ClMTICAI, Ql'ESTIOXS CON-XECTED WITH THE Book. — Tho.se connected with ch. 1 have been sufficiently discussed above ; it remains to consider * See Davidson, p. 137 f , with the references.
HABAKKUK
HABAKKL'K
271
those arising in connexion with cli. 2 and cli. 3. As rcfiards cli. 2, Stade (ZATiV, 1884, p. 154 ff.) and Kuenen (Einl. § 70. 4-7 ; 77. SI) argue that the • Woes' in vv.'->--'" are partly unsuitable if supposed to be addressed to the Cliald;eau kin;;, and partly, especially in vv.'^'-", that they consist largely of citations and reminiscences of other piissages, in- cliidini; some late ones («.</. v.'^ from Mic 3'" ; v.'^ from Jer 51^*; v.'* from Is 11*; cf. al.so v.^'''' with JcrL'.Jif-, and vv. '»--■" with Is 44'-«- 4G"f-, Jer 10i-i«). and lience tliey infer that llie origiiial close of H.'s propliecy, ■2''''-*, was expanded in the post-exilic age by tlie addition of a series of Woes, directed against •.some lieatlien or heathenly-disposed enemy of the congregation,' or (w.'sf- "--'" Kuenen) the heatlien generally. It is difficult to think that the grounds for this conclusion are sutlicient. Though some of the passages referred to may not suit the (^lial- d;ean kiny. there is no adeiiuate reason for holding them inapplicable to the personitied ChalcUean nation; while as regards vv. '--'*, II. may naturally himself have quoted Isaiah and Micah : v." may well be the original of .Jer 51''' (especially when the very dependent character of the prophecy in Jer 6U-— 51^' is borne in mind), and there is nothing to prevent 2'"--'" being a satire on the vanities of iiliilairy. (piite independent of II Is or Jer 10. 15ulde (I.e. p. 391 f.) sees no ground for questioning vv.[i-'] '-"-n. i.'.-ir J Wellhausen (p. 104) considers it indubitable that the whole of vv. '*--'" is directed aiainst the Chald;ean (though he thinks that vv.Nb. i7b^ where they stand, are unsuitable, and that VV.1--H- ij-i" contain indications of belonging to a later age than th.at of II.) ; Xowack questions only vv.*i---nirb-ai. See. further, Davidson, pp. 5t;-.')8. Whether the ode in ch. 3 is really the work of II. may be more doubtful. The title and the musical notes (vv.'-s'^- ''•'), both resembling closely those in the Psalter, suggest the inference that it was excerpted from a liturgical collection, and placed here by a compiler (Kuenen. § 70. 8 ; Cheyne, Oricjin of thi: I'salter, p. 1;J7 ; Wellli. ; Xowack; and others). The same scholars (following Stade, /.(•. p. l.")7 f. ) argue further that the ode was origin- ally an independent poem, unconnected with the prophecy of II. : to the circumstances of II. 's age, so clearly retlected in chs. 1-2, there are here no allusions ; the comnmnity is the speaker (vv." '"•''■', and no doubt also in vv.-'"); it trusts that J" will interfere in its behalf ; but the descrip- tion of the foe (vv.'^") is (piite general, there are no features pointing specilically to the Clialdieans ; and the compari.son to a murderer delighting ' to devour the alllicted in a secret place' (cf. Ps 10**-') suggests attacks made insidiously against the theocracy, rather than the open warfare of the Clialdieans ; while, at lea.st in v.'", the calamities referred to (failure of crops and Hocks) are alto- gether different from those which were the burden of llab 1-2. Conversely, the i>roniise in 2', which is the jirophet's consolation, does not at all suggest a theopliany as its comiilement ; .and wbereiis in 2"" the t'hakhcans are overthrown by the natural retribution which overtakes a despot, when his power has become effete, the foe, in ch. 3, is over- thrown by the direct interposition of J". It is true the calamities mentioned in 3" might, in the abstract, be regarded iis results of the ChahUean invasion of Judah ; but, as Davidson remarks, ' the vei-se does not suggest a condition of scarcity and barrenness arising from ' such a cau.se. • but rather one due to the incidence of severe natural calami- ties'; and had the poet been writing under the pressure of a hostile inv.asion. the invasion il.self would naturally have been expected to form the prominent feature in this picture, rather than the misfortunes following in its train. So, again, it is no doubt true that the downfall of the Chalda'an,
though brought about (ch. 2) by natural causes, might in ch. 3 be represented as the result of J"'s interposition (cf. Is 13); but even after making every allowance for the fact that chs. 1-2 are only elevated prose, while ch. 3 is written in a lyric strain, it remains that the thoughts most char- acteristic of chs. 1-2 are not developed further in ch. 3, but replaced by different ones. Kirkpatrick (Smith's DB- s.v.. Doctrine «/ the Pruphel.i, p. 270-283) seeks to show that the ode in ch. 3 forms an integral element in the prophet's book ; but his arguments show, not so much that it is natural or necessary, as that it is possible so to explain it ; the destined fall of the Chalditan tyrant is sufficiently declared in 2^-'". and ch. 3 is not neeiled to render the announcement more ex- plicit. Xor again, though 2-J would lead on naturally to the theopliany in ch. 3, can it be said, in view of the contrast to w.'*- ''i which the verse expresses to require it, or to be inccm]ilete without it. Wellli. (p. 100) insists strongly that vv.'"-'^ is not the original close of the poem, and that it can- not be used for determining the real aim of vv.^-"'. If vv.''-'3 might be regarded as an appendix attached to vv.-'-it> by a later hand, one ground for doubting II. "s authoi'ship of the latter would be certainly removed. There would remain the other differences between 3--"' and chs. 1-2, alluded to above : it is also felt by many to be doubtful whether the ytation — which seems to be what is intended by the terra — would, in the age of H.. be described as J""s ' anointed ' (3'^), and whether this usage does not presuppose a period in which the attributes and position belonging originally to David and his descendants were transferred to the people (cf. Davidson's note). On the whole, while reluctant to conclude that the ode of ch. 3 is not the work of II., and while readily allowing that the reasons adduced do not demonstrate that it is not his. the present writer must own that it con- tains features which .seem to him to make it difficult to affirm his authorship confidently.