Truth Magazine

By Larry Ray Hafley

“How Can I Have A Happy New Year?” 

1. Hope for good fortune. “I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favor to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all” (Eccl. 9:11).  

2. Quit doing the same dumb things you have been doing. Ungodliness, worldly lusts and sinful living lead to unhappiness — “many foolish and hurtful lusts” drown men in despair and destruction (1 Tim. 6:9). “Who hath woe? Who hath sorrow? Who hath contentions? Who hath complaining? Who hath wounds without cause? Who hath redness of eyes?” Sinners, that’s who (Prov. 23:29).  

3. Sincerely strive to bring joy and happiness to others (1 Cor. 10:24; Phil. 2:3, 4). Please others rather than yourself. Go out of your way to warm the hearts of the sick and lonely. If you do, a happy new year is assured for you.  

4. Learn to be content with such things as you have. “For I have learned, in whatsoever state I am, therein to be content” (Phil. 4:11).  Riches from without will not produce peace from within.  

5. Resolve to go to heaven and take others with you. Have you ever seen a true Christian, diligently seeking to go to heaven, who is miserable? Me, neither.

6. “For, He that would love life, And see good days, Let him refrain his tongue from evil, And his lips that they speak no guile: And let him turn away from evil, and do good; Let him seek peace, and pursue it” (1 Pet. 3:10, 11).  

Conclusion 

Remember that sorrow and sadness come to all alike. There is “a time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance” (Eccl 3:4). However, if we will apply the principles above, our lives should be holier and happier.     

By Tom Hamilton

Just like the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Tell el-Amarna letters were discovered accidentally by a local resident. In 1887, an Egyptian peasant woman was digging in the ruins of el-Amarna for the nitrogen-rich soil that results from the decomposition of mud bricks used in ancient building sites. She came upon hundreds of clay tablets written in the T-shaped markings of Akkadian (or Babylonian) cuneiform, the language of Mesopotamia, instead of the hieroglyphic writing of Egypt.

The explanation for this linguistic curiosity, as well as the importance of the tablets themselves, lies in the history of el-Amarna. This is the modern designation for the ancient Egyptian capital Akhetaton, built by Pharaoh Amenhotep IV (ca. 1369-1353 B.C.) some 200 miles south of modern Cairo on the east bank of the Nile. For a brief time in the fourteenth century B.C., this city was the center of the Egyptian government. Because cuneiform had become the language of international correspondence, much like English is today, this was the language used on official government correspondence sent to or received from other countries. There was even a school for scribes in Akhetaton to train them in cuneiform, and a few of the surviving clay tablets are not letters at all, but practice exercises for the scribes.

It is interesting to note the role Amenhotep IV and his capital city Anketaton played in Egyptian history. This pharaoh may be remembered as the husband of the famed Queen Nefertiti, his own sister, as well as being the pharaoh who imposed monotheism on the Egyptians in the form of worshiping the one and only sun god of Aton. This is why the capital city he built was named Akhetaton and also why he changed his own name to Akhenaton. His preoccupation with such internal religious reforms and a corresponding indifference to foreign affairs has often been cited as a cause of the deterioration of Egypt’s influence and control on the borders of her empire at this time, a situation which is widely reflected in the Amarna tablets. Upon Amenhotep’s untimely death, the powerful cult of the god Amon reasserted itself and Amenhotep’s attempted religious revolution failed, his capital city was destroyed and abandoned. The final victory of the Amon cult is seen in the change in name of Amenhotep’s son-in-law, from Tutankaton to the now famous Tutankamon.

Contents of the Amarna Tablets

Out of the 379 Amarna tablets that survive, 349 are official letters, presumably being just a fraction of the vast government archives that would have been kept at Akhetaton. These tablets are examples of the diplomatic correspondence of pharaohs Amenhotep III (ca. 1398-1361 B.C.) and Amenhotep IV (ca. 1369-1353 B.C.) with foreign kings of other nations or Egyptian officials and subjects in Palestine and Syria. About 40 of these tablets are letters between pharaoh’s court and the courts of nations on a comparatively equal footing with Egypt: Cyprus (biblical Elishah), Assyria, the Kassites of Babylonia, the Hurrians (biblical Horites) of Mitanni, and the Hittites of Hatti. The remaining 300 tablets were written by Canaanite scribes in Palestine, Phoenicia, and southern Syria, who wrote on behalf of either the regional vassal princes subject to Egypt or minor Egyptian administrative officials in these same areas. Over half of these tablets were written to or from Palestine itself, offering valuable insights into the economic, political, and military conditions in Palestine at this time.

The correspondence of Rib-Addi, vassal prince of Byblos, is the most extensive, comprising almost 70 of the tablets, and is also typical of the content of the letters. This ruler repeatedly writes to Amenhotep III urgently requesting military aid in defending himself against a renegade fellow vassal. Judging from the increasing urgency of the requests and the decreasing territory Rib-Addi controlled, it appears that the Egyptians were indifferent to the situation in Palestine and beyond. The inability or unwillingness of Egypt to support its far-flung empire only served to encourage more rivalry and instability in the region. The petty city-states engaged in constant political intrigue, internal feuding, and open aggression against one another.
Importance of the Amarna Tablets
The Amarna tablets have served to make the Amarna age one of the best known and most extensively documented periods of ancient history. These tablets reveal the period to be an unprecedented time of international diplomacy and of cultural exchange. Historians are able to glean many insights into the structure of the entire Fertile Crescent, from Mesopotamia to Egypt.

Likewise, students of the languages of the ancient world have also been able to learn a great deal from the Amarna tablets. While the predominant language of the tablets is Akkadian, and therefore very helpful to students of that language, the tablets also reflect elements of the Amorite, Egyptian, Hittite, Hurrian, and Canaanite languages. For the students of the Bible, knowledge of the Semitic language of the Canaanites helps to further scholarly understanding of the Hebrew in which the Old Testament was written.

The final significance of the Amarna tablets depends upon their relationship to what the Old Testament has to say about this same time period. Unfortunately, there is no consensus among scholars, even “conservative” Bible scholars, as to what that relationship is. It is to this final question that we must now turn our attention.

Relationship of the OT to the Amarna Tablets

The Amarna tablets were the first documents to call scholars’ attention to a group of people called the Habiru (or ‘Apiru), whose name bears a striking similarity to the name “Hebrew.” This has led to much study and discussion of the possible connections between these two groups, or of the identification of the Habiru in the Amarna tablets as the Hebrews. In the Amarna tablets, the Habiru appear as nomadic marauders who are allied with one vassal prince against another. They are always spoken of in a derogatory manner, and it seems that the name Habiru itself was a pejorative term, at least as it is used in the Amarna tablets. Subsequent study has located references to these Habiru in Sumerian, Egyptian, Ugaritic, and Canaanite texts ranging from 2500 to 1200 B.C. In general, these people were viewed as politically, economically, and socially inferior troublemakers who easily abandoned legitimate activities and became roving bands of outlaws, raiding and pillaging for a living.

The whole Habiru-Hebrew problem is too complex to go into here, but it must be acknowledged that there might be a connection between the two, although it is unlikely that the two terms should be equated. It is more likely that some Hebrews would have been considered as Habiru, but not all Habiru would have been Hebrews. As the question relates to the Amarna tablets specifically, the question is whether the references to the Habiru in these tablets refer to the Hebrews. There are three basic approaches to this question: (1) The Habiru have no connection with the Hebrews because the Amarna tablets do not have any connection with biblical history. With the Hebrews under Jacob leaving Palestine for Egypt before the events of the Amarna tablets and the exodus occurring after the events of the Amarna tablets, these tablets describe a situation otherwise unknown in Palestine during the 430 years Israel was in Egypt. (2) The Habiru are the Hebrews, and the Amarna tablets are an archaeological confirmation of the occupation of Canaan under Joshua, describing the Canaanites’ viewpoint as Joshua and the Israelites conquer Canaan. (3) The Habiru may or may not refer to the Hebrews, because the Amarna tablets describe the situation in Palestine during the early period of the Judges. The Habiru may be Israelites fighting against their Canaanite oppressors, or they may be bands of outlaws referred to in Judges (9:3; 11:3). Obviously, the whole question comes down to how one dates the exodus of the Israelites from Egypt. If one adopts a fifteenth century date for the exodus, the Amarna tablets obviously describe conditions in Palestine after the exodus. If one adopts a thirteenth century date for the exodus, the Amarna tablets would describe the situation in Palestine while the Israelites were still in Egyptian bondage.

It is fair to say that those who adopt a thirteenth century date for the exodus (i.e., ca. 1290 B.C.) do so because of the weight they attribute to the archaeological evidence. For example, the nations of Moab and Edom, which Israel needed to circumvent (Num. 20-21), are asserted not to have existed before the thirteenth century. Additional archaeological excavations are thought to show appropriate destruction levels for the later date, or they fail to demonstrate evidence of either destruction or population for the earlier date. The only real biblical evidence adduced is the reference to the city Raamses in Exodus 1:11, suggesting a connection with Ramses II of the thirteenth century.

It should be obvious that the archaeological evidence is, at best, ambiguous and results in arguing from silence. More extensive excavations, additional discoveries, and more exact identifications of ancient sites might very well result in a modification of current views. In addition, it seems more difficult to fit the biblical evidence into a thirteenth century date for the exodus. It is hard to reconcile Moses’ long sojourn in the wilderness (Exod. 2:15-23) with the short reign of Seti I, if he is proposed as the pharaoh of the oppression. Likewise, it would appear that the pharaoh of the exodus drowned with his army (Exod. 14-15), while the proposed pharaoh of the exodus, Ramses II, lived for a very long time after the supposed date for the exodus. Finally, the testimony of 1 Kings 6:1 would place the exodus around 1440 B.C., and there doesn’t appear to be any compelling reason to take the numbers given in a figurative or accommodating way. The fifteenth century date for the exodus from Egypt and conquest of Palestine also allows time for the 300 years mentioned in Judges 11:26.
Even if we adopt a fifteenth century date for the exodus, it is difficult to correlate exactly the Amarna tablets with biblical history. We know that the Amarna tablets date from the reigns of Amenhotep III and IV, but we cannot be certain about the precise dates of their reigns and, therefore, their relation to Joshua or the judges. However, while the Amarna tablets often refer to an impending military threat and urgently appeal to Egypt to send help to her loyal subjects, the requests for reinforcements are small. Often it is thought that fifty men, or in one case as few as ten, were sufficient to reinforce the garrisons. This does not appear to describe sufficiently the threat Israel posed for the inhabitants of Palestine during the conquest under Joshua. However, during the early period of the judges, when Israel was divided, beset by foreign oppressors, and plagued by roving bands of outlaws, we see the same type of conditions described in the Amarna tablets. Perhaps the Amarna tablets give us insight into the enemy’s point of view during this period of biblical history.

thhamilton@home.com

By David McClister

One of the most fascinating archaeological finds relating to the Bible is the Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III. It is a four-sided column of black limestone inscribed with words (in the cuneiform alphabet) and pictures. The Assyrian king Shalmaneser III (who reigned 858-824 B.C.) had it made to record his achievements through the first 31 years of his reign. Austen Layard unearthed it in 1846 during his now-famous discovery of Nimrud (Calah), just south of the capital city of Nineveh. Shalmaneser’s monument was probably set up in a public place where people passing by could see it and take note of the king’s accomplishments. It was, in effect, the ancient Assyrian equivalent of a billboard. The obelisk stands about six feet tall and is now kept in the British Museum. Copies can be seen in other museums, such as the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago.

What is so amazing about this ancient monument is that it both mentions and depicts a person from the Bible. In the picture accompanying this article, which is a detail from one of the panels on the obelisk, the person bowing down is none other than Jehu, king of Israel, and the person before whom Jehu is bowing is the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III. We are sure that this is indeed Jehu because of the inscription underneath the picture panel, which reads “tribute of Jehu son of Omri” (Jehu was not Omri’s physical son, but the word “son” is here used in the sense of “successor”). This is the only artifact from biblical times that contains a representation of a biblical character. While the picture is stylized and therefore probably not intended to be an accurate depiction of Jehu’s appearance, it is nonetheless striking.

A little background knowledge may help us understand the significance of this artifact. First, you may recall that Jehu was the man God chose to replace the wicked family of Ahab of the house of Omri. Elisha the prophet was commanded to anoint Jehu to be king over Israel in 1 Kings 19, and the command was carried out in 2 Kings 9 (841 B.C.). With the appointment as king came a command from God that Jehu destroy the house of Ahab. In this connection, Jehu is perhaps most remembered for killing the wicked queen Jezebel, the wife of Ahab and a Baal worshiper from Phoenicia. He also killed Joram, Ahab’s son who had taken the throne of Israel. Jehu was far from done, however. He killed Ahaziah, the king of Judah, and his relatives, and he killed the 70 sons of Ahab who lived in Samaria and put their heads in two piles at the city gate. Then, using trickery, he killed all the worshipers of Baal. This killing spree is sometimes called “the purge of Jehu.”

While we may be repulsed by all this bloodshed, it was God’s judgment upon the wicked house of Ahab, and it was just. God was pleased that Jehu carried out his orders (2 Kings 10:30). However, Jehu did not please God in everything. Jehu allowed the golden calves, set up by Jeroboam, to remain. He did much to bring Israel back to God, but he did not finish the job. Apparently Jehu did only enough to secure his position on the throne of the northern kingdom. For his failure to cleanse the kingdom of idolatry God allowed Israel’s enemy, the Syrians, to rise up against Israel. It is probably in the context of Jehu’s military problems that we should interpret Shalmaneser’s monument.

The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III records an event that is not mentioned in the Bible. Nowhere does the Bible mention Jehu going before the king of Assyria and bowing down before him. However, there is every good reason to believe that Jehu did exactly this. When Jehu was anointed he was encamped at Ramoth-gilead (2 Kings 9:1-6), indicating that control of this border town between Israel and Syria was still being contested. The Syrians had another problem, however, and that was the rising military strength of Assyria directly to their east. In the same year that Jehu came to the throne in Israel (841 B.C.) the Assyrians marched westward into Syria. According to Shalmaneser’s records the Syrians suffered heavy losses, but we also know that Shalmaneser was not able to take Damascus. In this context there are at least three scenarios that would have prompted Jehu to bow down before the Assyrian monarch: (1) Jehu saw that Syria (which was a buffer between himself and Assyria) was losing the war with Assyria and that he would not be able to withstand the coming Assyrian advance, so he submitted to their superior military might in order to avoid conflict (which also left his enemy, the Syrians, alone to face the Assyrians), or (2) Jehu may have submitted to the Assyrians in return for help against the Syrians (cf. a somewhat similar tactic by king Asa in 1 Kings 15:17-22; but this is the least likely scenario), or (3) Jehu submitted when the Assyrian army finally pushed into northern Palestine (Shalmaneser says that he took tribute not only from Jehu, but from Tyre and Sidon as well). Either way, it seems that Jehu (wisely) never entered into any anti-Assyrian alliance with Syria and that he probably submitted to Assyria to keep his throne. This is what is being depicted on the obelisk — Jehu bowing before the king of Assyria, recognizing his power, and presenting his nation’s tribute payment. 

The political effect of Jehu’s action would have been that while Jehu may have saved his kingdom from destruction (for the moment), he weakened his kingdom by obligating Israel to hefty annual tribute payments to Assyria. His capitulation to Assyria also increased Syria’s animosity toward Israel and the king of Syria, Hazael, apparently after the Assyrians withdrew, vented his anger against Jehu and captured all of Israel’s transjordan territory (2 Kings 9:32f). These negative effects only compounded the political crisis Jehu already faced. When he killed off the house of Ahab (including Jezebel), he lost favorable relations with the Phoenicians (Jezebel was a Phoeni- cian), and the Moabites had already successfully rebelled from Israelite subjugation under Ahaziah (2 Kings 1:1) about ten years earlier, which meant that Moab’s tribute payments, which once boosted Israel’s economy, had ceased. So Jehu created enemies to his north, he lost his territories to the east, and had lost control of the Moabites to the south. It would not be until the reign of Jeroboam II that Israel would recover.

There are two brief lessons to consider. The first is about the historical trustworthiness of the Bible. The Black Obelisk of Shalmaneser III proves that there really was a man named Jehu who was the king of Israel, just as the Bible says there was, and that he lived in the time period which the Bible reports. The name of Hazael, the king of Syria at that time — who is also mentioned in the Bible — also appears on the Assyrian king’s monument. The Bible’s stories are true, they really happened, and the biblical record is accurate.

The second lesson is a moral one, and has to do with our influence on the world around us, how others see us. I have always thought it regrettable that here we have an actual picture of a person in the Bible — and what is he doing? He is making a fool of himself! Here was the king of Israel. With God behind him, there was nothing he could not have accomplished. God would have fought for Israel, and Israel could have risen to great power and blessing. But Jehu took advantage of none of this. In times of trouble Jehu looked for human help rather than looking to God for help. This scene, carved in rock and preserved for all the world to see, makes me think about the influence that we, as God’s people today, should have. How do others see us? Do they see us like they saw Jehu — catering to the world and bowing down (figuratively) before worldly people, surrendering ourselves to them and their lifestyle? If all that ever remained of our lives in the records of the world was that we served the world instead of God, what kind of legacy have we left?

Whenever I see this panel from Shalmaneser’s monument, I am both happy and sad. I am happy to know that the biblical record has been proven to be true and accurate, but I am sad to see that it shows one of God’s people acting in a faithless way. Let us live so that we are not remembered like Jehu was.

2210 71st St. W., Bradenton, Florida 34209

By Mike Willis

The Dead Sea Scrolls are particularly important for the study of the text of the Old Testament. Without minimizing the contribution that the Scrolls make for the backgrounds of the New Testament era and for vocabulary, one needs to emphasize the contribution the Scrolls make to the study of the text of the Old Testament. K.A. Kitchen said, “Ultimately, by far the most important contribution of the Dead Sea Scrolls for biblical study lies in their witness to the recopying and transmission of the Hebrew text of the books of the Old Testament” (The Bible in Its World 129).

What Was Found at Qumran

In this section, I will limit my comments to what biblical texts were found at the caves near Wadi Qumran. Lasor said, “Tens of thousands of fragments were gathered from the floors of the caves, and are gradually being sorted and classified in the Archaeological Museum in Jerusalem. The exact number is probably not known, and would be of no great value. Dr. Frank Cross says that 382 different manuscripts are represented by the fragments so far identified from just cave 4Q alone. Add to this number the different manuscripts represented by the fragments in each of the other caves (none of which yielded as much as cave 4Q), and it is possible that the total number of manuscripts was between 600 and 800. Some of the fragments are so small that they contain a single letter of the alphabet. These are of little value. Other fragments contain just a few words, and still other fragments contain two or more columns (or portions of columns) of text” (The Dead Sea Scrolls 39). Here is a partial list of what was found:

Genesis: fragments of 5 different manuscripts (mss.) 
Exodus: fragments of 6 mss. 
Leviticus: fragments of 5 mss. plus one nearly complete scroll 
Numbers: 4 mss. 
Deuteronomy: 16 mss. 
Joshua: 2 mss. 
Judges: 3 mss. 
1-2 Samuel: 3 mss. all following the LXX text 
1-2 Kings: 2 mss. 
Isaiah: 14 mss. The Isaiah scrolls were the most significant texts found 
Jeremiah: 5 mss. 
Ezekiel: 3 mss. 
Minor Prophets: 8 mss. 
Psalms: 11 mss. 
Job: fragments in 2 caves 
Ruth: 4 mss. 
Song of Solomon: 3 mss. 
Ecclesiastes: 2 mss. 
Lamentations: 2 mss.
Esther: none 
Daniel: 4 mss. plus fragments 
Ezra-Nehemiah: 1 mss. 
Chronicles: 1 mss.

The Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Biblical Texts

Prior to the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, the oldest extant copy of the Hebrew text was Codex Leningrad which is dated A.D. 916. The rabbis had a practice of destroying worn out copies of the Scriptures. Hence, the earliest Hebrew texts are very late. Most scholars think that rabbis in the Council of Jamnia (approximately A.D. 90) worked out a standard text; hence, variant readings are relatively few in the Old Testament as compared to the New Testament. The translation of the Old Testament into Greek, known as the Septuagint (abbreviated by the Roman numeral LXX for the seventy men who worked on it) was made in approximately 250 B.C. It differs significantly on some passages from the Masoretic text. Because of the variants between the LXX, the Samaritan Pentateuch, and the Masoretic Text, scholars questioned how reliable is the Hebrew text on which we depend. There was no basis on which to check the reliability of the Masoretic text.

Suddenly in 1947 the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, providing a copy of Isaiah that is conservatively dated approximately 200 B.C. It predated our existing Hebrew texts  of Isaiah by over 1000 years. For the first time, scholars could examine the accuracy of the Masoretes. What conclusions have scholars drawn from the texts?

1. The accuracy of the Masoretic text. Millar Burrows wrote, “What has been said may be enough to indicate the importance of the Dead Sea Scrolls and fragments for the technical study of the text of the Old Testament. The general reader and student of the Bible may be satisfied to note that nothing in all this changes our understanding of the religious teachings of the Bible. We did not need the Dead Sea Scrolls to show us that the text has not come down to us through the centuries unchanged. Interpretations depending upon the exact words of a verse must be examined in the light of all we know about the history of the text. The essential truth and the will of God revealed in the Bible, however, have been preserved unchanged through all the vicissitudes in the transmission of the text” (The Dead Sea Scrolls 320). 

Yigael Yadin added,  “The great importance of the antiquity of the Dead Sea Scrolls, therefore, lies in the fact that they belong to the period in which no standardization of the holy scriptures had been effected. This is at once obvious by comparing the text of the scrolls with that of the translations on the one hand and the Masora on the other. What is astonishing is that despite their antiquity and the fact that the scrolls belong to this pre-standardization period, they are on the whole almost identical with the Masoretic text known to us” (The Message of the Scrolls 83). 

The conclusion drawn by textual scholars is that the Dead Sea Scrolls confirm the accuracy in the transmission of the text of the Old Testament back 1000 years earlier than the manuscripts that existed prior to their find.

2. The value of the LXX. Charles F. Pfeiffer said, “Although many of the Qumran Biblical texts are not yet available to the student, the information which we now have has caused the whole question of the relationship of the Septuagint to the traditional Masoretic text of the Old Testament to be reopened. Competent scholars have indicated their belief that the Septuagint is a literal translation of a Hebrew text in some respects different from the traditional one. This does not, of course, deny that the Septuagint, like translations in all ages, expresses the theological viewpoint of its translators in many areas, but it does insist that the Septuagint is a witness to an ancient text of the Old Testament as well” (The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible 106). The effect of this is to re-assess the testimony of the LXX when it varies with the Masoretic text. Scholars are suggesting that the difference in the two readings may not be caused by a less than literal translation of the LXX, but may reflect a different Hebrew text behind the translation.

The full impact of Dead Sea Scrolls for the text of the Old Testament will be assessed for many more years. However, already they are demonstrating the accuracy of our Old Testament text, although there obviously will be cases of specific improved readings.

The Isaiah Scroll And The Text of Isaiah

The most important text found at Qumran was the Isaiah scroll. A replica of this scroll is displayed at the Shrine of the Book museum in Jerusalem. Regarding the influence of this manuscript on the Revised Standard Version (RSV, Old Testament copyrighted in 1952), Burrows wrote, 

Thirteen readings in which the manuscript departs from the traditional text were eventually adopted. In these places a mar­ginal note cites “One ancient Ms,” meaning the St. Mark’s Isaiah scroll. A brief review will show that even in these thirteen places the superiority of the manuscript’s reading is not always certain. For myself I must confess that in some cases where I probably voted for the emendation I am now convinced that our decision was a mistake, and the Masoretic reading should have been retained.

In eight of the thirteen instances the reading of the scroll is supported to some degree by the ancient versions (305).

Of the thirteen readings adopted by the RSV, the New American Standard Bible follows the Dead Sea Scrolls text in four places. In the other nine places, the translators thought the received text is superior. One should remember that antiquity is not synonymous with accuracy. Thus for the 66 chapters of Isaiah, only four changes occurred as a result of transmission of the text by hand over a period of 1000 years and none of these changes made any significant difference in our understanding of God’s will for mankind.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and Inspiration

How did the first century Jews view the Old Testament? Charles F. Pfeiffer wrote, “While the Dead Sea Scrolls can neither prove nor disprove inspiration, they clearly indicate that a community of Jews more than nineteen centuries ago possessed a library of sacred writings which, in all essential details, is the same as the Bible which we have regarded as authoritative. They also had books which we term apocryphal, as well as works distinctive to their sect. Their regard for the Old Testament was, however, supreme. Commentaries were written on its books. Scholars who have examined the manuscripts assert that the Biblical scrolls are written in a style of writing which is distinctive — as if to mark them off for special consideration. Those who believe in an inspired Bible find much encouragement in the Qumran texts” (The Dead Sea Scrolls and The Bible 111). The belief in an inspired Old Testament existed years before the coming of Christ.

The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Canon of the Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls are also important for what they show us about what books of the Old Testament were considered a part of their canon of inspired books. Were the Apocryphal books incorporated in the Catholic Bible a part of the canon of the community at Qumran? Pfeiffer wrote, “Indicative of the fact that the Old Testament as we have it was regarded as sacred Scripture at Qumran is the fact that every book except Esther is represented, at least in the form of fragments. In editing the Zadokite work, Chaim Rabin notes that quotations or allusions to every book in the Old Testament except Joshua, Joel, Jonah, Haggai, Ruth, and Lamentations are made in that document. Since the Zadokite work is related to the Qumran community, and copies of it have been found at Qumran, this gives added testimony to the canon of Scripture. Thus every book of the Old Testament is found either in manu­script, quotation, or allusion in the Qumran literature. The absence of Esther from the Qumran library may be due to the fact that it was not composed among Palestinian Jews. Since its locale is Persia it may not have been well known by the Qumranians. It is not quoted in the New Testament” (Ibid. 111-112).

The evidence of Qumran regarding the Old Testament canon confirms the testimony of Josephus (Against Apion I:8) and the testimony of Scripture (Luke 11:51, the “blood of Abel” to the “blood of Zacharias” reflects the death of the first and last persons in the Old Testament according to the accepted order of the books of the Old Testament in the Hebrew Bible). The 39 books that we accept in the Old Testament were the 39  accepted in the time of Christ.

Conclusion

The Dead Sea Scrolls have confirmed that the text of the Old Testament has been transmitted accurately to modern man. Finding the scroll of Isaiah enabled textual scholars to see how accurately the text had been transcribed over a period of 1000 years. The result is that modern Old Testament scholars found that the text of the Old Testament was accurately transcribed for that period, leaving one with the confidence that the text one has in his hand is the text of Scripture as it was inspired by God. 

6567 Kings Ct., Avon, Indiana 46123 mikewillis1@compuserve.com