First, there are many differences
between 1QIsaa and the MT. Overall there are more than 2,600 variants between
1QIsaa and the other witnesses to the book (MT, LXX, other Qumran
scrolls of Isaiah, etc.). Anybody who examines the data will see 1QIsaa and
the MT are hardly “almost identical” (as claimed in Price 2007, 200). Second,
another more fragmentary Qumran scroll of Isaiah, 1QIsab, is
actually closer to the MT than 1QIsaa. Textual critics describe
1QIsab as proto-MT, MT-like, belonging to the MT family, etc., but
1QIsaa is instead considered non-aligned, unaligned, or independent.
Specifically, according to Ian Young’s (2005, 94; 2018, 8) preliminary figures,
there is one (non-orthographic/ spelling) difference between 1QIsab and
the MT every 23.9 words, but one between 1QIsaa and the MT every 9.7
words which is more than twice as often as in 1QIsab. Third, when
evangelicals cite 1QIsaa compared to the MT as the example par
excellence of the OT’s reliable transmission for over a millennium, they
overlook that no individual biblical DSS, 1QIsaa, 1QIsab,
or any other scroll, is representative of all the Qumran scrolls or of the
diverse relationships between the individual scrolls and their MT counterparts.
In other words, they commit the logical fallacy of inferring something is true
for the whole because it is true for some part of the whole. The truth is,
while some biblical DSS are like the MT, others are not. Fourth, turning to the
evaluation of individual textual variants, some-times the MT is superior,
sometimes 1QIsaa, sometimes another Qumran Isaiah scroll, or sometimes the LXX.
Readings in Isaiah’s non-MT texts are judged more often than not to be
secondary to readings in the MT, but this is not always the case, so each
difference between the textual witnesses must be evaluated one by one on an egalitarian
basis. In addition, the editors of the official publication of 1QIsaa, Ulrich
and Peter Flint (2010, 90), argue:
With regard to most individual
linguistic features, 1QIsaa does exhibit a later profile; however, with regard
to the development of the text, the case is the reverse. These seven major
secondary additions indicate that MT displays a later stage of textual
development than that of 1QIsaa, even if the linguistic features of
MT did not undergo as much updating as those of 1QIsaa.
(cf.
Ulrich 2001b; 2015, 109–29)
In other words, they argue MT
Isaiah is both early and late in different ways when compared to 1QIsaa.
In summary, evangelicals stand on shaky ground when they claim 1QIsaa
as proof of the MT’s accuracy and reliability. The complex textual situation
cannot be boiled down to a single simplistic generalization. (Robert Rezetko, “Building
a House on Sand: What Do Evangelicals Do When They Do Textual Criticism of the
Old Testament?,” in Misusing Scripture: What Are Evangelicals Doing With the
Bible?, ed. Mark Elliott, Kenneth Atkinson, and Robert Rezetko [Routledge
New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology and Biblical Studies; London:
Routledge, 2023], 112-13)
