Introduction: The Core Issue in Old Testament Textual Criticism

This article examines alignments between the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), the Septuagint, and the Masoretic Text (MT), demonstrating how such agreements reinforce the textual integrity of the Hebrew Scriptures. Complex issues are presented clearly, with academic precision and objective assessment of the manuscript evidence, while upholding confidence in the reliability of the original Hebrew text as preserved and restored by rigorous textual criticism.

The study of the Hebrew Scriptures demands a careful, evidence-driven approach to textual variants among the major ancient witnesses. The Masoretic Text (MT), as preserved in manuscripts like the Codex Leningrad B 19A (1008 C.E.) and the Aleppo Codex (10th century C.E.), stands as the primary textual base due to its meticulous preservation. However, the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) and the Septuagint (LXX) sometimes align with each other against the MT, raising important textual questions. The key task is to determine whether these alignments represent the original Hebrew readings or secondary developments. By examining the evidence in light of manuscript transmission history, paleography, and internal coherence, we can clarify when and why these agreements should be given weight.

The Masoretic Text as the Standard Base

The MT reflects centuries of careful copying from a stabilized Hebrew tradition. The Sopherim (from the post-exilic period to the early centuries B.C.E.) and the later Masoretes (6th–10th centuries C.E.) applied strict methods to preserve exact wording. These included counting letters, recording unusual spellings, and annotating variant possibilities in the Masorah. The reliability of the MT is strengthened by the fact that, when compared with pre-Masoretic Hebrew manuscripts from the DSS, most differences are orthographic or minor, with no alteration of doctrine. Where the MT differs substantially from other witnesses, each case must be weighed against the broader manuscript tradition.

The Dead Sea Scrolls as a Window into Pre-Masoretic Hebrew

Discovered in 1947 and dating from approximately 250 B.C.E. to 70 C.E., the DSS represent a range of Hebrew textual traditions. Some manuscripts agree closely with the proto-Masoretic form, while others align more with the Vorlage (underlying Hebrew text) of the LXX. Paleographic and linguistic analysis reveals that at Qumran, multiple textual streams coexisted: proto-Masoretic, proto-Samaritan, and Hebrew texts that served as the base for the LXX. This plurality does not imply that the Hebrew Bible was fluid in the sense of lacking a standard, but rather that multiple textual lines existed before one became dominant in Judaism after 70 C.E.

The DSS are critical because they occasionally preserve readings that match the LXX against the MT. When such cases occur, they can confirm that the LXX translators were not inventing material but faithfully rendering a Hebrew text that differed from the proto-Masoretic form.

The Septuagint and Its Hebrew Vorlage

The Septuagint, translated in stages between the mid-3rd and early 1st century B.C.E., was originally intended for the Jewish diaspora in Egypt. The Pentateuch was completed first, with other books following. Its Hebrew Vorlage was not identical to the proto-Masoretic text in every book; certain LXX readings reflect a different order, additional sentences, or lexical variants. In some cases, these differences were due to interpretive translation choices, but in others, they are evidence of a distinct Hebrew source text.

Because the LXX is a translation, it cannot be taken at face value without confirming that its differences are supported by direct Hebrew evidence such as the DSS. Agreements between the LXX and DSS against the MT are especially significant because they reduce the likelihood that the difference arose from translation rather than from an alternative Hebrew reading.

Case Studies of LXX–DSS Agreement Against MT

1. 1 Samuel 10:27–11:1

In the MT, the transition from 1 Samuel 10:27 to 11:1 is abrupt, moving from Saul being despised to Nahash attacking Jabesh-gilead. The LXX and a fragment from Qumran (4QSam^a) preserve an additional paragraph describing how Nahash had been oppressing the Gadites and Reubenites, gouging out their right eyes, and that this was his intended action against Jabesh-gilead. This reading makes historical sense, aligns with ancient Near Eastern warfare brutality, and removes the narrative gap. Since this reading is found in a Hebrew manuscript predating the MT by over 1,000 years, and also in the LXX, it is more likely original.

2. Psalm 145:13

Psalm 145 in the MT is an acrostic psalm, but one Hebrew letter (nun) is missing a corresponding verse. The LXX and a DSS manuscript (11QPs^a) preserve a verse: “Jehovah is faithful in all His words and kind in all His works.” The absence in the MT may be due to a scribal oversight, where a line was lost because of similar endings (homoioteleuton). Here, the DSS–LXX agreement strongly suggests restoration of the original.

3. Jeremiah’s Shorter LXX Version

The LXX text of Jeremiah is approximately one-eighth shorter than the MT, with chapters arranged differently. DSS manuscripts of Jeremiah from Qumran (4QJer^b, 4QJer^d) match the shorter LXX order and wording. This indicates that the LXX did not abbreviate the text but translated a Hebrew edition earlier than the expanded proto-Masoretic form. Since the shorter form is attested in Hebrew and aligns with the Greek, it represents a legitimate early recension.

4. Deuteronomy 32:43

The MT’s version of the Song of Moses is shorter than that found in the LXX and in a Qumran scroll (4QDeut^q). The longer form includes an additional line: “Rejoice, O heavens, with Him, and bow down to Him, all sons of God.” This theologically fits the ancient Israelite context, appears in the oldest Hebrew evidence, and reflects a more expansive poetic parallelism characteristic of early Hebrew poetry.

5. 1 Kings 8:53

The MT concludes Solomon’s prayer without a specific statement about Israel’s separation as God’s inheritance, whereas the LXX includes a clause paralleled in a DSS manuscript (4QKings). The addition fits the covenantal framework and is consistent with Deuteronomic theology. The MT omission is possibly due to haplography.

Analytical Perspective: Why Septuagint Support Isn’t Sufficient Alone

While the Septuagint occasionally corroborates MT—or vice versa—its witness alone does not automatically override the Hebrew tradition. The Greek translation reflects interpretative and linguistic aspects specific to Hellenistic translators. Concordance must be assessed case by case, ideally with DSS support, to discern whether the agreement reflects an underlying Hebrew Vorlage or translator’s harmonization.

Detailed Example: Isaiah 53 DSS and Septuagint Correlation

In the Isaiah 53 DSS fragments, the Hebrew text closely mirrors the MT. Meanwhile, the Septuagint rendering, though Greek, shows syntactic loyalty to the Hebrew. The cross‑agreement among three witnesses—DSS, LXX, and MT—demonstrates that the MT’s version is not a later corruption but stems from a stable, original source.

Reinforcement of Textual Certainty

These instances of alignment reinforce the principle that the original Hebrew text of the Old Testament was preserved through painstaking transmission processes. Confident in this foundation, scholars can use the MT as a primary text, offering corrections or adjustments only when robust, multi‑witness evidence (e.g. DSS + LXX + Syriac) supports it. This method respects the Hebrew tradition while recognizing the value of ancient versions in restoration—not undermining—of the original.

Evaluating the Significance of Alignments

• LXX–DSS agreements against the MT carry weight when the following criteria are met:
  The DSS reading is unambiguously Hebrew and predates the earliest MT manuscripts by many centuries.
• The LXX matches this reading closely, indicating it is not a free translation.
• The reading resolves historical, grammatical, or structural problems in the MT.
• The variant is consistent with known scribal tendencies (e.g., omissions due to homoioteleuton, harmonization with parallel passages).

In such cases, the MT reading is more likely secondary. However, the majority of LXX–DSS divergences from MT are not original but reflect later expansions, interpretive glosses, or regional Hebrew text types.

Preservation Through Convergence of Witnesses

The alignment of the DSS and LXX against the MT in some instances does not undermine the authority of the MT as the standard Hebrew text. Rather, it provides a means of reconstructing the earliest attainable text. The fact that many of these alignments are supported by Hebrew manuscripts older than the MT demonstrates that the transmission process preserved the inspired text through multiple lines. The proto-Masoretic tradition remained dominant in Judea and ultimately formed the base for modern Hebrew Bibles, but where earlier Hebrew evidence supports an alternative reading, it is part of the legitimate textual history.

This careful weighing of witnesses affirms that the Hebrew Bible has been preserved, not through miraculous intervention, but by a rigorous transmission tradition supported by abundant manuscript evidence.

You May Also Enjoy

Comparison of Modern Bible Versions and Their Utilization of Textual Criticism

See more

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS