Introduction

Among the Dead Sea Scrolls, none has received more attention than the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ). Discovered in Cave 1 at Qumran in 1947, it is a nearly complete copy of the book of Isaiah dating to around 125 B.C.E. Its importance lies not only in its antiquity but also in the fact that it preserves the entire prophetic book, allowing scholars to compare it directly with the Masoretic Text (MT), which was standardized many centuries later. This scroll has been central in debates over whether the Masoretic tradition represents a heavily developed, expanded recension or whether it reflects a text essentially continuous with earlier Hebrew witnesses.

One of the most significant discussions arises from differences between 1QIsaᵃ and the MT. Certain passages are absent in 1QIsaᵃ but present in the MT, leading some scholars to argue that 1QIsaᵃ reflects an earlier, pre-expanded stage of the Isaiah text. Others, however, have questioned whether these omissions are intentional or instead the product of physical and mechanical issues in the manuscript transmission process. The alternative proposal—that the Great Isaiah Scroll was copied from a damaged exemplar—offers a simpler and more textually responsible explanation for the observed patterns.

This study will examine the evidence in detail, considering the nature of the omissions in 1QIsaᵃ, the physical layout of the scroll, scribal practices of the period, and the probability of a defective exemplar behind the scroll. The result is a much more robust understanding of how and why these variations arose, and why they do not necessarily reflect a text form predating the MT.

---

The Proposal of Insertions in the Masoretic Text

Eugene Ulrich and Peter Flint have argued that certain passages present in the MT but absent in 1QIsaᵃ represent later expansions. They identified seven examples: Isaiah 2:9b–10; 34:17–35:2; 37:5–7; 38:20b–22; 40:7; 40:14b–16; and 63:1aβ–bα. According to their analysis, these so-called “MT insertions” show that the Masoretic tradition added explanatory glosses or expansions to the earlier text preserved in the Isaiah Scroll.

The logic behind their proposal rests on the assumption that 1QIsaᵃ generally preserves an earlier form of the text and that the MT reflects secondary editorial development. In their view, the absence of certain verses in 1QIsaᵃ represents intentional non-expansion, while the presence of those verses in the MT indicates later scribal growth.

While this hypothesis has garnered attention, it raises significant methodological and practical concerns. It requires us to assume that the scribe of 1QIsaᵃ not only had access to but also recognized both expanded and non-expanded textual traditions, choosing to leave space in his copy for “potential” additions. This presupposes a level of textual awareness and deliberation on the part of the scribe that is both unlikely and unsupported by what is known of scribal habits in the Second Temple period.

---

Evaluating Isaiah 40:7 as a Possible Expansion

One passage that is often used to support Ulrich and Flint’s position is Isaiah 40:7. In the MT, this verse explicitly interprets the metaphor of the grass withering and the flower fading, identifying “the people” as the referent. However, 1QIsaᵃ omits the verse entirely, as does the Old Greek translation of Isaiah.

The omission may indicate that verse 7 is a later explanatory gloss. The redundancy between verses 7 and 8, along with the smoother connection between verses 6 and 8 without verse 7, gives this possibility weight. Explanatory glosses are characteristic of later scribal expansion, where a metaphor is clarified for readers.

At the same time, it is also possible that the omission reflects simple scribal error. Haplography, the accidental omission of text due to similar endings or repeated words, could explain the absence in both the Greek and the Isaiah Scroll. Thus, Isaiah 40:7 remains an ambiguous case, not providing clear evidence for either side.

---

The Pattern of Omissions in 1QIsaᵃ

More compelling are the other omissions highlighted by Ulrich and Flint: Isaiah 34:17–35:2; 37:5–7; 38:20b–22; and 40:14b–16. These are particularly important because they follow a consistent pattern that strongly suggests physical rather than editorial causes.

First, these omissions cannot be explained by homoioteleuton, since they do not involve similar line endings that might have misled the eye of the scribe. Second, in each of these cases, the scribe of 1QIsaᵃ left blank lines in the manuscript, suggesting an awareness that material was missing. Third, in every case the missing text was later added in secondary hands, bringing the scroll into alignment with the MT. Fourth, and most significantly, all of these omissions occur at approximately the same location within their respective columns, very near the bottom margin.

This striking alignment points to an alternative explanation: the exemplar from which 1QIsaᵃ was copied suffered physical damage along its bottom edge. As a result, the scribe was unable to read the missing material and left blanks in his copy, anticipating later correction from another manuscript. This would explain not only the omissions themselves but also their location and the later supplementation of the missing material.

---

The Physical Layout of 1QIsaᵃ and Its Exemplar

The physical evidence in the Isaiah Scroll reinforces this conclusion. The scroll is written in columns of uneven width, but the omitted passages consistently align with the lower margin of the exemplar. Reconstructions of the exemplar’s layout show that if the bottom edges had been damaged or worn away, the omitted sections in 1QIsaᵃ would correspond exactly to those lost portions.

Furthermore, in at least one case (Isaiah 37:5–7), the original scribe stopped copying mid-word and later inserted the missing text. This detail is particularly illuminating. It suggests that the scribe reached the bottom of his exemplar column, where the text was defective, and could not proceed. He then left space, and later either he or another hand filled in the missing lines from a secondary source. This is precisely the behavior one would expect from a scribe working with a damaged exemplar.

It is difficult to imagine how the “pre-MT” hypothesis could explain such phenomena. Why would a scribe deliberately omit innocuous and non-controversial lines, stop in the middle of a word, and then insert them later? The damaged exemplar theory, by contrast, provides a straightforward explanation.

---

Scribal Practices and Damaged Exemplar Copying

The practice of copying from damaged exemplars is well-attested in the history of manuscript transmission. Scribes often encountered defective scrolls, particularly along the edges where damage was most common. In such cases, they sometimes attempted to reconstruct missing material from memory or context, while at other times they left blank spaces to be filled later.

The evidence in 1QIsaᵃ matches this practice precisely. The presence of blank lines shows the scribe’s recognition of missing text. The later insertions show his reliance on supplementary sources. The consistent location of the omissions at the bottom margins confirms that the damage was physical rather than editorial.

This model also explains why the omitted sections are concentrated in one portion of the book (Isaiah 34–66) rather than scattered evenly throughout. If the exemplar was damaged only in a particular section, then the resulting omissions in the copy would be localized accordingly. This is exactly what we find in 1QIsaᵃ.

---

Why the Damaged Exemplar Hypothesis Is Superior

The theory of a damaged exemplar has several distinct advantages over the proposal of MT expansions.

First, it is simpler. It does not require speculative assumptions about the scribe’s awareness of two different textual traditions or his deliberate choice to omit material. Instead, it relies on well-documented scribal behavior in the face of defective exemplars.

Second, it accounts for the physical features of the scroll. The blank spaces, the mid-word stoppage, and the later insertions all point to a practical problem in copying, not a theological or literary decision.

Third, it explains the clustering of omissions. The MT-expansion hypothesis cannot account for why supposed insertions should be limited to a small section of the text, but the damaged exemplar hypothesis accounts for it naturally.

Fourth, it aligns with the general character of the Isaiah Scroll. While 1QIsaᵃ does contain numerous small variants, it generally reflects a text closely aligned with the MT rather than a radically different textual tradition. The idea that it preserves an earlier, pre-expanded form of Isaiah is not supported by the overall evidence.

---

Implications for the Relationship Between 1QIsaᵃ and the Masoretic Text

If the damaged exemplar hypothesis is correct, then the Great Isaiah Scroll cannot be used as evidence that the MT contains secondary expansions. Instead, the MT remains the more reliable witness, with 1QIsaᵃ reflecting occasional mechanical problems arising from its exemplar. This does not mean that the MT is free of all expansions or glosses, but it does mean that the specific passages in question are not reliable evidence of such.

The evidence further demonstrates the remarkable stability of the Isaiah text across centuries. Despite the damaged exemplar behind 1QIsaᵃ, the later corrections brought the scroll into agreement with the MT. The overall alignment of 1QIsaᵃ with the Masoretic tradition underscores the fidelity with which Isaiah was transmitted.

---

Conclusion

The Great Isaiah Scroll provides invaluable evidence for the textual history of the Old Testament. Yet its interpretation must be grounded in careful attention to both textual and physical features. The omissions in Isaiah 34–66 do not demonstrate an earlier stage of the text, as some have argued. Instead, they reflect the use of a damaged exemplar by the scribe of 1QIsaᵃ.

This conclusion rests on the consistent location of the omissions, the blank spaces left by the scribe, the later insertions, and the implausibility of the alternative hypothesis. By recognizing the mechanical realities of ancient copying, we gain a clearer understanding of how the text of Isaiah was transmitted and preserved. Far from undermining the MT, the Great Isaiah Scroll, when properly understood, reaffirms the stability and reliability of the Hebrew text.

Overview of Longacre’s Damaged Exemplar Hypothesis

Drew Longacre’s 2013 article, “Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse, or Physical Defect? 1QIsaᵃ’s Damaged Exemplar for Isaiah Chapters 34–66,” published in Dead Sea Discoveries, argues that the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ) does not reflect a textual stage earlier than the Masoretic Text (MT), contra Kutscher, Ulrich, and Flint. Instead, Longacre proposes a much more parsimonious and manuscript-based explanation: that a physically damaged exemplar, particularly at the bottom edges of exemplar columns, led to systematic omissions and later interpolations during copying.

Core Points of the Damaged Exemplar Model

Longacre identifies a consistent pattern among the passages missing in the original hand:

• Spatial clustering: The omissions (Isaiah 34:17–35:2; 37:5–7; 38:20b–22; 40:14b–16) occur near the bottom of columns, suggesting damage in the exemplar’s lower edge rather than intentional exclusion.

• Scribal behavior: The original scribe either left blanks to be later filled using other exemplars or attempted reconstruction from memory and context.

• Avoidance of speculative intent: Longacre finds the idea that the scribe “knew” of MT expansions and deliberately omitted them far less plausible than a simple defect in his source.

---

How This Theory Resonates with My Observations

My observations align closely with Longacre’s hypothesis:

1. Non-random omissions: Indeed, the omissions cannot be explained by homoioteleuton (similar endings causing accidental skipping), and they cluster—but only at the bottom margins.

2. Physical layout emphasis: Your note that blank lines left by the scribe appear consistently where omissions occur reflects precisely the evidence Longacre highlights.

3. Unlikelihood of scribal “knowing” both texts: You rightly point out that expecting a scribe to omit and then note omissions based on familiarity with MT is speculative; Longacre’s damage model avoids that improbability elegantly.

4. Column alignment pattern: The observation that these omissions occur in similar positions across multiple columns underscores a physical cause, not stylized intent.

---

Scholarly Implications

Longacre’s hypothesis offers the following strengths:

• Simplicity and plausibility: It relies on observable features of the manuscript rather than psychological assumptions about the scribe’s internal knowledge.

• Localized explanation: It accounts for why discrepancies are confined to chapters 34–66, particularly the bottom-marginal zones.

• Empirical consistency: It accords with the manuscript’s physical evidence—especially blank spaces and marginal damage.

• Reduction of speculative layers: It bypasses the need to postulate that the scroll preserves an earlier proto-text of Isaiah that the MT later expanded.

---

Your critique of Ulrich and Flint’s “MT‑insertions” model echoes the strength of Longacre’s arguments. The idea of a damaged exemplar elegantly accounts for the observed patterns in 1QIsaᵃ, aligning perfectly with both your insights and the scholarly evidence. While Ulrich and Flint’s perspective remains influential, Longacre’s model provides a more grounded and manuscript-informed explanation for the textual “minuses.”

You May Also Enjoy

Inconsistent Spelling in the Great Isaiah Scroll (1QIsaᵃ): Orthography, Scribal Habit, and the Stability of the Hebrew Text

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS