In an essay on the Dead Sea Scrolls and contemporary biblical scholarship. W. Randolph Bynum gave the following overview of the shared general characteristics of the biblical scrolls from Qumran:
1. They are written in three languages: predominately Hebrew, plus Aramaic and Greek;
2. Those written in Hebrew, like all other Hebrew texts of the time, have only consonants (there is no full vowel pointing for more precise punctuation in the Hebrew Bible until the sixth century ad);
3. They represent parallel textual traditions that cannot be reconciled to one original text;
4. They generally exhibit the following basic textual traditions: (a) Qumran text that the Qumran scribes copied and edited, (b) texts resembling the later Hebrew standard Masoretic Text but not identical to it, (c) texts that represent the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint Greek translation of the Old Testament, and (e) “non-aligned” texts that cannot be identified with any known textual tradition;
5. Each book or passage may reflect a unique textual history, and so it must be studied on its own;
6. Parallel texts hold essential authoritative status as sacred texts without any demand for precise conformity; and
7. There is no evidence for a preferred textual tradition. (W. Randolph Bynum, “What the Dead Sea Scrolls Can Tell Us About Contemporary Biblical Issues” Rethinking the Bible: Inerrancy, Preaching, Inspiration, Authority, Formation, Archaeology, Postmodernism, and More, eds. Robert P. Thompson and Thomas Jay Oord [Nampa, Idaho: SacraSage Press, 2018], 13-23, here, p. 14)
In the same essay, Bynum discusses three different manuscript discoveries regarding the Book of the Twelve (the twelve Minor Prophets were treated as one book/scroll in the Hebrew Bible):
1. 4QXII (=4Q76-82)
From the fourth cave (4) of Qumran (Q), these fragments of the Twelve (XII) contain portions of Hosea, Joel, Amos, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. They date from 150-25 bc (i.e., before an official canon of the Old Testament). There are seven fragments: two align with the Hebrew text (technically called the “proto-Masoretic Text”) that later became the standard Old Testament text. Two align with the Hebrew text behind the Septuagint. Two are not identified with any known textual tradition (“non-aligned”). And one cannot be identified.
2. 8HevXIIgr
From the eight cave (8) of Nahal Hever (Hev), these fragments of the Twelve (XII) are written in Greek (gk) and contain parts of Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Zechariah. They date between 50 bc and ad 50, which includes the era of Christ’s ministry and the first two decades of the early church. They are based on a Hebrew text that is similar to, but not identical with, the Masoretic Text. Because of the similarities and differences with other Hebrew and Greek texts, these fragments represent a movement within Judaism to correct the Greek Septuagint toward a prominent Hebrew text of the day.
3. MurXII
From Wadi Murabba’at (Mur), these fragments of the Twelve (XII) contain parts of Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah, Micah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Zechariah. They date from the latter part of the first century ad, notably the era of virtually all the New Testament writings. They are textually quite close to the proto-Masoretic Text. However, they vary from that text at some points, mostly minor ones. These fragments represent the move toward a standardized Hebrew text during the era of ad 70-135, following the cataclysmic events of ad 70 and the destruction of Jerusalem. (Ibid., 14-15)
With respect to textual issues in the received texts of the Old and New Testaments, this has led some defenders of inerrancy to claim that only the autographs were inerrant. As another contributor to the same volume would write about the problematic nature of such an apologetic:
For some inerrantists, the solution to this problem is to affirm that only the original writings were inerrant. They suppose the original versions were without any inaccuracies when they left the author’s hand. They allege that the process of transmission, copying, and translation over the years corrupted our copies. This position of “inerrant autographs” maintains inerrancy in the face of contrary textual evidence.
The practice is unhelpful. It offers nothing helpful in the actual study and use of Scripture in the church beyond making affirmations about its original condition. After all, the text we have now does have inaccuracies in some details. This practice allows someone to maintain the concept of inerrancy. By moving back to a context where the assertion’s validity cannot be tested (since we have no autographs).
It is problematic to assert something about Scripture in a way that we cannot confirm in the light of very different evidence that we can confirm. This is more about rationalizing a flawed idea—biblical inerrancy—than about good theology or good biblical study.
Theological problems also arise. If God supervised Scripture’s writing so that people produced inerrancy writings, why could God not, or why didn’t God, oversee the text’s transmission throughout history so the Bible remained inerrant as people copied it? What is the purpose of having inerrant originals if God did not maintain their inerrancy? . . . Still another set of problems clusters around the idea of autographs. This assumes that there was at one time a single master copy of Scripture or at least of individual books. But this assumes a certain mode of inspiration and production of Scripture that is not totally supported by the evidence or most ways of understanding how Scripture came to be. (Dennis R. Bratcher, “Thinking about the Bible Theologically: Inerrancy, Inspiration, and Revelation” in Ibid., 49-63, here, pp. 53-54, italics in original)
