Light on the Joshua Books from the Dead Sea Scrolls

III. THE BOOKS OF JUDGES AND JOSHUA 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 143 11/10/11 07:07 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 144 11/10/11 07:07 LIGHT ON THE JOSHUA BOOKS FROM THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS As you may know, the meeting of the Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense to be held in Leuven this July will be dedicated to the ‘Book of Joshua and the Land of Israel’, with E. Noort as the President. This means that all the burning issues of biblical scholarship on the book, such as the composition of the book, its redaction, its independence, its relationship to Numbers, to the forming of the Pentateuch, the Hexateuch, and the Enneateuch, and to the understanding of the Deuteronomistic work, will be thoroughly reviewed by the best specialists. At this Colloquium Biblicum Lovaniense, E. Tov will deal with the Literary Developments of the Book of Joshua in the Masoretic Text, the LXX and the Qumran Manuscripts. In doing so he will elucidate, in his usual magisterial way, all the light the Dead Sea Scrolls can throw unto the book of Joshua. Furthermore, as there are here two editors of the Qumran manuscripts of the ‘biblical’ book of Joshua present (E. Ulrich and Tov), it would be highly pretentious on my part to attempt to say anything new about these manuscripts. Therefore, I have decided to deal, not with the Book of Joshua, but with the Books of Joshua in the plural. By this, I will not only consider the plurality of editions or textual forms of the ‘biblical’ book, but I will also include the reworkings or rewritings of the book of Joshua which we find among the Scrolls. What I intend to do in this short presentation is simply to explicate some conclusions that the evidence from the Scrolls seem to impose upon us regarding the relationship of this growing corpus of writings within the Qumran manuscripts, and how this evidence could help us to understand the editing process of these compositions. Before doing so, however, I need to briefly present the evidence for such a claim1. I Concerning the evidence dealing with the ‘biblical’ manuscripts of Joshua, I can be very short2. Before the discoveries of Qumran, the book 1. This presentation is based on the talk given at the University of Vienna, when the title of Doctor Honoris Causa was conferred to E. Tov. 2. See the integrative article by E. TOV, Joshua, Book of, in L.H. SCHIFFMAN – J.C. VANDERKAM (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls, New York, Oxford University Press, 2000, 431-434. 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 145 11/10/11 07:07 146 F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ of Joshua was known in two forms: one represented by the Masoretic Text and the other by the Septuagint3. These two forms are so different that it has been generally accepted that, first, they represent two different editions of the book, each one reflecting a different stage in its development4, and, second, that the textual form represented by the Greek translation was the oldest of the two, with its Hebrew Vorlage representing a more original form of the text than the one transmitted in Hebrew5. At Qumran, only two manuscripts of the biblical book have been found, both in Cave 4: 4Q47 (4QJosha)6, a formal Hasmonaean manuscript published by Ulrich, and 4Q48 (4QJoshb)7, a late Hasmonaean (or early Herodian) manuscript published by Tov, both in DJD14. The manuscript published by Tov (4QJoshb) has only preserved fractions of Josh 2,1112; 3,15–4,3 and 17,1-5.11-15, which according to the calculations of M. van der Meer amounts only to some 0,13% of the biblical book8. 4QJoshb generally agrees with the text known in the Masoretic tradition, with very few resemblances to the Septuagint. An exception to this distinction can be found in Josh 3,15 where the text has been corrected with an addition between the lines, thus agreeing with the Septuagint rather than MT. If we left this problematic frag. 3, along with the few other nonaligned readings, out of consideration, I think the careful conclusion of Tov that “The text 4QJoshb agrees usually with MT against LXX”9 and the stronger formulation of Van der Meer that “The text of this manuscript corresponds closely to MT-Josh, also in passages where MT differs from LXX”10 can be endorsed without much problem. What results from this is that this manuscript cannot give much light to the Joshua book apart from the evidence that this form of the text was already known at the time when the manuscript was copied. 3. For a complete survey of the research on the book of Joshua, see E. NOORT, Das Buch Josua: Forschungsgeschichte und Problemfelder (EdF, 292), Darmstadt, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1998. 4. See M.N. VAN DER MEER, Formation and Reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses (SVT, 102), Leiden, Brill, 2004. 5. Though not every scholar agrees with this, M. van der Meer, for example, concludes that the literary-critical analysis shows that the LXX translator is reworking the irregularities and redundancies of MT, which is the one which preserves the oldest text. 6. E. ULRICH, 4Q47, 4QJosha, in E. ULRICH, et al., Qumran Cave 4. IX: Deuteronomy, Joshua, Judges, Kings (DJD, 14), Oxford, Clarendon, 1995, 143-152, pl. XXXIIX-XXXIV. 7. E. TOV, 4Q48, 4QJoshb, in ULRICH, et al., Qumran Cave 4 (n. 6), pp. 153-160, pl. XXXV. 8. VAN DER MEER, Formation and Reformulation (n. 4), p. 94. 9. TOV, 4Q48, 4QJoshb (n. 7), p. 154. 10. VAN DER MEER, Formation and Reformulation (n. 4), p. 98. 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 146 11/10/11 07:07 LIGHT ON THE JOSHUA BOOKS FROM THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS 147 On the contrary, the better preserved manuscript published by Ulrich, 4QJosha, has added much to the discussion at hand. Van der Meer has calculated that it resembles 0,25% of the biblical book, particularly Josh 8,34-35; 5,2-7; 6,5-10; 8,3-14.18 and 10,2-5.8-11, and not only has it proven the two assumptions of critical scholarship (the existence of different editions, and the priority of the Septuagint), but has also considerably changed the understanding of the formation process of the biblical book. In fact, 4QJosha represents (according to the majority view) yet a third edition or recension of the book apart from the Masoretic Text and the Septuagint, and is the oldest, shortest and more original of the three that we now possess. In the words of its editor: 4QJosha, as interpreted below, is significant in that it preserves a sequence of the narrative that is at variance with, and probably prior to, that found in the received text of Joshua. If correctly assessed, this manuscript narrates that the first altar built by Joshua in the newly-entered land was built at Gilgal immediately after the crossing of the Jordan (after Joshua 4), not later on Mt. Ebal (cf. 8:30-35 MT and 9:3-8 LXX)11. The key element is the first altar’s building and placement immediately after crossing the Jordan at Gilgal and the entry into the land that is spoken of in chapter 4, and not, as is the case in the Masoretic Text and in the Septuagint, after several battles contained in chapters 8 and 9, respectively12. As Ulrich indicates, the location of the building of the altar in MT and LXX is puzzling: the altar’s construction is delayed, there is a perplexing military expedition to build the altar in unprotected territory in order to abandon it immediately afterwards, and Mount Ebal is never again linked with the altar but exclusively with the place of the curse. In contrast, the narrative of 4QJosha is simple and directly follows the command of Deuteronomy 27,2-313. For Tov, the position of the pericope in 11. ULRICH, 4Q47, 4QJosha (n. 6), p. 143. 12. Among the different studies of this section of Joshua, see A. ROFÉ, The Editing of the Book of Joshua in the Light of 4QJosha, in G.J. BROOKE – F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ (eds.), New Qumran Texts and Studies (STDJ, 15), Leiden, Brill, 1994, 73-80; H.-J FABRY, Der Altarbau der Samaritaner: Ein Produkt der Text- und Literargeschichte?, in U. DAHMEN – A. LANGE – H. LICHTENBERGER (eds.), Die Textfunde vom Toten Meer und der Text der Hebräischen Bibel, Neukirchen-Vluyn, Neukirchener Verlag, 2000, 35-52; K. DE TROYER, Building the Altar and Reading the Law: The Journeys of Joshua 8:30-35, in K. DE TROYER – A. LANGE (eds.), Reading the Present in the Qumran Library: The Perception of the Contemporary by Means of Scriptural Interpretations (SBL Symposium Series, 30), Atlanta, GA, SBL, 2005, 141-162. 13. ULRICH, 4Q47, 4QJosha (n. 6), pp. 145-146. See also the preliminary publication of the fragment by E. ULRICH, 4QJosha and Joshua’s First Altar in the Promised Land, in 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 147 11/10/11 07:07 148 F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ and LXX is clearly secondary, while its position in 4QJosha would be original: MT But, while in the tradition behind the Masoretic Text and Septuagint, this pericope is secondary, its position in Joshuaa seems to be original. The version of Joshuaa is therefore hailed by Ulrich and Rofé as presenting an earlier and more logical version of Joshua than the Masoretic Text and Septuagint, since it presents the Israelites as building an altar as soon as they had safely traversed the Jordan. The secondary nature of 8.30-35 in its present context in the Masoretic Text is evident, as this section is very loosely connected with the context. This pertains also to the Septuagint in which it occurs at a slightly different place (9.2)14. That 4QJosha preserves remains of the oldest, shortest and the more original edition of the book of Joshua is an important conclusion, and is confirmed by the study of the versions of Joshua in the Old Latin and Antiochean Greek Texts of Joshua by J. Trebolle Barrera, who summarizes his analysis of Joshua 11,19 with these words: The OG in Joshua reflects, quite closely, a Hebrew original, the variants of which constitute an alternative textual form to the MT. As 4QJudga in Judges, 4QJosha represents a textual tradition that differs both from the MT and the LXX, showing in this way the plurality of textual forms or editions of Joshua15. I think that in the present state of research, the conclusion that 4QJosha has preserved the oldest and more original edition of the book can be considered to be the accepted majority opinion. Of the three scholars quoted (and they are simply a selection of the many who have dealt with the question16), Trebolle is not committed, seeing the differences simply as a sign of the “plurality of textual forms”. Ulrich’s formulation is, as usual, very careful: that 4QJosha is “probably prior”. Tov emphasizes the secondary nature of the position of the passage in MT and in LXX, and asserts that its position in 4QJosha “seems to be original”. In spite of these careful formulations, I think all three share the majority opinion that 4QJosha has preserved the oldest and most original edition of the BROOKE – GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ (eds.), New Qumran Texts and Studies (n. 12), 89-104. But see the detailed analysis of VAN DER MEER, Formation and Reformulation (n. 4), pp. 417522. 14. TOV, Joshua, Book of (n. 2), p. 432. 15. J. TREBOLLE BARRERA, The Text-Critical Value of the Old Latin and Antiochean Greek Texts in the Books of Judges and Joshua, in F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ – M. VERVENNE (eds.), Interpreting Translation: Studies in the LXX and Ezekiel in Honour of Johan Lust (BETL, 192), Leuven, Peeters, 2005, 401-413, esp. pp. 410-411. 16. For a full bibliography, see NOORT, Das Buch Josua (n. 3),and VAN DER MEER, Formation and Reformulation (n. 4). 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 148 11/10/11 07:07 LIGHT ON THE JOSHUA BOOKS FROM THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS 149 book. However, there is no unanimous agreement on this majority opinion. There are also several minority opinions concerning the originality and the priority of one or another edition of the Joshua book which are defended by other scholars (and not only by the more “conservatives”). K. De Troyer17, for example, defends the priority of the Old Greek, whereas Van der Meer clearly asserts the priority of MT. He concludes his study of 4QJosha in this way: The text of 4QJosha, the main focus of the present chapter, does not attest to a Hebrew text of our passage on which verses 11b-13 and 14b-17 had not (yet) been written. Rather, a careful examination of the text preserved in the scattered fragments and a thorough reconstruction of the complete columns of which these tiny fragments once formed part, reveal that the text of 4QJosha follows the MT closely, be it with some minor variations. In passages where LXX and MT differ considerably, such as Josh. 5:2-8, 6:6-7, 4QJosha supports MT. All problems regarding our passage pertain to a single fragment (15) that from the point of view of a physical reconstruction of the text could not have belonged to column V of 4QJosha18. Van der Meer not only underlines the many questions which remain unanswered if 4QJosha is considered as the more original of the three editions of the book19, but gives a plausible explanation of the position of the passage in question as contained in MT (due to work of the DtrHredactor of the book of Joshua, who inserted it between Josh 8 and 9 “to mark the point that in his view formed the primeval sin in Israel’s history: the alliance with a foreign nation”), as well as in 4QJosha and in LXX20. It is not my intention here to solve this problem or to offer a new explanation for it. For me it is enough to observe that 4QJosha and 4QJoshb have offered us conclusive proof of the reworking of a previously extant Hebrew text of Joshua. Even Van der Meer agrees with this: “If one is prepared to consider the expansions in the version of the Pentateuch as part of a comprehensive re-edition of the Pentateuch, one might call 4QJosha a re-edition of the book of Joshua, and part of this comprehensive reworking of the biblical text”21. The fact that 4QJosha and 4QJoshb, the only two manuscripts of the book of Joshua from Qumran, are so 17. K. DE TROYER, Did Joshua Have a Crystal Ball? The Old Greek and the MT of Joshua 10:15,17 and 43, in S.M. PAUL, et al. (eds.), Emanuel: Studies in Hebrew Bible, Septuagint, and Dead Sea Scrolls in Honour of Emanuel Tov (SVT, 94), Leiden, Brill, 2003, 571-589, and DE TROYER, Building the Altar and Reading the Law (n. 12). 18. VAN DER MEER, Formation and Reformation (n. 4), p. 477. 19. Ibid., pp. 496-498 20. Ibid., p. 520. 21. Ibid., p. 522. 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 149 11/10/11 07:07 150 F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ completely different from one another, in my opinion, is an equally important conclusion because it is independent of the majority and minority opinions, and because it is a conclusion which also sheds light on the formation of the book, its edition process, and its gradually acquired authoritative status. We can conclude that the formation of the book of Joshua was still occurring in the second and first centuries BCE, because the two Hebrew manuscripts attest to two clearly different forms or editions of the book. Furthermore, since other Joshua compositions found at Qumran attest to a familiarity (in Hebrew) with readings which are peculiar or exclusive to LXX (as we will see later), we can speak not only of two, but of three different forms or editions of the book during this late period. The “plurality of textual forms of editions of the book” of which Trebolle speaks seem to me to be duly proven. With respect to the edition process of the book, we know now that the process was much longer than we had previously suspected: the three editions must have coexisted for over three centuries since the arguably oldest edition of the book, the one represented by 4QJosha (dated paleographically “in the second half of the second century or the first half of the first century BCE”22), was known by Flavius Josephus. According to the Jewish historian (Jewish Antiquities 5.16-20), Joshua built an altar after crossing the Jordan and made a sacrifice upon it (as in 4QJosha), although later in the narrative he also recounts the building of the altar at Sechem after having installed the tabernacle at Siloh (J.A. 5.68-69). With respect to the gradually acquired authoritative status of the book of Joshua, we can note the friendly coexistence of two of the editions in the same collection represented by the two manuscripts 4QJosha and 4QJoshb (4QJoshb can be considered a representative of the edition we know from MT). Thus, we can conclude that at least two editions of Joshua were known and used within the same collection. On the other hand, taking into account the fact emphasized by Ulrich23 that what was considered as authoritative was the book itself and not the concrete textual form of the book as well as the random, occasional preservation hazards, it will be difficult to conclude from only two copies that the book of Joshua had great authoritative status within the collection. In order to ascertain this authoritative status, we need to turn to the new compositions which further developed the old traditions contained in the book of 22. ULRICH, 4Q47, 4QJosha (n. 6), p. 143. 23. See the articles collected in E. ULRICH, The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Origins of the Bible (SDSSRL), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 1999. 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 150 11/10/11 07:07 LIGHT ON THE JOSHUA BOOKS FROM THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS 151 Joshua. These new compositions have been labelled ‘non-biblical’, ‘parabiblical’, ‘apocryphal’ and the like, but they also contribute greatly to our understanding of the formation of the book, its edition process, and particularly to understanding its gradually acquired authoritative status. II The presentation of the evidence concerning the ‘non-biblical’ manuscripts related to the book of Joshua is less straightforward than that of the ‘biblical’ manuscripts due to their fragmentary character, the uncertainty of their assignment to the same composition, their different provenance, and the different ways in which they have been interpreted24. In a similar way, however, this presentation can also be kept reasonably short. No less than six different manuscripts (five found at Qumran and one at Masada) are considered to represent a single apocryphal composition based on, and possibly a rewriting of, the book of Joshua, though with differing degrees of certainty25. These manuscripts are: two copies of 4QApocryphon of Joshua published by C. Newsom (4Q378 and 4Q379)26, 4Q522 published by E. Puech as 4QProphecy of Joshua27, 5Q9 published 24. See the detailed article of Tov which brings order unto the materials: E. TOV, The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada, in M.E. STONE – E. CHAZON (eds.), Biblical Perspectives: Early Use and Interpretation of the Bible in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (STDJ, 28), Leiden – Boston, MA, Brill, 1998, 233-256. See also VAN DER MEER, Formation and Reformation (n. 4), pp. 105-114. 25. On the phenomenon of ‘rewriting’, see the sensible remarks of M. BERNSTEIN, The Contribution of the Qumran Discoveries to the History of Early Biblical Interpretation, in H. NAJMAN – J.H. NEWMAN (eds.), The Idea of Biblical Interpretation. Essays in Honor of James L. Kugel (SJSJ, 83), Leiden, Brill, 2004, 215-238. See also M. SEGAL, Between Bible and Rewritten Bible, in M. HENZE (ed.), Biblical Interpretation at Qumran (SDSSRL), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2005, 20-28, and, particularly, G.J. BROOKE, The Rewriting Law, Prophets and Psalms: Issues for Understanding the Text of the Bible, in E.D. HERBERT – E. TOV (eds.), The Bible as Book: The Hebrew Bible and the Judaean Desert Discoveries, London, The British Library, 2000, 31-40. For a summary of the main positions on the debate on the category of ‘rewritten Bible’, see M. BERNSTEIN, ‘Rewritten Bible’: A Category Which Has Outlived Its Usefulness?, in Textus 22 (2005) 169-196, and A. KLOSTERGAARD PETERSEN, Rewritten Bible as a Borderline Phenomenon: Genre, Textual Strategy, or Canonical Anachronism?, in A. HILHORST, et al. (eds.), Flores Florentino: Dead Sea Scrolls and Other Early Jewish Studies in Honour of Florentino García Martínez (SJSJ, 122), Leiden, Brill, 2007, 285-306. 26. C. NEWSOM, 4Q378-379, 4QApocryphon of Joshuaa-b, in G. BROOKE, et al., Qumran Cave 4. XVII: Parabiblical Texts. Part 3 (DJD, 22), Oxford, Clarendon, 1996, 237-288, pl. XVII-XXIV. 27. E. PUECH, 4Q522, 4QProphétie de Josué (4QapocrJosuéc ?), in E. PUECH, Qumrângrotte 4. XVIII: Textes hébreux (4Q521-4Q528, 4Q576-4Q579) (DJD, 25), Oxford, Clarendon, 1998, 39-74, pl. IV-V. 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 151 11/10/11 07:07 152 F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ by J.T. Milik as ‘composition with toponyms’28, and two other more fragmentary and uncertain compositions, 4QpaleoParaJosh published by Ulrich29, and MasParaJosh published by S. Talmon30. We shall not deal here with the Masada and the Palaeo-Hebrew manuscripts as the evidence preserved in them is so little that no conclusions can be extracted from them, but will concentrate, instead, on the other four manuscripts. 4Q378 and 4Q379 have been described by its editor, C. Newsom, as follows: The text may represent an example of the literary activity known as the ‘rewritten Bible’. It can be postulated that it covered roughly the same narrative scope as the canonical book of Joshua. If so, the material near the beginning of the work is preserved in 4Q378. That manuscript, however, suggests that the Apocryphon of Joshua had a different beginning than does the canonical book, since 4Q378 14 includes a description of the Israelites’ mourning for Moses after his death. This description was apparently followed by an account of Joshua’s accession to leadership (4Q378 3-4, paralleling Joshua 1) and a long speech by Joshua to the people, modeled after Moses’ speech in Deuteronomy, especially chaps. 1-3 and 28-31. The other manuscript, 4Q379, contains material from a slightly later part of the composition, since it preserves references to crossing the Jordan (parallel to Joshua 3) and the curse on the rebuilder of Jericho from Josh 6:26. The number of fragments that contain admonitory speeches, prayers, and curses suggests that the author of the composition may have been more interested in these rhetorical forms of speech than in the narration of event per se31. 4Q522 has been described by its editor, E. Puech, as a midrash on the historical books (Joshua, Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel, 1 Kings and 1 Chronicles): “pouvant être parallèle ou faire suite au midrash de l’Apocryphon de Josué”32. The composition apparently deals with the conquest of the land by the different tribes of Israel, among which Simeon, Dan, Issachar and Asher are named, with Jerusalem (called “the rock of Zion”) and with the construction of the Temple. The first column of the best preserved 28. J.T. MILIK, 5Q9, 5QOuvrage avec toponimes, in M. BAILLET – J.T. MILIK – R. DE VAUX, Les ‘Petites grottes’ de Qumrân (DJD, 3), Oxford, Clarendon, 1962, 179-180, pl. XXXVIII. 29. E. ULRICH, 4Q123, 4QpaleoParaJoshua, in P. SKEHAN – E. ULRICH – J.E. SANDERSON, Qumran Cave 4. IV: Paleo-Hebrew and Greek Biblical Manuscripts (DJD, 9), Oxford, Clarendon, 1992, 201-203, pl. XLVI. 30. S. TALMON, Joshua Apocryphon (MasapocrJosh), in Masada VI. Yigael Yadin Excavations 1963-1965: Final Reports, Jerusalem, Israel Exploration Society, 1999, 105116. 31. NEWSON, 4Q378-379, 4QApocryphon of Joshuaa-b (n. 26), pp. 237-238. 32. PUECH, 4Q522, 4QProphétie de Josué (4QapocrJosuéc?) (n. 27), p. 71. 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 152 11/10/11 07:07 LIGHT ON THE JOSHUA BOOKS FROM THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS 153 fragment (frag. 9) contains a list of names of cities conquered (or not conquered) by the tribes, extending from Syria and Lebanon to the Negev and from the Sea to Galilee. The list is similar to the one contained in 5Q9, but it is impossible to establish where many of the places named are located. The second column of this fragment refers to the future arrival of David, his conquest of the “Rock of Zion”, his expulsion of the Amorites, and to his intention to build the temple. Four other small fragments contain the text of Psalm 122, which has been reconstructed in its entirety. Although there is no overlap among these four manuscripts, it seems reasonable to assume that 4Q378 and 4Q379 are copies of a single composition and that 4Q522 and 5Q9 are also copies of a single composition. It is indeed possible that these two compositions originally belonged to the same work and corresponded to different parts of the composition as proposed by Tov and tentatively accepted by Puech. This is not very important for my purpose here, but, on the contrary, my argument will be even stronger if they represent two different compositions. What is important is that all four manuscripts, and therefore the composition(s) they represent, rewrite and reinterpret the ‘biblical’ book of Joshua in one way or another (the respective editors duly signal when one or another of the editions of Joshua are reflected in the readings of the manuscripts). In this way they contribute to establishing the authority of the ‘biblical’ book, moving it (as George Brooke says) “from being authoritative in a limited way to belonging firmly to a canonical list”33. In the ancient world, the first and perhaps the most obvious way for a writing to establish its own authority was by referring to other already accepted, authoritative writings. At the same time, the writings that attracted secondary developments, those that were modified, interpreted or adapted, had their authority enhanced and more firmly established. We can say that the intertext was used to authorize the new text and that the new composition reinforced the authority of the existing text. We see this process of ‘authorization’ already in use in the compositions which would later become the ‘Bible’. If we consider the Hebrew canon, we see that several books, such as Deuteronomy or Chronicles which are rewritings of other authoritative writings, have ended up as canonical books. For example, Deuteronomy rewrites legal materials from Exodus, Leviticus 33. G.J. BROOKE, Between Authority and Canon: The Significance of Reworking the Bible for Understanding the Canonical Process, in E.G. CHAZON – D. DIMANT – R.A. CLEMENTS (eds.), Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (STDJ, 58), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 85-104, p. 104. 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 153 11/10/11 07:07 154 F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ and Numbers, and Chronicles rewrites materials from Samuel–Kings. The same process is at work in the case of the book of Joshua and the ‘rewritten’ Joshua book(s) which these four manuscripts represent. Just as it is obvious that all re-writing implies the recognition of the authority of the reference text, it is equally obvious that at the same time it adds something to this authority. In the words of G. Brooke “any text worth its salt would naturally be accompanied by a tradition of reworkings”34. It is also obvious that all rewriting implies a peculiar interpretation of the reference text in order to adapt it to a new situation or to new ideas (otherwise the rewriting would not be necessary), and therefore is intended more to correct the reference text and to be accepted as an authoritative interpretation rather than to supplant it35. Thus, the phenomenon of rewriting as a strategy to confer authority works in both directions: the new composition attests to and reinforces the authority of the source composition; at the same time the new composition claims for itself a share in the authority attributed to the source. In our case, we have proof that the reworking of the book of Joshua attained authoritative status among the group that collected and preserved the manuscripts. This proof is contained in the well-known 4QTestimonia36. This manuscript is a single sheet of leather, written by the same copyist who penned 1QS and 4QSamuel37 using the same convention as in other scrolls where the tetragrammaton is replaced with four dots. It contains a collection of four quotations without further commentary or explanation, though each quotation is clearly marked by three blank spaces and marginal marks after each quote. The first quotation (lines 1-8) is taken from Exodus 20,18b according to the Samaritan tradition, a text which brings together Deuteronomy 5,28-29 and Deuteronomy 18,18-19 of the 34. BROOKE, Between Authority and Canon (n. 33), p. 98. 35. For recent summaries of these issues, see D.K. FALK, The Parabiblical Texts: Strategies for Extending the Scriptures among the Dead Sea Scrolls (Library of Second Temple Studies, 63), London – New York, T&T Clark, 2007; and S. WHITE CRAWFORD, Rewriting Scripture in Second Temple Times (SDSSRL), Grand Rapids, MI, Eerdmans, 2008. 36. Edited by J.M. ALLEGRO, 4Q175, 4QTestimonia, in J.M. ALLEGRO, Qumrân Cave 4. I:4Q158-4Q186 (DJD, 5), Oxford, Clarendon, 1968, 57-60, pl. XXI. The manuscript has been very intensively studied. For a select bibliography, see A. STEUDEL, Testimonia, in SCHIFFMAN – VANDERKAM (eds.), Encyclopedia of the Dead Sea Scrolls (n. 2), 936-938, to which should be added the new edition by F.M. CROSS, Testimonia, in J.H. CHARLESWORTH, et al. (eds.), Pesharim, Other Commentaries, and Related Documents (The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations, 6B), Tübingen, Mohr Siebeck, 2002, 308-327. 37. On this scribe, see E. TIGCHELAAR, In Search of the Scribe of 1QS, in PAUL, et al. (eds.), Emanuel (n. 17), 439-452. 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 154 11/10/11 07:07 LIGHT ON THE JOSHUA BOOKS FROM THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS 155 Masoretic Bible. It announces the coming of a prophet like Moses which the Samaritans used to foster the expectation of the coming of the Taheb, and is used here to express the belief in the coming of the eschatological Prophet. The second quote (lines 9-13) is taken from Numbers 24,15-17 and has a textual form similar to the one preserved in the Masoretic text, though with several orthographical and substantial differences from both the Masoretic and Samaritan traditions. This second quotation interprets the oracle of Balaam on the sceptre and the star as referring to the coming of a future messianic figure. The third quote (lines 14-20) is taken from Deuteronomy 33,8-11 and also includes some variants from the Masoretic text, applying the blessing of Levi to the expected priestly messiah. The fourth quote (lines 21-30) is taken from the 4QApocryphon of Joshua as it is preserved in 4Q379. We can logically conclude that these quotations, which are all set at the same level and are introduced with similar introductory formulae, were considered as providing proof from authoritative writings for the collector’s ideas and can thus tell us something about the shape of the authoritative writings at that time. These authoritative sources are an expanded and harmonised version of Exodus, and are attested to at Qumran in several scrolls (these scrolls later came to be the ‘Bible’ for the Samaritans, which is considered by Tov as closely related to the “rewritten Bible compositions”), two slightly modified versions of Numbers and Deuteronomy (two books which later become the ‘Bible’ for Jews and Christians), and our Apocryphon of Joshua. The latter reference is a reworking of the book of Joshua very similar to other compositions found at Qumran which are usually classified as ‘rewritten Scripture’, though it is considered here to be as authoritative as the other three writings. What is particularly interesting in this case is that the ‘canonical book of Joshua’ is not the one which is quoted as authoritative Scripture in 4QTestimonia, but rather the Apocryphal, reworked form of the canonical book. All this is rather straightforward and generally accepted, although it is not usually recognized that the three forms of the ‘biblical texts’ can all be considered as reworkings, making the distinction between ‘text’ and ‘reworking’ highly problematic. Less commented on has been a second important contribution of the apocryphal composition based on the book of Joshua as represented by 4Q522. I will refer to what it adds to our understanding of the editing of the book of Psalms, since fragments 22-25 of the manuscript contain Psalm 122 in its entirety in a textual form that is close to MT38. Although 38. PUECH, 4Q522, 4QProphétie de Josué (n. 27), pp. 68-70. 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 155 11/10/11 07:07 156 F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ no less than 22 copies of the book of Psalms have been found in Cave 4, Psalm 122 has not been preserved there. Its only other attestation at Qumran (and in a textual form different from MT) is in column 3 of 11Q5 where it is preceded by Psalm 121 and followed by Psalm 12339. Due to the fragmentary nature of the evidence of 4Q522, we are deprived of the concrete context of the quote of the Psalm, and thus will never know how it was attached to or its precise function in the rest of the narrative was. However, its presence is important by virtue of the fact that, apparently, the whole Psalm was included in the quote, and it is likely that for this reason these little fragments have been published twice in DJD: as part of 4Q522, the composition to which they belong, and also in DJD 16, the volume which contains the biblical manuscripts of the book of Psalms from Cave 440. Quotations of this sort are truly exceptional in the Scrolls. The only similar instances I can recall are the quotation of Psalm 91 in column six of 11Q11 (11QApocryphal Psalms)41 where this psalm against demons is completely integrated with other psalms of exorcism, and the acrostic poem on wisdom attested to both as part of the book of Ben Sira (51,1330) and as an independent poem in 11Q542. Perhaps it is not accidental that all the examples we have of these sorts of quotations (complete blocks of text) are poems, making them appear to be more prone to travel from one text to another. Nevertheless, these quotations are certainly different from other quotations in biblical or other books we find in the Scrolls. We can compare it, for example, with the quote of the ‘floating’ piece in the Hymn to the Creator of 11Q5 column XXVI. We know this quote from its double appearance in the book of Jeremiah 10,12-13 and 51,1516, and from its presence in Psalm 135,6-7 which is reused with very little variation in the Qumran poem43. The difference between these ways of re-using the material is immediately apparent. These two elements, the quote of the 4QApocryphon of Joshua in 4QTestimonia and the quote of Psalm 122 in 4Q522, also help us to understand the editing process. For Van der Meer these elements can teach us that the forming of the book of Joshua and its editing was already 39. J.A. SANDERS, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (11QPsa) (DJD, 4), Oxford, Clarendon, 1965, p. 24, pl. IV 40. E. ULRICH, et al., Qumran Cave 4. XI: Psalms to Chronicles (DJD, 16), Oxford, Clarendon, 2000, pp. 169-170. 41. F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ – E.J.C. TIGCHELAAR – A.S. VAN DER WOUDE, Qumran Cave 11. II (DJD, 23), Oxford, Clarendon, 1998, pp. 181-205, pl. XXII-XXV. 42. SANDERS, The Psalms Scroll of Qumrân Cave 11 (n. 39), pp. 42-43 and 79-85, pl. XIV. 43. Ibid., p. 47 and pp. 89-91, pl. XVI. 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 156 11/10/11 07:07 LIGHT ON THE JOSHUA BOOKS FROM THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS 157 completed at the moment these ‘parabiblical’ compositions were composed. He says: From a broader perspective, it is interesting to note that the narratives contained in Joshua like those of other biblical books, were rewritten for new purposes and that by the time these works were composed (from the second century BCE onwards) such reformulations were no longer primarily realized by re-editing the older biblical text – adding passages throughout the book that convey the specific intentions, ideology and theology of the editor(s) – but rather by producing new compositions based on the authoritative texts. It would seem, therefore, that these compositions form indirect proof that the formation of Joshua had already been completed by the time these reformulations of the Joshua narratives were created. In that sense they would also form additional support for the thesis that Joshua had already gained an authoritative or canonical status in the last centuries BCE44. The re-writing to which these ‘parabiblical’ compositions attest would thus be (according to Van der Meer) completely different from the rewriting that MT or LXX represent, in spite of the fact that he has used precisely the same argument (“specific intentions, ideology and theology”) to disentangle the different ‘editions’ (Deuteronomistic, nomistic, Priestly, anti-Samaritan, etc.) which took place during the forming of the book. But if we take seriously the authoritative status of the 4QApocryphon of Joshua as attested to by 4QTestimonia, the incorporation of the whole of Psalm 122 in 4Q522, and the respective dating of the different manuscripts, the conclusion may be different as there are apparently no essential differences between the ways of reworking the old Joshua narratives carried out in 4QJosha, in LXX, or in 4QJoshb (which I consider as a representative of MT Joshua) and the reworking which is done in the ‘parabiblical’ texts, which were produced more or less at the same time. In fact, these new compositions adapt the old text to new circumstances, to new theological insights or to new political realities, in a similar way to how it is done in the different editions of the book of Joshua45. 44. VAN DER MEER, Formation and Reformulation (n. 4), p. 114. 45. This is a conclusion to which van der Meer may point at the end of his study in which he considers the authors of the ‘parabiblical’ compositions to be the “heirs” or “the real continuation of the tradition”: “The literary heirs to the old tradition of reworking the old Joshua narratives into new literary compositions are therefore not the textual witnesses to the book of Joshua (MT, LXX, 4QJosha). These versions all attest to more or less the same version of the book. In a sense the real continuation of this tradition in the first centuries BCE, i.e. the period in which the book of Joshua was translated into Greek (circa 200 BCE) and the period in which 4QJosha was copied (150 BCE – 50 BCE) should probably be sought in the parabiblical versions of the book of Joshua, as we find them in highly fragmentized (sic!) form in 4QpaleoParaJoshua, 4QApocryphon of Joshuaa (4Q378), 4QApocryphon of Joshuab (4Q379), 4QProphecy of Joshua (4Q522), 5QWork with Place Names (5Q9) and the Masada Joshua Apocryphon (Mas 1039-211) discussed 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 157 11/10/11 07:07 158 F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ 4QApocryphon of Joshua is a composition which does not contain any sectarian expressions, but shares a series of ideas with sectarian texts or with texts associated with the Qumran community: a jubilee chronology, the precedence of a priestly officer over a political one, and the pesher technique. Perhaps it is for these reasons that it attained an authoritative status within the collection. At any rate, these are the reasons why D. Dimant has sought to classify the 4QApocryphon of Joshua and other compositions that re-write Scripture in a new category that is between the ‘sectarian’ and ‘non-sectarian’ literature46. I have discussed her approach in an article in the Revue de Qumrân47 (in Spanish) in which I argue that we should abandon these classifications of ‘sectarian’ and ‘non-sectarian’ compositions if we really want to understand the collection of Dead Sea Scrolls manuscripts in its historical context. Additionally, I have written in greater detail (in English) on her contribution to the Aix-en-Provence meeting on the Aramaic texts from Qumran48. In a forthcoming publication (together with M. Vervenne) in which we have studied the ‘Ancient Interpretations of Jewish Scripture in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls’, we come to the conclusion that the distinction between ‘biblical’ and ‘parabiblical’ compositions, or between ‘Scripture’ and its ‘Interpretation’, is equally irrelevant within the historical context of the collection49. *** in section 1.3.4 above. The Samaritan version of Joshua may be a young representative of this tradition”. VAN DER MEER, Formation and Reformulation (n. 4), pp. 534-535. 46. D. DIMANT, Between Sectarian and Non-Sectarian: The Case of the Apocryphon of Joshua, in E.G. CHAZON – D. DIMANT – R.A. CLEMENTS (eds.), Reworking the Bible: Apocryphal and Related Texts at Qumran (STDJ, 58), Leiden, Brill, 2005, 105-134. 47. F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, ¿Sectario, no-sectario, o qué? Problemas de una taxonomía correcta de los textos qumránicos, in RQum 91/23 (2008) 383-394. 48. F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ, Aramaica Qumranica Apocalyptica?, in K. BERTHELOT – D. STÖKEL BEN-EZRA (eds.), Aramaica Qumranica (STDJ), Leiden, Brill, 2010, 435-450, with a response by K. Berthelot. 49. F. GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ – M. VERVENNE, Ancient Interpretations of Jewish Scriptures in Light of the Dead Sea Scrolls (forthcoming in a Festschrift): “As it appears to us, part of the problem is that with the Dead Sea Scrolls we are dealing with a deposit of manuscripts which represent a growing process that is historically bounded. Because of the purely accidental character of the discovery and our ignorance of the original shape of the collection, we lack many data which would have allowed us to interpret them correctly. We think that we can define most of the Dead Sea Scrolls as interpretative literature of the authoritative religious writings called ‘Jewish Scriptures’. But because of the fragmentary character of the data we possess, it is no longer possible to define precisely, within the ‘spectrum of texts’ of S. White or within the ‘sliding scale’ of G. Brook’s terminology, where exactly had ended ‘Jewish Scripture’ (the recognized authoritative religious texts) and where its ‘Ancient Interpretations’ (of the same religious texts) had started. That is to say, within the collection considered as a whole, where shall we put the division line between what was then considered ‘Scripture’ and what was then seen as ‘Interpretation’?” 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 158 11/10/11 07:07 LIGHT ON THE JOSHUA BOOKS FROM THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS 159 In closing, it is my conviction that from these Joshua manuscripts and the two small details in the composition(s) that rework the book of Joshua, we can conclude that our category of the ‘Bible’ is completely inadequate in the historical context that the Scrolls represent, and that we should get used to considering the collection as a whole, without our artificial divisions between ‘biblical’ and ‘non-biblical’ manuscripts. We have seen in the collection the simultaneous and harmonious coexistence of three editions of the book of Joshua, and one or two rewritings of this book in several copies. We have also seen that a rewritten composition, certainly inspired by the book of Joshua, can attain the same (or even higher) authoritative status within the collection than the original book upon which it was based. There have been further notions that even such an authoritative book like the book of Psalms, extraordinarily present in the collection, could be considered as a conglomerate of raw materials that can be plundered for new literary constructions: in this case a rewriting of the book of Joshua. All this proves, in my opinion, that for the people who formed and preserved the collection of manuscripts found around Qumran, all these writings were exactly that, religious writings which informed their lives, without distinguishing between them. The conclusion of these reflections is rather simple: before the ‘great divide’ of which Talmon speaks50, the forming, editing and rewriting of Jewish religious authoritative texts was still an ongoing process, and a very active one for that matter. All this is perfectly illustrated by the two manuscripts of Joshua and by the rewriting(s) preserved in the collection. As a consequence, the only correct way to look at the evidence preserved in the collection is to try to understand it from the perspective and categories of the people who put the collection together, rather than with our own categories and perspectives. Within the collection, there is certainly an awareness of the distinction between ‘text’ and ‘interpretation’, but the great majority of the compositions simply develop the old, revered texts in order to modify them, introduce new ideas, defend particular points of view, address new problems, etc., continuing in this way to enrich the patrimony of Jewish Sacred Writings, as in the case of Joshua. Groot Begijnhof 53 BE-3000 Leuven Florentino GARCÍA MARTÍNEZ 50. S. TALMON, The Crystallization of the ‘Canon of Hebrew Scriptures’ in the Light of Biblical Scrolls from Qumran, in HERBERT – TOV (eds.), The Bible as Book (n. 25), 5-20, esp. p. 14. 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 159 11/10/11 07:07 94579_Ausloos_BETL246_08_Garcia.indd 160 11/10/11 07:07