“IS YOUR RAGE AGAINST THE RIVERS, YOUR WRATH AGAINST THE SEA?

”
STORM-GOD IMAGERY IN HABAKKUK 3

Koert van Bekkum

1. INTRODUCTION

H kk k’ P H 3) is generally acknowledged to be a poetic masterpiece. It opens with

sentences expressing human distress in the face of divine judgment (Hab 3:2; see also v. 16) and
i k l i “I ill j i i YHWH,” i land will lay
in waste (Hab 3:17 18). The lines between these utterances of fear, trembling and hope describe a
theophany of YHWH in amazing majestic language. The poetic imagery in this passage emphasizes
the terrifying manifestation of a raging divine warrior on his chariot and reminds the reader of
YHWH as a rider of the clouds. The consternation caused by his appearance is depicted as a gigantic
. T li i G ’ j li i i k l k l .S
moon stand still. Heavens, earth and the underworld get in motion. Thunder and lightning open
the earth. Water comes out of the deep, mountains tremble and the great primeval flood swirls
all because YHWH is coming for the deliverance of his people (Hab 3:3 15).1
The question is how these images are to be understood. Can the depictions be qualified as
metaphorical language, so that YHWH i i li i i , l “ ”
are mentioned? Or does the personification of water in similar descriptions of the Flood (Tĕ ō ),
2

the Sea (Yā ), the River (Nā ā ), the sea monsters (Tannin), and of Leviathan and Rahab reflect an
ancient Israelite perception of the powers of the waters that is more personal in character and
refers to a common ancient Near Eastern awareness of a mythical past?3 Despite its complexity, the
H li i i .I i i i “ i
El T ” H : , ll-known biblical motif connecting YHWH to a south called Sinai,
Paran, Edom, and Teman.4 This tradition appears also in the 7th century BCE inscriptions from the

1
Cf. A.S. van der Woude, Habakuk, Zefanja (PredOT), Nijkerk 1978, 70.
2
E.g. Ps 114:3,5 (the sea flees before YHWH).
3
E.g. Job 26:8 13 (God having bound up the water in the clouds, divided the sea and pierced the serpent); Ps
74:13 17 (YHWH having broken the sea, shattered the heads of the sea monsters and of Leviathan, having
cleft the fountain and the brook, established the light of the sun and set the borders of the earth); Ps 89:10 11
(YHWH God Sebaoth is ruling the sea, having crushed Rahab); Ps 104:26 (YHWH created the Leviathan as a
toy); Ps 148:7 (the sea monsters live to praise YHWH); Isa 51:9 10 (YHWH having cut Rahab in pieces and
pierced the dragon, having dried up the sea and the waters of the deep).
4
Deut 33:2; Judg 5:4; Ps 68:8 9,18. For elements in Hab 3:2 7 alluding to poetic descriptions and narratives
regarding YHWH’ l i Si i, S l Aḥi , “T Si i T i P l H kk k,”
in: Chaim Cohen et al. (eds.), Birkat Shalom. Studies in the Bible, Ancient Near Eastern Literature, and
Postbiblical Judaism, Winona Lake, IN 2008, 225 232.
 i l N I li i K ill Aj i Si i , i i
“YHWH T .” A l i i l , i lik l I l’ li
from Egypt and to YHWH’ M Si i, l i i i i l
5
religious-historical background. The passage in the poem attracting most attention, however, is
the d i i ‘El ’ ‘YHWH’ in imagery that is also prominent in the mythology of Canaan
as known from the tablets and pictures that have been excavated since 1929 in Rash Shamra, the
location of the Late Bronze Canaanite city of Ugarit. The poetic forms and style of Hebrew poetry
parallel those of the Ugaritic epic traditions.6 Moreover, it seems that the depiction of YHWH and
his entourage in this ancient Israelite poem resembles the portrait of the Canaanite storm-god
Baal, who is also in combat with the waters and who is accompanied by lesser divine beings.7
Several lines within the theophany of Hab 3:3 15 even give the impression of mentioning these
gods by name:

‫וְ נֹגַ ּ ָכאֹר ִת ְהיֶ ה‬
ֹ‫ַק ְר ַניֹם ִמיָ דֹ ל‬
‫וְ ָשם ֶח ְביֹן ֻעזֹה‬
‫ְל ׇפוָ יו יֵ ֶלך ָד ֶבר‬
‫גליו׃‬
ָ ‫וְ יֵ ֵצא ֶר ֶשף ְל ַר‬
There was a brightness like sunlight, (4aA)
rays8 were coming out of his hand. (4aB)
And there was a hiding of his power (Hebyon), (4b)9
before him went pestilence (Deber), (5a)
fever (Resheph) marched behind him. (5b)

‫ֲה ְבנְ ָה ִרם ָח ָרה יהוה‬
ָ‫ִאם ַבנְ ָה ִרים ַא ֶפ‬
ָ‫ם־ביָ ם ֶע ְב ָר ֶת‬
ַ ‫ִא‬
ָ‫ל־סּסי‬
ֶ ‫ִכי ִת ְר ַכב ַע‬
‫שּעה‬ ָ ְ‫ַמ ְר ְכב ֶֹתיָ י‬
ָ‫ֶעריָ ה ֵהאֹר ַק ְש ֶת‬
‫ְש ֻבעֹת ַמֹּת ָת ֵמר‬
Is it burning against the rivers (Nĕ ā ), o YHWH, (8aA)
is your anger against the rivers (Nĕ ā ), (8aB)
or your wrath against the sea (Yā ), (8aC)
that you ride on your horses, (8bA)
on your chariots of victory? (8bB)
You removed your bow (from its case), (9aA)
you poisoned your seven arrows.10 (9aB)

5
Cf. Exod 15:7 17; Ps 68:5,8 9; Ps 77:15 20. For the discussion, see Karel van der Toorn, Family Religion in
Israel and Babylonia (SHCANE, 7), Leiden 1996, 266 315; Mark S. Smith, The Origins of Biblical Monotheism.
I ’ P B U T , New York, NY 2001, 135 148. For the inscriptions at
K ill Aj , Z M l, Kuntillet Ajrud: An Iron Age II Religious Site on the Judah-Sinai Border,
Jerusalem 2012, 86 135.
6
Cf. e.g. W.G.E. Watson, Traditional Techniques in Classical Hebrew Verse (JSOT.S, 170), Sheffield 1994,
passim; Dennis Pardee, The Ugaritic Texts and the Origin of West Semitic Literary Composition, Oxford 2012,
79 106.
7
See KTU 1.2:IV.13 14,24; 1.3:IV.25 28; 1.4:V.6 9, VII.25 31.
8
F l i “ ” “ ,” F i I. A on, Habakkuk (AB), New York, NY 2001, 297
298.
9
In spite of earlier suggestions, the Masoretic text and traditional translation of 4b can be maintained. In
that case, however, it is most natural to read 4b 5b as a tricolon. Cf. Robert D. Haak, Habakkuk (VT.S, 44),
Leiden 1992, 83, 90.
 ‫ע־א ֶרץ׃‬
ָ ‫נְ ָהרֹת ְת ַב ַק‬
‫ָראָּ יָ ִחילּ ָה ִרים‬
‫זֶ ֶרם ַמיִ ם ָע ָבר‬
ֹ‫נָ ַתן ְתהֹם קֹל‬
‫רֹם יָ ֵדיהּ ָנ ָשה ֶש ֶמש‬
‫יָ ֵר ַח ָע ַמד זְ ֻב ָלה‬
ּ‫ְלאֹר ִח ֶציָ יְ ַה ֵלכ‬
‫ְלנֹגַ ּ ְב ַרק ֲחנִ ֶתיָ׃‬
With rivers (Nĕhārot) you ripped open the earth. (9b)
The mountains saw you and trembled, (10aA)
an overflowing of water passed by, (10aB)
the flood (Tĕ ō ) raised his voice, (10bA)
The sun11 (Shamash) lifted its hands to the height. (10bB)
the moon (Y ē ḥ) stood still in (its) exalted place. (11a)
Your arrows went around like the light, (11bA)
like daylight the lightening of your javelin. (11bB)

ָ‫סּסי‬
ֶ ‫ָד ַר ְכ ָת ַביָ ם‬ You trampled the sea (Yā ) with your horses (15a)
‫ח ֶֹמר ַמיִ ם ַר ִבים‬ churning the many waters. (15b)

So the text bears the suggestion of mentioning six to eight Canaanite divine beings, while verses 8b
l l ll i “Ri l ,” i i i “ i i i ”
that is also found in the tablets from Ugarit.12
These observations are not without consequences for the question to what extent biblical
descriptions of YHWH’ i i l i N E i
battle between the god of the thunderstorm and the sea from which this god emerges victoriously.
At the beginning of the 20th century, many scholars were convinced that Babylon was the source
of this divine combat imagery in the Bible, because of the prominence of the god Tiâmat in the
epic E ū š, and its interpretation by the German scholar Hermann Gunkel in his book
Schöpfung und Chaos in Urzeit und Endzeit (1895).13 The initial publication of the Baal Cycle in 1935,
however, raised doubts about this solution. Now, the Syrian coast also appeared to be a potential
original environment to have produced this motif, mainly for meteorological reasons, although it
“ l i i l i i i i i l
i ” l 14
-god and the sea and its monsters. Soon articles
comparing Habakkuk 3 with the Canaanite myth appeared.15 In 1950 William Foxwell Albright even

10
For this translation, reading ‫ ָת ֵמר‬instead of ‫א ֶֹמר‬, M.L. B é, “Y G U B l : H kk k
: ,” Bib 87 (2006), 75 84.
11
Most scholars rightly argue that ‫ ֶש ֶמש‬is part of 10aB due to its parallel with ‫ יָ ֵר ַח‬in 11a.
12
KTU 1.5:V.6 11. For a nuanced discussion of the Ugaritic epithet ʿ , “Ri l ” B l
its most direct parallel ‫ר ֵֹכב ָב ֲע ָרבֹת‬, “Ri il ” YHWH i P : , W. H , “Ri
Upon the Cloud ,” i : K. van der Toorn, B. Becking, P.W. van der Horst (eds.), Dictionary of Deities and
Demons in the Bible (DDD), 2nd rev. ed., Leiden 1999, 703 705.
13
H. Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos in Endzeit und Urzeit. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung über Gen 1
und Ap Joh 12, Göttingen 1895. Cf. JoAnn Scurlock, Richard H. Beal (eds.), Creation and Chaos. A
R H G ’ Chaoskampf Hypothesis, Winona Lake, IN 2013.
14
W.F. Al i , “Z ûl Y T â iṭ Nahar i C B l S ,” JPOS 16 (1936), 18.
15
T.L.H. G , “T B l R i S .A A i S ii N -M ,” Iraq 4 (1937), 21 32;
U. C , “Il i l iH i i iR S ,” Annuario di studi Ebraici 2 (1935 1937) [1938],
made a reconstruction of what he thought to be the original version of the ancient poem that was
used by the prophet Habakkuk.16 M i l Al i ’ i i H
creating the most explicit evidence of a battle-like conflict between YHWH and Mot are rejected.17
But opinions are still widely divided on the question how the relation between the battle of YHWH
B l i Y i i .I i
to Hab 3, three general options dominate the scene.

1. Baal and Eloah/YHWH i i i l. I l’ i ,

like Hab 3:3 15 make it clear that originally he was the Israelite version of the West Semitic
storm-god Hadad or Baal. Only later, the mythical imagery was historicized under the
influence of a more monotheistic form of Yahwism.18
2. The imagery derives directly from Canaanite tradition, but the texts also reflect a split that
once occurred in Canaanite religion, in which YHWH i i ii i El, k B l’
19
epithets and degrades the other members of the Canaanite pantheon to his warriors.
3. YHWH is described as a warrior king fighting with enemies symbolized by destructive
waters. Accordingly, the texts are primarily metaphorical and reflect battle imagery rather
than a certain Canaanite myth.20

This article reviews these options by bringing together the results of three scholarly debates. First,
the discussion regarding the comparison of biblical and non-biblical texts is moving in a
convergent direction after having considered the postmodern critique of comparative religion.

7 = “C III H kk k R S ,” i : i , Biblical and Oriental Studies. Vol. 2,

Jerusalem 1975, 3 15).
16
W.F. Al i , “T P l H kk k,” i : H.H. R l . , Studies in Old Testament Prophecy,
Edinburgh 1950, 6 18.
17
E.g. the reading ‫מֹת‬, “M ,” i ‫מ ֵבית‬,ִ “ ,” i H : . C . J.F. H l , “M ,” DDD2, 602.
18
E.g. Carola Kloos, Y ’ C S .AC T R I , Amsterdam
Leiden 1986, 94 124, 191 212. Cf. John Day, G ’ C D S .E C
Myth in the Old Testament, Cambridge 1985, 104 109; idem, Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan
(JSOT.S, 265), Sheffield 2000, 226 233; A.R.W. Green, The Storm-God in the Ancient Near East (BJS, 8),
Winona Lake, IN 2003, 258 280; Reinhard Müller, Jahwe als Wettergott. Studien zur althebräischen Kultlyrik
anhand ausgewählter Psalmen (BZAW, 387), Berlin 2008, 237 250.
19
E.g. Johannes de Moor, The Rise of Yahwism. The Roots of Israelite Monotheism (BEThL, 91), Leuven 19972,
198 206, 370 376; Marjo C.A. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds. Ugaritic and Hebrew Descriptions of the Divine
(UBL, 8) Münster 1990, 621 631. A highly influential earlier version of this view was offered by Frank Moore
Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic. Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge, MA 1973,
147 169, and further developed with regard to Hab 3 in Theodore Hiebert, God of My Victory. The Ancient
Hymn in Habakkuk 3 (HSM, 38), Atlanta, GA 1986, 136 139, and Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 23 24,
145 148, 157 159.
20
E.g. David Tsumura, Creation and Destruction. A Reappraisal of the Chaoskampf Theory in the Old
Testament, Winona Lake, IN 2005, 164 ; i , “T ‘C k ’ M i i U ii H
Li ,” i : J -Marc Michaud (ed.), L R ’O C è à ’E .N A
Recherches (Proche-Orient et Littérature Ougarithique), Sherbrooke, Québec 2007, 492 499.
More common ground is reached in asking the question what criteria should be applied in order to
come to a convincing contextual interpretation of individual texts. Second, new interpretations of
E ū š and the Baal Cycle in their own religious-political contexts have greatly contributed to
the understanding of these texts in their own right. Third, it is still very hard to offer a convincing
reading of Hab 3, but some progress has been made after the overreliance on poetic parallelism in
its interpretation has been corrected and more attention has been paid to the organization of the
poem as a whole and to its place in the book of Habakkuk.
The following three sections explore what elements from these scholarly discussions can be used
in looking for a contextual interpretation of YHWH’s rage against the rivers and the sea in Hab 3.
The article closes with some concluding remarks and considerations with regard to the identity of
YHWH.

2. BETWEEN MAGIC AND METHOD

As the history of research shows, comparison of the biblical depictions of YHWH as a divine warrior
and its possible ancient Near Eastern counterparts is extremely complex. It not only involves the
idea of cosmogony and Chaoskampf, as inspired by tablet IV of the Mesopotamian creation story of
E ū š and developed by Gunkel in relation to biblical texts, but is also related to the
interpretation of the Baal Cycle and to other attestations of storm-gods in the Ancient Near East in
l. G k l’ i l i i li l i i G i R l i
to two related events happening at the beginning and at the end of creation, seemed to offer a
convincing explanation of the wide range of monster bashing that is common to many
l i i l .I , , l G k l’ theory not only
made a connection between biblical and Assyriological materials, but also forced them into a
framework that fit perfectly into the Zeitgeist of his own time. Eventually it even turned out to be
one of the steps in the direction of an anti-Semitic interpretation of Scripture in the Babel-Bibel
Streit.21 In a similar way the Ugaritic tablets were interpreted within the well-known Israel-versus-
Canaan paradigm of the Albrightean School, with its depiction of the Canaanite religion being an
extreme fertility cult and a polytheist and mythic religion with its rituals and stories described in
poetry, while the Israelite version having a clear preference for narrative was monotheistic and
historical in nature. This paradigm reflected a certain view of the relation between biblical and
non-biblical material and also served as a cornerstone in a scholarly polemic with the Chicago

21
S L ö , “C C i .H G k l E li i ‘Hi li i
S l,’ A k l i A i l , D i F i ,” i : S l k, B l . , Creation and Chaos,
147 171; Bill T. Arnold, Daniel B. W i , “A C i lR i F i i D li ’ ‘B l Bi l’
L ,” JBL 121 (2002), 441 457.
Oriental Institute about the cultural identity of the United States.22 Accordingly, it was no surprise
that, as more material showed up, this appeared to be an unnatural interpretation of the sources.
No religion in and surrounding the Levant, whether Ugaritic, ancient Israelite or something else,
“ l ili l i i i l i .”23
Interestingly, these observations perfectly reflect the general development in comparative religion
during the last decades of the 20th century. Postmodernism denounced order and ordering
principles in favour of otherness and difference and created a substantial distance between
language and reality. Hence, it was highlighted that cross-cultural comparison is often implicitly
imperialistic, because it takes the compared objects from their original cultural matrix and
construes an abstraction, which often can be deconstructed as a political act aimed at domination.
Needless to say, scholars still trying to connect religion and history rightly countered with the
l i ii i , i “ i i i ,” easily
leads to intellectual relativism, for as a consequence there can be no real communication between
religions, cultures and even among human beings. This, however, did not mean that the issues
raised by the postmodern approach of anthropology and the history of religions were dealt with in
a satisfactory way. Therefore, the methodological question arose, how comparison could be more
than just a kind of magic or an affair of recollection of similarity. 24 In a famous essay addressing this
quest for method in comparative studies, the historian of religion Jonathan Z. Smith intriguingly
refers in a positive way to the Pan-Babylonian School of the Babel-Bibel debate. This school was
definitely wrong on both a factual and a theoretical level. But at the same time its intuition was
right that a good comparison of religious phenomena offers an integration of systematic patterns
and concrete historical situations, and a view of the process of transmission. According to Smith,
the debate showed that it is important

to ground comparison and patterns in a historical process, to develop a complex model of

tradition and the mechanisms for its transmission, to balance generalities and
particularities in a structure which integrates both, and to prioritize comparative
systematics over the catalogue of isolated comparative exempla, and to see the power of
pattern as a device for interpretation. This creates a rich range of possibilities and also
makes us familiar to the problems as well.25

22
S . . N il A. Sil , “P , P li i , P ,” i : T E. L . , Archaeology of Society
in the Holy Land, London 1995, 16 17; Bruce Kuklick, Puritans in Babylon. The Ancient Near East and
American Intellectual Life, Princeton 1996, 176 195.
23
M k S. S i , “R S I li R li i i Li U ii T ,” i : K. L
Younger (ed.), Ugarit at Seventy-Five, 5.
24
For an overview of the debate, see K.C. Patton, B.C. Ray (eds.), A Magic Still Dwells. Comparative Religion in
the Postmodern Age, Berkley, CA 2000.
25
J Z. S i , “I C i A M i D ll ,” i : Imagining Religion. From Babylon to Jonestown,
Chicago, IL 1982, 28 29 (= Patton, Ray [eds.], A Magic Still Dwells, 33 34).
During the last century, the research of ancient Near Eastern religions and cultures indeed
developed slowly in this direction. This already started in 1926 with a dense and often
misunderstood essay by the Assyriologist Benno Landsberger on the Eigenbegrifflichkeit of the
Babylonian world.26 Many years later, it was followed by the development of a two-sided
comparative method and the more fine-tuned and multifocal contextual approach.27 As a result, it
is generally acknowledged nowadays that all textual (and iconographic) phenomena should be
studied in their own context first, while a cross-cultural comparison should reckon with both
differences and similarities, genre, function, geographical and chronological distance, and with
spheres of cultural contact and channels of transmission.28 With regard to literary similarities this
means that they are more often explained successfully by assuming a common cultural heritage or
cognitive environment than by presupposing literary borrowing. Thus, the option that the scribes
of biblical texts made use of Mesopotamian and Canaanite literary motifs and texts cannot be
excluded.29 Yet, it is very important to take a look at the larger cultural environment and to
consider the possible modes of transition before such an hypothesis is raised. Consequently, in
order to avoid the trap of assuming a linear development from one type of literature to another,
the next section concentrates on the spectrum of storm-gods in the Ancient Near East and on the
specific meaning of E ū š and the Baal Cycle in their own cultural and historical context.

3. ANCIENT NEAR EASTERN STORM-GODS IN CONTEXT

The study of ancient Near Eastern religions has revealed that the contacts between its regions and
cultures led to the propinquity and co-existence of diverse religious systems and thus to
identifications of and syncretism between typologically similar deities with different names. In

26
B. L , “Di Ei i li k i l i W l ,” Islamica 2 (1926), 355 372.
27
See e.g. Meir Malul, The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (AOAT,
227), Neukirchen-Vl ; W.W. H ll , “C C : C lA Bi li l
Li ,” i : W.W. H ll et al. (eds.), The Bible in the Light of the Cuneiform Literature (Scripture in
Context, 3), Lewiston, NY 1990, 1 ; i , “S Bi l . A M P i ,” i : W.W. H ll ,
K.L. Younger (eds.), The Context of Scripture. Vol. 3. Archival Documents from the Biblical World, Leiden 2003,
xlix liv.
28
S . . K.L. Y , “T ‘C lM .’ S W S i i R l i ,” i : H ll , Y .,
The Context of Scripture. Vol. 3, xxxv xlii; John H. Walton, Ancient Near Eastern Thought and the Old
Testament. The Conceptual World of Hebrew Bible, Grand Rapids, MI 2006, 19 28.
29
It has even been argued that differences between literary texts falsify the idea of a direct or indirect
relation between them, because in that case, the hypothesis of literary borrowing presupposes large-scale
revision and reinterpretation of the story or poem, which is very unlikely and not attested in the Ancient
N E .T . . A.R. Mill , “A N B l i ‘G i ’S ,” Tyndale Bulletin 18 (1967), 17. The study
of peripheral versions of Mesopotamian literary texts, however, has shown not only that they differ from the
Mesopotamian versions in detail, but also that they abbreviate them and modify them in accordance with
i i l l li . S J. Ti , “O E l i Cl i Li B i ,” i : M.
Cohen et al. (eds.), The Tablet and the Scroll, Bethesda, MD 1993, 250 255.
addition, local forms of the same god could be worshiped under different names or epithets within
the same context. The warrior storm-gods of the Ancient Near East not only should therefore be
studied on their own, but also need investigation within the realms of a typologically coherent
group. The most important gods that, on the basis of their basic profile, can be characterised as
storm-gods are the West Semitic gods Hadda, Haddu and Hadad from Syria-Palestine and Upper
Mesopotamia, the Akkadian gods Adad and Addu from Babylonia and Assyria, the Syro-Palestinian
B l , H i T šš l i U i T i in Syria,
Mesopotamia, the Kurdish mountains and in Anatolia, the Hattian god Taru, and the Hittite-
Luwian god Tarḫun(t) from Anatolia. Due to the lack of sources, it is hard to offer a detailed profile
of these deities. Nevertheless, recent comprehensive overviews of research lead to the following
considerations.30
The storm-gods venerated in regions characterised by rainfall agriculture and dry farming, that is,
in Upper Mesopotamia, Assyria, Syria, Anatolia, indeed obtain a more significant position among
the great gods than those in Babylonia. In a similar way, images with regard to seafaring can be
demonstrated only or the storm-god in the Levantine harbour-city of Ugarit, while a connection
between storm and mountain gods seem typical for landscapes in which cloud-topped mountains
can be observed. At the same time, however, the particular significance of a storm-god is
dependent on many other factors, such as cultural influence and political environment. So the
relation between the immediate experience of natural phenomena and the ideas associated with
the divine manifestation perceived in these phenomena is complex. As a consequence, it is almost
impossible to trace the exact origin of the Semitic storm-god, which appears in several contexts
from the third millennium BCE onwards.
With regard to some elements, however, a few general trends can be reconstructed. The literary
motif of the victory of the storm-god over the sea, for instance, is certainly old. It is questionable
whether it was already attested in Ebla, but it can be found early in connection with different gods
of Babylonia, who bear epithets praising them as victor over monsters living in the sea. The motif
of the struggle against the powers of chaos also took shape in the Old Babylonian mythology of
Ninurta. Later, it became an essential part of the Marduk theology in Babylon, most likely due to
the influence of a very similar literary motif as attested for Old Babylonian Haddu of Aleppo in his
victory over the primeval ocean, for there were close relations between the royal houses of both
cities. This is all the more interesting, because traditionally, Marduk having a spade as his
symbol was most likely conceived as a god associated with agriculture, specifically with the
building and maintenance of canals. It is only in order to become the new young king of the gods
that he defeats the sea, rules over the winds and is identified as a Ninurta redivivus. So the motif of

30
F i ll i , D i lS , “T S G i A i N
E .S ,S i,R S i ,” JANER 7 (2007), 121 168; 8 (2008), 1 . S ’s overview
and review of other studies, among them Green, Storm-God in the Ancient Near East, is mainly based on his
monograph Die Wettergottgestalten Mesopotamiens und Nordsyriens im Zeitalter der Keilschriftkulturen.
Materialien und Studien nach den schriftlichen Quellen, Wiesbaden 2001.
the victory of the new king of the gods over the chaotic sea probably originated in the eastern
Mediterranean. But it travelled so early and became so widespread that the myths in which the
motif occurs are quite heterogeneous. In addition, the individual lines of transmission often
remain unclear and its actual meaning can be different in each context.
A similar observation can be made with regard to the storm- B l U i l
i ill i S i . I i lik l i “B l ” i E l D i
from Ebla, Tell Beydar T ll A ū 1 lā īḫ represents its immediate precursor. The overall
i i B l l i i l 15th centuries BCE on
the Syro-Palestinian coastal strip from an epithet of the storm-god Haddu to his primary name,
i i ii “l ”i S i l .A l,H
i B l i U ii l . C l , i B l U i
struggling with Motû cannot be connected to the Haddu of Syria and Upper Mesopotamia. This
idea is more likely related to stories about other dying and rising vegetation gods. This observation
again shows how easily diverse contexts stimulated a different use of similar motifs and epithets.

Interestingly, this approach coincides and converges with the trend of studying ancient Near
Eastern mythological texts from the perspective of political theology, because of the fact that
before the Copernican revolution, there often seems to be a parallel between the actual political
hierarchy and the ideas about cosmological order. The late 12th century BCE poem of E ū š is
considered to be one of the best examples of this. As was already observed above, it is a very
ii , l i B l ’ i power in southern Mesopotamia in the second half
of the second millennium BCE. T M k’ Tiâ i i l
of his creation of a hierarchy in the universe depicts the world as structured according to a fixed
order. The general acceptance of his kingship among the gods establishes his rank, while the
i M k l l i B l ’ ii l .I
order to achieve these goals, the authors of E ū š drew together many literary motifs from
older Babylonian myths and stock phraseology, including even whole lines. The myth itself,
however, and the theology behind it were new. The rich reception history of the text during the
first millennium BCE shows that it was quite successful in ousting the previous conceptions.31 Yet,
E ū š cannot be viewed as a kind of archetypal version of other ancient Near Eastern creation
myths and it would be mistaken to assume that a battle among the gods or a struggle with
water(monsters) always coincides with creation. Accordingly, it becomes harder to establish a
direct relation between the myth and Genesis 1 3. The only connection between Tiâmat and
ĕ ō , the Hebrew designation of the primeval flood, is the Semitic term * ā . Moreover, there
is no conflict at all in Gen 1, although it cannot be excluded that this omission was deliberate in

31
S . . T k il J , “T B l M k Ti ,” JAOS 88 (1968), 104 108; W.G.
Lambert, Babylonian Creation Myths (Mesopotamian Civilization, 6), Winona Lake, IN 2013, 447 465; Karin
S i , “F H i ’ A O i ’ rudis indigestaque moles. C C i B l i ‘E i
C i ’,” i : S l k, B l . , Creation and Chaos, 19 25.
order to create an antithesis with views in which creation was connected to a cosmic battle and a
creation of gods.32
Similar remarks can be made with regard to the political readings of the Baal Cycle. Over the years,
it has become clear that a so-called cosmogonic interpretation of the Ugaritic myth fails to see that
the battle between Baal and the Sea in this 13th century BCE poem does not imply creation and also
l i i .M , “ l ”
“ .” H , i l l i i i i
struggle in the current world order. So far, no evidence was found that the poem was used in the
l.R B lC l i i i i i Ili ilk ,
who used well-known motifs and a wide range of seasonal and ritual information in order to
compose a literary work mirroring the actual political-theological situation in Ugarit. There is no
consensus about how exactly the divine characters in the cycle run parallel to worldly political
relationships. Some view the poem as a story of royal succession in the palatial city, others connect
it to the vassalage of Ugarit to both Egypt and Hatti during the Bronze Age. Nevertheless, scholars
agree that the ideological spin of the story is more concerned with Ugarit than with Canaan as a
whole.33 This raises another issue, namely, to what extent the Baal Cycle can be considered as being
representative for the perceptions of the storm-god in the Southern Levant. Was the text indeed, as
i i l ,i i l Ili ilk ? 34 Lexical affinities
with other tablets do not falsify this hypothesis, but at the same time suggest that there might have
been other versions as well.35 N l , l k i li Ili ilk ’ ,

32
Tsumura, Creation and Destruction, 42 ; J H. W l , “C i i G i : 2:3. Order out of
Disorder after Chaoskampf,” Calvin Theological Journal 43 (2008), 52 53; Lambert, Babylonian Creation
Myths, 460 ; Ri A k, “T T ‘D ’ B l T i C k i
E l C G i ,” i : S l k, Beal (eds.), Creation and Chaos, 248 250; JoAnn Scurlock,
“Chaoskampf Lost Chaoskampf R i . T G k l H i R i i ,” i : S l k, B l .,
Creation and Chaos, 264 265, 267 . G k l’ i with adaptations is still maintained by Batto, who
offers a critical review of its deconstruction by Rebecca S. Watson, Chaos Uncreated. A Reassessment of the
Theme of Chaos in the Hebrew Bible (BZAW, 341), Berlin 2005, i B F. B , “T C M i
I li T i i R i i ,” i : S lock, Beal (eds.), Creation and Chaos, 217 236.
33
See e.g. Mark S. Smith, The Ugaritic Baal Cycle. Vol. 1. Introduction with Text, Translation and Commentary
of KTU 1.1–1.2 (VT.S, 55), Leiden 1994, 74 114; Pardee, Ugaritic Texts and the Origin of West Semitic Literary
Composition, 72 ; A T , “U li S i : P li i P i i B l C l ,” JAOS
132 (2012), 367 ;i , “B l-Bible-B l,” i : S l k, B l . , Creation and Chaos, 193 196; Wayne T.
Pi , “T C M S i S ,” i : S l k, B l . , Creation and Chaos, 199 205. For
i i , Ni l W , “Ili ilk ’ I l i l P :U ii R lP ,
Bi li l P i ,” UF 29 (1997), 775 ;i , “T R li i R l Ki i U i ,” UF 37 (2005),
695 727.
34
Pardee, Ugaritic Texts and the Origins of West-Semitic Literary Composition, 42 49. Notably, the
information regarding the authorship of Ilimilku is unique in its ancient Near Eastern context.
35
Cf. KTU 1.3:V.32 41 and 1.4:I.4 16, 1.4:IV.43 55 with 1.117, and KTU 1.5:I.14 22 with 1.133:1 11. Jeremy M.
H , “R i D i P , The Ugaritic Texts and the Origins of West-Semitic Literary Composition,
Review of Biblical Literature” [http://www.bookreviews.org] (2014).
his exceptional creativity as a scribe and the content of the tablets should make scholars hesitant
to assume that the specific religious views of the Baal Cycle reflected Canaanite common sense.
As a result, it should be noted that the vast connection that Gunkel took for granted between
theomachy, cosmogony and the struggle with the waters in biblical and non-biblical texts is a clear
case of illegitimate totality transfer. Both E ū š and the Baal Cycle are of great help in getting
a picture of the cognitive environment of the ancient Near Eastern literary motif of divine rage
against the (primeval) waters. But it is also clear that the combat motif is used in a very different
way in Ugarit and Babylon and that these uses reflect entirely different understandings of the
relationships among politics, history, and the divine. Accordingly, a different use and
understanding possibly occurs in Hab 3 and other biblical texts as well, despite the close
similarities in poetic forms and imagery with Ugaritic literature. In any case, there is no reason to
assume that the stories have common historical origins and it seems best not to assume a direct
form of transmission of the storm-god imagery from the Baal Cycle to its use in the ancient
Israelite poems. The historical fact that Israel was in all probability only in part autochthonous in
the land of Canaan also makes this unlikely. 36 O , I l’ i i l
vicissitudes and its claim that YHWH revealed himself, also play a significant part. So all three
traditions make use of the combat motif, but in very different ways. A typological approach and a
comprehensive interpretation of the motif in its own literary and religious context seem to be
more fruitful in making these distinctions apparent than a primary concern with transmission and
influence.37

4. YHWH’S GARMENT OF THE STORM-GOD IN HABAKKUK 3

As mentioned above, Hab 3 alludes to several Canaanite deities. A quick look in, for instance, the
Dictionary of Demon and Deities in the Bible and related literature helps in getting a general
impression of the cognitive environment of the text with regard to these divine beings.38
Thereafter, the question is to be asked regarding the function of these allusions in the poem as a
whole.
At the beginning of the description of the theophany in Hab 3 the imagery of the sunrise is very
important. This does not mean that a hymn to the sun-god is connected to YHWH. Poetic
comparison with the sun is a general resource, a natural commonplace in language of theophany,
i i G ’ i l i i i i li . I ii , l

36
For the literary and historical debate, see e.g. Koert van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence. Ideology
A I H I ’ S C (CHANE, 45), Leiden Boston
2011, and idem, “C i G il . I IM i i J ,” i : G. G lil et al. (eds.), The Ancient Near
East in the 12th–10th Centuries BCE: Culture and History (AOAT, 392), Münster 2012, 525 548.
37
C .T , “B l-Bible-B l,” 198.
38
See note 12.
phenomena are mentioned in YHWH’ .H , l i i I : ,
to be a force that is personified as a terri l i , “ ” “ ,” lik U ii i
hby.39 T i i i D ,“ il ” , i i i ii l i i
also attested in biblical texts in a personified sense as a demon or evil deity (Ps 91:3,6; cf. Hos 13:14).
According to Ps 91, YHWH liberates his faithful from the fear of this master of epidemics. But in Hab
3 it clearly occurs at his side as a helper. There are no direct non-biblical parallels of this use of
“ il .” T U i i li re, however, mentions its counterpart as assistant, Resheph,
“ l ” , i .40 T , “ l ” “ il ” i
Mesopotamia as part of the entourage of Marduk. In its turn, Hab 3 depicts both entities as cosmic
forces, demonized versions of Canaanite gods, functioning as executors of YHWH’ ill.41
The next lines in the poem mentioning phenomena that can be associated with ancient Near
Eastern divine beings are found in the context of the cosmic upheaval in reaction to YHWH’
ll i .R i l i i i Nĕ ā i ,
“ i ” AB , Yā , “ ” C, . I ii , i i
are described with help of the well-known imagery of the storm-god: the rider of the clouds
(8bAB,15a) makes the mountains (10aA) and deep waters (10bA) tremble in fear by means of
lightening (9aAB,11bAB), thunder (10aA), and heavy rains (9b,10ab), while the heavenly bodies are
astonished by the glorious theophany (10bB,11a). In the Baal Cycle and other ancient Near Eastern
texts, rivers do not occur as direct adversaries of the gods. Interestingly, however, the poem of Hab
3 makes an explicit distinction between rivers caused by heavy rainfall (‫נְ ָהרֹת‬, 9b) and rivers
actually being YHWH’ ‫נְ ָה ִרים‬, 8aAB). This peculiarity calls to mind the fact that in
U ii , Yā i ll “R l S ” “P i Ri .”42 Accordingly,
the reverse poetic sequence in the pair N i Yā i H i i i i
the Ugaritic and ancient Israelite traditions are not identical. Nevertheless, the text contains a clear
ll i B l Y .43 At the same time, however, its context is fairly
different. YHWH i ll “ H l O ,” i li l El i U i i
li , j lik i i l , i “ i
i .”44 Moreover, the gods are referred to in such a way that their submission to YHWH is more
prominent than the fact that these creational phenomena also operate as divine beings.
T i i l i i S ,“ ” B Y ḥ, “ ” , i
are depicted as being part of the entourage of the divine warrior. In Josh 10:12 14 ’

39
KTU 1.114:19 . S P. X ll , “H ,” DDD2, 377.
40
KTU 1.14 I:18 19; 1.82:3, cf. Deut 32:24; Ps 76:4; Job 5:7. Deber is possibly attested in KTU 1.5:VI.6.
41
G. l Ol L , “D ,” DDD2, 231 ; P. X ll , “R ,” DDD2, 703; Maciej M. Münnich, The God
Resheph in the Ancient Near East (Orientalische Religionen in der Antike, 11), Tübingen 2013, 215 237, 264
265.
42
F. S l , “Ri , Nahar,” DDD2, 708.
43
Andersen, Habakkuk, 317.
44
F. K , K. T , “H l O ,” DDD2, 418; Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 141.
closest parallel and Judg 5:20 the heavenly bodies fight from heaven as if they are animate
beings.45 It is very hard to identify a specific background for this symbolism, despite the fact that
the Mesopotamian, West Asiatic and Egyptian traditions of solar worship and lunar cult in the
Levant are considerably well documented and span several centuries. It is noteworthy, though,
that the non-biblical texts from the Levant and Syria refer frequently to the divine council as the
“ l ” l B l .S i ,H i
close to the language of Ugaritic literature, although without picturing them as gods. Sun and
moon seem to be part of his vast host, helping him in battle and belonging to his cosmic army.46
This idea is confirmed by the general critical biblical view of heavenly bodies as members of the
‫הש ַמיִ ם‬
ָ ‫ ְצ ָבא‬. Natural phenomena are personified and perceived as members of the army of the God
of Israel. But they are subordinate to him as creatures.47 In the case of Hab 3, the sun lifts his hands
in panic or to praise God, while the moon stands in its place, stunned by the magnificent
manifestation of YHWH.

What does this mean for the function of YHWH’ i i i H l ?

Both the content and the formal aspects of the poem, such as inclusio as an important means in
structuring it, shed light on this question. Apart from a colophon (3:1), three possible (‫ ֶס ָלה‬in
3:3,9,13) and one clear liturgical remark (3:19b), four units or stanzas are normally demarcated: a
prayer (3:2), a theophany (3:3 7), a hymn (3:8 15) and a confession of trust (3:16 19a).48 The
imagery of the storm-god is concentrated in the second and third units.
The second stanza (3:3 i j i i l El /Q š i
the response to this appearance. There is some discussion with regard to its exact delineation. But
undoubtedly, the outer boundaries of the unit are marked by the concrete geographical
i i “T ” “M P ,” “K ” “l Mi i ” : , , il
there is also a correspondence between the creational elements of heaven and earth that are filled
with divine glory (3:3 4), and the mountains, hills and other elements that are shattered by this
event (3:6 7). These parallels are highlighted by assonance and in the middle stands the already
i i i i i i “P il ” “Pl ” i out before

45
See e.g. Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 279 295; Jack M. Sasson, Judges 1–12 (AB), New York,
NY 2014, 303 . C . F. L lli, “S ,” DDD2, 812.
46
Hiebert, God of My Victory, 92 93, 100; De Moor, Rise of Yahwism, 203 204; Korpel, Rift in the Clouds, 270,
293, 513, 570 . C . E. Li i ki, “S ,” DDD2, 764 ; B.B. S i , “M ,” DDD2, 587 591.
47
Cf. Korpel, Rift in the Clouds, 610 613. Interestingly, a study of the same aspects from the perspective of the
iconography of the ancient Near Eastern divine warrior shows that biblical poetry fills well-known images
with a new and slightly different content, creating a dichotomy between the one God and the many gods.
Martin Klingbeil, Yahweh Fighting from Heaven. God as Warrior and as God of Heaven in the Hebrew Psalter
and Ancient Near Eastern Iconography (OBO, 169), Fribourg Göttingen 1999, 301 310.
48
C. . .T Hi , “T U I l i i H kk k ,” i : El i R. F lli . , Directions in
Hebrew Poetry (JSOT Supplement, 40), Sheffield 1987, 119 140; Andersen, Habakkuk; G.T.M. Prinsloo,
“R i H kk k i Li A i U i D li i ,” HTS Teologiese Studies/Theological Studies 69
(2013), Art. #1975, 11 pages.
and behind (3:5ab). These lines function as a hinge in the unit as a whole, which focuses entirely
El , “ H l O ,” i i i i . All i i i i
magnificent radiance and power and at the shivering of creation in reaction to it.
Important changes take place in the third unit (3:8 15) due to the fact that the theophany is now
connected to the perspective of the first stanza, in which the petitioner declares to be in awe
because of YHWH’ k compassion shown over the years (3:2). Accordingly, God himself is
ll i i “YHWH,” by asking him questions and
by depicting his actions in the second person singular. The unity of the stanza is highlighted by the
repetition of the divine name, a series of perfect forms and a number of inclusios both with regard
to form and content, depicting the preparation of the divine warrior for battle and the battle itself.
The outer parts of the stanza are connected by mentioning the river and sea as the objects of
YHWH’ i i , l i
waters (3:8ab,15ab). A second parallel is the unfolding of the divine weaponry in preparation for
battle, on the one hand, and the actual flashing of the arrows and javelin, laying bare the enemy
and smashing the head of the wicked, on the other (3:9a,11b,13a 14a). Finally, the motifs of creation
and the role of the divine entourage in the previous stanza are picked up in the description of the
cracking and heaving of earth and mountains, the agitation of the waters, and in the reaction of
sun and moon (3:9b 11a).49
So apparently, the waters are very prominent in the poem, not only because of their frequent
attestation and resemblance with other ancient Near Eastern literary traditions, but also with
regard to their function in the larger structure of Hab 3 as a whole. Storm and rain serve as divine
weapons, the deep is part of creation reacting to the theophany, while finally the rivers and sea
clearly function as YHWH’ . All l ii
the heavenly appearance and battle and contribute to the lively depiction of the experience of the
divine presence. The first and fourth parts of the poem (3:2,16 19) show that the immediacy of this
mysterium tremendum is really terrifying. But remarkably, it also creates the recognition of divine
grace and support in great distress. It is this experience that leads to the beautiful confession of
awe and trust (3:16 17) and the conviction that YHWH, “ G i ,” i l
triumph over the enemy, despite all violence, viciousness, misery and grief in the present (3:18 19).

The way the descriptions of water are embedded in Hab 3 as a whole sheds light on several thorny
issues regarding the interpretation of this chapter. First, what is the range of the poetic

49
According to some scholars, the attestation of several pairs of Canaanite deities in Hab 3, such as
“ il l ”, “ i ”, “ ” l i l i i i l “
i ” : A, A i i ll i . This pair is probably indeed attested
in a few Ugaritic texts. But it must also be noted that in the Old Testament the mountains are associated
with the gods, but are never gods themselves, while there is also no evidence that ĕ ō was a personal
mythologi l .F i i , . . D. P , P. X ll , “M i V ll ,” DDD2, 605; B.
Al , “Ti ,” DDD , 869; Tsumura, Creation and Destruction, 139 140.
2
personifications that are being used in the description of the theophany? It is certainly important
to li “ i i i l ll i i i
l i i i i .”50 At the same time, it has to be noted that Hab 3 contains a
thorough pattern of designations suggesting a Yahwistic use of the storm-god imagery with a
specific view of the divine entourage. YHWH, i l “El ” “H l O ,”
garment of the storm-god. In addition, the ancient Near Eastern cognitive environment of the text
clearly creates the possibility of u i “Pl P il ”, “Ri S ”, “S
M ” i i i .N l , i i i i
order to appreciate that the text makes use of metaphorical language unfolding a reality far
exceeding daily experience: When YHWH appears, all material and spiritual powers turn out to be
subject to his majesty. He is victorious and even the greatest dangers in the universe are not able to
withstand him.
The attestation, however, of personifying metaphors reflecting a transcendent dimension does not
imply that the reality they refer to has no concrete historical component. The poem associates
YHWH’ i i ’ I l’ i ce (3:2), denotes concrete
geographical entities (3:3ab,7bc) and mentions an army attacking and devastating the land (3:16
17). Accordingly, the possible historical background addressed by the poem is a second important
issue in interpretation. Who are the “ l ” “ i ” li : ?
W i “ i k ” l i ?W i ii “i ” : ,
i ’ : ?T i i i i G
poetic nature of the text have given rise to all kinds of interpretations.51 Both the name YHWH and
the fact that the poem has its place in the book of Habakkuk, however, offer some constraints to its
possible understanding. The text clearly concerns the fate of the people of Israel and its primary
perspective is the threat of the conquest of Judah by the Babylonians. In addition, most
interpreters seem to be right to see a connection, at least in the present context, between the
“ i ” D i i asty (cf. Ps 89:39,52; 132:10). The combination of these two elements
suggests that the message of divine deliverance in Hab 3 finds its inducement in the religious-
political reality of a monarchy being under divine judgment. For the rest, however, the open,
metaphorical nature of the text prevents ruling out too many options. Within the context of the
literature of ancient Israel, elements in the poem evoke the stories and poetic depictions of the
Exodus from Egypt and the crossing of the Sea of Reeds (Exod 14), the revelation of YHWH at Sinai
(Exod 19), the crossing of the Jordan River (Josh 3 4) and the conquest of Canaan (Josh 10).
Possibly, the battles against Sihon and Og (Num 21) and the Davidic conquests (2 Sam 5 and 8) also
come into play. The poem as a whole implies neither cosmogony nor theomachy, but refers to
divine intervention in history. What is highlighted, however, is not so much a specific battle, but

50
D i T i T , “U i i P H kk k ,” Tyndale Bulletin 40 (1989), 48.
51
For an overview, see Peter Jöcken, Das Buch Habakuk. Darstellung der Geschichte seiner Erforschung mit
einer eigener Beurteilung (BBB, 48), Köln Bonn 1977, ad loci. See also the reflections by Hiebert, God of My
Victory, 120 124; Haak, Habakkuk, 98 99; Andersen, Habakkuk, 319, 334 335.
the very fact that YHWH’ i l i i j i s is so
overwhelming that it vanquishes all mortal and heavenly powers. Accordingly, the metaphorical
i i i ‘ i i l i ’ i N
Eastern divine beings: what is thought to be supernatural falls short in the light of YHWH’
supremacy. Yet, such an interpretation is not necessary in order to understand the text.
Interestingly, this pattern of a flexible use of storm-god imagery entirely fits analogous passages in
ancient Israelite poetry. Psalm 29, for instance, once seen as a former Canaanite hymn in the Old
Testament par excellence, clearly uses motifs and themes from the Baal tradition in order to
highlight the superiority of YHWH over his Canaanite competitor. Nonetheless, it is no longer
considered to be a consensus that the poem itself depends on a Canaanite original, praising Baal.
YHWH’ ki i i l i i ll P : 2). The psalm as
a whole represents this world-filling and -dominating majesty. It is only within this framework that
certain characteristics of the storm-god and the royal god El are transferred to him. Accordingly,
scholars nowadays assume that the poem was Yahwistic from the outset.52 A similar, but also
entirely different undertaking not transforming Canaanite metaphors into YHWH-theology, but
i i i I l’ i i l ii E , C i D i i
Monarchy with help of using storm-god imagery can be found in Ps 114. Erich Zenger has shown
that instead of looking for the possible background of the language of theophany in this psalm, it is
more fruitful to explore its exegetical correlation with the kingship of YHWH Psalms 29 and 96 98,
which also contain language of theophany. The most striking element in his analysis is that the
canonical embedding of these psalms highlights their antithetical nature. The waters in Ps 114 have
no specific mythological meaning. But the close relation with the other psalms evokes the idea that
the foundation of the world order and YHWH’ i I l i i
definitely results in the deprivation of the divine beings. The Hallel Psalms 113 118 offer a further
elaboration of this motif: Ps 114 explicates the incomparability and uniqueness of the God of Israel
l i i P , il P i i i ’
powerless idols with respect to YHWH.53

5. YHWH’S IDENTITY ACCORDING TO HABAKKUK 3

Several conclusions follow from this comparative and exegetical analysis of YHWH’ i
the river and sea in Hab 3. First, it seems hard to maintain that texts like Hab 3 reuse or

52
F i i . .D i P , “O P l :S M i ,” i : P W. Fli , P i k
D. Miller (eds.), The Book of the Psalms. Composition and Reception (VT.S, 99), Leiden 2005, 153 183; Lowell
K. Handy (ed.), Psalm 29 Through Time and Tradition (PTMS, 110), Eugene, OR 2009.
53
Ei Z , “A P i E i l I l: P l A i B k Ki i -of-Yhwh-
Psalms 29 and 96 ,” i : M B -Asher et al. (eds.), Shai le-Sara Japhet. Studies in the Bible, its Exegesis
and its Language, Jerusalem 2007, 381* 396*.
reformulate older polytheistic narratives about the divine warrior, or that the poem fits into the
entire mythic pa i i i i i ’ i l i l i
enthronement as a second element.54 Second, the issue at hand is too complex to be explained by
the assumption of a gradual adaptation of the Canaanite descriptions of the divine in ancient Israel
or of a fundamental religious schism between Canaanites and Israelites. 55 In light of the
abovementioned methodological reflections and political-religious interpretations of the texts in
section 3 and 4, these historical reconstructions still focus too much on the parallels with the Baal
Cycle. It seems more fruitful to start with the many factors that play a part in Hab 3: the cognitive
environment of the descriptions and conceptions of the ancient Near Eastern storm-god and the
heave l l ,I l’ i i l i YHWH’ l i Si i i ,
traditional language of theophany and battle, and last but not least, the oracles and visions of the
prophet. Historically, the presence of these diverse influences in the text is not surprising, given
the fact that the Iron Age Southern Levant can be characterised as an ethnically and religiously
‘ i li ’.56 All iki , ,i ’ ll-defined view of YHWH’
identity. The presupposition of a unique divine sovereignty and power dominates this and related
texts to such an extent that they simply redefine the ancient Near Eastern storm-god imagery from
the perspective of YHWH’ ki i .O ,H i from the previous two chapters in
many aspects and reflects ancient motifs and archaic features, in particular in 3:8 15. It must also
be noted, however, that apart from this passage, the orthography is entirely classical, and that the
poem shares not only vocabulary, but also literary topics with Hab 1 2, such as the arrogance of the
enemies (3:14b, cf. 1:10), the devastating power of horses in battle (3:15, cf. 1:8), and the final
destruction of the wicked (3:13b, cf. 1:13; 2:9 11). Moreover, the notable presence of the prophet in
the expression of his desires and emotions (3:2,16) and the depiction of his experiences (3:7,
8ab,14a) remarkably suits the portrayal of his personal struggle in Hab 2.57
Accordingly, it seems likely that ancient poetic material is used, in particular in 3:8 15, in order to
paint the prophetic vision.58 At the same time, Hab 3 is an integral part of the book suggesting a
ii “ i ” YHWH’ i i : i i i i
has actuall “ ” i : .I i , i l li i “ i ll li

54
Cross, Canaanite Myth, 155 156. Cf. Smith, Origins of Biblical Monotheism, 23, 145 146; idem, Poetic Heroes.
Literary Commemorations of Warriors and Warrior Culture in the Early Biblical World, Grand Rapids, MI 2014,
560 561.
55
Thus e.g. Korpel, A Rift in the Clouds, 621 624.
56
Cf. Van Bekkum, From Conquest to Coexistence, 564, 584 ;i , “C i G il . I IM i
i J ,” i : G Galil et al. (eds.), The Ancient Near East in the 12 –10 Centuries BCE: Culture and
th th

History (AOAT, 392), Münster 2012, 530 547.

57
For an enumeration of differences, see e.g. Hiebert, God of My Victory, 139 141; Andersen, Habakkuk, 285,
314.
58
F i i i ’ i i , . .A , Habakkuk, 259 264; John E. Anderson,
“A i i A P :T D l R i i H kk k i I C ,” ZAW
123 (2011), 57 70.
 i i ” : ill i ll . T ll l i i ,
prophet can only be in awe, tremble, and rejoice in the God of his salvation, despite the fact that
the land is destroyed (3:2,16,17 18). According to the text, YHWH’ i i ki
the universe is the only source of this joy. In other texts, meta-historical storm-god language
transforms the image of the past or is used to describe the impact of this identity on the divine
realm. But here, a similar description of YHWH’ , i ii l
world is applied in order to transcend the horrific political-religious reality of the presence and to
l i l .F i ill i l , “ i ” D i i ki
will reign and none of the brutal Chaldeans will escape judgment.
So with regard to the use of personified descriptions of water in the Ancient Near East, Hab 3 again
highlights the importance of variation and adaptation, since it is not the storm-god imagery
defining the God of Israel, but YHWH, the totaliter aliter, who determines its meaning.