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?
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 1,000 years older than our earliest complete edition of the Masoretic Text. Photo: Hershel Shanks
Almost all of the known 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 on this information?
Scholars from both sides of the divide weigh in on this issue 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.
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.
What is the significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Why are they so important to our understanding of the Bible, Christianity and Judaism? In our free eBook The Dead Sea Scrolls: Discovery and Meaning, find out what the scrolls tell us about the Bible, Christianity and Judaism.
As is typical in the world of academics and research, there are scholars on each side of 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.
Related reading in Bible History Daily
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Related Posts
Must-Read Free eBooks
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Unlock Unlimited Access to the Bible's Past
Become an All-Access Member to explore the Bible's rich history. Get Biblical Archaeology Review in print, full online access, and FREE online talks. Plus, enjoy special Travel/Study discounts. Don't miss out—begin your journey today!
With our innovative design, testing and manufacturing capabilities, professional PCBA design, OS porting, firmware design, we can offer you a total solution from start to finish. Furthermore, our abundant experience in this field, completed quality control and cost control system make sure that SmartComm is one of your best choices for partnership.
I was recommended this blog by my cousin. I am not sure whether
this post is written by him as no one else know
such detailed about my trouble. You are amazing! Thanks!
Excerpts from the Psalms in a Dead Sea Scroll dated to the first half of the first century C.E. The text is in the style of the Hebrew letters commonly used after the Babylonian exile, but the Tetragrammaton appears repeatedly in distinctive ancient Hebrew letters
Why is the name missing from many Bible translations? The reasons vary. Some feel that Almighty God does not need a unique name to identify him. Others appear to have been influenced by the Jewish tradition of avoiding the use of the name, perhaps out of fear of desecrating it. Still others believe that since no one can be sure of the exact pronunciation of God’s name, it is better just to use a title, such as “Lord” or “God.” Such objections, however, lack merit for the following reasons:
Those who argue that Almighty God does not need a unique name ignore evidence that early copies of his Word, including those preserved from before the time of Christ, contain God’s personal name. As noted above, God directed that his name be included in his Word some 7,000 times. Obviously, he wants us to know and use his name.
Translators who remove the name out of deference to Jewish tradition fail to recognize a key fact. While some Jewish scribes refused to pronounce the name, they did not remove it from their copies of the Bible. Ancient scrolls found in Qumran, near the Dead Sea, contain the name in many places. Some Bible translators hint that the divine name appeared in the original text by substituting the title “LORD” in capital letters. But the question remains, Why have these translators felt free to substitute or remove God’s name from the Bible when they acknowledge that it is found in the Bible text thousands of times? Who do they believe gave them authority to make such a change? Only they can say.
Those who say that the divine name should not be used because it is not known exactly how to pronounce it will nevertheless freely use the name Jesus. However, Jesus’ first-century disciples said his name quite differently from the way most Christians do today. To Jewish Christians, the name Jesus was probably pronounced Ye·shu′a‛. And the title “Christ” was Ma·shi′ach, or “Messiah.” Greek-speaking Christians called him I·e·sous′ Khri·stos′, and Latin-speaking Christians Ie′sus Chri′stus. Under inspiration, the Greek translation of his name was recorded in the Bible, showing that first-century Christians followed the sensible course of using the form of the name common in their language. Similarly, the New World Bible Translation Committee feels that it is reasonable to use the form “Jehovah,” even though that rendering is not exactly the way the divine name would have been pronounced in ancient Hebrew.
http://www.jw.org/en/publications/bible/nwt/appendix-a/tetragrammaton-divine-name/
The Septuagint
Greek-speaking Jews in the time of Jesus and his apostles made extensive use of the Greek Septuagint. This is a translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek. Not only is the Septuagint noteworthy because it was the first known attempt to translate the Holy Scriptures into another language but it is also impressive because of the size of the translation project. A group of translators started work on the Septuagint in the third century B.C.E., and the work was completed by others over a hundred years later.
The early Christians were quick to make effective use of the Septuagint to prove that Jesus was the Christ, the promised Messiah. So effective were they that the Septuagint began to be viewed by some as a “Christian” translation. This led to its losing popularity among the Jews and resulted in several new translations being produced in Greek. One of those translations was produced by a Jewish proselyte named Aquila in the second century C.E. When describing this translation, one Bible scholar refers to a “quite unexpected feature.” Represented by ancient Hebrew characters, the divine name, Jehovah, appears throughout Aquila’s Greek translation.
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2009814#h=28:369-28:516
http://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2008327#h=0:0-55:0
Not sure after all is said and done. The Dead Sea Scrolls do lend a big helping stable and reasonable accurate hand. To Kurt: I don’t see anywhere in the Bible, or Gods word (so therefore nowhere does God tell people), not to mention or praise his name. Its is a big mistake that some religions have taken the freedom to remove such a necessary matter. (Revelation 22:18-20)
I just want to know the total amount of books there are ? If I was God and my 12 disciples is all I sent out for information and to spread the word, then I want to know how many books will be brought back before me to read ? God sent out 12 Disciples to spread the word of the bible rite ? Then how many others were sent out by the disciples to bring them back books of knowledge that they had in countered on there journey ??????
I hear about books now and when I was younger all I heard is the Bible is the only book. Now that I’m fully into finding answers about the book or Books I just want to know how many and what the names are so I can read and study so I can truly become one with God, Amen !!
Hello! My name is Victoria Mery Diaz,
I am writting because I know in the dead sea scrolls his name YHWH. In our common day english wouldn’t his name be known as Jehovah God. Just like Jesus Christ they called his Yashua isn’t it weird that jesus name changed with the common english language. Wouldn’t it be the same with Jehovah God. That would make sense to me.
More importantly than how you say it, is Who is God? Do you personally know him? So, how do we know him?
Rom 10:17 So then faith [cometh] by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
1Pe 1:23 Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Psa 138:2 I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.
The four letters of the tetragrammaton, YHWH, is supposed to derive from the verb that is used to make I AM, namely היה (haya), meaning to be or to become, or rather from an older form and rare synonym of haya, namely הוה, hawa, hence y-hawa or yahweh, the proper imperfect of the verb, thus rendering the name either BEING or HE IS.
Exo 3:13-14
13 And Moses said unto God, Behold, [when] I come unto the children of Israel, and shall say unto them, The God of your fathers hath sent me unto you; and they shall say to me, What [is] his name? what shall I say unto them?
14 And God said unto Moses, I AM THAT I AM: and he said, Thus shalt thou say unto the children of Israel, I AM hath sent me unto you.
The name Jesus means God Saves.
Mat 1:21 And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins.
Mat 1:23 Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.
Isa 9:6-7
6 For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.
7 Of the increase of [his] government and peace [there shall be] no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.
Isa 43:10-13
10 Ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I [am] he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
11 I, [even] I, [am] the LORD; and beside me [there is] no saviour.
12 I have declared, and have saved, and I have shewed, when [there was] no strange [god] among you: therefore ye [are] my witnesses, saith the LORD, that I [am] God.
13 Yea, before the day [was] I [am] he; and [there is] none that can deliver out of my hand: I will work, and who shall let it?
Only God Almighty can forgive sin, the gospel, or good news, is that if you believe that God is good, you will look into his eyes, and as Noah, you will find in him the truth and grace that gives us an everlasting joy and peace. We either have faith in his gift of love, or we will face the judgement of his wrath for our sins.
Jhn 15:13 Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends.
Rom 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.
I am apprehended by my Lord and Saviour and converted by his amazing love.
Phl 3:13-15
13 Brethren, I count not myself to have apprehended: but [this] one thing [I do], forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before,
14 I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.
15 Let us therefore, as many as be perfect, be thus minded: and if in any thing ye be otherwise minded, God shall reveal even this unto you.
God Bless
I think that Dead Sea Scrolls have own Psalms. Generally they reveals their faith in own words. Different text forms in situations can be. The Bible is not in need to move its words. Jahve and Jeshua are Hebrew idioms. We have translations, and they are good enough.
So far, no other manuscript can take over the lxx as the oldest manuscript known to us.
the lxx is christian not Jewish
The LXX was translated by the Jews not Christians Date of approx. 300 BCE This is before Christianity was born. The LXX was in common use at that time.
You are talking about a myth. So far there is no known LXX or Septuagint copy that exists today. Unlike the Masoretic Hebrew text that is carefully copied, the earliest Greek translations of the Old Testament are highly variant. The earliest extant versions we have today are from 4th century AD or later (Codex Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus). The high degree of variance in their text show that they represent individual translations rather than a copy from a single sacred and authoritative document. Textual scholars today assign the most value to the later 5th century Greek translation of the Old Testament, codex Alexandrinus.
The Dead Sea Scrolls discovery has prompted many scholars to re-evaluate that the Hebrew language was in fact a working and functional language for Jews at the time of Christ. Jesus and all of his Apostles were Jews/Hebrew. Interestingly, the word “Aramaic” is not mentioned in the Greek New Testament, but we do see mention that the Hebrew language is spoken.
Luke 23:38 And a superscription also was written over him in letters of Greek, and Latin, and Hebrew, THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS.
Act 26:13-15 (the language Jesus spoke)
13 At midday, O king, I saw in the way a light from heaven, above the brightness of the sun, shining round about me and them which journeyed with me.
14 And when we were all fallen to the earth, I heard a voice speaking unto me, and saying in the Hebrew tongue, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? [it is] hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
15 And I said, Who art thou, Lord? And he said, I am Jesus whom thou persecutest.
Act 22:2 (And when they heard that he spake in the Hebrew tongue to them, they kept the more silence: and he saith,)
The Essenes texts vary significantly as they were not known as the Masoretes are for their dedication to copying the sacred scriptures. Yet the earliest extant evidence of the DSS provide favourable support to the Hebrew Masoretic text as the final authority and a universally consistent text with evidence that pre-dates the Greek translation by many hundreds of years, or even that of the Samaritan Pentateuch.