{lvi.}


V.
Depravation of the Text Through Interpolations, Dislocations, Lacunae, and Dittographs.


§ 1. Interpolations. -- There are in all some 22 or more interpolated verses in our text, if we add together all the interpolated verses, clauses, phrases, and words. The grounds for regarding these as interpolations are nearly always given in the Commentary, in loc., and in footnotes to the English translation in vol. ii. in a more popular and less technical form. But in a few cases these will be found only in the latter, since they were not recognized as interpolations, or else wrongly condemned as such when the Commentary was written.

The interpolations are rejected as such either because they are wrong in their subject-matter, that is, against the context, or because they are against our author's linguistic usage. But generally an interpolated passaged betrays its intrusive character both by its linguistic form and subject-matter. Where these two kinds of evidence combine, they are conclusive. As notable interpolations of this kind, the reader should study 18 1415-17. First, as regards 18 we discover that this verse is impossible in its present context; for it represents the Seer as hearing God pronounce these words, although the Seer does not fall into a trance until 110. Next, we discover that it could not occur in any context in our author, since, contrary to his universal usage and that of all Palestinian writers, he separates o` pantokra,twr from o` qeo,j by eight words, whereas it should immediately follow it, as it is a rendering of the Hebrew genitive (twabc) immediately dependent on o` qeo,j (yhla). Next, 1415-17 is against our author's usage in respect to constructions. But it errs still more grievously against the context. The interpolator, failing to recognize "one like a son of man" (1414) as Christ, has treated Him merely as an angel, and assigned Him only one-half of the Messianic judgment, wherein the judgment is compared to a harvesting of the earth -- a figure not used by our author. But this is not all.  He has assigned to "another angel" the Messianic judgment -- i.e., the vintaging of the earth -- the duty expressly attributed by our author to Christ in 1911-21.

But interpolation sometimes leads to further depravation of the text. This occurs when the interpolated passage obliges the interpolator to adapt the immediate context to his additions to the text. The classical instance of such tampering with the text will be found in connection with the interpolation of 87-12, whereby "the three Woes," each preceded by a trumpet blast, have been {lvii.} transformed into "the Seven Trumpets." This drastic intervention of the interpolator has necessitated slight changes in 82. 6. 13 91. 13 107 1115 and the transposition of certain clauses. This addition is at variance with the entire context: it has destroyed the dramatic development of our author's theme, and represents him as indulging in vain and inconsistent repetitions.(1) The presence of this interpolation in our text has hidden from all interpreters up to the present the true meaning of the phrase -- " there was silence in heaven for the space of half an hour," as well as other important matters.

Several interpolations have arisen from marginal glosses. 58d 1418 (o` e;cwn evxousi,an evpi. t) puro,j), 179b (o;rh eivsi,n ) ) ) evpV auvtw/n kai.) -- a second interpretation of "the seven heads" from the hand of the editor or an interpolator. 199b-10 is mainly a doublet of 228-9, and in 115b 1717 the additions appear to be simply dittographs.

The complete list of interpolations in and additions to the text is as follows. Those which appear to be due to the editor are marked with an asterisk.
 
 

* 14c  (kai. avpo. tw/n e`tta. ) ) ) auvtou/). See vol. 11-13.  * 18 (VEgw, eivmi to. :Alfa ) ) ) o` pantokra,twr). See footnote on English translation in loc., vol. ii.  114 (w`j ciw,n).
25 (eva.n mh. metanoh,sh|j).  222 (eva.n mh. metanoh,sousin evk tw/n e;rgwn auvth/j). See footnote on Eng. translation in loc., vol. ii.
45 (a[ evstin ta. e`pta. pneu,mata tou/ qeou/): 46 (evn me,sw| tou/ qro,nou kai,): 48 (kuklo,qen kai. e;swqen ge,mousin ovfqalmw/n).
58d (ai[ eivsin ai` proseucai. tw/n a`gi,wn): 511 (kai. t) zw,|wn kai. t) presbute,rwn). See vol. i. 145, 148 respectively.
68b (kai. o` a[|dhj hvkolou,qei metV auvtou/). See vol. i. 169 sq.  68de (avpoktei/nai ) ) ) u`po. t) qhri,wn t) gh/j). See i. 171.
* 82 (oi] evnw,pion t) qeou/ e`sth,kasin). See i. 221: also footnote on Eng. trans. in loc. 87-12. To adapt this interpolation of the first four Trumpets to its new context, changes were introduced in 82. 6. 13 91. 13 107 1115 and 82 transposed from its original position after 85. See i. 219-222.
95c (kai. o` basanismo.j ) ) ) a;nqrwpon? See footnote: Eng. trans.).
* 911c (kai. evn th/| ) ) ) VApollu,wn). See i. 246.  * 916b-17a (h;kousa t) avriqmo.n ) ) ) o`ra,sei). Observe that the wrong construction, t) kaqhme,nouj // evpV auvtw/n //, is due to editor. See i. 252.  919b (kai. evn tai/j ) ) ) kefala,j). See i. 254.
{liviii.}115b (kai. ei; tij ) ) ) avpoktanqh/nai). See i. 284.
* 143-4 (oi` hvgorasme,noi avpo. t) gh/j ) ) ) eivsin and kai. tw/| avrni,w). See ii. 5-10, 422, footnote.  * 1415-17 (kai. a;lloj a;ggeloj ) ) ) dre,panon ovxu,). See ii. 18-19, 20-22.  1418 (o` e;cwn evxousi,an evpi. tou/ puro,j).  1419 (o` a;ggeloj).
151. See ii. 30-32.  153 (t) wv|dh.n ) ) ) t) qeou/ kai,). See ii. 34.  156 (oi` e`pta. a;ggeloi oi` e;contej ) ) ) plhga,j -- a deliberate change for a;ggeloi e`pta, owing to interpolation of 151). See ii. 31-32, 38.
* 162c (tou.j e;contaj ) ) ) eivko,ni auvtou/). See ii. 43.  * 165a (kai. h;kousa tou/ avgge,lou tw/n a`da,twn le,gontoj) added by editor when he wrongly introduced 165b-7, which properly belongs after 194. ii. 44, 120-123.  * 1613b-14a (w`j ba,tracoi ) ) ) shmei/a). See ii. 47-48.  1619a (kai, evge,neto ) ) ) me,rh). See ii. 52.
* 179b (o;rh eivsi,n ) ) ) evpV auvtw/n\ kai. and e`pta, after basilei/j). See ii. 68-69.  1715 -- a gloss on 171. See ii. 72.  1717 (kai. toih/san mi,an gnw,mhn). See ii. 73.
1813 (kai. i[ppwn ) ) ) swma,twn). See ii. 104.
198b (to. ga.r bu,ssinon ) ) ) evsti,n). See vol. i. 127-127.  199b-10, doublet of 228-9, which has dislodged part of the original text. See ii. 128-129.  1912c (e;cwn o;noma ) ) ) eiv mh. auvto,j). See ii. 132.  1916 (evpi. t) i`ma,tion kai,). See ii. 137.
* 204 (oi[tinej).  * 205 (oi` loipoi. tw/n nekrw/n ouvk e;zhsan a;cri telesqh/| ta. ci,lia e;th). See note on text in loc., vol. ii. 372.  2012 (kata. ta. e;rga auvtw/n).  *2013 (h` qa,lassa -- an interpolation which has dislodged the original). ii. 194 sqq.  2014b (ou-toj o` qa,natoj ) ) ) puro,j). See ii. 199 sq.
* 216a (kai. ei=pe,n moi\ Te,gonan). See English translation, in loc. ii. 443.  *2125 text changed by editor. See ii. 173, 439.
* 2211. See ii. 221 sq.  * 2212 w`j to. e;rgon // evsti.n auvtou/ //. The order evsti.n auvtou/ is due to the editor. Our author wrote auvtou/ evsti,n.  * 2218b-19. See ii. 222 sq.

§ 2. Dislocations in 204-22. -- In vol. ii. 144, I have emphasized the fact that apocalyptic is distinguished from prophecy in its structural unity and its orderly development of thought to the final consummation. In the pages that follow (145-154) I have shown at some length that the text is incoherent and self-contradictory as it stands, and that these characteristics of 204-22, which are wholly impossible in apocalyptic (if the work is from one and the same author), are due to vast dislocations of the text. No mere accident could explain the intolerable confusion of the text in 204-22 (see vol. ii. 144-154). Since this entire {lix.} section, with the exception of two or more verses, comes from the hand of our author, the only hypothesis that can account for the present condition of the text is that John died when he completed 1-203 of his work, and that the materials for its completion, which were for the most part ready in a series of independent documents, were put together and visions of the Seer. Alike in the Commentary, Text, and Translation, the present writer has sought to recover the original order of the text (see vol. ii. 153-154) and given the grounds which have guided this reconstruction throughout. Manifold traces of the activity of this unintelligent editor are to be found in the earlier chapters, and it is more than probable that most of the interpolations are to be traced to his hand.

Dislocations in 1-203. -- Though there is nothing in the text of 1-203 in the least comparable to the confusion that dominates the traditional structure of 204-22, yet there are some very astonishing dislocations of isolated clauses and verses.

Of the many dislocations of the text in 1-203 only one appears to have been deliberate, i.e., the transposition of 82 in order with other changes to adapt the interpolated section 87-12 (the first four Trumpets) to its new context.

The remaining dislocations in 1-203 are as follows: --
 
 

227c has been restored after 226b. See Eng. trans. in loc.
38bc has been restored before 38a. See Eng. trans. in loc.
75c-6 has been restored after 78. See vol. i. 207.
1118h has been restored after 1118b. See vol. i. 295 sq.
1118g has been restored after 1118c. See vol. ii. 416, footnote to Eng. transl.
      in loc.
135b has been restored after 136b. See vol. ii. 419, footnote to Eng. transl. in 
      loc.
1412-13 has been restored after 1318. See vol. i. 368 sq.
165b-7 has been restored after 194. See vol. ii. 120-123.
1615 has been restored after 33b. See vol. i. 80 sq.
1714-17 has been restored as follows: 1717. 16. 14. See vol. ii. 60 sq.
1814-23 has been restored as follows: 1815-19. 21. 14. 22a-d. 23cd. 22e-h. 23ab. 20. 
      23f.

The most startling of the above dislocations of the text is that in 1814-23. How this dislocation arose we cannot determine, but that the text is dislocated is beyond question. First, we observe that 1814 comes in wrongly between 1813 and 1815, and that both its sense and structure connect it immediately with 1822-23 and, as an introduction to these verses, which, combined with it, express in due gradation the destruction of everything in Rome {lx.} from the greatest luxuries to the barest necessities. Thus 1814. 22-23 (four stanzas) compose a special dirge over Rome. Next, 1820 breaks the close sequence between 1819 and 1821 by introducing an apostrophe to heaven between the descriptive passages dealing with the ruin of Rome, 1819, and the dramatic action of the angel, 1821. But, though it cannot stand after 1819, it comes in with the most perfect fitness at the close of the dirge over Rome (1814. 22-23), as an appeal to heaven to rejoice over the doom of Rome -- an appeal that is immediately answered by choir after choir from heaven of a mighty multitude of angels, of the Elders and Cherubim, and of the martyr host in 191-4 165bc-7 195-7.

The dislocations in 75c-8 1118 135b-6b 1714-17 could easily have arisen. Parallels to such dislocations are to be found in other books of the Bible and in other documents. Only three other dislocations remain, but two of these are suggestive. As to 1615 which is to be restored after 33b, it is possible that it was written on a separate slip of papyrus which got displaced and was subsequently inserted after the sheet of papyrus ending 1614. However this may be, it cannot possibly have stood originally after 1614, with which it has no connection of any kind. Its natural place is after 33b, and nowhere else.

Now we come to the two interesting dislocations, 1412-13, 1715.(2) These two passages appear to have been inserted above the written columns on the papyrus sheets, the first by the Seer himself, the second by the editor. The scribe who copied the original MS incorporated these marginal additions in the wrong columns. It is noteworthy that 1412-13 is exactly the same number of lines from 1318 that 1715 is from 171, of which it is a gloss.

§ 3. Lacunae in the Text. -- Apart from 204-22 where it is impossible to determine what lacunae exist (save in 2122; see below) owing to the disorder of the text, there do no appear to be many in 1-203. There are, however, lacunae, and these are important. The first consists of a loss of several clauses in 1610 (see vol. ii. 45-46). The second is a still graver loss after 199a. These lost verses after 199a (whose place has been taken by an {lxi.} interpolation, i.e, 199b-10 modelled on 228-9) recounted the destruction of the Parthian kings. Their destruction was prophesied in 1714, and the vision recounting their destruction should have been given here. In 1717. 16 there is a prophecy of the destruction of Rome: in 18 a vision of this destruction. In 1414. 18-20 (see also 1613-14. 16) we have a proleptic vision of the judgment of the nations by the Word of God in 1911-21 (207-10). Thus it is clear that a vision dealing with the destruction of the Parthian hosts by the Lamb and the Saints (see 1714) should have been recorded in our text. That it actually did stand in the autograph of the Seer may be reasonably concluded from 1913, where the Word of God is said to be "clothed with a garment dipped in blood." that this is the blood of the Parthian hosts follows from any just interpretation of the text. See vol. ii. 133.

A third lacuna occurs after 1822a. The context makes the restoration easy, i.e. ouv mh. avkousqh/| evn soi. e;ti. Again, in 2122, where we should have a couplet, but where only the words kai. to. avrni,on survive of the second line, we can with great probality restore the missing words by a comparison of 1191. These are h` kibwto.j th/j diaqh,khj auvth/j. See vol ii. 170 sq.

§ 4. Dittographs. -- There are several dittographs, i.e. (a) 133c. 8 = 178; (b) 199b = 215c = 226a; (c) 1910 = 228b. 9; (d) 2014b = 218e.

     (a) Both members of the first, i.e. 133c. 8 = 178, belongs to our text. See vol. i. 337.
     (b) Here practically the same clause (kai. ei=pe,n moi Ou-toi oi` lo,goi pistoi. k) avlhqinoi,) is repeated three times. In 215c 226a it is a genuine part of the text. On 215c see note on English translation vol. ii. 443, in accordance with which the note in vol. ii. 203 (ad fin.) sq. is to be corrected. In 199b it is manifestly interpolated (see vol. ii. 128, 203 sq.), probably by the editor.
     (c) Here 228b. 9 is original and 1910 is an interpolation of the editor in the main from 228-9 but giving to su,ndouloj quite a different meaning. See vol. ii. 128 sq.
     (d) 218eo[stin o` qa,natoj o` deu,teroj is an original. But in 2014b, where this phrase also occurs, it is quite meaningless. It represents the casting of death and Hades (as distinct from their inhabitants) into the lake of fire as the second death!

NOTES
1. Hence practically every editor who accepts the entire work as from John's hand, whether he adopts or not the hypothesis of sources, is obliged to resort to the "Recapitulation Theory" in a greater or lesser degree, that is, that the Apocalypse does not represent a strict succession of events, but that the same events are either wholly or in part dealt with under each successive series of seven Seals, seven trumpets, and seven Bowls.
2. That 1412-13 (w-de h` u`po,monh. tw/n a`gi,wn ktl)) is wholly out of place in a section that deals with the judgments inflicted on the wicked is clear at a glance, and that they should be restored at the close of the account of the persecution of the second Beast, i.e 1318, is at once manifest, when we compare the closing words of the persecution of the first Beast, 1310e (w-de, evstin h` u`pomonh. ) ) ) tw/n a`gi,wn). These words are added for the encouragement and strengthening of the victims of the two persecutions. Next, it is clear that 1715 was originally an explanatory marginal gloss on 171. Since it has no connection whatever with its present context, the explanation given above for its position in its present context seems adequate.
 
 

Back To CONTENTS

Scanned and edited by Brad Johnson