Iasion

Greetings all,

The DSS copy of Isaiah is sometimes claimed to be "(almost) identical" with modern copies.

However, there are 2 copies of Isaiah from the DSS, and apparently there are 1375 differences, with 13 being significant.
http://www.bibleandscience.com/bible...seascrolls.htm
http://www.bibletexts.com/glossary/deadseascrolls.htm

Well,
I cannot find any list of the "significant" differences.

I see a great deal of information here:
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htm

But cannot easily sort out which, if any, variations are "significant".

Are there really 13 significant differences?
What are they?


Iasion

Haran

"significant" is probably a matter of perspective...

However, if they are "significant", then one can probably find them in a copy of the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia.

The many "differences" are likely spelling differences that take place over time and something called [i]matres lectionis[i], that is, letters used to represent vowels in the text for purposes of pronunciation.

andrewcriddle

The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible at
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/AS...ternetinfidels
might be useful.

It is an English translation of the Biblical texts from Qumran.

Andrew Criddle

Rick Sumner

From The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (Abegg, Flint and Ulrich)

"The book of Isaiah was one of the three most popular books at Qumran with twenty-one manuscripts recovered. The only books represented in greater numbers are the Psalms (with thirty-seven scrolls) and Deuteronomy (with thirty)...(p.267)

"Though large scale variant editions are preserved for some other books (for example, Jeremiah and 1 Samuel), for Isaiah the scrolls and the other ancient witnesses preserve apparently only one edition of this book, with no consistent patterns of variants or rearrangements. Nevertheless, these scrolls (most notably 1QIsaA) contain hundreds of highly instructive variants from the traditional form of the Hebrew text--variants that teach us much about the late stages of the his-tory [sic] of the book's composition and provide many improved readings. These variant readings fall into four categories.

"First, some variant readings are major in that they involve one or more verses present in some texts but absent from others. A contrasting pair of examples can be seen in chapter 2. On the one hand, the second half of verse 9 and all of verse 10 are not in 1QIsaA, these were most likely a later addition to the text of Isaiah by some unknown scribe, though were early enough to be recorded in 4QIsaA, 4QIsaB, the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint. On the other hand, verse 22 was not yet in the Hebrew text translated by the Septuagint but was inserted later into 1Q1IsaA and the traditional Masoretic Text."(p.267-268)

"A second cateogry of variant readings involves hundreds of differences--often insignificant for purposes of understanding or interpretation--in spelling, the forms of names, the use of the plural verses the singular, and changes in word order, to name a few...

"A third category includes a wide spectrum of variants, usually a single word or two, ranging between the large scale compositional variants described in the first category and the mostly insignifcant alternative spellings in the second [my own addition: significance here is of course relative. The second category is probably the most valuable for text-criticism of Hebrew texts in general). One example is found at 1:15, which in 4QIsaF and the Masoretic Text concludes with "your hands are filled with blood," while 1QISaA completes the parallelism by adding "your fingers with iniquity." Another example is at 2:20, where the idols of silver and of gold are described in the Masoretic Text as "which they have made for themselves to worship," but in 1QIsaA as "which their fingers have made to worship"

"The final category involves erros made by the Qumran scribes or found in the text they were copying. These are often difficult to identify as real errors, since a reading that to some scholars is "incorrect" may represent for others an alternative reading or a different textual tradition. . .One example is found in Isaiah 16:8-9" where a large portion of the passage is omitted. Discussion is provided on how this occurred, and how we can now that this is the case. (p.268-269)

Regards,
Rick Sumner

JoeWallack

JW
Don't bother responding to Haran. He doesn't know Hebrew, doesn't know Greek, and doesn't know history, and his opinions really don't matter too much. Where the hell is Jeffrey Gibson when you really need him?

The problem with trying to use BHS is everything is in Hebrew. Even than you would have go through all of Isaiah and compile your own list and have 20/20 vision or better. The main criteria BHS appears to have used to indicate textual variation at the bottom of each page is available space under the text of that page so the criteria for "significant" by BHS is Informal and Inconsistent if not Unknown as to specifics.

The Consonental Text wasn't fixed until the end of the 1st century at the earliest so most of the differences between the DSS, which was written before the Text was fixed, and the Leningrad Codex which is the basis of the BHS, are probably Consonent differences. Individual Masorahs and comparison of different Masorahs gives some idea of just how much Textual variation existed before the 1st century.

There are also plenty of differences between excerpts of Isaiah in the DSS so so much for the many differences being spelling differences over time or something called matres lectionis.



Joseph

http://www.errancywiki.com/index.php/Main_Page

Rick Sumner

With apologies for bumping an old thread, but I've come across some more solid answers than those I provided previously:

Isaiah 3:24
The RSV and NRSV consider the meaning of the MT difficult and find clarification in 1QIsaa, which adds bsht (shame) following ky, understood in its usual meaning of “for” or “because,” translating, “for shame shall take the place of beauty.” However, HOTTP points out that ky can be understood as a noun meaning “branding mark,” and the MT can be translated, without resorting to the 1QIsaa reading, as does the NJV, “a burn instead of beauty.” This would mean that the 1QIsaa scribe may have been unfamiliar with the rare meaning of ky as a noun and supplied the Hebrew word for “shame” as a reasonable complement.

Isaiah 7:14
NIV, alone, makes note of the 1QIsaa reading, wqr’ (masculine) for the MT wqr’t (apparently second person feminine singular, but perhaps third person). It seems clear that 1QIsaa is once again seeking to simplify a difficult form (Rosenbloom 1970:125). There seems little reason to provide a textual note here.

Isaiah 8:2
The MT and 4QIsae have a first person future verb form for “I will call as witness(es),” while 1QIsaa reads wh’d, an imperative form, “and have it attested,” as in NRSV. The NIV translates the MT (with 4QIsae), “And I will call in Uriah the priest and Zechariah … as reliable witnesses for me.” Some translations translate the consonants of the MT, but change the vowel of the first letter from we to wa, changing it to the past tense. The future tense of the NIV, however, is a legitimate tense shift in prophetic literature, reflecting the prophet’s certainty that he will be the agent of God’s message. In any case, it does not seem necessary to resort to the 1QIsaa reading.

Isaiah 11:6
The MT and 4QIsac add to the list of two animals, “calf and beast of prey (lion),” a third, wmry’ “and the fatling.” Early commentators proposed that this noun be emended to a verb, ymr’w “will feed.” This reading is now found in 1QIsaa and is recommended by the HOTTP committee for translation, as in the GNB, “Calves and lion cubs will feed together.” The NJV mentions this Qumran reading in a note. The NIV also notes this reading in a footnote but fails to mention the Qumran evidence.

Isaiah 14:4
The NJV, RSV, NRSV, and NIV all follow 1QIsaa in the text. It is the only Qumran reading followed by all eight of the translations studied by Clark (1984). The NJV provides the explanation of this remarkable unanimity: “madhebah (the MT) is of unknown meaning.” It is likely that one letter, d, in the MT is incorrect, and the text should read r, a letter that is quite similar in shape. In fact, this is the reading of 1QIsaa: marhebah, and is translated “insolence” (NRSV), “fury” (NIV), or in similar terms. In many cases the MT presents difficulties for the translator because of certain obscurities in Hebrew grammar or lexicography. But in some cases, as here, the difficulty is created by textual corruption, and the Qumran evidence provides valuable assistance.

Isaiah 14:30
The RSV and NRSV follow 1QIsaa in translating, “I will slay,” instead of “he/it will slay.” The Isaiah scroll seems to better fit the context in which this passage is preceded by another first person singular verb. Among the ancient versions, only the Latin agrees with 1QIsaa. Burrows finds the Qumran reading quite convincing (1955:307), and the NEB/REB concur. However, HOTTP prefers the MT, explaining the shift to third person as a reference back to “the venomous serpent” of 14:29.

Isaiah 15:9
In Isaiah’s oracle against Moab, the well-known Moabite city of Dibon is mentioned in 15:2. In 15:9 Dimon is mentioned twice in the MT. 1QIsab agrees with the MT, but is only extant for the first occurrence. The RSV and NRSV follow the 1QIsaa reading, “Dibon,” and the NIV cites this Qumran evidence in a note. Should the translator follow 1QIsaa or 1QIsab? Dimon may be understood as an alternate name for Dibon, using this name as a literary device to sound like the Hebrew word dam (blood) in the same verse. This explanation is plausible, since name puns are used elsewhere in the OT. It is also possible that this is another city in Moab, although it is otherwise unknown. The RSV opted for the 1QIsaa harmonization with 15:2. Burrows (1955:307–308) implies that this is one of the thirteen 1QIsaa readings adopted by the RSV committee that he would reject upon later reflection. However, the NRSV retains Dibon. The NEB translates “Dimon,” while the REB renders “Dibon,” but fails to offer any textual note, in contradiction to their general policy of citing Qumran evidence.

Isaiah 19:18
In a note, NIV cites Q (= Qumran), along with some MSS of the MT in support of the reading “City of the Sun.” Other versions, including RSV and NRSV, read “City of the Sun” in the text without adding a textual note. This follows the general practice of many translations that do not cite textual variants if there is any manuscript support in the Masoretic tradition.

Isaiah 21:8
The NJV offers an English rendering of the difficult MT, “And [like] a lion he called out.” The bracketed “like,” which is not part of the MT, makes “lion” a simile and helps it to fit the context. Otherwise, “lion” hardly seems appropriate here. Earlier translations resorted to conjectural emendation here, but now 1QIsaa offers a more intelligible reading, hr’h (the lookout/watcher/sentry) for the MT ’ryh (lion). The NIV, GNB, RSV, and NRSV all follow the Qumran reading in the text. HOTTP suggests that translators may follow 1QIsaa, although it believes that this is “certainly not the original text.”

Isaiah 23:2–3
1QIsaa differs from the last word of verse 2 in two letters, adding kaph and reading yodh instead of waw, “your messengers,” instead of “they filled you.” 1QIsab appears to offer the same reading, although 4QIsaa reads ml’k, probably in agreement with the MT. The NAB, RSV, and NRSV follow Qumran, connecting “messengers” with the “merchants” of the previous line. The NJV and NIV translate the MT, and NIV gives the Qumran reading in a note. It is reasonable to assume that 1QIsaa preserves the better reading here.

Isaiah 29:5
The RSV translates the first line of the verse, “But the multitude of your foes,” adding a footnote to explain that “foes” is based on a conjecture for the MT zryk (your strangers). The NRSV has made no change here, but the NAB follows 1QIsaa zdyk “your arrogance,” and the NJV cites the same Qumran evidence in a footnote. Apparently, the NRSV did not find the Qumran evidence compelling and retained the conjecture to clarify the more difficult reading of the MT. The GNB translates it “foreigners,” a rendering that is appropriate to the context.

Isaiah 33:8
The RSV, NRSV, NAB, and NIV follow 1QIsaa in reading ’dym “witnesses” instead of the MT ’rym “cities.” “Witnesses” seems appropriate to the meaning of the passage, and the interchange of resh for daleth is understandable in light of the similarity of the letter shapes. The NJV also calls attention to this reading in a footnote.

Isaiah 34:5
The NJV cites the 1QIsaa variant, “be seen,” in a note. The NEB and REB place the Qumran reading, tr’h, in the text. Other modern translations follow the MT, “be drunk,” although the GNB, “The Lord has prepared his sword in heaven” may be based on a conjecture that adds mem to the beginning of the word.

Isaiah 37:25
Although the NIV generally follows the MT more often than other modern translations, in this case the NIV alone puts the reading of 1QIsaa, zrym (foreign), in its translation, “I have dug wells in foreign lands and drunk the water there.” While this is a plausible reading, it may be a case of assimilation to a parallel passage in 2 Kings 19:24. 1QIsaa contains a number of other examples of assimilation to parallel passages in Kings.

Isaiah 37:27
The RSV and NRSV translators were influenced in their translation here by the parallel passage of 2 Kings 19:26, preferring “blighted” for the MT “field.” The NJV and NIV cite 1QIsaa’s reading, hnshdp, and translate “blasted/scorched,” which appears to be the preferred reading.

Isaiah 45:2
The second line in the MT reads, “I will level the swellings/rough places.” The Hebrew word rendered “swellings” occurs only here in the OT. 1QIsaa reads hrrym “mountains,” which is followed by the NIV, NAB, and RSV/NRSV.

Isaiah 45:8
The RSV and NRSV follow the 1QIsaa reading wyprch for the MT wyprw, a difference of only one letter, cheth for waw, which yields the translation, “that salvation may sprout forth [RSV]/spring up [NRSV],” instead of, “that they may bring forth salvation.” The NAB follows the same Qumran reading. The NEB and GNB, in dynamic equivalent renderings, demonstrate that both the MT and Qumran express a common idea. The NEB translates, “that it may bear the fruit of salvation,” and the GNB has, “[it] will blossom with freedom and justice.” Neither translation has a textual note here. HOTTP prefers the Qumran reading, but as can be seen, there may be little difference in the translation of the MT or Qumran.

Isaiah 49:12
The MT says that the people of “Sinim” will come to Zion, but this place name is otherwise unknown. 1QIsaa gives the name as “Syene” which is located in Egypt and is known today as Aswan. This was the location of a Jewish settlement known as Elephantine. The NAB, NIV, and RSV/NRSV all follow the Qumran reading here. The NEB also translates “Syene,” identifying this as a scroll reading. The REB retains “Syene,” but has dropped the footnote. This is either an oversight or an exegetical decision on the part of the translators to identify the MT “Sinim” as “Syene/Aswan,” without resorting to a textual variant. The NJV cites the variant in a footnote.

Isaiah 49:24
The phrase “captives of the just” in the second half of 49:24 is somewhat awkward in this context. The NIV, RSV/NRSV, NEB/REB, and NAB all follow the 1QIsaa reading, ’ryts (tyrant/ruthless), citing the manuscript evidence from Qumran. GNB also translates “tyrant” without a textual note, since GNB does not cite textual variants that have the support of at least one Hebrew manuscript. HOTTP recommends that translations follow the Qumran reading.

Isaiah 51:19
This verse ends in the MT with the question, “How can I comfort you?” In 1QIsaa the word for “comfort” begins with the letter yod instead of aleph (third person instead of first). The NAB, NIV, RSV/NRSV, and NEB/REB all follow the Qumran reading, although HOTTP believes the MT should be followed in translation and considers the 1QIsaa reading an assimilation to the third person verb used earlier in the verse. There is no compelling reason to doubt that in the prophetic style, God would be speaking in the second half of the verse. The acceptance by most modern translations of this Qumran variant illustrates how an evaluation of manuscript evidence can be combined with a decision regarding literary appropriateness. This has been the traditional approach of translators when dealing with textual problems. A newer trend, as exemplified by HOTTP, tends to evaluate variants such as found in 1QIsaa here, as just as likely to be the result of an ancient scribe adjusting the text in response to some perceived difficulty. Accordingly, modern translators would be advised to be a bit more cautious in accepting textual variants of this type.

Isaiah 53:11
Many recent translations, including the NIV, NAB, NEB/REB, and NRSV, accept the addition of the word ’wr “light,” in both 1QIsaa and 1QIsab. Not only is the weight of the manuscript convincing to these translators, but the balance of the parallelism is improved as well. HOTTP agrees that translators should follow the Qumran reading here. Morrow (1973:143), however, disagrees, calling attention to the fact that “light” plays a significant role in the theology of the Qumran community. The assumption that the Qumran scribes would have added “light” to the text presupposes that both copies were made at Qumran, which is not necessarily the case.

Isaiah 60:19
The NJV and RSV/NRSV follow the addition of blylh “in the night” in 1QIsaa. As in several other cases such as 53:11, this Qumran addition gives the parallelism of the verse better balance. However, one must be cautious about accepting readings that could have been motivated by the scribe’s sensitivity to Hebrew poetic style. This is why HOTTP does not advise translators to follow 1QIsaa here, even though many modern translations do.

Harold P. Scanlin, The Dead Sea Scrolls and Modern Translations of the Old Testament, ( Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House Publishers, 1993).

Regards,
Rick Sumner

Rick Sumner

Also germane here, I'd presume that the "thirteen significant variants" refer to this:

Name: 1QIsaa
Content: Isaiah 1:1–31; 2:1–22; 3–4 complete; 5:1–30; 6:1–13; 7:1–25; 8:1–23; 9:1–20; 10:1–34; 11–44 complete; 45:1–25; 46–65 complete; 66:1–24
Bibliography: Burrows (1950), Trever (1972)
Date: c. 100 b.c.
Significance: The text is generally similar to proto-MT, but with some significant variants. Many of these variants are in orthography, with a strong preference for plene (full) spellings. This characteristic has led to the belief that this scroll was a “popular” copy because the plene spelling makes reading easier. This was the first Dead Sea Scroll to receive widespread attention. The RSV committee, which was nearing completion of their work at the time, adopted thirteen readings from 1QIsaa.

ibid.

That being the case (which seems quite likely), then the thirteen variants you're looking for are:

3:24; 14:4, 30; 15:9, 21:8; 23:2-3; 45:2, 8; 49:12, 24; 51:19, 53:11, 60:19.

Regards,
Rick Sumner