The Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Should the original Hebrew Bible text be modified based on information obtained from the Dead Sea Scrolls?

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published in 2011.—Ed.

The Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls

Inside Qumran Cave four, where 15,000 Dead Sea Scroll fragments from more than 580 documents were found. Many of the Biblical fragments from Cave 4 preserve readings that deviate from the standard readings of the Masoretic Text. To scholars, these variants are uniquely valuable because of their antiquity: The Dead Sea Scrolls are a thousand years older than our earliest complete edition of the Masoretic Text. Photo: Hershel Shanks.

At last, almost all of the Dead Sea Scrolls have been transcribed, transliterated, translated and either published or nearly published. But as soon as this task is accomplished, scholars are faced with new challenges: Do insights from the scrolls add to the Masoretic text (known as the original Hebrew Bible text, or the Tanakh, which roughly corresponds to the Protestant Old Testament), and if so, should the original Hebrew Bible text be modified based this information? Scholars from both sides of the divide weigh in on this issue below (see links below).

The Dead Sea Scrolls did not, as some early dreamers speculated, answer the age-old question: Where is the original Bible? Not, as it turns out, in the caves of Qumran. Nor do the scrolls include long lost books of the Bible. Furthermore, the scrolls did not utterly transform our image of the original Hebrew Bible text. Indeed, one of the most important contributions of the scrolls is that they have demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text.

Interested in the history and meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls? In the free eBook Dead Sea Scrolls, learn what the Dead Sea Scrolls are and why are they important. Find out what they tell us about the Bible, Christianity and Judaism.

Nevertheless, there are differences (some quite significant) between the scrolls and the Masoretic text. Furthermore, these differences have made scholars rethink variant readings found in other ancient manuscripts. How should scholars treat these variants with relationship to the Masoretic text? Should they try to determine which readings are the most original and then incorporate them in a new critical edition of the Hebrew Bible? Or should they continue to use the Masoretic text as their base? Does a single version of the Hebrew Bible exist that is older than all others presently known, and if so, where is the original Bible? These questions are not merely academic; for any changes made to scholarly editions of the Masoretic text will have repercussions for decades of research and will affect all future Bible translations.

The Dead Sea Scrolls have been called the greatest manuscript find of all time. Visit the BAS Dead Sea Scrolls Page for dozens of articles on the scrolls’ significance, discovery and scholarship.

Per usual in the world of academics and research, there are scholars two sides to every argument. The case of using the Dead Sea Scrolls to modify the Masoretic text is no different. Ronald S. Hendel of the University of California, Berkeley, argues that scholars can reconstruct a more original Hebrew Bible text if they “combine the best from each tradition.” James A. Sanders, founder and president emeritus of the Ancient Biblical Manuscript Center in Claremont, California, responds by urging scholars to “keep each tradition separate.”

And as far as answering the question: Where is the original Bible (and whether such a thing even exists): We don’t know. But to all scholars and Biblical archaeologists we can offer this advice: Keep digging!

This Bible History Daily feature was originally published on July 20, 2011.


Posted in Bible Versions and Translations, Dead Sea Scrolls, Hebrew Bible.

Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Add Your Comments

11 Responses

Stay in touch with the conversation, subscribe to the RSS feed for comments on this post.

  • Rick says

    There is an online Septuagint via Oxford or Cambridge university. I read an article concerning the age of the patriachs. I checked Septuagint re Genesis 11 and it adds over 700 years to biblical timeline, so Shem cannot be Melchizedek as some claim.

  • Richard says

    Not being a Hebrew scholar, I can only read the DSS translated into English. The English copy of the DSS that I have say in an introduction to The Tales of the Patriarch’s, the DSS community would sometimes rewrite the Bible to stress certain points to conform to their community. This may have only occurred with the non-canonical text, but then again, it may be in the “canonical” text also.

    For that reason I wholly agree with James A Sanders, “keep each tradition separate”.

  • shel says

    The Masoretic Bible was compiled in the early Middle Ages. There are many variations between that Bible and the segments of the Bible that are part of the Dead Sea Scrolls. The Samarian and Greek translations Bible are older than the Masoretic Bible! There are numerous variations from those Bibles as well. We do not have an original Bible!!!!

    • Richard says

      In my opinion, and based on what God has said in the scriptures, we do indeed have an original Bible. Not the original parent text, but one that was copied from it. Don’t ask anyone to point out which of all the myriad of variations are the correct one(s), since there are even different Hebrew Masoretic texts, Greek Old Testament texts, and variations within the collection of DSS texts. But God has said that He would preserve His word and I believe it’s true. It’s been said that Josephus had a different version of the Bible also. Read some of his writings and you’ll notice slight variations on the Bible story.

      God said He is a rewarder of those who seek Him. I believe that is true also. No one may actually see every single correct text as it was written originally, but we can seek and pray about it.

  • Lois says

    People who insist that Dead Sea Scrolls use the name “Jehovah” are all Jehovah witnesses. They quote from

    • Will says

      Incorrect. The oldest complete spelling we have of the name of the Creator is Close to what the witnesses say. I am a Jew and this same name matches that found in the allepo codex

      • Michael says

        The name of Elohim can not be J…… as there was no J sound in the Hebrew language. We have partial translations in Hebrew names as Yah or Yahu. Some of the Prophets had this ending on their names. It would seem that the closest that we can come to the origional sound would be Yah-hu-ah. This too may not be perfect, but the important thing is that we know what it means. Eternal, I think, is the best translation, but im not a translator. ????. Im Jewish and believe in Messiah Yeshua.

        • Peter says

          Yes I believe it’s Yahuah too. It means. I Am the breath of life
          The name Yeshua is not the correct name for our Adonai. He came in the name of the Father. He had the same name as Joshua. That is proven. The name for our Adonai is Yahusha. Prophet Hosea is not Hosea. It is Hosha. Which mean savior. Yah: I am or Yahuah is the savior.
          It’s very clear when looking in to paleo Hebrew. Ancient Hebrew.
          Matthew: Mattithyahu = gift from God or Yahuah
          YeshaYahu: Isaiah Yahua is salvation
          Benjamin Netanyahu (Israel’s prime minister) given of Yahuah or God

        • Will says

          If you believe that Jesus is the messiah then please show me where in the Christian writings Jesus was made them Messiah according to the standards that God put down in Torah..

          We know exactly what that standard is and that standard was never applied to him… So I don’t know how you can call him Moshiach.
          if you were Jewish and believe that Jesus is the Messiah than you are no longer Jewish but Christian.

      • Ryan says

        You mean you are a follower of Nehemiah Gordon? I have been to Israel and spoken with a few Orthodox Jews regarding the name and not one of them ever said Yehovah. In fact, when I brought this up they instantly pointed out that the V in this name was impossible. Not even Aramaic has a “V” for the “WAW.” If you are truly Jewish and I’m doubting it I challenge you to go to the wailing wall during the Yom Kippur and tell me what name you hear?

  • Shebon says

    This is what the description of the link says, “Do insights from the Dead Sea Scrolls add to the Masoretic text, and if so, … Inside Qumran Cave four, where 15,000 Dead Sea Scroll fragments from more than …. So far, no other manuscript can take over the lxx as the oldest …” I DON’T SEE THIS IN THE ARTICLE. What gives?

  • 1 4 5 6

    Some HTML is OK

    or, reply to this post via trackback.

Send this to a friend

Hello! Your friend thought you might be interested in reading this post from
The Masoretic Text and the Dead Sea Scrolls!
Here is the link:
Enter Your Log In Credentials...

Change Password