Dead Sea Scrolls

Christian Witness Ministries
Archives	SEARCH the CWM Web Site	Site Map	Resources

caption
By Dr SIAM BHAYRO
	WE have been asked to comment on a controversy, concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, which has received quite a bit of attention in the media both in the UK (The Times) and in the USA (The Washington Post). This relates to the findings of a certain Neil Altman, who claims to have proved the Dead Sea Scrolls to be neither pre-Christian nor from the Dead Sea region.Neil Altman is a businessman in his early fifties. Although he comes to this subject as an "amateur", to be fair to him we should note that he does have a Master's degree in Old Testament studies and a working knowledge of the Hebrew language. He is a messianic Jew who has remained faithful to the observance of Orthodox Judaism. Before we analyse Altman's arguments, a brief summary of the Dead Sea Scrolls [DSS] would be useful. The term `Dead Sea Scrolls' is a bit of a misnomer. There have been discoveries of ancient texts from all over the Judaean Desert. Aramaic papyri from the time of Alexander the Great (circa mid-fourth century BCE) 1 have been discovered in Wadi Daliyeh, about 15km north of Jericho. Many texts and fragments, in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, were also discovered at Masada. At Wadi Murabba`at, texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and Arabic have been excavated. Similar finds have been made at Nahal Hever, Wadi Seiyal* and Khirbet Mird. This demonstrates that the region is fertile with texts from different periods and languages, many of which are still not published in full. The finds that get the most attention, of course, are the manuscripts from Khirbet Qumran, where Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts were discovered hidden in eleven caves. The consensus among scholars is that these particular texts date from before the destruction of the major sites in the region by the Romans in the Jewish wars of the first century CE, although many of the texts themselves are much older, dating from the second century BCE.Among these manuscripts are the oldest texts of the Hebrew Bible. Except for the book of Esther, every book of the Hebrew Bible is attested in the Qumran manuscripts. There are also many books from the apocrypha, as well as what we call "para-Biblical" literature, such as the book of Enoch. All of these texts are extremely important, as they are valuable witnesses to the language, textual traditions and history of the period between the Old and New Testaments. They also illuminate the world in which Jesus lived and the Early Church and its literature.So it is not surprising that the claims of an "amateur" like Altman, who states that the Qumran finds are not pre-Christian, or even originally from Qumran, produce a certain controversy. If true, his claims would destroy half a century of DSS research and turn the field of Biblical studies on its head.Several examples of Altman's evidence were presented in the Times magazine article, and we shall briefly comment on three of them. Firstly, Altman claims to have found the name of Jesus in text 4Q175, also known as 4QTestimonia (4Q means that the manuscript was discovered in cave four of Qumran). This apparently startling discovery certainly started up a bandwagon. For example, Stephen Reynolds, one of the `scholars' who worked on the NIV `translation' of the Bible, wrote that `I believe that Yeshua of Testimonia is Jesus Christ, and the work was produced by someone who believed in him.'The problem here is that the Hebrew name here is indeed Yeshua, but the context makes it clear that the Old Testament character Joshua is being referred to. Here is a translation of the entire line:4Q175 line 21 _ At the time when Joshua finished praising and giving thanks with his praises, he said `Cursed be the man who builds this city' ...Now this is clearly a reference to the curse uttered by Joshua in Joshua 6:26! In fact, the whole text is simply a collection of statements based upon portions of Deuteronomy, Numbers and Joshua. So why try to say that it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ? The name `Jesus' was common enough after all and we should not fall into the trap of thinking that every reference to `Jesus' in ancient texts refers to our Lord.What is really worrying here is that a so-called Old Testament scholar so eagerly jumped on the bandwagon and allowed himself to make such a stupid statement! And what does this say about the quality of the NIV as a translation? Secondly, Altman claims to have found the words `mother of God' in the famous Isaiah scroll, which, if true, would certainly place the scroll in a firm Christian context. The reference is Isa 7:11a, which reads `Ask for yourself a sign from with the LORD your God'. The Hebrew preposition here, translated `from with', is made up of three letters: mem-ayin-mem. The first mem means `from'. The following ayin-mem means `with'. In the Qumran Isaiah scrolls, however, we have a different reading: mem-aleph-mem. Altman asserts that we should read this as mem =`from' (as before), followed by aleph-mem=`mother'. This is certainly possible, but there is a problem here.It is clear from the photograph that the scribe has made an error and then corrected it. Hebrew has another word for `with', which is written with aleph-tau, and it appears that the scribe began to write this word for with, and then changed his mind and corrected it to the expected one. Thus Altman's mem-aleph-mem is in fact mem-aleph corrected to ayin-tau corrected to mem, and the reading `mother of God' is simply an accident! Thirdly, Altman claims to have found a Chinese symbol in a sectarian Qumran text. This symbol is supposedly from around the eighth century CE at the earliest, and means `God' or `divine king'. Again, if true, Altman would have evidence that the scrolls come from well into the Christian era and from nowhere near Qumran. Again, an analysis of the photograph shows that Altman's theory is way off the mark. Most DSS scholars are only too aware of the notes that are made above the line to indicate omissions from or corrections to the text of the line below. This so-called Chinese symbol is simply a proposed addition of the letter lamed, which has subsequently been erased. It appears that the scribe was not sure whether to write the word `eternal' or `forever', but corrected himself at a later time. The resemblance of this note to a Chinese symbol is purely coincidental. There are several observations that I would like to make from this controversy. Firstly, I would suggest that Altman's views on the DSS are fanciful and of no merit. The DSS remain an important source of information on the world as it was just before and during the time of Christ. Secondly, it is a great shame that Altman has been ostracised and forced to try to get attention for his ideas by touting for big head-lines in the press. This situation should never have arisen. Scholarship is a noble pursuit, which should be followed with all diligence and humility. Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the DSS remain an extremely interesting topic for many people, including Bible believing Christians. It is certainly worthwhile trying to learn about them for yourselves, but beware the crackpots who try to highjack a worthwhile endeavour with their often weird agendas. POSTSCRIPT: It has long been on my mind to prepare two seminars, one about the Dead Sea Scrolls and another about archaeology and the Bible, designed for Christians who may want to learn more about them. So a bit of feedback from readers as to whether such presentations would be welcomed, and any suggestions regarding what the aims should be, would be most appreciated. 1 Note: we use the term BCE (Before Common Era) because Jesus was born circa 5BCE. To use the term BC (Before Christ) would result in an anachronism, i.e. stating that Jesus was born five years Before Christ. About the Author... [ TOP ] Appeared in Issue CETF 7.2 January 2002 "...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3

WE have been asked to comment on a controversy, concerning the Dead Sea Scrolls, which has received quite a bit of attention in the media both in the UK (The Times) and in the USA (The Washington Post). This relates to the findings of a certain Neil Altman, who claims to have proved the Dead Sea Scrolls to be neither pre-Christian nor from the Dead Sea region.Neil Altman is a businessman in his early fifties. Although he comes to this subject as an "amateur", to be fair to him we should note that he does have a Master's degree in Old Testament studies and a working knowledge of the Hebrew language. He is a messianic Jew who has remained faithful to the observance of Orthodox Judaism.
Before we analyse Altman's arguments, a brief summary of the Dead Sea Scrolls [DSS] would be useful. The term `Dead Sea Scrolls' is a bit of a misnomer. There have been discoveries of ancient texts from all over the Judaean Desert. Aramaic papyri from the time of Alexander the Great (circa mid-fourth century BCE) *1 have been discovered in Wadi Daliyeh, about 15km north of Jericho. Many texts and fragments, in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek and Latin, were also discovered at Masada. At Wadi Murabba`at, texts in Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek, Latin and Arabic have been excavated. Similar finds have been made at Nahal Hever, Wadi Seiyal and Khirbet Mird. This demonstrates that the region is fertile with texts from different periods and languages, many of which are still not published in full.
The finds that get the most attention, of course, are the manuscripts from Khirbet Qumran, where Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek texts were discovered hidden in eleven caves. The consensus among scholars is that these particular texts date from before the destruction of the major sites in the region by the Romans in the Jewish wars of the first century CE, although many of the texts themselves are much older, dating from the second century BCE.Among these manuscripts are the oldest texts of the Hebrew Bible. Except for the book of Esther, every book of the Hebrew Bible is attested in the Qumran manuscripts. There are also many books from the apocrypha, as well as what we call "para-Biblical" literature, such as the book of Enoch. All of these texts are extremely important, as they are valuable witnesses to the language, textual traditions and history of the period between the Old and New Testaments. They also illuminate the world in which Jesus lived and the Early Church and its literature.So it is not surprising that the claims of an "amateur" like Altman, who states that the Qumran finds are not pre-Christian, or even originally from Qumran, produce a certain controversy. If true, his claims would destroy half a century of DSS research and turn the field of Biblical studies on its head.Several examples of Altman's evidence were presented in the Times magazine article, and we shall briefly comment on three of them.
Firstly, Altman claims to have found the name of Jesus in text 4Q175, also known as 4QTestimonia (4Q means that the manuscript was discovered in cave four of Qumran). This apparently startling discovery certainly started up a bandwagon. For example, Stephen Reynolds, one of the `scholars' who worked on the NIV `translation' of the Bible, wrote that `I believe that Yeshua of Testimonia is Jesus Christ, and the work was produced by someone who believed in him.'The problem here is that the Hebrew name here is indeed Yeshua, but the context makes it clear that the Old Testament character Joshua is being referred to. Here is a translation of the entire line:4Q175 line 21 _ At the time when Joshua finished praising and giving thanks with his praises, he said `Cursed be the man who builds this city' ...Now this is clearly a reference to the curse uttered by Joshua in Joshua 6:26! In fact, the whole text is simply a collection of statements based upon portions of Deuteronomy, Numbers and Joshua. So why try to say that it refers to the Lord Jesus Christ? The name `Jesus' was common enough after all and we should not fall into the trap of thinking that every reference to `Jesus' in ancient texts refers to our Lord.What is really worrying here is that a so-called Old Testament scholar so eagerly jumped on the bandwagon and allowed himself to make such a stupid statement! And what does this say about the quality of the NIV as a translation?
Secondly, Altman claims to have found the words `mother of God' in the famous Isaiah scroll, which, if true, would certainly place the scroll in a firm Christian context. The reference is Isa 7:11a, which reads `Ask for yourself a sign from with the LORD your God'. The Hebrew preposition here, translated `from with', is made up of three letters: mem-ayin-mem. The first mem means `from'. The following ayin-mem means `with'. In the Qumran Isaiah scrolls, however, we have a different reading: mem-aleph-mem. Altman asserts that we should read this as mem =`from' (as before), followed by aleph-mem=`mother'. This is certainly possible, but there is a problem here.It is clear from the photograph that the scribe has made an error and then corrected it. Hebrew has another word for `with', which is written with aleph-tau, and it appears that the scribe began to write this word for with, and then changed his mind and corrected it to the expected one. Thus Altman's mem-aleph-mem is in fact mem-aleph corrected to ayin-tau corrected to mem, and the reading `mother of God' is simply an accident!
Thirdly, Altman claims to have found a Chinese symbol in a sectarian Qumran text. This symbol is supposedly from around the eighth century CE at the earliest, and means `God' or `divine king'. Again, if true, Altman would have evidence that the scrolls come from well into the Christian era and from nowhere near Qumran. Again, an analysis of the photograph shows that Altman's theory is way off the mark. Most DSS scholars are only too aware of the notes that are made above the line to indicate omissions from or corrections to the text of the line below. This so-called Chinese symbol is simply a proposed addition of the letter lamed, which has subsequently been erased. It appears that the scribe was not sure whether to write the word `eternal' or `forever', but corrected himself at a later time. The resemblance of this note to a Chinese symbol is purely coincidental.
There are several observations that I would like to make from this controversy. Firstly, I would suggest that Altman's views on the DSS are fanciful and of no merit. The DSS remain an important source of information on the world as it was just before and during the time of Christ.
Secondly, it is a great shame that Altman has been ostracised and forced to try to get attention for his ideas by touting for big head-lines in the press. This situation should never have arisen. Scholarship is a noble pursuit, which should be followed with all diligence and humility.
Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, the DSS remain an extremely interesting topic for many people, including Bible believing Christians. It is certainly worthwhile trying to learn about them for yourselves, but beware the crackpots who try to highjack a worthwhile endeavour with their often weird agendas.

POSTSCRIPT:
It has long been on my mind to prepare two seminars, one about the Dead Sea Scrolls and another about archaeology and the Bible, designed for Christians who may want to learn more about them. So a bit of feedback from readers as to whether such presentations would be welcomed, and any suggestions regarding what the aims should be, would be most appreciated.

1 Note: we use the term BCE (Before Common Era) because Jesus was born circa 5BCE. To use the term BC (Before Christ) would result in an anachronism, i.e. stating that Jesus was born five years Before Christ.

About
the Author...
[ TOP ]

Appeared in Issue CETF 7.2 January 2002
"...contend for the faith which was once delivered unto the saints" -- Jude v3

The Dead Sea Scrolls Controversy