Transmission of Biblical Texts in Qumran: The Case of the Large Isaiah Scroll 1QIsaa

Written by Paulson Pulikottil Reviewed By Ted Herbert

Pulikottil’s study focuses on the numerous variants that exist between the large Isaiah scroll (1QIsaa) and the Masoretic Text (MT), in order to analyse changes that were made intentionally by the scribe of 1QIsaa. The first stage is the identification of variants unique to 1QIsaa. Pulikottil discounts those readings that show clear evidence of scribal error, and assumes that the remainder result from intentional changes. He then classifies these variants according to four primary types of change: harmonisation, to ensure grammatical or conceptual consistency within the immediate context or other passages of Scripture; explication, including both explanations of unclear text and the scribe’s own interpretations; modernisation of language; and contextual changes (barely distinguishable from some harmonisations). In each case he details the range of grammatical and other changes that were made to achieve these ends.

Next Pulikottil analyses the interpretative contribution of the scribe, concluding that he intended to present a text that was historically and theologically accurate, rather than one identical to his source. In the process, he identifies a range of theological themes which motivated the changes, with one or two examples of each. Finally, Pulikottil seeks to identify the context which has given rise to the scroll. On the basis of a few shared concerns, he associates the scroll with the yaḥad (= community) scrolls, including 1QS, 1QM, the Damascus Document and the Pesharim (despite the diversity of contexts in which and for which these were composed). The nature of the yaḥad is not further specified, and so merely confirms the broad context which most scholars would have assumed prior to this study.

The author’s ability to generate plausible explanations for the substantial number of intentional changes that he proposes, and his careful classification of them, is masterful. It is unfortunate, though, that this has been built on an assumption, namely that all unique variants should be treated as intentional unless demonstrably arising from scribal error. The substantial number of variants for which a plausible explanation is offered lends credibility to his assumption, but failure to explore alternative explanations (i.e. scribal error, or an original/primitive reading in 1QIsaa) means that the study can do no more than suggest that intentional changes by the scribe may have been a significant cause of variants in 1QIsaa. The lack of a table of all variants, together with indications of which variants have not been analysed and why not, makes it even harder to assess the force of his evidence.

Pulikottil argues, with limited evidence, that the creative scribal policy of the 1QIsaa scribe represented normal scribal activity in the final centuries BC, and that the scribal aim of merely replicating a source text followed the standardisation of the text in the late first century AD. However, his arguments concerning the clear superiority of the MT in Isaiah, despite its manuscripts being a thousand years later, and concerning the source text of 1QIsaa containing none of the intentional changes, suggests that the creative scribal activity claimed for 1QIsaa may have been the exception rather than the rule.


Ted Herbert

International Christian College, Glasgow