WLC’s extra verses in Joshua
Posted: Wed Dec 20, 2023 10:53 pm
bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/
http://bhebrew.biblicalhumanities.org/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=22765
I don’t think that any such implication was made. However, I understand that you are an inerrantist. Which specific text do you consider to be the final word that is without error?kwrandolph wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:52 pm Well, stranger, not all of us take Leningradensis as the final word concerning the text of Tanakh.
I think these verses designate land to be given FROM the tribe of Reuven TO Levites (in particular, Merarites).
I think you misunderstand my article on multiple fronts.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:52 pm Well, stranger, not all of us take Leningradensis as the final word concerning the text of Tanakh.
It seems likely that at some point in the development of the Hebrew Bible, somebody accidentally omitted these two verses about the transfer of four towns from the tribe of Reuben. (These towns were transferred to the Merarite clan of the Levites). The idea that this is an omission is strongly supported by a parallel passage in 1 Chronicles 6, since these Reuben towns are listed there.
Even though it is likely that these two verses “should be there” in some sense, this is irrelevant to the Masoretic project. They still should not be there, in a Masoretic sense.
Likely someone accidentally omitted these two verses in some influential text, and that text, with that omission, is the one that became Masoretically canonical. In this sense the only mistakes in Masoretic manuscripts are where manuscripts disagree with one another. Sometimes it is difficult to say, in such cases, which manuscripts are right, and which are wrong, but fortunately that is not the case here. At least in the four manuscripts we have discussed, there is total agreement. And these are not just any four manuscripts, these are arguably the four most important manuscripts to consult, for the book of Joshua.
When we publish a Masoretic Hebrew Bible, our task is easier than related tasks such as publishing a translation. A translation likely draws on multiple sources, including pre-Masoretic Hebrew sources (Qumran) as well as sources in Aramaic, Syriac, and/or Greek. Here in Joshua 21 we can see that, with the use of small type, the BHS editors tried to balance two almost-incompatible goals for BHS:WLC should have omitted these verses or found a way to mark them with a semantic equivalent to BHS’s small type. Instead, WLC, supposedly only a diplomatic edition of ל, became polluted with two verses only relevant to a wide-ranging, multi-language critical edition of the Hebrew Bible.
- Be a diplomatic edition of ל
- Be a wide-ranging, multi-language critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, oriented towards tasks such as translation
No.bdenckla wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 2:53 pmI think you misunderstand my article on multiple frontskwrandolph wrote: ↑Thu Dec 21, 2023 10:52 pm Well, stranger, not all of us take Leningradensis as the final word concerning the text of Tanakh.
“Pesky dots and squiggles.” You can obviously remove them and botch every single verse at your own peril. Please, stop acting like they are meaningless and wrong. Enough of this. Your comments are aimed at belittling the academy and Hebrew scholarship. You’ve had this platform for long enough, and it should be obvious by now that you will accomplish nothing by continuing to make these absurd comments. I will begin to edit them out of your posts if you don’t rein yourself in. How many years must you produce nothing of value to Hebrew learners before you realize that your methodology is flawed and useless? You are not going to get anyone to learn Hebrew without vowels.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 11:14 pm Maybe I should have been clearer—not all of us accept the Masoretic tradition as being the final word on the text. As with any analysis of ancient manuscripts, we need to compare them to other manuscripts because of possible copyist errors. In the case of the Masoretes, we need to get rid of those pesky dots and squiggles, which are often demonstrably wrong as far as the meanings they confer.
Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have filled out my signature to bring myself into conformance with this forum's policy.kwrandolph wrote: ↑Fri Dec 22, 2023 11:14 pm As for calling you “stranger”, it is the policy of this forum that each message is signed by a person’s real name.