[jlisenbe]

I think the emphasis on Isaiah was due to the two complete Hebrew scrolls found, and my understanding is that it is true of no other books, so naturally that would have caused the greatest stir. In fact, I have read that 25% of the Biblical material found in the caves is from Isaiah. And it is remarkable that, over a period of a thousand years, very little changed, and most of the "very little" was due to spelling or obvious errors. But let me ask again, as it is an area of interest, if the Isaiah material from Cave 4 showed greater discrepancies than the two scrolls from Cave 1. Just judging from published photos of the Cave 4 Isaiah material, my far from scholarly impression is that it would be difficult to come up with a meaningful translation, but you would have the better answer to that.

BTW, I have long wondered about the origin of your screen name. When I looked at your book cover, it all became clear, Mr. Washburn.

[talaniman]

I would imagine ancient theologians and scholars had the same attitudes by their competition/colleagues, and critics as you have encountered. The politics of the day notwithstanding, and though we have more toys and technology today, we may indeed be only marginally smarter at best. A fascinating post Dwashbur, and very illustrative of source and interpretation being important factors surrounding faith. I think that the main point of widespread collaboration/cooperation between cultures to preserve the words as well as attitude of the ancients that no doubt influenced each other should not be lost.

[dwashbur]

"I think the emphasis on Isaiah was due to the two complete Hebrew scrolls found, and my understanding is that it is true of no other books,"

This is what I meant by outdated information. Technically what you say is true, but the Targum of Job from Cave 11 is nearly complete, and 8hevXIIgr is a near-complete Greek translation of the 12 prophets ("Minor Prophets" in Christian lingo). The book most thoroughly represented among the DSS is actually Deuteronomy. We don't have any complete copies but we have dozens upon dozens of partial copies that have preserved almost the whole book. And really, for textual criticism at least, multiple scrolls are better than one complete one, because we can not only study what one scribe saw, but we can compare copies from numerous different hands and get a picture of what the textual landscape was like.

The least-represented book, aside from Esther which isn't among them at all, is Proverbs. We have a handful of tiny scraps, nothing more. And contrary to what is often reported, a few non-canonical books were found, as well (books from the "Apocrypha")

I wish I could point you to a fairly comprehensive source that covers all this, but frankly I have yet to see one that I really like. It's not easy to find one, since I reject the theory that a colony of Essenes wrote the scrolls. That's a topic for another day, and probably doesn't fit this board.

Still, if you're interested in that subject, you might enjoy Norman Golb, "Who Wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls?" He's both rebellious, and a little arrogant about it, which makes for enjoyable reading. The book caused a firestorm in the scholarly community that still hasn't completely died down. Good stuff.

[jlisenbe]

I assume you are referring to 11Q10. Unless I am mistaken, the Targum of Job from Cave 11 is in Aramaic, and I understand is more of a running commentary/paraphrase rather than a direct translation. My reference was to copies in Hebrew which would thus be candidates for comparison to the MT. 8hevXIIgr is, as you stated, in Greek, which of course can still be compared to MT, but in a different manner. So with all due respect, perhaps my information as regards intact scrolls in Hebrew might appear to be a little more up to date than you wish to represent it.

I would still be interested if you are aware of any comparisons made between the Isaiah manuscripts found in Cave 4 and the Masoretic text. That, to me, is the great question as it leads directly to the question of the reliability of the Old Testament as we currently have it.

We don't have any complete copies but we have dozens upon dozens of partial copies that have preserved almost the whole book. And really, for textual criticism at least, multiple scrolls are better than one complete one, because we can not only study what one scribe saw, but we can compare copies from numerous different hands and get a picture of what the textual landscape was like.

It will be interesting to see how that stacks up against the MT. I get your point there regarding multiple sources. Fascinating stuff. I have really enjoyed your insights.

[dwashbur]

A targum like 11Q10 isn't a commentary, it's a translation. It's in Aramaic. The other one I mentioned is in Greek. The Job targum shows that there were some variations in the text of Job at the time it was translated. Working with that kind of material is over my pay grade*, though I do read some Aramaic.

8hevXIIgr (there's supposed to be a dot under the "h" but I didn't bother) is an amazingly literal translation of the 12 prophets into Greek. Even where the LXX diverges, this one follows the Masoretic text. It can tell us a lot about the Hebrew text for that reason.

Side note: When I was examining this one for my book, I found it laughable the way so many DSS scholars were trying to figure out how to fit it into a history of the *Greek* text of the Septuagint. For my money, that's not gonna happen. I think it's an ad hoc translation that somebody made more or less for themselves, and has nothing to do with any other Greek translation. I think it's unique because someone made it for private use.

Nobody else in the field seems to consider that possibility, so they do scholarly back-flips to try to shoehorn it in where it doesn't belong. And I sit back and chuckle. (This is how scholars have fun)

There are some scholars who tend to push the idea that complete manuscripts of a book are better than partials, but that's a red herring. What counts isn't the amount, but the content.

The situation with the New Testament is similar. We have two complete mss of the NT (I'm too lazy to write them out each time!) before the sixth century. The best one we have, Codex Vaticanus, isn't complete. And older materials are amazingly fragmented, mostly on papyrus, and anything but complete. The oldest piece we have, the Rylands Fragment from around AD 125 or so, only has a few sentences on it. But there's enough to give us a picture of some of the kinds of alterations and writing errors that happened during the first three centuries of the Christian era.

I love it when people are interested in this sort of thing, because not enough Christians really know where our Bibles came from. I appreciate your questions. My biggest bit of advice would be to pick up the FIRST EDITION of Emmanuel Tov's book on Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible. He gives a nice picture of how the DSS fit into the known history of the OT. Why the first edition? Because he got into source criticism of the Pentateuch, JEDP if you know what that is, and completely revamped the book in the second edition to build everything on that. It basically ruined his approach, at least for me. The first edition is quite useful; the second one, not so much.

I'll try to glance through my book in the next couple of days and see what kind of general picture emerges for Isaiah and get back to you.

*I'm what's known as a "private scholar," which is to say, I'm not a gray-haired professor at an obscure institution somewhere. The pay grade for a private scholar is exactly what you might guess it is!

[jlisenbe]

*I'm what's known as a "private scholar," which is to say, I'm not a gray-haired professor at an obscure institution somewhere. The pay grade for a private scholar is exactly what you might guess it is!

So you are saying its not six figures?? (<:

[jlisenbe]

Is this the Targum of Job you are referring to?

Carrigan: Targum of Job: 4Q157, 11Q10​

As to the NT, the most stunning illustration of the integrity of the NT text that I can think of is as follows. The KJV (1611) NT was based upon a Greek collation by Erasmus based on 7 manuscripts. The 2011 NIV revision, 400 years later. was able to draw upon over 5,000 Greek manuscripts. In going from 7 to 5,000, if wholesale changes had been the order of the day, then the KJV would be wildly different from the NIV, scarcely recognizable. That, of course, if far from the case. Their agreement is stunning.

According to Dr. Craig Evans, scarcely a rock-ribbed fundamentalist, there are only three passages in the Gospel accounts which are open to question as to their inclusion. The adulterous woman of John 8, the final 12 verses of Mark 16, and Luke 22:41-45. Their exclusion would affect no Christian doctrines. It would be difficult to have a more clear-cut case for the integrity of the Gospel accounts than that. After so many centuries, and having been touched by so many fallible, human hands, to have such reliability is utterly remarkable.

The best one we have, Codex Vaticanus, isn't complete. And older materials are amazingly fragmented, mostly on papyrus, and anything but complete.

That's a fascinating comment. I would have said much the same thing about the Isaiah manuscripts from Cave 4 or the Targum of Job, both of which you seemed rather high on. What is true in one case must also be true of the other.

As always, I value your comments. It is a fascinating exchange.

[dwashbur]

I only brought up the Job targum as an example of a fairly complete copy, not for any other reason. The completeness of the Isaiah scroll etc. isn't really an indication of its value in terms of the text, but complete copies like it are always welcome in the field. That's probably one reason we almost never find them, we want them too badly.

Your source is correct about the three major passages in the NT. That's not the question in NT textual criticism. It's the little things. Romans 5:1, for example. Does it say "We have peace with God" or does it say "Let us have peace with God"? It's a difference of one letter, and by about the third century both letters were pronounced the same, so there's no audible difference. The manuscripts are about evenly divided. Those are the kinds of issues that people like me have wrestled with since who knows when.

I know we once had a topic here, I forget what it was... ;)

[jlisenbe]

I know we once had a topic here. I forget what it was...

It would be easy to have lost track of it!

[jlisenbe]

I think we must be careful in our examination of the Bible. It is not a case of the glass half full or half empty, but rather a glass 99% full and 1% empty. If we constantly dwell on the 1%, then it raises doubts in the minds of people.

It's the little things. Romans 5:1, for example. Does it say "We have peace with God" or does it say "Let us have peace with God"?

As you said, it's a little thing. It has no effect at all on Christian doctrine. Either translation is meaningful, though the first is certainly the most consistent with the surrounding verses. "That is why his faith was 'counted to him as righteousness.' 23 But the words 'it was counted to him' were not written for his sake alone, 24 but for ours also." And then afterwards, "Through him we have also obtained access by faith into this grace in which we stand, and we rejoice in hope of the glory of God."

Now as a fascinating academic undertaking, I can see how those pursuits would interest you and others. I'm glad you do it.

[dwashbur]

Ah, but it does affect "Christian doctrine." Is it a promise of peace with God, or a statement of potential, that a person might or might not fulfill? It's a question of security and assurance, and whether we have it or not.

Another one is in Rev 5 (I think - possibly 4, I'm going from memory), where one of the groups in heaven says "You have redeemed them from every tribe and nation etc." But does it say "them"? Some manuscripts read "us." Again, it's a difference of one letter and the two letters were pronounced identically. These manuscripts were made by having one guy stand at the front of a room and read aloud while everybody else in the room wrote down what he read. In this case, I've seen people try to use the verse with "us" to support the whole pretribulational rapture thing, because if it says "us" it could be "the church" that's represented there.

The evidence for the reading "them" is stronger, by the way. But that won't stop some folks.

[jlisenbe]

I agree with you about some people hanging on to one verse, but context frequently solves the problem very easily, as in the Romans 5 passage. In Rev. 5, the song is being sung by the 4 living creatures as well as the 24 elders. I would think it unlikely that the 4 living creatures would need to sing that of themselves (us). The Amplified simply renders it "people", but puts it in italics.

At any rate, it certainly does not lend support to the idea that the text of the NT has been significantly altered over the centuries, and that would seem to be the primary question, especially as regards the ministry of Jesus.

I have a question for you. If I can ever remember it, I'll post it. It occurred to me two or three days ago when reading the Bible, and I thought that you would likely know the answer. As I said, if I can remember it (65 years old), I'll get back with you. It had to do with Hebrew as I recall.

I enjoy your insights.

[dwashbur]

It depends largely on whom (or what) the creatures are supposed to represent. John and his readers understood apocalyptic and probably knew the symbolism already; we're pretty well clueless down here 2K years later.

[dwashbur]

"I have a question for you. If I can ever remember it, I'll post it. It occurred to me two or three days ago when reading the Bible, and I thought that you would likely know the answer. As I said, if I can remember it (65 years old), I'll get back with you. It had to do with Hebrew as I recall."

I'm also 65, so fire away. Us old guys gotta stick together!

[jlisenbe]

I'm also 65, so fire away. Us old guys gotta stick together!

Always knew there was something admirable about you!

[jlisenbe]

I was thinking about a subject that you can probably answer, David. Israel went out of business around A.D. 70. It was reconstituted by the United Nations in 1947. That's almost 1900 years. Has any nation ever been "out of business" for that long, with the descendants basically scattered to the four winds, and then been reborn in that fashion?

[jlisenbe]

I will be preaching on Romans 5:1 on Sunday. I see your point about "we have" or "let us have".