sign in sign up
<<
Home , Book of Joshua

SOME REMARKS ON THE LATEST NOMISTIC EDITING OF MT Paper given at the OT/HB seminar in Oriel College (Oxford) 17.10.20161 Ville Mäkipelto, M.Th., Doctoral student University of Helsinki, Project: Changes in Sacred Texts and Traditions (www.cstt.fi) [email protected], Viljamitz (Twitter, Instagram)

In the , the text of the book of Joshua was circulating in various different forms. We are usually best acquainted with the (MT), which is already attested in the few Qumran scrolls that have been found containing the book of Joshua. However, the evidence from the also attests to readings found in the (LXX), confirming the assumption that the oldest text form of the LXX – the so-called OG text – was translated from a differing Hebrew text tradition. In addition, there are several unique readings in the scrolls, as well as some so-called rewritten versions of Joshua. Lastly, one should also mention the Samaritan versions of the book of Joshua whose value as a testament to the textual plurality in the Second Temple Period is yet either unexamined or highly debated.

The focus of my paper today is on the differences between the MT and the LXX of Joshua. I argue that the LXX can be used as a to an earlier developmental stage in the textual history of the book of Joshua. In this paper, I will specifically focus on one sporadic tendency found in the MT compared to the LXX. Namely, the MT witnesses to such late nomistic editing that is not yet present in the LXX. Through the comparison of the MT and the LXX we, therefore, uncover documented evidence of an editorial phenomenon. Namely, it seems that Second Temple Jewish scribes sought to bring texts closer to the with minor tweaks here and there. The seems to have been especially important in this process.2

This paper is organized in three parts. First, I will give a short introduction to the LXX version of Joshua. Second, I will introduce and analyze variants in the account in Josh 5:4–6 as an example of nomistic editing. Third, I will give some concluding remarks. You can follow the structure of the paper and the main points from your handouts. In the handouts, I also give you the text of Josh 5:2–9 and list some relevant secondary sources.

1. A Very Short Introduction to LXX Joshua

Three general remarks on LXX Joshua should be made. First, LXX Joshua is approximately 5% shorter than the MT. There are several words, sentences, and verses here and there in the MT which do not have a counterpart in the LXX. This figure, however, does not the whole truth. There are also textual elements in the LXX which do not have a counterpart in the MT. The differences between these versions are so thorough that it is safe to speak about two different editions of the same book.

The priority of either the MT or the LXX is still a disputed issue. It seems to me that a slight majority of Joshua scholars argue for the general priority of the LXX, or rather the assumed Hebrew source text that the LXX was translated from. This position was first introduced by Holmes in the beginning of the 20th Century and refined by, for example, Harry Orlinsky. Nowadays, the priority of the LXX is favored by scholars such as A. Graeme Auld, Lea Mazor, Emanuel Tov, and . These scholars argue that

1 This paper is still a work in progress. All feedback and criticism are warmly welcomed. 2 On the importance of Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period see Sidnie White Crawford, “Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period,” in K. D. Troyer & A. Lange, eds., Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 127–140. Published online at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=classicsfacpub. the differences in the MT are a result of proto-MT editing that took place at the end of the Second Temple Period. LXX was translated from a Hebrew source text that had not yet gone through this late editing.3

On a general level, my analysis of Josh 24 has led me to agree with these scholars. However, the situation is not that clear cut. Also the LXX contains secondary readings which should sometimes be attributed to a Hebrew revisor and, in smaller cases, to the LXX translator. Therefore, every text needs to be considered by its own merits.

Second, there is yet no Göttingen critical edition of the earliest Old Greek text, which is why I am presenting in the right column the text of Rahlfs. It is not unproblematic to do so because there are probably several readings that might be later Greek revisional elements. Overall, concerning LXX Joshua scholars generally agree that the text of Codex Vaticanus as given in a slightly revised form in Rahlfs is a good approximation of the OG. There are no strong Hebraising revisions as is the case with Judges and Samuel-Kings. However, recently there has been several developments that challenge this consensus and it is important that every scholar working with the LXX Joshua carefully analyzes all of the Greek manuscript evidence. In this paper, I will not delve into the Greek variants and revisions in detail. I will ask you to take my word that the Greek variants do not affect the bulk of the different version of events in verses 5:4–6 which we will soon focus on. There, the different version definitely goes back to the Old Greek text.

Third, the translation style of LXX Joshua needs to be taken into account when comparing it with the MT. Several textual scholars agree that the LXX version of Joshua is generally faithful to the Hebrew text that it 4 is translating. The translator was not mechanic, to be sure: in the translation of chapter 5, we see many surprising translation equivalents and decisions reflecting contextualizing concerns and a wish to produce 5 good language. However, in the light of several studies, the overall faithfulness of the translator to the Hebrew text, speaks against arguing that the different version preserved in verses 4–6 could be attributed to the translator. It is simply not plausible that the translator would have introduced radical editorial changes in relation to his Vorlage. Therefore, I assume that the major differences here reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage.

2. Joshua 5 as an Example of Nomistic Rewriting

Joshua 5 is a turning point in the narrative of the book of Joshua. The people of have succesfully crossed the and entered the at . They are faced with several fights against the indigenous people of the promised land. Before the legendary conquests of , , and fights against the coalitions of kings can be narrated, ritual acts of devotion to YHWH have to be reported in chapter 5.

When one has a closer look at the textual witnesses of chapter 5, it becomes apparent that this turning point in the book of Joshua has attracted lots of editing. In this paper, I will concentrate on the documented editing, witnessed by the differing accounts preserved in the MT and the LXX, related to the circumcision

3 Scholars who argue for the general priority of the MT include Michaël N. van der Meer and Klaus Bieberstein. Many scholars remain undecided or argue that the question of priority cannot be decided. 4 See, for example, the remarks of L. Greenspoon, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (HSM 28, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983), 379; L. Mazor, “The Septuagint Translation of the book of Joshua,” in BIOSCS 27 (1994): 29–38; E. Tov, “Literary Development“, 66– 67; and K. De Troyer, “Reconstructing the Older Hebrew Text of the Book of Joshua: An Analysis of Joshua 10,” in Textus 26 (2013): 26–27. For studies on the translation technique of LXX Joshua, see C. G. den Hertog, Studien zur griechischen Übersetzung des Buches Josua (Gießen: Justus-Liebig-Universität Dissertation, 1996) and S. Sipilä, Between Literalness and Freedom: Translation .(PFES 75; Helsinki, 1999) כי and ו Technique in the Septuagint of Joshua and Judges Regarding the Claus Connections introduced by in Josh 5:4. See the discussion by Van der Meer, Formation and מָל For example, περιεκάθαρεν is an interpretive translation of 5 Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the oldest Textual Winesses (Leiden: Brill, 2004): 334–416. The freedom in producing contextualized Greek does not, however, mean that the rewriting reflected in Josh 5:2–12 could also be attributed to the translator as Van der Meer argues. account in 5:2–9. Before this, however, I would like to highlight that this is not the only documented case of a editing of chapter 5. Most notably, 4QJosh from Qumran preserves a version of Josh 5 in which the reading of the law taken from Josh 8 is secondarily reported before the circumcision account. In this way, the commandments in Deut 27 are actualized before the conquests take place. This, in my view, reflects a broader late editorial concern of showing that the were devoted to YHWH before they went to take possession of the promised land. This editorial concern is also at play in the documented editing of the circumcision account in the MT, which we will now turn to.

The Evidence

Let us begin by comparing the MT and the LXX accounts of Josh 5:2–9. As you can see from the handouts, the differences between these accounts are numerous. In this short time, I do not have time to delve into all of the variants. I will focus this discussion on the rewriting that you see in verses 4–6. (It is the grea area in the handouts. Two differences have been highlighted with the arrow and the two round boxes.) This is where, in my opinion, we can observe how the reception of Pentateuchal laws has affected the rewriting of the narrative of circumcision. This is a prime example of inner-biblical nomistic exegesis.

What exactly are the differences here? There are two key thematical differences that are achieved through a rewriting behind either one of the traditions. Once again, I have illustrated these diffences in the translations on your handouts. Firstly, in Josh 5:4 the LXX suggests that the Israelites did not universally practice circumcision in (5:4: “as many as were uncircumcised of those who had come out of Egypt”). Conversely, in the MT everyone coming out of Egypt were circumcised and were thus ritually pure (5:5 “For all who had come out were circumcised”). Secondly, the LXX allows for a greater continuity between those coming out from Egypt and those that eventually conquered the land of . The MT, however, makes it clear that the whole generation that came out of Egypt died before the actual conquest (5:4: “all the people that came out of Egypt the males, all the men of war, died in the wilderness”, and 5:6: “...until had 6 perished all the nation all the men of war that came out of Egypt.”). In this way, the MT makes a strict separation between the old unfaithful generation and the new faithful generation.

Three Legal Issues

In my opinion, the best explanation for these differences is an expansive rewriting in the proto-MT editing of 5:4–6. Therefore, the LXX preserves in this case the earlier and shorter version. There seems to be three ways in which the proto-MT editor rewrote the narrative based on his idea that Joshua and the people correctly observed the law before the conquests. These three legal issues guided the rewriting.

First, the rewriting was triggered by the worrying notion in the earlier text, preserved in the LXX, that there was uncircumcised people among the Israelites coming out of Egypt. An editor wanted omit this and “correct” the reasons for the circumcision performed by Joshua. When YHWH had so greatly helped the Israelites in getting out of Egypt, surely they would have had to have been loyal in circumcision. Thus, only those born in the wilderness needed to be circumcised. As additional evidence for this claim, we can note that in both textual traditions the circumcision performed by Joshua is said to have removed the “disgrace This disgrace refers to the state of some Israelite warriors being .(אֶת- ֶח ְר ַּפת ִמ ְצ ַּריִם ,of Egypt” (Josh 5:9 uncircumcised (as evidenced by the usage of the phrase in Gen. 34:14), which makes perfect sense in the LXX since some where uncircumcised. In the MT, however, there is no disgrace left since it is emphasized 7 that everyone in Egypt were circumcised. Thus, the rewriting in MT verses 4–6 left verse 9 in contradiction with the new meaning in the MT.

6 See, for example, Mazor, “The Septuagint”, 36. 7 Other interpretations for the expression ”the disgrace of Egypt” have also been suggested. Van der Meer, In this instance, it is hard to see direct textual influence of any particular text to the rewriting. Two Pentateuchal laws are echoed in the background. In Gen 17, circumcision is an integral part of the that the Lord makes with . It was important for an editor to show that the Israelites of had not broken this covenant. Second, the circumcision performed by Zipporah in Ex 4:24–26 might have had an influence on MT Josh 5. In this peculiar text, the faithfulness to circumcision plays an important role right at the beginning of the exodus from Egypt. almost died for having neglected the circumcision. In the eyes of some late editors, therefore, circumcision seems to have been a pre-requisite for the succes of the exodus. This view was strenghtened in the proto-MT editing of Josh 5.

Second, the rewriting observed in the proto-MT phase sharpens the discontinuity between the generation coming out of Egypt and the generation that conquests the promised land. This is seen in two features in the MT, missing from the LXX: Josh 5:4: “all the people that came out of Egypt the males, all the men of war, died in the wilderness” and 5:6: “...until had perished all the nation all the men of war that came out of Egypt.” This seems to be an attempt to harmonize the passage with notions in Deuteronomy. In Deut 1:34– 46, YHWH punishes the exodus generation by declaring that none of the unfaithful generation will see the promised land. This, exactly, is what is being actualized in the MT Josh 5, but not yet in such strict terms in 8 the LXX.

It is of great importance that we have here documented evidence for the editorial desire to execute Deut 1:34–46 in other historical texts. As I said earlier, I am currently working mainly on Josh 24. Josh 24 includes a historical summary in vv. 2–13, which shifts between talking about the generation present at , on the one hand, and of the previous generation, that is their fathers, on the other hand. It seems to me that one of the key issues in the redactional growth of Josh 24 has to do with this differentiation between the previous unfaithful and the current faithful generation. In other words, the mentions of the fathers seem to have been secondarly added to the historical summary in Josh 24 in order to highlight that the generation present at Shechem is a different generation from that of the fathers. The generation at Shechem has a new possibility to choose to be faithful to YHWH. Therefore, as seems to be the case in Josh 5, the literary growth of Josh 24 can also be partly seen as reception history of Deuteronomy.

The third legal issue guiding the rewriting of the narrative is the upcoming celebration in Josh 5:10–12. The desire of the proto-MT editor to emphasize that all of the Israelites were circumcised probably has to do with ritual purity related to the Passover.9 Although the text does not explicitly advance this motive, a late editor might easily have been motivated by Pentateuchal decrees relating to the Passover. Especially Ex 12:43–48 might have influenced the editor. Ex 12:43–48 highlights that circumcision is a central requirement for everyone – even non-native Israelites – who want to take part in the Passover whole nation” in MT Josh 5:8, which“ כָל־הַּגֹוי celebration. This argument is strenghtened by the addition highlights that it was the entire nation that was circumcised and thus ritually pure for the Passover. So, while the Passover ritual might have been one of the “Priestly” motives for introducing the circumcision in chapter 5 in the first place, the proximity of the Passover celebration seems to have affected the editing of the circumcision account in several stages. The proto-MT editing presents the last one of these editorial stages.

Formation, 311–315 argues that the clause “today I have rolled away the disgrace of Egypt” is a later addition after 5:2–8 and its meaning should not be sought in this context. It marks the ending of and wandering in the desert and is connected with the erection of the twelve stones (Josh. 4:20). It may well include those connotations, but the clause is so closely connected (including .with the immediate context (vv. 2–8) reporting the circumcision that it would be futile to try to explain this connection away (הַּיֹום For the meaning of the phrase see also Dozeman, Joshua 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (The Anchor Yale , New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015): 298. 8 Thus also Nelson, Joshua, 77. 9 Thus also Dozeman, Joshua 1–12, 268. At this point, I would like to highlight that these three points are, in my eyes, quite decisive as text-critical arguments. It is hard to imagine a rewriting in the other direction. While it is plausible that later editors would rewrite texts in order to harmonize them with Pentateuchal commandments, it is hard to imagine why later editors would rewrite texts that are in conformity with the Pentateuch in a direction that makes them more in contradiction with the Pentateuch. The variants between the MT and the LXX have probably emerged in times when the Pentateuch had already gained significant authority. Therefore, it would be hard to argue that the MT would be earlier, in this instance, and that the LXX would be a result of later 10 rewriting. Some scholars have tried to do this by insisting that the rewriting took place in Alexandria by the translator. As I have already mentioned, however, this claim does not accord with what we know of the translation style of the LXX Joshua translator. In this context, however, we do not have time to look at those arguments more closely.

3. Concluding Remarks

Joshua 5 is a prime example of a biblical text that has been preserved in two different versions between the MT and the LXX. It is more likely that, in the case of the rewriting in 5:4–6, the LXX reflects an earlier version and that the MT is a product of nomistic editing. This editing aligned the important juncture in the book of Joshua with the Pentateuchal law. It was necessary for a later editor to highlight that the Israelites were faithful to YHWH before the succesful conquests of the promised land took place. Joshua was presented as a leader who carefully observed the Torah. Thus, he was also successful.

The editing observed in 5:4–6 cannot be labeled redaction. Traditionally, redaction refers to a thoroughgoing literary effort to organize various kinds of material systematically to accord with a specific theological motivation. For example, the creation of a Deuteronomistic history as assumed by is a redaction. The latest nomistic editing in the book of Joshua should more accurately be labeled as one stage in a longer process of Fortschreibung. Minor literary initiatives were taken by one or several scribes in various parts of the book in order to align it more closely with the Pentateuch. In this nomistic Fortschreibung, for example, the first and last chapters of the book of Joshua were exposed to minor in Josh 1:7 has been secondarily added in כְכָל- ַּהּתֹו ָרה ”adjustments. For example, the phrase “all the Torah the proto-MT editing and is missing from the earlier text of the LXX.11 In Josh 24, Moses has been וָ ֶא ְש ַּלח ֶאת-מֹשֶ ה ”secondarily introduced to the chapter by adding the phrase “And I sent Moses and at the beginning of v. 5 in the proto-MT editing.12 Some other examples of this nomistic editing וְאֶת-ַאהֲ רֹן has been uncovered in other studies.13 However, a systematic survey of this editorial phase is still needed. Such a survey would serve as a necessary starting point for literary and redaction critics.

Lastly, the findings of this paper relate to the discussion related to the so-called DtrN. Within the paradigm of a Deuteronomistic history, it is often assumed that DtrN belongs to the later stages of the Deuteronomistic redaction. There have been many attempts to systematically identify several different

10 Contra Bieberstein, Josua – Jordan – Jericho. Archäeologie, Geschichte und Theologie der Landnahmeerzählungen Josua 1–6 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1995): 198–206. 11 Alexander Rofé, ”The Piety of the Torah-disciples at the Winding-Up of the : Josh 1:8; Ps 1:2; Isa 59:21,” in J. Maier, et. al., eds., Bibel in jüdischer und christlicher Tradition (Frankfurt: Hahn, 1993), 78–85. Contra Michaël N. van der Meer, “ and Literary Criticism in Joshua 1:7 (MT and LXX),” in B. A. Taylor, ed., X Congress of the International Organization of Septuagint and Cognate Studies, Oslo, 1998 (SBLSCS 51; Atlanta: SBL, 2001), 355–371. 12 Joku lähde. 13 Emanuel Tov, ”The Growth of the Book of Joshua in Light of the Evidence of the Septuagint,” in The Greek and Hebrew Bible: Collected Essays on the Septuagint (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 394; Lea Mazor, “The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua,” BIOSCS 27 (1994), 29–38. nomistic editors (e.g. DtrN1, DtrN2, DtrB).14 Two issues are highlighted in the light of the analysis of this paper. First, it seems that nomistically motivated editing took place even as late as in the last centuries of the Second Temple Period. Given that the beginning of the nomistic movement is usually dated to the late 6th century, nomistic Fortschreibung should be seen as a process extending over several hundreds of years. The process is clearly linked with the rising authority of the Torah. Second, the rewriting of 5:4–6 attested by documented evidence would have been almost impossible to uncover without the variant edition preserved in the LXX. This cautions against making too rigid reconstructions of the work of the nomistic editors. Nomistic editing cannot be characterized as merely a mechanical string of additions but it seems to have been a creative literary process in which older material could be rewritten and forgotten. While documented evidence, therefore, confirms the idea of subsequent nomistic redactions it also, ironically, undermines the possibility of reliably uncovering the history of these redactions.

14 For a helpful discussion of the key issues see, for example, Juha Pakkala, ”The Nomistic Roots of ,” in J. Pakkala & M. Nissinen, eds., Houses Full of All Good Things. Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 95; Helsinki/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 251–268. MT Josh 5:2–9 LXX Josh 5:2–9 (Rahlfs) MT Josh 5:2–9 LXX Josh 5:2–9 ὑπὸ δὲ τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν 2. At that time 2. At that time 2 2 ָב ֵעת ַּה ִהיא :εἶπεν κύριος τῷ Ἰησοῖ YHWH said to Joshua: the Lord said to Joshua ָא ַּמר יְהוָה ֶאל-יְהֹו ֻׁש ַּע ποίησον σεαυτῷ μαχαίρας πετρίνας “Make for yourself flint knives “Make for yourself flint knives ֲע ֵשה ְלָך ַּח ְרבֹות ֻׁצ ִרים ἐκ πέτρας ἀκροτόμου out of sharp rock ”.καὶ καθίσας περίτεμε τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ and return to circumcise the Israelites again.” and sit down to circumcise the Israelites וְשּוב מֹל אֶת- ְבנֵי-יִ ְש ָר ֵאל ֵשנִית καὶ ἐποίησεν Ἰησοῦς 3. And Joshua made himself 3. And Joshua made 3 3 ו ַּ ַּי ַּעש-לֹו יְהֹו ֻׁש ַּע μαχαίρας πετρίνας ἀκροτόμους flint knives sharp flint knives ַּח ְרבֹות ֻׁצ ִרים καὶ περιέτεμεν τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ and circumcised the Israelites and circumcised the Israelites וַּיָ ָמל ֶאת- ְבנֵי יִ ְש ָר ֵאל ”.ἐπὶ τοῦ καλουμένου τόπου Βουνὸς τῶν ἀκροβυστιῶν at Gibeath-ha-araloth.” at the place called Hill of Foreskins אֶל- ִג ְב ַּעת ָה ֲע ָרלֹות :ὃν δὲ τρόπον περιεκάθαρεν Ἰησοῦς τοὺς υἱοὺς Ισραηλ 4. And this is why Joshua circumcised: 4. This is why Joshua purified the Israelites 4 4 וְ ֶזה ַּה ָד ָבר אֲשֶ ר- ָמל יְהֹו ֻׁש ַּע ὅσοι ποτὲ ἐγένοντο ἐν τῇ ὁδῷ all the people that came out of Egypt as many as were born on the way כָל- ָה ָעם ַּהי ֹ ֵצא ִמ ִמ ְצ ַּריִם καὶ ὅσοι ποτὲ ἀπερίτμητοι ἦσαν the males, all the men of war, and as many as were uncircumcised ַּה ְז ָכ ִרים כ ֹל ַאנְ ֵשי ַּה ִמ ְל ָח ָמה .τῶν ἐξεληλυθότων ἐξ Αἰγύπτου died in the wilderness on the way of those who had come out of Egypt ֵמתּו ַּב ִמ ְד ָבר ַּב ֶד ֶרְך .after they had come out of Egypt ְב ֵצא ָתם ִמ ִמ ְצ ָריִם .πάντας τούτους περιέτεμεν Ἰησοῦς 5. For all who had come out were circumcised, 5. all these Joshua circumcised 5 5 ִכי- ֻׁמ ִלים ָהיּו ָכל- ָה ָעם ַּהי ֹ ְצ ִאים but all the people that were born in the wilderness וְכָל- ָה ָעם ַּה ִיֹּל ִדים ַּב ִמ ְד ָבר .on the way coming out of Egypt were not circumcised ַּב ֶד ֶרְך ְב ֵצא ָתם ִמ ִמ ְצ ַּריִם ֹלא-מָ לּו τεσσαράκοντα γὰρ καὶ δύο ἔτη 6. For forty years 6. For forty-two years 6 6 ִכי ַא ְר ָב ִעים ָשנָה ἀνέστραπται Ισραηλ ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ τῇ Μαδβαρίτιδι the Israelites wandered in the wilderness Israel wandered in the wilderness of Madbaritis הָלְכּו ְבנֵי-יִ ְש ָר ֵאל ַּב ִמ ְד ָבר until had perished all the nation ַּעד-ּתֹם כָל- ַּהגֹוי διὸ ἀπερίτμητοι ἦσαν οἱ πλεῖστοι αὐτῶν wherefore most of them were uncircumcised τῶν μαχίμων τῶν ἐξεληλυθότων ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου all the men of war that came out of Egypt of the warriors who came out of the land of Egypt ַאנְ ֵשי ַּה ִמ ְל ָח ָמה ַּהי ֹ ְצ ִאים ִמ ִמ ְצ ַּריִם οἱ ἀπειθήσαντες τῶν ἐντολῶν τοῦ θεοῦ those who had not listened to the voice of the Lord those who disobeyed the commadments of ראֲשֶ ֹלא-שָמְ עּו בְקֹול יְהוָה ֲא ֶשר נִ ְש ַּבע יְהוָה לָהֶ ם οἷς καὶ διώρισεν to whom YHWH swore concerning who he determined ְל ִב ְל ִּתי ַּה ְראֹו ָתם ֶאת-הָָארֶ ץ μὴ ἰδεῖν αὐτοὺς τὴν γῆν that he would not let them see the land that they would not see the land ֲא ֶשר נִ ְש ַּבע יְהוָה ַּל ֲאבֹו ָתם ָל ֶתת ָלנּו ἣν ὤμοσεν κύριος τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν δοῦναι ἡμῖν that YHWH swore to their fathers to give us, that the Lord swore to their fathers to give to us, ֶא ֶרץ ָז ַּבת ָח ָלב ּו ְד ָבש γῆν ῥέουσαν γάλα καὶ μέλι a land flowing with milk and honey. a land flowing with milk and honey. .ἀντὶ δὲ τούτων ἀντικατέστησεν τοὺς υἱοὺς αὐτῶν 7. And their children he raised up instead. 7. In their place he raised up their children 7 7 וְאֶת- ְבנֵי ֶהם ֵה ִקים ַּּת ְח ָּתם οὓς Ἰησοῦς περιέτεμεν whom Joshua circumcised whom Joshua circumcised א ֹ ָתם ָמל יְהֹו ֻׁש ַּע διὰ for for ִכי τὸ αὐτοὺς γεγενῆσθαι κατὰ τὴν ὁδὸν they had been born on the way .ἀπεριτμήτους uncircumcised uncircumcised ֲע ֵר ִלים they were because they had not been circumcised הָ יּו ִכי ֹלא-מָ לּו אֹותָ ם .on the way ַּב ָד ֶרְך ,περιτμηθέντες δὲ ἡσυχίαν εἶχον 8. And when all the nations had been circumcised 8. After being circumcised they kept quiet 8 8 וַּיְ ִהי ַּכ ֲא ֶשר- ַּּתמּו כָל- ַּהגֹוי ְל ִהמֹול .αὐτόθι καθήμενοι ἐν τῇ παρεμβολῇ ἕως ὑγιάσθησαν they sat in their places in the camp until they recovered. remaining in the camp until they recovered וַּ ֵי ְשבּו ַּת ְח ָּתם ַּב ַּמ ֲחנֶה ַּעד ֲחיֹו ָתם :καὶ εἶπεν κύριος τῷ Ἰησοῖ υἱῷ Ναυη 9. And YHWH said to Joshua: 9. And the Lord said to Joshua, son of Nun 9 9 וַּי ֹא ֶמר יְהוָה ֶאל-יְהֹו ֻׁש ַּע ἐν τῇ σήμερον ἡμέρᾳ ἀφεῖλον “On this day I have rolled away “On this very day I have taken away ַּהיֹום ַּגּלֹו ִתי ”.τὸν ὀνειδισμὸν Αἰγύπτου ἀφ’ ὑμῶν the reproach of Egypt from you.” the reproach of Egypt from you אֶת- ֶח ְר ַּפת ִמ ְצ ַּריִם ֵמ ֲע ֵלי ֶכם .καὶ ἐκάλεσεν τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ τόπου ἐκείνου Γαλγαλα And he called the name of that place Gilgal, And he called the name of that place Gilgal וַּ ִי ְק ָרא ֵשם ַּה ָמקֹום ַּההּוא ִג ְל ָגל .until this day ַּעד ַּהיֹום ַּה ֶזה