Info

10 tro ds Xaro sveteiXato Traofi; Xeyrov M| poate,

^n^s axovoarw ^yfteig v/urnv t|v ^rovfv,

avapoqoat, xai tots &vapofaete.

11 xai neQielftovoa | xiproto; tjg dia&tfxqg rov deov t|v noXiv

— evftewg &nqXfrev el; t|v naQe^poX|v xai sxoi^ffrn £Kel.

12 xai rfj y^EQa W devrepa &veatr|

Traofi; to nproi, xai ^Qav oi ieQet; t|v xiprotov tjg dia&tfxqg xuQiou,

13 xai oi enta ieQet; oi ^EQovte; ta;

ad^niyya; ta; enta

— ngoenoQEvovzo evavtiov —

nnswa i»pni :annns ^Vn nin' nna psi a'wan 'isV ^Vn yiVnni 9

nnswn 25i»pn jinsn 'ins ^Vn ^osani

:nnsi»a »ipni naxV sm nis asn-nxi 10 isnn xV aDVip-nx watfrrxVi ar is nai aD'sa xs'-xVi aD'Vx nax isnn ¡ansnni

Tsn-nx nini-?nx aon 11

nnx ass ^pn nman ixar

:nmaa ir-Vr s npaa »»in' aswi 12 :nin' jns-ns B'inan iswi

D's»i B'inan n»a»i 13 a'Va'n nnsiw n»a» nin' |ns 'isV

TiVn D'aVn

24 See Den Hertog, Studien, 97, for a refutation of Margolis's nponoQeusafrroaav.

25 The Qere 'spn adjusts the verbal tense of the Kethib (ispn, perfect) to the tense of the other verbs in the verse, which is active participle.

26 The shorter Greek text adopted by Margolis probably reflects the original Greek text, whereas the longer text adopted by Rahlfs, noQeuo|ievoi xai aaXm^ovte;, probably reflects later correction towards mt, thus Den Hertog, Studien, 69.

Kai ¿era ravta eiaenoQeuovto oi

Kai o Xoinög ojXog — örna-fre rqg KißroioO rfg dia&tfxyc; kuqlou-

Kai oi iepelg eaaXmaav Tatg adXmy|i,

14 Kai o Xoinög o%Xog anag neQieKUK^roae tt|v nöXiv syyv&ev Kai dn^X-frev naXiv e'ig tt|v naQE^ßoXfv. oütrog snoiei sni f|^£Qag nnswa i»pm Dn'isV yiVnni nin' pis 'ins ^osani

27\"?in :nnswa »ipm nnx aas 'i»n ara n'sn-nx iao'i 14 nrnan ia»'i n»» i»s na

15 Kai — tfl fpeQa tfl eßSo^n —dveat^aav öq#QOU,

16 Kai — tfl neQioSro tfl eßSö^n eaaXmaav oi ieQetg--,

Kai elnev 'InaoOg xolg violg IapayX KeKQa|ate-

naQeSroKev yap KUQiog ii^tv tt|V noXiv.

17 Kai eotai f| nöXig dva-fre^a, aurq Kai navta, oaa sativ sv autfl, Kupiro aaßaw§-nX^v Paaß tt|v nÖQvr|v nepinorfaaafte, aurqv Kai —

oaa sativ--sv trö oiKro avrqg.

's'a»n ai'a'n'1 15 nn»n niVsa d'üsd sa» ntn üD»aa n'sn-nx iao'i a'ass sa» n'sn-nx iaao xinn ara pn n'»'3»n D»D3 'n'i 16 nnswa D'inan i»pn

18 alia v^etg 9uXa|aa#e ayoöpa dno too dva-fre^atog, ^f note evdvwd-evreg v[elg asn-Vx s»in' nax'i is'nn

-Vai x'n n'aa nnx n»x-Vai a'axVan-nx nnxann 'a :iinV® n»x

Dinn-p n»& Dns-pni 18 28iannrrp

27 The Qere |lVn adjusts the aspect of the verb from active participle ("|Vn, thus Kethib) to infinitive absolute.

28 The reading la'nnn as attested by mt and Tg. Jon. makes less sense then the reading nann as presupposed by Lxx (^fnots Evö-u^n^svTsg u^etg), see already Hollenberg, Der Charakter, 12, and further Bieberstein, Josua-Jordan-Jericho, 260. The Pesh.

— avTol Xapr|Te ano ToC dvafre^aTo;

xai noirfotfte t|v naQe^|3oXr|v twv viwv IaQar|X—dvafre^a xai SxxQitynxE rfjuag^

XaXxo; q aiSnpo; ayiov sotai Tro xuQiro, el; frnaauQov xuqiou eioevex&yoerai.

20 xai eaaXmaav tat; aaXmy^iv oi iepelg •

wg ds rjxouaev o Xao; t|v ^rovr|v twv aaXniyywv,

— f|XaXa|ev nag o Xao; a^a dXaXay^ro ^eyaXro xal io%vQw.

xai eneaev anav to Tetxo; xvxlw, xai dvepn nag o Xao; el; t|v noXiv

21 xai dvefre^aTioev avrqv Iqoovg xal oaa qv sv Tfl noXei, dno dvSQo; xai ero; yuvaixo;, dno veaviaxou xai ero; nQeapiiTou, xai ero; ^oaxou29 xai mo^uyiou, sv aTo^aTi Qo^aia;.

22 xai Tot; Suaiv veaviaxoi;

Tot; xaTaaxoneiiaaaiv--

elnev 'InaoC;

ElaeXfraTe el; t|v olxiav Tfl;

yuvaixo;--, xai s|ayayeTe avtqv exetfrev xai — oaa eoriv auTfl.

:imx Dmssi Vnai nwm 'Vai ann ^oa Vai 19

-si»n Vip-rx asn sa»D ^i nVm nsi-r asn wti n^rnr nainn Vsri mi »'x n-'sn asn Vsr

:Tsn-rx naVr -VD-rx iannr 21

ai»ixn a'i»Vi 22 pxn-rx a^Vnan s»in -ax niitn n»xn-r^a ixa

-VD-rxi n»xn-rx a»a ix^sini nV--»x :nV arsa»i -»xd

"and do not hide anything") offers an interpretative rendering based on the Achan narrative (Josh 7:11, 19), see also the plus in Josh 7:1

29 Margolis, The Book of Joshua in Greek, 96, thought that the minus xai ngo^aTou in main witnesses of Lxx-Joshua (B, 129, 58, 407, VL) "cannot be charged to the translator." As Den Hertog, Studien, 69, points out, such a statement requires substantiation, which Margolis did not offer. The shorter text as adopted by Rahlfs is to be seen as the original Greek text.

23 Kai eioflXfrov 01 Siio veavioKoi

01 KaTaoKonevoavTeg rfv nohv eig ryv oixiav rtfg yvvaixög Kai glnYäyoaav Paaß rfv nopvyv Kai Tov nateQa auTflg Kai t|v ^^Tepa auTflg

Kai tovg aSeX^oüg auTflg--

Kai30 t|v ouyyeveiav auTflg — xal navta, w ~ ' ~ 31

ooa yv avrr],31

Kai KaTeoTr|oav aut^v Tflg naQe^ßoXflgIoQa^X.

24 Kai f| nöXig evenp^o&n E^nvpio^w ovv näoiv totg sv auTfl-

Kai--xa^Koü Kai — oiSfQou eSroKav eig #noauQov — kuqiou eioevexdtfvai.

25 Kai Paaß t|v noQv^v Kai navta tov oIkov tov natQixov auTflg--

sQojyQnoev 'I^ooOg, Kai KairöKr|oev sv — Trö IoQar|X erog Tflg of^eQov f^EQag,

Siöti eKQU^ev tovg xaTaoxonevoavTag, oüg aneoteiXev Tnooüg KataoKoneOoaitrv IeQi/ro.

ansm isaii 23

aiVnan ani-rs wsii nas-rsi nias-rsi

-VD-rsi nrns-rsi nV-i»s isisin nirins»a-VD rsi

:Vsi»i ninaV fina awn

na-i»s antm ^oan pn Vmm nwnm 'Vsi ¡nw-rra nsis um ria-rsi nntn ani-rsi 25 -VD-rsi nias nV-i»s »»in ninn Vsi» aipa a»ri ntn aiin aiDsVan-rs nsiann id

30 The plus ndoav before t|v ouyysveiav adopted by Rahlfs is absent from main witnesses of Lxx-Joshua (B, 129, 44, 610, 407) and reflects secondary revision towards mt, thus Margolis, The Book of Joshua in Greek, 97, and Den Hertog, Studien, 69.

31 The sequence of the clauses Kai Trv ouyysveiav autflg and Kai ndvta, ooa autfl in this order is attested by the major witnesses of Lxx-Joshua. The transposition as found in other witnesses and adopted by Rahlfs, corresponds to mt and reflects secondary revision, see Den Hertog, Studien, 97.

3. Redaction History of Joshua 6:2-25

The history of literary formation and redaction of Joshua 6 has remained a puzzle for many modern scholars. It has long been recognized that the anachronistic reference to the temple treasury in verses 19 and 24b most likely reflects later interpolation.32 It is also commonplace to assign verses 20a and 20b to two different hands since it is said twice that the people made a great noise (nVm nsinn asn wti ... asn sti). On the basis of this doublet Julius Wellhausen concluded that the chapter was compiled of two different narrative strands: one strand allowed for a single day of circumambulation with a single person blowing a single horn, the other with the well-known structure of seven days and seven trumpets.33 Wellhausen did not offer a complete literary-critical analysis of the chapter, nor did other pioneers in the field of literary criticism, such as Abraham Kuenen.34

Over the last decades several attempts have been made to fill in this gap, but the results of these proposals are widely diverging and have found little approval among scholars. Thus, Eckart Otto, Jacques Briend, Ludger Schwienhorst, and Klaus Bieberstein all developed their own reconstruction of the literary history of the chapter.35 The one point these reconstructions have in common is that they tend to reduce the narrative to a very small textual core narrative, while on the other hand they postulate a large number of subsequent redactions. Bieberstein, for example, discerns no less than seven literary strata, whereas Schwien-

32 See already J.W. Colenso, The Later Legislation of the Pentateuch (vol. 6 of The Pentateuch and Book of Joshua Critically Examined; London 1871), 114-115. See further Bieberstein, Josua-Jordan-Jericho, 427-430; J. Briend, "Le trésor de YHWH en Jos 6,19.24b," Transeu 20 (2000) 101-106.

33 J. Wellhausen, Die Composition des Hexateuchs und der historischen Bücher des Alten Testaments (2d ed.; Berlin 1889), 123-125.

34 A. Kuenen, De Thora en de historische boeken des Ouden Verbonds (vol. 1 of Histo-risch-critisch onderzoek naar het ontstaan en de verzameling van de boeken des Ouden Verbonds. Tweede, geheel omgewerkte uitgave; Leiden 1887), 156. Scholars of that time that did try to draw a complete literary-critical sketch of the chapter mainly followed Wellhausen and remained somewhat uncertain about their own results, see, e.g. E. Albers, Die Quellenberichte in Josua I-XII: Beitrag zur Quellenkritik des Hexateuchs (Bonn 1891), 86-100; Steuernagel, Deuteronomium und Josua, 170-175; Holzinger, Das Buch Josua,

0 0

Post a comment