giving his voice (+9, v. 14). 61 Then, in v. 15, Yhwh sends out his arrows (-'8%) by which he scatters (7#6) “them” [enemies] and shoots his lightning (-'9:) by which he confuses (-/!) them. 62 The channels of the waters (-'/'9'6) are made visible and the foundations of the world (+= =#2#/) uncovered (!+) by Yhwh’s rebuke, also described as the “blowing of breath/wind of his nose/anger” ((6%#:=/f1/, v. 16).

It is intriguing that the verb f3 is used in the qal with 7: (‘earth’) as subject but in the hithpael when -':! (‘mountains’) are the subject. However, there does not seem to be a significant difference in meaning and the LXX uses the aorist passive of ʸ¼įÑ to translate both stems of f3 in this verse. Note that the parallel verse in 2 Sam 22:8 has -'/f (‘heavens’) rather than -':! (‘mountains’). 61 The same phrase f  ¡'+%#: (‘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. 62 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. 60

20

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

2.8. Psalm 68 Elohim goes out (8') before his people, marching (38) in the wilderness (0#/'f') (v. 8). The earth quakes (f3:) in Elohim’s presence (v. 9). 63 Rain falls from the sky (vv. 9–10). 64 The kings of enemy armies flee (1) from Adonai (vv. 12–13) 65 and Shaddai scatters (g:6) 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 ():) are mentioned in connection with Sinai (v. 18). El is called ‘(our) salvation’ (!3#f') in v. 20 and an escape from death (=#/) belongs to Yhwh Adonai in v. 21. 66 65F

As does (Mt.) Sinai, if Sinai is understood as standing in parallel position with 7: (‘earth’) and the verb f3: is implied on the basis of the parallelism in Hebrew (‘gapping’ of the verb between parallel poetic lines). 64 In v. 9, the phrase indicating rain is #6=1 -'/f¡5 (literally: ‘the nose of the heavens/skies dripped’); this expression is found only here in the TANAKH. Verse 10 uses a more common word, -f , 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 above regarding ANE storm-gods. 65 Note that the LXX reads Òº¸È¾ÌÇı (‘beloved’) for0#', as if from the noun ' (‘beloved’), which completely changes the tone and meaning of this verse in Greek. 66 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. 63

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

21

The warrior imagery returns in v. 22, where Elohim is described as shattering / smashing (7%/) the heads of his enemies (#'' f  :). 67 Adonai brings back (his people?) from the depths of the sea (-'=#+8/) in v. 23. 68 Later, in v. 31, there is a petition for God to scatter (:$) people who delight in battle. There is a reference to the one who ‘rides in the heaven of heavens of ancient times’(-9¡'/f'/f):) in v. 34, followed by an assertion that Elohim’s power ($3) is in the clouds (-'9%f) in v. 35. 2.9. Psalm 77 As with Psalm 18 above, in Psalm 77 a petitioner is crying out in distress (!:8) with the hope that God may hear (vv. 2–4). This leads to a recollection of the wonders God had done in the past for Israel (vv. 12–21), in particular those of the Exodus tradition. Both the storm-god and warrior-god imagery occur. God redeemed (+) the sons of Jacob and Joseph with his arm/strength (3#:$, v. 16). The waters (-'/) writhed (+'%) when they saw Elohim and the deep (-#!=) quaked ($:, v. 17). The clouds (=#3) poured rain (-'/ #/:$) and were accompanied by thunder (lit.  #1%1 +#9 -'9%f, ‘the clouds gave voice’) while arrows (-'8%, probably indicating lightning) went back and forth (v. 18). Verse 19 also mentions thunder (-3:; but this time linked to chariot wheels [++])

99[‘crown of the head’] is also used in this verse in the following poetic line as a reference back to f  :. The term 99 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). 68 The plural term =#+8/ is also used in Ex 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; Jon 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 see 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. 67

22

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

and lightning (-'9:), and now the earth also trembles/quakes ($:) and shakes (f3:). 2.10. Isaiah A brief theophanic passage is found in Isa 30:27–33, though theophanic imagery is used elsewhere in Isaiah as well. The coming of the name of Yhwh brings thick clouds (!g/ )), his tongue is likened to a devouring fire (=+) f  , 69 v. 27) and breath as an overflowing stream reaching as high as the back of the neck (:#8, v. 28). There is a reference to the mountain of Yhwh, the Rock (:#8) of Israel (v. 29). 70 Yhwh causes his voice (+#9) to be heard and his arm (3#:$) descends in raging anger (553$), a flame of devouring fire (!+)# f   !+), a driving storm (761), a downpour (-:$) and hailstones (: 0, v. 30). The Assyrians will be filled with terror (==%, niphal) at the sound of Yhwh’s voice when Yhwh smites (!)1, hiphil) with his rod (v. 31). The breath (!/f1) of Yhwh is described as kindling the pyre prepared for the [Assyrian] king (v. 33). 2.11. A Counter-image: Mt. Horeb and Elijah (1 Kings 19:9– 18) 71 In 1 Kings 19:9–18, 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), for which Jezebel has threatened to have him killed (19:1–2). Elijah flees to Mt. Horeb where Cf. Ps 18:9. As I noted previously (particularly in Deuteronomy 32), the Gk uses ¿¼ĠË (‘God’) where the Heb uses :#8 (‘rock’). 71 For more detailed analyses, see Mordecai Cogan, 1 Kings (AB 10; New York: Doubleday, 2000), 449–458; Simon J. De Vries, 1 Kings (WBC 12; Waco: Word, 1985), 232–237; Paul R. House, 1, 2 Kings (NAC 8; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), 222–224; Kuntz, Self-Revelation of God, 147–154; James A. Montgomery, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings (ICC; Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951, 19762), 312–318; Choon-Leong Seow, ‘The First and Second Book of Kings,’ in NIB (12 vols.; Nashville: Abingdon, 1999), 3. 1–295, here 141–145; J. T. Walsh, 1 Kings (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996) 264–282. 69 70

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

23

the Word of Yhwh (!#!'¡:) instructs him to stand upon the mountain before Yhwh (vv. 9–11). Yhwh passes by (:3) and there is a great and severe wind (9$!# !+# %#:) that tears apart the mountains (-':! 9:6/) and shatters rocks (-'3+2 :f/  , v. 11). Then there is an earthquake (f3:), followed by a fire (f  , vv. 11– 12). In each case – wind, earthquake, and fire – the text specifies that Yhwh was not in any of them. Instead, Yhwh’s presence is indicated by the voice of a slight whisper (!9!//+#9), at which point Elijah covers his face and steps out the cave to speak with Yhwh (vv. 12–13). 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). 72 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. 73 However, whereas Yhwh spoke to Moses from the fire (e.g., Ex 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.

3. CONCLUSION The storm-god/warrior-god motifs are found throughout the HB 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). In the present study, the primary interest is with theophanic descriptions in which Yhwh is portrayed using storm-god and/or warriorgod motifs in particular and analyzing the use of this motif for deSee also the discussion regarding the importance of mountains and divine encounters in the section titled ‘Sinai Theophanies and Moses’ above. 73 The corresponding verbal root (f3:) for f4™ :™ (‘earthquake’) in 1 Kings 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. 72

24

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

velopments or changes in the application of the motif. My method of determination for what passages contain the storm-god/warriorgod motif is based strictly upon vocabulary and context rather than any proposed literary form. The three passages to serve as test cases for this study are Mic 7:7–20 (Chapter Two); Hab 3:1–19 (Chapter Three); and Zech 9:9– 16 (Chapter Four). The study of these passages will focus on the Hebrew text in terms of the historical-critical and text-critical issues they pose and evaluating their theophanic characteristics based on the observations made in this chapter; however, I shall also pay attention to the Greek, Syriac, and Latin translations as early witnesses to the text of these passages. 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 but consecutive 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. While the primary purpose of this study is analyzing the uses of a specific motif in the HB, I will also be discussing, to some extent, issues of dating and redaction (in dialog with other scholars’ works) in order to look for a diachronic pattern or development of the motif over time. However, the goal is not to definitely date any of these texts or propose an elaborate redactional theory – rather, I am primarily interested in analyzing the use of the motif in these three passages and then looking for an overall pattern in the development by which we may propose a relative dating of the uses of the motifs (early – late, allowing for overlap and competing uses). The results of this analysis will show a development in the application of the storm-god/warrior-god motif that corresponds to what other scholars have observed regarding the shift in Ancient Israelite religion from a worldview that is polytheistic or henotheistic to one that is more strictly monotheistic. 74 For purposes of this study, “monotheism” refers to a belief system that acknowledges the existence of only one god, despite Baruch Halpern’s argument that the monolatrous henotheism of Ancient Israel was “unselfconsciously monotheistic” from the beginning (Baruch 74

1: STORM-GOD AND WARRIOR-GOD MOTIFS

25

Halpern, ‘“Brisker Pipes than Poetry”: The Development of Israelite Monotheism,’ in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987: 77–115), quote from 101.

CHAPTER TWO: 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 Scholars who connect v. 7 with the preceding verses (vv. 1–6) include Alain Decorzant (Vom Gericht zum Erbarmen: Text und Theologie von Micha 6–7 [FB 123; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2010], 122–141); Alfons Deissler (Zwölf Propheten II: Obadja, Jona, Micha, Nahum, Habakkuk [NEchB 8/2; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984], 168, 196–197); Delbert R. Hillers (Micah [Hermeneia; Philadelphia: Fortress, 1984], 83); Philip Peter Jenson (Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary [LHBOTS 496; London/New York: Clark, 2008], 182); Jörg Jeremias (Die Propheten: Joel, Obadja, Jona, Micha [ATD 24/3; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2007], 219); Theodore Robinson (Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten: Hosea bis Micha [HAT 1, Reihe 14; Tübingen: Mohr, 1954], 148); Wilhelm Rudolph (Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja [KAT 13/3; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975], 24); Ernst Sellin (Das Zwölfprophetenbuch: Übersetzt und erklärt [KAT 12; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1922], 299–301); Charles S. Shaw (The Speeches of Micah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis [JSOTSup 145; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993], 161–165); Daniel J. Simundson (Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah [AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2005], 342); Artur 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); Hans Walter Wolff 1

27

28

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

v. 7 with the preceding verses is the adversative # that begins its opening colon ('1#), thus presupposing that there is something in the previous context that is being contrasted with the statement that begins with this adversative #. 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, independent75F

(Dodekapropheton 4: Micha [BKAT 14/4; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1982], 174–185). Scholars who connect v. 7 with the following verses (vv. 8–20) include: Francis Andersen and David Noel Freedman (Micah [AB 24E; New York: Doubleday, 2000], 574–575); Thomas Kelly Cheyne (Micah [CBSC; Cambridge: University Press, 1921] 57); Hermann Gunkel (‘Der Micha-Schluß: Zur Einführung in die literaturegeschichtliche Arbeit am Alten Testament,’ ZS 2 [1924], 145–178, here 147); Karl Marti (Dodekapropheton [Kurzer Hand-kommentar zum Alten Testament 13; Tuࡇbingen: Mohr, 1904], 298); Dane Eric Miller (Micah and Its Literary Environment: Rhetorical Critical Case Studies [Ann Arbor: UMI, 1992], 169); Wilhelm Nowack (Die kleinen Propheten [HKAT 3/4; 2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903], 239); Bernard Renaud (Formation du livre de Michée: Tradition et actualisation [EBib; Paris: J. Gabalda, 1977], 364–423, here 357); John Merlin Powis 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); Ralph L. Smith (Micah-Malachi [WBC 32; Waco: Word, 1984], 55–57); Marvin A. Sweeney (The Twelve Prophets, vol. 2: Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi [Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000], 408); Julius Wellhausen (Die Kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und erklärt [Berlin: Reimer, 1898], 26–27, 149). 2 For a list of additional reasons for reading v. 7 in relation to the preceding verses, see Ehud Ben Zvi, Micah (FOTL 21B; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 166.

2: MICAH 7:7–20

29

ly, 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.

1. TEXT, SYNTAX, AND TRANSLATION 4 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 (*).

Ben Zvi, Micah, 166, 173; Bruce K. Waltke, A Commentary on Micah (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2007), 430. See also David Gerald Hagstrom, The Coherence of the Book of Micah: A Literary Analysis (SBLDS 89; Atlanta: Scholars, 1988), 97–98. 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 Joseph Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae (Septuaginta 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). The Latin (La) text is from Robert 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 Antonio Maria Ceriani, Codex Syrohexaplaris 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). 3

30

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR Introduction/Bridge

7 But

as for me, I shall watch for Yhwh, I shall wait for the aGod of my salvation;a My God will hear me.

a

!68!'!''1#7 '3f''!++a!+'%# ª'!+'13/f'

The Gk, La, and Syr all have ‘God, my savior’ (ÌŊ ¿¼Ŋ ÌŊ ÊÑÌýÉĕ ÄÇÍ; Deum salvatorem meum; ƁƟĭƢƘŦųƭ), perhaps as a result of pointing '!+ as ‘my God’ in apposition with '3f', and treating the ' in '!+ 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’ (3f') with ‘savior,’ the concept of ‘savior’ in Heb is generally rendered with a hiphil participle of the verb 3f' (e.g., Judg 3:9), albeit never with a possessive suffix. The phrase 3f' '!+ is used four times in the TANAKH, twice without a preposition (Pss 25:5; 27:9) and twice with a preposition (here with +, in Hab 3:18 with ). It is also found once with the plene spelling ('!#+) 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. a-a

Strophe I 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), bShame will cover her who said to me: b “Wherec is Yhwh, your God?” My eyes shall gloat over her, Now she will be trampled, Like the mud of the streets. 8

'+'=''%/g=¡+8 '=/9'=+61') (f%f¡') 2ª'+:#!#!' g!#!'53$9 #+'=&%') '':':':f3 '&6f/!g3# :#+'1'8#' ª#=98!: '=  ':=#10 b '+!:/!!f#!2)=#b ('!+!#!'c#' !!1':='1'3 2/:/+!'!=!=3 ª=#8#%&'&)

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 (ȼÉÀ¹¸Â¼ė̸À) while the La uses a passive (operietur), thus switching the subject and direct object (i.e., “she will be covered/clothed

2: MICAH 7:7–20

31

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 !' in place of MT #' without any MS evidence. The same form #' appears in Ex 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 !' instead. The Masoretes give !'ʥ as the qerê for #'ʥ in Jer 37:19, BHS also suggests removing the 3rd-masc. sg. object suffix or changing it to a pl. (''#), given that the subject is pl., not sg. No emendation or alternate readings are listed for Ex 2:20; Job 14:10; and 20:7, in each of which #' has to be what was intended because it is the only word that forms the question (‘Where is he?’).

Strophe II 11 dA

day to build your (f.) walls; eOn that daye the fboundary will be far.f 12 gThat/it is the daygd hAnd he [God’s people?] will come to you From Assyria and i(to) cities of Egyptih And from Tyrej and to the River;k lAnd [to?] sea from sea, mAnd [to?] mountain [from] mountain;ml 13 And the earth will be desolate On account of its inhabitants, from the fruit of their deeds.

(':=#1+-#'ĩ½½ ª9%¡9%:'fe#!!-#'e dg #!-#'Ĭ½¾ #'('3#h hi :#8/':3*3#i:#f'1/+ k :!1¡3#j*:#8'1/+# -'/-'#l lm ª:!!:!#m !//f+7:!!='!#13 -!'++3/':6/!'f'¡+3 f

The Gk includes an additional colon between the two Heb cola in v. 11, thus prompting the Göttingen LXX to shift the placement of ÷ ÷Äñɸ ëÁ¼ĕž in v. 11 to the middle colon, as well as ÷ ÷Äñɸ ëÁ¼ĕž from MT v. 12aƢ as part of the third Gk colon in v. 11: ÷ÄñÉ¸Ë ÒÂÇÀÎýË ÈÂĕÅ¿ÇÍ / ëÆÚ¼ÀÐĕË ÊÇÍ ÷ ÷Äñɸ ëÁ¼ĕž / Á¸Ė ÒÈÇÌÉĕм̸À ÅĠÄÀÄÚ ÊÇÍ ÷ ÷Äñɸ ëÁ¼ĕž (‘a day of laying of bricks’ / ‘that day is your destruction’ / ‘and that day the laws will be abolished [rubbed out]’). d-d

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 Thomas 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 (#!!) while the noun (-#') 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). Paul Joüon (A Grammar of Biblical

32

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Hebrew: Part Three: Syntax: Paradigms and Indices [trans. T. Muraoka; Subsidia Biblica 14/2; Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 2003], §143 j) considers #!! a ‘quasidemonstrative’ 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 9% carries a variety of meanings, including ‘statute,’ ‘limit,’ and ‘boundary.’ The Heb verb 9%ʸ means ‘be far / distant.’ Both the Gk and La interpret 9% as ‘law’ (ÅĠÄÀĸ; lex). However, the Gk uses the verb ÒÈÇÌÉĕ¹Ñ (‘rub off’) to translate 9%:, thus indicating that the laws will be abolished (ÒÈÇÌÉĕм̸À ÅĠÄÀĸ), 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 9% as ‘boundary’ is to be preferred given that it is conceptually parallel to ‘your walls’ ((':) in the previous colon. If 9% 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 ƎƀƇƟƦƣŁ (‘you will be exalted’).

Unlike the case of #!! -#' in v. 11aƣ, the definite article is lacking in v. 12aƢ, which provides a more regular syntactical construction. However, without a definite article attached to -#', one might initially take #! as adjectival (‘that day’); this, however, poses problems with regard to the placement of the phrase among the cola. The preceding colon (v. 11a¹) in Heb already has #!! -#' and -#' begins v. 11a¸. Thus, it would not make sense to add #! -#' 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 #-conjunction on the following word (('3#) results in another unnatural connection. Thus, #! -#' must be understood as a verbless clause (supposing the MT not to be corrupt). The fact that the two preceding cola also begin with -#' supports the conclusion that the colon in v. 12a¸ should also begin with -#', though it is interesting that none of the three cola exactly match (-#' stands by itself in v. 11aƢ, is used with #!! in v. 11a¹, and with #! in v.12a¸). g-g

h-h The Gk provides an alternate reading for these two cola: Á¸Ė ¸Ď ÈĠ¼ÀË ÊÇÍ øÆÇÍÊÀÅ ¼ĊË ĝĸÂÀÊÄġÅ Á¸Ė ¼ĊË »À¸Ä¼ÉÀÊÄġÅ [ÊÊÍÉĕÑÅ] / Á¸Ė ¸Ď ÈĠ¼ÀË ÊÇÍ ¸Ď ĚÏÍɸĖ ¼ĊË »À¸Ä¼ÉÀÊÄġÅ (‘And your cities will be for leveling and into the division [of Assyria]’ / ‘and your fortified cities into division’). In place of ('3# (‘and unto/toward you’), the Gk is apparently reading (':3# (‘your cities’; ¸Ď ÈĠ¼ÀË ÊÇÍ) as

2: MICAH 7:7–20

33

the subject in v. 12a¹, doing so as a result of /ʸ confusion vis-à-vis the MT (cf. next colon). The BHS editors wish to repoint the 2nd-masc. sg. suffix on ('3 to a 2nd-fem. sg. suffix (cf. MT’s pointing of (': in v. 11aƣ); so also Gunkel, ‘MichaSchluß,’158; Hagstrom, Coherence, 100 n. c; Hillers, Micah, 88 n. h); Theodor 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. #' of MT, perhaps either as a result of metathesis of the  and # (#' >07@Ƚ #' [Gk]) or a missing # at the end of the word (##'), either of which possibilities would yield the 3rd masc. pl. of # (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, 301–302; 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 ŦŁŤƌƁƄƍŨĮ (‘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 ¼ĊË »À¸Ä¼ÉÀÊÄġÅ is presumably translating'1/+ in Heb (which can indicate division of a whole into parts [HALOT, 509]); a Heb source for ¼ĊË ĝĸÂÀÊÄġÅ in Gk is unclear. i-i The MT has the phrase :#8/ ':3#, 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/ʸ confusion, ':3 becomes '3 or 3 (‘until,’ ‘to’) if one drops the '; 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 3 in the preceding (v. 12a¹) and following colon (v. 12b¹). Second, reading ':3 as 3 or '3 would make v. 12b¸ syntactically parallel to v. 12b¹. Third, the use of usque ad in La could reflect a Hebrew 3. However, the Gk, Syr, and even La all support the MT reading of ‘fortified cities’ (:#8/ ':3 // ¸Ď ÈĠ¼ÀË ÊÇÍ ¸Ď ĚÏÍɸţ // Ʀƍƀò ƤƕŦƦòƍſűƉ // civitates munitas) in v. 12bƢ. Since the La supports both [']3 and ':3, it is possible that 3 initially stood before ':3 but was accidentally omitted due to haplography. Given the implications of the La witness and the structural context that supports the inclusion of 3, I have put 3 in parentheses between w and ':3. Most scholars emend ':3 to either 3 (R. L. Smith, MicahMalachi, 56–57 [however, Smith also includes “cities” in his English translation on p. 56]) or '3 (Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II, 199; Gunkel,’Micha-Schluß,’158; Hagstrom, Coherence, 100 n. e; Hillers, Micah, 88 n. i; Jeremias, Die Propheten, 220;

34

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Lescow, ‘Redaktiongeschichtliche,’ 198; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 300; Nowack, Die Kleinen Propheten, 241; Robinson, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 150; Rudolph, Micha, 129; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 301–302; 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’ (Dominique 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 ':3 include D. E. Miller, Micah and Its Literary Environment, 175; Shaw, Speeches of Micah, 194 n. 5; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, vol. 2, 411. The MT has :L8/, š meaning ‘fortified’/‘siege’/‘rampart,’ ‘afflicted,’ or perhaps reflecting rather a reference to Egypt (against the latter option, see Philip J. CaldeURQH o7KH 5LYHUV RI q0DʛRUrpp Bib 42 [1961]: 423–432; however, against Calderone, see David A. Robertson, Linguistic Evidence in Dating Early Hebrew Poetry [SBLDS 3; Missoula: University of Montana, 1972], 105–106). This word is also found in the preceding colon of the MT (12b¸) :#8/':3 (‘fortified cities’ or ‘cities of Egypt’; see n. i–i); however, ':3 (‘cities’) is not repeated in v. 12b¹. The La supports the understanding of ‘fortified cities’ in v. 12b¹ (civitates munitas), and supplies the missing word ‘cities.’ However, both the Syr and Gk translate :#8/ as ‘from Tyre’ (ĿĭĽ ƎƉ; ÒÈġ įÉÇÍ as does the Syro-Hexapla. It is possible to understand the / as the proclitic form of the preposition 0/ and, thus, point :#8/ as :Lc–/ (‘from Tyre’; cf. Jer 18:14). The potential problem with this suggestion is that the proclitic form of 0/ is redundant since 0/ is already a part of the previous word '1/+ (0/ ++), which can also be understood as meaning “from.” Confusion between ! and / is unlikely because the definite article is never attested with :#8 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 / in :#8/ as the proclitic preposition (although the Gk translator may have missed the redundancy since the Gk translates '1/+ as ¼ĊË »À¸Ä¼ÉÀÊÄĠÅ [‘toward division’]); or (2) the Heb Vorlage (at least that of the Syr) only had :#8 without a /. With regard to the second possibility, it is possible that a scribe accidentally copied :#8/ from v. 12b¸Éin place of :#8. Calderone (‘Rivers of “Mas>or”,’ 431) suggests placing the / in both instances of :#8/ with the previous word as an enclitic /; thus, he suggests reading :L8 (‘rock’) and :K8 (‘Tyre’) respectively in v. 12b¸–¹. Other scholars who support the reading of :#8 in v. 12b¹ include: Gunkel, ‘Micha-Schluß,’ 159; Lescow, ‘Redaktiongeschichtliche,’ 198; Renaud, Formation, 358, 361; Robinson, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 150–151; Rudolph, Micha, 127, 129, 133; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 301–302; Shaw, Speeches of Micah, 194, 205. See exegesis and commentary section for further discussion regarding the case for ‘Tyre’ in this colon. j

k

‘The River’ referring to the Euphrates River, which can be designated by name

2: MICAH 7:7–20

35

(=:6[¡:!1]; 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’ (+#!/+!:!1!; Gen 15:18; Deut 1:7; Josh 1:4), and/or just “the River” (:!1!; Ex 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 (+9%) as the ‘Great River’ (+#!:!1!); 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 :!1 follows3, it always refers to the Euphrates (Gen 15:18; Ex 23:31; Deut 1:7; Josh 1:4). However, Calderone (‘The Rivers of q0DʛRUrp 431) suggests that :!1 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). In place of this bicolon in the MT, the Gk has ÷Äñɸ ĩ»¸ÌÇË Á¸Ė ¿ÇÉį¹ÇÍ (‘a day of water and turmoil’). ‘Day of water’ is obviously based on a different pointing of the MT Heb consonants (-–'/-L' ™ rather than - šQ/– š'). Presumably, a similar mistake was made with regard to ¿ÇÉį¹ÇÍ, though its Heb equivalent is unclear. Whenever two seas are used in the HB 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., Ex 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. l-l

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 ŧĿĭŁĿĭųƆťƉűƕĭ (‘and as far as Mount Hor’). The Syr is correct in that everywhere else that :!!:! 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 -' in the preceding colon; it is likely that the preposition in v.12c¸ should be viewed as ‘gapped’ to v.12b¹, or perhaps a / should be read in place of the definite article on :!! (cf. -'/ 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: ŧĿĭŁťƉűƕĭŧĿĭŁƎƉĭ / ťƊƀƆťƉűƕĭťƊſƎƉĭ (“from sea and as far as [the] sea” / “and from mountain as far as [the] mountain”). Some scholars and BHS want to read :! 3 :!/# -' 3 -'/ (cf. Syrom-m

36

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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 3…0/ directional formula used earlier in v.12b¹ (and possibly v.12b¸). Decorzant (Vom Gericht zum Erbarmen, 29) suggests a combination of ‘[to] ... from’ in v. 12cƢ and ‘[from] ... [ to]’ in v. 12c¹. 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.

Strophe III your people with your staff, (&f(/3!3:14 The flock of your inheritance, (=+ %108 Who dwellsn alone, +n'1)f o A forest in the midst of Carmel.o +/:)(#=:3' May they graze upon Bashan and Gilead, 3+#0f#3:' As in the days of old. ª-+#3'/') 15 As in the days when you went out from -':8/7:/(=8'/')15 the land of Egypt, I will show himp wonders. ª=#+61p#1: 16 The nations will see -'##:'16 And they will be ashamed from all their -=:#+)/#f'# strength / might. They will place (their) hand upon (their) mouth; !6¡+3'#/'g' Their ears will be deaf. ª!1f:%=-!'1$ 17 They will lick dust as a snake, f%1):63#)%+'17 Like crawling things of the earth. 7:'+%$) q qThey will quake from their strongholds;q -!'=:2//#$:'q r rThey will turn in dread to Yhwh, our God,r #%6'#1'!+!#!'¡+r And they will be afraid of you.s ªs(//#:'# 14 Shepherd

n Both the Gk and La use a pl. ptc. instead of the MT’s sg. (Á¸Ì¸ÊÁ¾ÅÇıÅ̸Ë; habitantes), while the Syr uses a pe’al impf. 3rd masc. pl. (ķĭƢƤƌ). 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, 301–302). However, such emendation is not necessary since the antecedent0#8 (‘flock’) in the previous colon (or possibly/3 in v. 14a¸) is singular (although it also can be understood in a collective sense). o

Scholars are divided as to whether+/:) should be interpreted here as the proper

2: MICAH 7:7–20

37

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. 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. (ķŴƌĥŦŴŶĥ ŦŁǔƉĪŁ); however, the Syr also uses a 3rd pl. verb in v. 15a¸ (ŴƠƙƌ; ‘they went out’), whereas the Heb, Gk, and La all use a 2nd sg. The Gk uses a 2nd sg. verb in v. 15a¹ and lacks the pronominal object: ěмʿ¼ ¿¸ÍĸÊÌÚ, (‘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 #1: to #1:! (‘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, 779–781. p

q-q HALOT (p. 604) suggests ‘prisons’ as the meaning of =:2/ 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 ÊͺÏÍ¿ûÊÇÅ̸À ëÅ ÊͺÁ¼ÀÊÄŊ ¸ĤÌľÅ (‘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 ò ķĭųƀƇƀũƣƎƉķĭŵūƢƌ (‘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 ķŴƕĭŵƌ ķųƭ ťſƢƉ ƎƉĭ (‘They will tremble from the Lord our God’; the Heb root %6 can also be translated as ‘tremble’). The Gk uses the fut. ind. mid. 3rd pl. of the verb ëÆĕÊ̾ÄÀ; hence, ‘they will be amazed/confused because of the Lord our God,’ though ëÆĕÊ̾ÄÀ 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 $: (‘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 read-

38

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

ing. Robinson (Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 150) suggests deleting #1'!+!#!' from the above text. Although some scholars wish to emend the MT’s 2nd-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 ķŴƇŶűƌĭ (‘and they will be afraid’), with no indication of the cause of the fear.

s

Strophe IV is a god like you? (#/)+¡'/18 Pardoning iniquity 0#3g1 t and passing over the transgression of #=+%1=':f+3f6¡+3:3# the remnant of hist inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever #63+9'$%!¡+ Because he delights in steadfast love. ª#!2%76 %¡') 19 He will again have compassion on us; #1/%:'#f'19 u He will tread upon our offenses. #1'=1#3uf)' And you will throw into the depths of the sea -'=#+8/('+f=# ªv#1=#&%¡+) All ourv sins. 20 You will give truth to Jacob, 93'+=/0==¾¼ Steadfast love to Abraham -!:+2% Which you swore to our ancestors #1'=+=3f1¡:f From the days of old. ª-9'/'/ 18 Who

Both Gk and Syr support the MT’s use of the 3rd-masc. sg. possessive pronoun; however, the La uses the 2nd sg. (tuae). t

Or, ‘subdue.’ HALOT (p. 460) suggests emending to the verb 2) (‘to wash’); however, this emendation is unnecessary, as noted by Robert P. Gordon (‘Micah 7:19 and Akkadian .$%Ć68,’ VT 28 [1978]: 355). Moreover, the Gk Á¸Ì¸»įʼÀ (‘will make sink’) and La deponet (‘will put away’) correspond more closely tof) than 2). The Syr uses ŀŴƍƄƌ (‘gather’).

u

v Only the Heb uses a 3rd-pl. possessive pronoun (-=#&%; ‘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, 301–302; R. L. Smith, Micah – Malachi, 56, 58; Weiser, Zwölf Kleinen Propheten, 288; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 150; Wolff, Micha, 187, 189. Raphael Weiss (‘On Ligatures in the Hebrew Bible (#1 = -),’ JBL 82 [1963]: 188–

2: MICAH 7:7–20

39

194) suggests that sometimes scribal errors caused #1 to be confused with -; see also Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, 88–89. Thus, although the 3rd-pl. suffix - is not impossible in this context, a 1st-pl. #1 makes better sense.

2. AUTHENTICITY AND DATING Most scholars date Mic 7:7(8)–20 to the exilic or (more often) postexilic period. Theodor Lescow posits a lengthy redaction history for Micah, with elements from chapter 7 beginning in the early exilic period but not completed until the fourth century BCE. 5 Bernard Renaud theorizes an exilic dating for parts of Micah 7 but with postexilic redactions. 6 Both Hermann Gunkel and Artur Weiser suggest an early postexilic context with a connection to Third Isaiah. 7 Hans Wolff places a terminus post quem for vv. 8– 20 and final redactions no earlier than the fifth century BCE. 8 Burkard Zapff considers Mic 7:7–20 as part of a mid-third century BCE 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. 9 Jörg Jeremias considers vv. 8–10 and vv. 11–12 to be older than vv. 14–17, with v. 13 added during the final redaction of the book in the Hellenistic period. 10 He also notes that the inclusion of a final hymn (vv. 18–20) is not unusual as a conclusion to prophetic books, citing the theophanic hymn in Hab 3:3–15 as an “incomparable” (unvergleichbar) example. 11 In contrast, Alain 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 Theodor Lescow, ‘Redaktiongeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 6– 7,’ ZAW 82 (1972): 182–212; Theodor Lescow, ‘Zur Komposition des Buches Micha,’ SJOT 9 (1995): 200–222. 6 Renaud, Formation, 364–423. 7 Gunkel, ‘Micha-Schluß,’ 175–176; Weiser, Buch der Zwölf Kleinen Propheten I, 228–232, 287–290. 8 Wolff, Micha, xxvii–xxxvii. 9 Burkard M. Zapff, Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton (BZAW 256; Berlin/ New York: de Gruyter, 1997), 206–207, 221–240, 280–293, 296–297. 10 Jeremias, Propheten, 114–121, 219–232. 11 Jeremias, Propheten, 229. 5

40

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

the siege of Jerusalem in 701 BCE. Nevertheless, he thinks that there are several observations that would point to a (late) 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. 12 One of the few scholars who argues for an eighth-century BCE date is Bruce Walke, who makes the claim (citing David A. Robinson) that the ‘grammar of Micah is preexilic, displaying none of the characteristic features of postexilic Hebrew.’ 13 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. 14 The word cited by him is '1)f, a qal ptc. masc. sg. with a ' added, in v. 14b¸. Robinson does mention that a ' 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). 15 In Mic 7:14b¸, '1)f is used in apposition with 08 in the previous colon (v. 14a¹) 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 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: 53$ (v. 9a¸), !f# (v. 10a¹), 2/:/(v. 10c¸), &'& (v. 10c¹), and+%$ (v. 17a¹); all appear in either Isaiah (53$ in 30:30; 2/:/ in 5:5; 7:25; 10:6; 28:18; &'& 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 available. Thus, the above vocabulary does not prove a Late Biblical Hebrew Decorzant, Vom Gericht zum Erbarmen, 240. Waltke, Micah, 11. 14 Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, 136. 15 Robertson, Linguistic Evidence, 70, 72–73, 76; see dates for standard poetic Hebrew on p. 3. 12 13

2: MICAH 7:7–20

41

(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. STORM-/WARRIOR-GOD THEOPHANIC MOTIFS AND VOCABULARY Several common motifs in HB 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 (f)) Israel’s iniquities and throw ((+f) their sins into the depths of the sea; however, since ‘iniquity’ (0#3) and ‘sin’ (=&%) 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. 16 Micah 7:7–20 does contain other language and motifs common in theophanic passages, which I categorize thematically below. 89F

Cf. Mic 1:3 where Yhwh is described as treading upon ((:) the earth. Also, everywhere else in the HB where something is described as being cast down/going down into the deep (=#+8/)/depths of the sea, it is a person or group of persons (Ex 15:5; Neh 9:11; Pss 69:3, 16; 88:7; Jonah 2:4). 16

42

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

3.1. 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’ (!//f), a concept common in theophanic passages but also found in general pronouncements directed against a nation (see, e.g., Lev 26:33). 17 The use of !//f 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’ (!//f) because it rejoiced at the ‘desolation’ (!//f) 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 !//f is found in a few earlier texts (unless these occurrences are themselves from a later redactor), most uses of !//f in the MT date during and following the time of Isaiah, with its peak usage in Ezekiel. 18 91F

3.2. 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 !f# in v. 10 with regard to the female enemy; the verb f# in v. 16 in reference to the nations); though not exclusive to theophanic passages, this imagery fits in well with the image of a !//f 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). 18 In the HB, Ezekiel uses !//f 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. 17

2: MICAH 7:7–20

43

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: :' (‘be afraid’), %6 (‘dread’), and $: (‘tremble,’ ‘quake’). Although $: and %6 do appear in a few prose passages (see, e.g., $: 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 Ex 15:14–15). The other term, :', 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’ (2/:/). 19 92F

3.3. 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 53$, where it is mentioned as part of the reason for Zion/Jerusalem’s punishment (because she has sinned against Yhwh, eliciting his wrath). When used for God’s rage, 53$ 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), 53$ is found only in poetic and late texts. 20 93F

3.4. God as Savior, Rock, etc. There is one occurrence in Mic 7:7–20 where Yhwh is called'!+  '3f' (‘God of my salvation’; Mic 7:7). This construct chain is used exclusively in prophetic writings and poetry (Pss 18:47 ['!#+]; 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 fre-

Cf. Isa 28:3; 63:3. 53$ (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. 19 20

44

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

quent component of theophanies, especially where warrior-god motifs occur. 21 3.5. 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).

4. MICAH 7 AND MONOTHEISM The role of Yahweh in Micah 7 appears to be that of a national deity (e.g., connection to the patriarchs in v. 20) who is recognized as having universal powers (e.g., vv. 12–13, 16–17). This is similar to observations Mark S. Smith makes regarding material from the latter part of the pre-exilic monarchy, including the Elijah-Elisha cycles and the increasing use of oracles against the nations (e.g., Amos). 22 As noted in Chapter One, Elijah’s encounter with Yahweh on Mt. Horeb (1 Kings 19:9–18) emphasizes Yahweh as being distinct from elements commonly associated with traditional theophanies and, thus, can be read as an attempt to distance Yahweh from characteristics similar to other deities in ANE narratives. Likewise, Micah 7 also distances itself from the anthropomorphic and mythological elements of traditional theophanic language. The author of Micah 7 is careful to avoid any implication that Yahweh has a physical form despite the use of language common 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. 22 Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God (2nd ed., The Biblica Resource Series, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 189–191. 21

2: MICAH 7:7–20

45

in theophanies indicated above. To this end, the storm-/warriorgod motif has been modified from its use in more traditional theophanic passages – such as occurs earlier in Mic 1:2–4. The decrease in anthropomorphic characteristics of Yahweh is often linked with the Deuteronimistic school of thought and an increase in aniconistic trends, evident in both text and archeological data, in the mid-late seventh century BCE. 23 This development thus occurs after the traditional eighth century dating of the prophet Micah (i.e., during the reign of Hezekiah of Judah) and, hence, can explain why Micah 1 and Micah 7 differ in their use of the storm-/warrior-god motif – it is possible that Micah 1 can be traced back to the prophet or his followers in the late eighth century, while Micah 7 could be the product of the aniconism movement in the late seventh century and following. 24 The perspective in Micah 7 is compatible with a monotheistic perspective but without a statement explicitly denying the existence of other dieties, a henotheistic vew cannot completely be ruled out. In Mic 7:18, the author asks, “Who is a god like you?” ( +¡'/ (#/)). This question does not technically rule out the existence of For further discussion, including some critiques of this position, see: Baruch Halpern, ‘“Brisker Pipes than Poetry”: The Development of Israelite Monotheism,’ in Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel (ed. Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987: 77–115); Michael S. Heiser, ‘Co-regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.’ (Bulletin for Biblical Research 26 [2015]: 195–225), 210; Christopher A. Rollston, ‘The Rise of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: Biblical and Epigraphic Evidence’ (Stone-Campbell Journal 6 [2003]: 95–115); Smith, Early History of God, 204–205; Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), esp. 149–166. 24 One might wonder why an editor/redactor of the aniconist movement would not have altered “troubling” imagery for Yahweh (e.g., Micah 1) if in fact he/they wer responsible for adding Micah 7 to the text. While we can only speculate, it is possible that later redactors respected the text associated with the prophet enough to not significantly alter the text they received while also using their additions to “correct” the perspective of Yhwh. 23

46

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

other deities but neither does it necessarily imply their existence, either. However, there are no references to other Ancient Near Eastern deities or personifications that could be linked to their existenc in Micah 7. Thus, Micah 7 is ambiguous as to whether or not the existence of other gods is acknowledged or assumed.

5. SUMMARY Although dating Mic 7:7–20 on linguistic grounds is tenuous, a late preexilic to 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 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. 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.

CHAPTER THREE: 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 0#'f, 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. Many scholars suggest that it is a psalm of lament, sometimes appealing to an Akkadian cognate. 1 Theodore Hiebert and Michael L. Barré are among the few who classify Habakkuk 3 as a hymn of victory or triumph. 2 A few others, such as Ralph 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. 3 98F

9F

10F

See Friedrich Horst, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten: Nahum bis Maleachi (HAT 1/14; Tübingen: Mohr, 1954) 182; Paul Humbert, Problèmes du livre d'Habacuc (Neuchâtel: Secrétariat de l’Université, 1944), 77, 205; Sigmund Mowinckel, ‘Zum Psalm des Habakuk,’ TZ 9 (1953): 1–23, here 7; Marvin A. Sweeney, ‘Structure, Genre, and Intent in the Book of Habakkuk,’ VT 41 (1991): 63–83, here 78. 2 Theodore Hiebert, God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn in Habakkuk 3 (HSM 38; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986), 1; Michael L. Barré, ‘Habakkuk 3:2: Translation in Context,’ CBQ 50 (1988): 184–197, here 184 n. 2. 3 Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; Waco: Word Books, 1984), 114–115. John Herbert Eaton (‘Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk 1

47

48

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

1. TEXT, SYNTAX, AND TRANSLATION 4 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 emenda3,’ ZAW 76 [1964]: 144–171, here 163) posits that Habakkuk 3 was a liturgical text from its very beginning. 4 Unless otherwise noted, all Hebrew (Heb) texts are taken from BHS and all English translations are my own. The Latin (La) text is from Robert 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 Edwin 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 Hugues Bévenot, “Le Cantique d’Habacuc,” RB 42 (1933): 499–525; Cécile Dogniez, “La version Barberini. Éléments pour une étude littéraire 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; Heinz-Josef Fabry, “‘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. W. Kraus and M. Karrer; WUNT 252; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010), 223–37; Max 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 CE, 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.

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

49

tions 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 for the different textual possibilities, given the importance of establishing the text for analysis of the storm-/warrior-god vocabulary. Superscription/Heading 

prayer of Habakkuk the Prophet, ªa=#1'f+3'1!9#9%+!+6= 1 according to s higyonoth .a

1A

The Gk reads ļÌÛ ŀ»ýË (‘with song’; cf. LXX 3:19 where'=#1'1 is translated as ëÅ Ìĉ ŀ»ĉ ¸ĤÌÇı [‘in/by his song’]); the Gk is used as a basis by some scholars who wish to emend the text in v. 1 to =#1'1; see A. Condamin, ‘La forme chorale du ch. III d’Habacuc,’ RB 8 (1898): 133–140, here 137; William Andrew Irwin, ‘The Psalm of Habakkuk,’ JNES 1 (1942): 10–40, here 17 n. 17; Paul Riessler, Die kleinen Propheten oder das Zwölfprophetenbuch (Rottenburg: Bader, 1911), 191; William Hayes 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, 1911), 20; Julius Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin: Reimer, 1898), 35. The La has pro ignorationibus (‘for ignorances’) related to the Gk translation ëÈĖ. ÒºÅǾÄÚÌÑÅ (‘upon/concerning ignorances’) in Aquila and Symmachus. This is in contrast to Theodotion which has ĨÈòÉ ÌľÅ ëÁÇÍÊÀ¸ÊÄľÅ (‘for/concerning a free-will offering’), for which Jerome gives the La as pro voluntariis (Dominique Barthelémy, Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament, tome 3: Ézéchiel, Daniel et les 12 Prophètes [OBO 50/3; Freiburg: Universitätsverlag; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1992], 857). The Peshitta lacks the phrase =#1'f+3; however, a few Syr MSS include either ƈƕ ťƖŹĪ (‘upon going astray’) or ťźŶĪƈƕ (‘upon sin’). I see no reason to emend the text (cf. Ps 7:1); however, due to the uncertain meaning of =#1'f, I have followed the tradition of some scholars who transliterate the Heb instead of attempting a translation; see Andrew B. Davidson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (CBSC 53; Cambridge: University Press, 1920), 86; Alfons Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II: Obadja, Jona, Micha, Nahum, Habakkuk (NEchB 8/2; Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1984), 230; Franz Delitzsch, Der Prophet Habakuk (Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Propheten des Alten Bundes; Leipzig: K. Tauchnitz, 1843), 125; Robert Haak, Habakkuk (VTSup 44; Leiden: Brill, 1992), 27; Henrik Pfeiffer, Jahwes kommen von Süden: Jdc 5; Hab 3; Dtn 33 und Ps 68 a

50

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

in ihrem literatur- und theologiegeschichtlichen Umfeld (FRLANT 211; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2005), 128; 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. Palmer Robertson, The Books of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah (NICOT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990), 214; Robert Sinker, The Psalm of Habakkuk: A Revised Translation, with Exegetical and Critical Notes on the Hebrew and Greek Texts (Cambridge: Deighton Bell, 1890), 6; Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 112; Henry Hammersley Walker and Nils Wilhelm Lund, ‘The Literary Structure of the Book of Habakkuk,’ JBL 53 (1934): 355–370, here 368. See especially the discussion of =#1'f in Francis I. Andersen, Habakkuk (AB 25; New York: Doubleday, 2001), 268–273; Andersen also transliterates the Heb.

Strophe I: Introduction 2 bcYhwh,

I heard your report;d e I feared, Yhwh, your works. fgIn the midsth of yearsi sustain him/it;j In the midstk of years you will [make (it) known.l] mIn rage remembern to have compassion.om

(3/f'=3/f!#!'Ĩħ¾ (+36!#!'e'=:' j #!''%i-'1fh:9gf l  3'#=-'1fk:9

d

mn

ª:#)$=o-%:$:m

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): ÁįÉÀ¼ ¼ĊʸÁûÁǸ ÌüÅ ÒÁÇûÅ ÊÇÍ Á¸Ė ëÎǹû¿¾Å (‘Lord, I have heard your report and I was afraid’) / Á¸Ì¼ÅĠ¾Ê¸ ÌÛ ìɺ¸ ÊÇÍ Á¸Ė ëÆñÊ̾Š(‘I considered your works and I was amazed’); see also nn. c–c and e below. Barb differs only in reading ¼Ĥ¸¹û¿¾Å (‘I revered’) in place of ëÎǹû¿¾Å (‘I feared’) in the first colon and including ÁįÉÀ¼ (‘Lord’) as the first word in the second colon.

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. 2b¸ 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 ƦƇŶĪĭƅƊƣƦƖƊƣťſƢƉ ò ò òƍƣŴŬŨƅſűũƕťſƢƉ (‘Lord, your (‘Lord, I heard your name and was afraid’) / ťƀʖĪťƀ 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: ƅƊƣƦƖƊƣťſƢƉ (‘Lord, I heard your name’) / ƦƇŶĪĭ ò (‘and I feared, Lord, your works’). The different divisions in the La and Syr ƅſűũƕťſƢƉ (and also perhaps to some degree in the first colon in the Gk) could be the result of the c-c

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

51

inclusion of the conjunction “and” (Gk Á¸ĕ, La et, Syr ĭ) 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 '=:'# with the possibility that the # was accidentally dropped in the MT due to the proximity with ', with which # was often confused. Although many scholars appeal to the LXX to support emendation of the MT in v. 2a¹ (see n. e below), most keep the MT’s division of the bicolon in v. 2a. d The Syr reads ƅƊƣ (‘your name’). BHS and many scholars wish to emend the MT’s '=:' (qal perf. 1st sg. from :'; ‘I feared’) to '=': (qal perf. 1st sg. fromʤʠʸ; ‘I saw’), largely based on the presence of Á¸Ì¼ÅĠ¾Ê¸ (‘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 '=': include William 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), Umberto Cassuto (‘Il capitolo 3 di Habaquq e i testi di Ras Shamra,’ Annuario di Studi Ebraici 2 [1935– 1937]: 7–22, here 14–15), Thomas Kelly Cheyne (‘An Appeal for a More Complete Criticism of the Book of Habakkuk,’ JQR 20 [1907]: 3–30, here 23), Deissler (Zwölf Propheten II, 230), Delitzsch (Prophet Habakuk, xxix), Bernhard Duhm (Das Buch Habakuk: Text, Übersetzung, und Erklärung [Tübingen: Mohr, 1906], 72), Karl Elliger (Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi [ATD 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982], 49), Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182), Humbert (Problèmes, 77, 79), Irwin (‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 17), Theodor Lescow (‘Die Komposition der Bücher Nahum und Habakuk,’ BN 77 [1995]: 59–85, here 83), Baruch Margulis (‘The Psalm of Habakkuk: A Reconstruction and Interpretation,’ ZAW 82 [1970]: 409–441, here 433), Karl Marti (Dodekapropheton [Kurzer Handkommentar zum Alten Testament 13; Tuࡇbingen: Mohr, 1904], 349–50), Mowinckel (‘Psalm des Habakuk,’ 9), James Nogalski (Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve [BZAW 218; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1993], 174), O’Connor (Hebrew Verse Structure, 234), Wilhelm Rudolph (Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja [KAT 13/3; Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975], 233), Ernst Sellin (Das Zwölfprophetenbuch: Übersetzt und erklärt [KAT 12; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1922], 356–366), Ward (‘Habakkuk,’ 20), Jakob Wöhrle (Der Abschluss des Zwölfprophetenbuches: Buchübergreifende Redaktionsprozesse in den späten Sammlungen [BZAW 389; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008], 312). In Ward’s (‘Habakkuk,’ 25) opinion, ‘fear is not appropriate till after the theophany.’ Scholars who support the MT’s '=:' include Andersen (Habakkuk, 277–278), Condamin (‘Forme chorale,’ 136), Eaton (‘Habakkuk 3,’ 144, 146–147; Eaton considers '=': a ‘marginal possibility’ [ibid., 147]), Michael H. Floyd (Minor Prophets, Part 2 [FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000], 150), Haak (Habakkuk, 79), Hiebert (God of My Victory, 5, 11–12), Wilhelm Nowack (Die kleinen Propheten [HKAT 3/4; 2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903], 289), Richard D. Patterson (Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah: An Exegetical Commentary [Dallas(?): Biblical Studies Press, 2003], 208), Lothar Perlitt (Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja [ATD 25/1; e

52

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004], 84; however, Perlitt also notes that '=:' could be a scribal error for '=': [ibid.]), Pfeiffer (Jahwes kommen von Süden, 128, 130), Roberts (Nahum, 130–131), O. P. Robertson (Habakkuk, 215–216), R. L. Smith (Micah-Malachi, 114), Walker and Lund (‘Literary Structure,’ 368); Wellhausen (Kleinen Propheten, 35). The Gk reads four cola in place of these two cola in Heb: ëÅ ÄñÊĿ »įÇ ½ňÑÅ ºÅÑÊ¿ûÊþ (‘in the midst of two lives, you will be known’) / ëÅ ÌŊ 뺺ĕ½¼ÀÅ ÌÛ ì̾ ëÈÀºÅÑÊ¿ûÊþ (‘when the years draw near, you will be recognized’) / ëÅ ÌŊ ȸɼėŸÀ ÌġÅ Á¸ÀÉġÅ ÒŸ»¼ÀÏ¿ûÊþ (‘when the time comes, you will be revealed’) / ëÅ ÌŊ ̸ɸϿýŸÀ ÌüÅ ÐÍÏûÅ ÄÇÍ (‘when my soul is troubled’). f-f

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. 2bƢ) part of the previous bicolon (cf. Humbert [Problèmes, 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.

Some scholars propose repointing :˜ 9˜ – (“in the midst” [prepositional use of noun with -]) in the MT to œ :9– –  (‘in/when the approach/coming [of years]’ [infinitive construct]; cf. ¸ȩ  VHH $OEULJKW ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 11, 13; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Humbert, Problèmes, 77, 79; Margulis, ‘The Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 413; Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 191; Roberts, Nahum, 130–131. O’Connor (Hebrew Verse Structure, 234) translates :9 as ‘in the upheaval,’ thus apparently pointing :™ 9– ;– according to HALOT (p. 1135), :™ 9– means ‘battle’ or ‘hostile approach’ and it is primarily found in poetic and prophetic texts (2 Sam 17:11; Job 38:23; Pss 55:22; 68:31; 78:9; 144:1; Qoh 9:18; Zech 14:3). O’Connor’s suggestion is tempting because it would fit well as a lead into the Divine Warrior motif in Habakkuk 3. Also, :™ 9.– in the MT is quite rare whereas the other two words (:˜ 9,˜ and œ :9) – are much more common; thus, it would be easy for a later scribe to confuse :™ 9– for either of the other readings (MT or ¸ƍ). 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 ëÅ ÄñÊĿ [cf. n. k]; La in medio; Syr ŴŬŨ) for this colon. Also, ‘battle of years’ (using HALOT’s meaning for :™ 9.) – is just as enigmatic as ‘midst of years,’ though Barré (‘Habakkuk 3:2,’ 192) could be correct in interpreting ‘battle of years’ as referring to a battle in the distant past; cf. Irwin, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 18. For detailed discussions of this colon, see Barré, ‘Habakkuk 3:2,’ 184– 197; Paul 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. h

The Gk has »įÇ, thus reading the number ‘two’ based on a different pointing of -'1f. In Gk as well, the number is modifying ½ňÑÅ (‘lives’; perhaps reading =#'% in i

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

53

Heb, which Hiebert [God of My Victory, 13] suggests may be a corruption of =''% [piel perf. 2nd masc. sg.; ‘you sustained life’] due to #/' confusion). Thus, for the first part of this colon the Gk reads ‘in the midst of two lives.’ After discussing the problem of understanding -'1f as ‘years,’ Andersen (Habakkuk, 278–280) suggests that the numeral ‘two’ may indicate ‘a second time’ (thus, he offers ‘once more’ as a possible translation). Margulis (‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 413) proposes emending the text to ¡'1f -''% (‘twin-life,’ referring to a multiple birth). Cheyne (‘Appeal,’ 24) suggests that both occurrences of -'1f (here and in the next colon) should be corrected to0/f', a regional name representing ‘Ishmael.’ Haak (Habakkuk, 79–80), following Reider and Wieder, translates -'1f as ‘Exalted Ones,’ based on the Ugartic šnm. One tempting emendation, proposed by Aron Pinker (‘“Captive” for “years” in Habakkuk 3:2,’ RB112 [2005]: 20–26), is to read -'f (‘captivity/captors’) in place of -'1f here and in the next colon; cf. 2 Chr 6:37–38; Isa 14:2; Jer 30:10; 46:27. The MT’s reading #!''% here is puzzling; the text is pointed as a piel impv. masc. sg. with a 3rd 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 +36; La opus) mentioned in the previous colon. However, both Gk and Syr have ‘lives’/‘living ones’ (Gk ½ňÑÅ; Syr ťƀʖò ), which may reflect a Heb Vorlage of =#'% (see n. h above). The Gk also has ºÅÑÊ¿ûÊþ (‘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 '’ (=#!'%) but otherwise agrees with the MT. BHS suggests reading#!#% (‘declare it’) instead; similarly, Barré (‘Habakkuk 3:2,’ 195) and Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 191) suggest #!'#% (‘he declared it’). Hiebert (God of My Victory, 13) proposes =''% (‘you sustained life’). O’Connor (Hebrew Verse Structure, 234) breaks #!''% into two words: #!' '% (‘[as] Yhwh lives’; cf. Andersen, Habakkuk, 273; Haak, Habakkuk, 80–81. Cheyne (‘Appeal,’ 24) divides and emends #!''% to #!''%, while considering ''% a corrupt form of %:'  me’el’ (see also n. i). j

The Gk appears to have read the infinitive construct for :9 with its translation ëÅ ÌŊ 뺺ĕ½¼ÀÅ ÌÛ ì̾ (“when the years draw near”; taking ÌÛ ì̾ as the accusative subject of the infinitive). The La and Syr again are consistent with the pointing in the MT (La in medio; Syr ŴŬŨ). See n. h for scholarly suggestions and emendations regarding the MT’s :9. k

As pointed in the MT, 3'#= is a hiph. impf. 2nd 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 3:2,’ 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. 3#= instead); Gk reads ëÈÀºÅÑÊ¿ûÊþ (‘you will be l

54

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

recognized/acknowledged’), while Syr has ĺűſŁŁ (‘you will be known’). Based on the Gk and Syr, BHS and several scholars read 3#= here; see Cheyne, ‘Appeal,’ 24; Duhm, Buch Habakuk, 72; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 5, 13–14; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Margulis, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 413; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 349–350; Mowinckel, ‘Psalm des Habakuk,’ 9–10; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 289; Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 191; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 171. Irwin (‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 19) proposes 3#:= (‘you shatter / break’). 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, 356–360.

m-m

Barré (‘Habakkuk 3:2,’ 195–196) suggests reading :')$= or possibly :)$= here, which in the hiphil means ‘make known,’ ‘announce,’ or ‘proclaim’ (e.g., Isa 49:1).

n

In order to create a better parallel with -'1f in the previous bicolon, Barré (‘Habakkuk 3:2,’ 192–193, 196) reads -%:'+! (‘(?) quivered,’) 0'/7:=3:' (‘In fear was the land of Midian’) With regard to treating 0=%= as a verb in the last colon of v. 6, see also Haak, Habakkuk, 91; Lescow, ‘Nahum und Habakuk,’ 83. Ward (‘Habakkuk,’ 21– 22) considers these cola ‘untranslatable,’ but suspects two cola rather than three should be read. Condamin (‘Forme chorale,’ 136) repositions vv. 9b–10 between v. 6 and v. 7. Margulis (‘The Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 418, 429–430) 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 '=': :f '=%=# (‘As did my bowels, from what I behold’ [p. 436]). hh

ii-ii

ò The Syr agrees with the MT (ƋƇƕƎƉĪŦƦƄƆĬƎƀƌĥųƇſĪ [‘his ways were from

62

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

old / eternity’]). The Gk and La almost agree as well; however, the LXX has ÈÇɼĕ¸Ë ¸ĊÑÅĕ¸Ë ¸ĤÌÇı (‘at his eternal way/journey’; although ÈÇɼĕ¸Ë 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: ¸Ď ĝ»Çĕ ¸Ď ëÆ ÒÉÏýË ÒÂÂÇÀÑ¿ûÊÇÅ̸À / ¸ĤÌÇı ïżÁ¸ ʼÀÊ¿ûʼ̸À ÷ ÇĊÁÇÍÄñž (‘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. 171); see also Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182. Pfeiffer (Jahwes kommen von Süden, 128–129) considers the colon a later addition. Cheyne (‘Appeal,’ 25–26) views it as a gloss, but also proposes emending =#)'+! to =#)+/ (‘his ancient works’). jj-jj The LXX has ÒÅÌĖ ÁĠÈÑÅ (‘because of troubles’); La pro iniquitate (‘for iniquity’); and Syr ķĭĥƦƀʖŁ (‘under On’). Either Barb lacks this phrase, or possibly this may be reflected in its ʼÀÊ¿ûʼ̸À ÷ ÇĊÁÇÍÄñž of the previous colon in v. 6 (see n. ii–ii above), perhaps reading7:=%=#+in place of the phrase 0#=%=#+ as suggested by Bénvenot (‘Cantique,’ 506–507). Some scholars propose ʯʥʠʺʧʺ (‘they are shattered’) instead; see Albright, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 11–12; Elliger, Propheten, 49; Godfrey Rolles Driver, ‘On Habakkuk 3:7,’ JBL 62 [1943]: 121. Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182) suggests!1=%= (niphal ‘was crushed’) from the rootʠʺʧ, which is otherwise not attested in the MT. Shupak (‘God from Teman,’ 110) 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,’ 114, n. 54; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 351–352; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 171–172). Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 192) reads0=%=, which he considers a scribal note that the final 0 in 0f#) is to be deleted. Patterson (Nahum, 213–14) suggests the possibility that0#=%=is intended as a geographical name parallel to Cushan and Midian. Cheyne (‘Appeal,’ 26–27) thinks that 0#, along with '=':, is part of a corrupted form (see n. kk) and that =%= is the result of a scribal gloss on =#1/: (‘castles’), reading'+)'! (‘palaces’) ‘instead’ (=%=). kk Hiebert (God of My Victory, 22) deletes '=': 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 '=': troublesome; see Driver, ‘Habakkuk 3:7,’ 121; Elliger, Propheten, 49; Humbert, Proble̖mes, 77. However, ‘I saw’ is attested in the LXX (¼č»ÇÅ), Barb (Á¸Ì¸Å¼ÅŦ¾Á¸), La (vidi), and Syr (ƦſŵŶ). Gaster (‘Habakkuk 3:4,’ 346) suggests that '=': perhaps could be a corrupted form of the verb ==: (‘to quiver’), which would be parallel to $:. Cheyne (‘Appeal,’ 26–27) traces the allegedly corrupted form '=': back to =#1/:, thus reading the colon as ‘The palaces of Cushan trembled.’ Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182) proposes reading =#3':', while deleting '+! in the next colon (Horst only has a bicolon for v. 7). Sellin (Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357) emends the text to #:' (‘they feared’). Roberts (Nahum,

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

63

137) suggests that '=': 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 =%= in Isa 60:15. As the MT stands, this verb (3rd masc. pl.) most logically would have '+! (masc. pl.) as its subject, rather than =#3':' (fem. pl.) in the next colon, even though it is tempting to put0#$:' as the beginning of the next colon and treat v. 7 as a bicolon in order to supply a verb in each colon (‘I saw the tents of Cushan in distress’ / ‘The curtains of the land of Midian quake’). The position of the verb corresponding to 0#$:' in the LXX (ÈÌǾ¿ûÊÇÅ̸À), Barb (̸ɸϿûÊÇÅ̸À), and La (turbabuntur) is ambiguous enough that it could be read with either colon; however, the LXX does include the conjunction Á¸ĕ after the verb, which could indicate an intentional break between the cola (thus, supporting the inclusion of 0#$:' with what precedes it); alternatively, it could be interpreted as an adverbial Á¸ĕ (in which case, the meaning would be ‘the curtains of the land of Midian also [Á¸ĕ] will be terrified’). In contrast, Ǝƕĭŵƌò (‘tremble/trembling’; fem. pl.) in Syr has to be connected with the last colon because it can only be viewed as modifying ŦƦƖſǔſ (‘curtains [of the land of Midian]’; fem. pl.). Driver (‘Habakkuk 3:7,’ 121) suggests switching the positions of =#3':' and '+!in an attempt to fix the gender problem and provide a verb in the last colon; so also Humbert, Problèmes, 77, 79. Elliger (Propheten, 49) includes the corresponding place names in the switch proposed by Driver, thus putting the phrase ‘tents of Cushan’ (0f#)'+!) in the second colon and ‘curtains of Midian’ (0'/=#3':'; Elliger omits 7:) in the first colon. ll

BHS and some scholars find the presence of 7: problematic and accordingly propose deleting it; see Driver, ‘Habakkuk 3:7,’ 121; Elliger, Propheten, 49; Gaster, ‘Habakkuk 3:4,’ 346; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 352 (who finds it questionable). However, ‘land’ is found in the LXX (ºýË), La (terrae), and Syr (ťƕĿĥ); it also might be reflected in the use of ÇĎ Á¸ÌÇÀÁÇıÅÌ¼Ë (‘dwellings’) in Barb (ÇĎ Á¸ÌÇÀÁÇıÅÌ¼Ë ÌÛË »ñÉɼÀË ¸»À¸Ä) as a free translation of the Heb. mm

Strophe IV: Divine Warrior Prepares for Battle 8Why

did it burnnn against the rivers,oo !#!'nn!:%oo-':!1!8 Yhwh? Your anger ppagainst the rivers? pp (6pp-':!1-pp Your rage against the sea? (=:3-'¡- qq qqWhen you mountrr your horses,qq ('2#2¡+3rr):=')qq Your victorious chariotsss? ª!3#f'ss('=):/ tt 9 ttYou indeed laid bare your bow,tt (=f9:#3=*!:3ĹĹÅ vvuu uuYou poisonedvv (your) sevenww !+2 *:/==#&/ww*=3fuu uu rods/arrows. Se lah. xx xxYou cleft the earth with rivers;xx ª7:¡39==#:!1xx yy 10The mountainsyy zzsaw you and writhed.zz -':!zz#+'!'(#:ĿĿ½¼ A A B Clouds poured out water/rain; *=#3-'/B*#/:$

64

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

The deep gave its voice. SunC raisedD Eits hands on high; E 11Moon stood [in] its lofty residence.F At light,G your arrows went forth; At brightness,G the lightning of your spear.

C

#+#9-#!=0=1 *f/f g1E#!''-#:E F !+$/%:'11 #)+!'('8%G:#+ ª(='1%9:G!1+ D

This verb is a qal perf. 3rd masc. sg.; in both the Heb and Syr (ŵūĿ), 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 ÁįÉÀ¼; 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 (5) and rage (!:3) as cited in the following two cola. Against reading the vocative, see Sinker, Psalm of Habakkuk, 23–24. nn

oo The ! 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 Äû, in Gk and numquid in La. The proper plural form of :!1 (“river”) is=#:!1 (used below in v. 9), not -':!1; however, the other three versions translate it as a regular plural (Gk ÈÇ̸ÄÇėË; La fluminibus; Syr ŦŁĭǓųƌ). Aron 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 / both here and in the next colon on -':!1 is merely emphatic and, thus, translates both with the singular ‘River’; against an enclitic / in this verse, see David 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 -':!1! 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 -' (e.g., Marti, Dodekapropheton, 352) or to the end of the verse (BHS; Humbert, Proble̖mes, 77–78). Others delete !#!' as well as -':!1 -; see Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182. In contrast, Albright (‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 11) adds !:% before (6.

Barb reads ÒÅñ¹¾Ë ëÈĖ ÌÛ ×ÉĸÉÌŠ ÊÇÍ (‘you ascended upon your warchariot’), which excludes the MT’s ') and has ×ÉĸÉ̸ where the MT has ('2#2 (‘your horses’). Good (‘Barberini,’ 15 nn. 3–4) notes that ×ÉĸÉ̸ is never used elsewhere to translate 2#2 and would rather correspond better to !):/ in the following colon; thus, Good suggests that the terms may have been switched in qq-qq

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

65

Barb. However, the Gk term used in the following colon to translate !):/ in both Barb and the LXX is ĎÈȸÊĕ¸, which according the LSJ (p. 883) can refer to either horse-riding or chariot-riding. In contrast, the LXX uses the more natural translation ďÈÈÇË for 2#2 in the above colon. Both Barb (ÒÅñ¹¾Ë) and Syr (ƦũƃĿ) seem to be translating the perfect here, rather than the imperfect of the MT. The LXX (ëÈÀ¹ûÊþ) and La (ascendes) both use the future tense, thus supporting the MT. As noted by W. Boyd Barrick (‘The Meaning and Usage of RKB in Biblical Hebrew,’ JBL 101 [1982]: 481–503, esp. 492– 498; see also Hiebert, God of My Victory, 24), the connotation of ): 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). rr

The MT has the plural ('=):/ (‘your chariots’), which is supported by the La (quadrigae tuae). However, the Gk (÷ ĎÈȸÊĕ¸ ÊÇÍ ÊÑ̾Éĕ¸ [Barb adds Ğ ÈÉÇš¹¾Ë 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’ (÷ ĎÈȸÊĕ¸) is also supported by the Syr (ŦƦũƃƢƉ). Since Heb poetry often gaps prepositions between cola, it is logical that the preposition +3 (‘upon’) is implied in this colon; this understanding is supported by the Syr, which includes the preposition ƈƕ in both of the cola ( /ƅƤƃǓƈƕƦũƃĿ ƅƍƟĿŴƘĪ ŦƦũƃƢƉ ƈƕĭ). The remaining question is whether ('=):/ should be rendered singular or plural. The singular is tempting in this context and several scholars propose emending the text to either (=):/(Albright, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 11; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 192) or ():/ (Humbert, Problèmes, 77–78). Hiebert (God of My Victory, 7, 24) proposes emending to =):/ and moving the 2nd masc. sg. possessive suffix to !3#f' (Æ(=3#f') in order to conform to the expected formation of a construct chain. However, the only other place where !):/ is clearly used of God’s chariots is in Isa 66:15, which also uses a plural, albeit with a 3rd masc. sg. suffix (#'=):/). The presence of the suffix could be interpreted as epexegetical (hence, ‘victorious chariots’ above rather than ‘chariots of victory’) as noted in GKC §131r; 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,” 114 n. 56. Thus, I cautiously retain the MT’s ('=):/. ss

tt-tt The MT has(=f6:#3=!':3which might be rendered ‘naked(ness)/exposed your bow was aroused/awakened’ if :#3= is taken to be from the verb :#3 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 ëÅ̼ĕÅÑÅ ëÅ̼żėË Ìġ ÌĠÆÇÅ ÊÇÍ (‘stretching out, you will stretch out your bow’). Barb reads ëƾºšÉ¿¾ Ìġ ÌĠÆÇÅ ÊÇÍ (‘your bow was raised/awakened’). The La translates the colon as et suscitans suscitabis arcum tuum (‘and stirring up, you will stir

66

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

up/arouse/awaken your bow’). Syr has ĴƦƤƟƢƀƕŁŁĭƢƕŁƦƉ (‘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 :#3 + finite verb of :#3 where :#3= !':3 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 !':3 in the MT. Thus, it is logical to conclude that the original text contained an infinitive absolute (in place of !':3) 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 (:3=!:3). Against this line of argumentation, see David Toshio Tsumura, ‘Niphal with an Internal Object in Habakkuk 3:9a,’ JSS 31 (1986): 11–16 (who proposes ‘Your bow is uncovered (the nakedness)’ as a probable translation of the MT [p. 16]). Michael Barré (‘Yahweh Gears Up for Battle: Habakkuk 3,9a,’ Bib 87 [2006]: 75–84, here 76) traces the original text back to !:3=!:3 (piel infinitive absolute of':3+ normal piel 2nd masc. sg. impf of ':3); thus, he proposes as an idiomatic translation ‘you withdrew your bow (from its case)’ (ibid.). Sellin (Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357) suggests:#3=':3=(‘you exposed from the case [skin]’). Delitzsch (Prophet Habakuk, 165) is well-known for his comment about this colon (excluding !+2) 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; Aron Pinker, ‘The Lord’s Bow in Habakkuk 3:9a,’ Bib 84 [2003]: 417–420, here 417). As pointed in the MT, the colon consists of three nouns, all in their absolute forms: =#3f :/=#&/ (‘oaths’ [fem. pl.]; ‘tribes/rods/sticks’ [masc. pl.]; ‘speech’ [masc. sg.]). The LXX has îÈÌÛ ÊÁýÈÌɸ Âñº¼À ÁįÉÀÇË (‘seven scepters says the Lord’), while Barb has ëÁŦÉÌ¸Ê¸Ë ¹ÇÂţ»¸Ë ÌýË Î¸ÉšÌÉ¸Ë ¸ĤÌÇı (‘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 ťŷũƤƉĴƢƉŤƊŨŧǓŤūķŴƖũƐƌĭ (‘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 Henry St John. Thackeray (‘Primitive Lectionary Notes in the Psalm of Habakkuk,’ JTS 12 [1911]: 191–213), who suggested that the three words are ‘an intrusive poetic gloss’ (p. 196); this theory has not gained much acceptance (for a concise but excellent critique, see Eaton, ‘Habakkuk 3,’ 151). 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 = (e.g., :/=). Understanding =#&/ as ‘arrows’ (‘rods’; cf. Barb and Syr) makes the most sense in this context given the Divine Warrior mouu-uu

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

67

tif and the mention of Yhwh’s bow in the previous colon. In support of reading ‘arrows,’ see Barré, ‘Yahweh Gears Up,’ 78; Deissler, Zwölf Propheten II, 232; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 27–28; Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 486. Against reading =#&/ as ‘arrows,’ see David Toshio Tsumura, ‘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. J. E. Coleson and V. H. Matthews; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1996): 353–361; Tsumura proposes ‘mace’ as a parallel weapon to bow in other ANE texts. Cassuto (‘Ras Shamra,’ 18) notes that in Ugaritic literature Sea and River were killed with two rods. Thus, either =#3f or :/ must be a corrupted verb form. Many scholars choose to emend =#3fto a verb (cf. Barb) and propose another emendation for :/(see nn. vv and ww). Albright (‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 11–12) reads the entire line as :/=#&/=#3g (‘sated by the fight which Thou has decreed’). Condamin (‘Forme chorale,’ 139) suggests:/=#&/=#3#f' (‘command the triumph of the tribes’ [commande le triomphe des tribus]). The word in the MT is :/ (‘speech’). Proposed emendations for :/ include: (=6f (‘your quiver’; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 7, 28; Jörg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung [WMANT 10; NeukirchenVluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965], 41; Kelly, ‘Strophic Structure,’ 115; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 352, Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 292); #:=' (‘its chord’; Humbert, Proble̖mes, 79);ʸ/= (‘you decree’; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Pfeiffer, Jahwes kommen von Süden, 132); := (‘you made fly’; Rudolph, Micha, 236); (:='/ (‘your chord’; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357). Sinker (Psalm of Habakkuk, 26) interprets =#&/ as being in construct with :/ (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 :/ is the name of God’s war club and is derived from the verb ::/ (‘to drive out’), which perhaps could be a ‘scribal pun on Baal’s war weapon Aymur (‘Expeller’)’; cf. Cassuto, ‘Ras Shamra,’ 18. Given the likelihood of =#&/ is referring to arrows (see n. uu–uu above) and the problems with emending=#3f to a verb (see n. ww below), :/ is left as the most likely candidate for a verb in this colon. Barré (‘Yahweh Gears Up,’ 79–83) provides detailed support for emending the colon to :/==#&/=3f (‘you poisoned [your] seven arrows,’ where ‘poisoned’ literally means ‘smear with [serpent’s] gall’ based on the Semitic root ::/ [often ‘be bitter’] and the use serpent’s venom in the ANE). The proposal :/= is partially supported by the La as well as by the possible =/ confusion in the early- and paleo-Hebrew script; for information about =/ confusion, see Emmanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible (2nd rev. ed.; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2001), 244–245. Because of the minimal emendations required and its contextual appropriateness, I agree with Barré’s proposal as most likely reflecting the original text and have adopted it in the text above. vv

ww

The word in the MT is =#3f (‘oaths’) in the absolute form. Several scholars

68

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

emend =#3f to =3g (‘you sated’): Elliger, Propheten, 50; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 7, 26–27; Humbert, Proble̖mes, 79; Jeremias, Theophanie, 41; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 352–353; 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 =#3fas a fem. pl. qal ptc. (so also Haak, Habakkuk, 94–95). Although the emendation of =#3fto a verb from the root 3g due to f/g confusion is tempting, this proposal tends to lead either to extensive emendations to :/, one of the most popular of which is(=6f (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.,:/=). Thus, it seems likely that =#3f could be the number seven (=3f; cf. LXX and the description of Ba‘al’s seven lightnings/arrows [cited in Frank Moore Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 148]). Other supporters of ‘seven’ include: Andersen, Habakkuk, 312, 320–223 (‘seven clubs’); Barré, ‘Yahweh Gears Up,’ 83 (‘seven arrows’); J. Day, ‘Echos 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): 143–151, here 147 (‘seven arrows’); O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 236 (‘seven staffs’); Pinker, ‘Lord’s Bow,’ 420 (composite bow of ‘seven strips’). The verb 39= 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 39 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. xx-xx

The LXX apparently replaces ‘mountains’ with ‘people/nations’ (¸Çĕ) as the subject of the colon (a similar substitution occurs in Ex 19:18), though it is possible that the LXX’s Vorlage could have read -'/3 (‘peoples’). However, Barb agrees with the MT’s reading (ÌÛ ěɾ), as do the La (montes) and Syr (ŧǓŴŹ).

yy

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 ĴĭĥŵŶ and ŴƕĮ), while the LXX uses two future forms (ěÐÇÅ̸À and Ĵ»ÀÅûÊÇÍÊÀ) which are typically used to render the Heb imperfect. Barb has a more idiomatic Gk translation using a prepositional infinitive phrase (ëÅ ÌŊ ÒÅÌÇο¸ÂļėÅ; lit., ‘in the looking at’ = ‘when the mountains look at’) and a future tense for the second verb (̸ɸϿûÊÇÅ̸À; ‘will be troubled’), which again presumably renders a Heb imperfect. zz-zz

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

69

The MT has the verb :3 (‘passed over’). It has been emended to the noun =#3 (‘clouds’) based on the text of Hab 3:10 in Mur XII and the parallel phrase in Ps 77:18 (=#3-'/#/:$), 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 =(#3 include: Albright, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 11; Cassuto, ‘Ras Shamra,’ 19; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 30; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Margulis, ‘The Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 413; Roberts, Nahum, 140; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357.

A

The MT has the noun-:$ (‘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 ( -'/ #/:$ =#3), albeit with caution (see also previous note). The verb -:$(meaning ‘flood’ [qal]) is found in Ps 77:18 (poel) and Ps 90:5 (qal), whereas the noun -:$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 28:2 and 30:30, either form would fit the context. The MT’s -'/ -:$ (‘downpour/rainstorm of water’), while not necessarily illogical, is redundant, whereas the phrase in Mur XII and Ps 77:18 is not. Other scholars who support the emendation to a verb include: Albright, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 11; Cassuto, ‘Ras Shamra,’ 19; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 30; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Margulis, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 413; Roberts, Nahum, 140; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357. B

C The MT includes f/f with v. 11, thus creating a double subject with a singular verb (note: Pfeiffer [Jahwes kommen von Süden, 133] thinks%:' 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!%1#0#1'#21(‘sorrow and sighing fled’). However, Isa 51:11 uses a plural verb (not singular) and includes the ʥ conjunction connecting the two subjects (unlike the MT’s Hab 3:11). Eaton (‘Habakkuk 3,’ 153) explains the MT’s peculiarities by appealing to the lack of a # conjunction elsewhere in Habakkuk 3 and by suggesting that the singular verb /3 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 g1 could be -#!= (‘the deep’) from v.10bƣ, the other cola in v. 10 provide an explicit subject in the text with the logical pairings of -'//=#3 (‘water’/‘clouds’) and -#!= (‘deep’) in the bicolon in v. 10b, just as f/f (‘sun’) and %:' (‘moon’) would constitute a logical pairing for another bicolon in vv. 10c–11a. Both the LXX and Barb treat f/f as the subject of g1; the LXX appears to be reading a niphal of g1 with its ëÈûÉ¿¾ ĝ øÂÀÇË (‘the sun was lifted’), while Barb has ÎľË Ìġ ¸ÄÈÉġÅ ÌÇı ÷ÂĕÇÍ ëÈñÊϼ (‘the glorious light of the sun spread out’). Both the La and the

70

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Syr add ‘and’ (La et; Syr ĭ) between ‘sun’ and ‘moon,’ and correct the verb to a plural (La steterunt; Syr ŴƊƟ), thus keeping ‘sun’ and ‘moon’ in the same colon as the MT. Other scholars who treat f/f as part of the last colon in the MT’s v. 10 include: Andersen, Habakkuk, 312, 330–332; Duhm, Buch Habakuk, 88; Elliger, Propheten, 50; Haak, Habakkuk, 97; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Humbert, Proble̖mes, 78–79; Jeremias, Theophanie, 42; Lescow, ‘Nahum 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. Aron Pinker (‘God’s C3 in Habakkuk 3,’ ZAW 115 [2003]: 261–265) suggests that Yhwh is the implied subject ing1#!''-#: (‘He raised His hands high up’; p. 265), 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 #'&/ 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). Several scholars emend g1 to !f1 (‘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 (Proble̖mes, 78–79) also assumes g/f confusion but repoints the verb as a niphal and adds a conjunction (f1#), while Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 193) repoints g1 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 g1 (‘lift up’; ‘raise’) in translation (see also previous note): LXX ëÈûÉ¿¾; La levavit; Syr ƈƠƣ. As noted by Sinker (Psalm of Habakkuk, 29), it is possible to understand -#: as a nominative substantive rather than an adverb. D

E-E Elliger (Propheten, 50) and Marti (Dodekapropheton, 353) emend this phrase to !%:$/ (‘in/toward the east’; ‘rising’; ‘sunrise’). Sellin (Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357) proposes #!'3#/ (‘its appointed rotations’). Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182) suggests =#//#: (‘praises’). Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 193) reads !'' -/': (‘[it] raised its hands’). Kelly (‘Strophic Structure,’ 115) follows G. A. Smith’s emendation#%$/ (‘his [mourning] cry’). F The ! is here understood as the archaic, preexilic 3rd-masc. sg. suffix (‘his’; cf. Job 24:23; 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 !+$, which would provide for a smoother reading (‘in its lofty residence’). Marti (Dodekapropheton, 353) and Riessler

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

71

(Kleinen Propheten, 193) suggest #+#$ (‘its lofty residence’). G On the basis of the use of :#+ 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 :#+ and its parallel !1+. Thus, I maintain that ‘at light’ (:#+) and ‘at brightness’ (!1+) are parallel temporal expressions for ‘at dawn’ even though  is more often used in a temporal sense than +(Joüon §133d). The LXX translates the preposition + as ¼ĊË (‘into’), Barb as Á¸ÌŠ (‘according to,’ which can be used in a temporal sense ‘at/on/during’), Syr as ħ (‘in/on’), and La as in (‘in/into’). It is uncertain whether the Syr and La presuppose a Vorlage that used  or if they understood + in a temporal sense more typical of . Sinker (Psalm of Habakkuk, 31) also uses ‘at’ to translate+; 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 + is used adverbially and, hence, proposes ‘brightly’ (:#+) and ‘brilliantly’ (!1+) as translations (also Haak, Habakkuk, 92; Prinsloo, ‘Reading Habakkuk 3,’ 90). 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 60:19 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].

Strophe V: Divine Warrior is Victorious 12 In

wrath,H

you marchedI on the land; 7:¡I38=H-3$½¾ In you trampled the nations. ª-'#f#=H5 13 You went forth for the deliverance (/33f'+=8'13 K JFor the deliveranceJ of your Anointed (%'f/J¡=3f'+J K One of your people, L LYou shattered the head from the 3f:='/f:=8%/L PM MYou laid bareN the baseO as far ª!+2 :#8¡3O#2'N*=':3M MP as the neck. S elah. R 14 You pierced the headQ of his warriorR #$:6Qf:S#'&/=9114 T T[[They stormed to scatter me [in] their -=8'+3''18'6!+#:32'T with his shafts;S arrogance/rejoicing]]T U UAs to devour the poor in secret.U ª:=2/'13+)+¡#/)U 15You treadV upon the sea with your horses, ('2#2-'V=):15 Upon the surgeW of many waters. ª-':-'/W*:/% anger,H

The translation of -3$ and 5 respectively in the translations are: LXX ëÅ ÒȼÀÂĉ (‘in threat’) and ëÅ ¿ÍÄŊ (‘in fury’); Barb ļÌÛ ¿ÍÄÇı (‘with fury’) and Ä¼ÌЏ ĚɺýË (‘with anger’); Syr ŦƦƊŷŨ (‘in fury/heat’) andŦŵūĭƢŨ(‘in wrath/anger’; cf. v. 2); 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

H

72

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

words that are more commonly used to translate-3$and 5 in the LXX. In contrast, the LXX does use ¿ÍÄĠË (albeit for 5 rather than -3$, contrary to Barb) but chooses an unusual word for -3$ (ÒȼÀÂû [threat]); of the 24 times ÒȼÀÂû, is used in the LXX, only seven have a parallel Heb term in the MT and Hab 3:11 is the only time when ÒȼÀÂû, is used to translate -3$ (statistics and usage determined using Bibleworks 9.0 [Norfolk: Bibleworks, LCC, 2011] in conjunction with Edwin Hatch and Henry A. Redpath, A Concordance to the Septuagint [2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005]). In contrast, ¿ÍÄĠË is used 333 times in the LXX and Ěɺû 303 times. On the other hand, the LXX is consistent in that it previously used ¿ÍÄĠË to translate 5 in Hab 3:8 and Ěɺû, was already used to translate $: in Hab 3:2; thus, perhaps the LXX translator was trying to distinguish the three anger-related Heb terms in Habakkuk 3 -3$, 5, and $:) by using a different Gk term for each. Barb translates the verb as 뺼ɿûÊþ (‘you will arise’); Good (‘Barberini,’ 16) suggests :#3= as the possible Heb Vorlage for Barb in place of the MT’s88=.

I

Both the Gk and Syr have an infinitive here (LXX ÊľÊ¸À [‘to save’]; Barb ģįʸʿ¸À [‘to rescue’]; Syr ľƢƙƉ [‘to redeem’]), while the La (salutem) reflects the MT’s noun. The apparent problem is the presence of the direct object marker (=) 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 3f'+ in this colon differently than in the previous one. The deletion of = 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 = to -3 (‘people’). Since 3f'+ as a qal infinitive is problematic (3f' is never elsewhere used in the qal, only in the niphal and hiphil), several scholars emend 3f'+ to a hiphil infinitive !3'f#(!+ ; see Elliger, Propheten, 50; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 354; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 293; Rudolph, Micha, 237; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 142. J-J

Both Gk versions have a plural here; however, the LXX has ÌÇİË ÏÉÀÊÌÇįË (‘anointed ones’) while Barb has ÌÇİË ëÁ¼ÁÌÇįË (‘elected/chosen ones’). The choice of ëÁ¼ÁÌĠË in Barb could be a Jewish reaction against Christian interpretation of the OT in which ÏÉÀÊÌĠË 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. K

L-L The MT has 3f:='/f:=8%/ (‘You shattered the head from/of the house of the wicked one’). The LXX reads ì¹¸Â¼Ë ¼ĊË Á¼Î¸ÂÛË ÒÅĠÄÑÅ ¿ÚŸÌÇÅ (‘You threw/cast/brought death onto the heads of the lawless’), thus reading ='/ as =#/ (‘death’; also the name of a Canaanite god, Mot; see Albright, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 11, 13; cf. Cassuto, ‘Ras Shamra,’ 20). Barb has Á¸Ì¼ÌŦƼÍÊ¸Ë Á¼Î¸ÂÛË ÒÅ¿ÉļÈÑÅ ĨȼɾÎÚÅÑÅ (‘You shot [with arrows] the heads of wicked humans’), perhaps reading ='/as '=/(‘men/people’; see also Humbert, Proble̖mes, 79). Both

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

73

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 ƎƉťƤſĿƦƠƐƘ ƧŴƕĪ ĬƦƀŨ (‘You cut off the head of the house of the wicked’). F. J. Stephens (‘The Babylonian Dragon Myth in Habakkuk 3,’ JBL 43 [1924]: 290–293) uses the LXX as a basis for proposing that the original Heb could have been=#/!(=#/! [LXX] Æ =#/! [proposed original] Æ =#/ [drop !] Æ =#/ [metathesis of  and /] Æ ='/ [#/' confusion = MT]); thus, ‘Thou didst strike through the head of Behemoth’ (ibid., 292). Andersen (Habakkuk, 337) solves the problemic colon by deleting ='/. Hiebert (God of My Victory, 9, 36–40) suggests =/ (3rd fem. sg. construct ‘back’; see pp. 37–38 for an explanation regarding how =/could have generated the other variants reflected in the MT and Gk translations), although he acknowledges that Albright’s reading ‘Mot/Death’ [ANE deity] is also appealing. One problem is that !/ 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, !/ is used with verbs of motion ((: [‘tread upon’; Deut 33:29; Job 9:8)] and !+3 [‘ascend’; Isa 14:14]) and with the preposition +3 in the sense ‘on/upon’ !/ (cf. Hab 3:19); !/ is never used as the object of an attack (e.g., ‘smash/strike’). Examples of direct objects of7%/elsewhere in the MT include:!6 (‘side of the head,’ ‘temple,’ ‘forehead’; Num 24:17); -'1=/ (‘loins/hips’; Deut 33:11); f: (‘head’; Judg 5:26; Pss 68:22; 110:6); !: (‘Rahab’ [mythological being]; Job 26:12); -')+/ (‘kings’; Ps 110:5). For this colon, the LXX has ëÆûº¼ÀÉ¸Ë »¼ÊÄÇİË ïÑË ÌɸÏûÂÇÍ (‘you raised up chains as far as the neck’); La denudasti fundamentum usqueò ad collum (‘you laid bare the foundation up to the neck’); Syr ĬĿĭƞƆťƉűƕĭIJĬŴƏĥƦƣƎƉIJųſƦŷƇƣĥĭ (‘you stripped him/it from the foundation and as far as the neck’). Barb appears to be reading a non-MT Vorlage with its ïÑË Ò¹įÊÊÇÍ ÌýË ¿¸ÂÚÊÊ¾Ë Á¸Ì¸»įÊÇÅ̸À (‘they will sink as far as the depths/abyss of the sea’); for possible connections to the MT consonantal text, see Good, ‘Barberini,’ 17. M-M

N The MT reads the piel inf. abs. =#:3. However, the LXX, La, and Syr all have a 2nd masc. sg. verb (see n. M–M), thus presumably reading the 2nd masc. sg. piel =':3 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, 357; O’Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure, 238. Humbert (Proble̖mes, 79) proposes a more radical emendation with -=::8 (‘you tied/wrapped/chained them’; cf. LXX).

ò

The Syr reads a plural (IJĬŴƏĥƦƣ), as does the LXX albeit with a different meaning (»¼ÊÄÇŧË; ‘bonds’; ‘chains’); La (fundamentum) agrees with the singular in the MT.

O

P

A few scholars and BHS emend :#8 to :#8 (‘rock’); see Elliger, Propheten, 50;

74

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Kelly, ‘Strophic Structure,’ 115; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 354; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357. Several scholars wish to add a 3rd masc. sg. personal pronominal suffix (#f:) here; see Albright, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 11; Duhm, Buch Habakuk, 92; Elliger, Propheten, 50; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 354; Mowinckel, ‘Psalm des Habakuk,’ 18; Rudolph, Micha, 237; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357. Q

R The noun $:6 is a hapax legomenon in the MT [note: the qerê reads the plural noun #'$:6]; its meaning is uncertain. Translations in the other versions include ‘rulers’ (LXX »ÍŸÊÌľÅ; Syr IJĬŴƍźƀƇƣò ), ‘warriors’ (La bellatorum), and ‘sinners’ (Barb ÌľÅ ÖĸÉÌÑÂľÅ), all using the genitive case. Humbert (Proble̖mes, 79) proposes reading -'1$: (‘dignitaries/princes’) based on the LXX.

The LXX has ëÅ ëÁÊÌÚʼÀ (‘in/with amazement/terror’); Barb ļÌÛ »ÍÅÚļļË ÊÇÍ (‘with your power’); La sceptris eius (‘his scepters’); Syr IJĬĭǔŹŴŷŨ (‘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 (('&/ (‘your staff/rod/spear/shaft’); see Elliger, Propheten, 50; Humbert, Proble̖mes, 79; Kelly, ‘Strophic Structure,’ 115; Mowinckel, ‘Psalm des Habakuk,’ 18; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 294–295; Roberts, Nahum, 144; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 172. Marti (Dodekapropheton, 354) suggests ('=&/ (‘with your shots’ [mit deinen Geschossen]). Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182) and Rudolph (Micha, 237) propose !&/ (‘with the arrow/dart’). Albright (‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 11, 13) advocates #&/ (‘in the fight’). Aron Pinker (‘On the Meaning of #'&/ in Habakkuk 3,14a,’ Bib 86 [2005]: 376–386) argues for transposing the last two letters into the construct '#&/, 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. 382–383). Andersen (Habakkuk, 338) suggests reading the #as a dual suffix attested in the Gezer Calendar (‘two maces’). S

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 -=8'+3 '18'6!+ #:32' (‘they stormed to scatter/smash me [in?] their arrogance/rejoicing’; however, the last word is sometimes placed with the following colon). The LXX has ʼÀÊ¿ûÊÇÅ̸À ëÅ ¸ĤÌĉ (‘they will be shaken by it’) / »À¸ÅÇĕÆÇÍÊÀ ϸÂÀÅÇİË ¸ĤÌľÅ (‘they will open their bridles’); Barb ÌÇİË È¼ÈÇÀ¿ĠÌ¸Ë ëÈĖ Ìĉ ¸Ĥ¿¸»¼ţß ¸ĤÌľÅ (‘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 ķĭĬŁŴƍŷɚƤŨŴƇƃŁŁĥĪ (‘who trust T-T

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

75

in their savagery’). There are several proposals to emend '18'6!+. BHS, Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182), and Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 194) suggest 7('6!+. Humbert (Proble̖mes, 79) proposes (8'6!+ ‘[when] you cause to scatter’). Duhm (Buch Habakuk, 92), Patterson (Nahum, 230), and Sellin (Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357) divide '18'6!+ into two words with various emendations: #1'86'#+ (‘to/for him/it’ + ‘they hide’; Duhm); 3'18 7#6 (‘to scatter the humble’; Patterson); #1'86' !+ (‘to/for her/it’ + ‘they hide’; Sellin). A few scholars have also proposed emendations for -=8'+3. Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 182) corrects it to =#8'+3 (‘exultation’). Humbert (Proble̖mes, 79) suggests -='8#+! (‘valiant ones’), while Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 194) proposes -=#8'+! (‘their booty/loot’). Based on an Arabic cognate noted by Driver, Eaton (‘Habakkuk 3,’ 155) leaves the MT unchanged but understands -=8'+3 as ‘their throats’ and connects it to the following colon. 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, Proble̖mes, 78–79). The MT has :=2/'13+)+¡#/) (‘as to devour the poor in secret’). The LXX reads ĸË ìÊ¿ÑÅ ÈÌÑÏġË ÂÚ¿Éß (‘as a poor man eating in secret’); Barb ïżÁ¼Å ÌÇı Á¸Ì¸Î¸º¼ėÅ ÌÇİË ÈÌÑÏÇİË ÂÚ¿Éß (‘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’; ò (‘that they devour this translation includes -=8'+3); Syr ťƍƄƐƊƆťƀƣŴźŨķŴƇƃŤƌĪ the poor in secret’). Marti (Dodekapropheton, 354) and Mowinckel (‘Psalm des Habakuk,’ 18) emend #/) to 7/) (‘like chaff’). Eaton (‘Habakkuk 3,’ 155–156) suggests either repointing #/) to an elided verb form (‘they crave’) or possibly an original infinitive absolute !/). For '13 +)+, Rudolph (Micha, 238) proposes '3+ + (‘as a lion to his prey’). O’Connor (Hebrew Verse Structure, 238) takes the + on +)+ as an emphatic + introducing #+) (‘they consume’). U-U

Some scholars want to read the hiphil =):! in place of the MT’s =):; see Humbert, Proble̖mes, 79. However, ëÈÀ¹¸ĕÅÑ is used several times elsewhere to translate the qal of (: (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 cognateƦƃĿĪ (‘you tread’). V

The MT points :/% as a masc. sg. construct noun (‘foaming’; ‘heap’). The Syr comes closest to this with the noun ťƤƍƃ (‘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 :/%. In contrast, the LXX translates :/% with the participle ̸ÉÚÊÊÇÅÌ¸Ë (‘disturbing’) while Barb has a finite verb ë̸ÉÚÏ¿¾ (‘[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, W

76

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

none of these options would fit very well because -': -'/ takes a plural verb elsewhere in MT whenever it is the subject (e.g., Num 20:11; Ps 32:6; Song 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 (:/%), given that -':-'/ appears as part of other construct chains (e.g., Ps 93:4; Isa 17:13; Ezek 1:24; 31:15) and that -':-'/:/! would create a nice parallel to -' in the previous colon that would be typical of Heb poetry. Others who support the emendation to :/% include BHS; Hiebert, God of My Victory, 47–48; Roberts, Nahum, 145.

Strophe VI: Conclusion 16I

heardX and my belly shook; At the soundY my lips quiver.Z Rottenness comes into my bones; I quakeAA under me, walking.BB I restCC for the day of distress To go up to the people [who] attack us.DD 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 EEAnd there is no herd in the stable,EE 18But I will exult in Yhwh; I will rejoice in the God of my salvation.FF 19Yhwh, my Lord, is my strength, GGAnd he puts my feet as stags/deer; GG And upon myHH high places he leads me. II[T o the director with music/strings .] II

'1&$:=#X'=3/f16 '=6gZ#++8Y+#9+ '/839:#' BB *:fAA$:'=%=# !:8-#'+CC%#1 DD #1#'-3+=#+3+ %:6=¡+!1=¡')17 -'16+#'0'# ='$¡!g3/f%) +)!g3¡+=#/f# 08!+)//:$ EE -'=6::90'#EE !$#+3!#!''1#18 FF '3f''!+!+' '+'%'1!#!'19 GG =#+')'+:-g'#GG '1):'HH'=#/+3# II '=#1'1%81/+II 

X The LXX has ëÎ͸ÆÚľŠ(‘I observed/watched’), perhaps reading '=:/f; Barb has ë̸ÆÚľŠ(‘I stationed [myself]’), perhaps reading '=/g. Both La (audivi) and Syr (ƦƖƊƣ) support the MT. Y Both Gk versions have ÒÈĠ (‘from’), perhaps reading +#9/. The Syr has ƈũƟŴƆ (‘against’). The La renders the Heb most literally with ad (‘to’).

The MT’s #++8 is not reflected in Barb or Syr. The LXX translates it as ÈÉÇʼÍÏýË (‘prayer’); Patterson (Nahum, 233) suggests that the LXX was reading the Aramaic root+3 (‘pray’). Again, the La most closely resembles the Heb with contremuerunt (‘they trembled’). Z

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

77

The versions are inconsistent regarding the person of the verb. The MT’s 1stperson $: is only clearly supported by Barb (ë̸ÉÚÏ¿¾Å; ‘I was troubled’), which seems to be reading the 1st sg. perf. '=$:. The Syr colon ĺĮ ƁƃǓŴŨĭ (‘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 (Á¸Ė ĨÈÇÁÚÌÑ¿ñÅ ÄÇÍ ë̸ÉÚÏ¿¾ ÷ ïÆÀË ÄÇÍ; ‘and under me my condition was troubled/stirred up’). Several scholars emend $: to #$:' (3rd pl.); see Elliger, Propheten, 50; Kelly, ‘Strophic Structure,’ 116; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 355; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357. Albright (‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 12) and Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 184) suggest $:= (3rd fem. sg.). Duhm (Buch Habakuk, 96), Humbert (Problèmes, 79) and Nowack (Kleinen Propheten, 296) propose $:' (3rd masc. sg.). BB If :f 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 -Ī; Barb ̸ı̸ (=:f?). In contrast, the LXX does not include any indication of a relative pronoun in v. 16b¹ and may have translated :f (or a different Vorlage) using ÷ ïÆÀË ÄÇÍ (‘my condition’), which the LXX treats as the subject of v. 16b¸. Several scholars emend :f to ':f (‘my step[s]’); see Albright, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 12; Duhm, Buch Habakuk, 96; Elliger, Propheten, 50; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 184; Humbert, Proble̖mes, 79; Kelly, ‘Strophic Structure,’ 116; Marti, Dodekapropheton, 355; Perlitt, Propheten, 93; Roberts, Nahum, 147; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357; Ward, ‘Habakkuk,’ 25; Wellhausen, Kleinen Propheten, 172. One problem with this emendation is that the extant portions of Mur XII do not allow for another letter between :f and the following word, %#1. Thus, Eaton (‘Habakkuk 3,’ 157) proposes repointing :f 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 :f as a relative marker, see Robert D. Holmstedt, ‘Habakkuk 3:16 – where did the :f go?’ HS 44 (2003): 129–138; Sinker, Psalm of Habakkuk, 38–39. AA

Both the LXX (ÒŸȸįÊÇĸÀ) and La (requiescam) support the MT with their 1stsg. verbs meaning ‘I will rest.’ In contrast, Barb reads a 2nd-person verb (ÎÍŠƼÀË; ‘you will watch’), while the Syr has a 3rd-person verb (ľűŨ; ‘he explained’). Elliger (Propheten, 50), Horst (Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 184), and BHS emend %#1  to !)% (‘I will wait’) and Duhm (Buch Habakuk, 96) to %1 (‘I sigh/moan’); Ward (‘Habakkuk,’ 28) 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 CC

78

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

to-#' '+ f1 (‘painful to me [is] the day [of distress]’), while Sellin (Zwölfprophetenbuch, 357) suggests -#'+'%# (‘I wait for [the] day’). Barb comes closest to the MT’s meaning with its ÈǼÄÇıÅ ÌġŠ¸ġÅ ÊÇÍ (‘making war on your people’) except that it adds an extra word for ‘people’ (ÌġŠ¸ĠÅ) and uses the 2nd-sg. personal pronoun sou instead of the 1st-pl. pronoun. The LXX has ȸÉÇÀÁĕ¸Ë ÄÇÍ (‘[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,’ 12) corrects the MT to '1#' (1st-sg. pronominal suffix). Humbert (Problèmes, 79) suggests # (‘troop of warriors’). DD

EE-EE

FF

Syr hasŧǔƠũŨŧǓĭŁƦƀƆĭ(‘there are no bulls in the herd’) instead.

The La reads Iesu (“Jesus”) instead of “salvation.”

Though the phrasing here is somewhat strange, it is similar to 2 Sam 22:34 // Ps 18:34. The LXX has Á¸Ė ÌÚƼÀ ÌÇİË ÈĠ»¸Ë ÄÇÍ ¼ĊË ÊÍÅÌñ¼À¸Å (‘and he will place my feet toward completion’), while Barb reads Á¸Ė Á¸ÌñÊ̾ʼ ÌÇİË ÈĠ»¸Ë ÄÇÍ ÒÊθ¼ėË (‘he set my feet firm’). The other versions support the MT: La et ponet pedes meos quasi cervorum; SyrƨſĥĪƅſĥƁƇūǓűũƕĪ. GG-GG

Some scholars wish to remove the 1st-sg. suffix; see Elliger, Propheten, 50; Kelly, ‘Strophic Structure,’ 116; 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 ÌľÅ ëÏ¿ÉľÅ ÄÇÍ; La excelsa mea; Syr ƁƉĭĿ). Patterson (Nahum, 238) suggests that '=#/ is a ‘frozen form based an old genitive case.’ HH

Each of the versions has something different in place of the MT subscription: LXX ÌÇı ÅÀÁýʸÀ ëÅ Ìĉ ŀ»ĉ ¸ĤÌÇı (‘to conquer by his song’); Barb ̸ÏţÊ¸Ë Á¸Ì¼È¸ŧʸÌÇ (‘̸ÏţÊ¸Ë [“swiftly”?] it was brought to an end’); La in psalmis canenò ƢƉĮĥĪ (‘that I will sing his praises’). The tem (‘in singing songs’), Syr ĬƦŷũƣƦŨ word ̸ÏţÊ¸Ë in Barb is a hapax legomenon, not only in the OT, but in the entire Gk corpus of literature (Good, ‘Barberini,’ 24); the LSJ (p. 1762) hypothesizes that it is from the verb ̸Ïţ½Ñ (‘to make swift’; this would make ̸ÏţÊ¸Ë an aor. ptc.) and for this suggestion cites only Hab 3:19. II-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

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

79

1QPHab was written. 5 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. 6 Similarly, Nogalski points to the liturgical notations, especially the use of !+2, 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. 7 Although O. Palmer Robertson thinks that Habakkuk 3 did circulate separately, he also thinks that it belonged to the original form of the book of Habakkuk. 8 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. 9 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. 10 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. 11 Others have also ar104F

105F

106F

107F

108F

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 8HevXIIgr with the rest of the fragments of Habakkuk. 6 Perlitt, Propheten, 83. He also thinks that comparison with other Jewish literature indicates that the Book of Habakkuk was “finished” in the fourth century BCE (ibid., 43), presumably including Habakkuk 3. 7 Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 156–159. 8 O. P. Robertson, Habakkuk, 214. 9 Ward, ‘Habakkuk,’ 25. 10 Albright, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 9; cf. Haak, Habakkuk, 110–111; Roberts, Nahum, 85; Prinsloo, ‘Reading Habakkuk 3,’ 482; James 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), 209–223, esp. 221. 11 Humbert, Problèmes, 245. 5

80

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

gued 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. 12 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 BCE). 13 David A. Robertson uses linguistic clues to tentatively date Habakkuk 3 to the eleventh century BCE. 14 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. 15 The phrase 0/'=/!#+ in Hab 3:3 is similar to 0/=!#!' found in the Kuntillet ‘Ajrud inscriptions, which Lemaire dates to the reign of Jeroboam II, probably between 776–750 BCE. 16 Sweeney suggests that Yhwh’s ‘anointed one’ in v. 13 refers to the king and, hence, that Habakkuk 13F

For examples, see Eaton, ‘Habakkuk 3,’ 166–167; Dominik Markl, ‘Hab 3 in intertextueller und kontextueller Sicht,’ Bib 85 (2004): 99–108; Prinsloo, ‘Reading Habakkuk 3,’ 105–107; Michael E. W. Thompson, ‘Prayer, Oracle and Theophany: The Book of Habakkuk,’ TynBul 44 (1993): 33–53. 13 Hiebert, God of My Victory, 120–122. 14 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.). 15 John E. Anderson, ‘Awaiting an Answered Prayer: The Development and Reinterpretation of Habakkuk 3 in its Context,’ ZAW 123 (2011): 57–71. 16 André Lemaire, ‘Date et origine des inscriptions hebraiques et pheniciennes de Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,’ Studi epigrafici e linguistici 1 (1984): 131– 143, here 139; see also Weinfeld, “Kuntillet ‘Ajrud,” 125–127. Ironically, Bernhard Stade (‘Miscellen. 3. Habakuk,’ ZAW 4 [1884]: 154–159) points to the use of !#+ as indicating a postexilic author. 12

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

81

3 reflects the preexilic monarchic period. 17 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 BCE. 18 Mowinckel dates Habakkuk to 629/8–622 BCE); he also 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.. 19 Albright thinks that the presence of the archaic masculine singular suffix on !$3 (‘his strength’) in v. 4 ‘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 Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 486. Against this suggestion, see Marti, Dodekapropheton, 327; Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 169; Stade, ‘3. Habakuk,’ 157–158; Thompson, ‘Prayer,’ 43. 18 Humbert, Proble̖mes, 245. 19 Mowinckel, ‘Psalm des Habakuk,’ 2; cf. Albright, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 2. Eaton 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’ (John H. Eaton, ‘Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk 3,’ ZAW 76 [1964]: 144–171, here 163). 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 (John H. Eaton, Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: Introduction and Commentary [London: SCM Press, 1961], 82–83, 108). 17

82

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Lachish Ostraca; thus he suggests 605–589 BCE as a probable date of composition for the bulk of the book. 20 Haak narrows the time frame further in proposing 605–603 BCE. 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’ (-'1f) to ‘captors’ (-'f) in Hab 3:2 reflects the original text, that would point to a time during or after the Babylonian Exile; however, Pinker notes that -'f could be referring to the first wave of exiles in 597 BCE, thus fitting within a ministry of Habakkuk that began during or just before the reign of King Jehoiakim (608–598 BCE) and lasted until the fall of Jerusalem in 587 BCE. 23 Several scholars reject a preexilic dating. Nogalski appeals to the identification of Habakkuk as a'1 (“prophet”) in 3:1 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!+2 to be a later redactional element in the chapter and, hence, connects the redactional layer of Habakkuk 3 in which !+2 appears to the limited time period that !+2 was used 120F

Albright, ‘Psalm of Habakkuk,’ 9–10, 14; cf. Mowinckel, ‘Psalm des Habakuk,’ 2. William L. Holladay (‘Plausible Circumstances for the Prophecy of Habakkuk,’ JBL 120 [2001]: 123–130) extends the dates slightly to 605–594 BCE based on the references to an apparent drought in Hab 3:17–18 similar to the one mentioned in Jer 14:6. Against Holladay, Aron Pinker (‘Infertile Quartet of Flora,’ ZAW 115 [2003]: 617–623, 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 Aron Pinker, ‘Historical Allusions in the Book of Habakkuk,’ JBQ 36 (2008): 143–152, here 146–147. 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 BCE is the more likely possibility (ibid., 147). 24 Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 157, 180. 20

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

83

in the Psalter (i.e., during the Persian period). 25 Bernhard Stade proposed that only 1:2–2:8 can be traced back to the seventhcentury 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). 26 He thinks that several features of the chapter likely point to a later author: !#+ for God in v. 3; Israel as God’s %'f/   (“anointed”) in v. 13; and the expression -'1f :9 in v. 2. 27 In its final form, Pfeiffer dates Habakkuk 3 to the early Hellenistic period (i.e., last third of the fourth century BCE). 28 Duhm thinks that the aggressor in Habakkuk is Alexander the Great and thus, dates the entire book to the fourth century BCE. 29 Peter Jöcken has a detailed summary for which scholars date the book to which time period, from preexilic to postexilic. 30 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 HB 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 !+2, makes a period 124F

125F

126F

127F

Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 156. Bernhard Stade, ‘Miscellen. 3. Habakuk,’ ZAW 4 (1884): 154–159, here 157. 27 Stade, ‘3. Habakuk,’ 157–158. 28 Pfeiffer, Jahwes kommen von Süden, 176–177. 29 Duhm, Buch Habakuk, 3, 6–7, 70. 30 Peter 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): 481–496. 25 26

84

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

of independent circulation likely. Otherwise, if Habakkuk 3 was original to the book of Habakkuk, why is !+2 found only in Habakkuk 3 outside of the Psalter? 31 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 !+2, if it did not share at least a common cultic/liturgical editing process (if not its original composition) with the psalms that also use !+2 (primarily restricted to the first three books of the Psalter)? Given that !+2 only appears in vv. 3–15 (i.e., vv. 3, 9, 13) in Habakkuk 3, it would be tempting to suggest that perhaps !+2 was already part of the text when the prophet Habakkuk or a later redactor incorporated it into the book of Habakkuk; one potential 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. 32 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. 33 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). 129F

130F

James W. Watts (‘Psalmody,’ 218) 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). 32 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. 1 and 19 were eliminated but »ÀÚиÂĸ (= !+2) was retained. 33 However, Michael Barré (‘Newly Discovered Literary Devices in the Prayer of Habakkuk,’ CBQ 75 [2013]: 446–462) 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. 31

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

85

3. STORM-/WARRIOR-GOD THEOPHANIC MOTIFS AND VOCABULARY 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). 34 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? 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. Anderson proposes that the core theophany 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). 35 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 $:. 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 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). Strophes II and III function together to create a traditional theophanic motif as identified by Jeremias: (1) coming of the deity For a detailed critique of the use of Ugaritic texts in particular to interpret (and sometimes emend) Habakkuk 3, see David Toshio Tsumura, ‘Ugaritic Poetry and Habakkuk 3,’ TynBul 40 (1989): 24–48. 35 John E. Anderson, ‘Awaiting an Answered Prayer: The Development and Reinterpretation of Habakkuk 3 in its Context,’ ZAW 123 (2011): 57–71. 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’ (p. 62). 34

86

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

(vv. 3–4); and (2) reaction of nature/people (vv. 5–7). 36 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. 37 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. 38 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. Jeremias, Theophanie, 15. Shupak, ‘God from Teman,’ 102–116. 38 Andersen, Habakkuk, 290–299, esp. 298. 36 37

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

87

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., 9: in v. 11 used to describe one of Yhwh’s weapons). 3.1. Effects upon Nature Although there are references to Eloah/The Holy One’s splendor (#!) covering the heavens (-'/f) and his praise (!+!=) filling the earth (7:) 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 (/ v. 6) and tents in Midian and Cushan quake ($: v. 7); Yhwh clefts the earth (39 v. 9) with rivers and he marches (38 v. 12) upon it. Mountains are shattered (786 v. 6) and writhe (+#% v. 10) at the sight of Yhwh. Hills are humbled (%%f v. 6). 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). Pestilence (:) and plague (5f:) preceed the deity in v. 5, though these phenomena could also be interpreted as attendant deities in service to Eloah/the Holy One. The parallelism between : and 5f: 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 Yah-

88

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

weh. 39 Of these, Deber is 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. 40 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. 41 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. 42 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. 43 In contrast, John 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

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 (Othmar Keel and Christoph Uehlinger, Gods, Goddesses, and Images of God in Ancient Israel [Minneapolis: 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 (Lowell K. Handy, ‘Sedheq,’ in ABD, vol. 5 [New York: Doubleday, 1992], 1065–1066; see also Jamie A. Banister, ‘Sedheq,’ in NIDB, vol. 5 [Nashville: Abingdon, 2009], 154); cf. Pss 85:14; 89:15. 40 Hiebert, God of My Victory, 92–94, esp. 93. 41 Richard H. Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (London: Thames & Hudson, 2003), 126–127; Albright, Gods of Canaan, 186. 42 Wilkinson, Complete Gods and Goddesses, 126–127. 43 Shupak, ‘God from Teman,’ 110–113. 39

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

89

with the sea/dragon, noting in particular the role of the Canaanite plague god Resheph in fighting alongside Ba‘al. 44 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 (-') at the beginning (v. 8) and end (v. 15) of this strophe, the latter causing a surge (:/%) of many waters (-':-'/). Both the sea and rivers are objects of Yhwh’s anger/rage (v. 8). The deep (-#!=) gave its voice (v. 10); -#!= 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. 3–4, 11) could be connected to Yhwh’s lightning illuminating the heavens, albeit not necessarily. The clouds (=#3) poured (#/:$) water/rain (-'/) or a ‘flood/rainstorm (-:$) of water passed over’ if one follows the MT (v. 10). The sun raised its hands and the moon stood still (vv. 10–11). 3.2. 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 (:') Yhwh’s works (v. 2), while in v. 16, his belly and legs (?) trembled ($:) and lips quivered (++8). The word $: 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 (-'#) 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 nations to UT 1001 // PRU II, 1 // RS 15.134, lines 1–3; cited in John Day, ‘New Light on the Mythological Background of the Allusion to Resheph in Habakkuk III 5,’ VT 29 (1979): 353–355. 44

90

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

jump (:=1; cf. Job 37:1). The second occurance is in v. 12, where Yhwh trampled (f#) 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 (7%/) 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 (91) by Yhwh in v. 14. Between these two references, there is a description of Yhwh slicing (“laying bare” !:3) the enemy from the lower back up to the neck (v. 13). These verses vividly describe the Divine Warrior in battle against the enemy. 3.3. 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 5 (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 5 in v. 8 is the word!:3, 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 5 in v. 12 is -3$, 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 $:in v. 2 (cf. Sir 5:6); however, $: is elsewhere associated with agitation and, hence, could be a reference to the prophet or people’s own agitation/trembling (cf. Isa 14:3). 45 142F

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 The verb $: occurs three times in Habakkuk 3, either with land (v. 7) or the prophet/author’s body (v. 16 [x2]) as the subject; in those cases, the meaning is ‘tremble/shake.’ 45

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

91

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 (:#) and brilliance (!1) 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). 46 ‘Lightning’ (9:) is itself used in v. 11 in reference to the deity’s spear (='1%); thus, the verse could be describing a spear of lightning (as is typical in ANE iconography) or 9: 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 -'1:9 (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” (+#9); +#9 elsewhere refers to God’s thunder (e.g., Ex 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 =f9 (“bow”) in v. 9a¸, which connects nicely to the chariot (!):/) mentioned in v. 8. Other clear references to weapons are to a spear (='1%) and arrows (7%) in v. 11. More of a mystery is!&/ (‘rod’; ‘shaft’); it is used in the plural (=#&/) in the same bicolon as bow in v. 9a, thus ‘arrows’ would be a logical implication, given the proxmity to ‘bow.’ However, =#&/ is never clearly used for ‘arrows’ elsewhere in the MT and the more common word for ‘arrow’ (7%) is found in v. 11. Also, one must consider the use of #'&/ (‘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’ (91) the head of the enemy warrior. The verb 91 is connected to making a hole in something; thus, underAlthough it is possible to read :# and !1 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. 46

92

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

standing =#&/ as ‘arrows’ would work well since they ‘pierce’ and make holes – as would a javelin or similar weapon. 3.5. 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 '3f''!+ (‘in the God of my salvation’; cf. Mic 7:7). In the following verse (v. 19), the prophet/author states that Yhwh is his strength (+'%; cf. 2 Sam 22:33 // Ps 18:33). It is noteworthy that +'% can also refer to an army, as occurs in the Song of the Sea in Exodus 15 (v. 4); the military connotation of +'% is reminiscent of the Divine Warrior motif so prevalent in Hab 3:8–15. 3.6. 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 place names in v. 3 identify the place from which the deity comes– i.e., Teman (0/'=) and Mount Paran (0:6), both generally taken as references to the ‘south’ and often connected with Edom. 47 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 (0'/) is often thought to be somewhere in the southern Transjordan area. The location of Cushan (0f#)) is unknown; 0f#) does not appear elsewhere in the MT. However, the references to tents/curtains is reminiscent of a nomadic community; thus, as Hiebert suggests, 0f#) and 0'/ in this context could refer to groups of nomads, perhaps

See Pfeiffer, Jahwes kommen von Süden, 258–260. Hiebert (God of My Victory, 83–86) makes a more specific case for the meaning ‘southeast.’ 47

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

93

associated with the southern region, thus explaining why they are affected by God’s movements. 48

4. HABAKKUK 3 AND MONOTHEISM Both parts of the core theophany (vv. 3–7 and 8–15) show indications of strong connections with, or at least influences from, a polytheistic worldview. As noted above regarding v. 5, : (‘pestilence’) and 5f: (‘plague’) can be interpreted as Deber and Resheph who function as attendant deities to Yahweh. Yahweh’s anger against the sea (-') in v. 8 could be interpreted in light of the battle against the sea (in this case, Yamm) motif, mentioned in Chapter One; likewise, rivers (-':!1) can perhaps be linked with Nahar, often paired with Yamm in Ugaritic texts, 49 though the plural could make the association somewhat questionable in the context of Habakkuk 3. Both sun (f/f) in v. 10 and moon (%:') in v. 11 can be interpreted as the deities Shamash and Yareah, respectively. The connections with the ANE deities combined with the anthromorphic imagery of Yahweh throughout vv. 3–15 places the core theophany in Habakkuk 3 at home within other ANE mythological stories and hymns. In contrast, the framing elements in v. 2 and vv. 16–19 contain no possible references to ANE deities nor anthromorphic imagery of Yahweh. While this could be a coincidence, it is more likely that the framing elements were added to recontextualize the core theophany in such a way that the references to the ANE deities could instead be read simply as the meaning of the root word, thus moving Habakkuk 3 as a whole away from a polytheistic worldview that acknowledges the existence of other deities, even if subordinate to one’s primary god, to a worldview which affirms the existence of only one deity. However, the framing verses are ambiguous – neither mentioning nor denying the existence of other deities, unlike the commonly recognized unambiguous monotheistic texts Hiebert, God of My Victory, 88–90. For example: UT 129:8–9 // KTU 1.2 iii: 9–10; see also: Alberto R. W. Green, The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East (Biblical and Judaic Studies 8; Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2003), 179–180. 48 49

94

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

that first appear during or shortly before the Exile as observed by Mark S. Smith. 50 They would fit well with the aniconism movement that became evident in the seventh century BCE.

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!+2, 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 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. 51 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– 148F

Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God (The Biblical Resource Series; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 191–194. 51 For example, see Gene 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. David Noel Freedman (‘Headings in the Books of the Eighth-Century Prophets,’ AUSS 25 [1987]: 9–26) comes to a similar conclusion regarding the headings of the eighth-century prophets (Amos, Hosea, Isaiah, and Micah). 50

3: HABAKKUK 3:1–19

95

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. 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$:, 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. 52 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 simi149F

Other notable uses of $: occur in: Exod 15:4; 2 Sam 22:8 // Ps 18:8; Pss 77:17, 19; 99:1; cf. Mic 7:17. 52

96

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

larities and differences between the use of typical storm-/warriorgod 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. 53

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 HB. However, given that Micah 7 only uses theophanic language but lacks the traditional elements of the theophanic form 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. 53

CHAPTER FOUR: 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., = [‘you’ fem. sg.]; (=': [‘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 person 1) 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 15F

1

See the “Text, Syntax, and Translation” section below.

97

98

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

9:1–10 is certainly separate from the 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 For examples, see Hinckley 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): 218–259; E. G. H. Kraeling, ‘The Historical Situation in Zech 9:1–10,’ AJSL 41 (1924): 24–33; Nathaniel 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 Joyce G. Baldwin, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (TynOTC 28; Downers Grove, IL: Inner-Varsity Press, 1972; repr., 2009), 176; Mark J. Boda, Haggai, Zechariah (NIV Application Commentary; Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2004), 414; Mike Butterworth, Structure and the Book of Zechariah (JSOTSup 130; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1992), 72–73; Edgar W. Conrad, Zechariah (Readings: A New Biblical Commentary; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 159; Byron G. Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road: The Book of Zechariah in Social Location and Social Location Trajectory Analysis (AcBib 25; Leiden: Brill, 2006), 166; Karl Elliger, Die Propheten Nahum, Habakuk, Zephanja, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi (ATD 25; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982), 144; Michael H. Floyd, Minor Prophets, Part 2 (FOTL 22; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 464–465; Friedrich Horst, Die zwölf kleinen Propheten: Nahum bis Maleachi (HAT 1/14; Tübingen: Mohr, 1954), 246; Paul Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV: Structure littéraire et Messianisme (Ebib; Paris: Librairie Lecoffre/J. Gabalda, 1961), 25; Rex Mason, The Books of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi (CBC; Cambridge: University Press, 1977; repr. 1980), 87–88; Eugene H. Merrill, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Dallas[?]: Biblical Studies Press, 2003), 219; Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14 (AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 87–88; James Nogalski, Redactional Processes in the Book of the Twelve (BZAW 218; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1993), 228–229; Julia M. O’Brien, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon, 2004), 233; Benedikt Otzen, Studien über Deutero-Sacharja (ATDan 6; Cophenhagen: Prostant apud Munksgaard, 1964), 62–123, 134–142; David L. Petersen, Zechariah 9–14 and Malachi (OTL; Louisville: John Knox, 1995), 24; Paul L. Redditt, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (NCB; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 102–103; Henning Graf Reventlow, Die Propheten Haggai, Sacharja, und Maleachi (ATD 25/2; Göttin2

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

99

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 scholars include gen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993) 94; Magne Saebø, Sacharja 9–14 (WMANT 34; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1969), 175; Ralph L. Smith, Micah-Malachi (WBC 32; Waco, TX: Word, 1984), 254; Bernhard Stade, ‘Deuterosacharja: Eine kritische Studie,’ ZAW 1 (1881): 14–25; Marvin A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, vol. 2: Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (Berit Olam; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 2000), 658; Ina Willi-Plein, Haggai, Sacharja, Maleachi (ZBAT 24/4; Zurich: TVZ, 2007), 161. Although Anthony R. Petterson (Behold Your King: The Hope for the House of David in the Book of Zechariah [LHBOTS (formerly JSOTSup) 513; New York: T & T Clark, 2009], 129–130) 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, 226–233; Mason, Haggai, 90–91; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 88; Mitchell, “Haggai and Zechariah,” 219–220 (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, 161–164; Redditt, Haggai,102–103); Petterson, Behold Your King, 129–130; 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–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. Emery 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, 658–659 (he subdivides the unit into vv. 9–13, 14–17). Floyd (Minor Prophets, 467) considers 9:11–10:12 as one large liter-

100

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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., 0 [‘corn’] 9:17 and g3 [‘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.

ary 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.

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

101

1. TEXT, SYNTAX, AND TRANSLATION 5 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 9 Rejoice

greatly, Daughter Zion! 0#'8¡=/'+'9 Shout for joy, Daughter Jerusalem! -+f#:'='3':! See, your king is cominga to you; (+a#'()+/!1! He is just and saved/victorious,b #!b3f#1#9'8 Humble and riding cupon an ass, :#/%¡+3c):#'13 c Upon a male ass, the offspring of a she-ass.c =#1=¡0:'3¡+3# 10And I will expeld the chariot from Ephraim, -':6/):¡d'=:)!#10 And the horse from Jerusalem. -+f#:'/2#2# And the bow of war will be expelled, !/%+/=f9!=:)1# e eAnd he will proclaim peace to the nations.e -'#+-#+f:#e f And his dominion [will be] from sea to sea, -'¡3-'/f#+f/# And from the Riverg to the ends of the earth. ª7:¡'26¡3g:!1/# a The imperfect Heb verb, as well as the Syr (ŦŁĥ), can be interpreted either as present (‘comes/is coming’) or future (‘will come’); the Gk uses a present verb (ìÉϼ̸À), while La employs a future (veniet). The La is most likely influenced by a

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 Joseph Ziegler, Duodecim Prophetae (Septuaginta 13; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967). The Latin (La) text is from Robert 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). 5

102

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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. 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 (Êň½ÑÅ, “saving”), indicating that the king is the one who brings about salvation/victory; Arie 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 3f#/. Both the La (salvator) and Syr (ťƟĭƢƘ) use a noun meaning ‘savior.’ b

c-c I treat the # conjunction in this phrase as an explanatory copulative (see GKC §154a); thus I interpret =#1=¡0 :'3 in the second colon as providing further clarification regarding the type of :#/% in the first colon; the # 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 Kenneth C. Way (‘Donkey Domain: Zechariah 9:9 and Lexical Semantics,’ JBL 129 [2010]: 105–114), despite the translation of the second colon in Gk with ÈľÂÇÅ ÅñÇÅ (‘young foal’), La with et super pullum filium asinae (‘and upon a foal, the son of a she-ass’), and Syr withƨƀƕƈƕĭ ťƌŁĥƢŨ (‘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.

Both the Gk (ëÆǼ¿É¼įʼÀ) and Syr (űŨŴƌ) have a 3rd-person verb here (‘he will destroy’), perhaps reading =':)!#. 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 3rdperson Hebrew verb =':)!#; see Elliger, Propheten, 149; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 246; Karl Marti, Dodekapropheton (KHC 13; Tuࡇbingen: Mohr, 1904), 430; Mason, Haggai, 88; Wilhelm Nowack, Die kleinen Propheten (HKAT 3/4; 2nd ed.; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1903), 390; Paul Riessler, Die kleinen Propheten oder das Zwölfprophetenbuch (Rottenburg: Bader, 1911), 253; Ernst Sellin, Das Zwölfprophetenbuch: Übersetzt und erklärt (KAT 12; Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1922), 496; Stade, ‘Deuterosacharja’ (1881), 17; Julius Wellhausen, Die kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und erklärt (Berlin: Reimer, 1898), 189. As noted by Dominique 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: and the 3rd-sg suffix on#+f/ 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 d

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

103

the new king: God is the one who will cause 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. The Gk differs the most for this colon with its Á¸Ė ÈÂý¿ÇË Á¸Ė ¼ĊÉûž ëÆ ë¿ÅľÅ (‘and a multitude and peace from the nations’). Otherwise, there are some minor variations among the versions regarding how the + preposition is translated (dative noun gentibus in La [‘to/for the nations’]; Ƌƕ [‘with’] in Syr).

e

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 Á¸ÌÚÉƼÀ; Syr ŻƇƤƌ). g Referring to the Euphrates River; see Barnes, Haggai, 75; Elliger, Propheten, 150; Magne Saebø, ‘Vom Grossreich zum Weltreich: Erwägungen zu Pss. 72:8; 89:26; Sach. 9:10b,’ VT 28 (1978): 83–91; Redditt, Haggai,115.

Strophe II: Restoration of Yhwh’s People 11 As

h for you, by the blood of yourh covenant, (=':¡-=¡-11 k k i j I have freed your captives from #-'/0' :#/j(':'2i'=%+f ka waterlessk pit. m 12 Returnl to a fortress, Captives of !#9=!':'20#:8+l##f½¾ m Hope; Indeed ntoday I declaren I am (+'f!1f/n'/-#'!n¡-  restoring double to you. o13 13 oIndeed, I bent Judah to me ([as] a bow), !#!''+'=):¡')  o [As] a bow I filled Ephraim.o -':6'=+/=f9 And I will rouse your sons, Zion, 0#'8('1'=::#3# q Against yourp sons, Yavan;q 0#'p('1¡+3 And I will wield you [Zion] as a warrior’s sword. :#:%)('=/g# h

Most Gk mss lack the 2nd-person possessive pronoun.

The Gk uses a 2nd-person verb ëƸÈñÊ̼ÀÂ¸Ë (‘you will send out’) instead of a 1stperson verb. The La (emisisti; ‘I have sent out’) and Syr (ƦſƢƣ; ‘I freed’) both use a 1st-person verb in accordance with the Heb. i

j

The Syr (ŧǔƀƏĥ) lacks the 2nd-person possessive pronoun of the Heb.

More literally, ‘a pit/cistern, there is no water in it.’ The other versions have similar phrasing: Gk ÂÚÁÁÇÍ ÇĤÁ ìÏÇÅÌÇË ĩ»ÑÉ (‘a pit/cistern not-having-water’); La lacu in quo non est aqua (‘a pit/cistern in which [there] is no water’); Syr ťŨŴū ò ťƀƉųŨƦƀƆĪ (‘a pit/cistern [in] which there is not water in it’). Several scholars omit this phrase as a gloss; see Elliger, Propheten, 151; Paul D. Hanson, ‘Zechariah k-k

104

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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. The Gk has a 2nd sg. fut. ind. act. verb Á¸¿ûʼʿ¼ (‘you will sit/dwell’) rather than an imperative as found in the Heb, La (convertimini; ‘return’) and Syr (ŴŨŁ; ‘return’).

l

Both the Heb and La have ‘[prisoners of] hope’ (La spei). In contrast, both Gk (ÌýË ÊÍŸºÑºýË) and Syr (ŦƦƣŴƍƃ) use a word meaning ‘assembly, community, congregation, synagogue.’ In the case of the Gk, the phrasing could be influenced by the Gk expression ÊÍŸºÑºû ÈÇÂñÄÇÍ (= ‘levying of war’); see LSJ, 1692; however, this phrase is not attested in the LXX.

m

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 '/ (‘declaring’) in Heb. In contrast, the Gk reads Á¸Ė ÒÅÌĖ ÄÀÜË ÷ÄñÉ¸Ë È¸ÉÇÀÁ¼Êĕ¸Ë ÊÇÍ »ÀÈÂÜ ÒÅ̸ÈÇ»ļÊÑ ÊÇÀ (‘and for one day of the captivity/sojourning’), while Syr has the shorter, albeit similar, reading ĶŴſűŶƚƇŶĭ (‘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]). n-n

o-o It is difficult to know where to divide the cola within this bicolon; =f9 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, 257–258; 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 HB. 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 (: (lit., ‘walk, tread upon’) is used with =f9 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 +/ (which appears in the second colon) is also used with =f9 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 HB verses in which ‘arrow’ (7% /'8%) occurs with the verb +/ are 2 Kgs 9:24 and Jer 51:11, and in neither context is ‘arrow’ the object (direct or indirect) of +/. Because (:È=f9 is more common (and, hence, =f9 could be interpreted as implied in the first colon, given the common expression with =f9 as the object of (:, meaning

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

105

‘bend a bow’) while =f9 + +/ is less common but also attested elsewhere, I have placed =f9 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 =f9 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 Shalom M. Paul (‘A Technical Expression from Archery in Zechariah IX 13a,’ VT 39 [1989]: 495–497), 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’ (ŧĪĭųſƈƕIJƦƤƟƦŶƦƉĪƈźƉ [‘because I bent my bow over Judah’]). The Gk lacks the 2nd-person possessive pronoun (see also n. q below); see also Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 392; Petersen, Zechariah 9–14, 54–55; Riessler, Kleinen Propheten, 250.

p

q The Gk has a genitive here (ÌľÅ ?ÂÂûÅÑÅ), whereas the Heb, La (Graecia) and Syr (ķŴſ) use a vocative. Both the Gk and the La clearly understand ‘Greeks/Greece’ where the Heb has 0#'. The Syr appears to be a transliteration; I have been unable to locate a meaning for ķŴſ that fits this context (ťƌŴſ = ‘dove’), but there are several related cognate words in Syr that would indicate a connection with Greek/Greece: the adj. ťƀƌŴſ means ‘Greek, Byzantine’; the verbƁƌŴſ means ‘to Grecize’; and the verb ƎƌŴſ means ‘to speak Greek’ (Michael Sokoloff, A Syriac Lexicon [Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009], 569). The proper name 0#' 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 0#' 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.

Strophe III: The Victorious Divine Warrior 14And

Yhwhr will appear over them, And his arrow will go out as lightning. The sLord Yhwhs will sound the ram’s horn,t And he will come in the stormsu of the south.v 15Yhwh Seba’othw will protect them,

!:'-!'+3r!#!'#14 #8%9:)8'# 39='t:6#fs!#!''1s v

0/'=u=#:32(+!#

-!'+30'w=#8!#!'15

106

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

And they will consumex and subdue y(with?) sling stones.y And they will drink and be rowdyz as with And they will be full as a bowl, as the wine, cornersaa of an altar. 16And bbYhwh their Godbb will save them; ccOn that day,cc his people (will be) as sheep, ddIndeed, gemstones of a crown Shining upon his land.dd r

3+9¡'1y#f)#x#+)#

y

0''¡#/)z*#/!##=f# %$/ =#'#$)9:$/)#+/# aa

bb

-!'!+!#!'bb-3'f#!#16 #/308)cc#!!-#'cc :$1¡'1')dd #=/¡+3=#22#1=/

dd

The La has Dominus Deus (‘Lord God’); cf. next bicolon.

The La comes the closest to the Heb with its Dominus Deus (‘Lord God’). The Gk reads ÁįÉÀÇË È¸ÅÌÇÁÉÚÌÑÉ (‘Lord Almighty’), while the Syr has ŦŁĭǔƉ ŧƢƉĭ (‘Lord of Hosts’; cf. next bicolon). s-s

The Gk (ÊÚÂÈÀººÀ) and La (tuba) use a word meaning ‘trumpet’ or ‘horn’ (in general); the Syr ťƌƢƠŨ can also have the basic meaning of ‘horn.’

t

Tempest, storm wind, whirlwind; similar translations occur in the other versions (Gk ÊÚÂĿ [‘surge’; ‘tumult’]; La turbine [‘whirlwind’]; Syr ƨɲƇƖŨ [‘storm’]).

u

0/'= 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 0/'= 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, 258–260), who does translate the term as a proper noun (‘storms of Teman’) and connects it with Hab 3:3. For further discussion of 0/'= here, see also Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 666–667.

v

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 =#8, i.e., ‘hosts’; scholars who transliterate =#8 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 ÁįÉÀÇË È¸ÅÌÇÁÉÚÌÑÉ (‘Lord Almighty’), while the Syr reads ťƌƦƇƀʖ ťſƢƉĭ (‘strong Lord’ [=Lord Al-

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

107

mighty?]). x Several scholars propose emendations for #+)# even though “they will consume/eat” is attested in the other versions (Gk Á¸Ì¸Å¸ÂļÊÇÍÊÀÅ; La devorabunt; Syr ķŴƇƃŤƌ). Riessler (Kleinen Propheten, 254) suggests the least radical emendation with -#+) (‘they consumed them’). Stade (‘Deuterosacharja’ [1881], 18) proposes reading -#+)'# (‘they will prevail [over] them’). The 3rd-pl pronominal suffix on Riessler’s and Stade’s emendations are apparently influenced by the presence of ¸ĤÌÇįË (‘them’) in Gk. Marti (Dodekapropheton, 432), Nowack (Kleinen Propheten, 393), and Wellhausen (Kleinen Propheten, 190) propose #+)'# (‘they will prevail’); cf. Mason, Haggai, 91. Elliger (Propheten, 151) leaves ‘they eat’ (fressen) but wants to read :g (‘flesh’) as its object, presumably in place of #f)#; see also Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 246; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 496.

Given the lack of a preposition before 3+9¡'1 (‘stones of a sling’), it difficult to determine whether 3+9¡'1 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 (ëÅ Âĕ¿ÇÀË ÊμŻĠžË) and ò La (lapidibus fundae) both treat ‘stones’ as a dative of means. The Syr (ťƖƇƠŨťƘŤƃ) 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 3+9¡'1) (‘as stones of a sling’). Marti (Dodekapropheton, 432), Nowack (Kleinen Propheten, 393), and Wellhausen (Kleinen Propheten, 190) emend '1 to '1 (‘sons’). y-y

z The MT has the verb #/! (‘they groaned, made noise’); its presence is problematic given the context and the lack of a conjunction between #/! and the previous verb#=f# (‘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’ (Á¸Ė ëÁÈĕÇÅ̸À ¸ĤÌÇİË ĸË ÇčÅÇÅ [‘and they will drink them as wine’]). However, other Gk mss read Ìġ ¸đĸ ¸ĤÌľÅ (‘their blood’) in place of ¸ĤÌÇįË, probably attesting to a Heb Vorlage that read -/ (‘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 (ķĭƦƤƌ), but readsťƀʖŴƆĪ (‘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 Ìġ ¸đĸ ¸ĤÌľÅ, several scholars propose emending the text to match the Gk. Most emend #/! to -/; 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 - (‘blood’); see BHS; Elliger, Propheten, 151; Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 246; Reventlow, Propheten, 97; Sellin, Zwölfprophetenbuch, 496; Stade, ‘Deuterosacharja’ (1881), 18. There are HB other passages which mention Israel drinking the blood of an enemy (Num 23:34; Ezek 39:17, 18, 19), but none

108

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

of the passages liken drinking blood to drinking wine specifically. The only text in which blood (-) and wine (0'') are mentioned together in adjacent cola is in Gen 49:11 !=#2-'13¡-#/ #f+0''2) (‘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 !/% confusion and reading #/% (‘they are heated’?) in place of #/!, given that the noun !/% 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 # conjunction to yield #/!#; that conjunction could have been lost due to haplography with the #on the previous verb (#=f#). aa Not in Gk, which only has ĸË ÎÀÚÂ¸Ë ¿ÍÊÀ¸ÊÌûÉÀÇÅ (‘[they will fill] the altar as a bowl’). Both La and Syr include the conjunction ‘and’ (La et; Syr ĭ) before the last prepositional phrase (La et quasi cornua altaris [‘and as the horns of an altar’]; Syr ťŷŨűƉĪŦƦſĭĮƅſĥĭ [‘and as the corner of an altar’]). bb-bb

The La and Syr match the Heb respectively with Dominus Deus eorum and ťſƢƉ

ķĭĬųƭ (‘the Lord their God’). The Gk simply reads ÁįÉÀÇË (‘Lord’).

cc-cc #!!-#' 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 »ÀĠÌÀ Âĕ¿ÇÀ ׺ÀÇÀ / ÁÍÂĕÇÅ̸À ëÈĖ ÌýË ºýË ¸ĤÌÇı (‘for holy stones / are rolled upon his land’); La quia lapides sancti / elevantur super terram eius (‘because holy ò stones / [they] are raised above his land’); ò ƎſűƣĪ ò ťƘŤƃĪ ƈźƉ (‘because the stones are holy / ò / ŦƦƤſűƟ ò IJĭĬ Syr ųƕĿŤŨ IJĭĬ which are cast/thrown upon his land’). Several scholars emend '1 ') to '1) (‘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, 190–191. Julius A. Bewer (‘Two suggestions on Prov 30:31 and Zech 9:16,’ JBL 67 [1948]: 61–62, here 62) suggests that the verb 7'8' (‘shall shine’) is missing before the ').

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

109

2. AUTHENTICITY AND DATING Bernhard 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, which 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 George L. Robinson in 1895–1896, just a few years after Stade’s 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 Stade, ‘Deuterosacharja’ (1881), 1–96; Bernhard Stade, ‘Deuterosacharja: Eine kritische Studie,’ ZAW 2 (1882): 151–172, 275– 309; citing: J. G. Eichhorn, Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. 3 (Leipzig: Weidmanns Erben und Reich, 1787). 7 George 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. 148–153). Reventlow (Propheten, 86–87) argues for (at least probable) single authorship for Deutero-Zechariah (but not for Zechariah as a whole). Angeline Falk Schellenberg (‘One in the Bond of War: The Unity of Deutero-Zechariah,’ Didaskalia 12 [2001]: 101–115) also argues for unity within Zechariah 9–14 largely by appealing to the Divine Warrior motifs (particularly in chaps. 9–10 and 14). 6

110

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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 BCE to the Maccabean period in the second century BCE. Linguistic analyses are inconsistent in their findings with regard to dating or single authorship. 10 However, the preexilic dating has few followers after the 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,102–103. 10 Two often-cited linguistic studies on Deutero-Zechariah resulted in different conclusions, particularly with regard to unity/authorship. Yehuda T. Radday and Dieter 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, Andrew E. Hill (‘Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Reexamination,’ HAR 6 [1992]: 105–134) 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 BCE (pp. 131–132) 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). David 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 /) of standard Hebrew poetry (eighth century and later). 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 9

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

111

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 a tentative date for the chapter in the mid-sixth century BCE. 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 BCE. 14 Boda suggests a slightly later date for Zechariah 9 at whole, dating Zechariah 9–14 to the early Persian period (ca. 515–475 BCE), although he also notes the possibility that Zechariah 9 could be an early Persian adaptation/expansion of an exilic or even preexilic text (Curtis, Up the Steep and Stony Road, 182, 241–265, 277). 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 BCE. 13 Paul D. Hanson, The Dawn of Apocalyptic (rev. ed.; Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1979), 322–324. 14 Robinson, ‘Prophecies of Zechariah,’ 73; see also Sweeney, Twelve Prophets, 664–666.

112

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

around 515–510 BCE, and sees the chapter as probably by Zechariah himself. 15 Similarly, although Lamarche acknowledges that a date around the time of Alexander the Great (late fourth century BCE) is the one favored by contemporary scholars because of the mention of “Greece” in 9:13, he prefers instead an interpretation that connects the chapters’ King-Shepherd imagery to Zerubabbel and, thus, proposes that Deutero-Zechariah was written sometime 500–480 BCE, possibly during the lifetime of Zechariah himself. 16 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. 17 Reventlow narrows it even further by dating Deutero-Zechariah to the first decades of the fifth century BCE. 18 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. 19 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. 20 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). 21 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 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 Boda, Haggai, 410. Lamarche, Zacharie IX–XIV, 148. 17 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 26–27. 18 Reventlow, Propheten, 88. 19 Douglas R. Jones, ‘A Fresh Interpretation of Zechariah 9–11,’ VT 12 (1962): 241–259, here 258. 20 Horst, Zwölf kleinen Propheten, 213–214; however, he also thinks that preexilic elements have been incorporated. 21 Redditt, Haggai, 98–100. 15 16

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

113

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 BCE and the time of Nehemiah (ca. 445 BCE). 22 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. 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. 23 Citing M. Kuiper (1894), Mitchell concludes that the original form of Zech 9:1–10 probably was written in 333 BCE following the battle of Issus. 24 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 BCE, 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 Paul L. Redditt, ‘Nehemiah’s First Mission and the Date of Zechariah 9–14,’ CBQ 56 (1994): 664–678, here 675–676. 23 Mitchell, ‘Haggai and Zechariah,’ 249–251. 24 Mitchell, ‘Haggai and Zechariah,’ 252–253. 22

114

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

dates 9:11–11:3 during the time of Ptolemy III (247–222 BCE), seeing it as an expansion of 9:1–10. 25 Finally, a third author wrote and added 11:4–17 and 13:7–9 shortly after the battle of Raphia in 217 BCE. 26 One of the most often cited arguments in favor of a Hellenistic (or later) dating is the reference to the 0#''1 (‘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 BCE during the struggle for power among the Diadochi. 27 Several scholars, however, have challenged the reference to 0#' '1 as evidence of Hellenistic composition. A frequent, albeit feeble, claim is that the colon in which 0#' '1 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. 28 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.’ 29 Another attempt to divorce 9:13 (and its surrounding 178 F

179F

Mitchell, ‘Haggai and Zechariah,’ 258. Mitchell, ‘Haggai and Zechariah,’ 258–259. 27 Stade, ‘Deuterosacharja’ (1882), 290, 305. See also Marti, Dodekapropheton, 396; Nogalski, Redactional Processes, 216; Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 378. 28 Curtis, Stony Road, 174–181; Petterson, Behold Your King, 144; Robinson, ‘Prophecies of Zechariah,’ 67–75. Although Robert 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 BCE and continuing through the fifth century BCE, 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. 29 Floyd, Minor Prophets, 456. However, Eric Meyers (‘The Crisis of the Mid-fifth Century B.C.E. Second Zechariah and the “End” of Prophe25 26

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

115

context) from a necessarily Hellenistic interpretation is Jones’s suggestion that the author was merely using biblical allusions in which 0#' refers to ‘distant nations’ (cf. Isa 41:1; 66:19). 30 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 colon of the verse as ‘Upon (+4) ™ thy sons, O Jawan.’ 31 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. 32 Assuming the colon in which 0#''1 appears 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 BCE or a time during or after the conquest of Alexander the Great in the late fourth century. 33 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. 34 Even 18F

182F

183F

184F

cy,’ 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– 723, here 715–716), 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 BCE to keep the local populations from aligning themselves with Greece. See also Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 18–22. 30 Jones, ‘Fresh Interpretation,’ 247–249. 31 Jones, ‘Fresh Interpretation,’ 248. However, Jones also thinks that the colon ‘overloads the line and is metrically superfluous’ (ibid.). 32 Jones, ‘Fresh Interpretation,’ 248–249. 33 The reference to 0'' (‘wine’) in v. 15 could be intended as a playon-words with 0#' (‘Yavan’ [Greece]) in the previous strophe, thus perhaps supporting the suggestion that 0#' is not a later gloss. 34 Curtis (Stony Road, 178–181) 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

116

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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. 35 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. 36 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 BCE: (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 pe-

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, 147–149. 35 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. 36 Mathias Delcor, ‘Les Allusions à Alexandre le Grand dans Zach IX 1–8,’ VT 1 (1951): 110–124, esp. 123; see also Ina 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): 243–262. However, several scholars have critiqued the applicability of Zech 9:1–8 to the march of Alexander; see Curtis, Stony Road, 166–170; Redditt, ‘Nehemiah’s First Mission,’ 665–667.

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

117

riod as noted in Ezra and Nehemiah. 37 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 King David himself and the Suffering Servant passages as a basis for the description of the king in Zech 9:9–10. 38 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. 39 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. 40 Similarly, Mitchell suggests that Zech 9:1–10 was written ca. 333 BCE, whereas Zech 9:11–11:3 is from the time of Ptolemy III (247–222 BCE). 41 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 BCE. 42 Nowack also supports a dating in the time of the Seleucids and Ptolemies. 43 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 HB 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 collectively in Sir 49:10. Thus, SiFloyd, Minor Prophets, 454–457. Jones, ‘Fresh Interpretation,’ 248–249, 256–258. 39 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): 113–132; 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. 129–131. 40 Rubinkam, Book of Zechariah, 83–84. 41 Mitchell, ‘Haggai and Zechariah,’ 252–258. 42 Marti, Dodekapropheton, 396. 43 Nowack, Kleinen Propheten, 378. 37 38

118

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

rach provides a terminus ad quem for the compilation of the Twelve Prophets – i.e., prior to the publication of Sirach ca. 180 BCE. 44 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. 45 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. 46

3. STORM-/WARRIOR-GOD THEOPHANIC MOTIFS AND VOCABULARY 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 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 Paul D. Hanson, who suggests that Zechariah 9 is an early apocalyptic ‘recapitu-

Patrick W. Skehan and Alexander 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 HB canon. 45 R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, 249. 46 Adrian M. Leske (‘Context and Meaning of Zechariah 9:9,’ CBQ 62 [2000]: 663–678, here 664) notes that a date between 400–350 BCE is just as likely as a 515–445 BCE date. 44

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

119

lation of an archaic mythic pattern’ using a Divine Warrior hymn. 47 He structures the entire chapter as follows: 48 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 BCE. 49 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 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.’ 50 The pericope includes some basic traditional theophanic motifs and vocabulary. Several 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 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 Hanson, “Zechariah 9,” 53–54; see also Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 292–324. 48 Hanson, “Zechariah 9,” 53. 49 Hanson, Dawn of Apocalyptic, 324. 50 Curtis, Stony Road, 156–160, here 158–159; see also Floyd, Minor Prophets, 441–442, 446, 454. 47

120

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

be the deity’s actions (and use of his own weapons), not human participation in the salvific acts. 3.1. 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]’ (0/'= =#:32). This imagery fits well with the storm-god motif, as well as the traditional connection of Yhwh with the southern region. 51 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. 201F

3.2. 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 (=:)) the war chariot ():), horse (2#2), and bow of war (!/%+/=f9) (i.e., implements of war) from Ephraim and Jerusalem; if this is interpreted as an expulsion of an enemy military force, then humans would be directly affected, but it is possible to interpret it more neutrally – that is, 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 (=f9) (and arrow?), with the ‘sons of Zion’ against the ‘sons of Yavan (Greece)’ and Yhwh’s wielding Zion as a warrior’s sword (:#:%). Thus, in the The word for ‘south’ is0/'=, which can also be interpreted as the proper name, ‘Teman’ (e.g., as in Hab 3:3). 51

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

121

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). 3.3. God’s Anger / Wrath Any mention of Yhwh’s anger or wrath is absent in Zech 9:9–16. However, one use of 5(‘anger’) in Zechariah is found nearby in 10:3. 3.4. 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 (=f9) and Yhwh will wield the ‘sons of Zion’ as a warrior’s sword (:#:%). 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). 52 The closest parallel to the imagery of the MT is in Lam 2:4 in which Yhwh bends his bow (#=f9(:) against Zion (cf. Lam 3:12) ‘as an enemy’ ('#)) 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. 53 In contrast, Hanson links the bow and arrow imagery to the Enuma Elish (IV:35–36) myth. 54 203F

204F

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– 147. 53 Leske, ‘Context and Meaning,’ 670. 54 Hanson, ‘Zechariah 9,’ 52. 52

122

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

The third strophe reverts back to more traditional theophanic imagery, in which Yhwh’s arrow (7%) is described as being like lightning (9:), thus evoking a possible storm-god motif in addition to the warrior-god motif. Lightning (9:) 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)’ (7%) 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 not ‘storm-gods’ per se. 55 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’ (0/'==#:32) 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 (:6#f), a blast from a :6#f is heard during the theophanies on Sinai in Exodus 19–20. 56 In a military context, the :6#f is used to signal battle, particularly in Joshua and Judges. 57 207F

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 One, Daniel Schwemer (‘The Stormgods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies, Part I,’ Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 7 (2007): 121–168, here 123–129) considers the following gods to be mistakenly classified as ‘storm-gods’ in the secondary literature: Enlil, Ninurta (Ningirsu), Marduk, Anzu(d)AnzØ'DJćQDQG,WŠUPĔUQRWWREHFRQIXVHGZLWKWKHDFWXDOVWRUP-god :0ĔU  See also Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 150. 56 Specifically, Ex 19:16, 19; 20:18; cf. Ps 47:6. Conrad (Zechariah, 163) notes the possible connection between the :6#f and thunder, given the storm imagery used in the context of Zechariah 9. 57 For examples, see Joshua 6; Judg 3:27; 6:34; 7:18–22; 1 Sam 13:3; Jer 4:5; Zeph 1:16. The :6#f 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 55

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

123

Several weapons of the enemies are also mentioned: ):  (‘chariot’), 2#2 (‘horse’), and =f9 (‘bow’) in v. 10, and possibly 3+9¡'1 (‘sling-stones’) in v. 15 (if taken as the direct object). 58 The MT’s first-person verb '=:)! in v. 10 indicates that Yhwh is the one who will expel military assets (represented by the horse [2#2], chariot [):], and bow [=f9]) 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). Both bows/arrows and slings/sling stones were long-range weapons in antiquity but the former was considered superior to the latter. 59 Lawlor notes that slingers are depicted alongside archers on the reliefs of Sennacherib’s palace (late eighth – early seventh century BCE), Herodotus (fifth century BCE) mentions slingers in the Greek military (Hist. 7.158), and Roman armies hired foreign mer1:34; 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). 58 Several scholars have noted the potential significance of the donkey as the king’s mount in Zech 9:9 rather than a horse (2#2) or chariot ():), both of which Yhwh himself will expel according to Zech 9:10. The plausibility of this interpretation supports the retention of the MT’s 1st-person verb against the versions and those scholars who prefer a 3rdperson verb (see n. d above). For scholars who contrast the donkey vs. the horse/chariot as a means of royal transportation, see Boda, Haggai, 416–418; Leske, ‘Context and Meaning,’ 672–673; Rex A. Mason, ‘The Relation of Zech 9–14 to Proto-Zechariah,’ ZAW 88 (1976): 227–239, here 236–237; Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 129–131; Petterson, Behold Your King, 140; Charles 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. 59 Alan R. Schulman, ‘Military Organization in Pharaonic Egypt,’ in CANE, vols. 1–2 (ed. J. M. Sasson; Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006): 1. 289– 301, here 1. 290–291.

124

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

cenaries as slingers. 60 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). 3.5. God as Savior, Rock, etc. Not only does Yhwh free his people from the ‘pit’ in Zech 9:11– 12, they also return to a 0#:8 (‘stronghold’/’fortress’?) and Yhwh restores double to them. The word 0#:8 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 0#:8 (‘[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 0#'8¡=   (‘daughter Zion’) or 0#:8 (cf. HALOT). 61 Meyers and Meyers suggest that the MTs reference to ‘strongholds’ reflects the situation in Judah in the midfifth century when Persia had erected fortresses to exercise its dominion and enforce loyalty against the Greeks. 62 There is also a possible connection with Jeremiah, in view of the reference to Yhwh’s people and ‘repaying double’ in Jer 16:18 (!1f/… '=/+f); 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 that the nations will come to Israel John L. Lawlor, ‘Sling,’ in NIDB, vol. 5 (Nashville: Abingdon, 2009): 308. 61 David J. A. Clines, ed., The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew (8 vols.; Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2011): 2. 247. 62 Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 142; they also note the possible play-on-words in Zechariah 9 between 0#:8 (‘stronghold’), 0#'8 (‘Zion’), and possibly :#8 (‘Tyre’). 60

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

125

‘from the ends of the earth’ (7:¡'26/; 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 only salvific epithet for Yhwh used in the pericope is the title =#8!#!'(‘Yhwh Seba’oth’). However, vis-à-vis the common military connotation of =#8, 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 8 does not always refer to military service but may allude to some form of compulsory service in general (e.g., temple service [Ex 38:8]). 63 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.’ 64 =#8 !#!' (‘Yhwh Seba’oth’) 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: 213F

214F

McClellan, ‘Dominus Deus,’ 306–307. Mettinger, ‘Yhwh Sabaoth,’ 111; Gerhard von Rad, Old Testament Theology, vol. 1 (trans. D. M. G. Stalker; New York: Harper & Row, 1967), 19. 65 The above statistical analysis was done using Bibleworks 9.0 (Norfolk: Bibleworks, LCC, 2011). 63 64

126

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Times =#8 !#!' Appears in Book 66 216F

Rank

Book

1 2 3 4 5 6

Jeremiah Isaiah Zechariah Malachi Haggai Psalms 1 Samuel, 2 Samuel 1 Chronicles Nahum, Zephaniah 1 Kings, 2 Kings, Micah, Habakkuk

7 8 9 10

Top Ten Highest Concentrations within Individual Book (Uses / Words in Book)

# of Uses 77 62 53 24 14 8

Rank

Book

%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Malachi Haggai Zechariah Nahum Isaiah Jeremiah

2.718% 2.303% 1.671% 0.354% 0.337% 0.323%

5

7

Zephaniah

0.258%

3

8 9 10

Habakkuk Micah Psalms

0.147% 0.071% 0.041%

2 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, =#8 !#!' 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  !#!' Only occurrences of the exact phrase =#8 !#!' are represented in the figures above. However, it should be noted that the longer form =#8'!+!#!' (‘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. 66

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

127

=#8 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, 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 =#8 !#!', 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 g/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. 3.6. 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. 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 =#8 !#!', see William H. McClellan, ‘Dominus Deus Sabaoth,’ CBQ 2 (1940): 300–307; Tryggve 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): 109–138. 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. 67

128

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

10, 13), and Zion (vv. 9, 13). Similarly, the term Yavan (‘Greece’) is used to designate their enemy, albeit in a colon sometimes 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.

4. ZECHARIAH 9 AND MONOTHEISM In Zechariah 9:9–17, one can notice a combination of observations made regarding the other two passages. On the one hand, there is a connection with the traditional storm-god language, such as occurs in the core theophany of Habakkuk 3, particularly in Zech 9:14 where it mentions Yahweh’s ‘arrows’ going forth ‘like lightning’ and Yahweh coming in a storm from the south. However, on the other hand and unlike Hab 3:3–15, there are no obvious or even potential references to other deities, whether as attendant deities or as enemies. In Zechariah, the enemies are all human enemies of Yahweh’s people. Yahweh’s weapons are equated with Yahweh’s people within the context of Zechariah 9 – thus, reinforcing a figurative interpretation of the storm-/warrior-god language within this passage similar to Mic 7:7–20 and the framing elements of Habakkuk 3. Like with Mic 7:7–20 and the framing elements of Habakkuk 3 (v. 2, 16–19), there is no clear denial that other deities exist but there also is not any possible reference to other deities, either, unlike the core theophany in Hab 3:3–15. However, unlike Micah 7, the author of Zech 9:9–16 is more comfortable using some of the traditional imagery of the storm-/warrior-god motif (esp. v. 14) while simultaneously avoiding anthropomorphic depictions of Yahweh given the clearly figurative use of the motif in the context.

5. SUMMARY There are good reasons to accept the existence of DeuteroZechariah 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 statistics regarding the distribution of the use of the divine title =#8 !#!' (‘Yhwh Seba’oth’) supports this

4: ZECHARIAH 9:9–16

129

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 (0#') 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 BCE) – or rather a Judean reaction to the GrecoPersian conflicts of the fifth century BCE 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). As noted by Julia 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. 69 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 Julia M. O’Brien, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004), 238, 241–242; see also Meyers and Meyers, Zechariah 9–14, 150. 69

130

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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). This study focuses 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 Five).

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION 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 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 Richard J. Bautch, ‘Intertextuality in the Persian Period,’ in Approaching Yehud (ed. J. L. Berquist; SBLSS 50; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 25–35; Timothy 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; John Day, ‘Innerbiblical 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– 246; Cynthia Edenburg, ‘Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations,’ JSOT 35 (2010): 131–148; Thomas R. Hatina, ‘Intertextuality and Historical Criti1

131

132

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

of the current study, the term ‘intertextuality’ will be used in 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 Heinrich Ewald, Augustus Küper, and Carl Paul 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.

cism in New Testament Studies: Is there a Relationship?’ BibInt 7 (1999): 28–43; Jefferey M. Leonard, ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Case Study,’ JBL 127 (2008): 241–265; Hélène Koehl-Krebs, ‘L’intertextualité comme méthode d’investigation du texte biblique: L’exemple de Malachie 3,20,’ BN 121 (2004): 61–76; Geoffrey David Miller, ‘Intertextuality in Old Testament Research,’ CurBR 9 (2011): 283–309; Richard 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; Patricia Tull, ‘Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures,’ CurBS 8 (2000): 59–90; Karl William Weyde, ‘Inner-Biblical Interpretation: Methodological Reflections on the Relationship between Texts in the Hebrew Bible,’ SEÅ 70 (2005): 287–300. 2 Richard L. Schultz, The Search for Quotation: Verbal Parallels in the Prophets (JSOTSup 180; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999), 20–23. 3 Schultz, Search for Quotation, 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.

5: CONCLUSION

133

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.

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 One, 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. Richard 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

4

Schulz, Search for Quotation, 222–239.

133

134

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR may indicate reinterpretation or even rejection of the original saying on the part of the later author. 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 Manfred Pfister for literature, is Dominik 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 stronger the original and new contexts stand in semantic and ideological tension. 6 Quantitative criteria include density Dominik Markl, ‘Hab 3 in intertextueller und kontextueller Sicht,’ Bib 85 (2004): 99–108; Manfred Pfister, ‘Konzepte der Intertextualität,’ in Intertextualität: Formen, Funktionen, anglistische Fallstudien (ed. U. Broich and M. Pfister; Tübingen: Niemeyer, 1985): 1–30. 6 Markl, ‘Hab 3,’ 100. 5

5: CONCLUSION

135

and frequency on the one hand, and number and distribution on the other. 7 Finally, James 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 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 Markl, ‘Hab 3,’ 100. James 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): 102–124. 7 8

135

136

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

the Israelite God are used in the three passages, the only two names that appear in more than one passage are the tetragrammaton !#!' (‘Yhwh’) and the common term -'!+ (‘Elohim’), both of which appear in all three passages; however, -'!+ 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 the phrase '3f''!+ (‘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 +, in Hab 3:18 with ). It is also found once with the plene spelling ('!#+) 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. 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: But as for me, I shall watch for Yhwh; I shall wait for the God of my salvation. But as for me, I shall exult in Yhwh; I shall rejoice in the God of my salvation.

!68!#!''1# Mic 7:7 '3f''!++!+'!# !$#+3!#!''1# Hab 3:18 '3f''!+!+'

The structure of the two verses is exactly the same. The first colon consists of a first-person pronominal subject with adversative # ('1#), followed by the preposition  (‘in’) with !#!' (‘Yhwh’), and a first-person verb. The second colon begins with a first-person verb, followed by a preposition (+ [‘for’] in Mic 7:7;  [‘in’] in Hab 3:18)

5: CONCLUSION

137

with -'!+ (‘God’) as part of a construct chain '3f''!+ (‘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 Two– Four 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’ (!68) and ‘wait’ (+%'); the imagery of ‘watching’ (!68) [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 !68 (‘I will keep watch’) is used in the 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’ ($+3) and ‘rejoices’ (+') in Yhwh, which is similar to the pairing of +' with another synonym meaning ‘rejoice/exult’ (%/g) in Hab 1:15 (albeit there used of God). 10 Interestingly, one of the synonyms for ‘rejoice’ (%/g) 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 28F

Although both verbs !68 and +%' 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 !68 in Hab 2:1). 9

10

The pairing of $+3 and %/f specifically also occurs in Zeph 3:14.

137

138

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

other synonyms for “rejoice” as noted above). Another pairing of synonyms for ‘rejoice,’ which includes +' (cf. Hab 3:18), is found in Zech 9:9 (which, like Mic 7:7, begins a pericope): Rejoice greatly, Daughter Zion! Shout for joy, Daughter Jerusalem!

0#'8¡=/'+'Zech 9:9 -+f#:'='3':!

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): From Assyria and (to) cities of Egypt :#8/':3*(3 )# :#f'1/+ Mic 7:12 And from Tyre to the River; :!1¡3# *:#8'1/+# And [to?] sea from sea, -'/-'# And [to?] mountain [from] mountain ª:!!:!# And his dominion [will be] from sea to sea, -'¡3-'/#+f/#Zech 9:10 And from the River to the ends of the earth. ª7:¡'26¡3:!1/#

However, there are some distinct differences. Zechariah 9 uses a fuller form of the directional formula that includes the proclitic preposition / (‘from’) and the preposition 3 (‘until’), thus ‘from sea to sea,’ in contrast to Mic 7:12 which places the proclitic / 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 :#8/ to :#8; 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 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

5: CONCLUSION

139

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 Two – Four 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 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 mythological 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

Julia M. O’Brien, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi (AOTC; Nashville: Abingdon Press, 2004), 238, 241–242; see also Carol L. Meyers and Eric M. Meyers, Zechariah 9–14 (AB 25C; New York: Doubleday, 1993), 150. 11

139

140

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Egyptians at the Reed Sea. 12 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, there is an explicit mention of the exodus from Egypt employing tradiHenning Fredricksson (Jahwe als Krieger: Studien zum alttestamentlichen Gottesbild, [Lund (Sweden): C. W. K. Gleerup, 1945], 106–111) assigns the mythological aspects (along with the related effects upon nature) to the second phase of development (‘Sinai god’) and suggests that YHWH as a ‘tribal’ god (one who singularly leads his people in battle) is the most primitive use of YHWH as a warrior-figure. My observations in this study, in which I tentatively date the mythologically-infused use of the motif as the earliest use, focus on the use of the motif in three specific passages in the Twelve Prophets; it does not necessarily rule out a different use of the motif elsewhere in the HB prior to the earliest use detected in these three prophetic texts. 12

5: CONCLUSION

141



tional language of the exodus motif (e.g., 8' [‘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 Four, the mention of Yhwh’s people as having a military role in the deity’s salvific activity is unusual in theophanic poetry. 13 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.’ 14 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. 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 Gerhard von Rad (Holy War in Ancient Israel [trans. M. J. Dawn; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991], 111–114) 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. 14 Peter C. Craigie, The Problem of War in the Old Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978), 40. 13

141

142

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

in its use of the root $:(‘tremble,’ ‘quake’), often employed in theophanic poetry as part of a storm-/warrior-god motif (e.g., Ex 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 :' (‘be afraid’), %6 (‘dread’), and $: (‘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 [f)] Israel’s iniquities and throw [(+f] 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. 15 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, 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 (:) and Resheph/plague (5f:) in v. 5; Yam/sea (-') in v. 8; Shamash/sun (f/f) in v. 10/11, and Yareaμ/moon (%:') in v. 11. 16 This usage indicates 235F

O’Brien, Nahum, 150. For further discussion about the density of mythological language in Habakkuk 3, see Patrick D. Miller, The Divine Warrior in Early Israel (HSM 5; Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973), 118–121. 15 16

5: CONCLUSION

143

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 (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 specified 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 143

144

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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. f# in Hab 3:12) or ‘casting’ the enemy into the depths of the sea (cf. !/: in Ex 15:1), Mic 7:19 describes Yhwh ‘treading upon’ (f)) his people’s iniquities and ‘throwing’ ((+f) their sins into the depths of the sea. 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 (5 and !:3) is directed against the rivers and sea in v. 8, mentioned in v. 12 (5 and -3$) as Yhwh marches upon the land and tramples the nations, and there is a possible reference to Yhwh’s wrath ($:) 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 $: is juxtaposed with having compassion (-%:). The most common Hebrew word for anger, 5, also appears in Micah 7, specifically in v. 18 which juxtaposes Yhwh’s anger with his steadfast love (2%). Another reference to Yhwh’s anger occurs in Mic 7:9; however, in this case it is the speaker, representing Yhwh’s people, who has been the object of Yhwh’s 53$ (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:

5: CONCLUSION

145

chariot (!):/) and horse (2#2) in v. 8; bow (=f9) and rod/shaft (!&/) in v. 9; lightning (9:), spear (='1%), and arrow (7%) in v. 11; rod/shaft (!&/) 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 (2#2) in v. 15. Also, one possible interpretation of the ‘two horns’ (-'1:9) 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: ): (‘chariot’), 2#2 (‘horse’), and =f9 (‘bow’) in v. 10, and possibly 3+9¡'1 (‘sling-stones’) in v. 15. The one traditional theophanic weapon mentioned in Zechariah 9 is Yhwh’s arrow (7%) that is likened to lightning (9:) 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 (=f9) and sword (:%). 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 !#!' (‘Yhwh’) and -'!+ (‘God’), Yhwh’s salvific role is reflected in all three passages with the use of the root 3f' (‘save’). In both Mic 7:7 and Hab 3:18, the prophet/author calls Yhwh the ‘God of my salvation’ ('3f''!+). 17 In Zech 9:16, the prophet/author declares that Yhwh their God (-!'!+!#!') will ‘save’ them, using the verb 3f'. The salvific nature of God is, of course, not unique to theophanic accounts, but is quite common in them. 2.2.8. Place Names The only place name used in common by two of the three passages is Teman (0/'=), 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 locaSee also the discussion above in the section titled “Quotations and Non-Theophanic Linguistic Similarities” regarding the similarly structured bicola in which the phrase appears. 17

145

146

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

tion 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. CONNECTIONS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF MONOTHEISM Mark S. Smith notes that the clearest attestation of unambigiuos monotheism in Israel occurs in texts dating to the exile or just prior to it. 18 None of the three passages (Mic 7:7–20, Habakkuk 3, or Zech 9:9–16) clearly deny the existence of other deities besides Yahweh. However, this is not surprising given that, as Smith also observes, clear affirmations of a stricter monotheistic perpective is relatively rare throughout the HB, most commonly occurring in the Deuteronomistic History and a few other books – perhaps most notably, Second Isaiah. 19 One thing that is certain is the mythological elements and references to other ANE deities present in earlier Israelite texts declined in use and there is evidence that the traditional theophanic imagery found in those earlier texts was modified in such a way that polytheistic overtones were eliminated in the later texts. Although the origins and exact development of monotheism in Ancient Israel remain a mystery, the use of the storm-/warriorgod motif as analyzed in these three passages reflects three different insights regarding this issue. On the one hand, we have what is proably the oldest passage (Hab 3:3–15) which includes polytheistic elements. On the other hand, there is a use of the motif in which not only polytheistic references are absent but also any imagery that could imply that Yahweh has a physical form, perhaps reflecting the rise of aniconism in the seventh–sixth centuries BCE (i.e., Mic 7:7–20 and possibly also the framing elements of Habakkuk 3). Mark S. Smith, The Early History of God (The Biblical Resource Series; 2nd ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002), 191–194. 19 Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001), 154–155. 18

5: CONCLUSION

147

Finaally, we have a passage (Zech 9:9–16) in which concrete imagery is present but without the possible references to other deities and in which Yahweh’s weapons figurative are equated with his people, not actual weapons that Yahweh uses in battle.

4. 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 effects upon nature as a result of that coming. 20 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 Jörg Jeremias, Theophanie: Die Geschichte einer alttestamentlichen Gattung (WMANT 10; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1965), 15. 20

147

148

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

a storm-/warrior-god against the sea (or sea-serpent), and lends credibility to the proposed antiquity of this psalm. 21 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 $:) merit attention since these could indicate either a common redactor/author or 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, See also Bernard Batto, Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition (Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 1992), esp. 146–147. 21

5: CONCLUSION

149

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 mythological than historical, albeit not without historical aspects, given that Yhwh’s anger against the sea could also 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 HB. 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., $:). 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 polythe149

150

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

istic/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), as well the LXX’s tendency to avoid anthropomorphisms a few centuries later. 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. Thus, the language about weapons in Zechariah 9 (aside from perhaps the arrow/lightning in v. 14) metaphorizes the theophany in such a way that, like the second use mentioned 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. 22 As a result of this study, a development in the use of the storm-/warrior-god motif can be tentatively traced using the relative dating for the three passages. First, Hab 3:3–15 would represent the earliest type of HB theophany, based in a preexilic theology that is not yet monotheistic and still deeply rooted in mythology. For a detailed analysis of mythological vs. metaphorical interpretations of theophanies, see: Eric Nels Ortlund, Theophany and Chaoskampf: The Interpretation of Theophanic Imagery in the Baal Epic, Isaiah, and the Twelve (Gorgias Ugaritic Studies 5; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010). 22

5: CONCLUSION

151

Mark S. Smith has noted that most monotheistic references in the HB ‘derive from the exilic period or later.’ 23 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 or early postexilic period in Chapter Two. 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. While I lean toward a dating of Zech 9:9–16 closer to the Hellenistic period, as noted in Chapter Four, a date in the fifthcentury 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. In addition, the antianthropomorphic tendency of the LXX could be used to support an earlier postexilic date for Zech 9:9–16. 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 23

M. S. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 153.

151

152

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

or implications that Yhwh has a physical form (Mic 7:7–20; possibly Hab 3:2, 16–19), thus 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 later throughout the entire HB); such additional information would assist in tracing the development and application of the storm-/warrior-god motif. This 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.

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

¡'1

sling 3+9 stones distress, 0# trouble :# light 5 anger

!f# shame fortress; 0#:8 stronghold 9: lightning : 53$ -3$ -:$

pestilence (Deber) fury; wrath (stormy) wrath; anger flood; downpour; rainstorm

+'% strength

Related Subject

Related Object

Mic 7

Hab 3

[Yhwh’s people subdue/ consume (with?)]

15

[Cushan/Midian] [Yhwh / Elohim] Yhwh rivers Yhwh nations enemy (f.) [cover Æ] [Yhwh’s people return to] spear arrow

7 8

-

[Yhwh]

11

18 8(x2) 12 10 12 11 14

[goes out before God] Yhwh

5 9 12

water

-

10?

Yhwh

-

19

153

Zech 9

154

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

='1% spear 7% arrow(s) :% sword

3f' salvation

[Yhwh]

-

11

Yhwh

-

11

[Yhwh wields sons of Zion] Elohim [prophet] [Yhwh] people anointed [Yhwh] one Yhwh chariot

13 7

18 13 13 8

!&/ rod; shaft

[Yhwh]

-

9, 14

!):/ chariot trampled 2/:/ place splendor; !1 brightness brightness 2#2 horse whirlwind; !:32 tempest; storm rage; fury; !:3 outburst

[Yhwh]

-

8

enemy (f.)

-

!$3 strength -'1:9 horns (lit.) =f9 bow raging; fury; agita$: tion; anger trembling ): 5f: !//f :6#f -#!=

chariot; chariotry plague (Resheph) devastation ram’s horn (shofar) (the) deep

10

[Eloah/ [like light Holy One] (rwa)] // position to light (rwa) [war context] Lord Yhwh

-

[Yhwh]

sea / Yam

4 11 8, 15

10† 14 (pl.)

8

[Eloah/ Holy One] [Eloah/ Holy One] [Yhwh] [expelled by Yhwh]

4?

[Yhwh]

-

2?

[prophet/ people]

-

2?

4

9

[expelled by Yhwh [goes out before God’s feet] earth / land Lord Yhwh voice

14

13 10†

10† 5 13 14 10

APPENDIX A

155

Verbs Heb

Meaning

Subject [Yhwh’s people]

Object poor; afflicted sling stones (?)

nations

-

earth

-

9?

[Yhwh]

earth

9?

[enemies?] +) f#

39

# 01

eat; devour be ashamed be cleft (niph) cleft; cut to pieces (piel) attack

[people]?

defend; protect

Yhwh Seba’oth

trample, tread (upon) tread (upon) (: bend a bow (idiom.) make !/! noise flood; -:$ pour rain writhe; +#% tremble be kindled, !:% burn f#

:'

be afraid

3f'

be saved (niph.) save

f)

tread upon; subdue

=:)

cut off/expel (hiph.)

Mic 7

Hab 3

Zech 9

14 15 16

[prophet’s people]? them [Judah/ Ephraim]

16 15

[Yhwh]

nations

12

[Yhwh]

sea/Yam

15

[Yhwh]

[Judah]

13

[Yhwh’s people]

-

15

clouds

water

10?

mountains

-

10

Yhwh’s anger nations

rivers sea / Yam [Yhwh] [Yhwh’s deeds]

8 8

prophet

17 2

king

[by Yhwh]

9

Yhwh

them [ppl] iniquity / guilt sling stones (?)

16

[Yhwh] [Yhwh’s people] [Yhwh]

chariot/ bow

155

19 15 10

156

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR #/

shake

[Eloah]

7%/

smash

[Yhwh]

+/

fill (a bow) be bitter; poison (smear with serpent’s gall) pierce cause to jump/start le

*[::/]

91 :=1 :32

:#3

!:3 7#6 %6 786 ++8 38 $:

storm lay bare (?) be awakened; stirred up (niph.) awaken; stir up; rouse (polel) lay bare (piel) scatter be trembling, be in dread be shattered quiver, tingle, tremble march tremble, quake (verb)

):

mount; ride

-%:

to have compassion

13

[Yhwh]

earth head (back*) Ephraim

[Yhwh]

shafts

9

[Yhwh]

head

14

[Eloah]

nations

6

[prophet?]

14

bow

9?

[Yhwh]

bow

9?

[Yhwh]

[sons of Zion]

[Yhwh]

back Æ neck

13

[wicked ones?]

[prophet?]

14

nations

(in dread of Yhwh)

mountains

-

6

lips [prophet]

-

16

[they/wick ed ones?] [Yhwh]

[Yhwh] nations Midian/ Cushan [speaker] [Yhwh] king [Yhwh, Elohim] Yhwh

land -

6

13

13

17

12 17 7

horses chariot donkey

16 (x2) 8 8 9 19

-

2

APPENDIX A

%%f %+f (+f

be humbled/lowe red free/send out (piel) throw

hills

-

[Yhwh]

prisoners

[Yhwh]

sins

157

6 11 19

Names / Epithets for God Heb '1

Translation Adonai

!#+

Eloah

-'!+

Elohim

Mic 7

Hab 3 19

7(x2), 10, 17

18

3 16

:#

Light

8

[cf. 4]

!#!'

Yhwh

7, 8, 9, 10, 17

2(x2), 8, 18, 19

!#!' =#8 f#9

Zech 9 14

Yhwh Seba’oth

14(x2), [15], 16 15

Holy One

3

Possible Mythological Deities or Personifications Heb : -'

Translation Deber (pestilence)

Mic 7

Yam (sea)

Hab 3 5 8, 15

Yareah (moon)

11

5f:

Resheph (plague)

5

f/f

Shamash (sun)

%:'

10*/11

157

Zech 9

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

be cleft (niph) 39 cleft; cut to pieces (piel) : pestilence (Deber) (: tread (upon) flood, pour rain (v.) flood; downpour; rainstorm (n.) +#% writhe; tremble

-:$

Subject

Object

earth

-

[Yhwh]

earth

[goes out before God] sea/Yam surge* of [Yhwh] many waters

Mic 7

Hab 3 9? 9? 5 15 15

clouds

water

10*

water

-

10?

mountains

10 8

10/11

!:% be kindled, burn

Yhwh’s anger

#/ shake

[Eloah]

rivers [sea / Yam] earth

g1 raise

sun*

hands

159

8 6

Zech 9

160

!:32

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR whirlwind; tempest; storm

/3 stand 786 be shattered 38 march be hum%%f bled/lowered !//f devastation -#!= (the) deep

Lord Yhwh moon (+sun?) mountains

14 (pl.)

-

11

-

6

[Yhwh]

land

12

hills

-

6

-

earth / land [gave its voice]

13 10

Effects upon Humans (or Related Objects) Heb

Meaning

f# be ashamed !f# shame trample, f# tread (upon) bend a bow (: (idiom.) !/! make noise :' be afraid cut off/ =:) expel (hiph.) 7%/ smash +/ fill (a bow) trampled 2/:/ place 91 pierce cause to :=1 jump/ startle awaken; stir :#3 up (polel) lay bare !:3 (piel) be trembling, %6 be in dread quiver, ++8 tingle, tremble

Subject

Object

nations

-

[cover Æ]

enemy (f.)

[Yhwh]

nations

[Yhwh]

[Judah]

[Yhwh’s ppl] nations [prophet]

[Yhwh]

[Yhwh] Yhwh’s deeds chariot; horse; bow head (back*)

[Yhwh]

Ephraim

[Yhwh]

enemy (f.)

Mic 7 16

Hab 3

Zech 9

10 12 13

-

15 17 2 10 13 13 10

[Yhwh]

head

14

[Eloah]

nations

6

[Yhwh]

sons of Zion

[Yhwh]

back Æ neck

nations

(in dread of Yhwh)

lips [prophet]

-

13 13 17 16

APPENDIX B nations Midian/ Cushan body [prophet]

tremble, $: quake (verb) trembling (noun) plague 5f: (Resheph)

-

[prophet/ppl]

$:

161 17

-

7

-

16(x 2)

-

2?

[goes out before God’s feet]

5

Effects upon Nature / Humans Vocabulary with Abstract Concepts as Object Heb f) (+f

Meaning tread upon; subdue throw

Subject

Object iniquity / guilt sins

[Yhwh] [Yhwh]

Mic 7

Hab 3

Zech 9

19 19

God’s Anger / Wrath Heb 5

Meaning

53$

fury; wrath (stormy)

-3$

wrath; anger

!:3 $:

Mic 7 18

anger

Hab 3 8(x2), 12

Zech 9

9 12

rage; fury; outburst

8

raging; fury; agitation; anger

2?

God’s Mercy/Kindness/Favor Heb =/

Meaning truth; faithfulness

Mic 7 20 18, 20

Hab 3

2%

loving kindness; faithfulness (n.)

3f'

salvation; deliverance

7

8, 13 (x2), 18

-%:

to have compassion (v.)

19

2

%+f

free/send out (piel)

Zech 9

11

161

162

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

God as Savior / Rock (etc.) Heb :# '3f''!+

Meaning Light God of my salvation

Mic 7 8

Hab 3 [cf. 4]

7

18

+'% Strength

Zech 9

19

Place Names Heb :#f

Assyria

Mic 7 12

0f

Bashan

14

+/:)

Carmel (‘garden’)

0f#)

Cushan Egypt (late & poetic; ‘fortified’) Egypt (proper name)

:#8/ -':8/ -':6 3+ -+f#:'

Meaning

Hab 3

14(?) 7 12(?) 15

Ephraim

10, 13

Gilead

14

Jerusalem

9, 10

!#!'

Judah

0'/

Midian

7

0:6

Paran (Mount)

3

13

:!1

River (Euphrates)

0/'=

Teman (‘south’)

:#8

Tyre

0#' 0#'8

Zech 9

12

10 3

[14]

12(?)

Yavan (Greece)

13

Zion

9, 13

-#!=

(the) deep

10

=#+8/

depths, the deep

19

Weapons / Battle Motifs Heb 3+9¡'1 :#

Meaning sling stones light

Stormgod (X) (X)

Warriorgod (X)

Mic 7

Hab 3

Zech 9 15†

11

APPENDIX B 9:

lightning

='1%

spear

(X)

X

11

arrow(s)

(X)

X

11

sword

(X)

X

7% :% !&/

rod; shaft

X

(X)

163

(X)

X

!):/

chariot

X

*[::/]

poison

X

!1

brightness

(X)

2#2

horse lay bare (?); arouse; awake horns (‘lit.’)

(X)

bow war-chariot; chariotry

(X)

:#3 -'1:9 =f9 ):

X

11

14 14 13

9 (pl.), 14 (pl.) 8 9? 11 [cf. 4] 8, 15

10†

9 4? X (X)

163

9

10†, 13 10†

BIBLIOGRAPHY 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: 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. 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. Hallo, William W., ed. The Context of Scripture. 3 Vols. Leiden: Brill, 2003. [COS] Nissinen, Martti, with contributions by C. L. Seow and Robert K. Ritner. Prophets and Prophecy in the Ancient Near East. SBLWAW 12. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003. Pritchard, James B., ed. Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating To The Old Testament. 3rd ed. Princeton: University Press, 1969. [ANET] 165

166

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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. Weber, Robert. Biblia sacra iuxta vulgatam versionem. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1994. Wevers, John W. Deuteronomium. Septuaginta 3/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. ———. Exodus. Septuaginta 2/1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1991. Ziegler, Joseph. Duodecim Prophetae. Septuaginta 13. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967. ———. Iob. Septuaginta 11/4. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1982. ———. Isaias. Septuaginta 14. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1983. ———. Sapientia Iesu Filii Sirach. Septuaginta 12/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980.

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: Hendrickson, 20037. [BDB] Clines, David J. A., ed. The Dictionary of Classical Hebrew. 8 vols. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix, 1993–2011. 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: Gorgias Press, 2009.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

167

Traupman, John C. The New College Latin and English Dictionary, Revised and Enlarged. New York: Bantam, 1995.

SECONDARY SOURCES Ackroyd, P. R. ‘Criteria for the Maccabean Dating of Old Testament Literature.’ VT 3 (1953): 113–132. Akao, J. O. ‘Yahweh and Malak in the Early Traditions of Israel: A Study of the Underlying Traditions of Yahweh/Angel Theophany in Exodus 3.’ IBS 12 (1990): 72–85. Albertz, Rainer. ‘Exile as Purification: Reconstructing the “Book of the Four.”’ In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Eds Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003: 232–251. 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. Allen, Leslie C. Ezekiel 1–19. WBC 28. Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 1994. Andersen, Francis I. Habakkuk. AB 25. New York: Doubleday, 2001. ———. ‘Reading the Book of Zechariah: A Review Essay.’ ANES 37 (2000) 229–240. ———, 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, Bill T. Genesis. NCBC. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Arnold, William R. ‘The Interpretation of #+#'/-'1:9, Hab. 3:4.’ AJSL 21 (1905): 167–172.

167

168

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Assis, Elie. ‘Zechariah 8 and its Allusions to Jeremiah 30–33 and Deutero-Isaiah.’ JHebS 11 (2011). Article 1. Accessed June 14, 2012. Baars, W. ‘A New Witness to the Text of the Barberini Greek Version of Habakkuk III.’ VT 15 (1965): 381–382. Baldwin, Joyce G. Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. TynOTC 28. Downers Grove, IN: Inner-Varsity Press, 1972. Repr. 2009. Ballentine, Debra Scoggins. The Conflict Myth and the Biblical Tradition. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015. Banister, Jamie A. ‘Sedheq.’ In NIDB, vol. 5. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009: 154. 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): 184–197. ———. ‘Newly Discovered Literary Devices in the Prayer of Habakkuk.’ CBQ 75 (2013): 446–462. ———. ‘Yahweh Gears Up for Battle: Habakkuk 3,9a.’ Bib 87 (2006): 75–84. Barrick, W. Boyd. ‘The Meaning and Usage of RKB in Biblical Hebrew.’ JBL 101 (1982): 481–503. 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. Batto, Bernard F. Slaying the Dragon: Mythmaking in the Biblical Tradition. Louisville: Westminster/John Knox, 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 CANE vols. 1– 2. Ed. Jack M. Sasson. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006: 545–554. Beal, Timothy K. ‘Ideology and Intertextuality: Surplus of Meaning and Controlling the Means of Production.’ In Reading Between

BIBLIOGRAPHY

169

Texts: Intertextuality and the Hebrew Bible. Ed. Danna Nolan Fewell. Literary Currents in Biblical Interpretation. Louisville: John Knox, 1992: 27–39. Ben Zvi, Ehud. ‘A Deuteronomistic Redaction in/among “The Twelve”? A Contribution from the Standpoint of the Books of Micah, Zephaniah, and Obadiah.’ In Those Elusive Deuteronomists. Ed. Linda S. Schearing and Stephen L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999: 232– 261. ———. Micah. FOTL 21B. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000. ———. ‘Studying Prophetic Texts Against Their Original Backgrounds: Pre-Ordained Scripts and Alternative Horizons of Research.’ In Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker. Ed. S. B. Reid. JSOTSup 229. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996: 125–135. ———. ‘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: 125–156. Bergant, Diane. ‘Yahweh: A Warrior-God?’ TBT 21 (1983): 156– 161. Bergey, Ronald. ‘The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32.1–43) and Isaianic Prophecies: A Case of Early Intertextuality?’ JSOT 28 (2003): 33–54. 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. Beyerlin, Walter. Die Kulttraditionen Israels in der Verkündigung des Propheten Micha. FRLANT 72. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1959. Birch, Bruce C. ‘The First and Second Books of Samuel: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflection.’ In NIB, vol. 2. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998: 989–995. Bliese, Loren F. ‘The Poetics of Habakkuk.’ JOTT 12 (1999): 47– 75. 169

170

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

%RGD0DUN-o)UHHLQJWKHEXUGHQRISURSKHF\PDŔŔćDQGWKHOegitimacy of prophecy in Zech 9–14.’ Bib 87 (2006): 338–357. ———. Haggai, Zechariah. NIV Application Commentary. Grand Rapids: Zondeveran, 2004. Booij, Thijs. ‘Mountain and Theophany in the Sinai Narrative.’ Bib 65 (1984): 1–26. Bornand, Rachel. ‘Un ‘livre des quatre’ précurseur des douze petits prophètes?’ ETR 82 (2007): 549–566. Brenner, Martin. The Song of the Sea: Ex. 15:1–21. BZAW 189. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1991. Brettler, Marc Zvi. ‘Images of YHWH the Warrior in Psalms.’ Semeia 61 (1993): 135–165. Brueggemann, Walter. ‘The Book of Exodus: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflection.’ In NIB, vol. 1. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005: 675–981. ———. Deuteronomy. AOTC. Nashville: Abingdon, 2001. 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– 432. Cassuto, Umberto. ‘Il capitolo 3 di Habaquq e i testi di Ras Shamra.’ Annuario di Studi Ebraici 2 (1935–1937): 7–22. Cazelles, Henri. ‘La Théophanie au Désert: Montagne de Dieu, Sinaï, Horeb.’ In Camps Festschrift. Montserrat: Associació Bíblica de Catalunya/Publicacions de l’Abadia de Montserrat, 1993: 19–32. ———. ‘Sur mdl à Ugarit, en Is 40:15 et Hab 3:4.’ Maarav 5–6 (1990): 49–52. Chalmers, R. Scott. ‘Who is the Real El? A Reconstruction of the Prophet’s Polemic in Hosea 12:5a.’ CBQ 68 (2006): 611–630. 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. Childs, Brevard S. ‘The Canonical Shape of the Prophetic Literature.’ Interpretation 32 (1978): 46–55.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

171

Clements, Ronald E. ‘The Book of Deuteronomy: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflection.’ In NIB, vol. 2. Nashville: Abingdon, 1998: 269–538. ———. ‘Patterns in the Prophetic Canon.’ In Canon and Authority. Ed. G. W. Coats and B. O. Long. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977: 42–55. ———. ‘Prophecy Interpreted: Intertextuality and Theodicy: A Case Study of Jeremiah 26:16–24.’ In Uprooting and Planting. Ed. John Goldingay. London/New York: T & T Clark, 2007: 32–44. Cogan, Mordecai. 1 Kings. AB 10. New York: Doubleday, 2000. 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): 133–140. Conrad, Edgar W. ‘Forming the Twelve and Forming Canon.’ In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Ed. Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003: 90–103. ———. Zechariah. Readings: A New Biblical Commentary. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999. Coogan, Michael D. ‘A Structural and Literary Analysis of the Song of Deborah.’ CBQ 40 (1978): 143–166. ———. ‘Warrior, Divine.’ In NIDB, vol. 5. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009: 815–816. Cook, Stephen L. ‘Micah’s Deuteronomistic Redaction and the Deuteronomists’ Identity.’ In Those Elusive Deuteronomists. Eds Linda S. Schearing and Stephen L. McKenzie. JSOTSup 238. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1999: 216–231. 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. Cotterell, Arthur. A Dictionary of World Mythology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1986. Craigie, Peter C. ‘Deborah and Anat: A Case Study of Poetic Imagery [Judges 5].’ ZAW 90 (1978): 374–381. 171

172

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

———. The Problem of War in the Old Testament. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1978. ———. ‘The Song of Deborah and the Epic of Tukulti-Ninurta.’ JBL 88 (1969): 253–265. 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. AcBib 25. Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2006. Dalley, Stephanie. ‘Ancient Mesopotamian Military Organization.’ In CANE vols. 1–2. Ed. Jack M. Sasson. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006: 413–422. Dangl, Oskar. ‘Habakkuk in Recent Research.’ CurBS 9 (2001): 131–168. 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. Davies, Philip R. ‘The Audiences of Prophetic Scrolls: Some Suggestions.’ In Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker. Ed. S. B. Reid. JSOTSup 229. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996: 48–62. 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): 143–151. ———. ‘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: 230–246. ———. ‘New Light on the Mythological Background of the Allusion to Resheph in Habakkuk III 5.’ VT 29 (1979): 353–355. De Vries, Simon J. 1 Kings. WBC 12. Waco, TX: Word, 1985. Decorzant, Alain. Vom Gericht zum Erbarmen: Text und Theologie von Micha 6–7. FB 123. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 2010.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

173

Deissler, Alfons. Zwölf Propheten II: Obadja, Jona, Micha, Nahum, Habakkuk. NEchB 8/2. Stuttgart: Echter Verlag, 1984. Delcor, Mathias. ‘Les Allusions à Alexandre le Grand dans Zach IX 1–8.’ VT 1 (1951): 110–124. Delitzsch, Franz. Der Prophet Habakuk. Exegetisches Handbuch zu den Propheten des Alten Bundes. Leipzig: K. Tauchnitz, 1843. Dever, William G. Did God Have a Wife? Archeology and Folk Religion in Ancient Israel. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2005. 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, 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 SixtyFifth 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. Driver, Samuel R. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Deuteronomy. ICC. 3rd ed. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1986. Duhm, Bernhard. Das Buch Habakuk: Text, Übersetzung, und Erklärung. Tübingen: Mohr, 1906. Eaton, John Herbert. Obadiah, Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: Introduction and Commentary. London: SCM Press, 1961. ———. ‘Origin and Meaning of Habakkuk 3.’ ZAW 76 (1964): 144–171. Edenburg, Cynthia. ‘Intertextuality, Literary Competence and the Question of Readership: Some Preliminary Observations.’ JSOT 35 (2010): 131–148. Ego, Beate. ‘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. Eds Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003: 155–164. 173

174

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Eliade, Mircea. Images and Symbols: Studies in Religious Symbolism. New York: Sheed & Ward, 1961. ———. Patterns in Comparative Religion. Cleveland: World Publishing Co., 1963. ———. The Sacred and the Profane: The Nature of Religion. Evanston: Harper & Row, 1961. 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. Eds Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003: 165–174. 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. Eds Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer. WUNT 252. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010: 223–237. Floyd, Michael H. ‘Deutero-Zechariah and Types of Intertextuality.’ In Bringing out the Treasure: Inner Biblical Allusion in Zechariah 9–14. Eds Mark J. Boda and Michael H. Floyd. London/New York: T & T Clark/Continuum, 2003: 260–270. ———. 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. Eds A. Caquot, S. Leғgasse, and M. Tardieu. AOAT 215. Kevelaer: Butzon und Bercker; Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag, 1985: 159–167. Foster, Benjamin R. ‘Mesopotamia.’ In A Handbook of Ancient Religion. Ed. John R. Hinnells. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2007: 161–213. Fredricksson, Henning. Jahwe als Krieger: Studien zum alttestamentlichen Gottesbild. Lund (Sweden): C. W. K. Gleerup, 1945. Freedman, David Noel. ‘The Earliest Bible.’ Michigan Quarterly Review 22 (1983): 167–175.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

175

———. ‘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: 315–331. ———. ‘Headings in the Books of the Eighth-Century Prophets.’ AUSS 25 (1987): 9–26. ———. 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. Fretheim, Terence E. ‘The Book of Genesis: Introduction, Commentary, and Reflection.’ In NIB, vol. 1. Nashville: Abingdon, 1994: 319–674. Fuller, Russell. ‘The Form and Formation of the Book of the Twelve: The Evidence from the Judean Desert.’ 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: 86–101. ———. ‘The Text of the Twelve Minor Prophets.’ CurBS 7 (1999): 81–95. Gaster, Theodor H. ‘On Habakkuk 3:4.’ JBL 62 (1943): 345–346. ———. Thespis: Ritual, Myth, and Dreams in the Ancient Near East. New York: Schuman, 1950. 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. Gnuse, Robert Karl. The Dream Theophany of Samuel: Its Structure in Relation to Ancient Near Eastern Dreams and Its Theological Significance. Lanham: University Press of America, 1984. ———. ‘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. ———. ‘The Emergence of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: A Survey of Recent Scholarship.’ Religion 29 (1999): 315–336. ———. ‘A Reconstruction of the Form-Critical Structure in 1 Samuel 3.’ ZAW 94 (1982): 379–390. 175

176

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Good, Edwin M. ‘The Barberini Greek version of Habakkuk 3.’ VT 9 (1951): 11–30. Gordon, Robert P. ‘Micah 7:19 and Akkadian .$%Ć68.’ VT 28 (1978): 355. Gottwald, Norman K. ‘Ideology and Ideologies in Israelite Prophecy.’ In Prophets and Paradigms: Essays in Honor of Gene M. Tucker. Ed. S. B. Reid. JSOTSup 229. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996: 136–149. Graham, M. P. ‘Habakkuk.’ In Hebrew Bible: History of Interpretation. Ed. John H. Hayes. Nashville: Abingdon, 2004: 289–293. Gray, John. Joshua, Judges, Ruth. NCBC. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986. 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.’ ZS 2 (1924): 145–178. ———. Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit. Goࡇttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1895. Haak, Robert. Habakkuk. VTSup 44. Leiden: Brill, 1992. Habel, N. C. ‘The Form and Significance of the Call Narratives.’ ZAW 77 (1965): 297–323. Hadley, Judith M. The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah. Cambridge: University Press, 2000. Hagstrom, David Gerald. The Coherence of the Book of Micah: A Literary Analysis. SBLDS 89. Atlanta: Scholars, 1988. Halpern, Baruch. ‘“Brisker Pipes than Poetry”: The Development of Israelite Monotheism.’ In Judaic Perspectives on Ancient Israel. Ed. Jacob Neusner, Baruch A. Levine, and Ernest S. Frerichs. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1987: 77–115. Hamilton, J. ‘Theophany.’ In Dictionary of the Old Testament: Wisdom, Poetry, & Writings. Ed. Tremper Longman, III. Downers Grove: IVP Academic, 2008: 817–820.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

177

Hamori, Esther J. “When Gods Were Men”: The Embodied God in Biblical and Near Eastern Literature. BZAW 384. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2008. Handy, Lowell K. ‘Sedheq.’ In ABD, vol. 5. New York: Doubleday, 1992: 1065–1066. 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 NIDB, vol. 5. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009: 566–569. Hatch, Edwin, and Henry A. Redpath. A Concordance to the Septuagint. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005. Hatina, Thomas R. ‘Intertextuality and Historical Criticism in New Testament Studies: Is there a Relationship?’ BibInt 7 (1999): 28–43. 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. Heiser, Michael S. ‘Co-regency in Ancient Israel’s Divine Council as the Conceptual Backdrop to Ancient Jewish Binitarian Monotheism.’ Bulletin for Biblical Research 26 (2015): 195–225. 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): 481–496. Hiebert, Theodore. God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn in Habakkuk 3. HSM 38. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1986. ———. ‘Theophany in the OT.’ In ABD, vol. 6. New York: Doubleday, 1992: 505–511. ———. ‘The Use of Inclusion in Habakkuk 3.’ In Directions in Biblical Hebrew Poetry. JSOTSup 40. Ed. Elaine R. Follis. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1987: 119–140. Hill, Andrew E. ‘Dating Second Zechariah: A Linguistic Reexamination.’ HAR 6 (1992): 105–134. 177

178

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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): 401–416. ———. ‘Plausible Circumstances for the Prophecy of Habakkuk.’ JBL 120 (2001): 123–130. Holmstedt, Robert D. ‘Habakkuk 3:16 – where did the :f go?’ HS 44 (2003): 129–138. Horst, Friedrich. Die Zwölf Kleinen Propheten: Nahum bis Maleachi. HAT 1/14. Tübingen: Mohr, 1954. House, Paul R. ‘Dramatic Coherence in Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.’ In Forming Prophetic Literature: Essays on Isaiah and the Twelve in Honor of John D. W. Watts. Eds J. W. Watts and P. R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996: 195–208. ———. 1, 2 Kings. NAC 8. Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995. ———. The Unity of the Twelve. JSOTSup 97. Bible and Literature Series 27. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1990. Humbert, Paul. Proble̖mes du livre d'Habacuc. Neuchâtel: Secreғtariat de l’Universiteғ, 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.’ OTE 11 (1998): 255–270. Hurowitz, Victor. ‘From Storm God to Abstract Being: How the Deity Became More Distant from Exodus to Deuteronomy.’ BRev 14 (1998): 40–47. Huwyler, Beat. ‘Habakuk und seine Psalmen.’ In Prophetie und Psalmen. Eds B. Huwyler, et al. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag, 2001: 231–259. Irwin, William Andrew. ‘The Mythological Background of Habakkuk, Chapter 3.’ JNES 15 (1956): 47–50. ———. ‘The Psalm of Habakkuk.’ JNES 1 (1942): 10–40. Janzen, Waldemar. Exodus. Believer’s Church Bible Commentary. Scottdale: Herald Press, 2000.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

Jenson, Philip Peter. Obadiah, Jonah, Micah: A Theological Commentary. LHBOTS 496. London/New York: Clark, 2008. Jeremias, Jörg. Kultprophetie und Gerichtsverkuխndigung in der spaխten Koխnigszeit 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): 241–259. 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. Kautzsch, E. Gesenius’ Hebrew 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. Kingsbury, Edwin C. ‘The Theophany Topos and the Mountain of God.’ JBL 86 (1967): 205–210. Klein, Ralph W. 1 Samuel. WBC 10. 2nd ed. Waco, TX: Word, 2008. 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.

179

180

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

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. Kooij, Arie van der. ‘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: Ashgate, 2003: 53–64. Kraeling, E. G. H. ‘The Historical Situation in Zech 9:1–10.’ AJSL 41 (1924): 24–33. Kuntz, J. Kenneth. The Self-Revelation of God. Philadelphia: Westminster, 1967. 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. Lambdin, Thomas O. Introduction to Biblical Hebrew. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1971. 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 NIDB, vol. 5. Nashville: Abingdon, 2009: 308. Lemaire, André. ‘Date et origine des inscriptions hebraiques et pheniciennes de Kuntillet ‘Ajrud.’ Studi epigrafici e linguistici 1 (1984): 131–143. Leonard, Jefferey M. ‘Identifying Inner-Biblical Allusions: Psalm 78 as a Case Study.’ JBL 127 (2008): 241–265. Lescow, Theodor. ‘Die Komposition der Bücher Nahum und Habakuk.’ BN 77 (1995): 59–85. ———. ‘Redaktiongeschichtliche Analyse von Micha 6–7.’ ZAW 82 (1972): 182–212. ———. ‘Zur Komposition des Buches Micha.’ SJOT 9 (1995): 200–222.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

181

Leske, Adrian M. ‘Context and Meaning of Zechariah 9:9.’ CBQ 62 (2000): 663–678. Lindblom, Johannes. ‘Theophanies in Holy Places in Hebrew Religion.’ HUCA 32 (1961): 91–106. Longman, Tremper, III. ‘Psalm 98: A Divine Warrior Victory Song.’ JETS 27 (1984): 267–274. Margolis, Max L. ‘The Character of the Anonymous Greek Version of Habakkuk, Chapter 3.’ In Old Testament and Semitic Studies, vol. 1. Eds R. F. Harper, et al. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1908: 133–142. Margulis, Baruch. ‘The Psalm of Habakkuk: A Reconstruction and Interpretation.’ ZAW 82 (1970): 409–441. Markl, Dominik. ‘Hab 3 in intertextueller und kontextueller Sicht.’ Bib 85 (2004): 99–108. Marti, Karl. Dodekapropheton. KHC 13. Tuࡇbingen: 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): 227–239. ———. ‘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. McCarter, P. Kyle, Jr. 1 Samuel. AB 8. New York: Doubleday, 1980. McClellan, William H. ‘Dominus Deus Sabaoth.’ CBQ 2 (1940): 300–307. 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: 740–741. 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. 181

182

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. ‘Yhwh Sabaoth : The Heavenly King on the Cherubim Throne.’ In Studies in the Period of David and Solomon and Other Essays. Ed. Tomoo Ishida. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1982: 109–138. Meyers, Carol L. Exodus. NCBC. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. ———, 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. Eds D. P. Wright, D. N. Freedman, and A. Hurvitz. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995: 713–723. Miller, Dane Eric. Micah and Its Literary Environment: Rhetorical Critical Case Studies. Ann Arbor: UMI, 1992. Miller, Geoffrey David. ‘Intertextuality in Old Testament Research.’ CurBR 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. Montgomery, James A. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Book of Kings. ICC. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1951, 19762. Morgenstern, Julian. ‘Biblical Theophanies.’ ZA 25 (1911): 139– 193. Moseman, David. ‘The Date Formulae in the Book of Zechariah: An Important Key for Interpreting Zechariah.’ RevExp 106 (2009): 575–589. Mowinckel, Sigmund. The Psalms in Israel’s Worship. 2 vols. Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1962. ———. 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.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

183

———. ‘Zum Psalm des Habakuk.’ TZ 9 (1953): 1–23. Müller, Hans-Peter. ‘Die kultische Darstellung der Theophanie.’ VT 14 (1964): 183–191. Nicholson, Ernest W. ‘The Covenant Ritual in Exodus 24:38.’ VT 32 (1982): 74–86. 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. Eds J. W. Watts and P. R. House. JSOTSup 235. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1996: 102–124. ———. 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. ———. ‘The Redactional Shaping of Nahum 1 for the Book of the Twelve.’ In Among the Prophets: Language, Image, and Structure in the Prophetic Writings. Ed. P. R. Davies and D. J. A. Clines. JSOTSup 144. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1993: 193–202. Nowack, Wilhelm. Die kleinen Propheten. HKAT 3/4. 2nd ed. Göttingen: Vandenkoeck & Ruprecht, 1903. O’Brien, Julia M. Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi. AOTC. 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. Ortlund, Eric Nels. Theophany and Chaoskampf: The Interpretation of Theophanic Imagery in the Baal Epic, Isaiah, and the Twelve. Gorgias Ugaritic Studies 5. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2010. ———. ‘An Intertextual Reading of the Theophany of Psalm 97.’ SJOT 20 (2006): 273–285. Otzen, Benedikt. Studien über Deutero-Sacharja. ATDan 6. Cophenhagen: Prostant apud Munksgaard, 1964. 183

184

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Patterson, Richard D. Nahum Habakkuk Zephaniah: An Exegetical Commentary. Dallas(?): Biblical Studies Press, 2003. ———. ‘The Psalm of Habakkuk.’ Grace Theological Journal 8 (1987): 163–194. Paul, Shalom M. ‘A Technical Expression from Archery in Zechariah IX 13a.’ VT 39 (1989): 495–497. Pax, Elpidius. EPIFANEIA: Ein religionsgeschichtlicher Beitrag zur biblischen Theologie. Muࡇnchener 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. Pfeiffer, Robert H. ‘Hebrews and Greeks before Alexander.’ JBL 56 (1937): 91–101. 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): 261–265. ———. ‘Historical Allusions in the Book of Habakkuk.’ JBQ 36 (2008): 143–152. ———. ‘Infertile Quartet of Flora.’ ZAW 115 (2003): 617–623. ———. ‘The Lord’s Bow in Habakkuk 3:9a.’ Bib 84 (2003): 417– 420.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

185

———. ‘On the Meaning of #'&/ in Habakkuk 3,14a.’ Bib 86 (2005): 376–386. ———. ‘Problems and Solutions of Habakkuk 3:8.’ JBQ 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: 113–147. 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. Propp, William H. C. Exodus 1–18. AB 2. New York: Doubleday, 1999. ———. Exodus 19–40. AB 2A. New York: Doubleday, 2006. 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. ———. ‘The Origin of the Concept of the Day of Yahweh.’ JSS 4 (1959): 97–108. Radday, Yehuda T., and Dieter Wickmann. ‘The Unity of Zechariah Examined in Light of Statistical Linguistics.’ ZAW 87 (1975): 30–55. 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): 664–678. ———. ‘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: 245–268. 185

186

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

——— 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– 367. Renaud, Bernard. Formation du livre de Michée: Tradition et actualisation. EBib. Paris: Gabalda, 1977. ———. ‘Le Psaume 85 et son caractère théophanique.’ In Ouvrir les Écritures. Ed. Pietro Bovati and Roland Meynet. LD 162. Paris: Cerf, 1995: 133–149. ———. La Théophanie du Sinaï Ex 19–24: Exégèse et Théologie. CahRB 30. Paris: Gabalda, 1991. 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. 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. Rollston, Christopher A. ‘The Rise of Monotheism in Ancient Israel: Biblical and Epigraphic Evidence.’ Stone-Campbell Journal 6 (2003): 95–115. Rubinkam, Nathaniel. The Second Part of the Book of Zechariah: With Special Reference to the Time of Its Origin. Basel: R. Reich, 1892. Rudman, Dominic. ‘The Warhorse of the Lord.’ JBQ 28 (2000): 163–168. Rudolph, Wilhelm. Micha – Nahum – Habakuk – Zephanja. KAT 13/3. Gütersloh: Gerd Mohn, 1975.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

187

Russell, Brian D. The Song of the Sea: The Date of Composition and Influence of Exodus 15:1–21. StBibLit 101. New York: Peter Lang, 2007. Saebø, Magne. ‘Die deuterosacharjanische Frage: eine forschungsgeschichtliche Studie.’ ST 23 (1969): 115–140. ———. 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: Hendrickson, 2006. [CANE] 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. ———. ‘Das Zwölfprophetenbuch als redactionelle Großeinheit.’ TLZ 133 (2008): 227–246. Schellenberg, Angeline Falk. ‘One in the Bond of War: The Unity of Deutero-Zechariah.’ Didaskalia 12 (2001): 101–115. 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): 256–281. Schulman, Alan R. ‘Military Organization in Pharaonic Egypt.’ In CANE vols. 1–2. Ed. Jack M. Sasson. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2006: 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. Eds Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003: 27–45.

187

188

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Schwemer, Daniel. ‘The Storm-gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies, Part I.’ Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 7 (2007): 121–168. ———. ‘The Storm-gods of the Ancient Near East: Summary, Synthesis, Recent Studies, Part II.’ Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions 8 (2008): 1–44. Schwesig, Paul-Gerhard. Die Rolle der Tag-JHWHs-Dichtungen im Dodekapropheton. BZAW 366. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2006. Scriba, Albrecht. Die Geschichte des Motivkomplexes Theophanie. FRLANT 167. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. Sellin, Ernst. Das Zwölfprophetenbuch: Übersetzt und erklärt. KAT 12. Leipzig: A. Deichert, 1922. Seow, Choon-Leong. ‘The First and Second Book of Kings.’ In NIB, vol. 3. Nashville: Abingdon, 1999: 1–295. Shaw, Charles S. The Speeches of Micah: A Rhetorical-Historical Analysis. JSOTSup 145. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1993. Shepherd, Michael B. ‘Compositional Analysis of the Twelve.’ ZAW 120 (2008): 184–193. Shnider, Steven. ‘Psalm XVIII: Theophany, Epiphany, Empowerment.’ VT 56 (2006): 386–398. 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. AOTC. 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. Skinner, John. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Genesis. ICC. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1910. Smick, Elmer B. ‘Mythopoetic Language in the Psalms.’ WTJ (1982): 88–98.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

189

Smith, Charles W. F. ‘The Horse and the Ass in the Bible.’ ATR 27 (1945): 86–97. 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, Mark S. The Early History of God. 2nd ed. The Biblica Resource Series. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002. ———. The Origins of Biblical Monotheism. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. 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. Speiser, E. A. Genesis. AB 1. New York: Doubleday, 1964. Spero, Shubert. ‘But Abraham Stood Yet Before the Lord.’ JBQ 36 (2008): 12–14. Spronk, Klaas. ‘Jonah, Nahum, and the Book of the Twelve: A Response to Jakob Wöhrle.’ JHebS 9 (2009): Article 8. Online: accessed Dec. 28, 2010. Stade, Bernhard. ‘Deuterosacharja: Eine kritische Studie.’ ZAW 1 (1881): 1–96. ———. ‘Deuterosacharja: Eine kritische Studie.’ ZAW 2 (1882): 151–172, 275–309. ———. ‘Miscellen. 3. Habakuk.’ ZAW 4 (1884): 154–159. Staton, Cecil P., Jr. ‘Theophany.’ In Eerdmans Dictionary of the Bible. Ed. David Noel Freedman. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000: 1297–1298. Stephens, Ferris J. ‘The Babylonian Dragon Myth in Habakkuk 3.’ JBL 43 (1924): 290–293. Steymans, Hans Ulrich. ‘The Blessings in Genesis 49 and Deuteronomy 33: Awareness of Intertextuality.’ In South African Perspectives on the Pentateuch between Synchrony and Diachrony. London/New York: T & T Clark, 2007: 71–89. Stolz, Fritz. ‘Der Monotheismus Israels im Kontext der altorientalischen Religionsgeschicte – Tendenzen neuerer 189

190

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Forschung.’ In Ein Gott allein? JHWH-Verehrung und biblischer Monotheismus im Kontext der israelitischen und altorientalischen Religionsgeschichte. Ed. Walter Dietrich and Martin A. Klopfenstein. Freiburg, Schweiz: Universitätsverlag, 1994: 33– 50. Stuart, Douglas. ‘The Sovereign’s Day of Conquest.’ BASOR 221 (1976): 159–164. Suter, David W. ‘Theophany.’ In HBD. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1986: 1062–1063. Sweeney, Marvin A. Form and Intertextuality in Prophetic and Apocalyptic Literature. Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2010. ———. ‘The Place and Function of Joel 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: 133–154. ———. ‘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: 904–905. Thompson, Michael E. W. ‘Prayer, Oracle and Theophany: The Book of Habakkuk.’ TynBul 44 (1993): 33–53. Tigchelaar, Eibert. ‘Some Observations on the Relationship between Zechariah 9–11 and Jeremiah.’ 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: 260–270. Tobias, Hugh. ‘“I Am The Lord, And There Is No Other”: The Development of Monotheism in Israelite Religion.’ The Theological Educator 35 (1987): 11–24. Tov, Emmanuel. Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. 2nd rev. ed. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2001.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

191

Trimm, Charlie. “YHWH Fights for Them!” The Divine Warrior in the Exodus Narrative. Gorgias Biblical Studies 58. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2014. 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): 124–128. ———. ‘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: 353–361. Tucker, Gene M. ‘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. Tuell, Steven S. ‘Haggai-Zechariah: Prophecy after the Manner of Ezekiel.’ In Thematic Threads in the Book of the Twelve. Eds Paul L. Redditt and Aaron Schart. BZAW 325. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 2003: 273–291. Tull, Patricia. ‘Intertextuality and the Hebrew Scriptures.’ CurBS 8 (2000): 59–90. Van Seters, John. Abraham in History and Tradition. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1975. ———. The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers. Louisville: John Knox, 1994. Vargon, Shmuel. ‘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. Gershon Galil, Mark Geller, and Alan Millard. VTSup 130. Leiden: Brill, 2009: 597–618. Walker, Henry Hammersley, and Nils Wilhelm Lund. ‘The Literary Structure of the Book of Habakkuk.’ JBL 53 (1934): 355–370. 191

192

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Walsh, Jerome T. 1 Kings. Berit Olam. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1996. 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: 209–223. Watts, John D. W. Isaiah 1–33. WBC 24. Waco, TX: Word, 1985. Way, Kenneth C. ‘Donkey Domain: Zechariah 9:9 and Lexical Semantics.’ JBL 129 (2010): 105–114. Weinfeld, Moshe. ‘Kuntillet ‘Ajrud Inscriptions and Their Significance.’ Studi epigrafici e linguistici 1 (1984): 121–130. 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: 513–531. Weiss, Raphael. ‘On Ligatures in the Hebrew Bible (#1 =-).’ JBL 82 (1963): 188–194. Wellhausen, Julius. Die Kleinen Propheten: Übersetzt und erklärt. Berlin: Reimer, 1898. Wénin, André. ‘La théophanie au Sinaï: Structures littéraires et narration en Ex, 19.10–20, 21.’ In Studies in the Book of Exodus. Ed. M. Vervenne. BETL 126. Leuven: Leuven University Press, 1996: 471–480. Wessner, Mark D. ‘Toward a Literary Understanding of “Face to š in Genesis 32:23–32.’ ResQ 42 (2000): Face” (-' –1a¡+ š  ˜ -' –1a) 169–177.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

193

Westermann, Claus. Elements of Old Testament Theology. Atlanta: John Knox, 1982. ———. Genesis 12–36. Minneapolis: Augsburg, 1985. 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. ———. Prophetie am Ende. BBB 42. Köln: Peter Hanstein, 1974. ———. ‘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: 243–362. ———. ‘Wort, Last, oder Auftrag? – Zur Bedeutung von g/ in Überschriften prophetischer Texteinheiten.’ In Davidshaus und Prophetie: Studien zu den Nebiim. Biblisch-Theologische Studien 127. Neukirchen-Vluyn : Neukirchener Theologie, 2012: 173– 182. 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): 411–416. Woࡇhrle, 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. ———. ‘“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): 609–627. 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: 105–160. 193

194

THE GOD OF THUNDER AND WAR

Zapff, Burkard M. Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Michabuch im Kontext des Dodekapropheton. BZAW 256. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1997. Zenger, Erich. Die Sinaitheophanie: Untersuchungen zum jahwistischen und elohistischen Geschichtswerk. FB 3. Würzburg: Echter Verlag, 1971. Zevit, Ziony. The Religions of Ancient Israel: A Synthesis of Parallactic Approaches. New York: Continuum, 2001.