The Hebrew University Bible Project (HUBP) aims to publish a diplomatic editio maior of the text of the Hebrew Bible, based upon the Aleppo Codex (
According to the principles of a diplomatic edition, there is no attempt to reconstruct an Urtext of the biblical books nor to delineate multiple literary stages within their transmission history.1 Instead, the exhaustive presentation of textual information, accompanied by explanatory notes, allows the reader to use and assess the data in his or her own research.
To date, four volumes of the edition have appeared (Isaiah; Jeremiah; Ezekiel; Twelve Prophets).2 The fifth volume, currently in preparation, will contain Joshua.
Due to the particular character of the biblical text and its various witnesses in Hebrew and in translations, the original editors decided against the presentation of all of this data in a single apparatus. Instead, the variants are organized in four separate apparatuses, each one containing a group of sources that can be presented coherently.
The first two apparatuses contain evidence beginning from the earliest attested textual stage, beginning in the third century BCE, on the basis of the biblical manuscripts discovered in the Judean Desert. The languages of the textual witnesses from this stage serve as the basic criterion for the division of the material in the first two apparatuses: in the first, readings preserved in the ancient translations; in the second, variants collated from Hebrew witnesses. Variants in the different ancient translations, first and foremost in the Septuagint, vastly outnumber those surviving in ancient Hebrew sources, and thus take pride of place in textual criticism. Therefore, priority is given to Apparatus I, the apparatus of the ancient translations, printed directly below the Hebrew text. Whereas Apparatuses I–II pertain to the earliest stage in the written transmission of the biblical text and evidence a degree of textual variety, the other apparatuses (III–IV) reflect a later stage, in which the Masoretic Text (MT) was the essentially exclusive text in Judaism.
The following study emerged from the research for and formulation of Apparatus I to Habakkuk 3 in the HUBP edition, and in particular the Greek evidence for this poetic section. While the apparatus system allows for the analysis of individual details, the current study attempts to synthesize this (at times) complex data in order to illumine the more general contribution of this textual evidence towards understanding the processes of textual dynamics, which are fundamental for understanding the growth of biblical literature.
Habakkuk 3 in Hebrew and Greek
Habakkuk 3 differs significantly from the two previous chapters of the book in terms of both its genre and content. While chapters 1–2 reflect classic prophetic style, the final chapter of the book presents the prayer of Habakkuk, consisting of a psalm-like theophany (vv. 1–16a), which concludes with the recognition that despite the tribulations of the psalmist, he can rely upon God for deliverance and strength (vv. 16b–19). Based upon arguments of language and genre, some scholars have argued for the possibility that the combinations of chapters 1–2 together with 3 are a secondary stage in the development of the book.3 In addition, the testimony of Pesher Habakkuk from Qumran Cave 1, which interprets only the first two chapters of book, perhaps provides supporting evidence for this claim.4 While some of the language of the psalm is enigmatic and despite a few interpretive cruxes, it is relatively straightforward to interpret the overall message of the chapter according to MT, based upon parallels to other biblical theophanies.
As noted above, the current study is an outgrowth of the research in the preparation of Apparatus I for Habakkuk 3, which is of particular interest due to the preservation of two Greek translations for this psalm. One is found in both the primary and vast majority of LXX manuscripts, and is therefore referred to as the Septuagint version. The other is generally known as the Barberini version, since it is contained in the Barberini Codex of the Vatican library (Holmes and Parsons, no. 86). This alternate translation is unique, employing some rare vocabulary, and pertains only to this chapter. It does not appear to have any affinities to the Septuagint elsewhere in the Twelve or beyond.5 This third version of Habakkuk 3 is found in a sum total of six manuscripts (four of which also include the Septuagint version), including Codex Venetus, which has only the Barberini version but in a form that seems to have been influenced by the Septuagint version.6 A critical text of the Barberini version is presented in the Göttingen edition of the LXX to the Twelve Prophets, and is printed following the Septuagint translation of the chapter.7
The Septuagint of the Twelve Prophets, which can be attributed to a single translator,8 is relatively literal, and it can be shown (when possible) that the translator was reasonably faithful to his Hebrew source. Therefore, due attention is given to the possibility that Greek renditions deviating from MT may reflect a variant Hebrew source. However, at the same time, the difficult language found in certain books of the Twelve led to different attempts by the translator to interpret their Hebrew source text. Caution must therefore be exercised when assessing whether a difference reflects a variant Hebrew Vorlage or the translator’s exegesis.
In the following discussion, I will present a series of examples from Habakkuk 3, that help characterize the web of relationships between three textual versions, the Masoretic text, the Septuagint and the Barberini version, followed by some methodological remarks based upon the analysis. Further detailed text-critical evidence and analysis of Habakkuk 3 can be found in the recently published HUBP Twelve Prophets edition (pp. 138*–144*).
Examples from Habakkuk 3
1. The Textual Affiliation of LXX and Barberini
Following v. 1, which serves as a title, the opening line of the poem is attested in different forms in the Hebrew and Greek textual witnesses:
Habakkuk 3:2
MT:
יְהוָ֗ה שָׁמַ֣עְתִּי שִׁמְעֲךָ֮ יָרֵאתִי֒ יְהוָ֗ה פָּֽעָלְךָ֙ בְּקֶ֤רֶב שָׁנִים֙ חַיֵּ֔יהוּ בְּקֶ֥רֶב שָׁנִ֖ים תּוֹדִ֑יעַ בְּרֹ֖גֶז רַחֵ֥ם תִּזְכּֽוֹר׃ (≈ Mur88 XIX, 4–5)9
O Lord, I have learned of your renown; I am awed, O Lord, by your deeds. Renew them in these years, Oh, make them known in these years! Though angry, may you remember compassion. (NJPS)
LXX (and Barberini):
Κύριε, εἰσακήκοα τὴν ἀκοήν σου καὶ ἐφοβήθην (/Barb:εὐλαβήθην ), (Barb: +κύριε ,)κατενόησα τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ ἐξέστην. ἐν μέσῳ δύο ζῴων γνωσθήσῃ, ἐν τῷ ἐγγίζειν τὰ ἔτη ἐπιγνωσθήσῃ, ἐν τῷ παρεῖναι τὸν καιρὸν ἀναδειχθήσῃ, ἐν τῷ ταραχθῆναι τὴν ψυχήν μου ἐν ὀργῇ ἐλέους μνησθήσῃ .
O Lord, I have heard of your renown and feared; (Barb: + O Lord) I considered your works and was astonished. You will be known in the midst of two living creatures; you will be recognized when the years draw near; you will be displayed when the right time comes; you will remember mercy when my soul is troubled in wrath. (NETS)
The two Greek versions of v. 2 as reflected in the critical editions are nearly identical, both reflecting a much longer text that MT. As I will demonstrate, this longer version is clearly secondary vis-à-vis MT. Because the Greek versions reflect shared secondary content readings,10 then one can therefore conclude that one of these versions is textually dependent on the other.11 The most prominent variants in this verse are translational doublets vis-à-vis MT (or a text similar to MT):12
Both readings assume a vocalization of the Hebrew text as
Similarly, at the end of the verse, we find a double translation of the word
The translation
A further shared secondary reading in this verse is the restructuring and reformulation of the first half of the verse, expanding the two parallel stichs:
The syntactical structure of MT, as reflected in the cantillation marks (
(A1) O Lord, I have learned of your renown, I am awed;
(A2) O Lord, your deeds, renew them in these years, Oh, make them known in these years!
(B) Though angry, may you remember compassion.
However, this division raises certain problems: (i) in stich A1, one expects a conjunctive waw before the second verb “I am awed” (
(1a) O Lord, I have learned of your renown;
(1b) I am awed, O Lord, by your deeds
(2a)
renew them!
(2b)
make (them) known!
(3) Though angry, may you remember compassion.
This arrangement reflects a more balanced parallelism throughout: Both 1a and 1b contain the vocative address to the Lord (although in 1b it is no longer the opening word of the stich), first-person verbs that describe the reaction of the psalmist (I have learned / I am awed), and the object of the verbs (your renown / your deeds). This division solves the questions posed above according to the MT division – there is no need for a conjunction at the beginning of 1b, and the relation between the verb and its object in that stich is clear. This also leads to a classic parallelism between 2a and 2b, both of which open with the same two words, followed by a second-person verb (imperative, or jussive with imperative meaning). This therefore seemingly reflects the original structure of the verse, and the secondary arrangement according to the MT cantillation was probably the result of the desire to place the Tetragrammaton at the initial position of each of the stichs.
The structure of the opening stichs in both Greek versions is similar to MT, but both of the issues raised above are solved. The knowledge of God’s renown leads to fear, and the second verb (Hebrew
O Lord, I have heard of
;
(Barb: + O Lord)18 I considered
Here too, the Greek versions are in agreement, and once again reflect a secondary reading, therefore demonstrating their textual interdependence.
A third secondary reading can be identified in the shared translation of the Hebrew clause
Taken together, the details analyzed above lead to two interconnected conclusions: (a) OG / Barberini are secondary to MT in Hab 3:2; (b) the agreement between OG / Barberini regarding secondary readings is evidence for the genetic literary dependence of the two Greek versions,21 although the direction of dependence still needs to be determined, and will be discussed below.
2. Barberini Independent of LXX, Similar to proto-MT (MT ≈ Barb ≠ LXX)
Other verses suggest the independence of Barberini from LXX, while at the same time one can show that the Barberini translator had access to a Hebrew text similar, yet not identical to, (proto-)MT.
Habakkuk 3:4
MT:
וְנֹ֨גַהּ֙ כָּא֣וֹר תִּֽהְיֶ֔ה קַרְנַ֥יִם מִיָּד֖וֹ ל֑וֹ וְשָׁ֖ם חֶבְי֥וֹן עֻזֹּֽה׃ And the brightness was like the sun; rays came forth from his hand, where his power lay hidden. (NRSV)
LXX:
καὶ φέγγος αὐτοῦ ὡς φῶς ἔσται, κέρατα ἐν χερσὶν αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἔθετο ἀγάπησιν κραταιὰν ἰσχύος αὐτοῦ . And his brightness will be like light; horns are in his hands. And he has established a strong love of his strength.
Barberini:
διαύγασμα φωτὸς ἔσται αὐτῷ, κέρατα ἐκ χειρὸς αὐτοῦ ὑπάρχει αὐτῷ. ἐκεῖ ἐπεστήρικται ἡ δύναμις τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ . The splendor of light shall be his; horns from his hand belong to him. There the power of his glory has been fixed.
I want to focus on the end of the verse, parallel to the clause in MT
Analysis of each element of the LXX translation demonstrates how it corresponds to a similar consonantal (unvocalized) basis as that found in MT. Instead of the reading
In this clause, Barberini is dependent upon a Hebrew text similar to MT, and does not reflect the LXX reading. This can be demonstrated by the translation of the word (
The last element in the Hebrew text,
3. Amplification of the Theophany Motif in the Greek Versions28
All the versions of Hab 3 present a theophany scene, but this literary motif is more pronounced in the Greek versions than in MT. A prime example of this is exemplified by v. 6:
MT:
עָמַ֣ד וַיְמֹ֣דֶד אֶ֗רֶץ רָאָה֙ וַיַּתֵּ֣ר גּוֹיִ֔ם וַיִּתְפֹּֽצְצוּ֙ הַרְרֵי־עַ֔ד שַׁח֖וּ גִּבְע֣וֹת עוֹלָ֑ם הֲלִיכ֥וֹת עוֹלָ֖ם לֽוֹ׃
When he stands, he makes the earth shake; when he glances, he makes nations tremble. The age-old mountains are shattered, the primeval hills sink low. His are the ancient routes. (NJPS)
LXX:
ἔστη, καὶ ἐσαλεύθη ἡ γῆ· ἐπέβλεψε, καὶ διετάκη ἔθνη, καὶ διεθρύβη τὰ ὄρη βίᾳ, ἐτάκησαν βουνοὶ αἰώνιοι πορείας αἰωνίας αὐτοῦ . He stood, and the earth shook; he looked, and nations dissolved; the mountains were broken to pieces in violence; everlasting hills of his eternal passage melted.
This verse clearly refers to God’s appearance in the world, and the accompanying natural fireworks that it creates. Interpreters have debated the meaning of the Hebrew
The theophany motif is emphasized even more heavily in Barberini than in LXX (and a foritiri than in MT). New elements are found in the following verses:
Verse 9b:
MT:
נְהָר֖וֹת תְּבַקַּע־אָֽרֶץ You make the earth burst into streams.
LXX:
ποταμῶν ῥαγήσεται γῆ A land of rivers will be torn asunder.
Barberini:
ποταμοὺς διασκεδάσεις καὶ γῆν . You will disperse rivers, and
the earth.
The verb
Verse 13:
MT: …
…
לְיֵ֣שַׁע עַמֶּ֔ךָ
to deliver your people … (You will smash the roof of the villain’s house,)
.
Barberini:
ἐπὶ σωτηρίᾳ τοῦ λαοῦ σου …
…
for the salvation of your people …
The reference to sinking “unto the depths of the sea” is an allusion to Exod 15:5, a paradigmatic theophany. It is possible that the lexical choice of
Furthermore, Barberini presents God as a warrior as part of this theophany imagery:
Verse 8b:
MT:
כִּ֤י תִרְכַּב֙ עַל־סוּסֶ֔יךָ מַרְכְּבֹתֶ֖יךָ יְשׁוּעָֽה׃ “that you are driving your steeds, your victorious chariot”
Barberini:
ἀνέβης ἐπὶ τὰ ἅρματα σου, ἡ ἱππασία σου σωτηρία You mounted on your chariots; your cavalry,
, is deliverance.
The addition of
Verse 12
MT:
בְּזַ֖עַם You tread the earth in rage, you trample nations in fury.־אָ֑רֶץ בְּאַ֖ף תָּד֥וּשׁ גּוֹיִֽם׃
LXX:
ὀλιγώσεις “you will diminish”
Barberini:
ἐγερθήσῃ “you shall be awakened/stirred up”
MT already describes God as attacking the nations. LXX here probably reads
Verse 13b
α :
MT:
מָחַ֤צְתָּ רֹּאשׁ֙ מִבֵּ֣ית רָשָׁ֔ע You will smash the roof of the villain’s house
LXX:
ἔβαλες εἰς κεφαλὰς ἀνόμων θάνατον You cast death on the heads of the lawless
Barberini:
κατετόξευσας κεφαλάς ἀνθρώπων ὑπερηφάνων you shot down the heads of arrogant people with arrows
Both MT and LXX describe God as punishing the villains. However, Barberini chose the specific verb
Methodological Reflections
(1) One can identify numerous differences between the three textual witnesses, but not all of the differences are of the same significance. Some can be traced to an alternate Hebrew Vorlage, while others reflect translation technique or exegesis of the translator(s). There is an inherent difficulty in analyzing all three of these witnesses since there are expressions and clauses in Hebrew and Greek that are extremely difficult to understand, and therefore it is often unclear how to interpret the relationship between the versions.
(2) Despite these difficulties and the many differences between them, I would suggest that both MT and LXX reflect the same literary edition of Habakkuk 3. Many of the potential variants between these two textual witnesses can be traced back to a similar consonantal Hebrew text, and even in those where there seems to be an alternate Hebrew Vorlage, it is usually a reading that is related genetically to that of the MT. In a few cases, LXX seems to reflect an alternate Hebrew text, whose relationship to MT is not clear, and it is therefore possible to view them as alternate Vorlagen. However, I suggest that they are still not significant enough to speak of alternate literary versions.
(3) Although I have suggested that they belong to the same literary edition, one can identify certain secondary trends in the Septuagint of Habakkuk 3, which do reflect minor editorial activity. These include: (a) a literary-poetic sense of parallelism according to which a scribe “completed” the parallelism absent in an earlier version of the text; and (b) slight amplification of the language and motifs of theophany already found in MT. In all of the examples of these phenomena, it can be demonstrated that the LXX is secondary vis-à-vis MT (this does not imply that LXX [or the Vorlage of LXX] is secondary in all details to MT). At the same time, they are only found in a few small details, and I find it difficult to make the argument based upon these differences alone that they reflect an alternate literary edition.
(4) According to the evidence provided above (and as already noted by some scholars), the Barberini text and the Septuagint to Habakkuk 3 are clearly related textually, as demonstrated by their overlap in v. 2 and elsewhere (esp. vv. 8, 18). While the direction of dependence could theoretically be debated, it seems to me most likely that the Barberini text is based upon the LXX, since it adopts motifs and literary techniques that are found there, and further develops them. Barberini is further from MT, and at times seems paraphrastic in nature. Some of the readings above seem to provide evidence that Barberini was translating a textually related, yet different, Vorlage to what is found in MT and LXX. We are still not certain whether the extent of the differences between Greek Barberini and MT are primarily the result of this alternate Vorlage, or whether the Greek translator/reviser is also responsible for some/many of these differences. Due to the periphrastic nature of this translation, I tend towards the latter option.
(5) A comparison of MT and Barberini does in fact seem to suggest that they reflect alternate versions of Habakkuk 3. The differences between them include amplification of the theophany motif, as well as stylistic-poetic changes, including the “completion” and strengthening of poetic parallels. I suggest that these differences qualify as both quantitative and qualitative differences between these two versions, and thus we are perhaps justified in referring to them as alternate editions. However, this is where it becomes complicated methodologically, since these differences between the MT and Barberini are precisely along the same lines as the differences between MT and LXX, yet they appear with much greater frequency throughout the passage and with greater clarity. In light of this, it is perhaps preferable to view the gradual growth of these different versions as a process of rewriting or textual dynamics.31
This leads to a fundamental methodological question, with which I would like to conclude: is there a clear demarcation between the different literary editions of this chapter? When we examine MT and Barberini alone, it seems clear that the answer is in the affirmative. However, if we trace the trajectory of these differences from MT towards LXX and then onto Barberini, we can ask whether and where a line can indeed be drawn. The same scribal and textual phenomena which have led me to view the Barberini text as an alternate literary edition as compared to MT are found in the LXX text in comparison with MT, but are less pronounced and less frequent. Should the recognition that these trends already began in LXX and were then more fully expressed in Barberini change our evaluation of the status of LXX vis-à-vis MT? This of course is not a question to which there is a definitive answer, but I suggest that the dynamic aspects of this growth need to be considered both in this specific case, and more broadly, in discussions of the contribution of the textual versions towards the literary development of biblical books.
Bibliography
Ahituv, Shmuel. “Habakkuk: Introduction and Commentary.” In Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Mikra Leyisraʾel), edited by Mordechai Cogan and Shmuel Ahituv. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006. [In Hebrew.]
Baars, Willem. “A New Witness to the Text of the Barberini Greek Version of Habakkuk III.” Vetus Testamentum 15 (1965): 381–382.
Barthélemy, Dominique. Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2012.
Brownlee, William H. The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979.
Dines, Jennifer M. “The Minor Prophets.” In The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, edited by James K. Aitken, 438–455. London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015.
Dogniez, Cécile. “La version Barberini: éléments pour une étude littéraire d’un autre texte grec d’Habacuc 3.” In Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.–27. Juli 2008, edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer, 295–310. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Fabry, Heinz-Josef. “‘Der Herr macht meine Schritte sicher’ (Hab 3,19 Barb.)—Die Versio Barberini, eine liturgische Sondertradition von Hab 3?” In Die Septuaginta—Texte, Theologien, Einflüsse. 2. Internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 23.–27. Juli 2008, edited by Wolfgang Kraus and Martin Karrer, 223–237. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2010.
Fernández Marcos, Natalio. “El Texto Barberini de Habacuc III Reconsiderado.” Sefarad 36 (1976): 3–36. Translated, and slightly updated in “Der Barberini-Text von Hab 3: Eine neue Untersuchung.” In Brennpunkt—Die Septuaginta; Band 3: Studien zur Theologie, Anthropologie, Ekklesiologie, Eschatologie und Liturgie der Griechischen Bibel, edited by Heinz-Josef Fabry and Dieter Böhler, 151–180. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2007.
Fuller, Russell. “9.2.1 Ancient Manuscript Evidence.” In Textual History of the Bible: The Hebrew Bible, vol.1B, edited by Armin Lange and Emanuel Tov, 601–614. Leiden: Brill, 2016.
Good, Edwin M. “The Barberini Greek Version of Habakkuk III.” Vetus Testamentum 9 (1959): 11–30.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe, ed. The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995.
Goshen-Gottstein, Moshe, and Shemaryahu Talmon, eds. The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Ezekiel. Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004.
Haak, Robert D. Habakkuk. Leiden: Brill, 1991.
Harper, Joshua L. Responding to a Puzzled Scribe: The Barberini Version of Habakkuk 3 Analysed in the Light of the Other Greek Versions. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015.
Hiebert, Theodore. God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn of Habakkuk 3. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1986.
Jones, Barry Alan. The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press, 1995.
Kaddari, Menahem Zevi. A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Alef–Taw. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006. [In Hebrew.]
Margolis, Max L. “The Character of the Anonymous Greek Version of Habakkuk, Chapter 3.” American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 24 (1907–08): 76–85.
Milik, Józef T. “88. Rouleau des Douze Prophètes.” In Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât, edited by Pierre Benoit, Józef T. Milik, and Roland de Vaux, 1: 181–205. Oxford: Clarendon, 1961.
Muraoka, Takamitsu. “In Defense of the Unity of the LXX Minor Prophets.” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 15 (1989): 25–36.
Segal, Michael. “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible.” In Biblical Interpretation at Qumran, edited by Matthias Henze, 10–28. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005.
Segal, Michael. “Daniel 5 in Aramaic and Greek and the Textual History of Daniel 4–6.” In IOSOT Congress Volume. Stellenbosch 2016, edited by Louis Jonker, Gideon Kotzé, and Christl M. Maier, 251–284. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Segal, Michael. “From the Jordan to Mt. Ebal and Back—On the Textual Dynamics of Deut 27 and Josh 3–4; 8.” Vetus Testamentum 2024, 10.1163/15685330-bja10185.
Segal, Michael. “Harmonization and Rewriting of Daniel 6 from the Bible to Qumran.” In HĀ-’ÎSH MŌSHE: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein, edited by Binyamin Y. Goldstein, Michael Segal, and George J. Brooke, 265–279. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Segal, Michael. “Methodological Considerations in the Preparation of an Edition of the Hebrew Bible.” In The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions: Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot, edited by Andrés Piquer Otero and Pablo A. Torijano Morales, 34–55. Leiden: Brill, 2017.
Segal, Michael. “The Old Greek Version and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6.” In Die Septuaginta: Orte und Intentionen: Proceedings of the Fifth International Wuppertal Symposium on the Septuagint, edited by Siegfried Kreuzer, Martin Meiser, and Marcus Sigismund, 404–428. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016.
Segal, Michael. “Reconsidering the Relationship(s) between 4Q365, 4Q365a, and the Temple Scroll.” Revue de Qumran 30 (2018): 213–233.
Segal, Michael. “Rewriting the Final Apocalypse of Daniel.” In (Con)textual Perspectives on the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Seventeenth International Orion Symposium. Forthcoming.
Segal, Michael. “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Materia Giudaica 12, nos. 1–2 (2007): 5–20.
Segal, Michael and Shemaryahu Talmon, eds. The Hebrew University Bible: The Twelve Prophets. Jerusalem: Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies, Hebrew University / Magnes, 2024.
Stade, Bernhard. “Miscellen.” Zeitschrift für die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 4 (1884): 149–159.
Thackeray, H. St. John. “Primitive Lectionary Notes in the Psalm of Habakkuk.” Journal of Theological Studies 12 [1910/11]: 191–213.
Thackeray, H. St. John. The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins. London: British Academy, 1921.
Tov, Emanuel. The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1976.
Tov, Emanuel, Shemaryahu Talmon, and Chaim Rabin, eds. The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Jeremiah. Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997.
Ward, William H. “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Habakkuk.” In A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel, edited by John Merlin Powis Smith, William Hayes Ward, and Julius August Bewer, 3–28. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911.
Ziegler, Joseph, ed. Duodecim prophetae. Volume 13 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967.
Ziegler, Joseph. “Die Einheit der Septuaginta zum Zwölfprophetenbuch.” In Beilage zum Vorlesungsverzeichnis der Staatl. Akademie zu Braunsberg, 1–16. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1934–35.
M. Segal, “Methodological Considerations in the Preparation of an Edition of the Hebrew Bible,” in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions: Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot, ed. A. Piquer Otero and P.A. Torijano Morales (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 34–55.
M. Goshen-Gottstein, ed., The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Isaiah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1995); E. Tov, Sh. Talmon, and C. Rabin, eds., The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Jeremiah (Jerusalem: Magnes, 1997); M. Goshen-Gottstein and Sh. Talmon, eds., The Hebrew University Bible: The Book of Ezekiel (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2004); M. Segal and Sh. Talmon, eds., The Hebrew University Bible: The Twelve Prophets (Jerusalem: Mandel Institute of Jewish Studies, Hebrew University / Magnes, 2024).
See e.g. B. Stade, “Miscellen,” ZAW 4 (1884): 157; W. H. Ward, “A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Habakkuk,” in A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Micah, Zephaniah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Obadiah and Joel, ed. J. M. Powis Smith, W. H. Ward, and J. A. Bewer (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1911), 6: “The third chapter … may or may not be by one of the authors to whom we owe 112–220.” See the extended discussion of T. Hiebert, God of My Victory: The Ancient Hymn of Habakkuk 3 (Atlanta, GA.: Scholars, 1986), 129–136, who argues for a return to the position of earlier scholars, that Hab 3 was by a different author than the preceding two chapters; and especially the list of scholars for and against this position on p. 178, n. 1; Sh. Ahituv, “Habakkuk: Introduction and Commentary,” in Nahum, Habakkuk and Zephaniah (Mikra Leyisraʾel; ed. M. Cogan and S. Ahituv (Jerusalem: Magnes, 2006, in Hebrew) 6–7, accepts the claim of the different origins of Hab 3.
Although note the methodological reservations of using Pesher Habakkuk as proof of this claim by W. H. Brownlee, The Midrash Pesher of Habakkuk (Missoula, MN: Scholars, 1979), 218–19; R. D. Haak, Habakkuk (Leiden: Brill, 1991), 7–8; Sh. Ahituv, “Habakkuk: Introduction and Commentary,” 7.
The origins of Barb Hab 3 are unclear, and also relate to the general question of the literary relationship between the different versions. H. St. J. Thackeray, “Primitive Lectionary Notes in the Psalm of Habakkuk,” JTS 12 (1910/11): 191–213, and ibid., The Septuagint and Jewish Worship: A Study in Origins (London: British Academy, 1921), 47–55, was of the opinion that the Barberini text preceded the LXX version, and was created for the purpose of the Jewish lectionary (
See E. M. Good, “The Barberini Greek Version of Habakkuk III,” VT 9 (1959): 11, who analyzed five manuscripts. A sixth manuscript (Rahlfs 456), which includes the Barberini version of Hab 3, was identified by W. Baars, “A New Witness to the Text of the Barberini Greek Version of Habakkuk III,” VT 15 (1965): 381–82. He noted its textual affinity with V. J. L. Harper, Responding to a Puzzled Scribe: The Barberini Version of Habakkuk 3 Analysed in the Light of the Other Greek Versions (London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2015), 4–6, suggested that MS 456 was perhaps copied from V (preserving a similar mixed text).
J. Ziegler, ed., Duodecim prophetae, vol. 13 of Septuaginta: Vetus Testamentum Graecum: Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis Editum (16 vols., Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1967), 273–75.
See ibid., “Die Einheit der Septuaginta zum Zwölfprophetenbuch,” in Beilage zum Vorlesungsverzeichnis der Staatl. Akademie zu Braunsberg (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1934–35), 1–16; T. Muraoka, “In Defense of the Unity of the LXX Minor Prophets,” Annual of the Japanese Biblical Institute 15 (1989): 25–36; E. Tov, The Septuagint Translation of Jeremiah and Baruch: A Discussion of an Early Revision of Jeremiah 29–52 and Baruch 1:1–3:8 (Missoula, MT: Scholars 1976), 135–51; B. A. Jones, The Formation of the Book of the Twelve: A Study in Text and Canon (Atlanta, GA: Scholars, 1995), 88–90; J. M. Dines, “The Minor Prophets,” in The T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, ed. J. K. Aitken (London: Bloomsbury T & T Clark, 2015), 439.
This second-century CE scroll was published by J. T. Milik, “88. Rouleau des Douze Prophètes,” in Les Grottes de Murabba‘ât, ed. P. Benoit, J.T. Milik & R. de Vaux (Oxford: Clarendon, 1961) 1: 181–205, 2: pl. lvi–lxxiii. It is textually very close to the consonantal basis of MT, and has one significant variant in this chapter (v. 10).
For the importance of these secondary readings in determining textual affiliation, see M. Segal, “The Text of the Hebrew Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls,” Materia Giudaica 12, nos. 1–2 (2007): 7–8.
Many scholars assume that this agreement reflects contamination of one of the translations on the other during the Greek transmission process; see e.g.: Fernández Marcos, “El Texto Barberini,” 9; C. Dogniez, “La version Barberini: éléments pour une étude littéraire d’un autre texte grec d’Habacuc 3,” in Die Septuaginta – Entstehung, Sprache, Geschichte; 3. internationale Fachtagung veranstaltet von Septuaginta Deutsch (LXX.D), Wuppertal 22.–25. Juli 2010, ed. S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser and M. Sigismund (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012), 299; Harper, Responding to a Puzzled Scribe, 54–55 (noting the numerous doublets in this verse). All of the Greek manuscripts are consistent in this reading, and therefore, they are forced to further posit that this is a rather early conflation; see similarly their assessment of vv. 8 and 18, which are additional verses that are very closely formulated in OG and Barb. In contrast, as I suggest below, the relationship of the two versions is of one rewriting the other, in which it is common for there to be both extended shared material, and passages with differences of formulation and content.
See M. L. Margolis, “The Character of the Anonymous Greek Version of Habakkuk, Chapter 3,” AJSLL 24 (1907–08): 78.
Contrast the translation of
Cf. Prov 14:33. Note also the verb
Note also the similar expression with
The Vulgate and Peshitta, which share the same sense division as MT, similarly reflect a conjunction at this point in the text, solving the first syntactical difficulty identified above. They do not, however, offer a solution to the second, in contrast to LXX / Barberini.
It is difficult to know in this instance if the addition of these verbs took place in Hebrew or in Greek. Margolis, “Character,” 78, records this as characteristic of Barb; however, it is also in LXX, and therefore cannot be used to uniquely characterize the former.
The presence of a second
Interestingly, an alternate vocalization tradition of this word is the basis for a rabbinic al tiqre homily in b.Sot 49a, but it is unclear to me if there is in fact a connection between that and the evidence of the Greek versions here (according to the derasha, it appears that it is suggested to read the prepositional phrase
The description of “two living creatures” from the midst of which God will be known is perhaps a reference to the two cherubim on top of the Ark (cf. Exod 25:22; Num 7:89; Ezek 10:15,20). This motif seems foreign to the rest of the theophany, in addition to the rhetorical and syntactical arguments offered above to demonstrate that LXX / Barberini are secondary in this detail as well.
See above, n. 10.
See BDB, 285; HALOT, 284–285; M. Z. Kaddari, A Dictionary of Biblical Hebrew: Alef–Taw (Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 2006, in Hebrew), 268–69.
Theodotion, Vulgate and Targum Jonathan agree with MT; Aquila, Symmachus and Peshitta agree with LXX.
Good, “Barberini Greek Version,” 13, n. 8. Harper, Responding, 213, notes that “
Other scholars suggest that this word is an addition by the translator: Margolis, “Character,” 80 (“an amplification”); Fernández Marcos, “El texto Barberini,” 20; Harper, Responding, 213 (“periphrastic clarification”). But see the discussion of the subsequent expression below.
See Dogniez, “La version Barberini,” 301–302. Contrast the position of the scholars in nn. 24,25, who take this doubled Greek expression as a translation of the Hebrew expression
This latter reading is also attested in Aquila, Theodotion and the Peshitta. Good, “Barberini Greek Version,” 13, n. 1, notes Barberini’s “tendency to paraphrase” in reference to v. 3.
The presentation of Barb here is far from exhaustive, and other scholars have highlighted additional themes found in Barb Hab 3 (vis-à-vis both MT and OG); see e.g. Fabry, “Der Herr,” 228–236; Dogniez, “La version Barberini,” 307–309.
Note perhaps similarly the LXX translation of v. 14
This reading also attested in a quotation in a manuscript of Meḵilta R. Išmael, širta 5 (134:13).
I have analyzed and addressed these scribal phenomena in a number of studies, including: M. Segal, “Between Bible and Rewritten Bible,” in Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 10–28; “The Old Greek Version and Masoretic Text of Daniel 6,” in Die Septuaginta: Orte und Intentionen. Proceedings of the Fifth International Wuppertal Symposium on the Septuagint, ed. S. Kreuzer, M. Meiser, and M. Sigismund (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 404–28; “Daniel 5 in Aramaic and Greek and the Textual History of Daniel 4–6,” in IOSOT Congress Volume. Stellenbosch 2016, ed. L.C. Jonker, C. Maier, and G. Kotzé (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 251–84; “Harmonization and Rewriting of Daniel 6 from the Bible to Qumran,” in HĀ-’ÎSH MŌSHE: Studies in Scriptural Interpretation in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Related Literature in Honor of Moshe J. Bernstein, ed. B. Goldstein, M. Segal, and G.J. Brooke (Leiden: Brill, 2017), 265–79; “Reconsidering the Relationship(s) between 4Q365, 4Q365a, and the Temple Scroll,” Revue de Qumran 30 (2018): 213–33; “Rewriting the Final Apocalypse of Daniel,” in In (Con)textual Perspectives on the Dead Sea Scrolls: The Seventeenth International Orion Symposium (forthcoming); “From the Jordan to Mt. Ebal and Back – On the Textual Dynamics of Deut 27 and Josh 3–4; 8,” VT (2024), 10.1163/15685330-bja10185.