Rewriting Joshua Traditions in Late Second Temple Judaism: Judean-Samaritan Relations As a Catalyst for Textual Changes by Ville

Rewriting Joshua Traditions in Late Second Temple Judaism: Judean-Samaritan Relations as a Catalyst for Textual Changes

By Ville Mäkipelto

Pre-print version. Forthcoming in R. Hakola, J. Orpana, and P. Huotari (eds.), Scriptures in the Making: Texts and Their Transmission in Late Second Temple Judaism. Leuven: Peeters.

1. Introduction Traditions about the conquest of the Promised Land appear in different, sometimes contradictory, forms in the literature of late Second Temple Judaism. Joshua is usually the front man for these traditions; nevertheless, he is depicted in various roles. Ben Sira offers a hymn of praise for the great figures of Israel’s past, which emphasizes the role of Joshua as a military leader, “mighty warrior” of God.1 Josephus continues in the tradition of underscoring Joshua’s competence as a military leader, however, taking things even further by depicting him as a tactically skillful and idealized Judean statesman.2 These depictions could be contrasted with Pseudo-Philo, who imagines Joshua as a religious leader and organizes the whole story of conquest around great speeches given by Joshua.3 Many single battles are also idealized in different instances: for example, in 2 Maccabees the miraculous collapse of the walls of Jericho serves as an inspiration for Judas during his military campaign in Gilead (2 Macc 12:15).

The polyphonia of Joshua traditions is rooted in the plurality of the textual material witnessing the now-canonical book of Joshua at the end of the Second Temple period. When one considers all the textual witnesses to the book of Joshua, it is impossible to draw clear lines between textual, redaction, and reception history.4 Retelling and modifying the history of conquest was not avoided in the transmission of these traditions by ancient editors.

1 Zev Farber, Images of Joshua in the Bible and Their Reception, BZAW 457 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016), 141– 48. 2 Louis H. Feldman, “Josephus’s Portrait of Joshua,” HTR 82.4 (1989): 351–76. 3 Farber, Images, 176–195. 4 This has been highlighted by several scholars. See, for example, Julio Trebolle Barrera, “A Combined Textual and Literary Criticism Analysis: Editorial Traces in the Books of Judges and Joshua,” in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust, ed. Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne, BEThl 192 (Leuven: Peeters, 2005), 437–63; Kristin De Troyer, “Which Text Are We Using for Our Studies of Deuteronomistic Literature?” in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010, ed. Martti Nissinen, VTSup 148 (Leiden: Brill, 2010), 461–72. Rewriting of varying degrees was a common scribal practice throughout the transmission of Joshua traditions in Second Temple Judaism and is attested to various degrees both in the “biblical” and “non-biblical” traditions.5

My aim in this contribution is to identify a socio-historical context where conquest traditions were rewritten: namely the increasing tensions between the Judeans and Samaritans during the latter part of the Second Temple period (ca. second century BCE – first century CE). I will explore whether one can reasonably explain textual changes documented in variant manuscripts with these tensions in mind. Such an endeavor entails combining text-critical data with other kinds of evidence, literary and material. In what follows, I will analyze two case examples that seem to offer clues about the historical context of textual variation. The two cases are the differing location of the covenant making in Josh 24 and the interpretation of the curse uttered by Joshua (Josh 6:26) in Apocryphon of Joshuab (4Q379). I will argue that these cases illuminate two sides of the same polemics.

2. First Case: Anti-Samaritan attitudes as a catalyst for textual variation The first case illuminates problems related to Shechem as a holy site in Josh 24. After the successful conquest of the Promised Land, Josh 24 depicts a scene where the Israelites make a covenant at a holy site to serve YHWH alone. The text is replete with intertextual references to the Pentateuch and the Historical Books.6 The core idea of the text, choosing to serve YHWH alone and abandoning other gods, is likely based on late passages in Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut 7:6, 11:26, 30:15–20).7 Moreover, the idea that Israelites choose YHWH specifically at Shechem is likely formulated in anticipation of passages in the Deuteronomistic history where Israelites abandon YHWH by choosing a secular king at

5 The textual plurality of the book of Joshua in the late Second Temple period has most recently been emphasized, for example, by Ville Mäkipelto, Uncovering Ancient Editing: Documented Evidence of Changes in Joshua 24 and Related Texts, BZAW 513 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018), 172–97; Kristin De Troyer, The Ultimate and Penultimate Text of the Book of Joshua, CBET 100 (Leuven: Peeters, 2018); eadem, “The Textual Plurality of the book of Joshua and the Need for a Digital Complutensian Polyglot Bible,” in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions: Studies in the Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot, ed. Andres Piquer Otero and Pablo Torijano Morales, THBSup 1 (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 330–46; Ariel Feldman, The Rewritten Joshua Scrolls from Qumran: Texts, Translations, and Commentary, BZAW 438 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013). 6 William T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative, JSOTSup 93 (Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990), 345–414; Mäkipelto, Uncovering, 172–97. 7 Mäkipelto, Uncovering, 180–83; Eric Aurelius, “Zur Entstehung von Josua 23–24,” in Houses Full of All Good Things. Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola, ed. Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen, PFES 95 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008), 102. Shechem (Judg 9, 1 Sam 10:17–27, 1 Sam 12, 1 Kgs 12).8 In this way, the covenant making at Shechem is mirrored by the upcoming covenant breaking at Shechem. Since the core of the chapter relies on late Deuteronomistic texts, even the earliest layers of Josh 24 likely date to the Persian period nomistic circles.9 Konrad Schmid has recently collected evidence which convincingly shows that the “all-Israel” perspective of Josh 24 presupposes a social context in the Persian period where Judeans and Samarians lived peacefully side by side in the Levant.10 I would add that the vibrant textual history of the chapter—as attested by the many large-scale differences between the Masoretic text (MT) and the Septuagint (LXX)— demonstrates that the chapter continued being developed by later editorial circles in a direction which secondarily adds tensions to these relations.

Before examining the textual variant related to Shechem, it is helpful to sketch a timeline of textual witnesses pertaining to the book of Joshua. The latest textual and editorial history of the book of Joshua can be discerned from diverging manuscript material preserved in the MT, LXX, and Qumran scrolls. The LXX preserves a version of the book of Joshua which differs drastically from the MT.11 Several studies have demonstrated that the earliest LXX translation of Joshua, the so-called Old Greek text (OG),12 was translated from a Hebrew source text differing from the MT.13 Therefore, differences observed in the OG often reflect variant Hebrew readings stemming from the plurality of the text in the late Second Temple

8 Mäkipelto, Uncovering, 191–94; Christoph Levin, Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt, FRLANT 137 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985), 117–18. 9 Mäkipelto, Uncovering, 224; Thomas Römer, “The Date, Composition and Function of Joshua 24 in Recent Research,” HeBAI 6/2 (2017): 203–16; Levin, Die Verheißung, 114–19. 10 Konrad Schmid, “Jews and Samaritans in Joshua 24,” HeBAI 6/2 (2017): 148–60. I follow the recently established terminology and use “Samarian” when referring to the Persian and early Hellenistic periods and “Samaritan” when referring to the Mount Gerizim cult in later times. See Thomas Dozeman, Joshua 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, AB 6 (Yale: Yale University Press, 2015), 30–31. 11 OG Joshua is approximately 4–5% shorter than MT Joshua. There are words, phrases, and whole verses missing throughout the book. Furthermore, there are some additional verses in the OG missing from the MT, as well as numerous qualitative variants and differences in sequence. For a description of the differences see, for example, Emanuel Tov, “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX, and 4QJosha,” in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint. Collected Essays, Vol. 3, VTSup 167 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 137–47; Lea Mazor, “The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua (Abstract),” BIOSCS 27 (1994): 29–38. 12 There is yet no established Göttingen critical edition of OG Joshua. One must take into account all of the manuscript evidence when approximating the likeliest OG readings. In practice, three existing modern editions, Rahlfs-Hanhart, Brooke & Mclean, and Margolis, help in this process. 13 Mäkipelto, Uncovering, 24–29; Tov, “Literary,” 133–34; Seppo Sipilä, Between Literalness and Freedom. ו Translation technique in the Septuagint of Joshua and Judges regarding the clause connections introduced by PFES 75 (Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1999); Harry Orlinsky, “The Hebrew Vorlage of the ,כי and Septuagint of the Book of Joshua,” in Congress Volume: Rome, 1968, VTSup 17 (Leiden: Brill, 1969), 187–95; Samuel Holmes, Joshua. The Hebrew and Greek Texts (Cambridge: University Press, 1914). period. This is why a text-critical comparison of the OG with the MT often reveals textual changes that took place in the last two centuries before the Common Era. In most cases the MT seems to be secondary in relation to the OG; thus, it reveals a layer of proto-MT editing in the book of Joshua, which has been dated by some to the Hasmonean period.14

Based on the general dating of the evidence, it is possible to map a rough timeline for the documented cases of rewriting explored further in this article. First, according to Cornelis den Hertog, OG Joshua was likely translated in Alexandria in the late third-century BCE before the Seleucid reorganization of Palestine after 198 BCE.15 Therefore, the Hebrew Vorlage of OG Joshua had to exist at this time. Some agreements with this Vorlage are found in 4QJosha, dating to the Hasmonean period, which further corroborates this observation. Second, 4QJoshb from Qumran agrees mostly with the MT tradition of Joshua.16 In addition, some large-scale additions in the MT are also witnessed by 4QJosha, which is also dated to the late Hasmonean period. These agreements with Qumran mean that the proto-MT editing took place, at least partially, until the end of this period.17 All the evidence together points towards a great fluctuation in the text of the book of Joshua during the Hasmonean period.

In the light of this evidence it seems likely that significant parts of the secondary material in MT Joshua, missing from the OG, emerged in the Seleucid or Hasmonean periods (198–63 BCE). This material includes many interesting additions: for example, the battle of Jericho in Josh 6 was expanded with material that gives the narrative an increasingly priestly character.18 Kristin De Troyer has analyzed Josh 10 where the proto-MT editors created “a highly developed joint collaboration between Joshua and Israel” and highlighted the role of Gilgal as the base camp for military operations.19 She proposed that the model for highlighting Gilgal was inspired by the importance of Modein for the Hasmonean editors.20 Nomistic ideas seem to have been especially important for these proto-MT editors.21 In this way, text-critical work concentrating on comparing the MT and the OG may offer keyholes

14 Kristin De Troyer, Rewriting the Sacred Text. What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible, SBL Text-Critical Studies 4 (Leiden: Brill, 2003), 57–58. 15 Cornelis Gijsbert den Hertog, “Studien zur griechischen Übersetzung des Buches Josua” (PhD diss., Justus- Liebig-Universität Gießen, 1996), 110–44. 16 Armin Lange, Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Band 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009), 187. 17 However, the scroll does not preserve much text. 18 For the differences in Josh 6, see Dozeman, Joshua, 307–16, and Holmes, Joshua, 10–12, 32–38. 19 Kristin De Troyer, “Reconstructing the Older Hebrew Text of Joshua,” Text 26 (2013): 26–27. 20 De Troyer, Rewriting, 57–58. 21 Mäkipelto, Uncovering, 156–163. through which to view the social world of the editors responsible for textual changes during this period.

Nevertheless, it is not a general rule that the MT is always secondary in relation to the OG. There are cases where text-critical arguments favor the priority of the MT in relation to the OG.22 In such cases, one must first settle whether the changes took place in the Greek translation process or whether they were already present in the Hebrew Vorlage of the translation. Some variation in word choices and in producing good Koine Greek assuredly was created by the translator in Alexandria.23 However, most scholars agree that the OG Joshua translator generally wanted to reproduce the elements in the Hebrew text that were being translated and did not introduce significant deviations during the translation process.24 For this reason significant secondary elements in OG Joshua likely came about in the editing of the Hebrew Vorlage. This editing, of course, could not have taken place later than the translation itself was made. Thus, if den Hertog is correct and the translation was made in the late third century BCE, the secondary elements in the Hebrew source text of OG Joshua likely came about sometime before this, during the latter half of the Hellenistic period.

With this basic timeline in mind, we will move on to the textual variant between the OG and the MT in Josh 24. The location mentioned in this chapter differs between the textual traditions. In the MT we are told in verse 1 that Joshua gathered Israel and all its leaders to Shechem, while according to the OG these events took place at Shiloh. Later, in verse 25, we are told that the covenant was made in Shechem and verse 26 reveals that a remembrance in Shechem. The (מִקְדַּ שׁ) ”stone was set under a sacred tree which was in a “sanctuary respective verses in the OG reiterate that the setting was Shiloh and the mention of a sanctuary is missing altogether: the sacred tree is simply “before the Lord” (ἀπέναντι κυρίου). .before YHWH” in the Hebrew source text“ לפני יהוה This Greek phrase likely reflects

22 For example, Reinhard Müller, Juha Pakkala, and Bas ter Haar Romeny, Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible (Atlanta: SBL, 2014), 45–58, demonstrate that the large-scale variants in Josh 20 can best be explained by assuming that both the OG and the MT reflect secondary editing. 23 Emanuel Tov, “Midrash-type Exegesis in the LXX of Joshua,” RB (1978): 52–55, has argued that even some minor Midrash-type changes can be attributed to the Greek translator. 24 See note 12. In recent research, Michaël N. van der Meer, Formation and Reformulation. The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, VTSup 102 (Leiden: Brill, 2004) has interpreted the work of the translator very differently, attributing major exegetical changes to the translation process. I have assessed some aspects of this view critically in Mäkipelto, Uncovering, 7–8, 138–41. See also the critical comments by Steven L. McKenzie, review of Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, by Michaël N. van der Meer, RBL (2005), http://www.bookreviews.org. Moreover, the OG contains an additional element at the end of verse 25 stating that everything happened “before the tent of the God of Israel” (ἐνώπιον τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ θεοῦ Ισραηλ), which, together with the place name Shiloh, can be taken as a reference to Josh 18:1.25 These differences are highlighted in the following table.

MT Josh 24 OG Josh 24 1a. Καὶ συνήγαγεν ᾿Ιησοῦς וַיֶּאֱ סֹף יְהֹושֻׁׁעַ … πάσας φυλὰς ᾿Ισραὴλ εἰς Σηλω אֶּ ת-כָּ ל-שִׁ יבְטֵ יִשְרָּ אֵ ל שְׁ כֶּמָּ ה …

Καὶ διέθετο ᾿Ιησοῦς διαθήκην πρὸς τὸν λαὸν .25 וַיִכְ רֹתיְהֹושֻׁׁעַ בְרִ ית לָּעָּ ם ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ νόμον καὶ κρίσιν בַ יֹום הַ הּוא םוַיָּשֶּ לֹו חֹק ּומִשְׁ פָּ ט .ἐν Σηλώ ἐνώπιον τῆς σκηνῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ᾿Ισραὴλ בִשְׁ כֶּ ם καὶ ἔγραψεν τὰ ῥήματα ταῦτα .26 וַיִכְ תֹב יְהֹו שֻׁׁעַ אֶּ ת-הַדְּ בָּרִ ים הָּאֵ לֶּ ה εἰς βιβλίον, νόμον τοῦ θεοῦ· καὶ ἔλαβεν λίθον μέγαν בְסֵפֶּ רתֹורַת אֱֹלהִ ים וַיִקַח אֶּבֶּ ןגְ דֹולָּ ה καὶ ἔστησεν αὐτὸν ᾿Ιησοῦς ὑπὸ τὴν τερέμινθον וַיְקִימֶּהָּשָּ ם תַחַ תהָּאַ לָּ ה ἀπέναντι κυρίου ראֲשֶּׁ שׁבְמִקְדַּ יְהוָּ ה And Joshua gathered 1a. And Iesous gathered all the tribes of Israel to Shechem… all the tribes of Israel to Selo… So, Joshua made a covenant with the people 25. So, Iesous made a covenant with the people that day and gave them statutes and ordinances that day and gave them statutes and ordinances at Shechem. at Selo before the tent of the God of Israel. And Joshua wrote these words 26. And he wrote these words in the book of the law of God and he took a large in the book as the law of God and he took a large stone, and set it there under the oak stone and Joshua set it under the oak which is in the sanctuary of YHWH. before the Lord.

Shechem fits quite well with the content of the chapter. In Josh 24, there are several references to Genesis: Gen 12 together with Josh 24 deal with Abraham, as well as a holy place and tree at Shechem and Gen 33 together with Josh 24 mention Shechem as the place bought by Jacob from the Amorites. Joshua 24 seems to intentionally allude to Genesis and the Patriarchal stories.26 The role of Shechem in the book of Joshua is primarily religious: it is mentioned only as a cultic location for blessings and covenant making. Thus, from a theological point of view much emphasis is put on it.27 Nevertheless, in the wider narrative

25 I have discussed this case from a text-critical point of view in Mäkipelto, Uncovering, 67–71, 110–112. In this context, I will expand the discussion beyond textual history by contextualizing the textual change with the help of further literary and socio-historical evidence. 26 Mäkipelto, Uncovering, 172–76: Koopmans, Joshua, 348–53. 27 Dozeman, Joshua, 28. Although not mentioned explicitly, the only other narrative where Shechem functions as a setting in the book of Joshua is found in the text-critically problematic passage Josh 8:30–35. For the text- critical problems related to this passage, see Ville Mäkipelto, Timo Tekoniemi, and Miika Tucker, “Large-Scale Transposition as an Editorial Technique in the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible,” TC (2017): 3–5. context of the book of Joshua, Shechem is surprising since the last place mentioned in the narrative of the book is Shiloh (Josh 18:1).

The varying locations between the MT and the OG could easily be dismissed as an isolated textual variant. However, there is a conglomeration of textual variants related not only to the explicit place name, but to the general nature of the sacred space where the covenant making takes place. The MT presents a version where Shechem is revered as a sacred site containing an important sanctuary. The OG, on the other hand, allows Shechem to function merely as a burial ground (Josh 24:32) and regards Shiloh as the sacred place holding the revered tent of meeting. The presence of two different sacred places in Josh 24 suggests that at some point during the latter part of the Second Temple period there were editors who wanted to rewrite the location of the scene. Since we know from other late Second Temple sources that there was increasing animosity towards Shechem and Samaritans who regarded it as their sacred place, we should look beyond mere textual criticism to solve this problem.28

Relationships between the northern Samarians and the southern Judeans during the Second Temple period provide the socio-historical backdrop for understanding the variant. In recent studies, the assumption of an early schism between Samarians and Judeans has been evaluated anew. Traditionally it has been common to assume an early date for the tensions between these groups and regard an early separation from Samarians as a central part of the identity of the returning exiles of Yehud.29 This view is based on a simplistic interpretation, suggesting that Samaritans, the followers of the cult at Mount Gerizim, are direct descendants of the settlers of Samaria after the Assyrian destruction of the Northern Kingdom described in 2 Kgs 17:24–41.30 However, it is now emphasized that the separation of Judeans and

28 Several scholars have connected this textual variant with anti-Samaritan polemics. See already, for example, Johannes Hollenberg, Der Charakter der Alexandrinischen Übersetzung des Buches Josua und ihr textkritischer Werth (Moers: Eckner, 1876), 17; Eduard Nielsen, Shechem. A Traditio-Historical Investigation (Copenhagen: Gad, 1955), 56; Juha Pakkala, God’s Word Omitted, FRLANT 251 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013), 197; Dozeman, Joshua, 20. However, one should contextualize this observation further from the point of view of the socio-historical world of the editors and the scribes. 29 For a brief description of the traditional view, see Dozeman, Joshua, 29–30. The traditional view accepted the late polemics towards the Samaritans in Ezra-Nehemiah (for example Ezra 4:1–3) at face value. Moreover, this view relies on Neh 13:28 and Josephus’s interpretation of the passage. According to Neh 13:28, Nehemiah drove away the unnamed son of Jehoiada—grandson of the high priest Eliashib—because he had married a daughter of the prominent Samaritan leader Sanballat the Horonite. In Ant. 11.306–312 this rebellious priest is named Manasseh. According to Josephus, the elders of Jerusalem forbade Manasseh to serve as a priest at the altar while being married to Nikaso, the daughter of Sanballat. Manasseh, however, was in love and Sanballat promised to preserve his priesthood and build him a temple akin to the temple of Jerusalem on Mount Gerizim. 30 Reinhard Pummer, “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch,” in The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance, ed. Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson (Winona Samaritans” in the Hebrew Bible is found within“ שֹמְ רֹנִ ים Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 238. The only mention of Samaritans as distinct religious identities should be dated later, to the Hasmonean period when John Hyrcanus destroyed the Samaritan temple at Mount Gerizim.31 Besides polemical and late biblical texts, there is no evidence to suggest that, on the one hand, Samarians and Judeans had essentially different religious identities early on and, on the other hand, that the eventual separation would have been a total hostile disengagement from one another.32 Ongoing archaeological excavations by the team of Izchak Magen have confirmed that there was a sacred precinct on Mount Gerizim at least from the Persian period onwards. This sacred place continued being expanded together with the surrounding city in the Hellenistic period.33 It is likely that this sanctuary served as a Yahwistic temple modeled after the temple in Jerusalem.34 The existence of this alternative temple in the Persian period does not imply hostility to the Jerusalem temple since we know that other Yahwistic temples also existed outside Palestine.35 The Gerizim temple is mentioned even at the end of the 2nd century BCE in 2 Macc 6:2 without any polemics.36 Moreover, correspondence from Elephantine (in 407 BCE) is addressed to both Samaria and Jerusalem, suggesting the existence of some form of collaboration.37

this passage in 2 Kgs 17:29 where it is claimed that “Samaritans” made high places where foreign gods were served. The interpretation of this term is not that simple, however, and the verse contains severe text-critical problems. A double reading of the verse can be found in LXX 2 Kgs 17:32 where there is no mention of Samaritans as a people, only of the cities of Samaria. It is plausible that the LXX contains an earlier version of 2 Kgs 17:29–31 and that the MT reflects secondary editing. This makes it even more problematic to use this mention in trying to trace the historical roots of the Samaritans. See Adrian Schenker, Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher, OBO 199 (Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004), 40–45 and Richard J. Coggins, “The Old Testament and Samaritan Origins,” ASTI 6 (1968): 35–48. 31 Pummer, “The Samaritans,” 248. Hyrcanus’ destruction of the Samaritan temple is described in Ant. 13.254– 257. 32 For an excellent summary of this position see Pummer, “The Samaritans,” 247–252. 33 Yitzhak Magen, Mount Gerizim Excavations, Vol. II. A Temple City, Judea & Samaria Publications 8 (Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology, 2008), 97–137. 34 Magen, Mount, 141–64, surveys evidence pointing to this conclusion. Among the strongest pieces of evidence are the high concentrations of sacrificial bones and Hellenistic Hebrew and Aramaic inscriptions containing, for example, the tetragrammaton and a description of an offering “before the Lord in the temple.” Reconstructing the Persian and Hellenistic era sacred precinct completely is impossible because most of its remains were destroyed during the construction of the Byzantine Church of Mary Theotokos in the 5th century CE. 35 In addition to Jerusalem and Mount Gerizim, Jewish temples existed at least at Elephantine and Leontopolis. See Jörg Frey, “Temple and Rival Temple – The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopolis,” in Gemeinde ohne Tempel / Community without Temple. Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum, ed. Beate Ego, Armin Lange and Peter Pilhofer, WUNT 118 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 171–203; Stephen G. Rosenberg, “The Jewish Temple at Elephantine,” Near Eastern Archeology 67 (2004): 4–13. 36 Dozeman, Joshua, 30, notes regarding the Gerizim temple: “Worship at this site does not appear to be criticized in compositions from the Persian and Hellenistic periods.” 37 Bezalel Porten and Ada Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Vol. 1: Letters (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1986), 68–75. See also Gary N. Knoppers, “Revisiting the Samaritan Question in the Persian Period,” in Judah and the Judaeans in the Persian Period, ed. Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming At least in the second century BCE tensions between Judeans and Samaritans begin to emerge in the literary sources. While the destruction of the Gerizim temple (ca. 110 BCE38) provides a secure historical timepoint for a decisive break between the leaders of these groups, tensions can already be noticed earlier in anti-Samaritan literary references throughout the 2nd century BCE. Beyond the polemical Judean perspective of Ezra- Nehemiah, Ben Sira (written in about 180 BCE) contains, after a laudatory hymn to Simon son of Onias, a poem critical of three nations. Among these nations, the Samaritans are treated with the most contempt.39 The Greek translation, undertaken some decades later, underlines this stance further by translating Seir with Mount Samaria.40

Hebrew Sir 50:25–2641 Greek Sir 50:25–26 ,Εν δυσὶν ἔθνεσιν προσώχθισεν ἡ ψυχή μου᾿ .25 בשני גוים קצה נפשי ·καὶ τὸ τρίτον οὐκ ἔστιν ἔθνος והשלישית איננו עם οἱ καθήμενοι ἐν ὄρει Σαμαρείας καὶ Φυλιστιιμ .26 יושבי שעיר ופלשת .καὶ ὁ λαὸς ὁ μωρὸς ὁ κατοικῶν ἐν Σικιμοις וגוי נבל הדד בשכם

Two nations my soul detests, 25. Two nations my soul is angry with, and the third is not a people: and the third is not a nation at all: Those who live in Seir, and the Philistine, 26. Those who are settled on Mount Samaria and the Philistines, and the foolish people that lives in Shechem.” and the foolish people who live in Shechem.”

The hymn in Ben Sira is not the only text from this century describing the Samaritans as “foolish people.” Some scholars have noted that 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositionb likely in reference to the ,נבלים ”4Q372) from Qumran also employs the term “fools)

(Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006), 265–289, who surveys archaeological and epigraphic evidence demonstrating a “significant cultural overlap between the Samaritan and Judean communities” in the Persian period. 38 Yitzhak Magen, “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence,” in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E., ed. Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers and Rainer Albertz (Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007), 193. 39 For a more thorough treatment of the passage, see James D. Purvis, “Ben Sira’ and the Foolish People of Shechem,” JNES 24 (1965): 88–94. 40 Given that the Hebrew text of the passage is not very well attested, it is certainly possible that the reading Mount Samaria was already attested in the Hebrew source text of the translator. In any case, the variant reflects rising anti-Samaritan sentiments at the end of the 2nd century BCE. 41 A Hebrew version of this passage is preserved only in MS B from the Cairo Genizah. See Pancratius C. Beentjes, The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts, VTSup 68 (Leiden: Brill, 1997), 16, 90. Samaritans.42 Fragment 1 contains a passage about Joseph who ends up in the hands of a upon “a high mountain” and insulted Jerusalem with (במה) ”nation that has built a “high place their words.43 According to Eileen Schuller, the passage is likely a condemnation of Shechem and the Samaritans, influenced by Deut 32:21. She notes that the text “gives us a glimpse into inner Jewish polemics and rivalry in the Second Temple period.”44 Furthermore, a third text also evaluates Shechem critically, namely the Testament of Levi, which declares that Shechem will be called “a city of the unintelligent” (πόλιϛ ἀσυνέτων) and claims that they will be scoffed at as fools (μωρόν).45

From later times, one should also mention Josephus, who, in his retelling of Israel’s history, demonstrates an anti-Samaritan bias.46 This bias is visible, among many other things, in the way Josephus treats Shechem and Shiloh as holy places. In Ant. 5.68–70, he describes how the tabernacle was set up at Shiloh “since that place seemed best on account of its beauty” (γὰρ ἐδόκει τὸ χωρίον διὰ κάλλος). He then narrates how the Israelites went to Shechem to erect an altar in line with Josh 8; however, he insists that after this they returned to Shiloh. Moreover, Ant. 5.115–116, a condensed version of the account in Josh 23–24, omits all references to an altar, sanctuary, or ritual performed at Shechem. In relation to Shechem as a holy place for Josephus, Timothy Thornton has concluded: “The more the existence of a sanctuary in the Shechem area was ignored or forgotten, the easier it would be to dismiss

42 The word “fools” is reconstructed in 4Q372 with the help of the earlier text 4Q371, which contains a parallel passage that allows the reconstruction of altogether eleven words in 4Q372. See Eileen Schuller, “4Q372: A Text About Joseph,” RevQ 14 (1989): 349, 360. 43 “… among a foreign nation and dispersed in all the world. All their mountains were desolate of them [ w and fools were dwelling in their land] and making for themselves a high place upon a high mountain to provoke Israel to jealousy; and they spoke with wor[ds of ] the sons of Jacob and they acted terribly with the words of their mouth to revile against the tent of Zion; and they spoke [ words of falsehood, and all] words of deceit they spoke to provoke Levi and Judah and Benjamin with their words.” (4Q372 1 11–14, translation from the Dead Sea Scrolls Electronic Library Non-Biblical Texts). 44 Schuller, “4Q372,” 371–76. This evaluation is further confirmed and developed by Magnar Kartveit, “Who are the ‘fools’ in 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona–c?” in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006, ed. Anders Klostergaard Petersen, Torleif Elgvin, Cecilia Wassen, Hanne von Weissenberg, Mikael Winninge, and Martin Ehrensvärd, STDJ 80 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 119–33. 45 The parallels of the Testament of Levi with the Aramaic Levi Document make it clear that the basic layer of this work goes back to Second Temple Jewish circles. This particular passage, however, is not present in the Aramaic text. For a discussion of this passage and the evidence, see Kartveit, “Who,” 130–32. 46 This has been demonstrated by several scholars. See for example Ingrid Hjelm, “The Samaritans in Josephus’ Jewish History,” in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritanes, ed. Haseeb Shehaded and Habib Tawa (Paris: Geuthner, 2005), 27–39; Timothy Thornton, “Anti-Samaritan Exegesis Reflected in Josephus’ Retelling of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges,” JTS 47/1 (1996): 125–30. Samaritan claims about its importance.”47 It is also noteworthy that according to Josephus the quarrel between the Jews and the Samaritans over the right place of worship spread to the Alexandrian diaspora already in the second century BCE (Ant. 12.10; 13.74–79).48

These four traditions together—Sir 50:25–26, 4Q372 1 11–14, T. Levi 7:2, and Josephus—in my eyes provide a likely backdrop for the secondary anti-Shechem textual variant reflected in OG Josh 24 and likely present already in its Hebrew source text.49

When one turns to the Samaritan Joshua traditions, preserved in late medieval and modern manuscripts,50 it is easy to see why an anti-Samaritan editor would have wanted to get rid of Shechem in Josh 24. The Samaritans have embraced Shechem as the location in Josh 24 by transforming it into a typical Samaritan reading through minor additions. According to these traditions, Shechem is the “chosen place at Mount Gerizim” and the covenant was made “in the holy city Shechem which is at the foot of Mount Gerizim, Bethel.”

In the light of these observations, one can conclude that the variation between Shechem (MT) and Shiloh (OG) in the textual witnesses of Joshua 24 is likely related to the rising anti- Samaritan attitudes of late-Hellenistic or Hasmonean period Judea. While Shechem may have served as a suitable spot for “all the tribes of Israel” to make a covenant in the Persian period, later in the Second Temple period the elites of Judea did not want to allow the Samaritans to use this text as a justification for their holy place. Therefore, editors updated the scene as having taken place at Shiloh in front of the tent of meeting. They also omitted the reference to a sanctuary in Shechem.51 This text-critically attested change also reflects similar anti- Samaritan sentiments echoed, for example, in Ben Sira, 4Q372, and Josephus, while the Samaritans later developed the text in a competing direction by fully embracing Shechem in their own Joshua traditions. This change thus reflects the position of the Jerusalem elite, who wanted to underline the correct place of worship. The observation made by Gary Knoppers

47 Thornton, “Anti-Samaritan,” 128. 48 See Raimo Hakola, Identity Matters: John, the Jews, and Jewishness, NovTSup 118 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 104. 49 The tensions between the Judaeans and Samaritans is also referred to in some texts in the New Testament; for instance, in John 4 where Jesus says to the Samaritan woman: “You worship what you do not know but we worship what we know” (John 4:22). Later rabbinical traditions also accuse the Samaritans of idolatry. For a discussion of these sources, see Hakola, Identity, 104–109. 50 Since these textual witnesses are quite late, we cannot know with certainty how far back in history the earliest elements of the Samaritan Joshua traditions lie. For a discussion of these witnesses, see note 79 and Mäkipelto, Uncovering, 43–48. 51 However, the version without Shechem was only preserved in the Alexandrian Greek translation. The text with Shechem likely became the established MT version because Shechem offered a continuation of the later historical books for the Deuteronomists. See note 8. also applies well to our case of textual variation: “If, as recent excavations suggest, some sort of sanctuary or temple existed on Mt. Gerizim already during the Persian Period, this would only have added further impetus for Jerusalem Temple scribes to authenticate the distinctive positions of their city and shrine.”52 In this minor textual variant, we are thus likely dealing with the phenomenon of sharpening religious identity by means of exclusion.

3. Second case: Anti-Hasmonean attitudes as a catalyst for an editorial addition The first case of textual variation, observed in traditional biblical textual witnesses, demonstrated how anti-Samaritan attitudes resulted in minor scribal changes. The second case illuminates a sociologically motivated editorial change from the other side of the polemic and from witnesses not included in any biblical canons. The curse upon the rebuilder of Jericho in Josh 6:26 is well known as a text that has taken many various forms in different contexts.53 It has been preserved in six slightly differing forms in various textual witnesses: MT Josh 6:26, OG Josh 6:26, MT 1 Kgs 16:34, LXX 1 Kgs 16:34,54 4Q379, and Testimonia (4Q175). In this context, I will concentrate on 4Q379 and its unique fulfillment of Joshua’s curse.

There are several problems related to 4Q379 and the so-called rewritten Joshua texts that it is counted among.55 First, it is not clear whether 4Q379, together with the other rewritten Joshua texts, is part of a single work or whether they represent different compositions. These texts are often referred to as the Apocryphon of Joshua in light of the suggestions by Carol Newsom and Emanuel Tov that they are witnesses to a single composition.56 In order to avoid uncertain assumptions, I agree with Ariel Feldman who has demonstrated that we do not have

52 Knoppers, “Revisiting,” 279. 53 The best treatment of these different forms thus far has been published by Lea Mazor, “The Origin and Evolution of the Curse Upon the Rebuilder of Jericho: A Contribution of Textual Criticism to Biblical Historiography,” Text 14 (1988): 1–26. 54 The verse referencing the curse is missing from the Lucianic witnesses; thus, some have argued that it did not belong to the OG but to a later stratum of the Septuagint version of Reigns. See Emanuel Tov, “The LXX and the Deuteronomist,” in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays, TSAJ 121 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 13. 55 For all the rewritten Joshua texts from Qumran, see the excellent study by Feldman, The Rewritten. 56 Carol Newsom regarded 4Q378 and 4Q379 as witnesses to the same composition. See Carol Newsom, “378- 379. 4QApocryphon of Joshua,” DJD 22:237–88. Emanuel Tov argued that also 4Q522, 5Q9, 4Q123, and Mas 1039-211 should be seen as witnesses to this composition. See Emanuel Tov, “The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada,” in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use of Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon, STDJ 28 (Leiden: Brill, 1998), 233–56. sufficient grounds for assuming a single work behind the scrolls.57 Second, the fragmentary state of the scrolls means that only some passages are preserved in a condition that allows making conclusions about the text itself. Even in these cases, many reconstructions remain uncertain. Third, there is some disagreement on whether the text should be considered sectarian or not (as far as it is even appropriate to employ such terminology58). The likeliest view seems to be that these texts do not exhibit elements that would suggest that they are sectarian texts in the sense that they would have been produced by the Qumran community; however, some features make it understandable why the text may have been popular at Qumran.59

57 Feldman, The Rewritten, 187–93. 58 Some observations on the problems related to the terms “sect” and “sectarian” in characterizing texts from Qumran have been put forth by Jutta Jokiranta, “‘Sectarianism’ of the Qumran ‘Sect’: Sociological Notes,” RevQ 20 (2001), 223–39. 59 Devorah Dimant has explicated such an intermediate position by situating the rewritten Joshua texts somewhere between sectarian and non-sectarian. She affirms that these texts, including the interpretation of the curse in 4Q379, do not use specific sectarian terminology or elaborate ideas that are distinctive for the sectarian literature. The connections with sectarian literature are of rather generic character: thus, the texts originated from a wider frame of thought, but due to the generic similarities with the sectarian literature were also well received in those circles. See Devorah Dimant, “Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua,” in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran, ed. Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements, STDJ 58 (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 105–34. Tov, “The Rewritten,” 254–55, finds only two possible reasons why 4Q379 could be considered sectarian but concludes that there are no typical features of Qumran scribes in the text. See also Katell Berthelot, In Search of the Promised Land? The Hasmonean Dynasty Between Biblical Models and Hellenistic Diplomacy, JAJSup 24 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018), 347. 4Q379 22 ii 8–1560 MT Josh 6:26 וַיַשְׁ בַ עיְהֹושֻׁׁעַ בָּעֵ ת הַהִ יא

לֵ אמֹר ... אָּ רּור הָּאִ ישׁ לִפְ נֵי יְהוָּ ה 8 א]רור הא[י ש אֲשֶּׁ ר יָּקּום ּובָּ נָּ ה אשר יב]נ[ה אֶּ ת-הָּעִ יר הַ זֹאת אֶּ ת-יְרִ יחֹו את ]העי[ר֗ הזאת בִבְ כֹרֹו בבכו]רו יְיַסְדֶּ נָּ ה ייסדנה[ ּובִצְעִ ירֹו 9 [ובצעי[ר ו] [ יַצִ יב דְּ לָּתֶּ יהָּ י ציבדלתי ה vacat

וה נ ה] ארו[ר א]חד[61 10 ]עומד להיו[ת פח יקוש לעמו ומחתה לכל שכנ]י[ו ועמ]ד[ 11 ] [ם להיות שניהם כלי חמס ושבו ובנו א]ת[ 12 ]העיר ה[זאת ויציבו לה חומה ומגדלים לעשות] לעוז[ בישראל ושערוריה באפרימ] וביהודה 13 ]רשע וע[שורעה גדלה}בבני יעקב ושפ ]כ[ו] ד[ם{ 14 ]ועשו חנופה[ בארץ ונאצה גדלה *כ מי]ם על חל בת ציון[ 15 ]ובחוק ירושלים[ ◦◦◦◦◦]

And Joshua swore on that day saying: 8 C[ursed be “Cursed be anyo]ne before YHWH anyone who bu[il]ds who rises and builds this [ci]ty this city Jericho. 9 With [his] firstborn With his firstborn [he shall found it] he shall found it, and with [his yo]ung[est] and with his youngest he shall set up its gates. vacat he shall set up its gates.

And behold, an [accur]sed o[ne] 10 [is arising to becom]e a fowler’s snare to his people and a terror to all hi[s] neighbours. And he will ari[se] 11 [ ] to become both of them vessels of violence. And they will again build 12 [t]his [city]. And they will establish for it a wall and towers in order to make[ (it) a stronghold of] in Israel and a horrible thing in Ephraim[ and in Judah ] 13 [wickedness. And they made] a great evil {among the sons of Jacob and (they) will po[ur out blo}od] 14 [And they have done ungodliness] in the land and great defamation *like wa[ter upon the rampart of the Daughter of Zion] 15 [and within the boundary of Jerusalem ] [

60 The reconstruction follows Feldman, The Rewritten, 99 –101. The text has been reconstructed with the help of 4Q175, which quotes 4Q379 and has a better-preserved text; see the critical edition by Newsom, “378,” 237–88. 61 Some have reconstructed here “the man of Belial” (relying on 4Q175); however, according to Feldman, The Rewritten, 100, there is not enough room.

Lines 8–9 of 4Q379 contain the words of the curse uttered by Joshua paralleled in Josh 6:26. The textual form of this quotation is similar to the OG, likely reflecting its Hebrew Vorlage.62 Lines 9–15 then expand the curse with a unique fulfillment of the curse. The state of the manuscript is fragmentary, making it hard to reconstruct the expansion in full. However, luckily the eschatological text Testimonia (4Q175) quotes this passage from 4Q379 and is better preserved, which is why 4Q175 can be used with caution to reconstruct the expansion in 4Q379.63 On line 9, 4Q379 contains an empty space, which has been interpreted as a vacat akin to those found in the pesharim. In the pesharim an empty space separates the quotation of a scriptural text from the fulfillment of the text.64 However, for at least four reasons, this similarity with the pesharim should not be stressed too much. First, 4Q379 does not utilize the technical terminology usually employed in a pesher.65 Second, this is the only instance in 4Q379 where a vacat like this is used. Third, Feldman correctly notes that in this case the expansion “is syntactically presented as a continuation of Joshua’s speech.”66 Thus, we are dealing with a literary expansion that places prophetic words in the mouth of Joshua. Fourth, one should keep in mind that Josh 6:26 is a text that was given different interpretations and rewritings already in the variant textual witnesses to the now-canonical books Joshua and Kings. Much like 4Q379, OG Josh 6:26 contains an expansion which gives an immediate fulfillment of the curse.67 In other words, we might not be dealing with a parabiblical pesher- type interpretation of Joshua’s curse, but with an editorial expansion that is essentially no different from the editorial expansions we already find in the biblical textual witnesses.

The content of the expansion is interesting: it introduces “an accursed one” who rises to do evil things. He will be “a fowler’s snare to his people and a cause of ruin to all his neighbors.” After this, the text is badly corrupted, but then continues by describing two

.Jericho” found now in the MT“ אֶּ ת-יְרִ יחֹו rises” and“ יָּקּום Together with the OG, the text is missing the words 62 is missing from the OG in accordance with 4Q379. However, in the OG this element is located לִפְ ינֵ יְהוָּ ה ,Also earlier in the verse, in a section that is not present in 4Q379. Thus, we cannot be sure whether or not this is a real agreement between 4Q379 and the OG. 63 A concise introduction to this leather manuscript, its contents, and research can be found in George Brooke, “Testimonia (4QTestim),” ABD 6: 391–92. See also Feldman, The Rewritten, 121–25, for a helpful summary of the different views related to the relationship between 4Q379 and 4Q175. 64 See, for example, Shani Tzoref, “Pesher and Periodization,” DSD 18 (2011): 129–54. 65 Berthelot, In Search, 347. 66 Feldman, The Rewritten, 102. 67 OG Josh 6:26b: “And thus did Ozan of Baithel; at the cost of Abiron, his firstborn, he founded it, and at the cost of his youngest, although he escaped, he set up its gates” (NETS). persons who will build the city again and establish its wall and towers. According to the text, the two men will be “vessels of violence” and the city will be “a refuge for wickedness.” In the context of the curse, it is likely that these two rebuilders of the city are the firstborn and the youngest son of the “accursed one” mentioned before. This interpretation is strengthened by the phrase “vessels of violence,” which is used in Gen 49:5 to describe Simeon and Levi, the sons of Jacob.68 Based on the context within the Joshua narrative, the city discussed in this expansion is most likely Jericho.69

Now the pertinent question in our context is: Is it possible to identify the historical context that led to the editorial expansion of Joshua’s curse attested in 4Q379? Several scholars have suggested that the “accursed one” and his two sons mentioned in the expansion are references to Hasmonean leaders, specifically John Hyrcanus (r. 134–104 BCE) and his sons Antigonus and Aristobulus.70

There are at least four arguments to support this. First, manuscript 4Q379 is dated to the Hasmonean period. Furthermore, the leather manuscript 4Q175 can be dated to 100–75 BCE. Since 4Q175 quotes the actualization of the curse, it suggests that the expansion was current for the scribes in this time period. Second, the pesher-like form of interpretation suggests that the writer may have wanted to allude to a contemporary event and a particular person.71 Third, the expansion describes a disliked leader who, together with his sons, embarks on a building project. Archaeological excavations led by Ehud Netzer have revealed that John Hyrcanus and his sons were involved in a massive project to build a Hasmonean palace in Jericho.72 Hanan Eshel has pointed out that both of John Hyrcanus’ sons died suddenly in quick succession: Antigonus was murdered and only days later Aristobulus died of an illness. These events may have sparked the interpretation that the curse on the rebuilder of Jericho caused the sudden and successive deaths.73 Even if one does not identify Hyrcanus and his two sons specifically as the target of the curse, the expansion could still be taken as generic

68 Feldman, The Rewritten, 120–21. 69 Since 4Q379 and the OG both omit the explicit name of the city, some have suggested that the text may also be dealing with Jerusalem. Thus, for example, John M. Allegro, “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature,” JBL 75 (1956): 187. See Feldman, The Rewritten, 121, for further arguments for identifying the city with Jericho. 70 These Hasmonean leaders are described in Ant. 13.230–319. 71 Berthelot, In Search, 347. 72 Ehud Netzer, “The Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces at Jericho,” JEJ 25 (1975): 89–100; idem, Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, 1: Stratigraphy and Architecture (Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2001), 1–7, 13–49, 301. 73 Hanan Eshel, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008), 68, 80; Feldman, The Rewritten, 347–48. criticism of the Hasmonean leaders since Jericho was particularly important for the Hasmoneans.74 Fourth, according to Katell Berthelot, intertextual references strengthen the interpretation that the curse was applied to John Hyrcanus. The phrase “a cause of ruin to all his neighbors” finds a close counterpart in Jer 48:39, which refers to destruction in Moab. If this is a deliberate reference by the writer of 4Q379, it may imply John Hyrcanus who indeed, according to Josephus, conquered Medeba and Samoga in Moab. Josephus even recalls this Moab conquest together with the capture of Shechem and Mount Gerizim.75 Moreover, the expansion in 4Q379 echoes language used in Jer 23:9–40 and Hos 6:9–10 and 9:7–8 to condemn false prophets. Since Josephus mentions that John Hyrcanus had the gift of prophecy (this claim is not made about any other Hasmonean), this, according to Berthelot, strengthens the argument that the expansion may allude to Hyrcanus specifically.76

In sum, a relatively good case can be made that 4Q379 refers to John Hyrcanus and his sons—or at least the Hasmonean leaders on a generic level—in a condemnatory way. This may be a revealing clue about the origin of the expansion. Although we know that the Qumran community was critical of the Hasmoneans, there are not many other features in the text that would suggest that they are behind the expansion.77 Another clue about origins is that 4Q379 contains several priestly and liturgical elements which may suggest, according to Feldman, that the texts derive from some priestly or Levitical circles of the Hasmonean period.78 I would further underline a third observation which suggests one particular editorial setting for the expansion: The text of 4Q379 and the Joshua traditions preserved by the Samaritans themselves (both in Arabic and Hebrew79) contain striking similarities. Both

74 See, for example, Joshua Schwartz, “On Priests and Jericho in the Second Temple Period,” JQR 79 (1988), 27. 75 Ant. 13.254–256. 76 Berthelot, In Search, 350–53. 77 See note 59 above. However, 4Q175, which also contains this expansion, is often regarded as an eschatological text by the Qumran community. 78 Feldman, The Rewritten, 127. 79 Due to its remarkable focus on the northern cultic site, the book of Joshua was likely important for the northern Samarians early on. Dozeman, Joshua, 31, even argues for a Samarian origin for the book of Joshua, claiming that it “represents a Samarian myth of origin.” The distinctively Samaritan Joshua traditions are best preserved in a 14th-century CE Arabic manuscript published already in 1848 by Theodor W. J. Juynboll, Chronicum samaritanum, arabicae conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josue (Leiden: S.J. Luchtmans, 1848). For an English translation, see Oliver T. Crane, The Samaritan Chronicle or the Book of Joshua the Son of Nun (New York: John B. Alden, 1890). The work contains many late legends, but chapters 9–25, rewriting most of the book of Joshua, likely represent an early core of the work. See Farber, Images, 223–74. The Hebrew manuscripts reflecting the Samaritan Joshua traditions are contentious. However, similarities with the LXX and redaction-critical models suggest that the core of these legends may be ancient. See Mäkipelto, Uncovering, 43– 48, 216–219. contain the idea that the crossing of the Jordan took place during the year of Jubilees.80 This timing is not preserved in any other Joshua traditions.81 Furthermore, both 4Q379 and the Samaritan Joshua traditions expand the narrative with liturgical and priestly elements; for instance, both expand the crossing of the Jordan with extensive praise and blessings by Joshua and the people. The presence of such similarities in 4Q379 and the Samaritan Joshua traditions suggest that the Samaritan Joshua traditions may contain traces of early traditions and that the text now preserved in 4Q379 may be connected with Samaritan religious circles.82 When considering the Anti-Hasmonean attitude, Levitical elements, and the unique similarities with Samaritan Joshua traditions together, I would argue that the editorial expansion in 4Q379 may ultimately go back to the Samaritan circles of the Hasmonean period. They had adequate reason to despise John Hyrcanus and the Hasmoneans. Thus, this editorial expansion, when compared to the first case, reveals the other side of the coin of the rising Judean-Samaritan tensions.83

4. Conclusions Divergent textual witnesses of the book of Joshua and other literary works demonstrate that the conquest traditions were constantly rewritten and actualized in the Second Temple period. This was a period of creative editorial and scribal work. During this time there was no single authoritative Joshua tradition. The versions were still taking shape and could be modified in order to legitimize certain political agendas with scriptural authority. Therefore, it is likely that major societal discussions, paradigm shifts, and polemics have influenced the processes of rewriting these traditions. Indeed, the two cases explored in this paper may shed light on two opposing sides of a well-known dispute during the late Hellenistic and Hasmonean periods. On the one hand, the tradition concerning the covenant making at Shechem in Josh

80 Chapter 15 in the Arabic book of Joshua narrates the crossing of the Jordan: “And the cloud was lifted up, on the first of the first month, of the first year, of the first period of seven years of the Jubilee … And the priests proceeded forward when the cloud was lifted up …” (Crane, The Samaritan, 46–47); 4Q379 12 3–6 reads: “they [cr]ossed over on dry ground in the [fir]st month of the forty-f[irst] year of their exodus from the lan[d] of Egypt. It was the year of the jubilees when they began to enter the land of Canaan.” 81 A similar understanding of the year of Jubilees is voiced in Jub 50:2–4. 82 Moreover, the Samaritan Joshua traditions agree with the LXX in many instances, preserving earlier readings than the MT. See Tov, “Literary,” 216. 83 This suggestion could of course be problematized. The argument for a reference to a Hasmonean leader is not straightforward. The intertextual references introduced by Berthelot are circumstantial evidence at best. The convergence of archaeological findings with the date of the manuscript is suggestive; however, the text of the curse and the actualization is elusive and may well have been used in criticizing other building projects or despised leaders. Also, since we know from textual witnesses that the curse has been interpreted in various ways, it is possible that the interpretation in 4Q379 also has a longer history than the date of the manuscript leads us to believe. Despite these problems, in my eyes a reference to the Hasmonean leaders and a Samaritan origin is the best possible socio-historical setting for this text. 24 was rewritten in order not to allow the Samaritans to claim scriptural authority for their holy site. On the other hand, the Samaritans innovated an interpretation of the curse upon the rebuilder of Jericho so that they would have scriptural support for their rejection of the Hasmonean leaders.

The biggest problem for the suggestion put forth in this contribution is that there remains a high degree of uncertainty in every step of the argumentation. While the text-critical arguments and interpretations of Qumran manuscripts can be disputed, the contexts of other literary sources and interpretations of the archaeological evidence are also far from certain. Thus, some may shy away from such an accumulation of uncertainty. However, this is the nature of the academic study of history and ultimately the theory that best explains the evidence survives. While correlating text-critical evidence with socio-historical realities may be considered doubly uncertain, I would argue that it opens new and exciting historical perspectives, as well as avenues for interdisciplinary research.

Bibliography

Allegro, John M. “Further Messianic References in Qumran Literature.” JBL 75 (1956): 174– 87.

Aurelius, Eric. “Zur Entstehung von Josua 23–24.” Pages 95–114 in Houses Full of All Good Things. Essays in Memory of Timo Veijola. Edited by Juha Pakkala and Martti Nissinen. Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2008.

Barrera, Julio Trebolle. “A Combined Textual and Literary Criticism Analysis: Editorial Traces in the Books of Judges and Joshua.” Pages 437–63 in Interpreting Translation: Studies on the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust. Edited by Florentino García Martínez and Marc Vervenne. BEThl 192. Leuven: Peeters, 2005.

Beentjes, Pancratius C. The Book of Ben Sira in Hebrew: A Text Edition of all Extant Hebrew Manuscripts and a Synopsis of All Parallel Hebrew Ben Sira Texts. VTSup 68. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Berthelot, Katell. In Search of the Promised Land? The Hasmonean Dynasty Between Biblical Models and Hellenistic Diplomacy. JAJSup 24. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2018.

Brooke, George. “Testimonia (4QTestim).” ABD 6: 391–92

Coggins, Richard J. “The Old Testament and Samaritan Origins.” ASTI 6 (1968): 35–48.

Crane, Oliver T. The Samaritan Chronicle or the Book of Joshua the Son of Nun. New York: John B. Alden, 1890.

De Troyer, Kristin. “Which Text Are We Using for Our Studies of Deuteronomistic Literature?” Pages 461–72 in Congress Volume Helsinki 2010. Edited by Martti Nissinen. VTSup 148. Leiden: Brill, 2010.

De Troyer, Kristin. Rewriting the Sacred Text. What the Old Greek Texts Tell Us about the Literary Growth of the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

De Troyer, Kristin. “Reconstructing the Older Hebrew Text of Joshua: An Analysis of Joshua 10.” Text 26 (2013): 1–28.

De Troyer, Kristin. “The Textual Plurality of the book of Joshua and the Need for a Digital Complutensian Polyglot Bible.” Pages 330–46 in The Text of the Hebrew Bible and Its Editions: Studies in the Celebration of the Fifth Centennial of the Complutensian Polyglot. Edited by Andres Piquer Otero and Pablo Torijano Morales. THBSup 1. Leiden: Brill, 2016.

De Troyer, Kristin. The Ultimate and Penultimate Text of the Book of Joshua. CBET 100. Leuven: Peeters, 2018.

Dimant, Devorah. “Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua,” Pages 105–34 in Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran. Edited by Esther G. Chazon, Devorah Dimant, and Ruth A. Clements. STDJ 58. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Dozeman, Thomas. Joshua 1–12: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Yale: Yale University Press, 2015.

Eshel, Hanan. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Hasmonean State. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2008.

Farber, Zev. Images of Joshua in the Bible and Their Reception. BZAW 457. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2016.

Feldman, Ariel. The Rewritten Joshua Scrolls from Qumran: Texts, Translations, and Commentary. BZAW 438. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2013.

Feldman, Louis H. “Josephus’s Portrait of Joshua.” HTR 82.4 (1989): 351–76.

Frey, Jörg. “Temple and Rival Temple – The Cases of Elephantine, Mt. Gerizim, and Leontopolis.” Pages 171–203 in Gemeinde ohne Tempel / Community without Temple. Zur Substituierung und Transformation des Jerusalemer Tempels und seines Kults im Alten Testament, antiken Judentum und frühen Christentum. Edited by Beate Ego, Armin Lange, and Peter Pilhofer. WUNT 118. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.

Hakola, Raimo. Identity Matters: John, the Jews, and Jewishness. NovTSup 118. Leiden: Brill, 2005.

Hertog, Cornelis Gijsbert den. “Studien zur griechischen Übersetzung des Buches Josua.” PhD diss., Justus-Liebig-Universität Gießen, 1996.

Hjelm, Ingrid. “The Samaritans in Josephus’ Jewish History.” Pages 27–39 in Proceedings of the Fifth International Congress of the Société d’Études Samaritanes. Edited by Haseeb Shehaded and Habib Tawa. Paris: Geuthner, 2005.

Hollenberg, Johannes. Der Charakter der Alexandrinischen Übersetzung des Buches Josua und ihr textkritischer Werth. Moers: Eckner, 1876.

Holmes, Samuel. Joshua. The Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge: University Press, 1914.

Jokiranta, Jutta. “‘Sectarianism’ of the Qumran ‘Sect’: Sociological Notes.” RevQ 20 (2001): 223–39.

Juynboll, Theodor W. J. Chronicum samaritanum, arabicae conscriptum, cui titulus est Liber Josue. Leiden: S.J. Luchtmans, 1848.

Kartveit, Magnar. “Who are the ‘fools’ in 4QNarrative and Poetic Compositiona–c?” Pages 119–33 in Northern Lights on the Dead Sea Scrolls: Proceedings of the Nordic Qumran Network 2003–2006. Edited by Anders Klostergaard Petersen, Torleif Elgvin, Cecilia Wassen, Hanne von Weissenberg, Mikael Winninge, and Martin Ehrensvärd. STDJ 80. Leiden: Brill, 2009.

Knoppers, Gary N. “Revisiting the Samaritan Question in the Persian Period.” Pages 265–89 in Judah and the Judaeans in the Persian Period. Edited by Oded Lipschits and Manfred Oeming. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2006.

Koopmans, William T. Joshua 24 as Poetic Narrative. JSOTSup 93. Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1990.

Lange, Armin. Handbuch der Textfunde vom Toten Meer. Band 1: Die Handschriften biblischer Bücher von Qumran und den anderen Fundorten. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009.

Levin, Christoph. Die Verheißung des neuen Bundes in ihrem theologiegeschichtlichen Zusammenhang ausgelegt. FRLANT 137. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1985.

Magen, Yitzhak. “The Dating of the First Phase of the Samaritan Temple on Mount Gerizim in Light of the Archaeological Evidence.” Pages 157–211 in Judah and the Judeans in the Fourth Century B.C.E. Edited by Oded Lipschits, Gary N. Knoppers, and Rainer Albertz. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

Magen, Yitzhak. Mount Gerizim Excavations, Vol. II. A Temple City. JSP 8. Jerusalem: Staff Officer of Archaeology, 2008.

Mäkipelto, Ville. Uncovering Ancient Editing: Documented Evidence of Changes in Joshua 24 and Related Texts. BZAW 513. Berlin: de Gruyter, 2018.

Mäkipelto, Ville, Timo Tekoniemi and Miika Tucker. “Large-Scale Transposition as an Editorial Technique in the Textual History of the Hebrew Bible.” TC (2017): 1–16.

Mazor, Lea. “The Origin and Evolution of the Curse upon the Rebuilder of Jericho: A Contribution of Textual Criticism to Biblical Historiography.” Text 14 (1988): 1–26.

Mazor, Lea. “The Septuagint Translation of the Book of Joshua (Abstract),” BIOSCS 27 (1994): 29–38.

Meer, Michaël N. van der. Formation and Reformulation. The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses. VTSup 102. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

McKenzie, Steven L. Review of Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, by Michaël N. van der Meer. RBL (2005), http://www.bookreviews.org.

Müller, Reinhard, Juha Pakkala and Bas ter Haar Romeny. Evidence of Editing: Growth and Change of Texts in the Hebrew Bible. Atlanta: SBL, 2014.

Netzer, Ehud. “The Hasmonean and Herodian Winter Palaces at Jericho.” JEJ 25 (1975): 89– 100.

Netzer, Ehud. Hasmonean and Herodian Palaces at Jericho, 1: Stratigraphy and Architecture. Jerusalem: Israel Exploration Society, 2001.

Newsom, Carol. “378-379. 4QApocryphon of Joshua.” DJD 22:237–88.

Nielsen, Eduard. Shechem. A Traditio-Historical Investigation. Copenhagen: Gad, 1955.

Orlinsky, Harry. “The Hebrew Vorlage of the Septuagint of the Book of Joshua.” Pages 187– 95 in Congress Volume: Rome, 1968. VTSup 17. Leiden: Brill, 1969.

Pakkala, Juha. God’s Word Omitted. FRLANT 251. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 2013.

Porten, Bezalel and Ada Yardeni. Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt. Vol. 1: Letters. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 1986.

Pummer, Reinhard. “The Samaritans and Their Pentateuch.” Pages 237–59 in The Pentateuch as Torah. New Models for Understanding Its Promulgation and Acceptance. Edited by Gary N. Knoppers and Bernard M. Levinson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns, 2007.

Purvis, James D. “Ben Sira’ and the Foolish People of Shechem.” JNES 24 (1965): 88–94.

Römer, Thomas. “The Date, Composition and Function of Joshua 24 in Recent Research.” HeBAI 6 (2017): 203–16.

Rosenberg, Stephen G. “The Jewish Temple at Elephantine.” NEA 67 (2004): 4–13.

Schenker, Adrian. Älteste Textgeschichte der Königsbücher: Die hebräische Vorlage der ursprünglichen Septuaginta als älteste Textform der Königsbücher. OBO 199. Fribourg: Academic Press, 2004.

Schmid, Konrad. “Jews and Samaritans in Joshua 24.” HeBAI 6/2 (2017): 148–60.

Schwartz, Joshua. “On Priests and Jericho in the Second Temple Period.” JQR 79 (1988): 23–48.

Schuller, Eileen. “4Q372: A Text About Joseph.” RevQ 14 (1989): 349-376.

Sipilä, Seppo. Between Literalness and Freedom. Translation technique in the Septuagint of .PFES 75 .כי and ו Joshua and Judges regarding the clause connections introduced by Helsinki: Finnish Exegetical Society, 1999.

Thornton, Timothy. “Anti-Samaritan Exegesis Reflected in Josephus’ Retelling of Deuteronomy, Joshua, and Judges.” JTS 47/1 (1996): 125–130.

Tov, Emanuel. “The LXX and the Deuteronomist.” Pages 398–427 in Hebrew Bible, Greek Bible and Qumran: Collected Essays. TSAJ 121. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008.

Tov, Emanuel. “The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada.” Pages 233–256 in Biblical Perspectives: Early Use of Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Esther G. Chazon. STDJ 28. Leiden: Brill, 1998.

Tov, Emanuel. “Literary Development of the Book of Joshua as Reflected in the MT, the LXX, and 4QJosha.” Pages 132–153 in Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, Qumran, Septuagint. Collected Essays, Vol. 3. VTSup 167. Leiden: Brill, 2015.

Tov, Emanuel. “Midrash-type Exegesis in the LXX of Joshua.” RB (1978): 50–61.

Tzoref, Shani. “Pesher and Periodization.” DSD 18 (2011): 129–154.