Judges 18:30-31

So there are several commentators that claim these passages are in error.

1). They say that Manasseh should really read Moses and that early scribes honored Moses by superscripting a "nun" into the text and changing it to Manassaeh.

2). They argue that the captivity of the land comment meant when the ark was taken by the phillistines and that is why it also mentions the ark at Shiloh.

Is there any reason why I cannot just take the text at face value and assume there WAS a levite named Manasseh who had a son named Gershom who had a son named Johnathan who was an idolater? Also, why can't I just read it as it states: Johnathan and his sons were priests until the captivity of the land but they only had the idols until the house of God moved out of Shiloh.

I have never found so much division with my commentaries. It's ridiculous.

Which commentaries are these?

Shiloh was tented, and was the 'house of the Lord' from Joshua 18 onward. Moses long gone by now. Not sure why the commentators would wipe out the context of Judges here.

Matthew Henry, John Gill, Albert Barnes, whoever wrote the commentary for the Holman Study Bible, etc. However, when they say the nun is suspended, it isn't actually hovering over the word in any of the places I have seen, it is just slightly lifted, almost superscripted. This also happens 4 other places in the OT and none of those are in question. I just don't get it. If the Levite were a young man, how could he be the grandson of Moses. The levite would be WELL over 100 years old by this point in Judges.

I was going to ask if the math worked if Moses was the grandfather.

ADD: ESV, NIV, Holman say "Moses”. NKJV reads Manasseh.

I don't think it does, but I am hoping someone has already resolved this issue in their minds. Really looking for some wisdom...lol. Definitely don't think it'll be a hot thread, but something I need a different perspective on.

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/kad/judges/18.htm

Keil and Delitzsch OT Commentary

This is a really good commentary and will clarify the Moses and Manasseh issue...hopefully. Its safe to read the bible.

Gill conjectures about Moses and Barnes radically shortens K and D comment.
I think Pulpit just rehearses K and D, but its easier to sort with less Hebrew and references expanding the comment.

The conjecture being that a grandson of Moses being an idolater was to odious, so because this man followed in the spirit of Manasseh...the Nun was set above the text ( so as not to corrupt it).
The Septuagint plainly calls out Manasseh and allows the Nun to spell out the name. But I think K and D have a good point.

I also have that commentary. My issue is that it took multiple theories pieced together to come to this conclusion. That sounds like a terrible way to interpret scripture.

Maybe it's true. But it sounds like they took a difficult road in coming to that conclusion and had to do all kinds of hermeneutical acrobatics to wind up there.

havok20x:

I am not against commentaries, but take them all with a grain of salt. They are, after all, just man's opinion. What is wrong with allowing the Holy Spirit to be your commentator? After all, He is the inspiration, the author. Read the Bible on your knees so to speak and ask Him to reveal it to you.

I do agree, though, that we should just read it and take it at face value.

The intellectual approach to scripture will always lead to odd errors in interpretation. The word of God is spiritual, not intellectual. ( Please understand I am not saying we should check our brain at the door, but rather to have our own intellect in subjection to the Spirit of God instead of trying to reason it all out with only our own brain.)

//I do agree, though, that we should just read it and take it at face value.//

The problem here, though, is that different versions have dramatically different readings.

Hi Travis: While I agree with you in spirit, the point you make only ends up being circular...which solves nothing.

The answer lay in the copy-est who added the Nun, for someone to know this, a solid understanding of the Hebrew language, a solid background in the history of the Judges and the wherewithal to exegete the passage knowing an argument from silence is without substance. So, you end up as the commentators did giving their best educated opinion.
In short, you must crack the books, you must read the commentaries, you must learn language and you add to that uncertainties ( variants) that don't damage the context but create questions of another sort.

I am 100% In favor of the Spirit of God teaching us the word of God, revealing its meaning. However, I do not presume the commentators, linquists and scholars who God created are going to be inferior to my study. It might be they were wrong, but it requires more discipline to "learn why there were wrong" and then prove it versus.."yea God said to me Manasseh and that settles it."

You no doubt know all this, I am only expressing the need for diligent study is God-lead.

Just being honest:

I am extremely uncomfortable with depending on scholars to help me "interpret" the bible. I use lots of commentaries. I essentially must possess a secret knowledge of language and interpretation before I can even debate with them. I don't value what they say nearly as much as I value the internal discussion they generate.