Talk:Habakkuk

message: to content knowledgable editors
The stub template was added to this article in March 2005 and the text has not expanded since that time.  Should we assume that the article is reasonably comprehensive for top level concepts related to the topic and that it is merely lacking detail?  If yes, then the article could be removed from the stub category, having graduated from it.  Thanks for the input. Courtland 13:43, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Stub status

message: The article says his book, which consists of five oracles about the Chaldeans (Assyrians), but in the context of Habukkuk's prophecy, weren't the Chaldeans the Babylonians?
:The Chaldeans were one of two Babylonian cultures.  The other group were the Akkadians. You are correct that they are not the same as the Assyrians. --EncycloPetey 00:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Who were the ''Chaldeans''?

message: I added an item to this article about the eighteen emendations of the Sopherim (actrually there were more than eighteen) in which the professional Jewish scribes say they changed part of the text because it appeared to show disrespect for God. Habakkuk 1:12 was a case in point, and I made a notation accordingly--to show that the original reading was "You [God] do not die" rather than "we shall not die"--but my addition was removed. Why? Dougie monty (talk) 07:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is about the person/prophet; it is not about the scriptual text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:15, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Sopherim

message: This article is mostly biblical, but do you think it would be ok to add a cross reference to Project Habakkuk in the "See Also" section? Does the link from the disambiguation link cover that?  The Project Habakkuk article has the quote "I am going to do something in your days that you would not believe, even if you were told." (Habakkuk 1:5, NIV)" with a cross reference to this article. AdderUser (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not.  The Habakkuk article is about the prophet, and the reference is to the Book of Habakkuk, which is what is actually linked from the Project Habakkuk article. (see the coding) --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:44, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Another "See Also"?

message: User:Bedrock, if we're going to have the infobox contain a date for Habakkuk's death, and a citation to "Coffman (1982)", would it be possible to give a fuller citation, indicating perhaps the title of the work you're quoting, and so on? 
(None of this should be taken as approval of the addition of the date; I'm just saying if we're going to have a citation, let's make it clear where the reader can find the information.)Alephb (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  On Habakkuk's death date 

message: Please keep first sentences simple perthis and many, many other discussions. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  First sentences 

message: ISBN 978-0300139730
(p 21) "Haak's (1991) claims that the entire book of Habbakuk is a single literary entity, even if overstated and unconvincing, are a remarkable index of how things have changed in biblical studies.  Such claims were unthinkable for most of the literary critics of the twentieth century.  We are prepared to argue for the thematic unity of the book in an overarching literary structure.  But none of the familiar genres supplies the model for the whole book. "
(p 24) , he writes "Jöcken (1976:3-115) surveyed all the proposals that had been made for dating the book of Habakkuk up to the time of his study.  The problem of dating the book has been posed in various ways, depending on whether it is viewed as a single composition or as a collection of loosely related but essentially independent pieces.  In one case, the question is simple: When was the whole book written or least finished? In the other, the question has many parts: When was each portion written, and when were they joined together?  Even more elaborate theories purport to trace the growth of the work over a perioid of many centuries.  Beginning with the perspective of Habakkuk 3, which goes back to Creation and deals also with the Exodus, we have here an ancient composition that came down through tradition and was incorporated into the prophecy.  The question of the origin and date of this material is distinct from the problem of the literary production of the book of Habakkuk as a whole. It will be enough to say that most of the hymnic material in Hab 3:3-15 could be premonarchical and that some of the Creation passages could go back to very remote Hebrew antiquity." 
-- Jytdog (talk) 04:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Premonarchical?  These modern hippies and their crazy ideas!  But seriously, that's a pretty high quality source, and seems to me a good precis of 20th century scholarship on the subject.  As a side note, it's amazing to me how much violence the Hebew word "qeren" has done to otherwise good translations (see also "horned Moses").  Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 13:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Andersen's commentary, some bits