Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I: The Literary Transitions Between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges (Forschungen Zum Alten Testament, 120) 9783161544033, 9783161544040, 316154403X

Citation preview

Forschungen zum Alten Testament Herausgegeben von

Konrad Schmid (Zürich) · Mark S. Smith (Princeton) Hermann Spieckermann (Göttingen) · Andrew Teeter (Harvard)

120

Book-Seams in the Hexateuch I The Literary Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges edited by

Christoph Berner and Harald Samuel with the assistance of

Stephen Germany

Mohr Siebeck

Christoph Berner, born 1976; 1996–2002 studied Protestant Theology, Jewish Studies and Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Göttingen; 2006 Dr. theol. in Jewish Studies/New Testament from the University of Göttingen; 2010 Privatdozent in Old Testament Studies/Hebrew Bible, University of Göttingen; 2010–18 fellow in the Heisenberg Programme of the DFG and visiting professor at the universities of Osnabrück, Berlin (HU), Erlangen, Heidelberg (HfJS) and Hamburg. orcid.org/0000-0003-0641-0249 Harald Samuel, born 1979; 1999–2008 studied Protestant Theology and Jewish Studies in Leipzig, Jerusalem and Göttingen; 2014 Dr. theol. in Old Testament Studies/Hebrew Bible from the University of Göttingen; since 2014 Postdoctoral Researcher at the University of Göttingen.

ISBN 978-3-16-154403-3 / eISBN 978-3-16-154404-0 DOI 10.1628/978-3-16-154404-0 ISSN 0940-4155 / eISSN 2568-8359 (Forschungen zum Alten Testament) Die Deutsche Nationalbibliothek lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbiblio­graphie; detailed bibliographic data are available on the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de. © 2018  by Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, Germany. www.mohrsiebeck.com This book may not be reproduced, in whole or in part, in any form (beyond that permitted by copyright law) without the publisher’s written permission. This applies particularly to reproductions, translations and storage and processing in electronic ­systems. The book was printed by Gulde Druck in Tübingen on non-aging paper and bound by Buchbinderei Spinner in Ottersweier. Printed in Germany.

Preface The present volume is based on papers presented at the first two conferences of the series “Buchnähte im Hexateuch”, which were held in Göttingen on 24–27 March 2014 and 23–26 March 2015 in cooperation with the Faculty of Theology and the Centrum Orbis Orientalis et Occidentalis. We are especially thankful to Prof. Reinhard G. Kratz, who supported the project in all of its stages, and to the Fritz Thyssen Stiftung for its generous funding. However, this volume is meant to offer more than a mere collection of articles. Rather, it is devised as a comprehensive treatment of the book-seams in Gen/Exod and Josh/Judg and their interrelations, including a documentation of the material evidence in the different textual traditions as well as articles focusing on the earlier history of research and the wider context of the book transitions and their composition-historical implications. To cover this wide range of topics, we also invited some scholars who had not attended the conferences to contribute to the volume. We wish to thank all our authors for their outstanding work and their patience with this ambitious project. Even when it tarried, they waited for it, and in the end it did come, although with some delay. We also wish to thank the editors Konrad Schmid, Mark S. Smith, Hermann Spieckermann and Andrew Teeter for accepting this volume into the FAT I series and the team at Mohr Siebeck, Katharina Gutekunst, Karen Donskov Felter and Matthias Spitzner, for their constant support. The editorial work of sewing together the different articles into one volume with a unified style and layout was considerably facilitated through the financial support of the Centrum Orbis Orientalis et Occidentalis and the German Research Foundation (DFG). Above all, however, our cordial thanks go to Stephen Germany, who devoted himself to the task of English editing and proofreading. The volume has profited immensely from his meticulous and excellent work. Göttingen, 31 May 2018

Christoph Berner Harald Samuel

Contents Preface......................................................................................................................V Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1

Part I

The Literary Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus 1. Material Evidence Christoph Berner The Attestation of the Book-Seam in the Early Textual Witnesses and its Literary-Historical Implications .................................................................. 5

2. Literary-Historical Approaches 2.1. History of Research Konrad Schmid The Sources of the Pentateuch, Their Literary Extent and the Bridge between Genesis and Exodus: A Survey of Scholarship since Astruc ................. 21 2.2. Contemporary Approaches Joel S. Baden The Lack of Transition between Genesis 50 and Exodus 1 ................................. 43 Jan Christian Gertz The Relative Independence of the Books of Genesis and Exodus ....................... 55 Reinhard Müller Response to Joel S. Baden and Jan Christian Gertz ............................................. 73

VIII

Contents

3. The Larger Context 3.1. The Literary Place of the Joseph Story David M. Carr Joseph Between Ancestors and Exodus: A Gradual Process of Connection ....... 85 Franziska Ede The Literary Development of the Joseph Story .................................................. 105 Bernd U. Schipper Genesis 37–50 and the Model of a Gradual Extension: A Response to David M. Carr and Franziska Ede .............................................. 121 3.2. Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis and Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus Detlef Jericke Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis............................................................. 137 Wolfgang Oswald Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus: Explicit Back References ................. 157 Hans-Christoph Schmitt Parallel Narrative Patterns between Exodus 1–14* and the Ancestral Stories in Genesis 24* and 29–31* ..................................................................... 171

Part II

The Literary Transition between the Books of Joshua and Judges 1. Material Evidence Harald Samuel The Attestation of the Book-Seam in the Early Textual Witnesses and its Literary-Historical Implications .............................................................. 187

Contents

IX

2. Literary-Historical Approaches 2.1. History of Research Erasmus Gaß Joshua’s Death Told Twice – Perspectives from the History of Research ........ 199 2.2. Contemporary Approaches Erhard Blum Once Again: The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Joshua and Judges ................................................................................. 221 Reinhard G. Kratz The Literary Transition in Joshua 23–Judges 2: Observations and Considerations............................................................................................... 241 Sarah Schulz The Literary Transition between the Books of Joshua and Judges .................... 257 Christian Frevel On Untying Tangles and Tying Knots in Joshua 23–Judges 3:6: A Response to Erhard Blum, Reinhard G. Kratz and Sarah Schulz ................... 281

3. The Larger Context 3.1. The Place of the Book of Joshua in the Hexateuch and/or in the So-Called Deuteronomistic History Zev I. Farber and Jacob L. Wright The Savior of Gibeon: Reconstructing the Prehistory of the Joshua Account ... 295 Daniel E. Fleming The Shiloh Ritual in Joshua 18 as Origin of the Territorial Division by Lot ..... 311 3.2. The Place of the Book of Judges in the So-Called Deuteronomistic History Uwe Becker The Place of the Book of Judges in the So-Called Deuteronomistic History: Some Remarks on Recent Research .................................................................... 339

X

Contents

Cynthia Edenburg Envelopes and Seams: How Judges Fits (or not) within the Deuteronomistic History ..................................................................................... 353 Peter Porzig The Book of Judges within the Deuteronomistic History .................................. 371

Part III

The Transitions between the Books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges and their Literary Relationship 1. Material Evidence Christoph Berner The two Book-Seams and their Interconnections ............................................... 381

2. Contemporary Approaches Stephen Germany The Literary Relationship between Genesis 50–Exodus 1 and Joshua 24–Judges 2....................................................................................... 385 Jean Louis Ska Plot and Story in Genesis–Exodus and Joshua–Judges ...................................... 401 Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 411 List of Contributors.............................................................................................. 435 Index of Sources .................................................................................................. 437 Index of Modern Authors .................................................................................... 450

Introduction Christoph Berner / Harald Samuel When using the term “book-seam” (an English rendering of the German “Buchnaht”), we are referring to the immediate transitions between biblical books, with a special emphasis on their material aspects and implications. More specifically, we are referring to the ancient scribal practice of copying and transmitting the biblical text on separate scrolls, which is well documented in the texts from Qumran. Generally speaking, these scrolls are not identical with books in the modern sense of a coherent and self-contained compositional unit.1 This distinction becomes clear if one considers the first two parts of the Hebrew Bible, i.e., the Torah (Gen–Deut) and the Former Prophets (Josh–2 Kgs). On the one hand, the events narrated in the respective texts form a continuous sequence of events from the creation of the world until the fall of the kingdom of Judah, and there are several explicit literary crossreferences which indicate that there is a deliberate compositional rationale behind this enneateuchal master narrative.2 On the other hand, there are no scrolls comprising the entire Enneateuch. Rather, the text is divided into separate scrolls, which can thus be compared to the individual parts of a multivolume composition. Considering the significant length of the Enneateuch, its division into separate scrolls must be regarded as a practical necessity, since a single scroll comprising the entire text of Gen–2 Kgs would not only be unwieldy, but simply impossible to produce. As Peter Porzig convincingly argues, it is not possible to imagine a scroll covering the so-called Deuteronomistic History (Deut–2 Kgs),3 and the same applies to the Former Prophets (Josh–2 Kgs). Rather, the earliest available evidence from Qumran shows that despite their obvious thematic interconnections, it was a usual practice to copy the books of Josh, Judg, 1–2 Sam and 1–2 Kgs on individual scrolls, which are separated in accordance with the major narrative caesurae. This raises the decisive question of how the distribution of the text to different scrolls relates to its compositional history. Can we assume that the respective books were conceived as physically separate parts of a multi-volume composition from the 1

See BARTON, ‘What Is a Book?’. See, e.g., AURELIUS, Zukunft; SCHMITT, ‘Geschichtswerk’. Cf. also BLUM, ‘Pentateuch – Hexateuch – Enneateuch’ for a critical discussion. 3 See PORZIG’s contribution in part II, section 3.2 of this volume. 2

2

Christoph Berner/Harald Samuel

outset,4 or are we dealing with a more complex development of originally independent compositional units (e.g., parts of Josh as the conclusion of an exodus-conquest narrative; a history of the monarchy in 1 Sam–2 Kgs) that were only connected by a later redaction in which the book of Judges served as a narrative link?5 In the latter case, one would also have to differentiate between different types of book-seams: While some transitions (e.g., between Judg and 1 Sam) were most likely conceived on separate scrolls, others may have developed only secondarily from a narrative caesura within an earlier physical and compositional unit (e.g., the transition between Deut and Josh and certainly between 1 and 2 Sam or 1 and 2 Kgs). The same basic observations can also be made with respect to the Pentateuch, which was certainly conceived as a distinct compositional unit by the time the earliest extant copies discovered at Qumran were written.6 Nevertheless, the Qumran evidence is ambiguous. While some scholars assume the existence of scrolls comprising the entire sequence of Gen–Deut (e.g., 4QRPc), the basis for this assumption remains vague. In reality, it is an open question when Torah scrolls came into general use.7 The recently deciphered Leviticus scroll from En Gedi is apparently just that – a Leviticus scroll.8 In contrast, there is ample evidence for scrolls which contained only one, two or possibly even three books (e.g., 4QRPb, d, 4QGen-Exoda, 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, 4QExod-Levf, 1QpaleoLev-Numa, 4QLev-Numa).9 However, the scribal practice of leaving several blank lines between different books, as is attested in 4QpaleoGen-Exodl at the transition between the books of Gen and Exod, suggests that even in the context of a single physical scroll, the book transitions were nevertheless perceived as decisive caesurae between major compositional units. At the same time, one must assume that the scrolls that did not contain all five books were not perceived as isolated and self-contained literary units, but as parts of the larger compositional entity of the Pentateuch. Apparently, the different ways in which the books of the Pentateuch were divided into individual scrolls also reflect a certain compositional logic. For instance, concluding a scroll with Gen 50 is quite understandable, since the death of Jacob and Joseph marks a major narrative caesura, i.e., the end of the ancestral period. On the other hand, there are also convincing thematic 4

Thus, e.g., EDENBURG in her contribution in part II, section 3.2 of this volume. See, e.g., KRATZ, Composition. 6 On what follows, see also GERTZ on pp. 56–60 of this volume. 7 Cf. SIRAT, Hebrew Manuscripts, 27, and RENDSBURG, ‘Torah Scrolls’. 8 Cf. SEGAL et al., ‘Leviticus Scroll’, 33–34. Theoretically it could also have contained Lev–Num or Lev–Deut, but calculations based on the number of lines per column and their respective length make a Leviticus Scroll seem the likeliest option. 9 Moreover, the case of 4QGend shows that in some instances a scroll could apparently comprise only parts of a biblical book (in this case Gen 1–4 or 5). See BROOKE, ‘4QGend’; IDEM, ‘Genesis 1–11’. 5

Introduction

3

and conceptual reasons for composing scrolls that contain more than one book: the tradition- (and literary-) historical connection between creation and the building of the sanctuary (Gen–Exod), the accumulation of texts related to the sanctuary and the sacrificial cult (Exod–Lev) or the narrative context of the wilderness wanderings of the Israelites and their sojourn at Mount Sinai (Exod–Lev–Num). Finally, the apparently fixed scribal custom of copying Deuteronomy separately (about 30 scrolls)10 can easily be attributed to its stylization as the farewell address of Moses. In consequence, the different ways of distributing the pentateuchal text onto separate scrolls are not arbitrary but reflect its existing narrative caesurae. These caesurae are in turn often indicative of the text’s preceding redaction history, the final stages of which are attested by the Qumran witnesses themselves. On the one hand, the passages used for defining the beginning and end of a scroll sometimes concur with the transition between texts from different scribal schools, e.g., of priestly and non-priestly (deuteronomistic) provenance, as is most obviously the case with the transition between the books of Numbers and Deuteronomy. On the other hand, they also reflect the existence of potential literary seams where previously independent texts or compositions may have been redactionally combined or literally sewn together (cf., e.g., the transition between Genesis and Exodus). The often ambiguous character of a book-seam, comprising aspects of both narrative continuity and discontinuity, can thus be seen as a potential reflection of the text’s earlier compositional history. The implications of the book-seams for the compositional history of the text are especially obvious in the two cases treated in this volume, i.e., the transitions between Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges: 1. The book-seams coincide with two major narrative caesurae between the golden days of Joseph and the oppression of the Israelites and between the time of Joshua and the period of the judges. 2. In both cases, there are significant narrative doublets (esp. the twice-told deaths of Joseph and Joshua), which apparently result from an editorial process. 3. Specific parallels (both Joseph and Joshua die at the age of 110 years, together with their entire generation, and what follows is the rise of new protagonists initiating a period of decline) show that the two book-seams are apparently interrelated and have not developed independently.

For the above reasons, it is apparent that the transitions between the books of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges represent two compositional hotspots. Their analysis, therefore, not only promises deeper insight into the development of their immediate contexts but has also crucial implications for the large compositional units of the Pentateuch, Hexateuch and Enneateuch.

10

See TOV, Revised Lists, 116–117; ULRICH, Biblical Qumran Scrolls, 779–780.

4

Christoph Berner/Harald Samuel

The present volume aims at a comprehensive discussion of the book-seams in Gen 50–Exod 1 (part I) and Josh 24–Judg 2 (part II). Both parts are structured identically. They begin with a presentation of the material evidence (section 1), i.e., the book transition as it is documented by the major textual witnesses: the MT, the LXX and (where available) the SP and the biblical Qumran scrolls.11 This section provides a synopsis of the textual variants and an evaluation of their potential diachronic implications and thus provides the basis for section 2 (literary-historical approaches). This section begins with a history of prior research, followed by articles illustrating a spectrum of contemporary approaches towards the book-seam and its literary development. Section 2 is concluded by a response providing a critical evaluation of the different contemporary approaches against the background of the material evidence outlined in section 1. A third section (the larger context) contains articles addressing issues related to the book-seam and highlighting its implications in the context of its compositional framework and the scholarly theories related to it. The volume is concluded by a third part which provides a brief presentation of the parallels between the two book-seams (section 1: material evidence) and an evaluation from and a redaction-critical and a narratological point of view (section 2: contemporary approaches).

11

While the text of the MT follows the BHS, the LXX is based on the critical edition of the Göttingen Septuaginta. The presentation of the Qumran witnesses follows ULRICH, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls. We wish to express our gratitude to Stefan Schorch for providing us with the unpublished manuscript of his forthcoming critical edition of the SP, upon which the presentation of the SP is based.

The Attestation of the Book-Seam in the Early Textual Witnesses and its Literary-Historical Implications Christoph Berner A. Introduction In modern print editions of the Hebrew Bible, the transition between the books of Genesis and Exodus (and the remaining biblical books) usually coincides with a page break. Thus, the text of Exodus begins at the top of a new page following a superscription giving the book’s title. Basically, the same principle is already attested in early Greek codices of the Bible like Codex Alexandrinus or Codex Vaticanus. Here, the text of Exodus begins in the first line of a new column, while the last lines of the preceding column containing the final verses of Gen 50 were left blank. In addition, the book transition is also highlighted graphically by a concluding scribal remark referring to the end of Genesis1 and an (ornate) superscription in the top margin above the following column mentioning the title of the book of Exodus.2 Compared to the above examples, the material evidence attested by the earliest Hebrew copies of the books of Genesis and Exodus from Qumran is more diverse. Of the three fragmentary scrolls containing the first verses of Exod 1, none has preserved a reference to the title of the book, although the example of 4QGenh-Title shows that, in principle, such references could already be employed by the Qumranic scribes.3 Moreover, it is noteworthy that most of the Qumranic witnesses to the book of Exodus apparently contained no further books of the Pentateuch,4 while in some instances, there is also evidence of scrolls covering Genesis and Exodus (4QGen-Exoda; 4QExodb; 1

There is a high degree of variation with respect to these scribal remarks. Thus, Codex Vaticanus has γενεσις κατα τους εβδομηκοντα, while Codex Alexandrinus reads γενεσις κοσμου. For further manuscript evidence, see WEVERS, Genesis, 475. 2 Again, these superscriptions are not standardized. Cf., e.g., εξοδος in Codex Vaticanus, or εξοδος αιγυπτου in Codex Alexandrinus. For further variants, see WEVERS, Exodus, 66. 3 The fragment preserves the title of the book of Genesis (‫)ברשית‬, which was most likely written on the reverse side of the scroll to allow for a quick identification of its contents. See the contribution of Jan Christian Gertz in this volume, p. 56. 4 Cf. 1QExod, 2QExoda, 2QExodb, 2QExodc, 4QExodc, 4QExodd, 4QExode, 4QExodg, 4QExodh, 4QExodj, 4QExodk, 4QpaleoExodm.

6

Christoph Berner

4QpaleoGen-Exodl frgs. 1, 39 © Israel Antiquities Authority

4QpaleoGen-Exodl) or Exodus and Leviticus respectively (4QExod-Levf). It is conceivable that in these latter cases we are in fact dealing with scrolls that, originally, comprised the text of all five books of the Pentateuch.5 Due to the fragmentary state of most scrolls, the transitions between the individual books are usually lost. It is, therefore, a lucky coincidence that 4QpaleoGen-Exodl frgs. 1, 39 has preserved the book transition between Genesis and Exodus.

5

See, e.g., SKEHAN et al., DJD 9, 20. The existence of scrolls containing all five books from Genesis to Deuteronomy might be attested by 4QRPc and MurGen-Exod-Numa; see BENOIT et al., DJD 2/1, 75.

I. 1. Material Evidence

7

4QpaleoGen-Exodl frgs. 1, 39 (infrared image) © Israel Antiquities Authority

By leaving three and a half empty lines between the end of Gen 50:266 and the beginning of Exod 1:1, the writer of 4QpaleoGen-Exodl has marked a major caesura between the two verses, which is unparalleled in the remaining parts of the scroll.7 The design of the transition thus seems to reflect the awareness that Genesis and Exodus represent two distinct compositional units, which are nevertheless continuous from a narrative perspective and could, therefore, be included within the same physical unit of a single scroll. At the same time, the many examples of scrolls apparently containing only 6 Since only two letters of the last word of Gen 50:26 (‫ )במ]צרים‬are preserved in 4QpaleoGen-Exodl frg. 1 1, this passage has not been included in the following synopsis in section B. 7 A similar case is also attested in 4QExodb frg. 1, where the text of Exod 1:1–6 begins in the middle section of the column following two lines which were ruled but left blank. Apparently, these blank lines indicate the book transition. See ULRICH et al., DJD 12, 79– 80.

8

Christoph Berner

the book of Exodus show that the transition between Gen 50:26 and Exod 1:1 was even more frequently realized through the creation of separate physical units. In sum, the material evidence of the early textual witnesses from Qumran highlights the ambiguity of the transition between the books of Genesis and Exodus, which includes aspects of narrative continuity and discontinuity alike and apparently results from the complex redaction history of the section that shall be analyzed in the following sections of this volume.

‫‪9‬‬

‫‪I. 1. Material Evidence‬‬

‫‪B. Synopsis: Gen 50:22 – Exod 1:10‬‬ ‫‪LXX‬‬ ‫‪καὶ κατῴκησεν Ιωσηφ ἐν‬‬ ‫‪Αἰγύπτῳ‬‬ ‫‪αὐτὸς καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ‬‬ ‫‪καὶ πᾶσα ἡ πανοικία τοῦ‬‬ ‫‪πατρὸς αὐτοῦ‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ἔζησεν Ιωσηφ ἔτη‬‬ ‫‪ἑκατὸν δέκα‬‬ ‫‪καὶ εἶδεν Ιωσηφ Εφραιμ‬‬ ‫‪παιδία ἕως τρίτης γενεᾶς‬‬ ‫‪καὶ υἱοὶ Μαχιρ τοῦ υἱοῦ‬‬ ‫‪Μανασση ἐτέχθησαν ἐπὶ‬‬ ‫‪μηρῶν Ιωσηφ‬‬ ‫‪καὶ εἶπεν Ιωσηφ τοῖς‬‬ ‫‪ἀδελφοῖς αὐτοῦ λέγων ἐγὼ‬‬ ‫‪ἀποθνῄσκω‬‬ ‫‪ἐπισκοπῇ δὲ ἐπισκέψεται‬‬ ‫‪ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς καὶ ἀνάξει ὑμᾶς‬‬ ‫‪ἐκ τῆς γῆς ταύτης‬‬ ‫‪εἰς τὴν γῆν ἣν ὤμοσεν ὁ‬‬ ‫‪θεὸς τοῖς πατράσιν ἡμῶν‬‬ ‫‪Αβρααμ καὶ Ισαακ καὶ‬‬ ‫‪Ιακωβ‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ὥρκισεν Ιωσηφ τοὺς‬‬ ‫‪υἱοὺς Ισραηλ λέγων‬‬ ‫‪ἐν τῇ ἐπισκοπῇ ᾗ‬‬ ‫‪ἐπισκέψεται ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός‬‬ ‫‪καὶ συνανοίσετε τὰ ὀστᾶ μου‬‬ ‫‪ἐντεῦθεν μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν Ιωσηφ ἐτῶν‬‬ ‫‪ἑκατὸν δέκα καὶ ἔθαψαν‬‬ ‫‪αὐτὸν καὶ ἔθηκαν ἐν τῇ‬‬ ‫‪σορῷ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ‬‬

‫‪SP‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫וישב יוסף במצרים‬

‫יוֹס ף ְבּ ִמ ְצ ַר ִים‬ ‫וַ יֵּ ֶשׁב ֵ‬

‫הוא ובית אביו‬

‫וּב ית ָא ִביו‬ ‫הוּא ֵ‬

‫ויחי יוסף מאה ועשר‬ ‫שנים׃‬ ‫וירא יוסף לאפרים בנים‬ ‫שלישים‬ ‫גם בני מכיר בן מנשה‬ ‫ילדו בימי יוסף‬

‫יוֹס ף ֵמ ָאה וָ ֶﬠ ֶשׂר‬ ‫וַ יְ ִחי ֵ‬ ‫ָשׁ נִ ים‬ ‫יוֹסף לְ ֶא ְפ ַר ִי ם ְבּנֵ י‬ ‫וַ ַיּ ְרא ֵ‬ ‫ִשׁלֵּ ִשׁים‬ ‫גַּ ם ְבּנֵ י ָמ ִכיר ֶבּן־ ְמנַ ֶשּׁה‬ ‫יוֹסף‬ ‫יֻ ְלּדוּ ַﬠ ל־ ִבּ ְר ֵכּי ֵ‬

‫ויאמר יוסף אל אחיו‬ ‫אנכי מת‬

‫יוֹסף ֶאל־ ֶא ָחיו‬ ‫אמר ֵ‬ ‫וַ יּ ֹ ֶ‬ ‫ָא נ ִֹכי ֵמ ת‬

‫והאלהים פקד יפקד‬ ‫אתכם והעלה אתכם‬ ‫מן הארץ הזאת‬ ‫אל הארץ אשר נשבע‬ ‫לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב‬

‫וֵ א ִהים ָפּקֹד ִי ְפקֹד‬ ‫ֶא ְת ֶכם וְ ֶה ֱﬠ לָ ה ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ‫ִמ ן־ ָה ָא ֶר ץ ַהזֹּאת‬ ‫ֶא ל־ ָה ָא ֶרץ ֲא ֶשׁר נִ ְשׁ ַבּע‬ ‫ְל ַא ְב ָר ָהם ְל ִי ְצ ָחק וּלְ ַי ֲﬠקֹב‬

‫וישביע יוסף את בני‬ ‫ישראל לאמר‬ ‫פקד יפקד אלהים אתכם‬

‫יוֹסף ֶאת־ ְבּנֵ י‬ ‫וַ ַיּ ְשׁ ַבּע ֵ‬ ‫ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵא ל לֵ אמֹר‬ ‫ָפּקֹד יִ ְפקֹד ֱא ִהים‬ ‫ֶא ְת ֶכם‬

‫והעליתם את עצמתי‬ ‫מזה אתכם‬ ‫וימת יוסף בן מאה‬ ‫ועשר שנים ויחנטו אתו‬ ‫ויושם בארן במצרים‬

‫וְ ַה ֲﬠ ִל ֶת ם ֶאת־ ַﬠ ְצמ ַֹתי‬ ‫ִמ זֶּ ה‬ ‫יוֹסף ֶבּן־ ֵמ ָאה‬ ‫וַ יָּ ָמת ֵ‬ ‫וָ ֶﬠ ֶשׂר ָשׁנִ ים וַ יַּ ַחנְ טוּ אֹתוֹ‬ ‫ישׂ ם ָבּ ָארוֹן ְבּ ִמ ְצ ָר ִים‬ ‫וַ יִּ ֶ‬

‫‪50,22‬‬

‫‪50,23‬‬

‫‪50,24‬‬

‫‪50,25‬‬

‫‪50,26‬‬

‫‪10‬‬

‫‪Christoph Berner‬‬

‫‪LXX‬‬

‫‪SP‬‬

‫‪MT‬‬

‫‪ταῦτα τὰ ὀνόματα τῶν υἱῶν‬‬ ‫‪Ισραηλ τῶν‬‬ ‫‪εἰσπεπορευμένων εἰς‬‬ ‫‪Αἴγυπτον ἅμα Ιακωβ τῷ‬‬ ‫‪πατρὶ αὐτῶν‬‬ ‫‪ἕκαστος πανοικίᾳ αὐτῶν‬‬ ‫‪εἰσήλθοσαν‬‬ ‫‪Ρουβην Συμεων Λευι Ιουδας‬‬

‫ואלה שמות בני ישראל‬ ‫הבאים מצרימה את‬ ‫יעקב‬

‫וְ ֵא ֶלּה ְשׁמוֹת ְבּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ַה ָבּ ִאים ִמ ְצ ָר יְ ָמה ֵאת‬ ‫ַי ֲﬠקֹב‬

‫איש וביתו באו‬

‫וּביתוֹ ָבּאוּ‬ ‫ִאישׁ ֵ‬

‫ראובן ושמעון ולוי‬ ‫ויהודה‬ ‫ויששכר וזבולן ובנימים׃‬

‫אוּבן ִשׁ ְמעוֹן ֵלוִ י‬ ‫ְר ֵ‬ ‫יהוּדה‬ ‫וִ ָ‬ ‫וּבנְ יָ ִמן‬ ‫שכר זְ בוּלֻ ן ִ‬ ‫ִי ָשּׂ ָ‬

‫דן ונפתלי‬ ‫גד ואשר‬

‫ָדּ ן וְ נַ ְפ ָתּלִ י‬ ‫גָּ ד וְ ָא ֵשׁר‬

‫ויהיו כל נפש יצאי ירך‬ ‫יעקב שבעים נפש‬

‫וַ יְ ִהי ָכּל־נֶ ֶפשׁ י ְֹצ ֵאי‬ ‫יֶ ֶר ־יַ ֲﬠקֹב ִשׁ ְב ִﬠים נָ ֶפשׁ‬

‫ויוסף היה במצרים׃‬ ‫וימת יוסף‬ ‫וכל אחיו‬ ‫וכל הדור ההוא‬ ‫ובני ישראל פרו‬ ‫וישרצו וירבו‬

‫יוֹס ף ָהיָ ה ְב ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ‫וְ ֵ‬ ‫יוֹסף‬ ‫וַ ָיּ ָמת ֵ‬ ‫וְ ָכל־ ֶא ָחיו‬ ‫וְ כֹל ַהדּוֹר ַההוּא‬ ‫וּב נֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵא ל ָפּרוּ‬ ‫ְ‬ ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְרצוּ וַ יִּ ְרבּוּ‬

‫ויעצמו במאד מאד‬ ‫ותמלא הארץ אתם‬

‫וַ ַיּ ַﬠ ְצמוּ ִבּ ְמאֹד ְמ אֹד‬ ‫וַ ִתּ ָמּ ֵלא ָה ָא ֶרץ א ָֹתם‬

‫ויקם מלך חדש‬ ‫על מצרים אשר לא ידע‬ ‫את יוסף‬ ‫ויאמר אל עמו‬ ‫הן עם בני ישראל רב‬ ‫ועצום ממנו‬

‫וַ ָיּ ָקם ֶמלֶ ־ ָח ָדשׁ‬ ‫ַﬠ ל־ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם ֲא ֶשׁר ל ֹא־ ָי ַדע‬ ‫יוֹסף‬ ‫ֶא ת־ ֵ‬ ‫אמר ֶאל־ ַﬠמּוֹ‬ ‫וַ יּ ֹ ֶ‬ ‫ִהנֵּ ה ַﬠ ם ְבּנֵ י ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ַרב‬ ‫וְ ָﬠצוּם ִמ ֶמּנּוּ‬

‫הבה נתחכם לו‬ ‫פן ירבה‬ ‫והיה כי תקראנו מלחמה‬ ‫ונוסף גם הוא על שנאינו‬

‫ָה ָבה נִ ְת ַח ְכּ ָמה לוֹ‬ ‫ֶפּ ן־ ִי ְר ֶבּה‬ ‫וְ ָהיָ ה ִכּי־ ִת ְק ֶראנָ ה‬ ‫נוֹסף גַּ ם־הוּא‬ ‫ִמ ְל ָח ָמה וְ ַ‬ ‫ַﬠ ל־שׂ ֹנְ ֵאינוּ‬ ‫וְ נִ לְ ַחם־ ָבּנוּ וְ ָﬠלָ ה‬ ‫ִמ ן־ ָה ָא ֶרץ‪.‬‬

‫‪Ισσαχαρ Ζαβουλων καὶ‬‬ ‫‪Βενιαμιν‬‬ ‫‪Δαν καὶ Νεφθαλι‬‬ ‫‪Γαδ καὶ Ασηρ‬‬ ‫‪Ιωσηφ δὲ ἦν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ‬‬ ‫‪ἦσαν δὲ πᾶσαι ψυχαὶ ἐξ‬‬ ‫‪Ιακωβ πέντε καὶ‬‬ ‫‪ἑβδομήκοντα‬‬ ‫‪ἐτελεύτησεν δὲ Ιωσηφ‬‬ ‫‪καὶ πάντες οἱ ἀδελφοὶ αὐτοῦ‬‬ ‫‪καὶ πᾶσα ἡ γενεὰ ἐκείνη‬‬ ‫‪οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ηὐξήθησαν‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ἐπληθύνθησαν καὶ‬‬ ‫‪χυδαῖοι ἐγένοντο‬‬ ‫‪καὶ κατίσχυον σφόδρα‬‬ ‫‪σφόδρα ἐπλήθυνεν δὲ ἡ γῆ‬‬ ‫‪αὐτούς‬‬ ‫‪ἀνέστη δὲ βασιλεὺς ἕτερος‬‬ ‫‪ἐπ᾽ Αἴγυπτον ὃς οὐκ ᾔδει τὸν‬‬ ‫‪Ιωσηφ‬‬ ‫‪εἶπεν δὲ τῷ ἔθνει αὐτοῦ‬‬ ‫‪ἰδοὺ τὸ γένος τῶν υἱῶν‬‬ ‫‪Ισραηλ μέγα πλῆθος καὶ‬‬ ‫‪ἰσχύει ὑπὲρ ἡμᾶς‬‬ ‫‪δεῦτε οὖν κατασοφισώμεθα‬‬ ‫‪αὐτούς μήποτε πληθυνθῇ‬‬ ‫‪καί ἡνίκα ἂν συμβῇ ἡμῖν‬‬ ‫‪πόλεμος προστεθήσονται καὶ‬‬ ‫‪οὗτοι πρὸς τοὺς ὑπεναντίους‬‬ ‫‪καὶ ἐκπολεμήσαντες ἡμᾶς‬‬ ‫‪ἐξελεύσονται ἐκ τῆς γῆς‬‬

‫ונלחם בנו ועלה מן‬ ‫הארץ‬

‫‪1,1‬‬

‫‪1,2‬‬

‫‪1,3‬‬

‫‪1,4‬‬

‫‪1,5‬‬

‫‪1,6‬‬

‫‪1,7‬‬

‫‪1,8‬‬

‫‪1,9‬‬

‫‪1,10‬‬

‫‪11‬‬

‫‪I. 1. Material Evidence‬‬

‫‪1,1‬‬

‫‪1,2‬‬

‫‪1,3‬‬

‫‪1,4‬‬

‫‪1,5‬‬

‫‪1,6‬‬

‫‪1,7‬‬

‫‪4QExodb‬‬ ‫‪frg. 1‬‬

‫‪4QpaleoGen‬‬‫‪Exodl frg. 39‬‬

‫]אלה שמות בני ישראל‬ ‫הבאים מצרימה [את‬ ‫יעקוב אביהם‬

‫אלה שמות בני יש]ראל‬ ‫הבאים מצר[ימה ]את‬ ‫יעקב אביהם‬

‫איש ]וביתו באו[‬ ‫]‬ ‫ראובן שמעון לוי‬ ‫ויהודה‬ ‫[יששכר זבולון יוסף‬ ‫ובני]מין‬ ‫דן ונפתלי‬ ‫גד ואשר‬

‫איש[ וביתו באו‬

‫דן ונפתלי]‬ ‫ג[ד ו]אשר‬

‫ויהי כל נפש ליעקוב[‬ ‫חמש ושבעים נפש‬

‫ויהי כל נפש י[צא ירך‬ ‫י]עקב שבעים[ נפש‬

‫שבעים[ וחמש נפש‬

‫ויוסף היה במצ]רים‬

‫ויוסף] היה במצרים‬

‫וימת] יוסף[‬

‫ר]א[ובן ש]מעון לוי‬ ‫ויהודה‬ ‫[ויששכר] זבולן ובנימן[‬

‫‪4QGen-Exoda‬‬ ‫‪frgs. 17+18‬‬

‫[ויששכר וז]בולן‬

‫הה[וא‬ ‫ובני ישראל פרו‬ ‫וישר]צו‬ ‫א[תם‬

‫‪1,8‬‬

‫]ויקם מ[לך חדש‬ ‫על מצרים אשר לא]‬

‫‪1,9‬‬

‫]ישרא[ל רב ועצום ממנו‬

‫‪1,10‬‬

‫הבה נתחכמה ]‬ ‫ונו[סף גם הוא על שנאינו‬ ‫ונלחם בנו ועלה מן ה]ארץ‬

12

Christoph Berner

C. Description of Variants Almost nothing of the section Gen 50:22–26 has been preserved in the Qumran manuscripts. Only 4QpaleoGen-Exodl frg. 1 1 seems to contain a very small portion of Gen 50:26 (the first two letters of the final word of the verse, i.e., ‫)במ]צרים‬, but this highly fragmentary passage provides no significant readings and has therefore not been included in the above synopsis. In contrast, the comparison of the MT, the LXX and the SP versions of Gen 50:22– 26 shows at least some minor variants. To begin with, there are two instances where the LXX has a more elaborate text than the Hebrew witnesses. In Gen 50:22, it reads “he and his brothers and the entire household of his father” (instead of “he and the house[hold] of his father” in the MT and the SP),1 which can be explained by assuming either a change in the process of translation2 or an (earlier) adjustment to the similar sequence in Exod 1:6 (“he and his brothers and this entire generation”). 3 In Gen 50:24, the LXX repeats the subject from the main clause in the ensuing relative clause (“which God has sworn to your fathers Abraham and Isaac and Jacob”), while the Hebrew witnesses are less explicit and lack the explicit designation of the three patriarchs as “your fathers” (“which he has sworn to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob”). A further plus of the LXX, this time also shared by the SP, is attested in Gen 50:25. In both versions, Joseph’s request “you shall carry up my bones from here” (MT) is followed by an additional “with you”. This text is more in line with Exod 13:19, which contains a verbatim quotation of Josephs’ request including the prepositional phrase in question.4 An additional set of variants is attested in Gen 50:23. Apart from a variation in the reference to the offspring of Ephraim in 50:23a,5 the versions dif1 A similar plus occurs in Gen 50:8 LXX (“the entire household of Joseph and his brothers and his entire paternal house”). 2 According to KARRER/KRAUS, Erläuterungen, 256, the rendering of Heb. ‫ בית‬with Gk. πανοικία (signifying the household of Jacob in a narrow sense) necessitated an additional reference to Joseph’s brothers. 3 As WEVERS, Notes, 851, has correctly observed, “the πᾶσα modifying πανοικία is certainly otiose” in the Greek text. This is most easily explained by assuming the verbatim translation of a Hebrew Vorlage that read ‫ ;וכל בית אביו‬cf. Gen 50:8. 4 The syntactic construction of Gen 50:25bα in the LXX differs considerably from the Hebrew witnesses. Theoretically, it could be based on a different Hebrew Vorlage (‫בפקדה‬ ‫)אשר יפקד אתכם אלהים‬, although it is perhaps more likely to assume that it merely reflects a stylistic adaptation by the hand of the Greek translator. Cf. WEVERS, NOTES, 853. 5 While the construct chain in the MT (“the sons/offspring of the third generation”) literally refers to Ephraim’s offspring of the fourth generation or his great-greatgrandchildren, the chain of descendants only counts three generations in the LXX version (“the children up to the third generation”). The SP seems to reflect a similar reading (“third generation children;” see Wevers, Notes, 852), with ‫ שלישים‬being used either as a predicative accusative or as an apposition.

I. 1. Material Evidence

13

fer especially with respect to the peculiar circumstances of the birth of the sons of Machir in 50:23b. While the MT states that they were born “on Joseph’s knees”, thus reflecting the notion of adoption expressed in Gen 30:3, the LXX locates their birth “on Joseph’s thighs”. The variant may be due to a deliberate exegetical change in order to emphasize the notion of fertility,6 although it could also result from the confusion of Heb. ‫ ברך‬and ‫ירך‬, either by the Greek translator or in his Hebrew Vorlage. The SP, on the other hand, reads that the sons of Machir were born “in Joseph’s days”. It thus avoids the physical (and legal) implications of the MT (and LXX) reading(s) in favor of a purely chronological understanding, which is more in line with Gen 50:22– 23a. Finally, mention should be made of a thematic variant in Gen 50:26, where the LXX reads that Joseph was buried, while he was embalmed according to the Hebrew witnesses. In light of the fact that Jacob’s embalmment in 50:2 is faithfully rendered by the LXX, it is worth considering whether in 50:26 the Hebrew Vorlage used by the translator may have read ‫“( ויקברו‬and they buried”) instead of ‫“( ויחנטו‬and they embalmed”).7 Perhaps the variant results from the attempt to reserve this special treatment of the corpse for Israel’s ancestor Jacob alone.8 Compared with Gen 50:22–26, the textual evidence for Exod 1:1–10 is considerably more complex.9 For one thing, this is due to the fact that the passage in question is at least partly preserved by three different manuscripts from Qumran: 4QGen-Exoda (125–100 BCE), 4QpaleoGen-Exodl (100–50/25 BCE) and 4QExodb (30 BCE–20 CE).10 However, these witnesses neither represent the same textual tradition, nor does one of them fully conform with the versions attested in the MT, the SP or the LXX.11 At the same time, it is noteworthy that especially some of the more specific LXX readings are supported by the Qumran evidence. Already in Exod 1:1, this applies to two different instances. While in the MT and the SP the beginning of the verse 6

Thus the suggestion in KARRER/KRAUS, Erläuterungen, 257. Note also that the LXX continues in Gen 50:26bβ with another verb in the 3rd p. pl. (“and they buried”), whereas the Hebrew witnesses switch to the 3rd p. sg., although the specific forms differ. While the MT has the Qal ‫ישׂם‬ ֶ ִ‫( וַ יּ‬G-K 73f suggests a passive form of the Qal), the SP reads the Hofal ‫וַ יּוּ ַשם‬. 8 Differently KARRER/KRAUS, Erläuterungen, 257, who ascribe the change to the Greek translator (cf. Gen 50:3). 9 Strictly speaking, this applies mainly to Exod 1:1–5. In contrast, the variants in Exod 1:6–10 are not only less in number, but also different in character. They reflect grammatical and orthographic changes, which are rather insignificant from a literary historical point of view. Consequently, these variants will not be discussed in the following. 10 On the palaeographic datings of the manuscripts see DAVILA, DJD 12, 8; SKEHAN et al., DJD 9, 21; CROSS, DJD 12, 79. 11 On the textual character of the manuscripts see the summaries provided by SKEHAN et al., DJD 9, 23–25, and CROSS, DJD 12, 84, as well as the notes by DAVILA, DJD 12, 8– 30. 7

14

Christoph Berner

reads “And these are the names ...”, the transitioning copula is missing in the LXX12 and in 4QpaleoGen-Exodl (“These are the names ...”).13 Moreover, both 4QExodb and 4QpaleoGen-Exodl agree with the LXX by concluding Exod 1:1 with the apposition “their father”, which is absent from the MT and the SP. The respective plus is meant to clarify that Jacob is the same person that the verse initially referred to when using the honorary title “Israel”. Conversely, this implies that “the sons of Israel” mentioned here are Jacob’s physical sons, not the Israelites.14 The list containing the sons’ names (Exod 1:2–4) shows a certain fluctuation with respect to the use of the copula. This, however, only applies to the sons of Leah and Rachel (1:2–3), who are either presented as one large group (SP and LXX)15 or subdivided into two sub-groups (MT: “Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah. Issachar, Zebulun and Benjamin.”). In contrast, the names of the sons of the maidservants Bilhah and Zilpah (1:4) are consistently set apart as pairs of two (“Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher”) towards the end of the list in all extant witnesses. 16 While the sequence of the eleven names is the same in the different textual versions, 4QExodb preserves one significant plus. Only here, Joseph is included within the list between the last of Leah’s sons, Zebulun and Rachel’s second son Benjamin (1:3). Therefore, the list in 4QExodb presumably contained the names of all twelve sons of Jacob in their proper genealogical order.17 Conversely, the reference to Joseph already being in Egypt when his family arrived (1:5b) is not attested in 4QExodb, where Joseph’s death (1:6) is mentioned immediately after the final census of the immigrants in 1:5a.18

12

Note that in the course of the textual transmission, the LXX reading has been sporadically adjusted to the MT (ταῦτα δε = ‫)ואלה‬. 13 CROSS, DJD 12, 85, suggests the same reading for 4QExodb, but this is purely conjectural, since the part of the fragment containing the beginning of Exod 1:1 has been completely destroyed. The sole basis for this reconstruction is the observation that the Qumran manuscript frequently conforms with the LXX. Whether or not the manuscript followed the reading without the copula, cannot be decided. 14 See WEVERS, Notes, 1. 15 Note the consistent use of the copula as a connecting element in the SP. In contrast, the respective section in the LXX is characterized largely by an asyndetic style, and only the last name of the section (Benjamin) is connected with an “and”. 16 This includes the Qumran manuscripts 4QExodb and 4QpaleoGenExodl. Unfortunately, the preceding section (Exod 1:2–3) is too fragmentary to permit reliable conclusions with respect to its structure. 17 Note, however, that in 4QExodb only four of the names have been partly preserved. 18 Although one can exclude the possibility that 4QExodb contained Exod 1:5b directly before or after 1:5a, it cannot be completely ruled out that the verse was attested in a different context. Interestingly, there is a free space at the beginning of line 4 (in a lacuna), which might have contained a few additional words between Exod 1:1 and 1:2. Theoreti-

I. 1. Material Evidence

15

Although the specific textual sequence reflected by 4QExodb is unparalleled in the other extant witnesses of Exod 1,19 it is to a certain degree similar to the LXX version. Here, Exod 1:6 also connects directly with 1:5a. However, unlike in 4QExodb, Exod 1:5b is not missing in the LXX version, but occurs prior to Exod 1:5a. This textual arrangement creates a direct connection between the list of the eleven sons who immigrated with Jacob (1:1–4) and the reference to Joseph’s sojourn in Egypt (1:5b). It has the effect that the names of all twelve sons are grouped together, although, in contrast to 4QExodb, Joseph is not fully integrated into the genealogical sequence. Still, despite these differences, 4QExodb and the LXX are distinctly set off from the remaining textual witnesses where the first reference to Joseph (1:5b) is separated from the list of his brothers (1:1–4) by the census of the immigrants in 1:5a (MT, SP, 4QGen-Exoda, 4QpaleoGen-Exodl). Finally, it stands to reason that the question of whether Joseph belongs with his brothers or not must have also (at least indirectly) affected the respective census. While 4QGen-Exoda, 4QExodb,20 and the LXX provide the number of 75 people (obviously including Joseph and his descendants),21 the MT, the SP and 4QpaleoGen-Exodl arrive at the lower count of 70 people. This fits well with the fact that the last three witnesses mention Joseph seperately and only after the census, while the first two place him in the immediate context of his brothers prior to the census. However, 4QGen-Exoda does not suit the above pattern, as the text reflects the sequence census (1:5a) – Joseph (1:5b) and still arrives at the higher count of 75 descendants.22 Besides the divergences in the number of descendants, there are also variants concerning their specific designation.23 While the MT, the SP and 4QpaleoGen-Exodl

cally, it is conceivable that (an abbreviated version of) Exod 1:5b was moved to this position, although there is no literary evidence to support this hypothesis. 19 Note, however, that it fully conforms with the sequence of the short list of Jacob’s twelve sons in Gen 35:23–26. 20 Note that the composite numeral is construed differently in 4QGen-Exoda ([‫שבעים‬ ‫ )וחמש‬and 4QExodb (‫)חמש ושבעים‬. 21 This calclulation conforms with the LXX version of Gen 46, which not only mentions Joseph’s two sons (thus the MT and the SP), but also five of their descendants: Manasse’s son Machir and his grandson Gilead as well as Ephraim’s sons Shuthelah [Σουταλααμ] and Tahan [Τααμ] together with his grandson Eran [Εδεμ] (46:20; cf. Num 26:28–37). In this way, the LXX reaches an overall count of 75 people belonging to Jacob’s household (46:27) – in contrast to the 70 people mentioned in the MT and the LXX. 22 Unfortunately, in 4QGen-Exoda the text prior to Exod 1:5 is almost completely lost. Therefore, it remains unclear whether the count of 75 people was connected to the preceding verses in a specific way. 23 Moreover, there is a slight variation in the use of the numerus: In the MT, Exod 1:5a is introduced by the verb ‫ היה‬in the 3rd p. sg., whereas the SP and the LXX have the 3rd p. pl. However, this grammatical difference does not affect the meaning of the text.

16

Christoph Berner

refer to “the souls/people who came out of Jacob’s loins”,24 the LXX uses a more neutral definition (“all souls/people from Jacob”), which avoids the bodily connotations. Evidently, a similar short reading was also attested in 4QExodb. Although the respective passage is not preserved, the lacuna is too short to have contained the long reading of the MT and the SP. However, the reconstruction proposed by Cross (“all souls/people of Jacob” – ‫כל נפש‬ ‫ )ליעקוב‬seems awkward from a grammatical and stylistic point of view. Alternatively, one could consider reconstructing the text as ‫כל נפש אשר ליעקוב‬ (although the lacuna might be too short for this reading) or ‫כל נפש מיעקב‬ (cf. the LXX).

D. Literary-historical Implications Among the textual variants discussed above, the ones related to the person of Joseph are of immediate significance for the literary history of the passage in question. The fluctuating position of Exod 1:5b suggests that the early tradents employed different reading strategies to make sense out of a text which shows clear traces of being composite. On the one hand, Exod 1:1–4, 5a, 7 form a matching thematic unit, which relates how 70 (or 75) immigrants became an immense people. It is interwoven with a different narrative thread in Exod 1:6, 8(–10), where the death of Joseph and his entire generation prepares for a drastic shift of the Israelites’ fortunes under the new Egyptian king “who did not know Joseph”. In the textual tradition reflected by the MT and the SP as well as 4QGen-Exoda and 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, Exod 1:5b establishes the transition between the list and census of the immigrants in 1:1–5a and the death of Joseph in 1:6. In the LXX, however, the verse serves a different purpose. Here, Exod 1:5b merely completes the list of Jacob’s sons, before 1:5a gives the count of all immigrants (including Joseph and his family). When it comes to reconstructing the literary history of Exod 1, one not only has to decide which of the two positions of Exod 1:5b is the more original one. It is also imperative to establish how these two versions relate to the one attested in 4QExodb where 1:5b is missing altogether and the name of Joseph is included in the list. Does the Qumran manuscript reflect an earlier stage in the literary history of the text, when the list still mentioned all twelve of Jacob’s sons in their proper order?25 Or should it rather be judged as the late harmonization of a composite text, with the effect of neutralizing a more 24 As 4QpaleoGen-Exodl reads ‫ י[צא ירך יעקב‬instead of ‫( יצאי ירך יעקב‬MT and SP), it could reflect a singular form. Note, however, that the variant might also be purely orthographic. 25 Thus CROSS, DJD 12, 85; cf. ALBERTZ, Exodus 1–18, 43.

I. 1. Material Evidence

17

original distinction between Joseph and his eleven brothers? In the light of the overall character of the manuscript, the latter appears to be the more likely alternative. 4QExodb not only contains several of the pluses of the other versions26 but also contains a number of longer readings unattested elsewhere. Those encompass harmonistic readings27 as well as exegetical embellishments, most notably in Exod 2:3, where it is not the mother, but her maidservant who puts the child in the basket.28 As a result, it seems likely that the peculiar version of Exod 1:1–5 attested in 4QExodb reflects a late harmonization, which is why the manuscript is an unlikely candidate for a first-hand witness on the early literary history of Exod 1. The second major issue which is inseparably connected to the compositional history of Exod 1:1–10 is the literary relationship between this section and the concluding verses of Gen 50. On the one hand, it is undeniable that the list in Exod 1:1–5a, together with the description of the people’s immense proliferation in 1:7, establishes a fitting introduction to the book of Exodus, whereas Joseph’s final words and his death in Gen 50:24–26 form a succinct conclusion to the book of Genesis. On the other hand, it is crucial to determine whether the present function of the two passages is the one intended from the very beginning. Can one assume that Gen 50:24–26 and Exod 1:1– 5a, 7 were initially conceived to create a major caesura within the narrative sequence in order to facilitate the attribution of two self-contained narrative units to two separate scrolls, or was the original purpose of the two passages a different one? Should the latter be the case, this would call for a clarification of the literary relationship between the two passages, as they need not necessarily be the work of a single author. Unfortunately, the textual transmission of the respective sections provides little help to clarify these literary-historical issues. The only variant with potential significance is the use or omission of the copula at the beginning of Exod 1:1. Generally speaking, the version without the copula would seem more appropriate for the opening section of a new scroll or the beginning of a new narrative sequence after a major caesura (thus 4QpaleoGen-Exodl!). While openings with a wayyiqtol form are very common in the narrative books of the Hebrew Bible,29 there are only two instances where the first

26

E.g., Exod 1:1 (+ “their father”) par LXX; Exod 2:6 (+ “Pharaoh’s daughter”) par SP and LXX; Exod 2:16 (+ “herding [his flock]”) par LXX (with an even longer reading). 27 E.g., Exod 1:18 (+ “Hebrew”; also attested by the Sahidic Coptic version), an adjustment to 1:15. Moreover, Exod 4:8 (+ “so that”) reflects a harmonization with Exod 4:5 that would even necessitate further syntactical adjustment of the remaining part of 4:8. Unfortunately, this section is not preserved in the manuscript. 28 See ROFÉ, ‘Moses’ mother’, 38–43. 29 Cf. Lev; Num; Josh; Judg; Ruth; 1 Sam; 2 Sam; 2 Kgs; 2 Chr; Esther.

18

Christoph Berner

word is a noun or a prepositional phrase introduced by the copula.30 At first glance, the MT and SP version of Exod 1:1 appears to be similar, as it combines the copula with a demonstrative pronoun. However, its contextual purpose is quite distinct, since the phrase does not initiate a narrative sequence, but rather introduces the following genealogical list (“And these are the names ...”). In this respect, it also differs from Deut 1:1 (“These are the words that Moses spoke to all Israel ...”), which unmistakably serves as a superscription for the entire book and thus goes far beyond an introduction of the immediately following verses. Even the version of Exod 1:1 that lacks the copula (LXX; 4QpaleoGen-Exodl) does not change this fundamental difference, since the exact parallel with the first word of Deut 1:1 exists on a purely formal level and does not affect the contextual purpose of the entire verse. As a result, the comparative evidence suggests that Exod 1:1 (regardless of the textual version) is a rather unusal candidate for a book opening. Its uniqueness becomes even more apparent when one takes into account that introductory phrases of the type “(And) these are ...” are frequently attested elsewhere throughout the narrative books of the Hebrew Bible, but never introduce a major narrative sequence or even a book. Rather, they are a very common literary means for connecting a list of names, items etc. to a preceding (usually narrative) context.31 For instance, the introduction of the elaborate list of immigrants in Gen 46:8 (“And these are the names of the Israelites, Jacob and his offspring, who came to Egypt”) connects smoothly to the preceding verse Gen 46:7, which states that “... he (i.e., Jacob) brought with him all his offspring into Egypt.” The transition from Gen 50:26 (Joseph’s death in Egypt) to Exod 1:1 (the introduction of the list of Jacob’s sons who accompanied him on his trip to Egypt) is certainly not identical, yet there is an undeniable similarity, since in both cases the lists are thematically linked with their preceding narrative context. At the same time, Gen 46:8 is more than a mere analogy for the contextualization of the genealogical list in Exod 1:1(–5a). The two verses show several verbatim parallels, which suggests that there is a literary dependency between the two (and the following lists). Interestingly, the textual transmission of Gen 46:8 is characterized by the same fluctuation as in Exod 1:1, with the LXX omitting the copula (“These are the names”), while it is attested both in the MT and the SP (“And these are the names”). As a result, it is imperative to consider the relationship between Gen 46 and Exod 1, not only for 30 Cf. 1 Kgs 1:1 (“And king David was old ...”) and Ezra 1:1 (“And in the first year of king Cyrus”). 31 Cf. Gen 10:1; 11:27; 25:12, 19; 36:1, 9 (with various similar subdivisions in 36:13– 40); Exod 6:16; 21:1; 28:4; Num 1:5; 3:1–2, 18; 13:4; 26:36, 57; 33:2; 34:19; Josh 12:1, 7; 14:1; Ruth 4:18; 1 Sam 6:17; 2 Sam 5:14; 23:1; 1 Kgs 4:2, 8; 20:19 (with several additional occurrences in 1–2 Chr, Ezra and Neh). In some instances, the phrase can also be used in retrospect as a concluding statement.

I. 1. Material Evidence

19

determining which of the two readings in Exod 1:1 is more original, but also for drawing literary-historical conclusions with respect to the development of the transition between Gen 50 and Exod 1. It is beyond the scope of the present section to provide a detailed diachronic analysis of the book transition in question. However, at least a few basic observations should be mentioned. First, it is obvious that the introductory reference to Joseph’s age in Gen 50:22b requires 50:22a and is presupposed throughout 50:23–25 (and at least paralleled in 50:26). Yet, this does not necessarily mean that all parts of the respective sections belong to the same literary level. Obviously, there is a thematic break between the genealogical reflections in 50:23 and Joseph’s final words in 50:24–25, which would connect more smoothly to 50:22b. This may imply that at least 50:23 is a later addition.32 Second, it is clear that Gen 50:22b would be incomplete without a concluding reference to Joseph’s death. Consequently, the verse must have been written with either Gen 50:26 or Exod 1:6 in view and therefore must either be contemporaneous with or later than one or both of the latter verses. Third, one can safely assume that the two references to Joseph’s death in Gen 50:26 and Exod 1:6 do not belong to the same compositional level and that there was never a direct transition from the one to the other. Fourth, it is certain that the list of immigrants in Exod 1:1–5a can be connected only to Gen 50:22a or 50:26. It is within the above parameters that the literary history of the transition between the books of Genesis and Exodus should be assessed.

32 The striking fluidity in the textual transmission of Gen 50:23 may be taken as additional evidence for this suggestion.

The Sources of the Pentateuch, Their Literary Extent and the Bridge between Genesis and Exodus A Survey of Scholarship since Astruc Konrad Schmid A. The Transition from Genesis to Exodus and the Formation of the Pentateuch The formation of the Pentateuch is an open problem which probably will never be solved completely1 due to the lack of external data. A multitude of observations has led to different theories in the past two hundred years of critical scholarship2 that compete in various respects. The common ground of current research is fairly modest: Today, it is generally acknowledged, firstly, that the Pentateuch is basically a product of the 1st millennium B.C.E., secondly, that it has undergone literary growth over several centuries and thirdly, that it is composed out of sources and redactional additions.3 If we allow a distinction between micro-exegesis and macro-exegesis, the theories for the former are probably more diverse than those for the latter. Nevertheless, even the global theories or models for the formation of the Pentateuch diverge significantly from each other. A central question among current theories is how to interpret and date the literary transition between Genesis and Exodus.4 In terms of the narrative organization of the Pentateuch, the literary boundary between Genesis and Exodus provides the most significant caesura within the Torah: It separates – to use John Van Seters’ term5 – the “Life of Moses” in Exodus– Deuteronomy, which basically covers the 120 years of Moses’ lifetime, from 1

The current state of the discussion is documented in GERTZ et al., Formation; see also CARR, ‘Changes’. 2 SKA, Introduction; GERTZ, Grundinformation, 193–285. 3 This is also true for recent redaction-critical approaches; see SCHMID, ‘European Scholarship’. 4 See, e.g., the discussion between BADEN, ‘Continuity’, and SCHMID, ‘Genesis and Exodus’; see also GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’. 5 VAN SETERS, Life.

22

Konrad Schmid

the primeval and ancestral history in Genesis (which Van Seters calls the “prologue to history”)6 covering some 2500 years according to the biblical chronology. But did the earliest literary sources (which the Documentary Hypothesis designates as the Yahwistic and Elohistic documents) already narrate the transition from the ancestors in Genesis to the Moses story in Exodus? Or did the basic layers of Genesis and Exodus have a significant literary history unto themselves before they were connected to each other? The current discussion between “documentarians” or “neodocumentarians” on the one hand7 and redaction-critical approaches to the formation of the Pentateuch on the other hand might sometimes be perceived as a “querelle des anciens et des modernes” within biblical scholarship. The “documentarians” or “neo-documentarians” claim to have the scholarly tradition of the 19th century on their side, especially Julius Wellhausen, whereas the others do not. A closer look into the history of scholarship, however, reveals that Wellhausen does not completely fit the exegetical approach of the “neo-documentarians” nor is the proposal of the literary separation of Genesis and Exodus an innovation of late 20th- or early 21st-century scholarship on the Pentateuch. As for the first point, one should mention Wellhausen’s polemic against what he called the “mechanische Mosaikhypothese” (“mechanistic mosaic hypothesis”) 8 which simply assigns different textual elements to the already presupposed sources J, E, D and P in the Pentateuch, a process which Wellhausen deemed to be “verrückt” (“crazy”).9 In addition, Wellhausen advocated a complex notion of the sources of the Pentateuch: For reasons of simplicity, in most cases I set aside the fact that the literary process was in actuality more complex and the so-called supplementary hypothesis can indeed be used in a subordinate way. J and E were probably edited and augmented several times (J1 J2 J3, E1 E2 E3), and they were combined not as J1 and E1, but as J3 and E3. A similar process took place for JE, Dt and Q before they were combined with the relevant units. Der Einfachheit wegen abstrahire ich meistens davon, dass der literarische Process in Wirksamkeit compliciter gewesen ist und die sogenannte Ergänzungshypothese in untergeordneter Weise doch ihre Anwendung findet. J und E haben wol erst mehrere vermehrte Ausgaben (J1 J2 J3, E1 E2 E3) erlebt und sind nicht als J1 und E1, sondern als J3 und E3 zusammengearbeitet. Ähnliches gilt von JE, Dt und Q, bevor sie mit den betreffenden grösseren Ganzen vereinigt wurden.10

Regarding the second point about the literary separation between Genesis and Exodus, it will be necessary to look into the history of research particularly before Wellhausen. It is well known that, after Wellhausen, Willy Staerk, 6

VAN SETERS, Prologue. See STACKERT, A Prophet Like Moses, 1–35. 8 WELLHAUSEN, Briefe, 78 (letter to Adolf Jülicher, 18 November 1880). 9 Ibid. 10 WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 207. 7

I. 2.1. History of Research

23

Kurt Galling, Martin Noth, Rolf Rendtorff, Erhard Blum and others have adduced strong evidence for a non-original (literary) sequence of the narrative materials in Genesis and Exodus, but it is less known that such observations were also made before Wellhausen.11 The following considerations will be limited to the period of critical scholarship on the Pentateuch beginning with Astruc. They will show how the transition from Genesis to Exodus was perceived from the very beginnings of critical scholarship as an important literary realm for developing diachronic compositional theories.

B. The Book of Genesis as a Model for the Pentateuch Pentateuchal scholarship, particularly in its beginnings in the 18th century, but also in its more recent phases, has been dominated by the analysis and evaluation of the book of Genesis.12 What had been concluded for Genesis was also deemed to be true for the subsequent books of the Pentateuch, even if the textual evidence did not support such a transfer of concepts.13 In fact, the extrapolation of the findings from the book of Genesis to the rest of the Pentateuch is one of the most serious flaws of pentateuchal scholarship from Astruc up to the 1970s and even still today. Some presentations of the history of pentateuchal scholarship note this focus on the book of Genesis, along with a related neglect of the following 11

To be sure, one can even go back to the biblical text itself and its earliest receptions to detect an awareness of a literary gap between Genesis and Exodus. For instance, the book divisions between Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers are merely of a technical nature: they interrupt an ongoing topic and seem basically to serve the purpose of highlighting Leviticus as the center of the Torah (see SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 23–29). Only Genesis and Deuteronomy are somewhat self-contained literary units (see BEN ZVI, ‘Closing Words’). Thus, already for a pre-critical perspective on the Pentateuch, it is obvious that Genesis is somewhat distinct from the following account of the “Life of Moses”. The same is true for the book of Jubilees, which recounts the narrative from Gen 1 to Exod 24 through the lens of the Mosaic law which, according to Jubilees, must have been already of some significance before its promulgation in the period of the exodus from Egypt (see, e.g., KUGEL, ‘Book of Jubilees’; IDEM, Walk; on late biblical and post-biblical receptions of the sequence Gen–Exod see also SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 282–333). 12 Already NÖLDEKE lamented this fact, see his Untersuchungen, 5. 13 Cf. the (in)famous statement of Noth in his commentary on Numbers: “If we were to take the book of Numbers on its own, then we would think not so much of ‘continuing sources’ as of an unsystematic collection of innumerable pieces of very varied content, age and character (‘Fragment Hypothesis’). […] It is, therefore, justifiable to approach the book of Numbers with the results of pentateuchal analysis elsewhere and to expect the continuing pentateuchal ‘sources’ here, too, even if, as we have said, the situation in Numbers, of itself does not exactly lead us to these results” (NOTH, Numbers, 4–5).

24

Konrad Schmid

books, while other presentations overlook the issue. An important example for the former approach is Otto Eissfeldt, who described the earliest period of scholarship starting with Astruc in his monumental Einleitung in das Alte Testament as follows: The separation of the Pentateuch into parallel threads – since these are Astruc’s main sources – took its starting point from the analysis of Genesis, which is a purely narrative book. And this solution to the pentateuchal problem assuming two or three […] parallel threads, which had been labeled as the Older Documentary Hypothesis, became prevalent as long as the perspective was limited to Genesis. As soon as the other books, which mainly deal with legal material, were included in the analysis, one began to question seriously the Documentary Hypothesis, as it was not possible to identify parallel threads in the laws, and one sought a solution in the […] fragmentary hypothesis. Die Zerlegung des Pentateuchs in Parallelfäden – denn das sind Astrucs Hauptquellen – hat ihren Ausgangspunkt von der Untersuchung der ein reines Erzählungsbuch darstellenden Genesis genommen und diese mit zwei oder drei […] Parallelfäden rechnende Lösung des Pentateuchproblems, die man wohl als die ältere Urkundenhypothese bezeichnet hat, ist herrschend geblieben, so lange der Blick im wesentlichen auf die Genesis beschränkt blieb. Als auch die anderen, großenteils gesetzlichen Stoff enthaltenden Bücher mit in die Untersuchung einbezogen wurden, begann man an der Urkundenhypothese irre zu werden, weil man in den Gesetzen keine Parallelfäden erkennen konnte, und suchte nun die Lösung in der […] Fragmentenhypothese.14

An apt illustration for the latter attitude can be found in the chapter on Johann G. Eichhorn in Hans-Joachim Kraus’ Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments. On the one hand, Kraus acknowledges the limitation of Eichhorn’s observation on the book of Genesis: Only after […] Moses was presented as the creator of the Pentateuch did Eichhorn deal more closely with the sources of Genesis. Erst nachdem […] von Mose als dem Schöpfer des Pentateuchs die Rede gewesen ist, beschäftigt Eichhorn sich näher mit den Quellen der Genesis.15

On the other hand, he presents Eichhorn’s discussion of the sources of the book of Genesis as “analyses of the Pentateuch” (my emphasis) in the wake of Astruc, who himself had also dealt only with the book of Genesis (and the first two chapters of Exodus): In his studies on the Pentateuch, Eichhorn endorsed Astruc’s discoveries and brought them to the full attention of Old Testament studies. In seinen Untersuchungen zum Pentateuch hat Eichhorn den Entdeckungen Astrucs in der alttestamentlichen Wissenschaft volle Anerkennung verschafft.16

14

EISSFELDT, Einleitung, 213. KRAUS, Geschichte, 141. 16 Ibid. 15

I. 2.1. History of Research

25

Kraus does not seem to be fully aware that applying the Documentary Hypothesis to the full Pentateuch depends on extrapolating from analyses of Genesis, nor does he observe that even Astruc himself did not seek to develop a source theory that was valid for the Pentateuch as a whole.17

C. The Relationship between Genesis and Exodus from Astruc to Hupfeld Jean Astruc (1684–1766),18 a French physician in royal service, may qualify as one of the founders of critical scholarship on the Pentateuch, even though his critical impetus was still comparably modest. Against Spinoza, he wanted to defend the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch on the one hand, but on the other hand, he was reluctant to credit Moses with all the doublets and contradictions in the text of the Pentateuch. For Astruc, Moses was the author of the Pentateuch from Exod 3 onwards, but obviously Moses could not have been an eyewitness to the events that happened before his birth. Astruc was therefore convinced that Moses had used different sources for composing the book of Genesis and the first two chapters of Exodus. The criteria for the identification and separation of these sources were the changes between “Elohim” and “Jehovah” and the so-called “antichronisms”, i.e., difficulties in the biblical chronology. The sources identified by Astruc included two documents (labeled by him as A and B) that are still discernible as originally independent narratives. In addition, there were ten additional sources that Moses knew of and had used, but they do not add up to a continuous narrative thread. Moses had ordered these documents in four columns: Column A comprised the passages employing “Elohim” (Gen 1:1–2:3; 6:9– 22; 7:6–10, 19, 22, 24; 8:1–19; 9:1–10, 12, 16, 17, 28, 29; 11:10–26; 17:3– 27; 20:1–17; 21:2–32; 22:1–10; 23; 25:1–11; 30:1–23; 31:4–47; 31:51–32:2; 33:24–33:16; 35:1–27; 37; 40–48; 49:29–33; 50; Exod 1–2), column B included the texts speaking of “Jehovah” (Gen 2:4–4:26; 6:1–8; 7:1–5, 11–18, 21, 24; 8:1–19; 9:11, 13–15, 18–27, 28, 29; 10:9–11:9; 11:27–13:18; 15:1– 17:2; 18:1–19:28; 20:18–21:1; 21:33–34; 22:11–19; 24; 25:19–26:33; 27:1– 28:5; 28:10–22; 29; 30:24–43; 31:1–3, 48–50; 32:3–23; 33:17–20; 38; 39; 49:1–28; column C included material that even occurs a third time besides its attestation in A and B (Gen 7:20, 23, 24; 3419), and column D contained Gen 14; 19:29–38; 22:20–24; 25:12–18; 26:34–35; 28:6–9; 35:28–36:43. 17

For a nuanced approach to the history of scholarship, see RÖMER, ʽHigher Criticism’. ASTRUC, Conjectures. The original work was published anonymously in Brussels in 1753. On Astruc see GERTZ, ‘Jean Astruc’. 19 Astruc seems to be ambiguous on attributing Gen 34 to C or to D (cf. HOUTMAN, Pentateuch, 66). 18

26

Konrad Schmid

These texts do not employ either “Elohim” or “Jehovah” and thus cannot be assigned to A or B, but they stem from various sources, possibly from Israel’s neighbors. A later redactor eventually combined Moses’ synopsis in what is now the Pentateuch. Accordingly, even with the emergence of the Documentary Hypothesis in its earliest form (that of Astruc), the peculiar character of the book of Genesis was in some way recognized. More importantly, the division of the text of the Pentateuch into two sources only applied to Genesis, and it was only the “Elohim” source that was identified as extending into the book of Exodus. The Pentateuch from Exod 3 onwards was Moses’ creation from his memories. Earlier than and independently from Astruc, Henning Bernhard Witter (1683–1715),20 a pastor in Hildesheim, had proposed a source-critical solution for some texts of the Pentateuch, i.e., Gen 1–3, although he had planned to deal with the whole Pentateuch.21 Since he passed away at the young age of 32, his work remained unfinished. As with Astruc, his proposal of two sources using different designations for God was limited to the book of Genesis. An extension of his source texts into Exodus was neither in view nor could it be extrapolated due to the limited scope of his investigation. Johann David Michaelis (1717–1791) was one of the most prominent biblical scholars of the 18th century and had a major impact on his discipline.22 In his Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des Alten Bundes (1787) he reviewed Astruc’s proposal at length but modified it for his own purposes. According to him, Astruc had overstated his case. In Michaelis’ view, it is impossible to discern continuous sources behind the Pentateuch, whose Mosaic authorship he did not doubt. But of course, Moses used and integrated traditional material in his writing. Notably, Michaelis suspected the “Jehovah” texts in particular of including older material because of their linguistic peculiarities: In some other chapters dealing with the ancient history, particularly in those calling God Jehovah, some rare words – which Moses had in front of him, although he did not follow them that precisely […] – seem to have been preserved and can still be recognized behind his usual style.

20

His significance for the history of pentateuchal research had been redetected by LODS, ‘Henning Bernhard Witter’, 134–135. In the 18th and 19th century, he was mostly forgotten mainly because of the massive critique of his contemporary, Johann Hermann von Elswich. See BARDTKE, ‘Henning Bernhard Witter’. 21 His book Jura Israelitarum dealt with Gen 1:1–6:8; 6:9–11:32; and 12:1–17:27. He had finished his commentary on the rest of Genesis in handwritten form, but this part has never been published (HOUTMAN, Pentateuch, 62). 22 See LEGASPI, Death, 79–154.

I. 2.1. History of Research

27

Auch in einigen anderen von der alten Geschichte handelnden Capiteln, sonderlich in welchen Gott, Jehova, genannt wird, scheinen gewisse seltene Wörter, welche Moses vor sich hatte, ob er ihnen gleich nicht so genau folgte, […] übrig geblieben zu seyn und durch seine sonst kenntliche Schreibart durchzuleuchten.23

Thus, Michaelis cannot be deemed to be an early proponent of continuous sources in the Pentateuch bridging the books of Genesis and Exodus. Astruc’s book was not only important for Michaelis’ Einleitung. It became particularly influential because of its reception in Johann Gottfried Eichhorn’s (1752–1852) seminal Einleitung in das Alte Testament (1780–1783). Eichhorn followed Astruc quite closely in distinguishing between the “Elohim” and the “Jehovah” source as the main components of Genesis. In his chart on source criticism, he also included a third column with texts that cannot be assigned to one of the main sources. In addition to Astruc, Eichhorn also points out some specifics of the two sources regarding style and content. Like Astruc, Eichhorn identified Moses or a similar person shortly after him as responsible for the composition of Genesis: The name of the compiler is not important at all. The trustworthiness and the employability of our Genesis does not depend upon his name, but upon his diligence and precision in compiling. Ueberhaupt aber kann uns der Name des Zusammenordners gleichgültig seyn. Nicht auf seinem Namen, sondern auf seiner Treue und Gewissenhaftigkeit im Zusammenordnen beruht die Glaubwürdigkeit und Brauchbarkeit unserer Genesis.24

Following Astruc, Eichhorn concluded that the “Elohim” document in Genesis continues into the first two chapters of Exodus. The “Jehovah” document is limited to Genesis. No source division can be found in Eichhorn’s Einleitung regarding the rest of the Pentateuch: It was composed by someone who could not have lived after Moses.25 Eichhorn opts for Moses and some of his contemporaries. The final shape of the Pentateuch was achieved sometime between Joshua and Samuel.26 Remarkably, Eichhorn defended his findings regarding the two sources underlying the book of Genesis against the objection that Genesis is only one part of the Pentateuch: Can this proposed explanation of the origin of Genesis be termed as one-sided, just because it is not applicable to the other books of the O.T.? Kann die aufgestellte Erklärung des Ursprungs der Genesis einseitig heißen, weil sie nicht auch auf die übrigen Bücher des A.T. anwendbar ist?27 23

MICHAELIS, Einleitung, 275. EICHHORN, Einleitung III, 94. 25 EICHHORN, Einleitung III, 195ff. 26 EICHHORN, Einleitung III, 334ff., 350ff. 27 EICHHORN, Einleitung III, 138. 24

28

Konrad Schmid

This argument, of course, highlights once again the specific situation of Genesis within the Pentateuch and vividly demonstrates how Genesis-centered early critical scholarship on the Pentateuch was. Karl David Ilgen (1763–1834)28 took up the initial observations and evaluations on the book of Genesis by Astruc and Eichhorn, but he pressed the model further towards the assumption of two Elohistic documents (“Sopher Eliel Harischon” and “Sopher Eliel Hascheni”) and one Jehovistic document (“Sopher Elijah Harischon”).29 After a careful analysis of the text of Genesis […] it has become clear that the sources which the compiler had in front of him belong to three different authors, two of which employ the name Elohim for God and the third employs Jehovah. Those using the name Elohim, that is, the Elohists, I call Sopher Eliel (God is my God) to mark that they characterize themselves by using the name Elohim. The third one, using the name Jehovah, that is the Jehovist, I call Sopher Elijah (my God is Jah or Jehovah), because the pieces attributed to him are marked by Jehovah. To distinguish them one from another I am giving to the first Eliel the surname Harischon (the first), and to the other the surname Hascheni (the second). Elijah also has such a surname. It could appear superfluous with him, as he is alone and has no need to distinguish himself from anyone else. Nevertheless, it is possible that he does not remain the only one in the future and that there will be another Elijah, and with him, a mark of difference will be necessary. Therefore, for the time being, he may carry his surname, even if it is not yet obvious to what end. As for the age of the authors, I must refrain from discussing it. Without analyzing the following books of Moses, no proofs in the completeness I wish to provide regarding these books can be given as for the time in which these three authors have lived to which the pieces are attributed. It is, however, not necessary for evaluating the correctness of the source division to know in which era these three authors have lived, to which the pieces are attributed. Nach einer sorgfältigen Untersuchung des Textes der Genesis […] hat sich gefunden, daß die Urkunden, die der Sammler vor sich hatte, und zusammen stellte, drey verschiedenen Verfassern angehören, davon zwey von Gott den Nahmen Elohim und der dritte den Nahmen Jehovah gebrauchen. Ich nenne diejenigen, die den Nahmen Elohim gebrauchen, oder die Elohisten, Sopher Eliel (Gott ist mein Gott), um zu bemerken, daß sie sich durch den Gebrauch des Nahmens Elohim charakterisiren, den dritten aber, der den Nahmen Jehovah gebraucht, oder den Jehovisten, nenne ich Sopher Elijah (mein Gott ist Jah oder Jehovah), weil die ihm angehörigen Stücke sich durch Jehovah auszeichnen; um sie aber wieder von einander selbst zu unterscheiden, so gebe ich dem einen Eliel noch den Beynahmen Harischon (der erste), und dem anderen den Beynahmen Haschscheni (der zweyte). Eben diesen Beynahmen hat auch Elijah. Es könnte zwar bey diesem überflüssig scheinen, da er nur einzig ist, und folglich sich von keinem anderen zu unterscheiden braucht; es ist aber möglich, daß er in der Zukunft nicht der einzige bleibt, und daß noch ein anderer Elijah auftritt, wo alsdenn ein Unterscheidungszeichen nöthig wird; daher mag er immer vor der Hand seinen Beynahmen führen, wenn der Nutzen davon auch noch nicht einleuchten sollte. Auf das Alter der Verfasser kann ich mich jetzt nicht einlassen, weil ohne die Bearbeitung der folgenden Bücher von Moses vor Augen zu haben, die Beweise nach der Voll-

28 29

On Ilgen see SEIDEL, Karl David Ilgen. ILGEN, Urkunden, 426.

I. 2.1. History of Research

29

ständigkeit, die ich ihnen zu geben wünschte, sich nicht führen lassen; es ist auch zur Beurtheilung der Rechtlichkeit der Trennung nicht unumgänglich zu wissen, in welchem Zeitalter diese drey Verfasser, an welche die Stücke verteilt werden, gelebt haben […].30

Interestingly, according to Ilgen, the three sources – that of Eliel Harischon, Eliel Hascheni and Elijah Harischon – are all composite documents. Eliel Harischon is a conglomerate of ten documents, Eliel Hascheni of five and Elijah Harischon of two.31 Unfortunately, Ilgen never discusses a possible continuation of the sources into the book of Exodus in his reconstruction of the book of Genesis; he simply ends his analyses with Gen 50. In 1802–1805, Johann Severin Vater (1771–1826) published an extensive commentary on the Pentateuch32 in which he reproduced the analyses and results of Alexander Geddes’ (1737–1802) research on the Pentateuch, who proposed that the Pentateuch was composed out of many fragments that do not form continuous sources.33 Of course, Vater also had to engage with the early documentary approaches to the Pentateuch by Astruc, Eichhorn and Ilgen. Vater dealt with these scholars at the very end of his commentary, 34 and he was fully aware that they only had discussed the book of Genesis.35 Nevertheless, the heading of that final section of his commentary is “Fünfter Abschnitt: Prüfung einiger anderer Meinungen über die Entstehung des Pentateuchs und seiner Theile” (“Fifth part: evaluation of some other opinions regarding the formation of the Pentateuch and of its parts”). Vater seems to assume that rejecting Astruc’s, Eichhorn’s and Ilgen’s notion of a “YHWH” and an “Elohim” document is valid for the entire Pentateuch, even though they had only dealt with Genesis. Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette (1780–1849) is especially known for his 1805 dissertation on Deuteronomy and its link to the Josianic reform. This work was of groundbreaking significance, although its basic hypothesis was not entirely new.36 De Wette was a prolific writer, and his books often saw different editions in which he often changed and updated his positions. It is therefore not always easy to identify de Wette’s position on a specific subject.

30

ILGEN, Urkunden, 425–426. ILGEN, Urkunden, 494, see also 498. 32 VATER, Commentar. 33 On Geddes cf. FULLER, Alexander Geddes. 34 VATER, Commentar III, 682–728. 35 VATER, Commentar III, 696–728. 36 See MATHYS, ‘de Wettes “Dissertatio critico-exegetica”’, 174–181. 31

30

Konrad Schmid

In de Wette’s introduction,37 he held that only the Elohim texts run through the entire Pentateuch, while the “Jehovistic” parts do not add up to a literary whole: Out of the different hypotheses that were built upon this phenomenon [i.e., the change between the divine names Elohim and Jehovah], the one which assumes two or more continuous documents encompassing the whole (Astruc, Eichhorn, Ilgen, Gramberg) is untenable, and the other one, only assuming fragments of different authors, is significantly flawed by the fact that the Elohistic pieces form a nearly perfectly reconstructable whole, whereas the Jehovistic ones do not add up. Von den verschiedenen Hypothesen, welche man auf diese Erscheinung [sc. den Wechsel der “Gottesnamen Elohim und Jehova”] gebaut hat, fällt die, welche zwei oder mehrere durchgehende, das Ganze umfassende Urkunden annimmt (Astruc, Eichhorn, Ilgen, Gramberg,[sic]) ganz zusammen, und die andere, welche nur Fragmente verschiedener Verfasser annimmt, wird wenigstens sehr beschränkt durch die […] Thatsache, dass die elohistischen Bestandteile ein fast ganz herstellbares Ganzes bilden, die jehovistischen hingegen sich nicht zusammenreihen lassen.38

In other words, according to de Wette’s position here, only the material belonging to the literary strand later designed as “P” forms a continuous narrative. But even here he maintains regarding the transition from Genesis to Exodus: “Welch ungeheure Lücke ist dies!” (“What an incredible gap is this!”).39 Hermann Hupfeld40 (1796–1866) was responsible for developing the traditional two-source theory into a three-source theory: He found that the “Elohim” materials in the book of Genesis had to be distributed between a more 37 On de Wette see MATHYS/SEYBOLD, Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette, and especially SMEND, ‘Theologe’. 38 DE WETTE, Lehrbuch, 191 (see also 195). His “Urschrift”, employing “Elohim”, extends at least into the Sinai pericope. See already his Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte, Halle 1807 (published as part 1 of Kritik der Israelitischen Geschichte in his Beiträge zur Einleitung in das Alte Testament, Halle 1807) where he basically adopts the “Fragmentenhypothese”: “Was nun unsern Pentateuch betrifft, so können wir […] als ausgemacht und anerkannt annehmen, daß die Bücher Mose eine Sammlung einzelner, ursprünglich unter sich unabhängiger Aufsätze verschiedener Verfasser sind” (21; “Regarding our Pentateuch, we can assume as safe and accepted that the books of Moses are a collection of formerly independent articles of different authors.”). See also his polemics against Eichhorn and Ilgen on p. 29. De Wette’s main focus is, however, not on the literary question of the Pentateuch, but on its historical reliability, which he completely denies. According to him, the Pentateuch is a collection of “myths” (“Mythen”; 396–397) that are not earlier than David. His argument is remarkable: “Mit David scheint erst diejenige Cultur zu beginnen, welche die schriftstellerischen Reste, die uns im Pentateuch aufbehalten sind, voraussetzen” (23; “Starting with David, the cultural environment seems to begin which is presupposed by the written remains that are preserved for us in the Pentateuch”). 39 DE WETTE, Kritik, 169. 40 On Hupfeld see KAISER, Hermann Hupfeld.

I. 2.1. History of Research

31

prominent, earlier “Elohim” document and a more recent one. In addition, there was the traditional “Yhwhistic” (“Jhvhistisch” [sic]) strand in Genesis which Hupfeld, against his predecessors, interpreted as a stand-alone source, and not as a supplement. Like nearly all his precursors, he only dealt with the book of Genesis, which he also clearly indicated in the title of his main book: Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung.41 Yet he was convinced that the older “Elohim” document – the so-called “Urschrift” – was not limited to Genesis alone, but continued into the following books of the Hexateuch, ending with the conquest of the land in Joshua. However, Hupfeld only specified the textual portions in Exodus that he attributed to the “Urschrift” beyond Genesis.42 After its last statement in Gen 50:22, the “Urschrift” continues as follows: Exod 1:1–7; 2:23–25; 6:2–9; 12:40, 41, 51; 12:37; 13:20; 15:22, 23a, 27; 16:1; 17:1; 19:1, 2; 20:1–17; 21:1–23:19; 24:3– 8; Exod 25–31 + 35–40, the wandering in the wilderness and the conquest of the land are just mentioned as themes that eventually follow in the “Urschrift’s” narrative thread. In terms of its genre, Hupfeld identified the “Urschrift” as Israel’s “national epic” (“Nationalepos”). Notably, Hupfeld found a prominent and continuous thread within the “Yhwhistic” material only from the Eden story to Jacob’s return to the land in Gen 33:17: Looking back to the results of the inquiry so far, a continuous thread of Yhwhistic historical narrative from the beginning of things to the […] point of Jacob’s return to holy soil in [Gen] 33:17 has appeared […]. Its thread continues with equal character and steady plan. Ueberblicken wir nun die Ergebnisse der bisherigen Erörterung, so hat sich […] im ganzen ein fortlaufender Zusammenhang Jhvhistischer Geschichtserzählung vom Anfang der Dinge an bis zu dem […] Punct der Rückkehr Jakobs auf den heiligen Boden [Gen] 33,17 gezeigt, dessen Faden mitten unter den Berichten aus älteren Quellen mit gleichmäßigem Charakter und stetem Plan fortläuft.43

Hupfeld, too, only identified a continuous thread from Genesis into Exodus on the level of the “Elohim” material but not in the “Yhwhistic” texts. Of course, this did not entail any larger consequences, since Hupfeld held the “Elohistic” texts to be older than their “Yhwhistic” counterparts, but the literary findings and their description by Hupfeld are still remarkable considering the present discussions.

41

HUPFELD, Quellen. HUPFELD, Quellen, 37. 43 HUPFELD, Quellen, 162. 42

32

Konrad Schmid

D. Graf, Bleek, Kuenen and Wellhausen Karl Heinrich Graf (1815–1869) is one of the pioneers of the late dating of the Priestly legal material. Graf’s main work44 deals with the historical location of the “Priestergesetzgebung”, i.e., the priestly laws, which he separated45 from the narrative material, identifying the latter as the “Urschrift” or “[das] alte[] Geschichtsbuch[] des Elohisten” (“the old history book of the Elohist”).46 Against his predecessors, Graf argued for an exilic dating of these laws, which with Kuenen and Wellhausen then became the mainstream position in biblical scholarship.47 Yet he maintained an early (i.e., early monarchic) dating for the “Urschrift”. As for the Jehovistic material, Graf adhered to a supplementary hypothesis: The Jehovistic texts were attached to the early “Urschrift”. 48 Regarding the character of the Jehovistic text, he explicitly followed Friedrich Bleek (1793–1859),49 who held that both the “Elohistic” base document and the Jehovistic supplements covered both the book of Genesis and the continuation of the narrative up to the conquest of the land:50 Already results from the previous considerations show that the Elohistic writing covered the history at least from creation to the revelation to Moses. Therefore, we can suspect that the author of our Genesis, who made it [i.e., the Elohistic writing] the main basis of his work, did not break it off at the end of the book, at the death of Jacob and Joseph. Da schon aus dem Bisherigen sich ergibt, dass in der elohistischen Schrift die Geschichte zum wenigsten von der Schöpfung an bis zu der dem Moses zu Theil gewordenen Offenbarung erstreckt hat, so könnten wir vermuthen, dass auch der Verfasser unserer Genesis, der sie zur Hauptgrundlage seines Werkes gemacht hat, dasselbe nicht mit dem Schlusse dieses Buches, beim Tode des Jakob und Joseph, wird abgebrochen haben.51

For Abraham Kuenen (1828–1891),52 it was obvious that “P” continues from Genesis into Exodus and the following books of the Hexateuch. 53 For “JE”, or 44

GRAF, Bücher. On Graf see CONRAD, Grafs Arbeit am Alten Testament. Wellhausen criticized Graf sharply for this separation, which he called the “Achillesferse” (“Achilles’ heel”) of his theory, see WELLHAUSEN in BLEEK, Einleitung (4th ed.), 159. 46 GRAF, Bücher, 3. 47 The question of who was the first to assign a late – i.e., at least exilic – date to the “Grundschrift” of the Pentateuch, later called “P”, was not clear even to Julius Wellhausen: He credited Graf with that hypothesis, but at the same time explains that Leopold George and Wilhelm Vatke as well as Reuss are important forerunners to Graf (WELLHAUSEN, Prolegomena, 4). 48 GRAF, Bücher, 111–112. 49 BLEEK, Einleitung (2nd ed.), 252, 275. 50 REUSS, Geschichte, 70–76, discusses and presents his own position, though it is important in terms of the history of scholarship only in a summarizing and retrospective way. On Reuss see VINCENT, Leben und Werk. 51 BLEEK, Einleitung (2nd ed.), 261. 52 See SMEND, ‘Work’. 45

I. 2.1. History of Research

33

as he called them, the “prophetische[] Bestandteile des Hexateuch (JE)”,54 he was less convinced, but his answer was still positive: It is probable a priori that neither E nor J would confine himself to the patriarchal period. Both alike would have something to say of the release of Israel from Egypt and the settlement of the tribes in Canaan. And as a fact in Exodus, Numbers and Joshua we here and there detect just such a parallelism between E and J as we have seen in Genesis. But here it is sporadic, and by no means so clear as in Genesis.55 Es ist a priori wahrscheinlich, dass E sowohl wie J sich nicht auf die Patriarchenzeit beschränkt, sondern auch die Befreiung Israels aus Egypten und die Ansiedlung der Stämme in Kanaan geschildert haben. In der That zeigt sich ein ähnlicher Parallelismus von E und J, wie wir ihn in der Genesis beobachten, auch hier und da in den Büchern Exodus, Numeri und Josua. Aber eben auch nur hier und da, und bei weitem nicht so deutlich wie in der Genesis.56

In a subsequent footnote, Kuenen names the main textual observations that led him to believe why J and E continue into the book of Exodus: Texts such as Gen. xlvi. 1–5; xlviii. 8–22; l. 24, 25 (E) and Gen. xii. 7; xxiv. 7; xxvii. 28, 29 (J) make it as good as certain that in both documents the narratives about the patriarchs formed an introduction to the history of the exodus and the settlement in Canaan. We are therefore justified, on every ground, in looking for the continuation of both in ExodusJoshua.57 Stellen wie G[en] XLVI, 1–5; XLVIII, 8–22; L, 24, 25 (E) und G[en] XII, 7; XXIV, 7; XXVII, 28, 29 (J) machen es so gut wie gewiss, dass in beiden Urkunden die Ueberlieferungen über die Erzväter die Einleitung für die Geschichte des Auszugs und die Ansiedlung in Kanaan bildeten. Wir sind jedenfalls berechtigt, die Fortsetzung der beiden Traditionen in den Büchern Exod.–Jos. zu suchen.58

Even if it is not clear whether, in the framework of the Documentary Hypothesis, these passages are all J and E or if they contain clear ties to the books following Genesis, it is nevertheless noteworthy that Kuenen identified and addressed the problem of whether J and E extend beyond the book of Genesis. Given the scholarly discussion on the composition of the Pentateuch in the 18th and early 19th century, it is rather surprising that Julius Wellhausen (1844–1919)59 did not dedicate much thought to the question of whether the

53

KUENEN, Einleitung, 80. Kuenen favors an ending of P in the book of Joshua (99), although he is not able to identify a specific text in this regard. 54 KUENEN, Einleitung, 133. 55 KUENEN, Inquiry, 140–141. 56 KUENEN, Einleitung, 135. 57 KUENEN, Inquiry, 149 n. 9. 58 KUENEN, Einleitung, 143 n. 9. 59 See SMEND, Julius Wellhausen.

34

Konrad Schmid

sources of the Pentateuch extend beyond the book of Genesis into the other books of the Pentateuch (or, as he held, the Hexateuch). He stated: It is evident that Q and JE continue beyond Genesis into the book of Joshua. Dass Q und JE sich über die Genesis hinaus, bis in das Buch Josua fortsetzen, ist eine ausgemachte Sache.60

Apparently, Wellhausen followed Bleek in this regard, whose Einleitung he reworked and edited in 1878.61 A specific argument for the hexateuchal extension of “JE” resulted from Wellhausen’s reversal of the historical order of “Q” and “JE”: If “Q” covers the entire Hexateuch and is later than “JE”, but apparently presupposes “JE” and supplements its text, then “JE” must also have extended into the book of Joshua: Already in 1861 I was convinced that the so-called Elohist or the author of the base document is often not the supplemented one, but the supplementing one. Schon 1861 war es meine Überzeugung, dass der s.g. Elohist oder Autor der Grundschrift oft nicht der Ergänzte, sondern der Ergänzer ist […].62

Wellhausen thus produced rather than relied on a consensus that had partially emerged in the wake of previous scholarship, which held that the literary findings in the book of Genesis and their interpretation could be extrapolated to the rest of the Pentateuch as well, even if Ilgen, Hupfeld and others had explicitly and deliberately dealt only with the book of Genesis. Nevertheless, the overall extension of the sources from Genesis to Exodus was a very important element of Wellhausen’s pentateuchal theory. In his discussion of the Joseph story, he therefore stressed the importance of J and E as narratives including literary bridges between Genesis and Exodus: It is to be assumed that this work [i.e., the book of Genesis] here [i.e., in Gen 37–50] as elsewhere is composed out of J and E. Our earlier results suggest this assumption and they would be flawed if it could not be proven. Es ist zu vermuten, dass dies Werk [sc. die Gen] hier [sc. in Gen 37–50] wie sonst aus J und E zusammengesetzt sei; unsere früheren Ergebnisse drängen auf diese Annahme und würden erschüttert werden, wäre sie nicht erweisbar.63

Indeed, if J and E were not present in Gen 37–50, a literary bridge between Genesis and Exodus would be absent in these documents, and they would thus break into two pieces, one covering Genesis, the other covering the Exodus story. Therefore, Wellhausen gave heed to his assumption to find J and E 60

WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 61. Most helpful is Wellhausen’s own account of the history of pentateuchal criticism in BLEEK, Einleitung (4th ed.), 152–178 (“Übersicht über den Fortgang der Pentateuchkritik seit Bleeks Tod”). 62 WELLHAUSEN, in BLEEK, Einleitung (4th ed.), 157. 63 WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 52. 61

I. 2.1. History of Research

35

also in the Joseph story, although he did not really manage to reach a clearcut source division of the text. It might have to do with Wellhausen’s authority in the discipline that his conviction regarding the continuous nature of the pentateuchal or hexateuchal sources became so well established, despite the fact that he could neither rely on a fully-developed proof in previous scholarship nor formulate such a proof himself.

E. From Galling to Rendtorff and Beyond Nevertheless, the rather unstable consensus about continuous, pentateuchal sources in the wake of Wellhausen did not go unchallenged. Doubts about an organic connection between the ancestors and Exodus arose anew in the early 20th century.64 In his 1928 Habilitationsschrift, Kurt Galling (1900–1987) argued that the narrative complexes of the ancestors and Moses represent two originally independent “traditions of the election” of Israel that did not always follow each other.65 A year later, in his study “The God of the Fathers,” Albrecht Alt (1883–1956) expressed a similar view but explained the independence of the ancestral story in a somewhat different way. For Alt, the “explanation of the idea of election in the ancestral story and its tension with the Moses tradition”66 has its roots in the pre-literary incorporation of the oral concept of the “god of the fathers” into the ancestral story. A highly influential work for pentateuchal scholarship was Martin Noth’s (1902–1968) Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch from 1948. Noth explicitly took up Galling’s observations but also criticized them.67 On the one hand, Noth held with Galling that the ancestral theme and the Exodus theme, among others, were originally independent tradition complexes. In fact, he clearly highlighted their differences and self-contained character: Among the great themes, the content and location of the ‘ancestor’ theme is self-contained and isolated. It thus hardly came to be firmly fixed to the affiliated themes.68 – Since […] the theme of the ancestor story, as Galling has already correctly seen, was subsequently

64

For a more detailed discussion see SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 7–13. GALLING, Erwählungstraditionen. 66 ALT, ‘Der Gott der Väter’, 62–63. 67 Cf. the reference in NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 49 n. 154. According to Noth, Galling erred “in that he traced the construction of the ancestral story in the Pentateuch’s transmission to a single literary act” (ibid.). This critique is surprising precisely because, according to Noth, the ancestral story had been connected to the rest of the Pentateuch only in “the traditio-historically late passage of Gen 15” (ibid., 218). 68 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 216. 65

36

Konrad Schmid

placed before the following themes we must seek the starting point of the whole within the transmission complex presented to us as the Moses story.69

Thus, for Noth, the exodus tradition is the most important and most foundational theme of the Pentateuch.70 “The ‘leading out of Egypt’ is the […] foundational confession of Israel and simultaneously the nucleus of the entire grand, later Pentateuch transmission.”71 Against Galling, Noth dismissed the idea that the ancestral story and the subsequent exodus tradition were originally literarily independent units. Rather, he proposed that these two themes were already combined in the foundational work that he called “G”, which was known to “J” and “E”.72 The reason for this decision was that Noth accepted von Rad’s early dating of the “small historical credo”.73 For von Rad, the credo formulations and their underlying concept of Israel’s salvation history in Deut 26:5–9; Josh 24:2–13; and 1 Sam 12:8–974 were “given from the oldest times.”75 As a result, the idea of the salvation-historical outline of the Hexateuch was held to be just as old. The creator of the first large presentation of history from creation to the possession of the land in Israel, the author of “J” in the time of Solomon, only had to adopt it. Von Rad thus placed the dichotomy between the ancestors and the exodus in the very early realm of the oral tradition, and even the pre-Yahwistic history of the Pentateuch. He considered their connection as the work of the oldest pentateuchal stratum (“J”). An important stream of scholarship has followed him to this day despite the widely recognized critique of the early dating of the “small historical credo.”76 Thus, in current scholarship, it is still a widely held assumption that 69

NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 48–49. NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 50. Noth therefore also treats the theme of “the leading out of Egypt” (50–54) at the beginning of the “main themes of the transmission of the Pentateuch” (48–50), while the “promise to the ancestors” would only be addressed later (58–62). 71 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 52; cf. 54: “The narrative of the leading out of Egypt forms the crystallizing core of the entire grand pentateuchal narrative.” 72 See NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 40–43. Noth did not decide whether “G” was an oral or written entity. 73 VON RAD, ‘Problem’, 3–4, 8–9; Noth, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 2–3, 51. An additional reason why Noth thought that the conceptual connection of the ancestors and the exodus was older than the oldest fixed written form (NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 49 n. 154) lay in the idea that he considered the “overall Israelite orientation of the Pentateuch tradition” as its “foundational inventory” (45). 74 See VON RAD, ‘Problem’, 54–57. 75 VON RAD, ‘Problem’, 4. 76 It is widely recognized that the so-called small historical credo of Deut 26:5–9 cannot be an ancient piece of tradition that is “in form and content very much older than the literary context in which it is currently situated” (VON RAD, ‘Problem’, 12: “nach Form und Inhalt sehr viel älter ist als der literarische Zusammenhang, in dem es jetzt eingeordnet ist”); 70

I. 2.1. History of Research

37

the basic literary compositional layer (“J”) in Genesis is to be identified with the corresponding one in Exodus (and the following books of the Pentateuch or Hexateuch). The Documentary Hypothesis as presented by Gerhard von Rad and Martin Noth has proven to be one of the most successful hypotheses in the biblical disciplines. Within this general scholarly setting, the fundamental difference between the ancestral narratives and the exodus story only appeared when scholars distanced themselves from the traditional source theory. In 1965, the Canadian scholar Frederick V. Winnett77 stated in a widely read essay that neither “early J” nor “late J”, two main stages in the development of “J” according to him, extended beyond Genesis. He argued that “P” was the first to combine “late J”, extending from creation to Joseph, with the independent Moses narrative.78 Winnett’s student John Van Seters also separated the traditions of the ancestors and exodus, dating “J” to the exilic period.79 However, for Van Seters, it is this exilic “J” that joined the ancestors and exodus.80 As a very extended preface to the Deuteronomistic History, the literary extent of “J” reached from Gen 2 to Josh 24, which “J” composed as the endpoint. Rolf Rendtorff’s work, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, appearing in 1977,81 represents the most important break in relation to the dominant acceptance of a horizontal incision (i.e., parallel narrative threads) instead of a vertical incision (i.e., discrete blocks of tradition) in the literary development of the Pentateuch. In this book, Rendtorff advocated the literary division of the various transmission complexes (“larger units”) of the Pentateuch, which in a certain sense was a redaction-historical transformation of the transmission-historical observations of Noth.82 In so doing, Rendtorff called the literary unity of “J” into question. In the mid-seventies, Van Seters,83 Hans Heinrich Schmid,84 and Hermann Vorländer85 cast doubt but cf. his own relativizing statement in VON RAD, Genesis (9th ed.), 3. See also the studies of Rost, Lohfink and Richter discussed in RADJAWANE, ‘Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk’, esp. 205–206; more recently see GERTZ, ‘Stellung’. 77 WINNETT, ‘Re-Examining the Foundations’, 1–19. 78 On the independent Moses narrative see WINNETT, Mosaic Tradition. 79 See VAN SETERS, ‘Confessional Reformulation’; IDEM, Prologue, 233, 242–243; IDEM, Yahwist. 80 See VAN SETERS, Prologue, 242–243. 81 RENDTORFF, Problem. See also Rainer Kessler’s 1972 dissertation, published in 2015 (KESSLER, Querverweise). Though it showed little synthetic power, it proceeded not from the traditional Documentary Hypothesis, but from the explicit cross-references between the larger thematic units in the pre-Priestly Pentateuch. Likewise, the basic lines of Blum’s model of the composition of the Pentateuch are already foreshadowed. 82 RENDTORFF, Problem, 19–28, 147–173. 83 VAN SETERS, Abraham. 84 SCHMID, Jahwist.

38

Konrad Schmid

on the standard early dating of “J” to the time of Solomon. While they did this, Rendtorff fundamentally objected to identifying “J” as a comprehensive source layer at all. Instead, he regarded the pre-Priestly Pentateuch as having been compiled from “larger units”, in the vein of Noth’s “major themes” of the Pentateuch, that were only loosely combined redactionally. In a short essay from 1975, Rendtorff presented the idea that the Priestly Writing, conceived as redaction, was the first one to bring together literarily the various “larger units” in the Pentateuch into a single sequence of events.86 In his work from 1977, he limited the extent of “P” to Gen 1–Exod 6, so that “P” covers the primeval history, the ancestral narratives and the exodus story, but not the entire Pentateuch.87 The first combination of all of the larger units in the Pentateuch was achieved by a “Deuteronomistic” editorial layer.88 It is not clear in his 1977 monograph whether the “P” texts are earlier or later than this “D” editing. Thus, Rendtorff also received contradictory reviews. Rendtorff was apparently not willing to take a firm stance on this problem. In 1983, he wrote: The “relationship” of the “Priestly editorial layer” “to the Deuteronomistic editing” is “largely unexplained.”89 In the meantime, Rendtorff’s basic approach was propounded by Erhard Blum, who argued for the independence of especially the ancestral history into the exilic period.90 The connection of the ancestors and the exodus, according to Blum in his studies from 1984 and 1990, goes back to KD, the Deuteronomistically-shaped compositional layer in the Pentateuch, to which he assigns most of the classic “JE” texts. In 2002, however, Blum has modified his KD hypothesis and now limits its literary extent to Exodus– Deuteronomy.91 The literary gap between Genesis and Exodus is thus bridged only and for the first time by KP. Albert de Pury92 and Thomas Römer93 are among the pioneers who have opted for a pre-Priestly division of the ancestors and exodus in literary terms. According to de Pury and Römer, Isa 40–55 and “P” are the first Old Testament writings to which the ancestral history and the Moses story form a coherent unit. Christoph Levin offers a particular redefinition of “J”. He sees “J” as the redactor who combined earlier smaller source fragments between Gen 2 and Num 24 into a literary whole, and he dates “J” between Deuteronomy and the 85

VORLÄNDER, Entstehungszeit. RENDTORFF, ‘Jahwist’, 158–166, ET: IDEM, ‘Yahwist’, 2–10. 87 RENDTORFF, Problem, 141, 161–162. 88 RENDTORFF, Problem, 163. 89 RENDTORFF, Das Alte Testament, 162. 90 BLUM, Komposition; IDEM, Studien; IDEM, ‘The Jacob Tradition’. 91 BLUM, ‘Verbindung’. 92 DE PURY, ‘Le cycle de Jacob’; IDEM, ‘The Jacob Story’. 93 RÖMER, Israels Väter; IDEM et al., Einleitung; IDEM, ‘Zwischen Urkunden’. 86

I. 2.1. History of Research

39

Deuteronomistic History.94 According to him, it was this exilic Yahwist who first combined the independent components of the ancestral history with the Moses story that begins in Exod 2.95 The literary link between Genesis and Exodus is thus not too far away from “P” in terms of dating, but it is nevertheless already established in the pre-Priestly Pentateuch. Already in 1996, Eckart Otto proposed a post-P date for Exod 3–4, which deprived the exodus story of its most prominent literary connection back to Genesis.96 He later expanded his views on the literary separation of Genesis and Exodus before the Priestly Document.97 According to him, Exod 2 is the original beginning of a Moses story eventually culminating in Exod 34*. Beginning in the late 1990s, the discussion over the literary connection between Genesis and Exodus took different directions in different parts of the globe. In Europe, a certain consensus emerged in the wake of Rendtorff, Blum, de Pury, Römer, Otto and the monographs of Konrad Schmid 98 and Jan C. Gertz99 from 1999 and 2000, which argued that the basic literary strata in Genesis and Exodus before “P” need to be distinguished. In other words: “J” in Genesis is a different author than “J” in Exodus. Even among those who do not see “P” as the first literary bridge between Genesis and Exodus, there is a certain agreement that the first literary combination of Genesis and Exodus does not predate the 7th100 or 6th century B.C.E. Whether or not “P” is the first author in the Pentateuch to create a literary link between the ancestral narratives and the exodus story is still contested. Whereas Blum, de Pury, Römer, Gertz, Schmid, Albertz101 and Utzschneider/Oswald102 see no pre-Priestly literary elements connecting Gen 50–Exod 1, David Carr103 and Christoph Berner argue for a pre-Priestly link between Genesis and Exodus which is, however, nearly contemporaneous with “P”. Berner’s main argument is the character of P as a redactional supplement to the given text in Gen 50 and Exod 1 which presupposes a link in the pre-Priestly text Gen 50:26*/Exod 94

LEVIN, Jahwist, 430–433; IDEM, ‘Earliest Editor’; IDEM, ‘Redactional Link’; IDEM, ‘Nationalepos’. 95 LEVIN, Jahwist, 389–393. 96 OTTO, ‘Pentateuchredaktion’. 97 OTTO, ‘Mose und das Gesetz’; OTTO, Die Tora. 98 See the reviews by CARR, Bib. 81 (2000), 579–583; SCHMIDT, TLZ 125 (2000), 1012–1014; VAN SETERS, JBL 119 (2000), 341–343; PFEIFFER, ZAW 113 (2001), 320– 321; OTTO, ‘Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch’, 150–152. More extensive treatments are provided by CARR, ‘Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story’; BLUM, ‘Verbindung’; SCHMITT, ‘Erzväter- und Exodusgeschichte’; DAVIES, ‘Transition’. 99 GERTZ, Tradition. 100 This is the proposal of Erich Zenger and Christian Frevel in ZENGER, Einleitung, 123–135. 101 ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 19–26. 102 UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 44–46, 59–61. 103 CARR, ‘Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story’.

40

Konrad Schmid

1:6*; 1:8–12, 15–22*.104 Kratz remains undecided and states that the question of a pre- or post-P setting of the link between Genesis and Exodus is of minor importance.105 Finkelstein and Römer describe their historical analyses of the Abraham- and Jacob texts in the book of Genesis without assuming a prePriestly link between Genesis and Exodus.106 Parallel to this growing consensus, particularly in German-speaking Europe, a new group of so-called “Neo-Documentarians”107 arose in the United States and Israel who see the most promising future of pentateuchal studies in “[r]enewing the Documentary Hypothesis”.108 They propose a model for the composition of the Pentateuch that reckons with the possibility of a nearly complete distribution of the text from Gen 1 through Deut 34 to the four sources “J”, “E”, “P” and “D”.109 According to them, “J”, “E” and “P” all provide a literary link between Genesis and Exodus, and all of them are probably to be dated to the preexilic period.110 Currently, it does not seem likely that the positions of the “Neo-Documentarians” and that of the redactionallyoriented pentateuchal scholars will meet any time soon.

F. Concluding Remarks Whether or not the near future provides a solution to the literary-historical problem of the connection between Genesis and Exodus is an open question. There are no extant manuscripts of biblical texts from biblical times, and diachronic hypotheses can thus hardly be verified or falsified.111

104

BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 17. Similarly EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 498, 507. KRATZ, Komposition, 288. DOHMEN, Exodus 1–18, does not address the question of the link with Genesis in detail. 106 FINKELSTEIN/RÖMER, ‘Historical Background of the Abraham Narrative’; FINKELSTEIN/RÖMER, ‘Historical Background of the Jacob Narrative’. 107 See BADEN, Composition; STACKERT, A Prophet Like Moses, 19–26. 108 See BADEN, Composition. 109 According to BADEN, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, 8–9, the redactor “is a necessary side-effect of the recognition of multiple sources in the text, not a primary feature of the theory. The theory demands a redactor, because the sources were evidently combined by someone – but no more than one” (see also 289, 305 and 255–286). See also SCHWARTZ, ‘Compiler’; IDEM, ‘Joseph’s Descent’ [Hebrew]. Remarkably, the proponents of the traditional documentary solution to the literary problem of the Pentateuch argue in a more differentiated way, see, e.g., SCHMIDT, ‘Dickicht’. 110 See STACKERT, A Prophet like Moses, 31–35. 111 One might discuss the silver amulets possibly from the late 7th century B.C.E. which offer a text close to Num 6:24–26, but this text is not of fundamental compositional significance for the Pentateuch, and it seems to be used as a liturgical entity unto itself in those amulets; see BERLEJUNG, ‘Der gesegnete Mensch’; EADEM, ‘Ein Programm fürs Leben’. 105

I. 2.1. History of Research

41

The plausibility of different diachronic explanations for the composition of the Pentateuch depends largely on the general picture scholars have of the religious, intellectual, cultural and sociological development of ancient Israel and Judah. In turn, this picture often depends, at least in part, on specific literary-historical theories of biblical literature. Yet it has become clear from looking back into pentateuchal scholarship since Astruc that the literary separation of the non-Priestly material in Genesis and Exodus as it has been discussed in the last two decades of pentateuchal research is not a new invention. Rather, as this contribution has shown, it was a continuous part of critical Hebrew Bible scholarship since its beginnings in the 18th century.

The Lack of Transition between Genesis 50 and Exodus 1 Joel S. Baden To begin with my thesis, or with a restatement of the title of this essay: there is no transition between Gen 50 and Exod 1. That is: the transition between Gen 50 and Exod 1 is no more distinctive from a compositional standpoint than the transition between any two chapters of the Pentateuch. That is: the transition between the narrative recounted in Gen 50 and the narrative recounted in Exod 1 is no more distinctive than the transition between any two narratives in the Pentateuch. That is: the passage of time and change in Israelite fortunes that seems to occur somewhere in the beginning of what we now call Exod 1 is entirely unremarkable from a narrative and compositional perspective. Now to expound further on this basic stance. The books of Genesis and Exodus did not, and for all practical purposes do not even today, exist. These are, and always have been, at most, two volumes of a larger work, and it is a mistake to think of them as anything else. If it is accepted, as it almost always is, that there was a comprehensive priestly work, part of which exists in what we now call Genesis and in what we now call Exodus – whether one thinks that work to have been a redactional layer or an independent document1 – if that basic claim is accepted, then there are no such things as the books of Genesis and Exodus. What can be discussed is whether some of the material about the patriarchs – the non-priestly, pre-priestly material – existed in an identifiable, distinctive, self-contained, written form at some point, and whether some of the material about the Israelite existence in and departure from Egypt – the non-priestly, pre-priestly material – also existed in an identifiable, distinctive, self-contained, written form at some point, and whether those two or more written texts were combined with each other before the composition of the priestly work.2 But at no point in any of that reasonable and important conversation should the words Genesis and Exodus be spoken. 1 For P as a redactional layer, see the seminal essay of CROSS, Canaanite Myth, 293– 325; as an independent document, see recently SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 47– 49; for an attempt to mediate the two positions, see BLUM, Studien, 229–285: “Weder »Quelle« noch »Redaktion«”. 2 For a fairly detailed example of just such a discussion, see the essays, in conversation with each other, of BADEN, ‘Continuity’ and SCHMID, ‘Genesis and Exodus’.

44

Joel S. Baden

When we inquire about the transition between Genesis and Exodus, we are necessarily asking questions about the final form of the text. That is, after all, what “Genesis” and “Exodus” are: the names given to these volumes only once they had reached their (mostly) final forms. 3 For the sake of keeping our work even remotely tethered to the text that we are supposed to be investigating, we are required to begin from the text as we have it: which is to say, from a text that is continuous from the end of Genesis through the beginning of Exodus. We should remember that there is no identifiable stage in the history of transmission or reception at which that was not the case.4 The traditional claim of Mosaic authorship held from the early postbiblical period through (and including) Astruc, and was replaced in critical scholarship with theories that entailed overarching pentateuchal source documents or layers.5 Though there may be some exceptions of which I am unaware, for the most part it is safe to say that the only people to treat Genesis and Exodus as if 3

We can recognize, of course, that the term “final form” is vaguely misleading for the ancient period; it is used here without any suggestion that there were no further additions, editions, corrections, insertions, alterations, updatings, orthographic changes, etc., over the course of many subsequent generations, even within the textual tradition of the Septuagint, from which the names “Genesis” and “Exodus” are drawn. What is intended here is the stage at which any Pentateuch-encompassing changes were made: the compilation of independent sources, or the additions of the last thorough-going layers. 4 The presence or absence of the ‫ ו‬at the beginning of Exod 1:1, as noted in the essay on material evidence in part I, section 1 of this volume, does not affect the status of continuity. In any case, it seems far more likely that the texts without the copula are reacting to the materially-based scroll division, rather than a ‫ ו‬being added to (unnecessarily) effect a sense of continuity. (On the material necessity for the division of the compiled Pentateuch into separate scrolls, see STACKERT, ‘Before and After Scripture’, 170, with the bibliography, especially that of HARAN, in n. 7 there). There are no biblical, non-pentateuchal texts that refer, by name or otherwise, to independent Genesis and Exodus scrolls or stories (writ large; on the question of tradition, see below). The earliest postbiblical treatments of this material also treat the narrative as continuous, naturally enough, as they are receiving the canonical text (or something close enough to it). This is evident especially in texts like Jubilees, which, though primarily focused on Genesis, extends into the Exodus story, and even in retelling Genesis interpolates material from elsewhere in the Pentateuch, such as the Sabbath and festival laws (see STACKERT, ‘Before and After Scripture’, 170–171). And the early commentaries on individual books – the Mekilta, e.g., – respond to the traditional book division without making any claim about literary continuity, as they are produced by, for and within circles in which unity of authorship was a point of dogma. 5 The rare alternative theories, such as Spinoza’s proposal that Ezra was the true author, simply replicate the concept of authorial unity and transfer it to a different author. ASTRUC, Conjectures, may have been the strange medial hinge: in the attempt to explain how Moses could have written about events that took place before his birth (i.e., Genesis), Astruc relied on a theory of Moses as editor of source documents for the first book and as legitimate author for the rest of the Pentateuch. This may be the closest that early critical scholarship came to making any claim for independent patriarchal and Exodus traditions, but it lasted only for a brief moment in the history of scholarship.

I. 2.2. The Lack of Transition between Gen 50 and Exod 1

45

they were authentically separate compositional works, rather than as sequential and consecutive volumes of a single overarching literary work, are living right now. Thus, when we inquire about the transition between these two chapters, we have to recognize that, from the perspective of the Pentateuch as a whole, we might as well be asking about the transition between any two chapters. The placement of these two chapters at the seams of the division into volumes is, literarily, unimportant. And, of course, the notion of chapters altogether is literarily unimportant6 – we should really be talking about the end of the Joseph story and the beginning of the Israel-in-Egypt narrative. So as long as we recognize that in asking about the transition or continuity between these two chapters, in these two “books,” we are engaging a question that could just as well be asked of any two narrative blocks in the Pentateuch, regardless of verse, chapter or book division, then it is a perfectly legitimate enterprise. What, then, can we say about the transition between these two narrative blocks? Beginning from the canonical text, as we always must, there can be no question that the two are intrinsically linked. In Gen 50:14, Joseph and his family return to Egypt, and there they remain, as 50:22 reminds us – ‫וישב יוסף‬ ‫ – במצרים הוא ובית אביו‬and as is reaffirmed in the final words of the chapter: ‫( וימת יוסף בן מאה ועשר שנים ויחנטו אתו ויישם בארון במצרים‬50:26). Unless one were to posit a patriarchal story that ends with the family in Egypt, rather than in possession of the land that the preceding narrative has spent so much effort to demonstrate the Israelite claim to, Gen 50 requires a departure from Egypt. This is especially the case when we read verses 24–25, where that very departure is anticipated explicitly: ‫ואלהים פקד יפקד אתכם והעלה אתכם מן‬ ‫הארץ הזאת אל הארץ אשר נשבע לאברהם ליצחק וליעקב‬. I am reading canonically here, and intentionally so. When we turn to Exod 1, it is equally the case that it is dependent on what has come before. Verses 1–5 and 7 are, as is universally recognized, not new narration but rather the recollection of events that already took place, back in Gen 46 and 47, and nearly verbatim.7 Verse 6, which refers to Joseph and all 6

Our modern chapter divisions in the Bible are derived from the medieval Latin Bible produced by Archbishop Stephen Langton in the thirteenth century (MOORE, ‘Vulgate Chapters’, 73). 7 See the essay on material evidence above. The various minor differences between Gen 46–47 and Exod 1:1–5, 7 are hardly meaningful, as truly verbatim repetition is rarely found in the Pentateuch, even in the more rigid style of the priestly material. Although much is made of it in the material evidence essay above, the questions of Joseph’s enumeration with his brothers or the difference between 70 and 75 members of the family also have no bearing on the literary relationship between the account of the descent of Jacob and his descendants to Egypt and the pluperfect review of that descent. For the latter, it is crucial to note that the tradition of 70 in the MT of Exod 1:5 matches the count of 70 in the

46

Joel S. Baden

his brothers, requires that we know who Joseph and his brothers are, and that we should care; so too v. 8, which requires that we know not only Joseph but also that he had a relationship with the previous Pharaoh. Many scholars would claim that these verses do not prove anything. Exodus 1:1–5 and 7, after all, are well known to be P, which, as already mentioned, is agreed to have been continuous from the patriarchs to Egypt.8 And the other two verses, 1:6 and 8, are, very often, swiftly declared to be postpriestly additions, inserted for the precise purpose of linking these two originally separate literary compositions.9 The issue of secondarily inserted linking verses requires comment. Although our field is almost never free of circular reasoning, in this case the reasoning is even more circular than usual. Here we have the claim that two narrative units are separate, a claim that is proven – indeed, that can only be proven – by removing as secondary the very verses that connect the two units. At that point it is said that the original independence of the units is demonstrated, because we have separated them, and moreover we can even see how they were secondarily linked: by putting those same verses – the ones that we have just removed – right back where they originally were. As a technique of literary analysis, this move seems to be very central to much contemporary pentateuchal scholarship; yet its commonality does not ameliorate its logical problems. To put it another way: there is nothing in the text as we now have it that demands that the patriarchal and Egypt narratives were once separate. That argument does not emerge at all from the text – nor could it, seeing that the two narratives are plainly not separated in the final form – but emerges, rather, from the a priori claim, driven by tradition-historical conclusions (not literary-historical ones), regarding the original distinction between the patriarchal and Egypt traditions. I will return to that question below, but for now, I want to emphasize again that the motivating factor for the separation of Gen 50 and Exod 1 into two distinct literary compositions is not a literary factor. It is a product of a scholarly problem – the supposition of distinctive traditions – not a product of any textual problem. In this light it is important to consider the evidence of the priestly text. Once it is admitted that the priestly work, whether as a layer or a source, MT Gen 46:27, while the tradition of 75 in the LXX of Exod 1:5 matches the count of 75 in the LXX of Gen 46:27. In other words, in both textual groups the interdependence of the two passages is evident. In general, we may consider as valid the overarching statement of CRAWFORD, ‘Text’: “All our textual evidence reflects the same combination of pentateuchal documents in the same shape and to the same extent. Thus, the literary formation of the Pentateuch ended before our textual evidence begins.” 8 See the essay on material evidence above. 9 See, e.g., SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 216–217; GERTZ, ‘Transition’, 82; BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 145–151.

I. 2.2. The Lack of Transition between Gen 50 and Exod 1

47

continued directly from the patriarchs into the Exodus – thankfully the question of where it may have ended is not relevant here – there are significant ramifications for what we do with the non-priestly material. If it is claimed that the non-priestly material was connected before P, or at least separately from P – so that there was a non-priestly narrative that ran from the patriarchs into the Exodus – then what is at stake is simply the historical development of an independent non-priestly pentateuchal document. But if it is claimed that the non-priestly connection between the patriarchs and the Exodus is a post-priestly redactional process, with originally disparate non-priestly units being fitted into the overarching priestly framework, then the notion of these secondary linking verses becomes very problematic. If P already existed as a continuous narrative from the patriarchs to the Exodus, and these other pieces were added to that preexisting P text, then there would be no need at all for anyone, at any time, whether at the moment of combination or thereafter, to insert verses that explicitly linked the patriarchs to the Exodus. That link would have already been accomplished by P. The purported addition of blocks of non-priestly material would not suddenly undo the continuity already established by P, such that more evidence of continuity would be needed. This is a methodological problem in biblical scholarship that extends well beyond the boundaries of the Genesis-Exodus question, or the Pentateuch as a whole. Secondary additions that serve to explicitly link two textual units are necessary and reasonable only when those two units are being conjoined for the first time and in isolation. Such linking passages exist to overcome that moment when the reader says, “Wait – these are the same story?” If that question is already answered – by, for example, the preexisting P narrative – or if it is not really a question at all, because there is no great contradiction or gap in the text, then such additions serve no purpose at all. To put it in brief: there is no need to explicitly connect a text that is already continuous. If P exists, and the non-priestly text has been added to it, resulting in a combined priestly and non-priestly narrative, then a continuous text has already been produced – not only by the explicit verbal links already present in P, but by the actual physical existence of a continuous text. The only readers who would require explicit verbal links connecting two units are those who believe that the patriarchal story and the Exodus story were once separate; and, again, such people have only existed for the past century or so. Without a preordained conclusion that these were separate literary units, there is no reason to search for or expect any sort of explicit literary link – much less any reason to then remove that link as a secondary addition. The fact that verses serve to connect parts of a narrative does not make them automatically redactional; and the removal of those verses does not therefore render the resulting narrative discontinuous.

48

Joel S. Baden

With that in mind, there are some curious aspects of the non-priestly and priestly texts in Gen 50 and Exod 1 that seem to go unnoticed. P, the supposedly continuous text, is the one with the extremely clear literary joining. It has a classic resumptive repetition, as noted above, with Exod 1:1–5, 7 picking up from Gen 46–47*: it leaves absolutely no doubt as to the fact that what we have read in Genesis is being continued here in Exodus, and that what we are reading in Exodus is a continuation of what we have just read in Genesis. But why is this necessary? P either was a self-standing continuous document, or it created a self-standing continuous document by virtue of its redactional work. In either case, what reader, of either P alone or of the P redaction, would have doubted that the patriarchs and the Exodus went together, when, once P existed in any putative form, they already did? In this regard, the expected features of the priestly and non-priestly texts have been reversed. If they were originally separate, we would expect the non-priestly texts to contain the overly explicit links between the patriarchs and Exodus; but they don’t. If it was originally continuous, we wouldn’t expect the priestly text to bother too much with overly explicit links between the patriarchs and Exodus; but it does.10 There are other such oddities. The non-priestly text of Gen 50, as noted above, ends with the Israelites in Egypt, which, if it was originally independent from the Exodus story, is strange. The priestly text of Gen 50 ends with the Israelites in Canaan, in 50:13 – ‫וישאו אתו בניו ארצה כנען ויקברו אתו במערת‬ ‫ – שדה המכפלה‬which, if it was originally continuous with the Exodus story, is strange. It should be exactly the other way around. We may also note the ostensible problem that is entailed by the Exodus story opening with the Israelites having already been in Egypt for many generations, a problem that is seemingly solved, secondarily, by the extension of the narrative back into the Joseph story and the patriarchal period. Yet it should be observed that the claim of a lengthy Israelite enslavement in Egypt – those four hundred years – is made entirely and exclusively in P. The nonpriestly story, when read continuously from Genesis into Exodus, makes no such claim, nor is such a claim at all necessary for it. In the non-priestly story (or, more accurately, stories – but that is an argument that can be left to the side for present purposes), the Israelite oppression begins immediately after Joseph’s death, and Moses arises in the next generation. In the non-priestly story, there is no four hundred years. There is one generation of oppression, then comes Moses.11 In other words, the “problem” of the temporal gap between the patriarchs and the Exodus is one created by P – by the very author who, it is imagined, was writing the continuous narrative that spanned the two periods. What’s 10 11

For a fuller version of these arguments, see BADEN, ‘Continuity’. See BADEN, ‘From Joseph to Moses’.

I. 2.2. The Lack of Transition between Gen 50 and Exod 1

49

more, P, the author who claims that the enslavement lasted four hundred years, never narrates the passage of that time. It is referred to only retrospectively in Exod 12:40: ‫ומושב בני ישראל אשר ישבו במצרים שלשים שנה וארבע‬ ‫מאות שנה‬. We have to imagine that this time passed somewhere in Exod 1:13–14. Without the a priori belief that P is continuous while the non-priestly material is not, there are good reasons to wonder whether P might in fact be the one with the artificial links between two originally separate textual compositions. It has all the hallmarks: the patriarchal story ends in Canaan, where it should; the Exodus story requires a large temporal gap from the patriarchal period that is not really narrated; and the transition is marked with a resumptive repetition, usually taken as a sure sign of redactional work. It is not my intention to suggest that P is not continuous. I want only to point out that the “evidence” we use to make claims of discontinuity, and to identify passages as secondary links, is dependent on what we already think we know. And, therefore, I want also to suggest that what scholars see as problematic in the transition from the patriarchs to the Exodus in the nonpriestly material might not really be so. I see very few, if any, problems at all – especially if we stop taking out the verses that connect the two units. For those who want to separate Gen 50 from Exod 1 on a compositional level, there are two questions that must be addressed: if the patriarchal story did not continue into Exodus, then where did it originally end? and if the Exodus story is not a continuation of the patriarchal narrative, where did it originally begin?12 If the patriarchal narrative is supposed to be an independent story of Israel’s origins, then it surely could not have ended where it currently does, with the Israelites all stranded in Egypt (Gen 50:26). The entire Joseph story, really, needs to go – as so many have suggested that it should.13 But the problem is not thereby resolved: the patriarchal cycle before the Joseph story ends with the entire family, Jacob included and still living, roaming their way through Canaan (Gen 35:21–22). That is not an origin story – it is the beginning of one, quite possibly, but it fails at the basic task of explaining how it is that the Israelites came to be settled where they are settled. Similarly, if the Exodus story didn’t begin with the patriarchs, then it surely cannot have started where it currently does, which is with reference to the patriarchs. So Exod 1:1–8 cannot serve as an independent introduction. Neither can 1:9–12, which are dependent on v. 8 (as the subject of ‫ ויאמר‬in 1:9 is given only in the previous verse). Exodus 1:13, ‫ויעבדו מצרים את בני ישראל‬, is not the beginning of a story. Nor, for that matter, is 1:15, ‫ויאמר מלך מצרים‬ ‫למילדת העברית‬, etc. The problem, it seems, is that none of Exod 1 really 12 13

For the following, see in greater detail BADEN, ‘Continuity’. See recently RÖMER, ‘Joseph Story’.

50

Joel S. Baden

works as the beginning of an independent Exodus story. But it is impossible to push further into Exodus looking for the true beginning, because every other passage in the book is dependent, directly or indirectly, on what is established in Exod 1.14 It is not impossible to have an independent Exodus story without an explicitly narrated eisodos. But one does need a beginning of some sort. In both cases, it seems, there is a gap: at the end of the patriarchal story and at the beginning of the Exodus story. We might, as many have done, posit that we are simply missing these endings and beginnings, and then suggest what they might look like. But when we have texts that are explicitly marked as continuous, forward and backward, why should we throw them out and then try to recreate what may have stood in their places? We do that only when we have already decided that the patriarchal and Exodus traditions cannot have been continuous; and that is, again, a decision that does not emerge from the text itself, which strenuously asserts otherwise. In light of the foregoing, I want to raise two issues that deserve closer attention, because they are of significant theoretical interest but, I believe, have not been fully thought out yet. The first is the entire question of the individual scroll of Genesis, or Exodus. As I have made clear, I do not believe that there was ever a composition that covered only the patriarchal cycle – at least not one that we have preserved in our Bible. But I recognize the possibility that, once the entire Pentateuch was compiled, and it was separated into its five volumes, each of those scrolls could have, in principle, been treated as an independent text. One can imagine someone adding bits and pieces here and there to individual scrolls (especially at the ends, for material reasons – as we see, for example, in some of the prophetic books15). There is nothing theoretically impossible, or even improbable, about such a thing. That said, the possibility of something happening and the demonstration that it did happen are very different things. I have yet to see, in any of the individual scrolls of the Pentateuch, any addition that could be reasonably attributed to an edition of that individual scroll. In order to be identified as such, a passage would have to meet certain criteria. It would have to incorporate a mixture of strata or sources – preferably priestly and non-priestly – otherwise, it would be far simpler to simply attribute it to whichever individ-

14

Thus the attempts to locate the beginning of the Exodus story in the second chapter, with the birth of Moses (e.g., KRATZ, Composition, 282–283; SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 141–144), strain to dissociate Moses’ mother hiding her newborn son without any reference to Pharaoh’s decree in Exod 1. 15 E.g., broadly, Amos and Micah, and, differently, Isaiah and Ezekiel.

I. 2.2. The Lack of Transition between Gen 50 and Exod 1

51

ual stratum or source it agreed with.16 This, for example, is why the additions at the end of Numbers – chapters 27, 28–29, 30, 36 and perhaps others – do not look like additions to the book of Numbers to me: they are purely priestly in character, and so far as I can tell they are additions only to the priestly text, not to a canonical book of Numbers.17 A scroll addition would also have to somehow disrupt the structure of the overarching narrative in a way that could be sensible only within the context of the individual scroll. The closest I can imagine to something like this is the conclusion of Leviticus: ‫אלה המצות‬ ‫אשר צוה יהוה את משה אל בני ישראל בהר סני‬. And yet even there it is not necessary to see the final verse as closing a scroll; the internal structure of the priestly narrative, and of the canonical narrative as a whole – in both of which the law-giving is an event that takes place in the middle of a larger story, indeed in the middle of the wilderness, and is followed by instructions, in the opening chapters of Numbers, that prepare for the departure from the mountain for the land of Canaan – is not really changed by the seemingly “final” words of Leviticus 27. Thus while discovering evidence of individual book shaping is possible in theory, in practice it is a very high bar to cross. On the other hand, it is, I think, quite likely that there was some post-redactional shaping of the Pentateuch as a whole (though far less than most of my colleagues would allow: I would restrict it almost entirely to the addition of the final two verses of Deut 3418). In any case, there appears to be no such shaping in the cases of Genesis and Exodus, which is yet another sign, perhaps, that we should stop referring to these books as meaningful literary units. My second main theoretical point has to do with the notion that in the patriarchs and the Exodus we have two originally independent origin traditions for Israel. With this position I have come to strongly agree. I am utterly convinced that the patriarchal traditions were originally an etiology of how Israel came to possess its Canaanite lands, and that they had nothing to do with, knew nothing of, any trip to Egypt and back. And I am utterly convinced that the Exodus tradition was originally an etiology of how Israel came to possess

16

On this principle regarding the distinction between secondary additions occurring after the compilation of sources and those that should be attributed to editions to the sources before compilation, see BADEN, ‘Source Stratification’. 17 An important counter-example to this is Num 33, which does have numerous indications of being an insertion made on the canonical level, rather than merely to the priestly writings (from which it still derives much of its information). Yet, tellingly, Num 33 makes explicit reference not only to material from Numbers, but looks all the way back into Exodus (33:3–15). This chapter is thus a datum that stands against the notion of a “book of Numbers” redaction. 18 See, for an argument regarding these verses (though I differ on the analysis of the rest of Deut 34), RÖMER/BRETTLER, ‘Deuteronomy 34’, 405–407.

52

Joel S. Baden

its Canaanite lands, and that it had nothing to do with, knew nothing of, any patriarchs who had occupied those lands previously.19 However: all of those claims about the patriarchal and Exodus traditions have absolutely nothing to do with the compositional history of the literary works we find in the Pentateuch. 20 The most important shift in recent pentateuchal scholarship, and to me the most mystifying, is the changed meaning of the word “tradition.” Traditions are, by definition, not texts, not passages, not biblical verses that can be isolated and separated. Texts are literary manifestations of traditions. If an idea, or theme, or story, is entirely created in the process of writing it, then it is not a tradition. It is a literary invention. When we say that the patriarchal traditions were an originally independent etiology of Israel’s origins, we are saying nothing about the text of Genesis. The claim about traditions is a guess, a reasonable proposal based on the nature of some of those stories when considered in the abstract, and based on the manner in which the patriarchal traditions are treated elsewhere in the biblical text, and based on comparative considerations. But it is not a literary analysis: it is not driven by any problems in the continuity or cohesion of the biblical narrative. It is not addressed to the literary level at all. Tradition criticism is not literary criticism. To speak about originally independent traditions of Israel’s origins does not then require that we find corresponding originally independent textual units, written passages, in our canonical Bible. Such a position requires that every idea in the Pentateuch was invented by one of the pentateuchal authors. And that, in turn, requires that we believe that all of those ideas were preserved, successively, over time, in our canonical text, and that none of them is derivative of or dependent on a text or an idea or a tradition that has been lost to us. I would suggest, gently, that such a position is so conservative, historically and theologically, as to be almost reactionary. The pentateuchal narratives are distillations, precipitations, of numerous traditions and ideas, not all of which we will ever be able to identify or describe with any precision. The intellectual and traditional background of the pentateuchal narratives, however, is not a substitute for a literary analysis, and is not in any way an answer to the literary questions raised by the text. Nor does tradition criticism somehow override the text: it seems to me methodologically illegitimate to alter the text solely for the purpose of maintaining 19

See the classic, and I believe still most probable, statements of NOTH in his descriptions of the two independent “major themes”: Pentateuchal Traditions, 47–51, 54–58. 20 This is the fundamental insight of NOTH, Pentateuchal Traditions, and it remains strong even in the face of the direct challenges of RENDTORFF, Problem – which, despite being the methodological cornerstone of much current pentateuchal research, fails precisely in Rendtorff’s signal lack of understanding of the clear difference Noth (and his predecessors, especially Wellhausen and Gunkel) recognized between tradition and text, orality and writing.

I. 2.2. The Lack of Transition between Gen 50 and Exod 1

53

a tradition-critical position. It is not only illegitimate – it is unnecessary. We can have our cake and eat it too: we can say that the biblical text is continuous from Genesis into Exodus and also say that there were originally independent patriarchal and Exodus origin traditions. The two are not in conflict. They are, in fact, barely even related. Finally, to the leading question of this volume: the transition between Gen 50 and Exod 1 and the division between Genesis and Exodus as a whole. In this regard I want mostly to comment on where the burden of proof lies. When we talk about whether or not Genesis and Exodus are continuous, we are not starting from an open question. Today, as two thousand years ago, as all evidence from all periods and places shows, Genesis and Exodus are continuous. We do not need to prove it: we do not need to find absolutely explicit linking passages. We do not need to find verbal associations, or thematic developments, or anything else beyond simple narrative continuity: first this happened, then that happened. For all the reasons stated earlier, no continuous composition needs to announce its own continuity. It is continuous by virtue of being materially continuous.21 On the other hand, it is the claim of discontinuity that has the burden of proof. We have before us a continuous text. Proof that it is or was otherwise must emerge from the text itself – it is a literary question, after all, and thus the evidence must be drawn from the literary level, not from any traditioncritical conclusion. I agree with the tradition-critical conclusion. But the narrative remains continuous from Gen 50 to Exod 1, materially and compositionally.

21

This material continuity is confirmed by our earliest evidence, i.e., those scrolls from Qumran that contain these “books” in a single document: 4Q1 (4QGen-Exoda) and 4Q11 (4QpaleoGen-Exodl).

The Relative Independence of the Books of Genesis and Exodus1 Jan Christian Gertz A. The Problem The first two chapters of the book of Exodus open the biblical narrative of the history of the people of Israel. At the same time, they introduce the two main characters of the exodus narrative – Moses and the pharaoh – and set the stage for the events that will follow. This occurs against the background of a wider set of events: The notices about the migration of the sons of Israel/Jacob to Egypt, the notice of the death of Joseph, his brothers and his entire generation as well as the remark about the rise of a new Egyptian ruler who did not know anything about Joseph (Exod 1:8) clearly point back to events from the Joseph story. However, it is noteworthy that the present form of the exodus narrative does not connect directly to the preceding narrative. Rather, the narrative background is presented in the form of a recapitulation of Gen 46:8–27, as is shown already in the close correspondence between Gen 46:8 and Exod 1:1. Thus, the introduction to the exodus narrative does not present itself as the beginning of a new chapter within a continuous narrative but rather corresponds to its present function as the beginning of a new book. This impression is further strengthened by the duplicate notice of Joseph’s death in Gen 50:24 and Exod 1:6. This raises the question of the connection between the books of Genesis and Exodus or, alternatively, between the Joseph story and the exodus narrative. This question has been answered in various ways by both the biblical authors and modern scholarship, and it is this question that will be taken up again here.

1 I wish to thank Stephen Germany for the translation of this essay. The essay originated in the Collaborative Research Centre 933 Material Text Cultures. Materiality and Presence of Writing in Non-Typographic Societies (sub-project C02), funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG), and was originally published in German (‘Zusammenhang, Trennung und Selbständigkeit der Bücher Genesis und Exodus im priesterlichen und nachpriesterlichen Pentateuch’, in: F. GIUNTOLI/K. SCHMID [eds.], The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles, FAT 101, Tübingen 2015, 233–251). The essay has been slightly reworked for the present publication.

56

Jan Christian Gertz

B. The Separation of Books and Narrative Periodization In terms of form, the separation of books is the primary concern of the texts in question, while in terms of content it is the division between major epochs in the people’s early history. Regarding the first aspect, it is worthwhile to consider the manuscript evidence from Qumran.2 The superscription ‫ברשית‬ (sic!) attested on 4QGenh-Title, probably placed on the reverse side of the scroll, as well as the highly distinctive translations of the individual books of the Pentateuch in the LXX, indicate that the present five-part division of the Pentateuch was known in early Judaism already before Philo of Alexandria.3 Yet the material evidence from Qumran and Wadi Murabba’at also shows that the books of the Pentateuch were regarded as a single textual unit. Among the texts from the Judean desert are several scrolls whose preserved text spanned two or more books of the Torah (4QRPb, c, d, 4QGen-Exoda, 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, MurGen-Exod.Num, 4QExod-Levf, 1QpaleoLev-Numa, 4QLev-Numa). On the basis of the fragments belonging to 4QRPc, which contain texts from every book of the Pentateuch, as well as its reconstructed size, it can be concluded with certainty that this scroll included the entire Pentateuch.4 Since many scrolls containing books of the Pentateuch (such as 4QRPc) have a particularly large format in comparison to other scrolls, it is likely that 4QRPc was not an exception but instead was the rule.5 Moreover, it can be observed that the few preserved book boundaries on single scrolls are clearly marked as such in the text. For the unit under consideration here, the scroll 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, written around 100–50 B.C.E., is of particular interest.6 The right margin of 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, frg. 1 has perforations from stitching.7 In the uppermost preserved line of the fragment, traces of two letters can be seen near the right margin, while the rest of the line is blank. Below this line are three blank but ruled lines. Lines 5–8 contain the fragmentary text of Exod 1:1–5.8 The two letters in the uppermost line fit perfectly with [‫במ]צרים‬, 2

On what follows cf. LANGE, Handbuch. For an initial redaction-critical evaluation of the evidence cf. also the observations in SCHMID, Erzväter, 26–33. 3 Cf. LANGE, Handbuch, 168–169. 4 Cf. LANGE, Handbuch, 40. 5 So also LANGE, Handbuch, 169. 6 An image of 4QpaleoGen-Exodl is provided in part I, section 1 of this volume. 7 SKEHAN et al., DJD 9, 17–18, 24–26, pl. I. On what follows cf. ULRICH, Origins, 124–125. 8 Unlike MT, 4QpaleoGen-Exodl frg. 1 does not read ‫ ואלה שׁמות‬in Exod 1:1 but rather ‫אלה שׁמות‬. This could be due to the fact that 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, like the LXX, treated Exod 1:1 as the beginning of a book. Why this introduction should be considered an “unusual candidate for a book opening” (so Christoph Berner in his contribution on “Material Evidence” in part I, section 1 of this volume) is not obvious to me, since the material

I. 2.2. The Relative Independence of the Books of Gen and Exod

57

the last word of Gen 50:26. The material evidence of 4QExodb, frg. 1 is comparable. In that fragment there is probably at least one blank line before Exod 1:1, which is located halfway down the column.9 A similar layout is also conjectured for the transition from Leviticus to Numbers in 4QLev-Numa, frg. 27. However, this assumption seems to rest only on the analogy to other manuscripts and on an estimative reconstruction.10 Regarding the Book of the Twelve, the evidence is different. While the manuscript of the Book of the Twelve from Wadi Murabba‛at (MurXII) leaves three blank lines between the individual “minor prophets,”11 the scribes who copied the manuscripts of the Twelve found at Qumran only left one blank line between the individual “minor prophets.”12 Similar features can be observed in the Psalms manuscripts.13 Within the pentateuchal scrolls, blank lines, blank ends of lines, or spaces in the middle of lines mark the beginning and end of sections.14 This differentiation resembles the later rabbinic rule that prescribes four blank lines between individual books in Torah scrolls and for the “major” prophets but only three blank lines within the Book of the Twelve (b. Baba Batra 13b; m. Soferim 2:2; y. Megilla 1:9[8]). At a first glance, the evidence for the Pentateuch in the Qumran manuscripts thus seems ambiguous, since both entire Pentateuch scrolls and scrolls of individual books are attested. The clear separation between books in 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, 4QExodb and 4QLev-Numa shows, however, that the Pentateuch was perceived as a unit consisting of multiple books. The marking of the separation between books within a single scroll thus emphasizes the notion of “multiple books.” Already, the differing length of the individual evidence attests precisely such a reading in the aforementioned Qumran scroll and in the LXX. In its original context within the Priestly Writing, Exod 1:1 opened a new section and should neither be regarded as the beginning of a book nor as the simple continuation of the narrative. On this see C. below. 9 Cf. ULRICH et al., DJD 12, 79–80, 84–85, pl. XIV. 10 Cf. ULRICH et al., DJD 12, 163, pl. XXVI. Occasionally the manuscript 4QExod-Levf from the third century B.C.E. is named as a further example of such a layout. All that is certain is that the scroll encompassed two books; however, whether the layout indicated a division between books can probably no longer be determined. 11 BENOIT et al., DJD 2 (192, pl. LXI: Jonah/Micah; 202, pl. LXXI: Zephaniah/Haggai; 205, pl. LXXII: Haggai/Zechariah. Less clearly discernible: 197, pl. LXVI: Micah/Nahum; 200, pl. LXIX: Habakkuk/Zephaniah). 12 4QXIIg, frg. 71 (a blank line between Amos/Obadiah); 4QXIIg, frg. 76 ([at least] one blank line between Obadiah/Jonah); 4QXIIb, frg. 3 (a blank line between Zephaniah/Haggai and increased spacing between the first two lines in Haggai). Cf. ULRICH et al., DJD 15, 308, 309–310, 235, pl. LVIII, LIX, XLIII. 13 Cf. WILSON, Editing, 93–138. 14 On this and on the correspondences and divergences in the internal divisions within books in the Qumran manuscripts and in the later traditions of the Masoretic and Samaritan texts cf. OESCH, ‘Gliederungshermeneutik’.

58

Jan Christian Gertz

books of the Pentateuch speaks against the notion that the Torah was divided into five books for purely practical reasons.15 The implausibility of this notion is further supported by the presence of scrolls of individual books as well as scrolls of the entire Pentateuch at Qumran. It is also obvious that the scribes at Qumran knew how to differentiate between the boundaries of books on the one hand and changes in authorship on the other. Thus, it can be postulated that the scribes of 4QpaleoGen-Exodl and 4QExodb were familiar with the tradition that the books of Genesis and Exodus were two books within the same literary work and most likely also assumed that they were written by one and the same author.16 In contrast, the scribes of 4QXIIa, b, g demarcated the individual prophetic writings within the Book of the Twelve as sections within a single book, even though it can hardly be assumed that the scribes regarded these writings as going back to the same author. The literary shaping of the beginnings and endings of biblical books shows a feature similar to the manuscript evidence.17 Considering the received form of the text, the beginnings and endings of the books in the Pentateuch appear to be shaped differently from those in the Book of the Twelve. Even though the individual parts of the Book of the Twelve can be identified as independent units that go back to particular prophets, a considerable effort to connect the individual units to each other redactionally through shared motifs or themes can be detected. In contrast, despite the continuity of the pentateuchal narrative, the boundaries or transitions between books in the Pentateuch give the impression of demarcating individual books, which were connected by repeating the end of the preceding book. This process is reminiscent of catchlines in cuneiform literature or of the duplicate report in 2 Chr 36:22–23 || Ezra 1:1–2. In Gen 50 and Exod 1, this repetition consists of the duplicate reference to Joseph’s death (Gen 50:26a; Exod 1:6) and to the list of the children of Israel who came to Egypt, which is often attributed to P (Exod 1:1– 5*). To summarize thus far: 1) Scrolls and “books” are not identical. This can also be seen through linguistic usage in different parts of the Hebrew Bible. Any composition can be termed a “book” (‫)ספר‬, yet the biblical authors could also differentiate between content and script bearing artifacts, as the phrase 15 Once again, regarding the present question of the transition from Gen 50 to Exod 1, BADEN, ‘Continuity’, 163–164. Cf. also the critique by SCHMID, ‘Genesis and Exodus’, 187–189. 16 In this respect, the statement “so that you may gain insight into the book of Moses and into the books of the Prophets and into David” (‫הנ[ביאים ובדוי֯ ]ד‬ ‫)בספר מו̇ ֯ש ֯ה] ו[בספר]י‬ ̇ in 4QMMT (4Q397/4QMMTd, frg. 14) is no argument against a widespread division of the “book of Moses” into five books. In my view, here the attribution to Moses stands in the foreground, as in the phrase “the book of the Torah of Moses” that is attested already in the Hebrew Bible (cf. 2 Chr 25:4; 35:12; Neh 8:1; 13:1). 17 Cf. SCHMID, Erzväter, 29–32 (with further literature).

I. 2.2. The Relative Independence of the Books of Gen and Exod

59

“book-scroll” (‫ )מגלת ספר‬indicates (Jer 36:2, 4; Ezek 2:9; Ps 40:8). 2) The differentiation between books in the Pentateuch cannot simply be glossed over by reference to the continuity of the pentateuchal narrative over multiple books.18 3) Provided that significant parts of the catch-line type of connection between books in Exod 1:1–5* can be ascribed already to the Priestly Writing, then the task of joining books together was not the exclusive domain of scribes and redactors who were active during the final stages in the formation of the Pentateuch. Yet irrespective of the literary-historical evaluation of Exod 1:1–5*, the overall evidence for the beginnings and endings of books in the Pentateuch (as well as in the Former Prophets) indicates that the division into books was part of the literary growth of the text insofar as it has left clear marks within the composition of the individual books.19 4) Given that the differentiation between the larger literary work (the Pentateuch) and its constituent parts (i.e., books) extends backwards into the literary development of the Pentateuch, then the often-ignored distinction between intratextual and intertextual cross-references is all the more important.20 Not every forwardor back-reference at the boundary between Genesis and Exodus must be explained as an intratextual reference. It is conceivable either that the authors assumed their intended readers simply had prior knowledge of the material being referred to or that a reference is genuinely intertextual, whereby the question of authorship is a separate problem. In terms of its content, the present text of Exod 1 focuses on the transition from the ancestral period to the story of Moses. While Gen 50:26a already notes Joseph’s age and reports his death, Exod 1:6, 8 once again note the death of Joseph, his brothers and the entire generation as well as the rise of a new pharaoh who knew nothing of Joseph. The correspondence of Gen 50:22b (or 50:26a*) and Exod 1:6, 8 with the conclusion to the book of 18 Cf. also the debate over the relationship of the Iliad to the Odyssey, which is comparable to the present discussion in several respects, as well as the theory of a Chronistic History. Differently BADEN, ‘Continuity’, 164–165, who dismisses the question of the literary connection at the level of the non-Priestly text as irrelevant through reference to narrative continuity. 19 On the colophon to the book of Leviticus and the composition of the book of Numbers cf. NIHAN, Priestly Torah, 69–76. Similar evaluations regarding the age of the “division into books” are also found in OLSON, Death, 51–53, and ALBERTZ, ‘Beginn’, 234 with n. 44. 20 This applies also to my own work. Cf. especially the literary-historical evaluation of Gen 46:1–5a in GERTZ, Tradition, 277ff. On this cf. the critique in BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 131ff., who, following SCHMID, Erzväter, 62–63, connects God’s commitment to bring Jacob up from Egypt to Jacob alone and not to the exodus of the people. Of course, the possibility that later recipients of the text, such as the author who expanded Exod 3, noticed this originally unintended connection cannot be ruled out; in this case, however, it would be a question of an intertextual connection. Cf. also BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 513 with n. 82.

60

Jan Christian Gertz

Joshua in Josh 24:29–30 and the beginning of the period of the Judges in Judg 2:8, 10 has been discussed many times.21 Here it will suffice to note that these parallels highlight the effort to mark a transition between two major historical epochs.

C. The Priestly Integration of the Ancestral Narratives and the Exodus Narrative into a Single Literary Work Within Priestly literature, the ancestral narratives and the exodus narrative are joined through a series of explicit cross-references. This can be seen in the Priestly version of the call of Moses in Exod 2:23aβb–25; 6:2–7:7*: God’s self-revelation to Moses is placed explicitly in continuity with God’s selfrevelation to the ancestors, and according to P, God’s delivering intervention in Egypt results from the “covenant” with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Furthermore, among the promises to the ancestors enumerated in Gen 17* (P), the promise of an eternal relationship with God is confirmed here and is subsequently fulfilled in the announcement of Yahweh’s dwelling in the midst of Israel in Exod 29:45–46 (P). Additionally, in P the creation report and the beginning of the revelation at Sinai have been shaped in light of each other.22 The Priestly Writing thus forms an indissoluble connection between creation, the ancestors, the exodus and Sinai. Regardless of which model one adopts for the literary character of Priestly literature (whether an originally independent source, a layer of reworking or both at the same time),23 this indicates an overarching literary work. There is a broad consensus that the most basic material in Exod 1:1–5, 7, 13–14 belongs to P. This attribution poses no problems for Exod 1:13–14.24 This is also true for Exod 1:7, despite recent objections.25 The description of the Israelites’ multiplication in v. 7 corresponds to Priestly diction. With few exceptions, the verb ‫ פרה‬qal/hif. “to be/make fruitful” in the Pentateuch is only attested in P or in the context of Priestly texts. The combination of ‫פרה‬ with ‫ רבה‬qal/hif. “to be/make numerous” is limited to P, aside from one attestation in the Holiness Code (Lev 26:9). Generally, the root ‫ שר״ץ‬is more or 21

See the discussion in part III of this volume. On the structural parallels between Gen 1:1–2:3 and Exod 24:15b–18aα; 25–31; 35– 40 cf. among others LEVENSON, ‘The Temple and the World’, esp. 286ff., JANOWSKI, ‘Tempel und Schöpfung’, esp. 46ff. 23 On this debate see HARTENSTEIN/SCHMID, Abschied. 24 On what follows cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 352–357, and the literature cited there. 25 For a different view see esp. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 14–16, who attributes this verse to a post-Priestly reworking. See also LEVIN, Jahwist, 315; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 125; KRATZ, Komposition, 243. 22

I. 2.2. The Relative Independence of the Books of Gen and Exod

61

less limited to Priestly literature. The verb ‫“ שרץ‬to swarm” in the context of a statement related to multiplication using the verbs ‫ פרה‬and ‫ רבה‬is attested elsewhere only in the Priestly flood narrative (Gen 8:17; 9:7). The adverbial phrase ‫“ במאד מאד‬exceedingly” in Exod 1:7a – apart from the contextually distinct attestations in Ezek 9:9; 16:13 – appears elsewhere only in P, and significantly, like in Exod 1:7a, in connection with the verbs ‫ פרה‬and ‫( רבה‬cf. Gen 17:2, 6, 20). The concluding statement ‫“ ותמלא הארץ אתם‬and the land was full of them” has its only counterpart in the imperative blessing in Gen 1:28 ‫“ ומלאו את הארץ‬and fill the earth.” The exclusive reference to the preceding Priestly commands and promises of multiplication (cf. Gen 1:22, 28; 8:17; 9:1, 7; 17:2, 6, 20; 28:3; 35:11) is thus unmistakable. Prepared for by Gen 47:27 (P), Exod 1:7 notes the corresponding fulfillment and in this way, marks a clear turning point at the beginning of the Mosaic period. Thus, this verse has a structuring function within the Priestly narrative, particularly in connection to the periodization of “redemptive history” in the call of Moses that follows and the promise of the possession of the land made there (Exod 6:4, 8). The Priestly nature of the verse cannot be denied.26 The fact that Exod 1:7 uses the root ‫“ עצ״ם‬to be mighty,” which is otherwise not attested in Priestly literature but is found in clearly non-Priestly statements about the growth of the Israelites in the immediate literary context (Exod 1:9, 20) does not change this conclusion. Since there are no literarycritical grounds for subdividing Exod 1:7, the prima facie simplest explanation is that P formulated Exod 1:7 from the outset for its present context, namely the non-Priestly exodus narrative.27 However, the precise literaryhistorical place of the latter is hotly debated, since the pharaoh’s statement – at least according to the present form of the text – presupposes the immediately preceding statement about the people’s multiplication by P.28 Moreover, as far as I see, the only securely pre-Priestly statement about the people’s multiplication within the present literary context is found in Exod 1:12, which uses the verbs ‫ רבה‬and ‫( פרץ‬the latter of which is not used in Exod 1:7) and notably does not use ‫עצ״ם‬. In light of these problems, it should be considered whether the formulation of Exod 1:7 represents a variation within the Priestly statements regarding multiplication that is not literarily dependent upon Exod 1:9, 20 but in fact influenced the formulation in Exod 1:9, 20.29 After all, Exod 1:7 concludes the series of Priestly statements regarding multiplication and at the same time 26

Cf. recently WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 139. Cf. WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 139–141. 28 See D. below. 29 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 366–368. This way, the separation of the pairing of ‫ פרה‬and ‫ רבה‬through the use of ‫ עצם‬and ‫( שרץ‬which is otherwise widely attested in P but absent in Exod 1:9, 20!) can also easily be explained; cf. WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 140–141. 27

62

Jan Christian Gertz

forms a transition to the history of the people. Moreover, Exod 1:7 draws on Gen 47:27 where, however, the typical combination of ‫ פרה‬with ‫ רבה‬relates to the growth of Jacob’s family during the lifetime of Joseph. Not following Christoph Berner who evaluates these statements about the growth of Jacob’s family (Gen 47:27) and about the rise of a mighty people after Joseph’s death (Exod 1:7) as doublets and thus separates the material into two different literary layers,30 it seems more appropriate to understand Exod 1:7 as an amplification within the Priestly chain of statements regarding multiplication. The Priestly authors, who certainly had knowledge of texts beyond their own literature, did not lack precedents for the combination of the verbs ‫רבה‬ and ‫ עצם‬or the adjectives ‫ רב‬and ‫עצום‬.31 In contrast, the fact that from the four terms used in Exod 1:7 only the terms ‫ רב‬and ‫ רבה( עצום‬and ‫ )עצם‬appear in Exod 1:9 (and 1:20, which is dependent upon the latter) says absolutely nothing about the direction of possible influence. 32 The pharaoh’s observation in Exod 1:9 that “they are too numerous and too strong for us” is formulated with a view to a possible military conflict, since this is where numbers and strength are of significance. A comparison with the people’s fertility, such as “they are too fecund (‫ )פר״ה‬for us” would have been possible linguistically but does not fit well with the narrative context. Such a comparison using the verb ‫ שרץ‬can be ruled out both linguistically and in terms of content. If Exod 1:9 is dependent on Exod 1:7, it is thus likely that it (and Exod 1:20) would have only taken up the words ‫ רבה‬and ‫( עצם‬or ‫ רב‬and ‫ )עצום‬from that verse.33 It may now be asked whether the statement that “they filled the land” in Exod 1:7 (analogous to Gen 1 and Gen 9) is a motif that is never resolved in the Priestly thread of the exodus narrative. This would support the assumption that P was written with a view to its non-Priestly context.34 The composition-historical evaluation of this observation, however, is not absolutely necessary. It could also be argued that the intended readers could discern this unresolved motif while the authors of Exod 1:7 merely sought to create a back-reference to Gen 1 and 9. In the present form of Exod 1, the description of Israel’s oppression in Egypt in vv. 13–14 should be understood as an expression of the increased coercion and the worsened situation of the Israelites. Nevertheless, it cannot be denied that these verses are a doublet of Exod 1:11–12 and can easily be removed from their present context. Both vv. 11–12 and vv. 13–14 report that 30

BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 15. Cf. Deut 7:1; 9:14; 26:5; Isa 53:12; Joel 2:2; Amos 5:12; Mic 4:3; Zech 8:22; Ps 35:18; 135:10. 32 Against BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 15–16. 33 Likewise, the ‫ במאד מאד‬from Exod 1:7, which Berner (ibid.) explains as an intensification of Exod 1:9, has no place in the pharaoh’s comparison in Exod 1:9 and can hardly serve as proof that Exod 1:7 is literarily dependent upon Exod 1:9. 34 Cf. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 148. 31

I. 2.2. The Relative Independence of the Books of Gen and Exod

63

the Egyptians imposed forced labor on the Israelites. It should also be noted that v. 14 does not connect smoothly to the pharaoh’s decision in v. 15 to require the midwives to kill the newborn males. Such a decision is not at all prepared for by vv. 13–14, which say nothing about the success or failure of the coercive measures. In contrast, v. 15 connects smoothly to v. 12 inasmuch as the multiplication of the Israelites and the Egyptians’ dread of them can be understood as the motivation for the pharaoh’s decision. At the same time, vv. 13–14 can be read as the continuation of the Priestly stratum in v. 7 and form a coherent connection to the Priestly narrative in 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–7:7*. Thus, while the possibility cannot be ruled out that Exod 1:7 was formulated for its present context, the evidence from vv. 13–14 (and certainly from 2:23aβ–25; 6:2–7:7*) points to a largely independent Priestly exodus narrative.35 The attribution of the list of Jacob’s sons in Exod 1:1–5 to P is debated. With the exception of Joseph’s unusual position in the list, which is determined by the immediate context, the names in vv. 2–4 correspond to the list in Gen 35:22b–26, which is generally ascribed to P. The historicizing frame in vv. 1, 5, however, is clearly reminiscent of the post-Priestly genealogy in Gen 46:8–27 (cf. v. 1 with Gen 46:8 and v. 5 with Gen 46:20, 26–27). It is often noted as striking that both lists begin with the phrase “these are the names of the sons of Israel,” whereby “Israel” is clearly understood as the renamed ancestor Jacob.36 While P also knows of Jacob’s renaming as Israel (Gen 35:10), P continues to use the name Jacob, including in the parallel listing of sons in 35:22b–26 (immediately following Gen 35:10 [!]; cf. also 46:6; 47:28; 49:1, 33). It should also be noted that in Exod 1:7 ‫בני ישראל‬, as elsewhere in Priestly literature, does not indicate Jacob’s “sons” in the restricted sense as in v. 1 but instead indicates the people of Israel who were descended from Jacob and his sons. Since there is nothing mediating between the use of ‫ בני ישראל‬in v. 1 as the immediate descendants of Jacob and in v. 7 as the people of Israel, it can be supposed that the list of Israel’s sons in vv. 1–5 as well as its doubtlessly even later corrective anticipation in Gen 46 represent expansions that are dependent on Priestly passages.37

35 Cf. WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 154, who describes P as a layer of reworking within the ancestral narratives and the beginning of the exodus narrative but speaks of P as an originally independent source for the primeval history and for the main part of the exodus narrative (beginning in Exod 2:23aβb–25). Cf. also the suggestions in GERTZ, Tradition, 391. 36 Within v. 1, 4QExodb, 4QpaleoGen-Exodl and LXX add to the phrase “with Jacob” the phrase “their father” as a further clarification. On this cf. the contribution of Christoph Berner on the material evidence in part I, section 1 of this volume. 37 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 315; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 125; SCHMID, Erzväter, 30 n. 177; GERTZ, Tradition, 354–357; KRATZ, Komposition, 243; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 14.

64

Jan Christian Gertz

Against this conclusion it has been noted that the phrase ‫ בני ישראל‬in v. 1 already aims at the ancestors of the tribes of Israel, whose development into a people is stated in Exod 1:7.38 This observation is certainly correct. But if Exod 1:1–5 were the work of P, these verses would rather have expressed this idea without using the phrase ‫ – בני ישראל‬even if a different phrase may not have been as fitting in the present narrative context – since such a use of ‫בני‬ ‫ ישראל‬is not at all typical of P. In view of the “identity of Israel’s origins”39 presupposed by P (but not only by P), already the (specific) reference to the total number of the ‫ בני יעקב‬consistently refers to the tribes and to the later people of “Israel.” The argument and the counterargument thus cancel each other out. Meanwhile, another observation speaks quite clearly in favor of an attribution of Exod 1:1–5 to P. As already noted above, Exod 1:7 draws on Gen 47:27. The logic of the multiplication of Jacob’s family during his lifetime to the later development of a great nation that is inherent to such a reference to Gen 47:27 is much more understandable if Exod 1:7 follows the information on the substantial yet not incredulously large extended family of the migrant Jacob in Exod 1:1–5(a?).40 Their total number of 70 individuals 38

BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 150. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 150 n. 144 (“ursprungsgeschichtliche Identität »Israels«”). 40 According to BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 151, IDEM, ‘Literarkritik’, 511 n. 70, the reference to Joseph in v. 5b is a later addition. The placement of this half-verse (“and Joseph was [already] in Egypt”) after v. 5a (“The total number of people born to Jacob was seventy”) poses problems. The juxtaposition of these two half-verses could create the impression that Joseph is not one of Jacob’s biological sons, which raises the suspicion that Joseph was inserted secondarily by an editor who did not want to see Joseph left out of a list of Jacob’s descendants. Yet this could also have been intended from the outset. In any event, the emphasis in v. 5a lies in the number of the biological descendants of Jacob who migrated with him to Egypt (cf. v. 1b). As is documented in the contribution of Christoph Berner on the material evidence (pp. 14–16 above), the reference to Joseph led to confusion within the history of the text’s transmission. In the view of some scholars, the most coherent reading is offered by 4QExodb: Joseph is placed in the genealogically correct position within the list of Jacob’s sons, the statement that Joseph was already in Egypt (cf. v. 5b MT+Sam) is left out and there are 75 people in total. Nevertheless, a harmonizing tendency is evident in 4QExodb, indicating that this manuscript is a poor witness to the late addition of v. 5b in MT+Sam. The fact that the LXX placed v. 5a after v. 5b can easily be explained as an improvement to the text. The statement in the LXX that Jacob’s descendants numbered 75 individuals, which corresponds to Gen 46:27 LXX, also points in this direction. This statement results directly from the repositioning of v. 5b: like the harmonizing manuscript 4QExodb and presumably also 4QGen-Exoda, the LXX adds Joseph, his sons and his first grandsons (cf. Gen 46:20 LXX) to the 70 individuals who “came to Egypt with Jacob” (v. 1). However, the number 70 that is offered by MT, Sam and 4QpaleoGen-Exodl should – as in Gen 46:27 – be regarded as more original. The number 70 elsewhere reflects the notion of completeness (cf. Deut 10:22), in which case a recalculation is unnecessary. The problems created by a recalculation can be seen in Gen 46:26–27: 70 male descendants are counted 39

I. 2.2. The Relative Independence of the Books of Gen and Exod

65

(v. 5a) at the time of their settling in Egypt (cf. v. 1) sets up a contrast41 with the shift to the history of the people noted in Exod 1:7. Finally, a brief discussion of the Priestly portions of Gen 50:22–26 is necessary. The conclusion to the non-Priestly Joseph story in Gen 50:21 is followed by a short notice in Gen 50:22a that Joseph resided in Egypt with his father’s family, to which a Priestly notice regarding Joseph’s life span is connected in Gen 50:22b.42 Based on Joseph’s age, a later editor concluded in v. 23 that Joseph lived to see the third generation of his descendants.43 Regarding the literary history of the text, it is significant that the idiomatic expression ‫ ויחי‬+ number of years in Gen 50:22b in itself is never used to indicate a person’s total life span. Rather, it indicates either a person’s age at which a particular event occurs or the years somebody lived to see after an explicitly mentioned incident.44 Thus, it can be concluded first of all that Gen 50:22b on its own cannot have served as a notice of Joseph’s death (which poses significant problems for reconstructing multiple complete sources here). Moreover, this means that the notice in 50:22b, which is incomplete in and of itself, has been separated from its original continuation,45 which is found in Gen 50:26a. As is well known, the assignment of v. 26a to P is far from a matter of consensus. The reasons for this are the repetition of Joseph’s age following the notice of his death and its slightly different formulation. Both observations can be easily explained, however, by postulating that the intervening farewell scene in Gen 50:24–26 was inserted into the narrative of P.46 In this way, the author who added this scene reworked the Priestly notice of Joseph’s death in light of Judg 2:8, 10.47 Since the reworked Priestly notice while only 69 are named (Beriah seems to have been counted twice); of the 69/70 “sons” two already died in Canaan, which would leave 67 or 68 descendants coming to Egypt. If one subtracts the two sons born to Joseph in Egypt, then one arrives at 65 or 67 “sons,” while v. 26 speaks of 66 “souls” that “came from Jacob’s loins” and v. 27 speaks of 70 individuals, including the two sons of Joseph that were born in Egypt. Yet even if MT and Sam offer the better reading (as it seems to me), this says nothing about whether this partial verse is original or is a later addition. 41 BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 150. 42 On the Priestly provenance of Gen 50:22 cf. the detailed arguments in LUX, ‘Geschichte als Erfahrung’, 158–161, and more recently WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 130–131 (with further literature). 43 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 316. 44 Cf. BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 507. 45 This also applies, mutatis mutandis, if P was a layer of reworking and the Priestly notice of Joseph’s life span was placed before the notice of Joseph’s death. 46 Cf. BLUM, Studien, 364 with n. 14. 47 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 360 n. 43; IDEM, ‘Transition’, 79–80; BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 510. According to BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 21, it is unclear “what would have prompted a later editor to add the undisputed life span of Joseph in 50:26aβ following 50:22b” (“was einen späteren Bearbeiter dazu veranlaßt haben sollte, die von 50,22b her unstrittige Le-

66

Jan Christian Gertz

of Joseph’s death in Gen 50:26a is indissolubly linked to Gen 50:24–26*, this is a clear indication that the farewell scene is in its entirety a post-Priestly expansion based on the Priestly notice of Joseph’s life span and death in Gen 50:22b, 26a*.48 In sum, the following observations can be maintained: 1) The literary cross-references within Priestly texts suggest that the primeval history, the ancestral narratives and the Moses story were part of a single literary work at the Priestly level of composition. 2) The beginning of the Priestly Moses story consists of Exod 1:1–5, 7, 13–14, which was preceded by a brief notice about Joseph’s residence in Egypt, his life span and his death (Gen 50:22, 26a*). 3) Irrespective of its comprehensive literary composition, P casts the beginning of the Moses story as a new era and thus anticipates the later separation of the books of Genesis and Exodus.

D. The Non-Priestly Text: Continuous Narrative(s), Redactional Hinge or Reworking? The state of research on the non-Priestly portions of Exod 1 (and the related passages in Gen 50:22–26) is highly complex. The starting point of the analysis is the observation that a large part of the non-Priestly materials in the transition from the Joseph story to the exodus narrative stands in a complex network that goes far beyond the connection between the books of Genesis and Exodus. As is often the case, this observation is neither new nor in itself disputed; all that is debated is its significance. The specific areas of interweaving are as follows: 1) Joseph’s final instructions regarding his bones and the embalming of his corpse in Gen 50:25, 26b are connected to the bringing of Joseph’s bones out of Egypt in Exod 13:19 and to their burial in Josh 24:32. That narrative thread is prepared by the notice about Jacob’s purchase of the land in Gen 33:19 (cf. Gen 33:18 and 48:22). 2) As has often been noted, the sequence of the notice of Joseph’s death in Gen 50:26a (par. Exod 1:6) and the rise of a new pharaoh in Exod 1:8 stands in parallel with Judg 2:8, 10 through the reference to the beginning of a new era: Gen 50:26 1:8

Joseph died (‫ )וימת‬at the age of 110 […] Ex 1:6 […] and that entire generation. And a new king arose (‫ ]…[ )ויקם‬who did not know Joseph.

Judg 2:8

Joshua died (‫ ]…[ )וימת‬at the age of 110 […] 2:10 […] and that entire generation […] And a new generation arose (‫ ]…[ )ויקם‬that did not know Yahweh. bensdauer Josephs in 50,26aβ nachzutragen”). The reason is found in Judg 2:8b (par. Josh 24:29b)! 48 Cf. recently BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 510 with n. 67, who additionally notes that the promise to the ancestors as an oath that is presupposed in v. 24 occurs in exclusively postPriestly contexts.

I. 2.2. The Relative Independence of the Books of Gen and Exod

67

As Erhard Blum has recently shown once again, these two transitions between major eras reflect some form of literary dependence.49 Among Blum’s observations, one that seems particularly important is the fact that Joseph’s instructions on the repatriation of his bones point precisely to Josh 24 and, thus, to the transition from the time of Joshua to the period of the Judges. This, in turn, reinforces the conclusion that both instances of interweaving belong to one and the same level of redaction. Here, the model for the change of epochs should be found in the transition from the time of Joshua to the period of the Judges: The succession from one generation to the next reported was thus modified in Exod 1:8 with a view to the specific situation at the beginning of the exodus narrative, reporting the death of one generation and the rise of a new pharaoh. If one also considers the duplicate notice of Joseph’s death in Gen 50:26; Exod 1:6 and takes into account the indications that Gen 50:24–26 are a post-Priestly expansion,50 then it seems likely that the notice of the change in epochs in Gen 50:26; Exod 1:6, 8 is the product of a post-Priestly author who also created a book division in the transition between Joshua and Judges.51 It may of course be asked whether particular verses in this post-Priestly transition between the books of Genesis and Exodus can be convincingly isolated from their present context and attributed to a pre-Priestly connection between the ancestral narratives and the exodus narrative. As was shown above, this cannot be the case for Gen 50:23–26; thus, any pre-Priestly connection with the beginning of the exodus narrative would have to connect to the end of the Joseph story in Gen 50:21. Exod 1:6, 8 are usually assigned to a pre-Priestly connection between the books of Genesis and Exodus. Thus, Christoph Berner has recently argued that Exod 1:6* (only ‫)וימת יוסף‬, 8– 10abα* (up to ‫)פן ירבה‬, 22 connect an exodus narrative beginning in Exod 2:152 with the Joseph story: “The beginning and end of the literary hinge (the death of Joseph and the command to kill the firstborn) are so perfectly tai49

BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 509–510. On the literary unity of Gen 50:24–26 cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 360–362, and more recently WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 132–133, who, however, denies that the expansion in v. 26a is based on a Priestly formulation. According to BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 510, v. 23 also belongs to this expansion. 51 Cf. BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 510. 52 The problems associated with the beginning of the exodus narrative in Exod 2:1 need not be repeated here. The counterarguments are sufficiently well-known. On this debate cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 374–376, and more recently ALBERTZ, ‘Beginn’, 227–229. Against the background of this debate, the statement of BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 49, that recently the “view has become more widespread that the pre-Priestly exodus narrative began with the story of Moses’ birth in Exod 2:1–10” (“In den vergangenen Jahren hat sich verstärkt die Erkenntnis durchgesetzt, daß die vorpriesterschriftliche Exoduserzählung mit der Geburtsgeschichte Moses in Ex 2,1–10 einsetzte.”) seems a bit too optimistic. 50

68

Jan Christian Gertz

lored to a literary connection with the end of the Joseph story (Gen 50:21) and with the beginning of the exodus narrative (Exod 2:1) that there can be no doubt that here the original literary joint between the ancestors and the exodus can be detected.”53 Christoph Levin already reconstructed a similar transition, although he took the notice of Joseph’s death from Gen 50:26a.54 This difference reveals a problem in terms of content insofar as Christoph Berner correctly concludes that the present form of both notices can be ruled out for a pre-Priestly transition: “Gen 50:26a notes that Joseph died when he was 110 years old […] and thus presupposes the corresponding notice from 50:22 (P), while Exod 1:6 also has Joseph’s brothers and the entire generation die alongside Joseph himself […], which can only be explained by the fact that the post-Priestly list from 1:1–5 is already in view here.”55 For this reason, Christoph Berner excludes everything in Exod 1:6 except the two words ‫ וימת יוסף‬as postPriestly expansions and thereby “rescues” his pre-Priestly connection between Genesis and Exodus. In view of the many transformations that can be observed in the textual unit under consideration, it is not unthinkable to eliminate the notice of the death of Joseph’s brothers and of the entire generation from an assumed pre-Priestly version of Exod 1:6. Yet, it remains a problem that such an intervention into the text is not reflected by any literary tension within the verse.56 Moreover, the proposed elimination of the notices about the death of Joseph’s brothers and of the entire generation throws light on fundamental problems within such a reconstruction. With some degree of realism and the demand for literary coherence, the observation placed in the mouth of an Egyptian, “See, the people of the sons of Israel (‫ )עם בני ישראל‬is more numerous and stronger than us” (Exod 1:9), which is striking in every respect, presupposes that the descendants of Jacob/Israel (cf. Exod 1:1) have become a people whom the pharaoh should fear. It is unlikely that this presupposition 53 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 17–18: “Anfang und Ende des Scharniers (Tod Josephs / Tötungsbefehl) sind so perfekt auf eine literarische Verknüpfung mit dem Ende der Josephsgeschichte (Gen 50,21) bzw. mit dem Anfang der Exoduserzählung (Ex 2,1) abgestimmt, daß kein Zweifel daran bestehen kann, daß hier das ursprüngliche Verbindungsstück zwischen Erzvätern und Exodus greifbar wird.” 54 LEVIN, Jahwist, 313–314. 55 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 20: “Gen 50,26a notiert, daß Joseph im Alter von 110 Jahren das Zeitliche segnet […], und setzt dabei die entsprechende Angabe aus 50,22 P voraus, während Ex 1,6 neben Joseph auch dessen Brüder und die gesamte Generation sterben läßt […], was sich nur so erklärt, daß hier bereits die nachpriesterschriftliche Liste aus 1,1–5 im Blick ist.” 56 Similar to Berner’s analysis is the view of CARR, ‘What is Required’, 175. Berner additionally differentiates different layers within this addition, identifying the phrase “and that entire generation” as an even later addition.

I. 2.2. The Relative Independence of the Books of Gen and Exod

69

is already given with Joseph’s statement that God intended to deliver “many people” through him (Gen 50:20). For the characters of the narration (including the pharaoh), the “many people” in Gen 50:20 signifies the members of Jacob’s family who came to Egypt. On a meta-level, this statement is of course transparent with regard to the fact that the sons of Jacob – as always in the narratives in Genesis – are a metonym for the tribes of Israel and that the history of the people is told as a family history. At the narrative level, however, it would have to be explained if the family is to be understood as a people, as is presupposed by the situation in Exod 1:8–9. Thus, Exod 1:8–9 turns completely on the assumption that a certain amount of time has passed since the death of Joseph in which Jacob’s family truly became a great people and in which a gap in the Egyptians’ collective memory could have arisen. After all, the new pharaoh can hardly have been the immediate successor (and son) of the pharaoh under whom Joseph was elevated to the position of vizier and the second-in-command in the state (cf. Josephus, Ant. II 202). One more observation can be added to this. If, following Christoph Berner and others, Exod 1:6*, 8–10 are connected directly to Gen 50:21, then either Joseph’s brothers took part in the exodus or their death is simply not mentioned. Both possibilities are equally unlikely. In a once-independent Joseph story concluding with Gen 50:21, neither the death of Joseph nor that of his brothers need to be mentioned. Yet for an exodus narrative that originally connected to the Joseph story the picture is completely different, particularly since the exodus narrative explicitly mentions the rise of a new pharaoh who did not know Joseph. Finally, a direct connection between the notice of Joseph’s death in Exod 1:6* and the reconciliation scene in Gen 50:15–21, which points to the brothers’ future together (“I myself will provide for you and your little ones,” v. 21), is so abrupt that it is difficult to imagine it as the original sequence of the narrative.57 Thus, there is reason to doubt the assumption that Exod 1:6* (only ‫וימת‬ ‫)יוסף‬, 8–10abα (up to ‫)פן ירבה‬, 22 once constituted the original connection between the ancestral narratives and the exodus narrative. Rather, Exod 1:6, 8–10 presuppose Exod 1:1–5, 7 (P). This applies at least to those elements that are constitutive of a literary connection between the Joseph story and the exodus narrative. Yet, in my view, this also applies to the beginning of an independent exodus narrative in Exod 1:(8a,) 9–10 that has been separated from the notice of Joseph’s death in Exod 1:6 and the allusion to Joseph’s position in Egypt in Exod 1:8b.58 “The claim that the Israelites have become more numerous than the Egyptians is a fantastical exaggeration, which would appear isolated without the redundant description of multiplication that emphasizes the exorbitance of the process. Seen in this light, all the statements 57 58

Cf. BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 508; ALBERTZ, ‘Beginn’, 232. Thus ALBERTZ, ‘Beginn’, 230–236; BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 511.

70

Jan Christian Gertz

concerning the size of the people of Israel up until 1:9 depend upon the Priestly minimization in 1:5 and maximization in 1:7.”59 Although the dependence of the pharaoh’s statement in Exod 1:9 on Exod 1:7 has often been objected to on the grounds that the readers could have been informed of the Israelites’ multiplication from the mouth of the pharaoh rather than by the narrator,60 such a scenario is rather unlikely considering the importance of the subject. Moreover, the dependence of Exod 1:9 on Exod 1:1–5, 7 is further supported by an observation on the terminology in Exod 1:9. The phrase ‫ עם בני ישראל‬is unique in the Pentateuch and occurs elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only rarely and in late contexts (Judg 20:14; 1 Kgs 8:9; 2 Chr 5:10; 6:1). If Exod 1:9 were merely concerned to set up a juxtaposition between Israel and the pharaoh’s people (the addressees), then perhaps ‫ עם ישראל‬would be expected. However, the striking phrase ‫עם בני‬ ‫ ישראל‬can easily be explained as drawing on ‫ בני ישראל‬in Exod 1:1, through which the continuity between the sons of Jacob and the people of Israel is emphasized.61 Thus, also in this respect P is presupposed in Exod 1:9. It is only in Exod 1:11–12 that the literary evidence changes. 62 The appointment of taskmasters here does not require any previous multiplication of the people.63 While in the present form of the text the forced labor is a first step in the decimation of the Israelites, v. 11 per se does not give the impression that the Israelites are a people that is larger than the Egyptian people. The multiplication of the people does not begin before Exod 1:12. Exod 1:12 undermines the progressive logic of Exod 1:9 (and 1:7), as can be seen from the fact that the terminology for the people’s multiplication from the latter

59

UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 72 (ET: 70): “[Die] Aussage [des Pharao], die Israeliten seien zahlreicher als die Ägypter, ist eine phantastische Übertreibung, die ohne die redundanten, die Exorbitanz des Vorgangs betonenden Mehrungsaussagen isoliert dastünde. So betrachtet hängen alle Aussagen zur Größe des Volkes Israel bis 1,9 […] an der priesterlichen Abfolge von Minimierung in 1,5 und Maximierung in 1,7.” 60 CARR, ‘What is Required’, 172; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 22–23. The examples of Gen 26:16 and Num 22:3–4, 6 cited as parallels by Berner (with reference to KRATZ, Komposition, 287) are unconvincing. Gen 26:16 offers no new information; rather, Abimelech draws his conclusion on the basis of Isaac’s wealth noted in vv. 13–15. Likewise, when the Moabites note in Num 22:3–4, 6 that the people is a “great nation,” this is perhaps news to Balak but certainly not to the readers of the Pentateuch. 61 Cf. also ALBERTZ, ‘Beginn’, 235 with n. 45, who assumes that the Priestly editor inserted the word ‫ בני‬into the phrase ‫ עם ישראל‬found in his Vorlage. 62 On the beginning of the exodus narrative in Exod 1:11 cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 370– 372; see also UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 72. 63 According to ALBERTZ, ‘Beginn’, 230, without v. 9 there would be no motive for placing the Israelites under forced labor. However, comparison with common practices involving prisoners of war, refugees and other migrants reveals a different picture. In any event, sufficient motivation for the measure can be found in v. 12a.

I. 2.2. The Relative Independence of the Books of Gen and Exod

71

verses is not taken up in Exod 1:12.64 Yet if the non-Priestly (and prePriestly) thread of the exodus narrative can only be identified with confidence beginning in Exod 1:11, then the problem arises that the beginning of this narrative is missing. Since Exod 1:11 does not contain an explicit subject, one is forced to assume that the original beginning of the narrative has either been lost or has been so heavily reworked by Exod 1:1–10 that it can no longer be reconstructed.

E. Summary The renewed analysis and consideration of the relevant arguments has strengthened the view expressed in various forms in recent scholarship that Priestly texts constitute the earliest literary connection between the Joseph story and the exodus narrative within a single literary work. It has also become clear, however, that this result implicates some degree of uncertainty, since the transitional section between the two narrative works clearly underwent significant transformation. Within the context of scholarly discourse, it is necessary to clearly identify this uncertainty in the reconstruction of the text’s literary development. What does seem certain, however, is that a literary connection at the level of multiple continuous narrative sources is hardly demonstrable. It has also been shown that the existence of a literary connection between the Joseph story and the exodus narrative should not be overemphasized. As the evidence of the manuscripts from the Judean desert already indicates, scribal indicators of book boundaries and the existence of overarching literary works are not mutually exclusive. Yet this evidence also indicates that beside intertextual cross-references also intratextual cross-references always have to be reckoned with. This significantly relativizes the question of a caesura between the two literary works. This is highlighted by the evidence of the Priestly texts, which show opposing tendencies. On the one hand, the Joseph story and the exodus narrative – and, by extension, the books of Genesis and 64

BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 32, finds a multi-layered supplement in Exod 1:11–12 that prepares for the addition in Exod 2:11aβ and seeks to make the vague references to the Israelites’ suffering more concrete. Regarding the terminology, he notes: “Exod 1:11a, 12 are strikingly different because they replace the second part of the multiplication formula from 1:9, 20 (‫ )עצם‬with the verb ‫( פרץ‬1:12aβ). Apparently, the author no longer felt bound to the terminology of the source text.” (“Aus dem Rahmen fallen Ex 1,11a.12 schließlich auch deshalb, weil sie den zweiten Teil der in 1,9.20 vorgegebenen Mehrungsformel (‫)עצם‬ durch das Verbum ‫ פרץ‬ersetzen (1,12aβ). Offenbar sah sich der Verfasser nicht mehr an die terminologischen Vorgaben gebunden.”) This statement is surprising in the context of an analysis that otherwise derives entire chains of literary dependence from the smallest differences in terminology.

72

Jan Christian Gertz

Exodus – were first joined as a single literary work at a Priestly level of composition. On the other hand, the Priestly texts fundamentally shaped the transition from the Joseph story to the exodus narrative as a shift from one epoch to another, which ultimately led to the development of a book boundary. In other words: the connection between the books of Genesis and Exodus and their independence from one another are two sides of the same coin.

Response to Joel S. Baden and Jan Christian Gertz Reinhard Müller In the context of the recent discussion on the literary history of the Pentateuch, the transition from Genesis to Exodus is one of the most intensely debated issues. At the center of the debate lies the question whether the connection between the patriarchal and exodus narratives is of pre-priestly origin1 or was created by P.2 The perspectives in which Joel Baden and Jan Christian Gertz address the issue in this volume diverge widely and come to diametrically opposing results. While Baden fundamentally challenges the theory of originally separate ancestral and exodus narratives – a model presently shared in one way or the other by a considerable number of commentators –, Gertz strongly advocates this theory by trying to collect all possible arguments indicating that P was the first to create a literary bridge from Genesis to Exodus. According to Gertz’ analysis, this bridge was supplemented with some secondary material – material that was mistakenly attributed to a pre-Priestly connection in the classic Documentary Hypothesis (Urkundenhypothese) and in some redaction-critical reconstructions from the last decades. The two approaches, which – despite their significant differences – share the assumption of a continuous Priestly narrative, exemplify the literary complexities of the transition from Gen 50 to Exod 1 and the substantial methodological problems connected with any attempt to explain the literary history of these chapters.

1

See esp. SCHMIDT, Exodus, 1. Teilband, 21; BLUM, Studien, 102–103; LEVIN, Jahwist, 313–314; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 119–136; CARR, ‘What is Required’, 177–179; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 10–48; SCHMIDT, ‘Verbindung’, 31–36. 2 See esp. SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 62–65; GERTZ, Tradition, 357–370; BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 145–151; RÖMER, ‘Joseph Story’, 199 with n. 75; ALBERTZ; Exodus 1–18, 39–43; WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 128–145; UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 59–73. Note that KRATZ, Composition, 281, leaves open whether the non-Priestly “redactional hinge” in Exod 1:8–10a, 15–22 is of pre-Priestly or post-Priestly origin.

74

Reinhard Müller

A. Joel Baden’s Position “The lack of a transition” Joel Baden starts out by contesting emphatically the distinctiveness of the literary sequence of Gen 50–Exod 1 in the Pentateuch: “the passage of time and change in Israelite fortunes that seems to occur somewhere in the beginning of what we now call Exod 1 is entirely unremarkable from a compositional perspective.”3 This claim, which seems to flatten the literary peculiarities of this passage, aims primarily at stressing that it is anachronistic or artificial to speak of Genesis and Exodus “as authentically separate compositional works,” since such a notion emerged only in modern scholarship.4 “The books of Genesis and Exodus did not […] exist” in antiquity5 as originally separate compositions; they only existed as volumes of the larger work of the Pentateuch and received their titles “only once they had reached their (mostly) final forms.”6 Thus, instead of asking about the transition from Genesis to Exodus, “we should really be talking about the end of the Joseph story and the beginning of the Israel-in-Egypt narrative.”7 Both are “intrinsically linked,”8 as Baden stresses – if viewed in a canonical perspective. Assuming an original independence of these narratives is, according to Baden, an “a priori claim”9 and cannot be deduced from the text, at least not from its final form. With these general remarks – which indeed may be applied to any other passage in the Pentateuch and beyond – Baden draws attention to the high degree of circularity that is undeniably contained in such assumptions. Features of the Priestly and non-Priestly texts The “intrinsic” connection between the ancestral and Egypt narratives can also be seen, according to Baden, if the Priestly and non-Priestly texts in Gen 50–Exod 1 are differentiated from each other. Regarding Exod 1:6, 8, Baden refutes the evaluation of these verses as post-Priestly additions10 with an interesting argument: “there is no need to 3

BADEN, p. 43 above. BADEN, p. 45 above. 5 BADEN, p. 43 above. 6 BADEN, p. 44 above. 7 BADEN, p. 45 above. 8 BADEN, p. 45 above. 9 BADEN, p. 46 above. 10 With reference to SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 216–217; GERTZ, ‘Transition’, 82; BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 145–151. See, however, the more recent contribution by BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 510–511, who modified this model by adding Exod 1:8a* (possibly originally reading ‫ וימלך‬instead of ‫ )ויקם‬to his P Composition. 4

I. 2.2. Response to J. S. Baden and J. C. Gertz

75

explicitly connect a text that is already continuous.”11 According to Baden, the circular reasoning that is implied in all reconstructions of literary development is particularly strong in this case, since evaluating these verses as secondary links implies postulating an original separation between the two narratives. Regarding Exod 1:9–12, Baden stresses that none of these verses – and nothing in Exod 1 as a whole – can have served as an original introduction of an independent exodus narrative. To be sure, the underlying assumption of this argument, not made explicit by Baden, is that the extant text of Exod 1 comprises all textual material that ever belonged to the beginning of the exodus narrative and none of it was lost during the history of the text’s composition. This assumption is usually widely shared, although the documented textual history does not entirely support it.12 As we will see, the reconstruction of Jan Christian Gertz constitutes a substantial exception to this rule in relation to Exod 1:11–12. In contrast, according to Baden, the Priestly elements in Gen 50–Exod 1 bear the hallmarks of two seemingly originally independent compositions that were artificially connected. Genesis 46–47* finds a resumptive repetition in Exod 1:1–5, 7; the Priestly text of Gen 50 “ends with the Israelites in Canaan” (Gen 50:13) while its non-Priestly counterpart “ends with the Israelites in Egypt”; and the temporal gap of four hundred years of slavery (see Exod 12:40), which is not explicitly narrated in Exod 1 but may be implied in Exod 1:13–14, is created by P and is absent from the non-Priestly text.13 These seeming discontinuities, as Baden seeks to show, do not warrant assuming originally separate narratives, which shows that perceptions of continuity and discontinuity tend to be misleading and should not be used for reconstructing literary history. Book shaping, traditions and literary works Based on these considerations, Baden raises two further fundamental issues concerning reconstructions of the literary history of the Pentateuch. First, despite the existence of individual Genesis and Exodus scrolls, there are no clear indications that an individual “book shaping” took place in Genesis or Exodus. Baden finds only slight indications for such a phenomenon in Deut 34:11–12, which of course seems to be related to the entire Pentateuch. Second, the common differentiation between the ancestral and exodus traditions has nothing to do with the compositional history of the respective texts in the Pentateuch. Baden shares the former differentiation but argues that it cannot be concluded that also the respective literary works were originally separate. 11

BADEN, p. 47 above. See section C below. 13 BADEN, p. 48 above. 12

76

Reinhard Müller

The burden of proof In sum, according to Baden, the burden of proof lies not with the notion of an overarching narrative continuity from Genesis to Exodus – a notion shaped by the final and canonical form of the narrative – but with the claim of original discontinuity.14 In other words, Baden contends that the factual narrative continuity fundamentally challenges all attempts to reconstruct separate literary units as the origins of this narrative.

B. Jan Christian Gertz’ Position The separation of books Jan Christian Gertz, diametrically opposed to Baden, starts out by highlighting the discontinuity between Genesis and Exodus: “the present form of the exodus narrative does not connect directly to the preceding narrative.”15 Exod 1:1 is opened with a kind of recapitulation of Gen 46:8–27, and Joseph’s death is narrated twice in Gen 50:26 and Exod 1:6. Gertz proceeds by recalling the evidence of the extant Pentateuch manuscripts among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which comprises scrolls containing individual books of the Torah, scrolls containing two or more books and also entire Torah scrolls. However, in cases where a transition between two books is textually preserved, both are clearly separated by blank lines, which indicates that “the Pentateuch was perceived as a unit consisting of multiple books.”16 Thus, “[s]crolls and ‘books’ are not identical.”17 Correspondingly, Gertz stresses the importance of differentiating between the books of the Pentateuch, which includes their literary history. According to Gertz’ model of literary development, “the differentiation between the larger literary work (the Pentateuch) and its constituent parts (i.e., the books) extends backwards into the literary development of the Pentateuch,” and this necessitates distinguishing more precisely than usual “between intratextual and intertextual cross-references.”18 The transition from Gen 50 to Exod 1 in P Employing detailed textually-based arguments, Gertz evaluates the material in Gen 50–Exod 1 that is classically ascribed to P and presents his own re-

14

BADEN, p. 53 above. GERTZ, p. 55 above. 16 GERTZ, p. 57 above. 17 GERTZ, p. 58 above. 18 GERTZ, p. 59 above. 15

I. 2.2. Response to J. S. Baden and J. C. Gertz

77

construction of the Priestly transition from Genesis to Exodus. The P text proposed by Gertz reads as follows: Gen 50:22b

And Joseph lived one hundred ten years. 26a* And Joseph died. And these are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob, each with his household they came: 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah, 3 Issachar, Zebulun and Benjamin, 4 Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. 5 The total number of people born to Jacob was seventy. (Joseph was already in Egypt.)19 7 And the Israelites were fruitful and prolific; they multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them. 13 But the Egyptians became ruthless in imposing tasks on the Israelites, 14 and made their lives bitter with hard service in mortar and brick and in every kind of field labor. They were ruthless in all the tasks that they imposed on them.20 Exod 1:1

On this literary level, an overarching narrative continuity is implied, although as Gertz notes, P at the same time “casts the beginning of the Moses story as a new era and thus anticipates the later separation of the books of Genesis and Exodus.”21 This statement is not dissimilar to Baden’s reflections on the seeming discontinuity within the Priestly texts in Gen 50–Exod 1, although the underlying model of literary development differs widely from Baden’s model. The non-Priestly text The transition from Gen 50 to Exod 1 contains non-Priestly elements that seem to be part of a much larger network of cross-references. Gertz draws attention to the motif of Joseph’s bones in Gen 50:25, 26b, which appears again in Exod 13:19 and Josh 24:32, and to the similarity between Gen 50:26; Exod 1:6 and Judg 2:8, 10. Following Erhard Blum,22 Gertz attributes this entire network to “one and the same level of redaction,” which is of postPriestly origin.23 In order to test potential counter-arguments, Gertz addresses those models that attribute Exod 1:6, 8 (or some earlier form of these verses) to a prePriestly layer, as is done, for example, by Christoph Berner, one of the editors of this volume.24 Gertz’ arguments can be summarized as follows. 1) In light of the Priestly and post-Priestly origins of Gen 50:23–26, “any pre-Priestly connection with the beginning of the exodus narrative would

19 GERTZ, p. 64 above (with n. 40), leaves open whether Exod 1:5b was part of the original P layer or added later, as particularly BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 511 n. 70, proposes. 20 Translation adapted from NRSV. 21 GERTZ, p. 66 above. 22 BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 509–510. 23 GERTZ, p. 67 above. 24 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 17–24.

78

Reinhard Müller

have to connect to the end of the Joseph story in Gen 50:21.”25 Gertz therefore assumes that also Gen 50:22 is of Priestly or post-Priestly origin. 26 2) Gertz admits that it is theoretically possible to take the words ‫וימת יוסף‬ “and Joseph died” in Exod 1:6 as a pre-Priestly original core of this verse, as Berner does,27 but stresses that the verse does not contain tensions indicating literary growth.28 3) According to Gertz, there are various reasons why it is difficult to imagine that Exod 1:6*, 8–10 originally immediately followed Gen 50:21 and did not presuppose the Priestly passages Gen 50:22b, 26a* and Exod 1:1–5, 7. Most crucial to this detailed argument is the relationship between Exod 1:7 and the Egyptian king’s statement in v. 9: ‫הנה עם בני ישראל רב ועצום ממנו‬ “behold, the Israelite people are more numerous and stronger than we.” Gertz contends that this statement requires Exod 1:7 as a preceding text, since this verse informs the readers about the Israelite’s multiplication, while a text in which the readers learn about the Israelite’s large number only from the mouth of the Egyptian king would seem incomplete.29 4) In contrast, according to Gertz, Exod 1:11–12 preserve the first elements of the original non-Priestly and pre-Priestly exodus narrative. Gertz justifies this theory by observing some literary tensions between these verses and vv. 8–10. Since Exod 1:11 cannot have served as an absolute opening of a new narrative, this opening must have been lost during the heavy reworking that took place in the literary history of Gen 50–Exod 1.

C. Discussion Circular reasoning Baden is right in stressing the high degree of circularity that is inherent in all attempts to reconstruct the literary history of Gen 50–Exod 1. The problem of circular reasoning, which is generally implied in literary or redaction criticism – and in fact in historical reconstruction in general – is particularly severe in this case. The textual elements around which most of the controversy revolves are extremely short compared to the extensive literary models connected with them. In other words, the few verses in Gen 50:22–Exod 1:14 have to bear heavy weights in the context of the various hypotheses concerning the origins and development of the Pentateuch. To be sure, that cannot be helped unless new manuscript evidence emerges, but it should be self25

GERTZ, p. 67 above. See GERTZ, p. 65 above with n. 42. 27 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 21–22; see also CARR, ‘What is Required’, 175. 28 GERTZ, p. 68 above. 29 GERTZ, p. 70 above. 26

I. 2.2. Response to J. S. Baden and J. C. Gertz

79

critically reflected. Literary-critical reasoning on Gen 50 and Exod 1 runs the risk of being much more hypothetical and circular than in other cases. To put it differently, the evaluation of the literary details depends to a large extent on preconceptions concerning the overarching literary models. All of this also applies to the position advocated by Baden himself. There are no reasons why reaffirming the literary continuity from the ancestral narratives to the exodus narrative would be a priori a stronger model than the claim that both narrative cycles originated separately. If Baden states that the burden of proof lies with the latter, he argues simply on the basis of the narrative sequence contained in the extant textual transmission. What does this say about the origins of this sequence? It needs to be stressed that those who postulate separate origins of the patriarchal and exodus narratives by far do not argue on the basis of Gen 50–Exod 1 alone; they apply multiple additional arguments, particularly arguments related to the specific shaping and content of the respective narrative cycles. It is remarkable that both Baden and Gertz address the manuscript evidence from Qumran, and they make not dissimilar observations concerning the non-identity of scrolls and books. However, they come to opposite conclusions about what the scrolls indicate concerning the narrative continuity between Genesis and Exodus. The manuscript evidence thus seems remarkably ambiguous – at least if it is viewed in such a global perspective. The relationship between non-Priestly and Priestly material The focal point of the controversial debate is clearly the question of how the non-Priestly material in Gen 50–Exod 1 relates historically to the verses that are – apart from divergences in detail – attributed to “P” (however P is precisely imagined as a literary work). Under close scrutiny are particularly the verses Exod 1:6, 8–12, traditionally evaluated as non-Priestly. How do vv. 6, 8–9 relate to v. 7? Does the Egyptian king’s statement in v. 9 presuppose v. 7, or can we imagine a literary context in which vv. 8–9 did not follow v. 7 but only v. 6 or parts of it? 6

Then Joseph died, and all his brothers, and that whole generation. And the Israelites were fruitful and prolific and multiplied and grew exceedingly strong, so that the land was filled with them. 8 And a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph. 9 And he said to his people, “Behold, the Israelite people are more numerous and stronger than we. ...” 7

In other words, do vv. 8–9 draw on v. 7 and therefore open a secondary supplement to this verse and its (Priestly) continuation in vv. 13–14? The literary evidence remains ambiguous. On the one hand, Gertz is certainly right in claiming that the Egyptian king’s statement in Exod 1:9 ‫“ הנה עם בני ישראל רב ועצום ממנו‬behold, the Israelite people are more numerous and stronger than we” seems to take up

80

Reinhard Müller

the verbs ‫“ וירבו ויעצמו‬and they multiplied and grew strong” from v. 7. It seems from the outset difficult to imagine a textual sequence containing vv. 8–9 that did not comprise any preceding narration of the people’s multiplication. Therefore it is indeed natural to interpret the narrative section beginning in v. 8 as a supplement to v. 7. On the other hand, the impression that readers need to have read v. 7 in order to understand v. 9 seems to be an aesthetic judgment that is solely based on the text as we know it.30 There exist no clear parallels for how the multiplication of a single family into a large people could be narrated. This motif remains extraordinary in any case, and it cannot be ruled out that such a surprising development within the storyline was narrated in an unparalleled way, namely by informing the readers about the Israelites’ multiplication only from the mouth of the new Egyptian king, who is introduced with the ominous remark ‫“ אשר לא ידע את יוסף‬who did not know Joseph.”31 To be sure, on the narrative level the multiplication requires that at this point a considerable period of time has passed since Joseph’s days, but such a passage of time is implied in the first words of v. 8 ‫“ ויקם מלך חדש על מצרים‬And a new king arose over Egypt” and may not have needed further explication in the original storyline. In addition, the verb ‫“ ויעצמו‬and they grew strong,” which has no parallels in other Priestly passages, as Gertz discusses, remains an obstacle for the theory that v. 7 was part of the original P layer and therefore older than the supposed supplement that begins in v. 8.32 To be sure, one can certainly argue that the Priestly author chose a unique expression to stress the exceptional multiplication of the people with the verbal sequence ‫פרו וישרצו וירבו ויעצמו‬ “they were fruitful and prolific and multiplied and grew exceedingly strong.” But it also cannot be ruled out that the use of ‫“ ויעצמו‬and they grew strong” betrays literary influence from v. 9.33 In any case, Exod 1:7 takes up Gen 47:27* and can be read as a climactic duplicate of the latter, which may indicate the secondary character of Exod 1:7 in relation to Gen 47:27*. A subsidiary aspect is the relationship between Exod 1:6, 8 and Judg 2:8, 10. Both passages show peculiar similarity: Exod 1:6

ers,

30

Then Joseph died, and all his broth-

Judg 2:8

Joshua son of Nun, the servant of Yhwh, died at the age of one hundred ten years (‫)בן מאה ועשר שנים‬. [...]

See GERTZ, p. 70 above (with n. 61), where he rejects calling Gen 26:16 and Num 22:3–4 parallels to the proposed literary device of informing readers of a new development within a story only from the mouth of one of the story’s protagonists, as done by KRATZ, Composition, 280, and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 22–23. 31 CARR, ‘What is Required’, 172. 32 KRATZ, Composition, 280; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 15–16. 33 CARR, ‘What is Required’, 172–173, and see the discussion of the verbs ‫וירבו ויעצמו‬ “and they multiplied and grew strong” by GERTZ, ‘Transition’, 83.

I. 2.2. Response to J. S. Baden and J. C. Gertz and that whole generation (‫)כל הדור ההוא‬. 8

And a new king arose (‫ )ויקם‬over Egypt, who did not know Joseph (‫אשר לא ידע את‬ ‫)יוסף‬.

81

10

Moreover, that whole generation (‫כל‬ ‫ )הדור ההוא‬was gathered to their ancestors, and another generation arose (‫ )ויקם‬after them, who did not know Yhwh (‫אשר לא‬ ‫ )ידעו את יהוה‬or the work that he had done for Israel.

In addition, Joshua’s age of one hundred ten years is the same as that of Joseph according to Gen 50:26a, which includes even the way in which the number is construed in Hebrew (‫“ וימת יוסף בן מאה ועשר שנים‬And Joseph died at the age of one hundred and ten years”).34 It needs to be stressed that the literary-historical relationship between these passages seems to be complex. It is not self-evident that both “belong to one and the same level of redaction,” as Gertz, following Blum, postulates.35 For example, the terms “arising” and “not knowing” are used quite differently; while the expression ‫“ אשר לא ידע את יוסף‬who did not know Joseph” seems natural in its context, ‫“ אשר לא ידעו את יהוה‬who did not know Yhwh” is a rather peculiar term for the people’s apostasy after the death of the generation that conquered the land – an expression that has almost no parallels in related Deuteronomistic literature.36 This may indicate that Judg 2:10 was drafted in light of Exod 1:8 but not by the same hand. Finally, Gertz’ theory according to which Exod 1:11 is the first passage that belonged to an originally independent exodus narrative can be questioned. Severing 1:11 from 1:8–10 is not easy to justify. The plural ‫וישימו‬ “they set” can be read as a logical continuation of the “we” in 1:9b–10.37 In the fragmentary original opening of the originally independent exodus narrative postulated by Gertz, “[t]he multiplication of the people does not begin before Exod 1:12.”38 However, when read after v. 10* (‫הבה נתחכמה לו פן‬ ‫“ ירבה‬come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply”), v. 12 stresses that the Egyptian attempt to diminish the Israelites turned out to be futile, which presupposes that the motif of the large number was introduced in the preceding narrative.39 Nothing therefore necessitates assuming that vv. 8–12 contain fragments of an earlier exodus narrative that was not connected with the reference to the Joseph story in v. 8.40 34

As noted by BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 509–510 with n. 65. GERTZ, p. 67 above; see BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 509–510. 36 Cf. on the one hand 1 Sam 2:12 and on the other hand Exod 5:2 and 1 Sam 3:7. See also the contribution of Stephen Germany in part III, section 2 of this volume. 37 SCHMIDT, Exodus, 1. Teilband, 4; cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 370. 38 GERTZ, p. 70 above. 39 Cf. ALBERTZ, Exodus 1–18, 46, who attributes also vv. 9–10 to the older, originally independent exodus composition, which raises the same problem in relation to v. 8: What justifies separating v. 9 from v. 8? 40 Pace also UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 72. 35

82

Reinhard Müller

Late textual changes and methodological consequences In addition to the circularity of literary-critical reasoning, highlighted by Baden, Gertz convincingly stresses that any attempt to reconstruct the literary history of Gen 50–Exod 1 remains uncertain to some extent, “since the transitional section between the two narrative works clearly underwent significant transformation.”41 In particular, two widely shared methodological preconceptions need to be revised. First, the assumption that virtually all of the respective earlier textual material is preserved in the oldest attainable text seems difficult to retain, particularly in this passage. It is remarkable that Gertz and others who deny a pre-Priestly connection between Genesis and Exodus seem forced to assume that the opening of the originally independent exodus narrative preceding Exod 1:11 (or 1:9) was lost.42 Comparable to this assumption, the textual transmission of Exod 1 attests a case where one phrase was probably secondarily omitted for exegetical reasons, namely v. 5b in 4QExodb, as Christoph Berner shows in the discussion of the material evidence.43 Although this seems a rather late phenomenon, it cannot be ruled out that similar exegetically-motivated omissions also took place at earlier stages of literary development.44 The same holds true for the transposition attested between Exod 1:5b MT/SP and LXX. It needs to be taken into account that sometimes such editorial processes evidently happened, as the textual transmission shows, and this relativizes to a certain extent the precision with which the literary history can be reconstructed.45 Second, and related to the first point, not every editorial intervention left recognizable traces betraying literary seams. This is illustrated well in the addition of the word ‫“ אביהם‬their father” in Exod 1:1, attested by 4QpaleoGen-Exodl, 4QExodb and the LXX, which would be virtually undetectable if we did not know the shorter textual tradition attested by the MT and other witnesses. It should not be ruled out that similar untraceable interventions are also contained in the oldest attainable text as it is in all likelihood preserved in the MT of Gen 50–Exod 1.46

41

GERTZ, p. 71 above. See BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 513; ALBERTZ, Exodus 1–18, 46–47; UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 72. 43 See part I, section 1 of this volume. 44 Note that BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 511, postulates a textual change in Exod 1:8a (‫וימלך‬ > ‫ )ויקם‬that was made when the pre-Priestly core of this verse, which was part of the originally independent exodus narrative, was reworked in light of Judg 2:10. 45 MÜLLER et al., Evidence, 220–223. Cf. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 145–147. 46 See esp. BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 511, who assumes literary seams between earlier and later textual elements that are not indicated by tensions within the respective verses in Gen 50:26a and Exod 1:8. 42

I. 2.2. Response to J. S. Baden and J. C. Gertz

83

D. Conclusion The discussion remains open. Reconstructing how the text of Gen 50–Exod 1 developed historically is extremely difficult, since the literary-critical reasoning is particularly circular in this passage and the literary and textual evidence is limited. No side seems able to formulate unequivocal arguments that decide the matter once and for all. The slight fluidity in the textual transmission indicates that the oldest attainable text may not contain all of the original material and may contain literary seams that are virtually invisible. Yet we should not give up trying to understand how the text originated and developed. Careful consideration of the various options must be continued. Studying the details of the textual development more closely than has usually been done up to now would be a promising start.

Joseph Between Ancestors and Exodus A Gradual Process of Connection David M. Carr Dedicated to Thomas Dozeman1

The kind of break between books that we see between Genesis and Exodus is as close as one comes to a marked seam in ancient literature. Second Temple Hebrew manuscripts that contain both Genesis and Exodus mark the shift from one book to another by a blank series of lines.2 Moreover, there is somewhat of an echo between the end of Genesis and the beginning of Exodus, particularly in the doubled note of Joseph’s death in the last verse of Genesis (Gen 50:26) and at the beginning of Exodus (Exod 1:6). As Haran noted years ago, scribes often marked the transition between separate tablets in a single series by repeating the end of the previous tablet at the outset of the following one.3 We have a close analogy to this “catchline” linkage technique in the quote of the Cyrus edict at the end of Chronicles (2 Chr 36:22– 23) and the beginning of Ezra-Nehemiah (Ezra 1:1–3).4 At the same time, it should be noted that the Genesis-Exodus transition is only partially similar to the catchline pattern noted by Haran and others, since the notices about Joseph’s death and embalmment concluding Genesis (50:26) represent similar, but not verbatim, parallels to the genealogy of Ja1

This study is dedicated to my friend and colleague, Thomas B. Dozeman, on the occasion of his 65th birthday. I had the privilege to get to know Tom as a professor at a sister Methodist Seminary (United Theological Seminary) early in my career teaching at Methodist Theological School in Ohio. Tom has distinguished himself in his productive engagement with European Pentateuchal scholarship. This essay pursues a similar aim, focused, as much of Tom’s research has been, on Exodus, in this case on various levels of links of the Joseph story to Exodus. 2 For further discussion of the manuscript evidence see part I, section I in this volume. 3 HARAN, ‘Book-Size’. 4 There is an additional partial analogy in the verbatim echo of the death of Joshua and obedience of his generation in Josh 24:29–31 in the repetition of the same in Judg 2:7–10. The major difference is that the people’s obedience is mentioned at the end in 24:31 and at the beginning in Judg 2:7. See the discussion in part III, sections 1 and 2 in this volume.

86

David M. Carr

cob’s family and the brief note about the death of Joseph and his brothers in Exod 1:6. ‫ וימת יוסף בן מאה ועשר שנים ויחנטו אתו ויישם בארון במצרים‬Gen 50:26 5

[‫ וימת יוסף וכל אחיו ]וכל הדר ההוא‬Exod 1:6

Gen 50:26

And Joseph died at the age of 110 years, and they embalmed him and placed him in a coffin in Egypt. Exod 1:6

And Joseph and all his brothers [and all his generation] died.

Moreover, the death notice for Joseph in Exodus does not come at the outset of the scroll like other bridging incipits, but five verses in. These are initial clues that the book transition between Genesis and Exodus has been constructed out of pre-existing materials. This transition has a design that roughly resembles other ancient Near Eastern book links, but a design that is secondarily created. The materials used to create the catchline-like link between Genesis and Exodus were not originally created for this purpose. The Joseph story itself shares this character, achieving a transition from ancestors to exodus, but in a way that suggests it was not originally written for this purpose. On the one hand, the Joseph story does its narrative “job”. At its outset Jacob and his family are in Canaan, while at the end Jacob is dead and his sons are all in Egypt, where the exodus will eventually take place. On the other hand, the Joseph story conflicts with the exodus story even as it prepares for it. Indeed, the pictures of Egypt in the Joseph story and in Exodus are so different that the latter text must now coordinate the Egypt of Joseph with the Egypt of Moses by saying that the pharaoh who enslaved Israel was different from the pharaoh who raised Joseph to power and provided for his family (Exod 1:8). This essay aims to reconstruct the process by which the Joseph story was adapted ever more to serve the purpose of introducing the Exodus-Moses story now found in the books of Exodus–Deuteronomy, starting first as a narrative about Joseph and his family that only conceptually presupposed some kind of exodus story before being revised to serve a more direct, introductory role to Exod 1ff. This connection between the Genesis-Joseph story and an Exodus-Moses narrative now in Exodus–Deuteronomy was accomplished not only by the composition of Exod 1:8, but by gradual additions to the end of Genesis, particularly toward the end of the Joseph story (the part most proximate to Exodus). I will argue that there is evidence that an originally separate Joseph story presupposed some kind of exodus narrative from 5 I argue in The Formation of the Hebrew Bible, 282–283 with n. 63 that there are several signs that this note about Joseph’s generation, which does not make much sense in its context, is likely a harmonizing addition of the phrase from Judg 2:10 (where it does make sense).

I. 3.1. Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus

87

the outset and was initially revised to refer to a form of our existing exodus narrative while the Genesis-Joseph story still stood separate from the exodus* narrative. Then, at a subsequent stage, the two textual units were connected in a more integral way in a non-Priestly Genesis-Joshua* composition and (likely multi-scroll) Priestly composition bridging from a Genesis-Toledot scroll to an Exodus-Moses narrative. This model of gradual adaptation can help explain a paradox of the Joseph story. On the one hand, the Joseph story is a sui generis novella focusing on the dynamics of Joseph and his brothers and depicting Egypt as a place of beneficent refuge for Jacob and his family. As such, it is poorly suited to stand as a bridge to stories of Egyptian enslavement of Israel and genocide of Israelite babies in Exodus. On the other hand, as Christoph Berner recently put it, “Im priesterschriftlichen wie im nichtpriesterschriftlichen Text ist die Josephsgeschichte oder ein ihr entsprechendes Erzählstück das notwendige Verbindungsglied zwischen Erzvätern und Exodus.”6 Thus, though not particularly well suited to its present task, the Joseph story now stands as the necessary bridge between ancestors and exodus in the Pentateuch, explaining how the sons of Jacob ended up in Egypt.

A. An Independent Joseph Story At the earliest end of this process, I think it is ever more clear that the bulk of our non-Priestly Joseph story was written without that (Joseph, also later Jacob-Joseph) composition being continued textually by the Moses story we now have in Exodus-Deuteronomy. Not only does the transition in Exod 1:8 stand as an apparent textual recognition of the conceptual conflicts between depictions of Egypt in Gen 37–50* and Exod 1–15*, but the non-Priestly Joseph material in Gen 37–50* is bound together by an intricate system of cross-references and narrative developments that work purely within the confines of the Joseph story or (for slightly later layers) Jacob-Joseph story of Gen 25–50*.7 The internal dynamics and narrative logic of the early non-P Joseph story of Genesis 37ff. have to do with the relationships between Joseph and his brothers and nothing in particular to do with preparation for the exodus out of Egypt that follows. This Joseph story/composition concerning Joseph and his brothers originally concluded, textually, in the reconciliation

6

BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 11. For the main arguments on the developing relationship of the Jacob and Joseph compositions behind Gen 25–50 see BLUM, Komposition, 204–263, along with preceding material on the Jacob story on pp. 168–171 and surrounding pages. 7

88

David M. Carr

scene in Gen 50:15–21, even as this composition presupposed a broader Israelite tradition that Israel came out of Egypt.8 Though this early Joseph composition probably originally stood separate from both the Jacob story that precedes it and the Exodus-Moses story that follows, it presupposes both conceptually.9 On the one hand, the Joseph story is not only distinct from the Exodus-Moses story that follows by the characteristics already noted, but it also differs from the preceding Jacob story by its implication that Rachel is alive (Gen 37:9–10; cf. 35:16–19), that Jacob had multiple daughters (Gen 37:35; cf. Gen 30:21) and other subtle indicators.10 On the other hand, the Joseph story generally presupposes the character grouping seen in the Jacob story, including the idea that Joseph and Benjamin were favored by Jacob as sons of his favored wife, Rachel. And though the Joseph story depicts Egypt as a place of success for Joseph and ultimate refuge from famine for his family, it also leaves his family in Egypt, the place from which Jacob’s descendants eventually will emerge in the Exodus-Moses story. These links to the exodus are tenuous, to be sure. Even the earliest layers of the Joseph story spend far more time preparing for the brothers’ return of Jacob’s body to Canaan than they do for a return to Egypt (Gen 47:29–31 || 49:29–33; 50:4–14). Nevertheless, the earliest reconstructable form of the Joseph story opens with Joseph’s conflict with his brothers in Gen 37 and concludes with his reconciliation with them, in Egypt, in 50:15–21.11 8

For broader discussion of the important distinction between intertexual linkage of compositions and compositional links binding different parts of the same composition into the whole see BLUM, ‘Pentateuch – Hexateuch – Enneateuch?’, esp. 72–73 and 89–94. To be sure, some have suggested that a readable text can be created by connecting this reconciliation scene in 50:15–21 directly with the note in Exod 1:8 about the rise of a new king that did not know Joseph. Though this possibility cannot be ruled out, the transition posited by this theory is rather abrupt, moving directly from the scene of brotherly reconciliation (Gen 50:15–21) to a new pharaoh (Exod 1:8), his fears about the children of those brothers (1:9) and his plan to enslave a completely new generation of Israelites (1:10–11). Moreover, this theory (about Exod 1:8 once connecting directly to Gen 50:21) involves the rather unlikely proposition that Hebrew scribes perfectly preserved this abrupt transition, even as they separated the originally connected sections (in Gen 50:21 and Exod 1:8) with multiple layers of new transitional materials in Gen 50:22–26; Exod 1:1–7. 9 For a classic discussion of the distinction between conceptual and literary connections see the discussion of Gen 12–50 and the Exodus-Moses story in BLUM, Komposition, 360– 361. 10 CARR, ‘Strong and Weak Cases’, 272–273, with citation of earlier rabbinic and later observations of these features in notes 113–115. 11 Konrad Schmid’s arguments for an original ending of the Joseph story in Canaan (SCHMID, Erzväter, 59–62) fail as long as the reconciliation scene in Gen 50:15–21 is taken as the original ending of the story (as Schmid does). If the brothers originally are in Canaan and not in Egypt (because the return to Egypt in 50:14 was added later), it is not clear why they would fear Joseph (whose power is based on his high position in Egyptian government) or how he could provide for them as he promises in 50:21. As it is, the return

I. 3.1. Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus

89

Even if there once was a form of the Joseph story that did not presuppose a later exodus of the brothers from Egypt, there are not enough markers left in the present text of Gen 37–50 to reconstruct it.12

B. An Intertextual Connection – Echoes of the (Independent, Non-Priestly) Joseph Story in Exodus Although the earliest reconstructable Joseph story probably was written separately from the Exodus-Moses narratives we now have in Exodus, there are some indicators that parts of the Exodus-Moses story now in Exodus echo and yet radically transform motifs from the Joseph story. The conclusion to the Joseph story in Gen 50:4–6 narrates a petition encounter between Joseph and Pharaoh, where Joseph asks leave from Pharaoh to bury his father and return to Egypt, a petition that Pharaoh grants. The plague narratives of Exodus include numerous similar petition scenes. Nevertheless, in the exodus narratives Yahweh tells Moses to command Pharaoh to grant Israel permission to leave Egypt, now with the (supposed) goal of three days of wilderness worship. Pharaoh generally refuses the petition in the exodus story (cf. 7:16, 26; 8:16, 21–23; 9:1, 13; 10:3). Then there are the final interactions in Exod 10:8–11 and 10:24–26 where Pharaoh refuses to let Moses take his entire camp with him, first refusing to let him take women and children along with him (Exod 10:10), then requiring him to leave livestock behind (Exod 10:24), exactly the groups left in Egypt in Gen 50:8b. Notably, all of these petitions and petition scenes occur in non-Priestly materials. Though there is some resemblance between the Gen 50:4–6 petition scene and the petition scenes in the (non-Priestly) exodus narrative, the plague narratives in Exodus add a trickster element to the petition scene that was completely lacking in Gen 50:4–6. In the Joseph narrative, Joseph has cordial relations with Pharaoh, his promise to return to Egypt at the end of 50:5 is genuine, and this is signalled by him leaving livestock and children in Egypt in 50:8b because they are unable to travel. In contrast, in the exodus story, Moses steadfastly opposes the oppressive Pharaoh, falsely describes his people’s wish to temporarily travel into the wilderness to worship, and refuses to of Joseph and his brothers to Egypt in 50:14 sets the stage for both elements: the brothers realize that they are vulnerable in Egypt after Jacob’s death because powerful Joseph could take revenge on them (50:15), but he reassures them that he will use his power instead to care for them (50:21). 12 In this respect, I have ended up (partly thanks to excellent feedback from conference participants on the presented draft of this essay) rejecting as implausible arguments such as SCHMID, Erzväter, 59–62, that the earliest form of the Joseph history once did not presuppose an exodus from Egypt at all, but left the brothers in Canaan after burying their father.

90

David M. Carr

leave women and children as a surety of this (false) promise when pressed by Pharaoh. Both the Joseph and Exodus-Moses narratives revolve around departures from Egypt for Canaan, petitions to Pharaoh and completeness of the camp. I think this may be enough to suppose that a form of the non-P Joseph story seen in Gen 50:4–11 (and related non-Priestly texts in Gen 37–50*) served as a contrastive model for the combative interactions between Moses and Pharaoh in Exodus. It is far more likely that we would see a move from a non-trickster interaction between Joseph and Pharaoh in Gen 50:4–11 to the combative-trickster picture in the Exodus plagues narratives, rather than the reverse. Be that as it may, I suggest that this possible genetic intertextual relationship between the Joseph story and (non-Priestly) Exodus-Moses narrative could suggest one way that the Joseph story, even standing as a separate narrative, may have been interrelated in complex ways with the exodus narrative that now follows it. The literary corpus of ancient Israel and Judah, after all, was almost certainly quite small, and any given scribal elite who produced such literary texts and memorized and taught them was but a small minority of a very modest sized nation or ethnic group. Even insofar as there probably was a Joseph story that once stood independently of an ExodusMoses story, the elites that transmitted such a Joseph story not only knew an exodus tradition in general, but probably came to know and shape (or produce) some form of the (non-Priestly) literary Exodus-Moses traditions we now have in Exodus–Numbers. In such a confined scribal and literary context, no text is an island. It would be a natural thing for scribes writing a story about Moses’ departure from Egypt to shape that story in relation to a freestanding story about Joseph leaving Egypt (to bury his father). Indeed, it would be unusual for such a tiny coterie of scribes to write a story about Moses in Egypt that failed to interact at all with an existing story about Joseph in Egypt, even if that Joseph composition remained (for the time being) on a separate scroll. This, I suggest, stands as the first level of relationship of the Joseph story between the ancestors and the Moses story. It is a relationship of written compositions that feature complex intertextual relationships with each other but still stand as separate compositions. In this case, the (non-Priestly) Exodus-Moses story, still in independent form, probably included intertextual transformations of the petition scene from the end of the Joseph narrative, where Moses attempts to trick Pharaoh into letting Israel go, this time for a temporary excursion for three days of worship.

I. 3.1. Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus

91

C. Genesis 46:(1,) 2–4 in the Grey Zone We see a new level of connection between the Joseph story and the exodus narrative in Gen 46:2–4 and a series of travel-promise texts of which it is a part. The parallels between these promise texts occur in Gen 12:1–2; 26:2–3; 31:3b and 46:3b–4. In particular, we see close links in this sequence between the commands to Abraham and Jacob to travel into the land (Gen 12:1–2 || 31:3b), and the contrasting commands to Isaac and Jacob regarding travel out of the land (Gen 26:2–3 || 46:3b–4). On the one hand, these texts coordinate Abraham and Jacob’s travels from Mesopotamia/Haran into Canaan (12:1–2; 31:3b). On the other hand, they contrast God’s command to Isaac not to go down into Egypt (26:2–3) with God’s reassurance to Jacob as he prepares to do just that (46:1–4).13 In this way, Gen 46:1–4, precisely as part of this sequence, has an essential conceptual link to travel into and (implicitly) an exodus out of Egypt. At the same time, in contrast to more explicit links to the non-P ExodusMoses story in later layers of non-P (e.g., Exod 50:24–26, to be discussed below), the Exodus-Moses story stands only as an implicit background to God’s promise to Jacob in 46:2–4. After all, God in Gen 46:2–4 relentlessly uses second-person singular pronouns to tell Jacob that God will go down with him, make him into a great nation and bring him up again out of Egypt, where Joseph will lay his hand on his eyes. Most of this promise speech in Gen 46:1–4 can be understood as an anticipation of events that occur within the scope of Gen 37–50: both God’s protection of him as he goes down to 13 The parallels have now been summarized often. For a tabular summary (building on earlier work in BLUM, Komposition, 297–301, also 246–249) see CARR, ‘What Is Required’, 165. To be sure, Gen 46:2–4 is often assigned by source critics to the “E” source, as opposed to the “J” source of the other commands. Most recently Joel Baden has revived this approach, maintaining that Gen 46:2–4, like Gen 15, is part of a “B”/E set of Genesis promises that contrast with “A”/J promises in their focus on the exodus and lack of focus on the theme of blessing characteristic of texts like Gen 12:2 and 26:3 (BADEN, Promise, 87–90). Nevertheless, Baden’s approach fails to account for specific textual evidence that parts of 46:2–4 were formulated in direct relationship with the preceding travelpromise texts as a narrative follow-up to them. In particular, the command at its outset ‫על‬ ‫“( תירא מרדה מצרימה‬do not be afraid of going down to Egypt”) specifically reverses the earlier instruction to Jacob’s father, Isaac, not to go to Egypt – ‫( אל תרד מצרימה‬26:2, an “A” text in Baden’s scheme) – and indeed is placed in Beersheba (46:1b), the locus where Isaac eventually settled after being told not to go down to Egypt (26:23; see 26:2). In addition, the promise in Gen 46:3 to make Israel into a ‫ גוי גדול‬reprises, verbatim, the initial promise of the same to Abram in Gen 12:2 (another “A” text in Baden’s treatment). In addition, Baden fails to attend to literary-contextual aspects that would explain divergences between 46:2–4 and the other travel-promise texts. Fuller discussion of contextually-driven divergences of 46:2–4 from its parallels in 12:1–3; 26:2–3 and 31:3 require another context.

92

David M. Carr

Egypt (Gen 46–47*) and God’s accompaniment of Jacob’s body when his sons bring him back out of Egypt to be buried in Canaan, where Joseph will put his hand on Jacob’s eyes (Gen 50*). That said, God’s promise to make Jacob into a great nation in Egypt (46:3b) echoes God’s promise to Abram to make him a great nation (12:2) at the outset of the promise texts that Gen 46:1–4 concludes, and this promise hints that the scope of these divine promises is longer-term, beyond the Joseph story itself. Indeed, this promise in 46:3b looks ahead to how Jacob’s descendants will become a great nation in Egypt, a people so “numerous and mighty” that they strike fear in the heart of a later Pharaoh (Exod 1:9). Moreover, other aspects of God’s speech in Gen 46:2–4 likewise point to the Exodus-Moses story, such as the fact that the patriarch in Gen 46:1–4 bears the name “Israel” (46:1, 2), implying a merger of the patriarch’s destiny with the Israelite nation that he fathers. Moreover, God states in 46:4 that God will bring “you” (Israel) out. In the Joseph story it is Jacob/Israel’s sons who bring him out of Egypt for burial. It is the Exodus-Moses story that stresses God’s role in bringing Israel out of Egypt. In sum, God’s speech in 46:2–4 has an implied double reference. Though it works on the story level as a speech promising return to Canaan for Jacob/Israel, some aspects of the speech make it an implied promise of Israel’s destiny to become a great nation in Egypt and have God bring them out. This double reference, however, is specific to Gen 46:1–4, which shows multiple signs of being a secondary addition to its context. Its narration of direct divine-human interaction contrasts with the focus of the surrounding Joseph novella on human-human interaction (and human speculation about divine intentions, e.g., 42:21; 43:23; 45:5–9; 50:19–20). Moreover, within the sequence of this novella, Israel already has decided to go to Egypt (Gen 45:28), without expressing a single concern about how this decision might contradict God’s earlier instruction to Isaac (Gen 26:2). In this sense, Jacob’s incubation-like sacrifice to God in 46:1b and God’s reassurance about the decision to go to Egypt in 46:2, clarifying the lack of relevance of the instruction to Isaac not to go to Egypt in 26:2, seems delayed. Moreover, Gen 46:1–4 contrasts with the surrounding Joseph story and connects with the (contrasting) instruction to Isaac in 26:2 by being localized in Beersheba (46:1; see Gen 26:1–33). This suggests that Gen 46:1–4, like 26:1–33, is a secondary, promise-focused addition to its Jacob-Joseph story context.14 Indeed, 46:1–4 is part of a broader retouching of Jacob- and Joseph-story elements in Gen 25–50 – a retouching focused on the promise of nationhood and land to Abraham – added to a Jacob-Joseph composition that originally lacked that theme. 14 For arguments on the secondary character of Gen 26:2–3 (as part of 26:1–33) and 31:3 see CARR, Reading, 205 and 212–213, respectively.

I. 3.1. Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus

93

This means that the secondary addition in Gen 46:(1, )2–4 has a complex combination of features, both a) focusing primarily on elements specific to the world of the Joseph story into which it was inserted (e.g., promises to Jacob/Israel that he will be provided for in Egypt), yet b) also pointing beyond that story world to the nation of Israel and its destiny to become a “great nation” in Egypt, with God (not Jacob’s sons) bringing that nation out of Egypt. This mix of elements in 46:1–4 will continue to support those who see at least implicit pointers to the Exodus-Moses story in Gen 46:2–4, even as the relentless focus on a divine speech to Jacob (with singular-you pronouns throughout) will support those emphasizing its immediate focus on the world of the Joseph story. As a result, final resolution of debates concerning the double focus in 46:2–4 is likely impossible. What is significant here, however, is that Gen 46:2–4 represents a modification of the Joseph story, both to link it back to earlier ancestors, and – implicitly – to link it forward to an Exodus-Moses story assumed to follow. This is no mere intertextual echoing of a motif in a separate Exodus-Moses composition of the type seen in the above-discussed petition scenes (Exod 10:8– 11, 24–28; cf. Gen 50:4–6). Rather, Gen 46:2–4 and the travel-promise texts of which it is a part represent a developed theological commentary on how the non-P ancestral story is related to the Exodus-Moses story assumed to follow, one that stresses God’s provision for Israel in Egypt as a result of God’s promises to Abraham and his heirs. If correct, this implies that Gen 46:2–4 is a step toward coordination of a separate proto-Genesis composition with an Exodus-Moses story still standing as a separate composition. The overall formulation of 46:2–4 within the story world of the Joseph story and the ancestral narratives and its status as part of a series of travel-promise texts whose scope is initially within Genesis place 46:2–4 as an intermediate stage toward connecting Genesis and Exodus more fully together.15 The links of 46:2–4 to Exodus are implicit, and the 15 In the past I (‘What Is Required’, 176–178) and others (e.g., GERTZ, Tradition, 270– 280) have interpreted parallels in wording between Gen 46:2–4 and Exod 3:4, 6 to signify a potential compositional connection between God’s speech to Israel in Gen 46:2–4 and at least part of the call of Moses in Exod 3. Nevertheless, the similarities between Gen 46:2–4 and Exod 3 may just be parallel uses of a Hebrew convention regarding address and reply (cf. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 131–132), and there is a chance that God’s initial engagement with Moses in Exod 3:4, 6 was modeled on the exchange in Gen 46:2–4 as its follow-up. In either case, as RENDTORFF, Problem, 66 [ET 84–85], has argued, Exod 3 conspicuously lacks a reference to the promise of the land to the patriarchs (even in referring to the land) that is so prominent in Gen 46:2–4 and related texts. This lack of mention of the ancestral promise of land in Exod 3 would be understandable in a message just directed to an Egyptian-raised Moses who might not know of the promise, but it is less likely in a message given by God for delivery to the rest of the people who, ostensibly, would not have forgotten it. These and other distinctions in the profile of Exod 3 and Gen 46:2–4 (and related texts) suggest that these two texts were not written as part of the same compositional layer.

94

David M. Carr

divine promise in Gen 46:3 that God will make Israel into a “great nation” (‫גוי‬ ‫ ;גדול‬cf. Gen 12:2) does not precisely match the exodus story’s idea that Israel has become a “numerous and mighty people” (‫ ;עם רב ועצום‬Exod 1:9). That said, the above discussed indicators suggest that Gen 46:2–4, and the travelpromise set of texts of which it is a part, use the theme of God’s promise to Abraham and his heirs to link the ancestral story – including the Joseph story – into a broader story framework that includes a specific Exodus-Moses composition much like the non-Priestly materials we now have in Exodus.

D. The Joseph Story as Part of a Pre-P Genesis-Joshua* Composition The next compositional layer to be discussed, one including Gen 50:24–26, explicitly links to Exodus and probably materially connects a non-Priestly proto-Genesis composition with a non-Priestly form of the Exodus-Moses story that follows.16 As Erhard Blum (building on Rolf Rendtorff and others) has argued persuasively, Gen 50:24–26 (and possibly 48:21–22) is part of a sequence of texts starting already in the Jacob story and extending into Exod 13:19 and Josh 24.17 They do not just presuppose a narrative outline of ancestors into Exodus, but instead specifically connect the ancestral materials of Genesis to the Moses-Joshua story that follows, likely now transmitted as one composition, quite likely on the same written (large scroll) media. If it is true that Gen 50:24–26 is part of a broader compositional layer joining the ancestral and Moses-Joshua narratives, one may then ask where one would find the continuation of Gen 50:24–26, and whether it was built around Rather, we should distinguish between a layer of promise-saturated texts (all found in Genesis) of which Gen 46:2–4 is a part, and a later layer of texts like Exod 3 whose echo of the promise theme is less originary, more governed by context and thus more sporadic. 16 In addition, Joseph’s anticipation of the exodus in Gen 48:21–22 shares with Gen 50:24–26 both a focus on Israel’s eventual return to the land and a more specific anticipation of Joseph’s burial at Shechem in Josh 24. Its links with the Moses-Joshua story are less clear, but it may well be part of the same compositional layer. 17 For an analysis of this series of texts see BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 140–145, 152–154. Here I revise my earlier opinion that 50:26a was part of the Priestly layer (Reading, 109– 110, 167–168 n. 40), agreeing with more recent treatments (GERTZ, Tradition, 361–362; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 21). As Erhard Blum has pointed out, the wording and details of Joseph’s death notice in Gen 50:26a precisely agree with the wording and details of Joshua’s death and age notice in Josh 24:29. And these links then lead into the burial of Joseph’s bones in Josh 24:32, a fulfillment of the oath that Joseph made his brothers swear in Gen 50:24–25. The more we see these connections, both within Gen 50:24–26 and between Gen 50:25–26 and the conclusion of Josh 24, the clearer it becomes that Gen 50:24–26 as a block was written to connect the non-P Joseph story into a narrative arc that continues not only into the Moses story, but into a broader hexateuchal context.

I. 3.1. Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus

95

and connected to the Priestly genealogical material in Exod 1:1–5. Jan Gertz and others following him have supported an understanding of Gen 50:24–26 as post-Priestly, arguing that there would be a tragicomic feel to a text that moved straight from Joseph having his brothers swear an oath to bring his bones up from Egypt in Gen 50:25 to both him and his brothers dying right away in Exod 1:6.18 That argument, however, depends on an assignment of Exod 1:6 to the non-Priestly material that will be disputed below. It is possible that the death and embalmment notice for Joseph in Gen 50:26 was immediately followed by the notice in Exod 1:8 about the rise of a king over Egypt who did not know Joseph. Alternatively, given the reality that scribes did not fully preserve documents that they were conflating, it is possible that part of the non-Priestly transition between Joseph and the Exodus-Moses story was lost when these non-Priestly materials were combined with P, whose material now dominates the outset of Exodus (1:1–6). Nevertheless, there may be some hints that the largely Priestly statement about Israel multiplying in Exod 1:7 preserves some fragments of an older non-Priestly multiplication notice. As others have noted, this Priestly notice of multiplication contains the verb ‫ עצם‬that is typical of non-Priestly notices, but not of Priestly ones.19 In addition, the Priestly notice of multiplication in Exod 1:7 contains five verbs about multiplying and filling the earth, far more than necessary. Meanwhile, non-Priestly notices of multiplication, both in Deuteronomy and in Pharaoh’s speech about Israelite multiplication in Exod 1:9, pair ‫ רבה‬and ‫עצם‬, standing as a closer parallel to the final two verbs about multiplication in Exod 1:7aβ than the Priestly parallels.20 In sum, we are left with several possibilities for the original non-P transition between Gen 50:24–26 and the following non-P exodus story: that it was lost, that the non-P story moved directly from Joseph’s death and embalmment in Gen 50:26 to the notice in Exod 1:8 about the rise of a king who did not know him or (my slight preference) that an original non-Priestly notice of multiplication is partially preserved in the divergent wording of Exod 1:7 from otherwise similar Priestly multiplication notices. In all three of these cases, the non-Priestly material about Joseph in Gen 50:24–26 originally connected specifically to our existing (non-Priestly) exodus story, and indeed beyond it to the conclusion of the Joshua narrative with the covenant under Joshua at Shechem and his burial there. Interestingly, the linkage in 50:24–26 of the Joseph story (along with the rest of Gen 12–50) to the Moses story appears to have been modeled after the conclusion to the earlier Joseph story. That earlier Joseph story concluded 18 GERTZ, Tradition, 360. Note additional arguments raised, at about the same time, in SCHMID, Erzväter, 230–233. 19 BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 148. 20 CARR, ‘What Is Required’, 172–173.

96

David M. Carr

with a prominent focus on Jacob’s final testament to his sons, blessing of them and provision for burial in Canaan. So also the crucial connecting verses in 50:24–26 are a microcosm of that sequence toward the end of the Jacob story (as is the final scene in Josh 24). Jacob in Gen 47–50

Joseph in Gen 50:24–26*

Joshua in Josh 24*

Final speech anticipating sons’ destiny (49:1b–28)

Final speech anticipating exodus of brothers (50:24)

Final speech looking back on God’s fulfillment of the promise (24:2–13)

Making sons swear to bury in Canaan (47:29–31)

Making brothers swear to bury in Canaan (50:25)

---

Death [probably omitted by conflator]

Death at 110 years (50:26a)

Death at 110 years (24:29)

Transport of body to Canaan (50:1–9)

Transport of body to Canaan (50:26b; Exod 13:19)

[Travel to Canaan]

Burial in Canaan [probably omitted by conflator; cf. 50:10–11]

Burial at Shechem in Canaan (Josh 24:32)

Burial in Canaan (24:30)

In this compositional layer, Joseph, not Jacob, offers a final speech to the brothers. Like Jacob, Joseph makes the brothers commit to bury his body in Canaan. Joseph then dies at the conclusion of Genesis. The main divergences of the Joseph character in this Genesis-Exodus bridge from the Jacob character of the Joseph story are 1) that Joseph’s final testament in Gen 50:24 explicitly points forward to the exodus and 2) Joseph’s body is embalmed in Egypt for transport to Canaan (50:26b), since his burial will be postponed until the years of wilderness wandering and conquest are complete (Josh 24:32). Yet even here the non-P bridge to Exodus is patterned on the earlier Joseph story, since the idea of embalming Joseph in Gen 50:26b is taken from the overall Egyptian coloring of the earlier Joseph story. Notably, the notice of Joseph’s age at his death in Gen 50:26a also partakes of this Egyptian coloring. Such age notices are otherwise untypical of non-Priestly ancestral narratives. Nevertheless, as others have noted, the 110year lifespan given to Joseph in Gen 50:26 corresponds to the Egyptian ideal for long life.21 The author of the non-Priestly Genesis-Exodus bridge thus drew on this ideal in depicting Joseph as dying at a ripe old age in Egypt, before having his body embalmed, Egyptian-style, for transport from Egypt to Canaan. This special, Egyptian-flavored focus on Joseph’s age would explain why we have a doubled non-Priestly age notice for Joseph but not for other patriarchs. 21 MONTET, L’Egypte et la Bible, 13; WILLIAMS, ‘Ägypten und Israel’, 497. Notably, Gen 50:22 (assigned below to P) attributes the same age to Joseph.

I. 3.1. Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus

97

So far I have avoided making many assertions about the relative dating of this layer of the Joseph story, knowing as I do that many now believe these texts at the very end of Genesis to be post-Priestly.22 This post-Priestly understanding of Gen 50:24–25 and related verses is based mostly on the fact that many regard as post-Priestly the two crucial orientation points for these verses: the origination point of the idea of promise of the land as oath in Gen 15 and the endpoint of the motif of burial of Joseph’s bones in Josh 24 (24:32). Where once the pre-Priestly character of both Gen 15 and Josh 24 was just assumed, now in some circles the post-Priestly character of these texts is taken to be just as assured. I remain unconvinced by arguments for the postPriestly character of both chapters. To be sure, Gen 15 has potential links to the Priestly tradition, especially in a likely secondary part of the chapter (15:13–16; marked by resumptive repetition in 15:12 || 17). Moreover, Josh 24 has been secondarily priestified in the scribal tradition, as has much of the rest of the Hexateuch. This is documented in our earliest textual traditions for the Pentateuch. Nevertheless, the core of Gen 15 and Josh 24 is not just nonPriestly, but likely pre-Priestly. And this general non/pre-Priestly character is shared by the verses that are the main focus of my discussion at this point, Gen 50:24–26.23

E. The Priestly Joseph Story between Ancestors and Moses This chronological ordering thus takes us to the Priestly layer of the Joseph story. Though the contours and even existence of a Priestly treatment of Joseph are controversial, there are some strong indicators that Gen 37–50 preserves fragments of an originally separate Priestly treatment of Joseph, albeit mainly at the outset of the present Joseph story (Gen 37:2) and a relatively continuous series of P fragments about the Jacob’s arrival in Egypt, death and burial there: possibly parts of Jacob’s arrival scene in Egypt in 47:5b–11*,24

22

For example, GERTZ, Tradition, 361–362, and SCHMID, Erzväter, 209–233. For further discussion of Gen 15 see CARR, ‘Strong and Weak Cases’, 24–27 and for more on Josh 24 see IDEM, Formation, 134–136. 24 This range minus Gen 47:6b (but with the LXX plus in 47:5). Both sections have some things in common with other P texts in Gen 12–50. The focus on age in 47:9 is typical of P, as is the reference to Jacob’s “sojourning” in his encounter with Pharaoh (Gen 47:9; cf. Gen 17:8; 28:4; Exod 6:4; also Gen 36:7). The execution formula and use of the word “possession” in the settlement report (47:11) are reminiscent of the prominence of other such execution formulae in P texts (cf. Gen 1:1–2:3; 6:22; 8:18–19; 17:23–27; 28:5; 50:12), and the frequent use of the word “possession” (‫ )אחזה‬in P (Gen 17:8; 36:43; 48:4) and related texts (Gen 23:9, 20; 49:30b). 23

98

David M. Carr

and more certainly 47:27–28; 48:3–6;25 49:29–33; 50:12–13,26 and 50:22– 23.27 Notably, in contrast to many treatments of P in Gen–Exod, I believe the last comment in P about Joseph to be found in Exod 1:6.28 This notice of the death of Joseph and his brothers in Exod 1:6a constitutes the natural followup to the list of Joseph and his brothers as those who descended into Egypt in Exod 1:1–5. Exod 1:1–4 lists the brothers other than Joseph who went into Egypt. Exod 1:5a numbers the members of Jacob’s family who descended into Egypt, a preparation for the note of multiplication that will follow, and then 1:5b notes that Joseph, the twelfth brother, was already there. And with Joseph as the focus, the death notice in Exod 1:6 first notes Joseph’s death before noting the death of his other brothers. There is no clear reason to separate Exod 1:6 from its surrounding Priestly context in Exod 1:1–5 on the one hand and the mostly Priestly note of multiplication in Exod 1:7 on the other.29 Also, a minor additional point can be added in favor of assigning Exod 1:6 along with 1:1–5 and most of 1:7 to P: My study of documented cases of conflation and the combination of P and non-P in the Tetrateuch suggests that conflators generally prefer combining sources in blocks. The hypothesis of Exod 1:1–7 being a largely P block (except for possible fragments of non-P in 25 BLUM, ‘Noch einmal’, 37–38, rightly notes that Gen 48:7 elegantly links Jacob’s speech in 48:3–6 to its context, providing an explanation for Jacob’s adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh that is otherwise lacking in the P material preserved in recognizable form in Gen 37–50. Nevertheless, this note about Benjamin’s birth in Canaan follows the nonPriestly account of his birth in Gen 35:16–19 while contradicting a Priestly text in 35:22b– 26 that lists Benjamin as among the sons born in Padan-Aram. This points to the likely secondary character of Gen 48:7 within P, being composed during a time when the Priestly and non-Priestly strands were increasingly coordinated (in cases like this, even at the expense of early P’s account of events) if not already conflated. 26 Genesis 50:13aα is paralleled by 50:7–9; broader parallels between mourning in 50:10 and burial in 50:13bβb. Note the lack of a preserved burial notice in non-P to correspond to 47:29–31. For more discussion and citations see CARR, Reading, 95–96. 27 The statement of age and settlement in 50:22 concludes a series of other such settlement and travel notices in P (Gen 11:31; 12:4b–5; 13:6, 11b–12abα; [21:21;] 25:11; 31:17– 18; 36:6–9; 37:1; 46:5*–7; 50:22), notices that establish the boundaries of the “sojourn” in Canaan and its distinction from the stay in Egypt. Cf. CARR, Reading, 109–110. 28 This contrasts with my position in Reading, 121. For further discussion of the data leading to this shift see CARR, Formation, 275–276 and 282–283 for treatment of the often-discussed parallels of the Joseph-Moses transition of Exod 1:6, 8 and the JudgesJoshua transition in Judg 2:7, 10. Formation, 282–283 n. 63 discusses a likely harmonizing addition of ‫ כל הדור ההוא‬to Exod 1:6 that poorly fits that context, but makes Exod 1:6 more parallel to its analogue in Judg 2:10. 29 The relatively good fit of Exod 1:6 with what surrounds it is obliquely demonstrated by Berner’s theory (Exoduserzählung, 22) that 1:1–5, 7 were a post-P redactional frame built around it. This argument, by the way, somewhat undermines his case (ibid., 21–22) that 1:6 somehow clashes with what surrounds it.

I. 3.1. Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus

99

1:7) and Exod 1:8–11 being a non-P block fits better with this general trend. As already mentioned, Exod 1:7 stands on the seam between these P and nonP blocks, has a mix of P and non-P language, and probably reflects remnants of both the P and non-P notices about the multiplication of Israel in Egypt. Whether or not one agrees with these assignments of Gen 50:22–23 and Exod 1:6 to P, the evidence still suggests – in my view – that the P Joseph story, despite its relatively thin character, shows signs of originally having stood independently of the non-P material with which it is now combined. Most identifiable parts of P’s Joseph story duplicate counterparts in non-P, including slightly divergent explanations of the brothers’ animosity toward Joseph (37:2 || 37:3–11), parallel arrival scenes in Egypt (47:1–4, 6b || 47:[LXX plus]5–6a, 7–11), turning a blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh into an adoption of them (48:3–6 || 48:1–2, 8–20), Jacob’s ordering of his sons to bury him in Canaan (49:29–33; doubling non-P in Gen 47:29–31), his sons’ transport of his remains to Canaan (50:13aα; partially parallel to 50:7–9) and the death of Joseph (Exod 1:6 || Gen 50:26). Compositional layers building around their precursor narratives do not feature such a level of doubling. Instead, they presuppose and build beyond those elements of their Vorlage. In particular, it would be quite odd for a redactor/compositional expander to double a death notice (for Joseph) already present in his Vorlage.30 The result of this doubling in P is a remarkably continuous P narrative in Gen (47) 48–50. To be sure, as would be expected of any source conflated with another, P is not completely preserved either here or elsewhere. In particular, within the context of an originally separate source, the Priestly toledot notice in Gen 37:2 (‫ )ואלה תלדות יעקב‬would introduce some kind of Priestly discussion of Jacob’s descendants, one beyond the brief beginning of a story of Joseph’s conflict with his brothers (37:2b; cf. non-P 37:3–11). We may have brief reflections of this largely missing Priestly story of Joseph and his brothers in the P-like notice about how old Joseph was when he stood before Pharaoh (41:46a) and Jacob’s reference in his speech to Pharaoh that his life has been full of trouble (47:9). Yet even here, the evidence in Gen 37:2 points to a likely originally independent Priestly story about Joseph’s conflict with his brothers. An author of a separate Priestly story of Joseph would need to start with his own statement (found in 37:2) about Joseph’s activities (shepherding flocks with the sons of Bilhah and Zilpah) and explanation for the brothers’ dislike of him (his bring30 One might argue that such an author added the extra death notice (whether Gen 50:26 or Exod 1:6) to provide a catchline connection of Genesis and Exodus, but then one is confronted with the fact that this author then created an imperfect catchline connection, since the catchline in Exodus occurs several verses into the book (Exod 1:6), and it diverges as much from Gen 50:26 as it parallels it, sharing only two words: ‫וימת יוסף‬. An authorial expander on the text could do much better.

100

David M. Carr

ing bad reports about them to Jacob). Moreover, it would not be unusual for a conflator of such a separate Priestly story with its non-Priestly counterpart to preserve this brief fragment in the process of preserving the connected P toledot notice that this conflator used to structure the P/non-P composition as a whole (Gen 37:2aα1–3 ‫)אלה תלדות יעקב‬. But it is more difficult to hypothesize that a Priestly author expanding on the non-P Joseph story beginning in Gen 37:3–11 would find it important to add his own, doubled explanation for the brothers’ animosity toward him in 37:2b. We can never know what kind of Priestly Joseph story once existed, but these indicators (extensive doubling, occasional readability of P as a separate document, otherwise unnecessary lead-in to a Priestly story of Joseph and his brothers in 37:2b) suggest that the present text of Gen 37–50 is a result of conflation of two originally separate (P and non-P) treatments of Joseph, a conflated whole depending almost exclusively on non-P materials for the first two-thirds of the Joseph story (aside from 37:2 and possibly 41:46a), before combining P and non-P materials for the portion of the Joseph story where Jacob is in Egypt and then is buried in Canaan (Gen 47–50). As reconstructed, this Priestly Joseph story – at least insofar as it is (partially) preserved – was both separate and yet apparently parallel to its non-P counterpart, hardly developing a single original theme in its representation of the beginning of the Joseph story (37:2 || 37:3–11) and the later story of Jacob’s family in Egypt (Gen 47–50*).31 P apparently even draws on the data in the non-P bridge (Gen 50:26) for Joseph’s 110-year lifespan, noting his lifespan in 50:22, before then linking that 110-year lifespan to being able to see the grandsons of the sons whom Jacob adopted in 48:2–6 (50:23). Indeed, in this case P may reflect more specific dependence on its non-P precursor than it typically does, exactly replicating the wording of the age notice in Gen 50:26a and thus diverging from P age notices elsewhere in Genesis. Though the Gen 50:22b notice about Joseph’s 110 years of life shares the same introduction (‫ויחי‬, name then years) of many P primeval age notices (e.g. Gen 5:3, 6, 7, 9; 11:13, 15; but also Gen 47:28),32 it still diverges from the primeval age notices in several respects: giving the number ‫ מאה‬in absolute form (but this paralleled in Gen 23:1; 50:26; Deut 34:7), placing the number words in descending order of hundred then ten (but this paralleled in most ancestral age notices) and not repeating the word for ‫ שנה‬after each number (but this paralleled in Gen 17:24; 47:9; 50:26). In all these divergences from otherwise 31 The qualifications in this sentence (“at least insofar as it is [partially] preserved” and “apparently”) are important here because it is possible that non-preserved elements of the hypothesized Priestly Joseph narrative were left aside because of their divergence from the non-P Joseph story that was used as the primary structure for Gen 37–46. 32 Note Rendtorff’s observation (RENDTORFF, Problem, 135–136 [ET 162–163]) that Gen 50:22, 26 follow a primeval pattern for age notices.

I. 3.1. Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus

101

parallel primeval age notices the age notice in Gen 50:22b precisely mirrors the non-P age notice for Joseph found in Gen 50:26, giving the hundred number first, then the ten, and finally ‫ שנה‬in absolute form: ‫ויחי יוסף מאה‬ ‫ועשרים שנה‬. If such features stood in an existant separate Priestly source, we would identify them as “blind motifs” pointing to P’s secondary adoption, at this point, of an age notice pattern indigenous to its non-P parallel in Gen 50:26.33 P then adds to this settlement and age notice a note in 50:23 about Joseph seeing the third generation of Ephraim and Manasseh’s lines. In this way P links back to one of the few aspects of the Joseph story that it expanded upon – Jacob’s privileging of Ephraim and Manasseh. Thus, beyond the brief nonP note in Gen 50:26a, P adds that Joseph enjoyed an ideal Egyptian-length lifespan, qualifying Joseph as also enjoying the Old Testament blessing of seeing his “childrens’ children.” Both biblical (Ps 128:6; Job 42:16; Prov 13:22) and non-biblical sources reflect a presupposition that seeing one’s grandchildren is a particular mark of blessing.34 In this case, Joseph more specifically gets to see the children’s children of the sons that Jacob in 48:3–6 (P) singled out as specially blessed. Joseph seeing his children to the third generation thus stands as additional proof of his special blessedness, beyond his age.35 These Priestly materials about Joseph’s lifespan in 50:22–23 probably formed the conclusion to a separate Priestly toledot scroll of Genesis. The next Priestly block of material, Exod 1:1–7*, seems to have been crafted from the outset as the beginning of a new scroll, and the toledot motif that was 33 Of course, it is possible that a more typically worded Priestly age notice was modified here by a post-Priestly editor, perhaps through harmonization with 50:26 (a common scribal process). For a position along these lines see BLUM, ‘Noch einmal’, 39. Nevertheless, I think it likely that we have in Gen 50:22 not just a Priestly doubling of a non-P notice, but a Priestly echo of non-Priestly wording in 50:26. 34 For non-biblical sources in particular see SARNA, Genesis, 350 n. 8. 35 There may be something more in this little note, including the conclusion that Joseph’s grandchildren were born on his knees. As Benno Jacob notes (Genesis, 943), this particular Priestly privileging of Ephraim and Manasseh continues in the listing of tribes taking possession of the land, where Joseph’s clans are not listed after him personally, but instead both Ephraim and Manasseh each separately receive their own clan listing, with Manasseh’s listing again focusing on Machir (Num 26:29–34 and Ephraim in 26:35–37a). All of this in Gen 50:23 may be P’s particular Ephraim- and Manasseh-focused reinterpretation of the promise in Gen 15:16 that the fourth generation will return, depicting Joseph as getting to see the very offspring of his who will exit Egypt. In sum, Gen 50:23 may represent a midrash-like reinterpretation of a combination of non-P materials – the Gen 15:16 promise, Jacob’s special blessing of Ephraim and Manasseh in non-Priestly portions of Gen 48 and the non-Priestly age notice in Gen 50:26a. Through this reinterpretation, P’s brief treatment of the Joseph story already has the Exodus-Moses story firmly in view.

102

David M. Carr

used to organize P’s proto-Genesis scroll is not continued. Yet in contrast to the above-hypothesized time when the ancestral and exodus narratives stood as independent narratives on separate scrolls, the beginning of the Priestly exodus narrative establishes an unmistakable connection to Priestly material preceding it by listing the members of Jacob’s family who descended into Egypt and narrating the death of Joseph and his brothers (Exod 1:1–6). Apparently by the time this material in P was written, the literary connection between the ancestral narrative and Exodus-Moses narrative had been established, likely by a non-Priestly Genesis-Joshua* composition. As a result, P’s proto-Genesis toledot scroll is presented in such a way that it now stands as the first part of a multi-scroll narrative that then continues with a separate Priestly Exodus-Moses scroll starting in Exod 1:1–7.

F. Present Combined P/Non-P Text Finally, I come to the Joseph story as conceived by the author of the present combined P/non-P text. As is often the case for this conflator, he followed P’s lead. In this case, the P/non-P conflator features a clear scroll-division between the ancestoral story and Exodus-Moses story, preserving the beginning of the separate P scroll in Exod 1:1–6 (also probably most of 1:7*). Notably, this scroll-division in the P/non-P composition may have allowed this conflator of P and non-P to depart from a pattern seen elsewhere in his work in his treatment of parallel death notices for specific figures in P and non-P. Elsewhere, this conflator appears to have left aside parallel death notices for major figures such as Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, preserving only the Priestly versions. In the case of Joseph, the RP conflator preserved both of Joseph’s death notices, using the non-P death notice for Joseph to conclude the Genesis scroll in Gen 50:26, while preserving the P death notice for Joseph in Exod 1:6 as part of the P block introducing a P/non-P Exodus scroll (Exod 1:1–6). The result of this compositional move was the above-noted incipit-like phenomenon used elsewhere in the ancient Near East to bridge parts of a single composition that is written on multiple scrolls or tablets. Though the non-P and P death notices are not the closer duplicates typically used to join scrolls like 2 Chronicles (36:22–23) and Ezra (1:1–4), they serve a similar function in connecting the stories in Genesis and Exodus now preserved on separate written media.

I. 3.1. Joseph between Ancestors and Exodus

103

G. Conclusion In looking at the picture above, one might object: Am I not just assuming an independence of the Joseph story when the fact is that our only version of it is embedded in a broader narrative context? That is a risk in this argument. But I am struck with the effort that apparently was made – by various tradents – to connect the Genesis Joseph story to what follows. A narrative with more organic connections between its parts does not need the secondary addition of the sort of cross-references one sees in Gen 46:1b–4; 50:24–26 or the coordinating note about Pharaoh in Exod 1:8. Rather, (likely secondary) elements such as Gen 46:1–4; 50:24–26 and Exod 1:8 show scribal efforts to gradually connect originally separate Joseph and Exodus-Moses narratives, leading up to the creation of an eventual single (non-P) Genesis-Joshua composition, a multi-scroll Priestly composition presupposing a close link of Genesis and Exodus-Moses and our present conflated P/non-P Hexateuch. This overall picture – the development of an independent Joseph story into a bridge between ancestors and Exodus-Moses – helps explain the central paradox of the Joseph story: It stands as the sole bridge to the exodus story, even though it does not seem to have been crafted for that task. The earliest Joseph story’s primary purpose was not really to explain how Israel ended up in Egypt (it focuses far more on how Jacob got back to Canaan to be buried), but to tell a story of family dynamics and rule in Israel’s founding family. Yet over time, the scribes who transmitted the Joseph story gradually associated that composition with other stories in Israel’s oral and written traditions, including the non-Priestly Exodus-Moses composition telling a particular version of the exodus story that the Joseph composition already conceptually presupposed. The present conflated, P/non-P narrative now preserves both sides of the Joseph story paradox: its roots as a self-contained non-Priestly story about Joseph and his brothers and the gradual extension of that story into a bridge toward an ongoing stay in Egypt, oppression there, exodus and conquest.

The Literary Development of the Joseph Story Franziska Ede Within the received text, the Joseph story forms the narrative transition between Genesis and Exodus. As such, its interpretation has been of substantial importance with regard to theories for the formation of the Pentateuch or Hexateuch. In the context of the Documentary Hypothesis, the Joseph story was traditionally attributed to the non-Priestly sources J and E as well as the Priestly source (P). However, already Julius Wellhausen conceded that within the Joseph story the allocation of discrete passages to the non-Priestly sources could not be undertaken with the same certainty as in the ancestral narratives. His proposal regarding the Joseph story thus strongly relies on his analysis of the previous chapters in Genesis: “Die Hauptquelle ist auch für diesen letzten Abschnitt der Genesis JE. Es ist zu vermuten, daß dies Werk hier wie sonst aus J und E zusammengesetzt sei; unsere früheren Ergebnisse drängen auf diese Annahme und würden erschüttert werden, wäre sie nicht erweisbar.”1 A similar tension can be perceived in Hermann Gunkel’s form-critical definition of the Joseph story. While he starts out with a comparison between Gen 37–50 and the ancestral narratives in which he characterizes the Joseph story as a “Sagenkranz”2, he revokes this assessment shortly thereafter: “Nach diesem allem dürfen wir diese Erzählung kaum mehr eine Sage, sondern müssen sie eine Novelle nennen.”3 The narrative coherence implied in Gunkel’s assessment was further worked out by Gerhard von Rad. Like Wellhausen and Gunkel, von Rad maintained the paradigm of the Documentary Hypothesis, while at the same time emphasizing the theological and narrative unity of Gen 37‒50, which through the conflation of J and E had only become a richer narrative.4 The inconsistency in von Rad’s interpretation has not gone unchallenged. It was first pointed out by Roger Norman Whybray,5 who argued that the Joseph story could hardly be both a composition of discrete sources and a coherent didactic narrative. This criticism was adopted and developed further by Her-

1

WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 52. GUNKEL, Genesis, 396. 3 GUNKEL, Genesis, 397. 4 Cf. VON RAD, Genesis, 304; IDEM, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 272‒289. 5 Cf. WHYBRAY, ‘Joseph Story’, 522‒528. 2

106

Franziska Ede

bert Donner,6 who offered a new interpretative approach to Gen 37‒50: While the remaining chapters of Genesis are composed of J, E and P, the (nonpriestly) Joseph story represents a passage sui generis. This passage was introduced into the context of Genesis/Exodus by a redactor, thus replacing the J and E versions of Israel’s settlement in Egypt. While Donner’s theory was soon rejected as a futile attempt to harmonize the concept of source criticism with the literary idiosyncrasies of the Joseph story, some of his observations proved highly influential for further research on Gen 37‒50: 1) the idea that the Joseph story is largely a literary unity that in its current context serves as a narrative transition between Genesis and Exodus; 2) the assumption that Gen 37‒50 should be regarded as a tradition that was originally independent of its current literary context.7 To this day, the issues touched upon by Donner have not lost in significance. Rather, they prove pivotal for any analysis that attempts to understand the form and function of the Joseph story. The following analysis will thus be guided by the foregoing observations and will begin with the question of the literary independence of the Joseph story, which stands and falls with the introduction in Gen 37 (A.). The discussion of the story’s literary independence will be followed by observations on its literary coherence or unity (B.). This issue is, of course, closely linked with the question of whether Gen 37‒50 were intended from the outset to bridge the narrative gap between the ancestral narratives and the exodus-conquest narrative (C.).

A. The Joseph Story as a Passage sui generis? One of Donner’s main arguments against traditional source criticism within the Joseph story was the role that Gen 37 played in identifying the narrative strands attributed to J and E. According to Donner, Gen 37 represents the “Schlüsselkapitel für die Quellenscheidung und Bezugspunkt für die Analyse von Gen. 39‒50. Damit wird ein neues […] Quellenscheidungskriterium eingeführt, das nur innerhalb der Josephsgeschichte […] gelten kann und das deshalb allenfalls für eine Aufteilung des Bestandes auf ‘anonyme’ Quellen A und B, nicht aber auf die Erzählwerke J und E tauglich ist.”8 While it is certainly true that Gen 37 represents a key passage in interpreting the remaining chapters of the Joseph story, this fact in itself does not necessarily entail the conclusion of literary independence. Rather, it emphasizes that Gen 37 serves as the narrative introduction on which the subsequent chapters within the Joseph story rely. What remains to be verified is whether 6

Cf. DONNER, Gestalt, 9‒24. Cf. DONNER, Gestalt, 24‒27. 8 DONNER, Gestalt, 19. 7

I. 3.1. The Literary Development of the Joseph Story

107

the introduction in Gen 37 is void of any external connections or allusions to its literary surroundings and can thus be considered an originally independent narrative. Genesis 37 as a pivotal passage for interpreting the Joseph story In the wake of Donner’s study, several scholars have adopted the idea of “anonymous sources” at least with regard to the oldest narrative strand extant in the Joseph story. What has remained a matter of dispute in this context is the identification of the oldest narrative core. While Donald B. Redford,9 Walter Dietrich10 and Norbert Kebekus11 assume that the Reuben-JacobMidianite strand (≈ E) represents the narrative core, Hans-Christoph Schmitt12 and his student Ulrike Schorn13 perceive the Judah-IsraelIshmaelite (≈ J) strand as the basic narrative layer. Both theories are met with difficulties by the immediate and broader literary context. Within the Masoretic text, the brothers’ hatred is first triggered by Israel’s greater love for Joseph (vv. 3‒4). In vv. 5‒8, this motif is juxtaposed with Joseph’s dreams, which now add to the brothers’ hatred, thus indicating that they had already hated him before (‫ויוספו עוד שׂנא אתו‬, v. 5). The increase in hatred prepares for the brothers’ decision to kill Joseph (vv. 19‒20), which explicitly refers back to Gen 37:8: “They said to one another, ‘Here comes the lord of dreams (‫)בעל החלמות‬. Come now, let us kill him (‫ )לכו ונהרגהו‬and throw him into one of the pits (‫ ;)ונשׁלכהו באחד הברות‬then we shall say that a wild animal has devoured him, and we shall see what will become of his dreams (‫ ;ונראה מה יהיו חלמתיו‬cf. v. 8b: ‫ויוספו עוד שׂנא אתו על חלמתיו ועל‬ ‫”’)דבריו‬. This decision is in turn presupposed by - the motif of Joseph’s blood-soaked garment, which serves as proof that “a wild animal has devoured” Joseph; - Judah’s speech in vv. 26–27: “What profit is it if we kill our brother (‫מה‬ ‫ ?]…[ )בצע כי נהרג את אחינו‬Come, let us sell him to the Ishmaelites (‫לכו‬ ‫;”]…[ )ונמכרנו לישׁמעאלים‬14 - the speech of Reuben in vv. 21–22, who seeks to save Joseph from “this pit here in the wilderness” (‫ )השׁליכו אתו אל הבור הזה אשׁר במדבר‬and from the hands of his brothers.

Already this brief overview on the logical and terminological connections between different motifs within Gen 37 illustrates that the speeches of both 9

REDFORD, Study. DIETRICH, Josephserzählung. 11 KEBEKUS, Joseferzählung. 12 SCHMITT, Josephsgeschichte. 13 SCHORN, Ruben. 14 Generally, Judah’s speech in vv. 26‒27 is thought to refer back to v. 18b: ‫ויתנכלו אתו‬ ‫להמיתו‬. However, both its terminology and grammar (imperative ‫ הלך‬+ cohortative) point to vv. 19‒20 instead. 10

108

Franziska Ede

Reuben and Judah rely on the decision made by the brothers in vv. 19‒20. The brothers’ direct speech in vv. 19‒20, in turn, draws explicitly on v. 8b, which itself presupposes the motif of Israel’s greater love for Joseph in vv. 3‒4a (‫ ;ויוספו עוד שׂנא אתו‬vv. 5b, 8b). By extension, this means that all of the motifs mentioned above depend on the motif of Israel’s greater love (vv. 3‒4a). This observation is of great significance for the question of literary independence, since Gen 37:3‒4a betrays a certain familiarity with passages from the ancestral narratives. Within the context of the ancestral narratives, a son by the name of Joseph was born to Jacob in Gen 30:22‒24. The same Jacob was renamed Israel in Gen 32:29. Beyond this coincidence in the father-sonconstellation, the birth narratives in Gen 29–30 share the opposition of ‫אהב מן‬ and ‫ שׂנא‬with Gen 37:3‒4a. While in Gen 29:30‒31 Jacob loves Rachel more than Leah, who is referred to as the hated one, Gen 37:3‒4a explain that Israel loved Joseph, the first-born of Rachel, more than his brothers, who thus start to hate him. Israel’s greater love for Joseph thus seems to continue the greater love that Jacob felt for Joseph’s mother Rachel.15 Jacob’s preference for Joseph as the son of his beloved wife, yet not his actual firstborn, is further strengthened by another reference to the ancestral narratives: the phrase ‫בן זקנים ל‬. Through this reference, Joseph is juxtaposed with his grandfather, Isaac, who – as the son of Abraham’s rightful and beloved wife – was the promised son, even though he was not actually Abraham’s firstborn.16 ‫ ויראו אחיו כי אתו‬4 ‫ וישׂראל אהב את יוסף מכל בניו כי בן זקנים הוא לו ועשׂה לו כתנת פסים׃‬Gen 37:3 ‫אהב אביהם מכל אחיו וישׂנאו אתו ולא יכלו דברו לשׁלם׃‬ ‫ ותאמר מי מלל‬7 [...] ‫ ותהר ותלד שׂרה לאברהם בן לזקניו למועד אשׁר דבר אתו אלהים׃‬Gen 21:2 ‫לאברהם היניקה בנים שׂרה כי ילדתי בן לזקניו׃‬ ‫ וירא יהוה כי‬31 ‫ ויבא גם אל רחל ויאהב גם את רחל מלאה ויעבד עמו עוד שׁבע שׁנים אחרות׃‬Gen 29:30 ‫שׂנואה לאה ויפתח את רחמה ורחל עקרה׃‬ ‫ ותקרא את שׁמו יוסף לאמר יסף יהוה לי בן אחר׃‬Gen 30:24 ‫ ויאמר לא יעקב יאמר עוד שׁמך כי אם ישׂראל כי שׂרית עם אלהים ועם אנשׁים ותוכל׃‬Gen 32:29

The above commonalities between such brief a passage as Gen 37:3‒4a and the ancestral narratives are striking. The combination of the terms ‫בן‬, ‫זקנים‬ and ‫ ל‬is only attested in Gen 37:3 and Gen 21:2, 7.17 Beyond Gen 37:3‒4a and Gen 29:30‒31, the opposition of ‫ אהב מן‬and ‫ שׂנא‬only appears in 2 Sam 15

Cf. LUX, Josef, 50; TENGSTRÖM, Hexateucherzählung, 42. In contrast, LANCKAU, Herr, 166, believes that v. 3b justifies the conflict in a way that betrays no knowledge of Jacob’s preference for Rachel. 16 Cf., e.g., LANCKAU, Herr, 141; cf. also Josephus, Ant. I 222. 17 Cf. the reference to Benjamin as ‫ ילד זקנים‬in Gen 44:20.

I. 3.1. The Literary Development of the Joseph Story

109

13:15, which likely depends on the former two passages.18 Taken together, these observations strongly suggest that the author of Gen 37:3‒4a deliberately refers to certain passages from the ancestral narratives in order to indicate that the Joseph story is to be understood against their explicit background. In this regard, the references seem to serve a certain purpose: The narrative introduced by Gen 37:3‒4a focuses on Joseph, whom Israel loves more than his other sons, because he is the son of Rachel, the wife whom Jacob had loved more than Leah. Joseph thus continues the patriarchal lineage and follows in the footsteps of Isaac19 and Jacob, who, like Joseph, were not their fathers’ firstborn sons but were given the status of firstborn. The story that begins in Gen 37:3‒4a can thus be considered a continuation of the ancestral narratives in which Joseph is depicted as the successor of Isaac and Jacob. What remains to be verified is the original scope of the story that begins in Gen 37:3‒4a. In other words, we will now shift our attention to the question of literary unity.

B. The Joseph Story: A Literary Unity? 1. Israel’s greater love and Joseph’s dreams in Gen 37 As we have seen above, Gen 37:3‒4a link the beginning of the Joseph story with passages from the ancestral narratives, through which Joseph’s status as Israel’s preferred son is legitimized. In the context of Gen 37:3‒4a, his status provokes the hatred of his brothers. According to Gen 37:4b, they could not speak peaceably to him. In Gen 37:5‒8, the motif of Israel’s greater love is juxtaposed with another trigger for the brothers’ hatred: Joseph’s dreams.20 Between both motifs, the focus shifts from Joseph as object (vv. 3‒4a) to Joseph as subject (vv. 5‒8): While in vv. 3‒4a it was the father’s behavior towards Joseph that resulted in the fraternal conflict, according to vv. 5‒8 Joseph’s own actions increase the brothers’ hatred. He has a dream and reveals its content to his brothers, thus increasing their hatred. Unlike vv. 3‒4a, which focus both on the father-son and brother-to-brother perspective, vv. 5‒8 focus solely on the fraternal per18

Cf. EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 39–40. The purpose of the back-references would further relativize a discrepancy between the ancestral narratives and the Joseph story that has often served to support the literary independence of the latter: the reference to Joseph as the son of Israel’s old age (cf., e.g., SCHMID, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 94; SCHMIDT, ‘Literarische Studien’, 149–150). Within the context of the Joseph story, this reference serves to compare Joseph with his grandfather Isaac – who, unlike Joseph, actually was the son of his father’s old age – and to corroborate his status as Israel’s preferred son. 20 On the diachronic differentiation of these motifs cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 269‒271. 19

110

Franziska Ede

spective from v. 4a and on the relationship between the brothers. This relationship has suffered tremendously from the revelation of Joseph’s dreams – so much so that the brothers intend to kill Joseph. The decision for fratricide is reached in vv. 19‒20 and connected with the first dream through explicit references to v. 8b, which frame the brothers’ direct speech. From a literary-critical perspective, this is especially interesting, since the passage on the first dream itself is framed by chiastic references to ‫שׂנא‬, ‫ דבר‬and ‫חלם‬.21 Both passages (vv. 4b‒8, 19‒20) thus correspond with each other in form and content. In the wider context of Genesis, the focus on the fraternal conflict in vv. 4b–8 is strengthened by an allusion to the Jacob-Esau cycle, namely, the decision to commit fratricide.22 Just as Esau planned to kill his brother because he stole his blessing as firstborn (Gen 27:41), Joseph’s brothers intend to kill him because Joseph revealed to them that he saw himself as the first amongst them in his dream. And while the brothers deem Joseph’s dream pretentious and plan to kill the “lord of the dreams”, the numinous origin of the dream manifests itself in the context of Gen 42. Genesis 37:4b‒8 thus foreshadow the subsequent context of the Joseph story, namely, the resolution of the fraternal conflict that begins with the brothers’ reunion in Gen 42:6ff. and culminates in Joseph’s amicable gesture in Gen 45:15. Subsequently, his brothers speak to him. Joseph’s gesture is reminiscent of the reconciliation between Jacob in Esau in Gen 33:4,23 while the brothers’ speaking to Joseph (Gen 45:15b) hearkens back to Gen 37:4b. The story of the conflict between Joseph and his brothers thus reaches its conclusion.24 ‫ ויחלם יוסף‬5 ‫ ויראו אחיו כי אתו אהב אביהם מכל אחיו וישׂנאו אתו ולא יכלו דברו לשׁלם ׃‬Gen 37:4 ‫ והנה‬7 ‫ ויאמר אליהם שׁמעו נא החלום הזה אשׁר חלמתי׃‬6 ‫חלום ויגד לאחיו ויוספו עוד שׂנא אתו׃‬ ‫אנחנו מאלמים אלמים בתוך השׂדה והנה קמה אלמתי וגם נצבה והנה תסבינה אלמתיכם ותשׁתחוין‬ ‫ ויאמרו לו אחיו המלך תמלך עלינו אם משׁול תמשׁל בנו ויוספו עוד שׂנא אתו על חלמתיו‬8 ‫לאלמתי׃‬ ‫ ועתה לכו ונהרגהו ונשׁלכהו‬20 ‫ ויאמרו אישׁ אל אחיו הנה בעל החלמות הלזה בא׃‬19 [...] ‫ועל דבריו ׃‬ ‫באחד הברות ואמרנו חיה רעה אכלתהו ונראה מה יהיו חלמתיו׃‬ ‫ ויוסף הוא השׁליט על הארץ הוא המשׁביר לכל עם הארץ ויבאו אחי יוסף וישׁתחוו לו אפים‬Gen 42:6 ‫ ויזכר יוסף את החלמות אשׁר חלם להם ויאמר אלהם מרגלים אתם לראות את ערות הארץ‬9 ‫ארצה׃‬ ‫באתם׃‬ 21 Cf. BECKING, ‘Literary Technique’, 41, 45–46; WEIMAR, Studien zur Josefsgeschichte, 30–31; and KEBEKUS, Joseferzählung, 15–16. 22 In this regard, it is noteworthy that within the context of the Jacob-Esau cycle, the decision triggers Jacob’s flight to Laban, while in Gen 37 the decision remains a blind motif. Its primary function might then be considered as a back-reference to Gen 27 that places the conflict between Jacob and Esau in parallel with the conflict between Joseph and his brothers. For more detailed arguments cf. EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 32–33. 23 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 298‒299. 24 Cf. SEEBASS, Genesis III, 87; KEBEKUS, Joseferzählung, 97–98. Differently, JACOB, Genesis, 765; DÖHLING, ‘Herrschaft’, 29–30; and WENHAM, Gen 16–50, 406.

I. 3.1. The Literary Development of the Joseph Story

111

‫ וינשׁק לכל אחיו ויבך עליהם ואחרי כן דברו אחיו אתו ׃‬Gen 45:15 ‫ וישׂטם עשׂו את יעקב על הברכה אשׁר ברכו אביו ויאמר עשׂו בלבו יקרבו ימי אבל אבי‬Gen 27:41 ‫ואהרגה את יעקב אחי ׃‬ ‫ וירץ עשׂו לקראתו ויחבקהו ויפל על צוארו וישׁקהו ויבכו׃‬Gen 33:4

Even though the double trigger for the brothers’ hatred might not be considered substantial evidence for a diachronic differentiation, its coincidence with the above distinctions regarding form and focus might well allow for the assumption of different authorship. Gen 37:3‒4a focus on Joseph as Israel’s favorite son and thus as his successor. Joseph is the chosen one amongst his brothers. This role is legitimized by references to passages from the ancestral aarratives (Gen 21:2, 7; 29–30; 32:29). This introduction seems to have been expanded by the dream motif as a second trigger for the brothers’ hatred in vv. 4b‒8. The author of this motif picks up on the fraternal conflict already introduced in v. 4a and “[erhebt den] Konflikt zwischen Josef und seinen Brüdern zum eigentlichen Thema”25. The focus on the fraternal conflict prepares for the resolution of the conflict that begins in Gen 42 and culminates in Gen 45:15. Through the connection between the first dream in Gen 37:4b‒8 and its fulfilment in Gen 42:6, 9,26 Joseph’s role as primus inter fratres is authorized by the deity: A (god-given) dream about what was to come was revealed to Joseph, and that dream came true. With regard to the composition of the Joseph story, the above distinction is especially interesting, since only the motif of the dreams in vv. 4b‒8, which focuses on the fraternal conflict, explicitly anticipates the outcome of the fraternal conflict in Gen 42ff. It should thus be considered whether the Joseph story initially was just that – a story about Joseph that only comprised the stories about Joseph’s fate in Egypt. Only with the introduction of the dream motif would the fraternal conflict – and with it chs. 42ff. – have been introduced into the narrative cycle.27 If this assumption is correct, further traces of literary growth should be identifiable at the presumed literary seam, i.e., in Gen 41 and 42. And, indeed, a close look at these chapters suggests that they were only connected secondarily. In Gen 41, the motifs in question are the second dream of Pharaoh and the concluding remarks on the famine in Gen 41:54‒57. In Gen 42, the issue primarily concerns the proskynesis of the brothers in Gen 42:6.

25

LEVIN, Jahwist, 269. Cf. the observations made already by HOLZINGER, Genesis, 239. 27 On the diachronic distinction between the motifs and its consequences cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 267‒271, 288‒289. 26

112

Franziska Ede

2. The dream and the famine in Gen 41 Let us begin with a look at the interpretation of Pharaoh’s dreams, which begins in v. 25 with the phrase ‫חלום פרעה אחד הוא‬. The phrase is repeated almost verbatim at the end of v. 26 (‫)חלום אחד הוא‬. Pharaoh’s two dreams are in fact a single dream, since both dream images bear the same meaning. As in Gen 40, the interpretation of the images is subdivided into two phases:28 In a first step, the number included in the dream is interpreted as a certain time span. In a second step, the time span is correlated with the dream image. A striking inconsistency, however, occurs in v. 27b. There, the conclusion ‫ יהיו שׁבע שׁני רעב‬appears in the context of the first phase, which should only include the interpretation of the number as a time span. Verse 27, however, already pre-empts the interpretation of the dream image as years of famine as summarized in vv. 30‒31.29 From a narratological perspective, this interpretation of the number seven is revealed too early.30 Against the background of the obvious similarity between the dream accounts in Gen 40 and 41, the above deviation is striking in two additional respects: Firstly, a two-stage dream interpretation also occurs in Gen 40, where the discrete steps are adhered to consistently (cf. Gen 40:12‒13, 18‒19). Secondly, already the first dream of Pharaoh mirrors the dreams of the cup-bearer and baker in Gen 40: While the favorable and unfavorable interpretations are attributed to two distinct dreams in Gen 40, Pharaoh’s first dream combines both aspects. The seven good cows anticipate the years of abundance, while the seven lean cows anticipate the years of famine.31 ‫ בעוד שׁלשׁת ימים ישׂא פרעה את‬13 ‫ ויאמר לו יוסף זה פתרנו שׁלשׁת השׂרגים שׁלשׁת ימים הם׃‬Gen 40:12 ‫ ויען יוסף‬18 [...] ‫ראשׁך והשׁיבך על כנך ונתת כוס פרעה בידו כמשׁפט הראשׁון אשׁר היית משׁקהו׃‬ ‫ בעוד שׁלשׁת ימים ישׂא פרעה את ראשׁך מעליך‬19 ‫ויאמר זה פתרנו שׁלשׁת הסלים שׁלשׁת ימים הם׃‬ ‫ותלה אותך על עץ ואכל העוף את בשׂרך מעליך׃‬ ‫ שׁבע‬26 ‫ ויאמר יוסף אל פרעה חלום פרעה אחד הוא את אשׁר האלהים עשׂה הגיד לפרעה׃‬Gen 41:25 ‫ ושׁבע הפרות‬27 ‫פרת הטבת שׁבע שׁנים הנה ושׁבע השׁבלים הטבת שׁבע שׁנים הנה חלום אחד הוא ׃‬ ‫הרקות והרעת העלת אחריהן שׁבע שׁנים הנה ושׁבע השׁבלים הרקות שׁדפות הקדים יהיו שׁבע שׁני‬ ‫ הנה שׁבע שׁנים‬29 ‫ הוא הדבר אשׁר דברתי אל פרעה אשׁר האלהים עשׂה הראה את פרעה׃‬28 ‫רעב׃‬ ‫ וקמו שׁבע שׁני רעב אחריהן ונשׁכח כל השׂבע בארץ מצרים וכלה‬30 ‫באות שׂבע גדול בכל ארץ מצרים ׃‬ ‫ ולא יודע השׂבע בארץ מפני הרעב ההוא אחרי כן כי כבד הוא מאד׃‬31 ‫הרעב את הארץ׃‬

28

Cf. VON RAD, Genesis, 329. On the motif of the famine cf. FIEGER/HODEL-HOENES, Einzug, 154‒166. 30 On the literary-critical problems in this passage cf. esp. LEVIN, Jahwist, 287; KEBEKUS, Joseferzählung, 58–62. GUNKEL, Genesis, 436–437; VON RAD, Genesis, 329–330; WESTERMANN, Genesis, 3. Teilband, 92–94; RUPPERT, Genesis, 4. Teilband, 221–224; and LANCKAU, Herr, 260–261, assume a literary unity. 31 For different assumptions cf. WESTERMANN, Genesis, 3. Teilband, 87; RUPPERT, Genesis, 4. Teilband, 216–217. For the assumption that doublets constitute a compositional tool cf. DONNER, Gestalt, 36–37. 29

I. 3.1. The Literary Development of the Joseph Story

113

In view of the above inconsistencies, it might be suggested that the second dream image was only introduced secondarily into Gen 41. Beyond the more general aspect of the famine as depicted by the bad Nile cows, the motif of the good and bad years now explicitly anticipates the context of Gen 42‒45, where Joseph’s brothers sojourn to Egypt in order to purchase grain. A further connection between Gen 41 and 42 is established in the context of 41:53‒57. Verse 53 mentions the conclusion of the seven good years of abundance, during which Joseph had gathered grain for the seven bad years that were to come. It is thus not surprising that v. 54 concludes that “there was famine in every country, but throughout the land of Egypt there was bread.” Verse 56a (‫ )והרעב היה על כל פני הארץ‬refers back to v. 54b (‫ויהי רעב בכל‬ ‫ )הארצות‬and serves as a programmatic heading for vv. 56b–57, which elaborate upon the global famine with regard to the two groups already mentioned in v. 54, namely, Egypt and the world. Both statements conclude with a similar reference to the severity of the famine. It thus seems that vv. 56‒57 ‒ beyond v. 55 ‒ draw on v. 54b, which they further explain.32 With regard to terminology, they deviate slightly from their point of reference: While v. 54b mentions ‫( בכל הארצות‬pl.) and uses the general term ‫לחם‬, vv. 56‒57 speak of ‫ כל פני הארץ‬/ ‫( וכל הארץ‬sg.) and introduce the specific term ‫שׁבר‬. By using the term ‫שׁבר‬, vv. 56‒57 concur with Gen 42:6 (cf. also Gen 42:2, 3, 5, 7, 10, 19, 26), where the brothers have arrived in Egypt and bow down before Joseph, ‫המשׁביר לכל עם‬. In this regard, both the resumptive character of v. 54 and the slight variation in terminology might suggest a literary distinction between v. 54 and vv. 56‒57. Verse 54 would thus represent an older conclusion to Gen 41 that ascertains the accuracy of Joseph’s interpretation, while vv. 56‒57 would constitute a later expansion on v. 54 that explicitly anticipates the brothers’ journey down to Egypt in Gen 42.33 In sum, Joseph’s first dream in Gen 37:4b‒8, Pharaoh’s second dream in Gen 41 and the concluding remarks on the famine in Gen 41:56‒57 all center on the motif of grain and thereby prepare for the events happening from Gen 42 onwards. Moreover, all three passages seem to represent later expansions in their respective literary contexts. This can be explained in one of two

32 Traditionally, it has been assumed that v. 56bα – beyond v. 56a – refers back to v. 55 and continues its concern. This observation has often led to the conclusion that v. 56a should be considered an addition. Cf. already GUNKEL, ‘Komposition’, 267. 33 Cf. already the general observations by GREßMANN, ‘Ursprung’, 37: “Tatsächlich aber spricht die ganze Erzählung anfangs nur von der Hungersnot in Ägypten; erst ganz am Schluß wird, offensichtlich von zweiter Hand, hinzugefügt, daß sich die Not über die ganze Welt erstreckte und daß überall Hunger herrschte, während in Ägypten Brot vorhanden war. […] Aus alledem folgt, daß die Erzählung äußerst dürftig mit der ganzen Novelle verzahnt und daß der Zusammenhang überhaupt erst sekundär hergestellt worden ist.”

114

Franziska Ede

ways: 1) in the context of a tradition-historical approach (“Überlieferungsgeschichte”) or 2) in the context of a redaction-critical approach. 3. The proskynesis and the dreams in Gen 42 From a tradition-historical approach, Gen 39‒41* could be regarded as older (traditional) material that was adopted by the author of Gen 37*; 42‒45*.34 The second dream by Pharaoh as well as the conclusion in Gen 41:56‒57 could then be considered redactional passages written by the author, who integrated Gen 39‒41* into his own composition. If we are correct in assuming that Gen 37:4b‒8 represent a Fortschreibung within the exposition in Gen 37, the redactional verses within Gen 41 would have to be distinguished from the dream in Gen 37:4b‒8. An older narrative strand would have been introduced by the motif of Israel’s greater love in Gen 37:3‒4a. Although the distinction between the redactional passages in Gen 41 and the first dream in Gen 37 does not in itself pose serious problems for a tradition-historical approach, the inclusion of Gen 42:6 into the equation complicates matters. Gen 42:6 consists of two statements that are indispensable within the narrative context of Gen 42. On the one hand, Gen 42:6a connects the brothers’ journey with Joseph’s function in Gen 41:56‒57 and explains why the brothers would meet Joseph – of all people – when they go down to Egypt to purchase grain: He is ‫המשׁביר לכל עם‬. On the other hand, Gen 42:6b states the brothers’ arrival in Egypt and before Joseph, which is to be expected following their departure in Gen 42:1ff. and cannot be excluded from the original storyline. With the references to Joseph’s function as ‫ משׁביר‬and the brothers’ proskynesis, however, Gen 42:6 presupposes both Gen 41:56‒57 and Gen 37:7. The oldest narrative strand in Gen 42 already relies on the (secondary) motif of the dreams in Gen 37*. The evidence of Gen 42:6 thus favors a redaction-critical approach.35 ‫ והנה אנחנו מאלמים אלמים בתוך השׂדה והנה קמה אלמתי וגם נצבה והנה תסבינה אלמתיכם‬Gen 37:7 ‫ותשׁתחוין לאלמתי׃‬ ‫ והרעב היה על כל פני הארץ ויפתח יוסף את כל אשׁר בהם וישׁבר למצרים ויחזק הרעב בארץ‬Gen 41:56 ‫ וכל הארץ באו מצרימה לשׁבר אל יוסף כי חזק הרעב בכל הארץ׃‬57 ‫מצרים׃‬ ‫ ויוסף הוא השׁליט על הארץ הוא המשׁביר לכל עם הארץ ויבאו אחי יוסף וישׁתחוו לו אפים‬Gen 42:6 ‫ארצה׃‬

As a result, it is necessary to identify an older narrative strand that continues the ancestral narratives and depicts Joseph as Israel’s preferred son. This narrative strand was introduced with Gen 37:3‒4a and likely included the 34 35

Cf. CARR, Reading, 289; COATS, ‘Joseph Story’, 288; and KRATZ, Komposition, 283. Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 265–273, 279–292.

I. 3.1. The Literary Development of the Joseph Story

115

stories on Joseph’s success in Egypt (Gen 39‒41*). The stories about Joseph’s rise to power mirror the motif of an exaltation of the lowly as implied in Israel’s greater love for Joseph. While Joseph is not actually Israel’s firstborn, his descent from the beloved Rachel earns him the status of his father’s favorite son and, implicitly, his successor. Through the reference to the patriarch as Israel, this story betrays a national-political dimension from its very beginning. Joseph is the “chosen” descendant of Israel and is exiled in Egypt. There, however, he is not forsaken, but instead rises to power. It seems that this narrative strand was only later expanded by a story centering on Joseph and his brothers. Through this expansion, the focus shifts from the fate of Israel’s preferred son in Egyptian exile to the issue of innerIsraelite hierarchical conflicts. With this issue, Gen 37*; 42‒45* draws on the Jacob-Esau cycle (Gen 25‒33*) and extends the struggle for primacy between Isaac’s sons into the Joseph narrative by transferring the hierarchical conflict to Jacob’s sons. Through the motif of the dream and its fulfillment, the preference for Joseph is sanctioned by the deity.36 The literary growth of the Joseph story described above already suggests that its function as a transition between Genesis and Exodus is likely not original. The following section will attempt to clarify at which point in its literary development the Joseph story was transformed into a narrative bridge.

C. The Joseph Story as Transition between the Ancestral Narratives and the Exodus-Conquest Narrative As we have seen above, the embrace between Joseph and his brothers in Gen 45:15 hearkens back to Gen 37:4b and concludes the conflict initiated by Joseph’s dreams. In the context of Gen 45, another allusion to the beginning of the Joseph story is found in the brothers’ return to Jacob-Israel (Gen 45:25‒28). 1. Jacob’s revival and Israel’s imminent death In Gen 45:25, the brothers return to Jacob, their father, and reveal to him that Joseph is still alive. In light of this good news, the grief that haunted the patriarch since Gen 37:31‒3537 is lifted and Jacob’s spirit is revived (Gen 45:27). Israel’s spirit, however, is another matter. According to Gen 45:28, 36

On the general distinction between the two themes cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 265–273, 279–

292. 37

Gen 37:31ff. presupposes the motif of Joseph being torn by a wild animal and cannot predate the brothers’ decision to kill him in Gen 37:19–20. According to the above analysis, the return to the father thus cannot belong to the oldest narrative layer in Gen 37.

116

Franziska Ede

Israel is not revived, but faces imminent death. Therefore, he decides to go down to Egypt and, once again, meet his favorite son. From a literary-critical perspective, this shift in emphasis is especially striking, since v. 28 repeats the reference to Joseph’s survival (‫ )עוד יוסף בני חי‬and reinterprets it.38 In vv. 26‒27, the phrase ‫ עוד יוסף חי‬leads to Jacob being revived and thus concludes the narrative arc commencing in Gen 37*. In contrast, v. 28 takes up the expression in order to introduce Israel’s imminent death, which serves as the impetus for Israel’s journey to Egypt in Gen 46‒50. Unlike vv. 26‒27, v. 28 does not conclude the storyline of Gen 37‒45*. Rather, it anticipates the events of Gen 46‒50. ‫ ויאמר ישׂראל רב עוד יוסף בני‬28 ‫[ ותחי רוח יעקב אביהם׃‬...] 27 ‫[׃‬...] ‫ ויגדו לו לאמר עוד יוסף חי‬26 ‫חי אלכה ואראנו בטרם אמות׃‬

In view of the above distinctions, it might be assumed that the fraternal conflict once concluded with Gen 45:26‒27. Only later would this conclusion to the “story about Joseph and his brothers” have been expanded by Israel’s decision to travel to Egypt in Gen 45:28. Israel’s decision initiates the “story about Israel and his sons” in Gen 46‒50*.39 2. Israel’s journey to and death in Egypt Israel’s journey to Egypt begins in Gen 46:1. He meets with Joseph in Gen 46:30. What Israel had hoped for in Gen 45:28 has thus been fulfilled. He is reunited with his son and is now ready to die, although this will come to pass only in Gen 47:29‒31. In Gen 47:29a, the phrase ‫ ויקרבו ימי ישׂראל למות‬refers back to Gen 46:30. The subsequent passage in Gen 47:29b‒31 adds to the announcement of Israel’s imminent death the patriarch’s instructions concerning his funeral followed by his actual death. In terms of content, the passage reflects the problem of Israel’s death in Egypt already implied in Gen 45:28; 46:30. In order to prevent a burial in foreign soil, Israel begs his son Joseph not to bury his corpse in Egypt. Both passages are closely interrelated and might once have represented a coherent narrative strand that reflects upon the patriarch’s death in Egypt. Israel’s death is introduced in Gen 47:31b40 and finalized in Gen 49:33ab. In Gen 50:1, Joseph is the only son to mourn his death.41 The constellation in 38 This observation challenges the traditional attribution of the references to Jacob and Israel to two discrete and formerly independent sources. Cf., e.g., HOLZINGER, Genesis, 245; GUNKEL, Genesis, 461–462. 39 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 298–299, 303; DIETRICH, Josephserzählung, 55; and KRATZ, Komposition, 284. 40 On the association of ‫ וישׁתחו ישׂראל על ראשׁ המטה‬with Israel’s death cf. BLUM, Komposition, 250; VAN SETERS, Yahwist, 320; KRATZ, Komposition, 281 n. 50; and SCHMID,

I. 3.1. The Literary Development of the Joseph Story

117

Gen 50:1 corresponds with Gen 47:29‒31,42 which recount a dialogue between Israel and his favorite son. The same correspondence can be perceived in other statements from Gen 50. In v. 7a, it is Joseph alone who goes up to bury his father, in v. 10 he mourns his father and in v. 14aαb he returns to Egypt. In v. 7b, further participants in the funeral cortège are introduced by the resumption of ‫ויעל‬. Similarly, the personal pronoun ‫ הוא‬resumes Joseph as subject in v. 14aβ and has him be accompanied by his brothers and other returnees. Between vv. 10a and 10b, the perspective changes from plural to singular. In this regard, the subject in v. 10b remains unnamed and can only be deduced indirectly through the suffixed noun ‫לאביו‬. Within the broader context of Gen 50, the subject can be identified with Joseph via v. 7a.43 From a literary-critical perspective, the above observations suggest that – like Gen 50:1 – Gen 50:7a, 10b, 14aαb were originally concerned with Joseph alone, who carries out what he had promised to his father in Gen 47:29‒31. ‫ ויאמר ישׂראל רב עוד יוסף בני חי אלכה ואראנו בטרם אמות׃‬Gen 45:28 ‫ ויאמר ישׂראל אל יוסף אמותה הפעם אחרי ראותי את פניך כי עודך חי׃‬Gen 46:30 ‫ ויקרבו ימי ישׂראל למות ויקרא לבנו ליוסף ויאמר לו אם נא מצאתי חן בעיניך שׂים נא ידך‬Gen 47:29–31 ‫[ ויאמר אנכי אעשׂה כדברך׃‬...] 30 ‫תחת ירכי ועשׂית עמדי חסד ואמת אל נא תקברני במצרים׃‬ ‫ ויאמר השׁבעה לי וישׁבע לו וישׁתחו ישׂראל על ראשׁ המטה׃ פ‬31 ‫[׃‬...] ‫[ ויאסף רגליו אל המטה‬...] Gen 49:33 ‫[ ויעשׂ‬...] 10 ‫[׃‬...] ‫ ויעל יוסף לקבר את אביו‬7 ‫ ויפל יוסף על פני אביו ויבך עליו וישׁק לו ׃‬Gen 50:1, 7–14 ‫[ אחרי קברו את אביו׃‬...] ‫ וישׁב יוסף מצרימה‬14 ‫לאביו אבל שׁבעת ימים׃‬

Given the terminological and thematic connection between the above verses, it might further be asked whether the narrative strand that begins with Israel’s decision to travel to Egypt (Gen 45:28) and results in Joseph returning his father’s corpse to Canaan constitutes the oldest material in Gen 46‒50 (Gen 46:1, 29–30; 47:29–31*; 49:33aβ; 50:1, 7a, 10b, 14aαb → Exod 1:6*, 8). Here, the transfer of Israel’s corpse from Egypt to Canaan prefigures the exodus of the people, and his burial in Canaan constitutes the “Angeld für die bevorstehende Befreiung Israels aus Ägypten in Ex 1ff”44. Joseph’s return to Egypt, on the other hand, ensures that the sons of Israel remain in Egypt until ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 104. Differently SKINNER, Genesis, 503; WESTERMANN, Genesis, 3. Teilband, 207; DE HOOP, Genesis 49, 328–332, 460–464; and RUPPERT, Genesis, 4. Teilband, 425. 41 Cf. NAUMANN, ‘Vater’, 61; EBACH, Genesis 37–50, 643–644. For a proposed connection between Gen 50:1 and Gen 46:4 cf. HAMILTON, Book of Genesis, 691; WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 488. 42 On the connection between Gen 47:29‒31 and Gen 50:1 cf. already WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 60. 43 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 307–308; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 19–20. 44 KRATZ, Komposition, 284.

118

Franziska Ede

Moses leads their offspring into the Promised Land.45 In view of this bridging function, the above passage might have established the oldest (and prePriestly)46 literary connection between the ancestral narratives and the exodus-conquest narrative. This connection seems to have triggered the introduction of further literary links into the Joseph story. An initial response may be reflected in the permanent settlement of Israel in Egypt (Gen 46:31‒34; 47:1‒28*). This idea clashes with the imminence of Israel’s death as implied in Gen 45:28; 46:30 and interrupts the announcement and advent of Israel’s death (Gen 46:30; 47:29‒31*). Another link is established through the juxtaposition of the benevolent pharaoh of the Joseph story and his negative foil, the Egyptian king who did not know Joseph (Exod 1:8). Similarly, the notion of the Egyptians’ esteem for Jacob-Israel was gradually elaborated. This development may perhaps best be understood as a parallelization of the fate of Israel, the patriarch, and Israel, the oppressed people. Both are related through the twelve tribes that equal the sons of Jacob (cf. esp. Exod 1:9). The increasing national-political dimension may have triggered the introduction of Benjamin, Judah, Ephraim and Manasseh into the Joseph story, who, beyond their function as narrative characters, reflect certain national-political aspirations.47

D. Conclusion To conclude: The Joseph story might originally have constituted a story about Joseph’s fate in Egypt (Gen 37*; 39‒41*). This story was composed against the background of certain passages from the ancestral narratives (Gen 21:2, 7; 29–30*; 32:29) and depicts Joseph as the favorite son and thus as the successor of Israel. With the explicit designation of the patriarch as Israel, this story includes a national-political dimension, while the motif of the exiled son further implies the loss of statehood. We might then suggest a date of composition no earlier than the downfall of the northern kingdom (720 B.C.E.). It is not the motif of loss, however, that the story focuses on. Rather, the author depicts Joseph as Israel’s favorite son, who – sold into exile by his brothers – thrives in Egypt. The seeming doom thus proves to be a new and successful beginning. This “story about Joseph” seems to have been transformed into a “story about Joseph and his brothers”. In this context, the motif of Israel’s greater love was juxtaposed with the motif of Joseph’s dreams. Through this motif, the intra-fraternal conflict shifts from the father-son level to the brother-to45

Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 308. Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 284; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 18–21. 47 For details cf. the respective chapters in EDE, Josefsgeschichte. 46

I. 3.1. The Literary Development of the Joseph Story

119

brother level and becomes the pivotal concern of the exposition in Gen 37*, which finds its resolution in Gen 42–45*. The fraternal conflict parallels and continues the hierarchical conflict between Jacob and his brother Esau (Gen 37:19–20 → Gen 27:41; Gen 45:15 → Gen 33:4). The (implicit) numinous origin of the dream also makes the entire chain of events extending from Gen 37 to Gen 45 subject to divine guidance. Joseph is given preference not through his descent from Rachel but instead by the deity through the dream motif.48 The story about Joseph and his brothers was subsequently expanded by Israel’s journey to Egypt, which results in his death on foreign soil and in turn prepares for the later transfer of his corpse from Egypt to Canaan. This narrative strand prefigures the coming exodus of the people and likely represents the first (and pre-Priestly) literary connection between the ancestral narratives and the exodus-conquest narrative. This first connection triggered the introduction of further narrative elements, many of which have a national-political dimension. This is especially true for Gen 46‒50* (e.g., permanent settlement in Egypt, Ephraim/Manasseh, tribal blessings) but also applies to Gen 42‒45* (e.g., Benjamin, Judah).

48

This implicit idea of divine guidance was made explicit by later hands in Gen 45:5‒7*; 50:20‒21*. On the literary differentiation between the implicit and explicit concepts of divine guidance cf. EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 324–332.

Genesis 37–50 and the Model of a Gradual Extension A Response to David M. Carr and Franziska Ede Bernd U. Schipper The Joseph story is a test case for all theories on the formation of the Pentateuch. What was emphasized by Julius Wellhausen with regard to the Documentary Hypothesis1 is also true for current redactional approaches. Is it possible to distinguish different literary hands within Gen 37–50, and how can they be related to the preceding narratives on the ancestors in Gen 12–36 and the following exodus story in Exod 1–15? Should the Joseph story be seen as a composition which was written on the basis of the ancestral narratives or as an independent literary unit? And finally, how can the transition from Gen 50 to Exod 1 be explained given that at the beginning of the exodus narrative the memory of Joseph has to be wiped out to prepare the ground for the following events? The brief note in Exod 1:8 that a new Pharaoh arose who did not know Joseph illustrates the fundamental difference between the Joseph Story and the exodus narrative.2 Whereas in Gen 37–50 Egypt is a place of refuge for Jacob and his family, it is presented in Exod 1 as the place of Israel’s enslavement. On the other hand, without the Joseph story, it would be difficult to explain how the sons of Jacob ended up in Egypt.3 In short, the Joseph story prepares the ground for the exodus narrative to some extent, but this ground is very different from the starting point in Exod 1. The problem of the book-seam between Genesis and Exodus becomes more complex if one moves to the level of pentateuchal theory. Given that most scholars distinguish between Priestly and non-Priestly material, the question of the relationship between the Joseph story and the exodus narrative

1

WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 52. The oft-quoted statement of Wellhausen that the Documentary Hypothesis must also be used for Gen 37–50 because “unsere früheren Ergebnisse drängen auf diese Annahme und würden erschüttert werden, wäre sie nicht nachweisbar” was already challenged by RUDOLPH, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 145–146. See also SCHMID, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 84, 87–88. 2 See also BLUM, Studien, 103, who sees “den breitesten Graben innerhalb der Komposition” between Exodus and Genesis. 3 See, e.g., CARR, pp. 86–87 above.

122

Bernd U. Schipper

is crucial for our understanding of the Priestly and non-Priestly layers.4 Was there already a connection between Gen 37–50 and Exod 1 at a pre-Priestly level of composition, or was such a connection only made at the level of the Priestly composition or even at a post-Priestly level?5 The two contributions that will be reviewed in what follows present different approaches on the subject, especially on the question of the relationship between the Joseph Story and the ancestral narratives. Even though their particular arguments are quite different, both authors stress a pre-Priestly connection between Gen 50 and Exod 1. Since both contributions build on previous studies by their respective authors, I will discuss them in separate paragraphs. I will begin with an evaluation of the argumentation of Franziska Ede (A.), followed by a discussion of that of David Carr (B.), before taking up the general question of the book-seam between Gen 50 and Exod 1 (C.).

A. “The Favorite Son”: Joseph and the Ancestors In her contribution to the present volume, Franziska Ede presents in short the main results of her voluminous dissertation on the Joseph story.6 As in her book, Ede begins with a brief overview of the history of research before developing her main argument in three steps. Part A deals with the Joseph story as an independent narrative, part B focuses on its literary coherence or unity and part C is devoted to the main focus of the present volume: the book-seam between Genesis and Exodus, which is the question of whether Gen 37–50 “were intended from the outset to bridge the narrative gap between the ancestral narratives and the exodus-conquest narrative.”7 According to Ede, the non-Priestly Joseph Story can be divided into three narrative stages: 1) a story about Joseph’s success in Egypt (Gen 37–41*), 2) a first extension of this story with a narrative about Joseph and his brothers (Gen 37–45*) and 3) a second extension which ends in Gen 50. By doing so, Ede modifies the classical redactional model on the Joseph story, introduced by Walter Dietrich in 1989. Whereas Dietrich and scholars such as Christoph Levin or Reinhard G. Kratz distinguish between an earlier version of the Joseph story that ends in Gen 45 and a later version which extends to

4 For a more traditional voice within the concert of current scholarship, see BADEN, ‘Continuity’, 173–179, with a general critique of the concept of a post-Priestly redaction. 5 Cf., e.g., KRATZ, Komposition, 226–233; WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 101–146, and most recently (with a different argumentation) BLUM, ‘Noch einmal’, and IDEM, ‘Verbindung’, 149–150. 6 EDE, Josefsgeschichte. 7 EDE, p. 106 above.

I. 3.1. Response to D. M. Carr and F. Ede

123

Gen 50,8 Ede identifies two versions within Gen 37–45 themselves: a (pre-P) story on Joseph’s rise to power (Gen 37–41*) which is driven by the motif of “an exaltation of the lowly as implied in Israel’s greater love for Joseph” and a (pre-P) version on Joseph and his brothers (Gen 37–45*) that focuses on inner-Israelite hierarchical conflicts.9 The general distinction between two narratives on Joseph in Gen 37–45 can be illustrated by Ede’s exegesis of Gen 37. Following her teacher Reinhard G. Kratz, Ede argues that the Joseph story in its original (and oldest prePriestly) version must be seen as a continuation of the ancestral narratives.10 The main exegetical argument is built on three similarities between Gen 37:3–4 and certain passages within Gen 12–36:11 1) Jacob’s love for Joseph and the hate of his brothers, expressed in Gen 37:3–4 by the verbs ‫ אה״ב‬and ‫שׂנ״א‬, corresponds with Jacob’s love for Rachel and Leah’s hate in Gen 29:30–31, expressed by the same verbs. 2) The phrase ‫“( בן זקנים‬son of [his] age”) connects Gen 37:3 with Gen 21:2, 7, where the phrase ‫בן לזקניו‬ refers to Isaac as a “son of his age”. And 3) the protagonist in Gen 37 – Joseph – is identical with the son Joseph who was born to Jacob in Gen 30:22–24, who himself was renamed “Israel” in Gen 32:29. Since the second argument refers to Isaac and not to Jacob, Ede concludes that “Joseph is depicted as successor of Isaac and Jacob.”12 By combining these links with a literary analysis of the sequence of motifs in Gen 37, Ede stresses that the different motifs within Gen 37, such as Joseph’s dreams (37:5–8), the decision of the brothers to kill Joseph (37:19–20) and Judah’s speech in Gen 37:26–27 build on Gen 37:3–4, which itself relies on the ancestral narratives. The brief exegesis of Gen 37 illustrates the exegetical approach of Franziska Ede, who argues not only with the classical criteria of literary criticism but also with the inner logic of the sequence of motifs. This can be illustrated by the interpretation of the motif of Joseph’s dreams in vv. 4b–8. This passage is crucial for the interpretation of the Joseph story, since it relates to the question of the original end of the story.13 Does the conflict with Joseph and 8

See DIETRICH, Josephserzählung, 55–56; LEVIN, Jahwist, 303, and KRATZ, Komposition, 284. 9 EDE, p. 115 above. See also LEVIN, Jahwist, 269, who already stressed that the oldest Joseph Story “hatte ihren Schwerpunkt in den Ägyptenkapiteln Gen 39–41, zu denen Gen 37 das notwendige kurze Vorspiel war.” 10 See KRATZ, Komposition, 282. The argument itself can already be found in NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, 227, who interpreted the Joseph story as a redactional Fortschreibung of the ancestral narratives. 11 See also EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 21–25. 12 Interestingly, precisely the observation that the phrase “the son of his age” does not refer to Jacob but to Isaac is used by SCHMID, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 94, as an argument against a literary connection between the Joseph story and the ancestral narratives. 13 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 283.

124

Bernd U. Schipper

his brothers come to an end in Gen 45 or only in Gen 50? Given that Ede seeks to argue that the original Joseph story ended in Gen 41, she has to demonstrate that Joseph’s dreams in Gen 37:4b–8 were not a genuine part of the original narrative. For if vv. 4b–8 belong to the oldest literary layer in Gen 37, it would hardly be possible to argue that this literary layer comes to an end in Gen 41 and not in Gen 45.14 Ede demonstrates, first of all, that Gen 37:4b–8 relates to the ancestral narratives in the same way as Gen 37:3–4a. By connecting vv. 4b–8 with 37:19– 20, she finds a similarity to the Jacob-Esau cycle: “Like Esau planned to kill his brother, because he stole his blessing as first-born (Gen 27:41), Joseph’s brothers intend to kill him, because Joseph revealed to them that he saw himself as the first amongst them in his dream.”15 Even though one might argue that this connection is only on a general thematic level, most interesting for an evaluation of Ede’s thesis are the particular arguments for the separation of 37:4b–8 from 37:3–4a. Ede finds a shift in focus from a vertical level (Joseph and his father) to a horizontal level (Joseph and his brothers).16 This includes a shift from Joseph as object (vv. 3–4a) to Joseph as subject (vv. 5– 8). Furthermore, Gen 37:4b–8 adds a second reason for the hate of the brothers – Joseph’s dreams – to the first reason, the love of Jacob. In short, Ede’s exegesis of Gen 37:3–8 builds less on classical literary-critical arguments than on observations on the logical sequence of motifs. One might ask if the “shift in focus” combined with the second reason for the hate of the brothers can really serve as an argument to take Gen 37:4b–8 as redactional, since the motif of dreams shapes a connection to Gen 40 and 41 and cannot be separated from the original text.17 Moreover, if one follows Ede and takes her reconstructed original Joseph story for granted, this Joseph story presents a shift of focus as well. The further sequence of events makes it necessary that Joseph change from an object (the beloved one of his father) to an acting subject. With regard to the book-seams, it is interesting how Ede describes the function of the concluding chapters of the different versions of the Joseph story: They not only relate to the preceding narrative but also prepare for the events that follow. This is true for the earliest level of the text, the nonPriestly story of Joseph’s success in Egypt (Gen 37–41*). Ede sees a link between Gen 37:4b–8, Pharaoh’s second dream in Gen 41 and the concluding remarks on the famine in Gen 41:56–57, since all of these passages “center on the motif of grain and thereby prepare for the events happening from 14 On the connection between Gen 37:4b–8 and Gen 42–45, see SCHMID, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 97, who convincingly demonstrates that the motif of the dreams gives Gen 37– 45 a narrative structure (cf. ibid., 95). 15 EDE, p. 110 above. 16 See EDE, p. 109 above, and EADEM, Josefsgeschichte, 24–25. 17 See SCHMID, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 95 with n. 62; for a critical evaluation, see RÖHRIG, ‘Literarkritik’.

I. 3.1. Response to D. M. Carr and F. Ede

125

Gen 42 onwards.” Thus, all three passages should be seen as later expansions in their literary context. The same structural phenomenon can be found within the second stage of the text, the story of “Joseph and his brothers”. Gen 45:25–28 refers back to Gen 37 but also begins a new subject that is developed in another redactional layer of the text, namely, the latest version of the pre-Priestly narrative, which extends to Gen 50.18 With this extension, the book-seam between Genesis and Exodus comes into focus. The sequence of events in Gen 46–50* tells about Jacob’s journey to Egypt, where he sees his beloved son for the last time. Jacob’s wish to be buried in Canaan and not in Egypt leads to an act which, according to Ede, “prefigures the exodus of the people”: Israel’s corpse is brought from Egypt to Canaan.19 This means that the oldest narrative bridge between Genesis and Exodus was already made on the level of the pre-Priestly Joseph Story.20 This oldest version, containing Gen 46:1, 29–30; 47:29–31*; 49:33a; 50:1, 7a, 10b, 14ab and Exod 1:6*, 8, prepares the ground for heavy expansions, including further interlinkages between Gen 46–50 and Exod 1. With this position, Ede is not far from Christoph Berner, Christoph Levin, Erhard Blum, Reinhard G. Kratz and David Carr, all of whom argue (with differences in the details) for a connection between Genesis and Exodus on the level of the pre-Priestly text.21 The general question, however, is, whether the pre-Priestly text in Exod 1 makes sense without the Priestly notices in Exod 1:1–5, 7, especially 1:7. Before dealing with this question in more detail, the arguments of David Carr should first be discussed.

B. Joseph, the Ancestors and the Exodus: A Gradual Connection In his contribution, David Carr builds on earlier studies in which he argues for a pre-Priestly composition of the Joseph story and its connection to the exodus narrative at a pre-Priestly level.22 As with Erhard Blum, Carr stresses that the oldest version of the pre-Priestly Joseph story is a narrative about Joseph and his family “that only conceptually presupposed some kind of

18

EDE, p. 113 above. See also EADEM, Josefsgeschichte, 300–302. EDE, p. 117 above. 20 EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 479. 21 Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 17–18, who argues that Exod 1:6* (only ‫)וימת יוסף‬, 8– 10ab (up to ‫)פן ירבה‬, 22 connects the Joseph story with an exodus narrative that begins in 2:1. Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 313–314; CARR, ‘What is Required’, 175, and the overview in GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 246–247. 22 See CARR, ‘Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story’, 289. 19

126

Bernd U. Schipper

exodus story.”23 At a subsequent stage, the Joseph story and the exodus narrative were connected in a non-Priestly Genesis-Joshua* composition and, at a later stage, by a Priestly hand to a composition that bridges from a “GenesisToledot scroll to an Exodus-Moses narrative.”24 In short, Carr develops a model of gradual adaptation that builds on three main arguments: 1) The independence of a pre-Priestly Joseph story; 2) its connection with the Jacob and exodus narratives on a pre-Priestly level, as can be seen in texts such as Gen 50:4–11 and Gen 46:2–4 and 3) a pre-Priestly stratum in Exod 1 that serves as a bridge from Joseph to Moses. Carr presents two arguments for the independence of the pre-Priestly Joseph story: 1) The conceptual tensions between depictions of Egypt in Gen 37–50* and Exod 1–15* and 2) the narrative structure of the Joseph story. The brief note in Exod 1:8 about the new Pharaoh that does not know Joseph makes clear that even the ancient authors realized the fundamental differences between Joseph and the exodus. Furthermore, the original nonPriestly Joseph story was not intended to serve as a bridge to the Moses narrative, since all of its motifs and narrative dynamics find their resolution within Gen 37–50*. Following a “maximalist approach” similar to that of Konrad Schmid,25 Carr sees the end of the Joseph story in the reconciliation between Joseph and his brothers in Gen 50:15–21.26 In contrast to Franziska Ede, Carr stresses not only connections to, but also differences from the ancestral narratives. The Joseph story presupposes the characters of the preceding narrative, including the main motif of Joseph and Benjamin, who were favored by Jacob as sons of his favored wife, Rachel, but also “distinguishes itself” from the preceding Jacob story. Rachel is not dead but alive (Gen 37:9–10; cf. 35:16–19), and Jacob has not one but multiple daughters (Gen 37:35; cf. Gen 30:21).27 Carr illustrates by two texts how the connection was made between the independent Joseph story and the ancestral narratives and exodus narrative, respectively. The first is the petition in Gen 50:4–11. Joseph asks the pharaoh for permission to return to Canaan to bury his father and then to return to Egypt, which the pharaoh grants. According to Carr, the scene in Gen 50:4– 11 serves as a model for the multiple petition scenes in the plagues narrative, in which Pharaoh generally refuses the petition (cf. Exod 7:16, 26; 8:18, 21– 23; 9:1, 13; 10:3). The intertextual connection between Gen 50:4–11 and the petitions of the plagues narrative goes so far that in Exod 10:24 exactly the 23 CARR, p. 86 above (emphasis original). See also BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 122: “Die Josepherzählung, auch als selbständige »story«, setzt die Abfolge von Väter- und Ägyptenzeit konzeptionell voraus.” 24 CARR, p. 87 above. 25 See SCHMID, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 102, and DOZEMAN/SCHMID, Farewell, 46–47. 26 Cf. CARR, Reading, 275; see also BLUM, Komposition, 142. 27 Cf. SCHMID, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 94, with further arguments.

I. 3.1. Response to D. M. Carr and F. Ede

127

same groups are mentioned as in Gen 50:8b. According to Exod 10:24, the pharaoh lets the people of Israel go, “but your flocks and your herds must stay here; your children can also go with you” (‫רק צאנכם ובקרכם יצג גם טפכם‬ ‫)ילך עמכם‬. The same wording can be found in Gen 50:8b: “They left only their children, their flocks and their herds in the land of Goshen” (‫רק טפם‬ ‫)וצאנם ובקרם עזבו בארץ גשׁן‬. The key terms are the same, with the difference that in the Joseph story the children are also left in the land, while in the exodus story they are allowed to leave the land. Since both passages are nonPriestly, Carr concludes that Gen 50:4–11 serves as a contrastive model for “the combative interactions between Moses and Pharaoh in Exodus.”28 At this point, it is interesting to see how Carr interprets literary evidence in light of his work on scribalism and not in terms of classical literary criticism. He explains the literary similarities by the habits of a scribal guilt. Because the scribal elites were familiar with the “quite small” literary corpus they used phrases from other texts when writing their own text. This explanation allows Carr to argue for the independence of Gen 50:4–11 and Exod 10:24 despite the fact that both passages use the same wording. The next level of intertextual connection between Joseph, the ancestors and the exodus can be found in Gen 46:2–4. This passage, which was already identified as redactional by Herbert Donner,29 relates literarily to the promises to Abraham (12:1–2), Jacob (31:3b; both of whom are to travel into the land) and Isaac (26:2–3; who is to travel to Egypt). Whereas the reference to the ancestral narratives is explicit, the connection to the exodus story is only implicit (Exod 1:7): “Gen 46:1–4, precisely as part of this sequence, has an essential conceptual link to travel into and (implicitly) an exodus out of Egypt.”30 The promise to Abraham to make him a great nation (12:2) is echoed by God’s promise to make Jacob into a great nation in Egypt (46:3b). Since the passages also look ahead to Exod 1:9 (Jacob’s descendants will become a nation, “numerous and mighty”), Carr sees a double reference in the text which can be connected to the aforementioned gradual process of connection: “Gen 46:2–4 is a step toward coordination of a separate protoGenesis composition with an Exodus-Moses story,” both of which were still separate compositions.31 With this argument, Carr modifies his previous position that Gen 46:2–6 shapes a narrative plot from Gen 12 to Gen 50 but not to the exodus story.32 28

CARR, p. 90 above. DONNER, Gestalt, 29, argued that 46:1–5a “sich nach Inhalt und Formulierungsart vollkommen vom Duktus der Josephnovelle [unterscheidet].” 30 CARR, p. 91 above. 31 CARR, p. 93 above (emphasis original). 32 Cf. CARR, Reading, 177–179; see also BLUM, Komposition, 246–249; 297–301. The modification of his older ideas can also be found in CARR, ‘Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story’, 278–281. 29

128

Bernd U. Schipper

An explicit link to the exodus narrative within the Joseph story can be found in the sequence about Joseph’s death in Gen 50:24–26. The verses are part of the passage 50:22–26, which is seen by several scholars as a redactional addition to the Joseph story.33 As with Erhard Blum, Carr connects the sequence about Joseph’s death with a broader narrative that begins with the Jacob story and ends in Joshua 24.34 By locating this broader narrative on a pre-Priestly level, the question of the direct connection between Gen 50 and Exod 1 becomes important. Is it possible that the notice of Joseph’s death and embalmment (Gen 50:26) was immediately followed by the verse about the rise of a pharaoh who did not know Joseph (Exod 1:8) and who feared Israel because they “are more numerous and mightier than us” (‫רב ועצום ממנו‬, Exod 1:9)? After discussing several possibilities, Carr argues that Exod 1:7 contains both P and non-P material, since “[t]he Priestly notice of multiplication in Exod 1:7 contains five verbs about multiplying and filling the earth, far more than necessary.”35 In a methodologically similar vein as Ede, Carr argues that the extension of the Joseph story on the pre-Priestly level builds upon the previous text. Gen 50:24–25* relies on Jacob’s final speech, his death and his burial in Canaan (49:1b–28; 47:29–31; 50:1–9; 50:10–11) and can also be connected with Josh 24:2–13, 29, 30. In short, even “the non-P bridge to Exodus is patterned on the earlier Joseph story.”36 This double focus of (a) building on the earlier Joseph story and (b) leading to the following chapters is characteristic for the pre-Priestly redaction. This leads to the question about the Priestly layer. Carr follows a maximalist approach, attributing Gen 37:2; 47:5b–11*; 47:27–28; 48:3–6; 49:29–33; 50:12–13, 22–23 to P.37 The Priestly narrative is continued in Exod 1:1–5 and, in contrast to Carr’s previous position, also in 1:6.38 The P block in Exod 1:1–6 was combined with a non-P block in Exod 1:8–11 through Exod 1:7 (both P and non-P) as a transitional verse at the seam of these two blocks. Even though the Priestly Joseph story is rather short and does not recount much about Joseph, Carr believes in its independence because of its separate introduction in 37:2b and several doublets with 33

Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 360–361, and SCHMID, Erzväter, 61. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 140–145, 152–154. 35 CARR, p. 95 above; cf. IDEM, ‘What Is Required’, 172–173. With this position, Carr follows the insights of his teacher Erhard BLUM: ‘Verbindung’, 145–150, and IDEM, Studien, 102–103; see also n. 25 above. 36 CARR, p. 96 above. 37 Most scholars would not take Gen 50:22–23 as P; see below and also the helpful overview on the positions of Wellhausen, Noth, Elliger, Lohfink, Levin, Seebass, Kratz and others in DOZEMAN/SCHMID, Farewell, 46–47; cf. also CARR himself: Reading, 271, and for an explanation of Carr’s position see BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 149, who reconstructs a connection between Gen 50:22–23* and Exod 1:1–5a, 7, 9. 38 Cf. CARR, Reading, 121. 34

I. 3.1. Response to D. M. Carr and F. Ede

129

non-P texts (e.g., 48:3–6 || 48:1–2, 8–20 or 49:29–33 || 47:29–31).39 In sum, the Priestly Joseph story was “both separate and yet apparently parallel to its non-P counterpart,” although in some cases P builds on the non-P material.40 Regarding the book-seam itself, Carr argues that a separate Priestly “toledot scroll of Genesis” ended in 50:22–23 and a new scroll started with Exod 1:1– 7*.

C. The Literary Place of the Joseph Story between the Ancestors and the Exodus When comparing the two approaches, four main similarities can be found. 1) Both Ede and Carr argue for the independence of the original Joseph story in relation to the exodus narrative. 2) Both agree that the connection between Genesis and Exodus was a process of gradual extension with additional (redactional) material in the last chapters of the Joseph story. 3) Both argue that the connection between Joseph and Moses was already made on the level of the non-Priestly Joseph story and not for the first time on the Priestly level. 4) Finally, both scholars would say that this connection was made by a redactional technique of a “double focus”. A particular passage was written on the basis of earlier material but also points to the events that follow. At the same time, differences between Ede and Carr can be found in 1) their reconstructions of the non-Priestly Joseph story, 2) its relation to the ancestral narratives and 3) and the book-seam itself, i.e., the transition from Gen 50 to Exod 1. With regard to the scholarly debate on the Joseph story and the ancestral narratives and on the book-seam between Genesis and Exodus, two questions should be discussed further: 1) Which literary evidence speaks for a literary connection and which for a “conceptual” one? 2) What is the relationship between pre-Priestly, Priestly and post-Priestly material in Gen 50 and Exod 1? 1. Literary versus conceptual connections A main argument for Ede’s thesis of a literary connection between the prePriestly Joseph story in Gen 37–41* and the ancestral narratives is the similarity in motifs and terminology. Besides the phrase ‫“( בן זקנים‬son of [his] age”) in 37:3 and Gen 21:2, 7 (‫)בן לזקניו‬, the main literary argument is the combination of the verbs ‫ אה״ב‬and ‫ שׂנ״א‬in 37:4. The love of Jacob for Joseph and the hate of the brothers is expressed by the same verbs as the love of Jacob for Rachel and Leah’s hate in Gen 29:30–31. For Ede, the similarities 39 40

CARR, p. 99 above. E.g., the age of 110; on this, see CARR, p. 100 above.

130

Bernd U. Schipper

can only be explained by a literary connection, even though one could argue that the combination of the verbs ‫ אה״ב‬and ‫ שׂנ״א‬is not uncommon (see below). Interestingly, Carr also provides an example of an intertextual connection but interprets it quite differently. Carr points to thematic similarities between Gen 50:4–11 and the petitions of the plague narrative, which go so far that Exod 10:24 displays the same wording as Gen 50:8b. According to Exod 10:24, the pharaoh let the people of Israel go “but your flocks and your herds must stay here; your children can also go with you” (‫ ;רק צאנכם ובקרכם יצג גם טפכם ילך עמכם‬cf. Gen 50:8b: ‫רק‬ ‫)טפם וצאנם ובקרם עזבו בארץ גשׁן‬. Given that 1) the three terms ‫צאן‬, ‫ בקר‬and ‫ טף‬can be found within a single verse only in Exod 10:24 and Gen 50:8b and 2) the setting in both texts is the same (an Israelite stands in front of the pharaoh and asks to go with his people back to Canaan), one would conclude that the evidence speaks for a literary connection. Carr, however, explains the evidence through reference to scribal circles in ancient Israel. Since “no text is an island,” Carr argues for a scribal culture in which texts were written by literati who knew other independent texts.41 When looking at the two examples, one would rather argue the other way around. The similarities in plot and wording between Exod 10:24 and Gen 50:8b point to literary dependence, whereas the similarities between Gen 37:3–4 and the ancestral narratives can be explained by a general knowledge of the text as part of scribal circles. This conclusion is supported by (a) the difference between the wording in Gen 37:3 (‫ )בן זקנים‬and 21:2, 7 (‫ )בן לזקניו‬and (b) the opposition of ‫ אה״ב‬and ‫שׂנ״א‬, which is not limited to these two passages (see, e.g., Judg 14:16; 2 Sam 13:15; 19:7). Moreover, from a methodological perspective, Carr’s argument regarding Exod 10:24 and Gen 50:8b has significant consequences for the interpretation of literary evidence in general. If one follows Carr and explains this particular evidence with the rules of scribal culture, one wonders if not most evidence taken by previous (and current) research for models of literary dependence should be explained by the habits of a scribal elite. In other words, Carr’s approach leads to a general critique of the foundations of literary criticism when particular phrases that are used in only two texts should not be interpreted in terms of literary dependence but according to the general rules of a scribal culture. It would go beyond the scope of this article, but in light of Egyptian and biblical wisdom literature it seems to me that some evidence can actually be explained by scribalism (e.g., idiomatic phrases or the incipit

41 See CARR, p. 90 above: “Indeed, it would be unusual for such a tiny coterie of scribes to write a story about Moses in Egypt that failed to interact at all with an existing story about Joseph in Egypt, even if that Joseph composition remained (for the time being) on a separate scroll.”

I. 3.1. Response to D. M. Carr and F. Ede

131

verses of wisdom instructions)42, but not literary evidence such as Gen 50:8b and Exod 10:24. 2. The transition from Gen 50 to Exod 1 – pre-P, P, or post-P? Regarding the book-seam itself, Carr and Ede argue for a pre-Priestly connection between Joseph and the exodus. This stands in the context of studies which bring more weight to the pre-Priestly text at the expense of the Priestly text.43 As a consequence, connections that were located by some scholars on the post-P level, such as the transition Gen 50 to Exod 1 or from Josh 24 to Judg 1, are now located on a pre-Priestly level. With this thesis, Carr and Ede follow an earlier position of Blum, who argued for a pre-Priestly connection between Gen 50 and Exod 1.44 In short, the main thesis of Carr and Ede of a pre-Priestly connection between Genesis and Exodus – which, according to Carr, is part of a pre-Priestly Hexateuch – stands in the context of a shift in current research where the pre-Priestly text receives more weight.45 Or, to put it differently: When questioning the Priestly source as an independent literary layer that shapes the Pentateuch as a whole, the pre-Priestly layer becomes more and more a “Grundschrift”. Since such a model for the formation of the Pentateuch depends on the interpretation of certain texts, three questions should be evaluated: 1) Does the non-Priestly note in Exod 1:9 presuppose the Priestly notice about the multiplication of the Israelites in Exod 1:7? 2) Do we have a Priestly connection between Gen 50 and Exod 1, or was this connection made (only) on a non-Priestly level? 3) Can the literary connection between the book-seams in Gen 50–Exod 1 and Josh 24–Judg 1 be located on a pre-Priestly or a post-Priestly level? Put in short, the thesis of a pre-Priestly connection between the ancestors, Joseph, the exodus and – following Carr – also Joshua, stands and falls with the answers to these questions. Even though a detailed evaluation of the texts would go beyond the scope of this article, in what follows, the results of my own analysis will be briefly summarized.46

42

Cf. SCHIPPER, ‘Textual Coherence’, 124–126. See, e.g., BERNER, Exoduserzählung. On the transition from Genesis to Exodus at a pre-Priestly level, see BLUM, Studien, 102–3, and LEVIN, Jahwist, 313. 44 More recently, however, Blum has stressed that the non-Priestly book seam is postPriestly, since it builds on the P narrative in Gen 50:22–23 and Exod 1:1–5, 7, 9. Cf. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 149 and 152, where he concludes that with this insight “sich uns eine zentrale These der Analyse von Schmid und Gertz bestätigt [hat].” 45 One might ask if this focus on the pre-Priestly layer is a ‘side-effect’ of the debate between the Neo-Documentarians and representatives of a redactional approach. See, e.g., the discussion between BADEN, ‘Continuity’, and SCHMID, ‘Genesis and Exodus’. 46 A detailed analysis is offered in a forthcoming article on P and the Joseph story. 43

132

Bernd U. Schipper

Starting with the first question, it is interesting that even Carr accepts the main argument of Konrad Schmid and Jan Christian Gertz: Without the notice on the multiplication of the Israelites in 1:7 (P), the reason for the fear of the pharaoh in 1:9 (non-P) remains unexplained. Even though Carr argues that a non-P author could give the main information “through Pharaoh’s mouth”47 he follows his teacher Erhard Blum in assuming that Exod 1:7 presents a combination of P and non-P material.48 ‫ובני ישראל פרו וישרצו וירבו ויעצמו במאד מאד ותמלא הארץ אתם‬

The information about the multiplication of the Israelites in 1:7 is expressed by four verbs. Three of them are typical for P, while one is not. Whereas ‫פר״ה‬ qal and hif. (“be fruitful/make fruitful”), ‫“( שׁר״ץ‬swarm”) and the combination of ‫ פר״ה‬and ‫ רב״ה‬as well as ‫פר״ה‬, ‫ רב״ה‬and ‫ שׁר״ץ‬can be connected to P, the verb ‫“( עצ״ם‬be mighty”) is non-Priestly. The crucial question is whether or not this single verb (‫ )עצ״ם‬is evidence enough to find in v. 7 a non-P text. For if the verb ‫ עצ״ם‬refers to a pre-P version of v. 7, one would have the reason for the pharaoh’s fear in v. 9 in the pre-P narrative, namely, the notice about the multiplication of the Israelites.49 Given that in Ex 1:7 the adverbial phrase ‫ במאד מאד‬and the final statement ‫ ותמלא הארץ אתם‬can also be connected with P50, one might ask what the prePriestly notice would have looked like. If one does not want to argue for a redaction that reworked an older pre-P version, it has to be stated first and foremost that after subtracting the P-material from v. 7, only one word remains – ‫ויעצמו‬. Such a cryptic version of the verse containing only ‫ויעצמו‬ hardly supports the assumption of a non-P version of the Israelites’ multiplication. This leaves two possibilities. One could either argue that v. 7 builds on the wording of Exod 1:9 (‫ )רב ועצום‬or that P uses an atypical wording in 1:7 with ‫עצ״ם‬. The first leads to an interpretation of 1:7 (P) as redactional, the second to an interpretation of Exod 1:9 and 1:12 as dependent upon 1:7 (P).51 It might be added that the first option has consequences for the question of the beginning of the (formerly independent?) non-Priestly exodus narrative, which some scholars see in Exod 1:11 (Gertz) and others in Exod 2:1 (Carr;

47 In his 2001 article ‘Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story’, CARR argues that “the P author elected to tell through the mouth of a narrator, what the non-P author told through Pharaoh’s mouth” (291). See also BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 145. 48 BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 148. 49 This is not a new question; see, e.g., LEVIN, Jahwist, 315; GERTZ, Tradition, 366– 367, and the overview in GERTZ, ‘Transition’, 83. 50 See GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 240. 51 The first has been suggested by WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 139–141; the second by GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 241.

I. 3.1. Response to D. M. Carr and F. Ede

133

Levin; Schmid) or Exod 3:1 (Winnett).52 Thus, in my eyes the second explanation seems to be the most plausible: The verb ‫ עצ״ם‬can be attributed to P as a non-typical wording. The second question relates to the connection between Gen 50 and Exod 1 on the level of P. The problem can be illustrated by the classic words of Blum, who saw a “nahezu lückenlos erhaltenen literarischen Zusammenhang” between Gen 50:22–23 and Exod 1:1–5, 7, 9.53 However, further questions arise already with Gen 50:22–23. Is 50:22 P or should it rather be attributed to post-P? This question touches the current debate on the non-Priestly Joseph story, which cannot be summarized here. When bringing the main arguments together, Gen 50:22a turns out to be a graphic Wiederaufnahme of 50:14a (‫ וַ יֵּ ֶשׁב יוסף במצרים הוא ובית אביו‬and ‫וַ יָּ ָשׁב יוסף מצרימה הוא ואחיו וכל העלים אתו‬ ‫ )לקבר את אביו‬with structural similarities with 47:27–28.54 Furthermore, Blum himself realized that the wording of Gen 50:22–23 does not match that of P and that v. 22b is non-P.55 Therefore, vv. 22–23 are not P but post-P or can be attributed to a late-P redaction (which seems to me to be more likely).56 This leads to the conclusion that 1) the original end of the Priestly Joseph Story is 50:1257 and that 2) no direct connection to the exodus was made on the level of the Priestly Joseph story. Such a result fits nicely with the recent insights of Christoph Berner, who has shown that the beginning of the Priestly exodus narrative (Exod 1:13) does not connect with the Priestly Joseph story.58 The third question on the book-seam between Gen 50 and Exod 1 relates to the literary character of 50:24–26 and its wider context. It has been already seen that vv. 24–26 display Deuteronomistic phraseology and contain postPriestly motifs. For example, the oath-promise to the ancestors presupposed in v. 24 is typical of post-Priestly texts. 59 Whereas previous research attempted to identify different literary hands within vv. 24–26, Jakob Wöhrle has recently demonstrated that these verses should be taken as a literary unity.60 52

GERTZ, Tradition, 381, and IDEM, ‘Transition’, 83–84. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 149. 54 For the similarities with Gen 47:27–28 see LUX, ‘Geschichte als Erfahrung’, 160; for the graphic Wiederaufnahme see GERTZ, ‘Transition’, 79. For a contrary position, see BLUM, ‘Noch einmal’, 39 with n. 26. 55 For his current position on Gen 50:22b, see BLUM, ‘Noch einmal’, 39. 56 I am aware that this statement has to be proven by a detailed analysis. This will be done in a separate article on P and the Joseph Story, see n. 46 above. 57 Cf. RÖMER, ‘Joseph Story’, 196. 58 Cf. BERNER, ‘Charakter’, 102. 59 See BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 510 with n. 67. 60 For a detailed treatment, see WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 132–133. In contrast, for example, RÖMER, ‘Joseph Story’, 189, defines Gen 50:26 as non-P and assigns this verse to the “original Joseph narrative.” See also LEVIN, ‘Redactional Link’, 87, who attributed the redactional bridge formed by Gen 50:14, 26a; Exod 1:8 “to the editor J.” 53

134

Bernd U. Schipper

The passage has a remarkable literary horizon. Joseph’s instructions regarding his body and the embalming in Gen 50:25–26 can be connected with Exod 13:19 and Joshua 24:32.61 Furthermore, Gen 50:26 and Exod 1:6, 8 display similarities with Judg 2:8, 10, as already Theodorus C. Vriezen saw:62 Gen 50:26

Joseph died at the age of 110 years (‫)וימת יוסף בן מאה ועשׂר‬

Judg 2:8

Joshua died […] at the age of 110 years (‫[ בן מאה ועשׂר שׁנים‬...] ‫)וימת יהושׁע‬

Exod 1:6

[…] and all that generation (‫)וכל הדור ההוא‬ 8

And a new king arose over Egypt (‫ויקם‬ ‫)מלך חדשׁ על מצרים‬, […] who did not know Joseph (‫)לא ידע את יוסף‬.

And a new generation arose (‫)ויקם דור‬ who did not know YHWH (‫לא ידעו‬ ‫)את יהוה‬. 10

The literary similarities are obvious and point, as Blum has shown, to the conclusion that the book-seam between Genesis and Exodus builds upon that between Joshua and Judges.63 In short, the transition from Gen 50:22–26 to Exod 1 was modeled on the transition from Josh 24 to Judg 1. Taking the arguments together, Gen 50:24–26 and Exod 1:5b, 6, 8 turn out to be postPriestly additions which not only form a “book-seam” between Genesis and Exodus but also open a horizon which goes beyond a Priestly Pentateuch. Irrespective of the question of whether the connection between Gen 50 and Exod 1 was made on the level of P or, as it seems to me to be more plausible, for the first time with the post-Priestly composition in 50:22–26 and Exod 1*, the evidence as a whole does not support the assumption of a pre-Priestly connection in Gen 50–Exod 1 (Ede) nor of a pre-Priestly Hexateuch (Carr).

D. Summary: The Joseph Story and the Model of a Gradual Extension Taking the evidence together, one might argue as follows: The non-Priestly Joseph story builds conceptually (but not literarily) on the ancestral narratives. It ends in 50:21, since the reconciliation between Joseph and his brothers comes to an end in Gen 50 and not in Gen 45. Since the Priestly version of the Joseph story is rather short and does not really know the narrative of Joseph’s success in Egypt, it is an interesting question whether the non-

61

For a detailed discussion, see GERTZ, Tradition, 359–360. VRIEZEN, ‘Exodusstudien’, 334–344. See also RENDTORFF, Problem, 165–166; BLUM, Komposition, 398, and WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 135. For a detailed analysis of the parallels between Gen 50; Exod 1 and Judg 2 see part 3 of this volume. 63 Cf. BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 509 (building on BLUM, Studien, 102) and GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 245–247. 62

I. 3.1. Response to D. M. Carr and F. Ede

135

Priestly Joseph Story is post-P rather than pre-P.64 But be that as it may, an evaluation of the book-seam in Gen 50 and Exod 1 shows that the connection between Genesis and Exodus was most likely not made on a pre-Priestly level but on a Priestly level or (in my eyes) rather by a post-Priestly redaction. This post-Priestly redaction can be split up into different literary hands which can be connected to an extension in Gen 50:22–26 and Exod 1. First, with the connection between the (independent) Joseph story and the (independent) exodus story and then with shaping a wider context by drawing on the bookseam in Josh 24–Judg 1–2, a process of gradual extension in Gen 50 and Exod 1 can be found that leads to a hexateuchal composition. Even if one does not wish to follow the reconstructions of Carr and Ede, both have convincingly shown that the book-seam between Genesis and Exodus can best be explained by a literary model where passages with a “double focus” – which rely on previous material but also point to the events that follow – were gradually added to the original text. In short, Carr is right in arguing that the “central paradox” of the Joseph story – that is, its function as a bridge to the exodus even if it was not crafted for this task – can best be explained by a model where an independent Joseph story gradually became a literary bridge between the ancestors and the exodus.

64

111.

On this, see RÖMER, ‘Joseph Story’, 201, and SCHMID, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 106–

Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis Detlef Jericke A. Introduction1 The transition from the book of Genesis to the book of Exodus marks the most distinct literary gap of the Torah/Pentateuch.2 The book of Exodus opens the story of the life of Moses from his birth (Exod 2) to his death (Deut 34). It also narrates the beginnings of Israel as a people which develops from a fruitful family (Exod 1:7) into an extended camp in the plains of Moab (Num 33:48‒49). On the other hand, the book of Genesis sets the history of Israel in the broader horizon of universal history (Gen 1‒11) and presents the prehistory of Israel in the form of a family story (Gen 12‒50). At the end of the ancestral narratives, the later Israel consists of no more than approximately seventy male members (Gen 46:27).3 There is no mention of Moses as the subsequent leader of the people, contrary, for example, to the numerous references to Joshua as the successor of Moses from Exod 17 to Deut 34. The genealogical line from the Jacob family to Moses is weak. Exodus 2:1 states simply that Moses was “a man of the house of Levi” and that “he took a daughter of Levi” as his wife, suggesting that this Levi is identical with Levi, the son of Jacob/Israel (Exod 1:2). Only later in the Moses story4 are the links between Levi and Moses stated in more detail (Num 26:58‒59). The sons of Moses (cf. Exod 2:21‒22; 18:2‒4) are not mentioned in the genealogy of Levi, only the descendants of Moses’ brother Aaron (Num 26:60‒61),5 whereas the book of Genesis presents extended genealogies of the patriarchal families from Adam and Noah on to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, including 1 I thank Kirsten Hupp (Heidelberg) for her thorough proofreading of my English manuscript. Nevertheless, I take full responsibility of all remaining errors. 2 Cf. SCHMID, ‘Yahwist’; it is also called a “generation gap” (DAVIES, ‘Transition’, 67) or “Epochenübergang” (GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 238). DAVIES, ‘Transition’, 60‒61 and GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 234‒236, point to the Qumran scrolls: Some scrolls combine Genesis and Exodus; others have only one of the two books; cf. ULRICH et al., DJD 12. 3 The number is difficult to interpret, particularly in comparison to Exod 1:5; cf. GREIFENHAGEN, ‘Pentateuch’, 114‒115; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 39‒40; GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 243 n. 34. 4 On the term “Moses story” cf. SCHMID, ‘Exodus in the Pentateuch’, 28, with further references. 5 Only 1 Chr 23:14‒15 list the sons of Moses; cf. GREIFENHAGEN, ‘Pentateuch’, 117.

138

Detlef Jericke

lists of other family branches such as Nahor (Gen 22:20‒24), the sons of Keturah (Gen 25:1‒4), Ishmael (Gen 25:12‒18) or Esau (Gen 36).6 Even in the heyday of the Documentary Hypothesis, which assumed that the narrative threads of the Pentateuch extended from Genesis to Deuteronomy, the differences between the ancestral narratives and the Moses story were noticed.7 While Hermann Gunkel’s commentary on the book of Genesis focused on the short literary units or on the supposed oral traditions underlying these units, Hugo Gressmann’s critical study of the Moses story had no problems describing the constant elements of presumed larger works like the “Yahwist” or rather the “Jehovist”.8 Kurt Galling stated that the ancestral narratives and the Moses story were received in different ways in the prophetic books.9 The basic principles of the Documentary Hypothesis were challenged when Rolf Rendtorff and Erhard Blum10 postulated that in preexilic or pre-Deuteronomistic times, only independent units such as the Jacob cycle (Gen 25‒36) or the exodus story (Exod 1‒15) existed. Thomas Römer demonstrated that the term “fathers” in the book of Deuteronomy mostly designates the generation of the exodus, not the ancestors of the book of Genesis.11 Albert de Pury and Konrad Schmid strengthened the theory that there was no literary connection between the book of Genesis and the Moses story before the Priestly writers constructed such a narrative bridge.12 Since then, the discussion of these questions has been ongoing and controversial.13 These short remarks concerning the history of research demonstrate that the literary gap between the book of Genesis and the Moses story was always noticed, irrespective of one’s particular methodological approach.14 Nevertheless, the Jewish and Christian traditions consider the Torah/Pentateuch or 6

SCHMID, ‘Genesis in the Pentateuch’, 47‒48, speaks of “two competing concepts”. DAVIES, ‘Transition’, also describes the differences, although he defends the main aspects of the Documentary Hypothesis. 8 Cf. GUNKEL, Genesis; GRESSMANN, Mose. 9 Cf. GALLING, Erwählungstraditionen. 10 Cf. RENDTORFF, Problem; BLUM , Komposition; IDEM, Studien. BLUM differentiates between the postulated Deuteronomistic layers in the book of Genesis and in the Moses story: “Anders als in der Erzelterngeschichte, wo sich die Konturen älterer Kompositionen und Erzählungen vielfach noch deutlich im gegebenen Text abzeichnen und zu entsprechenden Rückfragen einladen, haben die Tradenten ihre Texte in Exodus und Numeri in einer Weise gestaltet, die zwar häufig eine Unterscheidung von ‘Tradition’ und ‘Komposition’ gestattet, seltener aber deren subtraktive Scheidung” (BLUM, Studien, 214‒215). In a later study he presents further differentiations (BLUM, ‘Verbindung’). 11 Cf. RÖMER, Israels Väter. 12 Cf. DE PURY, ‘Le cycle de Jacob’; SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story. 13 Cf. the various contributions in the volumes of GERTZ et al., Abschied; DOZEMAN/SCHMID, Farewell; GERTZ et al., Formation, and BERNER, Exoduserzählung. 14 For a detailed treatment of the history of research, see Konrad Schmid’s contribution in this volume (part I, section 2.1). 7

I. 3.2. Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis

139

“the five books of Moses” as a coherent unit with a special significance in the scriptural canon. Therefore, it seems reasonable to collect and to describe the textual units in the book of Genesis that show connections to the Moses story as thoroughly as possible in the hope of providing a basis for further and farreaching discussions. Of the four larger sections in the book of Genesis (Primeval History, Abraham story, Jacob story, Joseph novella), materials and motifs relating to the exodus story in particular (Exod 1‒15) or to the Moses story as a whole (Exod‒Deut) are found mainly in the Abraham story (Gen 11:27‒25:18) and in the Joseph novella (Gen 37:2‒50:26). On the other hand, the Primeval History (Gen 1:1‒11:26) and the Jacob story (Gen 25:19‒37:1) merely show literary ties to the Moses story as a whole in the form of structural similarities.

B. The Primeval History The structural parallels between Gen 1:1‒2:4a and the Sinai theophany (Exod 24‒40) have been described in detail.15 The analogies concern the unique role of the seventh day (Gen 2:2‒3; Exod 24:16) and the finishing of the tabernacle after exactly one year (Exod 40:17) just like the flood ended one year after its beginning (Gen 7:6). However, these parallels cannot be interpreted as Exodus material in the book of Genesis; rather, they are backreferences from the book of Exodus to the Primeval History.16 When reading Gen 2:2‒3, one does not think of the Sinai theophany, but when reading Exod 24, the six-plus-one day scheme of Gen 1‒2 immediately comes to mind. The same holds true for other isolated parallels, such as the notice of the Israelites’ fruitfulness (Exod 1:7), which evokes terminology from Gen 1:28 and Gen 9:7,17 or the echo of the flood story in the story of Moses’ birth, emphasized by the use of the word ‫“( תבה‬ark”) in each case.18

C. The Jacob Story The structural parallels between some narrative features in the Jacob story and the opening chapters of the Moses story are described in detail by Ronald

15

GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 239, with further references. “… mit Hilfe eines vielschichtigen Referenzsystems auf die Urgeschichte … zurückbezogen” (JANOWSKI, ‘Tempel’, 63). 17 DAVIES, ‘Transition’, 63‒64. 18 DAVIES, ‘Transition’, 76. 16

140

Detlef Jericke

Hendel:19 the protagonists’ special birth (Gen 25:21‒26; Exod 2:1‒10), their flight as a result of a “deed” (Gen 27; Exod 2), a theophany associated with a promise on the way to the exile (Gen 28:10‒22; Exod 3‒4), the meeting with the future wife at a well (Gen 29:1‒14; Exod 2:16‒21), a strange encounter with a numinous character on their way back from exile (Gen 32:23‒33; Exod 4:24‒26),20 and the meeting with the brother shortly before arriving at the starting point of their flight (Gen 33; Exod 4:27‒31). One could add the motif that both Jacob and Moses become shepherds in the land of their exile (Gen 30; Exod 3:1).21 In contrast to the back-references from the book of Exodus to the Primeval History, the structural analogies between Jacob and Moses found in Gen 25‒33 can be interpreted as references to the exodus narrative in the book of Genesis.22 A well-informed reader studying the Jacob story can remember the narratives of Exod 2‒4. However, these cross-references do not really concern the exodus from Egypt, only the temporary digression of Moses into the land of Midian. And both “heroes” come back from their exile. In addition, there are other modifications to be made. Although in both cases the geographical setting is international – Jacob flees to Mesopotamia and Moses to the land of Midian – the reasons are different. Jacob must flee because of family quarrels, while Moses is engaged in public affairs. The difference corresponds to the diverging presentation of the ancestral narratives as family tales and the Moses story as the beginning of the history of Israel. Thus, the structural parallels between the Jacob story and the first chapters of the Moses story can be understood as Exodus materials in the book of Genesis only in a limited sense: as cross-references to the story of Moses’ flight from Egypt, but not as references to the exodus of the people of Israel, the central theme of the last four books of the Torah/Pentateuch.

19 HENDEL, Epic, 137‒165. The aim of Hendel’s study is to interpret the Jacob story within the context of ancient Near Eastern Culture. A critical discussion of this exegetical approach goes beyond the scope of my paper. 20 KRATZ, ‘Reworked Pentateuch’, 506‒511, points out that in 4Q158 the text of Gen 32:25‒32 is inserted in Exod 4 before v. 27. This underscores that the “Rewritten Bible” texts tend to adjust the Genesis and Exodus traditions; cf. below in relation to Gen 12 and 13. 21 Often the similarities are interpreted as the outcome of “folktale patterns” constitutive to stories of heroes; cf. DAVIES, ‘Transition’, 76, with further references. 22 Also vice versa as cross-references from the Moses story to the book of Genesis.

I. 3.2. Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis

141

D. The Abraham Story 1. General remarks Some commentators understand the Abraham story as a “prolepsis” of the later fate of Israel.23 I have suggested to read parts of the Abraham story as a short variant of the early history of Israel.24 If these observations are correct and if the Abraham story indeed evokes some stages of the history of Israel from its beginnings to the constitution of a diaspora (cf. Gen 25:1‒4), then it is understandable that the references to the exodus are to be found in the first chapters of the Abraham narratives, especially in Gen 12‒16. 2. Genesis 12 and 13 The tale of Gen 12:10‒20, the first version of the story of the endangered ancestress – including the direct connection to Gen 13:1‒2 – is reminiscent of the exodus story in many respects.25 Some distinct verbal cross-references can be found at a glance. In both cases, the turning point of the account is marked by the root ‫( נגע‬to beat, to plague; Gen 12:17; Exod 11:2). After YHWH has plagued the “house of the Pharaoh” (Gen 12:17), the king of Egypt reproaches Abraham for introducing Sarah as his sister (Gen 12:18). Then he gives her back to Abraham (Gen 12:19). In Exod 11:1, ‫ נגע‬designates both the last of the plagues and the plagues altogether.26 After the last plague, the killing of the Egyptian firstborn, Pharaoh commands Moses and Aaron to lead Israel out of Egypt (Exod 12:31). Gen 13:2 defines Abraham’s wealth as “cattle, silver and gold”. Silver and gold are also demanded from the Egyptians by the Israelites before their departure from Egypt (Exod 3:22; 11:2; 12:35).27 In addition to the verbal cross-references, there are substantial narrative parallels between Gen 12:10‒13:2 and the exodus story. Like Jacob’s children (Gen 42:5), Abraham and Sarah come down to Egypt because of a famine (Gen 12:10). At the end, they leave the land forever like the later Israelites. The text of Gen 12:10‒13:2 is structured by the variation of the toponym “Egypt”. The expression ‫“( מצרימה‬to Egypt”) can be found three times (Gen 12:10, 11, 14). When the elders leave the country, the term ‫ממצרים‬ (“from Egypt” or “out of Egypt”) is used once (Gen 13:1). The story never 23 GESE, ‘Komposition’; SKA, ‘Essai’, 164 (“… une importante fonction proleptique pour le futur d’Israël”). 24 “Kleine Frühgeschichte” (JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 161‒162). 25 The text “offers clear associations to the exodus story” (SCHMID, ‘Genesis in the Pentateuch’, 42). 26 JERICKE, Abraham, 237‒238. 27 JERICKE, Abraham, 242‒243.

142

Detlef Jericke

mentions that Abraham and Sarah are “in Egypt” (‫)במצרים‬. On the other hand, after the return from Egypt, Gen 13:12 states that Abraham settled “in the land of Canaan” (‫)בארץ כנען‬. Before the digression into the land of the Nile, he was only on the way “into the land of Canaan” (‫ארצה כנען‬, Gen 12:5). Egypt is not a place of a long-lasting or enduring sojourn, in contrast to the land of Canaan. However, Canaan is defined as a permanent settling place only after the return from Egypt.28 Therefore, the journey of Abraham and his family narrated in Gen 12 and Gen 13 has the same direction as the exodus of the later Israelites: out of Egypt and into the land of Canaan. In both cases, there is no return. The same is true for the following chapters of the Abraham story. Hagar is on the “way to Shur”, that is, on the way to Egypt (Gen 16:7). However, the messenger of YHWH orders her to return to Sarah (Gen 16:9). In geographical terms, this means back to the trees of Mamre near Hebron (cf. Gen 13:18), i.e., back to Canaan. After the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen 18‒19), Abraham moves further south and settles at a place “between Kadesh and Shur” (Gen 20:1). If the toponym “Shur” designates the eastern frontier of Egypt,29 Abraham’s new camp is still some distance from Egypt. When another famine arises in the land of Canaan, Isaac is strictly forbidden by YHWH to leave Canaan for Egypt (Gen 26:1‒2). Only Jacob, under the same circumstances, namely a famine, gets YHWH’s special permission to go down to Egypt (Gen 46:1‒4). The exodus motifs found in Gen 12:10‒13:2 are underscored by the following text of Gen 13. Like the exodus of the Israelites, the return of Abraham’s family from Egypt leads to a process of settlement. The topographic description of Gen 13:3 “between Bethel and Ai” (cf. Gen 12:8) is reminiscent of the same formulation in Josh 8:9 (cf. Josh 8:12). Afterwards, the land is distributed between Abraham and Lot (Gen 13:5‒13) similarly to the partitioning of the land under Joshua (Josh 13‒19).30 Nevertheless, the exodus of Abraham’s family narrated in Gen 12 and 13 differs in important ways from the exodus of the Israelites under Moses and Joshua. Abraham has no problems entering or leaving Egypt. In both directions, he chooses the shortest way. He comes from the Negeb (Gen 12:9) and returns to the Negeb (Gen 13:1).31 There are no dramatic events like the miracle at the Sea of Reeds (Exod 14‒15), the exhausting journey through the wilderness (Exod 15‒Num 20) or the detour into the regions east of the Jor28

Cf. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 162‒165. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 145‒146. 30 JERICKE, Abraham, 238; IDEM, Ortsangaben, 161. 31 It is irrelevant whether the Hebrew term ‫ נגב‬is interpreted as a toponym or as a geographic direction (“the south”); cf. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 100‒103. What is important is that both verses use the same word. 29

I. 3.2. Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis

143

dan River (Num 20‒Deut 34). The exodus of Abraham’s family is unspectacular in every way. After the plagues, Pharaoh reacts promptly (Gen 12:17‒19), and his men escort Abraham to the frontier. They do not act like Pharaoh’s troops in the Moses story. The story in the book of Genesis does not mention any discussion between the king of Egypt and Abraham, in contrast to the long-lasting negotiations between the Pharaoh of the exodus and Moses reported in Exod 7‒13. Moreover, the settlement process of Abraham and Lot is far from the military conquest of the land of Canaan narrated in Josh 1‒12. Therefore, the exodus of the Abraham family cannot be understood adequately as a “prolepsis”32 or a “prefiguration”33 of the exodus of the Israelites under Moses and Joshua. Thomas Römer has interpreted the story of Gen 12:10‒13:2 as a sort of “anti-exodus” or a contrasting program to the exodus of the Israelites,34 a thesis with which I previously agreed.35 Now it seems more reasonable to me to understand the story in the book of Genesis as an “alternative model” of an exodus from Egypt.36 The “alternative” character is evident: the exodus is uncomplicated; all participants act in concert. The reason for this “alternative” exodus can be found in Gen 11:27‒12:5. These verses describe an exodus from Mesopotamia into the land of Canaan. Abraham’s journey into and out of Egypt should be read in light of the preceding exodus out of Mesopotamia. Thus, one should interpret the Abrahamexodus-story in Gen 12:10‒13:2 as relating to the situation of the deportees living in Babylonia after 587/586 B.C.E.37 Such an assumption is supported by the fact that Abraham and Sarah are mentioned together elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible only in Second Isaiah (cf. Isa 51:2), which undoubtedly reflects the situation of the Judeans in Babylonia.38 3. Rewritings of Gen 12 and 13 The exodus motifs in Gen 12:10‒13:2 are expanded in two rewritings from the Hellenistic period: the book of Jubilees and the Genesis Apocryphon. The book of Jubilees (Jub 13:10‒16) presents an abridged version of Gen 12:10‒ 13:2.39 All of the narrative elements reflecting Abraham’s ambiguous role are eliminated. At the same time, additions underlining the chronological interests of the book of Jubilees can also be found. At the beginning of the story, Abraham reaches the city of Hebron before he arrives in the Negeb 32

Cf. n. 23 above. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 122‒123 (“Präfiguration”). 34 RÖMER, ‘Isaac’, 167 (“un exode à l’envers”); cf. IDEM, ‘Recherches’, 196‒198. 35 JERICKE, Abraham, 240‒241. 36 Cf. GERTZ, ‘Abraham’. 37 DIEBNER, ‘Erwägungen’; AMIT, ‘Travel Narratives’. 38 Cf. RÖMER, ‘Genèse 15’, 113; SCHMID, Erzväter, 266‒270. 39 VANDERKAM, Jubilees, 76‒78; VAN RUITEN, Abraham, 73‒80. 33

144

Detlef Jericke

(Jub 13:10). Then his arrival in Egypt is noted, followed by the statement that he lived there for five years (Jub 13:11). Compared to the version in the book of Genesis, this variant aligns Abraham with the later Israelites of the Moses story: they all live “in Egypt” for a given time. Jubilees 13:12 then cites the text of Num 13:22: the Egyptian city of Tanis was built seven years after Hebron. Although this additional note corresponds mainly to the chronological interests of the book of Jubilees, it also establishes a closer connection between Abraham and the Israelites wandering in the wilderness on their journey from Egypt to Canaan. The Genesis Apocryphon (1QapGen 19‒20) presents an expanded version of Gen 12:10‒13:2.40 Although most of the additions seem to be introduced for the purpose of guarding Abraham and Sarah from possible accusations,41 the substantial additions likewise strengthen the literary assimilation of the figure of Abraham to the Israelites of the exodus story and to the sons of Jacob/Israel in the Joseph novella, respectively: Abraham hears that there is wheat in Egypt (1QapGen 19:10) like Jacob and his sons (Gen 42:1‒3); he has a dream (1QapGen 19:14‒17) and can interpret it (1QapGen 19:18‒21) like Joseph (Gen 37; 40‒41); he has a conversation with the nobles of the pharaoh (1QapGen 19:24‒30) like Moses and Aaron in Exod 2‒12; the pharaoh seeks to kill Abraham (1QapGen 19:19; 20:9); the affliction on the pharaoh and his house are described as highly dramatic; and Abraham can heal the pharaoh and his subjects, in contrast to the wise men of the king (1QapGen 20:17‒30; cf. Exod 7‒13). Of special interest are the toponyms at the beginning of the story in 1QapGen 19:9‒13. Abraham does not come from Hebron (1QapGen 19:9) into the region of the Negeb as in the versions of Gen 12 and Jub 13, but to a river named Karmon (‫ ;כרמונא‬1QapGen 19:11). Karmon is one of the seven “heads” (‫ )שבעת ראשי‬of a nameless river (1QapGen 19:12). Abraham passes all of the seven heads on his way into Egypt (1QapGen 19:12). The identity of the Karmon River is disputed. Most commentators propose that one of the heads of the Nile is meant, because Greek geographers such as Diodorus Siculus (1.33.7) or Strabo (17.1.18) report seven στόματα of the Nile.42 Thus, the passage in 1QapGen could be interpreted as Abraham crossing the eastern border of Egypt and entering the Nile Delta like the later sons of Jacob/Israel.43 However, there are some problems with such an interpretation, since none of the usual Greek names of the arms of the Nile Delta corresponds to the toponym Karmon. The difficult text of 1QapGen 19:13 that follows Abraham’s crossing of the Karmon River can 40 41 42

MACHIELA, Genesis Apocryphon, 69‒78; VAN RUITEN, Abraham, VAN RUITEN, Abraham, 109‒112.

95‒113.

FITZMYER, Genesis Apocryphon, 182‒183. On the location of the land of Goshen where the Israelites settle (Gen 45‒47; Exod 8‒9) cf. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 238‒240. 43

I. 3.2. Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis

145

be understood in such a way that all seven heads enter into the “Great Sea of Salt”.44 Therefore, the toponymic construction of 1QapGen 19:11‒13 may be ascribed to a literary combination of several biblical traditions: the geography of the Garden of Eden in Gen 2:10‒14 (cf. the term ‫ ראש‬1QapGen 19:12 and Gen 10:2) representing the idea of four rivers spreading from one nameless river;45 the variation of that tradition in Ezek 47, where the rivers go out from the temple mount in Jerusalem and flow into the Dead (“Salt”) Sea;46 and the so-called table of nations (Gen 10), where Ham is the father of Egypt (‫;מצרים‬ Gen 10:6), since 1QapGen 19:13 states that Abraham and his family reach “the land of the sons of Ham, the land of Egypt” (‫)לארע חם לארע מצרים‬. To sum up, the rewritings of the first story of the endangered ancestress extend the cross-references to the Moses story. Thus, they strengthen the similarities between the Abraham story and the exodus narrative. The rewritings no longer present an “alternative” exodus by Abraham’s family. Rather, the versions in the book of Jubilees and in the Genesis Apocryphon cast Abraham’s journey to and from Egypt as a “prolepsis” or “prefiguration” of the later exodus of the Israelites. 4. Genesis 14 If the references to the early history of Israel found in Gen 12 and 13 are continued, Gen 14 should be read as a parallel to the anecdotes in the book of Judges. Indeed, Gen 14 is the sole chapter in the Abraham story that narrates military conflicts. However, in contrast to the regional conflicts in the book of Judges, Gen 14 describes an international affair. Abraham fights against four kings of Mesopotamia. He defends not only his relatives, but the whole land of Canaan. Four of the five residences of his allies (Sodom, Gomorrah, Admah, Zeboiim; cf. Gen 14:2, 8) are described as border towns of Canaan (Gen 10:19).47 Abraham reaches the northern border of the later Israel – the city of Dan (Gen 14:14; cf. Judg 20:1; 1 Sam 3:20; 2 Sam 3:10; 24:2; 1 Kgs 5:5) – and even the region of Damascus (Gen 14:15), the frontier of the former Egyptian province of Canaan during the 2nd millennium B.C.E.48 He rules over Canaan. On the other hand, the route of the four Mesopotamian kings is 44

FITZMYER, Genesis Apocryphon, 98‒99; MACHIELA, Genesis Apocryphon, 70. This assumption is strengthened by the fact that the rewriting of Gen 13:14‒18 in 1QapGen 21:14‒19 introduces the river Gihon as one of the borders of the promised land (21:15, 18). In the biblical texts, Gihon is the name of one of the rivers flowing from paradise (Gen 2:13). Karmon and Gihon both function as border rivers in 1QapGen. Thus, it seems plausible that 1QapGen 19:11‒13 also refers to the so-called “paradise geography”. 46 Cf. ZWICKEL, ‘Tempelquelle’. 47 JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 75‒78. The function of Gen 10 as a literary map is described in IDEM, ‘Weltkarten’. 48 SIMONS, ‘Table of Nations’; JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 77. 45

146

Detlef Jericke

marked by some toponyms also mentioned in the narratives of Israel’s sojourn through the wilderness: the mountains of Seir (Gen 14:6; cf. Deut 1), (El-)Paran (Gen 14:6; cf. Num 10‒13), Kadesh (Gen 14:7; cf. Num 13‒14; 20), the country of the Amalekites (Gen 14:7; cf. Exod 17) and the area of the Amorites (Gen 14:7; cf. Num 21 and Deut 1).49 The rulers of Mesopotamia play the role of the escaping Israelites of the Moses story. Abraham, on the other hand, takes over the function of the pharaoh pursuing his enemies and defending his “province of Canaan”. Thus, Genesis 14 does not construct an “alternative” exodus like Genesis 12 and 13 but rather a “subversive” version of the Moses story.50 5. Genesis 15 Genesis 15 has been characterized as “the most prominent bridge text in Genesis that serves as a literary connection between Genesis and Exodus”.51 The cross-references between the Abraham story and the exodus or Moses story are found in the second part of the chapter, mainly in Gen 15:11‒17. The allusion to the exodus is underscored by the fact that vv. 13‒16 are presented in the form of a divine speech announcing future events to Abraham. Genesis 15:13 foretells that Abraham’s offspring will experience a sojourn of four hundred years in a foreign land, associated with forced labor and oppression. The terms used for “forced labor” (‫ )עבד‬and “oppression” (‫ )ענה‬are found in the exodus story (Exod 1:11, 13; 6:5). The reference to the “fourth generation” that YHWH will “bring back” (Gen 15:16) seems to correspond to the genealogy of Moses (Num 26:58‒59). Nevertheless, there are some difficulties in connecting these passages readily to the exodus story: a) Exodus 12:40 refers to a sojourn of 430 years in Egypt, not of four hundred years as in Gen 15:13.52 49

Cf. JERICKE, ‘Bergland’. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 175. 51 SCHMID, ‘Genesis in the Pentateuch’, 41‒42. 52 Both numbers are highly symbolic. Perhaps the “four hundred years” in Gen 15:13 result from a wordplay with the number four in Gen 15 (RÖMER, ‘Genèse 15’, 117; ZIEMER, Abram, 213, 234). The 430 years of Exod 12:40 correspond to the regnal years of the kings of Israel and Judah. Thus, the time span before and after the erection of the temple under Solomon is identical. For further discussion see KREUZER, ‘430 Jahre’, and KOENEN, ‘1200 Jahre’. Both numbers (400/430) are evidently too high for the time of the sojourn in Egypt, and they correspond in no way to the idea of the four generations in Gen 15:16. Therefore, the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch understand the 400/430 years as the whole period of time from Abraham to the exodus; in Exod 12:40, both textual witnesses read “in the land of Canaan and in the land of Egypt” instead of “in Egypt” in the Masoretic version; cf. KREUZER, ‘Priorität’. Here we find the same phenomenon as in the rewritings of Gen 12:10‒13:2: the narrative materials of Genesis and the Moses story concerning the exodus events are aligned gradually. 50

I. 3.2. Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis

147

b) The land of oppression remains nameless in Gen 15. It is simply qualified as “not theirs”. The offspring of Abraham shall live there as “foreigners” (Hebr. ‫)גור‬. In the texts of the Torah/Pentateuch, such a way of life is restricted to the time of the ancestors (cf. Exod 6:3‒4). When the exodus story uses the root ‫גור‬, this designates the status of nonIsraelites (cf. Exod 12:28‒49). c) Moses as a member of a “fourth generation” is counted from Jacob, not from Abraham: Jacob, Levi, Amram, Moses and Aaron (Num 26:58‒59). d) The phrase “I have lead you out of Ur in Chaldea” in Gen 15:7 is sometimes understood as a reference to the introduction of the Decalogue in Exod 20:2.53 However, Exod 20:2 reads “out of the land of Egypt”. Rather, Gen 15:7 is reminiscent of Gen 11:27‒32.54 e) Finally, the offering scene in Gen 15 has no comparable counterpart in the Moses story.55 At best, the expression ‫“ כרת ברית‬to make a covenant” (literally “to cut” a covenant, Gen 15:18) has a parallel in the Sinai pericope (Exod 24:8; 34:27).

Summing up, Gen 15 shows fewer direct cross-references to the exodus story than is sometimes assumed. Verbal parallels are restricted to the terms of oppression (‫עבד‬, ‫ )ענה‬in v. 13, and, to a lesser degree, to the concept of a “covenant” in v. 18. Some narrative elements (four hundred years, the liberated fourth generation) are similar to, but not completely congruent with, motifs in the Moses story. Other details, such as the idea of a life as foreigners or the reference to Ur, should be understood as cross-references to different parts of the book of Genesis.56 At best, one can interpret some passages of Gen 15 as a foreshadowing that is partially comparable to the later exodus of the Israelites. Perhaps the differences from the exodus story stem from the function of Gen 15 as a late text with either the whole Torah/Pentateuch57 or a supposed Hexateuch58 in view. In any event, it should at least be asked why the authors of Gen 15 formulated very allusively, why they did not call the land of oppression by its name (Egypt), or why they did not adjust the years of the former oppression. These questions, however, are beyond the scope of this paper.

53

RÖMER, ‘Genèse 15’, 118; GERTZ, ‘Abraham’, 65‒66. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 142‒145. 55 In contrast to RÖMER, ‘Genesis 15’; GERTZ, ‘Abraham’. 56 The book of Jubilees strengthens these intratextual references. Jubilees 14:19‒20 (VANDERKAM, Jubilees, 86) compare the covenant in Gen 15 to the one made with Noah, although the Masoretic text formulates the Noah-covenant using the term ‫קום ברית‬ (Gen 6:18; 9:9, 11), in contrast to the phrase ‫ כרת ברית‬in Gen 15:18. The interpretation given by Jub 14:19‒20 seems in line with the rest of the book, since all covenants are understood as renewals of the first covenant with Noah; cf. VAN RUITEN, Abraham, 127‒136. 57 RÖMER, ‘Genèse 15’; GERTZ, ‘Abraham’. 58 GREIFENHAGEN, ‘Pentateuch’; SCHMID, ‘Yahwist’; IDEM, ‘Genesis in the Pentateuch’. 54

148

Detlef Jericke

6. Genesis 16 Thomas Römer has shown that Gen 16 includes another variant of the exodus.59 Hagar, Sarah’s Egyptian maidservant, plays the role of the oppressed Israelites. The Hebrew root ‫ ענה‬describes Hagar’s situation (Gen 16:6, 9, 11). Thus, her fate is equated to that of the Israelites in Egypt (Exod 1:11; cf. Gen 15:13).60 Sarah takes the part of the oppressing pharaoh. She plays an active role, in contrast to the story in Gen 12:10‒13:2: “Hagar préfigure le destin d’Israël, tandis que Sarah joue le rôle de l’opresseur égyptien”.61 Römer lists some more parallels: the encounter with the messenger of YHWH is situated in the desert (Gen 16:7); Hagar is on the “way to Shur” (Gen 16:7), comparable to the Israelites wandering from the Sea of Reeds into the desert of Shur (Exod 15:22); the toponyms in Gen 16:14 (Kadesh and Bered) describing the location of the encounter (“Beer-lahai-roi”) are also prominent stations of Israel’s wilderness wanderings;62 and the messenger announces an act of liberation.63 The last argument is not convincing, since the messenger sends Hagar back into her former situation of oppression (Gen 16:9). Nevertheless, the references to the Moses story are evident in Gen 16. Similar to Abraham in Gen 14, Sarah plays the part of the pharaoh, even if her antagonist is a member of her household, not an alliance of kings. In addition, the toponymic setting of Gen 16 resembles that of the wilderness journeys of Israel. The story could be interpreted as a sort of “anti-exodus”. At the least, Gen 16 shows that the exodus from Egypt (cf. Gen 12) is irreversible. There is no way back to Egypt, even in a situation of oppression. All members of Abraham’s family should find a suitable place in the land of Canaan, including his firstborn Ishmael (Gen 16:11‒12). In this respect, Gen 16 anticipates the later quarrels between Moses and the Israelites, who desire to return to Egypt (cf. Num 14:3‒4). The story of Sarah and Hagar in Gen 16 with the allusions to Israel’s wilderness itinerary is reinterpreted in the New Testament. A passage in the epistle to the Galatians describes Abraham’s two sons as examples for a different handling of the law (νόμος). In this context, Hagar is equated with Mount Sinai in Arabia (Gal 4:24‒25), the most prominent station on Israel’s 59

RÖMER, ‘Isaac’. The tendency to connect Gen 15 and 16 is strengthened by the book of Jubilees. The greatly shortened story of Gen 16 – the whole passage of the expulsion of Hagar by Sarah (Gen 16:4b‒14) is omitted – takes place in the same “week” as the events narrated in Gen 15 (cf. Jub 14:1 and 14:24); cf. VAN RUITEN, Abraham, 121‒125, 130‒134. 61 RÖMER, ‘Isaac’, 168. 62 Whether the toponym Bered means the brook Zered marking the border between Edom and Moab (Num 21:12; Deut 2:13‒14) as RÖMER, ‘Isaac’, 168, presumes, is an open question; cf. Jericke, Ortsangaben, 146‒148. 63 RÖMER, ‘Isaac’, 169. Hagar “ressemble à un Moïse féminin” (RÖMER, ‘Isaac’, 168). 60

I. 3.2. Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis

149

way from Egypt to Canaan. This short notice reinforces, to a certain degree, the interpretation of Gen 16 in the preceding paragraph.

E. The Joseph Novella 1. General remarks The Joseph novella in Gen 37:2‒50:26 has many cross-references to the exodus narrative. The land of Egypt is the scenery for the stories around Joseph, his brothers and the pharaoh on the one hand, and for the narratives concerning Moses, the Israelites and the pharaoh on the other. The social setting, in contrast, is different.64 In the Joseph novella, the interactions between Joseph – including his relatives – and the Egyptian ruler are mostly peaceful. The text mentions no forced labor or other forms of oppression as in the exodus story. Joseph becomes a high official, and his brothers live undisturbed in the land of Goshen, i.e., in the eastern part of the Nile delta.65 Thus, the crossreferences between the Joseph novella and the exodus narrative should be described in a differentiated manner. The initial sections of the Joseph novella present Joseph’s social advancement in Egypt (Gen 37‒41) and the reunification with his brothers (Gen 42‒45). These chapters show few significant links to the exodus narrative. Rather, the cross-references are concentrated in the second part of the Joseph novella, from Gen 46 onwards. There are three types of relevant materials: place names (2.), particular phrases or motifs (3.) and an alternative exodus story in Gen 50:1‒14 (4.). 2. Place names After their eisodus into Egypt, Joseph’s brothers settle in the land of Goshen (Gen 45:10). The region seems to be situated far from the center of Egypt so that the Egyptians do not notice the “abhorrent” customs of the strangers (Gen 46:34). Even when Joseph’s relatives bring Jacob’s corpse into the land of Canaan, they leave their children and their herds in Goshen (Gen 50:8) until their return to Egypt (Gen 50:14). In this respect, the land of Goshen is described as an area of permanent settlement (cf. Gen 46‒47). Goshen is also mentioned twice in the stories of the plagues as the place where the Israelites live (Exod 8:18; 9:26). However, the topographical construction in the relevant texts is more differentiated. At the beginning of the exodus story, the Israelites do not live in a border area of Egypt, but near the royal residences. As forced laborers they build the cities of Pithom and Rameses (Exod 1:11).66 64

SCHMID, ‘Genesis in the Pentateuch’, 31‒33. On the location of Goshen cf. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 238‒240. 66 On the location of Rameses cf. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 240‒242. 65

150

Detlef Jericke

This situation is the reason for their groaning and for Moses’ mission to bring them out of Egypt. Consequently, they start their flight at Rameses (Exod 12:37). The twofold reference to Goshen in the exodus story seems to be an attempt to adapt the topographical setting of Exod 1‒15 to the Joseph novella. The same applies to the unique mention of Rameses in the Joseph novella. Genesis 47:11 states that Pharaoh instructs Joseph to have his relatives settle “in the land of Rameses”. Apparently, the verse does not correspond with the idea of a permanent settlement in Goshen.67 In this respect, Gen 47:11 represents a substantial reference to the exodus story, even if the verse should be considered as a later addition. The unique expression “the land of the Hebrews” in Gen 40:15 can be interpreted in a similar way. 68 The term “Hebrew” designates both Joseph (Gen 39:14; 41:12) and the Israelites in Egypt (Exod 2:11, 13). It is mostly used as an epithet for YHWH, “the god of the Hebrews” (Exod 3:18; 5:3; 7:16; 9:1, 13; 10:3). In this respect, the term “land of the Hebrews” can be understood as a reference to the exodus story. This interpretation is supported by the observation that Joseph uses the topographical expression during his time as a prisoner in Egypt. Thus, he foreshadows the fate of the later Israelites. Nevertheless, the term “land of the Hebrews” has its own function within the Joseph novella. It suggests that the land of Canaan that was controlled by Egypt in the late 2nd millennium B.C.E. as well as in the 3rd century B.C.E. has become the land of Joseph’s relatives.69 Summing up, the basic topographic scenario of the Joseph novella in relation to the exodus narrative seems to be as follows: The sons of Jacob settle in the land of Goshen, a border area of Egypt, whereas in the exodus narrative they are in the vicinity of the city of Rameses, i.e., in the center of Egypt. In this respect, the topographical setting of both stories is different. Nevertheless, in the process of each text’s formation, editors attempted to adjust the topographical ideas. They used some genuine terms from the exodus narrative (Rameses, Hebrews) to build unique topographical expressions (“land of the Hebrews”, “land of Rameses”), thus constructing references to the exodus narrative within the Joseph novella.

67 The problem is often solved by the assumption that Gen 47:11 belongs to the Priestly source or to a Priestly redaction; cf. WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 145; JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 254. On the other hand, it is disputed whether the Joseph novella contains passages of Priestly origin at all; cf. RÖMER, ‘Joseph Story’. 68 The toponym is another name for the land of Canaan; cf. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 235‒236. 69 Cf. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 245‒246.

I. 3.2. Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis

151

3. Isolated cross-references The evidence concerning the isolated cross-references between the Joseph novella and the exodus story is ambiguous. Some of them cannot be understood as “exodus material” in the book of Genesis either because a supposed “exodus horizon” is not compelling or because the direction of dependence runs in the other direction (e.g., back-references to the Joseph novella in the book of Exodus). The latter case holds true for Gen 46:1‒5 in comparison to Exod 3, Gen 46:27 in comparison to Exod 1:5, Gen 47:27 in comparison to Exod 1:7, and Gen 50:26 in comparison to Exod 1:6. However, other texts such as Gen 50:24‒25 are distinct “exodus materials”. YHWH’s encounter with Jacob/Israel at Beersheba (Gen 46:1‒5) includes the promise to bring Jacob/Israel up again into the land of Canaan (Gen 46:4). There is an ongoing discussion whether this promise means the exodus of the Israelites under Moses70 or the transfer of Jacob’s corpse from Egypt into Canaan narrated in Gen 50:1‒14.71 Recent studies propose a compromise: YHWH’s promise originally referred to Jacob (Gen 50), although at a later stage of composition it could also refer to Moses and Israel, especially to Exod 3.72 In any case, it is undisputed that the promise in Gen 46:4 can be understood independently of any reference to the exodus story. This assumption is underlined by the central function of the place name Beersheba (Gen 46:1, 5) within the ancestral narratives.73 Gen 47:27 is usually brought in connection with Exod 1:7. Both verses describe the growth of the sons of Jacob/Israel by the same terms, ‫ פרה‬and ‫רבה‬.74 The cross-reference cannot be interpreted as “exodus material in the book of Genesis”. Rather, it is a back-reference from Exod 1:7 to Gen 47:27.75 The verse in the Joseph novella can be understood without any knowledge of the exodus story. The same holds true for the difficult number seventy that indicates all members of Jacob’s offspring (Exod 1:5; Gen 46:27).76

70

GERTZ, Tradition, 273−277; EBACH, Genesis 37−50, 694‒695; DOZEMAN, ‘Commission’, 124‒127. 71 BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 131‒132; SCHMID, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 94; IDEM, ‘Genesis in the Pentateuch’, 42‒43; ALBERTZ, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 28‒29. 72 Cf. GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 237‒238. In accordance with BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, Gertz differentiates between “innertextual” and “intertextual” references; cf. DAVIES, ‘Transition’, 65, who differentiates between “the original assurance to Jacob in 46:4 and its later use in relation to the exodus”. 73 Cf. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 250‒252. 74 Sometimes Exod 1:7 is also paralleled to Gen 50:20, but the latter verse does not show the combination of ‫ פרה‬and ‫רבה‬. 75 Cf. GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 241; DAVIES, ‘Transition’, 63. 76 Cf. n. 3 above.

152

Detlef Jericke

The text of Gen 50:24‒25 has many direct allusions to the exodus narrative. The predicted death of Joseph is reported in both Gen 50:26 and Exod 1:6. The combination of the term ‫ פקד‬with the names of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob has its counterpart in Exod 3:16.77 The idea of the promise of the land as an oath sworn by YHWH to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob/Israel is found in the context of the Moses story (Exod 32:13; 33:1).78 Joseph’s request to have his bones carried up “from here” (Gen 50:25), i.e., out of Egypt, opens a wider horizon extending into the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua. The fulfillment of Joseph’s request is reported in Exod 13:19 and Josh 24:32. Therefore, most commentators distinguish here a comprehensive redaction with a hexateuchal horizon.79 The short passage in Gen 50:24‒25 is difficult to interpret solely within the narrative logic of the Joseph novella. Within the Joseph novella, Joseph becomes a real Egyptian: He marries the daughter of an Egyptian priest (Gen 41:45; cf. Gen 41:50; 46:20), he dies in Egypt and he is embalmed and placed in a coffin according to Egyptian customs (Gen 50:26). Therefore, there seems to be no motivation for his request to come back to Canaan. Thus, the two verses in Gen 50:24‒25 cannot be understood adequately without the knowledge of the exodus narrative. Indeed, they are a “prolepsis”80 of the exodus or even the “announcement of the exodus and entry into the land”.81 Although some commentators postulate a close connection between Gen 50:26 and the two preceding verses (vv. 24–25),82 the notice of Joseph’s death and his subsequent treatment according to Egyptian customs is in line with the whole Joseph novella, where Joseph gradually becomes a “real” Egyptian. Gen 50:26 functions very well without the knowledge of an exodus from Egypt into Canaan.83 The mention of Joseph’s death in Exod 1:6 is at best a back-reference to the end of the Joseph novella.84

77

BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 133. Cf. BLUM,‘Verbindung’, 141; SCHMID, ‘Genesis in the Pentateuch’, 37‒40. 79 “Hexateuchbearbeitung” (BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 151); “Hexateuchrahmen” (BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 42‒43); “Hexateuchhorizont” (SCHMID, ‘Genesis in the Pentateuch’, 35‒36). 80 BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 151 (“Prolepse”). 81 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 41‒42 (“Ankündigung von Exodus und Landnahme”). He points to Gen 48:21, a verse that has some parallels in Gen 50:24; however, the verbal references to the exodus narrative are not as clear as in Gen 50:24. 82 GERTZ, ‘Transition’, 79‒82; IDEM, ‘Zusammenhang’, 244‒245, with further references. 83 The embalming of Joseph, for example, is foreshadowed by the embalming of Jacob (Gen 50:2). 84 Exod 1:8 is often cited in close connection to Exod 1:6 as further proof of the crossreferences between Gen 50:24‒26 and Exod 1. However, Exod 1:8 says nothing of Joseph’s death; it merely presupposes that he is no longer present. 78

I. 3.2. Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis

153

4. An alternative exodus Gen 50:1‒14 can be read as the story of an alternative exodus. In accordance with Jacob’s request (Gen 50:5; cf. Gen 48:21), his corpse is transferred into the land of Canaan. The starting point is the land of Egypt (Gen 50:7). The final destination, the land of Canaan (Gen 50:13), is reached through two intermediate stations. The first is the land of Goshen, where Joseph’s brothers leave their children and their herds (Gen 50:8). The second stop is a place that seems to be located in the Egyptian-Canaanite border region. The site is called Goren-Atad (“the threshing floor of Atad”, Gen 50:10‒11) or Abelmizraim (“mourning of Egypt” or “brook of Egypt”, Gen 50:11). The toponyms are unique in the Hebrew Bible.85 If the toponym Abel-mizraim has some connection86 to the “brook of Egypt” at the southern border of Canaan (cf. Num 34:5; Josh 15:4),87 the place is imagined to be on the normal route from Egypt to Canaan, the so-called way of Horus along the northern shore of the Sinai peninsula and the Mediterranean coast of Palestine.88 It means that there is no detour through the wilderness or through the region east of the Jordan as in the Moses story. The sole indication of a connection to the Moses story is the statement that Goren-Atad/Abel-mizraim is “beyond the Jordan” ‫( בעבר הירדן‬Gen 50:10‒11). The formula is often used in the book of Numbers and in Deuteronomy.89 In Gen 50, the phrase presumably describes the land west of the Jordan, i.e., the land of Canaan.90 Joseph, his relatives and the dead Jacob move freely, without any obstacle, from Egypt into the land of Canaan. In this respect, the “exodus story” of Gen 50 is a continuation of the toponymic construction of the entire Joseph novella. At the beginning, Joseph comes as a slave from Canaan (cf. Gen 37:1) into Egypt (Gen 37:25, 28). His brothers travel three times unhindered from Canaan into Egypt (and back) until they settle down in the land of Goshen. At the end, Joseph and his brethren undertake the journey once more as free men from one country to the other and back. The story in Gen 50:1‒14 is structured by the use of the verbs ‫“( עלה‬to go up”) and ‫“( שוב‬to come back”). Joseph cites Jacob’s request to go up into the land of Canaan; at the same time, Joseph asserts that he himself will come back (Gen 50:5). Pharaoh allows them to go up (v. 6) and they go (‫ עלה‬twice 85

JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 242‒243. It has at least a sort of homonymous permeability. 87 The “brook of Egypt” can be identified with Wādī Ġazze north of Rafia or with Wādī el-‘Arīš running south of Rafia; cf. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 143‒145. 88 OREN, ‘Way of Horus’; JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 152‒153. It is the “way of the land of the Philistines” (Exod 13:17). In post-biblical times, the route was called via maris. 89 The meaning is ambiguous. “Beyond the Jordan” can describe the region to the east or to the west of the river Jordan; cf. JERICKE, ‘Ort’. 90 JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 85‒87. 86

154

Detlef Jericke

in v. 7). In the end, Joseph comes back together with his brothers “who had gone up with him” (Gen 50:14). There is a constant “to and fro” between Egypt and Canaan.91 The story in Gen 50:1‒14 shows some analogies to the story of the alternative exodus of Abraham and Sarah (Gen 12:10‒13:2). In both cases, Egyptian officials escort the ancestral families. However, whereas Gen 12:20 mentions only the pharaoh’s “men”, in Gen 50 nearly the whole royal court is listed (Gen 50:7), including chariots and horsemen (v. 9). Together, they perform “a very great and sorrowful lamentation” at Goren-Atad/Abel-mizraim (Gen 50:10). The major difference between Gen 12 and Gen 50 is that the alternative exodus in Gen 50 concerns Jacob/Israel alone.92 In Gen 12, all members of Abraham’s family abandon Egypt forever, while in Gen 50 it is only the dead Jacob/Israel who rests in Canaan, where he is buried in the family tomb at Machpelah (Gen 50:13). His sons come back to Egypt (Gen 50:14).93 In this respect, Gen 50:1‒14 corresponds to the narrative aim of the Joseph novella, opting for a lasting residency in the Egyptian diaspora. In light of the alternative exodus story in Gen 50:1‒14, one should reinterpret Gen 50:24‒25. The cross-references between Gen 48:21, 50:5 and 50:24 presented above suggest that Joseph’s words are meant in the sense of an action similar to Jacob’s funerary cortège described in Gen 50:1‒14. It is difficult to imagine that Gen 50:24–25 refer to an exodus like that of the Israelites under Moses, so long-standing, intricate, dangerous and full of obstacles. Thus, nearly all of Gen 50 presents the story of an alternative exodus without the difficulties of the later exodus of the Israelites. The early reception in post-biblical times tries to establish a closer link between the traditions of Gen 50 and the Moses story or the subsequent conquest narratives in the book of Joshua. Eusebius of Caesarea (early 4th century C.E.) localizes the place of the funeral service, named Goren-Atad or Abel-mizraim in Gen 50:10‒11 and Ἅλων Ἀτάδ by Eusebius himself (Ono-

91 The close connection of ‫ עלה‬and ‫ שוב‬underscores the character of the Joseph novella as a diaspora novella encouraging the Jews of Persian or Hellenistic times to live in Egypt. On the characterization of the Joseph novella as a diaspora novella see now RÖMER, ‘Joseph Story’, with older bibliographic references; cf. also GREIFENHAGEN, ‘Pentateuch’. 92 If one includes the initial reference to Canaan (Gen 50:5), then the topographic setting in Gen 50 depicts both an eisodus into Egypt and an exodus from there; cf. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 246‒248. 93 SCHMID, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 103‒104, has argued that the verse, together with v. 7b and v. 8b, should be regarded as a secondary addition to an originally independent prePriestly Joseph story. WÖHRLE, Fremdlinge, 129‒130, demonstrates that such an assumption is not necessary; cf. JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 256‒257; see also the discussion of the status of Gen 50:14 by GERTZ, ‘Transition’, 77‒79, and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 18‒20.

I. 3.2. Exodus Material in the Book of Genesis

155

masticon 8:17‒19), near Jericho at the bank of the Jordan River.94 He equates the place with Beth-hoglah (Βηθαγλα), a site that is considered to be located on the western bank of the Jordan near the confluence of the river into the Dead Sea (Josh 15:6; 18:19, 21).95 The mosaic map of Madaba shows the same location of Ἅλων Ἀτάθ ἡ νυν Βηθαγλα (6/7th century C.E.).96 Thus, both documents from Byzantine times transfer the location of Gen 50 to the area where the Israelites under Joshua crossed the Jordan (Josh 1‒5). Eusebius was possibly aware of the translocation, since he locates Beth-hoglah in Josh 15:6 between Eleutheropolis and Gaza, not far from the Mediterranean coast (Onomasticon 48:18–20).97 It is in this region where the place mentioned in Gen 50:10‒11 can be assumed to be. Although Eusebius’ translocations could be interpreted as examples of confusion of biblical traditions, they very closely combine the “original” location of Gen 50:10‒11 and the area of the conquest narratives in the book of Joshua. Thus, both the Onomasticon of Eusebius and the mosaic map of Madaba demonstrate that in early Christian times the story of Gen 50 was understood as a real exodus- and conquest narrative.

F. Conclusion The exodus materials in the book of Genesis are mainly found in the Abraham story and in the Joseph novella. There are two alternative exodus stories: the first story of the endangered ancestress (Gen 12:10‒13:2) and the story of Jacob’s funeral cortège (Gen 50:1‒14). Their alternative character is determined by the fact that Israel’s ancestors come from Egypt into Canaan with the active help of the pharaoh and without any obstacle, in contrast to the intricate exodus of the later Israelites under Moses. There are also other variants of the exodus theme: a “subversive” exodus story (Gen 14) and an antitypical exodus narrative (Gen 16). Furthermore, several isolated crossreferences seem to construct verbal links between the ancestral narratives and the exodus story: the “four hundred years” and the reference to the “fourth generation” in Gen 15, some place names in the Joseph novella and some phrases in Gen 50:24‒25. Nevertheless, usually these cross-references are slightly modified in the book of Genesis. Therefore, one can conclude that the 94

Cf. NOTLEY/SAFRAI, Place Names, 9‒10, no. 11 (“three miles from Jericho and about two miles from the Jordan”). 95 Presumably near the spring of ʽAin Ḥaglā (Palestine Grid 1985.1373); cf. KELLERMANN et al., ‘Palästina’; JERICKE/SCHMITT, ‘Palästina’. 96 DONNER, Mosaic Map, 46. 97 At a village named Agla (cf. NOTLEY/SAFRAI, Place Names, 50, no. 221). The place can be found at Ḫirbet ʽAǧlān (Palestine Grid 1238.1089); cf. JERICKE/SCHMITT, ‘Palästina’.

156

Detlef Jericke

authors of the ancestral narratives had their own conceptions of an exodus from Egypt into Canaan. They used selective narrative elements from the Moses story but constructed new and “alternative” tales, in contrast to the Moses story and the conquest traditions of the book of Joshua. In particular, the authors of Gen 11:27‒50:26 present the idea of a peaceful exodus in strong cooperation with the court of the pharaoh. Whereas the cooperation between Abraham and “his” pharaoh ends with his return to Canaan, the Joseph novella opts for both a peaceful exodus and a long-standing residency in Egypt.98

98

These variations point to different dates of origin for the Abraham story and the Joseph novella; cf. my proposals concerning the Abraham story (Persian period) and the Joseph novella (Hellenistic) in JERICKE, Ortsangaben, 178‒179, 258‒259.

Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus Explicit Back References Wolfgang Oswald The following considerations aim at giving a comprehensive overview of those elements in the book of Exodus that constitute an explicit back reference to the book of Genesis. The term “explicit” means that structural and typolocigal equivalents will not be covered. The issues under investigation will be references (A.) to the twelve sons of Jacob or the twelve tribes of Israel respectively, (B.) to the patriarchal triad, namely Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, (C.) to Joseph and elements from the Joseph story and (D.) to the creation account in Gen 1:1–2:4.

A. The Twelve Sons of Jacob or the Twelve Tribes of Israel Generally, the twelve, both the sons and the tribes, play only a minor role in the book of Exodus. This stands in sharp contrast to the book of Genesis, where these two notions are central.1 1. The twelve sons of Jacob The book of Exodus opens with a list of the sons of Jacob framed by some additional remarks (Exod 1:1–5): 1

These are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt with Jacob, each with his household: 2 Reuben, Simeon, Levi and Judah, 3 Issachar, Zebulun and Benjamin, 4 Dan and Naphtali, Gad and Asher. 5 The total number of people born to Jacob was seventy. Joseph was already in Egypt.

In the book of Genesis, there are three passages which provide some sort of register of the twelve sons of Jacob. The first one (Gen 35:23–26a) is located at the conclusion of the Jacob story proper and lists only the names. The second one (Gen 46:8–27) is an excursus on the clan of Jacob in the Joseph story and additionally provides the names of the sons of the twelve and the number 1 These are not merely two stages of development but two divergent conceptions; see UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 62.

158

Wolfgang Oswald

of persons in each of the sons’ families. The third text is the so-called blessing of Jacob in Gen 49:3–27. The sequence in which the sons appear in Exod 1:2–4 is identical to Gen 35:23–26a. However, the number of persons in the house of Jacob is only provided twice, namely, in Gen 46:27 and in Exod 1:5, and in each case the number totals to seventy.2 For one who has already read the book of Genesis, the opening verses of the book of Exodus provide no new information. They may be characterized as a resumptive summary – not of Genesis as a whole – but of its outcome. Diachronically, the first list of the sons of Jacob in Gen 35:23–26a could have been the concluding paragraph of the original Jacob story. But it may also be regarded as a Priestly addition, since the continuation in Gen 35:26b– 29 is clearly Priestly. In contrast, Gen 46:6–7, 8–27 is undoubtedly a Priestly insertion into the Joseph story. Most remarkably, the headline “These are the names of the sons of Israel who came to Egypt” appears verbatim in Gen 46:8 and Exod 1:1. Thus, the initial paragraph of the book of Exodus depends on Gen 46:6–7, 8–27, which means it is either of Priestly or post-Priestly origin. And indeed, these two possibilities have been proposed many times in the history of research.3 But the question remains why this obviously redundant paragraph was inserted at this point of the narrative. It may well have to do with the division of scrolls. A book of Genesis containing the primeval history, the ancestral stories and the Joseph story including the Priestly additions to all these parts and the book of Exodus with all its Priestly additions would certainly not have fit on one scroll. When the Priestly authors restructured the Exodus story to be a continuation of the Joseph story – which was not the case in the early stages of its literary development – they decided to keep both on separate scrolls. In order to make the newly established book sequence more readable, they inserted Exod 1:1–5 as a resumptive paragraph. Alternatively, if one holds to a different model of the literary development of the Pentateuch, one may assume that the pre-Priestly “Yahwistic” narrative from creation to the Mountain of God once fit on one scroll. But when the non-Priestly and the Priestly sources were combined, the Pentateuch redactor had to split the narrative onto two scrolls and wrote Exod 1:1–5 in order to bridge the gap.

2 3

See the discussion in part I, section 2.2. of this volume. SCHMIDT, Exodus, 1. Teilband, 11; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 125; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 62.

I. 3.2. Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus: Explicit Back References

159

2. The twelve tribes of Israel The twelve sons are never mentioned again by name in the book of Exodus, except in Exod 1:6, where they are referred to summarily: “Then Joseph died, and all his brothers, and that whole generation.” The twelve tribes of Israel are mentioned by name nowhere in the book of Exodus, although their names are implied in Exod 28:21 and 39:14. Exodus 28:15–30 is part of the instructions for making the Priestly vestment, here the “breastplate of judgment” (‫)חשׁן המשׁפט‬, whereas Exod 39:1–31 relate the execution of the instructions. The breastplate is supposed to have twelve gemstones: Exod 28:21

There shall be twelve stones with names corresponding to the names of the sons of Israel. They shall be like signets, each engraved with its name, for the twelve tribes.

The only other place where the twelve tribes are mentioned is Exod 24:4: And Moses wrote down all the words of Yahweh. He rose early in the morning, and built an altar at the foot of the mountain and twelve pillars, corresponding to the twelve tribes of Israel.

Here, the twelve tribes of Israel are referred to without any names given. This is also the case in Josh 3:12; 4:2, 4, 8. Diachronically, all texts covered above except for Exod 24:4 belong to the Priestly strand of the Pentateuch. This is what one would expect, since the Priestly texts comprise the entire Pentateuch, including the ancestral stories. On the other hand, in the pre-Priestly text in the book of Exodus the twelve sons and the twelve tribes play almost no role. According to the “fragmentary hypothesis” for the formation of the Pentateuch, this is no surprise, since in this model the pre-Priestly ancestral stories and the pre-Priestly narrative in the book of Exodus were two distinct literary entities with divergent conceptions about Israel. Contrary to the ancestral stories in the book of Genesis, the pre-Priestly narrative in Exodus as well as Deuteronomy and the conquest story of the book of Joshua conceive of Israel as a unified people in which the tribal subdivision serves only symbolic purposes. There are twelve steles at the mountain of God and there are twelve stones in Gilgal, but there are no twelve tribes acting distinctively. 3. The single tribes of Israel Of the twelve tribes of Israel, only three of them – Levi, Judah and Dan – are mentioned individually by name in the book of Exodus. Judah and Dan are the tribes from which the craftsmen originate who build the tent shrine. The chief artisan is “Bezalel, son of Uri son of Hur, of the tribe of Judah” (Exod 31:2; 35:30; 38:22), and his assistant is “Oholiab son of Ahisamach, of the tribe of Dan” (Exod 31:6; 35:34; 38:23).

160

Wolfgang Oswald

The references to Levi are diverse. In Exod 2:1, Moses’ father and mother are introduced as Levites. In Exod 4:14 Aaron, the brother of Moses, is also introduced as a Levite. The references in Exod 6:16, 19, 25 are part of the genealogy of the Levites. The short episode in Exod 32:26–29 relates the introduction of the Levites into their office as priests. The last reference to Levi is Exod 38:21, the headline to the accounting of the materials for the tent shrine (38:21–31). Diachronically, most of these references belong to the Priestly portion of the book of Exodus, in particular the genealogy of the Levites, the account of Bezalel and Oholiab and the headline in Exod 38:21. The investiture of the Levites in Exod 32:26–29 is definitely not Priestly, but opinions diverge widely over its provenance. It may be Deuteronomistic, since in Deuteronomy the Levites occupy the office of the priests,4 but some associate it with the Chronistic esteem of the Levites.5 Exod 4:14 certainly belongs to a postPriestly strand, since here the Levites, represented by their ancestor Aaron, occupy the office of teachers of the people (compare Neh 8:7–9, 11).6 Exodus 2:1 is unclear; it may be part of the original Exodus story but could also be a later emendation in order to align the descent of Moses with the descent of Aaron. These various references to Judah, Dan and Levi have one thing in common: They have nothing to do with their namesakes in the book of Genesis except for their names. Nothing of what is said about Judah, Dan and Levi in the book of Exodus is based on any kind of information from the book of Genesis. Notably, neither the role of the Levites as priests in the Deuteronomistic texts nor their role as assistants of the Aaronidic priests in the Priestly texts is prefigured in the book of Genesis.

B. The Patriarchal Triad The term “patriarchal triad” refers to passages in which the three ancestors Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are named consecutively and are conceived as a three-part unit. In one instance (Exod 32:13), the third of the ancestors is called “Israel” instead of “Jacob”. The patriarchal triad appears in three distinct theological contexts: 1) the epiphany of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, 2) the divine covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and 3) the oath sworn by God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

4

BLUM, Studien, 206. KONKEL, Sünde, 164–165; ALBERTZ, Ex 19–40, 279. 6 BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 135–136; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 133–136; ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 89–93; UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 135–140. 5

I. 3.2. Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus: Explicit Back References

161

1. The god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob In the scene at the Mountain of God, Yahweh, the God of Israel, introduces himself to Moses with the words: Exod 3:6

And he said: “I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob.”

Later, Yahweh sends Moses first to the Israelites and then to the elders of Israel: Exod 3:15

God also said to Moses: “Thus you shall say to the Israelites: ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has sent me to you.’ This is my name forever, and this my appellation for all generations. 16 Go and assemble the elders of Israel, and say to them: ‘Yahweh, the God of your fathers, has appeared to me, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, saying: […]’”

In order to secure the success of Moses’ mission to the Israelites, God commands him to perform a miracle with his rod, Exod 4:5

“[…] so that they may believe that Yahweh, the God of their fathers, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob, has appeared to you.”

The three preceding references obviously belong together. The problem is that Moses cannot identify the God who is talking to him and also does not know the name of this God. Therefore, God introduces himself to Moses and reveals his name to him, so that Moses can prove to the people and to the elders that he has encountered the right God, not an alien God but the traditional God of Israel. God identifies himself in a threefold manner. First, he reveals his name, Yahweh, to Moses. Second, he claims to be the God of Moses’ father and the God of the Israelites’ ancestors, respectively. Third, he is the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The identification as the “God of one’s father” can be found elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible (Gen 49:25; Exod 15:2; 18:4) and means “traditional god”. The identification as “the god of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob” is of a different quality. This statement is much more specific and links the speaker to a certain tradition. The fourth passage to discuss is Exod 6:2–3: 2

And God spoke to Moses and said to him: “I am Yahweh. 3 I appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob as El Shadday, but by my name Yahweh I did not make myself known to them.”

This is the central explication of the Priestly conception of revelation.7 In the Priestly primeval history, there is only “God” without any name. In the Priestly parts of the ancestral stories, God introduces himself to the fathers as “El Shadday” (Gen 17:1; 35:11; 48:3; but see also 28:3; 43:14; 49:25). And it 7 SCHMIDT, Exodus, 1. Teilband, 270–280; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 266–268; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 161–168.

162

Wolfgang Oswald

is only when Israel has grown into a people that God reveals his proper name “Yahweh” and his plans for Israel. The difference between Exod 3:6, 15–16; 4:5 on the one hand and Exod 6:3 on the other is clear: The former passages emphazise the continuity between the God of the patriarchs and the God Moses and the Israelites, whereas in the latter there is both continuity and discontinuity. Diachronically, Exod 6:3 is Priestly, as already discussed above. The other passages are certainly non-Priestly, but their relative chronology is a matter of debate. To keep things simple, only three possibilities will be outlined here. Within the framework of the Documentary Hypothesis, Exod 3:6, 15–16; 4:5 are usually considered to be part of one of the early sources;8 moreover, these back references are regarded as key components of the overarching composition. But then again, the references to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob have been considered as late insertions.9 In this view, the original identification of God comprised only the name “Yahweh” and the apposition “the god of your father(s)”. The patriarchal triad always appears as the last of the three identifying elements and is in a way unnecessary, because for the sake of identification the name and the reference to the God of the father(s) would be sufficient. In Exod 3:16 the case is fairly clear: The patriarchal triad does not immediately follow “the god of your fathers”; rather, the verbal phrase “has appeared to me” stands between the two appositions. A third way to construe the patriarchal triad does not regard it as a backreference to the narratives in the book of Genesis at all. Rather, it is understood as a reference to a well-known tradition.10 This opinion is supported by the fact that Exod 3:6, 15–16; 4:5 do not hint at a particular event in the life of the patriarchs. Whereas in Exod 6:3 Yahweh is the God who appeared to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, in the non-Priestly instances he is just the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 2. The covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob Two times in the book of Exodus a covenant between God and the three patriarchs is remembered. In Exod 2:24 God reacts to the oppression of the Israelites: God heard their groaning, and God remembered his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

In Exod 6:4–5 God himself refers back to 2:24 and to his covenant:

8

SCHMIDT, Exodus, 1. Teilband, 109; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 190–194. LEVIN, Jahwist, 332; RÖMER, ‘Exodus 3–4’; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 105. 10 BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 130; UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 120. 9

I. 3.2. Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus: Explicit Back References

163

4

“I also established my covenant with them, to give them the land of Canaan, the land in which they resided as aliens. 5 I have also heard the groaning of the Israelites whom the Egyptians are holding as slaves, and I have remembered my covenant.”

There are some peculiarities about these two passages. First, there are two covenants in the ancestral stories, and in both Abraham is the recipient (Gen 15; 17), but there is no covenant with Isaac and no covenant with Jacob. However, the covenant in Gen 17 explicitly includes Abraham’s descendents (Gen 17:7, 19, 21). Thus, the Priestly text in Gen 17 is the point of reference for Exod 2:24 and 6:4–5, which are themselves Priestly texts according to almost any pentateuchal theory. Therefore, one can say that the connection between the patriarchs and the people of Israel via the motif of the covenant is an exclusive feature of the Priestly strand (whether construed as a source or a redaction). This idea occurs one more time in the Pentateuch, in Lev 26:42, which is commonly considered to be either a late Priestly or a late redactional text. 3. The Oath to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob The motif of an oath sworn by God to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob appears several times in the Pentateuch, with three occurrences in the book of Exodus. The first instance is part of the very same speech of God (Exod 6:2–8) in which the motif of the epiphany to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob (6:3) and the motif of the covenant with the three patriarchs (6:4–5) appears. Exod 6:8 reads: “And I will bring you into the land for which I raised my hand (for an oath) to give it to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. I will give it to you for a possession. I am Yahweh.”

The second occurance belongs to the intercession prayer of Moses after the golden calf incident: Exod 32:13

“Remember Abraham, Isaac and Israel, your servants, to whom you swore by your very self, saying to them: ‘I will make your descendants as many as the stars in the sky. And I will give all this land I have spoken about to your descendants; and they will possess it forever.’”

The third instance is part of a divine speech in which God commands Moses and the Israelites to move on to the promised land: Exod 33:1

Yahweh said to Moses: “Go, leave this place, you and the people whom you have brought up out of the land of Egypt, and go to the land of which I swore to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, saying: ‘To your descendants I will give it.’”

The most peculiar aspect about these references is that in the promissory speeches in the book of Genesis, the motif of the oath never appears. There, it is a promise given to each of the patriarchs (Gen 13:15–17; 26:3; 28:13), not

164

Wolfgang Oswald

an oath. In Exodus, it is an oath given to them altogether. This is a noticeable reconceptualization of the matter. Diachronically, one must again distinguish between the Priestly passage in Exod 6:8 and the two non-Priestly instances in Exod 32:13 and 33:1. The difference is already apparent in light of the terminology used exclusively in Exod 6:8: “To raise one’s hand” as a circumlocution for “to take an oath”. The dialogue between God and Moses on the mountain – including Moses’ intercession in Exod 32:9–14 – is usually considered to be either a Deuteronomistic11 or a post-Priestly insertion.12 The golden calf incident is not mentioned in it. It could stand anywhere in the Pentateuch, and indeed, Moses’ intercessory prayer in Num 14:11–25 is very similar. The diachronic status of Exod 33:1 is much disputed, as are large parts of Exod 33–34. Here, the communication structure of Exod 33:1–4 is significant. Moses is not the transmitter of the divine speech to the people as, e.g., in Exod 33:5–6. Rather, the people witness Yahweh’s speech to Moses, they understand what Yahweh says and take the appropriate steps on their own. This manner of communication between God and the people can also be found in Exod 19:9, 19b and, with slight variation, in Exod 33:7–11. All of these passages may be assessed as post-Priestly, since they presuppose and at the same time contradict the Priestly communication structure with Moses as mediator between God and the people.13 To corroborate the late dating one may think again of the apparent reconceptualization from promise to oath, which distinguishes the source texts from their reception in the book of Exodus. Yahweh’s oath to give the land to the Israelites occurs many times without reference to the patriarchal triad, particularly in Deuteronomy. In the book of Exodus, this variant occurs twice (Exod 13:5, 11). Exod 13:5 reads: “When Yahweh brings you into the land of the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Amorites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, which he swore to your fathers to give you, a land flowing with milk and honey, you shall keep this observance in this month.”

Exodus 13:5 and 13:11 are both Deuteronomistic texts,14 and in this context the fathers are not the patriarchs but instead the exodus generation. This correlation is also applicable for the pertinent instances in Deuteronomy. Consequently, this means that in Deuteronomistic and pre-Deuteronomistic contexts references to the patriarchal triad are always a later insertion (see above B.1). In Priestly contexts such references are original; what is more, it was Priestly authors who first established this connection. The post-Priestly scribes took 11

NOTH, Exodus, 200. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 153–154; for ALBERTZ, Ex 19–40, 261, only v. 13 is late. 13 OSWALD, Staatstheorie, 222–224; KONKEL, Sünde, 168–170, with a different argumentation. 14 UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 280–288. 12

I. 3.2. Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus: Explicit Back References

165

up this idea and continued its use. Needless to say, different pentateuchal models provide alternative explanations for these findings.

C. Joseph Although there is a book division between them, the Joseph story and the Exodus story are juxtaposed. One might expect a strong connection between the two narratives, but the commonalities and interconnections are relatively limited. 1. Joseph’s death and Joseph’s bones The initial paragraph of the book Exodus (Exod 1:1–5) does not primarily build on the Joseph story but instead on the Priestly presentation of the twelve families in Gen 46:8–27 (see above A.1). Only the concluding phrase “Joseph was already in Egypt” picks up the Joseph story. The second paragraph reports the deaths of Joseph, his brothers and their contemporaries (Exod 1:6). This is the second time that Joseph’s death is reported, since Gen 50:26 has already provided this information. The next verse (Exod 1:7) relates the proliferation of the Israelites (see below D.1). Finally, Exod 1:8 states “And a new king arose over Egypt, who did not know Joseph.” Why “finally”? Because this statement forms the transition from the Joseph story to the exodus story. The good relations between Egypt and the Israelites are not only gone but forgotten. The second-most powerful man in Egypt, Joseph, has not only died, but his powerful position has completely fallen into oblivion. There is a new Pharaoh who has no idea at all of what has happened under his predecessor. This is not just an ordinary sequence of events like in any other narrative but a complete metamorphosis. Within a few sentences, there is a new set of protagonists; what is more, the evaluation of the protagonists and of the relations between them has changed.15 The only aspect of Joseph to be remembered are his bones. Yet this motif does not stem from the Joseph story proper but instead from a set of short notices that span from the book of Genesis to the book of Joshua. In Gen 33:18–20, Jacob purchases a plot of land near Shechem and erects an altar on it. At the very end of the book of Genesis (Gen 50:25–26), Joseph has the Israelites swear to carry his bones with them when they leave Egypt. Exodus 13:19 narrates the execution of Joseph’s wish. Finally, in Josh 24:32, Joseph’s bones are buried in the ground near Shechem, which Jacob had previously acquired. 15

SCHMID, Erzväter, 69–70; UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 57–62.

166

Wolfgang Oswald

The aim of this sequence of small notes is apparently to legitimize the cultic site near Shechem. In the mid-fifth century B.C.E., the Samaritans built a sanctuary on Mount Gerizim near Shechem, and the tradition that Joseph’s bones are buried on its premises gave this new cultic site increased legitimacy. 2. Further elements from the Joseph story? One may ask if there are further elements from the Joseph story which reappear in the book of Exodus. One candidate is the “land of Goshen”. In the Joseph story, this is the region where the Israelites settle (Gen 45:10; 46:28, 29, 34; 47:1, 4, 6, 27; 50:8). In the plague cycle, this toponym occurs twice, first in the plague of flies in Exod 8:18 and again in the plague of hail in Exod 9:26. In both verses, Goshen is the land where the Israelites live. But apart from stating the toponym nothing more is said. There is no explicit link to the events of the Joseph story such as “where the Pharaoh had settled them” or the like.16 Both verses, Exod 8:18 and 9:26, are part of the so-called distinction motif which appears in five of the plagues: flies, the plague on livestock, hail, darkness and the death of the firstborn. In these cases, Yahweh makes a distinction between Egypt and Israel, so that the plague only afflicts the Egyptians, while the Israelites are spared. The distinction motif appears in the Priestly and non-Priestly strands of the plague cycle. In the plague of flies (Exod 8:16–28), the distinction motif seems to belong to the basic non-Priestly narrative, as does the toponym “Goshen”. Likewise, Exod 9:26 may be assigned to the basic non-Priestly strand, although it could also be understood as a continuation of the Priestly verse Exod 9:25. This verse reinforces the force and the extent of the hailstorm, and therefore the exemption of the Israelite areas of settlement is a natural countermove. For a reader of the received text of the Pentateuch, the occurrence of “Goshen” is a clear backlink to the Joseph story. But was it meant to be so by the author/redactor who wrote Exod 8:18? If we assume a Priestly author, the answer may surely be yes. But if we assume a pre-Priestly author, the answer depends on which model one adopts for the formation of the Pentateuch. In the framework of the Documentary Hypothesis, the answer is again yes. In the framework of a block model or fragmentary hypothesis, in which Genesis and Exodus were two distinct literary works in pre-Priestly times, the answer may be negative. Because of its vagueness, it may well be a reference to an oral tradition. 16 The various possibilities for understanding the toponym in Exod 8:18 are outlined in UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 216.

I. 3.2. Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus: Explicit Back References

167

Deviating from this, in Gen 47:11, a Priestly or post-Priestly insertion into the Joseph story,17 the land of settlement of the Israelites is called “Rameses”. This seems to be a somewhat anachronistic cataphora to the city of Rameses (Exod 1:11) which the Israelites are forced to build as corvée workers.18 Another possible backlink to the book of Genesis is Exod 8:22. In response to the Pharaoh’s proposal to sacrifice in the land of Egypt, Moses says: “It would not be right to do so, because what we sacrifice Yahweh our God is an abomination to the Egyptians. If before their very eyes we sacrifice what they consider an abomination, will they not stone us?”

In Genesis, there are two instances in which certain aspects of interaction with the Israelites are said to be an abomination to the Egyptians: Gen 43:32bβγ

… because the Egyptians could not eat with the Hebrews, for that is an abomination to the Egyptians. Gen 46:34

“… ‘Your servants have been keepers of livestock from our youth even until now, both we and our ancestors.’ This will ensure that you may settle in the land of Goshen, because all shepherds are an abomination to the Egyptians.”

What is the problem for the Egyptians? In Gen 43:32 it is communal meals with the Israelites, in Gen 46:34 it is their occupation as shepherds and in Exod 8:22 it is the way the Israelites sacrifice their God. The common denominator is that there is something about the Israelites the Egyptians consider to be abhorrent. Yet the two objections from the Joseph story – meals and shepherding – are not taken up again in the book of Exodus. Thus, Exod 8:22, which is part of the pre-Priestly plague cycle, is an uncertain case.

D. The First Creation Account Two motifs from the first creation account in Gen 1:1–2:4 reappear in the book of Exodus, namely, the blessing of multiplication and the six-plus-one day structure. 1. The blessing of multiplication After the creation of humans, God bestows a multi-part blessing on them: Gen 1:28

God blessed them, and God said to them: “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.”

17 18

WESTERMANN, Genesis, 3. Teilband, 191, opts for P, LEVIN, Jahwist, 306, for post-P. HOUTMAN, Exodus, vol. 1, 126.

168

Wolfgang Oswald

First of all, this is not a “multiplication command” as it is often misunderstood, but a multiplication blessing. And this blessing is repeated with respect to humankind in Gen 9:1, 7 and with respect to the patriarchs and their progeny in Gen 17:6; 28:3; 35:11; 48:8; Lev 26:9. First Gen 47:27bβ and then Exod 1:7 narrate some sort of fulfillment of the blessing: Gen 47:27abα

Thus Israel settled in the land of Egypt, in the land of Goshen, and they acquired possessions in it. 27bβ And they were fruitful and multiplied very much. Exod 1:7

But the Israelites were fruitful and prolific. They multiplied and grew very, very strong, so that the land was filled with them.

As far as terminology is concerned, the interconnections are extraordinarily strong. The keywords “to be fruitful”, “to multiply” and “to fill the land/earth (‫ ”)ארץ‬stem from Gen 1:28. The adverbial phrase “very, very” (‫ )במאד מאד‬is from the blessing to Abraham (Gen 17:6). The many agreements are no surprise, since all these texts are commonly considered to be of Priestly provenance. The difference between Gen 1 on the one hand and Gen 47:27bβ and Exod 1:7 on the other is the subject in question: humankind in the creation account but Israel in Egypt. One could say that the promise for all humankind on the earth is fulfilled in exemplary fashion with the Israelites in the land of their settlement.19 2. The six-plus-one day structure The six-plus-one day structure is introduced in Gen 1:3–2:3 and taken up many times in the book of Exodus and in the subsequent books. But caution is required, since the six-plus-one day structure also occurs without any allusion to the creation account. Furthermore, it is notable that this motif predominantly appears in prescriptive texts. There are only two narrative texts which feature the six-plus-one day structure. The first is the well-known manna story in Exod 16. Whereas in Gen 1 the day of rest which will later be named Sabbath is built into creation, in Exod 16 Israel discovers the Sabbath while gathering the manna. And because the Sabbath is known to Israel beginning in Exod 16, the observance of the Sabbath can and will be commanded in the texts that follow. The second passage is Exod 24:15–18aα. Moses ascends Mount Sinai, where the glory of Yahweh dwells. The cloud covers the moutain for six days, and on the seventh day Yahweh calls to Moses from within the cloud. Then Moses enters the cloud to receive the instructions for the tent shrine. It is obvious that the Priestly writers intended to establish an analogy between creation and temple building, which is reinforced by the date of the erection of the tent shrine “on the first day of the first month” (Exod 40:2, 16–17). 19

SCHMID, Erzväter, 70; a different view is taken by BLUM, Komposition, 295 n. 28.

I. 3.2. Genesis Material in the Book of Exodus: Explicit Back References

169

The texts mandating the observance of the Sabbath are Exod 20:8–11; 31:12–17; 35:1–3 as well as Lev 19:3; 23:3; Num 15:32–36 outside the book of Exodus. All of these texts belong to the Priestly composition of the Pentateuch – or, as some may prefer, the Priestly source and its supplements. Mention should also be made of the six-plus-one texts without any connection to the creation story. Two of these are laws in the Covenant Code, the law in Exod 23:12 mandating a day of rest and the corresponding law in Exod 23:10–11 mandating a year of release. Two more are found in Deuteronomistic texts: the law mandating a day of rest in Exod 34:21 and, outside of Exodus, the Sabbath law in the version of the Decalogue found in Deut 5:12– 15.

E. Concluding Observations 1. What elements from Genesis are missing in Exodus? It might be interesting to cross-check the above findings. The most significant lacuna is the non-Priestly creation account as well as the stories of the Garden of Eden and of Cain and Abel (Gen 2–4). Considering the repeated references to Gen 1, this is a remarkable trait. But then again it is no surprise since references to Gen 2–4 are almost completely absent elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, nothing from the primeval history (Gen 1–11) except for the six-plus-one day structure and the blessing of multiplication from Gen 1 is taken up again in the book of Exodus. Further, we do not find any reference to a specific event in the patriarchal stories. In the case of God’s epiphany as well as his covenant and as his oath, the back-references in the book of Exodus synthesize several distinct events into a unified concept: God’s epiphany to, God’s covenant with and God’s oath to the patriarchs as a group. Only with regard to Joseph is there a one-toone reference: his sojourn in Egypt (Exod 1:5), his death (Exod 1:6) and the transfer of his bones (Exod 13:19). None of the female protagonists in the book of Genesis reappear in the book of Exodus, nor do any non-Israelites except for someone from the Joseph story: the Pharaoh, whose death is noted in Exod 1:6. 2. How is the material from Genesis taken up in Exodus? The manner in which the book of Exodus makes back-references to the book of Genesis – as well as the frequency and density of these references – is not uniform throughout the book. By far the highest density of references is found in Exod 1:1–8. Thereafter, explicit back-references are scarce and scattered.

170

Wolfgang Oswald

Diachronically, the Priestly literature stands out against all other literary strands or strata. The Priestly back-references surpass the rest both in quantity and quality. The post-Priestly cases are much fewer and focus on Abraham, Isaac, Jacob and Joseph. Whether there are back-references in the pre-Priestly literary strata or strands is uncertain and depends largely on the overall pentateuchal theory that one adopts. In any case, such references are few and are fairly insignificant.

Parallel Narrative Patterns between Exodus 1–14* and the Ancestral Stories in Genesis 24* and 29–31* Hans-Christoph Schmitt The pre-Priestly Exodus story in Exod 1–14* and the pre-Priestly Jacob story in Gen 29–31*1 show some remarkable common features: First, the beginning of the pre-Priestly story of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14:5a, 6, 9* exhibits close similarities with the episode of Laban’s pursuit of Jacob in Gen 31:22– 25*. Second, the pre-Priestly narrative of Moses’ encounter with his future wife at a well in Exod 2:15–22* resembles the “well narrative” at the beginning of the Jacob-Laban cycle in Gen 29*. Third, in the Abraham story another “well narrative” is found in Gen 24*. Can these parallel narratives between Exodus and Genesis be evidence for a common literary history of both books?

A. Exod 14:5a, 6, 9* and Gen 31:22–25* 1. Flight and pursuit in the pre-Priestly stories of the miracle at the sea and of the Jacob-Laban circle We begin with the story of the miracle at the sea. The pre-Priestly version of this narrative begins as follows (Exod 14:5a, 6, 9):2 5

When the king of Egypt was told that the people had fled, 6 he made ready his chariot, and took his people with him. 9 So the Egyptians pursued them and overtook them camping by the sea.3

1

In the following study, I reconstruct the pre-Priestly stratum of Exod 1–4*; 14* and of the Jacob-Laban cycle without distinguishing between earlier and later layers (e.g., between the so-called “Yahwistic”, “Elohistic” or Yehowistic” layers of classical pentateuchal criticism). 2 Corresponding expressions are underlined. The translation of biblical texts in this study generally follows the New King James Version. 3 It is difficult to find a connection between this oldest version of the exodus story which speaks of the “flight” of Israel out of Egypt (Exod 14:5a) and the previous story in Exod 1–13*. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 335, 403, assumes that in the oldest story of the exodus, Moses’ return to Egypt in Exod 4:20aβ was immediately followed by the departure of the Israelites in Exod 12:37a; 13:20, 21aα; 14:5a, 6. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 269, also

172

Hans-Christoph Schmitt

Now, in the Jacob-Laban cycle the episode of Laban’s pursuit of Jacob in Gen 31:22–25* shows a similar beginning: 22

Laban was told on the third day that Jacob had fled. 23 Then he took his kinsfolk with him and pursued him for seven days’ journey, and he caught up with him in the mountains of Gilead. […] 25 So Laban overtook Jacob.

It seems that the pre-Priestly beginning of the story of the miracle at the sea has influenced the composition of the Jacob story.4 Christoph Berner, however, has some doubts whether Exod 14:9aα belongs to the pre-Priestly version of Exod 14*.5 Since 14:9aßγb is a post-Priestly insertion, he regards 14:9aα as a post-Priestly addition as well. Yet the following observation points in a different direction: The Priestly and the post-Priestly layers of Exod 14:3–4, 5b, 8, 10aα call the pursuer “Pharaoh”, whereas Exod 14:9aα refers to “Egypt” like the pre-Priestly version in 14:5a, 6 (the king of Egypt and his people) and 14:10bα (the Egyptians were advancing on them). Therefore, Exod 14:9aα must be regarded as the continuation of the pre-Priestly stratum in Exod 14:5, 6.6 The similar expressions in the account of the pursuit of Jacob by Laban in Gen 31:22–25* also belong to a pre-Priestly stratum of the Jacob story.7 Thus, it is probable that the pre-Priestly narrative of the pursuit of Jacob by Laban in Gen 31:22–25* and the pre-Priestly version of the story of the miracle at the sea in Exod 14 were adjusted to each other, so that the divine intervention in the pursuit of Jacob appears as an anticipation of Yhwh’s intervention during the miracle at the sea. This assumption is confirmed by the following examination of the entire structure of the two pre-Priestly pursuit episodes in Exod 14:5–30* and Gen 31:17–42*.

reconstructs a later pre-Priestly layer of the story of the last plague (death of the firstborn) which reports an expulsion of Israel by the Egyptians without a dismissal by Pharaoh (12:29a, 30aβb, 33*) as an introduction to the account of Exod 14:5a, 6. Yet neither reconstruction is convincing: A departure or an “expulsion” of Israel cannot be identified with a “flight”. Perhaps Exod 14:5a refers to a version of the exodus story without plagues (cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 229–231, 303–304; SCHMITT, ‘Meerwunderbericht’, 44). 4 See WEIMAR/ZENGER, Exodus, 52; SCHMITT, ‘Erzväter- und Exodusgeschichte’, 256; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 344 n. 6. In a later study, BERNER, ‘Meerwunderbericht’, 15, assumes the opposite direction of influence, citing LEVIN, Jahwist, 239 n. 9, 341, who argues that the motif of flight in Exod 14* was taken up from Gen 31*. 5 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 344–346. 6 Cf. especially KRÜGER, ‘Erwägungen’, 527; ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 225; WAGNER, ‘Impulse’, 119, but also GERTZ, Tradition, 215–216. 7 Cf. RUPPERT, Genesis, 2. Teilband, 296.

I. 3.2. Parallel Narrative Patterns between Exod 1–14 and Gen 24; 29–31

173

2. The similar structure of the pre-Priestly narratives in Exod 14* and Gen 31* a. The pre-Priestly version of the sea miracle in Exod 14:5–30* In order to reconstruct the pre-Priestly version of the miracle, it is necessary to bracket out the Priestly8 and the post-Priestly passages9 of Exod 14. After that, verses 14:5a, 6, 9aα, 10bα, l3–14, 21aα2β, 24*, 25b, 27aα2βb, 3010 remain for the pre-Priestly version of Exod 14*. b. The pre-Priestly version of Laban’s pursuit of Jacob Gen 31:17–42* In the same way, we can attempt to reconstruct the pre-Priestly narrative of Gen 31:17–42* by bracketing out the Priestly and the post-Priestly passages. At first we have to exclude Gen 31:18aβb, which goes back to P.11 Secondly, the episode of Rachel’s theft of Laban’s teraphim12 (31:19b, 30b, 32–37*)13 must be regarded as a post-Priestly text. Originally, this teraphim narrative was a sort of folkloric farce;14 in the present context, however, it is used for a theological derision of foreign gods in the manner of Isa 44:9–20.15 The episode refers to the account of the abolition of the foreign gods which Jacob commands in Shechem before the pilgrimage to Bethel in Gen 35:2–4.16 This account of the abolition of foreign gods belongs to a post-Priestly stratum of the Enneateuch17 and has parallels in Josh 24:14, 23, Judg 10:16 and 1 Sam 7:3. Thirdly, in Gen 31:42 the explanation of “the God of my father” by “the God of Abraham and the paḥad of Isaac” is obviously a late postexilic gloss.18 8

Exod 13:20; 14:1–2a, 3–4, 8a*, 10abβ, 15, 16a*, 16b–18, 21aα1b, 22–23, 26, 27aα1, 28,

29. 9 Post-Priestly elements in Exod 13:17–14:31 include 13:17–19, 21–22; 14:2b, 5b, 7, 9aβb, 11–12, 16a*, (19a,) 19b–20, 24aγ, 25a, 31. Cf. SCHMITT, ‘Meerwunderbericht’, 28– 35. 10 Cf. SCHMITT, ‘Meerwunderbericht’, 36–42. 11 See already GUNKEL, Genesis, 343; cf. WESTERMANN, Genesis, 2. Teilband, 601; BOECKER, Isaak und Jakob, 84. 12 Like in 1 Sam 19:13, 16, teraphim must be translated here as a singular (“a household god”). Cf. WESTERMANN, Genesis, 2. Teilband, 602. 13 RUPPERT, Genesis, 2. Teilband, 285–287, 293, 296, assigns Gen 31:19b, 30b, 32– 36*, 37 to an insertion by the “Jehovist”. But the similarities with the postexilic mocking of idolatry speak for a post-Priestly addition. Cf. also MACCHI, ‘Genèse 31,24–42’, 161– 162, for a dating of the teraphim layer to the Persian period. 14 Cf. BLUM, Komposition, 201. 15 See LEVIN, Jahwist, 243–244. 16 See GUNKEL, Genesis, 346; cf. WENHAM, Genesis 16–50, 274. 17 On this post-Priestly redaction cf. BLUM, Studien, 363–365; NENTEL, Jakobserzählungen, 304–308. 18 Cf. BOECKER, Isaak und Jakob, 91; RUPPERT, Genesis, 2. Teilband, 318–319.

174

Hans-Christoph Schmitt

If one omits these Priestly and post-Priestly passages, the following verses remain: Gen 31:17–18aα, 19a, 20–30a, 31, 36b, 38–42*. These passages seem to form the original account of the pursuit of Jacob in Gen 31:17–42*. c. Comparison of the structure of the pre-Priestly pursuit episodes in Gen 31* and Exod 14* If we analyze the structure of these pre-Priestly narratives, we notice that both episodes are structured by five scenes which correspond to each other. 1. Jacob flees from Laban and is pursued by him (Gen 31:17–23*) Israel flees and is pursued by the King of Egypt (Exod 14:5a, 6, 9*) 2. Laban overtakes Jacob (Gen 31:25) Egypt overtakes Israel (Exod 14:9–10*) 3. Turning point: a word of God to Laban (Gen 31:24) Turning point: a salvation oracle announced by Moses (Exod 14:13–14) 4. Laban recognizes God’s intervention for Jacob (Gen 31:25–29) Egypt recognizes Yhwh’s fighting for Israel (Exod 14:21*, 24, 25) 5. God sees the misery of Jacob19 (Gen 31:38–42*) God saves Israel (Exod 14:27*, 30)

Thus, Jacob’s flight from Laban is depicted as a “prefiguration of the Exodus”.20 These parallels between the exodus/Moses and Jacob aim to reveal structures of divine guidance which connect the conceptions of God in the exodus and in the Jacob story. The narrator seeks to bear witness to a God who rescues his people in very different situations of need. Thus, it is notable that the Jacob-Laban narrative – unlike the miracle at the sea (Exod 14:30) – does not end with the “salvation” of Jacob, but with the statement that God has seen his misery (Gen 31:42). The concept of God who sees the misery of his worshippers can now be found in the Jacob-Laban cycle and in the exodus story. Thus, in Gen 29:32 Leah states that God has seen her misery and has given her Jacob’s firstborn son Reuben. A similar conception of God, but now related to a political situation, is found in the prelude to the exodus story in God’s call of Moses Exod 3:1–12*. In 3:7, Yhwh affirms that he has seen the misery of Israel in Egypt. The salvation/deliverance of his people which is described in Exod 14:30 is only predicted for the future in 3:8. These passages show that the pre-Priestly 19 Gen 31:42a: God prevented that Jacob was sent away ‫“ ריקם‬empty-handed” (cf. Deut 15:13). In Exod 3:21–22 (cf. 12:35–36; also 11:2–3), this motif is related to the Israel of the exodus by a late-Deuteronomistic, post-Priestly insertion (see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 99–102; cf. SCHMIDT, Exodus, 1. Teilband, 142–143). Cf. differently LEVIN, Jahwist, 329, who regards 3:21–22 as part of the pre-Priestly exodus story. 20 Cf. GRAUPNER, Elohist, 2002, 310; also RUPPERT, Genesis, 2. Teilband, 329.

I. 3.2. Parallel Narrative Patterns between Exod 1–14 and Gen 24; 29–31

175

Jacob-Laban story (Gen 29–31*) and the pre-Priestly Exodus story (Exod 3:1–12* and 14*) are connected by a common “coordinated” theology. In order to describe this theological structure more clearly, a further similarity between the exodus and the Jacob stories must be examined. In both stories a “scene at a well” has a central function: It is at a well that Moses meets the daughters of the priest of Midian, who becomes his father-in-law in Exod 2:15–22*, and in Gen 29:1–14 it is also at a well that Jacob meets Rachel, who becomes his favorite wife. Below, in parts B and C, we will examine the function of these well scenes within their respective contexts and consider whether we can ascribe the well scenes in Exod 2* and Gen 29–31* to the same theological author (or theological school?) that had coordinated the pre-Priestly versions of the miracle at the sea and of the Jacob-Laban cycle with each other.

B. The pre-Priestly “well narrative” in Exod 2:15–3:12* 1. The pre-Priestly context of Exod 2:15–22* a. The beginning of the pre-Priestly Exodus story The scene at the well in Exod 2:15–22* is now part of the pre-Priestly exodus story in Exod 1–4*.21 In the following section we will attempt to reconstruct the pre-Priestly version of this story. Many scholars22 assume that this exodus story begins in Exod 2:1 with the exposure of the child Moses at the bank of the river Nile. Yet in Exod 2:1–10* a convincing explanation for this exposure is lacking. We can find such an explanation, however, if we take Exod 1:2223 as the prelude to 2:1–10: Here, the king of Egypt gives the command to throw the newborn Hebrew boys into the Nile. In the pre-Priestly text of Exod 1,24 v 22 is the third of three increasingly drastic measures by which the king of Egypt tries to reduce the population growth of Israel: first, by forced labor (vv. 11–12),25 second, by commanding the midwives of the

21

BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 430, interprets Exod 2:15–22* as an early pre-Priestly insertion into the original exodus story of Exod 2:1–15:22*. 22 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 317–320; SCHMID, Erzväter, 152–157; OTTO, ‘Mose und das Gesetz’, 49–50; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 49–50. 23 Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 371–375; GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 27–34; DOZEMAN, Exodus, 79–80; JEREMIAS, Theologie, 101. 24 On Exod 1:1–5*, 7, 13–14 as P and Exod 1:6, 8–10, 20b–21a as a post-Priestly reworking cf. SCHMITT, ‘Die Josefs- und die Exodus-Geschichte’, 180–182. 25 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 434, assumes that the pre-Priestly layer in Exod 3:7, 9, which speaks of Israel’s “misery/oppression”, is older than Exod 1:11–12 and 2:11–12, which mention the “forced labor” (‫ )סבלות‬of the people. Yet these different descriptions of

176

Hans-Christoph Schmitt

Israelites to kill the newborn boys (vv. 15–21*) and third, by drowning the Hebrew boys in the Nile. In 2:1–3, 5–6, 10aβb,26 the child Moses is rescued by the compassion of Pharaoh’s daughter, contrary to the plan of her father. The following verses 2:11–1227 can be regarded as a convincing continuation of Exod 1:11–2:10*: After his childhood in the Egyptian palace, Moses is confronted with the oppression of his “brethren” by the Egyptians, and he tries to defend an oppressed Hebrew by killing his oppressor. The passage 2:13–14 (the conflict between two Hebrews) is omitted as a later addition by Christoph Levin,28 but vv. 13–14 are an indispensable element of the original exodus story. Here, the question of Moses’ authority is raised: Verse 14 anticipates the call of Moses in Exod 3:1–12*, where this question is answered (v. 10*).29 b. The pre-Priestly version of the well scene in Exod 2:15–22* Christoph Berner regards the well scene in Exod 2:15–22* and the account of the marriage of Moses with Zipporah, the daughter of the priest of Midian, as an insertion into the original exodus story.30 For Berner, the double ‫ וישׁב‬in Exod 2:15 is a clear indication that v. 15 was reworked by the insertion of 2:15bβ2, 16–22 into the original sequence 2:15bβ1; 3:1. But the double ‫ וישׁב‬is no evidence for an insertion: In the old exodus story, we often find an original double use of the same verb in the same sentence (cf. 2:3, 11, 15).31

Israel’s oppression do not contradict each other; thus, Exod 1:11–12; 2:11–12 and 3:7* can be assigned to the same pre-Priestly layer. Cf. Levin, Jahwist, 74, 76, 314. 26 The original story of the birth of Moses presupposes in Exod 2:1 that Moses is the firstborn child of his parents. Therefore, the elements of the story which mention an older sister of Moses (vv. 4, 7–10aα) must be a later addition which emphasizes that Moses was brought up in a Hebrew family (for BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 52–53, the original story consists only of vv. 1, 2, 3*, 5aαbα, 6aα*, 10aβb). 27 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 53, assumes that Exod 2:11aβ goes back to a later addition. But the repetition of ‫ וירא‬does not support the omission of v. 11aβ, since such repetitions are characteristic of the style of Exod 2* (cf. n. 31 below). 28 LEVIN, Jahwist, 324–325, states that vv. 13–14 give a different explanation for the flight of Moses than 2:15. Yet 2:13–14 and 2:15 do not contradict each other (cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 377). Cf. furthermore BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 2010, 54–55, who regards v. 14a as dependent on Num 16:13 (rebellion against Yhwh’s promises). However, Exod 2:14 does not yet refer to God’s promises. 29 Cf. HOUTMAN, Exodus I, 294. 30 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 56. Cf. SCHMIDT, Exodus, 1. Teilband, 83–84, and GERTZ, Tradition, 377–378, who suggest that a separate piece of tradition in Exod 2:15bβ2, 16–22 (beginning with the second ‫ )וישׁב‬has been taken up by the pre-Priestly exodus story. But this suggestion is problematic, since the assumed piece of tradition lacks context. 31 See ‫( ותשׂם‬twice) in 2:3, ‫( וירא‬twice) in 2:11, ‫( וישׁב‬twice) in 2:15.

I. 3.2. Parallel Narrative Patterns between Exod 1–14 and Gen 24; 29–31

177

Therefore, the interpretation of the “well scene” in 2:15–22*32 as an insertion cannot be justified. In addition, the “well scene” of Exod 2:15–22* is indispensable as a prelude to the call narrative of Exod 3:1–12*. The introduction of the call narrative in Exod 3:1 cannot be understood without the preceding “well scene”, which explains why Moses has married a daughter of the priest of Midian and why he is tending the flock of the priest.33 c. The pre-Priestly version of the call of Moses: Exod 3:1–12*34 Many biblical scholars hold the opinion that the story of the call of Moses in Exod 3:1–12* was not part of the original exodus story. They argue that Exod 2:23aα (it happened … that the king of Egypt died) has its original continuation in 4:19 (Yhwh said to Moses in Midian: Go, return to Egypt; for all the men who sought your life are dead).35 But this assumption is not convincing: The statement that all the men who sought to kill Moses had died is not a direct continuation of the notice in 2:23aα, where only the king of Egypt had died.36 It is more likely that 2:23aα (it happened during this long time) is a post-Priestly addition to the Priestly text 2:23aβ–25, which tries to explain why, according to P, Moses is already eighty years old when he returns to Egypt (cf. Exod 7:7).37 Therefore, Yhwh’s call of Moses in Exod 3:1–4:20* can be regarded as a continuation of the original exodus story in Exod 1:11–2:22*.38 Berner is right when he postulates that the account of Moses’ sojourn in Midian must contain the essential parts of the call of Moses in 3:1–12*. As we have seen, Exod 3:1*, which describes Moses as leading the flocks of his father-in-law Jethro to the mountain of God, simultaneously presupposes the “well scene” of

32

Only “Reuel” in Exod 2:18 is an addition. The name is borrowed from Num 10:29. In Exod 2:15–22*, the priest of Midian at first remains unnamed (cf. 2:16, 21). Only later the name “Jethro” is introduced (3:1; 4:18; cf. 1 Sam 9, where at the beginning of the story the “seer” is anonymous). 33 The literary evidence of Exod 3:1* cannot prove the assumption of BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 59–60, that the designation of the priest of Midian as “Moses’ father-inlaw” and the name “Jethro” are secondary insertions. Only “to Horeb” seems to be a secondary addition. Cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 261–266. 34 For a discussion of recent research on Exod 3–4 see PIETSCH, ‘Abschied’, 151–166. 35 Cf. especially SCHMID, Erzväter, 186–209, who assumes that the whole narrative of the call of Moses in Exod 3:1–4:17 is a post-Priestly insertion. 36 Cf. SCHMITT, ‘Erzväter- und Exodusgeschichte’, 250, 252; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 57; SCHMIDT, ‘Berufung’, 350. 37 Cf. SCHMITT, ‘Erzväter- und Exodusgeschichte’, 250; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 58. 38 Exod 1:11–12, 2:11–15 and 3:1–12* presuppose the same situation and refer to each other.

178

Hans-Christoph Schmitt

2:15–22* and the scene at the mountain of God in 3:1–12*. Thus, both scenes form a coherent narrative.39 The account of the call of Moses in Exod 3:1–12* has undergone multiple reworkings. Especially Exod 3:2a (the angel of Yhwh appeared to Moses in a flame of fire from the midst of a bush) disrupts its original context, since it anticipates the climax of the entire episode as well as the report about the burning bush in vv. 2b–3 (… then Moses said: I will now turn aside and see this great sight, why the bush does not burn). After v. 4, which belongs to the original story,40 further evidence for a literary insertion can be found in the double introduction of divine speech in vv. 5–6. Gertz assumes that vv. 4b, 6a are a post-Priestly addition.41 But it is more likely that v. 5 belongs to a later redaction. The verse is a nearly verbatim parallel to Josh 5:15.42 In both passages, a command is made to take off one’s sandals because of the holiness of the ground.43 The holiness of the place is only dependent on the presence of a heavenly messenger: the angel of Yhwh in Exod 3:2a and the commander of the army of Yhwh in Josh 5:15, respectively.44 Thus, v. 6a* must be the continuation of v. 4b.45 God’s prophetic call46 “Moses, Moses” and Moses’ answer “Here I am” are followed by God’s self-

39

UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 100–101, speak (instead of a “well scene”) of a “betrothal journey narrative” (cf. MARTIN, ‘Betrothal Journey Narratives’, 505–525). The structure of these narratives includes the journey to the well and the return. A scene with God’s command to return must therefore be regarded as an essential element of such a “well narrative”. 40 The different designations of God (Yhwh, Elohim) in Exod 3:4a and 4b are not a sufficient basis for the assumption of different literary layers. See VAN SETERS, Life, 36–37. 41 GERTZ, Tradition, 270. 42 See WEIMAR, Berufung, 39. On the relationship between Ex 3:5 and Josh 5:13–15 cf. also VAN SETERS, Life, 37–40. 43 LEVIN, Jahwist, 329, interprets v. 5 as the etiology of a cultic place which has been discovered by Moses. But this interpretation remains problematic: The account does not name the place. The corresponding text in Josh 5:13–15 (cf. v. 15: Then the commander of Yhwh’s army said to Joshua: Take your sandal off your foot, for the place where you stand is holy. And Joshua did so.) likewise does not reflect an old local tradition, but is the product of scribal activity. Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, Josua, 415. 44 On this mal’ak-concept see Exod 23:21; cf. SCHMITT, ‘Sinai-Ouvertüre’, 281–284 and n. 85 below. 45 GERTZ, Tradition, 278–280, and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 83–85 ascribe vv. 4b, 6 to a post-Priestly insertion, yet vv. 4b, 6a* are an indispensable part of the original narrative of Exod 3*. Without these verses, an indication that Moses speaks with God is lacking (cf. RÖMER, ‘Exodus 3–4’, 74 n. 76). 46 For a corresponding prophetic ‫ קר״א‬of God cf. 1 Sam 3:4–10. See VAN SETERS, Life, 37; cf. KAISER, Gott, 224.

I. 3.2. Parallel Narrative Patterns between Exod 1–14 and Gen 24; 29–31

179

revelation: “I am the God of your father”.47 Verse 6b (Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look upon God) is thus an appropriate response to God’s self-revelation in v. 6a* and prepares for the divine speech in 3:7–12*. In this speech, God begins with a description of Israel’s suffering in Exod 3:7 (Yhwh said: I have surely seen the misery [‫ ]עני‬of my people who are in Egypt and have heard their cry).48 Verse 8 predicts God’s descent and deliverance of his people out of the hand of the Egyptians.49 In 3:9–1050 God declares that the deliverance of Israel will begin with the prophetic mission of Moses to Pharaoh (Now …, the cry of the children of Israel has come to me … Come now … and I will send you to Pharaoh that you may bring my people….out of Egypt).51 Christoph Berner assigns 3:9, 10*, 11, 12aα to a later, but still pre-Priestly addition,52 but here no clear literary-critical evidence for separating prePriestly layers can be found. This passage shows the features of the genre of a “prophetic call” (cf. Jer 1). Therefore, the motif of a sign by God in 3:12a (God said: I will certainly be with you, and this shall be a sign to you that I have sent you),53 which also belongs to this genre,54 should be regarded as 47 The phrase “the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob” is an expansion which contradicts the singular form of “God of your father” (see RÖMER, Israels Väter, 565). For “God of your father” as “personal god” cf. Gen 31:29, 42. 48 The original description of the misery of Israel in v. 7a is completed in v. 7bα2β by oppressions which are reported in post-Priestly texts in the exodus story. Thus, “because of their taskmasters, for I know their pains” refers to the post-Priestly account in Exod 5:5– 23. Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 339. 49 A late-Deuteronomistic addition has expanded the announcement of Yhwh “to bring his people up from that land” with a description of the promised land: “to a good and broad land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanites and the Hittites and the Amorites and the Perizzites and the Hivites and the Jebusites.” On the Deuteronomistic character of these additions see SCHMIDT, Exodus, 1. Teilband, 137–142. Reference to the “original peoples” of Canaan is typical of late-Deuteronomistic and post-Priestly layers of the Enneateuch. Cf. SCHMITT, ‘Sinai-Ouvertüre’, 277–303. 50 Exod 3:9 is not a doublet of 3:7–8, but the introduction (cf. ‫ )ועתה‬to Yhwh’s commissioning of Moses in v. 10 (cf. BLUM, Studien, 22–23). Exod 3:9–10 as part of the “old” Exodus story obviously presupposes an “old” version of a “mission to Pharaoh” which ended with the “flight of Israel” (Exod 14:5a). 51 Exod 3:7, 9 are cited in the late-Deuteronomistic “small historical creed” of Deut 26* in 26:7. For another late-Deuteronomistic allusion to Exod 3:7 cf. 2 Kgs 14:26. 52 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 103, assumes that the oldest pre-Priestly account of Moses’ appearance before Pharaoh is found in Exod 5:1–2. This assumption is problematic, since 5:1–2 seem to belong to a post-Priestly layer (cf. the similar theme of knowing Yhwh in Exod 9:14, 29). On 5:2 as late passage cf. ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 100, 103. 53 Only v. 12b where in God’s speech God is mentioned in the third person and the 2ms address to Moses is changed to a 2mp form (the Israelites) must be regarded as a post-Priestly addition (when you have brought the people out of Egypt, you shall serve God on this mountain). See GRAUPNER, Elohist, 23.

180

Hans-Christoph Schmitt

part of the original call story: Here, the sign consists of God’s presence with Moses. The following sections of Exod 3–4*55 (with the exception of 4:18*, 56 20*57) go back to post-Priestly redactions. 2. The structure of the pre-Priestly “well narrative” in Exod 2:15–3:12* The “well narrative” in Exod 2:15–3:12* shows the following structure: 1. Context: The conflict between Egypt and the Hebrews: Pharaoh seeks to kill Moses (1:11–2:15a*) 2. Moses flees from Egypt to Midian and meets the daughters of the priest of Midian (among them his future wife) at the well (2:15b–16) 3. Moses helps to water the flocks of his future father-in-law (“delivering” the daughters “out of the hand” of the shepherds) (2:17–19) 4. Moses remains in the house of his future father-in-law (2:20–21a) 5. Moses marries Zipporah and she gives birth to a son (2:21b–22) 6. God announces the “deliverance” of Israel and commands Moses to return to Egypt (3:1*, 2b–4, 6*, 7–12*; 4:18*, 20*).

It should be noted that the primary function of the “well narrative” in Exod 2:15–3:12* is to prepare for the divine revelation in the land of Midian in 3:1–12*, in which God promises to save Israel and sends Moses to liberate his people out of the hand of the Egyptians. The close relationship between both parts of Exod 2:15–3:12* can be seen in 2:19. Here, Moses “delivers the daughters of the priest of Midian out of the hand of the shepherds” which connects to God’s later promise to Moses to “deliver” Israel “out of the hand of the Egyptians” in 3:8.58 Moreover, Moses’ marriage to Zipporah and his 54 BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 76–78, denies the existence of this genre and omits 3:12aβb. 55 On 3:13, 15 and 3:14 as additions cf. IRSIGLER, ‘Namensfrage’, 66–80. The following text of Exod 3:16–4:17 contains exclusively post-Priestly materials (cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 105, 135). Only 4:18, 20a* belong to the original Exodus story (cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 76). 56 The command of Yhwh to return to Egypt in Exod 4:19 comes too late after Moses’ farewell to his father-in-law in 4:18. In the original Moses story, God has given this command already in 3:10. 57 The original exodus story speaks only of one son (Gershom, cf. 2:22). The reference to Moses’ sons in 4:20 goes back to later traditions (see 18:3–4). Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 133–135. 58 At the same time, the “well scene” in Exod 2:15–22* shows close connections to the miracle at the sea in Exod 14*. In 14:30, God saves Israel “out of the hand of the Egyptians” (cf. 2:19; 3:8). Moreover, in 14:30 Yhwh “saves” Israel just as Moses “saves” the daughters of the priest of Midian in 2:17. Cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 61–62, 430–431, on Exod 2* and 14* as parts of a pre-Priestly composition.

I. 3.2. Parallel Narrative Patterns between Exod 1–14 and Gen 24; 29–31

181

residing in the house of his father-in-law are preconditions for his tending to Jethro’s flocks and therefore for his encounter with God at the mountain of God in Exod 3:1–12*. Even the notice that Zipporah gives birth to a son with the name “Gershom” in Exod 2:22 is an indication that Moses is waiting for God’s call to bring his “brethren” into the promised land. For Moses explains the name of his son by the statement: “I have become an alien (ger59) in a foreign land.”60

C. The pre-Priestly “well narrative” in Gen 29:1–31:16* 1. Post-Priestly additions in Gen 29:1–31:16* Before we examine the pre-Priestly structure of the “well narrative” of the Jacob-Laban cycle, the most significant post-Priestly additions to the text of Exod 29:1–31:16* must be discussed. First of all, the reference to Leah’s and Rachel’s maidservants in Gen 29:24 and 29:29 interrupts the narrative of Jacob’s marriage to Leah and Rachel. These verses are obviously late additions.61 A similar interruption occurs in Jacob’s dream of a manifestation of the God he had met in Bethel (Gen 31:11, 13). Here, Gen 31:10, 12 also seem to belong to a late,62 apparently post-Priestly reworking.63 Furthermore, Gen 31:3 is a post-Priestly addition, since it connects to Gen 32:8–12 (Gen 32:9 cites 31:3),64 which belongs to a late-Deuteronomistic and post-Priestly redaction of the Enneateuch.65 Christoph Levin assumes that the birth stories of the sons of Rachel’s and Leah’s maidservants, and the birth stories of Issachar and Zebulun, too, belong to post-Priestly insertions.66 Yet all of the birth stories of Jacob’s eleven sons show a similar structure (including an etymological etiology), so that they all seem to go back to the pre-Priestly story of Jacob and Laban.67

59

Moses is regarded as a ger in Midian (Exod 2:22) like Jacob in Haran (Gen 32:5). See the translation in DOZEMAN, Exodus, 91. Cf. UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 101. 61 RUPPERT, Genesis, 3. Teilband, 211–212, 218, assigns the two verses to a postPriestly redaction. 62 Cf. v. 12 (“I lifted my eyes … and behold”) with Zech 2:1; Dan 8:3; also Gen 13:14. 63 Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 244. 64 Cf. BLUM, Komposition, 152–164. 65 On this late-Deuteronomistic enneateuchal redaction cf. NENTEL, Jakobserzählungen, 256–261. 66 LEVIN, Jahwist, 229–231. Similarly KRATZ, Komposition, 274, 280. 67 Cf. SCHORN, Ruben, 70–73. Schorn assumes that in Gen 29:31–35; 30:18*, 20*, 24b the “story of the birth of Jacob’s sons” shows traces of a reworking by a pre-Priestly “Yhwh-redaction”. 60

182

Hans-Christoph Schmitt

Only the note on the birth of Dinah in 30:21 must be assigned to a postPriestly reworking of this section. It cannot belong to the pre-Priestly account of the births of the children of Jacob, since it lacks an etymological etiology of the name of the child as found in all of the original birth stories in Gen 29:31–30:24*. Therefore, 30:21 must be assigned to a late insertion68 that connects to the post-Priestly story of Dinah and Shechem in Gen 34.69 2. The structure of the “well narrative” in Gen 29–31* In the following section, we will first focus on the pre-Priestly elements in Gen 29:1–31:16*, which correspond to the structure of the “well narrative” in Exod 2–3*: 1. Context: The conflict between Jacob and Esau: Esau seeks to kill Jacob (25:21–34*; 27:1–35; 28:10–22*) 2. Jacob flees to Laban in Haran (27:43; 28:10; 29:4)70 3. Jacob meets his future wife Rachel at the well of Haran and helps to water her flocks (29:1–14) 4. Jacob remains in the house of his future father-in-law (29:15–20) 5. Jacob marries Leah and Rachel and has eleven sons (29:21–30:33) 6. God commands Jacob to return to the land of his family (31:1–42*)

Both “well narratives” presuppose a conflict which leads to the flight of the hero. Both report an encounter of the hero with his future wife at the well, where he helps to water her flocks, and both tell of marriages and the births of one or more sons. Both “well narratives” are concluded by an encounter with God who commands the return of the hero. In Exod 2:15–3:12*, the themes of the “well narrative” are described in a few verses; in Gen 29–31*, however, these same themes form a long narrative and fill three chapters. Unlike the “well narrative” in Exod 2–3*, this “well narrative” does not culminate in a commissioning by God; rather, it seeks to describe how the forefathers of the twelve tribes of Israel were born and how – as a climax – Jacob’s favorite wife Rachel gave birth to her firstborn son Joseph. Thus, the motivation of Jacob’s watering the flocks is his love for Rachel, not to “save” and “deliver” an oppressed people as in the case of Moses (cf. Exod 2:17, 19). 68

Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 229; SCHORN, Ruben, 70. See LEVIN, Jahwist, 263. 70 According to the pre-Priestly story in Gen 29–31*, Laban’s home is in Haran. The interpretation of “Haran” in Gen 27:43; 28:10 and 29:4 as late “insertions” (cf. FINKELSTEIN/RÖMER, ‘Comments’, 322) cannot be justified by the literary evidence. The “land of the sons of the East” (29:1) probably reflects an older oral tradition. See RUPPERT, Genesis, 3. Teilband, 217; cf. also VAN SETERS, Yahwist, 45–46. 69

I. 3.2. Parallel Narrative Patterns between Exod 1–14 and Gen 24; 29–31

183

These differences between the “well narratives”, however, do not go back to different authors. Rather, the same author wants to show that there are two different phases of salvation history: first, the origin of Israel and its tribes in ancestral times, and second, the liberation of Israel at the time of the exodus. This author uses the genre of a “well narrative” for both phases to point to the connection between the ancestral narratives and the exodus story. The unity of salvation history is also underlined when at the end of both “well narratives” the hero receives the divine command to return to the promised land. In both theophany scenes, Exod 3:1–12* and Gen 31:11, 13, God/the angel of God addresses the hero in the form of a “prophetic call”, introduces himself and gives the command to return – in Gen 31:11, 13 to return to the “land of your family”, and in Exod 3:1–12* to return to Egypt so that God can “bring Israel up” to the promised land.71 Thus, in the episode of Jacob’s pursuit by Laban in Gen 31*, Jacob – like Israel in Exod 14* – experiences his “exodus” during his return to the promised land. 3. The historical background of the pre-Priestly stories of Exod 1–4* and Gen 29–31* The close formal relationship between the pre-Priestly “well narratives” in

Gen 29–31* and Exod 1–4* (and 14*) suggest that both stories belong to a composition by which both stories found their present literary form. This view is confirmed by observations on the dating of the pre-Priestly version of Exod 1–4* and of the Jacob-Laban story. Firstly, the city of Pithom, which is mentioned in Exod 1:11b,72 did not exist prior to the Saite period. The prePriestly exodus story, therefore, cannot have been written before the late 7th

71 Cf. Gen 31:11, 13 and Exod 3:4, 6*, 8*, 10 (God’s “bringing up” means “to the promised land”). The aforementioned stylistic and theological similarities between Gen 31:11, 13 and Exod 3:4, 6*, 8* can also be found in Gen 46:2–4 (on the pre-Priestly character of the latter cf. BLUM, Komposition, 297–301; SCHMITT, ‘Erzväter- und Exodusgeschichte’, 253–255): In 46:2–3 God addresses Jacob by his name, and Jacob answers: “Here I am”. God introduces himself as the “God of your father” and asks Jacob to depart from his present place. Furthermore, in Gen 46:3b–4a God predicts that in Egypt he will make Jacob into a great nation and will bring him up to the promised land. Gen 46:4a anticipates Yhwh’s promise to Moses in Exod 3:8 that he will “bring up” his people. Finally, while in Gen 46:4a God assures Jacob that he will go with him, in Exod 3:12 Moses also receives a promise of divine companionship. Therefore, Gen 46:2–4 seems to belong to the same composition which combines the two “well narratives” in Exod 2:15–3:12* and Gen 29–31* (on the relationship between Gen 46:2–4 and Gen 31:11, 13 cf. esp. BLUM, Komposition, 246– 249, 297–301; on the relationship between Gen 46:2–4 and Exod 3:1–12* cf. esp. VAN SETERS, Yahwist, 282; SCHMITT, ‘Die Josefs- und die Exodus-Geschichte’, 177 n. 33). 72 Exod 1:11b cannot be regarded as post-Priestly. It is only understandable as a continuation of the pre-Priestly v. 11a. Cf. also LEVIN, Jahwist, 314.

184

Hans-Christoph Schmitt

century.73 Secondly, Exod 2:1–10* also goes back to the time of the end of the monarchy: The text is influenced by the Sargon Birth Legend, which was officially propagated during the time of Sargon II (722–705 B.C.E.) and became widely known in the late monarchy and during the Babylonian exile.74 Thirdly, the pre-Priestly Jacob-Laban story and its view of kinship between the Israelites and the Arameans of Haran75 also reflect the same period: “The Assyrians’ deportation of a large number of Israelites to the Habur and Balih valley regions as well as the interchange of Arameans into Palestine would certainly have encouraged a sense of identity with the Aramaeans and the Harran region in the late monarchy.”76 Thus, the Jacob-Laban cycle can likewise be dated to the late 7th or 6th century. 4. The theology of Exod 2:15–3:12* and Gen 29–31* Finally, the theology of the pre-Priestly stories of the exodus and of the Jacob-Laban cycle seems to reflect the “plight” of God’s people at the end of the monarchy. In the call of Moses in Exod 3:1–12*, God affirms that he has seen the misery of Israel (Exod 3:7). And in Gen 29:32 and 31:42, Leah and Jacob each confess that God has seen their misery. In the same context, Leah (Gen 30:33) and Rachel (Gen 30:2) each confess that God has heard their complaint, and Gen 29:33; 30:17 and 30:22 mention that God heard Leah and Rachel, respectively (cf. the similar statements of God’s intervention in 29:35; 30:18, 20, 23–24).77 A similar statement is found in Exod 3:1–12*: Here God announces that he has heard the cry of the Israelites (3:7). Finally, in both stories God’s “seeing and hearing” is part of his “salvation history” with his chosen people. In this context, the major emphasis which Gen 31:11, 13 and Exod 3:8*, 10 put on the “promised land” refers to the political situation in Judah before and during the exilic period. All of these observations confirm our suggestion that the pre-Priestly stories in Gen 29–31* and Exod 1–4* share the same theology. It is thus possible that both stories are part of a unified work, although the detailed reconstruction of their textual connections is beyond the scope of this study.78 73

Cf. REDFORD, ‘Exodus I 11’, 416; UTZSCHNEIDER/OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 73–74. Cf. esp. GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 269; JEREMIAS, Theologie, 102. 75 On Haran cf. n. 70 above. 76 See VAN SETERS, Abraham, 34. Cf. BLUM, Komposition, 344 n. 11. 77 Cf. the similar statement that God had heard the misery of Hagar in the Abraham stories (Gen 16:11); on this “anticipation of the Moses Story” see CARR, ‘Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story’, 280–281. 78 The pre-Priestly Jacob-Laban cycle is not a self-contained narrative, but presupposes large parts of the pre-Priestly stratum of Gen 12–50*. It seems that Gen 12–50* and the exodus story formed a unified work already in this pre-Priestly stratum, but an analysis of the texts which may be a bridge between Gen 12–50* and Exod 1–4* cannot be carried out here (cf. however SCHMITT, ‘Die Josefs- und die Exodus-Geschichte’, 171–187). 74

I. 3.2. Parallel Narrative Patterns between Exod 1–14 and Gen 24; 29–31

185

D. The post-Priestly “well narrative” in Gen 24:1–67* We conclude our study with a short glimpse at the third “well narrative” of the Pentateuch in the Abraham-Rebecca Story in Gen 24:1–67. 1. The literary unity of Gen 24* Genesis 24*79 must be interpreted as a unity. Attempts to reconstruct a Yahwistic story that has been reworked by postexilic redactors80 are not convincing.81 2. The date of Gen 24* Genesis 24* must be dated to the postexilic period. Abraham’s instructions to his servant in Gen 24:1–9, which reject “connubium” with the indigenous “Canaanites”, suggest a post-Priestly origin and point to the time of Ezra and Nehemiah.82 3. The relationship of Gen 24* to Gen 29–31* and Exod 2:15–3:12* The late origin of Gen 24* is confirmed by its relationship to the well narratives in Gen 29–31* and Exod 2:15–3:12*. On the one hand, Gen 24* shows close dependence on the well narrative of the Jacob-Laban cycle. The genealogical concepts of Gen 24* (Laban and Rebekah as members of the clan of Abraham who live in Haran) go back to Gen 29–31*.83 Similarly, there is a journey to Haran, an encounter with Isaac’s future wife at the well of Haran, and a return to the promised land. On the other hand, in Gen 24* it is not Isaac, but only Abraham’s servant, who is active at the well. He prays for a sign of God and chooses Isaac’s future wife according to this sign and according to the instructions of Abraham (no wife from Canaan; the wife must come to the promised land). This sign demonstrates that the marriage to Rebekah is not the result of human planning, but goes back to divine guidance.84 79 Gen 24:67 originally ended with the death of “Isaac’s father” (instead of MT “mother”), since 24:65 presupposes the death of Abraham (Isaac is now the master of the servant). The reading in MT goes back to the final redaction of Genesis (here Abraham dies in 25:8). Cf. BLUM, Komposition, 384. 80 See, e.g., LEVIN, Jahwist, 184–196; SEEBASS, Genesis II/2, 251–252. Cf. also RUPPERT, Genesis, 2. Teilband, 584–585. 81 Cf. esp. BLUM, Komposition, 383–385; KRATZ, Komposition, 278. 82 See BLUM, Komposition, 386–387; ROFÉ, Enquiry, 27–39; KÖCKERT, ‘Abrahamüberlieferung’, 126. 83 Exod 2:15–22* – in contrast to Gen 24* (and Gen 29*) – does not address the clan affiliation between bride and bridegroom. 84 Cf. WESTERMANN, Genesis, 2. Teilband, 469–470.

186

Hans-Christoph Schmitt

4. The theology of Gen 24 and the “mal’ak” texts in the Hexateuch Genesis 24* should be understood as a late theological commentary on the well narratives in Gen 29–31* and Exod 2:15–3:12*. In the view of Gen 24*, all well narratives must be interpreted as stories of unseen divine guidance. This divine providence is secured by the hidden activity of the angel of Yhwh (Gen 24:7, 40), who leads Israel to the fulfillment of God’s promises of land and of numerous descendants. The instructions of Abraham to his servant in Gen 24:1–9 are the preconditions for this fulfilment: Members of God’s people are not allowed to marry a wife from among the “Canaanites” (vv. 3–4), and the wife must be willing to live in the promised land (vv. 6–7). One may ask whether this theology can be assigned to the “mal’akFortschreibung”85 in the books of Exodus (cf. especially 23:20–33; 33:1–6*; 34:10–27) and Judges (2:1–5), which speaks of God’s presence in the angel of Yhwh and prohibits intermarriage with the indigenous population of Canaan.

85 See BLUM, Studien, 365–370; SCHMITT, ‘Sinai-Ouvertüre’, 281–284. Cf. also n. 44 above.

The Attestation of the Book-Seam in the Early Textual Witnesses and its Literary-Historical Implications Harald Samuel A. Introduction As in all modern Bibles, already in the great codices of late antiquity the books of Joshua and Judges follow in sequence the books of the Pentateuch. The narrative flow hardly leaves any other option. The perceived narrative nexus also finds expression in the many Octateuch manuscripts or theological works on the Octateuch, such as Prokopios of Gaza’s Catena on the Octateuch or Theodoret of Cyrrhus’ Quaestiones in Octateuchum, alike. Apart from the – in many ways exceptional – 10th-century Joshua Scoll with excerpts from the book of Joshua, the recently published Joshua Codex from the Schøyen collection is one of the few examples (perhaps the only one?) of a codex starting with or even comprising only of book of Joshua.1 Scrolls of Joshua and Judges are attested from the Dead Sea area (4QJosha, b; XJosh, 1QJudg; 4QJudga, b; XJudg). In contrast to the Pentateuch, however, with scrolls comprising more than one book, e.g., 1QpaleoLev-Numa or 4QGenExodl, no such combination exists for Joshua or Judges. Even worse, since especially the beginnings and ends of scrolls usually fell prey to decomposition, there is no attestation of the last chapters of Joshua nor of the beginning of Judges: a few letters from Judg 1:10–12 in XJudg is the closest we get. We are therefore left with the textual evidence known for centuries to solve the problem of the compositional seam in Josh 24–Judg 2. As regrettable as this is, another manuscript would scarcely have done away with the notorious ambiguity of the evidence. The evidence in Josh 24 only establishes the fact that the texts were rewritten, that epochal thresholds seem to be predisposed for rewriting and that there is no categorial gap between rewriting and transmitting a text: Sources and traditions are neither preexistent nor fixed; they develop in the course of their transmission as they are subject to exegesis.

1

Cf. DE TROYER, ‘LXX, Joshua (MS 2648)’. Page numbers are attested on leaf 2 (r. μθ/49, v. ν/50) with Josh 10:7–13 and leaf 5 (r. νε/55, v. νϛ/56) with Josh 10:30–36. Calculation leads to the conclusion that the codex started with Joshua.

188

Harald Samuel

B. Synopsis: Josh 24 – Judg 1:1, 2:6–10 MT 24:28

LXX

‫ת־ה ָﬠם‬ ָ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ֶא‬ ֻ ‫וַ יְ ַשׁ ַלּח ְי‬ ‫ִאישׁ לְ נַ ֲחלָ תוֹ‬ [24,31]

24:29

‫וַ יְ ִהי ַא ֲח ֵרי ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵאלֶּ ה‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ִבּן־נוּן ֶﬠ ֶב ד‬ ֻ ‫וַ ָיּ ָמת ְי‬ ‫ן־מ ָאה וָ ֶﬠ ֶשׂר ָשׁנִ ים‬ ֵ ‫ְיהוָ ה ֶבּ‬

24:30

‫וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ אֹתוֹ ִבּגְ בוּל נַ ֲחלָ תוֹ‬ ‫ת־ס ַרח ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ֶ ַ‫ְבּ ִת ְמנ‬ ‫ר־א ְפ ָריִ ם ִמ ְצּפוֹן‬ ֶ ‫ְבּ ַה‬ ‫לְ ַהר־גָּ ַﬠשׁ‬

24:31

‫וַ יַּ ֲﬠבֹד ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵא ל ֶאת־ ְיהוָ ה‬ ֻ ‫כּ ֹל יְ ֵמי ְי‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ וְ כ ֹל יְ ֵמי‬ ‫ַה זְּ ֵקנִ ים ֲא ֶשׁר ֶה ֱא ִריכוּ‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ וַ ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ֻ ‫יָ ִמים ַא ֲח ֵרי ְי‬ ‫ל־מ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה ְיהוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ָי ְדעוּ ֵא ת ָכּ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה לְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

Καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν λαόν καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτοῦ [24,29] καὶ ἐλάτρευσεν Ισραηλ τῷ κυρίῳ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ὅσοι ἐφείλκυσαν τὸν χρόνονa μετὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ ὅσοι εἴδοσανb πάντα τὰ ἔργα κυρίου ὅσα ἐποίησεν τῷ Ισραηλ [24,30] καὶ ἐγένετο μετ᾽ ἐκεῖναc καὶ ἀπέθανεν ᾿Ιησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυη δοῦλος κυρίου ἑκατὸνd δέκα ἐτῶν [24,31] καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν πρὸςe τοῖς ὁρίοις τοῦ κλήρου αὐτοῦ ἐν Θαμναθασαχαραf ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ Εφραιμ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ τοῦ ὄρους Γααςg [24,31a] ἐκεῖh ἔθηκαν μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὸ μνῆμα εἰς ὃi ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐκεῖ τὰς μαχαίρας τὰς πετρίνας ἐν αἷς περιέτεμεν τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ ἐν Γαλγαλοις ὅτε ἐξήγαγεν αὐτοὺς ἐξ Αἰγύπτου καθὰ συνέταξεν αὐτοῖςj κύριος καὶ ἐκεῖ εἰσιν ἕως τῆς σήμερον ἡμέρας [24,29]

Reconstructed LXX-Vorlage2 ‫וישלח יהושע את העם‬ 1 ‫וילכו איש למקמו‬ ‫ויעבד ישראל את יהוה‬ ‫כל ימי יהושע וכל ימי‬ ‫הזקנים‬ ‫אשר האריכו ימים אחרי‬ ‫יהושע ואשר ראו את כל‬ ‫מעשה יהוה אשר עשה‬ ‫לישראל‬ ‫ויהי אחרי כן‬ ‫וימת יהושע בן נון עבד‬ ‫יהוה בן מאה ועשר שנים‬ ‫ויקברו אתו אל גבול‬ ‫נחלתו בתמנת סחר בהר‬ ‫אפרים מצפון להר געש‬ ‫שם שמו אתו אל הקבר‬ ‫אשר קברו אתו שמה את‬ ‫חרבות הצרים אשר מל‬ ‫בהן את בני ישראל‬ ‫בגלגל בהוציאו אתם‬ ‫ממצרים כאשר צוה אתם‬ ‫יהוה‬ ‫ עד היום‬2‫ותהיינו שם‬ ‫הזה‬

2 The inclusion of this reconstruction in a chapter on evidence as well as its wording will be explained below.

189

II. 1. Material Evidence 24:32

‫יוֹסף‬ ֵ ‫ת־ﬠ ְצמוֹת‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא‬ ‫ר־ה ֱﬠלוּ ְב נֵ י־ ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵא ל‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ֶשׁ‬ ‫ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַריִ ם ָק ְברוּ ִב ְשׁ ֶכם‬ ‫ְבּ ֶח לְ ַקת ַה ָשּׂ ֶדה ֲא ֶשׁר ָק נָ ה‬ ‫י־חמוֹר‬ ֲ ֵ‫יַ ֲﬠקֹב ֵמ ֵאת ְבּ נ‬ ‫יטה‬ ָ ‫י־שׁ ֶכם ְבּ ֵמ ָאה ְק ִשׂ‬ ְ ‫ֲא ִב‬ ‫י־יוֹסף ְלנַ ֲחלָ ה‬ ֵ ֵ‫וַ יִּ ְהיוּ לִ ְבנ‬

24:33

‫ן־א ֲהר ֹן ֵמת‬ ַ ‫וְ ֶא ְל ָﬠזָ ר ֶבּ‬ ‫וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ אֹתוֹ ְבּגִ ְב ַﬠ ת‬ ‫ִפּינְ ָחס ְבּנוֹ ֲא ֶשׁר נִ ַתּן־לוֹ‬ ‫ְבּ ַהר ֶא ְפ ָר ִים‬

καὶ τὰ ὀστᾶ Ιωσηφ ἀνήγαγον οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἐξ Αἰγύπτου καὶ κατώρυξανk ἐν Σικιμοις ἐν τῇ μερίδι τοῦ ἀγροῦ οὗ ἐκτήσατο Ιακωβ παρὰ τῶν Αμορραίων τῶν κατοικούντων ἐν Σικιμοις ἀμνάδωνl ἑκατὸν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὴν Ιωσηφ ἐν μερίδι Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ ταῦτα καὶ Ελεαζαρ υἱὸς Ααρων ὁ ἀρχιερεὺςm ἐτελεύτησεν καὶ ἐτάφη ἐν Γαβααθ Φινεες τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ ἣν ἔδωκενn αὐτῷ ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ Εφραιμ [24,33a] ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ λαβόντες οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ τὴν κιβωτὸν [τῆς διαθήκης] o τοῦ θεοῦ περιεφέροσαν ἐν ἑαυτοῖς καὶ Φινεες ἱεράτευσεν ἀντὶ Ελεαζαρ τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτοῦ ἕως ἀπέθανενp καὶ κατωρύγη ἐν Γαβααθ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ [24,33b] οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἀπήλθοσαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῶν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἑαυτῶν πόλιν καὶ ἐσέβοντοq οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ τὴν ᾿Αστάρτην καὶ [τὴν]r Ασταρωθs καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν κύκλῳ αὐτῶν καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς κύριος εἰς χεῖρας Εγλωμ τῷ βασιλεῖ Μωαβ καὶ ἐκυρίευσεν αὐτῶν ἔτη δέκα ὀκτώ

‫ואת עצמות יוסף‬ ‫העלו בני ישראל ממצרים‬ ‫ בשכם בחלקת‬3‫ויקברו‬ ‫השדה אשר קנה יעקב‬ ‫מאת האמורי היושב‬ ‫ במאה קשיטה‬4‫בשכם‬ ‫ויתנה ליוסף בנחלה‬ ‫ויהי אחרי כן‬ ‫ואלעזר בן אהרן הכהן‬ ‫מת‬ ‫ויקבר בגבעת‬ ‫פינחס בנו אשר נתן לו‬ ‫בהר אפרים‬ ‫ בני‬6‫ביום ההוא נשאו‬ [‫ישראל את ארון ]ברית‬ ‫ בתוכם‬7‫האלהים ויסבו‬ 5

‫ תחת אלעזר‬8‫ופינחס כהן‬ ‫אביו עד אשר מת\עד‬ ‫מותו‬ 9 ‫ויקבר בגבעת פינחס‬ ‫ובני ישראל הלכו איש‬ ‫למקמו ולעירו‬ ‫ויעבדו בני ישראל את‬ ‫עשתרת ואת אלהי הגוים‬ ‫אשר סביבותיהם‬ 10

‫ויתן אותם יהוה ביד‬ ‫עגלון מלך מואב‬

‫וימשל בהם שמנה עשרה‬ ‫שנה‬

190 Notes on the Greek text a

Harald Samuel

The use of εφελκύω as an equivalent for ‫ אר״ך‬hif. is noteworthy (cf. otherwise only Num 9:19). More widespread are compounds like πολυχρονίζω or μακροημερεύω (thus the parallel in Judg 2:7). b Cf. Judg 2:7: ἔγνωσαν. c μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνα is unique within the Bible. It need not point to a different Vorlage, but if so, ‫ אחרי כן‬would be a possibility, cf. μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνο in Gen 6:4. d C. Alexandrinus adds the expected καὶ. e Note the otherwise unattested use of θάπτω with the preposition πρός. However, one finds ‫ קב״ר‬with directive ‫אל‬, e.g., Gen 23:19; 25:9; 49:29; Ezek 39:15, or ‫שמה‬, e.g., Gen 49:31 and 50:5, and cf. the reconstruction to Josh 24:31a above. f C. Alexandrinus reads Θαμνασαχαρ, whereas a few minuscules have Θαμνασαραχ in accordance with MT (and cf. Josh 19:50; 21:42b.d). With one MS reading ‫ תמנת חרס‬as Judg 2:9, three of six possible permutations of the consonants ‫ס‬, ‫ ח‬and ‫ ר‬are represented. g C. Vaticanus: του γαλααδ. h C. Alexandrinus adds καὶ. I Instead of εἰς ὃ C. Alexandrinus has the more idiomatic ἐν ὧ. j Missing in C. Alexandrinus. k As against the more widespread θάπτω, κατορύσσω is a rare equivalent for ‫קב״ר‬, e.g., Gen 48:7, and may sometimes have a negative connotation, e.g., Jer 32:33 LXX; Ezek 39:11–13; Tob 14:6, but cf. Josh 24:33a in the immediate context. l In the two other occurrences of the word ‫( קשיטה‬Gen 33:19 and Job 42:11, especially relevant is, of course, the former) it is translated by ἀμνάς or ἀμνός as well. Cf. Latin pecus → pecunia or proto-Germanic *fehu “cattle” → Gothic faíhu “money”. m C. Alexandrinus reads ἱερεύς. Apart from 1 Esdras and the books of Macc, the ἀρχιερεύς occurs only in Lev 4:3 and Josh 22:13, again denoting Phinehas. In both cases it is equivalent to Hebrew ‫כהן‬. The stereotyped rendering for Hebrew ‫ הכהן הגדול‬is ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ μέγας. Similarly, ‫ )ה(כהן הראש‬is ὁ ἱερεὺς ὁ πρῶτος or the like. n ἔδωκεν obviously reads ‫ נתן‬as qal against the Masoretic nif., and cf. Josh 19:49–50 and 21:42b. o Thus C. Alexandrinus. p ἕως followed by indicative aorist is rare, cf., e.g., Gen 39:16; Exod 16:35; Num 12:15; Deut 1:31; 9:7; 11:5; Josh 5:8; 11:14, and usually translates a (suffixed) infinitive, but cf. also Josh 3:17; 4:10 (probably with a Hebrew Vorlage differing from MT: ‫עד אשר תם‬ ‫)יהושע‬, 10:13 and 16:10 (cf. MT 1 Kgs 9:16 and 3 Kgds 5:14). q LXX usually employs σέβω only with reference to Israel’s God. Exceptions – apart from the above passage – can be found in the deuterocanonical books where the verb may likewise refer to foreign gods and idols. In most cases σέβω is equivalent to Hebrew ‫יר״א‬, e.g., Josh 4:24, Job 1:9. A noteworthy exception to this usage is Isa 66:14 where the verb renders Hebrew ‫עב״ד‬. This, in turn, is indeed the root used in Judg 2:11, 13 etc. but its stereotyped rendering in the Heptateuch would be λατρεύω when used in a religious sense (but cf. also Exod 23:33; Deut 28:64 and esp. Judg 2:7 [and 10:6, 10, 13, 16 only in LXXB, whereas LXXA consistently uses λατρεύω]!). In any case the use of σέβω is remarkable. r Thus (sg.!) C. Alexandrinus. s The juxtaposition of ᾿Αστάρτη and Ασταρωθ is unparalleled and looks suspiciously like a doublet. Instead of Ασταρωθ a few manuscripts have (την) Ασηρωθ or (την) Ασηρωρ, but this would be the lectio facilior in light of Judg 3:7.

II. 1. Material Evidence

191

Notes on the Hebrew retroversion The retroversion of the pluses is generally based on ROFÉ, ‘End’; for discussion and minor corrections see TOV, Textual Criticism, 297–298, and T OV, Text-Critical Use, 71–72. 1

Cf. Judg 7:7; 9:55. Cf. Josh 4:9, yet the Greek word order may suggest something like ‫ ושם הן‬instead. 3 In this retroversion ‫ קב״ר‬lacks a direct object, but cf. 1 Sam 31:13 or 2 Sam 4:12 (only MT) for this construction when the direct object was mentioned in the foregoing context. Note, however, that C. Alexandrinus adds αυτα. 4 Cf. Josh 24:8, alternatively (with Rofé) ‫האמורי ישבי שכם‬, cf. Josh 11:19; 15:63 or Judg 1:32. 5 Thus the usual equivalent to καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ ταῦτα. For Rofé’s retroversion ‫ויהי אחרי‬ ‫ הדברים האלה‬see 1 Kgs 17:7. In both cases, however, the following clause usually follows with a narrative form. For a rare exception with an inverted verbal clause and suffix conjugation cf. Gen 22:1: ...‫ויהי אחרי הדברים האלה והאלהים נסה‬. See further Gen 40:1; 2 Sam 13:1; 1 Kgs 17:17; 21:1. 6 While ‫ נש״א‬is usually translated by αἴρω, especially when the ark is referred to, there are a several examples where the verb is rendered by λαμβάνω, e.g., Num 31:49, Josh 4:8, Judg 16:31 etc. On the other hand, ‫ נש״א‬is what the Israelites usually do with the ark besides occasional ‫סב״ב‬, whereas ‫ – לק״ח‬thus Rofé’s suggestion – is somehow typically Philistine (cf. 1 Sam 4:11 etc.). 7 περιφέρω is a rare verb in the LXX. In Prov 10:24 it is equivalent to an equally rare form of ‫ בו״א‬qal with a pronominal suffix. In Eccl 7:7 it translates ‫ הל״ל‬polel (and cf. Eccl 2:2). As ‫ סב״ב‬has ἀποστρέφω as its stereotyped equivalent, it might not be an obvious choice for the retroversion. However, ἀποστρέφω might not have been the best choice here. In Josh 6:11 περιέρχομαι is used to translate ‫ ויסב‬which was obviously interpreted as qal rather than hif. as the Masoretes did. In light of that verse, ‫ סב״ב‬seems to be a quite plausible equivalent to περιφέρω here. 8 Rofé suggests a narrative, yet Greek word order rather indicates another inverted verbal clause. 9 A more literal rendering seems to be ‫ בגבעה אשר לו‬as suggested by Rofé. However, this construction would be unparalleled in Hebrew (the function of ‫ אשר לבנימין‬in Judg 19:14 and 20:4 is different). Thus, I tentatively suggest a repetition of ‫גבעת פינחס‬ with a freer rendering of the second element in Greek avoiding that repetition. This could also explain the Greek Γαβααθ, which suggests a construct form as its Hebrew equivalent. 10 In this expression Hebrew uses the singular which LXX sometimes renders plural. 2

192

Harald Samuel

MT 1:1

ַ ‫הוֹשׁ‬ ֻ ‫וַ ְי ִהי ַא ֲח ֵר י מוֹת ְי‬

τίς ἀναβήσεται ἡμῖν πρὸς τὸν Χαναναῖον ἀφηγούμενος τοῦ πολεμῆσαι ἐν αὐτῷ

MT

LXXA

LXXB

‫ת־ה ָﬠם‬ ָ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ֶא‬ ֻ ‫וַ יְ ַשׁ ַלּח ְי‬

‫ת־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ָל ֶר ֶשׁת ֶא‬

2:8

2:9

2:10

Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ ἐπηρώτων οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἐν κυρίῳ λέγοντες

‫ִמי ַי ֲﬠ לֶ ה־ ָלּנוּ ֶאל־ ַה ְכּנַ ֲﬠנִ י‬ ‫ַבּ ְתּ ִח לָּ ה לְ ִה ָלּ ֶחם בּוֹ‬

‫וַ יֵּ ְלכוּ ְב נֵ י־ ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ִאישׁ לְ נַ ֲחלָ תוֹ‬

2:7

LXXB Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὴν τελευτὴν ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ ἐπηρώτων οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ διὰ τοῦ κυρίῳ λέγοντες τίς ἀναβήσεται ἡμῖν πρὸς τοὺς Χαναναίους ἀφηγούμενος τοῦ πολεμῆσαι πρὸς αὐτούς

‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ֲא לוּ ְבּנֵ י ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵא ל‬ ‫ַבּיהוָ ה לֵ אמֹר‬

2:6

LXXA

‫וַ יַּ ַﬠ ְב דוּ ָה ָﬠם ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ וְ כ ֹל ְי ֵמי‬ ֻ ‫כֹּל יְ ֵמי ְי‬ ‫ַהזְּ ֵקנִ ים‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ֶה ֱא ִר יכוּ יָ ִמים ַא ֲח ֵרי‬ ַ ‫ְיהוֹשׁוּ‬ ‫ל־מ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָראוּ ֵאת ָכּ‬ ‫ְיהוָ ה ַהגָּ דוֹל ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ‫לְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ִבּן־נוּן ֶﬠ ֶב ד‬ ֻ ‫וַ ָיּ ָמת ְי‬ ‫ן־מ ָאה וָ ֶﬠ ֶשׂר‬ ֵ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֶבּ‬ ‫ָשׁ נִ ים‬ ‫וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ אוֹתוֹ ִבּגְ בוּל‬ ‫ת־ח ֶרס‬ ֶ ַ‫נַ ֲחלָ תוֹ ְבּ ִת ְמנ‬ ‫ְבּ ַהר ֶא ְפ ָר ִים ִמ ְצּ פוֹן‬ ‫לְ ַהר־גָּ ַﬠשׁ‬ ‫ל־הדּוֹר ַההוּא‬ ַ ‫וְ גַ ם ָכּ‬ ‫בוֹתיו‬ ָ ‫ל־א‬ ֲ ‫נֶ ֶא ְספוּ ֶא‬ ‫יה ם‬ ֶ ‫וַ יָּ ָק ם דּוֹר ַא ֵחר ַא ֲח ֵר‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ל ֹא־ ָי ְדעוּ ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫ת־ה ַמּ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ַ ‫וְ גַ ם ֶא‬ ‫ָﬠ ָשׂה לְ ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

Καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν ᾿Ιησοῦς Καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν λαόν τὸν λαόν καὶ ἀπῆλθαν οἱ υἱοὶ καὶ ἦλθεν Ισραηλ ἀνὴρ εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ τοῦ κατακληρονομῆσαι τὴν κατακληρονομῆσαι τὴν γῆν γῆν καὶ ἐδούλευσεν ὁ λαὸς τῷ καὶ ἐδούλευσεν ὁ λαὸς τῷ κυρίῳ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας κυρίῳ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ πάσας τὰς ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ἡμέρας τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ὅσοι ἐμακροημέρευσαν ὅσοι ἐμακροημέρευσαν μετὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν μετὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν ὅσοι ἔγνωσαν πᾶν τὸ ὅσοι ἔγνωσαν πᾶν τὸ ἔργον κυρίου τὸ μέγα ὃ ἔργον κυρίου τὸ μέγα ὃ ἐποίησεν τῷ Ισραηλ ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν ᾿Ιησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυη δοῦλος κυρίου υἱὸς ἑκατὸν δέκα ἐτῶν καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐν ὁρίῳ τῆς κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ ἐν Θαμναθαρες ἐν ὄρει Εφραιμ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ τοῦ ὄρους Γαας καὶ πᾶσα ἡ γενεὰ ἐκείνη προσετέθησαν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας αὐτῶν καὶ ἀνέστη γενεὰ ἑτέρα μετ᾽ αὐτούς ὅσοι οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὸν κύριον καὶ τὸ ἔργον ὃ ἐποίησεν τῷ Ισραηλ

καί γε πᾶσα ἡ γενεὰ ἐκείνη προσετέθησαν πρὸς τοὺς πατέρας αὐτῶν καὶ ἀνέστη γενεὰ ἑτέρα μετ᾽ αὐτούς οἳ οὐκ ἔγνωσαν τὸν κύριον καί γε τὸ ἔργον ὃ ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ

Καὶ ἀπέστειλεν ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν λαόν καὶ ἐπορεύθησαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτοῦ

[24,29]

καὶ ἐλάτρευσεν Ισραηλ τῷ κυρίῳ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ὅσοι ἐφείλκυσαν τὸν χρόνον μετὰ ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ ὅσοι εἴδοσαν πάντα τὰ ἔργα κυρίου ὅσα ἐποίησεν τῷ Ισραηλ

[24,30] καὶ ἐγένετο μετ᾽ ἐκεῖνα καὶ ἀπέθανεν ᾿Ιησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυη δοῦλος κυρίου ἑκατὸν δέκα ἐτῶν

[24,31] καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν πρὸς τοῖς ὁρίοις τοῦ κλήρου αὐτοῦ ἐν Θαμναθασαχαρα ἐν τῷ ὄρει τῷ Εφραιμ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ τοῦ ὄρους Γαας

24:28

24:31

24:29

24:30

Josh 24 LXX ‫ת־ה ָﬠם‬ ָ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ֶא‬ ֻ ‫וַ יְ ַשׁ ַלּח ְי‬ ‫וַ ֵיּ ְלכוּ ְב נֵ י־יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ‫ִאישׁ לְ נַ ֲחלָ תוֹ‬ ‫ת־ה ָא ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫לָ ֶר ֶשׁת ֶא‬ ‫וַ יַּ ַﬠ ְב דוּ ָה ָﬠם ֶאת־ ְיהוָ ה כּ ֹל ְי ֵמי‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ וְ כ ֹל ְי ֵמי ַהזְּ ֵקנִ ים‬ ֻ ‫ְי‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ֶה ֱא ִריכוּ יָ ִמים ַא ֲח ֵרי‬ ַ ‫יְ הוֹשׁוּ‬ ‫ל־מ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה ְיהוָ ה‬ ַ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָראוּ ֵא ת ָכּ‬ ‫ַהגָּ דוֹל ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה לְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

‫ת־ה ָﬠם‬ ָ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ֶא‬ ֻ ‫וַ יְ ַשׁ ַלּח ְי‬

‫וַ יַּ ֲﬠב ֹד ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵא ל ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה כֹּל יְ ֵמ י‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ וְ כ ֹל ְי ֵמי ַהזְּ ֵקנִ ים‬ ֻ ‫ְי‬ ֻ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ֶה ֱא ִר יכוּ יָ ִמים ַא ֲח ֵרי ְי‬ ַ ‫הוֹשׁ‬

‫הוֹשׁ ַ ִבּן־נוּן ֶﬠ ֶב ד ְיהוָ ה‬ ֻ ‫וַ ָיּ ָמת ְי‬ ‫ן־מ ָאה וָ ֶﬠ ֶשׂר ָשׁנִ ים‬ ֵ ‫ֶבּ‬ ‫וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ אוֹתוֹ ִבּגְ בוּל נַ ֲחלָ תוֹ‬ ‫ת־ח ֶרס‬ ֶ ַ‫ְבּ ִת ְמנ‬ ‫ְבּ ַהר ֶא ְפ ָריִ ם ִמ ְצּ פוֹן לְ ַהר־גָּ ַﬠשׁ‬

‫וַ ְי ִהי ַא ֲח ֵר י ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵאלֶּ ה‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ִבּן־נוּן ֶﬠ ֶב ד ְיהוָ ה‬ ֻ ‫וַ ָיּ ָמת ְי‬ ‫ן־מ ָאה וָ ֶﬠ ֶשׂר ָשׁנִ ים‬ ֵ ‫ֶבּ‬ ‫וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ אֹתוֹ ִבּגְ בוּל נַ ֲחלָ תוֹ‬ ‫ת־ס ַרח‬ ֶ ַ‫ְבּ ִת ְמנ‬ ‫ר־א ְפ ָריִ ם ִמ ְצּפוֹן‬ ֶ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ְבּ ַה‬ ‫ְל ַהר־גָּ ַﬠשׁ‬

‫ל־מ ֲﬠ ֵשׂה ְיהוָ ה‬ ַ ‫וַ ֲא ֶשׁר יָ ְד עוּ ֵא ת ָכּ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה לְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

‫ִאישׁ לְ נַ ֲחלָ תוֹ‬

Judg 2 MT

Josh 24 MT

καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν ᾿Ιησοῦς υἱὸς Ναυη δοῦλος κυρίου υἱὸς ἑκατὸν δέκα ἐτῶν καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν ἐν ὁρίῳ τῆς κληρονομίας αὐτοῦ ἐν Θαμναθαρες ἐν ὄρει Εφραιμ ἀπὸ βορρᾶ τοῦ ὄρους Γαας

Καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν λαόν καὶ ἦλθεν ἀνὴρ εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ κατακληρονομῆσαι τὴν γῆν καὶ ἐδούλευσεν ὁ λαὸς τῷ κυρίῳ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας ᾿Ιησοῦ καὶ πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας τῶν πρεσβυτέρων ὅσοι ἐμακροημέρευσαν μετὰ ᾿Ιησοῦν ὅσοι ἔγνωσαν πᾶν τὸ ἔργον κυρίου τὸ μέγα ὃ ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ Ισραηλ

Judg 2 LXXB

2:9

2:8

2:7

2:6

II. 1. Material Evidence

193

194

Harald Samuel

C. Description of Variants The variants noted above cluster around three main problems, all of which already attracted ample scholarly attention: The parallel between Josh 24 and Judg 2, including some minute differences as well as the different position of Josh 24:31 MT in LXX, the plus in Josh 24:31 LXX (24:31a) and the even larger plus in 24:33 LXX (24:33a, b). Josh 24:33a commences with the formula “on that day”, i.e., the day of Eleazar’s burial in Gibeah of Phinehas, his son (v. 33) – a place never mentioned before and only once immediately afterwards. While the Israelites carry the ark of God in their midst, Phinehas is introduced as acting priest succeeding his father only to die in the same sentence (and irrespective of Judg 20:27b–28a).1 He is buried in Gibeah of Phinehas, so at least implicitly the LXX answers the question that may arise as to why Eleazar’s burial place is not called Gibeah of Eleazar but of Phinehas. Together with the introductory formula “after these (things)” missing in MT, the Greek text bestows more weight to the period of priestly leadership after Joshua’s death. After Phinehas’ death the Israelites once again depart, “each to their place and their own city” (24:33b) as they did when Joshua sent them after his last words (24:28). This time, however, apparently bereft of a leading figure that took part in the Exodus, they start to worship the gods of the nations around them. Thus, YHWH delivers the Israelites into the hands of a foreign king – Eglon2 of Moab, who will be lord over them for eighteen years. The reader who continues will encounter this information again in Judg 3:14 with further information what is to happen after those eighteen years. Whereas the Hebrew book of Joshua, which in its second half is on the way to becoming the book of Joshua and Eleazar, consequently ends with the death and burial of both contemporaries, i.e., the end of an era, the Greek book of Joshua ventures an outlook at least one generation later – a time lapse comprising only a few sentences. Here, the preview of Eglon’s story is a real cliffhanger that calls for a solution. Interestingly, the look forward not only skips the lengthy introduction of the book of Judges in ch. 1 and, naturally, the repetition of Joshua’s death and burial, but also the episode at Bochim (Judg 2:1–5) and 1 Note however, that those sentences in Judges most probably constitute a later gloss since they disrupt the inquiry by the Israelites and YHWH’s answer to them. The transposition of Judg 20:27a in the LXX after the note on the ark can be understood as a smoothing-out of the text. 2 Εγλωμ with final μ in the LXX. The interchange of /m/ and /n/ at the ends of words, especially names, is a well-known phenomenon in the LXX and in the Hebrew Bible itself. In connection with the unetymological interchange of ‫ ם‬and ‫ ן‬at word ends in Mishnaic Hebrew, e.g., in the word ‫ אדן‬for Classical Hebrew ‫אדם‬, this is telling about the pronounciation of Hebrew in the Hellenistic and Roman periods. See MAZOR, ‘Origin’, n. 18 for further discussion and examples.

II. 1. Material Evidence

195

the story of Othniel (Judg 3:7–11). Conversely, none of the remarks on Phinehas or the ark (of the covenant) of YHWH reappear in Judges until ch. 20.3 So far, the plus has been treated here as the reading of the LXX. Indeed, unlike other LXX readings where the Dead Sea Scrolls provided evidence for a Hebrew Vorlage, this passage is so far not attested in Hebrew. Nonetheless, there is good reason (in fact little doubt) to assume that Josh 24:33a, b goes back to a Hebrew original. To begin with, these sentences are easily retroverted into Hebrew and may, considering the possible Vorlage, illuminate some peculiarities in the Greek text.4 Moreover, the conspicuous juxtaposition of ᾿Αστάρτη and Ασταρωθ leaves the impression of a doublet (see n. s on the Greek text above), although the sentences are not drawn from parallel texts, nor do the peculiar lexical choices conform to the stereotyped usage elsewhere (especially σέβω, see n. q). Another argument would be Hebraizing recensional activity discernible in some manuscripts. However, the occasional addition of τῆς διαθήκης in τὴν κιβωτὸν τοῦ θεοῦ is an all too common phenomenon to reveal anything about another similar but still different Hebrew Vorlage. Likewise, the remaining (and in any case small) variants are best explained as inner-Greek stylistic variants. The case of the LXX plus in v. 31 is no less complex and covers a similarly large literary horizon. The death and burial notice about Joshua is expanded to include information on the whereabouts of the flint knives with which Joshua had circumcised the Israelites at Gilgal. The reader knows of those knives from ch. 55 on and the reader of Greek Joshua is reminded about them in 21:42d. They are buried with Joshua and are there “until this very day.” Apart from the flint knives, another detail in 24:31a has attracted the attention of scholars: Joshua is described as the one who led the Israelites out of Egypt. However, the reason for the LXX’s formulation might be less spectacular than it sounds at first, since at the very moment in Gilgal, which must be considered part of the “Exodus”, Joshua simply is the leader. As in v. 33, there is the question of whether the Greek text of v. 31 had a Hebrew Vorlage or is an inner-Greek phenomenon, be it an addition by the translator or even later in the process of transmission. Like in 24:33a, b, the Hebraic diction of the Greek can count as a first hint at a Hebrew Vorlage. Yet unlike 24:33a, b, the A- and the B-text also show a few differences (see the notes above, esp. n. h) which one may interpret as revisions towards a more Hebraic diction and which do not necessarily represent Greek stylistic 3

Phinehas is also missing from the retrospect in CD V,1–5. CD is therefore a doubtful support for the LXX variant. 4 As to retroversions in general and the contribution of Qumran to textual criticism in this respect see TOV, ‘Contribution’, and IDEM, Text-Critical Use. 5 Note that the designation of the flint knives as ἀκροτόμοι is unique to ch. 5.

196

Harald Samuel

improvements. There is no unambiguous decision, but the evidence seems to point in favor of a Hebrew Vorlage here as well. The greatest conundrum is presented by the parallel between Josh 24 and Judg 2 – some people die twice! The logical puzzlement aside, the discussion here shall be restricted to the textual phenomena, i.e., the minor and major differences between the two texts, not all of which will be discussed. Josh 24:28 is paralleled by Judg 2:6. Joshua dismisses the people and they go away – in MT to their inheritance, in Josh 24:28 to their place and in Judg 2:6 LXXA to their house and their inheritance. Only in Judges do they go “to inherit” the land. One may detect a degree of tension between the statement that the Israelites left to their inheritance and the information that there is still some land to inherit after Joshua’s death. The latter idea is present in Josh 24 as well, even if 24:28 does not explicitly express the task. Given such a tension, the phrasing in LXX is explicable as a reaction to this discrepancy. Likewise, the longer text in Judg 2:6 would have to count as a kind of lectio difficilior. In Judg 2 and in Josh 24 LXX the next element is the summary statement that the Israelites served YHWH all the days of Joshua and the elders after Joshua who had seen (‫רא״ה‬/ὁράω) or known (‫יד״ע‬/γινώσκω) the mighty deeds of YHWH. Josh 24 MT suspends this information until after the notice that Joshua died and was buried in Timnath-Serah. Thus, the formula “And it happened after these things” introducing the note on Joshua’s death,6 completely absent in Judg 2, directly follows in v. 29 MT. Whereas in LXX “these things” comprise Israel’s conduct and the formula is used to reintroduce Joshua as subject, MT does not report any other actions and one must therefore interpret the sentence as a kind of conclusion to the whole book. One wonders, however, if this is the primary intention and whether the sentence is well-placed in its current position. Together with the possible motivation to produce a simpler chronological order, this suggests that MT might have rearranged the sequence of verses. The interchange between the verbs know (Josh 24:31 MT; Judg 2:7 LXX) and see (vice versa: Josh 24:29 LXX; Judg 2:7 MT) appears as an interchange of stock phrases and thus seems to be without any significance. Even so, Judg 2:10 again uses know – in both textual traditions – and exemplifies the idea of a generational change: The generation after Joshua and the elders did not know. If, by contrast, see is intended to imply being an eyewitness, the gap between the generation that “saw” and the generation that did not even “know” would increase. Yet one may question whether such narrowing of the semantic field of ‫ יד״ע‬and γινώσκω is cogent. Be that as it may, it does not seem to help in deciding which reading is more original. 6 In LXX such a formula is again used to introduce the note on Eleazar’s death in v. 33 but is missing in MT. I see no decisive arguments in any direction.

II. 1. Material Evidence

197

D. Literary-Historical Implications In all three of the examples above, exegetical rewriting took place at the Hebrew level of textual transmission. Omissions due to editorial mishaps during transmission are virtually excluded. In the case of the flint knives one could, of course, argue that MT suppressed an unpleasant tradition. Yet this “tradition” cannot be older than the text on the circumcision at Gilgal in Josh 5 – a text which in recent works has been understood as one of the latest additions to the book of Joshua. Josh 24:33 LXX could, as has been argued, attest a more original connection between Joshua and Judges that has become obsolete after extensive additions at the beginning of Judges and was consequently omitted in MT. However, such an explanation could at best account for an omission of 24:33b, whereas Phinehas’ succession of Eleazar and his death and burial are irrelevant in Judg 2 and no reason to omit them can be identified. Furthermore, the end of 24:33a LXX marks a no less epochal caesura than v. 33, and the whole verse could be explained as an exegetical expansion of v. 33. The beginning of 24:33b almost seems like a Wiederaufnahme of v. 28. Thus, irrespective of the absolute date of the tradition represented by the Greek text, there are signals to interpret them as additions to the text form represented by MT.7 If the leap forward from Phinehas’ death to the oppression by Eglon reveals an older stage of the book of Judges, this may simply reveal how late, in fact, the Ehud account in Judg 3:7–11, the Bochim story in 2:1–5 and ch. 1 are. Concerning the last two units, the parallel between Josh 24 and Judg 2 provides another argument. However one interprets the doublets, Judg 1:1–2:5 logically postdates the duplication. The differences between the accounts further hint at the possibility that the passage itself – whichever version preserves the more original one – was reworked. Such possibilities will be discussed in the following chapters; the remark here simply serves as a reminder that despite the refreshingly manifold textual evidence the transition between Joshua and Judges offers a valuable but still quite limited insight into the editorial processes of the books that eventually became part of the Bible. As ever, evidence cannot replace scholarly acumen: “Konstruiren muß man bekanntlich die Geschichte immer. Der Unterschied ist nur der, ob man gut oder schlecht konstruirt” (J. Wellhausen). This sentence is no less true for redactional and textual history!

7 Cf. now also MÄKIPELTO, ‘Four Deaths’, for an important discussion of the interplay between textual criticism and literary-historical reconstruction.

Joshua’s Death Told Twice – Perspectives from the History of Research Erasmus Gaß The twice-told death of Joshua in Josh 24:29–30 and Judg 2:8–9 has puzzled generations of scholars, all the more so as there is another reference to Joshua’s death in Judg 1:1. The obvious duplication of the notice of Joshua’s death is further complicated by even more doublets at the seam of both books, such as two assemblies with two concluding dtr farewell speeches delivered by Joshua in Josh 23:1–16 and Josh 24:1–281 and two introductions to the book of Judges in Judg 1:1–2:5 and Judg 2:6–10.2 The older opinion that the author simply repeated his own verses in Judg 2:6–93 is rather improbable for logical reasons. Judg 1:1–2:5 happen after Joshua’s death (Judg 1:1) and are more elaborate than the parallels in the book of Joshua. There is no reason for the author to refer to Joshua’s death again in Judg 2:6–9. Moreover, at least Judg 2:1–5 competes with Josh 23–24, such that Judg 1:1–2:5 – the part between the doublet – seems to be a later addition.4 The following discussion will present different redactional and text-critical models that try to untangle the compositional knot between the books of Joshua and Judges. Before the chronological sequence of the doublets can be discussed, some basic questions related to the literary history of Josh-Judg should be raised. First, it will be shown that both doublets might be incoherent (A) so that unilinear solutions are problematic regarding either Josh 24:29–31 or Judg 2:7–9 as source texts. Second, the different sequence of both texts is analyzed (B) against the backdrop of determining the original tradition. Third, the text-critical problem of the variant LXX-tradition in Josh 24:31, 33 should be evaluated (C), especially whether LXX might have preserved an earlier tradition which linked Joshua with Judges. Fourth, the di1

See RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 343. See RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 343; IDEM, Von Josua bis Jojachin, 50. However, according to JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 350, the real doublet of Joshua’s death is relativized by overstraining the parallels. On the problems within Josh 23–Judg 2 see also FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 50–56. 3 See KEIL, Josua, Richter und Rut, 200. 4 Yet Judg 2:6 cannot follow directly after Josh 24:31 either; see RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 45. 2

200

Erasmus Gaß

vergent burial-site of Joshua might reveal some indications for dating the parallels (D). All of these aspects have been integrated in redactional theories (E) analyzing the book-seam between Joshua and Judges. Some of the arguments must be quoted several times, giving this overview some redundancy. This is necessary, however, since many arguments are equivocal and used for different reconstructions.

A. Incoherent Passages in Josh 24 and Judg 2 At least Josh 24:28 does not belong to Joshua’s death notice, since Josh 24:29 begins with a separate formula and is set off by a petucha.5 Yet even Josh 24:29–33 might not be coherent. Scholars have developed the following options regarding the stratification of the remaining unit in Josh 24:29–33: a) vv. 29–30, 33 and vv. 31–32:6 The different layers are assigned to redactions which are attributed to either dtr or Priestly editors.7 Perhaps the earliest layer in vv. 29–30, 33 represents local grave traditions about Joshua and Eleazar.8 The second burial notice of Eleazar in v. 33 might have evolved out of an etiology of the Ephraimite toponym Gibeah of Phinehas.9 b) vv. 29–30, 32–33 and v. 31:10 The older source in vv. 29–30, 32–33 was expanded by a dtr addition in v. 31. The earliest layer is often attributed to the Elohistic stratum.11 c) vv. 29–31 and vv. 32–33:12 The references to the graves of Joseph and Phinehas (vv. 32–33) might be literary additions to the earlier tradition in Josh 24:29–31. In this respect, vv. 32–33 would be post-Priestly expansions.13 5

See RÖSEL, ‘Redaktion’, 187–188. See KNAUF, Josua, 199. Similarly GÖRG, Josua, 109, who regards vv. 29–30, 33 as a pre-dtr source. Görg regards v. 31 as dtr and v. 32 as post-dtr/Priestly. On v. 31 as a dtr addition see SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, Josua und Salomo, 222. 7 For KNAUF, Josua, 199, vv. 29–30, 33 stand in the Priestly tradition and vv. 31–32 in the dtr tradition. Similarly NOTH, Josua, 9, 141, who regards v. 31 as dtr and v. 32 as a secondary addition that builds upon the other grave traditions in vv. 29–30, 33. 8 See NOTH, Josua, 140–141. 9 See NOTH, Josua, 141; SOGGIN, Joshua, 245. 10 For the evaluation of v. 31 as dtr and vv. 29–30, 32–33 as Elohistic see already OETTLI, Deuteronomium, 126; HOLZINGER, Josua, 99–100; SMEND, Erzählung, 337; EISSFELDT, Hexateuch-Synopse, 81; WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 133. 11 See STEUERNAGEL, Deuteronomium und Josua, 304. 12 See FRITZ, Josua, 251; BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 159. On vv. 32–33 as later additions, see already O’DOHERTY, ‘Problem’, 4; NOTH, Überlieferungsgschichtliche Studien, 8–9 n. 3. NENTEL, Trägerschaft, 108–109, considers Josh 24:32–33 to be a late dtr addition by his DtrS. 13 See FRITZ, Josua, 250–252. According to NELSON, Joshua, 278, MT, with its reference to the bones of Joseph, which are considered an inheritance for the tribe of Joseph, 6

II. 2.1. History of Research

201

The reference to the reburial of Joseph’s bones near Shechem in v. 32 ties the book of Joshua to Genesis, whereas Eleazar’s death and the reference to Phinehas link v. 33 to the next generation.14 Perhaps vv. 32–33 are later additions closing a narrative thread found already in the Pentateuch (Gen 33:19; 50:26; Exod 13:19).15 In this respect, the burial notices in Josh 24 are the final words of a Hexateuch. Furthermore, the end of Joshua imitates the end of Genesis. In this regard, Genesis and Joshua are related to each other somehow.16 Perhaps the first edition of Joshua ended with Joshua’s death and burial notice. Afterwards, this ending was expanded with similar information on Joseph and Eleazar.17 All in all, the alleged redactional strata are delimited mostly on stylistic/linguistic observations (dtr, Priestly etc.), content-related arguments (different topic) or redactional alignments (links to the Hexateuch), some of them persuasive, some of them not. It is questionable whether there are clear literary-critical tensions. Judg 2:6–10 might have several redactional layers as well. Different proposals have been suggested: a) vv. 6, 8–9 and vv. 7, 10:18 The earliest dtr layer might be found in vv. 6, 8–9, whereas vv. 7, 10 is a second dtr layer that first displaced vv. 6, 8–9 to the end of Joshua so that Judges began with vv. 7, 10. A later redaction, which added Judg 1:1–2:5, was responsible for the doublet that created two separate but related books. Therefore, two dtr redactions might have formed Judg 2:6–10. b) vv. 6–7 and vv. 8–9:19 Perhaps vv. 8–9 belonged to the earlier DtrH, whereas vv. 6–7 are related to the later DtrN. Further tensions within Judg 2:6–9 might be explained traditio-historically. In this regard, vv. 6a, 7a might represent an earlier, pre-dtr stratum.20 c) vv. 7–10 and v. 6:21 Perhaps only v. 6 is a later addition to vv. 7–10. At least vv. 7–10 seem to be without tensions. Moreover, v. 10 refers back to v. 7 by the idiom ‫“ הדור ההוא‬this generation”. Moreover, Joshua’s death was offensive to later orthodoxy and therefore this plural form was altered in the versions to singular. On this problem see also RÖSEL, Joshua, 378. 14 See HESS, Joshua, 342. 15 See RÖSEL, Joshua, 377. Similarly already SOGGIN, Joshua, 245; MILLER/TUCKER, Joshua, 183; TENGSTRÖM, Hexateucherzählung, 40–41; WEIMAR, Untersuchungen, 169; GÖRG, Josua, 110; VAN SETERS, Life, 18. 16 See RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 544–545. Similarly BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 206, 210, who thinks that v. 32 might belong to a Hexateuch redaction and that v. 33 is a late Priestly addition. 17 See BOLING, Joshua, 541. 18 See BUDDE, Richter, 21–22. 19 See BECKER, Richterzeit, 62–72. 20 See JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 357. 21 See RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 48.

202

Erasmus Gaß

(v. 8) and a new generation (v. 10) belong together due to the parallel in Exod 1.22 Furthermore, Judg 2:11ff. are a good continuation of Judg 2:7–10, since Israel’s abandonment of YHWH in Judg 2:11ff. is motivated by the gap of generations mentioned in v. 10. In addition, Judg 2:11ff cannot be linked to Judg 1:1–2:5, since it lacks the notion that there were people left in Israel. All things considered, tensions in Judg 2:6–10 are difficult to substantiate, since dtr language is used throughout. It is questionable whether these dtr verses can be segmented in two different dtr editions. It is not surprising that the different layers in Judg 2 might complicate matters, since they could be linked to Josh 24 in different ways within the scope of redaction criticism. Unsurprisingly, some scholars have proposed rather complex redactional processes (see section E 3 below).

B. Different Sequences in Josh 24 and Judg 2 Apart from the possible tensions within Josh 24:28–31 and Judg 2:6–9, the arrangement of Josh 24:28–31 seems to be in disarray, since it differs significantly from its parallel in Judg 2:6–9.23 Several proposals have been made: a) Judg 2:6–9 in its original sequence: The doublet in Judg 2:6–9 might have preserved the original order since it is the lectio difficilior. The compositional reordering in Josh 24 is easier to explain than vice versa.24 Even the sequence in Judg 2:6–9 (dismissal of the assembly – obedience of the people – Joshua’s death – Joshua’s burial) might be more logical than the arrangement in Josh 24:28–31.25 Perhaps the rearrangement in Josh 24 with the people’s obedience at the end (Josh 24:31) serves to give the story a satisfactory conclusion.26 b) Josh 24 in its original sequence: In contrast, the sequence in Josh 24 MT might be more original for several reasons. The transitional idiom ‫ויהי אחרי‬ ‫“ הדברים האלה‬after these things” in the earlier Josh 24:29 was deleted in

22 See GROß, Richter, 184. For this parallel see already RENDTORFF, ‘Jahwist’, 166, who considers this literary form to be dtn-dtr. 23 In this respect, a verse-by-verse comparison of both texts is not possible, since one has to prefer one version over the other; see JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 351 n. 34. 24 See BOLING, Joshua, 541; BECKER, Richterzeit, 65. See already NÖTSCHER, Josua, 71, who prefers the sequence of Josh 24 LXX. 25 See JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 353. 26 See NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 9 n. 3. However, GÖRG, Josua, 109–110, maintains that v. 31 does not give a negative judgment on the following generations.

II. 2.1. History of Research

203

Judg 2:8.27 This idiom had to be discarded in Judg 2:8 to prevent logical problems, since in Judg 2:7 the obedience of Joshua’s generation is mentioned and the context is no longer the covenant ceremony.28 Moreover, the obedience to YHWH by Joshua and the generation surviving Joshua fits better after the death notice, such that Josh 24 has the better sequence.29 Therefore, Josh 24:31 clearly marks the end of the period under Joshua’s leadership. In this respect, the note about the elders is placed perfectly after Joshua’s death.30 Furthermore, the idiom ‫“ אשר האריכו ימים אחרי יהושע‬who lived longer than Joshua” logically requires the preceding notice of Joshua’s death. An evaluation of a whole generation makes better sense after the death of Joshua. Consequently, the sequence in Josh 24:29–31 is a deliberate closure of the earlier generation. On the contrary, the contrast between the positive and negative generation in Judg 2:6–10 is stressed better by putting this note (Josh 24:31) in front of the death notice. This could have prompted the reorganization in Judg 2.31 Perhaps the reorganized sequence of Judg 2:6–10 is due to the secondary addition of a further period within Israel’s history. Whereas Josh 24:28–31 describe two periods (tribes before Joshua’s death and the generation who outlived Joshua), Judg 2:6–10 have three consecutive periods of Israel’s history, from the time before Joshua’s death (Judg 2:6–7a) to the time of the generation who outlived Joshua (Judg 2:7b) and finally to the time of the generation after Joshua who did not know the great deeds of YHWH (Judg 2:10b). Thus, Judg 2 reordered the better periodization found in Josh 24 by putting the transition from period 1 to 2 – which is marked by Joshua’s death (Judg 2:8–9) – after period 2 (Judg 2:7b), which goes against chronological logic but separates periods 2 and 3 categorically.32 c) Josh 24 LXX in its original sequence: Perhaps the different sequence has to be explained text-critically.33 The position of the death notice in Josh 24:29 disrupts the narrative sequence. The perfect connection between the dismissal and obedience of Israel (Josh 24:28, 31) is interrupted by Joshua’s death (Josh 24:29–30). Beyond that, Josh 24:31 looks back again to the time of Joshua, who nevertheless died shortly before in Josh 24:29. In Judg 2:6–10 the narrative order is more fitting, since it mentions the generations first and then Joshua’s death. However, Judg 2:10 is linked lexically to 27 See NELSON, Joshua, 281; BUTLER, Joshua 13–24, 335. According to BECKER, Richterzeit, 67, the idiom “after these things” might be an addition in Josh 24:29 or a deletion in Judg 2:6–9. This idiom seems to be content-related. 28 See also KOOPMANS, Joshua 24, 368. 29 On the better sequence in Josh 24 MT see OETTLI, Deuteronomium, 204; SMEND, Erzählung, 337; RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 47; SOGGIN, Judges, 38; BECKER, Richterzeit, 65. 30 See SOGGIN, Judges, 38. 31 See RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 344–345. 32 See O’CONNELL, Rhetoric, 72–73. 33 On what follows see LUCASSEN, ‘Josua’, 383–384.

204

Erasmus Gaß

Judg 2:7 and refers once again to the generation. Thus, Judg 2:10 seems to be a Wiederaufnahme of Judg 2:7 that was added because Josua’s death disrupted the narrative flow. Therefore, it appears that Judg 2:6–9 are taken from the LXX version of Josh 24:28–31. The sequence in Josh 24 LXX might be more original, whereas Josh 24 MT has been changed to conclude the Joshua narrative with the theological motif of obedience. Thus, the arrangement of Josh 24 LXX might have priority over Josh 24 MT.34 However, the Wiederaufnahme of Judg 2:7 in Judg 2:10 proves nothing. It is also possible that LXX has harmonized the different order of Judg 2 and Josh 24 by adopting the arrangement of Judg 2 in Josh 24 as well,35 so that the death and burial of Joshua have the last word on him. Since the structure of Judg 2 is more logical, it was preferred by LXX. d) Sequence dependent on function: The distinctive sequence might have been caused by the different function of both sections,36 so that a definite diachronic assessment cannot be established. Whereas the version in Joshua seeks to stress the faithfulness of Joshua and his generation, the version in Judges emphasizes the difference from the following generation and has placed v. 31 – which refers to the loyalty of the people during Joshua’s lifetime – in front of Joshua’s death notice. The different sequence in Josh 24 and Judg 2 has substantial consequences. Whereas the period of obedience lasts throughout Joshua’s lifetime in Josh 24, with his death signaling the end of that period, there seems to be another period of obedience by the generation outliving Joshua in Judg 2, thus extending the salvific period under Joshua. After that, the following generation disobeys. Thus, there are at least three periods in Judg 2. In this regard, the concept of Judg 2:7–10 with the disobedience of the generation after the death of the leader alludes to the cyclical pattern of the Judges period.37 All things considered, an appropriate diachronic decision over which sequence is earlier than the other is not possible, since the order in Josh 24 with the reference to the behavior of the Israelites during Joshua’s lifetime after Joshua’s death (Josh 24:31) at the end is no more probable than the look ahead to the post-Joshua generation already during Joshua’s lifetime (Judg 2:7).38 Furthermore, as seen in the discussion, not all arguments are 34

See AULD, ‘Judges I’, 264. See JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 353; NELSON, Joshua, 282; BUTLER, Joshua 13–24, 335. 36 On a deliberate arrangement in both sections see NOORT, ‘Jos 24,28–31’, 115; NELSON, Joshua, 282; BUTLER, Judges, 42; IDEM, Joshua 13–24, 335. See already BERTHEAU, Richter und Rut, 55: “An beiden Orten ist die eingehaltene Reihenfolge durchaus passend”. 37 See RAKE, Juda, 128–129. According to SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, Josua und Salomo, 360, Joshua gave the following generation a good example of true obedience so that they could live in accord with YHWH. 38 See RAKE, Juda, 128. 35

II. 2.1. History of Research

205

decisive, but can be used both ways. Therefore, it is problematic to use the different sequence for redactional theories, as will be seen below.

C. The Different LXX Version Some parts of the conclusion to Joshua are only preserved in the LXX. The longer text of the LXX might either be a later addition39 or might display the original tradition on which the MT has drawn.40 The arguments for both interpretations should be evaluated here. 1. The LXX plus in v. 31 Especially the obvious heresy of Joshua being the leader from Egypt and the remark about the flint circumcision knives which is maintained by v. 31 LXX might indicate its originality and authenticity. 41 Both statements have been offensive for orthodox readers, such that this text must have been excluded in later times.42 Furthermore, there seems to be no reason for these elements to be appended at a later time. In addition, it appears that the longer LXX version had a Hebrew Vorlage, since both additions can be easily retranslated into Hebrew.43 However, Josh 24:31 LXX with the report on the flint circumcision knives might be a midrashic expansion that draws on Josh 5:4. In addition, the statement about Joshua as the leader of the exodus builds on the reference to the exodus in Josh 5:4.44 Thus, both notes (Joshua as leader of the exodus and the flint circumcision knives) are most probably linked to Josh 5:4. Furthermore, the combination of covenant and circumcision is late and dependent on the late Priestly text in Gen 17.45 Moreover, the LXX version develops the concept of Joshua as the leader of the exodus already in Josh 24:5, since the 39 RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 545 thinks that LXX has intensified the idea of a Hexateuch by its additions. LUCASSEN, ‘Josua’, 394, assumes that Josh 24:33 LXX are late additions to round out the book of Joshua, but not an indication that Judg 3:12 follows directly upon Josh 24. Already RUDOLPH, Elohist, 253, regarded the LXX pluses as secondary; similarly FRITZ, Josua, 250; NELSON, Joshua, 281. 40 See ROFÉ, ‘End’, 30. For a critique of the view that LXX is earlier than MT see SCHMID, Erzväter, 218–219; KRATZ, ‘Hexateuch’, 304–305. 41 See ROFÉ, ‘End’, 24; BUTLER, Joshua 13–24, 335. However, RÖSEL, ‘SeptuagintVersion’, 18, thinks that this notion is a particular accent of the LXX translator. 42 See ROFÉ, ‘End’, 23–24. 43 See GREENSPOON, ‘Joshua’, 241. See already ROFÉ, ‘End’, 32 and part II, section 1 of this volume. 44 See RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 349; NELSON, Joshua, 282; contrary to LUCASSEN, ‘Josua’, 387–389, who holds the LXX version to be original. 45 See JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 353.

206

Erasmus Gaß

reference to Moses and Aaron is deleted there.46 Therefore, Josh 24:31 LXX is a later addition as well. 2. The LXX plus in v. 33 Sometimes the longer LXX text of v. 33 is considered to be more original than MT. If this is indeed the case, Judg 1:1–3:11 might be a secondary addition to the book of Judges, since it evolved from the LXX plus. In this respect, the original text of Judges might have begun with the oppression by Eglon.47 Apparently the longer version of Joshua LXX was still in use at Qumran, since CD V:3–4 knows especially about the Ark of the Covenant and the veneration of the Astartes by the Israelites in the context of Joshua’s and Eleazar’s death.48 Perhaps the longer part of the LXX text was later deleted for theological reasons in order to eliminate the idea of a Hexateuch and to strengthen the notion of the Pentateuch as a discrete literary work. However, it is questionable whether Qumran has still retained a pre-dtr version. Moreover, the relevant passage in CD only alludes to the events mentioned in the LXX pluses but does not correspond to a possible Hebrew reconstruction of the LXX. 49 Thus, it seems that the LXX text is secondary. By adding further information in v. 33, the LXX might have tied Joshua and Judges together.50 The LXX plus begins with an introductory formula and repeats information from Judg 3, such that it might not be original but instead dependent on the Judges tradition, since the content of this addition refers to Judges, not to Joshua. Therefore, v. 33 LXX might be a redactional appendix to stress the link between Joshua and Judges, not only by the parallel in Judg 2:6–9, but also by supplements in Josh 24:33. Hence, the LXX expansion is due to “intertextual bridge building”51, indicating that the plus in v. 33 LXX is not original, but redactional.52 The LXX additions in v. 33 might be related to Judg 2:6, 11–13 and 3:7, 12–14 so that they display not the original tradition, but are simply arbitrary supplements.53 The LXX additions allude to themes in the book of Judges and show that apostasy happened

46

See RÖSEL, ‘Septuagint-Version’, 15. See ROFÉ, ‘End’, 28–30. On an earlier connection between Josh 24:33 LXX + Judg 3:15 see BLUM, ‘Connection’, 101; SPRONK, ‘From Joshua to Samuel’, 149. 48 See ROFÉ, ‘End’, 28–29; LUCASSEN, ‘Josua’, 378–379; RAKE, Juda, 138–139 n. 435. 49 See the critique by VAN DER MEER, Formation, 61. 50 See NELSON, Joshua, 282. 51 NELSON, Joshua, 282. 52 See RÖSEL, Joshua, 377. According to RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 349, the idiom ἐν ἐκείνῃ τῇ ἡμέρᾳ “on that day” is linked to Judg 20:27–28, and the setting at Γαβααθ τῇ ἑαυτοῦ “Gibeah which belonged to him” might indicate redactional reworking. Moreover, the beginning of Josh 24:33b is paralleled by Josh 24:28. 53 See already KEIL, Josua, Richter und Rut, 174. 47

II. 2.1. History of Research

207

already at the very beginnings of Israel.54 Moreover, the LXX additions might indicate that Joshua was translated prior to other historical books, such that the translator added material from other books.55 All in all, it seems that the LXX tradition in Josh 24:31, 33 is later than the MT version and reflects the theological agenda of the LXX translator. Therefore, it is difficult to use the divergent LXX version in redactional theories.

D. The Tomb of Joshua at Timnath-Heres or Timnath-Serah? The tradition of Joshua’s tomb in Ephraim does not seem to be invented nor is it biased.56 There might have been a preexilic tradition of the tomb of Joshua which became important when the Joshua narrative was interpreted in a pan-Israelite way. 57 Joshua’s tomb was located on his own inheritance. Thus, there was no need to purchase burial ground, unlike the case of the former patriarchs.58 Since the location of Timnath-Serah is difficult,59 this place was associated with Mt. Gaash which is also unknown otherwise.60 The original reading of the toponym Timnath-Heres/Timnath-Serah is far from certain.61 Sometimes the priority of one name over the other is used to prove the direction of the dependence between both passages.62 Three different interpretations have been considered regarding the original name form of Joshua’s burial site: a) Some scholars think that Timnath-Heres (Judg 2:9) is more original than Timnath-Serah (Josh 24:30). The name Timnath-Heres was later changed to Timnath-Serah, since ḥeres “sun” might be related to a forbidden solar cult.63 54

See RÖSEL, ‘Septuagint-Version’, 18. See RÖSEL, ‘Septuagint-Version’, 19. 56 See ALT, ‘Josua’, 186. 57 See FRITZ, Josua, 250. 58 See WOUDSTRA, Joshua, 360. 59 The toponym Timnath-Serah/Timnath-Heres is identified either with Ḫirbet Tibne (1603.1573) or with Kafr Ḥāris (1637.1691), both with early Jewish, Samaritan, Christian or Muslim traditions. On both places see HERTZBERG, ‘Tradition’, 89–90; GAß, Ortsnamen, 198 n. 1505; RÖSEL, Joshua, 376. For different traditions see NOORT, ‘Jos 24,28– 31’, 109–111. Since the necropolis of Kafr Ḥāris lacks evidence from the Iron Age, the Biblical toponym might be identified with nearby Ḫirbet et-Tell (1638.1691); see NOORT, ‘Jos 24,28–31’, 126. 60 See NELSON, Joshua, 279. 61 LXX has a variant reading potentially reflecting Hebrew ‫ ;סחר‬see BOLING, Joshua, 532; NELSON, Joshua, 279. 62 Yet this cannot prove anything; see KOOPMANS, Joshua 24, 369 n. 109. 63 For the possible originality of Timnath-Heres see OETTLI, Deuteronomium, 228; NÖTSCHER, Richter, 12; MILLER/TUCKER, Joshua, 154; AULD, ‘Judges I’, 264; BOLING, Judges, 72; HERTZBERG, Josua, Richter, Ruth, 139; GRAY, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 160; 55

208

Erasmus Gaß

Thus, the offensive name form of original Timnath-Heres was slightly altered for pious reasons. b) However, it is questionable why the allegedly negative toponym Timnath-Heres was not changed in Judg 2:9 as well and why all other toponyms with ḥeres or šemeš have been sustained contrary to the burial site of Joshua.64 Therefore, Timnath-Serah (Josh 24:30) might be considered more original. Perhaps the copyist of Judges reversed the consonants of seraḥ to ḥeres.65 In this respect, Timnath-Serah might be the proper toponym.66 Furthermore, the accidental or deliberate alteration to Timnath-Heres in Judg 2:9 links the toponym of Joshua’s burial site to the sun miracle of Josh 10:12– 14.67 Hence, there are good reasons for changing Timnath-Serah to TimnathHeres. c) Moreover, the modifier seraḥ might have had a negative connotation (“stink”) as well, such that it was deliberately altered by later scribes to ḥeres.68 In this respect, Timnath-Heres might be a deliberate change based on Har-Heres mentioned already in Judg 1:35.69 Therefore, Timnath-Serah might be the original name. All in all, the name Timnath-Serah seems to be more original than Timnath-Heres. However, this observation helps little in establishing the redaction criticism of Josh 24 and Judg 2, since Timnath-Serah might have been altered in Judg 2:9 independently of all other redactional processes.

E. Different Solutions Regarding the Doublets Sometimes the doublet of Joshua’s twice-told death is solved by synchronic readings. In this way, the second occurrence in Judg 2 is seen as a flashback,70 although the syntax does not support such a chronological retrospec-

BECKER, Richterzeit, 67; JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 354; BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 184 n. 10; NELSON, Joshua, 280; BUTLER, Judges, 37; IDEM, Joshua 13–24, 335. 64 See NOORT, ‘Jos 24,28–31’, 112–113. 65 See WOUDSTRA, Joshua, 359; WEBB, Judges, 138, who thinks that Timnath-Heres is either an alternative name or a scribal error. See already BERTHEAU, Richter und Rut, 57. 66 NOORT, ‘Jos 24,28–31’, 115, adds that the version of Josh 24:29–31 seems to be more original than Judg 2:6–9. 67 See NOORT, ‘Jos 24,28–31’, 126–130; RÖSEL, Joshua, 376. This interpretation can be found in rabbinic sources as well; see BERTHEAU, Richter und Rut, 57. 68 See GAß, Ortsnamen, 197; GROß, Richter, 200. Only an etymological interpretation of seraḥ as “leftover portion” might be a positive pun related to the inheritance of Joshua, since he received his inheritance only after the distribution of the rest of the land. 69 For this option see BECKER, Richterzeit, 67. 70 See WEBB, Judges, 134.

II. 2.1. History of Research

209

tion in Judg 2:6–9.71 Perhaps Judg 2:6–9 are a deliberate element of the retrospective that begins in Judg 1:27–33 and deals with the time before Judg 1:1– 26. This retrospective might be indicated by the use of x-qatal in Judg 1:27 versus wayyiqtol in Judg 1:26.72 Therefore, the notice in Judg 2:6 that Israel has to take over its allotments does not contradict Josh 24:28 with Israel already possessing its inheritance, since Judg 1:27–2:9 are set in the time before Josh 24. All the other differences in both doublets might be explained pragmatically, since they were necessary to create two separate books that refer to each other. However, a diachronic development seems evident due to the many duplications within Josh 23–Judg 2. In former times, the traditional sources of the Pentateuch have been expanded to the book of Joshua to form a Hexateuch. Therefore, Josh 23 was regarded as dtr, whereas Josh 24 was attributed to an Elohistic or Jahwistic source73 that was expanded by dtr additions.74 The correct evaluation of Josh 24 is problematic, since it shows dtr language but also non-dtr elements.75 Since Josh 24 is a mixture of different phraseology (dtn, dtr, Priestly), it surely must be a late text.76 However, there are also indications that the basic text behind Josh 24 might be older than Josh 23.77 Josh 23:2 copies Josh 24:1 without Shechem, the place for the assembly. Josh 23 has no real end, which might indicate that Josh 24 was already in existence. The idiom ‫“ ויהי אחרי הדברים האלה‬after these things” in Josh 24:29 marks a clear caesura which is referred to in Josh 23:14. Josh 24 recapitulates the Hexateuch from Gen 11–Josh 24, whereas Josh 23:6 already 71

See O’CONNELL, Rhetoric, 72; GROß, Richter, 185. Either the syntax is defective, or it is a quote from Josh 24:28–31 without changing the syntax, or Judg 2:6 originally followed directly after Josh 23; see WEBB, Judges, 134. KEIL, Josua, Richter und Rut, 200, thinks that the syntax expresses the sequence of thought and not of tenses. 72 See FROLOV, ‘Demise’, 316–323. 73 For an attribution to the Elohistic source see OETTLI, Deuteronomium, 126; SMEND, Erzählung, 337; WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 133–134, and to the Yahwistic source see RUDOLPH, Elohist, 244–250. For similar earlier positions see SCHMID, Erzväter, 213: Josh 24 was regarded either as the closure of the Elohistic or Yahwistic source. It could also be a mixed, Jehovistic text. 74 Contrary to GREßMANN, Anfänge, 156–157, who regards Josh 24 mainly as dtr; Josh 24:29–33 are dtr notes. 75 See KRATZ, ‘Hexateuch’, 301; RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 526. 76 See KRATZ, ‘Hexateuch’, 301. MAYES, Story of Israel, 50–57, regards Josh 24:1–28 as a late insertion into a dtr work. According to SCHMID, Erzväter, 216–218, Josh 24 is post-dtr and therefore later than Josh 23. BREKELMANS, ‘Joshua xxiv’, 6–7, has shown that Josh 24 not only looks back, but also forward to the following period. Thus, it cannot be part only of a pentateuchal source. Since Josh 24 takes up topics from the ancestral narratives as well as the following narrative of the monarchy, it is considered a late text with Josh 23 even dependent on it; see BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 141–151. 77 On what follows see KNAUF, ‘Buchschlüsse’, 221–222.

210

Erasmus Gaß

knows about the canonical division between Torah and Prophets. But if Josh 24 is older than Josh 23, it is questionable why the younger text precedes the older one so that Josh 24 has the last word and not Josh 23.78 All in all, it is difficult to correctly evaluate the chronological setting of both chapters Josh 23 and Josh 24. This question is further complicated by the dtr language used in both texts. If Josh 24 is dtr like Josh 23, only one dtr author being responsible for Deut–2 Kgs is questionable. Instead, to solve the problem of dtr doublets, it is wiser to postulate more than one dtr redaction. Therefore, the doublets are usually attributed to two dtr layers (DtrH and DtrN).79 However, it is far from certain which dtr tradition is older than the other, such that the assignment of the separate text editions to specific dtr layers is disputed.80 In addition, one can also regard the dtr additions as Fortschreibungen.81 While it is undisputed that dtr editors have reworked the book-seam between Joshua and Judges, it is an open question which parallel represents the original tradition. At least three different proposals with many variations have been suggested. 1. Josh 24:28–31 as the oldest tradition There are many arguments for the literary dependence of Judg 2:6–9 on Josh 24:28–31. Many observations are best explained with Josh 24 being the source text of Judg 2: a) Judg 2:6 repeats and expands upon Josh 24:28, which concludes the scene of the assembly at Shechem. In Judg 2:6 the takeover of the still unconquered land is added.82 This might be a contextual addition which was needed in the book of Judges.83 The infinitive with final meaning (‫)לרשת‬ requires ‫“ וילכו בני ישראל‬and Israel went”, which is a further addition to pre-

78 See RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 526–527. Therefore, it is also possible that Josh 23 with Judg 2:6ff. constituted the link between Joshua and Judges which was augmented by Josh 24 – a nearly homogeneous unit according to SCHMID, Erzväter, 214–215 – aiming to delineate a Hexateuch. 79 See FRITZ, Josua, 235–239; LATVUS, God, 39–40; contrary to RÖSEL, ‘Redaktion’, 188, who does not find a coherent redactional stratum of DtrN in Joshua. Josh 23 was simply created to link Joshua and Judges. 80 MILLER/TUCKER, Joshua, 7–8, regard Josh 23 as dtr, whereas Josh 24 reworked older traditions. 81 RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 527, complains about an inflation of dtr additions, such that dtr layers should be substituted by dtr “Fortschreibung”. 82 See BECKER, Richterzeit, 66. According to RAKE, Juda, 136 n. 431, Judg 2:6 needs Judg 1, since the hitherto unconquered land had to be subdued. Similarly already RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 46–47; SOGGIN, Judges, 41. 83 See FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 40.

II. 2.1. History of Research

211

vent too many nouns. 84 Moreover, the term ‫ בני ישראל‬is used often in the book of Judges, but in Josh 23–24 only in Josh 24:32. There is no reason for deleting the phrase ‫ וילכו בני ישראל‬in Josh 24:28.85 b) Since the notice of the dismissal of the Shechem assembly in Josh 24:2886 is not necessary in Judg 2, this information in Judg 2:6 is due to the Vorlage in Josh 24:28. Therefore, Judg 2 knows the version of Josh 24 and added the notion that the land had to be taken in possession. c) Since the topic of the dismissal of the people in Judg 2:6 is not useful for the opening of a book, the version in Josh 24:28–31 might be earlier than its parallel in Judg 2:6–9.87 Most probably the redactor knew Josh 24:1–28 + Josh 24:29–31 and picked up Josh 24:28 to form Judg 2:6.88 d) By adding ‫“ בני ישראל‬Israelites” in Judg 2:6, the redactor formed an inclusio with Judg 2:10 (‫)ישראל‬. Moreover, he used the lexeme ‫“ עם‬people” in Judg 2:6–7, thus deliberately changing ‫“ ישראל‬Israel” (Josh 24:31) to ‫עם‬ “people” (Judg 2:7).89 Therefore, the reference to “Israel” and “people” in Judg 2:7 might be due to a later reworking of Josh 24:31. e) Furthermore, Judg 2:7 refers to the ‫“ מעשה יהוה הגדול‬YHWH’s great work”. By doing so, it magnifies God’s work.90 There is no reason for the authors of Josh 24 to delete ‫“ הגדול‬great” and to minimize God’s action in that verse. Thus, Judg 2:6–9 knows and intensifies the older version of Josh 24.91 Thus, the idiom ‫“ מעשה יהוה הגדול‬YHWH’s great work” in Judg 2:7 is a later expansion.92 f) Moreover, the verb ‫“ יד״ע‬to know” in Josh 24:31 is changed to ‫“ רא״ה‬to see” in Judg 2:7. This could be a redactional link back to Josh 23:3.93 But it is 84 See RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 47. However, Josh 24:28 seems to be altered to ‫לנחלתו‬ in return like the reading Judg 2:6, since Josh 24:28 LXX might have preserved a different and more original Vorlage (‫)למקמו‬. Through this deliberate alteration, Josh 24:28 is converted into a summary of the conquest and is no longer the closure of the covenant ceremony; see KOOPMANS, Joshua 24, 368. 85 See FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 40. 86 On Josh 24:28 as belonging to Josh 24:1–27 see NENTEL, Trägerschaft, 107. Moreover, the theme of the the unconquered land in Judg 2:6 is a refinement of Josh 21:43–44. 87 See SOGGIN, Judges, 41. 88 See RÖSEL, Von Josua bis Jojachin, 56. 89 See KOOPMANS, Joshua 24, 369. 90 See BECKER, Richterzeit, 66; FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 39. 91 See NOORT, ‘Jos 24,28–31’, 113; RÖSEL, Joshua, 377. However, BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 182, thinks that the differences are due to the context and cannot be of help regarding textual development. 92 According to KOOPMANS, Joshua 24, 369 the verse is brought in line with Deut 11:7 by adding ‫“ הגדול‬great”. 93 See RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 344. Since the verb ‫“ יד״ע‬to know” is important in Judg 2:10–3:6 (see WEBB, Judges, 136), the change to ‫“ רא״ה‬to see” in Judg 2:7 must be explained somehow.

212

Erasmus Gaß

also possible that the usual word-pair “see”-“know” was deliberately distributed over two verses (Judg 2:7, 10).94 Thus, the later change in Judg 2:7 could be explained either redactionally or stylistically. The earlier tradition using ‫ יד״ע‬is clearly preserved in Judg 2:10, where the latter generation did not know about YHWH’s accomplishments. Moreover, Josh 24:31 seems to be more original than Judg 2:7, since Judg 2:7 emphasizes that Joshua’s generation not only knew but also saw YHWH’s deeds. Perhaps Judg 2:7 specifies the verb ‫“ יד״ע‬to know” with the verb ‫“ רא״ה‬to see” being the stronger form of perception.95 g) The position of the evaluation of Israel’s obedience in Josh 24:31 after Joshua’s death might be more original, since it refers explicitly to the time after Joshua and must be placed logically after the death notice. Moreover, the evaluation is best situated after the closure of a period, whereas it was put before Joshua’s death in Judg 2:7 to contrast the negative time of the Judges to the ideal time before.96 In light of all of this, Josh 24:29–31 with their sequence might be older than Judg 2:6–9.97 h) The note that Israel was obedient to YHWH fits better with Josh 24, since the ministry of Israel is a major topic in this chapter. Thus, Josh 24:31 is better integrated in the overall context. Therefore, the original note seems to be placed in Josh 24.98 All in all, there are strong reasons for assuming the dependence of Judg 2:6–9 on Josh 24:28–31, since all alterations in Judg 2:6–9 can easily be explained in this direction. The doublet Josh 24:28–31 || Judg 2:6–9 is sometimes explained by two literary layers: earlier Josh 24:1–Judg 2:5 and later Josh 23 + Judg 2:6–9. Combining both editions resulted in obvious duplication.99 There are many indications of a connection between Judg 2:6–9 and Josh 23:

94

See KOOPMANS, Joshua 24, 368–369. However, according to RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 47, “seeing” is more important than “knowing”, such that Judg 2:7 might have priority over Josh 24:31. 95 See BECKER, Richterzeit, 66–67, who regards the change from ‫“ יד״ע‬to know” to ‫רא״ה‬ “to see” as a clarification. 96 See RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 344. 97 Contrary to NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 8–9, who regards Josh 23 as the earlier literary conclusion to Joshua which can be linked to Judg 2:6–10, though the later text in Josh 24 has preserved the older tradition. However, Judg 2:6–10 are clearly based on Josh 24:28–31 and not vice versa. According to RÖSEL, Von Josua bis Jojachin, 51 n. 102, Josh 23 was composed as a replacement for an existing conclusion in Josh 24. 98 See FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 40–41. 99 See RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 343; IDEM, Von Josua bis Jojachin, 50. However, according to O’DOHERTY, ‘Problem’, 6–7, Josh 24:1–Judg 2:5 were composed by a later dtr editor who used an old tradition and added a theological interpretation in Josh 24:19–24 and Judg 2:1–5.

II. 2.1. History of Research

213

a) Since Judg 2:6–9 continues Josh 23 with its concept of an incomplete conquest,100 Judg 2:6–9 might be related to Josh 23.101 b) Furthermore, Joshua’s death is anticipated in Josh 23:14 and fulfilled in Judg 2:8–9.102 c) The dismissal of the people in Judg 2:6 is the natural sequel to Joshua’s speech in Josh 23, since Josh 24 already has a proper closure of the assembly of the Israelites at Shechem.103 Some scholars even think that Josh 24:1–Judg 2:5 have a clear logic with the death of Joshua in Josh 24:29 and a reference to it in Judg 1:1.104 Sometimes Judg 2:6–9 was considered the original sequel of Josh 23 before Josh 24 and Judg 1:1–2:5 were inserted.105 Hence, the dependence of both parallels was changed with Josh 23 + Judg 2:6–9 being older than Josh 24 (+ Judg 1:1–2:5). This theory seems to be due to the late dating of Josh 24 and Judg 1:1–2:5. Therefore, the late texts Josh 23 and Judg 2:6–9 must be earlier than their counterparts. However, it is far from certain that Judg 1:1–2:5 is the logical continuation of Josh 24. It might also be linked with Josh 23.106 Moreover, even if Judg 1 has taken up older traditions, it is still a late composition consisting of different traditions compiled by a Judean redactor, such that the theory of two large blocks (Josh 24:1–Judg 2:5 and Josh 23 + Judg 2:6–9) being arranged secondarily seems implausible. It is more probable that a later redactor corrected the overly positive view of a complete conquest expressed earlier in Josh 24 by adding Judg 1:1–2:5. Hence, the redactor had to point again to Joshua’s death and copied the former verses into Judg 2:6–9. Moreover, Judg 2:6–9 was necessary to alleviate the harsh transition to the still unconquered land. Thus, Judg 2:6–9 seem to be later than their doublet in Josh 24.107 100

Similarly GROß, Richter, 182. See, however, the objections by RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 49–50 n. 147. For a critique see HALBE, Privilegrecht, 346, since ‫“ יר״שׁ‬to take possession” refers to the legal inheritance of land without possessions. Thus, Judg 2:6 could be linked to either Josh 23 (unconquered land) or Josh 24 (conquered land). 102 On Josh 23 and Judg 2:6–9 as part of a single literary stratum see already EISSFELDT, Einleitung, 340; RÖSEL, ‘Redaktion’, 187; IDEM, Joshua, 375. 103 See SMEND, Erzählung, 316. 104 See RÖSEL, Von Josua bis Jojachin, 50. 105 See O’DOHERTY, ‘Problem’, 4. Judges 2:6 cannot be an independent opening of the book of Judges, as it requires the assembly at Shechem narrated in Josh 23–24; see RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 45. 106 See JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 350; VAN DER MEER, Formation, 131. 107 See RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 346–347. However, due to the thematic tension of the “conquered/unconquered land”, it is problematic to assign Josh 24 and Judg 1:1–2:5 to a single redactional stratum; see NENTEL, Trägerschaft, 103. Furthermore, according to SCHMITT, Frieden, 40 n. 57, Judg 2:6–10 cannot be the continuation of Josh 23, since the Israelites have to take possession of their inheritance in Judg 2:6, whereas the conquest 101

214

Erasmus Gaß

Sometimes Judg 1:1–2:9 is regarded as an appendix to the book of Joshua, since it shares thematic parallels with Joshua. Moreover, Judg 2:6–9 is regarded as a Wiederaufnahme of Josh 24:28–31.108 Hence, the repetition in Judg 2:6–9 was necessary after the interpolation of Judg 1:1–2:5. Moreover, some necessary additions were made.109 Since Judg 1:1 with its notice of Joshua’s death contradicts Judg 2:6, this verse might be an even later gloss,110 probably added in order to separate the two books. The literary-historical arguments mentioned above are often integrated in redactional systems spanning the books of Joshua, Judges and beyond.111 Thus, the different literary strata are explained in the larger context of the DtrH: a) DtrH and DtrN:112 Sometimes Josh 24:29–31 is regarded as the original ending of the book of Joshua in the form of DtrH, the earliest dtr version. The doubling in Judg 2:6–9 was necessary following the insertion of Judg 1:1– 2:5, whereas Judg 2:10 was the former continuation of Josh 24:31, since both verses use the verb ‫“ יד״ע‬to know”.113 This later dtr redaction added Josh 23 and Judg 1:1–2:9 to the first dtr edition of Joshua (DtrH). This nomistic redaction attributes the “unconquered land” and the existence of foreign people in Israel to the disobedience of Israel (DtrN). b) DtrH and DtrS:114 Due to the addition of the takeover of the “unconquered land”, Judg 2:6 might belong to the later DtrS, whereas the parallel in Josh 24:28 is ascribed to earlier DtrH, with Josh 24:28 being the closure of happened long ago according to Josh 23. Judg 2:6–10 might be the logical continuation of Josh 24:1–27. 108 See SMEND, ‘Gesetz’, 506; MAYES, Story of Israel, 59; BRETTLER, ‘Jud 1,1–2,10’, 433–435; LUCASSEN, ‘Josua’, 383–385; NENTEL, Trägerschaft, 109. See already BERTHEAU, Richter und Rut, 56. According to BOLING, Judges, 36, Judg 2:6–9 were taken from Josh 24:28–31, expanded in Judg 2:6–10 and prefixed by Judg 2:1–5. The narrator added Judg 1:1–2:5 with the laxity of the generation after Joshua and repeated Josh 24:29– 32 in Judg 2:6–9. In this respect, he was able to describe Joshua’s period as a golden age which already foreshadowed the dark age of Judges; see ANGEL, ‘One Book’, 170. 109 See SOGGIN, Judges, 41. 110 See LUCASSEN, ‘Josua’, 384. 111 For the notion of two dtr versions of the end of Joshua and the beginning of Judges see already SMEND, Erzählung, 315–317. 112 See SMEND, ‘Gesetz’, 507–508. LATVUS, God, 39–40, regards Josh 24* as belonging to DtrH and Josh 23 to DtrN. However, the chronological problem between Judg 1:1 and Judg 2:6–9 contradicts this redactional hypothesis; see RÖSEL, Von Josua bis Jojachin, 53. Moreover, it is far from certain whether Josh 24 is older than Josh 23. Furthermore, Josh 24 is not a conclusive end of the conquest story and is linked to subsequent material such as Judg 6:7–10; see BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 195. 113 See SMEND, ‘Gesetz’, 506. Similarly FRITZ, Josua, 250; RÖSEL, Von Josua bis Jojachin, 54. 114 See NENTEL, Trägerschaft, 108–109.

II. 2.1. History of Research

215

the assembly at Shechem. Similarly, the following verses are likewise attributed to DtrH (Josh 24:29–31) and DtrS (Judg 2:7–9), since both units are coherent texts, with Josh 24 having the better and more organic sequence with Judg 2:7 already anticipating Joshua’s death. Furthermore, Josh 24:29 is a perfect transition from Josh 24:28 (DtrH). The verb ‫“ יד״ע‬to know” in Josh 24:31, which is typical of DtrH, is changed to ‫“ רא״ה‬to see” in Judg 2:7, which is linked to Josh 23:3 (DtrS), whereas “to know” is mentioned again in Judg 2:10 (DtrH). All in all, the priority of Josh 24:28–31 in relation to Judg 2:6–9 is explained in several different ways. In all of these models, Judg 2:6–9 is interpreted as a later repetition of Josh 24:28–31. This is either due to the insertion of Judg 1:1–2:5 (Wiederaufnahme) or to two parallel dtr accounts (Josh 24 [+ Judg 1:1–2:5] and the later version in Josh 23 + Judg 2:6–9) that were combined secondarily. 2. Judg 2:6–9 as the oldest tradition Some scholars consider Josh 24:28–31 to be dependent on Judg 2:6–9. The following observations might be in favor of Judg 2:6–9 being the older tradition. However, these arguments are in no way unequivocal. As seen above, most of them have been used to argue that Josh 24:29–31 has preserved the older tradition: a) The arrangement of events in the version of Judg 2:6–9 might be older than Josh 24:29–31 MT.115 In Judg 2:6–9, Israel’s faithfulness during Joshua’s lifetime logically precedes the notice of the leader’s death. This order is intentionally reversed in Josh 24:29–31, since Joshua is the main character in Josh 24 and his fate should be considered first.116 Furthermore, Josh 24 LXX having the same arrangement as Judg 2 might still preserve the original order, which was enhanced by a later MT editor. Due to its better sequence, Judg 2:6–9 could be the continuation of Josh 24:27, serving to build an external connection between the book of Joshua and the actual Judges narratives.117 However, the sequence cannot prove anything (see B). b) It may be more likely that Josh 24:28 omits the taking possession of the land rather than Judg 2:6–9 adding this notion later. When the redactor of Josh 24 borrowed from Judg 2:6–9, he had to eliminate this information, since it contradicts the context of Josh 24.118

115

According to AULD, ‘Judges I’, 264, the LXX version of Josh 24, having the same arrangement as Judg 2, is to be preferred. 116 See HESS, Joshua, 340. 117 See NÖTSCHER, Richter, 12. 118 It also contradicts Josh 21:43–45; see LUCASSEN, ‘Josua’, 381 n. 20.

216

Erasmus Gaß

c) Whereas the verb ‫“ יד״ע‬to know” has to be linked to the obedience to God’s covenant,119 the verb ‫“ רא״ה‬to see” relates to the historic experience of Joshua’s generation. Therefore, it is not necessary that Judg 2:7 specifies the verb ‫“ יד״ע‬to know” in Josh 24:9 and that the verb ‫“ רא״ה‬to see” is the stronger form of perception.120 d) Perhaps the addition of the relative pronoun in Josh 24:30 is a clarification of Judg 2:9, indicating the priority of the latter.121 e) Moreover, Judg 2:6–10 is a perfect transition from the time of Joshua to the following generation of the Judges, unlike Josh 24:28–31, which marks the closure of the book of Joshua and therefore lacks the negative contrast to the following generation. Thus, the linguistic and stylistic differences between Josh 24 and Judg 2 can be explained by their different functions and cannot be exploited for diachronic reconstructions.122 Therefore, Judg 2:6–9 need not have been developed from Josh 24:29–31.123 f) Perhaps there is also a link from Judg 2:6–10 back to Exod 1:6–8. Since Exod 1 used similar phraseology and destroyed the perfect sequence of ‫כל‬ ‫“ הדור ההוא‬all that generation” and ‫“ דור אחר‬another generation” due to the different situation, Exod 1 has borrowed from Judg 2 and not vice versa.124 Since the parallel in Exod 1 signifies a gap between two generations and a new start, it seems that Joshua’s death notice in Judg 2:8–9 is not a closure, but an opening signal. Therefore, Judg 2:6–10 was written to begin a new narrative. For Josh 24:28–31 being formulated with Judg 2:6–10 as its model, Josh 24 concludes the Hexateuch, which combines the traditions of the ancestors and the exodus. Thus, Judg 2:6–10 are older than Josh 24:29–31, which might be the conclusion of the Hexateuch.125 Hence, Josh 24:28–32 seem to be the end of the Hexateuch with the pronounced reference to Joseph’s burial site, whereas Judg 2:1–5, together with Judg 2:6–10, open a new book.126 g) Furthermore, Josh 24:29–31 might not be older than Judg 2:7–9, since Judg 2:7–9 cannot be regarded a reasonable Wiederaufnahme of Josh 24:29– 31 after Judg 1:1–2:5 was inserted. This is due to the obvious observation that

119 According to GRAY, Joshua, Judges, Ruth, 182–183, ‫“ יד״ע‬to know” has covenantal implications, since God’s work is the basis for the covenant. 120 See JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 355. 121 See BECKER, Richterzeit, 67. However, the relative pronoun could be a late addition in MT and cannot prove the direction of dependence; see KOOPMANS, Joshua 24, 369. According to FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 41, the dispensation with the relative pronoun reflects colloquial usage, which usually omits the relative pronoun. 122 See BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 184. 123 For the reasoning that Judg 2 is earlier than Josh 24 see AULD, ‘Judges I’, 264. 124 See BLUM, ‘Connection’, 104. Similarly VAN SETERS, Life, 16–19. 125 See BLUM, ‘Connection’, 104–105; GROß, Richter, 183. 126 See BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 206.

II. 2.1. History of Research

217

Judg 1:1 already presupposes Joshua’s death, which happens again in Judg 2:8–9.127 h) The dating of Joshua’s death with the idiom ‫ויהי אחרי הדברים האלה‬ “after these things” in Josh 24:29 suggests that the death happened sometime after the dismissal of the tribes. Thus, Judg 2:1–5* can only be situated properly between the notice of dismissal (Josh 24:28) and the death of Joshua (Judg 2:8–9). The second dismissal is not a rigorous obstacle (Judg 2:6), since the angel of YHWH already presupposes in Judg 2:1–5* the first dismissal of the people of Israel (Josh 24:28).128 If one regards Judg 2:1–5* as the first addition between the period of Joshua and Judges, Judg 2:7–9 seem to be earlier than their parallel in Josh 24:29–31. Therefore, Josh 24:29–31 have been borrowed later from Judg 2:7–9. Thus, Josh 24:28 could originally be followed by Judg 2:7–9.129 In a last step, Josh 24:29–31 and Judg 1:1* have separated the two books of Joshua and Judges.130 According to the aforementioned redactional theory, Josh 24:28–31 were borrowed from Judg 2:6–9 to form a proper conclusion of the book of Joshua.131 At least the observation that Josh 24:28–31 is a perfect closure of Joshua is valid, but it is far from certain whether it was reshaped secondarily to form the end of Joshua. This redactional theory is also embedded in the broader context of the DtrH. Both dtr doublets have different theological purposes. Whereas Josh 24:28–31 underscore the topic of “obedience to YHWH”, Judg 2:6–9 stress that YHWH’s accomplishments have been experienced in history due to the use of ‫“ רא״ה‬to see” and ‫“ מעשה יהוה הגדול‬YHWH’s great work”. Therefore, some scholars think that Judg 2:6–9 belong to the first edition of the DtrH and are linked to Josh 24:1–27, whereas Josh 24:28–31 stem from a later nomistic redaction (DtrN).132 3. Complex redactional processes Perhaps the final Joshua-Judges text evolved in a complex redactional process, such that a single direction of dependence between Josh 24 and Judg 2 cannot be established. In this regard, neither version of Joshua’s death would 127

See KRATZ, Komposition, 205. This problem can be solved if Judg 1:1 is assumed to have been inserted secondarily in order to distribute the Joshua-Judges material between two books; see BRETTLER, ‘Jud 1,1–2,10’, 434–435. 128 See RAKE, Juda, 127. 129 The reference to the elders might be a redactional addition (see RAKE, Juda, 128 n. 412), since it presupposes the later concept that the elders helped Joshua. 130 See RAKE, Juda, 131–132. 131 See NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 8–9 n. 3; O’DOHERTY, ‘Problem’, 4–6. 132 See JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 355–357. Perhaps Josh 23 is linked to Judg 2:6, 8–9 and Josh 24:1–27 to Josh 24:28–30; see HALBE, Privilegrecht, 347.

218

Erasmus Gaß

be more original than the other, such that each verse must be checked separately whether it is older than the parallel verse in the other account. This theory takes seriously the possibility that both units might have evolved by different redactions. This redactional process can be retraced by following two thematic threads: YHWH’s actions in light of the difference between YHWH and other gods (Josh 24 and Judg 2:7, 10) and YHWH’s actions against the backdrop of foreign nations133 and the topic of the “unconquered land” (Josh 23 and Judg 2:1–5, 6).134 In light of these different topics, several redactional models have been developed: a) KRATZ (2000): Judg 2:8–9 belonged to the basic text, which was expanded in two steps by Judg 2:7, 10 and Judg 2:6. The section Judg 1:1–2:5 has been inserted as the beginning of a new book135 together with Josh 24:29– 33, the closure of the book of Joshua.136 The two farewell speeches in Josh 23 and Josh 24 do not belong to two separate literary strata that have been combined at later times. Rather, Josh 23:1b, 3 are connected to Josh 24:14a, 15– 16, 18b, 22, 28, with Judg 2:7–10 continuing this basic text.137 b) BECKER (1990): Josh 24:31 is regarded as more original than Judg 2:7, since ‫“ מעשה יהוה הגדול‬YHWH’s great work” and ‫“ רא״ה‬to see” in Judg 2:7 are intensifications and clarifications of Josh 24:31.138 On the other hand, Judg 2:6, 8–9 might be earlier than Josh 24:28–30 due to the deliberate deletion of ‫“ לרשׁת את הארץ‬to take possession of the land”, the calculated addition of the relative pronoun (Josh 24:30) and the dogmatic change of Heres to Serah (Josh 24:30).139 Therefore, the earliest dtr edition (DtrH) had the following sequence: Josh 21:43–45 (end of conquest) + Josh 24:31 (obedience of following generation) + Judg 2:8–9 (Joshua’s death and burial) + Judg 2:10 (related to ‫“ יד״ע‬to know” in Josh 24:31). The second dtr edition (DtrN) added Judg 1:21, 27–36; 2:1–7 in front of Judg 2:8–9, and an even later redactor duplicated Judg 2:6, 8–9 in Josh 24:28–30 and added Josh 24:32–33 as well as Judg 1:1–18, 22–26, with Judg 1:1 being a caesura signaling the beginning of the book of Judges.140 Thus, only Judg 2:8–9 were 133 On the topic of the foreign nations and their cult in Josh 23 see SCHMITT, Frieden, 148–149. 134 See KRATZ, Komposition, 206. 135 See KRATZ, Komposition, 205–206. 136 According to KRATZ, ‘Hexateuch’, 304, Josh 24:29–33 mark the end of the book of Joshua. 137 See KRATZ, Komposition, 207; IDEM, ‘Hexateuch’, 306. Similarly RAKE, Juda, 137 n. 432. SCHMID, Erzväter, 219–220, refers to linguistic associations between Judg 2 and Josh 24 as well. 138 See BECKER, Richterzeit, 66–67. 139 See BECKER, Richterzeit, 65–68. 140 See BECKER, Richterzeit, 68–72.

II. 2.1. History of Research

219

created by DtrH, whereas Judg 2:6–7 were added by DtrN. Afterwards, Josh 24:28–30 were composed by a post-dtr Priestly redactor.141 c) RICHTER (1964): The alleged two dtr layers are reduced to only one dtr edition, which was enlarged by post-dtr additions. This dtr edition goes from Josh 24:28–30* to Judg 2:7, 10. Only later were Judg 2:6 (paralleling Josh 24:28) and Judg 2:8–9 (paralleling Josh 24:29–30) added. In this way, the death and burial notice was doubled and the assembly was dismissed. Thus, the doublet was created by inserting later additions.142 The unit Judg 2:7, 10 was expanded by the dismissal of Israel and Joshua’s death notice from the earlier text Josh 24:28–30. Thus, Judg 2:7, 10 were broken apart by Judg 2:6, 8–9. At that time, the dtr v. 7 might have been added in Josh 24:31.143 However, the verse-to-verse comparison is not without problems and leads to an incoherent text in the majority of cases.144 Moreover, the division of the text into three or more redactional strata is much too complex and hypothetical. The obvious problem of such reconstructions is the lack of coherence within the particular redactional layers.145

F. Conclusions The compositional knot between the book of Joshua and Judges has yet to be convincingly untangled. The arguments used are often not decisive and can be used in several ways. Clear and definite linguistic observations are generally lacking, such that different proposals can be developed depending on how one evaluates the evidence. At least a minimal consensus has emerged: The different sequences in Josh 24:28–31 and Judg 2:6–9 are due to their function within their respective contexts but cannot be used for determining a chronological dating. The LXX plus might not be proof of a divergent Hebrew Vorlage, although the relationship of the different versions might be rather complex. The toponym Timnath-Serah instead of Timnath-Heres might be the original name, though this is of little value in defining the original literary core. Moreover, it seems that most of Josh 24:28–31 preserved the original tradition due to linguistic and stylistic reasons. Instead of one or two dtr layers (DtrH and DtrN/DtrS), dtr Fortschreibung might be responsible for the current form of Josh 23– Judg 2. 141

See BECKER, Richterzeit, 72. See RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 46–49. 143 See already OETTLI, Deuteronomium, 204. 144 See JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 351–352; NENTEL, Trägerschaft, 104. 145 See the critique by SPRONK, ‘From Joshua to Samuel’, 138–140. 142

Once Again: The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Joshua and Judges Erhard Blum Dealing with the transition between the book of Joshua and the book of Judges in an article some years ago,1 I argued that this literary joint might at first look like a Gordian knot, but in fact the different threads can be almost completely separated, just waiting to be untied. After two decades of scholarly debate, those expectations have proved too optimistic. Therefore, here I will take the opportunity to highlight the crux of the matter as well as to clarify and correct some of my earlier judgments.

A. Although the books of Joshua and Judges obviously follow one another in a kind of narrative continuum, the transition between both books is the most complicated and most disturbed one in the Hebrew Bible. The book of Joshua concludes with two farewell speeches given by Joshua in two assemblies at different places without reporting the closure of the first assembly (Josh 23 and 24). Joshua’s death and the difference between his generation and the following generation are noted at the end of Josh 24 and reported again in Judg 2:7–10, although in the latter verses this comes too late, since the report in Judg 1 already spans several generations after Joshua’s death (Judg 1:1). Additionally, there are severe conceptual contradictions, especially concerning the conquest of Canaan by the Israelite tribes, which is regarded as mainly (Josh 23) or completely (Josh 24) successful or largely a failure (Judg 1). The clearest disruption of textual coherence, however, is Judg 2:6: And Joshua dismissed the people (‫)וישלח יהושע את העם‬. And the Israelites went, everyone to his inheritance to take possession of the land.

This statement clearly presupposes an assembly, as is the case in the almost verbatim parallel in Josh 24:28. The preceding episode in Judg 2:1–5 also 1 BLUM, ‘Knoten’. The article was based in large part on earlier analyses in IDEM, Komposition, 39–41, 45–61, and IDEM, Studien, 363–377.

222

Erhard Blum

implies a gathering of the people, but in its present context there is no place for the active role of Joshua, whose death was reported in Judg 1:1. At first glance, the solution seems to be an understanding of Judg 2:6–10 as a flashback or as a resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme) which harks back to Josh 24:28–31. This is, in fact, the direction many scholars propose to go (see below). Moreover, many Bible translations in European languages render the first sentence with a pluperfect and/or as a temporal clause, which would allow an understanding as a flashback.2 Such a translation, however, represents an attempt of harmonization without philological foundation.3 The Hebrew form wayyiqtol cannot be used for starting the report of an action or a series of actions which is anterior to the main line of the narrative.4 For this purpose, Biblical Hebrew regularly uses a syntactic construction with “inverted” word order, positioning some lexeme, mostly the subject (“x”) before the qatal-form: “we-x qatal”,5 called by Ziony Zevit “anterior construction”.6 Both the “inverting” construction and wayyiqtol may also occur in resumptive repetitions.7 Since Judg 2:6–10 are an almost verbatim repetition of 2

Compare for instance: And when Joshua had let the people go … (KJV) After Joshua had dismissed the Israelites … (NIV) When Joshua dismissed the people … (NRSV) Now when Joshua had sent the people away … (JPS 1917) When Joshua dismissed the people … (NJPS 1985) Als Josua das Volk entlassen hatte … (Luther Revision 1984 and 2017) Als Josua das Volk ziehen ließ … (Einheitsübersetzung 1960 and 2016) Jehoschua hatte das Volk ausgeschickt … (Buber-Rosenzweig) Quando Giosuè ebbe congedato il popolo … (La Sacra Bibbia della CEI) Similar interpretations in earlier commentaries (Sebastian Schmidt [1696], Johannes Bachmann [1868]) are quoted by MOORE, Judges, 67, who notes: “That the events narrated in 26-10 cannot be posterior in time to v.1-5 was recognized by older commentators, who tried to get over the difficulty by exegetical artifices.” 3 There is, of course, no lack of literal translations of Judg 2:7; see, e.g., the Septuagint, Vulgate, Zürcher Bibel, Elberfelder Übersetzung, Louis Sagon, Traduction Oecuménique de la Bible etc. 4 The classic reference for this rule is still DRIVER, Treatise, 84–89. For a presentation of different constellations of anteriority see BLUM, ‘Verbalsystem’, 119–121. 5 Suffice it to refer here to two well-known examples: Gen 31:34a (including two clauses with wayyiqtol continuing the preceding action) and 39:1. 6 ZEVIT, Anterior Construction. This designation, however, does not seem entirely appropriate, since Zevit apparently has overlooked the possibility of using the construction to introduce or contrast actors in a story (without implications concerning the relative chronology); see Gen 3:1; 4:2–4 etc. and Zevit’s comments in Anterior Construction, 22ff. 7 For an ‘anterior construction’, see again Gen 39:1 with 37:28b, 36, though in this case it would be more appropriate to speak of a resumptive prolepsis (Vorwegnahme) in 37:36; cf. BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 500. On the much more common use of wayyiqtol in resumptive repetitions see the recent comprehensive study by GROß, ‘wa=yiqtol’.

II. 2.2. The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Josh and Judg

223

Josh 24:28–31, it thus seems tempting to understand Judg 2:6–10 as a redactional Wiederaufnahme resuming the finale of Joshua.8 Taking into consideration, however, the very logic of the resumptive repetition, this turns out to be an optical illusion. What is this concept about? Resumptive repetition/Wiederaufnahme is a stylistic device by which primary authors/narrators or later redactors/Bearbeiter9 can design complex constellations of plot and/or discourse sequence in the linear presentation of texts. Restricting the present discussion to narrative genres,10 the basic pattern of a Wiederaufnahme is tripartite and comprises (a) the main narrative thread, (b) its interruption or completion by synchronous actions, discursive elements or ‘insertions’ of other kinds and (c) the resumption of the main thread in order to continue the narrative action. The aim of the narrative device, be it part of the textual diachrony or not, is to create a complex narrative coherence in terms of the three basic narrative dimensions, i.e., time, space and actors. However, a story that has recorded Joshua’s death and burial cannot be continued with “and Joshua dismissed the people …”. This trivial evidence suffices as proof that Judg 2:6 was not intended to function as a resumptive repetition.11 At the same time, a sentence like v. 6a would evidently be unsuited to introduce an independent story or a literary work.12 Thus, it 8 See also BURNEY, Judges, 52: “The narrative of the Book of Joshua῾ is resumed in 2 6-9 by repetition of Josh. 24 28-31.” 9 The technical use of the terms “resumptive repetition” and Wiederaufnahme goes back to WIENER, Composition, and KUHL, ‘Wiederaufnahme’, respectively. Both Wiener and Kuhl focused exclusively on examples which demonstrate this pattern – in their opinion – as a device for reworking texts. Correcting this constrictive view, SEELIGMANN, ‘Erzählung’, 314–324, and TALMON, ‘Synchroneity’, 12–25, have shown that we are dealing instead with an elementary narrative technique that can be applied inter alia in the process of textual transmission. For further helpful treatments of the issue see STIPP, Elischa, 205– 209; ANBAR, ‘reprise’; GROß, ‘Stilmittel’. 10 Unfortunately, Kuhl blurred the important distinctions between genres (narration versus discourse) and between perspectives of inquiry (textual history versus literary history) in his article. His main contribution lies instead in reintroducing Wiener’s ideas into the scholarly discussion. 11 Given this evidence, it is surprising that SEELIGMANN, ‘Erzählung’, 322–324, qualified Judg 3:6–9 as a Wiederaufnahme of Josh 24:28–31. He made there several comments on the material between Josh 24 to Judg 2:6 without examining, however, the specific textual profile and its (in)compatibility with that qualification. This critical remark also applies to BLUM, Komposition, 56 n. 60. 12 Unfortunately, stylistic issues like this are widely ignored; see, however, GROß, ‘Syntaktische Erscheinungen’. Strangely enough, earlier historical critics did assume that Judg 2:6–10* functioned as the beginning of an independent text-unit in some hypothesized stratum; see, e.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 210ff.; BUDDE, Richter und Samuel, 91ff.; IDEM, Buch der Richter, 19–22, and (building on Budde) MOORE, Judges, xxxiv–xxxv, 64ff.; BURNEY, Judges, xxxvi-xxxvii, xli-xlii, 52ff. STUDER, Richter, 424, was probably the first to speak about Judg 2:6–16:31 as the “Hauptschrift” in the book of Judges. Yet he

224

Erhard Blum

can only be the accidental by-product of some literary-historical process. In other words, Judg 2:6–10 is a textual fragment enclosed within the final text of Judges. As such, it requires all the more an explanation. We first need to search for the primary context for which Judg 2:6(–10) was formulated. On the premise of hexateuchal “sources” “J” and “E” continuing into the book of Judges, earlier scholars were inclined to see Judg 2:6* as “the conclusion of the account of the great assembly at Shechem and the parting exhortations of Joshua (Jos. 241-27; substantially E)” “followed by the death and burial of Joshua” (2:8–9). Later, after the “E”-thread had been combined with Judg 1:1–2:5 (“J”), Josh 24, which was left “without a suitable close” finally received a restored ending with vv. 28–31, now duplicating Judg 2:6–10.13 Joshua’s first farewell speech in ch. 23 apparently was not considered a possible primary context for Judg 2:6–10 because it was thought to be a later deuteronomistic piece. The overall picture changed, however, when Martin Noth called into question the existence of “pentateuchal sources” in Joshua and beyond. Looking for the compositional connections in his “Deuteronomistic History”, he joined Judg 2:6–10 to Josh 23 and got a smooth narrative transition between the periods of Joshua and Judges.14 This solution suggests itself indeed for several reasons. First, the open ending of Josh 23 elegantly finds a fitting conclusion in Judg 2:6, which for its part presupposes an assembly of Israel under Joshua’s leadership in the preceding context. Moreover, in this way, the present state of Josh 23, which lacks a conclusion, can easily be explained by the insertion of intervening traditions, as we shall see. Second, the supposed relative antiquity of Josh 24 over Josh 23 that guided the ‘documentary’ hypotheses in earlier research as well as the assignment of Josh 24 to “DtrH” and Josh 23 to later “DtrN” respectively15 are questionable. The scholarly debate about Josh 24 since the early 1980s has provided strong arguments in favor of a diachronic allocation that post-dates the main dtr

also recognized the “fragmentary beginning” which in his view indicates that the assumed Hauptschrift was only part of a larger narrative work; see also n. 14 below. 13 Quotes from MOORE, Judges, 64–65. See also BUDDE, Buch der Richter, 20–21; BURNEY, Judges, 52–53, 56. Various stratigraphical differentiations in these analyses (between E, E2, JE, D1, D2 etc.) are left out here. 14 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 8–9, 47 (ET 23, 69). Noth had, however, predecessors in this particular issue, not only RUDOLPH, Elohist, 241–242, but already STUDER, Richter, 62–63, highly praised by MOORE, Judges, xlix, as the “admirable commentary” with which “(t)he modern period of interpretation begins”. 15 See especially SMEND, Entstehung, 115.

II. 2.2. The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Josh and Judg

225

layers in Joshua-Judges (including Josh 23)16 and probably also the main Priestly composition in the Pentateuch.17 Last but not least, there is stratigraphic evidence in Josh 23–Judg 2 that rules out an original connection of Judg 2:6(–10) to Josh 24 and which has to do with the mal’ak episode in Judg 2:1–5.18 Due to its present position, this short pericope has generally been considered as the intended continuation of Judg 1. In fact, however, both units are incompatible conceptually as well as in terms of narrative plot. On the one hand, Judg 2:1–5 presupposes the constellation of all Israel being guided by the divine mal’ak who leads the people from Egypt into the land and whose commands the Israelites must obey. This constellation is set forth in Exod 23:20–26, 31–32, a redactional appendix to the Covenant Code intertextually connected with our pericope,19 and it is implied by the scenery of Judg 2:1–5.20 What is more, it is the subject of the angelic speech: “By bringing you up from Egypt I brought you in the land … and I said … but you did not hear to my voice …”. On the other hand, Judg 1 describes the endeavor of the Israelite tribes to conquer separately parts of the land and the failure of every tribe to achieve that, at least partly and temporarily. No less significant is the complete lack of any theological comments in Judg 1 concerning God’s deeds or Israel’s guilt, whereas the divine speech in

16

VAN SETERS, ‘Joshua 24’; BLUM, Komposition; IDEM, ‘Knoten’, here n. 66 with further literature, to which RÖMER, Israels Väter, 325–329, should be added. 17 See n. 68 below. 18 Cf. BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 187–193. 19 See BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 188–192, for the textual evidence regarding the alleged intertextual dependence and the diachronic connection between the interpolations and expansions in Exod 14:19a; 23:20ff.*; 33:2, 3b* (34:11–16). 20 The short report about the angel’s ascent from Gilgal to Bochim followed by his direct address to Israel (2:1) as a whole (2:4) without the slightest scenic introduction (before v. 1b) proves that the meaning and function of the mal’ak according to Exod 23:20ff.* etc. are presupposed in Judg 2:1–5. GROß, Richter, 167, outlines an alternative: “Der Bote JHWHs … zieht hinauf zu Israel nach Bochim. … So wird der kanonische Leser schließen, daß der Bote JHWHs im Kriegslager Israels Gilgal geblieben war und nun nach Bochim zog, wo sich aus welchen Gründen auch immer Israel aufhielt.” The reading remains difficult, even with respect to the “final text”, because essential assumptions are not supported by the text, neither explicitly nor implicitly through other mal’ak-traditions: 1) the guiding angel going up “to Israel” after 2) “staying” at Gilgal for some time without the people, 3) the notion that the people had gathered for some reason at Bochim. In my view, one might ask whether the constituent parts of Judg 1:1–2:10 were in fact arranged with a “canonical reader” in mind. In this regard, the history of interpretation seems to be most instructive, demonstrating the wide range of options that our text might offer in terms of “canonical” “reader responses”. The Targum, for instance, understood the mal’ak of Judg 2:1 as an Israelite prophet, and the medieval Jewish tradition identified him with Phinehas (Rashi etc.).

226

Erhard Blum

Judg 2:1–5 brings just these issues into focus, referring to specific texts in Joshua (see immediately below) but not to Judg 1.21 If not Judg 1, what was the primary context into which the mal’ak-episode was ‘inscribed’? Judging by the implied scenery, only one of the assemblies initiated by Joshua according to ch. 23 or 24 seems conceivable: After Joshua’s farewell speech, the angel, whose main function – as the readers know – is to “go before” the Israelites (Exod 23:20, 23) and within whom YHWH’s name is present (Exod 23:21: ‫)כי שמי בקרבו‬, brings the people from Gilgal up to the mountain,22 where he delivers his speech of judgment, to which the people respond by crying and offering sacrifices, i.e., showing penitence; the place will be called “Bochim” in remembrance of that. Finally, Joshua dismisses the people – “everyone to his inheritance” – in order “to take possession of the land” (‫)לרשת את הארץ‬.23 Comparing the two episodes in Josh 23 and 24, it is obvious that the latter does not relate to the context we are looking for. For one thing, this is because the assembly in Josh 24 explicitly takes place at Shechem. Josh 23, on the other hand, can easily be situated at Gilgal by Judg 2:1, since Gilgal is the place where Israel is encamped under the guidance of Joshua throughout the whole book24 preceding ch. 23 (see 4:19– 20; 5:9–10; 9:6; 10:6–7, 9 [15, 43]; 14:6). It is, however, not only a question of the topological connection between the pieces. Reading Judg 2:1–5 as a Fortschreibung of Josh 23:1–16(a) (+ Judg 2:6) in fact points to the raison d’être of the mal’ak-episode in its given shape. Both the angel’s speech and Josh 23 (again in contrast to Josh 24!) deal with issues concerning the incomplete conquest of the land and the relationship between Israelites and the people of the land. Joshua declares in his farewell speech on the one hand that foreign nations still remained in the promised land – apparently measured by a territorial concept of ‘Greater

21

This did not escape the notice of Wellhausen, who attributed Judg 2:1b–5a to a later redaction (Composition, 210, followed by others). It seems, difficult, however, to detect any meaning in the two remaining clauses (vv. 1a, 5b); see also GROß, Richter, 157–158. 22 Once again, this is not explicated in the text, but it is presupposed in the meaning of the guiding angel which will evidently be evoked through the scene following directly after Josh 23:16, and it will finally be affirmed by Judg 2:6. 23 A widespread reading assumes that ‫ לרשת את הארץ‬refers to the taking of still unconquered land, whether with respect to Josh 23 (cf. also BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 184) or even to Judg 1. This, however, is a misconception, since the subject in 2:6b is neither the people nor one of the tribes but the individual Israelite/family (!‫)איש לנחלתו‬. The idea that every man has to take his heritage individually from the Canaanites would sound odd for the tradents of Josh/Judg, to put it mildly. Interestingly enough, STUDER, Richter, 62, already rejected this interpretation for contextual reasons, proposing the meaning “um das (eroberte) Land als Eigenthum zu besitzen, vgl. Lev 20,24 und ö.” Contextually, v. 6b most probably means the actual “possessing” of the land by living on it and cultivating it. 24 Apart from the late priestly interpolations in Josh 18–22.

II. 2.2. The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Josh and Judg

227

Israel’25 – who might lead astray the Israelites breaking the covenant of YHWH and following foreign gods. This stands in open tension with the report in Josh 21:43–45 that the conquest was successfully completed as well as with Joshua’s assuring the Israelites that “not one of all the good promises the Lord your God gave you has failed. All have been fulfilled; not one has failed” (Josh 23:14; cf. 21:45). The text of Josh 23 gives no hint how this inconsistency should be understood. Therefore, there are good reasons to look for a diachronic solution concerning this chapter (see part C below). In our Fortschreibung, however, an answer is given directly by God himself through his messenger in an additional act after Joshua’s farewell speech: And I said: “I will never break my covenant (‫ )בריתי‬with you. For your part, you shall not make a covenant (‫ )ברית‬with the inhabitants of this land (‫ ”… )יושבי הארץ הזאת‬But you have not hearkened to me! Why have you done this? (Judg 2:1bβ–2)

To which act of Israel’s disobedience is the angel referring? There is one instance of treaty-making with people of the land reported in the narrative of Joshua, the berit at Gilgal with the Hivite Gibeonites in Josh 9. In fact, several verses in Josh 9 provide the keywords for the accusation by the messenger, for instance:26 And they went to Joshua unto the camp at Gilgal, and said unto him, and to the men of Israel: “We have come from a distant country; make a treaty with us (‫)כרתו לנו ברית‬.” The men of Israel said to the Hivites: “But perhaps you dwell (‫ )יושב‬among us. How then can we make a treaty with you?” (Josh 9:6–7)

Although the treaty in Josh 9 is presented as the result of a well-planned fraud by the Gibeonites, the Israelites not being able to revoke their given oath, it is interpreted here as Israel’s sin which has to be punished: I (had) also said: “I will not drive them out before you; they will be your ‘adversaries’(?) and their gods will be a snare to you.” (Judg 2:3)

To what end and how exactly is this issue treated at the end of Joshua’s lifetime? The crucial key for an answer appears to be found in two speeches which are embedded into the angel’s speech of Judg 2. The ‘speeches in the speech’ are – like 2:1b–3 in its entirety – full of elements and formulaic phrases recurring in the immediate and wider context.27 Yet their respective opening statements, though being marked as self-quotations, lack an equivalent in the preceding contexts. Since there is no question about truth in the 25 Cf. Deut 1:7; 11:24; Josh 1:4; 13:1ff.; 23:4 (the text being partly corrupt), but also Exod 23:31 (mal’ak-pericope). For an earlier discussion of mine see BLUM, Komposition, 46–48, with further literature, inspired especially by WEINFELD, ‘Period’. 26 See GROß, Richter, 176, with further connections. 27 For an exhaustive overview and detailed references see GROß, Richter, 160–166. The most significant parallels are Exod 23:20–24, 31–33; 33:2; 34:11–15; Josh 23; Judg 2:20– 21.

228

Erhard Blum

case of divine words, these statements, therefore, are to be taken by the readers as ‘flashbacks’ (Nachholungen). The first one is 2:1bβ: “And I said: ‘I will never break my covenant with you.” The reason for such a statement seems enigmatic in the present context, as Walter Groß points out.28 However, when read as the continuation of Josh 23:1–16, it offers a response to the question that Joshua’s speech could raise concerning God’s unreserved commitment to Israel in view of the incomplete conquest. The second statement in question is Judg 2:3a: ‫וגם אמרתי לא אגרש אותם מפניכם‬. Several scholars read v. 3 not as a quotation of an earlier utterance but as a performative statement introduced by the verbum dicendi in the qatal 1cs.29 Syntactically, this seems possible,30 although an unambiguous mark31 is missing. The main difficulty, however, is the episode’s place in the plot line: Accusation and judgment on account of the berit with the Hivites of Gibeon would come with great and incomprehensible delay, only at the farewell of Joshua.32 Accordingly, the plain reading of ‫ וגם אמרתי‬as a reference to the past seems suggesting itself; the syntax even allows for understanding it as a pluperfect (in relation to “but you have not hearkened to me”). If so, not only Judg 2:1bβ (“And I said: ‘I will never break my covenant with you.’”) but also 2:3 are flashbacks33 reminding the reader that both main concerns of Joshua’s speech in ch. 23 had been declared to Israel in advance, i.e., God’s everlasting selfcommitment in favor of the people and the warning that in the case of treaties with the inhabitants of the land he will not banish “them”.34

28

GROß, Richter, 162: “Diese Aussage JHWHs kommt in 2,1 völlig überraschend …”. The statement itself seems to be unique in the Hebrew Bible. Even Lev 26:44 does not equal the apodictic character of Judg 2:1b (‫)לעולם‬. Since ‫ הפר ברית‬represents a widespread idiom, it seems difficult to postulate the dependence of Judg 2:1a on Lev 26 with its far-reaching consequences regarding literary stratigraphy; against GROß, Richter, 157. 29 See recently GROß, Richter, 160–161, with further literature. 30 GROß, Richter, 159. 31 For instance, ‫ היום‬or ‫ועתה‬. 32 If pronounced for the first time in Bochim, the angel’s judgment would be even more unintelligible when applied to Judg 1. The chapter covers a long process of tribal history in the land beginning with Joshua’s death through an extended period of weakness and failure concerning the conquest and ending with the subjugation of the Canaanite cities by the Israelites, who in the meantime had become stronger. Who would be stunned by the announcement ‫לא אגרש אותם מפניכם‬, and which moment in that process would it pertain to? 33 Obviously, the scribe of Judg 2:1–5 made use of his contextual Vorlagen, including Judg 2:20–21 (the same layer as the expansion in Josh 23:4–13 [see below]). The explanation given there for the lasting incompleteness of the conquest after Joshua appears to be transferred to the period of Joshua himself in Judg 2:1–5. 34 The language is vague at this point, probably on purpose. The formulation is elliptical with regard to the imagined scene, whereas in the contextual setting of Joshua’s farewell speech ‫ אותם‬refers to the nations mentioned in Josh 23.

II. 2.2. The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Josh and Judg

229

The retrospective explanation in Judg 2:1–5 does not completely resolve the contradiction in Josh 23 and the question of the complete/incomplete conquest of the land, at least measured against modern standards. Rather, it ‘imposes’ an interpretation in justification of God by the authority of God’s heavenly messenger himself and as a weighty epilogue to Joshua’s exhortatory retrospective.35 At the same time, the episode represents in every respect a fine example of inner-biblical ‘exegesis’. In sum, we have strong evidence for a textual thread extending continuously from Josh 23 into Judg 2. Considering the nature of Judg 2:1–5 as a secondary extension of the people’s assembly with Joshua’s farewell speech, it turns out that Martin Noth was indeed correct, viewing the earliest narrative line in Josh 23 + Judg 2:6–10. The next stage was Josh 23 + Judg 2:1–10, and the crucial step towards the received text turns out to be the creation of a new grand finale to the era of Joshua in Josh 24. Since this reshaping of the literary tradition was designed to be plainly additive (and not subtractive) on the one hand and since the angel episode could have been an unwelcome distraction from the agenda of Josh 24 on the other hand,36 the cut for inserting the Shechem scene (Josh 24) was made between Josh 23:16(a) and Judg 2:1–5+6. This constellation can finally provide explanations for two anomalies in our text, first of all the remote ‘lagging behind’ of Judg 2:6, but also the open end of Josh 23. Beginning with the former, we have to reckon with the fact that Josh 24:1–32 was most likely designed as the conclusion not only of the Joshua story but also of a comprehensive hexateuchal work which was explicitly labeled as “The Torah-book of God” in 24:26.37 If so, why was the formulation of Judg 2:6 not adapted in some way to its new context but instead left by the scribes of the hexateuchal redaction as it is, a clumsy remnant? The answer is quite simple: After closing the new ‫ספר תורה‬, the ‘cut’ material of (what is now) Judg 2:1–10 was on a different scroll. Apparently, the textual integrity of that scroll’s beginning was not the concern of the authors of Josh 24. In this respect, the erratic shape of Judg 2:6 in the received Joshua-Judges context should be evaluated as an ‘accidental byproduct’ of the diachronic process of the separation of Joshua and Judges. The case of the missing narrative conclusion in Josh 23:16 is less severe, but to some degree similar. While it is inconceivable that an author or redactor would fail to provide a conclusion to his own text (especially in light of an opening like Josh 24:1), it is less clear that the redactor who inserted Josh 24* 35 If ‫ )ה(בכים‬points to the (area of) Bethel as generally conjectured with good reason (cf., e.g., WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 210; ROFÉ, ‘Nomistic Correction’, 249–250; differently GROß, Richter, 168–169), the judgment speech is meaningfully delivered at the place of future apostasy, but by replacing the ill-reputed name by a parenetic one. 36 See n. 69 below. 37 See p. 236 below.

230

Erhard Blum

after 23:16 would take care to restore the disrupted topological framing of the assembly in Josh 23.38 Finally, Judg 1 constitutes the last module inserted into the transition between Joshua and Judges, forming – according to a broad consensus – a genuine beginning to the book of Judges. It obviously represents a conglomerate of various traditions. Against a trend in recent publications, however, I cannot see either a decisive pro-Judean (and anti-Josephite) Tendenz or a setting specifically fitting Persian-period Yehud.39 The elements traditionally assigned to a “negatives Besitzverzeichnis” rather belong to ‘scholarly’ traditions from the early monarchic period.

B. Before inferring further conclusions from the analysis outlined so far, an examination of alternative ‘stratigraphies’ proposed in recent research is in order. Since an exhaustive treatment is not possible here, we shall confine the discussion to two significant recent positions. The reconstruction which Christian Frevel advanced in several studies40 is of special interest, because he proposes in crucial parts almost an inverted stratigraphy compared to our analysis. In his view, the earliest material within Josh 23–Judg 2 is a pre-dtr layer in Josh 24 which once belonged to a preexilic, hexateuchal “Jerusalemer Geschichtswerk” and later functioned as the conclusion to the first dtr book of Joshua. This finale has been expanded with a basic dtr layer in Josh 23.41 Judges 1, extended by 2:1–5, was added in the 38

KNAUF, Josua, 189, proposes a very different explanation, or more precisely two explanations: “die Rede Jos 23 [hat] keinen Schluss, weil sie innerhalb von Jos den Redeschluss von Jos 24 bereits voraussetzt. Als Hinweis darauf kopiert 23,2 die Einleitung 24,1 wörtlich. Jos 23 kann auch deshalb keinen Schluss haben, weil die Rede in Ri 2,6-23 weitergeführt wird …”, which means: Josh 23 needs no conclusion because it presupposes (scil. as an earlier stratum) the ending of Josh 24. At the same time, Josh 23 cannot have a conclusion, since it will be continued in Judg 2:6(ff.), which nevertheless represents a recapitulation of Josh 24:28(ff.) in order to connect Joshua and Judges (KNAUF, Richter, 49). All in all, an amazing redactional logic. 39 Why, for instance, should the conquest of Bethel be prominently assigned to Joseph, while the area was part of Judah-Benjamin in the Persian period? What should be the relevance of the ‘Canaanite’ cities in the northern plains from a postexilic Judean perspective? Or could the late Judean scribes have had rudimentary knowledge about what Israel Finkelstein presently calls “New Canaan” in northern areas in the early Iron Age? 40 See most recently FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’; for earlier pertinent studies see IDEM, ‘Geschichtswerk’; IDEM, ‘Wiederkehr’. 41 Accepting Thomas Römer’s analysis of Josh 23 (see part C below), FREVEL, ‘JosuaPalimpsest’, 69, explains the open end of Josh 23 by adopting the solution proposed by Ernst Axel Knauf (see n. 38 above).

II. 2.2. The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Josh and Judg

231

Persian period. Finally, a later redactor “repeated Joshua’s death in Judg 2:6, 7–10 in order to connect the period of the conquest of Canaan with Joshua.”42 Frevel places special emphasis on the case of a Deuteronomistic History à la Martin Noth. Against Noth, he pleads for a revival of a primary Hexateuch (especially concerning Josh 24) and for a late literary connection between Joshua and Judges, thus undermining the concept of a DtrH. Significantly, Frevel’s reconstruction hinges on the doublet in Josh 24:28– 31 // Judg 2:6–10.43 His basic assumption is that Judg 2:6–10 functions as a Wiederaufnahme of Josh 24:28–31.44 Since in his view Judg 2:6–10 after Judg 1:1 makes even less sense than Judg 1:1 before Judg 2:6–10, he dismisses Judg 1:1a as a last addition which tried to cast Judg 1 as the beginning of the book, ignoring 2:6–10.45 Even then, however, the report of Joshua’s death would precede Judg 2:6, a fact that would disqualify 2:6–10 from functioning as a resumptive repetition. Therefore, Frevel assumes that Judg 1:1–2:5 as a whole was intended by the redactor of 2:6ff. as a flashback referring to Joshua’s lifetime.46 Yet even leaving aside for the sake of argument the notice of Josua’s death in 1:1a as well as the time of the plot in ch. 1 spanning several generations,47 there is simply no marker of anteriority in the entire context giving a hint to the readers for understanding the whole passage in the pluperfect (neither in 1:1aβ nor in 2:1). Nevertheless, if someone would have tried such a reading for some reason, he would have reached the wrong assembly: not the one in Shechem but one in Bochim. In short, the proposed reconstruction as a whole hardly provides a convincing solution, for reasons of Hebrew philology and of general narrative logic. Further aspects of this proposal deserve critical examination as well, especially concerning the alleged priority of Josh 24*. In this respect, Frevel re-

42

FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 68: “(E)in noch Späterer (hat) den Tod Josuas in Jdc 2,6.7-10 wiederholt, um die Periode der aktiven Eroberung Kanaans mit Josua verbunden sein zu lassen.” 43 See FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 55ff., beginning the discussion of Judg 2:6–10 after a review of research on pp. 49–54. 44 FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 55, 58. The description of the problem in ibid., 55, already assumes the existence of a resumptive repetition: “Unabhängig davon, ob Jdc 2:6–10 als werkexterne oder werkinterne Wiederaufnahme gelesen wird, macht sie nur Sinn, wenn etwas dazwischen tritt” (emphasis original). 45 This is how I understand the arguments in FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 55–56. 46 FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 68: “Damit wird die in Jdc 1 geschilderte Eroberung als Rückblende lesbar, die vor dem Tod Josuas und implizit unter dessen Führung stattgefunden hat.” The further alleged differentiation (ibid.): “Lediglich die Inbesitznahme des noch nicht eroberten Landes bleibt von der Führung Josuas gelöst, wie der Überschuss ‫לרשת את‬ ‫ הארץ‬in 2,6 unterstreicht“, presupposes the misconception of 2:6b discussed in n. 23 above. 47 See n. 32 above.

232

Erhard Blum

lies to a high degree on his comparison of Josh 24:28–31 and Judg 2:6–10.48 Any diachronic inference from punctual differences between such doublets has to reckon with potential fallacies, which Frevel basically concedes.49 Nevertheless, he includes arguments which are problematic either in terms of methodology50 or of content and style.51 The main variations, especially in the arrangement of the components, are due to the basic difference between the function as part of a finale (Josh 24) and as part of a work-immanent transition (Judg 2). Nevertheless, there is one element that reveals its primary place, Josh 24:31: “And Israel served YHWH throughout Joshua’s time and throughout the time of the elders who survived Joshua, and who had experienced all the works of YHWH which he had performed on behalf of Israel.” First, the implicit but clear restriction of the people’s full and complete faithfulness towards YHWH to the generation who had been eyewitnesses to the salvation history in fact calls for a contrasting sequel as we have it in Judg 2:10. Second, the statement made here about Israel’s undivided worship of YHWH fits completely with the main (dtr) composition in the book of Joshua, but it does not fit well with Josh 24. Against Frevel, who claims that “Josh 24:31 can be read as a note reporting the carrying out of this covenant [scil. the covenant of Josh 24:25]”,52 this note speaks not only of the people’s 48 FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 39–41; cf. the reference in IDEM, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 55: “Die Frage [sic! E.B.] der Priorität von Jos 24,28.29-31 gegenüber Jdc 2,6.7-9.10 ist an anderer Stelle begründet worden und soll hier nicht erneut diskutiert werden.” 49 See BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 184 with n. 10, and FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 39. 50 This concerns especially the relationship between textual history (so-called “lower criticism”) and literary history (so-called “higher criticism”). On the one hand, it seems problematic to apply “rules” like “lectio brevior …”, which are of (limited!) value in the text-critical context, to issues of redaction history. On the other hand, there are textual “changes” typical of scribal activities, such as the use of synonymous lexemes or syntactic constructions, which cannot decisively be attributed to textual or literary history, let alone decisively “explained”. This is the case, for instance, with ‫ יד״ע‬in Josh 24:31 and ‫ רא״ה‬in Judg 2:7; Frevel suggests for ‫ רא״ה‬the influence of Deut 11:7 against the ‘original’ Josh 24:31 (ibid., 39); but Judg 2:7 might be due to the intended inclusio with Josh 23:3, while the later redactor in Josh 24 was “free” in his choice and preferred the lexeme in Judg 2:10. 51 It is, for instance, odd to find a tension between Judg 2:7, which uses ‫עם‬, and Josh 23, which does not, and to claim that Joshua did not assemble “the whole people” in Josh 23; ibid., 40–41. This approach implies an artificial concept of language use. Suffice it to point to the formulation in Josh 23:2: ... ‫ ויקרא יהושע לכל ישראל לזקניו ולראשיו‬on the one hand, to 1 Sam 8 with ‫ כל זקני ישראל‬at the beginning of the convention (v. 4), ‫ העם‬in vv. 7, 10, 19, 21 and ‫ אנשי ישראל‬in v. 22 on the other hand and finally to the common conception that the people in its entirety is present through its representatives. An overloaded concept of language (similar to the hermeneutical tradition of Rabbi Aqiva) is also found in the idea that any stylistic choice by an author, scribe etc. has to be explained (ibid., 39–41). It seems preferable to take a heed of Rabbi Ishmael’s view: ‫התורה בלשון בני אדם דברה‬. 52 FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 40: “Jos 24,31 kann als Vollzugsnotiz dieses Bundes gelesen werden.”

II. 2.2. The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Josh and Judg

233

piety after the conclusion of the covenant in 24:25–27 but “throughout all the days of Joshua.” What is more, in Josh 24, and nowhere else in Joshua, the people are assumed to have foreign gods in their midst which they must remove (24:23: ‫)הסירו את אלהי הנכר אשר בקרבכם‬. How, then, could 24:31 be used within Josh 24? It could be used as part of the rearranged replication of Judg 2:6ff. in Josh 24:28ff. because it provides a positive picture at the end of Joshua’s era, while the readers/hearers will have the negative continuation of events (in Judges etc.) in mind. However, it is far from being formulated primarily for this finale. In other words, the transition formula in Judg 2 has diachronic priority over the concluding formula in Josh 24. In addition, we have here further evidence that Judg 2:6–10 was not shaped for Josh 24, but as continuation of Josh 23. The second hypothesis to be discussed here, advanced by Reinhard G. Kratz53 and Erik Aurelius,54 represents a “third way” regarding the priority of Josh 23 or 24, proposing neither ch. 23 nor 24, but a redaction-critical unit reconstructed out of selected elements from both chapters. The alleged “Grundtext” comprises the introduction of ch. 23 and six critically filtered verses from ch. 24 – Josh 23:1b–3; 24:14a, 15a* (up to ‫)תעבדון‬, 15b, 16, 18b, 22, 28 – describing an assembly of the people, probably at Gilgal, followed by Judg 2:7–10. The next redactional stages were represented by Fortschreibungen dealing with the theme of the (remaining) nations in the (partly) conquered land, i.e., Josh 23:4–16 (several hands); 24:15, 17–18a as well as Judg 2:1–5 with 2:6 (as an alleged Wiederaufnahme of Josh 24:28) and Judg 2:20–3:6. Last but not least, the books of Joshua and Judges were separated by constituting the assembly at Shechem through Josh 24:1–13, 25– 27, 29–33 on the one hand and Judg 1 on the other. This solution, which could be presented here only in its broad strokes, appears to be a comprehensive, well thought-out redaction-critical analysis. Nevertheless, it reveals several difficulties, some of which are severe:55 a) Though Kratz rightly emphasizes the significance of the parallel in Josh 24:28 and Judg 2:6,56 his hypothesis also fails to offer a conclusive explanation for the baffling position of both Judg 2:6 and Judg 2:1–5. Judg 2:6 cannot function as a resumptive repetition of Josh 24:28 in the supposed layer due to the discontinuity in space and time between the assemblies at (probably) Gilgal and at Bochim. Moreover, the notice of Joshua’s dismissal of the 53

KRATZ, Komposition, 205–208. AURELIUS, Zukunft, 172–180. Aurelius follows Kratz’ basic approach but presents his own detailed arguments. 55 See also the objections to the combination of Josh 23:1–3 with 24:14ff.* put forward by MÜLLER, Königtum, 220–222, and BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 247 n. 24. 56 KRATZ, Komposition, 206: “Die literarische Schnittstelle für die Einschaltung in Jos 24,29-33/Jdc 1,1-2,5 bildet die Überschneidung in Jos 24,28 = Jdc 2,6 (vgl. Jos 13,1a = 23,1b).” 54

234

Erhard Blum

people proves to be superfluous in this case, since 2:7ff. could connect smoothly to 2:1–5. At the same time, however, Judg 2:1–5 lack any comprehensible integration into the context.57 Again, a reasonable explanation for Judg 2:6 together with 2:1–5 appears as the first shibboleth for diachronic hypotheses regarding the Joshua-Judges transition. All the same, it would be possible in this case to rectify these problems by modifying the theory.58 b) Despite quite extensive literary-critical operations in Josh 2359 and 24, the most apparent inconsistency in Josh 23 between affirming the complete fulfilment of all good divine promises and the conceded incomplete conquest of the land (see p. 229 above) is ignored. As we will see below, a diachronic solution to the problem shows the land-theme not being primary in Joshua’s farewell speech, an insight which actually calls into question the starting point for the entire analysis.60 c) The first and basic literary-critical steps concerning the covenant story of Josh 24, cutting the setting at Shechem, the entire ‘historical’ retrospective in vv. 1–13 and its finale, the covenant-making in vv. 23–27, have no analytical basis. The procedure apparently aims to remove indisputably “later” features from the text and in this respect resembles a petitio principii. The same is true of removing any reference to the gods of the fathers beyond the river and to the gods of the Amorites, the former inhabitants of the land, especially in vv. 15, 23. At the same time, the putative conclusion of the basic layer in v. 22b (the people’s answer) is missing in the LXX; the MT variant probably being an interpolation.61 This means that the narrative thread in v. 22a is continued in vv. 23–24. d) Last but not least, the reconstructed basic text of Josh 24 is hardly convincing in at least two respects. First, as a result of the literary-critical 57 Cf. Kratz’ own comment: “das etwas verloren im Raum stehende Stück Jdc 2,1-5” (Komposition, 205). 58 Since the relative diachronic setting of Judg 2:1–5 resembles the stratigraphy proposed above and in my earlier publications (cf. AURELIUS, Zukunft, 179 n. 181), the mal’ak episode could be read as the direct continuation of the reconstructed assembly with Joshua, which could conclude in Judg 2:6. Consequently, Josh 24:28 would be part of a new ending for Josh 24:1–27. In contrast, no solution concerning our “shibboleth” is in sight within the framework of the hypotheses of MÜLLER, Königtum, and BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, who assume the priority of the Shechem-assembly over Josh 23 but do not address the present issue. 59 KRATZ, Komposition, 206, points to the study of LATVUS, God. AURELIUS, Zukunft 173–174, proposes a different analysis of his own (three to five layers). 60 See KRATZ, Komposition, 206; AURELIUS, Zukunft, 172–173 61 Against MÜLLER, Königtum, 216 n. 9, later scribes sensed the lack of a direct answer like in 1 Sam 12:5 and Ruth 3:9–11 and created the interruption in Joshua’s speech as a consequence of the interpolation of vv. 22a, 23 (perhaps from the margin or from an interlinear “correction”). It is much less probable that a redactor adding v. 23 would produce such a clumsy corruption.

II. 2.2. The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Josh and Judg

235

subtractions, the central statement that Israel should make a choice (‫)בחר‬ between YHWH and other gods (v. 15) – itself an exceptional idea in the Hebrew Bible – comes out in an astonishingly abstract form: “If it is bad in your eyes to serve YHWH, then make now your choice whom you will serve (…) But I and my house, we will serve YHWH.” One might suspect that the reconstructed statement represents an anachronism not only religiohistorically but also traditio-historically. Especially the term ‫ בח״ר‬with Israel as subject and gods as (implied) object62 seems at most conceivable if it is about a concrete alternative,63 and indeed, taking a closer look at v. 15 reveals that the indirect interrogative clause opens with the unspecified pronoun ‫את‬ ‫ מי‬just in order to introduce the disjunctive alternative (‫ ואם‬... ‫)אם‬: “whether the gods your fathers served in Transeuphratene or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you are living”. Deleting the specification means spoiling the subtly built Hebrew syntax which creates an emphatic rhetoric. In other words, literary-critical subtraction leaves the sentence in v. 15a fragmented.64 Second, if one reads the Joshua-story of the conquest under the guidance of YHWH, which is told without any hint to foreign gods being worshipped by Israelites, then confronting the people with the request to choose between his God and foreign gods seems baffling. Obviously, the main strands in the Joshua-story were not aiming for Josh 24 as their endpoint. Rather, the contours of Josh 24 are only understandable if it is read in the “hexateuchal” context summarized in vv. 2–13, where the gods from beyond the Euphrates are connected with the fathers Abraham and Nahor. As set out in an earlier study,65 this particular tradition itself is to be understood as an innerbiblical midrash of the story with Jacob’s wife and the household god(s) of her father 62

The interpretation that the “election of God” in Josh 24 should be understood as an alternative to the election of a king (BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 147) would sound to the intended readers of Josh 24 as bizarre as the very possibility of kingship during the time of Joshua. The idea of Israelite kingship as the hidden theme in Josh 24 was initiated by LEVIN, Verheißung, 114–119), followed by many others and further developed by MÜLLER, Königtum, 214ff. Levin relies on an alleged Königswahl in Israel and on Shechem as the place “wo Könige gemacht werden” (Verheißung, 117). But neither is the king in Israel/Judah “elected” by the people (not even according to 1 Sam 8:18) nor does Abimelech’s failed kingdom in Shechem (not of “Israel”) establish the supposed meaning of Shechem, nor is Jeroboam’s enthronement explicitly connected with Shechem. The places for “making kings” were primarily Gilgal and Jerusalem. As far as it concerns Josh 24, the debate proves unfounded. 63 This is also the case in Judg 10:14, the only other instance of ‫ בח״ר‬with a comparable subject-object constellation, but there it relates to apostasy (‫)האלהים אשר בחרתם בם‬, not to the need for Israel to “elect” YHWH as their god. 64 MÜLLER, Königtum, 222–223, seeing this problem, intensifies the literary-critical subtraction, leaving only Josh 24:1abβ, 15a2b, 16, 18b, 22 as the oldest layer and thus increasing the anachronistic abstraction in the extreme. 65 BLUM, ‘Connection’.

236

Erhard Blum

Laban, son of Nahor, which are the only candidates for the ‫ אלהי הנכר‬that Jacob must abolish (‫ )הסיר‬at Shechem (!) under the ‫ )!( אלה‬according to Gen 35:1–5.66 This cluster of traditions also includes the references to Joseph’s bones in several pentateuchal notices, which are meaningless without the act of burial in Josh 24:33.67 Conversely, Josh 24 would remain opaque without those prolepses and leitmotifs in late (post-P68) pentateuchal traditions.69 At the same time, Josh 24 presents itself as grand finale of a hexateuchal Torah, not only through ‘retelling’ in vv. 2–13 a “Hexateuch in miniature” (Gerhard von Rad) and not only through binding together the aforementioned threads starting in Genesis, but above all through the self-referential note of 24:26, which marks the chapter as the finale of ‫ספר תורת אלהים‬, i.e., the “Torahbook of God”.70 In this respect, Joshua was made into a second Moses, but “his” hexateuchal “Torah-book” remained ephemeral because it could not compete with the authoritative Torah-book of Moses. Nevertheless, Josh 24 still constitutes the clearest conclusion of a book in the realm of Pentateuch and Former Prophets besides the end of Deuteronomy. Nevertheless, recent studies, especially in German scholarship,71 insist decisively on Josh 24 as a unit intentionally shaped as transition-pericope with66

Since MÜLLER, Königtum, assigns the connections with Gen 35 to a redaction later than Josh 24:2, the particular tradition about the gods of the fathers must remain an enigma in his analysis. 67 BLUM, ‘Connection’, 98. This series of references begins in Gen 33:19 and extends through Gen 48:21–22; 50:24–26; Exod 13:19 and up to Josh 24:33. 68 Cf. already SCHMID, Erzväter, 226–230, and more recently BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 509–511 with further literature. 69 Evident as this narrative fabric may be, it still cannot fully explain the astonishing request to make a choice between YHWH and the gods from beyond the Euphrates or of the (former) inhabitants of the land. This constellation unmistakably requires a pragmatic objective which was lucid enough for the addressees. Still adhering to my explanation proposed already some decades ago (BLUM, Komposition, 54–59; IDEM, ‘Knoten’, 196– 199; IDEM, ‘Connection’, 101–103), I understand the weight given to Shechem and to Joseph as indicators of a pan-Israelite outlook which included the people of Samaria. Since Joshua’s speech clearly looks back to the fall of Israel and Judah (vv. 19–20), “the gods from beyond the Euphrates” are in this context nothing but a code for gods worshipped in the north (cf. the Judean perspective formulated in 2 Kgs 17:24–41). Hence, our Hexateuch-finale calls upon its addressees – Judeans as well as Samarians – to choose between foreign (i.e., Mesopotamian or Levantine) gods and YHWH. Presupposing an integrative concept of Israel, it seems natural that Josh 24 was not interested in the issue of remaining peoples like Josh 23 or Judg 2:1–5. 70 For detailed reasons see already BLUM, Komposition, 60–61, and especially IDEM, ‘Knoten’, 203–206; IDEM, ‘Connection’, 98–100. BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 146, misses the point, i.e., the self-referentiality of Josh 24:26, in his identification of Joshua’s “Torah-book of God” with the Pentateuch. 71 Cf. SCHMID, Erzväter, 23; KRATZ, ‘Hexateuch’, 302–307; AURELIUS, Zukunft, 172; BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 144–149.

II. 2.2. The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Josh and Judg

237

in an enneateuchal context, often quoting Christian Brekelmans: “Josh xxiv does not only look back; it is even more interested in the future. It looks back only to find the right decision for the future.”72 This and similar statements are, of course, basically right. But they do not supply an answer to our question about the place of Josh 24 within a particular literary work. Suffice it, for instance, to point to Jesus’ final speech in Matt 28:16–20. It is exclusively about the future; nevertheless, it marks the very end of the gospel. The same holds true for arguments claiming one and the same author/redactor in Josh 24 and Judges/Samuel. Compare, for instance, the Gospel of Luke and the book of Acts or Paul’s letters to the Corinthians. In order not to fall victim to simplistic fallacy, one needs to draw a clear distinction between what a text might be about or for on the one hand and explicit or implicit markers for its literary boundaries on the other.73 Unfortunately, in the case of biblical texts, we generally lack formal markers such as superscriptions/subscriptions, colophons, graphical framing or some technical closure. Joshua 24, however, represents a remarkable exception: Besides clear elements of narrative Gestaltschließung (“shape-closure”) concerning the plot, i.e., notices about the last main actor’s death and burial (24:29–30), about an early founding actor’s final burial (24:32) and the statement about the passing of an era (24:31), we even have a kind of colophon, narratively integrated into the story of the farewell ceremony (24:26). Much more would hardly be possible in the medium of continuously transmitted traditional literature as we have it in the Bible.

C. The range of different analyses and hypotheses regarding the transition between the books of Joshua and Judges appears fairly wide at present. It might be tempting to take such a diverse scholarly debate as a test-case in order to examine methodologically possible reasons for this unsatisfactory dissent concerning a relatively confined context: presuppositions, methods, ‘school’ background, individual interests etc. Such an inquiry, however, is not the purpose of the present contribution. Therefore, I will confine myself to calling two minimal conditions to mind which will be indispensable for any substantial progress in further research and which hopefully are not in dispute per se. First, the clarification of the linguistic and philological evidence concerning the textual data we are working with deserves clear priority.74 This 72

BREKELMANS, ‘Joshua xxiv’, 6. The distinction between intertextual and intratextual relations is no less important but quite often ignored. 74 If only to define precisely the options, possible ambiguity etc. 73

238

Erhard Blum

includes in our context especially the options for denoting anteriority in Biblical Hebrew and the definition and function of so-called “resumptive repetitions” in narrative texts. Second, an explanation should prove itself with regard to all significant components under discussion.75 As the discussion in parts A and B might show, I am convinced that carefully following these simple criteria would restrict the spectrum of hypotheses significantly. The analysis presented above leads finally to the following main compositional and/or redactional threads in the transition between Joshua and Judges. The first connecting thread (“A”) is preserved in Josh 23* + Judg 2:6ff., in fundamental accordance with Martin Noth, who identified here the transition between the time of Joshua and the time of the “Judges” within the exilic Deuteronomistic History (“DtrG”). However, an important step beyond Noth has been taken in recent research with the insight that the tension within Josh 23 (see part A above76) calls for a diachronic differentiation between a basic layer with the admonition to keep the first commandment and a second redactional layer introducing the theme of remaining peoples in the land after Joshua.77 To my knowledge, the first to draw this consequence in recent scholarship was Reinhard Müller,78 followed by Uwe Becker79 and Thomas Römer.80 Their analyses differ in some details, which can be left aside here, since all three agree concerning the basic distinction in question.81 With respect to the concepts of the land and of the conquest in Joshua’s time, the basic layer of Josh 23 shows full concordance with both the main (dtr) story in Joshua and the main (dtr) composition in Judges. Apart from the differenti75

It goes without saying that the determination of these components has to be open to discussion itself. 76 Pp. 221–230 above. 77 The difficulties connected with advocating the literary unity of Josh 23 in BLUM, Komposition, and IDEM, ‘Knoten’, through a kind of dialectic reading (the promises already/not yet fulfilled) found expression in assigning the chapter once to the dtr Grundschicht (Komposition), once to a second dtr layer (‘Knoten’). 78 MÜLLER, Königtum 233–234, who, however, proposes an overly minimalistic basic layer: Josh 23:1–2, 14b–16a. 79 BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 150–151, very similar to Müller: Josh 23:1–3, 14b– 16a. At the same time, Becker’s view of the relationship between Josh 23* and Josh 24* is hardly comprehensible: “Dieser Grundbestand ist entstanden als (neue) Einleitung zu der älteren Verpflichtungsszene Jos 24.” The same holds true for the statement: “Am Ende von Jos 23 (V. 15-16a) ist eine glatte Überleitung zum älteren Kapitel Jos 24* gegeben”, which ignores the narrative incoherence. 80 RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 523–548. Römer’s “Grundbestand” comprises Josh 23:1–3, 9, 11, 14–16a, apparently based on an analysis that does not take into account the work of Müller (and Becker). 81 Advocating basically Römer’s position, I propose the slightly modified identification of the first layer with Josh 23:1–3, 6, 11, 14–16a; see BLUM, ‘Geschichtswerk’, 287 n. 70. On v. 6 see KRAUSE, ‘Book’, esp. 415–417.

II. 2.2. The Compositional Knot at the Transition between Josh and Judg

239

ation within Josh 23, the evidence confirms henceforth Noth’s original assumption of a literary connection through Josh 23(*) + Judg 2:6ff. (“DtrG”). The later dtr elements in Josh 23 as well as Judg 2:20–21,82 23; 3:1a, 3 (DtrGS1) constitute a first expansion (A’) of the basic dtr transition introducing the theme of remaining peoples on the fringes of Israel under the supposition of a concept of “Greater Israel” (Deut 1:7*; 11:24*; Josh 1:4*; 13:1b–6). The mal’ak episode in Judg 2:1–5 (B), which is cast as the direct continuation of Josh 23 (A’), provides an authoritative interpretation of the still incomplete conquest by taking up the pentateuchal tradition of a guiding angel. This tradition shares the territorial concept of Greater Israel (Exod 23:31a) but at the same time introduces the idea of foreign people dwelling among the Israelites through its reference to the episode of the Gibeonites in Josh 9. With regard to B, the question arises whether this layer represents an intratextual or an intertextual connection with the pentateuchal texts in question. The possibility of a comprehensive literary framework cannot be ruled out a limine; nevertheless, the occurrence of punctual additions still does not prove a “hexateuchal” work, even though one might be inclined to reckon with the same circle of scribes/redactors in the case of the references in Exodus as well as in Judg 2. Another issue, the question of which pieces should be associated with the web of mal’ak texts apart from the verses named above,83 should be treated cautiously as well. Thus, it might be tempting to interpret the “commander of YHWH’s army” in the redactional introduction to the Jericho story in Josh 5:13–15 as another manifestation of the guiding mal’ak, and, based on the last verses in Josh 5, the association of Exod 3 may suggest itself, where the mal’ak appears in Exod 3:2,84 probably in an interpolation. A decisive judgment, however, appears difficult.85 The issue of the delayed completion of conquering the land recurs with different ‘skopoi’ towards the end of Judg 2, the common denominator being the justification of God, whether through a “theodicy of trial” as in 2:17, 22; 3:4 (DtrGS2)86 or through a “pedagogic theodicy” in 3:1aβb, 2 (DtrGS3). The 82

A later scribe was apparently inspired by Judg 2:20–21 for inserting Josh 23:16b; cf. LXX versus MT. 83 See n. 19 above. 84 Cf. LEVIN, ‘Cohesion’, 140, proposing a close connection: “In Judg 2:1, the angel, who is none other than the angel of Exod 3:2, points to the promise in Exod 3:17, which he quotes word-for-word, in order to establish that it has been fulfilled through the conquest described in Josh 2–11.” In any case, the claimed quotation of Exod 3:17, which allegedly explains the imperfect ‫ אעלה‬in Judg 2:1b (ibid.; see also KNAUF, Richter, ad loc.), does not work, since (a) only two words are identical and (b) the author of Judg 2:1–5 is quite adept at marking quotations. For the long imperfect in 2:1b see GROß, Richter, 156. 85 See the careful treatment in KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 375–402, esp. 398–400. 86 Cf. the Vorwegnahme/Wiederaufnahme in Judg 2:16/18a and the common key phrases in those verses.

240

Erhard Blum

locus classicus of the guiding angel in Exod 23 has been interpolated with similar reasoning, proposing a “theodicy of observance” (vv. 29–30). Therefore, the aforementioned expansions in Judg 2–3 are listed here as B’, although they evidently come from different hands and their stratigraphies in the realm of B to D remain uncertain. The staging of the grand finale of a hexateuchal work in Josh 24 (C) then shifted Judg 2:1–6 ‘beyond’ the newly created “Torah-book of God” by creating a cut at the end of Joshua’s parting assembly at the seam of its expansion in B. We do not know how long this Hexateuch could compete with the highly esteemed Torah of Moses; in any event, the long history of reception demonstrates that Joshua ultimately lost the race. All the same, Priestly tradents (PJosh) felt the need to underscore and to close out this era through the notice about the priest Eleazar’s death and burial in Josh 24:33 (C’).87 Finally, Judg 1 (D) is unanimously regarded as the last ‘building block’ in the transition between Joshua and Judges and at the same time the first part of a separate “book of Judges”.88 Lastly, I would like to point out just one consequence of the present literary-historical analysis on more general exegetical issues. Christian Frevel has identified “the transition from Joshua to Judges as what should be a breakingpoint for the thesis of a Deuteronomistic History”.89 If our analysis is correct in insisting that Judg 2:6ff. primarily functioned as the conclusion to Josh 23* – and I cannot see any realistic alternative – then the opposite holds true. Already Martin Noth (rightly) identified the smooth and tight transitions between Judges and Samuel as well as between Samuel and Kings on the level of the “deuteronomistic redactions” as one of the strongest arguments in favor of his “continuous Dtr”. Concluding his discussion with Wilhelm Rudolph he continued: “Now we have found that this assumption also applies to the transition from Joshua to Judges.”90

87

See ALBERTZ, ‘Anpassung’, 199–216, for the wider literary-historical context. On the older material in Judg 1 see p. 230 with n. 39 above. 89 FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 70. 90 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 9 (quote from ET 24). Cf. also BLUM, ‘Geschichtswerk’, 287–288. 88

The Literary Transition in Joshua 23–Judges 2 Observations and Considerations Reinhard G. Kratz One, if not the, main difference between the various proposals in scholarship for the explanation of the transition between the books of Joshua and Judges is the starting point of the analysis. Do we begin with the external textual evidence, here the textual overlap in Josh 24:28–31 || Judg 2:6–10, and the narrative connections that it shows, or with the conceptual differentiation of the chapters regarding the subject of “Israel, the land and the people” and the relative chronology which follows from this differentiation? After some deliberation, I have decided to begin with the external evidence and to try to bring this into line with the conceptual perspectives. And so, rather than presenting a completed hypothesis, this contribution will offer observations and ask the questions that arose as I went through the text once more. The following remarks make reference to the fundamental suggestions of Noth1 as well as to the contributions of Blum, 2 Rösel,3 Becker4 and Jericke.5 As far as possible, I abstain from making reference to my own proposal here.6

A. The Text at Hand: Joshua’s Double Death No matter whether we regard Joshua and Judges as being parts of one literary work (e.g., the Deuteronomistic History, DtrH) or we read the two books as being sequels of two interrelated scrolls in the context of the well-known historia sacra of Israel, we encounter a problem in Judg 2:6–10: The section Judg 1:1–2:5 takes place “after the death of Joshua,” an event which is reported in Josh 24:29–30 after two farewell speeches and the dismissal of the people in Josh 24:28, and it is assumed in Judg 1:1. Then, Judg 2:6–10 once 1

NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 6–9. BLUM, Komposition; IDEM, Studien; IDEM, ‘Knoten’ = IDEM, Textgestalt, 249–280. 3 RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 342–350; IDEM, Von Josua bis Jojachin. 4 BECKER, Richterzeit. 5 JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’. 6 KRATZ, Composition, 197–200 = Komposition, 204–208; IDEM, ‘Hexateuch’, 299– 307. 2

242

Reinhard G. Kratz

again reports Joshua’s dismissal of the people as well as his death and burial using wayyiqtol forms, i.e., in the usual narrative style. The problem can be explained in a number of ways. If we approach it from the Pentateuch and are advocates of the Classical or the Neo-Documentary Hypothesis, we would most certainly (have to) conclude a mechanical connection of two formerly independent sources made by an editor who was either unobservant or uninterested in the logic of the narrative: a Joshuasource, which at least would still have to include Judg 1 and perhaps even stretch as far as Judg 2:5, and a Judges-source, which began either in Judg 2:1 or 2:6. As always with the Documentary Hypothesis, the explanation involves a number of gaps that have to be filled by the reader’s postulated prior knowledge of the larger narrative context or – which amounts to the same thing – by the reader’s own imagination. And, as always, the solution involves a disregard of the narrative and literary connections between textual units, which are distributed over various sources; any gaps produced by this are then filled with the supposed reader’s knowledge or imagination.7 Also speaking against a source-critical solution is the argument, inherent in the system, that “the editor” in the Pentateuch did not usually inform us in duplicate or triplicate of births and/or deaths from his “sources” (J, E, P), but took from one source only, corresponding to the narrative logic. The distribution over various sources therefore does not seem to me to offer an appropriate solution to the problem. The alternative is to begin by accepting the text as it has been handed down and trying to make sense of it as it is. In my opinion this can only happen if Judg 2:6–10 is read as a flashback in the pluperfect tense to qualify theologically the situation “after the death of Joshua” at the conclusion of the events in Judg 1:1–2:5, and to form a transition to the ups and downs that follow in the era of the Judges. This then reads something along the lines of: When Joshua had dismissed the people and the children of Israel each received his inheritance, the people served Yhwh, and this continued for as long as Joshua lived and for some time beyond. But when Joshua died and was buried and his generation also passed away, a new generation appeared that did not know Yhwh, etc.

Understanding the narrative forms (wayyiqtol) as being in the pluperfect tense is not indicated grammatically (e.g., by an initial qatal ‫)ויהושׁע שׁלח‬, but – especially in a secondary understanding – is not completely excluded either.8

7

In passing it should be noted that the situation is reminiscent of the Joseph story, which is regarded as independent by arguing that Rachel is already dead in Gen 35:18–20 but presented as being alive in 37:10 (which I believe to be incorrect). See EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 26–27 n. 21. 8 For the grammar, see GESENIUS/KAUTZSCH, Grammatik, 329 (111q); WALTKE/ O’CONNOR, Introduction, 552–553 (33.2.3); JOÜON/MURAOKA, Grammar, 390–391

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition in Josh 23–Judg 2

243

Support for an understanding of Judg 2:6–10 as being in the pluperfect tense is provided by the change of generation, which is reminiscent of Exod 1:6, 8, and extends beyond the death in Josh 24 and Judg 1. Even Josh 24:31 looks temporally beyond Joshua’s death; Judg 2 takes this up in v. 7 and introduces the change of generation in v. 10. The transition of the notice in Josh 24:31, which follows the death of Joshua in Josh 24 (vv. 29–30) before his death in Judg 2:7 (and Josh 24 LXX), could also be related to the change of generation. The events in Judg 1:1–2:5 would then still belong in the time of Joshua’s generation, namely before and after his death, and everything that follows concerns only the next generation. However, just because the text (albeit contrary to the usual grammar) can be read as a meaningful unit in this way does not mean that it is also literarily consistent. The cumbersome restatement of Joshua’s death, demonstrating in both cases contact with other book transitions (cf. Deut 34 || Josh 1:1 with Josh 24 || Judg 1:1; and Gen 50:26 || Exod 1:6, 8 with Judg 2:7–10), the differences in the formulation as well as the position at the edges of the books of Joshua and Judges rather suggests that the text has grown literarily. The massive collection of various endings in Josh 11 and 21–24 and of programmatic introductions in Judg 1–3 with their different conceptual profiles points in this direction. Therefore, it is correct to speak of a “compositional knot” (Blum) that must be disentangled.

B. The Textual Basis: MT and LXX The complexity of this “compositional knot” is particularly evident in the textual overlaps in Josh 24:28–31 and Judg 2:6–10 at the transition from Josh 24 to Judg 1–2 and their variations. Added to this is the differing textual tradition in the Septuagint, which needs to be taken into account in the traditiohistorical reconstruction.9 The Masoretic version exhibits significant differences in formulation and a change in the order of the narrative elements: Josh 24:28 = Judg 2:6 with plus: ‫ לרשׁת את הארץ‬... ‫וילכו בני ישׂראל‬ Josh 24:31 = Judg 2:7: ‫ויעבד ישׂראל‬/‫ואשׁר ידעו ;ויעבדו העם‬/‫אשׁר ראו‬, plus in Judg 2 ‫הגדול‬, continuation or supplementation of Josh 24:31 || Judg 2:7 at 2:10 (‫ ;וגם כל הדור ההוא‬resumption v. 7 ‫)וגם את המעשׂה אשׁר עשׂה לישׂראל‬ Josh 24:29–30 = Judg 2:8–9 (+10): plus in Josh 24 ‫ ;ויהי אחרי הדברים האלה‬name of the burial place ‫ בתמנת סרח אשׁר בהר אפרים‬or ‫בתמנת חרס בהר אפרים‬ (118d). According to BLUM, Komposition, 55–56 (with n. 60), the supplements in Josh 24– Judg 2:9 are responsible for the grammatical incongruity. 9 See the synopsis in the contribution by Samuel in this volume (part II, section 1).

244

Reinhard G. Kratz

Although a comparison of the texts does not lead to a clear result, it does reveal the following trends: 1) The additions in Judg 2:6 seem to suggest the priority of Josh 24:28. 2) The additions in Josh 24:29–30 speak more for the priority of Judg 2:8–9. 3) I am not quite sure about Josh 24:31 and Judg 2:7, 10, but I would tend towards the priority of Judg 2:7–10 over Josh 24:31.10 In Josh 24, the Septuagint offers the text of Josh 24 MT but in the order of Judg 2:6–9 and also shows some significant pluses. In Judg 2, the Septuagint corresponds to MT. What follows is the order of Josh 24 in LXX: Josh 24:28 = Judg 2:6 Josh 24:29 (v. 31 MT) = Judg 2:7, deviating from MT in LXX: ειδωσαν = “see” (‫ )רא״ה‬and εγνωσαν = “recognize” (‫ )יד״ע‬in Judg 2:7 (as in 2:10 MT and LXX) Josh 24:30–31 (vv. 29–30 MT) = Judg 2:8–9 + burial of the circumcision knife Josh 24:32–33 (vv. 32–33 MT) + death and burial of Phinehas, beginning of sin and subjection to Eglon = (Josh 24:28 +) Judg 2:6 + (2:12–14; 3:7 +) 3:12, 14 (cf. CD 5:3–4)

Also in other places in Josh 23–24 the Septuagint sometimes offers a slightly different text (especially Josh 24:5, 17). It seems to me that two things are particularly important for the reconstruction: 1) In Josh 24:28–31 LXX the order does not correspond to Josh 24 MT, but to Judg 2:6–9. Either LXX has preserved an older version here, which was changed secondarily in the MT, or has aligned the text to Judg 2. Since the plus in Josh 24:29 (‫ )ויהי אחרי הדברים האלה‬connects better to Josh 24:28 than 24:31 (v. 29 LXX), I consider the sequence of the text in Josh 24 LXX to be secondary.11 2) The additions in Josh 24:31, 33 LXX show a tendency to add information from other contexts, particularly death and burial notices, to the end of Josh 24: circumcision knives from Josh 5; Phinehas from Judg 20:27–28; the subjection to Eglon from Judg 3:12–14 (+ 2:12–14; 3:7). The additions continue what can also be observed in MT: v. 32 Joseph’s bones (according to Gen 33:18–19; 50:25–26; Exod 13:19); v. 33 the death and burial of Eleazar (cf. Exod 6:23; Josh 14:1; 17:4; 19:51; 21:1); vv. 29–31 = Judg 2:7– 9. All of this points to the change of generation which is completed in 10 The textual expansion in Judg 2:7 (‫ )הגדול‬and supplementation around 2:10 suggest the priority of Josh 24:31, although I believe that the terminology “see”/“recognize”, the name “Israel” in Josh 24:31 instead of “the people” and the question of generation, which seems to have no function here, speak more for the priority of Judg 2:7, 10. 11 In my view, the phrase “to see all the works of Yhwh” (‫ )רא״ה‬in Josh 24:29 LXX also seems to support a secondary alignment with Judg 2:7. Josh 24:31 MT, on the other hand, uses the verb “to know” (‫)יד״ע‬, as does Judg 2:10, which in turn shows that Josh 24:31 and Judg 2:7, 10 do not lie on the same level. The differentiation of the verbs probably originated in Judg 2:7, 10: v. 7 “to see all the great work of Yhwh”, v. 10 “to know Yhwh and the work that he has done for Israel”.

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition in Josh 23–Judg 2

245

Judg 2:10. The various endings of Josh 24 (vv. 29–33 MT and LXX) therefore have a dual function: like the transition Deut 34 || Josh 1:1, they conclude the era of Joshua and the book of Joshua and, at the same time, like Gen 50 || Exod 1:6, 8, they indicate the epochal and generational changes in Judg 1:1 and 2:10 as well as the continuation of the historia sacra of Israel in the book of Judges.12

C. Possible Textual Connections If we assume that the textual overlaps in Josh 24:28–31 and Judg 2:6–10 are not original, then this would suggest that in Josh 24:32–Judg 2:5 we are dealing with a secondary insertion which entailed a duplication of the notice of the dismissal of the people (Josh 24:28 || Judg 2:6), Joshua’s death (Josh 24:29–30 || Judg 2:8–9) and the change of generation (Josh 24:31 || Judg 2:10).13 Several scenarios are possible as explanations for this insertion, depending on where we see the crucial interface. The easiest explanation takes the LXX version as the starting point. According to this solution, Judg 2:6–9 is a resumption of Josh 24:28–31 LXX following the insertion of Josh 24:31a, 32–33; Judg 1:1–2:5, whereby this insertion is itself not a unity but has grown, as is obvious from the various additions in Josh 24:31–33 (MT and LXX). However, we are also able to reverse these findings and see in Josh 24:28–31 a secondary prolepsis of Judg 2:6–9, depending on which of the slightly different versions of the text is considered to be original. This produces the following possibilities: The connection between Josh 24:28–31 LXX + Judg 2:10ff. was broken apart by the insertion of Josh 24:31a, 32–33; Judg 1:1–2:5 + the resumption of Josh 24:28–31 in Judg 2:6–9 or The connection between Josh 24:28–29 LXX (= 24:28, 31 MT) + Judg 2:8–9, 10ff. was broken apart by the insertion of Josh 24:30–33 LXX; Judg 1:1–2:7 with the resumption of Josh 24:28–29 in Judg 2:6–7 or The connection between Josh 24:27 + Judg 2:6ff. was broken apart by the insertion of Josh 24:31a, 32–33; Judg 1:1–2:5 with the secondary prolepsis of Judg 2:6–9 in Josh 24:28–31

The possibility of a resumption of Josh 24:28–31 in Judg 2:6–9 + 10 is particularly attractive, since in Judg 2 we also find the decisive motive for duplicating the narrative elements, the change of generation. However, since the 12

On the function of the insertions for the formation of the books see BLUM, Komposition, 55–56. 13 See BLUM, Komposition, 53.

246

Reinhard G. Kratz

text sequence in Josh 24:28–31 LXX is probably not original (see option 2 above), this possibility cannot be substantiated this way. The version in LXX shows another possible interface in Josh 24:33b, which points to the beginning of the Eglon-Ehud episode in Judg 3:12–14. Rofé has assumed an earlier connection here.14 As a consequence, the whole complex of Judg 1:1 to 3:11 could be considered to be an insertion. The concerns raised by Schmid regarding Rofé’s arguments15 are not fully convincing: The scheme of judges in Judg 2:6–3:6 could be more recent than the individual framing in 3:7 and 3:12ff.; the connection to Josh 24:33 LXX thus should not be sought in Judg 3:12 but in 3:15. This results in another option: Josh 24:28–33 LXX + Judg 3:15ff. was later broken apart by the insertion of Judges 1:1– 3:11 with Judg 3:12–14 as a resumption.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that Rofé’s hypothesis is untenable. As we have seen above (under 2), the addition in v. 33 is in line with a chain of additions in vv. 32–33 MT and vv. 31, 33 LXX, which all conclude the era of Joshua or anticipate the continuation of the narrative. Moreover, the addition in v. 33 LXX draws on specific formulations from Judg 2:12–14 and 3:7 and does not conform to the usual editorial scheme in the book of Judges (“they did evil in the eyes of Yhwh, God was angry and gave them into the hand of NN, they served …”). Finally, an argument against the originality of v. 33b is the resumption of v. 28 in v. 33 (“And the Israelites went every man to their place and in their city”) to facilitate the transition from the voluntary commitment under Joshua and sin after the death of Joshua, Eleazar and Phinehas. Thus, in my opinion, this possibility can be abandoned. In MT, the situation is slightly more complicated because the textual overlap is accompanied by a change in the sequence of the text (Josh 24:31 || Judg 2:7). The simplest solution is derived from the overlap in Josh 24:28 and Judg 2:6: “And Joshua then dismissed the people to their allotted portions”. The formulation in Judg 2:6 shows significant additions in the second half of the verse, which reflect the problem of the occupation of the land in Judg 1 (and also Josh 21:43; 23:5, 9, 13; 24:4, 8, 23–24; Judg 2:21, 23 and elsewhere): “and the Israelites went … to take possession of the land”. If we follow this line of thought, then Josh 24:29–Judg 2:5 with the resumption of Josh 24:28 in Judg 2:6 can be considered as an insertion, and Judg 2:7 would have originally connected to Josh 24:28. This option can be summarized as follows: Josh 24:28 + Judg 2:7–9 (= Josh 24:28–31 LXX) was broken apart by the insertion of Josh 24:29–30, 31–33; Judg 1:1–2:5 + the resumption of Josh 24:28 in Judg 2:6. 14

ROFÉ, ‘End’, 17–36. SCHMID, Erzväter, 218–219; similarly OTTO, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch, 231. 15

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition in Josh 23–Judg 2

247

External evidence for this is given by LXX, which witnesses this exact sequence. However, the parallels, as we have seen, stretch over the whole section Josh 24:28–31 || Judg 2:6–9, and the position of Josh 24:29 LXX (v. 31 MT) || Judg 2:7 is probably due to a secondary alignment with Judg 2. It is also remarkable that Josh 24 LXX and Judg 2:7 mention Joshua’s demise and the generation which survived him before his death is reported. After Josh 24 and Judg 1:1 this can be more easily understood in Judg 2:7 than in the immediate connection to Josh 24:28. With all the other possible connections we have to expect further intervention. If we begin with the overlap of the notice of Joshua’s death in Josh 24:29–30 || Judg 2:8–9, this would result in an original connection of Judg 2:10ff. or 2:11ff. to Josh 24:28 + 29–30, or Josh 24:28 + Judg 2:8–9. The insertion included Josh 24:31–Judg 2:7(–10), with Joshua’s death in Josh 24:29–30 as a secondary prolepsis of Judg 2:8–9, or with Judg 2:8–9 as a resumption of Josh 24:29–30. It is difficult to say which of the two notices of Joshua’s death is original. In Judg 2 it stands alone, surrounded by the change of generation in vv. 7 and 10. In Josh 24:29–30 it is connected to the previous narrative of the people’s dismissal through a transition (‫ויהי אחרי הדברים‬ ‫ )האלה‬and supplemented in v. 29 by a relative particle, which might suggest that it is an addition here and original in Judg 2:8–9. With this solution, however, we would have to expect that the overlaps in Josh 24:28, 31 || Judg 2:6, 7 came about in the course of the intervention or even later. In addition, it is inconceivable that the change of generation in Judg 2:10 would take no note of the previous generation of Joshua in Josh 24:31 || Judg 2:7, to which ‫וגם‬ makes specific reference. Consequently, Judg 2:10 cannot be part of an original connection in Josh 24:28 + 29–30 || Judg 2:8–9. Since the insertion in Judges 1:1–2:5 depends on the change of generation in 2:7, 10, I can see only the following possibility: Josh 24:28 + 29–30 || Judg 2:8–9 was broken apart by the duplication of the notice of Joshua’s death and the insertion of Judg 1:1–2:5 + 6 + 7, 10, followed by further supplements in Josh 24:31, 32–33 (MT and LXX).

The next possible interface, Josh 24:31 || Judg 2:7, also cannot be explained without assuming additional editing. A direct connection of Judg 2:8ff. to Josh 24:28–31 (with Judg 2:6, 7 as a resumption of Josh 24:28, 31 after the insertion of Judg 1:1–2:5) is not possible, since the second notice of Joshua’s death cannot immediately follow Josh 24:28–31. Consequently, one must either expect an addition of Josh 24:29–30 during the intervention in Judg 1:1–2:7, which would be tantamount to a variant of the possibility of an interface at Josh 24:28 || Judg 2:6 +7ff. as discussed above, i.e., Josh 24:28, 31 || Judg 2:6, 7 (= Josh 24:28–29 LXX) + Judg 2:8ff. Or Judg 2:8–9 was supplemented together with Judg 2:6, 7 during the intervention, which would suggest a resumption of Josh 24:28–31 in Judg 2:6–9 + 10 or a secondary prolep-

248

Reinhard G. Kratz

sis in Josh 24:28–31. Both variants already came up on the basis of the text sequence of Josh 24:28–31 LXX, which may, however, be secondary and therefore cannot serve as evidence. This scenario can be summarized as follows: Josh 24:28, 31 (= 24:28–29 LXX) + Judg 2:8–9, 10ff. was broken apart by the insertion of Josh 24:29–30, 32–33; Judg 1:1–2:5 + the resumption of Josh 24:28, 31 in Judg 2:6, 7 or Josh 24:28–31 + Judg 2:(10)11ff. was broken apart by the insertion of Josh 24:31a, 32–33; Judg 1:1–2:5 + the resumption of Josh 24:28–31 in Judg 2:6–9 + 10 or Josh 24:27 + Judg 2:6 ff. was broken apart by the insertion of Josh 24:31a, 32–33; Judg 1:1–2:5, with a secondary prolepsis of Judg 2:6–9 in Josh 24:28–31.

Taking all this into account, I see four options where intervention in the text may have been carried out: a) between Josh 24:28 and Judg 2:7ff. with the prolepsis of Judg 2:7–9 in Josh 24:29–31 and the resumption of Josh 24:28 in Judg 2:6, b) between Josh 24:28 and Josh 24:29–30 || Judg 2:8–9 with the duplication of the notice of Joshua’s death and the resumption of Josh 24:28 in Judg 2:6 as well as supplementation of Judg 2:7, 10 (subsequently duplicated in Josh 24:31, v. 29 LXX), c) between Josh 24:28, 31 (= 24:28–29 LXX) and Judg 2:8ff. with the prolepsis of the notice of Joshua’s death in Josh 24:29–30 (vv. 30–31 LXX) and the resumption of Josh 24:28, 31 in Judg 2:6–7, or d) following Josh 24:28–31 (MT or LXX) with a resumption in Judg 2:6–9 + 10, or after Josh 24:27 with a secondary prolepsis of Judg 2:6–9 in Josh 24:28–31.

If we take the text-critical evidence into consideration, which suggests that priority should be given to Josh 24:28 for the dismissal of the people and to Judg 2:8–9 for the announcement of Joshua’s death, then only options a) to c) remain as possibilities. Depending on how we decide the issue of the change of generation in Josh 24:31 || Judg 2:7, 10, the possibilities are reduced to a) and b) if we give priority to Judg 2:7, 10, and to option c) if we favor Josh 24:31. If we take Joshua’s death as a starting point, then only possibility b) remains. It is difficult to say which of the various options is the most likely, since these depend on other factors, not least on whether we have to (or want to) reckon with more than one editorial revision. The following observations seem to me to be crucial in reaching a decision: A simple comparison of the text does not help. The fine variations in formulation that can be found both in MT and in LXX allow certain trends to come to light but do not lead to a conclusive result (see above under 2).

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition in Josh 23–Judg 2

249

If we follow the logic of the narrative, then only Joshua’s death (Josh 24:29–30 || Judg 2:8–9) could have been the starting point of literary development, enriched by other elements in one or more steps: the dismissal of the people after the farewell discourses in Josh 23–24 (Josh 24:28 || Judg 2:6); the change of generation (Josh 24:31 or v. 29 LXX || Judg 2:7, 10 and Judg 1:1); additional death and burial announcements, as well as the anticipation of Judg 3:12–14 in Josh 24:32–33 (MT and LXX). Since the intervention in Judg 1:1–2:5 presupposes the people’s dismissal and Joshua’s death (Judg 1:1) and also relies on the change of generation (see above under 1), the duplication of the narrative elements is connected to this intervention. The news about the people’s dismissal (Josh 24:28 || Judg 2:6) and Joshua’s death (Josh 24:29–30 || Judg 2:8–9) must have already existed in the text and been duplicated during the intervention, i.e., anticipated in Josh 24 or resumed in Judg 2. This differs from the change of generation in Josh 24:31 || Judg 2:7, 10, which was either also anticipated and duplicated in the course of the intervention or inserted at that time (in Judg 2:7, 10) and duplicated later (in Josh 24:31, v. 29 LXX with further supplementation in vv. 31–33). After taking all this into consideration, I see the following development, which suggests possibility b) as being the most likely, whereby the various literary processes do not all occur on the same level: 1) Joshua’s death and burial (Josh 24:29–30 || Judg 2:8–9) at the transition from Joshua to Judges, determining which texts preceded and followed this transition depends on the analysis of the broader context (Josh 11; 21; 23–24 and Judg 2–3) 2) Joshua’s farewell speech(es) in Josh 23–24 + the people’s dismissal in Josh 24:28 + Joshua’s death and burial (Josh 24:29–30 || Judg 2:8–9) + Judg 2:11ff. 3) The change of generation after Joshua’s farewell speeches, death and burial in Josh 24:31 || Judg 2:7–10 to mark the change of epoch 4) The insertion of Judg 1:1–2:5 “after Joshua’s death” between Josh 24:28, 29–30 and Judg 2:8–9, with the resumption of Josh 24:28 in Judg 2:6 (cf. Deut 34 || Josh 1:1) and the duplication or insertion of the change of generation in Josh 24:31 || Judg 2:7, 10 (cf. Gen 50 || Exod 1:6, 8) 5) Further supplementation to indicate the change of epoch in Josh 24:31a, 32–33 (MT and LXX)

D. The Insertion of Judg 1:1–2:5 Usually the insertion in Judg 1:1–2:5 is regarded as a single block. However, conceptual and terminological differences here also suggest diachronic differentiation.16 Judges 1:1–36 and 2:1–5 deal in very different ways with the other peoples in the land (in particular the Canaanites): Judg 1 begins imme16

See RAKE, Juda.

250

Reinhard G. Kratz

diately in the situation “after Joshua’s death” and stresses that Yhwh (still) fights on the side of Judah and the other tribes.17 Furthermore, the chapter reports the successes (conquest, corvée) but notes that the Canaanites could not be driven out of all places (‫)לא להורישׁ‬. Judg 2:1–5 begins with the exodus and makes Yhwh responsible for not having expelled the other peoples (‫לא‬ ‫ )אגרשׁ‬as his punishment for his people entering into a covenant with the other peoples and worshiping their gods. In my opinion, it is not possible to say that the passage Judg 2:1–5 has nothing to do with Judg 1 and fits badly at its location. On the contrary, Judg 2:1–5 can be read as a simple theological explanation and interpretation of the situation in Judg 1: The non-dispossession and the corvée duty of the peoples appear to be a prerequisite for the covenant with the peoples; it is not the tribes of Israel, but Yhwh himself who lets the other peoples remain in the land as a “pitfall”, as preparation for the ups and downs in the era of Judges. Nevertheless, the two passages are unlikely to come from the same hand. The relative chronology, however, is difficult to determine, since there is no clear narrative or literary evidence to decide whether Judg 2:1–5 was conceived as a continuation of Judg 1 or Judg 1 as an introduction to Judg 2:1–5. Even the broader literary horizon of the two passages and their narrative connections do not provide any help. While it is clear that Judg 1 marks the beginning of the book of Judges, Judg 2:1–5 is dependent on a literary precontext and refers back to Joshua (esp. Josh 23) and Exodus (esp. Exod 23:20ff.). However, it is not immediately clear whether the reference in Judg 2:1–5 is an intratextual one or (as with Judg 1:1) more likely an intertextual one, in other words, a reference to another text in the same literary work or an external reference to the preceding historia sacra of Israel. In light of this, it is not possible to decide whether Judg 2:1–5 presupposes just Judg 1 or the entire narrative in Exod–Josh as its literary pre-context. The deciding factor for me is given by the immediate connections in the text. It is clear that Judg 1 presupposes Josh 24:29–30 (with its resumption in Judg 2:8–9) and presumably also Josh 24:31 (with its resumption in Judg 2:7). Judges 2:1–5, however, cannot easily be connected directly to Josh 24:29–31 (with its repetition in Judg 2:7–9!), but much more likely to the dismissal of the people in Josh 24:28, which is taken up again in Judg 2:6 (here with ‫ יר״שׁ‬as in Josh 23:13 and Judg 2:21, 23 etc.) and is either continued in Judg 2:7ff. or 2:8–9 – depending on where we place the change of generation on the basis of literary-historical criteria (Judg 2:7, 10), which competes with the explanation given in Judg 2:1–5 on the issue of continuing sin. For this reason, I find the theory of Noth and Blum to be very appealing, whereby Judg 2:1–5 is an older insertion written between Josh 23–24 and 17 Benjamin, the house of Joseph, Manasseh, Ephraim, Zebulun, Asher, Naftali and Dan are mentioned.

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition in Josh 23–Judg 2

251

Judg 2:8–9 before Joshua’s death.18 The connection to Josh 23–24 is indicated both conceptually and terminologically (see ‫ גר״שׁ‬in Josh 24:12, 18); the geography (Gilgal-Bochim) fits the narrative situation in the book of Joshua perfectly (see Josh 4:19; 10:43; however, Shechem in Josh 24 is an exception). With regard to the concrete literary connections, these depend to a certain extent on the analysis of Josh 23–24. If, like Noth, we assume that both discourses already existed,19 this would suggest a connection to Josh 24:28, as we have shown above. The situation is quite different if, like Blum, we want to connect Judg 2:1–5 to one of the preceding endings in the book of Joshua (Josh 23, or perhaps also 21:43–45; 11:16–23 or the whole of Josh 1–12).20 In this case, Judg 2:6–10, 11ff. must be regarded either as the older, genuine continuation of the book of Joshua, which was duplicated secondarily in Josh 24:28–31 with the insertion of Josh 24 and Judg 1 in total,21 or partly (2:6, 7, 10) as more recent, which is not impossible, of course, but does complicate matters. Moreover, without the connection to Josh 24:28, the question of the relative chronology of Judg 1 and 2:1–5 is left open once again.

E. The Broader Context: Josh 23–24 and Judg 2:11–3:6 The “compositional knot” in the transition from Joshua to Judges is not only limited to Josh 24:28–Judg 2:10, but also applies to the wider context, i.e., the farewell speeches in Josh 23–24, which are concluded in Josh 24:28 (resumed in Judg 2:6), and the scheme of judges in Judg 2:11–3:6, which follows Joshua’s death and the change of generation and in 3:7 merges with the individual framework of the book of Judges. I cannot provide a complete analysis of this context here, but can only raise a few questions and discuss various options. These observations are based on the various beginnings and endings in the second part of the book of Joshua (Josh 11:16, 23; 13:1; 21:43–45; 22:1; 23:1–2; 24:1, 28–31) and its continuation in the book of Judges (1:1; 2:1ff.; 2:6–10; 2:11ff.). Both of the farewell discourses in Josh 23–24 seem to be secondary with regard to the earlier endings in Joshua, which are 1) Josh 11:16–23 (to be precise: 11:16aα1, 23b), which – together with the list of conquered kings which follows and is perhaps a later addition – concludes Josh 1–12 and 2) Josh 21:43–45, which – along with a later chapter on the Transjordanian 18

NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 8–9; BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 256–262. NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 8–9, leaves open whether Josh 24 and Judg 2:1–5 were inserted simultaneously or in succession. 20 BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 256ff., 262ff. 21 See above under 3, option d. 19

252

Reinhard G. Kratz

tribes in Josh 22 – concludes the section on the distribution of land in Josh 13–22. It is commonly believed that Joshua’s death in Josh 24:29–30 || Judg 2:8–9 and the following narrative in the book of Judges were originally connected to one of these two older endings in the book of Joshua. As a consequence, everything else in Josh 23:1–Judg 2:6, 7, 10 has been supplemented gradually into this context. We need not deal any further here with the question of whether the intervention was attached to the first ending in Josh 11:16, 23 (+ Josh 12) or the second in Josh 21:43–45 (+ Josh 22). This depends on the assessment of the textual overlap in Josh 13:1a || 23:1b.22 What is interesting for the transition from Joshua to Judges, however, is the question of the relative chronology of the insertions in Josh 23–Judg 2. The problem is that all the texts more or less revolve around the same theme, namely, “serving Yhwh”. For this reason, internal differentiation is not so easy. After some indecision, Noth apparently let himself be guided by the sequence of texts and eventually saw a progressive development in concentric circles from the outside inwards: 1) Josh 1–12 + Josh 23 + Judg 2:6ff. 2) Josh 24:1–28 + Judg 2:1–5 3) Josh 24:29–33 + Judg 1

Noth did not discuss the interface of Josh 24:28–31 || Judg 2:6–10 any further but – as a result of his redaction-historical hypothesis concerning Josh 23– Judges 2 – implicitly regarded it as a secondary prolepsis and not as a resumption. A more complex picture emerges when we consider a significant conceptual difference, which allows us to divide the texts in question into two groups: 1) a discourse on the contrast between Yhwh and other gods (those of the fathers beyond the Euphrates and in Egypt or of the peoples in the land); and 2) a discourse on other peoples (in the land or on the periphery) and the complete conquest of the country. The first group clearly includes Josh 24 and Judg 2:6–10 with 2:11–19 (and 3:7ff.) as a continuation. In this group, the people’s dismissal in Josh 24:28 || Judg 2:6 is connected to the change of generation in Josh 24:31 || Judg 2:7, 10, which explains the transition from the people’s commitment under Joshua to the sin of the next generation. The second group includes the exhortation in Josh 23, the appearance of the angel in Judg 2:1–5, who explains the reason for the people’s sin, as well as the supplement to the judges scheme in Judg 2:20–3:6. Judges 1 is located between these two groups and differentiates between conquered and unconquered areas but does not address the issue of “serving Yhwh” (as such or in 22

In agreement with NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 45–46, I think that the connection of Josh 13:1a = 23:1b to Josh 11–12 is primary and the insertion of 13:1b– 23:1a with the resumption of 13:1a in 23:1b is secondary with respect to Josh 23–24.

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition in Josh 23–Judg 2

253

conjunction with the other peoples). Thematically, Judg 1 is more closely related to the second group (Josh 23; Judg 2:1–5), while in terms of narrative logic it presupposes Josh 24 and Joshua’s death (Judg 1:1). If we link Noth’s hypothesis with conceptual differentiation, this results in the following relative chronology of additions to the text: first the texts of the second group (Josh 23; Judg 2:1–5; 2:19ff.), followed by the first group (Josh 24 and Judg 2:6, 7, 10?) and finally Judg 1. This corresponds approximately to the model recently proposed by Blum:23 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) 6)

Josh 1–12* + 13–21* + Judg 2:8ff.*, 12ff.* (the completed settlement) Josh 23 and Judg 2:6–10 and 2:20ff. (the unconquered periphery) Judg 2:1–5 (mal’ak revision) Josh 24 (Hexateuch) Josh 1 (the unconquered heartland) Further additions

As I see it, the main difficulty of this reconstruction lies in the explanation of Judg 2:6–10. Since the parallel in Josh 24:28–31 is located on a later stage (4), the hypothesis must function in the area of Judg 2:6–10 (on stage 2) with quite a few asterisks, i.e., with vague assumptions without any textual basis. Even if simply comparing the wording of the parallels does not get us very far, it still seems to make sense to me to begin with the textual overlap and not to leave its evaluation implicit or open. After all, certain indications have emerged in favor of the priority of the death and burial announcements in Judg 2:8–9 and, according to the same criteria, for the priority of the people’s dismissal in Josh 24:28. With regard to the change of generation, the question is what provoked it or to what does it refer: an admonition or exhortation that expects a cause for idolatry with the other nations (Josh 23), or rather a review of God’s works, which are enumerated in Josh 24 and mentioned specifically in Josh 24:31 || Judg 2:7, 10, as well as a voluntary commitment of the people (Josh 24:14ff.), which justifies the positive assessment of Joshua’s generation? According to Blum, the change of generation already existed in the basic version (Judg 2:8ff.*), i.e., before or during the insertion of Josh 23 in stage 2 (Judg 2:6– 10) and prior to stage 3, i.e., the insertion of Judg 2:1–5. In this case, the positive report about Joshua’s generation in particular hangs in the air prior to the insertion of Josh 24. Following Blum’s model, the positioning of Judg 2:1–5 between Josh 23 on the one hand and the dismissal of the people in Judg 2:6* on the other is also unclear. What is the narrative connection to Josh 23, and why is the people’s dismissal delayed, even though Joshua plays no role in 2:1–5? The consequence of the late introduction of Josh 24 is that Judg 2:1–5, which was 23 BLUM, ‘Knoten’, developing his view presented in IDEM, Komposition, 45–61; IDEM, Studien, 363–369; see also pp. 221–240 in the present volume.

254

Reinhard G. Kratz

originally formulated as a continuation of Josh 23, is abruptly separated from its context and – prior to the insertion of Judg 1 – unexpectedly comes to stand as the opening of the book of Judges. The dismissal of the people in Judg 2:6* thus completely loses its reference point (in Josh 23 or 24) without it being compensated for in some way. Finally, the conceptual criterion as such poses problems. The sequence of Josh 23 (other peoples) and Josh 24 (other gods) does not agree with the relative chronology of the judges scheme in Judg 2:11–3:6. Here, the basic text in 2:11ff. deals with other gods, while the additions in 2:20ff. deal with other peoples. The conceptual criterion for textual development is also somewhat ambiguous in another respect. According to the basic text in Josh 1–21 and Judg 2:6ff. the settlement of the country is completed, while according to Josh 23 and Judg 2:1–5 it is partial; according to Josh 24 it is again completed, but partial according to Judg 1. It is of course possible that the pendulum swung back and forth, and after the problem of the other nations and the partial settlement, the problem of the other alien gods is taken up once more in a fully conquered country, especially as the emphasis in Josh 24 is on a historical retrospective and the gods of the fathers in Mesopotamia and Egypt. But the scene, a situation of decision, in Josh 24:14–28, mediated by the change of generation in Judg 2:7, 10, fits much better with the basic text of Judg 2:11–19 and the individual framings in Judg 3:7ff. than with the discourse on the other peoples, which Josh 23 and Judg 2:1–5 (the latter being more of a reaction to Josh 24:1–5) open for the future generation. In contrast, Judg 1 connects better conceptually to Josh 23 and Judg 2:1–5 than to Josh 24. Thus, it is not easy to convert this back-and-forth into a relative chronology. Taking all of this into account, the relative chronology proposed by Blum and based in particular on conceptual features raises questions in terms of the literary narrative as well as the concepts. If, as an experiment, we reverse the relationship and envisage the priority of Josh 24 over Josh 23, then, in my opinion, conceptual differentiation agrees more easily and more convincingly with the literary evidence and the narrative connections of the text at the interface between Josh 24:28–31 || Judg 2:6–9. The development would be as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

Josh 11:16, 23 (or 21:43–45) + Judg 2:8f., 11ff. Josh 24:1–28 + Judg 2:7, 10 Josh 23 and Judg 2:1–5 + 6 (resumption of Josh 24:28) Prolepsis of Judg 2:7–9 in Josh 24:29–31 + Judg 1 Further additions in Josh 24:31–33 MT and LXX

Objections to this reconstruction can be made on the grounds that Josh 24 constitutes a book conclusion – according to Blum, Otto and others, the conclusion of a Hexateuch, which no longer has a direct narrative connection to Judg 2. In fact, Josh 24 (with its historical retrospective, the writing of “all

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition in Josh 23–Judg 2

255

these things” in a “Book of the Torah of God” and especially the death of Joshua and the other death and burial notices in Josh 24:32–33) does indeed mark the conclusion of a book, just as Judg 1 marks the beginning of a book.24 Both chapters have a double function, namely, separating as well as connecting. Through intertextual references, they place the “book” that they conclude or open in the wider context and course of the historia sacra of Israel, yet without producing a direct, work-immanent (or intratextual) narrative connection.25 But does this necessarily rule out the possibility that Josh 24 entered the text before Josh 23, which could more easily explain the textual overlap in Josh 24:28–31 and Judg 2:6–10? Perhaps the literary-historical differentiation of Josh 23–24 itself offers a solution here. I have deliberately not discussed this possibility before, but in my opinion there is enough evidence for it. Various proposals have been made in previous scholarship, which should be considered. No matter where we want Joshua’s discourse to start, whether in Josh 23:1–326 or in Josh 24:1– 2,27 a number of scholars see the core in the commitment of Joshua and the people in Josh 24:14–28. This core was subsequently elaborated in Josh 23– 24.28 If this is the case, then the core of Josh 24 – as the first stage of expansion between Josh 11 (or 21) and Judges 2:8–9, 11ff. – could easily connect with the continuation in Judg 2:7ff. (including the change of generation in 2:7, 10), followed by further literary development. Only with this literary differentiation and with the basic text of Josh 23–24 (in particular the core in Josh 24:14–18) as a point of departure for the subsequent development of the text, the assumptions of Noth and Blum would be confirmed that first the problem of the other peoples in the secondary parts of Josh 23 and Judg 2:1–5 entered the text, and finally the book’s seams in the secondary parts of Josh 24 and Judg 1. It seems that both phases are in search of a response to the concept of partial settlement. Joshua 23 and 24 were related to each other by appropriate additions that point in the same direction. These additions say that Yhwh has kept his promise completely (thus in Josh 23 following 21:43–45) and throughout history from the ancestors through to Joshua (thus in Josh 24:1–13), while the completed settlement is dependent not only on a non-alliance with other peoples but also on rejecting all alien gods (those of the ancestors as well as those of the land) and, in this sense, 24

BLUM, Komposition, 55–56; IDEM, ‘Knoten’, 273–275. See Josh 24:14ff. with regard to the time in the land that follows, esp. v. 15 with regard to Judg 6:10; Josh 24:31 with regard to Judg 2:7ff.; Josh 24:33 LXX with regard to Judg 3:12ff; Judg 1:1 with a review of Josh 24, etc. 26 KRATZ, Composition, 198–200 (= Komposition, 206–207); AURELIUS, Zukunft, 172– 173; IDEM, ‘Entstehung’. 27 MÜLLER, Königtum, 214–236. 28 For an analysis of this passage, see LEVIN, Verheißung, 114–115; MÜLLER, Königtum, 221–224. 25

256

Reinhard G. Kratz

dependent on the obligation in Josh 24:14ff. (cf. Josh 23:15–16; 24:19–20). For Joshua’s generation, Judg 1 mediates between the commitment made in Josh 24 and the partial settlement in Judg 2:1–5. The chapter reports (particularly for Judah) on the success of the settlement but also adds the historical presuppositions for the alliances, which are named in Judg 2:1–5 as being the reason for the continued existence of other peoples and the continuing danger of idolatry. Concerning the relative chronology, I suspect that initially Josh 23–24 (still in combination with Josh 24:28 + Judg 2) was expanded and then the seams of the two books in Josh 24:29–31 and Judg 1 were added. The scheme of development would therefore need to be modified as follows: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

Josh 11:16, 23 (or 21:43–45) + Judg 2:8–9, 11ff. Josh (23–)24* with its core in 24:14–28* + Judg 2:7, 10 Josh 23 and Judg 2:1–5 + 6 (with an anticipation of 2:6 in Josh 24:28) Josh 23–24 (additions), prolepsis of Judg 2:7–9 in Josh 24:29–31 + Judg 1 Further additions in Josh 24:31–33 MT and LXX

F. Conclusions If we place the various proposals for disentangling the “compositional knot” in Josh 23–Judg 2 side by side, the differences are not overly great. Basically, there is consensus both on the conceptual differentiation as well on the importance of narrative connections, and to a large extent also on the relative chronology of the passages. The differences arise mainly from the importance we attribute to the textual relationships in Josh 24:28–31 and Judg 2:6–10 and whether we explain the narrative connections and the relative chronology on the basis of the textual relationships or the conceptual differentiation. If we stick to the conceptual profiles, leaving the textual relationships in Josh 24 || Judg 2 vague, we are free to treat the blocks Josh 23, Josh 24, Judg 1 and Judg 2:1–5 as literary units and classify them according to thematic criteria. If, on the other hand, we take the textual relationships in Josh 24 || Judg 1 into consideration, then, particularly with Josh 24, the conceptual profile as a concluding text conflicts with its literary connection with Judg 2. A solution to this dilemma could be to differentiate diachronically not only within Josh 24:28–33 (MT and LXX) and Judg 2:6–10 and between Judg 1 and 2:1–5 but also in Josh 23–24 itself. Thus, it makes sense to assume an intermediate stage before the successive insertion of Josh 23, Judg 2:1–5, Josh 24 and Judg 1. During this stage, initially a more basic version of Josh 24 was connected to Judges 2:7ff. and then to Judg 2:1ff. before the text in Josh 24 was reshaped as the conclusion of the book of Joshua (or a kind of “Hexateuch” within the course of the historia sacra of Israel from Genesis to Kings) and Judg 1 was created as the beginning of the book of Judges.

The Literary Transition between the Books of Joshua and Judges Sarah Schulz The current state of research on the Enneateuch shows consensus on at least a few major questions. Most scholars consider the exodus-conquest narrative to be a (by and large) self-contained literary work. The same applies to the books of Samuel and Kings, even though the redaction history of both compositions is quite complex. The texts in between, namely, Josh 13–Judg 21, which are also highly complex, are often seen (at least in part) as a literary bridge connecting the Hexateuch and Samuel-Kings. 1 This article will deal with some of the various interconnections between the Hexateuch and Samuel-Kings by focusing on three major problems: the double farewell speech of Joshua in Josh 23 and 24, the different parts of the book of Judges, and the doublet of Joshua’s death in Josh 24 and Judg 2. It begins with a brief analysis of Josh 23. Of great interest are the literary connections of the chapter (or rather its different redactional stages) to nearby texts, including Judg 1:1–2:5 and Josh 13ff. A brief examination of Josh 24 in its literary context and a comparison with Josh 23 and its contexts close the first section (A.). Following this, the savior narratives in Judg 3:7ff. and the closing chapters of the book of Judges in Judg 17–21 will be compared concerning their position and function between Joshua and Samuel-Kings (B.). In a synthesis of (A.) and (B.), it will be argued that there were originally two independent literary bridges between the Hexateuch and Samuel-Kings: Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21 on the one hand and Josh 11:23b; 24:1–27; Judg 2:6– 16:31 on the other (C.). An outline of the process of compilation of these two narrative strands (D.) suggests that it had a strong influence on the edition of Joshua and Judges as literarily separate books and therefore marks a clear caesura between the positive account of the (primarily) glorious history of Israel in the Hexateuch and its negative counterpart in Judges to Kings. Finally, a look at some late additions at the end of Joshua will reveal that late redactional stages focused on the Enneateuch again while still respecting the integrity of the Hexateuch (E.). 1

Cf. for example KRATZ, Komposition; FOCKEN, Landnahme; SCHULZ, Anhänge. Joshua 11:23a and 1 Sam 1:1 seem to be appropriate as an ending of the Hexateuch and a beginning of Samuel-Kings. On Josh 11:23 see p. 267 below.

258

Sarah Schulz

A. Joshua’s Double Farewell Speech in Josh 23–24 1. Josh 23 The diverse and to some extent contradictory statements on the conquest of the land, which is considered finished according to some verses and a future event according to others, point to a relatively complex process of the formation of Josh 23:2 Joshua allotted the foreign nations to Israel according to its tribes (v. 4), now Israel shall take possession of the land; YHWH is going to drive away the nations from Israel (v. 5a); YHWH will not continue to banish the nations if Israel intermingles with them (vv. 12–13); YHWH will expel Israel from the land if they worship other gods (vv. 15–16). At the beginning of the chapter, the repeated reference to Joshua’s advanced age in 23:1–2 may be considered redundant. Joshua 23:1 refers to Josh 21:43–45 (YHWH has given Israel rest from the threat of its surrounding enemies) and Josh 13:1 (Joshua’s advanced age) and thereby creates a temporal distance between these texts and the situation of Josh 23:2ff. (‫ויהי‬ ‫)מימים רבים אחרי‬. The problems of the literary integrity and the redactional place and function of Josh 23:1 have to be postponed until the texts in question have been discussed. Since Joshua’s speech requires the gathering of the Israelites reported in Josh 23:2, this verse certainly belongs to the basic literary layer of the chapter. The review of YHWH’s fighting against Israel’s enemies in v. 3 recalls Josh 1–113 and does not fit easily into its context. Between v. 2 and v. 3 the subject changes abruptly: Joshua has grown old; Israel has seen the deeds of YHWH. A discernible link between these two statements is missing. Between v. 3 and v. 4 the tension becomes even more apparent.4 The root ‫ רא״ה‬is repeated in v. 4, this time not in the perfect tense but as an imperative, followed by a list of Joshua’s deeds in the perfect tense. The relationship between “all these nations” (‫ )כל הגוים האלה‬which YHWH has expelled according to v. 3 and “these remaining nations” (‫הגוים הנשׁארים‬ ‫ )האלה‬which Joshua has allotted according to v. 4a is unclear.5 Since v. 2 and v. 4a form a coherent unit with regard to syntax and content, v. 3 can be evaluated as a later insertion. The distribution of “these remaining nations” by lot (v. 4a) evokes Josh 13ff. Thus, (parts of) this passage could have been familiar to the author of the basic layer.6 Verse 5 continues neither v. 3 nor v. 4a 2

Cf. BLUM, ‘Knoten’; RÖMER, ‘Ende’, et al. against NENTEL, Trägerschaft, who regards Josh 23 as a literary unity. 3 Cf. RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 531. 4 Cf. MÜLLER, Königtum, 236; FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 62. 5 Verse 4 itself is not a unity. Verse 4b is an expansion in the light of v. 3. In addition to the distribution of the land, v. 4b also refers to the conquest of the land by Joshua reported in previous parts of the book. Cf. RUDOLPH, Elohist, 241. 6 See pp. 263ff. below.

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition between Josh and Judg

259

coherently. While YHWH defeated the nations in favor of Israel according to v. 3 and Joshua allotted the remaining nations according to v. 4a, v. 5a predicts the expulsion of the nations by YHWH for the future and thus inserts an initiative of YHWH which can be correlated with the conditional character of the parenetic materials in 23:6ff. Therefore, v. 5a might have been added to v. 4a.7 Verse 5b, the future possession of the land by Israel, is in line with each of the three preceding statements but should be considered as part of the basic layer, which would otherwise lack an explanation of what was going to happen to the allotted territory. While vv. 2, 4a, 5b form a coherent unit, the parenesis beginning in v. 6 stands out. It qualifies the expulsion of the nations by YHWH with the condition that Israel lives according to the Torah. Thus, the remaining nations8 are still dwelling among Israel and pose a permanent threat to it. Verses 7–8 express the danger of the foreign gods who tempt Israel to transgress the first commandment. Instead of worshiping foreign gods, Israel will cling to YHWH as it did “until today”. Israel’s invincibility due to YHWH’s support impressively proves the positive effect of loyal worship (vv. 9–10). Verse 11 continues with a second parenesis. In contrast to v. 6, v. 11 does not call for adherence to everything written in the “book of the Torah of Moses” but calls more generally for loving YHWH. Due to the second opening in v. 11, vv. 6–10 and vv. 11–13 appear as doublets. This requires a literarycritical explanation. Since the call to love YHWH (v. 11) corresponds to the obligation to observe the first commandment (vv. 7–10)9 and the abandonment of YHWH (v. 12) fits with the prohibition against violating the Torah (v. 6), it is likely that vv. 7–11 were inserted between v. 6 and vv. 12–13.10 The parenetic section is not continued in v. 14, whose optimistic view can hardly be considered a fitting conclusion to the parenesis. The introductory ‫ והנה‬arouses attention and leads abruptly back to Joshua, who was last mentioned in v. 4a. Thus, v. 14 represents a climax and should be considered as part of the basic layer. His death being imminent (“today”), Joshua looks back on the positive record of his lifetime by emphasizing that none of the good words YHWH has spoken concerning Israel has failed. Verse 15 does not connect seamlessly to v. 14. It is the negative counterpart to v. 14 but at the same time shows differences in terminology (‫ בוא עליכם‬instead of ‫בוא‬ ‫ כל הדבר הטוב ;לכם‬instead of ‫ דבר אליכם ;כל הדברים הטובים‬instead of ‫דבר‬ ‫)עליכם‬. Verse 16 continues v. 15: Verse 15 states that YHWH will bring upon 7 The reverse order is not possible, since v. 5a does not explicitly mention the nations but instead refers to them using a pronominal suffix. 8 The phrase ‫ גוים האלה הנשׁארים האלה‬in v. 7 deviates from the designations of the nations in v. 3 and v. 4a. 9 Cf. the formulation of the Shema in Deut 6:4–5. 10 The repetition of ‫ לבלתי‬from v. 6 in v. 7 also points to a literary break between v. 6 and v. 7.

260

Sarah Schulz

Israel all the harmful things if Israel violates the covenant. Verse 16 defines the conditions: The subject of the covenant is the first commandment, and the punishment for its violation is exile.11 Therefore, vv. 15–16 are closely connected to vv. 7–11 and thus might go back to the same redactor. The older parenetic section in 23: 6, 12–13 presumes that YHWH will not continue to expel the nations if Israel associates itself with them. Consequently, it must have been mentioned previously that YHWH did expel them. This information can be found in v. 3 as well as in v. 5a. Since the terminology of v. 5a corresponds well to that of vv. 6, 12–13 (in both cases ‫ יר״שׁ‬hif.), it should be considered as part of this redaction. To sum up: The basic layer of Josh 23 comprises vv. 2, 4a, 5b, 14. It presupposes the distribution of the land and focuses on the imminent death of Joshua. After the distribution of the land, Joshua assembles Israel to encourage it to finally take possession of the land. Besides the distribution of the land by lot (Josh 13ff.), the basic layer is familiar with the idea of an incomplete conquest of the land (Judg 1). However, in view of YHWH’s promise, Joshua is quite optimistic about the favorable outcome of the mission: As v. 14 notes, all the good words of YHWH concerning Israel have been fulfilled so far. Joshua 23 was edited at least twice. Both redactional layers presume that the foreign nations are still dwelling among Israel and are a potential risk for Israel. According to vv. 5a, 6, 12–13, YHWH will expel the nations provided that Israel observes the Torah. If Israel turns away, he will stop, and the nations will become a handicap for Israel. The second edition in vv. 7–11, 15– 16 specifies the violation of the Torah with regard to the first commandment and looks back on the positive past: “Until today” Israel had clung to YHWH, and he expelled the nations on behalf of Israel. Determining the redactional place and function of Josh 23:112 and 23:313 as well as the editions identified above requires further analyses of other texts at the transition between Joshua and Judges. It seems appropriate to begin with Judg 1:1–2:5 and Josh 13ff., since both passages are closely connected to Josh 23. 2. Judg 1:1–2:5 The idea of the incomplete conquest of the land, already present in the basic layer of Josh 23 in v. 5b, points towards Judg 1. After the death of Joshua (Judg 1:1), which Josh 23 focuses on and which forms an essential precondi-

11

The idea of exile as punishment was taken from vv. 6, 12–13. On v. 1 see p. 280 below. 13 On the redactional place of v. 3 see p. 279 n. 101 below. 12

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition between Josh and Judg

261

tion for the following report,14 the chapter presents an account of the attempt to conquer the land announced in Josh 23. But in contrast to Joshua’s optimistic assumption in Josh 23, the Israelites largely fail. The position of Josh 23 before Judg 1 stresses the gap between the lifetime of Joshua, in which all of YHWH’s good words were fulfilled (23:14), and the failure of the tribes after his death (Judg 1). Judges 2:1–5 are also closely connected to Josh 23 and Judg 1.15 Although Judg 2:1–5 might not form a literary unity,16 there is no need for extensive literary-critical operations.17 Besides the setting in v. 1a and v. 5b – the arrival of YHWH’s messenger at Bochim and the people’s sacrifice – an organic story needs an accusation of the people (vv. 1b, 2) and their reaction to it (vv. 4, 5a). Only v. 3 disrupts the narrative with an unnecessary introduction of speech (‫)וגם אמרתי‬. The verse might have been added18 in order to complement the sin of the Israelites with YHWH’s refusal to expel the nations as a punishment. At this point, the argumentation becomes circular within Judg 2:1–5: Israel is accused of allying with the nations, and as a punishment the nations are not cast out (anymore?). Despite the obviously close relationship to Judg 1, Judg 2:1–2, 4–5 should not be ascribed to the same redactor in light of conceptual differences: In Judg 1, nothing hints at the appearance of the messenger of YHWH, and Judg 2:1–2, 4–5 are also more theologically nuanced than Judg 1. Furthermore, Judg 2:1–2, 4–5 are probably not earlier than Judg 1, since Judg 1 does not focus on the covenant with the nations.19 However, this would be expected if 14

The inquiring of YHWH by the people is by no means a common procedure (apart from Judg 1 it occurs only in the oracle scenes in Bethel in Judg 20:18, 23, 27) and must be explained. It is not reasonable that the tribes operate as a counterpart to YHWH until after the leader’s death. Pace FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 37, who interprets Judg 1:1aα as an attempt to close the gap between Josh and Judg – produced by the doublet of the death of Joshua – by linking Judg 1 to Josh 24:29. Cf. also RAKE, Juda, 132. 15 Cf. RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 49 n. 147; SCHMITT, Frieden, 40, 148ff.; JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 351–352. 16 Pace GROß, Richter, 158. 17 WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 210, considers only vv. 1a, 5b to be old. 18 Cf. RAKE, Juda, 116–117. Contrary to BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 191, ‫ וגם אמרתי‬does not work as a “redaktionelle Wiederaufnahme” of ‫ אמרתי‬in v. 1b after the insertion of v. 2b. A coherent text needs v. 2b; therefore, v. 3 cannot have continued v. 2a at any time. Verse 2a includes the request; v. 2b states the violation, v. 3 formulates the sentence, which is the only expendable element in the basic layer of the text. 19 There is no difference between Judg 1 and 2:1–5 concerning the form of organization of Israel that could identify Judg 2:1–5 as the older text either. The assumption that Israel acts as a unified people of God in Gilgal in Judg 2:1–5 is not correct; pace BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 187–188; NENTEL, Trägerschaft, 110. Only the messenger of YHWH has been in Gilgal and leaves from there for Bochim, where the people are staying. According to Judg 1:1 the Israelites reside in one place, where they consult YHWH as well. This consul-

262

Sarah Schulz

Judg 1 was inserted to function as a misdeed of Israel corresponding to the accusation in Judg 2:1–2, 4–5. On the other hand, Judg 2:1–2, 4–5 cannot be considered as an original continuation of the prohibition of a covenant with the nations in Josh 23.20 First of all, the implied prohibition might be redactional in Josh 23, while already the basic layer (Josh 23:5b) seems to be familiar with Judg 1. Secondly, Judg 2:1–2, 4–5 accuse Israel of transgressing the ban against making a covenant. Therefore, between the ban (Josh 23) and the accusation (Judg 2:1–2, 4–5) the transgression must be mentioned. Since Judg 1 seems to perceive the incomplete conquest of the land as a general failure but not as a misdeed of Israel,21 the reverse chronology is likely. Judges 1 is older than Judg 2:1–2, 4–5, which interpret Judg 1 ex post facto as a sinful behavior of Israel, although Judg 1 does not imply this view.22 Since the accusation of Israel in Judg 2:1–2, 4–5 (the neglected destruction of the altars is interpreted as a covenant with the nations) differs from the obligation in Josh 23:5a, 6, 12–13 (no relation with the nations; the idea of covenant is not explicitly mentioned), it seems appropriate to distinguish between these two texts as separate redactional layers. Since Judg 1 does not form a meaningful continuation of Josh 23 in its shape after the first redaction (v. 5a, 6, 12–13), the basic layer of Judg 2:1–5 is probably the older text. After Judg 2:1–2, 4–5 evaluated Judg 1 as a misbehavior of Israel, Josh 23:5a, 6, 12–13 interpreted the failure to expel the nations in Judg 1 as YHWH’s sentence for Israel’s covenant with the nations. Therefore, the redactor of Judg 2:3 might have been familiar with this first expansion of Josh 23. Since it ultimately explicitly states the execution of the punishment (YHWH will not continue to expel the nations), it would fit this first redactional layer; however, the focus on the foreign nations’ gods may indicate that Judg 2:3 was designed by the redactor of the second expansion of Josh 23, Josh 23:7–11, 15–16.23

tation corresponds with the oracles in Bethel in Judg 20–21, not only as a result of the direct quotation of Judg 1:2 in Judg 20:18 (Judah will go up first to fight against the enemies). When Judg 2:5 mentions a sacrifice in Bochim, the identification of the two cultic sites Bochim and Bethel might be implied. 20 Pace BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 188. 21 Cf. BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 207–208. 22 With BLUM, ‘Knoten’, Josh 9 could be considered an alternative reference point for the accusation of Israel in Judg 2:1–5. For the purpose of this article this question is not essential. However, it seems obvious that the redactor who added the prohibition of a covenant with the nations in Josh 23 sought to interpret Judg 1 as a transgression. 23 A third option would be a literary-critical solution: Perhaps v. 3b (or at least v. 3bβ) could have been inserted together with the second expansion of Josh 23, with the former part of the verse belonging to the first expansion of Josh 23 then. However, it is difficult (and for the purpose of this article to some extent unnecessary) to make a decision on this.

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition between Josh and Judg

263

Regarding the older parts of Josh 23 and Judg 1:1–2:5, there is no reason why the basic layer of Josh 23 and Judg 1 should not go back to the same author.24 In the way described above, Josh 23:2, 4a, 5b, 14 report that Joshua has allotted the land which is not yet conquered and state Joshua’s optimism about Israel’s future mission at the end of his lifetime. Israel’s failure in Judg 1 gives the lie to this view and thus creates a gap between the positive conditions during Joshua’s lifetime (23:14) and the sudden regress after his death.25 The brief overview has shown that Josh 23 (basic layer and first expansion), Judg 1 and Judg 2:1–5 are closely related to each other. As the following section will reveal, this extends also to Josh 13ff. So far, the previous analyses suggest the following chronology: 1) [Josh 11:23a as final point of the conquest of the land]26 + Josh 23:2, 4a, 5b, 14 [notes about the dismissal of the people and the death of Joshua, in this case Josh 24:28–29]27 + Judg 1 2) + Judg 2:1–2, 4–5 3) + Josh 23:5a, 6, 12–13 4) + Josh 23:7–11, 15–16; Judg 2:3(?)

3. Josh 13ff. Joshua 13:1–7 differ from the distribution of the land reported in Josh 14:1ff. in one central point. According to Josh 14:1ff. (which is in line with Josh 11:23a), the land has already been conquered and will now be distributed by Joshua and Eleazar. In Josh 13:1–7, however, there is still (different?) land left to be conquered and Joshua (alone) receives the order to distribute it. Within Josh 13:1–7, the doublet of v. 6b and v. 7 is conspicuous. Joshua twice receives the order to distribute the still unconquered land (v. 6b ‫נפ״ל‬ hif., v. 7 ‫ חל״ק‬piʿel). Only one of the verses can have formed the original ending of the basic layer. A literary seam between v. 1 and v. 2 is also highly probable. Building upon v. 1b (‫)זאת הארץ הנשׁארת‬, v. 2a adds a list of places and regions not conquered yet, which ends in v. 6aα. Verse 7 also has ‫הארץ‬ ‫ הזאת‬as a direct object and could go back to the same hand. The basic layer beginning in v. 1 would thus be continued in v. 6b,28 since the feminine suffix in v. 6b clearly refers to the land mentioned in v. 1b. An original sequence of 24 This does not preclude the possibility that Judg 1 integrates older material, although an old origin of the list of the tribes seems improbable in light of its systematic structure. Cf. SMEND, ‘Land’, 228; FRITZ, ‘Besitzverzeichnis’. 25 SMEND, ‘Gesetz’, 127ff. (cf. idem, Entstehung, 114–115), also ascribes Josh 23 and Judg 1:1–2:5 to the same hand, DtrN. In contrast, RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 535, opts for a close relationship between Josh 23 and Judg 2:6ff. 26 See p. 267 below. 27 See p. 271 n. 69 below. 28 On v. 6aβ see below.

264

Sarah Schulz

v. 1 and v. 6b might seem problematic at first glance due to the beginning of v. 6b with ‫רק‬, but perhaps the uncommon phrase can be related to Joshua’s advanced age. In consideration of his seniority and the incomplete conquest of the land, Joshua will at least allot the land before his death. The insertion of vv. 2–6aα, 7 disturbs the cohesion of v. 1 and v. 6b and creates the grammatical difficulty that the suffix in v. 6b lacks an antecedent. Since the 3mp suffix in v. 6aβ is dependent on the Sidonians mentioned in v. 6aα, v. 6aβ must also be separated from the older v. 6b.29 Whether v. 6aβ was penned by the same redactor as vv. 2–6aα, 7 or was inserted at a later stage is difficult to decide. The idea that YHWH himself is going to expel Israel’s enemies is at least not reflected elsewhere in vv. 2–6aα, 7, which might point to an independent, later insertion of v. 6aβ. In light of terminological and conceptual similarities to Josh 23:5a (YHWH expels [‫ יר״שׁ‬hif.] the nations on behalf of Israel), 13:6aβ might be ascribed to the same layer as the first redaction in Josh 23 (vv. 5a, 6, 12–13). Thus, the following development of Josh 13:1–7 is likely: The basic layer comprises 13:1, 6b, while a first insertion can be found in 13:2–6aα, 730 and a second one in 13:6aβ. Josh 14:1–19:51, at least on a basic level, could be older than Josh 13.31 Contrary to Noth, it is unnecessary to assume an independent tradition: Josh 14:1 could have followed Josh 11:23a, the original ending of the conquest of the land.32 The list of allotted territories extends to Josh 19:48. Afterwards, a piece of land is distributed to Joshua (19:49–50). Josh 19:51 states the successful completion of the conquest and might have originally functioned as an ending to the list.33 With a certain probability, the Priestly-style report about the distribution of the conquered land in Josh 14:1–19:51 was inserted between Josh 11:23a and the death of Joshua in Josh 24:28–29. By introducing the distribution of the land with Josh 13:1, 6b, Joshua’s action is explicitly reduced to the allotment of the land, which, according to this redaction, is moved towards the end of his life. Both items correspond to the The change of the designation of Israel from ‫ בני ישׂראל‬to ‫ ישׂראל‬points in the same direction. 30 This first redaction (which might not be a literary unity but can possibly be further subdivided) will not be considered in the following investigation. It specifies the territory still to be distributed and in the end focuses on the distribution of land to the Transjordanian tribes. On the whole, it is not essential for the question of the literary transition from Joshua to Judges. 31 Cf. NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 45–46; KNAUF, ‘Buchschlüsse’, 220–221. 32 See p. 267 below. 33 The caesura after Josh 19:49 in NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 186, is artificial and seeks to eliminate Joshua from the purportedly old list. Admittedly, as a concluding notice, Josh 19:51 is a doublet to Josh 21:43–45. See p. 279–280 below. 29

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition between Josh and Judg

265

basic layer of Josh 23 and, thus, Josh 13:1, 6b might go back to the same redactor.34 According to this redactor’s view, after the distribution of the land by lot, the land remains to be conquered, but Joshua is quite optimistic about this mission.35 The continuation with Judg 1 then describes how the tribes fail without a leader. As outlined above, the later additions in Judg 2:1–5 and Josh 23 successively interpret this failure as a punishment for Israel’s misbehavior. In consideration of Josh 13ff., the chronology can be described as follows: 1) [Josh 11:23a] + Josh 14:1–19:51* [Josh 24:28–29] 2) + Josh 13:1, 6b; 23:2, 4a, 5b, 14; Judg 1 3) + Judg 2:1–2, 4–5. 4) + Josh 13:6aβ; 23:5a, 6, 12–13 5) + Josh 23:7–11, 15–16; Judg 2:3(?)

If, as has been argued so far, Josh 13ff.; 23 and Judg 1:1–2:5 are strongly related to each other, the question arises: What role does Josh 24 play in the midst of these interwoven chapters? Interestingly, the following investigation of Josh 24 will conclude that the chapter shows hardly any connections to the texts discussed so far. 4. Josh 24 Although the redaction history of Josh 24 is disputed,36 there is no need to consider extensive revisions. Nevertheless, at least three passages arouse suspicion.37 Verses 19–21 can easily be identified as an addition.38 The anticipation of Israel’s failure – the violation of the first commandment – disrupts the cohesion of the narrative, since Israel’s election of YHWH as its god has no bearing on what follows. Verses 23–24 do not fit smoothly into the con-

34

Cf. also SMEND, ‘Gesetz’, 127ff., who assigns Josh 13:1bβ–6 to DtrN. The meeting place for the Israelites in Josh 23 would thus be Shilo (see Josh 19:51). 35 The simultaneity of Josh 13:1, 6b and Josh 23:2, 4a, 5b, 14 is disturbed by Josh 23:1, according to which a long time has passed in the meantime. This might be a first indication that Josh 23:1 is secondary to Josh 13:1 and 23:2. Before the redactional place and function of Josh 23:1 can be determined, it must be clarified what the long time that has passed refers to; on this see p. 280 below. 36 According to SMEND, ‘Gesetz’, 132ff.; NENTEL, Trägerschaft, 66ff., et al. it is possible to reconstruct a relatively old dtr basic layer; according to PERLITT, Bundestheologie; RÖMER, ‘Ende’, et al. the text is of late origin and has been only lightly expanded by a later redactor. 37 Naturally, some minor additions cannot be taken into account in the following overview. The enumeration of the assembled groups in v. 1bα, for example, probably goes back to a coordination with Josh 23:2; cf. FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 64. 38 Cf. also MÜLLER, Königtum, 216–217; BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 145; RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 539.

266

Sarah Schulz

text either: After Israel’s reaction to Joshua’s speech in v. 22,39 v. 23 continues immediately with another speech by Joshua.40 Verse 24 connects directly to v. 23 by repeating Israel’s decision from v. 18. Furthermore, since the demand to worship YHWH in both v. 14a and v. 14b is redundant, v. 14 might not be coherent. Verse 14b is also conspicuous due to the remarkable idea that the ancestors worshiped other gods in Egypt.41 This verse could have been inserted together with v. 23–24,42 since it concurs with them in the view that the Israelites currently serve other gods.43 Thus, both texts stand in opposition to the basic layer, according to which Israel can choose to continue serving YHWH (v. 16) or to worship the gods of the ancestors, that is, the Amorites. The temptation is huge, since Israel is surrounded by the worship of foreign gods. Nevertheless, the Israelites elect YHWH as their god, and as a result Joshua makes a covenant with the people. Interestingly, the extensive basic layer of Josh 24 does not show any connections to the above discussed texts in Joshua and Judges.44 Neither the advanced age of Joshua nor the incomplete conquest of the land or the potential threat caused by the former inhabitants of the land play any role. On the contrary, numerous tensions and conceptual differences appear in comparison to Josh 13ff.; 23; Judg 1:1–2:5. First of all, the repeated gathering of Israel in Shechem stands in tension with Josh 23:2. The same is true for the conquest of the land. In Josh 24, it seems to be completed, since the topic is the legitimate worship of God in the conquered land. The juxtaposition of these two different concepts thus calls for an explanation, which can be found in the redaction history of the book of Judges.

39

Verses 22 and 27 are doublets. In v. 22 Israel is addressed as a witness to the election of God, whereas according to v. 27 an erected stone serves this function. If one considers v. 27 to be later than v. 22 (with the aim of coordinating Joshua’s covenant with Abraham’s building of an altar [Gen 12:6–7] or Jacob’s erection of a maṣṣebah [Gen 33:20] in Shechem, cf. MÜLLER, Königtum, 218), v. 22 could be part of the basic layer that continues in v. 25. 40 Cf. MÜLLER, Königtum, 216. 41 Cf. RÖMER, ‘Ende‘, 538. 42 Cf. MÜLLER, Königtum, 216. 43 Cf. BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen‘, 145. The request for repentance in Shechem evokes Gen 35. Cf. RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 542. Thus, a literary link between Josh 24:14b, 23–24 and Gen 35 seems possible. In what follows, this addition in Josh 24 will not be discussed, since it is of little value for the question of the transition from Joshua to Judges. 44 In the case of Josh 24:19–21 the results are different. The insertion is closely connected to the latest redactional layer in Josh 23:7–11, 15–16 through the violation of the first commandment and the change in YHWH’s attitude towards Israel from positive to negative. The purpose of this redactional linkage to Josh 23 cannot be evaluated until the redactional relationship between Josh 24 and Josh 13ff.; 23; Judg 1:1–2:5 has been determined.

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition between Josh and Judg

267

B. The Book of Judges According to a convincing hypothesis by R. G. Kratz, the savior narratives in the book of Judges together with Josh 11:23b are responsible for the linkage between the Hexateuch and the composition of Samuel-Kings. 45 The statement that the conquest of the land was completed (Josh 11:23a) might be older than 11:23b and might have served as the original ending of the Hexateuch. 46 Joshua 11:23a may have originally been followed by the dismissal of the assembled people and the death of Joshua (Josh 24:28– 29 = Judg 2:6, 8) as a conclusion of the Hexateuch.47 The dismissal corresponds to Josh 11:23a, the giving of the land to Israel as an inheritance. The notion of Joshua’s death was necessary at the moment the Hexateuch was continued by following texts, either by (parts of) the book of Judges or by Samuel-Kings, but it also works as the end of an independent Hexateuch. Of the two available pieces, Josh 24:28–29 and Judg 2:6, 8, the redactor of Josh 11:23b might have had Judg 2:6, 8 in mind, since the additions in Judg 2:7 and 2:1048 are closely related to the savior narratives. They frame the death of Joshua with Israel’s worship of YHWH during the lifetime of Joshua and the elders of his generation who outlive him (v. 7) and the death of this whole generation of YHWH worshippers (v. 10a). Thus, the additions allow the direct continuation with the savior narratives, according to which the Israelites do what is evil in the eyes of YHWH.49 These narratives describe how the peace of the land stated in Josh 11:23b gets gradually lost due to the Israelites’ disobedience towards YHWH but is restored afterwards with the help of an elected savior. The story of Gideon (Judg 6–8) serves as a good example of the connecting function of the savior narratives, since here the references to the Hexateuch and to Samuel-Kings are particularly obvious:50 Unlike all other savior narratives, the beginning of the Gideon story in Judg 6:1–6 explicitly mentions the threat to the conquered land caused by the recurring 45

Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 193ff. Cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 211 n. 770. 47 Cf. MÜLLER, Königtum, 77; according to KRATZ, Komposition, 198–199, Josh 11:23 was directly followed by Judg 2:8. BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 151–152, remains undecided. 48 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 207; MÜLLER, Königtum, 77; pace FOCKEN, Landnahme, 67. 49 Judges 2:10b differs from 2:7 in terms of terminology (‫רא״ה את כל מעשׂה יהוה הגדול‬ in v. 7 and ‫ יד״ע את יהוה וגם את המעשׂה‬in v. 10b) and therefore might have been added with the aim of focusing more clearly on the upcoming decay by establishing a new generation that is not familiar with YHWH. The decision depends on whether it is possible to determine a reasonable place and function of such an insertion within the formation of the book of Judges. 50 Cf. SCHÄFER/SCHULZ, ‘Gideon’. 46

268

Sarah Schulz

invasions of the Midianites; the summoning of Gideon in Judg 6:11–24 strikingly resembles the call of Moses in Exod 3:9–12; and in Judg 8:22–23 Gideon expresses the mutual exclusivity of monarchy and theocracy, which can also be found in the critical parts of 1 Sam 8–12. Regardless of how the literary development of the savior narratives is reconstructed – whether one assumes their successive (pre-dtr and/or dtr) development or expects larger pre-dtr or dtr units from the outset51 – the final chapters in Judg 17–21 do not fit this complex. The major problem lies in the chronology, since the placement of the events in the time of the conquest of the land (Judg 18) and during the lifetime of the second generation after Moses (Judg 18:30) and Aaron (Judg 20:27b, 28a) suggests a direct continuation of the death of Joshua and the conquest of the land. It is therefore unlikely that the final chapters of the book of Judges were written in knowledge of the savior narratives or – in other words – as appendices to the book of Judges.52 Besides the fact that it would only shift the problem but not solve it, the reverse assumption that the savior narratives were written in knowledge of the final chapters53 is also problematic. Especially the references of the savior narratives to the following time of the monarchy contradict the idea that the authors and/or redactors were aware of or intended the sequel with Judg 17– 21. The reference of Judg 8:22–23 to 1 Sam 8–12 finds better recognition if the Gideon narrative and the time of the early monarchy are not separated through stories about the conquest of Dan and various conflicts among the tribes of Israel. The connection between the savior narratives and the monarchy becomes even more obvious in the story of Jephthah (Judg 10:6–12:7). Jephthah is threatened by the Ammonites and the Philistines, both later opponents of Saul and David. When he receives the explicit order to begin the fight against the Ammonites (Judg 10:18) and achieves initial success but in the end does not defeat them, this may hint at a direct continuation by the stories of Samuel, Saul and David.54 Thus, if neither part of the book of Judges seems to have been written in knowledge of the other, an independent origin and development for each part must be taken into consideration. In addition to the chronology, numerous conceptual differences point in the same direction. Especially remarkable are the opposite attitudes towards the monarchy (severe criticism in Judg 8:22–23, optimistic expectations in Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25) and the existence of former inhabitants of the land 51

On this question see SCHÄFER/SCHULZ, ‘Entstehung’. Cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge. Pace BECKER, Richterzeit, 296; KRATZ, Komposition, 203; GROß, Richter, 91, et al. 53 Cf. JEPSEN, Quellen; PFEIFFER, ‘Sodomie’, 285. 54 Cf. MÜLLER, Königtum, 64–65 et al. The threat caused by the Philistines remains unchanged during the episode of Jephthah. A later redactor uses this overlap to insert Samson into the context, cf. WITTE, ‘Simson’; MEURER, Simson-Erzählungen. But one fact remains unchanged: Samson, too, only begins the fight against the Philistines (Judg 13:5). 52

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition between Josh and Judg

269

(in Judg 17–21 their presence is presupposed,55 while in the savior narratives they do not play any role at all. Instead, the threat comes from outside Israel in the form of the surrounding nations). Furthermore, in Judg 17–21, Israel’s sin is defined as illegitimate worship of YHWH,56 whereas the savior narratives focus on the permanent worship of foreign gods (Judg 3:7; 8:33; 10:6). Theoretically, it is conceivable that Judg 17–21 once circulated separately as an independent text or as a part of a larger work which has not been preserved, and for some reason were inserted into the context between the Hexateuch and Samuel-Kings at a later time. Yet the close connection of Judg 17– 21 with the following time of the monarchy suggests that, like the savior narratives, the final chapters were also written for this context from the outset. Judges 19 contrasts the birthplaces of Saul and David, Gibea and Bethlehem. With good reason this chapter is often interpreted as a Tendenzschrift that presents David in a positive and Saul in a negative light.57 Thus, Judg 19 provides a “reading guide” for the following time of the monarchy. Judges 17–18 and 20–21 are the result of gradual Fortschreibungen of this oldest narrative in Judg 19. This process extended beyond the negative portrayal of the northern territories to a criticism of Israel as a whole.58 The criticism of Saul from Judg 19 is continued in Judg 20 and the Jabesh episode in Judg 21: In a grueling war between the brothers Israel and Benjamin, the latter is almost completely annihilated, the Israelites ban Gibeah (Judg 20), and finally, the inhabitants of Jabesh in Gilead, a city closely connected to Saul, are killed in order to restitute the tribe of Benjamin with the help of the Jabeshite women (Judg 21). In Judg 17–18, the criticism of Saul is complemented by criticism of the tribe of the Danites and their cult in Dan. This narrative also focuses on the monarchy, more precisely 1 Kgs 12, by anticipating the “Sin of Jeroboam”.59 Finally, the criticism is applied to the people of God in its entirety: An individual establishes an illegitimate cult of YHWH in the mountain region of Ephraim (Judg 17:1–6), and in the end all Israelites are involved in the rape of the women from Shiloh. Thus, the time without a king (Judg 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25), which was created especially for this purpose, is gradually filled out with episodes demonstrating the decay of Israel during this time and thereby anticipates the following time of the monarchy in many 55 Cf. the conquest of the Canaanite city of Laish in Judg 18, the designation of Jerusalem as Jebus and as the city of the Jebusites in Judg 19:11–12 and the location of Shilo in the land of Canaan in Judg 21:12. 56 Cf. for example Micah’s violation of the commandment of aniconism in Judg 17:1–6 or the establishment of the sinful cult at Dan in Judg 18. 57 Cf. already GÜDEMANN, ‘Tendenz’; AUBERLEN, ‘Anhänge’. 58 The various evaluations discussed below are due to distinct Fortschreibungen whose exact definitions and classifications are of marginal interest for the present examination. Cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 53ff.; 189ff. 59 Cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 174–175; 185ff.

270

Sarah Schulz

respects. Therefore, if Josh 11:23b; Judg 2:6–16:31 were specifically written to prepare for the monarchic period, the same holds true for Judg 17–21.

C. Synthesis of the Foregoing Results A closer look reveals that Josh 13ff.; 23; Judg 1:1–2:5 on the one hand and Josh 24 on the other hand fit with Judg 17–21 and Judg 2:6–16:31, respectively.60 1) Joshua 24 and the savior narratives: With the election of YHWH, the basic layer of Josh 24 establishes the first commandment as Israel’s criterion of failure. Its violation consistently witnesses to Israel’s deterioration according to the savior narratives. Moreover, the election of YHWH echoes the election of the monarch in 1 Sam 8ff.: Despite having elected YHWH as its god in Josh 24, Israel rejects him shortly afterwards by its demand for a king (cf. 1 Sam 8:7; 10:19).61 This also calls to mind the rejection of the monarchy by Gideon in Judg 8:22–23.62 2) Joshua 13ff.; 23 and Judg 1:1–2:5 resemble Judg 17–21 with regard to the incomplete and leaderless conquest (Dan has no inheritance at the beginning of Judg 18 and conquers Laish on his own initiative) and the existence of former inhabitants of the land.63 By combining the results, it is possible to reconstruct two independent and self-contained compositions which do not show any knowledge of each other until the latest redactional stages of their formation.64 Both alternative narrative strands obviously aim at literarily linking the Hexateuch and SamuelKings and at the same time demarcate the (largely) optimistic view of Israel’s history in the Hexateuch and the pessimistic time of the monarchy, which already casts its shadow upon the transition area under discussion. In the case of Josh 24 and Judg 2:6–16:31, at some point during the process of formation of the savior narratives, the basic layer of Josh 24:1–27 was inserted between the Hexateuch and these narratives. The gathering of the people in Shechem would originally have followed Josh 11:23b and would have been continued by Judg 2:6. It is difficult to determine the date of this addition. In any case, Josh 24 can be identified as a late text due to numerous

60 RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 49–50 n. 147, also connects Josh 24 and Judg 2:7ff. on the one hand (dtr. layer) and Josh 23 and Judg 1:1–2:5 (later additions) on the other. 61 Cf. KRATZ, ‘Hexateuch’, 303. 62 Cf. MÜLLER, Königtum, 225ff.; BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 147. 63 See n. 53 above. 64 See below.

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition between Josh and Judg

271

references to other (late) texts.65 After the completion of the conquest in Josh 11:23b, Josh 24 forms a new ending of the Hexateuch. Joshua assembles the Israelites once again explicitly66 and completely67 in Shechem in order to demonstrate YHWH’s favorable deeds for Israel with the help of a retrospective on Israel’s history and to offer them the choice between worshiping YHWH or other gods. The election of YHWH as its god already has in view Israel’s violation of the first commandment in Judges and Samuel and thus creates a twofold story of Israel with its god YHWH. The rejection of YHWH immediately follows his election, as is indicated by the repeated worship of foreign gods as well as by the demand for a king in 1 Sam 8ff., which is explicitly identified with a rejection of YHWH in 1 Sam 8:7. Therefore, within this composition (Josh 11:23b; 24:1–27; Judg 2:6– 16:31), the basic layer of Josh 24 intensifies the caesura that is already inherent in the change of circumstances after the death of Joshua in Judg 2:7–10. Thus, Josh 24 separates a hexateuchal Heilsgeschichte from the following events concerning the monarchy. 68 In the case of Josh 13ff.; 23; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21, the redactional processes would have been more complex. Among these texts, Josh 14:1–19:51 belong to the oldest. The passage was inserted between Josh 11:23a and the notices of the people’s dismissal and the death of Joshua in Josh 24:28–29.69 When the distribution of the land comes to an end, Joshua receives an inheritance (Josh 19:49–50), Timnath-Serah, where he is later buried (Josh 24:30). Thus, Josh 19:51 might originally have been followed by the older verses Josh 24:28–29, and Josh 24:30 may have been appended in the process of the

65

E.g., Judg 6:7–10; Judg 10:11–16 and 1 Sam 12. Cf. ANBAR, Josué, 69ff.; BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 195–196; IDEM, ‘Geschichtswerk’, 271; KRATZ, ‘Hexateuch’, 301ff.; BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 141–142; NIHAN, ‘Rewriting Kingship’, 260ff. 66 The dismissal of the people in Judg 2:6 follows Josh 24. The connection is smooth, but the explicit mention of the assembly is not a precondition for the dismissal. On an earlier redactional level, Judg 2:6 also formed a coherent continuation of Josh 11:23, since Judg 2:6 implies that Israel is assembled with Joshua for the distribution of the land in Josh 11:23. However, the location of the Israelites cannot be inferred from Josh 11:23 alone. Thus, the assembly in Josh 24:1 does not create any tensions or redundancies. 67 Cf. the detailed enumeration of the groups in attendance in Josh 24:1. 68 Cf. SCHMID, Erzväter, 209ff. 69 The assumption of two separate and independent narrative strands leads to a sourcecritical explanation of the doublet in Josh 24:28–29 and Judg 2:6, 8. The original ending of the Hexateuch – the dismissal of the people and the death of Joshua – would have been preserved in both compositions (see below). Furthermore, Judg 2:6, 8 was already identified as an element of the composition in Josh 11:23b; 24:1–27; Judg 2:6–16:31. In this case, Josh 24:28–29 would remain as part of the alternative composition in Josh 13ff.; 23; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21. The following examination will show that some of the Fortschreibungen in Josh 24:30–33 perfectly fit this ascription.

272

Sarah Schulz

insertion of Josh 14:1–19:51.70 With Joshua’s burial, the conquest of the land comes to an end (at least for the time being). Josh 14:1–19:51 are obviously in close contact with Judg 17–21.71 The priestly shape and the division of Israel into tribes closely connect Josh 14:1–19:51 with Judg 20.72 Probably, Josh 14:1–19:51 and Judg 20 were written in the same period.73 But later redactional stages in Judg 1 and Judg 18 refer to material from Josh 14:1– 19:51 as well.74 On the other hand, Josh 14:1–19:51 do not seem to be familiar with the incomplete conquest of the land in Judg 1 and therefore can be considered as the older tradition. Judges 1 also shows numerous similarities with Judg 17–21.75 As (especially) in Judg 19, the perspective in Judg 1 is pro-Judahite; the tribe of Dan, on the contrary, is discredited by its absolute failure to conquer its territory (cf. Judg 18). The final position of Dan in the enumeration of the tribes and the concept of the leaderless conquest create a direct link to Judg 17–18. Judges 1 thus fits perfectly with the stories of decay in Judg 17–21: Not only the Danite attempt but the conquest of all Israel was largely unsuccessful. While Judg 1 focuses on the inability of Israel to conquer the land without a legitimate leader, the behavior of Israel is not criticized yet. As outlined above, the basic layer of Josh 13 (13:1, 6b) and Josh 23 (23:2, 4a, 5b, 14) can be ascribed to the same hand as Judg 1. Joshua 13:1, 6b anticipate Israel’s failure to conquer the land in Judg 1. When Joshua has grown old (Josh 13:1), he gets the order at least (‫ )רק‬to allot the land before his death, whereas according to this redactor (who revokes the view of Josh 11:23a) the conquest is yet to come. After Joshua has carried out the task as reported in the older account Josh 14:1–19:51, he gathers the Israelites and instructs them to conquer the land (Josh 23:2, 4a, 5b). At the end he takes stock: During his lifetime everything was good (Josh 23:14). Originally this was followed by the notices of the people’s dismissal and the death of Joshua (Josh 24:28–29). 70

Thus, in the older transition from Josh 11:23a to 24:28–29, Joshua would not have been buried – a fate he shares with Aaron (Num 20:28) and Othniel (Judg 3:11). 71 However, the distribution of the land does not fit the savior narratives in the book of Judges either as it disturbs the connection between Josh 11:23b and Judg 2:6ff. described above. Besides, Josh 14:1–19:51 report some military conflicts which do not fit well with Josh 11:23b; Judg 2:6ff.: During Joshua’s lifetime the land has peace, which ends with Israel’s disobedience after his death. 72 The expression “we will go up against it by lot” in Judg 20:9 could also be inspired by the distribution of the land by lot according to Josh 14:1ff. Cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 70– 71; 234–235. 73 Cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 53ff.; 231ff. 74 Cf. for example the pro-Judahite correction of Josh 15:63 in Judg 1:21 or the close terminological connections between Josh 19:47 and Judg 18 (‫בני דן‬, ‫על״ה‬, ‫נכ״ה לפי חרב‬ and the renaming of the place with ‫ קר״א‬and ‫)שׁם דן אביהם‬. Cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 70–71; 234–235. 75 Cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 217ff.

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition between Josh and Judg

273

Joshua’s optimistic evaluation of the conquest of the land (23:5b) and the positive balance at the end of his life (23:14) highlight the subsequent failure of the Israelites in Judg 1. On the next redactional level, Judg 2:1–2, 4–5 interpret the failure as misbehavior: The Israelites did not listen to YHWH’s voice, making a covenant with the former inhabitants and not destroying their altars. The weeping and sacrificing of the Israelites in Bochim evoke the Bethel passages in Judg 20–21 and therefore possibly also point to a close connection with the final chapters of the book of Judges. In an even later redactional layer (Josh 13:6aβ; 23:5a, 6, 12–13), the incomplete conquest of the land is interpreted as divine punishment for Israel’s disobedience. YHWH will only continue to expel the foreign nations on behalf of Israel on the condition that Israel does not associate with them (23:5a, 6, 12). Joshua 23:13 names exile as the consequence in case Israel violates this commandment. As a result, two originally independent narrative strands can be assumed at the transition from the Hexateuch to the composition of Samuel-Kings:76 Josh 11:23b; 24:1–27; Judg 2:6–16:31 on the one hand and Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21 on the other. Both connect the Hexateuch with the composition of Samuel-Kings by taking up the conquest of the land77 and focusing on future events in the monarchic period.78 Excursus: The double death of Joshua The doublet of Josh 24:28–33 and Judg 2:6–10 is certainly one of the most critical problems concerning the literary transition from Joshua to Judges. Therefore, every analysis has to prove itself in the light of this controversial issue. If one assumes two literarily independent compositions at the transition from Joshua to Judges, the two passages can each be assigned to one of them as already suggested above.79 However, several difficulties still remain. First, it has to be explained why both passages were preserved in the process of compilation. Moreover, Josh 24:28–33 and Judg 2:6–10 each show certain

76

Cf. already EISSFELDT, Einleitung, 340, and RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, both with a divergent allocation of the texts in question: Josh 24; Judg 1:1–2:5 and Josh 23; Judg 2:6ff. 77 For Josh 11:23b; 24:1–27; Judg 2:6–16:31 cf. the concept of rest in Josh 11:23b in combination with the endangering of the land in Judg 6:1–6 and the restoration of the rest in Judg 8:28 and passim as well as the reference to Exod 3 in Judg 6:11–24 (see p. 268 above), and for Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21 cf. the continuation of the conquest of the land with a negative sign after Joshua’s death in Judg 1. 78 For Josh 11:23b; 24:1–27; Judg 2:6–16:31 cf. the criticism on the monarchy in Judg 8:22–23 as well as the reference to Saul/David in the Jephthah narrative (see pp. 270– 271 above), and for Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21 cf. the pro-Davidic and anti-Saulide (Judg 19–21) and anti-Danite (Judg 1; Judg 18) tendencies (see pp. 271–272 above). 79 See n. 67 above.

274

Sarah Schulz

peculiarities hinting at individual Fortschreibungen as well as striking parallels to each other. Both phenomena require an explanation. 1. The doublet The paradoxical doublet could easily have been avoided if one of the passages were deleted in the course of the compilation of the two accounts. That this did not happen might be due to the extended redactional work in the first chapters of the book of Judges, which stress the death of Joshua as a turning point in the history of Israel in both versions. Within Josh 11:23b; 24:1–27; Judg 2:6–16:31, the notices in Judg 2:7, 10 mark a shift in the history of Israel from the loyal worship of YHWH during the lifetime of Joshua and his generation to the time after their death, thus making Israel’s permanent violation of the first commandment in the following savior narratives possible. Since the decay of Israel, which structures the period of the saviors, is inseparably connected with it, the death of Joshua could not easily be eliminated. Within the alternative composition in Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1– 2:5; 17–21, the conquest of the land without a leader in Judg 1 presupposes the death of the former leader as outlined above.80 Thus, Josh 24:28 is essential before Judg 1 and could not have been removed either. 2. The redaction history of Josh 24:28–33 and Judg 2:6–10 Both Josh 24:28–33 and Judg 2:6–10 underwent later expansions, some of which have already been treated in the analyses above. Within Josh 11:23b; 24:1–27; Judg 2:6–16:31, the notices in Judg 2:7, 1081 frame the older notice of Joshua’s death, create a historical shift through the death of the whole generation of eyewitnesses and thereby allow the continuation by the savior narratives, in which Israel repeatedly violates the first commandment.82 Once again, the matter is more complicated with the alternative composition in Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21. The burial of Joshua in Josh 24:30 refers to the distribution of the land by lot in Josh 14:1–19:51, which ends with the allocation of Timnath-Serah as an inheritance for Joshua.83 Yet Josh 24:28–33 show a number of further additions that cannot easily be integrated into the redaction history of Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1– 2:5; 17–21. The death and burial of Eleazar in Josh 24:33 draw on the burial of Joshua and presuppose the distribution of an inheritance to Eleazar reported in Josh 21:13ff. If the distribution of the land by lot originally ended in 80

See n. 14 above. A literary break between v. 10a and v. 10b has been considered here; see n. 49 above. 82 See pp. 267ff. above. 83 See p. 271 above. 81

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition between Josh and Judg

275

Josh 19:51, as assumed above,84 Josh 24:33 must be later than Josh 24:30. In any case, Josh 24:33 is later than Josh 24:32, since the burial of Joseph’s remains would have originally functioned as the conclusion of the passage. Joshua 24:32 is also difficult to situate within the redaction history of the passage. The perspective is hexateuchal, pointing back to Joseph’s request for the transferral of his bones in Gen 50:25 and Ex 13:19, both of which are probably redactional.85 This request only makes sense if it is fulfilled; therefore, all three verses can be ascribed to the same redactor. The additions might have the intention to better integrate Genesis into the hexateuchal narrative. The burial of Joseph’s bones in Josh 24:32 thus closes the narrative beginning with Genesis. In terms of its content, this ending of the Hexateuch fits well with the basic layer of Josh 24:1–27. If Josh 24:32 were ascribed to the same redactor, its origin would lie outside of Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21, and the redactor would have thus presupposed the compilation of the two compositions.86 But it is also possible that Josh 24:32 was inserted before the two compositions were compiled and has its original place within Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21. Already the old narrative Judg 19 shows references to Genesis by paralleling the outrage at Gibeah with the events in Gen 18–19.87 Furthermore, during the redaction history of Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21 a division of the history according to the death of Joshua becomes evident,88 such that a conclusion of the Hexateuch like Josh 24:32 could have been added at almost any stage of redaction. The fact that the later insertion of Josh 24:33 is closely connected to the final chapters of the book of Judges (cf. the setting in the hill country of Ephraim in Judg 17:1 and 19:189 as well as the reference to Phinehas in Judg 20:28a) could indicate that Josh 24:32 also originated within Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21. 3. The parallels between Josh 24:28–33 and Judg 2:6–10 Besides the notices of the people’s dismissal and the death of Joshua that might originally have concluded the Hexateuch and, for the reasons stated above, have been preserved in both compositions, there are two verses, 84

See p. 264 above. Cf. BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 202. 86 On the process of compilation see below. In this case, Josh 24:33 (and possibly Josh 21*) could also be late additions (after the compilation of the compositions). 87 Cf. EDENBURG, Outrage, 230; STIPP, ‘Beobachtungen’, 230–231; SCHULZ, Anhänge, 37ff. 88 Cf. for example the failure of Israel after the death of Joshua in Judg 1:1 and the positive state of affairs at the end of his life in Josh 23:14. 89 If Josh 24:33 is regarded as relatively old, it could have once been followed by Judg 19:1 or Judg 17:1. Cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 237–238, 242–243. 85

276

Sarah Schulz

Josh 24:30 (= Judg 2:9) and Judg 2:7 (= Josh 24:31), which can easily be situated within the redaction history of one of the two alternative compositions but nevertheless occur in both compositions in the present form of the text. The doublets could be redactional coordinations that were added when the two compositions were combined.90 Together with Judg 2:10, Judg 2:7 frames the death of Joshua in Judg 2:8. This framing creates a reasonable sequence of the stated events. Verse 7 reports the situation during Joshua’s lifetime, followed by Joshua’s death in v. 8 and the deaths of the elders of his generation (v. 10). As in this sequence, the death of the generation becomes a turning point, and the continuation with episodes marked by Israel’s disobedience such as the savior narratives is consistent with this. However, in Josh 24:31 the notice does not fit in the context in the same way. Neither in the original context of Josh 13ff.; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21 nor after the compilation of the two compositions is Josh 24:31 followed by a time when Israel turns away from YHWH.91 In Judg 1, Israel is unsuccessful, but this is not attributed to its disobedience against YHWH. The reversed order of the reported events compared with Judg 2:7ff. also suggests that this might not be the original position of the notice. The sequence “obedience during Joshua’s lifetime – death” (Judg 2:7– 8) expresses a change of conditions after Joshua’s death. In contrast, the reverse order “death – obedience during Joshua’s lifetime” (Josh 24:29, 31) can be understood as a summary.92 The shift in Josh 24:31 compared to Judg 2:7 can best be explained as a reaction to the fact that the subsequent texts do not report any decline. It is unlikely that the notice originally functioned as a summary, since the reference to the elders points beyond itself and is not fitting for a concluding notice.93

90 The coordination is limited to those verses that could have been integrated into the alternative composition without difficulties. The burial of Joseph’s bones in Josh 24:32 concludes the Hexateuch and thus could not be transferred to Judg 2, and the death of Eleazar could not have been integrated in a reasonable way into Judg 2, since the death (and burial) of Joshua was already framed by the worship of YHWH and Israel’s decline. Judges 2:10, however, could not have been reinterpreted in the sense of a concluding note like Judg 2:7 (see below) but already needed a direct continuation explaining the consequences of the ignorance of YHWH. Accordingly, this note is missing in Josh 24. 91 The selected disobedience according to Judg 2:1–5 cannot be taken into account, particularly since Israel ultimately mourns and sacrifices before YHWH. 92 Cf. BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 207; GROß, Richter, 91ff.; FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 37. Contrary to these positions, this article assumes that Judg 1 and 17–21 were not written to create a literarily independent book of Judges but were arranged in this order at a later stage of redaction. 93 The phraseology hints at a late origin of Josh 24:31 as well. The wording “to know the whole work of YHWH” differs from Judg 2:7 and instead evokes Judg 2:10b. Therefore, the redactor might have combined Judg 2:7 and 2:10b. If a literary-critical break

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition between Josh and Judg

277

Regarding Josh 24:30 (= Judg 2:9), the opposite might be the case. The burial of Joshua in his inheritance presupposes the distribution of the land by lot in Josh 14:1–19:51, which, according to the proposed solution, the savior narratives were not familiar with before the compilation of the compositions. Therefore, this notice fits better with Josh 24:3094 and might have been inserted into the alternative account as Judg 2:9.

D. The Compilation of the Compositions The way the two compositions were interwoven implies that the compiler sought to separate Joshua and Judges as distinct books. The framing of the savior narratives with Judg 1 and Judg 17–21 creates a book of Judges.95 Despite its great diversity, it shapes a discrete period in the history of Israel between the death of Joshua and the time of the monarchy by its framing with conquest issues, its focus on the (basically) leaderless actions of Israel and its generally negative evaluation of Israel's behavior.96 As a conclusion to the Hexateuch, Josh 24 corresponds to this literarily self-contained book of Judges. In the process of compilation, Josh 24:1–27 were placed before the burial of Joseph’s bones in Josh 24:32.97 The closing of Josh 24 as a “Hexateuch in kleinster Form” (von Rad) with the burial of Joseph’s bones clearly marks the climax of the Heilsgeschichte (Genesis–Joshua) at the end of the book of Joshua and thus intensifies the caesura between Joshua and Judges. Even the inevitable doublet of the death of Joshua could be successfully used in the editorial separation of the books. By creating this literary tension at the transition from Joshua to Judges and thus hindering a continuous reading, both

between Judg 2:10a and 2:10b is justified, this would also prove a later origin of Josh 24:31 compared to Judg 2:7. 94 Another indication for the originality of Josh 24:30 may be seen in the uncommon relative particle in connection with the location which is missing in Judg 2:9; cf. FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 41; pace RAKE, Juda, 126. The name of the burial place in Judg 2:9 differs from Josh 19:50; 24:30 and might result from an inadvertent metathesis of the consonants. For alternative explanations of this phenomenon cf. NOORT, ‘Josua 24,28–31’, 111ff. 95 Cf. BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 207. 96 A similar effort is visible in a few balancing redactions within the book of Judges that seek to coordinate the two compositions. At the backmost literary seam, this concerns the coordination of the 1100 silver coins (Judg 16:5; 17:2) and the insertion of Zorah and Eshtaol in Judg 18 (cf. Judg 13:25); cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 165ff., 229. At the front seam, the episode of Othniel in Judg 3:7–12a might be the result of redactional coordination; cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 229–230. 97 Alternatively, Josh 24:32 could have been added together with Josh 24:1–27. Cf. p. 275 above.

278

Sarah Schulz

works attain a certain independence.98 The coordination with the alternative composition (Josh 24:31; Judg 2:9) intensifies this effect. The strict separation cannot be traced back to material circumstances but rather to the editorial intent to stress the turning point from Heilsgeschichte to Unheilsgeschichte in the Enneateuch. Early redactors of both compositions (Josh 11:23b; Judg 2:6ff.* on the one hand and Josh 13:1, 6b; 23:2, 4a, 5b, 14; Judg 1; 17–21* on the other) sought to create a connection between the Hexateuch and Samuel-Kings while at the same time setting up a dichotomy between them by interpreting the death of Joshua as a turning point in history. 99 Some later redactional stages in the newly formed Enneateuch, still prior to the compilation of the two textual bridges, focus on the caesura at the transition from Joshua to Judges (Josh 24:1–27* on the one hand; Judg 2:1–2, 4–5 and Josh 13:6aβ; 23:5a, 6, 12–13 on the other hand). The compilation of the compositions continues this tendency, but more strongly focuses on the literary separation of Genesis–Joshua and Judges–Kings. However, this voice did not have the last word: Besides the hexateuchal perspective, some of the latest insertions at the end of Joshua once again emphasize the enneateuchal perspective.

E. The Latest Additions at the End of the Book of Joshua Two late additions in the latter parts of the book of Joshua have not yet been discussed regarding their compositional place and function at the transition from Joshua to Judges: Josh 23:7–11, 15–16; Judg 2:3(?) and Josh 24:19–21. Both deal with the question of the relationship between YHWH and Israel and discuss this topic on the basis of Israel’s behavior towards foreign gods. Besides this, Josh 21:43–45, which is problematic in many respects, must be taken into account. The additions in Josh 23 and 24 unexpectedly focus on the first commandment. In Josh 23 this is particularly remarkable, since a violation of the first commandment has not yet been reported in Josh 23 or any of its reference texts.100 However, in Josh 24, Israel’s predicted violation of the first 98

Cf. FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 41. According to Judg 1, the failure of Israel begins with the death of Joshua; in Judg 17– 21 it continues and thus prepares the reader for the following time of the monarchy. According to Judg 2:6–10, with the death of Joshua the glorious time of the conquest ends and a new era begins in which the people no longer follow YHWH’s will. This allows the insertion of an intermediate phase between the conquest and the monarchic period in which Israel already sins but is repeatedly saved by YHWH. 100 Some older materials in Josh 23 and Judg 2:1–5, namely Josh 23:5a, 6, 12–13 and Judg 2:1–2, 4–5, dealt with intermarriage and the covenant with the nations, but they did not explicitly mention the worship of foreign gods. 99

II. 2.2. The Literary Transition between Josh and Judg

279

commandment does not fit the basic layer of this chapter, in which the election of YHWH as God by Israel serves as a finale of the Heilsgeschichte. There is no reason why the two inserted passages should not be ascribed to the same hand. The addition, however, then presupposes the compilation of the compositions and aims to coordinate them. Joshua 23:7–11, 15–16; Judg 2:3(?) associate the former inhabitants of the land – who play a central role in Josh 13ff.; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21 – with the violation of the first commandment, the main sin of Israel according to Josh 11:23b; 24:1–27; Judg 2:6–16:31.101 The anticipation of the violation of the first commandment in Josh 24:19–21 imitates the impending punishment announced already in the alternative composition in Josh 13:6aβ; 23:5a, 6, 12–13. At the same time, the addition of Josh 23:7–11, 15–16; 24:19–21; Judg 2:3(?) widens the focus from the hexateuchal perspective, which was (next to an enneateuchal perspective) already found in each of the two compositions and was strengthened by their compilation, to an enneateuchal perspective once again.102 The outlook on the violation of the first commandment in Josh 24 does not suit the ending of the Hexateuch outlined above. The Unheilsgeschichte now casts its shadow already at the end of the Heilsgeschichte and thus transforms its glorious finale into an undefined grey area. Perhaps the difficult text of Josh 21:43–45 can also be located in the same literary context.103 Josh 21:43–45 contradict most other texts at the transition from Joshua to Judges discussed so far. The statement of the successful completion of the conquest is inappropriate before Josh 23 and Judg 1. Israel’s rest from its enemies in Josh 21:44 evokes Josh 11:23b but also displays terminological parallels with Deut 12:9–10; Josh 23:1; 2 Sam 7:1, 11 and 1 Kgs 8:56.104 With the latest additions in Josh 23:7–11, 15–16; Judg 2:3(?) and Josh 24:19–21 in mind, which widen the limit of the Hexateuch in favor of an enneateuchal perspective, Josh 21:43–45 can be seen as an attempt to bring forward the closure of the Hexateuch. This would emphasize the twofold structure of Israel’s history while retaining the enneateuchal perspective at the end of Joshua. Thus, Josh 21:43–45 subtly fit in the narrative arc between Deut 12:9–10 and 1 Kgs 8:56. The completion of the conquest according to Josh 21:43–45 is to be interpreted as the first milestone in the Heilsgeschichte

101 Perhaps Josh 23:3 can be ascribed to the same hand as Josh 23:7–11, 15–16; Judg 2:3(?), since the notion that YHWH fights on behalf of Israel also occurs in Josh 23:10. 102 Cf. RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 547. 103 In contrast to a majority of exegetes, Josh 21:43–45 would then be considered as a late text. 104 Cf. GROß, Richterbuch, 184–185.

280

Sarah Schulz

of Israel. The first part of the promise to the fathers in Deut 12:9–10 has been fulfilled: The land rests in peace, but the temple is yet to be built.105 Finally, since Josh 21:44 bears the closest parallel to the phrase “rest from all their enemies around” in Josh 23:1a,106 both verses can be ascribed to the same hand.107 Joshua 23:1a refers to the situation in Josh 21:44 and inserts a large time span following the end of the conquest in Josh 21:43–45, indicating that peace lasted for some time108 before the decay of Israel began. In principle, it is conceivable that all three of these late insertions (Josh 23:7–11, 15–16; Judg 2:3(?), Josh 24:19–21 and Josh 21:43–45; 23:1a) go back to the same redactor. By preponing the successful completion of the conquest, it was possible to focus on the connection with the following Unheilsgeschichte at the end of the Hexateuch while maintaining the existing twofold division of history.

105

This intermediate stage was probably inserted into the earlier thematic arc between Deut 12:9 and 1 Kgs 8:56. While Josh 21:43–45 regard the rest from the surrounding enemies as fulfilled with the conquest of the land, it is questionable if this was assumed in Deut 12:9 from the outset. 106 In light of the above results, the literary coherence of Josh 23:1 is debatable. If Josh 13:1, 6b and the basic layer of Josh 23 were created as a frame for Josh 14:1–19:51, as argued above, the doublet of Josh 13:1a and Josh 23:1b can be explained as a (redactional) Wiederaufnahme; cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 200 (in reverse order). After the detailed report of the distribution of the land in Josh 14:1–19:51, Josh 23:1b points back to the situation in Josh 13:1a. Besides, in both passages the advanced age of Joshua is mentioned first and later explained in direct speech by YHWH or Joshua himself. This might go back either to the redactor of Josh 13:1, 6b + Josh 23* or to a later hand. In any case, a literary-critical break between Josh 23:1a und 23:1b seems to be justified. 107 The fact that Josh 23:1a, like Josh 21:44, speaks of “enemies” while the rest of the chapter uses the term “nations” points in the same direction. 108 In any case, the insertion of Josh 21:43–45 would have produced some problems that could no longer be adjusted in the following redactional process. Regardless of their diachronic ordering, the sequence of Josh 13:1; Josh 21:43–45 and Josh 23:1 raises the problem that Joshua must have been old for a long time. In addition, from the perspective of Josh 21:43–45, the existence of foreign nations in Josh 23 remains unexplained. On the previous redactional level this is explained by Josh 13:1, 6b.

On Untying Tangles and Tying Knots in Joshua 23–Judges 3:6 A Response to Erhard Blum, Reinhard G. Kratz and Sarah Schulz Christian Frevel Responding to three excellent papers that deal with one of the most often “solved” narrative conundrums does not make one happy at the end of the day. Although they all aim at unraveling the obvious narrative, conceptual and literary problems of the textual sequence in Josh 23–Judg 3:6, the three papers of Erhard Blum, Reinhard G. Kratz and Sarah Schulz could not be more diverse. The common ground is the acknowledgment of the crucial obstacles in the final chapters of Joshua and the first chapters of Judges that shape the book-seam on a synchronic level and at the same time call for a diachronic explanation: the various endings of the book of Joshua starting with Josh 11:23 and including the two farewell speeches of Joshua in Josh 23–24; the narratively “superfluous” repetition of Josh 24:28–31 with minor alterations in Judg 2:8–11, which becomes even more troubling by the stunning remark of Judg 1:1 between the repetitions; the repeated and disparate degrees of conclusion of the conquest in Josh 11:23; 21:43–45; 18:1 and 19:51 and the issue of the remaining unconquered land in Josh 23; Judg 1; 2:21–23 and 3:1–5; and finally the disruptive role of the scene in Bochim in Judg 2:1–5. Many minor frictions molding the transition zone, as well as a complex textual history, could be added. All this makes it one of the densest transitions between two books in the Hebrew Bible. The concept of a “bookseam” becomes blurred, since the issue also concerns the seam between literary works, which accentuates or dissolves the boundaries of the “books” concerned. In addition to the literary problems on the textual surface and within the textual history, larger compositional theories are also tested here: the question of a Hexateuch, the existence of a Deuteronomistic History and the lines which form an Enneateuch. Although all three papers share the challenge of diachrony and are aware that almost every possible explanation has been proposed so far in the history of research, they all present more or less new solutions. Chapeaux! Part of the problem, however, is that the three solutions differ greatly from each other. They are all highly sophisticated, so that it is

282

Christian Frevel

advisable to study them in their own characteristic style instead of reproducing their arguments in detail here.1 However, some remarks may ease the reading. To begin with, they all focus on different aspects of the problem: Reinhard G. Kratz takes the possible literary junctions of the various parts of the transition area Josh 23–Judg 2 as his starting point and argues (albeit in his view) in favor of a most logical chain of transmission. He roughly evaluates Josh 11:23 followed by the death and burial of Joshua in Judg 2:8–9 as the oldest transition between Joshua and Judges. The repetition of this passage was necessitated by the insertion of a reflection on religious behavior in Josh 24* and Judg 2:7, 10 in a first stage and the integration of Josh 23 and Judg 2:1–6 in a second stage. The resumption was intensified by the integration of Judg 1, requiring Josh 24:29–31 as a prolepsis of Judg 2:7–9. In this respect, Kratz focuses not so much on the composition and the synchronic understanding of the passage, but all the more on a redaction-critical model for the growth of the text. On the surface of his argument, he is not concerned with the specific context (Hexateuch, Deuteronomistic History or Enneateuch), although the result cannot easily be reconciled with other hypotheses than his own.2 Much more conceptual is the argument of Erhard Blum, who consciously expands upon, clarifies and corrects his original contributions on the “compositional knot” between Joshua and Judges.3 In his paper, he mainly focuses on two points: 1) the question of whether Judg 2:6–10 can be understood as a Wiederaufnahme and whether this can shed light on the literary history, and 2) the role of Judg 2:1–5 and its connection to the basic layer of Josh 23. His starting point is Noth’s demonstration of an original transition between Joshua and Judges which was part of an Deuteronomistic History, but he goes beyond Noth in attributing the theme of the remaining peoples in the land after Joshua as a secondary layer in Josh 23. However, in remarkable contrast to Kratz, he considers the basic layer of Josh 23* together with Judg 2:6–10 as the starting point of the transition and as part of an exilic concept of a Deuteronomistic History. This was amended by the conception of the remaining people in Josh 23* as well as by Judg 2:20–21, 23; 3:1aα, 3. The mal’ak episode Judg 2:1–5 relates directly to the concept in Josh 23 on the next level of textual growth. Through the addition of Josh 24 as a unifying hexateuchal perspective, the former sequence in Judges was temporarily uncoupled, so that Judg 1 was included as the opening of a now separate book of Judges.

1

For my own position, which is not presented here in detail, see FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’; ‘Josua-Palimpsest’. 2 See KRATZ, Composition, 197–200. 3 See BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 181–212; IDEM, Textgestalt.

IDEM,

II. 2.2. Response to E. Blum, R. G. Kratz and S. Schulz

283

While Blum and Kratz follow a supplementary and redactional approach, Sarah Schulz favors a combination of a source critical model with redaction criticism. Her approach has a broader interest in finding links between the book of Joshua and the Enneateuch, particularly to solve the riddle of the transition in Josh 23–Judg 3:6. Schulz argues in favor of two originally independent bridges between the Hexateuch and an original Samuel-Kings composition: Josh 13–21; 23; 24:28–33; Judg 1:1–2:5; 17–21 on the one hand, and Josh 11:23b; 24:1–27; Judg 2:6–16:31 on the other. The presupposition of this hypothesis is that there were parallel editions of the enneateuchal context, a suggestion which can hardly be substantiated by the available external evidence4 or by the internal literary evidence. The suggestion has its background in Schulz’ dissertation on Judg 17–21 and the argument that these stories are an unlikely continuation of the original savior narratives.5 With the paper on Joshua this new and extraordinary hypothesis is now extended to the whole transition area from Josh 11–1 Sam. However, Schulz is aware that her solution of two parallel versions does not explain the doublet in the current text. Following Schulz, the repetition of Judg 2:6–10 is due to “the extended redactional work in the first chapters of Judges, which stress the death of Joshua as a turning point in the history of Israel in both versions.”6 In the one version, Judg 2:7, 10 mark a historical turning point related to the lifetime of Joshua, and in the other version Josh 24:28 is said to be essential before Judg 1:1. While Josh 24:30 was redactionally transferred to Judg 2:9, Judg 2:7 was vice versa copied in Josh 24:31. Why this alignment took place and why in contrast the heavy tension between Judg 1:1 and Judg 2:8 was not balanced in the newly created book of Judges, is given just as little explanation as the redactors’ logic to combine the two versions in Josh 11:23. Schulz’ approach is a new and thought-provoking one when compared to the current discussion on Judges and Joshua, and it would deserve a more detailed discussion. It is based on general observations on the distinct role of Judg 17–21, which again demonstrates that “solutions” to the conundrum of the book-seam between Joshua and Judges are never free from general models on the literary history of the Enneateuch. This makes the evaluation of the current suggestions much more difficult. In sum: All three papers make considerable progress, but in very different respects. Although all three share various observations on textual problems, their arguments are almost incommensurable, and all lead to different conclusions.

4

See part II, section 1 of this volume. See SCHULZ, Anhänge, and EADEM, p. 268–270 above. 6 SCHULZ, p. 274 above. 5

284

Christian Frevel

A. The Analysis of Josh 23 The difference between the three approaches cannot be more obvious than in the literary analysis of Josh 23. While Kratz sees the chapter (notwithstanding the possible original introduction of the basic layer in Josh 24 in Josh 23:1– 3*) as a literary unity, Blum and Schulz argue for at least two stages of growth, the basic layer of which for Schulz comprises vv. 2, 4a, 5b, 14 and, in absolute contrast to this, for Blum consists of vv. 1–3, 6, 11, 14–16a. Schulz sees a first reworking of the chapter in vv. 5a, 6, 12–13 and a second reworking focused on the first commandment in vv. 3, 7–11, 15–16. Here, the methodological underpinnings lead to different positions, which should be discussed in close proximity of the textual level. Irrespective of the question of the alleged connection to Josh 11:23a; 13:1, 6b; 14:1–19:51*, I cannot follow the suggestion that within the farewell speech of Joshua the basic layer only comprises this thin narrative thread: Israel is only summoned to conquer (v. 5b) the remaining peoples (‫הגוים הנשׁארים‬, v. 4a), and this basic layer should have been linked originally to the detailed chapter Judg 1 with Josh 24:28–29 as a bridge. Are there any reasons to make a hard break between v. 14b and vv. 15–16a? In the same way, I would be reluctant to separate Josh 23:1 and 3 from a basic form of Josh 23:2, although Schulz is right in relating Josh 23:1 to Josh 21:43–45. However, in taking up Josh 11:23, Josh 21:43–45 is not the latest part of the transition zone, as is argued by Schulz. In a footnote, she sees the possibility of connecting Josh 13:1a; 23:1b and 23:3 and attributing these verses to the same layer, but she retains her redactional separation of Josh 23:1a. In my view, there is no hard rupture in vv. 4–13, not even in the deuteronomistic diction of v. 11.7 Verse 14a may be a non-verbatim, redactional Wiederaufnahme of vv. 1–3*, and if this is correct, vv. 4–14a as a whole may be part of the secondary layer. Hence, with Reinhard Müller and Uwe Becker,8 I see no reason to separate the reference to the first commandment in vv. 7–11 from the surrounding context, although in principle it remains possible to cut off v. 11 and to attribute it to the basic layer. For me, it thus makes sense to see the basic layer in vv. 1, 2*, 3, [9, 11,] 14b–16a. Although Josh 13–21 were integrated later, Josh 13:1 relates to Josh 23*, which establishes a strong link to the book of Deuteronomy in a hexateuchal perspective. Neither the basic layer of Josh 23* nor that of Josh 24* is strongly linked conceptually or linguistically to the material presented in Judg 1–3; thus, it is plausible to see the deuteronomistic scheme in 7 For the analysis and my understanding of Josh 23 see FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 59–66. 8 MÜLLER, Königtum, 233; BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 150; for discussion of Josh 23 see also RÖMER, ‘Book-Endings’.

II. 2.2. Response to E. Blum, R. G. Kratz and S. Schulz

285

Judg 2 as a secondary stage. Following Walter Groß, the first deuteronomistic layer in Judg 2:11–12*, 14–16, 18–19*; 3:79 was created to link the DeutJosh hexateuchal narrative of Joshua, which included the earlier conquest narrative, Josh 11:23b; 23:1, 2*, 3, 14b–16a, the older parts of Josh 24:1–17* and the notice of the death of Joshua in Josh 24:28, 29–31 with the earlier composition of Samuel-Kings by integrating the older savior narratives.

B. The Role of Judg 2:1–5 and the Question of Exogamy in Josh 23 While for Blum Judg 2:1–5 are a unity, Schulz questions the originality of v. 3 because of the “unnecessary introduction of speech”. Whereas v. 2 introduces a divine quote in the messenger’s speech, v. 3 adds ‫וגם אמרתי‬, which is indeed striking.10 However, the content of v. 3 alludes to ‫ מוקשׁ‬in Exod 23:33 and the forbidden covenantal relations in Exod 34:12; Deut 7:16 and finally Josh 23:13. Without v. 3, the people’s reaction in v. 4b cannot be understood. The topic of the nations that were not expelled fits very well with the context. This is quite compelling within the text’s broader line of argumentation, even if v. 2 refers to Josh 9, as Blum has convincingly argued. Thus, the second quotation may indeed be read as performative speech, which is perhaps the reason for the emphatic ‫( וגם‬which is thus not an indication of a secondary insertion!).11 If anything, it is the angel’s first statement that may be suspicious. The idea that the covenant will never be broken by God goes far beyond the topic of forbidden mixing in vv. 2–3 and the connection to Josh 9. In light of such a promise by God, there is no need for crying (vv. 4b, 5). Walter Groß sees a quite deliberate tension in the text: Die Weigerung JHWHs, die Einwohner des Landes vor den Israeliten zu vertreiben 3b, tritt in Spannung zu seiner Versicherung, er werde niemals seinen Bund, der seine Selbstverpflichtung, sie zu vertreiben, beinhaltet, brechen 1f. Diese Spannung teilt Ri 2,1–3 mit Jos 23: JHWH wird die übrig gebliebenen Völker vor Israel vernichten 23,5 – JHWH wird sie im Fall des Konnubiums nicht weiterhin vernichten Jos 23,12–13. Diese Spannung ist somit beabsichtigt.12

It is true that there is an insurmountable tension in Josh 23 (which led to the suggestion of redactional reworking above), but in my view the case in Judg 2:1 is different, since the promise is much more far-reaching and solemn: 9

See GROß, Richter, 185–189. On the history of research and a proposed literary development of the passage in three stages (I: vv. 1a*bα, 2a, II: vv. 1bβ, 2b, 4b; III. vv. 3, 4a, 5) see RAKE, Juda, 102– 124 (with the chart on p. 157). 11 See GROß, Richter, 159, followed by Erhard Blum. 12 GROß, Richter, 177. 10

286

Christian Frevel

“I will never break my covenant with you.” This can be read as a lens on the whole book of Judges with all of its cyclical ups and downs: God will never let Israel fall down, irrespective of the breach of the covenant from their side. Another crucial issue is the rhetorical aim of the ‫ מלאך‬passage in Judg 2:1–5 and the question of forbidden alliances with the foreign nations in this text and in Josh 23. Erhard Blum takes the location of the scene in Bochim, or more precisely the move of the angel from Gilgal to Bochim (v. 1), as an indication that Josh 24:1, which is located in Shechem, was not yet present. Thus, he argues that there is a close and almost natural relationship between Judg 2:1–5 and Josh 23. Without the connection to Josh 23, Judg 2 lacks the assembly which is presupposed in Judg 2:4. At first glance this is compelling.13 It implicitly presumes that the assembly in Josh 23:1 takes place in Gilgal, which is not stated in the text but can be assumed in light of Josh 4:19–20; 5:10; 9:6; 10:43. Thus, it seems quite obvious that the passage in Judg 2:3 refers back to Josh 23:13. Yet how strong is the assembly and localization argument actually? If Josh 23 and Judg 2:1–5 are not on the same literary level, it is also possible that the insertion of Judg 2:1–5 links the angel to Gilgal because the assembly in Josh 24 was already dissolved. Also Judg 1:1 presupposes a combined acting of “Israel” without mentioning a deliberate assembly. So, yes, it is an argument, but no, it is not decisive for the date of Josh 24 as a whole. More problematic in this case is the view of Kratz, who regards Josh 23 and Judg 2:1–5 as part of the same compositional level. The topic underlying the covenant parenesis differs in both texts: In Josh 23 it is exogamy, while in Judg 2:1–5 it is the story of Josh 9. A second glance reveals the differences, which become apparent if one compares the implicit and explicit substantiations14 of Josh 23:7–8, 12–13 with Judg 2:1–5 and 3:5–6. In Judg 3:5–6, the justification for the prohibition of exogamous relations is that any covenant with foreigners leads Israel astray from YHWH. The repercussion of the breach of covenant is thus the violation of the first commandment. The same background can be seen in Josh 23:7 (‫)ובשׁם אלהיהם לא תזכירו‬ which has a link to the frame of the Covenant Code in Exod 23:13. In contrast to this, the prohibition against making a covenant with the inhabitants of the land in Judg 2:2 is absolute (‫ )לא תכרתו ברית ליושׁבי הארץ הזאת‬and is followed by the commandment to tear down their altars. This is an abbreviated allusion to Exod 34:13–16; Deut 12:2–3; 7:3–5 and Num 33:51–52. The wording ‫ כר״ת ברית‬may include exogamous relationships, but they are notably not mentioned explicitly. In Josh 23:7–8, 12–13, the link between the demand for exclusivity on the one hand and the warning against exogamous marriages on the other becomes apparent through the link to v. 11 and v. 7. 13 14

In addition to Blum, see also RAKE, Juda, 126. On this see FREVEL/CONCZOROWSKI, ‘Deepening the Water’.

II. 2.2. Response to E. Blum, R. G. Kratz and S. Schulz

287

Obviously, the argument forms a sophisticated ABAB-scheme. Judg 2:1–5 and the reworked level of Josh 23 do not belong to the same literary stratum (pace Kratz). That Judg 2:1–5 are related to the Gibeon story in Josh 9 seems obvious: “Der Autor von Ri 2,1–5 sieht im Verhalten der Israeliten in Jos 9 einen typischen Vorgang und stilisiert ihn hoch zum grundsätzlichen Vergehen gegen JHWHs Gebot.”15 Strikingly, the forbidden marital ties are not included, and the prohibition of exogamy v. 12 was not disregarded. Only the relationship to Josh 9 indicates that the commandment of YHWH was ignored. Within the overall argument of Josh 23–Judg 3:6, the passage in Judg 2:1– 5 plays a crucial but also a special role. Be that as it may, the breach of covenant mentioned in Judg 2:1–5 cannot follow the statement of observance in Josh 24:31. Indeed, this may be another point in favor of Blum’s assumption that Josh 24:31 postdates Judg 2:1–5. However, as many studies have pointed out, there is no easy explanation for the tension between Judg 2:6–7 and Judg 2:1–5, even if one sees in Judg 2:6–10 the oldest transition layer. The tension is not solved if Judg 2:1–5 is attributed to a redactional layer that serves to connect Josh 23* and Judg 2:1–5 (Blum). A possible explanation may be that the content of Judg 2:6–8 already existed and was copied for certain reasons to this position (see below). If this is accepted, the insertion of Judg 2:1–5 before Judg 2:11–3:6* requires an explanation. The insertion was not possible at any other place in the book of Judges but as an introductory passage and hermeneutical key to the book. Der kurze Text Ri 2,1–5 spielt für das Richterbuch in seiner Endgestalt eine wichtige Rolle, da er mit vielen Themensträngen innerhalb und außerhalb dieses Buches vernetzt ist und so ganz am Beginn wichtige Interpretationsanweisungen für das Buch als ganzes gibt.16

The passage introduces the basic conditions of the book of Judges: Fulfillment of God’s promise by relating the speech of the angel to Exod 23 and 32; and justification for the unconquered land by relating the passage to a covenant breach in Josh 9. Hence, to relate the passage compositionally to Josh 23 as Blum does is one, but not the only, possibility. If our suggestion about the compositional function of Judg 2:1–5 (simultaneously disjunctive and conjunctive) is correct, it becomes clear why Judg 2:6–10 had to repeat the death of Joshua, which accentuated the epochal transition from the era of Joshua to the time of the saviors. In sum: Judg 2:1– 5 is a late compositional and theological hinge that contributes to the separation of the book of Judges as a discrete unit.

15 16

GROß, Richter, 176. GROß, Richter, 159.

288

Christian Frevel

C. Twice Dead: The Repetition of Judg 2:6–10 The question of a separate book of Judges leads to the most puzzling question of the repetition of Josh 24:28–31 in Judg 2:6–10. This is a crucial issue dealt with in all studies for centuries.17 However, great differences exist in regard to the methodological implications of a comparison of both passages. Schulz favors a combination of a source-critical explanation in Josh 24:28–29 || Judg 2:6, 8 and mutual influences in the other verses. She attributes the Judges version to the composition Josh 11:23b; 24:1–27; Judg 2:6–16:31, since Judg 2:7, 9 have links to the savior narratives and are thus echoed in Josh 24. In her argument, Schulz emphasizes the function of the two passages within their present context to explain why the doublet was not deleted. Kratz, in contrast, sees merits in the in-depth textual comparison between the doublets and also takes the complex textual transmission into account, but for him the priority of Judg 2:6–10 is indicated by the order of the text. However, this order may be due to the redactional process and not original. Blum is critical of an in-depth comparison,18 since the potential fallacies are too serious. In his view, all differences are due to the different positions of the doublets and their compositional function as a closure or an opening. Although one has to admit possible fallacies and although each passage has a distinct compositional function, even the minor differences between the two versions cannot be neglected methodologically. To attribute them only to arbitrary stylistic variance is much too simple. This holds particularly true because the other arguments are often dependent on larger models and cannot decide the issue. Yes, it is true that some of the differences point to the priority of Judg 2 and others to Josh 24. But this does not make the comparison a futile exercise. In my view, it is the tendency of the sum of observations, which has to be taken seriously into account. I will not go into too much detail here, but point to few crucial aspects: a) The comparison of Josh 24:31 and Judg 2:7 reveals four significant differences: 1) the variation of the subject ‫ ישׂראל‬vs. ‫העם‬, 2) the syndesis vs. asyndesis of the second relative clause, 3) the variation of ‫ רא״ה‬vs. ‫( יד״ע‬vice versa in LXX) and 4) the additional ‫הגדול‬. To bring these differences to an argument, one has to compare both verses with Deut 11:7:

17

While for instance Rudolf Smend, Hartmut Rösel and Ernst Axel Knauf favor the priority of Josh 24:28–31, Martin Noth, Detlef Jericke, Thomas Römer and Walter Groß take the other direction. See FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 37–40. 18 See BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 184; see also RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 534; IDEM, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 118; IDEM, ‘Book-Endings’, 94–95.

289

II. 2.2. Response to E. Blum, R. G. Kratz and S. Schulz Josh 24:31 ‫ויעבד ישׂראל את יהוה‬ ‫כל ימי יהושׁע וכל ימי הזקנים‬ ‫אשׁר האריכו ימים אחרי‬ ‫יהושׁע‬ ‫ואשׁר ידעו‬ ‫את כל מעשׂה יהוה‬ ‫אשׁר עשׂה לישׂראל׃‬

Deut 11:7

‫כי עיניכם הראת‬ ‫את כל מעשׂה יהוה‬ ‫הגדל אשׁר עשׂה‬

Judg 2:7 ‫ויעבדו העם את יהוה‬ ‫כל ימי יהושׁע וכל ימי הזקנים‬ ‫אשׁר האריכו ימים אחרי‬ ‫יהושׁוע‬ ‫אשׁר ראו‬ ‫את כל מעשׂה יהוה הגדול‬ ‫אשׁר עשׂה לישׂראל׃‬

Judg 2:7 is obviously closer to Deut 11:7 than Josh 24:31 is to Deut 11:7. Usually Josh 24 is said to have stronger links into the Pentateuch than Judg 2. Is it thus compelling to assume that the links were reduced in Josh 24:31 instead of increased in Judg 2:7? It is much more likely that Judg 2:7 was adjusted in the process. In addition, the generational scheme fits much better in Joshua 24, which may also give evidence of the original context of this verse. The use of ‫ רא״ה‬in Judg 2:7 is taken as an argument for the original connection between Josh 23:3. This argument, however, is blurred by the LXX, which has ὅσοι ἔγνωσαν in Judg 2:7 and ὅσοι εἴδοσαν in Josh 24:31 (Josh 24:29 LXX). Yet even if one assumes that ‫ רא״ה‬is original in Judg 2:7, the reason for this seems to be the relationship to Deut 11:7 (see above). It is striking that all other comparable instances introduced by ‫ אשׁר ראה‬combine ‫ רא״ה‬with ‫( עינים‬even Deut 11:7). The wording of Judg 2:7 is slightly altered due to alignment rather than being original. b) The reference to the ‫ זקנים‬in Judg 2:7 is odd, since the elders do not play any role in the book of Judges or in Josh 23. Mentioning the elders makes sense with regard to ‫ זקני ישׂראל‬in Josh 24:1. If Judg 2:6 originally connected to Josh 23, the use of ‫( עם‬which differs from Josh 24:31) would be quite strange, since ‫ עם‬does not appear at all in Josh 23. In contrast, ‫ עם‬is used in Josh 24:2, 16, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, 27. One may downplay this difference, but in my view it makes more sense that ‫ עם‬was used in Judg 2 in light of the use of ‫ עם‬in Josh 24. Again, one could argue that this alignment was made later. In any case, the connection of Judg 2:7 to Josh 23 is not so “evident” as is often argued. In contrast, nothing in Josh 24:29–31 stands against an original connection with Josh 24 in the present context. c) Compared to Judg 2:6, the phrase ‫ לרשׁת את הארץ‬is missing in Josh 24:28, which is difficult to explain. If Judg 2:6 was the original continuation of Josh 11:23, as is often assumed, this phrase produces a tension. Only a connection to Josh 23:5 makes sense, but Josh 23 is not part of the earliest transition (see above). However, even if one assumes that Judg 2:6 was the original continuation of Josh 11:23, the phrase is odd here. There is no immediate conquest of the unconquered land after Judg 2:10 to match Josh 23:5, so “to conquer the land” is more or less a placeholder in the text. Only Judg 3:13 (Eglon conquers the ‫ ;)עיר התמרים‬Judg 11:21–22 (taking possession of all the territory of the Amorites) and Judg 18:9 speak of a future process of occupa-

290

Christian Frevel

tion. All of these cases are temporally far removed from the death of Joshua. In contrast, in Judg 1:1–31 ‫ יר״שׁ‬is used 12 times as a keyword (Judg 1:19bis, 20, 21, 27, 28bis, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33). Hence, the phrase in Judg 2:6 makes more sense if it is read as an analepsis. At least Judg 2:6 presupposes Judg 1:1–31. Of course, one can also interpret the phrase in Judg 2:6 as a later alignment, so this case is not decisive. However, if one argues that Judg 2:6 can only link to Josh 23:16 (which does not hold water in my view), one has to struggle with the aforementioned problem. Another obstacle in Judg 2:6 is that ‫ נחלה‬does not play any role in Judges (apart from the late additions in 18:1; 20:6; 21:23–24). Rather, it fits much better as a back-reference to Josh 11:23; 19:49 etc. and as a closure to the book of Joshua than into the reference system of Judges. d) Let me finally mention a quite sophisticated case, which is insignificant at first sight. It is the specification of the burial place of Joshua in the hill country of Ephraim. The place is named ‫ תמנת חרס‬in Judg 2:9 and ‫תמנת סרח‬ in Josh 24:30 (cf. Josh 19:50), but this is not decisive. The localization is introduced with a relative particle in Josh 24:30 (‫)אשׁר בהר אפרים‬, which is lacking in Judg 2:9. Strikingly, no other reference to the hills of Ephraim uses the relative particle (Josh 19:50; 20:7; 21:21; Judg 4:5; 10:1 and passim). Even the reconstructed LXX Vorlage does not have it;19 thus, it may be asked when it came into the text of Josh 24:30. It is indeed difficult to explain against the background of the other passages. Be that as it may, it cannot be deduced from Judg 2:9, while it is quite conceivable that Judg 2:9 and the LXX aligned the phrase to the normal usage. In sum, none of these arguments can decide the issue alone, and the various textual phenomena can be explained in multiple ways. And it is true that the significant differences have to be explained against the background of the contextual function of the two passages. However, on the whole, the evidence does not rule out the priority of Josh 24:28–31. Be that as it may, the doublet must have something to do with the separation of the two books. Erhard Blum is correct in emphasizing that there are no grammatical or syntactic grounds for understanding the verbs in Judg 2:6–9 in a pluperfect sense. Reading pluperfect would require a different syntax with inverted word order (we-xqatal: ‫)ויהושׁע מת‬. The juxtaposition of two notices of the death of a protagonist in a narrative tense does not make sense in one literary work; it disturbs the narrative coherence. The separating function of the repetition cannot be overemphasized. On the one hand, the repetition of Judg 2:6–10 separates the book of Judges from the book of Joshua; on the other hand, it creates a link to the book of Joshua by the almost verbatim wording. This dialectic phenomenon makes sense if the repetition is understood as redactionally resumptive. In his argument, Blum emphasizes the fact that 19

See part II, section 1 of this volume.

II. 2.2. Response to E. Blum, R. G. Kratz and S. Schulz

291

irrespective of the demarcation in Josh 24:28–31, the repetition of these verses in Judg 2:6–10 cannot be understood as a resumptive repetition (Wiederaufnahme). By this he defines this phenomenon as “a stylistic device by which primary authors/narrators or later redactors/Bearbeiter can design complex constellations of plot and/or discourse sequence in the linear presentation of texts”. He understands resumptive repetition from a narratological perspective and assumes that it always aims at shaping “a complex narrative coherence”. Because the continuation of the narrative is distorted in Judg 2:6, the passage “was not intended to function as resumptive repetition”. The only possibility for Blum is that this repetition “can only be the accidental byproduct of some literary-historical process”. He thus understands Judg 2:6, 10 as “a textual fragment, enclosed within the final text of Judges”.20 However, while the narratological function of a Wiederaufnahme is one thing, the diachronic argument is another. Irrespective of its narrative function, a resumptive repetition can at least in some cases formally be defined as a redactional technique: An expansion is inserted into an existing text by repeating the phrase before the insertion. An easy definition is given by Bernhard Lang: “Into a text AB an expansion X is inserted according to the pattern AXAB.”21 Various variations have been described so far. For instance, the position of the insertion says nothing about the literary priority of the preceding or the following element, even if the repetition is often secondary. Sometimes more than one element is repeated by framing the insertion with formulae etc.22 Although many resumptive repetitions have a rhetorical function and may establish a complex narrative coherence, this is by no means always the case. With regard to biblical literature, one should not pit the narrative technique against the redactional technique as Blum does. Judg 2:6–10 does not make sense as a resumptive repetition in a narrative respect but does in redactional respect, and that makes a difference. The passage placed between the repetitions is secondary to the repetition; it goes beyond the context and establishes a new context. This is precisely the function of Judg 1:1–2:5. However, Judg 1 and Judg 2:1–5 do not belong to the same compositional level but do have the same function: to open a new context. It is possible to explain this redactionally or narratologically or even both. If the narrative is the focus, the death of Joshua becomes a flashback even if it is grammatically not expressed in the pluperfect. Judg 1:1 forces the reader to understand the text in this way. With the death of Joshua the “new start” is irrevocably emphasized. Der Zweck der Wiederholung (kann) darin bestehen, mit dem Bericht von Josuas Tod die Ausgangssituation der beginnenden Richterzeit ins Gedächtnis der Leser und Hörer des dtr. 20

All quotes from BLUM, pp. 223–224 above. LANG, ‘Method’, 43; for further literature see SKA, Introduction, 77–78. 22 See WONNEBERGER, Redaktion, 117–123. 21

292

Christian Frevel

Richterbuchs zurückzurufen. Eine Erinnerung an Josuas Tod, die nicht als Rückblick gekennzeichnet ist, erscheint vor allem dann als sinnvoll, wenn Josuas Tod nicht schon einmal im unmittelbar vorausgehenden Kontext geschildert wird. Dies ist – unter der Voraussetzung, dass Ri 1,1-2,5 jünger als DtrR sind – wiederum dann der Fall, wenn beide Texte auf verschiedenen Schriftrollen gestanden haben.23

It is probably true that Judg 1:1 was not inserted at the same time that the repetition of Josh 24:28–31 in Judg 2:6–10 came into being. Without Judg 1:1, Judg 2:6–10 can only be understood as a resumptive repetion, or it cannot be understood. And this points strongly to a diachronic explanation in which the text between (in whichever extent) was inserted. Read literally, the repeated death is implausible for the reader, who will thus naturally disconnect the two “books” – or better: literary contexts – in the reading process.

D. The Role of Judg 1:1 in the Process of Separation Sometimes one gets the impression that the doublet of Joshua’s death and the question of literary dependency make exegetes lose sight of the surrounding issues. The opening verse of Judg 1:1 does not play a further role in the argument. It is only the insurmountable tension between Judg 1:1 and Judg 2:8 which is considered. It is not possible that Judg 2:8 was modeled on Judg 1:1.24 As we already noted above, the repetition of Judg 2:6–10 (together with Judg 2:1–5) forces the reader to regard the text that follows as belonging to its own separate context. This was intensified by putting Judg 1 before Judg 2:1–5. However, there is one possibility that has not been thoroughly discussed so far. Usually Judg 1:1aα is seen in connection with the insertion of Judg 1:1aβ–36. This makes much sense, but it is also possible that Judg 1:1aα (‫ )ויהי אחרי מות יהושׁע‬was originally followed by ‫ויעל מלאך יהוה מן הגלגל‬ ‫ אל הבכים‬in Judg 2:1a and that this redactional connection was broken apart by the insertion of Judg 1:1aβ–36*. The role of Judg 1:1aβ–36 should receive more attention in the discussion. The text cannot simply be read as a continuation of the concept of unconquered land in Josh 23. Within the transition from Joshua to Judges, the report of the unconquered land (“Negatives Besitzverzeichnis”, Albrecht Alt)25 has an important function: 1) It is presumed that the land is still unconquered, 2) only Judah initiates the conquest and only Judah takes land into possession, 3) the divination links loosely to Num 27:21 but at the same time separates Judg 1 from the former conquest, 4) Reuben and Gad are not mentioned, so that perhaps only the book of Joshua is superseded. The setting is 23

FOCKEN, Landnahme, 70. Pace RAKE, Juda, 126–128. 25 On the history of this term see RAKE, Juda, 21–24. 24

293

II. 2.2. Response to E. Blum, R. G. Kratz and S. Schulz

totally different compared to Josh 23–24. Neither the worship of YHWH (Josh 24; Judg 2:6–10, 11–19) nor the peril of the religion(s) of the foreign nations (Josh 23; Judg 2:1–5; 2:20–3:6) plays any role. Judg 1 is an exposition on its own, and it is highly unlikely that it would have been read as a continuation of the book of Joshua, although – as Ernst Axel Knauf has rightly pointed out – the authors knew the book of Joshua very well. The literary horizon of Judg 1 is the book of Judges: Das Kapitel bringt den Widerspruch zwischen Josua und Richter auf den Punkt: Die in Jos wiederholt gefeierte ‘Εroberung des ganzen Landes’ wird nun als überaus unvollständig dargestellt, um den Verhältnissen in Ri 3–19 gerecht zu werden. … Die Landverteilung Jos 13–21* wird vorausgesetzt, die Eroberung Jos 1–12 stillschweigend durch eine ‘Inbesitznahme’ Ri 1 mehr ersetzt als ergänzt.26

With Judg 1:1aβ–36, the separation of the two books is already complete. Be that as it may, Judg 1:1aα is designed as the beginning of a scroll. The parallel with Josh 1:1 is striking and most probably deliberate. Through this similar phrase (which is attested further only in 2 Sam 1:1 and Gen 25:11), the books of Joshua and Judges are paralleled and indicated as separate units. As in the transition from Deuteronomy to Joshua, the death of the protagonist which was narrated in the final chapter with similar wording is introduced as past and as a new beginning: Deut 34:5–7aα; Josh 1:1aα

Josh 24:29aβ–30; Judg 1:1aα

‫וימת שׁם משׁה עבד יהוה בארץ מואב על פי‬ ‫יהוה׃‬ ‫ויקבר אתו בגי בארץ מואב מול בית פעור ולא‬ ‫ידע אישׁ את קברתו עד היום הזה׃ ומשׁה‬ ‫בן־מאה ועשׂרים שׁנה‬ ‫ויהי אחרי מות משׁה עבד יהוה‬

‫וימת יהושׁע בן נון עבד יהוה בן־מאה ועשׂר שׁנים׃‬ ‫ויקברו אתו בגבול נחלתו בתמנת־סרח אשׁר‬ ‫בהר־אפרים מצפון להר־געשׁ׃‬ ‫ויהי אחרי מות יהושׁע‬

Obviously the two beginnings (or better: the two transitional divisions) were deliberately paralleled, and the reader is prompted to compare them. This may be the only reason why the redactor accepted the harsh tension between Judg 1:1aα and Judg 2:8. On a synchronic level, the reader now can only take the account of Judg 2:6–10 as a flashback or analepsis.

E. Conclusion Investigating the book-seam between Joshua and Judges reveals more problems than solutions, even if several opinions are taken together. Methodologically, it is necessary to differentiate between the synchronic and diachronic level, the narrative aspect and the reconstruction of textual growth. The con26

KNAUF, Richter, 41.

294

Christian Frevel

sensus regarding the latter is less than that regarding the former. There is considerable consensus that the transition between these two books mirrors literary growth and that the separation between the two books has been intensified during the process of redaction. The textual transition zone evinces a dense textual network in which the textual relations are neither linear nor unambiguous. The textual relations comprise at least the whole Enneateuch, which compounds the difficulties. However, on the surface level of the text, the function of Josh 23–24 as a conclusion and the function of Judg 1:1–3:6 as an exposition is obvious. The consensus ends in the detailed reconstruction of the literary growth of the text. However, there is a consensus that the death of Joshua in whichever version can be reckoned as part of the oldest conclusion. It was striking that the same observations led to totally different reconstructions. Here, as in other areas of diachronic discussion, the understanding of coherence, textual relations, compositions, literary works etc. are disputed. In particular, the issue of a persistent Hexateuch ending with Josh 24 and alternatively the existence of a separate composition consisting of Deuteronomy-Joshua (DtrL) or the Deuteronomistic History comprising the books of Deuteronomy-Kings informs the different solutions. This is not the end of the world, but has to be discussed with the highest possible transparency. Based on a complex argument developed in several papers, my own position goes beyond the classic Deuteronomistic History of Martin Noth. I rather see clusters in Sam-Kings and Deut-Josh which were perhaps at some point linked by parts of the book of Judges. I agree upon links between the material in Joshua and Judges, but these links were neither the first nor the final level of literary growth. The basic layer in Josh 23:1, 2*, 3, 14b–16a was originally not part of a larger history from Deut 1–2 Kgs 25, but rather a second step which intensified the closure of the book of Joshua. The earliest conclusion was formed by Josh 11:23 together with Josh 24:28–31*. This suggestion includes a foregoing pre-Priestly assembly comprising parts of Josh 24 (particularly the alternative between YHWH and the other gods) that have been overwritten by later literary strata. This assumption is often criticized but remains a possible solution within the dense literary transition. Judges 2:1–5; 2:6–10; Josh 23:4–14a; and Judg 1:1aβ–36* were added in a sequenced process with some mutual influences. The separation between Joshua and Judges was sealed by the repetition of Josh 2:6–10 and was finally executed by the scroll-separating introduction in Judg 1:1aα. Whether Judg 1:1aα was written before or after Judg 1:1aβ–36* cannot be decided with certainty.

The Savior of Gibeon Reconstructing the Prehistory of the Joshua Account Zev I. Farber and Jacob L. Wright A. Joshua as a Local Chieftain or Hero The book of Joshua is framed as a continuation of the pentateuchal narrative: The Israelites are an invading group of ex-slaves. They have not lived in Canaan for hundreds of years. Their aim is to conquer the entire Cisjordan, while displacing or slaughtering the local population. Given these features, scholars had long interpreted the book as the final installment of a “Hexateuch”. It was only much later that they began to read it as part of an independent history told in the remaining books of the Former Prophets.1 The first half of Joshua (chs. 1–12) presents Israel as a unified, powerful people. The locals are no match for them. After a miraculous crossing of the Jordan, they destroy Jericho and Ai, defeat a southern coalition of five citystates and embark on a campaign against six fortified southern cities. Later, they defeat an even larger northern coalition, burning down the city of Hazor. This first portion of the book concludes with a long list of kings whom Joshua executes (MT has 31, the LXX 29/28). Although the locals initiate the engagements, it is clear that Joshua and Israel are the aggressors.2 1

For a good historical overview of research into the composition of the book of Joshua see DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 5–32. 2 The biblical authors did not find fault with military aggression per se. This is clear not only from Joshua, but from other works of biblical narrative as well, such as Judges and Samuel. An early episode in the book of Judges presents Israel living under Moabite subjugation. In contrast to the editorial framework (3:12–14), the story itself provides no explanation for Moab’s domination. None is needed: Neighboring tribes and polities often set their sights on neighboring territories and often went to war to take possession of them. The point of the story is not to reflect on the dimension of Moab’s evil but to celebrate one of Israel’s saviors (Ehud ben Gera). The same is true for other stories in Judges. Shamgar ben Anat kills 600 Philistines (3:31). Why he was battling Philistines is not said. Likewise, Jabin, king of Hazor defeats Israel in a battle (Judg 4:2), inspiring the prophetess Deborah to summon Barak for war. Why Hazor and Israel were battling in the first place is explained only in the editorial framework (4:1–3). Later, YHWH sends Gideon on a campaign to save Israel from Midianite predations (Judg 6:11ff.). Again, why were Midianites raiding Israel? Because they could. The biblical storytellers and scribes remembered and

296

Zev I. Farber/Jacob L. Wright

Joshua’s conquest of the Cisjordan fulfills the promise to the ancestors and completes the account of the exodus. Without it, the narrative would forfeit its expected ending, leaving the Israelites to wander in the hills of Moab on the fringe of the Promised Land. The narrative arc of the Hexateuch makes the book of Joshua into the finale of the nation’s ancestral backstory. Yet underneath the editorial framing of the Joshua account is the kernel of a differently framed story – that of a local warrior-chieftain bearing resemblances to Gideon and Jephthah from the book of Judges. Isolating the stories of Judges from the book’s editorial framing, we discover a number of local conflicts between different Levantine populations and polities. It is the editorial framing, and the readers’ familiarity with the backstory of the exodus and wilderness wandering, that colors these local conflicts with the image of Israel as an outside group who conquered the local Canaanite population. Most of the stories themselves, at least at their core,3 have no need for this backstory. The stories of Judges are not the only texts that scribes secondarily connected to the exodus-conquest narrative. Joshua is another example. Yet it is a more extreme case of pressing a local hero tradition into service of the national narrative. If early legends celebrated his exploits in the central Ephraimite hill country (see below), he would have been a good candidate to take the lead role of “conqueror” during the time after Moses. To create the biblical narrative as we know it, storytellers and scribes moved his lifetime to the wilderness period and expanded his local feats into a national conquest of the Promised Land. For this reason, the story of the crossing of the Jordan is most likely not part of an early Joshua tradition. That story’s raison d’être is to paint Joshua in the colors of Moses and to describe a grand, miraculous entrance of the Children of Israel into Canaan. Combined with the Priestly account of the crossing of the Reed Sea, it brackets the wilderness wanderings: Before this imagined past relations with neighboring polities as a series of skirmishes, raids, wars and domination. They did not consider conquest to be inherently evil, even when the nation’s own heroes pursued it. Thus, they tell how David inevitably set his sights on Moab and occupied it, crippling Moab’s retaliatory capacity by executing a third of the (fighting?) population (2 Sam 8:2). These texts, and many others, portray Israel’s neighbors as polities who were wont to attack when the conditions were propitious. A more complex casus belli is rarely provided. A proper understanding of the origin of the Joshua traditions needs to take this context into account. 3 Some stories incorporate the exodus and wilderness narratives into the story itself. For instance, in the final form of the Jephthah story, Jephthah argues with the king of Ammon about whether the Israelites stole land from them on their way through the Transjordan (Judg 11:12–28). This, however, seems like a late revision of the Jephthah story, which has no need of such a claim to explain the war between the Gileadites and the Ammonites.

II. 3.1. The Savior of Gibeon

297

time of wanderings, the nation lives in Egypt, and after it, the nation lives in its Promised Land.

B. Locating Joshua’s Region To uncover the earlier Joshua, we need to search the material in which he inhabits his native setting, the Cisjordan. If this figure were to become a member of the exodus generation and the leader of the nation as it collectively conquered Canaan, the biblical authors had to expunge memories of Joshua’s local origins and more limited sphere of influence. For this reason, it is difficult to find, in the final form of Josh 1– 12, texts that identify him with any particular region of the Cisjordan. (He is not the conqueror of the Transjordan; Moses had already accomplished that as recorded in Numbers.) Nevertheless, several clues point to the region of Mount Ephraim: 1. Tribal affiliation: Joshua is an Ephraimite. 2. Ortsgebundenheit: Joshua is buried in Timnat Heres, in the Ephraim region. 3. Unique conquests: Joshua is the only Israelite conqueror credited with Ai and Jericho, which implies that these two conquests were associated with him from an early point. This memory stands in contrast to the defeat of the future capital Jerusalem (credited to David, among others), the conquest of Hebron and Debir in lower Judah (credited to Caleb and Otniel respectively) and the conquest of Hazor in the North (credited to Deborah and Barak), where the Joshua tradition appears to be a secondary accretion.

Narrative weight Another important factor in determining what might be an earlier Joshua tradition is narrative weight. The conquest account spans chs. 6–11. Joshua 6 tells of the conquest of Jericho; Josh 7–8 portray the conquest of Ai; and Josh 9–10 recount the treaty with and the defense of Gibeon, ending in Joshua’s miraculous defeat of enemies on the slopes of Bet Horon. These longer stories have dramatic plots, local color and miraculous interventions. They tell their tales in a similar way to the accounts of heroic warriors in Judges. And all of them are set in the region of Ephraim and Benjamin. Within Josh 9–10, the section of 10:28–43 is a schematic description of an additional campaign in which Joshua conquers the entire South. The writing uses stereotypical and repetitive phrases and hardly has the quality of a narrative. The same is true of 11:1–20, which is a copy of the battle with the five southern kings. It has a skeletal framework without much distinctive character. The few concrete details it does include – such as the enemy being as numerous as the sands of the sea, the command to hamstring the horses and the burning of Hazor – are imports: The first is a standard biblical trope, the second is copied from the story of David’s defeat of Hadadezer, king of

298

Zev I. Farber/Jacob L. Wright

Zobah (2 Sam 8:4), and the third applies the etiologies from the Jericho and Ai stories to a giant tel in the North (Hazor). This means that when attempting to reconstruct early iterations of the Joshua conquest stories, we must concentrate on the complex of Josh 6:1– 10:27 – the conquest of Jericho, the conquest of Ai, the peace treaty with Gibeon and the defense of Gibeon. We will argue that this core complex was, in fact, composed in reverse order, and that the oldest story of Joshua doing battle can be found in ch. 10.4

C. The Attack on Gibeon: The Plea to Joshua for Help The original beginning of the battle story in ch. 10 was likely vv. 5–9 (the description of the Amorites attacking Gibeon). The previous four verses, which presuppose the larger narrative block, appear to be a secondary introduction to an expanded version of the story that explains why the Amorites would attack Gibeon. We will, therefore, start with vv. 5–9, italicizing what seems likely to be editorial5: ‫וַ ֵיּ ָא ְס פוּ וַ יַּ ֲﬠ לוּ ֲח ֵמ ֶשׁ ת ַמ לְ ֵכי‬

‫ה‬: ‫י‬

‫רוּשׁ לַ ם ֶמ לֶ ֶח ְברוֹן‬ ָ ‫ָה ֱא מ ִֹרי ֶמ לֶ ְי‬ ‫ֶמ לֶ ַי ְרמוּת ֶמלֶ לָ ִכישׁ ֶמ לֶ ֶﬠגְ לוֹן‬

‫יהם וַ יַּ ֲחנוּ ַﬠל גִּ ְבעוֹן‬ ֶ ֵ‫ֵה ם וְ ָכ ל ַמ ֲחנ‬ ‫ו וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְל חוּ ַא נְ ֵשׁי‬:‫ י‬.‫יה‬ ָ ֶ‫וַ יִּ ָלּ ֲחמוּ ָﬠל‬ ‫ֶאל ַה ַמּ ֲחנֶ ה‬ ֻ ‫גִ ְב עוֹן ֶאל ְי‬ ַ ‫הוֹשׁ‬ ‫ַהגִּ לְ גָּ לָ ה ֵלאמֹר ַאל ֶתּ ֶרף יָ ֶדי‬ ‫ְמ ֵה ָרה‬ ‫ֵאלֵ ינוּ‬ ‫ֲﬠ לֵ ה‬ ‫ֵמ ֲﬠ ָב ֶדי‬ ‫יﬠה ָלּנוּ וְ ָﬠזְ ֵר נוּ ִכּי נִ ְק ְבּ צוּ‬ ָ ‫הוֹשׁ‬ ִ ְ‫ו‬ .‫ֵא ֵלינוּ ָכּל ַמ ְל ֵכ י ָה ֱאמ ִֹרי י ְֹשׁ ֵב י ָה ָהר‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ִמ ן ַהגִּ לְ גָּ ל הוּא וְ ָכל‬ ֻ ‫ז וַ ַיּ ַﬠל ְי‬:‫י‬ .‫בּוֹרי ֶה ָח יִ ל‬ ֵ ִ‫ַﬠ ם ַה ִמּלְ ָח ָמה ִﬠמּוֹ וְ כֹל גּ‬

‫הוֹשׁ ַ ַאל ִתּ ָירא‬ ֻ ‫ֹאמר ְיהוָ ה ֶא ל ְי‬ ֶ ‫ח וַ יּ‬:‫י‬ ‫ֵמ ֶהם כִּ י ְביָ ְד נְ ַת ִתּים ל ֹא ַי ֲﬠמֹד‬ ‫יהם‬ ֶ ‫ט וַ יָּ ב ֹא ֲא ֵל‬:‫ י‬. ‫ִא ישׁ ֵמ ֶה ם ְבּ ָפנֶ י‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ִפּ ְתאֹם כָּ ל ַהלַּ יְ לָ ה ָﬠלָ ה ִמן‬ ֻ ‫ְי‬ .‫ַהגִּ לְ גָּ ל‬

4

10:5

The five kings of the Amorites – the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Yarmuth, the king of Lachish and the king of Eglon – gathered their forces, and went up with all their armies and camped against Gibeon, and made war against it. 10:6 And the Gibeonites sent to Joshua at the camp in Gilgal, saying, “Do not abandon your servants; come up to us quickly, and save us, and help us; for all the kings of the Amorites who live in the hill country are gathered against us.” 10:7 Joshua went up from Gilgal, he and all the fighting force with him, all the mighty warriors. 10:8 YHWH said to Joshua, “Do not fear them, for I have handed them over to you; not one of them shall stand before you.” 10:9 Joshua came upon them suddenly, having marched up all night from Gilgal.

We are only discussing here the battle accounts. Zev Farber (in ‘Timnat Heres’) has argued that snippets of a very old Joshua tradition can be found in Josh 19 (the landgrant) and in his burial notice in ch. 24. 5 We are using the MT as our base text but will discuss important LXX variants when appropriate.

II. 3.1. The Savior of Gibeon

299

1. Attacking the Gibeonites The Amorite kings attack Gibeon. There is nothing surprising about this per se. No casus belli is necessary in raids or attempts at conquest.6 We are not told why the Midianites make their raids during the time of Gideon or why the Ammonite king attacks Jabesh Gilead during the days of Saul. What stands out in our text is that the Amorites are ostensibly attacking one of their own. This perception, however, is likely wrong. The Gibeonites inhabited the lower (Benjaminite) region of Mount Ephraim, and they likely did not view themselves as being different from other peoples that populated the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. Some traditions have Gibeon as an early shrine for Israelite YHWH worship, such as the story of Solomon’s worship there (1 Kgs 3:4) or the tradition that the ark was in one of the Gibeonite cities until David brought it to Jerusalem (1 Sam 7:1).7 As we shall see, earlier iterations of Josh 10 understood Gibeon to be an important Israelite city, with Joshua eagerly coming to its defense. However, the final form of the account (in Josh 9–10) presents a much different image of the Gibeonites: They are a Canaanite population who makes peace with Israel to avoid destruction. When Joshua learns that they had entered into the pact mendaciously, he curses them, consigning them to the task of hauling water and chopping wood.8 To appreciate the way in which later scribes reworked this account, we must take into consideration the political agendas of rival groups within these societies. By identifying the Gibeonites as outsiders whom the great Joshua cursed during the conquest, the later scribes were engaging in polemics against a group that appears to have exercised significant influence, particularly in cultic matters. As we have argued in previous contexts, the story of Saul’s slaughter of the priests of Nob (1 Sam 22:18–19) reflects an alternative explanation for the weak position of the Gibeonites (Nob being a scribal error for Gob).9 A similar tradition about Saul slaughtering innocents in this town appears in 2 Sam 21. The latter has been made to fit with the final form of Josh 9: A supplement in 2 Sam 21:2 explains that the Gibeonites are really Amorites who made peace with the Israelites. Yet the original story probably told how Saul had slaughtered the members of an Israelite town, so that David feels morally obligated to comply with their demands. Slaughtering Israelites is, after all, an offense to YHWH.

6

See n. 2 above. For discussions of these and other texts see BLENKINSOPP, Gibeon, and WRIGHT, ‘Rahab’s Valor’. 8 While this detail may reflect a later reality for the Gibeonites in Judean society, the curse presupposes a Deuteronomistic redaction. 9 See WRIGHT, ‘Rahab’s Valor’, and FARBER, Images, 114. 7

300

Zev I. Farber/Jacob L. Wright

2. Lack of introduction As noted, biblical texts often do not provide a reason why an enemy decides to invade. What is not standard, however, is for the hero of the story to appear without being introduced. Thus, the Jephthah story contains a long introduction (Judg 11:1–3) explaining his parentage and how he managed to have a small army of his own. Joshua, however, is not introduced at all. The lack of an introduction would seem to contradict the thesis presented here that Josh 10 contains an early account of Joshua’s exploits. Yet there is a good reason why the story does not introduce him as a local warrior: If Joshua were to be Moses’ attendant in the wilderness generation, any depiction of him as an indigenous warrior would have had to be expunged. Even without the older introduction, the story provides some details about this figure. He is a warrior and leads his own army, just as Jephthah and David are said to have done. He is part of the Israelite group, as opposed to the Amorite group, and is a worshiper of YHWH.10 Other details can be isolated as we continue to analyze the text. 3. The list of kings The kings named in v. 5 are most likely redactional. Jerusalem is the later capital of Judah and functions as an excellent metonymy for the Judean kingdom. The four other cities mentioned – Hebron, Yarmuth, Lachish and Eglon – are all in Judah, with some, like Hebron, located in the deep south. To explain the location of these cities, we have to consider the needs of the scribes who composed the block of Josh 6–11. Once Joshua became the conqueror of the entire Cisjordan, these scribes needed a battle with the southern powers. Thus, they took the story of Joshua saving the Gibeonites from a nondescript Amorite invasion and turned it into a battle specifically with the largest southern powers. Why these five were chosen is impossible to say for certain, but Jerusalem and Hebron were Judah’s capitals, and Lachish and Eglon11 were particularly large and dominant cities.12

The story’s opening puns on his name, in classic biblical style: ‫( יהושע‬meaning “YHWH saves”) is asked to “save” (‫ )ישׁ״ע‬the Gibeonites from their enemies. Joshua is accordingly not merely a heroic conqueror but also a savior, similar to a host of other figures in Judges and Samuel. 11 In the LXX instead of Eglon, we have Adullam, a city that fits better with the geography of the battle in the Benjamin region, but not as well with the rest of the list (which is of cities in Judah). 12 The choice of Yarmuth as one of the aggressors was apparently inspired by the size of the EB tel, similar to the reason behind the choice of Ai, Jericho and Hazor. Yarmuth was only a small site both in the time in which the story is set (Iron Age I) and in the time the story was written/edited (late Iron Age or Persian Period). 10

II. 3.1. The Savior of Gibeon

301

A related element from the introduction that may be secondary is the number of kings. On the one hand, the number feels overly specific once the list is removed, and in v. 6 the Gibeonites refer to “all the kings of the Amorites” (not just five of them). On the other hand, five is a typological number used in other places (like the list of besieged kings in Gen 14 or the five seranim of the Philistines), and it could also be what constrained the editors who put together the list of kings to keep it at five. Elsewhere, editorial hands slid in more Judean city states, such as Azekah, Libnah and Debir (vv. 10, 38–39). 4. The camp at Gilgal One element that appears multiple times throughout ch. 10, and that causes problems, is the reference to Joshua’s camp at Gilgal. The location functions as a crux throughout the battle account, and the logic is that Joshua is a conqueror coming from the outside. But the older Joshua tradition probably did not locate Joshua’s base in this place; instead, it may have had him living not far from Gibeon, somewhere on Mount Ephraim (perhaps Timnat Heres/ Serah, the city in which he is said to have been buried). The removal of Gilgal simplifies the narrative. First, the Gibeonites ask Joshua for help not because he heads an invading army with which the Gibeonites have a treaty; the reason is rather that he is a local warlord who might be sympathetic to the Gibeonites’ plight. Second, v. 9 appears to have been redacted to explain Joshua’s surprise attack. If Joshua is an indigenous inhabitant of the region, then a surprise attack would need no explanation. If Joshua is coming all the way from Gilgal, however, it could not be a blitz strike. Thus, the editors glossed the verse, explaining that Joshua ordered a night march and so arrived earlier than would have otherwise been possible. 5. YHWH’s speech Josh 10:8 has YHWH speaking to Joshua, telling him not to fear the Amorites and promising that no one will stand before him. This is a classic Deuteronomistic element, and it frames the story. YHWH communicates the same message to Joshua when he takes over as Moses’ successor in Josh 1:1–9, a section that is entirely Deuteronomistic. (The promise “no one will stand before you” appears in 1:4 and the phrase “do not fear them” in 1:8.) Because 10:8 interrupts the flow between vv. 7 and 9, the editors may have inserted “Joshua” into v. 9 to reestablish the subject of the verb, which was implicit when the two verses were connected.

302

Zev I. Farber/Jacob L. Wright

D. Joshua Routes the Enemy The story continues with Joshua’s definitive victory over the Amorite aggressors. ‫וַ יְ ֻה ֵמּם יְ הוָ ה ִל ְפנֵ י ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

‫ י‬:‫י‬

‫דוֹלה ְבּגִ ְבעוֹן וַ יִּ ְר ְדּ ֵפם ֶדּ ֶר‬ ָ ְ‫וַ יַּ ֵכּם ַמ ָכּה ג‬

‫ַמ ֲﬠ ֵלה ֵבית חוֹר ֹן וַ ַיּכֵּ ם ַﬠד ֲﬠזֵ ָקה וְ ַﬠד‬ …‫ַמ ֵקּ ָדה‬ ‫וַ ְי ִהי ְבּ נֻ ָסם ִמ ְפּנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵא ל ֵהם‬ ‫מוֹרד ֵבּ ית חוֹר ֹן וַ יהוָ ה ִה ְשׁ ִלי‬ ַ ‫ְבּ‬ ‫יהם ֲא ָבנִ ים גְּ ד ֹלוֹת ִמן ַה ָשּׁ ַמיִ ם‬ ֶ ֵ‫ֲﬠ ל‬ ‫ַﬠ ד ֲﬠזֵ ָקה וַ יָּ ֻמתוּ ַר ִבּים ֲא ֶשׁר ֵמתוּ‬ ‫ְבּ ַא ְבנֵ י ַה ָבּ ָר ד ֵמ ֲא ֶשׁר ָה ְרגוּ ְבּ נֵ י‬ ‫ ִכּי ְיהוָ ה‬... ‫יד‬:‫ י‬...‫ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵא ל ֶבּ ָח ֶרב‬ .‫נִ ְל ָח ם לְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

10:10

And YHWH threw them into a panic before Israel. He inflicted a great slaughter on them at Gibeon, and he chased them by the way of the ascent of Bethhoron, and struck them down as far as Azekah and Makkedah. 10:11 As they fled before Israel, while they were going down the slope of Beth-horon, YHWH threw down huge stones from heaven on them as far as Azekah, and they died; there were more who died because of the hailstones than the Israelites killed with the sword… 10:14 … for YHWH fought for Israel.

The core text (non-italicized and not indented) is simply the completion of the previous verse. Joshua arrives with his army suddenly, defeats the Amorite army in a great slaughter and chases them down the slope of Beth-horon. Originally, the chase would have led to the final scene, set at the cave outside Makkedah. But before turning to that scene, we need to discuss a number of other supplements. 1. An early supplement of a hailstone miracle YHWH appears to play no role in the earliest versions of the story, which presented Joshua and his army as capable of dealing with the Amorite aggressors. This must have bothered later scribes, who were convinced that YHWH needed to play an active role and be mentioned explicitly. An early expansion claims that YHWH threw the Amorites into a panic (10:10). The verbal root used, ‫המ״ם‬, is the same one used in the non-Priestly version of the miracle at the sea (Exod 14:24), in Samuel’s battle against the Philistines (1 Sam 7:10) and in Ps 18:15 (= 2 Sam 22:15), which describes YHWH shooting arrows and lightning at his enemies. The supplement picks up again in v. 11. Although v. 10 states that Joshua defeated the invading army and that they were retreating, the supplement has YHWH getting involved at this point and raining hailstones down on the retreating army, killing more people than Joshua managed to dispatch in his attack. From a narratological perspective, the supplement is anticlimactic: It is intended to ascribe credit for the victory to YHWH, not to Joshua’s martial prowess. Yet it is only partially successful: Why does YHWH contribute to a

II. 3.1. The Savior of Gibeon

303

battle only after Israel has prevailed over its foes? The editorial product is quite different from the exodus account, in which YHWH intervenes at the last minute to save Israel from certain destruction at the sea.13 The scribes would have recognized the anticlimactic character of the account. To avoid the impression that YHWH came too late to the battle, they composed the lines about the nation’s deity throwing the Amorites into a panic. (Slaughtering retreating troops is not a particularly significant military accomplishment.) Another clue is the description of the hailstones. In general, hailstones are called ‫ברד‬, as they are called both later in the verse and in Exod 9–10. In the opening of the verse, however, they are referred to unusually as “huge stones”, the same expression used for the stones that block the cave of Makkedah at the end of the battle account (v. 27). The description of the hailstones as “huge stones” may well have been inspired by the “huge stones” at Makkedah. If so, the midrashic connection suggests that the very stones used to block the kings in the cave were thrown by YHWH from the sky during the battle.14 A third element that makes this passage stand out is the use of the name Israel. The substrata of our story take for granted that the Gibeonites, Joshua, his army and the intended audience are all members of the same national group. Nevertheless, the text refers neither to Joshua nor to the Gibeonites as “Israel”, except in this section. It seems that the need to underline the theological connection between YHWH and Israel, which can be felt strongly here, was not recognized by the early storytellers, who could assume that their readers knew who “the good guys” in the story are, ethnically speaking. The final part of this early supplement is found at the end of v. 14. It explains why Joshua won and, more specifically, why so many enemies died (namely, because YHWH was fighting for Israel). Again, we see the same phrase being used in the non-Priestly version of the miracle at the sea, this time placed in the Egyptians’ mouths (Exod 14:25): ‫אנוסה מפני ישראל כי יהוה‬ ‫נלחם להם‬.15 The function of this phrase is obscured by the addition of another supplement in the middle of this one. The supplement, which in the MT purports to be an excerpt from the Sefer HaYashar, depicts Joshua stopping of the sun.

13

See Tzemah Yoreh’s analysis of the plagues of hailstones and locusts, in which he shows that the original layer had Moses performing these plagues without God’s help and that the later editor revised the account to give YHWH the credit (YOREH, ‘Layers’). 14 Ed Noort has an alternative suggestion. He argues that the original Hebrew was like the LXX “hailstones” but that the MT added the element of great stones for the midrashic effect suggested above. See NOORT, ‘Joshua and Copernicus’, 388–389, DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 431–432. 15 Note that the supplement also uses the same term for retreat: ‫ויהי בנסם מפני ישראל‬.

304

Zev I. Farber/Jacob L. Wright

2. A later supplement: Stopping the sun If the passage about YHWH stopping the sun’s movement is secondary, we could better explain v. 13, at least in the MT, which in this case seems to reflect the original wording.16 Similar to the miracle of the hailstones, this supplement tells about what transpired after the defeat of Israel’s enemies. In this case, the intent may have been to show a confident Joshua wishing to take vengeance upon his enemies. One would imagine that such a powerful miracle combined with the expressed desire for vengeance would have been more fitting in a story that described the enemy’s predations in some detail, as opposed to the schematic account we have in Joshua. In fact, it is quite possible that in its original context of the Sefer HaYashar, such a description was part of the account. The editors here may have included only the miracle and left out the rest. As the Sefer HaYashar is no longer extant, we do not know where this passage fit and what the context was, though it seems likely that it was part of an epic telling of a battle at Gibeon. 3. Azekah The city of Azekah appears twice in this section, and in both cases it fits awkwardly. In v. 10, we are told that Joshua chases them “to Azekah and to Makkedah.” The point of saying “to Makkedah” is to prepare the reader for the account of the kings hiding in the cave. Yet what is the point of mentioning Azekah here? In v. 11, we are told that when the Amorites were being chased across the slopes of Beth-horon, YHWH rained hailstones upon them all the way to Azekah. The latter is far south from Beth-horon, which would imply an extraordinarily long time for the hailstones to be raining down. If we also consider the celestial miracle, the sun and moon stopped in the area of Gibeon and Ayalon (in the Benjamin region). Obviously if the sun stopped over Ayalon, it stopped over Azekah as well. Nevertheless, the scribes here seem to be imagining that all the action occurred between Gibeon and Ayalon, in the Beth-horon slope. Thus, it seems that Azekah was added in both places, perhaps because the editors wished to include yet another important Judean site into the story of Joshua’s conquest of the south. 4. Makkedah The clause “and he smote them … until Makkedah” repeats the verb from the preceding line. If the clause is an addition, it was added perhaps to connect the battle account to the etiological tale (at the end of the story) about the five kings blocked into a cave by huge stones (see E.1 below). 16

The MT reads “until a nation had vengeance on its foes” as opposed to the LXX which reads “until God had vengeance on his foes.” For the alternative opinion that the LXX reflects the more original wording see AULD, Joshua Retold, 17.

II. 3.1. The Savior of Gibeon

305

E. The Kings in the Cave The original ending of the story must have been a brief account of how the five kings received their just desserts. It is told as part of an etiological tale describing an ostensibly well-known rock formation, which blocked the entrance to a cave. Although the etiology likely developed separately from the story of Joshua’s triumph at Gibeon, early on it was incorporated into it as a fitting conclusion. ‫טז וַ יָּ נֻ סוּ ֲח ֵמ ֶשׁת ַה ְמּ לָ ִכים ָה ֵא ֶלּה‬:‫י‬ ‫יז וַ יֻּ גַּ ד‬:‫ י‬.‫וַ ֵיּ ָח ְבאוּ ַב ְמּ ָﬠ ָרה ְבּ ַמ ֵקּ ָדה‬ ‫יהוֹשׁ ַ ֵלאמֹר נִ ְמ ְצאוּ ֲח ֵמ ֶשׁ ת ַה ְמּ ָל ִכים‬ ֻ ִ‫ל‬ ‫אמר‬ ֶ ֹ ‫יח וַ יּ‬:‫ י י‬.‫נֶ ְח ְבּ ִאים ַבּ ְמּ ָﬠ ָרה ְבּ ַמ ֵקּ ָדה‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ גֹּלּוּ ֲא ָב נִ ים גְּ ד ֹלוֹת ֶאל ִפּי‬ ֻ ‫ְי‬ ‫וַ ָיּ ִשׂמוּ ֲא ָבנִ ים גְּ ד ֹלוֹת‬... ‫כז‬:‫ י‬...‫ַה ְמּ ָﬠ ָרה‬ ...‫ַﬠ ל ִפּי ַה ְמּ ָﬠ ָרה ַﬠד ֶﬠ ֶצם ַהיּוֹם ַהזֶּ ה‬ ‫מב וְ ֵאת ָכּל ַה ְמּלָ ִכים ָה ֵאלֶּ ה וְ ֶאת‬:‫י‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ַפּ ַﬠם ֶא ָחת ִכּי‬ ֻ ‫ַא ְר ָצ ם ָל ַכד ְי‬ ‫ֱא ֵהי יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵא ל נִ לְ ָחם‬ ‫ְיהוָ ה‬ .‫לְ ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

10:16

Meanwhile, these five kings fled and hid themselves in the cave at Makkedah. 10:17 And it was told to Joshua, “The five kings have been found, hidden in the cave at Makkedah.” 10:18 Joshua said, “Roll large stones against the mouth of the cave …” 10:27 … they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day … 10:42 Joshua took all these kings and their land at one time, because YHWH, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.

The core text is simple. The five kings, having escaped the slaughter, are hiding now in a nearby cave. Joshua is told of their whereabouts, and instead of sending his troops in after them, he orders them to cover the mouth of the cave with large stones. The narrator then informs the reader that these very stones still can be found outside the cave. 1. The cave’s location at Makkedah The account makes the point emphatically that the cave is located at Makkedah. Is this claim original to the story? One problem is that we do not know with any certainty where Makkedah is located. A number of suggestions have been offered in scholarship,17 but most are based on the fact that Makkedah comes after Azekah in the line about the chase (v. 10) and before Libnah in the section about Joshua’s city-by-city conquest (vv. 28–29). Yet if the story is heavily redacted, and Azekah and Libnah are both later additions, this method of determining Makkedah’s location would be unsuitable. The other biblical evidence is similarly inconclusive. In Josh 15:41, Makkedah appears as one of the Judean cities, implying it is far in the south. In Josh 12:16, however, it is located between Adullam and Bethel, implying that it is part of Benjaminite territory.

17

See DORSEY, ‘Location’, 185–193.

306

Zev I. Farber/Jacob L. Wright

Archaeologically speaking, the strongest connection is Tell el-Qom in southern Judah, since Persian-period Idumean ostraca with the name Makkedah have been found there.18 If this identification is correct, then it becomes unlikely that the kings are to be imagined as having escaped to southern Judah in their retreat. Instead, it may be that the original story had in view a cave near Beth-horon which was familiar to its original northern audience, but that the later Judean editors, who knew of a similar physical phenomenon near Makkedah (i.e., a cave blocked by large rocks), assumed that it was the place being described and added the toponym. 2. Trapping the kings and executing them outside the cave (vv. 18b–27a) A large section of text interrupts Joshua’s order to trap the kings in the cave and the end of the etiological tale. Most of this later material appears to have been added for three relatively transparent reasons. The first is logistical. Once the battle for Gibeon became the war against the entire south, the amount of ground the Israelite army needed to cover in pursuit of the fleeing enemies grew exponentially. Thus, Joshua’s dealing with the kings in the cave needed to be stalled (vv. 18b–21). Verse 21 itself seems to have been added to draw a parallel between the success of this campaign and the success of the exodus from Egypt, as described in the non-Priestly version of the exodus account (Exod 11:7). The second reason has to do with Deuteronomistic law. Suffocating people to death in a cave is not a legal method of execution. Instead, Joshua executes them and impales their bodies for all to see, as is required in Deut 21:22. He then removes the bodies before nightfall, as required in Deut 21:23, and throws the bodies into a cave (vv. 26–27a). The third reason is dramatic in nature. Joshua has now come full circle. If, in Josh 1, YHWH and the nation are telling him to be strong and confident, Joshua can now literally place his feet upon the necks of his adversaries, and tell the people that they should be strong and confident. They have triumphed in the past and will continue to do so going forward (vv. 22–25). 3. Early supplement – summary statement (v. 40) An early supplement clarifies that Joshua did not simply win a defensive battle but also conquered territory (v. 40). To connect this supplement to the earlier one about YHWH’s raining hailstones on the enemy during the retreat, the editors used the Wiederaufnahme technique, repeating “for YHWH, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.”

18

See PORTEN/YARDENI, ‘Makkedah’, 127–128; DOZEMAN, Joshua 1–12, 431.

II. 3.1. The Savior of Gibeon

307

4. Gilgal again (vv. 15, 43) Already before the five kings enter the cave (v. 15), and again after the entire southern campaign comes to an end (v. 43), we are told that Joshua returned to his camp in Gilgal. These notices interrupt the flow of the narrative and are likely late glosses aimed at connecting Joshua to his camp at Gilgal. As stated above, its location only makes sense with the model of Joshua as an outside conqueror. The lateness of these verses is underscored by the fact that neither appears in the LXX.19

F. Outline of the Growth of the Joshua Conquest Account Although we will not be offering a section-by-section reconstruction of the growth of the Joshua conquest account, we would like to end by suggesting what seems to have been the trajectory this growth took. 1. Conquest of Ai Once Joshua came to be thought of as a savior of the region and vanquisher of its enemies, other accounts of Joshua’s battle success began to be told and written. While it is possible that the battles of Gibeon and Beth-horon are loosely based on a historical kernel about a war in this vicinity at some point in the nation’s past, the tale of the conquest of Ai cannot be. Ai, which literally means “rubble heap”, has been identified by most scholars as et-Tell, and this site was not inhabited during the early Iron Age. The story served an etiological function. Passersby must have asked themselves about the origins of the ruins that could be seen there. As the image of Joshua as the local military hero began to grow, some began to claim that he had a hand in the city’s downfall. Despite clear signs of how mighty Ai once was, it was no match for Israel’s great conqueror, who destroyed the town and turned it into a rubble heap. A literary and perhaps popular connection between the Gibeon and Ai accounts is the “pile of rocks” that exists “to this very day” there. At its entrance is also “a pile of rocks to this very day” that was connected to the corpse of the city’s king. These details are reminiscent of the pile of rocks blocking the entrance to the cave “to this very day,” and this pile of rocks is 19

See the discussion in DE TROYER, Rewriting, 29–58. De Troyer believes the additions are as late as the 2nd century B.C.E. and were included because of the importance of Gilgal in the early Maccabean period. For an alternative view of the relationship between the LXX and MT of Joshua, defending the MT as the older text and arguing that the LXX removed verses like these to make the storyline clearer, see VAN DER MEER, Formation.

308

Zev I. Farber/Jacob L. Wright

also connected to the corpses of the five kings. This association between Joshua and these monumental heaps of stones solidified Joshua’s reputation as the one who accomplished mighty deeds throughout the country. Although the story of Ai as we have it has been greatly expanded to fit the Deuteronomistic conquest narrative, its kernel must be old and may have been added as a preamble to the Gibeon account. That Ai was connected to the Joshua narrative long before Jericho can be seen from the phrasing in Josh 10:1. ֶ‫א וַ ְי ִהי ִכ ְשׁמֹ ַ ֲאד ֹנִ י ֶצ ֶדק ֶמ ל‬:‫י‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ֶאת ָה ַﬠי‬ ֻ ‫רוּשׁ ַל ִ◌ ם ִכּי לָ ַכ ד ְי‬ ָ ‫ְי‬ ‫ימהּ כַּ ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה לִ ִיריחוֹ‬ ָ ‫וַ יַּ ֲח ִר‬ ‫וּלְ ַמלְ כָּ הּ כֵּ ן ָﬠ ָשׂה לָ ַﬠי וּלְ ַמלְ כָּ הּ וְ ִכי‬ ‫ִה ְשׁ ִלימוּ י ְֹשׁ ֵבי גִ ְבעוֹן ֶא ת יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬ ... ‫וַ יִּ ְהיוּ ְבּ ִק ְר ָבּ ם‬

10:1

When King Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem heard how Joshua had taken Ai, and had utterly destroyed it, doing to Ai and its king as he had done to Jericho and its king, and how the inhabitants of Gibeon had made peace with Israel and were among them …

The reference to Jericho interrupts the flow from Ai to Gibeon, is sequentially out of place in the storyline and is written in the style of an awkward modifying clause as opposed to a natural part of the list. It appears to have been added later, and if so, the author responsible for the first iteration of the verse would have been writing in a narrative that had nothing to say about Joshua and Jericho. 2. Peace with the Gibeonites The growth of the Joshua traditions necessarily led to new editions of the Gibeon account, which promote or at least reflect competing views of the Gibeonites. From an early point, the Gibeonites would have been considered to be members of Israel. Yet for whatever reason, they eventually developed an identity as outsiders or second class citizens.20 The shift required the scribes who were working with the early Joshua conquest narrative to explain Joshua’s actions. Their account presents the Gibeonites living in Canaan at the time Joshua conquered the land. They saved their skin through an act of surrender and contrition, and Joshua rescued them from the Amorite attack because he was living up to his side of a contractual agreement. The notice of this peace accord was originally short and simple, since only the Deuteronomist with his doctrine of ḥerem against the local inhabitants would feel the need to explain why Joshua would have made such a treaty. The pre-Deuteronomistic author would have needed to explain only why Joshua would bother doing such a thing. Here is a minimalist reconstruction of the relevant section:

20

See the suggestions offered in WRIGHT, ‘Rahab’s Valor’.

II. 3.1. The Savior of Gibeon ‫ג וְ י ְֹשׁ ֵב י גִ ְבעוֹן ָשׁ ְמעוּ ֵאת ֲא ֶשׁר‬:‫ט‬ ... ‫הוֹשׁ ַ לִ ִיריחוֹ וְ לָ ָﬠי‬ ֻ ‫ָﬠ ָשׂה ְי‬ ְ ‫ וַ יּ‬... ַ ‫הוֹשׁ‬ ֻ ‫וַ יֵּ ְלכוּ ֶא ל ְי‬ ... ‫ֹאמרוּ ֵאלָ יו‬ ‫טו וַ ַיּ ַﬠשׂ‬:‫ ט‬... ‫ ֲﬠ ָב ֶדי ֲאנָ ְחנוּ‬...‫ח‬:‫ט‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ָשׁלוֹם וַ יִּ ְכר ֹת לָ ֶהם ְבּ ִרית‬ ֻ ‫לָ ֶה ם ְי‬ ...

a ‫ ו‬:‫ט‬

309

9:3

But when the inhabitants of Gibeon heard what Joshua had done to Jericho and to Ai … 9:6 They went to Joshua and said to him … 9:8 … “We are your servants.” … 9:15 And Joshua made peace with them, and ratified a treaty with them …

When the shift in Gibeonite identity began to occur, and when this addition was placed into the Joshua story, is difficult to say, but it seems to have been after the incorporation of the Jericho tradition. 3. Jericho Another important ruin, this one on the outskirts of the Israelite settlement near the Jordan, was Jericho. The town was also uninhabited in the Iron Age, and, like Ai, was an impressive ruin. Its huge wall, partially protruding during the Iron Age, caused many to wonder about the one responsible for the monumental ruins. This presented an ideal opportunity to connect topography with Joshua’s heroic exploits. His connection to Jericho’s collapse evolved hand in hand with his ties to Moses and his role as conqueror of the entire Cisjordan.21 4. Splitting the Jordan River and Spies Once Joshua became attached to Moses and to the exodus and wilderness traditions, it became necessary to describe his entry into the Cisjordan. Such was done by devising a miraculous entry, reminiscent of the (Priestly) story of the splitting of the sea. This tale was woven around the Jericho account, which is the first major city one encountered when entering the central Cisjordan from the Transjordan. Here we can already begin to see the connection between Israel at Shittim in Num 25 and the spies sent from Shittim in Josh 2.22 5. Southern and Northern Campaigns As the image of Joshua the redoubtable conqueror solidified, his story was expanded from the kind of brief accounts that we find in the book of Judges or the tale of Saul’s campaign to rescue Jabesh-gilead in 1 Sam 11. What was once a momentous military feat was recast as a full-fledged campaign through the region, with characteristic features of imperial conquest narratives. The southern campaign as told in Josh 10 is the first example of the 21

For analyses that argue for the priority of the Jericho and Ai accounts in the formation of the book of Joshua, see SCHWIENHORST, Eroberung, and BIEBERSTEIN, Josua. 22 See the discussion in KRATZ, Composition, 283.

310

Zev I. Farber/Jacob L. Wright

phenomenon: Joshua appears at the gates of a city-state, lays siege, destroys it and moves to the next town. The narration bears striking parallels to Assyrian-style campaign accounts.23 The northern campaign in Josh 11 is a copy of ch. 10, including a pitched battle that Joshua wins followed by an offensive against the cities of the region. The reader should understand that these two campaigns gave Joshua an area that encompassed the extent of the later northern and southern kingdoms. The summary statements at the end of chs. 10 and 11 portray Joshua as the conqueror of all. 6. Conclusion From the above, we can see the trajectory that Joshua took in Israelite mnemohistory. He began as a local Ephraimite warrior, primarily remembered for his victory in the battle of Gibeon and Beth-horon. At this stage, his story resembled those of such biblical warriors as Ehud, Gideon or Jephthah. The tradition began to expand as storytellers and scribes identified various heaps of stones in the region with his victories. The growth of this tradition poised Joshua’s feats to be the counterpart to Moses in the exodus-conquest account. Moses is the one who brings Israel out from Egypt, while Joshua is the one who brings them into the Promised Land. As the Hexateuch grew into the Enneateuch, Joshua became a transitional figure between the great Moses and the leaders who served the nation before the emergence of the monarchy. All these non-monarchic figures shift the focus in the narrative from kings to the non-monarchic figures who accompanied the nation in its most formative years. Just as Caleb is a non-monarchic counterpoise to the Judean David in Judah, Joshua is a non-monarchic counterpoise to the Benjaminite-Ephraimite Saul.24

23

See YOUNGER, Conquest Accounts, 237. For a discussion of the Caleb-David and Joshua-Saul connections, see WRIGHT, David, King of Israel, and FARBER , Images of Joshua. 24

The Shiloh Ritual in Joshua 18 as Origin of the Territorial Division by Lot Daniel E. Fleming Embedded in the later part of the long account for territorial division in Josh 13–19 we encounter a surprise: the first reference to the sacred site of Shiloh in biblical narrative, with the only explicit ritual for apportionment of land by lot in a scheme that treats every tribal share as a “lot” (‫)גורל‬. Neither the command to Joshua in 13:1–7 to divide the land by patrimonial inheritance (‫ )נחלה‬nor the execution of territorial division by Eleazar the priest, Joshua and the tribal leaders in 14:1–5 indicates a location or describes the performance of a rite for drawing lots.1 Only in 14:6 are we told that “the Judahites approached Joshua at Gilgal” so that Caleb is given Hebron as an inheritance (‫)נחלה‬, without reference to tribes or allotment (‫)גורל‬.2 In Josh 18:1–10, the Israelites assemble at Shiloh (v. 1), where Joshua launches an unprecedented procedure for the remaining seven tribes (v. 2): men are sent out to survey and record the land (vv. 3–8), so that upon their return, using the text defining the seven shares, “Joshua cast lots for them at Shiloh in the presence of Yahweh” (vv. 9–10). An account of allotments for the last seven tribes then follows in 18:11–19:51, yielding a full count of twelve, if we double-count Manasseh with its partial or “half-tribe” in the addition of 2½ + 9½ as east plus west according to 13:7 and 14:2. As it stands, the account of the land survey and lot-casting at Shiloh is hedged with contextual signals that locate the event in the larger narrative of divine grant and completed conquest, especially as manifest in Numbers and Deuteronomy, and that explain its position in Josh 13–19. These include the Tent of Meeting (v. 1; cf. Num 27:2; 31:54; Deut 31:14); the seven tribes 1 With the definition of ‫ נחלה‬as “patrimonial inheritance” I follow the recent treatment of the early second-millennium Syrian Semitic term naḫiltum from Alalaḫ and Mari by LAUINGER, Following, 157–161, evidently a longstanding technical term. 2 This non-tribal narrative makes reference to Caleb’s participation in the spying mission from Kadesh-barnea that is recounted in Num 13–14 (see 13:26 for Kadesh), whatever may be the alternative versions of how Calebite land related to that episode (cf. CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 87–88). The Caleb reference in Josh 14 is unnecessary for the count of twelve tribes and serves to connect the allotment composition with that outside narrative. The Gilgal location may simply be drawn from Joshua’s last location in Josh 10:43 (missing in LXX).

312

Daniel E. Fleming

(‫ )שבטים‬still left (v. 2); the delay to “possess” the land given by Yahweh as “god of your fathers” (v. 3; cf. Josh 1:11);3 Judah and Joseph in south and north (v. 6; cf. Josh 15–17; 18:11 for Benjamin); Levi’s lack of land (v. 7; cf. Deut 18:1–2); and the inheritance (‫ )נחלה‬for Gad, Reuben and the half-tribe of Manasseh by Moses (v. 7; cf. Num 32:33; 34:14). In a way, the Shiloh ritual interrupts a flow of territorial descriptions that could proceed in 18:11 without reference to that procedure, except that now each of the assignments is defined in clear sequence as a “lot” (‫)גורל‬, numbering the “second” through “seventh” (19:1, 10, 17, 24, 32, 40). Our existing account renders the Shiloh rite essential for its framing count, though it stays with the Priestly term for “tribe” (‫ )מטה‬where the Shiloh text anticipates the seven as ‫שבטים‬.4 Yet the Shiloh narrative presents a collection of disparate elements that fit awkwardly with the territorial descriptions in which it is embedded. Even the connecting content is mismatched with the allotment as a whole. While the Tent of Meeting (‫ )אהל מועד‬in 18:1 evokes the ubiquitous Priestly shrine of Exod 25–40, Leviticus and Numbers, this is its first appearance in Joshua, and it only reappears to close out the Shiloh allotment in 19:51. In that concluding verse, Eleazar the priest once again joins Joshua and the tribal leaders who introduced the whole territorial division in 14:1 and reappear with Zelophehad’s daughters in 17:4, but the priest plays no part in the Shiloh text itself. And as observed above, the tribes are not named by the term standard throughout the allotment for both eastern and western groups. For all its service to anticipate seven “lots” in 18:11–19:51, the placement of the Shiloh ritual seems to have provoked later efforts to smooth what were perceived as narrative rough edges. The source of these rough edges is the ritual procedure at the center of Josh 18:1–10, which displays no sign of inspiration from other narrative in Genesis through Kings. Shiloh itself appears here for the first time in the biblical sequence, missing even from the conquest text of Joshua 1–12.5 It is remembered in the Bible for a sanctuary to Yahweh that went out of use be3

WEINFELD, Deuteronomy, 342, lists these two Joshua texts as “Dtr” renditions of a common theme in Deuteronomy (4:1; 6:18; 7:1; etc.). CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 96, considers this use of the root ‫ יר״שׁ‬to be either deuteronomistic or post-priestly. 4 The divine command in 13:7 likewise uses ‫שבט‬, but the recollection of Moses’ grant to the three eastern groups describes Reuben and Gad by ‫( מטה‬13:15, 24) and Manasseh as “half-tribe” with both nouns (v. 29). See CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 25, for a full list of references to the tribe as ‫שבט‬, confined to chs. 13; 18:1–7; and 21. In general, the territorial division before the final set of seven also prefers ‫מטה‬: Judah (15:1, 20, 21); Ephraim (16:8); and Manasseh (17:1, not as “half-tribe”). 5 Jacob’s blessing on Judah in Gen 49:10 stands outside this narrative and most likely reflects a corrupted text. In any case, it does not appear that the word would make sense as a place, to serve as subject of the statement, “until Shiloh comes.” The text has inspired endless comment.

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

313

fore Israel’s sustained monarchy (cf. Ps 78:60), leaving it only a cluster of occurrences, none of which aligns with this one. The procedure for the assignment of land by lot is detailed and otherwise unique in the Bible: a formal survey results in a document that lists seven shares by constituent towns (v. 9), and the assignment of these is determined by a ritual performed not by a priest but by the leader Joshua in the very presence of Yahweh at Shiloh (v. 10a). Division into seven evokes a powerful number in no way related to the tribal count of twelve that frames Josh 13–19 as a whole. In contrast to the efforts to contextualize the Shiloh procedure, which are concentrated in vv. 1–7, its execution in vv. 8–10 lacks explicit reference to larger narrative and leaves a scene defined by unique or unusual biblical features that suggest some kind of independent scribal origin. In what follows I propose a new explanation for the relationship between the Shiloh procedure and its surrounding narrative, beginning with the unique character of the procedure itself. It is clear that 18:1–10 now provides a framework for the land descriptions for seven tribes in 18:11–19:51, as part of a general allotment for all Israel, but when read on its own terms with focus on 18:8–10 the survey and casting of lots at Shiloh make no mention of tribes and leave interpretation of the seven shares a matter for investigation. Rather than consider the Shiloh ceremony to have been defined to suit the needs of tribal division, its peculiarity is explained better as having once served a different and more limited geographical concern that appears to be articulated in the rite’s early attachment to the House of Joseph in the two preceding verses (17:17–18). From this Joseph-oriented starting point, the Shiloh rite became a key component in construction of a systematic tribal division, providing the foundation for an extended composition for apportionment of all Israelite land by “lot” (‫)גורל‬. The creation of a complete twelve-tribe scheme for land apportionment most likely reflects the experience of imperial rule, perhaps long after the fall of Judah’s kingdom, so that the Judah priority in the western distribution suggests composition from materials available in Jerusalem of the Second Temple.6

A. The Shiloh Rite without Tribes (17:17–18; 18:8–10a) Shiloh appears in four distinct narratives, the other three of which are set in a time just before Saul becomes king of Israel. At its core, each story is independent of the others and none derives from another Shiloh text. Their current

6

DE VOS, ‘Holy Land’, 61, observes that the entire section belongs to a late phase of literary history. Neither KRATZ, Composition, 198, nor RÖMER, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 82, associates the territory allotment with the primary DtrH.

314

Daniel E. Fleming

proximity is explained by the similar content and setting that led to secondary combination. Judges 21 provides a follow-up to the war between Israel and Benjamin in ch. 20, strange for its assumption that the two parties could fight as peers. Israel defeats Benjamin only by the ruse of ambush, just as at Ai in Josh 8, and they attempt a wholesale slaughter of the enemy, pursued like the sacred ban in town-by-town annihilation (Judg 20:48). Six hundred men from Benjamin escape to the Rock of Rimmon (v. 47). After the war, Israel is reconciled to Benjamin and we are presented with two solutions to their need to remarry and start new families, first by extracting 400 girls from Jabeshgilead (21:1–13) and then by snatching girls, not counted, from a vintage festival at Shiloh (vv. 14–24). Sara Milstein argues that the Shiloh solution predates the Jabesh-gilead scheme and served to bridge the Benjamin war and the Shiloh-based birth narrative of 1 Sam 1, which originally set up Saul as nazir-like warrior.7 Both texts begin with an annual festival for Yahweh (Judg 21:19; 1 Sam 1:3), both of which may celebrate the grape harvest, since the Shiloh priest explains Hannah’s behavior by too much drink (1 Sam 1:12). The rite in Judg 21 imagines “daughters of Shiloh” who dance in the vineyards without the supervision of fathers and brothers so that they can be seized by the men of Benjamin and then allowed to marry without family obligation (vv. 21–22). The festival involves no priest and no temple, tent or ark. No named individual plays a role. Although 1 Sam 1 likewise begins with an annual rite for Yahweh at Shiloh, this text assumes an entirely different context. Shiloh has a proper “temple” (‫ )היכל‬with Eli its sole priest seated formally at its entrance (v. 9).8 The festival itself involves neither vineyards nor dancing girls and it is rather a family affair that offers Hannah access to Yahweh through prayer at the temple, where Eli can see her from its entrance. Hannah’s husband Elkanah travels some distance for the annual event, so that Shiloh is a regional sanctuary in a way not envisioned for the Judg 21 rite. In narrative terms, the text is constructed entirely around named individuals, male and female, from Elkanah and his wives to Eli the priest, culminating in the boy who is only named in 1 Sam 1:20, with word-play that suggests an original Saul. 1 Samuel 4 begins a tale of how Shiloh’s sacred ark was lost in battle to the Philistines, who finally return it when it proves more trouble than gain. Where 1 Sam 1 recalls Eli as the priest of Shiloh, without concern for a larger 7 MILSTEIN, Master Scribe, 182–185. The idea goes back to HYLANDER, Samuel-SaulKomplex; cf. DUS, ‘Geburtslegende’. For bibliography and discussion, see MILSTEIN, Master Scribe, 185–189. 8 The narrative plays out with Eli alone representing the temple, so that the reference to Hophni and Phinehas as his sons in 1:3 must reflect an effort to create a coherent ShilohEli account now gathered in 1 Sam 1–4. The sons have a primary role with the loss of the ark in ch. 4.

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

315

institution, ch. 4 explains the demise of an Eli family priesthood, wiped out in one day by the loss of his sons and his own death at the news. Perhaps oddly, the text has no interest in the fate of Shiloh itself, which suffers no Philistine assault. In this text Shiloh represents the sacred center for all Israel going to battle, as the residence of the ark as war emblem, identified with the very presence of the god. It is essential to the account of Eli’s death that he is on a chair (4:13, 18), as in 1:9, but there is no temple, house or tent. When combined with David’s procession in 2 Sam 6, the ark links Shiloh to Jerusalem and its founding king, but this combination is achieved by the bridge in 1 Sam 6:19–7:1, which brings the ark to Kiriath-jearim, and the Philistine episode by itself points neither to Jerusalem nor to David.9 In the company of these three texts, Shiloh in Josh 18:1–10 stands entirely apart, lacking all the features that accompany those narratives: festival, temple, priests and ark. Joshua himself performs the ritual of “casting lots” in the presence of Yahweh (v. 10). The Tent of Meeting introduced in v. 1 is distanced from any aspect of the procedure itself. For all that Joshua, Judges and 1 Samuel belong to the same narrative sequence in what has been called a Deuteronomistic History, the details of the Shiloh shrine exhibit no deuteronomistic character and appear textually independent from the other Shiloh stories. Beyond Shiloh itself, key details of the procedure seem equally independent. Survey of land for allotment into seven shares (‫ )חלק‬ignores any consideration of tribes and uses the generic category for division that would pertain to any property including inheritance.10 The number seven has a force of its own and is no happenstance subtraction from a total of twelve (see further, below).11 There is a logic to the sequence of tribes who receive portions through Josh 13–19, with the eastern peoples presented first as arranged by Moses, followed by Judah and the Joseph peoples, delineated as Ephraim and Manasseh, key occupants of the Central Highlands. The rest of the tribes are 9 This observation comes from Jaime Myers (personal communication), whose work on the ark narrative is still unpublished, and I avoid exploration of the text in deference to her future research. In Myers’ argument, the two sons are secondary to the basic leadership of Eli in the story, which ends with the ark in Beth Shemesh. 10 This is not simply late biblical language to be attributed to redaction. In choosing to flee with Jacob, Rachel and Leah ask whether they have received “share and inheritance” (‫ )חלק ונחלה‬from their father’s house (Gen 31:14), reflecting the same application to the division of family property preserved in Official Aramaic (HOFTIJZER/JONGELING, Dictionary, 378–379). See VITA, ‘Patriarchal Narratives’, for the difficult legal language in Gen 31:14–16 in light of Late Bronze Age Syrian inheritance law, which indicates persistent usage and practice. “Eating the silver” in v. 15 refers to spending funds that were supposed to be reserved for an unmarried woman’s dowry. 11 The rarity of the number seven as a count of constituent groups indicates its priority to the eventual standard as twelve tribes rather than demonstrating its later addition (against DE VOS, ‘Holy Land’, 69–70).

316

Daniel E. Fleming

assembled without such evident sense in the seven of 18:11–19:51: Benjamin, Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali and Dan. The last five may be grouped by location north of the Jezreel Valley, and Simeon is an outlier by its thin attestation in biblical geography, but Benjamin is particularly out of place in the cast of seven stragglers, because it is central to the geography of the Bible, part of the highlands that were home to all the remembered royal capitals of Israel and Judah. The number seven has a logic of its own in the Shiloh procedure. Further, the survey of land with expectation of a written document has no biblical point of reference from which it would have been drawn. Even as the number seven suggests an idealized scheme, whether literary or ritual, the procedure in itself is plausible in relation to uses of writing attested in Mesopotamian cuneiform, as will be discussed below. Without the burden of the twelve tribes and an ambition to lay out a map of Israelite territory that never existed in history, the Shiloh ritual of casting lots warrants reading on its own terms, which can be defined by the elements just elaborated with attention to how they could have stood unencumbered by the overlay of anticipatory framing concentrated in vv. 1–7. The complete narrative of 18:1–10 offers repeating orders from Joshua, first in vv. 3–7 with the procedure itself outlined in 4–5a and 6, then more concisely in v. 8.12 This redundancy by itself indicates revision, and the short second version provides the natural preparation for execution of the procedure in vv. 9–10. In v. 10, Joshua carries out the rite of lot-casting in the opening words, “Joshua cast lots for them at Shiloh in the presence of Yahweh,” so that the rest is superfluous as well as marked by language from the tribal scheme of chs. 13–19. “There Joshua apportioned the land to the Israelites according to their divisions (‫)כמחלקתם‬,” a phrase found also in 11:23 and 12:7 but not in the tribal listings.13 My purpose here is to isolate Josh 18:8–10a from the larger text, both before and after, and we will return to the surrounding material after attention to the lot-casting episode on its own. The sequence in vv. 8–10a includes a substantial repetition between vv. 8 and 9, with the first version offered as the command (v. 8) that is executed in the second (v. 9). It is difficult to determine whether the Shiloh rite was cited 12

Many interpreters include Joshua’s command to survey the land in the first part of v. 8 and exclude the plan to cast lots at Shiloh (e.g., CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 99; SEEBASS, ‘Versuch’, 379). 13 See CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 28; cf. RÖSEL, Von Josua bis Jojachin, 64 n. 146. Because vv. 8–10a depict the execution of Joshua’s command, some part of them is regularly incorporated into reconstructions of an original narrative, but interpreters remove key individual elements out of disinclination to see the entire package of land survey and lotcasting before Yahweh at Shiloh as a coherent ancient whole. For example, WÜST, Untersuchungen, and SEEBASS, ‘Versuch’, remove Shiloh; DE VOS, ‘Holy Land’, excludes the lot and the number seven, and VAN DER MEER, ‘Clustering’, the lot and Yahweh. Verse 10b is missing from the Greek (CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 18–19).

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

317

with both elements from the start, but the reference to “the men” at the start of v. 8 picks up on the special arrangement for “three men per tribe” in v. 4 that explains those involved by subtracting seven tribes from twelve with the whole allotment in view. With repetition of ‫וילכו‬, “and they went,” in vv. 8 and 9, it is possible that the opening of v. 8 was added to suit the arrangement of three men (“and the men arose and went,” ‫)ויקמו האנשים וילכו‬, and the Shiloh procedure began with Joshua’s instruction (“and Joshua commanded those who went to record the land,” ‫)ויצו יהושע את ההלכים לכתב את הארץ‬. I will proceed with this definition of the core narrative, recognizing the alternative. Verse 9 appears to have started simply with “and they went” (‫)וילכו‬, needing no mention of “the men” (MT), who are not named in the Greek text, so that the subject could be “those who went” from Joshua’s command in v. 8. The procedure is recounted in detail when it is carried out in v. 9: they traverse (‫ )עבר‬the land, “record (‫ )כתב‬it on a scroll” by towns into seven shares (‫ )חלק‬and come back to Joshua.14 Based on this preparation, Joshua performs the lot ritual in the first part of v. 10. Introduced by 18:1–7, the Shiloh procedure pertains to all Israel conceived as twelve tribes, with focus on the seven remaining who have not yet received territorial assignments. On its own terms, however, the text of 18:8–10, even with likely additions, has no concern for tribes, and it identifies neither “the land” nor the people with a stake in the seven shares of it. “Those who go to record” in v. 8 are identified by the responsibility as such, and we do not know whom they represent. An answer may be found in the text that precedes immediately the elaborate introduction to Shiloh now occupying 18:1–7. In 17:17–18, Joshua proposes a special consideration for the House of Joseph (‫)בית יוסף‬, an unusual designation not otherwise identified with Ephraim and Manasseh, who might sometimes be equated with “the sons of Joseph” (‫בני‬ ‫)יוסף‬:15 Joshua said to the House of Joseph (‫)בית יוסף‬, [to Ephraim and to Manasseh],16 (saying) “You are a large people (‫)עם רב‬, having great strength. You should not have an undivided (i.e., ‘single,’ ‫ )אחד‬allotment. Josh 17:17

14 The MT for v. 9 has them return to Joshua “at the Shiloh camp,” a unique and unexpected characterization of the sacred site. No “camp” is mentioned through chs. 13–19, and the word seems to be picked up by analogy to Gilgal in a version of the text generated with the full book of Joshua (cf. “the camp at Gilgal” in 10:6, 1 and 43). The entire Shiloh reference is absent from the Greek and appears to be a secondary gloss (VAN DER MEER, ‘Clustering’, 92). 15 This is the observation of Lauren Monroe, as part of a larger project provisionally titled, “Joseph the Hebrew and the Genesis of Ancient Israel.” 16 Ephraim and Manasseh are lacking in the Greek and appear in any case to be a gloss on the House of Joseph, so that the need for a double portion is interpreted by the two tribes, though the text in itself neither refers to tribes nor makes any claim for extra land except by the large size of the single people.

318

Daniel E. Fleming

18

Indeed you shall have highland (‫;)הר‬17 for it is woodland, but you can clear it so that its (very) limits will be yours. So you shall dispossess (‫ יר״שׁ‬hif.) the Canaanite, though he has chariotry of iron and though he is strong.”18

If we include Joshua’s instruction to survey the land in the core account of the Shiloh procedure, this would pick up directly from Joshua’s declaration in 17:17–18: “those who go to record the land” would specify a team from the House of Joseph.19 Joshua is already in charge according to 17:17, and without 18:1–7 between them, his statement that the House of Joseph needs more than a “single allotment” (‫ )גורל אחד‬would lead directly to Joshua’s command that a group go record the land (18:8). We must somehow understand as a unit the combination of Joseph’s single “lot” and the rite for “casting” (throwing down, ‫“ )של״ך‬a lot” (singular ‫ )גורל‬to yield seven “shares” (‫ )חלק‬without reference to tribes in either text. In general, we only hear of casting plural “lots” (‫ )גורלות‬in nine biblical texts, eight of these clustered in Nehemiah and 1 Chronicles, along with the identification of Jonah as cause of the storm.20 These eight all use the hif. of the verb ‫“( נפ״ל‬to cause to fall”) for the casting of lots, in contrast to the “throwing” of Josh 18:8 and 10. One text uses the phrase “one lot” (‫)גורל אחד‬, but the idiom and context may not illuminate Josh 17:17–18. In the atonement ritual of Lev 16, Aaron is to place (‫נת״ן‬ “give”) plural “lots” on two goats, “one lot for Yahweh and one lot for Azazel” (v. 8). There is no ceremony of selection, and each ‫ גורל‬is rather a fixed mark, identifying the goat with a different divine figure. Joshua 17:17–18 appears instead to address what the House of Joseph takes as its individual territorial allotment in the region, without reference to the allotments of other peoples. Read in solitary combination, 17:17–18 and 18:8–10a present a conquest without exodus or Egypt, an account of how the House of Joseph excluded the Canaanites from the highlands, limiting them 17 The “mountain” or highland is not given a definite article to specify a particular space. 18 The text affirms the House of Joseph’s ability to take possession of Canaanite territory in spite of their military strength, so that we are dealing with an affirmation rather than an excuse. Joshua 17:15–16 then recast the statement about Canaanite strength not as confident promise but as a challenge to the hesitant, adding geographical detail: Perizzites and Rephaim join the Canaanites, who live in the valleys of Beth-shean and Jezreel; and the highland refers specifically to Ephraim, not named with the House of Joseph in vv. 17– 18. In its excuse for what Judah failed to seize, Judg 1:19 likewise transforms confidence into doubt, success into failure. 19 One motive for adding detail in 18:1–7 was to clarify who was intended by Joshua’s later command in v. 8, anticipating that instruction by naming “three men per tribe” in v. 4. 20 See Neh 10:35, responsibility for offerings by clans; 11:1 residence in Jerusalem as one of ten households; 1 Chr 24:31, for tasks to the sons of Aaron; 25:8, assigning turns to singers; and 26:13, 14, assigning gates to guards; plus Jon 1:7.

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

319

to the low country (cf. Deut 1:7). As leader of an unnamed entity, whether the House of Joseph or something distinct from it, Joshua proposes that Joseph extend this allotment by pushing the Canaanites out of wooded parts of its highland territory. The “one lot” is never doubled to make “two,” as if the ‫ גורל‬of v. 17 belonged to some numbered set that would be “cast” in the apportionment of land as finally envisioned for the twelve tribes in Josh 13–19 as a whole. Extended by the procedure based at Shiloh, the procedure set in motion by Joshua would then allow the House of Joseph to apportion this territory into seven “shares” based on written definition and assigned by a ceremony involving a single “lot” (18:8–10a). With this reconstruction I limit the original scope of the independent lotcasting narrative to 17:17–18, omitting the previous vv. 14–16 that now introduce and develop the idea that Joseph is a “large people” (‫)עם רב‬. Whereas Joshua’s proposal to extend the “single allotment” to the wooded part of the highland is directed at the House of Joseph, a request is made in v. 14 by “the sons of Joseph,” a category more adaptable to equation with Ephraim and Manasseh in an ancestor-based scheme.21 In what appears to be an added introduction, the “single allotment” of v. 17 is framed as an “inheritance” (‫ )נחלה‬and qualified as a “single (measured) portion” (‫)חבל‬, a term linked in the larger tribal division to Manasseh in 17:5 and to Simeon in 19:9. While the exact early form of the text must remain elusive, Josh 17:17–18 and 18:8– 10a describe the division of land into seven shares with reference to allotment (‫ )גורל‬that has no reference to tribes. The rite at Shiloh appears to follow directly upon and be linked to Joshua’s arrangement for the House of Joseph, which then provides the scribal actors and general constituency for the lotcasting event. It does not seem possible to penetrate the backgrounds to the House of Joseph arrangement and the Shiloh ritual with confidence. The first is focused on Joseph as a people and has the Canaanites in view as a population to displace from forested highlands (‫ ;)הר‬the second instructs “those who go” to survey “the land” (‫ )הארץ‬without recapitulating the details from 17:17–18. They share and are bound by dialogue with Joshua, who issues instructions in both texts, and the essential idea of land as “allotment” (‫)גורל‬. Neither the two separate elements nor their combination yield a text of substantial length, and it may be best not to envision such narrative segments as having been copied on their own as freestanding compositions. Rather, they may make better sense as citations from documents or oral narrative otherwise lost to us.

21 CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 91–92, observes the various ways in which 17:14–18 does not share the priestly terminology of the larger twelve-tribe narrative and considers it difficult to establish its origin. The conquest by one group rather than Israel as a whole places it earlier than the exilic redaction of the foundational DtrG.

320

Daniel E. Fleming

B. The Shiloh Procedure against Historical Practice The division and description of tribal territories in Josh 13–19 are not defined consistently by the term “lot” (‫)גורל‬, which turns up eventually in the ritual at Shiloh. Scattered through these chapters we find what is assigned to individual tribes instead called a “territory” (‫)גבול‬, a terminology that is confused somewhat by the repeated use of the term with traceable “boundaries.” It is possible that the sporadic appearance of ‫ גבול‬as “territory” reflects prior use in such lists before the application of their contents to a conquest narrative, though the extant text permits no decisive isolation of source material with this “territory.” The ‫ גבול‬can be associated with individual tribes: Gad (13:25); Manasseh as a “half-tribe” in the east (13:30); Manasseh as part of Joseph in the west (17:7–8); and following the definition by “lot”, Issachar (19:18), Asher (v. 25), Naphtali (v. 33) and Dan (vv. 41, 47).22 The idea that each tribe takes land as a literal “allotment” (‫ )גורל‬therefore belongs specifically to the twelve-tribe composition that fills Josh 13–19, and the only narrative use of the term is found in the Shiloh combination of 17:17–18 and 18:8– 10a. This is what suggests that the narrative inspired the framing use in the scheme of twelve tribes.23 If the narrative center of the Shiloh procedure offers the starting point for understanding the “lots” of Israel’s distribution of territorial rights after arrival in the land, then the narrated procedure should make sense in terms of ancient practices.24 The narrative is not composed by convenience to suit an 22

CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 40–41, identifies a slightly larger set of texts as defined by application to region rather than boundaries, and he explains ‫ גבול‬as derived from sources, with ‫ גורל‬from the twelve-tribe (for him Ps) composition, as opposed to treating ‫ גבול‬as deuteronomistic. 23 Regardless of the relationship between the recollection of Moses’ grant to Reuben, Gad and the “half-tribe” of Manasseh in the Joshua lists (13:9, 29; cf. 14:2, 3) and the Numbers account of the arrangement (32:55 and 34:13–15), the entire idea of distribution by lot would derive from Joshua and the Shiloh rite. CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 50–51, regards the whole Numbers account of eastern land as Ps, the same hand as the full list of Josh 13–19 (cf. VAN DER MEER, Formation, 141–142). It seems to me that any reference to Reuben, Gad and a Manasseh half-tribe receiving “allotments” in the east must have been inserted into Numbers in order to anticipate the Joshua territorial allotment, whether by the same hand or later and dependent on Joshua. Notice that in Josh 13, each tribe has a ‫גורל‬, which are then secondarily described in terms of boundaries or territories (‫גבול‬, 13:16, 25, 30). CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 58–60, considers the foundational Priestly narrative (Pg) to lack any instruction for division of land, which only belongs to his Priestly supplement (Ps). KNAUF, Data and Debates, 693, understands Num 32 to depend on the idea of allotment from Josh 14–19. DE VOS, ‘Holy Land’, 65, regards the entire idea of land distributed by lot to be secondary to both Josh 13–19 and to Num 26:55–66 (for the Levites). 24 Without commitment to any account of how Josh 18:1–10 took its place in the allotment narrative of chs. 13–19, this is the express goal of KITZ, ‘Undivided Inheritance’,

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

321

imagined system of twelve tribal “lots”. Yet this is likewise no reproduction of regular ritual practice known to any biblical author. Shiloh stands only for defunct Israelite institutions, and in this case, the procedure is portrayed as a one-time event. We should therefore expect a ritual action constructed from plausible practice without matching the specific experience of any biblical writer or audience. The ingredients of such plausible practice would include: – assignment of land or other property as shares by lot; – survey of land with written description; – performance of lot-casting or lot-drawing in the presence of a god at a sacred site.

All three elements of the Shiloh story find expression in cuneiform evidence from Mesopotamia and Syria. While writing and ritual practice from this realm cannot be treated as the direct measure of practice with alphabetic writing in the southern Levant, its durable clay material and near-ubiquitous social presence allow it to preserve persistent and widespread Near Eastern patterns. Division of property by lot, in particular, appears to have been practiced in the region for millennia, as demonstrated by the Byzantine and early Islamic evidence that provoked the sweeping survey by Crone and Silverstein.25 In Babylonia through the second and first millennia B.C.E., the standard way to distribute an inheritance was to divide the property into parcels and then to assign them to the heirs by lot.26 The Bible seems to assume the same with particular attention to Mesopotamian legal documentation and the phenomenon of “undivided inheritance.” 25 CRONE/SILVERSTEIN, ‘Lot-Casting’. Their point of departure is newly discovered 6thcentury CE papyri from Petra, which record the division of inheritance as three equal shares assigned by lot, concluding “the proceedings by swearing by the Trinity and the Emperor’s health” (pp. 423–424). They observe that lot-casting was a standard way to divide land or other property in the Near East, in contrast to Roman or Common law, where it only served as a “last resort or special solution” (430–431). I thank Robert Hoyland for bringing this article to my attention. As a whole, Crone and Silverstein sweep together legal and literary evidence of very different sorts, including biblical references that do not advance a precisely drawn argument for the actual practice of casting lots. 26 WESTBROOK, ‘Character’, 57–58, characterizes the entire Near Eastern inheritance custom in what appear to be Babylonian terms: “The standard method was to divide the estate into parcels and cast lots for them. In principle, the heirs divided the estate into equal shares. Many systems, however, awarded the first-born son an extra share. There were different ways of computing the extra share, according to local custom. The first-born might also have first choice of his extra share, before the regular shares were drawn by lot (e.g., MAL B 1).” On Old Babylonian practice, WESTBROOK, ‘Old Babylonian Period’, 395–396, observes, “The heirs automatically became joint owners to the whole estate, which they would then proceed to divide. Division was carried out by casting lots,” with note that the term for “lot” (isqum) “could be used to indicate the inheritance share itself (MDP 24 339)” (n. 104). In contrast to Westbrook’s summary account, LAFONT, ‘Middle

322

Daniel E. Fleming

general practice when Yahweh assigns Edom to the wild beasts by lot in Isa 34:17.27 In Josh 17:17–18, the grant to the House of Joseph demands taking possession of land by the verb ‫יר״ש‬, defined first of all by inheritance. Combined with the Shiloh ritual for assignment by lot, the story assumes a conceptual framework of heritable property that does not depend on the more specific need for apportionment. The same conception is expressed in use of ‫“( נחלה‬patrimonial inheritance”) to describe the land right attributed both to Israel as a whole in the conquest and to each tribe in Josh 13–19.28 As indicated by the more ancient West Semitic term naḫiltum known from early second-millennium Alalaḫ and Mari, the land as ‫ נחלה‬is regarded as heritable property regardless of possible division.29 Akkadian isqu(m), like Hebrew ‫גורל‬, can indicate both the physical “lot” used in a selection and the resulting “share.”30 Letters from early secondmillennium Mari offer glimpses of application to the larger political landscape. One missive from king Zimri-Lim of Mari to two lesser rulers in upper Assyrian Period’, 542–543, comments of Middle Assyrian law, “Indivision seems to have been the most usual state of affairs.” Division of property among all but the oldest brother was an option in certain circumstances. Neo-Babylonian inheritance practice combines elements of both the Old Babylonian and Middle Assyrian patterns. “The basic system from previous periods prevailed, in which on the death of the paterfamilias, his sons divided his estate in equal shares, with the eldest son taking a double portion as his preferential share” (OELSNER et al., ‘Neo-Babylonian Period’, 938). As with earlier Assyrian practice, there was a tendency to leave property undivided, though this could give way to eventual division, made more complicated by the delay. “Where the shares were equal, division could be carried out by lot” (ibid., 939). 27 “It is he who designated them lot, and his hand divided it to them by measure,” ‫והוא‬ ‫הפיל להם גורל וידו חלקתה להם בקו‬. See also Mic 2:5, in more obscure context. 28 CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 27, observes that Deuteronomy and the basic deuteronomistic writing in Joshua share use of ‫ נחלה‬for the whole land belonging to all Israel (Deut 12:9; 15:4; 19:10 etc.; Josh 11:23; 13:6–7), only applied to individual groups in the Joshua scheme of tribes: 13:23 (Reuben); 28 (Gad); 14:13, 14 (Caleb); 16:8 (Ephraim); 9 (Manasseh); 18:7 (Levi), 20, 28 (Benjamin); 19:8 (Simeon), 16 (Zebulun), 23 (Issachar), 31 (Asher), 39 (Naphtali), 48 (Dan). 29 “A distinction between irrevocable inheritance and revocable property similar to that undergirding the composition of AlT 1 [10.01] and 456 [10.02] also existed at Mari, where the former category is termed niḫlatum and the latter bašĭtum, as Durand has explained” (LAUINGER, Following, 156), then citing DURAND, documents épistolaires, 184, for his analysis of the matching Mari terminology. Lauinger (157–161) goes on to demonstrate the legal application of the Alalaḫ term as “inheritance” in two other Alalaḫ texts (AlT 7 and 11). The Alalaḫ texts involve the sale of whole towns as real estate, one part of a political strategy in the large Syrian kingdom of Yamḫad (Aleppo). 30 CAD s.v. isqu 1, “lot (as a device to determine a selection)”; 2, “share (a portion of land, property or booty, income from a secular or temple office, assigned by lot).” While reference to land occurs across the second millennium through the mid-first-millennium empire (2a), reference to the “lot” as object is concentrated in Old Babylonian (early second-millennium) material (1a).

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

323

Mesopotamia begins: “The whole land has returned to its allotments (isqum) and every (king) has taken up (lit. ‘entered’) the throne of his father’s house.”31 It is possible that the first statement should begin, “Every land has returned…,” to match the rulers implied by the second. Upper Mesopotamia was divided into many relatively small kingdoms (mātum, “land”), each of which in this vision would be considered the inherited share or “lot” of a traditional monarch. The reality varied wildly, with some realms more stable than others.32 The idea that each Mesopotamian king could understand his rule as an allotment may be cast onto a grander scale in a broken section of a long letter from the powerful ruler of Eshnunna to negotiate a treaty with Zimri-Lim: Here, you keep writing to me about restoring your allotment (isqum) [to its place]. And you keep restoring (or “wanting to restore”?) [to] their cities six kings [who] were removed long ago from their allotments (isqum) … Now I have brought you a great th[rone…], a royal allotment (isqum). Be seated on that throne!33

This image of an entire political expanse divided among rulers as family is at home in the diplomatic parlance of the period, when letters between kings were calibrated by designation as “brothers” if peers or as “father” and “son” if one had higher standing.34 The Shiloh procedure of Josh 18 envisions the allotment of land to bodies of people without reference to rulers, a framework consistent with other biblical traditions for time before the sustained kingdoms of Israel and Judah.35 A second feature of the Shiloh narrative that permits comparison from cuneiform evidence is the survey of land with written records. In the longstanding practice of documenting the sale of real property, it was standard to measure and record the dimensions and location of land by procedures that 31

ARM XXVIII 148:5–7, 5 ma-a-tum ka-lu-ša a-na is-qí-ša 6 i-tu-ur ù ka-lu-šu a-na GU.ZA 7 É a-bi-šu i-ru-ub. 32 See the introductions for each kingdom in the Mari correspondence between ZimriLim and other kings (KUPPER, Lettres royales). 33 A.1289+: iii 6–9, 28–29, 6 an-ni-i-a-am aš-šum is-qí-ka [a-na aš-ri-šu] 7 tu-ur-ri-im ta-a[š-ta-n]a-ap-pa-ra-am 8 ù 6 LUGALme[ š ša i]š-tu u4–mi ma-du-tim i-na is-qí-šu-nu 9 ˹issu˺-[ku a-na] a-li-šu-nu ta-at-ta-na-ar-˹ru˺ … 28 a-nu-um-ma gišG[U.ZA x x x x x] i-si-iq LUGAL-tim 29 ra-bi-am uš-ta-bi-l[a-kum i-na giš]GU.ZA ša-a-ti ši-ib, in CHARPIN, ‘Le traité’, 151, corrected to read the noun isqum in lines 6 and 8; see the ARCHIBAB site (http://www.archibab.fr/4DCGI/listestextes13.htm?WebUniqueID=2946951). The Gtn of the verb târum (“to return”) in line 9 appears to have transitive intent, to match the D infinitive in line 7. 34 LAFONT, ‘Relations internationales’, 232–238. 35 The book of Judges focuses on heroic leaders without casting them as kings, except for the approach to Gideon in 8:22–23. In the battle sequence of the Song of Deborah, the leadership of participating peoples is cast in collective terms (5:14–18). giš

324

Daniel E. Fleming

we may identify as “survey.”36 Most evidence for such surveying addresses individual plots or properties rather than extended domains of the sort described in Josh 18. It is the language of “writing” in particular, however, that calls for attention, expressed in Josh 18:8 and 9 by the verb ‫“( כת״ב‬to write”) with direct object as “the land” itself, so that the focus of the procedure is not the identification or measuring of land but rather its written recording. In contrast to the boundary descriptions that dominate much of the tribal allotment in Josh 13–19, the survey record is to be “by towns” (‫לערים‬, 18:9), like the lists for Judah in 15:21–62, for Benjamin in 18:21–28 and for Simeon in 19:2–8. This kind of list appears to be what the survey record envisions as the basis for casting lots. The common Akkadian term for simple “writing” is the verb šaṭāru(m), attested from (third-millennium) Old Akkadian through the first millennium (CAD s.v. šaṭāru v.). It is common to refer to the “recording” (i.e., writing) of legal documents (1b1’), as part of the ordinary language of writing. The verb šaṭāru derives from this activity a secondary meaning, “to issue a legal document, to deed by means of a written document, to decree in writing” (2). In such documentation, the object of the verb “to write” is a “tablet” (ṭuppu) or “sealed document” (kunukku), which may deal with real estate among other interests. The Laws of Hammurabi, from the early second-millennium, present the following case: If a man awards by sealed contract (lit., “has given, has written for him a sealed document”) a field, orchard, or house to his favorite heir, when the brothers divide the estate after the father goes to his fate, he (the favorite son) shall take the gift which the father gave to him and apart from that gift shall equally divide the property of the paternal estate.37

The writing terminology that resembles Josh 18:8–9 most closely also comes from the Old Babylonian period, when it is possible to omit reference to the tablet as document and simply to “write” the object directly, which may involve fields as ongoing financial support.38 As with the rite for casting lots for land, the basis for division in a written survey of towns takes its ancient plausibility from related practice. The lists of towns for Judah, Benjamin, and Simeon now found in Josh 15, 18 and 19 reflect some such practice writ

36

See for general discussion and references BAKER, ‘Babylonian Land Survey’, with focus on Babylonian practice from the late second and early first millennia. 37 The translation is from ROTH, Law Collections, 112, and this text is her normalized version (xxxiv 33–50, par. 165): šumma awĭlum ana aplišu ša ĭnšu maḫru eqlam kirâm u bĭtam išruk kunukkam išṭuršum warka abum ana šĭmtim ittalku inŭma aḫḫŭ izuzzu qĭšti abum iddinušum ileqqēma elēnumma ina makkŭr bĭt abim mitḫāriš izuzzu. 38 See CAD s.v. šaṭāru v. 4b, “to put real estate on a cadastre (OB),” with TCL 1 42:23 and TCL 57:10 as examples.

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

325

large, though the idiom itself is anchored in the recording of property as seen in the Hammurabi case. Perhaps the most difficult element to pursue in the comparative evidence is performance of the lot ritual in the presence of deity at a sacred site. The common reference to lot-casting in the context of household inheritance does not elaborate on the rite. Divine supervision is still embedded in the language of the Petra documents, which invoke the Trinity and the Emperor (see above). Westbrook observes that in Old Babylonian Mesopotamia, “Responsibility for organizing the division lay with the eldest brother, who might swear a declaratory oath in the temple as to the proper discharge of his functions.”39 This religious act does not appear to locate performance of the lotcasting itself, however. In a tradition shared by the cities of Ashur on the Tigris and Emar on the Euphrates, the term pūru is used for lot-casting with specific reference to performance of the rite in the presence of deity, both concerned with the selection of an individual out of the city community for special service. At Late Bronze Age Emar in northwestern Syria, a ritual text for the installation for the storm god’s priestess identifies the girl by “lot” (purû), a special object housed in the temple of the god dNIN.URTA and brought to the storm god temple just for this occasion:40 “The sons of Emar take the lot(s) from the temple of dNIN.URTA and grasp them in the presence of the storm god. The daughter of any son of Emar may be indicated.”41 Like the purû in the Emar ritual, the object is also attested in early firstmillennium selection of the eponym for the city of Ashur in a given year.42 An inscribed cube (like one six-sided die) in the Yale Babylonian Collection is a 9th-century Assyrian lot that belonged to a man named Yaḫali, the object 39

WESTBROOK, ‘Old Babylonian Period’, 395–96. For the oath, he cites CT 83a:21–28 = UAZP 194 (SCHORR, Urkunden). 40 The Emar writing with final long vowel appears to represent a variant of what in Akkadian is normally vocalized as pŭru, which the CAD separates as two different nouns, A, “(a shallow boal of platter),” from OB on; and B1, “lot, portion, plot, parcel (of merchandise)”and B2, “lot, lottery,” OA, Emar, Nuzi, MA, NA, NB. Although the editors identify two Emar uses for pūru as “lot” (WESTENHOLZ, Cuneiform Inscriptions, BLM 9:3, of a vineyard share; and JCS 34 243:11), they place the ritual object in the other category and translate, “the citizens of Emar take the bowls from the DN temple and hold them in front of the (statue of) Ba‘al.” Given the context of selection and the known use of the identical word for “lot,” this distinction makes little sense. 41 Emar 369A:2–3, 2 DUMUmeš uruE-mar pu-re-˹e˺ [i]š-tu É dNIN.URTA i-laq-qu-ú a-na pa-ni dIŠKUR 3 i-ṣa-ba-tu4 DUMU.MUNUS a-i-me-e DUMU uruE-mar it-tar-ra-aṣ (FLEMING, Installation, 10–11). The verb for casting lots is applied to various objects used by holding in the hands (balances, a hoe, a stylus, etc.; see FLEMING, Installation, 175). Selection is expressed by the passive (N) form of the verb tarāṣu, “to stretch out” (as in a finger), which the CAD isolates as “to be pointed at” (s.v. tarāṣu A15b, with this text along with OB and MB examples). 42 CAD s.v. pūru B2b, “used in selecting a turn of office”.

326

Daniel E. Fleming

indicating that in this tradition the “lots” were the objects cast, not a bowl from which something was picked up (YBC 7058).43 The inscription ends with reference to casting the lot in the presence of (ina pān) the gods Aššur and Adad, which seems to be the standard procedure for selection of the eponym. It is not clear how we should imagine actual performance of the rite in either setting, but the Emar ritual text offers a second statement about identification of the particular girl as “the daughter of any son of Emar,” which suggests some number of eligible or viable candidates, families of the right standing with daughters of the right age and character, who are all in play, whether by individual lots or repeated use of a single lot. Performance of the rite directly in front of the storm god envisions that the deity himself makes the choice, and the act becomes a medium of communication. The same is assumed for the casting of the lot in front of Yahweh, who personally designates who will receive which share. The number seven, with its aura of the sacred, complements the divine involvement expressed by Yahweh’s presence and perhaps echoes notions of grouped gods or divine actors more familiar to Mesopotamian lore and not evoked by the eventual count of twelve tribes.44 For evaluation of the Shiloh procedure as a whole, the Syrian ritual confirms that performance of lot casting in front of a god in a sanctuary setting presents no obstacle to ancient understanding of the event as a comprehensible procedure in all its ritual and writing aspects. As a whole, the Shiloh rite of Josh 18 appears to be modeled on the division of inheritance.45 The Mari uses of isqum for allotment of domains to individual rulers displays the accessibility of this practice to analogy on a larger social scale. Joshua 18 itself, however, is not offered as regular Israelite practice; rather, it invites the audience to envision the ‫ בית יוסף‬as an extended household, a “large people” that has been offered to lay claim to a broad forested highland that will be divided under the same legal procedure and divine designation trusted to maintain a united family in terms familiar to all. 43

See HALLO, ‘The First Purim’. Units of seven in counting sacred time are prominent in the Bible and beyond. In the Bible, both the Sabbath and the seven-day festival units highlight the sacred character of this number, which is also associated with the seven days of the Jericho siege (see FLEMING, ‘Seven-Day-Siege’, with reference to other examples from Mari and Ugarit). In the Mesopotamian universe, groups of deities or divine forces often cluster in sevens: the Igigi in Atrahasis; the winds of Marduk in Enuma eliš and of Ninurta in Anzu; the celestial warriors (or guides) of the Sumerian Gilgamesh and Huwawa; and the Sibittu (especially identified with the Pleiades), simply named “The Seven.” For initial reference, see the CAD s.v. sebe, “seven”; and s.v. sibittu, “group of seven”; b) “referring to a group of seven planets, stars, demons, gods, etc.” 45 KITZ, ‘Undivided Inheritance’. 44

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

327

C. The Shiloh Ritual in the Book of Joshua The principal purpose of this study is to argue for the independence of the Shiloh episode from the material surrounding it and for the priority of its lot ritual as inspiration for the scheme of “allotments” (‫ )גורל‬to each of twelve “tribes” (‫)מטה‬. It is not my goal to offer my own solution to the persistent question of how exactly the territorial apportionment in Josh 13–19 took form and how it was embedded in the book as a whole and in the narrative now bridging the Moses story and life in the land as portrayed in Judges. Likewise, while I conclude that Josh 18:1–7 consists entirely of introductory additions to the Shiloh event, it does not matter to my primary argument how exactly this material took form. Nevertheless, it is important to this project to delineate clearly the growth of a Joseph-Shiloh combination before it was taken up as one crucial source for the composition of a narrative describing the territories assigned to twelve tribes, so that the seven shares of the Shiloh rite were transformed into tribal lots in the text now filling the rest of chs. 18 and 19. Likewise it may be useful to reflect on the character of the full Joseph-Shiloh text now occupying Josh 16:1–18:10 as it relates to the essential twelve-tribe narrative and potential additions to it. Joshua 13–19 describes allotment of land to all Israel in terms of its named “tribes,” and by the end of ch. 17, seven remain: Benjamin, Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali and Dan. In the narrative now correlated with the book of Numbers, three tribes (counted as two and a half) have already received land east of the Jordan River and do not need assignment here: Reuben, Gad and Manasseh (Num 32). This arrangement is repeated here, in Josh 13. Then, chs. 15–17 address Judah, Ephraim and Manasseh, with special consideration for Caleb placed at the head of the Judah section in ch. 14, recalling his place among the spies sent by Moses in Num 13–14. In Josh 16– 17, Ephraim and Manasseh are identified with “the sons of Joseph” (or Josephites), an equation not original to 17:14–18 (see below). The composition and transmission analysis offered here concludes first of all that the number seven has its origin in the core narrative for lot casting at Shiloh. Likewise, the Shiloh episode was not inserted by convenience into a twelve-tribe territorial allotment that had reached a natural break with seven tribes still to address. Further, the number seven is woven into the fabric of 18:11–19:48 by counting each new tribal “lot” as it arrives, so that this section of the tribal apportionment was composed from the start as a set of seven.46 Rather, the number seven has its own narrative life and impact, ground46 As such, the combination of tribes in Josh 18–19 is literary, not reflecting any historical combination of Benjamin with six tribes north of the Jezreel Valley. We should therefore seek no associated period of settlement, as proposed by KNAUF, Data and Debates, 351, for the start of Jewish settlement in the Galilee.

328

Daniel E. Fleming

ed in the land survey and lot casting of 18:8–10. This interpretation is confirmed by the absence of “tribe” terminology in these verses, and the episode’s foreignness to the twelve-tribe construct in Josh 13–19 is displayed by the secondary reference to tribes as ‫( שבט‬18:2, 4) rather than with ‫מטה‬. Town lists that plausibly derive from late monarchic Judah are now separated into Judah (ch. 15) and Benjamin (ch. 18).47 If the number seven was already embedded in the Joseph-Shiloh narrative as an older text, we cannot imagine an intermediate stage of composition once any tribes at all are listed after Shiloh.48 Application of the seven shares in 18:9 to a tribal list only works with the full count. The specific list of seven, from Benjamin to Dan, then makes sense only when read as the conclusion of a full set of twelve that includes the eastern peoples recalled in ch. 13 and the Judah-Joseph group elaborated in chs. 15–17. When we add to the seven “tribes” (‫ )מטה‬from Benjamin to Dan in Josh 18–19 the set from Judah through Ephraim and Manasseh that precede Shiloh, preceded in turn by Reuben and Gad – without the “half-tribe” of Manasseh as ‫ – חצי שבט‬we reach a sum of twelve in a unified scheme with consistent terminology.49 We are carefully instructed in the introduction to Joshua’s own distribution in 14:4 that two “tribes” (‫ )מטות‬will be assigned to Joseph as Manasseh and Ephraim (reversing the actual sequence of chs. 16–17), and neither Joseph nor the eastern “half-tribe” of Manasseh is counted in this arrangement.50 47

This idea goes back to ALT, ‘Der Gott der Väter’. For NOTH, ‘Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches’, a Josiah-period list for Judah expanded a much older set of tribal lists from before the monarchy. The late monarchic date and basic textual definition are still widely accepted (VAN DER MEER, Formation, 125, 146; RÖMER, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 82). Noth identified a very limited set of redactional additions, among which he included the notion that Joshua was in charge of the land division, based especially on the Shiloh episode (so 13:1, 7a; 18:2–10; and 23:1b); NOTH, ‘Überlieferungsgeschichtliches zur zweiten Hälfte des Josuabuches’, 190–206; cf. CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 7. 48 For example, KNAUF, Data and Debates, 347–355, envisions a Judah-EphraimManasseh combination in 15:20–18:1 (ca. 450–400 B.C.E.) before any larger tribal composition, with the eastern tribes of ch. 13 added before filling out the twelve by adding seven more with Shiloh in chs. 18–19. 49 The full count of twelve tribes receiving territory in Josh 13–19 thus includes Reuben (13:15), Gad (13:24), Judah (15:1, 20, 21), Ephraim (16:8), Manasseh (17:1), Benjamin (18:11, 21), Simeon (19:1, 8), Zebulun (oddly missing designation as a “tribe,” simply the “sons of Zebulun” in 19:10, 16, possibly an error), Issachar (19:23), Asher (19:24, 31), Naphtali (19:39) and Dan (19:40, 49). 50 Josh 13:29–31 locates the “half-tribe” of Manasseh in the east, but in 17:1, Manasseh is simply a “tribe,” which would throw off the count of twelve. It seems that the representation of Reuben and Gad as receiving “lots” must come from Joshua, but the extra part of Manasseh in the east would have come from Numbers, not fitting the count of twelve tribes as ‫ מטה‬in Josh 13–19. These have been blended in the texts from both Numbers and Joshua.

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

329

It appears therefore that the Joseph-Shiloh combination that has been our focus was incorporated into the long territorial description now occupying Josh 13–19 as one of its sources, along with the many lists that must have informed its geographical account. The Shiloh source was unique in providing both the conceptual framework of inheritance division by lot, appropriate to the notion of patrimony already sprinkled through other origins texts as ‫נחלה‬, and a narrative hinge to follow the central Judah and Joseph peoples. The textual extent of the Joseph-Shiloh source before incorporation into the twelve-tribe territorial account can be reconstructed by identifying what content neither envisions the division in tribal terms nor makes reference to the larger narrative of chs. 13–19 and beyond. By a version of Milstein’s “revision through introduction”51 the Joseph component of the Shiloh episode was elaborated into a longer conversation between Joshua and the Josephites in 17:14–18 before the whole thing was put into service of a tribal vision. In the current text, the Joseph segment of the territorial allotment occupies all of Josh 16–17. This section breaks down into four parts: 1) the “sons of Joseph” as a unit (16:1–4); 2) the territory of Ephraim (16:5–10); 3) the territory of Manasseh (17:1–13); 4) the sons of Joseph and the House of Joseph as a “large people” (‫ ;עם רב‬17:14–18).

All of 16:1–17:13 indicates composition for the full twelve-tribe narrative, however this may have been elaborated. Although the first part addresses Joseph without tribal language, it opens with the ‫ גורל‬as territorial portion that “goes out” (‫ )יצ״א‬to the sons of Joseph (16:1) just as for various tribes.52 These sons are identified with Manasseh and Ephraim in 16:4, suggesting awareness of the genealogical tradition in Genesis (41:50–52; ch. 48), whether with initial twelve-tribe composition or by later extension. Ephraim is then introduced in v. 5 by “territory” (‫ )גבול‬without reference to lot and tribe (‫)מטה‬ until v. 8, but terminology characteristic of the tribal composition is displayed already in definition “by their clans” (‫ )למשפחתם‬and with individual designation of “their inheritance” (‫)נחלתם‬.53 Failure to remove the Canaanites at 51

MILSTEIN, Master Scribe. Terminology for territorial allotment varies, with the verb ‫ יצ״א‬most frequent, applied to Simeon (19:1), Issachar (19:17), Asher (19:24), Naphtali (19:32) and Dan (19:40). The allotments of Judah (15:1) and Manasseh (17:1) simply “are” (‫ ;)הי״ה‬and the allotments of Benjamin (18:11) and Zebulun (19:10) “go up” (‫)על״ה‬. Variation in the LXX suggests that no fixed terms and associations were understood to be necessary: the allotment “went out” in 18:11 and 19:10; and it “was” in 16:1. 53 For ‫ למשפחתם‬see 13:15, 23, 24, 28, 29, 31; 15:1, 12, 20; 16: 5, 8; 17:2 (twice); 18:10, 11, 20, 21, 28; 19:1, 8, 10, 16, 17, 23, 24, 31, 32, 39, 40, 48. The phrase is ubiquitous in the Priestly writing of Numbers. While the word ‫ נחלה‬has broader use in relation to possession of the land in the Torah and Joshua, it is attached consistently to the individual tribal allotments as part of the main twelve-tribe composition: Reuben (13:23), Gad 52

330

Daniel E. Fleming

Gezer (v. 10) appears to be taken from Judg 1:29, in a context devoted to this theme.54 Manasseh is then presented directly by the twelve-tribe formula for lot and tribe, with reference to “their clans” (17:1–2).55 The Manasseh account includes an excursion (17:3–6) into the Numbers accounts of Zelophehad’s daughters (chs. 26 and 36) and of land granted to Manasseh in the east (ch. 32), including reference to Eleazar as priest (v. 4), otherwise only included in the introduction (14:1) and conclusion (19:51) to Joshua’s territorial apportionment. As with Ephraim, Manasseh closes with their inability to drive out all the Canaanites, an issue that is not generally a concern in this ambitious vision of territorial rights to the land and that is probably secondary to the twelve-tribe composition.56 Nothing in 16:1–17:13 suggests incorporation into a text that existed before the account of allotments for twelve tribes. Joshua 17:14–16, in contrast, set up the leader’s declaration in vv. 17–18 with neither reference to tribes nor use of standard terminology from the long narrative. Where v. 17 defined the “large people” in question as the House of Joseph (‫)בית יוסף‬, v. 14 shifts the language to “Josephites” (‫)בני יוסף‬, directly anticipating Joshua’s command by making a complaint that they are an ‫עם רב‬ confined to “a single allotment” (‫)גורל אחד‬.57 Verse 14 calls this allotment an inheritance (‫)נחלה‬, a loaded term not introduced into the declaration of vv. 17–18, and the claim of Yahweh’s blessing adds a flourish of piety not found in the later lines.58 The Josephites’ complaint in v. 14 could lead directly into Joshua’s response in v. 17, and this may represent a first extension of (13:28), Judah (15:20), Ephraim (16:5, 8), Manasseh (16:9), Benjamin (18:20, 28), Simeon (19:1, etc.), Zebulun (19:16), Issachar (19:23), Asher (19:31), Naphtali (19:39) and Dan (19:48). 54 Inability to remove the population of Gezer is linked to Ephraim in Judg 1:29. Josh 16:10 also mentions putting the Canaanites to corvée labor (‫)מס‬, a theme not part of the regular twelve-tribe scheme in chs. 13–19. This motif appears repeatedly in Judg 1 (vv. 28, 30, 33, 35), another indication of borrowing from that text, in which the Canaanite failures are framed by the success of Joseph at Bethel and against the Amorites (Judg 1:22–23, 35). 55 It is worth noting that the Joseph territories do not include extended town lists and that the description of Manasseh shows particular interest in actual lineages, starting with Machir as firstborn of Manasseh (v. 1). This seems to reflect a specific set of source material. 56 The reference to resistant “towns” in 17:12 follows a list in v. 11 that follows the Manasseh failures of Judg 1:27–28, with wording from this text applied directly to Josh 17:12b-13. AULD, Studies, 229–234 (from VAN DER MEER, Formation, 134) identifies this theme with the secondary DtrN redaction of a Deuteronomistic History, but this is probably an even later addition. 57 CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 24, observes that the word ‫ עם‬appears in the territorial allotment only in 14:8 and here (17:14, 15 and 17). It does not belong to the tribal scheme. 58 In all of Josh 13–19, the verb ‫ בר״ך‬only appears in 14:13, where “Joshua blessed him” (Caleb).

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

331

the narrative, but another exchange between Joshua and the sons of Joseph is added in vv. 15–16, still without reference to the larger text. Joshua takes up the challenge by proposing that this “large people” go take the woodland (‫)יער‬, since they consider the Ephraim highlands (‫ )הר אפרים‬inadequate, a sequence that creates a redundancy with his statement in v. 18. The people of this woodland are Perizzites and Rephaim, groups not otherwise paired in biblical narrative.59 Because Joshua will still have to issue the orders found in vv. 17–18, the Josephites must provoke the repetition by a rejoinder, this time expressing fear that they cannot evict the powerful Canaanites with their iron chariots (‫)רכב ברזל‬, the first use of this phrase in the biblical narrative. This expression of fear contrasts with the confidence expected by Joshua in v. 18, a contrast that confirms the second reference as older. Together, the two statements both acknowledge an expected doubt and affirm the need to expect victory, as with the 900 iron chariots of Jabin king of Canaan (Judg 4:3, 13).60 The independence of Josh 17:14–16 from the twelve-tribe composition is demonstrated not only negatively by the lack of connecting terminology but also positively by the location of all the sons of Joseph in the Ephraim highlands, without reference to Manasseh (v. 15). It is possible that the extra layer of dialogue in vv. 15–16 was added after the initial exchange was set in motion by the complaint in v. 14, yet the essential point is that the Joseph text grew to include all of this material before it was put to use in the tribal narrative of apportionment. Josh 17:14–16 thus extend forward the text already identified as an independent Joseph-Shiloh narrative in 17:17–18 and 18:8–10 without affecting its coherence. This leaves the material in 18:1–7 that now sets the stage for the lot ceremony. Could any of this material likewise have elaborated the story before incorporation in the twelve-tribe text? Does anything at all in 18:1–10 belong to that initial composition? One surprise in this block is the absence of the very term for “tribe” (‫ )מטה‬that marks that work. The simple answer to each question appears to be “no,” at least for 18:1–7. Everything in 18:1–7 indicates expansion, probably in stages, even later than the basic territory text.61 This conclusion in itself is relevant to my reading of the Joseph-Shiloh tale, though the details of the process are less so, significant only because I am separating the entire block from the narrative 59 The Perizzites are one people in the standard lists of groups to conquer in the Promised Land (Gen 13:7; 15:20; Exod 23:23; etc.), not otherwise found in Josh 13–19 (3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 22:8; 24:11). They are only attached to a “land” in Exod 3:17 and Neh 9:8. The Rephaim occur in two geographical notices embedded in deuteronomistic elaborations to Deuteronomy (2:20; 3:13). As a whole the combination suggests deuteronomistic circles without narrower indication of setting. 60 Inability to defeat an enemy with iron chariots appears also in Judg 1:19, perhaps inspired by what follows in the list of failures assembled in the later part of the chapter. 61 It is not logically feasible to consider 18:2–10 part of a foundational Deuteronomistic History (DtrH), as does VAN DER MEER, Formation, 152–153.

332

Daniel E. Fleming

core. Verse 1 has long stood out by its classic Priestly language, assembling the Israelites as an ‫עדה‬, setting up the Tent of Meeting (‫ )אהל מועד‬at Shiloh, as if we knew where it had been before that.62 The exact language of assembly occurs again in 22:12 when the people hear about the altar set up east of the Jordan, with Phinehas son of Eleazar leading the response. The Tent of Meeting has not in fact been located in the land, and it last appeared in Deut 31:14–15, with Moses east of the river, though the appearance here at Shiloh inspires a second reference in the allotment narrative’s closing line (19:51). The notion that “the land” has been subdued (‫ )כב״שׁ‬recalls the version of Moses’ apportionment of land to Reuben, Gad and Manasseh in Num 32, with just this phrase in 32:29 and Eleazar in the preceding verse. Josh 18:1 thus belongs to a cluster of texts that frame the current form of the twelvetribe allotment in a way that may not have taken the same form with its first composition.63 The sequence in 18:2–6 anticipates the lot-casting ritual to follow with added detail that can obscure the fact that every element is colored by language and ideas foreign to the Shiloh procedure as found in vv. 8–10. Almost all reconstructions of an initial Shiloh narrative include the command to appoint three men for each tribe in v. 4, not confronting the contrast between this introduction of the land survey and its execution in vv. 8–9.64 We are told that seven “tribes” remained by use of ‫ שבט‬instead of ‫( מטה‬v. 2), and when the survey crew is explained as “three men per tribe” (v. 4), the same noun appears.65 Both vv. 2 and 4 assume the seven-tribe list still to come in 18:11– 19:48, so the change of terms must reflect later addition rather than an older fragment. Combination of “enter” (‫“ )בו״א‬possess” (‫ )יר״שׁ‬and “land” (‫ )ארץ‬in v. 3 is familiar to deuteronomistic phrasing (Deut 11:31; cf. 4:1; 6:18; 9:1; 62 Verse 1 can be included in an original text for the Shiloh event only when the entire scheme is considered so late to Josh 13–21 that it was only added in order to integrate the territorial allotment with the narrative from Numbers (so, SEEBASS, ‘Versuch’; cf. AULD, ‘Joshua, Moses and the Land’). The verse is filled with language common to Priestly writing, and KNAUF, Josua, 154, observes continuity even with the language of the “land” in Gen 1:28. 63 Eleazar is introduced with Joshua’s first allotment of territory in 14:1–6, the sacred tent of 18:1 then hints at priestly presence without naming him, and the conclusion in 19:51 draws all of these elements together. KNAUF, Data and Debates, 693, considers Josh 18:1 the end of the Priestly narrative going back through the Torah and considers that the book of Joshua as a whole argues against any Deuteronomistic History. For Knauf, the introduction in 14:1–6 belongs to a later hexateuchal redaction, along with the conclusion in 19:51. 64 See the history of scholarship recounted in VAN DER MEER, ‘Clustering’, going back the late 19th century and including his own solution. 65 In Josh 13–19, the word ‫ שבט‬appears only in 13:7, 14, 29, 33; and 18:2, 4, and 7. CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 25, 28, concludes that it belongs only to a revision later than the twelve-tribe composition.

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

333

etc.) and appears in the opening chapter of Joshua (1:11). “The God of our fathers” shares similar associations, with varying pronoun (Deut 1:11, 21; 4:1; 6:3; 12:1; 26:7; 27:3; 29:24), and is not otherwise found in the book of Joshua. Division of the land in v. 5 follows the command using ‫ שבט‬for “tribe” in v. 4, and the orientation of Joseph and Judah by north and south has no context here but sets up the location of Benjamin “between Judah and Joseph” in 18:11. Instructions for the land survey continue in v. 6, creating a redundancy with what follows, and lots are cast by the verb ‫ יר״ה‬instead of ‫ שׁל״ך‬in vv. 8 and 10. The pious reference to “Yahweh our God” is out of place in the whole territory text, found only with Caleb as one of the famous spies in Josh 14:8 and 9.66 Verse 7 combines further extraneous information so that we will understand which tribes do not need to be counted among the seven to come: Levi as having no territory (cf. 13:33); and the eastern tribes attended to by Moses.67 While some part of the central sequence in 18:1–7 suggests a single effort to explain further how the Shiloh procedure was carried out, with particular concern to provide seven explicit “tribes,” more than one hand was probably at work. It seems that the original use of the Shiloh episode in construction of the main territorial allotment left it relatively unencumbered by clarifying elaborations. Joshua’s apportionment into seven shares was simply applied to seven tribes in the material that follows. The note in 18:10b that he made the assignment “according to their divisions (‫ )כמחלקתם‬echoes the idea of distribution in 11:23 and 12:7 in language not proper to the territorial lists themselves and is likewise a later adjustment. What is important for reading an independent Joseph-Shiloh account of Joshua casting lots is that this much older narrative would only have been picked up by a Jerusalem writer for the creation of the whole twelve-tribe vision for assignment of the Promised Land to Israel’s constituent peoples.

D. An Israelite Tale in Second Temple Jerusalem The account of territorial allotment in Josh 13–19 underwent no process of repeated transformation; its first form included all twelve tribes and the geographical descriptions that fill out most of the document.68 This means that 66 In Joshua, see also 22:3, 4, 5, 19, 29; and passim in ch. 23, with deuteronomistic coloring. 67 For the phrase “across the Jordan,” see also 13:32; 14:3; and 20:8. CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 23, considers the specific form in 18:7 later than the main twelve-tribe allotment text. 68 For all the discussion of potential sources and varieties of elaboration, the coherence of the twelve-tribe vision in Josh 13–19 is widely agreed (e.g., KRATZ, Composition, 193).

334

Daniel E. Fleming

where sources were used, they must have been available to the author of the twelve-tribe composition in a single location. Judah is the first tribe to receive its assignment from Joshua, the only tribe set before the Joseph pair, with its position fixed by connection to the casting of lots at Shiloh, and the writer would likely have been Jewish, from the one-time kingdom of Judah. Moreover, the long list of towns focused on Judah in ch. 15 suggests an administrative record from the Judahite monarchy in its final century, when Benjamin was clearly incorporated.69 We must imagine a setting in which a learned scribe had access to such old records from the Judah capital, texts that preserved some recollection of geography for the older northern kingdom, and the Joseph-Shiloh story of Joshua casting lots before Yahweh. 70 The natural location for the first would be Jerusalem at some point after Babylonian defeat, and it may be that this city also preserved texts originating in earlier times and outside Judah, however they were constituted. One potential site for such a collection would have been the second Jerusalem temple.71 In terms of basic conception, the notion that the entire region would have been divided systematically so that all space was accounted for, with a primary role for traceable borders, suggests the territorial expectations of a highly centralized political power, easiest to find in the empires of Mesopotamia and Persia.72 In relative chronological terms, the twelve-tribe composition in Josh 13–19 appears to have been added to the book at a late stage with a view toward the prior Moses text, whether or not Joshua ever formed part of a Hexateuch, as opposed to a longer history from Genesis through Kings.73 The territorial 69 See Jer 17:26; 32:44; 33:13 (FLEMING, Legacy, 56, 160). In general, I find the historical interpretations of FINKELSTEIN, ‘Saul’, and DAVIES, ‘Trouble’, more likely than that of Na’aman, ‘Saul’, so that Benjamin probably belonged to the kingdom of Israel until after its demise in 722/720. 70 SCHMID, The Old Testament, 38, imagines that the lists for Naphtali, Zebulun, Issachar and perhaps Asher may come from the time of Jeroboam II (in the 8th century). 71 VAN DER TOORN, Scribal Culture, 82–108, makes an extended case for the primary role of scribes from the second Jerusalem temple “behind the Hebrew Bible” (82). While this discussion may divert attention from extensive writing from earlier periods in other settings, it is pertinent to the sort of resources and scribal undertaking on display in Josh 13–19. 72 This question pushes beyond the scope of the current project. During the 5th century, the collection of tribute and taxes appears to have begun to be “territorialized” (BRIANT, From Cyrus to Alexander, 410–411), and it would be useful to pursue the character of such demarcation of populations and space. 73 KRATZ, Composition, 198, observes that the farewell of Josh 23 follows directly from 13:1a, with focus on conquest. In his delineation of the “sophisticated set of crossreferences” that bind Joshua to Deuteronomy, NIHAN, ‘Literary Relationship’, observes nothing from chs. 13–19. SCHMID, ‘Deuteronomy within the ‘Deuteronomistic Histories’’, 18–19, considers Joshua through Kings in current form “a great proclamation of judg-

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

335

allotment text is framed by terminology characteristic of Priestly writing, especially as found in Numbers, and Cortese considers it a supplementary Priestly composition (Ps).74 Also, because the count of twelve requires the eastern tribes that are only explained by the arrangement with Moses in Num 32, there must be either knowledge of or coordination with that text (see above). Whatever the precise date, the initial creation of the territorial account belongs deep in the post-monarchic period.75 It is against this backdrop that the specific character of the Shiloh story must be examined. Nothing in the core narrative indicates any connection with Judah and Jerusalem. Shiloh itself was located in the heart of the Ephraim highlands, between Shechem and Bethel, and the Joseph lead-in would reflect the same geographical focus. As argued here, nothing about the core Joseph-Shiloh narrative suggests composition to suit the current context of conquest and systematic division of the land. Rather, it explains how the House of Joseph came to occupy such a broad swath of the Central Highlands in the midst of peoples not named but not necessarily defined by the name Israel.76 By both geography and interest, this is a northern story, part of what may be identified as “Israelite” as opposed to Judahite and Jewish content in the Bible.

ment,” so that episodes of redaction can be evaluated by who is blamed for the failure. It is significant that the territorial apportionment looks back rather than forward, offering a positive conclusion to the exodus from Egypt and conquest of Canaan, a fulfillment of divine promise. In this respect it has nothing to do with “Deuteronomistic History.” CORTESE, Josua 13–21, 8, observes the influence of both P and D, rendering the section very late. 74 CORTESE, Josua 13–21, ch. 3. ACHENBACH (in his contribution at the second Buchnähte conference), following de Vos, addresses the same questions in terms of deuteronomistic writing, though this approach appears to share with Cortese’s the notion that the twelve-tribe composition in Josh 13–19 is later than both the foundational P and DtrG writing. 75 “One has to agree that the biblical view of Israel’s organization in twelve tribes is a late projection without any historical basis.” There are earlier materials, “But it is clear that the present form of these lists comes from a much later period, as already indicated by the combination of P and Dtr styles in these chapters” (RÖMER, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 82). KRATZ, Composition, 193, concludes that “Joshua 13–22 is composed of various lists of places and territories which are forced into the concept of the twelve tribes and is certainly not a unity, though in the original stratum – however defined – it already represents an alien body” affirming the narrative program found in Josh 11:23. 76 In Ps 80:2–3, Israel and Joseph are identified, and so far as the original birth narrative in Gen 29–30 culminated with Joseph as the long-awaited son of Rachel, his brothers may be rendered potential allies rather than tribal members of a single political entity (FLEMING, ‘The Bible’s Little Israel’).

336

Daniel E. Fleming

One segment of Israel-oriented writing in the Bible shows particular affinity with Bethel, in the southern section of the Ephraim highlands.77 In Judg 1:22–26, the House of Joseph is said to take Bethel as its particular possession, a positive accomplishment contrasted with the failures of Manasseh and Ephraim as separate peoples in 1:27–29. Amos 5:6 sets the House of Joseph and Bethel side by side as potential targets for the fire of divine wrath. 78 Although Shiloh is often imagined to have a special connection to Jerusalem through the transfer of its sacred ark, the combination with the House of Joseph in Josh 17:17–18 and 18:8–10 offers a different association, by way of Bethel. It has been observed that after Jerusalem, Bethel is the most prominent biblical sacred site.79 Given the ultimately Jewish and Judahoriented character of the Bible, it seems that substantial quantities of scribal work from Bethel found its way into Judah hands. The date for such Bethel activity remains debated, with Knauf proposing special prominence in the Persian period. Based on reevaluation of the ceramic finds, Finkelstein and Singer-Avitz conclude that a late monarchic influence is more likely, since very little evidence proves a significant Persian occupation.80 Whether the House of Joseph texts and their traditions found their way from Bethel to Jerusalem after the fall of Israel or during Jerusalem’s Second Temple period, the content of the Shiloh text in Joshua suggests deep roots that go back to monarchic times. In my initial delineation of Israelite material in the Bible, I identified only the defeat of Ai as a probable example from the book of Joshua, in ch. 8.81 The lot-casting at Shiloh provides a second instance, both of them defined in part by the centrality of Joshua as leader. Neither text knows an exodus from Egypt or assumes a territorial conquest by newly arrived outsiders. Israel gains power in the region by its defeat of Ai, and the House of Joseph extends its presence by pushing the Canaanites out of the wooded parts of the highlands. A Bethel association for the Shiloh story through Joseph would produce a striking geographical proximity for the two old Joshua tales, reflected in the combination of Bethel and Ai as the site of Abram’s first altar in Gen 12:8 (cf. 13:3). The battle against Ai in Josh 8 may also have been com-

77 For my own discussion, see FLEMING, Legacy, 314–321; with reference to the extended treatments of KNAUF, ‘Bethel’; GOMES, Sanctuary, and KÖHLMOOS, Bet-El. 78 FLEMING, Legacy, 315. 79 KNAUF, ‘Bethel’. 80 FINKELSTEIN/SINGER-AVITZ, ‘Reevaluating Bethel’. 81 FLEMING, Legacy, 138–143. It is difficult to judge the path of composition and transmission for the assault on Jericho in Josh 6, which could have involved the ark without its introduction by the account of its crossing the Jordan River in chs. 3–4. It is even possible to imagine a connection between Shiloh and the ark visible in 1 Sam 4, part of an “ark narrative” that did not on its own have Jerusalem as its destination (see above).

II. 3.1. The Shiloh Ritual in Josh 18

337

posed and kept at Bethel, and if Ai was a “ruin” that called for ancient explanation, this could have been from the perspective of nearby Bethel. 82 As a whole, this analysis of the Shiloh episode in Josh 17–18 attempts an account of composition and transmission that breaks new ground for historical investigation – “a historian’s literary-history”.83 In Josh 18:1–10, the essential task is to distinguish a narrative core from the twelve-tribe composition that shapes chs. 13–19, an analysis that results in the attribution of 18:1– 7 to even later revisions. The work of the author who envisioned an allotment of tribal territories after conquest is more visible in chs. 16–17 in the lead-up to Shiloh. Before the additions in 18:1–7, Joshua’s offer to the House of Joseph to extend their “single allotment” by clearing the woodland and driving out its Canaanite inhabitants preceded directly the event at Shiloh, and this combination would have been extended at the front to create a longer exchange between Joshua and the Joseph people (17:14–18), still outside the context of a larger Israelite conquest and territorial apportionment. In Josh 17:17–18 and 18:8–10 we have a House of Joseph without Israel and without tribes, as well as the idea that Joseph’s land needed division by lot like a family inheritance, an ancient means of maintaining unity across generations. We also have a prominent sanctuary for Yahweh in the Central Highlands between Jerusalem and the Jezreel Valley that has no abiding role in either kingdom – a kind of Sinai within the land, never a worship site in living memory.84 If Yahweh is supposed to come from the deep south, both for battle and by origin, the Shiloh sanctuary should give pause. Isolation of a Joseph-Shiloh tale does not give us “history.” It does, however, present the historian with an ancient view of the past that stands behind the dominant biblical narrative and begs exploration in historical terms.

82

Recently, LEONARD-FLECKMAN, ‘Stones from Heaven’, has proposed what would represent a third Israelite narrative fragment in the book of Joshua, a version of Yahweh's victory at Gibeon that was only secondarily associated with Joshua. 83 LEONARD-FLECKMAN, House of David, 38. 84 The core Shiloh narrative shows no awareness of potential centralization and should not be read as part of or in light of any Deuteronomy-inspired program at any level. For comparison, see the analysis in RÖMER, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 56–63, of layered concerns in Deut 12.

The Place of the Book of Judges in the So-Called Deuteronomistic History Some Remarks on Recent Research Uwe Becker A. The Book of Judges: Old and New Perspectives Just a few decades ago the world of Hebrew Bible research was in order, and there appeared to be a certain unity of thought on the fundamental questions of literary criticism. The book of Judges was considered without question to belong to the Deuteronomistic History (DH). The apparent consensus prevailed whether one accepted the thesis of Martin Noth1 in its essence or modified2 by a layer- or block model. My own dissertation, which appeared in 1990,3 was fully in alignment with the thesis of Noth, along with the modifications of the so-called Göttingen layer model. At that time it was almost unthinkable to call into question the inclusion of the book of Judges in the DH. Today, several decades later, a whole new perspective has opened up. For one, since the 1970s new lines of inquiry have been established in the area of pentateuchal studies. These have had inevitable consequences for Noth’s thesis of the DH. One might summarize them as the “new Hexateuch problem,” i.e., the reorientation of the book of Joshua to the hexateuchal narrative.4 What is more, doubts about the existence of Noth’s deuteronomistic historian (DtrG) had never fully been laid to rest. Both before and shortly after the publication of Noth’s Überliefungsgeschichtliche Studien (1943), 1

NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 47–61. The comprehensive synthesis of Old Testament literary history represented primarily by Alt, Noth and von Rad was in fact dominant until well into the 1970s. Even so, it was never free from critical inquiries or competing perspectives. Given the complex nature of the text itself, the diversity of recent scholarly views should not be lamented, but seen as both realistic and appropriate. 2 For the history of research see RÖMER, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History, 136– 145. 3 BECKER, Richterzeit; cf. also the overview in BECKER, ‘Richterbuch’. 4 Alongside the summary article of KAISER, ‘Pentateuch und Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk’, one could also mention FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, and RÖMER, ‘Pentateuch’ (here esp. 69–82). See most recently GERMANY, The Exodus-Conquest Narrative.

340

Uwe Becker

noteworthy alternatives had appeared but then mostly slipped into obscurity. One example of this is what was called the layer model of Alfred Jepsen, worked out in the 1940s but not published until 1953.5 The fact that Noth’s model was able to carry the day after the war was due, in part, to its utter simplicity. After a phase of literary-critical fragmentation in the 19th and beginning of the 20th century, Noth rediscovered the author as the creative genius of nascent literary development. He was also able to lay out the intention of this author, which resonated with a general plausibility in the years after 1945. The DH was presented by Noth, who in 1943 was still teaching in Königsberg, as an etiology of the point of departure, a full-blown recapitulation of the past.6 According to Noth, the Deuteronomist (Dtr): saw something final and terminal in the divine judgment which he depicted, manifested in the external collapse of the people of Israel. No future hope was expressed, not even in the most modest and simple form, no expectation of a gathering of the dispersed population which had been deported.7

For the Deuteronomist, the rise of kingship was an act of particular significance, as he looked back from the vantage point of his own time and was forced to conclude that kingship had brought the Israelites to ruin – a view he represented over and over throughout the course of his work.8

Thus, it is not always the best arguments that lead to the acceptance of a hypothesis, but also the circumstances of its reception. Very early there were individual voices that pointed out the contrasting views of history in Judges and 1–2 Kings. Most notable was the objection of Gerhard von Rad, who not only drew attention to the different “rhythm” of the presentation in Judges on the one hand (cyclical) and that of Kings on the other (linear), but also pointed to differences in the way judges and kings were critically assessed.9 While in the period of the judges the Deuteronomist put exclusive emphasis on the attitude of the people, later he included the behavior of the kings. Von Rad concluded: 5 6

Cf. JEPSEN, Quellen. Cf. in reference to the book of Joshua esp. NOORT, ‘Josua im Wandel der Zeiten’, 33–

36. 7 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 108: “… in dem göttlichen Gericht, das sich in dem von ihm dargestellten äußeren Zusammenbruch des Volkes Israel vollzog, offenbar etwas Endgültiges und Abschließendes gesehen und eine Zukunftshoffnung nicht einmal in der bescheidensten und einfachsten Form einer Erwartung der künftigen Sammlung der zerstreuten Deportierten zum Ausdruck gebracht.” 8 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 54: “… ein Akt von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung, da, wie er rückblickend von seiner eigenen Gegenwart aus feststellen mußte und wie er im weiteren Verlauf seines Werkes dann noch im einzelnen dargestellt hat, das Königtum das israelitische Volk in den Untergang geführt hat.” 9 Cf. VON RAD, Theologie I, 358–359.

II. 3.2. The Place of the Book of Judges

341

It is difficult to imagine that the dtr editing of the books of Kings and that of the book of Judges could have been part of one sequential process.10

A further difference concerns the basic dtr orientation of the book of Judges, which has less to do with the centralization of the cult than with the exclusive worship of Yahweh. If one considers the origins of the book of Deuteronomy, and in particular Deut 12, it is evident that this represents a more fully developed stage in the history of the dtr program.11 Thus, the current question about the status of the book of Judges is not that new. Briefly stated: Is Judges an integral component of a DH that spans from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings? Or was the book “inserted” later to provide a literary connection between the dtr history of the kings in Samuel-Kings and the “hexateuchal” history from the exodus to the entry into the land? In the recent discussion, both options are represented with more or less adequate argumentation respectively. In a substantive article dedicated to this very theme, which nonetheless avoids a final conclusion, Walter Groß rightly issues a few words of caution at the very beginning: Comprehensive literary theories concerning the DH or the Enneateuch have been proposed in the past decades mostly by authors who have not analyzed the total corpus of relevant texts in a verifiable manner. Rather, they depend on a few central passages considered to be convincing, especially those thought to be hinge texts. Fastidious literary criticism is occasionally replaced by generously handled tendency criticism.12

In what follows I would like to discuss several new positions by way of illustration, consider their arguments and add my own perspective. In my 1990 study of the book of Judges, I attempted to demonstrate the compatibility of the Göttingen layer model with that of Noth. I see things differently today and, along with Friedrich-Emanuel Focken, would ask: Aren’t the supporters of the Göttingen layer model who assert the late dating of these texts (i.e., the attribution of central passages to a late dtr editor, DtrN) essentially sawing off the branch on which they sit? Is it possible to maintain the unity of the fundamental dtr layer in

10 VON RAD, Theologie I, 359: “Es ist schwer vorstellbar, daß die dtr Redaktion der Königsbücher und die des Richterbuches in einem Arbeitsgang erfolgt sein sollte.” Cf. also IDEM, ‘Geschichtstheologie’. For further discussion see also BECKER, Richterzeit, 91–92, and now the more detailed treatment in FOCKEN, Landnahme, 31–35. 11 Cf., e.g., the analysis of VEIJOLA, Deuteronomium, 260–279. On this theme see also AURELIUS, ‘Ursprung’. 12 GROß, ‘Richterbuch’, 177 (= 140): “Literarische Großtheorien wie zum DtrG oder zum Enneateuch werden in den letzten Jahrzehnten überwiegend von Autoren vorgestellt, die nicht die gesamte Menge der einbezogenen Texte nachprüfbar analysiert haben; vielmehr stützen sie sich auf für beweiskräftig erachtete wenige zentrale Belege, vor allem auf vermutete Gelenktexte. An die Stelle penibler Literarkritik tritt gelegentlich großzügig gehandhabte Tendenzkritik.”

342

Uwe Becker

the books of Deuteronomy through 2 Kings without reference to these texts that are now dated later?13

In my earlier study, I really was sawing the branch I was sitting on. In the meantime, the branch has fallen, but that doesn’t mean that all of the earlier arguments are invalid.

B. Recent Research In a short essay from 1994 on the origins of the DH, Ernst Würthwein called attention to the special character of Judges and put forward the thesis that the cycle of dtr statements in Judg 2:11–12:6 was inserted secondarily into the books of Samuel–Kings. “There is no question that the dtr history in Judges is more theologically driven than in Kings.”14 The arguments which Würthwein only hints at were developed by others.15 Worthy of mention are Konrad Schmid, Reinhard G. Kratz, Erik Aurelius, Felipe Blanco Wissmann and especially Friedrich-Emanuel Focken.16 In his study of the ancestors and the exodus, Konrad Schmid dates the book of Judges as a whole to be late and attributable to an editor who was also responsible for Josh 24.17 His arguments are of a rather general nature: [T]he Deuteronomistic schema of Judges knows the end of the salvation history with Joshua, especially as Joshua 24 presents it, and every generation must learn it in detail. Thus, the period of the Judges is qualified as a transitional period that no longer belongs to the salvation history itself but repeats it en miniature. Then the judgment history begins with the monarchic period and ends with the loss of land.

Therefore it is the case that the schema of Judges is not Deuteronomistic but owes its schema theologically to the placement of Judges between the salvation history of the Hexateuch and the judgment history of the monarchy presented in Samuel–Kings. This perspective, however, is not older than Joshua 24.18

This argument is based primarily on Josh 24, which, because of its complexity and the overall late origins of the chapter, is not unproblematic.19 Never13

FOCKEN, Landnahme, 18–19: “ob die Anhänger des Göttinger Schichtenmodells mit der Spätdatierung dieser Texte [gemeint ist die Zuweisung zentraler Passagen an einen spät-dtr DtrN] an dem Ast sägen, auf dem sie sitzen: Kann ohne den Rückgriff auf diese später datierten Texte die Einheitlichkeit der dtr. Grundschicht in den Büchern Dtn–2Kön noch wahrscheinlich gemacht werden?” 14 WÜRTHWEIN, ‘Erwägungen’, 8. 15 Cf. the brief review of research in FOCKEN, Landnahme, 19–22. 16 Cf. SCHMID, Erzväter; KRATZ, Komposition; AURELIUS, Zukunft; BLANCO WISSMANN, Beurteilungskriterien; FOCKEN, Landnahme. 17 Cf. SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 199–208 (= Erzväter, 215–224). 18 SCHMID, Genesis and the Moses Story, 204 (= Erzväter, 220).

II. 3.2. The Place of the Book of Judges

343

theless, the observation that the book of Judges is a work of literary and theological transition is at least partially right. In the year 2000, Reinhard G. Kratz presented his comprehensive analysis of the narrative books of the Hebrew Bible. This work stands out if for no other reason than its inclusion of the entire corpus from Genesis through 2 Kings. In this respect, he follows the legitimate suggestion of Groß.20 No matter how much a general outline is shaped by the analysis of particular episodes, without a synthesis it is difficult to arrive at a higher level, in this case at an Enneateuch. This thesis, distilled into a few words, asserts that the dtr core of the book of Judges is later than the corresponding editing of Samuel–Kings; the outline of theological development in the period of the judges is modeled after the outline of the kings in 1–2 Kings.21 Just as important, however, is his observation about theological tendencies: Whereas in Samuel–Kings the First Commandment has become the criterion for assessing the kings only at a secondary stage and has replaced another criterion, likewise derived from Deuteronomy and to that degree Deuteronomistic, namely the criterion of the unity of the kingdom and the cult, in Deuteornomy itself as in Joshua and Judges, more or less from the beginning it is the criterion of the ‘Deuteronomistic’ (prophetic, priestly and other) revisions. Now that means that the beginning of the Deuteronomistic redaction does not lie in Deuteronomy but in Samuel–Kings and from here extends forwards into (Genesis–) Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges.22

Kratz’ literary-critical verification comes from the reconstruction of an older thread of the Hexateuch which would have run from Exod 2 through Josh 12. The most important observation here is found in the transition from Num 25:1a (and the death of Moses in Deut 34:5–6) to Josh 2:1 or 3:1. According to Num 25:1, the Israelites are encamped in Shittim, whereas according to Josh 2:1 and 3:1 they break camp from there (in 2:1 this is the scouts).23 Erhard Blum sees in this hexateuchal thread “a rather thin connection,”24 and, reinforced by a monograph by his student Joachim Krause,25 proposes an alternative explanation of the origin of the book of Joshua for discussion. According to Blum, the supposedly older connection between Num 25 and Josh 2 proves “upon closer inspection to be untenable.”26 His two most im19

Cf., e.g., BLUM, ‘Kompositionsgeschichte des Josuabuches’, 146–148; BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’. 20 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 155–219 (= Composition, 153–215). 21 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 215 (= Composition, 211). 22 KRATZ, Komposition, 160 (= Composition, 157–158). 23 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 208–210, 215, 220–221; IDEM, ‘Hexateuch’, 316–322. 24 BLUM, ‘Kompositionsgeschichte des Josuabuches’, 141: “einen eher schütteren Zusammenhang”. 25 Cf. KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus. 26 BLUM, ‘Kompositionsgeschichte des Josuabuches’, 141: “bei näherem Hinsehen … kaum tragfähig”. Cf. also IDEM, ‘Beschneidung’, 221–227.

344

Uwe Becker

portant literary arguments for this are: 1) Josh 2 is a secondary strand, inserted subsequently between the dtr chapters 1 and 3:2ff.; 2) Josh 2 reflects lateor post-dtr theology. The confession of Rahab in 2:10–11, sometimes treated as secondary, is rather a genuine component of the narrative.27 A general consideration should be added. The older studies before Noth were already in agreement that “the Pentateuch without its continuation in the book of Joshua is just a torso.”28 After all, an exodus does not lead to nowhere, but has a particular goal in mind. The real question, of course, is whether the original goal is to be identified with the narrative of the taking of the land in the book of Joshua. Or has a more original destination been lost, as Noth and others assumed? In the words of Blum: “Does the functional coherence of events (in this case the exodus and entry into the land) determine the limit and profile of the plots derived from it?”29 A continuation of the exodus story, therefore, can certainly have been “assumed by the implied recipients”30 but need not be found in the same literary context. No fundamental objections can be raised against this distinction drawn by Blum, which raises the question of whether the continuation found in the book of Joshua might contain the older, transitional narrative being sought. What should follow is a comprehensive engagement with Joachim Krause’s suggestive and brilliant analysis of Josh 1–5. I will content myself now, however, with a few comments made recently against Blum’s position by Klaus Bieberstein, himself the author of a monograph on Josh 1–6.31 Bieberstein’s position can be summarized briefly in this way: He considers the question of the proposed original connection to Num 25 in the book of Joshua. The Rahab story of Josh 2 is indeed a later insertion that interrupts the continuity of the dtr passages in Josh 1:10–11 and 3:2–4.32 “Thus, the earliest version of the conquest narratives could have first begun in Josh 3:1 with the account of the crossing of the Jordan and must have begun with this reference to the itinerary, since at the same time it represents the earliest version of the Jordan story.”33 Since no independent narrative could have 27

Cf. BLUM, ‘Kompositionsgeschichte des Josuabuches’, 141–142, and the detailed treatment in KRAUSE, Exodus und Eisodus, 135–195. 28 STEUERNAGEL, Deuteronomium und Josua, 131 (“ist der Pentateuch ohne die Fortsetzung im Buche Josua ein Torso”). 29 BLUM, ‘Kompositionsgeschichte des Josuabuches’, 143: “Determiniert die sachliche Kohärenz von Geschehenszusammenhängen (in unserem Falle: Exodus und Landnahme) die Abgrenzung und Profilierung darauf bezogener narrativer Plots?” 30 BLUM, ‘Kompositionsgeschichte des Josuabuches’, 144: “bei den impliziten Rezipienten vorausgesetzt”. 31 BIEBERSTEIN, ‘Das Buch Josua und seine Horizonte’. 32 Cf. BIEBERSTEIN, ‘Das Buch Josua und seine Horizonte’, 155. 33 BIEBERSTEIN, ‘Das Buch Josua und seine Horizonte’, 155: “Dann aber kann die früheste Fassung der Landnahmeerzählungen erst in Jos 3,1 mit der Erzählung von der

II. 3.2. The Place of the Book of Judges

345

begun with Josh 3:1, however, Num 25 is more likely the introductory text – along with other intermediate texts like the death of Moses in Deut 34:5–6. In this case, Josh 2:1 can be explained as a later Vorwegnahme of 3:1 after the insertion of Josh 2. There is nothing fundamentally wrong with the suggestion that the original continuation of the exodus story is to be found in Josh 3:1. The plausibility of the thesis is enhanced in that there was indeed a coherent exodus-conquest narrative. At the same time, this means that the book of Judges appears increasingly like an appendix to the account of the conquest, or better yet, a transitional book that does not constitute part of an original (dtr) unit with the book of Joshua. This brings me to the most recent work on this theme, the 2014 Heidelberg dissertation of Friedrich-Emanuel Focken, entitled Zwischen Landnahme und Königtum. Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Anfang und Ende der deuteronomistischen Richtererzählungen. The literary-critical conclusions of the study may be summarized as follows: 1) The first dtr author of the book of Judges (referred to as “DtrR” following Kratz) already assumed a Hexateuch in the form of Genesis–Joshua, shaped by the Priestly writer. Furthermore, he drew on an older Jephthah tradition (Judg 11:1–11aα, 29, 32, 33a) and a list of minor judges (10:1–5; 12:8–15). In addition, he assumed that the dtr base layer of Samuel–Kings included the account of Samuel’s victory over the Philistines (1 Sam 7:2aαβ, 5, 6a, 7–12, 15–17). 2) “DtrR used these texts in order to frame the dtr accounts of the judges as part of an Enneateuch (Genesis–2 Kings*!). He reshaped the introduction to the period of the judges and extended the older Jephthah story and the account of Samuel’s victory over the Philistines.”34 3) Only at a later phase was the older Abimelech story added (Judg 9:26–41, 46–54);35 the fable of Jotham in Judg 9:8–15 was added later still. He asserts in conclusion that: “DtrR has inserted the dtr book of Judges between the Hexateuch, which

Überschreitung des Jordan eingesetzt haben und muss mit dieser Itinerarnotiz eingesetzt haben, weil sie zugleich die früheste Fassung der Jordan-Erzählung repräsentiert.” See also the detailed discussion in IDEM, Josua, 170–194. 34 FOCKEN, Landnahme, 219: “DtrR nimmt diese Texte auf, um die dtr. Richtererzählungen als Teil des Enneateuchs (Gen–2Kön*!) zu gestalten. Er formt die Einleitung in die Richterzeit neu und schreibt die ältere Jiftacherzählung und die Erzählung von Samuels Philistersieg fort.” In Focken’s view, DtrR is also responsible for Judg 2:6(?), 7– 12, 14–16, 18, 19a; 10:6–7, 8abα*β, 9–18; 11:11aβ–28, 33a*b; 12:1–7 and 1 Sam 7:2aγ, 3– 4, 6*, 13–14. As opposed to most of the more recent studies, the introduction to Jephthah in 10:6–18* and the report of his dealings with the Ammonite King Nahash in 11:12–28 are considered to have already been part of the original version of DtrR. 35 Namely in Judg 8:29, 31; 9:1–5a, 22–25, 42–45, 55–57a; 10,1a*.

346

Uwe Becker

had already been shaped by the interests of the Priestly writer, and the books of 1 Sam–2 Kings, which had already been reworked by a dtr editor.”36 Thus, the work fundamentally supports the perspective of Kratz as well as that of Focken’s dissertation advisor, Jan Christian Gertz. The work’s line of reasoning, however, is not completely satisfactory. Let me name a few points that lead ultimately to my own revised view of the matter: 1) A problem with the work in general is that one would have expected in support of the thesis at least a summary analysis of the remaining judges accounts. Almost everything depends on an exposition of the theological introduction (2:6ff.) and the Jephthah story. The idea that the oldest form of the book of Judges composed by DtrR must have included the stories of Judg 3–12 is only evident indirectly from the chronology established by DtrR, as Focken quite convincingly reconstructs.37 But nothing is revealed about the actual intention of this composition. Did it have to do “only” with a simple narrative bridge? Or was the author following a deeper formative theological sense in formulating a transitional period composed of “charismatic” leaders? Thus, it seems to me that the question of whether this middle period was consciously placed under the auspices of a (Yahwistic) alternative to kingship (my own view) does not appear to have been settled. 2) The second shortcoming of the work has to do with its analysis of the “core” of the book of Judges, the Gideon-Abimelech cycle in Judg 6–9. On the one hand, it includes a detailed classification of the Abimelech tradition, starting with Judg 8:33. On the other hand, there is no analysis whatsoever of the Gideon story, including the two important verses Judg 8:22–23.38 The thesis that the Abimelech story ended up in the composition only after DtrR, hardly a new idea, would seem to be worthy of discussion at least. The arguments are not very convincing: “The typical elements of the judges pattern are generally not found in the Abimelech story. Therefore the story of Abimelech was probably added to the book of Judges only after DtrR.”39 There are also literary-critical considerations relating to the transition between chs. 8 and 9 that cannot be dealt with here. Finally, there are general considerations which have already been noted, e.g., did the late-dtr composi36

FOCKEN, Landnahme, 222: “DtrR hat das dtr. Richterbuch zwischen den bereits priesterschriftlich geprägten Hexateuch und die bereits dtr. überarbeiteten Bücher 1Sam– 2Kön eingeschrieben.” 37 Cf. FOCKEN, Landnahme, 223–226. 38 Only a few hints of this can be found: FOCKEN, Landnahme, 102–104. 39 FOCKEN, Landnahme, 103: “Die typischen Elemente des Richterschemas finden sich in der Abimelecherzählung im Großen und Ganzen nicht. Daher ist die Abimelecherzählung wahrscheinlich erst nach DtrR ins Richterbuch eingefügt worden.” Thus also JANS, Abimelech, and GROß, Richter, 373–374, 388–389, 485, 527. – Is “the incoherence of 8:28–32” really the only thing that conflicts with Becker’s thesis (FOCKEN, Landnahme, 103 n. 78)?

II. 3.2. The Place of the Book of Judges

347

tion of the period of the judges function as a purely narrative bridge between Joshua and Samuel? Or was the author driven by a more far-reaching theological program that had to do with a view of kingship? This censure of kingship could be a decisive reason why the book of Judges was given its current position. It is well known that kingship is not only the concern of the body of the book of Judges (Judg 8:22–23 and Judg 9) but also of the so-called appendix in Judg 17–21. In his widely cited study of the assessment of kingship in dtr historiography (1977), Timo Veijola attempted, on the basis of the kingship-friendly transition verses in 17:6; 18:1; 19:1; 21:25, to establish the unusual thesis that the supplemental material should be attributed to the first dtr historian, i.e., the one he thought of as the kingship-friendly DtrH.40 This thesis, which is completely compatible with Noth’s model, along with the “Göttingen” modification, has not remained free of criticism.41 Other recent treatments of Judg 17–21 make it clear that we are indeed dealing with “supplemental material,” i.e.. later, post-dtr narratives that were strategically placed before the (older) portrayal of the era of the kings. The dissertation of Cynthia Edenburg on Judg 19–21 was submitted in 2003 in Tel Aviv (in Hebrew), but appeared in a reworked English version only in 2016. On the basis of a careful compositional analysis, she concluded that the original form of Judg 19–21 was already a short but complete narrative that had undergone a series of substantial expansions by a Priestlyoriented editor.42 The basic narrative, to which the kingship-friendly transition verses belonged, reveals itself to be a post-dtr account which was shaped especially for the purpose of supplementing Judg 17–18. It also provided a (new) introduction to 1 Sam 1ff., obscuring the positive image of Benjamin there with a more foreboding one.43 Although there is no explicit criticism of Saul, the institution of kingship, initiated in the land of Benjamin, is unmistakably tarnished.44 From this perspective, the “supplemental materials” of the book of Judges appear in fact as transitional texts which, though they stand on their own in a certain sense as narrative, had been composed to provide an overarching continuity. In a completely different way, Sarah Schulz, whose study (an Erlangen doctoral dissertation, supervised by Henrik Pfeiffer) also appeared in 2016, asserted the transitional character of Judg 17–21.45 The extremely complex 40

Cf. VEIJOLA, Königtum, 15–29. Cf., e.g., BECKER, Richterzeit. 42 EDENBURG, Dismembering. She assigns Judg 19:1b–30; 20:1–3*, 12–15, 17, 18–33*, 36b–45*, 47–48*; 21:1, 6–7, 8a, 9, 12–14*, 19–22, 23–24* to the base narrative. 43 Cf. EDENBURG, Dismembering, 329–332. 44 Edenburg is firmly convinced that the dtr representation of the era of the judges and the kings is continuous in Judg 2:7–12:15 + 1Sam 1ff. (Dismembering, 333). 45 SCHULZ, Anhänge. 41

348

Uwe Becker

development of these chapters can only be sketched here in a few brief strokes. Chapter 19 is depicted as the oldest core, characterized as a post-dtr, politically tendentious narrative, shaped by the inclusion of the kingshipfriendly phrase in 19:1. It is based not only on hexateuchal material, but arose in its anti-Saulide (albeit pro-Davidic) orientation as a “foreshadowing of the Samuel–Kings composition.”46 In the course of several stages of expansion, first Judg 20 was added, then the framework of the account in Judg 17:1–4, 6 and 21:1, 15–23, 25 and finally Judg 17–18 as a caricature of the “sin of Jeroboam” in 1 Kgs 12,47 directed against the tribe of Dan. In other words, at every literary level there is “a proleptic intentionality discernable with reference to the Samuel-Kings composition.”48 Apart from questions that could be raised in reference to the detailed literary-critical analysis, which cannot be dealt with here at any length, criticism could well be directed at the “unlikely” thesis that Judg 17–21 and Judg 2:6– 16:31 constitute two independent transitions between the Hexateuch and Samuel–Kings.49 This makes it impossible to speak of Judg 17–21 as “supplemental materials”, since this would rule out the possibility that the Enneateuch “was in circulation in two versions that were distinct from each other, at least in the redactional transition from the Hexateuch to the Samuel-Kings composition,”50 prior to the combination of Judg 2:6–16:31 and Judg 17–21 in a single text. It is evident that, in spite of differing points of departure, the most recent studies of the book of Judges presented here exhibit a relatively clear tendency, namely, that the book of Judges did not originally belong between the Hexateuch and the account of the kings. Rather, in the various stages of its formation it had an obviously transitional character. In the words of its most recent commentator: “At the end of the book of Judges the readers are once again where they were in Joshua 24”; “the myth [of the history of Israel] is taking a victory lap.”51 With that I come to my own summary reflections, in which I sketch out a revised position from that represented in my dissertation. 46

SCHULZ, Anhänge, 52: “Vorspann zur Sam-Kön-Komposition”. Cf. the summary in SCHULZ, Anhänge, 189–206. 48 SCHULZ, Anhänge, 194: “eine proleptische Funktion im Blick auf die SamuelKönige-Komposition”. 49 Cf. SCHULZ, Anhänge, 207–217. The arguments on pp. 215–216 are anything but convincing. 50 SCHULZ, Anhänge, 226: “in zwei Versionen im Umlauf gewesen [wäre], die sich (mindestens) im redaktionellen Übergangsbereich vom Hexateuch zur Sam-KönKomposition voneinander unterschieden”. One should, however, note the discussion of the “double redactional knot” (231) at the end of Joshua and the beginning of Judges on pp. 231–244. 51 KNAUF, Richter, 11: “Am Ende des Richterbuches sind die Leser wieder da, wo sie in Jos 24 schon waren”; “der Mythos [von der Vorgeschichte Israels] dreht noch eine Ehren47

II. 3.2. The Place of the Book of Judges

349

C. The Book of Judges as an Anti-Monarchic Bridge between Settlement and Statehood I essentially accept the thesis that the basic form of the book of Judges was “placed in between,” i.e., originated as a bridge between a strand of the Hexateuch – however it might be described – and the core dtr presentation of Samuel-Kings. In this regard, the arguments of Kratz and others, with the modifications of Bieberstein, constitute a convincing perspective. I will come to the end with some remarks on the theological aims of the book of Judges that has been “placed in between”. The introduction to the era of the judges in Judg 2:6ff. is already oriented linguistically toward the dtr formula for critically assessing kings (2:11 “they did what was evil in the sight of Yahweh”). In fact, the author – we may call him “DtrR” – transfers the negative evaluation of the kings onto the people. This means of course that the judges who have been commissioned to deliver the people are exempted. The theological introduction in Judg 2:11–19 already poses the question of the right form of leadership, so that the theme of kingship, which drives the Gideon-Abimelech narrative in particular, is present from the first line. The era of the judges is depicted as a positive precursor to the time of the kings. The attribution to a later editor of passages critical of the kings – Gideon’s speech in 8:22–23, but also the account of Abimelech in ch. 9 – seems unlikely to me. It is also striking to note how Walter Groß, the author of the most comprehensive recent Judges commentary, deals with this theme. He brackets the theme of kingship out of his dtr base document (DtrR) altogether. The speech of Gideon in 8:22–23 is older, and the story of Abimelech in ch. 9 is to be dated after DtrR. Above all it is his classification of Judg 8:22 that is surprising. Groß considers these verses to be part of a pre-dtr Gideon narrative52 but does not completely rule out the possibility that the speech is later.53 The Abimelech account, furthermore, although full of ancient material, was only inserted into the book of Judges much later (after the second dtr redaction, DtrS). At this stage in the development of the text, the anti-monarchic line of the book of Judges reaches its greatest intensity through the addition of the Abimelech story on the one hand and the glorification of Gideon on the other.54 runde.” Rake also makes reference to the transitional character of the portrayal of the judges in her study of Judg 1 (cf. RAKE, Juda, 125–141). 52 Cf. GROß, Richter, 85, 386, 454–457. 53 Cf. GROß, Richter, 455–456. 54 GROß, Richter, 87: “In diesem Textstadium, durch Hinzufügung der AbimelechErzählung, erreicht die königsfeindliche Linie des Richterbuchs einerseits, die Verherrlichung Gideons andererseits ihre höchste Steigerung.”

350

Uwe Becker

But which anti-monarchic texts would remain for DtrR if neither the speech of Gideon nor the Abimelech story originate from this editor? In my view, Reinhard Müller has convincingly described the concept of the era of the judges: The framework of the book of Judges, as an etiology of the destruction of the nation transposed back into the early history of the people, reflects a high degree of theological reflection in comparison with that found in the redaction of the books of Kings. The pious asides are here stripped of their originally political and religious intent and applied to the Israel of salvation history.55 […] Insofar as the sins of the Israelites, and the successive periods of oppression by foreign leaders to which they are correlated, can only be dealt with provisionally by the ‘deliverers’ sent by Yahweh, so too is the implementation of kingship envisioned as a goal of the era of the judges.56

Müller himself, in contrast to Groß, attributes the speech of Gideon to a distinctly later “theological criticism of kingship,” since in contrast to the original idea of the era of the judges, “Yahweh’s sole authority to rule over Israel”57 is emphasized. But couldn’t the speech of Gideon, along with ch. 9, reflect precisely the intention of DtrR? The conclusion is thus twofold: The book of Judges indeed originated as a bridge and is at its core oriented against the monarchy. This thesis opposes the more recent studies, which perceive in the first edition of the dtr work, i.e., Samuel-Kings, no hint of an anti-monarchic tone. This is the tenor of the work of Aurelius and Levin as well as Veijola. With all due respect to the analysis of Veijola in general, his thesis that there was a dtr pro-monarchic orientation in the basic form of the book of Judges has proven to be untenable in every way. Neither his analysis of the speech of Gideon in Judg 8:22–23 (which Veijola considers to be older than its surrounding literary context) nor his assessment of the so-called supplemental materials of the book of Judges in chs. 17–21 (which Veijola interprets as an integral part of DtrH)58 are convincing. The knot can only be undone by attributing the basic form of the 55 MÜLLER, Königtum, 91: “Als in die Frühgeschichte des Volkes verlagerte Ätiologie des Untergangs gibt der Richterrahmen gegenüber der im Königebuch greifbaren Redaktion einen deutlich fortgeschrittenen Grad an theologischer Reflexion zu erkennen. Die Frömmigkeitsnotizen werden hier ihres ursprünglich religionspolitischen Horizonts entkleidet und auf das Israel der Heilsgeschichte bezogen.” For a discussion of the period of the judges in relation to that of the kings see esp. pp. 45–75. 56 MÜLLER, Königtum, 92: “Indem die Sünde der Israeliten und die sich daran anschließenden Fremdherrschaften von den von Jahwe gesandten ‚Rettern‘ nur vorübergehend beseitigt werden, wird die Einrichtung des Königtums als Ziel der Richterzeit anvisiert.” Why it necessarily follows from this, however, that the period of the judges is bound to lead directly to kingship, or even that the author of the judges framework “harbors throughout a certain sympathy for kingship” (240), is not at all clear. 57 MÜLLER, Königtum, 92: “betont den alleinigen Herrschaftsanspruch Jahwes über Israel”. 58 Cf. VEIJOLA, Königtum, 15–29 and 100–114.

II. 3.2. The Place of the Book of Judges

351

book of Judges along with criticism of the kings to a later (dtr) author, albeit one who has transformed the subdued hope for a restored Davidic dynasty, which shimmers throughout the original version of the dtr history of the kings in Samuel-Kings, into a fundamental criticism of the kings.59

59 I thank my colleague Paul Keim from Goshen, IN, for his great help in preparing the English version of this article.

Envelopes and Seams How Judges Fits (or not) within the Deuteronomistic History Cynthia Edenburg Thirty years ago few doubted that there was a comprehensive Deuteronomistic history work that related not only the history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah, the establishment of the monarchy and the Davidic dynasty, but also accounted for the period from the crossing of the Jordan to the settlement of the land. For this work to be properly “Deuteronomistic” it must not only share dtr language and ideology, but must also somehow connect with the Deuteronomic notion that Yahweh gives the land to Israel as an inheritance. This connection is provided by the story of the conquest in which the promise of the land is realized. Thus, the entire work is framed by the realization of the promise and its retraction. However, different scholars challenged Noth’s view of the structure of the Deuteronomistic History, in which eras are marked by proleptic and retrospective surveys and speeches, and the extent of this historical composition is debated. The speeches that were considered the hallmark of Deuteronomistic composition, have not only been subjected to redaction analysis, but have been relegated by some to Torah, Hexateuch or Enneateuch redactions.1 Once the end of era speeches are excised from the running narrative then the comprehensive history work falls apart, since the speeches provided the structuring periodization for the whole. As a result some opt for returning to preNothian views regarding Deuteronomistic editing of independent books within the collection of the Former Prophets. Thus, some argue that Judges was the latest major block added to the comprehensive historical narrative, since it seems to presume a cyclic rather than a linear progression of history.2 But if Judges is removed from the early history work (along with Samuel’s farewell 1

See, e.g., AURELIUS, Zukunft, 172–190; KRATZ, Composition, 172–173, 193, 197– 200; BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’; RÖSEL, ‘Redaktion’; MÜLLER, Königtum, 177–196; KNAUF, Josua, 20–22, 189; NIHAN, ‘1 Samuel 8 and 12’, 245–268. 2 See VON RAD, Old Testament Theology, 329–347 on the tension between the Deuteronomistic linear view of history and cyclic depiction of the period of the Judges. For arguments against the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis, see, e.g., WESTERMANN, Geschichtsbücher; KNAUF, Data and Debates, 549–556; RÖSEL, Von Josua bis Jojachin; and the critical review of scholarship in FOCKEN, Landnahme, 19–37.

354

Cynthia Edenburg

speech with its survey of the era of Judges in 1 Sam 12), then the narrative is left without a smooth transition from the death of Joshua to the institution of kingship. In my opinion, the problems Judges presents for the Deuteronomistic History hypothesis are not solved by excising the era of the Judges from historical narrative. Instead, I propose a different approach that starts by taking into consideration the nature of the scribal medium, which was the scroll. This approach has significant implications for how we should understand the shape of the Deuteronomistic History. Although papyrus rolls may have been used for preparing drafts of literary compositions, I think it likely that compositions that were intended for preservation would have been inscribed upon the thick but durable leather sheets (gevil) that were generally employed for the biblical scrolls found at Qumran.3 The total length of the final form of the five books from Deuteronomy to Kings is only slightly shorter than the total length of the Pentateuch.4 Accordingly, a scroll comprising Deuteronomy and the Former Prophets would be just as heavy and unwieldy as a Torah scroll. Even if we reduce the extent of the original composition of the Deuteronomistic History by subtracting material generally thought to be late deuteronomistic or post-deuteronomistic additions (e.g., Josh 13–22, 24; Judg 1:1–2:5, 13–21; 2 Sam 21–24; 1 Kgs 17–22*, 2 Kgs 1–8*) the length of the postulated composition would result in a scroll that would still be awkward to manipulate. In actuality, there is no empiric evidence that lengthy compositions like the Deuteronomistic History were originally written on a single scroll. 5 Accordingly, I conclude that the Deuteronomistic History was not secondarily divided into separate scrolls along the seams of material that was inserted into the continuous narrative (Josh 23–24; Judg 1:1–2:5, 17–21, 2 Sam 21–24). Instead, it is more probable that the Deuteronomistic History was composed from the start as a set of five scrolls (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) that were meant to be read as a continuous narrative. This helps explain why each of the different scrolls has a distinctive character even though they all share narrative, thematic and editorial continuity. Furthermore, the scroll medium is not amenable to large scale revision without rewriting or recopying. But the beginnings and ends of the scrolls could easily be extended in order to add material that revises or overrides the outlook of the main body of the narrative. From the technical point of view, the scribe could employ the scroll’s cover sheets for writing, and sew a new piece of hide to the beginning or end of the scroll if the new section ran more than one column in length. From the editorial point of view, this technique of 3

Cf. TOV, Scribal Practices, 34–35. According to the Massoretic computations Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings contain 5,269 verses, while the Pentateuch comprises 5,845 verses. 5 See the general Introduction and part II, section 1 in this volume. 4

II. 3.2. Envelopes and Seams

355

revision required literary strategies for masking the joints between the diverse material by means such as repetitive resumptions (Wiederaufnahmen), inclusia, chiastic repetitions (so-called “Seidel’s law”) and intertextual allusion and citation. This results in the book-seams that are discussed in this volume. In the following, I examine the different seams at both the beginning and the end of the Judges scroll, with the aim of uncovering the stages of growth of the scroll. Then it should be possible to discern to what extent the early body of the scroll comprised an integral part of a Deuteronomistic History and whether it is possible, by means of eliminating late material, to uncover a Deuteronomistic compositional strand running from Joshua through Judges into Samuel. Others have already established the separate and late origin of Judg 1:1–36 and 2:1–5, although their diachronic relations are greatly debated. My discussion will focus mainly on the seaming at the end of the scroll, where it was technically easiest for scribes to add material, but I also hope to cast some light on the evolution of the materials at the beginning of the scroll by examining their interaction with the accretions at the scroll’s end.

A. The Envelope: Judg 1:1–2:5, 17:1–21:25 Since the question has been thoroughly discussed elsewhere, we may take it as given that the prologue and appendix in Judg 1:1–2:5, 17:1–21:25 are late disruptive non-Deuteronomistic additions to the Judges scroll.6 Ancient and medieval interpreters already noticed that both Judg 17–18 and 19–21 apparently share the same chronological framework with the end of the book of Joshua and the beginning of Judges. Both 18:30 and 20:28 mention priests belonging to the third generation following Aaron and Moses, which supposedly places the events in the period immediately following the demise of Joshua and Elazar (Josh 24:28, 33; Judg 1:1). For this reason, Josephus – as befits an historian who seeks to write a chronologically coherent narrative – placed the accounts of the Danite migration and the outrage at Gibeah before the stories of the Judges.7 Some scholars of the modern period held that Judg 17–21 derived from a pre-Deuteronomistic source in which these narratives indeed were placed after the death of Joshua and before the stories of the deliverers, but were not included in the Deuteronomistic edition of Judges; and only later did a subsequent scribe think to append them to the end of the book along with the seemingly pro-monarchic comment “In those days there was no king in Israel” as preparation for the institution of the monarchy in 6 See EDENBURG, ‘Overwriting’, 443–453; EADEM, Dismembering the Whole, 284–290, 301–304, with further literature there. 7 See Josephus, Ant. 5.2.1–5.3.2, and cf. Rashi (Judg 17:1); Gersonides (Judg 17:1, 19:10); Isaiah di Trani (Judg 20:28); Qimḥi (17:6).

356

Cynthia Edenburg

Samuel.8 However, this scenario is quite unfeasible since it is hard to conceive why scribes would preserve and recopy literary sources for hundreds of years, before and after the Babylonian conquest, even though they had been superseded by other compositions. In any event, the reference to Phinehas ben Elazar in 20:28a is part of a disruptive secondary elaboration.9 Thus, only in a final redactional stage did Judg 19–21 come to share the same chronological framework with Judg 1:1–2:5 and 17–18. The Micah story in Judg 17:1–18:31 also shares some general motifs with Judg 1:1–36 and 2:1–5. Judges 1 and 18 both relate the conquest of a city after a spy mission, and in both the name of the city is changed following its conquest (Bethel in 1:22–25, Dan in 18:2, 7, 27–29). Both also presume that the tribe of Dan was not permanently settled (Judg 1:34–35, 18:1).10 Also, both the account of Micah’s shrine (17:1–5) and the Bochim passage (Judg 2:1–5) seem to be directed against Bethel, even though both texts carefully refrain from its name.11 Nonetheless, Judg 17:1–18:31 presents no discernible verbal correspondences with either 1:1–36 or 2:1–5. Therefore it would be hazardous to rule whether one section was patterned upon the other. Judg 19–21, by contrast, does share with 1:1–36 and 2:1–5 many verbal correspondences, as well as motifs. While the body of Judges makes no reference to Jerusalem, it figures as a Jebusite settlement in Judg 1:7–8, 21 and in 19:10,12 where it is identified with the uncommon toponym Jebus. Moreover, nowhere else are Jebusites or Jebus mentioned in the book of Judges, and these references all occur in an anti-Benjaminite context. The unusual toponym, Jebus, is unnecessary in 19:10–11, and most likely was employed in order to evoke association with Judg 1:21.13 Two passages in Judg 1 and 20 share unique phrasing and both are more at home in Judg 1 than in the Gibeah story. The first is the question and answer in Judg 1:1–2; 20:18: “They inquired of YHWH/God saying: Who of us shall be the first to go up to attack (‫ )להלחם‬/ to war (‫ ?)למלחמה‬YHWH answered: 8 See, e.g., AUBERLEN, Anhänge, 539; BUDDE, Richter, xi–xvi; TALMON, ‘In Those Days’, 44–48; and for a refutation see EISSFELDT, Quellen, 110–112. 9 See the recent discussion by EDENBURG, Dismembering the Whole, 34–37, with additional literature there. 10 Scholars frequently assume that the report in 1:34–35 provides the rationale for the migration of Dan to the north of the Galilee as related in 18:2–31. In actuality, neither text betrays awareness of the other. In 1:34–35 the Danites are pressed into the unspecified hillcountry while “Amorites” settle Dan’s holdings in the Shephelah. By contrast, 18:1 states that the Danites migrated since the tribe had not received an allotment, and their new place of settlement is specifically located and named (18:7, 29). 11 See AMIT, ‘Conquest of Dan’; EADEM, Hidden Polemics, 99–129; GOMES, Sanctuary, 117–120. 12 For Jebusite as a gentilicon, see Josh 15:63, 18:28; 2 Sam 5:6; 1 Chr 11:4. 13 See EDENBURG, Dismembering the Whole, 139 n. 121, 304, with further discussion and literature there.

II. 3.2. Envelopes and Seams

357

Judah”, and this passage is intelligible only in the context of Judg 1, which presumes that each tribe had to take initiative to possess its inheritance (cf. Judg 1:3; Josh 14:1–2, 18:1–10). By contrast, the story of the battle at Gibeah emphasizes the unity of all Israel (e.g., 20:1, 11, 17) and only singles out Benjamin’s rebellion. Nor does the narrative follow up on the instruction that Judah lead the attack, and instead no further mention of Judah is forthcoming. Thus, the formulation of the initial oracular consultation in Judg 20:18 was certainly rewritten to echo 1:1–2.14 This revision probably stems from the same hand that produced the series of expansions and revisions in Judg 20– 21.15 The second expression, “to set on fire” (‫ )שׁל״ח באשׁ‬with ‫ עיר‬as its object, occurs only in Judg 1:8 and 20:48.16 Significantly, Judg 20:48 is patterned in part upon Deut 13:16–17, but while the Deuteronomistic idiom ‫שׂר״ף באשׁ‬ occurs in Deut 13:17,17 the scribe who expanded the summary of the Gibeah battle preferred the rare expression ‫ שׁל״ח באשׁ‬that occurs also in Judg 1:8. From the above, it can be seen that the interaction between Judg 1 and 19– 21 is straightforward and one-way, and that associative links to Judg 1 were picked up by the scribe who revised the Gibeah story and woven into it his revisions. By contrast, the interaction between Judg 2:1–5 and 20–21 presents a more complex picture of their redaction history. The primary strand of the Gibeah narrative already included references to “going up to Bethel” (‫ בית אל‬... ‫ )ויעלו‬for oracular consultation before battle and for sacrifice and weeping after defeat (20:18, 23, 26–27a).18 Similarly, in 2:1–5 Yahweh’s messenger ('‫ )מלאך ה‬also “goes up” from Gilgal to Bochim, the place of “weeping” (‫ אל הבכים‬... ‫)ויעל‬. Therefore, the association of Bochim with Bethel is implied by the geographic background of the messenger’s route from Gilgal to Bochim, presumably via Wadi Suweinit which leads to Bethel (cf. Josh 7:2; 2 Kgs 2:18, 23). Although Bethel is associated with weeping elsewhere in Gen 35:8 and Hos 12:5, it seems likely that the idea to allude to Bethel as “the (place of) Weeping”, was inspired by a closer 14

See EDENBURG, Dismembering the Whole, 33, 307, with further literature there. See EDENBURG, Dismembering the Whole, 75–77. 16 The equivalent Deuteronomistic idiom is ‫שׂר״ף באשׁ‬, see, e.g., Deut 7:5, 25, 12:3, 13:17; Josh 6:24, 11:6, 9, 11. 17 See EDENBURG, Dismembering the Whole, 236–239, 308. 18 The primary strand in Judg 20–21 comprises 19:1b–30, 20:1*, 2*, 3a, 12–17, 20:18*– 29*, 30*, 31*, 32*–33*, 36b–45*, 47–48*, 21:1, 6–7, 8a, 9, 12*, 13*, 14*, 19–22, 23*– 24*, and see EDENBURG, Dismembering the Whole, 20–77; cf. GROß, Richter, 825. Since both Mizpah and Bethel play a role in Judg 20–21, many presumed that each site derived from a different source, redactional layer or stream of tradition. However, neither site doubles the function of the other within the context of the narrative; therefore, there is no justification for excising either site from the primary narrative, and see EDENBURG, Dismembering the Whole, 82–84, 109–112, with further literature there. 15

358

Cynthia Edenburg

literary context, namely, the interludes of crying at Bethel in Judg 20:23, 26, 21:2. This implies that the Bochim passage was composed after the postDeuteronomistic core narrative about the war at Gibeah had already been appended to the end of the Judges scroll. The scribe who wished to reinterpret the catalogue of settlement failures in Judg 1 by means of the divine messenger’s rebuke did little to integrate the addition into its context, but made do with casting the incident as a proleptic echo of the interludes of weeping at Bethel in Judg 20–21, thereby reinforcing the frame constructed by the material added to the beginning and the end of the scroll. The Israelites of the story world in Judg 20 seem ignorant of any divine reproach announced previously at the place of weeping; otherwise, it would be hard to understand why they persist in seeking a favorable oracle there. Hence, it is possible that the scribe who penned and added the rebuke in 2:1–5 not only reinterpreted the catalogue of defeat in Judg 1, but also sought to hint why the Israelites should be misguided twice and be led to disastrous defeat after oracular consultation at Bethel (20:18–21, 23–25). Subsequently, the scribe(s) who revised the Gibeah story further enhanced the interaction with the Bochim episode in order to tighten the scroll’s frame. Three times the section in Judg 20 dealing with the war against Gibeah details how the Israelites went up to Bethel for sacral ceremonies before going out to battle. The episodes are progressively elaborated, leading up to the dramatic turn of events following the third detour to Bethel: on the third time (20:26– 28), they not only consult the oracle and lament their defeat “before Yahweh” ('‫ )לפני ה‬as they had done before in 20:18, 23, but also fast until evening, and sacrifice propitiatory offerings. Thus, the three scenes at Bethel during the course of the war in the primary narrative were shaped according to the graded number pattern of 2 + 1, in which the final scene heralds the climactic change that will subsequently occur. However, after the war’s successful conclusion, the narrative again reports in 21:2–4 that the Israelites go up to Bethel once more to weep before God (‫)לפני אלהים‬, only now they lament the outcome of the victory that decimated Benjamin. The next morning they build an altar (‫ )מזבח‬and sacrifice offerings (21:4). The altar building and sacrificial offerings are hardly understandable in this context since 20:26 already assumes that an altar previously existed at Bethel. Furthermore, the sacrifice is neither thanksgiving for the victory, whose consequences the people now lament, nor is it a propitiatory offering, since after the victory there was no more need to appease Yahweh. Thus, the sacrifice and the construction of an altar are blind motifs in Judg 21:2–4 that indicate that the fourth scene at Bethel is a secondary elaboration. The addition of the fourth scene at Bethel

359

II. 3.2. Envelopes and Seams

obscures the graduated 2 + 1 pattern and replaces it with a progressive concentric structure of A, AB, AB, B:19 A oracular consultation (20:18) AB weeping + oracular consultation (20:23) AB weeping + oracular consultation (20:26–28) B weeping (21:2–4) As shown above, the scribe who revised the Gibeah story reworked the first Bethel scene (20:18) in order to evoke the opening to the alternate account of the conquest and settlement that was added to the beginning of the Judges scroll, and it seems likely that the same scribe added the fourth Bethel scene in 21:2–4, in order to evoke association with the Bochim passage in 2:1–5. Thus, the revision produced an inclusio in which the first and final scenes at Bethel in Judg 20–21 echo the opening and closing of Judg 1:1–2:5: Judg 1:1–2

Judg 20:18 They went up to Bethel

Judg 2:1–5 1

The messenger of

YHWH went up

Judg 21:2–4 2

The people came to Bethel

from Gilgal to Bochim 1

The Israelites inquired of YHWH saying, Who of us shall be the first to go up against the Canaanites and fight them? 2 YHWH replied: Judah shall go up.

and the Israelites inquired of God saying, Who of us shall be the Benjaminites?

4

The people raised their voice and wept

and sat there till evening before God and raised their voice and wept bitterly.

YHWH replied: Judah shall go up. 5

So they named that place Bochim and offered sacrifice (‫ )ויזבחו‬there to

YHWH.

The people rose early on the next day and built an altar (‫ )מזבח‬there and sacrificed burnt and peace offerings.

In effect, this inclusio frames the limits of the outer growth of the Judges scroll. While the primary narrative in Judg 19–21 might have influenced some points in 1:1–2:5, the opposite does not hold, implying that the author of the primary narrative was not yet familiar with this material in the late sixth or early fifth century BCE.20 This conclusion carries important consequences for understanding the shape of the Judges scroll. In the early Persian 19

Contra BECKER, Richterzeit, 287–288, who retains all four Bethel scenes in the primary narrative. 20 For this dating see EDENBURG, Dismembering the Whole, 321–334.

360

Cynthia Edenburg

period the scroll concluded with the original composition of the Gibeah narrative and opened in Judg 2:6–9 with the recapitulation of the ending of the Joshua scroll (Josh 24:28–30), which will be further discussed below. As for the later growth of the scroll, in view of the mutual relations between the late editorial strand of the Gibeah story and the Bochim passage (2:1–5), we should consider the possibility that they might stem from the same stage of revision.21

B. Inner Seams: Judg 17–18 and 19–21 Reiteration (as in Wiederaufnahme) and associative linking by means of parallel motifs or inverse application of analogies provide apt means for masking seams between originally disparate materials. The reiteration and reemployment of motifs and verbal formulations help readers perceive a semblance of unity even when true narrative continuity is lacking. Both Judg 17:1, 19:1 share the common opening formula: “There was a man from [place name]”,22 and in both cases the protagonist’s home is in Mount Ephraim. The identification of Micah as an Ephraimite is certainly essential for detecting the covert polemic directed against Bethel and Jeroboam in Judg 17–18.23 However in Judg 19, the Levite’s affiliation with Ephraim is hardly necessary to the remaining narrative, which revolves around Gibeah and Benjamin. In fact, none of the story’s action occurs in Ephraim. Furthermore, the motif of Ephraimite origin has been applied in an inverse fashion; in Judg 17:8 an Ephraimite (Micah) has a Levite from Bethlehem stay in his home in Mount Ephraim, while in Judg 19:1–9 a Levite from Mount Ephraim pays a visit to Bethlehem. Since the Ephraimite origin serves no narrative purpose in Judg 19–21, it is a blind motif that was picked up from Judg 17 along with the opening formula. So too, the characterization of the concubine’s husband as a Levite (19:1, 20:4) plays no role in the narrative in Judg 19–21, in contrast to the role of the young Levite in Judg 17–18, who was appointed priest at Micah’s private sanctuary because he was a Levite (17:5, 10–13). The Danite spies also seek his services due to his role as a Levite (18:4–5, 19–20, 27, 30). Here too, Judg 19–21 employs a blind motif lifted from Judg 17–18. 21

See also BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 274–275. See also Judg 13:2, 17:7; 1 Sam 1:1, 9:1; cf. also Job 1:1. STIPP, ‘Richter 19’, 135– 137 suggests that this opening was the hallmark of a collection of stories dealing with the pre-monarchic period. However, it is just as likely, if not more so, that the formula was employed as an editorial devise to mask seams between blocks of material by means of imitative association. 23 AMIT, ‘Conquest of Dan’, 13–14. Compare the introduction of Jeroboam in 1 Kgs 11:26: “Jeroboam son of Nabot was an Ephraimite from Zeredah”. 22

II. 3.2. Envelopes and Seams

361

Both Judg 17–18 and Judg 19:16–21 feature Ephraimites who host Levites. Although Micah’s identification as an Ephraimite in Judg 17–18 is necessary to the story’s polemic, the “visit in a hostile town” plot in Judg 19 only requires that the “Levite’s” host in Gibeah be a resident alien (cf. Gen 19:9), and his Ephraimite affiliation does not come into play elsewhere within the narrative. Thus, it is probable that the identification of the host at Gibeah as an Ephraimite was influenced by the adjacent story about Micah. Judg 17–18 and 19–21 also share the expression ‫“ אין מחסור כל דבר‬nothing is lacking”, which occurs only in these two texts (Judg 18:10, 19:19). The Levite in the Gibeah story details all the provisions he carries and then states that “nothing is lacking” (‫ ;)אין מחסור כל דבר‬this statement lacks a dative object and seems elliptic (cf. Ps 34:10 ‫ ;אין מחסור ליראיו‬1 Kgs 11:22 ‫מה אתה‬ ‫)חסר עמי‬. By contrast, the syntax in Judg 18:10 is not deficient (‫אין שׁם מחסור‬ ‫)כל דבר אשׁר בארץ‬, and the statement adds pertinent information that the area of Laish was not only spacious and inhabited by an unsuspecting people, but that it could supply all the needs of the Danites as well. Here again, it is most probable that the scribe of the Gibeah story added to 19:19–20 the statement that “nothing is lacking”, which he picked up from the adjacent narrative in Judg 18:10. The collocation, “He/they built (‫ויבנו‬/‫ )ויבן‬the city/ies and dwelt in it/them” (‫בהם‬/‫וישׁבו בה‬/‫( )וישׁב‬Judg 18:28; 21:23), occurs only once more in Josh 19:50. In this case, it is likely that the notice regarding building (and renaming) Laish in Judg 18:28 was patterned upon Josh 19:49–50, which describes building and settling Timnath-Serah following the report of the conquest of Laish by Dan (Josh 19:47). The notice in Judg 21:23 is exceptional in comparison to Josh 19:50 and Judg 18:28 since it does not deal with rebuilding and settling a town whose previous inhabitants had been dispossessed. Instead, it deals with the restoration of destroyed towns by their original occupants. This statement is superfluous in its context, since v. 23abα already concludes the Gibeah narrative by noting the return of the Benjaminites to their territory with their new brides. Here too the Gibeah story absorbed an unnecessary phrase under the influence of the conclusion of the adjacent story of the conquest of Laish by the Danites (18:28). Both the Micah and the Gibeah stories are also linked together by the shared editorial refrain: “In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did as he thought right” (17:6, 18:1, 19:1, 21:25) that occurs twice in conjunction with the chronological designation, “In those days there was no king in Israel” (17:6, 21:25). While the refrain formulae have been integrated into the narrative of Judg 17–18, they have simply been attached as a frame to the beginning and end of the Gibeah story. Hence, it is unlikely that they were

362

Cynthia Edenburg

employed in both texts by the same editor.24 The formula: ‫אישׁ הישׁר בעיניו‬ ‫“ יעשׂה‬to do right in one’s own eyes” is the inverse of the Deuteronomistic formula “to do right in the eyes of Yahweh” (cf. Deut 12:8, 25, 28). Within the Deuteronomistic History the expression, “to do right (or wrong) in the eyes of Yahweh” nearly always refers to adherence to (or violation of) the Deuteronomist’s cultic stipulations.25 While the chronological refrain and judgment formula in the story of Micah’s image are consistent with the Deuteronomistic usage, the theme of apostasy and idolatry is lacking from the narrative in Judg 19–21, which instead censures Gibeah and Benjamin for social offences that signal a breakdown of social norms. At the same time, the narrative of Judg 19–21 presents the tribes acting together to promptly punish the offenders.26 Thus, even if the chronological designation and judgment formula further the purpose of the story of Micah’s image, they are not appropriate to the context of the Gibeah story. It follows then that the formulae were borrowed from the Micah story and affixed to frame the Gibeah story, with the purpose of creating a semblance of continuity between the adjacent narratives. On one point it seems likely that the Gibeah story exerted influence upon the final form of Judg 17. In both stories Levites are asked by a potential host, “Where are you coming from?” (‫מאין תבוא‬, Judg 17:9, 19:17),27 and both Levites answer that they are travelling from Bethlehem (of) Judah (‫מבית‬ ‫לחם יהודה‬, Judg 17:9, 19:18).28 In Judg 19–20, the fact that the concubine’s husband traveled to Bethlehem is significant, for the welcome he received there represents Bethlehem as the antithesis of Gibeah, and serves the cause of a covert polemic directed against Saul and in favor of David.29 By contrast, Judg 17 attaches no special significance to the fact that the young Levite came from Bethlehem. In this case, the mention of Bethlehem may have been inserted into Judg 17:7–9 in order to create a mirror image of the other Levite’s journey in Judg 19, from Mount Ephraim to Bethlehem. Moving inwards from the outer envelope, it is possible to see how the Samson cycle and the Micah story were joined together by repeated geo24 See, e.g., NOTH, ‘Background’, 79; CRÜSEMANN, Widerstand, 157; AMIT, Judges, 345–347; contra VEIJOLA, Königtum, 15–17; BECKER, Richterzeit, 292–293. 25 See EDENBURG, ‘Overwriting’, 448. 26 See, e.g., GÜDEMANN, ‘Tendenz’, 361; AMIT, Judges, 337–339; EDENBURG, Dismembering the Whole, 396–397. 27 Although this formulation occurs elsewhere (Josh 9:8; Jonah 1:8; Job 1:7; cf. Gen 29:4, 42:7), only in these two cases is the question addressed to a wayfarer by a potential host. 28 This specific designation for Bethlehem is encountered elsewhere only in 1 Sam 17:12; Ruth 1:1–2. 29 See, e.g., GÜDEMANN, ‘Tendenz’, 364–368; CRÜSEMANN, Widerstand, 164; JÜNGLING, Richter 19, 293; AMIT, Hidden Polemics, 181.

II. 3.2. Envelopes and Seams

363

graphic terms, which recur only here in Judges and only rarely elsewhere, such as the term “the encampment of Dan” (‫מחנה דן‬, Judg 13:25, 18:12; elsewhere only in Num 2:25, 31) and the coupling of Zorah and Eshtaol in Judg 13:25, 16:31, 18:2, 8, 11 (elsewhere only in Josh 15:33, 19:41). Other terms unique to these two adjacent narratives are “the Danite clan” (‫משׁפחת‬ ‫הדני‬, Judg 13:2, 18:11), and the sum of 1100 (pieces) of silver (‫אלף ומאה כסף‬, Judg 16:5, 17:2–3).30 The distribution of these associative links is quite suggestive; in the Samson cycle they are positioned as a frame around the story of his career (13:2, 25, 16:5, 31), while in Judg 17–18 they are placed at the beginning of the two narrative blocks that have been brought together, namely, the Micah story and the Danite migration (17:2–3, 18:2, 8, 11–12). The geographic terms in Judg 13:25, 16:31 play no true role in the Samson story, nor does the notion that the Danites were but a clan; while in the Judg 18 they set the scene for the Danite migration, which was feasible (within the narrative world) given their small size. Therefore these links might have been added to the Samson cycle in order to effect an associative joint with the story of Micah’s cult image. It is difficult to say whether the Samson cycle was added later than Judg 17–18, since that type of interpolation would have necessitated a new copy of the Judges scroll. At present I am more inclined towards the simpler scenario of the scroll’s growth from the scroll’s center out to its eventual edges. I shall revisit this matter below, in the discussion of the transition from Judges to Samuel.

C. Outer Seams: the Transition from Judges to Samuel In the concluding section of the Gibeah story the tribes realize that their victory against Benjamin has ruptured the wholeness of Israel since the six hundred remaining Benjaminites could not restore their tribe without wives (21:6–7, 15–16). However, the Israelites are constrained by an oath they swore before the war to refrain from connubium with Benjamin (21:1, 7, 18). This final problem is resolved in two stages: firstly, a punitive expedition against Benjamin’s ally, Jabesh Gilead, provides four hundred virgin wives; then the remaining Benjaminites are advised to abduct girls from Shiloh when they go out to dance in the fields during the annual festival. Although many scholars assume that only one solution is original to the story, both are couched in late language, and both serve editorial purposes by creating links between the end of the Judges scroll and the Samuel scroll.31 30

See also ZAKOVITCH, ‘Arrangement’, 169. See, e.g., MOORE, Judges, 445–449; VEIJOLA, Verheissung, 189 n. 46, for the view that the Shiloh passage is “original”, and cf. BECKER, Richterzeit, 289–292, who grants priority to the Jabesh passage, even though it has been extensively overwritten with Priest31

364

Cynthia Edenburg

The reference to the annual festival of Yahweh at Shiloh (Judg 21:19 '‫חג ה‬ ‫ )בשׁלו מימים ימימה‬creates an associative link with 1 Sam 1:3, which tells of Elkanah’s yearly (‫ )מימים ימימה‬pilgrimage to Shiloh. 32 In 1 Sam 1:3 (cf. also 1:25 LXX), the mention of the festival at Shiloh provides the means for tying Samuel’s birth narrative to the story of the decline of the house of Eli. By contrast, Shiloh has no far-reaching importance in Judg 21:19–22, and only serves as the site for a local festivity that could have been held elsewhere as well. Thus, it is likely that the Shiloh festivities were mentioned in Judg 21:19–22 in order to evoke association with 1 Sam 1:3–24. Similarly, the Jabesh passage in Judg 21:8–14 establishes connections with the story of Saul’s early career in 1 Sam 11. According to the sense of the narrative in 1 Sam 11:3–4, the messengers from Jabesh made the rounds of “all the territory of Israel” (‫ )בכל גבול ישׁראל‬and end up at Gibeath Saul only failing any response elsewhere. Hence, 1 Sam 11 does not appear to assume early blood ties between Jabesh and Benjamin. On the other hand, the fiction of connubial ties between Jabesh and Benjamin following the war at Gibeah helps explain the relationship between Jabesh and Saul as described in the book of Samuel. In other words, it appears that the account in Judg 21 was written for its present context, in order to serve as an “introduction” to the story of Saul. This implies that the author of Judg 19–21 sought to plant thematic links that would foreshadow the “later” events related in 1 Sam 1–11. Such associative links became necessary as new accretions to the end of the scroll obscured the connections between Samuel and earlier material in Judges. It is likely that such a purpose also lies behind the double ending of the story of Micah’s image (Judg 18:30–31). Judg 18:30 provides an appropriate conclusion for the narrative by explaining how Micah’s image and his Levite founded the sanctuary that supposedly stood at Dan “until the land went into exile”33. By contrast, 18:31 artificially reiterates the note about setting up the image in order to add an irrelevant temporal reference to the time the sanctuary existed at Shiloh – information which first comes to the fore in 1 Sam 1. Similar connections are also found in the Samson cycle, which closes the savior stories. Only in 1 Sam 1:1 and Judg 13:2 is the introductory formula ‫ויהי אישׁ‬ followed by the indefinite term ‫אחד‬, which is unnecessary from a syntactic and semantic point of view since it is lacking from the comparable introductions elsewhere (cf. Judg 17:1, 19:1; 1 Sam 9:1; Job 1:1). The Samson story and Samuel’s birth narrative also share the unique expression ‫ומורה לא יעלה על ראשׁו‬ ly vocabulary and interacts with Num 31:15–18. On the other hand, vv. 21–23 in the Shiloh passage display LBH characteristics, such as, the terms ‫( חט״ף‬v. 21); ‫( נשׂ״א אשׁה‬v. 23); and the use of masculine pronominal endings in reference to feminine objects (vv. 21–22). 32 See ZAKOVITCH, ‘Arrangement’, 173–174. 33 See, e.g., BECKER, Richterzeit, 253; AMIT, Judges, 317–318.

II. 3.2. Envelopes and Seams

365

(Judg 13:5, 16:17; 1 Sam 1:11), and the text of 1 Sam 1:22 in 4QSama has Hanna dedicating Samuel to be a Nazarite “forever, all the days of his life”, similarly to Samson who was designated to be God’s Nazarite “until his dying day” (Judg 13:7). The Nazarite theme is inherent to the framing stories of the Samson cycle, but is not taken up elsewhere in the Samuel narratives.34 This suggests that scribes employed similarly formulated introductions to the Samuel and Samson stories, and added the Nazarite motif to Samuel’s birth narrative in order to create a semblance of continuity running from the end of one scroll to the beginning of the other. In other words, the Samson story originally concluded the Judges scroll before the addition of the two appendix narratives in Judg 17–21 and after the insertion of the appendix materials efforts were made to mask the disrupted continuity. Some scholars have proposed a Hellenistic origin for the Samson cycle since it shares many motifs with Greek and Hellenistic literature.35 However, even if the Samson stories were inspired by Greek tradition, this does not necessarily imply that the Samson cycle was inserted at a very late stage between the end of the savior stories and the appendices of the Judges scroll. Similarity in motifs and tradition does not comprise evidence for crosscultural quotation or literary allusion. Instead, it is just as likely – if not even more so – that the shared motifs stem from familiarity with material that was orally diffused by Hellenic cultural agents, such as traders and mercenaries. This type of cultural diffusion was already plausible in the late seventh century B.C.E. Furthermore, the interpolation of a lengthy story cycle is a complex operation that requires editing and recopying of the scroll, while gradual addition of material at the ends of the scroll could be carried out with limited reworking of the end-pieces.

D. The Transition from Joshua to Judges Since the problem of the overlap between Josh 24:28–31 and Judg 2:6–10 is dealt with extensively elsewhere in this volume, I offer but short comments relevant to the scope of this present study. Firstly, not every repetition is a Wiederaufnahme, namely, a resumptive repetition that picks up the continuity after a digression, or editorial addition. The fact that Judg 1:1–2:5 are editori34 See ZAKOVITCH, ‘Assimilation’, 177–178, who classifies the 4QSama text as an instance of assimilation in an extrabiblical paraphrase, and further discussion in GORDON, ‘Kingmaker’, 64–66; Ulrich, Developmental Composition, 81; contra SPRONK, ‘Book of Judges’, 23–24. 35 For a summary of the parallel motifs see MOORE, Judges 364–365. For the arguments for Hellenistic composition see, e.g., SPRONK, Book of Judges, 26–28. By contrast, KNAUF, Richter, 19–24, 129–130 implies a Persian period origin for the cycle.

366

Cynthia Edenburg

al insertions does not necessarily mean that that Judg 2:6–10 is secondary to Josh 24:28–31. In theory, the converse is also conceivable, namely, that Josh 24:28–31 were added to create an inclusio along with the prior report of Joshua’s death in Judg 2:6–10, thus bracketing the interpolation in Judg 1:1– 2:5. Secondly, evaluating the text-critical issues relating to the LXX and MT witnesses to Josh 24:28–31 and Judg 2:6–10 need to take into consideration the possibility of assimilation and midrashic reinterpretation in the process of transmission.36 To my way of thinking, the key to this problem lies in the nature of the scroll medium. As Haran has noted, the overlapping of ends and beginnings of scrolls served as a means to indicate continuity within the scroll medium. 37 Regardless how one resolves the question which chapter provides the original closing scene of the Joshua scroll, be it the farewell speech in ch. 23 or the account of the Shechem covenant in ch. 24,38 it is natural that a work that deals with the realization by Joshua of the conquest of the land promised by Yahweh should conclude with a notice relating the death of the leader at a ripe old age and his proper burial. Such information is undeniably more at home at the end of the Joshua scroll than at the beginning of a version of the Judges scroll. For this reason, I hold that the Joshua narrative must have ended at 24:30. When a Deuteronomistic account of the saviors/judges was produced, this ending was reduplicated at its beginning in Judg 2:6–9 and a transition was added in 2:10 so that the generation that did not know YHWH would prepare the way for the pragmatic introduction that follows. At a subsequent stage in the transmission of the Joshua scroll, this transitional element was taken up and inserted after Joshua’s burial notice in Josh 24:30.39

E. The Place of Judges within a Deuteronomistic History and the Growth of the Scroll Despite redaction critical difficulties, the valedictory speeches and the end of era summaries remain one of the strong points in Noth’s Deuteronomistic History hypothesis, since the speeches and summaries are the means for 36 SCHMID succinctly states the matter: “This decisive linking passage appears to have been revised a great deal, though its compositional history cannot be completely explained,” see Genesis and the Moses Story, 202. 37 HARAN, ‘Book-Size’. 38 For the priority of Josh 23, see, e.g., BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 263–266, RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 527–528, and for the priority of Josh 24, see, e.g., SMEND, ‘Law’, 102–105; KRATZ, Composition, 199–200; BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 150–152. 39 See also BRETTLER, ‘Jud 1,1–2,10’, 433–435; cf. the more elaborate explanation by BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 252–253, 273.

II. 3.2. Envelopes and Seams

367

providing periodization and thematic structure for the work as a whole. These speeches, summaries and programmatic introductions still impart a large measure of unity to the mega-narrative that justifies viewing Deuteronomy though Kings as a history work. This remains true even if we recognize that the material has a lengthy compositional history and that the history work was created piecemeal by different Deuteronomistic scribes. Thus it is justified to examine Samuel’s farewell speech in 1 Sam 12 to see how it conceives the shape of the period of Judges within a Deuteronomistic History. Samuel’s speech picks up on key phrases and ideas found in the pragmatic framework of Judges. After the settlement, the Israelites “forgot Yahweh” ('‫ שׁכחו את ה‬12:9, cf. Judg 3:7; cf. Deut 6:12, 8:11, 19) and he “sold them into the hand” of various enemies (‫ וימכר אתם ביד‬12:9; cf. Judg 2:14, 3:8, 4:2, 10:7), after which the Israelites “cried out to Yahweh” ('‫ ויזעקו אל ה‬12:10; cf. Judg 3:9, 15, 6:6–7, 10:10) and repent that they “left Yahweh and worshiped the Baals and Ashtaroth” (‫ עזבנו את ה' ונעבד את הבעלים ואת העשׁתרות‬12:10; cf. Judg 2:12–13, 10:6; Deut 29:24–25; Josh 24:16, 20). Yahweh reacted by sending (‫)שׁל״ח‬40 a series of saviors who deliver them from the enemies around them (‫ ויצל אתכם מיד איביכם מסביב ותשׁבו בטח‬... ‫ וישׁלח ה' את‬12:11, cf. Judg 8:34).41 From this it is evident that this section of Samuel’s speech is intended to summarize the period of Judges. However, the saviors named by Samuel include only Barak (MT: ‫)בדן‬, Jerubaal, Jephtah and Samuel. While it is possible that the author of Samuel’s speech simply picked a choice group of saviors, we should not discount the possibility that this selection reflects the range of savior traditions known to the author of the Samuel’s farewell speech. Indeed, among those omitted are Othniel and Samson, who are generally thought to be latecomers to the Judges narrative. This leaves us to consider whether Ehud might also represent a late addition to the series of saviors. In contrast to the Barak, Gideon and Jephtah narratives, the Ehud story in Judg 3:12–30 basically deals with a single-handed exploit that expands in scope only in vv. 27–29, and in this aspect it is more like the Samson tales. It is also similar to the Samson stories in the risqué humorous vein that is appropriate to satire and parody, and which is lacking from the other savior stories. Additionally, the Ehud story shares several intertextual ties with 1 Sam 24, and may have been intended to parody that story about how David refrained from taking Saul’s life.42 If the However, it should be noted that the verb ‫ שׁל״ח‬does not appear in Judges in conjunction with sending saviors, but with sending an anonymous prophet/messenger, see Judg 6:8, Num 20:16. Instead, Judges employs the verb “raising up” (‫ קו״ם‬hif.) of saviors/judges, and see Judg 2:16, 18, 3:9, 15, cf. 10:1. At the same time, Deut 18:15 also employs ‫ קו״ם‬hif. and speaks of “raising up” a prophet. Therefore, this distinction in diction might not be as significant as some have thought. 41 For ‫ישׁ״ב בטח‬, cf. Deut 12:10. 42 See EDENBURG, ‘David’, 475. 40

368

Cynthia Edenburg

Ehud story was brought into the savior collection after 1 Sam 24–26 had already crystallized, then it would be understandable why Ehud is missing from Samuel’s survey in 1 Sam 12:11. Finally, Samuel is notably counted in 1 Sam 12:11 among those Yahweh sent to deliver Israel. Might it be possible that an early savior tradition associated with Samuel was replaced by 1 Sam 7 after Samson was added to the account of the period in the Judges scroll? After subtracting the later additions, it is possible to reconstruct a narrative continuity running from Barak, Jerubaal, Jephtah, Samuel down to Saul, who is also introduced in a story with the ‫ ויהי אישׁ‬incipit (1 Sam 9). The string of savior stories climaxes with the election of a king, and the diverse materials are brought together by means of Deuteronomistic introductions (e.g., Judg 2:7, 10–23), frameworks and transitions (e.g., 1 Sam 8:1a, 4–9a*). Since Deuteronomistic redaction produced the continuity that unites the material with regard to chronology and theme, it is justified to consider the era of Judges a part of a Deuteronomistic History, even if this history work was composed and evolved on different scrolls.43 The analysis presented here of the various seams and inclusia provides a basis for reconstructing a rough diachronic scheme for the growth of the ends of the Judges scroll. From this early core, comprising the programmatic introduction (Judg 2:7, 10–23*), the stories of Barak, Jerubaal (+ Abimelek), Jephtah and possibly a version of Samuel’s role as savior, the scroll grew outwards in each direction with some expansion in the middle. Later, the insertion of Samson displaced the role of Samuel, while Ehud and Othniel were added to the beginning of the series of saviors. In the next major phase of growth, the Micah story (Judg 17–18) was appended to the end of the scroll as a tendentious etiology for the northern royal sanctuaries at Bethel and Dan. The end of the Judges scroll provided a convenient place for the Micah story, since it could be affixed with the aid of associative links planted within the Samson story, such as Samson’s Danite lineage and the shared toponyms Zorah and Eshtaol. In a subsequent stage the core narrative of the Gibeah story (Judg 19–21) was added to the scroll’s end. This addition was facilitated by means of seams connecting it to the Micah story, and it too incorporated links to the opening of the Samuel scroll. At this point, the meta-narrative still moved smoothly from the death of Joshua to the introduction to the period of the Judges (Josh 24:28–30; Judg 2:7, 10–23). Later, Judg 1 was composed and appended to the beginning of the scroll, possibly with an eye to supplanting the account of the tribal allotments in Josh 15–19. The Judahite orientation of Judg 1 also served to counterbalance northern orientation of the scroll as a whole. In a final or penultimate stage the Bochim passage in Judg 2:1–5 was composed and placed after Judg 1 as a reinterpretation of the catalogue of settlement failures. Many of the revisions 43

Compare also MÜLLER, ‘1 Samuel 1’, 216–219.

II. 3.2. Envelopes and Seams

369

of the Gibeah story in Judg 19–21 interact with Judg 1:1–2:5, and it seems that one of the concerns of the revisions was to create an envelope by means of associative links, thereby setting a limit to the growth of the scroll. Perhaps the scribe who penned and added the Bochim passage was also responsible for the revision of the Gibeah story (RII).44 The various scribes employed different editorial strategies as they incorporated new material on to the ends of the scroll. The scribes who authored and added the Samson, Micah and Gibeah stories concentrated on masking the lack of chronological continuity between the adjacent narratives and employed associative links to smooth the transition between them. By contrast, the late scribe, who revised the Gibeah story and possibly also composed the Bochim passage, worked to establish a new framework for the narratives of the period between the death of Joshua and the birth of Samuel by means of mutual ties between the Gibeah story and the new prologue to Judges. This revision ultimately intensifies the chronological disjunction with Joshua and Samuel that arose as new material obscured the narrative continuity between the scrolls. This does not appear to have troubled the last scribe, and his aim might have been to restructure the pre-existing historiographic meta-narrative by marking off Judg 1–21 from the events leading up to the establishment of the monarchy.

44 See EDENBURG, Dismembering the Whole, 309–312; and cf. BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 274– 275; GROß, Richter, 823–825, 883–885.

The Book of Judges within the Deuteronomistic History Peter Porzig In his groundbreaking Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments from 1869, the legendary orientalist Theodor Nöldeke isolated the so-called Grundschrift of the Pentateuch,1 which is nowadays known as the Priestly Source and remains recognized as a more or less essential hypothesis. In the same volume, he published a (now) less well-known essay on “The Chronology of the Time of the Judges”2. In this essay on a “Deuteronomistic” book, Nöldeke draws from and builds upon his earlier contributions on the basic source. This, however, is often forgotten, especially in the wake of Martin Noth’s Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch.3 Nöldeke’s final overview on Deut 34 in his study on the Grundschrift of the Pentateuch ended with the laconic note “In addition much in the book of Joshua.”4 That means no less than that Nöldeke saw the end of “P” in the book of Joshua! In this book, however, things get more difficult, since “the Deuteronomist here reworked everything very freely, made additions and surely also omitted many things […]. Thus, we can no longer piece together a coherent account from the basic source, but need to reconstruct the coherence for this passage from those fragments that are recognizable with some certainty, as far as this is possible.”5 According to Nöldeke, this also applies to the report Eleazar’s death in

1 NÖLDEKE, ‘1. Die s. g. Grundschrift des Pentateuchs’, in: IDEM, Untersuchungen, 1– 144. The translation of the German “Grundschrift” with “basic source” is traditional and in many ways correct, although “Schrift” is perhaps as near to “script(ure)” or “writing” as it is to “source” (“Quelle”). I would like to thank Dr. Bronson Brown-deVost for his great help with the translation. Needless to say, any mistakes that remain are mine alone. 2 Published in NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 173–198. 3 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch (ET: The Deuteronomistic History). 4 NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 144: “Ausserdem Vieles im Buch Josua.” 5 NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 95: “der Deuteronomiker [habe] hier Alles frei verarbeitet, Zusätze gemacht und sicher auch Manches weggelassen […]. Wir können daher hier keinen zusammenhängenden Bericht aus der Grundschrift mehr zusammenbringen, sondern müssen aus den mit einiger Sicherheit erkennbaren Bruchstücken ihren Zusammenhang für diesen Abschnitt, so gut es gehn will, zurückerschliessen.”

372

Peter Porzig

Josh 24:33: “However [!], the basic source likely ended with this notice.”6 Yet, “it is likely that this verse originally was more complete; neither [Eleazar’s] age nor the grief of the Israelite people would have been lacking (cf. Num 20:29; Deut 34:8).”7 In other words: The so familiar pentateuchal source “P” concludes with the end of the Hexateuch. For “The Chronology of the Time of the Judges,”8 Nöldeke’s (and later Noth’s) point of departure is the notice in 1 Kgs 6:1 that “the construction of the temple of Solomon began “in the 480th year after the exodus of the sons of Israel from the land of Egypt”. As Nöldeke shows in a mere 26 pages, these 480 years result from adding up the terms of the individual judges “and considering the times before and after their respective periods”9. Hence, Nöldeke investigates all twelve judges in his study. Five of them are of an entirely mythical nature (“Heroes eponymi”10), and he regards only seven of them as “historical”. Furthermore, from the remaining seven judges of this group we have “almost no information about Shamgar, Ibzan and Abdon and only very adventurous reports about Samson.” Thus, one has to conclude that the Israelites “did not have a fixed way of dating” before the time of the kings, but “during that rough yet healthy period nobody thought of this.”11 Rather, 480 years appear to be simply the sum of twelve generations: Without the so-called “minor judges” one can count twelve leaders from the exodus until David (Moses, Joshua, Othniel, Ehud, Barak, Gideon, Jephthah, Samson, Eli, Samuel, Saul, David). Considering the characters of Moses, Joshua, Samuel and the kings, who are portrayed so differently, the addition of the “minor” and “major” judges results in exactly twelve judges in a period of 480 years, i.e., twelve generations, not counting the years under foreign rule. In terms of history, this is of course not meaningful at all, since we do not even have a guarantee for the fact that the sequence in which the […] heroes lived was the same in which they appear here. If, e.g., Samson is placed at the end, the reason simply may have been that his battles against the Philistines seemed to fit so 6

NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 107: “Mit dieser Nachricht hat aber vermuthlich die Grundschrift auch geschlossen.” 7 NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 106: “Vermuthlich ist dieser Vers aber ursprünglich vollständiger gewesen; weder das Lebensalter noch die Trauer der Israeliten möchte darin gefehlt haben (vergl. Num. 20, 29; Deut. 34, 8).” 8 See n. 2 above. 9 NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 174: “durch […] Hinzurechnung der vorne und hinten ausserhalb ihrer Periode fallenden Zeiten.” 10 NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 176. 11 For this and the preceding quotations see NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 187: We have “von Samgar, Ibzan und Abdon so gut wie gar keine und von Simson ganz abenteuerliche Nachrichten.” The Israelites had “keine feste Weise der Datierung,” since “in jener rohen, aber gesunden Periode dachte man an so Etwas nicht.”

II. 3.2. The Book of Judges within the DtrH

373

well in the place before the similar battle stories at the beginning of the first book of Samuel – even if the real course of history would not have required this position. A verifiable chronological order only begins with Eli.12

Elsewhere, Nöldeke writes: What we are told about the judges does not suggest a continuous sequence; indeed, the offices of the individual judges are so different, their spheres of activity are so unequally measured with respect to the more precise reports, that one must go crazy right from the outset to find a formal ministerial function in their office.13

Martin Noth, on the other hand, rejects these and similar proposals.14 Instead, in his Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, he concludes that for the author of the Deuteronomistic History, i.e., “the” Deuteronomist, “did not see [the round number of] 480 as a fabrication.” This author could rely on ancient records and “on a series of dates – the 40-year periods – which he himself inserted but which spring from the traditional view of the course of history.”15 The reasons Noth gives are: firstly, that the number 40 is too high for one generation but instead “clearly means the length of time in which one group of active adult men is completely replaced by the next”16. Secondly, “Dtr simply did not build his chronology on ‘generations,’ but rather on specific individual figures. Hence, the number 480 must [!] be connected to this ‘single-number system.’” Therefore, it was not a “number that resulted naturally or arose by itself,”17 but instead a clear sign of the “planned self-contained unity”18 of the Deuteronomistic work. Yet the boundaries of books did not limit Dtr. It is his own periodization of history that goes beyond the borders of these individual books, as indicated by the speeches that interpret history (Moses in Deut 1–3 and 31, Joshua until Josh 23, the time of the Judges until 1 Sam 12 [Samuel as a Judge, cf. 1 Sam 7], the rise of kingship until 1 Kgs 8, 12 NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 185–186: “Haben wir doch keine Gewähr auch nur dafür, dass die […] Helden gerade in der Folge gelebt haben, in welcher sie hier erscheinen. Wenn z. B. Simson an’s Ende gesetzt ist, so kann das vielleicht bloss aus dem Grunde geschehen sein, weil sich seine Kämpfe mit den Philistern gut an die im ersten Buch Samuelis erzählten zu reihen schienen, ohne dass der wirkliche Lauf der Geschichte diese Stellung gefordert zu haben brauchte. Eine gesicherte Zeitfolge beginnt erst mit Eli.” Nöldeke does not discuss in detail why he chooses this “judge” to be his starting point. 13 NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 174: “Was uns von den Richtern erzählt wird, lässt gar nicht auf eine stetige Folge schliessen; ja die Stellung der einzelnen Richter ist so verschieden, ihr Wirkungskreis ist nach den genaueren Nachrichten so ungleich abgemessen, dass man von vorn herein daran irre werden muss, in ihrer Stellung ein förmliches Amt zu sehn” (emphasis mine). 14 See NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 18–27. 15 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 25 (ET 43). 16 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 21 (ET 37). 17 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 26 (ET 44). 18 NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 26 (ET 44).

374

Peter Porzig

etc.), which Noth saw as evidence for the coherence of the work spanning from Deuteronomy to the end of the books of Kings. Already from the vantage point of 19th-century literary criticism and even earlier, it seems obvious that the questions revolving around the transition from Joshua to Judges are not trivial, and that the solutions rely heavily on the presuppositions and earlier findings of the respective individual scholar. pentateuchal and hexateuchal theories constantly change, while the literary evidence stands unmoved as a strong tower through the ages. Meanwhile, these times have changed further, and research particularly in the fields of literary and redaction criticism has advanced and brought the discipline into the 21st century. Basically, Nöldeke and Noth were correct in concluding that especially the reflective passages consisting of reviews of Israel’s history can hardly be explained as going back to one single Deuteronomistic author (although Noth had to downplay this in light of his overall aim). Rather, they must be additions to their present context and not part of its constitutive elements. In addition, it is possible to understand the chronology that Noth set up for pre-monarchic times – as already shown with the help of Nöldeke – in the far more limited framework of the book of Judges itself. Although the number in 1 Kgs 6:1 undoubtedly must be some sort of summary of earlier periods of history, it remains at least questionable whether Dtr was its author, or whether it should be ascribed to a far later (“Deuteronomistic”) hand (or hands). It is generally accepted today that the book of Judges constitutes a more or less “artificial” bridge between the time of Joshua and the events reported in the books of Samuel and Kings. An historical background cannot be deduced from it (see again Nöldeke). This does not mean, however, that any historical reconstruction or evaluation would be impossible from the outset. The questions resulting from these observations are: who made the connection between the exodus and the settlement in the Promised Land on the one hand and the origins of the Israelite kingdom on the other? Was it the (or: the first) Deuteronomist? Did he already have sources, and if so, what kind of sources were these? Or is a much later connection more probable? Ideally, the answers to these questions come from two basic approaches, one which focuses more on the rhetorical aims of the text (Tendenzkritik) and one which focuses on its literary growth (Literarkritik). Needless to say, Tendenzkritik and Literarkritik are two sides of the same coin and are not mutually exclusive. They may, however, help to structure the arguments presented below. When Walter Groß points to the following about the state of research: “Fastidious literary criticism is occasionally replaced by generously handled tendency criticism,”19 it is clear what is on his mind. Yet, the alterna19 “An die Stelle penibler Literarkritik tritt gelegentlich großzügig gehandhabte Tendenzkritik.” See GROß, ‘Richterbuch’, 177.

II. 3.2. The Book of Judges within the DtrH

375

tive may hardly be sustainable in this sharp way. It could perhaps be otherwise formulated: While Literarkritik without Tendenzkritik is what Julius Wellhausen once described “treating the matter as kittles”,20 Tendenzkritik without Literarkritik is nothing less than arbitrary. Only an exegesis that focuses on both literary and rhetorical aspects can lead to probable and convincing results (since the Humanities cannot sensu stricto “prove” or “disprove”). Without the reassurance or control of the literary-critical observations, the door for arbitrariness would stand wide open, “arbitrary thematic” exegesis with ad libitum results would replace “historical-critical” exegesis. At the same time, literary criticism that gives no heed to the rhetorical aims of the text would lead to a mechanical, if not mindless exegesis, unconcerned with the historical aspect of the text and its theological implications. The hypotheses on the composition of the Deuteronomistic History, and on the book of Judges in particular, were often simplified and reduced to certain trends or concepts. Not too long after Noth’s impressive publication, Gerhard von Rad brought up the question of different underlying qualities of “history” (German: “Geschichtsbild”) in the books of Kings compared to the book of Judges. In his view, it was necessary to distinguish a “cyclical” view of history from a “linear” one. This (legitimate21) approach did not gained broader acceptance in research (at least not in the way it was meant at the time), supposedly because an alternative and compelling literary solution has never since been presented. Quite the opposite is true for the next “tendency”. Based on observations by Rudolf Smend in the wake of remarks by his teacher Martin Noth, in particular the name Timo Veijola should be mentioned in this context.22 He – perhaps doing a little more justice to the subject of the book – made the notion of kingship his criterion: using this category, the (first) Deuteronomistic Historian (Noth’s Dtr, Veijola’s DtrH) has to be described as “king-friendly,” while his successor(s), summarized under the siglum DtrN (N = “nomistic” redactor) are not. The latter criticize the institution of the monarchy on theological grounds; indeed, they even reject it in principle. Even to the present day, this view has many supporters among literary critics.

20 Letter to Adolf Jülicher, 18 November 1880: “So viel habe ich gesehn, daß Sie Principien und Triebe zu erfassen, literarisches Wachstum zu beobachten verstehen und die Sache nicht als Kegelspiel betreiben” (WELLHAUSEN, Briefe, 78). 21 Although there can be no doubt that the periodization in the book of Judges is different from other deuteronomistically revised books, it is still questionable how far that must be decisive for the overall editorial and compositional view of the work of a (or the) Deuteronomist(s). 22 See VEIJOLA, Dynastie; see also IDEM, Königtum. On Veijola, cf. recently the portrait in SMEND, Kritiker, 948–982.

376

Peter Porzig

However, opposition also arose against this new theory, sometimes mislabeled and filed under the “Göttingen school”23 and its exponents. It was twenty-five years ago that Uwe Becker set about to analyze the time of the judges and the monarchic period anew.24 Becker’s prudent analyses and results have stood the test of time. These results include first and foremost the thesis that already the basic layer of the book of Judges had to be classified as “critical against kingship” (“königskritisch”).25 It may indeed be possible to agree with the fact that the concept of a ‘period of Judges’, whom YHWH himself legitimizes to be rulers over the people of Israel, is inherently critical of kingship, since it is an ideal counter-concept to the former. In Becker’s own words: The conclusion is thus twofold: The book of Judges indeed originated as a bridge and is at its core oriented against the monarchy. This thesis opposes the more recent studies, which perceive in the first edition of the dtr work, i.e., Samuel-Kings, no hint of an antimonarchic tone. This is the tenor of the work of Aurelius and Levin as well as Veijola. With all due respect to the analysis of Veijola in general, his thesis that there was a dtr promonarchic orientation in the basic form of the book of Judges has proven to be untenable in every way. Neither his analysis of the speech of Gideon in Judg 8:22–23 (which Veijola considers to be older than its surrounding literary context) nor his assessment of the socalled supplemental materials of the book of Judges in chs. 17–21 (which Veijola interprets as an integral part of DtrH) are convincing.26

With Becker’s “redaction critical studies”, however, we have almost imperceptibly entered the field of newer literary and redaction-critical argumentation. This is also the case for Friedrich-Emanuel Focken’s recent study. Once again, numbers play a certain role in the reconstruction (or deconstruction). In his Heidelberg dissertation (under the aegis of Jan Christian Gertz), Focken assigns the 480 years from 1 Kgs 6:1 to a “DtrR”27. This late Deuteronomist(ic Redactor), to be dated post-Priestly, was also responsible for the late insertion of the monarchy-critical book of Judges. After all, it was not by coincidence that Focken gave his book the subtitle Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Anfang und Ende der deuteronomistischen Richtererzählungen (Literary and Redaction Critical Investigations on the Beginning and End of the Deuteronomistic Stories of the Judges). Answers to the question raised above – i.e., regarding the literary place of the book of Judges – can obviously be found at the “seams” (in a wider as well as in a narrower sense of the word). This is not only the topic of this volume, but has, as seen above, already been a topic taken into consideration 23

“School” implies too much here; see SMEND, Kritiker, 951, 975. See BECKER, Richterzeit. 25 On this see also BECKER, ‘Widerspruch’. 26 BECKER, p. 50 above. 27 FOCKEN, Landnahme. 24

II. 3.2. The Book of Judges within the DtrH

377

by Martin Noth. Here the practical question can also be raised: How does a coherent narrative of such an extent emerge in the context of producing and writing scrolls in antiquity? As Noth did in his way, Cynthia Edenburg emphasizes this aspect in her contribution: Any model must also be plausible on a material level. To put it differently, the distribution and the growth of the textual material can best be explained by assuming “book” scrolls as a material basis. In fact, every literary-historical theory has to provide an answer to this very question: How can the respective phases of the textual development be imagined practically? Such a perspective presents the variations of documentary hypotheses with certain problems that are not easy to solve, if at all28, but is also a challenge to supposedly “reworked” (or rather not “reworked”) Pentateuch manuscripts from Qumran.29 To give an estimate: The longest surviving Qumran scrolls are the Temple Scroll (11QTa, 67 cols., reconstructed length approx. 9 m) and the famous Isaiah Scroll from Cave 1 (1QIsaa, approx. 1,290 verses or 23,250 words in 54 cols., length 7.34 m). A “DH scroll” in the same format, including the books of Deuteronomy to 2 Kings in their current form, would be about 30 meters long,30 i.e., three or four times as long as the longest extant scrolls. This makes the idea of a single scroll highly unlikely, which surely would have been not only unwieldy but also technically problematic. Already for the books of Samuel and Kings, one must account for a length comparable to that of the Temple Scroll – was it indeed the Septuagint that first separated these books into two parts?

28

The often-used analogy of Tatian’s Diatessaron is problematic for several reasons; cf., e.g., PERSON/REZETKO, Empirical Models (“Introduction”) and NIDITCH, Oral World, 111–112. 29 Cf. the contributions on the topic by TOV, who had co-edited the respective DJD volume together with WHITE CRAWFORD in 1994 (DJD 13, 187–351). 30 Estimated length of a scroll (in the format of 1QIsaa): Est. Length Est. Length Book Verses (ca.) Words (ca.) (acc. to words) (acc. to verses) Deuteronomy 960 20,340 6.4 m 5.5 m Joshua 660 14,660 4.6 m 3.8 m Judges 620 14,200 4.5 m 3.5 m 1st Samuel 810 19,220 6.0 m 4.6 m 2nd Samuel 700 15,890 5.0 m 4.0 m Samuel total 1,510 35,110 11.0 m 8.6 m 1st Kings 820 18,850 5.9 m 4.7 m 2nd Kings 720 17,500 5.5 m 4.1 m Kings total 1,540 36,350 11.4 m 8.9 m DH total 5,280 120,660 ~ 38 m ~ 30 m (Estimated values; to give but a rough idea of the possible results.)

378

Peter Porzig

Looking for candidates for points of separation, it is the beginnings and endings of the books (which can be different for distinct stages of development!) or of certain stories, doublets and back- and forward-references that come to mind. For Deuteronomy these are, e.g., the retrospective in Deut 1–3, the death of Moses in Deut 34, for Joshua the immediate connection to Moses’ death in Josh 1 and his own death in Josh 24:29–33. For Judges, Judg 3:7 might be an older beginning. Moreover, this applies especially to Judg 13:2 (Manoah; the beginning of the Simson stories in Judg 13–16) and 17:1 (the beginning of the Micah stories in Judg 17–18), as well as the anonymous Levite in 19:1 (the beginning of Judg 19–21): “(Once upon a time) there was a man…,” the same formula for Elkanah in 1 Sam 1:1: “(Once upon a time) there was a man…,” as well as the identical one for Kish in 1 Sam 9:1 (the beginning of the David stories in 1 Sam 9–11). Cynthia Edenburg approaches the question with the help of the material evidence of leather scrolls of the type used in biblical manuscripts at Qumran.31 In light of the simple material aspects of these scrolls, certain conclusions can already be ruled out. Even when post-Deuteronomistic additions are not taken into account, a scroll containing the whole “Deuteronomistic History” (from Deuteronomy to 2 Kings) would have been far too unwieldy. According to Edenburg, we have to reckon from the outset with the transmission of these texts on individual scrolls (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel, Kings) that are meant to be read as a continuous narrative. In a kind of subtraction procedure, Judg 1:1–2:5 as well as Judg 17–21 prove to be late additions to the Judges scroll (as has long been observed). These passages form an “envelope” to the stories of the judges in Judg 2:6– 16:31. Only a secondary redaction in Judg 19–21 (her RII) knows the beginning of the book, while the basic layer of these chapters (dated to the late 6th to the early 5th century) does not. She also observes “inner seams” between Judg 17–18 and 19–21. For example, Judg 19:1 is a Wiederaufnahme of Judg 17:1. The “refrain” that “in those days there was no king in Israel; all the people did what was right in their own eyes” is integrated in these particular chapters, but its occurrences in chs. 19–21 can be identified as additions. The same is true for the geographical details, which only later connect the Samson stories (Judg 13–16) with the Micah story (Judg 17–18) and thus raise the question of whether the Samson stories were placed within the book before or after the addition of chs. 17–18.32 Finally, at the end of this contribution, a few further questions can be raised regarding the compositional models of Uwe Becker and Cynthia Edenburg. According to Reinhard Müller, the actual “aim” or “purpose” of

31 32

EDENBURG, p. 354 above. For details, see EDENBURG, pp. 355–360 above.

II. 3.2. The Book of Judges within the DtrH

379

the period of Judges is “the installation of a monarchy” 33, which Becker also acknowledges. This is why the judges only deliver the people from their oppressors or from their sins for a certain amount of time but never definitively. Could this indicate that the author of the framework of the book of Judges, as Müller puts it, “still has some sympathy for the monarchy?”34 In other words, can a “kingless” period with leaders legitimized by God ever be construed in another way than the book of Judges does it? This would suggest that the “anti-monarchical” stance of the author of the framing verses was not yet present. Furthermore, the question of which theological standard is applied in these verses (the centralization of the cult, the first commandment etc.) would still need to be addressed. Or, asking with Martin Noth in mind: Do we not have to reckon with the distinctive character of the individual traditions the first Deuteronomistic author included in his book? Would he not let them have their say in their respective ways? Thus, a negative stance towards monarchy may have been part of the original sources from the outset and not only a (late) redactional tendency. If Becker and Kratz35 are correct in assuming that the book of Judges was inserted into the historical works, the implicit enquiry of Edenburg must be allowed: “[I]f Judges is removed from the early history work, then the narrative lacks a smooth transition from the death of Joshua to the institution of kingship.” It is tempting to answer simply with “Yes, it does indeed,” but can also redirect the question to Edenburg herself: Is the assumption of a “narrative” from Joshua to the institution of kingship not rather a petitio principii, and even more so if one argues that this large context (Joshua–Kings) must have been an “early history work”? If the combination of older individual traditions to form a larger story by one or more authors is correct, proof for such an historical work would need to be brought forward first – especially after the deconstruction of Noth’s original hypothesis of the (first) Deuteronomist as an “honest broker”. In other words: A gap can only arise where a coherent connection is already present or presupposed. Here again, the question of the theological orientation of the schematic framework texts in Judges seems to be crucial. A further question may be addressed to Cynthia Edenburg regarding material matters: Based on an assumed maximum scroll length, she proposes “that the Deuteronomistic History was not secondarily divided into separate scrolls along the seams of material that was inserted into the continuous narrative […]. Instead, it is more probable that the Deuteronomistic History was com33

MÜLLER, Königtum, 92; cf. ibid., 45–75, 91–92 and the comments by BECKER, p. 350 above. 34 MÜLLER, Königtum, 240, quoted by BECKER, p. 350 above. 35 Cf. Becker’s contribution in this volume; KRATZ, Komposition. Differently BECKER, Richterzeit.

380

Peter Porzig

posed from the start as a set of five scrolls (Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Samuel and Kings) that were meant to be read as a continuous narrative.”36 Incidentally, this observation would weaken Noth’s argument of redactions that are not limited to a single book but extend over a longer historical work. Thus, the question arises: If the discrete nature of the individual book scrolls is already valid from the very beginning, why create the “book-seams” at all? Why do only the very latest writers of the respective scrolls produce these seams, e.g., the Wiederaufnahme of Josh 24 in Judg 2? Should there not be (identifiable) remains of many more such “seams” stemming from earlier stages in the development of the books? Would this not indeed be necessary when making a claim about a distinct relationship among the individual books and not a “Deuteronomistic History” (or similar), as was the opinio communis prior to Noth? And why would someone connect a (presumably rather short) basic layer of two or more books in one single scroll? However, these are only my initial impressions regarding the two contributions and two approaches. Here I faced the challenging task of critically responding to and comparing two highly plausible views – both perhaps even incompatible in some respects. Nevertheless, I can agree to a large extent with both approaches, hoping to have provided a little basis for a fruitful conversation resulting in even fewer differences and even more similarities.

36

EDENBURG, p. 378 above.

‫‪The two Book-Seams and their Interconnections‬‬ ‫‪Christoph Berner‬‬ ‫‪A. Synopsis: Gen 50 – Exod 1 par. Josh 24; Judg 2‬‬ ‫‪Judg 2 MT‬‬

‫‪Josh 24 MT‬‬

‫הוֹשׁ ַ ִבּן־נוּן ֶﬠ ֶבד‬ ‫‪ 2,8‬וַ ָיּ ָמת ְי ֻ‬ ‫ן־מ ָאה וָ ֶﬠ ֶשׂר ָשׁנִ ים‬ ‫ְיהוָ ה ֶבּ ֵ‬

‫‪ 24,29‬וַ יְ ִה י ַא ֲח ֵרי ַה ְדּ ָב ִרים ָה ֵאלֶּ ה‬ ‫הוֹשׁ ַ ִבּן־נוּן ֶﬠ ֶב ד יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫וַ ָיּ ָמת ְי ֻ‬ ‫ן־מ ָאה וָ ֶﬠ ֶשׂר ָשׁנִ ים‬ ‫ֶבּ ֵ‬

‫‪ 2,9‬וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ אוֹתוֹ ִבּגְ בוּל נַ ֲחלָ תוֹ‬ ‫ת־ח ֶרס ְבּ ַהר ֶא ְפ ָר ִים‬ ‫ְבּ ִת ְמנַ ֶ‬ ‫ִמ ְצּפוֹן לְ ַהר־גָּ ַﬠשׁ‬

‫‪ 24,30‬וַ יִּ ְק ְבּרוּ אֹתוֹ ִבּגְ בוּל נַ ֲח לָ תוֹ‬ ‫ת־ס ַרח ֲא ֶשׁר‬ ‫ְבּ ִת ְמנַ ֶ‬ ‫ר־א ְפ ָריִ ם ִמ ְצּפוֹן לְ ַהר־גָּ ַﬠשׁ‬ ‫ְבּ ַה ֶ‬

‫‪Gen 50 / Exod 1 MT‬‬ ‫יוֹסף‬ ‫‪ 50,26‬וַ יָּ ָמת ֵ‬ ‫ֶבּ ן־ ֵמ ָאה וָ ֶﬠ ֶשׂר ָשׁנִ ים‬ ‫ישׂם ָבּ ָארוֹן‬ ‫וַ ַיּ ַחנְ טוּ אֹתוֹ וַ יִּ ֶ‬ ‫ְבּ ִמ ְצ ָר ִים‬

‫]‪[Exod 13,19‬‬

‫יוֹסף‬ ‫ת־ﬠ ְצמוֹת ֵ‬ ‫‪ 24,32‬וְ ֶא ַ‬ ‫ר־ה ֱﬠלוּ ְב נֵ י־ ִי ְשׂ ָר ֵא ל‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁ ֶ‬ ‫ִמ ִמּ ְצ ַר יִ ם ָק ְברוּ ִב ְשׁ ֶכם ְבּ ֶחלְ ַקת‬ ‫ַה ָשּׂ ֶדה ֲא ֶשׁר ָקנָ ה יַ ֲﬠקֹב ֵמ ֵאת‬ ‫י־שׁ ֶכ ם ְבּ ֵמ ָאה‬ ‫י־חמוֹר ֲא ִב ְ‬ ‫ְבּ נֵ ֲ‬ ‫י־יוֹסף ְלנַ ֲח ָלה‬ ‫יטה וַ יִּ ְהיוּ ִל ְבנֵ ֵ‬ ‫ְק ִשׂ ָ‬ ‫ל־הדּוֹר ַההוּא נֶ ֶא ְספוּ‬ ‫‪ 2,10‬וְ גַ ם ָכּ ַ‬ ‫בוֹתיו‬ ‫ל־א ָ‬ ‫ֶא ֲ‬

‫יהם‬ ‫וַ יָּ ָקם דּוֹר ַא ֵחר ַא ֲח ֵר ֶ‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ל ֹא־ ָי ְדעוּ ֶאת־ ְיהוָ ה וְ גַ ם‬ ‫ת־ה ַמּ ֲﬠ ֶשׂה ֲא ֶשׁר ָﬠ ָשׂה‬ ‫ֶא ַ‬ ‫לְ יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל‬

‫יוֹסף וְ ָכ ל־ ֶא ָחיו‬ ‫‪ 1,6‬וַ ָיּ ָמת ֵ‬ ‫וְ כֹל ַהדּוֹר ַההוּא‬ ‫וּבנֵ י יִ ְשׂ ָר ֵאל ָפּרוּ‬ ‫‪ְ 1,7‬‬ ‫וַ יִּ ְשׁ ְרצוּ וַ יִּ ְרבּוּ וַ ַיּ ַﬠ ְצמוּ ִבּ ְמאֹד‬ ‫ְמ אֹד וַ ִתּ ָמּלֵ א ָה ָא ֶר ץ א ָֹתם‬ ‫‪ 1,8‬וַ ָיּ ָק ם ֶמ לֶ ־ ָח ָדשׁ ַﬠל־ ִמ ְצ ָריִ ם‬ ‫יוֹסף‬ ‫ֲא ֶשׁר ל ֹא־יָ ַדע ֶאת־ ֵ‬

382

Christoph Berner

B. Description of Parallels and Literary-Historical Implications The transitions between the books of Gen/Exod and Josh/Judg show a number of significant parallels. According to Gen 50:26 (cf. 50:22) and Josh 24:29 par. Judg 2:8, both Joseph and Joshua die at the age of 110 years, a lifespan that is unattested elsewhere in the Hebrew Bible. Moreover, in both instances it is stated that their entire generation (‫ )כל הדור ההוא‬died with them, which is again a unique phrase that only occurs in Exod 1:6 and Judg 2:10. In this manner, both texts initiate an epochal turn, which occurs with the emergence of a new protagonist or group. In Exod 1:8, this role is taken by the new king who no longer knows or wants to know about Joseph, while in Judg 2:10 the narrative equivalent is formed by a new generation that is unaware of the god of Israel and his mighty deeds. In both contexts, the rise of ignorance is introduced through the same phrase (‫ אשר לא‬... ‫ויקם‬ ... ‫)ידע]ו[ את‬1 and indicates a turn towards the worse, be it the enslavement and victimization of the Israelites (Exod 1:9ff.) or their worship of foreign gods after the conquest (Judg 2:9ff.). In light of the very specific terminological parallels between the two book transitions and the uniqueness of the attested motifs and phrases, it is highly unlikely that the texts have developed independently of each other and merely share certain common narrative conventions. Instead, a literary dependence strongly suggests itself. This is all the more evident, since apart from the parallels, there also exists a direct literary linkage between Gen 50 and Josh 24. According to Gen 50:26, Joseph’s mortal remains are placed in a coffin, to be taken along later by the Israelites at the time of the Exodus (Exod 13:19), as his brothers had sworn to him at his deathbed (Gen 50:25). However, Joseph’s burial is postponed until the completion of the conquest, and it is only after Joshua has died and been buried in his own inheritance (‫ )נחלה‬that Joseph finds his final rest at Shechem, which then becomes the inheritance of his descendants (Josh 24:32; cf. Gen 33:19). The peculiar separation between Joseph’s death and burial can be seen as a deliberate editorial means to establish a macro-contextual link between the final chapters of the books of Genesis and Joshua. As a result, there is ample evidence to assume that the transitions between the books of Gen/Exod and Josh/Judg are related on an editorial level. It goes without saying that in order to determine the direction of literary dependence – or rather the various directions of mutual interdependence – one not only has to consider the book transitions in their final forms (as attested by docu1 The generational break is also reflected in Josh 24:31 MT and Judg 2:7 MT where it says that the elders had known (‫ )ידעו‬or seen (‫ )ראו‬YHWH’s deeds. On the interchange of the two verbal forms in the LXX (Josh 24:29: see; Judg 2:7: know) see the material evidence section above (part II, section 1).

III. 1. Material Evidence

383

mented evidence), but also their respective compositional histories. Thus, the following section builds upon the results from part I, sections 1-2, and part II, sections 1-2, of this volume and attempts to provide a synthesis.

The Literary Relationship between Genesis 50–Exodus 1 and Joshua 24–Judges 2 Stephen Germany Given that both Gen 50–Exod 1 and Josh 24–Judg 2 show signs of literary growth, any evaluation of the literary relationship between these two textual units should only be undertaken after the literary development of each unit has been ascertained – to the extent that this is possible – using internal criteria alone. Thus, the following discussion will be conducted in several discrete steps: (A) an internal analysis of Gen 50–Exod 1, (B) an internal analysis of Josh 24–Judg 2, (C) an evaluation of the literary relationship between the various literary strata in each unit, (D) an evaluation of each unit’s relationship to Deuteronomy and Priestly literature and (E) a synthesis of the results.

A. Literary-critical analysis of Gen 50–Exod 1 From a purely narrative perspective, the first text in Gen 50 that allows for a continuation of events in the book of Exodus is Gen 50:14, which reports that Joseph, his brothers and all of those who went up to Canaan to bury Jacob returned to Egypt. Although Gen 50:14 does not necessarily presuppose a continuation of events in the book of Exodus, a literary transition between Gen 50 and Exod 1 is not possible without this verse, since such a transition requires that the Joseph story end in Egypt, not in Canaan.1 Before the literary development of Gen 50 can be discussed, it is first necessary to address the problem of the duplicate report of Jacob/Israel’s dying wish to be buried in Canaan in Gen 47:29–31 and Gen 49:29–33. Although limitations of space do not allow for a full discussion here, there is good reason to conclude that Gen 47:29–31 is the more original of the two reports and that these verses once connected directly to Gen 49:33aβb.2 Thus, given that 1 SCHMID, ‘Josephsgeschichte’, 103–105, has proposed that an originally independent Joseph story ended in Canaan (Gen 50:1–8a*, 9–11, 15–21) and has been followed by GERTZ, ‘Transition’, 77–78. For a critique of this view see, e.g., SCHMITT, ‘Die Josefsund die Exodus-Geschichte’, 178–179 (with reference to further literature). 2 Cf. EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 474–481; see also LEVIN, Jahwist, 307–308, and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 19, who propose a direct connection between Gen 47:29–31 and Gen 50:1.

386

Stephen Germany

Gen 49:29–33aα are a later, “alternative” version of Jacob/Israel’s dying wish, then Gen 50:12–13 must also be a later addition within Gen 50:1–14, since these verses describe Jacob/Israel’s burial along the lines of Gen 49:29– 33aα.3 Likewise, in light of the shift from plural verbs in Gen 50:10a to a singular verb in 50:10b without an explicit reference to the subject of that verb, it can be concluded that Gen 50:10a – as well as 50:7b–8, (9), which 50:10a presupposes – are later additions between 50:7a and 50:10b.4 The report in Gen 50:15 that Joseph’s brothers “saw” that their father had died cannot be connected directly to Gen 49:33aβb, since then Jacob’s dying wish to Joseph to be buried in Canaan (Gen 47:29–31) would go unfulfilled. Thus, Gen 50:15 – and, by extension, the entire reconciliation scene in 50:16– 21 – must either be contemporaneous with or later than the report of Joseph’s return from burying Jacob/Israel in Canaan in Gen 50:14* (‫וישב יוסף מצרימה‬ ‫ אחרי קברו את אביו‬...).5 Indeed, given that a direct connection between Gen 50:14* and 50:22a is quite feasible and that the statement that Joseph’s brothers “saw” that their father had died is rather surprising from a narrative perspective, it is possible that Gen 50:15–21 are later than both 50:14* and 50:22a.6 Now that a more basic narrative thread has been identified in Gen 50:1–7a, 10b, 14*, (22a), it is possible to investigate the literary development of 50:22b-26, where a more explicit literary transition between the Joseph story and the exodus narrative begins to emerge. Whereas Gen 50:14*, (22a) give no clear indications of presupposing a continuation of the narrative in the book of Exodus,7 Gen 50:22b cannot serve as an absolute ending but instead anticipates Joseph’s announcement of his death in 50:24,8 which in turn pre3

Cf. EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 481–483. Cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 308–312; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 19, and EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 477. 5 On the isolation of a more basic report in Gen 50:14aα*b cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 19 n. 27 and EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 478. 6 On the possibility of an earlier connection between Gen 50:14* and 50:22* (albeit with divergent views on the literary-historical place of Gen 50:22*) cf. KEBEKUS, Joseferzählung, 222–225; LEVIN, Jahwist, 310; SCHMIDT, ‘Verbindung’, 26–28, and EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 497, 507–508; differently KRATZ, Komposition, 284 (ET 277); CARR, ‘What is Required’, 168–169; GERTZ, ‘Transition’, 77–78, 86; IDEM, ‘Zusammenhang’, 244; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 20; BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 512, and SCHMITT, ‘Die Josefsund die Exodus-Geschichte’, 185, who regard Gen 50:15–21 (or at least its Grundschicht) as part of the most basic literary stratum in Gen 50. 7 Nevertheless, KRATZ, Komposition, 284 (ET 277) and EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 479 conclude that even the most basic narrative thread in Gen 50 presupposes a connection with the exodus narrative (either as a separate literary work or joined as a single literary work). 8 Cf. BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 507, who notes that the formulation “‫ ויחי‬+ age” does not indicate one’s lifespan but instead indicates one’s age before or after another event in one’s 4

III. 2. The Literary Relationship between Gen 50–Exod 1 and Josh 24–Judg 2

387

supposes a continuation of events in the book of Exodus. Gen 50:23 represents a digression from the notice of Joseph’s lifespan in 50:22b and its logical continuation in 50:24 and 50:26a,9 suggesting that this verse is later than 50:22b, 24 and 26a.10 Similarly, Joseph’s adjuration to the “sons of Israel” regarding his bones in 50:25 not only differs from 50:24 in its addressees11 but is also rather repetitive in light of 50:24 and serves as a sort of addendum to that verse.12 Finally, assuming that the phrase ‫ ויישם בארון‬in Gen 50:26 presupposes Joseph’s request in 50:25, it must also be regarded as a later addition within 50:26. In sum, an earlier literary thread in Gen 50 can be identified in Gen 50:1– 7a, 10b, 14*, (22a), which could be part of an absolute ending to the Joseph story and does not necessarily presuppose a literary connection with the book of Exodus. Such a connection first emerges clearly in Gen 50:22b, 24, 26*, which, however, are quite possibly later than 50:1–7a, 10b, 14*, 22a and were themselves later expanded in 50:23, 25, 26* (only ‫)ויישם בארון‬. Within Exod 1, the materials that directly contribute to a literary link with the book of Genesis are limited to Exod 1:1–10; thus, only these verses will be discussed here. The first indication of possible literary growth within these verses is found in Exod 1:5b (‫)ויוסף היה במצרים‬, which is something of a non sequitur following 1:1–5a but prepares the ground for 1:6 by shifting the focus to Joseph, who is not mentioned in 1:1–5a. There is good reason to conclude that the reference to Joseph’s death in Exod 1:6 already lay before the scribe who added 1:1–5a,13 given the presence of 1:5b as a resumptive reference to the (still living) figure of Joseph.14 Another possible literarycritical break is created by Exod 1:7, which interrupts the focus on Joseph in life. Thus, Gen 50:22b alone does not signal the death of Joseph (here Blum has revised his position over against his earlier work; cf. IDEM, ‘Verbindung’, 149). 9 On the inseparability of Gen 50:22b from 50:26a cf. BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 510. 10 Cf. GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 244, and BERNER, ‘Material Evidence’, p. 19 above; differently BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 148–151, who argues that Gen 50:23* is earlier than 50:24. 11 Cf. PORZIG, Lade, 4 n. 23 and EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 471. 12 On Gen 50:25 as a later addition cf. BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 202; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 42–43; SCHMIDT, ‘Verbindung’, 29, and EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 504; differently BLUM, Vätergeschichte, 256; IDEM, ‘Verbindung’, 153; IDEM, ‘Literarkritik’, 510; GERTZ, Tradition, 360–362, and WITTE, ‘Gebeine’, 150–151, who regard Gen 50:24–26 as a literary unity. 13 Whether these verses came from an independent source or are a redactional Fortschreibung has no bearing on the present discussion. 14 On the presence of a literary-critical break at Exod 1:5b cf. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 151; IDEM, ‘Literary Connection’, 106; IDEM, ‘Literarkritik’, 511 n. 70. While I agree with Blum’s conclusion that Exod 1:5b “was from the start meant as a transition between verses 5a and 6” (‘Literary Connection’, 106), it does not necessarily follow from this that 1:6 is later than 1:1–5a as Blum suggests.

388

Stephen Germany

1:6 and 1:8. Within Exod 1:9, the phrase ‫ עם בני ישראל‬is slightly awkward syntactically, and the fact that the remainder of the verse uses singular suffixes with reference to ‫ עם בני ישראל‬is somewhat surprising, since in 1:1 and 1:7 the phrase ‫ בני ישראל‬clearly takes plural grammatical forms,15 which suggests that the phrase ‫ בני ישראל‬may be a later addition within 1:9.16 Considering that Exod 1:9–10 are syntactically dependent upon 1:8, which clearly presupposes the reference to Joseph’s death in 1:6 and indeed the Joseph story more broadly,17 both 1:8 and at least part of 1:6 must belong to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 1.18 If this is the case, then Exod 1:1–5 and 1:7 – neither of which connect smoothly to 1:6 and 1:8 and both of which use the term ‫בני‬ ‫ ישראל‬in conjunction with plural verb forms – can be assigned to a later stage of composition than 1:6 and 1:8. To summarize thus far: within Gen 50, the most basic material that unquestionably presupposes a connection with the exodus narrative can be identified in Gen 50:22b, 24, 26*, which are quite possibly later than Gen 50:1– 7a, 10b, 14*, (22a), while within Exod 1:1–10 the most basic material that forms a connection with the Joseph story can be identified in 1:6, 8, 9* (without ‫)בני ישראל‬, 10. These two groups of texts, however, cannot have formed a continuous narrative in the form reconstructed here, since Joseph’s death is reported in both Gen 50:26* and Exod 1:6.19 Given that Gen 50:22b, 24, 26* may be later than Gen 50:1–7a, 10b, 14*, (22a), there is some reason, prima facie, to suspect that the report of Joseph’s death in Exod 1:6* is more original than that in Gen 50:26*. The duplicate report of Joseph’s death suggests that either Gen 50:26* or Exod 1:6* is connected to the separation of Genesis and Exodus onto separate scrolls. This seems to have occurred following the addition of Exod 1:1–5, 7, since, as Berner has noted, “introductory phrases of the type ‘(And) these are ...’ are frequently attested elsewhere throughout the narrative books of the Hebrew Bible, but never introduce a major narrative sequence or even a book. 15 This tension was felt in the later versions (LXX, Peshitta, Targumim), which partially or completely replaced the singular grammatical forms in Exod 1:10 with plural forms. 16 GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 247 n. 51, holds that the phrase ‫ עם בני ישראל‬in Exod 1:9 was intentionally formulated as such from the outset but downplays the tension that ‫בני‬ ‫ ישראל‬creates with the singular grammatical forms in 1:10. 17 Even if one were to conjecture that the phrase ‫ אשר לא ידע את יוסף‬in Exod 1:8b is a later addition – which has no text-critical or literary-critical evidence in its favor –, the reference to the “new king” in 1:8a still presupposes the Joseph story, which concludes with positive circumstances for Jacob’s family under the previous Egyptian king. 18 On the assignment of Exod 1:6*, 8 to the most basic narrative thread in Exod 1 cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 21–23, and EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 468. The syntactic dependence of Exod 1:9–10 on 1:6*, 8 is not sufficiently accounted for by most scholars who claim that Exod 1:6* and/or 1:8 are late additions to Exod 1 (see, e.g., BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 150–151). 19 Cf. BERNER, ‘Material Evidence’, p. 19 above.

III. 2. The Literary Relationship between Gen 50–Exod 1 and Josh 24–Judg 2

389

Rather, they are a very common literary means for connecting a list of names, items etc. to a preceding (usually narrative) context”.20 In other words, Exod 1:1–5, 7 seem to belong to a stage of composition in which the conclusion to the Joseph story and the exposition of the exodus narrative were transmitted together on a single scroll. By extension, it is possible to conclude that one of the two references to Joseph’s death in Gen 50:26* and Exod 1:6* must be later than the addition of Exod 1:1–5, 7. If, as suggested above, the notice of Joseph’s death in Gen 50:26* is secondary to that in Exod 1:6* and thus later than Exod 1:1–5, 7, then Exod 1:1 must have previously connected directly to Gen 50:22a,21 in which case Gen 50:22b, (23), 24, (25), 26a(b) must be later than Exod 1:1–5, 7 and serve to create a book-seam between Genesis and Exodus. In contrast, if the notice of Joseph’s death in Exod 1:6 is later than that in Gen 50:26*, then Exod 1:1 would have connected to Gen 50:26* from the outset. Such a scenario is severely undermined, however, by the fact that the reference to Joseph’s death in Exod 1:6* seems to have already lain before the scribe who added Exod 1:1–5a (see above). Thus, it can be concluded that Exod 1:6* contains the more original notice of Joseph’s death.22 Considering that Exod 1:1–5, 7 are secondary to Exod 1:6*, 8, 9*, 10, an even earlier connection must have once existed between Gen 50:14*, (22a) and Exod 1:6*.23 In sum, the literary development of Gen 50:22–Exod 1:10 can be reconstructed in three major stages: (I) The earliest literary connection between the Joseph story (and most likely also some form of Gen 12–35*) and the exodus narrative can be identified in Gen 50:14*, (22a) + Exod 1:6*, 8, 9*, 10, 22.24 (II) Exod 1:1–5, 7 were subsequently inserted between Gen 50:14* (22a) and Exod 1:6*, 8 at a time when Gen 12–50* and the exodus narrative were most likely transmitted on a single scroll. (III) Gen 50:22b, (23), 24, (25), 26* are later than Exod 1:1–5, 7 and create (or in the case of 50:23, 25 already presuppose) a book-seam between Genesis and Exodus.25

20

BERNER, ‘Material Evidence’, p. 18 above. Cf. BERNER, ‘Material Evidence’, p. 19 above, who notes that “the list of immigrants in Exod 1:1–5a can be connected only to Gen 50:22a or 50:26.” 22 For this conclusion cf. BLUM, Studien, 364; CARR, ‘What is Required’, 174; WITTE, ‘Gebeine’, 149; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 21–22; SCHMIDT, ‘Verbindung’, 31, and EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 497–498. 23 BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 509–510, argues that Exod 1:6 cannot be connected to any point in Gen 50, although both Gen 50:14* and 50:22a connect quite well to Exod 1:6*. 24 Similarly EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 468. On Exod 1:22 as the direct continuation of 1:10 cf. BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 23–26. 25 On Gen 50:25–26 as part of a book seam cf. EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 506. 21

390

Stephen Germany

B. Literary-critical Analysis of Josh 24:28–Judg 2:11 Josh 24:28–31 and Judg 2:6–9 contain a number of duplicate elements, and the particular position of these repetitions near the edges of the books of Joshua and Judges indicates that such duplication is connected with the separation of the narratives in Joshua and Judges onto separate scrolls.26 Rather than beginning with a detailed comparison of the wording of these parallel elements (on this see below), a more useful starting point for the diachronic analysis of Josh 24:28–Judg 2:11 is a consideration of the narrative tensions in the received form of this unit.27 From this perspective, the most immediately evident problem is the fact that Joshua’s death is reported twice, indicating that one of the reports must be later than the other. It should also be noted that Judg 1:1aα presupposes the report of Joshua’s death in Josh 24:29 and thus cannot be earlier than this verse.28 At the same time, it is difficult to imagine why an author would have inserted a notice of Joshua’s death in Judg 2:8 after Josh 24:29; Judg 1:1aα. Thus, there is reason to conclude, prima facie, that Judg 2:8 is the more original report of Joshua’s death.29 Furthermore, a synchronic reading of Josh 24:28–Judg 2:11 indicates that Judg 2:7 and 2:8–9 are logically out of order: the reference to Joshua’s death and burial in 2:8–9 comes too late following the reference to “all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua” (‫)כל ימי הזקנים אשר האריכו ימים אחרי יהושוע‬ in 2:7, which presupposes that Joshua has already died. Thus, Judg 2:7 and 2:8–9 almost certainly belong to different compositional levels.30 Since it is unlikely that Judg 2:7 ever stood without 2:8–9, it can be assumed that Judg

26 Cf. FOCKEN, Landnahme, 70. Nevertheless, as the review of research in JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 347–352, shows, the literary relationship between Josh 24:28–33 and Judg 2:6–10 was rarely considered in terms of the creation of a book seam in earlier research but was instead analyzed in light of the theory of multiple redactions of the Deuteronomistic History (see also the contribution of GAß in part II, section 2.1 of this volume). 27 Cf. BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 182, who similarly argues that the small-scale differences between Josh 24:28–31 and Judg 2:6–9 should not form the starting point for their relative dating. 28 According to BLUM (p. 232 above), Judg 1:1aα is of a piece with the rest of the chapter and thus indicates that Judg 1 as a whole is no earlier than the report of Joshua’s death in Josh 24. In contrast, RAKE, Juda, 131–132, considers that Judg 1:1aα may be a later addition to Judg 1. 29 Cf. NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 8; AULD, ‘Judges I’, 264–265; BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 182; KRATZ, Komposition, 205 (ET 198); BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 151, and GROß, Richter, 183; differently NOORT, ‘Jos 24,28–31’, 113; FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 39–41; IDEM, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 58, and KNAUF, Richter, 49–50. 30 Differently NOORT, ‘Jos 24,28–31’, 113, and RAKE, Juda, 127, who regard Judg 2:7– 9 as a compositional unity but do not explain the unusual sequence of these verses.

III. 2. The Literary Relationship between Gen 50–Exod 1 and Josh 24–Judg 2

391

2:7 is later, not earlier, than 2:8–9.31 In contrast, the parallel reference to the elders who outlived Joshua in Josh 24:31 is chronologically appropriate following the report of Joshua’s death and burial in 24:29–30, suggesting that this reference has its more original place in Josh 24:31 and was later duplicated in Judg 2:7.32 The conclusion that Josh 24:31 has literary priority over Judg 2:7 is supported by a comparison of the small-scale differences between the two verses, which can be summarized as follows: 1) Judg 2:7 states that Yhwh’s deeds were “great” while Josh 24:31 does not; 2) Josh 24:31 states that “Israel” worshiped Yhwh while Judg 2:7 states that “the people” worshiped Yhwh; and 3) Josh 24:31 states that the elders “knew” Yhwh’s deeds toward Israel while Judg 2:7 states that the elders “saw” Yhwh’s deeds.33 Ad 1): it is simpler to assume that the term ‫ הגדול‬in Judg 2:7 was added when this verse was copied from Josh 24:31 than to assume that it was removed when Josh 24:31 was copied from Judg 2:7.34 Ad 2): the use of the term ‫ העם‬in Judg 2:7 can possibly be explained as a coordination with Judg 2:6, which also uses the term ‫( העם‬as well as the term ‫)בני ישראל‬.35 Ad 3): the use of the verb ‫רא״ה‬

31

Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 205 (ET 198). FOCKEN, Landnahme, 66, suggests that the awkward position of Judg 2:7 within Judg 2:6–10 serves a particular rhetorical function, namely, to establish a clearer caesura between the period of Joshua as well as the remainder of the conquest generation and the subsequent period. 32 Cf. RICHTER, Bearbeitungen, 47; RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 344; BECKER, Richterzeit, 65; NOORT, ‘Jos 24,28-31’, 115, and FOCKEN, Landnahme, 65–66; differently BLUM (p. 232 above), who concludes that Judg 2:7 has literary priority over Josh 24:31. 33 The LXX versions of these verses differ from MT in two primary respects. First, the reference to Israel’s worshiping Yhwh in LXX Josh 24:29 [= MT 24:31] comes before the report of Joshua’s death and burial in LXX 24:30–31, thus reflecting the same sequence that is found in Judg 2:7–9. Since it is unlikely that the report of Israel’s worshiping Yhwh was composed in an illogical narrative sequence from the outset, it can be assumed that MT Josh 24:29–31 reflect the original sequence and that the sequence of LXX Josh 24:29– 31 is a secondary coordination with Judg 2:7–9 (cf. JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 353 and KRATZ (p. 256 above). Second, LXX Josh 24:29 [= MT 24:31] agrees with MT Judg 2:7 in reading “saw”, while LXX Judg 2:7 agrees with MT Josh 24:31 in reading “knew”. This inverted use of verbs in LXX could possibly reflect an attempt to align LXX Judg 2:7 with Judg 2:10, which uses the verb “to know” in both MT and LXX (cf. JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 353), while at the same time preserving the use of the verb “to see” within Josh 24:28– Judg 2:10 by shifting its use to LXX Josh 24:29 [= MT 24:31]. Thus, in both Josh 24:31 and Judg 2:7, MT seems to reflect the more original reading and will be the basis for the subsequent discussion. 34 Cf. BECKER, Richterzeit, 66. 35 Cf. RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 345.

392

Stephen Germany

rather than ‫ יד״ע‬is more difficult to explain but in any case is not incompatible with the conclusion that Judg 2:7 is secondary to Josh 24:31.36 Since Josh 24:31 cannot stand without the report of Joshua’s death in 24:29, neither Josh 24:31 nor Judg 2:7 can be earlier than the creation of a book-seam between Joshua and Judges effected by (at least) the duplicate report of Joshua’s death in Josh 24:29–30.37 The same is true of Josh 24:32 and 24:33,38 neither of which can be earlier than the report of Joshua’s death and burial in Josh 24:29–30.39 The diachronic evaluation of Josh 24:31 and Judg 2:7 also has important implications for Judg 2:10, which shares the notion of the faithfulness of the conquest generation to Yhwh following Joshua’s death. Moreover, Judg 2:10 is closely tied to Josh 24:31/Judg 2:7 by the phrase ‫את המעשה אשר עשה לישראל‬. It is quite possible, then, that Judg 2:10 presupposes Josh 24:31/Judg 2:7 and thus also postdates the separation of the books of Joshua and Judges onto separate scrolls.40 One final doublet that belongs to the separation of the books of Joshua and Judges must now be discussed, namely, Joshua’s dismissal of the people in Josh 24:28 and Judg 2:6: Josh 24:28

‫וישלח יהושע את העם איש לנחלתו‬

Judg 2:6

‫וישלח יהושע את העם וילכו בני ישראל איש לנחלתו לרשת את הארץ‬

Judg 2:6 (LXXA)

Καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν λαόν καὶ ἀπῆλθαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ τοῦ κατακληρονομῆσαι τὴν γῆν Καὶ ἐξαπέστειλεν ᾿Ιησοῦς τὸν λαόν καὶ ἦλθεν ἀνὴρ εἰς τὴν κληρονομίαν αὐτοῦ κατακληρονομῆσαι τὴν γῆν

Judg 2:6 (LXXB)

Among the three versions of Joshua’s dismissal of the people in Judg 2:6, the LXXA version is the most expansive, the LXXB version is the most concise, and the MT version lies somewhere between LXXB and LXXA. In comparison to Josh 24:28, all three versions of Judg 2:6 are more expansive, contain36 RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 344, argues that the use of the verb ‫ רא״ה‬in Judg 2:7 represents a “Verstärkung” vis-à-vis ‫ יד״ע‬in Josh 24:31, while BECKER, Richterzeit, 66–67, argues that the verb ‫“ רא״ה‬präzisiert” vis-à-vis ‫יד״ע‬. 37 Against BECKER, Richterzeit, 69, who conjectures that Josh 24:31 once connected directly to 21:43–45 and was followed by Judg 2:8–9. 38 It can be assumed that Josh 24:33 is no earlier – and quite possibly later – than 24:32, since 24:33 is closer to 24:30 in terms of content than 24:32, and its position after 24:32 can thus best be explained by assuming that 24:32 was already present when 24:33 was written. 39 Cf. BECKER, Richterzeit, 71–72, and BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 211. 40 On the secondary nature of Judg 2:10 within the transition from Joshua to Judges cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 208 (ET 200); MÜLLER, Königtum, 77, and RAKE, Juda, 130; differently BECKER, Richterzeit, 69–70 (who notes the close connection between Judg 2:10 and Josh 24:31 but regards Josh 24:31 as part of the earliest transition between Joshua and Judges) and GROß, Richter, 184.

III. 2. The Literary Relationship between Gen 50–Exod 1 and Josh 24–Judg 2

393

ing at least the additional phrases “and [they] went” and “to inherit the land”. Given the brevity of Josh 24:28 and the fact that the motif of “taking possesion of the land” in Judg 2:6 is closely connected to Judg 141 as well as to Josh 23*,42 it is reasonable to conclude that Josh 24:28 represents the more original version of Joshua’s dismissal of the people.43 Moreover, the juxtaposition of the terms ‫ העם‬and ‫ בני ישראל‬in Judg 2:6 MT/LXXA – which raises the possibility of literary growth –, suggests that Josh 24:28 served as the source for a version of Judg 2:6 similar to LXXB, which was subsequently expanded in the textual traditions of MT and LXXA. Thus far, it has been concluded that Josh 24:29–33 and Judg 1; 2:6–7, 10 presuppose the separation of Joshua and Judges into separate books. This leaves Josh 24:28; Judg 2:1–5; and Judg 2:8–9 as potentially part of an earlier transition between Joshua and Judges that preceded the creation of a bookseam.44 Nevertheless, the sequence of Josh 24:28 + Judg 2:1–5 + Judg 2:8–9 can hardly be original, since both Josh 24:28 and Judg 2:8–10 feature the figure of Joshua, while Joshua is completely absent in Judg 2:1–5. Moreover, given that Judg 2:1–5 assume that the people as a collective entity are able to hear the speech of the ‫מלאך יהוה‬, it is likely that these verses presuppose Joshua’s dismissal of the people as a collective entity in Josh 24:28.45 Thus, it can be concluded that Josh 24:28 + Judg 2:8–9 were part of an earlier connection between the time of Joshua and the period of the Judges prior to the separation of Joshua and Judges as discrete books.46 In sum, the literary growth of the transition from Josh 24 to Judg 2 can be reconstructed in the following stages: (I) The most basic transition from Josh 41

Cf. FROLOV, ‘Demise’, 319–320. Cf. GROß, Richter, 184. 43 Cf. RAKE, Juda, 127 and KRATZ (p. 256 above); differently BECKER, Richterzeit, 71– 72, who concludes that Josh 24:28 is dependent on Judg 2:6, and BLUM (p. 229 above), who hypothesizes that Judg 2:6 once connected directly to Josh 23:16. 44 For the conclusion that Judg 2:1–5 are earlier than Judg 1 cf. GROß, Richter, 158 and FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 68. 45 Cf. RAKE, Juda, 127, who notes that “der Auftritt des ‫ מלאך יהוה‬setzt erzählerisch das Auditorium der versammelten Israeliten voraus, und dieses verschafft ihm am ehesten die Entlassungsnotiz in Jos 24,28 (‫)העם‬.” In contrast, BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 187–188, argues that Judg 2:1–5 originally connected directly to Josh 23:1–16, although such a connection is just as abrupt as the present connection between Judg 1 and Judg 2:1–5, since neither Josh 23:1–16 nor Judg 1 have an explicit geographical setting. 46 Cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 205 (ET 198), and RAKE, Juda, 130. This reconstruction stands in contrast to those that conclude that Judg 2:(6–7), 8–10* as a whole have priority over Josh 24:28–31 (so NOTH, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien, 47; JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’, 356, and BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 182) as well as those that conclude that Josh 24:28–31 have priority over Judg 2:6–10 (so SMEND, ‘Gesetz’, 506; RÖSEL, ‘Überleitungen’, 342; BRETTLER, ‘Jud 1,1–2,10’, 433; NOORT, ‘Jos 24,28–31’, 113; FROLOV, ‘Demise’, 316– 319, and FREVEL, ‘Wiederkehr’, 39–41; IDEM, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 58). 42

394

Stephen Germany

24 to Judges may have consisted of Josh 24:28 + Judg 2:8–9, 11. (II) The speech of the ‫ מלאך יהוה‬in Judg 2:1–5 (and possibly also Joshua’s second dismissal of the people in Judg 2:6a) could have been inserted between Josh 24:28 and Judg 2:8–11 prior to the separation of Joshua and Judges onto separate scrolls, although this is uncertain.47 (III) The duplicate report of Joshua’s death and burial in Josh 24:29–30 serves to create a book-seam between Joshua and Judges. Since neither Judg 2:8–9 nor Judg 2:1–5 are very fitting as the beginning of an independent book of Judges, it is possible that Judg 1 was composed at the same time as Josh 24:29–30.48 (III+) The report in Josh 24:31 that the people served Yhwh all the days of the elders who outlived Joshua cannot be earlier than Josh 24:29–30. Moreover, the duplicate report that the people served Yhwh in Judg 2:7 – and most likely also the report of the death of the entire generation in Judg 2:10 – cannot be earlier than Josh 24:31. Thus, both Josh 24:31 and Judg 2:7, 10 presuppose the division of Joshua and Judges onto separate scrolls. (IV) Josh 24:32 and (probably later) 24:33 were most likely appended to the end of Josh 24 following the separation of Joshua and Judges as discrete books.

C. The Literary Relationship between the Two Transitions Four major elements link the transitions between Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/ Judges: 1) both Joseph and Joshua die at the age of 110 years, 2) both transitions report the death of an “entire generation”, 3) both transitions describe a shift in epochs characterized by the rise of new actors and the motif of “not knowing” (‫ ;)לא יד״ע‬and 4) Joseph’s dying wish that his bones be brought up from Egypt in Gen 50:25 is fulfilled in Josh 24:32. Given the placement of these elements precisely at the transitions between distinct narrative units, their parallelism can hardly be coincidental. Rather, it must have arisen either through textual coordination (i.e., by copying a particular element from one transition into the other) and/or through the creation of an overarching redactional layer by a single hand. Determining whether a particular element is 47

According to RAKE, Juda, 127, the duplication of Joshua’s dismissal of the people in Judg 2:6a can be interpreted as a Wiederaufnahme following the speech of the ‫מלאך יהוה‬ and thus – unlike Josh 24:29–31 – is not part of the process of creating a book seam between Joshua and Judges. See also BECKER, Richterzeit, 72, who argues that Judg 2:6–7 as a whole presuppose the insertion of 2:1–5 but are earlier than the duplicate report of Joshua’s death in Josh 24:29–30. 48 Cf. RAKE, Juda, 131, who concludes that Judg 1 was either written as part of the process of the separation of Joshua and Judges onto separate scrolls or had already been inserted prior to the separation of the books. The latter possibility, however, requires the additional assumption that the phrase ‫ ויהי אחרי מות יהושע‬in Judg 1:1aα is a later addition, although there is no literary-critical or manuscript evidence to support such an assumption.

III. 2. The Literary Relationship between Gen 50–Exod 1 and Josh 24–Judg 2

395

earlier than, contemporaneous with, or later than its counterpart must take into account the literary development of each transition in its own right as well as other narrative considerations. 1) Joseph’s and Joshua’s 110-year lifespans. Within Gen 50–Exod 1, Joseph’s death is reported in both Gen 50:26* (which also mentions that Joseph died at the age of 110) and in Exod 1:6*. As discussed above, the notice of Joseph’s death in Gen 50:26* is dependent on that in Exod 1:6* and is part of a book-seam separating Genesis and Exodus. Thus, the notion that Joseph lived to the age of 110 does not belong to the most basic transition between the Joseph story and the exodus narrative and is no earlier than the separation of the narratives in Genesis and Exodus onto separate scrolls. In contrast, both notices of Joshua’s death (Josh 24:29 and Judg 2:8) report that Joshua died at the age of 110. Since there are no literary-critical grounds for regarding the phrase ‫ בן מאה ועשר שנים‬as a later addition in either of these verses, it can be assumed that the notice of Joshua’s age already belonged to the original report of Joshua’s death in Judg 2:8. If one compares the earlier report of Joseph’s death in Exod 1:6* with the earlier report of Joshua’s death in Judg 2:8, it can be concluded that the motif of the 110-year lifespan has its original place in the report of Joshua’s death rather than in the report of Joseph’s death.49 This conclusion finds further support if one compares the report of Joshua’s death at the age of 110 in Judg 2:8 to the report of Moses’ death at the age of 120 in Deut 34:7. Notably, like Moses, Joshua is called the “servant of Yhwh” (cf. Deut 34:5 and Judg 2:8), which establishes a connection between the reports of each figure’s death. In light of this connection, the significance of Joshua’s 110-year lifespan is readily apparent: Joshua’s greatness is reflected in his ripe old age, but it still does not match that of Moses, who lived to the age of 120. 2) The death of the entire generation. In order to evaluate the direction of dependence between the report of the death of Joseph’s generation in Exod 1:6* and the death of Joshua’s generation in Judg 2:10, it is necessary to consider how well each notice fits within its immediate context in terms of narrative logic. From this perspective, whether the entire generation has died is not directly relevant in Exod 1, since the shift in the pharaoh’s treatment of the Israelites turns exclusively on his relationship to Joseph (Exod 1:8), not to the entire people. In contrast, the death of the entire generation in Judg 2:10 is directly relevant to the transition from the narratives in Joshua to those in Judges, since Judg 2:7 reports that the people (as a whole) “served” Yhwh all the days of Joshua, while Judg 2:11 reports that the Israelites (as a whole) did what was evil in the sight of Yhwh. Thus, it can be concluded that the phrase

49

Differently RÖMER, ‘Ende’, 544, and EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 505–506.

396

Stephen Germany

‫ וכל הדור ההוא‬in Exod 1:6* is a later addition to Exod 1:650 that is literarily dependent on Judg 2:10.51 3) The rise of new actors and the motif of “not knowing”. As with the motif of the death of the entire generation, here too it is necessary to consider how the two reports of the rise of new actors and the motif of “not knowing” fit within their respective contexts in terms of narrative logic. In Exod 1:8, the rise of a new king who did not know Joseph fits quite well with the foregoing Joseph story, in which Joseph had established a relationship of trust with a particular pharaoh. Thus, it is not difficult to imagine that the new king’s attitude toward the Israelites might change following Joseph’s death. In contrast, the rise of a new generation that did not know Yhwh in Judg 2:10 requires a significantly greater suspension of disbelief on the part of the reader, since it implies that the transmission of cultural knowledge (i.e., the veneration of Yhwh) failed at the level of society as a whole. Thus, it is reasonable to conclude that the rise of the new king over Egypt who did not know Joseph in Exod 1:8 has literary priority over the rise of a new generation that did not know Yhwh in Judg 2:10.52 Such a conclusion is further supported by the literary-critical analyses of Gen 50–Exod 1 and Josh 24:28–Judg 2:11, which determined that Exod 1:8 belongs to the most basic literary transition between the Joseph story and the exodus narrative and precedes the literary separation of Genesis and Exodus, while Judg 2:10 is a later addition within Judg 2:6-11 and presupposes the separation of Joshua and Judges.53 4) The motif of Joseph’s bones. Although Joseph’s adjuration of the Israelites to bring up his bones from Egypt in Gen 50:25 finds its initial fulfillment in Exod 13:19, the fate of Joseph’s bones is ultimately only reported in Josh

50 On the phrase ‫ וכל הדור ההוא‬as a later addition to Exod 1:6 cf. SCHMIDT, ‘Verbindung’, 33–34, who, however, only regards this addition as part of a redaction that joined Exod 1:6* and 1:8 and does not discuss its literary relationship to Judg 2:10. 51 Cf. (tentatively) BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 41 n. 106; against SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 10, and GERHARDS, Aussetzungsgeschichte, 64–65, who suggest that the two verses may not reflect direct literary dependence. 52 On the literary priority of Exod 1:8 over Judg 2:10 cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 313 n. 1; RAKE, Juda, 136, and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 41 n. 106; against BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 151 and ALBERTZ, ‘Impact’, 58–59, who argue that Exod 1:8 is literarily dependent on Judg 2:10, and GERTZ, ‘Zusammenhang’, 246, who argues that Exod 1:6, 8 were written by the same (post-priestly) author who created the transition between the books of Joshua and Judges in Judg 2:8–10 (see also GERTZ, p. 66 above). More recently, however, BLUM, ‘Literarkritik’, 511 has suggested that Exod 1:8 was reworked in analogy with Judg 2:10 but was not dependent on Judg 2:10 from the outset, thus differing from his earlier view in IDEM, ‘Verbindung’, 151. 53 GROß, ‘Richterbuch’, 188; IDEM, Richter, 184, concludes that Judg 2:10 belongs to the same compositional level as 2:6–9 on the basis of comparison with Exod 1:6, 8, although such a conclusion is methodologically problematic.

III. 2. The Literary Relationship between Gen 50–Exod 1 and Josh 24–Judg 2

397

24:32. While Josh 24:32 clearly cannot stand without Gen 50:25,54 it is also difficult to imagine Gen 50:25 (or Exod 13:19) without Josh 24:32,55 which suggests that Gen 50:25 and Josh 24:32 (and perhaps also Exod 13:19) were written by the same hand.56 Such a reconstruction fits well with the literarycritical analyses of Gen 50:22–Exod 1:10 and Josh 24:28–Judg 2:10 above, which independently assigned both Gen 50:25 and Josh 24:32 to relatively late stages of composition that presuppose the separation of Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges, respectively.57

D. Macrocontextual Analysis of the Two Transitions The literary-critical analysis of Gen 50–Exod 1 concluded that the earliest literary connection between these chapters consisted of Gen 50:1–7a, 10b, 14*, (22a) + Exod 1:6* (only ‫)וימת יוסף‬, 8, 9*, 10. There are no clear indications that these materials presuppose Priestly literature,58 which suggests that the earliest literary connection between the ancestral narratives (including the Joseph story) and the exodus narrative occurred at a pre-Priestly stage of composition.59 In contrast, the subsequent expansion of the literary transition 54 Differently GERTZ, ‘Transitions’, 80, who entertains the possibility that Gen 50:25– 26 and Exod 13:19 may be later than Josh 24:32. 55 Cf. EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 505. 56 Cf. BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 202; IDEM, ‘Literary Connection’, 98; GERTZ, ‘Transitions’, 80 (tentatively); IDEM, ‘Zusammenhang’, 246; IDEM (p. 236 above). 57 If Gen 50:25 + Josh 24:32 are indeed later than Gen 50:26, then the possibility arises that the reference to Joseph’s burial in Egypt in LXX Gen 50:26 (καὶ ἐτελεύτησεν Ιωσηφ ἐτῶν ἑκατὸν δέκα καὶ ἔθαψαν αὐτὸν καὶ ἔθηκαν ἐν τῇ σορῷ ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ) may reflect an earlier stage of composition prior to the insertion of Gen 50:25 + Josh 24:32. 58 For a critique of the attribution of Gen 50:14 to P (so GERTZ, Tradition, 78) see BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 18–19. Many commentators assign Gen 50:22 as a whole to P (e.g., BLUM, Studien, 364 n. 14; CARR, ‘What is Required’, 168; GERTZ, Tradition, 360, and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 11, 21) on the basis of this verse’s similarity to Gen 47:27–28, although strictly speaking this only applies to Gen 50:22b. For the view that Gen 50:22a is pre-priestly cf. SCHMIDT, ‘Verbindung’, 28 (Schmidt also regards 50:22b as pre-Priestly, but this can be ruled out in light of the close connection between 50:22b, 24, and 26*, which postdate Exod 1:1–5). In any event, even if one regards Gen 50:22a as Priestly or post-Priestly, it is still possible to connect Gen 50:14* directly to the notice of Joseph’s death in Exod 1:6* (cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 307–314; IDEM, ‘Redactional Link’, 135, who, however, regards the report of Joseph’s death in Gen 50:26aα as more original than Exod 1:6*). 59 For documentary approaches that adopt this solution cf. VRIEZEN, ‘Exodus I’, 334– 335; SCHMITT, Josephsgeschichte, 126–127, and SCHMIDT, Ex 1–6, 31–32; for nondocumentary approaches cf. LEVIN, Jahwist, 313 (who, however, regards Gen 50:26aα as the original notice of Joseph’s death); KRATZ, Komposition, 304 (ET 295) (who reconstructs the finale of the Joseph story in Gen 50:15–21, see ibid., 284 [ET 277]); CARR,

398

Stephen Germany

– first in Exod 1:1–5, 6* (only ‫)וכל אחיו‬60 (prior to the separation of Genesis and Exodus), then in Gen 50:22b, 24, 26* (constitutive of their separation) – cannot be pre-Priestly. Given the broad consensus on the Priestly provenance of Exod 1:1–5,61 the (post-)Priestly nature of Gen 50:22b, 24, 26* can be deduced from the fact that these verses are later than Exod 1:1–5.62 The literary-critical analysis of Josh 24:28–Judg 2:11 concluded that the most basic material in the transition from Josh 24 to Judg 2 consisted of Josh 24:28 + Judg 2:8–9, 11. This transition cannot be pre-Deuteronomistic, since Joshua’s dismissal of the people in Josh 24:28 presupposes his assembly of the people in 24:1 and, by extension, some version of Josh 24, which thematizes the concept of “serving Yhwh”. 63 Determining whether the connection between Josh 24:28 and Judg 2:8–9, 11 is pre- or post-Priestly depends upon the literary-historical evaluation of the Grundschicht of Josh 24, which cannot be discussed in detail here.64 In any event, it can be concluded that all subsequent stages of composition in Josh 24:28–Judg 2:11 are likely post‘What is Required’, 175, and BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 17–26 (who identifies the end of an independent Joseph story in Gen 50:15–21*, see ibid., 17, 20). 60 For the conclusion that the phrase ‫ וכל אחיו‬in Exod 1:6 presupposes 1:1–5 cf. GERTZ, Tradition, 362; IDEM, ‘Zusammenhang’, 248; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 20, and ALBERTZ, ‘Beginn’, 233; IDEM, Ex 1–18, 43. 61 Cf. CHILDS, Exodus, 2 (P); PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 125 (RP); GERTZ, Tradition, 354– 357 (post-Priestly); BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 38–40 (post-Priestly); DOZEMAN, Exodus, 61 (P), and ALBERTZ, Ex 1–18, 22, 25 (a P redaction and a Hexateuch redaction). 62 On Gen 50:24–26 as (post-)priestly cf. BLUM, ‘Verbindung’, 148–149; GERTZ, ‘Transitions’, 81; BERNER, Exoduserzählung, 21; SCHMITT, ‘Die Josefs- und die ExodusGeschichte’, 178, and EDE, Josefsgeschichte, 497–504; against CARR, ‘What is Required’, 172, 174–175, who concludes that Gen 50:24–25 likely have a “pre-Priestly core” (notably, Carr reaches this conclusion on the basis of comparison with Josh 24–Judg 2, which is methodologically unsound). 63 Even if one hypothesizes an earlier connection between the report of Joshua’s death in Judg 2:8–9 and the end of the conquest narratives in Josh 11 (so KRATZ, Komposition, 205 [ET 198]; BECKER, ‘Kontextvernetzungen’, 151, and GROß, ‘Richterbuch’, 184–185; IDEM, Richter, 184), such a connection still cannot be pre-Deuteronomistic, since even the most basic narrative thread in Josh 11 presupposes the laws of warfare in the book of Deuteronomy. 64 Although a detailed analysis cannot be provided here, I identify the Grundschicht of Josh 23–24 in Josh 23:1–3, (5); 24:14a, 15*, 16, 18b, 22, 28 (for similar reconstructions cf. KRATZ, Komposition, 207 [ET 200] and AURELIUS, Zukunft, 172–177; IDEM, ‘Entstehung’, 102). FOCKEN, Landnahme, 68 concludes that the Deuteronomistic Grundschicht of the book of Judges (DtrR) was composed as the continuation of a post-Priestly Hexateuch based on the argument that the Jephthah narrative in Judg 11 presupposes a version of Num 20–22* that already contains Priestly materials. Focken’s conclusion, however, is open to critique, since Jephthah’s speech in Judg 11:12–28 is quite possibly a later insertion between Judg 11:11 and 11:29 (cf. KASWALDER, Iefte, 35), in which case Judg 11:12– 28 cannot be used to evaluate whether the Deuteronomistic Grundschicht of the book of Judges is pre- or post-Priestly.

III. 2. The Literary Relationship between Gen 50–Exod 1 and Josh 24–Judg 2

399

Priestly. The ‫ מלאך יהוה‬previously appears in the books of Exodus–Joshua in exclusively post-Priestly contexts,65 which indicates that Judg 2:1–5 must also be post-Priestly. By extension, if it is assumed that Judg 2:1–5 were written prior to the separation of Joshua and Judges onto separate scrolls, this would indicate that all of the elements in Josh 24:28–Judg 2:11 that create or presuppose a book-seam (i.e., Josh 24:29–31; Judg 1; 2:6–7) are likewise post-Priestly. As for Judg 2:10, the statement that Joshua’s entire generation was “gathered to its ancestors” uses an expression that is found elsewhere in Priestly texts in the book of Genesis (cf. Gen 49:29–33) and is therefore also most likely post-Priestly.

E. Synthesis The results from Parts A–D lead to the following overall reconstruction: I) The earliest literary connection between Gen 50 and Exod 1 likely consists of Gen 50:1–7a, 10b, 14aα*b, (22a) + Exod 1:6* (only ‫)וימת יוסף‬, 8, 9*, 10, while the earliest literary connection between Josh 24 and Judg 1–2 likely consists of Josh 24:28 + Judg 2:8–9, 11. Within these materials, the only common element is the report of the death of Joseph and Joshua, respectively, which is hardly sufficient to point to the literary dependence of one passage on the other from the outset.66 By extension, there is insufficient evidence to conclude definitively whether the literary joining of the ancestral narratives and the exodus narrative occurred before the literary joining of the conquest narratives and the judges cycle or vice versa.67 II) The first sign of direct literary dependence between the two transitions can be found in Judg 2:10, which drew on Exod 1:8 in its description of the rise of a new generation that did not know Yhwh. This verse is literarily secondary to Judg 2:8–9 and presupposes the separation of Joshua and Judges onto separate scrolls. Moreover, in light of its use of the motif of being “gathered to one’s ancestors”, Judg 2:10 can be evaluated as post-Priestly.

65

Differently BLUM, ‘Knoten’, 187–194, who assigns his “Mal’ak-Fortschreibung” to a post-Deuteronomistic but implicitly pre-Priestly stage of composition. On the post-Priestly provenance of the ‫ מלאך‬texts in the books of Exodus–Joshua see, e.g., SCHMITT, ‘Suche’, 261–262. 66 Similarly FREVEL, ‘Josua-Palimpsest’, 58. 67 KRATZ, Komposition, 304, 312 (ET 295, 307), concludes that a pre-Priestly “Hexateuch” (Exodus–Joshua) was expanded into an “Enneateuch” (Exodus–Kings) prior to the (still pre-Priestly) joining of the narratives Genesis and Exodus, although I find no compelling reason to rule out the possibility that the ancestral narratives and an exodus-conquest narrative were joined prior to the bridging of the exodus-conquest narrative and the narratives in Samuel–Kings through the judges cycle.

400

Stephen Germany

III) Following (or possibly contemporaneous with) the addition of Judg 2:10 within the book-seam between Joshua and Judges, the phrase ‫וכל הדור‬ ‫ ההוא‬was added to Exod 1:6, where it is a blind motif. Given that Judg 2:10 was written at a post-Priestly stage of composition, the addition of the phrase ‫ וכל הדור ההוא‬in Exod 1:6 must also be post-Priestly (but possibly still predates the separation of Genesis and Exodus onto separate scrolls). IV) The motif of the 110-year lifespan has its original place in Judg 2:8 (where it pre-dates the literary separation of Joshua and Judges) and was only later applied to Joseph in Gen 50:22b, 26* during the process of the literary separation of Genesis and Exodus. V) The motif of Joseph’s bones belongs to the latest stage in the literary development of the transitions between Genesis/Exodus and Joshua/Judges and can be attributed to a single redactional hand. This motif reinforces a hexateuchal literary context, although this Hexateuch post-dates the separation of both Genesis and Joshua as discrete books and is thus already a “multivolume” work.

Plot and Story in Genesis–Exodus and Joshua–Judges Jean Louis Ska Let us define plot. We have defined a story as a narrative of events arranged in their timesequence. A plot is also a narrative of events, the emphasis falling on causality. ‘The king died, and then the queen died’ is a story. ‘The king died, and then the queen died of grief’ is a plot. The time-sequence is preserved, but the sense of causality overshadows it. Or again: ‘The queen died, no one knew why, until it was discovered that it was through grief at the death of the king.’ This is a plot with a mystery in it, a form capable of high development. It suspends the time-sequence, it moves as far away from the story as its limitations will allow. Consider the death of the queen. If it is in a story we say ‘and then?’ If it is in a plot we ask ‘why?’ That is the fundamental difference between these two aspects of the novel. A plot cannot be told to a gaping audience of cave-men or to a tyrannical sultan or to their modern descendant the movie-public. They can only be kept awake by ‘and then—and then—‘ They can only supply curiosity. But a plot demands intelligence and memory also.1

The reason for this long quotation at the beginning of a study on book-seams in Genesis–Exodus and Joshua–Judges is simple. It is my contention that elements of language such as formulae, repetitions and literary connections, whatever their nature may be, have distinct functions within the texts in which they appear. Identifying the literary connections between biblical texts is a first, and indispensable, exegetical task. Defining the exact function of these elements is a second, and equally indispensable, exegetical task. The simple distinction proposed by Edward Morgan Forster is as old as Aristotle. In his Poetics, Aristotle defines “plot” in this way: “plot [μῦθος] is the imitation of an action [πρᾶξις]” and “by plot I mean the arrangement of the incidents [σύνθεσις τῶν πραγμάτων or ἡ τῶν πραγμάτων σύστασις]”.2 For Aristotle, the distinctive feature of a “plot” (μῦθος) is therefore an element of synthesis, a logical organization of the events recounted. Modern authors follow suit and define “plot” in an analogous way.3 A story registers facts and events in a mere chronological way as, for instance, in a chronicle or in annals. A plot adds a causal link between the events. I intend to analyze the seams between the books of Genesis and Exodus on the one hand and the books of Joshua and Judges on the other from this perspective. The question I ask of the texts is the following: Do the literary connections 1

FORSTER, Aspects, 93–94. Aristotle, Poetics, 1450a, 4–5 and 15. 3 See ABRAMS, Glossary, 224–228, esp. 224; PRINCE, Dictionary, 73. 2

402

Jean Louis Ska

create a plot or a story? Is this connection chronological, as in a story, or both chronological and logical, as in a plot?

A. The New King (Exod 1:8) and the New Generation (Judg 2:10) The similarities between Exod 1:6, 8 and Judg 2:8–10 have been underscored more than once and analyzed thoroughly by Theodorus Christiaan Vriezen in 1967.4 Four elements are common to both: 1) The death of Joseph and his generation (Exod 1:6) and that of Joshua and his generation (Josh 24:29; Judg 2:8, 10a; both Joseph and Joshua die at the age of 110 years). 2) The beginning of a new era: a new king in Egypt (Exod 1:8) and a new generation in Egypt and Israel (Exod 1:6; Judg 2:10). 3) A change of situation characterized by an element of ignorance. The new king in Egypt “did not know Joseph” (Exod 1:8) and the new generation in Israel “did not know YHWH nor the deed he had done in favor of Israel” (Judg 2:10). 4) The final commonality appears in the continuation of the story. The fate of Israel in Egypt changes radically, and the new generation in Israel abandons YHWH to serve the Baals, contrary to the behavior of the former generation which had been faithful to YHWH (Judg 2:7, 11). This is well known and does not require much explanation. But do we have a plot or a story in these cases? The key terms, in my opinion, are the adjectives “new” (‫ )חדש‬in Exod 1:8 and “other” (‫ )אחר‬in Judg 2:10. These words, particularly the first one, point to a gap in the narrative flow. Let us analyze the case of Exod 1:6, 8 first. With Joseph’s death and the new king in Egypt, the fate of Israel changes completely. We have two phases in Israel’s history: The first, the time of the ancestors, ends with Joseph’s death and the second begins when “a new king arises in Egypt.” There is a succession of events, but no logical link between the two phases. It is not said that the new king acted as he did because of anything that happened during Joseph’s time. The only reason for his behavior is the prodigious increase of the Israelites (cf. Exod 1:7, 9), and surely not Joseph’s policy or Joseph’s favor with former pharaohs. Put simply, we have the typical sequence of a

4 VRIEZEN, ‘Exodusstudien’, esp. 334–344. Vriezen refers to NÖLDEKE, Untersuchungen, 35–36, 105–106; DILLMANN, Exodus und Leviticus, 2–3; BUDDE, Buch der Richter, 21. For a more recent analysis see, e.g., COATS, ‘Structural Transition’; VAN SETERS, Life, 17–19. With Vriezen, SCHMIDT, Exodus 1–6, 31–32, notes the temporal gap between the Joseph generation and the exodus generation; PROPP, Exodus 1–18, 126; UTZSCHNEIDER/ OSWALD, Exodus 1–15, 59–63, do not treat the problem as such. They propose to see in these verses a very late text creating a transition between Genesis and Exodus.

III. 2. Plot and Story in Gen–Exod and Josh–Judg

403

story, not that of a plot. We have a succession of generations, not a logical concatenation of causes and effects. This first observation is confirmed by the use of the adjective “new” (‫)חדש‬ in Exod 1:8. Bruno Baentsch already highlighted this point, stating that ‫חדש‬ is stronger than ‫ אחר‬and that the expression in Exod 1:8 could mean as much as the beginning of new dynasty.5 More simply, it means a new set of circumstances. He adds four examples of the use of this adjective for a new house (Deut 20:5), new wineskins (Josh 9:13), a new song (Ps 33:3), but also for new gods (Judg 5:8). When there is a simple dynastic succession, we have the notice of a king’s death and the use of the verb ‫ מל״ך‬for his successor (1 Kgs 14:21; 15:1; etc.). The use of the verb ‫ קו״ם‬is also indicative, according to Baentsch, of the importance of this new reign (1 Kgs 3:12; 8:20; 2 Kgs 23:25; cf. Judg 10:1; 5:7). There are thus several elements supporting the idea that the formula used in Exod 1:6, 8 creates a break between Genesis and Exodus. This is also confirmed by Vriezen’s analysis of this passage. In the aforementioned article, Vriezen notices the similarities between the formulae used in Exod 1:6, 8; Judg 2:8, 10 (cf. Josh 1:2) and king lists. The sequence of the two verbs ‫ מו״ת‬and ‫ קו״ם‬is typical of dynastic lists of kings and royal annals and chronicles.6 This is also the case in some lists of Judges where the temporal succession is highlighted by the use of the preposition ‫( אחר‬Judg 10:1, 3; 12:8, 11, 13; cf. Josh 1:1). We are in the world of chronological sequences and not in the world of plots and full-fledged narratives.7 A short analysis of the Joseph story and of Exod 1–15 will buttress these observations. The plots of these two narrative units, in their present complex shape, are distinct. The Joseph story is about the conflict and reconciliation within Jacob’s family. This reconciliation takes places twice, once in Gen 45:1–8 and, after Jacob’s death and burial, in Gen 50:15–21. This is the conclusion of the story which does not require any continuation. The second problem of the story, the famine, receives a satisfactory solution as well. Joseph will provide for his whole family until the end of the famine (Gen 45:6–8; 50:19–21). The plan is therefore to stay in Egypt five more years (Gen 45:6), not to settle there permanently. The last verses of the story insist on that point (Gen 50:22, 26). The only question of the reader at this point is “what next?” and not “why?”, since all the “whys” of the narrative have received a satisfactory answer. The death and burial of the two main characters of the story, Jacob (Gen 49:33; 50:1–14) and Joseph (50:26) are the natural conclusion of this narrative. The same holds true for Exod 1–15. Nothing in Exod 1–15 refers to the Joseph story, apart from the chronological sequence. The new king does not 5

BAENTSCH, Exodus, 3. VRIEZEN, ‘Exodusstudien’, 340–341. 7 VRIEZEN, ‘Exodusstudien’, 344, speaks of an “annalistische Formel.” 6

404

Jean Louis Ska

oppress Israel because of Joseph, since “he does not know Joseph” (Exod 1:8), and not even because the Israelites are foreigners, at least explicitly. The Israelites are not Egyptians, but neither the pharaoh nor the Egyptians accuse the Hebrews of having come from elsewhere and of having invaded a country not their own. Moreover, the Egyptians do not want to expel the Hebrews. On the contrary, they try to prevent them from leaving the country (Exod 1:10). Moses and Aaron will have a hard time convincing the next pharaoh to let Israel go, and no less than ten plagues are necessary to achieve Israel’s liberation. There is another troubling element. Once in the desert, the Israelites want to go back to Egypt. Only God and Moses seem to be convinced that the land of Canaan is the destination of the journey. The Israelites always prefer Egypt, as if Egypt were their real and unique homeland (Exod 14:11–12; 16:2; 17:3; Num 11:4–5; 14:2–4; 16:13–14; 20:5; 21:5; cf. Ps 78:40). The refusal to conquer the Promised Land (Num 13–14) is another sign that the Israelites feel more at home in Egypt than anywhere else (cf. Num 14:2–4). All of these elements lead to the same conclusion, namely, that there is a mere chronological sequence between Genesis (or the Joseph story) and Exodus, but no clear logical connection. There is a post hoc (“after this”), but no propter hoc (“because of this”). On the other hand, and this is important as well, the verses under discussion create this chronological order: Joseph comes before and the oppression in Egypt afterwards. Because of Exod 1:6, 8, the two narrative blocks must be read in this sequence. Commentators agree in general on this point from their different perspectives. For Brevard S. Childs, this introduction “points both backward toward to the patriarchs and forward to the exodus story.”8 For Thomas B. Dozeman, the comparison between Exod 1:6, 8 and Judg 2:8–10 “emphasizes the disruption between the story of the ancestors and the deliverance from Egypt, at least as great as that between the books of Joshua and Judges.”9 After engaging with several authors, Konrad Schmid concludes his inquiry about the origin of both traditions as follows: “The literary bridges between Genesis and Exodus show that these blocks were not bound together as a single complex from their inception, but were two different and in all probability literary separate traditions.”10 Let us add a final note that goes along the same line. From a more technical point of view, there is a long “narrative time” (erzählte Zeit) separating the Joseph story from the exodus, some four hundred years according to Gen 15:13 or four hundred and thirty years according to Exod 12:40. Genesis 15:16 speaks of four generations. Little narration time (Erzählzeit), however, 8

CHILDS, Exodus, 2. DOZEMAN, Exodus, 66. 10 SCHMID, Erzväter, 153 (= Genesis and the Moses Story, 139–140). 9

III. 2. Plot and Story in Gen–Exod and Josh–Judg

405

is dedicated to this period, especially to the period between Joseph’s death and the rise of the “new” king in Egypt. Only the increase of the Hebrews is mentioned in a summary in Exod 1:7. This “blank” creates a discontinuity in the narrative flow between Genesis and Exodus and keeps them apart from each other.11

B. Joshua and Judges The same holds true with respect to the books of Joshua and Judges. The report of Joshua’s death and the change in generation has the same function as in Exod 1:6, 8. The book of Judges describes a new phase or another phase of Israel’s destiny in the Promised Land, but what happens there is not the logical consequence of what is told in the book of Joshua. This is again underlined by Vriezen (cf. above). The new generation that arises after Joshua’s death breaks with the past and introduces a different kind of behavior that contradicts the previous way of living under Joshua’s leadership.12 As for the plot, the book of Joshua has its natural conclusion in ch. 23(–24) or even in ch. 22. The narrative program of the book is to be found in a divine discourse in Josh 1:1–5. Joshua receives the mission of crossing the Jordan and of conquering the land. This is carried out in four main phases, the crossing of the Jordan (Josh 2–5), the conquest of the land (Josh 6–12), the distribution of the land (Josh 13–21) and the concluding chapters (Josh 22–24) with the question of the Transjordan tribes (Josh 22), Joshua’s farewell discourse (Josh 23) and the covenant at Shechem (Josh 24). With this the program of Josh 1:1–5 is fulfilled, Israel has crossed the Jordan, has conquered the land and has settled in the land. Again, as after the Joseph story, the readers’ only question is “and now, what next?” There is no “why” nor “how” any more. As in the book of Genesis, the reference to Joshua’s death and burial in Josh 24:29–31 (cf. Judg 2:6–10) is the natural conclusion of the book. As for the temporal sequence, Josh 24:29–30 and Judg 2:8–10 create this arrangement and place Judges after Joshua. The two books must be read in this chronological order. I do not intend in this article to draw any conclusion from a historical-critical perspective from these observations. My purpose is to analyze the texts from a literary perspective and to determine their precise function within the narrative units in which they appear. A final element that was noted already by Vriezen may be of some interest in this context. In light of the double reference to Joshua’s death and burial in Josh 24:29–30 and in Judg 2:8–9, Vriezen proposed to consider all the materials between Joshua 24 and Judg 2:5 as an addition. 11 12

On these terms see SKA, Fathers, 7–9. VRIEZEN, ‘Exodusstudien’, 336–344.

406

Jean Louis Ska

The idea is not new, however. Julius Wellhausen, for instance, noted that Judg 1 is not a continuation of Joshua, but a parallel to it. As such, Wellhausen regarded Judg 1 as the continuation of the Pentateuch:13 “[…] Judges 1,1 – 2,5 cannot be the continuation of Joshua 1–24 and must be a concurrent version […].”14 More can be said about this problem when comparing the Masoretic Text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX). In the most reliable manuscripts of the LXX, Josh 24:33 contains a plus that is absent from the MT: οἱ δὲ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἀπήλθοσαν ἕκαστος εἰς τὸν τόπον αὐτῶν καὶ εἰς τὴν ἑαυτῶν πόλιν καὶ ἐσέβοντο οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ τὴν Ἀστάρτην καὶ Ασταρωθ καὶ τοὺς θεοὺς τῶν ἐθνῶν τῶν κύκλῳ αὐτῶν καὶ παρέδωκεν αὐτοὺς κύριος εἰς χεῖρας Εγλωμ τῷ βασιλεῖ Μωαβ καὶ ἐκυρίευσεν αὐτῶν ἔτη δέκα ὀκτώ. The Israelites went each to his place and to his city. And the Israelites worshiped Astarte and the Ashtarot and the gods of the nations [living] around them. And the Lord gave them over to Eglon, the king of Moab, and [the latter] ruled over them eighteen years.

According to Alexander Rofé, who studied this question in detail, the original continuation of Joshua’s death is to be found in Judg 3:12, the oppression of Israel by Eglon, king of Moab. All the rest was added at a later period to distinguish better both epochs of Israel’s past and to give a fuller introduction to the book of Judges.15 It is very improbable that a translator or a copyist would have skipped some seventy verses. There is no case of homoioteleuton and these verses contain most respectable discourses, as that of the angel of YHWH (Jugd 2:1–5) or theological reflections on the fate of Israel during that period (2:6–23). Nor would a translator or a scribe have passed over the first judge, Othniel (3:7–17), in silence.16 This hypothesis is partly confirmed by the Damascus Document, which has a passage parallel to the ending of Joshua in the LXX, with the mention of the ark, the death of Eleazar, Joshua and the elders and the worship of the Ashtarot.17 In conclusion, we have several good reasons to believe that Judg 2:8–10 is part of a later reworking of the book of Judges that underscores “the break in tradition and memory” between the two periods of Israel’s past.18 13

WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 208–209. WELLHAUSEN, Composition, 209. 15 ROFÉ, ‘End’, 28–33. For a summary of the earlier discussion on this topic, see TOV, The Greek and Hebrew Bible, 385–396, esp. 386–387. For a summary of Rofé’s position, see VAN DER MEER, Formation, 60–62; SICRE DIAZ, Josué, 495–496. 16 ROFÉ, ‘End’, 29–30. 17 ROFÉ, ‘End’, 28–29. See also LUCASSEN, ‘Josua’, esp. 378–380, 391–392, 393: “Der Beginn der Richtererzählungen ist entsprechend mit 3,12, dem Beginn der Erzählung von Ehuds listigem Sieg über den moabitschen König Eglom, die die erste eigentliche Richtererzählung darstellt, markiert.” See also JERICKE, ‘Josuas Tod’. 18 DOZEMAN, Exodus, 66. 14

III. 2. Plot and Story in Gen–Exod and Josh–Judg

407

C. Joseph’s bones Hermann Gunkel concludes in this way his commentary of the Joseph story and of the book of Genesis: “Beautiful is the progressive conclusion of the narrative and the preparation for the following narration of Exodus.”19 This insightful observation is a fitting introduction to the analysis of the literary network fashioned by Gen 50:25–26; Exod 13:19 and Josh 24:32, which has been thoroughly examined by several authors.20 As in the other cases, I intend to study the function of these three texts. My thesis is that they connect Genesis with Exodus and Joshua and create a plot or storyline. More precisely, they create a bridge between the ancestors and the settlement in the land. This bridge is not only chronological in nature. This time, there is an element of causality, since there is a reason why Joseph wants his bones to be buried in Shechem, namely, that God will “visit” (‫ )פק״ד‬Israel in Egypt in the future.21 The reader may ask, “Why does Joseph want to be buried in Shechem?” and “When will Joseph’s bones be buried in Shechem?” This narrative program is to be carried out and generates expectation and suspense. But like mistletoe, these narrative segments feed on the sap of other narratives on which they are grafted. In the classical language of exegesis, we have a good example of later additions to earlier texts.22 As framing elements, they unite groups of narratives that have their own coherence, namely, the Joseph story, the exodus, conquest and settlement in the land. They are grafted onto these narratives and bind them externally. They do not impinge on the inner construction of the respective plots. The exodus does not take place in order to bring Joseph’s bones back to Shechem. The Israelites do not wander in the wilderness only to bury Joseph in the plot of land he received as an inheritance from his father Jacob (Gen 48:22). The three references to Joseph’s bones create an overarching plot, adding a new dimension to these different series of narratives. They become part of a new narrative composition spanning from Genesis to the end of Joshua. What is the meaning of this new narrative unit? Actually, the mention of bones and burial has a meaning. Tombs in the ancient Near East, and not only there, have a special meaning for people at-

19 GUNKEL, Genesis, 491: “Schön ist das allmähliche Abheben der Erzählung und die Vorbereitung der folgenden Exodusgeschichte.” 20 See esp. RÖMER/BRETTLER, ‘Deuteronomy 34’, esp. 410; WITTE, ‘Gebeine’. 21 Several authors have noted that Shechem is a significant place in the ancestral narratives. The first altar built by Abraham in the land of Canaan is built in Shechem (Gen 12:6). Altars, like tombs, have a strong juridical and political meaning. They express claims that the land belongs to the people who revere the God worshiped on that altar and whose ancestors are buried in those tombs. 22 See, e.g., WITTE, ‘Gebeine’, 149.

408

Jean Louis Ska

tached to the land.23 The ancestors’ tombs are pieces of evidence that a family, clan, tribe or nation owns this piece of land. In other words, Joseph’s tomb in Shechem proves that this piece of land belongs to the tribe of Joseph and to his descendants. Joseph’s home is not in Egypt. Israel may have come to Egypt because of Joseph, who preceded his family there, but Egypt is not and cannot be its homeland. Contrary to what other texts may suggest, the deepest roots of Israel’s ancestors are not in Egypt, but in the land of Canaan. This is the reason why the narrator wants to make sure that Joseph’s bones return to the piece of land to which they belong.24 These connections add a new aspect to the literary blocks to which they were probably added. They suggest that the ancestral traditions find their conclusion with the conquest of the land where Israel’s ancestors lived as nomadic shepherds or as “migrants”, to use the Priestly vocabulary. This idea, however, is only intimated and not explained or developed at length. Put simply, these three references to Joseph’s bones differ from the other elements examined earlier. They create a logical link between diverse groups of narratives and raise a why-question: Why does Joseph ask his brothers to bury him in Shechem? The other two texts answer this question.

D. Conclusion “Life is lost against death, but memory wins the battle against nothingness.”25 Memory is a key word in this context, because memory shapes the past. There are many ways of shaping the past, however, and the texts we analyzed show at least two ways of organizing Israel’s collective memory. The first, present in Exod 1:6, 8 and Judg 2:8–10, juxtaposes segments of the past, insisting on the differences between them. This sort of paratactic style is common in the Scriptures. It leaves to the reader the task of finding out how to interpret the sequence of events. In other cases, memory digs the past, as Moses dug Egyptian soil to recover Joseph’s bones, and creates a series of linchpins between existing narrative blocks. This is the case with Gen 50:26; Exod 13:19 and Josh 24:32. As we have seen, these three texts bind together three main blocks of Israel’s past: the ancestral narratives, the exodus and the settlement in the land. The startling element, in my view, is that the main 23

See, e.g., VAN DER TOORN, Family Religion, 199; STAVRAKOPOULOU, Land. Cf. already SKINNER, Genesis, 245: “[Abraham] proceeds to take possession of the land in the name of Yahwe by erecting altars for His worship.” 24 Rashi makes another interesting observation: “They [Joseph’s brothers] stole him from Shechem (see Gen 37:13), and they [Joshua’s generation] returned him to Shechem” (quoted in RÖMER/BRETTLER, ‘Deuteronomy 34’, 410). 25 TODOROV, Abus, 16: “La vie est perdue contre la mort, mais la mémoire gagne dans son combat contre le néant.”

III. 2. Plot and Story in Gen–Exod and Josh–Judg

409

figure in these three texts is Joseph, not Abraham. The reason, in my opinion, is probably to be sought in the historical context of these additions. They were written with a peculiar audience in mind, namely those members of Israel living and making career in the diaspora, just as Joseph did, and perhaps tempted to forget their homeland. These texts endeavor to remind these members of Israel that, deep down in their memory, there is a figure who waited more than four centuries and travelled through the wilderness for forty years before being laid to rest in his final dwelling place.

Bibliography Abbreviations according to S. Schwertner, IATG3. Abrams, M. H. (ed.), A Glossary of Literary Terms, 7th ed., Boston/MA 1999. Albertz, R., ‘Die kanonische Anpassung des Josuabuches: Eine Neubewertung seiner sogenannten „priesterschriftlichen Texte“’, in: T. Römer/K. Schmid (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, BETL 203, Leuven et al. 2007, 199–216. —, ‘Der Beginn der vorpriesterlichen Exoduskomposition (KEX): Eine Kompositions- und Redaktionsgeschichte von Ex 1–5’, TZ 67 (2011), 223–262. —, Exodus. Band I: Ex 1–18, ZBK 2.1, Zürich 2012. —, Exodus. Band II: Ex 19–40, ZBK 2.2, Zürich 2015. —, ‘The Formative Impact of the Hexateuch Redaction: An Interim Result’, in: F. Giuntoli/K. Schmid (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch, FAT 101, Tübingen 2015, 53–74. —, ‘Die Josephsgeschichte im Pentateuch’, in: T. Naumann/R. Hunziker-Rodewald (eds.), Diasynchron: Beiträge zur Exegese, Theologie und Rezeption der Hebräischen Bibel. Walter Dietrich zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart 2009, 11−36. Alt, A., ‘Der Gott der Väter’ (1929), in: idem, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. 1, 3rd ed., Munich 1963, 1–78. —, ‘Josua’ (1936), in: idem, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. 1, 3rd ed., Munich 1963, 176–192. —, ‘Das System der Stammesgrenzen im Buche Josua’ (1927), in: idem, Kleine Schriften zur Geschichte des Volkes Israel, vol. 1, 3rd ed., Munich 1963, 193–202. Amit, Y., The Book of Judges: the Art of Editing, BibInt 38, Leiden et al. 1999. —, ‘Hidden Polemic in the Conquest of Dan: Judges XVII-XVIII’, VT 60 (1990), 4–20. —, Hidden Polemics in Biblical Narrative, BibInt 25, Leiden et al. 2000. —, ‘Travel Narratives and the Message of Genesis’, in: J. C. Gertz et al. (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, FAT 111, Tübingen 2016, 223‒242. Anbar, M., Josué et l‘alliance de Sichem (Josué 24:1–28), BEATAJ 25, Frankfurt 1992. —, ‘La “reprise”’, VT 38 (1988), 385–398. Angel, H., ‘One Book, Two Books: The Joshua-Judges Continuum’, JBQ 36 (2008), 163– 170. Astruc, J., Conjectures sur les memoires originaux: Dont il paroit que Moyse s’est servi pour composer le Livre de la Genese, Brussels 1753, repr. Paris 1999. Attridge, H. et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4.VIII: Parabiblical Texts, Part 1, DJD 13, Oxford 1994. Auberlen, C. A., ‘Die drei Anhänge des Buches der Richter in ihrer Bedeutung und Zusammengehörigkeit’, TSK 33 (1860), 536–568. Auld, A. G., Joshua, Moses and the Land: Tetrateuch-Pentateuch-Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938, Edinburgh 1980.

412

Bibliography

—, Joshua: Jesus Son of Naue in Codex Vaticanus, Septuagint Commentary Series, Leiden/Boston 2005. —, Joshua Retold: Synoptic Perspectives, OTS, Edinburgh 1998. —, ‘Judges I and History’, VT 25 (1975), 261–285. —, Studies in Joshua: Text and Literary Relations, Ph.D. dissertation, Edinburgh 1976. Aurelius, E., ‘Zur Entstehung von Josua 23–24’, in: J. Pakkala/M. Nissinen (eds.), Houses Full of All Good Things: Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola, SESJ 95, Göttingen 2008, 95–114. —, ‘Der Ursprung des Ersten Gebots’, ZTK 100 (2003), 1–21. —, Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Studie zum Enneateuch, BZAW 319, Berlin/New York 2003. Baden, J. S., The Composition of the Pentateuch: Renewing the Documentary Hypothesis, New Haven/CT 2012. —, ‘The Continuity of the Non-Priestly Narrative from Genesis to Exodus’, Bib 93 (2012), 161–186. —, J, E, and the Redaction of the Pentateuch, FAT 68, Tübingen 2009. —, ‘From Joseph to Moses: The Narratives of Exodus 1–2’, VT 62 (2012), 133–158. —, The Promise to the Patriarchs, New York/NY 2013. —, ‘Source Stratification, Secondary Additions, and the Documentary Hypothesis in the Book of Numbers: The Case of Numbers 17’, in: C. Frevel et al. (eds.), Torah and the Book of Numbers, FAT II/62, Tübingen 2013, 233–247. Baentsch, B., Exodus – Leviticus – Numeri, HKAT I/2, Göttingen 1903. Baker, H. D, ‘Babylonian Land Survey in Socio-Political Context’, in: G. J. Selz (ed.), The Empirical Dimension of Ancient Near Eastern Studies, WOO 6, Wien 2011, 293–323. Bardtke, H., ‘Henning Bernhard Witter: Zur 250. Wiederkehr seiner Promotion zum Philosophiae Doctor am 6. November 1704 zu Helmstedt’, ZAW 66 (1954), 153–181. Barton, J., ‘What Is a Book? Modern Exegesis and the Literary Conventions of Ancient Israel’, in: J. C. de Moor (ed.), Intertextuality in Ugarit and Israel: Papers Read at the Tenth Joint Meeting of the Society for Old Testament Study and het Oudtestamentisch Werkgezelschap in Nederland en Belgie held at Oxford, 1997, OtSt 40, Leiden et al. 1998, 1–14. Becker, U., ‘Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen des Josua-Buches’, in: M. Witte et al. (eds.), Die deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur „Deuteronomismus“-Diskussion in Tora und Vorderen Propheten, BZAW 365, Berlin/New York 2006, 139–161. —, ‘Richterbuch’, TRE 29 (1998), 194–200. —, Richterzeit und Königtum: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Studien zum Richterbuch, BZAW 192, Berlin/New York 1990. —, ‘Der innere Widerspruch der deuteronomistischen Beurteilung des Königtums (am Beispiel von 1 Sam 8)’, in: M. Oeming/A. Graupner (eds.), Altes Testament und christliche Verkündigung: Festschrift für Antonius H. J. Gunneweg zum 65. Geburtstag, Stuttgart et al. 1987, 246–270. Becking, B., ‘They hated him even more: Literary Technique in Genesis 37.1–11’, BN 60 (1991), 40–47. Ben Zvi, E., ‘The Closing Words of the Pentateuchal Books: A Clue for the Historical Status of the Book of Genesis within the Pentateuch’, BN 62 (1992), 7–10. Benoit, P. et al., Les Grottes de Murabb’ât: Texte, DJD 2/1, Oxford 1961. Berlejung, A., ‘Der gesegnete Mensch: Text und Kontext von Num 6,22–27 und den Silberamuletten von Ketef Hinnom’, in: eadem/R. Heckl (eds.), Mensch und König: Stu-

Bibliography

413

dien zur Anthropologie des Alten Testaments. Rüdiger Lux zum 60. Geburtstag, HBS 53, Freiburg i. Br. 2008, 37–62. —, ‘Ein Programm fürs Leben. Theologisches Wort und anthropologischer Ort der Silberamulette von Ketef Hinnom’, ZAW 120 (2008), 204–230. Berner, C., ‘Der literarische Charakter der Priesterschrift in der Exoduserzählung: Dargestellt an Exodus 1-14’, in: F. Hartenstein/K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, VWGTh 40, Leipzig 2015, 94–133. —, Die Exoduserzählung: Das literarische Werden einer Ursprungslegende Israels, FAT 73, Tübingen 2010. —, ‘Gab es einen vorpriesterlichen Meerwunderbericht?’, Bib 95 (2014), 1–25. Bertheau, E., Das Buch der Richter und Rut, KEHAT, Leipzig 1845. Bieberstein, K., ‘Das Buch Josua und seine Horizonte’, in: H.-J. Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt 2011, 151–176. —, Josua–Jordan–Jericho, OBO 143, Fribourg/Göttingen 1995. Blanco Wißmann, F., „Er tat das Rechte …“ Beurteilungskriterien und Deuteronomismus in 1Kön 12 – 2Kön 25, ATANT 93, Zürich 2008. Bleek, F., Einleitung in die Heilige Schrift, Erster Theil: Einleitung in das Alte Testament, 2nd ed., Berlin 1865, 4th ed., ed. by J. Wellhausen, Berlin 1878. Blenkinsopp, J., Gibeon and Israel: The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel, SOTSMS 2, Cambridge 1972. Blum, E., ‘Beschneidung und Passa in Kanaan. Beobachtungen und Mutmaßungen zu Jos 5’ (2003), in: idem, Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, ed. by W. Oswald, FAT 69, Tübingen 2010, 219–248. —, ‘The Literary Connection between the Books of Genesis and Exodus and the End of the Book of Joshua’, in: T. B. Dozeman/K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, SymS 34, Atlanta/GA 2006, 89–106. —, ‘Das exilische deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk’, in: H.-J. Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt 2011, 269–294. —, Grundfragen der historischen Exegese: Methodologische, philologische und hermeneutische Beiträge zum Alten Testament, FAT 95, Tübingen 2015. —, ‘The Jacob Tradition’, in: C. A. Evans et al. (eds.), The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, VTSup 152/FIOTL 6, Leiden/Boston 2012, 181–211. —, ‘Der kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag’ (1997), in: M. Vervenne/J. Lust (eds.), Deuteronomy and Deuteronomic Literature: Festschrift C.H.W. Brekelmans, BETL 133, Leuven 1997, 181–212; repr. in: idem, Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, ed. by W. Oswald, FAT 69, Tübingen 2010, 249–280. —, Die Komposition der Vätergeschichte, WMANT 57, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1984. —, ‘Noch einmal: Das literargeschichtliche Profil der P-Überlieferung’, in: F. Hartenstein/ K. Schmid (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, VWGTh 40, Leipzig 2015, 32–64. —, ‘Pentateuch – Hexateuch – Enneateuch? oder: Woran erkennt man ein literarisches Werk in der hebräischen Bibel?’ (2007), in: T. Römer/K. Schmid (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, BETL 203, Leuven 2007 et al., 67–97; repr. in: idem, Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, ed. by W. Oswald, FAT 69, Tübingen 2010, 375–404. —, Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch, BZAW 189, Berlin/New York 1990.

414

Bibliography

—, ‘Die literarische Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus: Ein Gespräch mit neueren Endredaktionshypothesen’ (2002), in: J. C. Gertz et al. (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin/New York 2002, 119–156; repr. in: idem, Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, ed. by W. Oswald, FAT 69, Tübingen 2010, 85–121. —, Textgestalt und Komposition: Exegetische Beiträge zu Tora und Vordere Propheten, ed. by W. Oswald, FAT 69, Tübingen 2010. —, ‘Überlegungen zur Kompositionsgeschichte des Josuabuches’, in: E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua, BETL 250, Leuven et al. 2012, 137–157. —, ‘Das althebräische Verbalsystem – eine synchrone Analyse’, in: O. Dyma/A. Michel (eds.), Sprachliche Tiefe – Theologische Weite, BThSt 91, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2008, 91–142. —, ‘Zwischen Literarkritik und Stilkritik: Die diachrone Analyse der literarischen Verbindung von Genesis und Exodus – im Gespräch mit Ludwig Schmidt’, ZAW 124 (2012), 492–515. Boecker, H. J., 1.Mose 25,12–37,1. Isaak und Jakob, ZBK 1.3, Zürich 1992. Boling, R. G., Joshua, AB 6, Garden City 1982. —, Judges, AB 6A, Garden City 1975. Brekelmans, C., ‘Joshua xxiv: its Place and Function’, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume. Leuven 1989, VTSup 43, Leiden et al. 1991, 1–9. Brettler, M. Z., ‘Jud 1,1–2,10: From Appendix to Prologue’, ZAW 101 (1989), 433–435. Briant, P., From Cyrus to Alexander: A History of the Persian Empire, Winona Lake/IN 2002. Brooke, G., ‘4QGend Reconsidered’, in: A. Piquer Otero/ P. A. Torijano Morales (eds.), Florilegium Complutense: Textual Criticism and Dead Sea Scrolls Studies in Honour of Julio Trebolle Barrera, JSJ.S 158, Leiden 2012, 51–70. —, ‘Genesis 1–11 in the Light of Some Aspects of the Transmission of Genesis in Late Second Temple Times’, HBAI 1 (2012), 465–482. Budde, K., Das Buch der Richter, KHC 7, Freiburg i. Br. et al. 1897. —, Die Bücher Richter und Samuel, ihre Quellen und ihr Aufbau, Gießen 1890. Burney, C. F., The Book of Judges, London 1918, repr. New York/NY 1970. Butler, T. C., Joshua 13-24, WBC 7B, 2nd ed., Grand Rapids/MI 2014. —, Judges, WBC 8, Grand Rapids/MI 2009. Carr, D. M., ‘Changes in Pentateuchal Criticism’, in: M. Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. III/2, Göttingen 2015, 431–466. —, The Formation of the Hebrew Bible: A New Reconstruction. New York/NY 2011. —, ‘Genesis in Relation to the Moses Story’, in: A. Wénin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, BETL 155, Leuven et al. 2001, 273–295. —, Reading the Fractures of Genesis: Historical and Literary Approaches. Louisville/KY 1996. —, ‘Strong and Weak Cases and Criteria for Establishing the Post-Priestly Character of Hexateuchal Material’, in: F. Giuntoli/K. Schmid (eds.), The Post Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles, FAT 101, Tübingen 2015, 9–34. —, ‘What is Required to Identify Pre-Priestly Narrative Connections between Genesis and Exodus? Some General Reflections and Specific Cases’, in: T. B. Dozeman/K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, SymS 34, Atlanta/GA 2006, 159–180.

Bibliography

415

Charpin, D., ‘Le traité entre Zimri-Lim de Mari et Ibâl-pî-El II d’Ešnunna’, in: D. Charpin/F. Joannès (eds.), Marchands, diplomates et empéreurs: Études sur la civilization mésopotamienne offertes à Paul Garelli, Paris 1992, 139–166. Childs, B. S., Exodus: A Commentary, OTL, London 1974. Coats, G. W., ‘A Structural Transition in Exodus’, VT 22 (1972), 129–142. —, ‘The Joseph Story and Ancient Wisdom: A Reappraisal’, CBQ 35 (1973), 285−297. Conrad, J., Karl Heinrich Grafs Arbeit am Alten Testament: Studien zu einer wissenschaftlichen Biographie, ed. by U. Becker, BZAW 425, Berlin/New York 2011. Cortese, E., Josua 13-21: Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, OBO 94, Fribourg/Göttingen 1990. Crone, P./Silverstein, A., ‘The Ancient Near East and Islam: The Case of Lot-Casting’, JSS 55 (2010), 423–450. Cross, F. M., Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic: Essays in the History of the Religion of Israel, Cambridge/MA 1973. Crüsemann, F., Der Widerstand gegen das Königtum: Die antiköniglichen Texte des Alten Testamentes und der Kampf um den frühen israelitischen Staat, WMANT 49, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1978. Davies, G. I., ‘The Transition from Genesis to Exodus’, in: K. Dell et al. (eds.), Genesis, Isaiah and Psalms: A Festschrift to honour Professor John Emerton for his eightieth birthday, VTSup 135, Leiden/Boston 2010, 59‒78. Davies, P. R., ‘The Trouble with Benjamin’, in: R. Rezetko et al. (eds.), Reflection and Refraction: Studies in Biblical Historiography in Honour of A. Graeme Auld, VTSup 113, Leiden/Boston 2007, 93–111. De Hoop, R., Genesis 49 in its Literary and Historical Context, OtSt 39, Leiden et al. 1999. De Pury, A., ‘Le cycle de Jacob comme légende autonome des origines d’Israël’, in: J. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume. Leuven 1989, VTSup 43, Leiden et al. 1991, 78– 96. —, ‘The Jacob Story and the Beginning of the Formation of the Pentateuch’, in: idem, Die Patriarchen und die Priesterschrift, Les Patriarches et le document sacerdotal: Gesammelte Studien zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, Recueil d‘articles, à l‘occasion de son 70e anniversaire, ATANT 99, Zürich 2010, 147–169. De Troyer, K., ‘23. LXX, Joshua (MS 2648)’, in: R. Pintaudi (ed.), Papyri graecae Schøyen (PSchøyen I). Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection 5: Greek Papyri I, Papyrologica Florentina 35, Florence 2005, 81–145, pls. XVI–XXVII. —, Rewriting the Sacred Text: What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible, TCSt 4, Atlanta/GA 2003. de Vos, J. C., ‘‘Holy Land’ in Joshua 18:1-10’, in: J. van Ruiten/J. C. de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, VTSup 124, Leiden/Boston 2009, 61–72. De Wette, W. M. L., Kritik der Israelitischen Geschichte, Erster Theil: Kritik der Mosaischen Geschichte, Halle 1807. —, Lehrbuch der historisch-kritischen Einleitung in die kanonischen und apokryphischen Bücher des Alten Testamentes, 5th ed., Berlin 1840. Diebner, B. J., ‘Erwägungen zum Thema »Exodus«’, SAK 11 (1984), 595‒630. Dietrich, W., Die Josephserzählung als Novelle und Geschichtsschreibung: Zugleich ein Beitrag zur Pentateuchfrage, BThSt 14, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1989. Dietrich, W. et al., Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments: Neuausgabe, ThW 1, Stuttgart 2014.

416

Bibliography

Dillmann, A., Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus, KEHAT, Leipzig 1880. Döhling, J.-D., ‘Die Herrschaft erträumen, die Träume beherrschen: Herrschaft, Traum und Wirklichkeit in den Josefsträumen (Gen 37,5–11) und der Israel-Josefsgeschichte’, BZ 50 (2006), 1–30. Dohmen, C., Exodus 1–18, HThKAT, Freiburg i. Br. 2015. Donner, H., Die literarische Gestalt der alttestamentlichen Josephsgeschichte, SHAW.PH 1976/2, Heidelberg 1976. —, The Mosaic Map of Madaba: An Introductory Guide, Palaestina antiqua 7, Kampen 1992. Dorsey, D. A., ‘The Location of Biblical Makkedah’, TA 7 (1980), 185–193. Dozeman, T. B., Commentary on Exodus, ECC, Grand Rapids/MI 2009. —, ‘The Commission of Moses and the Book of Genesis’, in: T. B. Dozeman/K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, SymS 34, Leiden/Boston 2006, 107‒129. —, Joshua 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AYB 6b, New Haven/London 2015. Dozeman, T. B./Schmid, K. (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, SymS 34, Leiden/Boston 2006. Driver, S. R., A Treatise on the Use of the Tenses in Hebrew and Some Other Syntactical Questions, 3rd ed., London 1892, repr. Grand Rapids/MI 1998. Durand, J.-M., Les documents épistolaires du palais de Mari, vol. 3, LAPO 18, Paris 2000. Dus, J., ‘Die Geburtslegende Samuels I. Sam 1: Eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von I. Sam 1-3’, RSO 43 (1968), 163–194. Ebach, J., Genesis 37‒50, HThKAT, Freiburg i. Br. 2007. Ede, F., Die Josefsgeschichte: Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zur Entstehung von Gen 37–50, BZAW 485, Berlin/Boston 2016. Edenburg, C., ‘ “David Reproached Himself”: Revisiting 1Sam 24 and 26 in Light of 2Sam 21-24’, in: Dietrich, W. et al. (eds.): The Books of Samuel: Stories – History – Reception History, BETL 204, Leuven et al. 2016, 467–478. —, Dismembering the Whole: Composition and Purpose of Judges 19–21, SBLAIL 24, Atlanta/GA 2016. —, The Story of the Outrage at Gibeah (Jdg. 19–21), Diss. Tel Aviv University 2003. —, ‘ “Overwriting and Overriding,” or What is Not Deuteronomistic’, in Nissinen, M. (ed.), Congress Volume: Helsinki, 2010, VTSup 148, Leiden/Boston 2012, 443–460. Eichhorn, J. G., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, vol. 3, Leipzig 1783, 4th ed., Göttingen 1823. Eissfeldt, O., Einleitung in das Alte Testament unter Einschluß der Apokryphen und Pseudepigraphen sowie der apokrpyhen- und pseudepigraphenartigen Qumran-Schriften, 3rd ed., Tübingen 1964. —, Hexateuch-Synopse. Die Erzählung der fünf Bücher Mose und des Buches Josua mit dem Anfange des Richterbuches, Leipzig 1922. —, Die Quellen des Richterbuches, Leipzig 1925. Farber, Z. I., Images of Joshua in the Bible and their Reception, BZAW 437, Berlin/Boston 2016. —, ‘Timnat Heres and the Origins of the Joshua Tradition’, in: E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua, BETL 250, Leuven et al. 2012, 301–311. Fieger, M./Hodel-Hoenes, S., Der Einzug in Ägypten: Ein Beitrag zur alttestamentlichen Josefsgeschichte, Das Alte Testament im Dialog 1, Bern 2007.

Bibliography

417

Finkelstein, I., ‘Saul, Benjamin, and the Emergence of ‘Biblical Israel’: An Alternative View’, ZAW 123 (2011), 348–367. Finkelstein, I./Römer, T., ‘Comments on the Historical Background of the Abraham Narrative: Between ‘Realia’ and ‘Exegetica’’, HBAI 3 (2014), 3–23. —, ‘Comments on the Historical Background of the Jacob Narrative in Genesis’, ZAW 126 (2014), 317–338. Finkelstein, I./Singer-Avitz, L., ‘Reevaluating Bethel’, ZDPV 125 (2009), 33–48. Fitzmyer, J. A., The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave 1 (1Q20): A Commentary, BibOr 18B, 3rd ed., Rome 2004. Fleming, D. E., ‘The Bible’s Little Israel: Textual Inclusions in a Later Matrix’, HBAI forthcoming. —, The Installation of Baal’s High Priestess at Emar: A Window on Ancient Syrian Religion, HSS 42, Atlanta/GA 1992. —, The Legacy of Israel in Judah’s Bible: History, Politics, and the Reinscribing of Tradition, Cambridge 2012. —, ‘The Seven-Day Siege of Jericho in Holy War’, in: R. Chazan et al. (eds.), Ki Baruch Hu: Ancient Near Eastern, Biblical, and Judaic Studies in Honor of Baruch A. Levine, Winona Lake/IN 1999, 209–222. Focken, F.-E., Zwischen Landnahme und Königtum: Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zum Anfang und Ende der deuteronomistischen Richtererzählungen, FRLANT 258, Göttingen 2014. Forster, E. M., Aspects of the Novel, London 1927. Frevel, C., ‘Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk oder Geschichtswerke? Die These Martin Noths zwischen Tetrateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch, in: U. Rüterswörden (ed.), Martin Noth – aus der Sicht der heutigen Forschung, BthSt 58, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2004, 60–95. —, Im Lesen verstehen: Studien zu Theologie und Exegese. BZAW 482. Berlin/Boston 2017. —, ‘Das Josua-Palimpsest: Der Übergang vom Josua- zum Richterbuch und seine Konsequenzen für die These eines Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks’, ZAW 125 (2013), 49–71. —, ‘Die Wiederkehr der Hexateuchperspektive. Eine Herausforderung für die These vom deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk’, in: H.-J. Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt 2011, 13–53. Frevel, C./Conczorowski, B. J., ‘Deepening the Water: First Steps to a Diachronic Approach on Intermarriage in the Hebrew Bible’, in: C. Frevel (ed.), Mixed Marriages: Intermarriage and Group Identity in the Second Temple Period, LHBOTS 547, London/New York 2011, 1–14. Fritz, V., ‘Das „negative Besitzverzeichnis“ in Judicum 1’, in: M. Witte (ed.), Gott und Mensch im Dialog: Festschrift für Otto Kaiser zum 80. Geburtstag, BZAW 345/1, Berlin/New York 2004, 375–389. —, Das Buch Josua, HAT I/7, Tübingen 1995. Frolov, S., ‘Joshua’s Double Demise (Josh. xxiv 28-31; Judg. ii 6-9): Making Sense of a Repetition’, VT 58 (2008), 315–323. Fuller, R. C., Alexander Geddes: A Pioneer of Biblical Criticism, 1737–1802, Historic Texts and Interpreters in Biblical Scholarship 3, Toronto 1984. Galling, K., Die Erwählungstraditionen Israels, BZAW 48, Gießen 1928. Gaß, E., Die Ortsnamen des Richterbuches in historischer und redaktioneller Perspektive, ADPV 35, Wiesbaden 2005.

418

Bibliography

Gerhards, M., Die Aussetzungsgeschichte des Mose: Literar- und traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu einem Schlüsseltext des nichtpriesterlichen Tetrateuch, WMANT 109, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2006. Germany, S., The Exodus-Conquest Narrative: The Composition of the Non-Priestly Narratives in Exodus–Joshua, FAT 115, Tübingen 2017. Gertz, J. C., ‘Abraham, Mose und der Exodus: Beobachtungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte von Gen 15’, in: J. C. Gertz et al. (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten. Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin/NewYork 2002, 63‒81. —, ‘Jean Astruc and the Quellenscheidung in the Book of Genesis’, in: J. Jarick (ed.), Sacred Conjectures: The Context and Legacy of Robert Lowth and Jean Astruc, LHBOTS 457, New York/London 2007, 188–201. —, Grundinformation Altes Testament: Eine Einführung in Literatur, Religion und Geschichte des Alten Testaments, UTB 2745, 5th ed., Göttingen 2016, 193–285. —, ‘Die Stellung des kleinen geschichtlichen Credos in der Redaktionsgeschichte von Deuteronomium und Pentateuch’, in: R. G. Kratz/H. Spieckermann (eds.), Liebe und Gebot: Studien zum Deuteronomium, Festschrift zum 70. Geburtstag von Lothar Perlitt, FRLANT 190, Göttingen 2000, 30–45. —, Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung: Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch, FRLANT 186, Göttingen 2000. —, ‘The Transition between the Books of Genesis and Exodus’, in: T. B. Dozeman/K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, SymS 34, Atlanta/GA 2006, 73–87. —, ‘Zusammenhang, Trennung und Selbständigkeit der Bücher Genesis und Exodus im priesterlichen und nachpriesterlichen Pentateuch’, in: F. Giuntoli/K. Schmid (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles, FAT 101, Tübingen 2015, 233–251. Gertz, J. C. et al. (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin/NewYork 2002. Gertz, J. C. et al. (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, FAT 111, Tübingen 2016. Gese, H., ‘Die Komposition der Abrahamserzählung’, in: idem, Alttestamentliche Studien, Tübingen 1991, 29‒51. Gesenius, W./Kautzsch, E., Hebräische Grammatik, 28th ed., Leipzig 1909. Gomes, J. F., The Sanctuary of Bethel and the Configuration of Israelite Identity, BZAW 368, Berlin/New York 2006. Gordon, R. P., ‘Who Made the Kingmaker? Reflections on Samuel and the Institution of the Monarchy’, in: idem, Hebrew Bible and Ancient Versions: Selected Essays of Robert P. Gordon, Aldershot 2006, 57–69. Görg, M., Josua, NEchtB 26, Würzburg 1991. Graf, K. H., Die geschichtlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments: Zwei historisch-kritische Untersuchungen, Leipzig 1866. Graupner, A., Der Elohist, WMANT 97, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2002. Gray, J., Joshua, Judges, Ruth, New Century Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids/MI 1986. Greenspoon, L. J., ‘The Book of Joshua – Part 1: Texts and Versions’, CBR 3 (2004/5), 229–261. Greifenhagen, F. V., ‘The Pentateuch and the Origins of Israel: Ideological Leakage Around the Master Narrative’, in: W. J. Bergen/A. Siedlecki (eds.), Voyages in Uncharted Waters: Essays on the Theory and Practice of Biblical Interpretation in Honor of David Jobling, HBM 32, Sheffield 2006, 110‒122.

Bibliography

419

Greßmann, H., Die Anfänge Israels von 2. Mosis bis Richter und Ruth, Die Schriften des Alten Testaments 1/2, Göttingen 1914. —, Mose und seine Zeit: Ein Kommentar zu den Mose-Sagen, FRLANT 1, Göttingen 1913. —, ‘Ursprung und Entwicklung der Joseph-Sage’, in: H. Schmidt (ed.), Eucharisterion: Studien zur Religion und Literatur des Alten und Neuen Testaments, FRLANT 36, Göttingen 1923, 1–55. Groß, W., ‘Syntaktische Erscheinungen am Anfang althebräischer Erzählungen: Hintergrund und Vordergrund’, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume. Vienna 1980, VTSup 32, Leiden 1981, 131–145. —, Richter, HThKAT, Freiburg i. Br. 2009. —, ‘Das Richterbuch zwischen deuteronomisitschem Geschichtswerk und Enneateuch’, in: H.-J. Stipp (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt 2011, 177–206. —, ‘wa=yiqtol für Anknüpfung/Wiederaufnahme: Stilmittel und redaktionelles Verfahren’, in: G. Geiger (ed.), Ἐν πάσῃ γραμματικῇ καὶ σοφίᾳ. Saggi di linguistica Ebraica in onore di Alviero Niccacci, OFM, Milan 2011, 153–172. Groß, W./Gaß, E., Studien zum Richterbuch und seinen Völkernamen, SBAB 54, Stuttgart 2012. Güdemann, M., ‘Tendenz und Abfassungszeit der letzten Kapitel des Buches der Richter’, MGWJ 18 (1869), 357‒368. Guillaume, P., Waiting for Josiah: The Judges, JSOTSup 385, London/New York 2004. Gunkel, H., Genesis, HKAT I/1, 4th ed., Göttingen 1917; English trans.: Genesis: Translated and Interpreted by Hermann Gunkel, trans. M. E. Biddle, Macon/GA 1997. —, ‘Die Komposition der Joseph-Geschichten’, ZDMG 76, 1922, 55–71. Halbe, J., Das Privilegrecht Jahwes Ex 34,10-26: Gestalt und Wesen, Herkunft und Wirken in vordeuteronomischer Zeit, FRLANT 114, Göttingen 1975. Hallo, W. W., ‘The First Purim’, BA 46 (1983), 19–29. Hamilton, V. P., The Book of Genesis: Chapters 18–50, NICOT, Grand Rapids/MI 1995. Haran, M., ‘Book-Size and the Device of Catch-Lines in the Biblical Canon’, JSS 36 (1985), 1–11. Hartenstein, F./Schmid, K. (eds.), Abschied von der Priesterschrift? Zum Stand der Pentateuchdebatte, VWGTh 40, Leipzig 2015. Hendel, R. S., The Epic of the Patriarch: The Jacob Cycle and the Narrative Traditions of Canaan and Israel, HSM 42, Atlanta/GA 1987. Hertzberg, H. W., Die Bücher Josua, Richter, Ruth, ATD 9, 6th ed., Göttingen 1985. —, ‘Die Tradition in Palästina’, PJ 22 (1926), 84–104. Hess, R. S., Joshua: An Introduction and Commentary, TOTC 6, Nottingham 1996. Hoftijzer, J./Jongeling, K., Dictionary of the North-West Semitic Inscriptions, HdO I/21, Leiden et al. 1995. Holzinger, H., Das Buch Josua, KHC 6, Tübingen 1901. —, Genesis, KHC 1, Tübingen 1898. Houtman, C., Exodus, vol. 1, HCOT, Kampen/Leuven 1993. —, Der Pentateuch. Die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, CBET 9, Kampen 1994. Hupfeld, H., Die Quellen der Genesis und die Art ihrer Zusammensetzung, Berlin 1853. Hylander, I., Der literarische Samuel-Saul-Komplex (I Sam 1-13) traditionsgeschichtlich untersucht, Leipzig 1932.

420

Bibliography

Ilgen, K. D., Die Urkunden des ersten Buchs von Moses in ihrer Urgestalt: zum bessern Verständnis und richtigern Gebrauch derselben, Halle 1798. Irsigler, H., ‘Von der Namensfrage zum Gottesverständnis: Exodus 3,13–15 im Kontext der Glaubensgeschichte Israels’, BN 96 (1999), 56–96. Jacob, B., Das Erste Buch der Tora: Genesis, Berlin 1934. Janowski, B., ‘Tempel und Schöpfung. Schöpfungstheologische Aspekte der priesterschriftlichen Heiligtumskonzeption’, in: O. Bayer (ed.), Schöpfung und Neuschöpfung, JBTh 5, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1990, 37–69. Jans, E., Abimelech und sein Königtum: Diachrone und synchrone Untersuchungen zu Ri 9, ATSAT 68, St. Ottilien 2001. Jepsen, A., Die Quellen des Königsbuches, Halle 1953. Jeremias, J., Theologie des Alten Testaments, GAT 6, Göttingen 2015. Jericke, D., Abraham in Mamre: Historische und exegetische Studien zur Region von Hebron und zu Genesis 11,27–19,38, CHANE 17, Leiden/Boston 2003. —, ‘Das „Bergland der Amoriter“ in Deuteronomium 1’, ZDPV 125 (2009), 49–63. —, ‘Der Ort des Mose nach Deuteronomium 1:1’, JNSL 34/2 (2008), 35–57. —, Die Ortsangaben im Buch Genesis: Ein historisch-topographischer und literarischtopographischer Kommentar, FRLANT 248, Göttingen 2013. —, ‘Josuas Tod und Josuas Grab’, ZAW 108 (1996), 347–361. —, ‘Literarische Weltkarten im Alten Testament’, Orbis Terrarum 13 (2015), 102‒123. Jericke, D./Schmitt, G., ‘Palästina in spätrömisch-byzantinischer Zeit (ca. 300 v.Chr.–640 n.Chr.)’, TAVO Karte B 6/10, Wiesbaden 1993; repr. in: S. Mittmann/G. Schmitt (eds.), Tübinger Bibelatlas: Auf der Grundlage des Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients (TAVO), Stuttgart 2001. Joüon, P./Muraoka, T., A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew, Part Three: Syntax, SubBi 14/II, Rome 1996. Jüngling, H.-W., Richter 19 ‒ Ein Plädoyer für das Königtum; Stilistiche Analyse der Tendenzerzälung Ri 19,1-30a; 21,21, AnBib 84, Rome 1981. Kaiser, O., Der Gott des Alten Testaments: Theologie des AT I. Grundlegung, UTB 1747, Göttingen 1993. —, ‘Pentateuch und Deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk’, in: idem, Studien zur Literaturgeschichte des Alten Testaments, FB 90, Würzburg 2000, 70–133; English trans.: ‘The Pentateuch and the Deuteronomistic History’, in: A. D. H. Mayes (ed.), Text in Context: Essays by Members of the Society for Old Testament Study, Oxford 2000, 289–322. —, Zwischen Reaktion und Revolution: Hermann Hupfeld (1796–1866) – ein deutsches Professorenleben, AAWG.PH III/268, Göttingen 2015. Karrer, M./Kraus, W. (eds.), Septuaginta Deutsch: Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, Stuttgart 2011. Kaswalder, P., La Disputa Diplomatica di Iefte (Gdc 11,12-18): La Ricerca Archeologica in Giordania e il Problema della Conquista, SBFA 29, Jerusalem 1990. Kebekus, N., Die Joseferzählung: Literarkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 37–50, Münster 1990. Keil, C. F., Josua, Richter und Ruth, Biblischer Commentar über die prophetischen Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments 1, Leipzig 1863. Kellermann, D. et al., ‘Palästina. Siedlungen der Eisenzeit (ca. 1200–550 v.Chr.). Juda und Israel in der Königszeit’, TAVO Karte B 4/6, Wiesbaden 1992; repr. in: S. Mittmann/G. Schmitt (eds.), Tübinger Bibelatlas: Auf der Grundlage des Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients (TAVO), Stuttgart 2001.

Bibliography

421

Kessler, R., Die Querverweise im Pentateuch: Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der expliziten Querverweise innerhalb des vorpriesterlichen Pentateuchs, BEATAJ 59, Frankfurt 2015. Kitz, A.-M., ‘Undivided Inheritance and Lot Casting in the Book of Joshua’, JBL 119 (2000), 601–618. Knauf, E. A., ‘Bethel: The Israelite Impact on Judean Language and Literature’, in: O. Lipschits/M. Oeming (eds.), Judah and the Judeans in the Persian Period, Winona Lake/IN 2006, 291–349. —, ‘Buchschlüsse in Josua’, in: T. Römer/K. Schmid (eds.), Les dernières rédactions du Pentateuque, de l’Hexateuque et de l’Ennéateuque, BETL 203, Leuven et al. 2007, 217–224. —, Data and Debates: Essays in the History and Culture of Israel and Its Neighbors in Antiquity, edited by H. M. Niemann et al., AOAT 407, Münster 2013. —, Josua, ZBK 6, Zürich 2008. —, Richter, ZBK 7, Zürich 2016. Köckert, M., ‘Die Geschichte der Abrahamüberlieferung’, in: A. Lemaire (ed.), Congress Volume Leiden 2004, VTSup 109, Leiden/Boston 2006, 103–128. Koenen, K., ‘1200 Jahre von Abrahams Geburt bis zum Tempelbau’, ZAW 126 (2014), 494‒505. Köhlmoos, M., Bet-El – Erinnerungen an eine Stadt: Perspektiven der ältesten Bet-ElÜberlieferung, FAT 49, Tübingen 2006. Konkel, M., Sünde und Vergebung: Eine Rekonstruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinteren Sinaiperikope (Exodus 32–34) vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle, FAT 58, Tübingen 2008. Koopmans, W. T., Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, JSOTSup 93, Sheffield 1990. Kratz, R. G., ‘Der vor- und der nachpriesterschriftliche Hexateuch’, in: J. C. Gertz et al. (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin/New York 2002, 295–323. —, Die Komposition der erzählenden Bücher des Alten Testaments, Göttingen 2000; English trans.: The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament, trans. J. Bowden, London 2005. —, ‘Reworked Pentateuch and Pentateuchal Theory’, in: J. C. Gertz et al. (eds.), The Formation of the Pentateuch: Bridging the Academic Cultures of Europe, Israel, and North America, FAT 111, Tübingen 2016, 501‒524. Kraus, H.-J., Geschichte der historisch-kritischen Erforschung des Alten Testaments, 2nd ed., Neukirchen 1969. Krause, J. J., ‘The Book of the Torah in Joshua 1 and 23 and in the Deuteromistic History’, ZAW 127 (2015), 412–428. —, Exodus und Eisodus: Komposition und Theologie von Josua 1–5, VTSup 161, Leiden/Boston 2014. Kreuzer, S., ‘430 Jahre, 400 Jahre oder 4 Generationen ‒ Zu den Zeitangaben über den Ägyptenaufenthalt der »Israeliten«’, ZAW 98 (1986), 199‒210. —, ‘Zur Priorität und Auslegungsgeschichte von Exodus 12,40 MT: Die chronologische Interpretation des Ägyptenaufenthalts in der judäischen, samaritanischen und alexandrinischen Exegese’, ZAW 103 (1991), 252‒258. Krüger, T., ‘Erwägungen zur Redaktion der Meerwundererzählung (Exodus 13,17–14,31)’, ZAW 108 (1996), 519–533. Kuenen, A., Historisch-kritische Einleitung in die Bücher des Alten Testaments hinsichtlich ihrer Entstehung und Sammlung, Erster Teil, Erstes Stück: Die Entstehung des

422

Bibliography

Hexateuch, Leipzig 1887; German trans. of the 2nd ed. of idem, Historisch-critisch Onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds, Leiden 1885; English trans.: A Historico-Critical Inquiry into the Origin and Composition of the Hexateuch (Pentateuch and Book of Joshua), trans. P. H. Wicksteed, London 1886. Kugel, J., ‘Is the Book of Jubilees a Commentary on Genesis or an Intended Replacement?’, in: C. Maier (ed.), Congress Volume Munich 2013, VTSup 163, Leiden/Boston 2014, 67–91. —, A Walk Through Jubilees: Studies in the Book of Jubilees and the World of its Creation, JSJ.S 156, Leiden/Boston 2012. Kuhl, C., ‘Die “Wiederaufnahme” – ein literarkritisches Prinzip?’, ZAW 64 (1952), 1–11. Kupper, J.-R., Lêttres royales du temps de Zimri-Lim, ARM 28, Paris 1997. Lafont, B., ‘Relations internationals, alliances et diplomatie au temps des royaumes amorrites’, Amurru 2 (2001), 213–328. Lafont, S., ‘Middle Assyrian Period’, in: R. Westbrook (ed.), A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, HdO I/71, Leiden/Boston 2003, 521–563. Lanckau, J., Der Herr der Träume: Eine Studie zur Funktion des Traumes in der Josefsgeschichte der Hebräischen Bibel, ATANT 85, Zürich 2006. Lang, B., ‘A Neglected Method in Ezekiel Research’, VT 29 (1979), 30–44. Lange, A., Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer, vol. 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten, Tübingen 2009. Latvus, K., God, Anger and Ideology: The Anger of God in Joshua and Judges in Relation to Deuteronomy and the Priestly Writings, JSOTSup 279, Sheffield 1998. Lauinger, J., Following the Man of Yamhad: Settlement and Territory at Old Babylonian Alalah, CHANE 75, Leiden/Boston 2015. Legaspi, M., The Death of Scripture and the Rise of Biblical Studies, Oxford 2010. Leonard-Fleckman, M., The House of David: Between Political Formation and Literary Revision, Minneapolis/MN 2016. —, ‘Stones from Heaven and Celestial Tricks: The Battle at Gibeon in Joshua 10’, CBQ 79 (2017), 385–401. Levenson, J. D., ‘The Temple and the World’, JR 64 (1984), 275–298. Levin, C., ‘On the Cohesion and Separation of Books within the Enneateuch’, in: T. B. Dozeman et al. (eds.), Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch? Identifying Literary Works in Genesis through Kings, SBLAIL 8, Atlanta/GA 2011, 127–154. —, Der Jahwist, FRLANT 157, Göttingen 1993. —, ‘Das israelitische Nationalepos: Der Jahwist’, in: idem, Verheißung und Rechtfertigung. Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament II, BZAW 431, Berlin/Boston 2013, 20–42. —, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137, Göttingen 1985. —, ‘The Yahwist: The Earliest Editor in the Pentateuch’, JBL 126 (2007), 209–230. —, ‘The Yahwist and the Redactional Link between Genesis and Exodus’, in: T. B. Dozeman/K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, SymS 34, Atlanta/GA 2006, 131–141. Lods, A., ‘Un précurseur allemand de Jean Astruc. Henning Bernhard Witter’, ZAW 43 (1925), 134–135. Lucassen, B., ‘Josua, Richter und CD’, RevQ 18 (1998), 373–396.

Bibliography

423

Lux, R., ‘Geschichte als Erfahrung, Erinnerung und Erzählung in der priesterschriftlichen Rezeption der Josefsnovelle’, in: idem (ed.), Erzählte Geschichte: Beiträge zur narrativen Kultur im alten Israel, BThSt 40, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000, 147–180. —, Josef. Der Auserwählte unter seinen Brüdern, Leipzig 2001. Macchi, J.-D., ‘Genèse 31,24–42’, in: idem/T. Römer (eds.), Jacob: Gen 25–36. Mélanges offerts à A. de Pury, Le monde de la Bible 44, Geneva 2001, 144–162. Machiela, D. A., The Dead Sea Genesis Apocryphon: A New Text and Translation with Introduction and Special Treatment of Columns 13‒17, STDJ 79, Leiden/Boston 2009. Mäkipelto, V., ‘The Four Deaths of Joshua: Why the Septuagint is Pivotal for the Study of Joshua 24’, HBAI 6 (2017), 217–242. Martin, M. W., ‘Betrothal Journey Narratives’, CBQ 70 (2008), 505–525. Mathys, H.-P., ‘Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wettes “Dissertatio critico-exegetica” von 1805’, in: M. Kessler/M. Wallraff (eds.), Biblische Theologie und historisches Denken: Wissenschaftsgeschichtliche Studien aus Anlass der 50. Wiederkehr der Basler Promotion von Rudolf Smend, Studien zur Geschichte der Wissenschaften in Basel, Neue Folge 5, Basel 2008, 171–211. Mathys, H.-P./Seybold, K. (eds.), Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette: Ein Universaltheologe des 19. Jahrhunderts, Studien zur Geschichte der Wissenschaften in Basel, Neue Folge 1, Basel 2001. Mayes, A. D. H., The Story of Israel between Settlement and Exile: A Redactional Study of the Deuteronomistic History, London 1983. Mazor, L., ‘The Origin and Evolution of the Curse Upon the Rebuilder of Jericho: A Contribution of Textual Criticism to Biblical Historiography’, Textus 14 (1988), 1–26. Meurer, T., Die Simson-Erzählungen: Studien zu Komposition und Entstehung, Erzähltechnik und Theologie von Ri 13–16, BBB 130, Berlin 2001. Michaelis, J. D., Einleitung in die göttlichen Schriften des Alten Bundes, vol. 1/1, Hamburg 1787. Miller, J. M./Tucker, G., The Book of Joshua, CBC, Cambridge 1974. Milstein, S. J., Tracking the Master Scribe: Revision through Introduction in Biblical and Mesopotamian Literature, Oxford 2016. Montet, P., L’Egypt et la Bible, Neuchâtel 1959. Moore, G. F., A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Judges, ICC, 6th ed., Edinburgh 1949. —, ‘The Vulgate Chapters and Numbered Verses in the Hebrew Bible’, JBL 12 (1893), 73–78. Müller, R., ‘1 Samuel 1 as the Opening Chapter of the Deuteronomistic History?’ in: Edenburg, C./Pakkala, J. (eds.), Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History, SBLAIL 16, Atlanta/GA 2013, 207–223. —, Königtum und Gottesherrschaft: Untersuchungen zur alttestamentlichen Monarchiekritik, FAT II/3, Tübingen 2004. Müller, R. et al., Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible, SBLRBS 75, Atlanta/GA 2014. Na’aman, N., ‘Saul, Benjamin and the Emergence of ›Biblical Israel‹’, ZAW 121 (2009), 211–224, 335–349. Naumann, T., ‘Der Vater in der biblischen Josefserzählung’, TZ 61 (2005), 44‒64. Nelson, R., Joshua: A Commentary, OTL, Louisville/KY 1997. Nentel, J., Die Jakobserzählungen: Ein literar- und redaktionskritischer Vergleich der Theorien zur Entstehung des Pentateuch, Munich 2009.

424

Bibliography

—, Trägerschaft und Intentionen des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks: Untersuchungen zu den Reflexionsreden Jos 1; 23; 24; 1 Sam 12 und 1 Kön 8, BZAW 297, Berlin/New York 2000. Niditch, S., Oral World and Written Word: Ancient Israelite Literature. Library of Ancient Israel, Louisville/KY 1996. Nihan, C., ‘1 Samuel 8 and 12 and the Deuteronomic Edition of Samuel’, in: Edenburg, C./Pakkala., J. (eds.): Is Samuel among the Deuteronomists? Current Views on the Place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History, SBLAIL 16, Atlanta/GA 2013, 225– 273. From Priestly Torah to Pentateuch: A Study in the Composition of the Book of Leviticus, FAT II/25, Tübingen 2007. —, ‘The Literary Relationship between Deuteronomy and Joshua: A Reassessment’, in: K. Schmid/R. F. Person (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History, FAT II/56, Tübingen 2012, 79–114. —, ‘Rewriting Kingship in Samuel: 1 Samuel 8 and 12 and the Law of the King (Deuteronomy 17)’, HBAI 2 (2013), 315–350. Nöldeke, T., Untersuchungen zur Kritik des Alten Testaments, Kiel 1869. Noort, E., ‘Joshua and Copernicus: Joshua 10:12-15 and the History of Reception’, in: E. Tigchelaar et al. (eds.), Flores Florentino, JSJ.S 122, Leiden/Boston 2007, 387–402. —, ‘Jos 24,28-31, Richter 2,6-9 und das Josuagrab: Gedanken zu einem Straßenschild’, in: W. Zwickel (ed.), Biblische Welten: Festschrift für Martin Metzger zu seinem 65. Geburtstag, OBO 123, Fribourg/Göttingen 1993, 109–130. —, ‘Josua im Wandel der Zeiten: Zu Stand und Perspektiven der Forschung am Buch Josua’, in: idem (ed.), The Book of Joshua, BETL 250, Leuven et al. 2012, 21–47. Noth, M., ‘The Background of Judges 17-18’, in: Anderson, B. W./Harrelson, W. (eds.), Israel’s Prophetic Heritage: Essays in Honor of James Muilenburg, London 1962, 68– 85. —, Das Buch Josua, HAT I/7, 3rd ed., Tübingen 1971. —, Das zweite Buch Mose: Exodus, ATD 5, Göttingen 1958. —, Das vierte Buch Mose: Numeri, ATD 7, Göttingen 1966; English trans.: Numbers: A Commentary, trans. J. Martin, OTL, London 1968. —, Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien: Die sammelnden und bearbeitenden Geschichtswerke im Alten Testament, 3rd repr. ed., Darmstadt 1967, abridged English trans.: The Deuteronomistic History, trans. J. Doull et al., JSOTSup 15, 2nd ed., Sheffield 1991. —, ‘Studien zu den historisch-geographischen Dokumenten des Josuabuches’, ZDPV 58 (1935), 185–255. —, Überlieferungsgeschichte des Pentateuch, Stuttgart 1948; English trans.: A History of Pentateuchal Traditions, trans. B. W. Anderson, Englewood Cliffs/NJ 1972, repr. Chico/CA 1981. —, ‘Überlieferungsgeschichtliches zur zweiten Hälfte des Josuabuches’, in: H. Junker/ J. Botterweck (eds.), Alttestamentliche Studien: Friedrich Nötscher zum sechzigsten Geburtstage 19. Juli 1950, Bonn 1950, 152–167. Notley, R. S./Safrai, Z., Eusebius, Onomasticon: The Place Names of Divine Scripture, Including the Latin Edition of Jerome Translated into English and with Topographical Commentary, JCPS 9, Leiden/Boston 2005. Nötscher, F., Das Buch der Richter, EB 3, Würzburg 1950. —, Josua, EB 12, Würzburg 1950. O’Connell, R. H., The Rhetoric of the Book of Judges, VTSup 63, Leiden et al. 1996.

Bibliography

425

O’Doherty, E., ‘The Literary Problem of Judges 1:1-3:6’, CBQ 18 (1956), 1–7. Oelsner, J. et al., ‘Neo-Babylonian Period’, in: R. Westbrook (ed.), A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, HdO I/71, Leiden/Boston 2003, 911–974. Oesch, J. M., ‘Formale und materiale Gliederungshermeneutik der PentateuchHandschriften von Qumran’, in: A. Lange et al. (eds.), From Qumran to Aleppo, FRLANT 230, Göttingen 2009, 81–122. Oettli, S., Das Deuteronomium und die Bücher Josua und Richter mit einer Karte Palästinas, Kurzgefasster Kommentar zu den Heiligen Schriften Alten und Neuen Testaments sowie den Apokryphen, Munich 1893. Olson, D. T., The Death of the Old and the Birth of the New: The Framework of the Book of Numbers and the Pentateuch, BJS 71, Chico/CA 1985. Oren, E. D., ‘‘The Way of Horus’ in North Sinai’, in: A. F. Rainey (ed.), Egypt, Israel, Sinai: Archaeological and Historical Relationships in the Biblical Period, Tel Aviv 1987, 69–119. Otto, E., Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch, FAT 30, Tübingen 2000. —, ‘Forschungen zum nachpriesterschriftlichen Pentateuch’, TRu 67 (2002), 125–155. —, ‘Mose und das Gesetz’, in: idem (ed.), Mose. Ägypten und das Alte Testament, SBS 189, Stuttgart 2000, 43–83. —, ‘Die nachpriesterschriftliche Pentateuchredaktion im Buch Exodus’, in: M. Vervenne (ed.), Studies in the Book of Exodus: Redaction – Reception – Interpretation, BETL 126, Leuven 1996, 61–111. —, Die Tora: Studien zum Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften, BZABR 9, Wiesbaden 2009. Person, R. F./Rezetko, R. (eds.), Empirical Models Challenging Biblical Criticism. SBLAIL 25, Atlanta/GA 2016. Perlitt, L., Bundestheologie im Alten Testament, WMANT 36, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1969. Pfeiffer, H., ‘Sodomie in Gibea: Der kompositionsgeschichtliche Ort von Jdc 19’, in: A. C. Hagedorn/H. Pfeiffer (eds.), Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert, BZAW 400, Berlin/New York 2009, 267–289. Pietsch, M., ‘Abschied vom Jahwisten?’, TLZ 139 (2014), 151–166. Porten, B./Yardeni, A., ‘Makkedah and the Storehouse in the Idumean Ostraca’, in: Y. Levin (ed.), A Time of Change: Judah and its Neighbours in the Persian and Early Hellenistic Periods, LSTS 65, London/New York 2007, 125-170. Porzig, P., Die Lade Jahwes im Alten Testament und in den Texten vom Toten Meer, BZAW 397, Berlin/New York 2009. Prince, G., A Dictionary of Narratology, Lincoln/NE 2003. Propp, W. H. C., Exodus 1–18: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 2, New York/NY 1998. Radjawane, A. N., ‘Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk: Ein Forschungsbericht’, TRu 38 (1974), 177–216. Rake, M., Juda wird aufsteigen! Untersuchungen zum ersten Kapitel des Richterbuches, BZAW 367, Berlin/New York 2006. Redford, D. B., ‘Exodus I 11’, VT 13 (1963), 401–418. —, A Study of the Biblical Story of Joseph, VTSup 20, Leiden 1970. Rendsburg, G., ‘The World’s Oldest Torah Scrolls’, The Ancient Near East Today 6/3 (2018), http://www.asor.org/anetoday/2018/03/Worlds-Oldest-Torah-Scrolls. Rendtorff, R., Das Alte Testament: Eine Einführung, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1983.

426

Bibliography

—, ‘Der „Jahwist“ als Theologe? Zum Dilemma der Pentateuchkritik’, in: G. W. Anderson et al. (eds.), Congress Volume Edinburgh 1974, VTSup 28, Leiden 1975, 158–166; English trans.: ‘The ‘Yahwist’ as Theologian? The Dilemma of Pentateuchal Criticism’, JSOT 3 (1977), 2–10. —, Das überlieferungsgeschichtliche Problem des Pentateuch, BZAW 147, Berlin/New York 1977; English trans.: The Problem of the Process of Transmission in the Pentateuch, trans. J. J. Scullion, JSOTSup 89, Sheffield 1990. Reuss, E., Die Geschichte der Heiligen Schriften des Alten Testaments, Braunschweig 1881. Richter, W., Die Bearbeitungen des “Retterbuches” in der deuteronomischen Epoche, BBB 21, Bonn 1964. Rofé, A., ‘The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and its Occurrence in 4QSama’, RevQ 54 (1989), 247–254. —, ‘The ‘End’ of the Book of Joshua According to the Septuagint’, Hen 4 (1982), 17–36. [‘‫’סיומו של ספר יהושע לפי תרגום השביעם‬, Shnaton 2 (1977), 217–227]. —, ‘An Enquiry into the Betrothal of Rebekah’, in: E. Blum et al. (eds.), Die Hebräische Bibel und ihre zweifache Nachgeschichte: Festschrift für Rolf Rendtorff zum 65. Geburtstag, Neukirchen–Vluyn 1990, 27–39. —, ‘Moses’ Mother and her Slave-Girl according to 4QExodb’, DSD 9 (2002), 38–43. Röhrig, M., ‘Zur Literarkritik und Redaktionsgeschichte der alttestamentlichen Josefserzählung’, WO 48 (2018), forthcoming. Römer, T., ‘Book-Endings in Joshua and the Question of the So-Called Deuteronomistic history’, in: K. L. Noll/B. Schramm (eds.), Raising Up a Faithful Exegete: Essays in Honor of Richard D. Nelson. Winona Lake/IN 2010, 87–101. —, The So-Called Deuteronomistic History: A Sociological, Historical and Literary Introduction, London 2007. —, ‘Das doppelte Ende des Josuabuches: einige Anmerkungen zur aktuellen Diskussion um “deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk” und “Hexateuch”’, ZAW 118 (2006), 523– 548. —, ‘Exodus 3–4 und die aktuelle Pentateuchdiskussion’, in: R. Roukema (ed.), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, CBET 44, Leuven et al. 2006, 65–79. —, ‘Genèse 15 et les tensions de la communauté juive postexilique dans le cycle d’Abraham’, TrEu 7 (1994), 107–121. —, ‘Genesis 15 und Genesis 17: Beobachtungen und Anfragen zu einem Dogma der „neueren“ und „neuesten“ Pentateuchkritik’, DBAT 26 (1989/90), 32–47. —, ‘‘Higher Criticism’: The Historical and Literary-critical Approach – with Special Reference to the Pentateuch’, in: M. Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its Interpretation, vol. III/1, Göttingen 2013, 393–423. —, ‘Isaac et Ismaël, concurrents ou cohéritiers de la promesse? Une lecture de Genèse 16’, ETR 74 (1999), 161–172. —, ‘Der Pentateuch’, in: W. Dietrich et al., Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments: Neuausgabe, ThW 1, Stuttgart 2014, 53–166. —, ‘The Joseph Story in the Book of Genesis: Pre-P or Post-P?’, in: F. Giuntoli/K. Schmid (eds.), The Post-Priestly Pentateuch: New Perspectives on its Redactional Development and Theological Profiles, FAT 101, Tübingen 2015, 185–201. —, ‘Recherches actuelles sur le cycle d’Abraham’, in: A. Wénin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, BETL 155, Leuven et al. 2001, 179– 211.

Bibliography

427

—, ‘Zwischen Urkunden, Fragmenten und Ergänzungen: Zum Stand der Pentateuchforschung’, ZAW 125 (2013), 2–24. —, Israels Väter: Untersuchungen zur Väterthematik im Deuteronomium und in der deuteronomistischen Tradition, OBO 99, Fribourg/Göttingen 1990. Römer, T./Brettler, M., ‘Deuteronomy 34 and the Case for a Persian Hexateuch’, JBL 119 (2000), 401–419. Römer, T. et al., Einleitung in das Alte Testament: Die Bücher der Hebräischen Bibel und die alttestamentlichen Schriften der katholischen, protestantischen und orthodoxen Kirchen, Zürich 2013. Rösel, H. N., Joshua, HCOT, Leuven et al. 2011. —, Von Josua bis Jojachin: Untersuchungen zu den deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments, VTSup 75, Leiden et al. 1999. —, ‘Lässt sich eine nomistische Redaktion im Buch Josua feststellen?’, ZAW 119 (2007), 184–189. —, ‘Die Überleitungen vom Josua- ins Richterbuch’, VT 30 (1980), 342–350. Rösel, M., ‘The Septuagint-Version of the Book of Joshua’, SJOT 16 (2002), 5–23. Roth, M. T., Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor, WAW 6, 2nd ed., Atlanta/GA 1997. Rudolph, W., Der “Elohist” von Exodus bis Josua, BZAW 68, Berlin 1938. —, ‘Die Josefsgeschichte’, in: P. Volz/idem, Der Elohist als Erzähler: Ein Irrweg der Pentateuchkritik?, BZAW 62, Giessen 1933, 143–183. Ruppert, L., Genesis, 2.Teilband: Gen 11,27–25,18, FB 98, Würzburg 2002. —, Genesis, 3.Teilband: Gen 25,19–36,43, FB 106, Würzburg 2005. —, Genesis, 4. Teilband: Gen 37,1–50,26 , FB 118, Würzburg 2008. Sarna, N., Genesis, JPS Torah Commentary, Philadelphia/PA 1989. Satterthwaite, P. E., ‘Judges’, in: J. K. Aitken (ed.), T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, London et al. 2015, 102–117. Schäfer, M./Schulz, S., ‘Entstehung und Intention des Gideonzyklus als Kern der Rettererzählungen (Ri 3–16)’, BN 177 (2018), forthcoming. —, ‘Gideon, a Liminal Leader: The Transformation of Leadership Concepts in Judg 6–8’, in: K. Pyschny/S. Schulz (eds.), Debating Authority: Concepts of Leadership in the Pentateuch and the Former Prophets, BZAW 507, Berlin/Boston 2018, 206–218. Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C., Josua und Salomo: Eine Studie zu Autorität und Legitimität des Nachfolgers im Alten Testament, VTSup 58, Leiden et al. 1995. Schipper, B. U., ‘The Phenomenon of ‘Textual Coherence’ in Egyptian and Israelite Wisdom Literature’, in: R. Müller/J. Pakkala (eds.), Insights into Editing in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East, CBET 84, Leuven 2017, 100–126. Schmid, H. H., Der sogenannte Jahwist: Beobachtungen und Fragen zur Pentateuchforschung, Zürich 1976. Schmid, K., ‘Deuteronomy within the ‘Deuteronomistic Histories’ in Genesis – 2 Kings’, in: idem/R. F. Person (eds.), Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History, FAT II/56, Tübingen 2012, 8–30. —, Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründung der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments, WMANT 81, Neukirchen–Vluyn 1999; English trans.: Genesis and the Moses Story: Israel’s Dual Origins in the Hebrew Bible, trans. J. D. Nogalski, Siphrut 3, Winona Lake/IN 2010. —, ‘Genesis and Exodus as Two Formerly Independent Traditions of Origins for Ancient Israel’, Bib 93 (2012), 187–208.

428

Bibliography

—, ‘Genesis in the Pentateuch’, in: C. A. Evans et al. (eds.), The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, VTSup 152/FIOTL 6, Leiden/Boston 2012, 27‒50. —, ‘Exodus in the Pentateuch’, in: T. B. Dozeman et al. (eds.), The Book of Exodus: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, VTSup 164, Leiden/Boston 2014, 27‒60. —, ‘Die Josephsgeschichte im Pentateuch’, in: J. C. Gertz et al. (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion, BZAW 315, Berlin/New York 2002, 83–118. —, The Old Testament: A Literary History, Minneapolis/MN 2012. —, ‘Has European Scholarship Abandoned the Documentary Hypothesis? Some Reminders on Its History and Remarks on Its Current Status’, in: T. B. Dozeman et al. (eds.), The Pentateuch: International Perspectives on Current Research, FAT 78, Tübingen 2011, 17–30. —, ‘The So-Called Yahwist and the Literary Gap Between Genesis and Exodus’, in: T. B. Dozeman/K. Schmid (eds.), A Farewell to the Yahwist? The Composition of the Pentateuch in Recent European Interpretation, SymS 34, Atlanta/GA 2006, 29‒50. Schmidt, L., ‘Die Berufung des Mose in Exodus 3 als Beispiel für Jahwist (J) und Elohist (E)’, ZAW 126 (2014), 339–357. —, ‘Im Dickicht der Pentateuchforschung: Ein Plädoyer für die umstrittene Neuere Urkundenhypothese’, VT 60 (2010), 400–420. —, ‘Literarische Studien zur Josephsgeschichte’, in: A. Aejmelaeus (ed.), The Traditional Prayer in the Psalms, BZAW 167, Berlin/New York 1986, 125–194. —, ‘Die vorpriesterliche Verbindung von Erzvätern und Exodus durch die Josefsgeschichte (Gen 37; 39–50*) und Exodus 1’, ZAW 124 (2012), 19–37. Schmidt, W. H., Exodus, 1. Teilband: Ex 1–6, BKAT II/1, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988. Schmitt, G., Du sollst keinen Frieden schließen mit den Bewohnern des Landes: Die Weisungen gegen die Kanaanäer in Israels Geschichte und Geschichtsschreibung, BWANT 91, Stuttgart 1970. Schmitt, H.-C., ‘Erzväter- und Exodusgeschichte als konkurrierende Ursprungslegenden Israels – ein Irrweg der Pentateuchforschung’, in: A. C. Hagedorn/H. Pfeiffer (eds.), Die Erzväter in der biblischen Tradition: Festschrift für Matthias Köckert, BZAW 400, Berlin/New York 2009, 241–266. —, ‘Das spätdeuteronomistische Geschichtswerk Genesis I–2 Regum XXV und seine theologische Intention’, in: J. A. Emerton (ed.), Congress Volume Cambridge, VTSup 66, Leiden et al. 1997, 261–279. —, Die Josefs- und die Exodus-Geschichte: Ihre vorpriesterliche weisheitstheologische Verbindung, ZAW 127 (2015), 171–187. —, Die nichtpriesterliche Josephsgeschichte: Ein Beitrag zur neuesten Pentateuchkritik, BZAW 154, Berlin/New York 1980. —, Wie deuteronomistisch ist der nichtpriesterliche Meerwunderbericht von Exodus 13,17–14,31?, Bib 95 (2014), 26–48. —, ‘Die „Sinai-Ouvertüre“ in Ex 19,3b–9’, in: F. Giuntoli/K. Schmid (eds.), The PostPriestly-Pentateuch, FAT 101, Tübingen 2016, 277–303. —, ‘Die Suche nach der Identität des Jahweglaubens in nachexilichen Israel: Bemerkungen zur theologischen Intention der Endredaktion des Pentateuch’, in: J. Mehlhausen (ed.), Pluralismus und Identität, VWGTh 8, Gütersloh 1995, 259–278; repr. in: U. Schorn/M. Büttner (eds.), Theologie in Prophetie und Pentateuch: Gesammelte Schriften, BZAW 310, Berlin/New York 2001, 255–276.

Bibliography

429

Schorn, U., Ruben und das System der zwölf Stämme Israels, BZAW 248, Berlin/New York 1997. Schorr, M., Urkunden des altbabylonischen Zivil- und Prozessrechts, VAB 5, Leipzig 1913. Schulz, S., Die Anhänge zum Richterbuch: Eine kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung von Ri 17–21, BZAW 477, Berlin/Boston 2016. Schwartz, B. J., ‘How the Compiler of the Pentateuch Worked: The Composition of Genesis 37’, in: C. A. Evans et al. (eds.), The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception, and Interpretation, VTSup 152/FIOTL 6, Leiden/Boston 2012, 263–278. —, ‘‫ חיבורו של בראשית לז ממקורותיו‬:‫‘[ ’ירידתו של יוסף למצרים‬Joseph’s Descent into Egypt: The Composition of Genesis 37’], BetM 55/1 (2010), 1–30. Schwienhorst, L., Die Eroberung Jerichos, SBS 122, Stuttgart 1986. Segal, M. et al., ‘An Early Leviticus Scroll from En-Gedi: Preliminary Publication’, Textus 26 (2016), 29–58. Seebass, H., Genesis II/2: Vätergeschichte II (23,1–36,43), Neukirchen-Vluyn 1999. —, Genesis III: Josephsgeschichte (37,1–50,26), Neukirchen-Vluyn 2000. —, ‘Versuch zu Josua XVIII 1-10’, VT 56 (2006), 370–385. Seeligmann, I. L., ‘Hebräische Erzählung und biblische Geschichtsschreibung’, TZ 18 (1962), 305–325; repr. in: idem, Gesammelte Studien zur Hebräischen Bibel, ed. by E. Blum, FAT 41, Tübingen 2004, 119–136. Seidel, B., Karl David Ilgen und die Pentateuchforschung im Umkreis der sogenannten älteren Urkundenhypothese, BZAW 213, Berlin/New York 1993. Sicre Diaz, J. L., Josué, Nueva Biblia española, Estella (Navarra) 2002. Simons, J., ‘The “Table of Nations” (Gen. X): Its General Structure and Meaning’, OTS 10 (1954), 155–184. Sirat, C., Hebrew Manuscripts of the Middle Ages, trans. N. de Lange, Cambridge 2002. Ska, J. L., ‘Essai sur la nature et la signification du cycle d’Abraham (Gn 11,27‒25,11)’, in: A. Wénin (ed.), Studies in the Book of Genesis: Literature, Redaction and History, BETL 155, Leuven et al. 2001, 153‒177. —, “Our Fathers Have Told Us”: Introduction to the Analysis of Hebrew Narratives, SubBi 13, 2nd ed., Rome 2000. —, Introduction to Reading the Pentateuch, Winona Lake/IN 2006. Skehan, P. W. et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4.IV: Palaeo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts, DJD 9, Oxford 1992. Skinner, J., Genesis: A Critical and Exegetical Commentary, ICC, Edinburgh 1910. Smend, R. sen., Die Erzählung des Hexateuch auf ihre Quellen untersucht, Berlin 1912. Smend, R. jun., Die Entstehung des Alten Testaments, ThW 1, Stuttgart et al. 1978. —, ‘Das Gesetz und die Völker: Ein Beitrag zur deuteronomistischen Redaktionsgeschichte’, in: H. W. Wolff (ed.), Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerhard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag, Munich 1971, 494–509; English trans.: ‘The Law and the Nations: A Contribution to Deuteronomistic Tradition History’, in: Knoppers, G. N./McConville, J. G. (eds.), Reconsidering Israel and Judah: Recent Studies on the Deuteronomistic History, Winona Lake/IN 2000, 95–110. —, Kritiker und Exegeten: Porträtskizzen zu vier Jahrhunderten alttestamentlicher Wissenschaft, Göttingen 2017. —, ‘Das uneroberte Land’, in: idem (ed.), Zur ältesten Geschichte Israels: Gesammelte Studien, vol. 2, BEvT 100, Munich 1987, 217–228. —, ‘Ein Theologe zwischen den Fronten: Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette 1780– 1849’, in: H.-P. Mathys/K. Seybold (eds.), Wilhelm Martin Leberecht de Wette. Ein

430

Bibliography

Universaltheologe des 19. Jahrhunderts, Studien zur Geschichte der Wissenschaften in Basel, Neue Folge 1, Basel 2001, 11–29. —, Julius Wellhausen. Ein Bahnbrecher in drei Disziplinen, Munich 2006. —, ‘The Work of Abraham Kuenen and Julius Wellhausen’, in: M. Sæbø (ed.), Hebrew Bible/Old Testament: The History of Its interpretation, vol. III/1, Göttingen 2013, 424– 453. Soggin, J. A., Joshua, OTL, Philadelphia/PA 1972. —, Judges: A Commentary, London 1981. Spronk, K., ‘The Book of Judges as a Late Construct’, in: Jonker, A. (ed.): Historiography and Identity (Re)Formulation in Second Temple Historiographical Literature, LHBOTS 534, New York/London, 2010, 15–28. —, ‘From Joshua to Samuel: Some Remarks on the Origin of the Book of Judges’, in: J. van Ruiten/J. C. de Vos (eds.), The Land of Israel in Bible, History and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort, VTSup 124, Leiden/Boston 2009, 137–149. Stackert, J., ‘Before and After Scripture: Narrative Chronology in the Revision of Torah Texts’, JAJ 4 (2013), 168–185. —, A Prophet Like Moses: Prophecy, Law, and Israelite Religion, Oxford 2014. Stavrakopoulou, F., Land of Our Fathers: The Roles of Ancestor Veneration in Biblical Land Claims, London 2010. Steuernagel, C., Deuteronomium und Josua und Allgemeine Einleitung in den Hexateuch, HKAT I/3, Göttingen 1900. Stipp, H.-J., ‘Beobachtungen zur ehemaligen literarischen Selbständigkeit von Ri 19’, in: K. Ólason (ed.), „Ruft nicht die Weisheit …?“ (Spr 8,1): Alttestamentliche und epigraphische Textinterpretationen. Symposion in Skálholt, 1.–3. Juni 2009, ATSAT 94, St. Ottilien 2011, 221–242. —, Elischa – Propheten – Gottesmänner: Die Kompositionsgeschichte des Elischazyklus und verwandter Texte, rekonstruiert auf der Basis von Text- und Literarkritik zu 1 Kön 20.22 und 2 Kön 2-7, ATSAT 24, St. Ottilien 1987. — (ed.), Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk, ÖBS 39, Frankfurt 2011. —, ‘Richter 19: ein frühes Beispiel schriftgestützter politischer Propaganda in Israel’, in: Gillmayr-Bucher, S. et al. (eds.): Ein Herz so weit wie der Sand am Ufer des Meeres: Festschrift für Georg Hentschel, Würzburg 2006, 127–164. Studer, G. L., Das Buch der Richter grammatisch und historisch erklärt, Bern et al. 1835. Talmon, S., ‘ “In Those Days There was no ‫ מלך‬in Israel” – Judges 18–21’, in: idem, King, Cult and Calendar in Ancient Israel: Collected Studies, Jerusalem 1986, 39–52. —, ‘The Presentation of Synchroneity and Simultaneity in Biblical Narratives’, in: J. Heinemann/S. Werses (eds.), Studies in Hebrew Narrative Art Throughout the Ages, ScrHier 27, Jerusalem 1978, 9–26. Tengström, S., Die Hexateucherzählung: Eine literaturgeschichtliche Studie, ConBOT 7, Lund 1976. Todorov, T., Les abus de la mémoire, Paris 2004. Tov, E., The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint, VTSup 72, Leiden et al. 1999. —, ‘The Contribution of the Qumran Scrolls to the Understanding of the LXX’, in: G. J. Brooke/B. Lindars (eds.), Septuagint, Scrolls and Cognate Writings: Papers Presented to the International Symposium on the Septuagint and Its Relations to the Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Writings (Manchester, 1990), SCS 33, Atlanta/GA 1992, 11–47. —, Revised Lists of the Texts from the Judaean Desert, Leiden/Boston 2010.

Bibliography

431

—, Scribal Practices and Approaches Reflected in the Texts Found in the Judean Desert, STDJ 54, Leiden/Boston 2004. —, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 3rd, rev. and exp. ed., Minneapolis/MN 2012. —, The Text-Critical Use of the Septuagint in Biblical Research, completely rev. and exp. 3rd ed., Winona Lake/IN 2015. Ulrich, E., The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental Composition of the Bible, VTSup 169, Leiden/Boston 2015. —, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible, Grand Rapids/MI 1999. —, The Biblical Qumran Scrolls: Transcriptions and Textual Variants, VTSup 134, Leiden/Boston 2010. Ulrich, E. et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4.VII: Genesis to Numbers, DJD 12, Oxford 1994. —, Qumran Cave 4.X: The Prophets, DJD 15, Oxford 1997. Utzschneider, H./Oswald, W., Exodus 1–15, IEKAT, Stuttgart 2013; English trans.: Exodus 1–15, trans. P. Sumpter, IECOT, Stuttgart 2014. van der Meer, M. N., ‘Clustering Cluttered Areas: Textual and Literary Criticism in Joshua 18:1-10’, in: E. Noort (ed.), The Book of Joshua, Leuven et al. 2012, 87–106. —, Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, VTSup 102, Leiden/Boston 2004. —, ‘Joshua’, in: J. K. Aitken (ed.), T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint, London et al. 2015, 86–101. van der Toorn, K., Scribal Culture and the Making of the Hebrew Bible, Cambridge/MA 2007. —, Family Religion in Babylonia, Syria and Israel: Continuity and Change in the Forms of Religious Life, SHANE 7, Leiden et al. 1996. van Ruiten, J., Abraham in the Book of Jubilees, JSJ.S 161, Leiden/Boston 2012. van Seters, J., Abraham in History and Tradition, New Haven/London 1975. —, ‘Joshua 24 and the Problem of Tradition in the Old Testament’, in: W. B. Barrick/J. R. Spencer (eds.), In the Shelter of Elyon: Essays on Ancient Palestinian Life and Literature in Honor of G.W. Ahlström, JSOTSup 31, Sheffield 1984, 139–158. —, The Life of Moses: The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus–Numbers, Kampen 1994. —, ‘The Patriarchs and the Exodus: Bridging the Gap between two Origin Traditions’, in: R. Roukema (eds.), The Interpretation of Exodus: Studies in Honour of Cornelis Houtman, CBET 44, Leuven et al. 2006, 1–15. —, Prologue to History: The Yahwist as Historian in Genesis, Zürich 1992. —, ‘Confessional Reformulation in the Exilic Period’, VT 22 (1972), 448–459. —, The Yahwist: A Historian of Israelite Origins, Winona Lake/IN 2013. Vanderkam, J. C.: The Book of Jubilees, CSCO.Ae 88, Louvain 1999. Vater, J. S., Commentar über den Pentateuch mit Einleitungen zu den einzelnen Abschnitten, der eingeschalteten Uebersetzung von Dr. Alexander Geddes’s merkwürdigeren critischen und exegetischen Anmerkungen, und einer Abhandlung über Moses und die Verfasser des Pentateuchs, Halle 1802–1805. Veijola, T., Das 5. Buch Mose: Deuteronomium Kapitel 1,1–16,17, ATD 8/1, Göttingen 2004. —, Die ewige Dynastie: David und die Entstehung seiner Dynastie nach der deuteronomistischen Darstellung, AASF.H 193, Helsinki 1975. —, Das Königtum in der Beurteilung der deuteronomistischen Historiographie: Eine redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung, AASF.B 198, Helsinki 1977. —, Verheissung in der Krise: Studien zur Literatur und Theologie der Exilszeit anhand des 89. Psalms. AASF.H 220, Helsinki 1982.

432

Bibliography

Vincent, J. M., Leben und Werk des frühen Eduard Reuss: Ein Beitrag zu den geistesgeschichtlichen Voraussetzungen der Bibelkritik im zweiten Viertel des 19. Jahrhunderts, BEvT 106, Munich 1990. Vita, J.-P., ‘The Patriarchal Narratives and the Emar Texts: A New Look at Genesis 31’, in: L. d’Alfonso et al. (eds.), The City of Emar among the Late Bronze Age Empires: History, Landscape, and Society, AOAT 349, Münster 2008, 231–241. von Rad, G., Das erste Buch Mose: Genesis, ATD 2–4, Göttingen 1953, 9th ed., Göttingen 1972. —, ‘Die deuteronomistische Geschichtstheologie in den Königsbüchern’ (1947), in: idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, TB 8, 4th ed., Munich 1971, 189–204. —, ‘Josephsgeschichte und ältere Chokma’ (1953), in: idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, TB 8, 4th ed., Munich 1971, 272‒280. —, ‘Das formgeschichtliche Problem des Hexateuch’ (1938), in: idem, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, TB 8, 4th ed., Munich 1971, 9–86. —, Theologie des Alten Testaments, Band 1: Die Theologie der geschichtlichen Überlieferungen Israels, 7th ed., Munich 1978; English trans., Old Testament Theology, trans. D. M. G. Stalker, Louisville/KE 2001. Vorländer, H., Die Entstehungszeit des jehowistischen Geschichtswerkes, EHS.T XXIII/109, Frankfurt et al. 1978. Vriezen, T. C., ‘Exodusstudien. Exodus I’, VT 17 (1967), 334–353. Wagner, T., ‘Impulse für die Redaktionsgeschichte’, in: R. Heckl (ed.), Methodik im Diskurs, BThSt 146, Neukirchen-Vluyn 2015, 113–142. Waltke, B. K./O’Connor, M., An Introduction to Biblical Hebrew Syntax, Winona Lake/IN 1990. Webb, B. G., The Book of Judges, NICOT, Grand Rapids/MI 2012. Weimar, P., Die Berufung des Mose, OBO 32, Fribourg/Göttingen 1980. —, Studien zur Josefsgeschichte, SBAB 44, Stuttgart 2008. —, Untersuchungen zur Redaktionsgeschichte des Pentateuch, BZAW 146, Berlin/New York 1977. Weimar, P./Zenger, E., Exodus: Geschichten und Geschichte der Befreiung Israels, SBS 75, 2nd ed., Stuttgart 1979. Weinfeld, M., Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972. —, ‘The Period of the Conquest and of the Judges as Seen by the Earlier and the Later Sources’, VT 17 (1967), 93–113. Wellhausen, J., Briefe, ed. by R. Smend, Tübingen 2013. —, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments, 4th ed., Berlin 1963. —, Prolegomena zur Geschichte Israels, 2nd ed., Berlin 1883. Wenham, G., Genesis 16–50, WBC 2, Waco/TX 1994. Westbrook, R. ‘The Character of Ancient Near Eastern Law’, in: idem (ed.), A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, HdO I/71, Leiden/Boston 2003, 1–90. —, ‘Old Babylonian Period’, in: idem (ed.), A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, HdO I/71, Leiden/Boston 2003, 361–430. Westenholz, J. G., Cuneiform Inscriptions in the Collection of the Bible Lands Museum Jerusalem: The Emar Tablets, CM 13, Groningen 2000. Westermann, C., Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments: Gab es ein deuteronomistisches Geschichtswerk?, TB 87, Gütersloh 1994. —, Genesis. 2. Teilband: Gen 12–36, BKAT I/2, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1981. —, Genesis. 3. Teilband: Gen 37–50, BKAT I/3, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1982.

Bibliography

433

Wevers, W., Septuaginta, auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, vol. 1: Genesis, Göttingen 1974. —, Septuaginta, auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum, vol. 2/1: Exodus, Göttingen 1991. —, Notes on the Greek Text of Exodus, SCS 30, Atlanta/GA 1990. White Crawford, S., ‘The Text of the Pentateuch’, in: J. Baden/C. Nihan (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of the Pentateuch, Oxford forthcoming. Whybray, R. N., ‘The Joseph Story and Pentateuchal Criticism’, VT 18 (1968), 522–528. Wiener, H. M., The Composition of Judges II 11 to I Kings II 46, Leipzig 1929. Williams, R., ‘Ägypten und Israel’, TRE 1 (1977), 492–505. Wilson, G., The Editing of the Hebrew Psalter, SBLDS 76, Chico/CA 1985. Winnett, F. V., ‘Re-Examining the Foundations’, JBL 84 (1965), 1–19. —, The Mosaic Tradition, Toronto 1949. Witte, M., ‘Die Gebeine Josefs’, in: M. Beck/U. Schorn (eds.), Auf dem Weg zur Endgestalt von Genesis bis II Regum: Festschrift Hans-Christoph Schmitt zum 65. Geburtstag, BZAW 370, Berlin/New York 2006, 139–156. —, ‘Wie Simson in den Kanon kam: Redaktionsgeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Jdc 13– 16’, ZAW 112 (2000), 526–549. Witter, H. B., Jura Israelitarum in Palaestinam Terram Chananaeam Commentatione in Genesin, Hildesheim 1711. Wöhrle, J., Fremdlinge im eigenen Land: Zur Entstehung und Intention der priesterlichen Passagen der Vätergeschichte, FRLANT 246, Göttingen 2012. Wonneberger, R., Redaktion: Studien zur Textfortschreibung im Alten Testament, entwickelt am Beispiel der Samuel-Überlieferung, FRLANT 156, Göttingen 1992. Woudstra, M. H., The Book of Joshua, NICOT, Grand Rapids/MI 1981. Wright, J. L., David, King of Israel, and Caleb in Biblical Memory, New York/NY 2014. —, ‘Rahab’s Valor and the Gibeonites’ Cowardice’, in: J. J. Collins et al. (eds.), Worship, Women, and War: Essays in Honor of Susan Niditch, BJS 357, Providence/RI 2015. Würthwein, E., ‘Erwägungen zum sog. deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: Eine Skizze’, in: idem, Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk, BZAW 227, Berlin/New York 1994, 1–11. Wüst, M., Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des AT, I: Ostjordanland, TAVO, Beihefte B 9/1, Wiesbaden 1975. Yoreh, T., ‘The Three Redactional and Theological Layers of the Plagues’, TheTorah.com, 2016. Younger, K. L., Ancient Conquest Accounts: A Study in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical History Writing, JSOTSup 98, Sheffield 1990. Zakovitch, Y., ‫העיקרון האסוציאטיבי בסידור ספר שופטים ושימושו כמכשיר לאבחנת שלבים‬ ‫‘[ בגיבוש הספר‬The Associative Arrangement of the Book of Judges and its Use for the Recognition of Stages in the Formation of the Book’], in: Rofé, A./Zakovitch, Y. (eds.), Isac Leo Seeligmann Volume: Essays on the Bible and the Ancient World, Jerusalem 1983, 161–183. —, ‘Assimilation in Biblical Narratives’, in: Tigay, J. H. (ed.): Empirical Models for Biblical Criticism, Philadelphia/PA 1985, 175–196. Zenger, E., Einleitung in das Alte Testament, ed. by C. Frevel, 9th ed., Stuttgart 2016. Zevit, Z., The Anterior Construction in Classical Hebrew, SBLMS 50, Atlanta/GA 1998. Ziemer, B., Abram–Abraham: Kompositionsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen zu Genesis 14, 15 und 17, BZAW 350, Berlin/New York 2005.

434

Bibliography

Zwickel, W., ‘Die Tempelquelle Ez 47 ‒ eine traditionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung’, EvT 55 (1995), 140‒154.

List of Contributors JOEL BADEN (1977) is Professor of Hebrew Bible at Yale University. UWE BECKER (1961) is Professor of Old Testament at Friedrich Schiller University, Jena. CHRISTOPH BERNER (1976) is Privatdozent in Old Testament and Heisenberg fellow at Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen. ERHARD BLUM (1950) is Professor emeritus of Old Testament at EberhardKarls-Universität, Tübingen. DAVID CARR (1961) is Professor of Old Testament at Union Theological Seminary, New York City. FRANZISKA EDE (1977) is a postdoctoral researcher in Old Testament at Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen. CYNTHIA EDENBURG is a lecturer at the Open University of Israel. ZEV FARBER (1976) is a Fellow at Project TABS and the editor of their online journal, TheTorah.com. DANIEL E. FLEMING (1957) is Ethel and Irvin A. Edelman Professor of Hebraic and Judaic Studies at New York University. CHRISTIAN FREVEL (1962) is Professor of Hebrew Bible at Ruhr-Universität, Bochum, and Extraordinary Professor at the University of Pretoria. ERASMUS GAß (1971) is Professor of Old Testament at the University of Trier. STEPHEN GERMANY (1985) is a visiting instructor in Old Testament at the University of Basel. JAN CHRISTIAN GERTZ (1964) is Professor of Old Testament at RuprechtKarls-Universität, Heidelberg.

436

List of Contributors

DETLEF JERICKE (1953) is Extraordinary Professor of Biblical Archaeology (Hebrew Bible) at at Ruprecht-Karls-Universität, Heidelberg. REINHARD G. KRATZ (1957) is Professor of Old Testament at Georg-AugustUniversität, Göttingen. REINHARD MÜLLER (1972) is Professor of Old Testament at Westfälische Wilhelms Universität, Münster. WOLFGANG OSWALD (1958) is Extraordinary Professor of Old Testament at Eberhard-Karls-Universität, Tübingen. PETER PORZIG (1971) is a postdoctoral researcher in Old Testament and Qumran Studies at Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen. HARALD SAMUEL (1979) is a postdoctoral researcher in Old Testament at Georg-August-Universität, Göttingen. BERND U. SCHIPPER (1968) is Professor of Old Testament at Humboldt Universität, Berlin. KONRAD SCHMID (1965) is Professor of Old Testament at the University of Zurich. HANS-CHRISTOPH SCHMITT (1941) is Professor emeritus at FriedrichAlexander-Universität, Erlangen-Nürnberg. SARAH SCHULZ (1982) is Research Assistant at Friedrich-AlexanderUniversität, Erlangen-Nürnberg. JEAN LOUIS SKA, SJ, (1946) is Professor emeritus at the Pontifical Biblical Institute, Rome. JACOB WRIGHT (1973) is Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible at Candler School of Theology, Emory University, Atlanta.

Index of Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 1–11 1:1–2:4 1 1:22 1:28 2–4 2:2–3 2:10–14 3:1 4:2–4 6:18 6:22 7:6 8:17 8:18–19 9 9:1 9:7 9:9, 11 10:1 10:2 10:19 11:13, 15 11:19, 21 11:27–12:5 11:27–32 11:27 11:31 12–50 12–36 12–25 12–16 12–13 12:1–2 12:4–5

137, 139 60, 97, 139, 167–169 62 61 61, 139, 167 169 139 145 222 222 147 97 139 61 97 62 168 61, 139, 168 147 18 145 145 100 100 143 147 18 98 95, 97, 137, 156, 184 121–123, 389 139 141 140–146 91–92, 94, 127 98

12:6–7 12:6 12:8 12:10–13:2 12:17, 19 12:20 13:3 13:5–13 13:6 13:7 13:11–12 13:12 13:14–18 13:14 13:15–17 13:18 14 15 15:7 15:13 15:16 15:18 15:20 15:22 16 16:7, 9 17 17:1 17:2 17:6 17:7 17:8 17:19 17:20 17:21

266 407 142, 336 141–144, 147, 154–155 141 154 142, 336 142 98 331 98 142 145 181 163 142 145–146, 155, 301 35, 97, 146–148, 155, 163 147 146–148, 404 101, 146, 404 147 331 148 148–149, 155 142 60, 163, 205 161 61 61, 168 163 97 163 61 163

438 17:23–27 18–19 19:9 20:1 21:2, 7 22:20–24 23:9, 20 24 25–50 25–36 25–33 25:1–4 25:8 25:11 25:12–18 25:12, 19 25:21–26 26:1–33 26:1–2 26:2–3 26:3 26:16 27 27:41 27:43 28:3 28:4–5 28:10–22 28:10 28:13 29:1–31:16 29–30 29:1–14 29:4 29:30–31 29:32 30 30:3 30:21 30:22–24 31:3 31:14–16 31:17–42 31:17–18 31:34 31:42 32:5 32:9

Index of Sources 97, 100 142, 175 361 142 108, 111, 118, 123, 129– 130 138 97 185–186 87, 92 138–139 115, 140 138, 141 185 98, 293 138 18 140 92 142 91–92, 127 163 70, 80 140 110–111, 119, 124 182 61, 161, 168 97 140 182 163 181–184, 185–186 111, 118, 335 140 362 108, 123, 129 174 140 13 88, 126 108, 123 91, 127 315 171–175 98 222 173 181 181

32:23–33 32:29 33 33:4 33:17 33:18–20 33:18 33:19 33:20 34 35:1–5 35:2–4 35:8 35:10 35:11 35:16–19 35:18–20 35:21–22 35:23–26 35:26–29 36 36:1 36:6–9 36:7 36:9 36:13–40 36:43 37–50 37–41 37–45 37 37:1 37:2 37:3–11 37:3–4 37:4 37:5–8 37:9–10 37:10 37:13 37:18 37:19–20 37:21–22 37:25 37:26–27

140 108, 111, 118, 123 140 110–111, 119 31 165 66, 244 66, 201, 236, 244 266 182 236 173 357 63 61, 161, 168 88, 98, 126 242 49 15, 63, 98, 157–158 158 138 18 98 97 18 18 97 34, 85–103, 105–119, 121–135, 139, 149–155 122–123, 129 122–123 106–107 98, 153 97, 99–100, 128 99–100 107–111, 113–114, 123– 124, 129–130 115 107–111, 113–114, 123– 124 88, 126 242 408 107 107–108, 110, 115, 119, 123 107 153 107, 123

Index of Sources 37:28 37:31–35 37:35 37:36 39–41 39:1 39:14 40 40:12–13 40:15 40:18–19 41 41:12 41:25–31 41:45 41:46 41:50–52 41:50 41:53–57 41:56–57 42 42:1–3 42:5 42:6 42:7 42:9 42:21 43:13 43:23 43:32 44:20 45 45:1–8 45:5–9 45:5–7

153, 222 115 88, 126 222 123 222 150 124 112 150 112 124 150 112 152 99–100 329 152 111, 113–114 124 125 144 141 110–111, 113–114 362 110–111, 113–114 92 161 92 167 108 122, 124, 134 403 92 119

45:10

149, 165

45:15 45:25–28 45:28 46–50 46–47 46:1–5 46:1–4 46:1 46:2–4 46:5–7 46:6 46:7 46:8–27

110–111, 115, 119 115–116, 125 92, 117–118 125 45, 48, 75, 92 151 91–94, 103, 127, 142 116–117, 125 126–127, 183 98 63, 158 18, 158 55, 63, 76, 157–158, 165

46:8 46:20 46:26 46:27 46:28 46:29 46:30 46:31–34 46:34 47–50 47:1–28 47:1–11 47:1, 4 47:5–11 47:5 47:6 47:9 47:11 47:27 47:28 47:29–31 48 48:1–2 48:3–6 48:3 48:4 48:7 48:8–20 48:8 48:21 48:22 49:1–28 49:1 49:3–27 49:10 49:25 49:29–33 49:30 49:33 50 50:1–14 50:1–9 50:1 50:2

439 18, 55 15, 64, 152 64 15, 46, 64, 137, 151 166 117, 125, 166 116–118, 125 118 149, 166–167 99–100 118 9 166 128 97 166 97, 99–100 97, 150, 167 61–62, 64, 80, 98, 128, 133, 151, 166, 168, 397 63, 98, 100, 128, 133, 397 88, 96, 98–99, 116–118, 125, 128–129, 385–386 101, 329 99–100 98–100, 128–129 161 97 98 99, 129 168 94, 152–154, 236 66, 94, 407, 236 96, 128 63 158 312 161 88, 98–99, 128–129, 385– 386 97 63, 116–117, 125, 403 92, 122–125, 131, 133– 134, 385 151, 153–155, 386–387, 397, 403 96, 128 116–117, 125, 385 13

440 50:4–14 50:4–11 50:4–6 50:5 50:7–9 50:7 50:8 50:10–11 50:10 50:12 50:13 50:14 50:15–21 50:15 50:19–20 50:20 50:21 50:22–26

50:22 50:23 50:24–26

50:25 50:26

Exodus 1–15 1 1:1–10

1:1–7 1:1–6 1:1–5 1:1 1:2 1:5

Index of Sources 88 90, 126–127, 130 89, 93 154 98–99 117, 125, 127 12, 89, 127, 130–131, 149, 166 96, 128, 155 117, 125 97–98, 128, 133, 386 48, 75, 98–99, 128, 386 45, 89, 117, 125, 133, 149, 385–386, 389 88, 126, 386, 403 89, 386 92 69, 119, 151 65, 67–69, 78, 88–89, 119, 134 5–19, 44–53, 55–72, 73– 83, 88, 128, 134–135, 381–383, 386–389, 397– 400, 403 96, 98–101, 128–129, 131, 133, 386–387 98–101, 128–129, 131, 133 91, 94–97, 103, 133–134, 151–152, 154, 236, 407– 408 165, 244, 275, 394, 396 39, 85–86, 99–102, 165, 201, 243–244, 395

87, 121, 138–139, 403 122, 126, 131, 133–135 5–19, 44–53, 55–72, 73– 83, 381–383, 387–389, 397–400, 402–405 88, 98, 101–102, 125, 129, 131, 133, 165 95, 128 157–158 44, 158 137 134, 137, 151, 169

1:6

1:7 1:8–12 1:8–11 1:8–10 1:8

1:9–12 1:9 1:10–11 1:11–12 1:11 1:12 1:13–14 1:13 1:15–22 1:15 1:18 1:20 1:22 2 2:1–10 2:1 2:3 2:6 2:11–12 2:11 2:13–14 2:13 2:15–22 2:16–21 2:16 2:21–22 2:21 2:22 2:23–25 2:24 3–4

40, 85–86, 98–99, 117, 125, 134, 151–152, 159, 169, 216, 242, 245, 395– 396 95, 99, 127–128, 131– 132, 137, 139, 151, 168 40, 99 128 125 86–88, 95, 98, 103, 117– 118, 121, 125, 128, 133– 134, 152, 165, 216, 242, 245, 396 75 88, 94–95, 118, 128, 131– 133 88 62, 70–71, 75, 78–79, 81– 82, 175, 177 132, 146, 148–149, 167, 183 61, 63, 70–71, 132 49, 60, 62–63, 66, 75, 79, 133 146 40, 176 49, 63 17 61–62, 71 67, 69, 175, 389 39, 137, 140 67, 140, 175–176, 184 67–68, 132, 137, 160 17, 176 17 175–177 150 176–177 150 175–181, 182, 185–186 140 17, 177 137 177 180–181 60, 63, 177 162–163 39, 140

Index of Sources 3 3:1–12 3:1 3:2 3:6 3:7 3:9–12 3:13–15 3:15–16 3:16 3:17 3:21–22 3:22 4:5 4:8 4:14 4:18–19 4:20 4:24–26 4:27–31 5:1–2 5:2 5:5–23 6:2–7:7 6:2–3 6:3–4 6:3 6:4 6:5 6:8 6:16 6:19 6:23 6:25 7:7 7:16 7:26 8:16 8:18 8:21–23 8:22 9–10 9:1, 13 9:26 10:3 10:8–11 10:24–26 10:24 11:2–3

93–94, 151, 273 176, 177–181, 182–186 133, 140, 176–177 239 161–162 174, 176, 184 268 180 161–162 152 239, 331 174 141 17, 161–162 17 160 177, 180 180 140 140 179 81 179 60, 63 161 147 162–163 61, 162–163 146, 162–163 61, 163 18, 160 160 244 160 177 89, 126, 150 89, 126 89, 126 149, 166 89, 126 167 303 89, 126, 150 149, 166 89, 126, 150 89, 93 89, 93 126–127, 130–131 174

11:2 11:7 12:28–49 12:29–30 12:31 12:33 12:35–36 12:35 12:37 12:40 13:5, 11 13:17–22 13:19

13:20–21 14 14:5, 6, 9 14:11–12 14:19 14:24 14:25 15:2 15:22 16 16:2 17 17:3 18:2–4 18:4 19:9, 19 20:2 20:8–11 21:1 23:10–12 23:13 23:20–33 23:23 23:29–30 23:31 23:33 24:4 24:8 24:15–18 24:16 25–40 25–31 28:4

441 141 306 147 172 141 172 174 141 150, 171 49, 75, 146, 404 164 173 12, 66, 77, 94, 96, 134, 152, 169, 201, 236, 244, 275, 381–383, 396–397, 407–408 171 171–175 171 404 225 302 303 161 148 168 404 137, 146 404 137, 180 161 164 147 169 18 169 286 186, 225–227, 250 331 240 239 285 159 147 60, 168 139 312 60 18

442

Index of Sources

28:21 29:45–46 31:6 31:12–17 32:9–14 32:13 32:26–29 33:1–6 33:1–4 33:1 33:2–3 33:5–11 34 34:10–27 34:11–16 34:12 34:13–16 34:21 34:27 35–40 35:1–3 35:30 38:21 38:23 39:14 40:2 40:16 40:17

159 60 159 169 164 152, 160, 163–164 160 186 164 152, 163–164 225, 227 164 39 186 225, 227 285 286 169 147 60 169 159 160 159 159 168 168 139, 168

Leviticus 19:3 23:3 26:9 26:42 26:44 27

169 169 60, 168 163 228 51

Numbers 1:5 2:25, 31 3:1–2, 18 6:24–26 10–13 11:4–5 13–14 13:4 13:17 13:22 13:26

18 363 18 40 146 404 146, 311, 327, 404 18 153 144 311

14:2–4 14:3–4 14:11–25 15:32–36 16:13 16:14 20 20:5 20:16 20:28 20:29 21 21:5 21:12 22:3–4, 6 25 25:11 26:28–37 26:29–37 26:36 26:55–66 26:57 26:58–59 26:60–61 27–30 27:2 27:21 31:15–18 31:54 32 32:29 32:33 32:55 33:2 33:3–15 33:48–49 33:51–52 34:5–7 34:5 34:13–15 34:14 34:19 36

404 148 164 169 176, 404 404 145 404 367 272 372 146 404 148 70, 80 309, 344–345 343 15 101 18 320 18 137, 146–147 137 51 312 292 364 312 327, 335 332 312 320 18 51 137 286 293 153 320 312 18 51

Deuteronomy 1–3 373, 378 1 146 1:1 18 1:7 227, 239, 319

443

Index of Sources 1:11, 21 2:13–14 2:20 3:13 4:1 5:12–15 6:3 6:4–5 6:12 6:18 7:1 7:3–5 7:5 7:16 7:25 8:11, 19 9:1 9:14 11:7 11:24 11:31 12 12:1 12:2–3 12:3 12:8 12:9 12:10 12:25, 28 13:16–17 15:4 18:1–2 18:15 19:10 20:5 21:22–23 26:5–9 26:5 26:7 27:3 29:24 29:25 31 31:14–15 31:14 34 34:5 34:6

333 148 331 331 312, 332–333 169 333 259 367 312, 332 62, 312 286 357 285 357 367 332 62 211, 232, 289 227, 239 332 337, 341 333 286 357 362 279–280, 322 279–280, 367 362 357 322 312 367 322 403 306 36 62 179, 333 333 333, 367 367 373 332 312 51, 137, 243, 245, 249, 371, 378 343, 395 343

34:7 34:8 34:11–12 Joshua 1–12 1–5 1:1–9 1:1–5 1:1 1:4 1:11 2 2:1 2:10–11 3–4 3:1 3:2–4 3:10 3:12–14 3:12 3:31 4:1–3 4:2, 4, 8 4:19–20 4:19 5 5:4 5:9–10 5:10 5:13–15 5:15 6 6:24 7:2 8 8:9, 12 9 9:1 9:3 9:6–7 9:6 9:8 9:13 9:15 10 10:1 10:5–9

100, 395 372 75

251–253, 258, 297, 312, 405 344 301 405 243, 245, 249, 293, 403 227, 239 312, 333 309, 343–345 343, 345 344 336 343–345 344 331 295 159 295 295 159 226, 286 251 197 205 226 286 239 178 295 357 357 314, 338 142 239, 285, 287, 299 331 309 226–227 286, 309 309, 362 403 309 298–310 308 298–301

444 10:5 10:6–7 10:6 10:7–13 10:8 10:9 10:10–14 10:12–14 10:15 10:16–18 10:18–27 10:27 10:28–43 10:28–29 10:30–36 10:40 10:42 10:43 11 11:1–20 11:3 11:6, 9, 11 11:16–23 11:23

12 12:1 12:7 12:16 13–22 13–19

13:1–7 13:1

13:6 13:7 13:9 13:15 13:16 13:24 13:25 13:29–31 13:29

Index of Sources 300 226 301, 317 187 301 226, 301 302–304 208 307, 317 305 306 303, 305 297 305 187 306 305 251, 286, 307, 311, 317 243, 249, 398 297 331 357 251–252, 254, 256 257, 263–265, 267, 270– 274, 278–279, 281–285, 288–290, 294, 316, 333, 335 252 18 18, 316, 333 305 252–253, 283, 354, 405 313, 315–317, 320, 322, 324, 327–330, 332–335, 337 263–264, 311 227, 239, 251–252, 258, 265, 272, 278, 280, 284, 328 227, 239, 265, 272–273, 278, 280, 284 312, 328 320 312 320 312 320 328 312, 320

13:30 13:32–33 14–19

320 333 264–265, 271–272, 274, 277, 280, 284 14:1–5 311, 332 14:1 18, 244, 312, 330, 357 14:2 311, 320, 357 14:3 320, 333 14:4 328 14:6 226, 332 14:8–9 333 14:13 330 15:1 312 15:4 153 15:6 155 15:20–21 312 15:21–62 324 15:33 363 15:41 305 15:63 272, 356 16:1–10 329–330 16:8 312 17:1–2 330 17:1 312 17:3–6 320 17:4 244, 312 17:5 319 17:7–8 320 17:12–13 330 17:14–18 318–319, 327, 329–331, 337 17:17–18 313, 317–320, 322, 336 18–22 226 18:1–10 311–337, 357 18:1 281 18:11–19:51 311–313, 316, 327, 332 18:19 155 18:21–28 324 18:21 155 18:28 356 19 298 19:2–8 324 19:9 319 19:18, 25, 33 320 19:41 320, 363 19:47 272, 320, 361 19:48–51 264, 271 19:49 290, 361 19:50 277, 290, 361

Index of Sources 19:51 20:7 20:8 21–24 21 21:1 21:21 21:42 21:43–45

21:43 22 22:1 22:3–5 22:8 22:12 22:19, 29 23

23:1–16 23:1–3 23:1 23:2 23:3 23:4 23:5 23:6 23:7–11 23:9 23:11 23:12–13 23:13 23:14

244, 275, 281, 312, 330, 332 290 333 243 249 244 290 195 211, 215, 218, 227, 251– 252, 254–256, 258, 264, 279–280, 281 246 252, 405 251 333 331 332 333 209–210, 212–213, 215, 218, 221, 224–225, 229– 230, 232–234, 236, 238– 240, 244, 249–256, 258– 260, 263, 265, 270–271, 276, 278, 282, 284–285, 292–294, 334, 354, 366, 373, 398, 405 199, 226, 228, 233, 238 255 218, 233, 251–252, 265, 279–280, 286, 294, 328 209, 233, 251, 263, 265– 266, 272, 278, 294 211, 215, 218, 232–233, 279, 289, 294 227, 263, 265, 272, 278 246, 262–265, 272–273, 278–279, 289 209, 262, 264–265, 273, 278–279 262, 266, 278–280, 286 246 286 262–265, 273, 278–279, 286 246, 250, 285–286 209, 213, 261, 263, 265, 272–273, 278, 294

23:15–16 23:16 24

24:1–27

24:1–5 24:1 24:2–13 24:2 24:4 24:5 24:8 24:11 24:12 24:14–28 24:14 24:15 24:16 24:17 24:18 24:19–21 24:19 24:20 24:21 24:22 24:23–27 24:23 24:24 24:25 24:26 24:27 24:28–33

24:28–29 24:29–31

445 256, 262–263, 266, 278– 280, 294 229–230, 239, 290, 393 94, 97, 128, 131, 134– 135, 221, 223–226, 229– 238, 240, 243–245, 247, 249–256, 265–266, 270– 271, 278, 282, 293–294, 342, 348, 354, 366, 380, 398, 405 199, 211, 217–218, 234, 271, 273–274, 277–279, 283, 285, 288 254–255 229, 233–235, 251, 255, 271, 286, 289 36, 96, 128, 233–236, 255 289 246 205, 244 246 331 251 254–256 173, 233 233–235 235, 289, 367 233, 244 233, 235, 251 236, 256, 278–280 289 367 289 234–235, 289 234 173, 246 246, 289 232–233, 289 229, 233 215, 233, 248, 289 188–197, 199–219, 221– 240, 241–256, 273–277, 278–279, 281–287, 288– 292, 293–294, 355, 360, 365–366, 378, 381–383, 390–394, 397–399, 405 263–264, 267, 271–272 60, 85, 128

446 24:29 24:30–33 24:30 24:31 24:32 24:33 Judges 1–3 1:1–3:6 1:1–2:5

1

1:1

1:2 1:3 1:7–8 1:10–12 1:19 1:21 1:22–26 1:27–29 1:28–30 1:33 1:34–35 1:35 2 2:1–5

2:3 2:6–16:31

Index of Sources 66, 94, 96, 261, 395 271 96, 271 287 66, 77, 94, 96–97, 134, 152, 165, 394, 407–408 372, 406

243 294 199–219, 221–240, 249– 251, 252, 263, 266, 270– 271, 273–276, 279, 283, 354, 355–360, 365–366, 378, 406 131, 134–135, 197, 225– 226, 230, 246, 249–251, 252–256, 260–263, 265, 272, 277–278, 290–294, 368–369, 393 192, 231, 243, 245–247, 250–251, 253, 261, 286, 291, 292–293, 355–357, 359, 390, 394 262, 357, 359 357 356–357 187 318, 331 272, 356 330, 336, 356 336 330 330 356 330 135, 185, 345, 380 186, 194, 197, 225–230, 233–234, 236, 239–240, 249–251, 252–254, 356, 260–263, 265, 273, 278, 281–284, 285–287, 291– 294, 356–360, 368–369, 393–394 278–279, 285 270–271, 273–274, 283, 288, 348, 378

2:6–10

2:6 2:7–10 2:7 2:8 2:10–23 2:10 2:11–3:6 2:11–19 2:11–13 2:11 2:12–14 2:14 2:16, 18 2:20–21 2:21–23 2:21, 23 3:1–5 3:5–6 3:7–17 3:7–12 3:7 3:8–9 3:11 3:12–30 3:12–14 3:12 3:13 3:14 3:15 4:2 4:3 4:5 4:13 5:7–8 5:14–18 6–9 6:1–6 6:6–7

192–197, 199–219, 221– 240, 241–256, 267, 273– 277, 278, 281–287, 288– 292, 293–294, 360, 365– 366, 381–383, 390–394, 395, 397–400, 402–405, 406, 408 270–271 85, 271 98, 368 60, 65–66, 77, 80–82, 134, 271 354, 368, 406 60, 65–66, 77, 80–82, 86, 98, 134 251–256, 287, 293 293, 349 205, 367 390–396 244, 246 367 239, 367 227, 239, 282 239, 281–282 246, 250 239, 281–282 286 406 195, 197, 277 205, 244, 246, 251, 269, 367, 378 367 246, 272 367 205, 244, 246, 249 205, 244, 406 289 194, 244 246, 367 387 331 290 331 403 323 346 267, 273 367

447

Index of Sources 6:7–10 6:10 6:11–24 8:22–23 8:28 8:33 8:34 9 9:8–15 9:26–54 10:1–5 10:1 10:3 10:6–18 10:6 10:10 10:11–16 10:14 10:16 10:18 11 11:1–3 11:12–28 11:21–22 12:8–15 13:2 13:5 13:25 14:16 16:2 16:5 16:7 16:31 17–21

17:1–5 17:1 17:2–3 17:2 17:5 17:6 17:7 17:8 17:9 17:10–13 18:1

271 255 268, 273 268, 270, 273, 323, 346– 347, 349–350, 376 273 269, 346 367 347, 349–350 345 345 345 290, 367, 403 403 345 269, 367 367 271 235 173 268 345, 398 300 296, 345 289 345, 403 360, 363–364, 378 268 277, 363 130 356 277, 363 356 363 268–270, 271–279, 283, 347–348, 350, 355–363, 376, 378 356 275, 360, 364, 378 363 277 360 268–269, 347, 361 360 360 362 360 268–269, 290, 347, 356, 361

18:2–31 18:2 18:4–5 18:8 18:9 18:10–12 18:19–20 18:27–29 18:30 18:31 19:1–9 19:1 19:10 19:11–12 19:16–21 20–21 20:1 20:4 20:6 20:9 20:11 20:14 20:17 20:18 20:23 20:26–28 20:26 20:27–28 20:47–48 20:48 21 21:1 21:2–4 21:6–7 21:8–14 21:12 21:15–16 21:18 21:19–22 21:23–24 21:23 21:25

356 363 360 363 289 361, 363 360 356, 360, 361 268, 355, 360, 364 364 360 268–269, 275, 347, 360– 361, 364, 378 356 269 361–362 262 145, 357 360 290 272 357 70 357 262, 356–359 357–359 355–359 275 194, 205, 244, 268 314 357 314 263 358–259 263 364 269 263 263 364 290 361 268–269, 347, 361

Ruth 1:1–2 3:9–11 4:18

362 234 18

448 1 Samuel 1:1 1:3 1:9 1:12 1:20 1:25 2:12 3:4–10 3:7 3:10 4 4:13, 18 6:12 6:19–7:1 7 7:1 7:3 7:10 8–12 8:1, 4–9 8:7 8:18 9 9:1 10:19 11 11:3–4 12 12:5 12:8–9 12:9–11 17:12 19:13, 16 22:18–19 20:18, 23, 27 24–26 24:2 2 Samuel 1:1 5:6 5:14 6 7:1, 11 8 8:2, 4 13:15 19:7

Index of Sources

257, 360, 364 314, 364 314–315 314 314 364 81 178 81 145 336 315 18 315 345, 368, 373 293 173 302 268 368 270–271 235 368 360, 364, 378 270 309 364 271, 354, 373 234 36 367–388 362 173 299 261 368 145

293 356 18 315 279 232 296, 298 108–109, 130 130

21–24 21:2 22:15 23:1

354 299 302 18

1 Kings 1:1 3:4 3:12 4:2, 8 5:5 6:1 8 8:9 8:20 8:56 11:22 11:26 12 14:21 15:1 17–22 20:19

18 299 403 18 145 373–374, 376 373 70 403 279–280 361 360 269, 348 403 403 354 18

2 Kings 1–8 2:18, 23 14:26 17:24–41 23:25

354 357 179 236 403

Isaiah 34:17 40–55 44:9–20 51:2 53:12

322 36 173 143 62

Jeremiah 1 17:26 32:44 33:13 36:2, 4

179 334 334 334 59

Ezekiel 2:9 9:9 16:13

59 61 61

449

Index of Sources 47

145

128:6 135:10

Daniel 8:3

181

Job 1:1 1:7 42:16 Proverbs 13:22

Hosea 12:5

357

Joel 2:2

62

Amos 5:6 5:12

336 62

Jonah 1:7 1:8

318 362

Micah 2:5 4:3

322 62

Zechariah 2:1 8:22

181 62

Psalms 18:5 33:3 34:10 35:18 40:8 78:40 78:60 80:2–3

302 403 361 62 59 404 313 335

101 62

360, 364 362 101 101

1 Chronicles 11:4 23:14–15 24:31 25:8 26:13–14

256 137 318 318 318

2 Chronicles 5:10 6:1 25:4 35:12 36:22–23

70 70 58 58 58, 85, 102

Ezra 1:1–4 1:1–2 1:1

102 58, 85 18

Nehemiah 8:1 8:7–9, 11 9:8 10:35 11:1 13:1

58 160 331 318 318 58

Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha and Qumran Jubilees 13:10–16 14:1 14:19–24

143–144 148 147–148

Genesis Apocryphon 19–20 144–145

21:14–19

145

CD 5:3–4 8:7–9, 11

244 160

Index of Modern Authors Abrams, M. H. 401 Achenbach, R. 335 Albertz, R. 16, 39, 59, 67, 69–70, 73, 81, 151, 160, 164, 172, 179, 240, 396, 398 Alt, A. 35, 207, 328 Amit, Y. 143, 356, 360, 362, 364 Anbar, M. 271 Astruc, J. 25, 44 Auberlen, C. A. 269, 356 Auld, A. G. 204, 207, 215–216, 304, 330, 332, 390 Aurelius, E. 1, 233–234, 236, 255, 341– 342, 353, 398 Baden, J. 40, 43, 48–49, 58–59, 74–76, 78–79, 91, 122, 131 Baentsch, B. 403 Baker, H. D. 324 Bardtke, H. 26 Barton, J. 1 Becker, U. 200–203, 208, 210–212, 216, 218–219, 233–236, 238, 241, 265– 268, 270–271, 284, 339, 341, 343, 347, 353, 359, 362–364, 366, 376, 379, 390–392, 394, 398 Becking, B. 110 Ben Zvi, E. 23 Benoit, P. 6, 57 Berlejung, A. 40 Berner, C. 40, 56, 60, 62–63, 65, 67–68, 70–71, 73, 77–78, 80, 82, 87, 94, 98, 117–118, 125, 131, 133, 137–138, 152, 154, 160, 162, 171–172, 174– 180, 385–389, 396–398 Bertheau, E. 204, 208, 214 Bieberstein, K. 309, 344 Blanco Wissmann, F. 342 Blenkinsopp, J. 295 Bleek, F. 32, 34 Blum, E. 1, 38, 43, 46, 59, 62, 64–67, 69, 73–74, 77, 82, 87–88, 91, 93–95, 98, 101, 116, 121–122, 126–128,

131, 133–134, 138, 143, 147, 151– 152, 160, 162, 164, 168, 173, 179, 181, 183–186, 201, 208, 211, 216, 221–223, 225–227, 232, 235–236, 238, 240–241, 243, 245, 251, 253, 255, 258, 261–262, 271, 275–277, 282, 285–286, 288, 291, 343–344, 360, 366, 369, 386–393, 396–397, 399 Boecker, H. J. 173 Boling, R. G. 201–202, 207 Brekelmans, C. 209, 237 Brettler, M. 51, 214, 217, 366, 393, 407 Briant, P. 334 Brooke, G. 2 Budde, K. 201, 223–224, 356, 402 Burney, C. F. 223–224 Butler, T. C. 203–205, 208 Carr, D. 21, 39, 68, 70, 73, 78, 80, 86, 88, 91–95, 97–98, 114, 121, 125– 130, 132, 184, 386, 389, 397–398 Charpin, D. 323 Childs, B. 398, 404 Coats, G. W. 114, 402 Conczorowski, B. J. 286 Conrad, J. 32 Cortese, E. 311–312, 316, 319–320, 330, 332–333, 335 Crone, P. 321 Cross, F. M. 13–14, 16, 43 Crüsemann, F. 362 Davies, G. I. 39, 137–140, 151, Davies, P. R. 334 Davila, J. R. 13 De Hoop, R. 117 De Pury, A. 38, 138 De Troyer, K. 187, 307 De Vos, J. C. 313, 315–316 De Wette, W. M. L. 30 Diebner, B. J. 143 Dietrich, W. 107, 116, 123 Dillmann, A. 402

Index of Modern Authors Döhling, J.-D. 110 Dohmen, C. 40 Donner, H. 106, 112, 127, 155 Dorsey, D. A. 305 Dozeman, T. B. 126, 128, 138, 151, 158, 161, 175, 181, 295, 303, 306, 398, 404, 406 Driver, S. R. 222 Durand, J.-M. 322 Dus, J. 314 Ebach, J. 117, 151 Ede, F. 40, 109–110, 118–119, 122– 125, 134–135, 242, 385–389, 395, 397–398 Edenburg, C. 2, 275, 347, 355–357, 359, 362, 367, 369, 378, 380 Eichhorn, J. G. 27–28 Eissfeldt, O. 24, 200, 213, 273, 356 Farber, Z. 298–299, 310 Fieger, M. 112 Finkelstein, I. 40, 182, 334, 336 Fitzmyer, J. A. 144–145 Fleming, D. 326, 334–336 Focken, F.-E. 257, 267, 292, 341–342, 345–346, 353, 376, 390–391, 398 Forster, E. M. 401 Frevel, C. 199, 210–212, 216, 230–232, 240, 258, 261, 265, 276–278, 282, 284, 286, 288, 339, 390, 393, 399 Fritz, V. 200, 205, 207, 210, 214, 263 Frolov, S. 209, 393 Fuller, R. C. 29 Galling, K. 35, 138 Gaß, E. 207–208 Gerhards, M. 175, 184, 396 Germany, S. 339 Gertz, J. C. 2, 21, 25, 39, 46, 59–61, 63, 65, 67, 70, 73–74, 76–82, 93–95, 97, 125, 128, 132–134, 137, 139, 143, 147, 151–152, 154, 172, 175–178, 385, 387–388, 396–398 Gese, H. 141 Giuntoli, F. 55 Gomes, J. F. 336, 356 Gordon, R. P. 365 Görg, M. 200–202 Graf, K. H. 32 Graupner, A. 174, 179 Gray, J. 207, 216

451

Greenspoon, L. J. 205 Greifenhagen, F. V. 137, 147, 154 Greßmann, H. 113, 138, 209 Groß, W. 202, 208–209, 213, 216, 222, 225–229, 239, 261, 279, 285, 287, 341, 346, 349, 357, 369, 374, 390, 392–393, 396, 398 Güdemann, M. 269, 362 Gunkel, H. 105, 112–113, 116, 138, 173, 407 Halbe, J. 213, 217 Hallo, W. W. 326 Hamilton, V. P. 117 Haran, M. 85, 366 Hartenstein, F. 60 Hendel, R. S. 140 Hertzberg, W. H. 207 Hess, R. S. 201, 215 Hodel-Hoenes, S. 112 Hoftijzer, J. 315 Holzinger, H. 111, 116, 200 Houtman, C. 26, 167, 176 Hupfeld, H. 31 Hylander, I. 314 Ilgen, K. D. 28–29 Irsigler, H. 180 Jacob, B. 101, 110 Janowski, B. 60, 139 Jepsen, A. 268, 340 Jeremias, J. 175, 184 Jericke, D. 141–146, 149–151, 153–156, 199, 201–202, 204–205, 208, 213, 216–217, 219, 241, 261, 390, 393, 406 Jongeling, K. 315 Kaiser, O. 31, 178, 339 Kaswalder, P. 398 Kebekus, N. 107, 110, 112, 386 Keil, C. F. 199, 206, 209 Kellermann, D. 155 Kessler, R. 37 Kitz, A.-M. 320, 326 Knauf, E. A. 200, 209, 230, 239, 264, 293, 320, 327–328, 332, 336, 348, 353, 365, 390 Köckert, M. 185 Koenen, K. 146 Köhlmoos, M. 336 Konkel, M. 160, 164

452

Index of Modern Authors

Koopmans, W. T. 203, 207, 211–212, 216 Kratz, R. G. 2, 40, 50, 60, 70, 73, 80, 114, 116–118, 122–123, 140, 181, 185, 205, 209, 217–218, 233–234, 241, 255, 257, 267–268, 270–271, 280, 282, 309, 313, 333–335, 343, 353, 366, 379, 386, 390–393, 397– 399 Kraus, H.-J. 24 Krause, J. 238–239, 343–344 Kreuzer, S. 146 Krüger, T. 172 Kuenen, A. 33 Kuhl, C. 223 Kupper, J.-R. 323 Lafont, B. 323 Lafont, S. 321 Lanckau, J. 108, 112 Lang, B. 291 Lange, A. 56 Latvus, K. 210, 214, 234 Lauinger, J. 311, 322 Legaspi, M. 26 Leonard-Fleckmann, M. 337 Levin, C. 39, 60, 63, 65, 68, 73, 109– 112, 114–118, 123, 125, 131–133, 162, 167, 172–176, 178–183, 185, 235, 239, 255, 385–386, 396–397 Lods, A. 26 Lucassen, B. 203, 205–206, 214–215, 406 Lux, R. 65, 108, 133 Machiela, D. A. 144–145 Mäkipelto, V. 197 Mathys, H.-P. 29–30 Mayes, A. D. H. 209, 214 Mazor, L. 194 Michaelis, J. D. 27 Miller, J. M. 201, 207, 210 Milstein, S. 314, 329 Montet, P. 96 Moore, G. F. 45, 222–224, 363, 365 Müller, R. 82, 233–236, 238, 255, 258, 265–267, 270, 284, 350, 353, 368, 379 Naumann, T. 117 Nelson, R. 200, 203–208

Nentel, J. 173, 181, 200, 211, 213–214, 219, 258, 261, 265 Niditch, S. 377 Nihan, C. 59, 271, 334, 353 Nöldeke, T. 23, 371–373, 402 Noort, E. 207–208, 277, 303, 340, 391, 393 Noth, M. 23, 35–36, 52, 123, 164, 200, 212, 217, 224, 240–241, 251–252, 264, 339–340, 362, 371, 373, 390, 393 Notley, R. S. 155 Nötscher, F. 202, 207, 215 O’Connell, R. H. 203, 209 O’Doherty, E. 200, 212–213, 217 Oelsner, J. 322 Oesch, J. M. 57 Oettli, S. 200, 203, 207, 209, 219 Olson, D. T. 59 Oren, E. D. 153 Oswald, W. 39, 70, 73, 81–82, 157, 160, 162, 164–166, 178, 181, 184, 402 Otto, E. 39, 175, 246 Perlitt, L. 265 Person, R. F. 377 Pfeiffer, H. 39, 268 Pietsch, M. 177 Porten, B. 306 Porzig, P. 1, 387 Prince, G. 401 Propp, W. H. C. 60, 63, 73, 158, 161– 162, 398, 402 Rake, M. 204, 206, 210, 217–218, 249, 261, 277, 285–286, 292, 349, 390, 392–394 Redford, D. B. 107, 184 Rendsburg, G. 2 Rendtorff, R. 37–38, 52, 93, 100, 134, 138, 202 Reuss, E. 32 Rezetko, R. 377 Richter, W. 199, 203, 210–211, 213, 219, 261, 270, 391 Rofé, A. 17, 185, 205–206, 229, 246, 406 Röhrig, M. 124 Römer, T. 25, 38, 40, 49, 51, 73, 133, 135, 143, 146–148, 150, 162, 178, 182, 201, 205, 209–210, 225, 238,

Index of Modern Authors 258, 263, 265–266, 279, 284, 288, 313, 328, 335, 337, 339, 366, 395, 407–408 Rösel, H. N. 199–201, 205–208, 210– 214, 242, 273, 316, 391–392 Rösel, M. 205–207 Roth, M. T. 324 Rudolph, W. 121, 205, 209, 224, 258 Ruppert, L. 112, 117, 172–174, 181– 182, 185 Safrai, Z. 155 Sarna, M. 101 Schäfer, M. 267–268 Schäfer-Lichtenberger, C. 200, 204 Schipper, B. U. 131 Schmid, K. 21, 23, 35, 37, 43, 46, 50, 55–56, 58–60, 63, 73–74, 88–89, 97, 116, 121, 123–126, 128, 131, 135, 137–138, 141, 144, 146–147, 149, 152, 154, 165, 168, 175, 177, 205, 209–210, 218, 236, 246, 271, 334, 342, 366, 385, 404 Schmidt, L. 40, 73, 177, 386–387, 389, 396–397 Schmidt, W. H. 73, 81, 158, 161–162, 174, 176, 179, 396–397, 402 Schmitt, G. 155, 213, 218, 261 Schmitt, H.-C. 1, 30, 107, 172–173, 175, 177–179, 183–184, 186, 385, 397–399 Schorn, U. 107, 181–182 Schulz, S. 257, 267–269, 272, 275, 277, 283, 347–348 Schwienhorst, L. 309 Seebass, H. 110, 185, 316 Seeligmann, I. L. 223 Segal, M. 2 Seidel, B. 28 Seybold, K. 30 Sicre Diaz, J. L. 406 Silverstein, A. 321 Simons, J. 145 Singer-Avitz, L. 336 Sirat, C. 2 Ska, J. L. 141, 291, 405 Skehan, P. W. 6, 13, 56 Skinner, J. 117, 408 Smend, R. sen. 200, 203, 209, 213–214

453

Smend, R. jun. 30, 32–33, 214, 224, 263, 265, 375–376 Soggin. J. A. 200, 203, 210–211, 214 Spronk, K. 206, 219, 365 Stackert, J. 22, 40, 44 Stavrakopuolou, F. 408 Steuernagel, C. 200 Stipp, H.-J. 360 Studer, G. L. 223–224 Tengström, S. 108, 201 Todorov, T. 408 Tov, E. 3, 195, 354, 406 Tucker, G. 201, 207, 210 Ulrich, E. 3–4, 7, 56–57, 137, 365 Utzschneider, H. 39, 70, 73, 81–82, 157, 160, 162, 164–166, 178, 181, 184, 402 van der Meer, M. N. 206, 213, 307, 316–317, 320, 328, 330–332 van der Toorn, K. 334, 408 van Ruiten, J. 143–144, 147–148 van Seters, J. 21–22, 37, 39, 116, 178, 182–184, 201, 216, 225 Vanderkam, J. C. 143, 147 Vater, J. S. 29 Veijola, T. 341, 347, 350, 362–363, 375 Vita, J.-P. 315 von Rad, G. 36–37, 105, 112, 340–341, 353 Vorländer, H. 38 Vriezen, T. C. 134, 402–403, 405 Wagner, T. 172 Webb, B. G. 208–209 Weimar, P. 110, 172, 178, 201 Weinfeld, M. 227, 312 Wellhausen, J. 22, 32, 34, 105, 117, 121, 200, 209, 223, 226, 229, 261, 375, 406 Wenham, G. 110, 117, 173 Westbrook, R. 321, 325 Westenholz, J. G. 325 Westermann, C. 112, 117, 167, 173, 185, 353 Wevers, W. 5, 12, 14 White Crawford, S. 46, 377 Whybray, R. N. 105 Wiener, H. M. 223 Williams, R. 96

454

Index of Modern Authors

Wilson, G. 57 Winnett, F. V. 37 Witte, M. 268, 387, 407 Wöhrle, J. 61, 63, 65, 67, 73, 122, 132– 134, 150, 154 Wonneberger, R. 291 Woudstra, M. N. 207–208 Wright, J. 299, 308, 310 Würthwein, E. 342

Wüst, M. 316 Yardeni, A. 306 Yoreh, T. 303 Younger, K. L. 310 Zakovitch, Y. 363–365 Zenger, E. 172 Zevit, Z. 222 Ziemer, B. 146 Zwickel, W. 145