What are the Dead Sea Scrolls and why are they important?

b) The Habakkuk-Commentary from the Dead Sea

In 1947 several old scrolls have been found in the caves of Qumran above the Dead Sea. Many of them contain the Biblical texts of the Old Testament that were around 1,000 to 1,200 years older than the hitherto known Hebrew manuscripts. Among others the so-called Habakkuk-Commentary (1Qp Hab) was found in cave I. This Hebrew manuscript was written around 75 BC and contains the two first chapters of the book of Habakkuk. A commentary is added to each verse in which the incidents of the time of the Jewish commentator are explained to be the fulfilment of Habakkuk’s prophecy.

Evidence for the accuracy of transmission abounds. Until 1947, the oldest known OT manuscripts were from around 1,000 AD. Bible critics claimed that these had to be very inaccurate because so many centuries had elapsed. The famous Qumran discovery, in 1947, proved them wrong (the critics, not the manuscripts). The caves in Qumran contained copies of all books of the Old Testament (except Esther) - from 100 - 200 years BC. A careful comparison showed that these manuscripts were virtually identical to the ones that had been known before (from 1000 AD).

Further clear testimonies to the unity of Isaiah are the scrolls found at the Dead Sea. In 1947 an approximately 7ms long leather-scroll with the whole text of the book Isaiah dating from the 2nd century BC was found in Qumran among others. This is the oldest completely maintained copy of a book of the OT. Such a scroll is mentioned in Luke 4:17-20 (compare Acts 8:28-35).

[1] Recently another even smaller fragment of a papyrus (7 Q 5) has been discovered and is now considered to be the oldest proof of the NT. It was found in one of the caves at Qumran above the Dead Sea. This fragment consists of about 20 letters only which are partially unreadable. The text is thought to be Mark 6:52-53 and it is thought to have been written around the year 68 AD.

It is certain that varying forms of the Psalm did exist, since a large part of one in Hebrew has been found among the Dead Sea Scrolls (J. A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalm Scroll, New York, 1967), and the Greek, Syriac, Targum and Latin Versions all witness to texts with variations of detail.

"These facts, we repeat it, together with the astonishing preservation of the Hebrew text (1200 years more ancient than that of the Septuagint), plainly tell us how the intervention of the mighty hand of God was needed in the destinies of this sacred book.

Preservation of the Old Testament Scriptures.

The Old Testament oracles were committed to Jewish keeping (Rom. 3:2), and more faithful guardians, even to the least letter of their sacred books, there could not be. We cannot but own the providential care and rich mercy of God in the singular preservation of the text, uncorrupted, of the Old Testament — preserved through sixty centuries of unexampled trial and oppression, of striking and eventful vicissitudes, of persistent and determined efforts to destroy it — making up a story which reads more like romance than reality. The Pharisees, morally blind, as undoubtedly they were, yet scrupulously observant of the least of their traditional observances, were never guilty of tampering with the sacred text; nor were the rival sect of the Sadducees, who held the Pentateuch only, to be of Divine authority, ever charged with corrupting the text of Moses. We possess the books of the Old Testament in our noble English version substantially as they left the hands of the inspired penman.

Where are the records of antiquity? Where are the Hebrew and the Greek books prior to the times of Christ? Where are the classical MSS. of the ancients? All have perished and are forgotten, save the names of some which have been rescued from oblivion, and fragments, not original, of others. The oldest and only trustworthy documents of the past ages are those of the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures.

The 'oracles of God' were committed to Israel, Rom. 3:2, and they have been zealous defenders of the letter of the O.T. For a long time it was thought that their great care and exactitude in copying had preserved the manuscripts from error; but it has been abundantly proved that those copyists erred, as all others have erred in this respect, and numerous errors have been discovered in the MSS, though many of them are seen at once to be mistakes of the pen, some doubtless caused through the similarity of the Hebrew letters, and are easily corrected. Other differences can be set right by the preponderance of evidence in the MSS themselves now that many of these have been collated.

As is well known the O.T. was written in Hebrew, except the portions mentioned under ARAMAIC. Until the labours of Kennicott and De' Rossi it was thought that there were no errors in the Hebrew manuscripts, but many differences were found. The variations however are for the most part trivial mistakes of the copyists, which do not materially affect the text. The examination of MSS goes to prove that the penmen must have exercised great care, some of the Hebrew letters being very similar.

We must now consider the history and condition of the Text represented by the MSS. The existing MSS. are based upon a strictly Jewish arrangement of the Text belonging to Christian times. Upon this 'Recension' — if the expression be correct have we to depend; so that there is no such variety of MS. evidence for any Hebrew readings of Old Testament texts as may be obtained for Greek readings in the New Testament writings. This doubtless damps the ardour of critics, which finds vent in an often too free use of versions: this is all that they have to fall back upon. The Text must for the most part have acquired a fixed form before the birth of Christ, as Aquila and the other Greek translators, of whom we shall have more to say, depart from it less than do the LXX. Onkelos and Jonathan ben Uzziel, the Targumists, or Chaldee Paraphrasts, also follow it very closely. The essential agreement of the Hebrew MSS. of the Old Testament is beyond comparison greater than that of Greek MSS. of the New. The former do on the whole give the same Text, that is, the Text which underlies the Masora: it is in the truest sense substance of tradition (cf. chap. 10). The Jews have so far been faithful to their trust. We may contrast with it the corrupt state of Mahommedan texts of which Arabic scholars complain. A proof of the general accuracy of the Hebrew Text we possess is afforded by the variation that exists between parallel passages, in which the temptation to alter would be strong: cf. Pss. 14 and 53; Ps. 18 and 2 Sam. 22. The state of the Greek Text of the New Testament in this respect stands on a much lower level.