The Ultimate and the Penultimate Text of the Book of Joshua (Contributions to Biblical Exegesis & Theology) 9789042937369, 9789042937376, 904293736X

Citation preview

C O N T R I BU T I O N S TO

BIBLICAL EXEGESIS & THEOLOGY

100

Kristin De Troyer

The Ultimate and the Penultimate Text of the Book of Joshua

PEETERS

THE ULTIMATE AND THE PENULTIMATE TEXT OF THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

CONTRIBUTIONS TO BIBLICAL EXEGESIS AND THEOLOGY

SERIES EDITORS K. De Troyer (Salzburg) G. van Oyen (Louvain-la-Neuve)

ADVISORY BOARD Reimund Bieringer (Leuven) Lutz Doering (Münster) Mark Goodacre (Duke) Bas ter Haar Romeny (Amsterdam) Annette Merz (Groningen) Madhavi Nevader (St Andrews) Thomas Römer (Lausanne) Jack Sasson (Nashville) Tammi Schneider (Claremont)

Kristin DE TROYER

THE ULTIMATE AND THE PENULTIMATE TEXT OF THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

PEETERS LEUVEN – PARIS – BRISTOL, 2018

CT

A catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. © 2018 — Peeters, Bondgenotenlaan 153, B-3000 Leuven ISBN 978-90-429-3736-9 eISBN 978-90-429-3737-6 D/2018/0602/111 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

V

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

VII

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IX

INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1

CHAPTER 1 COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3

1. Introduction and Setting the Stage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. The Collapse of the Wall of Jericho . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. The Battle Against Ai . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3 16 32

CHAPTER 2 NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

53

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2. Stoning, Burning and Hanging . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3. Moving the Altar, Moving the Mountains, or Moving What? .

53 66 84

CHAPTER 3 CREATING A HEADQUARTER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119 2. The Camp at Gilgal. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 3. Returning to the Camp at Gilgal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 CHAPTER 4 AUTHORITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135 1. 2. 3. 4.

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The Line of Command: God, Moses, Joshua, the Servant of God . . . . . . “You and all your people” . . . . . .

. . . . Joshua . . . . . . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

. . . .

135 135 140 142

VI

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXCURSUS: THE WORK OF A TEXT-CRITIC . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151 CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167 A SELECTION OF GREEK JOSHUA MANUSCRIPTS (CAMBRIDGE / RAHLFS)

171

PRELIMINARY GROUPING OF MANUSCRIPTS (WITH CAMBRIDGE MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175 INDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS In 1990, I had the audacious idea to set up an international publishing company specializing in Biblical Studies, Philosophical Theology, Ethics, Church History, Practical Theology and Religious Studies. I wanted to produce journals and good books in paperback – the latter was a novelty, at least in Europe at that time. The concern J.H. Kok, in Kampen, the Netherlands – then independent, now part of Veen Bosch & Keuning (VBK Publishers) – showed interest and after a series of financial plans and talks with Wim Steunenberg†, Bert Endedijk en Ad van Dam, the triumvirate from J.H. Kok, I got a green light and started. The first thing I had to do was to pick a name and a logo. As a humanities’ scholar I thought that a reference to the library of Alexandria would be most fitting, but as a Septuagint scholar, I went a bit further (down the coast) and chose “Pharos,” which not only was a reference to the famous lighthouse of Alexandria, but also the name of the peninsula where according to the LetterofAristeas the Septuagint was produced, and thus, Kok Pharos was born. Before the name was deposited and the logo created (by Rob Lucas, Enschede) there was already a first manuscript submitted (ATaleofTwo Cities, by James A. Loader). That manuscript was the first in the series ContributionstoBiblicalExegesisandTheology, a name that we came up with during the first meeting of the editorial board, which consisted of Adam S. van der Woude† (Groningen) and Tjitze Baarda† (Amsterdam) and which convened mostly at the GrandHotelWientjes in Zwolle. Together with Adam and Tjitze, and with Henk van der Sar, my scientific advisor, we came up with ideas to get the series started. And so it did. After working many years in Kampen, combining my work as a publisher with a part time job as lecturer in Old Testament / Hebrew Bible at the CatholicSeminaryofBreda at Bovendonk, the Netherlands, and at the same time, writing my dissertation at the UniversityofLeiden, the Netherlands, Kok Pharos was taken over by Peeters in Louvain, Belgium. For the next two years, I was publisher of Peeters, until in 1998 and after having finished my PhD in 1997, the ClaremontSchoolofTheology, in collaboration with the ClaremontGraduateUniversity, at Claremont, California, USA, offered me an associate professorship of Hebrew Bible/Religion, and thus, I had to say goodbye to my publishing house and my Catholic Seminary and move to the other side of the world. Peeters, both sr an jr,

VIII

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

however, thought it would be best if I remained the anchor of the biblical series and thus, I became a member of the editorial board and continued directing ContributionstoBiblicalExegesisandTheology. Some time later, after Adam S. van der Woude had died (2000), it was decided to renew the board, resulting in Geert Van Oyen, Professor of New Testament (Louvainla-Neuve, Belgium) and an old study friend of mine, coming on board. The advisory board was also renewed (currently the following persons are serving as advisors: Reimund Bieringer, Lutz Doering, Marc Goodacre, Annette Merz, Madhavi Nevader, Bas ter Haar Romeny, Thomas Römer, Jack Sasson, and Tammi Schneider), and, together with Paul Peeters from Peeters Publishing, at the annual breakfast meeting at the SBL, we continue to discuss submitted manuscripts and published volumes. After ten years in Claremont, in 2008, I moved to the University of St Andrews, Scotland, and seven years later, in 2015, I moved to the University of Salzburg, Austria, my new (wonderful) home. As the series was approaching the magical number “100” it was suggested to publish my volume on the book of Joshua as number 100 in my own series. And so I did! I hope to continue with my work for ContributionstoBiblicalExegesis andTheology in the nearby future; after all, one can not leave after just twenty-eight years. I hope that all authors and editors who have published in my series are happy with their beautiful volumes and have somewhere planted a tree in order to make up for the paper used for their books. I also hope that those whose manuscripts I have committed to the flames – as William B. jr. Eerdmans and Gerrit Brinkman used to say – will continue to occasionally murmur a hello or goodbye while passing me at conferences. With 100 volumes published (or in the process of being published), I would like to remember and thank a series of people for supporting me the whole nine yards during this publishing adventure: Wim Steunenberg†, Bert Endedijk, Ad van Dam, Tineke Bouma, Geraldine Tromp, Aukelien Wieringa, William B. jr. and Anita Eerdmans, Sam E. Eerdmans, Jan Kok†, Henk van der Sar, Rob Lucas, Dik Hendriks, Geert de Koning, Harold Rast†, Kent Richards, John F. Kutzsko, Adam S. van der Woude†, Tijtze Baarda†, Geert Van Oyen, Emmanuel and Magda Peeters, Luc Peeters, and last but not least, Paul Peeters, who really is a great and classy publisher! Kristin De Troyer 26 May 2018 Salzburg, Austria

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS Abbreviations are taken from the SBL Handbook of Style for Ancient Near Eastern,Biblical,andEarlyChristianStudies (Atlanta, GA: SBL Press, 22014). In addition, the following abbreviations are used throughout the volume: Ant.T CAM

DSSDCB EJR MRGLS MT OG OL SP TCHB

Antiochean Text Alan E. Brooke & Norman McLean (eds.), TheOldTestamentin Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus ContainingtheVariantsoftheChiefAncientAuthoritiesfortheTextofthe Septuagint, Cambridge Library Collection (Cambridge: CUP, 1906, 2009). Eugene Ulrich, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Developmental CompositionoftheBible, VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015). The Early Jewish Revisers Max Margolis, TheBookofJoshuainGreek (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1931-1938). Masoretic Text Old Greek (Text) Old Latin Samaritan Pentateuch Emanuel Tov, TextualCriticismoftheHebrewBible(Minneapolis, MA: Fortress Press, 32012).

INTRODUCTION Although there are currently many critical editions being established, such as the HebrewUniversityBibleProject, the OxfordBibleProject and the BibliaHebraicaQuinta, there is not yet a new edition of the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the book of Joshua.1 In this volume, I will thus use the BHS edition, with the text of the book of Joshua as prepared and edited by R. Meyer (1972/1983).2 Similarly, albeit that the Göttingen critical edition of the Old Greek text published by the SeptuagintaUnternehmen is well advanced, the volume on the Greek text of the book of Joshua has not yet been published. For the Greek text, I will use the text of the book of Joshua as published in the CambridgeOldTestamentinGreek and edited by Alan E. Brooke and Norman McLean,3 the Rahlfs4 edition as well as the Margolis5 edition.6 Albeit that I use the Cambridge OldTestamentinGreek edition, I will quote the Greek manuscripts according to their so-called Rahlfs’ number, using the Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments, as published by Alfred Rahlfs and revised by Detlef Fraenkel.7 I am very grateful to the SeptuagintaUnternehmen for allowing me to consult the Kollationsheftefor the book of Joshua. 1

2 3

4

5

6

7

The BHQ edition of the book of Joshua is being prepared by Seppo Sipilä and Cornelis den Hertog. Rudolph Meyer, JosuaetJudices, BHS 4 (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1972, 1983). Alan E. Brooke & Norman McLean (eds.), TheOldTestamentinGreekAccordingtothe TextofCodexVaticanus,SupplementedfromOtherUncialManuscripts,withaCritical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint, Cambridge Library Collection (Cambridge: CUP, 1906, 2009). Alfred Rahlfs, revised by Robert Hanhart, Septuaginta.IdestVetusTestamentumgraece iuxtaLXXinterpretes (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006). Max L. Margolis, TheBookofJoshuainGreek (Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1931-1938). Id., edited by Emanuel Tov, PartV:Joshua19:39-24:33,Monograph Series (Philadelphia, PA: Annenberg Research Institute, 1992). I also would like to thank my colleagues Seppo Sipilä and Markus Sigismund – both have helped me by providing me with electronic copies of Max L. Margolis’ famous edition of the book of Joshua. Alfred Rahlfs, VerzeichnisdergriechischenHandschriftendesAltenTestamentsfürdas Septuaginta-Unternehmen aufgestellt, MSU 2 (Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914). Id., bearbeitet von Detlef Fraenkel. VerzeichnisdergriechischenHandschriften desAltenTestaments.BandI:DieÜberlieferungbiszumVIII.Jahrhundert,Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum Supplement I,1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004). See also the list of Greek Joshua manuscripts at the end of this volume (before the bibliography).

2

INTRODUCTION

I have also received invaluable and constructive criticism from a myriad of fantastic colleagues: Anneli Aejmelaeus, Felix Albrecht, A. Graeme Auld, Jonathan Ben-Dov, José Manuel Cañas Reíllo, Renate Egger-Wenzel, Mark Elliott, Natalio Fernández Marcos, Detlef Fraenkel, Peter Gentry, Cornelis den Hertog, Anna Kharanauli, Tuukka Kauhanen, Reinhard Kratz, Christoph Levin, Bernard M. Levinson, Ville Mäkipelto, Takamitsu Muaroka, Michael van der Meer, Reinhart Müller, Ed Noort, Juha Pakkala, Andrés Piquer Otero, Udo Quast (†), Friedrich Reiterer, Alexander Rofé, Tammi Schneider, Michael Segal, Markus Sigismund, Seppo Sipilä, William Tooman, Pablo A. Torijano Morales, Emanuel Tov, Julio Trebolle, and Eugene Ulrich. Most of my examples in this book come from Josh 1-12 – I admit that I have not yet gathered enough courage to deal with the challenge as provided by the numerous personal names appearing in Josh 13:1-22:9. Josh 24 is brilliantly dealt with by Ville Mäkipelto, whose dissertation8 I had the honour to read after I had finished most of the current volume.

8

Ville Mäkipelto, UncoveringAncientEditing.DocumentedEvidenceofChangesinJosh24 andRelatedTexts(Helsinki: 2018), soon to be published as Ville Mäkipelto, Uncovering AncientEditing.DocumentedEvidenceofChangesinJosh24andRelatedTexts, ZAW (Berlin: de Gruyter, forthcoming).

CHAPTER 1

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS1 1. INTRODUCTION AND SETTING THE STAGE In 1947 Von Rad pointed to the importance of what he called “jenes System von prophetischen Weissagungen und genau vermerkten Erfüllungen.”2 Von Rad credited the Dtr with these remarkable coincidences between what was predicted and what happened: “So besteht also ein Korrespondenzverhältnis von Jahwes Wort und der Geschichte in dem Sinne, daß Jahwes einmal gesprochenes Wort kraft der ihm eigenen Mächtigkeit unter allen Umständen in der Geschichte zu seinem Ziele kommt.”3 Not the predictions and their fulfilment will be subject of the analysis in this chapter, but the commands given by i.a. God and other figures of importance and the executions of commands. More precisely, how the execution of the commands corresponds (or not) with the commands and viceversa will be investigated. As Fritz wrote with regard to Joshua 6: “Diese Erzählung vom Fall Jerichos ist keine Sage mit langer Überlieferung und ätiologischer Absicht. Vielmehr ist sie ein sorgfältig gebautes Stück, das aus seiner Anordnung Jahwes und deren fast wortgetreuer Ausführung besteht.”4 My question is: How “wortgetreu” are the executions in relation to the commands? 1

2

3 4

This chapter builds on research done in the following contributions: Kristin De Troyer, “Did Joshua Have a Crystal Ball? The Old Greek and the MT of Joshua 10: 15, 17 and 43,” in Emanuel:StudiesinHebrewBible,SeptuagintandDeadSeaScrollsinHonourof EmanuelTov, ed. Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffmann and Weston W. Fields with the assistance of Eva Ben-David, VTSup 94 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 571589; ead., “’And they did so.’ Following Orders Given by an Old Joshua,” in HerMaster’s Tools?FeministandPostcolonialEngagementsofHistorical-CriticalDiscourse.Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship, ed. Caroline Vander Stichele & Todd Penner (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2005), 145-157; Ead., “Greek Papyri and the Oldest Layer of the Hebrew Bible,” in EditingtheBible–EditorialProblems.AssessingtheTask,PastandPresent, ed. John Kloppenborg & Judith Newman, Symposium Series (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2012), 81-90. Gerhard von Rad, Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament, Theologische Bücherei. Neudrucke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert 8 (München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1958), 192 (= id., Deuteronomium-Studien, Teil B, FRLANT, n.F. 40 [Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947], 52-64, esp. 54). Ibidem. Volkmar Fritz, DasBuchJosua, HAT I/7 (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994), 68.

4

CHAPTER 1

1.1. No Execution5 In 3:5, Joshua commands the people to sanctify themselves: “Sanctify yourselves, for tomorrow the Lord will do wonders among you.” A repetition of this execution of this command can be found in 7:13: “Proceed to sanctify to the people and say, ‘Sanctify yourselves for tomorrow …’.” There is however, nowhere an execution of this double command. The fact that there is no execution of the command may indicate that the command was originally deemed sufficient and that an execution of a command of God may have been presumed to be executed, but did not need to be reported.6 1.2. A Short Sentence Indicating the Onset of the Execution of the Command A next step in the development of executions reflecting commands may be found in Josh 2. In 2:1a Joshua sends two men secretly from Shittim as spies. He says: “Go, view the land, especially Jericho.” At first sight, the command seems to be followed, as 2:1b reads: “So they went.” But, the rest of the execution of the command does not follow the instruction. To the contrary, instead of viewing the land, especially Jericho, the two men entered the house of a prostitute: “… and entered the house of a prostitute whose name was Rahab and spent the night there” (Josh 2:1b).7 In the Old Greek, precisely as in the Hebrew text, the command is given to go and view the land, especially Jericho. As in the Hebrew text, the spies go, and also enter the house of a prostitute, instead of following the command. 5

6

7

For an earlier version of this analysis, see Kristin De Troyer, “Commands and Executions. Cases from Joshua 1-6,” in Martin Meiser, Michaela Geiger, Siegfried Kreuzer & Marcus Sigismund (eds.), DieSeptuaginta–Geschichte,Wirkung,Relevanz,WUNT (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), p. 214-24. It was noted in the discussion that in the OG 3:5 a different verb was used than in 7:13 (2×). In the Masoretic Text, in all three instances, the Hebrew verb ‫ קדש‬is used. In 3:5, it is rendered in the Old Greek by the ἁγνίζω, to purify, to cleans, whereas in 7:13 ἁγιάζω, to make holy, to consecrate, to purify is used. The latter translation is more in line with Deuteronomy, where it is used six times to render the Hebrew verb ‫( קדש‬5:12; 15:19; 22:9; 32:51 and 33:3) and once in an additional phrase of the Old Greek vis-à-vis the Masoretic Text (Deut 5:15). The verb ἁγνίζω is never used in the Old Greek of Deuteronomy but is used to render a variety of Hebrew verbs ‫ קדשע‬in Ex 19:10 and Num 11:18; ‫ רזר‬in Num 6:3; and ‫[ חטא‬hitp.] in Numb 8:21; 19:2; 31:12 and 23). Why in the Old Greek of Josh 3:5 a verb is used that is in line with OG Ex and OG Numb and why in OG Josh 7:13 a verb is used that is in line with OG Deuteronomy needs further study. With thanks to Marieke Dhont and Michael van der Meer for the discussion. I am not giving any additional comments on this act.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

5

The difference between the case of the command to sanctify themselves (Josh 3:5) and the command to go and view the land (Josh 2:1) is that in the former no report was given on the execution of the command and that in the latter there is a short phrase indicating at least the beginning of the execution: “and they went.” The further specifics of the mission are however not repeated. 1.3. “And it happened …” Similar to this short phrase, is a short phrase that functions especially on the Greek level: καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς… (followed by a verb). In Josh 4:516, God gives again a command: “The Lord said to Joshua, “Command the priests who bear the ark of the covenant, to come up out of the Jordan.” Joshua therefore commanded the priests, “Come up out of the Jordan” (Josh 4:17).” God’s command is double: God specifies that Joshua has to command the priests and then he specifies the contents of the command: the priests have to come up out of the Jordan. The execution is also double: Joshua commanded the priests (4:17) and the priests came up out of the (middle of the) Jordan (4:18). The further specifics about the priests are different in the two commands and in their execution. In God’s command and in the execution of the command, the priests are those who bear the ark of the covenant. Joshua’s command is addressed to the priests – without further specifications. Then, these commands are executed and reported, with the executions almost literally following the commands as they were given. However, in the execution of the command there are two more details given that were in neither of the commands. The verse reads: “When the priests bearing the ark of the covenant of the Lord came up from the middle of the Jordan, and the soles of the priests’ feet touched dry ground, the waters of the Jordan returned to their place and overflowed all its banks, as before” (Josh 4:18). The two additional details are thus: first, there is a second time indication given: when “the soles of the priests’ feet touched dry ground,” and secondly, there is the report of the water’s response to the activities of the feet: “the waters of the Jordan returned.” The Old Greek has the same structure: God is commanding Joshua to command the priests carrying the ark of the covenant to go up out of the Jordan and Joshua is commanding the priests to go up out of the Jordan. Then comes the executions of the commands, which again follow the commands. Moreover, the Old Greek also has the additional specifications about the moment when the priests came out, namely when they set their

6

CHAPTER 1

soles on the land, and the response of the water, namely the waters of the Jordan flowing back. That the Old Greek has these additional specifications, together with the fact that the Old Greek carefully translates his/her Hebrew Vorlage, indicates that these specifications were in the Hebrew text which was translated by the Old Greek. The execution of the command starts, however, with a small but important phrase: καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἐξέβησαν … (Josh 4:18: And it came to pass when they were coming up). The question is whether or not this small phrase is an additional phrase in the Old Greek in comparison with the Masoretic Text and why it is there? The Hebrew has ‫ויהי בעלות‬, and it came to pass when (the priests) were coming up …., with the Qere reading: ‫ויהי כעלות‬, and it came to pass as (the priests) were coming up … – the latter maybe rendered appropriately in the Old Greek with καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἐξέβησαν. In 3:14 the Old Greek does not have this phrase, whereas the Hebrew text does read: … ‫ויהי ב‬. With regard however to the construction ‫ ב‬followed by an infinitivus constructus ‫בעלות‬, I note that there is a parallel between 4:18 and 6:15. In the latter, Joshua and the priests, the warriors and the rest of the crowd rise early (‫)שכם‬, at the rising (‫ )בעלות‬of dawn, and march around Jericho seven times. In 6:15 the construction may indicate a long moment in which some event is happening, namely the rising of the dawn.8 In Josh 4:18, it indicates the moment when the people are going out of the water; the Qere here may indicate the length of that event. Although 4:18 is the only occurrence in the book of Joshua, where the construction is altered using K/Q, from ‫ ויהי ב‬to ‫ויהי כ‬, both constructions are used in the Hebrew text of the book of Joshua (‫ כ‬4:18; 5:1; 8:14; 10:20; ‫ ב‬5:13) and both are rendered in Greek with καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ... . Of these occurrences, 4:18 surely, and 10:20 maybe, are an execution of a command.9 8

9

This is also the case in Judges 19:25. In chapter 19, the Levite puts his concubine in danger; she is gang-raped. In 19:25 it is said that the men rape the concubine until the morning. Then, at the rising of the dawn the men send her away (K). As in Joshua 4:18 the Ketiv of Judges 19:25 reads ‫ בעלות‬but the Qere of the Masoretic Text reads ‫כעלות‬. The Qere of Judges 19:25, however, may point to a longer period: not the precise point of the rising of the dawn, but the whole time of the rising of the dawn. It needs to be noted that the command to go after Ai is more clearly pronounced than the one regarding the Amorites (compare 10:20 and 8:24, both have the same construction, but 8:24 harks back to 8:18 and ultimately to God’s command in 8:1; with regard to 10:20, there is a reference to a possible command by God in 10:19 and in 10:10, God even is part of the event that leads to slaughtering the Amorites, but there is not a direct command).

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

7

Moreover, the Greek phrase is also used where there is no ‫ ויהי ב‬or ‫ויהי כ‬, for instance in 2:7: compare: “and it happened when the pursuers were gone that the door was closed …” (Old Greek) with “and the gate shut after them …” (Masoretic Text). In all the instances where the Greek phrase καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ... occurs 4:11; 4:18; 5:1; 5:13; 8:14 and 10:20, but one (4:11), it renders an infinitivus constructus; in 4:11 a verbum finitum. The small introductory phrase καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ... (followed with a verb) seems to be more typical of the Old Greek than of the Hebrew text. I acknowledge that it is based on a Hebrew expression, but the Old Greek uses it very consistently. Moreover, this phrase can also be found in the Antiochean Text and has also been added by the Early Jewish Revisers and taken over in the Hexapla by Origen (3:14).10 Maybe the Early Jewish Revisers brought this instance in line with the others? So far, the examples are cases where either the command is given but the execution is not reported or where the execution is reported with a small sentence indicating the onset of the execution. 1.4. “And he did so…”: Another Short Phrase Introducing the Execution of the Command Another short phrase functions in several other commands, albeit especially on the Hebrew level. For instance, at the end of chapter 5, another command and execution of command is given. Joshua encounters a man, who identifies himself as the commander of the army of the Lord (Josh 5: 14). Joshua asks what he wants him to do and the commander replies: “Remove the sandals from your feet, for the place where you stand is holy” (Josh 5:15a). The execution of the command is given in Josh 5:15b: “And Joshua did so” (‫)ויעש יהושע כן‬. This response is similar to the response found in Josh 4:8: “And the Israelites did so” (‫)ויעשו־כן‬. The same short phrase is also found in 10:23 (‫)ויעשו כן‬. Whereas in 10:23, the text then continues with another verb: “and they brought the five kings out” (10:23), the text does not continue with another verb in 5:15b. Josh 4:8 is rather complex: ‫ויעשו־כן בני־ישראל‬ ‫כאשר צוה יהושע‬ ‫וישאו‬

10

See MRGLS, 44, ad Josh 3:14.

8

CHAPTER 1

The phrase, as Joshua commanded, emphasizes the authority of Joshua, and may stem from yet another later redactional level.11 If the latter was added, then the structure of this additional phrase is similar to the one in 10:23: compare “and the sons of Israel did so […] and they took…” (Josh 4:8) with “and they did so and they brought the five kings out …” (10:23). In all the three cases in the Hebrew book of Joshua, the initial phrase indicates that “they/he did so.”12 This Hebrew phrase is rather literally translated in the OG in 4:8: “and they, the sons of Israel, did so, according to what the Lord commanded Joshua and they took …” (καὶ ἐποίησαν οὕτως οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ καθότι ἐνετείλατο κύριος τῷ Ἰησοι καὶ λαβόντες …) but is completely missing in both 5:15b and 10:23, albeit that in 10:23 there is an execution reported: “and they brought out ….” It thus seems that the Masoretic Text started to emphasize the execution of a command by inserting a little phrase indicating that the execution happened as indicated in the command: “and they did so” (MT Josh 4:8 and 10:23) and “and Joshua did so” (MT Josh 5:15). With regard to OG 5:15, whereas the execution of the command is not in the Old Greek, it has been added to the Old Greek text and marked in the Syro-Hexapla with an asterisk, clearly indicating that this addition is a revision of the Old Greek text towards the Masoretic Text. The revision can be found in the Early Jewish Revisers, and from there it was taken over in the Hexaplaric revision of the Old Greek: καὶ ἐποίησεν ἰησοῦς οὕτως.13 With regard to the Old Greek rendering of 4:8 the adverb describes the action: they did in this way, which is a very literal translation of ‫ויעשו־כן‬. In 10:24a and 10:24b there is a similar case. ‫קרבי שימו את־רגליכם‬ ‫על־צוארי המלכים האלה‬ ‫ויקרבי וישימו את־רגליהם‬ ‫על־צואריהם‬

προπορέυεσθε καὶ ἐπίθετε τοὺς πόδας ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τοὺς τραχήλους αὐτῶν καὶ προσελθόντες ἐπέθηκαν τοὺς πόδας αὐτῶν ἐπὶ τοὺς τραχήλους αὐτῶν

In MT 10:24a, Joshua is giving a command: “come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings,” and in MT Josh 10:24b the execution of the command is reported: “then they came near and put their feet on their 11 12

13

This topic will be analysed in a separate contribution. Henk Jagersma calls this phrase a formulaic expression indicating that what was asked had in fact been done: “een vaste formulering in het Oude Testament om aan te geven, dat de gegeven opdracht wordt uitgevoerd.” See Henk Jagersma, “Doe je schoen van je voet. Een onderzoek naar de achtergrond en betekenis van Jozua 5:13-15,” in Tekst & Interpretatie. Studies over getallen, teksten, verhalen en geschiedenis in het Oude Testament, ed. Henk Jagersma (Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1990), 114. See CAM, 690 and MRGLS, 79.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

9

necks.” The text critical data of this verse may demonstrate the development of the text. The Old Greek, at least as reconstructed by Rahlfs and by Brooke-McLean, has the reading as in the Masoretic Text, with the execution matching the command. However, in manuscript Ra 816 (the Schøyen Papyrus), the execution of the command is not present in the text. This omission can be explained as due to a homoioteleuton, with the copyist thinking that (s)he already copied τοὺς πόδας ὑμῶν ἐπὶ τοὺς τραχήλους αὐτῶν and thus went from 10:24a directly to 10:25 (the two similar phrases have been put in italics in the text below): ‫קרבי שימו את־רגליכם‬ ‫על־צוארי המלכים האלה‬ ‫ויקרבי וישימו את־רגליהם‬ ‫על־צואריהם‬

προπορέυεσθε καὶ ἐπίθετε τοὺςπόδαςὑμῶν ἐπὶτοὺςτραχήλουςαὐτῶν καὶ προσελθόντες ἐπέθηκαν τοὺςπόδαςαὐτῶν ἐπὶτοὺςτραχήλουςαὐτῶν

Alternatively, manusript 816 is a witness to an Old Greek text without an explicit execution!14 Moreover, an extra witness for a text without the matching execution is in this case manuscript 44, an Antiochean manuscript, that reads instead of the matching execution, the shorter phrase: καὶ ἐποίησαν οὕτως, “and they did so,” which is precisely the short sentence pointing to an execution. These textual data may allow us to reconstruct the Old Greek as not having an execution, then, there was possibly an insertion of a shorter sentence in the Masoretic Text indicating “that they did so,” as reflected in manuscript 44 and then, the Masoretic Text developed the short phrase into a full execution matching the command. Unfortunately, there is not a hexaplaric reading or a reading from one of the early Jewish revisers to confirm this textual development in 10:24. Moreover, the marginal note in manuscript 344, most likely, even points to the originality of reading as found in Rahlfs and the Cambridge edition, that is the reading with the execution. The reading is, in manusript 344, marked with οʹ, which normally indicates that the reading is Old Greek. 1.5. A Labyrinth of Executions, Mostly Matching the Commands In 1:2 the Lord speaks to Joshua, and says: “… now proceed to cross the Jordan, you and all his people, into the land that I am giving to them, 14

In this case, the following witnesses also do not read the execution of the command in 10:24b: 52 (which belongs to the mixed group of manuscripts), 120 (which is a witness for the Old Greek), 509 (which also belongs to the mixed group), and manuscript f of the Ethiopic text. See CAM, 713, see “Grouping of Manuscripts.”

10

CHAPTER 1

to the Israelites ….” My question is: Where can the execution of this command be found? And how does the execution match the command? Maybe the execution of the command of 1:2 can be found it in 3:14: “When the people set out to cross over the Jordan”? At first sight 3:14 seems indeed to be the execution of the command. After all, the main verb in both 1:2 and 3:14 is the same: 1:2 reads: go (and) cross, ‫עבר‬, which is also found in 3:14: and they set out to cross, again with ‫עבר‬. However, there are differences between 1:2 and 3:14. First, the people in 3:14 are not getting up (‫)קום‬, but they are setting out (‫)ויהי בנסע‬. Second, in 1:2, the river which they have to cross is “this Jordan,” whereas in 3:14 it is simply “the Jordan.” So, the question is whether or not 3:14 is really the execution of the command given in 1:2? Maybe 3:14 reflects yet an additional command which was given in 3:3? In 3:3 Joshua commands the people: “When you see the ark of the covenant of the Lord …, then you shall set out from your place. Follow it.” In 3:3 and in 3:14, the first verb: “set out” and “they set out” is the same (‫)נסע‬. However, again there are differences between 3:3 and 3:14, with the verb, ‫הלך‬, indicating the main action (follow) used in 3:3 being different from ‫ עבר‬as used in 1:2 and 3:14. Moreover, whereas both in 1:2 and 3:14 the people are (setting out to) crossing the Jordan, in 3:3 the command instructs the people to follow the ark. The command of 3:3 seems to be perfectly executed in 3:6. That brings us back to 1:2 and 3:14. Although there is not a perfect match between 1:2 and 3:14, it does seem that the command of 1:2 is executed in 3:14 – the people are crossing the Jordan. Moreover, it looks like the command in 3:3 is an additional command. Where does this additional command come from? In 3:3 an additional category of persons is mentioned: the Levitical priests – they are the ones that are carrying the ark which the people have to follow.15 The people thus have to walk behind the levitical priests. Moreover, the additional specification to follow the ark also created the need for yet another additional instruction, this time not to the people but to the Levitical priests. And this is precisely what can be found in 3:6a: “To the priests Joshua said, ‘Take up the ark of the covenant, and pass on in front of the people.” The execution of this command matches the command, for in 3:6b it reads: “So they took up the ark of the covenant and went in front of the people.” This additional 15

I note that Levitical priests seem to be added regularly to the story.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

11

specification, namely to follow the ark carried by the Levitical priests, also requires the people to be told to follow the ark carried by the priests, and that is precisely what is found in 3:3. The additional command reads: “When you see the ark of the covenant of the Lord your God being carried by the Levitical priests, then you shall set out from your place. Follow it!” In this case it is not Joshua who gives the command – as he did in 1:2 – but the ‘officers.’ In short, the command to the people in 1:2 to cross the Jordan is executed in 3:14, but 3:14 is also the execution of an additional command to the people to follow the ark (3:3). The additional command led to the formulation of the command to the priests to pick up the ark (3:6a), a command which is partly also being executed in 3:6b. 3:14 is thus not only the execution of the command of 1:2 it is also the execution of the command of 3:3! So far the command and the execution thereof as found in the Masoretic Text. Now what about the Old Greek? In the Old Greek text, the command of Josh 1:2b is fairly literal translated: “Now then, arise, go over the Jordan, you and all this people into the land that I give them.” The latter indicates that again the Old Greek was translated from a text that had already most of the complexities which are visible in the Masoretic Text. The Old Greek text does not have, however, the specifications of the Hebrew text: ‘this’ Jordan of the Masoretic Text is the Jordan in the Old Greek and the ‘sons’ of Israel in the Masoretic Text is Israel in the Old Greek.16 With regard to the execution of the command in 3:14: again it is fairly literal translated. However, the execution of the command does not start as in the Hebrew (which has an imperfectum consecutivum ‫ ויהי‬followed by ‫ ב‬plus an infinitivus constructus), but with the verb: καὶ ἀπῆρεν. In the Hexaplaric manuscript tradition there are additional words placed after the initial καί and these words have been noted with an asterisk, as witnessed in the Syrohexapla, καὶ εγένετο ὡς. The revision of the text was made on the basis of the texts of the Early Jewish Revisers. In this case, both Aquila and Theodotion read καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς followed by the verb ἀπῆρεν, while Symmachus reads: ὡς δέ – Origen combining these revised texts into: καὶ ὡς followed by the verb ἀπῆρεν. These revisions were carried out to make the Old Greek look more like the Masoretic Text which was current in the days of the Early Jewish Revisers and the 16

See the discussion of these specifications below.

12

CHAPTER 1

days of Origen. The Masoretic Text17 reads: ‫ויהי בנסע‬, when it came to pass that (the people) set out.18 The issue at stake is: Did the Greek translator translate the opening words of 3:1 ‫ ויהי בנסע העם‬into a construction without the initial words of a “relative beginning of some narrative”19 (that is ‫)ויהי‬, demonstrating hereby actually that he/she understood that this ‫ ויהי‬does not necessarily need to be translated? Or did the Greek translator have in his/her Hebrew Vorlage a text without this opening construction, and thus a text that was similar but not identical with the Masoretic Text? One could point to the confusion between ‫ ב‬and ‫ כ‬in Hebrew script20 – did the Hebrew read ‫ויהי‬ ‫כנסע‬, and it happened as they set out? The latter could be the Hebrew Vorlage of the Greek καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς ἀπῆρεν, the reading that is present in the corrections of the Early Jewish Revisers. In the analysis of the command in 4:18 it was noted that the short Greek phrase καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς was more typical of the Old Greek than of the Masoretic Text. If the translator was consistent, then in 3:14 the sentence ought to have started in Greek with καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς, as the Masoretic Text had in this case also an infinitivus constructus and as 3:14 was the execution of a command. As the Old Greek is not starting with this phrase, it seems more obvious that the Hebrew text underlying the Old Greek did not yet have the Hebrew construction. Looking at the command in 1:2 and its execution and their further elaborations, there is clearly an attempt made by the author or editor to make the execution of the command resemble the command. Another example demonstrates the same tendency. The stories about the spies crossing the Jordan to check out Jericho is interesting to demonstrate a similar development of the matching of an execution to its specific command. Whereas the spies seemed to not precisely follow the initial command given by Joshua, the commands given by Rahab are followed to the point! When she says: “Go toward the hill 17

18

19

20

Technically speaking the Early Jewish Revisers revised the Old Greek text towards the proto-Masoretic Text. The Masoretic Text is different from the proto-Masoretic Text by its vowels, accents and Masoretic notes – the consonantal text however is the same. The intro is only found twice in the Hebrew Bible: in Josh 3:14 and in Numb 10:35: When it came to pass. In Numb 10:35 it is the ark that sets forward. The final editor that inserted the command regarding the necessity for the people to follow the ark may have been inspired by the passage in Numb 10:35, in which the ark functions. Paul Joüon & Takamitsu Muraoka, AGrammarofBiblicalHebrew.PartThree:Syntax. ParadigmsandIndices, Subsidia Biblica 14/II (Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991), 390 (par. 118, c). Ibidem, 625-626 (par. 166, l).

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

13

country, so that the pursuers may not come upon you. Hide yourselves there three days …, then afterwards you may go your way” (Josh 2:16), the spies do precisely as she said: “They departed and went into the hill country and stayed there three days, …. . Then, the two men came down again from the hill country” (Josh 2:22-23). In the Old Greek the two spies also are executing her command: they go, then hide, and then again go. In both the Hebrew and the Greek text, the first and third verb of the instruction (2:16) are the same (‫)הלך‬, and the verb for to hide is ‫חבא‬, resp. ἀπέρχομαι and κρύπτω, but they differ in the execution (2:22-23): whereas in the Masoretic Text the two spies go (‫ )הלך‬and remain (‫ )שוב‬and then continue on their path again (‫ )שוב‬and go down (‫)ירד‬, in the Greek text they departed (πορεύομαι), stayed (καταμένω), and then returned (ὑποστρέϕω) and came down (καταβαίνω). Aside from the difference in the usage of the verbs within the text forms, there is hardly a difference between the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek. In Hexaplaric manuscripts as well as in the Three Early Jewish Revisers, however, there is a small addition to make the Old Greek look like the Hebrew (Masoretic Text) text: more precisely, after “and stayed there three days,” there is an addition which reads: “until the pursuers returned.” The Early Jewish Revisers made sure that the text was adapted to even reflect the smallest of differences, namely the addition of “until the pursuers returned” (2:22). This plus is also in the Antiochean Text.21 With regard to this addition: was it already in the Hebrew text as underlying the Old Greek text (but then not translated) or was it added later to the Hebrew text? In my opinion, the additional words “until the pursuers returned” in the execution of the command of Rahab was added later to the execution in order to make the execution of the command reflect precisely the command as given by Rahab.22 Proof that this minus in the Old Greek is not due to the translator’s “freedom” can be found in the translation technique of the Old Greek translator, more specifically how the Hebrew verb was rendered. The participle of ‫ רדף‬is used five times in the book of Joshua: 2:7; 2:16 [2×]; 2:22 [2×]: in 2:16 [2×] and 2:22 (second instance), the participle is translated with οἱ καταδιώκοντες. In 2:7 the simplex is used: οἱ διώκοντες. Similarly, the verbum finitum is mostly translated with καταδιώκω, but with διώκω in 23:10. What is however remarkable is that the Masoretic Text has in three places an 21 22

The plus in the Ant.Text (see MRGLS, 32) is most likely a Hexaplaric correction. Here, I disagree with Margolis, who writes that the Old Greek omitted the phrase: “G om,” see MRGLS, 32.

14

CHAPTER 1

additional phrase in which the verb ‫ רדף‬is used. In 8:16, the Masoretic Text has the additional phrase: “and as they pursued Joshua,” a phrase lacking in the Old Greek. In 8:20 an entire verse is present in the Masoretic Text but absent from Old Greek: “So when the men of Ai looked back, the smoke of the city was rising to the sky. They had no power to flee this way or that, for the people who fled to the wilderness turned back against the pursuers.” Finally, in 20:5 also, there is a verse in the Masoretic Text which is completely lacking in the Old Greek, and again the verb “to pursue” is used: “And if the avenger of blood is in pursuit….” It thus seems clear that the verb and the idea “to pursue” is more typical of the Masoretic Text than of the Old Greek. It is thus no wonder that in 2:22 the phrase is added to the Masoretic Text: “until the pursuers returned.” There is one more small adaptation by the Early Jewish Revisers of the Old Greek text to the current Masoretic Text, namely the addition of “and they came” (Josh 2:23). The question now is: Is this also a further development of the Masoretic Text? In the Hebrew text, the text reads: “and they crossed over and they came to Joshua” (2:23). The Old Greek reads: “and they went over to Joshua” (2:23). Why does the Old Greek not have this additional phrase? It needs to be noted first that strictly speaking there is no command to do this action. Then, another look at the translation technique of the Old Greek translator is needed. The standard equivalent for ‫ עבר‬is διαβαίνω (see 1:11, 14; 3:11, 14, 17 [2×]; 4:1, 7, 10, 11 [2×], 12, 13, 22; 5:1; 22:19, and 24:11)? Even in 2:23 these verbs can be found: ‫ ויעברו‬is translated with καὶ διέβησαν. But why is there no rendering of ‫ ?ויבאו‬The answer lies in the verb. The verb διαβαίνω itself has the possibility of not only meaning “to cross,” “to cross over” or “to step across,” but also “to traverse in order to reach another place or side,”23 for instance a person. And that is precisely what is at stake in 2:23: the spies cross to reach (a person). There is no reason to yet add another verb to indicate that movement. In 4:23 there is also a difference between the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek. The Hebrew reads: “… for the Lord your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you until you crossed over, as the Lord your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up for you until we crossed over.” The Old Greek however renders the second ‫ עבר‬not with διαβαίνω, but with παρέρχομαι, which can indicate crossing, but can also stand for 23

See Takamitsu Muraoka, AGreek-EnglishLexiconoftheSeptuagint (Louvain: Peeters, 2009), 148.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

15

the sense of coming forward, for instance, to speak. In 4:23 the Old Greek translator maybe wanted to stress that with the crossing over, the persons had “arrived”? In 2:23, the Old Greek in my opinion understood the verb διαβαίνω to include the possible meaning of “going to Joshua” and thus decided to not add yet another verb to indicate this going. The Old Greek is thus very precise in its handling of Greek verbs. 1.6. Some Preliminary Conclusions So far the examples were taken from the first five chapters of the book of Joshua (and one example from chapter 10). Most examples show that in an earlier stage of the development of the Hebrew text, there was not yet a necessary report of the execution of a command (such as in Josh 3:5 and 7:13). Later, or on occasion, the Hebrew text would run a short phrase indicating that a beginning was made with the execution of a command, such as the phrase “and they went” (see Josh 2:1). The Hebrew text would often start the report of the execution of a command with a narrativus, ‫ויהי‬. The Old Greek rendered this with καὶ ἐγένετο ὡς and even attempted to use this phrase quite consistently, except if the Hebrew did not have the narrativus (e.g. Josh 3:14). The Hebrew text however continued to emphasize that the commands were executed and started adding a short Hebrew phrase such as ‫( ויעשו־כן‬see for instance, Josh 5:15). In a final stage of the Masoretic Text, the final editor started paying attention to even the smallest details, making sure that they reflected the original command as in, for instance, “the pursuers returned” (Josh 2:22). The final editor also made sure that there was a correlation with commands given in earlier books, such as the ‫ את־הירדן הוה‬making even a link between the book of Deuteronomy and the book of Joshua.24 It thus seems that the Old Greek tends to have the earlier version of the execution of commands and that the Masoretic Text has the more elaborate executions which are better matching the precise wording of the command. In two more elaborated examples, this hypothesis will be tested further. In the following two examples, not only the information from the Masoretic Text and Old Greek will be harvested, but also from the Early Jewish Revisers, the Qumran texts, Josephus and the OL. Moreover, arguments from literary-critical and redaction-critical approaches will be taken into account. 24

More examples of the latter sort can be found in chapter 2.

16

CHAPTER 1

2. THE COLLAPSE OF THE WALL

OF JERICHO25

The image of the Israelites circling around the city is a well-known image. As Hartmut N. Rösel writes: “The collapse of the walls of Jericho is arguably the best known story in the book of Joshua, because of the strong impression it makes on readers. It is simple and grandiose: ‘trumpets were blown and huge walls fell down’.”26 Everyone seems to know precisely what happened: on the seventh day, they marched seven times around the city, the priests blowing the trumpets, and the wall27 came down! But, were all these elements in the oldest story about the falling of the wall of Jericho? What can we learn from looking at the different versions of the story? 2.1. The Debate About the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek When one reads the text of the Hebrew the book of Joshuaalongside the Greek version, one immediately notices that the latter is a bit shorter than the former: “Gegenüber seiner masoretischen Fassung erscheint das Buch Josua in der LXX deutlich gekürzt,”28 writes Cornelis den Hertog. He continues: “Die quantitativen Differenzen sind nicht gleichmäßig über das Buch verteilt, sondern konzentrieren sich in einigen Kapiteln, namentlich 2, 5-8, 10, 17-18 und 20.”29 The story about the collapse of the wall of Jericho is part of these chapters. Whereas on overall the Old Greek of the book of Joshuais shorter, it also has a couple places where it displays pluses in comparison with the Hebrew Masoretic Text text. In 19:47, there are extra phrases in the Old Greek which are not in the Masoretic Text, and which are most likely taken from Judges 1:34-35. Then, there is the plus in 21:42a-d, which is possibly part of a different conclusion of the book and a large plus in 24:33a-b, which “probably reflects an earlier stage in the development 25

26 27 28

29

This section is a revised version of the paper presented at the symposium in honour of Siegfried Kreuzer at the KirchlicheHochschule in Wuppertal in January 2015 and which is published as: Kristin De Troyer, “The Fall of Jericho and the Textual History of the Book of Joshua,” in TheologieundTextgeschichte.SeptuagintaundMasoretischerText alsÄußerungentheologischerReflexion, ed. Frank Ueberschaer, Thomas Wagner, and Jonathan M. Robker, WUNT 407 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), p. 78-92. Hartmut N. Rösel, Joshua,HCOT (Louvain: Peeters, 2011), 93. I will refer to the “wall” of Jericho, instead of the “walls.” Cornelis den Hertog, “Jesus. Josue / Das Buch Josua,” in SeptuagintaDeutsch.Erläuterungen und Kommentare zum griechischen Alten Testament, ed. Martin Karrer & Wolfgang Kraus (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011), 605-56, esp. 605. Ibidem, 605.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

17

of the Hebrew text of the book.”30 Not only is the text of the Greek the book of Joshua at times shorter and longer, it also has a section after 9:2 which is positioned in 8:30-35 in the Masoretic Text and before 5:2 in 4QJosha (plus 5:X).31 In a similar way, there is a repetition of 19:49-50 after 21:42. Also in Josh 6 – the Jericho text under investigation – there is an additional sentence in the curse section of the text – the latter has been studied by Zipora Talshir.32 A further comparison between the Old Greek and the Masoretic Text reveals that the two texts also differ from each other on the qualitative level, albeit that the overall translation can be characterized as faithful.33 Precisely with regard to the character of the Old Greek translation there is however some discussion. For instance, with regard to the Greek translator, Michael van der Meer notes: “Even though he did not straighten out all … textual difficulties, he introduced a large number of small modification (sic) of the original text”34 and then he offers a list of examples of different renderings for the same Hebrew word, unusual renderings, clarifications, condensations, etc.35 Already Nelson, however, saw things differently: “With rare exceptions, the Greek translator of Joshua did not abbreviate, so that OG readings shorter than MT must be given full credence as witness to a shorter (and thus most likely better) Hebrew text.”36 Similarly, Emanuel Tov, states: “That translation is somewhat free, but not free enough in order to ascribe shortening, expansion and largescale changes to the translator. Studies of various areas of the translation technique establish the translator’s faithful representation of grammatical categories.”37 30

31 32

33

34

35 36

37

See Emanuel Tov, “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX and 4QJoshA,” in TheBookofJoshua,ed. Ed Noort, BETL 250 (Louvain: Peeters, 2012), 65-85, esp. 77. See for the discussion of this text below. Zipora Talshir, “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. See especially Seppo Sipilä, BetweenLiteralnessandFreedom.TranslationTechnique intheSeptuagintofJoshuaandJudgesregardingtheClauseConnectionsIntroduced by‫ו‬and‫כי‬, Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 75 (Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, 1999). Michael van der Meer, “Clustering Cluttered Areas. Textual and Literary Criticism in Joshua 18,1-10,” in TheBookofJoshua,ed. Ed Noort, BETL 250 (Louvain: Peeters, 2012), 87-106, esp. 103. Ibidem, 103-5. Richard Nelson, Joshua.ACommentary, OTL (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997), 23. At the end of the section, Tov summarizes: “Although the translation of Joshua is not as literal as that of Jeremiah, the limited degree of freedom in this translation allows us

18

CHAPTER 1

The characterization of the translation technique of the book of Joshua plays an important role in the debate about its textual history. Scholars like Van der Meer, on the one hand, emphasize the capacity of the translator to introduce modifications in the text – that perspective allows for crediting the translator with pluses, minuses and changes to a given, i.e. Masoretic Hebrew text. In the latter case, there is no need to postulate a different Hebrew Vorlage underlying the Old Greek text. Tov’s summary of the translation character of the Old Greek of the book of Joshuaand his arguments on the other hand, “were meant to render support to the assumption that the LXX may be trusted as a witness to a different Hebrew text of Joshua.”38 In other words, the characterization of the translation technique of a book plays a crucial role in the debate about whether the Old Greek is a translation of a text which is close, if not the same as the Masoretic Text or, a translation of a different Hebrew Vorlage. If one accepts that the Old Greek is a rather faithful translation of a given Hebrew text, then one tends to accept a different Hebrew Vorlage in places where the Old Greek differs from the Masoretic Text – the latter is the position of Tov (and many others). On the other hand, if one accepts that the Old Greek is a rather free translation, then one credits the translator with the differences and there is no need to establish a different Hebrew Vorlage – this is the position defended by Van der Meer. This rule is valid for not only the book of Joshua, but also for all other books of the Bible. The history of the research on the book of Joshua reflects the two positions as described above since more or less the 18th century, with in more recent times Auld,39 Rofé,40 albeit on occasion and in specific

38 39

40

to suggest that the translator would not have made the major changes mentioned below.” See Emanuel Tov, “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX and 4QJoshA,” in The Book of Joshua, ed. Ed Noort, BETL 250 (Louvain: Peeters, 2012), 65-85, esp. 66-7. Ibidem, 70. A. Graeme Auld, “Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua,” ZAW 90 (1978): 412-17. Id., “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts,” in StudiesintheHistoricalBooksoftheOldTestament, ed. John A. Emerton, VTSup 30 (Leiden: Brill, 1979), 1-14. Alexander Rofé, “The End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint,” in Henoch 4 (1982): 17-36; Id., “Joshua 20: Historico-Literary Criticism Illustrated,” in EmpiricalModelsforBiblicalCriticism, ed. J.H. Tigay (Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press, 1985), 131-147; Id., “The Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4QJosha,” in NewQumranTextsandStudies.ProceedingsoftheFirstMeetingofthe InternationalOrganizationforQumranStudies.Paris1992,ed. George J. Brooke, with Florentino García Martínez, STDJ 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 73-80.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

19

cases, Tov,41 Mazor,42 Bieberstein43 and De Troyer44 proposing a different Hebrew Vorlage, which was mostly shorter,45 but in a small amount of cases 41

42

43

44

45

Emanuel Tov, “The Growth of the Book of Joshua in Light of the Evidence of the Septuagint,” in ScriptaHierosolymitana 31 (1986): 321-39; Id., “Some Sequence Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint and Ramifications for Literary Criticism,” JNSL13 (1987): 151-60; Id., “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX, and 4QJosha,” in TheBookofJoshua, ed. Ed Noort, BETL 250 (Louvain: Peeters, 2012), 65-85. Lea Mazor, The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua – Its Contribution to the Understanding of the Textual Transmission of the Book and Its Literary and Ideological Development; Thesis submitted for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy, submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, 1994 (in Hebrew); Ead., “The Septuagint Translator of the Book of Joshua,” BIOSCS 27 (1994): 29-38; Ead., “A Nomistic ReWorking of the Jericho Conquest Narrative Reflected in LXX to Joshua 6:1-20,” in Textus 18 (1995): 47-62. Klaus Bieberstein, Josua–Jordan–Jericho.Archäologie,GeschichteundTheologie derLandnahmeerzählungenJosua1-6, OBO 143 (Freiburg & Göttingen: Universitätsverlag & Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995), 78. Kristin De Troyer, “The History of the Biblical Text: The Case of the Book of Joshua,” in InsightsintoEditingintheHebrewBibleandtheAncientNearEast.WhatDoesDocumentedEvidenceTellUsabouttheTransmissionofAuthoritativeTexts?, ed. Juha Pakkala, & Reinhard Mueller, CBET 84 (Louvain: Peeters, 2017), 223-46; Ead., “Reconstructing the Older Hebrew Text of the Book of Joshua: An Analysis of Joshua 10,” Textus 26 (2013): 1-31; Ead., “From Leviticus to Joshua: The Old Greek Text in Light of Two LXX Manuscripts from the Schøyen Collection,” JAJ2 /1 (2011): 29-78; Ead., “Greek Papyri and the Oldest Layer of the Hebrew Bible,” in EditingtheBible–EditorialProblems, ed. John Kloppenborg & Judith Newman, Symposium Series (Atlanta, GA: SBL: 2010), 81-90; Ead., “Is this not written in the Book of Jashar?” (Josh 10:13c). References to Extra-Biblical Books in the Bible,” in TheLandofIsraelinBible,HistoryandTheology: StudiesinHonourofEdNoort, ed.Jacques van Ruiten & J. Cor de Vos, VTSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 45-51; Ead., “Reconstructing the Old Greek of Joshua,” in SeptuagintResearch:IssuesandChallengesintheStudyoftheGreekJewishScriptures, ed. Wolfgang Kraus & R. Glenn Wooden, SCS 53 (Atlanta: SBL, 2005), 105-18; Ead., “Joshua,” in Papyri Graecae Schøyen, PSchøyen I, ed. Rosario Pintaudi, Papyrologica Florentina, XXXV/Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Greek Papyri V (Firenze: Gonnelli, 2005), 79-145 + Plates XVI-XXVII; Ead., “Building the Altar and Reading the Law: The Journeys of Joshua 8:30-35,” in ReadingthePresentintheQumranLibrary. ThePerceptionoftheContemporarybyMeansofScripturalInterpretation, ed. Kristin De Troyer & Armin Lange, with the assistance of Katie M. Goetz and Susan Bond, Symposium Series 30 (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2005), 141-62; Ead., “‘And they did so.’ Following Orders Given by an Old Joshua,” in Her Master’s Tools? Feminist and Postcolonial EngagementsofHistorical-CriticalDiscourse, ed. Caroline Vander Stichele & Todd Penner, Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2005), 145-57; Ead., Chapter 2 in Kristin De Troyer, RewritingtheSacredText.WhattheOldGreekTextsTell UsabouttheLiteraryGrowthoftheBible (Atlanta, Ga: SBL & Leiden: Brill, 2003); Ead., “Did Joshua Have a Crystal Ball? The Old Greek and the MT of Joshua 10:15,17 and 23,” in Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of EmanuelTov, ed.Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffmann and Weston W. Fields, with the assistance of Eva Ben-David, VTSup 94 (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 571-89. According to Emanuel Tov, “In Joshua the LXX lacks not more than 4-5%,” see: Tov, TheGreekandHebrewBible, 387.

20

CHAPTER 1

longer,46 and Noth, Rofé, again on occasion and in specific cases, Noort47 and Van der Meer48 defending the shortening of the text by the translator. A more recent contribution by Julio Trebolle, who has studied expressions such as “people” vs “Israel” in Joshua and Judges, also pointed to the Old Greek of the book of Joshuabeing based on a different Hebrew Vorlage and concluded that “the Old Greek reflects a Hebrew reading … that seems to be older than that of Masoretic Text ….”49 Let me offer an example of how translation technique influences a decision. Jos 6:3 reads: “You shall march around the city, all the warriors circling the city once. Thus you shall do for six days.” I will focus in this example on the act of circling, on how many days they are doing this and on the amount of times that the Israelites are circling around the city. The verb ‫ סבב‬appears in the qal 6 times (all in chapter 6, namely 6:3, 4, 7, 14, 15 [2×]). In the nifal, it appears another 6 times (7:9; 15:3, 10; 16:6; 18:14 and 19:14), 5 cases of which (15:3, 10; 16:6; 18:14 and 19:14) are part of a geographical description of an area and can thus be put aside, finally, the verb appears 1 more time in the hifil (6:11). In all the cases, aside from 6:4 and 6:14 the Old Greek renders the element of ‘around’ appropriately, albeit that different verbs and expressions are used (περιὶστημι κὐκλῳ, κυκλόω, περιἐρχομαι, περικυκλόω). In 6:4 there is no equivalent to the Hebrew verb as the entire verse is absent in the Old Greek. In 6:14, the Old Greek reads differently from the Hebrew: whereas the Masoretic Text reads that they encircled the city, the Old Greek has them departing into the camp. In other words, the Old Greek has carefully rendered the idea of ‘surrounding’ a city in all cases, aside from 6:4. Moreover, whereas in all the cases mentioned above, one Hebrew verb is rendered with one Greek, in 6:3 the Hebrew reads two verbs in contrast to the Greek, which has only one. The syntax of 6:3 reveals its complexity: God instructs “them” to surround/encircle the city (6:3a); this phrase is 46

47

48

49

See, Tov, TheGreekandHebrewBible, 387. For the longer Greek plus after Josh 24:33, reflecting a secondary Hebrew addition, see Alexander Rofé, “The End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint,” in Henoch 4 (1982): 17-35. Ed Noort, DasBuchJosua:ForschungsgeschichteundProblemfelder, EdF 292 (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998). Michael N. van der Meer, FormationandReformulation:TheRedactionoftheBookof JoshuaintheLightoftheOldestTextualWitnesses, VTSup 101 (Leiden: Brill, 2004). Julio Trebolle, “Textual Variants in Joshua-Kings Involving the Terms ‘People’ and ‘Israel’,” in IntheFootstepsofSherlockHolmes.StudiesintheBiblicalTextinHonour ofAnneliAejmelaeus, ed. Kristin De Troyer, T. Michael Law and Marketta Liljeström, CBET 72 (Louvain: Peeters, 2014), 231-56, esp. 249.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

21

followed by “all the men of the war need to go around the city one time” (with the inf. abs. being the equivalent to the preceding form; 6:6b) – whereas the subject “them” was commanded to surround the city, it is the men of the war that are commanded to again encircle (the verb ‫ נקף‬II is also rendered with “to encircle”). Then the verse continues, but now in the second person singular: “you shall do so for six days” (6:6c). The complex Hebrew syntax in 6:3 already alerts the reader to a possible complex literary history of the text. The Old Greek of 6:3 is much less complex: God commands Joshua in the second person singular to put the warriors around the city: there are no two verbs, there are no two parties which need to do something, there is no alteration between second singular and second plural and finally, maybe most importantly, there is no mentioning of “one time” and “of doing so for six days.” One could argue that the easier reading is due to the translator who made the story easier. This is the position taken by Van der Meer, who puts the minus in 6:3b on the credit of the translator. Verse 3b, he states, is part of the “drastic curtailments in verses 3b-4 and 6.”50 But is the translator really that free? Let’s look at another element from 6:3. In 6:3 we read that the encircling happens “one time, once” and that the men need to do so for “six days.” In the book of Joshua, the concept of “one” seems important, as it is often used in the book: there is one man (3:12 [2×]; 22:30; 23:10), one tribe (4:2 [2×]; 22:14); one man (9:2); one stone (4:5); once around the city (6:3, 11, 14); one specific piece of booty (7:21), one city (10:2; 20:4); one strike (10:42); one king at the time (the 31 kings in chapter 12 are listed one by one); one area (17:14, 17) and one word of God (23:14). In all these cases, the word “one” is appropriately translated, aside from 6:3, 11 and 14. That the city needs to be encircled “once” is not mentioned in the Old Greek of 6:3, 6:11, nor 6:14! Maybe the emphasis in the Hebrew text of Joshua 6 on encircling the city “once” came from the fact that in Masoretic Text Josh 6:16, a seventh time is mentioned? The seventh time is the time when the people are supposed to be shouting, instead of being quiet, so that the wall can fall at the seventh time. The Old Greek has the element of the seventh time and also reads in 6:16: “at the seventh time.” The Old Greek is however better in calculus and has altered the 50

Michael van der Meer, “‘Sound the Trumpet!’ Redaction and Reception of Joshua 6:225,” in TheLandofIsraelinBible,History,andTheology, ed. Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos, VTSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 19-43, esp. 41.

22

CHAPTER 1

mentioning of seven times in 6:15 to “six times,” so that the starting round in 6:16 is indeed the moment of the seventh time. Moreover, the Old Greek does not think in rounds per day, but simply in days. According to the Old Greek, the city is walked about once on day one (6:11), a second time on day two (6:14a). In total they do this for 6 days (6:14b), hence they walked around the city 6 times (6:15b). After these six days, the seventh day is approaching and thus, the seventh time in 6:16 is the seventh day. There is nowhere in the Old Greek a reference to circling the city seven times on day seven. Indeed, there is even no parallel to MT 6:4 where God commands Joshua to go on the seventh day seven times around the city. MT 6:3

6:4 6:11 (6:12) 6:14

6:15 6:16

you circle once the men of war encircle you do so for six days on seventh day circle seven times circle and surround once on second day circled once did so for six days on the seventh day circled seven times at the seventh circuit

OG you set around the warriors – – – circle on second day “again” – did so for six days on the seventh day circled six times at the seventh circuit

(Ant.T)59 = OG = OG = OG = OG = OG ≈ OG60 = OG61 – = OG = OG = OG = OG = OG

The circling of the city seven times on the seventh day, in contrast to once on the other days, is clearly an element that is more typical of the Masoretic Text than of the Old Greek. One could argue that the Old Greek deleted all references to seven in order to make the story easier, but one could also argue that the addition of the stress on seven times also necessitated the addition of the word ‘once’ in the reporting of the events of day 1 and 2. I tend to see that the Old Greek has in most cases faithfully rendered a Hebrew text, and thus, consider the absence of a 51 52 53

See MRGLS, 80-91. The Ant.T. reads instead of “once,” “again.” Only in one manuscript of the Ant.T, there is “the second day.”

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

23

reference to “seven times on the seventh day” and the absence of “once” as part of the Hebrew Vorlage underlying the Old Greek, which in these cases did not have those emphases. The Antiochean Text, which is in its pre-Hexaplaric state a witness to the Old Greek text, confirms in almost all the cases the Old Greek text.54 The Early Jewish Revisers, in their attempt to align the Old Greek with the Masoretic Text, have added in the case of 6:3 the reference to circling “once,” in 6:4 to circling “seven time,” and in 6:11 to “once,” albeit in the latter case only by Symmachus. Origen, in his Hexapla, also corrected 6:15 from six times to seven.55 I note that the variant in the Antiochean text in 6:11 can be seen as a Hexaplaric correction of its text. How does the problem and issue with 6:3 fit within the larger context of the research on the textual history of the book of Joshua? In order to precisely define the textual history of this verse and the book at large, some more players in the field need to be introduced. 2.2. The Masoretic Text and Old Greek in comparison to 4QJosha, the Vetus Latina and Josephus The research into the textual history of the book of Joshuareaches a next level with the introduction of the Joshua Dead Sea Scrolls. As Ed Noort remarks: “Mit 4QJosha kommt ein neuer Spieler ins Feld.”56 The (most important Joshua) Qumran fragments (from 4Q) have been edited by Eugene Ulrich (4QJosha)57 and Tov (4QJoshb)58. 54 55

56

57

58

See below for the explanation of the variant in Ant.T. See the second apparatus in Alan E. Brooke & Norman McLean (eds.), TheOldTestament in Greek According to the Text of Codex Vaticanus, Supplemented from Other Uncial Manuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief AncientAuthoritiesfortheTextoftheSeptuagint, Cambridge Library Collection (Cambridge: CUP, 1906, 2009), 691-3. Ed Noort, “Einführung,” in TheBookofJoshua, ed. Ed Noort, BETL 250 (Louvain: Peeters, 2012), 1-19, esp. 3. Eugene Ulrich, “4QJosha,” in QumranCave4.IX.Deuteronomy,Joshua,Judges,Kings, ed. Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, Sidnie White Crawford, Julie Anne Duncan, Patrick W. Skehan, Emanuel Tov and Julio Trebolle Barrera, DJD XIV (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 143-52. Where the reconstruction by Michael Langlois differs from Ulrich’s, I will refer to it and use it. See Michael Langlois, LetextedeJosué10. Approche philologique, épigraphique et diachronique. Avec un preface par Thomas Römer,OBO 252 (Fribourg – Göttingen: Academic Press – Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011). With thanks to Michael for sending me a pdf. Emanuel Tov, “4QJoshb,” in QumranCave4.IX.Deuteronomy,Joshua,Judges,Kings, ed. Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, Sidnie White Crawford, Julie Anne Duncan,

24

CHAPTER 1

With regard to the textual character of 4QJosha, Ulrich writes: “the scroll agrees with M against G in only two insignificant readings, but agrees with G against M at least six times, again in relatively insignificant readings.”59 In other words, 4QJosha at first sight seems to line up more with the Septuagint of the book of Joshua, albeit in what Ulrich considers “relatively insignificant readings.”60 Ulrich however continues and states that “the scroll frequently goes its own way, disagreeing with both M and G in significant readings.”61 Lange labels 4QJosha as “eigenständig.”62 With regard to 6:13, 4QJosha fragments 3-8, representing column II, only offer Josh 6:5-10. In this section of the text, there are not many significant variants, albeit that the addition of the name Joshua in 6:7 makes it clear that the scribe of the text attempted to clarify who the subject was that was speaking. The latter variant is not found in Masoretic Text nor in Old Greek. Similarly, there is another grammatical variant in 6:5, which is different from both Masoretic Text and Old Greek, but which could be a correction of the text by the scribe of the scroll (a singular instead of a plural). Overall, although the section as just described aligns more with Masoretic Text,63 it can already be seen that the scribe occasionally went his/her own way. There is yet another text of the book of Joshua, which plays an important role: the VetusLatina, the Old Latin. In most cases, the VetusLatina is the Latin translation of the Old Greek text and functions as a good witness to the Old Greek text. With regard to the text of Josh 22:9-34, Adrian Schenker demonstrates that the older text of the book of Joshua is represented by the VetusLatina.64 Schenker pleads in general for the use of the VetusLatina in the study of the different texts of the book of

59 60 61 62

63

64

Patrick W. Skehan, Emanuel Tov and Julio Trebolle Barrera,DJD XIV (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 153-60. Ulrich, “4QJosha,” 145. Ibidem. Ibidem. Lange, HandbuchderTextfundevomTotenMeer.Band1:DieHandschriftenbiblischer BüchervonQumranundderanderenFundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 187. I am not sure whether, from the perspective of textual development, the category “eigenständig” is useful. 4QJosha is esp. more “eigenständig” in the parallel text of Josh 8:30-35, but also shows its independent character in the other fragments. See Adrian Schenker, “Altar oder Altarmodell? Textgeschichte von Jos 22:9-34,” in FlorilegiumLovaniense.FsFlorentinoGarcíaMartínez, ed. Hans Ausloos, Bénédicte Lemmelijn, and Marc Vervenne, BETL 224 (Louvain: Peeters, 2008), 417-25.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

25

Joshua. In the textual analysis of the VetusLatina of the book of Joshua, CodexLugdunensis plays a crucial role.65 Seppo Sipilä, however, has uttered some caution precisely with regard to using the CodexLugdunensis for textcritical analysis with regard to work on the book of Joshua. Sipilä claims that, with regard to Joshua 5, Codex Lugdunensis contains “elements coming from four different sources”66 – using the text of the latter is thus not at all in itself proof of priority. Sipilä’s warning is rather important, as in the evaluation of 4QJosha the congruency between the latter and the VetusLatina was often seen as proof of the prior stage of 4QJosha.67 The last textual witness is the text of Josephus. Josephus is a difficult witness. He rewrites the Biblical story; his text can surely not be labelled ‘faithful.’ My rule of thumb with the text of Josephus is, that when Josephus has a variant in common with any of the other texts, it is a positive indication that he found this variant in one of his sources. I am, however, more hesitant with the absence of variants and prefer not to argue ex silentio.68 Josephus, in his rewritten account of the siege against Jericho, does mention the seven priests advancing towards Jericho. The circling around the city happens. Josephus, however, does not stress that this only happened once. Josephus states that this ritual is repeated six days. He then continues to describe what happens on the seventh day. He writes: “And when they had compassed it seven times and had halted for a while, the wall fell down, without either engine or force of any other kind having been applied to it by the Hebrews.”69 Although the reference to the seventh time could 65

66

67 68

69

Ulysses Robert, Heptateuchipartisposteriorisversiolatinaantiquissimaecodicelugdunensi (Lyon, 1900). With thanks to Seppo Sipilä for helping me to find a mechanical reprint of this codex and to later pointing me to the online edition! Seppo Sipilä, “Old Latin Text of Josh 5:4-6 and Its Contribution to the Textual History of the Greek Joshua,” in IntheFootstepsofSherlockHolmes.StudiesintheBiblicalText inHonourofAnneliAejmelaeus, ed. Kristin De Troyer, T. Michael Law and Marketta Liljeström, CBET 72 (Louvain: Peeters, 2014), 257– 72, esp. 271. See below. Begg cautions for positing that Josephus follows a 4QJosha-like text, esp. for the (MT) 8:30-35 section. “For one thing, there is no overlap between the preserved 4QJosha and Josephus’ notice there: the former does not speak of an altar or sacrifice, while the latter does not mention a reading of the law at this juncture, but only later.” See Christopher Begg, “Josephus’ and Pseudo-Philo’s Rewriting of the Book of Joshua,” in TheBookofJoshua, ed. Ed Noort, BETL 250 (Louvain: Peeters, 2012), 555-88, esp. 577. Henri Saint John Thackeray & Ralph Marcus (ed.), Josephus.Antiquities, Book V, 27-31, par. 6, p. 15.

26

CHAPTER 1

be interpreted as a reference to the seventh time on the seventh day, it also could be seen as a reference to simply the seventh day. As there is nowhere in the rewritten text of Josephus a reference to “once” I take the reference to be referring to the seventh day. So far the other players that play a role in the reconstruction of the textual history of Joshua 6. It is now time to confront the text critical data with the data used in literary and redaction critical research. 2.3. A literary-critical Approach to Joshua 6 Joshua 6 is a literary large section, with a complex redaction critical history. According to Christoph Levin, Joshua 6 belongs to the eldest traditions of the book of Joshua. He writes: “Die Überlieferung von der westjordanischen Landnahme rankt sich im ersten Teil des Buches Josua um einen Kranz ätiologischer Erzählungen, deren Kernstücke die Eroberung von Jericho und die Eroberung von Ai (Jos 2; 6; 8) sind.”70 Joshua 6 is itself a very layered chapter. Martin Noth summarizes it beautifully: “Dieser Abschnitt … ist besonders in seiner erste Hälfte literarisch nicht aus einem Gusse, sondern anscheinend ziemlich kompliziert aufgebaut.”71 In order to find the basic story of the account, Noth proposed to work backwards from (the execution of the commands in) the second part of the text.72 He suggests the following verses to belonging “zum ursprünglichen Bestande in 2-13”73: 2a.3.4aβ.*5.7a.8a.10.12a. Maier offers a further elaboration of the view of Noth.74 Fritz considers the following verses a part of the ‘Grundschicht’: 1.2a.3*.4aβ.5.7a.14.15a.20b.21-24a.75 Many more scholars have given their perspective on the different layers of the book of Joshua and chapter 6 in specific76 and there is not a consensus of what is original and what is an addition, neither on how many literary layers there are in the text or stages in the literary development of the text of this chapter. 70

71

72

73 74

75 76

Christoph Levin,Fortschreibungen.GesammelteStudienzumAltenTestament, BZAW 316 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003), 147. Martin Noth, DasBuchJosua, HAT 7 (Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr [ Paul Siebeck], 1938), 17. “Es empfiehlt sich, bei der Analyse von der zweiten Hälfte (von 14 ab) auszugehen, wo die Dinge einfacher liegen.” Cf Noth, Josua, 17. Noth, Josua, 19. J. Maier, Das altisraelitische Ladeheiligtum, BZAW 93 (Berlin, Alfred Töpelmann, 1965), 18-32, which is a further elaboration of some of the ideas of Martin Noth, The HistoryofIsrael (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958), 73-5. Volkmar Fritz, DasBuchJosua, HAT I/7 (Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994), 68. See esp. Ed Noort, DasBuchJosua, 164-72.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

27

Fritz however pointed to an important aspect of the Jericho account – an observation which precisely kindled my investigation into the commands and their execution: “Diese Erzählung vom Fall Jerichos ist keine Sage mit langer Überlieferung und ätiologischer Absicht. Vielmehr ist sie ein sorgfältig gebautes Stück, das aus seiner Anordnung Jahwes und deren fast wortgetreuer Ausführung besteht.”77 The question thus is how the commands and execution of commands function within the larger composition of the Jericho-story. In the story about the capturing of Jericho, Joshua 6, a rather complex set of commands and executions can be seen: Command

execution

3-7 8-9 10 11-16 20

There is a large instruction/command section (6:3-7.10) and an even larger execution of command section (6:8-9; 11-16.20). From this first division it is already clear that there is an execution of a command embedded in the command, namely vv. 8-9, which comes between a first section of commands (6:3-7) and a second section (6:10) – the “sandwiching in” of an execution could already been seen as pointing to a redactional elaboration of the text, albeit that it is not yet clear which section was original and which was secondary. Moreover, in the command section, there are two authorities which are giving commands: God and Joshua. Multiple groups seem to be added on the axis of the execution of the commands. Command 3-5: 6-7:

77

God to Joshua Joshua to the priests and to the people

Fritz, DasBuchJosua, 68.

Execution

28

CHAPTER 1

Command

10:

Execution 8-9:

as Joshua had commanded the people, the priests went forward and the armed men went…

11-16a

the ark; Joshua; the (7) priests, the armed men, the rear guard …

20:

so the people…

Joshua to the people

16b-19: Joshua to the people

Following the suggestion from Noth, I note the following commands. First, God commands Joshua, that is “you,” to march around the city and the warriors to circle the city once (6:3). In the section on translation technique (in the current chapter, section 2.1.) it was noted that the double command given to two sets of people could be seen as already an elaboration of what was most likely a single command to march around the city. They – if we can group the “you” and “the warriors” together78 – have to do this for six days. This command is elaborated with a reference to seven priests carrying seven trumpets before the ark (6:4) and with specifications about when precisely the people will shout – after hearing sounds of either the sofar or the trumpets (6:5a). Then, the people need to shout with a great shout and the wall will fall, and the people need to charge straight ahead (6:5b). God’s command is further elaborated in the command of Joshua. Joshua first instructs the priests and then the people. To the priests, he gives orders with regard to the ark and the trumpets. From the former elaboration that there needed to be seven priests carrying seven trumpets, there now need to be seven priests carrying the ark and seven priests carrying the seven trumpets (6:6a). To the people, Joshua commands to do precisely as what God instructed Joshua: the people need to go forward and march around the city (6:7a). This command is again elaborated with a note that specifies that armed men have to pass before the ark (6:7b).79 As already indicated the command then switches to an execution of a command. Indeed in 6:8-9, there is a first report of the seven priests with 78

79

I have in this section not elaborated further on the difference between Joshua, the people, the warriors, the priests, etc.. In the text, both “the ark” is mentioned as well as “the ark of the Lord.”

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

29

seven trumpets, or rams’ horn,80 going forward and blowing the trumpets (6:8a-b), with again an additional note stating that the ark was following these men (6:8c). A later editor nicely summarized the procession: armed men went before the priests, who blew the trumpets, and a rear guard that followed the ark (6:9). In other words, there is now not only seven priests carrying seven trumpets, but there is now an armed delegation before the first set of seven priests, and a second armed delegation after the second set of seven priests that are carrying the ark. Then, continuing the instructions of vv. 6-7, Joshua gives an additional command, which is clearly also a later element added to clarify the sounds that are made: the people are not supposed to shout, let their voices be heard or utter a word until Joshua tells them to do so (6:10). The execution of these commands also points to an elaborate textual development. First there is the mentioning of what happened on the first day (6:11; 12-13), the second day (6:14a), the next days (they did so for six days, 6:14b), and finally what happened on the seventh day (6:1516, 20). As however the elaborations further develop different elements of commands and details given by either God or Joshua, the elaborations do not follow an overall logical pattern, which would have day 1, day 2 and finally day 7 repeating the same ingredients. The execution of God’s command to circle the city, has been elaborated into circling the city once. That one occasion is then said to be repeated for 6 days (6:3b). In the execution of the first day events, it is reported as an extra that the ark went around the city once and then, that “they” came into the camp and spent the night in the camp. The ark was mentioned in the extra commands given by Joshua to the priests: pick up the ark (6:6a). The reporting of the “they” coming to the camp and spending the night is very similar to the reporting of the movements and whereabouts of Joshua when he was up against Ai, and can be put on the credit of the same editor. As Graham A. Auld notes: “… viii 9, 13 share characteristics with Masoretic Text pluses elsewhere. They attest the same pedantic concern for the location of the camp and the precise whereabouts of Joshua himself at an given moment as we find in XX 5, 43 …”81 Most likely the 80

81

We note, but will not discuss here the different noun used to indicate the shofar. See Kristin De Troyer, “Sounding Trumpets or Weeping? Responses to the Start of the Temple Building in Ezra-Nehemiah and 3Esdras,” in AncientJewishPrayersandEmotions. EmotionsAssociatedwithJewishPrayerinandaroundtheSecondTemplePeriod, ed. Stefan Reid & Renate Egger-Wenzel, DCL 26 (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015), 41-57. A. Graeme Auld, “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts,” 5.

30

CHAPTER 1

mentioning of the first encircling of the city and the first mentioning of the night gave rise to a mentioning of a second day, which events are promptly described (6:14a) before the short report that “they did so for six days” (6:14b), which in itself executes the command given in the elaboration of God’s original command (6:3b). The editor then continued to report on what happened on the seventh day (6:15a-b), albeit that a further editor has specified the precise timing, namely “at dawn.” An even later editor notes that the marching around the city happened seven times on the seventh day but that this was the only day that there was indeed seven times encircling (6:15c). The description of the unfolding of the events on the seventh day also elaborates on the additional specification given by Joshua that there ought to be seven priests blowing seven trumpets (6:16 reflecting 6:6a). On the seventh day, Joshua commands the people to shout (6:16bα). This is as Joshua had elaborated on earlier in his command (6:10), which was already elaborated into a very specific threefold command forbidding the people to make any noise (do not shout, let your voice not be heard, do not utter a word), preceding the command to shout. The command to shout is now reported in 6:16b and the actual shouting starts in 6:20a. Moreover, in between, the command to shout and the actual beginning of the shouting, there is an additional instruction with regard to “devoting the city and all what is in it to the Lord for destruction,” (these are the “herem” instructions) and the additional note regarding Rahab, who will be spared (6:17-19). The latter commands are executed (6:21-25). Finally, the story concludes with the famous “Curse on Jericho” (6:26).82 From the analysis of the Masoretic Text text, it has become clear that all commands given by God or Joshua have been executed, even their elaborations. There are however, elements that are further elaborated in the executions, which were, at best, maybe implicit in the commands, but have as such no counterpart in the command section. Comparing now the Masoretic Text with the Old Greek, it is striking that the Old Greek does not have a precise match between the commands given by God and Joshua and the executions. As we have already indicated in the translation technique section of this paper, the Old Greek does mention the circling, but not that it happened “seven times on the seventh day” nor that it happened “once” on the other days. Thus the Old Greek does not have seven rounds on the seventh day, albeit that the Old Greek does have a seventh day. Similarly, the Old Greek has no references to seven 82

The entire story is framed by an introduction (6:1-2) and an ending (6:27).

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

31

priests carrying seven trumpets in 6:4, but it does have a reference to seven priests blowing seven trumpets in 6:8. In other words, the Old Greek does have the seven priests blowing seven trumpets, but only in the execution of the command, not in the command itself – again, commands and execution thereof do not entirely match. The next question is, what does all of this point to? 2.4. Some Conclusions from the Analysis of Joshua 6 In my opinion, taking together the results of the text critical data, the translation technique study, and the redaction-critical development of the text, the emphasis on “once” versus “seven” is part of the latest stage of the Masoretic Text text. The Old Greek was translated from a text which did not have yet a strong emphasis on “seven”. It did have already a reference to what happened on the seventh day, but not that on the seventh day there was a seven times walk around the city of Jericho. Similarly, it did have already a reference to the seven priests blowing seven trumpets, but it only had the seven priests blowing the seven trumpets in the execution of the command and not yet in the command itself. The Old Greek was thus translated from a Hebrew text in which there was not yet a very strong correlation between the precise wording of the command and precise wording of the execution of the commands. The final form of the Masoretic Text in which the seventh time of encircling the city of Jericho on the seventh day, the mentioning of the seven priests with the seven trumpets in the command of God in 6:4 and again in the command of Joshua in 6:6 only came into being after the Old Greek had been translated. That the Early Jewish Revisers already adapted the Old Greek towards the Masoretic Text in their revision of the Old Greek, indicates that the Masoretic Text received its form in the days between the Old Greek was translated and Theodotion, Symmachus and Aquila made their revision. When we put this conclusion in the context of the research on the story of the falling of the wall of Jericho, we can make the following observations. Ed Noort maintained that the final structure of the MT Josh 6 is based on the number seven.83 Van der Meer added: “On the basis of these 83

Ed Noort, “De val van de grote stad Jericho: Kanttekeningen bij synchronische en diachronische benaderingen,” NederlandsTheologischTijdschrift 50 (1996): 26579.

32

CHAPTER 1

observations it is possible to discern a priestly layer (RedP) in this chapter constituting of at least four text segments, verses 4, 6, 8-9, and 12-13.”84 Now, Van der Meer is correct in pointing to the fact that the verses, which were identified are priestly, do not coincide with the verses absent from the Old Greek.85 However, in my opinion, the differences between the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek are not due to the Hebrew Vorlage having or not having these so-called priestly verses, but to the Masoretic Text having or not having a perfect match between the wording of the commands and the wording of the execution of the commands, whether given by God or Joshua. The final editor not only added a reference to seven priests bearing seven trumpets, marching seven times around the city (6:4) in order to make the execution of this command (6:8) better resemble the divine instruction, but he also added the seven priests with the seven trumpets to the command of Joshua (6:6), and brought into the story the element of seven times circling the city (6:15c). It may still be possible to characterize these references to “seven” as priestly, but then this redactional layer must be chronologically dated after the Old Greek translation of the book of Joshua was made. More important, however is to note that the emphasis of the final editor may not have been on the expansion of the priestly elements, but on the correlation between the execution of commands and the commands of God and Joshua.

3. THE BATTLE AGAINST AI86 3.1. The Debate About the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek In the analysis of the text of the fall of the wall of Jericho, we have summarized the debate about the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek. As already mentioned, the key to unravel the relation between the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek is the analysis of the translation technique. This surely is also the case with regard to the relationship 84

85

86

Michael van der Meer, “‘Sound the Trumpet!’ Redaction and Reception of Joshua 6:225,” 30-1. “The minuses in the Greek version do not square with the priestly additions in the Hebrew text.” See Van der Meer, “‘Sound the Trumpet!’ Redaction and Reception of Joshua 6:2-25,” 34. This section is based on a paper presented at the SOTS 2015 Winter-meeting in Cambridge. With thanks to Alexander Rofé for the constructive and critical remarks during the discussion.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

33

between the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek in Joshua 8, which deals with the battle against Ai. Let me again offer an example of the translation technique, which conclusions have an impact on the evaluation of the text and the textual history of Joshua 8. In the Greek text, the most common translation of the Hebrew word ‫( מחנה‬camp) is παρεμβολή (camp). Below I have created a combined list of these two words: 1:11 3:2 4:8 5:8 6:11 6:14 6:18 6:23 7:22 8:13 8:22 9:6 10:05 10:6 10:15 10:21 10:43 11:4 18:9

‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מלון‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬ – ‫מחנה‬ ‫ישראל‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬ ‫מחנה‬

παρεμβολή παρεμβολή παρεμβολή παρεμβολή παρεμβολή παρεμβολή παρεμβολή παρεμβολή παρεμβολή – παρεμβολή παρεμβολή λάος παρεμβολή – – – οἱ βασιλεῖς –

In all the cases, but one, the entire camp of the people of Israel is meant.87 Nine times the Hebrew word ‫ מחנה‬is rendered with παρεμβολή (1:11; 3:2; 5:8; 6:11, 14, 18, 23; 9:6; 10:6). There are however exceptions to the standard rendering of ‫ מחנה‬with παρεμβολή which are most interesting. The question is now how these exceptions ought to be explained? In 4:8 the Hebrew text reads ‘the lodging place,’ which could have been a ‘camp,’ but most likely was a lodging place, and hence, the word ‫מלון‬ (lodging place) is used; the Old Greek however considers it a camp. In 7:22, the Old Greek specifies that the tent (of Achan, who had dared to take some silver from the spoil) was in the camp – the Hebrew only reads that they went to the tent and that the silver was hidden in the tent. In 8:22, 87

In 11:4 the armies are the armies of the enemies. Moreover, in 5:8 the camp refers to only the males of Israel.

34

CHAPTER 1

the Masoretic Text reads that the Israelites were on this and that side, in other words that Israel surrounded its enemy; the Old Greek renders that the enemies were in the midst of the camps (of the Israelites).88 In 10:5, the Old Greek does not label the fighting forces of the coalition of the five Amorite kings ‘camps,’ but ‘people.’ This however, totally fits, with the Greek text of 10:7, in which it is said that Joshua and his fighting ‘people’ came up. It looks like the Old Greek text has levelled out the two armies that are going to meet each other.89 In 11:4, the Masoretic Text reads that the kings and their armed forces were marching out. The Old Greek emphasizes that the kings were marching out, as in the former verses many people were mentioned: Canaanites, Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, and Jebusites. In 11:4, the reader is reminded that all these andtheirkings are marching out. The Old Greek has thus clarified the Hebrew text and in doing so replaced the camps with the kings (οἱ βασιλεῖς). The case of 18:9 is one of the many cases where the Masoretic Text reports an execution of a command given by Joshua to the Israelites – the Old Greek does not have this execution and thus not the equivalent to “the camp.” From the above remarks, each time when there is no perfect match between ‫מחנה‬ and παρεμβολη, there is a good explanation and reason why the Old Greek reads as it reads. There are, however, also some cases that are more difficult to explain. Why does the text of 10:15, 10:21, and 10:43 does not have a counterpart to the Hebrew word ‫ מחנה‬or why is, in the case of 10:15 and 10:43, the entire verse missing? I have dealt extensively with these exceptions in my 2013 Textus article.90 In that article, I have studied the text critical data and came to the conclusion that there never was in the Old Greek text verses 10:15 and 10:43 and that, similarly, there was no camp mentioned in the Old Greek of 10:21. The verses and the words ‘camp’ in 10:21 have been added to the Old Greek text in the later development of the Old Greek text by a Hexaplaric reviser who wanted to align the Old Greek with the then current Hebrew Masoretic Text. These verses and the word ‘camp’ in 10:21 were thus, most likely, not in the Hebrew text underlying the Old Greek when it was translated. The study of the translation technique also confirms that there was no good reason in these verses why the Old Greek would have dropped the word,91 let alone omitted two 88 89 90

91

See below for an in detail analysis of the camp(s) surrounding Ai. Unfortunately, 4QJosha breaks off right before this phrase. Kristin De Troyer, “Reconstructing the Older Hebrew Text of the Book of Joshua: An Analysis of Joshua 10,” in Textus 26 (2013): 1-31. Contra Barthélemy, 17.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

35

entire sentences if they had been in the Hebrew Vorlage of the book of Joshua. In chapter 3, I will offer further evidence to support this hypothesis. There is now one case, which we have not yet explained. It is the one case left of the exceptions to the standard equivalent ‫ מחנה‬versus παρεμβολη and that is the case of 8:13. So, what is the problem with 8:13? The case in 8:13 is not just about the absence of the word ‘camp’ in the Old Greek, it is also about the absence of the entire verse 8:13. In the Masoretic Text it reads: “Thus they had set up the people. The whole army, that was to the north of the city, and the remnant that was to the west of the city. But Joshua had gone in the night through the middle of the valley.” On the one hand there is Auld and Mazor – both point to the Masoretic Text as being secondary. According to Auld, “… viii 9, 13 share characteristics with Masoretic Text pluses elsewhere. They attest the same pedantic concern for the location of the camp and the precise whereabouts of Joshua himself at an given moment …”92 Lea Mazor argues that the Hebrew verse, as well as parts of 8:11b-12, is constructed from material of Josh 8 and Judg 20 and is a later addition to the text of Josh 8. On the other hand, Van der Meer regards the shorter Greek text as a result of the translator’s attempt to make the story more smoothly.93 The minus of 8:13 is part of the larger minus of 8:11b-13. The study of the translation technique in this case does not seem to solve the problem. A further look at the text history is, however, useful and also for this case, really important. The text critical apparatus of the Cambridge edition of the Old Greek of the book of Joshuareveals that this whole verse was later added to the Old Greek text by a Hexaplaric reviser in order to align the Old Greek with the Masoretic Text – the correction is clearly marked with an asterisk in the margin of Codex M and in the SyroHexapla – the reading was most likely taken over from Theodotion, as indicated in the marginal notes of the Syrohexapla (Masius’ edition). In other words, the verse 8:13 was never part of the original Old Greek text. How does the problem and issue with 8:13 fit within the larger context of the research on the textual history of the book of Joshua? In order to precisely define the textual history of this verse and the book at large, we again look at the other old witnesses.

92 93

Auld, “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts,” 5. Michael N. van der Meer, FormationandReformulation, 429-31, 476.

36

CHAPTER 1

3.2. The Masoretic Text and Old Greek in comparison to 4QJosha, the Vetus Latina and Josephus I have already introduced the Qumran and VetusLatina witnesses as well as the text of Josephus when discussing the case of Jericho.94 What do these witnesses give as information which can be useful in the analysis of Josh 8? 4QJosha contains Josh 8:3-14, and maybe 8:18. There are words from verses 10, 11, 12 and 14 clearly readable. There is, however, no space enough for 8:13. As Ulrich observes: “… the fixed relative position of the extant words in lines 7-9 and 10-13 appears to require a shorter text similar to that in G, rather than a longer text as in M.”95 8:13 thus seems definitively absent from 4QJosha! Now, 4QJosha may, as Tov and Lange argued, be a mixed text, which lines up occasionally with the Masoretic Text and occasionally with the Old Greek96 and as such it can not be taken as the sole argument in favour of a Hebrew text, which did not have a 8:13 (yet). Turning to the text as offered by Josephus, I note that Josephus does have a story about the battle against Ai, albeit that the city in his text is called Naia.97 Josephus mentions the ambush positioned at night and a battle breaking out at day-break. The strategy is as depicted in the Masoretic Text. Josephus does mention the time of placing the ambush and going into battle, but Josephus does not have a summary as the one of 8:13. With regard to the VetusLatina: the latter names the city Gaet. Like Josephus it does not have 8:13. So far the translation technique of this section has been discussed and the text critical data collected. But how does 8:13 fit within the larger context of the chapter?

94 95 96

97

See above 2.2. Eugene Ulrich, “4QJosha,” 150. Christopher Begg offers a solution for the problem of the different locations of the MT 8:30-35 section. He argues that 4QJosha had a reason to include the reading of the law after chapter 4, before 5 in its text. He writes: “In both instances (= thatis the case in Josh 4 and at the repositioned Josh 8, added KDT) Josephus’ inserted references to an altar where the Bible itself speaks of standing stone(s) might well have in view Deut 16,22’s prohibition of the erection of a “pillar (masseba) which the Lord your Got hates.” See Begg, “Josephus’ and Pseudo-Philo’s Rewriting of the Book of Joshua.” Henry Saint John Thackeray & Ralph Marcus, Josephus.JewishAntiquities, Book V, par. 45-9, Loeb 281 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988), 22-3.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

37

3.3. A literary-critical analysis of Josh 898 8:13 is part of a literary large and redaction-critical very complex section. Chapter 8 starts with a general instruction given by God to Joshua: take the whole army with you and go up and attack Ai (8:1)! Then God specifies and commands Joshua to do to Ai as he (that is Joshua) had done to Jericho (8:2a). It is noted that in this case, Joshua is allowed to also take the booty and the cattle (8:2b). God also gives a specific detail about the strategy that needs to be followed: “put men in an ambush at the back of the city” (8:2c). Joshua then gets ready to go to Ai. He selects 30,000 men and gives them a thorough briefing during the night (8:3). The detailing starts out with the information that God had given, namely that men needed to be lying in an ambush at the back of the city … (8:4). Joshua then continues to elaborate the strategy and says that he and the people that are with him will come close to the city (8:5a); as the inhabitants of the city will see them and then come out to attack them, Joshua and his men will pretend to flee (8:5b). Joshua then clarifies that this so-called act of fleeing will result in the inhabitants of Ai pursuing after them (8:6). Then, the people waiting in ambush will have to get up and seize the city (8:7). The briefing ends with a command to set fire to the city (8:8). After the briefing, the report details the execution of the commands as given. The execution of the long briefing follows the longer command of Joshua, but in my opinion, has also added other elements to the story. The execution starts with Joshua sending ‘them’ out to lie in ambush (8:9a) and a note saying that Joshua spends the night with his people (8:9b). There are actually three elements clarified in this verse: first, there is a contrast between the warriors laying in ambush (8:9a) and Joshua (8:9b), second, there is the specification about the location of the ambush (8:9a), and thirdly, there is a time indication given: Joshua spends thenight(8:9b). With regard to the contrast: the mentioning of the people in 8:9b helps the reader to differentiate between the ones that were sent out to lay in ambush (9a: “them”) and the other people with whom Joshua is (8:9b). In other words, the reader can understand that the “them” as mentioned in 8:9a must be the thirty thousand warriors who were mustered in 8:3b, as in 8:3b it is stated that Joshua chose thirty thousand warriors (and sent them out by night). 98

The section 8:30-35 will be discussed in the following chapter.

38

CHAPTER 1

The time indication of 8:9b plays a role in establishing the development of the text. It is reported that Joshua spends the night with his people (8:9b).99 The extra information regarding the time given at this moment in the story makes it clear that the ambush was put in place before or during the night. The element of “night” in 8:3 may have inspired the author to specify in 8:9b that Joshua was spending the night with his people. In 8:3 however, the reference to “the night” was made in the context of the thirty thousand warriors that needed to go out and lay in ambush. Here in 8:9b, the element of “the night” is given in the context of where Joshua is: it is Joshua who is spending the night with the people. In other words, the element of “the night” is used not in reference to the ambush, but to the (other) people. In 8:9, however, there is one more specification given, namely about where the ambush needs to be set up. It is told that the ambush needs to be located between Betel and Ai, to the west of the city. The location seems to have undergone some further development, which I will discuss after surveying 8:10-14. The story then continues with what happened in the early morning: Joshua gathered the people and together with the elders of Israel, who were at the forefront of the people, takes off to Ai (8:10). Then, the story reports about the movement of the people that were with Joshua: they went up to Ai and came opposite the city and encamped to the north of Ai (8:11a-cα) so that a valley was lying in between the valley and Ai (8:11cβ). After these verses follows a sort of repetition (8:12): “Joshua had taken 5000 men and positioned them in an ambush between Bethel and Ai, to the west of the City.” Then, there is what seems yet again a summary in 8:13: “That is how he had positioned the people, the whole army to the north of the city, and the ambush to the west of the city. But Joshua had gone through the middle of the valley that night.” Finally, in 8:14 it is reported that the king of Ai and all his people hurried out the city to face the Israelites. It is said that when going out, they were facing the Arabah. That the king is unaware of the ambush laying behind the city is reported.

99

I will discuss the reading Joshua with his people (8:9b) versus the reading Joshua in the valley (8:13) below.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

39

It is now time to have a closer look at all the locations mentioned in the Masoretic Text of 8:1-14. Distinguishing between the location of the ambush, the location of the other people and Joshua, I note the following locations in 8:1-14: 8:2b: God instructs (ambush): 8:4b: Joshua instructs (ambush):

8:9a: execution (ambush)

8:11: execution (others):

8:12: execution (ambush):

‫ארב לעיר מאחריה‬ against the city, behind it. ‫ארבים לעיר מאחרי העיר‬ against the city, behind it. ‫אל־תרחיקו מין־העיר‬ do not go far from the city ‫בין בית־אל ובין העי‬ between Bethel and Ai ‫מים לעי‬ to the West of Ai ‫ויבאו נגד העיר‬ and they drew near to the city ‫ויחנו מצפון לעי‬ and camped on the north side of Ai ‫והגי בינו ובין־העי‬ with a ravine between them and Ai ‫ארב בין בית־אל ובין העי‬ ambush between Bethel and Ai ‫מים לעיר‬ to the west of the city

8:13: summary: main camp:

‫מצפון לעיר‬ north of the city ‫מים לעיר‬

ambush: west of the city

‫בתוך העמק‬

(Joshua: in the valley) 8:14: execution: Ai-soldiers:

‫לפנה הערבה‬ facing the Arabah ‫מאחרי העיר‬

ambush: behind the city.

From this survey I note that the first location reads: ‫ארב לעיר מאחריה‬, set an ambush behind the city. Thus, the ambush needs to be against the city, from behind it. The original command of God with regard to the whereabouts of the ambush has been expanded by Joshua: from

40

CHAPTER 1

God instructing the ambush to be against the city, behind it (8:2), the ambush, in Joshua’s instruction, needs to not only be against the city, behind it, but that the people ought to also be not far from the city (8:4). When the execution is reported, the ambush is located between El and Ai, to the west of Ai (8:9). It is then specified where the others, which are not part of the ambush section, are located. They are located near the city, on the north side of Ai (8:11a-b). Moreover, there is a ravine between them and Ai (8:11c). The execution, namely the stationing of the ambush fraction, is repeated in 8:12: the ambush is again located between Bethel and Ai, to the west of the city. 8:12 can be considered a nice Wiederaufnahme, after the extra information given in 8:11, which dealt with the main camp. As if the author wants to bring clarity in all the information, the information is now summarized in 8:13: the main camp is in the north of the city, the ambush is in the west of the city and Joshua is spending the night in the valley. Slightly problematic, and surely adding to the geographical challenge of the strategy, is the mentioning of the king of Ai and his soldiers facing the Arabah, which is most likely the south side of the city (8:14). The problem is that whereas in the original command of both God and Joshua, the ambush just had to be against the city, behind it, it did not specify where precisely the “behind” was. Now, as soon as the author adds in 8:9 another city name, things become more complicated. The author specifies that the ambush needs to be between Bethel and Ai. In the book of Joshua, Bethel is mentioned in 7:2. There it is told that Joshua sends men from Jericho to Ai – the latter is further described as “near Beth-aven, east of Bethel.” In other words, Joshua cumsuis are in Jericho, and from there the attack on Ai is conceived. From the direction of Jericho, Ai is West of Jericho. When God and Joshua are instructing to put the ambush behind the city, it would mean that the ambush is to the west of the city of Ai, between Ai and Bethel, as it is said in 8:9 and repeated in 8:12. The main camp then could easily be located north of the city of Ai, as specified in 8:11. The location of Joshua in the valley, as mentioned in 8:13, can only be deduced from the additional information given in 8:11, namely that there is a valley between the main camp (which is to the north of the city) and the city itself. With regard to the information that Joshua is spending the night in the valley (8:13): there is a small variant between 8:9, Joshua is spending the night with his people, and 8:13, Joshua is spending the night in the valley. The Masoretic Text reads as follows:

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

41

‫ההוא בתוך העם‬ He was amidst the people 8:13: ‫ההוא בתוך העמק‬ He was amidst the valley. 8:9:

Whereas the apparatus of the BHS suggests that the reading of 8:9 most likely ought to be read like 8:13, I actually am of the opinion that the author of 8:13 may have built on the information given between 8:9 and 8:12, especially the information in 8:11, and deliberately separated Joshua from his men in the main camp. Joshua moved from being with his people (8:9), to being in the valley between the main camp and the city of Ai (8:13), simply through the addition of the letter Qof: ‫העמק ➔ העם‬. With regard to the whole set up: the strategic planning only makes sense when seen from the perspective from Joshua’s original location in Jericho. The only element which does not seem to fit the strategy is the reference to the king of Ai and his soldiers facing the Arabah, which is the south, albeit that the latter would make a possible compass complete, with Israel approaching from the east, having the ambush in the west, setting the main camp in the north, and then fleeing into the south. An additional element is imported in 8:14. In 8:14 it is reported that as soon that the King (of Ai) saw (it), he took his men (in the morning) and went out to fight them. The problem is that it is clear to the reader what the king must have seen. In other words, whereas the ‘it’ is not explicitly mentioned, the reader does know what the king must have seen. After all, the reader knows the strategy as set out by Joshua: that while a group is lying in ambush, Joshua and his men would approach the city, so that the inhabitants of the city would come and fight with them. Thus the king of Ai must have seen that Joshua and his group is approaching the city – precisely as scripted. But is this the case? First, where precisely is the approaching reported? Is it 8:10, where “Joshua rose early and mustered the people, and went up, with the elders of Israel, before the people to Ai”? In 8:10, however, the attack and Joshua’s approaching of the city of Ai has not yet started. Is the move towards the city maybe reported in 8:11, where “all the fighting men who were with him went up and drew near before the city, and camped on the north side of Ai”? Whereas 8:10 reflects the instruction given by God to go up and take Ai and 8:11 reflects the further instruction given by Joshua, in neither of these verses, the actual attack on the city of Ai has not yet started, even the morning hasn’t begun yet! Similarly, in the verses 8:12 and 8:13 the action hasn’t started yet. The precise moment when the attack

42

CHAPTER 1

has started is not reported in the text. The readers, however, who are aware of the strategy as laid out by Joshua do not need to be told when the action precisely started – they know that it started and that the men of Joshua are approaching the city as soon as it is reported in the text that the king sees (it) and hurries out in battle (8:14). Second, I wonder who is approaching whom? In the Masoretic Text, it is clearly said that Joshua and his men are approaching the city (8:10; 8:11), but it seems that this approaching is simply a moving of the Israelites closer to the city of Ai. There is not yet an attack where indeed the Israelites are approaching the city, in order that the king and the inhabitants of Ai are provoked, so that they come out of the city and fight the Israelites. That whole strategy is described in 8:5-6, which is part of the elaborated instruction by Joshua. These details are not offered by God. The latter only talks about an ambush. What follows next is precisely as planned. The events unfold as ‘instructed’ by Joshua: the inhabitants of Ai go out of the city, pursue the so-called fleeing Israelites, leaving the city wide open to the counterattack executed by the group of people lying in ambush (8:14-17). They indeed take the city and later on, set it on fire (8:19) – I will return to the element of “fire” later. The story finally concludes with a nice extra double report. First it is told how the fighting inhabitants of Ai realize that they have been tricked, that the ones that they were pursuing now turned around and are pursuing them, and that they ended up being sandwiched between the two camps of the Israelites and wiped out (8:20-22; 8:23 contains the exception to the killing, namely the not-killing of the King of Ai). Secondly, it is reported that Joshua and the Israelites turned back to the city of Ai, killed all inhabitants, burned it down –as if this had not yet happened before – , hanged the king of Ai –literally impaled him – and then erected a pile of stones for him (8:24-29). In the latter section, the element of the Israelites taking booty and cattle emerges – precisely as instructed by God in 8:2b! In short, chapter 8:1-29 started from a single command of God to Joshua and became an elaborate story in which layer after layer, detail after detail were added. What is however remarkable is that in this developing of the story most of the executions have in some way or another received a matching command and/or most commands have received an execution. The below diagram shows the different levels of the commands and their executions. In the section of the execution, I have put in a final column the elements which I consider to be added later.

43

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

God’s command

Joshua’s command

execution of com

added details ➔ even later added details

1 2a 2b: 2c 4b

take whole army and attack do as you did with… take booty and cattle set ambush from the back

3a

moved out to attack

27 3b 9a

booty and cattle

set ambush from behind not far stay alert I and people approach city

5a 9b

30,000

at night sent out in ambush

between Ai and Bethel in West

lay in wait J spends night with people / or: in valley

10

army, J and leaders marched to Ai

11a

whole army with J marched and approached Ai

early next morning

11b 11c 12

camp north of Ai valley between J and Ai 5000 men ambush b. Ai and Bethel to west of City ➔ soldiers take position ➔ main camp in north ➔ ambush in west ➔ Joshua in the valley

13

5b

when the Ai men come 14b

Ai king and men went out

5c 6 7a 7b 8

we will flee

J and men flee Ai men pursue men rise from ambush took the city set it on fire

they pursue you rise from ambush take city set on fire

15 16-17 19a 19b 19c

after the execution of the command: 20 Ai men realize ambush 21 fleeing Israelites turn around and fight Ai 22 sandwiched Ai people killed (king spared) 23 king of Ai brought to Joshua 24-26 Israelites kill all inhabitants of Ai 27 booty and cattle (see higher) 28 Ai becomes a heap of ruins 29 king impaled, dead body taken down, pile of stones on body

44

CHAPTER 1

Most of the commands, either of God and/or Joshua are executed (an army has to go out, an ambush has to be created, an army has to approach, then pretend to flee, then the ambush party has to rise up and take the city). However, just from comparing the amount of verses of the command with those of the execution of the command, it is clear that some serious elaboration of elements has happened. The first obvious elaboration is seen in 8:1-2 and 8:3-8. Whereas in 8:1-2 there is a rather short command of God, there is in 8:3-8 a rather lengthy instruction by Joshua (8:3-8). Moreover, there are also a lot of elements in the execution of the commands that have been lengthened in comparison with the commands. For instance: the command of God to attack from the back (8:2c) has been changed via an elaboration of a command in 8:4b, namely to be not far from the city, to an elaborate description of where the ambush party must be positioned (9:a: between Bethel and Ai to the west, similarly 8:12) and where the people are (8:11: to the north). Moreover, there is now a valley between the city and Joshua and/or the people (8:11). Similarly, the command given by God to set up an ambush, has been elaborated by Joshua who is filling up the details. The element of Joshua and his people approaching the city, as mentioned in 8:5a, is elaborated in 8:10, 11 and 12 and 13. The element of the king of Ai and his people going after the Israelites is elaborated in 8:6ff. When the execution starts, however, the element of the approaching is presumed, not reported. And then, the author continues with the king of Ai and his men coming out of the city in 8:14. Whereas the strategy as described in 8:5 has the dual element of Joshua approaching the city and the king of Ai coming out against them, the actual execution in 8:14 only contains the element of the king of Ai and his men hurrying out of the city to meet the Israelites. Also: the reference to the whole army (8:1) or people (8:5a) has become a description of how many persons were with Joshua and how many were in the ambush section. Whereas in 8:3, Joshua was choosing thirty thousand warriors, in 8:12, he seems to be taking 5000 men. Similarly, the addition of “the west” in 8:9a has probably resulted in the addition of “the north” in in 8:11b and 13. The addition of the time indication “night” in 8:3, the time when Joshua sets out with all his men, most likely has led to the addition of the time indication “night” in 8:9b and “morning” in 8:10. Similarly, the difference in the location of Joshua (8:9b – Joshua spends the night amidst the people versus 8:13 – Joshua spending the

45

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

night in the valley) – has most likely led to the clarification in 8:11c that there was a valley between Joshua and Ai and in 8:13 that Joshua was in (that) valley. Thus, the short command of God to set an ambush against the city, behind it (8:2a), and Joshua’s command to set an ambush against the city, from behind (8:4a), “not far” from the city, has led to rather lengthy elaborations in 8:9b, 10, 11, and 12-13. In the section with elaborations, one can also note a clear repetition of 8:10 in 8:11a. And, last but not least there is a large summary of most of the information in 8:13. The latter verse, indeed, combines all the basic info of the elaborations: the main camp is in the north, the ambush in the west and Joshua in the valley. This verse, together with the elaborations about where precisely Joshua is (that is 8:9b: Joshua spends the night in the valley and 8:11c: there is a valley between Joshua and Ai), is part of the later, if not latest, editorial stage of the book of Joshua. The narrative also contains the report on what happened after the strategy has run its course and contains a detailed description of what happens after the king of Ai and his men realize the ambush all the way to the total ruining of the city and the killing of its king (8:20-29). The next issue which needs to be clarified is how the Old Greek represents the commands and executions of the command with regard to the strategy towards Ai. Using the survey of the commands and executions in chapter 8, I now indicate the differences between the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek by italicizing the text which is absent or different in the Old Greek and immediately following either giving the Old Greek reading or marking a minus, again in italics: God’s command

Joshua’s command

execution of com

added details ➔ even further added details

1

take whole army and attack

2a

do as you did with…

3a

moved out to attack

2b: take booty and cattle

27

booty and cattle

2c

3b

at night

4b

set ambush from the back set ambush from behind

9a

send off in ambush

not far be prepared

30,000

between Ai and Bethel in West

lie in wait

46

CHAPTER 1

God’s command 5a

Joshua’s command

execution of com

added details

I and people approach city 9b

Jspendsnight,people OG:–

10

army, J and leaders marched to Ai

11a

whole army with J marched and approached Ai

early next morning

11b

5b

when the Ai men come

5c

we will flee

6 7a 7b 8

they pursue you rise from ambush take city100 setonfire OG:–

camp north of Ai OG:– 11c valley between J and Ai OG:– 12 5000men OG:– ambush b.AiandBethel OG:ambush to west of City 13 ➔soldierstakeposition ➔maincampinnorth ➔ambushinwest ➔Joshuainthevalley OG8:13: –(fullverse) 14b Ai king and men went out, facingArabah OG Ai king and men went out, – 15 J and men flee, directionofwilderness OG flee, frombeforethem. 16-17 Ai men pursue 19a men rise from ambush 19b took the city 19c set it on fire after the execution of the command: 20 Ai men realize ambush 21 fleeing Israelites turn around and fight Ai 22 sandwiched Ai people killed (king spared) 23 king of Ai brought to Joshua 24-26 Israelites kill all inhabitants of Ai 27 booty and cattle (see higher) 28 Ai becomes a heap of ruins 29 king impaled, dead body taken down, pile of stones on body

100

The Masoretic Text has in 8:7 also a theological plus, namely that God gives the Israelites the city of Ai into their hands. This variant, I will not discuss here.

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

47

The Old Greek, in the instruction given by Joshua, does not have the element that the city needs to be put on fire (8:8). The Old Greek also does not read that Joshua spends the night in the valley. In other words, that Joshua is in a valley between the city of Ai and his own major force, located in the North, is not present in the Old Greek. Joshua is simply with his men, in the major camp. And all the men go together with him up to the city, from the east, as stated in OG 8:11. The Old Greek also does not read like Masoretic Text 8:12, namely repeating the double info from 8:9 that the ambush is set between Bethel and Ai and that this is to the west of the city. Instead the Old Greek reads that the ambush was to the west of the city, as it said in OG 8:9. In this context, it is also worth noting that the Old Greek does not mention the five thousand men which were set in ambush according to the MT 8:12. The summative verse regarding the different positions of the ambush, the main camp and Joshua as reported in MT 8:13 is completely absent in the Old Greek. In OG 8:14 it is reported that the king of Ai and his men are hasting into battle and that the king has no idea that there is an ambush behind the city. The element as present in the MT 8:14, that the king of Ai and his men were facing the Arabah is not present in the Old Greek. Connected with the latter minus, is the minus in OG 8:15. Whereas in MT 8:15, it is reported that Joshua and his men are pretending to flee in the direction of the wilderness, OG 8:15 only has them retreating from before (the enemies’) face. It is precisely in the description of the location of the two parties: the one lying in ambush and the other one that was tricking the inhabitants into pursuing them, that there is a difference between the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek. In the schedule below, I first give the location of the different parties according to the Masoretic Text, and then, in the second schedule I have added the information from the Old Greek: MT

“ambush”-party

8:2b

behind it

8:4:

behind it, not far

8:5 8:9

“rest of men, with Joshua-party”

“Joshua”101

(“we will approach the city”) between Bethel and Ai to the west of Ai Joshua in the camp

101

In one instance, Joshua is separated from his fellows and stays the night alone in the valley.

48 MT

CHAPTER 1

“ambush”-party

8:11

8:12 8:13 8:14

“rest of men, with Joshua-party”

“Joshua”

before the city North side of Ai With a valley between them and Ai between Bethel and Ai to the west of the city (rear guard) west of city (main encampment) North of city behind the city

J in valley

Combining the information from the Old Greek, the following differences between Masoretic Text and Old Greek appear: MT “ambush”-party 8:2b behind it OG = 8:4: behind it, not far OG = 8:5 OG = 8:9 between Bethel and Ai to the west of Ai

“rest of men, with Joshua-party”

“Joshua”

(“we will approach the city”)

Joshua in the camp OG

8:11

OG

8:12 OG 8:13 OG 8:14 OG

between Bethel and Ai To the west of Ai – before the city North side of Ai With a valley between them and Ai they came before the city Fromtheeast. – between Bethel and Ai to the west of the city – to the west of the city (rear guard) west of city (main encampment) North of city – – behind the city =

J in valley –

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

49

Whereas the differences between the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek could be credited to the Old Greek translator, trying to simplify the strategy, I am of the opinion that the differences can be explained by the Masoretic Text’s stronger interest in matching the commands to the executions and the executions to the commands. The most obvious example is the addition of the element of setting the city on fire in 8:8. As in the report of the execution of the strategy, it is mentioned in 8:19c, that the city is set on fire, the final editor of the Masoretic Text adds this element to the instruction as given by Joshua in 8:8. The execution of the strategy as portrayed in the Masoretic Text also involved the addition of many details. For instance, in both the Masoretic Text and in the Old Greek, the instructions given by God and by Joshua imply that Joshua is with his army when he is approaching Ai. God instructs in 8:1: “take all the fighting men with you and go up to Ai.” In 8:2, God then continues that there ought to be an ambush. Similarly, in 8:5 Joshua explains: “I and all the people who are with me will approach the city.” The Masoretic Text however, in the time leading up to the attack, separates Joshua from his people. Moreover, the Masoretic Text does not precisely inform the reader where Joshua and the Israelites were approaching the city, as in, effectively starting the attack. In the Masoretic Text, in the verses 8:10 and 8:11, more information is given about the Israelites approaching the city of Ai. In 8:9 and 8:12 information is given about the ambush fraction. The difference between the Masoretic Text and the Old Greek in 8:12 is small but important: whereas in the Old Greek it is simply reported that the ambush is on the west side of the city, in the Masoretic Text, it is Joshua who sets up the ambush – as if he is present when the ambush is set up. The differences between the Old Greek and the Masoretic Text with regard to the location of the ambush is in my opinion due to the Masoretic Text which tries to implement both orders: namely that Joshua has to go up against the city (8:1) and do with the city and its king as he did to Jericho and its king (8:2). According to this command, Joshua is the one who goes up against the city (as executed in 8:3, 5, 10, 11) and he is there to set up the ambush, which will take the city (as executed in 8:12). That double movement of Joshua leads to the special situation that he has to, on the one hand spend the night with his people in the camp (as reported in 8:9) and, on the other hand spend the night in between the city and the camp (as reported in 8:13).

50

CHAPTER 1

The doubling of Joshua’s act leads in turn to the mentioning of three locations, all three seen from the perspective of Jericho, that is the east, from where Joshua is coming: the ambush behind the city lies is to the west of the city, the main camp is located to the north of the city, and as Joshua is either in the camp (8:9) or in the valley separating the main camp and the city of Ai (8:13). This doubling of the whereabouts of Joshua is not present in the Old Greek. The Old Greek does not mention Joshua in the camp or Joshua in the valley – the entire verse is not in the Old Greek. The Old Greek also does not have the element that Joshua set up the ambush in to the west of the city, it only reports that the ambush was on the west side of the city. In other words, in the Old Greek, Joshua is where the main camp is: Joshua and his people are together in the main camp. There is thus in the Old Greek no need for a valley between the main camp and the city of Ai and Joshua is not staying during the night in that valley. In the Old Greek, the attack starts from the East, as made even more explicit in OG 8:11. There is no mention of the North. There is in the Old Greek only the ambush fraction located to the west of the city (8:9 and 8:12). Moreover, in contrast to the Masoretic Text, which states twice that the ambush is located between Bethel and Ai (8:9 and 8:12) the Old Greek, only mentions it once (8:9). 3.4. Some Conclusions from the Analysis of Josh 8 In summary, the double command of God to Joshua in 8:1 and 8:2 has forced the final editor of the Masoretic Text to distinguish between on the one hand, different locations for Joshua and, on the other hand, Joshua needing to be both in the main camp and in the valley between Ai and the main camp. This distinction has lead in the Masoretic Text to a further elaboration of the different sites around the city of Ai, with the west, the north, and the east surely mentioned, and the south maybe also intentionally mentioned. With this elaboration of locations and sites, the Masoretic Text made sure that the commands given by God to Joshua were finely executed. This execution however happened mostly on the Masoretic Text level, and not yet as much on the Hebrew level underlying the Old Greek. Moreover, taking together the text critical data, the translation technique study and the literary analysis of the text it has become evident that 8:13 is truly part of the latest stage of the Masoretic Text text and that the Old Greek, in which 8:13 was not present, was translated from an earlier stage

COMMANDS AND EXECUTIONS

51

of the Hebrew text. That there was an earlier Hebrew text without 8:13 also explains why 8:13 is absent from 4QJosha, and why there is no (strict) parallel text to 8:13 in Josephus and the Vetus Latina.102 That (Kaige-) Theodotion already added 8:13 to his revision of the Old Greek, indicates that the Masoretic Text of the book of Joshuareceived its final form in the days between the Old Greek was translated and (Kaige-) Theodotion made his revision.

102

Challenged by Ville Mäkipelto, I have for a second time studied the so-called Samaritan Joshua with regard to this chapter. For the so-called Samaritan Joshua, see: Moses Gaster, Das Buch Joshua in hebräisch-samaritanischer Rezension. Entdeckt und zum ersten Maleherausgegeben,ZDMG LXII (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1908).I am still very hesitant towards the nature and origin of this work (is it an original work, maybe a witness to an older Hebrew text, or is it a much later work, based on Hebrew and maybe Arabic texts?). I note a lot of rewriting in the Samaritan Joshua, which is similar to the rewriting in Josephus’ JewishAntiquities.

CHAPTER 2

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1. What is a Nomistic Alteration? The category “nomistic alteration” is an important one. Already in 1989, Alexander Rofé, in an article on 4QSama uses the concept of “nomistic corrections.”1 He maintains that the Jewish people underwent a transformation in the latter part of the Persian period, with “the commitment of the people … to a scrupulous observance of the Torah.”2 The scribes, Rofé maintains, “breathe in a nomistic atmosphere and this necessarily affects the product of their work.”3 His first example is Ex 24:4, where the original text was substituted with another reading in conformity with the law of Deut 16:22!4 Similarly, in Josh 24:1-28, where the location seems to have been adapted to the law of Deut 11:31-12:12: “Scribes who copied the book of Joshua substituted Shehem with the legitimate Shilo.”5 Pakkala comments on this case and writes: “The MT may be original here, because the relationship with the Samaritans had worsened in the third to first centuries BCE, which would have resulted in the change of Shehem to Shiloh in order to avoid the idea that a center of the Samaritan community had such an important role.”6 Rofé discusses similar examples in 2Sam (e.g. 2Sam 12:6) and concludes that the Masoretic Text is secondary, “due to a nomistic correction.”7 Rofé concludes: “Nomistic corrections were primarily introduced in the stories about righteous personalities – Moses, Joshua, David – because later generations could not conceive of them as 1

2 3 4 5 6

7

Alexander Rofé, “The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and Its Occurrences in 4QSama,” RevQ54/14 (1989): 247-54. Ibidem, 247. Ibidem, 248. Ibidem, 249. Ibidem. Juha Pakkala, God’sWordOmitted.OmissionsintheTransmissionoftheHebrewBible, FRLANT 251 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 197. Alexander Rofé, “The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and Its Occurrences in 4QSama,”250.

54

CHAPTER 2

not abiding by the Torah.”8 Moreover, he states: “nomistic corrections are attested in different degrees and at distinct points in the various textual witnesses: the Samaritan Pentateuch, the LXX, the MT: this indicates that such corrections were a standard practice of Jewish copyists in the beginning of the Second Commonwealth.”9 In his book, “A More Perfect Torah. At the Intersection of Philology and Hermeneutics in Deuteronomy and the Temple Scroll,” Bernard M. Levinson describes the Temple Scroll editor’s attitude to the issues of vows as follows: “The commitment to Torah therefore required reordening the Torah.”10 Levinson also points to how the Septuagint deals with difficulties in texts related to vows and oaths in Deuteronomy11 and to the Damascus Document which, according to Lawrence Schiffman, seeks to make sure that “all binding oaths must be either fulfilled if commanded by the Torah or annulled if the oath would in some way violate the Torah.”12 Levinson then discusses how in Qohelet’s writings Deuteronomy’s law of vows was reworked13 and how Numb 30 reworked and expanded these laws, albeit that according to him, the troublesome verse of Deut 23:23 was not yet part of the text.14 Sidnie White Crawford in her article “Interpreting the Pentateuch Through Scribal Processes: The Evidence of the Qumran Manuscripts,” states that (Qumran) “Scribes not only copied manuscripts, but also changed them as they copied.”15 She examines five (Deuteronomy) manuscripts of Qumran “that illustrate varying degrees of scribal intervention in their received texts, shaping and changing the transmission of the Pentateuch in the late Second Temple period.”16 She specifies and writes: “we find evidence that scribes took a Pentateuch book with its recognizable shape, and continued to work on the text, commenting on it through glosses, expansions, and other types of editorial 8 9 10

11 12 13 14 15

16

Ibidem. Ibidem. Bernard M. Levinson, A More Perfect Torah. At the Intersection of Philology and HermeneuticsinDeuteronomyandtheTempleScroll, Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 1 (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013), 43. Ibidem, 52. Ibidem, 52-3. Ibidem, 54-61. Ibidem, 74-8 and 78-9. Sidnie White Crawford, “Interpreting the Pentateuch Through Scribal Processes: The Evidence from the Qumran Manuscripts,” in InsightsintoEditingintheHebrewBible andtheAncientNearEast.WhatDoesDocumentedEvidenceTellUsabouttheTransmissionofAuthoritativeTexts? Ed. Reinhard Müller & Juha Pakkala, CBET 84 (Louvain: Peeters, 2017), 59-80, esp. 59. Ibidem, 78.

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

55

changes, some of which were expansive and somewhat systematic.”17 Similar scribal processes have been detected for many a biblical text, with their expanded forms visible in Qumran texts, Septuagint texts, apocryphal literature, intertestamental literature, etc. These scribal processes are also visible within the Biblical texts. In 1985, Michael Fishbane devoted a monograph to this topic: Biblical InterpretationinAncientIsrael.18 The second part of his book is entitled “Legal Exegesis,” with chapter 5 “The Scope and Content of Biblical Law as a Factor in the Emergence of Exegesis.”19 Whereas Fishbane points to the fact that “the biblical legal corpora are formulated as prototypical expressions of legal wisdom, the internal traditions of the Hebrew Bible present and regard the covenantal laws as legislative texts,” he also acknowledges that “(W)here the scope of the received law(s) was incomprehensive, it was supplemented so as to include other vital areas of socialreligious life, where the formulations of the received laws were incomprehensible or ambiguous, for all practical purposes, their verbal or semantic sense was qualified; and finally, where the received laws were sufficient for certain circumstances, but required modification or expansions in the light of new considerations, they were appropriately emended so as to make them viable once again.”20 Tov organized the readings which reflect content changes differently. He uses the following categories: exegetical changes (containing contextual changes and theological changes), linguistic changes, insertion of synonymous readings, harmonizations, explanatory and exegetical additions to the body of the text, and midrash-like changes and additions.21 His category of exegetical changes is further divided into contextual changes and theological changes. The latter category is divided in large theological changes and small theological changes, with the latter consisting of sundry contextual theological alterations, anti-polytheistic alterations, euphemistic alterations, nomistic alterations and conglomerations of theological alterations in M-Samuel.22 In his book, God’sWordOmitted.OmissionsintheTransmissionof the Hebrew Bible, Juha Pakkala analysed the omissions. In his chapter 17 18

19 20 21 22

Ibidem, 79. Michael Fishbane, BiblicalInterpretationinAncientIsrael (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985). Ibidem, 89-277. Ibidem, 96-7. Tov, TCHB, third edition, 240-62. Ibidem, 240-56.

56

CHAPTER 2

on the development of laws in the Pentateuch he traces the long-term history of the texts, showing how an older composition or text was used as a source for a new literary work. Pakkala demonstrates that for instance in Deut 22:28-29 “unnecessary elements were omitted” from the source text Ex 22:15-16 “without any counterpart in the new law and new elements were added when necessary.”23 Similarly, Deut 16:19 omitted elements from Ex 23:6-8.24 Having studied these and other examples Pakkala questions the authoritative status of the elder laws. “There is also nothing to suggest that he (= the author of Deut 22:28-29, addedKDT) was obliged to preserve any part of the older law if it did not suit his compositional, ideological, and other purposes.”25 Whereas Pakkala acknowledges a broad spectrum of editing, ranging from conservative editing to radical revision, Teeter’s pendulum of scribal modes swings between a “precise replication” model and a “facilitating” model.26 As a matter of fact, David Andrew Teeter in his volume, entitled ScribalLaws.ExegeticalVariationintheTextualTransmissionofBiblical LawintheLateSecondTemplePeriod takes Fishbane further, albeit that Teeter is an Abraham Geiger redivivus.27 Whereas Teeter takes his clues from Biblical, parabiblical and sectarian Qumran texts, in either Masoretic Text, Samaritan or Greek tradition, and rabbinical texts in order to describe exegetical variation in the text of Biblical law, he discovered that “all interpretation is constrained by the discursive perspective of the Vorlage.”28 Teeter explains: “It is, as a rule, determined by the existing linguistic shape of the verse, its syntactic structure, and the sequence of its verbal components … Exegesis is incorporated within the existing syntactic structure of a verse, with textual expansions filling an open or empty grammatical slot (verbal subject or object, adjective, genitive, etc.) and replacement filling a previously occupied slot.”29 In as sense, Teeter has described the logistics of syntactical possibilities. Teeter also describes the function of the exegetical changes: “Textual expansions, substitutions, and omissions serve to disambiguate or explicate the existing text, providing 23

24 25 26

27

28 29

Juha Pakkala, God’s Word Omitted. Omissions in the Transmission of the Hebrew Bible, 130. Ibidem, 131-32. Ibidem, 130. David Andrew Teeter, ScribalLaws.ExegeticalVariationintheTextualTransmissionof BiblicalLawintheSecondTemplePeriod,FAT 92 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014), 264. Abraham Geiger, UrschriftundÜbersetzungenderBibelinihrerAbhängigkeitvonder innerenEntwicklungdesJudentums(Breslau: Julius Hainauer, 1857). Ibidem, 176. Ibidem.

57

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

linguistic precision… At times, these strategies of explication also serve wider aims, such as the reconciliation of a potential conflict with other texts (“harmonization”) or to address issues pertaining to moral or linguistic taboos (“euphemism”), religious scruples (“theological alteration”), etsim.”30 Teeter also concludes that these exegetical variations are innerbiblical as well as characteristic for literary and exegetical production of the late Second Temple period.31 Whereas Rofé, Fishbane, Pakkala, and Tov took examples from a variety of texts, I will in this chapter discuss cases of nomistic alterations in the book of Joshua. The issue at stake is the following: Do we see in the Masoretic Text of the book of Joshua evidence that the text was reworked in order to make sure that concepts and/or actions were in accordance with laws and commandments given by God or another person of authority? The goal is to attempt to trace the latest phase in the textual history of the nomistic alterations as found in the book of Joshua. 1.2. “All the Law that my servant Moses commanded you”32 MT Josh 1:7-8 ‫רק חזק ואמץ מאד‬ ‫לשמר לעשות‬ ‫ככל־התורה‬ ‫אשר צוך משה‬ ‫עבדי‬ ‫אל־תסור ממנו‬ ‫ימין ושמאול‬ … ‫לא־ימוש‬ ‫ספר התורה הזה‬ ‫מפיך‬

… 30 31 32

OG ἴσχυε οὖν καὶ ἀνδρίζου ϕυλάσσεσθαι καὶ ποιεῖν καθότι ἐνετειλάτο σοι Μωυσῆς ὁ παῖς μου καὶ οὐκ ἐκκλινεῖς ἀπ ´αὐτῶν εἰς δεξιὰ οὐδὲ εἰς ἀριστερά … καὶ οὐκ ἀποστήσεται ἡ βίβλος τοῦ νόμου τούτου ἐκ τοῦ στόματός σου

…

Ibidem, 176-77. Ibidem, 184. With thanks to the participants of “The Criteria for Detecting Scribal Interventions” seminar (May 2018), organized by the Helsinki CentreofExcellenceinChangesinSacred Texts and Traditions, Team 3: Reinhard Müller, Ville Mäkipelto, Tuukka Kauhanen, Anssi Voitila, Sara Milstein, Francis Borchardt, Mika Pajunen, Urmas Nõmmik, Matthieu Richelle, Christoph Levin, Herman-Josef Stipp, Andrés Piquer Otero, Timo Tekoniemi, and the Team 3 leader: Juha Pakkala.

58

CHAPTER 2

Both verses, Joshua 1:7 and 8 play a role in the debate about nomistic corrections. First, I will study the issue of the law. The Masoretic Text of Jos 1:7 reads: “Only be strong and very courageous, being careful to act in accordance with all the law that my servant Moses commanded you…” The text then continues: “This book of the law shall not depart from your mouth.” The Old Greek of Josh 1:7, however, does not have the specification “all the law that,” but reads: “Only be strong and be like a man, to observe and do as Moses, my servant, commanded you….” The very important word “the law”33 is thus not present in the Old Greek text. Van der Meer writes: “the theologically important theme of the torah of Moses is absent from LXX-Josh.1:7.”34 Van der Meer argues that the shorter text in Old Greek is the result of the translator who shortened the text. The Hebrew text, he continues, has gone through different literary layers, from a Deuteronomistic historical layer (DtrH) to a DtrP and finally a DtrN. Van der Meer credits the DtrN with Josh 1:7-8. The latter editor managed to do a “blending of the Dtr-H theme of the encouragement of Joshua in the face of the conquest of the Promised Land to a nomistically inspired encouragement to persist in the study and strict execution of the torah.”35 The absence of “torah” in 1:7 is explained as follows: because both Masoretic Text and LXX have 1:8, which is a nomistic expansion of 1:7, the latter must have been part of the Hebrew text before it was translated: “… the DtrN-expansion of verse 8 is present in both Masoretic Text and LXX, which would imply that Rofé’s nomistic correction in verse 7 belongs to a post-DtrN-redaction.”36 Rofé, however, in his 1989 contribution, did not call verse 7 a nomistic correction, but commented on verse 8. Rofé writes: “On his appointment to leadership, Joshua was enjoined by the Lord to observe and do what had been commanded by Moses (Josh 1,7LXX); a later scribe, not satisfied with this injunctions, added another one (ibid., v. 8) in which Joshua is expected to read the Torah day and night, like the righteous of Psalm1 … .”37 Nelson, 33

34

35 36 37

For a critical discussion of whether the “law” stands for a written unified code or not, see Félix García López, “La muerte de Moisés, la sucesión de Josué y la escritura de la tôrah (Deuteronomio 31-34),” in The Future of the Deuteronomistic History, ed. Thomas Römer, BETL 147 (Louvain: Peeters, 2000), 85-99. Michael van der Meer, FormationandReformulation, 162. With thanks to Michael for verifying my presentation of his arguments. Van der Meer, FormationandReformulation, 174. Van der Meer, FormationandReformulation, 176. Rofé, “The Nomistic Correction,” 248. See also Fishbane, BiblicalInterpretation, 384: “On this second occurrence (= Josh 1:7-8, addedbyKDT), however, an entirely new dimension is added: for encased within the old military exhortation formula (in vv. 6,9)

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

59

in his study onthe redaction of the deuteronomistic history, emphasizes the parallel between Joshua and King Josiah, especially as they both adhere to the law: “Both are loyal to the law, not deviating ‘right or left’ from Yahweh’s will (Josh. 1:7; 2 Kings 22:2). Both are military leaders of the tribal levies striving for the acquisition of the promised land. Both celebrate a precedent-setting Pass-over (Josh. 5:10; 2 Kings 23:21-23). Both are scrupulous about cultic matters (Josh. 8:30-31, 2 Kings 23:4-20). Both engage the people in covenant renewal (Josh. 8:32-35; 2 Kings 23:13) … In other words, much of our present picture of Joshua is nothing but a retrojection of the figure of Josiah into the classical past.”38 Tov argued that “torah” in Josh 1:7 is a plus and puts it in his second category, namely “Additions in MT whose secondariness is evident from their formulation.”39 Tov comments on Josh 1:7 and writes: “In the text common to G and M, Joshua is depicted as a loyal follower of Moses, while M goes one step further when God made Joshua comply with Moses’ Torah.”40 Tov thus credits the Masoretic Text editor with the addition of the word “torah.” Albeit that many of the abovementioned text critics and literary critics come to the same conclusion, the question remains: has the word Torah been added to the Masoretic Text text in 1:7 (Tov) or was it omitted by the LXX translator (van der Meer)? The expression ‫ככל התורה‬, according to all the law, actually does not appear that often in the Masoretic Text. In the book of Deuteronomy, the expression is most of the times “all the words of the torah” (Deut 17:19; 27:3, 8, 26, 58; 29:28; 31:12, 24, 46; but also in Josh 8:34!); only in Deut 4:8 is it “according to all the law,” ‫ככל התורה‬. But in Deut 4:8, the expression is not just “according to all the law,” but “according to all this law” (‫)ככל־התורה הזאת‬: “And what other great nation has statutes and ordinances as just as this entire law that I am setting before you today.” In the book of Numeri, a similar expression is used: ‫“ כל־התורה הזאת‬this entire law” (Num 5:30; similar in Deut 1:5: ‫את־התורה‬ ‫הזאת‬, similarly in Deut 17:18; 31:9, 11 Deut 4:44: ‫)וזאת התורה‬.

38

39

40

is a piece of aggadic theologizing where Joshua is told to ‘be strong and of good courage’ inobeyingtheTorah, since only in this manner will he succeed in his great adventure (vv. 7-8).” Richard D. Nelson, TheDoubleRedactionoftheDeuteronomisticHistory, JSOTSup 18 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981), 125. Emanuel Tov, “The Growth of the Book of Joshua,” 331 (= Emanuel Tov, TheGreek andHebrewBible, 390) – Tov points to the masculine suffix in ‫ ממנו‬which presumes a male antecedent, not the female torah. Tov, TCHB, third edition, 253.

60

CHAPTER 2

An identical use of the expression “all the law” as in Joshua 1:7 can be found in 2Kgs 17:13, where it is used in the context of the disaster of the collapsing of the North. 2Kgs 17:13 reads: “Turn from your evil ways and keep my commandments and my statutes, inaccordancewithallthelaw that I commanded your ancestors and that I sent to you by my servants the prophets.” Both in Josh 1:7 and in 2Kgs 17:13, the “I” that is commanding is God himself! But the commanding God is referring to the law that Moses commanded (Josh 1:7) and to the law that was commanded through God and the prophets (2Kgs 17:13). Albeit that this precise expression is not that much used, it does carry a lot of weight as it is God himself that has commanded the whole law! Aside from the expression “according to the law,” the word “law” appears in the following passages in the Masoretic Text of the book of Joshua: 1:7, 8; 8:31, 32, 34; 22:5; 23:6; 24:26. Looking at the parallel passages in the Old Greek, aside from 1:7, the word law appears in all the mentioned texts. There is nowhere in the Old Greek the book of Joshua where the Old Greek translator did not translate the word “law.” It is thus remarkable that in the first passage where this concept appears, that is in the Old Greek of Joshua, 1:7, the word “torah” is not present. The word also needs to be seen in the larger context of Josh 1:7! Especially Josh 1:7b is important, as it reads: ‫ּאל־תסור ממנו‬, with the male suffix surely not referring to the law (as ‫ תורה‬is female). It surely looks like the Masoretic Text has inserted the concept of the law at a later stage. An analysis of ‫ התורה‬however does not suffice to solve the problem! One has to also study the expression: ‫ספר התורה הזה‬. The expression comes in two ways: either it reads in the book of Deuteronomy ‫( ספר התורה הזה‬with the demonstrative referring to the book: “this book of the law,” as in Deut 29:20; 30:10 and 31:26) or ‫ספר‬ ‫( התורה הזאה‬with the demonstrative pronoun referring to the law: “the book of this law,” as in Deut 17:18; 28:58; 28:61, see also Deut 28:61 with the expression: ‫)כל דברי־התורה הזאת‬. When encountering his first case, Deut 28:58, the Old Greek translates the Masoretic Text as follows: ‫את־כל־דברי התורה הזאת‬ ‫הכתובים בספר הזה‬

πάντα τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ νόμου τούτου τὰ γεγραμμένα ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ

The Old Greek translator thus rendered the expression “all the words of this law” and “(what is written) in this book” correctly, precisely distinguishing between “this law” (with the female demonstrative) and “this

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

61

book” (with the male demonstrative). In Deut 28:61, the translator also renders the Hebrew correctly: ‫ בספר התורה הזאת‬becomes ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τούτου, with the demonstrative attached to the element of “the law.” Similarly, in Deut 17:18, the translator renders the elaborate Hebrew ‫ את־משנה התורה הזאת על־ספר‬also correctly τὸ δευτερονόμιον τοῦτο εἰς βιβλίον, with the demonstrative associated with “the law,” in this case “a copy of the law.” In Deut 29:20, the (Cambridge) Old Greek text does not have the element of “the law”: ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τούτῳ41, which clearly indicates that the demonstrative is attached to “the book”: ‫ !ספר )התורה( הזה‬In Deut 30:10 and 31:26, where the Masoretic Text reads ‫ספר התורה הזה‬, the translator however continues with the expression he used in his Greek text of 28:58 (τοῦ νόμου τούτου) and translates with ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τούτου (Deut 30:10) and τὸ βιβλίον τοῦ νόμου τούτου (Deut 31:26), even if the demonstrative in the Hebrew clearly is meant for “the book.” The author of MT Josh 1:8 continues with the expression as found in Deut 29:20; 30:10; 31:26, that is: ‫ספר התורה הזה‬. The Greek translator of the book of Joshua, keeps the expression as used in OG Deut, that is: τοῦ νόμου τούτου, but renders “the book” with ἡ βίβλος. The Old Greek translator also knows the word το βιβλίον and uses it in Josh 23:6 and 24:26. Whereas it seemed that the author of the MT Joshua was continuing the praxis of the MT Deuteronomy, the expression “this book of the law” is actually hardly used in MT Joshua. A small survey makes the point clear: 1:8 8:31 8:34 23:6 24:6

‫ספר התורה הזה‬ ‫בספר התורת משה‬ ‫כל־דברי התורה‬ ‫… ספר התורה‬ ‫בספר התורת משה‬ ‫בספר התורת אלהים‬

ἡ βίβλος τοῦ νόμου τούτου ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσῇ πάντα τὰ ῥήματα τοῦ νόμου τούτου ἐν τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσῇ ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου Μωυσῆ εἰς βιβλίον, νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ

After the first mentioning of “the book of the law” in Josh 1:8, the Masoretic Text uses “the words of the law” and “the book of the law” (without the demonstrative) in Josh 8:34, but turns to the concept of “the book of the law of Moses,” which is also found in MT Josh 23:6, and “the book of the law of God” in Josh 24:26. There is thus not really a 41

Note that the reading with the law is marked with an obelus in G and the SyroHexapla. The reading “of this law” is found in a series of hexaplaric manuscripts – most likely the reading with “the law” is a later reading! See CAM, 651.

62

CHAPTER 2

consistent use of one expression in the Masoretic Text of the book of Joshua, or at least not as consistent as in ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου Μωυση. In the Old Greek of the book of Joshua, there is the already mentioned difference between ἡ βίβλος and το βιβλίον. With regard to the “sort of law”: in Josh 1:8 and 8:34, the Greek renders with τοῦ νόμου τούτου, in Josh 8:31 and 23:6, the Old Greek reads τῷ νόμῳ Μωυσῇ/ τοῦ νόμου Μωυσῆ, and in 24:26: νόμον τοῦ θεου, with the Old Greek rendering in all the different Hebrew expressions rather faithfully. The complete expression “the book of the law” (or “of this law,” “of Moses,” “of God”) also needs some further analysis. Whereas in MTJosh 23:6, the expression “the book of the law of Moses” and in MTJosh 24:26, the expression “the book of the law of God” is rendered (completely) with ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου Μωυσῆ and εἰς βιβλίον, νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ, in OG Josh 8:31 and 8:34 the expression is rendered without a reference to “a book.” From this analysis, it can be seen that the Old Greek at least rendered the element of “the law” rather faithfully, except for OG Josh 1:7. I also note that the issue with “the book” is still unresolved – the question why the element of “the book” is missing in precisely the difficult section 8:3035 will be taken up in section three (Moving the Altar, Moving the Mountains or Moving What?) of this chapter. It is now time to return to Josh 1:7. The fact that there was in Josh 1:7 no word for “law” in the Old Greek must have triggered the Early Jewish Revisers, as can be witnessed in manuscripts M, 344 and 85, who added the word “the law” to their Greek text as they were aligning the Old Greek towards the then current Hebrew Masoretic Text. The Early Jewish Revisers thus added the phrase κατὰ πάντα τὸν νόμον …. This correction was taken over in the Hexapla and the addition was noted with an asterisk (in the SyroHexapla), indicating clearly that this addition was an addition to make the Old Greek look like the Masoretic Text. In other words, the Early Jewish Revisers noted the minus in the Old Greek text and decided to add the equivalent of the Hebrew word “Torah” to their text. Taken all the arguments, that is arguments stemming from the analysis of the translation technique of the Old Greek of the book of Joshua, and the text critical data, together, it seems more obvious that “the law” was not mentioned in the parental text of the Old Greek and that the Early Jewish Revisers considered this minus something that needed to be remedied and thus, they inserted a Greek translation of the plus of the Hebrew

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

63

text in the Old Greek, which resulted in the Old Greek being adapted and revised towards the then current Hebrew Masoretic Text. The correction clearly left a trace in the manuscript and witnesses’ tradition. The one question that still needs to be answered is the following: If the law was not in the Hebrew Vorlage underlying the Old Greek text, then why was it imported and stressed in the Hebrew Masoretic Text? In my opinion, the final editor of the Masoretic Hebrew text of the book of Joshua wanted to continue the praxis of the Hebrew text of the book of Deuteronomy, where there is almost a constant reference to the law. And as the author of MTJosh 1:8 also had a reference to the law, it is no surprise that the final editor also added a reference to “the law” in 1:7 – after all, what else did Moses convey than the law? And who is this Moses? In Josh 1:7, Moses is referred to as “my servant,” that is the “servant of the Lord.”42 In 1:1, the Masoretic Text has a plus in comparison with the Old Greek: it labels Moses, the servant of the Lord. The expression ‫ עבד יהוה‬is a typical term for the book of Joshua (plus once in Jud 2:8).43 It also appears in Deut 32:36; 32:43 (but the latter both plural, i.e. [God’s] servants), 34:5 and in 2Kgs 18:12. This title is certainly not a title that is typical of Dtr. Whereas the wording in the Masoretic Text is rather univocal:44 “servant of God,” the Old Greek renders it with a variety of expressions: ὁ παῖς κυρίου, ὁ παῖς τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ θεράπων κυρίου, δοῦλος κυρίου (similarly in Judg 2:8). Most remarkably is also that three times there is no parallel expression for “servant 42

43

44

For a further elaboration of the four Greek words that function as a translation of one and the same Hebrew concept, and how these four Greek words are used in relation to both Moses and Joshua, see chapter 4 as well as: Kristin De Troyer, “Adding Profile to Joshua. The First Revision of the Book of Joshua,” in Géza G. Xeravits & Greg Schmidt-Goering (eds.), Figures that Shape Scriptures. Scriptures that Shape Figures. Essays in Honour of Benjamin G. Wright, DCLS 30 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 21-9. As Rofé argued, the beginning of the book of Judges is most likely part of the book of Joshua, and thus we will include the reference in Judg 2:8 among the Deut ones. As Soggin notes, the title is only used for Moses, not for Joshua, except that “only at his death is this title accorded to Joshua himself, Josh. 24.29.” See J. Alberto Soggin, Joshua. A Commentary, The Old Testament Library (London: SCM, 1972), 28. But, Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger states: “Es dürfte ein wohlbedachtes theologische Kalkül dahinter stecken, daß Josua nach deuteronomistischer Sicht die göttliche Legitimation erst zugesprochen bekommt, als das Tora-Buch vorliegt und Mose tot ist.” See Christa Schäfer-Lichtenberger, “Göttliche und menschliche Autorität im Deuteronomium,” in PentateuchalandDeuteronomisticStudies.PapersReadattheXIIIthIOSOTCongress. Leuven1989, ed. Chris Brekelmans & Johan Lust, BETL 94 (Louvain: Peeters, 1990), 125-42, esp. 139-40.

64

CHAPTER 2

of the Lord” in the Old Greek of the book of Joshua(1:1, the case under investigation; 1:15 and 22:4). In each of these cases, in Hexaplaric witnesses there is the addition “servant of the Lord,” each time marked under asterisk in the SyroHexapla. In 1:1, the Hexaplaric text has added δουλου κυ, but there is no sign, i.e. no asterisk attached (as witnessed in manuscript 344); in 1:15 the so-called “rest of the translators” have the same addition. The expression “servant of God” is also presumed in the label “Moses, the servant” (1:2; 1:7) or in “(Moses), his (i.e.God’s, added KDT) servant” (5:14; 11:15). In each of these cases, there is in the Old Greek an equivalent to the word “servant,” albeit (again) not always the same word. There is besides the already mentioned παῖς and θεράπων, also οἰκέτης. There is thus no consistent rendering of the Hebrew word in the Old Greek and there are three instances where the Old Greek either did not render a Hebrew word or did not read a Hebrew word in its Vorlage. What is however important to note is that the Hebrew book of Joshua commences with its titles where the Hebrew book of Deuteronomy left off! When in Deut 24:5, Moses dies, he is labelled “Moses, the servant of the Lord.” When the story continues in Josh 1:1, Moses, is remembered and again labelled “the servant of the Lord.” God himself even refers to this title: God speaks to Joshua and says: “My servant Moses is dead (1:2)” and “act in accordance with all the law that my servant Moses commanded you” (1:7). Joshua also refers in his first commands to this title. He asks the Reubenites, Gadites and the half-tribe of Manasseh to remember the word that “Moses, the servant of the Lord commanded you” (1:13) and to only take the land “that Moses the servant of the Lord” gave after all the others have received their part (1:15). On the Old Greek level of the text, however, Moses is not always labelled in this way. There is no parallel to 1:1 and no parallel to 1:15. In these verses, Moses is mentioned, but not the additional title. In my opinion, the final editor of the Hebrew Masoretic Text has made the link between Deut 34:5 and Josh 1 stronger than in the elder Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek. In other words, MT Josh 1 more deliberately continues MT Deut 34! 1.3. Crossing “this” Jordan A next example: What to make of the issue of “this” Jordan, which is in MTJosh 1:2 but not in the Old Greek? The expression ‫את־הירדן הוה‬ “this Jordan” occurs in Gen 32:11; Deut 3:27; 31:2; and in Josh 1:2, 11; and 4:22. In Deut 3:27, God tells Moses that he, Moses, will not cross this Jordan. Similarly, in Deut 31:2. However, in Deut 3:28 and Deut 31:3,

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

65

it is said explicitly that Moses’ successor, Joshua, will cross over this Jordan. In Josh 1:2 the time for Joshua to do precisely that is there. And God instructs Joshua to cross this Jordan. The addition of “this” to the name Jordan, makes the connection between on the one hand the instruction given in the book of Deuteronomy (3:27 and 31:2) that Moses was not going to be crossing the Jordan but that Joshua was (Deut 3:28 and 31:3) and on the other hand the (repeated) command in the book of Joshua to Joshua to get up and cross the Jordan very obvious. In my opinion, the addition ought to be credited to the final editor of the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the book of Joshua. Moreover, the addition can be labelled a “nomistic” alteration, which aimed to bring the text of the book of Joshua in line with the commands given in the book of Deuteronomy.45 Did the final editor of the Hebrew Masoretic Text also add the word “this” to the other references of the Jordan? In 1:11, both the Hebrew text and the Old Greek have the reading “this Jordan.” In 4:22, as in 1:2, only the Masoretic Text has the additional pronoun, not the Old Greek, at least according to the Rahlfs edition. In the Cambridge edition, 4:22 does have the reading τοῦτον in the text. The apparatus, however, clearly shows that this pronoun is a later correction of the Old Greek. Indeed the reading is marked with an asterisk in the Syro-Hexapla; the correction is taken over from the three Early Jewish Revisers.46 There is thus more reason to believe that the pronoun was added as a correction to the Old Greek, than being part of the Old Greek originally. Rahlfs was thus correct in not putting it in his text. Overall, one can see that the Hebrew Masoretic Text is more systematic in the use of the expression “this Jordan” than the Old Greek. Moreover, it seems that the final editor of the Hebrew Masoretic Text deliberately added the pronoun “this” to make a nomistic connection between the book of Joshua and the book of Deuteronomy. So far I have given a couple easy examples of possible nomistic corrections in the final edition of the Hebrew book of Joshua, now I turn to some more elaborate examples. 45

46

See also Ariel Feldman, “4Q47 (4QJosha): An Abbreviated Text?” Pages 152-63 in “Is there a Text in this Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke,” ed. Ariel Feldman, Maria Cioatâ, and Charlotte Hempel, STDJ 119 (Leiden: Brill, 2017), esp. 163, and esp. his reference to 4Q379, which according to Feldman “preserves a nomistic interpretation of the crossing of the Jordan.” There is some difficulty in the transmission of the readings as the marginal notes of manuscript 344 note that “the rest” does not read it and that the (column of the) Seventy is also without it. The marginal notes of manuscript 344 will be studied in the excursus in chapter 4.

66

CHAPTER 2

2. STONING, BURNING AND HANGING 2.1. Burning with Fire: An Analysis of Josh 7: The Sin of Achan and His Punishment After Jericho47 is taken and destroyed Joshua needs to deal with Achan.48 Achan seems not to have followed the rules regarding the spoil of Jericho. As Soggin observes: “The Achan narrative, 7.1, 5b-26, …, is a question of an interdiction or ban, applied to an individual Israelite and his family.”49 In Josh 6:17, the Jericho-narrative, the rule was stipulated: “The city and all that is in it shall be devoted to the Lord for destruction.” Further clarification is given: “As for you, keep away from the things devoted to destruction” (Josh 6:18a). Finally, the reason is given for this strict rule: “So as not to covet and take any of the devoted things and make the camp of Israel an object for destruction, bringing trouble upon it” (Josh 6:18b). When this sort of rule, specification and clarification is given, one can be sure that a story in which this rule is broken will follow. And indeed, Joshua 7 starts with the following observation: “But the Israelites broke faith in regard to the devoted things: Achan, son of Carmi son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah, took some of the devoted things; and the anger of the Lord burned against the Israelites.” God’s anger is made visible in the death of three thousand50 people – killed by the inhabitants of Ai. Joshua questions God and God explains that the rules regarding the spoil of Jericho were broken (Josh 7: 10-12),51 hence Joshua has to find the culprits and punish them – all of this according to the procedure spelled out by God (Josh 7:13-15). Joshua follows up and summons the people in Josh 7:16. He makes the tribes come forward and he finds the culprit and deals with him. This is what happens: “And all Israel stoned him to death; they burned him with fire, cast stones on 47

48

49 50 51

Soggin correctly notes that there is no reference to Jericho in 7:2 in Codices B and A. He explains: (these codices) “may not have used a text which made this connection between this episode and the previous one.” See Soggin, Joshua.ACommentary, 93. With regard to other topographical notes, he writes, however: “Note, finally, in LXX, a tendency to suppress topographical indications.” Ibidem, 92. For the change from Ahan to Ahar, see Soggin, Joshua, p. 92-3 and A. Graeme Auld, Joshua.JesusSonofNaueinCodexVaticanus,Septuagint Commentary Series (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 140. Ibidem, 96-8. Soggin refers to the debate about the numbers: was it 30,000, 5,000 or 3,000? Ibidem, 92. Nelson correctly observes: “If something or someone falls into the classification herem, he, she, or it is a possision of Yahweh and therefore not to be used by humans,” Nelson, Joshua, 19.

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

67

them, and raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day” (Josh 7:25b-26a).52 Whereas in the Masoretic Text the selection process is rather completely described (from all the tribes to the tribe of Judah; from all the clans of the tribe of Judah to the clan of the Zerahites; from the clan of the Zerahites to the taking of the household of Zabdi; from the household of Zabdi to the individual members; ultimately Achan is taken – Achan is son of Carmi, son of Zabdi, son of Zerah, of the tribe of Judah), in the Old Greek the selection process is shortened (the tribe of Judah is pointed out, then, the family of the Zaraites is pointed out, and finally, Achar is pointed out). In other words, one level, namely the level of the household of Zabdi is not present in the Old Greek. The summative description of Achar, however (Achar is the son of Zambri, the son of Zara) does indicate that the “house-hold-level” which was present in the Masoretic Text, but not in the Old Greek, was known to the Old Greek, as the Old Greek renders Achab, son of Zambri, son of Zara, with Zambri being the household level, which mirrors the Masoretic Text “the household of Zabdi.” With regard to the punishment of the culprits: God indicates that they have to “be burned with fire, together with all that the culprit has” (Josh 7:15).53 The Old Greek reads similarly. There have, however, in the Masoretic Text, elements been added when it comes to the delivery of the punishment in Josh 7:25b. In MT Josh 7:25b, it is now specified that the burning with fire is preceded by the stoning to death (Josh 7:25b),54 as well as followed by casting of stones: MT Josh 7:15

7:25b

‫וירגמו‬ – ‫אתו‬ – ‫כל־ישראל‬ – ‫אבן‬ – ‫וישרפו אתם באש ישרף באש אתו‬ ‫ויסקלו אתם באבנים‬ –

52

53

54

In this section, I will not elaborate on the specification of the subject in MT and OG 7:25: “all Israel.” I agree with Auld, who holds that only Achan – or Achar in the Old Greek text – was punished, not his entire family. See Auld, Joshua, 146-7. For a discussion of the evolution of the stoning as capital punishment, see Kristin De Troyer, “Once More the so-called Esther fragments of Cave 4,” in RevQ 75/19 (2000): 401-22, esp. 413-8.

68

CHAPTER 2

The fact that there is a double mentioning of stones is indicative of a complex literary growth of the text. Moreover, there are a series of inconsistencies in the text, which also may point to a complex development of the text. First, as already mentioned, with the culprit being stoned to death, then burned with fire and then stones cast on him (7:25), the execution of the command in the Masoretic Text does not match the original command of God which was (just) to burn the culprit (7:15). Second, there are two different Hebrew words used for “stoning,” that is ‫ רגם‬and ‫סקל‬. Thirdly, in 7:25bβ-γ the object changes from singular “him” (Achan) to plural “them” and it is not clear who are meant with “them.”55 Auld notes this change and he pleads for a singular victim. When comparing the Masoretic Text with the Old Greek, a more striking issue arises: MT Josh 7:25b ‫וירגמו‬ ‫אתו‬ ‫כל־ישראל‬ ‫אבן‬ ‫וישרפו אתם באש‬ ‫ויסקלו אתם באבנים‬

OG 7:25b καὶ ἐλιθοβόλησαν αὐτὸν (see below, transposition) λίθοις πᾶς Ἰσραηλ – –

The Old Greek does not have the burning with fire, but only the stoning with stones: “and all Israel stoned him with stones.” There is thus no stoning to death followed by burning with fire and finally stones being put on the culprit, as in the Masoretic Text, but only stoning with stones! With this complex construction and the, at first sight, heaping up of punishments, the question is: How did this text develop? Did the Masoretic Text elaborate on the ingredients of the punishment or did the Old Greek delete some of the ingredients? In other words, did the Masoretic Text 55

The verbs in 7:25b are all plural: they stoned, they burned with fire, they cast stones; the subject has however been identified as “all Israel.” Maybe the transition from singular to plural is caused by Deut 13:9, which first reads a singular: “but you shall surely kill him; your own hand shall be the first to execute them” (Deut 13:9a) and then: “and afterwards the hand of all the people” (Deut 13:9b)?

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

69

add the element of burning with fire and then, by way of Wiederaufnahme, continued with the stoning? But then, how to explain that God only ordered burning with fire (7:15)? Or did the Old Greek only keep one part of the punishment? In the case of the Masoretic Text, why did it add the element of burning with fire? In the case of the Old Greek, why did it delete the burning with fire and the heaping up of stones? With regard to the Masoretic Text: I will describe how, in MT Josh 7:25b, the text could have developed from a single execution to a three fold one. Below is a diagram showing the development, under it, I have elaborated on how the process enfolded. 7:25bα

‫וירגמו‬ ‫אתו‬ ‫כל־ישראל‬ ‫אבן‬

7:25bβ

+ ‫וישרפו אתם באש‬

7:25bγ

“Wiederaufnahme” with variants: ‫ויסקלו אתם באבנים‬

The Masoretic Text inserted the element of burning in 7:25bβ to make the execution of the command resemble the command as given by God in 7:15.56 Then, it continued in 7:25bγ with the stoning as mentioned in 7:25bα. However, the Masoretic Text deliberately changed the verb in 7:25bγ in order to suggest that a new action was undertaken – thereby making the insertion of 7:25bβ less obvious. It also adapted the singular “stone” to plural “stones,” which seems more logical, as stoning usual does not happen with one single stone. With regard to the Old Greek: how to explain the Old Greek text: can the text of the Old Greek be explained as an intentional shortening of the text? First, one could imagine that the Old Greek wanted to avoid repeating the second sort of stoning, and thus deleting 7:25bγ, but there is no reason for the Old Greek to have omitted two actions: the burning with fire (7:25bβ), as well as the second throwing of stones (7:25bγ). Second, I note that the text critical apparatus of the Old Greek reveals a series of interesting details and developments. I note that the missing phrases (7:25bβ-γ) have been added to the text in the Syrohexapla57 (with 56 57

The change from singular to plural in the object remains difficult to explain. Somehow confusing, the three parts of the execution are marked with a single asterisk in manusripts 19, 108 and 426 – all hexaplaric manuscripts, as well as the Armenian translation and the SyroHexapla.

70

CHAPTER 2

some variants in the readings, but marked with an asterisk), and in the Hexaplaric recension, as attested with an asterisk in the margins of manuscript 344, and (without an asterisk) in (the text of) manuscript 376, a hexaplaric manuscript, and in the text of manuscript 120 and in the margins of manusript 129 – the latter two normally witnessing to an Old Greek text. The Old Latin has beside the first phrase (with a variant: singular instead of plural) also the additional: “et comburet te igni,” which most likely is also a remnant of the hexaplaric reading. Robert, in his edition of Codex Lugdunensis, writes: “Dans 19, 108 et l’éd. Complut., on trouve καὶ κατεκαύσα αὐτὰ ἐν πυρὶ καὶ ἐλιθοβόλησαν αὐτοὺς ἐν λίθοις.”58 This Hexaplaric correction is also found in the marginal notes of codex M, marked with an asterisk, but not assigned to a specific Jewish reviser. It surely looks like the Old Greek has, very early onwards, been corrected towards the current Masoretic Text. Third, I note that the Old Greek uses an extremely strong verb: ἐξολεθρεύω, which is used in the description of the destruction of the two kings of the Amorites (2:10).59 The word choice in the Old Greek makes it clear that the culprit is being punished with the punishment that ought to have been given to the city of Jericho: utter destruction, herem! The combination between stoning to death and burning with fire is not an obvious one. In all the Deuteronomy and Joshua “herem”-texts, it is told that an entire city with all its inhabitants, livestock and material assets are utterlydestroyed (the verb ‫ חרם‬is used: a city is ‘heremized’). In the book of Deuteronomy, there is also a rule formulated for cases where things have been taken into a camp and not devoted to destruction. Deut 7:26 reads: “Do not bring an abhorrent thing into your house, or you will be set apart for destruction like it. You must utterly detest and abhor it, for it is set apart for destruction.” In the book of Joshua, the tradition of ‘herem’ has been continued with Joshua putting to destruction several cities (for instance: 10:28: ‘heremization’ of Makedah, 10:35: Eglon, 10:27: Hebron, 10:39: Debir, etc.). The rule for things that are reserved for destruction is recalled in Josh 6:18: “As for you, 58

59

Ulysse Robert, Heptateuchiparsposteriorisversiolatinaantiquissimaecodicelugdunensi.VersionLatinduDeutéronome,deJosuéetdesJugesantérieureasaintJérôme, publiéed’aprèslemanucritdeLyonavecunfax-similé,desobservationspaléographiques etphilologiquessurl’origineetlavaleurdecetexte(Lyon: Librairie de A. Rey et Cie, 1900), 65. I note that in Joshua 10-11, the Hebrew ‫ חרם‬is rendered with ἐξολεθρεύω. Before Jos 10:1 and in Josh 22:20 (with the exception of 2:10) the instruction to devote to God for destruction, ‫חרם‬, is translated with the word ἀνάθεμα, devoted.

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

71

keep away from the things devoted to destruction, so as not to covet and take any of the devoted things and make the camp of Israel an object for destruction, bringing trouble upon it.” This explanation clearly refers to the rule of Deut 7:26. The punishment of Achan, however, is not only happening in the context of a ‘herem,’ it also reflects the punishment given to person that entices fellow Israelites to worship other gods (Deut 13:6-11) as well as to a city and its inhabitants that worship other gods, enticed by some of the Israelites (Deut 13:12-18). Deut 13:6-11 deals with the persons that enticed a city to follow other gods – that person must be killed (13:9). The text reads: “Stone (‫ )וסקלתו‬them to death for trying to turn you away from the Lord your God…” (Deut 13:11). Moreover, in Deut 17:2-7, the case of an Israelite (“one among you”) person who is serving other gods is discussed. Deut 17:5 stipulates what needs to happen with this person: “you shall stone them with stones and they will die” (‫וסקלתם באבנים‬ ‫)ומתו‬. By making sure that Achan was stoned to death, the final editor of the Masoretic Text of the book of Joshua may have hinted at the fact that Achan took not just some ‘heremized’ things, but that these things may have been idols. Moreover, the final editor of Josh 7:25 also used the second part of Deut 13, namely Deut 13:12-18 in which it is said that a city in which the inhabitants continue to worship other gods, needs to be punished by burning it with fire: “then burn the town and all its spoil with fire” (Deut 13:16). In the book of Deuteronomy, the burning with fire is directly associated with idols that need to be burned with fire (Deut 7:5, 25; 9:21; 12:3). The burning with fire fits well with many texts in the book of Joshua: the city of Ai is put on fire (8:8, 19), the city of Hazor is burned with fire (11:11), even Jericho is burned with fire (6:24). By inserting the element of burning with fire, the final editor of the book of Joshua may have (again) wanted to underline that Achan possibly was associated with worshipping other gods. The punishing with fire was also the punishment as foreseen by God: in 7:15, God specifies the punishment for taking ‘heremized’ items: “And the one who is taken as having the devoted things shall be burned with fire ….”. By combining the burning with fire with the stoning, the final editor of Joshua 7, brought two elements together, that both point to possibly worshipping other gods! By having both the element of fire and the stoning with stones in the punishment of Achan, the final editor not only wanted to buttress that Achan is not only accused of taking from the devoted

72

CHAPTER 2

things (Josh 6:18; 7:1, 11, 12, 13, 15), but that Achan was responsible for bringing other gods into the camp! Moreover, by combining the punishments, the author also underlines that Achan received the appropriate punishment reserved for such transgressions! Both punishments, burning with fire and stoning with stones, are the punishments as foreseen in Deut 13 and Deut 17! With regard to the second mentioning of the stoning with stones: as already stated, it is remarkable that there are two verbs used for what seems at first sight the same action: ‫ רגם‬and ‫סקל‬. Why are there two verbs used, instead of one and the same? What does an analysis of the verb ‫ רגם‬tell us? Those who need to be stoned (using the root ‫)רגם‬, are persons that make their sons or daughters go through Molek (Lev 20:2, 27), blasphemers (Lev 24:14, 16, 23), Joshua and Caleb, the two spies are threatened to be stoned (Num 14:10), the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Num 15:35-36), the stubborn and rebellious glutton and drunkard of a son (Deut 21:21), Adoram, the taskmaster over the forced labour in service of King Rehoboam (1Kgs 12:18; 2Chron 10:18), Israel the adulterous whore (Ez 16:40; 23:47) and Zechariah, the prophet (2Chron 24:21). Albeit that stoning surely is seen to be appropriate for serious trespasses, the verb is not used exclusively used in the context of punishment for following other Gods. The verb ‫ סקל‬is used in the following contexts: the Israelites being afraid to be stoned by the pharaoh if they offer sacrifices to their God (Ex 8:22), Moses on the brim of being stoned by the people (Ex 17:4), Israelites warned for stoning if they touch the mountain on which God will come (Ex 19:12, 13), the person trying to lure the Israelites to idolatry (Deut 13:10), the person responsible for leading the Israelites to other Gods (Deut 17:5), the prostitute (Deut 22:21), the married man and the young woman he violated (Deut 22:24), the person who curses God and the king (1Kgs 21:10, 13) and Naboth (1Kgs 21:14, 15). The verb is thus, also, not solely used in the context of idolatry. Then, why did the final editor of MT Josh 7:25, in the second mentioning of the stoning use ‫ ?סקל‬In my opinion, the author deliberately used, in the Wiederaufnahme of the stoning (Josh 7:25bγ), the verb from Deut 13:11 and 17:5. By using the verb from Deut 13:11 and 17:5, the final editor emphasized that Achan was being punished for leading the Israelites to other Gods or idols!

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

73

In summary, how did the text of Josh 7:15 and 25 develop? The starting point is the punishment as ordered by God: the person that is taking part of the spoil ought to be burned with fire (Josh 7:15). Burning with fire is normally the punishment for a city that worships other gods, as described in Deut 13:12-18. In the execution of the command in Josh 7:25, however, the punishment for the culprit (singular!) was stoning to death (with a stone). This stoning to death can also be found in Deut 13:6-11, where a person that entices others to worship other gods, is punished by stoning to death. The latter case actually seems most appropriate for Achan! It is in my opinion, no wonder that the (original) punishment in Josh 7:25bα is stoning to death. However, the final editor wanted to make sure that the punishment received by Achan was also in compliance with the command as given by God in 7:15, namely to burn the culprit, and thus the element of burning with fire was inserted in Josh 7:25bβ!60 Moreover, by having first the stoning to death and then the burning with fire, the final editor of MT Josh 7 created a double parallel with Deut 13: similar to Deuteronomy 13, where the stoning is mentioned (Deut 13:6-11) before the burning with fire (Deut 13: 12-18), the final edition of the book of Joshua has the stoning to death (Josh 7:25bα) before the burning with fire (Josh 7:25bβ). Finally, the author went back to the first element of the punishment as described in 7:25bα, namely the stoning. In the Wiederaufnahme in 7:25bγ, the final editor deliberately used a verb that not only tied Josh 7:25 to Deut 13:10 but also to Deut 17:5. The latter text stipulates precisely the procedure that needs to be followed in case an Israelite transgresses the covenant and worships other gods: “if it is reported to you, make a thorough inquiry, and if the charge is proved true, then you shall bring out to your gates that man or woman … and you shall stone the man or woman to death” (Deut 17:4-5). The latter procedure is precisely followed in Josh 7, where Joshua deals with Achan! 7:15 7:25bα

7:25bβ 7:25bγ

60

‫ישרף באש אתו‬ ‫וירגמו‬ ‫אתו‬ ‫כל־ישראל‬ ‫אבן‬

+ ‫וישרפו אתם באש‬ “Wiederaufnahme” ‫ויסקלו אתם באבנים‬

This is again a case where the execution of a command is made to reflect the command itself!

74

CHAPTER 2

That the expansion of the punishment of Achan as reported in Josh 7:25 happened after the time of the original rendering of the book of Joshua can be argued on the basis that there is not a burning with fire in the Old Greek, nor a repeated use of the “stoning”-image. Before adding one more argument in favour of the Hebrew text having an original punishment without the burning with fire and a second stoning, the description of the spoil as taken by Achan needs to be further analysed. The description of the spoil in 7:21 does not explicitly read that other gods or idols were involved: the text reads: “a beautiful mantle from Shinar, and two hundred shekels of silver and a bar of gold weighing fifty shekels.” A further analysis, however, does seem to buttress the idea that idols are part of the package. In all but one case, where “cloak” is used (‫)אדרת‬, it is a piece of clothing; in Zech 13:4, the cloak is, however, a “mantle of deceit” worn by (bad) prophets. Moreover, references to Shinar are mostly to the place or the king of Shinar, but in Dan 1:2, it is the place where the vessels of the Temple are brought to, where they are placed with the gods. Similarly, in Zech 5:11, the woman “wickedness” is brought to the land of Shinar, where a house is built for it and the woman (in the basket) is placed in that house. Next, the description of gold weighing fifty shekels could be a reference to the payment exacted by King Menahem from the wealthy Israelites to give to King of Assyria – the latter is one of the kings of Israel who did “what was evil in the sight of the lord,” which is clearly a reference to following idols. Also, the combination of silver and gold may be a reference to Deut 29:17, where the idols are precisely described in terms of silver and gold: “You have seen their detestable things, the filthy idols of wood and stone, of silver and gold, that were among them.” The description of the spoil taken by Achan, although at first sight nothing special, could actually be interpreted as a description of and reference to idols! The final argument for the direction of the literary development of the text as described above, comes from the final verse of chapter 7. In 7:26, the Masoretic Text continues with the statement that Achan’s resting place must become a ruin: “… and raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day” (Josh 7:26). The idea of a ruin, or a heap of stones, is also present in the tomb (of remembrance?) of where the King of Ai was buried: “And he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening; and at sunset Joshua commanded, and they took his body down from the three, threw it down at the entrance of the gate of the city and raised over it as great heap of stones, which stands there to this day” (Josh 8:29). In a similar way,

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

75

there are stones heaped up against the mouth of the cave in which the five kings of the Amorites were thrown after having been killed and hanged: “At sunset Joshua commanded and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the cave of the mouth, which remain to this very day” (Josh 10:27).61 Similarly, the city of Ai became a ruin (Josh 8:28) and later, when Israel goes astray, the land of Israel becomes a desolate place (Is, Jer, Ez, ad passim). When it is said that Achan is being stoned, burned with fire, cast stones at, and finally, a heap of stones piled upon him, it makes it clear that not only Achan truly receives a series of punishments for the great offence of bringing gods into the camp, but also that he is considered like the kings of Ai and the Amorite kings. This connecting of the story of Achan with the stories in chapters 8 (Ai) and 10 (the five Amorite kings) may again indicate that Achan belongs to the “others” that have other gods. This connection however must have been made rather early, as it was already in the Hebrew text before the Old Greek was translated.62 I also note that the creation of a heap of stones is also found in Deut 13:17, but I acknowledge that there is no semantic parallel between Josh 7:26 and Deut 13:17. The creation of the heap of stones, however, also demonstrates that the original punishment of Achan was stoning with stones followed by burying under a heap of stones! The great heap of stones is put on top of “him,” that is Achan. As in Josh 7:15 and 7:24bα, in Josh 7:26, Achan is referred to in the singular. The singular is in contrast with the plurals in 7:24bβ and 7:24bγ. 7:15 ‫ישרף באש אתו‬ 7:25bα ‫וירגמו אתו כל־ישראל אבן‬ 7:25bβ ‫וישרפו אתם באש‬ 7:25bγ ‫ויסקלו אתם באבנים‬ 7:26 ‫ויקימו עליו גל־אבנים גדול‬ 61

62

As the kings seem to first been killed and then hanged, the past tense “hanged” is deliberately used to differentiate it from to hang, hung, hung meaning killing by means of hanging Michael van der Meer argues that a priestly editor has reworked a pre-priestly stratum; in his analysis of 6:1, 10-26, he suggests that this priestly editor has “anticipated the priestly narrative of Achan’s sin (…) by means of (the, addedKDT) phrase “take from the herem” (… Josh 6:18; 7:1, 11) and the expresson “to entangle into disorder” (… Josh 6:18; 7:25 [2×]).” There is thus not only the hinging of chapter 7 to chapters 8 and 10, but also chapter 6 to chapter 7! Cf. Michael van der Meer, “’Sound the Trumpet’ Redaction and Reception of Joshua 6:2-25,” in TheLandofIsraelinBible,Historyand Theology.StudiesinHonourofEdNoort, ed. Jacques van Ruiten & J. Cornelis de Vos, VTSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 19-43, esp. 32-3.

76

CHAPTER 2

The phrases referring to Achan in singular ought to be considered the original sentences: “And all Israel stoned him to death and they raised over him a great heap of stones that remains to this day” (Josh 7:25bα, Josh 7:26). The phrases referring to the culprits in plural (7:25bβ-γ) clearly are secondary! In conclusion: the text of the book of Deuteronomyseems to have been the source of inspiration for the author and especially the subsequent, final editor of the book of Joshua: the punishment given to Achan is made to comply with the book of Deuteronomyin three ways: first, Achan is stoned to death for enticing to worshipping other gods (Deut 13:17); second, that Achan is burned with fire is a reminder that this was the way to utterly destroy (‘heremize’) a town or city involved with worshipping other gods (Deut 13:16), and thirdly, Achan is stoned with stones (using the root ‫ ;סקל‬Deut 13:10 and Deut 17:5) in order to confirm that Achan is one from among the Israelites who is serving other gods, and thus punished according to the appropriate laws (Deut 17:2-7)! The analysis of Josh 7 has made it clear that the final editor of the text of the book of Joshuasought to better connect the text with the laws given and the cases as reported in the book of Deuteronomy! 2.2. Stoning and Hanging After conquering Jericho and punishing Achan, Joshua and his men continue in the direction of the city of Ai. God says to Joshua: “do with Ai and with his king as you did with Jericho and his king” (Jos 8:2a). In the narrative, God also offers the perfect battle strategy.63 He explains that the Israelites have to set an ambush against the city, behind it (Josh 8:2c). And Joshua does precisely as God has commanded him. Not far away from the city he sets an ambush. Then Joshua and his fighting men set out to go up against Ai and approach it. When the inhabitants of Ai see the approaching Israelites, they come out against the Israelites. Then Joshua pretends to flee. The king of Ai and his soldiers then go after the Israelites and they themselves are drawn away from the city. The city of Ai is subsequently left unprotected. On the command of Joshua, the men lying in ambush rise up from the ambush and seize the city. Then they set the city on fire. When the men of Ai, that had pursued Joshua and his men, look back and see their city on fire, they can not do anything, as the ones they pursued, turned 63

See for a detailed analysis of the text of the battle of Ai: chapter 1, section 3.

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

77

against their pursuers. The Israelites kill all the people that had pursued them. They however kept the king of Ai alive and brought him to Joshua. Then, Israel returned to Ai and stroke all the people from the city with the sword. Joshua does not draw back his hand until he destroyed utterly all the inhabitants of Ai. Joshua then burns the city and makes it into a heap of ruins. In this section, I will focus on what happens with the king of Ai. The last verse of the battle against Ai story reads: “Then he hanged the king of Ai on a tree until evening, and at sunset, Joshua commanded, and they took this body down from the tree, threw it down at the entrance of the gate of the city and raised over it a great heap of stone, which stands there to this day” (Josh 8:29). In this verse, we encounter three problems: 1. What does it mean that the king of Ai was hanged on a tree? Was he hanged? Or was he hung? Was he alive when he was hanged, or was he already dead when he was hung? In English there are two past tenses for the same verb: to hang, hanged, hanged, indicating the executing of someone and to hang, hung, hung, used when hanging something up. 2. Why was the corpse taken down from the tree at the evening? 3. Why was the body thrown at the entrance of the city gate? These three problems are also noteworthy as there are differences between the Hebrew and Greek texts! The three problems will be dealt with in three sections. 2.2.1. Hanging The Hebrew text of Josh 8:29 reads ‫ואת־מלך העי תלה על־העץ‬, in translation: that he hang the king on a wood.64 The question is: Was the king hanged or was he hung? In Hebrew there is one verb to indicate the hanging (‫)תלה‬. Which English verb, however, fits best the Hebrew verb? Was the king hanged or was he hung? Already in the relief from Lachish in which the Assyrian king Sennacherib (705-681) and his conquests were being represented, we find a depiction of the inhabitants of Lachish which were being hung or hanged on a wooden pole.65 Similar images we have from King Shalmaneser III 64

65

Most often, a tree is from wood, but not all wood is still a tree. Therefore, I prefer to render more literally, that the king was hanged on wood. David Ussishkin, TheConquestofLachishbySennacherib,Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 6 (Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1982); James B. Pritchard, TheAncient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1954), 130-1, images 372-3, and the description of the images on p. 293-4.

78

CHAPTER 2

(859-824), the Assyrian king who conquered the city of Dabigu in the middle of the nineth century BCE.66 King Shalmaneser III let the inhabitants hang on poles. Also King Tiglat Pileser III (745-727) hanged or hung his victims on wooden poles.67 The question however is: were these men hung dead or hanged alive? Some scholars point to the “heads down” or in other words the lower hanging heads of the people that are hanging in the Nimrud depiction of Tiglat Pileser III68 as an argument in favour of the view that the people were already dead when they were being hung.69 What about the hanging in the Bible? In the book of Joshua, God instructs Joshua to do with the king of Ai as Joshua had done with the king of Jericho. But nowhere in the history about the battle against Jericho is anything said about the king of Jericho. In the books of Samuel and Kings, young Absalom unfortunately ends up hanging in a tree: “Absalom was riding on his mule, and the mule went under the thick branches of a great oak. His head caught fast in the oak, and he was left hanging between heaven and earth, while the mule that was under him went on” (2Sam 18:9). It is clear that Absalom is fully alive when he hangs in the tree, but this case is clearly not a case of execution, even if Absalom later gets killed. In the book of Esther, it is first said that Mordecai ought to be hanged or, is it: hung? As a matter of fact, it is the one who commanded Mordecai to be hanged or hung, namely Haman, who ends up being hanged or hung (Esther 7:10). Also Haman’s ten sons are being hanged or hung. In Esther chapter 9 it becomes clear that the ten sons are not being hanged, but hung. The text first reads: “and they killed the ten sons of Haman, the enemy of the Jews” (Est 9,7-10) and then it continues: “so the king commanded this to be done; a decree was issued in Susa, and the ten sons of Haman were hanged” (Est 9:14).70 The text of Esther is however very clear: first kill, then hang! And indeed, in the case of 9:14, the sons are not hanged, 66

67 68

69

70

James B. Pritchard, TheAncientNearEastinPicturesRelatingtotheOldTestament, 126, image 362, and the description of the image on p. 293. Ibidem, 128, image 368, and the description of the image on p. 293. Ibidem.See also Cynthia R. Chapman, “Sculpted Warriors: Sexuality and the Sacred in the Depiction of Warfare in the Assyrian Palace Reliefs and in Ezekiel 23:14-17,” in TheAestheticsofViolenceintheProphets, ed. by Julia M. O’Brien & Chris Franke (New York & London: T & T Clark, 2010), 1-17, esp. 6. A small but not unimportant note with regard to this relief: if this relief was not taken into the British Museum a long time ago, then it would have been destroyed, together with the entire city of Nimrud, by the so-called Islamic State in March 2015. In my opinion some modern Bible translators ought to have used here “hung,”, not “hanged”!

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

79

instead their dead bodies are hung! In Joshua 10, Joshua orders the five Canaanite kings to be taken out of the cave in which they had hidden and to be brought to him. Joshua then kills the kings and orders their bodies to be hung on five trees (Josh 10:22-26). The five kings are thus also first killed and then hung! Now what do the Mosaic laws say about conquered people? How does a victor have to deal with a city and its inhabitants which have been taken? Deut 20 sets out the procedure on what to do. If a city declines a friendly proposition and decides to go out to war against the Israelites, then Israel needs to lay siege to the city. When God then delivers this city into the hands of the Israelites, then all the male inhabitants ought to be killed by the sword. That is what needs to be done with the inhabitants of cities that are far removed from where the Israelites are and which are towns of people of other nations. However, with regard to the towns of the peoples that God is giving to the Israelites as their inheritance, nothing that breathes can be left alive: “You shall annihilate them – the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites, just as the Lord your God has commanded you” (Deut 20: 12-13.15-17). In the end, the result for all men is the same, namely: they are dead! Either the men belong to a far away city and then they are killed with the sword, or they belong to the Hittites and the Amorites, the Canaanites and the Perizzites, the Hivites and the Jebusites and are not to be left alive. And so it happens in the book of Joshua: according to the law, it happens in Jericho and in Ai. The problem, however, is that nowhere in the Deuteronomic laws, a special punishment is issued for kings. Now, what happened with the King of Ai? In Joshua 8, the Israelites, who at first sight were fleeing along with Joshua away from Ai, turn against those men from Ai who were pursuing them. Now the tables are turned and the Israelites start killing the men from Ai: “When Israel had finished slaughtering all the inhabitants of Ai in the open wilderness where they pursued them, and when all of them to the very last had fallen by the edge of the sword” (Josh 8:24a). These men then take the king of Ai in captivity. Next, “all Israel returned to Ai and attacked it with the edge of the sword” (Josh 8:24b). From this verse, it is not clear whether or not the king of Ai is also killed. There is however another problem in the text of Joshua, and well in precisely this verse, 8:29! Maybe this detail allows us to solve the puzzle

80

CHAPTER 2

of what happened with the King of Ai? The Hebrew text says that Israel returned to Ai – that same Israel that first killed those who had been pursuing them and that same Israel that turned against the city of Ai. The Old Greek text, however, separates these two actions. Whereas Israel kills all those that were fleeing, it is Joshua who is returning to the city of Ai and attacks it with the edge of his sword. In my opinion, the Old Greek preserved here the original text and the Masoretic Text developed later. If that is the case, then Joshua kills the entire city and thus also the king – and thus, the king is already dead before he is being hung! 2.2.2. “andatsunset,…,theytookthisbodydownfromthetree”71 The Masoretic Text reads that the king’s body was taken down at sunset. There is however a double time indication in the verse: ‫את־מלך העי תלה על־העץ עד־עת הערב‬ ‫וכבוא השמש צוה יהושע וירידו את־נבלתו מן־העץ‬

First it said that “he hanged the king of Ai on a tree untilevening.” And then, it is noted that “at sunset, Joshua commanded, and they took this body down from the tree.” (Jos 8:29b). That the body is being taken down at the evening is standard procedure. Again, the book of Deuteronomy offers the legal information: In Deut 21 the law is given on what to do in a couple of (horrible) cases – the cases are well known: persons who cheat on their partners and sons who do not obey their parents. In all these cases, the person ought to be first stoned, then at sunset the body ought to be taken down and buried. Deut 21:18-21 is very specific: “If someone has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey his father and mother, who does not heed them when they discipline him, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of that place … Then all the men of the town shall stone him to death!” The law continues with yet another case: “When someone is convicted of a crime punishable by death and is executed, and you hang him on a tree, his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree, you shall bury him that 71

See for a further elaboration: Kristin De Troyer, “‘Man nahm die Leiche von dem Baum ab und warf sie vor das Tor der Stadt’ (Jos 8,29): kleine Probleme, große Textgeschichte!” in DieSeptuaginta–Geschichte,Wirkung,Relevanz, ed. Martin Meiser, Michaela Geiger, Siegfried Kreuzer & Marcus Sigismund, WUNT 405 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018), p. 226-9.

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

81

same day!” (Deut 21:22-23).72 In my opinion, the King of Ai receives the treatment as is foreseen in Deuteronomy: he is first killed, then hung on a tree, and at sunset his body is taken down from the tree, as his corpse must not remain all night upon the tree.73 But why is there in the Masoretic Text a double time indication? In order to answer that question, I need to turn to the Old Greek text and its further development. The Old Greek of Josh 8:29 reads as follows: καὶ τὸν βασιλέα τῆς Γαὶ ἐκρέμασεν ἐπὶ ξύλου διδύμου, καὶ ἦν ἐπὶ τοῦ ξύλου ἕως ἑσπέρας

In the Greek text tradition of 8:29 there is a small but important correction. The Early Jewish Revisers created right before ἑσπέρας a small addition: καιροῦ τῆς (the correction can be found in the margin of manuscript 344, where there is not only a reference made to the fifth column of Origen’s Hexapla but also an asterisk added to the correction).74 The correction of the Early Jewish Revisers reflects the further clarification that happened in the Hebrew text and the Revisers added the small detail to make sure that the Old Greek text reflected better and was aligned more closely with the Hebrew, Masoretic Text. This correction also indicates that the Early Jewish Revisers attempted to precisely pinpoint the time for taking down the body. It was not just in the evening, when the sun set, as it said in the Old Greek text, but it was theprecise moment of the evening when the sun set. In the Hexapla, the correction was marked with an asterisk, which was preserved in the Syro-Hexapla, as well as in the margins of Codex Coislinianus (M) and in manuscripts 19 85(mg) 376 and 425. All these witnesses indicate that this correction is a later correction and that the Old Greek text and its Hebrew parental text did not have this very precise time indication. The Hebrew Masoretic Text thus offers a further elaborated text than the Old Greek: 72

73

74

I note that this unacceptable law of stoning someone to death is still practiced in Islamic countries under shariah law: especially women are still stoned to death! Barbaric! A small detail in the Greek text hints at a possible further interpretation. Whereas the Hebrew text mentions a piece of wood, the Greek text further elaborates the wood into a double piece of wood, maybe a wood with a cross beam? ἐπὶ ξύλου διδύμου – and precisely this tradition is then continued in the Old Latin text that reads “et regem Geth suspendit in ligno bifurco.” This variant (“not a wood but a double piece of wood”) received in the Old Greek text an obelus. CAM, 704, second apparatus, ad 29.

82

CHAPTER 2

MT

OG

EJR

‫ את־מלך העי תלה‬καὶ τὸν βασιλέα τῆς Γαὶ ἐκρέμασεν ‫ על־העץ‬ἐπὶ ξύλου διδύμου, καὶ ἦν ἐπὶ τοῦ ξύλου ‫ עד‬ἕως ‫־עת‬

καιροῦ τῆς

‫ הערב‬ἑσπέρας

Now, why did the Masoretic Text further define the time of the letting hang and taking down of the corpse? In my opinion, the very precise indication of time in the Hebrew Masoretic Text of the book of Joshua can be explained as an elaboration of the laws of Deuteronomy 21. On the one hand, in Josh 8:29b1 it is stated that the body ought not to be on the tree during the night. On the other hand, it is stated in Josh 8:29b2 that the body ought to be buried on the same day. This double time indication, not during the night, but on the same day, can only be interpreted as referring to a precise point where the day is still the day and not yet the night, and thus a very precise moment. In other words, the body ought to be on the tree till the very end of the day, not overnight, and it ought to be buried on the same day! In order to make sure that the precise moment was used, the Masoretic final editor of the book of Joshua added: ‫עת‬, making the expression maybe even more precise: ‫ עד־עת הערב‬instead of ‫עד הערב‬, and thus making sure that all the laws were precisely followed: the burying happens on the same day!75 2.2.3. “Attheentranceofthecitygate!” The next element of this verse entails the burying of the corpse. The Masoretic Text reads: .‫וישליכו אותה אל־פתח שער העיר‬ The body needs to be thrown at the entrane of the city gate!

Whereas Deut 21:23 explicitly instructs to take the body down and to bury it the same day, it nowhere says where to bury it. In Joshua 10, the bodies are thrown into the hole in which the kings had hidden themselves beforehand. In 2 Kgs 21:18,26 Manasseh is said to have been buried in the garden of his own house. The grave of one of the Persian kings was 75

This tradition is still very important in Jewish life – it is called “honour the dead!” (Kevod ha-Met) and was already formulated as an important law in the Shulchan Aruch (Par 357:1).

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

83

also in the royal garden, so Manasseh was just following tradition.76 According to Josh 8:29, however, the corpse was thrown at the entrance of the city-gate. In the Old Greek however, the body was thrown in a hole: καὶ ἔριψαν αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν βόθρον. This hole is not further defined or geographically pinpointed. That the body was thrown into a hole is also what is found in the VetusLatina. But how is it possible, that the Hebrew text reads “at the entrance of the city-gate” and the Old Greek “into the hole”? The Greek word βόθρος “hole” is a translation of the Hebrew word ‫פחת‬, pachat. Instead of ‫פחת‬, pachat, the Hebrew text reads ‫פתח‬, patach, “entrance.” The Masoretic author altered the old Hebrew text, with the help of a simple metathesis, and thereby changed the old Hebrew text from “hole” into “city entrance”. The corpse now has to be thrown at the entrance of the city instead of simply in a hole. That change also indicates that the corpse is now outside of the city and not within the city.77 This change was necessitated by the growing importance of making sure that bodies were buried outside of the cities. The Hebrew text thus clarified that the body was to be buried outside of the city and not within the city wall! In other words, there are specific rules which the MT Josh is keen to follow: the burying happens outside the city. There are indications that the Israelites had their graves outside the city. For instance, is it noted that the graves of the common people were outside the city (2Kgs 23:6); Jojakim receives according to the book of Jeremiah, a burial of a donkey, which means he is dragged off and thrown out beyond the gate of Jerusalem (Jer 22:19). The growing importance of locating the graves outside of the city is most visible in the Dead Sea Scrolls, at least in the Temple Scroll: “And you shall not defile your land … and you shall not do as the gentiles do: they bury their dead in every place, they even bury them in the middle of their houses; instead you shall keep places apart within your land where you shall bury your dead” (11Q19 XLVIII, 20-21). 76

77

See Kristin De Troyer, “The Garden: A Crucial Element or a Later Addition to the Resurrection Stories?” in ResurrectionoftheDead:BiblicalTraditionsinDialogue, ed. Geert Van Oyen & Tom Shepherd, BETL 249 (Louvain: Louvain University Press & Peeters, 2012), 41-53. That the distinction between inside and outside is known in the book of Joshua is most clearly visible in Josh 20:4 where a person who is standing at the gate of the city is waiting to be admitted into the city. But this person is a person who has killed someone. In Josh 20:4, the Masoretic Text adds the further requirement that this person has to wait at the gate of the city until (s)he is admitted. This particular element is not found in OG 20:3-4.

84

CHAPTER 2

The textual development of the Hebrew text of Josh 8:29c is also visible in the corrections of the Early Jewish Revisers. Origen notes a plus and writes in his Hexapla: πρὸς τὴν πύλην τῆς πόλεως, at the gate of the city! This plus receives an asterisk and this asterisk is handed down in both the SyroHexapla and the margins of manuscript 344, indicating clearly that the Old Greek was made to align with the (further developed) Masoretic Hebrew text! A short conclusion with regard to the three textual problems of Josh 8:29: at least two times, maybe three times, the Old Greek text has preserved the original and older Hebrew text. Two times the Masoretic Hebrew tradition has altered the original Hebrew text and rewrote the text. In other words, the Masoretic final editors altered the text in order that the final text would better fit with the laws of Moses. In other words, the halachah forced the textual development in 8:29!78 3. MOVING THE ALTAR, MOVING THE MOUNTAINS

OR

MOVING WHAT?79

3.1 Introducing the Problem This part of the chapter has a long literary and textual history! Already in 1993, I was intrigued by Josh 8:30-35 when reading (and as publisher, publishing) the inaugural lecture of Ed Noort.80 He wrote that there was a better place for Josh 8:30-35, namely at the beginning of Josh 5!81 In 1998, I received the Martin Schøyen Greek Joshua codex and my own adventure 78

79

80 81

In the further history, the hanging of bodies became even more important. In 98 BCE, Alexander Janneus hangs 800 Pharisees. The texts however indicate that something new is happening. Instead of hanging the persons dead on the trees, the victims are being hanged alive. Josephus describes this event in Book 13, chapter 14, paragraph 380! Also the Qumran Pesher Nahum notes this event: “… carrying out revenge against those looking for easy interpretations, who hanged living men (from the tree, committing an atrocity which had not been committed) in Israel since ancient times, for it is horrible for the one hanged alive from the tree... .” (4QpNahum I,7-8). This new possibility, to hang people alive in order to execute them, is also described in a new case, interspersed into some cases of the Deuteronomy 21 laws, in the Temple Scroll. “If a man passes on information against his people or betrays his people to a foreign nation, or does evil against his people, you shall hang him on the tree and he will die” (Tempelscroll LXIV, 6-8). I would like to thank the following scholars who attended the 2016 Salzburg Summer School on Biblical Manuscripts and Their Use in Biblical Studies, The Hebrew and Greek Texts of Joshua, for their critical engagement with Josh 8:30-35: Joshua Alfaro, Maria Jurovitskaja, Ville Mäkipelto, Thomas Alun Morton, Maximillian Niesner, Jessi Orpana, Joshua Scott, Matthew Thompson, and Barbara Wichterlova. Ed Noort, Eenplekomtezijn (Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993). Ibidem, 15.

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

85

with the textual history of the book of Joshua started.82 My first attempt to deal with the different positions of “Josh 8:30-35” came at the 2003 SBL IM seminar in Cambridge. I wanted to respond to Ulrich’s 1994 article on Joshua83 and his 1995 edition of 4QJosha.84 After publishing my contribution,85 (Gene) Ulrich was so kind to respond to my hypothesis in his 2012 contribution.86 In his beautiful 2015 volume,87 he again summarized his criticism of my views, as if he gently wanted to remind me to respond to his latest views. And so I do.88 This section of the book of Joshua is most likely the text-critically and text-historically most discussed text. The text of 8:30-35 deals with the setting up of an altar and the reading of the law. The problem with Josh 8:30-35 is that it is placed in different positions in the different texts of the Masoretic Text, Old Greek, 4QJosha, VetusLatina and Josephus. In the Masoretic Text, it stands post 8:29, at 8:30-35, hence its “name” Josh 8:30-35. In the Old Greek this section is placed post OG Josh 9:2. In 4QJosha, this text section, or at least a piece of it, stands after Josh 4, before what is labelled 5:X89 and 5:2ff.. In the VetusLatina it is located 82 83

84

85

86

87

88

89

Kristin De Troyer, “Joshua.” Eugene Ulrich, “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land,” in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First Meeting of the International Organization for Qumran Studies, Paris 1992, ed. George J. Brooke with Florentino García Martínez, STDJ 15 (Leiden: Brill), 84-104 + Plates 4-6. Eugene Ulrich, “4QJosha,” in Qumran Cave 4 – IX – Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings, ed. Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, Sidnie White Crawford, Julie Ann Duncan, Patrick W. Skehan, Emanuel Tov and Julio Trebolle Barrera, DJD XIV (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), 143-52 + Plates XXXII-XXXIV. Kristin De Troyer, “Building the Altar and Reading the Law: The Journeys of Joshua 8:3035,” in ReadingthePresentintheQumranLibrary.ThePerceptionoftheContemporary byMeansofScripturalInterpretation, ed. Kristin De Troyer & Armin Lange, with the assistance of Katie M. Goetz and Susan Bond, Symposium Series 30 (Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2005), 141-62. Eugene Ulrich, “The Old Latin, Mount Gerizim, and 4QJosha,” in TextualCriticismand DeadSeaScrollsStudiesinHonourofJulioTrebolleBarrera.FlorilegiumComplutense, ed. Andrés Piquer Otero & Pablo A. Torijano Morales, JSJSup 158 (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 361-75. Eugene Ulrich, TheDeadSeaScrollsandtheDevelopmentalCompositionoftheBible, VTSup 169 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), especially chapter 4: “Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land,” 47-65. I dedicate this text section to Ed Noort and to Eugene Ulrich, thanking Ed for introducing me in his own way to Joshua and thanking Gene for making Qumran studies fun. Also labelled “verbanonnulla,” see for instance, Alexander Rofé, “The Editing of the Book of Joshua in Light of 4QJosha,” in NewQumranTextsandStudies.Proceedings oftheFirstMeetingoftheInternationalOrganizationforQumranStudies.Paris1992. ed. George J. Brooke, with Florentino García Martínez, STDJ 15 (Leiden: Brill, 1994), 73-80, esp. 73.

86

CHAPTER 2

in two positions: once “after 9:1-2” and once “behind 9:1-2.” The Vetus Latina created this duality by doubling “9:1-2”: in the VetusLatina, after “MT 8:29,” there are the two verses that can be identified as 9:1-2; these verses are then followed by “8:30-35,” and after “8:30-35,” the Vetus Latina continues with a summarized version of 9:1-2 (“Et factum est ut audierunt omnes reges, qui erant trans Iordanen, in monte et in Secelat).90 Josephus has an altar erected in his text which is parallel to MT 5:1-9 (book V.20): “And Joshua, with the stones which each of the tribal leaders had, by the prophet’s orders, taken up from the river-bed, erected that altar – literally a βωμος – that was to serve as a token of the stoppage of the stream and sacrificed thereon to God.”91 There is no altar mentioned parallel to either 8:30-35 or post 9:2 – there is actually no parallel to 9:1-2 in Josephus! But Josephus also mentions in Book V,68-70 an altar in its parallel text to MT Josh 18 and Josh 22. It is noted in the text that the latter altar building happened after five years (“A fifth year had now passed away” book V.68). The text reads: “So Joshua moved his camp up from Galgala into the hill country and set up the holy tabernacle at the city of Silo, ... Proceeding thence to Sikima,92 with all the people, he erected an altar at the spot foreordained by Moses, and dividing his army, posted one half of it on mount Garizin and the other half on Hebel, whereon also stood the altar, along with the Levites and the priests. After sacrificing and pronouncing imprecations, which they also left graven upon the altar, they returned to Silo” (book V.68-70).93 In book V.100, Josephus also has 90

91

92 93

The latter is a transliteration of the Hebrew ‫שפלה‬, see survey and footnotes to the Vetus Latina. The Greek word βωμός appears in OG Josh 22:10 (2×), 11, 16, 19, 23, 24 and 34, as a translation of ‫מזבח‬. In MT Josh an altar is also mentioned in (:30, 31; 9:27 – but in these cases, the Old Greek renders the Hebrew with θυσιαστήριον)! That Josephus uses the Greek word of OG Josh 22 ought to not surprise, as Josephus has forwarded the events in Shilo (that is Josh 18 and 22) and put it after his rendering of Josh 11 and before his narrating of Josh 13 and following. Shehem! It is obvious that this section in Josephus is a retelling of the OG “8:30-35” section. Josephus refers to all the people (see OG 8:33 and 8:35), the erecting of an altar (OG 8:30), ordained by Moses (OG 8: 31a), dividing the army (≈ dividing the people, OG 8:33), posting half of them on Mount Gerizim and the other half on Mount Ebal (OG 8:33b), Ebal as the place of the altar and the place where the priests stand (OG 8:30 and 8:33), sacrificing (OG 8:31b), pronouncing impreciations (OG 8:34, note that there are no laws mentioned, nor blessings!), writing left on the altar (OG 8:32, but written on stones in the latter!) – in other words, although he is putting the text somewhere else in his narrative and reorganizing the text, as well as deleting or not mentioning elements, and changing things, the whole of the text is clearly based on (OG) “Josh 8:30-35. The building of the altar has also been studied by Timothy C.G. Thornton in his article: “Anti-Samaritan Exegesis Reflected in Josephus’ Retelling of Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges,” JTS 47/1 (1996): 125-30. Thornton remarks, however, that Josephus’ version

87

NOMISTIC ALTERATIONS

a reference to the building of an altar by the Rubenites, Gadites and the tribe of Manasseh: “Having then crossed the river, the tribe of Rubel with that of Gad and all those of Manasseh who accompanied them erected an altar on the bank of the Jordan, as a memorial to future generations of their relationship to the inhabitants on the other side.” This last text is parallel to MT Josh 22:10ff – the latter is not that important for the current problem. In survey:94 MT

4QJosha

OG

VL

Jos

–

–

“8:30?-35” bdnt Latcod 100 ἀπὸ προσώπου ισραηλ > > A V W 816 ‫לפני ישראל‬ ‫לפנ]י[ ישראל‬

344corr

The second example is taken from Josh 10:10 and displays the opposite of what happened in the first example. Whereas the Old Greek has the reading with τῶν υἱῶν, both the Antiochean and the Kaige text, as well as the Hexaplaric texttradition do not have τῶν υἱῶν, following closely the Masoretic Text. With regard to the expression ‫לפני ישראל‬: this expression appears not that regular in the Masoretic Text (Jos 10:10; 11:6; Jdg 20:35; 1Sam 7:10; 2Sam 10:15, 19; 2Kgs 14:12; 1 Chron 19:16, 19; 2Chron 25:22)12 and is translated with a variety of prepositions, dependent on the larger context.13

12 13

For ‫לפני בני ישראל‬, the conclusion is similar as for ‫לפני ישראל‬. See Raija Sollamo, RenderingsofHebrewSemiprepositionsintheSeptuagint, Annales Academiae Fennicae. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 19 (Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia, 1979), 13-80.

156

EXCURSUS

10:12 OG: Ant: Kaige: Hex: Other: MT: Q:

υἱῶν ]

> bdnt Latcod 100 n.a. >O > A Fb V W 816 SyhL ἡνίκα – ισραηλ 2° ] sub ÷ G S –!

n.a.

In 10:12, (again) the Antiochean text and the Hexaplaric tradition omit the reading of the Old Greek: υἱῶν. As there is no Hebrew counterpart to this part of the verse, the deletion can not be explained as a correction towards a Hebrew text. The part of the verse ἡνίκα – ισραηλ 2° is marked with an obelus in G and in the SyroHexapla. The deletion could be explained as an inner Greek development as in the former case there was also no mentioning of “sons of” Israel. That this inner Greek levelling of the text happened rather early is visible in the Old Greek Schøyen papyrus, Ra 816. It also demonstrates that this omission is not necessarily due to post-Hexaplaric influence on the Antiochean text. This example in my opinion, demonstrates the inner-Greek level of the revisions. 10:12 OG: Ant: Kaige: Hex: Other: MT: Q:

καὶ εἶπεν Ἰησοῦς ] + κατ’ ὀϕθαλμοὺς παντὸς ισραηλ bdnt n.a. α΄ et dixerunt ad filios Israel ‫לעיני ישראל‬ n.a.

In 10:12, when Joshua speaks, the Antiochean text adds + κατ΄ ὀϕθαλμοὺς παντὸς ισραηλ. Greenspoon labels this plus a typical Antiochean plus.14 There is no Kaige reading preserved or attested for this verse, but there is a reading from Aquila, which reads – in Latin translation –: et dixerunt ad filios Israel. Greenspoon discusses this verse and notes its difficulties. There is indeed, in the Old Greek, first Joshua speaking to God, then secondly God giving the Amorites in the hands of Israel, and then, thirdly, Joshua again speaking. In my opinion, Aquila took the third verb to be God and Joshua speaking, and rendered the sentence in the plural: et dixerunt. Margolis solved the Aquila problem in a similar way. The next 14

Greenspoon, TextualStudiesintheBookofJoshua,292.

THE WORK OF A TEXT-CRITIC

157

issue is that both Aquila and the Antiochean text have Joshua speaking or addressing all Israel. As the Hebrew reading is not precisely what one would expect: ‫לעיני ישראל‬, Greenspoon notes that the Aquila reading could be seen as a misreading of the Hebrew ‫לבני ישראל‬, but he doubts this: “It is not clear whether or not we should burden Aquila with such a reading.”15 What however stands out is the fact that whereas the Antiochean text does have Joshua addressing all Israel, Aquila has Joshua addressing all the sons of Israel – if we read the reading as suggested by Greenspoon. That there were not yet “sons of” in front of Israel in the Old Greek is now clear, but it was also not yet there when Kaige/Theodotion was revising towards the Masoretic Text or when Symmachus was revising the Old Greek text, as none of these readings are noted or preserved. Only at the time of Aquila, was there more often a “sons of” in front of Israel in the Hebrew text; I therefore think that the reading started to become more regular in the Masoretic Text in later times. This observation leads me to question the sequence of the Early Jewish Revisers: was Aquila the last of the three early revisers, or were simply two revisers, Kaige/Theodotion and Symmachus, still working with the proto-Masoretic Text and Aquila already working with the Masoretic Text? Moreover, it is in my opinion also clear that the Antiochean text has a double reading in this phrase: it has on the one hand the additional element of speaking “to Israel,” which Aquila also has, and on the other hand the “visible” aspect stemming from ‫עיני‬. 10:1 OG: Ant: Kaige: Hex: Other: MT: Q:

πρός 2° ]

+ τοὺς υἱούς bdnt n.a. + τοὺς υἱούς

‫את־ישראל‬ –

My last example in this category, however points to the fact that also in the Masoretic Text there was not yet consistency with regard to “the sons of Israel,” as in this example the Masoretic Text does not have “the sons of” in front of Israel. However, in both the Antiochean and in the Hexaplaric recension, the Greek text was levelled towards a more common Hebrew practise, even if precisely in this case, the Masoretic Text did not 15

MRGLS, 179.

158

EXCURSUS

have the reading! The tendency to correct the Greek text internally can be credited to the Antiochean, but it seems that also Origen did that. The source of the Hexaplaric text is in this case not clear. 3.2. Big 10:2 OG: Ant: Kaige: Hex: Other: MT: Q:

τῶν μητροπόλεων ] τῶν μητροπόλεων bdnt] + τῶν βασιλέων 344mg + ※ G 344mg SyhLM τῶν βασιλέων ‫הממלכה‬ ‫המ]מלכה‬ ֯

In 10:2 there is a nice example of how the Antiochean text followed the Old Greek, without changes. In my opinion, the Antiochean considered the reading of the Old Greek, τῶν μητροπόλεων, an appropriate translation of the Hebrew ‫הממלכה‬, a reading which is also found in 4QJosha. Kaige however sought to represent the two Hebrew words construct, ‫ערי הממלכה‬ with two Greek words (and articles): τῶν μητροπόλεων τῶν βασιλεων, a reading which was taken over in the Hexaplaric tradition. 10:18 OG: Ant: Kaige: Hex: Other: MT: Q:

λίθους ]

+ μεγάλους n + μεγάλους ※ 344mg + μεγάλους ※ O(G 344mg SyhL) + μεγάλους ※ 344mg: α΄ σ΄ θ΄ ‫גדלות‬

n.a.

The example of 10:18 reflects a similar element. 10:18 however cannot be explained without first explaining 10:11, where God is throwing big stones from heaven on the enemies. The stones however appear twice in 10:11. First God throws huge stones from heaven (a) and then, secondly, it is reported that more men died because of the hailstones than of the sword (b). 10:11a MT: ‫אבנים גדלות מנ־השמים‬ OG: λίθους χαλάζης ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ Ant: ο’ α’ θ’: λίθους μεγάλους χαλάζης ἐκ τοῦ οὐρανοῦ

THE WORK OF A TEXT-CRITIC

159

10:11b MT: OG: Ant: ο’ α’ θ’: Syh

‫אבני הברד‬ τοὺς λίθους τῆς χαλάζης λίθους ἀπὸ τῶν οὐρανῶν (ad λίθους) + α’ magnos SM

The reading of the Early Jewish Revisers in 10:11a seems to indicate that the Early Jewish Revisers thought that the word ‫ גדלות‬was not adequately translated, and thus the adjective μέγας was added. That would indicate that the words λίθους χαλάζης were seen as a translation of ‫אבנים‬, in context of stones coming “from heaven,” thus hailstones. This is confirmed in 10:11 b where τους λίθους τῆς χαλάζης is seen as a translation of ‫אבני הברד‬, the hailstones, which is again rendered by the Old Greek as λίθους χαλάζης. The Early Jewish Revisers do not add an adjective to the stones, as there is no ‫ גדלות‬in the Masoretic Text. If then in 10:18, in the text of the Early Jewish Revisers, there is no μεγάλους, it must indicate that there was no counterpart yet, that is, no ‫ גדלות‬in the Hebrew text from which the Old Greek was translated. That all the revisions later added μεγάλους indicates that in the Masoretic Text ‫ גדלות‬was added after the Old Greek had been made. 3.3. Prepositions and Conjunctions 10:8 OG: Ant: Kaige: Hex: Other: MT: Q:

ἐνώπιον 816 ]

κατενώπιον b dnt n.a. κατενώπιον (2 witnesses) ‫בפניך‬ n.a.

The Old Greek uses the semi preposition in the standard way, that is “to withstand.”16 The Antiochean text expresses the element of “against” stronger than the Old Greek text. Did the Antiochean text take over the preposition from the Hexaplaric tradition? If so, how? Over which Early Jewish Reviser?

16

See Sollamo, 119-20.

160 10:9 OG: Ant: Kaige: Hex: Other: MT: Q:

EXCURSUS

ἐπ΄ αὐτούς ]

πρὸς αὐτούς b dn n.a. πρὸς αὐτούς 816 ‫ויבא אליהם‬ n.a.

Also in this example, I note that the Antiochean text strives to express the “against” element stronger than the Old Greek. The question about the source of this reading is even more difficult, as the reading is not shared in the Hexplaric tradition. Is this correction a typical Antiochean correction, a stylistic improvement? But then, one has to also explain its presence in the older Joshua Greek papyrus, manuscript 816! 3.4. Name of God 10:12 OG: Ant: Kaige: Hex: Other: MT: Q:

ὁ θεός 816 ]

pr κύριος dnt pr κύριος 344mg pr κύριος (only in one ms) pr κύριος A V W ‫יהוה‬ n.a.

This reading of 10:12b cannot be discussed without recurring to the rest of the verse. There are in this verse two references to God! The Masoretic Text of 10:12 reads: ‫אז ידבר יהושע ליהוה‬ …‫ביום תת יהוה את־‬

The Old Greek reads: τότε ἐλάλησεν Ἰησοῦς πρὸς Κύριον ἧͺ ἡμέραͺ παρέδωκεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν …, with Joshua speaking to the Lord, saying that God has given on that day the Amorites in the hands of the Israelites. The Old Greek has thus a double rendering of the Tetragrammaton of the Masoretic Text. The Old Greek has in 8:12b only the expression “God,” without the additional part “the Lord” in front of it. This reading is also found in manuscript 816, confirming that ὁ θεός was seen as an adequate rendering of ‫יהוה‬.17 That all the revisions insert κύριος in front of ὁ θεός, 17

Kristin De Troyer, “The Pronunciation of the Names of God, With Some Notes Regarding nominasacra,” in Gottnennen.GottesNamenundGottalsName, ed. Ingolf U. Dalferth & Phillip Stoellger, Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35 (Tuebingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 143-72.

THE WORK OF A TEXT-CRITIC

161

seems to indicate that the tradition of using the expression “the Lord God” started to become more standard. This trend must have starting in the days of Kaige, as manuscript 344 reads κύριος in the margin. From Kaige the reading was taken over in the Hexapla. That also the Antiochean text has the reading seems to indicate that Symmachus as well had already the augmented name of God. 2.5. Gilgal 10:15 (+ 10:43) OG: post 8:14, pre 8:16: - 816] Ant: “10:15”: καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν ισραηλ μετ΄ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν γαλγαλα n Kaige: “10:15”: καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν ισραηλ μετ΄ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν γαλγαλα 344mg Hex: “10:15”: καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν ισραηλ μετ΄ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν γαλγαλα ※G 344mg SyhL Other: “10:15”: καὶ ἐπέστρεψεν ισραηλ μετ΄ αὐτοῦ εἰς τὴν γαλγαλα Bmg MT: ‫וישב יהושע וכל־ישראל עמו‬ ‫אל־המחנה הגלגלה‬ Q: n.a.

ιησους καὶ πᾶς παρεμβολὴν εἰς ιησους καὶ πᾶς παρεμβολὴν εἰς ιησους καὶ πᾶς παρεμβολὴν εἰς ιησους καὶ πᾶς παρεμβολὴν εἰς

Whereas in earlier publications, I had drawn attention to the Hexaplaric text tradition in order to explain the obvious secondary nature of 10:15 and 10:43, it is now necessary for me to point even further back in time, and single out the Kaige reading, which augments the text of the Old Greek by inserting what is now called 10:15 into the text (see chapter 3). The Antiochian text also has the additional verse added to the text. 2.6. Theodotion vs Symmachus 10:4 OG: Ant: Kaige: Hex: Other: MT: Q:

Γαβαων 816 ]

pr τήν bdnt n.a. pr τήν (※ G) O ‫את־‬ n.a.

162

EXCURSUS

Whereas the Old Greek does not have the article, both the Hexplaric and the Antiochean Text add the article, most likely to represent the aspect of determination as given by the Masoretic Text ‫את־‬. Whether Kaige added or not an article is not clear as there are no notes available, similarly for Symmachus. The question is how the readings appeared in both Antiochean and Hexaplaric texts? The stylistic correction is often regarded as a typical Antiochean correction, but is it? 10:12 OG: Ant:

Αιλων 816 ]

Kaige: Hex: Other: MT: Q:

+ οὐχὶ τοῦτο γεγραμμένον ἐπὶ βιβλίον τὸ εὑρεθέν bdnt Latcod 100 + οὐχὶ τοῦτο γεγραμμένον ἐπὶ βιβλίον τὸ εὑρεθέν 344mg Theod., QO, Josua, XIV + οὐχὶ τοῦτο γεγραμμένον ἐπὶ βιβλίον τὸ εὑρεθέν F, subgroup? (10:13: sub ※ G 344mg OSyh) (10:13!) ‫הלא־היא כתובה על־ספר הישר‬ n.a.

At the end of 10:12, there is in the Kaige text and Antiochean and Hexaplaric recension an additional phrase: “is this not written in the book of Yashar?,” a phrase also found in the Masoretic Text. In my 2009 contribution on the book of Yashar,18 I pointed to the Hexaplaric proof which demonstrates that this phrase is a late addition to the Hebrew text of the book of Joshua. Now, I also want to point to the fact that this addition has already been taken up in the Kaige text, as witnessed in the margins of manuscript 344 and in Theodoret’s QuaestionesinOctateuchum. Over Kaige it was taken up in the Hexaplaric text tradition. Is this then also an element that was taken up post-Hexaplaric in the Antiochean text? 3.7. Implicit or Explicit? 10:5 OG: Ant: Kaige: Hex: 18

καὶ ἀνέβησαν ]

pr καὶ συνήχθησαν dnt – pr καὶ συνήχθησαν ※ G SyhM

Kristin De Troyer, “‘Is this not written in the Book of Jashar?’ (Josh 10:13c). References to Extra-Biblical Books in the Bible,” in TheLandofIsraelinBible,HistoryandTheology:StudiesinHonourofEdNoort,ed.Jacques van Ruiten & Cor de Vos, VTSup 124 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 45-51.

THE WORK OF A TEXT-CRITIC

Other: MT: Qְ

163

‫ויאספו ויעלו‬ ‫ו[ויאספו ויעל‬

In 10:5 the five kings of the Amorites went up to fight the Gibeonites. The Antiochean text adds before “and they went up” an additional verb indicating the coming together or the kings: καὶ συνήχθησαν, and they gathered. This making explicit what was implicit is typical for the Antiochean text.19 But is this a typical Antiochean addition, or was this correction secondarily taken up in the Antiochean text? The additional verb is found in the Antiochean text as well as in the Hexaplaric text, but not in Kaige. Both the Masoretic Text and the Qumran text provide the double verb. How did the double verb come into both texts? With regard to the Hexapla, the question again arises from whom Origen took this additional verb, which is marked sub asterisk in G and the SyroHexapla. With regard to the Antiochean text: does the double verb point towards the Antiochean text being post Hexaplaric corrected? The latter is what is often presumed. But then, the reading came over the Hexapla into the Antiochean text, and thus, the reading ought not to be labelled typical Antiochean. Or ought we to reverse the sequence and presume that this correction is typical Antiochean, which happened on the earliest layer, and that Origen knew this proto-Antiochean text? Is this earliest layer of the Antiochean text, the Proto-Antiochean text, maybe reviser five, six or seven? 3.8. 10:6 OG: Ant: Kaige: Hex: Other: MT: Q:

σνηγμένοι εἰσίν 816 ] ἐπισνηγμένοι εἰσίνbdnt σνηγμένοι εἰσίν σνηγμένοι εἰσίν ‫נקבצו‬ –

Related to the first appearance of “coming together” is the appearance in the request of the Gibeonites to Joshua to come and help them, as the Amorites have gathered together against them. In the Masoretic Text, the verb used is different from the verb used in 10:5: instead of 10:5 ‫אסף‬, 19

Natalio Fernández Marcos, TheSeptuagintinContext.IntroductiontotheGreekVersions oftheBible (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 231.

164

EXCURSUS

the verb ‫ קבץ‬is used in 10:6. The Old Greek uses in 10:6 also a verb that is different from the compound used in 10:5. Whereas in 10:5 the Old Greek reads: καὶ ἀνέβησαν, it reads in 10:6 σνηγμένοι εἰσίν. The Antiochean text however seems to want to make a link between the two verses, and uses in 10: 5: καὶ συνήχθησαν καὶ ἀνέβησαν and in 10:6: ἐπισνηγμένοι εἰσίν, linking at least the coming together or the kings, but pointing to a difference with 10:5 συνάγω versus 10:6: ἐπισυνάγω, that is just the prepositions of the compound being different. That Kaige has in 10:6 σνηγμένοι εἰσίν seems to indicate that Origin also for 10:5 did take over the reading from Kaige.

3. ANTIOCHEAN TRAITS AND ANTIOCHEAN TEXTS? 3.1. Antiochean Traits? What can we learn from these examples about the Antiochean traits of the Antiochean text of the book of Joshua? First, the Antiochean text is using more articles, more appropriate prepositions, and making explicit what is implicit. It uses some variety which could be due to different Hebrew words, but it also likes to make the text internally somewhat similar. The Antiochean text does not attempt to represent all the elements of the Hebrew text. Secondly, if one calls a trait a stylistic improvement, one has to then not at the same time call it a reading due to influence of the hexapla, albeit that in some cases this stylistic improvement wish can coincide with the Hexaplaric reading. Thirdly, it is not clear to me as to which text was precisely the source of the Antiochean text. 3.2. Definitively an Antiochean Text of the Book of Joshua? The question however is now: Is there a full blown Antiochean text of the book of Joshua, or not? The only evidence I can see is partial. As with Kaige, one can discover readings here and there, but these different readings are not consistent and not systematic. I also tend to see two movements in the earliest layer of the so-called proto-Lucianic text: revision of Greek, for sure, but also some correction towards a Hebrew text. That Hebrew text may have been on its way to become a Masoretic Text, but it is not necessarily there yet.

THE WORK OF A TEXT-CRITIC

165

Finally, I think that I can firmly state that there were in the first century BCE-second century CE at least two slightly different Hebrew texts available of the book of Joshua: the one that is underlying the Old Greek text and its first revisions: the proto-Lucianic revision and the Kaige revision, and the second one, which is the Masoretic Text.

CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS In the first chapter, I traced the differences between commands given by either God, Moses and Joshua and their executions. Albeit that there was not a uniform match between all the commands and their executions, I noted that often the Old Greek would have the elder reading and that a process was started after the Old Greek had been translated to match the execution of a command with the command itself. Gradually, the executions started looking like their commands. The Old Greek revisers started to notice that elements were missing in the Old Greek text as it laid before them and started to align the Old Greek to the further developed Hebrew Masoretic Text. One important such revisers was Kaige/Theodotion who, for example, inserted 8:13 into his text, in order to make the Old Greek resemble the then current Hebrew Masoretic Text. In two further examples (“The Collapse of the Wall of Jericho,” Josh 6, and “The Battle against Ai,” Josh 8), a similar result could be observed: the Masoretic Text attempted to match the executions of commands with the commands. In the second chapter, the category of “nomistic alterations” was considered. First, smaller examples, like “all the law that Joshua commanded” (e.g. Josh 1:7) and the concept of “crossing this Jordan,” were analysed. It was noted that the Old Greek was often a translation of a Hebrew text that was older than the current Masoretic Text. The study of some larger examples (Josh 7, with its concept of “burning with fire,” Josh 8:29 with its problem of “stoning and hanging” and Josh 8:30-35, with its problematic location in the book and problematic location of the setting up of an altar and the reading of the law) confirmed this initial result. The final editor of the Hebrew Masoretic Text revised the older Hebrew text and sought to make sure that the texts of the final version of the book of Joshua better reflected the laws as given in the book of Deuteronomy. In chapter 2, I noted that while multiple versions of the book of Joshua must have been available at the same time for some time, with for instance, the section “8:30-35” in different positions in different versions of the book of Joshua, the final editor of the Masoretic Text of the book of Joshua

168

CHAPTER 5

must have been at work at the latest before the first century CE, as, for instance, the VetusLatina knew about two locations for this text (and therefore, doubled up “9:1-2”): the “Old Greek” position and the “Masoretic Text” position. This date was, however, in need of further specification, for which I turned to the analysis of Josh 10 (in chapter 3). The famous location “Gilgal” was studied in chapter 3. In this chapter, the text of esp. Josh 10 was studied. Whereas in former publications, I pointed to the Vorlage of the Old Greek as a witness to an older Hebrew story in which there was not yet a centralized camp of the Israelites in Gilgal, I now pinpointed the specific time when Gilgal became a central focus of the Masoretic Text. The final editor of the Masoretic Text of the book of Joshua turned Gilgal into a headquarter out of which the so-called conquering of the land happened, before the time of the Kaige/Theodotionic revision, thus (some time) before ca. 50 BCE. The change in the text, which resulted in the final text of the Hebrew Masoretic Text, triggered the Kaige/ Theodotionic reviser to align the Old Greek with the new Hebrew Masoretic text and add for instance 10:15 and 10:43 to his text – both verses dealing precisely with the returning of Joshua and all his people to the camp at Gilgal. In the fourth chapter, the line of command as found in the book of Joshua was studied. Joshua clearly, albeit rather late in his life, stands in the shadow of Moses and continues in his line, Moses being the ultimate “servant of God.” The line of authority God – Moses – Joshua is more emphasized in the later Hebrew Masoretic text than in the slightly older Hebrew Vorlage of the Old Greek text. Whereas one can clearly see that multiple Hebrew versions were available at about the same time, or at least from the second century BCE to maybe the first century CE – a position held by many of my colleagues – I actually also conclude that the Masoretic Text grossomodo is a further development of the Hebrew text underlying the Vorlage of the Old Greek text of the book of Joshua. The further development is visible in the editorial attempts to make executions look like their commands, in the often covert reformulating of elements in order to make sure that laws and concepts as, for instance, found or formulated in the book of Deuteronomy are more fully embraced in the Masoretic Text of the book of Joshua, in the strategic emphasizing of the headquarters of Gilgal and in the underlining and explicitating of the line of command which links God with Moses, God with Joshua and

CONCLUSIONS

169

Moses with Joshua. All these editorial interventions were made on the level of the final Hebrew Masoretic Text and they are part of the editorial strategy to give more weight to divine and other commands, to the law as given by God and Moses, to the central point out of which the land was conquered and to the authorities in charge of Israel. Combining the data as found in this book with the analysis of the text of Josh 10, as published in 2017,1 where I analysed the concept of the “big stones” in Josh 10:11 in all the versions, as well as taking into account the “textual witness” of Sir 46:5-6, especially as it appears in Masada B – which still reflects the Hebrew text as underlying the Old Greek text in Josh 10:11 – the date of the final editing of the Masoretic Text of the book of Joshua must be situated between the writing of the (Hebrew) Ben Sira scroll and the first activities of the Kaige/Theodotionic reviser, which was dated by Parsons to the later half of the first century BCE.2 This dating is in line with what John Strange wrote in his 1993 contribution to the Festschrift of Eduard Nielsen about the last stage of the textual development of the text of the book of Joshua: “I can think of no other period than the early part of the Hasmonean monarchy, i.e. the reigns of John Hyrcanus, Aristobolus and Alexander Jannaeus (135/4-76 BC).”3 The text critical data as brought forward in this book point to the same period in which the Masoretic text was finalized: the period between the writing of the (Hebrew) Ben Sira scroll and the first activities of the Kaige revisers! When it comes to the milieu in which this revision happened: in her critical reviewing of Strange’s hypothesis, but also of Davies’, Katell Berthelot rightly remarks that “We have no way of knowing whether the Hasmoneans tried to impose a certain type of text, edited by their own scribes, and whether this was the proto-masoretic text.”4 The timing of the revision seems clear, who precisely did it, not!

1

2 3

4

De Troyer, “The History of the Biblical Text: The Case of the Book of Joshua,” in Juha Pakkala & Reinhard Mueller (eds.), InsightsintoEditingintheHebrewBibleandthe AncientNearEast, CBET 84 (Louvain: Peeters, 2017), p. 223-246. See chapter 3, fn. 54. John Strange, “The Book of Joshua: A Hasmonean Manifesto?,” in HistoryandTraditionsofEarlyIsrael.StudiesPresentedtoEduardNielsen.May8th1993, edited by André Lemaire & Benedikt Otzen, VTSup 50 (Leiden: Brill, 1993), 136-42, esp. 138. Katell Berthelot, InSearchofthePromisedLand?TheHasmoneanDynastyBetween Biblical Models and Hellenistic Diplomacy, JAJSup 24 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018),99.

170

CHAPTER 5

In every chapter, the translation technique of (appropriate texts of) the Old Greek of the book of Joshua were studied. Morever, data from the different versions, such as the Masoretic Text, the Old Greek, the Dead Sea Scrolls, the VetusLatina, and Josephus were collected and taken into account. Next, the text critical data from the history of the Old Greek text, esp. the hexaplaric corrections, stemming from the Early Jewish Revisers, were used in order to show the direction of the textual development of the text of the book of Joshua. Finally, reflections from literary and redaction critical perspectives were added in order to explain how texts were composed and redacted. At the end of this book, after reviewing all the cases from Josh 1-12, it has become clear that underlying the Old Greek text, there was a Hebrew text, which is slightlydifferentandslightlyelder than the Hebrew Masoretic Text. In my opinion, the Hebrew Masoretic Text is the ultimate text of the book of Joshua and the Hebrew Vorlage underlying the Old Greek text is the penultimate one!

(A SELECTION OF) GREEK JOSHUA MANUSCRIPTS (RAHLFS / CAMBRIDGE) 816 (Schøyen MS 2648) 946 (P.Oxy. 1168) 839 (Cambridge, Westm. College, Cod. Clim.rescr., Bl 5) B (Cod. Vaticanus) G (Cod. Colberto-Sarravianus) A (Cod. Alexandrinus) F (Cod. Ambrosianus) W (Washington, SIL, inv.06.292) M (Cod. Coislinianus) K (Leipzig, Univ.-Bibl., Gr. 2) V (Cod. Venetus) Minuscules: Cambridge = Rahlfs a = 15 b’ = 19 b = 108 b = 19 + 108 c = 376 d = 44 e = 52 f = 53

g = 54 h = 55 i = 56 j = 57 (Catena) k = 58 l = 59 m = 72 n = 75 o = 82 p = 106 q = 120 r = 129 s = 130 t = 134 u = 407 v = 344 w = 314 x = 426 y = 121 z = 85 a2 = 509 b2 = 29 c2 = 135 e2 = 93

PRELIMINARY GROUPING OF MANUSCRIPTS (BASED ON MARGOLIS) (WITH CAMBRIDGE MANUSCRIPTS AND VERSIONS) OG:

B 120 129 816 946 Copt/Boh Copt/Sah Eth

O’:

G 19 (ab 2:18) 108 (ab 2:18) 376 426 Syh

L’ (MRGLS): But: d-group: n-group: b-group: t-group:

44 54 75 106 134 314 OldLat 44 106 54 75 19 (bis 2:17) 108 (bis 2:17) 314 106 134

C:

A M V W 29 55 59 82 121 407

Mixed group:

15 52 53 56 57 58 85 130 344 509

BIBLIOGRAPHY ALT, Albrecht. Josua:KleineSchriftenzurGeschichtedesVolkesIsraelI. München: Beck, 31963. AULD, A. Graeme. Joshua. Jesus Son of Naue in Codex Vaticanus. Septuagint Commentary Series. Leiden: Brill, 2005. ID. “Reading Joshua after Kings.” Pages 167-81 in WordsRemembered,Texts Renewed:EssaysinHonourofJohnF.Sawyer. Edited by J. Davies, G. Harvey and W.G.E. Watson. JSOTS 195. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1995. ID. “Joshua: The Hebrew and Greek Texts.” Pages 1-14 in StudiesintheHistoricalBooksoftheOldTestament. Edited by John A. Emerton. VTSup 30. Leiden: Brill, 1979. ID. “Textual and Literary Studies in the Book of Joshua,” ZAW 90 (1978): 412-7. BEGG, Christopher. “Josephus’ and Pseudo-Philo’s Rewriting of the Book of Joshua.” Pages 555-88 in TheBookofJoshua. Ed. by Ed Noort. BETL 250; Louvain: Peeters, 2012. BERTHELOT, Katell. InSearchofthePromisedLand?TheHasmoneanDynasty BetweenBiblicalModelsandHellenisticDiplomacy. JAJSup 24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018. BIEBERSTEIN, Klaus. Josua – Jordan – Jericho. Archäologie, Geschichte und Theologie der Landnahmeerzählungen Josua 1-6. OBO 143. Freiburg & Göttingen: Universitätsverlag & Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995. BROOKE, Alan E. and Norman MCLEAN. TheOldTestamentinGreekAccordingto theTextofCodexVaticanus,SupplementedfromOtherUncialManuscripts, with a Critical Apparatus Containing the Variants of the Chief Ancient AuthoritiesfortheTextoftheSeptuagint. Cambridge Library Collection. Cambridge: CUP, 1906, 2009. ID. TheOldTestamentinGreek accordingtothetextofcodexVaticanus,SupplementedfromotherUncialManuscripts,withaCriticalApparatusContaining the Variants of the Chief Ancient Authorities for the Text of the Septuagint. Part 4. Joshua, Judges and Ruth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1917. CHAPMAN, Cynthia R. “Sculpted Warriors: Sexuality and the Sacred in the Depiction of Warfare in the Assyrian Palace Reliefs and in Ezekiel 23:14-17.” Pages 1-17 in TheAestheticsofViolenceintheProphets. Edited by Julia M. O’Brien & Chris Franke. New York & London: T & T Clark, 2010. CHARLESWORTH, James. “What is a Variant?” Maarav16/2 (2009): 201-12. CRAWFORD, see White Crawford. DEN HERTOG, see Hertog, den. DE TROYER, Kristin. “The Scribe of the Marginal Notes of Manuscript Ra 344 (= Ca v).” In FromScribalErrortoRewriting:How(Sacred)TextsMayand May Not Be Changed. Edited by Anneli Aejmelaeus, Drew Longacre and Natia Mirotadze. DSI. Goettingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, forthcoming.

176

BIBLIOGRAPHY

EAD. “The Final Verses of the Ammonite War Story in 2Sam 11:1; 12:26-31 and 1Chron 20:1-3.” Pages 95-111 in Found in Translation: Essays on JewishBiblicalTranslationinHonorofLeonardJ.Greenspoon.Edited by James W. Barker, Anthony Le Donne and Joel N. Lohr. Shofar Suppelements in Jewish Studies. Purdue: Purdue University Press, 2018. EAD. “Commands and Executions in the Book of Joshua. Samples from Joshua 16.” Pages 214-24 in Die Septuaginta – Geschichte, Wirkung, Relevanz. Edited by Martin Meiser, Michaely Geiger, Siegfried Kreuzer and Marcus Sigismund. WUNT 405. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. EAD. “‘Man nahm die Leiche von dem Baum ab und warf sie vor das Tor der Stadt’ (Jos 8,29): kleine Probleme, große Textgeschichte!” Pages 226-29 in DieSeptuaginta–Geschichte,Wirkung,Relevanz. Edited by Martin Meiser, Michaela Geiger, Siegfried Kreuzer & Marcus Sigismund. WUNT 405. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. EAD. “The Fall of Jericho and the Textual History of the Book of Joshua.” Pages 7892 in TextgeschichteundTheologie.SeptuagintaundMasoretischerTextals ÄußerungentheologischerReflexion. Edited by Frank Ueberschaar, Thomas Wagner, and Jonathan M. Robker. WUNT 407. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2018. EAD. “The History of the Biblical Text: The Case of the Book of Joshua.” Pages 223-46 in InsightsintoEditingintheHebrewBibleandtheAncient NearEast.WhatDoesDocumentedEvidenceTellUsabouttheTransmissionofAuthoritativeTexts?Edited by Reinhard Müller and Juha Pakkala. CBET 84. Louvain: Peeters, 2017. EAD. “Reconstructing the Older Hebrew Text of the Book of Joshua: An Analysis of Joshua 10.” Textus 26 (2013 online/2016 in print): 59-86. EAD. “The Textual Plurality of the Book of Joshua and the Need for a Digital Complutensian Polyglot Bible.” Pages 330-46 in The Text of the Hebrew Bibleand Its Editions. Studies in Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the ComplutensianPolyglot.Edited by Andrés Piquer, Pablo Torijano, in association with Armin Lange & Julio Trebolle. THBSup. Leiden: Brill, 2016. EAD. “Sounding Trumpets or Weeping? Responses to the Start of the Temple Building in Ezra-Nehemiah and 3Esdras.” Pages 41-57 in AncientJewishPrayers and Emotions. Emotions Associated with Jewish Prayer in and about the SecondTemplePeriod. Edited by Stefan C. Reid and Renate Egger-Wenzel; DCLS 26; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015. EAD. “The Garden: A Crucial Element or a Later Addition to the Resurrection Stories?” Pages 41-53 in Resurrection of the Dead: Biblical Traditions in Dialogue. Edited by Geert Van Oyen & Tom Shepherd. BETL 249. Louvain: Peeters & Louvain University Press, 2012. EAD. “From Leviticus to Joshua: The Old Greek Text in Light of Two LXX Manuscripts from the Schøyen Collection.” JAJ2 /1 (2011): 29-78 EAD. “Greek Papyri and the Oldest Layer of the Hebrew Bible.” Pages 81-90 in Editing the Bible – Editorial Problems. Edited by John Kloppenborg and Judith Newman. Symposium Series. Atlanta, GA: SBL: 2010. EAD. “‘Is this not written in the Book of Jashar?’ (Josh 10:13c). References to Extra-Biblical Books in the Bible.” Pages 45-51 in The Land of Israel in Bible, History and Theology: Studies in Honour of Ed Noort. Edited by Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cor de Vos. VTSup 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

177

EAD. “The Pronunciation of the Names of God, With Some Notes Regarding nominasacra.” Pages 143-72 in Gottnennen.GottesNamenundGottals Name. Edited by Ingolf U. Dalferth and Phillip Stoellger. Religion in Philosophy and Theology 35. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. EAD. “Reconstructing the Old Greek of Joshua.” Pages 105-18 in Septuagint Research:IssuesandChallengesintheStudyoftheGreekJewishScriptures. Edited by Wolfgang Kraus and R. Glenn Wooden. SCS 53. Atlanta: SBL, 2005. EAD. “Joshua. (MS 2648).” Pages 79-145 + Plates XVI-XXVII in PapyriGraecae Schøyen PSchøyenI. Edited by Rosario Pintaudi. Papyrologica Florentina, XXXV/Manuscripts in the Schøyen Collection, Greek Papyri V/I. Firenze: Gonnelli, 2005. EAD. “Building the Altar and Reading the Law: The Journeys of Joshua 8:3035.” Pages 141-62 in Reading the Present in the Qumran Library. The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretation. Edited by Kristin De Troyer and Armin Lange, with the assistance of Katie M. Goetz and Susan Bond. Symposium Series 30. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2005. EAD. “‘And they did so.’ Following Orders Given by an Old Joshua.” Pages 14557 in Her Master’s Tools? Feminist and Postcolonial Engagements of Historical-CriticalDiscourse. Edited by Caroline Vander Stichele and Todd Penner. Global Perspectives on Biblical Scholarship. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2005. EAD. Rewriting the Sacred Text. What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the LiteraryGrowthoftheBible. Text Critical Studies 4. Atlanta, Ga: SBL & Leiden: Brill, 2003. EAD. “Did Joshua Have a Crystal Ball? The Old Greek and the MT of Joshua 10:15,17 and 23.” Pages 571-89 in Emanuel:StudiesinHebrewBible,Septuagintand Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Emanuel Tov. Edited by Shalom M. Paul, Robert A. Kraft, Lawrence H. Schiffmann and Weston W. Fields, with the assistance of Eva Ben-David. VTSup 94. Leiden: Brill, 2002. EAD. “Once More the so-called Esther fragments of Cave 4.” RevuedeQumran 75/19 (2000): 401-22. ERBES, Johann E. Joshua, in Leviticus–Numbers–Deuteronomy–Joshua. Edited by D.J. Lane, A.P. Hayman, W.M. van Vliet, J.H. Hospers, H.J.W. Drijvers and J.E. Erbes. The Old Testament in Syriac according to the Peshitta Version, Part I, fascicle 2. Part II, fascicle 1b. Leiden: Brill, 1991. FELDMAN, Ariel, “4Q47 (4QJosha): An Abbreviated Text?” Pages 152-63 in “Is there a Text in this Cave? Studies in the Textuality of the Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of George J. Brooke,” ed. Ariel Feldman, Maria Cioatâ, and Charlotte Hempel (STDJ 119; Leiden: Brill, 2017). FELDMAN, Louis H. “Rearrangment of Pentateuchal Narrative Material in Josephus’ Antiquities, Books 1-4.” in HUCA LXX-LXXI (1999-2000): 129-51. FERNÁNDEZ MARCOS, Natalio. TheSeptuagintinContext.IntroductiontotheGreek VersionsoftheBible. Leiden: Brill, 2000. FERNÁNDEZ MARCOs, Natalio & Angel SÁENZ – BADILLOS. TheodoretiCyrensis QuastionesinOctateuchum. Textus y Estudios Cardenal Cisneros 17. Madrid: Consejo Superior de Investigaciones Científicas, 1979.

178

BIBLIOGRAPHY

FISHBANE, Michael. BiblicalInterpretationinAncientIsrael. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. FRITZ, Volkmar. DasBuchJosua. HAT I/7. Tübingen: Mohr (Siebeck), 1994. GARCÍA LÓPEZ, Félix. “La muerte de Moisés, la sucesión de Josué y la escritura de la tôrah (Deuteronomio 31-34).” Pages 85-99 in PentateuchalandDeuteronomisticStudies.PapersReadattheXIIIthIOSOTCongress.Leuven1989. Edited by Chris Brekelmans and Johan Lust. BETL 94. Louvain: Peeters & Louvain University Press, 1990. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, Florentino. “Light on the Joshua Books from the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Pages 145-159 in AfterQumran.OldandModernEditionsofthe Biblical Texts – the Historical Books. Edited by Hans Ausloos, Bénédicte Lemmelijn and Julio Trebolle Barrera. BETL 246. Louvain: Peeters, 2012. GASTER, Moses. Das Buch Joshua in hebräisch-samaritanischer Rezension. Entdeckt und zum ersten Male herausgegeben. ZDMG LXII. Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1908. GEIGER, Abraham. UrschriftundÜbersetzungenderBibelinihrerAbhängigkeit vonderinnerenEntwicklungdesJudentums.Breslau: Julius Hainauer, 1857. GLAUE, P. & Alfred RAHLFS. “Fragmente einer griechischen Übersetzung des samaritanischen Pentateuchs.” NGWG.PH2 (1911): 173. GREENSPOON, Leonard J. “The Qumran Fragments of Joshua: Which Puzzle Are They Part of and Where Do They Fit?” Pages 159-94 in Septuagint,Scrolls andCognateWritings.PapersPresentedtotheInternationalSymposiumon theSeptuagintandItsRelationstotheDeadSeaScrollsandOtherWritings (Manchester, 1990). Edited by George J. Brooke & Barnabas Lindars. SCS 33. Atlanta, GA: Scholars Press. 1992. ID. TextualStudiesintheBookofJoshua. HSM 28. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1983. GRYSON, Robert. AltlateinischeHandschriften.ManuscritsVieuxLatins.Répertoiredescriptif.Premièrepartie:Mss1-275 (d’après un manuscrit inachevé de Hermann Josef Frede†). Vetus Latina. Die Reste der altlateinische Bibel nach Petrus Sabatier neu gesammelt und herausgegeben von der Erzabtei Beuron 1/2A. Freiburg: Herder, 1999. HARRINGTON, Daniel J. and Anthony J. SALDARINI. TargumJonathanoftheFormer Prophets. The Aramaic Bible 10. Edinburgh: T & T Clark - Wilmington, Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1987. HERTOG, Cornelis, den. “Jesus. Josue / Das Buch Josua.” Pages 605-56 in SeptuagintaDeutsch.ErläuterungenundKommentarezumgriechischenAlten Testament. Edited by Martin Karrer and Wolfgang Kraus. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2011. HOLMES R. and J. PARSONS. VetusTestamentumgraecumcumvariislectionibus. Reprint. Oxford, 1897. JAGERSMA, Henk. “Doe je schoen van je voet. Een onderzoek naar de achtergrond en betekenis van Jozua 5:13-15.” Pages 108-17 in Tekst & Interpretatie. Studiesovergetallen,teksten,verhalenengeschiedenisinhetOudeTestament. Nijkerk: Callenbach, 1990. JOSEPHUS.Antiquities, Books V-VIII. Translated by Henri Saint John Thackeray and Ralph Marcus. Loeb 281. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

179

JOÜON, Paul and Takamitsu MURAOKA. A Grammar of Biblical Hebrew. Part Three:Syntax.ParadigmsandIndices. Subsidia Biblica 14/II. Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 1991. KRAUS, Hans-Joachim. Gottesdienst in Israel. Grundriß einer Geschichte des alttestamentlichenGottesdienstes. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1962. KOGLER, Franz, Renate EGGER-WENZEL & Michael ERNST. HerdersNeuesBibellexicon.Freiburg: Herder, 20092. KOOIJ, Arie, van der. “Servant or Slave? The Various Equivalents of Hebrew `Ebed in the Septuagint of the Pentateuch.” Pages 225-38 in XIII Congress of the International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies. Ljublejana 2007. Edited by Melvin K.H. Peters. SBL SCS 55. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2008. LABERGE, Léo. “Le texte de Deutéronome 31 (Dt 31,1-29; 32,44-47).” Pages 14360 in PentateuchalandDeuteronomisticStudies.PapersReadattheXIIIth IOSOT Congress. Leuven 1989. Edited by Chris Brekelmans and Johan Lust. BETL 94. Louvain: Peeters & Louvain University Press, 1990. LANGE, Armin. Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Band 1: Die HandschriftenbiblischerBüchervonQumranunddenanderenFundorten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. LANGLOIS, Michael. LetextedeJosué10.Approchephilologique,épigraphique etdiachronique.AvecunprefaceparThomasRömer.OBO 252. Fribourg – Göttingen: Academic Press – Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2011 LEVIN, Christoph.Fortschreibungen.GesammelteStudienzumAltenTestament. BZAW 316. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2003. LEVINSON, Bernard M. A More Perfect Torah. At the Intersection of Philology andHermeneuticsinDeuteronomyandtheTempleScroll. Critical Studies in the Hebrew Bible 1. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 2013. MAIER, Johann. DasaltisraelitischeLadeheiligtum.BZAW 93. Berlin, De Gruyter, 1965. MÄKIPELTO, Ville. UncoveringAncientEditing.DocumentedEvidenceofChanges inJosh24andRelatedTexts. ZAW. Berlin: de Gruyter, forthcoming. MARGOLIS, Max L. The Book of Joshua in Greek. Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, 1931-1938. ID., edited by Emanuel Tov, Part V: Joshua 19:39-24:33. Monograph Series. Philadelphia, PA: Annenberg Research Institute, 1992. MAZOR, Lea. “A Nomistic Re-Working of the Jericho Conquest Narrative Reflected in LXX to Joshua 6:1-20.” in Textus 18 (1995): 47-62. EAD. The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua – Its Contribution to the Understanding of the Textual Transmission of the Book and Its Literary and Ideological Development. Thesis submitted for the Degree Doctor of Philosophy, submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University. Jerusalem, 1994. EAD. “The Septuagint Translator of the Book of Joshua.” BIOSCS 27 (1994): 2938. MEER, Michael N., van der. “Clustering Cluttered Areas. Textual and Literary Criticism in Joshua 18,1-10.” Pages 87-106 in TheBookofJoshua. Edited by Ed Noort. BETL 250. Louvain: Peeters, 2012. ID. “‘Sound the Trumpet!’ Redaction and Reception of Joshua 6:2-25.” Pages 19-43 in The Land of Israel in Bible, History, and Theology. Edited by Jacques van Ruiten and J. Cornelis de Vos. VTSup 124. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

180

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ID. FormationandReformulation:TheRedactionoftheBookofJoshuainthe LightoftheOldestTextualWitnesses. VTSup 101. Leiden: Brill, 2004. MEYER, Rudolph. JosuaetJudices. BHS 4. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1972, 1983. MUILENBURG, James “The Site of Ancient Gilgal.” BASOR 140 (1955): 11-27. MÜNNICH, Olivier. “Les Hexaples d’Origène à la lumière de la tradition manuscrite de la Bible grecque.” Pages 167-85 in OrigianaSexta.OrigèneetlaBible/ Origen and the Bible. Actes du Colloquium Origenianum Sextum Chantilly, 30août–3septembre1993. Edited by Olivier Munnich and Alain le Boulluec. BETL 118. Louvain: Peeters & Leuven University Press, 1995. MURAOKA, Takamitsu. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. Louvain: Peeters, 2009. NELSON, Richard D. Joshua.ACommentary. OTL. Louisville: Westminster John Knox: 1997. ID. TheDoubleRedactionoftheDeuteronomisticHistory. JSOTSup 18. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1981. NOORT, Ed. “Einführung.” Pages 1-19 in TheBookofJoshua. Edited by Ed Noort. BETL 250. Louvain: Peeters, 2012. ID. DasBuchJosua:ForschungsgeschichteundProblemfelder. EdF 292. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998. ID. “De val van de grote stad Jericho: Kanttekeningen bij synchronische en diachronische benaderingen.” NederlandsTheologischTijdschrift 50 (1996): 265-79. ID. Eenplekomtezijn. Kampen: Kok Pharos, 1993. NOTH, Martin. TheHistoryofIsrael. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1958. ID. DasBuchJosua. HAT 7. Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr (Paul Siebeck), 1938. PAKKALA, Juha. God’s Word Omitted. Omissions in the Transmission of the HebrewBible.FRLANT 251. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013. PRITCHARD, James B. The Ancient Near East in Pictures Relating to the Old Testament.Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1955. RAD, Gerhard, von. Gesammelte Studien zum Alten Testament. Theologische Bücherei. Neudrücke und Berichte aus dem 20. Jahrhundert 8. München: Chr. Kaiser Verlag, 1958. ID. Deuteronomium-Studien,TeilB. FRLANT, n.F. 40. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1947. RAHFLS, Alfred, revised by Robert Hanhart. Septuaginta.IdestVetusTestamentum graeceiuxtaLXXinterpretes. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006. ID. Verzeichnis der griechischen Handschriften des Alten Testaments für das Septuaginta-Unternehmenaufgestellt. MSU 2. Berlin: Weidmannsche Buchhandlung, 1914. ID. Bearbeitet von Detlef Fraenkel. VerzeichnisdergriechischenHandschriftendes AltenTestaments.BandI:DieÜberlieferungbiszumVIII.Jahrhundert.Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum. Supplement I,1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2004. ROBERT, Ulysse. Heptateuchiparsposteriorisversiolatinaantiquissimaecodice lugdunensi.VersionLatinduDeutéronome,deJosuéetdesJugesantérieure asaintJérôme,publiéed’aprèslemanucritdeLyonavecunfax-similé,des

BIBLIOGRAPHY

181

observationspaléographiquesetphilologiquessurl’origineetlavaleurde cetexte.Lyon: Librairie de A. Rey et Cie, 1900. ROFÉ, Alexander. “The Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4QJosha.” Pages 73-80 in New Qumran Texts and Studies. Proceedings of the First MeetingoftheInternationalOrganizationforQumranStudies.Paris1992. Edited by George J. Brooke, with Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 15. Leiden: Brill, 1994. ID. “The Nomistic Correction in Biblical Manuscripts and Its Occurrences in 4QSama.” RevQ 54/14 (1989): 247-54. ID. “Joshua 20: Historico-Literary Criticism Illustrated.” Pages 131-47 in EmpiricalModelsforBiblicalCriticism. Edited by J.H. Tigay. Philadelphia, PA: University of Philadelphia Press, 1985. ID. “The End of the Book of Joshua according to the Septuagint.” in Henoch 4 (1982): 17-36. RÖMER, Thomas C. “L’école deutéronomiste et la formation de la bible hébraïque.” Pages 179-93 in TheFutureoftheDeuteronomisticHistory. Edited by Thomas Römer. BETL 147. Louvain: Peeters & Louvain University Press, 2000. RÖSEL, Hartmut N. Joshua.HCOT. Louvain: Peeters, 2011. SABATIER, Petrus. Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae seu Vetus ItalicaetcaeteraequaecumqueincodicibusMssetantiquorumlibrisreperiripotuerunt:quaecumVulgataLatinaetcumtextugraecocomparantur. Vol. 1. Reims, 1743. Repr. Turnhout: Brepols, 1991. SCHÄFER – LICHTENBERGER, Christa. “Göttliche und menschliche Autorität im Deuteronomium.” Pages 125-41 in PentateuchalandDeuteronomisticStudies. PapersReadattheXIIIthIOSOTCongress.Leuven1989.Edited by Chris Brekelmans and Johan Lust. BETL 94. Louvain: Peeters & Louvain University Press, 1990. SCHATTNER-RIESER, Ursula. “Garizim versus Ebal. Ein neues Qumranfragment samaritanischer Tradition?” EarlyChristianity2 (2010/1): 277-81. SCHENKER, Adrian. “Altar oder Altarmodell? Textgeschichte von Jos 22:9-34.” Pages 417-25 in FlorilegiumLovaniense.FsFlorentinoGarcíaMartínez. Edited by Hans Ausloos, Bénédicte Lemmelijn and Marc Vervenne. BETL 224. Louvain: Peeters, 2008. SIGISMUND, Marcus. “Der Antiochenische Text im Buch JoshuaLXX und seine Bedeutung für die älteste Septuaginta – Eine erste Reevaluation.” Pages 13-35 in XVCongressofIOSCS(München2013). Edited by Martin Meiser, Wolfgang Kraus and Michael N. van der Meer. SBLSCS 64. Atlanta, GA: SBL, 2016. SIPILÄ, Seppo. “Old Latin Text of Josh 5:4-6 and Its Contribution to the Textual History of the Greek Joshua.” Pages 257-72 in IntheFootstepsofSherlock Holmes.StudiesintheBiblicalTextinHonourofAnneliAejmelaeus. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, T. Michael Law and Marketta Liljeström. CBET 72. Louvain: Peeters, 2014. ID.BetweenLiteralnessandFreedom.TranslationTechniqueintheSeptuagint of Joshua and Judges regarding the Clause Connections Introduced by ‫ו‬and‫כי‬. Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 75. Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society, 1999. ID. “Theodoret of Cyrrhus and the Book of Joshua. Theodoret’s Quaestiones Revisited,” Textus19 (1998): 157-170.

182

BIBLIOGRAPHY

SOGGIN, J. Alberto. Joshua.ACommentary. The Old Testament Library. London: SCM, 1972. SOLLAMO, Raija. Renderings of Hebrew Semiprepositions in the Septuagint. Annales Academiae Scientiarum Fennicae. Dissertationes Humanarum Litterarum 19. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedakatemia, 1979. STRANGE, John. “The Book of Joshua: A Hasmonean Manifesto?” Pages 136-42 in HistoryandTraditionsofEarlyIsrael.StudiesPresentedtoEduardNielsen. May 8th 1993. Edited by André Lemaire & Benedikt Otzen. VTSup 50. Leiden: Brill, 1993. TALSHIR, Zipora. “The Origins and Evolution of the Curse Upon the Rebuilder of Jericho – A Contribution of Textual Criticism to Biblical Historiography.” Textus 14 (1988): 1-26. TEETER, David Andrew. ScribalLaws.ExegeticalVariationintheTextualTransmissionofBiblicalLawintheSecondTemplePeriod.FAT 92. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2014. THORNTON, Timothy C.G. “Anti-Samaritan Exegesis Reflected in Josephus’ Retelling of Deuteronomy, Joshua and Judges.” JTS 47/1 (1996): 125-130. TIGCHELAAR, Eibert. “A Provisional List of Unprovenanced, Twenty-First Century, Dead Sea Scrolls-like Fragments.” DSD 24 (2017): 173-88. TOV, Emanuel. TextualCriticisimoftheHebrewBible. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 32012. ID. “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX and 4QJoshA.” Pages 65-85 in The Book of Joshua. Edited by Ed Noort. BETL 250. Louvain: Peeters, 2012. ID. Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible, and Qumran: Collected Essays. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. ID. TheGreekandHebrewBible:CollectedEssaysontheSeptuagint.VTSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ID. “Pap. Giessen 13, 19, 22, 26: A Revision of the Septuagint?” Pages 459-75 in TheGreekandHebrewBible.CollectedEssaysontheSeptuagint. VTSup 72. Leiden: Brill, 1999. ID. “4QJoshb.” Pages 153-60 in Qumran Cave 4. IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,Kings.Edited byEugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, Sidnie White Crawford, Julie Anne Duncan, Patrick W. Skehan, Emanuel Tov and Julio Trebolle Barrera. DJD XIV. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. ID., with the collaboration of R.A. Kraft and a Contribution by P.J. Parsons. The Greek Minor Prophets Scroll from Nahal Hever (8HevXXgr). (The Seiyal CollectionI).DJD VIII. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990. ID. “Some Sequence Differences between the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint and Ramifications for Literary Criticism.” JNSL13 (1987): 151-60. ID. “The Growth of the Book of Joshua in Light of the Evidence of the Septuagint.” ScriptaHierosolymitana 31 (1986): 321-39. ID. “The Fifth Facsimile of Margolis’ The Book of Joshua in Greek.” JQR 74/4 (1984): 397-407. TREBOLLE, Julio. “Textual Variants in Joshua-Kings Involving the Terms ‘People’ and ‘Israel’.” Pages 231-56 in IntheFootstepsofSherlockHolmes.Studiesin theBiblicalTextinHonourofAnneliAejmelaeus. Edited by Kristin De Troyer, T. Michael Law and Marketta Liljeström. CBET 72. Louvain: Peeters, 2014.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

183

TROYER, Kristin, De: see De Troyer. ULRICH, Eugene. TheDeadSeaScrollsandtheDevelopmentalCompositionof theBible.VTSup 169. Leiden: Brill, 2015. ID. “The Old Latin, Mount Gerizim, and 4QJosha.” Pages 361-75 in Textual CriticismandDeadSeaScrollsStudiesinHonourofJulioTrebolleBarrera. FlorilegiumComplutense.Edited by Andrés Piquer Otero & Pablo A. Torijano Morales. JSJSup 158. Leiden: Brill, 2012. ID. “4QJosha.” Pages 143-52 in Qumran Cave 4. IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges,Kings.Edited by Eugene Ulrich, Frank Moore Cross, Sidnie White Crawford, Julie Anne Duncan, Patrick W. Skehan, Emanuel Tov and Julio Trebolle Barrera. DJD XIV. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. ID. “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land.” Pages 84-104 + Plates 4-6 in New Qumran Texts and Studies: Proceedings of the First MeetingoftheInternationalOrganizationforQumranStudies,Paris1992. Edited by George J. Brooke with Florentino García Martínez. STDJ 15; Leiden: Brill, 1994. USSISHKIN, David. TheConquestofLachishbySennacherib.Publications of the Institute of Archaeology 6. Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1982. VAN DER KOOIJ, see Kooij, van der. VAN DER MEER, see Meer, van der. VERMEYLEN, Jacques. “L’école deutéronomiste aurait-elle imagine un premier canon des écritures?” Pages 223-40 in TheFutureoftheDeuteronomistic History. Edited by Thomas Römer. BETL 147. Louvain: Peeters & Louvain University Press, 2000. VON RAD, see Rad, von. WALTON, Brian. BibliaPolyglotta,Tomus2. London, 1657. photomech. reprint, Graz: Akademische Druck- und Verlagsanstalt, 1964. WEINFELD, Moshe. DeuteronomyandtheDeuteronomicSchool. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1992. WEVERS, John W. and Udo QUAST. Deuteronomium. Septuaginta Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Scientiarum Gottingensis editum III/2. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1977. WHITE CRAWFORD, Sidnie. “Interpreting the Pentateuch Through Scribal Processes: The Evidence from the Qumran Manuscripts.” Pages 59-80 in InsightsintoEditingintheHebrewBibleandtheAncientNearEast.What DoesDocumentedEvidenceTellUsabouttheTransmissionofAuthoritative Texts? Edited by Reinhard Müller & Juha Pakkala. CBET 84. Louvain: Peeters, 2017.

INDEX I. BIBLICAL SOURCES Genesis 17 18:3 26:24 32:11

132 149 149 64

Exodus 3:2-6 8:22 12 14:13 14:31 17:4 19:12, 13 20:22 20:25 22:15-16 23:6-8 24:4 24:7

132 72 132 146 146 72 72 104 98, 104, 105 56 56 53 105

Leviticus 12 20:2, 27 24:14, 16, 23 25:13, 22, 55

132 72 72 144

Numbers 5 5:30 11:11 12:7 12:8 14:10 15:35-36 22:1 30 31:12 33:50

132 132 59 147 147 147 72 72 122 54 131 131

Deuteronomy 1:5 3:24 3:27

15, 54 59 146 64, 65

3:28 4:8 4:44 7:5 7:25 7:26 9:21 11:26-28, 31-32 11:29: 104-105 11:29-30 11:30 11:31-12:12 12-26 12:3 13:6-11 13:9 13:10 13:11 13:12-18 13:16 13:17 16:19 16:22 17:2-7 17:4-5 17:5 17:18-19 17:19 20:12-13, 15-17 21 21:18-21 21:21 21:22-23 21:23 22:21 22:23 22:24 22:25 22:28 22:28-29 23:10 23:23 24:5 27 27: 1-8 27:3

65 59 59 71 71 70, 71 71 96 117 104, 120, 121 53 96 71 71, 73 71 72, 73, 76 72 71, 73 71, 76 75, 76 56 53 71, 76 73 71, 72, 73, 76 105 59, 105 79 80, 82 80 72 81 82 72 149 72 149 149 56 122 54 64 93-95, 95-104, 110 91, 105 59

186 27:4 27:8, 26, 58 28-32 28 28:58 28:61 28:68 28-32 29:1 29:17 29:20 29:28 31:2 31:3 31:9 31:11 31:12 31:14 31:24 31:25-26 31:26 32:36 32:43 34:5 34:11 Joshua 1-12 1-6 1 1:1 1:2

INDEX

94 59 108 96 60, 61 60, 61 149 108 146 74 60, 61 59 64, 65 65 59 59, 105 59 105 59, 108 107 60, 61 63, 142, 144 63 63, 64, 136, 143, 144, 146, 149, 150 146

1:5 1:7 1:7-8 1:8

170 119 64, 108, 141 63, 64, 136, 143, 145, 148 9, 10, 11, 14, 64, 64-65, 136, 141, 145, 146 146 57-64, 136, 146, 147, 167 57-64 58, 60

2-13 2 2:1 2:7 2:16 2:22-23 2:22 2:23

26 4, 16, 26 4, 5, 15 7, 13 13, 129 13 13, 14, 15, 129 14, 15, 129

3-5 3-4 3 3:1 3:2

124, 130, 141 131 89, 141 141 33, 120

3:3 3:5 3:6 3:11 3:12 3:14 3:17

10, 11 4, 5, 15 10, 11 14 21 6, 7, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15 14

4 4:19-5:1 4:1 4:1-2 4:2 4:3 4:4-7 4:5 4:7 4:8 4:10 4:11 4: 12 4:13 4:14 4:15-16 4:17 4:18 4:19 4:20 4:22 4:23

85, 94, 95, 105, 139 91 14 139 21 122, 139 139 21, 139 14 7, 8, 33, 120, 139 14, 139, 140 7, 14 14 14, 89 139, 140 5 5 5, 6, 7, 12, 92, 106 89, 120, 121, 124 120, 121 14, 64, 65 14, 15

5-8:29 5 5:1 pre 5:2 5:2 5:2-3 5:3 5:4 5:8 5:9 5:10 5:13 5:13-15 5:14 5:15

88 7, 16, 84, 95, 105, 113, 131 7, 7, 14, 89, 113, 115, 116, 17 85, 129 91 89 91 33 90, 120, 121 59, 90, 120, 124 6, 7, 144 132 7, 64, 143, 144, 145 7, 8, 15

6-8 6 6:1, 2 6:3

115, 130, 131, 167 3, 16-32, 90 26 20, 21, 22, 23, 26, 28, 29, 30 27

6:3-5

INDEX

6:3-7 6:4 6:5-10 6:5 6:6 6:7 6:8 6:8-9 6:9 6:10 6:11 6:11-16 6:12 6:12-13 6:13 6:14

6:16 6:16-19 6:17 6:18 6:20 6:21-24 6:21-25 6:23 6:24 6:26

27 20, 22, 26, 28, 31, 32 24 24, 26, 28 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 20, 26, 28 26, 29, 31, 32 27, 28, 32 29 26, 27, 29, 30 21, 22, 23, 29, 33 27, 28 22, 26 29, 32 24 20, 21, 22, 26, 29, 30, 33, 129 6, 20, 22, 23, 26, 29, 30, 32 21, 22, 29, 30 27, 28 66 33, 66, 70, 72 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 26 30 33 71 30

7-8:29 7 7:1 7.2 7:7 7:9 7:10-12 7:11 7:13 7:13-15 7:15 7:16 7:21 7:22 7:23 7:24 7:25 7:25-26

88 16, 66-76, 90, 176 72 40 147, 148, 150 20 66 72 4, 15, 72 66 67, 68, 69, 71, 72 66 21 33 141 140, 141 67, 68, 69 67

8

16, 26, 32-51, 75, 79, 90, 130, 131, 167 37, 43, 44, 45, 49, 50, 140, 141

6:15

8:1-29 8:1-14 8:1-2 8:2 8:3 8:3-8 8:3-14 8:4 8:5 8:5-6 8:6 8:7 8:8 8:9 8:10 8:11 8:12 8:13 8:14

8:1

8:14-17 8:15 8:16 8:16-17 8:18 8:19 8:20 8:20-29 8:22 8:23 8:24 8:24-26 8:24-29 8:27 8:28 8:29 8:30 8:30-31 8:30-32 8:30-33 8:30-35

187 42, 87, 88, 110, 111 39 44 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 76 37, 38, 43, 45, 49, 140, 141 44 36 37, 39, 40, 43, 45, 47, 48 37, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 140 42 37, 43, 44, 106 37, 43, 46 37, 43, 46, 47, 49, 71 29, 35, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 36, 38, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 49, 140, 141 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 140, 141 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 160 29, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 43, 44, 45, 46, 48, 49, 50, 51, 167 6, 7, 36, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48 42 43, 46, 47, 141 14, 46, 106 43, 46 36 42, 43, 46, 48, 71 13, 43, 46 45 33, 43, 46 42, 43, 46 79, 129 43, 46 42 43, 45, 46 43, 46, 75 43, 46, 74, 76-84, 85, 110, 115, 117, 167 90 59, 84-118, 145, 146, 167 103 91 17

188

INDEX

8:31 8:31-31 8:32 8:32-35 8:33 8:33-35 8:34 8:34-35

60, 61, 62, 136, 146, 146 100 60 59 136, 145, 146 103, 104 59, 60, 61, 62, 91 89, 91, 103

9-11 9-10 9

130 88, 131 88, 89, 111, 113, 115, 125, 145 90, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 125 86, 87, 88, 110-114, 115, 116, 168 21, 112, 117, 125, 141, 146 17, 85, 113, 114, 115 90, 110, 111, 125 111, 112 33, 89, 120, 121, 124 144, 145 145 144, 145 144 136, 147

9:1 9:1-2 9:2 post 9:2 9:3 9:3-27 9:6 9:8 9:9 9:11 9:23 9:24 10 10:1 10:1-2 10:2 10:4 10:5 10:6 10:7 10:8 10:9 10:10 10:11 10:12 10:14 10:15 10:16 10:16-27 10:17-25 10:18 10:20

15, 16, 75, 79, 82, 111, 112, 115, 124-133, 168, 169 111, 157-158 111 21, 158 141, 161-162 33, 34, 162-163, 164 33, 120, 121, 124, 125, 163-164 34, 120, 121, 124,140 159 120, 121, 124, 129, 141, 160 155-15 141, 158-159 162 141, 169 33, 34, 119, 120, 124133, 140, 141, 161, 168 127 132 127 121, 158, 159 6, 7, 141

10:21 10:22-26 10:23 10:24 10:25 10:27 10:28 10:28-39 10:28-42 10:29 10:31 10:34 10:35 10:38 10:39 10:40 10:40-41 10:40-42 10:41 10:42 10:43

33, 34, 125, 141, 142 79 7, 8 8, 9, 136 9 70, 75 70 132 133 141 141 141 70 141 70 125 124 132 125 21, 124, 125 33, 34, 112-133, 141, 168

11

88, 111, 112, 115, 125, 131, 132 111 111 125 33, 34 125 155 141 129 136, 147 64, 122, 136, 140, 147

11:1 11:1-3 11:1-5 11:4 11:5 11:6 11:7 11:10 11:12 11:15 12 12:1 12:1-6 12:1-5 12:5 12:6 12:7 12:7-8 12:8 12:15 12:23

111, 138 112 111, 138 112 136, 112 138 112 1 120,

112, 113, 115, 131,

13 13:8

131 136, 147

14 14:6

131 121, 129, 130

138 147, 148

121

189

INDEX

14:7

136, 147

15 15:3 15:7 15:10

131 20 120 20

16 16:6

131 20

17 17:14 17:17

16, 131 21 21

18 18:1 18:7 18:8 18:9 18:14

16, 131 87, 90, 123 136, 147 123 33, 34, 123 20

19 19:14 19:47 19:49-50 19:51

131 20 16 16 123

20 20:4 20:5 20:6 20:43

16, 131 21 14, 29 129 29

21 21:2 21:12 21:42

131 123 123 16, 17

22:2 22:4 22:5 22:8 22:9 22:10 22:10-34 22:12 22:19 22:27 22:30

123, 136, 147 64, 136, 148 60, 136, 147 129 123, 129 87, 119 138 123 14 138 21

23-24 23:6 23:10

108 60, 61, 62, 108 13, 21

23:12 23:14

129 21

24:1-28 24:6 24:11 24:25-26 24:26 24:29 24:30 24:31 24:33

53 61 14 105 60, 61, 62, 105, 108 137, 143, 144, 147, 150 122, 144, 148, 149 122 16

Judges 1:34-35 2:1 2:8 3:19 6:4, 33 7:1, 12 10:17 11:18, 20 15:9, 18 18:12 20 20:19 20:31 20:32 20:35 21:12

16 120, 121 63, 136, 143, 144 120, 121 122 122 122 122 122 122 35 122 106 106 155 123

1Sam 4:1 7:10 7:16 10:8 11:1 11:14, 15 13:4 13:5 13:7, 8 13:12 13:15 13:16 15:12, 21, 33 17:1, 2 23:26 26:3, 5 28:4 29:1

148 122 155 121 121 122 121 121 122 121 121 121, 122 122 121 122 122 122 122 122

2Sam 10:4

148 123

190

INDEX

10:15, 19 11:1 11:11 12:28 12:29, 31 17:12, 26 18:9 19:41 23:13 24:5 24:10

155 123 122 122 123 122 78 121 122 122 148

Psalms 1

58

Eccl

54

Jeremiah 22:19

83

Ezechiel 16:40 23:47

72 72

1Kgs 12:18 21:10, 13, 14, 15 21:27, 29

148 72 72 122

Daniel 1:2

74

2Kgs 2:1 4:38 6:8 14:12 17:13 18:12 21:18, 26 22:2 23:1-3 23:4-20 23:2 23:6 23:21-23 25:1

121 121 122 155 60 63 82 59 59 59 105 83 59 122

Hosea 4:15 9:15 12:12

121 121 120, 121

Amos 4.4 5:5

121 121

Micah 6:5

121

Zechariah 5:11 13:4

74 74

Sirach 46:5-6

169

1Chron 11:15 19:7, 9 19:16, 19

122 122 155

1Maccabees 9:2

123 122

II. QUMRAN

2Chron 10:18 24:21 25:22 32:1

72 72 155 123

Neh 8 9 12:29

105 105 120

Esther 7:10 9:7-10 9:14

78, 79 78 78 78

4QJosha

23, 24, 25, 36, 51, 85, 87, 88, 89, 91-93, 93-95, 101, 102, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 154-164

4QJosha“5:X” 17, 85, 89, 91, 92, 106, 107, 109, 110 4QJoshb

23

11Q19XLVIII,20-21 83

191

INDEX

III. BIBLICAL VERSIONS, JOSEPHUS, EARLY JEWISH REVISERS VetusLatina(ofJoshua) 24, 25, 36, 51, 83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 107-108, 109, 115, 116, 117, 126, 127, 168 Josephus V.20 V.34 V.48 V.68

25-26, 36, 51, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 107-108, 116, 117 88, 92 89 89 86, 89, 93

V.68-70 V.69 V.69-70 V.100

86 89 93 86

EarlyJewishRevisers 31, 65, 81, 84, 108, 114115, 128-130, 135, 136, 141, 148, 154-164 Theodotion Symmachus Aquila

31, 51, 114, 129, 154164, 169 31, 129, 158-159, 162 31, 129, 156-157, 158159

Contributions to Biblical Exegesis and Theology 1. J.A. Loader, A Tale of Two Cities, Sodom and Gomorrah in the Old Testament, earlyJewishandearlyChristianTraditions, Kampen, 1990 2. P.W. Van der Horst, Ancient Jewish Epitaphs. An Introductory Survey of a MillenniumofJewishFuneraryEpigraphy(300BCB-700CE), Kampen, 1991 3. E. Talstra, Solomon’s Prayer. Synchrony and Diachrony in the Composition of 1 Kings8,14-61, Kampen, 1993 4. R. Stahl, Von Weltengagement zu Weltüberwindung: Theologische Positionen im Danielbuch, Kampen, 1994 5. J.N. Bremmer, SacredHistoryandSacredTextsinearlyJudaism.ASymposiumin HonourofA.S.vanderWoude, Kampen, 1992 6. K. Larkin, The Eschatology of Second Zechariah: A Study of the Formation of a MantologicalWisdomAnthology, Kampen, 1994 7. B. Aland, NewTestamentTextualCriticism,ExegesisandChurchHistory:ADiscussionofMethods, Kampen, 1994 8. P.W. Van der Horst, Hellenism-Judaism-Christianity: Essays on their Interaction, Kampen, Second Enlarged Edition, 1998 9. C. Houtman, Der Pentateuch: die Geschichte seiner Erforschung neben einer Auswertung, Kampen, 1994 10. J. Van Seters, The Life of Moses. The Yahwist as Historian in Exodus-Numbers, Kampen, 1994 11. Tj. Baarda, EssaysontheDiatessaron, Kampen, 1994 12. Gert J. Steyn, Septuagint Quotations in the Context of the Petrine and Pauline SpeechesoftheActaApostolorum, Kampen, 1995 13. D.V. Edelman, TheTriumphofElohim,FromYahwismstoJudaisms, Kampen, 1995 14. J.E. Revell, TheDesignationoftheIndividual.ExpressiveUsageinBiblicalNarrative, Kampen, 1996 15. M. Menken, OldTestamentQuotationsintheFourthGospel, Kampen, 1996 16. V. Koperski, The Knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord. The High Christology of Philippians3:7-11, Kampen, 1996 17. M.C. De Boer, JohanninePerspectivesontheDeathofJesus, Kampen, 1996 18. R.D. Anderson, AncientRhetoricalTheoryandPaul, Revised edition, Leuven, 1998 19. L.C. Jonker, Exclusivity and Variety, Perspectives on Multi-dimensional Exegesis, Kampen, 1996 20. L.V. Rutgers, TheHiddenHeritageofDiasporaJudaism, Leuven, 1998 21. K. van der Toorn (ed.), TheImageandtheBook, Leuven, 1998 22. L.V. Rutgers, P.W. van der Horst (eds.), The Use of Sacred Books in the Ancient World, Leuven, 1998 23. E.R. Ekblad Jr., Isaiah’sServantPoemsAccordingtotheSeptuagint.AnExegetical andTheologicalStudy, Leuven, 1999 24. R.D. Anderson Jr., GlossaryofGreekRhetoricalTerms, Leuven, 2000 25. T. Stordalen, EchoesofEden, Leuven, 2000 26. H. Lalleman-de Winkel, JeremiahinPropheticTradition, Leuven, 2000 27. J.F.M. Smit, About the Idol Offerings. Rhetoric, Social Context and Theology of Paul’sDiscourseinFirstCorinthians8:1-11:1, Leuven, 2000 28. T.J. Horner, ListeningtoTrypho.JustinMartyr’sDialogueReconsidered, Leuven, 2001 29. D.G. Powers, Salvation through Participation. An Examination of the Notion of the Believers’CorporateUnitywithChristinEarlyChristianSoteriology, Leuven, 2001 30. J.S. Kloppenborg, P. Hoffmann, J.M. Robinson, M.C. Moreland (eds.), TheSayings GospelQinGreekandEnglishwithParallelsfromtheGospelsofMarkandThomas, Leuven, 2001 31. M.K. Birge, TheLanguageofBelonging.ARhetoricalAnalysisofKinshipLanguage inFirstCorinthians, Leuven, 2004

32. P.W. van der Horst, JaphethintheTentsofShem.StudiesonJewishHellenisminAntiquity, Leuven, 2002 33. P.W. van der Horst, M.J.J. Menken, J.F.M. Smit, G. van Oyen (eds.), Persuasionand DissuasioninEarlyChristianity,AncientJudaism,andHellenism, Leuven, 2003 34. L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, PaultheMissionary, Leuven, 2003 35. L.M. Teugels, Bibleandmidrash.TheStoryof‘TheWooingofRebekah’ (Gen. 24), Leuven, 2004 36. H.W. Shin, TextualCriticismandtheSynopticProbleminHistoricalJesusResearch. TheSearchforValidCriteria, Leuven, 2004 37. A. Volgers, C. Zamagni (eds.), Erotapokriseis. Early Christian Question-andAnswerLiteratureinContext, Leuven, 2004 38. L.E. Galloway, FreedomintheGospel.Paul’sExemplumin1Cor9inConversation withtheDiscoursesofEpictetusandPhilo, Leuven, 2004 39. C. Houtman, K. Spronk, EinHelddesGlaubens?RezeptionsgeschichtlicheStudien zudenSimson-Erzählungen, Leuven, 2004 40. H. Kahana, Esther. Juxtaposition of the Septuagint Translation with the Hebrew Text, Leuven, 2005 41. V.A. Pizzuto, A Cosmic Leap of Faith. An Authorial, Structural, and Theological InvestigationoftheCosmicChristologyinCol1:15-20, Leuven, 2005 42. B.J. Koet, DreamsandScriptureinLuke-Acts.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2006 43. P.C Beentjes. “HappytheOneWhoMeditatesonWisdom”(SIR.14,20).Collected EssaysontheBookofBenSira, Leuven, 2006 44. R. Roukema, L.J. Lietaert Peerbolte, K. Spronk, J.W. Wesselius (eds.), TheInterpretationofExodus.StudiesinHonourofCornelisHoutman, Leuven, 2006 45. G. van Oyen, T. Shepherd (eds.), TheTrialandDeathofJesus.EssaysonthePassion NarrativeinMark, Leuven, 2006 46. B. Thettayil, InSpiritandTruth.AnExegeticalStudyofJohn4:19-26andaTheological Investigation of the Replacement Theme in the Fourth Gospel, Leuven, 2007 47. T.A.W. van der Louw, TransformationsintheSeptuagint.TowardsanInteractionof SeptuagintStudiesandTranslationStudies, Leuven, 2007 48. W. Hilbrands, Heilige oder Hure? Die Rezeptionsgeschichte von Juda und Tamar (Genesis38)vonderAntikebiszurReformationszeit, Leuven, 2007 49. J. Joosten, P.J. Tomson (eds.), VocesBiblicae.SeptuagintGreekanditsSignificance fortheNewTestament, Leuven, 2007 50. A. Aejmelaeus, OntheTrailoftheSeptuagintTranslators.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2007 51. S. Janse, “You are My Son”. The Reception History of Psalm 2 in Early Judaism andtheEarlyChurch, Leuven, 2009 52. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, L.L. Schulte (eds.), ProphecyaftertheProphets?TheContributionoftheDeadSeaScrollstotheUnderstandingofBiblicalandExtra-Biblical Prophecy, Leuven, 2009 53. C.M. Tuckett (ed.), FeastsandFestivals, Leuven, 2009 54. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), AnthropologyintheNewTestamentanditsAncient Context, Leuven, 2010 55. A. van der Kooij, M. van der Meer (eds.), The Old Greek of Isaiah: Issues and Perspectives, Leuven, 2010 56. J. Smith, TranslatedHallelujehs.ALinguisticandExegeticalCommentaryonSelect SeptuagintPsalms, Leuven, 2011 57. N. Dávid, A. Lange (eds.), QumranandtheBible.StudyingtheJewishandChristian ScripturesinLightoftheDeadSeaScrolls, Leuven, 2010 58. J. Chanikuzhy, Jesus,theEschatologicalTemple.AnExegeticalStudyofJn2,13-22in theLightofthePre70C.E.EschatologicalTempleHopesandtheSynopticTemple Action, Leuven, 2011

59. H. Wenzel, ReadingZechariahwithZechariah1:1–6astheIntroductiontotheEntire Book, Leuven, 2011 60. M. Labahn, O. Lehtipuu (eds.), ImageryintheBookyofRevelation, Leuven, 2011 61. K. De Troyer, A. Lange, J.S. Adcock (eds.), TheQumranLegalTextsbetweenthe HebrewBibleandItsInterpretation, Leuven, 2011 62. B. Lang, Buch der Kriege – Buch des Himmels. Kleine Schriften zur Exegese und Theologie, Leuven, 2011 63. H.-J. Inkelaar, Conflict over Wisdom. The Theme of 1 Corinthians 1-4 Rooted in Scripture, Leuven, 2011 64. K.-J. Lee, TheAuthorityandAuthorizationofTorahinthePersionPeriod, Leuven, 2011 65. K.M. Rochester, PropheticMinistryinJeremiahandEzekiel, Leuven, 2012 66. T. Law, A. Salvesen (eds.), GreekScriptureandtheRabbis, Leuven, 2012 67. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), WhatisBible?, Leuven, 2012 68. J. Cook, A. van der Kooij, Law,Prophets,andWisdom.OntheProvenanceofTranslatorsandtheirBooksintheSeptuagintVersion, Leuven, 2012 69. P.N. De Andrado, The Akedah Servant Complex. The Soteriological Linkage of Genesis22andIsaiah53inAncientJewishandEarlyChristianWritings, Leuven, 2013 70. F. Shaw, TheEarliestNon-MysticalJewishUseofΙαω, Leuven, 2014 71. E. Blachman, The Transformation of Tamar (Genesis 38) in the History of Jewish Interpretation, Leuven, 2013 72. K. De Troyer, T. Law, M. Liljeström (eds.), IntheFootstepsofSherlockHolmes.Studies intheBiblicalTextinHonourofAnneliAejmelaeus, Leuven, 2014 73. T. Do, Re-thinkingtheDeathofJesus.AnExegeticalandTheologicalStudyofHilasmos andAgapein1John2:1-2and4:7-10, Leuven, 2014 74. T. Miller, ThreeVersionsofEsther.TheirRelationshiptoAnti-SemiticandFeminist CritiqueoftheStory, Leuven, 2014 75. E.B. Tracy, SeeMe!HearMe!Divine/HumanRelationalDialogueinGenesis, Leuven, 2014 76. J.D. Findlay, FromProphettoPriest.TheCharacterizationofAaroninthePentateuch, Leuven, 2017 77. M.J.J. Menken, StudiesinJohn’sGospelandEpistles.CollectedEssays, Leuven, 2015 78. L.L. Schulte, MyShepherd,thoughYouDonotKnowMe.ThePersianRoyalPropagandaModelintheNehemiahMemoir, Leuven, 2016 79. S.E. Humble, ADivineRoundTrip.TheLiteraryandChristologicalFunctionofthe Descent/AscentLeitmotifintheGospelofJohn, Leuven, 2016 80. R.D. Miller, BetweenIsraeliteReligionandOldTestamentTheology.EssaysonArchaeology,History,andHermeneutics, Leuven, 2016 81. L. Dequeker, StudiaHierosolymitana, Leuven, 2016 82. K. Finsterbusch, A. Lange (eds.), Texts and Contexts of Jeremiah. The Exegesis of Jeremiah1and10inLightofTextandReceptionHistory, Leuven, 2016 83. J.S. Adcock, “OhGodofBattles!StealMySoldiers’Hearts!”AStudyoftheHebrew andGreekTextFormsofJeremiah10:1-18, Leuven, 2017 84. R. Müller, J. Pakkala (eds.), InsightsintoEditingintheHebrewBibleandtheAncient Near East. What Does Documented Evidence Tell Us about the Transmission of AuthoritativeTexts?, Leuven, 2017 85. R. Burnet, D. Luciani, G. van Oyen (eds.), TheEpistletotheHebrews.Writingatthe Borders, Leuven, 2016 86. M.K. Korada, TheRationaleforAniconismintheOldTestament.AStudyofSelect Texts, Leuven, 2017 87. P.C. Beentjes, “WithAllYourSoulFeartheLord”(Sir.7:27).CollectedEssayson theBookofBenSiraII, Leuven, 2017 88. B.J. Koet, A.L.H.M. van Wieringen (eds.), Multiple Teachers in Biblical Texts, Leuven, 2017

89. T. Elgvin, The Literary Growth of the Song of Songs during the Hasmonean and Early-HerodianPeriods, Leuven, 2018 90. D.C. Smith, The Role of Mothers in he Genealogical Lists of Jacob’s Sons, Leuven, 2018 91. V.P. Chiraparamban, TheManifestationofGod’sMercifulJustice.ATheocentricReading ofRomans3-21-26, Leuven, 2018 92. P. Paul, BeyondtheBreach.AnExegeticalStudyofJohn4:1-42asaTextofJewishSamaritanReconciliation, forthcoming

PRINTED ON PERMANENT PAPER

• IMPRIME

SUR PAPIER PERMANENT

N.V. PEETERS S.A., WAROTSTRAAT

• GEDRUKT

OP DUURZAAM PAPIER

50, B-3020 HERENT

- ISO 9706