Shorter and Longer Text: A Study of Sixty Pluses from the Greek Text of Joshua

It has long been observed that the text of Joshua, as reflected in the Greek (OG),is quite different from the Masoretic Text (MT). These differences not only include pluses, minuses, and expansions but also variation in literary sequence. Most scholarly attention has focused on the difference in length between OG and MT; the former being noticeably shorter than the latter. Should the textual variation be attributed to the free creative initiative of the OG translator, or should it be attributed to a later Hebrew revisorwho sought to
improve upon the earlier text form (Vorlage)? The answer to this question provides more clarity to the larger question—which text reflects the earlier text form?Since much scholarship regarding OG-Joshua vis-à-vis MT-Joshua has focused the attention predominately on the minuses of OG (or pluses in MT), the aim of the present thesis offers a contribution to the discussion by putting center stage the instances when the OG presents longer readings than the MT. The main question I seek to answeris: What sort of witness is the OG to the Hebrew text in its pre-MT form? That is, how much text-critical weight should be granted to variant readings contained in the OG but lacking in the MT (or lacking in the OG but contained in the MT)? The working thesis ofthis study is that the OG more often than not reflects the earlier Hebrew text form.The first chapter serves as an introduction familiarizing the reader to the problem which gave rise to the investigation as well as the three schools of thought which have hitherto emerged to explain the textual variation between OG and MT-Joshua.
Additionally, I provide the reader with an overview of the Greek text and a survey of the ancient witnesses utilized in the course of the textual analysis in order to establish clear definitions and descriptions.Chapters 2–5 comprise the analysis of the 60 pluses in the OG
vis-à-vis the MT of Joshua. Each chapter constitutes the particular cause which gave rise to the textual variation—viz., textual error, harmonizations, amplifications, and sundry causes. With in the chapters, a case is made for why a particular plus should be placed in its respective category.The final chapter functions as a conclusion, which summarizes the findings of the investigation and the corollary implications regarding the text-critical validity of the OGin relation to the MT of Joshua. According to the results of the analysis, when the OG presents a longer reading, about half of the time (on average) the OG will reflect the earlier reading.