ISRAEL's TREATY with GIBEON ACCORDING to JOSEPHUS Introduction Jos 9:3-27, the Story of the Making of a Treaty Between Israel An

ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON ACCORDING TO JOSEPHUS

Introduction Jos 9:3-27, the story of the making of a treaty between Israel and Gibeon1, places the reader before many puzzlements. Literarily, there are the pervasive repetitions (most notably the double “enslavement” of the deceiver Gibeonites, see vv. 19-21 and 22-27), and the oscillation as to who is conducting the negotiations from the Israelite side — is it the men of Israel?, Joshua?, the “leaders of the congregation”2? Questions of historic versimilitude likewise suggest themselves. Is it, e.g., conceiv- able that the Israelites, positioned in the midst of hostile territory and with Moses' prohibitions against covenant-making with the inhabitants (Deut 7:2; 20:16-18) still fresh in their minds, would have allowed themselves to be convinced so easily by the Gibeonites' claims? Con- versely, how is it that those Gibeonites are in a position to cite Moses' words in Deuteronomy the way they do throughout Joshua 9 (compare, e.g., v. 10 and Deut 29:1.8; v. 13b and Deut 8:4; 29:5; v.24a and Deut 7:1-2)? Finally, too, the story leaves one with unresolved problems of a juridical/ethical/ theological nature: was the oath which the Gibeonites secured from the Israelites by deception a valid, binding one, especially since it involved a violation of a divine decree mediated by Moses? In other words, should the Israelites have abided — as they do in fact do — by the oath, once they became aware of the Gibeonites' deceit and their own, albeit unwitting, transgression of God's decree? All of the above problems — and others as well — have long been identified by critical scholarship, and many proposals for their solution, mostly involving distinctions of traditions and/or strata within Jos 9:3- 27, have been put forward. I shall not rehearse that discussion3 or pre-

1 The notices on the formation of the anti-Israelite coalition in Jos 9:1-2 are generally seen as an introduction to the segment Joshua 9-11 as a whole which, as such, lack organic connection with the immediately following 9:3-27. See the commentaries and the MT p following 9:2. 2 Note too how the “inhabitants of Gibeon” (v. 3) unexpectedly get designated as the “Hivites” (MT, LXX tòn Xorra⁄on) in v. 7. 3 On Jos 9:3-27, see in addition to the commentaries, e.g.: J. LIVER, The Literary History of Joshua IX, in JSS 8 (1963), p. 227-243; J.M. GRINTZ, The Treaty of Joshua with the Gibeonites, in JAOS 86 (1966), p. 113-126; J. BLENKINSOPP, Are There 124 C.T. BEGG sent “solutions” of my own here. Rather, I propose to examine how a much earlier — and in his own way critical — Bible reader, i.e. Flavius Josephus dealt with the problems of a text like Joshua 9 in his Antiqui- tates Judaicae (hereafter Ant.) 5.49-574. More specifically, I wish to investigate the following questions regarding Josephus' version of the Gibeonite treaty: Which text-form(s) of Joshua 9 did he have available5? What “rewriting techniques” has he applied to the story's repetitions, “inconsistencies”, inverisimilitudes, etc.? How, overall, does his version compare with the source account? Finally, why did he opt to include the story within his history at all?

Traces of the Gibeonite Covenant in Deuteronomy?, in CBQ 28 (1966), p. 207-219; ID., Gibeon and Israel: The Role of Gibeon and the Gibeonites in the Political and Religious History of Early Israel (SOTMS 2; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1972), p. 28-40; G. SCHMITT, Du sollst keinen Frieden schliessen mit den Bewohnern des Landes (BWANT 91; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1970), p. 30-45; P.J. KEARNEY, The Role of the Gibeonites in the Deuteronomic History, in CBQ 35 (1973), p. 1-19; J. HALBE, Gibeon und Israel. Art, Veranlassung und Ort der Deutung ihres Verhältnisses in Jos IX, in VT 25 (1975), p. 613-641; B. HALPERN, Gibeon: Israelite Diplomacy in the Era of the Conquest, in CBQ 37 (1975), p. 303-316; H. RÖSEL, Anmerkungen zur Erzählung vom Bundesschluss mit den Gibeoniten, in BN 28 (1985), p. 30-35; A.D.H. MAYES, Deuteronomy 29, Joshua 9, and the Place of the Gibeonites in Israel, in Das Deuteronomium. Entstehung, Gestalt und Botschaft (BETL 68; ed. N. LOHFINK; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1985), p. 321-325; ID., The Gibeonites as a Historical and Political Problem in the Old Testament, in PIBA 10 (1986), p. 13-24; C. SCHÄFER-LICHTENBERGER, Das gibeonitische Bündnis im Lichte deuteronomischer Kriegsgebote. Zum Verhältnis von Tradition und Interpretation, in BN 34 (1986), p. 58-81; J. BRIEND, Israël et les Gabaonites, in La Protohistoire d'Is- raël. De l'exode à la monarchie (ed. E.M. LAPERROUSAZ; Paris: Cerf, 1990), p. 121- 182; R.K. SUTHERLAND, Israelite Political Theories in Joshua 9, in JSOT 53 (1992), p. 65-74. 4 For the text and translation of Josephus' works I use H.ST.J. THACKERAY, R. MAR- CUS, A. WIKGREN, and L.H. FELDMAN (eds.), Josephus (LCL; Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; London: Heinemann, 1926-1965 [Ant. 5.49-57 is found in Vol. V, p. 23-27 where the translation and notes are by Marcus). I have likewise consulted the text and apparatus of Ant. 5.49-57 in B. NIESE, Flavii Iosephi Opera, II (Berlin: Weid- mann, 21955), p. 302-304 as well as the text, translation and notes of E. NODET, Flavius Josèphe, II (Paris: Cerf, 1995), p. 126-128. 5 It has been long and widely held that, in his version of the Book of Joshua in Ant. 5.1-119, Josephus bases himself, in first place, on a text similar to MT (as opposed to that of LXX). See A. MEZ, Die Bibel des Josephus untersucht für Buch V-VII der Archäolo- gie (Basel: Knober & Jaeger, 1895), p. 80; L.H. FELDMAN, Use, Authority and Exegesis of Mikra in the Writings of Flavius Josephus, in Mikra: Text, Translation, Reading and Interpretation of the Hebrew Bible in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity (CRINT 2,1; ed. M.J. MULDER and H. SYSLING; Assen: van Gorcum, 1988), 455-518, p. 462; NODET, Flavius Josèphe, II, p. xiii. For a comprehensive discussion of Josephus' treatment of Joshua in Ant. 5, see L.H. FELDMAN, Josephus' Portrait of Joshua, in HTR 82 (1989), p. 351-376. ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON 125

Before, however, turning to my consideration of Ant. 5.49-57 itself, I begin with a brief remark concerning the respective contexts of the Gibeon treaty account in the Book of Joshua and in Ant. 5. In MT Joshua that account is preceded by a sequence (8:1-9:2) consisting of the following elements: the capture of Ai (8:1-29), Joshua's altar- building on Mount Ebal and subsequent reading of the law-book (8:30- 35), and notices on the Cis-jordanian coalition against Israel (9:1-2). As is well known, LXX presents the last two of these items in reverse order, giving its rendition of MT 8:30-35 only after its version of 9:1- 26. Both witnesses, on the other hand, follow the story of the Israel- Gibeon treaty (MT 9:3-27) with a narrative concerning Joshua' over- throw of an assault upon Gibeon by five southern Canaanite kings (10:1-27). Josephus too (5.58-61) presents this latter narrative as his immediate sequel to the treaty episode (5.49-57). By contrast, he diverges from both MT and LXX with regard to the immediately pre- ceding context for the treaty story. In particular, he has no equivalent to the notices on the enemy coalition of 9:1-2 (MT) which lack recogniz- able coherence with what now follows them in either MT (i.e. the Gibeonite treaty) or LXX (i.e. the events at Mt. Ebal). As for the content of 8:30-35 (MT), Josephus gives a highly compressed version of this at a much later point in his story of Joshua, i.e. after the conquest of the land and the erection of the tabernacle in Shiloh (// Jos 18:1), see Ant. 5.69-707. Accordingly, in Josephus' presentation, the story of the Gibeonite treaty (5.49-57) is attached directly to his (highly compressed) version of the Biblical account of the conquest of Ai (Jos 8:1- 29) in Ant. 5.45-48. His rendition of the Ai narrative itself ends up with an elaboration of the booty notice of Jos 8:27. This reads: “The Hebrews captured moreover herds of cattle and money in abundance, for the region was rich, and all this Joshua distributed to his soldiers, while he was in Galgala”8.

6 On the explanation of this divergence and the question of textual priority, see the commentaries. 7 On Josephus' version of Jos 8:30-35 in Ant. 5.69-70 and the reasons for his placing it where he does, see C.T. BEGG, The Cis-jordanian Altar(s) and their Associated Rites according to Josephus, in BZ 41 (1997), p. 192-211. 8 Jos 8:1-29 does not speak of Joshua's distibution of the Ai booty, nor does it mention the site “Gilgal”. Josephus apparently “anticipates” his reference to the site here from Jos 9:6 according to which the Gibeonites approached Joshua “at Gilgal”. In any event, his mention of the place at the end of 5.48 provides an implicit setting for the events to be related in 5.49-57. 126 C.T. BEGG

In now undertaking my comparison of Josephus and his source on the Gibeonite treaty, I divide up the material into the following three seg- ments: 1) Preparations (Jos 9:3-5// Ant. 5.49-50); 2) Treaty Concluded (9:6-15// 5.51-55); and 3) Sequels (9:16-27// 5.56-57).

Preparations Jos 9:3-5 tells in some detail of the Gibeonites' preparations for their overture to Israel, devoting particular attention to the array of items which they assemble as “proof” of the claim they will make about being from a far distant country (vv. 4-5, compare vv. 12-13). Josephus (5.49- 50) elaborates this introductory segment still further, giving it, however, largely a content of his own. His expansion/replacement of source data is apparent already in his version of the notice of 9:3 concerning the occasion for the Gibeonites' initiative, i.e. their “hearing” of Joshua's dealings with Jericho and Ai. Josephus' version (5.49a) does take over the datum of 9:3: the “Gabaonites (Gabawn⁄tai)9 seeing10 the disasters that had befallen the inhabitants of Jericho and of Naia (Naﬂtí- noiv)…”11. He then, goes on, however, to elaborate this item with several particulars of his own. Of these, the first is his qualification of the Gabaonites as “living quite near to Jerusalem”. This indication likely reflects Josephus' personal knowledge concerning the localization of a site which continued to exist down to his own time and for which he twice elsewhere gives “precise” — if slightly divergent — specifica- tions concerning its distance from Jerusalem12. By means of this insertion about Gibeon's localization, Josephus goes beyond the Bible in making clear to readers from the outset that the Gibeonites' subsequent

9 This form of the people's name corresponds to LXX's GabaÉn; compare MT “Gibeon”. 10 Josephus' use of this term in place of the verb “hear” of Jos 9:3 might be intended to enhance the motivation for the Gibeonites' subsequent initiative: they undertake their strategem, not because they have merely “heard” of Joshua's devastation of Jericho and Ai, but because they have actually “seen” it for themselves. 11 This form of the people's name corresponds to that of their city, i.e. “Naia” (Naﬂa) used by Josephus in 5.35,45 for the “Ai” of MT and the Gaí of LXX Joshua 7-8. On the origin of the Josephan form, see MARCUS, Josephus, V, p. 18-19, n. a. 12 See Ant. 7.283 (// 2 Sam 20:8): Joab meets Amasa at Gabaon, “a village forty stades distant from Jerusalem”; Bellum Judaicum (hereafter BJ) 2.516: the Roman gen- eral Cestius “pitched his camp at a place called Gabao (GabaÉ), fifty furlongs (stades, stadíouv) distant from Jerusalem”. On Gibeon as modern el-Jib, 8 km north of Jerusalem, see P. ARNOLD, Gibeon, in ABD 2 (New York: Doubleday, 1992), 1010-1012, p. 1010. ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON 127 claims for themselves are not to be believed13. Josephus likewise spells out the conclusion the Gibeonites' draw from their knowledge of the disasters suffered by Jericho and Ai: “… suspecting that they too would be visited by this dire fate (metabßsesqai tò deinón)”14. Before proceeding to relate what the Gibeonites actually did in light of their “suspi- cion”, Josephus inserts a notice concerning one possible initiative which they might have taken — and which could naturally have suggested itself to readers — and the reason for their not doing so. In formulating this notice, Josephus seems to draw on the Gibeonites' later assertion to Joshua in 9:24: “we know of a certainty that the Lord… has commanded… Moses to… destroy (LXX êzoleqreÕsai) all the inhabitants of the land from before you”. Transposing this (subsequent) source statement made to Joshua by the Gibeonites into a remark about their thinking process at the start of the episode, Josephus now (5.49b) com- ments: “… yet they resolved not to implore (mercy) of Joshua; for they did not think to obtain any tolerable terms from a belligerent (pole- moÕntov) whose aim was the extermination of the whole race of the Canaanites (êp' ôléqrwç [compare LXX 9:24 êzoleqreÕsai] toÕ Xananaíwn ∂qnouv pantóv)15”. It is only at this point that Josephus comes to relate the measures actually taken by the Gibeonites in response to the threat facing them. In place of the source's enumeration of the Gibeonites' assembling the “proofs” of their status as long-distance travelers (9:4-5), he substitutes, however, an item designed to account for a later element of the Biblical story which there seems to surface unexpectedly. The item in question has to do with the status of three cities, in addition to Gibeon itself, which in Jos 9:17 are qualified as “their (i.e. the Gibeonites') cities”. Josephus, already here at the outset, relates how this state of affairs came to be by way of his inserted notice (5.50) on the Gibeonites' proposal of an alliance with the other cities, along with the motivation, both negative

13 Compare Jos 9:4 where MT's statement that the Gibeonites “acted emryb” (RSV “with cunning”) leaves matters more ambiguous for the moment since MT's term can have both positive (“clever, prudent”, cf. Targum Jonathan's emkcb) and negative (“sneaky, tricky”, cf. LXX metà panourgíav) nuances; see the commentaries. Cf. n. 62. 14 This phrase occurs only here in Josephus. 15 With this formulation Josephus depicts the Gibeonites as familiar with Moses' injunction as laid down in Ant. 4.300 “… the race of the Canaanites (toÕ Xananaíwn ∂qnouv),… them you must exterminate (âƒanísai) wholesale”. This injunction, in turn, represents Josephus' parallel to the Mosaic directives of Deut 7:1-2; 20:16-18. The term “Canaanite”, nowhere used in Joshua 9 itself, is a Leitwort in Ant. 5.49-57, appearing there a total of six times (5.49,52[bis],54,55,56), cf. “Canaan” in 5.56. 128 C.T. BEGG and positive, for that proposal. The notice reads: “But they invited the Kephêrites (Keƒjrítav)16 and the Kiriathiarimites (Kariaqiarimí- tav)17, their neighbors, to (make) alliance (summaxían) with them, telling them that neither would they escape this peril (diaƒeúzesqai tòn kíndunon)18, should they themselves have first been conquered by the Israelites, whereas if they united their arms (sunaspísantav)19 with theirs they might evade their violence (diégnwsan diadr¢nai t±n dúnamin20)”21.

Treaty concluded Jos 9:6-15 (// Ant. 5.51-55) is the core of the Biblical narrative. It con- sists of three elements: the Gibeonites' approach (v. 6a), exchanges between them and the Israelite side (vv. 6b-13), and the actual making of the treaty (vv. 14-15). In 9:6a the Gibeonites come to Joshua at Gilgal where they address themselves to him and to “the men of Israel” (so MT, LXXB Israel, LXXA all Israel). Josephus (5.51), here too, both mod- ifies and elaborates the source's presentation. His rendition begins with

16 Compare MT 9:17 erîipÆKeÎ, LXX Keƒeirá. This is Josephus' only mention of “Chephirah” and its people (in Jos 18:26 the name recurs in a list of Benjaminite cities). 17 This form for the inhabitants' name stands closer to MT's jiræyïißhiÌrßqæ than to the translation/transliteration of LXX, i.e. póleiv ˆIareín. Josephus has no counterpart for the fourth city cited in 9:17, i.e. “Beeroth” (LXX BeirÉn [he likewise leaves the site unmentioned in his version of 2 Samuel 4 in Ant. 7.46-52 concerning the murder of Ishbosheth whose two assassins, according to 4:2-3, came from Beeroth of Benjamin, cf. Jos 18:25). NODET, Flavius Josèphe, II, p. 126, n. 5 finds the non-appearance of “Beeroth” in Ant. 5.49 “étrange”, and suggests that Josephus took the Biblical name as that of a body of water (Hebrew “Beeroth” = “wells”), rather than of a city, and so omitted it from his city list there. 18 This phrase recurs in 5.52 and some 15 further times in Josephus. 19 Thus the reading of the codices RO(S); this would be Josephus' only use of the verb sunaspíhw in Ant. In BJ the term appears five times: l.36;3.271;4.33,243;6.139. MPLE read rather sumpeísantev, the reading adopted by NODET, Flavius Josèphe, II, p. 127*. 20 The above phrase “evade violence” occurs only here in Josephus. 21 MARCUS, Josephus, V, p. 25, n. b calls the text of the final words of 5.50 as cited above “doubtful”. He further (ibid., p. 24, n. 2), with reference to the Lat reading possunt for the diégnwsan of the Greek codices, proposes to emend that Greek verb to the parti- cle ãn, suggesting that the term diégnwsan in 5.49 has given rise to the same form in the codices of 5.50. NODET, Flavius Josèphe, II, p. 127* retains the codices' reading and ren- ders (p. 127) “ils les exhortaient”. The above notice about the Gibeonites entering into an alliance with their neighbors before approaching the Israelites accentuates their all-round astuteness in dealing with the threat facing them: they have a “back-up” plan should their overture to Israel fail, i.e. armed resistance with the help of a coalition that is already in place. ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON 129 a transitional phrase relating back to the proposed alliance between Gibeon and the other cities (see 5.50): “these overtures being accepted…”. He then continues with a combination of 9:6aa (the Gibeonites approach Joshua) and a narrative transposition/ anticipation of 9:11 where the Gibeonite speakers represent themselves as acting, in their request for a treaty, on the instructions of their elders and fellow- citizens22: “they sent (pémpousi)23 ambassadors to Joshua24 to make a league of amity (ƒilían speisoménouv)25, choosing those of their citizens (polit¬n) whom they judged most capable of acting in the interests of the people”26. Before proceeding to report the envoys' actual words (// 9:6b-13), Josephus (5.52) inserts a remark about the reason for their taking the particular tack they do. This background remark picks up on his previ- ous insertion (see 5.49b) concerning the Gibeonites' motivations which itself, as mentioned, draws on their statement as reported in 9:24 about

22 In thus mentioning, here at the outset, the dispatch of “envoys” by the Gibeonites Josephus further resolves the seeming contradiction between 9:6 where the Gibeonites appear to approach Joshua en masse and the subsequent 9:11 in which it emerges that the speakers are only (a limited group of) representatives of the Gibeonite leaders and popu- lace, i.e. envoys. In this connection note too the psychological implausibility of the presentation in 9:6, i.e. the approach by the whole body of the Gibeonites that seems to be described there would surely be experienced by the Israelites as something threatening and so not at all as conducive to their agreeing to the Gibeonites' request. Josephus' initial reference to the Gibeonites' sending of envoys disposes of this difficulty as well. 23 Note the historic present, a form which Josephus very frequently introduces into his rewriting of Biblical history in Ant. See C.T. BEGG, Josephus' Account of the Early Divided Monarchy (AJ 8,212-420) (BETL 108; Leuven: Leuven University Press/Peeters, 1993), p. 10-11, n. 32 and the literature cited there. 24 In 9:6 the Gibeonites come to Joshua in Gilgal (v.6a), but then address themselves, not only to him, but also to the Israelites (v.6b). Josephus keeps attention focussed on Joshua here at the start. Subsequently, however, he will cite the presence and active par- ticipation of the people as well; see below. 25 Josephus' two other uses of this phrase are in Ant. 13.33; 17.68; cf. 9.284 (with eîrßnjn). Compare 9:11 where the envoys cite their being instructed to say “come now, make a covenant (MT hirb …vhrk, LXX diáqesqe… diaqßkjn)”. As is well known, Josephus invariably avoids the LXX's peculiar usage of the term diaqßkj in the mean- ing of “covenant” (= Hebrew hirb [the term is so used 5 times in Joshua 9, see vv. 6,7,11,15,16], employing the word only in its standard secular Greek sense of “will, testament”. See BEGG, Josephus' Account, p. 100-101, n. 609 and the literature cited there. In place thereof, he introduces, throughout his rewriting of Biblical history in Ant., standard Greco-Roman treaty terminology (e.g., ƒilía, summaxía), on which see, e.g.: S.R. MANDELL, Did the Maccabees Believe They Had a Valid Treaty with Rome?, in CBQ 53 (1991) 202-220. 26 Josephus' appended characterization of the Gibeonite envoys here has no equivalent in Joshua 9 (I italicize such items in this essay); it serves to call attention to the rhetorical adroitness the envoys will display in what follows. 130 C.T. BEGG the threat facing the inhabitants of the land from the side of Israel. It reads: “And these, deeming it hazardous (êpisƒalév) to avow themselves Canaanites27, and thinking to escape the peril (diaƒeúzesqai… tòn kíndunon, see 5.50) of so doing by asserting that they had no connexion whatever with the Canaanites but lived very far (porrwtátw) away from them…”28. After the foregoing insertion, Josephus finally comes to report the Gibeonites' actual words29. In Jos 9:6b-13 one finds the following com- plicated and repetitious sequence. The Gibeonites start things off with a claim about their origin and request for a covenant (v.6b) to which the “men of Israel” immediately respond with a sceptical question (v. 7). Thereupon, the Gibeonites, addressing themselves to Joshua rather than to the Israelites, declare themselves to be his servants (v. 8a). Joshua, in turn, poses his own questions about their identity and origins (v.8b). In reply, the Gibeonites reaffirm their far-off origins (v. 9a// 6ba), explain that news of the Lord's earlier deeds has occasioned their coming (vv. 9b-10), report the instructions given them by their senders (v. 11a, with repetition of their earlier self-designation as servants [v. 8a] and request for a covenant [v. 6bb]), and, finally, present the “proofs” for their claim to be from a distant land (vv. 12-13). Josephus markedly simpli- fies and compresses this whole presentation, essentially leaving aside the whole of vv.6b-8 with its double questioning of the Gibeonites, first by the men of Israel (v. 7) and then by Joshua himself (v. 8b)30. As for the remainder of the source's “negotiation segment”, i.e. vv. 9-13, Josephus freely re-arranges and recasts this as well. He has the envoys begin (5.52b) with a version of 9:9-10, the segment in which the Gibeonites first aver that they have come from a far country (v. 9a), and then relate the “tidings” that have prompted their journey (vv. 9b-10). In the latter sequence, the Gibeonites, as noted above, employ Deuteronomic lan-

27 Compare 5.49b “they did not think to obtain any tolerable terms from a belligerent whose aim was the extermination of the whole race of the Canaanites”. 28 This concluding element of Josephus' remark about the thought process behind the Gibeonites' actual words is anticipated by him from their statements as reported in Jos 9:6,9 where they twice assert that they have “come from a (very) far (LXX makróqen) country”. 29 In so doing, he recasts the source's direct discourse as indirect, this in accord with his frequent practice elsewhere in Ant., see BEGG, Josephus' Account, p. 12-13, n. 38. 30 With this “omission” Josephus avoids both the repetition involved in that double query and the impression of uncertainty as to who, in fact, is running the negotiations with the Gibeonites left by the source (where, remarkably, it is the men of Israel who respond to them in first place, before Joshua himself). ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON 131 guage in rehearsing God's deeds in Egypt and Trans-jordania. Josephus' rendition reverses the sequence of these two components of the Gibeonites' word in 9:9-10. He likewise represents them as demonstrat- ing their speaking ability — which had led to their being chosen for their mission (see 5.51b) — by explaining their coming, not in terms of a Deuteronomic-like invocation of God's doings, but with a captatio benevolentiae directed to their designated hearer Joshua (see 5.51) himself. His version of 9:9-10 reads then: “they declared that it was the tidings (pústin)31 of his [Joshua's] valour (âret±v) which had brought them thither32, after accomplishing a long journey (poll®n… ödón)…”33. According to Jos 9:11-13, the Gibeonites first cite the instructions given them (v.11), and only then present the evidence (vv. 12-13) for their claim to hale from a far country (v. 9a). Josephus reverses this sequence as well, directly linking claim and presentation of evidence. He further underscores the connection between the two points with an inserted editorial remark, i.e. “and in proof (tekmßrion) of this statement they pointed to their apparel (sx±ma)”34. Thereafter, he repro- duces the Gibeonites' assertion concerning the state of their vesture from 9:13b, combining this with a delayed reminiscence of the corresponding preparatory measure as cited in 9:5. The combination (5.53) reads thus: “their garments (êsq±tav, LXX 9:13 ïmátia), quite new (kaináv) when they set out35, had (they said), been worn out from the length of the jour-

31 This is the emendation of J. Bekker, followed by Niese, Marcus and Nodet for the pístin of the codices (cf. Lat fide). See the similar case in Ant. 5.125 cited by Nodet (Flavius Josèphe, II, p. 146*) where, for the (üpò) pístin of the codices, J. Coccejius (as well as Niese, Marcus and Nodet) reads pústin. 32 The above substitution wherein it is the report of the deeds of Joshua rather than of God himself which becomes the motive for the Gibeonites' overture is in line with the overall tendency of Josephus' treatment of the figure Joshua whose achievements he mag- nifies, even while playing down the divine involvement in the events of the conquest, see FELDMAN, Joshua, p. 375-376. Note in particular that whereas Jos 9:3-27 mentions “the Lord/God” explicitly a total of seven times (see vv 9,14,18,19,22,24,27), Ant. 5.49-57 features only one such mention (see 5.54). 33 In addition to 9:9a (“from a very far country your servants have come”) this appended statement also seems to stand under the influence of 9:13b where the Gibeonites speak of their clothes and shoes being worn out “from the very long journey (LXX t±v poll±v ödoÕ sƒódra)”. 34 As this formulation already intimates, of the four items cited by the Gibeonites in 9:12-13 in support of their claim to be from a distant country, i. e. (decayed) bread, wineskins, garments, and shoes, Josephus will confine himself to the third. See n. 40. 35 Josephus' reference to the initial “newness” of the Gibeonites' garments has no equivalent in 9:13b itself; it does, however, likely represent a “re-application” of their statement in 9:13a, i.e. “these wineskins were new (LXX kainoúv) when we filled them”. 132 C.T. BEGG ney (üpo toÕ xrónou t±v ödoiporíav… tetr⁄ƒqai)36; for to get them to believe (pistoÕsqai)37 this story, they had purposely (êpítjdev)38 clothed themselves in rags (truxínav39… pròv aût¬n … ∂labon)”40. Following his version of 9:9-10,12-13 (the occasion for the Gibeonites' coming, their distant origins and the “proofs” of this), Jose- phus now (9.54a) presents his (amplified) parallel to 9:11, their citation of the instructions given them. His rendering of the latter item runs: “So standing amidst (the host)41, they said that they had been sent (pemƒqe⁄en, see pémpousi, 5.51) by the Gabaonites and the neighboring cities42, very remote (pleíston âpexous¬n) from that present land43 to make alliance (poijsómenoi… ƒilían)44 on such terms (sun- qßkaiv) as was customary with their fathers (pátrion)…”45. To this

36 Compare LXX 9:13b (the garments) pepalaíwttai âpò t±v poll±v ödoÕ sƒódra. Recall Josephus' earlier anticipation of the reference to the Gibeonites' lengthy trek from 9:13b in 5.52 “… after accomplishing a long journey (poll®n… ödón)…”. 37 On Josephus' use of terminology of the pis-root, see D.R. LINDSEY, Josephus and Faith: pístiv and pisteúein as Faith Terminology in the Writings of Flavius Josephus and the New Testament (AGJU 19; Leiden: Brill, 1993). 38 The phrases italicized above are proper to Josephus; they serve to underscore the self-conscious deliberateness of the envoys' whole stratagem. 39 The term trúxinov is hapax in Josephus. 40 Compare 9:5 “and worn out clothes (LXX ïmátia… pepalaiwména) upon them”. In line with his omission of all but the mention of their clothes from the Gibeonites' statement in 9:12-13, Josephus likewise passes over all the items cited in the catalogue of their preparations in 9:4-5 (sacks, wineskins, sandals, clothes, and provisions [bread]) with the exception of the clothes. See n. 34. 41 By way of this prefatory insertion Josephus, with a view to his subsequent presentation, indicates that not only Joshua- as might appear from 5.51 (the Gibeonites send envoys “to Joshua”; compare 9:6a the Gibeonites speak to Joshua and to the men of Israel)- but the whole Israelite community heard the envoys' message. 42 This inserted phrase picks up on Josephus'- likewise inserted- reference to the conclusion of an alliance between Gibeonites and the neighboring cities in 5.50. Compare 9:11a where the Gibeonites' designate their senders as “our elders and all the inhabitants of our country”. 43 This phrase echoes Josephus' notice about the envoys' resolving to present themselves as “living very far away (porrwtátw) from them (the Canaanites)” in 5.52 (cf. 9:6b,9). 44 The notice on the dispatch of the envoys in 5.51 uses the equivalent phrase ƒilían speisoménouv. Compare 9:11 where the Gibeonites cite their being told to say to the Israelites “come now make a covenant (LXX diáqesqe… diaqßkjn)”. Cf. n. 25. From the citation by the envoys of their instructions as found in 9:11 Josephus, focusssing on its key element, i.e. the covenant-making request, leaves aside the preliminary directives mentioned there: “(they told us) ‘Take provisions in your hand for the journey, and go to meet them and say to them, “We are your servants…”'”. 45 The term pátriov is a key (positive) qualifier of institutions, practices, etc. in Jose- phus' writings; on it see recently B. SCHRÖDER, Die väterlichen Gesetze. Flavius Jose- phus als Vermittler von Halachah an Griechen und Römer (TSAJ 53; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1996). ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON 133 citation of their instructions Josephus further has the envoys append a statement as to the motivation behind their being sent to request a treaty. This motivation anticipates the Gibeonites' declaration as reported in 9:2446; it is likewise so worded as to constitute an additional captatio benevolentiae by the envoys. It goes: “… for having learned that by the grace and bounty of God (xáritov kaì dwre¢v toÕ qeoÕ)47 the land (g±n) of the Canaanites had been granted them for their possession (ktßsasqai)48, they rejoiced thereat and craved to become their fellow- citizens (polítav… genésqai)”49. Josephus rounds off (5.55a) his extended version of the envoys' discourse (5.52-55a) with a summary editorial recapitulation of several of its key elements: “With these words, and withal displaying the tokens of their travel (êpideiknúntev tà tekmßria [compare tekmßrion… üpedeíknuon, 5.52] t±v ödoiporíav [see 5.53]), they besought (parekáloun, see 5.49,50) the Hebrews (¨Ebraíouv)50 (to make) a covenant and league of amity (sunqßkav kaì ƒilían)”51. 46 Recall that Josephus' has already drawn on the wording of 9:24 in formulating his notice about the Gibeonites' not thinking it possible to “obtain tolerable terms from a belligerent whose aim was the extermination of the whole race of the Canaanites” in 5.49b. 47 This collocation recurs in Ant. 3.14 (plural); 5.281, cf. 18.254. The phrase “bounty of God” is found also in Ant. 1.222. 48 The verb ktáomai is used with “the land (of the Canaanites)” as object also in Ant. 4.5,167,173 (189),190,199,205,241,293; 5.39, 93(bis). Just as here in 5.54, the Israelites' coming to possess the land is explicitly attributed to divine assistance in most of these texts. Compare Jos 9:24 where the Gibeonites say to Joshua “… it was told to your servants for a certainty that the Lord your God commanded Moses to give (LXX doÕnai) you all this land (LXX g±n)…”. On Josephus' routine avoidance of the “un-Greek” divine title “Lord” as used in 9:24, see BEGG, Josephus' Account, p. 45, n. 218 and the literature cited there. 49 This Greek phrase has a counterpart in a number of Hellenistic treaties, see H.H. SCHMITT, Die Staatsverträge des Altertums, III (München, 1969), #537 (p. 267, l. 13); # 539 (p. 274, l. 6). The above attribution of “joy” to the Gibeonites and their confederates at God's giving of the land of the Canaanites to the Israelites has no counterpart in Joshua 9. The declaration gives further evidence of the rhetorical capabilities of the envoys. It aims to gratify the hearers by affirming that the Gibeonites share their joy at God's “gift”, while also reinforcing the (purported) disjuncture between the latter and the Canaanites (the Gibeonites can all the more “rejoice” at God's initiative since their own, far distant land is not affected thereby). 50 Compare 5.50 where in their appeal to the neighboring cities, the Gibeonites designate the people who pose a threat to all of them rather as “the Israelites”. On Josephus' oscillating designations for the chosen people at the different moments of their history, see A. ARAZY, The Appelations of the Jews (Ioudaios, Hebraios, Israel) in the Literature from Alexander to Justinian (Diss. New York University, 1973), p. 170-181; on his use specifically of the above term “Hebrews”, see G. HARVEY, The True Israel: Uses of the Names Jew, Hebrew and Israel in Ancient Jewish and Early Christian Literature (AGJU 35; Leiden: Brill, 1996), p. 124-129. 51 This collocation occurs only here in Josephus. Compare the phrase used by the envoys in 5.54 ƒilían êƒ' aﬁv… sunqßkaiv. In Joshua 9 the Gibeonites commence their 134 C.T. BEGG

Jos 9:14-15 recounts the (positive) response to the Gibeonites' request for a treaty: 1) the Israelites partake of their “provisions” (v. 14a), neglecting to ask direction from the Lord in so doing (v. 14b); 2) Joshua makes “peace” and a “covenant” with them (v.15a); and 3) the “leaders of the congregation” swear to them (v.15b). Josephus' version of this sequence (5.55bc) does make reference to an initiative on the part of each of the three groupings cited by the source. On the other hand, he so re-arranges the source's order that Joshua is the first to act, then the “leaders”, and last of all the people as a whole. Concerning Joshua, as the first to respond to the Gibeonites' plea52, Josephus states: “There- upon, Joshua, believing (pisteúsav)53 what they said, that they were not of the race of the Canaanites (oûk eîsì toÕ Xananaíwn ∂qnouv)54, made a league (poie⁄tai… ƒilían)55 with them”. In second place, Jose- phus mentions the other leaders associated with Joshua, likewise supply- ing a content to the “oath” they are said to take in 9:15b: “and Eleazar the high priest, along with the council of the elders (gerousíav)56 swore words with a request for a covenant (see v. 6b, cf. 11b). Josephus' envoys, in more rhetorically effective fashion, reserve the request until the very end of their discourse (5.55a) after having presented the arguments in support of it (5.52b-54). 52 In giving first place to Joshua in his account of the response to the Gibeonites' request, Josephus continues his accentuation of this figure's stature that is already apparent in what precedes where it is he alone to whom the envoys are sent (5.51, compare 9:6a) and where it is the report of his (Joshua's) “valour”- rather than God's deeds (so 9:9b-10)- which, the envoys state, has prompted their coming. See n. 63. 53 This term recalls Josephus' notice on the envoys' showing of their ragged clothing “to get them (the Israelites) to believe (pistoÕsqai) this story” in 5.53 and underscores the successful affect of their stratagem on Israel's commander himself. 54 This expression recalls Josephus' mention of the envoys' resolving to assert that “they had no connexion whatever with the Canaanites” in 5.52. In stating that Joshua “believed” precisely this element of the envoys' words, Josephus is implicitly absolving him of blame for his (unwitting) violation of the prescriptions of Deut 7:1-2; 20:16-18 (// Ant. 4.300). See n. 15. 55 This notice echoes the envoys' plea in 5.54 (poijsómenoi… ƒilían) and thereby underscores the efficacy of that plea. Compare the double statement of 9:15a “Joshua made peace (LXX êpoíjsan… eîrßnjn) with them and made a covenant (LXX diéqento… diaqßkjn) with them, to let them live”. 56 This phrase represents Josephus' differentiated equivalent of 9:15's mention of “the leaders of the people (LXX oï ãrxontev t±v sunagwg±v)”. As FELDMAN, Joshua, p. 365-366 points out, one of the distinguishing features of Josephus' por- trayal of Joshua in comparison with the Bible's own is his recurrent emphasis on Joshua's acting in concert with the high priest and the gerousia, mention of whom he introduces in a whole series of contexts where the Bible lacks such, see Ant. 4.186,324;5.15,43,57,80,103. This emphasis, according to Feldman, is intended to underscore the piety of Joshua who takes care to consult with the chief priest — as enjoined in Num 27:21 — just as it reflects the historian's pride in his own priestly ancestry (see Vita 1). On Josephus' references to the (national) gerousia, a Hellenistic ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON 135

(∫mnusin, LXX æmosan)57 to hold them as friends and allies (ƒílouv kaì summáxouv)58 and to contrive (moxleúsasqai)59 no iniquity (ãdikon) against them”60. Finally, Josephus notes the involvement of the whole Israelite community in the proceedings: “and the people (toÕ plßqouv) ratified the oaths (to⁄v ºrkoiv êpisunainésantov)”61.

Jewish institution which he anachronistically retrojects into the time of Joshua, see D. GOODBLATT, The Monarchic Principle: Studies in Jewish Self-Government in Antiquity (TSAJ 38; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1994), p.30-43,94-99. It is likewise of interest to note that in their versions of Joshua 9, the “Samaritan Chronicle No. I” (see M. GASTER, Das Buch Josua in hebräisch-samaritanischer Rezension, in ZDMG 62 [1908], 209-279, 494-549, p. 504) and “No. II” (see J. MACDONALD, The Samaritan Chronicle No. II (or Sepher Ha-Yamim) from Joshua to Nebuchadnezzar [BZAW 107; Berlin: de Gruyter, 1969], p. 87) associate Eleazar (who is nowhere mentioned in Joshua 9 itself) and “the elders of the people” with Joshua when relating the Israelite response to the Gibeonites' plea. 57 Note Josephus' historic present, this taking the place of the LXX's aorist form. 58 Josephus uses the above collocation (in this or the reverse order) 15 times elsewhere in his writings, mostly in connection with the post-Biblical period of Jewish history, see Ant. 10.30; 12.145;13.24,102,145,147;14.214,216,242,247,250;17.246;20,59; contra Apionem 2.134. The collocation is likewise frequent in Hellenistic treaty texts, see the word-index in SCHMITT, Staatsverträge, III, s.v. ƒílov. See also 1 Macc 8:20; 10:16; 12:14; 15:17. 59 The verb moxleúw is hapax in Josephus. 60 With this specification of the content of the oath taken by the high priest and the gerousia, compare 9:15a where Joshua makes a covenant with the Gibeonites “to let them live (LXX toÕ dias¬sai aûtoúv)”. 61 The verb êpisunainéw is hapax in Josephus. Compare the similar formula in 5.15 where Eleazar and the gerousia (see 5.55) “ratify the oath” (êpekúroun tòn ºrkon), i.e. that of the spies to Rahab, as reported to them by Joshua. Josephus' notice on the people's role in the treaty ratification differs from its Biblical counterpart (9:14) not only in its placement (i.e. in last rather than first place in the list of ratifiers), but also in content. The latter text reads “So the men (MT, compare LXX oï ãrxontev; here one thus has a possible indication of Josephus' dependence on a MT-like as opposed to a LXX-like text of Joshua 9) partook of their provisions, and did not ask direction of the Lord”. From this source formulation Josephus eliminates entirely the reproachful comment of v. 14b about the Israelites failing to consult the Lord — in his presentation they do not voice suspicions concerning the Gibeonites' claim as do their Biblical counterparts (compare 9:7, no parallel in Josephus) that would make such a “consultation” appropriate. In addition, having passed over the allusions in 9:5b,12 to the Gibeonites' moldy provisions, Josephus likewise leaves aside the reference in 9:14a to the Israelites' partaking of these — a detail fastidious readers might well find off-putting in any case. In place thereof, he simply has the people “second” the oaths taken by their leaders. In thus emphasizing the agreement between people and leaders here, Josephus likewise prepares his omission of the notice of 9:18 about the congregation “murmuring against” the leaders who had sworn to protect the Gibeonites (so 9:15b), see below. 136 C.T. BEGG

Sequels The concluding segment of Joshua 9, i.e. vv. 16-27 (// Ant. 5.56-57) is devoted to the sequels to the treaty-making recounted in 9:14-15. Post- treaty developments commence in 9:16 with the Israelites, three days afterward, hearing of the Gibeonites' true status. Thereupon, they march forth and reach the latter's cities “on the third day” (9:17a), those cities being parenthetically enumerated in 9:17b. Josephus (5.56a) begins his rendition of this sequence with a transitional notice peculiar to himself: “So the envoys, having attained their end by guile (êz âpátjv), returned to their own people”. This notice explicitly records a matter which the source presupposes readers will “fill in” for themselves, i.e. the envoys' return. It also underscores the success of their initiative and the fact of this being due to their use of “guile” (cf. 9:4)62. Following this opening expansion, Josephus gives a notably modified and shortened version of the content of 9:16-17, one which makes Joshua rather than the Israelites the subject of the action: “but Joshua63, having marched (strateúsav) into the foothills of Canaan and learnt (maqÉn) that the Gabaonites lived not far from Jerusalem64 and were of the stock of the Canaanites (toÕ génouv… t¬n Xananaíwn)…”65.

62 This latter emphasis accords with Josephus' opening indication that the Gibeonites dwelt “quite close to Jerusalem” (5.49) which makes clear from the outset the falsity of their self-presentation in what follows. Mention of the envoys' “guile” here likewise represents a “delayed” utilization by Josephus of the reference in 9:4 to the Gibeonites' acting “with cunning” (LXX metà panourgíav); see n. 13. 63 In 9:16-17 the subject of the various verbs is “they/ the people of Israel”. Here again (see n. 52) Josephus' version of Joshua 9 highlights the figure of Joshua at the expense of the people as a whole. 64 What Joshua “learns” here in 5.56 about the actual localization of the Gibeonites' place of residence is something about which Josephus already informed readers at the opening of the episode, see 5.49 “(the Gabaonites) who lived quite close to Jerusalem”. Neither indication has a counterpart in Joshua 9. 65 Joshua's “learning” this fact about the Gibeonites contrasts with his earlier (see 5.55) “believing” their claim “not to be of the race of the Canaanites (toÕ Xananaíwn ∂qnouv)”. The disparity between what Joshua earlier accepted in good faith and what he now finds out for himself underscores the “guilefulness” (see 5.56a) of the envoys. With the above sequence concerning Joshua's initiatives, compare the notice of 9:16- 17a about the people as a whole: “At the end of three days… they heard (LXX ≠kousan) that they were neighbors and that they dwelt (LXX katoikoÕsin) among them. And the people of Israel set out and reached their cities on the third day”. Several points might be noted concerning Josephus’ recasting of the source's presentation in 5.56b. First, Jos 9:16-17a leaves unclarified how the Israelites “hear” of the Gibeonites' true identity and so proceed to advance to their cities. Josephus' wording suggests an elucidation of the matter: it was upon “marching into the Canaanite foothills” — in which Gibeon was sit- uated — that Joshua discovered the truth concerning them. Josephus likewise has no ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON 137

In the source, the notice on Israel's advance (9:16-17) is followed by an extended sequence (9:18-21) focussed on a dispute between the people and “the leaders of the congregation” regarding the fate of the Gibeonites, now the truth about them has emerged. Josephus passes over this entire sequence66. Instead, continuing his characteristic highlighting of Joshua throughout the episode, he attaches his parallel (5.56c) to Jos 9:22 (Joshua's confrontation with the Gibeonites) directly to his rendition of 9:16-17: “… (Joshua) sent for (metapemcántov, LXX 9:22 sunekálesen) their magistrates (toùv ên télei, 9:22 them= the Gibeonites) and upbraided (ênekálei) them for this fraud (t±v âpátjv, see êz âpátjv, 5.56a)”67. Jos 9:23-25 evidences a curious sequence in which the Gibeonites’ speech of self-defense (vv. 24-25) in response to Joshua's accusatory question to them (v. 22) comes, not prior to, but only after, his passing sentence upon them in v. 23. Josephus (5.57a) reverses this “illogical” order to the proceedings, making the Gibeonites’ response (// 9:24-25) come immediately after Joshua's denunciation of them (5.56c). Once equivalent for either of the chronological indications in (MT) 9:16-17a (LXX lacks MT v. 17a's specification about Israel reaching the Gibeonite cities “on the third day”). His omission of the first of these is understandable in light of his overall reworking of 9:16- 17a in which the discovery of the Gibeonites' identity (“on the third day after the covenant-making" according to 9:16) becomes the effect, not the cause, of the Israelite advance. As to the absence of the specification about the duration of the march (9:17a) this could be due to Josephus' dependence on a LXX-like text at this juncture. More likely, however, it reflects the consideration that MT's figure could suggest that the Gibeonites actually did live at a “great distance”, just as they had claimed, a supposition which would contradict what Josephus himself has stated at the outset of his version, see 5.49. Finally, Josephus also leaves aside the list of Gibeonite cities cited in 9:17b, having already (partially) anticipated this list in his notice on their making an alliance among themselves in 5.50; see above. 66 Regarding his omission of the individual components of 9:18-21, the following considerations might be adduced. Jos 9:18a features the statement that the people did not “kill” the Gibeonites because of the leaders’ “oath”. This statement makes an abrupt impression — why should there be a question of such “killing” here? Next, in 9:18b the people “murmur against the leaders”. Josephus, however, has earlier removed the basis for their complaint by noting that the people “ratified” the leaders' oath (5.55). Finally, the leaders' decision regarding the Gibeonites' fate as reported in 9:19-21 anticipates and duplicates that made by Joshua in 9:22-27. Given his highlighting of the figure of Joshua, it is understandable that Josephus should leave aside this initiative of the leaders which seems to “compete” with Joshua's preeminence. Josephus will, however, incorporate a version of 9:19-21 into his account of Joshua's own decision, see below. 67 Compare Joshua's direct discourse question in 9:22b “Why did you deceive (LXX parelogísasqe) us (LXX me) saying, ‘we are very far from you,’ when you dwell among us?” 138 C.T. BEGG again transposing the source's direct into indirect discourse, he formu- lates the former item as follows: “When these alleged (profasi- homénwn)68 that they had no other means of salvation (âform®n swtjríav)69 save that, and that they had therefore perforce (êz ânágkjv) had recourse to it…”70. Only thereafter, does he relate Joshua's “sentencing” of the Gibeonites. In 9:23 Joshua acts alone in passing sentence. Josephus, in accord with his procedure in 5.55 (and elsewhere, see n. 56) and drawing now on the account of the leaders’ decision in 9:19-21 previously passed over by him (see above), makes the sentencing a collegial affair. His amplified version of 9:23 runs accordingly: “… Joshua convoked (sugkale⁄)71 the high priest Eleazar and the council (gerousían); and acting upon their judgement that they should be made public slaves (djmosíouv)72, so as to avoid violation of

68 Josephus uses the verb profasíhomai elsewhere in Ant. 1.336; 2.47,98 (it is likewise conjectured in 15.330). 69 This phrase is used by Josephus also in BJ 1.523; Ant. 3.6. 70 The above wording of the Gibeonites' reply takes the place of that cited in 9:24-25 “Because it was told to your servants that the Lord your God had commanded his servant Moses to give you all the land, and to destroy all the inhabitants of the land from before you; so we feared greatly for our lives because of you, and did this thing. And now, behold, we are in your hand: do as it seems good and right in your sight to do us”. Recall that Josephus has previously anticipated various elements of this source speech: see 5.49 (the threat of extermination facing the Canaanites), 5.52 (the Gibeonites' “fear” of making their true identity known), and 5.54 (God's giving of the land of the Canaanites to Israel). 71 Note the historic present. Note too that this is the same verb which is used, in the aorist (sunekálesen), of Joshua's “summoning” the Gibeonites in LXX 9:22. 72 This term represents Josephus' generalization of the phrase thrice used of the status imposed on the Gibeonites in Joshua 9, i.e. “hewers of wood and drawers of water” (+ for all the congregation, 9:21; + for the house of my God [so MT; LXX for me and for my God], 9:23; + for the congregation and for the altar of the Lord, 9:27). In thus generalizing the Biblical phrase(s), Josephus does away with the source's ambiguity as to whom (or what) the Gibeonites are to serve. He likewise, perhaps, aims thereby to absolve Joshua and the other leaders of responsibility for the abuse denounced in Ezek 44:7-8, i.e. the employment of “uncircumcised foreigners” in the Temple cult. Josephus' above formulation concerning Joshua' convening Eleazar and the gerousia and acting in accord with their judgement might be seen as his narrative transposition of the words of the “leaders of the congregation” regarding the fate of the Gibeonites as cited in 9:19-21a. As in 5.55, so also here in 5.57a, Josephus is concerned to accentuate the harmonious collaboration of the various Israelite leadership bodies in resolving the “Gibeonite problem” in its different stages. ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON 139 the oath (parab±nai tòn ºrkon)73, he appointed (âpodeíknusin, LXX 9:27 katéstjsen)74 them to these (functions)”75. The source story ends up in 9:26-27 with an amplified recapitulation of Joshua's decision concerning the Gibeonites as cited in 9:23. Jose- phus avoids this “repetition”, just as he does so many other of Joshua 9's duplications. Instead, he concludes his version of the episode with a formula which clearly serves to round off the proceedings as a whole: “Thus did these people, when confronted with calamity (katalaboúsjv aûtoùv sumforáv)76, find protection and security (fulak®n kaì âsfáleian)77 for themselves”78.

Conclusions Having completed my detailed comparison of Ant. 5.49-57 with its Biblical source, I shall now attempt to summarize my findings on the various questions with which this study began. On the issue of the text- form(s) of Joshua 9 available to Josephus, our investigation brought fairly little relevant evidence to light. We did, however, note that the historian (see 5.55) goes together with MT 9:14 against LXX in making explicit mention of the people's role in concluding the treaty and that his reference to the “Kariathiarimites” (5.50) is closer to MT's “Kiriath-

73 The phrase “violate the oath(s)” occurs also in Ant. 5.14 (in reference to the spies’ oath to Rahab); 11.318; 12.383; 13.76; 14.109. Josephus' inspiration for this element of Eleazar's and the gerousia's “judgement” would seem to be 9:20 (cf. 9:19) where the “leaders" say to the people “(this we shall do to them and let them live), lest wrath come upon us, because of the oath (LXX tòn ºrkon) which we swore to them”. With the Bible's and Josephus’ emphasis on the “bindingness” of the Israelites’ oath once taken by them, compare b. Gittin 46a which affirms that, whereas the oath was not binding given the falsity of the claim that occasioned its making, nevertheless, the Israelites abided by it lest the name of God, invoked in that oath, be brought into disrepute among the Gentiles. 74 Note the historic present. 75 This formulation represents Josephus' conflation of the double source notice on Joshua's sentence imposing servitude on the Gibeonites in 9:23 and 9:(26)27. From the former verse he omits Joshua's opening statement to them (“Now therefore you are cursed”) which Gentile readers might find offensive. 76 This phrase echoes that used by Josephus in 5.48 of the people of Ai (“the Nai- etans”) whom the Israelites exterminate, i.e. t±v sumfor¢v toùv Nai¨tianoùv kata- laboúsjv, while also underscoring the contrast between their fate at the hands of Israel and that now accorded the Gibeonites. 77 This collocation recurs — each time in the reverse order — in BJ 5.484; Ant. 5.90; 14.169; 15.409. 78 Closing formulas like the above are very often inserted by Josephus into his rewriting of the Bible in Ant. with a view to more clearly demarcating one episode from another. See BEGG, Josephus' Account, p. 280-281. 140 C.T. BEGG jearim” than to LXX's (partial) translation of this in 9:17 (see n. 17). Conversely, he shares with LXX its lack of an equivalent to MT 9:17's specification about the Israelites’ “three day” march (see 5.56); this communality can, however, be explained on the supposition that Jose- phus knew the MT item, but deliberately left it aside (see n. 65). Con- sidered for itself, then, Ant. 5.49-57 leaves one in suspense as to which Bible text(s) Josephus was using at this juncture. Given, however, the many and long-noted indications that, for the Book of Joshua overall, Josephus based himself in first place on a MT-like text (see n. 5), it seems best to make the same supposition with regard to Joshua 9 as well79. Much more can be said about the various (overlapping) re-writing techniques applied by Josephus to the source story. A first such tech- nique involves the additions which he introduces over the whole course of his version. I recall the following examples: the opening qualification of the Gibeonites as “living quite close to Jerusalem” (5.49a, cf. 5.56), their “suspecting” that the same fate as that which had befallen Jericho and Ai awaits them as well, but nonetheless opting not to plead for mercy from Joshua (5.49b, compare 9:3), the characterization of the envoys as those “most capable of acting in the interests of the people” (5.51), the invocation of the envoys’ thought processes as they undertake their mission (5.52a), the Gibeonites' (alleged) “rejoicing” at God's giving the Israelites the land of the Canaanites (5.54b, compare 9:24), Joshua's “believing” the envoys' claims (5.55b), the envoys' “return” (5.56a) and the closing notice to the episode as a whole at the end of 5.57. As we have seen, these (fairly small-scale) additions serve a vari- ety of purposes. They, e.g., supply readers with initial background infor- mation about the Gibeonites which the Israelites themselves come to know only later, explicate characters’ thinking, accentuate the envoys' capabilities as speakers, and provide the narrative with a more emphatic closure. At the same time, Josephus also omits considerable portions of Joshua 9. Thus, he reduces the catalogue of five “disguise measures” under- taken by the Gibeonites (9:4-5) to a single one, i.e. their donning of worn-out clothes (5.53b). From the “negotiation scene” of 9:6b-13, he

79 The recently published fragmentary Qumran MSS 4QJosha and 4QJoshb offer no additional help on the question since neither preserves any part of Joshua 9. See E. ULRICH et al. (eds.), Qumran Cave 4. IX. Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD 14; Oxford: Clarendon, 1995), p. 153-160. ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON 141 eliminates the whole opening sequence of vv. 6b-8, beginning his version with the content of 9:9. His envoys display only their ragged clothes (5.53b), not also their decayed provisions, wineskins, and shoes (so 9:12-13). The double deliberation concerning the fate of the Gibeonites related in 9:18-27, first by the leaders and people (vv. 18- 21), then by Joshua in discussion with the culprits themselves (vv. 22- 27) is compressed into a single one (5.56c-57ab). Similarly, Josephus conflates (5.57b) the source's two-fold statement regarding Joshua's decision on the Gibeonites' future status (9:23, 26-27), just as he leaves aside 9:23a's reference to Joshua's “cursing” of the Gibeonites. For the most part, these omissions/abridgements have an obvious purpose: they reduce the repetitiousness which is so marked a feature of the Biblical narrative. Josephus likewise repeatedly re-arranges the sequence in which Joshua 9 presents its data, these “transfers” frequently involving a “transformation” of the item in question as well. To account, e.g., for the Gibeonites’ decision not to ask mercy from Joshua, he anticipates (5.49b) their much later statement (9:24) to him in which they express their awareness of the Deuteronomic “ban requirement”. The list of the four Gibeonite cities to which the Israelites advance in 9:17b is both repositioned and reformulated as a notice on Gibeon's preliminary alliance with other cities (5.50). Josephus presents those portions of the Gibeonite-Israelite exchange (9:6b-13) for which he does have an equivalent of some sort in a order notably different from that of the source, i.e. vv. 9b-10, 9a(// 6ba), 13b, 11, 6bb; see 5.52b-55a. Into his rendition of the Gibeonites' speech he further incorporates (5.54b) an “anticipation” of their statement to Joshua (9:24) concerning God's giving of the land of the Canaanites to Israel. He re-arranges as well the sequence in which the various Israelite groups respond to the Gibeonites’ plea: whereas 9:14-15 proceeds from the people through Joshua to the “leaders”, he (5.55bc) tells first of Joshua's initiative, then that of the (other) leaders, and finally of the people's role. Subsequently, he reverses the order of 9:16 (the Israelites hear of the Gibeonites' deception) and 9:17a (they march against them); in his presentation, Joshua learns of the Gideonites' identity once he has advanced into the Canaanite hill-country (5.56b). Elements of the account of the leaders' decision concerning the Gibeonites (9:19-21) which, as such, is passed over by Josephus (see above), are later incorporated by him into his rendition of Joshua's sentencing of them (// 9:22-27) in 5.56c-57ab. Finally, within his version of 142 C.T. BEGG the Joshua-Gibeonite confrontation itself, Josephus allows the Gibeonites to respond to Joshua's question to them prior to the latter's passing sentence (5.57ab) contrary to the opposite order in 9:23-25. The above re-arrangements would seem to reflect varying “motivations” on Josephus' part: concern for a more logical unfolding of events, desire to highlight the figure of Joshua, the endeavor to give a more rhetorically efficacious movement to the Gibeonites' discourse (which in his version both opens and closes with a captatio benevolentiae) and to account in advance for matters that are mentioned without such prepara- tion in the source (e.g., the association between Gibeon and the other cities alluded to in 9:17). A last category of Josephan re-writing techniques in Ant. 5.49-57 is constituted by his modifications/ adaptations — whether stylistic, ter- minological, or contentual — of source items utilized by him. On the stylistic level, we noted his repeated substitution of indirect for Bibli- cal direct address (see, e.g., 5.52b-55, compare 9:9-13), and introduction of a series of historic presents in contrast to the past forms of LXX80. Throughout as well he replaces the source's parataxis with a more elegant hypotaxis81. Terminologically, he essays to avoid phrase- ology that would sound strange to readers of secular Greek, i.e. “Lord” as a divine title (see n. 48) and diaqßkj in the sense of “covenant” (see n. 25), replacing phrases containing the latter word with standard formulations of Hellenistic treaties (e.g., polítav… genésqai, 5.54 [see n. 49]; fílouv kaì summáxouv, 5.55 [see n. 58]). Similarly, in light of later Jewish religio-political patterns, he substitutes mention of “the high priest and the gerousia” (see 5.55,57) for Joshua 9's own references to the “leaders (of the congregation)” (vv. 15,18-21; see n. 56), while also “generalizing” the phrase “hewers of wood and drawers of water” of 9:21.23.27 into “public slaves” (djmosíouv, 5.57; see n. 72). Still other of Josephus' “modifications” in Ant. 5.49-57 affect the source's content. In view of the speakers' later invocation of the instructions received by them in Jos 9:11 (// 5.54), he represents the Gibeonites as dispatching “envoys” to Joshua (5.52), rather than

80 I.e. pémpousi (5.51), poie⁄tai (5.55), ∫mnusin (5.55), sugkale⁄ (5.57), âpodeíknusin (5.57). 81 See, e.g., the series of participial constructions subordinated to the main verb (strateúsav… maqÑn… metapemcámenov… ênékalei) in Josephus' version of 9:16- 17a, 22 in 9.56bc. ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON 143 approaching en masse (as 9:6a would seem to suggest). Those envoys, in turn, cite as the occasion of their coming, not the report of God's deeds, but the “valour” of Joshua himself (5.52, compare 9:9b-10). The people's role in the treaty-making involves, not their partaking of the Gibeonites' provisions — these being nowhere mentioned previously by Josephus — and in so doing neglecting to seek divine guidance as in 9:14, but instead their seconding the “oaths” of Eleazar and the gerousia (5.55). In the same line, Joshua pronounces sentence on the Gibeonites in accord with the judgement of the high priest and the gerousia (5.57), rather than unilaterally (as in 9:22-27). As with his other rewriting techniques, various (and similar) considerations lie behind these content modifications introduced by Josephus: elimination of seeming source discrepancies (e.g., did all the Gibeonites or only a rep- resentative body appoach the Israelites?), accentuation of the envoys' rhetorical capabilities, highlighting of the role of Joshua, and underscoring the harmonious interactions of Joshua, Eleazar, the gerousia and the people as a whole. The foregoing survey of Josephus' rewriting techniques in Ant. 5.49-57 makes clear that he has, in fact, heavily reworked the story of Joshua 9 in many respects. This finding itself serves as an entrée to the two remaining overarching questions cited in my introduction. The first of those questions asked how Josephus' version of the Gibeonite treaty episode, as generated by his various rewriting techniques, com- pares overall with its Biblical Vorlage. By way of response to this question, I suggest the following summary considerations. Josephus has attempted to make the story more palatable, stylistically and lin- guistically, to cultivated Gentile readers. As part of that effort he “streamlines” the whole account, reducing its many repetitions. Also with a view to giving the ancient story a more “modern” flavor, he introduces references to later (Hellenistic-era) forms of Jewish leadership. Characters' psychology receives greater attention. The threatened Gibeonites appear as even more self-conscious about their situation, resourceful (see, e.g., their preliminary organization of a multi-city coalition as a “fall-back” measure, 5.50), rhetorically adroit, but also more “fraudulent” than their Biblical counterparts. The Israelites, for their part, respond more trustingly — see the reference to Joshua's “believing” the Gibeonites' story (5.55b) and the omission of the sus- picious question posed by the men of Israel in 9:7 to their interlocu- tors' blandishments; there is, moreover, no suggestion that they did 144 C.T. BEGG wrong in acting as they did (compare the reproachful reference to their neglecting to “consult” the Lord in 9:14b which Josepus leaves aside). The personal stature of Joshua is magnified throughout, just as it is in the whole of Josephus' rendition of the Book of Joshua82. At the same time, Joshua himself is represented, here and elsewhere, as acting in concert with other “authorities”, i.e. Eleazar and the gerousia (see 9.55,57) whose decisions, in turn, are unquestionally accepted by the people as a whole (5.55; recall too Josephus' omission of the reference to the people's “murmuring against” the leaders of 9:18). The story thus becomes, in Josephus' rendition, a portrait of intra-Jewish collaboration and harmony. My final opening question concerned the reason for Josephus' inclu- sion of the Gibeonite treaty story-suitably re-worked-within his history, given his selective use of Biblical material83. In opting to make use of the story, Josephus was, I suggest, prompted by the realization of its potential to further his purposes vis-à-vis both his intended audiences, i.e. Gentiles and fellow Jews84. With regard to the former group, the story, with its depiction of Jews' trustful dealings with foreigners and fidelity to the oath of protection given those foreigners notwithstanding the latter's fraud (and military inferiority), provided Josephus with a welcome opportunity to counteract contemporary anti-Semitic claims about Jewish xenophobia85. As for Jewish readers, the story, in Jose- phus' version, presents them with an ideal of comprehensive national harmony, precisely on the sensitive issue of interaction with Gentiles, as an alternative to the internecine conflict — often prompted by that very issue — which he condemns so strongly both in the Bellum and elsewhere in Ant86. In summary, Ant. 5.49-57 stands as a noteworthy example of the deliberative care which Josephus applied to reshaping biblical source

82 See n. 32. 83 He omits, e.g., the embarassing Golden Calf episode (Exodus 32-34) as well as a whole series of other such Biblical accounts (see FELDMAN, Mikra, p. 466-467), this in spite of his explicit promise not to “add or omit anything” from the Scriptural records in his retelling of these (see Ant. 1.17). 84 On Ant.'s double audience, see FELDMAN, Mikra, p. 470-471. 85 On these charges and Josephus' efforts to combat them throughout his retelling of Biblical history in Ant., see FELDMAN, Mikra, p. 494-496; ID., Joshua, p. 353-354. 86 On the point, see, e.g., L.H. FELDMAN, Josephus' Portrait of Jeroboam, in AUSS 31 (1993) 29-52, p. 43-46. ISRAEL'S TREATY WITH GIBEON 145 material for his own purposes. As such, the passage, brief as it is, invites similar investigations of other Josephan retellings of Scriptural episodes87.

School of Religious Studies C.T. BEGG The Catholic University of America Washington, D.C. 20064 (U.S.A.)

87 In both the Bible (2 Sam 21:1-14) and Josephus (Ant. 7.294-297) the story of Israel's treaty with Gibeon re-surfaces at a much later point, i.e. David's handing over of Saul's descendants for punishment so as to makes amends for Saul's violation of the oath of protection given the Gibeonites by Joshua. See C.T. BEGG, The Execution of the Saulides according to Josephus, in Sefarad 56 (1996), p. 3-18.