94 - Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary

Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary
By J. J. M. Roberts
Louisville, Westminster/John Knox, 1991. 223 pp. $19.95.

J. J. M. Roberts, Professor of Old Testament at Princeton Theological Seminary, has earned a reputation for solid historical-critical scholarship informed by intimate familiarity with the languages and literature of the Ancient Near East. His reputation will be enhanced by this recent addition to the Old Testament Library; it is the best available work on the Hebrew text of Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah.

That it is a commentary on the Hebrew text bears stressing, in two respects. First, those who do not read the ancient languages can, and I believe they will, profit from this commentary, but they will also miss much of what goes on: thorough discussion of Hebrew vocabulary and grammar and some very serious textual criticism. Few commentaries approach this volume in the breadth and detail of its text-critical notes (on the nineteen verses of Habakkuk 3, Roberts supplies ninety-eight notes, taking up eighteen pages, before turning to the commentary!). Second, this is very much Roberts' own commentary on the Hebrew text. He does not spend much time entertaining the judgments of other interpreters (he tells us that he will not do so), and his own text-critical judgments are independent and imaginative. At Habakkuk 3:14, where the RSV has "as if to devour the poor in secret," Roberts has "as food for the sharks of the sea." The steps Roberts follows in reconstructing the Hebrew text behind this translation read like the outline of a detective novel. This example indicates the freedom with which Roberts approaches the text, a freedom disciplined by considerable wisdom and exhaustive study.

At the outset, Roberts announces his independence of any one method in the study of these prophetic books. That independence allows him to draw eclectically on the traditional methods of exegesis and frees him to pursue whatever questions arise in his own investigation. This is all to the reader's benefit. On the other hand, the commentary's lack of a methodological profile spares Roberts from saying very much about what, exactly, he is interpreting. He regards it as sufficient to say that Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah are books. While this is incontrovertible, we may still wonder about the circumstances in which late-seventh-century prophets (or someone after them) issued books, what purposes they may have had in mind, what roles they were exercising or what kind of people with what expectations may have read these books. In his most extensive methodological comment, Roberts does say that prophetic books differ from other

96 - Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary

books; their individual parts, or oracles, may be quite independent of each other.

Part of Roberts' reluctance to probe such issues is related to his belief that we often lack evidence for describing the redaction of prophetic books, even when we believe, as Roberts does, that there was a process of redaction. Here, some of the imagination displayed in his text criticism may have aided Roberts in clarifying for us what, as an example, Nahum and his redactors were up to.

Roberts is at his best in treating Habakkuk, who to readers of the commentary is likely to be the most interesting of the three prophets. Habakkuk emerges as a personality, while Nahum and Zephaniah tend to be titles of books. There is some support in the text for this difference: Habakkuk speaks in the first person, and he argues with God. Roberts agrees, in most respects, with other commentators in his exposition of Habakkuk's first chapter, but his treatment of Habakkuk 1:5-11 is the best I have seen. He explains, rather brilliantly, the character of Habakkuk's astonishment at God's use of Babylon in answer to Habakkuk's complaint in 1:2-4, and he makes clear the connection with the lament in 1:12-17.

However, Roberts' insistence on seeing Habakkuk 3 as the vision mentioned in 2:2 heavily-in my view, too heavily-influences his interpretation and even some of his textual reconstruction of 2:1-4. In spite of Roberts' arguments, I remain unconvinced that Habakkuk 3 is integrally related to Habakkuk's "reproof" in 2:1. As the content of the vision, chapter 3 comes oddly after 2:5-20. Nor am I persuaded that the end of 2:4 should be translated, "the righteous person will live by its [the vision's] faithfulness." This would be a singular use of the term "faithfulness," which, with the exception, perhaps, of Exodus 17:12, invariably refers to the faithfulness either of people or of God. The text of Habakkuk 2:4 is difficult, and no interpretation of the passage can claim finality. In this case, however, I believe the traditional interpretations are preferable. Roberts is not unaware or unappreciative of these interpretations, including Paul's (Romans 1:17; Galatians 3:11). In fact, defending his conclusion that it is the vision's faithfulness, and thereby God's, that is at issue, Roberts arrives at an understanding that is theologically more Pauline than was Paul's own.

This is an authoritative commentary, and, at times, it speaks too authoritatively. Roberts says, for example, "There is no justification for treating Habakkuk 3 as an independent piece, or for denying its traditional attribution to Habakkuk." That claim is excessive. Defending Nahum's proclamation of God's vengeance against Assyria, Roberts says, "One should beware of any bogus morality that dismisses vengeance as both inappropriate to humans and unworthy of God. Such a view simply betrays a glaring absence of the most elementary sense of justice." Roberts offers this opinion, gratuitously, immediately after explaining that vengeance implies "harsh punitive retribution in

98 - Nahum, Habakkuk, and Zephaniah: A Commentary

retaliation for wrongs committed against one." In other words, he insists that to regard harsh punitive retribution as inappropriate to humans is to betray a glaring absence of the most elementary sense of justice. It is difficult to imagine why anyone should share this opinion, why it should be considered particularly moral, or why it should appear as a comment on Nahum.

There are other points at which Roberts' interpretation will elicit debate, for example, his reading of Zephaniah 3. Nonetheless, this is a superb commentary, and it will remain the standard resource for years to come.

Ben C. Ollenburger
Associated Mennonite Biblical Seminaries
Elkhart, Indiana