The Rewritten Book of Joshua as Found at Qumran and Masada
Five different fragmentary manuscripts from Qumran and one from Masada are based on the book of Joshua or rewrite that book. The present paper cautiously suggests that four, five, or six of them represent a single composition which is named here an
"apocryphon of Joshua." The term "apocryphon" is probably not the most appropriate name for this composition, and in fact, a term like a "paraphrase of Joshua" would be more appropriate, but as the term apocryphon has been introduced in the literature, w
e continue to use it. Each of the six manuscripts covers different themes and episodes from the book of Joshua. The coverage, nature, and tendencies of these six manuscripts are described in this paper. Much attention is directed to 4Q522 (4QapocrJosh
In the initial stage, a link is established between 4Q378, 4Q379, and 4Q522, named or renamed 4QapocrJosha,b,c. At a second stage this group of three manuscripts is expanded to four, to include 5Q9 (5QapocrJosh; p
ublished as "Ouvrage avec toponymes"). The link with that text is made through the contents of the list of geographical names in 4Q522 (4QApocrJoshc), frg. 9 i (and other frgs.), due to the similar form of both lists and the
ir mentioning of Joshua. This group of four documents is then expanded to six, but with a smaller degree of certainty due to the fragmentary nature of the two additional documents, MasParaJosh (= Mas apocrJosh?) and 4QpaleoParaJosh (= 4Qpaleo apocrJosh
A related work, not connected with this apocryphon, is the Assumption of Moses, also known as the Testament of Moses to Joshua, containing a long farewell speech of Moses to Joshua.
I-II. 4Q378-9 (4QapocrJosha,b)
Two copies of a composition rewriting the book of Joshua have been preserved very fragmentarily in a great number of fragments published preliminarily by C. Newsom and to be published in DJD XXII (Oxford 1996) by the same scholar.
Many of the fragments of 4Q378-9 (4QapocrJosha,b) reflect speeches, blessings, and prayers by Joshua not contained in the biblical book. These sections in 4Q378-9 (4QapocrJosha,b) ar e built on the model of the speeches of Joshua in chapters 1, 18-21, and 23-24, and also on those of Moses in Deuteronomy chapters 1-3 and 28-31. 4Q522 contains a similar speech by Joshua probably delivered not far from Jerusalem.
4Q378 (4QapocrJosha; previously named 4QpssJosha), dating to the Herodian period, covers the earlier part of Joshua's life. It probably started off with the Israelites' mourning for Moses (frg. 14), and it contained an account of the transferral of the leadership from Moses to Joshua (frg. 3). Several other fragments contain speeches of Joshua to the people (cf. the speeches of Joshua scattered in the biblical book, especially in cha pters 18-21). The incident of Achan (Joshua 7) is probably described in frg. 6 i, the ruse of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9) in frg. 22, Joshua's restraining of the sun (chapter 10) in frg. 26 (cf. especially line 5), and a summary of the conquests in accordan ce with God's plan (Joshua 21:42-43) in frg. 11. The covenant with the patriarchs is mentioned three times (frg. 11, line 3; frg. 14,4; frg. 22 i, 4). It is noteworthy that the Assumption of Moses, also known as the Testament of Moses to Joshua, also frequently refers to this covenant (e.g., 3:9; 4:5).
4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb), dating to the Hasmonean period, follows the biblical text of the book of Joshua more closely. It contains a description of the crossing of the Jordan (frg. 12 and probably additional fragment s) and of the curse pronounced on the rebuilder of Jericho (Josh 6:26) together with a prophetic vision on the identity of that rebuilder (frg. 22 ii). The blessings mentioned in frgs. 15-16 reflect the ceremony on or opposite Mt. Gerizim (Josh 8:30-35), even though Newsom connects it with the crossing of the Jordan (chapter 3) and the assembly at Gilgal (chapters 4-5). A summary of Joshua's victories over the inhabitants of Canaan is reflected in frg. 3 (parallel to Joshua 13). Frg. 17 probably reflects Joshua's final speech (cf. line 4 with Joshua 24:4-5).
III. 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc), previously named "La pierre de Sion" (Puech) and "Joshua Cycles" (Qimron)
The thirteen fragments of 4Q522, the largest of which was named frg. 9 i-ii by É. Puech, who is to produce a final edition of this text in the DJD series, were dated to the mid-first century BCE by Puech, 689. All the fragments reflec t the same handwriting, including three fragments containing parts of Psalm 122. In light of the following discussion, it would probably be best to rename all the fragments of 4Q522 4QapocrJoshc, based on the model of 4Qapoc rJosha,b with which 4Q522 has several elements and motifs in common.
The left column of the largest fragment, frg. 9 ii, was published preliminarily by É. Puech in 1992 and described by him as dealing with "David and his son as well as the temple and tabernacle." This topic was, according to Puech, the re ason for the inclusion of the "Jerusalem Psalm" 122 in that composition. The three fragments containing parts of that Psalm were published in 1978 by the same scholar. The 1992 article by Puech also contains a long exposition on the Rock of Zion and the p lace of the altar. An ancient text focusing on these issues would not be out of place in the Qumran corpus, in which we find for example 4QFlor containing a pesher dealing with the building of the temple. That text was recently renamed 4QMidrEschat a by A. Steudel, and joined with other fragments which according to Steudel belonged to the same composition.
Reacting to this publication, E. Qimron republished the text of frg. 9 ii with several new readings and reconstructions, all based on the photograph which also formed the basis for the work of Puech (PAM 43.606). Qimron proposed a completely di fferent interpretation of this column describing it as a fragment of a treatise dealing with what he named "Joshua Cycles." In this interpretation Qimron was actually preceded by Eisenman and Wise (not mentioned by Qimron), who were probably the first to recognize the true meaning of this document. A comparison of the publications of Puech and Qimron is a veritable exercise in the exegesis of small Qumran fragments in which scholars necessarily read much into the lacunae. While adopting the view of Qimron , we advance the discussion of this and other fragments of 4Q522, suggesting that they are part of 4QapocrJosh, that is, 4QapocrJoshc in our nomenclature. We also attempt to analyze the theology and background of this compos ition.
The descriptions of frg. 9 ii by Puech and Qimron are very different, and one should therefore first try to locate the identifiable elements in this column. Most of these elements pertain exclusively to the figures of David and Solomon, the tem ple, and the Jebusites (hence the explanation of Puech). In the explanation by Puech they feature as the central elements of this document, while for Qimron they are a mere digression in a document containing the memoirs of Joshua. Indeed, only a few of t he identifiable elements pertain exclusively to the period of Joshua. In the course of our analysis the other fragments of 4Q522 are taken into consideration as well.
According to Puech, 4Q522 contains a midrashic prophecy by God, with apocalyptic and messianic elements, in the third and first person, addressed to the prophet Nathan, the seer Samuel, or the seer Gad (Puech, 690). Basically this prophecy is b ased on 1-2 Samuel and 1 Chronicles, although to some extent it also continues 4Q378-9 (4QapocrJosha,b). Although Puech was aware of some links between 4Q522 and the period of Joshua, he nevertheless thought more in terms of the period of David and Solomon, and hence the reconstructions were made accordingly (see the reconstructed lacunae in lines 4,6,8,12,13).
A note on the reconstructions is in order. The reconstructions of Puech presuppose a much longer line length than those of Qimron. Qimron based the shortness of his reconstructions on the preserved text of lines 9-10 in which probably only a si ngle word needs to be reconstructed after the last preserved words (Qimron, 505). We concur with this view with regard to lines 9-10, but not with regard to the other lines. The printed reconstruction is probably somewhat misleading. The photograph shows that the last preserved word of line 9, y]n[nknhw, as well as those of the adjacent lines is much to the left of the remnants of the other lines. Even if only a single word were to be added at the ends of these two lines, we need to extend the reconstruct ion of the other lines more or less to the same point. Therefore, Qimron's reconstruction of several lines is too short (lines 11-14, and probably also lines 2,3).
4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc) frg. 9 ii
[ ]¡¡¡[ ] 1
[~q d[ d][,w_mó l,ha ta µç ^ykçhl ^_w_[yxl awbl l]k,[wn] aówúl_ 2
[dwklyw hdw]hy ^b ~rp ^b yçyl dlwn ^b hnh yk µyt[h 3
[whwjyny awl] ^_pó yrwmahlk ta µçm çrwyw ^wyx [ls ta 4
[^yky tçwjnw ]¼skw bhz larçy y_hwla hwhyl tybhta twnbl 5
[qwdxw wnnby] ^úfq,h wnbw wtwnbl ^_wnbló[m] aóy_by µyçwrbw µyzra 6
[whkrby]w_ hxó[ry] w_twaw [wnawby d]sójó[ ]m ^_w_ç,yar µç ^hky 7
[lwk]w jfbl ^wkçy [h]why dydy[ yk µ ]ymçh ^m ^w[,[mh ^m] 8
[rhb y]nú[nkhw µç yrwmah ht[w d[,l_ ^wkçy wm[ µymy_[h] 9
[µyrwa]h, f,pç[m t]a, ytçrd awl rça yúnúwyfjh rça bçwy 10
[ ?l]aró[çyl µlw][ db[ wyttnú h,[n]hw ynwlçhw hktam 11
[waçyw hlçb yn[nk]h, ^m qwjr d[[wm lh]a ta hnyk[ç]n ht[w 12
[ hlçl la] tybm d[[wm lh]a, ta [[wçyw ]róz[la 13
[ larçy twkr][,m abx r,[ç ][,wçy 14
[ ]l[ ]l [ ]ç¡ 15
4. awl] ^_pó The remains of the letters on the leather do not seem to fit this reconstruction.
7. [wnawby d]sój The remains of the letters on the leather do not seem to fit this reconstruction.
1. Exclusive connection with David and Solomon
3. hdw]hy ^b ~rp ^b yçyl dlwn ^b hnh yk. This phrase exclusively reflects the period of David and Solomon, although it does not necessarily imply that the composition pertains to that period. If the phrase is translated as "behold, a son will be born ..." it could reflect a prophetic vision of what is to happen generations later. Thus J.T. Milik in DJD III (Oxford 1962) 179 and Qimron, 506. On the other hand if the phrase is translated as "for behold, a son was born to J esse son of Peretz son of Ju]dah" (Puech, 678: "un fils est né à Jessé"), the phrase must be connected exclusively with the period of David and Solomon.
A parallel for the understanding of hnh as referring to a future event (thus Milik and Qimron) is provided by Joshua's prophecy in 4Q175, line 23: hna çwq[y j]p twyhl dmw[ l[ylb dja rwra çya (hnh =) (behold a cursed man, one of Belial, has arisen to be a fow[ler's t]rap).
4. ^wyx [ls ta[. ". . . the rock of Zion." This phrase, otherwise unknown from the Bible, probably refers to the mountain area which David bought from Aravna (Samuel)/Ornan (Chronicles) the Jebusite, on which he planned to establish the temple (2 S am 24:18-24; 1 Chr 21:18-22). The reconstruction at the end of the preceding line probably contained a verb such as dwklyw (Qimron, 505), for which cf. Num 21:32, 32:39 and 2 Sam 5:7 or jqyw (Puech).
4. yrwmahlk ta µçm çrwyw. "and he [scil. David] expelled from there all the Amorites." For the phrase cf. Num 21:32, but the situation is that of the expulsion of the Jebusites from Jerusalem by Dav id, described in 2 Sam 5:6-9.
5. ] ¼skw bhz larçy yhwla hwhyl tybh ta twnbl[. "to build the temple for the Lord, God of Israel, (made of) gold and silver." This phrase, referring to the building of the temple, does not occur exactly in this way in the Bible, but for similar formulations cf. 1 Chr 22:6; 1 Kgs 5:17,19; 8:17,20, all referring to David. The similar phrase in 2 Chr 3:1 refers to Solomon. Since David did not actually build the temple, a task later accomplished by Solomon, the key to the understanding of this phrase must be sought in the lacuna at the end of the previous line, 4. The contents of that lacuna, together with the reading of the last two letters on the line, differ in the reconstructions of Puech and Qimron, but both of them assume that David is the subject of the verb in the beginning of line 5.
6. wtwnbl ^_wnbló[m] aóy_by µyçwrbw µyzra[. "He will bring [from] Lebanon cedars and cypresses to build it." For David's preparations for the building of the temple, see especially 1 Kgs 5:20, 22; 1 Chr 22:4.
6. ]^úfq,h wnbw. "and his little son," In this context, after the mentioning of David, this phrase undoubtedly referred to Solomon, who was to build the temple (cf. 2 Chr 6:9; 1 Chr 22:5).
8. ]w jfbl ^wkçy [h]why dydy[. "the beloved of the Lo[rd] will dwell safely and[." The phrase refers to Solomon, who is described as the beloved of God (hydydy) in 2 Sam 12:24-25. Puech refers to Sir 47:12, where a similar phrase is applied to Solomon: bybsm wl jynh laew hwlç ymyb šlm hmlç.
The aforementioned elements were accepted by both scholars as exclusively connected with the period of David and Solomon. Zion is mentioned in line 2 and "the rock of Zion" in line 4. David expels the Amorites from Zion (line 4) and lines 5-6 d escribe in detail the building of the temple by David's son Solomon.
As a result, there are rather compelling reasons for connecting the column as a whole with the period of David and Solomon, as suggested by Puech, but there are a few details in the text which are questionable in this context and which lead to a different explanation.
2. Connection with any period
Some elements in the text fit any period in the history of Israel.
2. d][,w_mó l,ha ta µç ^ykçhl. "to set up there the tent of the meeting." This deuteronomistic phrase, which recurs in line 12 (see below), may refer to several periods in the history of Israel, from the time of Moses unti l the period of the Israelite kings. At the same time, the combination of ^ykçh in the hiph>il or in another conjugation and the "tent of the meeting" occurs only in Josh 18:1, where it is used with regard to the setting up of the tent of the meeting in Shiloh: d[wm lha ta µç wnykçyw. In the present context, however, "there" refers to Jerusalem (Zion), where for various reasons the tent of the meeting could not be established, and the reasons are to be given later on in the text.
7.]m ^_w_ç,yar µç ^hky. "he will officiate there first." The subject of the verb, which is crucial for the understanding of the context, was found in the lacuna at the end of the previous line, reconstructed by Puech as either So lomon or David, and by Qimron as Zadok, David's priest who brought the ark from Qiryat Yearim to Jerusalem (2 Sam 15:24-37). The verb refers to religious officiating of priests, which could include Zadok, and by extension also David, who sacrified offers at the altar of Aravna in 2 Sam 24:25, and Solomon.
14. larçy twkr][,m abx r,[ç. The phrase abx r,[ç could fit several persons; the longer phrase, as reconstructed by Qimron, fits Joshua (cf. 5:14,15).
3. Absence of connection to David and Solomon
While the above-mentioned details in 4Q522 frg. 9 ii refer to the period of David and Solomon, the detail listed below does not. By the same token, it is hard to find a link between the period of David and Solomon and the list of geographical names in col. i of that document. Likewise the details mentioned in section (4) linking 4Q522 positively with the book of Joshua negatively affect their connection with the period of David and Solomon.
9. y]n[nkhw µç yrwmah ht[w. "but now the Amorite is there and the Canaani[te." It is unclear why 4Q522 would stress that during the period of David and Solomon the Amorites and the Canaanites were now there for. they had been the re since time immemorial. Because of this difficulty it seems that this phrase does not refer to the period of David and Solomon. According to Puech (p. 687), this phrase introduces a new topic "relating to another aspect of the presence of Israel in the midst of the indigenous peoples of the land, most probably including Jerusalem." But the connection between the different issues in 4Q522 is very clear. In line 4 the speaker says that in the future David will expel the Amorites, but he reminds the listen ers that at this juncture the Amorites and Canaanites are present in the land.
4. Exclusive connection with Joshua and the book of Joshua
Several details in the text refer exclusively to the period and book of Joshua.
12. ]h, ^m qwjr d[[wm lh]a ta hnyk[ç]n ht[w. "and now let us set up the ten[t of mee]ting far away from...[." The minute remains of the last word were read by Puech as a koph yielding a restoration µyr[y tyr]q,, and by Qimron as a he, yielding a restoration yn[nk]h,. Even though the connection of the preceding lines with the period of David and Solomon is obvious, it is rather difficult to explain this phrase within the framework of that period in view of the words, "far a way from.." Since the tent of meeting was located in what was to become the center of the empire, why would that locality be described as being far away from something or someone? On the other hand, the cultic actions of Joshua occurred far away from plac es which afterwards were considered central. Line 12 could therefore be understood in light of the statement in line 9 y]n[nkhw µç yrwmah ht[w, "but now the Amorite is there and the Canaani[te," as referring to the distance ("far away") from t hese peoples. It therefore seems that because of the presence of the Amorites and Canaanites in Jerusalem, Joshua (partial subject of the first verb in line 12, hnyk[ç]n) realized that he had to move the center of the cult temporarily far away from Jerusalem.
The fact that the phrase used in line 12 as well as in line 2 occurs in the Bible only in Josh 18:1 with regard to the installing of the tent of meeting in Shiloh, d[wm lha ta µç wnykçyw, "they installed there the tent of mee ting," further strengthens the connection with the book of Joshua. 4Q522 used exactly the same phrase for the setting up of the tent of meeting in an unnamed place, which was probably Shiloh, to be read in the lacuna at the end of line 12. Qimron's recons truction does not insert any name at this place in the lacuna, but such a name is necessary. First, since the next line mentions the moving of the tent of meeting from Beth[el] to another location (mentioned in the lacuna at the end of line 13), that loca tion would probably have been mentioned in Joshua's speech. Second, the reconstructed line 12 would be too short if no name were to occur in the lacuna (cp. the length of the reconstructed lines 9 and 10, the longest preserved lines, for which a plausible reconstruction was suggested, with the present line, 12). A parallel to the text of line 12 appears in 4QapocrJoshb (4Q379) frg. 26, lines 2-3, on which see below.
13. ]róz[la. "Eleazar." This name, preserved without any context, probably represents the most disconcerting element in the explanation of Puech who regards this Eleazar as the son of Abinadab (read in the lacuna in line 13) of Qiryat Yearim (read in the lacuna in line 12). Indeed, an Eleazar son of Abinadab was made custodian of the ark in 2 Sam 7:1. However, it is more logical to interpret this name as the well-known figure of Eleazar, especially because of Qimron's plausible reading of [[ wçyw] róz[la in this line, and even more so in the light of the occurrence of the name of Joshua in the next line. It should further be remembered that the related document 4QapocrJoshb (4Q379) frg. 17 line 5 m entiones Eleazar as well.
14. The first word of the line is ][,wçy, which, however, was read by Puech as [larçy t][,wçy. A corroborating argument for reading here the name of Joshua is the occurrence of the same name as ][wçy hyhw in 5Q9, a docum ent whose list of geographical names resembles the list of the names in 4Q522 frg. 9 i. Note that 4Q378 (4QapocrJosha), frg. 22 i lines 2-3 also refer to Joshua as [wçy.
The last-mentioned details especially are not compatible with the view that the document as a whole is connected with the period of David and Solomon. The references to David and Solomon should therefore be viewed as a regression within a text connected with Joshua.
There are two further groups of supporting evidence which strengthen the position that 4Q522 pertains to Joshua:
4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc) frg. 9 i and small frgs.
a. The list of geographic names preceding col. ii of frg. 9 is connected with the person and book of Joshua (thus without details, Qimron 507). Three of the small fragments on photograph PAM 43.606 and the first column of frg. 9 contain a list or lists of geographical names all of which immediately precede col ii. Because of its position in the scroll, this list must have had some relevance to the speech in col. ii. This relevance seems to be remote if the fragment is ascribed to the period of David and Solomon, but is very pertinent to the book of Joshua, which contains many long lists of geographical names.
The list in frg. 9 i and the smaller fragments can be subdivided into two groups of data: (1) a list of localities, partly within tribal territories, probably presented as conquered by Joshua and (2) areas that had not been conquered by Joshua.
(1) Lists of localities, partly within tribal territories
The more or less complete names in this column are based on my own readings improving on those of Eisenman-Wise and García Martínez:
1. >Ain Qeber[
2. Baki?, Beth Zippor
3. the whole valley of Mis>=wa<
4. Heykhalim, Ya>apur
5. Makku, >Ain Kober
6. H>=adita<, >Ai of ...
7. [Ma]don which is ...
9. Galil and two ... [ ]? of the Sharon
10. [for/in Ju]dah: Be<er Sheba, Be>alot
11. Qe>ilah, >Adullam
12. Gezer, Temni, Gimzon
13. ?]h>=iqqar, Qit>=r[on], <Efranim, the fields of ...
14. Upper and Lower Beth-H>=oron
15. Upper and Lower Gulot
The wording of frg. 2, line 3 (see n. 2) also reminds us of the tribal lists in Joshua, as it contains a standard formula in the description of borders (cf. e.g. Josh 15:3): ]¡axy rça r
Frg. 4, line 2 contains a phrase ]wúm µtyxjmw ló¡[, reminding us of Josh 21:25 hçnm hfm tyxjmmw, and probably referring to half of the tribe of Manasseh.
The list in frg. 9 i mentions names of places all of which are preceded by ta or taw. This list was probably preceded by a verb such as dwklyw, "and he [scil. Joshua] conquered," listing the various localities conquered by Joshua. Only in this way is the beginning of the preserved text of line 10 understandable:
twl[b t[aw ][bç rab ta hdwhó[yb/l, [in/for Ju]dah: Be<er Sheba and Be>alot. In other words, in the area which subsequently became the territory of Judah, Joshua conquered Be<er Sheba ... and Be>alot. This wording also make s it likely that a sequence such as µynrpaw [^w]rfqw rqj[ in line 13 implies that these localities were in close proximity, unless the scribe was inconsistent and forgot to precede each locality by ta.
The names in this list were probably grouped in a certain way, each unit starting with ta, for otherwise the interchange of ta and taw is not understandable. This explains for example the relation between the items in lines 4-6.
Although the details in the list are unclear and the text is fragmentary, a certain logic is visible. The list starts with the north: [Ma]don (cf. Josh 11:1; 12:19) as well as additional names of locations not mentioned in the Bible. It continu es with the territory of Judah--the cities known from the Bible are: Be<er Sheba (Josh 15:28), Be>alot (Josh 15:25; cf. also Josh 15:9,28 Ba>alah), Qe>ilah (Josh 15:44), >Adullam (Josh 15:35), Temni (cf. Josh 15:10,56 Timnah), Upper and Low er Gulot (Josh 15:19; Judg 1:15). Finally the list contains cities from the tribe of Joseph: Gezer (Josh 16:3,10) and Upper and Lower Beth-H>=oron (Josh 16:3,5).
The list includes several names not mentioned in the Bible, but known to be connected with the three areas just mentioned. All these data have been analyzed in detail in a valuable study by L. Mazor.
(2) Areas not conquered by Joshua
A few fragments seem to list areas which had not been conquered by Joshua. This understanding is based on frg. 8 which lists four tribes, Sim>[on], Dan, Issachar, and Asher and which also contains a segment of a narrative in line 2: t]a aw h µg hkh awl ^dw, ("nor did Dan conquer ...") for which cf. Judg 1:34-5. In the lacuna this fragment may have mentioned Har-H>=eres which Dan did not conquer according to Judges 1. Line 3 of the same fragment,
¡ [t]aó rçaw ^ç tyb ta rkçyw[ should probably be understood as "[nor] did Issachar [conquer] Beth Shean, [nor] did Asher [conquer] ..." There is no exact biblical parallel for this sta tement, but one is reminded of Judg 1:27 according to which Manasseh did not conquer Beth Shean. It is also possible that this fragment reflects Josh 17:11 according to which Manasseh possessed a few areas within the allotments of Issachar and Asher, name ly Beth Shean and other localities:
hytwnbw ^aç tyb rçabw rkççyb.
Frg. 3, line 2 mentions the Canaanite, so that it probably deals with cities which were not conquered by Joshua. Line 3 also mentions "]from the valley of Akhor" (in Josh 15:7 that valley is mentioned as belonging to the tribe of Judah).
Frg. 3 probably deals with incomplete conquests (see line 1) and frg. 5, line 3 contains the phrase "these people," probably referring to those who were not destroyed by Joshua (for the phrase and idea cf. Josh 23:3,4,12,13).
b. The second type of support for the view that 4Q522 is related to Joshua derives from a few allusions to phrases in the book of Joshua (for the wording of lines 10-11 yúnúwyfjh, and ynwlçhw, cf. the biblical text of 9:22 wnta µtymr hml). The text of line 11 has to be reconstructed as l]aró[çyl µlw][ db[ wyttnú on the basis of Josh 9:23 (thus Qimron).
Interpretation of 4Q522 as 4QapocrJoshc
4Q522 frg. 9 i (and small fragments) lists names of places conquered by the Israelite tribes in the north of the country and in the territories of Judah and Joseph, and it further contains lists of areas which had not been conquered.
It so happens that in the parallel to these lists in the biblical book of Joshua, at the end of the tribal list of Judah, the one city which the Judaites were unable to conquer, namely the city of Jebus, is mentioned specifically (15:63): "But the people of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem; so the Jebusites live with the people of Judah in Jerusalem to this day."--A similar note is appended to the description of the tribe of Benjamin in Judg 1:21. It stands to reason that 4Q522 followed a similar procedure, moving from the lists of Judah and Joseph (note that the majority of the surviving names in col. i pertain to the tribal list of Judah) to the fate of Jerusalem and the subsequent building of the temple i n that city.
The second column of this fragment starts off with Zion (line 2), probably continuing the description at the end of the previous column and in the first line of the present column. The logical link between the two columns could be the mentionin g of the cities that were conquered and of Jerusalem which was not conquered. The fact that this city had not been conquered is the link with the discussion as to why the ark was not brought there. The situation depicted makes the impression as if Joshua delivered his speech not far from Jerusalem, in front of Bethel (cf. lines 12-13), when he decided not to bring the ark to Jerusalem.
The text of col. ii continues with the speech of Joshua explaining why he was unable to conquer Jerusalem (line 2): first a negation (awl) and afterwards the fragmentary text continues with dwm lha ta µç ^ykçhl, "to install there the tent of meeting." At the time of Joshua that city was still inhabited by the Jebusites, but Joshua foresaw that in the future the city would be conquered by David, that the tent of meeting would be transferred there, and that eventually the tem ple would be established there. The reason for the need of an expulsion of the Amorites is probably the fear that they might disturb the building of the temple (just as the building of the second temple was disturbed by others).
The prophetic vision of what would happen in the future is clad in the form of a speech by an unnamed person, in the first person, and sometimes changing to the first person plural (line 12). This speaker can only have been Joshua himself.
Joshua also turns to someone in the second person singular (lines 10-11: "That I did not demand from you the device of the Urim and Tummim" (rça
hktam/[µyrwa]h fpç[m t]a ytçrd awl). The wording of these lines should be seen in light of Josh 9:15 wlaç al hwhy yp taw with reference to the ruse of the Gibeonites.
Joshua gives three reasons for not bringing the tabernacle to Jerusalem, and by implication, for not building the temple there:
1. In the future David will conquer Jerusalem and expel the Amorites from there. This statement implies that Joshua knew that in the future Jerusalem was to become the central site of worship. He could only have known this if he was gifted with prophetic inspiration, since this is not stated explicitly in the Torah. The tradition that Joshua was a prophet is not universal, and among other things was implied in Joshua's curse on the rebuilder of Jericho, a curse which was to be implemented many generations later, in the time of Ahab, according to the story of 1 Kgs 16:34. Joshua's parenetic-prophetic character is also at the base of his final address in chapters 23-24 of the biblical book. In no case, however, is Joshua's mantic character as cle ar as in 4Q522 and in 4Q379 frg. 22 ii, which may therefore have belonged to the same composition. In the latter fragment, Joshua not only cursed the rebuilder of Jericho, but he also foresaw that someone would actually rebuild the city.
Traditions that Joshua was gifted with prophetic power are also known from various midrashim.
2. Although realizing that Jerusalem was chosen to be the central site for the future worship, Joshua was compelled not to bring the tabernacle to Jerusalem, since the place was still occupied by the local inhabitants.
3. The local inhabitants deceived Joshua, and by implication they were not worthy of the honour that the tent of meeting was to be in their midst. This argument is not spelled out, but implied. More specifically, Joshua says that the Canaanites caused him to sin (line 10 yúnúwyfjh, "they have caused me to sin") and that they misled him (line 11 ynwlçhw, "they deceived me")--the reference must be to the ruse of the Gibeonites who misled and deceived Joshua into allowing them to remain in the midst of the Israelites. For the formulation of lines 10-11, cf. the biblical text of 9:22 wnta µtymr hml. Joshua blames himself for not having turned to the device of the Urim and Tummim administered by the High Priest (who must be the person referred to in lines 10-11 ([µyrwa]h fpç[m t]a ytçrd awl hktam).
The first person plural in line 12 may refer to either Joshua and the people or Joshua and Eleazar.
Acting on the basis of his prophetic vision of the future, Joshua decided not to install the tent of meeting in Jerusalem. This move is actually not surprising, since there was no reason to install the tent of meeting in Jerusalem in accord wit h the requirements of the book of Deuteronomy, as that city had not yet been conquered and the name of God could therefore not be installed there. Only in retrospect did this failure to come to Jerusalem pose a problem, and hence the apologetical speech o f Joshua in 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc). It is not impossible that this aspect reveals the identity of the author of this composition, who may have belonged to the priestly Jerusalem circles, which may have wished to explain why th e tent of meeting was not brought to Jerusalem at an earlier stage.
Joshua decided to install the tent of meeting in a place whose name is not mentioned in 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc). The exact location of the tent of meeting at the time of Joshua's speech is not clear from the remains of the manuscript, but it was probably in Bethel (cf. lines 12-13). According to the different biblical traditions the tent of meeting or the tabernacle (different terms are used) moved in different ways in Canaan. It transversed the Jordan with the Israe lites according to Joshua chapter 3, and it was with the Israelites in Gilgal and Jericho (chapters 6-7). Afterwards the Israelites turned to Ai and Bethel, facing Jerusalem. According to the story, at that point Joshua faced the decision of whether to br ing the ark to Jerusalem (not in accordance with the Torah, but in accord with what we know of the subsequent history of the Israelites) or to another place. Because of the aforementioned reasons, according to 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc FONT>) Joshua then decided to bring the ark to another place, probably Shiloh.
This reasoning is based on the fact that line 13 mentions the moving of the tent of meeting from Beth[el] to an unnamed place. It seems to us that the name of Shiloh should be inserted in the lacuna at the end of line 12. That in the meantime t he ark was found in Bethel is reflected in the LXX in Judg 2:1ff. in which the angel of the Lord came from Gilgal to Bochim and Bethel (MT Bochim). More explicitly, the ark was placed in Bethel according to the tradition of Judg 20:26-28 in which Phineas son of Eleazar ministered before the ark: "... Bethel 27... for the ark of God's covenant was there in those days, 28and Phineas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the Priest ministered before Him in those days...". It is not impossible that 4Q522 comes to grips with the various biblical traditions embedded in the books of Joshua and Judges regarding the ark, explaining how the ark came to Bethel and moved from there to Shiloh, where it was ind eed found at a later stage according to Joshua 18.
There is a chronological problem in the combination of these traditions, since Eleazar was a contemporary of Joshua, while his son Phineas is mentioned in the tradition in Judges 20. It is not impossible that this Phineas was mentioned in the l acuna in 4Q522, "[Phineas son of ]Ele>azar," but it is more logical to assume that the text mentioned Eleazar himself, since he was Joshua's associate in this action as well as on other occasions. Thus when Moses was about to die, he commissioned Joshu a before Eleazar (Num 27:18-23), and Eleazar (always mentioned first) and Joshua distributed the regions of Canaan to the tribes of Israel (Num 32:28; 34:17; Josh 14:1; 17:4; 19:51; 21:1). Likewise, 1QDM I,11-12 mentions Eleazar together with Joshua.
One of the key words in col. ii is the root ^kç. Joshua was unable to set up (^ykçhl) the tent of meeting in Jerusalem (line 2), so that he decided to set it up far away from that city (line 12 hnyk[ç]n ht[w, "and now let u s set up"). At the same time, Solomon will "dwell forever" jfbl ^wkçy (line 8).
4Q522 is closely linked with the composition contained in 4Q378-379
In many ways 4Q522 frg. 9 i-ii runs parallel to 4Q378-379 which have been named 4QapocrJosha,b (olim: 4QpssJoshuaa,b). The following arguments make it likely that they actually reflect t he very same composition:
1. All three texts present a similar paraphrase of the book of Joshua, sometimes staying close to the biblical text, and sometimes moving away from it. The type of paraphrase is that of the book of Jubilees, the second half of the Temple Scroll , 4QparaGen-Exod (4Q422), and several other fragmentary compositions. In some sections the rewritten text is close to that of the Bible; for example, 4Q379 frg. 12, narrating the crossing of the Jordan, is rather close to the biblical text of Josh 3:13-16 . More frequently, however, the Qumran texts move away from the biblical text.
2. All three texts reflect a hortatory and paranetic version of Joshua, more so than the biblical book, whose deuteronomistic layer already has a paranetic character. Many of the sections of 4Q378-9 reflect speeches by Joshua, and likewise 4Q52 2 frg. 9 ii contains such a speech. These speeches are built on the model of the speeches in Joshua chapters 1, 18-21, 23-24, and also on those of Moses in Deuteronomy 1-3, 28-31.
3. The prophetic character of Joshua is evident in 4Q522 frg. 9 ii in which Joshua foretells the birth of David, and knows that the ark will be brought to Jerusalem and that the temple will be built there. This prophetic character is also visib le in 4Q379 frg. 22 ii in which Joshua knows in advance that someone will actually rebuild Jericho. This mantic quality of Joshua is not prominent in the biblical book of Joshua, in which Joshua merely utters a curse.
4. In all three texts Joshua speaks in the first person, though not in all fragments. See 4Q522 frg. 9 ii, lines 2, 10, 12 as well as 4Q379 frgs. 10, lines 3,4; 17,5; 18,4,5,7; 22 i,4.
5. 4Q378 frg. 22 i lines 2-3 refers to Joshua as [wçy. The name of Joshua appears in this spelling also in 4Q522 frg. 9 ii, line 14. However, this spelling occurs also elsewhere: 1QDM I,12.
6. 4Q379 frg. 17 line 5 mentions Eleazar who is also referred to in 4Q522 frg. 9 ii, line 13. Furthermore, the prayer in 4Q378, frg. 22 i lines 2-3 which mentions Joshua in the third person could be by Eleazar (thus Newsom); this fragment would be further support for connecting 4Q378 with 4Q522 since in the latter text Eleazar is probably spoken to in the second person (see above).
7. 4Q379 frg. 1, referring to the Levitical cities, mentions the tribes within which the Levites were to receive these allotments (cf. Joshua 21). These tribes are listed in the same type of listing as in 4Q522 frg. 9 i and 5Q9, enumerated as t aw . . . ta(w).
8. The motif of guilt is prominent in these texts:
In 4Q522 frg. 9 ii lines 10-11 (with regard to the ruse of the Gibeonites) Joshua blames himself for not having turned to the device of the Urim and Tummim administered by the High Priest. See further above.
4Q378 frg. 6 i line 4 wnytafj l[ hlpt a[ "a prayer on behalf of our sins." and ibid., line 7 hmkyl[ yja ywh hkmç[a "your [g]uilt. Woe to you my brothers." This fragment may refer to the sins of the people with regard to Achan's violation of the herem in Joshua 7, but may also refer to the sins of the people as a whole on several occasions when they rebelled in the wilderness. The "testing" mentioned twice in col. ii of the same fragment may refer to either occasion.
4Q378 frg. 22 i line 1 µtmçab µ,t,djkhó alw "and you did not destroy them in their guilt." Although the editor of this fragment, C. Newsom, believes that the episode referred to is that of the golden calf, it is more lik ely that the text refers to the ruse of the Gibeonites "which you have not destroyed, in their sin." The text also refers to "Joshua the servant of your servant Moses," to the transferral of power from Moses to Joshua (line 3), and to the covenant between God and Abraham (line 4). The covenant referred to is probably the covenant of Genesis 15, according to which God promised the land of the Canaanites to Abraham and his offspring, with the implication that the Canaanites should be killed; Joshua did not do this.
4Q378, frg. 24, line 3, ]m,ça t[, without any context.
9. 4Q379 frg. 26, lines 2-3, mention Bethel without any context in line 2 and the verb wqjr in line 3, just like in 4Q522 Joshua suggests the moving of the tent of meeting "far away from ..." (qwjr), while the next line mentions Beth[el] . The verb used in 4Q379 before the mentioning of Bethel is wbs, if the reading is correct (la tybób w_b,s,), a verb mentioned also elsewhere in the Bible with regard to the movements of the ark (1 Sam 5:8; Josh 24:33a LXX).
The relevance of the three fragments containing sections of Psalm 122 (see note 4) to 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc) still needs to be established. Even if the handwriting of these fragments i s identical to that of the main fragment on photograph PAM 43.606, they may have derived from a composition different from 4Q522, even though the connection with Jerusalem is obvious. Since 4Q522 contained both a list of geographical names and an explanat ion as to why the central place of worship of Joshua was not Jerusalem, one wonders whether there is room in this composition for a Psalm of praise for Jerusalem when Jerusalem has not yet been conquered.
At the same time, there is physical room for this short Psalm in the reconstruction of 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc), probably below the text of 4Q522 frg. 9 i. That fragment contained 16 lines of text, and was probably fo llowed by the continued list of geographical names as contained in frgs. 6-7 and the other fragments. If, together with these fragments, the column contained some 22 lines, there still was enough space left to include Psalm 122 at the bottom of col. i (6 lines in Puech's reconstruction). That would be a natural place for this Psalm. The contextual link between the Psalm and the context of 4Q522 was discussed above. The connection between the Psalm and the situation of 4Q522 may be supported by the actual wording of the Psalm. Since the Psalm reads in verse 2 "Our feet stood inside your gates, O Jerusalem," 4Q522 could have argued that Joshua, when delivering his speech, was actually very close to Jerusalem, but decided not to conquer that city.
From a physical point of view the link is possible since the fragments of the Psalm share an important feature with the main text of 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc) frg. 9 i-ii, namely that the text was not consistently writ ten under the lines, as in the great majority of the Qumran texts, but both below, above, and through the lines, in any event in disregard of the ruled lines.
III. 5Q9 (5QapocrJosh?), previously named "Ouvrage avec toponymes"
A list of geographical names similar to the list in 4Q522 frg. 9 i is known from the seven fragments of 5Q9, published by Milik in DJD III, 179 as "Ouvrage avec toponymes." The writing is described as late by Milik. Like 4Q522 frg. 9 i, this list mentions the figure of Joshua (frg. 1) and a list of geographical names (frgs. 1-7) from the same areas as covered by 4Q522. Like in 4Q522 frg. 9 i, in 5Q9 the names are preceded with ta and taw.
With one possible exception, the names mentioned in these fragments do not overlap with the names mentioned in 4Q522 8 i, but they likewise mention localities from the north of the country and from the tribes of Judah and Joseph. The preserved names include:
Qidah (frg. 1, line 2)
Beth Tap[uah>=? (3,2; tribe of Judah: Josh 15:53)
>Ain S>=idon (4,1)
ydrç (5,2; cf. Josh 19:10,12 dyrç; tribe of Zebulun)
The waters of Dan (5,3; cf. "the waters of Merom" in Josh 11:5,7)
[t]nfq (6,1; cf. Josh 19:15 Katanaq LXX [MT tfq])
S>=eredah (6,2), from the tribe of Efraim (cf. 1 Kgs 11:26).
As in 4Q522, 5Q9 combined the list of names with a narrative, of which the name Joshua (1,1) and the phrase ]lwk wabyw [ (6,3) have been preserved.
One, and possibly two, details, however are probably common to both lists:
4Q522 mentions (13) Qit>=r[on, possibly from the tribe of Zebulun, cf. Judg 1:30 (one of the places which was not conquered), for which cf. the detail mentioned in 5Q9: [t]nfq (6,1; cf. Josh 19:15 Katanaq LXX [MT tfæq;]). The name Qit& gt;=ron does not occur in the tribal list of Zebulon in Joshua 19, but tfq is mentioned there; hence the assumption that this is the same locality. The common identity of the two names is supported by an explanatory note on a place like H>=es>=ron o n which Josh 15:25 notes: "this is H>=as>=or." On the other hand, D. Amir believes that the two names represent different localities.
4Q522, line 7 [Ma]don may be read as S>=i]don as in 5Q9 frg. 2,1.
In the first stage, a link has been established between 4Q378, 4Q379, and 4Q522, which were named 4QapocrJosha,b,c, all of which are paraphrases of Joshua. In the second stage this group of three texts is now expa nded to four texts, to include 5Q9. The link with that text is made through the contents of the list of geographical names in 4Q522 frg. 9 i, due to the similar form of both lists, and their mentioning of Joshua.
V. MasParaJosh (= Mas apocrJosh?)
MasParaJosh (= Mas1l; also known as Mas 1039-211) may well reflect a fifth copy of the composition described here as apocrJosh. This composition, published by Talmon, consists of two fragments, comprising altogether parts of 10 lines, together with top and bottom margins, and with text probably lacking between the two fragments. The script differs from that of 4Q522, but like 4Q522 frg. 9, the Masada fragment has words written through the lines (see lines A,4-5), which is rather unusual among the f ragments from the Judean Desert. Talmon dates the script of this text to the end of the last century BCE or the beginning of the first century CE.
While Yadin described this text as reflecting a Samuel apocryphon, Talmon connects it with the book of Joshua, basing himself on a series of resemblances between the Masada text and Joshua's final speech in chapters 23-24. Likewise, 4Q379, frg. 17 reflects Joshua's final speech (cf. line 4 with Joshua 24:4-5), and that topic, together with the combination of speech and hymnic elements/prayer, makes it at least possible, if not likely, that 4Q379 and the Masada texts reflect the same composition . Talmon (pp. 156-157) likewise recognized certain similarities between this text and 4Q378-9 (4QapocrJosha,b), although according to him they do not reflect the same composition.
The text contains no identifiable name(s) connecting it with the book of Joshua, but the identification is made on the basis of the phrases used. The fragment reflects ideas from Joshua's last speeches, especially the idea that God helped his p eople in their struggle against the enemies:
Line 5 ]awlw µhybywab wm[l µjl[n
Line 7 h~ra rbd [lpn ]awlw µhl ab µhyl[ rbd [rça
However, while the speeches in the biblical book are mainly hortatory and admonitory, the Masada fragment has a different tone. That text combines the speech with words of praise, and probably also with a prayer or hymn. The words ynwda lw&uacu te;[d]gú, reconstructed by us on the last line, and continuing with a text that has not been preserved, were probably preceded by a closed paragraph, and would be a suitable beginning for such a hymnic unit. If this assumption is correct, one is re ferred for comparison to 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb) frg. 22 col. i and col. ii lines 5-7 which contain a similar hymnic unit placed before Joshua's curse on the rebuilder of Jericho.
The spelling of hdawm on line A,8 of this document is identical to the writing of that word in several Qumran documents, and may indicate a Qumran origin for the text as a whole.
For a Qumran sectarian origin, speaks also the use of the divine appellations la (line A,6), µç = "name" (line A,4), and ynwda (line A,8) rather than the tetragrammaton.
VI. 4QpaleoParaJosh (= 4Qpaleo apocrJoshd?)
Little is known about the very fragmentary 4QpaleoParaJosh (4Q123, published in DJD IX), dating to the last half of the first century BCE, which merely contains a few words and phrases from Joshua 21 (especially forms of çrgm), while deviating from the known texts of that chapter (cf. frg. 2, line 1 dyb hw[ ]db[ hçm presenting a slightly different form of Josh 21:2). This work may reflect yet another copy of the apocryphon of Joshua as its fragmentary remains of J oshua 21 run parallel to 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb), frg. 1 and a small fragment of 4Q522 frg. 9 i, even though there are no verbal overlaps.
If indeed 4QpaleoParaJosh contains segments of the rewritten book of Joshua, it is significant to note that this work was written, among other things, in paleo-Hebrew characters.
VII. Coverage of the "apocryphon of Joshua"
The various fragments of the Joshua cycle possibly represent segments of the same composition, named here 'apocryphon of Joshua.' Segments of most chapters of the book of Joshua are represented in the following fragments:
a. The earliest part of Joshua's career is probably represented by the Israelites' mourning for Moses, represented in 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb), frg. 14.
b. An account of the transferral of leadership from Moses to Joshua (Joshua 1) is contained in 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb), frgs. 3-4.
c. The crossing of the Jordan (Joshua 3) is covered by 4Q378 (4QapocrJosha) frg. 12 and probably additional fragments of that manuscript.
d. Several aspects of the movements of the ark in the first chapters of Joshua are described in 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc) 8 ii and probably also in 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb ) frg. 26.
e. The curse of the rebuilder of Jericho (Josh 6:26) together with a prophetic vision on the identity of that rebuilder, is expressed in 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb) frg. 22 ii, preceded by hymns in 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb) frg. 22 i.
f. The incident of Achan (Joshua 7) is probably alluded to in 4Q378 (4QapocrJosha), frg. 6 i.
g. The blessings mentioned in frgs. 15-17 of 4Q378 (4QapocrJosha) may reflect the ceremony on or opposite Mt. Gerizim (Josh 8:30-35), even though Newsom connects them with the crossing of the Jordan (chapter 3) and th e assembly at Gilgal (chapters 4-5).
h. The ruse of the Gibeonites (Joshua 9) is reflected in 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc), frg. 9 ii and also in 4Q378 (4QapocrJosha), frg. 22 (see above).
i. Joshua's restraining of the sun in chapter 10 is reflected in 4Q378 (4QapocrJosha), frg. 26, cf. especially line 5.
j. A summary of Joshua's victories over the inhabitants of Canaan is reflected in 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb), frg. 3 (parallel to Joshua 13).
k. Segments of the tribal lists in Joshua 15-20 described as the conquests of Joshua, as well as of the lists of localities not conquered by Joshua, are contained in 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc), frg. 9 i as well as in smalle r fragments of that composition. Similar lists are contained in 5Q9 (5QapocrJosh) and in 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb) frg. 1. See further the next item.
l. The Levitical cities in Joshua 21 are mentioned in 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb), frg. 1, in a small fragment ascribed to 4Q522 frg. 9 i, and in 4QpaleoParaJosh (= 4Qpaleo apocrJoshd?).
m. A summary of the conquests in accordance with God's plan, described in Joshua 21:43-45 in God's words, are related in 4Q378 (4QapocrJosha), frg. 11 in Joshua's words. For line 2 cf. Josh 21:45, and for line 3 cf. J osh 21:44. The same episode is also reflected in Mas apocrJosh.
n. Joshua's final speech (chapters 23-24) may be reflected in 4Q378 (4QapocrJosha), frg. 19 ii and in 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb), frg. 17 (cf. line 4 with Joshua 24:4-5). The same episode may be reflected also in Mas apocrJosh.
Beyond the aforementioned compositions devoted to Joshua, the figure of Joshua is mentioned only rarely in the Qumran texts: 1QDibre Moshe (1QDM) col. I, line 12; Damascus Document (CD) V:4.
VIII. Qumran authorship?
Because of the uncertainties concerning the relation between the the six different manuscripts of the rewritten book of Joshua, the issue of their possible Qumran authorship has to be dealt with separately and may be answered affirmatively for some manuscripts, although the evidence is not clear.
Talmon considers 4Q378-9 (4QapocrJosha-b) and probably MasParaJosh (= Mas apocrJosh?) to be Essene and he accordingly attempts to explain why the yah>=ad would be interested in this biblical book.
Puech, 691 considers 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc) an Essene document, and he makes certain connections between the views of the Essenes and the content of that document.
On the other hand, Hanan Eshel, in a small article (see n. 8), considers the Joshua apocryphon to be a non-Qumranic composition.
There are a few signs of a possible sectarian authorship of some of the rewritten Joshua texts from Qumran and Masada:
a. An isolated phrase ]l ^wh ttlw[ occurs without context in 4Q378 (4Qapocr-Josha) frg. 20 ii, line 5.
b. 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb) frg. 12, line 5 determines the date of the crossing of the Jordan according to the chronology of the jubilee years, which could point to a sectarian background of that manuscript (cf. 4QCom mGen A col. I and the book of Jubilees).
c. That 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb) was held in high esteem at Qumran is shown by the fact that it was quoted by 4QTest, which is definitely a sectarian composition.
d. Among the texts analyzed here, only MasParaJosh (= Mas apocrJosh?), found in Masada, seems to reflect the custom known from several Qumran compositions of avoiding the tetragrammaton and using other divine appellations instead. See la (line 6), µç = "name" (line 4), and ynwda (line 8). On the other hand, 4Q378, 4Q379, and 4Q522 freely use the divine appellations hwhy, µyhla, and hwla.
If my own theory on the existence of a Qumran scribal school is correct, there are signs of this scribal school in three of the Joshua documents. However, these features do not render the manuscripts to Qumran texts; it only is made probable th at the texts were copied by Qumran scribes.
4Q522 is written plene, including such typical Qumran forms as ^_w_ç,yar in line 7, hktam in line 11, and hkm[ in one of the fragments, but no additional forms typical of the Qumran scribal system are found in these texts.
4Q378 contains a mixture of short second person singular forms, such as šm[, and long ones (such as hkm[), but the long ones are more frequent. It also contains forms of the htlfq type. It contains a spelling hçwm (frg. 3 ii and 4 line 5 ) as well as other features of the Qumran scribal system.
The spelling of hdawm on line 8 of MasParaJosh (= Mas apocrJosh?), found at Masada, is identical to the writing of that word in several Qumran documents, and may indicate a Qumran origin for the text as a whole.
Beyond the paleographical dates of the manuscripts, which are never a good indication for the period of authorship, the curse against the rebuilder of Jericho in 4Q379 (4QapocrJoshb) frg. 22 ii is probably the only da table element for the composition. Several scholars have suggested that the object of that curse is Simon or John Hyrcanus, and in that case the composition should be considered anti-Hasmonean. If this assumption is correct, the composition would have bee n written either in the late second or early first century BCE.
The theological discussion in 4Q522 (4QapocrJoshc) as to why Jerusalem was not made a religious center in the days of Joshua may have been written from the point of view of the Jerusalem priesthood, but this eleme nt is not datable.
Frg. 9 i
1. ¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡¡v¡¡r,bq ^y[ taów µ[
2. ta rwpx tyb taw ¡yqb[
3. ta awúxm t[qb lwk ta wmy[
4. taw rwp[y ta µylkyh taó[
5. rbwk ^y[ ta wkm taw ab[
6. lç y[ taw atwdj ta µ[y]zrg r[h
7. r,ça ^wd[m ]¡yn¡[ ]w_nú
8. ^wlqçó[a ]aów ab¡[ ]^wú[
9. ^wrçh t[ ]¡ç µynçw lylg_[
10. twl[b t[aw ][bç rab ta hdwhó[yb/l
11. taw µlwd[ ta hly[q ta[
12. taw ^wzmg taw ynmt taw rzg[
13. twd,ç taw µynrpaw [^w]rfqw rqj¡[
14. ta,[w ^wy]l[hw ^[w]t,jth ^wrwj tyb[
15 h,[nwút]jtóh t,[aw ]hnwyl[ tlwg tó[aw
16 [ ]¡¡[
2. ] bçwy ta[
3. ]¡axy rça r¡[
4. ]çwlç ¡[
1. la]r,çyw w[
2. ]wm µtyxjmw ló¡[
3. ]a tóa[ ]¡ ¡¡¡[
2. and half of them
a. "the whole valley of Mizpa<" in line 3. The most northern locality included in the list is this valley mentioned in Josh 11:8 (cf. 11:3) as one of the localities until which the Israelites chased their enemies. Also Sidon is mentioned in that list.
b. Mount Gerizim in line 6.
c. "[Ma]don which is ..." (line 7). Josh 11:1; 12:19 mentions the king of Madon, of the northern league against whom Joshua fought.
The remainder of the names from this area is not known from biblical sources or other geographical lists consulted.
The content of lines 8-9 is not clear. Ashqelon and Sharon are connected with the coastal plane, but Galil is not.
Line 10 starts with the name of the tribe of Judah, so that it is expected that the names appearing afterwards would be connected with that tribe. Indeed, several of the names listed in lines 10-12, starting with Be<er Sheba, are known to ha ve belonged to the territory of that tribe as recorded in Joshua 15, although in that chapter they are listed in a sequence different from the present list.
(10) Be<er Sheba [Josh 15:28], also ascribed to Simeon (Josh 19:2)
(10) Be>alot [Josh 15:25; cf. also Josh 15:9,28 Ba>alah]
(11) Qe>ilah [Josh 15:44]
(11) >Adullam [Josh 15:35]
(12) Temni [cf. Josh 15:10,56 Timnah]
Cf. also the following localities, separated by several other names, listed as belonging to Judah in the biblical text, and possibly ascribed by 4Q522 to Joseph:
(15) Upper and Lower Gulot [Josh 15:19; Judg 1:15]
Note further the following localities relating to the tribe of Judah in this list:
(6) H>=aduta< [cf. Josh 15:25 H>=adatah tribe of Judah, H>=as>=or H>=adatah, "new H>=as>=or "?]
(8) Ashqelon [conquered by Judah Judg 1:18]
After the list of Judah (lines 10-12) the sequence is less clear.
Probably lines 12-15 represent the territory of the tribe of Joseph, even though most names in line 13 are not known. The following two localities are known to have belonged to the tribe of Joseph:
(12) Gezer [Josh 16:3,10]
(14) Upper and Lower Beth-H>=oron [Josh 16:3,5]
Furthermore, to this tribe the list probably also ascribed:
(12) Temni (even though it was listed above as belonging to Judah)
(12) Gimzon cf. Gimzu in the region of Lod (2 Chr 28:18)
(13) <Efronim/<Efranim known with an >ayin as >Efron in the territory of Efraim (2 Chr 13:19), probably identical with Ofra.
(15) Upper and Lower Gulot [Josh 15:19; Judg 1:15]
The other names in line 13 are unknown. If the name mentioned in that line is indeed Qit>=r[on], belonging to Zebulun, mentioned in Judg 1:30 as one of the places not conquered, it would be out of place in this list.
The tribal allegiance and location of the following cities is not clear: The list probably has a partially midrashic character.
(1) >Ain Qeber[
(2) Beth Zippor. This name could reflect Zippori, also in the north
(5) Makko, >Ain Kober
(6) H>=aduta<, >Oshel
(13) ?h>=iqqar (Ah>=iqqar?), Qit>=r[on], the Fields of ...
1. ]¡¡¡¡ [ ^w][mçw ¡[
2. t]a awh µg hkh awl ^dw µhl hy[
3. ¡ [t]aó rçaw ^ç tyb ta rkçyw[
4. ]a,w_ ¡¡w ^wúd[
There are dots above and under the shin of Beth Shean in line 3
2. ]¡ça yn[nkh,[
3. ]rwk[ qm[m ~[a
1. ]a rd[n µ¡[
2. ] awlw µtwa [
3. ]tó¡wy hawh ¡ló[
1. ]lacking [
2. ]them and not[
3. ] he [
2. ]lóarçy [
3. h]lúah µywg_[h
4. ]t,a hwhy[
1. ]¡h ^m wdryw
1. ]bl wy[
2. ]¡ hkm[ t[
The fragment thus mentions the following names of tribes: (1) Sim>[on, (2) Dan, (3) Issachar, and Asher. This short list may have started with the names of Judah and Sim>[on, whose conquests have been recorded in Judg 1:3ff. Of the other tribes which did not succeed in conquering all the areas alotted to them, Judges 1 mentions Efraim, Zebulun, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan, two of which are also mentioned in this fragment.
The literary framework of this fragment is an account of the acts of Joshua, since he is mentioned in lines 13 and 14 in the third person. At the same time, in lines 2-12 he is mentioned in the first person in a prophetic speech.