Introduction to the Issue

Proverbs 31:21 in the Masoretic Text (MT) reads:
“She is not afraid of snow for her household, for all her household are clothed in scarlet.”

The Hebrew term in question is שָׁנִים (shānīm), which in the MT is vocalized as “scarlet.” However, both the Septuagint (LXX) and the Latin Vulgate interpret the same consonantal text differently, favoring the interpretation “double” or “two”—understood contextually as “double garments” or “warm clothing.” The critical question is whether this variation is a matter of textual criticism or interpretation. The Updated American Standard Version (UASV) and the NET Bible treat it as a textual decision, not merely an exegetical one, because the versions (LXX, Vulgate) reflect a different understanding that could indicate an earlier or competing textual tradition.

Consonantal Text and Vocalization

The original Hebrew Scriptures were written using only consonants. The Masoretic vocalization (which includes vowels and cantillation marks) was a later development, standardized between 500–1000 C.E. by the Masoretes. Therefore, the term שׁנִים can be vocalized in two different ways:

1. שָׁנִים (shānīm) – “scarlet”

2. שְׁנַיִם (shenáyim) – “two”

The consonants שנים without vowel points allow for either reading. Thus, this is a case of consonantal ambiguity, where the context must help determine the proper vocalization. The decision to vocalize it as “scarlet” is embedded in the MT, but the Septuagint and Vulgate both suggest a different vocalization based on a possibly alternative tradition or interpretive judgment.

Ancient Versions and Their Interpretations

The Septuagint (LXX) renders the phrase as:
“δισσὰς χλαίνας ἐποίησεν” – “she makes double garments (coverings).”
This attaches the idea of “two” to the coverings in verse 22, indicating that her household is clothed warmly for winter. It does not preserve “scarlet” but replaces it with a practical description of protective, double garments.

The Vulgate reads:
“Omnes enim domestici eius vestiti duplicibus.” – “All her household are clothed with double garments.”
This aligns with the Septuagint’s concept of duplication and thermal preparedness but places the concept within verse 21 itself.

The Peshitta (Syriac) also reflects a similar understanding. These textual witnesses thus align in opposing the MT’s “scarlet.”

The NET Bible’s Note and the Principle of Lectio Difficilior

The NET Bible marginal note acknowledges the issue and applies the text-critical principle of lectio difficilior potior (“the more difficult reading is preferred”) in support of the MT’s reading of “scarlet.” It suggests that the reading “double” is too smooth and fits the context too well, thus making it “suspect.” This invocation of lectio difficilior treats the ambiguity as a textual variant and implies that “scarlet” is more original precisely because it is more difficult.

However, as Drew Longacre rightly critiques, this application is methodologically flawed. Lectio difficilior is intended to guide decisions between actual textual variants—not between different vocalizations of the same consonantal text. Since there is no difference in consonants between “scarlet” and “two,” this is not a true textual variant in the strict sense. Rather, it is a case of vocalic ambiguity, which must be resolved exegetically, not text-critically.

Exegetical Considerations: Which Fits the Context?

Verse 21 speaks about not fearing snow. This implies preparedness for winter, which naturally suggests warmth and practical protection. The idea of double garments aligns directly with this need. Clothing in scarlet, while luxurious, does not inherently indicate warmth. It may imply status, wealth, or abundance, but those are indirect and metaphoric readings, not contextual necessities.

Verse 22 does mention luxurious clothing:
“She makes coverings for herself; her clothing is fine linen and purple.”
This supports the idea that luxury in dress is part of the thematic frame of this passage. Yet it does not preclude the idea that “double garments” would be the more natural and contextually coherent interpretation in verse 21 when specifically referencing snow.

The MT and the Role of Masoretic Authority

While the MT is the standard base for textual criticism of the Hebrew Bible, its vowel points are not part of the original, inspired autographs. The Masoretes, working many centuries after the closing of the canon, applied their best scholarly judgment to vocalize the text. Their choices carry immense weight, but they are interpretations—not revelations.

The early translations (LXX, Vulgate, Peshitta) often reflect a different interpretive tradition, and in some cases, even a different Hebrew Vorlage. However, in Proverbs 31:21, there is no indication of a different consonantal base, only a different vocalization and interpretive understanding.

The Masoretes vocalized it as שָׁנִים (scarlet), but the versions indicate a preference for שְׁנַיִם (two). Both reflect plausible readings of the unpointed Hebrew text.

Conclusion: Text-Critical or Exegetical?

Proverbs 31:21 does not involve a true textual variant at the consonantal level. Therefore, this is not a classic case for textual criticism. The UASV and NET Bible treat the issue as a textual decision, likely due to the early versional evidence, but the problem arises from interpretation of vocalization, not difference in consonantal text.

Consequently, this is best categorized as an exegetical problem with textual implications, rather than a strictly text-critical issue. The principle of lectio difficilior should not be used here, as it applies only when weighing competing manuscript readings, not different interpretations of the same text.

Exegetically, the rendering “double garments” fits the immediate context of snow and winter far better than “scarlet.” The versions may not reflect an earlier textual variant, but they do preserve an interpretive tradition that rightly understood the ambiguous term שנים in its practical, contextual meaning.

Thus, while the MT’s vocalization remains influential, the textual evidence, context, and interpretive logic all strongly favor the alternate reading represented in the versions. Any final translation decision must weigh both the authority of the MT and the contextual demands of the passage.

You May Also Enjoy

Benjamin Kennicott and His Collation of Hebrew Variants: A Pillar in Old Testament Textual Criticism

About the Author

CLICK LINKED IMAGE TO VISIT ONLINE STORE

CLICK TO SCROLL THROUGH OUR BOOKS