1QIsaa and Shifting Categories

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. 

1QIsaa is the most popular Dead Sea Scroll. It was one of the initial six (or seven) manuscripts discovered (see Weston Fields’ Full History for a helpful overview of the discovery), and it is a copy of the book of Isaiah: a very important OT book. Additionally, the text is ancient. Although many antiquity dealers and scholars initially assessed it as medieval or a modern forgery, paleographic and radiocarbon dating have vindicated the impression of Mar Samuel (a Syriac Archbishop who purchased it from the Bedouin), the keen analysis of Eleazar Sukenik, and the conclusions of Brownlee, Burrows, and Trever at ASOR (now the Albright Institute of Archaeology). The scroll is ancient. The paleography is, more precisely, Hasmonean. Features of this script include non-uniform letter size, inconsistent use of final letters, and the often non-ligatured consonant combination of nun-yod/vav (see the end of this article for pictures illustrating some of these features).

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.

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.

4QPsx: A Poorly Copied Manuscript

Several details about the Dead Sea Scrolls are common knowledge. One of these details is that these manuscripts preserve a certain level of textual plurality previously unknown among Hebrew OT manuscripts. Although this detail is a fact, the nature of this textual plurality is mostly unknown by laypeople and scholars alike. We should be aware that common explanations explain most of this textual plurality. One of these explanations is poor copying. (In a previous blog, I discussed that some of this diversity results from scribes normalizing their biblical texts [such as 4QGenk]).

4QPsx is one manuscript, among many, that was copied poorly. Interestingly, some scholars date this manuscript, which preserves portions of Psalm 89, to 175-125 BC. If this is right, this manuscript is our earliest manuscript available that preserves a psalm; yet, it is an unreliable guide to the Psalter's state, and Psalm 89 in particular, during the second century BC. Several details about this manuscript suggest that this scribe was either an unskilled or a beginner scribe. Varying letter size, inconsistent space between lines, curved lines, cancelation dots to erase a mistake, inconsistent use of final letters, and the inability to space words properly are just a few of these details. (See Skehan’s article “Gleanings” for these and other points). 

4QPsx: https://www.deadseascrolls.org.il/explore-the-archive/image/B-473784

Besides these scribal features, we should consider several other material features of this manuscript that call into question its dependability. This manuscript is unruled, and this reality contributes to some of the mistakes listed above. Indeed, the absence of a writing block made it challenging to space the words, and the lack of horizontal lines caused the scribe to write upwards and downwards at times. The fact that this manuscript is unruled is puzzling since most manuscripts at Qumran were (see Tov, Scribal Practices, 57, 104). More puzzling is that this manuscript was stitched before inscribing these words, which, again, is unusual (Scribal Practices, 34-37). This fact is evident since the scribe wrote around the stitching (“Gleanings,” 441). Thus, these two details suggest that this sheet of leather was previously a handle sheet (a protective piece of leather stitched unto inscribed sheets at a manuscript's beginning and/or end).

The scribal habits and the material features of this manuscript cast serious doubt on the text's reliability. Although some might understand this text as an alternative form of Psalm 89, I suggest that it is a recycled handle sheet (like Skehan): perhaps a scribe's school exercise. Overall, this text contributes to the textual plurality preserved at Qumran but provides no evidence to suggest that the OT existed in a state of fluidity during this time (fluidity meaning that the text had not yet reached its final form). Instead, this manuscript suggests that some manuscripts were copied poorly and, perhaps, some manuscripts are mere school exercises. As already noted, this manuscript may be our earliest manuscript preserving a psalm. This reality reminds us of a vital point of textual criticism: the earlier manuscript is not always better.

*For more information about this manuscript, see my dissertation, A Comparison of the Non-Aligned Texts of Qumran to the Masoretic Text. It can be accessed on ProQuest. You may also view the presentation that I gave at the Sacred Words Conference, where I discuss this manuscript in more detail. 

4QGenk: A Normalized Manuscript

4QGen^k (4Q10) is a poorly preserved manuscript that contains 70 partial words. Among these partial words, there exist three variants (I am not counting differences of plene/defective spelling here). Each of these variants all function to replace an uncommon grammatical form of the MT with the more common form. This common denominator suggests to me that scribe of 4QGen^k has taken liberties with his exemplar, or perhaps the scribe has copied from a manuscript that has taken these liberties, to normalize the grammar of the MT. 

Variants between MT and 4QGenk
Fragment, Line, and Verse	4QGenk		MT
F1:L1 (Gen 1:9)	ותרא	And let it appear	וְתֵרָאֶה	And let it appear
F2:L3 (Gen 1:14)	ולש֯[נים.  ]	and fory[ears]	וְשָׁנִים	and years
F5:L2 (Gen 3:1)	האף֯	Did…really	אַף	Really…

The difference persevered at Genesis 1:14 concerns a preposition, but the difference is minor since the scribe is simply making the grammar of the MT explicit. In the MT, one preposition governs two nouns – “days and years.” Although a preposition can govern more than one noun in a sequence in biblical Hebrew (the reading of the MT), the more typical form is to repeat the preposition after each noun (see GKC §119hh). The scribe has replaced the uncommon form of the MT with the more common form.

The same explanation applies to the addition of the interrogative heh in 4QGen^k at F5:L2 (Gen 3:1). Interrogative statements can be expressed in Hebrew by an added particle (4QGen^k) or by intonation (MT [See GKC, §150a]). Although both forms are possible, interrogative statements are most often marked with an interrogative particle (see GKC, §150c). 

Finally, the fragmentary nature of this manuscript complicates a certain understanding of the last difference. What is certain at F1:L1 (Gen 1:9) is that 4QGen^k reads ותרא while Leningrad reads וְתֵרָאֶה. 4QGen^k has omitted the final heh of the verb ראה. The form of the MT is a jussive (a tense of volition), but the form is uncommon. The typical jussive of a third yod/vav is an apocopated form: that is, the final heh is lost. It is not surprising given the other two variants in this manuscript that the scribe of 4QGen^k provides this form: the more common form.

Tov labels this manuscript as non-aligned, and this categorization may give the impression that this manuscript provides positive evidence that the OT text existed in a state of diversity without any unity. This impression would be wrong. Rather, this manuscript suggests, in my mind, the presence of a stable text existing alongside a diversity of texts. Moreover, this manuscript demonstrates that some of the textual diversity preserved in the non-align category is the result of scribes normalizing uncommon forms. This tendency does not suggest the absence of an authoritative text in the Second Temple period; rather it supports its existence. 

*For more information about this manuscript, see my dissertation, A Comparison of the Non-Aligned Texts of Qumran to the Masoretic Text. It can be accessed on ProQuest. You may also view the presentation that I gave at the Sacred Words Conference.

Is There a Unity amid this Diversity?

Currently, there is debate about the state of the Old Testament text before the second century AD. While many argue that the OT text existed in a state of fluidity – that is, the OT text had not yet reached its final form – some others believe that a stable text existed alongside a diversity of texts. I hold to this latter view, and I identify this stable text as an MT-like text.

Now, Old Testament textual critics cite a variety of evidence when discussing this important topic. Perhaps the strongest evidence of this debate is the Hebrew/Aramaic biblical manuscripts discovered in the Judean Desert. At least two reasons make these manuscripts unique among the other evidence: 1) they are the oldest biblical texts available to scholars, and 2) they are written in the OT’s original languages. These two details compel us, then, to take seriously two further details: nearly half of these manuscripts align closely with the MT while the other half do not. Emanuel Tov labels these latter manuscripts non-aligned texts.

First four columns of 1QIsa^a
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

Thus, in a series of blogs, I am going to discuss the non-aligned manuscripts. I hope to show that these manuscripts are largely secondary and dependent on an MT-like text. This analysis suggests to me that the stable text that existed alongside the diversity of the non-aligned texts is an MT-like text. I hope this creates some intriguing dialogue for the glory of the great God whom these manuscripts bear witness!

From Bedouin to Scholars: The Discovery and Preservation of the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Dead Sea Scrolls largely belong to the realm of scholars and researchers. However, this was not always the case. When the scrolls were discovered, they belonged to the realm of Bedouin. The Bedouin sold those first few manuscripts to merchants. Finally, some were sold to the Hebrew University of Jerusalem while others were sold to the religious leaders of St. Mark’s Monastery. In this post, I will discuss five important figures associated with the discovery and the early preservation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. This list is quite diverse. It includes Bedouin, a merchant, a religious leader, and two scholars. Truly, many different people are due credit for the discovery and preservation of these fascinating manuscripts. For a full discussion of these figures, I recommend Weston Fields’ work Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History. Citations to his work are found in parentheses.

 

Juma (left) and Mohammad ed-Dib (right)
Photo by John C. Trever

1) Mohammad ed-Dib, a member of the Taʿamireh Bedouin, is credited with the discovery of these manuscripts in either late 1946 or early 1947. The discovery happened when a rock was thrown to guide the Bedouin’s herds. This stray rock “coincidentally” broke something inside a nearby cave. Mohammed and another friend investigated the cave the following day and discovered the first manuscripts now known as the Dead Sea Scrolls (25). The greatest archeological find of the last century was, thus, a mere accident.

2) Kando (Khalil Eskander Shahin), a Syrian Orthodox shop owner in Bethlehem, verified shortly after this discovery that the scrolls were leather. Kando’s involvement with the Scrolls would from this point be extensive. In fact, the Bedouin would bring the manuscripts to Kando, who was their sole dealer. As the Scrolls dealer, he would sell the manuscripts to de Vaux at the École (the “French School” [see 147-154]) on behalf of the Bedouin.

3) Mar Samuel of St. Mark’s Monastery in Jerusalem purchased 1QIsaa, the Habakkuk Commentary, and the Manual of Discipline from the Bedouin on July 19, 1947 (33). He had the opportunity to buy 1QIsab, the War Scroll, the Thanksgiving Scroll, and the Genesis Apocryphon but missed the opportunity because of miscommunication (29-30). Samuel immediately believed the scrolls to be ancient, but most others were less certain (see 39 for a list of the uninterested observers).

4) Father van der Ploeg was the second person outside of the local Arab community to see the scrolls. Although van der Ploeg recognized the antiquity of the scrolls, he had little involvement in their publication (see 33-35).

5) Eleazar Sukenik was a professor of archaeology at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and specialized in Hebrew epigraphy and the archaeology of ancient synagogues (41). According to Fields, he was the first person with the skills necessary to evaluate the scrolls properly (39-40). His first acquaintance with the scrolls was at the gateway to military Zone B with a barbed wire fence between him and his friend, an antiquities dealer, Nasir Ohan. This meeting took place on November 24, 1947 (41). On November 30, 1947, Sukenik decided to buy the manuscripts presented to him (likely the War Scroll and Thanksgiving Scroll) for the Hebrew University (45). Sukenik later purchased 1QIsab, a fragment of Isaiah, and possibly some Daniel fragments on December 22, 1947 (50).

View of Qumran Cave 4 discovered by Bedouin in 1952

The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a fascinating story. The fact that they were discovered by “accident” by Bedouin only adds to the intrigue. Indeed, modern scholars owe a great deal of gratitude to past scholars; this much is certain. Gratitude, however, must also be extended to Bedouin, merchants, and shop owners.

5 Surprising Details about the Initial Discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Several details about the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls are common knowledge. Many in the public, for example, are aware that approximately seventy years ago Bedouin accidentally discovered hundreds of ancient manuscripts near the Dead Sea. Although many understand a few general details about this discovery, several other details are less known, and perhaps even surprising. I discovered many of these details and many more while reading Weston W. Fields' Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History. Here are five less known and surprising details about the initial discovery of these manuscripts and the subsequent few months of trying to sell them.

1) The discovery of these manuscripts in 1947 by Bedouin was not the first-time manuscripts were discovered near the Dead Sea. In the third century AD, Origen discovered a manuscript preserving psalms in a cave near Jericho (22). Then, again in the eighth or ninth century AD, several manuscripts with psalms attributed to David were discovered near Jericho (29 n38).

2) The Bedouin did not rush to sell their newly discovered treasure but waited until they “had occasion” in the words of Fields (26). Before making it to market, it has been reported that one manuscript was destroyed by children playing. The scraps of that manuscript were then thrown away (26)! Other reports claim that pieces were used as sandal straps, but Fields believes this story to be unlikely (26).

3) When the Bedouin finally arrived at market (roughly two months or so after the discovery), they had a difficult time selling these manuscripts. A suspicion that the scrolls were stolen led the first, or perhaps even the first two antiquities dealers to pass on purchasing these manuscripts, at less initially. Fields suggests that the Bedouin were only looking for a small amount of money in exchange for the manuscripts in their possession (26). These manuscripts were likely 1QIsa^a, the Habakkuk Commentary, and the Manual of Discipline in two pieces (29).

4) The Syrian Orthodox Metropolitan Mar Athanasius Yeshue Samuel purchased 1QIsa^a, the Habakkuk Commentary, and the Manual of Discipline. He, however, almost missed his opportunity to buy them when the monastery steward at St. Mark’s monastery in Jerusalem sent the Bedouin away because the manuscripts were written in Hebrew, not Syriac (29-30).

5) Kando, a Bethlehem merchant who became acquainted with the manuscripts because he could verify that they were written on leather, agreed to sell 1QIsa^a, the Habakkuk Commentary, and the Manual of Discipline for the Bedouin on consignment for commission (one-third of the purchase price). He sold these manuscripts to Samuel for roughly $97 saying, “Much dirty paper for little clean paper” (33 n52). Samuel later sold his scrolls in 1954 for $250,000.

First four columns of 1QIsa^a
http://dss.collections.imj.org.il/isaiah

The story of the discovery, collection, reconstruction, and publication of the Dead Sea Scrolls is a riveting tale that Weston Fields traces and narrates in Dead Sea Scrolls: A Full History. Anyone interested in these manuscripts will find the details recorded here quite fascinating and worth the time to read and enjoy.

Anthony Ferguson on Texts Preserving Psalms from Qumran

Last week, guest blogger, Anthony Ferguson, described his recently defended and completed dissertation on the ‘Non-Aligned’ Texts of Qumran and reported on its major conclusions. I asked Anthony to write another post on the texts preserving Psalms at Qumran, and he kindly obliged. Thank you, Anthony, for your labors, and we look forward to reading more of your work in these areas in the future.

---

11QPs-a (XX-XXIV; Image from Leon Levy Library)

The texts preserving Psalms from Qumran classified by scholars as biblical texts are significant for the fluid/standard text debate because they preserve large-scale differences that designate them in the mind of many scholars as an alternative tradition or edition of the Psalter (e.g., Sanders, Ulrich, and Flint). Contrary to these scholars, many others understand these texts to be secondary to the MT, and not strictly biblical texts at all but liturgical texts (e.g., Talmon, Gottstein, Skehan, and Tov). Despite Tov viewing many of these texts as non-biblical, he still labels them non-aligned. I understand these texts to be based on a Masoretic like text and secondary to the Masoretic Psalter. Thus, I label many of these texts as texts belonging to the Masoretic tradition that contain liturgical alterations.

Types of Differences found among the Texts Preserving Psalms

11Q5 (11QPs-a) generally represents the types of differences preserved in the texts preserving Psalms from Qumran. The major differences preserved in 11Q5 include a different sequence of Psalms, the inclusion of Psalms not found in the Masoretic Psalter, and large-scale additions.

Sanders, the editor of 11Q5 in DJD, argued that 11Q5 represented a genuine Psalter. Sanders’ reasons included the following: his belief that David was the author of the Psalter, the nature of the non-Masoretic Psalms, the presence of large-scale additions such as superscriptions and interjections, and the fact that 11Q6 (11QPs-b) appears to be another copy of the text preserved in 11Q5 (whether 4Q87 represents this same text is debated).

11Q5 as secondary and dependent on the Masoretic Psalter

Contrary to Sanders, I argued that 11Q5 is secondary to and dependent on the Masoretic Psalter. First, I believe that the major differences that distinguish 11Q5 from the MT can reasonably be explained as liturgical adjustments. For example, the different sequence of Psalms can be attributed to liturgical traditions that recognize a stable Masoretic Psalter (see m. Tamid 7:4). Moreover, the inclusion of non-canonical psalms is a phenomenon found in texts that preserve the Masoretic Psalter. The LXX superscription to Psalm 151 demarcates this text as non-canonical, and thus, shows that ancient Jews did not have a fundamental problem with combining canonical and non-canonical psalms together in the same scroll. Last, one should note that there are analogies in later Jewish liturgical texts to many of the large-scale additions preserved in 11Q5. Space permits only a few examples. The liturgical function of the Hallel Psalms (Pss 113-118) during the feast of Booths led to additions in the liturgy. For example, if a slave, woman, or minor answers the reader of the Psalms, they were to repeat what was said. If an adult male answered the reader, he was only obligated to respond halleluyah (m. Sukk. 3:10). Local customs then permit further types of repetition. Moreover, as the Levites walked around the altar, it was known that they would repeat portions of Psalm 118:25: אָנָא ייי הוֹשִׁיעָה נָּא אָנָּא והוֹשִׁיעָה נָּא, “Save now, we beseech thee, O Lord! We beseech thee, O Lord” (m. Sukk. 4:5). Thus, there appears some precedent for dissecting and reworking Masoretic Psalms for liturgical purposes in liturgical traditions that clearly recognized a stable Masoretic Psalter. Overall, it seems that the major differences that distinguish 11Q5 from the MT are liturgically motivated.

Video: Cutting Open the Qumran Copper Scroll

This has been floating around my Facebook feed the last few days and I thought it was worth sharing here. It's from 1955. Watch it here.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and textual criticism

Biblical Archaeology Review published an article by Harvey Minkoff at least eight months ago which I have just now noticed, here. The piece describes variants in the Dead Sea scrolls and other parts of the larger Hebrew Bible tradition including the Septuagint. This article is ideal for a seminary student.

Exhibition at the National Library of France: Qumrân. Le secret des manuscrits de la mer Morte

There is an exhibition now to the 11 July at the National Library in Paris, "Qumrân. Le secret des manuscrits de la mer Morte."

There is some pedagogical material with nice images in French here (background to the Qumran site) and here (about the textual history of the Bible, esp. the Hebrew Bible and LXX), and here (about the role of the Qumran community in the 1st century C.E.). And here is a quiz especially for young visitors with answers on the last page.