Joshua: Jesus Son Of Naue In Codex Vaticanus

INTRODUCTION

Joshua

i

ii

INTRODUCTION

Septuagint Commentary Series Editors

Stanley E. Porter Richard S.H. Hess John Jarick

INTRODUCTION

Joshua Jesus Son Of Nau֦ in Codex Vaticanus

By

A. Graeme Auld

BRILL LEIDEN • BOSTON 2005

iii

iv

INTRODUCTION This book is printed on acid-free paper. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication data

Auld, A. Graeme. Joshua: Jesus, son of Naue, in the Codex Vaticana / by A.G. Auld. p. cm. — (Septuagint commentary series, ISSN 1572-3755; v. 1) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 90-04-13842-0 1. Bible. O.T. Joshua—Commentaries. 2. Biblioteca apostolica vaticana. Manuscript. Vat. gr. 1209. I. Bible. O.T. Joshua. Greek. Septuagint. 2004. II. Bible. O.T. Joshua. English. Auld. 2004. III. Title. IV. Series. BS1295.53.A93 2004 222’2048—dc22

2004057475

ISSN 1572-3755 ISBN 90 04 13842 0 © Copyright 2005 by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill Academic Publishers, Martinus Nijho֎ Publishers and VSP. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, translated, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without prior written permission from the publisher. Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use is granted by Brill provided that the appropriate fees are paid directly to The Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Suite 910, Danvers, MA 01923, USA. Fees are subject to change. PRINTED IN THE NETHERLANDS

INTRODUCTION

v

CONTENTS

Preface ...................................................................................................... Abbreviations .......................................................................................... Introduction ............................................................................................

vii viii ix

The Book of Jesus Son of Nau֦ in Codex Vaticanus Text and Translation .......................................................................... Commentary ........................................................................................

1 85

Index of Biblical References .................................................................. General Index ..........................................................................................

231 236

vi

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

vii

PREFACE The Book of Joshua in Greek is far from being a new interest for me. But I have very much welcomed the invitation to study it primarily for its own sake, not ( just?) as witness to the developing tradition of the Hebrew book. In company with the other contributions to this series, the focus of attention here is not an eclectic reconstruction of a presumed ‘original Greek translation’ of Joshua – but rather a single Greek manuscript. My immediate choice was the text of ‘Jesus’ in Codex Vaticanus, the so-called LXX̡ (henceforth B): one of the early great codices, possibly the earliest – and amongst them the most distinctive when compared with the traditional Hebrew text (MT). The huge importance of this manuscript has of course long been known from transcripts in polyglot Bibles and critical editions. However, it has been a particular thrill, thanks to the publication in 1999 of the magnificent colour facsimile edition of the whole Codex: Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecorum Codex Vaticanus B, Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, and thanks to generous support from Edinburgh University Library and special funds in New College Library which supported purchase of a copy, to have obtained much closer, though not immediate, access to this most important of texts. I am also happy to acknowledge the freedom given me to research and prepare this translation and commentary in two sabbatical terms, one provided by the University of Edinburgh and the other by the Arts and Humanities Research Board.

viii

INTRODUCTION

ABBREVIATIONS Manuscript and Text abbreviations A B BA CB DH Gk H&R HB Heb. LSJ LXX M-F MT OT Pent. Pss. SS Targ v.

Codex Alexandrinus Codex Vaticanus La Bible d’Alexandrie Cambridge Bible den Hertog 1996 Greek Hatch and Redpath 1998 Hebrew Bible Hebrew Liddell, Scott, Jones Septuagint Moatti-Fine 1996 Masoretic Text Old Testament Pentateuch Psalms Seppo Sipilä 1999 Targum verse

Grammatical abbreviations acc. adj. dat. genit. hiph. inf. absol. lit. masc. n. neut. nom. niph. para. part. perf. pl. sg. SV vb. VS

accusative adjective dative genitive hiphil infinitive absolute literally masculine noun neuter nominative niphal paragraph participle perfect plural singular subject followed by verb verb verb followed by subject

INTRODUCTION

ix

INTRODUCTION Origins and format The origins and history of Codex 1209 in the Vatican Library are largely unknown. It appears to have come into the possession of the Library in the middle of the second half of the fifteenth century, around 1475. It was most likely brought to the west from Constantinople itself – and probably removed from there as part of the events relating to the fall of the Byzantine capital to the Turks in 1453. A much earlier proposal to recognise its importance by a facsimile edition is discussed by Alexander Geddes in the 1790’s. That also had papal support, but was apparently blocked by the Roman inquisition (Auld 2003). As to origins, it is generally held that Vaticanus was copied in the same scriptorium as another of the great early codices – Sinaiticus: one scribal hand has been recognised as having contributed to both copies. It has been both claimed and denied for a long time that both great codices were among the fifty copies of the Bible said by Eusebius of Caesarea to have been produced under his direction for Emperor Constantine’s fifty new churches in his new Rome of the east. That has encouraged the view that Caesarea Maritima itself was their place of origin (Skeat 1999). However, Alexandria is also claimed, largely because of significant textual links with the Coptic tradition. Most of the biblical books in Codex Vaticanus, including Jesus, are copied in three columns per page (Sinaiticus has four). As we move from Deuteronomy to Jesus or from Jesus to Judges, or even from the end of the Octateuch (Ruth) to the beginning of Kingdoms, there is no indication that we are moving from one section of the biblical canon to another. The start of a new book is marked simply by a move to a new column. The original ‘title’ is given at the end of the text. The large marginal blue ̩ of the opening word ̨̩̠ is secondary; the original ̩, now erased but still visible, did not even protrude over the margin (see below). The single word ̨̦̱̮̳̱ above the head of the column is also secondary, and probably from a very much later date. Many more modifications have been made, but almost all are obvious.

x

INTRODUCTION

Division as interpretation Explicit on the pages of the Codex are four di֎erent divisions of the book. The latest, added presumably after the receipt of the Codex in the west, is the division into the familiar 24 chapters (but without verse division) – these are noted by changing page headers and a neat marginal mark by the opening word of the chapter. Next latest is the division into 55 sections, marked by large A, ̡, ̢ . . . ̬̤ in the left margin adjacent to the opening of each section. Only one of these marks has been obviously moved: ̬ (= 50) from 22:11 to 22:10b. Much less obvious now are the indicators of an earlier division into 48 sections, marked by much smaller numeral letters. Many of these are no longer apparent, some possibly erased and some covered by the larger numeral letters used to mark the subsequent division. The basic division, however, was denoted in all clarity by the first scribe. He began each new section on a fresh line which protruded slightly over the left margin. And so each ‘paragraph’ is marked at its beginning by the small extrusion, and at its end by any balance of the final line being left blank. The latter feature is not always obvious, as the scribe resorted to abbreviation at the end of a section, if otherwise a new and final line would have contained only a few letters. Very occasionally, the scribe surrendered this economical approach to his writing material in order to mark elements of a list, each with a new line. This is most marked in paragraph 60, where in most cases ̡̨̠̱̪̤̠ and the name of the place of which he was king (the western 12:10b̀–22) are given their own line. Just ahead of that list (12:8), the members of the recurring list of nations that preceded Israel in its land are given each its own line, as also in 9:1 (but not in 3:10; 11:3; or 24:11). A further example is the list of five kings in 10:5. Very little surrender of economy is in fact required for these exceptions; for the average line within each column contains some 14–16 characters. The layout is mirrored in Alexandrinus in 12:8 and 12:10–24 (but not in 9:1), and is more prominent there. The pages in A have only two columns and each has space for some 25 characters. In the list of western kings there, the place-names begin in the middle of each column after a generous space following ̡̨̠̱̪̤̠; and there is room within the following two lines to contain the longer entries in 12:23. Only in two further paragraphs of Vaticanus have I noted a similar feature: the list of ‘satrapies’ in 13:4; and the seven entries from Ailֲm to Baiϑsamus in 21:14–16a, each of which occupies two lines. The later Greek divisions into 48 or 55 sections are evidence of a his-

INTRODUCTION

xi

tory of interpretation. In most cases they either correspond to these primary sections, or group clusters of them. However, occasionally their beginnings do not correspond to the beginnings of the older sections and the openings of the 24 western chapters correspond much less often. The following table of correspondences uses the notation of the western chapters and verses to compare the 103 paragraphs of B’s scribe with the subsequent 48 and 55 sections, and also the principal Masoretic division, its ‘open’ sections (770). Of the 55 sections of the 2nd marginal hand, 18 are identical to the original paragraphs (1, 15, 17–19, 22–23, 26–27, 36– 40, 45, 47, 51, 55); 14 group complete paragraphs (2, 5–12, 16, 33, 44, 46, 52); 5 subdivide original paragraphs (24, 25, 41–43); while 18 imply a different basic division (3–4, 13–14, 20–21, 28–32, 34–35, 48–50, 53–54). The largest discrepancies between B’s first scribe and the second marginal division are within (the western) chapters 13–17. The scribe’s paragraph 62 (13:14b–14:15) covers 4 sections (28–31) of the later division plus part of the next. On the other hand, that section 32 (14:6–16:10) covers the latter part of para. 62 and all of paras 63–67. The middle half of this 55–section division has been added also to Codex Alexandrinus (̠). A small marginal notation (̨̡ = 12) corresponding to the large marginal notation in ̡ is visible first at the beginning of the embassy from Gabaֲn (9:9) and such notation continues almost unbroken in ̠, and in agreement with ̡, till ̪̦ (= 38) at 19:17. There are, however, exceptions: ̩̠ is not visible (A opens 11:10 di֎erently from ̡) nor is ̩̦. Then ̢̪ is placed at 18:1 rather than 17:1. Correspondingly, there is no ̪̣; but ̪̤ is at 18:8 as in Vaticanus. It would appear that a division that has been completely realised in B has been only partially (and then not entirely accurately) entered into A. The ‘original’ paragraphs in B are of very di֎erent length. Sixteen correspond to only one of our familiar ‘verses’ (3:1; 4:14; 5:1, 2, 13, 14, 15; 6:1, 26; 7:19; 10:33; 11:6; 17:14; 19:51; 22:30; 24:33); and thirteen to pairs of verses (3:5–6, 7–8; 6:27–7:1; 9:1–2; 10:29–30, 31–32, 34–35, 36–37; 17:1–2; 18:1–2; 19:49b-50; 21:1–2; 24:28–29). Only 24:33 and four of the two-verse paragraphs (9:1–2 in MT; and 10:29–30, 34–35, 36–37 in the marginal division shared with A) are recognised as separate sections in any of the other divisions of the book noted in the table below. In their di֎erent lengths, it is these 103 paragraphs of B’s first scribe which have been adopted in this study as the basic divisions of the text for the purposes of translation and commentary. The paragraph titles are of course my own. And, among them, it is the short paragraphs that most challenge our familiar modern approach to reading. A good example is the division into three

xii

INTRODUCTION

paragraphs (21–23) of the short encounter of Jesus with the divine commander (5:13–15) – in Alexandrinus this significant piece of text is in as many as six sections. Whether shorter or longer, they direct our attention to what the scribe or his tradition found important in the text. Divisions of Joshua/Jesus in Hebrew and Greek B [1st hand – 103]

B [48 divs]

B [55 divs]

MT [51 divs]

1:1–9 1:10–15 1:16–18 2:1–3 2:4–24 3:1 3:2–4 3:5–6 3:7–8 3:9–13 3:14–17a 3:17b–4:3 4:4–10 4:11–13 4:14 4:15–24 5:1 5:2 5:3–8 5:9–12 5:13 5:14 5:15 6:1 6:2–5 6:6–11 6:12–14 6:15–25 6:26 6:27–7:1

1. 1:1–18

1. 1:1–9 2. 1:10–18

1:1–9 1:10–18

2. 2:1–24

3. 2:1–21 4. 2:22–3:13

2:1–3:8

3. 3:1–17a

3:9–4:1a 5. 3:14–4:14 4. 3:17b–4:10

4:1b–14

5. 4:11–14 6. 4:15–24 7. 5:1–??

6. 4:15–5:1

4:15–5:8

7. 5:2–12 5:9–6:11 8. 5:13–7:1

9. 6:12–26

6:12–25 6:26–7:26

10. 6:27–7:12

xiii

INTRODUCTION

Table (cont.) B [1st hand – 103] 7:2–5 7:6–9 7:10–15 7:16–18 7:19 7:20–26 8:1–17 8:18–29 9:1–2 8:30–35 9:3–15 9:16–23 9:24–27 10:1–7 10:8–11 10:12–19 10:20–28 10:29–30 10:31–32 10:33 10:34–35 10:36–37 10:38–42 11:1–5 11:6 11:7–15 11:16–20 11:21–23 12:1–6 12:7–24 13:1–14 13:14A–14:15

B [48 divs]

B [55 divs]

MT [51 divs]

9. 7:2–26 11. 7:13–??

10. 8:1–29 11. 9:1–2 & 8:30–35 12. 9:3–27

13. 10:1–14 16. 10:12–27 17. 10:28–42

14. 10:16–28

8:1–17 8:18–29 8:30–35 9:1–2 9:3–27

10:1–7 10:8–14 10:15–27 10:28–32

15. 10:29–30 16. 10:31–33 10:33–35

18. 11:1–??

17. 10:34–35 18. 10:36–37 19. 10:38–42 20. 11:1–9 21. 11:10–15 22. 11:16–20 23. 11:21–23 24. 12:1–3 25. 12:4–6 26. 12:7–24 27. 13:1–14a 28. 13:14b-23 29. 13:24–28 30. 13:29–32

10:36–43 11:1–23

12:1–24

13:1–23 13:24–14:5

xiv

INTRODUCTION

Table (cont.) B [1st hand – 103]

B [48 divs]

B [55 divs] 31. 14:1–5 32. 14:6–16:10

15:1–12 15:13–19 15:20–63 16:1–4 16:5–10 17:1–2 17:3–10b̿ 17:10b̀–13 17:14 17:15–18 18:1–2 18:3–8a 18:8b–10 18:11–28 19:1–9 19:10–16 19:17–23 19:24–31 19:32–39 19:40–49a

19:49b–50 19:51 20:1–9 21:1–2 21:3–7 21:8–16 21:17–24 21:25–42 21:42a-45 22:1–5 22:6–11

21. 15:1–?? 25. 15:13–19 26. 15:20–63 27. 16:1–?? 28. 17:1–10b̿

MT [51 divs]

14:6–15 15:1–19 15:20–63 16:1–10

33. 17:1–18

17:1–18

34. 18:1–7

18:1–10

29. 17:10b̀–18

30. 18:1–10

35. 18:8–28 31. 18:11–28 32. 19:1–9 33. 19:10–16 34. 19:17–23 35. 19:24–31 36. 19:32–39 37. 19:40–??

36. 19:1–9 37. 19:10–16 38. 19:17–23 39. 19:24–31 40. 19:32–39 41. 19:40–47A 42. 19:48 43. 19:48A–49a 44. 19:49b–51 45. 20:1–9 46. 21:1–42

40. 21:3–12 41. 21:13–??

44. 22:9–34

18:11–28 19:1–9 19:10–16 19:17–23 19:24–31 19:32–39 19:40–48 19:49–51

20:1–9 21:1–8 21:9–16 21:17–45

47. 21:42a-45 48. 22:1–6 49. 22:7–10a

22:1–8 22:9–12

xv

INTRODUCTION

Table (cont.) B [1st hand – 103]

B [48 divs]

22:12–29 22:30 22:31–34 23:1–16 24:1–15 24:16–20 24:21–27 24:28–29 24:30–32 24:33

45. 23:1–16 46. 24:1–24

B [55 divs]

MT [51 divs]

50. 22:10b–34

22:13–20 22:21–29 22:30–34

51. 23:1–16 52. 24:1–27

23:1–16 24:1–15 24:16–28

53. 24:28–31 54. 24:32 55. 24:33

24:29–33

47. 24:25–29 48. 24:30–33

The Presentation of the Text The text printed at the head of each section of the commentary that follows is something of a compromise. As far as possible it o֎ers a transcription rather closer than that provided in the Cambridge Old Testament in Greek (henceforth CB) of what the first scribe first wrote. It may be that some of the corrections to this text were made by the scribe himself; but I suspect that, if such exist, they are very few and far between. Even cursory perusal of the new facsimile edition was enough to answer some questions which had long puzzled me, such as why printed editions differed, in some cases consistently, in their transcriptions. CB, for example, had largely reproduced the text of the first scribe of B. Rahlfs, on the other hand, who based his eclectic edition on B and at some points actually transcribed B alongside A, was following corrections on the Vaticanus MS. Most of the divergences relate to the letter Iota: 1. In transcription of Hebrew names, the scribe maximised his use of ̨̤ in the middle or at the end of names. 2. In many native Greek words which normally include EI, he exhibited the opposite preference and wrote only I, although there is movement also in the opposite direction: ҙ͎͇̿ (‘borders’) was frequently written ̨̮̰̤̠, and the ̤ subsequently erased. 3. Not infrequently he wrongly repeated at the beginning of a proper name the final letter of the preceding word – most often ̨̩̠ (‘and’).

xvi

INTRODUCTION

The most frequent di֎erence between the two published transcriptions relates to a whole series of proper names where the first scribe wrote ̨̤ as in ̵̷̨̨̤̰̤ for Jericho, but a later hand subsequently erased the ̤ of ̨̤, leaving only a faint shadow in its space. Brooke and MacLean in CB consistently print ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓, and Rahlfs ̨͎͇͔͖̓; and so with all such names. Native Greek words where the scribe wrote only I for the standard ̨̤ include ҅͐͑Ӂ͈͇̓ (3:16; 4:10), ͈͉͉͇̻̿͑̿̓͊͊͋ͅ (13:2, and frequently), ҈͍͂͐̿͋ (18:9), ͉͎̿͑Ӄ̿͋ (22:27), ›͉̻͉͇͊͊̿ͅ (22:16, 31), and the like. In many such cases a small ̓ has been added superscript slightly to the left of the ͇. Both of these alterations, whether by erasure or addition, are most readily understood not as self-corrections but as alterations of what B’s scribe first wrote entered by a later hand on the basis of di֎erent conventions. The fact that the first scribe chose or preserved ̨̤ in transliteration of Hebrew at the same time as departing from it in standard Greek appears to demonstrate his accuracy as copyist. It may also attest the translator’s principle of transliteration: he uses ̨ for what could be loosely described as Hebrew consonantal yod – yod at the beginning of words (such as ̨͍͐ͅ‫ )͏ن‬or at the end of closed syllables (as in ̠͇͉͖͋ from *%! or ̧͇̿͊̿͋ from *)!7); but ̨̤ for vocalic yod, whether medial (̨͎͇͔͖̓̓) or final (̬͓͉͇̓͆̿̓). If this is so, then ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ will attest !4! in the Hebrew text from which the translator was working (his Vorlage). Both 4! and !4! are attested in MT, just as  is regular for David in Samuel-Kings (MT), but ! in Chronicles and Psalms. ̣͇̿͒̓͂ like ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ will attest a Vorlage which used the vocalic yod. The original scribe was apparently aware that I was the more important letter: when he had to economise in space at the end of a line, he wrote ̵̷̨̨̤̰̤. Apart from the very common erasing of ̤ from ̨̤, and the occasional superscript addition of ̤ before ̨, remarkably few alterations have been made to what was first written, some of them in superscript and some in the margin. Not infrequently, we also find the final –̬ of a 3rd sg.aorist form such as ̨̤̯̤̬ erased before a consonant. It is not impossible that a few of these are be in the hand of the original scribe; however, such palaeographical decisions are beyond my competence. Most alterations to what was first written are noted in the commentary below. However, if the deliberate use of ̨̤ in transcription of Hebrew, and the non-standard use of ̨ for ̨̤ in Greek words, both tend to suggest scribal fidelity and care, the third divergence between CB and Rahlfs mentioned above points in a di֎erent direction. Several proper names within lists have acquired an initial ̨- by repetition of the final letter of the preceding word (dittography), most commonly the connective ̨̩̠ or the preposi-

INTRODUCTION

xvii

tion ̨̤̯: for example ̨̩̠ ̠̥̦̩̠ has become ̨̩̠ ̨̠̥̦̩̠ (15:35), and ̨̤̯ ̠̱̦̰, with a second shift as well, has become ̨̤̯ ̨̡̠̱̦ (17:10). The wrongly doubled letter is not always ̨, as the case of ̲̦̬ ̧̤̫̫̠ (Hebrew Hammath) become ̲̦̬ ̧̬̤̫̫̠ illustrates (21:32). In all of these cases, what the scribe first wrote is transcribed in the text-sections below; but a note is regularly added where even a non-specialist can appreciate how a mis-transcription may have come about. And yet it is equally true that the transcription which follows is not at all what the first scribe wrote. He wrote in capital letters only, with no spacing between words. In what follows, there is spacing between words, capitals are used only for proper names, and iota-subscript has been added to dative singular forms and elsewhere as appropriate. Most of these editorial decisions are uncontroversial; and yet it is not always clear which nouns are proper names. One recurring case is of particular interest: how to transcribe ̨̩̳̰̮̱. I have taken this almost every time to be the proper name for Israel’s god; and so to be set with capital ̩ (̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏) and to be rendered by Lord (not the Lord). The issue here is not (as often stated) whether or in how many cases ̨̩̳̰̮̱ is accompanied by the article: hence ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ (Lord) when without the article, but (say) ͑ӄ͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͋ (the lord) when the article is present. The issue is rather how the usage of ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ with or without the article maps on the usage of other commonly used declined names in this book with or without the article, such as ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬and ̫͖͒͐‫͏ق‬. There are 172 instances of Jesus in the book bearing his name: 120 are in the nominative (̨͍͐ͅ‫ )͏ن‬and only one case (6:16) is accompanied by ҕ, and even it is attested there in B only; 29 are in the accusative (̨͍͐ͅ‫)͋ن‬ and ͑ӄ͋ is found only in 4:14; 7 have the genitive ending (̨͍͐ͅ‫ )ن‬of which those in 10:17 and 17:14 are marked as dative (preceded by ͑‫)ى‬, but none is accompanied by ͍͑‫ ;ن‬and 16 have the dative ending (̨͍͐ͅ‫ – )ل‬here only that in 19:49 does not have ͑‫ى‬, yet it is clearly marked as dative by the following phrase in apposition. The smaller but corresponding figures for Moses (54) break down as follows: 30 nominative (̫͖͒͐‫)͏ق‬, 4 accusative (̫͖͒͐‫)͋ق‬, and 13 genitive (̫͖͒͐‫)ك‬, all of these without the article, and 7 dative (̫͖͒͐‫ )ك‬of which only one does not have ͑‫ى‬, but is marked as dative by the following apposition (9:24). The genit. and dat. forms of Moses are the same (̷̫̳̱̦): genit. was the default case; datival usage had to marked by use of the definite article or by context. In the case of Jesus, all instances of ̨̨̦̱̮ but one were also accompanied by the article; however, ̨̦̱̮̳ was also acceptable as a dative if appropriately marked. There are two more instances of ̨̩̳̰̮̱ in the book (228) than of Jesus

xviii

INTRODUCTION

and Moses put together (226). No instance of nom. (̨̩̳̰̮̱ 111x) or acc. (̨̩̳̰̮̬ 13x) is preceded by the article. That already suggests that ‘Lord’ may (almost) always have been intended as a proper name. Of the 85 instances of genit. ̨̩̳̰̮̳, 4 take ͍͑‫( ن‬4:24; 6:8; 22:16, 22); and of the 19 datives ̷̨̩̳̰, 3 are preceded by ͑‫( ى‬6:19; 7:19; 24:29). Each of these seven cases with the article is formally ambiguous, and could mean ‘of/to/for the lord’; and all are discussed within the commentary below. However, when compared with the data relating to Jesus and Moses, a small number of genitives and datives with the article is entirely to be expected of a proper name as frequently used as ‘Lord’. In two cases of the genitive without the article (3:9, 11), ͈͎͒Ӄ͍͒ is in the middle of a chain of genitives, and so ‘lord’ is appropriate. The Translation A translation of a translation needs to be quite explicit about its aims. Attention could be concentrated either on the original text before the first translator and what that had meant, or on the individual qualities of the earlier translation. Our attention here is certainly on the second, but requires still clearer focus. We have immediate access neither to the Old Greek translation of the Hebrew book of Joshua, nor of course to the Hebrew text from which it was translated. All we have are rather di֎erent copies of that translation, themselves dating (probably at the earliest) from some five centuries after the OG rendering was first made. And our business is with one of these copies. How much the text it presents had been altered in the interim we cannot know. How far its idiosyncracies are those of the Old Greek is a matter about which we can only speculate. All the more reason to start by translating it as it is. There is much discussion about what constitutes a good translation. As in many such discussions, ‘good’ has to be measured in terms of ‘fit for purpose’. The translation below is deliberately fairly literal. It is not at all a ‘dynamic rendering’, one that tries to present in idiomatic English the meaning the translator finds in the parent text. In particular, where I find non-standard Greek I aim to produce non-standard English. ‘Mistakes’ or ‘lapses’ in idiom are preserved, even where we can be reasonably confident how the Greek could be better said. Even in the tiny number of exceptions, where we can be next to certain that an unfortunate error has crept into the text, I have attempted to make some sense of what the scribe wrote, though with some qualms. These include ̵̠̰̮̬̲̠̤̬̠̰̠

INTRODUCTION

xix

(13:21), most probably a corruption of ̵̠̰̮̬̲̠̱̯̠̰̠ which we find in A; and ̨̮̯̤̰̤̯̠ (23:4), although the majority reading ̴̨̤̯̤̰̰̠ has much more to commend it in terms of originality. On the other hand, I am confident that ̷̨̤̰̤̬ (21:20) belongs in the text of B: not because I have any doubt that gbwl was in the Vorlage or that ̷̨̮̰̬ was its proper translation, but rather because I suspect this was an intentional and even playful ‘mistake’. I started this project with the hunch that a literal translation, even when often rather strained, o֎ered the best basis for the commentary; and I am now persuaded that such a rendering best mirrors the sort of translation Gk o֎ers of the underlying Hebrew. It is sometimes easier to suggest what is bad translation than define what is good. In Vaticanus, we find in the main a mix of three di֎erent approaches: 1. There is much plain, sensible rendering into idiomatic Greek. 2. There is a good deal of literal word-for-word rendering. 3. There are many ‘exegetical’ renderings in which the Greek expression chosen by the translator strains at the meaning of the parent Hebrew, yet at the same time alerts the reader to consider this passage in the light of a portion of the Pentateuch. And there is a small further category of renderings, where the Greek appears to have been chosen because it sounds like the parent Hebrew. Occasionally these appear rather forced; but some may have text-critical relevance (for example, ͔҄͐Ӈ͖͋ may attest %! _! in 1:14). Once appreciated for what they are, none of these sorts of translation can be faulted. Each of them is contributing in its own way to making not only the meaning but also the flavour and the wider religious context of the Hebrew original – and even on occasion its sound – available to a Greek readership. My impression is in fact of near-virtuosic translation. The co-existence throughout of idiomatic and pedantically literal rendering demonstrates that each was quite as possible for the translator. Similarly, in this book at least, any suspicion that exegesis had been the last resort of an incompetent translator seems quite unjustified. However, in one part of the book (possibly the exception that proves the rule), there is much less of this mix. The renderings of the boundary descriptions in chapters 13–19 appear very literal; and it is much less easy, from this distance in time and space and language, to be confident that they would have been comprehensible in all details. The decision to render only standard Greek into standard English has implications for the treatment of the many proper names. Hebrew names that had been adopted into Greek, that is given a Greek declinable form,

xx

INTRODUCTION

I have tended to render using the familiar form in which they have been adopted into English: hence Jesus, Moses, and Jordan, rather than forms closer to the Greek, such as Iesous, Moyses, and Iordanes. A partial exception is made for names like Galgal, rather than either Gilgal or Galgala, because in the /a/ of the first syllable LXX preserves an older pronunciation than Gilgal of MT or standard English renderings. On the other hand, the great majority of names in this book, which the translator simply transliterated into Greek characters, I have re-transliterated into English characters. Modified English characters have been used where necessary to produce an ‘alpha-beta’ in which each character corresponds uniquely to a letter of the Greek alphabet. The table below mostly follows the order of the Greek alphabet in the central column. The right-hand column lists the Hebrew letter or letters which each Greek letter transcribes. And the left-hand column lists the English letter, or modified English letter, used in this translation to transcribe each Greek letter found in B’s transliterated Hebrew names. a

̿

b

̀



g

́

 or .

d

͂



e

̓

z

̈́



֦

ͅ

! (vocalic)

ϑ

͆

7

i

͇

! (initial or consonantal)

ei

͇̓

! (vocalic)

k

͈

3 or #

l

͉

%

m

͊

)

n

͋

+

x

͌

o

͍

p

›

0

xxi

INTRODUCTION

(cont.) r

͎

4

s

͐

, ` _ or 2

t

͑

u

͒

 (consonantal)

ou

͍͒

 (vocalic)

p˰

͓

0

Η

͔

 or #

͕ (never in PN in Jesus) ֲ

͖

 (vocalic)

The original Greek alphabet was of course adopted and adapted from the Semitic alphabet: the early letter shapes as well as their names, their numerical values, and the alphabetical order are all testimony to this. To give examples from the letters that interest us here: # (kaph) survived as ͈ (kappa), 0 ( peh) as › ( pi), and 7 (tau) as ͑ (tau). However, 3 (qoph) was not required in Greek and was dropped, (tet) was replaced by ͆ (theta), while non-semitic ͓ (phi ) and ͔ (chi ) needed to be added near the end. Yet, many centuries later, when Greek translators were at work on the Hebrew Bible, they adopted di֎erent equivalences for several letters: 3 # 7 0

always > often > always > often > often >

͈ ͔ (and always when initial) ͑ ͆ (and always when initial) ͓ (and always when initial)

Our choice of ϑ as the modified English letter to represent ͆, as of Η for ͔ and p˰ for ͓, allows us to maintain visual contact between the English transliteration and the Hebrew original (t/7, k/#, and p/0). There is no space in this commentary to consider in detail the contribution of Codex Vaticanus to the history of place names in the Holy Land. But it is recognised as an important witness, at least in the list of cities of the Levites (paragraphs 88–90 below). These cities are listed in 1 Chronicles 6 as well as in Joshua 21; and yet only some half of the names are listed in the same form in the familiar Hebrew text of each chapter.

xxii

INTRODUCTION

Since Albright’s landmark study in 1945, it has been widely accepted that the B text of Joshua 21 mediates between MT in Joshua 21 and MT in 1 Chronicles 6 – and this because B is a good witness to that older Hebrew version of the list of cities from which each text in MT has diverged. Even where we have no corroborative evidence of problems in the transmission of place-names in MT, we should sift very seriously all alternative evidence in B. The table above is intended to ease that task. Any attempt at literal translation of Greek Jesus carries the implication that familiar ‘landmarks’ of Hebrew Joshua must disappear – and not just the hero who gives it its name together with a scatter of well-known place-names. Prominent among other ‘landmarks’ is ‘the ark of the covenant’ – become in this rendering ‘the chest of the disposition’. In another book, the familiar name for this sacred object might have survived intact; however, ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈ͅ is an important term in this book and means something distinct from ‘covenant’ (7!4), though it is its stock rendering. It could have been translated ‘arrangement’, but the more legal-sounding ‘disposition’ (based on the literal rendering of ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈ͅ into Latin) has been chosen here – and a ‘[document-]chest’ chosen to hold it (see further on paragraph 100 below). History of Scholarship The history of the study of LXX Jesus – and especially of its relationship to the traditional Hebrew text – in the century and a quarter since Hollenberg’s Der Charakter der alex. Uebersetzung des B. Josua (1876) has often enough been told. Several aspects of this have been discussed and advanced in Auld (1998). Several of the near forty essays by Emanuel Tov republished as The Greek and Hebrew Bible are relevant to Joshua or Jesus, and constitute an important resource for further study (Tov 1999). Three other recent volumes exemplify in their di֎erent ways a concern which has become more prominent recently: to study the Greek book more for its own sake, and not just as a means of access to the Hebrew text underlying it. The first is the volume on Jésus ( Josué ) by Jacqueline Moatti-Fine in the series La Bible d’Alexandrie (henceforth M-F), published in 1996. This fine French commentary series on the Greek Bible from Alexandria has interests which overlap with the present one, but are also substantially di֎erent. The whole series is based on the (eclectic, edited) Rahlfs text. This appears to give it a certain unity and cohesion. The volumes have also

INTRODUCTION

xxiii

been appearing more or less in canonical order. Together, these mean that M-F has been able to use in her translation of Jesus a set of Greek-French equivalences for key terms already established in the sister-volumes on the Pentateuch, mirroring her interest in how the original translator had largely adopted Hebrew-Greek equivalences from the Greek Pentateuch. And yet, of course we can never be certain that it was exactly the text of the Pentateuch as reconstructed by Rahlfs which was used by the translator of Jesus as reconstructed by Rahlfs. M-F has also paid useful attention to relevant Greek texts outside the Bible, such as the history in Joshua as retold in the Jewish Archaeology (Antiquities) of Josephus (V, 1–119) and the writings of several of the early Christian Fathers. Apart from the different base text (and the di֎erences between Rahlfs and B are not so very many), our principal di֎erence is over the aim of our translations. M-F is more concerned to produce standard French than I standard English – for example, she routinely supplies the ‘missing’ definite article. And where the Greek is particularly diّcult she tends to tilt her interpretation in the direction of the standard Hebrew. However, her use of Seigneur (without article!) for ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ and her exploration of exegetical renderings are both exemplary. Also in 1996 came the Giessen dissertation by C.G. den Hertog, Studien zur griechischen Übersetzung des Buches Josua (henceforth DH). Its focus is the reconstruction (text) and setting (time and place) of the original Greek translation. He first o֎ers a careful discussion of the (not so many) di֎erences between the texts of Rahlfs and Margolis – he had had the benefit of working for a period in the Göttingen Septuaginta-Unternehmen on the promised edition of Greek Joshua by U. Quast. Then he plots the relationship between Joshua in Greek and the Greek versions of Genesis, Exodus, Numbers, Deuteronomy, Judges, and Psalms – deducing that the translation was made outside Palestine, probably in Egypt, in the earlier part of the 2nd century BCE. Though it is far from the longest part of his dissertation, DH considers that its final section is the most important: his evaluation of the translation technique exhibited in the Greek rendering. We shall have regular recourse to his careful discussions. And the third is the Helsinki dissertation by Seppo Sipilä, published in 1999 as Between Literalness and Freedom (henceforth SS). Sipilä also had the benefit of access to the studies of Moatti-Fine and den Hertog. She too works from the Rahlfs text. Even more than DH, the focus of her attention is translation technique: more precisely how (di֎erently) the translators from Joshua and Judges have handled clause connections introduced by the connective w- and the conjunction ky. The comparative

xxiv

INTRODUCTION

data demonstrate readily that Jesus is much more free, less literal, translation than Judges – however, for reasons I sketched above, I think I would prefer the description ‘flexible’ to ‘free’. Without unnecessary dogmatism, both M-F and SS in their own way seek to explain the Greek text as a translation of a Hebrew text as close as possible to MT. Partly because they are newer and not yet much reviewed, partly because of their quality, and partly because of their implied (and sometimes explicit) challenge to my own work on LXX Jesus over 30 years, I draw regular attention in the commentary to their comments and those of DH. It is vital to be reminded just how many questions must remain open, because of lack of suّcient evidence to bring closure. And yet it does seem to me that M-F and SS, though open to detect a different Vorlage, are over-disposed to relate Greek Jesus to MT. Jesus and ‘The Law’ There are several di֎erent aspects to the relationship between the Greek book of Jesus and the books of the Pentateuch. There were already many links between Hebrew Joshua and the books of Moses, and a large number of these have ‘survived’ the work of di֎erent translators – indeed we may suppose that the ‘Old Greek’ translator of Jesus deliberately made use of translation equivalents which had been adopted in the Pentateuch. There may have been links of this sort which were missed, and have been lost; and some of these ‘losses’ may be only apparent: due to changes in the proto-Masoretic tradition subsequent to the preparation of the OG translation, more likely in Joshua but possibly also in the ‘Torah’. Of possibly greatest interest to us in this study, there are links with ‘the Law’ which work only in (or better in) Greek than in Hebrew. Some of these are fairly straightforward to unpack. ‘Defined’ (͇͂Ӊ͎͇͐̓͋) is used in place of ‘swore’ in 5:6 to make a link with a passage in Leviticus which shared two features with Jesus 5 – the stock expression ‘a land oozing milk and honey’, and a defining of some who would and some who would not enter that land. ‘Spontaneously’ (̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͊̿͑̿) instead of ‘in its place’ (!77) of the wall of Jericho falling down in 6:5, compares its collapse with rules in Leviticus about unplanted seed growing up; and, through that link, the translator reinforces the demand that everything in Jericho should be devoted to the deity, and Israel should not benefit from this spontaneity. Of course, the story of Jericho’s walls in Hebrew already shared ‘jubilee’ trumpets with Leviticus. But the use of ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ-

INTRODUCTION

xxv

͊̿͑̿ makes these links more immediately or explicitly serviceable for interpretation. Some are more recondite, and the interpreter is left unsure as to how much subtlety is in play. Examples from the stories of circumcision and passover may help to explicate an issue which may be more widely prevalent. In B the divine command to Jesus to circumcise his people (5:2) includes a double rendering of ‘flint’ in ‘flint knives’: first the literal ›͎̓͑Ӄ͋̿͏ (‘of stone’), then the exegetical Ѩ͈ ›ҿ͎͑̿͏ ј͈͎͍͑Ӆ͍͊͒ recalling the water in Deut. 8:15 brought by Lord out ‘of stone cut sharp’. Alexandrinus uses only the exegetical phrase here; and it has been argued since de Lagarde that literal renderings alongside exegetical ones are generally secondary (Tov 1999: 156). If we could be sure that the two mentions later in Greek Jesus of these knives being buried with Jesus were added after the first translation, then the fact that they use only the literal petrinas would add to the evidence for this case. I am less interested to answer that question, then to use de Lagarde’s observation to explore the end of 5:12 – ‘there was no longer manna for the sons of Israel, but they had the fruit of the kouran of the “Phoenicians” in that year. We expect ‘the land of the Phoenicians’; and ͔Ӊ͎̿͋, which is read in the overwhelming majority of manuscripts, is routinely accepted as the OG rendering of 14: kouran is simply a secondary exegetical detour in B to the discussion of firstfruits in Deut. 18:1–5. And yet ͔Ӊ͎̿͋ is not the normal rendering of 14: that would be ́Ӂ͋. And so I wonder whether the exegetical ͈͍͎͒Ҽ͋ (‘cropping’ or ‘shearing’) in B is not after all the Old Greek, with the majority ͔Ӊ͎̿͋ simply a pedantic literalistic ‘correction’. The Vocabulary of the Book of Jesus Moatti-Fine devotes a substantial part of the Introduction to her commentary to an overview of the Greek vocabulary used by the translator. She detects on the one side ‘an intelligent fidelity to the political and religious vocabulary put in place in the Pentateuch’ (1996: 42–53); and on the other, ‘greater initiative shown in matters military and geographic’ (53–66). While she gives precise cross-references in the case of several rare words in the book of Jesus, she does tend throughout to o֎er negative remarks instead, such as ‘only instance in an OT book with a Hebrew substratum’ or ‘only one other instance in an OT book with a Hebrew substratum’. Links with the books of the Maccabees seem to be particularly frequent.

xxvi

INTRODUCTION

It will come as little surprise that the books of Jesus and Maccabees share some military language. ͎͍͐͑̿͑›̓͂̓Ӄ̿ (4:3 – ‘camp’) is found elsewhere just once in Maccabees; and the related verb ͈͎͍̿͑̿͐͑̿͑›̓͂̓Ӈ͇̓͋ (4:19 – ‘encamp’) appears once in Maccabees and twice in Judith. Probably more significant is that ͇͈͍͂̿͊Ӄ͇̈́̓͋ (also 4:3 – ‘convey’) occurs elsewhere only in Maccabees – as many as 7 times there. Ѩ͈›͍͉͇͍͎͈͍‫( ͋ن‬7:3; 10:5 – ‘force to surrender’) occurs once in Maccabees. Then, although the noun ͇͈͂̿͐̓͒Ӂ, is used in Exod. 31:7 of the equipment related to the sacred tent, it is in a military context we find it in Maccabees, and the related verb is also used in a military sense in Jesus 4:12 and once in Maccabees. The fact that may be more telling is that the preposition ›͎Ӆ͏ is used with the dative once, twice, or three times in many biblical books, including long ones; but some 25x in the books of the Maccabees and many more still in Jesus. The composite Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋ appears to be used only in Jesus (4:23; 5:1) and Maccabees. Ѩ͊̀̿͑̓‫( ͇̿͐ن‬19:49, 51 – ‘set foot on’), apart from the two occurrences in Jesus, is used 5x in Maccabees and nowhere else. ј͋Ӂ͈͇̓͋ (23:14 – ‘be proper to’) is found twice elsewhere and 6x in Maccabees ͐ҿ͇̀̓͐͆̿ (4:24; 22:25; 24:33 – ‘revere’) is found in four other books (never in the Pentateuch), but used 7x in Daniel (and Bel) and 4x in Maccabees. It is against this background that it seems all the more sensible to ‘restore’ ̨̫̠̰̠ (11x in Maccabees and nowhere else – ‘polluted’) for ̨̫̩̰̠ in 22:19. These comments are of course impressionistic and far from being statistically established. Yet they are only a small sample of what I have been aware of when preparing the commentary. It does appear to me that there is need for a special study of the links within the wider biblical canon of the non-Pentateuchal language of the book of Jesus. Partly because M-F has provided such a survey, and partly to avoid duplication with material in the body of this commentary, I am not seeking to emulate her at this point. But I do want to draw attention to one particularly significant group of words: ͈͉‫‘( ͏͍͎ق‬lot’ or ‘allotment’) and its derivatives. A ‘lot’ cast or drawn is the primary sense of the term; and it is in this sense that it most overlaps Hebrew gwrl. gwrl is common enough in Hebrew Joshua (26x), and in all but 5 cases, it is rendered by some form of ͈͉‫͏͍͎ق‬, or by the adverbial coinage ͈͉͎͖͑̓ͅӃ. However, ͈͉‫ ͏͍͎ق‬and ͈͉͎͖͑̓ͅӃ together are used 37x, almost twice as often as the usage they share with gwrl (21x). Like the related ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ (‘allotted land’ or ‘inheritance’, 26x) and the associated verb ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊̓ͅ‫‘( ͋ل‬receive allotted land’ or ‘inherit’, 11x), ͈͉‫ ͏͍͎ق‬is used to render several Hebrew terms for the acquisition and holding of land (most commonly %+ and _4!

INTRODUCTION

xxvii

and their cognates). In many respects, as M-F has shown, the vocabulary of Greek Jesus (especially when the translator draws on the many compound words available in Greek) is more varied than that of Hebrew Joshua. But, in this respect, the Greek book makes an even more monolithic statement that the land is Israel’s ‘allotment’. The shared instances of gwrl/͈͉‫ ͏͍͎ق‬are found only in chapters 14, 17–19, and 21; but ͈͉‫͏͍͎ق‬ and its cognates are found also in chapters 1, 11–13, 15–16, and 23–24. When this uni-directional surge holds our attention, we more readily understand that the five passages (15:1; 16:1; 17:1; 21:20, 40) where MT now reads gwrl, but LXX has or attests some form of ҙ͎͇͍͋ (‘border’), originally read the similar-looking gbwl (also ‘border’). The closer focus on lot and allotment amongst readers of this book made it easy for gbwl to be [mis-]read as gwrl (Auld 1998a: 23–24, 31–32). If the translator had found gwrl in these five passages in his Vorlage, he would hardly have missed the opportunity for still further mention of ͈͉‫͏͍͎ق‬. Bibliography Aejmelaeus, A. 1993 On the Trail of the Septuagint Translators. Collected Essays. Kampen: Kok. Auld, A.G. 1998a Joshua Retold: Synoptic Perspectives (Old Testament Studies), Edinburgh: T&T Clark. 1998b ‘Le texte hébreu et le texte grec de Josué: une comparaison à partir du chapitre 5’, in Foi et Vie. Cahier biblique 37, 67–78. 2000 ‘What if the Chronicler did use the Deuteronomistic History’, in J.C. Exum (ed.), Virtual History and the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 137–50. 2003 ‘Alexander Geddes on the Historical Books of the Hebrew Bible’, in W. Johnstone (ed.), The Bible and The Enlightenment – A Case Study: Dr. Alexander Geddes (1737–1802). Sheّeld: Sheّeld Academic Press, 181–200. Barthélemy, D. 1982 Critique textuelle de l’Ancien Testament. I (OBO 50/1). Freiburg (CH): Universitätsverlag. Bieberstein, K. 1995 Josua – Jordan – Jericho. Archäologie, Geschichte und Theologie des Landnahmeerzählungen Josua 1–6 (OBO 143). Freiburg (CH): Universitätsverlag.

xxviii

INTRODUCTION

Brooke, A.E. and N. McLean (eds) 1917 The Old Testament in Greek, according to the text of Codex Vaticanus, Volume I, Part IV: Joshua, Judges and Ruth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Hatch, E. & H.A. Redpath 1998 A Concordance to the Septuagint (2nd ed.). Grand Rapids (MI): Baker. den Hertog, C.G. 1996 Studien zur griechischen Übersetzung des Buches Josua (InauguralDissertation zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades), Giessen. Holmes, S. 1914 Joshua. The Hebrew and Greek Texts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Kenyon, F.G. (ed.) 1915 The Codex Alexandrinus in reduced photographic facsimile. Old Testament, Part 1: Genesis-Ruth. London: British Museum. Liddell/Scott/Jones (LSJ) 1996 H.G. Liddell, R. Scott, H.S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon, with a revised supplement. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Margolis, M.L. 1931–8 The Book of Joshua in Greek, according to the critically restored text. Paris: Paul Geuthner. Mazor, L. 1988 ‘The Origin and Evolution of the Curse upon the Rebuilder of Jericho – A Contribution of Textual Criticism to Biblical Historiography’, Textus 14, 1–26. Moatti-Fine, J. 1995 ‘La “Tâche du Traducteur” de Josué/Jésus’, in Gilles Dorival et Olivier Munnich (eds), “Selon les Septante”. Hommage à Marguerite Harl, Paris: Cerf. 1996 Jésus ( Josué). Traduction du texte grec de la Septante, Introduction et notes (La Bible d’Alexandrie), Paris: Cerf. Rahlfs, A. (ed.) 1962 Septuaginta. Id est Vetus Testamentum graece iuxta LXX interpretes. Stuttgart: Württembergische Bibelanstalt. Sipilä, S. 1999 Between Literalness and Freedom. Translation technique in the Septuagint of Joshua and Judges regarding the clause connections introduced by  and !# (Publications of the Finnish Exegetical Society 75). Helsinki: The Finnish Exegetical Society.

INTRODUCTION

Skeat, T. 1999 Tov, E. 1999

xxix

‘Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and Constantine’, JTS (NS) 50, 583–625. The Greek and Hebrew Bible. Collected Essays on the Septuagint (VTS 72), Leiden: Brill.

JESUS SON OF NAUĒ IN CODEX VATICANUS TEXT AND TRANSLATION

1. Lord instructs Jesus (1:1–9) 1 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͑Ӏ͋ ͉͑̓̓͒͑Ӏ͋ ̫͖͒͐‫̩ ͋̓›ة̓ ق‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ل‬ ͒҅‫ ى͑ ̬͒̿ͅ ى‬ҡ›͍͎͒́‫͉ ق͖̫͐͒ ى‬ҿ͖́͋ 2 ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬ҕ ͎͆̓ҽ›͖͋ ͍͊͒ ͉͑̓͑̓̓Ӈ͈͑̓͋ͅ ͋‫ ͋ح͍ ͋ن‬ј͋̿͐͑Ҽ͏ ͇͂ҽ͇̀͆ͅ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ ͐ӆ ͈̿ӂ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ͍‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͏͍͑خ‬Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬ѷ͋ Ѩ́ӈ ͂Ӄ͖͇͂͊ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬3 ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͑Ӆ›͍͏ Ѩ͓Ԇ җ͋ ј͋ Ѩ›͇̀‫ ͋و͍͂› ͋و͑ ͇͔̓͋҈ ى͑ ̓͑ق‬ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ҡ͊‫͂ ͋ل‬Ӊ͖͐ ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͋ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ̓҈͎͈̿ͅ ͑‫ ك͖̫͐͒ ى‬4 ͑Ӏ͋ Ѭ͎͍͊͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ Ԇ̠͇͉͋͑Ӄ͍̀̿͋͋ ѭ͖͏ ͍͑‫ن͍͑ ن͍͍͊̿͑› ن‬ ͊̓́ҽ͉͍͒ ›͍͍͑̿͊‫̤ ن‬Ҡ͓͎ҽ͍͑͒ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͉̿͆ ͏ق‬ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ͑‫ ͏ق‬Ѩ͔͐ҽ͑ͅ͏ ј͓Ԇ ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ͂͒͐͊‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬5 ͍Ҡ͈ ј͇͋͑͐͑Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ ќ͎͖͋͆›͍͏ ͈̿͑̓͋Ӊ›͇͍͋ ҡ͊‫› ͋و‬ҽ͐̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͑‫͈̿ ͍͒͐ ͏ق͖̈́ ͏ق‬ӂ ұ͐›͎̓ Ѹ͊͋ͅ ͊̓͑Ҽ ̫͖͒͐‫ق‬ ͍ҥ͖͑͏ Ѭ͍͇͐͊̿ ͈̿ӂ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͍͐‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͈͉͋̿͑̿Ӄ͕͖ ͐̓ ͍Ҡ͂Ҿ ҡ›͎̓Ӆ͕͍͊̿Ӄ ͐̓ 6 ҈͔͐͒̓ ͈̿ӂ ј͎͋͂Ӄ͍̈́͒ ͐ӆ ́Ҽ͎ ͇͉͂̓̓‫͍͑ ى͉̿ ى͑ ͏ل‬Ӈ͑Զ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬ѷ͋ Ұ͍͊͐̿ ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ›͎̿͑ҽ͇͐͋ ҡ͊‫̿ ͇̿͋ن͍͂ ͋و‬Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬7 ҈͔͐͒̓ ͍‫͈̿ ͋ح‬ӂ ј͎͋͂Ӄ͍̈́͒ ͓͉͒ҽ͇͐͐̓͐͆̿ ͈̿ӂ ›͍͇̓‫͈͆̿ ͋ل‬Ӆ͇͑ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉̿͑Ӆ ͍͇͐ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬ҕ ›̿‫͈̿ ͍͒͊ ͏ل‬ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͈͈͉͇͋̓‫ ͏ل‬ј›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫͇͌̓͂ ͏҄̓ ͋و‬Ҽ ͍Ҡ͂Ҿ ̓҄͏ ј͎͇͎͐͑̓ҽ ҉͋̿ ͐͒͋‫ ͏ك‬Ѩ͋ ›‫ ͏ت͍ ͇͋͐ـ‬ѨҼ͋ ›͎ҽ͐͐Ԍ͏ 8 ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ ј›͍͐͑Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ ѵ ̀Ӄ͉͍̀͏ ͍͑‫͋ ن‬Ӆ͍͊͒ ͍͑Ӈ͍͑͒ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫͑͐ ن‬Ӆ͊̿͑Ӆ͏ ͍͐͒ ͈̿ӂ ͉͊̓̓͑Ӂ͇͐̓͏ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͈̿ӂ ͈͋͒͑Ӆ͏ ҉͋̿ ̓҄͂‫› ͋ل͇͍̓› ͏ك‬ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ͎́̓́̿͊͊ҿ͋̿ ͑Ӆ͑̓ ̓Ҡ͍͖͂͆Ӂ͐Ԍ ͈̿ӂ ̓Ҡ͍͂Ӊ͇͐̓ ͑Ҽ͏ ҕ͍͂Ӈ͏ ͍͐͒ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӆ͑̓ ͐͒͋Ӂ͇͐̓͏ 9 ͍҄͂ӆ Ѩ͋͑ҿ͉͑̿͊̿Ӄ ͍͇͐ ҈͔͐͒̓ ͈̿ӂ ј͎͋͂Ӄ͍̈́͒ ͊Ӏ ͇͉͇͂̓ҽ͐Ԍ͏ ͊͂ͅҾ ͓͍̀͆ͅ‫ ͏ك‬ҙ͇͑ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͍͐‫̩ ن‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓Ӆ͏ ͍͐͒ ̓҄͏ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͍‫ خ‬ѨҼ͋ ›͍͎̓ӇԌ 2. Jesus transmits the instructions (1:10–15) 10 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͉ ن͍͉̿ ن͍͑ ͇͋͐ن͎̓͑̿͊͊̿́ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ن‬ҿ͖́͋ 11 ̓҄͐ҿ͉͆̿͑̓ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ͑‫͈̿ ن͍͉̿ ن͍͑ ͏ق͉͍͎̀͊̓̿› ͏ق‬ӂ Ѩ͋͑̓Ӄ͉̿͐͆̓ ͑‫ى‬ ͉̿‫͉ ى‬ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ ѩ͍͇͑͊ҽ̈́̓͐͆̓ Ѩ›͇͇͇͐͑͐͊Ӆ͋ ҙ͇͑ Ѭ͇͑ ͎͑̓‫ ͏ل‬ѵ͊ҿ͎͇̿ ͈̿ӂ ҡ͊̓‫͏ل‬ ͇͂̿̀̿Ӄ͋̓͑̓ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ ͍͑‫͉͆̓͐҄̓ ͍͋͑ن‬Ӆ͋͑̓͏ ͈͔̿͑̿͐̓‫͑ ͋ل‬Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬ѷ͋ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ͑‫͑̿› ͋و‬ҿ͎͖͋ ҡ͊‫͂ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͇͂͐͋ ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬12 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫͈̿ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ى‬ӂ ͑‫ى‬ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ى‬ѵ͊Ӄ͇͐̓ ͓͉͒‫ ͋̓›ة̓ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬13 ͊͋Ӂ͐͆͑̓ͅ ͑ӄ Ԫ‫̿͊ق‬ җ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ҡ͊‫ ͏ق͖̫͐͒ ͋ل‬ҕ ›̿‫͎̩͒ ͏ل‬Ӄ͍͒ ͉ҿ͖́͋ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ҡ͊‫͋و‬ ͈̿͑ҿ›̿͒͐̓͋ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͏ـ‬ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ҡ͊‫͑ ͋ل‬Ӏ͋ ́‫̿͑ ͋ق‬Ӈ͑͋ͅ 14 ̿҅ ́͒͋̿‫ ͏͈̓ل‬ҡ͊‫͋و‬ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͇̿͂Ӄ̿ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͑Ҽ ͈͑Ӂ͋ͅ ҡ͊‫͈͇͍͈̓͑̿ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͑͐̿͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك́ ك‬ӡ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬ҡ͊̓‫͂ ͏ل‬Ҿ ͇͂̿̀Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓ ̓Ҥ͖͍͇̈́͋ ›͎Ӆ͎͍͇͑̓ ͑‫ ͋و‬ј͉͓͂̓‫ ͋و‬ҡ͊‫͏ـ› ͋و‬ ҕ ͔҄͐Ӈ͖͋ ͈̿ӂ ͔͐͒͊͊̿Ӂ͐̓͑̓ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬15 ѭ͖͏ ј͋ ͈̿͑̿›̿Ӈ͐Ԍ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͍͑ ͋و‬ӆ͏ ј͉͓͍͂̓ӆ͏ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ұ͐›͎̓ ͈̿ӂ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͏ـ‬ӂ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӁ͖͇͐͐͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍‫͑ ͇͍͑خ‬Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬ѷ͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͂ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͇͂͐͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ј›͉̓̓Ӈ͐̓͐͆̓ ѭ͈͍̿͐͑͏ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ѷ͋ ͂ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ҡ͊‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͏ق͖̫͐͒ ͋ل‬ӄ ›ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ Ѩ›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͋و‬ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒

1. Lord instructs Jesus (1:1–9) And it came to be after Moses’ ending Lord spoke to Jesus son of Nauē [Nun], the assistant of Moses, saying: ‘Moses my attendant has come to his end. Now therefore rising up, cross the Jordan, you and all this people, into the land which I am giving them. Every place on which you may tread with the sole of your feet, to you I shall give it, which way I have said to Moses: the desert and the Antilebanon up to the great river, the river Euphrates, and up to the hindmost sea from sunset. They will be your borders. No man will withstand right over against you all the days of your life; and as I was with Moses so shall I be with you too, and I shall not leave you in the lurch nor shall I overlook you. Be strong and be manly; for it is you that shall divide for this people the land which I swore to your fathers to give them. Be strong therefore and be manly, being on your guard and doing as Moses my “boy” commanded you; and you shall not decline from them to right nor to left, that you may be aware in everything you may do. And the book of this law shall not stand aloof from your mouth, and you shall practise in it day and night, that you may know to be doing all things written: then you will be helped on the way and he will help your ways, and then you will be aware. See, I have commanded you: “Be strong and be manly, do not be faint-hearted nor be afraid, because with you is Lord your God whatever you may come into.” ’ 2. Jesus transmits the instructions (1:10–15) And Jesus commanded the scribes of the people saying ‘Enter into the midst of the ranks of the people, and command the people saying “Be preparing a stock of provisions, because three days more and you are crossing this Jordan, entering to occupy the land which Lord the god of your fathers is giving to you.” ’ And to Roubēn and to Gad and to the half of tribe of Manassē Jesus said: ‘Remember the word which Moses, Lord’s “boy”, commanded you, saying “Lord your god let you stop and gave you this land. Your women and your children and your herds – let them settle in the land which he gave you; but you – you shall cross, well-equipped, ahead of your brothers, every one who is strong, and you shall fight along with them, until Lord our god let your brothers stop just like you, and they inherit – these too – the land which Lord our god is giving them; and you shall leave, each to his inheritance which Moses has given you, to the other side of the Jordan towards sunrise.’

4

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 3–5

3. The addressees respond (1:16–18) 16 ͈̿ӂ ј›͍͈͎͇͆ҿ͋͑̓͏ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫› ͋̿›ة̓ ل‬ҽ͋͑̿ ҙ͐̿ ј͋ Ѩ͋͑̓Ӄ͉Ԍ ѵ͊‫͋ل‬ ›͍͇Ӂ͍͐͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͏ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ӆ›͍͋ ͍‫ خ‬ѨҼ͋ ј›͍͐͑̓Ӄ͉Ԍ͏ ѵ͊‫͎͍͐͒̓› ͏ـ‬Ӆ͊̓͆̿ 17 ͈̿͑Ҽ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ҙ͐̿ Ѵ͈͍Ӈ͐̿͊̓͋ ̫͖͒͐‫ ق‬ј͈͍͒͐Ӆ͊̓͆̿ ͍͐‫͉› ن‬Ӏ͋ Ѭ͖͐͑ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͑̓͊ ͋و‬Ҽ ͍͐‫ ن‬җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѻ͋ ͊̓͑Ҽ ̫͖͒͐‫ ق‬18 ҕ ͂Ҿ ќ͎͖͋͆›͍͏ җ͏ ѨҼ͋ ј›͇̓͆Ӂ͐Ԍ ͍͇͐ ͈̿ӂ ҙ͇͐͑͏ ͊Ӏ ј͈͍Ӈ͐Ԍ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ԫ͊ͅҽ͖͑͋ ͍͐͒ ͈̿͆Ӆ͇͑ ј͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ى‬ Ѩ͋͑̓Ӄ͉Ԍ ј›͍͆̿͋ҿ͖͑ ј͉͉Ҽ ҈͔͐͒̓ ͈̿ӂ ј͎͋͂Ӄ͍̈́͒ 4. Mission to IereiΗŌ launched (2:1–3) 1 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫҅͒ ͏ن‬ӄ͏ ̬̿͒ͅ Ѩ͈ ̱͇̿͑͑̓͋ ͂Ӈ͍ ͋̓̿͋Ӄ͈͍͐͒͏ ͈͈͍̿͑̿͐›̓‫͉ ͇̿͐ن‬ҿ͖́͋ ј͋ҽ̀͑̓ͅ ͈̿ӂ ҈͂̓͑̓ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫͈̿ ͋ق‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ›͍͎̓͒͆ҿ͋͑̓͏ ̓҄͐Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ͍҅ ͂Ӈ͍ ͋̓̿͋Ӄ͈͍͇͐ ̓҄͏ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͐Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ̓҄͏ ͍͈҄Ӄ̿͋ ͇͈́͒͋̿ӄ͏ ›Ӆ͎͋ͅ͏ ӡ Ҙ͍͋͊̿ ̰̿̿̀ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ͉͒͐̿͋ Ѩ͈̓‫ ل‬2 ͈̿ӂ ј›́́ͅҿ͉ͅ ͑‫ى‬ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͉ ̨͖͔͇͎̓̓ ل‬ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ ̓҄͐›̓›Ӆ͎͇̓͒͋͑̿ ҳ͂̓ ќ͎͋͂̓͏ ͑‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ ͈͈͍̿͑̿͐›̓‫͑ ͇̿͐ن‬Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬3 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ҕ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͋̓›ة‬ ›͎ӄ͏ ̰̿̿̀ ͉ҿ͖́͋ Ѩ͌ҽ́̿́̓ ͍͑ӆ͏ ќ͎͋͂̿͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ̓҄͐›̓›͍͎̓͒͊ҿ͍͋͒͏ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͍͈҄Ӄ̿͋ ͍͐͒ ͑Ӏ͋ ͋Ӈ͈͑̿ ͈͈͍̿͑̿͐›̓‫́ ͇̿͐ن‬Ҽ͎ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬ѹ͈͇̿͐͋ 5. The scouts in IereiΗŌ (2:4–24) 4 ͈̿ӂ ͉͍̿̀‫ ̿͐ن‬ѵ ́͒͋Ӏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͂Ӈ͍ ќ͎͋͂̿͏ Ѭ͈͎͕͒̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͋̓›ة‬ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͉ ͏ل‬ҿ͍́͒͐̿ ͉͉̓҄͐̓ͅӇ͇͆̿͐͋ ›͎Ӆ͏ ͊̓ ͍҅ ќ͎͋͂̓͏ 5 ҭ͏ ͂Ҿ ѵ ›Ӈ͉ͅ Ѩ͈͉̓Ӄ͍̓͑ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͈͐ ى‬Ӆ͇͑̓ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ќ͎͋͂̓͏ Ѩ͌‫͍ ͍͉͋͆ق‬Ҡ͈ Ѩ›Ӄ͇͐͑̿͊̿ ›͍‫›̓› ن‬Ӆ͎͇̓͒͋͑̿ ͈͇̿͑̿͂Ӊ͌̿͑̓ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ̿Ҡ͑‫͉͈̿͑̿ ҄̓ ͋و‬Ӂ͕͊̓͐͆̓ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ 6 ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ ͂Ҿ ј͋̓̀Ӄ̀̿͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ ͂‫͈̿ ̿͊و‬ӂ Ѭ͈͎͕͒̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͉͈͍͇͉̿͋ ك‬ҽ͊Ԍ ͑‫ك‬ Ѩ͍͇͐͑̀̿͐͊ҿ͋Ԍ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑‫͂ ن‬Ӊ͍͊̿͑͏ 7 ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ќ͎͋͂̓͏ ͈̿͑̓͂Ӄ͖͌̿͋ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͂ӄ͋ ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ҽ͏ ͇͂̿̀ҽ͇͐̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ѵ ›Ӈ͉ͅ Ѩ͈͉̓Ӄ͐͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ҭ͏ Ѩ͌Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ͍҅ ͇͂Ӊ͈͍͋͑̓͏ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬8 ͈̿ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӂ ͂Ҿ ›͎ӂ͋ Ѵ ͈͍͇͊͆ͅ‫̿ ͇̿͋ق‬Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ ͂Ҿ ј͋ҿ̀ͅ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ ͂‫͎› ̿͊و‬ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ 9 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͋̓›ة‬ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ Ѩ›Ӄ͇͐͑̿͊̿ ҙ͇͑ ͂ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ҡ͊‫̩ ͋ل‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬Ѩ›͇›ҿ›͖͈͑̓͋ ́Ҽ͎ ҕ ͓Ӆ͍̀͏ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͓Ԇ ѵ͊‫ ͏ـ‬10 ј͈͈ͅӅ̿͊̓͋ ́Ҽ͎ ҙ͇͑ ͈̿͑̓͌Ӂ͎̿͋̓͋ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͎͎͒͆Ҽ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ҙ͑̓ Ѩ͌̓›͍͎̓Ӈ̓͐͆̓ Ѩ͈ ́‫̠́҄ ͏ق‬Ӈ›͍͑͒ ͈̿ӂ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ͍͑‫͐͒͂ ͏ل‬ӂ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋و͑ ͇͋͐ن‬Ӄ͖͋ ͍҇ ‫› ͋̿͐إ‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͑‫͈̿ ͖̱͋ͅ ى‬ӂ ̷́ ͍ң͏ Ѩ͖͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͐̿͑̓ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ 11 ͈̿ӂ ј͈͍Ӈ͐̿͋͑̓͏ ѵ͊̓‫ ͏ل‬Ѩ͌ҿ͐͑͊̓͋ͅ ͑‫͎͈͂̿ ك‬Ӄӽ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѭ͐͑ͅ Ѭ͇͑ ›͋̓‫ ̿͊ن‬Ѩ͋ ͍Ҡ͂̓͋ӂ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ҙ͇͑ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬җ͏ Ѩ͋ ͍Ҡ͎̿͋‫ ى‬ќ͖͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫͈ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬ҽ͖͑ 12 ͈̿ӂ ͋‫ ͋ن‬Ҕ͊Ӆ͐̿͑ҿ ͍͇͊ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͑ӄ͋ ͆̓Ӆ͋ ҙ͇͑ ›͍͇‫ و‬ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬Ѭ͉͍̓͏ ›͍͇Ӂ͐̿͑̓ ͈̿ӂ ҡ͊̓‫ ͏ل‬Ѭ͉͍̓͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͈҈͍ ى‬Զ ͍͑‫͎͑̿› ن‬Ӆ͏ ͍͊͒ 13 ͈̿ӂ ͖͎̈́́Ӂ͐̿͑̓ ͑ӄ͋ ͍‫͎͑̿› ن͍͑ ͍͈͋ة‬Ӆ͏ ͍͊͒ ͑Ӏ͋ ͊͑ͅҿ͎̿ ͍͊͒ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ј͉͓͍͂̓Ӈ͏ ͍͊͒ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑ӄ͋ ͍‫͈ة‬Ӆ͋ ͍͊͒ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͉͌̓̓‫͑ ̓͆͐ل‬Ӏ͋ ͕͔͒Ӂ͋ ͍͊͒ Ѩ͈ ͆̿͋ҽ͍͑͒ 14 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫̿ ͋̿›ة‬Ҡ͑‫ ͍҅ ك‬ќ͎͋͂̓͏ ѵ

JOSHUA 1:16–2:14

5

3. The addressees respond (1:16–18) And answering Jesus they said ‘Everything you may command us we shall do, and to whichever place you may send us we shall go. In all as much as we listened to Moses we shall listen to you; only let Lord our god be with you which way he was with Moses. However, the man who may disobey you, and whoever may not listen to your words just as you command him, let him die. But be strong and be manly.’ 4. Mission to IereiΗŌ launched (2:1–3) And Jesus son of Nauē sent from Sattein two young fellows to scout, saying ‘Go up and see the land and IereiΗŌ [ Jericho].’ And going, the two young fellows entered into IereiΗŌ, and entered into the house of a prostitute woman whose name was Raab and lodged there. And it was reported to the king of IereiΗŌ, saying ‘There have been led in here men of the sons of Israel to scout the land.’ And the king of IereiΗŌ sent and spoke to Raab saying ‘Bring out the men who have been led into your house by night; for to scout the land have they come.’ 5. The scouts in IereiΗŌ (2:4–24) And the woman taking the two men hid them; and she spoke to them saying ‘They have come to me, the men. But, as the gate was being closed in the dark, the men also went out; I do not understand where they have gone; chase after them in case you lay hold of them. But she herself brought them up on the roof-terrace, and hid them in the flaxstraw heaped up for her on the roof-terrace. And the men chased after them way towards the Jordan as far as the crossings, and the gate was closed. And it came to be as the pursuers went out after them, and they themselves before they lay down, and she herself went up to them on top of the house and said to them, ‘I understand that Lord has given you the land, for the fear of you has fallen on us. For we have heard that Lord the god dried up the Red Sea in face of you when you were coming out of land of Egypt, and how much he did to the two kings of the Amorrai who were on the other side of the Jordan, to SēŌn and ŋg, whom you destroyed. And when we heard we gave way to our heart, and there no longer stood spirit in any of us in face of you, because Lord your god is the one who is in heaven above and on the earth below. And now swear to me by Lord the god that I am doing you mercy. You also do mercy in the household of my father. And save alive the household of my father, my mother and my brothers and all my household and everything as much as is theirs, and deliver my life from death.’ And the men said to

6

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 5–8

͕͔͒Ӏ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ј͋͆Ԇ ҡ͊‫͆ ͏҄̓ ͋و‬ҽ͍͋̿͑͋ ͈̿ӂ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬ҭ͏ ј͋ ›͎͍̿̿͂‫̩ ل‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҡ͊‫͑ ͋ل‬Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ›͍͇Ӂ͐̓͑̓ ̓҄͏ Ѩ͊Ҿ Ѭ͉͍̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ј͉Ӂ͇͆̓̿͋ 15 ͈̿ӂ ͈͔̿͑̓ҽ͉̿͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͂Ҽ ͑‫͎͒͆ ͏ق‬Ӄ͍͂͏ 16 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͍͑‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͏ل‬Ӏ͋ Ҕ͎͇̓͋Ӏ͋ ј›ҿ͉͆̓͑̓ ͊Ӏ ͐͒͋̿͋͑Ӂ͖͇͐͐͋ ҡ͊‫͇͈͂̿͑̿ ͍҅ ͋ل‬Ӊ͈͍͋͑̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͈͎͒̀Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓ Ѩ͈̓‫͏ل͎̓͑ ل‬ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ѭ͖͏ ј͋ ј›͍͎͐͑ҿ͕͖͇͐͋ ͍҅ ͈͇̿͑̿͂Ӊ͈͍͋͑̓͏ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͑̿‫ ̿͑ن‬ј›͉̓̓Ӈ͐̓͐͆̓ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ҕ͂ӄ͋ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬17 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͍҅ ͋̿›ة‬ќ͎͋͂̓͏ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ ј͆‫͍ى‬Ӄ Ѩ͐͊̓͋ ͑‫ ى‬ҙ͎͈Զ ͍͐͒ ͍͑Ӈ͑Զ 18 ͍҄͂ӆ ѵ͊̓‫͎͍͒̓›͐҄̓ ͏ل‬Ӆ͊̓͆̿ ̓҄͏ ͊ҿ͎͍͏ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͆Ӂ͇͐̓͏ ͑ӄ ͐͊̓ͅ‫͑ ͍͋ل‬ӄ ͐›͎̿͑Ӄ͍͋ ͑ӄ ͈Ӆ͈͈͇͍͋͋ ͍͑‫ ͍͑ن‬Ѩ͈͂Ӂ͇͐̓͏ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͎͆͒Ӄ͂̿ ͇͂Ԇ ѻ͏ ͈̿͑̓̀Ӄ̀̿͐̿͏ ѵ͊‫̿ ҄͂ ͏ـ‬Ҡ͑‫͑ ͏ق‬ӄ͋ ͂Ҿ ›̿͑ҿ͎̿ ͍͐͒ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͊͑ͅҿ͎̿ ͍͐͒ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ј͉͓͍͂̓Ӈ͏ ͍͐͒ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑ӄ͋ ͍‫͎͑̿› ن͍͑ ͍͈͋ة‬Ӆ͏ ͍͐͒ ͐͒͋ҽ͇͌̓͏ ›͎ӄ͏ ͐̓̿͒͑Ӏ͋ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͍͈҄Ӄ̿͋ ͍͐͒ 19 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ›‫ ͏ـ‬җ͏ ј͋ Ѩ͌ҿ͉͆Ԍ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆Ӈ͎̿͋ ͑‫͈͍҄ ͏ق‬Ӄ̿͏ ͍͐͒ Ѭ͖͌ Ѭ͍͔͍͋͏ ѩ̿͒͑‫ى‬ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ͊̓‫͂ ͏ل‬Ҿ ј͆‫ ى͑ ͇͍ى‬ҙ͎͈Զ ͍͐͒ ͍͑Ӈ͑Զ ͈̿ӂ ҙ͍͇͐ ѨҼ͋ ́ҿ͖͇͋͋͑̿ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͍͐‫ ن‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫͈͍҄ ك‬Ӄӽ ͍͐͒ ѵ͊̓‫ ͏ل‬Ѭ͍͔͍͇͋ Ѩ͐Ӆ͊̓͆̿ 20 ѨҼ͋ ͂ҿ ͇͑͏ ѵ͊‫ ͏ـ‬ј͇͈͂Ӂ͐Ԍ Ѵ ͈̿ӂ ј›͍͈͉̿Ӈ͕Ԍ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͉Ӆ͍́͒͏ ѵ͊‫͍͑ ͋و‬Ӈ͍͑͒͏ Ѩ͐Ӆ͊̓͆̿ ј͆‫ ى͑ ͇͍ى‬ҙ͎͈Զ ͍͐͒ ͍͑Ӈ͑Զ 21 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͍͑‫͈͑̿ ͏ل‬Ҽ ͑ӄ Ԫ‫ ̿͊ق‬ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͖͐͑ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌̿›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ 22 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͐̿͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѹ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ Ҕ͎͇̓͋Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ͇͊̓͋̿͋ Ѩ͈̓‫ ͏ل͎̓͑ ل‬ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌̓̈́Ӂ͑͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͈͇̿͑̿͂Ӊ͈͍͋͑̓͏ ›ҽ͐̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ҕ͍͂ӆ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͔ ̓ҥ͎͍͐̿͋ 23 ͈̿ӂ ҡ›ҿ͎͕͐͑̓̿͋ ͍҅ ͂Ӈ͍ ͋̓̿͋Ӄ͈͍͇͐ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫ن‬ Ҙ͎͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ͇͂ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫҅͒ ͋ن‬ӄ͋ ̬̿͒ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͇͂́ͅӁ͍͐̿͋͑ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ى‬ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ͈͐͒͊̀̓̀ͅӅ͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬24 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͎› ͋̿›ة‬ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͋ن‬ҙ͇͑ ›͎̿ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬Ѩ͋ ͔͇͎̓ӂ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ›͈͑̓͋ͅ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͈͍͇͈̿͑‫͑ ͋و‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͋ق‬ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋͋ͅ ј͓Ԇ ѵ͊‫͋و‬ 6. Departure from Sattein (3:1) 1 ͈̿ӂ Ұ͎͎͇͆͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬ӄ ›͎͖Ӄ ͈̿ӂ ј›‫ ͎͋̓ق‬Ѩ͈ ̱͇̿͑͑̓͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѹ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ѭ͖͏ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ͉͒͐̿͋ Ѩ͈̓‫͎› ل‬ӄ ͍͑‫͇̿͋ق͇̀̿͂ ن‬ 7. Scribes pass on instructions (3:2–4) 2 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͎͑̓‫ ͏ل‬ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͇͂‫͇͂ ͏ل͎̓͑̿͊͊̿́ ͍҅ ͍͉͋͆ق‬Ҽ ͑‫͏ق‬ ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀‫ ͏ق‬3 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͋͑ ͑‫͉ ى͉̿ ى‬ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ ҙ͑̿͋ ҈͂͑̓ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͎҅̓̓‫ ͏ل‬ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ̪̓͒̓Ӄ͑̿͏ ̿҈͎͍͋͑̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ ј›͎̿̓‫ ̓͑ل‬ј›ӄ ͑‫͑ ͋و‬Ӆ›͖͋ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ›͍͎̓Ӈ̓͐͆̓ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬4 ј͉͉Ҽ ͈͎͊̿Ҽ͋ Ѭ͖͐͑ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋ͅ͏ ҙ͍͐͋ ͇͔͇͉͂͐Ӄ͍͒͏ ›Ӂ͔͇̓͏ ͐͑Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓ ͊Ӏ ›͎͍͐̓́́Ӄ͐͑̓ͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋҉ ك‬Ԇ Ѩ›Ӄ͐͑͐͆̓ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ҕ͂Ӆ͋ ѷ͋ ›͍͎̓Ӈ̓͐͆̓ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ ͍Ҡ ́Ҽ͎ ›̓›Ӆ͎̓͒͐͆̓ ͑Ӏ͋ ҕ͂ӄ͋ ј›Ԇ Ѩ͔͆Ҿ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͎͑Ӄ͑ͅ͏ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ 8. More instructions from Jesus (3:5–6) 5 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ى͉̿ ى͑ ͏ن‬љ́͋Ӄ͐̿͐͆̓ ̓҄͏ ̿Ҥ͎͇͍͋ ҙ͇͑ ̿Ҥ͎͇͍͋ ›͍͇Ӂ͇͐̓ Ѩ͋ ѵ͊‫̩ ͋ل‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͆̿͒͊̿͐͑ҽ 6 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͇͋͐ن͎̓̓҅ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ن‬ќ͎̿͑̓ ͑Ӏ͋

JOSHUA 2:15–3:6

7

her, ‘Our life for you, till death.’ And she herself said, ‘Whenever Lord hands over to you the city, do towards me mercy and truth.’ And she let them down through the opening; and she said to them, ‘Make o֎ towards the hill-country, lest the pursuers meet up with you, and hide yourselves there three days to let those pursuing behind you return, and after that you shall return on your way.’ And the men said to her, ‘We are without fault in this oath of yours. Look, we are coming into a part of the city, and you shall place the sign: this scarlet cord you shall bind to the opening through which you put us down; and your father and your mother and your brothers and all your father’s house you shall gather to yourself into your house. And it shall be whoever departs the door of your house outside shall be responsible for himself, but we without fault in this your oath; and as many as may be with you in your house, we ourselves shall be responsible. But if anyone does us wrong, or especially reveals these statements of ours, we shall be without fault in this your oath.’ And she said to them, ‘According to your word let it be’; and she sent them o֎. And they went and came to the hill-country, and remained there three days; and the pursuers searched out all the ways, and did not find them. And the two young fellows turned about and came down from the mountain, and crossed to Jesus son of Nauē, and described to him everything that had met them. And they said to Jesus that ‘Lord delivered the whole land into our hands, and everyone inhabiting that land has cowered down from us.’ 6. Departure from Sattein (3:1) And Jesus rose at morning and took o֎ from Sattein; and they went as far as the Jordan, and lodged there before crossing. 7. Scribes pass on instructions (3:2–4) And it came to be after three days the scribes passed through the camp and they commanded the people saying ‘Whenever you see the chest of the disposition of Lord our god, and our priests, and the levites carrying it, you will take o֎ from your places and you are going after it. But let there be a long way between us and it: at some two thousand cubits you shall stand; do not approach it, that you may understand the way which you are going it; for you have not gone the way yesterday or the day before.’ 8. More instructions from Jesus (3:5–6) And Jesus said to the people, ‘Hallow yourselves for tomorrow, because tomorrow in us Lord will do marvels.’ And Jesus said to the priests, ‘Lift

8

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 8–12

͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͍›͍͎̓Ӈ̓͐͆̓ ͍͑‫͈̿ ن͍͉̿ ن‬ӂ Ѻ͎̿͋ ͍҅ ͎҅̓̓‫͑ ͏ل‬Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͍͍͋͑ Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋ ͍͑‫ن‬ ͉͍̿‫ن‬ 9. Lord addresses Jesus (3:7–8) 7 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫̩ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͋ن‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ ͑̿Ӈ͑Ԍ ќ͎͔͍͇͊̿ ҡ͕‫̿͐و‬Ӄ ͐̓ ͈̿͑̓͋Ӊ›͇͍͋ ›ҽ͖͋͑͋ ͒҅‫͈͆̿ ͇͋͐و͋́ ̿͋҉ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و‬Ӆ͇͑ Ѹ͊͋ͅ ͊̓͑Ҽ ̫͖͒͐‫ق‬ ͍ҥ͖͑͏ Ѭ͍͇͐͊̿ ͈̿ӂ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͍͐‫ ن‬8 ͈̿ӂ ͋‫ ͋ن‬Ѭ͇͉͇͋͑̓̿ ͍͑‫͇͍͎͋͐͒҈̿ ͏ل͍͑ ͇͋͐ن͎̓̓҅ ͏ل‬ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ͉ҿ͖́͋ ҭ͏ ј͋ ̓҄͐ҿ͉͆͑̓ͅ Ѩ›ӂ ͊ҿ͍͐͒ ͍͑‫ ن‬ҥ͍͂̿͑͏ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑‫̨͎͍͂ ى‬ҽ͋Ԍ ͐͑Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓ 10. Jesus prepares his people (3:9–13) 9 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͍͎́̿͐› ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ن‬ҽ́̓͑̓ ҳ͂̓ ͈̿ӂ ј͈͍Ӈ͐̿͑̓ ͑ӄ Ԫ‫͎̩͒ ̿͊ق‬Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬10 Ѩ͋ ͍͑Ӈ͑Զ ́͋Ӊ͐̓͐͆̓ ҙ͇͑ ͆̓ӄ͏ ̈́‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋ل‬ӂ Ҕ͉͎̓͆̓Ӈ͖͋ Ҕ͉͎̓͆̓Ӈ͇͐̓ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ѵ͊‫͑ ͋و‬ӄ͋ ̵̿͋̿͋̿‫͈̿ ͍͋ل‬ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̵̓͑͑̿‫͈̿ ͍͋ل‬ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̴͎̓̓̈́̿‫͈̿ ͍͋ل‬ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̤͒̿‫͈̿ ͍͋ل‬ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̠͍͎͎͊̿‫͈̿ ͍͋ل‬ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̢͎̓́̓͐̿‫͈̿ ͍͋ل‬ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍̓̀͒͐̿‫ ͍͋ل‬11 ͍҄͂ӆ ѵ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͏ ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ͈͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ›ҽ͐ͅ͏ ͑‫͇̿̀̿͂ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬Ӄ͇͋̓ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ 12 ›͎͍͔͇͎̓Ӄ͐̿͐͆̓ ҡ͊‫͂ ͋ل‬Ӊ͈͂̓̿ ќ͎͋͂̿͏ ј›ӄ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ѭ͋̿ ј͓Ԇ ѩ͈ҽ͐͑ͅ͏ ͓͉͒‫ ͏ق‬13 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ҭ͏ ј͋ ͈̿͑̿›̿Ӈ͖͇͐͐͋ ͍҅ ›Ӆ͂̓͏ ͑‫͎̓҅ ͋و‬ҿ͖͋ ͑‫͎҄̿ ͋و‬Ӆ͖͋͑͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͏ق‬ ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ͈͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ›ҽ͐ͅ͏ ͑‫ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬ҥ͇͂̿͑ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͑ӄ ҥ͖͎͂ ͍͑‫ن‬ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͍͋͒ Ѩ͈͉̓Ӄ͕͇̓ ͑ӄ ͂Ҿ ҥ͖͎͂ ͑ӄ ͈̿͑̿̀̿‫͑͐ ͍͋͋ل‬Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿

11. Jordan crossed (3:14–17a) 14 ͈̿ӂ ј›‫ ͎͋̓ق‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ Ѩ͈ ͑‫͖͈͊͋͐ͅ ͋و‬ҽ͖͑͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ͇̿͋ق͇̀̿͂ ͋و‬ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ ͍҅ ͂Ҿ ͎҅̓̓‫ ͏ل‬Ѹ͎͍͐̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ›͎Ӆ͎͍͇͑̓ ͍͑‫ن‬ ͉͍̿‫ ن‬15 ҭ͏ ͂Ҿ ̓҄͐̓›͍͎̓Ӈ͍͍͋͑ ͍҅ ͎҅̓̓‫͑ ͏͍͎̓͑͋҈̿ ͍҅ ͏ل‬Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͏ق‬ ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈ͅ͏ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ›Ӆ͂̓͏ ͑‫͎̓҅ ͋و‬ҿ͖͋ ͑‫͎҄̿ ͋و‬Ӆ͖͋͑͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ Ѩ̀ҽ͓͐̿͋ͅ ̓҄͏ ͊ҿ͎͍͏ ͍͑‫ ن‬ҥ͍͂̿͑͏ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ҕ ͂Ҿ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋ͅ͏ Ѩ›͉Ӂ͎͍͒ ͈̿͆Ԇ ҙ͉͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͎ͅ›‫̿ ̿͂ل‬Ҡ͍͑‫ن‬ ҭ͐̓ӂ ѵ͊ҿ͎͇̿ ͎͇͍͆̓͐͊‫ ͋و͎͒› ن‬16 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͐͑ͅ ͑Ҽ ҥ͂̿͑̿ ͑Ҽ ͈̿͑̿̀̿Ӄ͍͋͋͑̿ ќ͖͋͆̓͋ Ѭ͐͑ͅ ›‫ ̿͊́ق‬ѫ͋ ј͓͈̓͐͑ͅӄ͏ ͈͎͊̿Ҽ͋ ͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿ ͓͍͎͐͂‫ ͏و‬ѭ͖͏ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏ ̩͇͇͎͇̿͆̿̓͋ ͑ӄ ͂Ҿ ͈̿͑̿̀̿‫͈͑̿ ͍͋͋ل‬ҿ̀ͅ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ̠͎̿̀̿ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ љ͉Ӆ͏ ѭ͖͏ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ ͑ҿ͉͍͏ Ѩ͌ҿ͉͇›̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ҅͐͑Ӂ͈͇̓ ј›ҿ͇͋̿͋͑ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ 17a ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͐͑͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͎҅̓̓‫͑ ͏͍͎̓͑͋҈̿ ͍҅ ͏ل‬Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ Ѩ›ӂ ͎͌ͅ‫ ͏ـ‬Ѩ͋ ͊ҿ͐Զ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ 12. The next divine instructions to Jesus (3:17b–4:3) 17b ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͇͂ҿ͇͍̀̿͋͋ ͇͂Ҽ ͎͌ͅ‫ ͏ـ‬ѭ͖͏ ͐͒͋̓͑ҿ͉̓͐̓͋ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ͇͂̿̀̿Ӄ͖͋͋ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ 1 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›̓ӂ ͐͒͋̓͑ҿ͉̓͐̓͋ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏

JOSHUA 3:6–4:1

9

the chest of the disposition of Lord and be going before the people.’ And the priests lifted the chest of the disposition of Lord and were going in front of the people. 9. Lord addresses Jesus (3:7–8) And Lord said to Joshua, ‘In this day I am beginning to exalt you in face of all the sons of Israel, that they may know as I was with Moses so I shall be with you too. And now command the priests carrying the chest of the disposition saying “Whenever you enter amidst the water of the Jordan, in the Jordan also you will stand.” ’ 10. Jesus prepares his people (3:9–13) And Jesus said to the sons of Israel, ‘Draw near here and hear the word of Lord our god. In this you will know that a living god is within you, and destroying he will destroy before our face the Ζananai [Canaanite] and the Ζettai [Hittite] and the P˰erezai [Perizzite] and the Evai [Hivite] and the Amorrai [Amorite] and the Gergesai [Girgashite] and the Iebousai [ Jebusite]. See the chest of disposition of lord of all the earth is crossing the Jordan. Have ready at your hands twelve men from the sons of Israel, one from each tribe. And it shall be whenever the feet of the priests carrying the chest of the disposition of lord of all the earth come to rest in the water of the Jordan, the water of the Jordan shall leave o֎, and the water coming down shall stand still.’ 11. Jordan crossed (3:14–17a) And the people took o֎ from their tented quarters to cross the Jordan. Now the priests carried the chest of the disposition prior to the people. As the priests, those carrying the chest of the covenant, were entering into the Jordan, and the feet of the priests, those carrying the chest of the disposition of Lord, dipped into a part of the water of the Jordan (the Jordan was full along its whole channel, just like days of reaping wheat), and the waters coming down from above came to a stop: they came to a stop in one solidified mass standing a very great distance apart, as far as a part of Kaϑiairein; but what was coming down came down to the sea Araba, sea of salt, till it left o֎ completely; and the people had taken a stand opposite IereiΗŌ. And the priests, those carrying the chest of the disposition of Lord, stood on dry land in the midst of the Jordan. 12. The next divine instructions to Jesus (3:17b–4:3) And all the sons of Israel were crossing through dry land until all the people completed crossing the Jordan. 4. And after the whole people

10

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 12–15

͇͂̿̀̿Ӄ͖͋͋ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̓‫̩ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͉ ل‬ҿ͖́͋ 2 ›͎͉̿̿̿̀ӈ͋ ќ͎͋͂̿͏ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن͍͉̿ ن‬ѭ͋̿ ј͓Ԇ ѩ͈ҽ͐͑ͅ͏ ͓͉͒‫ ͏ق‬3 ͐Ӈ͍͋͑̿͌͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ј͋ҿ͉̓͐͆̓ Ѩ͈ ͊ҿ͍͐͒ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ѩ͍͑Ӄ͍͊͒͏ ͂Ӊ͈͂̓̿ ͉Ӄ͍͆͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑Ӈ͍͑͒͏ ͇͈͍͂̿͊Ӄ͐̿͋͑̓͏ ѝ͊̿ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋ل‬ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͆ ͏ل‬ҿ͑̓ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͂̓›͍͎͑̿͑͐ ك‬Ӄӽ ҡ͊‫͋و‬ ͍‫ خ‬ѨҼ͋ ›͎̿̓͊̀ҽ͉͑̓ͅ Ѩ͈̓‫͑ ل‬Ӏ͋ ͋Ӈ͈͑̿ 13. Twice twelve stones are moved (4:4–10 ) 4 ͈̿ӂ ј͈͉͋̿̿̓͐ҽ͍͊̓͋͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͂ ͏ن‬Ӊ͈͂̓̿ ќ͎͋͂̿͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͋͂Ӆ͖͌͋ ј›ӄ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ѭ͋̿ ј͓Ԇ ѩ͈ҽ͐͑ͅ͏ ͓͉͒‫ ͏ق‬5 ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͍͑‫͍͎́̿͐› ͏ل‬ҽ́̓͑̓ Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆ҿ͋ ͍͊͒ ›͎ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ̓҄͏ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿ӂ ј͉͋̓Ӆ͍͊̓͋͏ Ѩ͈̓‫ ͋̓͆ل‬ѭ͈͍̿͐͑͏ ͉Ӄ͍͆͋ ј͎ҽ͖͑ Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ұ͖͊͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈͑̿ ن‬Ҽ ͑ӄ͋ ј͎͇͆͊ӄ͋ ͑‫͂ ͋و‬Ӊ͈͂̓̿ ͓͉͒‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ن͍͑ ͋و‬6 ҉͋̿ ҡ›ҽ͎͔͖͇͐͋ ҡ͊‫͇͍͑خ͍ ͋ل‬ ̓҄͏ ͐͊̓ͅ‫͈̓ ͍͋ل‬Ӄ͍͊̓͋͋ ͇͂Ҽ ›̿͋͑Ӆ͏ ҉͋̿ ҙ͑̿͋ Ѩ͎͖͑Ԁ ͐̓ ҕ ͒҅Ӆ͏ ͍͐͒ ̿Ҥ͎͇͍͋ ͉ҿ͖́͋ ͑Ӄ ͇̓҄͐͋ ͍҅ ͉Ӄ͍͇͆ ͍‫ ͇͍͑خ‬ѵ͊‫ ͋ل‬7 ͈̿ӂ ͐ӆ ͉͂ͅӉ͇͐̓͏ ͑‫͉ ͍͒͐ ى҅͒ ى‬ҿ͖́͋ ҙ͇͑ Ѩ͌ҿ͉͇›̓͋ ҕ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋ͅ͏ ›͍͑̿͊ӄ͏ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ͈͇͖͍̀͑‫͇͆̿͂ ن‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ͈͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ›ҽ͐ͅ͏ ͑‫ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬ҭ͏ ͇͂ҿ͇̀̿͋̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͍͇͐͋͑̿ ͍҅ ͉Ӄ͍͇͆ ͍‫ ͇͍͑خ‬ҡ͊‫͋ل‬ ͊͋͊ͅӅ͍͐͒͋͋ ͍͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ѭ͖͏ ͍͑‫ ͏͍͋و҄̿ ن‬8 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͍ҥ͖͑͏ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿͆Ӆ͇͑ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ل‬ӂ ͉̿̀Ӆ͋͑̓͏ ͂Ӊ͈͂̓̿ ͉Ӄ͍͆͒͏ Ѩ͈ ͊ҿ͍͐͒ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿͆ҽ›͎̓ ͐͒͋ҿ͑̿͌̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ل‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ك‬ ͉͐͒͋͑̓̓Ӄӽ ͑‫͇̀̿͂ ͏ق‬ҽ͖͐̓͏ ͑‫͈̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ӂ ͇͈͂̓Ӆ͇͊͐̿͋ ѝ͊̿ ѩ͍̿͒͑‫͏ل‬ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͈͆̿͋ͅ Ѩ͈̓‫ ل‬9 Ѭ͐͑͐̓͋ͅ ͂Ҿ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ќ͉͉͍͒͏ ͂Ӊ͈͂̓̿ ͉Ӄ͍͆͒͏ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫̨͎͍͂ ى͑ ى‬ҽ͋Ԍ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͍͊͋̓́ ى‬ҿ͋Զ ͑Ӆ›Զ ҡ›ӄ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›Ӆ͂̿͏ ͑‫͎̓҅ ͋و‬ҿ͖͋ ͑‫͎҄̿ ͋و‬Ӆ͖͋͑͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿Ӄ ͇̓҄͐͋ Ѩ͈̓‫ ل‬ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͐ ͏ق‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ 10 ҅͐͑Ӂ͈͇̓͐̿͋ ͂Ҿ ͍҅ ͎҅̓̓‫͏͍͎̓͑͋҈̿ ͍҅ ͏ل‬ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫̨͎͍͂ ى‬ҽ͋Ԍ ѭ͖͏ ͍‫͑̓͋͒͐ خ‬ҿ͉̓͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͏ن‬ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ћ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ј͋̿́́̓‫͈̿ ى͉̿ ى͑ ͇͉̿ل‬ӂ Ѭ͐›̓͒͐̓͋ ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͇͂ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ 14. The crossing completed (4:11–13) 11 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ҭ͏ ͐͒͋̓͑ҿ͉̓͐̓͋ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ͇͂̿̀‫͈̿ ͇̿͋ق‬ӂ ͇͂ҿ̀ͅ ѵ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͏ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͉Ӄ͍͇͆ Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬12 ͈̿ӂ ͇͂ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ѵ͊Ӄ͇͐̓͏ ͓͉͒‫̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬ ͇͈͂̓͐̓͒̿͐͊ҿ͍͇͋ Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋ ͑‫͈͆̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ҽ›͎̓ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬13 ͎͈͇͑̓͑̿͐͊Ӈ͎͇͍͇ ̓Ҥ͖͍͇̈́͋ ̓҄͏ ͊ҽ͔͋ͅ ͇͂ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ̓҄͏ ›Ӆ͉͍̓͊͋ ›͎ӄ͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ 15. Divine exaltation of Jesus (4:14) 14 Ѩ͋ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ ͅҤ͌͐̓͋ͅ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑ӄ͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͋ن‬Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ›̿͋͑ӄ͏ ͍͑‫ن‬ ́ҿ͍͋͒͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͓͍͍̀‫̿ ͍͑͋ن‬Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ұ͐›͎̓ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͋ق‬ҙ͍͐͋ ͔͎Ӆ͍͋͋ Ѭ̈́ͅ

JOSHUA 4:1–4:14

11

completed crossing the Jordan, and Lord said to Jesus, saying ‘Taking on men from the people, one from each tribe, give them orders: “And lift up from the middle of the Jordan twelve ready stones and, carrying these across with you and them, place them in your encampment wherever you camp there for the night.”’ 13. Twice twelve stones are moved (4:4–10) And Jesus, calling up twelve men of those esteemed from the sons of Israel, one from each tribe, said to them, ‘Move up before me in face of Lord amidst the Jordan, and each taking up from there a stone let him carry it on his shoulders according to the number of the twelve tribes of Israel; that these may come to be for you a sign lying in place for all time; that whenever your son asks you tomorrow saying “What are these stones to us?”, and you yourself shall explain to your son saying “Because the Jordan river left o֎ in face of chest of disposition of lord of all the earth, as he was crossing it.” And these stones shall be for you a memorial for the sons of Israel until the age.’ And the sons of Israel did so, just as Lord commanded Jesus; and taking twelve stones from the midst of the Jordan, just as Lord gave Jesus orders at the completion of the crossing of the sons of Israel, and they carried [them] over with them to the camp and stowed [them] there. But Jesus set other twelve stones too in the Jordan itself in the actual place under the feet of the priests carrying the chest of the disposition of Lord, and they are there until this very day. Now the priests, those carrying the chest of the covenant, had stood in the Jordan till Jesus completed everything which Lord commanded to announce to the people; and the people made haste and crossed. 14. The crossing completed (4:11–13) And it came to be as the whole people finished crossing, and the chest of the disposition of Lord crossed, and the stones in front of them. And the sons of Roubēn and the sons of Gad and the halves of tribe of Manassē crossed equipped in front of the sons of Israel, just as Moses commanded them. Four myriads dressed for battle crossed before Lord for war on the IereiΗŌ city. 15. Divine exaltation of Jesus (4:14) In that day Lord increased Jesus before the whole line of Israel, and they feared him like Moses how much time he lived.

12

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 16–19

16. Camp made at Galgal [Gilgal] (4:15–24) 15 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͈ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͉ ل‬ҿ͖́͋ 16 Ѭ͇͉͇͋͑̓̿ ͍͑‫͏ل͍͑ ͇͋͐ن͎̓̓҅ ͏ل‬ ̿҈͎͍͇͒͐͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ͍͑‫͎͎͒͑̿͊ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ Ѩ͈̀‫ ͇̿͋ق‬Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ 17 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͉ ͇͋͐ن͎̓̓҅ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ن‬ҿ͖́͋ Ѭ͈̀͑̓ͅ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ 18 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ҭ͏ Ѩ͌ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͎҅̓̓‫͑ ͏͍͎̓͑͋҈̿ ͍҅ ͏ل‬Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͈͆̿͋ͅ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›Ӆ͂̿͏ Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬ұ͎͊͐̓͋ͅ ͑ӄ ҥ͖͎͂ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͔Ӊ͎̿͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͍̓͑ ͈̿͆Ҽ Ѩ͔͆Ҿ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͎͑Ӄ͑͋ͅ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͋ ͂҄ ҙ͉ͅ͏ ͑‫ ͏͍͂ل›͎͈ͅ ͏ق‬19 ͈̿ӂ ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ј͋ҿ̀ͅ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈͂̓ҽ͑Ԍ ͍͑‫͋͊ͅ ن‬ӄ͏ ͍͑‫͎› ن‬Ӊ͍͑͒ ͈̿ӂ ͈͎͍̿͑̓͐͑̿͑›ҿ͂̓͒͐̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ͋ ̢͉͉͍͇̿́̿͏ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͊ҿ͎͍͏ ͑ӄ ›͎ӄ͏ ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ј͍͉͋̿͑Ҽ͏ ј›ӄ ͑‫͏ق‬ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ 20 ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͂Ӊ͈͂̓̿ ͉Ӄ͍͆͒͏ ͍͑Ӈ͍͑͒͏ ͍ң͏ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ Ѭ͐͑͐̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ͋ ̢͉͉͍͇̿́̿͏ 21 ͉ҿ͖́͋ ҙ͑̿͋ Ѩ͎͖͑‫ ͇͋͐و‬ҡ͊‫͍҅͒ ͍҅ ͏ـ‬ӂ ҡ͊‫͉ ͋و‬ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ ͑Ӄ ͇̓҄͐͋ ͍҅ ͉Ӄ͍͇͆ ͍‫ ͇͍͑خ‬22 ј͋̿́́̓Ӄ͉̿͑̓ ͍͑‫ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ҙ͇͑ Ѩ›ӂ ͎͌ͅ‫͇͂ ͏ـ‬ҿ̀ͅ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ ͍͑‫ ͍͋͑ن‬23 ј›͍͎͌ͅҽ͍͋̿͋͑͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬ѵ͊‫͑ ͋و‬ӄ ҥ͖͎͂ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͊ ͋و‬ҿ͔͎͇ ͍‫خ‬ ͇͂ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ ͈̿͆ҽ›͎̓ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͑ ͋و‬Ӏ͋ Ѩ͎͎͒͆Ҽ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ѷ͋ ј›̓͌Ӂ͎̿͋̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ѭ͖͏ ›͎̿Ӂ͉͍͆͊̓͋ 24 ҙ›͖͏ ́͋‫› ͇͋͐و‬ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ Ѭ͆͋ͅ ͑‫ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬ҙ͇͑ ѵ ͂Ӈ͇͋̿͊͏ ͍͑‫͎̩͒ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ͔͎҄͐͒ҽ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈̿ӂ ҉͋̿ ҡ͊̓‫͐ ͏ل‬ҿ̀͐͆̓ͅ KӇ͎͇͍͋ ͑ӄ͋ ͆̓ӄ͋ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ›̿͋͑ӂ Ѭ͎́Զ 17. Amazement of the kings west of the Jordan (5:1) 1 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ҭ͏ Ѹ͈͍͒͐̿͋ ͍҅ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋و͑ ͏ل‬Ӄ͖͋ ͍҇ Ѻ͐̿͋ ›ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫̴͇͍͋ ͏ق͑ ͏ل‬Ӄ͈ͅ͏ ͍҅ ›͎̿Ҽ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ҙ͇͑ ј›̓͌Ӂ͎̿͋̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ ›͍͑̿͊ӄ͋ Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋ ͑‫͋و‬ ͒҅‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫͇̿̀̿͂ ى‬Ӄ͇͋̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͑ҽ͈͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫͇͂ ҅̿ ͋و‬ҽ͍͇͇͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̓›͉ҽ́͐̿͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѻ͋ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͎͓ ͏ل‬Ӆ͇͋͐ͅ͏ ͍Ҡ͂̓͊Ӄ̿ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ͑‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ 18. Jesus instructed to circumcise the people (5:2) 2 ҡ›ӄ ͂Ҿ ͍͑‫͑ ͍͋͑ن‬ӄ͋ ͈͇͎̿ӄ͋ ̓‫͈ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͍› ل‬Ӄ͍͐͋ͅ ͐̓̿͒͑‫ى‬ ͔͊̿̿Ӄ͎̿͏ ›͎̓͑Ӄ͋̿͏ Ѩ͈ ›ҿ͎͑̿͏ ј͈͎͍͑Ӆ͍͊͒ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͆Ӄ͐̿͏ ›͎̓Ӄ͑̓͊̓ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ 19. Jesus attends to the circumcision (5:3–8) 3 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͔̿̿͊ ͏ن‬Ӄ͎̿͏ ›͎̓͑Ӄ͋̿͏ ј͈͎͍͑Ӆ͍͊͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͇̓ҿ͑̓͊̓͋ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑‫͍͉͈͊͒̿ ن‬ҿ͍͋͒ ͑Ӆ›͍͒ ̡͍͒͋ӄ͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ј͈͎͍͇̀͒͐͑‫͋و‬ 4 җ͋ ͂Ҿ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ›͎͇͈̓̓ҽ͎͆̿̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͍͑ ͏ن‬ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ҙ͍͇͐ ›͍͑Ҿ Ѩ́ҿ͍͍͋͋͑ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ҕ͂‫͈̿ ى‬ӂ ҙ͍͇͐ ›͍͑Ҿ ј›͎̓Ӄ͍͇͑͊͑ͅ Ѻ͐̿͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͉͉͌̓͒͆ͅӅ͖͑͋ Ѩ͌ ̠҄́Ӈ›͍͑͒ 5 ›ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑Ӈ͍͑͒͏ ›͎͇̓ҿ͑̓͊̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬6 ͎͑̓͐͐̿ҽ͈͍͋͑̿ ́Ҽ͎ ͈̿ӂ ͂Ӈ͍ Ѭ͑ͅ ј͋ҿ͎͐͑̿›͇͑̿ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ѩ͎Ӂ͊Զ ͑‫͎̫̓̿̀͂̿ ك‬Ӄ͇͇͑͂ ͇͂ӄ ͍҅

JOSHUA 4:15–5:6

13

16. Camp made at Galgal [Gilgal] (4:15–24) And Lord said to Jesus saying ‘Command the priests carrying the chest of the disposition of the testimony of Lord to come out of the Jordan.’ And Jesus commanded the priests saying ‘Come out of the Jordan.’ And it came to be as the priests carrying the chest of the disposition of Lord came out of the Jordan and they placed their feet on the land, the water of the Jordan set in motion in its place, and was making its way like yesterday and the day before along its whole channel. And the people went up from the Jordan on the tenth of the first month; and the sons of Israel encamped in Galgal [Gilgal] in turn towards sunrise from IereiΗŌ. And these twelve stones which he took from the Jordan Jesus set in Galgal, saying ‘Whenever your sons ask you saying “What are these stones?”, proclaim to your sons that “On dry land Israel crossed this Jordan, Lord our god drying away the water of the Jordan before them till they crossed, just as Lord our god made the Red Sea, which Lord our god dried away before us till we passed over, so that all the nations of the earth might know that the power of Lord is mighty, and that you yourselves might honour Lord our god in every deed.” ’

17. Amazement of the kings west of the Jordan (5:1) And it came to be as the kings of the Amorrai, who were beyond the Jordan, and the kings of Phoenicia, those by the sea, heard that Lord the god dried away the Jordan river from before the sons of Israel at their crossing, and their thoughts melted and they were struck, and there was not in them any sense in face of the sons of Israel.

18. Jesus instructed to circumcise the people (5:2) Now during this time Lord said to Jesus, ‘Make yourself stone knives from stone cut sharp, and sitting circumcise the sons of Israel.’

19. Jesus attends to the circumcision (5:3–8) And Jesus made stone sharp-cut knives, and he circumcised the sons of Israel on the place called Foreskin Mound. And which way Jesus thoroughly purified the sons of Israel: however many were born on the way, and however many were uncircumcised of those having departed from Egypt, all these Jesus circumcised; for forty and two years Israel has turned about in the desert, the Madbareitis, wherefore the

14

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 19–25

ј›͎̓Ӄ͍͇͑͊͑ͅ Ѻ͐̿͋ ͍҅ ›͉̓‫̿ ͇͍͑͐ل‬Ҡ͑‫͔̿͊ ͋و͑ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͊͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͉͉͌̓͒͆ͅӅ͖͑͋ Ѩ͈ ́‫̠́҄ ͏ق‬Ӈ›͍͑͒ ͍҅ ј›͇̓͆Ӂ͐̿͋͑̓͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͍͉͋͑‫͈̿ ͏ت͍ ن͍̓͆ ن͍͑ ͋و‬ӂ ͇͂Ӊ͎͇͐̓͋ ͊Ӏ ҄͂̓‫̿ ͋ل‬Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬ѷ͋ Ұ͍͊͐̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͍͑‫͎͑̿› ͏ل‬ҽ͇͐͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͇̿͋ن͍͂ ͋و‬ ́‫ ͋ق‬Ԫҿ͍͒͐̿͋ ́ҽ͉̿ ͈̿ӂ ͊ҿ͉͇ 7 ј͋͑ӂ ͂Ҿ ͍͑Ӈ͖͑͋ ј͇͈͋͑̿͑ҿ͐͑͐̓͋ͅ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍ ͋و‬ң͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͇͎̓› ͏ن‬ҿ͑̓͊̓͋ ͇͂Ҽ ͑ӄ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ́̓́̓͋͋‫͈͑̿ ͇̿͆͐ق‬Ҽ ͑Ӏ͋ ҕ͂ӄ͋ ј›͎͇̓͑͊Ӂ͍͑͒͏ 8 ›͎͇̓͑͊͆ͅҿ͋͑̓͏ ͂Ҿ ѵ͔͐͒Ӄ̿͋ ̓‫̿ ͍͔͋ة‬Ҡ͑Ӆ͇͆ ͈̿͆Ӂ͍͇͊̓͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ك‬ ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀‫ ك‬ѭ͖͏ ҡ͇́ҽ͐͆͐̿͋ͅ 20. Passover celebrated (5:9–12) 9 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͈ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ̬͒̿ͅ ى҅͒ ل‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫͐ ك‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ ј͓̓‫͍͉͋ل‬ ͑ӄ͋ Ҕ͇͇͋̓͂͐͊ӄ͋ ̠҄́Ӈ›͍͑͒ ј͓Ԇ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͈ҽ͉̓͐̓͋ ͑ӄ Ҙ͍͋͊̿ ͍͑‫͑ ن‬Ӆ›͍͒ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͍͋͒ ̢͉͉̿́̿̿ 10 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͑ӄ ›͔̿͐̿ ͑‫̿͐͐̓͑ ك‬͎͈͇͈̓͐̿͂̓ҽ͑Ԍ ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ ͍͑‫͋͊ͅ ن‬ӄ͏ ј›ӄ ѩ͐›ҿ͎̿͏ ј›ӄ ͂͒͐͊‫ ̨͖͔͇͎̓̓ ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͂̓› ى‬ӃԶ 11 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͓ҽ͍́͐̿͋ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫͐ ن‬Ӄ͍͑͒ ͑‫ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬ќ̈́͒͊̿ ͈̿ӂ ͋ҿ̿ Ѩ͋ ͑̿Ӈ͑Ԍ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ 12 Ѩ͌ҿ͉͇›̓͋ ͑ӄ ͊̿͋͋̿ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͑ӄ ͎͖͈̀̓̀ҿ͇͋̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫͐ ن‬Ӄ͍͑͒ ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ҿ͇͑ ҡ›‫͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل͍͑ ͔͎͋̓ق‬ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͊̿͋͋̿ Ѩ͈͎̿›Ӄ͍͐̿͋͑ ͂Ҿ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͍͎͒Ҽ͋ ͑‫̴͇͍͋ ͋و‬Ӄ͈͖͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ͇͋̿͒͑‫ى‬ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Զ 21. Jesus’s encounter at IereiΗŌ (5:13) 13 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ҭ͏ ‫ ͋إ‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ͋ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ј͉͋̿̀ҿ͕̿͏ ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬Ҕ͓͉͍͆̿͊‫͏ل‬ ̓‫ ͋̓͂ة‬ќ͎͖͋͆›͍͋ ѩ͈͐͑ͅӅ͑̿ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ѵ Ԫ͍͓͊̿Ӄ̿ Ѩ͐›̿͐͊ҿ͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͎͇͔̓ ك‬ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ›͎͍͉͐̓͆ӈ͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫̿ ͋̓›ة̓ ͏ن‬Ҡ͑‫ ى‬ѵ͊ҿ͎͍͑̓͏ ̓‫ ة‬Ѵ ͑‫͋و‬ ҡ›̓͋̿͋͑Ӄ͖͋ 22. Jesus prostrate before Lord’s commander (5:14) 14 ҕ ͂Ҿ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ́ӈ ј͎͔͇͎͐͑ҽ͍͑́ͅ͏ ͂͒͋ҽ͖͊̓͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͋͒͋ӂ ›͎̿̿́ҿ͍́͋̿ ͈̿ӂ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѭ›̓͐̓͋ Ѩ›ӂ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫͈̿ ͋ق‬ӂ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͑‫ى‬ ͂ҿ͐›͍͑̿ ͑Ӄ ›͎͍͐͑ҽ͇͐͐̓͏ ͑‫͈͍҄ ى͐ ى‬ҿ͑Ԍ 23. The commander instructs Jesus (5:15) 15 ͈̿ӂ ͉ҿ͇́̓ ҕ ј͎͔͇͎͐͑ҽ͍͑́ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͇̿͐ن͉ ͋ن‬ӄ ҡ›Ӆ͂͊̿ͅ Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ͍͒͐ ͋و͍͂› ͋و‬ҕ ́Ҽ͎ ͑Ӆ›͍͏ Ѩ͓Ԇ ӱ ͋‫ ͋ن‬ѭ͈͐͑̿ͅ͏ ѝ͇́Ӆ͏ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ 24. IereiΗŌ (Jericho) introduced (6:1) 1 ͈̿ӂ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ͈͈͉͇͐͒͋̓̓͐͊ҿ͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ҭ͔͎͖͒͊ҿ͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͆̓ӂ͏ Ѩ͌̓›͍͎̓Ӈ͍̓͑ Ѩ͌ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍ ͏ق‬Ҡ͂Ҿ ̓҄͐̓›͍͎̓Ӈ͍̓͑ 25. Lord instructs Jesus (6:2–5) 2 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͈ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͍͂҄ ͋ن‬ӆ Ѩ́ӈ ›͎̿̿͂Ӄ͖͇͂͊ ͑Ӏ͋ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ҡ›͍͔͇͎̓Ӄ̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ͏ق‬ӄ͋ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍͑̿͋͒͂ ك‬ӆ͏ Ҙ͋͑̿͏ Ѩ͋

JOSHUA 5:6–6:2

15

uncircumcised were the most of them (of the warriors who had departed from the land of Egypt), those disobedient to the commands of the god, to whom he even defined they should not see the land which Lord swore to their fathers to give: a land flowing milk and honey. Instead of these he substituted their sons, whom Jesus circumcised because of their having being born on the way, uncircumcised. Then, circumcised, they kept quiet, sitting on the spot in the camp till they were healed. 20. Passover celebrated (5:9–12) And Lord said to Jesus son of Nauē, ‘In this very day I removed the reproach of Egypt from you.’ And he called the name of that place Galgal. And the sons of Israel made the Pascha on the fourteenth day of the month at evening to ‘setting’ of IereiΗŌ beyond the Jordan in the plain; and they ate of the grain of the land unleavened and new [loaves]. In this day the manna left o֎, after their having eaten of the grain of the land, and no longer did there come to be manna for the sons of Israel; and they had the fruit of the cropping of the date-palms in that year.

21. Jesus’s encounter at IereiΗŌ (5:13) And it came to be as Jesus was at IereiΗŌ, and looking up with his eyes he saw a man standing over against him, and the sword having been drawn in his hand. And approaching, Jesus said to him, ‘Are you ours or of the opponents?’ 22. Jesus prostrate before Lord’s commander (5:14) But he said to him, ‘I, commander-in-chief of Lord’s power, am now present. And Jesus fell face on the ground and said to him, ‘Master, what are you commanding your house-slave?’ 23. The commander instructs Jesus (5:15) And Lord’s commander-in-chief is saying to Jesus, ‘Loose the sandal from your feet; for the place on which you have now stood is holy.’ 24. IereiΗŌ ( Jericho) introduced (6:1) And IereiΗŌ having been shut up and made fast, and no one was going out of it nor going in. 25. Lord instructs Jesus (6:2–5) And Lord said to Jesus, ‘Look I am transfering IereiΗŌ to your hands, and its king who is in it, [both] being powerful in strength. But you place the

16

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 25–28

͔҄͐Ӈ͇ 3 ͐ӆ ͂Ҿ ›͎̓Ӄ͍͐͑͐͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍͑ ك‬ӆ͏ ͔͊̿Ӄ͍͊͒͏ ͈Ӈ͈͉Զ 5 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ҭ͏ ј͋ ͉͐̿›Ӄ͐͑̓ͅ ͑‫͐ ك‬ҽ͉›͇͇́́ ј͈͎͋̿̿́ҿ͖͑ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ѝ͊̿ ͈̿ӂ ј͈͎͋̿̿́Ӆ͖͋͑͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫̿ ͇̿͑ل̓͐̓› ͋و‬Ҡ͑Ӆ͊̿͑̿ ͑Ҽ ͑̓Ӄ͔ͅ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͉̓҄͐̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ҕ͎͊Ӂ͐̿͏ ѭ͈͍̿͐͑͏ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ 26. Jesus interprets Lord’s instructions to priests and people (6:6–11) 6 ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͐‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬ҕ ͍͑‫͎› ̬͒̿ͅ ن‬ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͎҅̓̓‫ ͏ل‬7 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ͉ҿ͖́͋ ›͎̿̿́́̓Ӄ͉̿͑̓ ͑‫͈̿ ͋ل͉͇͎̓͆̓̓› ى͉̿ ى‬ӂ ͈͈͉͒‫͑ ͇̿͐و‬Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͊ҽ͔͇͍͇͊ ›͎̿̿›͍͎̓͒ҿ͖͐͆͐̿͋ Ѩ͖͋›͉͇͐͊ҿ͍͇͋ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ 8 ͈̿ӂ ѩ›͑Ҽ ͎҅̓̓‫ ͏ل‬Ѭ͔͍͋͑̓͏ ѩ›͑Ҽ ͐ҽ͉›͇́́̿͏ ͎҅̓Ҽ͏ ›͎͉̿̓͆ҿ͖͑͐̿͋ ҭ͐̿Ӈ͖͑͏ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ͍͑‫͎̩͒ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ͇͐͊̿͋ͅҿ͖͑͐̿͋ ̓Ҡ͑Ӆ͖͋͏ ͈̿ӂ ѵ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͏ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ Ѩ›͈͍͉͍̿͒͆̓Ӄ͖͑ 9 ͍҅ ͂Ҿ ͊ҽ͔͇͍͇͊ Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋ ›͎̿̿›͍͎̓͒ҿ͖͐͆͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͎҅̓̓‫͍ ͍҅ ͏ل‬Ҡ͎͍̿́‫ ͏̓͑͋ن‬Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق͑ ن͍͖͇͈͑̀ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ›͍͎̓͒Ӆ͍͇͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͉͐̿›Ӄ͍̈́͋͑̓͏ 10 ͑‫͂ ى‬Ҿ ͉̿‫ ى‬Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͉ ͏ن‬ҿ͖́͋ ͊Ӏ ͍̀‫͂͊ͅ ̓͑ـ‬Ҿ ј͈͍͒͐ҽ͖͑ ͊͆̓ͅӂ͏ ҡ͊‫͑ ͋و‬Ӏ͋ ͓͖͋Ӂ͋ ѭ͖͏ ј͋ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͏ ͇͂̿́́̓Ӄ͉Ԍ ј͍͋̿̀‫͈̿ ͇̿͐ق‬ӂ ͑Ӆ͑̓ ј͍͋̿̀Ӂ͐̓͑̓ 11 ͈̿ӂ ›͎͇͉͍̓̓͆‫ ̿͐ن‬ѵ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͏ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ͍͑‫̓ ن͍̓͆ ن‬Ҡ͆ҿ͖͏ ј›‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͉͋̓͆ق‬Ӏ͋ ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈͍͇͊Ӂ͆ͅ Ѩ͈̓‫ل‬ 27. Days two to six (6:12–14) 12 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ ͑‫͑͒̓͂ ك‬ҿ͎ӽ ј͋ҿ͐͑ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬ӄ ›͎͖Ӄ ͈̿ӂ Ѻ͎̿͋ ͍҅ ͎҅̓̓‫͏ل‬ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ 13 ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ѩ›͑Ҽ ͎҅̓̓‫͓ ͍҅ ͏ل‬ҿ͎͍͋͑̓͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͐ҽ͉›͇́́̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ѩ›͑Ҽ ›͎͍̓›͍͎̓Ӈ͍͍͋͑ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͑̿‫̿͑ن‬ ̓҄͐̓›͍͎̓Ӈ͍͍͋͑ ͍҅ ͊ҽ͔͇͍͇͊ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ͉͍͇›ӄ͏ Ҙ͔͉͍͏ Ҙ›͇͐͆̓ ͑‫͏ق͑ ن͍͖͇͈͑̀ ͏ق‬ ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͎҅̓̓‫ ͏ل‬Ѩ͐ҽ͉›͇͐̿͋ ͑̿‫͐ ͏ل‬ҽ͉›͇͇́͌ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ͉͍͇›ӄ͏ Ҙ͔͉͍͏ ѝ›̿͏ ›͎͇͈̓̓Ӈ͈͉͖͐̓ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ Ѩ́́Ӈ͆̓͋ 14 ͈̿ӂ ј›‫› ͉͋̓͆ق‬ҽ͉͇͋ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀Ӂ͋ ͍ҥ͖͑͏ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͇̓ Ѩ›ӂ ѫ͌ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ 28. The seventh day (6:15–25) 15 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ ͑‫ ك‬ѩ̀͂Ӆ͊Ԍ ј͋ҿ͐͑͐̿͋ͅ Ҙ͎͎͍͆͒ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͇̓Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ѩ͌ҽ͈͇͏ 16 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫͇͎̓› ك‬Ӆ͂Զ ͑‫ ك‬ѩ̀͂Ӆ͊Ԍ Ѩ͐ҽ͉›͇͐̿͋ ͍҅ ͎҅̓̓‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ̓‫͋̓›ة‬ ҕ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͎͈͈̓ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ن‬ҽ͌̿͑̓ ›͎̿ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ́Ҽ͎ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҡ͊‫͑ ͋ل‬Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ 17 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ ј͋ҽ͆̓͊̿ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ ̩͎͒ӃԶ ͖͐̿̀̿͆ ›͉Ӏ͋ ̰̿̿̀ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͎͋͋ͅ ›͎͇̓›͍͇Ӂ͐̿͐͆̓ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͈҈͍ ى‬Զ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬18 ј͉͉Ҽ ҡ͊̓‫͉͓͒ ͏ل‬ҽ͌̿͐͆̓ ͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن‬ј͋̿͆ҿ͍͊̿͑͏ ͊Ӂ›͍͑̓ Ѩ͋͆͒͊͆ͅҿ͋͑̓͏ ҡ͊̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͍͑ӂ ͉ҽ̀͑̓ͅ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن‬ј͋̿͆ҿ͍͊̿͑͏ ͈̿ӂ ›͍͇Ӂ͐͑̓ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀Ӏ͋ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ј͋ҽ͆̓͊̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈͎͑Ӄ͕͑̓ͅ ѵ͊‫͏ـ‬ 19 ͈̿ӂ ›‫ ͋ـ‬ј͎́Ӈ͎͇͍͋ Ѵ ͔͎͒͐Ӄ͍͋ Ѵ ͔͉͈̿ӄ͏ Ѵ ͐Ӄ͎͍͂ͅ͏ ѝ͇͍́͋ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ͑‫͎̩͒ ى‬ӃԶ ̓҄͏ ͎͆͐̿͒ͅӄ͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͔̓҄͐̓͋̓͆Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ 20 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͐ҽ͉›͇͐̿͋ ͑̿‫͐ ͏ل‬ҽ͉›͇͇́͌͋ ͍҅ ͎҅̓̓‫ ͏ل‬ҭ͏ ͂Ҿ Ѹ͈͍͒͐̓͋ ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ͑‫›͉̿͐ ͋و‬Ӄ͖́́͋ Ѵ͉ҽ͉̿͌̓͋ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ѝ͊̿

JOSHUA 6:2–6:20

17

warriors round it in a circle. And it shall be, as you trumpet with the trumpet, let all the people raise a shout together. And as they shout, the walls of the city shall fall down of themselves, and all the people shall enter moving o֎ each facing into the city. 26. Jesus interprets Lord’s instructions to priests and people (6:6–11) And Jesus son of Nauē went in to the priests and said to them saying, ‘Pass the order to the people to go round and circle the city; and the warriors, let them pass by armed before Lord; and seven priests holding seven holy trumpets, let them pass by similarly before Lord, and give the signal vigorously; and the chest of the disposition of Lord, let it follow. But let the warriors pass by in front, and the priests in the rear behind the chest of the disposition of Lord, trumpeting.’ To the people Jesus gave command saying, ‘Do not shout, nor let anyone hear your voice till he himself proclaim the day to shout; and then raise a shout.’ And going round, the chest of the disposition of the god immediately departed to the camp, and he slept there.

27. Days two to six (6:12–14) And on the second day Jesus rose in the morning, and the priests carried the chest of the disposition of Lord, and the seven priests bearing the seven trumpets were going forward before Lord. And afterwards the warriors were entering, and the remaining mass behind the chest of the disposition of Lord; and the priests blasted on the trumpets and the whole remaining mass encircled the city close in, and departed to the camp. So ‘one’ was doing for six days. 28. The seventh day (6:15–25) And on the seventh day they rose early, and encircled the city six times. And on the seventh way round the priests trumpeted, and Jesus said to the sons of Israel, ‘Yell, for Lord handed over to you the city. And the city shall be a dedicated o֎ering, it and all things as many are in it, to Lord Sabaoth: however, Raab the prostitute you must preserve, herself and as many things as are in her house. But you yourselves be very chary of the dedicated o֎ering, lest at all in a state of passion you yourselves take from the dedicated o֎ering and make the camp of the sons of Israel a dedicated o֎ering, and you rub us out. And any silver or gold or bronze or iron will be holy to the lord: into Lord’s treasury it shall be brought.’ And the priests blasted with the trumpets; and as the people hearkened

18

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 28–31

ј͉͉̿̿́͊‫́̓͊ ى‬ҽ͉Զ ͈̿ӂ ͔͎҄͐͒‫͈̿ ى‬ӂ Ѭ›̓͐̓͋ ѝ›̿͋ ͑ӄ ͑̓‫͈ ͏͍͔ل‬Ӈ͈͉Զ ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ̀ͅ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ 21 ͈̿ӂ ј͋̓͆̓͊ҽ͇͑͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ҙ͐̿ ‫ ͋إ‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ك‬Ӆ͉͇̓ ј›ӄ ј͎͋͂ӄ͏ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ͇͈́͒͋̿Ӆ͏ ј›ӄ ͋̓̿͋Ӄ͈͍͐͒ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ›͎̓͐̀Ӈ͍͑͒ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ͊Ӆ͔͍͐͒ ͈̿ӂ ҡ›͍̈́͒́Ӄ͍͒ Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ Ԫ͍͓͊̿Ӄ̿͏ 22 ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫͐͒͂ ͏ل‬ӂ͋ ͋̓̿͋Ӄ͈͍͇͐͏ ͍͑‫̓›͍͈͈͐̿͑̿ ͏ل‬Ӈ͇͐̿͐͋ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͐҄̓ ͏ن‬ҿ͉͆̿͑̓ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͍͈҄Ӄ̿͋ ͑‫͈͇̿͋͒́ ͏ق‬ӄ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌̿́ҽ́̓͑̓ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͈̓‫͈̿ ͋̓͆ل‬ӂ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬23 ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͐‫͂ ͍҅ ͍͉͋͆ق‬Ӈ͍ ͋̓̿͋Ӄ͈͍͇͐ ͍҅ ͈͈͍̿͑̿͐›̓Ӈ͐̿͋͑̓͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͍͈҄Ӄ̿͋ ͑‫͈͇̿͋͒́ ͏ق‬ӄ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌́ͅҽ͍́͐̿͋ ̰̿̿̀ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͎͋͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ›̿͑ҿ͎̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͊͑ͅҿ͎̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ј͉͓͍͂̓ӆ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͐͒́́ҿ͇͋̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ҙ͐̿ ‫̿ ͋إ‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ͐͑͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѭ͖͌ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ق͉͍͎̀͊̓̿› ͏ق‬24 ͈̿ӂ ѵ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ Ѩ͋̓›͎Ӂ͐͆ͅ Ѩ͋›͎͇͒͐͊‫͐ ى‬ӆ͋ ›‫͇͋͐ـ‬ ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͉› ك‬Ӏ͋ ј͎͎́͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ͔͎͒͐Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ͔͉͈͍̿‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ͇͐͂Ӂ͎͍͒ Ѭ͖͈͂̿͋ ̓҄͏ ͎͆͐̿͒ͅӄ͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͔̓҄͐̓͋̓͆‫ ͇̿͋ق‬25 ͈̿ӂ ̰̿̿̀ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͎͋͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑ӄ͋ ͍‫͑ ͍͈͋ة‬ӄ͋ ›͎͇͈̿͑ӄ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬Ѩ̈́Ӊ͎́͐̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ͈̿͑Է͈͐̓͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ى‬ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͐ ͏ق‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͇͂Ӆ͇͑ Ѭ͈͎͕͒̓͋ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈͈͍̿͑̿͐›̓Ӈ͐̿͋͑̿͏ ͍ң͏ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͇̿͐ن̓›͍͈͈͐̿͑̿ ͏ن‬Ӏ͋ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ 29. Jesus’s curse (6:26) 26 ͈̿ӂ ұ͎͈͇͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͉ҿ͖́͋ Ѩ›͇͈̿͑ҽ͎͍̿͑͏ ҕ ќ͎͖͋͆›͍͏ җ͏ ͍͈͍͍҄͂͊Ӂ͇͐̓ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ى‬ ›͎͖͍͑͑Ӆ͈Զ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͇͉̓͊̓͆ ن‬Ӊ͇͐̓ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ͉͔̿Ӄ͐͑Զ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬Ѩ›͇͐͑Ӂ͇͐̓ ͑Ҽ͏ ›Ӈ͉̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͍ҥ͖͑͏ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ̮̈́̿͋ ҕ Ѩ͈ ̡͇͉̿͆ͅ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͖͎͇̠͋̓̀ ى‬ ͑‫͍͖͎͑͑› ى‬Ӆ͈Զ Ѩ͉͆̓͊̓Ӄ͖͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ͉͔̿Ӄ͐͑Զ ͇͖͂̿͐͆ҿ͇͋͑ Ѩ›ҿ͐͑͐̓͋ͅ ͑Ҽ͏ ›Ӈ͉̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͏ق‬ 30. Jesus and Israel contrasted (6:27–7:1) 27 ͈̿ӂ Ѻ͋ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͊̓͑Ҽ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ Ѻ͋ ͑ӄ Ҙ͍͋͊̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈͑̿ ن‬Ҽ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬1 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͉͊͊ͅҿ͉͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ›͉͊͊ͅҿ͉͇̓̿͋ ͊̓́ҽ͉͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͍͓͋͐Ӄ͍͐̿͋͑ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن‬ј͋̿͆ҿ͍͊̿͑͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ ̠͔͎̿ ͒҅ӄ͏ ̵͎͇̿͊ ͍͒҅‫ن‬ ̥͎͇̿͊̀ ͍͒҅‫ ͎̥̿̿ ن‬Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ̨͍̿͂͒ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن‬ј͋̿͆ҿ͍͊̿͑͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͆͒͊Ӊ͆ͅ Ҕ͎́‫̩ ك‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͍͑‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ 31. Scouting Gai (7:2–5) 2 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬ќ͎͋͂̿͏ ̓҄͏ ̢͇̿ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ̡͇͉̿͆ͅ ͉ҿ͖́͋ ͈͈̿͑̿͐ҿ͕̿͐͆̓ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͇̿ ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ќ͎͋͂̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͈͈̿͑̓͐ҿ͕͍̿͋͑ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͇̿ 3 ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ͎͕͐͑̓̿͋ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͋ن‬ӂ ̓‫͎› ͋̿›ة‬ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͋ ͊Ӏ ј͋̿̀Ӂ͖͑ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿Ӆ͏ ј͉͉Ԇ ҭ͏ ͇͔͂͐Ӄ͉͇͍͇ Ѷ ͎͇͔͑͐Ӄ͉͇͍͇ ќ͎͋͂̓͏ ј͋̿̀Ӂ͖͑͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈›͍͉͇͍͎͈͐ͅҽ͖͑͐̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͊Ӏ ј͋̿́ҽ́Ԍ͏ Ѩ͈̓‫͑ ل‬ӄ͋ ͉̿ӄ͋ ›ҽ͋͑̿ Ҕ͉Ӄ͍͇́ ́ҽ͎ ͇̓҄͐͋ 4 ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ ҭ͐̓ӂ ͎͇͔͑͐Ӄ͉͇͍͇ ќ͎͋͂̓͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͓͍͒́͋ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ͑‫ ͋و‬ј͎͋͂‫ ̢͇̿ ͋و‬5 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͈͇͑̓͋̿͋ ј›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ќ͎͋͂̓͏ ̢͇̿ ̓҄͏ ͎͇͑ҽ͈͍͋͑̿ ͈̿ӂ

JOSHUA 6:20–7:5

19

to the trumpets, all the people yelled out together with a great and powerful yell. And all the wall fell round about, and all the people went up into the city. And Jesus dedicated it an o֎ering, and what was in the city, man and woman alike, young fellow and old man alike, and bullock and beast of burden as well, into the mouth of the sword. And to the two young fellows, the scouts, Jesus said, ‘Enter the house of the woman, and bring her out from there – and what is hers. And the two young fellows who spied out the city entered the house of the woman, and they brought out Raab the prostitute and her father and her mother and her brothers and her kinsfolk and everything that was hers, and they set them down outside the camp of Israel. And the city was burned in a conflagration with all those in it, except for silver and gold and bronze and iron: they gave them to be deposited into treasury of Lord. And Raab the prostitute and all her paternal house Jesus saved alive and settled within Israel till this day, because she hid the scouts whom Jesus sent to scout out IereiΗŌ. 29. Jesus’s curse (6:26) And Jesus swore on that day in sight of Lord saying ‘Cursed the person who will build that city; on his firstborn he will found it and on his latest he will erect its gates. And that is what Ozan of Baiϑēl [Bethel] did: on Abeiron his firstborn he founded it and on his latest survivor he erected its gates.

30. Jesus and Israel contrasted (6:27–7:1) And Lord was with Jesus, and his name was throughout all the land. And the sons of Israel committed a great fault and purloined from the consecrated o֎ering; and AΗar son of Ζarmei son of Zambrei son of Zara from the tribe of Iouda took from the consecrated o֎ering; and Lord was furious with anger towards the sons of Israel. 31. Scouting Gai (7:2–5) And Jesus sent men to Gai (Ai), which is down from Baiϑēl, saying ‘Spy out Gai.’ And the men went up and spied out Gai, and they returned to Jesus and said to him ‘Let not all the people go up, but let some two thousand or three thousand men go up and let them beseige the city; do not lead the whole people up there, for they are few.’ And some three thousand men went up, and they fled in face of the men of Gai. And men of Gai killed from them towards thirty-six men, and they chased them

20

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 31–34

ѫ͌ ќ͎͋͂̿͏ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̓͂Ӄ͖͌̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ј›ӄ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӈ͉ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͐͒͋ҿ͎͇͕͑̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫͈̿ ͏ن͍͎͓͈̓̿͑̿ ن‬ӂ Ѩ›͍͑Ӂ͆ͅ ѵ ͈͎̿͂Ӄ̿ ͍͑‫͈̿ ن͍͉̿ ن‬ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ұ͐›͎̓ ҥ͖͎͂ 32. Jesus intercedes (7:6–9) 6 ͈̿ӂ ͇͂ҿ͎͎͌̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬Ҽ ҅͊ҽ͇͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ Ѭ›̓͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫͋ق‬ Ѩ›ӂ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ѭ͖͏ ѩ͐›ҿ͎̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ›͎̓͐̀Ӈ͎͍͇͑̓ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›̓̀ҽ͉͍͍͋͑ ͔͍‫ ͋ن‬Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ҽ͏ ͈͓͉̓̿Ҽ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬7 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͏ن‬ ͂ҿ͍͇͊̿ ͈Ӈ͎͇̓ ҉͋̿ ͑Ӄ ͇͂̓̀Ӄ̀̿͐̓͋ ҕ ›̿‫͑ ͍͒͐ ͏ل‬ӄ͋ ͉̿ӄ͋ ͍͑‫͑ ͍͋͑ن‬ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ ›͎͍̿̿͂‫̿ ͇̿͋ن‬Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ى‬ӃԶ ј›͍͉ҿ͇͐̿ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͏ـ‬ӂ ̓҄ ͈̿͑̓͊̓Ӄ͋̿͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑Զ͈Ӄ͐͆͊̓͋ͅ ›͎̿Ҽ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ 8 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӄ Ѩ͎‫ و‬Ѩ›̓ӂ ͊̓͑ҿ͉̀̿̓͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ̿Ҡ͔ҿ͋̿ ј›ҿ͇͋̿͋͑ ͍͑‫ ن‬Ѩ͔͎͍͆‫̿ ن‬Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬9 ͈̿ӂ ј͈͍Ӈ͐̿͏ ҕ ̵̿͋̿͋̿‫͈̿ ͏͍ل‬ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫͑ ͏̓͑͋ن‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͉͈͈͇͎͒̓› ͋ق‬Ӊ͍͇͐͒͐͋ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͏ـ‬ӂ Ѩ͈͎͑Ӄ͕͍͇͒͐͋ ѵ͊‫ ͏ـ‬ј›ӄ ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑Ӄ ›͍͇Ӂ͇͐̓͏ ͑ӄ Ҙ͍͋͊ҽ ͍͐͒ ͑ӄ ͊ҿ́̿ 33. Lord’s detailed response (7:10–15) 10 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͈ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͋ن‬ј͋ҽ͇͐͑͆ͅ ҉͋̿ ͑Ӄ ͍͑‫͐ ͍͑ن‬ӆ ›ҿ›͖͈͑̿͏ Ѩ›ӂ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›Ӆ͋ ͍͐͒ 11 ѵ͊ҽ͎͈͑̓͋ͅ ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿ҿ̀ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈͋ͅ ѷ͋ ͇͂̓͆ҿ͊͋ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͈͉ҿ͕̿͋͑̓͏ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن‬ј͋̿͆ҿ͍͊̿͑͏ Ѩ͋ҿ͉͍̀̿͋ ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ ͈͐̓Ӈͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬12 ͍Ҡ ͊Ӏ ͂Ӈ͖͇͋͋͑̿ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ҡ›͍͐͑‫͈͑̿ ͇̿͋ق‬Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͔͎͆‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͑‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͔ҿ͋̿ ҡ›͍͎͐͑ҿ͕͍͇͒͐͋ Ѭ͇͋̿͋͑ ͑‫͋و‬ Ѩ͔͎͆‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ҙ͇͑ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆͐̿͋ͅ ј͋ҽ͆̓͊̿ ͍Ҡ ›͎͍͐͆Ӂ͖͐ Ѭ͇͑ ̓‫͆̓͊ ͇̿͋ة‬Ԇ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ѨҼ͋ ͊Ӏ Ѩ͌ҽ͎͑̓ͅ ͑ӄ ј͋ҽ͆̓͊̿ Ѩ͌ ҡ͊‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬13 ј͋̿͐͑Ҽ͏ љ́Ӄ͍̿͐͋ ͑ӄ͋ ͉̿ӄ͋ ͈̿ӂ ̓҄›ӄ͋ љ͇́̿͐͆‫̿ ͏҄̓ ͇̿͋ق‬Ҥ͎͇͍͋ ͑ҽ͂̓ ͉ҿ͇́̓ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͑ӄ ј͋ҽ͆̓͊̿ Ѩ͋ ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͍Ҡ ͂͒͋Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓ ј͇͋͑͐͑‫ ͇̿͋ق‬ј›ҿ͇͋̿͋͑ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͔͎͆‫͋و‬ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ѭ͖͏ ј͋ Ѩ͌ҽ͎͑̓ͅ ͑ӄ ј͋ҽ͆̓͊̿ Ѩ͌ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬14 ͈̿ӂ ͔͐͒͋̿͆Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͑ӄ ›͎͖ӂ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͓͉͒ҽ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ͓͉͒Ӂ ѷ͋ ј͋ ͂̓Ӄ͌Ԍ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎͍͐ҽ͌̓͑̓ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͂‫ ͍͋͊ق‬җ͋ ѨҼ͋ ͂̓Ӄ͌Ԍ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎͍͐ҽ͌̓͑̓ ͈̿͑Ԇ ͍‫͈̿ ͍͈͋ة‬ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͍‫ ͍͈͋ة‬җ͋ ѨҼ͋ ͂̓Ӄ͌Ԍ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎͍͐ҽ͌̓͑̓ ͈̿͑Ԇ ќ͎͋͂̿ 15 ͈̿ӂ җ͏ ј͋ Ѩ͇͔͋͂̓͆‫ك‬ ͈͈̿͑̿̿͒͆Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ͋ ›͎͒ӂ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬ҙ͇͑ ›͎̿ҿ̀ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈͋ͅ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ј͋Ӆ͊͊̿ͅ Ѩ͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ

34. AΗar taken by lot (7:16–18) 16 ͈̿ӂ Ұ͎͎͇͆͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ›͎͍͐Ӂ́̿́̓͋ ͑ӄ͋ ͉̿ӄ͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͓͉͒ҽ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋̓͂̓Ӄ͔͆ͅ ѵ ͓͉͒Ӏ ̨͍͒͂̿ 17 ͈̿ӂ ›͎͍͐Ӂ͔͆ͅ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋̓͂̓Ӄ͔͆ͅ ͂‫ ͏͍͊ق‬ҕ ̥͎͇̿̿̓ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͍͐Ӂ͔͆ͅ ͈̿͑Ҽ ќ͎͋͂̿ 18 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋̓͂̓Ӄ͔͆ͅ ̠͔͎̿ ͒҅ӄ͏ ̥͎͇̿͊̀̓ ͍͒҅‫͎̥̿̿ ن‬

JOSHUA 7:5–7:18

21

down from the gate, and they crushed them from the downhill. And the heart of the people was terrified and became like water.

32. Jesus intercedes (7:6–9) And Jesus tore his clothes, and Jesus fell on the earth on his face before Lord till evening, he and the elders of Israel, and they threw soil on their heads. And Jesus said, ‘I ask [ you], Lord, why did your “boy” take this people across the Jordan to hand it over to the Amorrai to destroy us? And suppose that we had remained and been settled beyond the Jordan. And what shall I say, since Israel has turned neck before his enemy? And hearing it the Ζananai and all who are inhabiting the land, will surround us and wipe us out from the land; and what will you make [of ] your great name?’ 33. Lord’s detailed response (7:10–15) And Lord said to Jesus, ‘Stand up. You – why so have you fallen on your face? The people has sinned and and it transgressed the disposition which I disposed to them: stealing from the devoted o֎ering, they have added to their baggage. The sons of Israel are surely unable to hold up in face of their enemies; they shall turn round neck over against their enemies, because they have become a devoted o֎ering; I shall not add further being with them unless you remove the devoted o֎ering from yourselves. Standing up, sanctify the people, and say to be sanctified for tomorrow. These things Lord the god of Israel is saying, “The devoted o֎ering is within you: you will not be able to withstand against your enemies, unless you remove the devoted o֎ering from you. And gather all of you in the morning by tribes; and the tribe shall be whichever Lord may identify – bring it by clans; and bring whichever clan Lord identifies by house[hold]; and bring whichever house[hold] Lord identifies by individual. And whoever is indicated shall be burned in fire and everything that is his, because he transgressed Lord’s disposition and committed a lawless act in Israel.” ’ 34. AΗar taken by lot (7:16–18) And Jesus rose early and brought the people near by tribes; and the tribe of Iouda was indicated. And it was brought near by clans, and the clan Zaraei was indicated; and it was brought near by individual, and AΗar son of Zambrei son of Zara was indicated.

22

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 35–37

35. Jesus addresses AΗar (7:19) 19 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͂ ͎͔̠̿ ى͑ ͏ن‬ӄ͏ ͂Ӆ͌̿͋ ͐Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ͑‫͎̩͒ ى‬ӃԶ ͆̓‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ى‬ ͈̿ӂ ͂ӄ͏ ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͍͍͉͌͊Ӆ͇́͐͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҽ͇͉́́̓Ӆ͋ ͍͇͊ ͑Ӄ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͊Ӏ ͈͎Ӈ͕Ԍ͏ ј›Ԇ Ѩ͍͊‫ن‬ 36. AΗar confesses and is punished (7:20–26) 20 ͈̿ӂ ј›͈͎̓Ӄ͆ͅ ̠͔͎̿ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ل‬ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬ј͉͆ͅ‫ ͏و‬ѹ͎͍͊̿͑͋ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͆̓‫͍ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ن‬ҥ͖͑͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍ҥ͖͑͏ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿ͅ 21 ̓‫ ͍͋͂ة‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ك͍͍͎͊͋› ك‬ ͕͇͉̓Ӏ͋ ›͍͇͈Ӄ͉͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͇͈͂̿Ӆ͇͐̿ ͂Ӄ͎͔͂̿͊̿ ј͎͎́͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ͉́‫͊ ͋̿͐͐و‬Ӄ̿͋ ͔͎͒͐‫͑͋̓› ͋ق‬Ӂ͈͍͋͑̿ ͇͎͂͂ҽ͔͖͊͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋͆͒͊͆̓ͅӂ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͉͍̿̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍҄͂ӆ ̿Ҡ͑Ҽ Ѩ͈͋ҿ͈͎͒›͇͑̿ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͈̿ ͍͒͊ ك͈͋͐ͅ ك‬ӂ ͑ӄ ј͎́Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͈ҿ͈͎͒›͇͑̿ ҡ›͍͈ҽ͖͑ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬22 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬ј́́ҿ͉͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͎͍͂̿͊͋ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͐͋ͅӀ͋ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀Ӂ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑̿‫ ͋إ ̿͑ن‬Ѩ͈͈͎͋̓͒͊͊ҿ͋̿ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͐͋ͅӁ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ј͎́Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ҡ›͍͈ҽ͖͑ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬23 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌Ӂ͈͋̓́̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ҽ Ѩ͈ ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق͈͋͐ͅ ͏ق‬ӂ Ѹ͈͋̓́̿͋ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͋ن‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›͎̓͐̀͒͑ҿ͎͍͒͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͈͆̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑Ҽ Ѭ͇͋̿͋͑ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ 24 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬ӄ͋ ̠͔͎̿ ͒҅ӄ͋ ̥͎̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ј͋Ӂ́̿́̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ̓҄͏ ͓ҽ͎̿́́̿ ̠͔͖͎ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ͑Ҽ͏ ͆͒́̿͑ҿ͎̿͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ن‬ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͊Ӆ͔͍͐͒͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ͑Ҽ ҡ›͍̈́Ӈ͇́̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ›͎Ӆ̀̿͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͐͋ͅӀ͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ҡ›ҽ͎͔͍͋͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ͊̓͑Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ј͋Ӂ́̿́̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ̓҄͏ ̤͈͔͖͎͊̓̿ 25 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͏ن‬ ͑‫͑ ͎͔̠̿ ى‬Ӄ Ҭ͉ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͏ ѵ͊‫ ͏ـ‬Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͇͐̿ ͐̓ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͈̿͆Ҽ ͈̿ӂ ͐Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͉͇͍͆̀Ӆ͉͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ͉Ӄ͍͇͆͏ ›‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ـ‬26 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›ҿ͐͑͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫ى‬ ͖͎͐ӄ͋ ͉Ӄ͖͆͋ ͊ҿ́̿͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͍͐̿͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͍͑‫ ͏ق͑ ن͍͊͒͆ ن‬Ҕ͎́‫͇͂ ͏ق‬Ҽ ͍͑‫͍͑ن‬ Ѩ›͖͋Ӆ͊̿͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ ̤͈͔͖͎͊̓̿ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͏ق‬ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͑̿Ӈ͑ͅ͏ 37. Taking Gai I (8:1–17) 1 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͈ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͊ ͋ن‬Ӏ ͓͍̀͆ͅ‫͂͊ͅ ͏ك‬Ҿ ͇͉͇͂̓ҽ͐Ԍ͏ ͉̿̀Ҿ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͍͐‫͍͑ ن‬ӆ͏ ќ͎͋͂̿͏ ›ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›͍͉͇̓͊͐͑Ҽ͏ ͈̿ӂ ј͋̿͐͑Ҽ͏ ј͋ҽ͇̀͆ͅ ̓҄͏ ̢͇̿ ͍҄͂ӆ ͂ҿ͖͈͂̿ ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͔̓‫͎ل‬ҽ͏ ͍͐͒ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̢͇̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫̿ ͋ق‬Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬2 ͈̿ӂ ›͍͇Ӂ͇͐̓͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͇̿ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿ͅ͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͏ق‬ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ›͎͍͍͋͊Ӏ͋ ͑‫͍͍͎̓͊͋› ͋و͈͋͑ͅ ͋و‬Ӈ͇͐̓͏ ͐̓̿͒͑‫͈͑̿ ى‬ҽ͍͐͑͐͋ͅ ͂Ҿ ͐̓̿͒͑‫ ى‬Ѭ͎͋̓͂̿ ͑‫› ك‬Ӆ͉͇̓ ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ 3 ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ͐͑ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ҕ ›͍͉͇̓͊͐͑Ӏ͏ ұ͐͑̓ ј͋̿̀‫ ̢͇̿ ͏҄̓ ͇̿͋ق‬Ѩ›ҿ͉̓͌̓͋ ͂Ҿ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͇͎͑ ͏ن‬ҽ͈͍͋͑̿ ͔͇͉͇ҽ͂̿͏ ј͎͋͂‫͍͑̿͋͒͂ ͋و‬ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ͔҄͐Ӈ͇ ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈͋͒͑Ӆ͏ 4 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͉ ͏ل‬ҿ͖́͋ ҡ͊̓‫ ͏ل‬Ѩ͎͋̓͂̓Ӈ͐̿͑̓ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ͊Ӏ ͈͎͊̿Ҽ͋ ́Ӄ͋̓͐͆̓ ј›ӄ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͐̓͐͆̓ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏ ѭ͍͇͍͇͑͊ 5 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ӈ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ͊̓͑Ԇ Ѩ͍͊‫͍͎͐› ن‬ҽ͍͌͊̓͋ ›͎ӄ͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ҭ͏ ј͋ Ѩ͌ҿ͉͖͇͆͐͋ ͍҅ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫͋͒͐ ͏҄̓ ̢͇̿ ͏̓͑͋ن‬ҽ͇͋͑͐͋ͅ ѵ͊‫͈͆̿ ͋ل‬ҽ›͎̓ ͈̿ӂ ›͎Է͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͓̓͒͌Ӆ͊̓͆̿ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬6 ͈̿ӂ ҭ͏ ј͋ Ѩ͌ҿ͉͖͇͆͐͋ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ј›͍͐›ҽ͍͐͊̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ј›ӄ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͎͍‫͓̓ ͇͋͐ن‬Ӈ͍͇́͒͐͋ ͍‫ ͇͍͑خ‬ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ѵ͊‫͋و‬

JOSHUA 7:19–8:6

23

35. Jesus addresses AΗar (7:19) And Jesus said to AΗar, ‘Give glory today to [the] Lord god of Israel, and give the full confession, and report to me what you did, and do not conceal from me.’ 36. AΗar confesses and is punished (7:20–26) And AΗar answered Jesus and said, ‘Truly I sinned before Lord god of Israel: so and so did I do. I saw in the plunder an embroidered carpet and two hundred didrachms of silver and one golden tongue of fifty didrachms, and desiring them I took them; and look, they have been concealed in my tent, and the silver has been hidden underneath them.’ And Jesus sent messengers and they ran into the tent, into the camp; and these had been concealed in the tent, and the silver underneath them. And they brought them out of the tent and brought to Jesus and the elders of Israel, and placed them before Lord. And Jesus took AΗar son of Zara and led him up to the ravine AΗŌr, and his sons and his daughters and his cattle and his yoked beasts and all his sheep and his tent and everything belonging to him – and all the people with him: and they led them up to EmekaΗŌr. And Jesus said to AΗar, ‘Why did you destroy us? May Lord destroy you – as even today.’ And all Israel stoned him with stones, and they set up on him a great heap of stones; and Lord ceased from the fury of his anger. Because of this he named it EmekaΗŌr till this day.

37. Taking Gai I (8:1–17) And Lord said to Jesus, ‘Do not be afraid, nor be cowardly; take with you all the men of war, and rise go up to Gai; see I have given into your hands the king of Gai and his land. And you shall make Gai the way you made IereiΗŌ and its king, and the plunder of the beasts you shall plunder for yourself. Set down for yourself an ambush for the city at the rear.’ And Jesus rose and all the people of war to go up to Gai. But Jesus selected thirty thousands of men mighty in strength, and sent them o֎ by night. And he instructed them saying, ‘You sit in ambush behind the city; do not be far from the city, and all be ready. And I and all those with me shall approach the city, and it shall be as those who are inhabiting Gai come out for an encounter with us just as formerly, and we shall flee in face of them. And as they come out behind us, we shall tear them from the city; and they shall say, “These are fleeing in face of us like before.” But you will get up out of the ambush and proceed into the city. You

24

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 37–38

җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋ 7 ҡ͊̓‫͂ ͏ل‬Ҿ Ѩ͌̿͋̿͐͑Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓ Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ͏ق‬Ѩ͋ҿ͎͂̿͏ ͈̿ӂ ›͍͎̓Ӈ͐̓͐͆̓ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ 8 ͈̿͑Ҽ ͑ӄ Ԫ‫͇͍› ͍͑ن͍͑ ̿͊ق‬Ӂ͐̓͑̓ ͍҄͂ӆ Ѩ͋͑ҿ͉͇͑̿͊̿ ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬9 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͐̿͋ͅ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ҿ͎͂̿͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈͋̓ҽ͇͆͐̿͋ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ̡͇͉̿͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ̢͇̿ ј›ӄ ͉͆̿ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ͑‫ ̢͇̿ ͏ق‬10 ͈̿ӂ Ҕ͎͎͆Ӄ͐̿͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬ӄ ›͎͖ӂ Ѩ›͈̓͐ҿ͕͍̿͑ ͑ӄ͋ ͉̿Ӆ͋ ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӂ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ›͎̓͐̀Ӈ͎͍͇͑̓ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ ͍͑‫ ن͍͉̿ ن‬Ѩ›ӂ ̢͇̿ 11 ͈̿ӂ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ҕ ›͍͉͇̓͊͐͑Ӏ͏ ͊̓͑Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ј͋ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ›͍͎̓͒Ӆ͍͇͊̓͋ ‫ ͍͉͋͆إ‬Ѩ͌ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ̿͏ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ј›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͋و‬12 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ Ѭ͎͋̓͂̿ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ј›ӄ ͉͆̿ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ 14 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ҭ͏ ̓‫͉͇̓͐̿̀ ͋̓͂ة‬ӆ͏ ̢͇̿ Ѭ͐›̓͒͐̓͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌‫͋͒͐ ͏҄̓ ͉͋̓͆ق‬ҽ͇͋͑͐͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬Ѩ›Ԇ ̓Ҡ͆̓Ӄ̿͏ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ͋ ›Ӆ͉͍̓͊͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͏ ͈̿ӂ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ҕ ͊̓͑Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͏ ͍Ҡ͈ Ӟ͇͂̓ ҙ͇͑ Ѭ͎͋̓͂̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ͇͐͑͋ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ 15 ͈̿ӂ ҈͂̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ј͔͋̓Ӊ͎͐̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬16 ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̓͂Ӄ͖͌̿͋ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ͑‫͈̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӂ ј›ҿ͐͑͐̿͋ͅ ј›ӄ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ 17 ͍Ҡ ͈͉̿͑̓̓Ӄ͓͆ͅ ͍Ҡ͆̓ӂ͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ̢͇̿ ك‬җ͏ ͍Ҡ ͈̿͑̓͂Ӄ͖͌̓͋ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ͉͇›͍͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ј͋̓Զ́͊ҿ͋͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̓͂Ӄ͖͌̿͋ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ 38. Taking Gai II (8:18–29) 18 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͈ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͋ن‬Ѭ͈͇͍͑̓͋͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͔̓‫͎ل‬ҽ ͍͐͒ Ѩ͋ ͑‫̿́ ى‬Ӄ͐Զ ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫͎͇͔̓ ك‬Ӄ ͍͐͒ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ̓҄͏ ́Ҽ͎ ͑Ҽ͏ ͔̓‫͎ل‬ҽ͏ ͍͐͒ ›͎̿̿͂ҿ͖͈͂̿ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ Ѭ͎͋̓͂̿ Ѩ͌̿͋̿͐͑Ӂ͍͇͐͋͑̿ Ѩ͋ ͑ҽ͔͇̓ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫͑ ن‬Ӆ›͍͒ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͌ҿ͇͑̓͋̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬Ӏ͋ ͔̓‫̿ ͎̿ل‬Ҡ͍͑‫͑ ن‬ӄ͋ ́̿‫ ͍͋͐ل‬Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ 19 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ Ѭ͎͋̓͂̿ Ѩ͌̿͋ҿ͐͑͐̿͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ͑ҽ͔͇̓ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫͑ ن‬Ӆ›͍͒ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͌Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ҙ͑̓ Ѩ͌ҿ͇͑̓͋̓͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͔̓‫͈̿ ͎̿ل‬ӂ Ѹ͉͍͆͐̿͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈͉̿͑̓ҽ͍͍̀͋͑ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͐›̓Ӈ͐̿͋͑̓͏ Ѩ͋ҿ›͎͐̿͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ Ѩ͋ ›͎͒Ӄ 20 ͈̿ӂ ›͎͇͉̓̀ҿ͕̿͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ͈ҽ͍͇͈͍͇͑ ̢͇̿ ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͆̓Ӊ͎͍͒͋ ͈̿›͋ӄ͋ ј͋̿̀̿Ӄ͍͋͋͑̿ Ѩ͈ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ͋ ͍Ҡ͎̿͋Ӆ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ҿ͇͑ ̓‫͓ ن͍› ͍͔͋ة‬Ӈ͖͇́͐͋ ‫ ̓͂ر‬Ѵ ‫̓͂ر‬ 21 ͈̿ӂ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ›‫ ͍͋͂ة̓ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ـ‬ҙ͇͑ Ѭ͉͍̿̀͋ ͑Ҽ Ѭ͎͋̓͂̿ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͈̿ӂ ҙ͇͑ ј͋ҿ̀ͅ ҕ ͈̿›͋ӄ͏ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ͋ ͍Ҡ͎̿͋Ӆ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͉͊̓͑̿̀̿Ӆ͍͇͊̓͋ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̿͋ ͍͑ӆ͏ ќ͎͋͂̿͏ ͑‫ ̢͇̿ ͏ق‬22 ͈̿ӂ ͍‫ ͇͍͑خ‬Ѩ͌Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ Ѩ͈ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ̓҄͏ ͐͒͋ҽ͇͋͑͐͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆͐̿͋ͅ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ͑‫ ͇͍͑خ͍ ͏ق͉͍͎̀͊̓̿› ͏ق‬Ѩ͋͑̓‫͋̓͆ن‬ ͈̿ӂ ͍‫ ͇͍͑خ‬Ѩ͋͑̓‫͈̿ ͋̓͆ن‬ӂ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̿͋ ѭ͖͏ ͍͑‫͊ ن‬Ӏ ͈͉͇͓̿͑̿̓͆‫̿ ͇̿͋ق‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ ͖͐̓͐͐͊ҿ͍͋͋ ͈̿ӂ ͇͂̿›͓̓̓͒́Ӆ͑̿ 23 ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ͑‫͋͒͐ ̢͇̿ ͏ق‬ҿ͉͍̿̀͋ ̈́‫͈̿ ̿͑͋و‬ӂ ›͎͍͐Ӂ͍́̿́͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͋ن‬24 ͈̿ӂ ҭ͏ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͍͐̿͋͑ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ј›͍͈͑ҿ͍͋͋͋͑̓͏ ›ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͍͑ ̢͇̿ ك‬ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ͍͑‫͂̓› ͏ل‬Ӄ͍͇͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫͈̀̿͑̿ ͏ق‬ҽ͖͐̓͏ ͍‫͈͂̓͑̿ خ‬Ӄ͖͌̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ј›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͏ق‬ҿ͉͍͏ ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͎͕͐͑̓̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ̢͇̿ ͏҄̓ ͏ن‬ӂ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ Ԫ͍͓͊̿Ӄ̿͏ 25 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ›̓͐Ӆ͋͑̓͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ ј›ӄ ј͎͋͂ӄ͏ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ͇͈́͒͋̿ӄ͏ ͂Ӊ͈͂̓̿ ͔͇͉͇ҽ͂̓͏ ›ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫ ̢͇̿ ͏̿͑͋ن‬27 ›͉Ӏ͋ ͑‫͋و‬ ͈͑͋ͅ‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͑‫͈͐ ͋و‬Ӈ͉͖͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ك‬Ӆ͉͇̓ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ћ Ѩ›͎͍͋Ӆ͊̓͒͐̿͋ ѩ͍̿͒͑‫͏ل‬ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͐͑̿́͊̿ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ͐͒͋ҿ͑̿͌̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫ى‬

JOSHUA 8:6–8:27

25

shall act according to this word: look, I have commanded you.’ And Jesus sent them o֎, and they proceeded to the ambush; and they settled down between Baiϑēl and Gai, seaward of Gai. And rising early in the morning Jesus reviewed the people; and they went up, they and the elders in front of the people, against Gai. And all the people of war went up with him, and walking on they came opposite the city towards sunrise, and the ambush of the city [was] seawards. And it came to be, as king of Gai saw, he hurried and came out for an encounter with them directly for battle, he and all the people that were with him; and he himself was not aware that he had an ambush behind the city. And he saw and Jesus gave ground, and Israel, in face of them. And they pursued behind the sons of Israel, and they themselves were separated from the city; there was not left anyone in the Gai who did not pursue behind Israel; and they abandoned the city opened up, and they pursued behind Israel.

38. Taking Gai II (8:18–29) And Lord said to Jesus, ‘Extend your hand with the javelin in your hand against the city, for into your hands have I given it over; and the ambush shall stand up speedily out of their place.’ And Jesus stretched out his hand, the javelin, against the city; and the ambush stood up speedily out of their place and came out when he was stretching out his hand, and came against the city and captured it; and hurrying they burned the city in fire. And the inhabitants of Gai looking round to their rear, and they were observing smoke rising from the city into the sky; and they were no longer having where they might flee, this way or that. And Jesus and all Israel saw that the ambush took the city and that the smoke of the city rose into the sky; and turning round they struck down the men of Gai. And these – they came out of the city for an encounter and they came to be in the midst of the camp, these on this side and these on that; and they struck down till there was none of them left remaining – having been saved or become fugitive. And the king of Gai they carried o֎ living, and brought him to Jesus. And as the sons of Israel ceased killing all those in Gai, those in the plains and in the mountain on the descent where they pursued them from it to an end, and Jesus turned back into Gai, and struck it down in mouth of sword. And those falling on that day came to be twelve thousands, man and woman, all those inhabiting Gai – besides the spoils in the city, everything which the sons of Israel plundered for themselves by ordinance of Lord, the way that Lord

26

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 38–40

Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ل‬28 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋̓›Ӈ͎͇͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ Ѩ͋ ›͎͒Ӄ ͔‫ ̿͊و‬ј͍Ӄ͈͍͑͋ͅ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ͋ ̿҄‫ ̿͋و‬Ѭ͈͆̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͏ق‬ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͑̿Ӈ͑ͅ͏ 29 ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ͑‫͏ق‬ ̢͇̿ Ѩ͈͎ҿ͊̿͐̓͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͌Ӈ͉͍͒ ͇͂͂Ӈ͍͊͒ ͈̿ӂ ‫ ͋إ‬Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑‫͌ ن‬Ӈ͉͍͒ ѭ͖͏ ѩ͐›ҿ͎̿͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͇͂Ӈ͍͍͋͋͑͏ ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ͐͒͋ҿ͑̿͌̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ͈̿͆̓Ӄ͉͍͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͑ ن‬ӄ ͐‫̿͊و‬ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫͌ ن‬Ӈ͉͍͒ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͎͇͕̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ͋ ̀Ӆ͎͍͆͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›ҿ͐͑͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫ى‬ ͖͎͐ӄ͋ ͉Ӄ͖͆͋ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͏ق‬ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͑̿Ӈ͑ͅ͏ 39. The response to the fall of Gai after IereiΗŌ (9:1–2) 1 ҭ͏ ͂Ԇ Ѹ͈͍͒͐̿͋ ͍҅ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋و͑ ͏ل‬Ӄ͖͋ ͍҅ Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫ن‬ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͍͋͒ ͍҅ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ҕ͎͇̓͋‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ͍҅ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͈̿ ك͇͋͂̓› ك‬ӂ ͍҅ Ѩ͋ ›ҽ͐Ԍ ͑‫͉͎̿̿› ك‬Ӄӽ ͑‫͉̿͆ ͏ق‬ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ͑‫́̓͊ ͏ق‬ҽ͉ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ›͎ӄ͏ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̠͇͉͇͋͑̀ҽ͋Զ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ̵̓͑͑̿‫͇͍ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ̵̿͋̿͋̿‫͇͍ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ̴͎̓̓̈́̿‫͇͍ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ̤͒̿‫͇͍ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ̠͍͎͎͊̿‫͇͍ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ̢͎̓́̓͐̿‫͇͍ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ̨͍̓̀͒͐̿‫͇͍ل‬ 2 ͐͒͋Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ Ѩ͈›͍͉̓͊‫ ͇̿͐ق‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͋ن‬ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ѝ͊̿ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏

40. Altar and law (9:3–8 [8:30–35]) 3 ͑Ӆ͑̓ Ӫ͈͍͂Ӆ͊͐̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͇͑͐̿͐͒͆ ͏ن‬Ӂ͎͇͍͋ ̩͎͒ӃԶ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ى̓͆ ى‬Ѩ͋ Ҙ͎͇̓ ̢͇͉̿̀̿ 4 ͈̿͆Ӆ͇͑ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬ҕ ͎͆̓ҽ›͖͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ ͈̿͆Ҽ ́ҿ͎́̿›͇͑̿ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͋ ى‬Ӆ͊Զ ̫͖͒͐‫͇͑͐̿͐͒͆ ق‬Ӂ͎͇͍͋ ͉Ӄ͖͆͋ ҕ͉͍͈͉Ӂ͎͖͋ Ѩ͓Ԇ ͍ң͏ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ›͉̓̀Ӂ͆ͅ ͐Ӄ͎͍͂ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ ј͋̓̀Ӄ̀̿͐̓͋ Ѩ͈̓‫ ل‬ҕ͉͍͈̿͒͑Ӊ͊̿͑̿ ̩͎͒ӃԶ ͈̿ӂ ͆͒͐Ӄ̿͋ ͖͎͐͑ͅӃ͍͒ 5 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͎͕́̿̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫͉ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͆͋ ͑ӄ ͎͍͂̓͒͑̓͋Ӆ͇͍͊͋ ͋Ӆ͍͊͋ ̫͖͒͐‫ ق‬Ѩ͋Ӊ›͇͍͋ ͒҅‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و‬6 ͈̿ӂ ›‫͈̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ـ‬ӂ ͍҅ ›͎̓͐̀Ӈ͎͍͇͑̓ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍҅ ͇͈͂̿͐͑̿ӂ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͎́̿͊͊̿͑̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͑‫͎͍̓›͎̓̿› ͋و‬Ӈ͍͍͋͑ Ѭ͋͆̓͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͋͆̓͋ ͑‫ ن͍͖͇͈͑̀ ͏ق‬ј›ҿ͇͋̿͋͑ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͎҅̓̓‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ͍҅ ̪̓͒‫͑ ͎͋̿إ ͇̿͑ل‬Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ›͎͍͐Ӂ͉͍͒͑͏ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͔͖͆͋ ͍҇ ‫͋̿͐إ‬ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ›͉͐ͅӃ͍͋ Ҙ͎͍͒͏ ̢͎͇͇̿̈́͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍҇ ‫ ͋̿͐إ‬ѹ͇͊͐͒ ›͉͐ͅӃ͍͋ Ҙ͎͍͒͏ ̢͇͉̿̀̿ ͈̿͆Ӆ͇͑ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬ҕ ͎͆̓ҽ›͖͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ̓Ҡ͉͍́‫͑ ͇̿͐ق‬ӄ͋ ͉̿ӄ͋ Ѩ͋ ›͎Ӊ͍͇͑͏ 7 ͈̿ӂ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͑̿‫͍ ̿͑ن‬ҥ͖͑͏ ј͋ҿ͖́͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫› ͏ن‬ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ԪӁ͊̿͑̿ ͍͑‫ن‬ ͋Ӆ͍͊͒ ͍͑Ӈ͍͑͒ ͑Ҽ͏ ̓Ҡ͉͍́Ӄ̿͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ͏ ͈̿͑ҽ͎̿͏ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ͎́̓́̿͊͊ҿ͋̿ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͋ ى‬Ӆ͊Զ ̫͖͒͐‫ ق‬8 ͍Ҡ͈ ‫ ͋إ‬Ԫ‫ ̿͊ق‬ј›ӄ ›ҽ͖͋͑͋ ‫ ͋ر‬Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ̫͖͒͐‫͏ق‬ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ل‬җ ͍Ҡ͈ ј͋ҿ͖́͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͏ن‬Ҽ ‫› ̿͑ذ‬ҽ͐ͅ͏ Ѩ͈͈͉͐ͅӃ̿͏ ͒҅‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و‬ ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬ј͎͋͂ҽ͇͐͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑̿‫͇͌̿͋͒́ ͏ل‬ӂ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫͇͂̿› ͏ل‬Ӄ͍͇͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫͉͍͎͐ͅ› ͏ل‬Ӈ͍͇͑͏ ͍͑‫͍͎͍͊͒̓›͍͎͐› ͏ل‬ҿ͍͇͋͏ ͑‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ى‬

JOSHUA 8:27–9:8

27

arranged for Jesus. And Jesus burned the city in fire: a mound uninhabited into the age did he set it, until this day. And the king of Gai he hanged up on a forked tree, and he was on the tree till evening; and as the sun was setting Jesus arranged and they took down his body from the tree and threw him into the pit and set upon him a heap of stones until this day. 39. The response to the fall of Gai after IereiΗŌ (9:1–2) As the kings of the Amorrai heard, those beyond the Jordan, those in the hill country and those in the plain and those in all the coast of the great sea, and those by the Antilebanon, and the Ζettai and the Ζananai and the P˰erezai and the Euai and the Amorrai and the Gergesai and the Iebousai, they converged to the same place to make war on Jesus and Israel all together. 40. Altar and law (9:3–8 [8:30–35]) Then Jesus built an altar to Lord, the god of Israel, on mount Gaibal [Ebal], just as Moses the minister of Lord commanded the sons of Israel, as it has been written in the law of Moses, an altar of complete stones on which iron was not laid. And he raised there holocausts to Lord and sacrifice of salvation. And Jesus wrote on the stones the ‘second law’, law of Moses, in face of sons of Israel. And all Israel and their elders and the judges and their scribes were passing by from this way and that opposite the ark, and the priests and the levites carried the chest of the disposition of Lord, and the sojourner and the native, who were half near mount Garizein [Gerizim] and who were half near mount Gaibal; just as Moses the minister of Lord commanded to bless the people at first. And after these things, thus did Jesus read out all the words of this law, the blessings and the curses, according to everything that has been written in the law of Moses; there was not a word from all those which Moses commanded Joshua which Joshua did not read out into the ears of the whole congregation of the sons of Israel, to the men and the women and the children, and to the sojourners who were coming [over] to Israel.

28

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 41–42

41. GabaŌn visits Israel (9:9–21 [9:3–15]) 9 ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫ ̢͖͋̿̀̿ ͏̓͑͋ن‬Ѹ͈͍͒͐̿͋ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫͈̿ ̨͖͔͇͎̓̓ ك‬ӂ ͑‫ ̢͇̿ ك‬10 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͈̿Ӄ ́̓ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӂ ͊̓͑Ҽ ›͍͎̿͋͒́Ӄ̿͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͉͆Ӆ͋͑̓͏ Ѩ›͇̓͐͑Ӄ͍͐̿͋͑ ͈̿ӂ ѵ͍͇͑͊ҽ͍͐̿͋͑ ͈̿ӂ ͉̿̀Ӆ͋͑̓͏ ͐ҽ͈͈͍͒͏ ›͉͇͍̿̿ӆ͏ Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ұ͖͊͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ј͈͍͐ӆ͏ ͍҈͍͋͒ ›͉͇͍̿̿ӆ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͈͎͎͖̿͑̓́Ӆ͑̿͏ ј›͍͂̓͂̓͊ҿ͍͋͒͏ 11 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ͈͍‫ ͋و͑ ͉̿ل‬ҡ›͍͂͊ͅҽ͖͑͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͑Ҽ ͐̿͋͂ҽ͉͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͇͉̿̿› ͋و‬Ҽ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̿›̓›͉͖̓͊̿͑͊ҿ͋̿ Ѩ͋ ͍͑‫͍͐› ͏ل‬ӂ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͑Ҽ ҅͊ҽ͇͑̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͖͇͉͊̿̿›̓› ͋و‬ҿ͋̿ Ѩ›ҽ͖͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ҕ ќ͎͍͑͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ن͍͑ ͋و‬ Ѩ›͇͇͇͍͐͑͐͊‫͎͌ͅ ن‬ӄ͏ ͈̿ӂ ̓Ҡ͎͖͇͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͎͖̀̓̀͊ҿ͍͋͏ 12 ͈̿ӂ Ѹ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͋ن‬Ӏ͋ ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀Ӏ͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ̓҄͏ ̢͉͉̿́̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͎› ͋̿›ة‬ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͋ن‬ ͈̿ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ͈ ́‫͎͈̿͊ ͏ق‬Ӆ͆̓͋ ѹ͈̿͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͋‫͇͂ ͋ن‬ҽ͆̓͐͆̓ ѵ͊‫͇͆̿͂ ͋ل‬Ӂ͈͋ͅ 13 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͍҅͒ ͍҅ ͋̿›ة‬ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ͑ӄ͋ ̵͍͎͎̿‫ ͍͋ل‬ҙ͎̿ ͊Ӏ Ѩ͋ Ѩ͍͊ӂ ͈͍͇͈̿͑̓‫͏ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ›‫͇͆̿͂ ͇̿͊و͇͆̿͂ ͇͍͐ ͏و‬Ӂ͈͋ͅ 14 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͎› ͋̿›ة‬ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈͍҄ ͋ن‬ҿ͇͑̿ ͍͐Ӈ Ѩ͐͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͎› ͋̓›ة‬ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫› ͏ن‬Ӆ͆̓͋ Ѩ͐͑Ҿ ͈̿ӂ ›Ӆ͆̓͋ ›͎̿̿́̓́Ӆ͋̿͑̓ 15 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̿›ة‬Ѩ͈ ́‫͎͈̿͊ ͏ق‬Ӆ͆̓͋ ͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿ ѹ͈͇̿͐͋ ͍҅ ›̿‫͂ل‬ҿ͏ ͍͐͒ Ѩ͋ Ҕ͋Ӆ͇͊̿͑ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ ͍͒͐ ن͍̓͆ ن‬ј͈͈ͅӅ̿͊̓͋ ́Ҽ͎ ͑ӄ Ҙ͍͋͊̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ̠҄́Ӈ›͑Զ 16 ͈̿ӂ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ͍͑‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋و͑ ͇͋͐ن͉͇̓͐̿̀ ͏ل‬Ӄ͖͋ ͍҇ ‫͋̿͐إ‬ ›ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͑‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋و͑ ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ͖̱͋ͅ ى‬Ӄ͖͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ̷́ ى‬ ͑‫ ̡̿͐̿ ͏ق‬җ͏ ͈̿͑Է͈͇̓ Ѩ͋ ̠͎͖͐͑̿͆ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ̤͎͇͂̿̓͋ 17 ͈̿ӂ ј͈͍Ӈ͐̿͋͑̓͏ ̓‫͋̿›ة‬ ›͎ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͎̀͐̓› ͍҅ ͏ـ‬Ӈ͎͍͇͑̓ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫͑ ͏̓͑͋ن‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͋ق‬ ѵ͊‫͉ ͋و‬ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ ͉ҽ̀̓͑̓ ѩ͍̿͒͑‫ ͏ل‬Ѩ›͇͇͇͐͑͐͊ӄ͋ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ҕ͂ӄ͋ ͈̿ӂ ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͑̓ͅ ̓҄͏ ͐͒͋ҽ͇͋͑͐͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͎̓‫͎› ̓͑ل‬ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͍͈҄ҿ͇͑̿ ͍͐Ӈ Ѩ͐͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͋‫͋ن‬ ͇͂ҽ͆̓͐͆̓ ѵ͊‫͇͆̿͂ ͋ل‬Ӂ͈͋ͅ 18 ͍‫ ͍҅ ͇͍͑خ‬ќ͎͍͇͑ ͎͍͆̓͊ӆ͏ Ѩ͓͖͇͂ҽ͐͆͊̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ ‫ ع‬Ѩ͌Ӂ͉͍͆͊̓͋ ›͎̿̿́̓͋ҿ͇͐͆̿ ›͎ӄ͏ ҡ͊‫͂ ͋ن͋ ͏ـ‬Ҿ Ѩ͎͌ͅҽ͋͆͐̿͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ́̓́Ӆ͇͋̿͐͋ ͎͖̀̓̀͊ҿ͍͇͋ 19 ͈̿ӂ ͍‫ ͍҅ ͇͍͑خ‬ј͈͍͐ӂ ͍͑‫͍ ͍͒͋҈͍ ن‬ң͏ Ѩ›͉Ӂ͐̿͊̓͋ ͈͇͍̿͋Ӈ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍‫ ͇͍͑خ‬Ѩ͎͎Ӊ͇́̿͐͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ҅͊ҽ͇͑̿ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͑Ҽ ҡ›͍͂Ӂ͊̿͑̿ ѵ͊‫͋و‬ ›̓›͉̿̿Ӄ͖͇͑̿ ј›ӄ ͑‫ ͏ق͉͉͍› ͏ق‬ҕ͍͂‫͓͐ ن‬Ӆ͎͂̿ 20 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉͍̿̀͋ ͍҅ ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ ͍͑‫ن‬ Ѩ›͇͇͇͍͐͑͐͊‫̿ ن‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ›͎ͅӉ͑͐̿͋ͅ 21 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͏ن‬ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͎̓҄Ӂ͋͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͇͂ҿ͍͆̓͑ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈͋ͅ ͍͑‫͇̿͐و͇͐̿͂ ن‬ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ұ͍͊͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͍҅ ͏ل‬ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ ͑‫͏ق͖́́̿͋͒͐ ͏ق‬ 42. Israel returns the visit (9:22–29 [9:16–23]) 22 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͎͑̓‫ ͏ل‬ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͑ӄ ͇͂̿͆ҿ͇͐͆̿ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈͋ͅ Ѹ͈͍͒͐̿͋ ҙ͇͑ Ѩ́́Ӈ͆̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͇͋͐҄̓ ͋و‬ӂ ҙ͇͑ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͇͋͐ن͍͈͇͍͈͑̿ ͏ل‬ 23 ͈̿ӂ ј›‫͍҅͒ ͍҅ ͎͋̿ق‬ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͍͉͋͆إ‬Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͂ ҅̿ ͋و‬Ҿ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ̢͖͋̿̀̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̩͓͇͎̓̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͎͖̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̨͎͇̿̓͋ 24 ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͔͊̿ҿ͍͐̿͋͑ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͍҅͒ ͍҅ ͏ل‬ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ҙ͇͑ Ұ͍͊͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫› ͏ل‬ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͑ӄ͋ ͆̓ӄ͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͇͂̓́Ӆ́́͒͐̿͋ ›‫ ̿͐ـ‬ѵ ͖͐͒͋̿́́Ӏ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ќ͎͔͍͇͒͐͋ 25 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͍҅ ͋̿›ة‬ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ ›ҽ͐Ԍ ͑‫ ك͖́́̿͋͒͐ ك‬ѵ͊̓‫ ͏ل‬Ҭ͊Ӆ͐̿͊̓͋

JOSHUA 9:9–9:25

29

41. GabaŌn visits Israel (9:9–21 [9:3–15]) And those who were inhabiting GabaŌn [Gibeon] heard everything which Lord did to IereiΗŌ and to Gai. And they acted, they too at least, with prudence; and coming they made provision and made preparation: and taking ancient sackcloths on their shoulders and skins of wine ancient and having split and been bound up, and the cavities of their footwear and their sandals on their feet ancient and resoled, and their clothes having become aged upon them; and their bread of the provision dry and decaying and eaten. And they came to Jesus into the camp of Israel into Galgal, and they said to Jesus and Israel, ‘From a land from far away have we come, and now dispose for us a disposition.’ And the sons of Israel said to the Ζorrai, ‘See that you are not living within me, and how would I dispose for you a disposition?’ And they said to Jesus, ‘Your servants are we.’ And Jesus said to them, ‘From where are you? And from where have you arrived?’ And they said, ‘From a land from very far away, have your “boys” come in the name of Lord your god; for we have heard his name, and what he did in Egypt, and what he did to the kings of the Amorrai who were on the other side of the Jordan, to SēŌn king of the Amorrai and to ŋg king of Basan, who was living in AstarŌϑ and in Edraein. And hearing, our elders and all those who are inhabiting our land said to us, saying, “Take for yourselves provision for the road and go to encounter them, and you will say to them, ‘Your servants are we, and now dispose for us a disposition.’ ” These loaves – warm were we supplied with them on the day on which we departed to come to you, but now they are dried and eaten; and these skins of wine which we filled new, these too have split; and our clothes and our footwear have become aged from the great way, exceedingly so.’ And the leaders took of their provision, and of Lord they did not enquire. And Jesus made with them peace, and they disposed for them a disposition to deliver them; and the leaders of the assembly swore to them. 42. Israel returns the visit (9:22–29 [9:16–23]) And it came to be after three days after disposing to them a disposition, they heard that it is from near them they are, and it is within them they are living. And the sons of Israel marched away and came into their cities; now their cities were GabaŌn and Kep˰eira and BeirŌn and cities of Jarein. And the sons of Israel did not fight against them, because all the leaders swore to them by Lord the god of Israel; and the whole assembly grumbled among themselves against the leaders. And the leaders said to the whole assembly, ‘It is we who swore to them by Lord the god of

30

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 42–44

̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈ ͏ل‬Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͑ӄ͋ ͆̓ӄ͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͋‫͍ ͋ن‬Ҡ ͂͒͋͐ͅӅ͊̓͆̿ ѝ͕͇̿͐͆̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ 26 ͍͑‫͇͍› ͍͑ن‬Ӂ͍͐͊̓͋ ͖͎̈́́‫̿ ͇̿͐ق‬Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͇̓›͍͇͐ͅӅ͊̓͆̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ͈̿͆Ԇ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬Ҕ͎́Ӏ ͇͂Ҽ ͑ӄ͋ ҙ͎͈͍͋ җ͋ Ҭ͊Ӆ͐̿͊̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬27 ̈́Ӂ͍͇͐͋͑̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͍͇͐͋͑̿ ͉͍͈͌͒Ӆ›͍͇ ͈̿ӂ ҡ͎͍͓͂Ӆ͎͍͇ ›ҽ͐Ԍ ͑‫͈͆̿ ك͖́́̿͋͒͐ ك‬ҽ›͎̓ ̓‫͋̿›ة‬ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͍҅ ͏ل‬ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ 28 ͈̿ӂ ͈͐͒͋̓ҽ͉̓͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ͇͂Ҽ ͑Ӄ ›͎͉͍̿̓́Ӄ͐̿͐͆ҿ ͊̓ ͉ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ ͈͎͊̿Ҽ͋ ј›ӄ ͍͐‫ ن‬Ѩ͐͊̓͋ ͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿ ҡ͊̓‫͏ل‬ ͂Ҿ Ѩ͔͋Ӊ͎͇͍Ӄ Ѩ͐͑̓ ͑‫͍͈͇͍͈͑̿ ͋و‬Ӈ͖͋͑͋ Ѩ͋ ѵ͊‫ ͋ل‬29 ͈̿ӂ ͋‫ ͋ن‬Ѩ›͇͈̿͑ҽ͎͍̿͑Ӄ Ѩ͐͑̓ ͍Ҡ ͊Ӏ Ѩ͈͉Ӄ›Ԍ Ѩ͌ ҡ͊‫͍ ͏͍͉ن͍͂ ͋و‬Ҡ͂Ҿ ͉͍͈͌͒Ӆ›͍͏ Ѩ͍͊ӂ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫͍͒͊ ى̓͆ ى‬

43. The settlement with GabaŌn (9:30–33 [9:24–27]) 30 ͈̿ӂ ј›͈͎̓Ӄ͆͐̿͋ͅ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͉ ل‬ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ ј͋́́ͅҿ͉ͅ ѵ͊‫ ͋ل‬ҙ͐̿ ͐͒͋ҿ͑̿͌̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓Ӆ͏ ͍͐͒ ̫͖͒͐‫͇͂̿› ى͑ ك‬ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͇̿͋ن͍͂ ن‬ҡ͊‫͑ ͋ل‬Ӏ͋ ́‫̿͑ ͋ق‬Ӈ͑͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓‫ ͇̿͐ن‬ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͏ـ‬ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫ ͏̿͑͋ن‬Ѩ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͓͍̀Ӂ͆͊̓͋ͅ ͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿ ›͎̓ӂ ͑‫ ͋و͔͕͒ ͋و‬ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ›͍͇Ӂ͐̿͊̓͋ ͑ӄ ›͎‫ ͍͑ن͍͑ ̿͊́ـ‬31 ͈̿ӂ ͋‫͍͂҄ ͋ن‬ӆ ѵ͊̓‫͏ل‬ ҡ›͍͔̓Ӄ͎͇͍͇ ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬ҭ͏ ј͎ҿ͈͇͐̓ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋ل‬ӂ ҭ͏ ͍͈͂̓‫ ل‬ҡ͊‫͇͍› ͋ل‬Ӂ͐̿͑̓ ѵ͊‫ ͋ل‬32 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͍ ͏ل‬ҥ͖͑͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ Ѩ͈ ͔͇͎̓‫͈̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ ј͋̓‫̿ ͍͉͋ل‬Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ 33 ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ͐͑͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ ͉͍͈͌͒Ӆ›͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ҡ͎͍͓͂Ӆ͎͍͒͏ ›ҽ͐Ԍ ͑‫͈̿ ك͖́́̿͋͒͐ ك‬ӂ ͑‫͎͇͑͐̿͐͒͆ͅ ى‬ӃԶ ͍͑‫͇͂ ن͍̓͆ ن‬Ҽ ͍͑‫ ͍͑ن‬Ѩ́ҿ͍͍͋͋͑ ͍҅ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫͈͍͉͒͌ ̢͖͋̿̀̿ ͏̓͑͋ن‬Ӆ›͍͇ ͈̿ӂ ҡ͎͍͓͂Ӆ͎͍͇ ͍͑‫͎͇͑͐̿͐͒͆ͅ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ن͍̓͆ ن‬ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͐ ͏ق‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ͋ ͑Ӆ›͍͋ җ͋ ѨҼ͋ Ѩ͈͉ҿ͇͌͑̿ͅ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ 44. AdŌnibezek and GabaŌn both seek help (10:1–7) 1 ҭ͏ ͂Ҿ Ѹ͈͍͒͐̓͋ ̠͖͇͈͂͋̀̓̈́̓ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̨͎͍͉̓͒͐̿͊ͅ ҙ͇͑ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͏ن‬ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͇̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍ ͏ق‬ҥ͖͑͏ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͇̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͏ق‬ ͈̿ӂ ҙ͇͑ ̿Ҡ͍͑͊Ӆ͉͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫͎› ̢͖͋̿̀̿ ͏̓͑͋ن‬ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͋ن‬ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ 2 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͓͍̀Ӂ͆͐̿͋ͅ ј› Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫͓͐ ͋و‬Ӆ͎͂̿ ̓҈͂ͅ ́Ҽ͎ ҙ͇͑ ͊̓́ҽ͉ͅ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ ̢͖̿̀̿͋ ҭ͐̓ӂ ͊Ӄ̿ ͑‫›͍͎͑͊ͅ ͋و‬Ӆ͉͖̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ќ͎͋͂̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍͎͔͒͐҄ ͏ق‬Ӄ 3 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ̠͖͇͈͂͋̀̓̈́̓ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̨͎͍͉̓͒͐̿͊ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ̠͇͉̿͊ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ̴͇͖̓͂͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̨͎͇͍̓̓͊͒͆ ͈̿ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ̨͓̓͆̿ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̢͔͇̿̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ̣͇̿̀̓͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̮͍͉͉͂̿͊ ͉ҿ͖́͋ 4 ͂̓‫ ̓͑ن‬ј͋ҽ̀͑̓ͅ ›͎Ӆ͏ ͊̓ ͈̿ӂ ͍̀͆ͅӁ͐̿͑ҿ ͍͇͊ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈›͍͉̓͊Ӂ͖͐͊̓͋ ̢͖̿̀̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑͊Ӆ͉͐̿͋ͅ ́Ҽ͎ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͋ن‬ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ 5 ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ›ҿ͋͑̓ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͋و͑ ͏ل‬ ̨͍̓̀͒͐̿Ӄ͖͋ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̨͎͍͉̓͒͐̿͊ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̨͎͇͍̓̓͊͒͆

JOSHUA 9:25–10:5

31

Israel, and now we are unable to touch them. This we shall do, letting them live, and we shall save them alive; and there shall not be any anger against us through the oath which we swore to them. They shall live, and they shall be woodcutters and watercarriers for the whole assembly, just as the leaders said to them.’ And Jesus summoned them and said to them, ‘Why did you cheat me saying, “Distant are we from you – exceedingly”, yet you are of the country, of those who are living among us? And now you are cursed: there shall not lack from you slave nor woodcutter for me and for my god.’ 43. The settlement with GabaŌn (9:30–33 [9:24–27]) And they answered Jesus, saying, ‘It was told us what Lord your god instructed Moses his “boy”: to give you this land, and to destroy us and all those who are living on it in face of you; and we were greatly afraid for our lives in face of you, and we did this deed. And now see, we are in your hands: as it is pleasing you and as it is seeming [good] to you, do to us.’ And they did to them thus: and Jesus disentangled them in that day from hands of sons of Israel, and they did not make away with them. And Jesus appointed them in that day woodcutters and watercarriers for the whole assembly and for the altar of the god; on account of this those who were inhabiting GabaŌn became woodcutters and watercarriers of the altar of the god until this very day, and in respect of the place which Lord might select. 44. AdŌnibezek and GabaŌn both seek help (10:1–7) But as AdŌnibezek king of Ierousalēm heard that Jesus took Gai and destroyed it (the way they made IereiΗŌ and its king, so they made Gai and its king), and that those inhabiting GabaŌn deserted to Jesus and to Israel and were exceedingly afraid of them; for he knew that GabaŌn [was] a great city just as one of the mother-cities, and all its men strong – and AdŌnibezek king of Ierusalēm sent to Ailam king of ΖebrŌn and to P˰eidŌn king of Iereimouϑ and to Iep˰ϑa king of LaΗeis [Lachish] and to Dabein king of Odollam, saying, ‘Come up here to me and help me, and let us provoke GabaŌn to war; for they have deserted to Jesus and to the sons of Israel.’ And the five kings of the Iebousai, king of Ierousalēm and king of ΖebrŌn and king of Iereimouϑ

32

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 44–46

͈̿ӂ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̪͔͇̿̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̮͍͉͉͂̿͊ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӂ ͈̿ӂ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ›͎͇͈̓̓ҽ͇͆͐̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͖̿̀̿͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌̓›͍͉͇Ӆ͎͈͍͒͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ 6 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̿͋ ͍҅ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫͎› ̢͖͋̿̀̿ ͏̓͑͋ن‬ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͋ن‬ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀Ӏ͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ̓҄͏ ̢͉͉̿́̿̿ ͉ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ ͊Ӏ Ѩ͈͉Ӈ͐Ԍ͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͔̓‫͎ل‬ҽ͏ ͍͐͒ ј›ӄ ͑‫̿› ͋و‬Ӄ͖͂͋ ͍͐͒ ј͋ҽ͇̀͆ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͑ ͏ـ‬ӄ ͑ҽ͔͍͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͉͍͌̓‫ ن‬ѵ͊‫͏ـ‬ ͈̿ӂ ͍̀Ӂ͍͆͐͋ͅ ѵ͊‫ ͋ل‬ҙ͇͑ ͐͒͋́͊ͅҿ͍͇͋ ̓҄͐ӂ͋ Ѩ͓Ԇ ѵ͊‫› ͏ـ‬ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͋و͑ ͏ل‬ ̠͍͎͎͊̿Ӄ͖͋ ͍҅ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫͑ ͏̓͑͋ن‬Ӏ͋ Ҕ͎͇̓͋Ӂ͋ 7 ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ̀ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ͈ ̢͉͉͖̿́̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͏ ͈̿ӂ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ҕ ›͍͉͇̓͊͐͑Ӏ͏ ͊̓͑Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͑̿͋͒͂ ͏ـ› ن‬ӄ͏ Ѩ͋ ͔҄͐Ӈ͇ 45. Lord as the victor (10:8–11) 8 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͈ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͊ ͋ن‬Ӏ ͓͍̀͆ͅ‫̿ ͏ك‬Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ̓҄͏ ́Ҽ͎ ͑Ҽ͏ ͔̓‫͎ل‬ҽ͏ ͍͐͒ ›͎̿̿͂ҿ͖͈͂̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͍Ҡ͔ ҡ›͍͉͇͓͆Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ͌ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍ ͋و‬Ҡ͆̓ӂ͏ Ѩ͋Ӊ›͇͍͋ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬9 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›̓ӂ ›͎̿̓́ҿ͍͋̓͑ Ѩ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬ќ͓͖͋ ҙ͉͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ͋Ӈ͈͑̿ ̓҄͐̓›͍͎̓Ӈ͆ͅ Ѩ͈ ̢͉͉͖̿́̿͋ 10 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌ҿ͐͑͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ͑‫͈̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ӂ ͐͒͋ҿ͎͇͕͑̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͐Ӈ͎͇͕͇͋͑͋ ͊̓́ҽ͉͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ̢͖̿̀̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̓͂Ӄ͖͌̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ҕ͂ӄ͋ ј͋̿̀ҽ͖͐̓͏ ̷͎͖͇͋̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ͈͍›͍͑͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ѭ͖͏ ̠͈̈́̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ̫͈̿͂̿ͅ 11 Ѩ͋ ͑‫͂ ى‬Ҿ ͓̓Ӈ͇́̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫͈̀̿͑̿ ͏ق‬ҽ͖͐̓͏ ̷͎͖͇͋̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ Ѩ›ҿ͎͎͇͕̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͉ ͏ل‬Ӄ͍͆͒͏ ͔͉̿ҽ̈́ͅ͏ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫͍ ن‬Ҡ͎͍̿͋‫ ن‬ѭ͖͏ ̠͈̈́̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͍͋͋͑ ›͉̓Ӄ͍͒͏ ͍҅ ј›͍͆̿͋Ӆ͋͑̓͏ ͇͂Ҽ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͉Ӄ͍͆͒͏ ͑‫͉͔̿ ͏ق‬ҽ̈́ͅ͏ Ѵ ͍ң͏ ј›ҿ͈͇͑̓͋̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͔͊̿̿Ӄ͎ӽ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͉͍› ى‬ҿ͊Զ 46. Jesus and Lord (10:12–19) 12 ͑Ӆ͑̓ Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͎› ͏ن‬ӄ͏ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ӡ ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ ›͎̿ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ͑ӄ͋ ̠͍͎͎͊̿‫ ͍͋ل‬ҡ›͍͔̓Ӄ͎͇͍͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ѵ͋Ӄ͈̿ ͐͒͋ҿ͎͇͕͑̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ̢͖̿̀̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͎͐͒͋̓͑Ӄ̀͐̿͋ͅ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ͒҅‫͈̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و‬ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑͐ ͏ن‬Ӂ͖͑ ҕ ѹ͉͇͍͏ ͈̿͑Ҽ ̢͖̿̀̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ѵ ͉͐̓Ӂ͋ͅ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͓ҽ͎̿́́̿ ̠͇͉͖͋ 13 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͐͑ͅ ҕ ѹ͉͇͍͏ ͈̿ӂ ѵ ͉͐̓Ӂ͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ͐͑ҽ͇͐̓ ѭ͖͏ Ѵ͊Ӈ͍͋̿͑ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͔͎͍͆ӆ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͐͑ͅ ҕ ѹ͉͇͍͏ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ͍͑‫͍ ن‬Ҡ͎͍̿͋‫͍ ن‬Ҡ ›͎͍̓›͍͎̓Ӈ͍̓͑ ̓҄͏ ͂͒͐͊Ҽ͏ ̓҄͏ ͑ҿ͉͍͏ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͇͊‫ ͏ـ‬14 ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿ ͍͇͑̿Ӈ͑ͅ ͍Ҡ͂Ҿ ͑ӄ ›͎Ӆ͎͍͑̓͋ ͍Ҡ͂Ҿ ͑ӄ Ѭ͔͍͐̿͑͋ ұ͐͑̓ Ѩ›͈͍̿‫̓͆ ͇̿͐ن‬ӄ͋ ј͎͋͆Ӊ›͍͒ ҙ͇͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͐͒͋̓›͍͉ҿ͊͐̓͋ͅ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ى‬16 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͓͍͒́͋ ͍҅ ›ҿ͋͑̓ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͈̿ ͇͍͑خ͍ ͏ل‬ӂ ͈͈͎̿͑̓Ӈ̀͐̿͋ͅ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ ͐›Ӂ͉͇͍̿͋ ͑ӄ Ѩ͋ ̫͈̿͂̿ͅ 17 ͈̿ӂ ј›́́ͅҿ͉ͅ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ن‬ ͉ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ ̓ҥ͎͇͋͑̿ͅ ͍҅ ›ҿ͋͑̓ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͎͈͈͊͊͒̓ ͏ل‬ҿ͍͇͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͉̿ͅ›͐ ى‬ӃԶ ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ͋ ̫͈̿͂̿ͅ 18 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͉͈͒ ͏ن‬Ӄ͐̿͑̓ ͉Ӄ͍͆͒͏ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ ͐͑Ӆ͊̿ ͍͑‫͉̿ͅ›͐ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̿͐͑Ӂ͐̿͑̓ ќ͎͋͂̿͏ ͓͉͒ҽ͇͐͐̓͋ Ѩ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ 19 ҡ͊̓‫͂ ͏ل‬Ҿ ͊Ӏ ѩ͐͑Ӂ͈̿͑̓ ͈͇̿͑̿͂Ӊ͈͍͋͑̓͏ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͔͎͆‫ ͋و‬ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͈͉̿͑̿ҽ̀̓͑̓ ͑Ӏ͋ ͍Ҡ͎̿́Ӄ̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͊Ӏ ј͓‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͋ل͉̓͆̓͐҄̓ ̓͑ق‬Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͎̿› ͋و‬ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ́Ҽ͎ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͋و‬Ҽ͏ ͔̓‫ ͏͎̿ل‬ѵ͊‫͋و‬

JOSHUA 10:5–10:19

33

and king of LaΗeis and king of Odollam, they and all their people, went up and invested GabaŌn and were besieging it. And those inhabiting GabaŌn sent o֎ to Jesus to the camp of Israel to Galgal saying, ‘Do not release your hands from your ‘children’; come up to us speedily and deliver us and help us; because gathered against us are all the kings of the Amorrai, those inhabiting the hill country.’ And Jesus went up from Galgal, he and the whole people of war with him, every one mighty in power. 45. Lord as the victor (10:8–11) And Lord said to Jesus, ‘Do not fear them, for into your hands I have handed them over; not one of them shall be left remaining before you.’ And since Jesus came on them suddenly, the whole night he entered from Galgal. And Lord confounded them in face of the sons of Israel, and Lord smashed them with a great smash in GabaŌn; and they pursued them via the Ascent of ŋrŌnein, and were cutting them down as far as Azēka and as far as Makēda. Now in their flight in face of the sons of Israel on the descent of ŋrŌnein, Lord also threw on them hailstones from the sky as far as Azēka; and those who died from the hailstones were more than those whom the sons of Israel killed by sword in the war. 46. Jesus and Lord (10:12–19) Then Jesus spoke to Lord, on the day on which the god gave over the Amorrai under Israel’s hand, when he smashed them in GabaŌn and they were smashed in face of the sons of Israel; and Jesus said Let the sun stand over GabaŌn, and the moon over the ravine AilŌn. And the sun stood and the moon in stationariness, till the god repelled their enemies. And the sun stood over the middle of the sky, it was not advancing to its setting till end of one day. And there was not such a day, not even before, not even the uttermost, that a god hearkened to a human; because Lord fought with Israel. And these five kings fled, and concealed themselves in the cave which is in Makēda. And it was reported to Jesus, saying, ‘The five kings have been found hidden in the cave which is in Makēda.’ And Jesus said, ‘Roll stones against the mouth of the cave, and station men to be guarding over them; but as for you, do not stand [still] pursuing behind your enemies, and overtake their rear; and do not let [them] free to enter into their cities; for Lord our god gave them over into our hands.’

34

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 47–49

47. The five kings killed and Makēda taken (10:20–28) 20 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ҭ͏ ͈̿͑ҿ›̿͒͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ›‫҅͒ ͏ـ‬ӄ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈Ӆ›͍͑͋͑̓͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈͍›Ӏ͋ ͊̓́ҽ͉͋ͅ ͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿ ѭ͖͏ ̓҄͏ ͑ҿ͉͍͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͇͂̿͐Զ̈́Ӆ͍͇͊̓͋ ͇͂̓͐Ӊ͆͐̿͋ͅ ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑Ҽ͏ Ҕ͔͎͒ҽ͏ 21 ͈̿ӂ ј›͎̓͐͑ҽ͓ͅ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͈̫̿͂̿ͅ ͏҄̓ ͋ن‬ҡ͇́̓‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѭ͎́͒͌̓͋ ͍Ҡ͆̓ӂ͏ ͑‫ك͑ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ ͉́Ӊ͐͐Ԍ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬22 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬ј͍͋Ӄ͌̿͑̓ ͑ӄ ͐›Ӂ͉͇͍̿͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌̿́ҽ́̓͑̓ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›ҿ͋͑̓ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͍͑ ͏ل‬Ӈ͍͑͒͏ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫͉̿ͅ›͐ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ 23 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌́ͅҽ͍́͐̿͋ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›ҿ͋͑̓ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫ ͏ل‬Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫͉̿ͅ›͐ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̨͎͍͉̓͒͐̿͊ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̨͎͇͍̓̓͊͒͆ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̪͔͇̿̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̮͍͉͉͂̿͊ 24 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›̓ӂ Ѩ͌Ӂ͍́̿́͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͋ن‬ӂ ͈͐͒͋̓ҽ͉̓͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͏ن‬ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͎͔͍͋̿͊ҿ͍͋͒͏ ͍͑‫͉͍› ن‬ҿ͍͊͒ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͐͒͋›͍͎͍̓͒͊ҿ͍͋͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͉ ى‬ҿ͖́͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͎͍̓›͍͎› ͏ل‬Ӈ̓͐͆̓ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›Ӄ͆̓͑̓ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›Ӆ͂̿͏ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͎͔͑̿Ӂ͉͍͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ›͎͍͉͐̓͆Ӆ͋͑̓͏ Ѩ›ҿ͈͆̿͋ͅ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›Ӆ͂̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͎͔͑̿Ӂ͉͍͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬25 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͎› ͋̓›ة‬ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͊ ͏ن‬Ӏ ͓͍̀͆ͅ‫̿ ̓͑ق‬Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͊͂ͅҾ ͇͉͇͂̓ҽ͐͑̓ͅ ј͎͋͂Ӄ̈́̓͐͆̓ ͈̿ӂ ͔҄͐Ӈ̓͑̓ ҙ͇͑ ͍ҥ͖͑͏ ›͍͇Ӂ͇͐̓ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›‫͏ل͍͑ ͇͐ـ‬ Ѩ͔͎͍͆‫ ͏ل‬ҡ͊‫͍ ͋و‬ң͏ ҡ͊̓‫̿ ̓͑ل͉͍̓͊̓›͈̿͑̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ 26 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͈͇͑̓͋̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ Ѩ͈͎ҿ͊̿͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ›ӂ ›ҿ͋͑̓ ͌Ӈ͉͖͋ ͈̿ӂ ‫͎͈͊̓ ͋̿͐إ‬ҽ͍͇͊̓͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫͋و‬ ͌Ӈ͉͖͋ ѭ͖͏ ѩ͐›ҿ͎̿͏ 27 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ͂͒͐͊Ҽ͏ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͏ن‬ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͆̓‫̿ ͍͉͋ل‬Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ј›ӄ ͑‫͌ ͋و‬Ӈ͉͖͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͎͎͇͕̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ ͐›Ӂ͉͇͍̿͋ ̓҄͏ җ ͈͓̿͑̓Ӈ͍́͐̿͋ Ѩ͈̓‫͈̿ ل‬ӂ Ѩ›͈̓Ӈ͉͇͐̿͋ ͉Ӄ͍͆͒͏ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ ͐›Ӂ͉͇͍̿͋ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͐ ͏ق‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ 28 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̫͈̿͂̿͋ͅ Ѩ͉ҽ͍̀͐̿͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͓Ӆ͋̓͒͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ ͔͊̿̿Ӄ͎̿͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋ ›‫ ͋ـ‬Ѩ͋›͋ҿ͍͋ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ͍Ҡ ͈͉̿͑̓̓Ӄ͓͆ͅ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍ ك‬Ҡ͂̓ӂ͏ ͇͖͂̿͐̓͐͐͊ҿ͍͋͏ ͈̿ӂ ͇͂̿›͓̓̓͒́Ӊ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͑‫ ͈̫͋̿͂̿ͅ ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ى‬җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͑‫̨͖͔͇͎̓̓ ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ى‬ 48. Lebna taken (10:29–30) 29 ͈̿ӂ ј›‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ›‫͑̓͊ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ـ‬Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬Ѩ͈ ̫͈̿͂̿ͅ ̓҄͏ ̪̓̀͋̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͉͇Ӆ͎͈͇̓ ̪̓̀͋̿ 30 ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ̓҄͏ ͔̓‫͏͎̿ل‬ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉͍̿̀͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ Ѩ͓Ӆ͋̓͒͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ ͌Ӄ͓͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ›‫ ͋ـ‬Ѩ͊›͋ҿ͍͋ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ͍Ҡ ͈͉̿͑̓̓Ӄ͓͆ͅ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ ͇͖͂̿͐̓͐͐͊ҿ͍͋͏ ͈̿ӂ ͇͂̿›͓̓̓͒́Ӊ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͑‫̿ ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ى‬Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͑‫̨͖͔͇͎̓̓ ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ى‬ 49. LaΗeis taken (10:31–32) 31 ͈̿ӂ ј›‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ›‫͑̓͊ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ـ‬Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬Ѩ͈ ̪̓̀͋̿ ̓҄͏ ̪͔͇̿̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͇͈̓̓ҽ͇͆͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͉͇Ӆ͎͈͇̓ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ 32 ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ̪͔͇̿̓͏ ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͔̓‫͈̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏͎̿ل‬ӂ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ ͑‫͑͒̓͂ ك‬ҿ͎ӽ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͓Ӆ͋̓͒͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ ͌Ӄ͓͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ̪̓̀͋̿

JOSHUA 10:20–10:32

35

47. The five kings killed and Makēda taken (10:20–28) And it came to be as Jesus and every son of Israel ceased striking them with an exceedingly great stroke to the end, and those who were coming safe came safe to the strong cities. And the whole people turned back sound to Joshua in Makēda, and none of the sons of Israel said ‘grr’ with his tongue. And Jesus said, ‘Open the cave, and bring out these five kings from the cave.’ And they brought the five kings out of the cave, the king of Ierousalēm and the king of ΖebrŌn and the king of Iereimouϑ and the king of LaΗeis and the king of Odollam. And after they brought them out to Jesus, and Jesus summoned all Israel and those holding oّce in the war, those accompanying him, saying to them, ‘Be going forward and place your feet on their necks.’ And coming forward they placed their feet on their necks. And Jesus said to them, ‘Do not fear them nor be cowardly; be as men and be strong, for so shall Lord do to all your enemies on whom you are making war [on them].’ And Jesus killed them, and hung them up on five trees; and they were hanging on the trees till evening. And it came to be towards sunset Jesus gave command, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave into which they had fled there, and rolled stones against the cave until today’s day. And Makēda they took on that day and slew it in mouth of sword and destroyed every breathing creature in it, and no one was left in it saved or fugitive; and they did to the king of Makēdan the way they did to the king of IereiΗŌ.

48. Lebna taken (10:29–30) And Jesus departed and all Israel with him from Makēda to Lebna, and they were laying seige to Lebna. And Lord gave it over into the hands of Israel, and they took it and its king, and slew it in mouth of sword and every breathing creature in it, and there was not left in it saved or fugitive; and they did to its king the way they did to the king of IereiΗŌ.

49. LaΗeis taken (10:31–32) And Jesus departed and all Israel with him from Lebna to LaΗeis, and he invested it and was laying seige to it. And Lord gave over LaΗeis into the hands of Israel, and he took it on the second day, and slew it in mouth of sword and destroyed it the way they made Lebna.

36

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 50–54

50. LaΗeis’s helper su֎ers the same fate (10:33) 33 ͑Ӆ͑̓ ј͋ҿ̀ͅ ̠͇͉̿͊ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̢̿̈́ͅ͏ ͍̀͆ͅӁ͖͐͋ ͑‫͈̿ ͏͇͔̪̓̿ ك‬ӂ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ ͌Ӄ͓͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͉̿ӄ͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ѭ͖͏ ͍͑‫͊ ن‬Ӏ ͈͉͇͓̿͑̿̓͆‫̿ ͇̿͋ق‬Ҡ͑‫͖͊͐͐̓͐ ͋و‬ҿ͍͋͋ ͈̿ӂ ͇͂̿›͓̓̓͒́Ӆ͑̿ 51. Odollam taken (10:34–35) 34 ͈̿ӂ ј›‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ›‫͑̓͊ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ـ‬Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬Ѩ͈ ̪͔͇̿̓͏ ̓҄͏ ̮͍͉͉͂̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͇͈̓̓ҽ͇͆͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͉͇Ӆ͎͈͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ 35 ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ Ѩ͋ ͔͇͎̓ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͓Ӆ͋̓͒͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ ͌Ӄ͓͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ›‫ ͋ـ‬Ѩ͊›͋ҿ͍͋ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬Ѩ͓Ӆ͋̓͒͐̿͋ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͑‫͏͇͔̪̓̿ ك‬ 52. ΖebrŌn taken (10:36–37) 36 ͈̿ӂ ј›‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ›‫͑̓͊ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ـ‬Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ̵͖͎͋̀̓ ͏҄̓ ن‬ӂ ›͎͇͈̓̓ҽ͇͆͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ 37 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ ͌Ӄ͓͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ›‫͋ـ‬ Ѩ͊›͋ҿ͍͋ ҙ͐̿ ‫ ͋إ‬Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍ ك‬Ҡ͈ ‫͖͇͊͐͐̓͐̿͂ ͋إ‬ҿ͍͋͏ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ̮͍͉͉͂̿͊ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ҙ͐̿ ‫ ͋إ‬Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ 53. Dabeir taken and campaign summarised (10:38–42) 38 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͎͕͐͑̓̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ›‫͈̿ ͎͇̣̓̀̿ ͏҄̓ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ـ‬ӂ ›͎͇͈̓̿͆Ӄ͐̿͋͑̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ 39 Ѭ͉͍̿̀͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑Ҽ͏ ͈Ӊ͊̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ ͌Ӄ͓͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ›‫ ͋ـ‬Ѩ͊›͋ҿ͍͋ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ͍Ҡ ͈̿͑ҿ͉͇›͍͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍ ك‬Ҡ͂ҿ͋̿ ͇͖͂̿͐̓͐͐͊ҿ͍͋͋ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫̿ ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ى‬Ҡ͑‫͍ ͏ق‬ҥ͖͑͏ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͑‫͈̿ ͎͇̣̓̀̿ ك‬ӂ ͑‫̿ ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ى‬Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬40 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ› ͏ن‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͋ق‬ ͑‫ ͏ق‬Ҕ͎͇̓͋‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̬͇̿̀̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ›͇̓͂̓͋Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̠͖͐͂͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͑‫͍ ͏ق‬Ҡ ͈̿͑ҿ͉͇›͍͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͖͊͐͐̓͐ ͋و‬ҿ͍͋͋ ͈̿ӂ ›‫ ͋ـ‬Ѩ͊›͋ҿ͍͋ ͖̈́‫͏ق‬ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̓͋ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ 41 ј›ӄ ̩̿͂ͅ͏ ̡͎̿͋ͅ ѭ͖͏ ̢ҽ̈́ͅ͏ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ̢͍͍͐͊ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ̢͖͋̿̀̿ ͏ق‬42 ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫̿ ͋ق‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏҄̓ ͏ن‬ѝ›̿͌ ҙ͇͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͐͒͋̓›͍͉ҿ͇͊̓ ͑‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ى‬ 54. Northern coalition formed (11:1–5) 1 ҭ͏ ͂Ҿ Ѹ͈͍͒͐̓͋ ̨͇̿̀̓͏ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̠͖͎͐ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ›͎ӄ͏ ̨͖̀̿̀ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̫͎͎͖̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̱͍͖͒͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̠͇͓̈́̓ 2 ͈̿ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͍͑ ͏ل‬ӆ͏ ͈̿͑Ҽ ̱͇͂‫͑ ̿͋و‬Ӏ͋ ͊̓́ҽ͉͋ͅ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ Ҕ͎͇̓͋Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ̰̿̀̿ ј›ҿ͇͋̿͋͑ ̩͎͖̓͋̓͆ ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ ›̓͂Ӄ͍͋ ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͏ ̴͖͎̓͋̿̓͂͂ 3 ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›͎͉̿̿Ӄ͍͒͏ ̵̿͋̿͋̿Ӄ͍͒͏ ј›ӄ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̓҄͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›͎͉̿̿Ӄ͍͒͏ ̠͍͎͎͊̿Ӄ͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ̤͒̿Ӄ͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ̨͍̓̀͒͐̿Ӄ͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ̴͎̓̓̈́̿Ӄ͍͒͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ̵̓͑͑̿Ӄ͍͒͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ҡ›ӄ ͑Ӏ͋ Ѭ͎͍͊͋ͅ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ̫̿͐̓͒͊ҽ͋ 4 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌‫͍͉͋͆ق‬

JOSHUA 10:33–11:4

37

50. LaΗeis’s helper su֎ers the same fate (10:33) Then Ailam king of Gaza went up, helping LaΗeis; and Jesus struck him in mouth of sword, and his people, till there was not left of them saved or fugitive. 51. Odollam taken (10:34–35) And Jesus departed and all Israel with him from LaΗeis to Odollam, and he invested it and laid seige to it. And Lord gave it over in hand of Israel and he took it in that day, and slew it in mouth of sword, and every breathing creature in it they slew the way they did to LaΗeis.

52. ΖebrŌn taken (10:36–37) And Jesus departed and all Israel with him to ΖebrŌn, and invested it. And he struck it in mouth of sword and every breathing creature as many as were in it; there was none came safe through, as they made Odollam; they destroyed it and as many things as were in it. 53. Dabeir taken and campaign summarised (10:38–42) And Jesus turned back and all Israel to Dabeir, and investing it they took it and its king and its villages, and slew it in mouth of sword, and destroyed it and every breathing creature in it and they did not leave for it no one who came safe through: the way they made ΖebrŌn and its king, so they did to Dabeir and to its king. And Jesus struck the whole land of the hill-country and the Nabai and the plain and the AsēdŌϑ and its kings; they did not leave of them one saved; and every one breathing of life they destroyed, the way Lord the god of Israel commanded: from Kadēs Barnē till Gaza, all Gosom till GabaŌn. And all their kings and their land Jesus struck once for all; because Lord the god of Israel was joining in war with Israel.

54. Northern coalition formed (11:1–5) Now, as Iabeis king of AsŌr [Hazor] heard, he sent o֎ to IŌbab king of MarrŌn and to the king of SumoŌn and to the king of Azeip˰ and to the kings towards Sidon the Great, to the hill-country and to the Raba opposite KenerŌϑ and to the plain and to P˰enaeddŌr, and to the coastal Ζananai to the east and to the coastal Amorrai and Euai and Iebousai and P˰erezai in the mountains and the Ζettai in the direction of the desert into the Maseuma. And they came out, they and their kings with them,

38

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 54–57

̿Ҡ͍͑ӂ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͑‫͑̓͊ ͋و‬Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ұ͐›͎̓ ѵ ќ͍͊͊͏ ͑‫͉̿͆ ͏ق‬ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ͑‫͉› ى‬Ӂ͇͆̓ ͈̿ӂ ҉››͍͇ ͈̿ӂ ѝ͎͊̿͑̿ ›͍͉͉Ҽ ͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿ 5 ͈̿ӂ ͐͒͋‫› ͍͉͋͆ق‬ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͍͑Ӄ ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿̓́ҿ͍͍͋͋͑ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿̓͋ҿ͉͍̀̿͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑‫ن‬ ҥ͍͂̿͑͏ ̫͎͎͖̿͋ ›͍͉̓͊‫͑ ͇̿͐ق‬ӄ͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ 55. Divine response (11:6) 6 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͈ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͊ ͋ن‬Ӏ ͓͍̀͆ͅ‫ ͏ك‬ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ ҙ͇͑ ̿Ҥ͎͇͍͋ ͑̿Ӈ͑͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ұ͎̿͋ Ѩ́ӈ ›͎̿̿͂Ӄ͖͇͂͊ ͎͍͑̓͑›͖͊ҿ͍͋͒͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ͍͑‫͍͑ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ن‬ӆ͏ ҉››͍͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫›͍͈͍͎͒̓͋ ͋و‬Ӂ͇͐̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ѝ͎͊̿͑̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈͈̿̿͑̿ ͋و‬Ӈ͇͐̓͏ Ѩ͋ ›͎͒Ӄ 56. Northern campaign (11:7–15) 7 ͈̿ӂ Ѻ͉͆̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ҕ ›͍͉͇̓͊͐͑Ӏ͏ Ѩ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ ҥ͖͎͂ ̫͎͎͖̿͋ Ѩ͌ҽ›͇͋̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›ҿ›̓͐̿͋ Ѩ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ҕ͎͇̓͋‫ ك‬8 ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҡ›͍͔͇͎̓Ӄ͍͒͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͈Ӆ›͍͑͋͑̓͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈̿͑̓͂Ӄ͖͈͍͋ ѭ͖͏ ̱͇͂‫́̓͊ ͏ق͑ ͏͍͋و‬ҽ͉ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ̫͎͖̿͐̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͂̓› ͋و‬Ӄ͖͋ ̫͖͔̿͐͐ ͈̿͑Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑Ҽ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ͈͍͕̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ѭ͖͏ ͍͑‫͊ ن‬Ӏ ͈͉͇͓̿͑̿̓͆‫̿ ͇̿͋ق‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ ͇͖͂̿͐̓͐͐͊ҿ͍͋͋ 9 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈ ى‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ҉››͍͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͎͍͈͋̓͒Ӆ›͐̓͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ѝ͎͊̿͑̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ Ѩ͋ҿ›͎͐̓͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ›͎͒Ӄ 10 ͈̿ӂ ј›͎̓͐͑ҽ͓ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى͎͇͈̿ ى‬Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Զ ͈̿ӂ ͈͉̿͑̓ҽ͍̀̓͑ ̠͖͎͐ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͂ ͋إ ͏ق‬Ҿ ̠͖͎͐ ͑ӄ ›͎Ӆ͎͍͑̓͋ ќ͎͔͍͒͐̿ ›̿͐‫͍͑ ͋و͇͉͇̓͐̿̀ ͋و͑ ͋و‬Ӈ͖͑͋ 11 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͈͇͑̓͋̿͋ ›‫ ͋ـ‬Ѩ͊›͋ҿ͍͋ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ Ѩ͋ ͌Ӄ͓͇̓ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋ ›ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ ͈͉̿͑̓̓Ӄ͓͆ͅ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬Ѩ͋›͋ҿ͍͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̠͖͎͐ Ѩ͋ҿ›͎͐̿͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ›͎͒Ӄ 12 ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͐̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑‫͉͇͐̿̀ ͋و‬ҿ͖͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ј͋̓‫̿ ͉͋̓ل‬Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ ͌Ӄ͓͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ͐͒͋ҿ͑̿͌̓͋ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬ҕ ›̿‫͏ل‬ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ 13 ј͉͉Ҽ ›ҽ͐̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͈͔͖͇̓͊̿͑͐͊ҿ͋̿͏ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͋ҿ›͎͐̓͋ͅ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ›͉Ӏ͋ ̠͖͎͐ ͊Ӆ͋͋ͅ Ѩ͋ҿ›͎͐̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬14 ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ͈͐‫̿ ͉̿ن‬Ҡ͑‫͏ق‬ Ѩ›͎͍͋Ӆ͊̓͒͐̿͋ ѩ͍̿͒͑‫͍҅͒ ͍҅ ͏ل‬ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͂Ҿ ›ҽ͋͑̿͏ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋ Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ ͌Ӄ͓͍͒͏ ѭ͖͏ ј›Ӊ͉̓͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͍Ҡ ͈̿͑ҿ͉͇›͍͋ Ѩ͌ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍ ͋و‬Ҡ͂Ҿ ѫ͋ Ѩ͊›͋ҿ͍͋ 15 җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ͐͒͋ҿ͑̿͌̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫͇͂̿› ى͑ ك͖̫͐͒ ى‬ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬ҭ͐̿Ӈ͖͑͏ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ل‬ӂ ͍ҥ͖͑͏ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͍ ͏ن‬Ҡ ›͎̿ҿ̀ͅ ͍Ҡ͂Ҿ͋ ј›ӄ ›ҽ͖͋͑͋ ҳ͋ ͐͒͋ҿ͑̿͌̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͏ق͖̫͐͒ ى‬ 57. Northern territory taken (11:16–20) 16 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ› ͏ن‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͑ ͋ق‬Ӏ͋ Ҕ͎͇̓͋Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ̠͂̓̀ ͈̿ӂ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͈̿ ̢͍͍͊͐ ͋ق‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ›͇̓͂͋Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ›͎ӄ͏ ͂͒͐͊̿‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ͑ӄ Ҙ͎͍͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ͑̿›͇̓͋ҽ 17 ͑Ҽ ›͎ӄ͏ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ј›ӄ Ҙ͎͍͒͏ ̠͔͉̓ ͈̿ӂ җ ›͎͍͐̿͋̿̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓ ̓҄͏ ̱͇͎̓ͅ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ̡͉̿̿́̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›̓͂Ӄ̿ ͍͑‫͇̪̀ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ҡ›ӄ ͑ӄ Ҙ͎͍͏ ͑ӄ ̠͎͖̓͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ј͋̓‫͉͋̓ل‬

JOSHUA 11:4–11:17

39

just as the sand of the sea in number, and horses and exceedingly many chariots. And all the kings themselves assembled, and they arrived at the same place and camped by the water of MarrŌn to make war on Israel.

55. Divine response (11:6) And Lord said to Jesus, ‘Do not be afraid in face of them, because tomorrow at this hour I am transfering them turned over against Israel; their horses you shall hamstring, and their chariots you shall burn in fire.

56. Northern campaign (11:7–15) And Jesus came, and all the people of war, on them on the water of MarrŌn suddenly, and they fell on them in the hill-country. And Lord gave them over into the hands of Israel, and cutting them they were pursuing as far as Sidon the Great and as far as MaserŌn and as far as the plains of MassŌΗ to the east; and they cut them down until there was not left over of them one kept safe. And Jesus did to them the way Lord commanded him: their horses he hamstrung, and their chariots he burned in fire. And Jesus turned back in that time, and took AsŌr and its king; now AsŌr was formerly ruler of all these kingdoms. And they killed every breathing creature in it in sword and destroyed them all and there was not left in it a breathing creature; and AsŌr they burned in fire. And all the cities of the kings and their kings Jesus took and made away with them in mouth of sword and they destroyed them the way Moses Lord’s ‘boy’ prescribed. But all the cities with mounds Israel did not burn; only AsŌr alone Jesus burned. And all its booty the sons of Israel plundered for themselves; all these they utterly destroyed in mouth of sword till he laid them waste, they did not leave of them not even one breathing creature. The way Lord prescribed to Moses his ‘boy’, Moses also likewise instructed Joshua, and so Joshua did: he did not overstep anything of all that Moses prescribed to him.

57. Northern territory taken (11:16–20) And Jesus took all the hilly land and all the Adeb and all the land of Gosom and the plain (even the one towards ‘setting’), and the mountain of Israel, and the low-lying regions, those towards the mountain from mount Ak˰el, and what mounts towards Sēeir, and as far as Balagad, and the plains of the Libanon under the mountain, the AermŌn; and all their

40

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 57–60

͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͈͇͑̓͋̓͋ 18 ͈̿ӂ ›͉̓Ӄ͍͒͏ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͎› ͏ن‬ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͍͑ ͏ل‬Ӈ͍͑͒͏ ͑ӄ͋ ›Ӆ͉͍̓͊͋ 19 ͍Ҡ͈ Ѻ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ ѷ͋ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ›ҽ͋͑̿ Ѩ͉ҽ͍̀͐̿͋ Ѩ͋ ›͍͉ҿ͊Զ 20 ҙ͇͑ ͇͂Ҽ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͈͇͔̿͑͐‫̿ ͇̿͐ن‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͎̿͂Ӄ̿͋ ͐͒͋̿͋͑‫› ͏҄̓ ͋ـ‬Ӆ͉͍̓͊͋ ›͎ӄ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ҉͋̿ Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓͒͆‫͇͋͐و‬ ҙ›͖͏ ͊Ӏ ͍͂͆‫̿ ك‬Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬Ѭ͉͍̓͏ ј͉͉Ԇ ҉͋̿ Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓͒͆‫ ͇͋͐و‬җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ̓‫͋̓›ة‬ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎ӄ͏ ̫͖͒͐‫͋ق‬ 58. Summary statement (11:21–23) 21 ͈̿ӂ Ѻ͉͆̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى͎͇͈̿ ى‬Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Զ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̓͋ ͍͑ӆ͏ ̤͈͇͋̿̓͊ Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ͏ق‬Ҕ͎͇̓͋‫ ͏ق‬Ѩ͈ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈ ̣͇͎̿̀̓ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌ ̠͖͋̿̀͆ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈ ›̿͋͑ӄ͏ ́ҿ͍͋͒͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈ ›̿͋͑ӄ͏ Ҙ͎͍͒͏ ̨͍͒͂̿ ͐ӆ͋ ͑̿‫› ͏ل‬Ӆ͉͇̓͐͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬22 ͍Ҡ ͈͉̿͑̓̓Ӄ͓͆ͅ ͑‫ ͇͈̤͊̓̿͋ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ј͉͉Ҽ ›͉Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ̢ҽ̈́Ԍ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ̠͉͖͐̓͂ ͈͉̿͑̓̓Ӄ͓͆ͅ 23 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ› ͏ن‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͈͆̿ ͋ق‬Ӆ͇͑ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫͈̿ ك͖̫͐͒ ى‬ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬Ѩ͋ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃӽ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ͋ ͎͇͊̓͐͊‫͈͑̿ ى‬Ҽ ͓͉͒Ҽ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ѵ ́‫͈͑̿ ق‬ҿ›̿͒͐̓͋ ›͍͉͍̓͊͒͊ҿ͋ͅ 59. Kings conquered east of the Jordan (12:1–6) 1 ͈̿ӂ ͍‫͍ ͏ق́ ͏ق͑ ͏ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ͍҅ ͇͍͑خ‬ң͏ ј͋̓‫͍҅͒ ͍҅ ͍͉͋ل‬ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͈͈͉͎͍̿͑̓͋ͅӅ͊͐̿͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫̿ ͋ق‬Ҡ͑‫› ͋و‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ј͓Ԇ ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫͋و‬ ј›ӄ ͓ҽ͎͍̿́́͏ ̠͎͖͋͋ ѭ͖͏ ͍͑‫ ن‬Ҙ͎͍͒͏ ̠͎͖̓͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͎̠̿̀̿ ͋ق‬ ј›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫͋و‬ 2 ̱͖͋ͅ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ͑‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͋ җ͏ ͈̿͑Է͈͇̓ Ѩ͋ ̤͖͐̓̀͋ ͈͎͇͒̓Ӈ͖͋ ј›ӄ ̠͎͖͋͋ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͓ ك‬ҽ͎͇̿́́ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͊ҿ͎͍͏ ͑‫͓ ͏ق‬ҽ͎͍̿́́͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ͑‫ ̢͉͂̿̿̿ ͏ق‬ѭ͖͏ ̨͍͈̿̀ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ͒҅‫ ͖̠͋͊͊ ͋و‬3 ͈̿ӂ ̠͎̿̀̿ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͉̿͆ ͏ق‬ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ̵͎̓͋̓̓͆ ͈̿͑Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑Ҽ͏ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͉̿͆ ͏ق‬ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ̠͎̿̀̿ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬љ͉‫͋و‬ ј›ӄ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͂ӄ͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ̠͇͖͐̓͊͆ ј›ӄ ̧͇̿͊̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ҡ›ӄ ̫͖͂͆ͅ ̴̿͐́̿ 4 ͈̿ӂ ̷́ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̡̿͐̿ ҡ›͉̓̓Ӄ͓͆ͅ Ѩ͈ ͑‫͇́́ ͋و‬ҽ͖͋͑͋ ҕ ͈͍͇͈̿͑‫͋و‬ Ѩ͋ ̠͎͖͐͑̿͆ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ̤͎͇͂̿̓͋ 5 ќ͎͔͖͋ ј›ӄ Ҙ͎͍͒͏ ̠͎͖̓͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ̱͈͔͇̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ̡̿͐̿͋ ѭ͖͏ ҕ͎̓Ӄ͖͋ ̢͎̓́̓͐̓ӂ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̫͔͇̿̓ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ̢͉̿̿̿͂ ҕ͎̓Ӄ͖͋ ̱͖͋ͅ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ͖͏ ̤͖͐̓̀͋ 6 ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬ҕ ›̿‫͎̩͒ ͏ل‬Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬Ѩ͋ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃӽ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ى‬ѵ͊Ӄ͇͐̓ ͓͉͒‫̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬ 60. Kings conquered west of the Jordan (12:7–24) 7 ͈̿ӂ ͍‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋و͑ ͏ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ͍҅ ͇͍͑خ‬Ӄ͖͋ ͍ң͏ ј͋̓‫ ͉͋̓ل‬Ҍ͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ›͎̿Ҽ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ̡͉̿̿́̿͂Ҽ Ѩ͋ ›̓͂ӃԶ ͍͑‫̢͇̀ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ͍͑‫ ن‬Ҙ͎͍͒͏ ̵͉͔̓̿ ј͇͋̿̀̿͋Ӆ͖͋͑͋ ̓҄͏ ̱͇͎̓ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈͑̿ ͋ل͍͍͎͉͈̓͊͋ͅ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل͉͓̿͒ ͏ل̿͑ ͏ن‬Ҽ ͈͉‫͍͎͋ق‬ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬8 Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͂̓› ى‬ӃԶ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ̠͎̿̀̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ̠͖͐͂͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ѩ͎Ӂ͊Զ ͈̿ӂ ̬̿́̓̀ ͑ӄ͋ ̵̓͑͑̿‫͍͋ل‬

JOSHUA 11:17–12:8

41

kings he took and made away with and killed. And very numerous days Jesus made war against these kings. There was not a city which Israel did not take; everything they took in war, because through Lord it came about that their heart prevailed over meeting for war against Israel, that they might be destroyed, so that mercy might not be given them, but that they might be destroyed the way Lord said to Moses. 58. Summary statement (11:21–23) And Jesus came in that time and destroyed the Enakeim from the hillcountry, from ΖebrŌn and from Dabeir and from AnabŌϑ and from all the line of Israel and from all the mountain of Iouda, with their cities; and Jesus destroyed them. There was not left over of the Enakeim from the sons of Israel, but only in Gaza and in AseldŌ was any left over. And Jesus took the whole land, as Lord commanded Moses; and Jesus gave them in inheritance to Israel in division according to their tribes. And the land left o֎ being warred over. 59. Kings conquered east of the Jordan (12:1–6) And these are the kings of the land whom the sons of Israel made away with and took their land in inheritance beyond the Jordan from sunrise, from ravine ArnŌn as far as the mountain AermŌn [Hermon], and all the land of Araba from [sun]rise; SēŌn the king of the Amorrai, who was living in EsebŌn [Heshbon], being lord from ArnŌn, which is in the ravine by a part of the ravine, and the half of Galaad as far as Iabok, borders of the sons of AmmŌn, and Araba as far as the sea of Ζenereϑ to the east and as far as the sea of Araba, sea of the salts from [sun]rise via the one below AseimŌϑ, from ϐaiman under MēdŌϑ P˰asga; and ŋg king of Basa was left over of the giants, the one dwelling in AstarŌϑ and in Edraein, ruling from mount AermŌn and from SekΗai, and all the Basa as far as borders of Gergesei and the MaΗei and the half of Galaad, borders of SēŌn king of EsebŌn. Moses, Lord’s ‘boy’, and the sons of Israel struck them; and Moses gave it in inheritance to Roubēn and Gad and to the half of tribe Manassē. 60. Kings conquered west of the Jordan (12:7–24) And these are the kings of the Amorrai whom Jesus made away with, and the sons of Israel, on the other side of the Jordan seawards: Balagada in plain of the Libanos and as far as the mountain ΖelΗa [of ] those going up to Sēeir; and Jesus gave [it] to the tribes of Israel to inherit by their lot, in the mountain and in the plain and in Araba and in AshdŌϑ and in the desert and Nageb, the Ζettai

42

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 60–61

͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̠͍͎͎͊̿‫͍͋ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̵̿͋̿͋̿‫͍͋ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̴͎̓̓̈́̿‫͍͋ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̤͒̿‫͍͋ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍̓̀͒͐̿‫͍͋ل‬ 9 ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ͑‫ ̢͇̿ ͏ق‬ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ›͉͐ͅӃ͍͋ ̡͇͉̿͆ͅ 10 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̨͎͍͉̓͒͐̿͊ͅ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ 11 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̨͎͇͍̓̓͊͒͆ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̪͔͇̿̓͏ 12 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̠͇͉̿͊ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̢͎̿̈́̓ 13 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̣͇͎̿̀̓ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̠͇͐̓ 14 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̤͎͊̿͆ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̠͇͎̿͆ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̠͎̿͆ 15 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̪̓̀͋̿ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̮͍͉͉͂̿͊ 16 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̦͉̿͂ 17 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̠͓͍͑̿͒͑ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̮͓͎̓ 18 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̮͓͈̓ ͑‫͈͖͎̠ ͏ق‬ 19 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̠͍͐͊ 20 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̱͍͖͒͊͋ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̫͎͖̿͊͆ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̠͇͓̈́̓ 21 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̩̿͂ͅ͏ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̥͈͔̿̿ 22 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̫͎͖̿̓͂͆ ͈̿ӂ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̨͈͍̓͊ ͍͑‫̵͉͎̓͊̓ ن‬ 23 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̤͉͖͂͊ ͍͑‫͉͇͐̿̀ ̴͎͖͂͂̓͋͋̓ ن‬ҿ̿ ̢͇̓̓ ͑‫̢͉͇͉̿̿ ͏ق‬Ӄ̿͏ 24 ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̧͎̿͐̿ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍‫ ͇͍͈͐҈̓ ͏ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ͇͍͑خ‬Ѩ͋͋ҿ̿ 61. Land distribution initiated (13:1–14a) 1 ͈̿ӂ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͎̀͐̓› ͏ن‬Ӈ͎͍͑̓͏ ›͎͍͈̀̓̀ͅӈ͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ѵ͎͊̓‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̓‫͈ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͐ ͋ن‬ӆ ›͎͍̀ҿ͈̀̿ͅ͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ѵ͎͊̓‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ѵ ́‫ ق‬ҡ›͍͉ҿ͉͇̓›͇͑̿ ›͍͉͉Ӏ ̓҄͏ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿͋ 2 ͈̿ӂ ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ́‫͇͉͉͈͊͊̓̿͑̿ ق‬ҿ͋ͅ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̴͉͇͇͇͒͐͑̓͊ ҕ ̢͇͎͇̓͐̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ̵̿͋̿͋̿‫ ͏͍ل‬3 ј›ӄ ͑‫ ͏ق‬ј͍͇͈Ӂ͍͑͒ ͑‫͈͑̿ ͏ق‬Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ ̠҄́Ӈ›͍͑͒ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͎Ӄ͖͋ ̠͈͈͎͖̿͋ Ѩ͌ ̓Ҡ͖͋Ӈ͖͊͋ ͑‫̵̿͋̿͋̿ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͋ ›͎͍͉͍͐́Ӄ͇̈́̓͑̿ ͑̿‫› ͏ل‬ҿ͋͑̓ ͎͐̿͑̿›Ӄ͇̿͏ ͑‫̢̿̈́̿ ى͑ ̴͇͇͇͉͊̓͑͐͒ ͋و‬ӃԶ

JOSHUA 12:9–13:3

43

and the Amorrai and the Ζananai and the P˰erezai and the Euai and the Iebousai; and the king of IereiΗŌ and the king of the Gai, which is near Baiϑēl, king of Ierousalēm, king of ΖebrŌn, king of Iereimouϑ, king of LaΗeis, king of Ailam, king of Gazer, king of Dabeir, king of Asei, king of Ermaϑ, king of Airaϑ, king of Araϑ, king of Lebna, king of Odollam, king of Ēlad, king of Atap˰out, king of Op˰er, king of Op˰ek of the ArŌk, king of AsŌm, king of SumoŌn, king of MamrŌϑ, king of Azeip˰, king of Kadēs, king of ZakaΗ, king of MaredŌϑ, and king Iekom of Ζermel, king EldŌm of the P˰enneddŌr, king Geei of the Galeilaia, king ϐarsa: all these kings, twenty-nine. 61. Land distribution initiated (13:1–14a) And Jesus [was] elderly, having far advanced in days. And Lord said to Jesus, ‘You yourself have far advanced in days, and the land has been left remaining in great quantity for inheritance. And this is the land left behind, borders of P˰ulistieim [Philistines], the Geseirei and the Ζananai: from the uninhabited [land] opposite Egypt as far as the borders of AkkarŌn [Ekron] from the ‘well-named’ side of the Ζananai is being reckoned in addition to the five satrapies of the P˰ulistieim, the Gazai

44

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 61–62

͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̠͖̈́͑̓ӃԶ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̠͈͉͖͐̿͋̓Ӄ͑Ԍ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫̢̿͆͆̓ ى‬ӃԶ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫͖͎͈͈̠̓͋̿ ى‬Ӄ͑Ԍ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫̤̿͒ ى‬ӃԶ 4 Ѩ͈ ̧͇̿͊̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͐Ԍ ́‫ ̵͋̿̿͋̿ ك‬Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̢ҽ̈́ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ̱͇͂Ӊ͇͍͇͋ ѭ͖͏ ̲͓͈̿̓ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͎̓Ӄ͖͋ ͑‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͋ 5 ͈̿ӂ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ́‫̴͇͇͇͉͊̓͑͐͒ ̢͇͉͆̿̿ ͋ق‬ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑ӄ͋ ̪Ӄ͍̀̿͋͋ ј›ӄ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͋و‬ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ј›ӄ ̢͉̿́̿̿ ҡ›ӄ ͑ӄ Ҙ͎͍͏ ͑ӄ ̠͎͖̓͊͋ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͐҄̓ ͏ق‬Ӆ͍͂͒ ̤͊̿͆ 6 ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͈͍͇͈̿͑‫͑ ͋و‬Ӏ͋ Ҕ͎͇̓͋Ӏ͋ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫͇̪̀ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫› ͇͖͓͎̫͊̿͊͋͊̓͊͆̓̓͐̿ ͏ق‬ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ̱͇͖͂͋Ӄ͍͒͏ Ѩ́ӈ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͖͐ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ј͉͉Ҽ ͇͂ҽ͍͂͏ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͈͉Ӂ͎Զ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ى‬җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ͍͇͐ Ѩ͇͉͋̓͑̓ҽ͊͋ͅ 7 ͈̿ӂ ͋‫͊ ͋ن‬ҿ͎͇͍͐͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫͋ق‬ ͑̿Ӈ͑͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃӽ ͑̿‫ ͏ل‬Ѩ͋͋ҿ̿ ͓͉͒̿‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ͑‫ ى‬ѵ͊Ӄ͇͐̓ ͓͉͒‫̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͉̿͆ ͏ق‬ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ͑‫́̓͊ ͏ق‬ҽ͉ͅ͏ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂͒͐͊Ҽ͏ ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ͂Ӊ͇͐̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ ѵ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿ ѵ ͊̓́ҽ͉ͅ ҕ͎͇̓‫ ل‬8 ͑̿‫͈̿ ͏ل͉͓̿͒ ͏ل‬ӂ ͑‫ ى‬ѵ͊Ӄ͇͐̓ ͓͉͒‫͈̿ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ى͑ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑‫ ̢͂̿ ى‬Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͑‫ى‬ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋Ԍ ͈̿͑Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑Ҽ͏ ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ͂ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق͖̫͐͒ ى‬ҕ ›̿‫͎̩͒ ͏ل‬Ӄ͍͒ 9 ј›ӄ ̠͎͍͎ͅ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑‫͔̓ ن‬Ӄ͉͍͒͏ ͔͇̓͊ҽ͎͎͍͒ ̠͎͖͋͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͊ҿ͐Զ ͑‫͓ ͏ق‬ҽ͎͍̿́́͏ ͈̿ӂ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ̫͇͖͎̓͐ ј›ӄ ̣͇̿͂̿̀̿͋ 10 ›ҽ͐̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̱͖͋ͅ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ͖͏ ̠͍͎͎͊̿Ӄ͖͋ җ͏ Ѩ̀̿͐Ӄ͉̓͒͐̓͋ Ѩ͋ ̤͖͐̓̀͋ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͎̓Ӄ͖͋ ͒҅‫ ͖̠͋͊͊ ͋و‬11 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͉̿̿̿͂̓Ӄ͇͑͂̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̢͇͎͇̓͐̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫ ͋ـ› ͇͔̫̓͑̿̿ ن‬Ҙ͎͍͏ ̠͎͖̓͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ̡̿͐̿͋̓‫ ͇͋͑ل‬ѭ͖͏ ̠͔̿ 12 ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐̓Ӄ̿͋ ̷́ Ѩ͋ ͑‫̡̓͋̿͐̿ ك‬Ӄ͇͇͑͂ җ͏ Ѩ̀̿͐Ӄ͉̓͒͐̓͋ Ѩ͋ ̤͎͇͂̿̓͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ̠͎͖͐͑̿͆ ͍‫͉͈̓̓͑̿ ͏͍͑خ‬Ӄ͓͆ͅ ј›ӄ ͑‫͇́́ ͋و‬ҽ͖͋͑͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ̫͖͒͐‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̓͋ 13 ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͑ӄ͋ ̢͇͎͇̓͐̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̫͔͇̿̿͑̓ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̵̿͋̿͋̿‫͈̿ ͍͋ل‬ӂ ͈̿͑Է͈͇̓ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̢͇͎͇̓͐̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ̫͔͇̿̿͑̓ Ѩ͋ ͍͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͐ ͏ق‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ 14 ›͉Ӏ͋ ͑‫͍ ͇̪̓͒̓ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬Ҡ͈ Ѩ͂Ӆ͆ͅ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͍‫خ‬ ͍͑͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍͍͎͉͈͊͋ͅ ͋و‬Ӄ̿ ͈̿͆Ҽ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͍͑‫̩ ͏ل‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ 62. Land Distribution: what Moses did (13:14A–14:15) 14A ͈̿ӂ ͍‫ ͏͍͑خ‬ҕ ͈͎͇̿͑̿͊̓͐͊ӄ͏ җ͋ ͈̿͑̓͊ҿ͎͇͐̓͋ ̫͖͒͐‫͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ق‬ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ͋ ̠͎͖̿̀͆ ̫͖̿̀ Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿͑Ҽ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ 15 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̫͖͒͐‫͈͑̿ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ك͉͓͒ ك͑ ͏ق‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬16 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ͋و‬Ҽ ҙ͎͇̿ ј›ӄ ̠͎͍͎ͅ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ ͓ҽ͎͍̿́́͏ ̠͎͖͋͋ ͈̿ӂ ѵ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ ѵ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͓ ك‬ҽ͎͇̿́́ ̠͎͖͋͋ ͈̿ӂ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ̫͇͖͎̓͐ 17 ѭ͖͏ ̤͖͐̓̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͐̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͍Ҥ͐̿͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͈̿ ͎͖͇̫͐̓ ك‬ӂ ̣͇͖̿̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͖͉̿͊͋̀̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ͍҈͈͍͒ ̫͉͖̓̓̀͆ 18 ͈̿ӂ ̡̿͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̡͈͖̿͂͊͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̫͇͓̿̿̿͆ 19 ͈̿ӂ ̩͎͇͇̿̿͆̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ̱̓̀̿͊̿ ͈̿ӂ ̱͎̓̿͂̿ ͈̿ӂ ̱͇͖̓͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ̤͋̿̀ 20 ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͓͍͖͎̿͆́ ͈̿ӂ ̠͖͐͂͆ͅ ̴̿͐́̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͇͖̿͆͆̿͐̓͋͆ 21 ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͐̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏

JOSHUA 13:3–13:21

45

and the Azotei and the Askaloneis and the Geϑϑai and the Akkaroneis and the Euai from ϐaiman and to all land of Ζanaan facing Gaza; and the Sidonians [have] as far as Tap˰ek, as far as the borders of the Amorrai; and all the land [of ?] Galiaϑ P˰ulistieim and all the Libanos towards sunrise, from Galgaa under the mountain the AermŌn as far as the entrance of Emaϑ; every one inhabiting the hill-country from the Libanos as far as the Masereϑmemp˰Ōnmaim – all the Sidonians, I shall destroy them myself from face of Israel; but pass it on by lot to Israel, the way I commanded you. And now divide this land in inheritance to the nine tribes and to the half of tribe of Manassē, from the Jordan as far as the Great Sea towards sunset you shall give it; the Great Sea shall be the border. To the tribes and to the half of tribe of Manassē, to Roubēn and to Gad, Moses gave on the other side of the Jordan towards sunrise: Moses the child of Lord has given to him from Aroēr, which is on the lip of the winter-torrent ArnŌn, and the city [the one in midst of the ravine], and all the MeisŌr from Daidaban; all the cities of SēŌn king of Amorrai, who reigned in EsebŌn, as far as the borders of sons of AmmŌn; and the Galaadeitis and the borders of Geseirei and of the MaΗatei, whole mount AermŌn, and all the Basaneitis as far as AΗa; all the kingdom of ŋg in the Basaneitis, who reigned in Edraein and in AstarŌϑ; the latter was left behind from the giants, and Moses struck him and destroyed him. And the sons of Israel did not destroy the Geseirei and the MaΗatei and the Ζananaiai; and the king of Geseirei is dwelling and the MaΗatei within the sons of Israel until today’s day. Only of the tribe of Leuei was inheritance not given: Lord the god of Israel, he [is] their inheritance, as Lord said to them. 62. Land Distribution: what Moses did (13:14b–14:15) And this is the distribution which Moses distributed to the sons of Israel in ArabŌϑ MŌab on the other side of the Jordan towards IereiΗŌ. And Moses gave to the tribe of Roubēn by their clans. And their borders came into being from Aroēr, which is on face of ravine ArnŌn, and the city that is in the ravine ArnŌn; and all the MeisŌr as far as EsebŌn, and all the cities which exist in the MeisŌr, and DaibŌn and BaimŌn Baal and of house of MeelbŌϑ and Basan and BakedmŌϑ and Maip˰aaϑ and Kariaϑaim and Sebama and Serada and SeiŌn in the mountain of Enab and Baiϑp˰ogŌr and AsēdŌϑ P˰asga and BaiϑϑaseinŌϑ and all the cities of the

46

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 62

›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͍͑‫͈̿ ͎͖͇̫͐̓ ن‬ӂ ›‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐̓Ӄ̿͋ ͍͑‫͉͇͐̿̀ ͖̱͋ͅ ن‬ҿ͖͏ ͑‫͋و‬ ̠͍͎͎͊̿Ӄ͖͋ җ͋ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̓͋ ̫͖͒͐‫̿ ͏ق‬Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ѵ͍́͒͊ҿ͍͋͒͏ ̫͇̿͂̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̤͇͒̓ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̰͍͍͈̀ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̱͍͎͒ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̮͎͒ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̰͍̀̓ ќ͎͔͍͋͑̿ Ѭ͎͋̿̿ ̱͇͖̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫ ͖͇̱͋̓ ͏̿͑͋ن‬22 ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̡͉̿̿̿͊ ͑ӄ͋ ͍͑‫ن‬ ̡͖͎̓ ͑ӄ͋ ͊ҽ͇͋͑͋ ј›ҿ͈͇͑̓͋̿͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ԫ͍›‫ ك‬23 Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͂Ҿ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋ͅ͏ ҙ͎͇͍̓͋ ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͒҅‫͈͑̿ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ͋و‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫҅̿ ͋و‬ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̿҅ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬24 Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ͂Ҿ ̫͖͒͐‫̢͂̿ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ق‬ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬25 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ҅̿ ͇̿͐ـ› ̨͎̈́̿ͅ ͋و‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̢͉̿̿̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ́‫ ͖̠͋͊͊ ͋و҅͒ ͏ق‬ѭ͖͏ ̠͎̿̀̿ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ ̠͎̿͂ 26 ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ̤͖͐̓̀͋ ѭ͖͏ ͎͖̿̿̀͆ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͑Ӏ͋ ̫͓̿͐͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̡͍͇͑̿͋̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̡̿̿͋ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͎̓Ӄ͖͋ ̣͇͖̿̀͋ 27 ͈̿ӂ ̤͖͋̿͂͊ ͈̿ӂ ̮͎͇͆̿́̿̓ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͎̿͋͆̿͋̿̀̿ ͈̿ӂ ̱͍͈͔͖͆̿ ͈̿ӂ ̱͓̿̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͉͍͇›Ӏ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐̓Ӄ̿͋ ̱͖͋ͅ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ͖͏ ̤͖͐̓̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋ͅ͏ ҕ͎͇̓‫ ل‬ѭ͖͏ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏ ͑‫͉̿͆ ͏ق‬ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ̵͎̓͋̓̓͆ ›ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ј›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͋و‬28 ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͒҅‫͈͑̿ ̢͂̿ ͋و‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͔ҿ͋̿ Ѩ›͇͎͐͑ҿ͕͍͇͒͐͋ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͔͎͆‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬җ͇͑ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ҅̿ ͋و‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̿҅ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬29 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̫͖͒͐‫ ى͑ ͏ق‬ѵ͊̓Ӄ͇͐̓ ͓͉͒‫͈͑̿ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ 30 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ̫̿̿͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ›‫͉͇̓͐̿̀ ̿͐ـ‬Ӄ̿ ̡͇̿͐̿͋̓ ͈̿ӂ ›‫͉͇̓͐̿̀ ̿͐ـ‬Ӄ̿ ̷́ ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ͖͏ ̡̿͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͐̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͈Ӊ͊̿͏ ̨͇͎̿̓ ̿҉ ͇̓҄͐͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫̡̓͋̿͐̿ ك‬Ӄ͇͇͑͂ ѩ͌Ӂ͈͍͋͑̿ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ 31 ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ͑‫͈̿ ̢͉͂̿̿̿ ͏ق‬ӂ Ѩ͋ ̠͎͖͐͑̿͆ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ̤͎͂̿͗͋ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͇͉̀̿͐̓Ӄ̿͏ ̷́ Ѩ͋ ̡̿͐̿͋Ӄ͇͇͑͂ ͍͑‫͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ ̫͔͇͎̿̓ ͍͒҅‫͈̿ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ل‬ӂ ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬ѵ͊Ӄ͇͐̓͐͋ ͍͒҅‫̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͎͇͔̫̓̿ ͏ل‬ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬32 ͍‫͍ ͇͍͑خ‬ң͏ ͈͈͉͎͍̿͑̓͋ͅӅ͊͐̓͋ͅ ̫͖͒͐‫› ͏ق‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫ن‬ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͍͋͒ Ѩ͋ ̠͎͖̿̀͆ ̫͖̿̀ Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿͑Ҽ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ Ѩ›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͋و‬1 ͈̿ӂ ͍‫͍͍͎͉͈͈͊͋̿͑̿ͅ ͍҅ ͇͍͑خ‬Ӂ͐̿͋͑̓͏ ͒҅‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ك́ ك‬ ̵̿͋̿̿͋ ͍‫͍͎͉͈͈͋̓͑̿ͅ ͏ت‬Ӆ͊͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͎͉̤̿̈́̿̓ ͏ل‬ҕ ͎҅̓̓ӆ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬ҕ ͍͑‫ن‬ ̬̿͒ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ ›͎͇̿͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و͑ ͋و͉͓͒ ͋و‬2 ͈̿͑Ҽ ͈͉Ӂ͎͍͒͏ Ѩ͈͉͎͍͋ͅӅ͊͐̿͋ͅ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ Ѩ͋ ͔͇͎̓ӂ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ل̿͑ ن‬Ѩ͋͋ҿ̿ ͓͉͒̿‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ͑‫ ى‬ѵ͊Ӄ͇͐̓ ͓͉͒‫ ͏ق‬3 ј›ӄ ͍͑‫› ن‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ̪̓͒̓Ӄ͇͑̿͏ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ͈͉‫ ͍͎͋ق‬Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬4 ҙ͇͑ Ѻ͐̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͖͓͐ͅ ͂Ӈ͍ ͓͉͒̿Ӄ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̤͓͎͇̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͂Ӆ͆ͅ ͎͊̓ӂ͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫̪̓͒̓ ͏ل͍͑ ك́ ك‬Ӄ͇͑̿͏ ј͉͉Ԇ Ѵ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈͍͇͈̿͑̓‫͈̿ ͋ل‬ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈͑ ͏ل͍͑ ͋و‬Ӂ͇͋̓͐͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ͈͑Ӂ͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬5 җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫͍ ك͖̫͐͒ ى‬ҥ͖͑͏ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͊ҿ͎͇͐̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬6 ͈̿ӂ ›͎͍͐Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͍͒͂̿ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͋ن‬Ѩ͋ ̢͉͉̿́̿ ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͎› ͋̓›ة‬ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ̵͉̿̓̀ ҕ ͍͑‫ ̨͍͓͋͋̓ͅ ن‬ҕ ̩̓͋̓̈́̿‫͐ ͏͍ل‬ӆ Ѩ›Ӄ͐͑Ԍ ͑ӄ Ԫ‫ ̿͊ق‬җ Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̓͋ͅ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎ӄ͏ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͋ق‬ќ͎͖͋͆›͍͋ ͍͑‫͎̓› ن͍̓͆ ن‬ӂ Ѩ͍͊‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ͍͐‫ ن‬Ѩ͋ ̩̿͂ͅ͏ ̡͎̿͋ͅ 7 ͎͑̓͐͐̿ҽ͈͍͋͑̿ ́Ҽ͎ Ѩ͑‫͋و‬ Ѹ͊͋ͅ ҙ͑̓ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓ҿ͋ ͊̓ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬ҕ ›̿‫ ن͍̓͆ ن͍͑ ͏ل‬Ѩ͈ ̩̿͂ͅ͏ ̡͎̿͋ͅ ͈͈͍̿͑̿͐›̓‫͑ ͇̿͐ن‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͈̿ ͋ق‬ӂ ј›͈͎̓Ӄ͆͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫͉ ى‬Ӆ͍́͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͑ӄ͋ ͍͋‫̿ ͋ن‬Ҡ͍͑‫ن‬ 8 ͍҅ ͂Ҿ ј͉͓͍͂̓Ӄ ͍͊͒ ͍҅ ј͋̿̀ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͊̓͑Ԇ Ѩ͍͊‫͑̓͊ ن‬ҿ͐͑͐̿͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͎̿͂Ӄ̿͋ ͍͑‫ن‬

JOSHUA 13:21–14:8

47

MeisŌr and all the kingdom of SēŌn king of the Amorrai whom Moses beat, him and the leaders of Madiam, and Euei and Robok and Sour and Our and Robe (ruling alongside SeiŌn) and those inhabiting SeiŌn. And Balaam son of BeŌr the diviner they killed at the critical turn. And the borders of Roubēn came about, Jordan a border. This is the inheritance of sons of Roubēn by their clans, their cities and their ‘bothies’. Then Moses gave to the sons of Gad by their clans. And their borders came to be Iazēr, all the cities of Galaad and the half of land of sons of AmmŌn, up to Araba, which is in face of Arad, and from EsebŌn up to ArabŌϑ along Massēp˰a, and Botanein, and Baan up to the borders of DaibŌn, and EnadŌm and Oϑargaei and Bainϑanabra and SokΗŌϑa and Sap˰an and the remaining kingdom of SēŌn king of EsebŌn; and the Jordan shall be border; up to part of the sea of Ζenereϑ on the other side of the Jordan towards sunrise. This is the inheritance of sons of Gad by their clans; neck they will curve opposite their enemies; because it came about by their clans – their cities and their ‘bothies’. And Moses gave to the half of tribe Manassē by their clans. And their borders came about from Maana and whole kingdom of Basanei and whole kingdom of ŋg king of Basan, and all the villages of Iaeir which are in the Basaneis, sixty cities; and the half of the Galaad, and in AstarŌϑ and in Edraein, cities of kingdom of ŋg in Basaneis, for the sons of MaΗeir sons of Manassē and to half the sons of MaΗeir sons of Manassē by their clans. These are the ones whom Moses made his heir on the other side of the Jordan in ArabŌϑ MŌab, on the other side of the Jordan near IereiΗŌ to sunrise. 14. And these are the ones inheriting of sons of Israel in the land [of ] Ζanaan, to whom Eleazar the priest and Jesus son of Nauē and the rulers of tribes of paternal lineage of the sons of Israel gave in inheritance to them. By lots they inherited, the way Lord commanded by hand of Jesus to the nine tribes and to the half of a tribe, on the other side of the Jordan. And to the Levites he did not give a lot among them, because the sons of IŌsēp˰ were two tribes, Manassē and Ep˰raim; and a part in the land was not given to the Levites other than cities for inhabiting, and their marked o֎ portions for the herds, and their herds. The way Lord commanded Moses, so the sons of Israel acted, and partitioned the land. And the sons of Iouda [ Judah] approached Jesus in Galgal, and Ζaleb [Caleb] son of Iep˰onnē the Kenezai said to him, ‘You yourself are familiar with the word which Lord spoke to Moses the god’s ‘man’ about me and you in Kadēs Barnē. For I was forty years old when Moses the god’s ‘boy’ sent me o֎ from Kadēs Barnē to spy out the land, and my answer to him was a word according to his mind. But my brothers who went up with me changed the heart of

48

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 62–63

͉͍̿‫ ن‬Ѩ́ӈ ͂Ҿ ›͎͍͐̓͑ҿ͆͋ͅ Ѩ›͈͍͉͍̿͒͆‫͎̩͒ ͇̿͐ق‬ӃԶ ͑‫ ͍͒͊ ى̓͆ ى‬9 ͈̿ӂ Ұ͍͊͐̓͋ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬Ѩ͋ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ ͉ҿ͖́͋ ѵ ́‫ ق‬Ѩ͓Ԇ ѷ͋ Ѩ›ҿ̀ͅ͏ ͍͐ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ Ѩ͋ ͈͉Ӂ͎Զ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫͑ ͏ل‬ҿ͈͍͇͋͏ ͍͐͒ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ͋ ̿҄‫ ̿͋و‬ҙ͇͑ ›͎͍͐̓͑ҿ͆ͅ͏ Ѩ›͈͍͉͍̿͒͆‫ ͇̿͐ق‬Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬10 ͈̿ӂ ͋‫͇͂ ͋ن‬ҿ͎͕͆̓ҿ͋ ͊̓ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ̓‫͋̓›ة‬ ͍͑‫͍͈͎͑͐̿̿͐͐̓͑ ͍͑ن‬ӄ͋ ͈̿ӂ ›ҿ͊›͍͑͋ Ѭ͍͑͏ ј͓Ԇ ͍‫ خ‬Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̓͋ͅ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑ӄ Ԫ‫̿͊ق‬ ͍͑‫͎› ͍͑ن‬ӄ͏ ̫͖͒͐‫͈̿ ͋ق‬ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆ͅ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ѩ͎Ӂ͊Զ ͈̿ӂ ͋‫͍͂҄ ͋ن‬ӆ Ѩ́ӈ ͐Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ Ҕ͍́͂Ӂ͈͍͋͑̿ ͈̿ӂ ›ҿ͋͑̓ Ѩ͑‫ ͋و‬11 Ѭ͇͑ ̓҄͊ӂ ͐Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ͔҄͐Ӈ͖͋ ҭ͐̓ӂ ҙ͑̓ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓ҿ͋ ͊̓ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬ҭ͐̿Ӈ͖͑͏ ͔҄͐Ӈ͖ ͋‫͈̿ ͋ل͉̓͆̓͐҄̓ ͋ن‬ӂ Ѩ͉͌̓͆̓‫͋ل‬ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ͋ ›Ӆ͉͍̓͊͋ 12 ͈̿ӂ ͋‫̿͊ن͍͑҄̿ ͋ن‬Ӄ ͐̓ ͑ӄ Ҙ͎͍͏ ͍͑‫͈͆̿ ͍͑ن‬Ҽ ̓‫͈ ͋̓›ة‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ ҙ͇͑ ͐ӆ ј͈Ӂ͈͍̿͏ ͑ӄ Ԫ‫ ك͑ ͍͑ن͍͑ ̿͊ق‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ ͋͒͋ӂ ͂Ҿ ͍҅ ̤͈͇͋̿̓͊ Ѩ͈̓‫› ͇͋͐҄̓ ل‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ Ҕ͔͎͒̿ӂ ͈̿ӂ ͊̓́ҽ͉͇̿ ѨҼ͋ ͍‫͈ ͋ح‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͊̓͑Ԇ Ѩ͍͊‫ن‬ ‫ ظ‬Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͖͐ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ̓‫›ة‬ҿ͋ ͍͇͊ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ 13 ͈̿ӂ ̓Ҡ͉Ӆ́͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ ͑‫ ̩̈́̓͋̓ ى҅͒ ̨͍͓͋͋̓ͅ ى҅͒ ̵͉̀̓̿ ى‬Ѩ͋ ͈͉Ӂ͎Զ 14 ͇͂Ҽ ͍͑‫ ͍͑ن‬Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ѵ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ ͑‫ن͍͑ ̨͍͓͋͋̓ͅ ن͍͑ ى͑ ̵͉̀̓̿ ى‬ ̩̓͋̓̈́̿Ӄ͍͒ Ѩ͋ ͈͉Ӂ͎Զ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͏ق‬ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͑̿Ӈ͑ͅ͏ ͇͂Ҽ ͑ӄ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ Ѩ›͈͍͉͍̿͒͆‫͇̿͐ق‬ ͑‫͍͎͑͐› ى‬ҽ͇́͊̿͑ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͆̓‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ن‬15 ͑ӄ ͂Ҿ Ҙ͍͋͊̿ ͑‫ ̵͖͎͋̀̓ ͏ق‬Ѻ͋ ͑ӄ ›͎Ӆ͎͍͑̓͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ ̠͎͍́̀ ͎͊͑ͅӅ›͍͉͇͏ ͑‫̿ ͇͈̤͊̓̿͋ ͋و‬ҥ͑ͅ ͈̿ӂ ѵ ́‫ ق‬Ѩ͈Ӆ›̿͐̓͋ ͍͑‫͉͍› ن‬ҿ͍͊͒ 63. Iouda’s borders (15:1–12) 1 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ͓͉͒‫͈͑̿ ̨͍̿͂͒ ͏ق‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ͑‫͋و‬ ҕ͎̓Ӄ͖͋ ͑‫̨͍̿͂͒ ͏ق‬Ӄ̿͏ ј›ӄ ͑‫ ͏ق‬Ѩ͎Ӂ͍͊͒ ̱͇̓͋ ѭ͖͏ ̩̿͂ͅ͏ ›͎ӄ͏ ͉Ӄ̀̿ 2 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ͋و‬Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ј›ӄ ͉͇̀ӄ͏ ѭ͖͏ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏ ͑‫͉̿͆ ͏ق‬ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ͑‫ ͏ق‬љ͉͈͒‫͏ق‬ ј›ӄ ͑‫͍͎͓̓ ͏ق͑ ͏ـ͇͓͍͉ ͏ق‬Ӈ͐ͅ͏ Ѩ›ӂ ͉Ӄ̀̿ 3 ͈̿ӂ ͇͂̿›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͑̿ ј›ҿ͇͋̿͋͑ ͑‫͏ق‬ ›͎͍͐̿͋̿̀ҽ͖͐̓͏ ̠͈͎͇̿̀̓͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈›͎͇̓›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͑̿ ̤͈͋͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ј͋̿̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓ Ѩ›ӂ ͉͇̀ӄ͏ Ѩ›ӂ ̩̿͂ͅ͏ ̡͎̿͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͑̿ ̠͖͎͖͐͋ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͍͐̿͋̿̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓ ̓҄͏ ̱͎̿̿͂̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͑̿ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂͒͐͊Ҽ͏ ̩̿͂ͅ͏ 4 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ̱͉͖̓͊͋̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͇͈͉͂̓̀̿̓‫ ل‬ѭ͖͏ ͓ҽ͎͍̿́́͏ ̠҄́Ӈ›͍͑͒ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ن‬ ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͎̓Ӄ͖͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ͍͑‫͑ن‬Ӆ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ҙ͎͇̓̿ ј›ӄ ͉͇̀Ӆ͏ 5 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̿ ј›ӄ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ̿͐ـ› ͋و‬ѵ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿ ѵ љ͉͈͒Ӏ ѭ͖͏ ͍͑‫ن‬ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫͈̿ ـ‬ӂ ј›ӄ ͑‫͉̿͆ ͏ق͑ ͏ـ͇͓͍͉ ͏ق‬ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫͊ ن‬ҿ͎͍͒͏ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ 6 Ѩ›͇̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̿ Ѩ›ӂ ̡͇͉̿͆̿́̿̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿̿›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͑̿ ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫ ـ‬Ѩ›ӂ ̡͇͎̿͆̿̿̀̿ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͍͐̿͋̿̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͉Ӄ͍͆͋ ̡͇͖̿͋ ͍͒҅‫ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ن‬7 ͈̿ӂ ›͎͍͐̿͋̿̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ ͑ҿ͎͍͑̿͑͋ ͑‫͓ ͏ق‬ҽ͎͍̿́́͏ ̠͔͖͎ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̿̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓ Ѩ›ӂ ̲̿̿́̿͂ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ј›ҿ͇͋̿͋͑ ͑‫͏ق‬ ›͎͍͐̀ҽ͖͐̓͏ ̠͇͂͂̿͊̓͋ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͉Ӄ̀̿ ͑‫͓ ك‬ҽ͎͇̿́́ ͈̿ӂ ͇͈͉͂̓̀̿̓‫ل‬ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ ҥ͖͎͂ ›́ͅ‫ ͏ق‬ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ ›́ͅӀ ̰͖͉́ͅ 8 ͈̿ӂ ј͋̿̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̓҄͏ ͓ҽ͎̿́́̿ ̮͍͋͊ Ѩ›ӂ ͋Ӆ͍͑͒ ͍͑‫ ͏̨͍͒̀̓ ن‬ј›ӄ ͉͇̀Ӆ͏ ̿ҥ͑ͅ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̨͎͍͉̓͒͐̿͊ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈̀ҽ͉͉͇̓ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͈͍͎͓͒Ӏ͋ Ҙ͎͍͒͏ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ ͓ҽ͎͍̿́́͏ ̮͍͋͊ ›͎ӄ͏ ͉͆̿ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ Ѩ͈ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏ ́‫͏ق‬

JOSHUA 14:8–15:8

49

the people, but I for my part was joined to following Lord my god. And Moses swore in that day, saying “The land on which you trod will be for you as allotment, and for your children, till the age, because you were joined to following behind Lord our god.” And now Lord sustained me the way he said; this the forty-fifth year since Lord spoke this word to Moses, and Israel went in the desert. And now see – I today am eighty five years old; I am still today powerful just as when Moses sent me o֎, so now am I powerful to go in and go out for war; and now I am claiming of you this mountain, as Lord said on that day; because you yourself have heard this word on that day. At the moment, however, the Enakeim are there, cities strong and great; if therefore Lord be with me, I will destroy them the way Lord said to me. And Jesus blessed him and gave ΖebrŌn to Ζaleb son of Iep˰onnē son of Kenez as [al]lot[ment]. On account of this ΖebrŌn came to be for Ζaleb son of Iep˰onnē the Kenezai as allotment until this day, because he followed the ordinance of Lord god of Israel. Now the name of ΖebrŌn was formerly city [of ] Argob: this the metropolis of the Enakeim. And the land grew weary of war.

63. Iouda’s borders (15:1–12) And the borders of tribe [of ] Iouda [ Judah] came about by their clans from the borders of Judaea from the desert of Sein as far as Kadēs [Kadesh] southwards. And their borders from the south came into being as far as part of the salt sea, from the ridge bearing southwards. And they are passing across opposite the ascent of Akrabein, and they make a detour at Ennak, and are going up on the south to Kadēs Barnē, and are ‘marching out’ AsŌrŌn, and ascending to Sarada, and ‘marching out’ Kadēs to the west, and ‘marching out’ towards SelmŌnan, and proceeding as far as ravine of Egypt, and the outlet of his borders shall be towards the sea; this is their borders from the south. And the borders from the ‘rising’: all the salt sea till the Jordan. And their borders from the north and from the ridge of the sea, and from the part of the Jordan the borders are lighting on Baiϑaglaam, and going past on the north upon Baiϑaraba, and the borders are ascending on stone [of ] BaiŌn son of Roubēn; and the borders are ascending on the quarter of the ravine AΗŌr, and descending on Taagad which is opposite the access [of ] Addamein which is south of the ravine, and will proceed as far as the water of sunspring and its outlet will be spring RŌgēl; and the borders are going up to ravine Onom to the south of Iebous from south, this is Ierousalēm, and the borders are departing to crest of mountain which is in face of

50

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 63–65

̰͓͇̿̿̓͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͎͎̀‫ ـ‬9 ͈̿ӂ ͇͈͂̓̀ҽ͉͉͇̓ ͑ӄ ҙ͎͇͍̓͋ ј›ӄ ͈͍͎͓͒‫ ن͍͑ ͏ق‬Ҙ͎͍͒͏ Ѩ›ӂ ›́ͅӀ͋ ҥ͍͂̿͑͏ ̫͓͖̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ͇͈͂̓̀ҽ͉͉͇̓ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ Ҙ͎͍͏ ̤͓͎͖͋ ͈̿ӂ ќ͇͌̓ ͑ӄ ҙ͎͇͍̓͋ ̨͉̓̀̿̿ ̿ҥ͑ͅ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ ̨͎͇̿̓͊ 10 ͈̿ӂ ›͎͇͉̓̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ҙ͎͇͍̓͋ ј›ӄ ̡͉̿̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͉̿̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ̓҄͏ Ҙ͎͍͏ ̠͎͐͐̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͋Ӊ͍͑͒ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ̨͎͇̿̓͋ ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫̿ ـ‬ҥ͑ͅ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̵͉͖̿͐͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ̯Ӆ͉͇͋ ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͉̿̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͉Ӄ̀̿ 11 ͈̿ӂ ͇͈͉͂̓̀̿̓‫͑ ل‬ӄ ҙ͎͇͍̓͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͋Ӊ͍͑͒ ̠͈͈͎͖̿͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͎͎̀‫͈̿ ͋ـ‬ӂ ͇͈͉͂̓̀̿̓‫͑ ل‬Ҽ ҙ͎͇̿ ̓҄͏ ̱͍͈͔͖͆ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͉̿̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ җ͎͇̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͉Ӄ̀̿ ͈̿ӂ ͇͈͉͂̓̀̿̓‫ ل‬Ѩ›ӂ ̢̓͊͋̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͎̓Ӄ͖͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ 12 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ͉͆̿ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ѵ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿ ѵ ͊̓́ҽ͉ͅ ҕ͎͇̓‫͑ ̿͑ن̿͑ ل‬Ҽ ҙ͎͇̿ ͒҅‫͈ ̨͍̿͂͒ ͋و‬Ӈ͈͉Զ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ 64. Ζaleb again (15:13–19) 13 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ̨͍͓͋͋̓ͅ ى҅͒ ̵͉̀̓̿ ى‬Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ͎͊̓Ӄ͂̿ Ѩ͋ ͊ҿ͐Զ ͒҅‫̨͍̿͂͒ ͋و‬ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐͑ҽ͍́͊̿͑͏ ͍͑‫͈̿ ن͍̓͆ ن‬ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ̠͎͍͈̀ ͎͊͑ͅӅ›͍͉͇͋ ̤͈͋̿ ̿ҥ͑ͅ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ 14 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̓͋ Ѩ͈̓‫̵͉̀̓̿ ͋̓͆ل‬ ͒҅ӄ͏ ̨͓͍̓͋͋ͅ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͎͑̓‫͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ӆ͏ ̤͈͋̿ ͑ӄ͋ ̱͍͇͒͐̓ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̧͍͉͇̿͊̓ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̠͔͇̓͊̿ 15 ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ̀ͅ Ѩ͈̓‫ ̵͉̀̓̿ ͋̓͆ل‬Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫͑ ͎͇̣̓̀̿ ͏̿͑͋ن‬ӄ ͂Ҿ Ҙ͍͋͊̿ ̣͇͎̿̀̓ ‫͑ ͋إ‬ӄ ›͎Ӆ͎͍͑̓͋ ̯Ӆ͉͇͏ ͎́̿͊͊ҽ͖͑͋ 16 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ̵͉̀̓̿ ͋̓›ة‬җ͏ ѨҼ͋ ͉ҽ̀Ԍ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈͈Ӆ͕Ԍ ͑Ӏ͋ ̯Ӆ͉͇͋ ͑‫͎͊͊̿́ ͋و‬ҽ͖͑͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈͎͇͒̓Ӈ͐Ԍ ̿Ҡ͑‫͏ق‬ ͂Ӊ͖͐ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ى‬Ӏ͋ ̠͔͐̿͋ ͆͒́̿͑ҿ͎̿ ͍͊͒ ̓҄͏ ́͒͋̿‫ ͈̿ل‬17 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͍͍͇͉͆͋ͅ ͒҅ӄ͏ ̩̓͋̓̈́ ј͉͓͂̓ӄ͏ ̵͉̿̓̀ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ى‬Ӏ͋ ̠͔͐̿͋ ͆͒́̿͑ҿ͎̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͈̿ل̿͋͒́ ن‬18 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ͈͐›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͐͆̿ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍͉͐͒͋̓̀͒̓Ӈ͍͐̿͑ ̿Ҡ͑‫͉ ى‬ҿ͍́͒͐̿ ̿҄͑Ӂ͍͇͐͊̿ ͑ӄ͋ ›̿͑ҿ͎̿ ͍͊͒ ј͎́Ӆ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ̀Ӆ͐̓͋ͅ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫ ن‬Ҙ͍͋͒ ͈̿ӂ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͑‫͑ ̵͉̀̓̿ ك‬Ӄ Ѩ͐͑Ӄ͋ ͍͇͐ 19 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͑‫ى‬ ͂Ӆ͏ ͍͇͊ ̓Ҡ͉͍́Ӄ̿͋ ҙ͇͑ ̓҄͏ ́‫͂ ̬̀̓́̿ ͋ق‬ҿ͖͈͂ҽ͏ ͊̓ ͂Ӆ͏ ͍͇͊ ͑Ӏ͋ ̡͍͇͆͆̿͋̓͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ̵͉̀̓̿ ك‬Ӏ͋ ̢͍͇͉͋̿͆̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ќ͖͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͍͇͉͋̿͆̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈ҽ͖͑ 65. Iouda’s towns (15:20–63) 20 ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͓͉͒‫ ̨͍̿͂͒ ͋و҅͒ ͏ق‬21 Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆͐̿͋ͅ ͂Ҿ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ͋و‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ›͎ӄ͏ ͑‫ ̨͍̿͂͒ ͋و҅͒ ك͉͓͒ ك‬Ѩ͓Ԇ ҕ͎Ӄ͖͋ ̤͖͂͊ Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫ ͏ق‬Ѩ͎Ӂ͍͊͒ ̩͇͇͉͉̿̀̿͐̓̓ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̠͎̿ ͈̿ӂ ̠͖͎͐ 22 ͈̿ӂ ̨͈̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ̰̓́͊̿ ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͍͉͒ͅ 23 ͈̿ӂ ̩̿͂ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ ̠͍͎͇͖͇͐͋̿͋ 24 ͈̿ӂ ̫͇̿͋̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ̡͉͇̿͊̿͋̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ 25 ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̠͎͖͐̓͋ ̿ҥ͑ͅ ̠͖͎͐ 26 ͈̿ӂ ̱͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̱͉̿͊̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̫͖͉̿͂̿ 27 ͈̿ӂ ̱͎͇̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͓͉̿̿̿͂ 28 ͈̿ӂ ̵͍͉͖͉̿͐̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͎͐̿̀̓̓ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬29 ̡͉̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͈͖͈̿ ͈̿ӂ ̠͍͐͊ 30 ͈̿ӂ ̤͉͖̀͒͂̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͉̿͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̤͎͊̿ 31 ͈̿ӂ ̱͈͉͈̓̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ̫͔͎͇̿̿̓͊ ͈̿ӂ ̱͈̓͆̓͋͋̿ 32 ͈̿ӂ ̪͖̿̀͏ ͈̿ӂ ̱͉̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̤͎͖͖͊͆ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈͆Ԇ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬33 Ѩ͋ ͑‫͉͖̠̿͑͐ ك͇͋͂̓› ك‬ ͈̿ӂ ̰̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̠͐͐̿ 34 ͈̿ӂ ̰̿͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̲͖̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̨͉͍͖͒͆͆ ͈̿ӂ ̫͇͇̿̿͋̓ 35 ͈̿ӂ ̨͎͍̓͊͒͆ ͈̿ӂ ̮͍͉͉͂̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ̫͎̓͊̀̿ ͈̿ӂ ̱͖͔͖̿ ͈̿ӂ ̨͈̿̈́̿ͅ 36 ͈̿ӂ ̱͈͎͇̿̿̓͊

JOSHUA 15:8–15:36

51

ravine Onom seawards, which is by side of land [of ] Rap˰aein northwards; and the border is proceeding from crest of the mountain to water-spring Map˰ϑŌ, and proceeding to the mountain Ep˰rŌn, and the border will lead to Iebaal, this is city [of] Iareim; and border will proceed round from Baal seawards, and will proceed on to mount Assar at rear, city Iarein to the north, this is ΖaslŌn, and it will descend to sun-city, and pass by to south; and the border will proceed down from rear [of ] AkkarŌn to north, and the border will proceed to SokΗŌϑ, and borders will pass by to the south, and proceed on Lemna, and the exit of the borders will be on the sea. And their borders seawards: the great sea will be border. These are the borders of sons of Iouda round about by their clans. 64. Ζaleb again (15:13–19) And to Ζaleb son of Iep˰onnē he gave a portion in midst of sons of Iouda through ordinance of the god, and Jesus gave him the city Arbok metropolis of Enak, this is ΖebrŌn. And Ζaleb son of Iep˰onnē destroyed from there the three sons of Enak, Sousei and ϐoalmei and AΗeima. And Ζaleb went up from there against those inhabiting Dabeir; now the name of Dabeir was formerly City of Letters. And Ζaleb said, ‘Whoever takes and knocks out the City of the Letters and masters it, I will give him AsΗa my daughter to wife. And Goϑoniēl [Othniel] son of Kenez brother of Ζaleb took it; and he gave him AsΗa his daughter as wife. And it came to be when she was proceeding out she consulted with him saying ‘I shall ask of my father a field’; and she roared from the donkey. And Ζaleb said to her, ‘What’s with you?’ And she said to him, ‘Give me a blessing; because you have given me into Nageb land, give me the Boϑϑaneis.’ And he gave her Gonaiϑla the upper and Gonaiϑla the lower. 65. Iouda’s towns (15:20–63) This is the inheritance of tribe of sons of Iouda. Now their cities came to be: cities belonging to the tribe of sons of Iouda near borders of Edom near the desert – Kaibaiseleēl, and Ara and AsŌr and Ikam and Regma and Arouēl and Kadēs and AsoriŌnain and Mainam and Balmainan and their villages, and the cities AserŌn (this is AsŌr) and Sēn and Salmaa and MŌlada and Serei and Baip˰alad and ΖolaseŌla and Bērsabee and their villages and their bothies, Bala and BaΗŌk and Asom and ElbŌudad and Baiϑēl and Erma and Sekelak and MaΗareim and Seϑennak and LabŌs and Salē and ErŌmŌϑ, 29 cities and their villages. In the plain AstaŌl and Raa and Assa and Ramen and TanŌ and IlouϑŌϑ and Maianei and Iermouϑ and Odollam and Membra and SaŌΗŌ and Iazēka and Sakareim and Gadēra

52

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 65–67

͈̿ӂ ̢͎̿͂̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͑ҿ͎͐͐̿̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫͇̿͊و‬ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬37 ̱̓͋͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ̠͂̿͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̫̿́̿͂̿ ̢̿͂ 38 ͈̿ӂ ̣͉͉̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̫͓̿͐̿ ͈̿ӂ ̨͈͎͉̿̿̓ͅ 39 ͈̿ӂ ̫͔̿ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ ̡͖̿͐͂͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̨͉͂̓̿͂̿̓̿ 40 ͈̿ӂ ̵͎̿̀̿ ͈̿ӂ ̫͔̿̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ̫͔͖̿̿͏ 41 ͈̿ӂ ̢͖͎̓͂͂ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͉̿́̿͂ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̬͖͊̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̫͈̿͂̿͋ͅ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈͂̓̿Ҿ͌ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬42 ̪̓͊͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ̨͈͆̿ 43 ͈̿ӂ ̠͖͔͋ ͈̿ӂ ̨̿͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ̬͇̿͐̓̀ 44 ͈̿ӂ ̩͇͉̓̓̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ̠͈͇͇̓̈́̓ ͈̿ӂ ̩͇̓̈́̓̀ ͈̿ӂ ̡͎̿͆͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̠͇͉͖͋ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬45 ̠͈͈͎͖̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ̿҅ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬46 ј›ӄ ̠͈͈͎͖̿͋ ̢̓͊͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ›‫ ͇̿͐ـ‬ҙ͇͐̿ ̓҄͐ӂ͋ ›͉͐ͅӃ͍͋ ̠͖͐͂͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬47 ̠͇͖͐̓̓͂͆ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ̿҅ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫̢ ͏ق‬ҽ̈́̿ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ̿҅ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬ѭ͖͏ ͍͑‫͇͔͊̓ ن‬ҽ͎͎͍͒ ̠҄́Ӈ›͍͑͒ ͈̿ӂ ѵ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿ ѵ ͊̓́ҽ͉ͅ ͇͍͎͂Ӄ͇̈́̓ 48 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ҕ͎͇̓͋‫͈̿ ͎͇̱̓͊̿ ك‬ӂ ̨͎̓͆̓ ͈̿ӂ ̱͖͔̿ 49 ͈̿ӂ ̰̓͋͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ̯Ӆ͉͇͏ ͎́̿͊͊ҽ͖͑͋ ̿ҥ͑ͅ ̣͇͎̿̀̓ 50 ͈̿ӂ ̠͖͋͋ ͈̿ӂ ̤͈͇͐̿͊̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̠͇͐̿͊ 51 ͈̿ӂ ̢͍͍͐͊ ͈̿ӂ ̵͉͍̿͒ ͈̿ӂ ̵̿͋͋̿ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ѭ͈͋͂̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫͇̿͊و‬ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬52 ̠͇͎̓͊ ͈̿ӂ ̰̓͊͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ̱͍͊̿ 53 ͈̿ӂ ̨͇̓͊̿̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͔͍̿͆̿͒ ͈̿ӂ ̴͈͍̿͒̿ 54 ͈̿ӂ ̤͒͊̿ ͈̿ӂ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ ̠͎͍͈̀ ̿ҥ͑ͅ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ̱͖͎͆ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ Ѩ͋͋ҿ̿ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬55 ̫͖͎̿ ͈̿ӂ ̵͎͉̓͊̓ ͈̿ӂ ̮͇̈́̓̀ ͈̿ӂ ̨͑̿͋ 56 ͈̿ӂ ̨͎͇͉̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̨͎͇͈̿̓̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ̥͈͇̿̿͋̿̓͊ 57 ͈̿ӂ ̢̿̀̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̧̿͊͋̿͆̿ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ Ѩ͋͋ҿ̿ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬58 ̠͉͍͒̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͍͎̿͆͐͒ ͈̿ӂ ̢͖̓͂͂͋ 59 ͈̿ӂ ̫͎͖̿́̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇̿͆̿͋̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ̧͈͍̓͒͊ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ѫ͌ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫[ ͋و‬1] ̧͈͖̓ ͈̿ӂ ̤͓͎̿͆̿ ̿ҥ͑ͅ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̡͇͉̿͆̓̓͊ ͈̿ӂ ̴͖͎̿́ ͈̿ӂ ̠͇͑̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̩͍͉͍͒͋ ͈̿ӂ ̲̿͑̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ̤͖̀ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ ̩͎̿̓͊ ͈̿ӂ ̢͉̿̓͊ ͈̿ӂ ̧͎̓͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̫͍͔͖̿͋ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ѭ͈͋͂̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫͇̿͊و‬ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬60 ̩͎͇͉̿̿͆̀̿̿ ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ ̨͎͇̿̓͊ ͈̿ӂ ̱͖͆̀̿ͅ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂Ӈ͍ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬61 ͈̿ӂ ̡͎͇̿͂͂̿́̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ̧͎̿̿̀̿̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ̠͇͖͋͋ ͈̿ӂ ̠͇͔͇͍̈́̿ 62 ͈̿ӂ ̬͓͉͖̿̿̈́͋ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̱͖̿͂͊ ͈̿ӂ ̠͈͋̿͂ͅ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ѩ›͑Ҽ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫͇̿͊و‬ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬63 ͈̿ӂ ҕ ̨͍̓̀͒͐̿‫͈͑̿ ͏͍ل‬Է͈͇̓ Ѩ͋ ̨͎͍͉̓͒͐̿͊ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѵ͂͒͋ҽ͐͆͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͍͒͂̿ ј›͍͉ҿ͇͐̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑Է͈͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ̨͍̓̀͒͐̿‫ ͇͍ل‬Ѩ͋ ̨͎͍͉̓͒͐̿͊ͅ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͏ق‬ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋ͅ͏ 66. IŌsēp˰’s borders (16:1–4) 1 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ͒҅‫ ̨͓͖͐ͅ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͍͑‫͈͑̿ ن‬Ҽ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ј›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ј͋̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ ј›ӄ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ Ҕ͎͇̓͋Ӏ͋ ͑Ӏ͋ Ѭ͎͍͊͋ͅ ̓҄͏ ̡͇͉̿͆ͅ ̢͍͒̈́̿ 2 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͉͌̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ̓҄͏ ̡͇͉̿͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͉̿̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ͍͑‫ ̵͇͖͎̓͆̿͑̿ ن‬3 ͈̿ӂ ͇͉͂̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̠›͉͇͑̿̓͊ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͎Ӄ͖͋ ̡͇͖͎͖̿͆͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈ҽ͖͑ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ 4 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈͉͎͍͋ͅӅ͊͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͖͓͐ͅ ̤͓͎͇̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ 67. Ephraim’s borders (16:5–10) 5 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ͒҅‫͈͑̿ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ͋و‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ͑‫͍͍͎͉͈͊͋ͅ ͏ق‬Ӄ̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫͈̿ ͖͎̠͆̿͑͐ ͋و‬ӂ ̤͎͍͈ ѭ͖͏

JOSHUA 15:36–16:5

53

and its bothies, fourteen cities and their villages; Senna and Adasan and Magada Gad and Dalal and Masp˰a and Iakareēl and MaΗēs and BasēdŌϑ and Ideadalea and Ζabra and MaΗes and MaaΗŌs and GeddŌr and Bagadiēl and NŌman and Makēdan, sixteen cities and their villages; Lemna and Iϑak and AnŌΗ and Iana and Naseib and Keeilam and Akiezei and Kezeib and Baϑēsar and AilŌn, ten cities and their villages; AkkarŌn and its villages and their bothies; from AkkarŌn, Gemna and all that are near AsēdŌϑ and their villages; AseiedŌϑ and its villages and its bothies; Gaza and its villages and its bothies up to the winter-torrent of Egypt; and the Great Sea is separating. And in the hill-country Sameir and Ieϑer and SŌΗa and Renna and City of Letters, this is Dabeir, and AnŌn and Eskaiman and Aisam and Gosom and Ζalou and Ζanna, eleven cities and their villages; Airem and Remna and Soma and Iemaein and BaiϑaΗou and P˰akoua and Euma and city [of ] Arbok, this is ΖebrŌn, and SŌrϑ, nine cities and their bothies; MaŌr and Ζermel and Ozeib and Itan and Iariēl and Iareikam and Zakanaeim and Gabaa and ϐamnaϑa, nine cities and their villages; Aloua and Baiϑsour and GeddŌn and MagarŌϑ and Baiϑanam and ϐekoum, six cities and their villages; ϐekŌ and Ep˰raϑa, this is Baiϑleem, and P˰agŌr and Aitan and Koulon and Tatam and EŌbēs and Karem and Galem and ϐeϑēr and ManoΗŌ, eleven cities and their villages; Kariaϑbaal, this the city Iareim, and SŌϑēba, two cities and their bothies; and Baddargeis and ϐarabaam and AinŌn and AiΗioza and Nap˰lazŌn and the cities SadŌm and AnKadēs, seven cities and their villages. And the Iebousai was dwelling in Ierousalēm, and the sons of Iouda could not destroy them; and the Iebousai dwelt in Ierousalēm up to that day.

66. IŌsēp˰’s borders (16:1–4) And the borders of sons of IŌsēp˰ [ Joseph] came into being from the Jordan near IereiΗŌ from [sun]rise; and they will ascend from IereiΗŌ into the hill-country (the desert) to Baiϑēl Louza, and they will go out to Baiϑēl and will pass by to the borders of the ΖatarŌϑei, and will pass through towards the sea up to the borders of Aptaleim as far as the borders of BaiϑŌrŌn the lower, and their outlet will be to the sea. And the sons of IŌsēp˰ inherited, Ep˰raim and Manassē. 67. Ephraim’s borders (16:5–10) And borders of sons of Ep˰raim came about by their clans; and the borders of their inheritance came to be, from [sun]rise, AstarŌϑ and Erok

54

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 67–69

̡͇͖͎͖̿͆͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ќ͖͋ ͈̿ӂ ̢͎̿̈́̿̿ 6 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͉̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ̓҄͏ ̨͈͖̿͐͊͋ ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫͉͇͎̓̓̓› ̧͎̿͊̓ ـ‬Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ј͍͉͋̿͑Ҽ͏ ̓҄͏ ̧͋̿͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̱͉͉̓͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͉̿̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ј›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ̨͈͖̿͋̿ ͏҄̓ ͋و‬7 ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͏ ̫͔͖̿ ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͖͐͑̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͉̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ͇͈͉͂̓̀̿̓‫ل‬ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ 8 ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ̲͓͍̿͒ ›͍͎̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ Ѩ›ӂ ̵͉͈̓̿͋̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ›ӂ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͓͉͒‫͈͑̿ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ͏ق‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬9 ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̿҅ ј͓͍͎͇͐͆̓‫͏ل͍͑ ͇̿͐ل‬ ͍͒҅‫ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ͏ل‬ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ͑‫͍͍͎͉͈͊͋ͅ ͏ق‬Ӄ̿͏ ͒҅‫› ҅̿ ͇̿͐ـ› ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͋و‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬10 ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ ј›Ӊ͉̓͐̓͋ ̤͓͎͇̿͊ ͑ӄ͋ ̵̿͋̿͋̿‫͑ ͍͋ل‬ӄ͋ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫ ̿͑͋ن‬Ѩ͋ ̢͎̿̈́̓ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑Է͈͇̓ ҕ ̵̿͋̿͋̿‫ ͏͍ل‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ى‬ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͏ق‬ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͑̿Ӈ͑ͅ͏ ѭ͖͏ ј͋ҿ̀ͅ ̴͎͖̿̿ ͇͉̀̿͐̓ӆ͏ ̠҄́Ӈ›͍͑͒ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ҿ›͎͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ›͎͒Ӄ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ̵̿͋̿͋̿Ӄ͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ̴͎̓̓̈́̿Ӄ͍͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫ ͏̿͑͋ن‬Ѩ͋ ̢͎̿̈́̓ Ѩ͈͌̓ҿ͋͑͐̿͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ̴͎͖̿̿ Ѩ͋ ͓͎̓͋‫͎͑̿́͒͆ ك͑ ك‬ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ن‬ 68. Manassē in summary (17:1–2) 1 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̿ ͓͉͒‫ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͏ق‬ҙ͇͑ ͍‫͖͎͑› ͏͍͑خ‬Ӆ͍͈͍͑͏ ͑‫͍͖͎͑͑› ͎͇͔̫̓̿ ى͑ ̨͓͖͐ͅ ى‬Ӆ͈Զ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ ›͎̿͑ӂ ̢͉̿̿̿͂ ј͋Ӏ͎ ́Ҽ͎ ›͍͉͇̓͊͐͑Ӏ͏ Ѻ͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫̢͉̓͂̿̿̿ ك‬Ӄ͇͇͑͂ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑‫̡̓͋̿͐̿ ك‬Ӄ͇͇͑͂ 2 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ͍͑‫͈͑̿ ͏ل͍›͇͍͉ ͏ل͍͑ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ̨͇̓̈́̓ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل͍͑ ͋و‬ӂ ͍͑‫͈̿ ͉̩̈́̓̓ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ӂ ͍͑‫͈̿ ̨͉͇̓̈́̓ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ӂ ͍͑‫͈̿ ͔̱͊̓͒ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ӂ ͍͑‫͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ ̱͎͇͒͊̿̓͊ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫ ͍҅ ͇͍͑خ͍ ͎͓̮̓ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ќ͎͐̓͋̓͏ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ 69. Manassē: daughters and neighbours (17:3–10b̿) 3 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫͍ ͎͓̮̓ ى҅͒ ͂̿̿›͉̱̿ ى‬Ҡ͈ Ѻ͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍҅͒ ى‬ӂ ј͉͉Ԇ Ѵ ͆͒́̿͑ҿ͎̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑̿‫͑ ̿͑ن‬Ҽ Ҕ͋Ӆ͊̿͑̿ ͑‫͑̿́͒͆ ͋و‬ҿ͎͖͋ ̱͉̿›̿̿͂ ̫͉̿̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̬͍͒̿ ͈̿ӂ ̤͉́̿ ͈̿ӂ ̫͉͔̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ̧͎̓͐̿ 4 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͐͑͐̿͋ͅ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̤͉͎̓̿̈́̿ ͍͑‫͎̓҅ ن‬ҿ͖͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬ј͎͔Ӆ͖͋͑͋ ͉ҿ͍͇́͒͐̿ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ͇͂Ҽ ͔͇͎̓ӄ͏ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͇̿͋ن͍͂ ق‬ѵ͊‫͍͍͎͉͈͊͋ͅ ͋ل‬Ӄ̿͋ Ѩ͋ ͊ҿ͐Զ ͑‫ ͋و‬ј͉͓͂̓‫ ͋و‬ѵ͊‫͋و‬ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͂Ӆ͆ͅ ̿Ҡ͑̿‫͇͂ ͏ل‬Ҽ ›͎͍͐͑ҽ͍́͊̿͑͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈͉‫ ͏͍͎ق‬Ѩ͋ ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬ј͉͓͍͂̓‫ن͍͑ ͏ل‬ ›͎̿͑ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬5 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ›̓͐̓͋ ҕ ͔͍͇͇͐͋͐͊ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ̠͋̿͐͐̿ ͈̿ӂ ›̓͂Ӄ͍͋ ̪͈̿̀̓ Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ̢͉͂̿̿̿ ͏ق‬ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ›ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ 6 ҙ͇͑ ͆͒́̿͑ҿ͎̓͏ ͒҅‫͋و‬ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ Ѩ͈͉͎͍͋ͅӅ͊͐̿͋ͅ ͈͉‫ ͍͎͋ق‬Ѩ͋ ͊ҿ͐Զ ͑‫ ͋و‬ј͉͓͂̓‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ѵ ͂Ҿ ́‫ق‬ ̢͉̿̿̿͂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ͍͑‫͇͉͉͈͊͊̓̿͑̿ ͏ل͍͑ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ҿ͍͇͋͏ 7 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ͒҅‫ ͉̣͆̿͋̿ͅ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͋و‬ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ ͒҅‫͈̿ ̠͆̿͋ ͋و‬ӂ ›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ Ѩ›ӂ ̨͇̿͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̨͇̿͐͐̓̀ Ѩ›ӂ ›́ͅӀ͋ ̧͓͖̿͆͆ 8 ͑‫ى‬ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ͈̿ӂ ̧͓̿̓͆ Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͎Ӄ͖͋ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ ͍͑‫ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬9 ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͓ҽ͎̿́́̿ ̩͎̿̿͋̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͉Ӄ̀̿ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͓ҽ͎̿́́̿ ̨͎͇͉̿ͅ ͎͑̓ҿ͇͍͊͋͆͏ ͑‫ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ى‬ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ›Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ ͈̿ӂ ҙ͎͇̿ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͍͎͎̀‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͋ـ‬ӄ͋ ͔͇̓͊ҽ͎͎͍͒͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏

JOSHUA 16:5–17:9

55

as far as BaiϑŌrŌn the upper and Gazara. And the borders will go towards the sea to IkasmŌn to the north [of ] ϐerma; and will pass towards [sun]rise to ϐēnasa and Sellēsa, and will pass along from [sun]rise to IanŌka and to MaΗŌ and AstarŌϑ, and their villages; and will go to IereiΗŌ, and will proceed through to the Jordan. And from Tap˰ou the borders will go seawards to Ζelkana, and their outlet will be to the sea: this the inheritance of tribe [of ] Ep˰raim by their clans. And the cities marked o֎ for the sons of Ep˰raim midst the inheritance of sons of Manassē, all the cities and their villages. And Ep˰raim did not destroy the Ζananai dwelling in Gazer; and the Ζananai was dwelling in the Ep˰raim up to this day, till P˰araŌ king of Egypt went up and took it and burned it with fire, and the Ζananai and the P˰erezai and those dwelling in Gazer they goaded out; and P˰araŌ gave it as dowry to his daughter. 68. Manassē in summary (17:1–2) And the borders of tribe of sons of Manassē came about, because he was firstborn to IŌsēp˰: to MaΗeir firstborn to Manassē father of Galaad, for he was a man of war, in the Galaadeitis and in the Basaneitis – and they came about for the remaining sons of Manassē by their clans, for the sons of Iezei and for the sons of Kelez and for the sons of Iezeiēl and for the sons of SuΗem and for the sons of Sumareim and for the sons of Op˰er: these the males by their clans. 69. Manassē: daughters and neighbours (17:3–10b̿) And as for Salpaad [Zelophehad] son of Op˰er, he had not sons but rather daughters; and these the names of the daughters of Salpaad: Maala and Noua and Egla and MelΗa and ϐersa. And they stood opposite Eleazar the priest and opposite Jesus and opposite the rulers, saying ‘The god commanded by hand of Moses to give us an inheritance amidst our brothers.’ And a lot was given them by ordinance of Lord among the brothers of their father. And their measured line fell from Anassa, and plain [of ] Labek from the Galaad which is on the other side of the Jordan; because daughters of sons of Manassē inherited an allotment amidst their brothers. Now the land of Galaad came to be for the remaining sons of Manassē. And borders of sons of Manassē came to be Dēlanaϑ, which is in face of sons of Anaϑ, and is proceeding as far as the borders as far as Iamein; and Iasseib as far as spring ϐap˰ϑŌϑ will be for Manassē, and ϐafeϑ on the borders of Manassē for the sons of Ep˰raim. And the borders will descend as far as ravine Karana southwards down ravine Iariēl, a terebinth for Ep˰raim amidst a city of Manassē; and borders of Manassē

56

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 69–74

͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿ 10 ј›ӄ ͉͇̀ӄ͏ ͑‫͈̿ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ى‬ӂ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͎͎̀‫͈̿ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͋ـ‬ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ Ѩ›ӂ ̨̿͐̀ͅ ͐͒͋ҽ͕͍͇͒͐͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͎͎̀‫͋ـ‬

70. Cities and dispossession (17:10b̀–13) 10b̀ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ̨͎͔̿̿͐͐ ى‬ј›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͋و‬11 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ Ѩ͋ ̨͔͎͐͐̿̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ̠͎͐ͅ ̩͇͍̿͆̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫͈̿ ͎͖̣ ͏̿͑͋ن‬ӂ ͑Ҽ͏ ͈Ӊ͊̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫͈̿ ͖̫͂͂̓́̿ ͏̿͑͋ن‬ӂ ͑Ҽ͏ ͈Ӊ͊̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͏ق‬ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ͎͑Ӄ͍͑͋ ͑‫͈̿ ͓̫̿͑̓̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑Ҽ͏ ͈Ӊ͊̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬12 ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѵ͂͒͋ҽ͐͆͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓‫͑ ͇̿͐ن‬Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑̿Ӈ͑̿͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѹ͎͔͍̓͑ ҕ ̵̿͋̿͋̿‫͏͍ل‬ ͈͍͇͈̿͑̓‫ ͋ل‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫̿͑ ك́ ك‬Ӈ͑Ԍ 13 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›̓ӂ ͈̿͑Ӄ͔͐͒͐̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͍͑ӆ͏ ̵̿͋̿͋̿Ӄ͍͒͏ ҡ›͈ͅӅ͍͒͏ Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓‫͂ ͇̿͐ن‬Ҿ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋ 71. IŌsēp˰’s plea (17:14) 14 ј͋͑̓‫͂ ͋̿›ل‬Ҿ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͖͓͐ͅ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͉ ن‬ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ ͇͂Ҽ ͑Ӄ Ѩ͈͉͎͍͋ͅӅ͊͐̿ͅ͏ ѵ͊‫ ͍͎͋ق͉͈ ͏ـ‬ѭ͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ͔͍͐Ӄ͇͋͐͊̿ ѭ͋ Ѩ́ӈ ͂Ҿ ͉̿ӄ͏ ›͍͉Ӈ͏ ͇̓҄͊ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ̓Ҡ͉Ӆ́͐ͅҿ͋ ͊̓ 72. Jesus and IŌsēp˰ (17:15–18) 15 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͉̿ ҄̓ ͏ن‬ӄ͏ ›͍͉ӆ͏ ̓‫ ة‬ј͋ҽ͇̀͆ͅ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ͋ ͎͂͒͊ӄ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈͈ҽ͎͍͆̿͋ ͐̓̿͒͑‫͑ ̓͐ ل͎͖͔͍̓͋̓͑͐ ҄̓ ى‬ӄ Ҙ͎͍͏ ͑ӄ ̤͓͎͇̿͊ 16 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͋̿›ة‬ ͍Ҡ͈ ј͎ҿ͈͇͐̓ ѵ͊‫͑ ͋ل‬ӄ Ҙ͎͍͏ ͑ӄ ̤͓͎͇̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ҉››͍͏ Ѩ›Ӄ͉͈͍̓͑͏ ͈̿ӂ ͐Ӄ͎͍͂ͅ͏ ͑‫̵̿͋̿͋̿ ى‬ӃԶ ͑‫ ͇͑͋ن͍͈͇͍͈͑̿ ى‬Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ͋ ̡͇͇̿͆̿͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑̿‫͈ ͏ل‬Ӊ͇͊̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫͉͇͍͈ ك‬ҽ͇͂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ 17 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫҄̓ ̨͓͖͐ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ن‬ ͉̿ӄ͏ ›͍͉ӆ͏ ̓‫͈̿ ة‬ӂ ͔҄͐ӆ͋ ͊̓́ҽ͉͋ͅ Ѭ͔͇̓͏ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ͍͇͐ ͈͉‫ ͏ت̓ ͏͍͎ق‬18 ҕ ́Ҽ͎ ͎͂͒͊ӄ͏ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ͍͇͐ ҙ͇͑ ͎͂͒͊Ӆ͏ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈͈͎͇̿͆̿̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ͍͇͐ ͈̿ӂ ҙ͑̿͋ Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͐Ԍ͏ ͑ӄ͋ ̵̿͋̿͋̿‫ ͍͋ل‬ҙ͇͑ ҉››͍͏ Ѩ›Ӄ͉͈̓͑Ӆ͏ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ى‬ ͐ӆ ́Ҽ͎ ҡ›͎͇͔̓͐Ӈ͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑͒ 73. Contrasts at SēlŌ (18:1–2) 1 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈͈͉͇͌̓͐ͅҽ͐͆ͅ ›‫͖́́̿͋͒͐ ̿͐ـ‬Ӏ ͒҅‫͈̿ ͖͉̱ͅ ͏҄̓ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و‬ӂ Ѭ›͌̿͋ͅ Ѩ͈̓‫͑ ل‬Ӏ͋ ͈͐͋ͅӀ͋ ͍͑‫͎͎͒͑̿͊ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ѵ ́‫ ق‬Ѩ͈͎̿͑Ӂ͆ͅ ҡ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬2 ͈̿ӂ ͈͉̿͑̓̓Ӄ͓͆͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͍҇ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͈͉͎͍͋ͅӅ͊͐̿͋ͅ ѩ›͑Ҽ ͓͉͒̿Ӄ

74. Jesus proposes a solution (18:3–8a) 3 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ن‬ѭ͖͏ ͑Ӄ͍͋͏ Ѩ͈͉͒͆Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅ‫ق‬͇͐̿ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬ѷ͋ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬4 ͂Ӆ͑̓ Ѩ͌ ҡ͊‫ ͏ل͎̓͑ ͋و‬ќ͎͋͂̿͏ Ѩ͈ ͓͉͒‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ј͋̿͐͑ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͇͉͂̓͆ҿ͖͑͐̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫͈̿ ͋ق‬ӂ ͇͎͕͂̿́̿ҽ͖͑͐̿͋

JOSHUA 17:9–18:4

57

to the north [in]to the winter-torrent. And his outlet will be sea: from south for Ep˰raim and northwards Manassē; and the sea will be borders for them; and as far as Iasēb they will connect to the north. 70. Cities and dispossession (17:10b̀–13) And Manassē will belong even to IssaΗar from [sun]rise; and in IssaΗar and in Asēr, Kaiϑoan and their villages, and the inhabitants of DŌr and its villages and the inhabitants of MageddŌ and its villages and the third of Map˰eta and its villages. And the sons of Manassē could not destroy these cities utterly; and the Ζananai was beginning to be an inhabitant in this land. And it came about and since the sons of Israel became strong, and they made the Ζananai subject, but destroying them utterly they did not destroy them. 71. IŌsēp˰’s plea (17:14) Now the sons of IŌsēp˰ responded to Jesus, saying ‘Why have you allotted us one lot and one measure? But I for my part am a large people, and the god has blessed me.’ 72. Jesus and IŌsēp˰ (17:15–18) And Jesus said to them, ‘If you are a large people, go up into the forest and clear [it] out for yourself, if the Ep˰raim mountain a֑icts you.’ And they said, ‘The Ep˰raim mountain does not please us; and, for the Ζananai who is dwelling in it in Baiϑaisan and in its villages in the deep valley of Israel – picked horse and iron. And Jesus said to the sons of IŌsēp˰, ‘If you are a large people and have great strength, one lot shall not be yours, for the forest shall be yours. Because it is forest, and you shall clear it out and it shall be yours; and whenever you destroy the Ζananai utterly (because picked horse is his), for you are stronger than him . . . 73. Contrasts at SēlŌ (18:1–2) And the whole assembly of sons of Israel was summoned forth to SēlŌ [Shiloh], and they brought on there the tent of the testimony, and the land was overcome by them. And left remaining were the sons of Israel who did not receive lots: seven tribes. 74. Jesus proposes a solution (18:3–8a) And Jesus said to the sons of Israel, ‘Till what point will you be too relaxed to inherit the land which Lord our god gave? Provide from you[rselves] three men from a tribe, and rising up let them go through

58

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 74–76

̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ͍͊͒ ͈̿͆Ҽ ͂̓Ӂ͇͐̓ ͇͉͂̓͆̓‫̿ ͋ل‬Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѹ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͋ 5 ͈̿ӂ ͇͂̓‫̿ ͉͋̓ل‬Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬ѩ›͑Ҽ ͎͊̓Ӄ͂̿͏ ̨͍͒͂̿͏ ͐͑Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬ҙ͎͇͍͋ ј›ӄ ͉͇̀Ӆ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͖͓͐ͅ ͐͑Ӂ͍͇͐͋͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫ ـ‬6 ҡ͊̓‫͂ ͏ل‬Ҿ ͎͊̓Ӄ͐̿͑̓ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬ѩ›͑Ҽ ͎͊̓Ӄ͂̿͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ҿ͈́̿͑̓ ›͎Ӆ͏ ͊̓ ‫͈̿ ̓͂ر‬ӂ Ѩ͍͌Ӄ͖͐ ҡ͊‫͍͎͋ق͉͈ ͋ل‬ Ѭ͇͋̿͋͑ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬7 ͍Ҡ ́ҽ͎ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͎͊̓ӂ͏ ͍͑‫ ̢͇̓͒̓ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬Ѩ͋ ҡ͊‫͎̓͑̿̓҅ ͋ل‬Ӄ̿ ́Ҽ͎ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͎͊̓ӂ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ͓͉͒‫ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬Ѩ͉ҽ͍̀͐̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ͋و‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ Ѩ›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑ҽ͏ ѷ͋ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ق͖̫͐͒ ͏ل‬ҕ ›̿‫͎̩͒ ͏ل‬Ӄ͍͒ 8a ͈̿ӂ ј͋̿͐͑ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ќ͎͋͂̓͏ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͐̿͋ͅ 75. The survey completed (18:8b–10) 8b ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ن‬ј͎͋͂ҽ͇͐͋ ͍͑‫͍͎͍͊͒̓› ͏ل‬ҿ͍͇͋͏ ͔͖͎͍̀̿͑‫ق‬͇͐̿ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫͉ ͋ق‬ҿ͖́͋ ›͍͎̓Ӈ̓͐͆̓ ͈̿ӂ ͔͖͎͍̀̿͑Ӂ͐̿͑̓ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫͈̿ ͋ق‬ӂ ›͎̿̿́̓͋Ӂ͆͑̓ͅ ›͎Ӆ͏ ͊̓ ͈̿ӂ ‫ ̓͂ر‬Ѩ͍͌Ӄ͖͐ ҡ͊‫ ͍͎͋ق͉͈ ͋ل‬Ѭ͇͋̿͋͑ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ Ѩ͋ ̱͉͖ͅ 9 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͐̿͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͔͖͎͍̀ҽ͑͐̿͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫͈̿ ͋ق‬ӂ ҈͍͂͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͎͕́̿̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ѩ›͑Ҽ ͎͊̓Ӄ͂̿͏ ̓҄͏ ͇͉̀̀Ӄ͍͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѹ͈͋̓́̿͋ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͋ن‬10 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ҿ͉̀̿̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͍͎͋ق͉͈ ͏ن‬Ѩ͋ ̱͉͖ͅ Ѭ͇͋̿͋͑ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒

76. Beniamein’s lot (18:11–28) 11 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬ҕ ͈͉‫͈͑̿ ͏͍͑و͎› ̡͇͇͋̓͊̿͋̓ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏͍͎ق‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬ҙ͎͇̓̿ ͍͑‫͉͈ ن‬Ӂ͎͍͒ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ̨͍͒͂̿ ͈̿ӂ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ͑‫͋و‬ ͒҅‫ ̨͓͖͐ͅ ͋و‬12 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ͋و‬Ҽ ҙ͎͇̿ ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫ ـ‬ј›ӄ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ›͎͍͐̿͋̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͋Ӊ͍͑͒ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫͈̿ ـ‬ӂ ј͋̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ Ҙ͎͍͏ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ ѵ ̫͎̿͂̀̿̓‫͏͇͑ل‬ ̡͇͖̿͆͋ 13 ͈̿ӂ ͇͉͂̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ͈̓‫͑ ͋̓͆ل‬Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̪͍͒̈́̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͋Ӊ͍͑͒ ̪͍͒̈́̿ ј›ӄ ͉͇̀Ӆ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫̿ ͏ق‬ҥ͑ͅ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̡͇͉̿͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̫͎͖͍͎͔̿̿͑̿͆̓ Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ Ҕ͎͇̓͋Ӂ͋ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ›͎ӄ͏ ͉Ӄ̀̿ ̡͇͖͎͖̿͆͋ ѵ ͈ҽ͖͑ 14 ͈̿ӂ ͇͉͂̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͇͉̓̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ Ҙ͎͍͏ ͑ӄ ͉̀ҿ›͍͋ ›͎̿Ҽ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ј›ӄ ͉͇̀ӄ͏ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن‬Ҙ͎͍͒͏ Ѩ›ӂ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ ̡͇͖͎͖̿͆͋ ͉Ӄ̀̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ ̓҄͏ ̩͎͇͉̿̿͆̀̿̿ ̿ҥ͑ͅ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̩͎͇͇͎͇̿̿͆̿̓͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ ͒҅‫͑ن͍͑ ̨͍̿͂͒ ͋و‬Ӆ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͑ӄ ͊ҿ͎͍͏ ͑ӄ ›͎ӄ͏ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ 15 ͈̿ӂ ͊ҿ͎͍͏ ͑ӄ ›͎ӄ͏ ͉Ӄ̀̿ ј›ӄ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏ ̩͎͇͉̿̿͆̀̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ͇͉͂̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̓҄͏ ̢͇̿͐̓͋ Ѩ›ӂ ›́ͅӀ͋ ҥ͍͂̿͑͏ ̬͓͖̿͆ 16 ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏ ͍͑‫͑ن‬Ӆ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ ͋ҽ›ͅ͏ ̱͍͋͋̿͊ ҙ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ Ѩ͈ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏ ̤͈͎͓͇͊̓̿̿̓͋ ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫͈̿ ـ‬ӂ ͈̿͑̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ ̢͇̿̓͋͋̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͋Ӆ͍͑͋ ̨͍͇̓̀͒͐̿ ј›ӄ ͉͇̀ӄ͏ ͈̿͑̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ›́ͅӀ͋ ̰͖͉́ͅ 17 ͈̿ӂ ͇͉͂̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ›́ͅӀ͋ ̡͇̿͆͐̿͊͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͉̿̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ̢͉͇͖̿̿͆ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ј›ҿ͇͋̿͋͑ ›͎ӄ͏ ј͋ҽ͇̀̿͐͋ ̠͇͇͆̿͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͉Ӄ͍͆͋ ̡͇͖̿͋ ͒҅‫ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ͋و‬18 ͈̿ӂ ͇͉͂̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͋Ӊ͍͑͒ ̡͇͎̿͆̿̿̀̿ ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫͈̿ ـ‬ӂ ͈̿͑̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ 19 Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͋Ӊ͍͑͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫ـ‬

JOSHUA 18:4–18:19

59

the land, and let them describe it facing me as it shall be necessary to go through it.’ And they went through [it] to him, and he separated for them seven parts. ‘Iouda shall stand as a border for them to the south, and the sons of IŌsēp˰ shall stand to the north. But as for you, you partition the land into seven parts and bring to me here, and I shall draw out for you a lot facing Lord our god. For there is no part for the sons of Leuei among you, for priesthood of Lord his part; and Gad and Roubēn and the half of tribe Manassē took their inheritance on the other side of the Jordan to the “[sun]rise”, which Moses Lord’s “boy” gave them.’ And rising up the men went on their way. 75. The survey completed (18:8b–10) And Jesus commanded the men going on their way to survey the land, saying ‘Be going your way and survey the land, and attend on me; and here I shall draw out a lot for you over against Lord in SēlŌ.’ And they went on their way and surveyed the land, and saw it, and wrote it up by cities in seven parts into a book, and brought it to Jesus. And Jesus cast for them a lot in SēlŌ over against Lord. 76. Beniamein’s lot (18:11–28) And the lot of tribe of Beniamein [Benjamin] came out first by their clans; and the borders of their lot came out between Iouda and the sons of IŌsēp˰. And their borders on the north came to be from the Jordan; the borders shall mount up from flank of IereiΗŌ to the north and ascend on to the mountain towards the sea, and its Mabdareitis outlet shall be BaiϑŌn; and from there the borders shall pass through Louza, on the flank of Louza to its south, this is Baiϑēl; and the borders shall descend [to] MaatarŌϑoreΗ on the hill-country, which is southwards [of ] BaiϑŌrŌn the lower; and the borders shall pass through and shall pass by on to the mountain looking over the sea to the south, from the mountain facing BaiϑŌrŌn to the south, and its outlet shall be to Kariaϑbaal, this is Kariaϑiarein, a city of sons of Iouda; this is the seawards part. And [the] southwards part from part [of ] Kariaϑbaal; and the borders shall pass through to Gasein to the water spring Nap˰ϑŌ; and the borders shall descend on part of the mountain which is in face of valley Onnam which is from part of Emekrap˰aein to the north; and will descend Gaienna to south of Iebousai on the south, it shall descend to spring RŌgēl; and shall pass through to spring Baiϑsamus, and shall pass by to GalilŌϑ, which is opposite to ascent Aiϑamain, and shall descend on stone BaiŌn of sons of Roubēn; and shall pass through to flank of Baiϑaraba to the

60

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 76–78

͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͎̓Ӄ͖͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͉͍͓͇Ҽ͋ ͑‫͉̿͆ ͏ق‬ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬љ͉‫ ͋و‬Ѩ›ӂ ͍͎͎̀‫͊ ͏҄̓ ͋ـ‬ҿ͎͍͏ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ј›ӄ ͉͇̀Ӆ͏ ͑̿‫͑ ̿͑ن‬Ҽ ҙ͎͇ҽ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ј›ӄ ͉͇̀Ӆ͏ 20 ͈̿ӂ ҕ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋ͅ͏ ҕ͎͇̓‫ ل‬ј›ӄ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫̿ ͋و‬ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͒҅‫͋و‬ ̡͇͇̓͋̿͊̓͋ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈ ͏ق‬Ӈ͈͉Զ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ 21 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆͐̿͋ͅ ̿҅ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑‫͈͑̿ ̡͇͇͋̓͊̿͋̓ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ̨͖͔͇͎̓̓ ͋و‬ӂ ̡͇͖̓͆̓́̿ ͈̿ӂ ̠͈͇͊̓̿͐̓͏ 22 ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͎̿͆̿̀̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̱͎̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͐̿͋̿ͅ 23 ͈̿ӂ ̠͇͇̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̴͎̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̨͓͎̓̿͆̿ 24 ͈̿ӂ ̩͎͓̿̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̩͓͇͎̓̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ̫͍͇͋̓ ͈̿ӂ ̢̿̀̿̿ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͂Ӈ͍ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬25 ̢͖̿̀̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̰̿͊̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͎͖̓͆̿ͅ 26 ͈̿ӂ ̫̿͐͐͊̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̫͇͎͖̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̠͖͈͊ͅ 27 ͈̿ӂ ̴͇͎̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ̩͓̿̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̬͈̿̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̱͉͈̓̿͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̧͎͉̿̓̿ͅ 28 ͈̿ӂ ̨͍̓̀͒͏ ̿ҥ͑ͅ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̨͎͍͉̓͒͐̿͊ͅ ͈̿ӂ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ̢͖͇͎͇̿̀̿͆̿̓͊ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͎͑̓‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫̿ ͋و‬ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͒҅‫͈͑̿ ̡͇͇͋̓͊̿͋̓ ͋و‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ 77. SumeŌn’s lot (19:1–9) 1 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬ҕ ͂̓Ӈ͎͍͑̓͏ ͈͉‫͈̿ ͖̱͋̓͊͒ ͋و҅͒ ͋و͑ ͏͍͎ق‬ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ͈͉Ӂ͎͖͋ ͒҅‫ ̨͍̿͂͒ ͋و‬2 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ҕ ͈͉‫̿ ͏͍͎ق‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ̡͎̓̓̀̿͐ͅ ͋و‬ӂ ̱̿͊̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̩͖͉̿͂̿͊ 3 ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͖͉͐̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͖͉̿ ͈̿ӂ ̨͍̿͐͊ 4 ͈̿ӂ ̤͉͍͉͆͒̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͍͉͒̿ ͈̿ӂ ̤͎͊̿ 5 ͈̿ӂ ̱͇͈͉͈̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͔͎̿͆͊̿̓̓̀ ͈̿ӂ ̱͎͍͇̿͐͒͐̓͋ 6 ͈̿ӂ ̡͎͖̿͆̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ј͎͍́ӂ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ͋و‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͎͑̓‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬7 ̤͎͖̓͊͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ̧͉͔̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̨͎̓͆̓ ͈̿ӂ ̠͐̿͋ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑ҿ͎͐͐̿̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬8 ͈Ӈ͈͉Զ ͑‫› ͋و‬Ӆ͉͖̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ѭ͖͏ ̡͎͈̿̓ ›͍͎͍̓͒͊ҿ͖͋͋ ̡̿͊̓͆ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͉Ӄ̀̿ ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͓͉͒‫͋و҅͒ ͏ق‬ ̱͖͒͊̓͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬9 ј›ӄ ͍͑‫͉͈ ن‬Ӂ͎͍͒ ̨͍͒͂̿ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͓͉͒‫ ͖̱͋̓͊͒ ͋و҅͒ ͏ق‬ҙ͇͑ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ѵ ͎͊̓ӂ͏ ͒҅‫̓͊ ̨͍̿͂͒ ͋و‬Ӄ͖̈́͋ ͑‫̿ ͏ق‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈͉͎͍͋ͅӅ͊͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̱͖͒͊̓͋ Ѩ͋ ͊ҿ͐Զ ͍͑‫͉͈ ن‬Ӂ͎͍͒ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ 78. ZaboulŌn’s lot (19:10–16) 10 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬ҕ ͈͉‫ ͏͍͎ق‬ҕ ͎͑Ӄ͍͑͏ ͑‫͈͑̿ ͖͉͍̥͋͒̀̿ ى‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ͑‫͍͍͎͉͈͊͋ͅ ͏ق‬Ӄ̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͈̤̓͂̓͐ ͋و‬11 ̢͖͉̿ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ѵ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿ ͈̿ӂ ̫͎͉̿̿́̓͂̿ ͈̿ӂ ͐͒͋ҽ͕͇̓ Ѩ›ӂ ̡͇͎̿͆̿̿̀̿ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͓ҽ͎̿́́̿ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͖͐›͍͋ ̨͈̓͊̿͋ 12 ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ͎͕͐͑̓̓͋ ј›ӄ ̱͍͈̓͂͂͒ Ѩ͌ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ̿͏ ј›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͏̡͇͒͊̿͐͆̿ ͋و‬Ѩ›ӂ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̵͉͖͇̿͐̓͆̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ͇͉͂̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ̣͇͎͖̿̀̓͆ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͍͐̿͋̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ̴͇̿́́̿ 13 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈̓‫͉͇͎̓̓̓› ͋̓͆ل‬Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ͌ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ̿͏ Ѩ›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑Ҽ͏ Ѩ›ӂ ̢͎̓̀̓̓ Ѩ›ӂ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ̩̿͑̿͐̓͊ ͈̿ӂ ͇͉͂̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ›ӂ ̰͖̓͊͊͋̿ ̠͎͊̿͆̿ ̠͍̈́̿ 14 ͈̿ӂ ›͎͇͉̓̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ҙ͎͇̓̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͎͎̀‫ ͋ـ‬Ѩ›ӂ ̠͖͊͆ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ›ӂ ̢͇̿ ̴͉̿ͅ 15 ͈̿ӂ ̩̿͑̿͋̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ̬͉̿̀̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̱͍͖͒͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇̿͆͊̿͋ 16 ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͓͉͒‫͈͑̿ ͖͉͍̥͋͒̀̿ ͋و҅͒ ͏ق‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ͋و‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬

JOSHUA 18:19–19:16

61

north, and shall descend on the borders on flank sea from north; and the outlet of the borders shall be on ridge of the sea of salts to north to part of Jordan from south; these are the borders to south. And the Jordan shall be border on the east part. This the inheritance of sons of Beniamein, its borders round about by clans. And the cities of the sons of Beniamein by their clans came to be IereiΗŌ and BeϑegliŌ and Amakaseis and Baiϑabara and Sara and Bēsana and Aiein and Fara and Iefraϑa and Karafa and Kefeira and Monei and Gabaa, twelve cities and their villages; GabaŌn and Rama and BeērŌϑa and Massēma and MeirŌn and AmŌkē and Feira and Kafan and Nakan and Selēkan and ϐareēla and Iebous, this is Ierousalēm, and cities and GabaŌϑiareim, thirteen cities and their villages. This the inheritance of sons of Beniamein by their clans. 77. SumeŌn’s lot (19:1–9) And the second lot came out – of the sons of SumeŌn [Simeon]; and their inheritance came to be amidst lots of sons of Iouda. And their lot came to be Bērsabee and Samaa and KŌladam and ArsŌla and BŌla and Iason and Elϑoula and Boula and Erma and Sikelak and BaiϑmaΗereb and Sarsousein and BaϑarŌϑ and their fields, thirteen cities and their villages; EremmŌn and ϐalΗa and Ieϑer and Asan, four cities and their villages round about their cities as far as Barek going to Bameϑ southwards; this the inheritance of tribe of sons of SumeŌn by their clans. Out of the lot of Iouda, [came] the inheritance of tribe of sons of SumeŌn, because the part of sons of Iouda came to be greater than theirs; and the sons of SumeŌn inherited amidst their lot. 78. ZaboulŌn’s lot (19:10–16) And the third lot came out for ZaboulŌn by their clans. The borders of their inheritance shall be Esedek GŌla; their borders, the sea and Maragelda, and they shall lie next to Baiϑaraba to[wards] the ravine, which is in face of Iekman; and it turned back from Seddouk contrariwise to east of Baiϑsamus to[wards] the borders of ΖaselŌϑaiϑ, and it shall pass through to DabeirŌϑ and shall mount up to P˰aggai; and from there it shall proceed round contrariwise east to Gebere, to city [of] Katasem, and shall pass through to RemmŌna, Amaϑar, Aoza; and borders to north shall go round to AmŌϑ, and their outlet shall be to Gai P˰aēl and Katanaϑ and Nabaal and SumoŌn and IereiΗŌ and Baiϑman. This the inheritance of tribe of sons of ZaboulŌn by their clans, cities and their villages.

62

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 79–82

79. IssaΗar’s lot (19:17–23) 17 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ̨͎͔̿̿͐͐ ى‬Ѩ͌‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬ҕ ͈͉‫ ͏͍͎ق‬ҕ ͑ҿ͎͍͑̿͑͏ 18 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ̨͉̈́̿ͅ ͋و‬ӂ ̵͉͖̿͐̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ̱͍͒͋̿͋ 19 ͈̿ӂ ̠͇́̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̱͇͖͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ̰͎͖̓͆ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̠͔͎͋̿̓̓͆ 20 ͈̿ӂ ̣͇͎͖̿̀̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̩͇͖̓͐͋ ͈̿ӂ ̰̓̀̓͏ 21 ͈̿ӂ ̰̓͊͊̿͏ ͈̿ӂ ̨͖̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̲͍͊͊̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̠͇͎͈͊̿̓ ͈̿ӂ ̡͎͓͐̿ͅͅ͏ 22 ͈̿ӂ ͐͒͋ҽ͕͇̓ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ Ѩ›ӂ ̢͇͖͎̿͆̀ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›ӂ ̱͉͇̿̓͊ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇̿͆͐̿͊͒͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͎Ӄ͖͋ ҕ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋ͅ͏ 23 ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͓͉͒‫͈͑̿ ̨͎͔̿̿͐͐ ͋و҅͒ ͏ق‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ҅̿ ͋و‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ 80. Asēr’s lot (19:24–31) 24 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬ҕ ͈͉‫ ͏͍͎ق‬ҕ ›ҿ͊›͍͑͏ ̠͎͐ͅ 25 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͌ ̤͉͈̓̓͆ ͈̿ӂ ̠͉͓̓ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͍͈̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ̩͓̓̿ 26 ͈̿ӂ ̤͉͇͉͈̓͊̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ̠͇͉͊ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̫̿̿͐̿ ͈̿ӂ ͐͒͋ҽ͕͇̓ ͑‫͎̩͊̿ ى‬Ӂ͉Զ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫͖͇̱͋̓ ى‬ ͈̿ӂ ̪̿̀̿͋̿͆ 27 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͇͎͐͑ҿ͕͇̓ ј›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͋و‬ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇̿͆̓́̓͋̓͆ ͈̿ӂ ͐͒͋ҽ͕͇̓ ͑‫͈̿ ͖͉͍̥͋͒̀̿ ى‬ӂ Ѩ͈ ̢͇̿ ͈̿ӂ ̴͇͉͆̿ͅ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͍͎͎̀‫͈̿ ͋ـ‬ӂ ͉̓҄͐̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̱͓͇͇̿͆̿̀̿͆͊̓ ͈̿ӂ ̨͉͋̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͇͉͂̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ ̓҄͏ ̵͖̀̿ ̫͍͉̿͐͊̓ 28 ͈̿ӂ ̤͉͖̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ̰̿̿̀ ͈̿ӂ ̤͖͊̓͊̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ̩̿͋͆̿͋ ѭ͖͏ ̱͇͂‫͏͍͋و‬ ͑‫́̓͊ ͏ق‬ҽ͉ͅ͏ 29 ͈̿ӂ ј͎͋̿͐͑ҿ͕͇̓ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̓҄͏ ̰̿͊̿ ͈̿ӂ ѭ͖͏ ›́ͅ‫͏ق‬ ̫͓̿͐̿͐͐̿͑ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫͎̲͒ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͋ ͈̿ӂ ј͎͋̿͐͑ҿ͕͇̓ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ Ѩ›ӂ ̨͇͓̿͐̓ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿ ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ̪̓̀ ͈̿ӂ ̤͔͍͍̈́̀ 30 ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͔͖̀ ͈̿ӂ ̠͓͈̓ ͈̿ӂ ̰̿̿͒ 31 ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͓͉͒‫͈͑̿ ͎̠͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͏ق‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ͋و‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ 81. Nep˰ϑalei’s lot (19:32–39) 32 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ͇͉͓̬̓̿͆̓ ى‬Ѩ͌‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬ҕ ͈͉‫ ͏͍͎ق‬ҕ ѭ͈͍͑͏ 33 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͉͍͍̫͊̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̫͖͉̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͇̓͐̓͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͊̓ ͈̿ӂ ̬͖͈̿̀ ͈̿ӂ ̨͓͇̓͆̿͊̿ ѭ͖͏ ̣͖͂̿͊ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆͐̿͋ͅ ̿҅ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͇͌͂ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ҕ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋ͅ͏ 34 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͇͎͐͑ҿ͓͇̓ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ̤͋̿͆ ̧͖͎̿̀ ͈̿ӂ ͇͉͂̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ͈̓‫͈̿ ̨͈̿͋̿̿ ͋̓͆ل‬ӂ ͐͒͋ҽ͕͇̓ ͑‫ ͖͉͍̥͋͒̀̿ ى‬ј›ӄ ͋Ӆ͍͑͒ ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͐ͅ ͐͒͋ҽ͕͇̓ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋ͅ͏ ј›Ԇ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͋و‬ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ 35 ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͇͔͑̓Ӂ͎͇̓͏ ͑‫͎̲͒ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͋ ̲Ӈ͎͍͏ ͈̿ӂ ̷͊̿͆̿ ̣͈̿̓͆ ͈̿ӂ ̩͎̓͋̓̓͆ 36 ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͇͊̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͉̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̠͖͎͐ 37 ͈̿ӂ ̩̿͂̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͇͐͐̿̓ ͈̿ӂ ›́ͅӀ ̠͍͎͐ 38 ͈̿ӂ ̩͎͖̓̓ ͈̿ӂ ̫͉̓́̿̿ ̠͎͇̓͊ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇̿͆͆̿͊̓ ͈̿ӂ ̧̓͐͐̿͊͒͏ 39 ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͓͉͒‫͇͉͓̬̓̿͆̓ ͋و҅͒ ͏ق‬ 82. Dan’s lot (19:40–49a) 40 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ̣͋̿ ى‬Ѩ͌‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬ҕ ͈͉‫ ͏͍͎ق‬ҕ ѭ͍͍̀͂͊͏ 41 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͎̱͆̿̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̠͐̿ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̱̿͊͊̿͒͏ 42 ͈̿ӂ ̱͉͇̿̿̀̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ̠͖͊͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ̱͇͉̓̿͆̿ 43 ͈̿ӂ ̠͇͉͖͋ ͈̿ӂ ̧̿͊͋̿͆̿ ͈̿ӂ ̠͈͈͎͖̿͋ 44 ͈̿ӂ ̠͉͈̿͆̿ ͈̿ӂ ̡͖̓́̓͆͋ ͈̿ӂ ̢͉̓̀̓̓̿͋ 45 ͈̿ӂ ̠͖͎̈́ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͈̿͋̿̀̿̿͑ ͈̿ӂ ̢͎͖̓͆̓͊͊͋ 46

JOSHUA 19:17–19:46

63

79. IssaΗar’s lot (19:17–23) And for IssaΗar came out the fourth lot. And their borders came to be Iazēl and ΖasalŌϑ and Sounan and Agein and SiŌna and ReērŌϑ and AnaΗereϑ and DabeirŌn and KeisŌn and Rebes and Remmas and IeŌn and Tomman and Aimarek and Bērsap˰ēs. And the borders will lie next to GaiϑbŌr and to Saleim seawards and [to] Baiϑsamus; and the outlet of its borders shall be the Jordan. This the inheritance of tribe of sons of IssaΗar by their clans, the cities and their villages. 80. Asēr’s lot (19:24–31) And the fifth lot came out: Asēr. And their borders came to be from Elekeϑ and Alep˰ and Baiϑok and Keap˰ and Eleimelek and Amiēl and Massa; and they will lie next to the Carmel seawards, and to SeiŌn and Labanaϑ. And they will turn round towards sunrise and Baiϑegeneϑ, and will lie next to ZaboulŌn and from Gai and P˰ϑaiēl to the north, and borders will enter Sap˰ϑaibaiϑme and Inaēl, and shall pass through to ΖŌba Masomel and ElbŌn and Raab and EmemaŌn and Kanϑan as far as Sidon the Great; and the borders shall turn back to Rama and as far as spring Masp˰assat and the Tyrians; and the borders shall turn back to Iaseip˰, and its outlet shall be the sea and from Leb and EΗozob and ArΗŌb and Ap˰ek and Raau. This the inheritance of tribe of sons of Asēr by their clans, cities and their villages. 81. Nep˰ϑalei’s lot (19:32–39) And for Nep˰ϑalei came out the sixth lot. And their borders came to be Moolam and MŌla and Besemiein and Arme and NabŌk and Iep˰ϑamai as far as DŌdam; and its outlets came to be the Jordan. And the borders are turning back seaward [to] Enaϑ ϐabŌr, and will pass through from there [to] Iakana, and will lie next to ZaboulŌn to south and Asēr will lie next seawards, and the Jordan from sunrise. And the walled cities of the Tyrians, Tyre and ŋmaϑa, Dakeϑ and Kenereϑ and Armaiϑ and Araēl and AsŌr and Kades and Assarei and spring Asor and KerŌe and Megala, Areim and Baiϑϑame and ϐessamus. This the inheritance of tribe of sons of Nep˰ϑalei. 82. Dan’s lot (19:40–49a) And for Dan came out the seventh lot. And their borders came to be Saraϑ and Asa, cities [of ] Sammaus, and Salabein and AmmŌn and Seilaϑa and AilŌn and ϐamnaϑa and AkkarŌn and Alkaϑa and BegeϑŌn and Gebeelan and AzŌr and Banaibakat and GeϑremmŌn, and from sea

64

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 82–85

͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ͉͆̿ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ̨͎͈͖̓̿͋ ҙ͎͇͍͋ ›͉͐ͅӃ͍͋ ̨Ӆ››ͅ͏ 47 ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѵ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅӃ̿ ͓͉͒‫͈͑̿ ̣͋̿ ͋و҅͒ ͏ق‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ҅̿ ͋و‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫͇̿͊و‬ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬47A ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͌ҿ͉͇͕͆̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̣̿͋ ͑ӄ͋ ̠͍͎͎͊̿‫͑ ͍͋ل‬ӄ͋ ͉͆Ӄ͍̀͋͑̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ ̓҈͖͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍҅ ̠͍͎͎͊̿‫͏҄̓ ͇̿͋ق͈̀̿͑̿ ͇͍ل‬ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͍͇͉ҽ͂̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉͇͕͆̿͋ ј›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ͋و‬ӄ ҙ͎͇͍͋ ͑‫͎̓͊ ͏ق‬Ӄ͍͂͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬48 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͍͒͂̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͉ҿ͊͐̿͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ̪͔͇̿̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͈͉̿͑̓ҽ͍͍̀͋͑ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͋ ͐͑Ӆ͇͊̿͑ ͔͊̿̿Ӄ͎̿͏ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑Է͈͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈ҽ͉̓͐̿͋ ͑ӄ Ҙ͍͋͊̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̪̿͂͋͋̓͐̿ ͏ق‬ 48A ͈̿ӂ ҕ ̠͍͎͎͊̿‫ ͏͍ل‬ҡ›ҿ͇͊̓͋̓͋ ͍͑‫ ͋ل͈͇͍͈̓͑̿ ن‬Ѩ͋ ̤͉͖͊ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ̱͉͇̿̿͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͎̀̿Ӈ͋͆ͅ ѵ ͔̓ӂ͎ ͍͑‫ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ن‬Ѩ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͍͋͋͑ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͏҄̓ ͏ل‬ ͓Ӆ͎͍͋ 49a ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͐̿͋ͅ Ѩ͊̀̿͑̓‫͑ ͇̿͐ن‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͈͑̿ ͋ق‬Ҽ ͑ӄ ҙ͎͇͍̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ 83. Jesus’s lot (19:49b–50) 49b ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈͉‫ ͍͎͋ق‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ̬͒̿ͅ ى҅͒ ى͑ ل‬Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͏ل‬ 50 ͇͂Ҽ ›͎͍͐͑ҽ͍́͊̿͑͏ ͍͑‫͈̿ ن͍̓͆ ن‬ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ى‬Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ѷ͋ Ӛ͑Ӂ͍͐̿͑ ̧͔͎̿͊͋̿̿ͅ͏ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ̤͓͎͇̿͊ ͈̿ӂ Ӫ͈͍͂Ӆ͊͐̓͋ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑Է͈͇̓ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ 84. Allotment complete (19:51) 51 ̿‫͎͇͇̿͂ ҅̿ ͇̿͑خ‬ҿ͇͐̓͏ ћ͏ ͈͈͉͎͍̿͑̓͋ͅӅ͊͐̓͋ͅ ̤͉͎̓̿̈́̿ ҕ ͎҅̓̓ӆ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬ҕ ͍͑‫͈̿ ̬͒̿ͅ ن‬ӂ ͍҅ ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ ͑‫ ͋و͇͎͑̿› ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ͑̿‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل͉͓̿͒ ͏ل‬ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͈͉Ӂ͎͍͒͏ Ѩ͋ ̱͉͖ͅ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ›͎̿Ҽ ͑Ҽ͏ ͆Ӈ͎̿͏ ͑‫ن͍͑ ͏ق͈͋͐ͅ ͏ق‬ ͎͎͊̿͑͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͐̿͋ͅ Ѩ͊̀̿͑̓‫͑ ͇̿͐ن‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͋ق‬ 85. Cities of refuge (20:1–9) 1 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̓͋ͅ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͉ ل‬ҿ͖́͋ 2 ͉ҽ͉͍͐͋ͅ ͍͑‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ ͉ҿ͖́͋ ͂Ӆ͑̓ ͑Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑‫͎͓͑͒̓͂̿́͒ͅ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͋ ћ͏ ̓‫͎› ̿›ة‬ӄ͏ ҡ͊‫͇͂ ͏ـ‬Ҽ ̫͖͒͐‫ ق‬3 ͓͒́̿͂̓͒͑Ӂ͎͇͍͋ ͑‫͑̿› ى͑ ك͍͓͑͒̓͋ ى‬ҽ͇͌̿͋͑ ͕͔͒Ӏ͋ ј͈͍͒͐Ӄ͖͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͍͇͐͋͑̿ ҡ͊‫› ҅̿ ͋ل‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͓͒́̿͂̓͒͑Ӂ͎͇͍͋ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ ј›͍͆̿͋̓‫ ͇̿͑ل‬ҕ ͓͍͋̓͒͑Ӏ͏ ҡ›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن‬ј͔͇́͐͑̓Ӈ͍͍͋͑͏ ͑ӄ ̿‫ ̿͊ت‬ѭ͖͏ ј͋ ͈̿͑̿͐͑‫ ك‬Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ͑‫͏ق‬ ͖͐͒͋̿́́‫͎͈ ͏҄̓ ͏ق‬Ӄ͇͐͋ 7 ͈̿ӂ ͇͂ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ̩̿͂ͅ͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫̢͉͇͉̿̓̿ ك‬Ӄӽ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ͑‫͈̿ ͇͉͓̬̓̿͆̓ ى‬ӂ ̱͔͒̓͊ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ͑‫͈̿ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ى‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ̠͎͍͈̀ ̿ҥ͑ͅ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ͑‫ ̨͍̿͂͒ ى‬8 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫ن‬ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͍͋͒ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̡͍͍͎͐ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ѩ͎Ӂ͊Զ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͂̓› ى‬ӃԶ ј›ӄ ͑‫͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬ ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͖͊͆ͅ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ̢͉͂̿̿̿ ك‬Ѩ͈ ͑‫͈̿ ̢͂̿ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͉͖̿͒͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ك‬ ̡̿͐̿͋̓Ӄ͇͇͑͂ Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬9 ̿‫› ҅̿ ͇̿͑خ‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̿҅ Ѩ›Ӄ͈͉͍͇͑ͅ ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ͍͒҅‫͈̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل‬ӂ ͑‫͉͍͎͐ͅ› ى‬Ӈ͑Զ ͑‫͇͈͍͎͊̓͐› ى‬ҿ͋Զ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͋ل͓͈̓́͒̿͑̿ ͏ل‬ Ѩ͈̓‫͑͋̿› ل‬ӂ ›̿Ӄ͍͇͋͑ ͕͔͒Ӏ͋ ј͈͍͒͐Ӄ͖͏ ҉͋̿ ͊Ӏ ј›͍͆ҽ͋Ԍ Ѩ͋ ͔͇͎̓ӂ ͍͑‫ن‬ ј͔͇́͐͑̓Ӈ͍͍͋͑͏ ͑ӄ ̿‫ ̿͊ت‬ѭ͖͏ ј͋ ͈̿͑̿͐͑‫ ك‬Ѭ͇͋̿͋͑ ͑‫͎͈ ͏҄̓ ͏ق͖́́̿͋͒͐ ͏ق‬Ӄ͇͐͋

JOSHUA 19:46–20:9

65

IerakŌn: a border near Ioppa. This the inheritance of tribe of sons of Dan by their clans, their cities and their villages. And the sons of Dan did not squeeze out the Amorrai who was squeezing them in the mountain; and the Amorrai did not allow them to come down into the hollow and they squeezed from them the border of their portion. And the sons of Iouda went and made war on LaΗeis and laid hold of it and struck it by mouth of sword, and inhabited it and called its name Lasenndak. And the Amorrai was staying behind inhabiting in ElŌm and in Salamein; and the hand of Ep˰raim was oppressive against them and they came to be tributary to them. And they went to step on the land according to their border. 83. Jesus’s lot (19:49b–50) And the sons of Israel gave a lot to Jesus the son of Nauē among them by ordinance of the god; and they gave him the city which he requested ϐamarΗarēs, which is in the mountain of Ep˰raim; and he built the city and was living in it. 84. Allotment complete (19:51) These the divisions which Eleazar the priest and Jesus son of Nauē and the rulers of the clans among the tribes of Israel gave in inheritance by lots in SēlŌ over against Lord by the doors of the tent of the testimony; and they went to step on the land. 85. Cities of refuge (20:1–9) And Lord spoke to Jesus, saying ‘Speak to the sons of Israel, saying “Grant the cities of the refuges [of ] which I talked to you through Moses: refuge for the slayer striking a life involuntarily. And the cities shall be for you a refuge, and the slayer shall not die by the ‘blood heritor’, till he take his stand over against the assembly for judgment.” ’ And he separated Kadēs in the Galilee in the mountain of Nep˰ϑalei and SuΗem in the mountain of Ep˰raim and the city [of ] Arbok, this is ΖebrŌn, in the mountain of Iouda. And on the other side of the Jordan he gave Bosor in the desert in the plain from the tribe of Roubēn and ArēmŌϑ in the Galaad from the tribe of Gad and GaulŌn in the Basaneitis from the tribe of Manassē. These the designated cities for the sons of Israel and for the stranger being installed among them, for everyone smiting a life involuntarily to flee there, lest he die by hand of the ‘blood heritor’, till he take his stand over against the assembly for judgment.

66

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 86–88

86. Levite claim (21:1–2) 1 ͈̿ӂ ›͎͍͐Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ͍҅ ј͎͔͇›͎͇̿͑‫͎› ͇̪̓͒̓ ͋و҅͒ ͋و͑ ͇̿͑و‬ӄ͏ ̤͉͎̓̿̈́̿ ͑ӄ͋ ͎҅̓ҿ̿ ͈̿ӂ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͋ن‬ӄ͋ ͍͑‫͈̿ ̬͒̿ͅ ن‬ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ј͎͔͇͓Ӈ͉͍͒͏ ›͎͇̿͑‫͋و‬ Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و͉͓͒ ͋و‬2 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͎› ͍͋›ة‬ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ̱͉͖ͅ Ѩ͋ ́‫̵͋̿̿͋̿ ك‬ ͉ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ Ѩ͋ ͔͇͎̓ӂ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͇̿͋ن͍͂ ق‬ѵ͊‫› ͋ل‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈͍͇͈̿͑̓‫͈̿ ͋ل‬ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ͍͑‫͈͑ ͏ل‬Ӂ͇͋̓͐͋ ѵ͊‫͋و‬ 87. Levite allotment summarised (21:3–7) 3 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͍͑‫̪̓͒̓ ͏ل‬Ӄ͇͑̿͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͇͂ ͋ل͍͍͎͉͈͈̓͊͋̿͑̿ͅ ى‬Ҽ ›͎͍͐͑ҽ͍́͊̿͑͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͑Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬4 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌‫͉͋̓͆ق‬ ҕ ͈͉‫͂ ى͑ ͏͍͎ق‬Ӂ͊Զ ̩̿̿͆ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͍͑‫͇͋͐ن͎̓̓҅ ͏ل͍͑ ͖͎̠͋̿ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ ͍͑‫̪̓͒̓ ͏ل‬Ӄ͇͑̿͏ ј›ӄ ͓͉͒‫͈̿ ̨͍̿͂͒ ͏ق‬ӂ ј›ӄ ͓͉͒‫͈̿ ͖̱͋̓͊͒ ͏ق‬ӂ ј›ӄ ͓͉͒‫͏ق‬ ̡͇͇̓͋̿͊̓͋ ͈͉͎͖͑̓ͅӂ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͇́Ԇ 5 ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫͇͉͉͈͊͊̓̿͑̿ ͏ل͍͑ ̩͆̿̿ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ҿ͍͇͋͏ Ѩ͈ ͑‫͈̿ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬ӂ Ѩ͈ ͑‫͈̿ ̣͋̿ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬ӂ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ͊Ӄ͍͐͒͏ ͓͉͒‫͏ق‬ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ ͈͉͎͖͑ͅӂ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂ҿ͈̿ 6 ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫ ̢͖͋͐͂̓ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ј›ӄ ͑‫͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬ ̨͔͎͐͐̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ͑‫͈̿ ͎̠͐ͅ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬ӂ ј›ӄ ͑‫͈̿ ͇͉͓̬̓̿͆̓ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬ӂ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ͊Ӄ͍͐͒͏ ͓͉͒‫ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ̡͋̿͐̿ ى‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͎͑̓‫ ͏ل‬7 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ͍͒҅‫͈͑̿ ͇͎͎̫̓̿̓ ͏ل‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ͓͉͒‫͈̿ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ͏ق‬ӂ ј›ӄ ͓͉͒‫̢͂̿ ͏ق‬ ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ͓͉͒‫͖͎͉͈̓͑ͅ ͖͉͍̥͋͒̀̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂Ӊ͈͂̓̿ 88. Cities from Iouda and SumeŌn (21:8–16) 8 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͍͑‫̢̓͒̓ ͏ل‬Ӄ͇͑̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫͖͎͉͈̓͑ͅ ك͖̫͐͒ ى‬Ӄ 9 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ѵ ͓͉͒Ӏ ͒҅‫͈̿ ̨͍̿͂͒ ͋و‬ӂ ѵ ͓͉͒Ӏ ͒҅‫͈̿ ͖̱͋̓͊͒ ͋و‬ӂ ј›ӄ ͑‫͋و҅͒ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬ ̡͇͇̓͋̿͊̓͋ ͑Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑̿͒͑ҽ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͈͉̓Ӂ͆͐̿͋ͅ 10 ͍͑‫ ͖͎̠͋̿ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ј›ӄ ͍͑‫͂ ن‬Ӂ͍͊͒ ͍͑‫ ͇̪̓͒̓ ͋و҅͒ ͋و͑ ̩͆̿̿ ن‬ҙ͇͑ ͍͑Ӈ͍͇͑͏ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ҕ ͈͉‫ ͏͍͎ق‬11 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͑ ͏ل‬Ӏ͋ ̩͎͎͍͈̿̿͆̿̀ ͎͊͑ͅӅ›͍͉͇͋ ͑‫̿ ͈̤̿͋ ͋و‬ҥ͑ͅ Ѩ͐͑ӂ͋ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ̨͍͒͂̿ ͑Ҽ ͂Ҿ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ͈Ӈ͈͉Զ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬12 ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ј͎͍́ӆ͏ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ͏ ͈Ӊ͊̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫̵͉̀̓̿ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ن‬ ͍͒҅‫ ̨͍͓͋͋̓ͅ ن‬Ѩ͋ ͈͔̿͑̿͐ҿ͇͐̓ 13 ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫ ͖͎̠͋̿ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͓͒́̿͂̓͒͑Ӂ͎͇͍͋ ͑‫͍͓̓͋ ى‬Ӈ͇͐̿͋͑ ͑Ӏ͋ ̵͎͖̓̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ͑Ҽ ͐ӆ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̪̓͊͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ͑Ҽ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ 14 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̠͇͉͖͊ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̲̓͊̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ 15 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͉͉̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̣͇͎̿̀̓ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ 16 ͈̿ӂ ̠͐̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ ͈̿ӂ ̲̿͋͒ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ ͈̿ӂ ̡͇̿͆͐̿͊͒͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ Ѩ͋͋ҿ̿ ›͎̿Ҽ ͑‫͂ ͋و‬Ӈ͍ ͓͉͒‫͍͑ ͋و‬Ӈ͖͑͋

JOSHUA 21:1–21:16

67

86. Levite claim (21:1–2) A the family leaders of the sons of Leuei approached Eleazar the priest and Jesus son of Nauē and the tribal leaders of clans from the tribes of Israel, and they said to them in SēlŌ in land [of ] Canaan saying ‘Lord commanded by hand of Moses to give us cities to inhabit and the surrounds for our cattle.’ 87. Levite allotment summarised (21:3–7) And the sons of Israel gave to the Levites the cities and their surrounds during the inheriting through ordinance of Lord. And the lot came out for the clan [of] Kaaϑ, and there came to be for the sons of Aaron, the priests, the Levites, from tribe of Iouda and from tribe of SumeŌn and from tribe of Beniamein, by lot 13 cities; and for the remaining sons of Kaaϑ, from the tribe of Ep˰raim and from the tribe of Dan and from the half of tribe of Manassē, by lot ten cities; and for the sons of GedsŌn, from the tribe of IssaΗar and from the tribe of Asēr and from the tribe of Nep˰ϑalei and from the half of tribe of Manassē in the Basan, thirteen cities; and within the sons of Merarei by their clans, from tribe of Roubēn and from tribe of Gad and from tribe of ZaboulŌn, by lot twelve cities. 88. Cities from Iouda and SumeŌn (21:8–16) And the sons of Israel gave to the Levites the cities and their surrounds which way Lord commanded Moses, by lot. And the tribe of sons of Iouda gave and the tribe of sons of SumeŌn – and from the tribe of sons of Beniamein – these cities; and they were proclaimed for the sons of Aaron from the clan of Kaaϑ of the sons of Leuei, because for these the lot came about. And he gave them Karaϑarbok metropolis of the Enak, this is ΖebrŌn, in the mountain of Iouda; but the surrounds round about it and the fields of the city and its villages Jesus gave to the sons of Ζaleb son of Iep˰onnē in possession. And to the sons of Aaron he gave the city, refuge for the slayer, ΖebrŌn and the parts delimited, those with it, and Lemna and the parts delimited, those near it, and AilŌm and the parts delimited for it and Tema and the parts delimited for it and Gella and the parts delimited for it and Dabeir and the parts delimited for it and Asa and the parts delimited for it and Tanu and the parts delimited for it and Baiϑsamus and the parts delimited for it: nine cities issuing from these two tribes.

68

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 89–90

89. Cities from Beniamein to Dan (21:17–24) 17 ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿Ҽ ͑‫͑ ̡͇͇͋̓͊̿͋̓ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬Ӏ͋ ̢͖̿̀̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ ͈̿ӂ ̢̿͆̓͆ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬18 ͈̿ӂ ̠͖͋̿͆͆ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ̢͉̿͊̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ك‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑ҿ͎͐͐̿̓͏ 19 ›‫҅̿ ͇̿͐ـ‬ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͒҅‫͎̓҅ ͋و͑ ͖͎̠͋̿ ͋و‬ҿ͖͋ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͎͑̓‫ ͏ل‬20 ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫͂ ͏ل‬Ӂ͍͇͊͏ ͍͒҅‫̩͆̿̿ ͏ل‬ ͍͑‫̪̓͒̓ ͏ل‬Ӄ͇͑̿͏ ͍͑‫͇͉͉͈͊͊̓̿͑̿ ͏ل‬ҿ͍͇͋͏ ј›ӄ ͑‫͈̿ ̩͆̿̿ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ ͑‫͎̓҅ ͋و‬ҿ͖͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ͓͉͒‫ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ͏ق‬21 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͍͑‫͎͓͑͒̓͂̿́͒ͅ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ͑Ӏ͋ ͍͑‫͍͓̓͋ ن‬Ӈ͍͐̿͋͑͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ̱͔͒̓͊ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ̢͎̿̈́̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬22 ͈̿ӂ ̡͇͖͎͖̿͆͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ك‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑ҿ͎͐͐̿̓͏ 23 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈ ͑‫͑ ̣͋̿ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬Ӏ͋ ̤͉͈͖͇͆̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢̓͆̓͂̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬24 ͈̿ӂ ̠͇͉͖͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ ͈̿ӂ ̢͎͖̓͆̓̓͊͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ك‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑ҿ͎͐͐̿̓͏ 90. The other Levitic cities (21:25–42) 25 ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ͊Ӄ͍͐͒͏ ͓͉͒‫͑ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬Ӏ͋ ̲͔̿͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̨̓̀̿͆̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ك‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂Ӈ͍ 26 ›‫͇̿͐ـ‬ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ͑Ҽ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑̿‫͂ ͏ل͍͑ ͏ل‬Ӂ͍͇͊͏ ͒҅‫̩͆̿̿ ͋و‬ ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬ҡ›͍͉͉͇̓͊͊ҿ͍͇͋͏ 27 ͈̿ӂ ͍͑‫̪̓͒̓ ͏ل͍͑ ̢͖͋͐͂̓ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬Ӄ͇͑̿͏ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫ن‬ ѵ͊Ӄ͍͐͒͏ ͓͉͒‫͑ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬Ҽ͏ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿͏ ͍͑‫͍͓̓͋ ͏ل‬Ӈ͇͐̿͐ ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͉͖̿͒͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫̡̓͋̿͐̿ ك‬Ӄ͇͇͑͂ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̡͍͍͎͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ك‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂Ӈ͍ 28 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈ ͑‫͑ ̨͎͔̿̿͐͐ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬Ӏ͋ ̩͇͖̓͐͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ̣̓̀̀̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬ 29 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̰̓͊͊̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ̯́ͅӀ͋ ͎́̿͊͊ҽ͖͑͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ك‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑ҿ͎͐͐̿̓͏ 30 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈ ͑‫͑ ͎̠͐ͅ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬Ӏ͋ ̡͉͉̿͐̓̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ̣͖̿̀̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬31 ͈̿ӂ ̵͉͈̓̿͑ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ̰̿̿̀ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ك‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑ҿ͎͐͐̿̓͏ 32 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈ ͑‫͑ ͇͉͓̬̓̿͆̓ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋͋ͅ ͑‫͍͓̓͋ ى‬Ӈ͇͐̿͋͑ ͑Ӏ͋ ̩̿͂̓͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫̢͉͇͉̿̓̿ ك‬Ӄӽ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̬̓͊͊̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ ̧͖̓͊͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ك‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͎͑̓‫ ͏ل‬33 ›‫› ҅̿ ͇̿͐ـ‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͍͑‫̢͖͋͐͂̓ ن‬ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ͋و‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͎͑̓‫ ͏ل‬34 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫͂ ى‬Ӂ͊Զ ͒҅‫͇͎͎̫̓̿̓ ͋و‬ ͍͑‫̪̓͒̓ ͏ل‬Ӄ͇͑̿͏ ͍͑‫ ͏ل͍›͇͍͉ ͏ل‬Ѩ͈ ͑‫͑ ͖͉͍̥͋͒̀̿ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬Ӏ͋ ̫̿̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̩̿͂ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬35 ͈̿ӂ ̱͉͉̓̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͎͑̓‫ ͏ل‬36 ͈̿ӂ ›ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͍͑‫ن‬ ͈̿͑Ҽ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓͋ Ѩ͈ ͑‫͑ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͑ӄ ͓͒́̿͂̓͒͑Ӂ͎͇͍͋ ͍͑‫ن‬ ͓͍͋̓Ӈ͍͐̿͋͑͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ̡͍͍͎͐ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ѩ͎Ӂ͊Զ ͑Ӏ͋ ̫͇͖̓͐ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̨͎̿̈́ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬37 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̣͈͖̓͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̫͓̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑ҿ͎͐͐̿̓͏ 38 ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ͑‫͑ ̢͂̿ ͏ق͉͓͒ ͏ق‬Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͑ӄ ͓͒́̿͂̓͒͑Ӂ͎͇͍͋ ͍͑‫͍͓̓͋ ن‬Ӈ͍͐̿͋͑͏

JOSHUA 21:17–21:38

69

89. Cities from Beniamein to Dan (21:17–24) And, issuing from the tribe of Beniamein, GabaŌn and the parts delimited for it, and Gaϑeϑ and the parts delimited for it and AnaϑŌϑ and the parts delimited for it and Gamala and the parts delimited for it, four cities. All the cities of sons of Aaron the priests – thirteen. And for the clans, for sons of Kaaϑ, the Levites left remaining from the sons of Kaaϑ, and city of their priests came to be from tribe of Ep˰raim; and they gave them the city of the refuge, that of the slayer, SuΗem and the parts delimited for it and Gazara and those towards it and the parts delimited for it and BaiϑŌrŌn and the parts delimited for it, four cities. And from the tribe of Dan ElkŌϑaim and the parts delimited for it and Geϑedan and the parts delimited for it and AilŌn and the parts delimited for it and GeϑeremmŌn and the parts delimited for it, four cities. 90. The other Levitic cities (21:25–42) And from the half of tribe of Manassē TanaΗ and the parts delimited for it and Iebaϑa and the parts delimited for it, two cities. All ten cities and the parts delimited for it and those near them for the remaining clans of sons of Kaaϑ. And for the sons of GedsŌn, the Levites, from the half of tribe of Manassē the cities delimited for the slayers, GaulŌn in the Basaneitis and the parts delimited for it and Bosora and the parts delimited for it, two cities. And from the tribe of IssaΗar KeisŌn and the parts delimited for it and Debba and the parts delimited for it and Remmaϑ and the parts delimited and Spring of scribes and the parts delimited for it, four cities. And from the tribe of Asēr Basellan and the parts delimited for it and DabbŌn and the parts delimited for it and Ζelkat and the parts delimited for it and Raab and the parts delimited for it, four cities. And from the tribe of Nep˰ϑalei the city delimited for the slayer, Kades in the Galilee and the parts delimited for it and Nemmaϑ and the parts delimited for it and ϐemmŌn and the parts delimited for it, three cities. All the cities of GedsŌn by their clans, thirteen cities. And for the clan of sons of Merarei, for the remaining Levites, from the tribe of ZaboulŌn Maan and its surrounds and Kadēs and its surrounds and Sella and its surrounds, three cities. And on the other side of the Jordan by IereiΗŌn from the tribe of Roubēn the city, the refuge of the slayer, Bosor in the desert, MeisŌ and its surrounds, and Iazēr and its surrounds and DekmŌn and its surrounds and Mafa and its surrounds, four cities. And

70

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 90–92

͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̰͖̿͊͆ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͈̿ ̢͉͂̿̿̿ ك‬ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ͏ق‬Ӏ͋ ̩͇̿͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬39 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̤͖͐̀͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ̨͎̿̈́ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫› ͇̿͐ـ› ҅̿ ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑ҿ͎͐͐̿̓͏ 40 ›‫› ͇̿͐ـ‬Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͍͑‫͈͑̿ ͇͎͎̫̿̓ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬Ҽ ͂Ӂ͍͊͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͇͉͉͈͊͊̓̿͑̿ ͋و͑ ͋و‬ҿ͖͋͋ ј›ӄ ͑‫͏ق‬ ͓͉͒‫͈̿ ͇̪̓͒̓ ͏ق‬ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ̿҅ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͂Ӈ͍ 41 ›‫› ̿͐ـ‬Ӆ͉͇͏ ͑‫͋و‬ ̪͇̓͒̓͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ͊ҿ͐Զ ͈͔̿͑̿͐ҿ͖͐̓͏ ͒҅‫͎̿͐͐̓͑ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و‬ҽ͈͍͋͑̿ Ҕ͈͑ӈ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬42 ͈Ӈ͈͉Զ ͑‫› ͋و‬Ӆ͉͖̓͋ ͍͑Ӈ͖͑͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ͈Ӈ͈͉Զ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ›ҽ͇͐̿͏ ͑̿‫› ͏ل‬Ӆ͉͇̓͐͋ ͑̿Ӈ͇͑̿͏ 91. Task completed (21:42A–45) 42A ͈̿ӂ ͐͒͋̓͑ҿ͉̓͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͎͇̓͊̿͂ ͏ن‬Ӄ͐̿͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬Ѩ͋ ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬ҕ͎̓Ӄ͍͇͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ 42B ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͎͊̓Ӄ͂̿ ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈͑̿ ل‬Ҽ ›͎Ӆ͐͑̿́͊̿ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ Ѭ͖͈͂̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ى‬Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ѷ͋ Ӛ͑Ӂ͍͐̿͑ ͑Ӏ͋ ̧͎͔̿͊͋̿͐̿̿ Ѭ͖͈͂̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ̤͓͎͇̿͊ 42C ͈̿ӂ Ӫ͈͍͂Ӆ͊͐̓͋ͅ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͈̿ӂ Ӯ͈͐̓͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬42D ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬Ҽ͏ ͔͊̿̿Ӄ͎̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ›͎̓͑Ӄ͋̿͏ Ѩ͋ ̿‫͇͎̓› ͏ت‬ҿ͑̓͊̓͋ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍́̓͋͊ҿ͍͋͒͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ҕ͂‫ ى‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ѩ͎Ӂ͊Զ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͈͆̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑Ҽ͏ Ѩ͋ ̧͔͎̿͊͋̿͐̿̿̿͆ 43 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑‫͑ ͋̿͐ـ› ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ى‬Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬ѷ͋ Ұ͍͊͐̓͋ ͍͂‫͎͑̿› ͏ل͍͑ ͇̿͋ن‬ҽ͇͐͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͈͈͉͎͍̿͑̓͋ͅӅ͊͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑Է͈͐̿͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬44 ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ›̿͒͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͈͈͉͒Ӆ͆̓͋ ͈̿͆Ӆ͇͑ Ұ͍͊͐̓͋ ͍͑‫͎͑̿› ͏ل‬ҽ͇͐͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍ ͋و‬Ҡ͈ ј͋ҿ͐͑ͅ ͍Ҡ͆̓ӂ͏ ͈̿͑̓͋Ӊ›͇͍͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ›ҽ͖͋͑͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͔͎͆‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͑‫› ͋و‬ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͔͎͍͆ӆ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͎̿› ͋و‬ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͔̓‫̿ ͏͎̿ل‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬45 ͍Ҡ ͇͂ҿ›̓͐̓͋ ј›ӄ ›ҽ͖͋͑͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ԫ͊ͅҽ͖͑͋ ͑‫ ͋و͉͈̿ ͋و‬ҳ͋ Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̓͋ͅ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͍͑‫› ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ҽ͋͑̿ ›͎̿̓́ҿ͍͋̓͑ 92. Jesus addresses the Transjordanians (22:1–5) 1 ͑Ӆ͑̓ ͈͐͒͋̓ҽ͉̓͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͍͑ ͏ن‬ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ͓͉͒‫ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬2 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬ҡ͊̓‫ ͏ل‬ј͈͈ͅӅ̿͑̓ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ҡ͊‫ ͏ق͖̫͐͒ ͋ل‬ҕ ›̿‫͎̩͒ ͏ل‬Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͈͍ͅӇ͐̿͑̓ ͑‫͏ق͖͓͋ ͏ق‬ ͍͊͒ ͈̿͑Ҽ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ͇͉͋̓͑̓ҽ͍͑ ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬3 ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͈͉͉͍͋̿͑̿̓Ӄ›̿͑̓ ͍͑ӆ͏ ј͉͓͍͂̓ӆ͏ ҡ͊‫̿͑ ͋و‬Ӈ͑̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ›͉̓Ӄ͍͒͏ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͐ ͏ق‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ Ѩ͓͉͒ҽ͌̿͐͆̓ ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͍͉͋͑Ӏ͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬4 ͋‫͂ ͋ن‬Ҿ ͈̿͑ҿ›̿͒͐̓͋ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͍͑ ͋و‬ӆ͏ ј͉͓͍͂̓ӆ͏ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ̓‫̿ ͋̓›ة‬Ҡ͍͑‫͋ن͋ ͏ل‬ ͍‫ ͋ح‬ј›͍͎͓͐͑̿ҿ͋͑̓͏ ј›ҿ͉͆̿͑̓ ̓҄͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍҈͈͍͒͏ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫͏ق͑ ͋ق‬ ͈͔̿͑̿͐ҿ͖͐̓͏ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ѷ͋ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ҡ͊‫ ͏ق͖̫͐͒ ͋ل‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ 5 ј͉͉Ҽ ͓͉͒ҽ͌̿͐͆̓ ›͍͇̓‫͓͐ ͋ل‬Ӆ͎͂̿ ͑Ҽ͏ Ѩ͍͉͋͑Ҽ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ͋Ӆ͍͊͋ җ͋ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ѵ͊‫ ͏ق͖̫͐͒ ͋ل͇͍̓› ͋ل‬ҕ ›̿‫͎̩͒ ͏ل‬Ӄ͍͒ ј́̿›‫̩ ͋ـ‬Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͑ӄ͋ ͆̓ӄ͋ ѵ͊‫͋و‬ ›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͐͆̿ ›ҽ͇͐̿͏ ͑̿‫ ͏ل‬ҕ͍͂‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͍͑‫͉͓͒ ن‬ҽ͇͌̿͐͆̿ ͑Ҽ͏ Ѩ͍͉͋͑Ҽ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ›͎͍͈͐̓‫̿ ͇̿͆͐ل‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ى‬ӂ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͇̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ͌ ҙ͉ͅ͏ ͑‫͍͇͋̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӄ̿͏ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͌ ҙ͉ͅ͏ ͑‫ ͏ق͔͕͒ ͏ق‬ҡ͊‫͋و‬

JOSHUA 21:38–22:5

71

from the tribe of Gad the city, the refuge of the slayer, and RamŌϑ in the Galaad and its surrounds, Kamein and its surrounds and EsbŌn and its surrounds and Iazēr and its surrounds, all the four cities – all cities for the sons of Merarei by their clans, those left over from the tribe of Leuei; and their borders came to be the twelve cities. Every city of the Levites amidst the possession of sons of Israel – forty eight cities and their surrounds round about these cities: a city and the surrounds round about the city for all these cities. 91. Task completed (21:42a–45) And Jesus completed dividing the land in their borders. And the sons of Israel gave a division to Jesus; by ordinance of Lord they gave him the city which he requested; ϐamnasaraΗ they gave him in the mountain of Ep˰raim. And Jesus built the city and lived in it; and Jesus took the rocky swords with which he circumcised the sons of Israel born on the way in the desert, and he deposited them in ϐamnasaΗaraϑ. And Lord gave Israel all the land which he swore to give to their fathers, and they took possession of it and lived in it. And Lord brought them to a stop round about, just as he swore to their fathers; no one stood up right over against them from all their enemies; all their enemies Lord handed over into their hands. There was no falling away from all the fine words which Lord spoke to the sons of Israel: all came to.

92. Jesus addresses the Transjordanians (22:1–5) Then Jesus convoked the sons of Roubēn and the sons of Gad and the half of tribe of Manassē, and he said to them ‘You yourselves have heard all that Moses the child of Lord commanded you, and you gave ear to my voice in respect of everything which he commanded you. You have not left your brothers in the lurch all the very many days to today’s day; you kept the command of Lord your god. But now Lord our god has given our brothers rest the way he said to them; now therefore, turning back, go o֎ to your houses and to the land of your holding, which Moses gave you on the other side of the Jordan. But be on your guard doing very much the commands and the law which Moses the child of Lord commanded us to do, loving Lord our god, walking by all his ways, keeping watch of his commands and clinging to him, and serving him out of your whole intention and out of your whole self.’

72

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 93–94

93. The return of the Transjordanians (22:6–11) 6 ͈̿ӂ ͅҠ͉Ӆ́͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ͏ن‬ӂ Ѩ͌̿›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͐̿͋ͅ ̓҄͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍҈͈͍͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬7 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ى‬ѵ͊Ӄ͇͐̓ ͓͉͒‫ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̫͖͒͐‫ ͏ق‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫̡̓͋̿͐̿ ك‬Ӄ͇͇͑͂ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫ ى‬ѵ͊Ӄ͇͐̓ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑̓͊ ͏ن‬Ҽ ͑‫͋و‬ ј͉͓͂̓‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ›͎̿Ҽ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ѵ͋Ӄ͈̿ Ѩ͌̿›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͍͑ ͏҄̓ ͏ن‬ӆ͏ ͍҈͈͍͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̓Ҡ͉Ӆ́͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ 8 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͔͎Ӂ͇͊̿͐͋ ›͍͉͉͍‫ ͏ل‬ј›Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ̓҄͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍҈͈͍͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ ͈̿ӂ ͈͑Ӂ͋ͅ ›͍͉͉Ҽ ͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿ ͈̿ӂ ј͎́Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͈̿ӂ ͔͎͒͐Ӄ͍͋ ͈̿ӂ ͐Ӄ͎͍͂͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͇҅͊̿͑͐͊ӄ͋ ›͍͉Ӈ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͇͂̓Ӄ͉͍̿͋͑ ͑Ӏ͋ ›͎͍͍͋͊Ӏ͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͔͎͆‫͑̓͊ ͋و‬Ҽ ͑‫͋و‬ ј͉͓͂̓‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬9 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ͓͉͒‫ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͏ق‬ј›ӄ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ̱͉͖ͅ Ѩ͋ ́‫ ̵͋̿̿͋̿ ك‬ј›͉̓͆̓‫͑ ͏҄̓ ͋ل‬Ӏ͋ ̢͉̿̿̿͂ ̓҄͏ ́‫͔͈͐̿͑̿ ͋ق‬ҿ͖͐̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ѷ͋ Ѩ͈͉͎͍͋ͅӅ͊͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ͇͂Ҽ ›͎͍͐͑ҽ͍́͊̿͑͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ Ѩ͋ ͔͇͎̓ӂ ̫͖͒͐‫ ق‬10 ͈̿ӂ Ѻ͉͍͆͋ ̓҄͏ ̢͉͉̿́̿̿ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ѹ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ Ѩ͋ ́‫͈̿ ̵͋̿̿͋̿ ك‬ӂ Ӫ͈͍͂Ӆ͊͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ͓͉͒‫ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬Ѩ͈̓‫͖͊̀ ل‬ӄ͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͖̀͊ӄ͋ ͊ҿ́̿͋ ̓›ӂ ͍͑‫ ͋ل̓͂҄ ن‬11 ͈̿ӂ Ѹ͈͍͒͐̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͉̓́Ӆ͖͋͑͋ ͍҄͂ӆ Ӫ͈͍͂Ӆ͊͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ѹ͇͇͊͐̓ ͓͉͒‫͖͊̀ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬ӄ͋ Ѩ͓Ԇ ҕ͎Ӄ͖͋ ́‫ ̵͋̿̿͋̿ ͏ق‬Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑‫ن͍͑ ̢͉͂̿̿̿ ن‬ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͍͋͒ Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͒҅‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و‬ 94. The altar dispute (22:12–29) 12 ͈̿ӂ ͎͍͐͒͋͆ͅӃ͐͆͐̿͋ͅ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ̓҄͏ ̱͉͖ͅ ұ͐͑̓ ј͋̿̀ҽ͋͑̓͏ Ѩ͈›͍͉̓͊‫̿ ͇̿͐ق‬Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ 13 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̿͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ͓͉͒‫͏ق‬ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ ̓҄͏ ́‫͑ ̢͉͂̿̿̿ ͋ق‬Ӆ͋ ͑̓ ̴͇̓͋̓̓͏ ͒҅ӄ͋ ̤͉͎̓̿̈́̿ ͍͒҅‫ن͍͑ ͖͎̠͋̿ ن‬ ј͎͔͇͎̓ҿ͖͏ 14 ͈̿ӂ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͑‫ ͋و‬ј͎͔Ӆ͖͋͑͋ ͊̓͑Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ќ͎͔͖͋ ̓‫ ͏ت‬ј›ӄ ͍҈͈͍͒ ›͎͇̿͑‫ ͏ـ‬ј›ӄ ›̿͐‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و͉͓͒ ͋و‬ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ ͍҈͈͖͋ ›͎͇̿͑‫͇͋͐҄̓ ͋و‬ ͔͇͉Ӄ͎͔͍͇̿ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ 15 ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿̓́ҿ͍͍͋͋͑ ›͎ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ›͎ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ѵ͊Ӄ͇͐̓͏ ͓͉͒‫̢͉͂̿̿̿ ͋ق͑ ͏҄̓ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̿͋ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͉ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ 16 ͑ҽ͂̓ ͉ҿ͇́̓ ›‫ ̿͐ـ‬ѵ ͖͐͒͋̿́́Ӏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͑Ӄ͏ ѵ ›͉͊͊ͅҿ͉͇̿ ̿ҥ͑ͅ ѷ͋ Ѩ›͉͉͊͊̓ͅӁ͐̿͑̓ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ͍͑‫ن͍̓͆ ن‬ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ј›͍͎͓͐͑̿‫͐ ͇̿͋ق‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ј›ӄ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͈͍͍҄͂͊Ӂ͐̿͋͑̓͏ ҡ͊‫͋ل‬ ѩ͍̿͒͑‫͖͊̀ ͏ل‬ӄ͋ ј›͍͐͑ҽ͑̿͏ ҡ͊‫͋̓́ ͏ـ‬ҿ͇͐͆̿ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫͎͈͒ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ 17 ͊Ӏ ͇͈͎͊ӄ͋ ѵ͊‫͑ ͋ل‬ӄ љ͊ҽ͎͑͊̿ͅ ̴͍͖͎́ ҙ͇͑ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͈͎̿͆̿Ӄ͐͆͊̓͋ͅ ј›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͏ق‬ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͑̿Ӈ͑ͅ͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ›͉́ͅӀ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͎̩͒ ك͖́́̿͋͒͐ ك‬Ӄ͍͒ 18 ͈̿ӂ ҡ͊̓‫͏ل‬ ј›͍͎͓͐͑̿Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓ ͐Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ј›ӄ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѨҼ͋ ј›͍͐͑‫͐ ̓͑ق‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ј›ӄ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ̿Ҥ͎͇͍͋ Ѩ›ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ Ҕ͎́Ӂ 19 ͈̿ӂ ͋‫͎͈͇͊ ҄̓ ͋ن‬Ҽ ѵ ́‫ ق‬ҡ͊‫͔͈͐̿͑̿ ͏ق͑ ͋و‬ҿ͖͐̓͏ ҡ͊‫͇͂ ͋و‬ҽ̀͑̓ͅ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫͔͈͐̿͑̿ ͏ق͑ ͋ق‬ҿ͖͐̓͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍‫ ل͍͈͈͋͐̿͑̿ͅ خ‬Ѩ͈̓‫ ل‬ѵ ͈͐͋ͅӀ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ͈͈͉͎͍͍̿͑̿͋͊ͅӁ͐̿͑̓ Ѩ͋ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋ل‬ӂ ͊Ӏ ј›͍͐͑ҽ͇͑̿ ј›ӄ ͍͆̓‫͋̓́ ن‬Ӂ͆͑̓ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͊Ӏ ј›Ӆ͐͑͑̓ͅ ј›ӄ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒

JOSHUA 22:6–22:19

73

93. The return of the Transjordanians (22:6–11) And Jesus blessed them and sent them o֎, and they went to their houses. And to the half of tribe of Manassē Moses made grant in the Basaneitis, and to the half Jesus made grant with his brothers on the other side of the Jordan seawards. And, when Jesus sent them o֎ to their houses, and he blessed them, and with many chattels they went o֎ to their houses, and exceedingly many cattle and silver and gold and iron and much clothing, and they divided the booty of the enemies with their brothers. And the sons of Roubēn and the sons of Gad and the half of tribe of sons of Manassē went from the sons of Israel in SēlŌ in land [of ] Ζanaan to go o֎ into the Galaad into land of their holding which they received it in inheritance through ordinance of Lord by hand of Moses. And they went to Galgal of the Jordan, which is in land [of ] Ζanaan; and the sons of Gad and the sons of Roubēn and the half of tribe of Manassē built there a bamah by the Jordan, a bamah great to see. And the sons of Israel heard of people saying, ‘See, the sons of Gad and the sons of Roubēn and the half of tribe of Manassē built a bamah by borders of land of Ζanaan by Galaad of the Jordan on the other side from sons of Israel.’

94. The altar dispute (22:12–29) And all the sons of Israel gathered together to SēlŌ so as, going up, to make war on them. And the sons of Israel sent to the sons of Roubēn and to the sons of Gad and to the sons half of tribe of Manassē into land of Galaad both P˰einees [Phinehas] son of Eleazar son of Aaron the ruling priest and ten of the rulers with him: one ruler from a house of paternal lineage from all tribes of Israel – rulers of houses of paternal lineage they are, Israel’s chiliarchs. And they arrived at the sons of Gad and at the sons of Roubēn and at the halves of tribe of Manassē in Galaad, and spoke to them saying ‘These things says the whole assembly of Lord, “What [is] this terrible fault you have committed vis-à-vis the god of Israel, turning away today from Lord, building for your own selves a bamah, becoming runaways from the lord? The sin of P˰ogŌr [is] not a small matter for us, is it? Because we were not cleansed from it till this day, and a stroke came about in the assembly of Lord. And you yourselves turned away today from Lord; and it will be, if today you run away from Lord, and tomorrow the wrath will be on all Israel. And now if your land of your holding is small, cross into the land of Lord’s holding where the tent of Lord encamps there, and take your inheritance among us; and do not come to be runaways from god, and do not revolt from

74

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 94–96

͇͂Ҽ ͑ӄ ͍͈͍͍҄͂͊‫ ͇̿͐ق‬ҡ͊‫͖͊̀ ͏ـ‬ӄ͋ Ѭ͖͌ ͍͑‫͎͇͑͐̿͐͒͆ͅ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ن͍̓͆ ن‬ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬20 ͍Ҡ͈ ͍҄͂ӆ ̠͔͎̿ ҕ ͍͑‫͉͉̓͊͊ͅ› ͎̥̿̿ ن‬Ӄӽ Ѩ›͉͊͊ͅҿ͉͐̓͋ͅ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ن‬ ј͋̿͆ҿ͍͊̿͑͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›ӂ ›‫͖́́̿͋͒͐ ͋̿͐ـ‬Ӏ͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ Ҕ͎́Ӂ ͈̿ӂ ͍‫͏͍͑خ‬ ̓‫͊ ͏ت‬Ӆ͍͋͏ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͏ ј›ҿ͆̿͋̓͋ ͑‫ ك‬ѩ͍̿͒͑‫ ن‬љ͎͊̿͑Ӄӽ 21 ͈̿ӂ ј›͈͎̓Ӄ͆͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ͓͉͒‫͈̿ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬ӂ Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̿͋ͅ ͍͑‫͇͉͇͔ ͏ل‬ҽ͎͔͍͇͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͉ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ 22 ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ͆̓Ӆ͏ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ͆̓ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͏ ͍‫͈̿ ͋̓͂ة‬ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͏ ́͋Ӊ͇͐̓͑̿ ̓҄ Ѩ͋ ј›͍͐͑̿͐Ӄӽ Ѩ›͉͉͊͊̓ͅӁ͐̿͊̓͋ Ѭ͇͋̿͋͑ ͍͑‫͎̩͒ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ͊Ӏ ԪӇ͇͍͐̿͑ ѵ͊‫ ͏ـ‬Ѩ͋ ͑̿Ӈ͑Ԍ 23 ͈̿ӂ ̓҄ Ӫ͈͍͍͂͊Ӂ͐̿͊̓͋ ̿ҡ͍͑‫͖͊̀ ͏ل‬ӄ͋ ұ͐͑̓ ј›͍͐͑‫ ͇̿͋ق‬ј›ӄ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ن͍̓͆ ن‬ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ұ͐͑̓ ј͇͋̿̀̀ҽ͇͐̿ Ѩ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ͆͒͐Ӄ̿͋ ҕ͉͍͈͖̿͒͑͊ҽ͖͑͋ ұ͐͑̓ ›͍͇‫͇̿͐ق‬ Ѩ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͐͒͆ ن‬Ӄ̿͋ ͖͎͐͑ͅӃ͍͒ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ Ѩ͈̈́͑ͅӁ͇͐̓ 24 ј͉͉Ԇ ѭ͈͋̓̓͋ ̓Ҡ͉̿̀̓Ӄ̿͏ ԪӁ͍͊̿͑͏ Ѩ›͍͇Ӂ͐̿͊̓͋ ͍͑‫͉ ͍͑ن‬ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏ ҉͋̿ ͊Ӏ ̓҈›͖͇͐͋ ̿Ҥ͎͇͍͋ ͑Ҽ ͑ҿ͈͋̿ ҡ͊‫͑ ͏ل͍͑ ͋و‬ҿ͈͍͇͋͏ ѵ͊‫͑ ͋و‬Ӄ ҡ͊‫͎̩͒ ͋ل‬ӃԶ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ى̓͆ ى‬25 ͈̿ӂ ҙ͎͇̿ Ѭ͈͆̓͋ͅ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ҡ͊‫͑ ͋و‬ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѭ͇͐͑͋ ҡ͊‫͋ل‬ ͎͊̓ӂ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͈̿ӂ ј›͉͉͍͎͇̿͑Ӊ͍͇͐͒͐͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ҡ͊‫͍͑ ͋و‬ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ѵ͊‫̿͋҉ ͋و‬ ͊Ӏ ͐ҿ͖͇̀͋͑̿ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͋ 26 ͈̿ӂ ̓҈›̿͊̓͋ ›͍͇‫͍ ͇̿͐ق‬ҥ͖͑͏ ͍͑‫͑ ͇̿͐ق͍͍͈͍͊͂҄ ن‬ӄ͋ ͖̀͊ӄ͋ ͍͑‫͍ ͍͋͑ن‬Ҡ͔ ѭ͈͋̓̓͋ ͈͎̿›͖͊ҽ͖͑͋ ͍Ҡ͂Ҿ ѭ͈͋̓̓͋ ͇͆͒͐‫ ͋و‬27 ј͉͉Ԇ ҉͋̿ ‫͎͑̿͊ ͍͑ن͍͑ ك‬Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ͑‫͋و‬ ́̓͋̓‫ ͋و‬ѵ͊‫͆̓͊ ͋و‬Ԇ ѵ͊‫͎͉̓͑̿ ن͍͑ ͏ـ‬Ӈ͇̓͋ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӄ̿͋ ̩͎͒ӃԶ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ن‬ Ѩ͋ ͍͑‫›͎͈̿ ͏ل‬Ӊ͇͊̿͐͋ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑̿‫͐͒͆ ͏ل‬Ӄ͇̿͏ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͋ ͑̿‫͐͒͆ ͏ل‬Ӄ͇̿͏ ͑‫͎͖͑͐ͅ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͋ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͎͍‫͑ ͇͋͐ن‬Ҽ ͑ҿ͈͋̿ ҡ͊‫͑ ͏ل͍͑ ͋و‬ҿ͈͍͇͋͏ ѵ͊‫͋و‬ ̿Ҥ͎͇͍͋ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѭ͇͐͑͋ ҡ͊‫͎̓͊ ͋ل‬ӂ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ 28 ͈̿ӂ ̓҈›̿͊̓͋ ѨҼ͋ ́ҿ͋͑̿ͅӃ ›͍͑̓ ͈̿ӂ ͉͉̿Ӂ͖͇͐͐͋ ›͎ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͏ـ‬ӂ ͑̿‫ ͏ل̿̓͋̓́ ͏ل‬ѵ͊‫̿ ͋و‬Ҥ͎͇͍͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͎͍‫̓͑̓͂҈ ͇͋͐ن‬ ҕ͍͊Ӄ͖͊̿ ͍͑‫͎͇͑͐̿͐͒͆ͅ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ җ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ›̿͑ҿ͎̓͏ ѵ͊‫͍ ͋و‬Ҡ͔ ѭ͈͋̓̓͋ ͈͎̿›͖͊ҽ͖͑͋ ͍Ҡ͂Ҿ ѭ͈͋̓̓͋ ͇͆͒͐‫ ͋و‬ј͉͉Ҽ ͎͊̿͑Ӈ͎͇Ӆ͋ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ͑‫ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬29 ͊Ӏ ́ҿ͍͇͍͋͑ ͍‫ ͋ح‬ѵ͊‫ ͏ـ‬ј›͍͎͓͐͑̿‫ ͇̿͋ق‬ј›ӄ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ Ѩ͋ ͑̿‫͐ ͏ل‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ѵ͊ҿ͎͇̿͏ ј›͍͐͑‫ ͇̿͋ق‬ј›ӄ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ұ͐͑̓ ͍͈͍͍҄͂͊‫ ͇̿͐ق‬ѵ͊‫͇͑͐̿͐͒͆ ͏ـ‬Ӂ͎͇͍͋ ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ͈͎̿›Ӊ͇͊̿͐͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑̿‫͐͒͆ ͏ل‬Ӄ͇̿͏ ͉͇͐̿̿͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫͐͒͆ ك‬Ӄӽ ͍͑‫͎͖͑͐ͅ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ›͉Ӏ͋ ͍͑‫͎͇͑͐̿͐͒͆ͅ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ҙ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ͑‫̿ ͏ق͈͋͐ͅ ͏ق‬Ҡ͍͑‫ن‬ 95. Pleasure at the outcome (22:30) 30 ͈̿ӂ ј͈͍Ӈ͐̿͏ ̴͇̓͋̓̓͏ ҕ ͎҅̓̓ӆ͏ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ ͑‫͏ق͖́́̿͋͒͐ ͏ق‬ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͍҇ ‫͑̓͊ ͋̿͐إ‬Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͍͑ ن‬ӆ͏ ͉Ӆ͍́͒͏ ͍ң͏ Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̰͍͒̀͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̢̿͂ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ ѹ͇͊͐͒ ͓͉͒‫͈̿ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬ӂ Ѹ͎̓͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͏ل‬ 96. The altar called ‘witness’ (22:31–34) 31 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͏̴͇̓̓͋̓ ͋̓›ة‬ҕ ͎҅̓̓ӆ͏ ͍͑‫͈̿ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ӂ ͍͑‫͈̿ ̢͂̿ ͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬ӂ ͑‫ ى‬ѵ͊Ӄ͇͐̓ ͓͉͒‫͐ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ Ѩ́͋Ӊ͈̿͊̓͋ ҙ͇͑ ͊̓͆Ԇ ѵ͊‫͈ ͋و‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͇͂Ӆ͇͑ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ›͉͉͊͊̓ͅӁ͐̿͑̓ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ›͉͊͊ͅҿ͉͇̿͋ ͈̿ӂ ҙ͇͑ Ѩ͎Ӈ͐̿͐͆̓

JOSHUA 22:19–22:31

75

Lord through your building a bamah besides the place of o֎ering of Lord our god. Is it not the case – look at AΗar son of Zara – that he committed a terrible fault from the consecrated o֎ering, and wrath came to be on whole assembly of Israel? And he, one alone, died himself for his own sin.” ’ And the sons of Roubēn and the sons of Gad and the half of tribe of Manassē answered and spoke to the chiliarchs of Israel saying ‘The god, Lord, is god; and the god, god himself knows, and Israel itself shall discern. If in revolt we committed a fault vis-à-vis the lord, may he not deliver us in this. And if we built ourselves a bamah so as to revolt from Lord our god, so as to raise on it an o֎ering of holocausts, so as to make on it an o֎ering of salvation, Lord will search it out. But because of caution in word we did this, saying “Lest your children say tomorrow to our children ‘What have you to do with Lord the god of Israel?’ And ‘Lord set the Jordan as frontier midway between us and you, and there is no part of Lord for you.’ And ‘Your sons will estrange our sons, not to honour Lord.’ ” And we spoke of doing thus, of building this bamah, not for the sake of ‘sacrifices’ nor for the sake of o֎erings, but in order that this may be a witness midway between us and you and midway between our o֎spring with us, of serving service to Lord over against him in our ‘sacrifices’ and in our o֎erings and in the o֎erings of our salvations. And your children shall not say tomorrow to our children, “There is no part of Lord for you.” And we said, “If ever it should come about and they should speak to us and to our o֎spring tomorrow, and they will say, ‘See a likeness of the place of o֎ering of Lord, which our fathers made not for the sake of “sacrifices” nor for the sake of o֎erings, but it is a witness midway between you and midway between us and midway between our sons. Let it not be then that we turn away from Lord in today’s days, revolting from Lord so as to build a place of o֎ering for the sacrifices and for the o֎erings [of ] Salamein and for the o֎ering of salvation, except for the place of o֎ering of Lord which is opposite his tent.’ ” ’ 95. Pleasure at the outcome (22:30) And P˰einees the priest hearing, and all the chiefs of the assembly of Israel who were with him, the words which the sons of Roubēn and the sons of Gad and the half of tribe of Manassē spoke, and it pleased them. 96. The altar called ‘witness’ (22:31–34) And P˰einees the priest said to the sons of Roubēn and to the sons of Gad and to the half of tribe of Manassē, ‘Today we have discerned that Lord is with us because you did not commit a terrible fault opposite Lord, and

76

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 96–97

͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ͈ ͔͇͎̓ӄ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ 32 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͎͕͐͑̓̓͋ ̴͇̓͋̓̓͏ ҕ ͎҅̓̓ӆ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ ј›ӄ ͑‫͈̿ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ӂ ј›ӄ ͑‫͈̿ ̢͂̿ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ӂ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ͊Ӄ͍͐͒͏ ͓͉͒‫ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬Ѩ͈ ͑‫͎› ̵͋̿̿͋̿ ͋ق́ ͏҄̓ ̢͉͂̿̿̿ ͏ق‬ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ј›͈͎̓Ӄ͆͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͍͑ ͏ل‬ӆ͏ ͉Ӆ͍́͒͏ 33 ͈̿ӂ Ѹ͎̓͐̓͋ ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ͍͒҅‫͈̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͏ل‬ӂ Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̿͋ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̓Ҡ͉Ӆ́͐̿͋ͅ ͑ӄ͋ ͆̓ӄ͋ ͒҅‫͈̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و‬ӂ ̓‫͈͊ͅ ͋̿›ة‬ҿ͇͑ ј͋̿̀‫͎› ͇̿͋ق‬ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ̓҄͏ ›Ӆ͉͍̓͊͋ Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓‫͑ ͇̿͐ن‬Ӏ͋ ́‫͈̿ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و͑ ͋ق‬ӂ ͑‫͈̿ ̢͂̿ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬ӂ ͍͑‫ن‬ ѵ͊Ӄ͍͐͒͏ ͓͉͒‫͈̿ ̫͐͐̿͋̿ͅ ͏ق‬ӂ ͈̿͑Է͈͐̿͋ͅ Ѩ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͏ق‬34 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͖͋Ӆ͊̿͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬ӄ͋ ͖̀͊ӄ͋ ͑‫͈̿ ͍̰͋̀͒ͅ ͋و‬ӂ ͑‫͈̿ ̢͂̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍͑‫ ن‬ѵ͊Ӄ͍͐͒͏ ͓͉͒‫͏ق‬ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬ҙ͇͑ ͎͊̿͑Ӈ͎͇Ӆ͋ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ҙ͇͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͇͐͑͋ 97. Jesus’s first farewell (23:1–16) 1 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͊̓͆Ԇ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ›͉̓Ӄ͍͒͏ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͑ӄ ͈̿͑̿›̿‫͈ ͇̿͐ن‬Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ј›ӄ ›ҽ͖͋͑͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͔͎͆‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͑‫͉͈͈͒ ͋و‬Ӆ͆̓͋ ͈̿ӂ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͎̀͐̓› ͏ن‬Ӈ͎͍͑̓͏ ›͎͍͈̀̓̀ͅӈ͏ ͑̿‫ ͏ل‬ѵ͊ҿ͎͇̿͏ 2 ͈̿ӂ ͈͐͒͋̓ҽ͉̓͐̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫› ͏ن‬ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͎͍́̓͒͐Ӄ̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ќ͎͔͍͋͑̿͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͎́̿͊͊̿͑̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͈͂̿͐͑Ҽ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̓‫͎› ͋̓›ة‬ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ Ѩ́ӈ ́̓́Ӂ͎͈̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͍̀ҿ͈̀̿ͅ ͑̿‫ ͏ل‬ѵ͊ҿ͎͇̿͏ 3 ҡ͊̓‫͂ ͏ل‬Ҿ ѩ͍͎ҽ͈̿͑̓ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫ ͏ل͍͑ ͇͋͐ـ› ͋و‬Ѭ͇͆͋̓͐͋ ͍͑Ӈ͍͇͑͏ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ѵ͊‫͋و‬ ҙ͇͑ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ҕ Ѩ͈›͍͉̓͊Ӂ͐̿͏ ѵ͊‫ ͋ل‬4 ҈͂̓͑̓ ҙ͇͑ җ›͎̓ ̓‫ ̿›ة‬ҡ͊‫͋ل‬ ͑Ҽ Ѭ͆͋ͅ ͑Ҽ ͈͉͉͇̿͑̿̓͊͊ҿ͋̿ ҡ͊‫ ̿͑ن̿͑ ͋ل‬Ѩ͋ ͍͑‫͉͈ ͏ل‬Ӂ͎͍͇͏ ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͓͉͒Ҽ͏ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ Ѭ͆͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿ ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ͑‫͏ق‬ ͉͆̿ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ ͑‫́̓͊ ͏ق‬ҽ͉ͅ͏ ҕ͎͇̓‫ ل‬Ѩ›ӂ ͂͒͐͊Ҽ͏ ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ 5 ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͂Ҿ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͋و‬ ͍‫ ͏͍͑خ‬Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͇͐̓ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ѭ͖͏ ј͋ ј›Ӆ͉͖͇͋͑̿ ͈̿ӂ ј›͍͉͐͑̓̓‫̿ ل‬Ҡ͍͑‫͑ ͏ل‬Ҽ ͎͆ͅӃ̿ ͑Ҽ ќ͎͇́̿ ѭ͖͏ ј͋ Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͐Ԍ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͈͈͉͎͍͍̿͑̿͋͊ͅӁ͐̿͑̓ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫̿ ͋ق‬Ҡ͑‫͈͆̿ ͋و‬Ҽ Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̓͋ͅ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬6 ͈͇͔̿͑͐Ӈ͐̿͑̓ ͍‫͓͐ ͋ح‬Ӆ͎͂̿ ͓͉͒ҽ͇͐͐̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ›͍͇̓‫› ͋ل‬ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ͎́̓́̿͊͊ҿ͋̿ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͉͇̀̀ ى‬ӃԶ ͍͑‫͋ ن‬Ӆ͍͊͒ ̫͖͒͐‫͊ ̿͋҉ ق‬Ӏ Ѩ͈͈͉Ӄ͋͑̓ͅ ̓҄͏ ͇͂̓͌Ҽ͋ Ѵ ̓ҠӉ͋͒͊̿ 7 ҙ›͖͏ ͊Ӏ ̓҄͐ҿ͉͆͑̓ͅ ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ Ѭ͆͋ͅ ͑Ҽ ͈͉͉͇̿͑̿̓͊͊ҿ͋̿ ͑̿‫͈̿ ̿͑ن‬ӂ ͑Ҽ Ҕ͋Ӆ͊̿͑̿ ͑‫͋و̓͆ ͋و‬ ̿Ҡ͑‫͍ ͋و‬Ҡ͈ Ҕ͍͋͊̿͐͆Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ Ѩ͋ ҡ͊‫͍ ͋ل‬Ҡ͂Ҿ ͊Ӏ ›͎͍͈͐͒͋Ӂ͐͑̓ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͍ ͏ل‬Ҡ ͊Ӏ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͐̓͑̓ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬8 ј͉͉Ҽ ̩͎͒ӃԶ ͑‫ ى̓͆ ى‬ѵ͊‫͉͉͍͈͍͎͆͐ͅ› ͋و‬Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓ ͈̿͆ҽ›͎̓ Ѩ›͍͇Ӂ͐̿͑̓ ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͏ق‬ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͑̿Ӈ͑ͅ͏ 9 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͍͉͌ҿ͎͇͆̓͒͐̓ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͆͋ͅ ͊̓́ҽ͉̿ ͈̿ӂ ͔͎҄͐͒ҽ ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͆̓ӂ͏ ј͋͑ҿ͐͑ͅ ͈̿͑̓͋Ӊ›͇͍͋ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ѭ͖͏ ͑‫ ͏ق‬ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͑̿Ӈ͑ͅ͏ 10 ̓‫ ͏ت‬ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͂Ӄ͖͌̓͋ ͔͇͉Ӄ͍͒͏ ҙ͇͑ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͌̓›͍͉ҿ͇͊̓ ѵ͊‫͈͆̿ ͋ل‬ҽ›͎̓ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬ѵ͊‫ ͋ل‬11 ͈̿ӂ ͓͉͒ҽ͌̿͐͆̓ ͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿ ͍͑‫ ن‬ј́̿›‫̩ ͋ـ‬Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͑ӄ͋ ͆̓ӄ͋ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬12 ѨҼ͋ ́Ҽ͎ ј›͍͎͓͐͑̿‫͈̿ ̓͑ق‬ӂ ›͎͍͐͆‫ ͏ل͍͑ ̓͆͐ق‬ҡ›͍͉͇͓̓͆̓‫ ͇͋͐ل‬Ѭ͇͆͋̓͐͋ ͍͑Ӈ͍͇͑͏ ͍͑‫͏ل‬ ͊̓͆Ԇ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ›͇́̿͊Ӄ̿͏ ›͍͇Ӂ͐͑̓ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͈͇͐͒͋̿͑̿͊́‫̿ ̓͑ق‬Ҡ͍͑‫͏ل‬

JOSHUA 22:31–23:12

77

because you delivered the sons of Israel from hand of Lord.’ And P˰einees the priest returned, and the chiefs, from the sons of Roubēn and from the sons of Gad and from the half of tribe of Manassē from the Galaad into land [of ] Ζanaan to the sons of Israel, and gave them answer to the words. And it was pleasing to the sons of Israel; and they spoke to the sons of Israel, and blessed the god of sons of Israel, and spoke of no longer going up to them for war, of destroying the land of the sons of Roubēn and of the sons of Gad and of the half of tribe of Manassē; and they lived upon it. And Jesus further named the bamah of those of Roubēn and of those of Gad and of the half of tribe of Manassē, and said that ‘It is witness between them that Lord is their god.’ 97. Jesus’s first farewell (23:1–16) And it came to be after more days after Lord giving Israel rest from all their enemies round about – and Jesus [was] elderly, having advanced in days – and Jesus convoked all the sons of Israel and their eldership and their chiefs and their scribes and their judges, and he said to them ‘I myself have grown old and have advanced in days. But you on your side have seen what Lord our god did to all these nations from face of us, because Lord our god [is] the one who went to war for us. See that (whatever I said to you) these nations [are] those left behind for you in the allotments for your tribes: from the Jordan all the nations I also destroyed, and from the great sea there shall be its border sunsetwards. Now Lord our god, he it is will destroy them from our face, till they perish; and he will send o֎ to them the wild beasts till he destroy them and their kings from your face; and [ you] take as inheritance their land as Lord our god spoke to you. Come to your full strength, therefore, in keeping and doing everything that has been written in the book of the law of Moses, lest you bend away to right or ‘well-named’, in order that you do not enter into these left-over nations; and the names of their gods shall not be named among you; you shall certainly not prostrate yourselves before them nor o֎er them service, but you shall be glued to Lord our god, as you did till this day. And Lord will destroy them from your face, nations great and strong – and no one withstood right opposite us till this day; one of you chased away a thousand, because Lord our god was going to war for us, as he said to us. And take great care of loving Lord our god. For if you turn away and become attached to these left-over nations among you, and you practice intermarriage with them, and you mix in with them and they with you, discern that Lord will

78

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 97–98

͈̿ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӂ ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬13 ͇́͋Ӊ͈͐̓͑̓ ҙ͇͑ ͍Ҡ ͊Ӏ ›͎͍͐͆‫͈ ك‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͍͑‫ ن‬Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓‫͇̿͐ن‬ ͑Ҽ Ѭ͆͋ͅ ͑̿‫ ̿͑ن‬ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѭ͍͇͐͋͑̿ ҡ͊‫́̿› ͏҄̓ ͋ل‬Ӄ͂̿͏ ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͏ ͈͐ҽ͉͋͂̿̿ ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͏ ѹ͉͍͒͏ Ѩ͋ ͑̿‫͑› ͏ل‬ҿ͎͇͋̿͏ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̓҄͏ ͍͉̀Ӄ͂̿͏ Ѩ͋ ͍͑‫͏ل‬ Ҕ͓͉͍͆̿͊‫ ͏ل‬ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ѭ͖͏ ј͋ ј›Ӆ͉͐͆̓ͅ ј›ӄ ͑‫ ͏ق͑ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬ј́̿͆‫̿͑ ͏ق‬Ӈ͑ͅ͏ ѷ͋ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ҡ͊‫͈ ͋ل‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬14 Ѩ́ӈ ͂Ҿ ј›͍͎͑ҿ͔͖ ͑Ӏ͋ ҕ͂ӄ͋ ͈̿͆Ҽ ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬ӂ ́͋Ӊ͐̓͐͆̓ ͑‫͎͈͂̿ ك‬Ӄӽ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͑‫ ك͔͕͒ ك‬ҡ͊‫͋و‬ ͇͂Ӆ͇͑ ͍͈͒ Ѭ›̓͐̓͋ ̓‫͉ ͏ت‬Ӆ͍́͏ ј›ӄ ›ҽ͖͋͑͋ ͑‫͉ ͋و‬Ӆ͖́͋ ‫̩ ͋̓›ة̓ ͋ر‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͎› ͋و‬ӄ͏ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ј͋Ӂ͈͍͋͑̿ ѵ͊‫͍ ͋ل‬Ҡ ͇͓͂̓Ӊ͋͐̓͋ͅ Ѩ͌ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬15 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ ѹ͈͇̓ ›͎ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫› ͏ـ‬ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ԪӁ͊̿͑̿ ͑Ҽ ͈͉̿ҽ ћ Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̓͋ͅ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ›͎ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͍ ͏ـ‬ҥ͖͑͏ Ѩ›ҽ͇͌̓ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ Ѩ͓Ԇ ҡ͊‫› ͏ـ‬ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ԪӁ͊̿͑̿ ͑Ҽ ›͍͎͋ͅҽ ѭ͖͏ ј͋ Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͐Ԍ ҡ͊‫ ͏ـ‬ј›ӄ ͑‫ ͏ق͑ ͏ق́ ͏ق‬ј́̿͆‫̿͑ ͏ق‬Ӈ͑ͅ͏ ‫͏ئ‬ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬16 Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ͇̿͋ق͎̀̿̿› ى‬ҡ͊‫͑ ͏ـ‬Ӏ͋ ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈͋ͅ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ن‬ ͍͆̓‫ ن‬ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ѷ͋ Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋ل‬ӂ ›͍͎̓͒͆ҿ͋͑̓͏ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͐͑̓ͅ ͍͆̓‫ ͏ل‬ѩ͑ҿ͎͍͇͏ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͍͈͐͒͋Ӂ͐͑̓ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͏ل‬ 98. Jesus poses Israel a choice (24:1–15) 1 ͈̿ӂ ͐͒͋Ӂ́̿́̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫› ͏ن‬ҽ͐̿͏ ͓͉͒Ҽ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ̓҄͏ ̱͉͖ͅ ͈̿ӂ ͈͐͒͋̓ҽ͉̓͐̓͋ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›͎̓͐̀͒͑ҿ͎͍͒͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͎́̿͊͊̿͑̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͇͈͂̿͐͑Ҽ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѭ͐͑͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ј›ҿ͇͋̿͋͑ ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬2 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͋̓›ة‬ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͎› ͏ن‬ӄ͏ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑ӄ͋ ͉̿Ӆ͋ ͑ҽ͂̓ ͉ҿ͇́̓ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ›ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫͈͑̿ ن͍͍͊̿͑› ن‬Է͈͐̿͋ͅ ͍҅ ›̿͑ҿ͎̓͏ ҡ͊‫͑ ͋و‬ӄ ј›Ԇ ј͎͔‫ ̧͎̿̿ ͏ق‬ҕ ›̿͑Ӏ͎ ̠͎̀̿̿͊ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ›̿͑Ӏ͎ ̬͔͖͎̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͉ҽ͎͑̓͒͐̿͋ ͍͆̓‫ ͏ل‬ѩ͑ҿ͎͍͇͏ 3 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͉͍̿̀͋ ͑ӄ͋ ›̿͑ҿ͎̿ ҡ͊‫͑ ͋و‬ӄ͋ ̠͎̀̿̿͊ Ѩ͈ ͍͑‫› ن‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫͈̿ ن͍͍͊̿͑› ن‬ӂ ҭ͂Ӂ́͐̿ͅ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ Ѩ͋ ›ҽ͐Ԍ ͑‫͈̿ ك́ ك‬ӂ Ѩ›͉Ӂ͆͒͋̿ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫›͐ ن‬ҿ͎͊̿ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͑ ى‬ӄ͋ ̨͈͐̿̿ 4 ͈̿ӂ ͑‫͑ ̨͈̿̿͐ ى‬ӄ͋ ̨͈͖̿̀ ͈̿ӂ ͑ӄ͋ ̦͐̿͒ Ѭ͖͈͂̿ ͑‫͑ ̦͒̿͐ ى‬ӄ Ҙ͎͍͏ ͑ӄ ̱͇͎̓ͅ ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊ͅ‫̿ ͇̿͐ق‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ى‬ӂ ̨͈͖̿̀ ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈͑̿ ن‬ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ ̓҄͏ ̠҈́͒›͍͑͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͍͋͋͑ Ѩ͈̓‫ ͏҄̓ ل‬Ѭ͍͆͋͏ ͊ҿ́̿ ͈̿ӂ ›͍͉ӆ ͈̿ӂ ͈͎͇̿͑̿Ӆ͋ 5 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈ҽ͈͖͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍҅ ̠҄́Ӈ›͇͍͇͑ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ̠҈́͒›͍͑͋ Ѩ͋ ͍‫ ͏ت‬Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͑̿‫ ̿͑ن‬Ѩ͌Ӂ́̿́̓͋ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›̿͑ҿ͎̿͏ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬6 Ѩ͌ ̠҄́Ӈ›͍͑͒ ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͐Ӂ͉͆̿͑̓ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͎͎͒͆ҽ͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑̓͂Ӄ͖͌̿͋ ͍҅ ̠҄́Ӈ›͇͍͇͑ Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ͑‫͑̿› ͋و‬ҿ͎͖͋ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ѝ͎͇͊̿͐͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ҉››͍͇͏ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ͎͎͒͆ҽ͋ 7 ͈̿ӂ ј͍͋̓̀Ӂ͐̿͊̓͋ ›͎ӄ͏ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ͓͋̓ҿ͉͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ́͋Ӆ͓͍͋ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ͑‫͑›̠͒́҄ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›Ӂ́̿́̓͋ Ѩ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈ҽ͉͕͒̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ ͈̿ӂ ̓҈͍͂͐̿͋ ͍҅ Ҕ͓͉͍͆̿͊ӂ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ҙ͐̿ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ Ѩ͋ ́‫̠́҄ ك‬Ӈ›͑Զ ͈̿ӂ ‫ ̓͑إ‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ѩ͎Ӂ͊Զ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ›͉̓Ӄ͍͒͏ 8 ͈̿ӂ Ѹ́̿́̓͋ ѵ͊‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋ق́ ͏҄̓ ͏ـ‬Ӄ͖͋ ͑‫͍͈͇͍͈͑̿ ͋و‬Ӈ͖͋͑͋ ›ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿̿͂ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͔̓‫ ͏͎̿ل‬ѵ͊‫͋و‬ ͈̿ӂ ͈͈͉͎͍͍̿͑̓͋͊ͅӁ͐̿͑̓ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫̿ ͋ق‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͖͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͐̿͑̓ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬9 ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ͐͑ͅ ̡͉͈̿̿ ҕ ͍͑‫͉͇̓͐̿̀ ͎͖͓›̱̓ ن‬ӆ͏ ̫͖̿̀ ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿̓͑ҽ͍͌̿͑ ͑‫͈̿ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ى‬ӂ ј›͍͐͑̓Ӄ͉̿͏ Ѩ͈ҽ͉̓͐̓͋ ͑ӄ͋ ̡͉̿̿̿͊ ј͎ҽ͇͐̿͐͆̿

JOSHUA 23:13–24:9

79

certainly not be attached to destroying these nations from your face; and they shall be to you for traps and for snares and for nails in your heels and for missiles in your eyes, till you are destroyed from this good land which Lord your god gave you. Now I for my part am running o֎ the road, as indeed all those upon the earth; and you will discern in your heart and in your spirit wherefore not one word has fallen from all the words which Lord our god spoke: in reference to all things that pertain to us, there was no discrepancy from them. And it shall be, the way all the fine words which Lord spoke to us have come to us, so Lord the god will bring on you all the evil words, till he destroy you from this good land which Lord gave you, in your transgressing the disposition of Lord our god which he commanded us, and going you may o֎er service to other gods and prostrate yourselves to them.

98. Jesus poses Israel a choice (24:1–15) And Jesus assembled all tribes of Israel to SēlŌ, and convoked their elders and their scribes and their judges, and stood them over against the god. And Jesus said to all the people, ‘These things Lord the god of Israel is saying: “On the other side of the river, your fathers lived from the first, ϐara [Terah] the father of Abraam and the father of NaΗŌr; and they did service to other gods. And I took your father Abraam from the other side of the river, and I led him on his way in all the land; and I increased his seed and gave to him Isaak, and to Isaak IakŌb and Ēsau; I gave to Ēsau the mountain Sēeir to inherit for himself. And IakŌb and his sons went down to Egypt and became there a nation great and numerous and strong; and the Egyptians treated them ill. And they struck Egypt by what they did to them.” And after these things he led out our fathers from Egypt, and you entered into the red sea; and the Egyptians pursued after our fathers by chariots and horses into the red sea. And we cried out to Lord; and he gave cloud and darkness midway between us and midway between the Egyptians; and he brought upon them the sea and [it] covered them. And your eyes saw what Lord did in land of Egypt; and you were in the desert very many days. And he led us into land of Amorrai, those living on the other side of the Jordan, and Lord gave them over into our hands; and you took as inheritance their land, and you destroyed them from your face. And Balak son of Sepp˰Ōr king of MŌab stood up and drew up against Israel, and sending called Balaam to curse us. And Lord your god was not willing to destroy you; and he

80

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 98–100

ѵ͊‫ ͋ل‬10 ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѵ͆ҿ͉͐̓͋ͅ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓Ӆ͏ ͍͐͒ ј›͍͉ҿ͇͐̿ ͐̓ ͈̿ӂ ̓Ҡ͉͍́Ӄ̿͋ ̓Ҡ͉Ӆ́͐̓͋ͅ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͏ـ‬ӂ Ѩ͌̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑ ѵ͊‫ ͏ـ‬Ѩ͈ ͔͇͎̓‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ›͎̿ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ 11 ͈̿ӂ ͇͂ҿ̀͑̓ͅ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ›͎̿̓́̓͋Ӂ͆͑̓ͅ ̓҄͏ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͉ҿ͊͐̿͋ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫ ̨͖͔͇͎̓̓ ͏̓͑͋ن͍͈͇͍͈͑̿ ͍҅ ͏ـ‬ҕ ̠͍͎͎͊̿‫͈̿ ͏͍ل‬ӂ ҕ ̵̿͋̿͋̿‫͈̿ ͏͍ل‬ӂ ҕ ̴͎̓̓̈́̿‫͈̿ ͏͍ل‬ӂ ҕ ̤͒̿‫͈̿ ͏͍ل‬ӂ ҕ ̨͍̓̀͒͐̿‫͈̿ ͏͍ل‬ӂ ҕ ̵̓͑͑̿‫͏͍ل‬ ͈̿ӂ ҕ ̢͎̓́̓͐̿‫͈̿ ͏͍ل‬ӂ ›͎̿ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͔̓‫ ͏͎̿ل‬ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬12 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌̿›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ›͎͍͑ҿ͎̿͋ ѵ͊‫͑ ͋و‬Ӏ͋ ͓͈͇͐ͅҽ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌̿›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ѵ͊‫͂ ͋و‬Ӊ͈͂̓̿ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋و͑ ͏ل‬Ӄ͖͋ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ԫ͍͓͊̿Ӄӽ ͍͐͒ ͍Ҡ͂Ҿ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͑ ى‬Ӆ͌Զ ͍͐͒ 13 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ҡ͊‫ ͋ق́ ͋ل‬Ѩ͓Ԇ ѷ͋ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͈͍›͇ҽ͐̿͑̓ Ѩ›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ћ͏ ͍Ҡ͈ Ӫ͈͍͍͂͊Ӂ͈̿͑̓ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑Զ͈Ӄ͐͆͑̓ͅ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑̿‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ј͊›͉̓‫͈̿ ͏̿͋و‬ӂ Ѩ͉͇̿‫͍ ͏̿͋و‬ң͏ ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͓͒͑̓Ӈ͐̿͑̓ ҡ͊̓‫ ͏ل‬Ѭ͂̓͐͆̓ 14 ͈̿ӂ ͋‫͋ن‬ ͓͍̀Ӂ͆͑̓ͅ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͈̿ӂ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͐̿͑̓ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬Ѩ͋ ̓Ҡ͆Ӈ͇͑͑ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͇͈͇͍͂̿͐Ӈ͋Ԍ ͈̿ӂ ›͎͇̓ҿ͉̓͐͆̓ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͆̓ӆ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ј͉͉͍͎͑Ӄ͍͒͏ ͍‫ ͏ت‬Ѩ͉ҽ͎͑̓͒͐̿͋ ͍҅ ›̿͑ҿ͎̓͏ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫͈̿ ن͍͍͊̿͑› ن‬ӂ Ѩ͋ ̠҄́Ӈ›͑Զ ͈̿ӂ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ̓͑̓ ̩͎͒ӃԶ 15 ̓҄ ͂Ҿ ͊Ӏ ј͎ҿ͈͇͐̓ ҡ͊‫͎͉̓͑̿ ͋ل‬Ӈ͇̓͋ ̩͎͒ӃԶ Ѩ͈͉ҿ͌̿͐͆̓ ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬ѩ͍̿͒͑‫͐ ͏ل‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ͑Ӄ͇͋ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͐͑̓ͅ ̓҈͑̓ ͍͑‫͑̿› ͋و͑ ͏ل͍̓͆ ͏ل‬ҿ͎͖͋ ҡ͊‫ ͏ل͍͑ ͋و‬Ѩ͋ ͑‫› ى‬ҿ͎̿͋ ͍͑‫ن‬ ›͍͍͑̿͊‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋و͑ ͏ل͍̓͆ ͏ل͍͑ ̓͑҈̓ ن‬Ӄ͖͋ Ѩ͋ ͍‫ ͏ت‬ҡ͊̓‫ ̓͑ل͈͇͍͈̓͑̿ ͏ل‬Ѩ›ӂ ͑‫͏ق‬ ́‫̿ ͏ق‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ́ӈ ͂Ҿ ͈̿ӂ ѵ ͍͈҄Ӄ̿ ͍͊͒ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͍͐͊̓͋ ̩͎͒ӃԶ ҙ͇͑ ѝ͇́Ӆ͏ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ 99. Response and renewed warning (24:16–20) 16 ͈̿ӂ ј›͍͈͎͇͆̓ӂ͏ ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ̓‫͊ ͋̓›ة‬Ӏ ́ҿ͍͇͍͋͑ ѵ͊‫͈ ͋ل̓›͇͉͈̿͑̿ ͋ل‬Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ұ͐͑̓ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͇̓͋ ͍͆̓‫ ͏ل‬ѩ͑ҿ͎͍͇͏ 17 ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͑ӄ͏ ͆̓Ӆ͏ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͏ ј͋Ӂ́̿́̓͋ ѵ͊‫͈̿ ͏ـ‬ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›̿͑ҿ͎̿͏ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͌ ̠҄́Ӈ›͍͑͒ ͈̿ӂ ͇͓͂̓Ӈ͉̿͌̓͋ ѵ͊‫͏ـ‬ Ѩ͋ ›ҽ͐Ԍ ͑‫ ك‬ҕ͂‫ ع ى‬Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͊̓͋ͅ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ك‬ӂ Ѩ͋ ›‫ ͏ل͍͑ ͇͋͐ـ‬Ѭ͇͆͋̓͐͋ ͍ң͏ ›͎̿Ӂ͉͍͆͊̓͋ ͇͂Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬18 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌ҿ͉̀̿̓͋ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͑ӄ͋ ̠͍͎͎͊̿‫͈̿ ͍͋ل‬ӂ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ Ѭ͆͋ͅ ͑Ҽ ͈͍͇͈͍̿͑‫͑ ̿͑͋ن‬Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬ј͉͉Ҽ ͈̿ӂ ѵ͊̓‫͏ل‬ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͍͐͊̓͋ ̩͎͒ӃԶ ͍‫́ ͏͍͑خ‬Ҽ͎ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͇͐͑͋ 19 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͏ن‬ ›͎ӄ͏ ͑ӄ͋ ͉̿Ӆ͋ ͍Ҡ ͊Ӏ ͂Ӈ͋͐͆̓ͅ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͇̓͋ ̩͎͒ӃԶ ҙ͇͑ ͆̓ӄ͏ ѝ͇́Ӆ͏ Ѩ͇͐͑͋ ͈̿ӂ ͉̈́ͅӉ͐̿͏ ͍‫͍ ͏͍͑خ‬Ҡ͈ ј͋Ӂ͇͐̓ ҡ͊‫͑ ͋و‬Ҽ љ͎͊̿͑Ӂ͊̿͑̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ј͍͋͊Ӂ͊̿͑̿ ҡ͊‫͋و‬ 20 ѵ͋Ӄ͈̿ ѨҼ͋ Ѩ͈͉͋̿͑̿Ӄ›͑̓ͅ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͈̿ӂ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͐͑̓ͅ ͍͆̓‫ ͏ل‬ѩ͑ҿ͎͍͇͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͉̓͆ӈ͋ ͈͈̿Ӊ͇͐̓ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͏ـ‬ӂ Ѩ͉͌̿͋̿Ӊ͇͐̓ ҡ͊‫ ͏ـ‬ј͋͆Ԇ ‫ ح̓ ͋ر‬Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ҡ͊‫͏ـ‬ 100. Disposition witnessed (24:21–27) 21 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͍ ͋ن‬Ҡ͔Ӄ ј͉͉Ҽ ̩͎͒ӃԶ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͍͐͊̓͋ 22 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͎› ͏ن‬ӄ͏ ͑ӄ͋ ͉̿Ӆ͋ ͊ҽ͎͎͑͒̓͏ ҡ͊̓‫͈͆̿ ͏ل‬Ԇ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬ҙ͇͑ ҡ͊̓‫͏ل‬ Ѩ͉͌̓ҿ͌̿͐͆̓ ̩͎͒Ӄ͖ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͇̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬23 ͈̿ӂ ͋‫͇͎̓› ͋ن‬ҿ͉̓͐͆̓ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͆̓ӆ͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ј͉͉͍͎͑Ӄ͍͒͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋ل‬ӂ ̓Ҡ͆Ӈ͋̿͑̓ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͎̿͂Ӄ̿͋ ҡ͊‫͎› ͋و‬ӄ͏ ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ͆̓ӄ͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ 24 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͎̩͒ ͋ن‬ӃԶ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͍͐͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͑‫̿ ͏ق͖͓͋ ͏ق‬Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ј͈͍͒͐Ӆ͊̓͆̿ 25 ͈̿ӂ ͇͂ҿ͍͆̓͑ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ن‬Ӂ͈͋ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ͑ӄ͋ ͉̿ӄ͋ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋ ى‬Ӆ͍͊͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈͎Ӄ͇͐͋ Ѩ͋

JOSHUA 24:10–24:25

81

blessed us a blessing, and took us out of their hands and gave them over. And you crossed the Jordan, and arrived at IereiΗŌ; and those inhabiting IereiΗŌ made war on us, the Amorrai and the Ζananai and the P˰erezai and the Euai and the Iebousai and the Ζettai and the Gergesai; and Lord gave them over into our hands. And he despatched in front of us the wasps’ nest, and he cast them out from our face, twelve kings of the Amorrai, not by your sword nor by your bow. And he gave you a land on which you did not toil on it and cities which you have not built, and you were settled in them; and vineyards and oliveyards which you did not plant, you yourselves eat up. And now fear Lord and o֎er him service in directness and in justice, and remove [from around you] the foreign deities to whom our fathers o֎ered service on the other side of the river and in Egypt, and be o֎ering service to Lord. But if it is not pleasing to you to be o֎ering service to Lord, select for your own selves today whom you may serve, whether the gods of your fathers on the other side of the river, whether the gods of the Amorrai among whom you yourselves are living on their land; but I for my part and my house, we shall serve Lord, because he is holy.’ 99. Response and renewed warning (24:16–20) And answering, the people said, ‘May it not be that we should leave Lord behind, so as to be serving other gods. As for Lord our god, he is god; it is he that led us and our fathers up out of Egypt, and guarded us carefully in all the way in which we walked in it, and among all the nations whom we passed by through them; and Lord threw out the Amorrai and all the nations inhabiting the land from our face. But we too shall serve Lord, for he is our god.’ And Jesus said to the people, ‘You are surely not able to be serving Lord, because he is a holy god; and he, being jealous, will not let your failures and your law-breakings go [free]. Whenever you leave Lord in the lurch and serve other gods, and coming upon [you] he will do you ill and will destroy you utterly instead of how he treated you well.’ 100. Disposition witnessed (24:21–27) And the people said to Jesus, ‘No! But Lord we shall serve.’ And Jesus said to the people, ‘You are witnesses against yourselves that you yourselves selected to be serving Lord, himself. And now remove [from around you] the foreign gods among you and direct your heart to Lord god of Israel.’ And the people said to Jesus, ‘Lord we shall serve, and to his voice we shall give heed.’ And Jesus disposed a disposition towards the people in that day,

82

THE BOOK OF JESUS § 100–103

̱͉͖ͅ Ѩ͋Ӊ›͇͍͋ ͑‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ن͍̓͆ ن͍͑ ͏ق͈͋͐ͅ ͏ق‬26 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͎͕́̿̓͋ ͑Ҽ ԪӁ͊̿͑̿ ͑̿‫͉͇̀̀ ͏҄̓ ̿͑ن‬Ӄ͍͋ ͋Ӆ͍͊͋ ͍͑‫͈̿ ن͍̓͆ ن‬ӂ Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ ͉Ӄ͍͆͋ ͊ҿ́̿͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͐͑͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͏ن‬ҡ›ӄ ͑Ӏ͋ ͎͑̓ҿ͇͍͊͋͆͋ ј›ҿ͇͋̿͋͑ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ 27 ͈̿ӂ ̓‫ ͋̓›ة‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͏ن‬ ›͎ӄ͏ ͑ӄ͋ ͉̿Ӆ͋ ͍҄͂ӆ ҕ ͉Ӄ͍͆͏ ͍‫ ͏͍͑خ‬Ѭ͇͐͑̿ Ѩ͋ ҡ͊‫͎͑̿͊ ͏҄̓ ͋ل‬Ӈ͎͇͍͋ ҙ͇͑ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͏ ј͈Ӂ͈͍̓͋ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ͉͔̓͆ҿ͋͑̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬ҡ›ӄ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ҙ ͇͑ Ѩ͉ҽ͉͐̓͋ͅ ›͎ӄ͏ ѵ͊‫͏ـ‬ ͐Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ͍‫ ͏͍͑خ‬Ѩ͋ ҡ͊‫͎͑̿͊ ͏҄̓ ͋ل‬Ӈ͎͇͍͋ Ѩ›Ԇ Ѩ͔͐ҽ͖͑͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬ѵ͎͊̓‫͋و‬ ѵ͋Ӄ͈̿ ѨҼ͋ ͕̓Ӈ͐͐͆̓ͅ ̩͎͒ӃԶ ͑‫͍͒͊ ى̓͆ ى‬ 101. The people despatched – and faithful (24:28–29) 28 ͈̿ӂ ј›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͑ ͏ن‬ӄ͋ ͉̿Ӆ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͆͐̿͋ͅ ѭ͈͍̿͐͑͏ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ͋ ͑Ӆ›͍͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬29 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͉ҽ͎͑̓͒͐̓͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͑‫͎̩͒ ى‬ӃԶ ›ҽ͐̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ›ҽ͐̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ ͑‫͎͑͒̀͐̓› ͋و‬ҿ͎͖͋ ҙ͍͇͐ Ѩ͓̓Ӄ͉͈͒͐̿͋ ͑ӄ͋ ͔͎Ӆ͍͋͋ ͊̓͑Ҽ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫͈̿ ن‬ӂ ҙ͍͇͐ ҈͍͂͐̿͋ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ Ѭ͎́̿ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ͑‫̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ى‬ 102. Jesus dies and is buried (24:30–32) 30 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͊̓͑Ԇ Ѩ͈̓‫͈̿ ̿͋ل‬ӂ ј›ҿ͆̿͋̓͋ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫҅͒ ͏ن‬ӄ͏ ̬̿͒ͅ ͍͂‫͎̩͒ ͏͍͉ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ѩ͈̿͑ӄ͋ ͂ҿ͈̿ Ѩ͑‫ ͋و‬31 ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͕͆̿̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ ›͎ӄ͏ ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬ҕ͎̓Ӄ͍͇͏ ͍͑‫͉͈ ن‬Ӂ͎͍͒ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬Ѩ͋ ̧͔͎̿͊͋̿͆̿͐̿̿̿ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ͑‫ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ى‬ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫ ن͍͑ ـ‬Ҙ͎͍͒͏ ͍͑‫ ̢͉͂̿̿̿ ن‬31A Ѩ͈̓‫ ل‬Ѭ͈͆̿͋ͅ ͊̓͑Ԇ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͑ ͏҄̓ ن‬ӄ ͊͋‫ ͏҄̓ ̿͊ق‬җ Ѭ͕͆̿̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑ӄ͋ Ѩ͈̓‫͑ ل‬Ҽ͏ ͔͊̿̿Ӄ͎̿͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ›͎̓͑Ӄ͋̿͏ Ѩ͋ ̿‫͇͎̓› ͏ت‬ҿ͑̓͊̓͋ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ͋ ̢͉͉͍͇̿́̿͏ ҙ͑̓ Ѩ͌Ӂ́̿́̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͌ ̠҄́Ӈ›͍͑͒ ͈̿͆Ҽ ͐͒͋ҿ͑̿͌̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈ ͏ل‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈̓‫ ͇͋͐҄̓ ل‬ѭ͖͏ ͑‫͐ ͏ق‬Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ 32 ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ Ҕ͐͑‫ ̨͓͖͐ͅ ـ‬ј͋Ӂ͍́̿́͋ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ Ѩ͌ ̠҄́Ӈ›͍͑͒ ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑Ӊ͎͒͌̿͋ Ѩ͋ ̱͇͈͇͍͇͊͏ Ѩ͋ ͑‫͎̓͊ ك‬Ӄ͇͂ ͍͑‫ ن‬ј͎͍́‫ن‬ ͍‫ خ‬Ѩ͈͑Ӂ͍͐̿͑ ̨͈͖̿̀ ›͎̿Ҽ ͑‫͎͎͍̠̿͊ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͋ ͑‫͍͈͇͍͈͑̿ ͋و‬Ӈ͖͋͑͋ Ѩ͋ ̱͇͈͇͍͇͊͏ ј͊͋ҽ͖͂͋ ѩ͈̿͑ӄ͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ͋ ̨͖͓͐ͅ Ѩ͋ ͎͊̓Ӄ͇͂ 103. After the death of Jesus (24:33) 33 ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͑̿‫͈̿ ̿͑ن‬ӂ ̤͉͎̓̿̈́̿ ͒҅ӄ͏ ̠͎͖̿͋ ҕ ј͎͔͇͎̓̓ӆ͏ Ѩ͉͑̓̓Ӈ͑͐̓͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͑ҽ͓ͅ Ѩ͋ ̢͎̿̀̿̿ ̴͇̓͋̓̓͏ ͍͑‫̿ ن͍҅͒ ن‬Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ѷ͋ Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ى‬ Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ى‬Ҙ͎͇̓ ͑‫ ͇͎͓̤͊̿ ى‬33A Ѩ͋ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Ԍ ͑‫ ك‬ѵ͊ҿ͎ӽ ͉̿̀Ӆ͋͑̓͏ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͍͑‫͓͇͎̓̓› ن͍̓͆ ن‬ҿ͎͍͐̿͋ Ѩ͋ ѩ͍̿͒͑‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ̴͇̓͋̓̓͏ ͎҅̓ҽ͑̓͒͐̓͋ ј͋͑ӂ ̤͉͎̓̿̈́̿ ͍͑‫͎͑̿› ن‬ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬ѭ͖͏ ј›ҿ͆̿͋̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ͈͖͎̿͑Ӈ́ͅ Ѩ͋ ̢͎̿̀̿̿ ͑‫ ك‬ѩ̿͒͑‫ ͋و‬33B ͍҅ ͂Ҿ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ј›Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ ѭ͈͍̿͐͑͏ ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ͋ ͑Ӆ›͍͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ ͈̿ӂ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ѩ̿͒͑‫› ͋و‬Ӆ͉͇͋ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͐ҿ͍͍̀͋͑ ͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ ͑Ӏ͋ Ԇ̠͐͑ҽ͎͑͋ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͖͐͑̿͆ ͈̿ӂ ͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͆̓ӆ͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͆͋‫͈ ͋و͑ ͋و‬Ӈ͈͉Զ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ›͎̿ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ̓҄͏ ͔̓‫͈̿ ͖̫̀̿ ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ى͑ ͖͉̤͊́ ͏͎̿ل‬ӂ Ѩ͈͎͒Ӄ̓͒͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬ Ѭ͑ͅ ͂ҿ͈̿ Ҕ͈͑Ӊ

JOSHUA 24:25–24:33

83

and gave them law and judgment in SēlŌ opposite the tent of the god of Israel. And he wrote these words on a tablet, law of the god; and he took a great stone, and Jesus set it up under the terebinth over against Lord. And Jesus said to the people, ‘Look, this stone shall be among you as testimony that it itself has heard all the things spoken to it by Lord – whatever he spoke to us today; and this shall be among you as testimony in the latest of days, whenever you play false with Lord my god.’ 101. The people despatched – and faithful (24:28–29) And Jesus sent o֎ the people, and they went each to his own place. And Israel served Lord all the days of Jesus, and all the days of the elders who delayed the time after Jesus and who saw all the deeds of Lord which he did for Israel. 102. Jesus dies and is buried (24:30–32) And it came to be after those things and Jesus son of Nauē servant of Lord died, aged one hundred and ten years. And they buried him at the frontier of his allotment in ϐamnaϑasaΗara in the mountain of Ep˰raim on the north of the mountain [of ] Galaad. They placed there with him into the memorial, into which they buried him there, the stone swords by which he circumcised the sons of Israel in Galgal, when he led them out from Egypt, as Lord ordained for them; and there they are till today’s day. And the bones of IŌsēp˰ the sons of Israel brought up from Egypt and interred them in Sikima [Shechem], in the portion of the field which IakŌb acquired from the Amorrai who live in Sikima for a hundred lambs, and he gave it to IŌsēp˰ as portion. 103. After the death of Jesus (24:33) And it came to be after these things and Eleazar son of Aaron the ruling priest came to his end and was buried in Gabaar of P˰einees his son, which he gave him in the mountain of Ep˰raim. In that day the sons of Israel, taking the chest of the god, carried it round among themselves. And P˰einees was priest instead of Eleazar his father till he died, and he was interred in their own Gabaar. Now the sons of Israel departed each to their place and to their own city. And the sons of Israel were honouring the Astarte and AstarŌϑ and the gods of the nations round about them; and Lord gave them over into hands of EglŌm, to the king of MŌab, and he was lord of them eighteen years.

COMMENTARY

COMMENTARY

1. Lord instructs Jesus (1:1–9) 5. Ѩ͈͉͋̿͑̿Ӄ͕͖] illustrates two recurring features of B’s first scribe and later correctors. Directly above the N we find a similarly sized ̢, and above and between the ̪ and ̨ a smaller ̤. Each serves to bring the text closer to standard Ѩ͈͉́̿͑̿̓Ӄ͕͖. 7. ͈̿͆Ӆ͇͑] Gk is shorter here – with Holmes (17) we should reconstruct the Vorlage as 4_ %## (he observes that ‘in v. 18 4_ %#% is rendered by ͈̿͆Ԇ ҙ͇͑’). 8. ̿Ҡ͑ԏ] refers back to ̀Ӄ͉͍̀͏; B includes an alteration to ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬agreeing with ͋Ӆ͍͊͏. G normally uses ͑ӄ ̀Ӄ͉͇͍̀͋ not ѵ ̀Ӄ͉͍̀͏ in rendering this phrase. ͑Ӆ͑̓] Gr reflects only the 2nd element of MT  !#. While it may be that ‘the translator considered the equivalent for !# as unnecessary because of the presense [sic] of ͑Ӆ͑̓’ (SS 164), it is no less likely that G’s Vorl. lacked !#. The pattern of much of the book is established right at the start: divine instructions to Jesus are followed by Jesus commanding Israel or appropriate groups within Israel, and then action is taken. B often assigns a new paragraph to each stage. With his lesser concern with the divine and heightened interest in human motivation, Josephus makes no mention of this portion. M-F (93) notes that this passage is the haphtarah, or synagogue lectionary reading from the Prophets, relating to the Torah reading Deut. 33–34. The translation mostly follows Deuteronomy lexically, but new or rare words are used in vv. 1, 6, and 8. This passage also o֎ers a useful introduction to the comparison of B and MT in Joshua as a whole: B is briefer at several points – for a short characterisation of the di֎erences, see Auld (1998: 8–9). We meet the opening phrase, ‘And it came to be’, a dozen times in the book of Jesus, introducing the time or the circumstances in which action took place. ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ is the standard rendering of !! in this book (1:1; 3:2; 4:11,18; 5:1,13; 8:14; 9:16; 10:20; 15:18; 23:1; 24:29), with ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ only in 10:27. Gen. and Exod. prefer Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ͂Ҿ or Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ͂Ҿ (SS 83–4). The death of Moses is twice called his ‘end’, as in Deut. 32:50; 33:1;

§ 1 ( JOSHUA 1:1–9)

87

34:5, 7. Because the same word is used of Abraham, and because it is used only once more in Jesus (24:33) to note the passing of Eleazar the priest, DH finds the term significant (183). However it is used more widely than he suggests, and is hardly a theologically charged alternative to ‘death’ and ‘die’. After Moses’ death, God now addresses Jesus directly, implicitly treating him as prophet – ‘Lord spoke to Jesus’ is repeated 15 times in this book. M-F (93–4) has the somewhat surprising comment that Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ل‬ ‘is considered’ the more archaic dat. form than Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ;ن‬surely it simply is so – the older genit. form Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ن‬does, however, occasionally have a dat. function, and this is normally marked by the dat. of the article. She rightly observes that ͑‫ ى‬Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ل‬is used 5x in Jesus 1–5 for -_! %, then ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫( ͋ن‬11x from chap. 6); but does not note that ›͎ӄ͏ Ԇ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ͋ن‬is used once in the first 5 chaps (3:7), and once more (5:15) on the threshold of 6–24. ‘Lord’ is God’s proper name. When the Greek Bible was translated, God’s Hebrew name Yahweh was no longer spoken; and a reader said ‘Lord’ or ‘the Name’ whenever meeting ‘Yahweh’ in the Hebrew text. This naturally led to the use of the Greek Kurios for ‘Lord’. However, as noted above in the Introduction, the definite article ‘the’ is even more sparingly used with Kurios than with normal Greek names. An English rendering should avoid ‘the’, and cause the reader the same jolt as the ancient Greek reader experienced. Three di֎erent words for servant are used in this portion. What B terms Jesus (1) is unique in all the Greek Bible: literally one who ‘works under’ another. Moses is then (2) termed Lord’s ‘attendant’ or ‘squire’: the related word therapeia (which has given us the modern ‘therapy’) was often used in Greek for service of the gods, but was not limited to assistance for the divine. In Exodus, therapon is used many times in chaps 5–14 of Pharaoh’s attendants; but Moses is already Lord’s therapon in 4:10, as he is again at the end of the contest in 14:31. Jesus is then introduced as Moses’ therapon in Exod. 33:11. Moses is so described again in Jesus 9:4, 6; but pais is what he is normally called in this book – first in v. 7 of this portion, and then 10 times more. Although classical Greek pais meant ‘child’, and was not gender-specific, the translation above uses ‘boy’ because, though outdated, the use of ‘boy’ and ‘girl’ for servants of any age is still understood. It is the regular term for any ‘servant’ or ‘slave’ in the Pentateuch, and is never used there for Moses. While in Hebrew most verbs are ‘main’ verbs and, within a narrative, are simply linked together with ‘and’, Greek like English prefers a hierarchy within a sentence of main and subordinate statements. One of

88

COMMENTARY § 1

the commonest devices for subordination is to turn the first verb of a pair into a participle, as in ‘rising up, cross’ (2). The tenses of the Greek verbs are used flexibly but also purposefully: ‘I am giving’ (2) describes the whole continuous process from promise to realisation; ‘I shall give’ (3) still has the proprietary treading of the land in future prospect, although the statement to Moses is part of the completed past. There is similar flexibility over identifying the main characters – and this cannot be adequately presented in English, which does not distinguish between singular and plural ‘you’: ‘you’ (s) and ‘all this people’, who are also ‘them’ (2), are addressed collectively as ‘you’ (pl) in v. 3 and the first mention in 5; however, from the rest of v. 5 to the end of the portion, ‘you’ (s) is Jesus alone. Typically Moses (end of v. 3) takes the article in dat., as in 11:15, 23; 14:5; 21:8 – the only exception is in 9:24. Each of the more puzzling geographical terms (4) has been drawn immediately from Deuteronomy. Antilebanon is mentioned in Deut. 1:7; 3:25; 11:24; and then just once more in Jesus (9:1). The ‘Anti-’ has been added in Greek in these five passages, for MT has simply ‘the Lebanon’, as always elsewhere. LXX renders this directly in 11:17; 12:7; 13:5, 6 (and throughout the rest of the OT). Holmes (16) notes Thackeray’s aّrmation that two translators had been at work in Jesus, and suggests that the varied handling of Lebanon could be evidence that the second began work with chapter 10 or 11. Geographers now distinguish between mount Lebanon, the range immediately above the sea-coast of the country of the same name, and Anti-lebanon, comprising the eastern mountains of that country from mount Hermon northwards. Origen (M-F 94) makes a contrast between Lebanon (the old Israel) and Antilebanon (the church in its place). What is much less certain is whether the Greek translators of Jesus (the only biblical book to use both terms) did intend a geographical distinction – let alone a religious one. The (much rarer) name in the Hebrew Bible for the eastern range is Sirion or Senir; and these alternative forms (Deut. 34:9; 1 Chron. 5:23) are simply transliterated in the Greek OT. The ‘hindmost (or latter) sea’ is used also in Deut. 34:2. People ‘oriented’ themselves by facing the sun rising (sol oriens) in the east, so that the Mediterranean (which MT calls here ‘the great sea’) was ‘behind’ them – it stretched ‘backwards’ to the sun’s setting. Gk probably misrepresented the natural reading of the Hebrew when it chose the acc. case for ‘the desert and the Antilebanon’, so taking these words in apposition to ‘[give] it’ in v. 3. Once that decision was made, the last words of v. 4 (Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ ҡ͊‫ )͋و‬became somewhat lame. These words can now only be read as a short independent sentence; but we might have expected the

JOSHUA 1:1–9

89

preceding geographical terms to be resumed more strongly by a demonstrative: ‘These’. Lord’s instructions to Jesus, ‘be strong and be manly’ (6, 7, 9), resume the identical word-pair, in Greek as in Hebrew, from Deut. 31:6, 7, 23. This contrasts with the rather unusual situation in v. 5. Although the two Hebrew verbs used by Lord to encourage Jesus are also paired in Deut. 31:6, 8, they are translated into Greek here di֎erently from there. It is back in Deut. 4:31 that we find ‘will not leave you in the lurch’, within an explanation of Lord’s mercy which also includes ‘will not forget the disposition with your fathers’. Then ‘overlook’ might remind the reader of the Greek Pentateuch of Joseph’s distress ignored by his brothers (Gen. 42:11), or of Lord angrily passing over Moses’ plea to be allowed to cross the Jordan after all (Deut. 3:26). If the latter, then the reader would take from this verse not just that Lord would be no less with Jesus than with Moses, but even that he would not spurn any plea for favour. The Greek verb used for ‘divide’ is used only here in LXX for the Hebrew in 1:6. Since it is not used elsewhere, it functions prospectively, pointing forward to the role of Jesus as partitioner of the land in the second half of the book (18:4, 8); and we find the related noun appropriately in 19:51, the summary statement. ‘Be strong and be manly’ seemed in v. 6 simply to be advice suitable for a military commander. When we find it repeated in the next verse, this impression is confirmed in the first of the words used to expand on the advice: ‘be on guard’. Nothing in the remainder of the verse makes us think otherwise, for being ‘aware’ is surely excellent encouragement to a leader in the field. ‘Therefore’ early in v. 7 suggests that attention to Moses’ commands constituted not restriction (as in MT ‘only’) but reinforcement of the encouragement. Although in retrospect we realise that ‘the book of this law’ (8) is one and the same as the commanding of Moses (7), that was not at all clear when we were reading v. 7. The middle voice of ј͓͇͐͑ҽ͇͋̿ (from which our ‘apostasy’ derives) means ‘maintain distance from’. As Jacob and his uncle debate in Gen. 31, Jacob is the first to use this word: he had been such an assiduous shepherd of his uncle’s sheep that his sleep ‘kept its distance’ from his eyes (40); in his reply (49), Laban invokes God as witness to the conduct of both of them while they ‘keep their distance’ from each other. The ‘book of this law keeping its distance from your mouth’ is an effective rhetorical reversal of your mouth keeping silent and not reading the book. It is all the more striking in the total context of this book, given the prominence of ј›͍͐͑‫ ͇̿͋ق‬in the discussion in chap. 22 whether the

90

COMMENTARY §§ 1–2

eastern tribes were ‘apostate’. Plainer language is resumed in the next phrase: ‘and you shall practise in it’. ‘Practise’ (͉͊̓̓͑‫ )͋ـ‬is absent from Pent. and rare in LXX outside Pss. (M-F 96). In Greek, ‘book’ is a fem. noun, and ‘law’ masc. The first scribe in B wrote ‘it’ (fem.), and a later one changed this to masc. Practice in the book will lead to fully conscious action according to the book. (The pl. expression ‘all things written’ [›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ҽ ͎́̓́̿͊͊ҿ͋̿] says both more and less than MT’s sg. ‘everything written in it’.) That in turn will lead to your being ‘well-wayed’ – or, stated the other way round, to his ‘well-waying your ways’. ̓Ҡ͍͖͂͆Ӂ͐Ԍ ͈̿ӂ ̓Ҡ͍͂Ӊ͇͐̓ ͑Ҽ͏ ҕ͍͂Ӈ͏ ͍͐͒ is a doublet, though apparently almost a triple rendering of ‘make your way[s] successful’ (MT). Neither of these expressions is an exact rendering of the Hebrew in MT; and it may be that each was intended on its own as an adequate translation. Be that as it may, the passive (which often implies divine agency) and the active (even if it is not made explicit just who ‘he’ is) reinforce each other. ‘Lord well-wayed my way’ is how Abraham’s ‘boy’ (›̿‫ )͏ل‬described his success in reaching Rebecca (Gen. 24:56); and Moses threatens that the negative may become true for Israel (Deut. 28:29). The ‘awareness’ in which v. 8 comes to its climax is much richer than we had imagined in v. 7. In the conclusion to this portion (9), we revisit several terms already encountered, but now in a fresh context. Moses ‘commanded you’ (7) is stated in the aorist, which conveys a simple complete event; but Lord’s own commands are prefaced by the formal ‘Look’, and recalled in the perfect tense appropriate for a state of a֎airs that stands or abides. The repeated ‘be strong and manly’ is reinforced by a pair of opposites. ‘Being afraid and fainthearted’ are paired in Deut. 1:21 and 31:6, 8; and again in Jesus 8:1 and 10:25 – and always in that order. Our verse is unique in the order it uses. Was the pattern suّciently established elsewhere for the departure here to be seen as significant? Finally, the emphatic inversion of word-order in ‘with you is Lord your god’ underscores the promise of divine company with Jesus ‘everywhere you may come’. The verb ›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͋ is used literally of travel, but also metaphorically of accident and inheritance. Literally: ‘into all things wherever you may come’.

2. Jesus transmits the instructions (1:10–15) 13. ͑ӄ Ԫ‫ ]̿͊ق‬B here agrees with MT 4. A and the great majority of witnesses add ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒. B does have the longer reading in 3:9 where, however, MT o֎ers the plural ! !4.

JOSHUA 1:1–9 & 10–15

91

14. ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͔҄͐Ӈ͖͋] Gk’s singular expression is far from an exact rendering of MT (plural) %! !4 %#. They do share the initial ‘all’; but ҕ ͔҄͐Ӈ͖͋ is not only sg. but also less superlative in force than the combination !4 %!. Not only does %! _! %# constitute a more natural retroversion, but ͔҄͐Ӈ͖͋ is actually assonant with %! _!. 15. ѵ͊‫ ]͋و‬B and other ‘Egyptian’ witnesses read ‘our [God]’ – most others (ҡ͊‫ )͋و‬agree with MT ‘your’ (DH 39). In Greek of the late Roman or Byzantine period, it appears that both ͅ and ͒ were already pronounced identically as ͇, just as they are in modern Greek. ͂ҿ͖͈͂̓͋] DH (68) comments on this ‘singular reading’ of B that such a perfect, expressing result, is so suitable to the context that it must be a correction from the (less suitable) aorist Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋ of the majority tradition. M-F notes that the whole of vv. 10–18 constitutes the haphtarah to seder 139 (or Deut. 9). The schema followed throughout this book is of the divine word to Jesus followed by a report of its fulfilment. What is a single section in MT was written as two portions by the first scribe of B; these are, however, grouped as a single section in the second marginal division of B. In this first portion, two groups are addressed: oّcials of the people, and the two-and-a-half tribes already settled east of the Jordan. M-F finds that the translator’s sole originality is in precision of military vocabulary. ‘Scribes’ (͎́̿͊͊̿͑̓‫ )͏ل‬always renders '!4 _ in this book. In the Pentateuch too grammateus or ‘scribe’ is the stock rendering of the Hebrew šoter. Only in 1:10 and 3:2 are these oّcials found on their own; they are part of rather stereotyped lists in 9:5; 23:2; 24:1. M-F notes that from Judges onwards ͎́̿͊͊̿͑̓‫ ͏ن‬becomes the stock rendering in LXX not of 4 _ but of 40,, and claims that this is a more precise equivalence; yet there is good evidence that 4 _ did mean ‘scribe’ in Akkadian and Aramaic. Outside Pentateuch and Joshua, 4 _ is used only in Chron.; and of the 6 instances there, one is rendered by ͎͇́̿͊͊̿͑̓͏. We meet this group first in Exod. 5, where they are the Hebrew ‘foremen’: the middlemen between their own people and the Egyptian ‘taskmasters’. In Exod. 5 they complained about inadequate supplies; here too they seem rather like non-commissioned oّcers. They have a role in Num. 11 which describes divine feeding by manna and quails; and here they are to secure provisions for the cross. Jewish tradition and Origen explain this provisioning as anticipating the cessation of manna reported in Jesus

92

COMMENTARY §§ 2–3

5:11–12. ‘The people’ is mentioned three times in the first part of this portion. MT shares only the first and third of these, and in the second case speaks only of ‘the camp’ – LXX specifies ‘[the camp of ] the people’. While there is a degree of flexibility, ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀Ӂ is the stock rendering in this book of +) (9x); and both it and the related verb are rendered ‘camp’. For ͎͍͐͑̿͑›̓͂Ӄ̿ (4:3) and the derived verb (4:19), we are using ‘encamp[ment]’. ͈̿͑Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ (11) is unique to this book and is used just once more (10:3) – ̓҄͏ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ is a commoner equivalent in LXX for 43 (M-F), but still commoner in this book is simply Ѩ͋. ҟ͇͑ expressing motivation (‘because’) for !# here is contrary to Gk idiom (SS 146). With ͉̓҄͐̓͆Ӆ͋͑̓͏ Gk uses a participle for the Heb. infinitive % (DH 174). As Jesus turns from the scribes to the Transjordanians, it is not clear whether the latter were considered part of ‘the people’, whether they were located in ‘the camp [of the people]’ or in quarters of their own. They are already at home in ‘this land’ (13), east of the Jordan. It is this very ambiguity that leads to the major problem explored later in this book (chap. 22). Origen is quite clear about the distinction between the two groups. He notes it is not accidental that Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh were all first-born sons (M-F 98). He recurs in several Homilies to the double division of the land, east and west; and his attitude is somewhat ambivalent. Positively the Transjordanians represent those taught by Moses who have helped us in the church; then, more in the spirit of anti-Jewish polemic, they are also the ancients who lived under the law rather than the living true Israel of the church. In classical Greek, the transitive verb katapauein had a less positive sense: ‘put a stop to’. But LXX usage seems to have been influenced by the more positive associations of the verb when used intransitively, like God ‘coming to a stop’ after his activity in creation (Gen. 2:2, 3). Just as Lord earlier called Moses ‘my boy’ ( pais from ʚebed ), so now Jesus calls him ‘Lord’s boy’ (13). In the next sentence we find paidia (originally a diminutive form from pais) which has become the term for ‘real’ children! The easterners’ families and herds are to remain behind in their own land, while they themselves act as the vanguard for the westerners. Gk does not specify the subject of ‘gave’ (Ѭ͖͈͂̓͋) in v. 14, leaving the reader to infer from v. 13 that Lord is the giver; the plus in MT makes Moses explicit. ‘Well-equipped’ may be the literal sense of euzonoi, but hardly helps with a description: ‘well-equipped’ for what sort of combat – heavily or lightly armed? The term ̓Ҥ͖͍͇̈́͋ recurs in 4:13, and just once more in OT Greek. Ecclus. 36:31 asks: ‘For who will trust a wellequipped thief?’ Here it corresponds uniquely (and very freely) with the

JOSHUA 1:10–15 & 1:16–18

93

rare '!_). '!2% may have stood in the translator’s text: it was certainly part of the instruction to the easterners by Moses in Deut. 3:18. It is also relevant that the 2nd occurrence of ̓Ҥ͖͍͇̈́͋ is in Josh. 4:13, where MT reads not '!_) but [2] !2%. ›͎Ӆ͎͍͇͑̓ (‘prior to’ or ‘ahead of ’) is a free translation for !+0%, literally ‘before’ or ‘facing’ (DH 171). As part of his attempt to date and localise the Greek translation of Joshua, DH provides a major discussion (115–21) of how MT and LXX relate to each other in vv. 13b-15 and in the very similar Deut. 1:16, 18. As a phrase of motion, ̓҄͏ ͑ӄ ›ҿ͎̿͋ will relate back to the more distant vb. ј›͉̓̓Ӈ͐̓͐͆̓ rather than the closer ͂ҿ͖͈͂̓͋.

3. The addressees respond (1:16–18) This third portion is devoted to the third stage of the stock schema: the response by those addressed by Jesus, whether in action or words. While the point is no clearer in Greek than Hebrew, it appears that the speakers are only the Transjordanians whom Jesus addressed in vv. 12–15, and do not include the oّcials of the whole people of vv. 10–11. ‘And answering Jesus they said’ is a further example of syntactical subordination using a participle; but here MT does not conform to the normal pattern – perhaps the Hebrew Vorlage was di֎erent. DH’s listed examples (175) of the ‘participial construction’ includes the same verbs in the singular, with 4)! . . . *-! rendered as ͈͇̿ ј›͍͈͎Ӄ͇͆̓͏ . . . ̓‫ – ͋̓›ة‬perhaps the Vorlage in 1:16 was not 4)% but 4)!. In ̓҄͏ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͑Ӆ›͍͋ ͍ҥ (16), Gk does attest the addition, common in LXX, of ‘place’ to the Hebrew relative construction which does not require it (DH 34) – contrast ̓҄͏ ›ҽ͋͑̿ ͍ҥ in v. 9 above. Greek distinguishes between akouein followed by acc. case and by genit. case. The former means simply ‘hear’. It is the latter, meaning ‘listen to’ or ‘heed’, that we find with ‘you’ (17) and ‘your words’ (18). ‘Only’ (17) is the only straightforward rendering of Hebrew raq in these opening portions of the book. We noted ‘therefore’ above (7). ‘But’ (18) is also free, although hardly as free as M-F’s translation of it: Allons, or ‘Come on’. ‘The man’ is a deliberately gender-specific translation, even although the Greek uses anthropos (as already in 1:5): originally a ‘human being’, the word was becoming increasingly used of males (compare the development from classical Latin homo to French homme). DH (171) lists ҕ ͂Ҿ ќ͎͖͋͆›͍͏ җ͏ ѨҼ͋ as a free translation of 4_ _!–%# (‘any man who’). ‘You’ (͍͇͐) after ‘disobey’ is a reduction of ‘your mouth/face’ (MT) – see DH 170.

94

COMMENTARY § 4

4. Mission to IereiΗŌ launched (2:1–3) This introduction to the story of the scouts in IereiΗŌ introduces the several protagonists. It opens by reporting a further action of Jesus in response to the divine initiative. As noted in the Introduction, earlier readers went their di֎erent ways over whether and where to divide the story of the spies. Chapter 2 as a whole is the haphtarah for Num. 13–15 – in fact the relevant section in MT continues till 3:8. However, the linguistic links in LXX with the Numbers passage are fewer than in MT (M-F 99). In the second marginal division of B, vv. 1–21 constitute section 3. But the first scribe of our MS made the opening 3 verses a portion on their own; and paused next neither at 2:21 nor at 3:8 but at 2:24. The rationale may be to enclose in the same small opening frame the fact that messengers from both Jesus and the king come to Raab’s house. Sattein (Shittim) is the place reached by Israel in Num. 25:1. B calls the scouts ‘young men’ here, in v. 23, and in 6:22,23. But they are simply ‘men’ in MT until 6:23, when they suddenly become ‘young men’ as here. M-F with Tov (155) claims deliberate Greek harmonising here with the ‘young scouts’ of that later verse. However, Bieberstein (106–9) – I suspect rightly – concludes that neaniskoi is an accurate rendering at each occurrence. In that case it may be the tradition behind MT that is harmonistic (or midrashic), in order to maximise the links between haphtarah and Torah text: ‘two men’ recalls Num. 13:3 precisely. IereiΗŌ is not declined as a Greek noun; accordingly the article is used to show the appropriate case, in the absence of another marker. Contrast ̓҄͏ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓, a few words later, where case can be deduced from the preposition (DH 164). ‘And going’ (͈̿ӂ ›͍͎̓͒͆ҿ͋͑̓͏) exemplifies the familiar reduction to a participle of the first of two co-ordinate finite vbs in Hebrew (DH 174–5). When translating 7! (‘house’), LXX normally distinguishes carefully between ͍͈҄Ӄ̿ (the place) as here, and ͍҈͈͍͏ (the family or ‘household’). See on v. 12 below, for the first use of ͍҈͈͍͏. Gk uses a relative clause (‫ ع‬Ҙ͍͋͊̿ ̰̿̿̀) to name Raab, while Heb. had ‘and her name was Rahab’. The translator of Genesis frequently made the same grammatical alteration (SS 55–6, citing an observation by Aejmelaeus that 7 of 15 cases in Gen. give a person’s name, as here.). Josephus describes the scouts’ quarters as a hostelry, as do the Targum and Rashi; and he reports that the scouts came to Raab’s hostelry only for their evening meal. He will make the same alteration when reporting Samson’s visit to the Gaza prostitute (Judg. 16:1–3). But Christian tradition insists that Raab was a courtesan saved by the scouts of Jesus.

JOSHUA 2:1–3

95

Luke 19:1–9 describes the second Jesus being entertained in IereiΗŌ in the house of ‘a sinner’; Matthew by contrast adds to his version of Jesus sending out his disciples that they should seek lodging in the house of a worthy person (10:11). ‘And lodged’ (‘took up quarters’ – ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑ҿ͉͒͐̿͋) may have rendered +%!, as in 3:1 (see below). It is the most common equivalent throughout LXX for the verb MT uses in 3:1. For MT ‘lie down [to sleep]’ here, it would be wholly exceptional. Was the choice here influenced by Num. 25:1 (there ͈͉̿͑̿Ӈ͇̓͋ was the almost as rare equivalent for _!)? There may be deliberate innuendo in MT: #_! di֎ers by the addition of only one letter. Or possibly Gk, despite recognising Raab’s profession explicitly, sought to protect these lads from the likely innuendo of MT that they had lain with their hostess? Jesus may have sent across ‘lads’; but it is the arrival of ‘men’ that is reported to IereiΗŌ’s king (2). The announcement is first reported passively (ј›́́ͅҿ͉ͅ), and hence impersonally; then the plural form of the resumptive participle (͉ҿ͍́͋͑̓͏) declares that more than one voice had warned the king. The common vb. ј›̿́́ҿ͉͉͇̓͋ is the stock equivalent for ! and related forms. Only 3x do we find forms of 4) in MT as equivalent, and only here in the passive. As DH notes (107), MT is itself unusual here: it is surprising to find resumptive 4)% after an initial form of 4), and quite unique after 4) niph. Despite several other distinctions made or suggested in these verses in Gk, Jesus and the king’s informants and the king are at one over the activity of the ‘lads’ or ‘men’: Gk does not follow the shift in MT from ‘scout’ (1) to (literally) ‘dig’ (2–3). MT is longer in v. 3 and makes the same point twice, literally: ‘those coming to you who have come to your house’. DH suggests that the relative clause will have been an explanatory gloss on the shorter participial phrase, and insists that the shorter Gk does not attest an originally shorter text, but results rather from the removal of redundance (173). It is quite as likely that the version with the relative was originally an alternative text; and that Gk knew a shorter Vorlage which included only the relative clause, and rendered this by a participle – DH notes two further cases in Joshua (10:11 and 14:8) where Gk does precisely that. Gk makes two shifts here in its rendering of forms of  (‘come’ or ‘enter’); from ̓҄͐ҿ͎͔͍͇͊̿ to ̓҄͐›͍͎̓Ӈ͍͇͊̿, and from aorist to perfect. While ̓҄͐›͍͎̓Ӈ͍͇͊̿ can function in later Greek as a middle verb equivalent to ̓҄͐ҿ͎͔͍͇͊̿, LSJ also notes that it can be a true passive. Because of the accompanying change in tense, I have so translated. The arrival of the scouts ‘at night’ is noted first in v. 3 in Gk; MT had specified %!% already in v. 2.

96

COMMENTARY § 5

5. The scouts in IereiΗŌ (2:4–24) 7. ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ҭ͏] di֎ers from the apparently unique MT 4_# !4, and makes for heavy Greek. 4_ !4 is common enough – instances include Josh. 7:8; 9:16; 23:1; 24:20. On the other hand, 4_# !! (the most natural retroversion) is relatively common in HB and is used in Josh. 4:1, 11. In 4:11 it is rendered as here – in 4:1, more idiomatically by ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›̓ӂ. 8. ͈̿ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӂ ͂Ҿ .. ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ ͂Ҿ] Neither instance of ͂Ҿ is read by A, which has the simpler ͈̿ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑ӂ . . . ͈̿ӂ ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ. DH (61) mentions a comment on ̿Ҡ͑Ӏ ͂Ҿ here as an example of an elegant ͂ҿ to mark the apodosis ‘which is found occasionally in classical authors from Homer downwards’; but observes that it is the sole example in Jesus. The use of both ͈̿Ӄ and ͂ҿ as connectives in the previous clause is much less ‘elegant’, and also hard to parallel. 11. җ͏] In Raab’s confession (̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ҡ͊‫ ͋و‬җ͏ Ѩ͋ ͍Ҡ͎̿͋‫ )ى‬җ͏ corresponds to two words in MT: '!% . Holmes o֎ers two contrary explanations (20): ‘B gives җ͏, representing  and omitting '!%; but as җ͏ and ͆ҿ͍͏ were often diّcult to distinguish in the MSS. it is probable that '!% was originally represented and  omitted.’ We should accept his second proposal: ͍͆̓͏ was abbreviated as ̧̱ – very similar to ̮̱. ̧̱ is the clear reading of A. 12. ›͍͇Ӂ͐̿͑̓] a ͈ above the initial letter in B adds a ‘correcting’ connective. 13. ͑Ӏ͋ ͕͔͒Ӂ͋ ͍͊͒] ‘my life’ – in MT both elements are pl.: ‘our lives’. 21. Ѭ͖͐͑] the majority LXX reading is ͍ҥ͖͑͏ Ѭ͖͐͑, which could be an accommodation to MT; but DH suggests that ͍ҥ͖͑͏ was redundant after ‘according to your word’ (68). There are many smaller di֎erences between the Greek and Hebrew texts as the story of Raab/Rahab and the men develops. The most significant divergence is over the ‘sign’: in MT Rahab demands it as early as v. 12; in LXX it is not mentioned till the two men speak of it in v. 18. Like MT, the Gk text is reminiscent of Lot defending his guests (Gen. 19:1–12). The section opens with a further instance of the reduction of a finite vb. to a participle (͈̿ӂ ͉͍̿̀‫ ̿͐ن‬ѵ ́͒͋Ӏ). This instance is more striking

JOSHUA 2:4–24

97

in that the subject ‘the woman’ has to be expressed; despite the reduction of the verb, the natural Hebrew word-order (VS) is maintained. If v. 4 is read after a pause, it is not immediately clear to whom the woman is speaking: it is only after she mentions ‘the men’ that we realise she is speaking to the king’s messengers. That means that it is easier to suggest a rationale for treating vv. 1–3 on their own than for seeing v. 4 as the start of a major new portion; and none of the later divisions of the book appears to have followed B’s scribe in recognising a new section here. Raab is a careful user of words. The verb used in the king’s complaint (̓҄͐›̓›͍͎̓͒͊ҿ͍͋͒͏) could just be read as a passive; Raab neatly disputes any suggestion that the men might have been brought to her house by agreeing only that they had ‘come’ or ‘visited’. Four times in this book, the regular verb in Hebrew for ‘know’ is rendered ‘understand’ or ‘know for sure’ (epistamai); and two of these are in Raab’s speeches (the others are in 3:4 and 14:6). She might have been expected to have full knowledge of the men’s whereabouts, but disclaims such to the king (v. 4). Conversely, she might not have been expected to be so securely knowledgeable in the recent history of her guests’ people as she does claim: ‘I understand’ (v. 9). She wants a solemn response to her confident words and deeds – on oath. Several other comments are appropriate on the Greek of v. 5. Subordinate clauses with ҭ͏ (͈̿ӂ ҭ͏ or ҭ͏ ͂Ҿ) are a common device in Jesus for rendering !! or ! (DH 178–9). In ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ќ͎͋͂̓͏, the initial Hebrew - of the apodosis is maintained (SS 5). The ‘also’ used in the translation above is less stilted than the Gk. SS (161) treats ̓҄ ͈͉̿͑̿Ӂ͕͊̓͐͆̓ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ as a conditional, translating causal !#; but I wonder whether !# is causal here. Of course the Hebrew could be read as: ‘chase them for you will [be sure to] catch them’; however, G might have read the Hebrew as conditional: ‘chase them if you [think/know you] will catch them’. ͂‫( ̿͊و‬6), the classical Greek word for ‘main room’, becomes in Hellenistic Greek ‘terrace’ or ‘flat roof ’ (M-F 101). It is only here in LXX that ͉͇͍͈͉͋̿ҽ͊ͅ is used; but the term is current in the papyri. DH lists it as the first of 12 instances in Jesus of a Greek compound noun used as an elegant rendering of two Hebrew nouns in construct relationship (170). Origen notes that linen is a figure of priesthood – its presence on the terrace represents ‘the heights of faith’s mysteries’ (M-F). The problems of reading vv. 7–8 are of a quite di֎erent order: the texts diverge in Greek and Hebrew, but are quite as diّcult in both. It is impossible to have confidence in any interpretation of the totality of the clauses, and in particular where a verse-division should be placed. The

98

COMMENTARY § 5

rendering above follows the clear ‘versification’ of A. We are led to expect action by the spies after the pursuers leave and before they themselves lie down; but they are visited instead by their hostess. It can be claimed that the grammatical disjointedness is quite e֎ective from a literary point of view; but it may be that Gk was simply doing its best with a Hebrew no easier than MT. ҕ͂ӄ͋ ͑Ӏ͋ Ѩ›ӂ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ is hardly a grammatical expression: the undefined ҕ͂Ӆ͋ is followed by a definite adjectival phrase. It might appear from MT’s straightforward *4! "4 (‘by the Jordan way’) that we are dealing with a double translation of "4: first more literally by ҕ͂Ӆ͋ (like Latin via), then more idiomatically by a true preposition Ѩ›Ӄ. In support, we can note that prepositional ҕ͂Ӆ͋ with the genitive, found only in LXX, is used again in 10:10. See, however, 12:3 below for another similarly diّcult case (ҕ͂ӄ͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈̿͑Ҽ ̠͇͖͐̓͊͆), and the fuller list of somewhat analogous cases in DH 169. Since her monograph relates to the translation of clauses introduced by !# or , it is hardly surprising that SS keeps returning (136, 142, 155– 6, 181) to verse 9 of this chapter. She rightly notes that the connective in MT would require that both instances of !# (!# . . . !#) be rendered the same way, and not as here by ‘that . . . for’ (ҙ͇͑ ͂ҿ͖͈͂̓͋ . . . Ѩ›Ӄ͇͐͑̿͊̿ ́Ҽ͎). She chooses to interpret Gk as a free translation, rather than as evidence that its Vorlage may not have included -. In ј͈͈ͅӅ̿͊̓͋ ́Ҽ͎ ҙ͇͑ ͈̿͑̓͌Ӂ͎̿͋̓͋ (10), ́Ҽ͎ corresponds to !#, but ҙ͇͑ to 4_–7. (M-F notes that ͎͌̿ͅӃ͇͋̓͋ normally renders _! – ͈͎̿͑̿͌̿ͅӃ͇͋̓͋ here is unique in LXX.) Then ͈̿ӂ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ is surprising: in MT the clause-initial 4_ resumes 4_–7; but here, ͈̿ӂ ҙ͐̿ resumes ҙ͇͑. Gk moves back and forth between the deity and Israel as actors: the one dries up the sea, the other leaves Egypt; the one acts on the kings east of the Jordan, the other annihilates them. But MT makes ‘you’ the subject of ‘did’. Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͇̓͋ (10) is a much used vb. in Gk Jesus. Both vb. and related n. appear to be a LXX coinage; for earlier Gk is familiar only with the n. Ҙ͉͎͍̓͆͏ ‘destruction’ and adj. Ҕ͉ҿ͎͇͍͆͏ ‘destructive, deadly’. In this book the first scribe of B has always written -͍͉͎̓͆- (a later spelling – LSJ 597a), and a later hand has altered the spelling with a superscript ͍. Perhaps ͍͉͍- reinforced the idea of totality already strongly suggested by the prefix Ѩ͌-. For the meaning, see below on 7:25. It corresponds to '4 hiph here, and is its commonest equivalent in chaps. 10–11 (10:1, 28, 37, 39, 40; 11:11, 12, 20, 21). But elsewhere in Jesus, it corresponds to a variety of Hebrew verbs: _4! in 13:6, 12, 13; 14:12; 15:14; 17:12, 13, 18; 23:5, 9, 13; and )_ in 9:24; 11:20; 23:15; 24:8; but also #+ in 11:14; 74# in 11:21 and 23:4; and 7_ in 22:33 (all hiph forms); and 4#- in 7:25. On

JOSHUA 2:4–24

99

the other hand, in the context of the IereiΗŌ story, where the noun '4 is used (in chaps. 6–7 and in 22), and mostly rendered quite appropriately by ј͋ҽ͆̓͊̿ (see on 6:18 for an exception), )!4! corresponds to ͈̿ӂ ј͋̓͆̓͊ҽ͇͑͐̓͋. This variety makes it very uncertain what the Vorlage may have been in many of the instances just cited. DH discusses the unusual case of ͈̿ӂ ј͈͍Ӈ͐̿͋͑̓͏ ѵ͊̓‫ ͏ل‬Ѩ͌ҿ͐͑͊̓͋ͅ ͑‫ك‬ ͈͎̿͂Ӄӽ ѵ͊‫( ͋و‬11) on pp. 174 and 176. Where there is a change of subject from one verb to the next, Gk normally uses the genitive absolute construction. Here the regular participial construction is maintained by dint of rebuilding ‘our heart melted’ (MT) into ‘we gave way to our heart’ (DH 84 proposes the less literal ‘we were confused/dismayed in our hearts’). Raab’s profession about Lord is a partial reprise of Deut. 4:39 – the midrash sees here the sign of Rahab’s conversion, which permits her now (͈̿ӂ ͋‫͋ن‬, v. 12) to ask for a safe life. In the following clause, Ѭ͐͑ͅ may be an error for Ѩ͐͑Ӄ; Theodoret in fact does cite this verse with ͍Ҡ͈ Ѩ͐͑Ӄ (M-F 102). The rendering above attempts to do some justice to the immediately preceding compound verb. Indeed, the unusual rendering there for ,,) niph was perhaps chosen for its play on ͍Ҡ͈ Ѭ͐͑ͅ here. Verse 12 sees an interesting alteration to the wording of Hebrew Rahab: Gk Raab’s actions are to the men, and their (asymmetric) response is to be in her father’s house; the balance in M-F’s envers vouz . . . envers la maison corresponds better to the repeated with in Hebrew. I am less sure here that the change is successful. The very lack of balance throws our attention on the word ‘house’, and what it means. We have noted above (on 2:1, 3) that a more or less careful distinction is made throughout this book between house (the building) and household. DH suggests that the one and only exception is in 24:15 – at the very least, ‘in my father’s oikos’ here calls that claim into question. He defends (91) the future forms ›͍͇Ӂ͐̓͑̓ (12) and ͖͎̈́́Ӂ͐̓͑̓ (13) as the original Gk readings, despite the majority support for aorist imperatives in -̿͑̓: he argues that, in the tradition reflected in B, these had become assimilated to the originally aorist Ҕ͊Ӆ͐̿͑̓ (‘swear’). ͖͎̈́́Ӂ͐̓͑̓ is used also in 6:25; 9:20 to render ! hiph. (‘let live’). Raab’s listing of her family is interestingly di֎erent in Heb. and Gk: MT: ‘my father and my mother and my brothers and my sisters and all that is theirs’ LXX: ‘my father my mother and my brothers and all my house and all that is theirs’ The men’s response to her terms (14) is even neater in Greek than in Hebrew. ‘Our lives in exchange for you’, they say, or ‘. . . for yours’. She

100

COMMENTARY § 5

had demanded that her life be delivered ‘from’ or ‘out of ’ (Ѩ͈) death. They set a limit to their guarantee: ‘till’ or ‘into’ (̓҄͏) death. Their first declaration is brief enough; but, as she sends them on their way with much good advice (15–16), they develop their response in even greater detail (17–20). ͈͔͉̿͑̿̿‫( ͋ـ‬15) is a real hapax – no other instance is cited in LSJ! MT !4 (‘let down’) is repeated in v. 18, where it is rendered straightforwardly by ͈͇̿͑̿̀̀ҽ͇̈́̓͋ (Josephus uses ͈͇̿͆͊‫)͋ـ‬. The simple vb. ͔͉̿‫ ͋ـ‬is much commoner, and means ‘slacken’ (as of a bowstring), ‘release’, ‘let down’. Precisely here, a coinage from ͔͉̿‫ ͋ـ‬may have been felt especially suitable, because of its assonance with Heb. *%, ‘window’. For ‘through the window’ (͇͂Ҽ ͑‫͎͒͆ ͏ق‬Ӄ͍͂͏), Gk uses the diminutive of the common word ͆Ӈ͎̿ for door; it can refer to a window, but also to less formal openings and valves. M-F (102–3) cites Origen on the window as metaphor of the opening which permits reception of the divine light. At the end of her farewell, ‘behind you . . . and after that . . .’ may be a midrash-like double rendering (DH 82) of the one word in MT: ‘and after[wards]’ (4). The men are concerned to spell out what will and what will not consitute a fair interpretation of what they three times call ‘this oath of yours’ (17, 19, 20). MT uses ‘this oath of yours’ only twice (not in 19), but each time pedantically clarifies the ambiguous phrase: ‘which you have made us swear’. Theodoret cites v. 17 using ͉Ӆ͍́͏ (‘word’), not Ҙ͎͈͍͏ (‘oath’). Their ‘into a part of the city’ (̓҄͏ ͊ҿ͎͍͏ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӆ͉͖̓͏) in v. 18 is quite di֎erent from MT 14, ‘into the land’ – Margolis considers it a free rendering. ͊ҿ͎͍͏ is used in Jesus to render 23 (10x), 0 (3x), 0` (1x), and 2 (1x). If we are dealing here with textual corruption, 2 may be the most likely candidate: it is most easily confused with the 24 of 24; and the combined form 2) is used with place-names in 3:16 and 12:9. Holmes (21) prefers 4!- 23. M-F asks (103) whether Gk preserves trace of house-to-house combat, like 24:11? ‘And you will place the sign’ (͈̿ӂ ͆Ӂ͇͐̓͏ ͑ӄ ͐͊̓ͅ‫ )͍͋ل‬is an independent clause not represented in MT – it would retrovert to 7–7 77+. DH (107) discusses the ‘problematic’ verb (there is evidence also for ͂Ӂ͇͐̓͏, and Ѩ͈͂Ӂ͇͐̓͏ follows almost immediately). The scouts are introducing new material here – Gk did not report Rahab’s request for a ‘sign’ in v. 12. To be sure, each sign at a di֎erent position in the text has a di֎erent function: for Rahab (v. 12 MT) it is a pledge of trust; for the scouts (v. 18 LXX) – as also for Josephus – it is a sign of recognition. Text-critically, it is not a straightforward plus: MT has an additional word at the beginning of the next clause – ͐›͎̿͑Ӄ͍͋ renders  (‘thread’ – the translation was first

JOSHUA 2:4–24

101

used in Gen. 14:23), and the previous 737 means much the same and is therefore redundant. SS (37) explains ͂Ҿ in ͑ӄ͋ ͂Ҿ ›̿͑ҿ͎̿ ͍͐͒ as an example of ͂Ҿ with copulative, rather than adversative function. It is used rather than ͈̿ӂ to mark the change in topic within the instructions. One of the results of the literal rendering of the formulaic ! at the beginning of v. 19 by ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ is that the Greek vb. Ѭ͇͐͑̿ appears twice in the verse (SS 92). M-F notes Origen’s lengthy comment: even members of an ancient people may be saved if they come to the house where Christ’s blood is found – outside this house (that is, the church), no one is saved. She observes that, in using Ѭ͍͔͍͋͏ ѩ̿͒͑‫ ى‬Ѭ͇͐͑̿, the translator of Jesus follows the Pentateuch in avoiding a literal rendering of the Hebrew ‘his blood be on his [own] head’. On Lev. 20:9, BA3 had noted that the fuller expression of the more abstract Greek juridical expression would be Ѭ͍͔͍͋͏ ͆̿͋ҽ͍͑͒ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ – ‘he will deserve death’. Gk repeats in vv. 19 and 20 the full phrase ј͆‫ ى͑ ͇͍و‬ҙ͎͈Զ ͍͐͒ ͍͑Ӈ͖͑ first found in v. 17 – MT is shorter in both verses. The conditional clause ‘but if someone wrongs us’ (ѨҼ͋ ͂ҿ ͇͑͏ ѵ͊‫͏ـ‬ ј͇͈͂Ӂ͐Ԍ) opens v. 20; but it corresponds to what appears in MT as the final element in v. 19: literally ‘if a hand comes to be on him’. In v. 20 in Gk, it is the first of two conditionals: these are disjunctive; and this is marked by Ѷ, used only once more in Jesus (22:23), again in a complex conditional sentence. The verbal form ј›͍͈͉̿Ӈ͕Ԍ is ambiguous. M-F read it as 2nd pers middle, so corresponding to MT. However, it can also be read as 3rd pers act (‘if someone reveals’). What she does not say is that this, without any change of person, is the more natural reading of the Gk given its verse-division. The second marginal division of B signals the start of its fourth section at v. 22. The men follow Raab’s advice and make for the hill-country, rather than straight back to the river. Just as Gk distinguishes between two senses of ‘house’, so too between di֎erent uses of 4 (DH 141): her advice and their route (16, 22) take them into the Ҕ͎̓Ӄ͋ͅ or ‘hill-country’; but the report of the return to Jesus of the ‘young men’ (so styled, as in v. 1 – ͋̓̿͋Ӄ͈͍͇͐) has them descend from the particular Ҙ͎͍͏ or ‘hill’ (23) which they had reached. The earlier divisions of B bring the portion to an close with vv. 22–24; and this Greek story has a happy ending, linguistically as in other ways. ‘What had met them’, like ‘what was finding them’ (MT), frequently means no more than our ‘what had happened to them’. But, rendered more literally, it gives a very successful twist to this story of the two scouts. Scouting or spying is a sort of ‘finding’: but they had to report to their chief not so much what they had found, as what

102

COMMENTARY §§ 5–7

had found them. ‘That’ (early in v. 24) is a clear case of ҙ͇͑ introducing direct speech. However, SS notes (187) that there has been discussion over how the underlying !# should be read in MT. ›͎͇̿̿͂͂Ӆ͇͋̿ (‘deliver’) is used for *7+ as in v. 14 and some 20 times in this book. The term is borrowed (M-F) from military law in Egypt. ‘Cower down’ (͈̿͑̿›͑Ӂ͇͐͐̓͋) is rare in LXX (Proverbs 3x and Sirach 1x), and nowhere else is the equivalent for the scarcely commoner ) niph. As for its subject, DH (166) sees ҕ ͈͍͇͈̿͑‫͑ ͋و‬Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬as a participle with direct object in the acc. replacing the Hebrew genit. construction as frequently in Jesus – MT has 14–!_!. On the other hand, Gk may attest an originally singular 14–_!, which would be grammatical ambiguous.

6. Departure from Sattein (3:1) The juxtaposition of one of the shortest immediately after one of the longest paragraphs focuses attention on the rationale underlying these divisions in the text as transcribed by the first scribe of B. This paragraph appears simply to report movement from the base at Sattein to the Jordan; but for B’s scribe matters can hardly have been so straightforward. The movement from Sattein to the Jordan merits its own paragraph because it marks the beginning of the long-awaited realisation of the divine promise. The Greek expression rendered ‘rose at morning’ is the stereotypical rendering of a common Hebrew formula. It recurs in 7:16 and 8:10, but not in 6:12 where there are other di֎erences between Gk and MT. M-F goes too far in claiming that this formula establishes a link between Jesus, Abraham, and Moses; for it is used of many other figures as well. The Egyptian group of texts clearly supports B in presenting Jesus only as the grammatical subject of ‘took o֎’. The majority Gk tradition like MT has the pl. ‘they took o֎’. B’s sg.could have been influenced by Ұ͎͎͇͆͐̓͋ as easily as the majority pl. by the following two verbs (DH 92).

7. Scribes pass on instructions (3:2–4) 3. ›͍͎̓Ӈ̓͐͆̓] the tiny ͐ altering present ›͍͎̓Ӈ̓͐͆̓ to future ›͍͎̓Ӈ͐̓͐͆̓ is probably a secondary addition. 4. ј›Ԇ Ѩ͔͆Ҿ͏] ̵̧̠̯̤̤̱ has been secondarily corrected to ̵̧̠̯̮̤̱.

JOSHUA 2:4–24 – 3:2–4

103

The role of the scribes in passing instructions to the people is resumed from 1:10–11. The narrative has reported neither their execution of the commands issued by Jesus in 1:10–11, nor new instructions from him; but both are to be taken as read. The scribes appear to have no authority over the movement of the ark; they simply instruct the people to pay it careful attention, yet without straying too close. ‘The chest of the disposition of Lord our god’ is mentioned here for the first time in this book; and in Gk as in MT this full formula is quite grammatical – surprisingly often in the verses that follow this will not be the case. Both may be grammatical, but they di֎er at the end of the phrase: B as often in the book has the inclusive ‘our god’ where MT has ‘your god’ (Codex Alexandrinus mediates between these two positions). Following the ark, or at least following it at the appropriate distance, will lead to ‘understanding’ and not mere ‘knowledge’ of the ‘way’ (compare on 2:5, 9 above). However, the major textual and exegetical issue in this portion is over the relationship of priests and levites. The punctuation of the translation above suggests that the attention of the people is directed to a threefold scene: the ark, our priests, the porter-levites; however, the Greek could be understood as having a twin focus: the ark, and (carrying it) our priests and the levites. The objection this second interpretation has to face is why, if they are to be taken as a single group, only the priests are called ‘our’. MT has no ‘our’; and ‘our priests’ is a rare biblical phrase, attested in MT only in Ezra 9:7, 34 and Neh. 9:32; 10:1. In her full note, M-F observes that Vulgate’s et sacerdotes stirpis leviticae (‘and the priests of levitical stock’) underscores MT. On the other side, Targum and Syriac support the LXX distinction here and in 9:2. Origen separates the priestly and levitical orders; and Josephus too – but he has the priests carry the chest (which is of course specifically stated in v. 6), while the levites porter the tent and the sacrificial instruments. It may have been intentional in this version that the scribes make a mistake over the carrying of the ark, a mistake which Lord would correct in his instructions to the priests through Jesus in v. 8. Discussing ‘through the camp’ (2), DH comments (36, n. 12) on the Gk ‘suppression’ throughout the book of Jesus of Heb. 43 ‘in the midst of ’. We should add that the equivalent is Ѩ͋ in 3:5; 6:25; 7:13; 9:22; 13:13; 16:10; and possibly also in 24:5 (see below) – ͇͂Ҽ is used only here, perhaps under the influence of the prefix in the opening verb. ‘Whenever you see’ (ҙ͑̿͋ ҈͂͑̓ͅ) is the first of four subordinate clauses with ҙ͑̿͋ in Jesus, rendering three di֎erent Hebrew constructions (DH 178).

104

COMMENTARY §§ 7–9

Elsewhere in Jesus, # + inf. is rendered by a subordinate clause introduced by ҭ͏ (2:14; 3:8,13,15; 4:7,18; 5:1; 6:20; 8:14,24; 9:1; 10:1,20; 11:1). DH finds the shift from the future ј›͎̿̓‫‘( ̓͑ل‬you will take o֎’) to the (continuous) present ›͍͎̓Ӈ̓͐͆̓ (‘you are going’) stylistically not very attractive, but thoroughly possible; for each in itself has imperatival force (92). What he does not say is that each renders a di֎erent form of the Heb. vb.: yiqtol followed by weqatal – '7#% . . . -,7. ‘You shall stand’ (͐͑Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓) in v. 4 is again future, like ј›͎̿̓‫ ̓͑ل‬in v. 3. ͐͑Ӂ͐̓͐͆̓ appears to reflect )-7. M-F strangely supposes that MT ) has been misread as a hitpael of )-. However, [1] such a form is nowhere attested in HB, and in any case the qal would make good sense; [2] ) does appear again in Lev. 19:35 and 2 Chron. 3:3, but not as used here in MT. It is safer to assume here a Vorlage di֎erent from MT. ‘The way which you are going it’ (͑Ӏ͋ ҕ͂ӄ͋ ѷ͋ ›͍͎̓Ӈ̓͐͆̓ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋) is an over-literal rendering of the Hebrew form of relative clause. And ј›Ԇ Ѩ͔͆Ҿ͏ ͈̿ӂ ͎͑Ӄ͑ͅ͏ ѵ͊ҿ͎̿͏ is again a very literal rendering of '_%_ %)7).

8. More instructions from Jesus (3:5–6) Jesus transmits the following two instructions in his own voice. M-F notes that vv. 5–7 are the haphtarah for the seder on the day after Passover. The people may have to take their lead from the movement of the ark, but it is Jesus who coordinates that movement. His command that the people consecrate themselves (љ́͋Ӄ͐̿͐͆̓) recalls Moses’s words in Num. 11:18 – there too the rarer љ́͋Ӄ͇̈́̓͋ is used and not љ͇́ҽ͇̈́̓͋ (used in the similar Exod. 19:10); and there too Moses specifies ‘for tomorrow’, while MT uses ‘tomorrow’ only in the following promise. SS does not note the possibility of influence from Numbers, but suggests that the anticipation of ‘tomorrow’ in LXX ‘strengthens the linkage between the command and its explanation’. However, she also notes that ҙ͇͑ providing motivation for a command or prohibition is contrary to Gk usage (146). It may be that the desire to point to the link with Numbers also explains the literalness of the Gk rendering here – Targ has ‘prepare’, perhaps unwilling to use a sacral/ priestly term for the whole people. Moses commands the whole people; but he includes himself among the recipients or spectators of what Lord will do ‘in us’ (again MT and most LXX witnesses have ‘you’). Noteworthy, both in command and in carrying it out, is the shift from punctual aorist ‘lift’ (ќ͎̿͑̓ . . . ͈̿ӂ Ѻ͎̿͋) to continuous present/imperfect ‘be going’ (›͎͍›͍͎̓Ӈ̓͐͆̓ . . . ͈̿ӂ Ѩ›͍͎̓Ӈ͍͍͋͑).

JOSHUA 3:2–4 – 3:7–8

105

9. Lord addresses Jesus (3:7–8) 7. ̓҈›̓͋] here as often in B the first hand wrote ̨̤̯̤̬, but the ̬ was then deleted before a following consonant. 8. ͈̿ӂ ͋‫ ]͋ن‬attests 7- not MT 7 (‘and you’). Ѩ›ӂ ͊ҿ͍͐͒] Rahlfs and Margolis agree here in reading A’s Ѩ›ӂ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏, which is also attested in Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus (M-F 107). ͊ҿ͎͍͏ is certainly the commonest rendering of 23 in MT here. But there is an interesting parallel in 4 Kgdms 7:5, where A and the first hand of B read ̓҄͏ ͊ҿ͍͐͋, and the second hand of B and Rahlfs have ̓҄͏ ͊ҿ͎͍͏, for 23–-. A new paragraph in B marks the first return to divine speech since 1:1–9. In MT, however, these verses conclude the long section beginning with 2:1. Lord first encourages Jesus, before entrusting him with the next instruction for the campaign. ‘Exalt’ (ҡ͕͍‫ )͋ن‬is used only here in Jesus, but elsewhere translates several di֎erent Hebrew verbs. Mostly these are used of humans exalting Lord, rather than Lord exalting one of them. The second Jesus is also acknowledged by God at his baptism, but in di֎erent words: ‘I am well pleased in you.’ Origen makes the same connection, explaining the divine promise to exalt Jesus by identifying the crossing of the Jordan with baptism; but he cites this portion of Jesus di֎erently: not ‘before all the sons of Israel’, but ‘before the face of my people’ (M-F 106). As the divine encouragement continues, Lord repeats his own words in 1:5 – ‘as I was with Moses so I shall be with you too’. DH compares this absolute use of ‘know’ (́͋‫ )͇͋͐و‬with Gen. 4:9; 18:21; 29:5; Exod. 22:10; Lev. 5:3, 4, 17; etc. SS notes (185) that ͈̿͆Ӆ͇͑ (‘as’), corresponding to MT 4_# !#, is the only case in Jesus where !# initiating an object clause has no ‘visible counterpart’ in Gk. She suggests ҙ͇͑ was omitted because of the following ͈̿͆Ӆ͇͑. DH cites (95), but does not appear to endorse, the view of Margolis that ‘ҙ͇͑ cannot obviously be missed’. A Greek participle with acc. (͍͑‫͑ ͇͍͎͋͐͒҈̿ ͏ل‬Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑Ӆ͋) to render the Hebrew genitive construction has been used already in 2:24 – ҕ ͈͍͇͈̿͑‫͑ ͋و‬Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬for (the presumably original) 14 _!. At the end of the instructions for the priests (‘in the Jordan also you will stand’), the ‘connective’ ͈̿ӂ does not so much link as emphasise the following words. Within Jesus, the closest parallel for such a ͈̿ӂ at the opening of the main clause (but not introducing a verb) appears to be 22:18 – ‘if you revolt from Yahweh today, 4)/͈̿ӂ ̿Ҥ͎͇͍͋/even

106

COMMENTARY §§ 9–11

tomorrow (i.e. as soon as tomorrow) against the whole congregation of Israel he will rage’.

10. Jesus prepares his people (3:9–13) 9. ͑ӄ Ԫ‫ ]̿͊ق‬Vulgate’s verbum Domini (9) is also sing.; but MT has pl. !4 !. The acc. case is appropriate following ј͈͍Ӈ͇̓͋ in the sense ‘hear/ learn’ (DH 61); the gen., has the sense ‘hearken to/obey’. In ‘our god’ (͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬ѵ͊‫)͋و‬, DH (39) finds ѵ͊‫ ͋و‬better supported than ҡ͊‫( ͋و‬which agrees with MT). By contrast, where B has ј›ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ѵ͊‫( ͋و‬10), there is a slight majority of witness here for ҡ͊‫ ;͋و‬in B it is typical that Jesus includes himself among the people he is addressing. 13. ͐͑Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿] Gk is much shorter at the end of this verse, and represents only )-! (without -) of the last 4 words in MT:  + )-! %-)%). SS is uncertain over the direction intended by the phrase ‘In this’ (10): is it from hearing ‘the word’ that they are to learn, or by witnessing the destruction of the seven nations? I am not persuaded by her suggestion (107) that the ambiguity would be less if Gk followed MT in repeating ‘and Joshua said’ at the beginning of this verse. Deut. 4:33 and 5:23 could support the first of her options; however, David’s words just before killing the Philistine, that Goliath had scorned the armies of ‘a living god’, keep her alternative in play. LXX has di֎erent strategies for achieving a more or less literal rendering of the Hebrew idiom which strengthens the idea of a verb itself by adding its inf. absol. alongside the appropriate form of that verb. One of the two commonest strategies, as in v. 10, is to render the Hebrew inf. absol. by a participle agreeing with the subject of the [main] verb (Tov 253 – although this instance is not noted in 249–50). We noted on 2:10 above that the compound vb. Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͇̓͋ is used widely in Jesus; however, the simple verb appears only here and in 7:25 – there MT reads not _4! hiph but 4#-. The way the chest is styled in verses 11 and 13, in both Greek and Hebrew, is odd – and the oddities are di֎erent in each verse and version. Three comments are necessary on ‘the chest of disposition of lord of all the earth’ (11 in B): (a) the lack of the definite article before ‘covenant’; (b) the fact that ‘lord’ is used not as an independent name, as heretofore in Jesus, but as a common noun with a genitive phrase following; and (c) the lack of the definite article before ‘lord’.

JOSHUA 3:7–8 – 3:14–17a

107

(a) Margolis has remarked on the first, that an accidental omission of ͑‫ ͏ق‬following the -͑ӄ͏ of ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͏ is not impossible – but see on (c). The lack of the article in many Gk witnesses is all the more surprising because MT causes surprise for the opposite reason: including the article where Hebrew does not expect it. (b) The second point, however, is readily clarified by MT: ‘lord’ here renders not the divine name, but a common Hebrew noun. However, this only makes the third issue more acute. (c) If ‘lord’ is a common noun and part of a chain of nouns in genitive relationship, whose status as definite is marked by the definite article used with the first and fourth members of that chain, then it and also the third member ‘covenant’ should also be preceded by the Greek article. DH’s comment (66) appears perverse: that the presence of a redundant article in the corresponding phrase in MT may let the absence of a normal article in B appear original. Do two wrongs make a right? M-F notes that the interpretation of the Targum agrees with LXX; Rashi, however, suggests that in MT the divine name should be understood before ‘lord’. There are similar problems in the near-identical phrase in verse 13. This time ‘covenant’ does have the article, but ‘lord’ is still without. MT is unproblematic in itself (‘the chest of Yahweh, the lord of all the earth’), but di֎erent from LXX. ‘Have ready’ (›͎͍͔͇͎̓Ӄ͇̈́̓͐͆̿) in v. 12 is a classical Greek verb, and is used 4x in Daniel and Maccabees where there is no Hebrew to compare. But it is also used once in the Pentateuch. In Exod. 4:13 (where MT uses not 3% but %_), Moses is asking Lord to relieve him of his duties, and have someone else at his ‘disposal’. ‘Leave off ’ in v. 13 (Ѩ͈͉̓Ӄ›͇̓͋ means literally ‘su֎er eclipse’ – see also 3:16; 4:7) lacks the sense of MT 74#+, ‘be cut’.

11. Jordan crossed (3:14–17a) 15. ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒] This plus is included only in Egyptian witnesses. Bieberstein (145) holds the words to be secondary expansion. DH sees their omission from other Gk witnesses as correction towards MT (107–8). ̓҄͏ ͊ҿ͎͍͏] MT here has 23 – cf above on v. 8. ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒] a Gk plus. The translator’s Vorlage could have contained ‘Jordan’ twice, or he could have used midrash-like freedom (DH 82).

108

COMMENTARY § 11

16. ͓͍͎͐͂‫ ]͏و‬MT consonants are ', but the qere or oّcial reading is ‘from Adam’, perhaps attesting an alternative reading '). It appears that Gk read not ') but simply ), ‘extremely’. ‘water that was coming down came down’ is Gk + ҅͐͑Ӂ͈͇̓] ‘corrected’ to standard ̓҅͐͑Ӂ͈͇̓ by a small superscript E over the opening ̨. This paragraph is also the start of a section in B’s second marginal division. The actual crossing is now reported in rather diّcult Greek, as the detailed notes below attest. At the beginning of verse 14, Gk retroverts to a Hebrew slightly briefer than MT. Without discussion, SS simply states (86) that the translator not only omitted the formula verb but also modified the structure of the passage, transforming a prepositionwith-infinitive construction into a normal main clause. However, the Hebrew of MT is itself diّcult: the opening formulaic ‘and it came to be’ is not resumed by any finite verb. On the other hand, if Gk has properly rendered a shorter Vorlage, then that text may have been modelled on the beginning of the report in Num. 10:33–36 about the departure of the people from the mountain of Yahweh, with the chest travelling in front of them. MT might then be a clumsy adaptation of that Vorlage, towards the opening of Num. 10:35. ͍҅ ͂Ҿ ͎҅̓̓‫‘( ͏ل‬Now the priests’) is the second on SS’s list (37) of copulative uses of ͂ҿ: ‘Now, the narrative seems to continue without disturbance. Only the subject changes from the people to the priests.’ Gk ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͋ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏ is unproblematic in itself; but MT is again diّcult: 7!4 *4 !`+, literally ‘bearers of the chest – the disposition’ (compare v. 17a). ›͎Ӆ͎͍͇͑̓ ͍͑‫ ن͍͉̿ ن‬was used above on 1:14. In ҭ͏ ͂Ҿ ̓҄͐̓›͍͎̓Ӈ͍͍͋͑, which opens v. 15, copulative ͂Ҿ is chosen again in preference to ͈̿ӂ to focus ‘the reader’s attention on what happens by the river. The previous passage is a description of the marching order.’ (SS 38) ͈͎ͅ›Ӄ͏ in classical Greek means ‘embankment’, rather than ‘bank’ – MT has a pl. form here. The closest linguistic approximation within Jesus 3–4 to the ‘baptism’ in Jordan of the second Jesus is Ѩ̀ҽ͓͐̿͋ͅ (‘were dipped’) in verse 15. (Note the shift from the continuous imperfect ̓҄͐̓›͍͎̓Ӈ͍͍͋͑ to the punctual aorist Ѩ̀ҽ͓͐̿͋ͅ.) Yet the connection is more suggestive than close. In the Pentateuch, ̀ҽ›͇͑̓͋ is used of ‘dipping’ one’s foot in oil, or dipping hyssop or one’s finger in blood; it is not used in the parallel story in Exodus of crossing the Red Sea. The related ̀̿›͑Ӄ͇̈́̓͋ is used occasionally in OT (4 Kgdms 5:14; Judith 12:7; Ecclus 34:25) of performing a formal ablution.

JOSHUA 3:14–17a

109

The transition between verses 15 and 16 requires careful attention. MT and Gk di֎er at the end of v. 15 in two ways: MT has ‘all days of reaping’, and Gk ‘just like days of reaping wheat’. At the beginning of the phrase, Gk attests one less Hebrew letter (kymy for kl ymy); at the end, the added specification of ‘wheat’. Tov is open here to recognising a true textual variant; but also recognises the possibility of midrashic expansion. Then ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͐͑ͅ (‘and there came to a stop’) at the beginning of v. 16, despite the connective, does mark the beginning of the main clause of a sentence introduced in v. 15. It is rightly rendered by M-F; and, from the way in which he excerpts from vv. 15–16 in his listing of subordinate clauses with ҭ͏, it seems that DH agrees (178). The connective is a relic of Hebrew co-ordinating style which should have been removed when v. 15 was turned into a subordinate clause. There are further examples in the next portion. The stationary water is described as ›‫ ̿͊́ق‬ѭ͋, using a term which though classical appears only here in LXX. However, M-F notes that the cognate ›́͋ͅӇ͇͋̿ has appeared in the account of the related event in Exod. 15:8 – in fact twice, in the aorist form Ѩ›ҽ́ͅ (‘became congealed or solid’). An ancient variant must also have been discussed; for Theodoret draws attention to ќ͈͖͐͊̿ in Symmachus, which would render + (‘bottle’) rather than MT + (‘heap’) – the waters were bottled up rather than heaped up? From the ѭ͋ (‘one’), Origen deduces this was a greater miracle than at the Red Sea: the waters were gathered in one heap, rather than two walls. The biblical account maximises the wondrous elements of the divine control of the waters. In typical fashion, the report by Josephus plays them down. There is no mention of higher-than-usual water level because of the time of year. The river simply had a strong current; and neither had it ever been bridged nor did they have boats. God did weaken the force of the waters; and, once the priests had found firm footing, the rest of the people crossed in confidence. In ѭ͖͏ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏ ̩͇͇͎͇̿͆̿̓͋ (16), ͎͍͊̓͏ corresponds to 2 in MT. The place-name is very di֎erently attested: A has ̩͎͇͇͎͇̿̿͆̿͊ (like the place on one of the main descents westwards from Jerusalem), while Theodotion, Aquila, and Symmachus support MT *742. ͈̿͑ҿ̀ͅ (‘came down’) is Gk plus, which M-F finds eases the reading. MT 4- '! is in a construct or genitive relationship. With the indeclinable ̠͎̿̀̿, Gk would normally mark the genit. by using the article ͑‫͏ق‬. In its absence, I assume that in ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ ̠͎̿̀̿, the name is in apposition to ‘the sea’. Note that, in the appositional ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ љ͉Ӆ͏, љ͉Ӆ͏ is without

110

COMMENTARY §§ 11–12

article, though MT has %) '!. In 12:3 and 18:19, ͆ҽ͉. ͑‫ ͋و‬љ͉‫ ͋و‬corresponds to the same Hebrew. Gk ‘had stood’ (҅͐͑Ӂ͈͇̓) – pluperfect, not perfect – has read )-, while MT has 4- (‘passed’ or ‘crossed’). ‘Those carrying the ark’ (͍҅ ̿҈͎͍͋͑̓͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͇͖̀͑Ӆ͋), three times in this paragraph, is a further example (cf 2:24 above) of Greek participle with acc. replacing Heb. construct relationship. A and MT include the following sentence (v. 17b) within this paragraph; MT also adds *# (cf 4:3) as the last word of 17a.

12. The next divine instructions to Jesus (3:17b–4:3) 3. ͎͍͐͑̿͑›̓͂Ӄ̿] ‘corrected’ to standard ͎͍͐͑̿͑›̓͂̓Ӄ̿ by a small superscript E over the I. Among the many problems raised by the report of the Jordan crossing is just how to identify the transition points between portions of the story. In this edition, we are following B’s first scribe. He started a new portion one half-verse earlier than the medieval western tradition was to recognise a chapter-break; and his decision was followed in the first marginal division of B. The second marginal division, which collapsed five original portions into the division 3:14–4:14, did not recognise a major break in this area. On the other hand, Codex Alexandrinus treated as a single ‘verse’ exactly the western 3:17. MT also recognised a break in this area – but one half-verse later than the medieval western tradition. M-F comments that MT inserts a blank between the two parts of 4:1, to mark the start of a retrospective story which continues till v. 11 where the narrative is relaunched with the same formula. Laos is the standing equivalent for Hebrew ʚam, the regular term throughout the Hebrew Bible for ‘the people [Israel]’. However, MT in 3:17 and in 4:1, 11 reads goy, which is normally used for one of the other nations of the earth. The Greek text is more straightforward: it has understood ‘all the people’ as being equivalent to the preceding ‘all the sons of Israel’. Jewish tradition has understood ‘all the goy’ as referring to those members of other nations who were associated here with Israel. Several aspects of the language require comment. ͇͂̿̀̿Ӄ͖͋͋ (17b) is a Gk participle rendering a Heb. infinitive. Of DH’s 4 examples (177) of subordinate clauses with Ѩ›̓Ӄ, only this one (1) renders 4_#. As for ͈̿ӂ ̓‫͋̓›ة‬: although the formulaic !! at the beginning of the sentence has been reduced to ͈̿Ӄ, the following wa-yiqtol is rendered literally. This is

JOSHUA 3:14–17a & 3:17b–4:3

111

against Greek idiom, but agrees with the other 2 cases where the temporal clause precedes the main clause (10:24; 17:13). ›͎͉̿̿̿̀ӈ͋ (2) is a more common rendering of 3% than the striking ›͎͍͔͇͎̓Ӄ͇̈́̓͐͆̿ used in 3:12. It means ‘associate someone with oneself ’. SS calls this a ‘modal’ use of the participle (58). DH (56) o֎ers a useful discussion of the surprising use of ͈̿ӂ in ͐Ӈ͍͋͑̿͌͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͈̿ ͏ل‬ӂ ј͋ҿ͉̓͐͆̓ (3). MT reads 4)% after the initial command, as per the ‘rule’ that Hebrew tolerates direct speech only after some form of the vb. 4); and LXX is similarly regular in rendering 4)% by some form of ͉ҿ͖́͋. ј͋ҿ͉͇̓͐͆̿ corresponds here to `+ (‘pick up/ carry’) but in v. 5 to '!4 (‘raise [high]’). The verb ј͉͋̓̓‫ ͋ل‬is used in the active voice in Josh. 9–11 in a sense closer to the contemporary English ‘take out’: kill. Margolis suggests G may have read `, and that the Gk connective is to be explained as the ‘͈̿ӂ of eager appeal’. Two other possibilities should be mentioned: that the Gk imperative preceded by ͈̿ӂ rendered '7`+, as the we-qatal is often used in Hebrew to express command; or that there was influence from 4:16 below. There are in fact several divergences between LXX and MT in vv. 2–3 – B represents neither ) '#% before Ѩ͈ ͊ҿ͍͐͒ ͍͑‫̨͎͍͂ ن‬ҽ͍͋͒ nor '!+# !%4 22) after it. Margolis suggests that '#% is not expressed in Gk because ‘implied in the middle’ [voice]. However, he had also suggested on v. 2 that '#% there was not expressed in Gk, ‘because implied in ›͎̿̿-’. Although an adjective, ѩ͍͑Ӄ͍͊͒͏ (3) retains the position of the infinitive *!#, which resumes the earlier imperative. ‘Ready’ (or ‘steady’) is attested also in Aquila and Symmachus here for the verbal form. ѭ͍͇͍͑͊͏ rendering the related *#+ is found in similar solemn commands in Exod. 19:11, 15 and 34:2, to which there is an even closer parallel below in 8:4. ͈̿ӂ ͍͑Ӈ͍͑͒͏ ͇͈͍͂̿͊Ӄ͐̿͋͑̓͏ ѝ͊̿ ҡ͊‫͈̿ ͋ل‬ӂ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬is also unusual. ͇͈͍͂̿͊Ӄ͇̈́̓͋ (‘convey’) in itself is good classical Greek and is found in 1 Esdras and several times in Maccabees, but only here and in v. 8 in the translated books of OT – both times for 4- hiph. The ͈̿ӂ between ҡ͊‫͋ل‬ and ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬is hard to explain, as will already be clear from the clumsy translation above. However, it is well attested in B and related witnesses, and is adopted by Margolis. DH (95) follows up the suggestion of Margolis that Gk was coping with both '7 (‘you’ pl.) and '7 (‘them’), the second having started as a doublet of the first. It appears more accurate to me to report that '7 has been rendered twice in Gk, first by ͍͑Ӈ͍͑͒͏ and then by ̿Ҡ͍͑‫͏ل‬. The end of verse 3 is given a more military connotation in Gk than the Hebrew would require: ͎͍͐͑̿͑›̓͂Ӄ̿ is explicitly military (–̓Ӄ̿ would have been more correct orthography – DH 41);

112

COMMENTARY §§ 12–13

and the vb. ›͎̿̓͊̀ҽ͉͉͇̓͋ here and cognate noun ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀Ӂ in v. 8 are often used in military contexts.

13. Twice twelve stones are moved (4:4–10) 10. ҅͐͑Ӂ͈͇̓͐̿͋] The plupf. is normally spelled either ѩ͐͑Ӂ͈- or ̓҅͐͑Ӂ͈-. Here the first hand in B wrote ҅͐͑Ӂ͈͇̓͐̿͋, which has been corrected with the insertion of a small superscript ̓. Whatever the spelling, the plupf. is an odd choice for translating the Hebrew participle, which normally has continuous force. In itself, this Greek portion is relatively straightforward. It is harder when reading MT to decide just where the twelve stones were taken from, where they were placed, and on whose authority. Holmes o֎ers a very thorough defence (24–25) of his view that the several pluses in MT are mostly due to the misunderstanding of the original meaning of v. 5. Josephus simplifies matters by reporting only on 12 stones erected west of the river. Gk on the other hand informs us clearly that there were two sets of stones: one set removed from the Jordan to be placed on the western side as a memorial for ever; one set deposited in the Jordan by Jesus which are still there. At the beginning of v. 9 it departs from the MT order of object-verb-subject, which emphasises the 12 stones in question. However, it does draw attention in a di֎erent way to these 12 stones: by specifying them as a di֎erent set of 12 stones from the first, as do the Vulgate and Jewish oral tradition. DH classes this as a clarifying addition (158). There is a whole nexus of issues relating to the three phrases ‘before me’ and ‘in face of Lord’ (5), and ‘in face of chest of disposition of Lord of all the earth’ (7). As to the first pair in v. 5, Gk o֎ers both more and less than MT: more, in that lpny rendered as Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆ҿ͋ ͍͊͒ and lpny yhwh rendered as ›͎ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ may go back to alternative forms of the Hebrew text; and less, in that ‘before Lord (< Yahweh)’ is much shorter than MT ‘before the chest of Yahweh your god’. As M-F notes, ›͎ӄ ›͎͍͐Ӊ›͍͒ is used very many times throughout Deuteronomy, but only here in this book. What she does not say, however, is that the combination ‘in face of Lord’ is never found in Deuteronomy: ‘over against Lord’ (Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒) is its stock rendering of lpny yhwh. M-F also offers the puzzling suggestion (to me at least), that the suppression of chest is an attempt at harmonisation, since it is a matter (does she mean

JOSHUA 3:17b–4:3 & 4:4–10

113

elsewhere in the narrative?) of men crossing the Jordan after the ark. Certainly the normal order is chest first; however, special arrangements for the memorial stones appear an acceptable exception. She does not even raise the possibility that the longer MT might be a secondary expansion of lpny yhwh. Be that as it may, the longer expression in v. 7 is not only fuller than MT in v. 5, but also fuller than MT in v. 7 – and also ungrammatical. Still within v. 5, ‘and each taking up from there a stone let him carry it’ looks like just another example of Greek subordination by use of a participle; however, MT o֎ers only one verb, not two. DH notes one further such instance in 9:11 (176). H&R sees ј͉͋̓Ӆ͍͊̓͋͏ as the equivalent of )!4, and so o֎ers no equivalent for ј͎ҽ͖͑. However, we also learn from its entry on ̿҈͎͇̓͋ that that verb is used in this book only of priests carrying the chest (13x in Jesus 3–4, and also in 6:11; 8:33), and always rendering `+. ј͎ҽ͖͑ here, therefore, appears to breach the normal usage of that vb. in Jesus. Where MT uses `+ of the 12 stones (4:3, 8), Gk has either ј͋ҿ͉̓͐͆̓ (3) or ͉̿̀Ӆ͋͑̓͏ (8). On `+ used of ‘trumpets’ see below on chap. 6. Ignoring these issues, Holmes notes (26) that ‘let him carry’ (ј͎ҽ͖͑) ‘comes after ͉Ӄ͍͆͋ in B corresponding exactly in position to “one” in Hebrew after “stone”; it therefore represents the verb which was read by mistake instead of “one”.’ Ѩ͈̓‫ ͋̓͆ل‬too has no equivalent in MT (Holmes holds it an insertion in Gk), just as ‘from there’ in v. 3 (MT) had none in Gk. M-F renders ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͋͂Ӆ͖͌͋ (4) by a superlative: ‘the most renowned’. This paraphrastic rendering of *!# [4_] (‘[whom] he established’ or ‘appointed’) replaces ѩ͍͑Ӄ͍͊͒͏ for *!# in v. 3: the object of the Hebrew vb. is now 12 men rather than 12 stones. Tov includes this as an example of ‘Midrash-Type Exegesis’. MT includes the name of Joshua with ‘said to them’ (̓Ҋ›̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ )͏ل‬at the beginning of v. 5. It is not clear whether that had been added to the Gk Vorlage, or whether it was omitted when two independent clauses in vv. 4–5 were rebuilt using the familiar Gk participial construction. ›͎͍͐̿́ҽ́̓͑̓ is the ‘Egyptian’ reading: the majority witness has ›͎͍̿́ҽ́̓͑̓. Each vb. can be used intransitively: ›͎͍͐ҽ͇́̓͋ meaning ‘approach’; and ›͎͍ҽ͇́̓͋, ‘lead on’. B here has the more diّcult reading, and DH assumes a mistaken rather than a deliberate alteration from ›͎͍̿́ҽ́̓͑̓. Even the latter is a free rendering of 4-. Gk and Heb. are very di֎erent here in the opening clause of v. 6; and it is not easy to decide whether Gk renders a Vorlage substantially di֎erent from MT, or whether Gk has exercised greater than usual freedom. M-F supposes that ͈̓Ӄ͍͊̓͋͋ ͇͂Ҽ ›̿͋͑Ӆ͏ (‘present for all time’) corresponds to

114

COMMENTARY § 13

'#43 (‘in the midst of you’). However, given that Gk normally avoids a straightforward rendering of 43 in this book, ҡ›ҽ͎͔͖͇͐͋ ҡ͊‫ ͋ل‬could be the equivalent of '#43 !7, with ͈̓Ӄ͍͊̓͋͋ ͇͂Ҽ ›̿͋͑Ӆ͏ representing a plus. The stones on the western bank are called first a ‘sign’ (6) and then a ‘memorial’ (7). This pair of terms, especially when associated with the son’s question, recalls the institution of the feast of passover and unleavened bread (Exod. 13:3–10) – and that passage is immediately followed by talk of being brought to the land of the Canaanites (13:11). ‘Your son’ is sg. as in Exod. 13:14 and Dt 6:20; but MT has pl. ‘your sons’. As memorial, the stones also recall, and perhaps deliberately combine, two further themes from Exodus: the two onyx-stones on the shoulder-pieces of the priest’s ephod with the names of the twelve sons of Israel engraved on them (28:9–12); and the half-shekel raised from every Israelite counted in a census (30:11–16). Israel needed to recall what Yahweh had done; and Yahweh needed to recall who now constituted Israel. Twelve stones on the Canaan bank of the river neatly supplied both needs. ͈̿ӂ at the beginning of v. 7 is a literal rendering of the Heb. - in the main clause, but against Gk idiom. The double ͉͂ͅӉ͇͐̓͏ . . . ͉ҿ͖́͋ does correspond to good Heb. idiom, with ͉ҿ͖́͋ immediately preceding the reported speech (see above on 4:3); however, MT reads only the one verb '74). In both respects, the opening of 4:22 is di֎erent. Was the Vorlage in v. 7 also di֎erent? The Jordan is called a ‘river’ (›͍͑̿͊ӄ͏), as in 5:1 – MT has ‘waters’ in both passages. In Heb. Joshua, as in Deuteronomy, 4+ is reserved for the ‘great’ river, the Euphrates. In this verse it is LXX that carries the additional words ‘of all the earth’ after ‘Lord’. Gk is neither grammatical in itself, nor a literal reflection of accurate Hebrew. M-F explains that Gk suppresses as repetition the emphatic Hebrew ‘when the waters of the Jordan were cut’; the words may equally be a secondary doublet in MT. Of all the 21 subordinate clauses in Jesus with ҭ͏, only ҭ͏ ͇͂ҿ͇̀̿͋̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͋ here follows the main clause (DH 178–9). Gk has reduced the 2nd mention of ‘the Jordan’ to ‘it’. In verses 6–7, the first purpose (҉͋̿) clause is straightforward, but the second is diّcult. There ҉͋̿ (‘in order that’) is immediately followed by ҙ͑̿͋ (‘whenever’), which is very unusual in LXX; and ky is the only equivalent word in MT. Then the verb it governs, ͉͂ͅӉ͇͐̓͏ in v. 7, is not in subjunctive mood (as expected by rule and as in the case of ҡ›ҽ͎͔͖͇͐͋ following the earlier ҉͋̿). DH lists (178) the 3 other clauses in Jesus with ҙ͑̿͋. SS (170–1) discusses only 4:6 and 17:18 of these 4 instances (but not 3:3 or 4:21). She notes that ҙ͑̿͋ is more hypothetical than ҙ͑̓. ‘Why the translator employed both ҉͋̿ and ҙ͑̿͋ to render the Hebrew !#, is

JOSHUA 4:4–10

115

diّcult to say. The use of ҉͋̿ links the passage with the preceding context and with the command to pick up stones from the River Jordan. The use of ҙ͑̿͋, on the other hand, ties the clause and the embedded question to the following answer.’ She suggests a little later (178) that the presence in the !# clause of ‘tomorrow’ had contributed to the choice of a Greek temporal conjunction for the less specific Hebrew conjunction. SS gives a wholly sensible account of the same unusual pairing in Judg. 13:17 (171): ‘The translator employed the Greek conjunction ҙ͑̿͋ for the Hebrew ky, and the Greek ҉͋̿ expresses the same as the Hebrew co-ordinator w- before kbdnwk.’ If we apply this to ҉͋̿ ҙ͑̿͋ in 4:6–7, the only remaining problem is ͉͂ͅӉ͇͐̓͏ for the expected ͉͂ͅӉ͐Ԍ͏. We should note that B in Judg. 13:17 reads only ҙ͇͑, a more literal rendering of ky. LXX Judges is a much more literal translation than LXX Jesus. In v. 8, authority is di֎erently presented in LXX and MT. Gk twice cites instruction from Lord to Jesus. In the first instance, MT o֎ers not ‘as Lord commanded Jesus’, but ‘as Joshua commanded’. M-F notes that we find attributed to Lord again in 9:3 what MT attributes to Joshua. Noting also that ‘Joshua’ is a plus in MT in 4:5 and 5:15, she makes the negative point that, outside chap. 24, the role of Jesus does not appear to have been magnified in the Greek book bearing his name. This does seem to be justified; however, as noted above, it is more likely that the second occurrence of ‘Joshua’ in 4:4–5, though formally a plus in MT, was in fact lost by the Greek translator as a consequence of rebuilding these verses. Its presence or absence there is not an indicator of editorial sympathy. DH reminds us (175–6) that in cases of clause-initial kai, unnecessary to Greek idiom, such as ͈̿ӂ ͇͈͂̓Ӆ͇͊͐̿͋, there are as here usually quite a number of words between the previous participle and the main vb. SS reminds us (127) that this feature, though commonly termed a Hebraism when found in biblical Greek, is also found outside the Bible – estimates varying of how often. Before these words, LXX and MT report quite differently. Gk reads Ѩ͋ ͑‫͉̓̓͑͋͒͐ ك‬Ӄӽ ͑‫͇̀̿͂ ͏ق‬ҽ͖͐̓͏ ͑‫‘( ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و҅͒ ͋و‬at the completion of the crossing of the sons of Israel’). MT concludes also with %4`! !+; but these 2 words are preceded by ! _ 40,)%: ‘to the number of the tribes [of the sons of Israel]’. Both ͐͒͋͑ҿ͉͇̓̿ and 40,) could reflect, though di֎erently, modifications of the notion of totality; however, what might link ‘crossing’ and ‘tribe’ remains quite opaque. MT has *4! "7. DH comments twice on the phrase Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ى͑ ى‬ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋Ԍ (9). On p. 44, he cites it (but without mentioning ̿Ҡ͑‫ )ى‬as one of many cases where Gk has left "7 untranslated – the others are 4:10,18; 7:21,23; 12:2; 13:16. Much later he includes it in a list of ‘free renderings’

116

COMMENTARY §§ 13–15

(171). It may be better to explain ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬as at least a ‘shadow’ of "7. In the following verse, ‘in the midst of ’ ("7) is rendered simply as ‘in’ (Ѩ͋). Ѩ͋ ͑‫͍͊͋̓́ ى‬ҿ͋Զ ͑Ӆ›Զ ҡ›ӄ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›Ӆ͂̿͏ is again di֎erent from MT !%4 2) 77. ҡ›ӄ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›Ӆ͂̿͏ (‘under the feet’) alone renders !%4 77 exactly. The previous imprecise phrase may be a fudged attempt to cope with the diّcult 2). DH remarks (34, on 1:9) on the propensity throughout LXX of Gk to add ͑Ӆ›͍͏ (‘place’). DH has a full discussion (59) on ‘till this [very] day’ in both MT and Gk. At the end of this portion (10), Jesus in Gk is subject of an active verb ‘complete’, while MT tm means ‘come to completion’. MT also contains a whole clause lacking in Gk: ‘according to everything which Moses commanded Joshua’. Barthélemy rightly insists that there were two distinct literary treatments in MT and LXX – not just little di֎erences. M-F is also supportive of his more detailed diagnosis, that LXX had omitted what appeared contradictory, while MT had wanted to underline the transmission from Moses to Joshua. She finds harmonising variations in vv. 4, 5, 9, 10 of LXX. However, elsewhere in Pentateuch and the narrative books, ͉͐͒͋͑̓̓‫ ͋ل‬is the almost standard rendering of klh piel, not tm. Either the translator of Jesus took an independent line; or the text underlying his Vorlage or the MT was reworked. See below on chap. 5.

14. The crossing completed (4:11–13) The opening verse of this short portion has perhaps the greatest interest. The double mention of completion (͐͒͋̓͑ҿ͉̓͐̓͋) in vv. 10 and 11 corresponds to the similar pairing in 3:17b and 4:1a. From the point of view of literary structure, it is attractive to see each of these four clauses as marking the end or beginning of a portion. That would constitute an argument for the soundness of the ‘verse-divisions’ in A or the medieval western chapter division over against the divisions half a verse earlier or later in B or MT. In this verse, MT and Gk di֎er over who or what precedes the chest as it moves out of the Jordan bed. MT has the priests (hkhnym), while Gk ‘stones’ appears to translate hʙbnym. The many commentators who tend to prefer MT hold that the translator, or an earlier copyist, simply misread the original Hebrew. However, instructions are not given to the priests until v. 16 (M-F). I find it more likely that ‘stones’ has been adjusted to ‘priests’ in MT, on the basis of too literal a recollection of the command to the priests in 3:6 – ‘Take up the chest of the covenant, and pass on before the people.’

JOSHUA 4:4–10 – 4:14

117

The next verse[s] revert[s] to the role of the Transjordanians of whom we have heard nothing since Jesus in 1:12–15 recalled Moses’ instructions to them. LXX uses ͇͈͂̓͐̓͒̿͐͊ҿ͍͇͋ only here and in 1 Macc. 6:33; but it is well attested in classical Greek of preparation for war. M-F notes that Aquila and Origen also both give a military sense to '!_) (see above on 1:14). The easterners are now said to have crossed in front of the rest of the people, as instructed. Either this is a report out of chronological sequence, or ‘in front of ’ here means not ‘earlier than’ but ‘in face of ’ – publicly. It seems neater to suppose that the total of 40,000 refers to the armed men of the two-and-a-half tribes, rather than to the whole people. DH finds the use of the prepositional phrase ̓Ҥ͖͍͇̈́͋ ̓҄͏ ͊ҽ͔͋ͅ (‘[well-]dressed for battle’) to render 2 !2% as successful and quite literal (169).

15. Divine exaltation of Jesus (4:14) It is hardly surprising that this sentence on its own has the status of an independent portion for the scribe of this Codex. Jesus is described in one clause as not less than Moses, and in the other as before or above the whole ‘line’ or ‘race’ of Israel. The three divisions of the book represented in B as well as MT agree in recognising a division after this sentence. ̿Ҡ͌ҽ͇͋̓͋ (increase or augment or enlarge) is a verb applied mostly to the people in LXX; and that makes it appropriate in a comparison between Jesus and the rest of his people. Only once more in LXX does it render Hebrew gdl – concerning Lord’s exaltation of Solomon to the heights (2 Chron. 1:1). This is a particularly apt link, since in several other respects too the succession of Joshua to Moses and of Solomon to David share the same pattern (Auld 1998a:118–9). MT uses the same vb. % in both promise (in 3:7) and fulfilment here; but Gk had used ҡ͕‫͇̿͐و‬ there. The inclusive force of ›̿͋͑ӄ͏ in ͍͑‫͑͋̿› ن‬ӄ͏ ́ҿ͍͋͒͏ is greater when it follows the article as here in B and related witnesses. ́ҿ͍͋͒͏ is a Gk plus – B uses the word only once more in Jesus (11:21) where it is suspected of being a corruption of Ҙ͎͍͒͏. The next statement is more of a surprise. HB and LXX both commend ‘fearing’ father and mother (Lev. 19:3), or God and the king (Prov. 24:21); and Deuteronomy regularly explains fear of God in terms of obedience to him. Nowhere else is Moses or Joshua the proper object of his people’s ‘fear’; but, given the proverb just cited, this is further evidence of a royal pattern being used in the presentation of these earlier leaders.

118

COMMENTARY §§ 15–16

‘How much time he lived’ (ҙ͍͐͋ ͔͎Ӆ͍͋͋ Ѭ̈́ͅ) is an unusual rendering of !! !)!–%# (‘all the days of his life’) by a relative clause. However, as DH notes (71), ͔͎Ӆ͍͋͏ is the equivalent of the plural of '! once more in Jesus (24:31). In at least 3 other cases in this book (DH 172), Gk renders a noun-pair in const. relationship by a verbal clause (12:4; 15:63) or phrase (18:4).

16. Camp made at Galgal [Gilgal] (4:15–24) This major new portion describes the beginning of Israel’s life west of the Jordan: the first camp, and the immediate erection of the twelve memorial stones. B like MT describes what the priests are bearing di֎erently in vv. 16 and 18. While they agree in v. 18 over the common phrase ‘the chest of the disposition of Lord’, each introduces the topic di֎erently in v. 16 – and B in extraordinary terms. LXX normally makes a clear distinction between two common phrases: ‘the chest of the covenant’ (ѵ ͈͇͖̀͑ӄ͏ ͑‫͇͆̿͂ ͏ق‬Ӂ͈ͅ͏), and ‘the tent of the testimony’ (ѵ ͈͐͋ͅӀ ͍͑‫ن‬ ͎͎͊̿͑͒Ӄ͍͒). Exodus makes plain that ‘covenant’ and ‘testimony’ are alternative terms for the Decalogue: that the ‘testimonies’ are to be placed within the ‘ark’ (25:15, 20); and it talks in its final chapter of ‘the tent of the testimony’ being erected and ‘the chest of the testimony’ being put in it (40:2–3). LXX in these matters is simpler and more straightforward than MT: it uses martyrion, almost always with the article, apparently indi֎erently for MT moʚed (traditionally ‘meeting’, and without the article, in connection with ‘tent’) and for haʚedut (normally with art., traditionally ‘the testimony’ and connected with ‘ark’). It is not our business here to discuss which of LXX’s greater simplicity of usage or MT’s greater complexity is the more original in the Pentateuch. Here in 4:16, it seems likely that MT’s simpler ‘the chest of the testimony’ was the older text. B’s gothic agglomeration may have arisen from later inclusion within the text of what had started as an explanatory note: that ‘the chest of the testimony’ was none other than ‘the chest of the disposition of Lord’. According to SS (67–8), Ѩ͈̀‫( ͇̿͋ق‬16) is the unique case in Joshua of a w-initial main clause rendered by the Gk infinitive. She also records that Aejmelaeus notes two similar cases in Gen. 12:20; 42:25. This verb is used twice more in the paragraph (vv. 17,18) to render %- – as also in Isa. 24:18. Holmes suggests that ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͈͆̿͋ͅ (‘and they placed’) in v. 18 is a Gk guess, ignorant of how to deal with 37+. In his discussion of subordinate

JOSHUA 4:14 & 4:15–24

119

clauses with ҭ͏, DH (179) lists this verse, but does not examine its structure in MT and Gk. M-F’s comment is strange: that we have a Gk vb. in place of the Heb. ‘soles’ [of feet]; for either 37+ or 70# could have been replaced by ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͈͆̿͋ͅ. The Gk could retrovert to +7! (‘and they put/placed’), leaving 70# as MT plus. The return of the Jordan to normal flow is also stated in unusual terms. ҕ͎͊‫ ͋ـ‬is a striking rendering of the common Hebrew verb for ‘return’. While it is often used of energetic motion towards an enemy, it can also simply mean ‘set out’ or ‘start in motion’; and so M-F goes beyond the evidence when she uses jaillit (gushed or surged) in her translation. The Pentateuch uses the verb just twice: in Gen. 31:21 of Jacob ‘setting his face’ in departure towards Gilead, and in Num. 16:42 of the congregation hostile to Moses and Aaron assembling towards ‘the tent of the testimony’! We shall find it used once more in Jesus – in a Gk plus in 6:5. Then ͔Ӊ͎̿ is an unusual term for ‘place’. The word is something of a jack-of-all-trades, used some 13x in the Pentateuch to represent 6 di֎erent Hebrew terms. One of these instances (Exod. 14:27) describes the parallel return of the sea to its habitual bed. Though MT uses quite di֎erent terms, Gk has highlighted the connection. Both Jewish and Christian tradition developed the link between the date on which Israelite households were first ordered to select a lamb for the passover sacrifice before the departure from Egypt and the arrival in Canaan on the same day of the year: the ‘tenth’ of the first month. Philo and Origen both expatiate on the properties of the number 10 (MF). The compound verb ͈͎͍̿͑̓͐͑̿͑›ҿ͂̓͒͐̿͋ from ͎͐͑̿͑Ӆ›͍̓͂͋ (‘[military] camp’) is found elsewhere in LXX only in Judith and 2 Macc. This Galgal (adopted into Greek as a neut. pl. form) close to IereiΗŌ is distinct from the (indeclinable) Galgal in 15:7. The added article, two prepositions, and ‘sun’, in the following ͈̿͑Ҽ ͊ҿ͎͍͏ ͑ӄ ›͎ӄ͏ ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ ј͍͉͋̿͑Ҽ͏ ј›ӄ ͑‫ ̨͖͔͇͎̓̓ ͏ق‬all burden the rendering of the much neater Hebrew (cf DH 169). M-F o֎ers ‘in the part orientated to the sunrise relative to IereiΗŌ’. The translation above ventures to take ͈̿͑Ҽ ͊ҿ͎͍͏ independently of the following ͑Ӆ. Again as in v. 6 sons’ questions are anticipated in the hypothetical v. 21. There Gk framed the issue in the singular (ҕ ͒҅Ӆ͏ ͍͐͒), though MT in the plural. Here both share the plural ‘your sons’ (͍҅ ͍͒҅ӂ ҡ͊‫)͋و‬, but differ over whom ‘your sons’ will ask: Gk has ‘you’ (pl), while MT has them ask ‘their fathers tomorrow’. Rabbinic tradition saw v. 6 addressed to the children of the miracle period itself, and v. 21 to the following generation. No ͈̿ӂ introduces the apodosis ј͋̿́́̓Ӄ͉̿͑̓ here (22), unlike the

120

COMMENTARY §§ 16–17

otherwise similar v. 7 above (SS 119). ј›͍͎͌ͅҽ͍͋̿͋͑͏ (23) is one of only three cases in Jesus of the genitive absolute construction, all temporal – the others are in 6:5 and 8:29 (SS 65–6). Somewhat implausibly, DH adds 22:11 to his note on the same topic (176). ј›͍͎͌ͅ- is equivalent to _! only in 5:1 and Jon. 4:7 – ͈͎̿͑̿͌ͅ- is used in 2:10; and also in Judg. 5:13; Hos. 13:15. M-F renders Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ‘did for’ – the translation above is more literal. Only in Jesus (here and in 5:1) in all of LXX is Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋ used to render !+0). It is attested also in 1 Macc 3:27. Such prepositional expressions with the neuter article may be either sg. or pl. (DH 64). Several aspects of v. 24 are of interest. ҙ›͖͏ introduces a purpose clause 3x in Jesus (also 11:20; 23:7). Here it renders *-)%; however, perhaps simply for variety, the 2nd occurrence of *-)% in this verse is translated ҉͋̿ (SS 54). Despite being governed by what is grammatically a neuter plural subject, the verb ́͋‫ ͇͋͐و‬is plural, because the subject (‘all the nations’) is still alive. ҙ͇͑ renders !#, where ‘the object clause belongs to direct speech’ (SS 181). We saw a further example above at 2:9. The article in ͍͑‫͎̩͒ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ is very rare. Could the decision to use it here be in any way related to the free rendering of Hebrew ‘hand’ by ‘power’? ҡ͊̓‫͏ل‬ is Gk plus, though '7 of the Vorlage ('7 '74!) could have been omitted in error (by haplography) to produce MT. And the closing phrase in B (Ѩ͋ ›̿͋͑ӂ Ѭ͎́Զ) is a diّcult reading: A’s ͔͎Ӆ͋Զ is a straightforward rendering of '!)!, attested also in 4:14 and 24:31. Coincidentally, the only other occurrence in Jesus of Ѭ͎͍́͋ is also in 24:29(31)! There are wider links too between 4:14 and 4:24. Three further elements of the final verse merit comment. ‘The nations’ (͑Ҽ Ѭ͆͋ͅ) here renders the pl. of ʚam. We noted earlier that ʚam normally refers to Israel and is translated by laos. MT throughout HB is not fully consistent in its use of ‘people’ and ‘nation’; however, LXX pays much more attention to this distinction – and here these ‘peoples’ are clearly non-Israelite. Then ‘the power of Lord’ is doubly interesting. There is a marked tendency in LXX to reduce MT’s usage of anthropomorphisms in relation to the deity; however, dunamis happens to be a unique equivalent for yad (‘hand’). It is not entirely clear whether we should translate the following ͍͑‫͎͈͒ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ as ‘of Lord’ or ‘of the lord’. B uses the article with the word for ‘lord’ only 6x more in Jesus (6:8, 19; 7:19; 22:16, 22; 24:31), each time in genit. or dat. case. We have noted already the tendency to use the article with proper names in these two cases; what I take to be significant is that this usage with Lord is much less than with Jesus or Moses. However, the case cannot be considered open and shut. Finally, the verb I have translated by ‘honour’ (͐ҿ̀͐͆̓ͅ)

JOSHUA 4:15–24 & 5:1

121

is never used in LXX Pentateuch. It does render Hebrew ‘fear’ in 22:25, and is used in the Gk plus 24:33, and in a few other translated passages (Isa. 29:13; Jon. 1:9; Job 1:9); but it is used much more commonly in Maccabees and in additions to Daniel. In another odd coincidence (see the note above on ‘time’ and ‘deed’ in this verse and in 24:31), it uniquely renders Hebrew ‘serve’ in Isa. 66:14 – ‘Lord’s hand (sic) will be known to those who honour him’.

17. Amazement of the kings west of the Jordan (5:1) The older marginal division of B started a new section here, but we can no longer be sure how far that extended. The later division attached this verse to the previous paragraph. For Ѩ͈ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋, see on 4:23 above. ‘At their crossing’ (Ѩ͋ ͑‫͇̿̀̿͂ ى‬Ӄ͇͋̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏) corresponds to ‘at our crossing’ in the consonantal text of MT (though MT qere has ‘their’ with LXX). The variation between LXX and MT over ‘our’/‘their’ is normally in the other direction. It is only in this ‘chapter’ of Jesus that Canaanite is rendered by Phoenicia, cf also 5:12 below. The major interest in this short paragraph comes from the terms in which the reaction of the peoples of the land is expressed. ‘And their thoughts melted and they were struck’ first of all seems to be a double rendering of MT, which would be more literally translated ‘and their heart melted’. This Hebrew phrase expressing confusion or loss of confidence recurs in 2:11 and 7:5. Given the flexibility of his renderings throughout this book, we should not conclude that this phrase caused diّculties to the translator, although he o֎ers a di֎erent rendering on each occasion – not to speak of two here: ‘we gave way to our heart’ (2:11); and ‘the heart [of the people] was dismayed’ (7:5). The literal ͈͎̿͂Ӄ̿ for Hebrew ‘heart’ is found in the same context as the verb ͑Ӂ͈͇̓͋ (‘melt’) in 2 Kgdms 17:10; Ps. 22:14, but ͇͂ҽ͍͇͋̿ never again. The use of ͑Ӂ͈͇̓͋ here will have been suggested by its appearance in Exod. 15:15 – ‘all the inhabitants of Canaan have melted’. DH (85) proposes that Gk here, as in 1:8, deliberately juxtaposed a literal and a freer rendering. Yet ‘literal’ is very much a relative term here, given the ‘freedom’ of ͇͂ҽ͍͇͇͋̿ as a rendering of ‘heart’. Then ‘sense’ (͓͎Ӆ͇͋͐ͅ͏) is absent from the Pentateuch; and elsewhere in LXX it is normally an equivalent for Hebrew ‘wisdom’ or ‘insight’. It is used here exceptionally for ‘spirit’ (which is rendered as normally by ›͋̓‫ ̿͊ن‬in the corresponding statement in the Rahab story). M-F suggests that this breaking of the

122

COMMENTARY §§ 17–19

normal pattern is part of a deliberate refusal to put Canaanite kings on same level as Rahab, who is privileged in Judaism. However, given the very substantial di֎erences between MT and LXX throughout this whole chapter (as marked in the western tradition), it is well now to do no more than note her proposal. ͍Ҡ͂̓͊Ӄ̿ after ͓͎Ӆ͇͋͐ͅ͏ is not a strict rendering of - (‘again’, ‘further’); but - is not otherwise represented in Gk, and the assonance is suggestive.

18. Jesus instructed to circumcise the people (5:2) A lacks ›͎̓͑Ӄ͋̿͏, and adds Ѩ͈ ͂̓͒͑ҿ͎͍͒ at the end. The standard rendering of the common temporal formula ! 7- is Ѩ͋ Ѩ͈̓Ӄ͋Զ/͍͑Ӈ͑Զ ͑‫ى͎͇͈̿ ى‬. The expression here using ҡ›ӄ is more approximate, and appears to be unique within LXX. In Jesus, three di֎erent terms are used to render the commonest Hebrew for ‘sword’ (4). M-F states somewhat ambiguously that, of these, ͊ҽ͔͇͎̿̿ is reserved for the knives used in circumcision. What is true is that only ͊ҽ͔͇͎̿̿ is used for those knives (in 5:2, 3; and in the Gk pluses at 21:42; 24:30) but it is used also, along with the other two, as a weapon of war. Indeed we shall note in chapter 10 repeated textual confusion and adjustment between all three terms. In MT the knives are said to be ‘of flint’, and this is appropriately rendered by ›͎̓͑Ӄ͋̿͏, an adjective of material (DH 167). It happens that this adjective is used only in these contexts in Jesus within LXX. Ѩ͈ ›ҿ͎͑̿͏ ј͈͎͍͑Ӆ͍͊͒ o֎ers an added perspective on ‘of flint’: it is borrowed from the Gk rendering of the phrase ‘from the flinty rock’ in the report of the provision of water in the desert in Deut. 8:15 (compare also Ps. 114:8). The scribe is making an exegetical link to that divine provision (DH 85, citing Tov): circumcision also comes from the flinty stone, and is also related to divine grace. The second part of the sentence is grammatically straightforward and makes good sense. ‘Sitting’ is a further case of subordination by use of a participle; and there is evidence from both ancient and more recent eastern Mediterranean of the circumciser seated on a stool. Peritemnein is used in biblical Greek only of literal removal of part of the male foreskin or, by metaphorical extension from that rite, of purification of the heart. In classical Greek, a principal sense relates to pruning: clipping all round or all over [say] a vine; and that suggests that, when the removal

JOSHUA 5:1 – 5:3–8

123

of skin in a rite is called ‘circumcision’, that is a metaphorical extension from literal pruning. If there is a problem, it comes only from comparison with MT: it has no mention of sitting, and emphasises twice over that this is a second circumcision of Israel. It has long been noted that Gk could have confused šb from šwb (‘do again’) with šb from yšb (‘sit’). Auld has proposed (1998a: 14) that the purpose of the MT plus ‘a second time’ at the end of the verse was to encourage reading šb as ‘again’ rather than ‘sit’; yet it should be noted that A includes both the command to ‘sit’ and mention of ‘a second time’ at the end. It is hardly possible to repeat circumcision in a literal sense (unless to more intrusive specifications, which has of course also been proposed). Many exegetes have, therefore, argued that MT o֎ers the more diّcult reading, and could not be secondary. Early Christian and Jewish commentators outdid each other in their interpretations of this surprising story. However Margolis, despite his frequent predisposition towards MT, argued that the fact that Gk rendered šb by ‘sit’ taken with its several di֎erences from MT in vv. 4–5 prove that it was unaware of MT’s ‘a second time’. M-F notes that 5:2֎ is the reading from the Prophets on the first day of Passover. She also declares that she prefers Gooding’s interpretation of these diّcult verses, ‘which has the merit to our eyes of giving the whole of the Greek text a narrative coherence, while allowing MT’s reference to the second circumcision to be understood’ (116).

19. Jesus attends to the circumcision (5:3–8) This portion illustrates pointedly what is true of [what western tradition has named] Joshua 5 as a whole: the co-existence of two di֎erent sorts of divergence between the Greek and Hebrew texts. On the one hand, free renderings of individual words and phrases are notably frequent in cases where we have no reason to suspect a Vorlage di֎erent from MT. On the other, the two texts go determinedly their separate ways on several di֎erent points of history and religion. It is very important to decide whether this is an accidental confluence of two issues which we should deal with separately, or whether circumcision and passover were themes on which the translator or later scribes exercised greater than normal freedom from the parent text. Two further and possibly not unrelated introductory remarks deserve to be made. Firstly, this unusual degree of divergence between MT and

124

COMMENTARY § 19

LXX suggests interest in the actual details of the circumcision carried out by Jesus. This is in stark contrast to the corresponding portion of Josephus, which deals very briefly with the passover and mentions the circumcision not at all. This non-mention may relate to embarassment before his Roman, non-Semitic readership. Such a factor should at least be considered towards an explanation of some aspects of the re-presentation of the theme in LXX. Secondly, the last word has doubtless not yet been written about the significance of the Qumran fragment in which what we know as Josh. 5:2 immediately follows 8:34–35 (MT). Whether this version of Joshua had connected the building of the stone altar closely to the erection of the twelve stones, before moving on to circumcision and passover, or whether it had reported the circumcision only much later in the story after the campaigns at IereiΗŌ and Gai, is still an open question. Auld suggested (1998a: 109–112) from the fact that we now have three di֎erent settings for 8:30–35 (MT) that that portion was a late addition to the book. Perhaps the textual variety over the circumcision episode should be similarly evaluated: a late addition to the book whose details were not yet fully settled. The first and last sentences (3 and 8) simply report in summary fashion Jesus’s execution of the divine command and its physical results. The literal and midrashic renderings of ‘flinty’ in v. 2 are now combined into a single phrase. And instead of the seated position of the oّciant we now have the location of the event named. DH suggests that the Gk plus ͍͑‫͍͉͈͊͒̿ ن‬ҿ͍͋͒ ͑Ӆ›͍͒ is intended to avoid the impression that the mound was made from foreskins, and to suggest instead that it was named after the ceremony (158). The inclination to add ͑Ӆ›͍͏ was noted in 4:9, there too with an accompanying participle. akrobustia, the term for ‘uncircumcision’ appears to be used only in biblical Greek and literature dependent on it. LSJ suggests that is a compound of akro- (‘extremity’) and bustia, cognate with Heb. bšt (‘shame’), also cognate with the Babylonian term for pudenda. Whether or not the akro- in akrobustia had actually influenced the reference to akrotomou in Deut. 8:15, it is obvious that the mutual relevance of the two terms is underscored by their identical openings. SS adds ›͎͇̓͑͊͆ͅҿ͋͑̓͏ ͂ҿ (8) to her discussion (88–89) of ͂ҿ as a rendering of formulaic !! – but with proper caution over how close the Vorlage was. Both ›͎͇̓͑͊͆ͅҿ͋͑̓͏ and ͈̿͆Ӂ͍͇͊̓͋ in this verse exemplify the participial construction (DH 175). ѵ͔͐͒Ӄ̿͋ ̓҈͔͍͋ (‘they kept quiet’) is good classical idiom, but unique in LXX. The cognate ѵ͔͐͒ҽ͇̈́̓͋ most commonly renders a verbal form of 3_, and we find the noun (rare

JOSHUA 5:3–8

125

in LXX) so used in Job 34:29 and 1 Chron. 22:9. ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͇͆ (‘on the spot’) is used 7x more in OT (of which 4x in Maccabees!), but only here in a book within the shorter HB canon. MT '77 is more often rendered ‘instead of them’ (as in v. 7!); but ‘in their place’ (= ‘where they are’) seems more appropriate in Job 26:8; 40:12. Origen compares the spiritual circumcision practised by the second Jesus to that of the first: the painful effort of leaving the world of sin causes us to ‘remain immobile, as in the pain of circumcision, till scar and cure’ (M-F). Di֎erent forms of ҡ́Ӄ͇̓̿/ ҡ͇́ҽ͇̈́̓͋ render forms of !/! in Gen. 42:15,16; Lev. 13:15,16; 4 Kgdms 20:7; Hos. 6:2. The intervening sentences (4–7) act as commentary: who required to be circumcised, and why was it necessary at all? The first lines are very diّcult: it seems impossible to produce a translation which neither prejudges, nor is prejudiced by, one’s view of the relationship between the alternative Greek and Hebrew scenarios. I have discussed the matter in a little detail elsewhere (1998a: 13–14; 1998b: 75–76). Gk lacks entirely what we find in vv. 4b–5a in MT. DH (146) has noted plausibly that a short passage including three occurrences of ‘all the nation’ (kl-hʚm), as in MT, would be an ideal candidate for accidental textual loss. On the other hand, it appears to me almost beyond belief that a passage that had included ʚm three times (or even fewer, if there had been accidental loss) could have been rendered by a translator so interested in ‘the people’ without a single instance of laos. The problems start right at the beginning of what Gk does report: җ͋ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ (lit. ‘which way’) is used very widely in LXX to represent kʙšr (‘just as’). M-F’s translation may be rendered as follows: ‘Thus did Jesus purify the sons of Israel, those who had been born on the way, as those who had been uncircumcised among the men who left Egypt, all those Jesus had circumcised.’ Her opening Ainsi, however, seems more indebted to the opening demonstrative in MT than the relative in Gk; and it also sits uneasily with her claim to be following Gooding’s reading of the sentence; for that takes җ͋ ͂Ҿ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ . . . ͈̿ӂ . . . as ‘as . . . so . . .’. His own translation reads: ‘and in what way Joshua purified the children of Israel, as many as were born in the way, (so) also as many as were uncircumcised of those who came out of Egypt, all these Joshua circumcised.’ Certainly the only other occasion in LXX (2 Macc. 15:39) in which it is accompanied by the common conjunction ͂ҿ (again at the opening of a clause), the following main clause is introduced by ͈̿ӂ ͍ҥ͖͑͏ (‘so too’). And the links between the Greek version of this book and the books of the Maccabees do appear to be significant. The җ͋ ͂Ҿ ͎͑Ӆ›͍͋ here does

126

COMMENTARY § 19

support Gooding; the lack of ͍ҥ͖͑͏ diminishes that support. It seems to me that the ͈̿ӂ requires the unstated presence of the ͍ҥ͖͑͏ in order to be rendered ‘also’ rather than the normal ‘and’. The punctuation in CB and in Rahlfs is not identical; however, either punctuation is consistent with the translation I have o֎ered on page 13 above. Having used the normal peritemnein twice, when reporting both command (2) and carrying out (3), Gk now varies the term as it moves to explanation. The peri- of ›͎͇͈̓̓ҽ͎͆̿̓͋ (4) both implies completeness or thoroughness and also fosters the allusion to the technical term – somewhat as ј͈͎͍͑Ӆ͍͊͒[͏] and ј͈͎͍͇̀͒͐͑ҽ are suggestive each of the other. ›͎͇͈̓̿͆̿Ӄ͎͇̓͋ is used once else in the translated OT, of ‘purifying’ one’s child by fire (Deut. 18:10); that may have merited midrashic reference here, where robust treatment is also in question. But a link is more likely to the cognate ›͎͇͈͎̓̿͆̿Ӄ͇̈́̓͋, used in Deut. 30:6 to speak of the circumcision of the heart, and in Lev. 19:23 of the ‘pruning’ (same word in Hebrew as ‘circumcising’) of a tree. M-F asks whether the use of a moral vb. here should be related to the use of Ҕ͇͇͋̓͂͐͊Ӆ͏ (‘reproach’) in v. 9; but prefers the suggestion that it marks the contrast between the two circumcisions practised by Jesus, back then at the exodus and now here in the land. ҙ͍͇͐ ›͍͑ҿ . . . ͈̿ӂ ҙ͍͇͐ ›͍͑ҿ . . . (5b) is a free rendering of . . . '-–%# . . . '-–%# (DH 171). Then ›ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑Ӈ͍͑͒͏ ›͎͇̓ҿ͑̓͊̓͋ ̨͍͐ͅ‫͏ن‬ may be a free rendering of -_! %) %–%#. The underlined portions look very similar to MT %)–% but mean something quite di֎erent (Auld 1998a: 13). ј͋ҿ͎͐͑̿›͇͑̿ (‘turned about’) is free for "% (‘went/walked’), as 4 or 5 times more in LXX. In the odd Ѩ͋ ͑‫ ك‬Ѩ͎Ӂ͊Զ ͑‫͎̫̓̿̀͂̿ ك‬Ӄ͇͇͑͂, Heb. 4) is both translated straightforwardly by Ѭ͎͍͊ͅ͏ and built into a Hellenised proper name in -̓‫͏͇͑ل‬. Ѭ͎͍͊ͅ͏ is found in the same sense in 14:10 and 24:7, so that we are certain that this usage of 4) was not unknown (MF). See below on 15:61 and 18:12 for another possible ̫͎̿͂̀̿̓‫ ͏͇͑ل‬on the border of Iouda and Beniamein (DH 85–6). It is a commonplace of HB/OT that Israel spent two years after the Exodus on the way to the mountain of God and at it, and forty years in the desert. However, it is unique to add the two periods together as in v. 6 (LXX only – MT has simply ‘forty’). Deut. 2:14 makes explicit what was probably the normal understanding, that the longer period included the shorter: that the punishment was achieved by a lengthy detour lasting 38 years. Holmes suggests that ͂Ӈ͍ arose mechanically, from misreading a duplicate of šnh (‘year’) as šnym (‘two’). ͊ҽ͔͇͍͇͊ is used in classical Greek of the Egyptian warrior caste, and later in the Papyri of simple native soldiers there. It is used

JOSHUA 5:3–8

127

again in Jesus 6:3, 7, 9, 13; but only in 6:3 does it again correspond to ‘men of war’ ()%) !_+) – in the other 3 verses to 1%. In 10:24 we will find another military term expressed in one word less in Greek than in Hebrew. In her rendering of ͇͂ӄ ͍҅ ј›͎̓Ӄ͍͇͑͊͑ͅ Ѻ͐̿͋ ͍҅ ›͉̓‫̿ ͇͍͑͐ل‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬, M-F o֎ers simply car (‘for’) for ͇͂Ӆ. Rahlfs follows A (and many other witnesses) and does not represent the following the article, which makes ͍҅ ›͉̓‫̿ ͇͍͑͐ل‬Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬in B the grammatical subject. Auld proposed ') '!4 (‘many of them’) as the Vorlage for ͍҅ ›͉̓‫̿ ͇͍͑͐ل‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬. MT’s ‘till the completion of the whole nation’ is wholly di֎erent in sense, and its ! must refer to the core of Israel (contrast above on 3:17). ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬may also be read closely with the following words: ‘[the most] of the very warriors . . .’ ͍҅ ј›͇̓͆Ӂ͐̿͋͑̓͏ is a not unsuccessful but unique rendering of ‘did not hearken to’ (it is listed among compound vbs in Tov 144). It is used once more in this book (1:18), where it corresponds to 4) (‘rebel’) as in Deut. 1:26; 9:7, 23, 24. It is chosen here for these and other resonances in the Pentateuch to Israel’s disobedience in the desert (in Num. 11:20; 14:43 and Deut. 32:51 it corresponds to other verbs). Quite as unique is Ѩ͍͉͋͑Ӂ (‘command’) for ‘voice’, although we have already noted the tendency in Gk to avoid anthropomorphisms. The freedom used by Gk in rendering all these expressions makes it the harder to interpret the correspondence of ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬to MT yhwh. On the one hand, this is a feature which recurs 9x more in Jesus (Auld 1998a: 16–17). On the other, ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬is part of a phrase in which the other element has been freely and not literally rendered, just as the accompanying py (‘mouth’) in 15:13 and 19:50 has become ›͎Ӆ͐͑̿́͊̿ (‘ordinance’). There is no need here to assume a Vorlage for ͇͂Ӊ͎͇͐̓͋ other than MT -_+ (‘swore’). Though the correspondence here is unique, ‘determined’ would be an acceptable rendering (LSJ) of what more literally means ‘defined’. However, much more is going on here. ͇͍͎͂Ӄ͇̈́̓͋ is used once more in this book (15:47) of ‘constituting a border’; and twice in the Pentateuch. In Lev. 20:34, ‘Lord your god’ talks of his gift to Israel of ‘a land oozing milk and honey’ (exactly as here), and goes on to describe himself as the one җ͏ ͇͂Ӊ͎͇͐̿ ҡ͊‫ ͏ـ‬ј›ӄ ›ҽ͖͋͑͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѭ͖͆͋͋ – ‘who defined [or separated] you from all the nations’. The disobedient in our passage, by contrast, were to be ‘distinguished’ in not seeing the land once ‘determined’ to be theirs. Compared with ͍͑‫͎͑̿› ͏ل‬ҽ͇͐͋ ѵ͊‫͋و‬ ͍͂‫͇̿͋ن‬, MT is di֎erent and longer: +% 77% '7% (‘to their fathers to give us’). B’s shorter text is not impossible; but, if original, it has often been corrected (DH 71–2).

128

COMMENTARY §§ 19–20

On the innocence of the children of the desert period (͍͑ӆ͏ ͍͒҅ӆ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬, v. 7), see Deut. 1:39 (M-F). The final words of v. 7 o֎er a further example of diّcult Greek, complicated by textual uncertainty. B’s ́̓́̓͋͋‫( ͇̿͆͐ق‬perfect of ́̓͋͋‫ )͇̿͆͐ـ‬means ‘have been engendered’, as opposed to A’s ́̓́̓͋‫( ͇̿͆͐ق‬perfect of ́Ӄ͇́͋̓͐͆̿), ‘have been born’. ́̓́̓͋‫ ͇̿͆͐ق‬seems a more natural equivalent for Hebrew hyh than ́̓́̓͋͋‫ ;͇̿͆͐ق‬and yet A and B agree in reading the latter as equivalent of hyh in Jer. 16:2 and Job 42:13. More often, however, A and B diverge (presumably as a result of the same easy inner-Greek corruption): in Ps. 45:16, as here; and in Exod. 19:16; Num. 4:48; 4 Kgdms 23:25; Isa. 1:9; Ezek. 22:13; 31:7; Qoh. 3:15; and 1 Chron. 7:15, the other way round. Rather differently from Holmes, I propose that that the Vorlage read only: ky ʚrlym hyw bdrk (‘for uncircumcised had they become on the way’). The causal ky clause was rendered by ͇͂ҽ with the article and infinitive, as in Exod. 33:3 and Judg. 3:12 (SS 160). This decision by the translator displaced ‘uncircumcised’ from the beginning of the Hebrew clause to the end of the Greek. MT’s ky lʙ mlw ʙwtm (‘for they did not circumcise them’) will have originated as an alternative to ky ʚrlym hyw (‘for they were not circumcised’) – it was hardly necessary as an explanation.

20. Passover celebrated (5:9–12) 10. ј›ӄ ͂͒͐͊‫ ]͋و‬ј›ӄ was apparently deleted, and we find Ѩ›ӂ in the margin. In Greek as in Hebrew, sunset is one of the ways of marking the west. It is common in B for divine speech to initiate a fresh paragraph. Here, less usually, we start with divine address to Jesus and move straight to fulfilment by Israel. MT also recognises a fresh start, beginning a major section continuing to 6:11. M-F tries with ‘in this day of today’ to catch the oddity of the Greek – literally ‘in the today day’ (9). This Greek is normally equivalent to Hebrew ‘this day’, but here MT has ‘today’ only. We find this collocation again only in Josh. 22:29 (pl. in B) and Jer. 1:18. The extra emphasis in Gk, underscored by the start of a new section here, implies that the removal of reproach is not immediately related to circumcision. More recent scholarship has been inclined to bracket vv. 4–9 together, and come to a contrary judgment. Galgal was last mentioned in 4:19,20; and we noted there that the date given (the 10th of the 1st) recalled the

JOSHUA 5:3–8 & 5:9–12

129

departure from Egypt. What is significant appears to be the arrival at Galgal in the land west of the Jordan, and not the rite of circumcision which has just been practised there. Gk makes no attempt to render the word-play in glgl/glwty (Gilgal/ ‘I have rolled away’). Ҕ͇͇͋̓͂͐͊Ӆ͏ (the ‘reproach’ that is ‘removed’) is absent from the Pentateuch; but the somewhat less common Ҙ͇͍͋̓͂͏ is used in Gen. 30:23; 34:14 (on both occasions for the same Hebrew as here) and in Lev. 20:17. M-F notes the relevance of Gen. 30:23, but misrelates it to Sarah: in fact it is Rachel’s sterility that is in question. M-F might have added that this verse also uses the same verb with a divine subject: ј͓̓‫ ͉͋̓ل‬ҕ ͆̓ӄ͏ ͍͊‫͑ ن‬ӄ Ҙ͇͍͋̓͂͏. We find the same pairing in Isa. 25:8 (LXX), though in each case ј͓͉̓̓‫ ͋ل‬renders a di֎erent Hebrew verb. The phrase is also part of a Gk plus in 1 Kgdms 17:36, where the ‘uncircumcised Philistine’ constitutes the ‘reproach’. Two linguistic features of ‘Galgala’ should be noted. The first -a- preserves the pronunciation of Hebrew current when the translation was made: in the opening syllable of many words read in MT (and since) with short /i/, the vowel then was short /a/. Then the final –a preserves the Aramaic post-posed article corresponding to the pre-posed article of Hebrew – just as with Pascha (Aramaic for ‘the Pesach’) in v. 10; and what we know as ‘Gilgal’ almost always does bear the article (as appropriate for ‘the [stone] circle’), though not MT at this verse. M-F nicely notes the significance of Gk ‘from’ in the phrase ‘from evening’ (10). The common Hebrew verb for ‘do’ (of which Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ is the literal rendering) is also the technical term for ‘performing’ a sacrifice. The actual sacrifice named ‘passover’ was carried out ‘in the evening’, as stated in MT. Gk ‘from evening’ must already be treating ‘Passover’ as the name of a festival rather than a sacrifice. The end of this verse preserves clear evidence of the artistry of the longer Hebrew underlying it. MT had already played on the assonant bʚrb (‘in the evening’) and bʚrbwt (‘in the plains’), both of which repeat the middle consonants of ʙrbʚh (the ‘four’ in ‘fourteenth’). The Hebrew text underlying Gk continued the play with bʚbr hyrdn (‘across the Jordan’). The timetable of the celebrations (11) conforms with the report of the first passover (Exod. 12:18): eating unleavened bread on the 14th of the month at evening. The pluses in MT bring that fuller text into conformity with Lev. 23:5–6 (the feast of unleavened bread on the 15th day). ͐‫ ͏͍͑ل‬corresponds normally to * (‘corn’), but here to the rare 4- (‘produce’). ќ̈́͒͊̿ ͈̿ӂ ͋ҿ̿ are simply neuter plural adjectives, meaning ‘unleavened and new [things]’. The first speaks for itself. The second may

130

COMMENTARY §§ 20–21

be deliberately unspecific: designating all the new products which could not be consumed till the first day of omer, the second of Passover (M-F). However, in the Pentateuch, it is used (with the article) to render ʙabib (‘ears [of grain]’, or the month Abib), as in Ѩ͋ ͑‫͋͊ͅ ى‬ӂ ͑‫͋ ͋و‬ҿ͖͋ (‘in the month of Abib’). Without art., as here, it is used in the phrase ‘roasted ears’ in Lev 2:14; 23:14; and that makes it a suitable translation here for MT ‘roasted’. 11QT uses the phrase ‘new bread, ears’. DH lists Ѩ͈͎̿›Ӄ͍͐̿͋͑ (‘they had the fruit of ’, ‘they exploited’) for Hebrew ‘they ate from the produce of ’ as the first of four cases in Jesus where Gk skilfully combines the verb with the ruling noun in a construct relationship into a single verb with the ruled noun as its object (172). Although LXX uses ͈͎̿›Ӄ͇̈́̓͐͆̿ only here and Prov. 8:19, the same noun ‘produce’ is rendered ͈͎̿›Ӆ͏ in Lev. 25:3 and 4x in Proverbs. ͈͍͎͒ҽ͋, the ruled-noun-become-object, is almost certainly based on the similar-sounding ͔Ӊ͎̿͋ (‘land’); and I suspect that its hearers would have been expected to know or recognise that ͔Ӊ͎̿͋ was the expected term, and that ͈͍͎͒Ҽ͋ was pointing elsewhere. It is, however, something quite other than a textual ‘corruption’. The term makes sense here, and would have been familiar from the Pentateuch: in Deut. 18:4 (as well as Job 31:20) it renders the Hebrew for ‘shearing’ or ‘cropping’ (gz); and the context in Deuteronomy is precisely firstfruits. In terms of the history of the tradition represented in Vaticanus, the interesting question is this: Was ͔Ӊ͎̿͋, as widely believed, the OG rendering and ͈͍͎͒Ҽ͋ a secondary development based on it; or was ͈͍͎͒ҽ͋ the OG reading, and ͔Ӊ͎̿͋ a secondary and pedantic correction towards the Hebrew? ̷̲̬ ̴̷̨̨̮̬̩̬ without accentuation is ambiguous. As found in the printed editions, ͓͍͇͋Ӄ͈͖͋ is genitive plural of ͓͍‫͇͌͋ل‬, the date-palm. What should be accented ͓͍͇͇͈͋‫ ͋و‬would derive from a form ͓͍͇͇͈͋̓Ӆ͏, contracted alternative to the standard adjectives ͓͍͇͇͈͇͈͋Ӆ͏ or ͓͍͇͋Ӄ͈͇͍͋͏, meaning ‘Phoenician’. It is highly likely that a double meaning is intended. On leaving Egypt, Israel had taken ‘spoils’ from their erstwhile hosts and masters. On arriving in the promised land, they ate by ‘cropping’ or ‘fleecing’ the Phoenicians. In the matter of Canaan and Phoenicia, we see a double shift between Hebrew and Greek in vv. 1 and 12. Not only is the semitic name translated here, and nowhere else in this book, but (the noun) ‘Canaan’ becomes (the adjective) ‘the Phoenicians’ in v. 12 while (in the opposite direction) ‘Canaanite’ is rendered ‘Phoenicia’ in v. 1. The choice of Phoenician for Canaanite here is an explicit reference to Exod. 16:35. It is reported there that the manna stopped when Israel came ̓҄͏ ͊ҿ͎͍͏

JOSHUA 5:9–12 & 5:13

131

͑‫̴͇͍͋ ͏ق‬Ӄ͈ͅ͏ (‘to the edge of Phoenicia’), where MT reads ‘to the edge of the land of Canaan’. The Greek translator of Joshua had known that the people reached the promised land by way of Jericho: the city of palms (͓͍͇͋Ӄ͈͖͋). The two final sentences of this portion (v. 12) are bracketed by precise expressions of time: ‘on this day’ and ‘in that year’. This precision at the close resumes the emphatic ‘in this very day’ at the outset (9), so underlining the coherence of this paragraph. The scribe of our Codex, or the tradition he inherited, was sensitive to the exegetical skill of the translator who had associated enjoying the food of the promised land with the removal of Rachel’s sterility. Ѩ͌ҿ͉͇›̓͋ (‘left off ’) corresponds to 7_ only in Jer. 36:19 (there hiph). We have already met it 3x (3:13, 16; 4:7), on each occasion as a rendering of 74# niph. (‘be cut off ’). Its subject here, ͑ӄ ͊̿͋͋̿, is again the Aramaic form corresponding to Heb. *) – compare on v. 9 above. Only Exod. 16 uses ͑ӄ ͊̿͋.

21. Jesus’s encounter at IereiΗŌ (5:13) The whole of Jesus’s encounter with Lord’s commander is told in some five or six sentences, and in B these are divided into three portions (but in A into as many as six!), presumably to emphasise the significance of each stage in the transaction. Eusebius uses this and the following verses in his chapter: ‘On the way in which the Hebrew prophets witnessed in advance to the future and declared the true theology.’ The introductory ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑ ҭ͏ corresponds to  !! in MT here as in 4:18, but more commonly to # !! as in 3:13; 5:1; 6:20; 8:14,24; 9:1; 10:1,20; 11:1. ‘At IereiΗŌ’ is an attempt to preserve the flexibility of the Greek. ̓͋ is the major work-horse preposition of Hellenistic and LXX Greek; MT and Targ have the hardly more specific b-. Vulgate and Jewish commentators explain that the suburbs must be meant: how could its ground be called holy (15), if still occupied by the enemies? And yet, both in MT and in the second marginal division of Vaticanus, this encounter is part of the same section as much of the following circling of IereiΗŌ. The Gk syntax after ‘saw’ is diّcult. There were two aspects to the scene: the man standing before him is in the accusative case appropriate for the direct object; but the drawn sword is in the nominative. MT includes the focusing whnh (‘and look’) after ‘saw’, and nominative phrases would have been suitable after a corresponding ͈̿ӂ ͍҄͂‫ ن‬in Greek. However, as SS notes (100–1), Gk Judges renders all 21 cases of ‘and look’ literally,

132

COMMENTARY §§ 21–24

while Gk Joshua exercises freedom in five out of six cases. Its freedom here has not been thorough, and has led to grammatical inconsistency. Although Israel’s commander (apparently at least), Jesus speaks the classic words of the duty-guard: ‘Friend or foe?’

22. Jesus prostrate before Lord’s commander (5:14) Origen comments on the theophany by a sort of dividing of the figure (M-F): Jesus-Joshua is prostrate before Jesus-Christ. Theodoret supposes that the archangel Michael is intended. In ‘[But he said] to him’, ̿Ҡ͑‫ى‬ attests the more straightforward lw (‘to him’) rather than MT lʙ (‘no’). Barthélemy defends the angel’s refusal in MT of the dilemma posed by Jesus as setting the theophany in greater relief. SS suggests (164) that the following ky was simply omitted in the wake of the decision to render the preceding lʙ by ̿Ҡ͑‫ ;ى‬however, she notes elsewhere (185) that Gk opens an object clause without ҙ͇͑ in 3:7. It is quite as sensible to suggest that the decision in proto-MT to read lw as lʙ required the addition of ky: the standard introduction in Hebrew to a positive alternative after a negative. In most cases in LXX, the compound ј͎͔͇͎͐͑ҽ͍͑́ͅ͏ corresponds to ‘chief of the host’ in MT, as is the case in v. 15. Accordingly, in this verse, DH suspects a double rendering of ‘host’, first within the compound and then as ͂͒͋ҽ͖͊̓͏ (83). However, where Abimelech’s chiefof-sta֎ is styled ‘chief of his host’ in MT of Gen. 21:22,32; 26:26, we find ҕ ј͎͔͇͎͐͑ҽ͍͑́ͅ͏ ͑‫͋͒͂ ͏ق‬ҽ͖͊̓͏ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬in LXX. Gk here will not have translated afresh, but will have borrowed from LXX Genesis. Strangely DH later includes this phrase in his list of compounds ‘elegantly rendering’ two Hebrew nouns in construct relationship (170). Confronted by his senior oّcer, Israel’s ‘duty guard’ abases himself. After ‘falling on the earth’ MT adds the technical term for ‘prostration’. ͂ҿ͐›͍͑̿ was already used for ‘lord’ in Gen. 15:2, 8 (͂ҿ͐›͍͑̿ ̩Ӈ͎͇̓ for ‘Lord Yahweh’) – a second link in this short passage with the first book of Moses. It is particularly suitable here in a speech which concludes with ͍͈҄ҿ͑Ԍ – these terms for master/servant render the same Hebrew terms in Prov. 30:10; and are paired again in LXX pluses in Prov. 17:2; 22:7. Although the phrases do not correspond in Hebrew, Gk achieves a nice link here with 4:24 – there the nations were to learn that ‘the power of Lord’ was ‘mighty’ and ‘you’ (pl) were to ‘revere’ Lord; here Jesus himself is reverently prostrate before the representative of Lord’s ‘power’.

JOSHUA 5:13 – 6:1

133

23. The commander instructs Jesus (5:15) What is said to Jesus here is virtually identical, both in MT and Gk, to what is said to Moses before the bush in Exod. 3:5. The tiny di֎erences are explored in detail by DH (111–3). Theodoret explains this congruence in terms of the promise reported in 1:5 above, that Lord would be with Jesus as with Moses before. The use of the Greek present (͈̿ӂ ͉ҿ͇́̓) to render wa-yiqtol 4)! is unique in Jesus (A here reads ͈̿ӂ ̓҈›̓͋). Though never common, it is attested more elsewhere, as in Exod. 10:28, 29; 33:17, 18. Given the important link with the account of the burning bush, this usage in Greek Exodus may have influenced the opening of this sentence. M-F notes that, in Jewish tradition, removing the shoes is a symbol of purification and askesis, an act which permits the soul to sense the Presence. For Christian readings, she refers to BA2 on Exod. 3:5. ́ҽ͎ is chosen to render !# in the second clause, because a command is being explained (SS 154). In its second interesting decision within this verse, Gk chooses the perfect ‘you have taken your stand’ (͋‫ ͋ن‬ѭ͈͐͑̿ͅ͏) for Heb. participle. That participle had required an independent pronoun (7) to mark its subject. Gk appears to have rendered both 7 within ѭ͈͐͑̿ͅ͏ and the variant 7- as ͋‫ – ͋ن‬for the same variation see 3:8 above (DH 88).

24. IereiΗŌ ( Jericho) introduced (6:1) The Greek tenses in the two halves of this short portion match well: the positive perfect participles describe the city’s locked state; the negative imperfects (well rendering the Hebrew participles – DH 168), the continuing absence of movement in or out. The syntax is less exemplary: the nominative participles would have been correct in a cleft sentence (‘And as for IereiΗŌ having been shut up and made fast, no one . . .’) where they would have been resumed by Ѩ͌ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ;͏ق‬but that reading of the verse is blocked by ͈̿Ӄ in the middle. Both perfect participles have interesting resonance in the Pentateuch. ͈͉͐͒͋̓Ӄ͇̓͋ in Gen. 16:2 and 20:18 describes divinely induced barrenness. Its only other use in the Torah is Exod. 14:3, where the Pharaoh assures his people that the fleeing Israelite slaves would be wandering trapped in the desert. The verb Ҕ͔͍͎͍‫ ͋ن‬does not occur in the Pentateuch, but adj. Ҕ͔͎͒Ӆ͏ and noun Ҕ͔Ӈ͎͖͊̿ do. The adjective is used in Num. 13:28 in the scouts’ report of the great ‘walled’ cities west of the Jordan, while we find the noun describing Joseph’s

134

COMMENTARY §§ 24–26

‘prison’ in Egypt (Gen. 40). Taken as a portion on its own, this could describe a city paralysed, nicely underscoring Raab’s words (2:9–11) – but see below.

25. Lord instructs Jesus (6:2–5) The scouts were told to see ‘the land and IereiΗŌ’ (2:1); Rahab told them Lord would transfer (›͎͇̿̿͂͂Ӆ͇͋̿) IereiΗŌ to them (2:14), and they in turn told Jesus he would transfer the land (2:24). Lord now validates both predictions by using the same technical legal term. His appreciative description of the power of IereiΗŌ and her king may justify an alternative reading of the previous portion: that the city barred and still was a city not in panic, but prepared. Mostly this transfer is translated literally as ‘into the hands’ (̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͔̓‫)͏͎̿ل‬, as in 2:24; 8:1, 18; 10:8, 19, 30, 32, 35; 21:42; 24:8, 11, 33; however the compound Greek adjective (ҡ›͍͔̓Ӄ͎͇͍͏) used in v. 2 recurs in 9:25; 10:12; 11:8. The Gk plus ‘who is in it’ (͑ӄ͋ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫)ك‬, may have been added to smooth clumsy Hebrew. ‘Being powerful in strength’ resumes in a masc. pl. phrase (͍͂͒͋̿͑ӆ͏ Ҙ͋͑̿͏ Ѩ͋ ͔҄͐Ӈ͇) IereiΗŌ (fem.) and its king (masc.), hence my ‘both’ added to the English rendering. Ҙ͋͑̿͏ is surplus to the rendering of %! !4 in 8:3 and 10:7 as ͍͂͒͋̿͑ӆ͏ Ѩ͋ ͔҄͐Ӈ͇. Though a Greek prepositional phrase is used, the rendering is fairly literal – 1:14 uses the freer ͔҄͐Ӈ͖͋. There is reasonable debate among readers of MT’s account of the taking of IereiΗŌ whether ‘encircling’ the city meant ‘going round’ or ‘being round’ it. MT is much more detailed than Gk, which lacks MT v. 4 and the end of v. 3. Gk here is quite explicit that the warriors are to be stationed round it in a circle. ›͎̓Ӄ͍͐͑͐͋ͅ (3) is the first of four renderings in the IereiΗŌ story of Hebrew sbb: ›͎͇̓ҿ͎͔͇̓͐͆̿ (7, 11, 16), which is also absent from the Pentateuch; ͈͈͉͍͒‫( ͋ن‬7); and ›͎͇͈͈͉͍̓͒‫( ͋ن‬13). In v. 5, ј͈͎͋̿̿́Ӆ͖͋͑͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬exhibits correct use of Greek genit. absol. construction, but may suggest a Vorlage di֎erent from MT (SS 65 and DH 176). This verb too is not found in the Pentateuch: it is one of five correspondents to -4 (M-F). ‘Of themselves’ (̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͊̿͑̿, v. 5) may be a free rendering of Hebrew ‘in their place’, ‘where they are’. It is also a skilful adaptation of the use of this term in Lev. 25:5, 11 to render the technical term for what grows by itself, unplanted. What grows in the sabbatical year ‘by itself ’ and may not be harvested is a brilliant image for the city whose walls fall ‘automatically’ and whose contents must not be used by the invad-

JOSHUA 6:1 – 6:6–11

135

ers. Josephus (̿Ҡ͍͑͊ҽ͖͑͏) was also party to this interpretation. Did the translator justify himself in his exegetical freedom by using a Greek word which inherited ‘t’ twice as well as final -a from the parent Hebrew !77? The role of the trumpet in both passages may have helped supply the link. ͐ҽ͉›͇́͌ is used both for qrn hybl (the jubilee horn) and for the šop˰ar (ram’s horn). M-F complains that the ͐ҽ͉›͇́͌, which is straight, is a poor rendering of either of these terms for ‘horn’. ҕ͎͊Ӂ͐̿͏ is a Gk plus; its meaning was discussed above at 4:18, where it described the pent-up Jordan waters resuming their normal course.

26. Jesus interprets Lord’s instructions to priests and people (6:6–11) When the river-crossing was in prospect, it was the scribes who transmitted Jesus’s order to the people; here it is the priests (in MT Joshua speaks directly to the people). ›͎̿̿́́ҿ͉͉͇̓͋ (not in the Pentateuch) is a military term, much more specific than MT’s simple ‘say’. In ‘go round and circle’ (›͎͇͉̓̓͆̓‫͈̿ ͋ل‬ӂ ͈͈͉͒‫ )͇̿͐و‬Hebrew imperatives have become Greek infinitives. In v. 7, ‘armed’ (Ѩ͖͋›͉͇͐͊ҿ͍͇͋), unlike in vv. 9 and 13, appears to have been added to the regular translation of 1% as ͍҅ ͊ҽ͔͇͍͇͊ (DH 82). Two decisions have to be made in interpreting the choreography. Firstly, in this portion as in the previous one, is ‘the warriors’ an alternative term for ‘the people’ or are these an elite sub-group – is a smaller procession of warriors and priests with the chest distinct from the whole people who will circle the city and shout when the right time comes? Secondly, are there two groups of priests: seven in front of the chest with the warriors, and the rest behind? Or are warriors, priests, and chest simply first mentioned in that order, and then properly marshalled with warriors in front of the chest and priests behind? These seem fair questions as we face the text of B. When we compare that text with MT and with other LXX versions, we are easily persuaded that rebuilding has occurred in each version: excellent accounts have been offered by Wellhausen and Holmes. The instructions given in the shorter Gk in vv. 8–9 by Jesus on his own initiative conform to those given first by Yahweh in v. 4 (which is absent from Gk). For all that, in v. 10 it is ‘I’ (Joshua) who will give the command to blow in MT, but ‘he’ (Lord) in Gk. ‘Holy’ (8) in ‘holy trumpets’ (͐ҽ͉›͇́́̿͏ ͎҅̓Ҽ͏) is formally Gk plus, but it helps link this unspecific term for ‘trumpet’ to the priests (͎҅̓̓‫ )͏ل‬who are using it. Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ͍͑‫͎̩͒ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ is one of the small number of cases where ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏

136

COMMENTARY §§ 26–28

in genit. or dat. is construed with the article See above on 4:24 for the resultant ambiguity. Both the independent Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋ (9) and the following prefix ›͎̿̿- appear to be renderings of !+0% (‘before’). DH is doubtful (97) whether this would go back to the original translator. A Greek reader of verse 11 would more naturally associate ‘immediately’ (̓Ҡ͆ҿ͖͏) with the following verb ‘departed’ (ј›‫)͉͋̓͆ق‬. But if intended as a rendering of MT 7 '-0 /3, with which it shares the same position, ̓Ҡ͆ҿ͖͏ will have been meant to modify the previous ›͎͇͉͍̓̓͆‫̿͐ن‬. The is a double oddity in B right at the end. Grammatically, it is formally ambiguous whether, of the nearer antecedents, ‘the chest’ or ‘the god’ is subject of the last verb. If that is the choice, then the use of such an anthropomorphic verb suggests the latter. However, the subject of ‘slept’ could also be the more distant ‘Jesus’. In MT each of the final two verbs is plural and refers to the people. Then ‘the chest of the disposition of the god’ is a unique combination in this book, although the corresponding '!% 7!4 *4 is found in Judg 20:27; 1 Sam. 4:4; 2 Sam. 15:24; 1 Chron. 16:6. Though unusual in this book, it may preserve an original Hebrew reading (there is a convergent argument in Auld 2000: 141–45).

27. Days two to six (6:12–14) Whoever had gone to sleep (11), it is Jesus’s rising that is mentioned. In this portion it is now explicit that the seven trumpeter priests precede Lord (ie his ‘chest’). The precise position of the warriors is not made explicit: they had joined afterwards what had started as a priestly procession. It appears that [at least part of ] ‘the people’ (5, 6, 9) has become ‘the remaining mass’ (13). This phrase is used nowhere else in Jesus; and uniquely here in LXX. It renders a Hebrew word which literally means ‘the gatherer’ and probably refers to the rearguard. That is also how it is understood just above in v. 9 – ͍҅ ͍Ҡ͎͍̿́‫͏̓͑͋ن‬. This alternative rendering does not sound very complimentary. Although it suits French idiom better than English, it seems safest at the end to take refuge with M-F in the impersonal subject.

28. The seventh day (6:15–25) 16. ҕ ̨͍͐ͅ‫ ]͏ن‬B’s use of the article may be a unique reading in this verse, and is not found elsewhere in B.

JOSHUA 6:6–11 – 6:15–25

137

On the 7th day (15), the whole people were earlier risers (ј͋ҿ͐͑͐̿͋ͅ Ҙ͎͎͍͆͒) – ј͋ҿ͐͑ͅ was used of Jesus alone in v. 12; and the vb. cognate with Ҙ͎͎͍͆͒ is used elsewhere in the book of Jesus’s early rising (3:1; 7:16; 8:10). LXX states first that they encircled the city ‘six times’ on the seventh day, and then moves on to report (16) what happened on the seventh rounding; MT states ‘seven times’ at the outset, then adds the note (not in LXX) that it was only on the seventh day that they went round seven times, and finally reports what happened the seventh time. Where LXX reads ‘to the sons of Israel’, MT o֎ers ‘to the people’: this is the opposite shift to that found in 7:11, 16, 24. ͈͈͎̓ҽ͌̿͑̓ is aor. imper. of what is cited as ͈͎ҽ͇̈́̓͋, despite the fact that reduplication is typical rather of perf. forms. ј͋ҽ͆̓͊̿ (17) is literally something ‘set up’ or ‘dedicated’ in a holy place. Viewed from one perspective (Lev. 27:28), it is the holiest of dedications: it constitutes the limiting case of the object vowed to the sanctuary by so strict a vow that it may not be redeemed. From another (yet) convergent perspective, it is the sort of material which may not enter one’s house (Deut. 7:26) or be in one’s possession (Deut. 13:17), but must be either lodged in the sanctuary or destroyed. Thus it overlaps substantially in sense with ·erem, which it renders in each of these passages – and here. The only instance of the cognate ј͋̿͆̓͊̿͑Ӄ͇̈́̓͋ comes just below, in v. 21, where it renders '!4 accurately. Elsewhere in this book it is Ѩ͍͉͎͌̓͆̓Ӈ͇̓͋ (2:10; 10:1, 28, 37, 39, 40; 11:11, 12, 20, 21), or exceptionally ͓͍͋̓Ӈ͇̓͋ (10:35), which corresponds to '!4. Ѩ͋͆͒͊͆ͅҿ͋͑̓͏ (6:18) will attest not MT )!47 but the similar )7 (see on 7:21). And MT 8:26 is a plus not reflected in LXX at all. Josephus does not use the actual term anathema, but talks of the people abstaining as from objects already consecrated to God. Note the use of the singular verb in ›ҽ͋͑̿ ҙ͐̿ Ѩ͐͑Ӄ͋ ̓͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬. As observed already, the translator normally uses a pl. vb. where the subj., even if n.pl. grammatically, is alive. Perhaps the human population is considered to be subsumed within ‘the city’, and ‘what it contains’ refers only to their inanimate possessions. IereiΗŌ is to be dedicated ̩͎͒ӃԶ ͖͐̿̀̿͆ (17). MT has yhwh only – and in fact never uses the title ‘Lord of Hosts’ in Joshua; and most Gk witnesses have translated the second term in the title by [͑‫͋͒͂ ]͋و‬ҽ͖͊̓͋; there is very little support for B’s simple transliteration. ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ ͖͐̿̀̿͆ is less widespread in LXX than Hebrew ‘Lord of Hosts’ (72 !); but it represents it very frequently in Isaiah, and in four of the five instances in MT of 1 Samuel. If this plus is ‘midrashic’, then the ‘dedication’ to Lord Sabaoth may be influenced by these four passages in 1 Samuel. It

138

COMMENTARY §§ 28–30

was to Yahweh under this title that worship was directed in Shiloh and to whom Hannah vowed her son for all his life (1:3, 11). In this name too Samuel announced the punishment of Amalek (15:2), which would also be ‘anathematised’ (15:3); and David challenged Goliath (17:45). ј͉͉ҽ (18) is used only once more in the book, in 22:24; in both cases it infers an adversative relationship from the word attached to the connective, here 34 (lit. ‘and only’). ͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿ is Gk+. OT books with a counterpart in HB use ‘erase’ (Ѩ͈͎͑Ӄ͇̀̓͋) some 40x, and these correspond to as many as 20 di֎erent Hebrew verbs. MT here uses 4#-, the key-word of the next chapter; and the only other instance of the flexible verb in Jesus is within that same chapter (7:9), where MT has 7!4#. Gk has emphasised the participation of the people in the falling of the walls even more than MT. MT opens v. 20 with a second mention of the warcry. However, all three instances of ‘all’ are Gk pluses, together with the people shouting ‘together’; and the ‘yell’ is not only ‘great’ as in MT but ‘powerful’ as well. How many of these strengthening additions were already in the text before the translator and how many added by him is not possible to settle (DH 158). As already noted, ј͈͍Ӈ͇̓͋ + genit. normally means to ‘hearken to’ rather than simply to ‘hear’. That sense is not impossible in v. 20; however, many Gk MSS agree with MT in reading ‘voice of [the trumpets]’: ͑Ӏ͋ ͓͖͋Ӂ͋ (admittedly the easier reading) may have been omitted from B (so DH 61, while on p. 170 he suggests the omission was deliberate). ј͉͉̿ҽ͇̈́̓͋ ј͉͉̿̿́͊‫ ى‬is not found in the Pentateuch, but is largely attested in Hellenistic military contexts and is frequent in the rest of the OT. Origen notes that the same verb and noun are used in Psalm 89:16 and 100:1 for cries of joy; and also that the suddenness of Jericho’s fall, with the suddenness of the flood and of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah, prefigure the suddenness of the end of the world (M-F). ‘Was burned in a conflagration’ (24): B’s Ѩ͋̓›͎Ӂ͐͆ͅ Ѩ͋›͎͇͒͐͊‫ ى‬uses two di֎erent, though assonant, words; and therefore corresponds well with MT _ 04`. A’s very similar verb is actually the cognate Ѩ͋̓›͎͒Ӄ͐͆ͅ. ‘Into treasury of Lord’: MT adds ‘house’ before Lord as in 9:23; its ‘sanctuary’ in 24:26 is also a plus. The rendering ‘and settled’ above mirrors the Greek ͈̿ӂ ͈̿͑Է͈͐̓͋ͅ which is similarly ambiguous: the verb may be transitive or intransitive, and the subject of ‘settled’ may be either Raab or Jesus. ͇͂Ӆ͇͑ (‘because’), though good classical Greek, is rare in LXX and only here in Jesus (SS 159). Theodoret cites this example of an action commanded despite it being

JOSHUA 6:15–25 – 6:27–7:1

139

the sabbath day, to show that the legislator himself prescribed the transgressing of orders which had only been given because of the weakness of the Hebrews. He also sees Raab as the prototype of Christians, living among the sons of Israel; while Origen (according to the Latin text) adds that Raab was added to Israel, representing the nations grafted to the good olive (M-F).

29. Jesus’s curse (6:26) This is the first of only two curses uttered by Jesus – the other on the Gibeonites (9:23): and only this one is introduced by the solemn ‘swore’. The solemnity of both introduction and actual content of the curse correspond well to the status of IereiΗŌ as ‘anathema’. Ѩ›͇͈̿͑ҽ͎͍̿͑͏ is the stock rendering of the assonant ʙarur, from the first humans in the garden, through Cain, to the terrible warnings in Deut. 27. ‘In sight of Lord’ is related in Gk to Jesus’s oath-taking; in MT the words come within his direct speech: ‘Cursed in sight of Lord . . .’. In place of ‘that city’ (LXX) we read ‘this city’ in MT; and MT goes on to specify Jericho. A Hebrew text confirming LXX can be found in 4QTest. Unlike MT, Gk also o֎ers a report of the fulfilment of the curse which we read also in 1 Kgs 16:34 in MT and many Greek VSS. Tov (159) sensibly argues that this report was secondary in both contexts but that it was added to Kings before Joshua (he also directs attention to Mazor 1988 for a di֎erent approach). LXX o֎ers a di֎erent rendering at each place: each appears to be an independent rendering from a similar or identical Vorlage. ͇͖͂̿͐͆ҿ͇͋͑ will be a misunderstanding of the name Segub attested in Kings, read as a passive participle: in Prov. 29:25, ysgb is rendered ͖͐͆Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿. The first scribe of B recognised this as a portion distinct from both what went before and what followed. The first marginal division includes it with the previous paragraph; by contrast MT brackets it with the story of Achan.

30. Jesus and Israel contrasted (6:27–7:1) Among the ancient witnesses, only the much-divided A agrees with the medieval western tradition in separating 6:27 from 7:1. Whether these sentences are accorded a paragraph of their own, or whether they are part of a larger division, they are face to face; and the contrast is

140

COMMENTARY §§ 30–31

manifest. It comes as no surprise when it is made explicit in 7:10 that no blame attaches to Jesus for the AΗar episode. What is interesting is that all of Israel is implicated. What was promise in 1:5, 9, 17, and still prospective though imminent in 3:7, is now a matter of past summary report: ‘Lord was with Jesus’ (6:27). ‘Name’ is ‘fame’ in Jesus 7:9 and 9:9 also; but only here and in 9:9 and Num. 14:15 does Ҙ͍͋͊̿ correspond to MT šmʚ rather than šm. The literal sense of ›͉͉͊͊̓ͅӃ̿ and the related verb in Greek is musical: of playing a false note. The cognate pairing corresponds to MT wymʚlw . . . mʚl; and the assonance of mʚl and –͉͊̓Ӄ̿ may have made an otherwise striking correspondence more acceptable. mʚl is rendered in the Pentateuch by verbs of negligence (Lev. 5:1), contempt (Num. 31:16), or disobedience (Deut. 32:51); for ›͉͉͊͊̓̓ͅ‫͋ل‬, the translator has gone to Leviticus where it is used first (5:15) – in fact to render another term, although mʚl does occur in the same verse. Both ͊̓́ҽ͉͋ͅ and Ѩ͍͓͋͐Ӄ͍͐̿͋͑ are formal pluses. Playing a false note may rightly have been reckoned less serious than mʚl; and so the use of ‘great’ will have strengthened the correspondence. Though known in Greek poetry and in Koine, ͍͓͋͐Ӄ͇̈́̓͐͆̿ is used only here in LXX, then in Acts 5:23 for the similar fraud of Ananias (M-F). ‘Misappropriated’ focuses the summary preview more exactly on the o֎ence about to be reported. AΗar’s own role is not minimised: he does not slip quietly on stage – his family tree is something of a fanfare; and yet he is almost submerged. The summary starts with Israel’s sons having gone wrong and finishes with Israel’s sons the butt of Lord’s wrath. And it is through none other than Iouda that his genealogy, son after son, has linked him to Israel. AΗar is so named also in Josephus and in 1 Chron. 2:7. However, in MT of Joshua, he is known as Achan. The name AΗar more exactly conforms to the place of his punishment, the valley of AΗŌr; and to the Hebrew term (ʚkr) for what he did. Zambrei has almost certainly collected an extra consonant: ‘m’ if MT Zabdi (Josephus: Zebedee) is original (Hebrew ‘r’ and ‘d’ were easily confused); or ‘b’ if Zimri attested in 1 Chron. 2:6 is followed. DH (172) lists ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͆͒͊Ӊ͆ͅ Ҕ͎́‫̩ ك‬Ӈ͎͇͍͏ as the 2nd of 4 cases where the ruling noun in a construct relationship has been attractively combined with the verb. Ѩ͈͎̿›Ӄ͍͐̿͋͑ (5:12) is a perfect example; and the others in 7:26 and 22:33 work well. However, though / may have influenced the rendering of 4! by ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͆͒͊Ӊ͆ͅ is also represented by Ҕ͎́Ӂ. H&R cite many cases in other books where ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͆͒͊Ӊ͆ͅ Ҕ͎́‫ ك‬corresponds to 4! alone.

JOSHUA 6:27–7:1 & 7:2–5

141

31. Scouting Gai (7:2–5) This is a passage about ‘ups’ and ‘downs’. Greek like English compound verbs and nouns have often become opaque through much usage. And that may be true of several of the individual words in the portion. However, ̿͋̿ and ͈̿͑̿ are polar opposites; and the accumulation of these sounds (͈̿͑̿ 5x, ̿͋̿ 6x), whether independently or as prefixes, can hardly be without rhetorical significance. In Hebrew ̢͇̿ normally bears the article (‘the ruin’), but not in Greek in this book – the article is used, as with other indeclinable names, only where there might be doubt about the case intended. In Gen. 12:8; 13:3 !- has been transliterated with the article as part of the name (̠͇́́̿). It is evident from place-names such as this that the single Hebrew letter - (ʚayin) represented two separate guttural consonants: ʚayin proper, and ghayin from deeper in the throat, which are distinguished in the Arabic alphabet. Where ghayin was recognised, Greek gimel was used to transliterate it – compare Gaza, written - in Hebrew. The meaning of ͈̿͑ҽ in ͈̿͑Ҽ ̡͇͉̿͆ͅ is uncertain, not least because the case of Baiϑēl is not determined by a definite article. With both genit. and accus., the sense ‘down’ predominates; but ‘towards’ is also possible. A further sense of ј͋ҽ is ‘[turn] back’ (ј͋ҿ͎͕͐͑̓̿͋ – v. 3). The term used here for besiege (Ѩ͈›͍͉͇͍͎͈͍‫ )͋ن‬is used only in Josh. 7:3; 10:5,34 and 4 Macc. 18:4. Commenting on ј͋̿́ҽ́Ԍ͏, M-F suggests that MT -! (‘tire’) has been read as a form of -+ (‘attain’). She does not remark that the Greek rendering also echoes the sound of the Hebrew. ‘Towards’ (̓҄͏), expressing caution over the number 36, is supported by only one other MS. A few Greek witnesses have ҭ͏; and both agree with MT k- (‘about’), although this seems an odd thing to say about a nonround number (unless of course people thought in dozens even although their language was structured decimally). MT, LXX, and Josephus agree on the numbers involved. Opinions di֎er on whether ͈̿ӂ ͐͒͋ҿ͎͇͕͑̿͋ (‘and they crushed’) corresponds to MT '!4_ (which Targ read as a verb) or to the following '#!. The sense of the ј›ӄ in ј›ӄ ͍͑‫ ͏ن͍͎͓͈̓̿͑̿ ن‬is difficult to understand: the overwhelming majority of witnesses reads Ѩ›Ӄ with A. ј›Ӆ is used often not of starting point, but to specify relationship to a fixed point, and hence this expression need not be coordinate with ј›ӄ ͑‫› ͏ق‬Ӈ͉ͅ͏ (‘from the gate’) – perhaps ‘on the downhill [of Ai]’. ‘And the heart . . . was terrified’ (Ѩ›͍͑Ӂ͆ͅ ѵ ͈͎̿͂Ӄ̿) is already a third rendering within Jesus for % ,)! (see also 2:11; 5:1). M-F complains that the following ‘like [water]’ weakens the Hebrew metaphor.

142

COMMENTARY §§ 31–33

Jesus’s second initiative against a city in the land also begins with a scouting mission; but this time ‘men’ were sent, of number unspecified. They began by inspecting Gai – literally ‘looking down on’ the city. Israel’s scouts went up to Gai, and back to Jesus; a raiding party should go up to Gai, but not be led up there by Jesus; and they did go up on those terms. But Israel finished by being chased down from its gate and crushed on the downhill. When at the outset they looked down, they thought they were in a superior position – by the end of the episode, they really were ‘down’.

32. Jesus intercedes (7:6–9) Jesus has to find out what we readers already know, from paragraph 30: that Lord is in fact with him, but there is a problem within Israel. He leads his people in corporate lamentation. ‘Your “boy” ’ is now no longer Moses (1:7, 13), but Jesus himself. The gestures of lament are stock expressions, each the stock rendering for the corresponding Hebrew. ͂ҿ͍͇͊̿, ̩Ӈ͎͇̓ (7) is a familiar introduction to entreaty in the Pentateuch (Gen. 19:18; 43:20 [pl.]; 44:18; Exod. 4:10, 13; 5:22; 32:31; Num. 12:11), though normally there a rendering of ! ! (see on 8 below). Here MT has , which is rendered in other ways elsewhere. ‘And’ dominates the jumble of comments and questions from the puzzled Jesus. Jesus talks of himself (your servant) bringing his people across the Jordan, whereas in MT it is his God. ›͎̿ҽ + acc. may mean ‘beside’ or ‘beyond’. Our translation of ›͎̿Ҽ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ has used the latter, which would also have been a natural rendering of MT 4-. But M-F comments that Gk here resumes the formula which often recurs in Numbers (22:1; 33:49, 50; 35:1), and means ‘along’ rather than ‘across’ the Jordan. ›͎͍̿̿͂‫( ͇̿͋ن‬7) is used some 20x in Jesus, always with a divine subject, and always elsewhere of the transfer to Israel of the land or some part of it; but here, of Israel itself to one of the peoples of the land – for destruction. Jewish tradition has been surprised at Jesus’s freedom, and Josephus underscores his frankness (›͎͎̿͐ͅӃ̿). It has been argued since Masius that ̨̩̠ (in ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӄ Ѩ͎‫ )و‬is a false correction of ̩̤, the standing abbreviation of ̨̩̳̰̤ – MT has !+ !. Either works well rhetorically (see below). DH (177) notes (on Ѩ›̓ӂ ͊̓͑ҿ͉̀̿̓͋) that the other 3 Ѩ›̓ӂ-clauses in Jesus precede the main clause (4:1; 10:24; 17:13). An appeal to Lord’s reputation (‘name’) is also found in the Pentateuch: Exod. 32:12; Num. 14:15–16. MT links the elimination of ‘our name’ with a problem for ‘your great name’; but Gk speaks

JOSHUA 7:2–5 – 7:10–15

143

of the elimination of ‘us’. ͑Ӄ at the head of the final clause may also be rendered ‘how’; but ›‫ ͏و‬would be more common in that sense.

33. Lord’s detailed response (7:10–15) The command to ‘stand up’ is mostly a prelude to action, as in v. 13. It is hardly possible to read it this way in v. 10 as well, as if there is a long self-interruption by Lord with the command resumed in v. 13; for Lord is explaining why it is inappropriate that Jesus is on his face. ›ҿ›͖͈͑̿͏ and ѵ͊ҽ͎͈͑̓͋ͅ are quite properly perfects (past action with present consequences): Jesus is still on his face, and the people still in a state of sin. Jesus should first right his own position. ‘The people’ (ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏) corresponds in v. 11 to MT ‘Israel’. DH cites ͈͉ҿ͕̿͋͑̓͏ . . . Ѩ͋ҿ͉͍̀̿͋ (11) as one of ten examples of subordination by participle where the two verbs are separated by a few words; then adds the gross understatement in parenthesis that it is a condensing translation. However, this Greek sentence is so unremarkable that it can hardly have been rendered from MT’s Hebrew sentence which coordinates more clauses with wgm (‘and even’) than any other sentence in HB (Qoh. 9:11 is the closest rival). Two of these clauses are completely unrepresented in Gk. Commenting on ҡ›͍͐͑‫‘( ͇̿͋ق‬to hold up’) in v. 12, M-F nicely notes the variety of compounds of ҅͐͑ҽ͇͋̿ used in this passage to render '3: we find both ј͇͋͐͑ҽ͇͋̿ and ј͇͋͆͐͑ҽ͇͋̿ in v. 13. ҡ›͍͎͐͑ҿ͕͍͇͒͐͋ is the reading of the 1st hand in B; it is adjusted in the margin to Ѩ›͇͎͐͑ҿ͕͍͇͒͐͋ (which more normally corresponds to +0), but without perceptible di֎erence in sense (‘they shall turn round’). ͍Ҡ ›͎͍͐͆Ӂ͖͐ Ѭ͇͑ ̓‫ ͇̿͋ة‬is a very literal rendering of 7!% - /!, %, Hebrew idiom for ‘I shall not continue longer to be’: Ѭ͇͑ is Gk plus. The first marginal division of B starts a new section with v. 13, separating the divine explanation to Jesus from his instructions over the conduct of the lot, and its consequences. The instructions become increasingly explicit as v. 13 develops: Jesus should sanctify the people; he should achieve this by telling them to be sanctified; more specifically, he should report to them Lord’s declaration of the critical situation and of the means for its removal. It seems as if ‘sanctification’, in this context at least, does not name a first stage: it is not a sacred prelude before the people participates in a ritual in the presence of the divine. What it names is the main action of ridding the community of the malign presence. The syntax of ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ͓͉͒Ӂ (14) has been distorted by literal

144

COMMENTARY §§ 33–36

rendering of the formulaic !: Ѭ͇͐͑̿ has attracted ‘the tribe’ into the nom. case as its subject, leaving the first ›͎͍͐ҽ͌̓͑̓ (‘bring [it]’) without object in the acc. The situation is righted in the following clauses, free from the influence of the formula. ј͋Ӆ͊͊̿ͅ is not commonly used in LXX; but it is found in the Pentateuch, as a rendering of other Hebrew terms (Lev. 17:16; 20:14; Deut. 15:9), mostly terms for sin and guilt. Equally, MT nblh is known in the Pentateuch (Gen. 34:7; Deut. 22:21; 32:6) as well as in Judges and Samuel. It is variously translated, mostly by terms for ‘folly’ but in Gen. 34 as ‘disgrace’. But the only rendering which approximates to ‘a lawless act’ is in Jer. 36(29):23 where the abstract ј͍͋͊Ӄ̿ is used. M-F suggests that the translator has used a more religious term from Leviticus; and has not made the Talmudic link between AΗar and the punishment of the non-virgin wife.

34. AΗar taken by lot (7:16–18) Lord’s command is followed by action of Jesus. His early start is not further specified by ͑ӄ ›͎͖Ӄ as in 3:1 and 8:10, and by MT here. Jesus initiates the process as in MT, except that ‘the people’ (͑ӄ͋ ͉̿ӄ͋) is used again for MT ‘Israel’ (as in vv. 11, 24). The process is then reported impersonally in passives, unlike the active verbs which continue in MT. Josephus, however, reports the involvement of Eleazar the priest and other oّcials. The process as reported here is one stage shorter than foreseen in v. 14, lacking the level of household between ‘deme’ and individual. It is not clear whether this represents economy in narration, or accidental loss from the text. Against Barthélemy’s preference for loss, M-F notes that the process in v. 17 corresponds to the genealogy in v. 18, which also lacks one generation noted in v. 1. MT does achieve mention of Zabdi’s ‘house’, but appears patched rather than original. The enormously complex text-critical situation is carefully reviewed by Margolis and DH (79–81).

35. Jesus addresses AΗar (7:19) As Jesus himself re-enters the narrative and addresses AΗar, B’s scribe identifies a discrete paragraph. Jesus addresses four imperatives to AΗar. The third and fourth are clearly paired in sense: a positive underscored

JOSHUA 7:10–15 – 7:20–26

145

by the negation of its opposite. The first two are linked formally: both demand that something be ‘given’. Gk’s urgent ‘today’ (͐Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋) within the first is not in MT. It might be held to correspond to MT’s strengthening +; but + is MT plus in 2:12 and 22:26, and so may well be plus here too quite independent of ͐Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋. A stricter rendering of MT would produce ̩͎͒ӃԶ ͑Թ ͆̓Թ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ: ‘to Lord, the god of Israel’. The key interpretive question is how far the first two commands are also related in meaning. ͂Ӆ͌̿ (‘glory’) for kbwd is straightforward. twdh is scarcely used in the Pentateuch (and only in Lev. 7, where it is rendered by ̿҈͇͋̓͐͏ [‘praise’]), and only here in the Former Prophets. Ѩ͍͍͉͌͊Ӆ͇́͐ͅ͏ can be confession of gratitude or of guilt (LSJ). M-F insists on the rendering ‘public acknowledgement’ as in koine and the papyri. Its role amongst Jesus’s commands is usefully transitional: AΗar’s own words should confirm publicly what the lot has established.

36. AΗar confesses and is punished (7:20–26) AΗar does admit that his sin was over against Lord, Israel’s god (here, unlike v. 19, the article is not so much ‘misplaced’ as absent). The first item in the booty that he had fallen for was a ͕͇͉̓Ӂ (normally spelled ͕͇͉Ӂ). Strictly an adjective, meaning ‘stripped bare’ of animal skins, it is used to name a type of Persian carpet (LSJ 2024). In Hebrew, the carpet’s place of origin is given as Shinʚar; but this is replaced in Greek by the descriptive adjective ›͍͇͈Ӄ͉͋ͅ (‘decorated’ or ‘embroidered’). The twodrachm coin (͂Ӄ͎͔͂̿͊̿) was correlated with a half-shekel in Num. 3:47. He admits seeing, desiring, and taking – and ends by declaring where the items are to be found. He begins: ‘and see’ (͈̿ӂ ͍҄͂‫)ن‬. SS reports (98) that of 6 instances of + in MT Joshua (here in fact with suّx, '+), only this one was literally translated (against a count of 21/21 in Judges). The details of his confession are also carefully cross-checked by Jesus (22). What his messengers find is introduced by ͈̿ӂ ͑̿‫̿͑ن‬. For SS (99), this is one of the 5 instances (see above) of a free rendering in Jesus of + (‘and behold’). I find it quite as likely that + was read as the f.pl. demonstrative and appropriately rendered ͑̿‫̿͑ن‬. If the Vorlage was identical to MT, that initial decision had a֎ected the translation of the remainder of the clause. The culprit himself had said Ѩ͈͋ҿ͈͎͒›͇͑̿ Ѩ͋ ͑‫( ͍͒͊ ك͈͋͐ͅ ك‬21), with the prefix to the verb corresponding to the preposition; but the report of the messengers has Ѩ͈͈͎͋̓͒͊͊ҿ͋̿ ̓҄͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͐͋ͅӁ͋. The variation may deliberately echo the shift in MT from

146

COMMENTARY §§ 36–37

"7 (‘in the midst of ’) to the simple . They bring the evidence to Jesus and the ‘elders’: ›͎̓͐̀͒͑ҿ͎͍͒͏ presumably attests !+3, whereas MT has !+ %# (‘all the sons of ’). With his guilt precisely established, they move to the ravine whose name echoes the sinner’s. At this point (24), Gk is longer than MT; and DH (88) rightly warns against Margolis’s conjectural removal of the final words. Gk states first that Jesus takes AΗar to the ravine AΗŌr; only then notes in detail that all AΗar’s household are with him, and in summary that all the people are with Jesus; and finally reports that he took them to EmekaΗŌr. The final comment, underlining the plurality of the victims and the original name, is not reflected in MT. By mentioning the location twice and di֎erently, Gk is able to present both the Hebrew name and its meaning; however, that only anticipates what will be made plain at the end of the episode (26). Aquila achieves the assonant ͈͍͇͉Ҽ͏ ͎͑̿ҽ͔͍͒ (‘valley of disorder’). The clumsiness earlier in the Gk verse, together with the fact that the report of the stoning (25) mentions only AΗar, suggests that an earlier version of v. 24 told only that Jesus took AΗar to AΗŌr. The corporate supplementation of this shorter text was achieved more economically in MT than in the Gk Vorlage. In MT both charge and sentence (25) use the verb ʚkr (‘trouble’) for the first time in the whole story, so explaining both AΗar and AΗŌr. But Gk (Ѩ͌)͍͉͍͎͆̓Ӈ͇̓͋ may attest the verb related to ·erem instead (see above on 6:18 and the following note on ј͋ҽ͆̓͊̿); yet we need to be aware that Ѩ͍͉͍͎͌͆̓Ӈ͇̓͋ corresponds to hšmyd in 9:24; 11:20; and 24:8, and more frequently in Deuteronomy than to any other verb – and ‘destroy’ or ‘obliterate’ fits this context well too. However, the possibilities are multiple, and M-F has two further suggestions: that Gk renders 43rather than 4#-, and yet that is normally used of hamstringing horses; and that the translator had Num. 15:31 in mind, where Ѩ͍͉͍͎͌͆̓Ӈ͇̓͐͆̿ (there rendering 74#+) is the punishment of the sinner who knowingly violates the law. ͈̿͆Ҽ and related forms properly introduce a comparison; with the emphatic ͈̿Ӄ, we might expect the Vorlage of ͈̿͆ҽ ͈̿ӂ ͐Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ (‘as even today’) to have read  '!#. Rabbinic teaching uses ‘today’ here to teach forgiveness of sin: punishment today will except the guilty from punishment in the world to come (M-F). ͉͇͍͍͉͆̀̓‫ ͋ل‬is a neologism coined, so M-F suggests, to bring the punishment into the sacral sphere, and away from the standard Greek verbs for stoning: ͉̓Ӈ͇̓͋ and ͉͇͆ҽ͇̈́̓͋. Gk reports only (25–26) that all Israel stoned him, and raised over him a great heap of stones, so adding to the suspicion that the detailed specification of his household (24) is secondary. MT pro-

JOSHUA 7:20–26 & 8:1–17

147

vides an addition and a ‘correction’: ‘and they burned them with fire, and they stoned them with stones’ – but gives itself away by preserving ‘over him’ in the report of the cairn. Barthélemy, however, explains the Gk minus as an accidental lapse. ͖͎͐Ӆ͏ (‘heap’) is not used in the Pentateuch; it is ͍̀‫ ͏͍͋ن‬that translates the same Hebrew (%) in Gen. 31:47 although it more often renders - (‘hill’) as also in 5:3 above. Jewish tradition was astonished over the lack of burial for AΗar (M-F). Josephus accords him an ignominious one at night, in conformity with the Mosaic law of stoning.

37. Taking Gai I (8:1–17) 6. ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͊›͎͍͐͆̓͋] elsewhere in this book (8x in chaps. 3–6) is used as a preposition, and always corresponds to some form of '!+0. Here it is an adverb, and corresponds to *_4 (‘at first’) – cf. only Judg. 20:32, 39 in all of the Pentateuch and historical books of the Greek Old Testament. With the narrative now turning to a successful campaign, B’s scribe returns to large paragraphs such as we have not seen since the sending of the scouts to IereiΗŌ. Here the division is exactly as the Masoretic one. Each part of the story opens with a divine word to Jesus. The encouragement not to fear (͊Ӏ ͓͍̀͆ͅ‫͂͊ͅ ͏ك‬Ҿ ͇͉͇͂̓ҽ͐Ԍ͏) is repeated from the opening paragraph (1:9); the command ‘Rising go up’ is reminiscent of ‘Rising go across’ in the same paragraph (1:2). Putting ‘the king of Gai and his land’ in Jesus’s power recapitulates but also reverses ‘the land and IereiΗŌ’ in 2:1. However, three novel points should be noted: 1. The literal rendering ̓҄͏ ͑Ҽ͏ ͔̓‫͎ل‬ҽ͏ ͍͐͒ (‘into your hands’) is used (1, as in 18 below) whereas in 6:2 we found the adjectival ҡ›͍͔͇͎̓Ӄ̿͋ (cf also 9:25; 10:12; 11:8). It is a characteristic of Jesus that freer (more Greek) renderings co-exist with more literal ones – together demonstrating the translator’s competence in both languages? 2. In the light of that question, it is a little surprising that it is the rather colourless ͈̿Ӄ that introduces a key di֎erence between the Gai and IereiΗŌ campaigns (2). In ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ›͎͍͍͋͊Ӏ͋ (‘and the plunder [of the stock animals]’), the connective is admittedly reinforced by word-order: the promotion of the object (2). However, Greek does have more options than Hebrew for marking contrast. 3. This is to be a more normal military campaign. There is no role for priests, processions, or trumpets: it is with the setting of an ambush that Lord charges Jesus.

148

COMMENTARY §§ 37–38

We might expect ͍͑ӆ͏ ќ͎͋͂̿͏ ›ҽ͋͑̿͏ ͍͑ӆ͏ ›͍͉͇̓͊͐͑ҽ͏ (1) to correspond to )%) !_+–%#, but MT has )%) '-–%#, as in v. 3. Whatever the precise expression, wherever in this book )%) is the second element in a construct relationship, Gk renders with the adjective ›͍͉͇̓͊͐͑Ӂ͏. B introduces the selection of the thirty thousand (3) with the connective ͂ҿ, marking a new section in the narrative (SS 47) – A has ͈̿Ӄ, but the scribe marks the ‘verse’ change with a new line. Normally for ‘thousand’ Greek uses an adjective agreeing with whatever is being counted (͔Ӄ͉͇͍͇), but in ͎͇͑ҽ͈͍͋͑̿ ͔͇͉͇ҽ͂̿͏ ј͎͋͂‫͍͑̿͋͒͂ ͋و‬ӆ͏ a noun is used (which strictly /% is also). It is with that noun naming the military units in the accusative, and not with the genit. ‘men’, that the adjective ‘powerful’ agrees. ͈͎͊̿Ҽ͋ (4) may be used prepositionally in Greek (DH 34); but here as in 9:28 it is accompanied by ј›Ӆ. We find ҭ͏ ќ͋ Ѩ͌ҿ͉͖͇͆͐͋ in both vv. 5 and 6. ҭ͏-clauses that precede the main clause normally have temporal force (SS 174). In v. 5, MT reads 2! !# after the formulaic !; but in v. 6, simply 2!. By contrast ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͎͍‫( ͇͋͐ن‬6) reverses the normal relationship: Gk here uses the simple connective, while MT subordinates with !#. Gk may have had a di֎erent Vorlage. ‘The people’ (10) is frequently the designation of the main part of the people. Those in the ambush had already been sent o֎ to their position. And, as they move up after being reviewed, another sub-group is detached from the [rest of the] people: the elders at their head. The move to the plural in B (͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ̀͐̿͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӄ) is found surprising by many readers; and there is considerable MS support for the easier sg.reading here: ͈̿ӂ ј͋ҿ̀ͅ ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͏. However, Gk may have been correct in assuming that  was deliberately specified in the Hebrew to resume ‘the people’ rather than ‘Jesus’. We find a partial analogy in 9:6 below: ‘all Israel and their elders . . .’. At several points the Greek version of this story is considerably shorter than the Hebrew (MT). In general, the Greek is not inherently unsatisfactory. However, the verbless ‘and the ambush of the city on the west’ (12) is at the least unidiomatic. Since the neuter Ѭ͎͋̓͂̿ can be parsed as either nominative or accusative case, it is open to see these words either as a rather clumsy nominal clause or as the remnant of a longer sentence such as we find in MT, where ‘ambush’ is marked as the object of the verb ‘set’. In ‘all the people (›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿Ӆ͏) that were with him’ (14), the normal rule is broken, that ͉̿Ӆ͏ is used only for Israel. Did Gk overlook that this is the people of Ai, not Israel? Grammatically Ӟ͇͂̓ is pluperfect; in func-

JOSHUA 8:1–17 & 8:18–29

149

tion it is the past tense of the (perfect) verb ͍‫̿͂ة‬. In the report of what the king ‘did not know’, Gk has added the verb ‘to be’ to the Hebrew nominal clause – and in present tense (Ѩ͇͐͑͋), corresponding to what he would have said to himself had he known. Our translation of ͈̿ӂ ҈͂̓͋ ͈̿ӂ ј͔͋̓Ӊ͎͐̓͋ͅ (15), possibly over-pedantically, understands the king of Gai, the last named subject, to be the one who ‘saw’ (҈͂̓͋); M-F, possibly rightly, takes Jesus (and Israel) to be the subject of both these verbs.

38. Taking Gai II (8:18–29) The second divine speech (18) partly recapitulates and partly goes beyond the terms of the first (1–2). The first gave instructions about an ambush; the second instructs Jesus to give the signal for the entry of the men in ambush on the battle-scene. The first used the simple ͂ҿ͖͈͂̿ (‘give’ or ‘put’); the second, the more precise ›͎̿̿͂ҿ͖͈͂̿ (‘make over’). Jesus’s hand[s], introduced once in v. 1, become the dominating feature of v. 18 (4x). The hand outstretched against the city is ‘extended’ by means of a spear held in Jesus’s hand. It is into the hands of Jesus that the city has been made over. The stretched out hand is the spear. And the speed of the ambushers’ emergence and capture of the city when he did stretch out his hand (19) reinforces the impression of the hand[s] raised as much in expectation as in signal. The pl. vb. Ѩ͌̿͋̿͐͑Ӂ͍͇͐͋͑̿ (18) is used with a neut. pl. subject, because the subject is living. In ‘burned the city in fire’ (Ѩ͋ҿ›͎͐̓͋ͅ . . . Ѩ͋ ›͎͒Ӄ), Gk achieves at the end of v. 19 an assonance not present in the Hebrew (compare the related effect in 7:24 above). And this is not the only assonance: the gaison (‘spear’) which extends Jesus’s hand (2x in v. 18) also suggests [the fate of ] Gai. The narrative in verse 22 is as confusing as the battle may have been! It is not at all clear just who is who. We would expect that the emphatic opening ͈̿ӂ ͍ҥ͍͇͑ would mark a change in subject from the end of v. 21, and that those leaving the city were those the ambushers had not struck down when they took the city. If a flashback had been intended (that the men of Gai had in fact come out to meet those from the ambush – and that is a fair way of reading the Hebrew), we should have expected the Greek pluperfect to have been used. However, if ‘these’ are Israelite forces (and at least that would be consistent with the phrase ‘these on this side and these on that’ later in the verse), then there appears to be an unmarked change of subject at ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆͐̿͋ͅ ј͋Ҽ ͊ҿ͍͐͋ ͑‫ ;͏ق͉͍͎̀͊̓̿› ͏ق‬for that presumably describes the fate of the men of

150

COMMENTARY §§ 38–39

Gai trapped between or within di֎erent Israelite forces. ͑‫͏ق͉͍͎̀͊̓̿› ͏ق‬ presumably corresponds to MT ‘Israel’, although the structure of the clause is di֎erent in each text. Again, if that is true, the following two instances of ͍ҥ͍͇͑ do not continue the subject implied in the immediately preceding verb, but rather specify elements of the ‘camp’. M-F renders MT in v. 22 as ‘in the middle of Israel’; however, I suspect it means ‘Israel had them in the middle’, rather than ‘they came to be in the middle of Israel’. ‘Descent’ (24) renders mwrd, while MT o֎ers mdbr. In the following ј›’ ̿Ҡ͑‫͏ق‬, ‘it’ will be the city (M-F). Gk has Jesus as the subject of the final two verbs in v. 24, while in MT it is ‘all Israel’. Gk completely lacks v. 26, a plus which confirms the idea that the javelin in MT (cf also v. 18) is not a signal, but the symbol of combat under the protection of God (M-F). At the end of the paragraph, the fate of Gai is resumed. The firing of the city is stated in a second but di֎erent assonant phrase. M-F notes that Gk follows MT in distinguishing religious burning (Ѩ͊›͎͒Ӄ͇̈́̓͋//4`) and burning in war (Ѩ͊›͇›͎ҽ͇͋̿/ 72!). The spoils taken are not specified, beyond being said to be in accordance with Lord’s arrangement. V. 2 was quite precise in its mention of animals; v. 27 could be read as the statement of an oّcial fudge. Incidentally, the punctuation in CB of v. 27 as an independent sentence is surprising. The use of ͐͒͋ҿ͑̿͌̓͋ in both v. 27 and v. 29 underscores the complementarity of divine instruction to Jesus and his instruction of the people. This is stated in similar terms in 4:3, 8; and, with Moses as the intermediary, in 11:12, 15. That the city should remain uninhabited ‘into the age’ will state the intention; and ‘until this day’ is the narrator’s cross-check on the contemporary situation. The divine command at the outset (8:2) was to do to Gai what had been done to IereiΗŌ and its king. What may have been done to IereiΗŌ’s king is not specified in the report of that city’s end; but Gai’s king shared in microcosm the fate of his city. The king[’s body] was hanged, presumably for public display after death rather than as a means of execution. That it was the first Jesus who gave instructions about removing the body from the tree resonates powerfully with the fate of the second. And it may be just that link which has occasioned the LXX plus: that the tree was ‘forked’, so more clearly anticipating exposure on a cross. The corpse was removed at sunset, in (unstated) accordance with the law in Deut. 21:22–23. That law went on to specify burial for the malefactor; and it is not clear whether throwing the king of Gai into a pit and raising over him a heap of stones was intended as meeting or as playing rather fast and loose with the rule. His mound mimicked the large heap

JOSHUA 8:18–29 & 9:1–2

151

of stones which Gai became. Both mounds were attested at the time of the narrator: each bore witness to death.

39. The response to the fall of Gai after IereiΗŌ (9:1–2) The impression is given, though never precisely stated, of a total response by the inhabitants of the whole land to the first advances by Jesus and Israel. The first to fall had been two cities with their kings and their lands; and their people too had been destroyed. Kings take the initiative in this note; and although the names from Ζettai to Iebousai are in the plural and are the names of peoples we should assume that it was under kingly leadership that they gathered – after all, their enemy is [similarly?] specified as ‘Jesus and Israel’. Remarkably little space is ‘wasted’ by the Vaticanus scribe; but he does take the opportunity to mark the significance of this list by giving each name a new line. ̢͎̓́̓͐̿‫ ͇͍ل‬is Gk plus: not in MT, and lacking also from 11:3 both in MT and Gk. The Amorrai appear in two capacities. The first is more generalised, as if it covers all the peoples of the land, whether in hill-country (like Gai) or plain (like IereiΗŌ) or, further afield, by Mediterranean coast or northern mountains (for ‘Antilebanon’ see above on 1:4). The second is as a stock member of an almost standard list of peoples of the land, six or seven in number. Only the second corresponds to MT; earlier, MT talks simply of ‘the kings’ whose spread is defined first topographically and only then ethnographically. If the numbers of separate participants or the diversity in land-type described in v. 1 make unity hard to achieve, the language of v. 2 is all the more deliberate: ‘converged . . . same place . . . all together’. Harder to render, but quite as significant, is the first element in Ѩ͈›͍͉̓͊‫͇̿͐ق‬: by making war on Jesus and Israel, they wanted them ‘out’. Ѩ͈›͍͉̓͊‫ ͇̿͐ق‬corresponds here, as in 23:3, 10, to '%+ as elsewhere in LXX; but in 10:4 it corresponds to #, and in 22:12 to 2. Both comparison and contrast with the paragraph in 5:1 are invited. There too ‘the kings of the Amorrai across the Jordan’ were the lead element, but the only others mentioned were ‘the kings of Phoenicia, those by the sea’. They were responding specifically to the divine drying of the Jordan ahead of Israel’s crossing; but here, if only by implication, the response is to the fate of Gai and its publicly exposed king. There the response was fear and total confusion, but here of determined and coordinated action. Origen agrees with A and MT in reading this paragraph after what

152

COMMENTARY §§ 39–41

follows it in B – for Origen, a coalition against Jesus is reminiscent of persecution against Christians. Josephus makes no mention of the coalition against Israel, and reports the building of the altar much later in his story.

40. Altar and law (9:3–8 [8:30–35]) A sensibly divides this paragraph into three portions: 3–4, 5–6, and 7–8. ͇͆͒͐̿͐͑Ӂ͎͇͍͋ for ‘altar’ (3) is known only in the LXX, starting from Exod. 27:1. Like the Hebrew word it translates, it is derived from the word for ‘sacrifice’ (4) and denotes the place at which that is carried out. In accordance with Mosaic instruction, the altar was made of stones that were ‘complete’ or ‘sound’ (ҕ͉͍͈͉Ӂ͎͖͋) – literally ‘in good health’. The use of ҕ͉͍͈͉Ӂ͎͖͋ here, as well as a form of Ѩ›͇̀ҽ͉͉͇̓͋, strongly suggests that the translator knew Greek Deut. 27:5, 6 – not to speak of his use in v. 5 of ͎͍͂̓͒͑̓͋Ӆ͇͍͊͋ itself (Deut. 17:18). Twice within this paragraph of modest length we find it insisted upon that the instructions Moses gave (Ѩ͋̓͑̓Ӄ͉͍̿͑, vv. 4 and 8) were one and the same as the completed written law of Moses – note the perfect forms ́ҿ͎́̿›͇͑̿ (4) and ͎́̓́̿͊͊ҿ͋̿ (7). However, ‘book’ in MT (vv. 4 and 7) appears to have been an added specification. Gaibal and Garizein have long been identified with the peaks to north and south of Nablus, the SuΗem [Shechem] of chap. 20. Garizein/Garizim to the south is the site of the central altar of the Samaritan community. However, we cannot be sure that this location was uncontested in the period when our Codex was copied. The Madaba map, of slightly later date in the Byzantine period, attests these peaks and this altar both in the central hill-country and near IereiΗŌ (but records the Samaritan location in larger letters!). And a Qumran fragment, which has the beginning of paragraph 5:2–8 immediately after the end of this paragraph, simply underscores the issue. There is nothing in the text to prove that Jesus remained in the hill-country after taking Gai and simply moved some way north, rather than returning to a base down in the valley near IereiΗŌ. Eusebius follows the Jewish tradition, and places the two peaks near IereiΗŌ (M-F). The altar served two quite distinct purposes, of which the first is less surprising (but more of that in ch. 22): it was a place of sacrifice. Two types of sacrifice are distinguished: holocausts (the almost identical ҕ͉͍͈̿͒͑Ӊ͊̿͑̿ is used), where the animal was o֎ered to the deity by

JOSHUA 9:1–2 – 9:9–21 [9:3–15]

153

being burned in its entirety; and sacrifice of ͖͐͑Ӂ͎͇͍͋ (MT has ‘sacrifice’ as a verb rather than as a noun). However, the stones of the altar also carried the inscription of the ͎͍͂̓͒͑̓͋Ӆ͇͍͊͋, written by Jesus (MT does not specify the subject of ‘wrote’). This conjoint focus of both sacrifice and law was continuously being passed (impf. tense) by all orders in society (6) – by ‘all Israel’ including their various leaders. The shift from the several plural forms to the singular ‘and the sojourner and the native’ at the end comes as a surprise. MT also has singular forms, but each is preceded not by the connective ‘and’ but by the comparative k- (‘like’): ‘sojourner and native alike’. Each of these Greek terms has gone into English and achieved a larger resonance: proselyte and autochthon[ous]. And it is arguable in v. 8 at least that the religious term ‘proselyte’ would give a more appropriate translation than the social descriptor ‘sojourner’ for those who ‘were coming over to’ Israel rather than simply being ‘within’ them (as in MT). M-F, however, explains that the ‘immigrant’ (›͎͍͐Ӂ͉͍͒͑͏) is the Jew from another country come to Israel. Ѩ͈͈͉͐ͅӃ̿͏ (8) is found only here in Jesus, just as %3 is unique here in MT. The rendering is adopted from Deut. 31:30. ͈̿ӂ ͊̓͑Ҽ ͑̿‫͍ ̿͑ن‬ҥ͖͑͏ at the beginning of v. 7 involves a double rendering of *# in *#–!4: ͍ҥ͖͑͏ strongly anticipates ‘according to everything that has been written in the law of Moses’. It is important for Origen that we only understand the law of Moses if Jesus reads it to us (7). In MT the note about the response of the several peoples or their kings comes after, not before, this paragraph about the inscribed altar. There, since the note is not explicit about what they heard, they may (also) have been reacting to this symbol of settlement and belonging; but in LXX, simply to the defeat of one or two of their fellows. However, I have suggested elsewhere (Auld 1998a: 111) that the Qumran fragment already discussed may provide oblique evidence for the greater originality of the Greek order here.

41. GabaŌn visits Israel (9:9–21 [9:3–15]) 16. ̡̿͐̿] Here, unusually, my transcription di֎ers from the expected ̡̿͐̿͋ in CB; however, no –̬ is visible, although admittedly ̡̠̱̠ is at the end of the line. ͍͑‫ ]͇͋͐ن͉͇̓͐̿̀ ͏ل‬MT specifies ‘the two kings’, and Margolis conjectures that B may have overlooked a numeral written in the form ͍͑‫͇͋͐ن͉͇̓͐̿̀ ̀ ͏ل‬.

154

COMMENTARY § 41

It is at this point in the text of A (9:9) that we find clearly visible for the first time the small marginal notation ̨̡ (=12) corresponding to the large 2nd marginal notation in B. The opening ‘verse’ in (the first hand of) A extends to ›͍͎̿͋͒́Ӄ̿͏ (10); and that underscores the balance perceived between the action against the two cities and what the people of GabaŌn now did – or, better, how they now acted. ͈̿Ӄ ́̓ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӄ (‘they too at least’) corresponds to only )–' in MT; and so ͈̿Ӄ ́̓ appears to offer a double rendering of '. (In 1:15 the same Hebrew is rendered more appropriately ͈̿ӂ ͍ҥ͍͇͑). M-F reports that MT has '[] 12x, but only here according to B does Gk use ͈̿Ӄ ́̓. There is no question of GabaŌn having a king; on hearing what Lord did to IereiΗŌ and Gai, they appear to act as a collective body. Only later in the story does it emerge that Israel was dealing with envoys sent by their elders and all the inhabitants of their land (17). The issue of balance is heightened in B’s text, where the actor against the two cities is not Jesus (as in A and MT) but Lord: this is not evidence of the role of Jesus being heightened in a version which became Christian scripture. B’s version encourages the correlation of the response from GabaŌn to that of Raab (2:10–12) and of the kings of the land (5:1), all of whom had heard of, and were reacting to, marvellous actions by Lord. However, rabbinic tradition has it that ‘they too’ alludes not to Rahab, but to Israel’s own use of a ruse in Gen. 34:2 – co-incidentally, if that can at all be the proper term, it is only in Gen. 34:2 and Josh. 9:13 that Gk ̵͍͎͎̿‫( ͏͍ل‬Horrite) corresponds to MT ! (Hivvite). MT )4- may be rendered ‘ruse’; after all, it is cognate with what the snake was said to be in Gen. 3:1. And yet MF notes that it is only in Exod. 21:14 that the rendering of )4- has an explicitly negative connotation – ͂Ӆ͉͍͏ (treachery). The response from GabaŌn is described as an example of ›͍͎̿͋͒́Ӄ̿: a term which can be positive, but is most often pejorative in non-biblical Greek – a preparedness for any sort of work. However, with the OT, it is only in Num. 24:22 that ›͍͎̿͋͒́Ӄ̿ or the commoner ›͍̿͋‫ ͏͍͎́ن‬is negative. Here in B, human ›͍͎̿͋͒́Ӄ̿ matches the divine. ‘Made provision and made preparation’ (10) renders both 4! 2! (MT here) and the barely distinguishable (in Hebrew at least) ! 2!, used 8 verses later (in 9:12[MT]). In that later verse, Gk uses a third verb, Ѩ͓͍͇͂ҽ͇̈́̓͋ (< ҕ͂Ӆ͏) which is well-known in classical Greek for ‘furnish with supplies for a journey’ (LSJ 746a). The following verse 11 has two further double translations. The Greek syntax seems to come unstuck as the list of preparations lengthens. What they take on their shoulders

JOSHUA 9:9–21 [9:3–15]

155

are, properly for objects, in the acc. pl. There is no verb with the following neut. pl. forms naming footwear and clothes: these could also be objects of ‘taking’ in the acc. pl. However, their bread is nom. sg., which suggests that the preceding neut. pl. forms have also been read as nomin.: all understood as the subjects of non-verbal clauses. (See further DH 176 and SS 63–4.) ͈̿͑̿›̓›͉͖̓͊̿͑͊ҿ͋̿ is a neologism and ѝ›̿͌, formed from ›ҿ͉͊̿, ‘sole’ (of foot or shoe). In 5:12 as elsewhere in LXX (some 30x), ͇͎̀̀Ӊ͈͇͐̓͋ renders only %#. Here and in v. 18, the perf. part. ͎͖̀̓̀͊ҿ͍͋͏ corresponds to the puzzling '!3+ in MT (‘crumbs’?). In this context ‘eaten’ might suggest ‘worm-eaten’ as much as ‘reduced to crumbs’. SS (105) also suggests that ͎͖̀̓̀͊ҿ͍͋͏ may have interpreted '!3+ as ‘mouldy’ – lit. ‘spotted’ or ‘speckled’. ҙ͎̿ ͊Ӂ (13) introduces an idiomatic rendering of the first of two ‘perhaps’-clauses in Joshua (see on 14:12). There is a danger in over-interpreting the preposition ̓҄͏, which is on the way in the Greek of this period from the classical ‘into’ to the later and modern ‘in’ or ‘to’. And yet, if Gk did read a repeated ‘to’ as in MT, it chose to shift from ‘to Jesus’ to ‘into the camp’ (12). That maximises the element of street-theatre involved: coming ‘out of ’ one (distant) country ‘into’ another. ͈͎͊̿Ӆ͆̓͋ is strictly adverbial, ‘from far’, and normally renders Hebrew 34). But in two other contexts the Hebrew ‘from a far land’ is rendered as here; and they nicely explain the problem Jesus and Israel faced. In Solomon’s prayer (1 Kgs 8:41 // 2 Chron. 6:32), any non-Israelite foreigners coming from a far land because of God’s great name and reputation who pray ‘towards this house’ should have their prayer answered. Then in Deut. 29:22 these foreigners together with Israel’s own children will witness the a֑iction of the land when Israel forsakes Lord’s ‘disposition which he disposed in favour of their fathers’. The people of GabaŌn claim the benefits of being such a nation ‘from afar’, and demand on that very basis (͈̿ӂ ͋‫ )͋ن‬a ‘disposition’ in their favour (12, 17). ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈ͅ is the commonest rendering of Hebrew bryt, most commonly rendered ‘covenant’. Presumably because the stock Hebrew verb of ‘making’ a disposition cannot sensibly be translated literally (krt means ‘cut’), Gk usually uses the cognate ͇͇͂̿͑͆ҿ͇͋̿. My ‘disposition’ and ‘dispose’ are simply adopting English forms derived from the corresponding Latin, used in their more formal legal sense. They speak to Jesus and ‘Israel’ (12); those that respond are called ‘the sons of Israel’, but speak of ‘myself ’ in the singular: ‘How could I . . .?’ They then ambiguously address Jesus: ‘Your house-servants are we.’ (14) It is not clear whether they are being submissive, or simply polite. But

156

COMMENTARY §§ 41–42

the term is skilfully chosen; for in the Pentateuch it describes Israel’s relationship to Pharaoh in Egypt, but also that of Moses to Lord (Deut. 34:5). And it is used only once else in Jesus, where Jesus himself responds to the ruling general of Lord’s power (5:14). When Jesus asks the representatives of GabaŌn to specify where they are from, they reply more explicitly in terms of Solomon’s prayer and of what Lord has recently accomplished in Egypt and across the Jordan – so making his name great. This second instance of ‘name’ (15) corresponds to -)_ (‘repute’) in MT not '_ (‘name’). Their answer concludes with ͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿, which I have rendered ‘exceedingly so’. LSJ 1741b notes that this most frequently follows an adj. and usually ends a verse in the comic poets. Here it may comment on ›̓›͉̿̿Ӄ͖͇͑̿ quite as much as on ›͍͉͉‫͏ق‬. As at the outset, so in response Jesus and the leaders share the action: he makes peace; they (as yet unspecified) dispose a disposition; and the rulers of the assembly swear. When the rulers (ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ will render '!!`+; but MT has '!_+ [‘men’]) took of their provisions, ‘of Lord they did not enquire’ (20). MT has ‘Yahweh’s mouth they did not ask’; and it is often claimed that LXX is keen to remove such anthropomorphisms. M-F notes that all 5 other instances of ‘Yahweh’s mouth’ in MT are rendered by ‘on God’s order’ (15:13; 17:4; 19:50; 21:3; 22:9). DH nicely suggests (170–1) that we may be dealing here with only one instance of a wider phenomenon of shortening in Gk, where most of the examples are innocent of religious motivation. In fact I find it far from impossible that MT may have added ‘mouth’ here and in 1:18 – and precisely out of religious scruple: so that humans were scorning only (!) his mouth, and not his very self.

42. Israel returns the visit (9:22–29 [9:16–23]) At the start of the previous paragraph, the Israelite parties to the discussion were Jesus and the sons of Israel. By its end (20–21), Jesus’s partners were ‘the leaders [of the assembly]’. Just as 43 and "7 are regularly reduced to Ѩ͋, so too 23) (‘at the edge of ’) becomes ͊̓͑ҽ (‘after’) – cf. ѭ͖͏ (‘until’) from 23–- (‘to the edge of ’) in 15:5 (DH 47, n. 36). When news came of the real whereabouts of GabaŌn and its neighbouring cities, the sons of Israel went there and did not fight with them. We might have expected in Greek, as in English, a ‘but’. This may be over-literal rendering of the almost all-purpose Hebrew connective. However, the matter-of-fact ‘and’ suggests neatly that these Israelites knew full well

JOSHUA 9:9–21 [9:3–15] & 9:22–29 [9:16–23]

157

that their leaders’ oath was binding on them. Ұ͍͊͐̿͋ . . . ͑ӄ͋ ͆̓ӄ͋ ̨͎͉͐̿ͅ means literally ‘they adjured the god of Israel’: in Greek idiom, the god by whom one swears is the direct object of Ҕ͊͋Ӈ͇͋̿. The deity was not specified on the first mention of the oath (21). The whole assembly could grumble against their leaders, but do no more – the compound verb ͇͂̓́Ӆ́́͒͐̿͋ appears to be biblical only, perhaps with intensive force, and is mainly Pentateuchal; the simple ͍́́́Ӈ͇̈́̓͋ is also used in the Greek of the period. When the leaders preface their response (25) with the emphatic ѵ͊̓‫͏ل‬, they may be acknowledging their specific role in what was done yet also seeking to retake the initiative, or they may be including the whole assembly in this ‘we’ who, though limited, still have some room for manoeuvre. It is accurate but quite insuّcient to remark that the words following ‘This we shall do’ (26) are a double translation of the causative form of the Hebrew verb ‘live’. Together they explore both grammar and meaning of the parent text. The Hebrew is an infinitive, like ͖͎̈́́‫ ;͇̿͐ق‬and it is more idiomatically rendered by a finite form, as in ›͎͇̓›͍͇͐ͅӅ͊̓͆̿. As for meaning, ͖͎̈́́‫ ͇̿͐ق‬is to take captive rather than kill, and a cognate noun means menagerie or fish-pond; while ›͎͇̓›͍͇̓‫ ͇̿͆͐ل‬is to save something for oneself, to make a gain. The gain they stand to make is in acquiring menial servants for the assembly, just as the leaders (so they now say) had said to the people of GabaŌn. Both verbs have been used in the Raab story: ͖͎̈́́̓‫ ͋ل‬in 2:13 and 6:25; and ›͎͇̓›͍͇̓‫ ͇̿͆͐ل‬in 6:17. ͉͍͈͌͒Ӆ›͍͇ ͈͇̿ ҡ͎͍͓͂Ӆ͎͍͇ (27) are attractive examples of Gk compounds replacing Hebrew constructs (‘woodcutters and watercarriers’). After this discussion between the assembly and its leaders, Jesus summons the people of GabaŌn, blames them for cheating (28) – the term ›͎͉͍̿̓́Ӄ͐̿͐͆̓ is used literally of false accounting (M-F renders ‘abuse’). He sets a curse on them: they will not be without slaves for him and his god. The term Ѩ͔͋Ӊ͎͇͍͇ is a Gk plus; although noting that formally it represents a redundant rendering of ‘in our midst’, M-F notes that it is the stock rendering of 4 (see above on 9:6), except for Gen. 34:1 where it designates the Shechemites – she asks whether it is added here to refer to a category already defined by the law, or whether it is again evoking the episode in Gen. 34. As for Jesus’s use of ͍͂‫‘( ͏͍͉ن‬slave’) in v. 29, the supplicants have described themselves as ͍͈҄ҿ͇͑̿ (‘house servants’) in vv. 16 and 19 (each time in nice assonance with forms of the verb ͈͍͇͈̿͑̓‫‘[ ͋ل‬dwell’] in the same verse) and as ›̿‫‘( ͏̓͂ل‬boys’) in v. 17. In each of the four cases the Hebrew is -: it is as if Jesus sums up by telling them that, whatever fine terms they may have used for

158

COMMENTARY §§ 42–44

themselves, ‘slaves’ is the proper translation of '!- and slaves is what they will be. In Gk the focus of their service will be ‘me and my god’, but MT has ‘for the house of my god’: several commentators note the non-mention in Jesus of the house of god (cf 6:24). M-F records that Theodoret judges it an honour to be placed in the service of the cult, so accomplishing the prophecy of Noah that Canaan should become the ›̿‫͈͍҄ ͏ل‬ҿ͑ͅ͏ of his brothers (Gen. 9:25).

43. The settlement with GabaŌn (9:30–33 [9:24–27]) The politics of Israel’s assembly are very confused in this story. Earlier, the whole body, even if disgruntled, had appeared to recognise it was bound by oath. Here Jesus is extricating the folk from GabaŌn from the clutches of his own people. The arrangement that they should serve the whole assembly (27), or Jesus and his god (29), is now defined as ‘the whole assembly and the god’s altar’ (33); however, the only element which is underscored in a final comment is service to the god’s altar ‘till this very day’ – including a move to whichever place Lord might choose. ( Josephus tells the story more briefly, and makes Eleazar the high priest and the elders party to the decisions; however, despite that sacral element, the people of GabaŌn and their allies become ‘public slaves’, with no specific mention of service to the altar.) Most of that final comment (from ͇͂Ҽ ͍͑‫ ͍͑ن‬to ͍͑‫ )ن͍̓͆ ن‬is not found in MT, but is probably original: it seems likely that the words were lost when a copyist’s eye had jumped from one mention of the divine altar to the next. Be that as it may, this final mention of the altar (33) links the three paragraphs of the story of the GabaŌnites to the preceding paragraph on the construction of that altar. Equally, mention of ‘the place Lord might select’ is code in the book of Kings, if not also in Deuteronomy, for Jerusalem. Appropriately, it is to the response of the king of Jerusalem that we now turn (10:1).

44. AdŌnibezek and GabaŌn both seek help (10:1–7) 1. ͑Ӏ͋ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ . . .] unlike Hebrew and English (‘do to’), Gk prefers the accus. case after ›͍͇̓‫( ͋ل‬LSJ 1428b–1429a). 2. ј›Ԇ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ]͋و‬Gk plus.

JOSHUA 9:22–29 [9:16–23] – 10:1–7

159

̓҈͂ͅ] much more problematic Gk plus, emended in CB to Ӛ͇͂̓. ̓҈͂ͅ might be an anomalously written plupf. form. In the Greek book of Jesus, the king of Jerusalem is named not Adonizedek as in MT, but AdŌnibezek as in Judg. 1 (MT and LXX). (Adonizedek may represent adjustment towards Melchizedek of Jerusalem in Gen. 14.) His response to Israel’s advances amongst his neighbours is a particular example of what was stated in general terms in 9:1–2. Here, the reports made to him are quite precise and it is to named kings that the requests are sent out. There, the declared response to Israel had been total; and yet powerful GabaŌn had immediately deserted. The people of GabaŌn had responded to what Lord had done to IereiΗŌ and Gai; but this king attributes the action to Jesus (and the narrator’s comment moves to a plural ‘they’). In these comparisons between treatment of kings and cities, MT always has -% `-. Gk varies between the expected dat. with ›͍͇̓‫ ͋ل‬and the accus.: B almost equally, while A inclines to the dative. MT reports in v. 1 that they had made peace ‘with Israel’; the mention of Jesus as well in this verse, anticipating what both MT and LXX report in v. 4, is a Gk plus. There is some support among both Greek and Hebrew manuscripts for reading ‘and were exceedingly afraid’ (2) as singular not plural: attributing the great fear to the king of Jerusalem rather than the people of GabaŌn. However, B and MT agree over the more diّcult reading: behind their apparently confident blu֎, the people of GabaŌn had admitted to their fear (9:30) that all the inhabitants of the land would be destroyed as those in IereiΗŌ and Gai had been. However, B goes beyond the simple MT by adding ј›’ ̿Ҡ͑‫‘( ͋و‬of them’), and also the resumptive ̓҈͂ͅ (‘he knew’ – NB this time in the singular). The forces with Jesus are described as already in 8:3. ͎͍͊͑ͅ›Ӆ͉͖̓͋ (2) is a free rendering of ‘royal cities’ (lit. ‘cities of the kingdom’). The proper names in this paragraph diverge from those in MT to a remarkable extent: to a degree for which we have not been prepared by the earlier paragraphs in this book. Ailam/Hoham, P˰idŌ/Piram, and Iep˰ϑa/Japhia might result from misreadings; and in any case are sufficiently unfamiliar names that we have little control over the matter. However, the wider ramifications of AdŌnibezek/Adonizedek have already been noted; and Odollam (the familiar LXX rendering of Adullam) for Eglon will also represent information from a parent text di֎erent

160

COMMENTARY §§ 44–47

from MT. Odollam (corresponding to Adullam) is listed in MT and LXX in 12:15 and 15:35. Then, while the peoples of the area are called Iebousai in v. 5 and Amorrai in v. 6, MT names them ‘Amorite’ both times. ›‫ ͏ـ‬ҕ ͉̿ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫‘( ͋و‬all their people’) corresponds to MT '!+) (‘their [ie the five kings’] camp’), so breaking again the normal ‘rule’ that ͉̿Ӆ͏ refers to Israel. SS finds the use of causal ҙ͇͑ (‘because’) in v. 6 runs counter to Gk usage (146): ҙ͇͑ is an over-literal rendering of ky. Divergence over names bears on another issue that runs through the whole account of the campaign against this southern coalition. There is a degree of repetition as Jesus and his forces proceed from place to place, but also variation in terminology although they do much the same in each place. And this is true in both MT and Gk. However, when we compare the two texts, these variations do not map well on each other. In a manner typical of Gk Jesus, the compound verbs ›͎͇͈̓̿͆Ӄ͇̈́̓͋ and (Ѩ͈)›͍͉͇͍͎͈̓‫( ͋ل‬inadequately rendered ‘invest’ and ‘besiege’ in English) are much more specific than the Hebrew ‘encamp’ and ‘fight against’. And pairing matches pairing in vv. 5, 31, and 34. Yet ›͎͇͈̓̿͆Ӄ͇̈́̓͋ corresponds to ‘fight against’ in vv. 36 and 38. M-F notes the variety of precise terms chosen by the Joshua translator to render '%+; and also that only once more in LXX is Ѩ͇͎͌̿̓‫( ͋ل‬6), ‘deliver’, used to render -!_ (normally ‘help’ or ‘save’).

45. Lord as the victor (10:8–11) 8. ҡ›͍͉͇͓͆Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿] The spelling of B’s first scribe has been corrected with a superscript ̓ between ͉ and ͇. A’s ҡ›͍͐͑Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿ corresponds more closely to MT )- (‘stand’). The verb in B corresponds to 4_+ in 13:1, and is nowhere else correlated with )-. Raab, the kings mentioned in 5:1, and the people of GabaŌn all responded to what they had heard specifically about Lord. What the kings of 9:1 heard is not specified. The king of Jerusalem enlisted the help of brother kings in response to a series of reports which are detailed but which mention Lord not at all. The appeal from GabaŌn too (6) and Jesus’s response to it (7) were reported without mention of Lord. Lord’s entry into the fray in this paragraph is all the more striking. He first encourages Jesus not to fear, because he has made over the enemy to him; but then, like a parent impatient of the progress of the child s/he is en-

JOSHUA 10:1–7 – 10:20–28

161

couraging, he anticipates Israel in the assault, and outdoes Israel in the chase. Gk follows the LXX translator in Exod. 23:27 in rendering hmm by Ѩ͇͌͐͑ҽ͇͋̿ (10), so preserving the Hebrew verbal link between promise and fulilment (M-F). At the beginning of v. 11 ͂ҿ is the connective, probably to mark the change (back) in subject from Israel to Lord. MT has the formulaic !!, which Gk frequently reduces to ͈̿Ӄ or ͂ҿ. If MT ' was also original, Gk has considerably simplified the protasis. The ͈̿ӂ in ͈̿ӂ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͏ is emphatic, as translated above.

46. Jesus and Lord (10:12–19) If frequent subdivision of the text is a mark of exegetical interest, we may be surprised that B’s scribe includes all this material in one paragraph. A’s versification is much like the medieval western, except that it separates o֎ Jesus’s own words in v. 12b. Lord handing over Israel’s enemies to them functions as a bracket round B’s paragraph. After the apparent autonomy of Jesus and the impatient leadership of Lord, we now have a third perspective: what Lord did was in response to effective pleading by Jesus. The halting of the sun in mid-sky was the result of a god listening to a human: Lord was Israel’s ally in the fight (͐͒͋̓›͍͉ҿ͊͐̓͋ͅ). Origen argues the superiority of Jesus over Moses in that Moses never asked that the sun should stop. For Theodoret, the stopping of the sun prefigures the darkness that will follow the crucifixion of Christ (M-F). However, the interplay of ‘Lord’ and ‘[a] god’ is quite as interesting in this paragraph as between Jesus and Lord. It is also an issue over which Gk and MT divide: MT has ‘Yahweh’ where Gk has ‘god’ in vv. 12 and 14, and ‘nation’ (goy!) in v. 13, where Gk has ‘the god’. While MT and LXX [more or less] agree over ‘Lord [y]our god’ at the end (19), this concluding double title appears much stronger in the Gk version which has spoken separately of Lord and god throughout.

47. The five kings killed and Makēda taken (10:20–28) 23. ̪͔͇̿̓͏] In every other instance (8x), ̵̨̪̠̤̱ is written out in full; but here both ̤ and ̱ are written small in superscript. 28. ͔͊̿̿Ӄ͎̿͏] has been deleted in the text, and ͌Ӄ͓͍͒͏ added in the margin.

162

COMMENTARY §§ 47–48

Ѩ͋›͋ҿ͍͋] Here and in each other occurrence of this word (10:30, 35, 37, 39, 40; 11:11, 14), the first hand in B wrote ̤̬̯- while a later hand has added a small corrective M above the N. In the pursuit, those of the enemy who remained in open country were finished o֎, but some escaped to the fortified cities. ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͇͂̿͐Զ̈́Ӆ͍͇͊̓͋ ͇͂̓͐Ӊ͆͐̿͋ͅ (20), while not quite literal, achieves an impression similar to MT whsrydym srdw. M-F notes that this rendering of sryd is peculiar to the translator of Jesus: it is handled di֎erently in the Pentateuch. While these survivors among the enemy were said to be ‘safe’, the assembling ‘people’ (this time Israel, as normally) were ‘sound’ or ‘healthy’ (21). Gk uses gruzein (LSJ explains: ‘say gru’) in Exod. 11:7 too. There the subject is ‘dog’, and that verse supplies the only other instance of a Hebrew expression which would be literally rendered ‘sharpen his tongue’. There like here, focus is on the contrast between safety for Israel and annihilation for the enemy. In vv. 24–25 there is interesting movement in the commands issued by Jesus between present (continuous) and aorist forms: ‘be going forward’ and ‘be as men and be strong’ are continuous, while ‘place [your feet]’ and ‘do not fear nor be cowardly’ are punctual forms. Both Origen and Theodoret compare the command to place their feet on the necks of their captives with the second Jesus giving the apostles power to put their feet on snakes and scorpions and all the power of the enemy (Luke 10:19). DH holds (66) that the text of B has assimilated the rolling of the stones in vv. 18 and 27: in neither case are they ‘large’ as in MT; and Ѩ›͈̓Ӈ͉͇͐̿͋ here resumes ͈͉͒Ӄ͐̿͑̓ there more closely than MT )`! does %. The one point could also reflect a shorter Vorlage; and the second may have been accidental: the prefix Ѩ›- (‘upon’) o֎ers an idiomatic rendering of ‘place’, and it was natural to follow the prefix with the implied action ‘roll’. He also finds that ͔͊̿̿Ӄ͎̿͏ (28) is a secondary special reading of B. The opposing kings are doubly disgraced: while still alive they are spurned by the people’s feet; only when dead are they raised high again, su֎ering the same fate as the king of Gai (8:29). The cave they had chosen for safety becomes their tomb, into which they too are tossed (Ѭ͎͇͕̿͋). Makēda had been a focal point in this whole southern campaign. It marked the end of the pursuit (10); it was there that a cave provided false refuge for the five kings (16, 17); and Israel was based there (21). And yet only after all these details have been reported, do we learn

JOSHUA 10:20–28 & 10:29–30

163

(28) of the actual capture of the town and that its king was treated like that of IereiΗŌ. Some linguistic features deserve a mention: ͉ҿ͖́͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫‘( ͏ل‬saying to them’) comes later in v. 24 than the corresponding ‘and he said’ in MT, which immediately follows ‘all Israel’. Gk often takes Heb. 4_ not as a relative marker but as a relative pronoun; this leads in v. 25 to pleonasm (‘on whom . . . [on them]’) as '7 (necessary in Heb.) becomes the unnecessary ̿Ҡ͍͑ӆ͏ – compare ̓҄͏ җ . . . Ѩ͈̓‫ ل‬in v. 27. ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ at the beginning of that verse is unusual: the normal rendering of formulaic !! is ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́ҿ͍͋̓͑. And until v. 28, ̫͈̿͂̿ͅ has been treated as indeclinable. Here, perhaps because it ends in –̿ like many a Gk noun, it has been attracted into a Gk acc. form (̫͈̿͂̿͋ͅ) by the ͑Ӏ͋ which paradoxically had been originally supplied to mark an indeclinable form as acc. Even more oddly, this form is maintained later in the sentence where a genit. form would be correct in a declinable noun. ‘They destroyed’ (Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋) is a pl. vb., though corresponding to sg.MT '4. There is no double negative in MT matching ͍Ҡ . . . ͍Ҡ͂̓Ӄ͏. Then in ͇͖͂̿͐̓͐͐͊ҿ͍͋͏ ͈͇̿ ͇͂̿›͓̓̓͒́Ӊ͏, as (with small variations) in vv. 30 and 33, we have a pair of perf. participles corresponding to the single noun !4` in MT. In 8:22, ͖͐̓͐͐͊ҿ͍͋͋ ͈͇̿ ͇͂̿›͓̓̓͒́Ӆ͑̿ accurately renders !%0 !4` (unique to this verse in MT). Either Gk had a Vorlage which used !%0 in the southern campaign as well, or Gk rendered freely in the spirit of 8:22. The six paragraphs Rahlfs finds in the Greek text (vv. 28; 29–30; 31–33; 34–35; 36–37; 38–39) correspond to none of the three hands in Vaticanus, nor to the Alexandrinus scribe, nor to MT.

48. Lebna taken (10:29–30) The contrast between Israel’s e֎orts and those of Lord is nicely pointed up by the use of di֎erent Greek tenses: while Israel ‘were laying seige’ in a continuous past, Lord intervened in a decisive aorist after which Israel could treat king and inhabitants in a similar decisive way. In the main text of B, ͔͊̿̿Ӄ͎̿͏ of v. 28 has become ͌Ӄ͓͍͒͏ (30), properly a heavy two-edged sword; however, the margin seeks to restore ͔͊̿̿Ӄ͎̿͏. The fate of Lebna like Makēda is compared to that of IereiΗŌ.

164

COMMENTARY §§ 49–53

49. LaΗeis taken (10:31–32) 32. ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋ ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋] MT has no corresponding verbal clause, but instead the phrase rendered ›‫ ͋ـ‬Ѩ͋›͋ҿ͍͋ Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬in vv. 28, 30, 35, 39, and similarly in v. 37. The structure is similar, but the formula not precise. The siege is continuous again, until Lord acts. Lebna at the end is accus., like IereiΗŌ, Gai, and their kings in 10:1, and not dat. as Makēda and Lebna in vv. 28 and 30. DH (98) seeks to explain ̲̦̬ as a palaeographic error for ̨̲̦ – such a dative ending seems never to be represented in that manner in B.

50. LaΗeis’s helper su֎ers the same fate (10:33) ̢̿̈́ͅ͏] A has ̢͎̿̈́̓. ̢̿̈́ͅ͏ is the normal genit. form of ̢̿̈́̿. If a mistake for Gezer, it must be an inner-Greek corruption as Gaza and Gezer do not share the same initial letter in Hebrew. Either city makes sense geographically. Only here does another city involve itself in the punitive raids on the five confederates. As noted above, several proper names do not correspond with their counterparts in MT. Ailam or Hailam (no distinction is made in the original MS) corresponds to many di֎erent names throughout HB, including Hoham (1x, 10:3) and Horam (1x, 10:33) – Hoham was king of Hebron, not Gaza/Gezer. ͉̿Ӆ͏ here, though rendering '-, again does not refer to Israel.

51. Odollam taken (10:34–35) After the failed attempt at external help (33) this paragraph returns to the almost formulaic description. As in vv. 3 and 5, Odollam corresponds to Hebrew Eglon. There is no regularity in vv. 28, 30, 32, and 35 over whether ‘took . . . slew’ (Ѭ͉̿̀̓͋ . . . Ѩ͓Ӆ͋̓͒͐̓͋) with Israel as subject should be sg.or pl. Uniquely Ѩ͓Ӆ͋̓͒͐̿͋ is now repeated within the verse, though in pl. MT, however, has the sg. '!4 as in v. 28.

JOSHUA 10:31–32 – 10:38–42

165

52. ΖebrŌn taken (10:36–37) 36. ͈̿ӂ ј›‫ ]͉͋̓͆ق‬Gk keeps the pattern, but MT breaks it with %-! (‘and he went up’). Gk is closer to the pattern in the report on ΖebrŌn, but MT includes several pluses. SS (122) notes rightly that the connective in '4! has been dropped in Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̿͋; but the above translation does not follow her in linking the previous relative clause with what follows: if the relative is read with what precedes, the loss of the connective is less surprising.

53. Dabeir taken and campaign summarised (10:38–42) 39. ͈̿͑ҿ͉͇›͍͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ]ك‬In vv. 28 and 30, Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬is read; Ѩ͋ may have been omitted accidentally after the preceding -͍͋ (DH 66); but ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬on its own makes good sense. 41. ͑Ӏ͋ ̢͍͍͐͊] is unremarkable in itself: in the absence of another marker, an indeclinable noun requires the article to mark its case. However, MT has ‘the land of Goshen’: ̲̦̬ could have replaced either ̢̦̬ or ̢̲̦̬̦̬, but DH prefers to see it as original (54). Just as there is no paragraph break before the first report of a city taken (28), so there is none after the last (38–39). The first marginal hand took all of vv. 28–42 together. The second marginal hand in B returns to the paragraphing of the first scribe in vv. 29–42, except for combining 33 with 31–32. MT also starts a division with v. 28, but attaches 33 to what follows (34–35). Dabeir in v. 3 was the name of the king of Odollam; now it names a city captured soon after Odollam. Gk and MT agree that Dabeir is invested on the ‘return’. For the first time in this campaign, there is mention of associated ‘villages’; ͈Ӊ͊̿͏ is unique in Jesus for 4!- (‘city’); but cf Isa. 42:11; Jer. 19:15; 1 Chr. 27:25; 2 Chr. 14:14. As noted above (32), there is variation between acc. and dat. after ›͍͇̓‫͋ل‬, but it is surprising to find it within the same comparison (contrast 10:1). After this more fully stated comparison, we move (40–42) to general summary. This is introduced by the stock verb ‘struck’; of its four objects, only hill-country and plain are translated, the others transliterated – and Nabai is an odd rendition of MT Negeb. A further oddity is the addition of ͖̈́‫‘( ͏ق‬of life’) after

166

COMMENTARY §§ 53–56

the stock ›ӿ͋ Ѩ͋›͋ҿ͍͋, which we have been rendering ‘every breathing creature’. A di֎erent shift occurs here in MT, where )_+ replaces _0+, used 7x in vv. 28–39 and also 11:11. B may represent a conflation of both Hebrew nouns, although the correlation )_+/͖̈́Ӂ is otherwise unknown. MT also reads Gaza (41) which may support Gk Gaza in v. 33 rather than MT Gezer. As after v. 14, so after v. 42 MT adds a note detailing the return of Joshua and all Israel to the camp at Gilgal.

54. Northern coalition formed (11:1–5) 3. Ѭ͎͍͊͋ͅ] Many MSS o֎er here not ̤̰̦̫̮̬ but ̠̤̰[̦]̷̫̬ – ‘Hermon’. 4. ͈̿ӂ ͍҅ ͇͉̀̿͐̓‫̿ ͏ل‬Ҡ͑‫ ]͋و‬MT has ‘and their camps’; while M-F is open to a Greek misreading of '!+) as '!#%), she recalls Gk ‘people’ for MT ‘camp’ in 10:5 and suggests that Gk might have reserved ›͎͍͉̿̓͊̀Ӂ for the ‘camp’ of Israel. Compare also 8:22 above. 5. ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӄ] A and the majority read ͍ҥ͍͇͑. As the king of AsŌr [Hazor] heard (Gk renders -)_# !! as in 9:1 and 10:1) the news of Israel’s successes in the distant south (some 200 km) he sent o֎ messages in all directions. Only the first king is named, the king of the place where the coalition gathers; soon afterwards the cities lose their specificity as well and the report ends by listing the ‘familiar suspects’, though in a new variation. That general survey applies also to MT, and yet many of the names and several of the precise details have been di֎erently reported: in the case of SumoŌn (attesting *-)_ for MT *4)_, as also in 12:20 and 19:15), there is strong support for the Gk reading in ancient sources. ›͎Ӆ͏ (translating %) is used of the first destinations of the messages, where kings are specified; then Gk shifts to ̓҄͏, which corresponds to no preposition in MT, but interprets a series of places and peoples as destinations. ‘Coastal’ (›͎̿ҽ͉͇͍͏) is used in connection with Zebulun in the blessings of Jacob (Gen. 49:13) and of Moses (Deut. 33:19). Probably more relevant are the other two occurrences which precede this one: it is part of the description of the land into which Israel should move (Deut. 1:7); and it was used once already in this book (9:1) in the summary of kings west of the Jordan – there as a noun. Sidon is also part of the description

JOSHUA 10:38–42 – 11:7–15

167

in Deut. 1:7; and this verse shares with 9:1 not only six of the seven stock enemy nations but also the use of Ѩ›ӂ ͑ӄ ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ to render ! (though with the second verb in v. 5, not the third as in MT). ‘Coastal . . . to the east’ is an odd description of the Ζananaiai, since the coast in question is normally the Mediterranean which marks the western limit of the land – M-F assumes that the coast of Lake Kinneret (the sea of Galilee) must be intended. MT has ‘the Canaanite to “sunrise” and “sea”’. It also lists the final four nations in reverse order. DH finds that Gk, when using ›͎̿ҽ͉͇͍͏, betrays no knowledge of the province called Paralia; and deduces that the translation was completed shortly after 198 BCE at the latest. Rightly or wrongly, Gk clearly associates ‘MarrŌn’ (1) with ‘the waters of MarrŌn’ (5); in MT they are distinct names: Madon and (the waters of ) Merom.

55. Divine response (11:6) Divine speech is marked by a fresh paragraph; as frequently before, it is to encourage Jesus. SS finds unidiomatic this further use of ҙ͇͑ for ky when motivating a command (147). Unlike Lord’s first ‘tomorrow’ promise in this book (3:5), the ‘wonder’ in store is quite specific, although the precise sense of the opening element is obscure. ͎͍͑̓͑›͖͊ҿ͍͋͒͏, not used in the Pentateuch and nowhere else a rendering of '!%% (but see Margolis on 13:22), is the passive participle of a verb built from ͎͑Ӆ›͍͏ (a turn or twist). M-F notes that '!%% is normally rendered ͎͇͑̿͒͊̿͑͐͊ҿ͍͇͋. Elsewhere in LXX ͎͍͑›͍‫ ͋ن‬translates di֎erent Hebrew expressions for ‘defeat’. However, in classical Greek its usage is seafaring: the attachment of an oar by its ‘twisted’ leather thong (͎͑Ӆ›͍͏). The first passage in the Bible where ͎͍͈͍͋̓͒›̓‫ ͋ل‬occurs, and the only other place it renders 43-, is Gen. 49:6 (cf above on ›͎̿ҽ͉͇͍͏!): there it describes reckless behaviour by Simeon and Levi such as should not be emulated.

56. Northern campaign (11:7–15) The preposition Ѩ›Ӄ (7) is even more prominent than our renderings with ‘on’ suggest p. 39: in Gk it is also prefixed to the verb ‘fell’; ‘in the hill country’ is a Gk plus here (but mentioned already in v. 2) – perhaps it rendered a variant 4 in addition to MT ' (‘on them’). The

168

COMMENTARY §§ 56–58

first-mentioned limit of the pursuit, Sidon the Great (8), was also listed among the directions in which messages were sent by the king of AsŌr (2 – Gk, not MT); however, MaserŌn and MassŌΗ are otherwise unknown. (͈̿͑̿)͈Ӆ›͇͑̓͋ corresponding to the common ‘strike down’ (#) is anticipated in 10:10, 20 (and earlier in Gen. 14:5, 7; 32:8) – the almost stock rendering in this book and elsewhere is ›̿͑ҽ͇͐͐̓͋. ‘Until . . . safe’ (8) resumes the simple form ͖͐̓͐͐͊ҿ͍͋͋ (without prefix) from 10:33; but the closing ͈̿ӂ ͇͂̿›͓̓̓͒́Ӆ͑̿ of 8:22 and 10:33 is dropped. The divine instructions (6) had specified only what Jesus should do to horses and chariots. It may be for this reason that the authority of Moses, and what Lord had commanded Moses, is somewhat pedantically cited through the latter part of the report of death, destruction, and plunder (12–15). In place of the final ‘all that Moses prescribed to him’, MT reads ‘that Yahweh commanded Moses’. ͈͉̿͑̓ҽ͍̀̓͑ ̠͖͎͐ (10) is one of only four cases (DH 162) where the mark of the direct object (7) is not represented by the Gk article before a proper name (the others are in 10:4 and 20:8). SS (163) finds ͂Ҿ in the middle of this verse a suitable rendering for ky introducing a clause only loosely related to its context. ͈͔͖͇̓͊̿͑͐͊ҿ͋̿͏ (13) is a rare verbal form derived from ͔‫̿͊و‬, a ‘heap’. It is used only here in the Bible, and resumes the description of Gai (8:28), itself the only biblical passage where a [ruined] ‘tell’ is rendered by ͔‫̿͊و‬. In regular Greek usage, defeated ‘mounded’ cities would have been not cities standing on mounds, but cities against which a mound had been thrown as a means by which to reduce them.

57. Northern territory taken (11:16–20) Two phrases in v. 16 are ambiguous, and are rendered di֎erently by M-F: ‘. . . all the land: the hill-country and all the Adeb’; ‘and the plain, and the [region] of the setting’. The use of ‘setting’ to render 4- shows that Gk misunderstood this geographical term as being derived from 4-, ‘evening’ (DH 86). The ‘low-lying regions’ (͑Ҽ ͑̿›͇̓͋ҽ) is an unusual rendering of ‘the Shephelah’ (normally ѵ ›͇̓͂͋Ӂ); M-F explains that ‘the plain’ was normally used for Iouda’s western territory, while this expression has been coined fresh for the land beside the otherwise unknown ‘mount [of ] Israel’. The survey opens with a quite specific geographical review. No name apart from Jesus’s own is mentioned in what is then said about the

JOSHUA 11:7–15 – 11:21–23

169

kings of the region. Finality is underscored in the three verbs used (17), though it is recognised that the campaign took a very long time (18). Everything was taken: not a single fortified city was able to hold out (19) – MT makes the di֎erent point that no city made peace with Israel (apart from Gibeon). It was by Lord’s agency that the enemy had the determination to continue the fight against Israel. In the LXX as more widely in Greek, ͈͇͔̿͑͐Ӈ͇̓͋ can be used either transitively or intransitively. The other two instances in Jesus are intransitive (17:13; 23:6). Here too I take it that the accusative ͑Ӏ͋ ͈͎̿͂Ӄ̿͋ is subject rather than object of the infinitive, as in Exod. 7:13 where Pharaoh’s determination proved similarly disastrous. There are three ‘purpose’ clauses in v. 20: two positive clauses introduced by ҉͋̿, separated by one negative one introduced by ҙ›͖͏ ͊Ӂ. This nicely renders the variation in Hebrew between *-)% twice, separated by !7%%. The second ҉͋̿ is preceded by the strongly adversative ј͉͉’: a good translation for ky after a negative (SS 190). Mercy (Ѭ͉͍̓͏) is the stock translation throughout LXX of ,, and is so used in its only other appearance in this book (2:12, 14), of the relationship between Raab and the scouts. It is also a perfectly acceptable rendering of * or +7, and is so used twice in the Pentateuch ( Gen. 19:19; Num. 11:15). Whether deliberate or not, the contrast achieved between 11:20 and 2:12, 14 is striking.

58. Summary statement (11:21–23) ‘All the line (́ҿ͍͋͒͏) of Israel’ is a surprising expression in itself (21). MT makes no distinction here between Israel and Iouda, using ‘mountain’ with them both, and is supported by both A and OL (M-F). DH (54) suggests that, before Israel, 4 had been misread as the similar 4, ‘generation’. The division of clauses at the end of v. 21 is di֎erent in MT and Gk: in MT ‘with their cities’ is read with the final words, and there is no connective before the last verb (more often in this book Gk lacks a connective present in MT). Gk repeats Ѩ͖͉͌ҿ͎͆̓͒͐̓͋ from earlier in the verse, again di֎erent from MT which uses '!4 at the end – that di֎erence is part of the much larger issue of the frequent non-correspondence between the terms for slaughter and destruction in MT and LXX. The previous paragraph had defined a territory, mentioned kings and cities in general, and talked about destruction without mercy, but named no peoples or inhabitants. This paragraph specifies the Enakeim.

170

COMMENTARY §§ 58–61

These are mentioned first in Deut. 2:10, 11 where, apparently as better known, they are available as comparators for ancient and large peoples in Transjordan; and again in Jesus 14:12, 15, where Ζaleb hopes to remove them from the area of ΖebrŌn. ј͉͉Ҽ ›͉Ӂ͋ (‘but only’) may be a double translation of MT 34 (22), usually rendered ›͉Ӂ͋ alone. ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ (‘them’) in v. 23 is an odd reading – one expects ‘it’ (ie the land) as in MT. Was it a ‘obvious error’ (Margolis) influenced by the following Ҍ͍͐ͅ‫͏ن‬, with identical ending? DH (59) protests against such a judgment: it is shared by almost the whole Egyptian group, and many other witnesses. ͎͇͊̓͐͊Ӆ͏ (23) is found only once more in LXX, again rendering 7/3%) (‘division’). In 14:15 as here, the passage finishes with a note about the end of war for the land (identical in MT, but di֎erently stated in Gk). This note reckons with some survivors in Philistia.

59. Kings conquered east of the Jordan (12:1–6) This paragraph recapitulates in greater detail the information already provided in summary by the embassy from GabaŌn (9:16) about the two kings east of the Jordan whose territory had been made over by Moses to two and a half tribes of Israel. The whole stretch of territory is first summarised (1), then defined in terms of each former king (2–3 and 4–5), then the conquest and grant recalled (6). One or two place names are di֎erent from MT, and there are probably some further small di֎erences in the underlying text. ј›’ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͋و‬has been translated literally (3x) in vv. 1 and 3 – ‘to the east’ would be a more idiomatic rendering of the underlying Hebrew; but it is good to notice where Gk’s literalism actually diminishes clarity (in Greek as well). Probably the most confusing phrase is ͈̿͑Ҽ ͊ҿ͎͍͏ ͑‫͓ ͏ق‬ҽ͎͍̿́́͏: ͈̿͑Ҽ ͊ҿ͎͍͏ in normal Greek means ‘part by part’, but that does not fit here. MT has %+ "7. The one Hebrew verb %_) is translated ͈͎͇͒̓Ӈ͖͋ in v. 2 and ќ͎͔͖͋ in v. 5 (there is no connective before ќ͎͔͖͋ – contrast %_) in MT); both renderings were already familiar from the Pentateuch. DH (172) notes that ҡ›͉̓̓Ӄ͓͆ͅ is one of a small group of cases where a Hebrew noun is rendered by a Gk verb: ‘of the remnant of ’ becomes ‘was left over from’.

60. Kings conquered west of the Jordan (12:7–24) 23. ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̤͉͖͂͊ = ̷̡̨̠̱̪̤̠̤̪̣̫ < ̷̡̨̠̱̪̤̠̣̰ = ͇͉̀̿͐ҿ̿ ̣͖͎

JOSHUA 11:21–23 – 13:1–14A

171

How the scribe handled the lists in this paragraph has already been noted in the Introduction above. Only the sons of Israel were mentioned in v. 1, then Moses and the sons of Israel in v. 6. At the start of this new paragraph about the west (7), the agents are jointly Jesus and the sons of Israel. Then, while Amorrai in v. 2 referred strictly to SēŌn and not ŋg, here in v. 7 it refers generally to the people west of the Jordan, just as in the first part of 9:1 (MT is di֎erent in both places: ‘the kings’ in 9:1 and ‘the kings of the land’ in 12:7). The extent of the land is briefly reviewed, in terms very similar to 11:17 (Libanos, Sēeir, and Balagad[a], are common to both; and ̵͉͔̓̿ here will correspond to ̠͔͉̓ there); and v. 7 ends with the statement that Jesus made a gift of [it] to the tribes of Israel. The introduction continues (8) with an omnibus statement about di֎erent areas within the country and then the familiar list of six former nations. It will be this list, each member in the acc. sg., which is anticipated in the otherwise puzzling ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͋ in v. 7 which I rendered ‘[it]’ above. Again as in 9:1, the list of nations includes the Amorrai although they have already been mentioned in the opening summary. The internal order is almost identical, and the main di֎erence is the absence here of the Gergesai – possibly because already mentioned east of the Jordan (v. 5, where MT has hgšwry, not hgrgšy). The further detail is supplied by a list of 30 kings of individual cities, 11 of them already familiar in the form we find them here: in v. 9, IereiΗŌ (chaps. 2 and 6), and the Gai near Baiϑēl (chaps. 7–8); in vv. 10–13, Ierousalēm, ΖebrŌn, Iereimouϑ, LaΗeis, and Dabeir (chap. 10); in v. 15, Lebna and Odollam (chap. 10); and, in v. 20, SumoŌn and Azeip˰ (11:1). Two principal surprises are that AsŌr and MarrŌn do not appear exactly as featured in 11:1, but (probably) as Asom (12:19) and MamrŌϑ (12:20); and that the total is given as 29 (v. 24), when in fact 30 names have been supplied. There are also two immediate di֎erences between this list and that in MT: the latter has 31 kings (and states its total accurately), and it includes the word ‘one’ after each entry – perhaps as an aid to counting, for some names are ‘double-barrelled’.

61. Land distribution initiated (13:1–14a) 2. ҙ͎͇̓̿] ̓ has been erased. 8. ̿Ҡ͑‫ ]ى‬this puzzling singular (‘to him’) corresponds to the much easier '% (‘to them’) in MT; other MSS read ̿Ҡ͍͑‫( ͏ل‬as MT) and ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋

172

COMMENTARY §§ 61–62

(‘it’ = the land), which DH (66–7) prefers as ‘original’. He also (74) suggests that Gr in this verse has consciously shortened the overloaded MT. 9. ј›ӄ ̣͇̿͂̿̀̿͋] A reads ј›ӄ ̫͇͇̿͂̿̀̿. 10. ҕ͎̓Ӄ͖͋] ̓ has been erased. 14. ›͉Ӏ͋ ͑‫͉› ]͏ق‬Ӏ͋ with genitive would normally mean ‘except for’. Hebrew –% is often used genitivally, but a dative seems required here. This paragraph covers much the same ground as the previous two, only this time we start in the west and move back to the east. A divine initiative (1) takes note of the advanced age of Jesus: ›͎͍͈̀̓̀ͅӈ͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ѵ͎͊̓‫͋و‬. Regular Greek idiom would have used the dative – the genitive would suggest a comparison (but genit. is already found in Gen. 18:11; 24:1; while dat. is used again in Josh. 23:1; 3 Kgdms 1:1). The land is left over for inheritance: the same Hebrew verb nšʙr is rendered ҡ›͍͉̓Ӄ›͇̓͐͆̿ in v. 1 and ͈͉̿͑̿̓Ӄ›͇̓͐͆̿ in v. 2 – a further case of both options being offered. The large amount of land for division corresponds to the large ideal Israel of 1:4 (M-F). It is mostly described from south, near Egypt, to north (3–6a). The preliminary brief three-point sketch (2b) could be rendered two ways: ‘it is territory of Philistines, and it is the Geshurite (MT) and the Canaanite’; or ‘territory is Philistines, the Geshurite and the Canaanite’. The Philistines retain their own name in Jesus, as in the Pentateuch (except for Exod. 34:15); from Judges onwards, the Greek OT calls them ‘those of another tribe’. As for not calling a spade a spade, ‘well-named’ is a common Greek euphemism for the [ill-famed, sinister] left (MT uses the regular Heb. word for ‘left’). Directions are expressed facing sunrise in the east; and so the left is to the north. MT as a whole is not easy to interpret, but Gk in this paragraph presents even more puzzles. The five familiar Philistine units of government are given the Persian title ‘satrapy’, but six or seven names follow: ͈̿ӂ ͑‫̤ ى‬Ҡ̿ӃԶ at the end of v. 4 appears to continue the list, whereas in MT the corresponding '!-, being plural, is marked o֎ from the five preceding singular forms; and B’s scribe writes ͈̿ӂ ›ҽ͐Ԍ ́ԏ ̵̿͋̿̿͋, a seventh expression in the dative, at the start of the next new line. In this book ̤Ҡ̿‫ ͏͍ل‬normally corresponds to !, with a di֎erent opening guttural (3:10; 9:1; 11:3; 12:8; 24:11); but it is also found in place of '!- in Deut. 2:23 and 4 Kgdms 17:31. M-F follows the punctuation in Rahlfs, and renders: ‘and for the Euaian, starting from . . .’ The inserted ‘[have]’ in the

JOSHUA 13:1–14 & 13:14B–14:15

173

translation follows M-F, and takes note of the fact that ‘the Sidonians’ are in the nominative. ̢͉͇̿̿͆ before ̴͉͇͇͇͒͐͑̓͊ (5) corresponds to hgbly (MT), normally taken as the adjectival form of Gebal (=Byblos); it marks a textual shift in the opposite direction from v. 2, where ҙ͎͇̓̿ [̴͉͇͇͇͒͐͑̓͊] attests gbwl, and MT o֎ers glylwt. M-F suggests that ̴͉͇͇͇͒͐͑̓͊ was a gloss inspired by the reading ̢͉͇̿̿͆. ̢͉̿́̿̿ corresponds to MT BaalGad, which we found in close proximity to Libanos in 11:17 and 12:7. The Sidonians of v. 6 are in the accusative, an emphatic object of the following ‘I shall destroy’ – it is Lord who will destroy, and Jesus who is commanded to apportion the land to Israel. The matter is immediately restated in v. 7 and explained in vv. 8–12. SS complains (103) that ͈̿ӂ ͋‫ ͋ن‬is a slavish rendering of 7-, for we are dealing here with consequence, not (as properly) inference. In fact only nine-and-a-half tribes will receive the land between the Jordan and the sea, for two-and-a-half have theirs already, east of the Jordan. The territory of the two former kings is described much as in 12:1–6. They are now said to have reigned, not simply ruled. The puzzling city of 12:2 is now sensibly ‘in the middle of the ravine’ (9). We find the Geseirei, last met in the west (2), now east of the Jordan (11 and 13). Moses gave all this territory to the eastern tribes (8) having struck down the former inhabitants (12). But Israel (not Moses!) had not destroyed the Geseirei and the MaΗatei and the Ζananai (this third not in MT – it is a Gk plus also in v. 2), and king [of?] Geseirei and the MaΗatei lived on within Israel. The arithmetic (9½ + 2½ = 12) just explained is rendered immediately problematic in the next note, that Levi was not included in the count: Levi did not require land, for they had Lord, god of Israel (14). The Gk text of v. 14 (14a in Gk) is closer at the end (‘as Lord said to them’) to the repetition of the verse (MT only) in v. 33 (‘as he said to them’); MT in v. 14 has ‘as he said to him’. But on the main issue Gk agrees with v. 14 (MT) against v. 33, in not specifying who did not give: Gk has simply an impersonal passive – ‘there was not given . . . to Leuei’ (see further on 14:3 below).

62. Land Distribution: what Moses did (13:14A–14:15) 21. ќ͎͔͍͋͑̿ Ѭ͎͋̿̿] ̵̠̰̮̬̲̠̤̬̠̰̠ is widely taken as a blunder for A’s ̵̠̰̮̬̲̠̱̯̠̰̠. The singular ̵̠̰̮̬̲̠ in B will refer only to Robe – Ѭ͎͋̿̿ is an epic term for the trappings of a slain foe; ̵̠̰̮̬̲̠̱ in A refers to all five leaders of Madiam who ‘rule alongside’ (̵̠̰̮̬̲̠̱̯̠̰̠)

174

COMMENTARY § 62

SēŌn. B may possibly be defended as a double rendering of Hebrew !#!,+: first as ‘rulers’ than as ‘dedications’. 7. ͎͑̓͐͐̓ҽ͈͍͋͑̿] is the more common spelling in Septuagint manuscripts, while in early Ptolemaic papyri ͎͑̓͐͐̿ҽ͈͍͋͑̿ is commoner – see also v. 10. 8. ͈͎̿͂Ӄ̿͋] The majority reading by far is ͇͂ҽ͍͇͋̿͋ (‘intention’) rather than ‘heart’. DH documents in Jesus and Pentateuch a tendency to revise the more abstract ͇͂ҽ͍͇͋̿ towards the more concrete ͈͎̿͂Ӄ̿. However, if it was a feature of Gk in Jesus to o֎er di֎erent renderings for the same Hebrew, this evidence will come short of proving that B here has the secondary reading. 11. ͉̓҄͐̓͆̓‫͈̿ ͋ل‬ӂ Ѩ͉͌̓͆̓‫ ]͋ل‬MT has reverse order. DH explains that there are 10 cases in HB/OT where MT and LXX agree on this order, 13 where they agree on the reverse order, and 3 (incl. this one) where LXX has this order and MT the reverse. 13. ̵͎͖̓̀͋] This city name is preceded by the article in both of the following verses. DH (99) finds the minority and eccentric testimony of B in 13 mistaken; however, it is used without the article at the end of 15:13, where it is quite clear from context which case is intended. 15. ͎͊͑ͅӅ›͍͉͇͏ ͑‫̿ ͇͈̤͊̓̿͋ ͋و‬ҥ͑ͅ] ͎͊͑ͅӅ›͍͉͇͏ is not used in the Pentateuch. We met it in 10:2 as a rendering of ‘royal city’. Here and in 15:13 the rendering is still freer, if the Vorlage was identical to MT: in 15:13 MT has simply ‘father of Anak’, and more prosaically in 14:15 ‘he was the great man among the Anakites’, both presumably in apposition to -4 understood as the name of an indidual, whom Gk calls ̠͎͍͈̀. This is one of the longest paragraphs of B’s scribe: it starts with actions of Moses, and it finishes with Ζaleb quoting Moses in an appeal to Jesus. Moses has a dual role throughout the book of Jesus: on the one side as historical actor and leader, but from a former time and di֎erent situation; and on the other side as continuing authority. The heading (14b) is a Gk plus: the verb for ‘distribute’ has been used 4x in the Pentateuch, but the derived ͈͎͇̿͑̿͊̓͐͊Ӆ͏ is not attested elsewhere by LSJ. ͈̿͑Ҽ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓ appears twice more, in 13:32 and 16:1, but there connected by article ͍͑‫͈͑̿ ن‬Ҽ ̨͎͇͔͖̓̓.

JOSHUA 13:14A–14:15

175

The Greek cases are very confusing in vv. 16–17: Aroēr, following ј›Ӆ, will be an implied genitive; but the following ‘the city’ is nominative (ѵ ›Ӆ͉͇͏); and the next phrase, including ‘all the cities..’, is in the accusative, suggesting we should understand it as the object of the original verb ‘gave’. DH discusses the issue (35–36), noting surprising shifts to the accusative case in 13:16–17, 21, 27, 30; 16:3, 5. Then ͍͇͈͍͒ is doubly puzzling, as genitive (was ̨̮̩̮̳ a slip for ̨̮̩̮̬?) but also as having been translated at all (mostly in these place names Baiϑ is simply transliterated) – neither is remarked on by M-F, who simply translates ‘Maison Beelmôn’. Other witnesses read ͍҈͈͍͒͏; and DH notes that final -̱ could readily have dropped out before initial ̡- (98). M-F suggests that styling Balaam a ‘mantis’ (22) is enough to discredit someone who su֎ered the same fate as the five kings of Madiam. Gk is shorter than MT in this verse; but it is not clear what it has read, not least because of the uncertainty over reading the last word, [͑]͎͍›ͅ. Margolis explains ͎͍͑›Ӂ and ͎͍͑̓͑›͖͊ҿ͍͋͒͏ in 11:6 in relation to each other. ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋ͅ͏ (23) is unusually without the article (contrast v. 27). M-F’s understanding of v. 23 is: ‘The frontiers of Roubēn were the frontier of the [sic] Jordan.’ Gk uses two terms throughout for the dependent settlements: Ѭ›͉͇̿͒͏ is an overnight lodging place, a bothy or farm steading; and ͈Ӊ͊ͅ (possibly originally the Doric equivalent to the Attic ͂‫͏͍͊ق‬, another word used widely in Jesus) can be either an unfortified village or a ‘quarter’ within a walled city, here the former. The syntax of the description of Gad’s territory is more straightforward, shifting into the accusative (of an implied gift? or simply the default case? – see on vv. 16–17 above) only in v. 27: ͈̿ӂ ͑Ӏ͋ ͉͍͇›Ӏ͋ ͇͉̀̿͐̓Ӄ̿͋. . . That phrase is one of several examples of a Gk adjective idiomatically replacing a Hebrew noun. B has a surprising plus in the middle of v. 28 – ̿Ҡ͔ҿ͋̿ Ѩ›͇͎͐͑ҿ͕͍͇͒͐͋ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬Ѩ͔͎͆‫̿ ͋و‬Ҡ͑‫– ͋و‬ similar to 7:12, but with Ѩ›͇͎͐͑ҿ͕͍͇͒͐͋ as in the A text there, while B had read ҡ›͍͎͐͑ҿ͕͍͇͒͐͋. In the third territory described, we find the same shift (30) from ‘all the kingdom . . .’ (nom.) to ‘all the villages . . .’ (accus.). ‘Made his heir’ (32) is the only sense o֎ered in LSJ (894a, citing 2 Kgdms 7:1) for ͈͈͉͎͍͍̿͑̿͋͊̓ͅ‫ ͋ل‬used transitively with a person as object. B has Ѩ›’ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫ ͋و‬at the end; the majority reading is ј›’ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫͋و‬: there is a ready shift within the book between ј›Ӆ and Ѩ›Ӄ in such expressions of direction. The resources of ͈͈͉͎͍͍̿͑̿͋͊̓ͅ‫ ͋ل‬are fully stretched in the following verse (1): it is first used of those ‘receiving’ territory in Canaan (the majority of tribes), and then of those responsible for distributing that territory in place of Moses – not simply Jesus, but Eleazar the

176

COMMENTARY §§ 62–63

priest in first place and also tribal leaders. Divine commands were still addressed to Jesus, but others were involved in carrying them out – in particular the leading priest when the sacred lot was the key element in the process. Though lot is the stated means here, it plays no part in the apportionment of land to the major holders, Iouda and IŌsēp˰. The non-grant of land to the Levites is stated first in the active ‘did not give’ (3) and then in the passive ‘was not given’ (4); in neither case is this stated, but the responsibility can be assumed to be Lord’s. The suggestion in v. 3 is that the due total of twelve lots would have been breached if Levi was included: IŌsēp˰ was after all two tribes. We are told in the following sentence what Levi would receive instead: not a ‘share’, but towns, designated (land?) for their herds, and the herds – it seems like territory by another name, but not joined together. The closing note is quite clear in itself: Israel’s sharing of the land accorded with divine instructions to Moses (5); but it sends us back to re-read v. 2, and realise that in a text without punctuation ‘by hand of Jesus’ could be applied to the nearer verb ‘commanded’ or to the earlier Ѩ͈͉͎͍͋ͅӅ͊͐̿͋ͅ. If the nearer, then the whole passage merges the agency of Jesus and Moses: portrays them in continuity with each other (MT is di֎erent and longer at this point). If the earlier, then our translation may be wrong: Ѩ͈͉͎͍͋ͅӅ͊͐̿͋ͅ may (unusually) share the sense of the immediately preceding ͈͈͉͎͍̿͑̓͋ͅӅ͊͐̿͋ͅ: ‘they gave in inheritance’. In Num. 34:17– 18, within the passage in which Moses gives the commands (including citing himself, v. 13!), it is similarly unclear whether any distinction is intended between the forms of the verb with and without ͈̿͑-. Before the business of lots and division goes any further, the sons of Iouda approach Jesus and Ζaleb addresses him. Jesus is again at Galgal. The name is used here in uninflected form, but is presumably identical to the inflected Galgala, which has not been mentioned since 10:6, 7, 9 (DH 31). Ζaleb reminds Jesus of something which had transpired a long time back: something which not only Moses had said and Jesus had witnessed, but which Lord had first spoken to Moses. Although he approaches among the sons of Iouda (and has represented Iouda in Numbers), Ζaleb’s full name betrays him as an Edomite – in Num. 32:12, Gk had disguised the name of his people by replacing ‘the Qenizzite’ by ‘the one who separated himself’, a midrashic reference back to 13:31, where Ζaleb had separated himself from the pessimism of the other scouts. The story he tells from forty-five years earlier can be read in Num. 13–14 or Deut. 1:22–40. Ζaleb talks of Moses first (6) as ќ͎͖͋͆›͍͏ ͍͑‫ن͍̓͆ ن‬, and then (7) as ҕ ›̿‫ن͍̓͆ ن͍͑ ͏ل‬. ҕ ›̿‫͎̩͒ ͏ل‬Ӄ͍͒ is the more familiar title (1:13; 11:12),

JOSHUA 13:14A–14:15 & 15:1–12

177

and the corresponding ! - is used in v. 7 (MT). ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬may be influenced by [ќ͎͖͋͆›͍͏] ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬in the previous verse; that title for Moses will have been drawn in turn from Deut. 33:1. ›͎͍͐̓͑ҿ͆͋ͅ Ѩ›͈͍͉͍̿͒͆‫͎̩͒ ͇̿͐ق‬ӃԶ (8) is a free rendering of the idiomatic !4 !7%) !, a phrase which belongs almost exclusively to the tradition about Ζaleb (except for 1 Kgs 11:6 – DH 183). When resumed in v. 9, ̩͎͒ӃԶ is replaced by Ҕ›Ӄ͖͐ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬in which !4 is now represented by both ‘follow’ and ‘behind’. ‘Sustained’ (10) is a free rendering of ! hiphil, but thoroughly appropriate when the preservation was over 45 years, and Ζaleb’s fitness for war was undiminished (11)! Ζaleb asks for ‘this mountain’. If they are in Galgal[a] by the Jordan, it may not be entirely clear how much of what they can see from there is being claimed. This mountain which you and I remember being spoken of that day, cities strong and great, is now occupied by Enakeim; if Lord is with me, I will drive them all out. Jesus’s response is evidently more modest than Ζaleb’s claim: he blesses him, gives him ΖebrŌn, and accords him his full title (13). As the narrator adds his own conclusion to the story, he remarks that Ζaleb (full title again) received ΖebrŌn because he ‘followed the ordinance of Lord . . .’ (14): in this second variation on the phrase, ‘was joined’ is dropped from the version in vv. 8 and 9 and ‘behind’ from v. 9, but ‘command’ is added before ‘Lord’. SS notes (39) that all four instances of the note ‘and the name of X was formerly Y’ are translated the same way: ͑ӄ ͂Ҿ Ҙ͍͋͊̿ . . . The narrator’s last words remind us of the end of chapter 11. In MT the two comments are identical; but Gk typically distinguishes between ‘stopped being warred over’ then and ‘became tired of war’ now. The land appears more weary than over-active Ζaleb; perhaps Jesus too did not want to see a further campaign prosecuted over as large a territory as Ζaleb had in mind. The conjunction of our remarks about ‘the name . . . was formerly’ and the di֎erent renderings of the phrase at the end of chapters 11 and 14 point up a recurring issue in evaluating the nature of the translation. Many expressions are translated the same way each time they recur whereas others exhibit considerable variety.

63. Iouda’s borders (15:1–12) 1. ҙ͎͇̓̿ . . . ҕ͎̓Ӄ͖͋] While there are several examples in B’s first scribe of ͇̓ reduced to ͇ in native Greek words, there are a few counter examples. ̓ has been erased in both instances.

178

COMMENTARY §§ 63–64

̨͍͒͂̿Ӄ̿͏] is an error for ̨͍͂͒͊̿Ӄ̿͏, which is similar in Greek – MT has Edom. 3. ̤͈͋͋̿ ͈̿ӂ = ̨̤̬̬̠̩̩̠ < ̨̱̤̬̬̠̩̠ = ̱̓͋͋̿ ͈̿ӂ 5–6. ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ͍͑‫͊ ن‬ҿ͎͍͒͏ . . . Ѩ›͇̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓] The Gk connective occurs a few words earlier than in MT, so connecting ‘the part of the Jordan’ to the following phrase. 7. ̲̿̿́̿͂ = ̢̲̠̠̠̣ < ̢̢̠̪̠̪ = ̢͉͉̿́̿ 9. ͑ӄ ҙ͎͇͍̓͋ . . . ͑ӄ ҙ͎͇͍͋] This verse is typical of the orthographic confusion of the first hand in using this so common term in the book. 10. ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ̨͎͇̿̓͋] may attest '!4-! 4!- for MT '!4-! 4, but more likely '!4-! 7!43. 11. ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏] Tenses vary in these border descriptions; but the future is always used in this phrase in Num. 34 (5x) and Jesus 15–19 (12x), the sole exception being in Jesus 19:33 (DH 93–94). Gk attempts to translate a precise description as accurately as possible. M-F notes that it uses 14 compound verbs to render the 6 verbs used in the Hebrew descriptions. Two things make Gk hard to read: it has not always understood the Hebrew, and subsequent mistakes have crept in. One of the several oddities is that the description begins by using the plural ͑Ҽ ҙ͎͇̓̿ to render the singular Hebrew %, but shifts to the singular ͑ӄ ҙ͎͇͍͋ in v. 9. ‘Southwards’ (1) renders ›͎ӄ͏ ͉Ӄ̀̿ – ͉Ӄ͕ names a wind blowing from the southwest (Africa). M-F translates ѭ͖͏ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏ (2) by jusqu’aux abords. ͉͍͓͇ҽ is literally a [horse’s] mane or [fish’s] dorsal fin – M-F suggests ‘pointe’. MT uses *_% – does it refer to the ‘Lisan’ (Tongue) peninsula? ‘Makes a detour’ (3) is the meaning proposed by LSJ; M-F similarly o֎ers dépasse . . . en la contournant. ‘Is marching out AsŌrŌn’ renders Ѩ͈›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͑̿ ̠͖͎͖͐͋: here, and two phrases later, no preposition is used after the verb; but the third example is followed by ̓҄͏. LSJ does cite a case of the verb with the simple accusative, but o֎ers no rendering – M-F ventures dépasse on its own. The ‘ridge’ mentioned at the north end of the Dead Sea (5) may be a feature that no longer exists; ‘part’ may

JOSHUA 15:1–12 & 15:13–19

179

suggest district, as ͊ҿ͎͍͏ also can. ‘By side of ’ follows the intimation in LSJ 1105a that ͊ҿ͎͍͏ may bear this sense in LXX – ‘side’ or ‘edge’ may be the sense of the underlying Hebrew 23; but whether a 4th century CE Greek reader unfamiliar with Hebrew or its cognates would have known or deduced this, or simply been puzzled, is unclear. Where to combine and where to separate in ̓҄͏ Ҙ͎͍͏ ̠͎͐͐̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͋Ӊ͍͑͒ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ̨͎͇̿̓͋ ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫( ـ‬10) is particularly hard to detect. M-F (vers le mont Assares sur le flanc nord de Ville-Yarim) may follow the wording in Rahlfs, but not the punctuation in that edition, which inserts a comma before ›Ӆ͉͇͋: she combines Ѩ›ӂ ͋Ӊ͍͑͒ and ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫ـ‬, and appears to render the alternative reading ›Ӆ͉͖̓͏ – but o֎ers no defence. As the text stands in B, it seems preferable to read Ҙ͎͍͏ ̠͎͐͐̿ Ѩ›ӂ ͋Ӊ͍͑͒ and ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ̨͎͇̿̓͋ ј›ӄ ͍͎͎̀‫ ـ‬as co-ordinate phrases, each governed by ̓҄͏.

64. Ζaleb again (15:13–19) 13. ј›Ӆ] deleted from the text, and ͇͂ҽ written in the margin. Before the long description of Iouda’s territory is continued, our attention is diverted again to the story of Ζaleb. M-F takes ‘he gave’ (13) impersonally: on donna. ‘Through ordinance of the god’ is doubly di֎erent from MT: the abstract ›͎Ӆ͐͑̿́͊̿ is chosen in preference to the anthropomorphic ‘mouth’; and ‘the god’ (a feature of 14:6, 7 as well) corresponds to the divine name. Perhaps the way of referring to the deity was altered as part of the substitution of ‘command’ for ‘mouth’. For ‘metropolis’, see on 14:15 above. When it is so clear from context that the three names following Enak are his sons, and also in the accusative case, it is diّcult to know which is more surprising: that the first and third do have article or that the second does not. On the formula for a former name (15), see also 14:15 above – the plural ͎́̿͊͊ҽ͖͑͋ is a free rendering of 40,, a ‘document’, or ‘letter’, or ‘book’. We already read in 11:21 that Jesus had conquered Dabeir and destroyed the Enakeim. Verses 16–19 are almost identical to Judg. 1:12–15. B is unusual in offering ͉ҽ̀Ԍ ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͈͈Ӆ͕Ԍ, where MT in both contexts has simply #!, and the other Greek versions vary between ›̿͑ҽ͌Ԍ and ͉ҽ̀Ԍ. By implication, DH understands that B preserves the OG reading: his hypothesis is (90) that Gk first o֎ered a paraphrasing double rendering of #! and then for #%, having already used ͉̿͊̀ҽ͇͋̓͋, resorted to the unusual ͈͎͇͒̓Ӈ͇̓͋

180

COMMENTARY §§ 64–65

(B’s ͈͎͇͒̓Ӈ͐Ԍ is a minority reading over against ›͎͍͈͉̿͑̿ҽ͇̀͑̿ͅ for #%). ̠͔͐̿͋ (16, 17) is the accusative case of ̠͔͐̿, treated as an inflected noun – MT gives the middle consonants in reverse order, ,#-; but the Gk evidence for ̠͔͐̿ is unanimous. Our translation above has dealt similarly with ̢͍͇͉͋̿͆̿͋ (twice in v. 19). ͂Ӊ͖͐ (16) is one of several examples cited by SS (120–1) of a future without connective introducing a main clause which is preceded by a conditional protasis – the Vorlage has !77+. She advances a similar argument in v. 19 against the punctuation in Rahlfs and Brooke-McLean: the removal of the connective from the second ͂Ӆ͏ (translated from 77+) suggests that the preceding ҙ͇͑-clause is subordinate to this imperative and not, as in these principal modern editions, to the preceding ͂Ӆ͏ [͍͇͊ ̓Ҡ͉͍́Ӄ̿͋].

65. Iouda’s towns (15:20–63) 35. ͈̿ӂ ̨͈̿̈́̿ͅ = ̨̨̩̠̠̥̦̩̠ < ̨̩̠̠̥̦̩̠ = ͈̿ӂ ̠͈̈́̿ͅ 38. ̫͓̿͐̿] deleted in text, and ̴̿͐͊̿ written in margin. 39. ̫͔̿ͅ͏ = ̵̫̠̦̱ < ̵̪̠̦̱ = ̪͔̿ͅ͏ 46. ̓҄͐Ӄ͋] the final -͋ has been erased. Following the return to the Ζaleb theme (para. 64), we are now provided with a second description of Iouda’s territory. This is no longer a sketch of the borders, but a listing and enumerating of its cities and their dependent settlements: it is these that constitute the actual inheritance. In this light it is somewhat surprising that Rahlfs takes v. 20 as the conclusion of the previous paragraph, rather than the start of this one. In A, v. 20 is separate from both vv. 18b–19 before and 21–32 after. M-F nicely notes that Origen’s response to these long lists of cities was to advise considering scripture like a magical chant much superior to pagan incantations: for even if we do not understand them, the words which we pronounce nourish the celestial powers who assist us. If v. 20 is the subtitle, the start of the list proper is in v. 21, and is appropriately marked by the use of ͂ҿ as connective (SS 38). As in para. 63, the description starts in the south. Proximity to Edom comes as no surprise; ‘the desert’ (only here the equivalent of negeb) has taken this Hebrew term as the name of an area rather than a direction (the south);

JOSHUA 15:13–19 & 15:20–63

181

but what is a puzzle in v. 21 is the precise sense of ›͎ӄ͏ ͑‫ك͉͓͒ ك‬, if indeed the text is correct here – M-F renders ‘for the tribe’, but LSJ 1497 does not attest this sense: it emphasises proximity, additionality, and ‘close engagement’. ›͎Ӆ͏ with the dat. is not common in the Greek OT: mostly once or twice only in books which use it at all. But it is found much more often in Jesus and Maccabees. The grand total of these cities near Edom is given as 29 – only in v. 32, at the first sub-total, is the numerical abbreviation (͈͆̑) used in B (though not in A). The names themselves are listed in three sub-groups: ten names in vv. 21–24, finishing with ‘and their villages’; eight names in vv. 25–28, starting with ‘and the cities’ and finishing with ‘and their villages and their bothies’; and twelve names in vv. 29–32 followed by the grand total. Thirty names are listed, together with one alternative form (̠͖͎͐ for ̠͎͖͐̓͋), but a count of 29 supplied. This tripartite structure of the list is attested also in A, with the same number of names in each section. A does not conclude the first group with ‘and their villages’, but does introduce the second with ͈̿ӂ ›Ӆ͉͇͏ where B has ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ (A very commonly writes the plural ending as -̨̱) – MT appears to read the corresponding 7!43 as the first half of ‘and Kerioth-Hezron’. A shares B’s ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ ͈‫̿ ͇̿͊و‬Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͋و‬ӂ ̿҅ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬in v. 28, where MT simply reads !7! – it may be that Gk found !7+ (‘and her daughters’) in the Vorlage. The forms of several of the names themselves in A are closer to MT than those in B, but these may have resulted from correction towards MT. B as so often in Jesus provides the most distinctively di֎erent witness from MT. The internal structure (in this case supported by A) seems more in order than MT, not least because the names listed are only one more than the stated total. Kallai (1986: 379) gives the minimum possible number of names to be read from MT as thirty-four. The next section details three districts in the lowlands to the west of Iouda, followed by a mention of areas we know otherwise as Philistine. The first, to the north, lists fourteen cities correctly totalled (33–36), ending with ̢͎̿͂̿ͅ ͈̿ӂ ̿҅ Ѩ›̿Ӈ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͏ق‬, where ‘and its bothies’ corresponds this time to the assonant !74. The topographical relationship between the next two districts has been disputed: Kallai (379) describes them as south-west and south-east. The former (37–41) lists sixteen names and gives the appropriate total, while the latter (42–44) has ten names and says so. Although some of the names are reported in di֎erent forms, the principal di֎erence to note is in the third lowland district, where B has ten names while A and MT agree on nine. The description (it is more than a simple listing) of Philistine territory

182

COMMENTARY §§ 65–66

(though that name is never mentioned) takes a di֎erent form (45–47) from the rest of this long paragraph. First AkkarŌn is mentioned, with its villages and bothies; then, moving on from there, Gemna (Iemnai in A, but wymh – ‘and seaward’ – in MT) and everything near AsēdŌϑ and their villages; MT goes on to mention Ashdod again which B’s AsēdŌϑ more or less confirms, though the transliteration is di֎erent, while A appears to have lost some text; and mention of Gaza leads on to the ravine-bed which marks the southern frontier and a note that this territory extended west as far as the Great Sea. Para. 58 was also somewhat ambivalent about the Philistine cities: Jesus had taken the whole country, but uniquely in these areas some Enakeim survived (11:22). Districts 5–10 run from south to north (48–60). In each case the names listed equal the totals given. Although there are di֎erences again in how the same names are read and transliterated, A broadly agrees with B over these six districts. Two di֎erences between Gk and MT need to be noted. The smaller is that in district 7 (55–57) Gk reads as nine names much the same text as MT reads as ten names, each reporting the appropriate total. The much larger is that MT completely lacks district 9 with its eleven cities, the area immediately south of Jerusalem which includes Bethlehem and Tekoa. The transliterations of the eleven names vary between A and B as much as elsewhere in these lists. That fact either tells against the widespread theory that the names in A represent a correction of B towards the proto-masoretic text, or suggests that the loss of this district from the masoretic tradition happened after that correction. There is no textual sign in the main Greek witnesses that with district 11 (61–62) we have moved out of the hill-country eastwards. MT does mark the shift: it opens with ‘In the desert’ (bmdbr), which Gk has read as a place-name, corrupted in time to Baddargeis. It has been suggested that ̫͎͇͇̿͂̀̿̓͑͏, a doublet rendering of mdbr in 5:6 above, might supply a link in the chain leading to ̡͎͇̿͂͂̿́̓͏. Corresponding to this opening, MT reports a total of six names while A and B report seven. Where B mentions in last two places ‘the cities [of] SadŌm and AnKadēs’, A has ‘the cities of salts (љ͉‫ )͋و‬and Ēngaddi’, and MT ‘the city of salt and Ein Gedi’. District 9 reached close to Jerusalem from the south; district 10 lay to the west; and the northern part of district 11 was east of Jerusalem. But the city itself has remained unnamed till the very end of this lengthy paragraph – it appeared earlier only in a parenthesis within the description of the northern border of Iouda in 15:8. The reason is straightforward (63): the Iebousai were still the inhabitants of the city, and it was

JOSHUA 15:20–63 & 16:1–4

183

beyond Iouda’s power to do anything about it. They are mentioned first in the singular: ҕ ̨͍̓̀͒͐̿‫ ;͏͍ل‬but it is the plural ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ that Iouda could not destroy, and so they are next spoken of in the plural ͍҅ ̨͍̓̀͒͐̿‫͇͍ل‬. MT reports the matter rather di֎erently: the first two Gk clauses are restated in a single clause with its object anticipated; the old inhabitants did not simply live on in the city, but lived on there ‘with the sons of Iouda’; and that situation continued till ‘this’ day, not that.

66. IŌsēp˰’s borders (16:1–4) 1. ҙ͎͇̓̿] ̓ has been erased. NB variety again in 16:3. What is described here is a single line running from the lower river Jordan near IereiΗŌ in the east to the Mediterranean sea in the west. We can deduce that this was the southern border of IŌsēp˰; however, that is not stated in the text. Both descriptions of Iouda had started in the south; but it is probably more relevant to remark that it was from the south that one encountered IŌsēp˰ if one started from Iouda and Jerusalem. After the initial climb (ј͋̿̀Ӂ͇͐̓͑̿) into the hill country, the description uses three compounds of Ѩ͉̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿. The first two correspond well with the motions implied in the distinct verbs in MT, ‘out’ and ‘past’; however, ͇͉͂̓̓Ӈ͇͐̓͑̿ is a less close match with the final and appropriate 4! (‘descend’) towards the coast. Ҕ͎͇̓͋Ӂ is regularly used in Jesus where the translator reckons that a plateau is intended by 4, not a single mountain peak. DH observes in this case (1) that only a part of the whole Ephraimite hill-country can be meant (141). The concluding statement of the paragraph, that IŌsēp˰ inherited (separately) as Ep˰raim and Manassē, introduces the individual descriptions of these tribes in the following paragraphs, Ep˰raim first. That marks just the last of several di֎erences between Gk and MT: the Hebrew says ‘Manassē and Ep˰raim’ in v. 4, although it goes on to describe them in reverse order. They di֎er right from the beginning; and DH argues many individual points against Margolis in favour of the priority of B’s readings over those of MT. Gk retroverts to % !! (‘and the border came to be’), while MT states %4 2! (‘and the lot came out’). Divergence between gbwl and gwrl is a feature also of 15:1 and 17:1; but in 16:1 the verb is also di֎erent in Greek and Hebrew, making it less likely that simple error has occurred between two similarlooking nouns. Some transpositions have taken place. In Gk ‘the desert’

184

COMMENTARY §§ 66–69

puzzlingly follows ‘the hill-country’ (1) whereas in MT it precedes ‘ascends’. And in Gk % (misunderstood as the place-name Louza, rather than ‘towards Luz’) is mentioned after the first mention of ̡͇͉̿͆ͅ (1), but in MT after the second (2). M-F reminds us that the mosaic map from Madaba includes the inscription, ‘Louza which is also Bethel’. Then, after the mention of BaiϑŌrŌn the lower, MT has the plus ‘and as far as Gezer’.

67. Ephraim’s borders (16:5–10) It is not easy to interpret the description of Ep˰raim’s holdings, because they are so briefly sketched. A first problem is whether AstarŌϑ at the beginning (5) and AstarŌϑ close to the end (7) – both 74 - in Hebrew – are di֎erent, or one and the same. MT by reading the former as part of the composite Atarot-Addar may suggest they were di֎erent; however, even although A transliterates these names in the form given by MT, it reads them as separate (with ‘and’ in between) as B. Most assume that the line from AstarŌϑ in the east to the sea in the west via (upper) BaiϑŌrŌn is an alternative description of IŌsēp˰’s southern border in para. 66. Gazara here (a Gk plus) will be the same as Gezer in v. 3 (MT plus) – the longer Greek form ̢͎̿̈́̿̿ is found also in 21:21, again close to BaiϑŌrŌn (compare the alternation noted above between Galgal and Galgala). If the line was the same, it is idle to speculate in which description Gezer was original; but we can note that Josephus knew this name in the form Gazara in his description of Ep˰raim (Ant. V, 83). DH (52) proposes two grounds for deleting ϐerma: it is not attested in MT, and B does not have ‘and’ before it – ̡̮̰̰̠ and ̧̤̰̫̠, he says, are not dissimilar; and the latter should be deleted as a dittograph. ϐēnasa and Sellēsa takes as separate a pair of names MT reads as the composite Taanath-Shiloh. ‘And their villages’ (in the grammatically impossible nominative case) after the second AstarŌϑ may result from reading MT 74-+ as !74-+ (‘her servants’) – compare the confusion noted at 15:28. After the frontier sketch, v. 9 reports the existence of unnamed and unnumbered cities of Ep˰raim within the territory demarcated to Manassē, together with their villages. Finally, and in similar style to the concluding note on Iouda, we learn that Ep˰raim did not (not could not, as there) destroy the Ζananai living in Gazer (not this time Gazara). These lived on within Ep˰raim till this day (not that day, as there): till P˰araŌ took it, fired it, and drove out its inhabitants (Ζananai, P˰erezai, and others), and gave it as a dowry to his daughter as part of the marriage settlement

JOSHUA 16:1–4 – 17:3–10b̿

185

with Solomon (compare 1 Kgs 9:16–17). The relationship between the latter part of this verse and 1 Kgs 9:16–17 is but a more distant example of a phenomenon we have already noted. The most recent example is ‘as far as Gezer’, located in v. 3 (MT) but v. 5 (LXX). Another quite local transposition is the altar-building story (para. 40): after the reaction of the kings in B, but before it in A and MT – or (this time less proximate) before the circumcision (in 4Q). The details are not identical: 1 Kgs 9 mentions only Canaanites, and talks of Pharaoh killing them. However, the only instance in the Pentateuch (Num. 22:29) of Ѩ͈͈ҿ͇͋͑̓͋, used at the end of 16:10 above, does correspond uniquely to hrg (‘slay’), the very verb used in 1 Kgs 9. As for the surprising plural Ѩ͈͌̓ҿ͋͑͐̿͋ͅ, which breaks the pattern of two singulars before and one after, it is likely that it represents an accurate rendering of its Vorlage. On the other hand, +7! 4 may have resulted from repetition of  in the original +7! 4 still found in 1 Kgs 9. Origen’s Homilies on Jesus are regularly based on, or at least show knowledge of the Hebrew text. However, he knew the longer Greek form of the end of this paragraph (M-F).

68. Manassē in summary (17:1–2) The description of Manassē’s territory is quite the most distinctive: more a series of preliminary clarifications (which often puzzle – see SS 149 and 156 on the strained logic marked by ҙ͇͑ and ́ҽ͎) than actual description. Manassē is described next, because IŌsēp˰’s firstborn – but in fact after younger brother Ep˰raim! Not even his own firstborn will be reported on here, because this warrior already has his territory across the Jordan. This gives a new slant on information we have been given many times: the half-Manassē in the Galaadeitis and in the Basaneitis (13:11) is now identified as the clan of the eldest brother, MaΗeir. In what is said about Galaad’s father, the English above is similarly ambiguous as the Gk, and indeed as MT: either MaΗeir or Manassē could be intended. The subject of this section is in fact the territory (west of the Jordan) for the clans of the five remaining brothers. Firstborn appears to have been a distraction twice.

69. Manassē: daughters and neighbours (17:3–10b̿) 5. ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬ј›ӄ ̠͋̿͐͐̿ ͈̿ӂ] A as often is much closer to MT: ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ. ͑‫ ]̢͉͂̿̿̿ ͏ق‬A again is closer to MT: ́‫͈̿ ̢͉͂̿̿̿ ͏ق‬ӂ ͑‫̡͋̿͐̿ ͏ق‬.

186

COMMENTARY §§ 69–71

10. ͈̿ӂ ̨̿͐̀ͅ = ̨̨̡̩̠̠̱̦ < ̨̩̠̠̱̦̰ = ͈̿ӂ ̠͎͐ͅ The clan of one of the five (western) brothers represented another novel special case: Op˰er’s son, Salpaad [Zelophehad], had no sons but only five daughters. Rather like Ζaleb they made a special case, though in their case not to Jesus only (14:6) but to Eleazar, Jesus, and the rulers (14:1). They took their stand opposite these leaders (4), but hardly as suppliants. This phrase is used elsewhere in Jesus only of the commander of Lord’s army opposite Jesus (5:13); and they cite an ordinance issued by ‘the god’ (a further link with Ζaleb – 14:6, 7, 14; 15:13) ‘through hand of Moses’ (a phrase unique here in Jesus). There was no dispute: a lot was given to them (impersonal active in MT) amongst their uncles – ͇͂Ҽ ›͎͍͐͑ҽ͍́͊̿͑͏ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ recurs in B in 21:3; 22:9 (with ͍͑‫ ن͍̓͆ ن‬in 15:13; 19:50). ͔͍͇͇͐͋͐͊Ӆ͏ is used only in 17:5 in LXX; but it is used in papyri for ‘measurement [of land]’ (LSJ 1747a). ͔͍͐Ӄ͇͋͐͊̿, the normal rendering of % in LXX (but not cited in Greek elsewhere) is used also in Jesus (17:14; 19:29) as well as in half a dozen other passages. (Where % clearly refers to ‘rope’, it is more often rendered by ͔͍͇͐͋Ӄ͍͋.) Unless the final clarification (6) serves only to confuse, it makes the point that the brothers among whom Salpaad’s daughters settled included (in the area of Labek) the ‘remaining’ Manassites already settled east of the Jordan. Only after all these preliminaries (east/west of the Jordan, daughters as well as sons) can the territory of the sons of Manassē now be described (7). B and MT go very di֎erent ways, with A again in the middle. Dēlanaϑ in B is unknown elsewhere, and hmkmtt in MT appears only in 16:6, where B is di֎erent again (in both verses A reads ͔͖͊̿͆͆). A’s ̱͔͒̓͊ supports MT against Anaϑ in B. ‘Iamein’ and ‘Iasseib’ read as place names what in MT are ‘the right/south’ and ‘inhabitants [of ]’. The multiplication of phrases starting with Ѩ›Ӄ and following upon ͈̿ӂ ›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͑̿ appears clumsy. The rendering above has altered the clause-division in vv. 7b–8 from that given in both CB and Rahlfs, following DH’s attractive alternative. M-F goes part of the way down this route. A is much closer to B, over against MT, in v. 9; it reads ‘Iaeir’ for ‘Iariēl’, and has ‘terebinthos’ and not, as in B, ‘tereminthos’ – here Gk has read hʙlh as the familiar tree (possibly the one mentioned in 24:26), rather than as in MT the plural demonstrative after ‘cities’ (MT is, however, ungrammatical as ʚrym does not bear the article). ‘Opposite’ (as in M-F) is an alternative to ‘down’ for ͈̿͑ҽ with accusative. Rahlfs and CB also make the verse division between 9 and 10 after the first ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿.

JOSHUA 17:3–10b̿ – 17:14

187

70. Cities and dispossession (17:10b̀–13) 11. ̣͖͎] erased from the text, and a miniscule ̤͖͎͂ written in the margin. 13. Ѩ›̓Ӄ] the second ̓ has been erased: in this case, a quite false ‘correction’. It is not at all clear what B’s scribe intended when starting a new paragraph where he did; but his decision was supported by the first marginal hand, which made the only division within the chapter of which we have clear evidence precisely there. A divides this ‘chapter’ quite di֎erently: its ‘verses’ are 1–2, 3–4a, 4b–6, 7–9a (›Ӆ͉͖̓͏ ̫̿͋̿͐͐ͅ), 9b–11, 12–13, 14, 15, 16, 17–18. No sooner have ‘Kaiϑoan and their villages’ (whose, in any case are ‘their’? IssaΗar’s or Asēr’s?) been mentioned, but the list shifts to the ‘default’ accusative case. There are idiosyncracies of wording: ҡ›Ӂ͈͍͍͏ is used only here in Jesus, and only here in LXX renders ,)%. Yet it is clear that this paragraph is similar in style and content to the notes about enclaves in 13:13; 15:63; and 16:10. SS remarks on the curious Greek at the beginning of v. 13, and supposes (87) that ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ and the following ͈̿ӂ are doublets for !!. She also observes that the borderline in the Hellenistic period between temporal and causal uses of Ѩ›̓Ӄ is unclear (172): ‘Nevertheless, if the Ѩ›̓Ӄ clause has temporal force, the action of the main clause follows the action of the Ѩ›̓Ӄ clause.’ ͂ҿ in the final clause of the verse is adversative (36).

71. IŌsēp˰’s plea (17:14) Copulative ͂ҿ at the beginning is appropriate for the start of a new section. It is diّcult to discern the tone of the approach to Jesus by the sons of IŌsēp˰. Ѡ͇͋͑̓›̓‫ ͋ل‬can reflect hostile or simply defensive response. It is used nowhere else in Jesus; there are, however, two models available in Genesis. One is that Rebekah’s relatives cannot ‘gainsay’ what Abraham’s servant has stated (24:50). The other seems much more apt: how can Joseph’s brothers ‘defend themselves’ against what he has found? (44:16). Joseph and the rest of Israel’s sons have long had an uneasy relationship. The next ͂ҿ reinforces the independent pronoun Ѩ́Ӊ. Blessing was another important element of the story of Joseph in Genesis: Lord blessed Potiphar’s house for Joseph’s sake (39:5); and the

188

COMMENTARY §§ 71–73

only grandsons whom Jacob blessed were Joseph’s sons (48). Indeed, at the very end of that chapter (48:22), Israel promised Sikima to Joseph beyond his brothers (ҡ›Ҿ͎ ͍͑ӆ͏ ј͉͓͍͂̓Ӈ͏ ͍͐͒). The previous paragraphs in Jesus 66–70 have told of inheritance for Ep˰raim and Manassē, have spoken of territory for Manassē east and west of the Jordan, have detailed a ͔͍͇͇͐͋͐͊Ӆ͏ specially for the daughters of one of Manassē’s younger sons. In this immediate context, the claim of the sons of Joseph that all of them have received only one lot and measure seems bold and provocative. It is against the wider background in Genesis that the claim of Joseph’s sons should occasion less surprise.

72. Jesus and IŌsēp˰ (17:15–18) 15. Ѩ͈͈ҽ͎͍͆̿͋] from Ѩ͈͈̿͆̿Ӄ͎͇̓͋ – A reads Ѩ͈͈̿͆ҽ͎͇͍͐͋ from Ѩ͈͈͎̿͆̿Ӄ͇̈́̓͋ (from which the future Ѩ͈͈͎͇̿͆̿̓‫ ͏ل‬read by both A and B in v. 18 is also derived). 16. ј͎ҿ͈͇͐̓] ‘pleases’; however, the margin in B o֎ers the future (ј͎͈ҿ͇͐̓) and A the present (ј͎͈̓‫ )ل‬of the di֎erent verb ј͎͈̓‫‘( ͋ل‬suّce’). ̡͇͇̿͆̿͐̿͋ = ̡̨̧̨̠̠̱̠̬ < ̡̨̧̠̱̠̬ = ̡͇̿͆͐̿͋ The following dialogue is assigned a new paragraph. The logical connections, and with them the sentence divisions, are not easy to determine. ̓҄ is used to render ky, as only in 2:5 (SS 161). Neither form of the verb ‘clear’ (see textual note on v. 15) is common in LXX: together they are used only 7x. Jesus’s words in v. 18 may well allude to the final words of the Song of Moses (Deut. 32:43): ‘and Lord will clear/cleanse his people’s land’ – and turn them into a challenge to IŌsēp˰. Then, if B is to be followed in reading the alternate form in v. 15, there may be a deliberate allusion to the only other Pentateuchal use of either form. Deut. 26:13, within the conclusion to the prayer of dedication of firstfruits as prescribed in vv. 12–15, requires a declaration after the payment of one’s tithes that one ‘has cleared the holy things’ out of one’s house. And a passage relating to tithes may have been remembered precisely because we have been dealing with the inheritance of ten descendents of Manassē: the five sons who had sons, and the sixth who had five daughters. The tone of Jesus’s response is not charitable: the verb ͍͔͖͎͐͑̓͋̓‫͋ل‬ (‘a֑ict’) is not found in the Pentateuch (in Judg. 16:16 it describes Delilah’s pestering of Samson); but the noun ͍͔͖͎͐͑̓͋Ӄ̿ is used in Deut.

JOSHUA 17:14 – 18:1–2

189

28:53, 55, 57 of terrible threatened a֑ictions which will result in cannibalism and the like. However the reply of the sons of IŌsēp˰ is read (see textual note on v. 16), a relevant background from the Pentateuch can be suggested: Abimelech o֎ers Abraham the opportunity to live wherever in his land it ‘pleases’ him (Gen. 20:15); and Moses challenges God whether food ‘suّcient for them’ can possibly be provided for Israel in the desert. ͈͍͇͉ҽ͏ is a suitable literal description of the wide and deep valley (of Esdraelon) which separates the central hill-country from the hill-country of Galilee to the north; but still more may be at stake in this choice of terms – see on 19:47a below. Available to the Ζananai are select cavalry and iron (v. 16, and in v. 18 without ‘and iron’). MT has simply %4 #4 in both places, from which it appears that in v. 16 ‘iron’, as modifier of ‘cavalry’, has first been interpreted as ‘elite’ and then rendered literally as well. The second response of Jesus, like the first, starts by repeating IŌsēp˰’s own words in the form of a hypothesis (if they are what they say the are, . . .), and then restates them (if they have great strength) before drawing the conclusion that they will not have one lot. The forest will be additional to the (original) lot (18). However, as forest, it will require work – it will not be immediately available as settled land: the ͈̿ӂ before Ѩ͈͈͎͇̿͆̿̓‫ ͏ل‬is the literal and unidiomatic rendering of – in 74 (MT). The diّcult ͈̿ӂ before ҙ͑̿͋ is fully discussed by DH (48 and 178) and SS (171). They agree that the connective is not likely to be the result of corruption: MT without it is more likely to be the improved text. However, SS is rightly cautious (n. 75) over the suggestion that the main clause relating to this temporal clause is the one before it: ‘A more plausible explanation is to say that the conjunction indicates that the temporal clause is not subordinated to the main clause before it.’ ҡ›͎͇͔̓͐Ӈ͇̓͋ is found just once in the Pentateuch (Gen. 49:26), though rendering a different Hebrew – significantly, this is near the culmination of Jacob’s poetic blessing of IŌsēp˰.

73. Contrasts at SēlŌ [Shiloh] (18:1–2) 1. Ѩ͈͎̿͑Ӂ͆ͅ] A reads Ѩ͈͎͇̿͑̿Ӊ͆ͅ – neither verb is used elsewhere in Jesus; and each is most commonly used as a rendering of 3 (the nextto-last word in 17:18) while MT here reads _#. Only ͈͎̿͑̓‫ ͋ل‬is used in the Pentateuch: in Deut. 2:34 and 3:4 (where MT has #%) to describe Israel’s ‘taking control of ’ the cities of SēŌn and ŋg east of the Jordan.

190

COMMENTARY §§ 73–74

This paragraph states very succinctly the problem which the next several paragraphs address (A also takes it as a single unit). Twelve paragraphs on since the command to Jesus to divide the land among the tribes (13:1–14a), there is a convention of the whole assembly: the land has been overcome, the sacred tent is there, but the majority of the tribes is still without allotted territory. The contrasts between verses 1 and 2 are both in the passive and active verbs: ‘was summoned forth . . . was overcome’, but ‘were left remaining’; and ‘brought on [the tent]’, but ‘did not receive [their lots]’. It is nowhere said that the assembly was called to address the issue: the suggestion seems rather that it is only with the calling of the assembly, the presence of a shared religious symbol, and the repetition that the land was wholly theirs, that the issue of imbalance and unfairness is forced on to the agenda. Ѩ͈͈͉͇͌̓͐ͅҽ͇̈́̓͋ is the stock rendering of %3 (hiph or niph), as is ͖͐͒͋̿́́Ӂ of -; and they are used frequently together in Leviticus and Numbers. SēlŌ is mentioned here for the first time in Jesus – compare 19:51 and its similar role in 21:2; 22:9, 12; and 24:1. It is nowhere described as being within or a part of the holding of any one of the tribes. The ‘tent of witness’ is used many dozens of times in Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers; but also significantly in Deut. 31:14, 15 when Lord summons Moses and Jesus to present themselves there as the days of Moses’s death grow near. The similarity of situation there should make us rethink the implication of the opening passive verb in v. 1: was it or was it not the deity who instigated the convoking of the assembly? The passive of ͈͉̿͑̿̓Ӄ›͇̓͋ (2) is used several times in Jesus, more often corresponding to a form of 4_ (14x) but also, as here, to 47+ (11:22; 17:6; 21:5, 20, 38).

74. Jesus proposes a solution (18:3–8a) 3. ѵ͊‫ ]͋و‬MT reads '#!7 (‘of your fathers’), and A mediates with ͑‫͋و‬ ›̿͑ҿ͎͖͋ ѵ͊‫͋و‬. 4. ͇͉͂̓͆̓‫ ]͋ل‬The ̧ of B’s first scribe has been (lightly) erased to conform to the majority reading ͇͉͂̓̓‫͋ل‬. However, ͇͉͂̓͆̓‫̿ ͋ل‬Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ is also how A reads (at the end of its 2nd ‘verse’ of this chapter) DH (172) describes ͈̿͆Ҽ ͂̓Ӂ͇͐̓ ͇͉͂̓̓‫( ͋ل‬sic) ̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ as a free rendering of '7%+ !0%‰ by means of an expression using a verb, and also (33) notes the relevance of this passage for the discussion of the correlation ͇͇͎͂̿̓‫͋ل‬/%+ in this book,

JOSHUA 8:1–2 & 18:3–8a

191

but does not discuss the actual reading. However, as M-F notes, ͇͇͎͂̿̓‫͋ل‬ is used in the next verse and in 22:8 as equivalent of 3%. As so often in the book, this paragraph opens with a speech of Jesus. The first scribe closed it (8a) by noting that his words were obeyed; however, the second marginal division uses these words to start a section that runs till the end of v. 28. A treats the 5 words of v. 8b as a separate verse. It is nowhere made clear whether ‘the sons of Israel’ addressed by Jesus (3) are the whole people in assembly (1) or simply the still-landless tribes (2): we are not told whether the land-commission consisted of 21 (3x7) or 36 (3x12) men. Whether active or passive, Ѩ͈͉Ӈ͇̓͋ in LXX is frequently construed with ‘hand[s]’; and 04 (hiph) has been so rendered in 10:6. LSJ 513a cites only ‘foolish mouth’ and ‘bowels’ as objects of this verb meaning ‘set free’ or ‘relax’; ‘feeble’ or ‘failing’ would be as suitable here as ‘relaxed’. The prefix ͇͂̿- is repeated in vv. 4–5 and it is likely that there is play between the words. ͇͉͂̓͆ҿ͖͑͐̿͋ instructs a literal ‘traversing’ of the land, and ͇͎͕͂̿́̿ҽ͖͑͐̿͋ the resultant ‘description’ of it. However, since ͇͉͂̓͆̓‫ ͋ل‬in Greek, like ‘go through’ in English, can be used of ‘detailing’ subject matter, ͇͉͂̓͆̓‫ ͋ل‬and ͇͂Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ may be deliberately ambiguous. If so, this may represent the translator’s response to the assonance we find in MT between #%7! (4) and 3%7 (5). ͇͎͂̿́ҽ͓͇̓͋ is rare in LXX; only in Ezek. 43:11 does it correspond to 7#. After reporting the return of the representatives, the narrator backtracks and describes in greater detail (5b-8a) Jesus’s explanation that seven portions were still required. ͈͉̿͑̓̓Ӄ͓͆͐̿͋ͅ (2) was reminiscent of expressions at the beginning of the second half of the book (13:1–2). However, the situation has moved on: it is far from clear that Iouda and IŌsēp˰ have actually been ‘allotted’ territory; but they are where they are, and do now represent fixed boundary points. Leuei has no part or division (as stated already in 14:4): his ‘part’ is ‘Lord’s priesthood’ (more precise than 13:14, which stated only that ‘Lord’ himself was Leuei’s heritage). Gk uses ͎͊̓Ӄ͏ twice in v. 7, while MT varies between 3% and %+ – MT may have been adjusted towards the wording of 13:14. Then the two-and-a-half Transjordanian tribes are also already settled. When they and two-and-a-half more (Iouda, Ep˰raim, and half-Manassē) have been accounted for, and Leuei has been discounted, then seven remain from twelve. SS notes the two instances of ́ҽ͎ for ky in v. 7, commencing causal clauses.

192

COMMENTARY §§ 75–76

75. The survey completed (18:8b–10) 9. ͈̿͑Ҽ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏] B here agrees with MT '!4-%; but DH (36, 38) defends the majority Greek witness to the fuller ͈̿͑Ҽ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫͋و‬. This paragraph also opens with Jesus speaking to the tribal representatives. The compound and technical verb ͔͖͎͍̀̿͑̓‫ ͋ل‬is used only in this paragraph in all the LXX. The literal sense of its components would give the meaning ‘to pace the land’; and both verb and the related noun are used elsewhere of surveyors and the instruments they used. Gk may have had a Vorlage di֎erent from MT; if not, Gk has used this technical term (3x) to name the procedure described by three di֎erent non-technical terms in MT. The rather formal ›͎̿̿́Ӄ͇́͋̓͐͆̿ (‘be beside’, ‘attend on’) is quite frequent in LXX, almost always as a rendering of  (‘come’); and it is so used in Jesus (7x). Significantly, the only other passage in which the corresponding MT reads _ (‘come back’) is Num. 14:36, where the majority of the scouts ‘attend on’ Moses on their return, but upset the people with a negative report. Jesus’s instructions to this party are phrased with an inbuilt warning to potential mischiefmakers. The surveyors made cities the basis of their record. In itself the phrase used could describe any of the procedures we have already encountered: cities used to sketch borders; cities used to enumerate total holdings; and cities mentioned where exceptional situations required clarification. Gk is as happy as English to vary between ‘drawing’ (8) and ‘casting’ (10) lots; here MT uses "%_ (hiph) in both verses. If the first of these three paragraphs (73) opened this short narrative without making clear on whose initiative the assembly was summoned and the tent of testimony brought to SēlŌ, this last sees Jesus twice make explicit that the lot drawn or cast at SēlŌ will be in Lord’s presence.

76. Beniamein’s lot (18:11–28) 15. ̢͇̿͐̓͋] A reads ̢͇̿͋; neither resembles MT 2! )!. 16. Ѩ›ӂ ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏] Margolis explains B’s ̨̤̯ ̫̤̰̮̳̱ ̲̮̳̲̮ as a corruption of ̨̤̯ ̫̤̰̮̱ ̲̮̳ ̮̰̮̳̱ ̮, read by A in agreement with MT. However, DH (100) argues for the originality of B’s genitive ͊ҿ͎͍͒͏. (See M-F 63 on ͊ҿ͎͍͏ with and without article.) ͋ҽ›ͅ͏ ̱͍͋͋̿͊] probably ̬̠̯̦̱ ̱̮̬̬̠̫ represents a doubling of

JOSHUA 18:8b–10 & 18:11–28

193

the ̱ in ̬̠̯̦̱ ̮̬̬̠̫ (MT ‘valley of Hinnom’). The same point in 15:8 is given as ̮͍͋͊. 17. ̢͉͇͖̿̿͆] ̷̢̨̧̠̪̠ will be a simple misreading of ̷̢̨̧̠̪̪ as in MT. 21. ̡͇͖̓͆̓́̿] ̷̡̧̢̨̤̤̠ will be a slip for ̷̡̧̢̨̤̤̪ – A has ̡̧̢̦̠̪̠ for MT Beth-Hogla: we have seen other examples of the easy confusion between ̠ and ̪. ̠͈͇͊̓̿͐̓͏] A’s ̠͈͈͇͊̓̿͐͏ is closer to MT 1!23 3)-. 22. ̡͇͎̿͆̿̀̿̿] ̡͇͎̿͆̿̿̀̿ in A shares the consonantal order of MT. The double mention of ‘lot’ in the previous paragraph is matched by a further double mention at the beginning of this: supported by fresh procedures, the divinely instructed method of apportionment is now being followed. The ‘coming out’ of the first lot is matched by the ‘coming out’ of their boundary in the space between Iouda and IŌsēp˰. M-F suggests there was a double drawing of lots for each tribe: the first to establish priority, the second to determine which territory each would receive. However, since the progression of territories is broadly from south to north, that seems hardly convincing. Beniamein’s longest borders are with Iouda and IŌsēp˰, and these are reported in reverse order: north first. The northeastern boundary starts from the Jordan, passes north of IereiΗŌ, and mounts seawards (= westwards) into the central mountains. Note the careful distinction Gk makes between specific peaks (each an Ҙ͎͍͏) in vv. 12 and 14 and the hill-country in general (Ҕ͎͇̓͋Ӂ) in v. 13. MF (‘and its outlet shall be Mabdareitis BaiϑŌn’) reads ѵ ̫͎̿̀͂̿̓‫ ͏͇͑ل‬with the following ̡͇͖̿͆͋, and not as above with the preceding ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏. ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ن‬before ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏ (12 and 14) is formally ungrammatical: it does render a singular Hebrew possessive suّx; however, the singular noun gbwl to which it relates is normally rendered by the plural ‘borders’. As in 5:6, the common Hebrew word for desert (mdbrh) has become a proper name with a Greek ending – also, here in B as in other manuscripts in 5:6, the middle consonants have been reversed. This line issues not at the sea (as often noted in such descriptions), but at BaiϑŌn: ‘House of On’ will preserve the ‘proper’ pronunciation of the name byt ʙwn, which MT prejudiciously reads as ‘House of Trouble (ʙawen)’. As in 16:1, the Hebrew ending attached to Luz, and denoting motion towards, has been incorporated in the Greek form of the name.

194

COMMENTARY §§ 76–78

MaatarŌϑoreΗ (13) corresponds to 4 74 - in MT. MT reports the name in the same form in 16:5 where the same line is traced – there B o֎ers two names: AstarŌϑ and Erok. On both occasions, B attests the second element of the name as ʙrk not ʙdr. Unless ‘seeing [the] sea’ ('!–74%) was actually read in the Vorlage, ͑ӄ ͉̀ҿ›͍͋ ›͎̿Ҽ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ represents a unique move to make '!–70% more precise; and yet the sense of ›͎̿ҽ with the accusative is far from clear. In 5:1, ›͎̿Ҽ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ must mean ‘by [the] sea[coast]’, but in 12:7 and 22:7 it renders )! following ‘across the Jordan’ and refers more loosely to the area ‘by sea’; then in 7:7 ›͎̿Ҽ ͑ӄ͋ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋͋ͅ may mean ‘along/by the Jordan’ (M-F), while in 19:51 ›͎̿Ҽ ͑Ҽ͏ ͆Ӈ͎̿͏ (‘by the doors’) corresponds to MT 70. At the beginning of v. 15, unlike the end of v. 14, no article is read before ͊ҿ͎͍͏. B reports several names di֎erently in v. 17 from MT and from the related report in 15:7. ‘Spring Baiϑsamus’ is simply En-Shemesh in MT (ie without the element Baiϑ), whereas in 15:7 Shemesh has been translated as ѵ͉Ӄ͍͒ (‘sun’). ̠͇͇͆̿͊̓͋ corresponds to MT Adummim, which appears in 15:7 as ̠͇͂͂̿͊̓͋. As for ‘sons of Roubēn’ at the close, 15:7 o֎ered sg. ͍͒҅‫ن‬, not pl. ͒҅‫͋و‬. The transition between vv. 18–19 is diّcult, and it is widely supposed that B has lost some words. However, M-F suggests that in mentioning the town of Baiϑaraba and omitting the descent towards the Araba Gk makes key di֎erences with the description in 15:6 disappear. ͉͍͓͇ҽ͋ (19) is the third and final instance of the term used in 15:2, 5 which LSJ 1062a states is equivalent to the regular ͉Ӆ͓͍͏. The description of Beniamein’s territory resembles most closely that of Iouda: outer borders first, then list of cities – in this case in only two sub-sets. Many of the names are recognizably linked to those in MT, with the forms in A in intermediary position. In the former set, the three texts diverge most in the first part of v. 24. B, though reporting the same total as A and MT (12), provides one additional name: its free-standing ̩͎͓̿̿̿ and ̩͓͇͎̓̓̿ may have been alternates for - 40# which in MT supplies only the first element of a compound name. The following ̫͍͇͋̓ will reflect the remainder of !+)--. In the latter, the first three names and the last two are unproblematic. Both A and B report a total of thirteen names, but MT fourteen.

77. SumeŌn’s lot (19:1–9) 3. ͈̿ӂ ̨͍̿͐͋ = KAIIASON < KAIASOM = ͈̿ӂ ̠͍͐͊ 7. ͈̿ӂ ̨͎̓͆̓ = ̩̠II̧̤̤̰ < ̩̠I̧̤̤̰ = ͈̿ӂ ̤͎͆̓

JOSHUA 18:11–28 – 19:10–16

195

Paragraphs 77–82 open at the same point as divisions 36–41 of the second marginal hand (and presumably also divisions 32–37 of the first marginal hand); and it is only in this part of the book that so many consecutive elements of the text do so correspond. Each new lot drawn marked a fresh divine decision and warranted a new start. It is remarked at both beginning and end of this paragraph that SumeŌn’s inheritance was located within Iouda’s. In this respect it was less scattered than Leuei, spread over all the other tribes. Their situation corresponds to the curse on the two brothers within the so-called blessing of Jacob, that because of their violence they would be parted and scattered within Jacob/ Israel (Gen. 49:7). The barbarity of the literal rendering of the Greek by ‘amidst lots of sons of Iouda’ (which here does not mean ‘amidst many sons of Judah’!) nicely illustrates the problems in reading Greek that has itself been rendered from Hebrew in so pedantically literal a way that the article has not been supplied although required. In the first clause, although ‘of the sons’ is one literal rendering of lbny, ‘for the sons’ (͍͑‫ )͏ل͍҅͒ ͏ل‬would have been preferable. Many of the cities assigned here to SumeŌn are as listed in 1 Chron. 4:28–32; and we found them also in the first list of Judah’s cities (15:21–32). As in earlier lists, A often represents a tradition between MT and B. However, both A and B o֎er ‘and their fields’ (as if from *!`) for the di֎erent but similar-looking consonants in v. 6 which MT reads as ‘and Sharuhen’ (*4_). In v. 7, while A like MT states the total as four cities and A achieves four names by reading Ain and RemmŌn as two, only B preserves the probably original ϐalΗa. ›͍͎͍̓͒͊ҿ͖͋͋ (8) appears in both A and B; and the case of this participle preserves ‘at least the trace’ (DH 176) of a genitive absolute. It is likely that the interpretation in B has read bʙ within MT bʙr as the verb ‘come’ – A is longer than either B or MT, and its ͎͎͖̀̿͊͆ͅ (compound place name) and ›͍͎͍̓͒͊ҿ͖͋͋ ̨̿͊̓͆ (participial phrase) represent both readings of these consonants. On ͊̓Ӄ͖̈́͋ ͑‫̿ ͏ق‬Ҡ͑‫͋و‬, M-F comments that the comparison could be with ‘their part’ or ‘their tribe’ (both nouns being fem. in Greek).

78. ZaboulŌn’s lot (19:10–16) 11. ̫͎͉̿̿́̓͂̿ = ̢̫̠̰̠̤̪̣̠ < ̢̫̠̰̠̤̪̪̠ = ̫͎͉͉̿̿́̓̿ ZaboulŌn’s lot ‘came out’ in Greek like all the others, whereas in MT as in 18:11 it ‘came up’ (%-!). This introduction is found in MT only in the

196

COMMENTARY §§ 78–82

case of the two tribes where the verb %- is also used within the actual descriptions of their territory. MT includes two such instances here, of which the second (‘shall mount up’ in v. 12) is uncontroversial. However, the apparent compound ̤͈͐̓͂̓ ̢͖͉̿ in B corresponds to ѭ͖͏ ̱͎͇̿͂ __ in A, and to %- !4`–- in MT. B’s ̢͖͉̿ could retrovert to %-; but A attests neither that nor MT’s %-. MT starting v. 11 with a verb certainly provides the easier text. Seddouk (12, where MT and A again read Sarid), while not identical to Esedek (10/11), suggests that the same consonants were before the Greek translator at both places; and Sarid is otherwise unknown. Ѩ͌ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ̿͏ most often in LXX renders some form of +, as in 8:11 above, but corresponds in vv. 12, 13 here to )3 (‘facing’ or ‘east’) reinforced by (_)_)4) (‘sunrise’). M-F perhaps rightly understands the phrase to mean ‘in the opposite direction’. While Hebrew ‘rising’ (4)) does not need ‘of the sun’ when used of the east, the fuller phrase is found in v. 12 (MT). However, B and A both report a place name (unlike v. 27 where we find a straightforward translation of the same Hebrew): here A’s Sams reflects the older vocalisation of the Hebrew for ‘sun’, while B’s Baiϑsamus attests either a longer Vorlage or its own interpretation. In v. 13, Ѩ͌ Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ̿͏ is followed not by ј›’ ј͍͉͋̿͑‫͋و‬, as in v. 12 and 8:11, but by Ѩ›’ ј͍͉͋̿͑ҽ͏ – the di֎erent case used suggests that the shift between ј›’ and Ѩ›’ was not accidental. ‘To the city [of Katasem]’ appears to have as Vorlage ‘rh in place of MT ‘th. It is extremely unusual in these lists not to have names separated by ‘and’; it is hardly surprising that the second element of ‘RemmŌna Amaϑar Aoza’ is read in B and A as a place name, but in MT as a passive participle (hmt’r, ‘turned’).

79. IssaΗar’s lot (19:17–23) ‘IeŌn and Tomman’ (21) reads as two names what both A and MT read as one: En-gannim. ̱͉͇̿̓͊ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ (22) appears as ̱͇̿͐͊̿ ͈̿͑Ҽ ͆ҽ͉̿͐͐̿͋ in A but corresponds to the single word )2_ in MT: ‘seawards’ will have read as independent ymh the final 3 consonants in MT (-wmh), and -͇͊̿ of ̱͇̿͐͊̿ may be an alternative reading of the same consonants.

80. Asēr’s lot (19:24–31) The form of the introductory words to the first five paragraphs is far from standard: while all share the same four elements (the tribal name,

JOSHUA 19:10–16 – 19:40–49a

197

and the number of the lot which comes out), these are combined as differently as possible. Mount Carmel is given a Greek form (26). ̢͇̿ and ̴͇͉͆̿ͅ (27) are read as separate names (unlike what appears as ̢͇̿ ̴͉̿ͅ in v. 14), while A and MT take %70!–! as a single unit in both verses. M-F suggests that the complex form ̱͓͇͇̿͆̿̀̿͆͊̓ has included a transliteration of +02 (‘northwards’) before Beth-ha-Emeq.

81. Nep˰ϑalei’s lot (19:32–39) Here we have the first formal repetition: the sixth introduction (32) is shaped like the fourth (17) and indeed the seventh (40). Two clauses later (33), we find not one but three exceptions to another rule which has been maintained through twelve instances in paras. 63–79 (the listing in DH 94 should also include 19:29) and a further five in Num. 34, in all of which the stock rendering of 727 ! is ͈̿ӂ Ѭ͇͐͑̿ ѵ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͌͂͏. Yet, in place of this eighteenth and last case in HB, Gk o֎ers a di֎erent verb, in the aorist not the future, and with its subject in the plural: ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆͐̿͋ͅ ̿҅ ͇͂ҿ͍͍͇͌͂. The grammatical case of ̠͎͐ͅ (34) is not wholly certain; but, as we have seen before, there is a strong predisposition to mark genitive and dative by the article where undeclinable nouns are not otherwise marked. ̠͎͐ͅ lies between ͑‫ ͖͉͍̥͋͒̀̿ ى‬and ҕ ̨͍͎͂ҽ͋ͅ͏, and could agree with either. The lack of the article in B (͑‫ ى‬is used in A) taken together with the change in word-order suggests that ̠͎͐ͅ is subject of the second ͐͒͋ҽ͕͇̓; however, though we find in MT the same change in word-order, Asher there is clearly coordinate with Zebulun. ‘Walled’ (͇͔͑̓Ӂ͎͇̓͏) is a further case of a Greek adjective of degree or quality used to render Hebrew nouns in the construct (DH 167).

82. Dan’s lot (19:40–49a) This seventh paragraph in the series is at first inspection also the most puzzling. The first surprise is that the paragraph beginning in v. 40 does not end at v. 47 with the double formula ‘This the inheritance. . . .’ (as in all six predecessors) plus ‘cities and their villages’ (as in all but v. 39, although with variations from paragraph to paragraph). It is less surprising that we find a new paragraph in the middle of v. 49 for that is where the change of subject to ‘the sons of Israel’ is clearly marked. The problem is rather the cohesion of the two parts of the paragraph: the second

198

COMMENTARY §§ 82–84

marginal division in B, which normally gathers together what the first scribe separated, makes a division after v. 47. It also handles v. 48a+49a separately from what remains, here rather closer to the first scribe, who left the line blank after Lassendak but did not extrude the beginning of the next line. However, what can be held to give the paragraph integrity as it stands is its focus on the tension between Dan’s receipt of an allotment and its inability to cope with the local Amorrai: it is Iouda and Ep˰raim which are the active forces in the area in question. In its lack of territorial independence, Dan is in a similar situation to SumeŌn, the di֎erence being that SumeŌn’s relationship to Iouda is stressed at both beginning and end of para. 77, while Dan’s situation emerges by default. It is because Dan’s situation is as only begins to be stated in 47a that what we read in vv. 41–46 is simply a city-list. The closing, and seemingly desperate, mention of IerakŌn as ‘a border near Ioppa’ only underlines the character of what precedes: despite the opening ‘and their borders came to be’, there is no mounting, nor descending, nor going round, and no indication of direction till ј›ӄ ͉͆̿ҽ͐͐ͅ͏ before IerakŌn (46). In most cases the names reported by B are similar to those in A and MT, at least if we allow for cases where pairs of consonants have been transposed: such as ̱͇͉̿͆̿/̨͉̓͆̿ (42) and ̠͉͈̿͆̿/̤͉͈͖͆̓ and ̡͖̓́̓͆͋/̢͖̿̀̿͆͋ (44). The Amorrai and the sons of Dan were each putting pressure on the other, but the Danites were the losers. This verse does not appear in MT but is closely related to Judg. 1:34–35 in both MT and LXX. The Amorrai are first singular, then plural. By normal usage in this book, Ҙ͎͍͏ would have a particular peak in mind, but this is neither named nor otherwise identified. ͈͍͇͉ҽ͏ properly means a ‘hollow’ or a ‘deep valley’ (LSJ 966b). Here as in 17:16 it corresponds to 3)-; however, in this book, that is more often rendered by ͓ҽ͎̿́͌ (7:24; 10:12; 15:7–8), and in the story of AΗŌr (7:24, 26) and also in the description of Beniamein’s territory (18:16) it is simply transliterated: ̤͈͊̓. Where 3)- occurs in the Pentateuch (only in Gen. 14 and Num. 14), it is rendered by ͈͍͇͉ҽ͏; and it seems likely that the situation in Num. 14 of having trouble with Amalekite and Canaanite, whether in the deep valleys (25) or in the hillcountry (42–45), has influenced the translator of 17:16 and 19:47a to choose ͈͍͇͉ҽ͏ rather than continue with ͓ҽ͎̿́͌. Ѩ͊̀̿͑̓‫( ͇̿͐ن‬49, and see further on 51) can be used either literally of ‘treading on’, or metaphorically of ‘frequenting’ or ‘coming into possession of ’. Elsewhere in LXX it is found only in the books of Maccabees, there normally followed by ̓҄͏, in the sense of hostile entry into another’s territory. DH suspects (118, n. 14) that the Vorlage read something other than MT %+%.

JOSHUA 19:40–49a – 19:51

199

83. Jesus’s lot (19:49b–50) Not only is a new subject clearly specified at the beginning of this paragraph; its topic is also a further ‘lot’ (͈͉‫)͏͍͎ق‬. Although this time it is a lot granted, not drawn or cast, it is by divine ordinance (NB ͍͆̓‫ن‬, as in 15:13, not ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒, as in 17:4; 21:3, 42b). In fact ͈͉‫ ͏͍͎ق‬here is no longer translating %4 but %+. At the same time, the city he received was at his own request. The location in Ep˰raim makes for a link with the previous paragraph. In Hebrew the final two verbs share the same form; but Gk carefully distinguishes between the completed building (aorist) and Jesus’s continued residence (imperfect). Several of the details noted above are di֎erently handled in the second account of the grant to Jesus, in para. 91 below. DH usefully compares the two versions with each other and with MT (62–3).

84. Allotment complete (19:51) This omnibus conclusion gathers together key words and phrases from the preceding paragraphs. The opening ͇͇͎͂̿ҿ͇͐̓͏ resumes the verb ͇͉͂̓̓‫ ͋ل‬which B uses in 1:6 and 18:5, although neither of these readings is uncontentious. The noun is normally used to translate forms of 3%; and nowhere else corresponds to 7%+, of which it is not a close rendering. Eleazar the priest was mentioned alongside Jesus and the tribal chiefs, all listed in almost identical terms, in 14:1. Within chaps. 14–19, Eleazar and the ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ are mentioned again only in 17:4, where with Jesus they receive the appeal of Salpaad’s daughters; however, the chiefs are listed also in 23:1 and 24:1, and play a role in chaps. 9 and 22. ͈͈͉͎͍͍̿͑̿͋͊̓ͅ‫ ͋ل‬is used widely in the LXX, but apparently only there. While ͈͉͎͍͍͋͊̓ͅ‫ ͋ل‬is in common Greek usage for ‘inherit’, the compound ͈͈͉͎͍͍̿͑̿͋͊̓ͅ‫ ͋ل‬appears to encompass both giving and receiving in inheritance. In this book it corresponds to di֎erent verbs in MT:  in 22:19; and _4! in 12:1; 21:41; 23:5; 24:8 are both verbs of receiving; as for %+, it signifies ‘giving’ in 13:32 and 14:1, but appears less easily definable in 19:51 and 21:3. ͈̿͑ҽ is seldom used with ͈͉‫͏͍͎ق‬, and never in the Pentateuch; and the plural form ‘lots’ is also rare. However, ͈̿͑Ҽ ͈͉‫ ͍͎͋ق‬is used in 12:7, in uneasy correspondence with ‘according to their divisions’ in MT; and ͈̿͑Ҽ ͈͉Ӂ͎͍͒͏ is anticipated in 14:2, in a clause where again MT is di֎erent. The other biblical instance of ͈̿͑Ҽ ͈͉Ӂ͎͍͒͏ is in 1 Chron. 24:5, within a paragraph headed by ͇͇͎͂̿ҿ͇͐̓͏ (1)

200

COMMENTARY §§ 84–85

and using both ͇͂̓‫( ͉͋̓ل‬3, 4, 5) and ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͌‫ ͉͋̓͆ق‬ҕ ͈͉‫( ͏͍͎ق‬7). Ѩ͋̿͋͑Ӄ͍͋ ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ is anticipated in 4:13; 6:6, 7, 12, 25; 7:6, 20; 18:6, 10; and in 18:10 is linked with SēlŌ; and it is used again in 22:31. We noted when discussing para. 73 that mention there of the tent of the testimony added to the suggestiveness of a passive verb that divine initiative was involved. The final words are resumed from v. 49a; in both cases Gk attests wylkw (‘went’) as the Vorlage, while MT reads wyklw (‘completed’).

85. Cities of refuge (20:1–9) 3. ј͔͇́͐͑̓Ӈ͍͍͋͑͏] ј͎͔͇͐͑̓Ӈ͍͍͋͑͏ in CB is a simple mistranscription. The often quite specialised language of this paragraph requires close study. ‘Spoke’ (1) and ‘speak’ (2) translate ͉͉̿̓‫͋ل‬. While this verb is used occasionally earlier in this book for 4 (10:12; 14:6, 10), it comes to prominence only towards the end (20:1, 2; 21:43; 22:15, 21, 28, 30, 33; 23:5, 15; 24:27) – 4 is di֎erently translated 13x in chaps 1–19, but in these final chapters only in 20:2; 21:2; 22:4; 23:10, 14. It may well be that the balance of usage shifts precisely at the start of this paragraph, because Jesus is being addressed here by Lord exactly as Moses was many dozens of times throughout Exodus-Numbers, and LXX in these Pentateuchal passages generally used ͉͉̿̓‫͋ل‬. ͓͒́̿͂̓͒͑Ӂ͎͇͍͋ appears to bear a double sense: both the state of seeking refuge and the place in which it is sought. It is a LXX coinage found elsewhere only in Num. 35, the material on the Levitical cities in Jesus 21 and 1 Chron. 6, and twice in 1 Maccabees. While some cognate forms in regular Greek can bear the sense of banishment or exile forced by others, this LXX term clearly implies flight. Unless the Vorlage was di֎erent at this point, ‘refuge for the slayer’ is used in v. 3 to render what would be more literally ‘for the slayer to flee there’. The same phrase is translated more literally in v. 9 using the cognate ͈͓̿͑̿͒́̓‫͋ل‬. That is precisely the verb (so M-F) used in Ptolemaic texts concerning the right of asylum at the altar. The first instance of the term (͑‫͎͓͑͒̓͂̿́͒ͅ ͋و‬Ӄ͖͋) in this paragraph is a clumsy plural, presumably by attraction to the preceding ‘cities’. The Greek ‘die at the hand of ’ (9) is more congenial to English idiom than ‘die by’ (3). ј›͍͆̿͋̓‫ ͇̿͆͐ل‬is one of several active or middle voice Greek verbs regular used as implied passives – exactly the phenomenon which allows several words starting in ͓͒́̿͂- to refer to being banished or exiled.

JOSHUA 19:51 & 20:1–9

201

ќ͔͇͍́͐͑͏ means ‘nearest’ or ‘closest’; and ј͔͇́͐͑̓Ӄ̿ refers to the benefits and duties of nearest relatedness. The term most often has inheritance in view; and the kinsman who is ј͔͇́͐͑̓Ӈ͖͋ of blood inherits the responsibility of pursuing the shedder of that blood. This family of terms provides a good rendering of % and %, generally rendered ‘redeemer’ and ‘redemption’. It has been argued that the adoption of the term ј͔͇́͐͑̓Ӈ͖͋ coined in Num. 35:12 is a pointer to the date of this translation (DH 114). ͇͂̿͐͑ҿ͉͉͇̓͋ (7) is used in the divine command in Num. 35:11, where the verb in MT is 43. The Hebrew Vorlage here almost certainly used the same rare verb – MT has a form of _3, a corruption assisted by the following place name in Nep˰ϑalei. That name is also listed in 19:37, though spelled ̩̿͂̓͏ there not ̩̿͂ͅ͏. ̱͔͒̓͊ is found earlier in B only as the name of one of Manassē’s sons (17:2). And ‘the city [of ] Arbok, this is ΖebrŌn’ is just what was reported in 15:13. On the other hand, none of the three names from the other side of the Jordan has appeared earlier in the book, whether in Greek or Hebrew, although they are all named in Deut. 4:43. Since SuΗem is associated with Manassē and ΖebrŌn assigned to Ζaleb, it appears that Nep˰ϑalei, Ep˰raim, and Iouda are being used topographically and not tribally – either way, the use of Ҙ͎͍͏ with each, rather than Ҕ͎͇̓͋Ӂ, seems a further breach of the ‘rule’ that Ҙ͎͍͏ is used for a prominent peak. The final phrase of v. 9 is repeated precisely from the close of v. 3, but in each of the previous phrases there is a small alteration. We already noted Ѩ͋ ͔͇͎̓Ӄ for ҡ›Ӆ. In the same phrase, the more literal ͈̿ӂ ͍Ҡ͈ ј›͍͆̿͋̓‫‘( ͇̿͑ل‬and he will not die’) becomes the more idiomatic ҉͋̿ ͊Ӏ ј›͍͆ҽ͋Ԍ (‘that he may not die’) – SS notes (53) that this is the only instance in this book where main-clause-initial w- is rendered by a Greek final clause. Moving further forward, it is now ›̿Ӄ͍͇͋͑ rather than ›̿͑ҽ͇͌̿͋͑ which governs (or takes!) ‘a life involuntarily’. Here it is not the change in verb that is noteworthy, but the change in tense to a present participle from the aorist: the contrast will probably be deliberate, the present conveying greater emphasis than the aorist. The subject of an infinitive such as ͈͓̿͑̿͒́̓‫ ͋ل‬would normally be in the accusative case; ›̿͋͑ӂ ›̿Ӄ͍͇͋͑ will be dative by attraction to the previous phrase, of which every killer is a subset. Ѩ›Ӄ͈͉͍͑ͅ͏, in the opening phrase of the verse, is used within LXX only in two small groups of texts in Numbers: of designated individuals in 1:16 and 26:9, and of special occasions in 28:18, 26 and 29:1, 7, 12. The former appears to provide the closer parallel to the unique usage here. ͑‫͉͍͎͐ͅ› ى‬Ӈ͑Զ ͑Թ ›͎͍͈͇͐̓͊ҿ͋Զ is a stock

202

COMMENTARY §§ 85–87

rendering in Exodus-Numbers, and occasionally elsewhere in LXX, for 4 4%. gr is a Hebrew participle, and in this phrase is used first as a substitute noun and then as verb: ‘for the resident (alien) who resides’. The basic sense of ›͎͍͐Ӂ͉͍͒͑͏ is ‘one that has arrived at a place’, a ‘stranger’ (LSJ 1513a); and in its religious sense it refers, by extension, to the ‘convert’ or ‘proselyte’ to Judaism. ›͎͍͈͐̓‫ ͇̿͆͐ل‬signifies ‘to be adjacent to’, ‘to cling to’, and so ‘to be devoted to’ (LSJ 1516b): the proximity of aliens to their new community, or of converts to their new religion. B’s text in this paragraph is substantially shorter than MT, which is followed by A. Verses 4–6 of the longer version are widely recognised as secondary. They explain ‘involuntarily’ as ‘without knowledge’ and in absence of ‘hatred’ of the victim who is completely unknown to the slayer. And they explain the role of the elders of the refuge city to whom the slayer must explain his situation at their ‘gate’.

86. Levite claim (21:1–2) There is a curious inverse proportion in the treatment of cities of refuge and cities for the sons of Leuei in Numbers 35 and Jesus 20–21. Num. 35 deals first and more briefly with the sons of Leuei (1–8). Its handling of the refuge theme (9–34) goes into much greater detail over what may distinguish culpable from non-culpable homicide than even begins to be suggested in the MT plus in Jesus 20:4–6. In Jesus 20–21, both order of subject and length of treatment are reversed; and the contrast is heightened when we compare the introductions to the two topics. Num. 35:1a and 9 are very similar, whereas Jesus 20:1–2 and 21:1–2 are very di֎erent. Of course the cities of refuge cannot make their own case to Jesus as the Levitical leaders can. However, as we noted above, Jesus is distinctively addressed in 20:1–2 just like Moses before him, whereas in 21:1–2 he is simply part of the group of leaders met already in 14:1; 17:4; and 19:51 – and the Levites make their approach to them like others to whom Moses had made special promises: Ζaleb (14:6) and the daughters of Salpaad (17:4). DH (69) suggests that the lack of ›͎Ӆ͏ before his name is simply to lessen the repetition. In LXX, ј͎͔͇›͎͇̿͑‫ ͇̿͑و‬are unique to this paragraph and Dan. 3:27 (where they are not Jewish leaders, but appear among the royal entourage who witnessed that no harm had come to the trio in the fiery furnace). For DH (170) they are a further instance of a ‘condensing’ rendering using a compound; but he makes no comment on the following

JOSHUA 20:1–9 – 21:3–7

203

and longer ‘of the sons of Leuei’ for MT ‘of the Levites’. In Numbers, 7 !_4 had been translated ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ (͍҈͈͖͋) ›͎͇̿͑‫͋و‬. Given that the following ‘sons of Leuei’ corresponds to MT ‘Levites’, while a few words later ‘tribes of Israel’ corresponds to MT ‘tribes of the sons of Israel’, it may be unwise to assume an identical Vorlage. Be that as it may, the second instance of 7 !_4 corresponds to ј͎͔͇͓Ӈ͉͍͒͏ ›͎͇̿͑‫͋و‬, which has a close parallel in 1 Esdr. 2:8, and is found otherwise only in Deut. 29:9 (ie not outside LXX). Where they make their approach is doubly described: in SēlŌ as in chaps 18–19, but also Ѩ͋ ́‫ ̵͋̿̿͋̿ ك‬as last mentioned in 14:1 (there the more grammatical Ѩ͋ ͑‫́ ك‬ԏ ̵̿͋̿̿͋). With one exception, perisporia (always in the plural) is found only in the linked reports of the cities for the Levites in this chapter and in 1 Par. 6. Judg. 1:18 provides the sole exception in B (A has a second in 1:27): there Gr adds AzŌtos (Ashdod) to the three Philistine cities mentioned in MT, and details its perisporia rather than the oria (‘borders’) of the others. LSJ (Suppl. 248b) mentions only the LXX usage, and suggests ‘surrounding country’ as the meaning; it will be cognate with ›͎͇̓͐›̓Ӄ͎͇̓͋, which LSJ illustrates by ›͎͇̓͐›̓Ӄ͎͇̓͑̿ ͓͉Ӆ͌: ‘flame spreads all around’.

87. Levite allotment summarised (21:3–7) 7. ͈̿ӂ Ѩ͋ ͍͑‫ ]͏ل‬within ̨̨̩̠̤̬̲̮̱ the letters ̨̤̬ are very faint, as if erased. As in 14:1–5, where a similar leadership is in question, the actual grant is by ‘the sons of Israel’. The puzzling expression in v. 3 is the preposition with article and infinitive, Ѩ͋ ͑‫͋ل͍͍͎͉͈͈̓͊͋̿͑̿ͅ ى‬: it neither corresponds to MT (di֎erent preposition at beginning followed by noun and suّx at end) nor has it a ready parallel in Gk. Because the present (continuous) infinitive is used in place of the (complete) aorist, which is much the most common for this verb, I have rendered Ѩ͋ by ‘during’. The remainder of this paragraph summarises what the following three paragraphs will spell out in detail. That the grant here too should proceed by lot is simply assumed and not explained – the adverbial ͈͉͎͖͑̓ͅӃ is a neologism of the translator (DH 42). There are four sub-groups, but only the first of these is termed a ‘clan’ (͂‫ – )͏͍͊ق‬note the singular; and talk turns immediately to the ‘sons of Aaron’ followed by the ‘remaining sons of Kaaϑ’, the ‘sons of GedsŌn’, and the ‘sons of Merarei’ (these last, ‘by their clans’ – plural). Totals are given for each of the four; and in

204

COMMENTARY §§ 87–88

v. 4 the numerical abbreviation is used in first place, just as in 15:32, at the conclusion of the first section of the town list of Iouda. GedsŌn, with three very common shifts in consonant, corresponds to Geršom in MT. In the case of the two groups of sons of Kaaϑ, the grant of cities comes from contiguous tribes: firstly from Iouda (the first tribe mentioned at all) and SumeŌn and Beniamein (the first two dealt with in 18–19); then from Ep˰raim and western Manassē (16–17) and Dan (between Iouda and Ep˰raim). The Transjordanians are not dealt with in the familiar grouping of two-and-a-half tribes: however, a (continuing) geographical progression from south to north may still be claimed: Roubēn and Gad are linked with tribe 3 from chapter 19, while eastern Manassē joins the northern tribes 4–6.

88. Cities from Iouda and SumeŌn (21:8–16) There are surprises aplenty in this and the following two paragraphs on the grant of cities to the Levites, the first being simply that the distribution of these paragraphs corresponds ill with the summary just o֎ered in para. 87. The summary (4) indicated a first group of thirteen cities from three tribes. This paragraph o֎ers part of the promised information (nine cities from two tribes), but also tacks on a barely grammatical aside mentioning Beniamein too (9). The relationship between B and MT in this verse is also interesting: ͈̿ӂ ј›ӄ ͑‫͓ ͏ق‬Ӈ͉ͅ͏ ͒҅‫̡͇͇͋̓͊̿͋̓ ͋و‬ is a Gk plus, and yet ‘from . . . Beniamein’ corresponds to what MT says about the other two tribes: ‘and they (ie the sons of Israel, mentioned in v. 8) gave from . . . Iouda and from . . . SumeŌn’, whereas, in LXX, ‘gave’ is a sg.vb. with ‘the tribe . . . Iouda’ as its subject. It is not quite clear what is meant by ‘they were called out for the sons of Aaron’; and again MT and Gk di֎er – here over where the sentences should be divided. The sense is taken here as ‘called out as belonging to’; the verb can mean invoke, invite, summon, summonse, quarrel with, or surname. And yet, to return to the first point made, despite all these di֎erences, the paragraphing in B and MT is similar in this respect: both deal separately with the nine cities from Iouda and SumeŌn – the paragraphs in MT start at 21:1, 9, 17 and then 22:1. The scribe treats the material from v. 14 onwards like some of the lists already noted: he tends to start a new line with ͈͇̿ and not quite to fill it (this is not at all true of A, who in any case divides the material into many more ‘verses’). Mention of ΖebrŌn takes us back to earlier paragraphs in the book.

JOSHUA 21:3–7 & 21:8–16

205

Ζaleb, earlier than the Levites, had reminded Jesus of promises made by Moses and had secured rights in ΖebrŌn (14:6–15); and then the same city had just been designated (20:7 – this time without mention of Ζaleb) one of the cities of refuge. (May it be that Hebrew qrh, used in Num. 35:11 and probably attested in Jesus 20:7, was the verb originally used also in 21:10?) The paper solution devised was that Ζaleb’s sons would receive the fields round ΖebrŌn and its villages, while the refuge city itself would go to the sons of Aaron. So far the solution was shared by MT and Gk; and yet here too Gk and MT go somewhat di֎erent ways: Gk talks of ‘the sons of Ζaleb’, but MT of ‘Ζaleb’ himself; Gk makes the division between vv. 11 and 12 one phrase earlier, giving the perisporia round ΖebrŌn as well as its fields and villages to Ζaleb’s family – as SS nicely notes (39), the use of ͂ҿ in place of ͈̿Ӄ in ͑Ҽ ͂Ҿ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ‘is influenced by the desire to mark the border between clauses clearly’. MT on the other hand assigns the city and its ‘commonage’ to Aaron, and its fields and villages to Ζaleb. That too may have implied an unreal distinction, for the first reference in the Pentateuch to mgrš is in the phrase sdh mgrš (‘grazing field’ or ‘commonage field’). Oddly, it may be precisely because Gk recognised that sdh and mgrš belonged together that their own paper solution became even more unreal: with ΖebrŌn’s perisporia (= mgrš) already assigned to the Ζalebites (11), the mgrš with which v. 13 still credits the refuge city had to be di֎erently rendered: ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿. And, once taken up, ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ becomes the stock rendering for mgrš until v. 32, with perisporia taking over again from v. 34. Some further linguistic peculiarities should be noted. All the cities listed are the object of ‘gave’ (the verb is repeated in vv. 11, 12, 13), and so the Greek accusative case is required. Since the nouns are indeclinable, the case as regularly is marked by the article ͑Ӂ͋. And yet in B that is true here only of the first six names, and not the last three which remain unmarked. Then there is some interesting variation in the Greek prepositions used. Mostly, throughout paras 88–90, the tribal source of a grant of cities is introduced by ј›Ӆ or Ѩ͈ (‘from’ or ‘out of ’ [this tribe or that]). But at the very end of this paragraph and the beginning of the next, the more unusual ›͎̿ҽ is used (rendered ‘issuing from’ above). Apart from 21:16, 17, ›͎̿ҽ with the genitive is found only once more at the very end of this book (in 21:16 and 24:32, but not 21:17, MT reads 7)). Again, in these paragraphs, ‘its “commonage”’ (mgršh) is rendered ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬. However, in v. 13 – perhaps to help underscore the di֎erence from ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ͈Ӈ͈͉Զ ̿Ҡ͑‫( ͏ق‬11) already discussed above – we find the fuller ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ͑Ҽ ͐ӆ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬followed

206

COMMENTARY §§ 88–90

by ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ͑Ҽ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬, before the shorter and commoner ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬is taken up in v. 14. DH (103) regards ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ك‬as an abbreviation of the more precise ͑Ҽ ј͓͖͎͇͐͊ҿ͋̿ ͑Ҽ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬. There are no corresponding di֎erences in MT.

89. Cities from Beniamein to Dan (21:17–24) This paragraph too, like 88, divides the tribes in a di֎erent way from the summary: Beniamein, held over from v. 4, is linked with Ep˰raim and Dan from v. 5 – but not with half-Manassē of v. 5 which is held over to the longer para. 90. In this paragraph, the article ͑Ӂ͋ is more sparingly used than we noted above: with the first name only in the cities from Beniamein (17) and Ep˰raim (21), and the first two from Dan (23). The two main issues relate to the cities from Ep˰raim. Only three names are recorded, though a total of four is entered, and two di֎erent expressions for ‘surrounds’ are used after Gazara. It is clear that the third of the originally four names has been dropped; and comparison with MT and A (which provide the name Kabzaim) confirms this. DH is almost certainly correct in supposing that ͍͒҅‫ ̩͆̿̿ ͏ل‬at the beginning of v. 20 is a mistake for ͒҅‫ ̩͆̿̿ ͋و‬which we read in A. The text-critical story relating to SuΗem is more interesting. It is most likely that the Vorlage of OG was the text from which both MT and B diverged. It had read in v. 20b wyhy ʚry gbwlm . . . (‘and the cities of their territory came to be . . .’). In MT we find the alteration, regular in Hebrew Joshua, from gbwl (‘territory’) to gwrl (‘lot’). OG had rendered its Vorlage by ͈̿ӂ Ѩ́̓͋Ӂ͆ͅ ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ ͑‫ ͋و‬ҕ͎Ӄ͖͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫‘( ͋و‬and cities of their boundaries came to be’). However, given the fact that the first city in the following list held the main altar of the Samaritans, OG was susceptible to the double corruption which occurred: from plural ›Ӆ͉͇̓͏ to the identical sounding singular ›Ӆ͉͇͏ (A here and very frequently writes such plural endings as -̨̱); and from ҕ͎Ӄ͖͋ ‘boundaries’ (as in A) to the similar looking and sounding ͎҅̓ҿ͖͋ ‘priests’

90. The other Levitic cities (21:25–42) 32. ͑Ӏ͋ ̬̓͊͊̿͆ = ̧̲̦̬̬̤̫̫̠ < ̧̲̦̬̤̫̫̠ = ͑Ӏ͋ ̤͊͊̿͆ 35. B lacks the opening ̣̓͊͋̿ ͈̿ӂ ͑Ҽ ›͎͇̓͐›Ӆ͎͇̿ ̿Ҡ͑‫͈̿ ͏ق‬ӂ of A.

JOSHUA 21:8–16 – 21:25–42

207

Like the previous paragraph, this one also starts with unfinished business (at least in terms of v. 5 in the summary). Both names associated with western half-Manassē are preceded by ͑Ӂ͋ (25). What is unusual is the cumbersome reference to the surrounds of all ten cities of the nonpriestly sons of Kaaϑ (26): ͑Ҽ ›͎ӄ͏ ̿Ҡ͑̿‫‘( ͏ل‬those near them’) is appropriate to a plural expression; but the preceding ̿Ҡ͑‫( ك‬regular component in the formula following a single city name) is not appropriate here. The remainder of this longer paragraph deals with all the rest: those Levites not belonging to either group of the sons of Kaaϑ. The tribes from which grants were made to the sons of GedsŌn are di֎erently arranged from the summary (6): eastern half-Manassē precedes (27) the three northern tribes to the west (28–32) rather than follows them. Verse 27 springs a surprise, implying that both GaulŌn and Bosora are refuge cities (Gk had probably recalled from para. 85 that Bosor was one of the refuge cities, and confused this with Bosora – Margolis), although in a second surprise it calls them ‘marked off ’ cities for the ‘slayers’ (pl.), possibly in confusion of _4) and %3). In ͑Ӏ͋ ̡͍͍͎͐̿͋, ͑Ӂ͋ is hardly necessary, since Bosora itself has been given a Greek accusative ending. Of the four cities out of IssaΗar, only Debba (28) does not have the article; of the four out of Asēr, only Basellan (30) does, while of the three from Nep˰ϑalei only the last does not (32). The first of Nep˰ϑalei’s three contributions is introduced as ‘the city delimited for the slayer’ (cf. v. 27). As noted earlier, with the sons of Merarei we return to cities with ‘surrounds’ called perisporia. From ZaboulŌn a total of three is noted, and three names are given (34–35), whereas MT reports four in each case. This leads in B to a disparity between the sum of the sub-totals (3+4+4) and the overall total for Merarei (12 according to v. 40). Still more strangely, preceding a sub-total of four out of Roubēn, five names are cited (36–37) – the unexpected ͑͋ͅ ̫͇͖͎̓͐ will arise from a misunderstanding of the Hebrew term for ‘plain’ (myšŌr) used in the parallel 1 Par. 6:78. Of the twelve names cited, only Sella (35) does not carry the article. IereiΗŌn (36) has acquired an unusual final –n. Where the term ‘refuge’ is used (and not turned into ‘delimited’), it is combined with ‘city’ in almost every possible way: ͑‫͍͓̓͋ ى‬Ӈ͇͐̿͋͑ (13), ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͓͒́̿͂̓͒͑Ӂ͎͇͍͋ ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͍͑‫͎͓͑͒̓͂̿́͒ͅ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ ͑Ӏ͋ ͍͑‫͍͓̓͋ ن‬Ӈ͍͐̿͋͑͏ (21), ͑Ӏ͋ ›Ӆ͉͇͋ ͑ӄ ͓͒́̿͂̓͒͑Ӂ͎͇͍͋ ͍͑‫͍͓̓͋ ن‬Ӈ͍͐̿͋͑͏ (36 and 38). ͑‫͍͓̓͋ ى‬Ӈ͇͐̿͋͑ (13 and also 27 and 32) is among several examples in the book of a dative chosen where a genitive might have been expected (DH 166).

208

COMMENTARY §§ 90–91

The concluding statement (41–42) uses the term ͈̿͑ҽ͔͇͐̓͐͏, already used in v. 12. It is the stock rendering in the Pentateuch for  (‘holding’ or ‘possession’), and is used in this book only here and in chap. 22. LSJ Suppl. 172a adds ‘taking possession’ to ‘retention’ or ‘possession’ cited in LSJ 915. The grant to the Levites was secure only as long as the holding of Israel as a whole was retained. Given the example of how soon the grant to Ζaleb was adjusted in the Levites’ own favour, that security was far short of absolute.

91. Task completed (21:42A–45) The first part of this paragraph takes us back to familiar ground, but possibly with the intent to defamiliarise or reorientate us. The opening clauses are very similar to elements of paras. 82–84, but with several di֎erences: in some respects they are closer to MT in 19:49–51 than to Gk there. DH o֎ers a helpful synopsis (63). In the first words of both 19:49a and 19:51b, ‘they’ were the subject of the action; here it is Jesus. ͈̿ӂ ͐͒͋̓͑ҿ͉̓͐̓͋ is followed here by the aorist participle, whereas in 3:17 and 4:1, it accompanied the present participle. In fact, ͈̿ӂ ͐͒͋̓͑ҿ͉̓͐̓͋ ͇͎͂̿͊̓Ӄ͐̿͏ ͑Ӏ͋ ́‫ ͋ق‬looks like a rendering of 14–7 3%) %#!, with 3%) read as piel participle and not as ‘from’ + piel infinitive, as vocalised in 19:51b (MT). DH, however, takes it as an example of Gk preference for participial constructions (175). The following Ѩ͋ ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬ҕ͎̓Ӄ͍͇͏ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ͋و‬is plural, like !7%% in 19:49a (MT), not singular as in Gk there. The city they granted Jesus was a ‘lot’ (͈͉‫ )͍͎͋ق‬in 19:49, but here a ‘division’ (͎͊̓Ӄ͂̿), suitable for one who has just finished ‘dividing’ the land. Here, though there could have been no doubt in 19:50 over who ‘built’ the city, we are told that it was Jesus; and here, unlike 19:50 (see on para. 83 above), ‘built’ and ‘lived in’ are the same aorist tense. After its selective recapitulation of 19:49–51, this paragraph takes us much further back in the book. With the construction and occupation of his own city as symbol of Israel’s completed occupation of the land (compare 42c and 43), Jesus now gave special place to the stone knives used at the circumcision of the people immediately after their entry to the land. In its brevity, this note mentions only the circumcision of those born ‘on the way in the desert’; no mention is made of the issue which divides MT and LXX at length in paragraph 19, whether any were uncircumcised when leaving Egypt. DH (146) appeals to this silence against

JOSHUA 21:25–42 & 21:42A–45

209

the originality of the LXX witness in chap. 5; however, given the uneasy relationship we have just noted between the earlier clauses and the end of chap. 19, that conclusion appears unwarranted. Though she o֎ers no supporting comment, and has rightly noted on 5:5 that ́Ӄ͇́͋̓͐͆̿ simply corresponds to %+, M-F oddly over-interprets ͍́̓͋͊ҿ͍͋͒͏ by survenus – all children do ‘supervene’, do represent an ‘addition’, but the text here does not say so. This note is wholly absent from MT, which also lacks the note at the end of the book about the burial of these knives with Jesus. However, it may give deft support to MT’s alternative view. Beyond bringing together beginning and end, is the report of this action also intended to suggest that the most important of the contributions of Jesus was to achieve a circumcised people? Just as it was by Lord’s ordinance that Jesus was given his portion, so it had always been Lord’s sworn promise to give Israel the whole land: they lived in it as he lived in his city. It seems likely that ͈̿͑ҿ›̿͒͐̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ (44) is ambiguous: ‘brought them to a stop’ is the most natural way to render the Greek, and the ‘them’ will be Israel’s impotent enemies as spelled out in the second part of the verse; however, the Greek translator had probably intended ‘gave them (Israel) a restful pause’. ͈̿͑̓͋Ӊ›͇͍͋ is used four times in Jesus and four times elsewhere in LXX, though in each of these cases textually uncertain. In 1:5 and 23:9, it is also used in the context of Israel’s enemies, but there the verb is ј͋͆Ӄ͇͐͑̿͐͆̿ – very many MSS o֎er ј͋͑ҿ͐͑ͅ here (‘stood against’) instead of B’s ј͋ҿ͐͑ͅ (‘stood up’). However, hostile opposition does not seem to be implied in the context of ͈̿͑̓͋Ӊ›͇͍͋ in 3:7 (see para. 9 above). On the other hand, that no one had risen against Israel is so contrary to chaps 6–11 of this book that DH is convinced that ј͋͑ҿ͐͑ͅ must be read (32). ͇͂ҿ›̓͐̓͋ has interesting overtones: it is used in just two contexts in the Pentateuch, 3x in each. It is only in Num. 5:21, 22, 27 that the verb renders ‘fall’ as here (%0+); but it is far from clear what was meant by the ‘falling’ of the woman’s thigh – ‘sagging’ (Levine)? ‘wasting away’ (Gray)? In the other context, ͇͂̿›Ӄ›͇͑̓͋ renders ')7 (‘come to an end’) – not 7_+ as stated in H&R 308a – with reference to the faithless generation that died in the desert (Deut. 2:14, 15, 16). A whole generation of Israel may have fallen away, but not Lord’s words. The closing ›͎̿̓́ҿ͍͋̓͑ has several relevant senses, from ‘were at hand’, ‘accrued [to them]’, to ‘came to maturity’ (LSJ 1306b).

210

COMMENTARY §§ 92–93

92. Jesus addresses the Transjordanians (22:1–5) ͑Ӆ͑̓ marks a new paragraph, as earlier in 8:30 and 10:12, 33 (but not in 1:8 or 6:10). ‘Convoke’ (͈͉͐͒͋̿̓‫ )͋ل‬is used 4x more in this book (9:22; 10:24; 23:2; 24:1), but only once in the Pentateuch, of Pharaoh ‘calling together’ his ‘sophists’ (Exod. 7:11). Jesus has not addressed the twoand-a-half tribes specifically since the second paragraph of the book (1:13–15). In their response then (1:17) they had spoken of their prior obedience to Moses, and Jesus starts by mentioning that. Then they had promised to obey Jesus as they had Moses, and Jesus now acknowledges their obedience. V. 2 o֎ers a classic illustration of ј͈͍Ӈ͇̓͋ followed first by the accusative (‘heard’) and then by the genitive (‘obeyed’). Commenting on Ѩ͓͉͒ҽ͌̿͐͆̓ (3), SS finds no reason why an initial conjunction should have been omitted, and concludes (73) that it did not occur in the Vorlage. However, she does not note that there is a related MT plus (mšmrt, cognate with the initial šmrtm). This is possible evidence of further reconstruction of the (proto-)Masoretic text, although Gk might simply have found mšmrt redundant (DH 171). Jesus had promised they would return to the east as soon as Lord had given their brothers rest (1:15). This he has now done (͈̿͑ҿ›̿͒͐̓͋), and Jesus gives them leave to return to the holding (͈̿͑ҽ͔͇͐̓͐͏) Moses had given them: v. 4 recapitulates and links together these key terms recently used in 21:41 and 44. ‘Turn back’ (ј›͍͎͐͑ҿ͓͇̓͋) is used only here in Jesus as a translation of +0 – and only in Gen. 18:22; Exod. 32:15; and Deut. 16:7; 31:18 within the Pentateuch. In the nearest of these passages, Moses warns against a turning after other gods; and the central paragraph of this story will use the same verb (here corresponding to _ in MT) three times of ‘turning from Lord’ (16, 18, 29). There is an implied warning here at the outset that returning should not involve turning away. Hence the need not only to ‘be on their guard to do’ commands and law commanded by Moses, but all this to a high degree (͓͐Ӆ͎͂̿). And Jesus goes on to matters even more precise and helpful, with a string of citations. It matters little whether the following infinitives are read as coordinate with the first or the second ›͍͇̓‫͋ل‬. What he has said means: ‘loving Lord our god . . . out of your whole intention and out of your whole breath’ (Deut. 6:5); ‘walking by all his ways’ (Deut. 8:6; 26:17); ‘keeping watch of his commands’ (throughout Deuteronomy) and ‘clinging to him’ (Deut. 4:4). Rahlfs (and so M-F) follows A in reading ‘loving Lord your (ҡ͊‫ )͋و‬god’; however, B prefers inclusive ‘our’ whenever possible. ›͍͎̓Ӈ͇̓͐͆̿ + dative (without the preposition Ѩ͋) is often found in

JOSHUA 22:1–5 & 22:6–11

211

the Pentateuch for hlk with b- (DH 55). And ‘intention’ (͇͍͂̿͋Ӄ̿͏) is in B’s text of the Shema, while A reads the more literal ͈͎̿͂Ӄ̿͏ (‘heart’).

93. The return of the Transjordanians (22:6–11) 11. ѹ͇͇͊͐̓] We find ̳ superscript over deleted ̨̤. Ѩ͓Ԇ ҕ͎Ӄ͖͋] What was first written appears irretrievable here: ̴ superscript appears over several now illegible deletions. B’s first hand may have made a slip here. The ancients found this extended narrative diّcult to subdivide. According to the original scribe, the second paragraph starts with Jesus blessing the departing eastern tribes and finishes with tales circulating about their serious misbehaviour. However, the second marginal division opens its second section after not before v. 6, divides again after Ζanaan in v. 10 (a ‘verse’-division in A also), and then not again till the end. The topic of blessing and despatch no sooner stated, the narrative interrupts itself to remind us again of Manassē’s split settlement east and west of the Jordan. The topic is resumed: despatch and blessing are reversed, and the close association of blessing with gift and wealth is reinforced with an overview of what the easterners took home with them. Israel’s centre within the land of Ζanaan is still SēlŌ, and it is from there that they set o֎ eastwards to their holding in Galaad – now detailed as Gad, Roubēn, and half-Manassē. We are reminded again that they held it on the highest of authority: by Lord’s ordinance delivered through Moses’s agency. While still in Ζanaan at Galgal by the Jordan (the text forbears to remind us that it was just there that they had crossed westwards with their brothers), they built a large bamah; and this was quickly noised within Israel. In some typical ways, the paragraph has been over-literally translated. The sentence in vv. 7b–8 can be di֎erently divided; but the connective either before or after ‘he blessed them’ is surplus to requirements in a Greek or English sentence (SS 113, 173). (It is also possible that ͈̿Ӄ here is emphatic: a delayed response by the translator to the emphatic wgm in MT.) Despite the change in case to the (default) accusative, the list in ͈̿ӂ ͈͑Ӂ͋ͅ . . . ›͍͉Ӈ͋ is to be understood as in apposition to dative ͔͎Ӂ͇͊̿͐͋ ›͍͉͉͍‫͏ل‬, with ͈̿ӂ ͇͂̓Ӄ͉͍̿͋͑ resuming the sequence in verbs from ͈̿ӂ . . . ј›Ӂ͉͍͆͐̿͋ (DH 35–36). Similarly, in both languages, ‘it’ (̿Ҡ͑Ӂ͋ < ) is unnecessary in v. 9

212

COMMENTARY §§ 93–94

after ‘which’ (ѹ͋ < 4_). Then the beginning of v. 11 poses a grammatical question. Elsewhere ‘saying’ is always a participle in the nominative case, whether sg. or pl., whether masc. or fem., because it follows a verb stating or implying speech and refers back to the the subject of that verb. Here, uniquely in Jesus, ‘saying’ introduces what the subject[s] of the main verb heard. Normally Gk uses after ј͈͍Ӈ͇̓͋ the accusative case for what is ‘heard’ and the genitive for what is ‘listened to’ (or obeyed). It may be that the translator rendered 4)% by ͉̓́Ӆ͖͋͑͋, as some sort of one-word genitive absolute construction (DH 107): ‘and they heard [as people were] saying’. Alternatively, he intended, ‘and they hearkened to people saying’. There are many di֎erences throughout this narrative between MT and LXX, most of which need not concern us. But the key division is over the naming of what the eastern tribes constructed in the valley: MT calls it an ‘altar’ () – ‘place of sacrifice), but LXX almost always what I have rendered as bamah (͖̀͊Ӆ͏). ͖̀͊Ӆ͏, probably cognate with bamah and its older Semitic cognates, meant in regular Greek a raised platform for a statue or altar, or an altar on a raised platform (LSJ 334b). The normal usage of ͖̀͊Ӆ͏ in LXX is of two sorts: most often it corresponds to MT ) where it is clear that the ‘altar’ in question is disapproved of; but in several prophetic texts it renders (or provides the Greek form of) ), often foreign and again always held to be false. We may not readily settle just what Gr read in his Vorlage; DH is quite clear that it like MT used ‘altar’ throughout (180–1). However, Gr did use both ͖̀͊Ӆ͏ and ͇͆͒͐̿͐͑Ӂ͎͇͍͋ (‘sacrifice place’) in his version of the story, and our translation must also use two terms. Another di֎erence concerns similar sounding places. B has the eastern tribes make for Galaad, stop at Galgal and build their whatever-itwas there, and their western brothers complain about what they have done at Galaad of the Jordan. In MT they are also going to Gilead; but it is at Geliloth of the Jordan that they both build and are said to have built. The names were very similar, and so easy to confuse – in whichever direction that happened. An important element in the confusion is the uncertainty at several points in the narrative over just which side of the Jordan river we are at. Ѩ͋ ͑Թ ›ҿ͎̿͋ ͒҅‫ ̨͉͎̿͐ͅ ͋و‬is a good translation of %4`!–!+ 4-–%, but it is not at all clear where ‘across from the sons of Israel’ was!

JOSHUA 22:6–11 & 22:12–29

213

94. The altar dispute (22:12–29) The report is enough to trigger a muster for war. ͎͍͐͒͋̿͆Ӄ͇̈́̓͐͆̿ is not a common verb in LXX for gathering; and we cannot be certain what Gk read in his Vorlage – MT is longer and includes mention of the ‘assembly’ (-) here and in v. 18 where there is none in Gk. In LXX only the westerners call themselves ‘the whole assembly’, while in MT the narrator anticipates their self-portrayal. DH takes ј͋̿̀ҽ͋͑̓͏ for 7%-% (12) as an example of participle for infinitive (174); however, in the light of the similar phrase in v. 33 below, it seems better to call it a free rendering. An allusion to Deut. 1:41 is particularly appropriate. Israel did ‘gather’ and ‘go up’ and fight, immediately after acknowledging their sin; but they were warned not to fight because Lord was not with them. Here there is no fighting till an embassy has been sent to the east. Roubēn and Gad have returned to their familiar order; but the odd description of their fellows looks as if ‘half of tribe’ has been added alongside the unusual ‘sons of ’ before Manassē. The embassy is led by the son of Eleazar, and the others involved are particularly closely defined: one ‘ruler’ from each of the ten western tribes – the language is similar to Num. 34:17–18, where one leader from each of ten tribes will join Eleazar and Jesus in dividing the land for the sons of Israel. The last words in MT (‘of/for Israel’s thousands’) appear to o֎er ʙelef as an alternative term to ‘house of paternal lineage’, whereas Gk’s ‘chiliarchs’ focuses on the head of house/thousand – _4 is doubly translated: in both ќ͎͔͍͋͑̓͏ and -͎͔͍͇̿. Chiliarch is used only here (and in v. 21) in this book – and, as with ‘gather’, its only appearance in Deuteronomy is in the opening chapter (v. 15). Although Jesus is mentioned at the outset and blesses the Transjordanians before they go, he takes no part in the story till the very end. Equally the embassy does not include Eleazar, his normal priestly counterpart, but his son instead. This business of claim and counter-claim over an ‘altar’ apparently belongs to a situation in which Jesus and Eleazar hardly figure. The easterners they address are described di֎erently yet again: Gad is in first place, and Manassē have become ‘halves’ in the plural. In their opening words they arrogate to themselves the right to speak for ‘the whole assembly’ (16), not just of Israel but of Lord. The phrase is anticipated only in Num. 27:17 and 31:16; and the allusion to the latter passage becomes more explicit as this narrative continues. They accuse the eastern tribes in the most prejudicial of terms: their behaviour is on a par with AΗar’s ›͉͊͊ͅҿ͉͇̿ (see above on paragraph 30) – here the charge is all the more superlative because pejorative noun and verb are

214

COMMENTARY § 94

used together. The Hebrew expression ‘turning away . . . from [following] Lord’ is remarkably rare in HB; but it is found in Num. 14:43, and LXX renders it there too by ј›͍͎͓͐͑̿‫͇̿͋ق‬, and the context there is precisely the same warning about not making war without Lord’s help that we just noted in Deut. 1:41. The ambiguity of the English ending ‘-ing’ camouflages in the translation above the fact that ‘turning’ and ‘becoming’ are infinitives in Greek, while ‘building’ is a participle. Given the number of allusions we have already noted in this passage, it will hardly come as a surprise that ‘becoming runaways from the lord’ is also drawn from Num. 14, this time from v. 9. There as here the phrase is used to render the rare Hebrew verb mrd. ј›͍͐͑ҽ͑ͅ͏, familiar later in ecclesiastical usage as ‘apostate’, originally referred to runaway slaves and army deserters; and ‘lord’ here carries the article (also in Num. 14:9) suggesting that the divine ͈Ӈ͎͇͍͏ is ‘the master’ of the runaway. This remark will tell against the conclusion (DH 67) that B’s minority reading of ͍͑‫ ن‬is secondary here: the progression within our verse from ‘Lord’ to ‘the lord’ is quite deliberate. The string of loaded accusations against the two-anda-half tribes is in terrible counterbalance to the string of good biblical advice Jesus had given them (5). And the embassy is not yet finished: their final warning is P˰ogŌr. In Deuteronomy (3:39; 4:46; 34:6) it is simply the name of a place, as in the main story of Balaam (Num. 23:28). But in Num. 25:18 and 31:16 (which we already noted above) it encapsulates a horrible crime; and in both of these verses the divine response was ›͉́ͅӁ – literally ‘a stroke’, but the same word as Latin plaga, and used of Lord’s final ‘strike’ or ‘plague’ against Egypt (Exod. 11:1). The ambassadors repeat two of the charges: turning away and running away; and then mention their own self-interest – the divine wrath which the easterners unleash may come to savage all Israel. In an apparently desperate argument, LXX has them suggest that if they do not have enough space in the east they can move to the west and join them there: they will have the benefit of proximity to the divine tent. However, Masius wisely conjectured that OG read not ̨̫̩̰̠ (19) but ̨̫̠̰̠ (‘defiled’), a good rendering of MT ‘unclean’ though found only in Maccabees in LXX. The contrast is not between the easterners’ ‘holding’ and Israel’s (21:41): the embassy now claims that the western holding is Lord’s, but its argument is fragile. ͈͈͍̿͑̿͐͋ͅ‫ ͋ن‬has been used in Numbers, first of Israel ‘encamping’ in the land (14:30) and then Lord (35:34); and yet the latter statement comes at the end of the discussion of the six cities of refuge, three on each side of the Jordan – the land in whose midst Lord encamps.

JOSHUA 22:12–29

215

At the end of their speech, they become even more explicit. A bamah should not be constructed in addition to the one legitimate sacrificial altar (19). Though they had alluded earlier to AΗar (16), by using the key word ›͉͊͊ͅҿ͉͇̿ from 7:1, now (20) they mention his name as well as repeating the key word. ͍Ҡ͈ ͍҄͂‫ ن‬corresponds here to % (cf. 1:9). This passage is more suited to the interpretation they want it to bear, for it did charge the whole of Israel with ›͉͊͊ͅҿ͉͇̿ on account of what AΗar alone had done. Their last words, however, are very obscure: so obscure that they are reported di֎erently in each version. B’s text assumes a Vorlage very close to MT, with the decisive exception that in place of MT’s negative % B o֎ers the strengthening ̿Ҡ͑Ӆ͏, which could retrovert to the easily confused %. Did he or did he not die – himself, on his own – for his own sin? There is little merit in seeking the answer in our own reading of the AΗar story. A o֎ers a substantially longer text; but it is far from clear that this was the original text from which both B and MT became di֎erently shortened, rather than an attempt to solve by expansion the problem of the shorter text. The eastern tribes make a shrewd response. Lord is god, and Lord god knows, and what Lord god already knows Israel too will come to know: the key contrast here is between ͍‫ ̿͂ة‬in perfect tense and ́͋Ӊ͇͐̓͑̿ in future. If they were runaways or deserters, if they were like AΗar, they should not be delivered. If building a bamah had been an act of revolt – which it would have been, had the purpose been any sort of sacrificial o֎ering – Lord will make it his business to find out: the two contexts in Genesis in which Ѩ͈̈́͑̓ͅ‫ ͋ل‬is used both concern responsibility for shedding lifeblood (9:5; 42:22). If the first move was to tell the embassy that Lord already knew, now they seek to persuade them that he will find out whatever there might be to find out. What they claim as their real motivation opens with the Gk conjunction ‘but’ (ј͉͉ҽ), which ‘is used to express a sudden shift in the direct discourse’ (SS 52–53), and only here and in 6:18 corresponds to clauseinitial w-. An unusual phrase follows: ѭ͈͋̓̓͋ ̓Ҡ͉̿̀̓Ӄ̿͏ ԪӁ͍͊̿͑͏, which corresponds to the equally unusual 4) ) of MT. The rendering is quite good, although ‘caution’ (̓Ҡ͉ҽ͇̀̓̿) may be a response to ‘anxiety’ () rather than the state itself; but it is only found once more in all the LXX (Isa. 57:11). ̓Ҡ͉̿̀̓‫ ͇̿͆͐ل‬is used in the Pentateuch in Exod. 3:6 and Deut. 2:4 – in the first case, of proper concern before the deity. What they present as hypothetical problems in a future time constitute a shrewd assessment of the motivations behind the charges just levelled against them by the embassy: they are across the border in a foreign

216

COMMENTARY §§ 94–97

land, and like foreigners they will soon corrupt heartland Israel. What they constructed was not an altar for sacrifice, but a witness to right worship – worship which (of course) would be conducted at the right place, facing Lord. ͈͎̿›Ӊ͊̿͑̿ (26, 27) is cognate with ͈͎̿›Ӆ͏ (‘fruit’), and yet it is not a term for non-meat sacrifices: though properly ‘fruits’ or ‘profits’, it is used in the Pentateuch, like ͈ҽ͎›͖͇͐͏, to render %(‘holocaust’) or _ (‘burnt o֎ering’). DH includes ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͇̓͋ ͉͎̿͑̓Ӄ̿͋ ̩͎͒ӃԶ in his list of datives where we would expect a genitive (166): I suspect wrongly (though A does read ̩͎͒Ӄ͍͒ here) – ͉͎̿͑Ӄ̿͋ is an internal, reinforcing object, and dative is the regular case after ͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͇̓͋. In v. 28, there is an incongruity in the moods of the Greek verbs, a surprising shift from the hypothetical subjunctives (‘should come about . . . should speak’) to the indicative (‘will say’); and in LXX it is ‘they’ (from the west) who ‘will say’, whereas MT reads ‘we’. Who says what may well relate to just what is said. ‘They’ (in Greek) will say we have made a ‘likeness’ (ҕ͍͊Ӄ͖͊̿); and in the Pentateuch that is always a bad thing – whether in the Decalogue or the explanatory Deut. 4:16–18, where it is paired with an ‘image’ (̓҈͖͉͍͂͋) of a deity. And, while this is not a deified object in the ‘likeness’ of any living or heavenly body, ҕ͍͊Ӄ͖͊̿ is only used in dangerous contexts. ‘We’ (in Hebrew), on the other hand, will say we have made a ‘model’ (7!+7), which is clearly not the real thing and not at all dangerous. Just as the embassy spoke of Lord’s tent close to their conclusion (19), so too the eastern response acknowledges in its final words (29) that they know that to be the location of the only true altar. Though ͑̿‫͐͒͆ ͏ل‬Ӄ͇̿͏ ͉͇͐̿̿͊̓͋ is plural and ͑‫͐͒͆ ك‬Ӄӽ ͍͑‫͎͖͑͐ͅ ن‬Ӄ͍͒ is singular, it is likely that we are dealing with a conflate text, and that each is a rendering of the same Hebrew: ͉͇͐̿̿͊̓͋ will be a transliteration and ͖͎͐͑ͅӃ͍͒ a translation of '!)%_.

95. Pleasure at the outcome (22:30) The Greek is stilted (with the unattractive ‘and’ in the apodosis), but straightforward enough. SS reminds us that clause-initial ͈̿Ӄ is not simply a Hebraism (127–8). The ‘pleasure’ of the embassy is stated (both in MT and in LXX) in terms similar to Lev. 10:20, where Moses was satisfied with the explanation of Aaron, whom he had called to account. Such a statement, marking the removal of the inner-communal danger, is on its own the stu֎ of a paragraph.

JOSHUA 22:12–29 – 23:1–16

217

96. The altar called ‘witness’ (22:31–34) The words in which the priest states his ‘pleasure’ are set in a fresh paragraph. His ‘we have discerned’ (31) responds to the easterners’ ‘Israel itself will discern’ (22): not only had the two-and-a-half tribes not broken faith, but they have (presumably by their careful responses) saved Israel from divine retribution. The embassy returns from Galaad to Ζanaan, where the sons of Israel are similarly ‘pleased’. It is not entirely clear at the end of the story (33) who says what to whom: the Gk plus ‘and they spoke to the sons of Israel’ makes the issue more confused. Then, while in MT it is the eastern tribes (themselves described in a novel way: ‘those of Roubēn . . .’) who surname the bamah, Gk gives Jesus this walk-on part at the end – ‘and he said’ is also LXX plus. It is not this story, but the related one in Gen. 31:44–54, that makes explicit why Galaad is repeatedly mentioned in Jesus 22 as the location for the action east of the Jordan. The end of Gen. 31 is also about fraught relations west (Jacob) and east (Laban) of the Jordan; and there too a heap of stones (gl) is constructed as witness (ʚd) between the parties, so explaining the name Galaad (glʚd).

97. Jesus’s first farewell (23:1–16) 4. ҙ›͎̓ ̓‫‘ ]̿›ة‬whatever I said’ makes sense in itself, but hardly in context; the majority text Ѩ›ҿ͎͎͇͓̿ has been translated. All three divisions of Jesus in Codex Vaticanus and MT too are in agreement that this speech is a single section of the book (and even A takes all of vv. 6–14a as one ‘verse’). ‘Rest’ already achieved for the two-and-a-half tribes east of the Jordan and still to be achieved for the remainder was where this book began (1:13, 15) and has been important throughout. With its full completion, Jesus already described as elderly in 13:1 calls an assembly of the leadership of his people of all sorts, and addresses them. Only here in this book are the elders of his people given the semioّcial title of gerousia, but the term is widely used in the Pentateuch, especially Deuteronomy. They have seen everything that has happened: but he must focus their memory on what was important. Lord has given rest to the people (1), because Lord it was who went to war for them (3): it was Lord who did what was done to all the other nations. That is no sooner said than Jesus remarks (4) on his own role (‘I have thrown . . . I

218

COMMENTARY § 97

also destroyed’), stressing the congruence between Lord’s actions and his own. His ‘I have thrown’ (Ѩ›ҿ͎͎͇͓̿) recalls in this book the hailstones Lord threw on Israel’s enemies (10:11) and in the Pentateuch (Num. 35:10, 12) anything thrown that might kill someone. This verb is never used of casting lots, to which MT refers. When Jesus returns (5) to Lord’s actions, these are now in the future: ‘it is Lord our god who will destroy them’. If hailstones were Lord’s agents earlier, now it will be wild beasts. We should note that now as then kings are a key element of the forces hostile to Israel (5). The action corresponding to the divine this time will not be his: the necessary human response is stated in imperatives to the assembly – ‘you inherit (5) . . . you develop full strength (6)’. The second imperative is introduced by ͍‫‘( ͋ح‬therefore’), here corresponding to clause-initial w- in MT (SS 50–51). The command to practise carefully everything written in the book of the law of Moses (6) resumes the command in 1:7 as further specified in 1:8; and the warning against deviation restates what we find in 1:7 except that it now uses the euphemism that we noted in 13:3 for sinister ‘left’. The danger implied in deviation is explained first in a coordinate purpose clause (7a): they would become indistinguishable from the enemy nations – the Hebrew expression ‘enter into’ is often a sexual euphemism (cf. v. 12 below). (The two purpose clauses are introduced identically in Hebrew; but Gr varies the lead term from ҉͋̿ ͊Ӂ to ҙ›͖͏ ͊Ӂ.) Jesus turns immediately from the stating of that implication to issuing instructions, negative and positive (7b–8): neither mention of nor worship before their gods, but instead the tightest of links with Lord. Not naming the names of their gods is an expression without close parallel in LXX: the closest is Lev. 24:16, where (the prohibition of) blaspheming the divine name becomes ‘naming Lord’s name’. Doing obeisance to other gods is forbidden in the Pentateuch, classically in the Decalogue, but is mentioned in this book only here and in v. 16. However, ‘o֎ering service’ (͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͇̓͋), whether to Lord or to other gods, though first mentioned in Jesus in 22:5, 27, then in 23:7, 16, becomes a major topic in chap. 24 (15x). ‘Being glued to Lord’ (8) is commended only here in Jesus, but is found in Deut. 11:22; 13:18; 28:21. ‘Till this day’ is found in 7:26; 8:28, 29; 14:14; 15:63[that]; 16:10; 22:17; 23:8, 9. ‘Today’s day’ is used in di֎erent contexts: 4:9; 5:9; 6:25; 9:27; 10:27; 13:13; 22:3, 19; 24:31A; while ͐Ӂ͎͍͊̓͋ is used independently in Josh. 7:19, 25; 14:10, 11; 22:16, 18, 18, 31; 24:15, 27. (It is only in chap. 22:16–19 that all three are found together.) After all these instructions for the future, B takes the following weyiqtol as a statement of what Lord will do in that same future (͈̿ӂ

JOSHUA 23:1–16

219

Ѩ͍͉͍͎͌͆̓Ӈ͇͐̓), whereas MT and the majority Greek witness read it as wa-yiqtol: ‘and he destroyed’. Both Gk and MT set the following statement (9b) in the past, diverging again in v. 10 – but in the opposite directions: past in Gk and future in MT. The only close parallel in the Pentateuch to the opening of v. 10 gives no indication of the proper tense here; for Deut. 32:30 is stated as a question: ‘How should one chase a thousand . . .?’ The oddly stated instruction to ‘be very much on your guard to love Lord’ (11) is quite without parallel, for all that each of its components is very familiar. ›͎͍͐͑Ӄ͇͆̓͐͆̿ normally renders some form of of Hebrew ‘add’ (/,!), as in v. 13, and is very commonly used; but in v. 12 it corresponds to MT ‘cling to’ (3), itself more usually rendered ‘be glued to’ (8). The only precedent appears to be within the warning against the false prophet who can practise wonders but goes on to encourage apostasy (Deut. 13:5). And the uniqueness of this link suggests that Gk wanted his readers to be aware that Jesus, who encouraged only behaviour in accordance with the Pentateuch, met the criteria for a true prophet. Epigamia in classical Greek can refer either to an additional marriage, or to the right of intermarriage between states. This is its unique appearance in B. In LXX it is not used in the Pentateuch, but only elsewhere in 3 Kgdms 3:1 (A only), of Solomon and Pharaoh’s daughter. As for the following ͈͇͐͒͋̿͑̿͊́‫̓͑ق‬, it is wholly without biblical parallel. ‘Discern’ (13 and 14) is used in Jesus as in the Pentateuch marginally more often than ‘know’ as a rendering of -!. In 22:22, 31 it was used of humans ‘coming to understanding’, in contrast to Lord god who already ‘knew’. Several themes from chap. 22 are developed in 23, and from chap. 23 in 24. The unusual correspondence in v. 12 of ‘be attached’ with Hebrew ‘cling’ goes hand in hand with a striking wordplay with v. 13: there the same Greek word represents a form of the Hebrew verb ‘add’, used in Hebrew idiomatically of continuing or repeating an action. It is fully in the spirit of the Hebrew to note the logical link between Israel choosing relations with the other nations and Yahweh refusing further action on their behalf; but the Greek reinforces this with the verbal link. The usage of skandalon for ‘trap’ (13) appears to be mostly biblical; and for ‘missiles’ (͍͉̀Ӄ͂̿͏) Theodoret (M-F) has ‘thorns’ (͈͐‫)͉̿و‬. At the beginning of v. 14, Gk does not reflect MT ‘today’. ͂ҿ may seem a slight correspondent to initial +; yet each functions e֎ectively to mark the change in subject. Gk does expand ‘going the way of all the earth’: ј›͍͎͑ҿ͔͇̓͋ is used of running o֎ the track, or (of workers) striking or absconding. What ‘belongs to’ us renders the participle of ј͋Ӂ͈͇̓͋, used more often in Maccabees than elsewhere. The repetition in the Vorlage

220

COMMENTARY §§ 97–98

within v. 14 of ‘there did not fall one word/thing’ permits Gr to demonstrate his fondness for o֎ering both literal and idiomatic renderings. ͍Ҡ ͇͓͂̓Ӊ͇͋͐̓͋ renders the same ‘did not fall’ (%0+ %) in 3 Kgdms 8:56. The term comes from musical language: ‘to be discordant/out of tune’; but it is extended to other sorts of inconsistency, such as accounts ‘not in balance’, and more generally to ‘being lost’. A further example of the same tendency (like my shift here from ‘fondness’ to ‘tendency’) is the translator’s shift from ͉Ӆ͍́͏ (twice in v. 14) to Ԫ‫( ̿͊ق‬15, 16) as rendering of Hebrew dbr, just as he uses them indi֎erently in 2:20, 21 and 14:6–10, and also shifts from ͍Ҡ ͇͂ҿ›̓͐̓͋ . . . Ԫ͊ͅҽ͖͑͋ (21:45) to ͍Ҡ͈ Ѭ›̓͐̓͋ . . . ͉Ӆ͖́͋ (23:14). I am not at all persuaded by the attempt by MF (48–49) to distinguish clearly between ԪӁ͊̿͑̿ (15x) as mostly spoken by God and ͉Ӆ͍́͏ (7x) as mostly human discourse. She herself notes key exceptions; and, as for parallels in Deuteronomy, what we call the Ten Commandments are ͑Ҽ ͂ҿ͈̿ ԪӁ͊̿͑̿ in Deut. 4:13 and 10:2, but (I think typically di֎erently) ͍͑ӆ͏ ͂ҿ͈̿ ͉Ӆ͍́͒͏ in 10:4. Counterbalancing this shift to the simple verb (Ѭ›̓͐̓͋) is the unique instance immediately before it of ͇͂Ӆ͇͑ instead of ҙ͇͑ to render ky. ‘Bring on’ (Ѩ›ҽ͇́̓͋) was used in Exodus of bringing some of the plagues on Egypt, and in threats in Deut. 28:49, 61 and 29:26 very similar to those here. ‘Transgress’ (›͎̿̿̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓͋) is used 3x in Numbers to render 4- as here (14:41; 22:18; 24:13), each time with ‘Lord’s word (Ԫ‫ ’)̿͊ق‬as its object. But its use with ‘covenant’ as object is anticipated in 7:11, 15 and found again twice in Hosea. (The same Greek idiom appears in Ezekiel 5x; but there ›͎̿̿̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓͋ corresponds to 40.) In the closing words about going and serving and prostrating before other gods there is a surprising shift from indicative to subjunctive mood, suggesting perhaps that this is all hypothetical. One of the prominent features of the rhetoric of Jesus in this paragraph is at the same time one of the details in which B is most di֎erent from MT. B has Jesus talk of ‘Lord our god’ 9x within 16 verses, as compared with only some 20x in the rest of this book. The corresponding figures for MT are ‘Yahweh your god’ 12x in this chapter, and only 15x more in the rest of the book. Where they agree is that this paragraph/ chapter uses the plural possessive with ‘god’ following the divine name very much more densely than anywhere else in the book. Where they disagree is that Jesus says ‘our’ where Joshua says ‘your’ – but in that respect their usage is rather consistent throughout each version of the book. ‘Jesus’ is much the more inclusive of the two. It is just this theme

JOSHUA 23:1–16 & 24:1–15

221

of ‘Lord the god of his people’, so stressed in chap. 23, which is radically explored and challenged in chap. 24.

98. Jesus poses Israel a choice (24:1–15) 12. Ѩ͌̿›ҿ͇͉͐͑̓̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏] A and most witnesses read Ѩ͌ҿ͉̀̿̓͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ here, which is the stock rendering of _4, as (in B also) in v. 18. In the introduction to his final last words, Jesus ‘gathers’ (͐͒͋ҽ͇́̓͋) the tribes of Israel before ‘calling’ them into convocation (͈͉͐͒͋̿̓‫͋ل‬, familiar from 22:1; 23:2). In LXX they are gathered to SēlŌ, the only specified meeting-place since 18:1; but in MT to Shechem (implied also in 8:30–35 MT). Barthélemy sees the elimination of Shechem in favour of SēlŌ as influenced by anti-Samaritanism. However, we noted the recognition of Shechem as a city of priests in 21:20; and there seemed no animus there. Elders, scribes, and judges were amongst the representatives convoked in 23:2. Here the ‘elders’ are ›͎̓͐̀͒͑ҿ͎͍͒͏ (what Jesus himself was described as being in 23:1); there they were collectively the ͎͍́̓͒͐Ӄ̿ – yet a further case of the translator exploiting Greek synonyms. ‘Stand’ (҅͐͑ҽ͇͋̿) is used transitively, with a direct object, only in Jesus 4:9, 20; 6:25; and 24:26; and each of these other objects is impersonal. A and most other MSS have no ̿Ҡ͍͑Ӈ͏ (and so read ‘stand’ intransitively) – a reading which corresponds more closely to MT ‘presented themselves’/ ‘took their position’ (2!7!). Jesus’s first words are the so-called messenger formula, so familiar in prophetic discourse, although the only exact anticipation of these words in this book places them in Lord’s own mouth (7:13), though in an implied instruction as to what Jesus should say to his people. The only other messengers to use the formula in this book are the embassy from SēlŌ to the easterners (22:16). Here the first words of the message are ‘across the river’, but the river is not the Jordan but the Euphrates. ‘From the first’ (ј›’ ј͎͔‫ )͏ق‬is never used absolutely in the Pentateuch; and it corresponds to '%-) in only one other context in LXX (Isa. 63:16, 19). There too Abraham is named. We noted above that ‘serve’ (͉͎̿͑̓Ӈ͇̓͋) is a key element in this final chapter, whether of ‘other gods’ (2, 16, 20 – mentioned first in 23:16) or ‘foreign gods’ (14, 23), mentioned first but less often, or of Lord, mentioned later but significantly more often (14, 14, 15, 15, 18, 19, 22, 24, 31) as the choice is confirmed.

222

COMMENTARY § 98

After ‘in all the land’ (3) MT adds ‘of Canaan’. LXX ́‫ ق‬is ambiguous, and could refer to the whole earth – M-F suggests the shorter text could imply an amplification, showing that the divine protection of Abraam extended from Mesopotamia to Egypt. ‘Went down’ (͈̿͑̿̀̿Ӄ͇͋̓͋) is the stock rendering in LXX for 4!. It is used of Abram going down to Egypt in Gen. 12:10 and of Jacob and his sons in Gen. 43–46. ‘Nation’ (Ѭ͍͆͋͏) is always plural in Jesus, and except here refers always to nations other than Israel. Everything in v. 4 after ‘Egypt’ is a substantial LXX plus. In the Pentateuch it is only the divine ‘hand’ (͔̓Ӄ͎) that is ever (18x) called ‘strong’ (͈͎͇̿͑̿ҽ), except for Deut. 7:21; and even that text speaks of ‘a god great and strong’ (there MT has 4+ rather than 3). And nowhere else in LXX is a people or nation described as ‘strong’. Each ‘nation great and numerous’ mentioned in Deut. 1:28 and 2:10, 21 is a foreign opponent. But the parallel review in Deut. 26 deals with Israel’s origins in similar terms (Ѭ͍͆͋͏ ͊ҿ́̿ ͈̿ӂ ›͉‫͉͍› ͏͍͆ق‬ӆ ͈̿ӂ ͊ҿ́̿, v. 5); and goes on to speak of the Egyptians ‘treating them ill’ (͈͈͍̿‫)͋ن‬. And MT in Deut. 26:5 uses '2-, which does correspond to ͈͎͇̿͑̿Ӆ͏ once each in Job, Psalms, and Daniel. B’s Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̿͋ (‘and they struck’) is a highly contested reading (5): later hands in B o֎er 1st pers. Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̿ as in MT; while some have 3rd pers. Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̓͋; and A with several major LXX witnesses adds to this reading the divine name – Ѩ›ҽ͑̿͌̓͋ ͈͏. DH argues (79) that a sg.vb. would in any case imply the divine subject. It is easier to explain how Ѩ͋ ͍҉͏ Ѩ›͍Ӄ͐̓͋ͅ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬developed from 43 !7!`- 4_# than to render it as a piece of intelligible Greek. The ‘he/I did’ shift is part of the larger text-critical issue just mentioned. The composite Hebrew ‘in the midst of ’ is regularly rendered by simple ‘in’. The Greek relative pronoun regularly takes on the number and case of the pronoun it anticipates – and in this case also attracts its preposition away from that pronoun. But a Greek reader would naturally take [Ѩ͋] ͍҉͏ as neuter, but ̿Ҡ͍͑‫ ͏ل‬as common gender. DH here prefers the reading Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͍͑‫( ͏ل‬52–53). ‘Led out . . . from Egypt’ is what is also reported in Deut. 26:8. DH asks (51) which element of the MT doublet ‘you’/‘your fathers’ Gr found in his Vorlage, and prefers ҡ͊‫ ͏ـ‬as a better transition to the following ‘you entered’; but he does not mention B’s ‘our fathers’. Israel of the past is viewed in B from ever-changing perspectives, ‘our fathers . . . you . . . our fathers . . . we . . . us . . . your eyes . . . you . . . us . . .’, several of them di֎erent from MT; and so ease of transition hardly seems an adequate criterion. To say that Israel ‘entered into the red sea’ sounds a little strange; and it is true that ̓҄͏ is sometimes over-translated as ‘into’ (it is already developing its later Greek sense of ‘to’); yet the cumulative force of

JOSHUA 24:1–15

223

͉̓҄͐̓͆̓‫ ͋ل‬. . . ̓҄͏ is hard to avoid. ‘Cloud’ and ‘darkness’ (7) are found together in the Pentateuch (not in the same phrase, but in adjacent verses) in Exod. 14:19, 20; and the use of ‘midway between . . . and midway between . . .’ both there and here makes it as certain as can be that Gr has that passage in mind (so rendering less necessary DH’s appeal to Ps. 97:2 as a parallel). ‘On the other side of the Jordan’ (8) seems here to refer to the east, from the point of view of someone located in the west. ‘Brought upon’ (see on 23:15) is used also of the plagues in Egypt. In Exod. 14:28 and 15:5, 10, the Egyptians are covered by ‘the waters . . . the floods . . . the sea’, but never directly by Lord himself. The Greek letter pi is seldom used in transliterations of Semitic names (unless these are also given a Greek form); but it is used together with p˰i in transliterating a number of names with doubled medial –p-, such as 402 here. ‘And Lord your god was not willing to destroy you’ (10) presumably reflects a Vorlage quite di֎erent from MT ‘And I was not willing to listen to Balaam’. ‘Those inhabiting [IereiΗŌ]’ (11) appears to reflect !_! rather than MT !%-. Taking ‘IereiΗŌ’ narrowly, what is said about its people making war on Israel is a novelty; yet so too is seeing them as representing all seven traditional peoples of the land. We should recall that in 2:1 Jesus asked the scouts to ‘go up and see the land and IereiΗŌ’, so making its representative role quite explicit. Whatever -42 (12) actually means, it is rendered by ͓͈͐ͅӃ̿ in each of the 3 passages in which it is used, with this di֎erence that in Exod. 23:28 (‘swarm’ according to M-F) and Deut. 7:20 the plural is used in Gk. We have already encountered Amorrai or Ζananai one moment just one member of a longer list of nations, and in the next the name for all the nations of the land. However, twelve kings of the Amorrai are a novelty. MT has ‘two’; and these are presumably Sihon and Og. Twelve are too many for the Jerusalem-led coalition in chap. 10, and many too few for the total of cities and their kings in chap. 12. ‘Not by your sword nor by your bow’ is an allusion to Gen. 48:20. ‘Cities which you have not built’ (13) involves an odd shift of tense from the aorist forms of the surrounding context to the perfect: the aorist di֎ers in only one letter – Ӫ͈͍͍͂͊Ӂ͐̿͑̓. (Some MSS bring greater consistency by making the previous verb perfect: ͍Ҡ ͈͈͍̓›͇ҽ͈̿͑̓.) The phrase itself is shortened from Deut. 6:10–11. The end of this verse, ‘[vineyards and oliveyards which] you did not plant’, uses the simple ͓͒͑̓Ӈ͇̓͋ rather than the compound in Deut. 6; ‘a land on which you did not toil on it’ is a summary expression not used in that longer version; and Ѭ͇͂̓͐͆̿ is never used for ‘eat’ in Deuteronomy, which uses only

224

COMMENTARY §§ 98–100

forms of ͓ҽ͇́̓͋. By contrast, the command to ‘fear Lord’ (14) is very much the rhetoric of Deuteronomy, though met only here in this book. The strengthening phrase ‘in directness and in justice’ may well be based on a Vorlage di֎erent from MT: ̓Ҡ͆Ӈ͑ͅ͏ is used most often in the Psalms, never in the Pentateuch, and elsewhere in the narrative books only in 3 Kgdms 3:6; 9:4, and normally renders a form of 4_!, and so the Vorlage here may have read something other than '!)7 (see below on v. 23); similarly the very common ͇͈͇͍͂̿͐Ӈ͋ͅ almost never corresponds to 7). The instruction to ‘remove the foreign deities’ (14, 23) is found again in 1 Kgdms 7:3. We last met the people’s ‘pleasure’ (= agreement) in 22:30, 33. ‘Choosing’ is overwhelmingly the prerogative of Lord, especially in the Pentateuch, occasionally of Moses or Jesus as commander. Jesus here is restating the choice Moses set before his people in Deut. 30:15–20 between life and good (obeying Lord), and death and evil (being drawn away to serve other gods). Moses called on his people to choose life; Jesus encourages them by stating clearly his own choice. When he associates his ͍͈҄Ӄ̿ with his own choice, he breaks the rule maintained elsewhere in the book that ͍͈҄Ӄ̿ is one’s living space, while ͍҈͈͍͏ means ‘household’. The final ‘because he is holy’ is a LXX plus, but it anticipates what Jesus says (also in MT) in v. 19. Such language is familiar in Lev. 18–26, Psalms, and Isaiah; but is relatively uncommon elsewhere. Deuteronomy seeks to make Israel a people holy to Lord, but never calls Lord holy.

99. Response and renewed warning (24:16–20) The people as a whole respond to Jesus in the words with which the eastern tribes concluded their answer to the embassy (22:29): ͊Ӏ ́ҿ͍͇͍͋͑ (perish the thought). They are aware that they have a clear choice: to serve other gods means ‘leaving Lord behind’ (͈͉̿͑̿̓Ӄ›͇̓͋) – as clothes can be abandoned (Gen. 39), or survivors (not) left behind in a captured city ( Jesus 8–11). Jesus had spoken to them in the name of ‘Lord, the god of Israel’ (2). They now (17) speak of ‘Lord our god’, using the title Jesus had repeated so often in his previous speech (see above on chap. 23): he (quite simply) is god. To give content to that assertion, they aّrm in brief the recent history which Jesus had recalled at greater length. The theological assertion at the beginning is probably a midrashic expansion of MT, with  doing double duty: backwards with +!% and forwards

JOSHUA 24:1–15 – 24:21–27

225

with %-). ͍ҥ͏ (‘whom’) at the end seems doubly ungrammatical: after ӝ . . . Ѩ͋ ̿Ҡ͑‫ك‬, we would expect ‫ ͋ر‬. . . ͇͂’ ̿Ҡ͑‫ ;͋و‬and ͍ҥ͏ (masc.) should agree with Ѭ͆͋ͅ (neut.). They too will serve Lord (18) – and they repeat that ‘he is our god’. Jesus challenges them over their ability to maintain service of Lord. He could hardly fault his people for aّrming Lord’s role in their recent past as he had; but he warns them of the implications of his holiness and jealousy. ͈̿ӂ ͉̈́ͅӉ͐̿͏ ͍ҥ͍͑͏ ͍Ҡ͈ ј͋Ӂ͇͐̓ (19) seems like an example of the familiar participial construction (DH 175); however, God (%) in MT is not represented before ‘jealous’ in LXX. ‘Let go’ has ‘sins’ as its object only in Isa. 1:14. ѹ͇͈͋̿ Ѩҽ͋ (‘whenever’) is a successful rendering for the conjunction at the beginning of v. 20, where ky could be temporal or conditional (SS 174). Ѩ›͉̓͆̓‫‘( ͋ل‬come on’) is not a natural rendering for _ (‘return/come back’). But it does neatly recall two relevant contexts in Numbers. Num. 5:11–31 deals with a human analogy to the topic in our paragraph: the wife who deceives her husband with another man; both vv. 15 and 30 talk of the spirit of jealousy ‘coming upon’ the husband. Then 6:5 and 8:7 talk of a razor not ‘coming upon’ the head of a nazirite who is vowed to Lord, and ‘coming upon’ the head of someone at the end of a vow. B here, but not A, breaks the normal correspondence between ј͉͉Ӆ͎͇͍͑͏ and 4#+ (‘foreign’). Although neither term is used in Numbers 5, the case there relates to misbehaviour with ‘another’ man rather than a foreigner.

100. Disposition witnessed (24:21–27) This paragraph, like the last, begins not with Jesus speaking but with the people responding to him and pledging themselves again to Lord. The strongly adversative ј͉͉ҽ is good for ky after a negative. I have translated ̿Ҡ͑‫ ى‬at the end of v. 22 emphatically. Some MSS read not dat. ̩͎͒ӃԶ but the more straightforward acc. in agreement with MT; and A with even more MSS reads ͑ӄ͋ ̩Ӈ͎͇͍͋. It seems likely that in B, Lord has been attracted anomalously to the case of the following ̿Ҡ͑‫ى‬, as regularly happens with relative pronouns. ‘Direct (̓Ҡ͆Ӈ͇͋̓͋) your heart’ (23) resumes the theme of ‘directness’ (̓Ҡ͆Ӈ͑ͅ͏) from v. 14, though MT has a di֎erent word in each verse. Employing typical variation, Gr renders the divine ‘voice’ (%3) literally in v. 24 – contrast ‘order’ (Ѩ͍͉͋͑Ӂ) used in 5:6 (M-F).

226

COMMENTARY §§ 100–102

Whatever may be the case with the underlying ‘covenant’ language of MT, the ‘disposition’ which Jesus ‘disposed’ is uni-directional: from him to (›͎Ӆ͏) the people. ͇͂̿͆Ӂ͈ͅ is a ‘disposition of property by will’ or a ‘testament’ (LSJ 394b), while the cognate ͇͇͂̿͑͆ҿ͇͋̿ means to ‘dispose of ’ or ‘arrange as one chooses’ (415b). This is simply confirmed by the following or parallel ‘and gave them law and judgment’ (rendered in the singular here – i.e. not following the translator in Exod. 15:25 who made them plural): the ‘disposition’, like (or which is) the legislation, is handed down. Again LXX locates the scene not in Shechem but in SēlŌ, and Gr adds here the proximity of the divine tent – explaining what he had understood to be the implication of ‘over against Lord’ in the following verse. ‘Law of the god’ is appositional, like ‘law of Moses’ in 9:5 (DH 60), but presumably to the more distant ͑Ҽ ԪӁ͊̿͑̿ rather than the closer ͇͉̀̀Ӄ͍͋. If Jesus starts his warning in this paragraph by making the people witnesses against themselves, he ends it with Lord’s own witness to what he himself has declared: the great stone which has heard it all under the terebinth. Does the location in LXX of this scene in SēlŌ make it impossible that this was also the terebinth referred to in 17:9? At least the connections between MT and Abraham and Jacob in Gen. 12:6 and 35:2–4 are ruled out (M-F). It is interesting that the role of witness (27) is given to the stone, rather than to Jesus’s written record of the divine law. It is not said here, as in 9:5 above, that Jesus wrote on the stone. ‘The things spoken’ (͑Ҽ ͉͔̓͆ҿ͋͑̿) is a free use of a passive participle to render the (poetic) Hebrew noun ‘words’ (!4)). The eschatological plus ‘in the latest of days (Ѩ›’ Ѩ͔͐ҽ͖͑͋ ͑‫ ͋و‬ѵ͎͊̓‫ ’)͋و‬is anticipated within the Pentateuch in Num. 24:14 and Deut. 4:30; 8:16; 31:29; 32:20. The two closest parallels are the final two instances; and it will hardly be coincidental that the only two contexts in the Pentateuch to use !4) are Num. 24:4, 16 and Deut. 32:1. The Hebrew ‘lest [you play false]’ (*0) concentrates on the stone as ever-present warning. Greek ‘whenever’ (ѹ͇͈͋̿ Ѩҽ͋, which translated !# in v. 20) is hypothetical, rather like the more contemporary ‘when and if ’. In the light of the plus just mentioned, the LXX focuses on the final consequences of not heeding that warning. Very unwilling to acquiesce in his people calling Lord ‘our god’, as he himself had done throughout chap. 23, Jesus ends this paragraph with a warning against playing his god false.

JOSHUA 24:21–27 – 24:30–32

227

101. The people despatched – and faithful (24:28–29) Jesus has done much ‘sending off ’ throughout this book, from 1:16 onwards, always on a mission, as part of the campaign. This is either the exception which proves that rule, or each going to his place and looking after it was the necessary continuation of the campaign. ‘Lord’ (̩͎͒ӃԶ) at the beginning of v. 29 is preceded by the article; but I have rendered it as god’s name, because of the tendency even in inflected names to use the article in the dative case. M-F suggests that ‘delayed the time’ is a neologism for the Hebrew idiom ‘extend/lengthen days’ which LXX renders in many di֎erent ways in the Decalogue (‘that your days may be long’) and frequently in Deuteronomy; but this is not quite so. ͔͎Ӆ͍͋͏ (‘time’) renders '! (‘day’) in 4:14; and Ѩ͓ҿ͉͈͇̓͋ (‘pull after one’) had already been used in Num. 9:19 to translate a phrase which links ‘extend’ ("!4) with ‘many days’: ‘and whenever the cloud delayed rather many days upon the tent, . . .’. A very similar phrase is rendered in the more normal and less literal fashion in 9:22 – another case of deliberate variation by the translator? When Gr here reaches back to a unique case of literalism in the Pentateuch, it is probably to suggest the bold analogy between the presence of Jesus among his people and the presence of the (divine) cloud over the tent.

102. Jesus dies and is buried (24:30–32) Jesus died just ten years short of Moses’s span of 120 years. His title (͍͂‫ )͏͍͉ن‬is less intimate than that of Moses (͎͆̓ҽ›͖͋ in 1:2); and the regular word for ‘die’ is used. He was buried in or near his own city in mount Ep˰raim – but Galaad is a surprising and very poorly supported reading for Gaas (MT Gaash). This burial note reports what para. 91 had signalled in advance: the burial with Jesus of the circumcision implements – on each occasion the report is LXX plus. (On ‘today’s day’, see above on 23:8.) However, the [re-]burial of IŌsēp˰’s bones in Shechem is reported in MT too. The wording is hardly remarkable; but ‘the portion of the field’ (͑‫͎̓͊ ك‬Ӄ͇͂ ͍͑‫ ن‬ј͎͍́‫ )ن‬and ‘acquired’ (Ѩ͈͑Ӂ͍͐̿͑) are exactly the terms used in rendering the original report in Gen. 33:19. Genesis, however, talks of Sikima being in the land of ‘Canaan’ (33:18) and of SuΗem’s father EmmŌr being Ζorrai rather than Amorrai. Genesis also uses (masc.) ј͊͋Ӆ͏ for the lamb, while our passage and Job 42:11 (the

228

COMMENTARY §§ 102–103

only other passage in MT to use the rare 7!`3) uses (fem.) ј͊͋ҽ͏ – possibly a correction towards the gender of 7!`3 (DH 111).

103. After the death of Jesus (24:33) ‘Came to his end’ for Hebrew ‘died’ functions like a bracket round this book: used only in 1:2 of Moses and now here of Eleazar (Gr uses it in Judg. 2:8, the repetition of 24:30 which used ‘died’). ̢̡̠̠̠̰ will be a mistake for ̢̡̧̠̠̠ (A and many MSS), which is not a proper name in Hebrew here, but simply a transliteration of the word for ‘hill’. MT concludes this book with Eleazar’s burial. LXX has several more notes to add; and it is not easy to decide which may have been temporally or logically connected. M-F follows Rahlfs who punctuates with only a comma after ‘among themselves’: for her the implication must be that it was also ‘in that day’ that P˰einees ‘became (devint) priest’. Yet LSJ (821a) gives only ‘be priest’ and not ‘become priest’ for ͎҅̓̿͑̓Ӈ͖. It is not clear whether what was done with the chest was only short-term, or whether this passage is noting that it was only between the deaths of Jesus and Eleazar and David’s deposit of the sacred object in Jerusalem that the chest was peripatetic among the people. There is a subject change with ‘Now’ (͂ҿ): not just from leadership to people, but from faithfulness to faithlessness. Jesus had sent the people o֎, perhaps to continue the campaign in a fresh mode. But what they did was not just to depart to their own places, but depart from Lord and honour other gods instead, exactly as Jesus had predicted and they had denied. ͐ҿ͇̀̓͐͆̿ (‘honour’) is never used in the Pentateuch; but it is anticipated twice in this book, both times rendering ‘fear’ (4!) and both times with Lord as object of that reverence. Here ‘honour’ has a three-fold object. In B, followed by Rahlfs, only the second of the three (AstarŌϑ) is without the article; and DH follows Margolis in reading ͑Ӂ͋ here as well as before ̠͐͑ҽ͎͑͋ͅ. But ͑Ӂ͋ would have been inappropriate before the plural form AstarŌϑ. B’s scribe had reckoned that the case of ̠͎͖͐͑̿͆ was suّciently marked by the accusatives immediately before and after. ‘Into hands of EglŌm, to the king of MŌab’ attempts to capture the abrupt transition in Greek from the implied genitive (EglŌm) to the explicit dative (‘to the king [͑‫ ]ل͉͇̓͐̿̀ ى‬of MŌab’). Later Greek came to conflate these cases, and we have seen several examples in this book where we should have expected the one but found the other.

JOSHUA 24:30–32 & 24:33

229

The final note anticipates the narrative which the book of Judges will not tell till 3:12–30. This has led some to ponder whether the several introductory materials in Judg. 1:1–3:11 are all secondary, with LXX preserving the earlier close link between apostasy after the death of Jesus and his generation and the period of Moabite domination. At the very least, it is clear that the several notes surplus to MT, which LXX reports at the end of this book, were known as a collection elsewhere as well: the Damascus Document (V,1–5) mentions together the ark, the death of both Eleazar and Joshua, the elders, and the Ashtaroth. The final third of the last manuscript column is filled (as at the end of A) simply by ̨̦̱̮̳̱ ̨̳̮̱ ̬̠̳̦

230

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

231

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Genesis 2:2–3 3:1 4:9 9:5 25 12:6 8 10 20 13:3 5, 7 14 23 15:2, 8 16:2 18:11 21 22 19:1–12 18 19 20:15 18 21:22, 32 24:1 50 56 26:26 29:5 30:23 31:21 40 44–54 47 49 32:8 33:18, 19 34:1 2 7 14 35:2–4 39 5 40

xxiii, 86 92 154 105 215 158 226 141 222 118 141 168 159, 198 101 132 133 172 105 210 96 142 169 189 133 132 172 187 90 132 105 129 119 89 217 147 89 168 227 157 154 144 129 226 224 187 134

42:11 15, 16 22 25 43–46 43:20 44:16 18 20 22 48 49:6 7 13 26 Exodus-Numbers Exodus 3:5 6 4:10 13 5–14 5 22 7:11 13 10:28–29 11:1 7 12:18 13:3–10, 14 14:3 19, 20 27 29 15:5 8 10 15 16 25 35 19:10 11, 15

89 125 215 118 222 142 187 142 223 188 188 167 195 166 189 200, 202 xxiii, 86, 190, 220 133 215 142 107, 142 87 91 142 210 169 133 214 162 129 114 133 223 119 223 223 109 223 121 131 226 130 104 111

232 16 21:14 22:10 23:27 28 25:15, 20 27:1 28:9–12 30:11–16 31:7 32:12 15 31 33:3 11 17–18 34:2 15 40:2–3

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 128 154 105 161 223 118 152 114 114 xxvi 142 210 142 128 87 133 111 172 118

Leviticus 2:14 5:1 3–4 15 17 7 10:20 13:15–16 17:16 18–26 19:3 23 35 20:9 14 17 34 23:5–6 14 24:16 25:3 5, 11 27:28

xxiv, 190 130 140 105 140 105 145 216 125 144 224 117 126 104 101 144 129 127 129 130 218 130 134 137

Numbers 1:16 3:47 4:48 5:11–31 21, 22, 27 6:5

xxiii, 190, 203 201 145 128 225 209 225

8:7 9:19 10:33–36 11 15 18 20 12:11 13–15 13–14 13:3 9 14 15–16 28 30 31 36 41 43 15:31 16:42 22:18 29 23:28 24:4 13 14 16 22 25:1 18 26:9 27:17 28:18, 26 29:1, 7, 12 31:16 32:1 9 10 11 12 17–18 34 35

225 227 108 91 169 104 127 142 94 176 94 214 198 142 133 214 176 192 220 127, 214 146 119 220 185 214 226 220 226 226 154 94–95 214 201 213 201 201 140, 213–214 202 202 218 201, 205 176, 201, 218 213 178, 197, 214 200, 202

Deuteronomy

xxiii, 86, 112, 217, 224, 227 88, 166–167 213 93 90

1:7 15 16, 18 21

233

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 22–40 26 28 39 41 2:4 10 11 14 15–16 21 23 34 3:4 18 25 26 39 4:4 13 16–18 30 31 33 39 43 46 5:23 6:5 10–11 20 7:20 21 26 8:6 7 9 15 16 23–24 10:2, 4 11:22 24 13:5 17 18 15:9 16:7 17:18 18:1–5 4 10

176 127 222 128 213–214 215 170, 222 170 126, 209 209 222 172 189 189 93 88 89 214 210 220 216 226 89 106 99 201 214 106 210 223 114 223 222 137 210 127 91 xxv, 122, 124 226 127 220 218 88 219 137 218 144 210 152 xxv 130 126

21:22–23 22:21 26:5 5–6 8 13 17 27 28:21 29 49 53, 55, 57 61 29:9 22 26 30:6 15–20 31:6 7 8 14–15 18 23 30 32:1 6 20 30 43 50 51 33–34 33:1 19 34:2 5 6 7 9 Judges 1:1–3:11 1 18 34–35 2:8 3:12–30 12 13:17 16:1–3

150 144 222 152 222 188 210 139 218 90 220 189 220 203 155 220 126 224 89–90 89 89–90 190 210 89 153 226 144 226 219 188 86 127, 140 86 86 166 88 87, 156 214 87 88 xxiii–xxiv, 115, 145 229 159 203 198 228 229 128 115 94

234 16 20:27 32, 39

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES 188 136 147

1 Samuel 1:3, 11 4:4 15:2 17:45

137 138 136 138 138

2 Samuel 15:24

136

1 Kings 8:41 9:16–17 11:6 16:34

155 185 177 139

1 Kingdoms 7:3 17:36

224 129

2 Kingdoms 17:10

121

3 Kingdoms 1:1 3:1 6 8:56 9:4

172 219 224 220 224

4 Kingdoms 5:14 7:5 17:31 20:7 23:25

108 105 172 125 128

Chronicles 1 Chronicles 2:6–7 4:28–32 5:23 6 7:15 16:6 22:9 24:5 27:25

91 140 195 88 200, 203 128 136 125 199 165

2 Chronicles 1:1 3:3 6:32 14:14

117 104 155 165

Ezra 9:7, 34

103

Nehemiah 9:32 10:1

103 103

1 Esdras 2:8

111 203

Maccabees

xxv–xxvi, 107, 111, 121, 125, 198, 219

1 Maccabees 3:27 6:33

200 120 117

2 Maccabees 15:39

119 125

4 Maccabees 18:4

141

Judith 12:7

xxvi, 119 108

Psalms

xxiii, 90, 222, 224 121 128 138 223 138 122

22:14 45:16 89:16 97:2 100:1 114:8 Job 26:8 31:20 34:29 40:12 42:11 13

222 125 130 125 125 227 128

Proverbs 8:19 17:2 22:7 24:21 29:25 30:10

102, 130 130 132 132 117 139 132

Ecclesiastes (Qohelet) 3:15 9:11

128 143

235

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES Ecclesiasticus (Sirach) 34:25 36:31

102 108 92

Isaiah 1:9 24:18 25:8 29:13 42:11 57:11 63:16, 19 66:14

224 128 118 129 121 165 215 221 121

Jeremiah 1:18 16:2 19:15 29(36):23 36:19

128 128 165 144 131

Ezekiel 22:13 31:7 43:11

220 128 128 191

Daniel

xxvi, 107, 121, 222 202

3:27 Hosea 6:2 13:15

220 125 120

Jonah 1:9 4:7

121 120

Matthew 10:11

95

Luke 10:19 19:1–9

162 95

Acts 5:23

140

236

INDEX OF BIBLICAL REFERENCES

GENERAL INDEX Aejmelaeus xxvii, 94, 118 Alexandrinus viii, x–xii, xxv, xxviii, 103, 110, 163 Aquila 105, 109, 111, 117, 146 Auld ix, xxii, xxvii, 86, 117, 123–124, 126–127, 136, 153 Barthélemy xxvii, 116, 132, 144, 147, 221 Bieberstein xxvii, 94, 107 Eusebius ix, 131, 152 haphtarah 86, 91, 94, 104 Holmes xxviii, 86, 88, 96, 100, 112–113, 118, 126, 128, 135 Josephus xxiii, 86, 94, 100, 103, 109, 112, 124, 135, 137, 140–142, 144, 147, 152, 158, 184 Margolis xxiii, xxviii, 100, 105, 107, 111, 123, 144, 146, 153, 167, 170, 175, 183, 192, 207, 228 Mazor xxviii, 139 Origen 88, 91–92, 97, 100, 103, 117, 119, 125, 132, 138–139, 151–153, 161–162, 180, 185

Pentateuch xix, xxiii, xxv, 87, 89, 91, 101, 107–108, 116, 118–119, 121, 127, 130, 133–135, 138, 140, 142, 144–145, 147, 156–157, 162, 167, 169–170, 172, 174, 185, 188–189, 198–200, 205, 208–211, 215–219, 223–224, 226–228 Philo 119 Qumran 124, 152–153 Rahlfs xv–xvi, xxii–xxiii, xxviii, 105, 126–127, 163, 172, 179–180, 186, 210, 228 Rashi 94, 107 Symmachus 105, 109, 111 Syriac 103 Targ[um] 94, 103–104, 107, 131, 141 Theodoret 100, 109, 132, 138, 162 Theodotion 105, 109 Tov xxii, xxv, xxix, 94, 106, 109, 113, 122, 127, 139 Vulgate 103, 106, 112, 131