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.

Isaiah 9:6 and the Antiquity of the Masoretic Tradition

Today I was reading Isaiah 9:6 (Eng. v. 7) with some colleagues and came across a textual variant I had never noticed before.

5 וַיִּקְרָ֨א שְׁמ֜וֹ פֶּ֠לֶא 

יוֹעֵץ֙ אֵ֣ל גִּבּ֔וֹר אֲבִיעַ֖ד שַׂר־

שָׁלֽוֹם׃   6 לַם רַבָּה הַמִּשְׂרָ֜ה 

וּלְשָׁל֣וֹם אֵֽין־קֵ֗ץ 

and he is named Wonderful 

Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of 

Peace.  ⁷ His authority shall grow continually, 
and there shall be endless peace (NRSV)

In the Aleppo and Leningrad codices, the second letter of v. 6 is a final mem yielding לם רבה, whereas a Qere note in the margin (marked with קׄ) says to read למרבה as one word with a non-final mem.

Detail of Leningrad Codex. Photographer: Bruce E. Zuckerman.

My first instinct was to explain this away as a scribal error in the Aleppo codex I was reading from. This kind of confusion is common in the Dead Sea Scrolls, but I noted that it most commonly occurs on the archaic ־מו prefix (meaning "them") rather than in the middle of a word. A little more digging showed that the Leningrad codex has the same exact peculiarity, so this is certainly no accidental innovation in these manuscripts. 

In 1QIsa-a, the scribe does not use a distinct form of final mem, but does leave a space between למ and רבה. It is worth noting that the scribe does not always write a distinct final form, as is evident in the second detail below from just a few lines above our verse. Thus, it appears that our scribe here likely read למ רבה as two words rather than one.

Details of 1QIsa-a. © The Israel Museum.

Looking at the Septuagint, Ziegler reconstructs the Greek text as:

καὶ καλεῖται τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ Μεγάλης βουλῆς ἄγγελος·

ἐγὼ γὰρ ἄξω εἰρήνην ἐπὶ τοὺς ἄρχοντας, 

εἰρήνην καὶ ὑγίειαν αὐτῷ (some mss αυτων). 

^{(6) 7} μεγάλη ἡ ἀρχὴ αὐτοῦ, 

καὶ τῆς εἰρήνης αὐτοῦ οὐκ ἔστιν ὅριον

and he is named Messenger of Great Counsel, 

for I will bring peace upon the rulers, 

peace and health to him (some mss them). 

⁷⁽⁶⁾  His sovereignty is great, 

and his peace has no boundary (NETS)

For our verse, the Greek translator--who often translates rather freely--is clearly struggling to make sense of a difficult text, reading something like:

אבי(א) עד שר(ים) שלום (שלום ובורי/בריאות?) למ(ו) רבה המשרה

The extra "peace and health to him" may have been added by the translator for some reason, or it could have been a Hebrew reading known to him or at least supposed by him. Note the similarity between a conjenctured retroversion like שלום שלום ובורי and שלום למו רבה. If so, the translation could perhaps reflect a double translation of the Hebrew representing two possible readings of the difficult Hebrew text before him. Either way, the translation αὐτῷ μεγάλη seems to imply a source text that read לם רבה as two separate words.

Thus, the final mem in the medieval Masoretic codices is no accident, but an accurate record of a textual variant that can be traced back to the 2nd century BCE in 1QIsa-a and the LXX! The inherited reading tradition preferred to read למרבה as one word (cf. the similar noun form in Isa 33:23), a tradition which can be traced at least as far back as the 2nd century CE (see Theodotion's translation τω πληθυνειν την παιδειαν; so also το εβρʹ λεμαρβη αμμισρα according to Chrysostum). But for over 1000 years, some (not all) Jewish scribes faithfully copied the alternative text with two words לם רבה inherited from their exemplars. This variant then gives us a remarkable window into the deep roots of the (sometimes multiple and conflicting) readings embedded in the traditional Masoretic text in one of the most famous passages in all of the Hebrew Bible.

The Scribe(s?) of the Great Isaiah Scroll

Mladen Popović, Maruf Dhali, and Lambert Schomaker have now published their groundbreaking PLOS ONE paper arguing that there are strong paleographic indications that the two halves of the Great Isaiah Scroll were written by two different writers.

Artificial intelligence based writer identification generates new evidence for the unknown scribes of the Dead Sea Scrolls exemplified by the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaa)

More background on the project can be found in their recent presentations here, here, and here.