Introduction to Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah But the generic differences between the two “hymns” are significant, as are those between the two instances of “threatening speech,” and there are no clear verbal signals or connections to suggest such an arrangement was in the mind of any of the authors or editors involved in the process.53 Fabry notes the absence of Habakkuk’s key term ḥāmās (“violence,” 1:2–3, 9; 2:8, 17 [2×]) from Nahum.54
V. NAHUM, HABAKKUK, AND ZEPHANIAH AND THEIR CONSTITUENT UNITS The macrostructure of a biblical book is rarely, if ever, uncontroversial. Proposals for the literary structure of a book are reading strategies. In modern books, some sort of structure is often provided by the author in the form of headings and a table of contents.55 Readers usually feel the need to divide biblical texts in units smaller than those provided by titles or headings. The use of conventional introductory formulae is sometimes used as a cue for such subdivisions. It is worth bearing in mind that proposals for the literary structure of a book are often not right or wrong but rather more or less appropriate or successful. Criteria for appropriateness and successfulness vary depending on the purpose of the structure, but most readers will probably agree that structures that account for a greater number of the characteristic features of a text are to be considered more successful. Instead of merely providing a structural outline for each of the three books, the following offers a discussion of noteworthy features which ought to be considered in deciding on a structure.56 Such a consideration of features of the text gives a sense of the texture of the piece of writing, whether one agrees with the literary structure on which this commentary will settle or not. Indeed, with regard to all three of the writings explored in this commentary, it is unlikely that we will ever come to an agreement on a structure that fulfills all purposes—especially not one that operates on several levels. But it 53. I discuss this in more detail in Thomas Renz, “Habakkuk and Its Co-Texts.” I find myself also in substantial agreement with Tchavdar S. Hadjiev, “Zephaniah and the ‘Book of the Twelve’ Hypothesis,” in Prophecy and the Prophets in Ancient Israel: Proceedings of the Oxford Old Testament Seminar, ed. John Day, LHBOTS 531 (London: T&T Clark, 2010), 325–38. 54. Heinz-Josef Fabry, Habakuk/Obadja, HThKAT (Freiburg: Herder, 2018), 129. Fabry makes this observation in connection with a list of parallels between Nahum and Habakkuk. 55. Even then, readers can conceptualize a different arrangement and may gain new insights into the text in this way. 56. Cf. CHP, esp. ch. 7; Ernst R. Wendland, The Discourse Analysis of Hebrew Prophetic Literature: Determining the Larger Textual Units of Hosea and Joel, Mellen Biblical Press Series 40 (Lewiston: Mellen, 1995).
16
