And While We’re Thinking About It
Now it came about when all the kings of the Amorites who were beyond the Jordan to the west, and all the kings of the Canaanites who were by the sea, heard how the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan before the sons of Israel until [a]they had crossed, that their hearts melted, and there was no spirit in them any longer because of the sons of Israel. Joshua 5:1 NASB
They had crossed – Did you notice the footnote? The NASB note says “Other mss we.” But this isn’t quite correct. You see “they had crossed” isn’t the same word as “we had crossed.” A scroll of this passage contains another example of qere ketiv (what is read and what it written). What is written is עברנו but what is read is עָבְרָם. It’s true that they both come from the same root (עָבַר (ʿābar) pass over) but they don’t mean the same thing. It’s not the case that there is another version of the Tanakh that contains a different word (in this case, עברנו). No, the same scroll contains both words, like this: (עַד-עברנו (עָבְרָם. What this means is that by the time the Masoretes added vowel points, there was already a traditional reading of the text that did not coincide with the written text. Same text; two words. The NASB footnote steers you astray. There is only one MT. It just has both words in it.
Why? Well, as soon as you see the difference in the meaning of these two verbs, you will figure it out. The one that is not read means “we crossed over.” It is a report of the event in the present tense since Joshua is witnessing the action. But, of course, for the later readers of the text, this makes no sense. They aren’t crossing over. They are merely reading about those who did cross over. So, the word that is read is the word that means “they crossed over,” that is, a report of the event as history. From a reader’s point of view, there is no difficulty here. The reader is viewing the event as already completed. The author is viewing the event as happening at the moment. What’s the big deal? The big deal is the theological paradigm that both words were given to Joshua by God at the time of the original writing. The theological claim is that God told Joshua to incorporate the ketiv because future generations would read this as history. So, by the time the Masoretes added the vowels, people were reading the text as history and the ketiv version was necessary. Does this require us to believe that God instructed Joshua to put both words in the text at the beginning? Seems like a stretch to me. It makes a lot more sense that since there already was a traditional reading the Masoretes simply included it. Of course, this has some serious implications for a doctrine that there are no additions to the Tanakh as written by the original authors. And if we consider the tradition, perhaps that also raises issues about the identity of the original authors.
What do we learn? Well, first we learn that English Bible footnotes don’t tell the whole story. Second, we learn that the Jewish view of inerrancy is as difficult to maintain as the Christian view. And finally we learn that doctrine usually trumps all other explanations, especially if you want to remain orthodox. Do you?
Topical Index: qere ketiv, we crossed, they crossed, inerrancy, ʿābar, Joshua 5:1
