Interpolations and Textual Corruptions: The Blurry Lines

written by Bart D Erhman

After the past two posts, I am now in a position to answer the question that led to this brief hiatus in my discussion of the afterlife, involving the first two chapters of the Gospel of Luke.  To refresh your memory, here is the question:

QUESTION:

If, in your suspicion, the original Gospel of Luke began at 3:1 and the infancy narrative found in 1:5-2:52 is a later addition, do you think that should be indicated in NT reconstructions and translations in a way similar to how Mark 16:9-20 is often bracketed?

RESPONSE:

Different scholars will have different opinions on this question, in no small measure because the majority of scholars (I would imagine) are reluctant to say that Luke 1-2 were originally lacking from the Gospel.   But suppose the majority were convinced?   Would they say that brackets should be placed around the story, as happens, typically, with passages otherwise recognized as probably not belonging in the New Testament, such as the ending of Mark’s Gospel (Mark 16:9-20) or the story of the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) or the passage that affirms the doctrine of the Trinity in 1 John, called the “Johannine comma” (1 John 5:7-8)?

I think the answer is almost certainly “no,” and for a technical but important reason that involves the difference between two widely recognized phenomena whose technical names are “textual corruption” and “interpolation.”

These are two different phenomena, and even though the boundaries between them can be blurred and blurry at times, it is important (in most scholars’ views) to keep them distinct in one’s mind.

A textual corruption is …

A textual corruption is the alteration of a text made by a scribe after the book was put into circulation in its “final” form by an author or an editor.  In other words, it involves a passage (there are many thousands of them, of course) that a scribe has clearly changed, as evidenced by the fact that we have different manuscripts that have different forms of the text, one set of manuscripts with one way of wording a passage (a paragraph, a sentence, a verse, a word, whatever) and one or more other sets of manuscripts with a different wording.

Textual critics are principally concerned with establishing what the text that was first put into circulation actually said, at every point, based on the various readings that can be found in our surviving manuscripts.   They are concerned with determining which ways of wording the text represent scribal alterations and which represent the text as it was inherited by the scribe – when both (or all) forms of the text still exist among the manuscripts that survive.  They want to isolate the “textual corruptions” found in some manuscripts and determine the earliest form of the text, the one that was first circulated when the book was originally published.

An interpolation is different (in theory and principle) from a textual corruption.  By definition, an interpolation of the text is an addition to the text that was made at some point before the final published form of the text that lies behind all our surviving manuscripts came to be put in circulation.  In other words, by definition an interpolation cannot be found in any of our surviving manuscripts.  Why?  Because someone changed the text after a first edition of the book was written, but before the book was circulated in the form that is attested in all our surviving manuscripts.  This someone could have been an editor of the book doing his work after the author originally wrote it, for example, or even the author himself who was producing a second (or third or whatever) edition of the book after producing a first addition but before the book was circulated in the form that was later copied by scribes.

And so an interpolator is more like an editor of a text (whether it was the author editing his own work or a different person editing the work as it came to him).  A scribe is a copyist of the work once it was put in circulation)  Interpolations and scribal alterations are therefore considered different phenomena.

With a lot of overlap.  There is overlap because in *one* sense a scribe who alters a text is editing it, just as an editor does.  A lot of my own scholarship in textual criticism has been an attempt to show that scribes were in fact working as editors – even more than that, they were sometimes working as authors!  But still there is a difference between interpolations and textual changes because the latter represent changes found in at least one of our manuscripts (so we know for certain that it was a change made by at least *one* scribe after the book was published!) and the former represent (hypothetical) changes found in precisely *none* of our surviving manuscripts.

Another reason interpolations and scribal corruptions overlap is because – here it gets even more tricky — there are places where scholars are convinced that there were scribal alterations made very early in the history of the transmission of the text that occurred *after* the book was originally put in circulation in the textual form that has come down to us but that affected *all* of our surviving manuscripts.  In other words, in these places (no one can agree where it has happened!) all of our manuscripts have the wrong reading, but not because of an interpolation made before the text in its final form was put in circulation but because the text in that final form was changed very early by a scribe whose alteration came to be the form of the text copied by all later scribes.

This kind of latter change – if detected – requires the scholar to “emend” the text.  A “textual emendation” is a (typically strong) suggestion by a scholar (or many scholars) of what the original text *really* read even though all surviving manuscripts read something else.  It is different from an interpolation because, in theory, the change was made by a copyist after the text had been circulating in the form that lies at the base of all surviving manuscripts, not by an editor prior to publication (that is, the widespread circulation) of the book in that form.  As I said, the lines are blurry.

BUT: back to the question.  Suppose Luke 1-2 is an interpolation.  Should they be bracketed, like Mark 16:9-20, John 7:53-8:11; or 1 John 5:7-8?   My view is decidedly NO.  These other passages are textual corruptions: there are manuscripts that lack the passages.  Not so with Luke 1-2.  Brackets, in my opinion, should indicate passages that are highly dubious based on a study of the manuscripts, i.e., textual corruptions, not passages that scholars have argued are interpolations.

Did King David worship idols? Talmud says yes

When David arrived at the summit, where people used to worship God, Hushai the Arkite was there to meet him, his robe torn and dust on his head. (2 Samuel 15:32)

The head of the statue was made of pure gold, its chest and arms of silver, its belly and thighs of bronze, (Daniel 2:32)

--------------

Talmudic commentary 

Rab Judah also said in Rab's name: David wished to worship idols, as it is written, And it came to pass, that when David was come to the head, where he worshipped God.

Now rosh ['head'] can only refer to idols, as it is written, This image's head was of fine gold.

(Tractate Sanhedrin Folio 107a)

---------------

From the  above commentary it's clear the Jewish rabbis understood the passages to refere that David worshiped idols.. Christians will have a serious problem disagreeing with this as they have no superior authority to challenge the oral law...

Also note the Talmud is the oral law and commentary for the Tanak according Jewish scholar Hyam Maccoby, in Judaism on Trial, quotes Rabbi Yehiel ben Joseph: "Further, without the Talmud, we would not be able to understand passages in the Bible...God has handed this authority to the sages and tradition is a necessity as well as scripture. The Sages also made enactments of their own...anyone who does not study the Talmud cannot understand Scripture."

From this Shall we conclude Jesus being the son (descendent) of David an idol worshiper? 

David Killed Goliath

(NOTE: The following material is a draft of a chapter from 101 Myths of the Bible and may vary slightly from the published version.)

The Myth: And the Philistine [i.e., Goliath] came on and drew near unto David; and the man that bare the shield went before him. And when the Philistine looked about, and saw David, he disdained him: for he was but a youth, and ruddy, and of a fair countenance. And the Philistine said unto David, Am I a dog, that thou comest to me with staves? And the Philistine cursed David by his gods. And the Philistine said to David, Come to me, and I will give thy flesh unto the fowls of the air, and to the beasts of the field. Then said David to the Philistine, Thou comest to me with a sword, and with a spear, and with a shield: but I come to thee in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom thou hast defied. This day will the LORD deliver thee into mine hand; and I will smite thee, and take thine head from thee; and I will give the carcases of the host of the Philistines this day unto the fowls of the air, and to the wild beasts of the earth; that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel. And all this assembly shall know that the LORD saveth not with sword and spear: for the battle is the Lord’s, and he will give you into our hands. And it came to pass, when the Philistine arose, and came and drew nigh to meet David, that David hasted, and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. And David put his hand in his bag, and took thence a stone, and slang it, and smote the Philistine in his forehead, that the stone sunk into his forehead; and he fell upon his face to the earth. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and with a stone, and smote the Philistine, and slew him; but there was no sword in the hand of David. Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled. (1 Sam. 17:41-51.)

The Reality: The real killer of Goliath was Elhanan, who belonged to “The Thirty,” King David’s elite fighting cadre.

The story of how young David armed with only a slingshot and stones defeated a well-armored giant Philistine warrior named Goliath has become one of the most famous tales in all the bible. The slain enemy’s name has become a synonym for “huge” and the phrase “David and Goliath” has become a literary cliché for a confrontation between opponents of unequal strength. Unfortunately, David didn’t kill Goliath, and he wasn’t a youth when Goliath died.

According to the King James translation of 2 Sam. 21:19,

And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam.

Although this translation says Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath, the words “the brother of” do not appear in the Hebrew text. The actual wording of the passage says that Elhanan slew Goliath, not his brother.

The addition of these words in the English translation came about for two reasons. One, the translators didn’t want to contradict the earlier story attributing the act to David, especially since David is so dramatically linked to Christ in Christian tradition. (Christ’s credentials as Messiah, according to biblical prophesies, depend upon his descent from David.) Two, the author of 1 Chr. 20:5, written centuries after the verse in 2 Sam 21:17 and faced with the same contradiction, wrote,

Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver’s beam.
The English translators, relying on 1 Chr. 20:5, inserted the words “the brother of” into 2 Sam. 21:19.

Several clues indicate that later redactors gave David credit for what had originally been attributed to Elhanan.

In the version crediting David, after Goliath is slain, Saul says,

Whose son is this youth? And Abner said, As thy soul liveth, O king, I cannot tell. And the king said, Inquire thou whose son the stripling is. (1 Sam. 17:55.)

If David were the killer, Saul would have known who he was because David was already a favorite in the royal court.

And David came to Saul, and stood before him: and he loved him greatly; and he became his armourbearer. And Saul sent to Jesse, saying, Let David, I pray thee, stand before me; for he hath found favour in my sight.(1 Sam. 16:21-22.)

If David found favor in Saul’s sight, how could Saul not know whom he had just sent out to fight with Goliath?

After David killed Goliath, the text says that he brought the head to Jerusalem, but during Saul’s reign Jerusalem was in the hands of the Jebusites. It didn’t come into Israelite hands, according to the bible, until after David became king. This suggests that in the original story David was already king when Goliath died.

Coincidentally, in the version crediting Elhanan with killing Goliath, David is already king, and Elhanan is a member of David’ elite fighting group known as “The Thirty.”

The Elhanan version also retains some of the original mythical flavor of the contest. It is one of a sequence of four short stories about individual members of “The Thirty” killing four different giants. Interestingly, in the introductory verse to these four stories about Elhanan and the others, we are told that “David waxed faint,” had grown tired.

Although Elhanan’s father is called Jaareoregim in the verses about Elhanan’s victory over Goliath, the listing of the members of David’s “Thirty” calls the father Dodo. Since the other three giant killers also belong to “The Thirty,” this is the clearly same Elhanan. The connection between Elhanan and Dodo may have been the inspiration for crediting David with Elhanan’s triumph. In Hebrew, the name Dodo is spelled DWDW and David is spelled DWD. The two names are virtually identical and stem from the same root, meaning “beloved.” Dodo and David are also both called Bethlehemites, adding another reason why there may have been confusion over the killer’s identity.

Another indication that the pro-David version of the story borrowed from the Elhanan source comes from the contextual appearance of Goliath’s name. Throughout the David story, the name Goliath only appears twice. The several other references to this warrior simply describe him as “the Philistine” or “the Philistine of Gath.” The manner in which Goliath’s name appears suggests that it was a later insert into the story. For example, in 1 Sam. 17:23, the text reads,

And as he talked with them, behold, there came up the champion, the Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name, out of the armies of the Philistines, and spake according to the same words: and David heard them.

Since the bible had already given Goliath’s name earlier in the story and had already described his great prowess, the phrase “Philistine of Gath, Goliath by name” the addition of the words “by name” sounds artificial.

Originally, the slaying of Goliath was one of a collection of tales in which many heroes slew giants. Elhanan was one of these valiant warriors as were other members of “The Thirty,” many of whom were credited with such victories. “The Thirty” itself may have been a mythical group much like Arthur’s Knights of the Round Table. As David became the greatest hero of the Judaean court and Judaeans were eager to believe their founding king capable of great deeds, his substitution for one of the other giant killers took no great suspension of credibility.


---------------------

Who killed Goliath?

“David put his hand in his bag, took out a stone, slung it, and struck the Philistine on his forehead; the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell face down on the ground. So David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, striking down the Philistine and killing him; there was no sword in David’s hand” (1 Samuel 17:49-50)

According to 1 Samuel 17 David killed Goliath, however in 2 Samuel 21 Elhanan killed Goliath?

Again there was fighting with the Philistines at Gob; and Elhanan son of Jaareoregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, whose spear had a shaft like a weaver’s bar. (2 samuel 21:19 Hebrew Bible)

So how does one reconcile this stupendous discrepancy? Did David kill Goliath of Elhanan. One may turn to 2 Samuel 21:19 and say "look the text says Elhanan killed the brother of Goliath". However this is dismissed by reading the Hebrew Bible, Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath, the words “the brother of” do not appear in the Hebrew text. One can also use 1 chronicles 20:5 where the same wording is used "Elhanan slew the brother of Goliath" again Most scholars agree that there is a textual problem in 1 Chronicles 20:5 (look at the Ketib on the margins of the (BHS) Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia ). In 2 Samuel 21:19, Elhanan is the son of a man from Bethlehem, a Bethlehemite. In Hebrew the word “Bethlehemite” is “Beth Lahmi.” According to 1 Chronicles 20:5, Lahmi is the name of the person Elhanan killed. Thus, if one attempts to correct the text, the text probably would read as follows: “Again there was war with the Philistines; and Elhanan son of Jair the Bethlehemite killed the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the shaft of whose spear was like a weaver’s beam” (1 Chronicles 20:5).

So now this creates a bigger problem on who exactly killed Goliath?