Lange Commentary on the Holy Scriptures
BOOK OF HABAKKUK
PASTOR AT ST. GERTRAUD, AND PROFESSOR OF OLD TESTAMENT THEOLOGY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN
TRANSLATED AND ENLARGED
CHARLES ELLIOTT, D. D.,
PROFESSOR OF BIBLICAL LITERATURE IN THE PRESBYTERIAN THEOLOGICAL SEMINARY AT CHICAGO, ILL
I. Contents and Form
THE first part of this book, chaps. 1 and 2, contains a dialogue between God and the prophet, which, not only by its form, but also by the pure elevation of its style, is closely connected with Micah 6 and 7. It takes from the empirical present only its starting-point, in order to exhibit immediately the great course of coming events, according to its nature, as an embodiment of the fundamental ideas of the kingdom of God. The dialogue treats, in two gradations, of God’s plan with Israel and with the heathen secular power, which is here pointed out with clear precision as the Chaldæan, 1:6. Israel’s sin must be punished by a severe and powerful judgment, and the scourge is already raised, which will fall upon the generation living at present (1:1–11). But it is a revelation of the righteousness of Jehovah, which is to be executed, and which will strike the destroyer as well as every sinful being upon earth. At the last the earth shall be filled with the knowledge of the glory of Jehovah and keep silence before Him. With this the prophet consoles believers (1:12–2:20). As in Micah, so here also the dialogue falls into a hymn artistically constructed after the manner of the Psalms (Hab 3.), which, according to the model of the old sacred national songs, and in the form (which from these has become customary) of a wonderfully glorious theophany, celebrates the judgment of God upon the heathen, and, in connection with it, the salvation of Israel.
By the liturgical additions at the beginning and the end this hymn was appointed for public performance in the temple; as may be seen also from the recurrence of the Selah, which is characteristic of liturgical hymns.
As concerns the form of the prophetical language of this book, “it is classical throughout, full of rare and select words and turns, which are to some extent exclusively his own, whilst his view and mode of presentation bear the seal of independent force and finished beauty. Notwithstanding the violent rush (which is yet more regular than in Nahum) and lofty soaring of the thoughts, his prophecy forms a finely organized and artistically rounded whole.” (Delitzsch.) But the lyric ring of the language throughout, in which he unites the power of Isaiah and the tender feeling of Jeremiah, is peculiar to himself.
[Keil, Introduction to the Old Testament, vol. i. p. 414: “The prophecy of Habakkuk is clothed in a dramatic form, man questioning and complaining, God answering with threatening. It announces as nearest of all, the impending fearful judgment by the instrumentality of the Chaldæans on the theocracy because of its prevailing moral corruption (Hab 1.); and next to this, in a fivefold woe, the downfall of this arrogant, violent, God-forgetting, and idolatrous offender (Hab 2.); and it concludes with the answer of the believing Church to this twofold divine revelation,—that is to say, with a prophetico-lyric echo of the impressions and feelings produced in the prophet’s mind—(1) by these two divine relations when pondered in the light of the Lord’s great doings in times past [Hab 3] (2).”
“(1) Comp. the admirable development of the contents of this prophecy, and of its organic articulation as it forms an indivisible whole, in Delitzsch, Comm. There is now no more need of refuting the contrary opinions (proceeding from utter want of understanding) of Kalinsky, p. 145 ff.; of Friedrich in Eichhorn, Allg. Biblioth., 10. p. 420 ff.; of Horst, VisionenHab., pp. 31–32; of Rosenmüller, of Maurer, and others, that the book contains various discourses of various dates. The same may be said of the assertion of Hamaker, p. 16 ff., that the first discourse is only a fragment.
“(2) Hence it leans in manifold ways on the older songs and psalms, and reproduces their thoughts (Deut. 33:2; Judg. 5:4, 5; Ps. 68:8, 9), but especially on Ps. 77:16–21; comp. Delitzsch, Hab., p. 118 ff.”—C. E.]
The unity of the book, which the exegesis will hereafter have to confirm, is shown by the very statement of the contents. If we then inquire concerning the circumstances, under which the prophecy arose, we must reject, at the outset, the arbitrary attempts at division into parts by Rosenmuller, and Maurer, according to whom a chronological intercalation, namely, the invasion of the Chaldæans, should be made between chaps, 1. and 2. The dialogue is continued beyond the beginning of Hab 2. Also for the gradual chronological progress, which Hitzig finds indicated in the book (that the enemy is approaching, Hab 1; that he is present, Hab 3.), there is neither a firm support, nor a psychological possibility of conceiving it. The [command to] “Keep silence before Jehovah” (2:20), is evidently an introduction to the hymn, in which the prophecy culminates. While the woes 2:6 if., which do not exhibit the judgment itself, but its necessity, are still sounding over the earth, the world is summoned to listen to Him, whose coming the hymn announces.
One may accordingly, without danger of error, assume a single point of time for the composition. But when is this to be sought? Finding that Habakkuk puts emphasis on that which is unexpected and wonderful in the announcement, which he (1:5) certainly utters with great stress, many interpreters have been induced to maintain, that he must have prophesied at a time, when there was not even the most distant suspicion that any calamity was to be apprehended from the Chaldæans. Now in 2 Kings 21:10 ff. (comp. 2 Chron. 33:10), it is expressly stated, that under Manasseh (698–643), the successor of Hezekiah, the prophets announced the approach of a terrible calamity, at which the ears of the people should tingle. Among these prophets accordingly Habakkuk may be numbered; and this may be the situation [of things] in which he wrote. This opinion of Wahl, Jahn, Hävernick, and others, Keil also declares the most probable. But should the incredible circumstance of the prophecy lie in the fact that it speaks of the Chaldæans, then to refer its date to the time of Manasseh would not be sufficiently in keeping with this view. Already under Hezekiah, his predecessors (Micah 4:10, and Isaiah 39:23, 13) had foreseen the power of the Chaldæans. The incredibility lies rather in the presently impending approach of the Chaldæans: and the narrative (Jer. 36:9–32), proves that this, until immediately before their first invasion of Palestine, in the time of Jehoiakim, was considered something incredible and not to be announced. And in the calamity predicted by the prophets in the time of Manasseh, the chronicler perceives already the expedition of Assarhaddon (2 Chron. 33:11; compare 2 Chron. 33:10). (Compare, moreover, Introd. to Nahum, p. 4 f., and Movers, Chronik., p. 327 ff.) Moreover the energy of the prophetic words (1:5) is a peculiarity of prophetic diction, and affords no ground for supporting the historical date; but rather the adjoined clause, “in your days,” which is to be read in the same verse, and which has here a special emphasis (comp. Ez. 12:25) in the mouth of the prophet, proves, as Delitzsch acknowledges, that this prophecy must be placed considerably nearer the catastrophe of which it treats, than the reign of Manasseh, which was separated from the invasion of the Chaldæans by more than a generation. It is besides hardly conceivable, how just in the time of Manasseh, in which the worship of Jehovah was forced to give way to idolatry (2 Chron. 33:4 f.; 2 Kings 21:4 f.), Habakkuk should have composed the psalm, Hab 3, for the public service: it [the psalm] rather presupposes that the ecclesiastical reforms of Josiah (641–610) had already taken root in the popular life. Add to this, finally, that the Chaldæans are not merely mentioned, but their wild appearance and their vast success are described with an exactness and fullness, from which it is evident that the powerful nation was, in the time of the prophet, already on the way and had acquired for itself a terrible name. This last argument contravenes the opinion of Vitringa, Delitzsch, and others, who would like to place this prophecy at least in the age of Josiah. Further, the description of the public life, with which Habakkuk (1:2–4) introduces the announcement of the judgment, is opposed to this second date. For should the prophecy fall in the time of Josiah, it would fall either before, or after his reforms. The former is impossible, since it presupposes, as observed above, the reform of worship. But if it is placed after the reform, then the description of the ruined condition of Israel, could not, as Delitzsch thinks, be so understood that the reforms introduced a time of winnowing and consequently a strong contrast between the godless and the righteous; for Habakkuk says nothing of such a contrast, but he speaks of a perversion of justice, which, in the nature of the case, does not come from below, but from above: his address (1:2 ff.; as also in Hab 2:9 ff. again) is directed against those in high authority. Finally the words, “in your days,” if spoken in the time of Josiah, would be in direct contradiction to the prophecy of the prophetess Huldah (2 Kings 22:18 ff.), according to which the calamity was not to fall upon Judah in the lifetime of Josiah. Nothing remains, therefore, but to place this prophecy in the reign of Jehoiakim (610–599). So De Wette, Ewald, Umbreit, Hitzig, Bäumlein, Bleck.
Indeed all the circumstantial evidence is also in favor of this time. Babylon had suddenly risen as from nothing [dem Nichts, the nothing, Kenōma—C. E.], in the time of Jehoiakim, by the overthrow of Nineveh (comp. Introd. to Nahum 4.), to the summit of power. It was a spectacle in which Nahum also perceived a stupendous act of God. Taking advantage of the complications in Mesopotamia, Necho King of Egypt had already previously set out, seized the kingdoms on the Mediterranean, and had deprived King Josiah, who manfully opposed him in the battle of Megiddo (6:10), of throne and life; had also carried away Jehoahaz, his legitimate successor to the throne, into Egypt, and put in his place Jehoiakim, a weak and impious man, as King over Judah (2 Kings 23:37–24:4). His expeditions advanced continually onward, whilst the Babylonian and Median armies were held fast before Nineveh; and already had he pushed forward to the Euphrates, when Nineveh fell. Immediately Nebuchadnezzar marched against him with his Babylonians exulting in victory, annihilated, in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, B. C. 605, the Egyptian power at Carchemish (Circesium) on the Euphrates (Jer. 46:2; Jos., Ant., 10:6, 1), and pursued the fugitives even to the borders of Egypt. That during this career of victory Jehoiakim also, the creature of Necho, did not escape without trouble, is not merely probable and to be inferred from the direction of the march, but by the numerous allusions in Jeremiah, as well as by 2 Kings 24:1, and Dan. 1:2, certain. (That Daniel mentions the third year of Jehoiakim instead of the fourth, has its ground probably in a different system of calculation; comp. Niebuhr, Gesch. Ass. u. Babels S., 327 [Hist. Ass. and Babylon, p. 327]).
It is now certain that Habakkuk prophesied before this invasion of the Babylonians, for as yet Jerusalem is in a state of secure and godless infatuation (1:2 ff.). Just as certain is it that his prophecy does not refer to that alone: it embraces the whole Chaldæan oppression, which found its consummation in the year 588. But if we inquire more specially for the definite time of his prophecy within the years 610–605, then it, as also the scene described Jer. 36:9 ff., must be placed in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, and immediately before the battle of Carchemish. Only from this situation, in which the distress is certainly already approaching (comp. the fast, Jer. 36:9, which was at all events appointed upon Necho’s1 arrangement), a situation in which the decisive blow had not yet fallen, there being still good confidence in Jerusalem, can both the following circumstances be understood: namely, that Habakkuk proclaims his message as something incredible—(it was indeed incredible that the power of the Egyptians regarded, since the battle of Megiddo, as invincible, should be overthrown by this people of yesterday)—and that Jehoiakim causes the similar message of Jeremiah to be destroyed as treason—(had the battle of Carchemish been fought, then the message of Jeremiah was not only no treason, but such as one might expect); and also, that Habakkuk had sufficient reason to describe the Chaldæans in the manner in which he has done, 1:6 ff. Compare on 1:11. That in the time between Josiah’s death and the fall of Necho such a state of things, as described in Hab. 1:2 ff. must have existed in Jerusalem, is considering the character of Jehoiakim, the Vassal-prince, who was reigning illegally [wider das Recht, contrary to right], more than probable. And as the old laconic rabbinical document (Seder Olam rabba, c. 24) records the great deeds of Nebuchadnezzar; “in the first year he overthrew Nineveh, in the second, Jehoiakim;” it thus affords a beautiful parallel to the consecutive prophecies of Nahum and Habakkuk.
Against the date just given, Delitzsch urges the coincidences between Habakkuk and the prophecies of Zephaniah and Jeremiah written in the time of Josiah. In relation to Zephaniah, only the passage, 2:20, comp. Zeph. 1:7, “keep silence before the Lord,” comes into consideration. However the proof based upon conformity of sound is always two-edged, therefore relatively without edge. If it must be conceded that Zephaniah has very many passages from older prophets, it does not at all follow from this, that he must be pressed down to such a measure of dependence, that he has nothing original, and that wheresoever he coincides with another prophet he is always the borrower. Or will Delitzsch on account of Zeph. 1:18 (comp. Ezek. 7:19), make Ezekiel also prophecy before Zephaniah? And if Delitzsch urges the more detailed form of the sentence [des Spruchs, sentence, judgment], in Habakkuk as a proof of originality, then there is no ground to deviate, in Habakkuk, from the common principle of criticism, that the briefer passage has for itself the prejudice in favor of the higher antiquity. On the one hand, it is not in the fact that he would generally be absolutely original, which Delitzsch himself in regard to the passages 2:1–13; 3:18 (which might be easily multiplied) (comp. Micah 3:10; Is. 11:9; Micah 7:7), must grant; and on the other hand, he is indeed also in regard to other prophets a borrower, who enriches what he borrows; comp., e. g., 2:15 ff. with Nah. 3:11; 2:1–4 with Is. 28:16. If finally Delitzsch thinks that he can draw a proof for the higher antiquity of Habakkuk from the fact that in Zephaniah a decline of the prophetic originality is manifested, still this subjective observation even according to the opinion of Delitzsch does not proceed upon a chronological ground—for he can, at the most, fix a difference of six years between their prophecies—but upon an individual [ground]. Just as the coincidences with Zephaniah, so also those with Jeremiah are capable of a double turn. There is no reason whatever, why the leopards (Hab. 1:8), should be more original than the eagles (Jer. 4:13), and why the wolves of the desert (Jer. 5:6), should be later than the evening wolves (Hab. 1:8), which besides referring to Ps. 59. are perhaps borrowed from Zeph. 3:3.
But the argument, which, in the opinion of Delitzsch, is most conclusive, namely, that if Habakkuk had predicted the Chaldæan catastrophe so long before it happened, a proof of the inspiration of his prophecy is derived from this prophetic power, is not, on several grounds, determinative. First, because it is an argument ex utilitate. Next, because it does not at all need this: we have an argument belonging here in Is. 39., which even invalidates the one offered by Delitzsch, since Habakkuk would take up again and continue Isaiah. Finally, from the fact that prophets predicted future events long beforehand (to deny which in these days is nothing new), a proof of inspiration is derived only for him who is entirely skeptical in regard to the divination of the heathen and its verification, which is not seldom elevated above all opposition. The proof of inspiration lies not merely in the gift of foretelling indididual temporal events, but much deeper. (Comp. Düsterdieck, De Rei Propheticæ, in V. T. natura ethica, Gott., 1852). If Habakkuk had written only the single declaration 2:4, it would have afforded a stronger proof of his inspiration to him who believes, than if he had foretold, in the time of Abraham, the fall of Babylon. But to him who is not open to conviction, even the proof from foretelling events, at such a distance, is of no value, as Delitzsch himself might see from the contemptible treatment which his honest labor had to endure from Hitzig. Comp. infra, p. 15.
[According to the contents of the prophecy, Habakkuk prophesied before the invasion of Palestine by the Chaldæans.
1. Vitringa, Delitzsch, Küper, and others refer his prophecy to the time of Josiah, between 650 and 627 before Christ:—
(a) According to Hab 1:5, about 20–30 years before the Chaldæan invasion (Delitzsch);
(b) According to Hab 2:20, compared with Zeph. 1:7, shortly before Zephaniah (Küper, Caspari);
(c) According to Hab 1:8 compared with Jer. 4:13 and 5:6, before the appearance of Jeremiah, consequently before the 13th year of Josiah (Keil, Introd.).
2. According to some Rabbins, Witsius, Buddeus, Carpzov, Wahl, Kofod, Jahn, Hävernick, Keil (Comm.), Habakkuk prophesied in the time of Manasseh.
3. According to Stickel, Jäger, Knobel, Maurer, Ewald, De Wette, Kleinert, during the advance of Nebuchadnezzar, in the time of Jehoiakim.
4. According to Eichhorn, Bertheau, Justi, Wolf, and others, in the time of the devastation of the land of Judah by the Chaldæans, so that the prophecy of Habakkuk would be only a vaticinium ex eventu. Hertwig’s Tabellen. C. E.]
[Lenormant and Chevallier date the prophecy of Habakkuk in the fourth year of Jehoiakim, when Necho, King of Egypt, was defeated by Nebuchadnezzar at Carchemish. Vol. 1. p. 186.—C. E.]
If Habakkuk, as we have shown, prophesied under Jehoiakim, then of course he could have been still living, when Daniel was cast into the lions’ den. Notwithstanding the apocryphal narrative of [Bel and the] Dragon, which (ver. 33 ff.) causes him to be carried by an angel to Babylon, to the martyr, has, judging from its whole character, little probability, yet it is so far interesting, as it shows how even the old Jewish tradition removes the ministry of the prophet to the very closest proximity to the, Chaldæan catastrophe. Moreover, Delitzsch also thinks that the superscription of this apocryphon in the LXX. (Cod. Chisianus): ’Εκ προφητείας ’Αμβακοὺμ υἱοῦ ’Ιησοῦ ἐκ τῆζ φύλης Λευί̈, can be turned to good account for the purpose of determining the circumstances of the prophet’s life. He combines it with the rubric at the end of the psalm (Hab 3:19) in which the prophet directs that the hymn, when sung, be accompanied by his stringed instrument. From that circumstance Delitzsch (and after him Keil) concludes that Habakkuk must have been officially authorized to participate in the temple-music, and must accordingly have been a Levite. But this does not follow from the notice 3:19; we read that King Hezekiah also, who was no Levite, declared that he would sing in the temple with his stringed instrument (Is. 38:20); consequently this practice in public worship was not confined to the Levites. Thus the assumption is based simply upon that direction [that the hymn should be accompanied in its performance by his stringed instrument], and is the more questionable, as it may possibly owe its origin to some ancient, who led the way to the conclusion of Delitzsch: another tradition refers Habakkuk to the tribe of Simeon. (Compare this and similar synagogal-Christian traditions in the careful critical collection of Delitzsch, De Habacuci Proph. vita et Ætate). Whether the grave of Habakkuk, which continued to be pointed out in the days of Eusebius and Hieronymus (Onom., ed. Parsow et Parthey, 128 ff.) between Keila and Gabatha, was the true one, cannot be affirmed with certainty.
For more certain data concerning the circumstances of his life, we are consequently directed entirely to his book; and this furnishes us with no information, apart from the characteristic condition of the time, except his name and the notice that he was a prophet (1:1; 3:1). The name Habakkuk is formed, according to an elsewhere occurring derivation, by the reduplication of the third radical and an inserted shurck (כעצוּץ שׁפרוֹר, etc., Olsh., sec. 187 b from the root חבק, to embrace. (Compare Luther, below.) The Masoretic punctuation exhibits the phenomenon common to all languages, that proper names frequently deviate, in the manner of writing them, from the rule of the customary orthography. According to the analogy of the related forms it should be pointed חַבְקוּקּ Besides daghesh forte euphonicum has not always been read in the ק, but, e. g., by the LXX in the ב; hence the rendering ’Αμβακούμ, in which it [ב] is represented by μ, a sound more euphonious to the Greek. The final μ of this form is repeated from the close of the antepenult, because it was dissonant to the Greek ear to begin and end a syllable with the same consonant. In the same way, בַעַל זְבוּב has been rendered Βεελζεβουλ (Hitzig).
IV. Place in the Organism of Scripture
As Nahum is important in the succession of prophecy in that he concludes the Assyrian series; so is Habakkuk in that he (with Jeremiah) begins the Babylonian (comp. Obadiah, p. 11). The description of the Chaldæan runs parallel with that of the Assyrian (Is. 5.) On the other hand, Hab 3 fits into the series of the Old Testament theophanies, which, resting upon the first coming of Jehovah to give the law, describe his second coming to vindicate it, and it forms a conclusion to this method [of describing his coming]. From the time of the exile onward the coming of God to judgment is represented no more in the form of the theophany, but in that of the apocalypse.
But alongside of the external importance of the book there is an internal one. The ground lines of the kingdom of God, as they come to light in the divine economy of the world, are in few prophets so strongly marked as in Habakkuk. The character, in which the world-power enters into the circle of God’s administration of his kingdom and becomes an object of the judgment, is fully delineated in the three sentences, that are complementary to each other, namely, from him emanate his right and his majesty (1:7); his soul is puffed up, it is not right in him (2:4); he is guilty, whose power is his god (1:11). The sovereign insolence of self-glory, which in pure arrogance puts itself in the place of God as judge upon earth, is the cause of the judgment: thereby all the temporal manifestations of that which is opposed to God, from Gen. 11. until the time of the end are judged. Again, the characteristics of the fate of the kingdom are given in the sentences: the just shall live by his steadfast faith (2:4); I must wait calmly for the day of affliction (3:16); I will rejoice in God my salvation (3:18). The way of him, who stands fast upon the Word of God,—a way marked by humility and fidelity—must lead to salvation. It is the mutual relation of the stability of the divine word (2:3) and of the stability of him who perseveres in it, whereby the solidarity2 between God and the subjects of his kingdom, which is indicated by the name קְרוֹש יִשְׂ־ָאֵל (1:12), and whereby the impotence and self-destructive character of all attacks directed against this mutual covenant, are characterized. But from the spiritual nature of these definitions [Bestimmungen, defined objects] arises a spiritual limitation of the idea of Israel. It is no longer the Israel according to the flesh, to whom the promise avails in its full extent: they [Israel according to the flesh] are the object of the Divine judgment, as well as the Babylonians (1:2 ff.; 2:9 ff.); but it is the Israel according to the spirit, the just by faith, who are separated by the judgment out of the mass of external Israel (1:12). With clear penetration Paul, when it was his object to place in the light this difference in its New Testament fulfillment, set his foot directly upon the Old Testament foundation of this prophet. One does wrong to the epoch-forming significance of this prophet, if he restricts his book merely to the import of a book of consolation. With similar precision is the character also of the judgment of purification delineated: Thou, rock, hast appointed him, the enemy, for instructive chastisement (1:12). And out of the old conception of the holiness of God, according to which it (holiness) is his relation to the elect people (1:12), the new conception, which is ethical in its elements, struggles forth. Thou canst not look calmly upon evil (1:13). Next to Isaiah 40. ff. Habakkuk is the most powerful evangelist among the prophets.
Concerning the coincidences with earlier prophets compare 2. above. They are more numerous than in Nahum, however proportionally few. On the other hand, a rich acquaintance with the Psalms is a characteristic of this prophet, as it is of Micah and Nahum, a characteristic corresponding to the lyric character of the book. On this point compare the Exegetical Exposition, Hab 3.
His place in the Canon is justified not only by the close relationship of the contents to those of Nahum, but also by the inscription: just as the massaim are placed together in the book of Isaiah, so also are they in the book of the Minor Prophets. Luther3: Habakkuk has a right name for his office. For Habakkuk means an embracer, or one who takes another in his arms and presses him to his heart. This he does in his prophecy: he embraces his people and takes them in his arms, i. e., he comforts them and holds them up, as one embraces a weeping child or person, to quiet him with the assurance, that, if God will, he will be better.
SEPARATE COMMENTARIES. Wolfg. Fabr. Capito, Enarrationes in Proph. Hab., Argent, 1526. J. D. Grynæsus, Hypomnemoneumata in Hab., Bas., 1582, 8vo. Ant. Agelli, Comm. in P. H., Ant., 1597. S. V. Til, Phosphorus Propheticus S. Mosis et Habacuci Vaticinia, etc., Lugd. Bat., 1700, 4to. Abarbanel, Comm. rabb. Hebr. et Lat., ed. St. Sprecher, Helmst., 1709. J. G. Kalinsky, Habacuci et Nahumi Vaticinia illustr., Vratisl., 1748, 4to. A. Chrysander, Genaue Uebersetzung und buchstäblicher Verstand des P. Hab. [An Exact Translation and Literal Sense of the P. Hab.], Rint., 1752, 4to. C. F. Stäudlin, Hosea, Nahum und Habakuk ausgelegt [Hos., Nah., and Hab. explained], Stuttg., 1786. F. G. Wahl, Der Prophet Habakuk übersetzt und erklärt [The Prophet Habakkuk translated and interpreted], Ham., 1790. Birger Kofod, Chabacuci Vatic, Havn., 1792. G. C. Horst, Die Visionen Habakuks [The Visions of Habakkuk], Gotha, 1798. K. W. Justi, Der Prophet Habahuk übersetzt und erklärt [The Prophet Habakkuk translated and interpreted], Lpz., 1821. A. A. Wolff, Der Prophet Habakuk [The Prophet Habakkuk], Darmst., 1822. G. L. Bäumlein, Comm. de Habacuci Vaticinio, Maulbr., 1840, 4to. F. Delitzsch, Der Prophet Habakuk ausgelegt [The Prophet Habakkuk interpreted], Lpz., 1843. Jo. Gumpach, Der Prophet Habakuk nach dem genau revidirten Text erklärt [The Prophet Habakkuk interpreted according to the accurately revised text], Münch., 1860. A. Schröder, on chap, 3., Diss. in Cant. Habacuci. Gera., 1787. Ch. F. Schnurrer, Diss. phil. ad Carmen Hab. 3., Tub., 1786, 4to. J. G. Herder, Gebet Habakuks des Propheten, im Geist der hebr. Poesie [Prayer of the Prophet Habakkuk, in the spirit of Hebrew Poetry], WW., 1827, 2:176 ff. K. G. Anton, Cap. III. Hab. Versio, etc., Gorlic., 1810, 4to. Stickel, Prolusio ad Cap. III. Hab., Neustadt, 1827. L. Hirzel, Ueber die hist. Deutungvon Hab. III:3–15; in Winer u. Engelhardt, Neues krit. Journal [Concerning the Historical Interpretation of Hab. 3:3–15; in Winer and Engelhardt, New Critical Journal], 1827, 7., 4to. Sommer, Bibl. Abhandlungen [Biblical Dissertations], 1:1 ff.
SEPARATE TREATISES. J. G. Abicht, De Vaticinio Habac., Gedan, 1722. F. C. A. Hänlein, Symb. Critt. ad interpretat. Hab., Erl., 1795. A. C. Ranitz, Introd. in Hab. Vat., Lps., 1808. Valentin, Comm. in Hab. capp. prima Spec, Hal., 1834. F. Delitzsch, De Hab. Proph. Vita atque Æ ate, Lps., 1842, ed. 2; Ueber Abfassungszeit und Plan der Prophetie Habakuks in Rud. u. Guer. Zeitschrift [Concerning the Date and Plan of the Prophecy of Habakkuk, in Rud. and Guer. Journal], 1842, 1. Dav. Chytræus, Lectiones in Proph. Hab., in his works, tom. 2. [Helv. Garthii, Comm. in Proph. Hab., Vitebergæ, 1605. G. A. Ruperti, Explicatio, cap. i. et ii. Chab., in the Commentatt. Theol, ed. Velthusen, Kuinoel, and Ruperti, 3. p. 405 ff. Moerner, Hymnus Hab. vers. ac notis phil. et crit. illustr., Upsalæ, 1791, 4to. B. Ludwig, Translations and Expositions [of Hab.], Frankfort, 1779. See Keil’s Introd. to the O. T.—C. E.]
[There is no intimation in Jer. 36:9 that Necho had anything to do with the fast. See Lange’s Com. on Jer. 36:9.—C. E.]
[Solidarity: the mutual of obligation of all to each and to all.—C. E.]
Luther’s Commentary on Habakkuk (Erfurt, 1526) affords the historical interest, in that it is directed throughout in a polemic manner, against the nobility and the bishops, who barbarously made the most of their victory over the insurrectionary peasants. In the extracts given below this reference is of course left out.