"We believe the Bible to be for word of God as far as it is translated correctly . . . " (Article of Faith, 8)
I came across the following from a conservative Protestant commentator on the book of Joshua in a very recent publication on the redaction of the text. It flies in the face of many (not all) Evangelical critics of the Latter-day Saint view of the Bible (for a good discussion on the LDS view of the Bible, see Jeff Lindsay's LDSFAQ page on this issue). Enjoy!
The Text of the Book of Joshua The first step in the interpretation of the book of Joshua is to determine the basic text. This is necessary because virtually every verse of Joshua shows textual distinctions between the Hebrew or Masoretic Text (MT) and the earlier translation, the Greek Septuagint (LXX). The Hebrew text contains elements not attested in the Greek (Josh 6:3b-7:4; 8:11b-13, 26; 20:4-6). The reverse is also true. Greek elements are not present in the Hebrew (Josh 6:26; 16:10; 24:31, 3). Michael van der Meer points out that Josh 5:2-9 has dramatically different readings and interpretations (Formation and Reformulation, 17). The Septuagint places Josh 8:30-35 after 9:2, while the Dead Sea Scroll manuscripts indicate that this section appears before 5:2. Overall, the LXX is about 5 percent shorter than MT and in some places up to 20 percent shorter, with both texts receiving further editorial changes after their paths separated (E. Noort, Das Buch Josua: Forschungegeschichte und Problemfelder, EdF 292 [Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgessellschaft, 1998], 47). The indecision as to the priority of one tradition over the other remains unclear even after the Qurman evidence is considered (ibid., 57). Modern research thus puts the MT in the centre of study, knowing it is also a part of the history of interpretation (ibid., p.59). Such obvious evidence forces the commentator to take a close look at the different readings and attempt to understand what processes were at work in the scribal and liturgical worlds that resulted in the differing textual readings. Van der Meer concludes from this evidence along that “there is every reason to assume that the divergences between the oldest textual witnesses of this biblical composition, LXX-Joshua, 4QJosha, and MT-Joshua, are the result of editorial activity (Formation and Reformulation, 17)
Source:
Trent C. Butler, Joshua 1-12 (2d ed.; Word Biblical Commentary; Grand
Rapids Mich.: Zondervan, 2014), 34-35.
