THE BOOK OF JOSHUA AND THE EXISTENCE OF A HEXATEUCH Hartmut N. Rösel University of Haifa The book of Joshua in its present form is seamlessly connected to the relate to ויהי אחרי מות משה Pentateuch: the first words of Josh 1:1 the death of Moses, which is reported just before in Deut 34 after being prepared for in Num 27. The end of the book of Joshua is also connected to the Pentateuch: in Josh 24:32 the motif of the burial of the Joseph’s bones is related to the last verse of Genesis (50:26) and to Ex 13:19, which reports that on their departure the Israelites took the bones with them. After Joshua, the continuation is in the similar: Judg In respect of this literary level scholars speak .ויהי אחרי מות יהושע 1:1 of a Hexateuch, and even of an Enneateuch. But our question is different. It is not whether the book of Joshua at its final stage belonged to a large literary work, starting with the creation and ending with the exile, but whether the book of Joshua at the time of its emergence was part of a larger literary work, possibly the Hexateuch. We leave aside the question of the so-called Deuteronomistic History, although the result of our examination has some implications for this issue. We mention only that we concur with scholars1 who believe that such a uniform literary creation starting with Deuteronomy or with 1 C. Westermann, Die Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. Gab es ein deu- teronomistisches Geschichtswerk? (ThB 87; Gütersloh, 1994); E. A. Knauf, “Does ‘Deuteronomistic Historiography’ (DtrH) Exist?”, in A. de Pury, T. Römer and J.-D. Macchi (eds.), Israel Constructs its History (JSOTS 306; Sheffield, 2000), pp. 388–398; R. G. Kratz, The Composition of the Narrative Books of the Old Testament(London – New York, 2005), p. 216; cf. E. Würthwein, Studien zum Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (BZAW 227; Berlin – New York, 1994), pp. 1–11; among earlier scholars: Y. Kaufmann, History of the Religion of Israel. Volume IV. From the Babylonian Captivity to the End of the Prophecy (New York – Jerusalem – Dallas, 1977), pp. 491–493. 560 h. n. rösel Joshua and ending with Kings never existed.2 The recent development of this view is thus significant, as it reinforces the relevance of the question of a Hexateuch’s existence.3 A scholar who wants to prove such existence must seek and analyze connections between the book of Numbers and the book of Joshua.4 For such an investigation it is important to note that the book of Joshua consists of two very different main parts: on one hand chap- ters 1–12 together with chapters 23–24 and the final verses of chapter 21, on the other hand chapters (13) 14–22. Should it turn out that the connections of these two parts to Numbers differ in nature, this would have grave consequences for our question of the possible existence of a Hexateuch. Josh 14 starts with a motif absent from the first half of the book: not Joshua alone is responsible for the distribution of the land, but a com- mission of three, in which Joshua appears only in second place indicat- ing that the priest Eleazar was chairman. This motif is characteristic for Josh 14–19 except for several clearly recognizable “Fremdkörper” (for- eign bodies);5 it constitutes a clear connection to the book of Numbers, where this commission is introduced. The reader is also informed of its early history; he or she reads of Eleazar alone, of Moses and Eleazar 2 H. N. Rösel, Von Josua bis Jojachin. Untersuchungen zu den deuteronomistischen Geschichtsbüchern des Alten Testaments (VTSup 75; Leiden – Boston – Köln, 1999). 3 If we ask whether it is possible that the Hexateuch existed, the other question of when Deuteronomy was added to this literary work becomes secondary: the fact that Deuteronomy was inserted is a matter of fact. The question is only whether this hap- pened at an early or at a late stage of the literary development; cf. on this issue E. Otto, Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch: Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Licht des Deuteronomiumrahmens (FAT 30; Tübingen, 2000), as well as the comments of R. G. Kratz, “Der vor- und nachpriester- liche Hexateuch”, in J. C. Gertz et al. (eds.), Abschied vom Jahwisten: Die Komposition des Hexateuch in der jüngsten Diskussion (BZAW 315; Berlin – New York, 2002), pp. 295–323. 4 Important works in this respect include the investigations of Auld, Cortese and Wüst; the latter two have not enjoyed the attention they merit: A. G. Auld, Joshua, Moses and the Land. Tetrateuch – Pentateuch – Hexateuch in a Generation since 1938 (Edinburgh, 1980); E. Cortese, Josua 13–21. Ein priesterschriftlicher Abschnitt im deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk (OBO 94; Friburg – Göttingen, 1990); M. Wüst, Untersuchungen zu den siedlungsgeographischen Texten des Alten Testaments I. Ostjordanland (Beihefte zum Tübinger Atlas des Vorderen Orients B 9; Wiesbaden, 1975). 5 Cortese, Josua, pp. 86–87. These are primarily the stories related to Caleb in chapters 14 and 15. But these “foreign bodies” cannot prove that the book of Joshua was composed as part of the Hexateuch; they are of deuteronomistic provenance; the respective traditions in Numbers are phrased differently..