A Less Studied Isaiah Scroll

In my own personal study of Isaiah, I’ve come across a less known and less studied Dead Sea Scroll, 4QIsao (4Q68), that preserves some insightful, even peculiar details. It dates paleographically to 100-50 BC which makes it a little younger than the more popular 1QIsaa.

In this photo of 4QIsao, you’ll notice several yellow underlines, two red underlines, and one blue underline. Seven yellow underlines draw our attention to some peculiar uses of a final mem used in non-final position. From my experience, this feature is seldom evidenced in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Has anyone seen a comparable text?

The red underlines refer to two orthographic variants. In these two instances, the scribe of 4QIsao transcribes the more common form of “night” לילה for the MT’s less common form ליל. The difference here regards spelling and that of only one letter – a heh – and probably represents a facilitating approach to copying the text since the form of 4QIsao is the more common spelling.

Finally, the blue underline draws our attention to an ancient textual variant. Here is a breakdown of the textual evidence in MT, 1QIsaa, and 4QIsao.

MT (Isa 14:31)		1QIsaa (Isa 14:31)		4QIsao (Isa 14:31)
וְאֵין בּוֹדֵד בְּמוֹעָדָיו	And there is not one who separates in his ranks	ואין מודד במודעיו	And there is not one who measures (out punishment) for his kinsmen	ואין] בודד בםידעיו	And there is not] one who separates among his friends

The witnesses are all genetically related and concern three interchanges: 1) interchange of bet (MT/4QIsao) and mem (1QIsaa), 2) interchange of vav (MT/1QIsaa) and yod (4QIsao), 3) and transposition of dalet and ayin (MT vs. 1QIsaa and 4QIsao). Each of these interchanges is common in the Jewish Square Script. The MT is probably the more original reading with the two Dead Sea Scrolls trying to make sense of the MT’s difficulty. The difficulty of the MT is further evidenced in the Septuagint’s confused translation of καὶ οὐκ ἔστιν τοῦ εἶναι. Since at least the second century BC, the difficulty of the MT appears to have puzzled scribes and translators. 

Overall, this manuscript stands out for its peculiar usage of final mem in non-final position, a feature that marks it as exceptional among Dead Sea Scrolls. The rest of the scroll is typical for Qumran texts, fragmentarily preserving a biblical text that aligns very closely with Codex Leningrad, matching it at 97.77% when excluding two spelling differences. While it contains one insightful textual variant at Isaiah 14:31, this variant appears to interpret the MT in light of its context. In a small but meaningful way, 4QIsao affirms the fidelity of the Masoretic tradition. Its text is nearly identical to it, and when it diverges, it does so in predictable ways.  

“He will see light” in Isaiah 53:11

Over on Southern Equip today, I published a piece on Easter and textual criticism by commenting on a few of the crucial textual variants within Isaiah 53. I hope the post introduces more folks to some of the issues that have been long recognized, even if some of our translations are slow to incorporate them.

Isaiah 53:11 contains a significant problem in the text. I provide the main witnesses and some additional commentary on the reading in Ziegler’s II App containing the readings of the Three.

The Key Witnesses to “He will see light” in Isaiah 53:11

1QIsaa
יראה אור וישבע “He will see light and be satisfied”

1QIsaa (four lines up; image from Digital Dead Sea Scrolls)

1QIsab
יראה אור י[שבע “He will see light, he will [be satisfied]”

4QIsad
יראה או[ר ] ושבע “He will see lig[ht] and be satisfied”

4QIsad (2nd line from top; image from Leon Levy Library)

G
δεῖξαι αὐτῷ φῶς “to show him light”

In each witness, “light” is the direct object of the verb “to see.” This is a fairly common idiom, even in Isaiah (cf. Isaiah 9:2). G probably read the same Hebrew consonantal text but as a causative instead of the simple transitive.

The Key Witnesses to Isaiah 53:11 “He will see”

MT (= Vulgate, Peshitta, Targum?)
יִרְאֶה יִשְׂבָּע “He will see, he will be satisfied”

Theodotion
ὄψεται ἐμπλησθήσεται “He will see, he will be filled”

Aquila
ὄψεται ἐμπλησθήσεται “He will see, he will be filled”

Symmachus
ὄψεται χορτασθήσεται “He will see, he will be filled“

The readings of ‘the Three’ are found in Ra 86 and Q as the Edition makes plain below. But I want to comment here on a peculiarity in the Edition and an uncharacteristic infelicity in the second apparatus. Below at v. 11, Ziegler broke up the marginal note in Ra 86 (pictured below) across two separate readings, giving the impression that there were two separate fragments in the margin of the manuscript: (1) ὄψεται and (2) ἐμπλησθήσεται ἐν τῇ γνώσει αὐτοῦ. The obvious problem here is that the reader cannot tell whether the Three had the crucial word φῶς or not. One must actually consult the MS, which is easier now than ever, to see that there is one continuous fragment for the Three which omits φῶς, and therefore, the Three agree with MT. In fact, the Three are the earliest witnesses to the shorter text.

Ziegler’s Göttingen Isaias

Ra 86 (Barb. 549, f. 112v; image from Digivatlib)

Our reading is the top note in the margin with an index to δεῖξαι in the bible text. Clearly, the scribe copied one continuous note for the Three, and we do not have to wonder whether the Three had the longer or shorter reading. In the new critical edition of the Hexaplaric fragments, the one continuous reading of Ra 86 will be supplied so that future researchers will be able to access the correct reading more easily.

Thus, the main witnesses to the proto-Masoretic Text all attest the shorter text, the text without “light.”

Conclusion

A couple of factors probably decide in favor of the longer reading, “he will see light.” First and most significantly, different Qumran texts and G agree. All agree that 1QIsab is a very good representative of proto-MT and it has the longer text against MT. That 1QIsaa (a text not as close to proto-MT), 4QIsad, and G agree with 1QIsab probably shows the independence of the longer reading across witnesses. Second, it’s probable that אור was omitted because אור looks similar to the אה, and thus homoioteleuton accounts for an accidental omission of אור just before the time of the Jewish revisers.

I’m happy to see that many English translations have already adopted this reading (e.g. NIV CSB). I wonder what it would take for them all to adopt it.

2,000-Year-Old Hebrew Inscription Contains Rare Spelling of Jerusalem

Several sources today reported on an inscription dated to the Second Temple period that contained the word “Jerusalem,” but I couldn’t find an actual transcription of the three short lines. I offer my amateur attempt here and accept any correction in the comments. The inscription is pictured here and I took this image from Biblical Archaeology.

חנניה בר

Hananiah son of

דודלוס

Dodalos

מירושלים

from Jerusalem

All the hubbub here is over the spelling of Jerusalem with the ending לים -lym, which is rare in the Hebrew Bible (e.g. Jer 26:18: וִירוּשָׁלַיִם and a few other places [Esther 2:6, 2 Chronicles 25:1, 2 Chronicles 32: 9, and 2 Chronicles 25:1]), even though the Qere received and preserved by the Masoretes usually (always?) included a hireq vowel to insure it would be pronounced -ayim even without the yod in the Kethib: יְרוּשָׁלִַם (e.g. Isa 3:8).

Thus what is of some interest here is that those rare spellings of Jerusalem with yod in MT are confirmed in the record at least as far back as the late second temple period and the pronunciation of the Qere, perhaps, is supported by this inscription as well. Other than that, this inscription is unremarkable on this point.

I’m more interested in the apparent Greek name, Dodalos, aren’t you? And what is the actual function of br “son” in this inscription? Anyways, I’ll let others speak to these matters.

Textual Examples Wherein MT and the Jewish Revisions Differ

In this post, I give a few examples wherein Theodotion, Aquila, or Symmachus reflect a different vocalization of the consonantal text than what the later Masoretes recorded as the traditional reading. The issue is this: how closely do the Three (1–2 century Jewish revisers of the Greek Jewish Scriptures) mirror the Masoretic Text (9–10 century)? Of course, the general answer is that they followed the proto-MT closely, but that is different than saying they agree with the MT perfectly. As a caveat, textual criticism focuses on the differences between texts (which is what I'm about to do), but let's not let these relative few, but important differences, distort our view of the overwhelming agreement between MT and the Three. It's difficult to overstate the Three's close agreement with MT, which is why it would be easy to gloss over places where they disagree. My examples come from Job and Isaiah, and they could be multiplied.

Job 34:6a

MT: עַל־מִשְׁפָּטִי אֲכַזֵּב
Concerning my judgment/right, I lie

OG: ἐψεύσατο δὲ τῷ κρίματί μου
He lied about my judgment/right

Theodotion and Aquila: περὶ τὴν κρίσιν μου ψεῦσμα
There is a falsehood/lie concerning my right/judgment

Comment: The Old Greek read אכזב as a verb similar to later MT, while Th and Aq read it as אַכְזָב, an adjectival/nominal "false" or "falsehood." They read the same consonants with different vocalizations. As an aside, HALOT's entry of אַכְזָב probably could have cited the readings of Theodotion and Aquila here in support of this rarely attested Hebrew lexeme (cf. HALOT 1:45).

Job 35:9a

MT: מַרֹב עֲשׁוּקִים יַזְעִיקוּ
Because of the multitude of oppressions they cry out

Theodotion: ἀπὸ πλήθους συκοφαντούμενοι κεκράξονται
From a multitude those oppressors/those being oppressed will cry out.

Symmachus: συκοφαντιῶν
Of oppressions

Comment: There is no Old Greek for this verse, the Greek line in our MSS coming from Theodotion. Sym agrees with the vocalization of MT, “oppressions”  (cp. Ecclesiastes 4:1), while Th read עָשׁוֹקִים “oppressors” or עֲשׁוּקִים “the oppressed” (the latter option may equal the vocalization of MT but indicates a different derivative, the pl. pass. ptc.). In any case, Theodotion and MT attest to the same consonantal text but different vocalizations or understandings of those consonants. Or, if we want to read MT as the pass. ptc., then Symmachus has the different reading or understanding.

Isaiah 3:12a

MT: ֹוְנָשִׁים מָשְׁלוּ בו
And women rule him

OG: καὶ οἱ ἀπαιτοῦντες κυριεύουσιν ὑμῶν
And creditors rule you

Theodotion: δανεισται
Creditors

Aquila: ἀπαιτοῦντες
Creditors

Symmachus: γυναικες
Women

Comment: Symmachus agrees with MT in his reading of נשים "women." But Theodotion and Aquila read נשים as נֹשִים "creditors" from I נשׁא/II נשׁה “to lend” (the analogous formation of III-ה and III-א verbs). Therefore, this is another example of some of the Jewish revisers agreeing with the Old Greek's reading of the consonantal text where the Masoretes preserved a different vocalization, still an ancient reading as Symmachus confirms.

Isaiah 53:8b

MT: ֹמִפֶּשַׁע עַמִּי נֶגַע לָמו
Because of the transgression of my people, the strike was to them.

OG: ἀπὸ τῶν ἀνομιῶν τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἤχθη εἰς θάνατον
Because of the lawless deeds of my people, he was led to death.

Theodotion: ἀπὸ ἀθεσίας τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἥψατο αὐτῶν
Because of the faithlessness of my people, he struck them.

Aquila: ἀπὸ ἀθεσίας τοῦ λαοῦ μου ἥψατο αὐτῶν
Because of the faithlessness of my people, he struck them.

Symmachus: διὰ τὴν ἀδικίαν τοῦ λαοῦ μου πληγὴ αὐτοῖς
On account of my people's unrighteousness, the strike was to them.

Comment: The purpose of this example is not to engage the textual issue between the OG and MT (as fun and interesting as that one is). More modestly, today, I want to point readers to the fact that MT vocalized נגע as a noun (cp. Symmachus), while Theodotion and Aquila rendered the same consonants as a verb (cp. Jerome's Vulgate: percussit eos/eum).

Conclusion

There are some large-scale differences between the readings of Theodotion and proto-MT (e.g. parts of Theodotion Daniel and the longer ending of Theodotion Job). But most readings of the Three are of the kind surveyed in this post. These readings, preserved for us in Origen's Hexapla and its subsequent Christian reception, give evidence for the history of the Hebrew Bible and also for Jewish exegetical approaches to their texts around the turn of the era and into the Rabbinic period. They provide a link between the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Old Greek on the one hand and the later Medieval Hebrew MSS on the other. Thus we would do well to pay attention to them.