Haak (1988) Poetry in Habakkuk 1.1-2.4

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org

"Poetry" in Habakkuk 1:1-2:4? Author(s): Robert D. Haak Source: Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 108, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1988), pp. 437-444

Published by: American Oriental SocietyStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/603864Accessed: 04-11-2015 14:09 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

This content downloaded from 132.66.11.211 on Wed, 04 Nov 2015 14:09:47 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=aos

http://www.jstor.org/stable/603864

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp



"POETRY" IN HABAKKUK 1:1-2:4?'

ROBERT D. HAAK

AUGUSTANA COLLEGE

James Kugel's study of the nature of Hebrew poetry has raised the question of the role of parallelism within Hebrew poetry. The poetic nature of prophetic writings has historically been particularly problematic. The present study concentrates on the various types of parallelism which may be observed within the prophetic text Habakkuk 1:1-2:4. It appears that while semantic

parallelism alone may be too simplistic a standard for the determination of the "poetic" nature of this passage, the interplay of semantic and grammatical parallelism in both near and more distant contexts does characterize the text as "poetic." This study would suggest that, rather than abandoning "parallelism" as a category for understanding poetic texts, the variety of parallelism in specific texts needs further attention.

IN JAMES KUGEL'S RECENT CRITIQUE of parallelism as the constitutive element of Hebrew poetry, he reminds the reader that parallelism itself was not the focus of Robert Lowth's famous lectures.2 They were rather a "polemic aimed at destroying certain metrical theories and an argument in a still older debate, the relationship between poetry and prophecy."3 Prior to Lowth's time, many had maintained a sharp distinction between "poetry" and "prophecy." Lowth argued that since the prophetic writings do contain "parallelism" they must also have meter. Hence, the prophetic writings could be considered to be "poetry."4 In light of the centrality of prophecy to the historic discussion of Hebrew poetry, it is appropriate that a

portion of a prophetic work be examined to determine what poetic principles, if any, may be observed.

As might be expected, the prophecy of Habakkuk was not at the forefront of the debate concerning the relationship between poetry and the prophets. How- ever, the success of Lowth's arguments ascribing parallelism, and hence poetry, to the prophets can be seen by the fact that by 1880 Gietmann included a dis-

An earlier version of this paper was read at the Annual

Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, New York, NY, 21 December 1982, with the title "'Seconding' in Habakkuk 1:1-2:4?"

2 Cf. Robert Lowth, Lectures on the Sacred Poetry of the Hebrews, trans. Calvin E. Stowe (Andover, Mass.: Codman Press, 1829). These lectures were first published in 1753.

3 James L. Kugel, The Idea of Biblical Poetry (New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1981), p. 204.

4 Kugel, The Idea, p. 281.

cussion of Habakkuk 3 in his work titled De re metrica Hebraeorum.5 By 1902, F. T. Kelly published "The Strophic Structure of Habakkuk," which was the first study to argue for the poetic unity of the entire book.6 The recent acceptance of the poetic nature of the prophecy of Habakkuk may be exempli- fied by the fact that the prophecy is printed as "poetry" in BHS.

Kugel is correct, however, in cautioning against an uncritical acceptance of the prophetic books as "poetry." He states, "Prophetic books ... pinpoint the problem, for it is here that one encounters passages of intermittent semantic paralleling and artful repetitions amidst other lines lacking any obvious desire to parallel or even employ the terse style that often accompanies parallelism."7 A glance at the translation provided below makes it clear that this mixture is also present in the first section of the prophecy of Habak- kuk. For example, once it is recognized that "Rock" is an epithet of Yahweh, the third and fourth clauses of 1:12 would be considered by all to be "parallel." There is a correspondence on both the grammatical and semantic levels between both clauses. However, the relationships between numerous other clauses within this selection of prophecy are not nearly as clear. Kugel correctly draws attention to these less clear relationships. The present study will consider the various types of parallelism exhibited in these less clearly

5 Gerardus Gietmann, De re metrica Hebraeorum (Frei- burg: Herder, 1880), pp. 77ff.

6 F. T. Kelly, "The Strophic Structure of Habakkuk," AJSL 18 (1902):94-119.


437



438 Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.3 (1988)

parallel lines in the text of Hab 1 :1-2:4. Is there a lack of "any obvious desire to parallel" as Kugel suggests?

The most obvious level of relationship between lines is on the semantic level: how the meanings of the words interrelate. This is the type of parallelism high- lighted in Lowth's studies. But other types of parallelism have been proposed more recently. The works of T. Collins,8 S. Geller,9 M. O'Connor,l° and A. Berlinl' have greatly increased awareness of what might be broadly called grammatical parallelism. This includes both morphological and syntactic relationships. Among recent studies of Hebrew poetic devices, D. Pardee's papers concerning parallelism within both Ugaritic and Hebrew literature should be noted.l2 In these studies he draws attention to the structural importance of the so-called "minor elements" in the lines of Hebrew poetry. In the first of these studies he also draws attention to the relative order of the words in a given line and the position of a line within the larger unit. This he terms "positional parallelism."

Kugel appears to consider these and other non- semantic types of parallelism as somewhat deficient as types of parallelism. He states, "Indeed, the whole notion of syntactic, morphological, phonetic, etc., parallelism is a relatively recent critical creation, which, however valid, seems to have been devised in the necessity of salvaging the principle of parallelism for lines where semantic similarities were obviously lacking.''l3 While he appears to be denying (or almost denying) the term "parallelism" to these non-semantic relationships, he clearly does not discount their

8 Cf. Terence Collins, Line-Forms in Hebrew Poetry, Studia Pohl Series Maior, no. 7 (Rome: Biblical Institute Press, 1978). 9 Cf. Stephen A. Geller, Parallelism in Early Biblical

Poetry, Harvard Semitic Monographs, no. 20 (Missoula, Montana: Scholars Press, 1979). '° M. O'Connor, Hebrew Verse Structure (Winona Lake,

Indiana: Eisenbrauns, 1980). 1l Cf., e.g., Adele Berlin, "Grammatical Aspects of Biblical

Parallelism," IIUCA 50 (1979):17-43. Cf. also the works of Wilfred Watson such as "Gender Matched Synonymous Parallelism," JBL 99 (1980):321-41.

12 Dennis Pardee, "Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry: Paral- lelism." Paper delivered at the First International Symposium on the Antiquities of Palestine, Aleppo, 1980; and "Types and Distributions of Parallelism in Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry." Communication prepared for the Annual Meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature, New York, 21 December 1982.


importance in understanding the relationship between clauses. Grammatical elements make up a large part of the principles which Kugel identifies as active in "differentiation. "

Kugel suggests that between two clauses which are in relation to each other there must be both connection and separation. He says, "How is B's subjunction to be accomplished? The dangers are, on the one hand, the lack of a clear break between A and B, causing the two to merge into a single assertion; and on the other hand, the lack of a clear connection between the two, so that A + B become isolated, independent assertions. Their separation (or, rather, separability) is largely a matter of syntax. In establishing their connection, grammatical and semantic elements both have a crucial role." 14 An important contribution of Kugel's work is his discussion of the methods by which two clauses are differentiated.

In his discussion of differentiation he includes such elements as alternation of prefixed and suffixed verbal forms, alternation of singular and plural forms, alternations of abstract and concrete terms, alternation of possessive suffixes with definite nouns, changes in grammatical person, the use of various double duty elements (such as pronouns, prepositions, conjunc- tions, interrogatives, negations, etc.), prepositional alternations, and some uses of 5D. As the very term "differentiation" indicates, Kugel stresses the separat- ing function of these elements.

While in the lines which Kugel examines, it may be important to stress the "differentness" of the two clauses, in Habakkuk and much of the prophetic material, the distinction between the two clauses is often very clear. What is needed is a better understanding of how the author draws together apparently dissimilar statements. While the integrating role of those elements which are repeated in these dissimilar lines is easy to recognize, Kugel's insight that differentiation may also unite the line opens further avenues for understanding. He states, "To the extent that B identifies itself as A's 'mere parallel,' it asserts A = B; while to the extent that it differentiates itself from A in meaning and morphology, it asserts A + B to be a single statement. B becomes A's complement or com- pletion. Differentiation, in a word, integrates the sentence, asserts its unity.''ls

At the outset of the examination of Hab 1:1-2:4, the problem of the definition of the unit under discussion must be confronted. What is the "unit" in

14 Kugel, The Idea, p. 54. t5 Kugel, The Idea, p. 16.



HAAK: "Poetry" in Habakkuk 1:1-2:4?

1:2? In Kugel's terms, what is the A and what is the B; what the first part and what the second? There does not seem to be any doubt that a pause, or comma, occurs within the first line. "How long, O Yahweh, have I cried out," comma, "but you do not hear?" To define this line as the unit and to make the evaluation that there is very little or no parallelism between part A and part B seems to miss the major features of the verse-its parallelism with the next line. "I call to you, 'Violence!' but you do not deliver?" The close semantic connection between "I cried out" and "I called to you" and the phrases "you do not hear" and "you do not deliver" is apparent. In spite of the differentiation within these lines, the lines themselves are drawn together closely, particularly by the grammatical parallelism of the negative phrases with MK followed by the preformative second person verbal forms. The author of Habakkuk uses this same device to draw together distinct clauses in other places in the book, specifically in 2:3 and 2:5. The two lines of 1:2 seen in isolation do not display close parallelism on either the semantic or grammatical levels. Apparently they are intended to be seen together, however, as parallels on both semantic and grammatical levels across what might be considered individual units.

Once it is admitted that the phenomenon of parallelism on the semantic and grammatical levels can exist across adjacent lines (what Pardee calls "near parallelism"), it must be at least theoretically possible for this same phenomenon to exist across greater distances (what Pardee calls "distant parallelism").'6 It appears that the usage of the dual negative clauses in 1:2 is related by more than chance to the similar usage in 2:3. In fact, these verses, which are only loosely related semantically, seem to form a type of inclusio. The prophet asks, "How long?" in 1:2. The answer comes in 2:3, "It will not delay." While the connection between these lines might have been perceived simply on the basis of content, the use of parallel grammatical forms highlights the relationship and draws the entire section more closely together. Throughout this section of Habakkuk, and indeed the entire book, it is the interplay of the parallelism on both the semantic and grammatical levels within lines, in "near parallelism," and in "distant parallelism," which seems to mark this material as "poetic."

V 3 exhibits a similarly complex set of relationships on all three levels. The first and second clauses of the line are connected semantically and grammatically by the use of the second person prefixed verbal forms.

16 Cf. n. 12 above.

These verbs are differentiated, however, by the fact that one is a causative with a pronominal suffix while the other is non-causative and non-suffixed. The suffixed verbal form in the first clause serves to bring the third clause more closely into the unit since the third clause also contains a first person suffixed form.

Another feature which integrates the line of v 3 is a combination of word order and the use of words which very often are associated with each other in pairs. As the verse is written, "iniquity"/"trouble" and "strife"/"contention" fall in adjacent clauses. The author, however, has used a chiastic word order in the line to bring the words together in the actual text. The use of the word pair "destruction and violence" in the third clause highlights this juxtaposition of the fre- quently paired words in the first and last lines and draws all three lines together around these paired words. William Holladay has noted this type of parallelism and termed it "isomorphic balance.""7

It should also be noticed that v 3 is drawn into connection with the previous verse in at least two ways. The most obvious is the repetition of the noun "violence" in the third clause of v 3. In addition, v 2 and the first line of v 3 are related syntactically by the fact that they both begin with an interrogative whose force is extended to the second part of the line.

These observations concerning the relationships between v 3 and the adjacent lines do not exhaust the relationships which may be observed. Even a cursory glance at 1:13 shows a close connection between it and vv 3-4. Just as in v 3, the verbs of the first line of v 13 are built on the parallelism between x/;H and

/t0::3. As in v 3, a pairing of terms is found ("evil"/ "trouble"), one of which is the same term as found in v 3. Finally, in the second line of v 13 the interrogative ;1?5 is used in conjunction with :13, just as is the case in v 3. That these parallels are not simply the product of chance seems to be confirmed by the fact that in both cases the following theme is a description of the fate of the "Righteous One" at the hand of the "Wicked One." In v 4 it is stated that the Wicked One "surrounds" the Righteous One while in v 13 the reference is to "swallowing." The verbal root found in "surrounds" in v 4 (v'ln) is quite rare, occurring only six times in the Hebrew Bible. Yet in Ps 22:13-14 the themes of "surrounding" and "swallowing" are collocated. M. Dahood translates, "Strong bulls sur- round me ( :31:0), wild bulls of Bashan encircle me ('l3'iD). They open their mouths (12O ) against me, like

17 William Holladay, "The Recovery of Poetic Passages of Jeremiah," JBL 85 (1966):408.

439



440 Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.3 (1988)

a ravening (llV) and raging (1RW) lion." 18 Terms derived both from /1nD and /Y58 are also used in contexts of military defeat (cf. Judg 20:43 and 2 Sam 20:19-20). While it is undoubtedly too much to speak of a "broken fixed pair" in this case, the fact that these two themes are related in other contexts may indicate that the author of v 13 had vv 3-4 in mind when constructing the line. While it might be argued that "surrounding" and "swallowing" have no semantic parallels in the individual line, the examination of the more distant lines seems to indicate that they are in fact in a relationship which may be called "distant parallelism."

The distant parallelism of v 4 is not restricted to v 13. The near parallelism between the two lines of v 4 which involves the alternation of "order going forth" with "order not going forth" is picked up again in v 7. V 7 seems to be constructed as a counterpoint to the contention of Habakkuk in v 4 that "order does not go forth" or, at best, that it "goes forth crooked." Within v 7 itself little semantic parallelism exists. As in v 3, paired terms in a similar position are used to bring the two clauses together, another example of Holladay's "isomorphic balance."

The internal parallelism of the first line of v 4 is evident. "Law" and "order" are often found in conjunction in Hebrew, much as in English. The verbal phrases also form a type of synonymous parallelism which Adele Berlin has called "Positive-Negative" parallelism. '9

The internal parallelism of the second line of v 4 is admittedly quite weak, possibly to highlight its connection to the second part of v 13 as described earlier. The use of the contrasting terms "Wicked"/"Righteous" and "order"/"crooked" in the respective parts of the line does tend to draw the line together. The real force which brings all the clauses of v 4 together, however, is the strong parallelism of the second part of the second line with the first line of the verse.20 The fact that three of the four elements of the last clause are repeated from the first line, particularly the repetition of the minor element D 5Y, locks the first part of the second line into the structure even though it only fits loosely on semantic and grammatical grounds. Pardee has found this same phenomenon in operation in the 'Anat text and considers it a type of "positional

18 Mitchell Dahood, Psalms I, Anchor Bible 16 (Garden City: Doubleday & Company, 1966), p. 137. '9 Berlin, "Grammatical Aspects," pp. 35-36. 20 This was pointed out by John S. Kselman, "The ABCB

Pattern: Further Examples," VT32 (1982):224-29.

parallelism."2' Thus, although the closest parallels to the first part of the second line are found in v 13 and the closest parallels to the second part in v 7, the near parallelism with the first line of the verse is sufficient to allow both lines to be perceived as a unit.

The first three clauses of 1:5 should probably be read as a unit. In the first clause, the parallelism formed between the words based on /^tXl and on /t:m] which was noted in 1:3 and 1:13 is repeated, but in this case within the first clause and with Yahweh speaking rather than Habakkuk. The close semantic connection between these two roots and /nnn which is found in the second clause is shown more clearly when it is noted that nnn means literally "to look in astonishment at X" (cf. BDB, p. 1069 and Gen 43:33). The first and the second clauses are also connected by the repetition of the imperative verbal forms. The relatively uncommon use of the double imperative from the same root in the second clause draws it into connection with the third line with its prominent use offigura etymologica based on /5YO.

While the first three clauses of v 5 are connected as a unit semantically and grammatically, the position of the last clause is more difficult to determine. At first glance it appears that it has no semantic or grammatical relationship to the lines surrounding it and might be what has been termed an "orphan line." There may be some evidence, however, that this line is intended to be read as the first clause of the following unit. The first observation which supports this connection is the possible parallelism between l]'DXn in the last clause of v 5 and the DPD of the first clause of v6. In English the semantic relationship is not especially clear, but in the Hebrew both words are related to "stability" in the nominal forms and to "establishing" in the verbal forms. Although it is a very problematic passage (cf. Deut 28:66), these two roots are in fact used in conjunction in Job 24:22. The Job passage may be translated, "He lures the mighty with his power, he is established (:lp') and truly stands firm (t'DX'-X51) in life."22 In addition to the semantic connection between l]'DXn and D'p8, the fact that both terms are used in the Hiphil conjugation may tend to draw them together.

Another feature which may tie the last clause of v 5 to the beginning of v 6 is a type of positional parallelism. The phrase, "You will not believe even if it was told," functions to introduce the ': clause, "for behold

21 Pardee, "Ugaritic and Hebrew Poetry," pp. lOff. 22 Cf. Marvin H. Pope, Job, Anchor Bible 15 (Garden City:

Doubleday & Company, 1973), p. 189.




I am raising up the Chaldeans," in much the same way that the imperatives of the first clause of v 5 serve to introduce the "' clause, "for a work is working in your days." The ': clause of v 4 may also be compared.

Another relationship which may be relevant is the inclusio formed by the negative clause, "You will not believe," at the beginning of the unit with the negative clause, "dwellings not his own," which concludes the verse. Finally, the distant parallelism of the phrase "not believe" in the last clause of v 5 with the statement made in 2:4 that the "Righteous One because of its fidelity will live" should be noted. In both cases the object of belief is indicated by the ambiguous third masculine singular forms. If the analysis of the clause in v 5 suggested here is accurate, it would appear that the antecedent of these ambiguous forms would be the vision of the raising of the Chaldeans (cf. 1:6 and 2:2).

Because of the complex nature of the textual evidence, any analysis of v 8 and the first clause of v 9 must remain tentative at best. The readings adopted here are only one possibility in a wide range of readings and clause divisions which have been proposed.23 It appears that the key to the understanding of the first part of v 8 lies in the recognition of the fact that it is a three clause unit. This is first signaled by the similarity of form for the verbs beginning each clause, 1l7//l nl//1WJl. In addition to the grammatical parallelism between the terms, all three stress the quickness of the troops. "Swifter," from V/5p literally means "to be light." "Sharper," from \/Trn, can also have the connotation of quickness. "Pranc- ing," from \/U1D, is used to describe the steps of calves in other contexts. Also interesting is the dis- tribution of the nouns in the unit. The first clause mentions both wild animals and horses. The second clause concentrates on the wild animals while the third clause further specifies the type of horses intended in clause A. The effect is that, although the comparison is dropped in the third clause, the clauses still form a tightly bound unit (cf. 1:16).

The following unit, composed of the rest of v 8 and the first clause of v9 is another instance where significant parallelism appears across the boundary of the line. While there is a clear semantic and grammatical connection within the first line, "they come" paralleling "they fly," the repetition of the singular "he comes" at the end of the second line ties these two lines closely together. The connection between the

23 For a more detailed discussion of the major proposals cf. Robert D. Haak, "Habakkuk Among the Prophets" (Ph.D dissertation, University of Chicago, 1986), pp. 87-94.

lines is heightened by the fact that the second line begins with the participle %Un which is dependent on the last word of the previous line.

In addition to this near parallelism, there also appears to be distant parallelism exhibited with v 6. On both the grammatical and semantic levels there is a parallel between "the one acting quickly to devour" in v 8 and the "one walking in order to dispossess" in v 6. Because of this grammatical parallelism it might also be suggested that onn? be revocalized to the infinitive and translated "in order to do violence he comes." This temptation should be resisted, however, since the use of the nominal form of onn here repeats the theme begun in v 2 and continued in v 3. In this way the "violence" of the Wicked One is brought into relationship with the even more overwhelming violence of the Chaldeans. Finally, it may be noted that the balance of the prepositions 'Z and '5 in the phrases "from far away" and "for violence" may function as an inclusio.

No convincing explanation of the last line of v 9 has yet been offered. It seems probable that the meaning of the first clause is roughly equivalent to the "gathering of captives" of the second clause. A similar action is reported in 2:5, just outside the section considered in the present study. In spite of the problematic nature of the line and although our understanding of phonetic parallelism is very limited, it may be observed that irn, "as sand," appears to be phonetically parallel to the ;'*: which appears earlier in v 9 and the '5 1,1 in v 11. The collocation of :, 5, and /n/n can also be seen in the ' M1::l 1;1 and 1':n- 5b RM1;, in v 10. Another possible example of phonetic parallelism may be seen in ;'l"Tj? of v 9 and D'pt1 'nK inv 12.

V 10 illustrates the phenomenon seen several times already, the parallelism between adjacent lines appear- ing to be as strong or stronger than that within the line. The first line forms a nicely balanced unit in itself. Although the grammatical function of the terms is clearly differentiated in the two parts, "kings" forms a parallel on the semantic level to "rulers" and there is a correspondence between "he lays low," literally "he scoffs at," and "they are a joke." The third person independent pronoun used as the subject at the beginning of the first clause is balanced by the suffixed third person pronoun used at the end of the second clause.

The second line, seen in isolation, would appear to be a clear example of what Kugel terms a "Sequence of Actions."24 While this is clearly the case, the fact of


441



Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.3 (1988)

the sequence of actions is nearly obscured by the strong near parallelism across the boundary of the line. The repetition of X'1n and the same root in the noun "joke" and the verb "laughs at" draws the third clause closely to the second. Although the fourth clause is clearly subordinated to the third by the use of the pronoun suffix referring to the fortified city, it is also in a close relationship to the first line of the verse. The verb translated somewhat colloquially as "lays low" is intended to contrast the humiliation usually associated with the various forms of V/OSi with the opposite connotation associated with the verb V/'t, "to pile up." Again, the phonetic similarities of 'ltn in the third clause and '15 17:: in the fourth may be noted.

It appears that v 11 could also be described as a "sequence of actions" much like that found in v 10. The relative rarity of the prefixed verbal form with the conversive waw at the end of a clause in Habakkuk makes the occurrence of this phenomenon in the last clause of v 10 and the first clause of v 11 quite striking. This appears to be a case where the connection between two lines is accomplished not by semantic parallelism but by word order and grammatical parallelism. The sequential nature of the three verbal forms in v 11 is enhanced by the inverted word order in the second clause of the line which brings forward the verb and positionally associates it with the preceding verbs. If the proposed interpretation of TX as a rare demonstrative pronoun parallel to another rare demonstrative (1T) is accepted, these terms would serve to tie the two clauses closely together. Even if TK is under- stood as the more common adverb usually translated "then," phonetic parallelism would tend to have the same effect.

A cursory overview makes it clear that all three levels of parallelism can also be seen in the following

verses. There are clear parallels on the semantic and grammatical levels within lines (cf. 2:1). Both semantic and grammatical parallels function between adjacent lines (cf. 2:3). Some of the distant parallelism of these lines has already been noted (cf. 1:13 and 1:3-4).

While argument might be raised concerning individual points of comparison in this discussion and undoubtedly further points of comparison could be made, two general observations seem to be in order. The first is that, although semantic parallelism is the strongest and most evident of the types of parallelism which have been observed, other types of parallelism seem to function to bring clauses into relationship with each other. Of these types, the general category of grammatical parallelism seems to be the most important. Although grammatical parallelism does function in units which are semantically parallel, it also appears to function in those units which have been semantically differentiated.

The second observation is that all types of parallelism function not only within a given line but between adjacent lines (near parallelism) and even over con- siderable distances (distant parallelism). Thus, while a line may appear to be semantically and grammatically differentiated when viewed in isolation, parallelism on both levels often occurs quite clearly when the line is viewed in the wider context. At times, such as in the second line of 1:4, it even appears that the inner-line and near parallels are weakened in order to draw particular attention to the distant parallelism. Thus, while Kugel may be correct that parallelism per se does not define Hebrew poetry, the present study would seem to indicate that the function of parallelism within Hebrew prophetic writing must remain the object of close attention.

HABAKKUK 1:1-2:4a

Superscription

1:1 The oracle which Habakkuk the prophet saw:

a For complete notes on the text being discussed see my "Habakkuk Among the Prophets" (Ph.D. dissertation, Uni- versity of Chicago, 1986).

The First Complaint

1:2 How long, O Yahweh, shall I cry out but you do not hear?

I call to you, "Violence!" but you do not deliver?

1:3 Why do you allow me to see iniquity? And (why do) you look upon trouble?

442




Destruction and violence are in my presence. Strife exists! Indeed, contention rages!b

1:4 Therefore, law is weak. Indeed, order does not ever go forth, for the Wicked One surrounds the Righteous

One. Therefore, order goes forth crooked.

The First Oracle

1:5 Look at the nations and see! Be astonished! Be astounded! For I am doing a deed in your days.

You will not believe even if it were told, 1:6 for behold, I am raising up the Chaldeans,

that nation bitter and skilled, the one walking on the broad places of the

earth in order to dispossess the one whose dwellings

are not his own.C

The First Response

1:7 He is too terrible and dreadful for us.d His order and his ragee go forth.

1:8 Swifter than leopards are his steeds, Sharper than wolves in the evening. Prancing are his horses.

His horsemen come from far away. They fly as an eagle, acting quickly to devour.

1:9 The whole (host) comes for the violent one. The multitudef of their faces are forward.g

He gathers captives as sand. 1:10 Indeed, he lays kings low

and rulers are a joke to him.

b Reading as if from /TKVt with Hermann Gunkel, Schop- fung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (Gottingen: Vanden- hoeck & Ruprecht, 1895), p. 33. Cf. 1:7. c It is suggested that '1WK has been omitted from the phrase

as if often the case in Hebrew poetic construction. d Reading 13= with the first line of the verse as the first

person plural form. Cf. Num 13:31. e Cf. note b above. This derivation was suggested orally by

Gosta W. Ahlstrom of the University of Chicago Divinity School. f Reading as from Arabic \/O?l. Cf. BDB, p. 168. g Cf. G. W. Ahlstrom, "Judges 5:20f. and History," JNES

36 (1977):287.

He laughs at every fortified city and heaps up earth and captures it.

1:11 Then he sweeps along (like) the windh and passes by.

This, his power, devastatesi for his god.

1:12 Indeed, you are from primeval times, O Yahweh, My holy God, we shall not die! O Yahweh, for order you established him. O Rock, for adjudication you founded him.

The Second Complaint

1:13 Too pure of eyes to see evil, and to look upon trouble you are not able, why do you look upon the treacherous ones

and keep silent when the Wicked One swallows

the one more righteous than himself?

1:14 And why do you make man as the fish of the sea,

as creatures, none ruling over them?

1:15 All with a fishhook he brings up. He drags him away with his net. He gathers him up with his seine. Therefore, he is glad and rejoices.

1:16 Therefore, he sacrifices to his net and burns to his seine, for by them fat is his portion and his food is fatness.

1:17 Therefore, he will indeedi empty his net continually.

From slaying nations he shall not refrain.

2:1 Upon my post I will surely stand, and I will surely station myself upon (my)

watch.

h For this method of expressing the comparative cf. G-K, par. 118r. i From VDtR, "to devastate." Cf. G. R. Driver, "Confused

Hebrew Roots," in Occident and Orient [Gaster FS], ed. Bruno Schindler (London: Taylor's Foreign Press, 1936), pp. 75-77. J Cf. BDB, p. 210a on the use of interrogative heh to state

the emphatic.

443



Journal of the American Oriental Society 108.3 (1988)

I will watch closely to see what he will speak against me

and what I will reply to my prosecutor.k

The Second Oracle

2:2 But Yahweh answered and said: Write the vision! Make it clear upon the tablets so that the one reading it will run!

2:3 For the vision is a "testifier" at the appointed time,

k Cf. Hos 5:2; Prov 29:1.

indeed, a witness at the end and does not lie. He tarries!? Wait for him! For surely he comes. He will not delay!

2:4 Behold, swollen, not smooth,1 will be his gullet within him,

but the Righteous One because of its fidelity will live.

Cf. W. Boyd Barrick, "The Straight-Legged Cherubim of Ezekiel's Inaugural Vision (Ezekiel 1:7a)," CBQ 44 (1982):543-44 for this nuance of UIt".

444



Haak (1988) Poetry in Habakkuk 1.1-2.4

Documents

Transcript of Haak (1988) Poetry in Habakkuk 1.1-2.4