How Close is the Great Isaiah Scroll to the Medieval Masoretic Manuscripts?

I recently heard an author talking about the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a) from Qumran, who said that "today's Hebrew version of the book of Isaiah is the exact same as that ancient copy, to the very letter." This reminded me of Wes Huff's overly optimistic appraisal on Joe Rogan's interview, where he said that it was "word for word identical to the Masoretic text." After some pushback, Wes, to his credit, did an interview with John Meade (where he generously cites me several times), clarifying the situation. But my recent experience urged me to write up this quick note to help set the record straight.

I want to be clear that I agree with the general consensus that the scroll is indeed very close in wording and meaning to the medieval Masoretic manuscripts. It has the same passages in the same order with the same message and mostly the same wording. This is indeed a remarkable observation, and I agree that it is legitimately impressive. I would go so far as to say that the Isaiah scroll is "almost word-for-word identical." But there are three nuances I would add:

First, speaking of letter-by-letter agreement should be avoided, because there are very many spelling differences. In fact, the scribe of the Great Isaiah Scroll fairly systematically updated the spelling of the scroll to follow his contemporary spelling conventions, whereas the Masoretic text more typically preserved the archaic, classical spellings. The scribe of 1QIsa-a also made frequent spelling mistakes, especially leaving out silent letters and such. These differences are usually not meaningful, but they are so frequent that we probably should not speak of particularly close letter-by-letter agreement.

Second, there are meaningful textual variants in the Great Isaiah Scroll. In most cases, they appear to be simply scribal errors. But in some cases modern scholars and translators have actually preferred readings of the Great Isaiah Scroll over the medieval manuscripts. Two examples may help illustrate:

Isa 19:18

On that day there will be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan and swear allegiance to the LORD of hosts. One of these will be called the City of the Sun. (NRSV)

MT עִ֣יר הַהֶ֔רֶס "the city of destruction" (NKJV, ESV, NASB)

1QIsa-a עיר החרס "the city of the sun (= Heliopolis)" (supported by some medieval manuscripts and ancient translations) (CSB, NIV, NLT, NRSV)

The difference is only one graphically similar letter, but many modern scholars conclude that the reading of 1QIsa-a makes the most sense in context.

Isa 53:11

Out of his anguish he shall see light; he shall find satisfaction through his knowledge. (NRSV)

MT lacks אור "light" (ESV, NASB, NKJV, NLT)

1QIsa-a (plus additional DSS and the Septuagint) have the word אור "light" (CSB, NIV, NRSV)

Here the word makes good sense in the context and makes for a clearer reading than the obscure MT. Some have argued that this well-attested word was added to clarify the difficult text, but it may also have been omitted in the medieval tradition. Interestingly, the word in question is found in the middle of a cluster of similar letters (i.e., ', w/y, r) that could have prompted its omission: יראה אור ישבע yr'h 'wr ysb'.

Third, I would point out a series of difficult passages in the second half of the scroll that differ considerably from the Masoretic text, often with 1QIsa-a missing entire verses of the MT. Eugene Ulrich has argued that 1QIsa-a reflects an earlier version of Isaiah in these passages and that the MT has grown with additional verses being added. I have argued in an article that most of these passages were actually missing in the exemplar from which 1QIsa-a was copied, because it was damaged along the bottom edge. Thus, every column was physically damaged and missing one or more lines. You can see this, e.g., in how the scribe originally left blank lines for the missing verses. If correct, and I'm quite convinced it is, it means that most of the biggest differences between the Great Isaiah Scroll and the MT are easily explained as copying problems in the former.

So the big takeaway, I think it is fair to say that the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsa-a) is "almost word-for-word identical" to the medieval Masoretic text. But that doesn't mean it doesn't sometimes have its own independent text-critical contributions and problems, and the identity certainly doesn't extend to the letter level once we account for different spelling conventions. I hope that helps clear up some confusion and give popular writers some guidance for talking about the significance of this fascinating scroll.

The Book of the Tales of Canterbury: A Critical Edition

Peter Robinson and Barbara Bordalejo announced the publication of their digital critical edition of some of Chaucer's (apparently wrongly named) Canterbury Tales. While the relevance for OTTC might not be obvious, a quick look at their edition might help give a little bit of vision of what an excellent digital edition of the Hebrew Bible text could look like in the 21st century. Robinson and Bordalejo have been at the forefront of developing tools and standards in the field, and they have been working on Canterbury Tales for many years. Their tools are in many ways similar to and in fact developed in relation to the Virtual Manuscript Room with which we are working to produce the Digital Critical Edition of the Hebrew Psalter. Congratulations to the editors for this great accomplishment, and I hope that scholars in our field will also catch the vision of what could be.

The Scrolls of the Torah

I just learned of the publication of a new Mohr Siebeck volume that is quite relevant here:

The Scrolls of the Torah: Material, Compositional and Interpretive Perspectives

Edited by Jan Christian Gertz, Julia Rhyder, Thomas Römer and Konrad Schmid

The volume is a well-deserved Festschrift honoring David Carr for his work on the "scroll approach" to the composition of the Pentateuch, which takes seriously the material book culture context of its formation and interpretation. Congratulations, David, on this special occasion!

Does God Hate Divorce? Malachi 2:16

I recently heard an interesting discussion about the contested text and meaning of the (in)famous Malachi 2:16 reading that "God hates divorce," so I wanted to take a closer look. 

כִּֽי־שָׂנֵ֣א שַׁלַּ֗ח אָמַ֤ר יְהוָה֙ אֱלֹהֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל וְכִסָּ֤ה חָמָס֙ עַל־לְבוּשׁ֔וֹ אָמַ֖ר יְהוָ֣ה צְבָא֑וֹת וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּ֥ם בְּרוּחֲכֶ֖ם וְלֹ֥א תִבְגֹּֽדוּ׃

For I hate (Cn: Heb he hates) divorce, says the LORD, the God of Israel, and covering one’s garment with violence, says the LORD of hosts. So take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless. (NRSV)

כִּֽי־שָׂנֵ֣א שַׁלַּ֗ח MT ] כי אם שנתה שלח DSS-4Q76 ἀλλὰ ἐὰν μισήσας ἐξαποστείλῃς LXX cum odio habueris dimite V אֲרֵי אִם סְנֵית/סְנֵיתָ/סני את) לַה פַטרַה) T | > S | prb l שׂנאתִי BHS.

In this case, the MT is somewhat unclear and ambiguous. The verb seems to be third person and could perhaps be read as "he hates divorcing" (with God as implied subject) or even "he hates (and) divorces" (with the faithless one as implied subject). But in the grammatical context, there is no obvious third person masculine antecedent. The faithless one is addressed in the second person in the previous verse, but if this clause is quoted divine speech ("says the LORD"), we would probably expect the first person if God were the subject.

Because of the awkwardness of the MT, some have emended to שׂנאתִי (with BHS) to smooth out the grammar, yielding "I hate divorcing" (with God as subject). Alternatively, others have read the verb as a participle with implied first person pronoun, yielding "(I) am hating divorcing," with similar meaning. The Syriac Peshitta apparently just omitted the whole problematic text, which probably attests to the difficulty already in antiquity, long before our earliest Masoretic manuscripts. 

A serious textual alternative comes from the common second person reading of 4Q76 (4QXIIa), the LXX, Vulgate, and Targum Jonathan. The Hebrew grammar of 4Q76 is still awkward, but the idea can perhaps be rendered roughly as "if you hate (her), divorcing (her)" or "if you hate (her), (and you) divorce (her)" (faithless as subject). The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible translates it, "For if you hate and divorce." The LXX and Vulgate understand the text in the same way, with both verbs understood as something the faithless one is doing. NETS reads, "But if, since you hate her, you should send her away." The Targum situation is a bit complicated by the lack of a good critical edition, but seems to support the second person tradition of reading. Of the three variants I noted from the Comprehensive Aramaic Lexicon entry and Safaria, סְנֵיתָ and סני את are unambiguously second person "you hate." The reading סְנֵית could potentially be read as "I hate" or "you hate," depending on the dialect (I'd have to look into the grammar of Targum Jonathan more closely).

The agreement of all of these witnesses against MT is indeed impressive, but I admit I am very skeptical. It is easy for me to see how the second person readings could arise as exegetical clarifications of a difficult, ambiguous text. But it is very difficult for me to imagine anyone creating the MT text from the second person readings. Omission of אם seems less likely than grammatical facilitation. The reading שנתה also reflects a common, non-etymological orthography that is highly suspect. I suppose א and ת were easily confused in the old Hebrew script, but I'm still dubious that the MT can be derived reasonably from the other reading. It is worth pointing out that the LXX also translates the awkward third person jussive in וּבְאֵ֥שֶׁת נְעוּרֶ֖יךָ אַל־יִבְגֹּֽד "and against the wife of your youth let him not deal treacherously" at the end of v. 15 with the second person ἐγκαταλίπῃς, showing that the problem of referent actually starts in v. 15 and is clarified throughout by the LXX. Similarly, BHQ reads "The difficulty perceived in M is its apparent inconsistency with the provision for divorce in Deut 24:1. 4QXIIa follows the same tradition of Jewish exegesis as reflected in T (so also G and V), while S adopts the simpler expedient of omission." It is worth pointing out that both T and V use imperatives meaning, "if you hate (her), divorce her!" I'm not really convinced of that reading, as I don't think it fits the context and the third person forms elsewhere in the verse. But perhaps this too could be a rhetorical challenge, more than a literal command to divorce the wives.

If we reject the second person "you hate" reading as exegetical, the question remains what to do with the earlier MT. As I see it now, it doesn't make much sense to render it with God as the subject, because the grammar of the third person self-reference would be highly awkward: "(God) hates divorcing, says the LORD". On the other hand, the third person reference to the faithless one as subject shows good continuation from v. 15 (where the faithless one is commanded indirectly in the third person not to betray his wife), and the collocation of the terms שנא and שלח are more naturally read as the normal process of despising and divorcing one's wife (cf. Deut 24:3, where the two terms are used in the same order). The real problem is why the final part of verse 15 וּבְאֵ֥שֶׁת נְעוּרֶ֖יךָ אַל־יִבְגֹּֽד shifts person reference mid-clause. But Mal 2:16 itself doesn't seem that problematic to me, even if grammatically a bit awkward.

So does God hate divorce? Probably... I can't imagine any divorce is ever completely untainted by at least one party's sin, even if it's the least bad option available. But does Mal 2:16 explicitly state that? Probably not, at least in an absolute sense. Whether we follow the MT or the second person interpretive reading, the exegetical tradition and most plausible reading of the text seems resoundingly in favor of interpreting this(/these) act(s) of hating and divorcing as something the unfaithful one is doing (or at least potentially doing). That said, if the unfaithful ones who divorce their wives are said to betray them and wrap themselves with violence, it still seems pretty clear that God is no fan of unjust divorce. 

New NEH Grants

The NEH has announced many new grants, including the following that I selected that seemed particularly relevant here. Congratulations to all the winners, and good luck on these interesting projects!

New Haven

Yale University Outright: $20,000

[Collaborative Research]

Project Director: Jacqueline Vayntrub

Project Title: The Lasting Impact of Martin Luther’s Anti-Judaism on Biblical Studies

Project Description: Planning and hosting an international workshop exploring the

impact of German theologian Martin Luther’s anti-Judaism on biblical scholarship,

from the 15th century to the modern era.

Atlanta

Georgia Tech Research Corporation Outright: $25,000

[Collaborative Research]

Project Director: David Citrin

Project Title: NEH-BSF: Revealing Hidden Texts of Manuscript Fragments in

Medieval Spanish Book Bindings Using Terahertz Imaging

Project Description: Planning a project to use new technology to access fragments of

Jewish texts hidden in medieval manuscripts.

Cambridge

Harvard University Outright: $23,249

[Collaborative Research]

Project Director: Vladimir Olivero

Project Title: NEH-BSF: A New Comprehensive Grammar of Late Biblical Hebrew

Project Description: Planning the development of an updated grammar of Late

Biblical Hebrew (587– 200 BCE).

Princeton

Princeton University Outright: $300,000

[Scholarly Editions and Translations]

Project Director: Eve Krakowski

Project Title: NEH-BSF: Living with Death in Medieval Egypt: Editions and

Translations of a Cairo Geniza corpus

Project Description: Preparation for print and digital translation of a collection of

medieval Jewish documents about death, from Hebrew, Aramaic, and Judeo-Arabic.

Raleigh

North Carolina State University Outright: $244,367

[Collaborative Research]

Project Director: Timothy Stinson

Project Title: Mysterious Manor Court Rolls: Unlocking Agricultural and Health

Secrets through the DNA-based Analysis of Parchment Skins

Project Description: Research and writing leading to articles on parchment

production, agricultural practices, and the emergence of disease in medieval and

early modern England as revealed through textual and DNA analysis of public

documents (ca. 1300–1799).

Transformations in Translation: Comparing Qumran Aramaic Job and Old Greek Job

I just saw a new book out by SBL Press that looks like a fascinating contribution:

Transformations in Translation: Comparing Qumran Aramaic Job and Old Greek Job

by Alun Morton Thomas

Blurb from the SBL website:

Using insights gleaned from translation studies, Alun Morton Thomas compares the earliest known Aramaic and Greek translations of the book of Job to explore how translators dealt with idiomatic and linguistic difficulties in translating the Hebrew text. Thomas demonstrates that many of the scribal techniques used in both the Qumran and Old Greek versions of Job resemble practices attested in other Second Temple Jewish texts. The scribal choices Thomas reveals provide insights into early interpretations of the book of Job which stem from the Second Temple period. The volume also delves into how earlier Aramaic and Greek translations relate to later translation attempts in these two languages. Transformations in Translation is a critical resource for scholars and students interested in some of the most difficult passages to translate from Hebrew.

Alun Morton Thomas completed his doctoral studies at Trinity College Dublin, where he was awarded a DAAD fellowship to conduct part of the research for this project at the University of Göttingen. He is currently a pastor in North Wales.

Etnachta and Masoretica

Idan Dershowitz has published two different online resources for the study of the Bible:

1. Etnachta (https://www.etnachta.org/) - A site that facilitates study and searching of the Masoretic accents. I haven't poked around much with this one yet.
2. Masoretica (https://www.masoretica.org/) - This site allows you to look up a verse in a number of manuscripts (Hebrew--Masoretic and Samaritan--and Greek). It's a great tool for easily looking up images of manuscripts for a particular verse.

HT Joshua Alfaro