The “Original” Bible and the Dead Sea Scrolls
Can the scrolls help expose the original Bible language within the Masoretic Text and Septuagint?
The Song of Moses (Deuteronomy 32:8) in the Masoretic Text describes the Most High dividing the nations according to number of “the sons [children?] of Israel.” This Dead Sea Scroll fragment (4QDeutj) and the third-century B.C.E. translation of the Hebrew Pentateuch into Greek (the Septuagint [LXX]), however, say the nations were divided according to the “sons of Elohim” (God). What did the original Bible text say? Photo: IAA.
Which is the “original” Bible? How do we decide which of these two ancient texts is more authoritative? In “Searching for the ‘Original’ Bible” in the July/August 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Hebrew University of Jerusalem scholar and long-time editor-in-chief of the Dead Sea Scrolls publication team Emanuel Tov suggests we turn to the Dead Sea Scrolls to help us compare the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint.
Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls actually have more in common with the Greek Septuagint than the traditional Hebrew Masoretic Text. This suggests that the Greek translators must have been translating from Hebrew texts that resembled the Dead Sea Scrolls. Are the Dead Sea Scroll texts as trustworthy as these other two sources? Are they as close to the text of the original Bible?
The Great Isaiah Scroll is one of the most iconic of the Dead Sea Scrolls, yet it does not reflect the original language of the Bible. Tov calls it “a classroom example of what an inferior text looks like, with its manifold contextual changes, harmonizations, grammatical adaptions, etc.” Photo: John C. Trevor, Ph.D. Digital Image: James E. Trevor.
Some turn to the Dead Sea Scrolls simply because they are older: 2,000-year-old texts were less likely to be subjected to scribal corruption; they should reflect a more original Bible language. Tov supplements this chronological reasoning with a logical—and admittedly subjective—approach: He examines which text makes the most sense in a given context. Tov examines a number of textual discrepancies between Bible versions (Did God finish work on the sixth or seventh day before resting on the seventh day? How were the nations divided according to the number of the sons of God?) in his search for the original Bible.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have been called the greatest manuscript find of all time. Explore the BAS Dead Sea Scrolls page for dozens of articles on the scrolls’ significance, discovery and scholarship.
As an example, Tov asks: Did Hannah bring one bull or three bulls as an offering at Shiloh? (1 Samuel 1:24):
When the infant Samuel had been weaned and his mother, Hannah, finally came to Shiloh with her son, she also brought with her an offering for the Lord that is described in two ways in our textual sources. According to the Masoretic Text, she brought “three bulls,” but according to the Septuagint and a Qumran scroll (4QSama from 50–25 B.C.E.) she brought one “three-year-old bull.”
I believe that Hannah probably offered only a single bull (as in the Septuagint and 4QSama); supporting this choice is the next verse in the Masoretic Text which speaks about “the bull.” I believe the Masoretic Text was textually corrupted when the continuous writing (without spaces between words) of the original words prm/shlshh (literally: “bulls three”) underlying the Septuagint was divided wrongly to pr mshlsh (“three-year-old bull”).*
The evidence of the Septuagint, being in Greek, always depends on a reconstruction into Hebrew, and consequently the Qumran scroll here helps us decide between the various options. Incidentally an offering of a “three-year-old bull” is mentioned in Genesis 15:9. It shows that a Hebrew text underlying the Septuagint once existed in which Hannah brought only one three-year-old bull.
Tov uses the Dead Sea Scrolls to elucidate the original language of the Bible not only because they are the oldest Bible manuscripts, but also because they provide additional logical clues. He concludes: “In finding our way in the labyrinth of textual sources of the Bible, we must slowly accumulate experience and intuition. When maneuvering among the sources, we will find much help in the Dead Sea Scrolls. But they must be used judiciously.”
Notes
* Many thanks to Joseph Lauer for a careful reading of the text, and to Emanuel Tov for clarification. The text:
“…of the original words prm/shlshh (literally: ‘bulls three’) underlying the Septuagint was divided wrongly to pr mshlsh (‘three-year-old bull’)”
Should read:
“…of the original words pr mshlsh (‘three-year-old bull’) underlying the Septuagint was divided wrongly to prm/shlshh (literally: ‘bulls three’)”
Subscribers: Continue on the search for the “original” Bible as Emanuel Tov explores different versions of important Biblical passages. Read the full article “Searching for the ‘Original’ Bible” by Emanuel Tov as it appeared in the July/August 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review.
Not a BAS Library or All-Access Member yet? Join today.
Become a BAS All-Access Member Now!
Read Biblical Archaeology Review online, explore 50 years of BAR, watch videos, attend talks, and more
This Bible History Daily article was originally published on June 27, 2014.
All-Access members, read more in the BAS Library
Dead Sea Scrolls Scandal—Israel’s Department of Antiquities Joins Conspiracy to Keep Scrolls Secret
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!
From a prophetic standpoint, and on at least some level, historical as well, the fact that the Elephantine Jewish community existed where it did makes it a dubious outlier. YHWH explicitly told Israel that they were never to return to Egypt. This community utterly disregarded that command, and so it must be taken into account that this community didn’t have a tremendous amount of internal motivation to live in complete accord with YHWH’s word, This is true regardless of the fact that they maintained a temple in honor of YHWH. This shouldn’t cause any problems of understanding–the Bible is filled with testimony that Israelites either apostatized altogether or liberally mixed YHWH worship with “pagan” religion. Historically, we have found images of YHWH with a consort, which constitutes a double transgression. Even Aaron’s golden calf was welcomed with a feast to YHWH. I’m not suggesting that Elephantine has nothing a value to offer scholars and historians, but it should be acknowledged for what it was…a rather bizarre little cult that tried to honor the God they deliberately chose to dishonor. Could it offer something of value not generally acknowledged? Possibly, but the evidence needs to be convincingly presented.
It surprises me that up till now people discuss about Jesus when the Dead sea scrolls have proven that Jesus is a might of The Romans and a total allegory. Even the Demon whom The satanic kingdom has given power as Jesus has tried to kill me after I refused his warning not to tell people that he is not real. This is because YHWH revealed whom this entity is to me in 2007. The worst thing anybody will do is to talk about this evil name Jesus. Lack of repentance has made it impossible for YHWH to reveal hidden truth about the evil Christianity in this world. The messiah is not Jesus if you are spirit filled to see the messiah you will know that Jesus is a pagan deity (zeus) without Glory like Yahshua in spirit. Allelu-Yah.
Who is Yahshua in your view, then?
The Elephantine texts are interesting but marginal. They come from a small Jewish community well away from the core community in Judea or in Persia. The text from Kings about Rabshakeh implies that the Judeans spoke Hebrew, not Aramaic, although the two languages are close relatives. Indeed, the relationship of Hebrew to Aramaic, as well as Edomite and Moabite, is close enough to infer that the Hebrew-speaking Israelites came from the east, not from the Canaanite or Phoenician coastal cities.
All the First Temple-era texts from archaeological work are in Hebrew, written in paleo-Hebrew script. Aramaic did not become a lingua franca until the Persian conquest. The Persians made Aramaic one of the official languages of their empire. Before that, it was an obscure language of a small kingdom around Damascus.
As for Jesus’ supposed quote from the LXX Isaiah, it’s far more likely that the gospel’s report of Jesus speaking is not verbatim, but copied by the evangelist from the LXX he knew in Greek. Wherever the NT quotes the Hebrew bible, it’s always the LXX. But that’s not surprising: the evangelists were Greek-speaking authors working and preaching in a Hellenistic environment that was completely Greek in language. The LXX was natural.
How do you know about this? Can you tell me more or point me where I can go to learn more about source texts regarding this? Thanks : “All the First Temple-era texts from archaeological work are in Hebrew, written in paleo-Hebrew script.”
“marginal”? Hmmm… Let us not forget that there was a ‘synagogue of the Alexandrians’ in Jerusalem catering for members of the Diaspora from Egypt. As a place of pilgrimage, Jerusalem was a hotbed of sectarianism then just as it is today.
Anyone who researches the source(s) of the Old Testament and ignores Elephantine is just presenting incomplete research. My challenge to any scholar is to draw the border between Israel and Egypt in 1000 BCE on a map. We all base our so called ‘facts’ on a virtual border that’s meaningless historically. We just imagine a border, but nobody has ever been able to draw it on a map. We don’t even know when the Delta was flooded and when it was dry, let alone a border.
The actual archeology points to Elephantine as being the oldest Hebrew Temple we have. The oldest inscriptions of YHVH are the Shasu of YWH inscriptions in Nubia just south of Elephantine. The oldest mention of the, ‘House of YHVH’ is at Elephantine. There no evidence of a Temple in modern Jerusalem before Herod, in fact Josephus says there was only an altar of huge white stones, and that Herod removed whatever was there and built the Temple Mount.
The stories of the return of the of the captives to the Temple in Ezra and Nehemiah are exclusively about the restoration of the Temple at Elephantine under Darius II. The names of the people and the events regarding the Temple are the same as the names and events at Elephantine.
It’s pure ignorance to say the return of the captives was under Darius I, after all the only Darius after Artaxerxes was Darius II. Fundamentalists just say the book of Ezra is all mixed up ;-))). There never was a return to modern Jerusalem archeologically speaking; it was the restoration of the Temple at Elephantine under Darius II about 419 BCE. In fact Ezra himself literally says there was no previous Temple when the Temple was started, the foundation hadn’t been laid. Elephantine began under Cyrus the Great but was stopped sometime after the reign of Cambyses. It was later rebuilt under Darius II. Exactly as the chronology of the Book of Ezra has it.
Ezra 3
6 From the first day of the seventh month began they to offer burnt offerings unto the Lord. But the foundation of the temple of the Lord was not yet laid.
Ezra 4
23 Now when the copy of king Artaxerxes’ letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went up in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.
24 Then ceased the work of the house of God which is at Jerusalem. So it ceased unto the second year of the reign of Darius king of Persia.
Josephus records the writing of Hecateus regarding what was on the Mound in modern Jerusalem before Herod in Apion I, 22. These are most likely the stones Herod used for the base of the Temple Mount (wailing wall).
“There is about the middle of the city a wall of stone, whose length is five hundred feet, and the breadth a hundred cubits, with double cloisters; wherein there is a square altar, not made of hewn stone, but composed of white stones gathered together, having each side twenty cubits long, and its altitude ten cubits. Hard by it is a large edifice, wherein there is an altar and a candlestick, both of gold, and in weight two talents: upon these there is a light that is never extinguished, either by night or by day.”
As for Jesus? Long before John introduced us to the Lamb of God, there was the Prophesy of the Lamb, or Oracle of the Lamb (6 CE) in the Nile Delta. It’s a story of a Lamb sent from God to judge the world.
“The lamb’s poetic chant of “woe and abomination” recalls biblical oracles against Egypt.”
The Literature of Ancient Egypt, edited by William Kelly Simpson
“The lamb concluded absolutely all of the matters to be said, and he died.”
~Prophesy of the Lamb
Since this was written when Jesus was 5 years old (6CE), it would have been circulating when Jesus, Mary and Josephus went into Egypt right?
Shalom,
Rose
Can you break this down for dummies, what you are saying? Please and thanks 🙂
“And it came to pass, when the most blessed Mary went into the temple (called the ‘Capitol of Egypt’) with the little child, that all the idols prostrated themselves on the ground, so that all of them were lying on their faces shattered and broken to pieces, and thus was said by the prophet Isaiah; ‘Behold, the Lord will come upon a swift cloud, and will enter Egypt, and all the handiwork of the Egyptians shall be moved at His presence (Isaiah 19:1)” (The Gospel of Pseudo-Matthew, chapter 23).
We are assured by God Himself that the Word will remain intact. I have complete faith that the message of the Bible is what God intends it to be.
Reliability of the Bible and the DSS
We’ve had recent comments about the reliability of biblical translations in light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) or Septuagint Version (LXX). I guess that some perceive a possible conflict between the Masoretic Text, the LXX and the DSS.
I consulted Geza Vermes translation of the DSS (introductory notes) and he appears to downplay any potential difficulty that might exist for how we read Scripture juxtaposed with the DSS or LXX.
The example adduced by Tov from 1 Samuel 1:24 provides an interesting case study.
Source:
https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.se/2014/07/reliability-of-bible-and-dss.html
Hi
The Maseritic texts MUST be correct –hence ,no conflict. For the simple reason , the 300BCE copy called the septuigent does not exist and never did.
all so-called “proofs” that there ever was such a document are based on ORIGENS bogus copy in the Vatican
This copy has at least 14 “hands” correcting it
Using Origens bogus copy to prove the existance of a 300 BCE version is CIRCULAR reasoning ; therefore WORTHLESS
The deadf sea scroles also do not have any fragments of this BOGUS document
Get rid of the NIV , now!!! its a jesuite based fraud , and a lousy translation to boot
Psalm 12:6-7 the words The Lord are pure words:as silver tried in a furnace of earth,purified seven times.
Thou shalt keep them,O Lord, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
Hosea 8:12 I have written to him the great things of my law,but they were counted as a strange thing.
Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;….Folks He wrote It and preserved it. There can’t be a couple hundred years with out a English written bible and if the Dead Sea scrolls are the TRUE scrolls that would be the case. Kjv 1611 niv 1978. For they DO NOT say the same thing.Satan is very powerful and very deceitful. Look at what he said to eve in the garden, Yea, hath God said,… Questioning her did God really say that. If God is the author of one who is the author of the rest?He lives He lives!!!