[323] This in opposition to Budde’s statement that the description of the Chaldeans in i. 5-11 “ist eine phantastische Schilderung” (p. 387). [324] It is, however, a serious question whether it would be possible in 615 to describe the Chaldeans as _a nation that traversed the breadth of the earth to occupy dwelling-places that were not his own_ (i. 6). This suits better after the battle of Carchemish. [325] See above, p. 121, n. 322. [326] See above, pp. 114 ff. [327] Pages 49 and 50. [328] See above, pp. 118 f. [329] Wellhausen in 1873 (see p. 661); Giesebrecht in 1890; Budde in 1892, before he had seen the opinions of either of the others (see _Stud. und Krit._, 1893, p. 386, n. 2). [330] Cornill quotes a rearrangement of chaps, i., ii., by Rothstein, who takes i. 2-4, 12 _a_, 13, ii. 1-3, 4, 5 _a_, i. 6-10, 14, 15 _a_, ii. 6 _b_, 7, 9, 10 _a_ _b_ β, 11, 15, 16, 19, 18, as an oracle against Jehoiakim and the godless in Israel about 605, which during the Exile was worked up into the present oracle against Babylon. Cornill esteems it “too complicated.” Budde (_Expositor_, 1895, pp. 372 ff.) and Nowack hold it untenable. [331] As of course was universally supposed according to either of the other two interpretations given above. [332] _Z.A.T.W._, 1884, p. 154. [333] Cf. Isa. v. 8 ff. (x. 1-4), etc. [334] So LXX. [335] Cf. Davidson, p. 56, and Budde, p. 391, who allows 9-11 and 15-17. [336] _E.g._ Isa. xl. 18 ff., xliv. 9 ff., xlvi. 5 ff., etc. On this ground it is condemned by Stade, Kuenen and Budde. Davidson finds this not a serious difficulty, for, he points out, Habakkuk anticipates several later lines of thought. [337] See above, p. 39, n. [338] _A. T. Religionsgeschichte_, p. 229, n. 2. [339] Cf. the ascription by the LXX. of Psalms cxlvi.-cl. to the prophets Haggai and Zechariah. [340] Cf. Kuenen, who conceives it to have been taken from a post-exilic collection of Psalms. See also Cheyne, _The Origin of the Psalter_: “exilic or more probably post-exilic” (p. 125). “The most natural position for it is in the Persian period. It was doubtless appended to Habakkuk, for the same reason for which Isa. lxiii. 7—lxiv. was attached to the great prophecy of Restoration, viz. that the earlier national troubles seemed to the Jewish Church to be typical of its own sore troubles after the Return.... The lovely closing verses of Hab. iii. are also in a tone congenial to the later religion” (p. 156). Much less certain is the assertion that the language is imitative and artificial (_ibid._); while the statement that in ver. 3—cf. with Deut. xxxiii. 2—we have an instance of the effort to avoid the personal name of the Deity (p. 287) is disproved by the use of the latter in ver. 2 and other verses. [341]‎ ישע את, ver. 13, cannot be taken as a proof of lateness; read probably הושיע את. [342] Pusey, Ewald, König, Sinker (_The Psalm of Habakkuk_, Cambridge, 1890), Kirkpatrick (Smith’s _Bible Dict._, art. “Habakkuk”), Von Orelli.