http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=13&article=357
The Dead Sea Scrolls and Biblical Integrity
| by |
Garry K. Brantley, M.A., M.Div. |
Bible believers often are confronted with the charge that the Bible is
filled with mistakes. These alleged mistakes can be placed into two
major categories: (1) apparent internal inconsistencies among revealed
data; and (2) scribal mistakes in the underlying manuscripts themselves.
The former category involves those situations in which there are
apparent discrepancies between biblical texts regarding a specific
event, person, place, etc. [For a treatment of such difficulties see
Archer, 1982; Geisler and Brooks, 1989, pp. 163-178]. The latter
category involves a much more fundamental concern—the integrity of the
underlying documents of our English translations. Some charge that the
Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts, having been copied and recopied
by hand over many years, contain a plethora of scribal errors that have
altered significantly the information presented in the original
documents. As such, we cannot be confident that our English translations
reflect the information initially penned by biblical writers. However,
the materials discovered at Qumran, commonly called the Dead Sea
Scrolls, have provided impressive evidence for both the integrity of the
Hebrew and Aramaic manuscripts of the Old Testament and the
authenticity of the books themselves.
DATE OF THE MATERIALS
When the scrolls first were discovered in 1947, scholars disputed their
dates of composition. Scholars now generally agree that although some
materials are earlier, the Qumran materials date primarily to the
Hasmonean (152-63 B.C.) and early Roman periods (63 B.C.-A.D.
68). Several strands of evidence corroborate these conclusions. First,
archaeological evidence from the ruins of the Qumran community supports
these dates. After six major seasons of excavations, archaeologists have
identified three specific phases of occupation at the ancient center of
Qumran. Coinage discovered in the first stratum dates from the reign of
Antiochus VII Sidetes (138-129 B.C.). Such
artifacts also indicate that the architecture associated with the second
occupational phase dates no later than the time of Alexander Jannaeus
(103-76 B.C.). Also reflected in the material
remains of the site is the destruction of its buildings in the
earthquake reported by the first-century Jewish historian, Josephus (
Antiquities of the Jews, 15.5.2). Apparently, this natural disaster occurred around 31 B.C.
a position that prompted the occupants to abandon the site for an
indeterminate time. Upon reoccupation of the area—the third phase—the
buildings were repaired and rebuilt precisely on the previous plan of
the old communal complex. The community flourished until the Romans,
under the military direction of Vespasian, occupied the site by force
(see Cross, 1992, pp. 21-22). Such evidence is consistent with the
second century B.C. to first-century A.D. dates for the scrolls.
The second strand of evidence is that the generally accepted dates for
the scrolls are corroborated by palaeographical considerations.
Palaeography is the study of ancient writing and, more specifically, the
shape and style of letters. Characteristic of ancient languages, the
manner in which Hebrew and Aramaic letters were written changed over a
period of time. The trained eye can determine, within certain
boundaries, the time frame of a document based upon the shape of its
letters. This is the method by which scholars determine the date of a
text on palaeographical grounds. According to this technique, the
scripts at Qumran belong to three periods of palaeographical
development: (1) a small group of biblical texts whose archaic style
reflects the period between about 250-150 B.C.;
(2) a large cache of manuscripts, both biblical and non-biblical, that
is consistent with a writing style common to the Hasmonean period (c.
150-30 B.C.); and (3) a similarly large number of texts that evinces a
writing style characteristic of the Herodian period (30 B.C.-A.D. 70).
This linguistic information also is consistent with the commonly
accepted dates of the Qumran materials.
Finally, as an aside, the carbon-14 tests done on both the cloth in
which certain scrolls were wrapped, and the scrolls themselves,
generally correspond to the palaeographic dates. There are, however,
some considerable differences. Due to the inexact nature of carbon-14
dating techniques (see Major, 1993), and the possibility of chemical
contamination, scholars place greater confidence in the historically
corroborated palaeographic dates (see Shanks, 1991, 17[6]:72). At any
rate, the archaeological and linguistic data provide scholars with
reasonable confidence that the scrolls date from 250 B.C. to A.D. 70.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE SCROLLS
While the importance of these documents is multifaceted, one of their
principle contributions to biblical studies is in the area of textual
criticism. This is the field of study in which scholars attempt to
recreate the original content of a biblical text as closely as possible.
Such work is legitimate and necessary since we possess only copies
(apographs), not the original manuscripts (autographs) of Scripture. The
Dead Sea Scrolls are of particular value in this regard for at least
two reasons: (1) every book of the traditional Hebrew canon, except
Esther, is represented (to some degree) among the materials at Qumran
(Collins, 1992, 2:89); and (2) they have provided textual critics with
ancient manuscripts against which they can compare the accepted text for
accuracy of content.
THE SCROLLS AND THE MASORETIC TEXT
This second point is of particular importance since, prior to the
discovery of the Qumran manuscripts, the earliest extant Old Testament
texts were those known as the Masoretic Text (MT), which dated from about A.D. 980. The MT
is the result of editorial work performed by Jewish scribes known as
the Masoretes. The scribes’ designation was derived from the Hebrew word
masora, which refers collectively to the notes entered on the top, bottom, and side margins of the MT
manuscripts to safeguard traditional transmission. Hence, the
Masoretes, as their name suggests, were the scribal preservers of the
masora (Roberts, 1962, 3:295). From the fifth to the ninth century A.D.,
the Masoretes labored to introduce both these marginal notes and vowel
points to the consonantal text—primarily to conserve correct
pronunciation and spelling (see Seow, 1987, pp. 8-9).
Critical scholars questioned the accuracy of the MT,
which formed the basis of our English versions of the Old Testament,
since there was such a large chronological gap between it and the
autographs. Because of this uncertainty, scholars often “corrected” the
text with considerable freedom. Qumran, however, has provided remains of
an early Masoretic edition predating the Christian era on which the
traditional MT is based. A comparison of the MT
to this earlier text revealed the remarkable accuracy with which
scribes copied the sacred texts. Accordingly, the integrity of the
Hebrew Bible was confirmed, which generally has heightened its respect
among scholars and drastically reduced textual alteration.
Most of the biblical manuscripts found at Qumran belong to the MT
tradition or family. This is especially true of the Pentateuch and some
of the Prophets. The well-preserved Isaiah scroll from Cave 1
illustrates the tender care with which these sacred texts were copied.
Since about 1700 years separated Isaiah in the MT
from its original source, textual critics assumed that centuries of
copying and recopying this book must have introduced scribal errors into
the document that obscured the original message of the author.
The Isaiah scrolls found at Qumran closed that gap to within 500 years
of the original manuscript. Interestingly, when scholars compared the MT
of Isaiah to the Isaiah scroll of Qumran, the correspondence was
astounding. The texts from Qumran proved to be word-for-word identical
to our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text. The 5
percent of variation consisted primarily of obvious slips of the pen and
spelling alterations (Archer, 1974, p. 25). Further, there were no
major doctrinal differences between the accepted and Qumran texts (see
Table 1 below). This forcibly demonstrated the accuracy with which
scribes copied sacred texts, and bolstered our confidence in the Bible’s
textual integrity (see Yamauchi, 1972, p. 130). The Dead Sea Scrolls
have increased our confidence that faithful scribal transcription
substantially has preserved the original content of Isaiah.
TABLE 1. QUMRAN VS. THE MASORETES
______________________________________
Of the 166 Hebrew words in Isaiah 53, only
seventeen letters in Dead Sea Scroll 1QIsb
differ from the Masoretic Text (Geisler and
Nix, 1986, p. 382).
10 letters = spelling differences
4 letters = stylistic changes
3 letters = added word for “light” (vs. 11)
______________________________________
17 letters = no affect on biblical teaching
CRITICAL SCHOLARSHIP, DANIEL, AND THE SCROLLS
The Qumran materials similarly have substantiated the textual integrity
and authenticity of Daniel. Critical scholarship, as in the case of
most all books of the Old Testament, has attempted to dismantle the
authenticity of the book of Daniel. The message of the book claims to
have originated during the Babylonian exile, from the first deportation
of the Jews into captivity (606 B.C.; Daniel 1:1-2) to the ascension of
the Persian Empire to world dominance (c. 536 B.C.;
Daniel 10:1). This date, however, has been questioned and generally
dismissed by critical scholars who date the final composition of the
book to the second century B.C. Specifically, it
is argued that the tales in chapters 1-6 as they appear in their present
form can be no earlier than the Hellenistic age (c. 332 B.C.).
Also, the four-kingdom outline, explicitly stated in chapter 2,
allegedly requires a date after the rise of the Grecian Empire. Further,
these scholars argue that since there is no explicit reference to
Antiochus Epiphanes IV (175-164 B.C.), a Seleucid king clearly under
prophetic consideration in chapter 11, a date in the late third or early
second century B.C. is most likely (see Collins, 1992a, 2:31;
Whitehorne, 1992, 1:270).
The apparent reason for this conclusion among critical scholars is the
predictive nature of the book of Daniel. It speaks precisely of events
that transpired several hundred years removed from the period in which
it claims to have been composed. Since the guiding principles of the
historical-critical method preclude a transcendent God’s intervening in
human affairs (see Brantley, 1994), the idea of inspired predictive
prophecy is dismissed
a priori from the realm of possibility.
Accordingly, Daniel could not have spoken with such precision about
events so remote from his day. Therefore, critical scholars conclude
that the book was written actually as a historical record of events
during the Maccabean period, but couched in apocalyptic or prophetic
language. Such conclusions clearly deny that this book was the authentic
composition of a Daniel who lived in the sixth century B.C., that the Bible affirms.
The Dead Sea Scrolls have lifted their voice in this controversy. Due
to the amount of Daniel fragments found in various caves near Qumran, it
appears that this prophetic book was one of the most treasured by that
community. Perhaps the popularity of Daniel was due to the fact that the
people of Qumran lived during the anxious period in which many of these
prophecies actually were being fulfilled. For whatever reason, Daniel
was peculiarly safeguarded to the extent that we have at our disposal
parts of all chapters of Daniel, except chapters 9 and 12. However, one
manuscript (4QDan
c; 4 = Cave 4; Q = Qumran; Dan
c =
one of the Daniel fragments arbitrarily designated “c” for
clarification), published in November 1989, has been dated to the late
second century B.C. (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:47). Two other major documents (4QDan
b, 4QDan
a)
have been published since 1987, and contribute to scholarly analysis of
Daniel. These recently released fragments have direct bearing on the
integrity and authenticity of the book of Daniel.
INTEGRITY OF THE TEXT
As in the case of Isaiah, before Qumran there were no extant
manuscripts of Daniel that dated earlier than the late tenth century A.D.
Accordingly, scholars cast suspicion on the integrity of Daniel’s text.
Also, as with Isaiah, this skepticism about the credibility of Daniel’s
contents prompted scholars to take great freedom in adjusting the
Hebrew text. One reason for this suspicion is the seemingly arbitrary
appearance of Aramaic sections within the book. Some scholars had
assumed from this linguistic shift that Daniel was written initially in
Aramaic, and then some portions were translated into Hebrew. Further, a
comparison of the Septuagint translation (Greek translation of the
Hebrew Bible) with the MT revealed tremendous
disparity in length and content between the two texts. Due to these and
other considerations, critical scholars assigned little value to the MT rendition of Daniel.
Once again, however, the findings at Qumran have confirmed the
integrity of Daniel’s text. Gerhard Hasel listed several strands of
evidence from the Daniel fragments found at Qumran that support the
integrity of the MT (see 1992, 5[2]:50). First,
for the most part, the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts of Daniel are very
consistent in content among themselves, containing very few variants.
Second, the Qumran fragments conform very closely to the MT
overall, with only a few rare variants in the former that side with the
Septuagint version. Third, the transitions from Hebrew to Aramaic are
preserved in the Qumran fragments. Based on such overwhelming data, it
is evident that the MT is a well-preserved
rendition of Daniel. In short, Qumran assures us that we can be
reasonably confident that the Daniel text on which our English
translations are based is one of integrity. Practically speaking, this
means that we have at our disposal, through faithful translations of the
original, the truth God revealed to Daniel centuries ago.
DATE OF THE BOOK
The Daniel fragments found at Qumran also speak to the issue of
Daniel’s authenticity. As mentioned earlier, conventional scholarship
generally places the final composition of Daniel during the second
century B.C. Yet, the book claims to have been written by a Daniel who
lived in the sixth century B.C. However, the Dead Sea fragments of
Daniel present compelling evidence for the earlier, biblical date of
this book.
The relatively copious remains of Daniel indicate the importance of
this book to the Qumran community. Further, there are clear indications
that this book was considered “canonical” for the community, which meant
it was recognized as an authoritative book on a par with other biblical
books (e.g., Deuteronomy, Kings, Isaiah, Psalms). The canonicity of
Daniel at Qumran is indicated, not only by the prolific fragments, but
by the manner in which it is referenced in other materials. One fragment
employs the quotation, “which was written in the book of Daniel the
prophet.” This phrase, similar to Jesus’ reference to “Daniel the
prophet” (Matthew 24:15), was a formula typically applied to quotations
from canonical Scripture at Qumran (see Hasel, 1992, 5[2]:51).
The canonical status of Daniel at Qumran is important to the date and
authenticity of the book. If, as critical scholars allege, Daniel
reached its final form around 160 B.C., how could
it have attained canonical status at Qumran in a mere five or six
decades? While we do not know exactly how long it took for a book to
reach such authoritative status, it appears that more time is needed for
this development (see Bruce, 1988, pp. 27-42). Interestingly, even
before the most recent publication of Daniel fragments, R.K. Harrison
recognized that the canonical status of Daniel at Qumran militated
against its being a composition of the Maccabean era, and served as
confirmation of its authenticity (1969, p. 1126-1127).
Although Harrison made this observation in 1969, over three decades
before the large cache of Cave 4 documents was made available to the
general and scholarly public, no new evidence has refuted it. On the
contrary, the newly released texts from Qumran have confirmed this
conclusion. The canonical acceptance of Daniel at Qumran indicates the
antiquity of the book’s composition—certainly much earlier than the
Maccabean period. Hence, the most recent publications of Daniel
manuscripts offer confirmation of Daniel’s authenticity; it was written
when the Bible says it was written.
A final contribution from Qumran to the biblically claimed date for
Daniel’s composition comes from linguistic considerations. Though, as we
mentioned earlier, critical scholars argue that the Aramaic sections in
Daniel indicate a second-century B.C. date of
composition, the Qumran materials suggest otherwise. In fact, a
comparison of the documents at Qumran with Daniel demonstrates that the
Aramaic in Daniel is a much earlier composition than the second-century B.C.
Such a comparison further demonstrates that Daniel was written in a
region different from that of Judea. For example, the Genesis Apocryphon
found in Cave 1 is a second-century B.C.
document written in Aramaic—the same period during which critical
scholars argue that Daniel was composed. If the critical date for
Daniel’s composition were correct, it should reflect the same linguistic
characteristics of the Genesis Apocryphon. Yet, the Aramaic of these
two books is markedly dissimilar.
The Genesis Apocryphon, for example, tends to place the verb toward the
beginning of the clause, whereas Daniel tends to defer the verb to a
later position in the clause. Due to such considerations, linguists
suggest that Daniel reflects an Eastern type Aramaic, which is more
flexible with word order, and exhibits scarcely any Western
characteristics at all. In each significant category of linguistic
comparison (i.e., morphology, grammar, syntax, vocabulary), the Genesis
Apocryphon (admittedly written in the second century B.C.)
reflects a much later style than the language of Daniel (Archer, 1980,
136:143; cf. Yamauchi, 1980). Interestingly, the same is true when the
Hebrew of Daniel is compared with the Hebrew preserved in the Qumran
sectarian documents (i.e., those texts composed by the Qumran community
reflecting their peculiar societal laws and religious customs). From
such linguistic considerations provided by Qumran, Daniel hardly could
have been written by a Jewish patriot in Judea during the early
second-century B.C., as the critics charge.
CONCLUSION
There are, of course, critical scholars who, despite the evidence,
continue to argue against the authenticity of Daniel and other biblical
books. Yet, the Qumran texts have provided compelling evidence that
buttresses our faith in the integrity of the manuscripts on which our
translations are based. It is now up to Bible believers to allow these
texts to direct our attention to divine concerns and become the people
God intends us to be.
REFERENCES
Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1974),
A Survey of Old Testament Introduction (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1980), “Modern Rationalism and the Book of Daniel,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, 136:129-147, April-June.
Archer, Gleason, Jr. (1982),
Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Brantley, Garry K. (1994),
“Biblical Miracles: Fact or Fiction?,” Reason and Revelation, 14:33-38, May.
Bruce, F.F. (1988),
The Canon of Scriptures (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press).
Collins, John J. (1992a), “Daniel, Book of,”
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 2:29-37.
Collins, John J. (1992b), “Dead Sea Scrolls,”
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 2:85-101.
Cross, Frank Moore (1992), “The Historical Context of the Scrolls,”
Understanding the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Hershel Shanks (New York: Random House).
Geisler, Norman and Ronald Brooks (1989),
When Skeptics Ask (Wheaton, IL: Victor).
Geisler, Norman and William Nix (1986),
A General Intorduction to the Bible (Chicago, IL: Moody).
Harrison, R.K. (1969),
Introduction to the Old Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).
Hasel, Gerhard (1992), “New Light on the Book of Daniel from the Dead Sea Scrolls,”
Archaeology and Biblical Research, 5[2]:45-53, Spring.
Josephus, “Antiquities of the Jews,”
The Life and Works of Flavius Josephus, (Chicago, IL: John C. Winston; translated by William Whiston).
Major, Trevor (1993),
“Dating in Archaeology: Radiocarbon and Tree-Ring Dating,” Reason and Revelation, 13:73-77, October.
Roberts, B.J. (1962), “
Masora,”
The Interpreter’s Dictionary of the Bible (Nashville, TN: Abingdon), 3:295.
Seow, C.L. (1987),
A Grammar for Biblical Hebrew (Nashville, TN: Abingdon).
Shanks, Hershel (1991), “Carbon-14 Tests Substantiate Scroll Dates,”
Biblical Archaeology Review, 17[6]:72, November/December.
Whitehorne, John (1992), “Antiochus,”
The Anchor Bible Dictionary, ed. David Noel Freedman (New York: Doubleday), 1:269-272.
Yamauchi, Edwin (1972),
The Stones and the Scriptures: An Evangelical Perspective (New York: Lippincott).
Yamauchi, Edwin (1980), “The Archaeological Background of Daniel,”
Bibliotheca Sacra, 137:3-16, January-March.
