Basic HTML Version
26
the Greek Septuagint, the Samaritan,
and other variant texts.
"Now, with the finding of the Dead
Sea Scrolls," they asserted, "we are one
thousand years closer to the original
rendition." They were sure the Dead
Sea Scrolls would show up many
"inaccuracies" in any version which
relied on the Masoretic.
Now that more than two decades of
study has cleared the air, what is the
outcome? Should the
traditional Maso–
retic text
be thrown out the window
aod replaced by "more accurate" read–
ings? On this crucial point the real sig–
nificance of the Dead Sea Scrolls
becomes evident.
Second Thoughts on
Early
Conclusions
A majority have now come to realize
the Scrolls show, not weaknesses, but
the
s11periority
of the Masoretic text.
One example of this recent shift in
scholarly opinion can be found in the
field of textual criticism. Notice what
one scholar on the revision committee
which produced the RSV has since
written:
"Thirteen readings [in Isaiah] in
which the manuscript departs from the
traditional text were eventually adopted.
In these places a marginal note cites
'One ancient Ms,' meaning the St.
Mark's Isaiah scroll. . . . For myself I
must confess that in sorne cases where
1
probably voted for the emendation I am
now convinced that our decision was a
mistake, and the
Masoretic reading
sho11ld have been retai11ed"
(M. Bur–
rows,
The Dead Sea Scrolls,
p. 305,
emphasis ours throughout) .
Another scholar, F. F. Bruce of the
University of Manchester, echoed the
conclusions of many that "in general
the new discoveries have increased our
respect for the Massoretic Hebrew text''
(Second Thottghts on the Dead Sea
Scrolls,
p.
69).
The Dead Sea Scrolls actually con–
furo the superiority of our present-day
Masoretic text:
"The St. Mark's manuscript of Isaiah
is the only one of the scrolls that con–
tains a whole book of the Bible... .
The age of the manuscript, of course,
does not establish its importance. An
Tbe
PLAIN TRUTH
old manuscript is not necessarily a good
manuscript . A copy made in the ninth or
tenth century A.D. may more accurately
reproduce the original text than one
made in the first or second century B.C.
A.r a matter of plain fact the St. Mark'.r
lsaiah manmcript i.r obviously inferior
at
a
great many points
to
the best medi–
n·.d
man!l.rcripts"
(M. Burrows,
The
Dead Sea Scrotls,
p.
303).
Scholars have had to realize
age
is
not necessarily the best criterion for
determining the accuracy of a text. The
official Masoretic text, preserved by the
Masoretes, official copyists, is superior
even though the dated manuscript of
any part of it we possess was copied
about
one thotr.rand year.r laler thcm
the
Qumran [Dead Sea] scrolls.
Shocking Similarities
But while realizing the differences
between the Scrolls and the Masoretic
text, more striking are the
similarities.
Notice what one scholar stated:
"Lest one exaggerate the differences
between the great Isaiah Scroll and the
traditional text, it must be pointed out
that more often than not, except for tbe
free use of vowel letters, even this docu–
meot
S11pports
Masoretic readings. Its
disagreements, moreover, are
so often
inferior
that indirectly they attest the
sttperior character of 1he fámilittr text"
(W. H. Brownlee,
The Meani11g of the
Qmnran Scroll.r for the Bible.
p.
2L6).
But the superiority of the Hebrew
Masoretic text should not surprise us in
the least. One merely needs to under–
stand
!he hi.rtory
of the preservation of
this traditional text.
How Official Text Was Preserved
Jewish tradition tells us the Old Tes–
tament was put in i.ts final form by Ezra
and the "Great Synagogue.» Jewish
scholars were entrusted with preserving
the text faithfully.
The "scribes," mentioned often in the
Gospels, were the group with the
responsibility of preserving the official
canonized text. They viewed this
responsibility with rcverence, regarding
it as a sacred duty.
In order to insure textual purity, vari–
ous devices of couoting were used to
cross-check the accuracy of each newly
January
l971
written manuscript. Careful records
were kept of the nwnber of words and
even
letters
in each book. The scríbes
kept copious notes on which was the
middle word aod middle letter of each
book, how many times a letter was used
in each book and in the whole Old Tes–
tament, and otller statistics which min–
imized the possibility of mistakes
creeping in.
The system was so elaborate and care–
fully adhered to that tbe original
Hebrew name for the scribes was
Soph–
erim
which means "counters.'' Any
mistakes in copying were carefully
corrected.
As manuscripts became old and worn
tbrough use, they were culled from the
library. That is why we have no official
copies before the 1Oth century - those
responsible discharged their office very
well by removing all old, worn-out
manuscripts
1
When a suit of clothes
wears out, you throw it away and buy a
new one. The same was true for old
manuscripts. They were destroyed. The
same tliOrds,
however, were copied and
preserved.
And this is why the New Testament
says of the Bíblica! text: "Till heaven
and earth pass,
one iot
or
one tittle
shall in no wise pass from the law"
(Matthew 5
:18).
The Twentieth Cen–
ttll')'
New Testammt
renders the rniddle
phcase more understandably as "not
even the smallest letter, nor the stroke
of a letter"!
Solid Evidence for Bible Faith
Tn certain instances differences
between the Qumran [Dead Sea] saolls
and the Masoretic text are extensive. But
the reasons for the differences now
become obvious - the Qumran com–
munity was
1101
the official preserver of
the text of thc Hebrew Bible. They did
not exercise the same diligent care as
the Sopherim and later Masoretes.
The unofficial scrolls abound in mis–
takes of carelessness and scríbal igno–
rance. SpeUing variations or errors are
quite common. Once an error was made,
it tended to be perpetuated - in con–
trast to the official text which was elabo–
rately cross-checked for error. Because
of the "separatist" policy of the Qum–
ran group, it did not have regular refer-