Habbakuk's text

I figured I'd roam about the place, having looked at some Biblical literature yesterday. Today I'd talk Habbakuk 1-2.

Full-Habbakuk (there's a poetic coda, which we're not discussing) is among the twelve canon "minor" prophets today and likely was counted among them in Ben Sira's time. Ben Sira himself was of a more Priestly bent, seeing Aaron as a foreshadow of David; but being pro-priest didn't stop Qumran from including all twelve prophets.

Somehow Wikipedia has taken the old, fundamentalist view of the text; that Qumran is Masoretic here. Against that, Qumran may preserve a copy of a preQumran commentary in its 1Q pesher. Csaba Balogh, writing in Hungary but perhaps by birth a Syrian, has provided at least three divergences in Qumran against the MT, which divergences map to the Septuagint and Peshitta. Here's 1:8 and here's 1:5 and 2:5.

In all fairness I can see why the MT scribes had trouble. One hint: if Habbakuk (any version) attracted a pesher, this implies even the Jews had trouble reading it.

If H. 1:5 should read "the wicked", as LXX and Peshitta; MT's transposition "the goys" doesn't hurt the chapter. The reader knows that vv. 2-4 refers to the local Judahi wicked inasmuch as vv. 6 brings the Babylonian upon them. H. 1:5 would, if "goys", present vv. 2-4's Judah as a warning to all the nations. Yes: 'tis clumsy, and that's why Luke's Acts didn't want it, and why Csaba Balogh dislikes it today. But no Jew is dim enough to read the MT and to think that its v. 5 is letting (say) Bibi Netanyahu off the hook. As for H. 1:8, Csaba Balogh's correction seems (even more) a matter of aesthetic.

More problematic is H. 2:5 MT's reference to wine. This reading anticipates the theme of wine vv. 15f. Although: vv.5f, as v. 8 shows, aims to the Empire which is Babylon. From vv. 15f., Babylon is not drunk herself; she is offering her wine to her subordinates, making them drunk. So the MT reading is here just bad. I might even call John's Revelation to witness.

CODA 4:05 PM MST - Thomas Renz, emend[ing] Hab 2:4a in the Light of Hab 1:5, needs to revisit his 2013 article, based as it is on bad readings.