What We Know about the People behind the Dead Sea Scrolls History, archeology, and the scrolls themselves reveal a fascinating picture of a unique Jewish community. Anthony FergusonThe ancient Jewish group known as the Essenes remained in obscurity for over two millennia. Neither the Old Testament nor the New Testament mentions this group, and although ancient authors like Josephus, Philo, and Pliny describe them, in addition to some church fathers, the Essenes never captured the public’s interest quite like the Pharisees did. All that changed one day in 1948 after the exhilarating announcement that ancient biblical manuscripts had been discovered near the Dead Sea and now known the world over as the Dead Sea Scrolls. This announcement would soon catapult the Essenes from obscurity to the front pages of every major newspaper. The Essenes became popular almost immediately. Despite this popularity, knowledge of the Essenes is often quite basic for most scholars and interested laypeople. Most would correctly identify the Essenes as a Jewish sect, but a more detailed description evades many. So who were the Essenes? We need to first decide on the relevant evidence which is not completely straightforward. Scholars disagree about the reliability of the historical accounts, the nature of the Qumran settlement, and the group described in the non-biblical Dead Sea Scrolls. So which evidence is relevant for this conversation, and ultimately, what does the evidence tell us about this mysterious group of Jews that has captured our attention? Putting the puzzling pieces together The community described in the Qumran manuscripts does not designate itself as Essenes. Rather, they designate themselves with titles like “the Yahad” (e.g., 1QS 5:3), “the sons of light” (e.g., 1QS 2:16), and “members of the covenant” (CD 2:2). This discrepancy, therefore, compels us to start our investigation with the sources that use the name “Essenes.” Among these accounts, Philo (Hypothetica 11:1–18; Every Good Man is Free 12:75–13:91), Josephus (Jewish Wars 2.119–161; Life 1.10–12; Antiquities 18.18–22), and Pliny (Natural History 5.25) are the most well-known and most cited—and for good reason. These authors were contemporaries of the group. Their accounts are rather detailed, and Pliny’s description, in particular, provides us with “GPS coordinates” to the Essenes’s settlement! Thus, we will begin with the historical accounts and then proceed to the evidence from Qumran and the scrolls deposited nearby. The evidence 1. Historical accounts The historical accounts should be interpreted critically since scholars have pointed out apparent inconsistencies and embellishments in these accounts. For example, Pliny says the group has existed for thousands of ages. Despite this reality, the accounts have considerable overlap, and this overlap illustrates the accounts’ credibility. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: 2. The site Pliny’s “GPS coordinates” link the site of Qumran to the Essenes, so the site of Qumran is a good second step. In his Natural History, Pliny described three locations on the northwest shore of the Dead Sea, and he located the Essene settlement north of Masada and Engedi (Natural History 5.25). To the best of our knowledge, Qumran is the only settlement that fits this description at this time.1James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022), 167. This geographical and chronological correspondence demonstrates an important link between Pliny’s accounts and the site of Qumran and strongly suggests that this was an Essene settlement. In addition to Pliny’s description, the site’s archeology and artifacts provide a further link between the Essenes and Qumran.2Jodi Magness’ excellent book The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls,2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021) traces several similarities between the archaeology of the site and the historical accounts including the toilet habits, nature of the pottery, and the nature of the site summarized here. For example, Josephus described the Essenes’ modest approach to defecating. The Essenes, according to Josephus, would defecate privately and then wash afterward (Jewish Wars 2.148–149). The archaeological site at Qumran provides key details about the Essenes. Photo credit This historical account interestingly aligns with what scholars have identified as a toilet at Qumran. The toilet is roofed, secluded to ensure privacy, and connected to a ritual bath. Although concern for privacy and a desire to wash oneself after this act fits our modern hygienic perspective, Josephus’s account demonstrates that these practices were exceptional. The lack of ornate features and decorative pottery likewise aligns with Philo’s account that the Essenes despised luxury (Philo, Hypothetica 11.11). 3. The manuscripts The Qumran manuscripts, often called the Dead Sea Scrolls, are likewise important data when investigating the identity of the Essenes. Although some scholars argue that Jews fleeing the Jewish revolts deposited these manuscripts in the caves, this suggestion is unlikely since the non-biblical texts describe a community that had separated from mainline Judaism (1QS 8:9–18; 9:20).3James C. VanderKam has a helpful concise discussion of this topic in Early Judaism, 166–167. Scholars have rightly discovered many similarities between the historical accounts and these texts, which further suggest that these texts were deposited there by Essenes.4Magness, for example, discusses many of these similarities in The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed. Josephus’s description of the initiation process in Jewish Wars 2.137–142 aligns with the community’s process outlined in their handbook (see 1QS 6:14–23). The penal code described in both accounts is similar. For example, both forbid spitting during a meeting of the assembly (1QS 7:13; Jewish Wars 2.147). Members of the Essenes were prohibited from sharing their community’s secrets (Jewish Wars 2.142); 1QS has a similar prohibition (1QS 9:17). The similarities strongly suggest that these manuscripts were Essene documents. A scholar studies the Great Isaiah Scroll. Image credit So, who were the Essenes? The historical accounts, the site of Qumran, and the Qumran manuscripts all provide valuable evidence for understanding the identity of the Essenes. What do we learn about them from this information? Here are six characteristics that we know about this group. 1. Essenes were sectarians The Essenes separated from mainline Judaism because of different interpretations of the law, or halakhic disagreements. These disagreements are outlined in a text labeled 4QMMT (MMT is an abbreviation for the Hebrew words translated as “Some Percepts of the Torah). This group further disagreed with the lifestyle of the Hasmonean rulers. These ethical concerns are outlined in a commentary on Habakkuk (1QpHab). Here, we learn that the “wicked priest” (a high priest from the temple) pursued the Teacher of Righteousness (the leader of the Essene community) to destroy him on the Day of Atonement. The Essenes separated from Judaism in Jerusalem for ethical and hermeneutical reasons. 2. Essenes lived throughout Israel Josephus makes this point when he describes how the Essenes did not occupy just one town, but lived together closely in many towns (Jewish Wars 2). This detail is verified in the community’s handbook (see 1QS 6:2) and by the archaeological evidence. The incongruence, for example, between the number of kitchen dishes that number over one thousand and the maximum capacity of permanent residences implies that this could not be a permanent residence for all Essences.5See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 79–81 for this evidence and conclusion. Rather, Qumran probably functioned as a community center as described by Jodi Magness and others. 3. Essenes cherished the Bible Approximately one-fourth of the scrolls discovered at Qumran are biblical texts.6See Emmanuel Tov’s statistics in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis, Fortress, 2011), 95. In addition, the Qumran community composed numerous other literary documents based on the biblical text. These include commentaries, liturgical compositions, compositions that reworked beloved Bible stories, and harmonized texts that topically rearranged some of the biblical texts. Moreover, if ten men were gathered in the same location, they were required to designate someone to study the Law continually (1QS 6:6). The Essenes cherished the Bible. Approximately one-fourth of the scrolls discovered at Qumran are biblical texts. 4. Essenes were devout Josephus and Philo both describe their devotion to the Lord and to the Scriptures as praiseworthy. The penal code outlined in their handbook (1QS) prescribed up to a two-year punishment for any member who sinned unintentionally while an intentional sin could lead to banishment (1QS 9:1). Strict obedience to the Scriptures was expected from community members. 5. Essenes were extremely hierarchal Newly initiated community members would immediately be assigned a rank in the community based on their understanding of the Law and the integrity of their life (1QS 6:1–2, 18). This rank dictated where members sat during meetings and when they were permitted to speak. Related The Great Isaiah Scroll was among the first discovered. Today, it is housed at the Shrine of the Book in Jerusalem. Photo by Dennis Jarvis How Much Can the Most Famous Dead Sea Scroll Prove?The Great Isaiah Scroll is a crucial piece of the Old Testament puzzle, but it doesn’t give us the whole picture. Anthony Ferguson 6. Essenes were (somewhat) countercultural The Essenes understood slavery as a moral evil, and that this institution promulgated injustice, was contrary to nature, and outraged the law of equity (see Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.21–22 and Philo, Every Good Man is Free 12.79). In this way, this community should be applauded. Yet, their view of women was chauvinistic. They described women as sexual predators and selfish creatures who promoted dissension (Josephus, Jewish Wars 2.121; Jewish Antiquities 18.22; Philo, Hypothetica 11.14). Some historical authors claimed that this negative view of women was the reason some refrained from marriage. Thus, they upheld the dignity of humanity in a way that was quite countercultural but not in every way. Conclusion A fairly clear picture of the Essenes emerges from considering the historical accounts, the site of Qumran, and the manuscripts deposited nearby. Of course, Essenism was not monolithic. Some Essenes married while others did not, and their religious beliefs and attitudes toward Judaism in Jerusalem did not remain static. Despite these details, a careful investigation of the sources allows us to deepen our knowledge of this group in several key ways: they were a hierarchal and devout sect of Jews spread throughout Judea who treasured the Bible. Perhaps, this is a good starting place for those whose imagination is captured by this now less mysterious ancient Jewish group!Notes1James C. VanderKam, An Introduction to Early Judaism, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2022), 167.2Jodi Magness’ excellent book The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls,2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2021) traces several similarities between the archaeology of the site and the historical accounts including the toilet habits, nature of the pottery, and the nature of the site summarized here.3James C. VanderKam has a helpful concise discussion of this topic in Early Judaism, 166–167.4Magness, for example, discusses many of these similarities in The Archaeology of Qumran and the Dead Sea Scrolls, 2nd ed.5See Magness, Archaeology of Qumran, 79–81 for this evidence and conclusion.6See Emmanuel Tov’s statistics in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd ed. (Minneapolis, Fortress, 2011), 95.
Part 5: The Servant Who Sees Light after Anguish Some ancient manuscripts of Isaiah 53:11 say the servant sees light after his suffering. Does this predict Jesus’ resurrection? Anthony FergusonDuring Holy Week, Christians often turn their attention to the servant songs of Isaiah, and to Isaiah 53 in particular, because these passages depict the work of God’s salvation through a coming servant, a servant the New Testament writers identify as none other than Jesus (1 Pet. 2:22; Luke 22:37). In this series, we have reflected on several textual issues related to the servant’s identity and work. As today is Easter Sunday, we turn our attention to the beginning of Isaiah 53:11 to ask whether Isaiah’s prophecy includes not only the servant’s death, but also his resurrection. A quick survey of a few of our English Bibles illustrates the nature of this textual problem and highlights the issue of what the servant sees. ESV Out of the anguish of his soul he shall see and be satisfiedNASB As a result of the anguish of His soul, He will see it and be satisfied.CSB After his anguish, he will see light and be satisfied.NIV After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; These four English translations take a slightly different approach to identifying what the servant sees. They range from an unidentified object to a specific object. On the one side, the ESV does not specify what the servant sees. The NASB identifies the object imprecisely as simply it.The CSB is more specific by describing the servant as seeing “light.” Finally, on the opposite side of the continuum, the NIV not only identifies the servant as seeing light but as seeing the “light of life.” Witnesses The difference between our English Bibles at the beginning of Isaiah 53:11 illustrates for us an ancient variant that scribes and Bible translators have considered for at least two thousand years. Here is a survey of how Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Aramaic, and Syriac scribes have approached this variant. ReadingWitnessText1. He shall seeMTFrom the anguish of his soul, he shall see; he shall be satisfied מֵעֲמַל נַפְשׁוֹ יִרְאֶה יִשְׂבָּע Theodotion, Aquilahe shall see; he shall be filled ὄψεται ἐμπλησθήσεται Symmachushe shall see; he shall be filled ὄψεται χορτασθήσεται VulgateBecause his soul labored, he shall see and he shall be satisfied pro eo quod laboravit anima eius videbit et saturabitur TargumHe will deliver their soul from the servitude of the nations. They will look on the vengeance of their enemies. They will be satisfied with the plunder of their kings. מִשִׁעבוּד עַמְמַיָא יְשֵׁיזֵיב נַפשְׁהוֹן יִחזוֹן בְפוֹרעָנוּת סָנְאֵיהוֹן יִסבְעוּן מִבִזַת מַלכֵיהוֹן PeshittaAnd from the labor of his soul, he shall see and he shall be satisfied ܘܡܢ ܥܡܠܐ ܕܢܦܫܗ ܢܚܙܐ܂ ܘܢܣܒܥ2. He shall see light1QIsaaFrom the anguish of his soul, he shall see light and he shall be satisfied מעמל נפשוה יראה אור וישבע 1QIsabFrom the anguish of his soul, he shall see light; he shall be s[atisfied מעמל נפשו יראה אור יש֯[בע 4QIsadFrom the anguish of his soul, he shall see l[ight] and be satisfied מעמל נפׄשו יראה או֯[ר ]וׄשבע֯ LXXFrom the pain of his soul to show him light and to form ἀπὸ τοῦ πόνου τῆς ψυχῆς αὐτοῦ, δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς καὶ πλάσαιA survey of witnesses to Isaiah 53:11 Although we could discuss multiple textual issues here, we will focus on the problem of what the servant sees. These ancient translations provide us with two basic options. “He will see” MT, Theodotion, Aquila, Symmachus, Vulgate, Targum, Peshitta “He will see light” 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, and 4QIsad, LXX External Evidence The first reading is widespread, occurring in Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syriac texts. Moreover, it is early since Aquila dates to the second century AD, and Theodotion probably dates to the first century. Despite these facts, it is not surprising that these texts agree with the Masoretic Text (MT) since they were all translated from a text very close to the MT. The Targum interprets an MT like text by adding the phrase “on the vengeance of their enemies, showing the textual difficulty in this verse. The second reading is also widespread, occurring in the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hebrew parent text of the LXX. It is even earlier than the first reading since the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa) dates to the second century BC. 1QIsaa is, in fact, our oldest biblical manuscript preserving this verse, and it reads “light.” Unlike the first reading, the external evidence for this second reading can be described as “surprising” since three Isaiah manuscripts from Qumran attest it. Most surprising of all is the testimony of 1QIsab, a first-century BC manuscript, that usually reads very closely with the MT. Here, however, it agrees with the LXX and two other Dead Sea Scrolls against the MT. Overall, the external evidence favors the second reading: the servant sees “light.” Now, we turn to the internal evidence. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: Internal Evidence When considering internal evidence, we are asking the following questions: which reading was more likely to derive from a scribe, and which reading was more likely to derive from the author? We can answer these questions by comparing the reading of 1QIsab and the reading of the MT.1Although 1QIsaa is older than 1QIsab, we will compare the MT to 1QIsab because this is the only difference between these texts. 1QIsaa has other minor differences when compared to the MT. The use of the Masoretic vowel signs didn’t develop until the fifth through seventh centuries so we will only compare the consonants. MT מעמל נפשו יראה ישבע From the anguish of his soul, he shall see; he shall be satisfied 1QIsab מעמל נפשו יראה אור יש֯[בע From the anguish of his soul, he shall see light; he shall be satisfied Could the MT have lost the word “light” (אור)? First, let’s consider if the MT lost this word by scribal error. Scribes, at times, omitted text when their eyes skipped over words. This is known as parablepsis (lit. “to look beside”). Parablepsis can be caused when words start with the same letters (homoioarcton) or when they end with them (homoioteleuton). These are not uncommon scribal errors. Yet, when we compare the reading of the MT with the reading of 1QIsab, parablepsis is not a likely explanation. Notice how the words אור (ʾôr) and ישבע (yiśbāʿ) do not begin with the same letter, ruling out homoioarcton. Likewise, יראה (yirʾeh) and אור (ʾôr) do not end with the same letter, ruling out homoioteleuton. Thus, the scribe of the MT likely did not commit parablepsis. If this was a scribal error, the error was simply a “random omission.”2Tov uses this language to describe this error in TCHB, 221. RelatedA New Series on Isaiah’s Suffering ServantAnthony FergusonRecovering the Resurrection in Isaiah 53: Textual Criticism and EasterAnthony FergusonPart 3: The Servant’s Burial according to the ScripturesAnthony Ferguson What about an intentional omission? At times, scribes could intentionally omit words for the sake of clarity. But this cause, in my experience, is rare. Moreover, the immediate context of the MT does not provide a basis for omitting this word. That is, the effect of omitting this word does not achieve any apparent goal like providing greater clarity; if anything, it makes it less clear. This explanation seems unlikely. Could the other witnesses have added “light” (אור)? First, could the word have been added through scribal error? At times, scribes accidentally add words. Reasons for adding content include errors such as dittography (a scribe writes a word twice instead of once), but the letters of the word “light” are not written twice so that explanation does not account for the data. In other instances, scribes may incorporate marginal readings into the text, but there is no evidence for that happening here. It is improbable that the other witnesses added this word by accident. Second, could the other texts have added this word intentionally? This explanation is possible since the verb “to see” (ראה) often takes an object. People see “something” or “someone.” Even though this verb often takes objects, objects are not always specified.3See DCH, s.v. ראה. It is possible that the lack of an object led a subsequent scribe to add an object. Although this is possible, several witnesses have this object. How did this reading become so widespread if it was a scribal addition?4See Dominique Barthelemy Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, Textual Criticism and the Translator 3 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 399. To See Light or Not? Finally, we should ask what’s at stake. What would it mean for the servant to “see light” here? There are two idiomatic phrases in Hebrew that are especially relevant. First, the phrase “see light” (יראה אור) is an idiom for describing life while the phrase “not seeing light” is an idiom of death.5John Meade mentioned this connection to me in a private conversation. Job 33:28 and 30, for example, describe life—resurrected life—as “seeing light.” Moreover, in Psalm 36:9, “seeing light” is associated with the “fountain of life” which is the opposite of death according to Proverbs 13:14 and 14:27. Furthermore, death is described in Job 3:16 and Psalm 49:19 as “not seeing light.” Second, a related Hebrew idiom means “to regain strength” (תארנה עינים).6See DCH, s.v. אור. This idiom is used by Jonathan to describe the effect of honey. Although famished and weak, the taste of honey caused his eyes to be bright (1 Sam. 14:27, 29).7Moreover, in Ben Sira 13:26, the author describes the happy heart as a “bright countenance” פנים אורים. Overall, the idea of “seeing light” describes life. And not just any life, but specifically the revival of life or resurrected life. Isaiah describes the servant as smitten, afflicted, pierced, crushed, and oppressed. He is described as a lamb led to the slaughter. The climax of this suffering is none other than his death (Isa. 53:8) and being buried (Isa. 53:9); yet, out of this anguish, the servant “sees light” and is satisfied (Isa. 53:11). The reading of 1QIsaa, 1QIsab, 4QIsad, and the Hebrew parent text of the LXX describes the servant’s death and resurrection idiomatically as “seeing light.” Thus, what’s at stake, is nothing short of the servant’s resurrection after death. The question remains: which reading is more original? The two (opposing) explanations with the best support are that: the reading “light” was lost due to a scribal error the reading was added for the sake of clarity Among these options, my conclusion is that the more original reading is likely “he shall see light” because it is more likely that the small word “light” was lost in the MT tradition because of scribal error rather than the reading being a secondary addition preserved in three early Hebrew manuscripts from Qumran and the LXX. The fact that the reading “light” appears in 1QIsab is especially important since this text aligns closely with the MT tradition but disagrees here. Conclusion The textual problem in this text concerns the resurrection, a matter of first importance for the gospel according to Paul. He says this happened according to the Scriptures (1 Cor. 15:3–6). Without the resurrection, humanity is still lost and under the curse of sin. Without the resurrection, we stand before God still under our first father, Adam. The servant, however, as a new Adam, rewrites our past and gives us a new history through his resurrection. The servant, as a new Adam, rewrites our past and gives us a new history through his resurrection. This idea is taught in Isaiah 53 since the servant is “cut off from the land of the living”—an idiom for the curse and spiritual death (Isa. 53:8). Remarkably, Isaiah’s servant receives the covenantal blessings of an inheritance (Isa. 53:12) and, despite dying, he “shall see light” (Isa. 53:11). The dead can see light, and this is our hope for this Easter season. He is risen!Notes1Although 1QIsaa is older than 1QIsab, we will compare the MT to 1QIsab because this is the only difference between these texts. 1QIsaa has other minor differences when compared to the MT.2Tov uses this language to describe this error in TCHB, 221.3See DCH, s.v. ראה.4See Dominique Barthelemy Studies in the Text of the Old Testament: An Introduction to the Hebrew Old Testament Text Project, Textual Criticism and the Translator 3 (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2012), 399.5John Meade mentioned this connection to me in a private conversation.6See DCH, s.v. אור.7Moreover, in Ben Sira 13:26, the author describes the happy heart as a “bright countenance” פנים אורים.
How Much Can the Most Famous Dead Sea Scroll Prove? The Great Isaiah Scroll is a crucial piece of the Old Testament puzzle, but it doesn’t give us the whole picture. Anthony FergusonThe Dead Sea Scrolls are famous. Very famous. Unlike other archeological discoveries like Hezekiah’s Siloam Tunnel inscription in Jerusalem or the discovery of the Elephantine Papyri in Egypt, the term “Dead Sea Scrolls” is a household phrase that can draw crowds to museums unlike any cuneiform tablet. Almost everyone has some knowledge of this discovery and significance, and rightly so. The most famous—and substantial—of these biblical manuscripts is, without a doubt, the Great Isaiah Scroll (a manuscript scholars designate as 1QIsaa). The factors that justify this manuscript’s notoriety and fame include the timing of its discovery, its size, its contents, and its closeness to the Hebrew text behind our English Bibles known as the Masoretic Text (MT). Given these facts, 1QIsaa furnishes a solid starting point for one’s study of these intriguing texts from the Dead Sea. But these facts sometimes lead one to unhelpful conclusions about the biblical texts from the Dead Sea, if 1QIsaa is all we know or we assume that every biblical manuscript from the Dead Sea is like it. In this article, we’ll survey the importance of this manuscript while also nuancing its impact on our understanding of the biblical text as preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Its Claim to Fame The timing of the manuscript’s discovery rightly contributed to its fame since it belonged to the first batch of manuscripts discovered in early 1947. When Bedouin first journeyed into Cave 1 to explore the sound of breaking jars, they retrieved three or four manuscripts wrapped in cloth from a jar. One of these manuscripts was the now famous 1QIsaa. This discovery encouraged the Bedouin and scholars to further explore this region so that over the next fifteen years roughly 1000 manuscripts would be discovered. The cascade effect of this initial discovery was truly immense. Unlike most manuscripts from the Judean Desert, 1QIsaa is preserved almost in its entirety. This is due to its being stored in a jar covered with pitch. By God’s grace, it sat for millennia in a sort of sealed time capsule. Because this manuscript is well preserved, the various problems associated with fragmentary manuscripts like calculating column heights and hypothesizing about what words have been lost to the harshness of the desert are almost nonexistent when studying 1QIsaa. One of the remarkable features of the Great Isaiah Scroll is how well it’s preserved, including the very beginning (right) and end (left) of the scroll. Photo from Wikipedia The very first words and the last words of the manuscript are all preserved, and the text consists of only a few holes (i.e., lacunae). Stitching holes exist in the right-hand margin of column 1 which indicates that leather once existed to the right of the first words of Isaiah. There was probably once a handle sheet to the right of the first column to protect the text of this manuscript. The handle sheet has done its job since, although it has since been lost to time, the beginning of the document remains. The contents of this manuscript have also brought it a level of notoriety since it preserves the text of Isaiah, one of the more famous books of the Old Testament. This book appears to have been quite popular among the works found in the library of the Dead Sea since many copies of Isaiah were found there. The New Testament quotations of Isaiah suggest the same as does the amount of attention paid to this important book by contemporary scholars. Christians sometimes refer to Isaiah as the fifth Gospel because of how much it tells about the coming hope of the Messiah. Although Bedouin discovered other texts alongside 1QIsaa such as a commentary to Habakkuk, 1QIsaa became more popular. This may be, since it was a biblical text, not a commentary, but it is also likely due to the fact that it concerned Isaiah. RelatedAppreciating the Diverse Evidence from the Dead Sea ScrollsAnthony FergusonRecovering the Resurrection in Isaiah 53: Textual Criticism and EasterAnthony FergusonWhat We Know about the People behind the Dead Sea ScrollsAnthony Ferguson The popularity of this manuscript is also due to its relationship to the Masoretic Text. The consensus among the first generation of scholars who analyzed this text was that 1QIsaa preserved a popular version of the Masoretic Text. Since the analysis of these scholars, the trend has shifted. Whereas the original scholars who studied 1QIsaa noted its similarities to the Masoretic Text, current scholars tend to highlight its differences. These differences are real, but often minor. Emmanuel Tov, for example, indicates that 1QIsaa is non-aligned but regarding minor details such as a different approach to spelling.1Emanuel Tov, “A Didactic and Gradual Approach toward the Biblical DSS,” in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3 Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (Brill: Leiden, 2015), 303. (The term non-aligned refers to texts that are inconsistent in their agreement with the Septuagint, MT, and Samaritan Pentateuch while preserving unique readings).2Emanuel Tov, “Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls, ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 98. We could synthesize the conclusions of scholars this way: early scholars tended to emphasize the similarities between 1QIsaa and the Masoretic Text. The trend, now, is to emphasize the differences. Regardless of one’s emphasis, when one removes the minor differences such as spellings, the text of 1QIsaa is quite close to the Masoretic Text, and this feature is a major reason for its notoriety. The Limits of 1QIsaa to our Understanding of the Biblical Text 1QIsaa contributes immensely to our understanding of the Old Testament text. On the one hand, it is strong indirect evidence to the antiquity of the Masoretic Text. That is, in the cases where 1QIsaa and the Masoretic Text disagree, scholars most often view the reading of the Masoretic Text as more original, and this is for good reason, since most of the differences preserved in 1QIsaa appear to derive from common scribal tendency or from scribal error. Thus, although the Masoretic Text as we know it is best represented by medieval codices dating to around 1000 AD, the parent text of 1QIsaa appears to be a text close to these medieval codices. Get new articles and updates in your inbox. Leave this field empty if you're human: This is where Christian scholars and apologists can make a mistake. 1QIsaa is the most popular biblical Dead Sea Scroll and for good reason. It was one of the first manuscripts discovered and it preserves almost all of Isaiah in a form close to the Masoretic Text. All of this is true. Based on this information, it is tempting to assume that just because 1QIsaa aligns closely to the Masoretic Text, we can therefore be confident that our Old Testament text is a reliable copy of the original. I agree that we should be confident, very confident in this fact, but the problem is that 1QIsaa is not sufficient proof, and this is for a few reasons. First, 1QIsaa is a copy only of Isaiah, not the entire Old Testament. Thus, we can’t conclude that 1QIsaa proves that the entire Old Testament has been copied carefully. It is only a copy of Isaiah. Extrapolating from this one manuscript of this one book to the full copying of the entire Old Testament is dangerous. Second, scholars date 1QIsaa to the second century BC, which makes it our oldest copy of this book. Yet, it is still hundreds of years removed from the original copy of Isaiah. As important as 1QIsaa is, it doesn’t completely close the gap for us. Third, although 1QIsaa remains close to the Masoretic Text, other ancient texts are further removed. There is a spectrum of how close the Dead Sea Scrolls align with the Masoretic Text: some are almost identical while other diverge more significantly. My point is simple: since the Dead Sea Scrolls represent a spectrum of more or less agreement with the Masoretic Text, the Great Isaiah Scroll does not represent the entire picture. One (Important) Piece of the Puzzle 1QIsaa does not single-handedly prove that the Old Testament has been carefully copied from antiquity. Its contribution is still important, but less extensive. In short, I would say that 1QIsaa is a popular version of a text very close to the Masoretic Text, and thus, it attests to the antiquity of the Masoretic Text of Isaiah long before our earliest copies from the Middle Ages. The copies we have of the Old Testament are a reliable guide to the original, but this conclusion depends on more than one very famous manuscript. The copies we have of the Old Testament are a reliable guide to the original, but this conclusion depends on more than one very famous manuscript. It depends on a variety of data such as the practice of textual criticism, the study of manuscripts, scribal habits, various early translations, the nature of a covenant, and the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls. This conclusion also depends on our view of God and what the Bible attests about itself. As we do textual criticism, let’s not forget that the Old Testament testifies to the God who sovereignly controls all things. We make best sense of the biblical data when we carefully consider the evidence while remembering that the evidence we have is not by accident, but according to God’s plan.Notes1Emanuel Tov, “A Didactic and Gradual Approach toward the Biblical DSS,” in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays, Volume 3 Vetus Testamentum, Supplements (Brill: Leiden, 2015), 303.2Emanuel Tov, “Groups of Biblical Texts Found at Qumran,” in Time to Prepare the Way in the Wilderness: Papers on the Qumran Scrolls, ed. Devorah Dimant and Lawrence H. Schiffman, Studies on the Texts of the Desert of Judah 16 (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 98.
Appreciating the Diverse Evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls Taking the evidence of the Dead Sea Scroll seriously means putting the differences—and the similarities—in proper context. Anthony FergusonThe Dead Sea Scrolls have fascinated a broad audience of Bible scholars, lay Christians, and the general public for nearly a century. This discovery’s timing adds a level of intrigue since they were discovered in the tremulous days immediately after World War II in a place undergoing great transition. The recent announcement of Greek fragments of the Minor Prophets from Naḥal Ḥever and the thought that technology such as drones may yet yield more manuscripts further stokes our imagination and excitement about these caves in the Judean Desert. Few discoveries from the ancient world have captivated our imagination like the Dead Sea Scrolls. It is hard to overestimate the importance of these manuscripts, especially for those interested in the history of Old Testament text, not simply because of the timing and place of the discovery or because the future may still unlock more manuscripts for us, but because of four important characteristics of these manuscripts: 1) These manuscripts are the oldest biblical manuscripts we possess; 2) many of the biblical manuscripts were written in the Old Testament’s original languages; 3) many of these manuscripts align closely with the canonical Jewish text known as the Masoretic Text or MT, and 4) many others do not. Focusing on these four characteristics helps us better appreciate how important they are for the history of the Old Testament text. The Age of the Dead Sea Scrolls The Dead Sea Scrolls are the oldest biblical manuscripts that we possess, dating from 250 BC to 115 AD.1See TCHB3, 99. Before this discovery, we possessed some Hebrew texts from this era and some from even earlier, but these were not biblical scrolls. We did possess numerous biblical manuscripts, but these dated to a much later time. The biblical manuscripts from Qumran have changed this reality. We now possess over two hundred biblical manuscripts from the Second Temple period (c. 500 BC–70 AD). The age of these manuscripts makes them especially important. The Language of the Scrolls Although some of the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls are translations, the vast majority are written in Hebrew and Aramaic, the Old Testament’s original languages. When scholars approach the ancient translations like the Greek translation, popularly referred to as the Septuagint, the Targumim, the Old Latin and Vulgate, and Peshitta, scholars have to judge carefully about whether a difference between these texts is a genuine variant. That is, scholars first have to decide if this difference arose from the translator (i.e., translation technique or scribal error) or the difference was in the text he was translating. What makes the Dead Sea Scrolls so important is that translation technique is not an issue for most of them because they are not translations. RelatedHow Much Can the Most Famous Dead Sea Scroll Prove?Anthony FergusonThe Extraordinary Hebrew Text behind Your English BibleAnthony FergusonWhat We Know about the People behind the Dead Sea ScrollsAnthony Ferguson The value of this fact, however, can be overstated. These manuscripts have not passed into a new language, but many were still copied according to updated standards of spelling and grammar. Thus, some of the tendencies involved in translation technique must be accounted for when analyzing these manuscripts. Of course, the fact that these were mainly written in the original languages means fewer such factors need to be considered. What the Scrolls tell us about the history of the Old Testament text Many scholars and apologists have highlighted those Scrolls that preserve a high level of unity with the Masoretic Text which is largely behind our English bibles. The codex known as Codex Leningrad is the best-preserved manuscript preserving this textual tradition. This fact comes into focus, especially when one analyzes the manuscripts discovered in sites other than Qumran. Qumran is only one site in the Judean Desert where Bedouin and scholars discovered manuscripts. Other locations include Masada, Wadi Murabba’at, Wadi Sdeir, Naḥal Ḥever, Naḥal Arugot, and Naḥal Ṣe’elim (wadi and naḥal both refer to streams). The manuscripts from these sites date from 50 BC to 115 AD and preserve the same tradition as preserved in codex Leningrad which was copied in 1008 AD. Unity among these manuscripts is, at times, remarkable, as illustrated by a Leviticus manuscript discovered at Masada dating from 30 BC to 30 AD. This Leviticus manuscript agrees with codex Leningrad even regarding peculiar spelling. This unity illustrates that this tradition was copied with precision since at least the turn of the era.2See TCHB3, 29–31. Nearly half of the manuscripts discovered at Qumran also demonstrate this unity, although not to the degree as the manuscripts from the other sites. For example, 1QIsaa has traditionally been cited as clear evidence of proof of the antiquity and high-quality of the Masoretic tradition, and this notion is correct. Yet, this manuscript preserves thousands of differences when compared to Leningrad, and these differences led Emanuel Tov, the world’s preeminent Scrolls scholar, to label it as “non-aligned,” meaning it does not agree closely with the text of the MT. A portion of the Great Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa). Image credit. We should note that the majority of these differences are minor; they often concern a different spelling practice.3Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 303). Of course, that is not to say there are not important variants preserved in this manuscript; instead, my point is that, overall, it preserves a text close to the one preserved in Leningrad. Another Isaiah scroll discovered at Qumran, known as 1QIsab, preserves an even higher degree of unity with Leningrad than 1QIsaa. This manuscript, however, is less popular because it preserves less content. To give us a bird’s eye view of the evidence from Qumran, we can observe how Emanuel Tov classifies these texts: he classifies 56 as MT-like, 57 as non-aligned, five as close to the Samaritan Pentateuch, and seven as close to the Septuagint.4N. David and A. Lange, eds., Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 49–50). Overall, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Masoretic Text has been copied with precision for over a millennium and that a sizable amount of manuscripts reflect this text. Overall, the Dead Sea Scrolls show that the Masoretic Text has been copied with precision for over a millennium. The Scrolls that don’t agree with the Masoretic Text Tov, and many other scholars, have pointed out that half of the Hebrew manuscripts discovered at Qumran preserve textual diversity never before seen in Hebrew biblical manuscripts. This is true, strictly speaking. However, when one analyzes the nature of the variants preserved in these manuscripts, one can see that most of these differences result from common scribal tendencies such as interpretation, harmonization, updating, and normalizing a text’s grammar. Moreover, many of these manuscripts can be adequately described as scribal innovations. For example, 4QGenk, in my opinion, tends to normalize the grammar found in the Masoretic Text, and thus, can be understood as a normalized manuscript; 4QPsx is likely a writing exercise; 4QDeutn is an excerpted text; and 4QQoha is an updated text. Therefore, although half of the manuscripts preserve a level of textual diversity, this diversity is often minor. Some manuscripts that Tov and others label as non-aligned are more challenging to explain. Tov identifies seven of these manuscripts with an exclamation mark in appendix 8 of his book Scribal Practices. Remember that Tov classifies 56 Scrolls as MT-like, 57 as non-aligned, five as close to the Samaritan Pentateuch, and seven as close to the Septuagint.5N. David and A. Lange, eds., Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 49–50). However, only seven of these 57 manuscripts are identified with an exclamation mark. This confirms, in my mind, that the other 50 non-aligned texts are non-aligned only in minor details.6For more on this topic, you can see my doctoral dissertation. Space prohibits a description of these manuscripts, but suffice it to say that the biblical Dead Sea Scrolls do contain a level of textual diversity. Most of this diversity, though, is relatively minor, and, although some of it is more extensive, none of it calls into question the trustworthiness of the Old Testament as God’s word. Related Illustration by Peter Gurry. Image from 123rf.com Two Reasons There Are Variants in Our Copies of the BibleFor historical and theological reasons, we shouldn’t be surprised that the Bible’s manuscripts have differences. Anthony Ferguson Making sense of all the evidence Scholars have long understood scribes as approaching their task of copying the Old Testament from two general perspectives: some scribes came to their text with a desire to reproduce it precisely, while others approached their task with the desire to resignify it. Moreover, some scribes took their biblical text and used it to make a new document that was not understood as biblical. An example of this would be a liturgical text. This new document was not understood as “biblical” but contained only an excerpt of the Bible. We make these types of changes today. For example, some translations are incredibly literal, while others tend to be more dynamic. Both approaches seek to communicate the word of God to a people far removed from the original audience. Similarly, when the Bible is used in liturgical contexts, we make all types of changes to it. I am the pastor of a local church. When I stand before God’s people with God’s word, it is not uncommon for me to change it. For example, I might stop mid-verse and explain something briefly to the church; I might repeat a word for emphasis; I might even substitute a word for clarity. An example of this last category may be me replacing a pronoun, like “he,” with the proper noun, “Moses.” In my mind, the textual diversity preserved among the Dead Sea Scrolls parallels the practices of many pastors. We should certainly take the evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls seriously while being confident that the word of the Lord is trustworthy and true.Notes1See TCHB3, 99.2See TCHB3, 29–31.3Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint: Collected Essays (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 303).4N. David and A. Lange, eds., Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 49–50).5N. David and A. Lange, eds., Qumran and the Bible: Studying the Jewish and Christian Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (Leuven: Peeters, 2010), 49–50).6For more on this topic, you can see my doctoral dissertation.