Running head: SHORT PAPER TITLE 1

A Polytheistic Psalm?: A Close Reading and Interpretation of Habakkuk 3

By Jeremy Tabick

The thrust of recent biblical scholarship has been to erode the difference between

Israelites and their Canaanite and other “pagan” neighbours. Normally, the Bible itself is very

careful to distance itself from what it sees as immoral, idolatrous actions associated with their

ancient neighbours. However, occasionally, the Bible’s Canaanite roots bubble to the surface.

Very rarely is this clearer than in the third chapter of Habakkuk.

Habakkuk 3 is a notoriously difficult chapter to translate, and there seems to be a lack of

consensus and clarity among scholars on almost every detail. This short study will attempt to

clarify as much as possible.

First, the historical circumstances of the chapter’s composition will be outlined. Special

attention will be paid to the specific and rare mention in the Bible of the popular ancient Near

Eastern god Reshef, chiefly using the comprehensive recent study of Münnich.

Then, using four different translators and commentators as a base (Haak, Roberts, Good,

and the newest Jewish Publication Society version, henceforth NJPS), a translation will be

attempted. The goal of this is not so much to be accurate—for which I would leave it to better

linguists than me—but to highlight the difficulties and ambiguities in the text, especially where

(possible) divine names are concerned.

Once a clear sense of the chapter is presented, we will turn our attention to its meaning

and significance. Several interpretations will be proposed—with doubts—and I will then present

my own.
SHORT PAPER TITLE 2

Historical background

One of the many controversial aspects of Habakkuk 3 (henceforth, “the psalm”) is its

dating. When we place the origin of the psalm dramatically changes on how monotheistically we

are willing to read it—assuming that a later date signifies a stronger tendency towards monothe-

ism—and how much we should be relying on other biblical traditions to understand it. For

example, does the psalm know the combat myth in a form similar to Psalm 74? Does it know the

Mount Sinai tradition?

The other main impact the dating has on our understanding is regarding the personalities

involved. Should we read Reshef and Dever as demons or gods? Should we read Shemesh as

“the sun”—as in the celestial body—or as “Sun”—as in the deity?

The date of the psalm relies on three factors: its relation to the rest of the book of

Habakkuk; the section of chapter 3 that we are willing to call “the original” psalm; and when

Reshef—being one notable, named Canaanite god—waned in popularity in the region. Each of

these will be explored in this section.

Habakkuk as a book

Most scholars assume that chapters 1-2 go together, with a reliable form in the Masoretic

Text.1 These can be pretty unambiguously dated to around 605 BCE, since it has to reflect the

very unique historical circumstances when the ancient Assyrian empire was being unexpectedly

supplanted by the Neo-Babylonian empire.2 The real wild card is what to do with chapter 3 and

how the psalm fits in with the rest of the book. There is certainly evidence to suggest that chapter

3 circulated separately from the rest of the book.3

SHORT PAPER TITLE 3

Solutions range from:

1. A post-exilic liturgical text, attached to Habakkuk at some much later date;4

2. A much more ancient composition that Habakkuk himself reworked in 605 BCE to make

his point about Babylon;5 or

3. An integral part of the book, composed by the same person, that actually belongs after

chapter 2:1-3, which mentions an oracle that is never described. Because the psalm also

circulated independently, it was appended to the book.6

These solutions thus give the psalm a date range from the Judahite monarchy to the

Second Temple period! Later on we will come to a more specific conclusion.

Habakkuk 3 as a composition

Now, we turn to the unity of Habakkuk 3. Which parts are original and which parts are

later glosses?

To the extent that musical notations are later, then v. 1 and end of v. 19 are out.7 Addition-

ally, vv. 17-19 are of somewhat different tone than the rest of the chapter and may be later

additions.8 Luckily, the status of vv. 17-19 is not central to the argument here, since it clearly is

not discussing the theophany of vv. 3(2)-15 (see below).

Verses 2 and 16 have the same keyword (root sh-m-‘), and v. 16 returns to the subject of

v. 2. Both of these observations suggest that those are designed to frame the core of the psalm,

vv. 3-15.9 Good, in his close analysis of the poetic structure of the psalm, concludes in this way

that vv. 3-15 is a complete poem, made up of two sixteen-line stanzas and two five-line

refrains.10 He also notes that you could include verses 2 and 16 into this structure. I would

certainly advocate that including v. 2 poses no structural difficulty, as it also can be said to be a
SHORT PAPER TITLE 4

five-line refrain.

Considering the psalm’s sometimes loose connection in textual witnesses to chapters 1-2,

it making perfect sense independently, and Good’s close analysis described above, I think it is

fair to analyse vv. 3(2)-15 separately from the rest of the chapter and book. This will be

attempted below.

Reshef in Syria and Israel

Ultimately, given the wide range of dates given above for the Psalm, the best control

seems to be from independent evidence of Reshef in surrounding cultures. Reshef is uniquely

suited to this kind of analysis since he was an extremely popular god throughout the ancient near

east—and beyond—through the third to first millennia BCE. More specifically, it was one of the

most prominent in names and lists of sacrifices found in Ugarit and Emar—both close to the

cultural milieu of Judah and Israel—dating from the 15th through 12th centuries BCE.11

Suddenly, by the first millennium BCE, his cult had almost vanished, except in areas like

Cyprus, where he was identified with Apollo.12

From within the biblical sources, Münnich makes a very convincing argument as to the

change in meaning from the early sources (Habakkuk 3:5, Deuteronomy 32:24, and possibly 1

Chronicles 7:25) where the word is used as the name of a being, to the post-exilic sources (Psalm

76:4, 78:48, Job 5:7 and Song of Songs 8:6) where it is used with the sense of “fire, lightning” or

benei reshef as “sparks”.13

Thus we have our lower limit: the psalm must not come from after the exile, when

“reshef” in Hebrew was no longer used as a proper noun. We should thus discount the post-exilic

option above. The question remains, however: how close to Habakkuk’s time was the psalm
SHORT PAPER TITLE 5

written?

I would argue for the psalm’s antiquity for several reasons:

1. The words of the psalm are so difficult and obscure that it must imply a text of great

antiquity—if it were not so, why would the rest of Habakkuk be so understandable by

comparison?

2. Even the earliest interpreters of this passage were often at a loss to what the psalm meant,

as analysed in detail in Good’s study. This supports reason 1 above.

3. Given the maximalist polytheistic reading of the psalm that is possible (to be presented

below), the likelihood that anyone as late as post-Deuteronomy wrote it seems vanishing-

ly small.

We can also infer an earliest date simply from the fact that the psalm’s main protagonist

appears to be YHVH, who is considered by many scholars to originate with the rise of the

monarchy in Judah.14 (Though naturally, the psalm could have been tampered with and mentions

of YHVH introduced at a later date, especially since the opening lines seem to be wrought with

El imagery, not Baal—which would be a closer fit to YHVH.15 However, there would be no way

to prove this hypothesis either way, and therefore will not be considered here). Thus, we can

comfortably date it somewhere between c. 1000 and 605 BCE.

Evaluating the evidence presented below, I would suggest that it is more likely to come

from the beginning of this period, probably reworked later with someone who had Babylon in

mind as the specific enemy of Judah.16

A maximalist reading

As alluded to above, the major problem with Habakkuk 3 is simply knowing what the
SHORT PAPER TITLE 6

words mean. Setting up a sliding scale from polytheism to monotheism, the variant translations

can result in very different positions on this scale—from YHVH is one among a pantheon,

perhaps the most powerful, to YHVH is the only god but has demonic servants.

I will present an extreme polytheistic reading of vv. 2-16, even though many of these

identifications below are dubious at best. The point is not necessarily to be the most probable

translation, but to illustrate the ambiguities in the text and the sheer possible variation that the

psalm can encompass. When I interpret a word to be the name of a god or demon, I leave it in

transliterated Hebrew, pointed according to the Masoretic Text. Notes on each are presented

below the translation.

[2] YHVH, I have heard your report,

YHVH, I fear your deed;

With the approach of Shanim—let him live!—

With the approach of Shanim, proclaim!

In the shaking of the womb, remember!17

[3] A god will come from Teiman,

A holy one from Mount Paran (Selah).

His majesty covers Shamayim,

His glory fills Eretz,

[4] Nogah will be like light—

He has horns from his hand—

There is Hevyon, his strength.18

SHORT PAPER TITLE 7

[5] As his vanguard walks Dever,

As his footman goes Reshef.

[6] He stands—Eretz shakes!

He looks—Goyim tremble!

Ancient mountains are shattered,

Eternal hills sink low,

Eternal pathways are surely [7] crushed.

I see the tents of Cushan—

They shake!—

The pavilions of the land of Midian.19

[8] Is it with Neharim that YHVH burns?

Is your anger with Neharim?

Is your fury with Yam?

Because you ride on your horse,

Your chariot of victory.20

[9] You awake your bow,

The shafts of speaking are sworn.21 (Selah)

[With]22 rivers you split Eretz.

[10] Harim sees you and writhes!

Pouring Mayim floods,

T’hom raises his voice.

(11) Shemesh (10) lifts up his hands,23

SHORT PAPER TITLE 8

[11] Yareiah stands on high.

To Or your arrows go!

To Nogah your spear flashes!

[12] In rage, you tread Eretz,

In anger, you trample Goyim.

[13] You go forth to save your people,

To save your anointed.

You strike the head of the wicked house,

Make bear from foundation to neck. (Selah)

[14] You pierce by his shafts the head of his warriors.

They storm in order to scatter me.

He causes exaltation. You bring them low

Because of the devouring of the poor in secret.24

[15] You tread Yam with your horses,

Mayim Rabim foams.25

v. 2: Shanim

Haak has an innovative suggestion,26 to read Shanim in v. 2 not as “years” but as an

influence from Ugaritic, “sh-n-m”, which is often translated as “Exalted One”, such as in the

divine name El Av Shanim.27 This does not sound too convincing—and indeed, Haak expresses

his doubts—until you take seriously Good’s problem that be-kerev is only ever used elsewhere in

the Bible to refer to the approach of something spatially, and never to the approach of something

temporally.28
SHORT PAPER TITLE 9

You can draw further support from the opening verses of the psalm clearly showing

divine solar imagery, which suggests an association with El. Thus the name Shanim would fit the

context.

However, this suggestion remains conjectural at best.

v. 3: Eloah, Kadosh

The use of Eloah (“g/God”) in the Bible is not totally clear. Is it a proper noun—the name

of a specific god—or is it a generic term for “god”?

However, I feel safe in the rendering of it as a generic term here. If there is any relation-

ship between the first chapters of Habakkuk and the third, then the fact that Eloah is used in 1:11

unambiguously to mean “a god”, I would argue that here too this understanding should be

primary.29

The parallel for Eloah is Kadosh, a “Holy One”, for which a generic translation is

unproblematic.30

v. 3: Shamayim, Eretz

While in many cultures, Shamayim (“heaven”) and Eretz (“earth”) are gods, the evidence

in the Bible for such identifications is paltry to say the least.31 Nonetheless, this is the maximalist

and not the most likely read, and so the names of both are included.

v. 4: Karnayim

There is a lot of disagreement as to what the word karnayim means here. Literally it

means “horns”, but that may have limited sense in this context. Haak takes it in its literal sense

and explains that “horns were commonly associated with gods and kings in art and literature”,

and that they became “the symbol of power itself”.32

SHORT PAPER TITLE 10

NJPS (following Rashi33) reads it in light of Exodus 34:29, where keren is used to refer to

the rays of light emanating from Moses’ head. However, this understanding fails to deal with the

problem that in the sense of “ray” the root is only used in the singular, and yet here we have the

plural.34

Roberts takes the dual form more seriously and understands karnayim as referring to two-

pronged lightning bolts.35 This is, however, influenced by his less-than-clear translation of or

(“light”) in the previous verse as “lightning”.

Far more interesting for our purposes is Good’s suggestion that the dual form be taken

seriously and thus should refer metaphorically to YHVH’s two servants: Reshef and Dever.36

Reshef in particular is often associated with horns.37

Lastly, the horns could be associated with Hevyon (see next section).

v. 4: Hevyon

NJPS translates Hevyon as from the root h-v-h, meaning “to hide”. This is the common

understanding.

However, Gordon38 makes the innovative suggestion to read it as Havy, a known Ugaritic

god who is “lord/possessor of horns and tail”,39 whom Haak translates as “Crawler”. This also

makes sense of the karnayim (see above).

In order to maintain the parallelism of Eloah / Kadosh, and Dever / Reshef, this reading

would thus also imply reading Nogah (“Brilliance”) in the previous verse as a divine name (see

discussion on Or, Nogah below).

v. 5: Dever, Reshef

Understanding Dever as a divine name is generally well-established by scholars in this

SHORT PAPER TITLE 11

context, but its derivation is not without trouble. As Münnich notes, there are a thousand years

between a known text to have a god called Dever and the psalm.40 On the other hand, there is not

much else “Dever” could be referring to, and since there are other biblical texts that are easiest

understood with his personification (e.g. Psalm 91), it seems safe to do so here also.

Reshef, however, is a clear-cut case, as outlined in discussion of Reshef in Syria and

Israel above. The only question remaining, to be dealt with below, is whether Reshef here is a

fully-fledged god, or merely a demon of YHVH.

v. 6: Goyim

I know of nowhere that Goyim (“nations”) is used as a name of a god. I make this

interpretative move only on the basis of the psalm’s structure. If we are willing to assign Eretz a

divine role, then by biblical parallelism—both here and in v. 12—one would expect a divine

name here too. I freely admit that this reading is unlikely, but who knows?—maybe the word

Goyim was not original but was changed from a true divine name.

v. 8: Neharim, Yam

In light of what is known about the combat myth, it seems necessary to understand

Neharim (“rivers”) and Yam (“sea”) in this context as names of gods (e.g. Psalm 74, Isaiah 27).

That these gods are mentioned is what allows Roberts to read the entire psalm in light of only the

combat myth, and to reconstruct vv. 14-15 entirely on the basis of Psalm 74.41

The fact that their names appear only in rhetorical questions is worth noting. Presumably,

the answer to those questions is “No”. However, if it were nothing like YHVH being angry with

Yam or Neharim, then the questions are nonsensical. Thus it must be that the answer is “No—but

something close.” In the context of Habakkuk, clearly the “something close” is Babylon, and the
SHORT PAPER TITLE 12

point of this section is to make an equivalence between the primordial chaos gods and Babylon,42

as is done elsewhere in the Bible.43 Given the evidence for seeing the chapter in light of a

liturgical context, however, it could be that there is no specific enemy in mind, or that the enemy

was left vague enough to be assigned differently with changing circumstances.

The main complication of this picture of YHVH in opposition to the chaos water deities

is the fact that he is said to make the “rivers (neharot) cleave the land” in v. 9. Does this imply

the opposite, that YHVH has command of the rivers?

It seems like the correct interpretation is along the lines of Roberts,44 that this is a

common motif in combat myths. For example, when Marduk slays Tiamat, he then directs the

rivers to flow to the right places.45

An additional distinction between Neharim in v. 8 and neharot in v. 9 is the fact that

neharot is in fact the usual plural of the word nahar (river). As Good notes, Neharim is only ever

used to refer to the rivers of Ethopia46 (presumably Cush[an], mentioned earlier in v. 7?).

I would like to posit a difference in meaning here: perhaps Neharim is a divine name,

while neharot is simply the mundane objects “rivers”. This is the way it has been translated

above.

v. 10: Harim, T'hom

Given that T’hom (“Deep”) is a well-known form of Tiamat, it seems sensible to read this

as a divine name here, uncontroversially (especially with Yam and Neharim earlier).

Once the reading of T’hom as a god is accepted, again from the use of parallelisms

throughout the psalm, it makes sense to also read Harim (“Mountains”) as a divine name, as

posited by Pardee and Xella.47 This understanding is a little awkward with the plural verb
SHORT PAPER TITLE 13

ra’ukha (“they saw you”), but that is not prohibitive for this reading. Certainly, if it weren’t for

all the other divine pairings in the psalm, I would probably dismiss Harim as a mundane noun,

but the pairing with the clear case T’hom is too suggestive to miss this reference.

v. 10: Mayim

Though understanding Mayim (“water”) here as a divine name breaks the parallelism in

this verse, it does fit the doubling in v. 15 as Mayim Rabim (“many waters”). So given there a

divine name is possible, I have translated Mayim as a name here too. It is unlikely that Mayim

refers to a specific god, given the lack of parallels in other cultures, but it certainly has strong

mythological overtones.48

v. 11: Shemesh, Yareiah

Again, if it weren’t for the sheer number of divine names here, I would be tempted to

dismiss Shemesh (“sun”) and Yareiah (“moon”) as simply celestial phenomena and not gods. But

I believe the evidence is mounting up through the psalm, and at this point you have almost no

choice but to translate them as gods.

v. 11: Or, Nogah

If you are convinced by Nogah (“brilliance”) above in v. 4 as a divine name, then you

certainly would understand it here similarly. The problem with this interpretation is that in both

verses Nogah and Or (“Light”) are paired together, but in v. 4 there may be a third god—Hevyon

—which led Xella to posit Nogah there in the first place! It would seem very strange to have Or

in v. 11 the name of a god, and a generic noun in v. 4. Thus, I think at this point you have to

choose either Hevyon or Or in your interpretation of the psalm, since you can’t have both and

maintain the parallelisms that form the main structure of the poem. Essentially, you can read it as
SHORT PAPER TITLE 14

either:

“To Or your arrows go / To Nogah your spear flashes;” or

“Your arrows went like daylight / Your spear flashed like twilight”49

But again, this is the maximalist reading, and so I included both Or and Hevyon to

illustrate the point.

v. 13-15

Verses 13-15 are by far the most difficult in the chapter. Given there are no mentions of

divine beings of any kind here, I think it is best to abandon specific interpretation of this section.

However, there are some general observations and assessments of others’ work that is worth

attempting.

Roberts reads this section entirely as a reference to the combat myth (noting the motif of

splitting open the monster from bottom to top). Hence, his translation of this section is based

entirely on Psalm 74—despite the fact that such an interpretation involves totally rearranging the

words and inserting his own!50 Leaving aside the radicalness of this change and the lack of

evidence that Habakkuk is so dependent on Psalm 74, this also fails to take into account

Hiebert’s observation that v. 13 is full of architectural terms.51

Thus it seems better to understand it as the god destroying an enemy temple or palace and

killing the leader (rosh mi-beit rasha), rather than an explicit reference to the combat myth.

The last thing to note on this section is that LXX doesn’t have mi-beit (“from the house”)

but Mot (“Death”)—meaning that they understood it as “You struck the head of wicked Mot”.

This is likely non-original, however, since there is no pairing in the next part of the verse, and I

don’t know of another text in biblical or non-biblical literature that describes Mot as “wicked”—
SHORT PAPER TITLE 15

those ancient texts do not normally have that amount of moral judgment on gods, though this

matter requires investigation.

Interpretation of the chapter

So now that we have explored the ambiguities of the names of gods in the text, what is

the Psalm about? At least three different interpretations have been proposed:

1. As a description of the theophany at Mount Sinai (Rashi and other traditional Jewish

commentators);52

2. As referring only to the combat myth, and associating this with smiting the Babylonians

in the present day (Roberts); and

3. As a vision of the end-times (Del Olmo Lete).53

Rashi’s interpretation is so improbable that it can be easily dismissed. After all, there is

no mention of Sinai or the giving of law in the psalm. This is certainly a Rabbinic Jewish

understanding of the Bible and should not be confused with its plain meaning.

Roberts’ option is interesting, but I think simply can’t be correct. Assuming that the

answer to the rhetorical questions in vv. 8-9 is “No”, then clearly we are not dealing with the

combat myth, we are dealing with a case that looks like it from an observer’s perspective, but in

fact is not it. Could it be, then, explicitly making the association between the chaos gods and

Babylon? Possibly, but I don’t think this is a necessary interpretation. It could just be that YHVH

is going to war just as he went to war against Yam and Neharim in the past. It may have

originally had no bearing on the identity or nature of the enemy being spoken about.

Del Olmo Lete’s suggestion also seems hopelessly improbable to me. There is no sense

of the “Day of the Lord” in the psalm that would prepare you for eschatological themes. Added
SHORT PAPER TITLE 16

to that its pre-exilic date and this becomes even more unlikely.

So what interpretation of the psalm is left? We turn now to the nature of Reshef and the

other gods that could potentially be mentioned in this psalm in order to understand whether they

are gods or demons. This will then provide the interpretative key to understanding the text.

Gods or demons?

The way Reshef and Dever are portrayed—as vanguard and rearguard of YHVH’s chariot

—lends itself easily to an understanding of those figures as demons rather than gods. However, I

want to evaluate this claim carefully in the context of the rest of the psalm, not just state it

without proof as Münnich does, thereby dating the psalm to a time when other gods had already

lost their fully divine status in favour of the true God YHVH.54 And in fact, I believe that this is

likely to not be the case once we take seriously all the other well-attested gods that appear in this

psalm.

Even discounting the more questionable claims in the maximalist translation above, we

have the following solid evidence:

1. The introduction that seems to be referring to El (probably identified with YHVH—since

it is YHVH that approaches in the next verse—but potentially El himself);

2. Unambiguous reference to Reshef, along with three motifs known to be associated with

Reshef in Syria: horns,55 horses,56 and arrows;57

3. Reference to Yam and Neharim, and therefore YHVH-Baal association, and a known

identification between the psalm and Canaanite myth;

4. T’hom, Shemesh, and Yarieah—all known Canaanite gods—taking personified action

(“lifting up his hands”, “raising his voice”, etc.).

SHORT PAPER TITLE 17

Considering some of the more doubtful claims above makes this point even stronger. I

believe that you have no choice—given all of this—other than to say that, even if Reshef may be

“demonised” (in the literal sense), you simply can’t say the same for El, Yam, Neharim, T’hom,

Shemesh, or Yareiah—all of whom act as true gods, not as servants of YHVH, in this psalm.

It seems to me, then, that the best interpretation of Habakkuk 3 is that it’s a hymn

commemorating YHVH’s ascension to the chief god of Judah. I would interpret the psalm in this

way:

First, YHVH comes from the south in full war-aspect. Some gods are trampled or

terrified (e.g. Harim, Eretz), while others share in his victory (e.g. Shemesh, Yareiah). And in the

end, YHVH comes to his land to save his people and his king (“your anointed”) from their

enemies. His rulership is proclaimed and proven, just as it was when he killed Yam in ancient

times.

The psalm then gets adapted to Habakkuk’s time by understanding that the enemies that

YHVH defeats are the Babylonians. This seems natural given the similarities between the

features of YHVH in the psalm and Marduk in Enuma Elish, as noted by Roberts (though he

made too much of it)—they both have gods with plague as their entourage,58 they both kill Yam/

Tiamat, and they both split the earth with the waters left over from their battle.59 This made the

parallel to Babylon particularly striking and useful, but it was not a necessary part of the psalm’s

original meaning.

Thus we appear to have a text the origin of which is in the earliest period of the Judahite

monarchy, advocating the ascension of YHVH. It seems that this psalm could even predate the

prophets’ calls to worship only YHVH, since there are a lot of gods in the psalm who seem to
SHORT PAPER TITLE 18

have their own independent wills and support YHVH’s ascension. If this interpretation were

correct, it would be a very exciting discovery, of an extremely ancient text, predating Judahite

monolatry, that survived until the end of the 7th century BCE and was incorporated into the Bible

post-exile with very few changes, only a few garbled verses.

Imagine swapping every reference in the psalm to YHVH with Baal and you would have

a straightforwardly polytheistic, Canaanite hymn to the greatest god of the pantheon. This,

finally, explains why the psalm appears so unabashedly Canaanite, because it was composed at a

time before biblical religion had been dreamt of.

SHORT PAPER TITLE 19

References

Del Olmo Lete, G. (1999). Deber. In K. van der Toorn, B. Becking & P. W. van der Horst, (Eds.),

Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (2nd edition, p. 231-232). Grand Rapids,

Michigan / Cambridge, UK: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

Good, E. M. (1958). The Text and Versions of Habakkuk 3: A Study in Textual History (Doctoral

dissertation). Columbia University, New York.

Gordon, C. H., (1986). HBY, Possessor of Horns and Tail. Ugarit-Forschungen, 18, 129-132.

Haak, R. D. (1992). Habakkuk. Leidin, the Netherlands: E. J. Brill.

Hutter, M. (1999). Earth. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (pp. 272-273). (See

above).

Münnich, M. M. (2013). The God Resheph in the Ancient Near East. Tübingen, Germany: Mohr

Siebeck.

NJPS (2003). JPS Hebrew-English Tanakh (2nd edition). Philadelphia: Jewish Publication

Society.

Pardee, D. (1999). Eloah. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (pp. 285-288). (See

above).

Pardee, D. & Xella, P. (1999). Mountains-and-Valleys. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in

the Bible (p. 604-605). (See above).

Roberts, J. J. M. (1991). Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah. Louisville, Kentucky: Westminster/

John Knox Press.

Van der Toorn, K. (1999). Yahweh. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (pp.

910-919). (See above).

SHORT PAPER TITLE 20

Wyatt, N. (1999). Qeteb. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (pp. 673-674). (See

above).

Xella, P. (1999). Haby. In Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible (p. 377). (See above).
SHORT PAPER TITLE 21

Footnotes

1
See discussion of Haak, pp. 5-8.

2
See Haak, chapter 3, pp. 107-149 for a very detailed discussion of Habakkuk’s setting.

3
Good, pp. 348-353.

4
See Good, p. 345. Also see material cited in Münnich, p. 219, n. 20.

5
Roberts, p. 84.

6
See material cited in Good, p. 345, n. 2. Also Roberts, p. 81, and p. 148 where he claims 3:2 “fits very

well after 2:20”, and Münnich, p. 219.

7
Good, p. 353.

8
See Good, pp. 353-354, who notes that it is “much better suited to liturgical purposes than is the

conclusion of v. 16”. He also posits that its agricultural themes may be related to the psalm’s liturgical use on

Shavuot. However, he also (rightly) expresses reservations as to this view.

9
Good, p. 5.

10
Good, pp. 5-8. See also his reconstruction of the text on pp. 54-55.

11
Münnich, p. 145.

12
Münnich, p. 266.

13
Münnich, pp. 215-237.

14
Van der Toorn, DDD, p. 918.
15
Van der Toorn, DDD, p. 917.

16
See Roberts’ comments on v. 8, p. 155.

17
Haak, p. 79.

18
Haak, p. 90, n. 403. Gordon, pp. 129-132. Good, pp. 28-29, translates: “Twilight will be like daylight. /

He has [two] horns from his hand, / And there he gave them his strength.”

19
Haak, p. 83, following Albright’s suggestion of combining tahat aven to taht’un. See material cited in n.

411 there.

20
Roberts, pp. 129, 138-139.

21
No one exactly knows what omer means here (see Haak, p. 95, for an innovative translation based on
SHORT PAPER TITLE 22

O’Conner, cited in n. 534). I am not convinced by any of the alternative derivations than from the root ‘-m-r and the

meaning of this phrase may be irrevocable.

22
Roberts, p. 129.

23
In approaching vv. 10-11, I have followed the NJPS alternate reading, as well as both Good (p. 17) and

Haak (p. 92), by putting Shemesh at the end of v. 10 instead of the beginning of v. 11. I find Roberts’ suggestion to

fill in the verse based on a later Greek version unconvincing (p. 141).

24
Here I have followed Haak’s translation, though it should be emphasised that this verse is more or less

intelligible.
25
Following Good’s interpretation, pp. 50-51. Haak, pp. 93, 102, “With your ass…”.

26
Haak, pp. 79-78.

27
See a different understanding of the title in Van der Toorn, DDD, p. 917.

28
Good, pp. 35-36, where he supports Abright’s repointing to yield bikrov. See also Haak, p. 79, n. 315,

who sites BDB in disagreement of Good’s assertion.

29
Pardee, DDD, p. 287, suggests this reading but has his reservations, asserting “In the context of Hab 3

one would not wish to doubt that the reference is monotheistic and to Yahweh”—a claim I take issue with in the next

section.

30
Pardee, DDD, p. 287.

31
See Hutter, DDD, pp. 272-3.

32
Haak, pp. 86-89, where he also discusses a variety of other interpretations. Passage cited is on p. 86.

33
S.v. karnayim.

34
See Good, pp. 38-40.

35
Roberts, pp. 128, 134.

36
Good, p. 39.

37
Especially in Egypt and Emar. See Münnich, pp. 186-187.

38
See note 18.

39
See discussion in Xella, DDD, p. 377.

40
He refers to two(!) mentions in Ebla. Münnich, p. 217.
SHORT PAPER TITLE 23

41
Roberts, p. 85. For discussion of this interpretation, see below.
42
See Roberts’ commentaries on vv. 8 and 12, pp. 155-156.

43
E.g. Isaiah 51.

44
Roberts, p. 156.

45
Enuma Elish V, 54-55.

46
Good, pp. 30-31.

47
DDD, p. 605.
48
As Wyatt says in passing, DDD, p. 674.

49
See Good’s observation on pp. 37-38 that nogah is never used for light during the day.

50
Roberts, pp. 129, 144 (n. 72), 157.

51
See Haak, p.99, n. 471.

52
See Rashi, s.v. Eloah mi-Teiman yavo and ff. This is also related to why it is read on Shavuot.

53
See his off-hand comment in DDD, p. 232.

54
Münnich, pp. 216-219.

55
Münnich, p. 187.

56
Münnich, p. 155.

57
Münnich, pp. 148-150.

58
Del Olmo Lete, DDD, p. 232.

59
See note 44.