Wednesday, March 12, 2025

Correcting a Dead Sea Scroll

5
Correcting a digital text today is simple and neat. I simply highlight the text to be deleted and press my “delete” button on my keyboard. When I notice a mistake right away, I can simply press the undo button to erase my last input. The phenomenon of simple and neat corrections is a modern reality, not an ancient one. In this post, I’d like to highlight some techniques scribes used to correct the biblical text. 

Deleting Text
When ancient scribes deleted text, they could use “cancellation” dots. Both examples below come from 1QIsaa. The second picture is quite peculiar since the initial scribe corrected the text, making the verbal stem explicitly qal, only for the same scribe or a future scribe to delete the correction with dots. The result of the cancelation dots is the verbal stem once again becomes niphal.
Scribes could cross out the material to be deleted. Here is an example from 1QIsaa.
Another option was to bracket the content in parentheses. Here is a partially extant example from 11QpaleoLev. Only the final bracket is preserved.

Scribes could also scrape the ink off the writing surface (i.e., erasure). The scribe of 1QS often resorts to this technique.
Adding Text
By far, the most common way to add originally omitted text was with a supralinear correction (i.e., adding the material above the line). This type of intervention is common, especially in 1QIsaa

Substituting Text
Scribes often needed to correct the text by substitution. They could do this by combining the features above such as cancellation dots plus a supralinear correction. Reshaping an errant letter was another option. This technique often resulted in recognizable but peculiar letters. Here are two examples from 1QIsaa.

This second example is especially important since the reshaped letter is probably an aleph. Most likely the scribe was in the process of written ארצ (with a non-final sade) based on the context but realized his mistake and corrected the text to read השמים.

Correcting ancient manuscripts could get messy as these above examples prove. It is important that textual critics and those concerned with the transmission of Bible remind ourselves of this reality. What is easy and neat for us, was not always neat for ancient scribes copying the Bible. 

5 comments

  1. If I am an honest person, this information, regardless of my expertise, or lack thereof, makes it quite apparent that there is a huge possibility for mistakes, variations, personal opinions, omissions in scripture. Perhaps it should be obvious that this is a human document.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The Dead Sea Scrolls preserve numerous differences that can be rightly described as "scribal errors" (that is, unintentional errors) and conscious changes (such as instances of updating a text's grammar, syntax, and spelling). Yes, that is an honest evaluation of this evidence.

      When you refer to it as a 'human document,' are you suggesting that these above realities therefore show that the OT lacks divine inspiration or authority, or do you mean something else? Could you clarify what you have in mind?

      Delete
    2. I can’t speak for “Anonymous”, but the issue at hand is not divine inspiration. It is the reliability, or not, of the transmission of the divine text through generations of human transcribers. If what God inerrantly revealed has not been accurately copied, then how can we trust the manuscripts we have available to us?

      Delete
    3. Regarding reliability, there are several points to consider.

      1) 1QIsaa (the manuscript in which I based much of this article) is prone to scribal error. In fact, if we use Tov's metric of "scribal intervention" as a valid metric to diagnose care in copying, it is one of the least carefully copied Dead Sea Scrolls. My point is that most other Dead Sea Scrolls evidence a more careful approach to copying. This is especially true when analyzing the proto-MT texts from the other Judaean Desert sites.

      2) When we compare texts like 1QIsaa to other known texts, most differences are easily explanable. What I mean is that we can often determine the more original reading based on a common sense approach to textual criticism.

      Therefore, I do not think we should conclude that the Bible is not reliable because some texts were not copied carefully, That would be a hasty generalization because it grounds a conclusion on insufficient evidence.

      Overall, no copy is perfect, but we’ve got tools to make sense of these imperfections.

      I hope this helps.

      Delete