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!
This article describes “there are differences (some quite significant) between the scrolls and the Masoretic text.”, but never cites at least what one of these differences are. The author casts doubt over the current significance of the Masoretic text, yet confuses the reader by concluding that the Dead Sea scrolls “have demonstrated the relative stability of the Masoretic text”.
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?
The LXX is so corrupted that you will not find scholars trying to argue it’s viability in regards to the TANACH. The KJV Bibles errors are due to this issue, mostly since there were no Hebrew scholars in England during the time of the 1611 translation. This is quite obvious when reading the Hebrew against the translation.
People who insist that Dead Sea Scrolls use the name “Jehovah” are all Jehovah witnesses. They quote from jw.org
.
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!!!!
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”.
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.
“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.” ”
Ronald S Hendel is very mistaken with his assertion that it is possible to “construct a more original Hebrew Bible text if they combine the best of each tradition.”
That would not be a more original text, it would be a corruption of the Masoretic Text.
Furthermore, it is not possible to create a more original Hebrew Bible text without actually having the original Hebrew Bible text.
How can you know it is a more original text, without comparing it to the original text?
The key thing here is that even if we had the original Hebrew text, if it differed with what the dead sea scrolls have in them, then the same complaint would be made of it as is being made of the Masoretic Text and the Receptus Textus.
“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.” ”
The only way to insure things don’t become more messed up than what they are claimed to be, is to do as James A Sanders suggested: “keep each tradition separate”.
Soon, Christ will return and when He does, any errors or alterations that were entered over the last two thousand years, will be corrected. When those corrections are made, I’m fairly confident that we will find that despite the efforts of religious zealots, antiSemites, and anti-Christs; God was able to preserve His word, and His plan of salvation perfectly.
If he returns I’m sure he’ll give an affirmation to you guys that he’s neither God or his son, nor was he crucified and that Muhammad (S.A.W) is the last and final messenger of God and the Quran is the Final Testament! Oh People Of The Book (Jews & Christians), repent to Allah while you still have time!
How sadly mistaken you are my friend. The words of Jesus will ring true throughout eternity. He is clearly the Saviour of the world! To quote Peter, the closest apostle, there is no other name whereby we must be saved. He rose from the dead and reigns today. Please, please read the New Testament
Allah was just one of many gods in the ancient Arabian pantheon that Mohammed arbitrarily picked when he was creating his religion while also copying from both the Hebrew and Christian holy books.
THANK YOU!!!
I’ve been studying religions of the world for over 30 years and what you and every single theist is doing echoes throughout all of human history and how religions evolve. The Dead Sea scrolls were found in Quran, an area of peoples that culturally had a different take or understanding of Judaism than your modern Jew. They scribed what they thought was their understanding of their beliefs on the now titled “Dead Sea scrolls.”. Although the Dead Sea Scrolls have some differences when compared to the Masoretic texts, they aren’t so profound that they upend Judaism in any significant way. There are more similarities than differences. Of the major differences, some words, like “sawah” found in Deuteronomy 32:47 were translated from Hebrew to mean “command” but to Quranians, it meant more “to instruct and guide or teach.” Their take on the Torah was that it was an instruction guide that was meant to be followed and learned from and NOT “a command” from God as it is translated in nearly all modern Bibles. It’s no different than what Protestant Christian’s do with Lutherans or Souther Baptists. This is also a wonderful example of the inherent problem with language. If you pick up a thesaurus and look at all the words that are associated with the word “command” you will find that there are subtle variations of those words that will eventually lead you to the words: instruct, guide, teach, etc and yet they can mean something completely different to someone. When the next set of even older scrolls are found we’ll be in the same quagmire we’re in now, trying to place divinity into writing that doesn’t warrant or support it. People have always been fascinated with Gods. It’s something as old as fire, and like fire, 50,000 years ago we had no idea what it was. It’s because of science and logic that we know what fire is and it’s because of science and logic that we can look at translations and learn why ancient people believed what they did.
“How can you know it is a more original text, without comparing it to the original text?”
The older the surviving text the closer to the original it is. However you will never get to the original text because the actual ORIGINAL text was oral text NOT written text. So the first utterance was by a persson who has been dead thousands of years. Thus the closest you might be able to get, is to what was the first written text after hundreds or thousands of oral repetitions (like playing “telephone”).
So use the Dead Sea scrolls unless there are older written texts.