V. Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah and Their Constituent Units

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).

is evident that some parts of the text hang more closely together than others, and by paying attention to such things as alterations of speaker, addressee, topic or setting, transitional expressions such as “therefore,” exclamatory utterances, rhetorical questions, and repetitions both in successive lines and of earlier material, we gain a greater intimacy with the text. It is debatable how far the ancients thought of literary structures. I am skeptical about the importance of complex structures of divisions and subdivisions in a context in which even what we would call literature was mostly oral. I want to avoid superimposing a carefully worked out structure that corresponds to my own aesthetic sense. But it need not be questioned that ancient readers felt a difference between more and less pronounced breaks, and my aim will be to get the right feel for the text in that respect.

As for the smallest units, there is still little agreement concerning the issue of rhythm in the Hebrew text. I use a twofold method to determine the rhythm of a passage and count “feet” and “stresses” on the basis of the masoretic accentuation.57 The number of feet (word units) corresponds to the number of masoretic accents (conjunctive and disjunctive) and the number of stresses to the number of disjunctive accents.58 The masoretic accentuation is designed to fulfill a variety of functions. Its main purpose appears to be “to regulate the musical modulation or recitation.”59 This suggests that the Masoretes were interested in the length of units and in rhythm, even if for a different purpose than modern commentators. I have dealt with the relationship between colometry and masoretic accentuation in more detail in a separate monograph.60 This commentary largely refrains from technical

57. The use of maqqep may not be consistent enough for this method to warrant full confidence. But insofar as word combinations can be drawn together to an accentual unit or pronounced more distinctly as separate units, ignoring the maqqep does not automatically lead to more reliable results. In cases of doubt, words combined with maqqep need careful (re)examination. 58. In rare cases such as Exod 20:2, there is double accentuation, indicating two different ways of reading (or chanting) the text, and the number of feet and stresses cannot be ascertained simply by counting accents. 59. JM 15e. Cf. Israel Yeivin, Introduction to the Tiberian Masorah, ed. and trans. E. John Revell, Masoretic Studies 5 (Missoula: Scholars Press, 1980), 158. 60. Thomas Renz, Colometry and Accentuation in Hebrew Prophetic Poetry, KUSATU 4 (Waltrop: Spenner, 2003). The book includes a colography of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah in line with my understanding of the masoretic colometry on pp. 106–21. Two mistakes need to be corrected: Nah 3:19a and Hab 1:12a are only one colon each in the masoretic scheme. Sung Jin Park, “Application of the Tiberian Accentuation System for Colometry of Biblical Hebrew Poetry,” JNSL 39 (2013): 113–27, while supportive, considers my application of the rules too strict, because it occasionally creates unbalanced poetic lines like these. My intention in Colometry and Accentuation was to propose a strictly objective procedure for moving from the accentuation to its implied colometry. I accept that the resulting colometry