WLC’s extra verses in Joshua

[bdenckla]

Part 3 in my series: Undoing and redoing the work of the Masoretes – part 3 – WLC’s extra verses in Joshua

[kwrandolph]

Well, stranger, not all of us take Leningradensis as the final word concerning the text of Tanakh.

Thanks for the scholarship.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

Well, stranger, not all of us take Leningradensis as the final word concerning the text of Tanakh.

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?

[cvkimball]

The verses in question (Joshua 21:36-7) designate land to the tribe of Reuven. Reuven is mentioned unfavorably in Genesis 35:22. The omission of these verses may be a deliberate rejection of Reuven's actions.

Chris Kimball
West Redding, CT
USA

[bdenckla]

The verses in question (Joshua 21:36-7) designate land to the tribe of Reuven. Reuven is mentioned unfavorably in Genesis 35:22. The omission of these verses may be a deliberate rejection of Reuven's actions.

I think these verses designate land to be given FROM the tribe of Reuven TO Levites (in particular, Merarites).

Still, as you suggest, you could give a "we don't talk about Reuven" interpretation to this omission.

[bdenckla]

Well, stranger, not all of us take Leningradensis as the final word concerning the text of Tanakh.

I think you misunderstand my article on multiple fronts.

• I don't view ל as the final word on even the Masoretic tradition, much less the final word on the broader notion of Tanakh.
• I don't view the Masoretic tradition as the final word on the Tanakh. But my article is about the Masoretic tradition.
• My main claim is simply that an edition like WLC that purports to strictly represent ל should strictly represent ל and only ל. No matter how popular these two verses are, if they are not in ל, they should either:
  • not be in WLC
  • be clearly marked as "not in ל" in WLC

Perhaps because my article was long-winded and/or ill-structured, it seems you did not reach the section of four paragraphs starting with "It seems likely that [...] somebody accidentally omitted these two verses." I reproduce this section below:

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:

• Be a diplomatic edition of ל
• Be a wide-ranging, multi-language critical edition of the Hebrew Bible, oriented towards tasks such as translation

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.

[ducky]

Hi,

If it is an omission, I think it is more likely to say that it is because of the copyist confusion.
Verse 35 ends with מגרשה ערים ארבעה.
And the omitted part also ends with מגרשה ערים ארבעה.

So it could be, that the copyist, when he started to write the next verse, knowing that it comes just right after מגרשה ערים ארבעה, didn't notice the second verse, and went to the next verse (since they are both come after מגרשה ערים ארבעה).

Saying that it was made intentionally just to "not talk about Reuben" is an extreme thought.

Anyway, you wrote that: "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".

But couldn't it be seen the opposite way.
Couldn't be that it was not an omission, but actually an addition?
I mean, though the coping process, Since Reuben is not listed, a verse was added based on what is written on Chronicles.
(of course, not by trying to change the text, but by thought that there is a mistake in the source, and then creating a false correction).
Just a thought.

And the thought comes from the fact that there are

[kwrandolph]

Well, stranger, not all of us take Leningradensis as the final word concerning the text of Tanakh.

I think you misunderstand my article on multiple fronts

No.

I caught the part where you state that if an edition is true to the Masoretic tradition, it ought to be true in all ways.

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.

As for calling you “stranger”, it is the policy of this forum that each message is signed by a person’s real name.

Karl W. Randolph.

[Jason Hare]

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.

“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.

[bdenckla]

As for calling you “stranger”, it is the policy of this forum that each message is signed by a person’s real name.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have filled out my signature to bring myself into conformance with this forum's policy.

On the topic of this forum's policies ...

As for the substance of your message, I think it is not germane to this thread, and possibly not even appropriate to this forum.

By focusing on the Masoretic tradition, I do not seek to disparage those who are interested in a broader set of sources for the Hebrew Bible. I urge you to extend the complementary courtesy. Your comments are coming close to disparaging those who, like me, are only interested in a narrow set of sources for the Hebrew Bible.