Example #4, Joshua 21:36-37 ( Part III, Case Studies in Interpolation in the series: Is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 an interpolation?)

Case #2: Joshua 21:34-40 KJV
34-35 And unto the families of the children of Merari, the rest of the Levites, out of the tribe of Zebulun, Jokneam with her suburbs, and Kartah with her suburbs, Dimnah with her suburbs, Nahalal with her suburbs; four cities.
36-37 And out of the tribe of Reuben, Bezer with her suburbs, and Jahazah with her suburbs, Kedemoth with her suburbs, and Mephaath with her suburbs; four cities.
38-39 And out of the tribe of Gad, Ramoth in Gilead with her suburbs, to be a city of refuge for the slayer; and Mahanaim with her suburbs, Heshbon with her suburbs, Jazer with her suburbs; four cities in all.
40 So all the cities for the children of Merari by their families, which were remaining of the families of the Levites, were by their lot twelve cities.


1 Chronicles 6:77-81 KJV
77-78a Unto the rest of the children of Merari were given out of the tribe of Zebulun, Rimmon with her suburbs, Tabor with her suburbs: And on the other side Jordan by Jericho, on the east side of Jordan, were given them
78b-79 out of the tribe of Reuben, Bezer in the wilderness with her suburbs, and Jahzah with her suburbs, Kedemoth also with her suburbs, and Mephaath with her suburbs:
80-81 And out of the tribe of Gad; Ramoth in Gilead with her suburbs, and Mahanaim with her suburbs, and Heshbon with her suburbs, and Jazer with her suburbs.

In today's example, we at last arrive at a situation very similar to 1 Corinthians 14:34-35. The alleged interpolation in question is a two-verse passage in the printed Hebrew Bible, but found only as a marginal note in most manuscripts of the Masoretic Text. In other words, it's something that has been brought into the text from the margin--the very thing that's been alleged of the Corinthian passage. It's not hard to see where this interpolation originated: it was lifted word-for word from 1 Chronicles 6:78-79. The only difference is the word b'midbar (in the wilderness) in the latter (but this is present in the Greek and Latin versions of the former).  But there are good reasons not to treat this as an interpolation, as we shall see once we run it through our checklist:

1. - abrupt changes in the subject matter or interruptions in an otherwise continuous train of thought;
2. - seeming inconsistencies or contradictions that conflict with other material in the document;
3. - the presence of certain formulae in supposedly inappropriate or uncustomary contexts;
4. - repetition of redundant elements or perceived changes in tone or style;
5. - the supposed assumption by the writer of different circumstances on the part of the intended audience;
6 - the perceived character of the manuscripts that don't contain the alleged interpolation;
7 - the variety of readings in the manuscripts that do contain the alleged interpolation.


1, 2, 3, 4, 5. No. If anything, it is the absence of the alleged interpolation from the context that creates a jarring effect. Note that the total of towns given in v. 40 depends on the presence of the information in vv. 36-37. 
6. Interestingly enough, even though the Masoretes faithfully transmitted a text without the interpolation, they weren't able to keep hundreds of scribes from moving them back into the text from the margin. But the Targums don't have it, so the omission, if there was one, goes back quite a ways.
7. Looking at other textual traditions, we see that the Greek and Latin copies have the interpolation--but it clearly wasn't translated directly from the Hebrew margin into either one.

The printed LXX reads (but with verses 36-45 renumbered as in the printed Masoretic Text),

34-35 And to the family of the sons of Merari the Levites that remained, out of the tribe of Zabulon, Maan and its suburbs; and Kades and its suburbs, and Sella and its suburbs: three cities. And beyond the Jordan by Jericho,
36  out of the tribe of Rouben, the city of the refuge for the slayer, Bosor in the wilderness; Miso and its suburbs; and Jazer and its suburbs; and Dekmon, and its suburbs; and Mafa, and its suburbs; four cities.
37 And out of the tribe of Gad the city of refuge for the slayer, both Ramoth in Galaad, and its suburbs; Kamin and its suburbs; and Esbon and its suburbs; and Jazer and its suburbs: the cities four in all. 
38 All cities to the sons of Merari according to the families of them that were left out of the tribe of Levi; and their limits were the twelve cities.

The printed Vulgate follows the Hebrew text, but with 2 verses in the margin and the rest renumbered:

34-35 And to the children of Merari, Levites of the inferior degree, by their families were given of the tribe of Zabulon, Jecnam and Cartha, And Damna and Naalol, four cities with their suburbs. Of the tribe of Ruben beyond the Jordan over against Jericho,  
36 Bosor in the wilderness, one of the cities of refuge, Misor and Jaser and Jethson and Mephaath, four cities with their suburbs.
37 Of the tribe of Gad, Ramoth in Galaad, one of the cities of refuge, and Manaim  and Hesebon and Jaser, four cities with their suburbs,
38 All the cities of the children of Merari, by their families and kindreds, were twelve.
 
Wycliffe located the two verses after verse 39 (the last location in which the math would still work), which indicates that they were brought in from the margin of his vorlage. His translation reads:

34-35 Sotheli to the sones of Merary, dekenes of the lowere degree, bi her meynees, was govun Getheran, of the linage of Zabulon, and Charcha, and Demna, and Nalol; foure citees, with her subarbis.
38-39 And of the lynage of Gad, he gaf the citee of refugt, Ramoth in Galaad, and Manaym, and Esebon, and Jaser; foure citees, with her subarbis.
36-37 And of the lynage of Ruben, biyende Jordan, agens Jerico, he gaf the citee of refugt, Bosor in the wildirnesse of Mysor, and Jazer, and Jecson, and Maspha; foure citees, with her subarbis.
40 Alle the citees of Merary, bi her meynees and kynredis, weren twelve.
This alleged interpolation is an excellent example of what happens when a reading thought to have been original gets put into the margin of one manuscript, and thence into the margin of some of its copies, and into the text of others. It's also possible for some copies to have both, although I'm not yet aware of such a situation with this interpolation. But we have an advantage in this case, because due to a couple of factors, we can be absolutely sure that this passage was original to the book of Joshua.

Note, first of all, the math story problem. Four cities plus four cities equals twelve cities--true or false? True, if you leave out verses 36-37. But including the four cities of the alleged interpolation yields the correct answer of twelve, given in v.7 and v. 40. Note that of the parallel passages, only Joshua includes the check-sums--with a grand total of 48 also given in v. 41. 

Secondly, note how verses 35 and 37 end:  "with her suburbs; four cities." And again, note how verses 36 and 38 begin: "and out of the tribe of." This is a rare combination of homoioarcton and homoioteleuton, the two causes of parablepsis leading to haplography. To translate that into simple English, this was an omission just waiting to happen, as the eye of the scribe jumped from just before the omitted passage to just after it. And happen it did: so early on in the stream of manuscript transmission that the exact wording of these two verses may have been lost forever. But rest assured--the basic text can be reconstructed with the help of the parallel passage, and that is in fact what appears to have happened. 

On the one hand, scribes were loathe to transmit a text that violated the principles of mathematics. But on the other hand, they were reluctant to so boldly interpolate with text from a parallel passage that may not be verbatim what was missing. So we have a lot of one or the other, and sometimes a little of both--resulting in the entire passage being re-inserted a little farther down the page. This can easily be accounted for by the fact that a marginal reading would take up enough of the margin that, should it be inserted into the text adjacent to the beginning of the marginal note, it would enter the text at one location, but should it be inserted next to the end of the interpolation, it would enter the text some verses later in the text. Scribes didn't always know which was which, which would sometimes result in a slight dislocation of the interpolation upon re-insertion.  Another scribe, however, may be convinced that another location, perhaps many pages away, would be more suitable due to a perceived better fit to the context. There are examples of this phenomenon in both Testaments.

To re-cap: Sometimes, due to predicable scribal errors, a passage of various length can be deleted from the text in the course of transmission from one manuscript to another. Upon discovery of this error, the text will be written into the margin of the deficient manuscript, approximately adjacent to its proper location. Finally, this manuscript is then copied by a scribe who takes it upon himself to re-insert the deleted material into where he thinks it belongs in the text--which may be the right spot, may be a few verses off, or may possibly even be many pages away, but in a parallel passage where it seems to fit the context. To determine whether the material in question has been recovered, reconstructed, or interpolated out of whole cloth, one must seek for a clear verdict from the internal and external evidence.

And NOW we are finally ready to take a direct look at the alleged interpolation in First Corinthians Fourteen. Maybe. 

Last Warning: Persio-Israeli War imminent

The imminence of the Persio-Israeli war can be measured by the exposure it is finally getting in the major media. A few salient points:

1. The majority of Americans polled support the US coming to the defense of Israel if it attacks Iran. They'd better, because at that point the US will be at war whether it wants to be or not.
2. Former US Ambassador Bolton says Israel has a narrowing window to take out Iran's Bushehr nuclear reactor before it goes online this weekend--or perhaps as late as the end of the month.
3. The US has completed the withdrawal of "all its combat troops" from Iraq. Where are they headed?

Need gas in your tank? Now would be a good time to fill up. And hang on to your gold.

Example #3, Judges 18:30 and 2 Kings 9:4 (Part III, Case Studies in Interpolation in the series: Is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 an interpolation?

It really strikes me as incredible how Bible translators can be so confident that the Majority Text of the New Testament is riddled with interpolations, yet seem totally incapable of identifying any in the Majority Text of the Old Testament. This despite the fact that the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament is clearly a recension, its oldest manuscripts being up to a thousand years less ancient than the manuscripts that don't support its alleged interpolations.

Just to give one example of an interpolation that Bible translators have been slow to expunge from their texts, look at Judges 18:30, where the identity of the Levite who led the tribe of Dan into idolatry is disclosed. What's his grandfather's name in your Bible? If it's "Manasseh," you're looking at an interpolation which consists of but a single letter, the Hebrew letter nun. That it was not in the original text is obvious by the fact that the Masoretes faithfully copied it down through the centuries suspended above the line of text, as if to say:

We recognize that the text here originally read משה, but that would spell "Moses," and we can't bring ourselves to admit that a grandson of our Great Legislator could have so easily fallen into idolatry, so we'll go ahead and call him מנשה instead.

Had the Masoretes not been so scrupulously honest, we may have never identified the interpolation here, and thought the many manuscripts that read משה to be victims of scribal parablepsis. But it was the translators of the KJV who fell victim instead to the most blatant Orthodox Corruption in the entire Bible. The tendency over the past century and a half, however, is to fix "Moses" firmly in the text, though all but the most paraphrastic of versions, The Message, at least dignify the obvious interpolation with a footnote admitting that the Masoretic Text reads "Manasseh." This despite the fact that at the other end of Codex Alexandrinus, which reads "Moses" here--as do many manuscripts in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin--they bow to its sole authority in the deletion of a key pronoun from Revelation 5:9--a deletion that causes them to forge a conjecture in its place--without ever so much as grudgingly admitting that "some mss read 'us'."

Now, on to the point of today's post. I mentioned in the previous post the likelihood that a scribe could add a note in the margin, never intending to interpolate the text itself. As the process goes on, a later scribe then copies the manuscript, marginal note and all. A still later scribe, seeing the marginal text in the manuscript before him, assumes that it had earlier been inadvertently omitted from his copy, and--as he thinks--inserts it back into the text. Numerous examples of this process have been alleged, but who is to say in which cases Step #1 did in fact occur, or in what cases the process actually began with Step #3? I will give the reader two cases of alleged interpolation, and allow him to sort out the likelihood of which was which.

Case #1: 2 Kings 9:4

Hyperliteral
And goes the lad the lad the prophet Ramoth Gilead.

Literal
So the young man the young man the prophet went to Ramoth Gilead.

Can you spot the interpolation? It's easy to see how it came about. Here is how the original text would have read:

and goes the lad Ramoth Gilead.
or
So the young man went to Ramoth Gilead.

A scribe with an editorial bent wanted the reader to know that the young man in question was one of the prophets ('disciples of the prophets' in v. 1). So he made a marginal note, similar to those in any Bible today, giving a marginal explanation of a word in the text. But since they had no superscripted letters or numerals in those days, nor chapter and verse references, the way to call attention to a particular word in the text was to write it again in the margin--as, of course, is still done today. For example:

Text: So the young man^[a] went to Ramoth Gilead.
Margin: ^[a]v.4 the young man: that is, the prophet

Take away the superscript letter, the reference, and "that is," and you have the reconstructed reading of a hypothesized exemplar. All it took to get from that, to the reading before us today, was for a subsequent scribe to--rather stupidly, we can all clearly see--bring the entire marginal reading, reference and all, "back into" the text--where it made what would have been an understandable text into a puzzle of redundancy--a redundancy passed on down through the ages by the ever-faithful Masoretes. Stupid as that scribe may have seemed, he was no doubt slavishly obeying his instructions to restore all marginal readings that had been deleted from the text. Applied to most modern translations, this approach would result in a much improved text in the New Testament, but we find it still perpetuating ancient corruptions in the Old Testament, such as the doubly redundant text we end up with here:

So the young man^[a] the young man: the prophet went to Ramoth Gilead.

We couldn't ask for a much clearer example of inadvertent interpolation than this. But how do the Bible translators handle it? Well, one would think from reading the fruit of their efforts that either they do not believe it possible for a biblical manuscript to contain an interpolation, or that they are unaware that the science of textual criticism even exists. So what if no Hebrew Manuscript can be found with the conjectured original reading? It is obvious on its face that the present reading is corrupted, and just as obvious exactly what it would take to fix it. We all do this sort of thing all the time when reading the daily paper: spot a scribal error so obvious that there is no doubt in anyone's mind what the original would have read.

But here's how a sampling of how Bible translators handle the awkwardness of the original reading (all spellings standardised):

Targum (Gill): the young man, a disciple of the prophets
Septuagint (Brenton): the young man the prophet
Vulgate (White Man): young man, boy of prophet
Wycliffe: the young waxing man, the child of the prophet
Douay (as Clarke): the young man, the servant of the prophet
King James: the young man, even the young man the Prophet
ERV/ASV: the young man, even the young man the prophet
Darby: the young man, the young prophet

Thus the translators of centuries previous to the last. No one recognized the interpolation for what it was, but took it to be some sort of appositive. To the checklist!

1. - abrupt changes in the subject matter or interruptions in an otherwise continuous train of thought;
2. - seeming inconsistencies or contradictions that conflict with other material in the document;
3. - the presence of certain formulae in supposedly inappropriate or uncustomary contexts;
4. - repetition of redundant elements or perceived changes in tone or style;
5. - the supposed assumption by the writer of different circumstances on the part of the intended audience;
6 - the perceived character of the manuscripts that don't contain the alleged interpolation;
7 - the variety of readings in the manuscripts that do contain the alleged interpolation.

1) Yes. The second 'young man' is one that all the translators try to make fit, in a variety of ways, but it just doesn't.
2) Yes. The idea in some of the early translations that this was a servant of some specific prophet is inconsistent with the context.
3) Yes. The Targums' repeat of the "disciple(s) of the prophets" doesn't fit here like it did in verse one. He is subsequently always just referred to as "he" in the text.
4) Yes. A Hebrew word is repeated, which the Septuagint and subsequent translators took to be a dittography and just didn't translate it.
5) No. This is one of the rare interpolations with universal manuscript support of some level--even in the versions.
6) Yes. There is a lot of variety among the translators who grapple to make sense of the interpolation.

This case study should conclusively show that it isn't necessary to have manuscript support to allege an interpolation. Combining a knowledge of scribal tendencies with observation of a variety of readings is enough internal evidence to prove interpolation. It can safely be assumed that the only reason manuscript evidence is lacking is that the interpolation predates the earliest extant manuscripts.

Now we come to the translators of the last hundred years. Were they, with all their vast knowledge of interpolations that supposedly litter the landscape of the New Testament manuscripts, able to spot this one? Alas, they did no more than duplicate the diversity of ancient readings:

NASB, NKJV: the young man, the servant of the prophet (=Douay)
NRSV: the young man, the young prophet (=Darby)
NIV: the young man, the prophet (=LXX)
NLT, The Message, TNIV: the young prophet

This last reading is an interesting one. Faced with a double redundancy, the translators only threw out half of it--just as the LXX had done two thousand years before. But they still didn't catch that the man was only a disciple of the prophets. His authority was not directly from God, but mediate through, in this case, Elisha. He was a young man, but not a prophet! Every last translator fell hook, line, and sinker for the misguided marginal notation of a scribe whose work has been totally lost in the mists of antiquity. So here, for the first time*, I offer a translation of a reconstructed 2 Kings 9:4--

So the young man went to Ramoth-Gilead.

For the best documented case of this sort of interpolation happening in the New Testament, see here.

We'll get to the other case of alleged interpolation in the next post.

*UPDATE: I apologise for failing to note that the Catholic editors of The Jerusalem Bible preceded me by several decades, in  their English edition of 1968 (and perhaps as early as the French Edition of 1966):
"The young man left for Ramoth-gilead"
I now believe that these editors, who had a low view of inspiration, were the first to be able to break free from the foibles of the Masoretic Text, even where it was supported by all the versions. This, however, in contrast to their introductory claim to have "made full use of the ancient Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew texts."
At any rate, there truly is nothing new under the sun, despite our tendency to think ourselves first until an earlier claim emerges.

Example #2, 1 Samuel 13:1 (Part III, Case Studies in Interpolation; in the series "Is 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 an interpolation?")

"The-son of-a-year was Saul in his reigning, and years two he-reigned over Israel."

That's a hyperliteral translation of 1 Samuel 13:2. To bring it into conformity with standard English usage, we would have to change it to read:

"Saul was a year old when he began to reign, and he reigned two years over Israel."

Though the numbers of course vary, that is how this particular Hebrew regnal formula is always translated in the Historical Books. But you won't find it so translated here. Why not?

Well, everybody knows that Saul wasn't one when he became king, and that he reigned way more than two years over Israel. There are only three possible ways to account for the presence of this verse in First Samuel:

1) It was inspired as written, but needs to be interpreted allegorically. This was the position of the Masoretes who faithfully copied it down through the centuries. A corollary view is that it is inspired as it was divinely translated into English--thus blaming God twice--once for inspiring nonsense, and then again for inspiring a totally off-the wall translation of it.

2) It was originally written with two numbers that are now missing, which if still present would fit into the blanks to read as follows:
"Saul was __ years old when he became king, and he reigned __ty-two years over Israel." This is the approach taken by several modern versions. A pity they can't seem to agree on either of the numbers they provide. Well, they do generally appear to agree on forty-two for the second number, but claim to be basing this on the number in Acts 13:21, which isn't in fact forty-two, but just plain forty.

3. This is clearly an interpolation--probably originally penned into the margin, with blank spaces for the numbers, by a scribe who thought it a pity that Israel's first king had no regnal formula provided at the inception of his reign, and who expected to eventually find information elsewhere in order to fill in the blanks in his marginal notation. Later, a subsequent scribe went ahead and moved it into the text, with the unknown numbers still missing.

I think it should be obvious to the reader why the White Man rejects the first option. But I'll give a little more detail on why I reject the second as well.

Numbers are an easy thing to mess up when copying text, especially if they are not written out, as is often the case in ancient Scripture texts. Furthermore, since numbers were signified by alphabetical letters, it was possible to confuse a numeral with the letters of a word. To avoid seeming to write out the name of God, for example, scribes wrote the numeral 15 as if it were six-and-nine rather than five-and-ten.

But despite the propensity for writing the wrong numeral, a scribe seldom wrote no numeral at all. It's almost inconceivable that any scribal slip could result in the present reading of 1 Samuel 13:1, were that verse originally in the text.

And here we come to the crux of the matter: if it's an interpolation, it was never in the text to begin with. And the scenario I described is the most likely explanation for its present form in the text. I should add, though, that as far back as the so-called Lucianic Recension, manuscripts of 1 Samuel contained the interpolation, with numbers supplied. A pity the various recensions couldn't seem to agree on the numbers either.

But going even further back, we can locate a text of 1 Samuel that went directly from 12:25 to 13:2. There is external support for identifying this as an interpolation--external support, that is, only in translations of 1 Samuel--not in manuscripts of the Hebrew text itself. And, I propose, these are not needed; the internal evidence is sufficient to indicate an interpolation.

Let's run through the checklist:

1. - abrupt changes in the subject matter or interruptions in an otherwise continuous train of thought;
2. - seeming inconsistencies or contradictions that conflict with other material in the document;
3. - the presence of certain formulae in supposedly inappropriate or uncustomary contexts;
4. - repetition of redundant elements or perceived changes in tone or style;
5. - the supposed assumption by the writer of different circumstances on the part of the intended audience;
6 - the perceived character of the manuscripts that don't contain the alleged interpolation;
7 - the variety of readings in the manuscripts that do contain the alleged interpolation.

1) Yes. The regnal forumula usually occurs at the point a new king is brought into the narrative. Saul was introduced in chapter nine, anointed in chapter ten, acclaimed in chapter eleven, and installed in chapter twelve. Chapter thirteen starts a new section on his military exploits against the Philistines. 13:1 just doesn't fit.
2) Yes, the interpolation as preserved is inconsistent with what we know of Saul's age and length of rule.
3) Yes. Usually this formula includes the name of the King's mother. And it belongs at least a couple chapters back in the text anyway.
4) Yes, at least in the common English translation: "Saul reigned one year, and when he had reigned two years . . ." Total redundancy.
5) Yes. The intended audience expects the regnal formula, even for Israel's first king.
6) Yes. Most LXX mss don't contain it; only the five Lucianic mss do, and then with added numbers.
7) Yes. The Lucianic mss have age 30, the Syriac have age 21, the NEB conjectures 50, and the NASB 40. The number for the length of reign doesn't match the parallel passage.

So, there you have it--the highest-scoring alleged interpolation in the entire Bible. Yet not a single English Version--even those that think nothing of deleting one or two dozen verses from the New Testament based on the allegation that they had their basis in a Lucianic Recension--is willing to delete this Old Testament verse on the same basis. They consider it scripture, but they must twist both its text and its meaning to avoid sheer nonsense.

I think it's very safe to say that if 1 Samuel 13:1 isn't an interpolation, then 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 isn't one, either. But is that really saying anything?

Stay tuned for our next example.

The Morning After: An Israeli perspective

From now until the end of Ramadan, I plan to post a lot of updates on the buildup to the Persio-American War. Some may wonder why I don't refer to it as the Persio-Israeli War. Actually, that would be a good title too, as it will inevitably start out that way. But if attacked by Israel, Iran will certainly retaliate against the US, the flip side of what Saddam Hussein did in 1991. And Barack Hussein, like Franklin Roosevelt before him, will be quick to rise to the occasion, and valiantly lead the nation into another war. It's what the Democrat Party desperately needs going into the elections this November, and as their political fortunes continue to look bleaker, the chance of war breaking out is all the more certain.

Ze'ev Maoz writes, in the linked article:

One of the less discussed aspects of a possible Israeli attack on Iran is the international community's response. A plausible scenario that should be taken into account is the possibility of massive international pressure on Israel. This would consist of American pressure (assuming the attack is carried out without the United States' agreement) for disarming from the nuclear weapons Israel supposedly has, or to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and subject its nuclear facilities to the International Atomic Energy Agency's supervision.

The Israelis are obviously prepared to go ahead even without U.S. support. But rest assured, as long as the Democrats control the only body in the U.S. constitutionally empowered to declare war, that isn't likely to happen. Rumor already has it that Central Command has been ordered to let any Israeli aircraft that enter its airspace to proceed unmolested.