Joshua 21:36-37: two verses on the edge of the text
Some Hebrew Bibles omit Joshua 21:36-37 because a branch of the Masoretic tradition follows a note excluding them; many Hebrew manuscripts retain them. The two verses name four cities needed for the total of forty-eight.
The APB text at this verse
The manuscripts, editions, and versions
The committee record at this verse
The APB is translated by a committee of language models that works blind. The translators are never told they are translating the Bible, never given a book name or a verse number, and never shown the witnesses listed above. Where the manuscripts disagree, the choice between readings is made before translation by the same kind of translator working the same way: it sees the competing readings and the witnesses by age and class, but never a reference or a manuscript name. There are 14,877 such places. For APB 4.0 every one was decided again in October 2026. GPT-6.1 Sol decided every one first. Claude Fable 5.1, from another model family, decided 2,483 of them second, including every place where the first translator left the base text. A departure from the base text needs both translators to agree and the first to be at least 0.8 confident. There is no third translator, so the base text stands when the two disagree. APB 4.0 is translated over those decisions. Whatever was done at this verse was done on the language and the evidence alone, and the record is public.
The APB’s translation committee prints both verses. Its printed text includes Bezer and Jahaz in Joshua 21:36, followed by Kedemoth and Mephaath in Joshua 21:37. The latter verse ends with "four cities." This shows that the committee’s printed text includes Reuben’s contribution to the Levitical city list.
The argument for each reading
If the verses belong
The case for including the verses rests on their presence in many Hebrew manuscripts and their role in the city count. The Masoretic Text (Westminster Leningrad Codex) carries both verses and names Reuben’s four Levitical cities. Their inclusion allows the list to reach its stated total of forty-eight cities. If the verses belong, their presence preserves both Reuben’s contribution to the list and the agreement between the entries and the total. That agreement supports inclusion, though it does not by itself settle the history of the two readings.
If the omission is original
The case for omission rests on a branch of the Masoretic manuscript tradition that leaves out both verses, following a Masoretic note. This gives the shorter reading a place within the Hebrew transmission of the passage. If the omission is original, the list would stand without these entries for Reuben’s four cities. That possibility faces a concrete difficulty: the remaining city entries do not reach the stated total of forty-eight. The omission is attested, but its presence in this branch does not explain the mismatch in the count.
The unresolved question is how the inclusion and omission arose within the Hebrew tradition. The manuscript division and the city count give reasons to examine both readings, but they do not establish that history. The variant changes whether Reuben’s four cities appear in this part of the list and whether the entries match the total. No doctrinal conclusion follows from that difference alone.
Related entries
Witness readings for critical editions are quoted from the SBLGNT apparatus (CC BY 4.0); Hebrew text from the Westminster Leningrad Codex (Open Scriptures Hebrew Bible). Readings of ancient manuscripts and versions are cited from the sources linked above.