THE CATACOMBS
You are here: Home
> Catacombs > Articles
Why Use the
Dead Sea Scrolls instead of the Masoretic Text to translate Isaiah?
Why is the base text for
Isaiah the Great Scroll of Isaiah? Why was 1QIsa substituted for the MT?
In our view 1QIsa is more reliable than the two surviving Masoretic Text manuscripts. More on this, below.
It is completely
out of accord with the 1st principle of translation posted on-line.
At best, this accusation
misunderstands the principle. Our answer is that our use of the Great
Isaiah Scroll is fully in accord with our first principle. Here's what our
first principle states, as quoted exactly from our
Principles of Translation page:
For the Tanakh, or Old
Testament, the Masoretic text as published in the latest editions of
Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and Quinta is used as the base
text, in consultation with other ancient Hebrew texts such as the Dead Sea
Scrolls, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and a select number of ancient versions
(the Septuagint, the Vulgate, the Syriac Peshitta, and the Targums). All
significant departures from the base text, as well as all significant
textual variants, are indicated in footnotes.
With respect to Isaiah's
famous book, the operative phrase "in consultation with other ancient
Hebrew texts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls" is applicable. In the case of
Isaiah, we consulted with 1QIsa so much that it became quickly evident
that in translating the book of Isaiah, the MT must be supplanted by
1QIsa, aka the Great Isaiah Scroll from Qumran Cave One because 1QIsa is
more ancient and reliable than the MT.
We make no statement as to the comparative reliability of the MT to the
other MSS of the DSS. For now, we only comment on the contents of Qumran
Cave One.
It is not commonly known to lay Bible readers that the entire ancient
corpus of Old Testament Hebrew manuscripts consists of only two texts:
Codex Leningradensis and the Aleppo Text. Both date from within 100 years
of each other, give or take a decade or so, and in round numbers we date
them from about 950 and 1050 AD.
In contrast, the DSS Great Isaiah Scroll dates from mid-2nd century BC, at
the latest, and maybe as early as the mid-200's BC. It's 1200 years or
more older than the MT manuscripts that have survived over the centuries.
In our view, 1QIsa is the more reliable manuscript.
Along the way to rendering one of the first high-quality English language
translations of 1QIsa with scholarly footnotes that will be made generally
available to the public, a suspicion that's grown on us while making the
ISV OT rendering has come to the forefront of our analysis of the MT text:
this is our growing theory that certain parts of the MT tradition came
about during the Middle Ages as a polemic response to the Christian
interpretation of the Tanakh as that tradition is sustained in the NT MSS.
The explanations of the events of the NT (as depicted by those NT writers)
have a tendency to cite the LXX, since the NT was largely composed
originally in Greek, or when citing the Tanakh, NT writers occasionally
proffer what appears to be a Targum; i.e., a dynamically produced,
spontaneously crafted translation from the original Hebrew or Aramaic
Tanakh into Greek, somewhat after the fashion of a modern United
Nations-like dynamic translation.
In doing all of this, NT writers who are
citing the OT as proof of a prophecy fulfillment
sometimes make citations that are inconsistent with the MT readings. But
these renderings do not appear to have been inconsistent with the LXX or
with their Targum-like personal translations. Nor, it would appear, are
these citations by NT writers inconsistent with 1QIsa in the DSS, even
though occasionally the NT writer citations of the OT are inconsistent
with the MT.
So we've been wondering why the MT says things that the DSS
don't contain. We think the anti-NT interpretational grid for the MT arose
during the 4th century as a response to Constantine's anti-Semitic influence on the Jewish Hebrew scholarly community. So we're
relying on 1QIsa over the MT's Aleppo Text and Codex Leningradensis.
To sum up, when we can use
a Hebrew MS that is 12 centuries older than the MT, we'll use it rather
than MT.
Using 1QIsa as
the base text introduces a very high number of footnote consuming a large
amount of space on the page. It would seem to introduce a noticeable doubt
factor concerning the text of Isaiah. The large number of notes, the
proportion of notes to text also interferes with simply reading the text,
that is, it creates a distraction or introduces "noise" to the reading
experience.
Uh, you should see the RAW
DRAFTS! Not
to be intentionally crass, but you'll just have to discipline yourself to
ignore what you call "noise". We've already received thanks for having so
much "noise," by the way, from people who know the differences between the DSS and the MT, and these folk are thankful for the thorough
documentation. Our view of both statements is "Damned if we do, damned if
we don't." So we'll keep on doing what's we're doing until Isaiah is
completed.
Now as to your comment about what you called a "noticeable doubt factor
concerning the text of Isaiah". You are correct. We intend to create a
doubt factor concerning the text of Isaiah; not about the DSS text of
Isaiah, but rather about the credibility of the transmission history of
the MT. The MT text of Isaiah is not just different from 1QIsa, there's a
"noticeable" (your word, not ours) difference. But let's define "doubt
factor" here. By doubt factor, we don't doubt the superiority of the 2nd
century BC 1QIsa scroll over the 11th century AD MT. We don't doubt the
inspiration of the text. And 1QIsa pretty much puts the final nail in the
coffin in that dopey deutero-Isaiah nonsense. (If "deutero"-Isaiah really
dates from the second century, like some of those liberal critics argue,
why, those bedouins must have discovered the original MSS of Isaiah in
Qumran Cave 1!) No, by stressing 1QIsa over the MT, we're doubting the
reliability of the MT of Isaiah.
Compare the
appearance of the table of contents for the Old Testament with the NT in the
ISV. I appreciate the thematic approach used in the TOC for the NT; both the
sectional headings (Manifestation, Explanation, etc), and the thematic
summaries of each book of the NT. While I understand the historic
sub-divisions of the OT, I find the TOC for the OT to lack similar helpful,
thematic information. Why not create a TOC for the OT that matches the NT
for this thematic, summarizing function. That would contribute as much or
more to the reader's experience and understanding of the OT then the current
TOC.
We've already planned to do
something like that. We'll deal with that as the last issue as soon as
it's time to put the text of the ISV to bed at the publisher. That will be
sometime later this year or early first quarter.
I find the use
of the Hebrew characters/names of the books of the OT to be oddly
distracting as well.
This is a feature added to
appeal to the Jewish Christian community. Frankly, we think the Christian
community needs to learn more about its roots.
We don't have
the NT listed in Greek, so it seems an unnecessary feature. I have
maintained an acquaintance with Hebrew since seminary days, but find its
appearance in the TOC of the ISV somehow odd and off-putting.
Uh, we haven't the
slightest idea how to respond to this. We were going to suggest above as
follows: "So learn Hebrew. Or at least enough to be able to read the
titles." But in light of this comment there's no point in making that
suggestion...
|
