»He will certainly not hesitate, wait for him!« Evidence for an unrecognized oath in Habakkuk 2,3b, and its implications for interpreting Habakkuk 2,2-4

DOI 10.1515/zaw-2014-0023 ZAW 2014; 126(3):372–382

James W. Haring»He will certainly not hesitate, wait for him!«Evidence for an unrecognized oath in Habakkuk 2,3b, and its implications for interpreting Habakkuk 2,2–4

James W. Haring: University of Notre Dame; [email protected]

I Introduction

The book of Habakkuk consists of a prophetic denunciation of injustice (ch. 1)¹ followed by Yahweh’s response to the prophet (ch. 2) and a description of a the-ophany of Yahweh as the divine warrior (ch. 3). The opening verses of Yahweh’s response (2,1–5) have yielded a number of substantial textual, lexical, and syn-tactic challenges,² concerning which the last generation of scholarship has made significant progress. Building on this work, the present paper aims at an alterna-tive interpretation of one of the less-noticed aspects of these verses: the word אם at the beginning of Hab 2,3b. The following translation represents a fairly typical interpretation of אם in Hab 2,3b and of the surrounding verses:

ויענני יהוה ויאמר 2a Then the Lord answered me and said:כתוב חזון ובאר על הלחות 2b Write the vision; make it plain on tablets,

למען ירוץ קורא בו so that a runner may read it.כי עוד חזון למועד 3a For there is still a vision for the appointed time;ויפח לקץ ולא יכזב it speaks of the end, and does not lie.אם יתמהמה חכה לו 3b If it seems to tarry, wait for it;כי בא יבא לא יאחר it will surely come, it will not delay.

הנה עפלהלא ישרה נפשו בו

4a Look at the proud! Their spirit is not right in them,

וצדיק באמונתו יחיה 4b but the righteous live by their faith. (NRSV)

In this translation, as in many others, the first word of the first line of 3b is under-stood as a conditional (»If it seems to tarry« or »If it delays«). This verse affirms a

1 Cf. F. I. Anderson, Habakkuk: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 25, 2001, 123.167.179.189.2 See, e.g., J. A. Emerton, The Textual and Linguistic Problems of Habakkuk II. 4–5, JTS 28 (1977), 1–18.

Brought to you by | University of Notre DameAuthenticated

Download Date | 10/27/14 7:22 PM

»He will certainly not hesitate, wait for him!« 373

more consistent message, demonstrates greater poetic parallelism, and fits more closely with its context, however, if אם is understood instead as the beginning of an oath formula (»It will certainly not delay!«).

This type of »shortened« oath introduced by אם is well-known in biblical Hebrew.³ The form works by stating the first part of an oath (a conditional), leav-ing the second part (a curse) for the reader to infer. The full form is found in pas-sages like I Sam 3,17, »Thus may God do to you, and continue to do, if you hide from me a single word of anything he said to you« (cf. Num 14,8; II Sam 3,35). More commonly, however, the curse is left out of the oath, leaving only the »if« clause:⁴

אחת נשבעתי בקדשיאם לדוד אכזב

4a Once, I swore by my holy one,I will not lie to David. (Ps 89,36 NRSV)

It is preferable for several reasons to find this formula in Hab 2,3b as well. The argument below will consider first the poetic and syntactic reasons for this trans-lation, followed by contextual reasons, which have only come to light fully in more recent scholarship. It will conclude with more speculative possibilities for reading Hab 2,2–4 based on the preceding analysis. In preparation for this analy-sis, the translation offered at the end of this paper is presented below: ⁵

כתוב חזון ובאר על הלחות 2b Write and confirm a vision on the tablets,למען ירוץ קורא בו so that a herald may run with it.

כי עוד [יעיד] חזון למועד 3a For he will call [the] vision as a witness at the appointed time,

ויפח לקץ ולא יכזב he will testify at the end. He will not lie!אם יתמהמה חכה לו 3b He will certainly not hesitate, wait for him!

כי בא יבא לא יאחר…5 He will surely come, he will not delay…וצדיק באמונתו יחיה 4b the righteous will live by his faithfulness.

3 On the use of אם in negative oaths, see B. K. Waltke/M. O’Connor, An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, 1990, § 40.2.2.b.4 E. Kautzsch, Gesenius’ Hebrew Grammar, Second Edition, 1910, § 149.5 This paper does not deal with Hab 2,4a, which presents substantial difficulties that are too great to address here. This omission, however, does not affect the argument that Hab 2,3b fits best with its context when understood as an oath rather than a conditional. On 2,4a, note especially Haak’s »non-ethical« interpretation (R. D. Haak, Habakkuk, VTSup 44, 1992, 55–58). Haak’s reading makes it more natural to understand 2,4b as a promise for a particular situa-tion rather than a general theological statement. If one follows Haak’s reading it might also be possible to understand 2,4a as a description of the messenger en route and out of breath. One might translate something like, »Behold, he swells, his breath within him is not smooth.« This translation would describe the messenger’s hasty activity promised in the preceding verse. Such descriptions of messengers were common in ancient Semitic literature (S. A. Meier, The Messenger in the Ancient Semitic World, HSM 45, 1988, 68–69).



374 James W. Haring

II Evidence for an oath in Hab 2,3b

The simplest and most foundational reason for recognizing an oath formula in Hab 2,3 is that this interpretation allows the meaning and poetic structure of the verse to emerge more clearly: ⁶

MT Hab 2,3b as an oath NRSVאם יתמהמה a It will certainly not hesitate, If it seems to tarry,

חכה לו b wait for it! wait for it;כי בא יבא b' It will surely come, it will surely come,לא יאחר a' it will not delay.6 it will not delay.

The assertion in a' emphasizes that there will not be a delay. The translation of a as a conditional does not fit well with the message of a' and results in a contra-diction, affirming both the possibility of a delay (a »If it hesitates«) and denying it (a' »it will not delay«). Conversely, recognizing an oath in a allows for greater consistency overall and stronger parallelism between a and a', which then frame the verse with assurances that there will not be a delay.

One might object, however, that while it is common in biblical Hebrew to find conditional statements followed by imperatives, the combination of an oath formula and an imperative suggested here is unusual. One finds many examples of the former:

ויבא אלהים אל בלעם לילה ויאמר לו אם לקרא לך באו האנשים קום לך אתםGod came to Balaam in the night and said to him, »If the men come to call you, rise, go with them« (Num 22,20; cf. Gen 20,7; Ex 33,13; Num 5,19; Jos 22,19; II Sam 17,6; Jer 40,4).

The same combination of אם and an imperative, however, is found in Ezekiel, this time with the meaning suggested here for Hab 2,3b:

חי אני נאם אדני יהוה אם אחפץ במות הרשע כי אם בשוב רשע מדרכו וחיה שובו שובו מדרכיכם הרעיםAs I live, declares Lord Yahweh, I certainly do not delight in the death of the wicked, but only when the wicked turns from his way that he may live. Turn! turn from your evil ways! (Ez 33,11; cf. II Reg 9,26; Jer 14,7; Ps 139,19).

In this verse, the consequence of the oath (»I certainly do not delight«) is an imperative (»turn!«). Likewise, in Hab 2,3b, the consequence of the oath (»It will

6 While this section of the paper follows the common understanding of the subject of these verbs as an »it« (understood to refer to the vision of vv. 2–3), it is noteworthy that Anderson iden-tifies the subject as a »he«, viz., Yahweh (Anderson, Habakkuk, 206–207).




certainly not hesitate«) is also an imperative (»wait for it!«). Thus, there is not only poetic support for finding an oath in Hab 2,3b, but also syntactic precedent for the combination of an oath and an imperative.

A further reason to read Hab 2,3b as an oath is that באר in Hab 2,2 makes ref-erence to swearing an oath, which means that the presence of an oath Hab 2,3b would be continuous with the subject-matter of the previous verse. באר has been one of the persistent difficulties of the opening verses of Habakkuk 2 and has generated a variety of translations.⁷ Tsumura has sharpened the meaning of באר, however, by his argument that it should be understood in light of its Akkadian cognates burru and bâru, which mean »to establish the true legal situation (own-ership, liability, etc.) by a legal procedure involving ordeal, oath, or testimony«.⁸ Tsumura cites a Babylonian text which reads, »When the written testimony was made out, it was written without witnesses having confirmed [ú-bi-ir-ru] it by oath, now let witnesses under oath (also) confirm [li-bi-ir-ru-šu] it«.⁹ In light of this evidence, argues Tsumura, Hab 2,2 refers to a two-fold legal implementation of a document. This legal implementation would have included a written text as well as confirmation of that text by witnesses under oath. Following Wilhelm Rudolph’s observation that Hab 2,2 contains an AXB syntactic pattern, where the phrase »write and confirm« (A and B) is interrupted by »vision« (X), the direct object of both words, Tsumura translates the first line of Yahweh’s response in Hab 2,2, »Write and confirm the vision on tablets!«¹⁰

Schaper concurs with Tsumura’s analysis of ¹¹,באר supplementing it with a study by Braulik and Lohfink which analyzes the other two occurrences of the word in biblical Hebrew (Dtn 1,5; 27,8).¹² Schaper argues that in Deuteronomy, does not refer back to an earlier law which Moses then expounds, but looks בארforward to the rest of the book. For Schaper, »this Torah« in Dtn 1,5 »is best understood as cataphorically referring to the Torah of Deuteronomy 5–28 … and

7 Some examples are »to make plain« (V, KJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, NABRE; cf. Tg.), »to inscribe« (NEB, NASB, NJB), »to inscribe clearly« (NJPS), and »to display/exhibit« (8ḤevXIIgr).8 D. T. Tsumura, Hab 22 in the Light of Akkadian Legal Practice, ZAW 94 (1982), 294–295, 294.9 Ibid.; Cf. I. J. Gelb et al. (eds.), The Assyrian Dictionary of the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, vol. II, 1965, 129.10 Tsumura, Hab 2,2, 295.11 J. Schaper, The »Publication« of Legal Texts in Ancient Judah, in: G. N. Knoppers / B. M. Levinson (eds.), The Pentateuch as Torah: New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, 2007, 225–236.12 G. Braulik/N. Lohfink, Deuteronomium 1,5 הזאת התורה את er verlieh dieser Tora« :באר Rechtskraft«, in: K. Kiesow/T. Meurer (eds.), Textarbeit: Studien zu Texten und ihrer Rezeption aus dem Alten Testament und der Umwelt Israels (Festschrift Peter Weimar), AOAT 294, 2003, 34–51.



376 James W. Haring

thus באר cannot mean ›to interpret‹ or ›to expound‹«.¹³ Rather, it must mean, »to confirm«. Because each of the three uses of the verb באר in biblical Hebrew make the most sense when understood with the meaning »to confirm«, Schaper postu-lates that באר is an Akkadian loan word used by the final editors of Deuteronomy for whom the word had become commonplace during the exile.¹⁴

Based on the arguments of Schaper and Tsumura that באר in Hab 2,2 signifies legal confirmation by oath, there is good reason in its immediate context to read Hab 2,3b as entailing a promise rather than a conditional statement. Indeed, this promissory intent permeates Yahweh’s response beginning in 2,2. Introducing a conditional statement in this context would be an abrupt and surprising shift, inconsistent not only with vv. 2–3, but also with the subsequent verses in ch. 2 which speak of the certain downfall of an oppressor. On the other hand, finding an oath in Hab 2,3b allows it to fit more naturally with its immediate context.

Reading אם as a conditional rather than an oath has perhaps been reinforced by the idea that Habakkuk was a doubting prophet who offers an early articula-tion of the Christian notion of faith.¹⁵ It is suggested, for instance, that Hab 2,3b speaks of a delay which was necessary in order to teach Habakkuk a lesson about waiting in faith.¹⁶ This interpretation is bolstered in part by the presence of the word אמונה in Hab 2,4b, a word which Paul later adapted for his own purposes (cf. Rom 1,17; Gal 3,11) and which is often translated into English as »faith«.

Such views of the prophet Habakkuk, however, do not fit naturally with the results of some recent scholarship on Hab 2,3–4. First of all, »faith« is an unusual meaning for אמונה which normally refers instead to »faithfulness« or »steadfastness«.¹⁷ Beyond this, while »faithfulness« might characterize a waiting person, in the context of Hab 2,4b faithfulness probably carries instead a legal connotation. The legal terminology which others have recognized in the opening verses of Habakkuk 2 supports this idea.¹⁸ In addition to באר (discussed above), two other terms in 2,3a – עוד and יפח – are especially important for understanding has been recognized as a verb meaning »to testify«¹⁹ or עוד .as a legal term אמונה

13 Schaper, The »Publication« of Legal Texts, 229.14 Ibid., 230.15 See, e.g., R. R. Wilson, Prophecy and Society in Ancient Israel, 1980, 279.16 R. L. Smith, Micah-Malachi, Word Biblical Commentary 32, 1984, 107.17 L. Koehler/W. Baumgartner, The Hebrew and Aramaic Lexicon of the Old Testament, Trans. by M. E. J. Richardson, vol. I, 2000, 63. The Talmud’s citation of this verse as a condensation of the six hundred thirteen commandments of the Torah (b. Makkoth 24a) offers early precedent for the idea that אמונה in Hab 2,4b refers to »faithfulness«. 18 For an overview, see K. J. Cathcart, Legal Terminology in Habakkuk 2:1–4, Proceedings of the Irish Biblical Association 10 (1986), 103–110.19 D. T. Tsumura, An Exegetical Note on Hab 2:3a, Exegetica 4 (1993), 69–73.




has been emended to עד »a witness«,²⁰ and יפח has been recognized as a nearly synonymous word also meaning either »to testify«²¹ or »a witness«.²² Especially relevant for Hab 2,2–4 is the use of יפיח and עד alongside אמונה in Prov 12,17: ²³

יפיח אמונהיגיד צדק

Whoever testifies with faithfulness, speaks with righteousness;

ועד שקרים מרמה but a witness of lies with deceit (cf. Dtn 32,4; Isa 59,4; Ps 119,30.86.138; Prov 12,22).23

This verse suggests that when combined with יפיח and עד or their cognates, אמונה may refer to the faithfulness or reliability of a witness. The combination of these words in Hab 2,2–4 leads Janzen to translate,

[3a] For the vision is a witness to a rendezvous, a testifier to the end—it does not lie …[4b] but the righteous through its reliability shall live.24

Janzen argues that this faithfulness or »reliability« characterizes not the צדיק of 2,4b, but the vision of 2,2–3, which serves as a witness and which Janzen recog-nizes as ultimately inflected by the faithfulness of Yahweh.²⁵ Similarly, Anderson argues that »’ĕmûnâ is a quality of a truthful, reliable witness« whom Anderson identifies as Yahweh.²⁶ If Janzen and Anderson are correct, it would seem that ,»should be translated as »reliability«, »steadfastness«, or »faithfulness אמונהrather than »faith«.

The idea of »faith« or »trust« in Yahweh’s assurance does not necessarily con-tradict this interpretation of אמונה in Hab 2,4b. But Janzen and Anderson’s argu-ment suggests nonetheless that the focus of 2,4b is not the faith-filled waiting of the righteous, but rather the activity of a faithful witness and the implications of this activity for the righteous. If correct, this would situate Hab 2,3b squarely in a context of divine assurance regarding the survival of the righteous. Far from mili-

20 J. G. Janzen, Habakkuk 2:2–4 in Light of Recent Philological Advances, HTR 73 (1980), 53–78, 55–56.21 Tsumura, An Exegetical Note on Hab 2:3a.22 D. Pardee, ypḥ ›Witness‹ in Hebrew and Ugaritic, VT 28 (1978), 204–213.23 Also see the discussion of this Proverb and others with similar vocabulary in Pardee, ypḥ ›Witness‹.24 Janzen, Habakkuk 2:2–4, 76. 25 Janzen, Habakkuk 2:2–4, 61.26 Anderson, Habakkuk, 206–207. Anderson finds a surprising ally in the twelfth century scho-lastic Bernard of Clairvaux who, in his sermons on the Song of Songs (II.III.7), cites Hab 2,3 as fol-lows: »Behold the Lord will appear; and he will not lie. If he seems slow, wait for him, for he will come, and that soon« (Bernard of Clairvaux, Selected Writings, Trans. by G. R. Evans, 1987, 219).



378 James W. Haring

tating against the interpretation of Hab 2,3b suggested here, this interpretation of -would indicate that in addition to the poetic, syntactic, and contextual rea אמונהsons given above, Yahweh’s statement that the »the righteous will live because of his²⁷ faithfulness« (2,4b) offers further support for understanding אם in Hab 2,3b as an oath.

III Implications for Hab 2,2–4 of finding an oath in Hab 2,3b

Despite the strong evidence for reading Hab 2,3b as an oath, this interpretation raises a question. If Hab 2,3b is an assurance of speed rather than a conditional, whose speed is under consideration? Janzen’s translation above suggests that this speed characterizes Habakkuk’s »vision«. This interpretation is entirely pos-sible, and would result in a translation something like the following:

כתוב חזון ובאר על הלחות 2b Write and confirm a vision on the tablets,למען ירוץ קורא בו so that a herald may run with it.כי עוד חזון למועד 3a For the vision is a witness to the appointed time,ויפח לקץ ולא יכזב a testifier to the end. It will not lie!אם יתמהמה חכה לו 3b It will certainly not hesitate, wait for it!

כי בא יבא לא יאחר… It will surely come, it will not delay …וצדיק באמונתו יחיה 4b the righteous will live by its faithfulness.

One might ask regarding this interpretation, however, what would it mean to speak of the testimony, speed, or reliability of a vision? It seems that much needs to be read between the lines to understand the vision as the subject which these activities and characteristics describe.

Meier offers a clue towards an alternative interpretation when he notes that the two most desirable qualities of messengers in the ancient Semitic world were faithfulness and speed.28 These qualities were essential in the communications systems of the ancient Near East, where messengers were required to deliver important information quickly and reliably. These messengers often delivered their messages in contexts where legal testimony or verbal explanation were required.²⁹ If the analysis of Hab 2,2–4 presented here is correct, the two qualities of speed and faithfulness, as well as the idea of legal testimony, are strikingly pre-sent in this passage. Hab 2,3b contains an assurance of speed, guaranteed by an

27 Or »its faithfulness«; or »my faithfulness« (cf. LXX).28 Meier, The Messenger, 23–25.29 Ibid., 3.25.206.244. Cf. S. A. Meier, Angel I, in: K. v.d. Toorn / B. Becking / P. W. v.d. Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, Second Edition, 1999, 45–50, 48.




oath, which is thematically continuous with the verb ירוץ in 2,2b. Likewise, אמונה in Hab 2,4b speaks of the beneficial results of faithfulness, a quality which is also thematically continuous with the phrase לא יכזב of 2,3a. Finally, 2,3a speaks of the activity or presence of a witness.

Is there a messenger in this context who could fill these roles? Recent com-mentators have suggested, in fact, that there is, identifying it in the קורא of Hab 2,2.³⁰ According to them, this קורא is best understood as »a town-crier who publicly reads the text written on the tablets«.³¹ Several modern translations fol-low suit.³² This evidence suggests that one might translate Hab 2,3b in relation to the messenger of 2,2, whose activity would unify the elements of speed, faithful-ness, and legal activity discussed above. That is, one would translate 2,3b, »He will certainly not hesitate, wait for him!«

In order to make this translation consistent, it would be best to read עוד in 2,3a as a verb whose subject is the קורא of 2,2b and whose object is the vision of vv. 2–3. Tsumura’s interpretation of עוד as an infinitive absolute functioning as a finite verb meaning »to witness« would make this reading possible.³³ It would also be possible, however, to emend כי עוד to כי יעיד, postulating that a word-ini-tial yod was lost through haplography and that a medial yod was misinterpreted as a medial waw.³⁴ This solution may preferable, since the prefix form of עוד is relatively common, often meaning »to warn« or »admonish«,³⁵ but also meaning »to call as witness« (Dtn 4,26; 30,19; 31,28; Isa 8,2; Jer 32,10.25.44) or »to witness« (I Reg 21,10.13; Job 29,11; Thr 2,13). The meaning »to call as witness« could work in this context, since messengers sometimes produced written documents as con-firmation of their own reliability.³⁶ If one understands עוד as a verb, it would also

30 Anderson, Habakkuk, 204; M. A. Sweeney, The Twelve Prophets, Berit Olam, vol. II, 2000, 471.31 J. Schaper, Exilic and Post-Exilic Prophecy and the Orality/Literacy Problem, VT 55 (2005), 324–342, 333.32 E.g., »so that a herald may run with it« (NIV); »so that a runner may read it« (NRSV); »ready for a herald to carry it with speed« (NEB). The idea that the קורא is a specific role rather than a generic »whoever may read« is further supported by the definite article found on the participles in 1QpHab and LXX.33 Tsumura, An Exegetical Note on Hab 2:3a. 34 I am indebted to Sam Meier for suggesting this emendation, as well as for his insightful per-spective on other aspects of the argument of this paper.35 Koehler/Baumgartner, vol. II, 795.36 »The freedom to ask messengers for further clarification of messages or information is com-monly granted in the letters. Indeed, one finds that a writer will appeal in this regard to the messenger as a witness to the veracity of the contents of a letter … In such cases, it is usually one messenger who is called upon to testify to the truth of the message. However, it is not that the words of the tablet itself are in doubt. It was seen above that the tablet was accorded the highest



380 James W. Haring

make sense to understand יפח as a verb, which could be done by revocalizing yāpēaḥ to yāpiaḥ, the prefix form of the verb פוח »to witness«.³⁷ This hypothesis would result in the following alternative translation:

כתוב חזון ובאר על הלחות 2b Write and confirm a vision on the tablets,למען ירוץ קורא בו so that a herald may run with it.

כי עוד [יעיד] חזון למועד 3a For he will call [the] vision as a witness at the appointed time,

ויפח לקץ ולא יכזב he will testify at the end. He will not lie!אם יתמהמה חכה לו 3b He will certainly not hesitate, wait for him!

כי בא יבא לא יאחר… He will surely come, he will not delay …וצדיק באמונתו יחיה 4b the righteous will live by his faithfulness.

This interpretation of Hab 2,2–4 envisions a messenger running to proclaim a vision concerning which the vision written on the tablets will serve as legal confir-mation. This messenger runs at the command of Yahweh, who acts in response to Habakkuk’s denunciation of injustice in the preceding chapter, where Habakkuk laments, »justice never prevails« (1,4, NRSV). The rectification of this injustice is announced in Habakkuk 2: »The cup in the Lord’s right hand will come around to you, and shame will come upon your glory!« (2,16, NRSV). This messenger and this announcement come as precursors to the arrival of Yahweh himself, who appears in Habakkuk 3 to defeat his enemies.

This scenario is quite different than the one found in the traditional interpre-tation of Hab 2,2–4. It is not, however, a completely unique scenario in Hebrew prophetic literature. The prophet Malachi promises a similar messenger arriv-ing in preparation for the arrival and judgment of Yahweh: »See, I am send-ing my messenger to prepare the way before me, and the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple. The messenger of the covenant in whom you delight—indeed, he is coming, says the Lord of hosts« (Mal 3,1, NRSV). In this passage, as in Habakkuk, the messenger precedes Yahweh’s rectification of injus-tice: »Then I will draw near to you for judgment; I will be swift to bear witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who [הייתי עד ממהר]swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired workers in their wages, the widow and the orphan, against those who thrust aside the alien, and do not fear me, says the Lord of hosts« (Mal 3,5, NRSV). One might also look to Isaiah 40,1–8,

authority. Rather, what is being certified is the veracity of the sender. Consequently, the mes-senger stands as a resource person on trial so to speak; he can be interrogated to the satisfaction of the recipient that the events which the sender has described are actually true. There is no doubt that the sender has actually said them; the doubt is whether the sender has spoken truly« (Meier, The Messenger, 206–207).37 Koehler/Baumgartner, vol. III, 917. Cf. Tsumura, An Exegetical Note on Hab 2:3a.




where, Frank Cross argues, a heavenly herald »announces the imminence of Yahweh’s appearance in acts of redemption and, more specifically, directs prep-arations for the construction of a ›superhighway‹ on which Yahweh will march through a transformed desert at the head of his people. This is indicated in the cosmic scale of the preparations for the divine theophany«.³⁸ These examples of heavenly messengers going ahead of and preparing for the appearance of Yahweh provides precedent for the scenario suggested here for Hab 2,2–4 as well as for the rest of the book of Habakkuk. In all three passages, Yahweh sends messengers ahead before he arrives to enact justice.

IV Conclusion

This paper has argued that there is strong evidence for reading Hab 2,3b as an oath introduced by the word אם rather than as a conditional statement. Oaths introduced by אם are well-known in biblical Hebrew, and when 2,3b is read as an oath, it possesses greater clarity, stronger poetic parallelism, and increased the-matic continuity with the surrounding verses. This analysis led to further sugges-tions regarding the meaning of Hab 2,2–4, in which it is possible to interpret the -of 2,2b as a herald who unifies the various actions and characteristics pre קוראsent in 2,2–4. This herald finds parallels in the heavenly messengers of Mal 3,1–5 and Isa 40,1–8, who prepare the way for the arrival of Yahweh, just as the herald in Hab 2,2–4 prepares for the theophany described in Habakkuk 3.

Several further questions would be worth exploring in this difficult pas-sage. First, it would be helpful to clarify the content of the »vision« mentioned in Hab 2,2–3. Is this vision a particular experience which Habakkuk had? Is it a text included in the book of Habakkuk? If so, where is it located? It would also be worth investigating Hab 2,4a in light of the arguments above. Is it possible to understand this difficult verse as an integral component of the messenger sce-nario sketched here? Finally, if the arguments here are to be more fully substan-tiated, it would be important to analyze the rest of the book of Habakkuk to see whether a fuller treatment supports the contentions of this paper.

Abstract: There is strong evidence for reading Hab 2,3b as an oath introduced by the word אם rather than as a conditional statement. Oaths introduced by אם are well-known in biblical Hebrew, and when 2,3b is read as an oath, it possesses greater clarity, stronger poetic parallelism, and increased thematic continuity

38 F. M. Cross, The Council of Yahweh in Second Isaiah, JNES 12 (1953), 274–277, 276.



382 James W. Haring

with the surrounding verses. The oath of Hab 2,3b has implications for the mean-ing of Hab 2,2–4, in which it is possible to interpret the קורא of 2,2b as a herald who unifies the various actions and characteristics present in 2,2–4. This herald finds parallels in the heavenly messengers of Mal 3,1–5 and Isa 40,1–8, who pre-pare the way for the arrival of Yahweh, just as the herald in Hab 2,2–4 prepares for the theophany described in Hab 3.

Résumé: Pour l’interprétation d’Hab. 2,3b, il est montré que le terme אם intro-duit plutôt la clause d’un serment qu’un conditionnel. Les serments introduits par אם sont bien connus en hébreu biblique, et si l’on interprète 2,3b comme un serment, le passage s’éclaire tant quant à sa forme poétique qu’à la progression thématique de la péricope. En effet, le serment d’Hab. 2,3b influence la compré-hension d’Hab. 2,2–4: il devient possible de voir en קורא un héraut, qui réunit les différentes actions et qualités indiquées en Hab. 2,2–4. Ce héraut s’apparente aux messagers célestes de Mal. 3,1–5 et d’Es. 40, 1–8, qui préparent la voie pour la venue de YHWH. C’est la fonction du héraut d’Hab. 2,2–4, en vue de la théopha-nie décrite en Hab. 3.

Zusammenfassung: Für das Verständnis von Hab 2,3b wird nachgewiesen, dass durch das Wort אם eher ein Eid eingeleitet wird als eine konditionale Aussage. Durch אם eingeleitete Eide sind im biblischen Hebräisch gut bekannt; und wenn 2,3b als Eid gelesen wird, führt dies zu mehr Klarheit sowohl hinsichtlich der poe-tischen Struktur als auch im Blick auf den thematischen Fortlauf der umliegenden Verse. Der Eid von Hab 2,3b hat Auswirkungen auf die Bedeutung von Hab 2,2–4, indem es nun möglich ist, den קורא von 2,2b als Herold zu verstehen, der die verschiedenen in Hab 2,2–4 vergegenwärtigten Aktionen und Eigenschaften ver-eint. Dieser Herold besitzt Parallelen in den himmlischen Boten von Mal 3,1–5 und Jes 40,1–8, die den Weg für die Ankunft Jahwes vorbereiten. Eine entspre-chende Funktion besitzt der Herold in Hab 2,2–4 für die in Hab 3 beschriebene Theophanie.



»He will certainly not hesitate, wait for him!« Evidence for an unrecognized oath in Habakkuk 2,3b, and its implications for interpreting Habakkuk 2,2-4

Documents