SOME REMARKS ON THE LATEST NOMISTIC EDITING OF MT JOSHUA Paper given at the OT/HB seminar in Oriel College (Oxford) 17.10.20161 Ville Mäkipelto, M.Th., Doctoral student University of Helsinki, Project: Changes in Sacred Texts and Traditions (www.cstt.fi) [email protected], Viljamitz (Twitter, Instagram) In the Second Temple Period, the text of the book of Joshua was circulating in various different forms. We are usually best acquainted with the Masoretic text (MT), which is already attested in the few Qumran scrolls that have been found containing the book of Joshua. However, the evidence from the Dead Sea Scrolls also attests to readings found in the Septuagint (LXX), confirming the assumption that the oldest text form of the LXX – the so-called OG text – was translated from a differing Hebrew text tradition. In addition, there are several unique readings in the scrolls, as well as some so-called rewritten versions of Joshua. Lastly, one should also mention the Samaritan versions of the book of Joshua whose value as a testament to the textual plurality in the Second Temple Period is yet either unexamined or highly debated. The focus of my paper today is on the differences between the MT and the LXX of Joshua. I argue that the LXX can be used as a witness to an earlier developmental stage in the textual history of the book of Joshua. In this paper, I will specifically focus on one sporadic tendency found in the MT compared to the LXX. Namely, the MT witnesses to such late nomistic editing that is not yet present in the LXX. Through the comparison of the MT and the LXX we, therefore, uncover documented evidence of an editorial phenomenon. Namely, it seems that Second Temple Jewish scribes sought to bring texts closer to the Torah with minor tweaks here and there. The book of Deuteronomy seems to have been especially important in this process.2 This paper is organized in three parts. First, I will give a short introduction to the LXX version of Joshua. Second, I will introduce and analyze variants in the circumcision account in Josh 5:4–6 as an example of nomistic editing. Third, I will give some concluding remarks. You can follow the structure of the paper and the main points from your handouts. In the handouts, I also give you the text of Josh 5:2–9 and list some relevant secondary sources. 1. A Very Short Introduction to LXX Joshua Three general remarks on LXX Joshua should be made. First, LXX Joshua is approximately 5% shorter than the MT. There are several words, sentences, and verses here and there in the MT which do not have a counterpart in the LXX. This figure, however, does not tell the whole truth. There are also textual elements in the LXX which do not have a counterpart in the MT. The differences between these versions are so thorough that it is safe to speak about two different editions of the same book. The priority of either the MT or the LXX is still a disputed issue. It seems to me that a slight majority of Joshua scholars argue for the general priority of the LXX, or rather the assumed Hebrew source text that the LXX was translated from. This position was first introduced by Samuel Holmes in the beginning of the 20th Century and refined by, for example, Harry Orlinsky. Nowadays, the priority of the LXX is favored by scholars such as A. Graeme Auld, Lea Mazor, Emanuel Tov, and Kristin De Troyer. These scholars argue that 1 This paper is still a work in progress. All feedback and criticism are warmly welcomed. 2 On the importance of Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period see Sidnie White Crawford, “Reading Deuteronomy in the Second Temple Period,” in K. D. Troyer & A. Lange, eds., Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (Leiden: Brill, 2005), 127–140. Published online at: http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1021&context=classicsfacpub. the differences in the MT are a result of proto-MT editing that took place at the end of the Second Temple Period. LXX was translated from a Hebrew source text that had not yet gone through this late editing.3 On a general level, my analysis of Josh 24 has led me to agree with these scholars. However, the situation is not that clear cut. Also the LXX contains secondary readings which should sometimes be attributed to a Hebrew revisor and, in smaller cases, to the LXX translator. Therefore, every text needs to be considered by its own merits. Second, there is yet no Göttingen critical edition of the earliest Old Greek text, which is why I am presenting in the right column the text of Rahlfs. It is not unproblematic to do so because there are probably several readings that might be later Greek revisional elements. Overall, concerning LXX Joshua scholars generally agree that the text of Codex Vaticanus as given in a slightly revised form in Rahlfs is a good approximation of the OG. There are no strong Hebraising revisions as is the case with Judges and Samuel-Kings. However, recently there has been several developments that challenge this consensus and it is important that every scholar working with the LXX Joshua carefully analyzes all of the Greek manuscript evidence. In this paper, I will not delve into the Greek variants and revisions in detail. I will ask you to take my word that the Greek variants do not affect the bulk of the different version of events in verses 5:4–6 which we will soon focus on. There, the different version definitely goes back to the Old Greek text. Third, the translation style of LXX Joshua needs to be taken into account when comparing it with the MT. Several textual scholars agree that the LXX version of Joshua is generally faithful to the Hebrew text that it 4 is translating. The translator was not mechanic, to be sure: in the translation of chapter 5, we see many surprising translation equivalents and decisions reflecting contextualizing concerns and a wish to produce 5 good Koine Greek language. However, in the light of several studies, the overall faithfulness of the translator to the Hebrew text, speaks against arguing that the different version preserved in verses 4–6 could be attributed to the translator. It is simply not plausible that the translator would have introduced radical editorial changes in relation to his Vorlage. Therefore, I assume that the major differences here reflect a different Hebrew Vorlage. 2. Joshua 5 as an Example of Nomistic Rewriting Joshua 5 is a turning point in the narrative of the book of Joshua. The people of Israel have succesfully crossed the Jordan river and entered the promised land at Gilgal. They are faced with several fights against the indigenous people of the promised land. Before the legendary conquests of Jericho, Ai, and fights against the coalitions of kings can be narrated, ritual acts of devotion to YHWH have to be reported in chapter 5. When one has a closer look at the textual witnesses of chapter 5, it becomes apparent that this turning point in the book of Joshua has attracted lots of editing. In this paper, I will concentrate on the documented editing, witnessed by the differing accounts preserved in the MT and the LXX, related to the circumcision 3 Scholars who argue for the general priority of the MT include Michaël N. van der Meer and Klaus Bieberstein. Many scholars remain undecided or argue that the question of priority cannot be decided. 4 See, for example, the remarks of L. Greenspoon, Textual Studies in the Book of Joshua (HSM 28, Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1983), 379; L. Mazor, “The Septuagint Translation of the book of Joshua,” in BIOSCS 27 (1994): 29–38; E. Tov, “Literary Development“, 66– 67; and K. De Troyer, “Reconstructing the Older Hebrew Text of the Book of Joshua: An Analysis of Joshua 10,” in Textus 26 (2013): 26–27. For studies on the translation technique of LXX Joshua, see C. G. den Hertog, Studien zur griechischen Übersetzung des Buches Josua (Gießen: Justus-Liebig-Universität Dissertation, 1996) and S. Sipilä, Between Literalness and Freedom: Translation .(PFES 75; Helsinki, 1999) כי and ו Technique in the Septuagint of Joshua and Judges Regarding the Claus Connections introduced by in Josh 5:4. See the discussion by Van der Meer, Formation and מָל For example, περιεκάθαρεν is an interpretive translation of 5 Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the oldest Textual Winesses (Leiden: Brill, 2004): 334–416. The freedom in producing contextualized Greek does not, however, mean that the rewriting reflected in Josh 5:2–12 could also be attributed to the translator as Van der Meer argues. account in 5:2–9. Before this, however, I would like to highlight that this is not the only documented case of a editing of chapter 5. Most notably, 4QJosh from Qumran preserves a version of Josh 5 in which the reading of the law taken from Josh 8 is secondarily reported before the circumcision account. In this way, the commandments in Deut 27 are actualized before the conquests take place. This, in my view, reflects a broader late editorial concern of showing that the Israelites were devoted to YHWH before they went to take possession of the promised land. This editorial concern is also at play in the documented editing of the circumcision account in the MT, which we will now turn to.