Differences with 2 Chronicles 21:2

[yaaqub]

Aramaic Tanakh - "Yehoshaphat king of Judah"

Aleppo Codex - "king of Israel"

Masoretic Ben Chaim - "king of Israel"

Septuagint - "king of Judah"

JPS 1917 - "king of Israel"

JPS 1985 - "king Jehosaphat of Israel"

King James Version - "king of Israel"

[Christina]

I've also noticed contradictions like that in the Masoretic text. It seems that different translators worked on different books in this case, after all hand-writing can be hard to read. I would say that the Masoretic Tanakh wasn't poorly compiled, rather it was poorly edited.

[gbausc]

Shlama Khathi Christine,

But Jehoshaphat was King of Judah, not of Israel. Check out all other references in Chronicles and Kings.
The Peshitta is correct here, as is the LXX. The Hebrew is incorrect in that place.Even 2 Chron. 20:35 says so.


Blessings,

Dave

[Christina]

Shlama Khathi Christine,

But Jehoshaphat was King of Judah, not of Israel. Check out all other references in Chronicles and Kings.
The Peshitta is correct here, as is the LXX. The Hebrew is incorrect in that place.Even 2 Chron. 20:35 says so.


Blessings,

Dave

You missunderstood me, I agree that the PT & LXX have it right. What I suggested is that the reason the Masoretic text has these sort of errors is because different scribes copied different scrolls. It's easy to explain the scribal errors in the Masoretic text if we assume that different scribes copied different scrolls, because each scroll wasn't authored by the same author, and handwriting differs from individual to individual. And it seems that the proof-readers of the Masoretic Tanakh didn't pick up these contradictory scribal errors while editing the Masoretic Tanakh. So I concluded that the Masoretic Tanakh was poorly edited compared to the LXX & PT.

[yaaqub]

different scribes copied different scrolls.

Yes, this is the logical or likely explanation.

handwriting differs from individual to individual

In this particular error I believe it's deliberate - at least a change from the Vorlage to the revised text for the new Masoretic. A scribe can't easily mistake the word "Judah" for "Israel" unless maybe he has cataracts. The Aramaic and Lxx likely was using the pre-Masoretic text.

Israel ??????????

Judah ???????????

[Christina]

different scribes copied different scrolls.

Yes, this is the logical or likely explanation.

handwriting differs from individual to individual

In this particular error I believe it's deliberate - at least a change from the Vorlage to the revised text for the new Masoretic. A scribe can't easily mistake the word "Judah" for "Israel" unless maybe he has cataracts. The Aramaic and Lxx likely was using the pre-Masoretic text.

Israel ??????????

Judah ???????????

That certainly gives one something to think about. I always prefer to give the benefit of the doubt, but deliberate tampering cannot be ruled out, though I can't think what would be the motivation behind this particular case. Places where deliberate tampering is obvious in the Masoretic text is the passages concerning the Messianic prophecies (eg: Isaiah 53) and the almah/virgin issue. Deliberate tamping can be found in the Greek NT too, sometimes obvious and sometimes subtle.

[yaaqub]

Shlama,

I updated my initial post above. JPS 1985 says "king Jehosaphat of Israel" instead of "king of Israel"