Andrew Perrin
By 1952, the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS) were poised to revolutionize modern Bibles. As scroll fragments poured into Jerusalem, the Revised Standard Version (RSV) went to press in its second edition. Though the full scope of the DSS was still unknown, the translation committee made special mention of the Qumran discoveries in the preface, saying:
The problem of establishing the correct Hebrew and Aramaic text of the Old Testament is very different from the corresponding problem of the New Testament. For the New Testament we have a large number of Greek manuscripts, preserving many variant forms of the text. Some of them were made only two or three centuries later than the original composition of the books. For the Old Testament only late manuscripts survive, all (with the exception of the Dead Sea texts of Isaiah and Habakkuk and some fragments of other books) based on a standardized form of the text established many centuries after the books were written.1
That was just beginning. Today, any modern Hebrew Bible or Old Testament worth the paper it’s printed on (or screen it’s displayed on) meaningfully integrates the DSS.2 Why? Whether you realize it or not, most modern Bible translations are a convergence and synthesis of many manuscripts. These come from a variety of cultural settings, time periods, and corpora of writings.
The DSS present both problems and prospects when it comes to the Hebrew Scriptures—the common heritage of the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament. About 23 percent of the Qumran library are writings that later Jewish and Christian communities would receive as biblical. Therefore, the DSS invite us to see Scripture as it was then before exploring what it has come to be now.
The big question, then, is: How do these ancient scrolls impact our understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures?
Table of contents
The textual traditions behind modern Bibles before the Dead Sea Scrolls
The Hebrew Scriptures at Qumran revealed both remarkable continuity with other known biblical manuscripts and remarkable differences. To appreciate this insight and account for its implications, we need to know a little bit about text criticism and textual traditions.
Text criticism is the art and science of comparing and critiquing differences between manuscripts—called “textual variants” or “variant readings.” Scholars and translators do this work for you to provide the best, earliest, and most authentic text of Scripture (and not everyone agrees on the outcomes or aims of this process).
Textual traditions are the families of manuscripts that text critics consult in the process of text criticism. The three main textual traditions that enable the text criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures are the Masoretic Text (MT), the Septuagint (LXX), and the Samaritan Pentateuch (SP).
The Masoretic Text: the foundation of modern Hebrew Scripture
When scholars and translators work up a new edition or translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Masoretic Text (MT) is almost always their departure point. The MT family of manuscripts provides our most complete copies of the entire Hebrew Scriptures.
In the late first millennium of the Common Era, a group of Jewish scribes in Tiberias penned and preserved copies of the Jewish Scriptures, the Hebrew Bible. The most important MT witnesses are the Aleppo Codex (930 CE) and the Leningrad Codex (1008/1009 CE), though the Masoretic tradition is certainly older than these key codices. Today, the Leningrad Codex is most often used in the form of Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia (BHS), published by the German Bible Society. This edition of the Hebrew Bible is the basis of most modern Bibles.3
When it comes to text criticism, the MT tradition is foundational. While this manuscript tradition is from the medieval period, the DSS revealed that, in most instances, its content is a reliable representation of Scripture in antiquity.
As we’ll see, however, this was not the only rendition of Scripture on offer in ancient Judaism.
The Septuagint: an ancient Greek translation
It’s hard to overstate the significance of the Septuagint (LXX) for biblical, theological, and cultural studies. Like the MT, the LXX is a bit of a catchall for a larger extended family of manuscripts.
These, however, are not written in Hebrew but Greek. Why Greek? As Alexander the Great swept across the Mediterranean and Near East in the mid-fourth century BCE, Hellenistic culture spread in his wake. Coinage, dress, architecture, infrastructure, sport, entertainment, and, yes, language were all part of the package. From advanced Greek philosophical thought to Greek graffiti, this ripple effect touched every level of society, including religion. Jews in and beyond their home turf in Judea were now part of this Hellenistic cultural context. This sparked the desire and need to render Hebrew Scriptures into Greek.
The LXX is the single most ambitious translation enterprise of antiquity. Period. The effort began in the third century BCE with the Pentateuch—Genesis through Deuteronomy. By the turn of the Common Era, all the other writings of the Hebrew Scriptures, as well as several other ancient Jewish writings, had donned Greek garb, either through translation or composition.4 Here we need to keep in mind that, like the DSS, the LXX is not a single collection, object, or artifact.
While we have Greek LXX papyrus fragments at a number of sites and among many collections, our most complete texts of the LXX are the Christian codices of the fourth and fifth centuries CE, such as Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, and Alexandrinus. In addition to the New Testament, these codices also include Greek versions of the Hebrew Scriptures and writings from the Apocrypha, or Deuterocanon.
The DSS discoveries revealed that LXX traditions were very much part of the scriptural world of Qumran and Judea in the Hellenistic period. The DSS include fragmentary copies of several Greek translations of books in the Hebrew Scriptures (for example, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, and the Minor Prophets), snippets of materials received in the Apocrypha, or Deuterocanon (such as the epistle of Jeremiah), and even a few fragments of Greek translations of Aramaic literature, typically dubbed “pseudepigrapha” (like 1 Enoch). Cave 7 contained only Greek texts.
Prior to the discovery of the DSS, the translators of Greek texts were often caricatured. It was assumed that where the Greek texts departed from known Hebrew texts, these divergences were due to the translator being either careless or overly creative. Yet the DSS include Hebrew texts that reflect the structure, shape, and content of the type of texts behind Greek translations. To put it another way, where the LXX seems to go in its own direction, the DSS often authenticate those readings in a now known ancient Hebrew text. Such insights indicate the Greek translators weren’t reckless; rather, they were reliable conduits for the tradition.
The DSS fragments, then, give new insight into the production of Greek translations and their reception in a known Jewish community. Our Hebrew scriptural scrolls also help us rethink the process of Greek translations in ancient Judaism.
The Samaritan Pentateuch: another Jewish canon
The Samaritan Pentateuch (SP) refers to a particular form of scripture received by a particular expression of Judaism. Today, Samaritan Judaism includes approximately eight hundred followers, living largely in the Qiryat Luza region on Mount Gerizim and the urban area of Hola, near Tel Aviv.5
Despite the small size of this community, their scriptural tradition is significant. Scholars debate the date of the SP as a scriptural collection. Our earliest hints of the tradition come from Origen’s third-century CE Hexapla, which nods to a Greek translation of the Samaritan Scriptures known as the Samareitikon, although the SP tradition is likely centuries older.6
What defines the SP textual tradition? Samaritan Scripture is narrower in scope than all other canons. It includes only five books: Genesis through Deuteronomy. But the content and structure of the SP are distinctive.
The SP has a signature theological overlay of textual variants that reflect key aspects of Samaritan belief and practice. For example, Deuteronomy 27:4 in the SP says that on crossing the Jordan the Israelites built an altar at Mount Gerizim, not Mount Ebal. Similarly, Deuteronomy 12:14 subtly swaps verb tenses from “the place that the Lord your God will choose” (that is, Jerusalem) to “the place that the Lord your God has chosen” (that is, Shechem). In these examples, the SP reframes the scriptural basis to support the origins and ongoing worship of God at significant sites for Samaritan Judaism.
The structure of the SP is also noteworthy. It results from a creative editorial approach to Scripture: scribes of the SP tradition often thematically rearranged related sections of Scripture to achieve cogency, harmonized parallel passages to enhance consistency, and augmented law and narrative to ensure coherence.
But we knew all of this about the Samaritan Scripture before the DSS. What we didn’t know was how far back into the Second Temple period some of these features extended.
On one hand, the DSS don’t include any sectarian variants. This means there are no variant readings at Qumran that are theologically motivated to legitimate the thought and practice of the group that penned or preserved the scrolls, whereas the theological overlay of the SP is an innovation of Samaritan culture.7 Yet beneath this overlay, the SP includes variants that agree with the MT and the LXX, making it an important text-critical conversation partner.8
On the other hand, the Qumran materials reveal that the SP’s editorial approach has deep roots. Scrolls like 4QpaleoExodusm, 4QNumbersb, and 4QPentateuch—which predate the SP—also feature shuffled, reconfigured, extended, and harmonized passages. Apparently the SP inherited this intensive style of interaction with Scripture from earlier scribal cultures. Molly Zahn concluded that this suggests the editorial strategies in both the SP and our pre-SP texts at Qumran go beyond “a single editorial moment.”9 They are part of a larger story.
In these ways, Samaritan Scripture is integral for retracing both the formation and reception of the Pentateuch in and beyond the Second Temple era.
3 examples of how the Dead Sea Scrolls impact modern translations
Now that we’ve met the main textual traditions from the past that help us write the biography of the Bible, let’s explore some details in that story that need to be rewritten because of the DSS.
To illustrate the potential of the DSS for text criticism of the Hebrew Scriptures, we’ll work through three case studies of increasing complexity and impact. Admittedly, this is a highly selective sample. There are literally thousands of variant readings when the DSS are compared with other known biblical traditions.10 Alongside this variety, of course, there is also remarkable continuity.
Our journey will involve the restoration of a single yet profound word from Isaiah 53:11 in 1QIsaiaha, the recovery of a lost sentence from Psalm 145:13 in 11QPsalmsa, and the renovation of an entire paragraph from 1 Samuel 10:27 in 4QSamuela. Along the way, we’ll compare these verses in different ancient manuscripts and track their impact on modern English Bible translations. To keep you motivated, at least one of these will involve a sadistic, eyeball-gouging king. Be on your guard.
1. “He will see light” in Isaiah 53:11
Sometimes a small discovery makes a big difference. That’s the case with a variant reading in Isaiah 53:11 found in the DSS. The verse comes in the last of Isaiah’s series of servant songs (Isa 52:13–53:12). These oracles speak of a figure emerging to lead the nations who is tragically afflicted, abused, and abased.
But does a single word—a tiny textual variant—matter at all in the earliest formation of this historic passage? Let’s work through our witnesses to Isaiah 53:11 and find out. The MT reads this way:
As a result of the anguish of his soul, he will see and be satisfied; by his knowledge the righteous one, my servant, will justify the many, as he will bear their iniquities. (NASB, with slight revision)
Suffering, bearing sin, downward spiral. Almost Stoic. Certainly sad. When we wind back the clock, however, our earliest witnesses to this verse find light on the horizon. Hope. The LXX here reads:
from the pain of his soul, to show him light [φῶς] and fill him with understanding, to justify a righteous one who is well subject to many, and he himself shall bear their sins. (NETS)
In this take on Isaiah 53:11, the Greek Scriptures still feature a suffering servant—yet there’s a new outlook. Somehow, through suffering, the figure will find illumination: “light.” Prior to the DSS, it would have been easy to write off this variant as late, a mere invention attributed to the Greek translator, not the Hebrew text before him. The DSS, however, overturned this idea.
All three of our Hebrew witnesses to Isaiah 53:11 at Qumran read the word light. This includes both of our famous Cave 1 manuscripts (1QIsaiaha–b) as well as a more fragmentary text from Cave 4 (4QIsaiahd). The single word is significant. Here’s how the passage reads in the Great Isaiah Scroll of Cave 1:
Out of the suffering of his soul he will see light [אור] and find satisfaction. And through his knowledge his servant, the righteous one, will make many righteous, and he will bear their iniquities. (1QIsaiaha 44:19)
As VanderKam and Flint remarked, the Qumran Isaiah scrolls show “that the early Hebrew text used by the Septuagint translator actually contained the word light, and provides a new reading for exegesis of the passage.”11 Still suffering. Still bearing sin. Still a spiral. Only now, this individual’s satisfaction is in seeing light beyond the present darkness.
But does this new insight into Isaiah 53:11 change what the verse means? Perhaps. For example, in view of other ancient Jewish texts associating light imagery with divine presence (such as 1 Enoch 92:3–4), Klaus Baltzer commented that, if Isaiah’s servant “can see the ‘light,’ he has been judged worthy to enter into the immediate presence of God; he has been received into the company of the heavenly beings.”12 In effect, the once-downward spiral has become an elevation.
This ancient variant has had a contemporary payoff in many modern English translations. Several have adopted and integrated the “light” reading as original (CSV, NIV, NRSV), while others nod to it as a possible reading for consideration (ESV, HCSB, LEB, NASB, NKJV)—all thanks to the DSS and LXX. In the case of Isaiah 53:11, the unexpected discovery of a single word in our Isaiah scrolls at once authenticated the Hebrew text behind the ancient Greek translation and enhanced many modern Bibles by restoring a term that had been lost or overlooked for two thousand years.
2. Recovering a full sentence in Psalm 145:13
If a single word matters, surely a full sentence would make an even greater impact. This is the case for Psalm 145:13 in 11QPsalmsa, a fragmentary text dated to the mid-first century CE.13
In the MT, this psalm is an incomplete acrostic. Where we would expect a verse starting with the Hebrew letter nun (the equivalent of the English N), there simply isn’t one. It’s missing. Our Cave 11 Psalms scroll, however, provides a more complete picture, one that was already hinted at by a fuller verse in the LXX and at least one medieval manuscript (Kennicott manuscript 142). 11QPsalmsa includes the lost verse—exactly where we’d expect it. This ancient text presents Psalm 145:13 as follows, with the recovered nun line presented in italics in the translation below:
Your kingdom is an everlasting kingdom, and your dominion endures throughout all generations. Blessed be the Lord and blessed be his name forever and ever. God is faithful in his words, and gracious in all his deeds. (11QPsalmsa 17:1–3)14
What does this detail do for us? Psalm 145 paints a brilliant theological portrait of God. The first half highlights his lofty reputation. Verse 13, however, marks a shift. Our nun verse is the final statement on the divine character before a section affirming God’s promises, provision, and preservation of the faithful. Psalm 145:13, therefore, hinges toward content that underscores God’s reliability. Or, as Goldingay put it, the more complete divine portrait provided by the DSS and LXX reassures us of “the moral qualities of this being who is trustworthy … and committed in word and deed.”15
The newly discovered sentence has been accepted in more modern Bible translations than any other variant reading in the entire DSS collection. To give a sense of the scope of this acceptance, the variant of 11QPsalmsa has found a home in the main text of the ESV, CSB, NAB, NIV, NJB, NLT, NRSV, REB, RSV, and TNIV. Several others give the variant reading honorable mention in the footnotes.
This updating-Scripture-to-make-it-more-ancient, however, is not only about a restored text. It’s about recovering the full theological vision of Psalm 145—a vision that existed before the discovery of the DSS as but a minority report in a few minor medieval manuscripts. We should celebrate this textual discovery. It’s a big deal. But not bigger than the theological reality it points toward. Scripture is always about more than the words on the page. The invitation of this variant is to reestablish the text to open new vistas of its theology.
We should celebrate this textual discovery. It’s a big deal. But not bigger than the theological reality it points toward. Scripture is always about more than the words on the page.
3. A narrative gap filled in 1 Samuel 10:27
Our final example comes from 1 Samuel 10:27 in 4QSamuela. This first-century BCE manuscript includes a full paragraph of previously unknown material—the largest and longest difference found in the Hebrew Scripture texts at Qumran. Given its scope, the reading is also controversial.
Let’s get a bit of backstory on the passage before we recover a new insight from an old manuscript. Though God is reluctant—after all, he is their king—1 Samuel 8:7–9 relates how God relents and gives the twelve tribes a king: Saul. However, as Saul emerges, the response is mixed. Some proclaim, “Long live the king!” (1 Sam 10:24). Yet the chapter ends on a somber and disapproving note:
But certain useless men said, “How can this one save us?” And they despised him and did not bring him a gift. But he kept silent about it. (1 Sam 10:27 NASB)
Then, without missing a beat, 1 Samuel 11:1–2 reads:
Now Nahash the Ammonite went up and besieged Jabesh-gilead; and all the men of Jabesh said to Nahash, “Make a covenant with us and we will serve you.” But Nahash the Ammonite said to them, “I will make it with you on this condition, that I will gouge out the right eye of every one of you, and thereby I will inflict a disgrace on all Israel.’” (NASB)
Wait, what? How did we go from present-less party crashers to a sadistic, eyeball-collecting Ammonite king? The narrative as it stands in most manuscripts is glitchy and jarring.
But 4QSamuela tells a different story—a more complete story. Right between 1 Samuel 10:27 and 11:1, this Cave 4 manuscript includes the following interlude:
Nahash king of the [A]mmonites oppressed the Gadites and the Reubenites viciously. He put out the right [ey]e of a[ll] of them and brought fe[ar and trembling] on [Is]rael. Not one of the Israelites in the region be[yond the Jordan] remained [whose] right eye Naha[sh king of] the Ammonites did n[ot pu]t out, except seven thousand men [who escaped from] the Ammonites and went to [Ja]besh-Gilead. (4Q51 10a:6–9)
This section certainly makes for a more intelligible sequence.
And sure, it’s ancient. But is it original? 4QSamuela is the only known manuscript to include this paragraph-long passage. It’s also our oldest copy of the book.
Sometimes the most illuminating insights on biblical texts come from non-biblical sources. In this case, it’s our old friend, Josephus. When in Antiquities of the Jews Josephus retells the tale of Saul’s ascendancy to the throne and his eventual overthrowing the Ammonites, he includes an extensive introduction to Nahash and an account of his eyeball-collecting covenant (Ant. 6.68–72). Apparently Josephus’s scriptural sources in the first century CE also included this lost paragraph. This is a powerful tag team. Our earliest manuscript attests to the paragraph in this passage, and one of our earliest interpreters of the passage is also aware of its existence.16
So it was part of scriptural traditions then. But should it impact Bibles now? With a variant of this scope and significance, not everyone agrees. At present, only the NRSV and NLT include this paragraph in translation.
Conclusion
The DSS have changed, and will continue to change, the text of the Hebrew Scriptures. Whether it’s a restored word, recovered sentence, or renegotiated paragraph, the text-critical advances and updates made possible by the DSS make our modern Scriptures more ancient. These changes are akin to artistic restoration. They are positive and undertaken with great care, study, and discernment. If Scripture matters, we should rise to the challenge of making the right restorations thoughtfully, carefully, meaningfully.
But when it comes to the potential of the DSS for the Hebrew Scriptures, we can’t underscore changes without affirming continuity. Traditionally, text criticism emphasizes differences between manuscripts and traditions. Yet it’s easy to lose sight of the remarkable consistency that defines much of the transmission history of biblical manuscripts from antiquity down through the medieval period. As James VanderKam commented, the differences between the DSS and other known manuscript traditions, like the MT, “are indeed numerous though frequently very slight, often ones that do not affect the meaning of the text for most purposes (e.g., spelling changes, omission or addition of a conjunction).”17
Variant readings might make us think differently about the formation of texts and even cause us to see differences in the information in texts. But what we aren’t seeing is an entirely different text. Most often, our manuscripts agree. If anything, the case studies above underscore the value of the DSS for supplementing new details to the larger picture we already knew about from countless other witnesses to the Hebrew Scriptures. Continuity is certainly part of the equation.
This article is adapted from Andrew B. Perrin, Lost Words and Forgotten Worlds: Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Academic, 2025).
Resources on the Dead Sea Scrolls
Lost Words and Forgotten Worlds: Rediscovering the Dead Sea Scrolls
Regular price: $25.99
Mobile Ed: NT306 The Dead Sea Scrolls and the New Testament (5 hour course)
Regular price: $189.99
Related articles
- The Dead Sea Scrolls: 9 Common Questions, Answered
- The Dramatic Discovery and Forced Release of the Dead Sea Scrolls
- How to Study the Dead Sea Scrolls in Logos
- 4 Ways Textual Criticism Can Aid Bible Study
- The Holy Bible: Revised Standard Version (Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1952), iv.
- There were no New Testament books found at Qumran, so the conversations around biblical scrolls refer to those writings that contain texts and traditions relevant to the Hebrew Bible and Old Testament.
- For the origins and features of the MT tradition, see Emanuel Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 4th ed. (Fortress Press, 1992), 24–74.
- For more on the historical setting of the earliest Greek translations, see Karen Jobes and Moisés Silva, Invitation to the Septuagint, 2nd ed. (Baker Academic, 2015), 29–44. For another excellent introduction to the content and significance of the LXX, see Timothy Michael Law, When God Spoke Greek: The Septuagint and the Making of the Christian Bible (Oxford University Press, 2013). For English translations of the Septuagint, see Albert Pietersma and Benjamin G. Wright, eds., A New English Translation of the Septuagint with Alternate Texts (Oxford University Press, 2007), and Ken M. Penner et al., eds., The Lexham English Septuagint (Lexham Press, 2020).
- For the social, archaeological, and historical background of Samaritan Judaism, see Gary N. Knoppers, Jews and Samaritans: The Origins and History of Their Early Relations (Oxford University Press, 2013); and Reinhard Pummer, The Samaritans: A Profile (Eerdmans, 2016).
- On the dating of SP texts and traditions, see Robert T. Anderson and Terry Giles, The Samaritan Pentateuch: An Introduction to Its Origin, History, and Significance for Biblical Studies (Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 137–46; and Timothy Lim, “The Emergence of the Samaritan Pentateuch,” in Andrew B. Perrin, Kyung S. Baek, and Daniel K. Falk, eds., Reading the Bible in Ancient Traditions and Modern Editions: Studies in Memory of Peter W. Flint (Society of Biblical Literature, 2017), 89–104.
- Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible (Brill, 2017), 169–86.
- VanderKam and Flint noted that of the some six thousand variants between the SP and the MT, nineteen hundred agree with the LXX. See James C. VanderKam and Peter W. Flint, The Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls (HarperSanFrancisco, 2002), 92.
- Molly M. Zahn, “The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Scribal Culture of Second Temple Judaism,” Journal for the Study of Judaism 46, no. 3 (2015): 308. For additional examples of the editorial features of the SP and their heritage in select Qumran manuscripts, see Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 81–93.
- For the complete data in the original languages, see Eugene Ulrich, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls, Vetus Testamentum Supplements 134 (Brill, 2010). To encounter the forms of scripture at Qumran with variant readings in English translation, see Martin Abegg Jr., Peter Flint, and Eugene Ulrich, trans., The Dead Sea Scrolls Bible (HarperCollins, 1999).
- VanderKam and Flint, Meaning of the Dead Sea Scrolls, 133.
- Klaus Baltzer, Deutero-Isaiah, Hermenia (Fortress Press, 2001), 423–24. Other commentaries confirming the text-critical impact of the “light” reading in the DSS and LXX include: John N. Oswalt, The Book of Isaiah, 2 vols., New International Commentary on the Old Testament (Eerdmans, 1986–1998), 2:399, and Shalom M. Paul, Isaiah 40–66: A Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Eerdmans, 2012), 411–12.
- James A. Sanders, The Dead Sea Psalms Scroll (Cornell University Press, 1967), 10.
- The phrase “Blessed be the Lord and blessed be his name forever and ever” is also a noticeable difference from other witnesses. Variations on this phrase feature throughout Psalm 145 in 11QPsalmsa as a sort of recurring motif or rhythmic marker. Features like this suggest that 11QPsalmsa may have functioned in liturgy. For discussion on this point, see Peter W. Flint, The Dead Sea Psalms Scrolls and the Book of Psalms (Brill Academic, 1997), 209.
- John Goldingay, Psalms for Everyone, Part 2: Psalms 73–150 (Westminster John Knox, 2014), 3:702. As with the Isaiah 53:11 variant, not everyone agrees on the originality of the nun verse in Psalm 145. For views and debates, see by Erich Zenger and Frank-Lothar Hossfeld, Psalms 3: A Commentary on Psalms 101–150, Hermenia (Fortress Press, 2011), 144–45.
- This isn’t the only place where Josephus and the scriptural DSS join forces to provide us with new insight into the scope and shape of Scripture in ancient Judaism. The Greek LXX and Hebrew MT often reflect what is now known as a shorter version of the book of Joshua. While 4QJoshuaa (dated to about 100 BCE) shares many details with the LXX and MT, it also reveals important differences in structure and scope. Most notably, this manuscript includes the sequence of building an altar right after the entry into the promised land in Joshua 5:2–7; 8:34–35. This sequence also appears in Josephus’s retelling of the Joshua narrative (Ant. 5.16–20), which suggests the text he worked with also had the order of events as now known from the Qumran Cave 4 text of Joshua.
- James C. VanderKam, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Bible (Eerdmans, 2012), 7.
Mark Ward
Dustin Burlet
Rick Mansfield