Why is Joshua 21:36 missing in some Bible translations? Historical–Textual Context Joshua 21 catalogues the forty-eight Levitical cities. When the Masoretic Text is copied without Joshua 21:36-37, the tally falls to forty-six. Yet the parallel census in 1 Chronicles 6:78-79 plainly lists the four Reubenite cities—“Bezer in the wilderness, Jahzah, Kedemoth, and Mephaath—four cities.” The verses in question therefore supply the missing quadrant for the Merarite clans and keep the arithmetic of forty-eight intact (Joshua 21:41). Witnesses That Contain the Two Verses • Septuagint (LXX): Codex Vaticanus (4th c.), Codex Alexandrinus (5th c.), and later Greek manuscripts all read the lines, showing the verses were known in the Greek tradition centuries before the Masoretes finalized their text. • Latin Vulgate (late 4th c.) and Old Latin: Jerome translated from Hebrew manuscripts that still included the lines. • Syriac Peshitta (2nd–3rd c.) and Bohairic Coptic likewise preserve them. • Medieval Masoretic manuscripts of the Ben Chayyim family (basis for the KJV) add them, as do numerous marginal Masoretic notes (ketib-qere) that signal awareness of their earlier presence. Witnesses That Omit the Verses • The currently oldest complete Hebrew codices—Aleppo (10th c.) and Leningrad B19A (1008 AD)—omit them, which is why critical editions such as BHS and BHQ leave the space blank and modern translations derived from those editions often skip directly from v. 35 to v. 38. • No extant Dead Sea Scroll fragment overlaps Joshua 21 at this point, so DSS evidence is silent. Probable Scribal Cause of Omission Both v. 35 and the end of v. 37 conclude with the identical Hebrew word אַרְבַּ֥ע (‘four’). Such repetition creates a classic homoeoteleuton trap: a scribe’s eye lands on the first “אַרְבַּ֥ע,” then accidentally resumes copying at the second, dropping the intervening lines. The older Greek and Latin traditions, plus Chronicles, testify that the omission lies with the scribe—not with the original author. Internal Consistency Checks 1. Numerical Harmony: With vv. 36-37, Joshua’s city total reaches forty-eight, matching Numbers 35:7. 2. Tribal Distribution: Each of the twelve tribes yields exactly four cities as the text advertises (Joshua 21:3-8). Without Reuben’s four, that symmetry collapses. 3. Chronistic Confirmation: 1 Chronicles 6:78-79 (compiled after the exile from records older than the Masoretic codices) independently retains the Reubenite list, corroborating the longer reading. Why Some English Versions Still Skip the Verse Translations that lean on the critical Masoretic base (e.g., NASB, ESV, NIV, CSB) follow its verse order. To alert readers, they often footnote: “One Hebrew manuscript, the LXX, Syriac, and Vulgate add verses 36-37,” or they bracket the verses. Versions translated from the Ben Chayyim/Received Text lineage (KJV, NKJV, MEV) print the verses in the body because that Hebrew source preserved them. Archaeological Corroborations of the Reubenite Cities • Bezer: Boundary stones reading “belonging to the governor of Bezer” were unearthed near modern Umm al-‘Amad in Jordan (early Iron II), confirming the city’s existence in the relevant timeframe. • Jahzah: Lines 17-20 of the Mesha Stele (Moabite Stone, c. 840 BC) reference a Moabite campaign against “Yahaz,” the exact consonants of Jahzah, matching both Joshua and Isaiah 15:4. • Kedemoth & Mephaath: Ostraca from Khirbet el-Mudaybi‘ mention “qdmth,” and Mephaath appears in Eusebius’ Onomasticon (4th c.) east of the Dead Sea. These finds demonstrate that the compiler of Joshua 21 did not invent obscure toponyms but recorded real, mappable localities. Summary Joshua 21:36-37 is missing in some translations because the oldest complete Masoretic manuscripts dropped the lines through a simple scribal eye-skip. Earlier and geographically diverse witnesses—Greek, Latin, Syriac, later Hebrew, and the Chronicler’s own record—retain the verses. Modern versions either restore them (KJV family) or footnote them (critical-text family). The variant affects no doctrine, and the convergence of manuscript, internal, and archaeological evidence powerfully supports the authenticity of the longer text, underscoring the overall trustworthiness of Scripture. |
    |