Sean McDowell and I recently had a conversation about 1QIsaa. You can access the conversation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=90_Mpiz1ons&t=333s
I repeat some of my points here along with some pictures! I hope you enjoy.
Many of us are aware that this text’s fame has recently been revived because of Wes Huff’s thrilling and helpful interview with Joe Rogan. Unfortunately, that conversation has stirred some controversy regarding the description “word-for-word”. I aim to provide some background information on this discussion, hoping it will bring greater clarity to this important topic.
Past Assessment of 1QIsaa: Wes Huff’s point that 1QIsaa’s alignment with the MT shocked those who initially studied it is true. Kutscher makes this point on page 2 (see also footnote 6) of his monumental work The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). These first scholars were not ignorant to the textual variants preserved in this text. They understood the text’s divergent linguistic profile and were also fully aware of the large-scale differences. Yet, the general assessment of the first generation of scholars who analyzed this text was that this text is a popular edition of a proto-Masoretic text.
Present Assessment of 1QIsaa: Although those initial scholars emphasized the text’s alignment with the medieval MT, modern scholars tend to emphasize the text’s differences. This change in attitudes is not the result of a new discovery or the realization of new textual variants. Rather, the change coincides with a shift in OT textual criticism away from analyzing the “quality” of the variant to stressing the “quantity” of the variants. In short, the grouping of OT manuscripts has become much more precise over the last thirty years.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the local text theory of Albright was the dominant theory regarding the transmission of the OT text. This theory grouped manuscripts, all manuscripts into three broad categories. We could refer to these groups as text-types. The Dead Sea Scrolls were born into this framework, so initial scholars sought to take each text and put it into one of these three categories. Most non-textual critics may be unaware that textual critics have largely abandoned the local text theory now. Scholars have replaced the local text theory of Albright and Cross with a variety of frameworks that do not restrict a text into one of three categories based on its alignment to MT, SP, and LXX. Emanuel Tov’s framework is the most popular alternative to the local text theory (but there are others). Tov postulates four broad categories: proto-MT (and semi-MT), pre-Samaritan, texts close to the Vorlage of the LXX, and non-aligned texts. Three of these categories align closely with the categories of the local text theory. The non-aligned category is the additional category. In one sense, this category has freed scholars from grouping texts, including 1QIsaa, into one of the three categories of the local text theory.
This present confusion is, at least in part, the result of this shift in methodology.
Analysis of the Methodological Shift: Categorizing manuscripts has become more “quantitative” than “qualitative”. Whereas Leitfehler (i.e., indicative errors) used to be the rule in grouping manuscripts (that is a “qualitative” approach), now the entire text is considered including unique readings and minor differences of orthography and morphology (this is a “quantitative” approach). This latter approach to textual criticism has its benefits. For example, it clearly demonstrates that scribes of the Second Temple period possessed the freedom to update a text’s orthography, morphology, grammar, and syntax. Moreover, it helps scholars see that many of the Dead Sea Scrolls do not align with Codex Leningrad to the extent that the medieval manuscripts. These are two important benefits of the new methodology.
However, the modern approach to classifying texts can also be confusing as we are witnessing firsthand today. The main drawback of this new method is it does not depict or describe the “significance” of the variants. In other words, the new method does not weigh variants, but counts them. Although this has its benefits as just mentioned, it also skews the opinions of both non-specialists and the specialists. How significant are these variants? The new methodology largely cannot answer this question. Thus, we have confusion abounding. So, how should we understand the differences between 1QIsaa and the MT?
For a deep dive into this question, variants must be weighted, not merely counted. You can see my dissertation where I do both. Donald Parry’s book Exploring the Isaiah Scroll and Their Textual Variants is another fantastic resource that assesses the significance of the variants. In have grouped the variants into three categories:
1) Some variants (thousands!) merely represent a “facilitating” approach to copying. At times, the text’s spelling, morphology, grammar, and syntax have been updated to fit contemporary usage.
2) Many variants (about 900) between 1QIsaa and the MT represent a change in meaning. Most of these changes, however, are the result of common scribal tendencies. These variants include unintentional changes (i.e., scribal errors) and intentional ones that often result in an interpreted or harmonized text. When comparing the texts, the texts are not synonymous, but common sense often reveals that the two readings are genealogically connected. One derived from the other.
3) Finally, the text preserves about 30 variants that do not result in a synonymous form (the first set of variants) nor is there an immediate scribal explanation that accounts for their genesis (the second set of variants). This final fact should not alarm us. Copying an ancient manuscript is a difficult task. While we have the luxury of powerful tools such as word processors and internet search engines, ancient scribes did not. Before becoming too critical of the scribe of 1QIsaa, we should imagine the difficulty of his task. I’d rather write a text today in the comfort of my office on my powerful computer than in an ancient room with parchment and a reed pen.
Our present confusion, then, is in part the result of a shift in methodologies. As Wes Huff stated, it is also the result of a mistake on his part. 1QIsaa should not be described as “word-for-word” identical to Codex Leningrad. At the same time, we should not exaggerate the differences as Kutscher states 50 years ago.
I hope this provides some background on why conflicting categories for 1QIsaa have emerged while providing a more balanced assessment of 1QIsaa’s textual character.
Past Assessment of 1QIsaa: Wes Huff’s point that 1QIsaa’s alignment with the MT shocked those who initially studied it is true. Kutscher makes this point on page 2 (see also footnote 6) of his monumental work The Language and Linguistic Background of the Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa). These first scholars were not ignorant to the textual variants preserved in this text. They understood the text’s divergent linguistic profile and were also fully aware of the large-scale differences. Yet, the general assessment of the first generation of scholars who analyzed this text was that this text is a popular edition of a proto-Masoretic text.
Present Assessment of 1QIsaa: Although those initial scholars emphasized the text’s alignment with the medieval MT, modern scholars tend to emphasize the text’s differences. This change in attitudes is not the result of a new discovery or the realization of new textual variants. Rather, the change coincides with a shift in OT textual criticism away from analyzing the “quality” of the variant to stressing the “quantity” of the variants. In short, the grouping of OT manuscripts has become much more precise over the last thirty years.
When the Dead Sea Scrolls were discovered, the local text theory of Albright was the dominant theory regarding the transmission of the OT text. This theory grouped manuscripts, all manuscripts into three broad categories. We could refer to these groups as text-types. The Dead Sea Scrolls were born into this framework, so initial scholars sought to take each text and put it into one of these three categories. Most non-textual critics may be unaware that textual critics have largely abandoned the local text theory now. Scholars have replaced the local text theory of Albright and Cross with a variety of frameworks that do not restrict a text into one of three categories based on its alignment to MT, SP, and LXX. Emanuel Tov’s framework is the most popular alternative to the local text theory (but there are others). Tov postulates four broad categories: proto-MT (and semi-MT), pre-Samaritan, texts close to the Vorlage of the LXX, and non-aligned texts. Three of these categories align closely with the categories of the local text theory. The non-aligned category is the additional category. In one sense, this category has freed scholars from grouping texts, including 1QIsaa, into one of the three categories of the local text theory.
This present confusion is, at least in part, the result of this shift in methodology.
Analysis of the Methodological Shift: Categorizing manuscripts has become more “quantitative” than “qualitative”. Whereas Leitfehler (i.e., indicative errors) used to be the rule in grouping manuscripts (that is a “qualitative” approach), now the entire text is considered including unique readings and minor differences of orthography and morphology (this is a “quantitative” approach). This latter approach to textual criticism has its benefits. For example, it clearly demonstrates that scribes of the Second Temple period possessed the freedom to update a text’s orthography, morphology, grammar, and syntax. Moreover, it helps scholars see that many of the Dead Sea Scrolls do not align with Codex Leningrad to the extent that the medieval manuscripts. These are two important benefits of the new methodology.
However, the modern approach to classifying texts can also be confusing as we are witnessing firsthand today. The main drawback of this new method is it does not depict or describe the “significance” of the variants. In other words, the new method does not weigh variants, but counts them. Although this has its benefits as just mentioned, it also skews the opinions of both non-specialists and the specialists. How significant are these variants? The new methodology largely cannot answer this question. Thus, we have confusion abounding. So, how should we understand the differences between 1QIsaa and the MT?
For a deep dive into this question, variants must be weighted, not merely counted. You can see my dissertation where I do both. Donald Parry’s book Exploring the Isaiah Scroll and Their Textual Variants is another fantastic resource that assesses the significance of the variants. In have grouped the variants into three categories:
1) Some variants (thousands!) merely represent a “facilitating” approach to copying. At times, the text’s spelling, morphology, grammar, and syntax have been updated to fit contemporary usage.
2) Many variants (about 900) between 1QIsaa and the MT represent a change in meaning. Most of these changes, however, are the result of common scribal tendencies. These variants include unintentional changes (i.e., scribal errors) and intentional ones that often result in an interpreted or harmonized text. When comparing the texts, the texts are not synonymous, but common sense often reveals that the two readings are genealogically connected. One derived from the other.
3) Finally, the text preserves about 30 variants that do not result in a synonymous form (the first set of variants) nor is there an immediate scribal explanation that accounts for their genesis (the second set of variants). This final fact should not alarm us. Copying an ancient manuscript is a difficult task. While we have the luxury of powerful tools such as word processors and internet search engines, ancient scribes did not. Before becoming too critical of the scribe of 1QIsaa, we should imagine the difficulty of his task. I’d rather write a text today in the comfort of my office on my powerful computer than in an ancient room with parchment and a reed pen.
Our present confusion, then, is in part the result of a shift in methodologies. As Wes Huff stated, it is also the result of a mistake on his part. 1QIsaa should not be described as “word-for-word” identical to Codex Leningrad. At the same time, we should not exaggerate the differences as Kutscher states 50 years ago.
I hope this provides some background on why conflicting categories for 1QIsaa have emerged while providing a more balanced assessment of 1QIsaa’s textual character.
For those who enjoy pictures, here are some pictures illustrating some of the above phenomena of the manuscript. See http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah for the digital image of the manuscript from which I took these pictures.
Notice the peculiar use of a final mem in non-final position and the inconsistent height of the letters in the image above. The kaph extends here closer to the baseline than the shin. (http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah).
See above the more common occurrence of a non-final mem appearing in final position.
Notice the plene spelling here, a very common feature of 1QIsaa. (http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah).
In this above image, there is a peculiar example of a nun formed by a scribe who did not lift his pen between the gimal and nun. This "cursive" feature causes the nun to appear as a gimal.