CHAPTER FIVE TG HABAKKUK AND THE HABAKKUK PESHER Of all the Dead Sea texts it is the Habakkuk pesher (lQpHab) that, by common consent, exhibits the most impressive agreements with a Targum text. 1 Indeed, the affinity between Tg and 1QpHab, usually expressed in terms of dependence by the 1atter upon the former, has often been made the basis of claims for an early date of origin for Tg Habakkuk, whether essentially the extant version or an earlier form of it. One of the first to draw attention to points of correspondence between Tg and 1QpHab was O.H. Lehmann in an article published in 1951.2 Lehmann noted several agreements between the texts and suggested, in particular, that the author of the pesher was aware of the Targumic interpretation of Hab. 2: 11 (pp. 36- 37). S. Zeitlin was another scholar who early saw possible significance in an agreement between Tg and pesher, at Hab. 2:20. 3 Zeitlin; who assumed a relatively late date of composition for Tg Prophets, cited this agreement in support of his mediaeval dating of the Dead Sea texts. Zeitlin found little sympathy for bis dating of the Dead Sea texts, and by far the majority of scholars have come to regard the relationship between Tg and 1QpHab in a different way. In their van has been W.H. Brownlee4 who has presented a case for detailed agreement, and has argued for the priority of Tg (in whatever form): 'The frequent dependance (sie) of 1QpHab upon the Targum indicates that the Targumic text had taken definite shape by the middle of the First Century B.C.'5 Brownlee's case depends upon the cumulative effect of aseries of agreements that will have to be assessed individually before his overall conclusion can be supported or rejected. In 1 For the text of IQpHab see M. Burrows (ed.), The Dead Sea Serolls of St. Mark's Monastery, I, The Isaiah Manuseript and the Habakkuk Commentary (New Haven, 1950), ~Iates LV-LXI. 'Materials Concerning the Dating ofthe Dead Sea Scrolls: I: Habakkuk', PEQ 1951, pp. 32-54. 3 'The Hebron Pogrom and the Hebrew Scrolls', JQR NS 43 (1952-3), p. 150. 4 'The Habakkuk Midrash and the Targurn of Jonathan', JJS 7 (1956), pp. 169-86. Otherwise unspecified page references in the main text are to this article. Earlier Brownlee had circulated a mimeographed production, The Dead Sea Habakkuk Midrash and the Targum of Jonathan (Duke University, 1953). Cf. idem, 'Biblical Interpretation Among the Sectaries of the Dead Sea Scrolls', BA 14 (1951), pp. 54-76; The Text of Habakkuk in the Aneient Commentary from Qumran (JBLMS 11; Philadelphia, 1959); The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (SBLMS 24; Missoula, 1979). 5 JJS 7 (1956), p. 185. 84 CHAPIER FIVE addition, the special case of Hab. 1:16 as it is treated in Tg and lQpHab will be given attention in aseparate section. CUMULATIVE AGREEMENTS Hab. 1:6. Brownlee notes two points of contact in the respective renderings of this verse. MT hnmhr is 'interpreted alike by the Targum (qlyl') and by lQpHab ii: 12 (qlym) to mean "light-footed" or "fleet'" (p. 170).6 The use of the same root in literal translations of hnmhr would not be that remarkable, but, more significantly, Brownlee has failed to observe that the MT word-order in hmr whnmhr has probably been inverted in 1QpHab qlym wgbwrym, since gbwrym could weIl represent (h)mr if the latter is associated with a root mrr meaning 'be strong'.7 The second instance of supposed agreement in this verse concems the interpretation of MT miknwt, which Tg renders by 'cities' (qrwyn) and lQpHab 3:1 by 'cities (Cry) of the land'.s However, the Targums often enough translate words like 'dwelling', 'tent' and 'gate' by 'cities', which seems to deprive this agreement of much of its significance.9 It is a 'transposition' which happens naturally when contemporizing of the biblical text takes place. The author of 1QpHab, inasmuch as he was engaged in the contemporizing of the words of the prophet Habakkuk, will have bad his own good reason for equating 'dwellings' with 'cities', and especially if he had in mind the Roman occupation of Judea. Hab. 1:9. For MT qdymh Tg has 'they are like the east wind', which could be taken to represent qdym, 'the reading of 1QpHab iii: 9 and probably the interpretation implied in the following commentary' , according to Brownlee (p. 170).10 However, as Brownlee had previously observed,11 two other ancient versions (Vg, Symm) read as if their Vorlage had qdym; the 6 Cf. A. Finkei, 'The Pesher of Dreams and Scriptures' ,RQ 4 (1963-4), p. 362n. 9. 7 For mrr ('be strong') see C.H. Gordon, 'Two Magic Bowls in Teheran', Orientalia NS 20 (1951), p. 308; J.c.L. Gibson (ed.), Canaanite Myths and Legends (Edinburgh, 21978), p. 152; W.A. Ward, 'Comparative Studies in Egyptian and Ugaritic', JNES 20 (1961), p. 36; G.R. Driver, 'Ugaritic Problems', in S. Segert (ed.), Studia Semitica Philologiea neenon Philosophiea Ioanni Bakof Dieata (Bratislava, 1965), p. 102. L.H. Silberman, 'Unriddling the Riddle. A Study in the Structure and Language of the Habakkuk Pesher (1 QpHab.)', RQ 3 (1961-2), pp. 336-37, makes a connection with mr (sie) ('lord'). Finkei, RQ 4 (1963-4), p. 369, translates mr by 'courageous', comparing mry nps in 2 Sam. 17:8. In The Midrash Pes her (p. 61) Brownlee notes Silberman's suggestion with the comment, In this he may weil be right.' 8 JJS 7 (1956), p. 170; cf. idem, The Midrash Pesher, p. 65. 9 See E. Brederek, Konkordanz zum Targum Onkelos (BZAW 9; Giessen, 1906), p. 125, for approximately thirty examples of BH s' r translated by qry' in Tg Onqelos. Brownlee (p. 170n. 7) prefers the derivation of Tg qrwyn from qyrwy ('shelter'); qrwyn could then be explained as a fairly literal rendering of ms1cnwt. But the mere fact that qry' is used to translate various Hebrew words renders the suggestion otiose. The similarity between the Targumic and the pesher treatment of msknwt was already noted by Lehmann, PEQ 1951, p. 36. 10 Cf. BA 14 (1951), p. 63; similarly Silberman, RQ 3 (1961-2), p. 339. 11 BA 14 (1951), p. 63n. 29a; cf. idem, The Text, p. 19. .