06_AN_Whitekettle_273_281_273_281 10/07/15 12:42 Pagina 275 HOW THE SHEEP OF JUDAH BECAME FISH 275 ance to their leaderlessness which has been overlooked. Aquatic animals are leaderless, not because they have a leader who is absent or inept (here- after episodic leaderlessness), but because they are animals which simply never have any leaders (hereafter structural leaderlessness). Thus, Habakkuk was complaining that God had made the human targets of Babylonian aggression to be like structurally leaderless animals. It might be thought that the structural leaderlessness of aquatic animals is without significance for the meaning of Hab 1,14. After all, it is the helplessness and vulnerability of aquatic animals which is illustrated in the verses that follow (1,15-17). Several things, however, can be noted. First, when Israelite authors used animal imagery to talk about human leadership they typically used sheep imagery to do so 5. For example, they talked about shepherds (leaders) guiding and caring for their sheep (peo- ple), and about sheep (people) following their shepherds (leaders) 6. By mentioning aquatic animals in 1,14 rather than sheep, Habakkuk deviated from the standard way that Israelite authors talked about human leader- ship. This suggests that Habakkuk mentioned aquatic animals because they conveyed something about leadership which sheep did not. Second, Habakkuk describes how the leaderless animals/people are captured with hooks and nets in 1,15-17. The capture of animals/people with hooks, nets, and snares is mentioned in other Israelite and ancient Near Eastern texts. In those texts, however, the leaderlessness of the cap- tives is not mentioned 7. Thus, by mentioning leaderlessness in 1,14-17, Habakkuk deviated from the standard way that the capture of animals/people with hooks and nets was talked about. This suggests that 5 On shepherd/sheep imagery in Israelite and Ancient Near Eastern thought, see L. RYKEN – J.C. WILHOUT – T. LONGMAN III (eds.), Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL 1998) 292-293 s.v. “flock”; 630 s.v. “pasture”; 782-785 s.v. “sheep, shepherd”; B.A. FOREMAN, Animal Metaphors and the People of Israel in the Book of Jeremiah (FRLANT 238; Göttingen 2011) 35-106; Y.S. CHAE, Jesus as the Eschatological Good Shepherd. Stud- ies in the Old Testament, Second Temple Judaism, and in the Gospel of Matthew (WUNT 216; Tübingen 2006) 19-94; W. BAXTER, Israel’s Only Shepherd. Matthew’s Shepherd Motif and His Social Setting (JSNTS 457; London 2012) 43-58; J. WILLITTS, Matthew’s Shepherd-King. In Search of ‘The Lost Sheep of the House of Israel’ (BZNW 147; Berlin 2007) 51-72. 6 E.g., Isa 40,11; Jer 3,15; Ezek 34; Hos 4,16; Amos 3,12; Mic 2,12; Zeph 2,6-7; Zech 9,16. 7 E.g., Isa 8,14-15; Jer 5,26; Lam 1,13; Ezek 12,13; Hos 7,12; Amos 3,5; Mic 7,2. For the ancient Near Eastern textual record, see, e.g., D. BODI, The Book of Ezekiel and the Poem of Erra (OBO 104; Freiburg – Göttingen 1991) 162-182; O. KEEL, The Symbolism of the Biblical World. Ancient Near Eastern Iconography and the Book of Psalms (trans. T.J. HALLETT) (New York 1985) 89-95.