THE HEBREW VORLAGE OF THE SEPTUAGINT OF THE BOOK OF JOSHUA BY Harry M. ORLINSKY New York It is readily apparent to anyone who bothers to compare the Septuagint version of the book of ] oshua with the preserved (so-called masoretic 1) Hebrew text that the two do not coincide; as put, e.g., by SWETE in his Introduction to the GM Testament in Creek (2nd ed., 1914; reissued by KTAV Publishing House, New York, 1968), p. 244, "besides innumerable smaller variations in this book ... there are in the last four chapters several important contexts in which G and M differ by defect or excess"-and he then proceeds to discuss briefly five passages: xix 47-48; xx 4-6; xxi 36-37, 42a-d; xxiv 30a-33b. Almost a century ago, in 1876, lOH. HOLLENBERG published in 20 pages a rather detailed examination of Der Charakter der alexan­ drinischer Übersetzung des Buches Josua und ihr textkritischer Werth (Moers). In a number of passages, HOLLENBERG found the Septuagint preferable to our Hebrew text; in many more passages he declared in favor of the Hebrew text. In no case would he admit that the LXX translator had deliberately refrained from reproducing his Hebrew text faithfully. But this relatively mild position of HOLLENBERG'S was vigorously challenged only ten years later, in 1886, by August 1) The term "the masoretic text" is meaningless; cf. H. M. ORLINSKY, The Masoretic Text: A Critical Evaluation (= Prolegomenon to KTAV Publishing House reissue of C. D. GINSBURG, Introduction to the Masoretic-Critical Edition 01 the Hebrew Bible [1966]), especially pp. XVIII-XXXVI (and the accompanying "Notes" on pp. XL-XLV): " ... There never was, and there never can be, a single fixed masoretic text of the Bible! It is utter futility and pursuit of amirage to go seeking to recover what never was ... In fine, any editor of the Hebrew text of the Bible who claims that his edition is based upon ... 'the Masorah' is employing an expression that is utt erly without meaning; he has, in reality, simply reproduced a form of the preserved, or traditional, or received Hebrew text (textus receptus), a form whose provenance-especially in the period preceding the invention of printing-is gene rally unknown to us." Cf. also pp. XIV-XV, XVIII-XIX of Norman H. SNAITH'S Prolegomenon to the KTAV reissue (1968) of C. D. GINSBURG'S editions of IBN ADONIJAH'S Introduction to the Rabbinie Bib!e and LEVITA'S Massoreth Ha-Massoreth. 188 H. M. ORLINSKY DILLMANN, in hi8 considerable commentary Die Bücher Numeri, Deuteronomium und Josua (which constituted the 2nd ed. of the work in KNOBEL'S series, Kurzgefasstes exegetisches Handbuch zum Alten Testament). DILLMANN'S treatment of this aspect of textual criticism was the same in Joshua as in other Books of the Bible, e.g., in the book of Job 1); that is to say, he did not really make a careful study of the LXX of the book of J oshua in its own right and in relation to the Hebrew text. What he did was, in effect, to start out with the assump­ tion that wherever the two texts differed, it was the Greek that was at fault; after that it was a relatively simple task to determine why the faulty(!) translator acted irresponsibly toward the Hebrew text 2). It is perhaps no great credit to our held of scholarship that it is the view of DILLMANN-who made no systematic study of the LXX, rather than HOLLENBERG, who did-that has generally prevailed to this day 3). Thus in 1895 (Critical Edition 01 the Hebrew Text ... with Notes) and 1899 CA New English Translation ... with Explanatory Notes), W. H. BENNETT, in Paul HAUPT'S series, Sacred Books 01 the GId Testament (Polychrome Bible), litde more than reiterated DILLMANN'S position-that is, he deleted individual words and phrases which were lacking in the LXX, but he saw no pattern as a whole; neither did he study the LXX per se 4). E. g. on ';lK'tl1~ ~l:l';l in i 2, he comment­ ed (Critical Edition, p. 23, at 1 (2): "Omit ... with G ... In this and other cases glosses &c. not found in Gare probably glosses later than MSS from which G was translated and, therefore, better treated as variations of the text ... "; and on v 4b-6a (p. 25 top) he wrote, 1) See ORLINSKY, "Studies in the Septuagint of the Book of Job," Chap. I: "An Analytical Syrveu of Previous Studies" (HUCA, 28 [1957], 61 f. and 72 (n. 66). 2) As DILLMANN put it (p. 690), "Die Güte des LXX-Textes ist, wie bei anderen, so auch bei diesem Buch in neuerer Zeit viel überschätzt worden ... Anderseits bleibt aber doch noch eine Menge Stellen, wo die LXX entschieden bessere Lesarten bieten, als der hebr. Text ..." 3) It is worth noting that R. H. PFEIFFER, in his Introduction to the Did Testament (1941), took positive cognizance of HOLLENBERG (p. 313): "The latest important additions to Joshua were made in the third century ... Some of the glosses (v 4-7; vi 3-5; = 4-6, etc. See J. HOLLENBERG, Der Charakter der a/exandr. Ober- setzung . ..) are lacking in the LXX and can hardly be earlier than the third century ..." 4) Thus the absence ofml"l~ "T~:W in i 1, of l"I~tI in i 2, and of numerous other such words and phrases is not dealt with. .