In the previous post, I discussed how the manuscripts of Jeremiah found among the Dead Sea Scrolls can aid us in taking a more moderate approach to the reliability of the Old Testament documents. And, in this post, I will discuss the fact that even information from the Great Isaiah Scroll, which is often used to “prove” the reliability of Old Testament documents, might also lead to a more moderate approach. It is often cited that the Great Isaiah Scroll (which you can get a very good look at on the Dorot Foundation site) is 95% the same as the Masoretic Text (MT) with this statistic being astounding since over 1,000 years separate the MT from the Great Isaiah Scroll. In addition, it is often pointed out that differences are primarily in spelling and in individual words. It is the second part of this assertion that I wish to deal with here, namely that differences in individual words can be extremely important and if individual words are not known for certain this should lead to moderation.
The Great Isaiah Scroll in fact presents us with (at least) one such occasion in which knowledge of an individual word could be significant. On the blog of Evangelical Textual Criticism, Michael Bird discusses a textual issue in Isaiah 53.11 revolving around whether or not the word “light” should appear in translations of the text. I recommend the blog post to anyone who wants to read about this issue in more detail, but here I will try to give the “bottom line.” The bottom line is that the MT does not contain the word “light” and neither do several other ancient witnesses. However, the Great Isaiah Scroll and Septuagint do contain the word. This presents one with a dilemma. The MT presents a more difficult reading, which should be preferred due to the fact that it is hard to imagine how the word “light” would have dropped out. On the other hand, the LXX and Qumran manuscripts are older. Therefore, it is difficult to make a judgment about which reading should be preferred.
Which reading is best is not really of concern here. What is of concern, which Bird points out fairly clearly, is that the use of the word “light” would be highly significant as a possible reference to the concept resurrection (again see the blog post for more detail). The more ambiguous “he will see” without the word “light” cannot as easily be taken as such a reference. Thus, we have a situation where one word makes a great deal of difference. Is “light” the earlier reading? Or, is it a later insertion (perhaps theologically motivated)? A particular translation (Bird cites three different translation with three different readings) that a person may read for this verse would almost certainly affect their understanding.
Again, it is not the point of this post or the previous one to claim that the Old Testament manuscripts that we have are completely unreliable. It is simply to point out that the Dead Sea Scrolls present a more complex picture of the transmission of the Old Testament than many people describe. And, to say that the Great Isaiah Scroll differs only in individual words does not promote the idea that manuscripts are completely well preserved. In fact, individual words can be very significant and with exact words unknown one should take a more moderate approach to the reliability of Old Testament documents.
For a free audio course on the Dead Sea Scrolls get this one free with a trial of Audible:
