Introduction to Orthographic Analysis in the Dead Sea Scrolls

The study of orthographic variation in the Dead Sea Scrolls, particularly in 1QIsaᵃ (the Great Isaiah Scroll), reveals essential details about the textual transmission, scribal habits, and linguistic characteristics of the Hebrew Bible in the Second Temple period. Among the most frequently discussed orthographic features are plene and defective spellings, which involve the inclusion or omission of matres lectionis such as ו (waw) and י (yod). These orthographic practices were not arbitrary but followed patterns that may reflect phonological pronunciation, scribal tradition, or textual preservation strategies.

Isaiah 28:10 and 28:13 present a striking case for orthographic scrutiny, especially in the use of repetitive pseudo-phrases such as “tsav latsav, tsav latsav; kav lakav, kav lakav; ze‘ir sham, ze‘ir sham.” These verses are known for their difficult syntax and have been understood as mimicking infantile or mocking speech. The Great Isaiah Scroll offers unique variants in the spelling of key words in these verses, and a careful paleographic and textual analysis is warranted to determine their significance.

The Textual Context of Isaiah 28:10 and 28:13

Isaiah 28:10 and 28:13 in the Masoretic Text read as follows (transliterated and translated):

Isaiah 28:10 (MT):
kî tsav latsav, tsav latsav; kav lakav, kav lakav; ze‘ir sham, ze‘ir sham.
“For it is: command upon command, command upon command; line upon line, line upon line; a little here, a little there.”

Isaiah 28:13 (MT):
vehāyā lāhem dĕvar-Yehovah tsav latsav, tsav latsav; kav lakav, kav lakav; ze‘ir sham, ze‘ir sham…
“So the word of Jehovah to them will be: command upon command, command upon command; line upon line, line upon line; a little here, a little there…”

The repetition in these verses is thought to ridicule the prophet’s critics, who apparently viewed his instruction as childish or simplistic. These phonetic patterns are also rich ground for orthographic variation due to the reduplication and the similar-sounding terms.

Orthographic Forms in the Great Isaiah Scroll

The Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ) contains orthographic forms that differ from the Masoretic Text in subtle but textually significant ways. The image provided showcases three orthographic variants:

1. צי (tsi) – with yod (plene spelling)

2. ציו (tsiw) – with waw (plene spelling)

3. צר (tsar) – different root altogether

These orthographic variants are found in key positions in Isaiah 28:10 and 28:13 in the scroll and highlight the complexity of interpreting these passages from a textual criticism perspective.

Variant One: צי (Tsi)

The form צי is a plene spelling with yod, representing a vowelized form that may reflect dialectal pronunciation or scribal preference. This form appears where the Masoretic Text has tsav (צַו), which is from the root צוה (tsavah), meaning “command.” However, צי could reflect an interpretive or phonetic variant.

The presence of the yod likely indicates a pronunciation akin to tsî or tsi, which deviates from the standard MT form tsav. The form may not reflect a different word entirely, but rather a vocalization variant within the same lexical family, shaped by the orthographic conventions of the scribe.

Variant Two: ציו (Tsiw)

The second form, ציו, includes both yod and waw and represents an even more expanded plene spelling. This orthographic form may aim to more fully capture the phonetic reality of the spoken word, or it may reflect a scribal emphasis on clarity or exactitude. In either case, this expanded form is not present in the Masoretic Text and is unique to certain manuscript traditions, including 1QIsaᵃ.

Given that ציו resembles the qal perfect 3ms form of the verb צוה (he commanded), it is possible that the scribe of 1QIsaᵃ intended to reflect not just phonetics but also an interpretive nuance—emphasizing that these repeated sounds are indeed related to the command of God, even if the hearers mock them.

Variant Three: צר (Tsar)

This form, צר, is especially intriguing, as it derives from a completely different root (צ-ר), meaning “narrow” or “distress.” This is not a simple orthographic variant of tsav but rather represents a substantive textual variant, possibly scribal in nature or an indication of a different Vorlage.

The form tsar could reflect a marginal scribal gloss or an interpretive insertion—perhaps suggesting that the commands (צַו) are viewed as oppressive or narrow (צָר) by the hearers. Alternatively, it may be a copying error or a visual confusion, given the close appearance of ב (bet) and ר (resh) in ancient scripts, particularly in the early Herodian hand seen in the Great Isaiah Scroll.

Paleographic Considerations

The shapes of the letters in these forms—particularly the forms of י, ו, and ר—indicate careful writing consistent with the early Herodian period (late 1st century B.C.E. to early 1st century C.E.). This scribal hand shows deliberate use of matres lectionis. It is not haphazard, indicating that the scroll’s variants reflect more than mere sloppiness.

Yod (י) and Waw (ו) are often used in 1QIsaᵃ to represent long vowels or to distinguish homophones. The consistent appearance of these letters across repetitive phrases in Isaiah 28 supports the conclusion that the scribe was engaging in intentional orthographic expansion. These were not random insertions but reflective of either pronunciation traditions or an effort to preserve an older or dialectal reading.

Comparison with the Masoretic Tradition

The Masoretic Text of Isaiah reflects a much more standardized and contracted orthography, with tsav spelled defectively (צַו) without the inclusion of matres lectionis. The careful preservation of spelling and pronunciation by the Masoretes resulted in a far more consistent presentation of this difficult verse. However, the evidence from 1QIsaᵃ demonstrates that earlier forms of the text circulated with different orthographic norms.

In textual criticism, such differences are not to be immediately seen as contradictions or corruptions. Rather, they provide insight into the flexibility of the Hebrew language during its transmission and the ways scribes engaged with the text. In this case, the Masoretic tradition likely reflects the finalized, official orthography, whereas the Qumran scrolls preserve earlier, perhaps more phonetic forms.

Interpretive and Text-Critical Implications

The variations in 1QIsaᵃ are not merely orthographic quirks; they bear interpretive weight. If the scribe of the Great Isaiah Scroll used tsiw or tsi in place of tsav, it could reflect a pronunciation or dialect in which the short a-class vowel had begun to shift. Alternatively, it could indicate a tendency toward emphasizing certain words through visual elongation.

The appearance of tsar is more complex. If this variant is original to the scribe and not a later error or correction, it might suggest an interpretive gloss or even a polemical reading—portraying the word of Jehovah as narrow or confining, as perceived by the rebellious audience.

From a textual criticism standpoint, however, tsav remains the preferred reading. The Masoretic Text is supported not only by the broader manuscript tradition but also by internal consistency and semantic coherence. The Dead Sea Scrolls, while valuable for understanding textual history, must be weighed in relation to the fidelity and care of the Masoretic tradition. The presence of alternate spellings in the Great Isaiah Scroll affirms that the scribe was copying from an older or differently vocalized Vorlage, not that the Masoretic reading is in error.

Conclusion: Orthography as a Window into Transmission

The orthographic variants in Isaiah 28:10 and 28:13 in the Great Isaiah Scroll reveal the dynamic nature of biblical Hebrew during the Second Temple period. Forms such as ציו, צי, and צר demonstrate that scribes preserved texts with a degree of freedom in spelling that did not compromise the integrity of the underlying message. These differences reflect changes in pronunciation, dialect, or orthographic conventions but do not constitute doctrinal or substantial textual changes.

Ultimately, the Masoretic Text’s rendering of these verses remains textually superior due to its consistency, internal coherence, and corroboration across the Hebrew manuscript tradition. Nevertheless, the Great Isaiah Scroll offers a crucial witness to the text’s history, showing how ancient scribes engaged with difficult passages—sometimes expanding them orthographically, sometimes revealing subtle interpretive trends.

You May Also Enjoy

Linguistics and Textual Criticism: The Interplay Between Language and the Restoration of the Old Testament Text

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS