Introduction to Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah discussions of the poetry and uses “line” and “lines” interchangeably with “colon” and “cola.” Hence, a bicolon can be spoken of here as consisting of two and a tricolon of three lines. Others use “line” for a bicolon and “half- line” for a colon. The usage in this commentary was influenced by the way I have chosen to present the translation of these prophetic texts, with each colon being on a separate line.
VI. AN OUTLINE OF THE L ATE NEO-A SSYRIAN AND EARLY NEO-BABYLONIAN PERIOD In this section, we will briefly consider the implied historical setting of the three books interpreted in this commentary. On my reading, and broadly speaking, Nahum is set in the period before the fall of Nineveh in 612 BC, which brought the Neo-Assyrian Empire to an end, but after 664/663, because it looks back to the fall of Thebes (see below). Habakkuk is set in the period around the rise of the Neo-Babylonian Empire; I will argue below that the setting is in fact after the rise of the Babylonians rather than shortly before, as many others believe. Zephaniah is placed in the days of Josiah in the second half of the seventh century, around the decline and end of the Neo-Assyrian Empire. The question whether Zephaniah should be dated early or late in Josiah’s three-decade reign is discussed in the introduction to Zephaniah. For this general overview, it is sufficient to note that the three books are set in the period between 660 and 600 BC. This alone makes it interesting to deal with them in one volume. None of the other prophetic books are set in this period of transition from the Neo-Assyrian to the Neo- Babylonian Empire. The setting need not imply that the three books were written at that time, but it is my best guess that in the case of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah, the implied setting is also the time at which (most of ) the material originated and was put together. The beginning of the Neo-Assyrian Empire is usually dated from the reign of Ashur-dan II (934–912), under whom a long period of Assyrian decline was reversed. Its climax came with Tiglath-pileser III (744–727), who seems to have come to the throne as a usurper. In several western campaigns, he consolidated Assyrian control over Syria and the eastern Mediterranean, turning local rulers into Assyrian vassals obliged to pay annual tributes. Failure to pay was punished, usually by the appointment of a new ruler, territorial reductions, deportations of members of the upper class, and increased is occasionally unsatisfactory. My own colometry, therefore, is not always in agreement with that of the MT. Accepting such divergence seems to me preferable to bending the rules to make the alleged masoretic colometry fit my own.
18
