In a study of ancient scribal unit delimiters in Habakkuk I remarked: ‘It is quite surprising that the most basic of exegetical exercises, namely the demarcation of both larger and smaller units, has not been adequately addressed’ (Prinsloo 2009:198).¹⁰ Apart from some general remarks on the delimitation of units in Habakkuk 2 (Prinsloo 2009:215–217), I have not undertaken a detailed study of the implications of unit delimitation for the interpretation of Habakkuk 2 yet. This section is a step in that direction with a very specific focus, namely the relationship between 2:4–5 and 2:5ff. It is important for the interpretation of Habakkuk 2. There has been considerable debate about the extent and content of the ןוזח that Habakkuk was instructed to write down (2:2b), a question directly related to the relationship between 2:4 and 5. Some regard 2:1–4 as a unit (Deden 1953:263; Elliger 1956:41; Nowack 1903:283; Van Katwijk 1912:51; Prinsloo 1999:524–525).,¹¹ others 2:1–5 (Deissler 1984:226; Rudolph 1975:216; Sellin 1930:399),¹² still others 2:1–5b (Brownlee 1971:258–259; Prinsloo 1989:132),¹³ whereas some are of the opinion that 2:1–20 should be read as a single pericope (Van der Woude 1978:31).¹⁴

A key issue in this discussion is the interpretation of יכ ףאו in 2:5. The function of the combination of three conjunctive and/or subordinate particles without any obvious referent is controversial. For those who propose a close relationship between 2:4 and 5, יכ ףאו [how much more and/or less …] introduces an argument a minori ad maius (Rudolph 1975:213; Van der Woude 1966:367–375, 1970:281–282). For others there is no logical a minori ad maius connection between 2:4 and 5 (Roberts 1991:116) and יכ ףאו functions as an ‘emphatic connective’ (Bratcher 1985:145) to be translated by something like ‘yes, indeed …’ (Deissler 1984:226; Van Katwijk 1912:108; Van der Woude 1978:39).

Principles of unit delimitation can assist modern interpreters in making exegetical decisions. Addendum 1 contains a brief discussion of textual witnesses used in this study and their bibliographical information. The consulted Hebrew textual witnesses unanimously suggest a section break between 1:17 and 2:1 and again between 2:8 and 9.¹⁵ Witnesses are divided about the delimitation of units in 2:1–8. Some regard it as a single paragraph, whereas others have a division between 2:4 and 5.¹⁶ 1QpHab supports this division. It quotes Habakkuk 2:4a in 7:14–15; 2:4b in 7:17; 2:5–6 in 8:3–8; 2:7–8a in 8:13–15; 2:8a again in 9:3–4 and 2:2:8b in 9:8. The combination of 2:5–6 in the quote in 8:3–8 suggests a close relationship between the introduction to the woe oracles (2:5–6d) and the first oracle itself (2:6e–8). Data from the Hebrew manuscripts is summarised in Table 1.

Greek textual witnesses by and large support the delimitation traditions in Masoretic manuscripts. Greek manuscripts indicate in various ways that a new section begins with 2:1.¹⁷ Septuagint manuscripts demarcate 2:1 as a sub-unit, an indication that it was regarded as an introduction to 2:2–20.¹⁸ There is no uniform treatment of 2:2–8 in Septuagint manuscripts. Whereas 2:2–8 is subdivided into smaller units by some,¹⁹ no subdivisions are apparent in others.²⁰ All four consulted uncials demarcate καὶ ἐροῦσιν (2:6cα) as a separate phrase.²¹ Thus, Greek manuscripts attest to the following: 2:1 is regarded as an introductory phrase in all manuscripts. As in some Hebrew manuscripts, Greek witnesses subdivide 2:2–8, regarding 2:2–4 as a unit and 2:5–6cα as an introduction to the series of woe oracles commencing in 2:6cβ–20.²² Other Greek witnesses support the second Hebrew tradition with no subdivision in 2:2–8.²³ The two traditions in the consulted textual witnesses are summarised in Table 2.

In the evaluation of these witnesses, another classic principle in Hebrew textual criticism should be kept in mind, namely that textual evidence should be weighed and not counted (see Deist 1978:243–244; Tov 1992:300–301). The division of 2:1–8 into two paragraphs is attested in the Pesher Habakkuk and in three Masoretic codices dating from before 1000 CE. This tradition cannot simply be discounted.

When the text of 2:5a is compared in six ancient textual witnesses (see Addendum 2), different textual traditions are apparent. The basic tenet in all witnesses is clear. All denounce ‘an arrogant person’ whose insatiable appetite for violence is likened to Sheol [death] and finds expression in his obsession to gather to himself all the nations or peoples.

With regard to 2:5a, however, three textual traditions are apparent. The first refers to the treacherous nature of wine, which has exactly the effect described in the rest of the verse – those who become addicted to it always crave more. It is reflected in MT, the Targum and the Vulgate and is followed in many modern translations.²⁴ The second does not refer to wine, but contains a number of synonyms for arrogance. The Septuagint reads ὁ δὲ κατοιόμενος καὶ καταφρονητής, ἀνὴρ ἀλαζών [but the arrogant and the scorner, the boastful man] and the Peshitta ܥܒܣ ܠܐ ܐܢܥܝܘ ܐܚܪܡ ܐܪܒܓܘ [the arrogant and greedy man]. It is followed in a number of modern translations.²⁵ The third tradition is present only in 1QpHab, where MT’s ןייה is replaced by the orthographically similar ןוה, usually vocalised as ןוֹה [wealth].²⁶ This reading is popular in so-called dynamic-equivalent translations.²⁷

Unit delimitation thus suggests that consideration should be given to the scribal tradition demarcating a section break between 2:4 and 2:5. It implies that 2:5 should be interpreted in light of the following verses, and 2:5–20 then in conjunction with 2:1–4. A comparative reading of various textual witnesses suggests the existence of three traditions regarding 2:5a. Is wine, arrogance or wealth denounced in 2:5a? In this study I will focus on two of the three textual traditions and ask whether ‘wine’ or ‘wealth’ is denounced in 2:5a.

Does ןוה [wealth] make sense in the context of 1QpHab? Three issues should be kept in mind in a contextual interpretation of 1QpHab 8:3–13.

The first is the Pesher’s socio-historical context. The scroll dates from the latter half of the first century BCE,²⁸ but was probably first written in the time of Alexander Jannaeus (103–176 BCE) (Fabry 2003:252). It should be read against the background of the conflicts between successive imperial powers of the time (the Persians, Greeks and Romans) and their influence upon the Jewish minority in and around Jerusalem.²⁹ It should especially be read in the light of the second and first century BCE’s emerging and often conflicting Judaism(s).³⁰ A core belief ‘of Second Temple Judaism was to view the totality of the Jewish people as an organic whole, almost like a single body that was chosen by God’ At the same time ‘individual religious communities … proliferated during this period’, all adhering to ‘this overarching view of Israel’s sanctity’, but ‘each group established its own ways to live a life of sanctity and saw itself as verus Israel’ (Flusser 2009:8). Some groups ‘placed their hopes in the institutions and leaders of their day, whether the High Priests, the Ptolemies, or the Maccabees’ and ‘had little interest in messianism’, while ‘[a]pocalyptic groups developed the idea of a transcendent savior figure, either as an alternative or as a complement to earthly messianism’. At Qumran ‘we find a group with a strong and developed interest in messianism’ (Collins 1987:106).

The second is the nature of the Qumran community. Sometime ‘before 150 BCE centuries of tension within the many priestly groups in the Jerusalem Temple came to a climax’ and ‘the Righteous Teacher led a group out of the Temple and Jerusalem and southeastward into the wilderness’ (Charlesworth 2002:37) and established the so-called Qumran community:

Much has been written about the community’s mode(s) of self-identification and their ‘sectarian’ identity (Berg 2011:333–349; Jokiranta 2013; Newsom 2004)³² :

The Qumran community:

The third is the nature of the pesher genre. Pesher [רשפ] ‘is a term … largely distinctive of the Qumran sectarian literature’ (Brooke 2013:101). It introduces ‘a revealed interpretation … of an earlier revelation’ (Silberman 1961:326), indicates ‘the meaning of a biblical word, phrase or verse’ (Lim 2000:59) and ‘introduces the specific point of reference from which the entire verse is to be understood’ (Silberman 1961:328). The pesharim ‘are hermeneutically focused. They are biblical commentaries in the sense of fulfilment hermeneutics’ (Charlesworth 2002:5–6). Pesher interpretation ‘is pneumatic, eschatological, and “fulfilment interpretation”; it is also self-serving and idiosyncratic’ (2002:68). The pesherist read the biblical text in the light of his community’s interests and circumstances, as if ‘the ancient men of wisdom, especially the prophets, focused their thoughts on the latter days’ and as if the ‘Qumranites … were living in the latter days of time and history’ (Charlesworth 2002:70).³³ The ‘Habakkuk Pesher and, indeed, all Pesher material are related on one side to Daniel and on the other to a body of midrashim whose structure is parallel to and perhaps derived from the form found in Daniel and developed in the Qumran pesharim’ (see Instone Brewer 1992:187–198; Silberman 1961:326).³⁴

In 1QpHab 8:3–13 both the biblical lemma (8:3–8) and its interpretation and application (8:8–13) should be read against this background.³⁵ The interpretation ‘is not merely juxtaposed to the lemma with but superficial relation to it. Rather does it grow out of the lemma, using literary devices to establish the connection’ (Silberman 1961:334). The term ןוה [wealth] is key in 8:3–13. It occurs four times, once in the lemma (8:3) and three times in the application (8:11–12). The term ןוה occurs another five times in 1QpHab (1:8; 6:1; 9:5, 6; 12:10). The Pesher ‘mentions wealth more extensively than any of the other exegetical works’ (Murray 2002:235) and always uses the term in the sense of illegitimately taking the possessions of others. The Qumran community ‘displayed a distinct antipathy towards wealth and they regarded it as the result of violence, pillage and oppression’ (Potgieter-Annandale 1999:81). In 1:8 and 6:1 the Romans are accused of seizing the wealth of others in order to increase their own wealth. Especially the so-called Wicked Priest is accused of committing this atrocity. In 8:3 Habakkuk 2:5 is quoted as ‘wealth betrays a haughty man …’ It is applied to the Wicked Priest, who is accused of betraying God’s statutes for the sake of wealth (8:11) and of amassing the wealth of men (8:11) and taking the wealth of peoples (8:12). In 12:10 he is accused of stealing the wealth of the poor ones. The last priests of Jerusalem are also accused of amassing wealth and profit (9:5) and warn that it will be given into the hands of the army of the Kittim (9:6).

ןוה occurs about 140 times in the Dead Sea ‘sectarian’ texts³⁶ and can be regarded as a key concept for the Qumran community.³⁷ The Damascus Document (14x)³⁸ stipulates:

The community disdains ‘the arrogance and viciousness associated with wealth … and give economic witness to the eschatological justice for which they hope’ (Murray 2002:102). The Rule of the Community (23x)³⁹ shares with the Damascus Document ‘an intense interest in wealth’. Whereas the Damascus Document focuses upon ‘socio-economic critique’, in the Rule:

4QInstruction and other wisdom texts (26x)⁴⁰ presume ‘an audience that regularly finds itself in difficult economic circumstances to which the pooling of resources, charity and in the last resort loans appear to be the only avenues of recourse’ (Murray 2002:209). In the Pesharim (10x)⁴¹ there is ‘the association of arrogance and wickedness with wealth, the self-identification of the community as the poor and the meek’ and ‘the assertion that God will bless these poor ones by feeding them’ (Murray 2002:235).

Slomovic (1969–71:15) argues that in 8:3–13 ‘the general idea of the pesher is apparent. The Wicked Priest, after a period of enjoying a reputation for truth, grew arrogant and betrayed God and his precepts for the sake of wealth. Wealth was the underlying cause for his betrayal’ (my emphasis).⁴² Departing from the reading ןוה איכ ףאו (8:3) the pesherist was able to apply the biblical phrase to עשרה ןהוכה in 8:8.⁴³ For Brownlee (1951:67) the ‘explication of the passage grows out of its distinctive readings.’ He identifies three distinctive readings of the biblical text in the pesher: Firstly, ןוה [wealth] is read instead of MT’s ןייה [the wine], allowing the pesherist to make deceptive wealth the key term that ‘drives several sentences in the interpretation’ (VanderKam 2011:356). Secondly, for the pesherist MT’s לָשָׁמ [proverb] (2:6; see 1QpHab 8:6) implies something cryptic (Brownlee 1951:67), hence it is read in the application as לשמ [to rule] in the phrase ‘but when he ruled in Israel his heart became haughty’ (8:9–10).⁴⁴ Thirdly, the final word in MT 2:6, טיִטְבַע [pledge], is written defectively in 1QpHab 8:8, thus טטבע, allowing the pesherist to read it as two words, טֵט בָע [thickness of mud] and apply it as האמט תדנ [unclean impurity] (see Brownlee 1951:67, 1979:142).⁴⁵ Hence the Wicked Priest, who once ‘was called by the name of truth’ (8:9) became laden האמט תדנ לוכב ‘with every kind of unclean impurity’ (VanderKam 2011:358).

The accumulated evidence indicate that ריהי רבג דוגבי ןוה איכ ףאו in 1QpHab 8:3 is an acceptable and explainable reading in the context of the Qumran community and its literature.

Does ןייה [the wine] make sense in the context of MT? Three issues should be kept in mind in a contextual interpretation of Habakkuk 2:5–6.

The first is the text’s socio-historical context. At least for Habakkuk 1–2, readers have to transpose themselves about 400 years earlier than the events suggested in the Pesher Habakkuk. The text can be read against the background of the Babylonian exile (Prinsloo 2013a:132–154). Habakkuk displays a ‘curious reluctance to identify the wicked’, yet ‘there are hints that the Babylonians are the object of the scorn, the nation on whom imminent doom is pronounced’ (Prinsloo 2013a:152). I inferred this from the ‘many parallels between Habakuk 2 and oracles of doom in Isaiah directed against the Babylonians (cf. Isa 13–14; 21:1–10)’ (Prinsloo 2013a:152). With reference to Habakkuk 3 I postulated that the:

The reference to ןייה in 2:5 should be interpreted against the background of imperial powers’ domination of the people of Judah/Yehud during the Babylonian exile and Persian/early Hellenistic rule.

Secondly, readers sensitive to intertextual allusions in the Hebrew Bible will recognise a number of intertextual contexts illuminating the phrase דגוב ןייה יכ ףאו in 2:5a. In wisdom literature the delusionary influence of ןייה [the wine] is a well-known motif (see Proverbs 23:29–35). Proverbs 20:1 is reminiscent of Habakkuk 2:5a’s דגוב ןייה:

Wine is used as metaphor for YHWH’s wrath. In Psalm 75:9 ‘the wicked of the earth’ are condemned:

In prophetic literature YHWH’s wrath is directed at Israel’s enemies in general, and at one enemy in particular – the Babylonians. Jeremiah 25:15–38 is a pronouncement of universal judgement directed at ‘Jerusalem and the towns of Judah, its kings and officials’ (Jer 25:18) and all surrounding kingdoms (Jer 25:19–26). The prophet is instructed (Jer 25:15–16):

The prophet obeys and hands the cup to all nations (Jer 25:17–26).

Jeremiah 51:1–58 is a pronouncement of Babylon’s complete destruction. ‘Wine’ serves as metaphor for Babylon’s violence (51:7–8):

A similar picture emerges in Isaiah 51:17–23. The exiles are comforted (51:17):

A complete reversal of fortunes is about to occur (51:21–23a):

In Jeremiah 51:1–58 and Isaiah 51:17–23 ‘wine’ is a metaphor for the Babylonians’ violence against the people of Judah. The cup of wrath they handed to the Judeans will become the cup of wrath in the hand of YHWH and the Babylonians will now be forced to drink it. Daniel 5:1–31, a tale about the final destruction of the Babylonian Empire, repeatedly refers to ‘the wine’ drank at King Belshazzar’s banquet from ‘the gold goblets’ taken by Nebuchadnezzar from ‘the temple of God in Jerusalem’ (see 5:1–4, 23). This action is interpreted by Daniel as a sure sign of Babylonian hubris (5:18–24) and it is the direct cause of the great empire’s fall (Kaiser 1992:172).

The intertexts teach a general principle: ןייה [the wine] is deceptive or treacherous and not to be trusted (see ץל in Prov 20:1).⁴⁶ When it is used metaphorically for YHWH’s wrath and/or a foreign power’s violence, a Motivkonstellation is created that might be called ‘drinking the cup of wrath from YHWH’s hand’.⁴⁷ It conveys a simple principle. The violence committed against others by imperial powers (metaphorically described as a cup filled with fuming wine) will turn against them. YHWH will force these powers to drink the cup of wrath themselves. The constellation consists of six motifs: a drinking vessel – hand (of YHWH) – fermented beverage – recipient(s) of the beverage – consuming the beverage – effect.

Thirdly, principles of unit delimitation suggest that a section break between Habakkuk 2:4 and 5 should seriously be considered. If 2:5 is interpreted in the light of 2:5–20, intratextual links in the pericope indicate that the reference to ןייה in 2:5a is not ‘hardly acceptable’ (Van der Woude 1978:39) or ‘senseless’ (Perlitt 2004:67). On the contrary, the general intent of the text is clear:

If 2:5 is read in this context, the presence of the Motivkonstellation referred to above becomes apparent (see 2:5, 15–16). Table 4 summarises its manifestation in different contexts.

Read in this light the presence of ןייה [the wine] in 2:5a becomes perfectly legible. It refers to the arrogance of the wicked Babylonians, prompting them to gather more (2:6–8), secure more (2:9–11), build more (2:12–14), lust more (2:15–17) and in the end commit the ultimate folly of relying solely upon himself (2:18–19) in the presence of YHWH, who is in his holy palace and before whom all the Earth should hush (2:20). Their lust for ‘wine’ borders on the absurd and has become an insatiable obsession (2:5). Ironically, by committing the atrocities described in the woe oracles, the perpetrator of violent acts satiated himself with shame (2:16) and his downfall is inevitable.

The accumulated evidence indicate that the reading דגוב ןייה יכ ףאו in MT 2:5a is an acceptable and explainable reading in the context of MT.