Whence the Perfectly Circumcised?An Exegesis of Joshua Chapter 5.

© Charleston C. K. Wang

1. The Preliminary Question of Textual Criticism

Textual criticism, narrowly defined, focuses on the transmission of a text from copy to

copy over time. As no original document of the Hebrew Scripture is known to exist today, the

goal of textual criticism is to reconstruct, as accurately in furthest time possible, this original

document. On a broader scope, the analysis of various ancient translations falls also into the

ambit of textual criticism as the Aramaic and Greek translations also shed light on the

transmission of the Hebrew text and therefore the contents of the original text.

In recent years, there has been a surge in scholarly interest in the comparative textual

study of Joshua, as well as the rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, through the Masoretic, Septuagint,

and other ancient versions. Scholars who are well versed in ancient Hebrew, Greek, Syraic,

Aramaic, Latin, Sahidic, Coptic, Ethiopic, Arabic, and Armenian command the privilege of

reading the texts in the original. For students who lack such philology skills, a foray into textual

criticism nevertheless can be made through the translation of vorlage in their own language, such

as English.

A common approach is to compare the Septuagint (LXX or Old Greek OG) with the

Masoretic Text (Hebrew MT). Some parts of the LXX are better preserved than the MT and

vice versa, and there are variations among the copies. The LXX refers to the legend of the

seventy-two Jewish scholars (six each of the twelve tribes) who were commanded by an

Egyptian Pharaoh in the 3rd century BCE to translate the Torah into Greek for use in the Library

2

of Alexandria. Present scholarship places the LXX between the 3rd and 1st centuries BCE. The

MT is the Hebrew text of the Tanakh approved for use in Judaism. It is also widely used in

translations of the Christian Old Testament. Both the King James and New Revised Standard

Versions are based on it. The MTs were transmitted by Jewish scribes known as the Masoretes

between the 6th and 9th centuries CE using older texts.. The MT contains differences vis-à-vis

LXX, of both little and great import. If the principle giving preference to the older text, then the

LXX should be given any benefit of the doubt in case of a contradiction between the LXX and

the MT. To confuse matters further , there exist other ancient versions including the Peshitta1,

the Targum,2 and finally the Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran which featured rather meager

fragments of Joshua.

More often than not, the various versions are in general agreement but noteworthy

differences can be found in certain texts. In addition to the preference for the older text, two

other general rules are often followed in evaluating texts: (1) the rule of lectio brevior which

gives the shorter text the benefit of originality, and (2) the lectio difficilior, which favors the

more obscure (i.e unembellished) text. These rules, however, are not cast in stone, and logic

often is the determinative tool of discernment.

For example, Chapter 5 of Joshua which deals with deutero-circumcision (circumcise a

second time) provides an interesting example for textual criticism.

1 The Peshitta often follows the MT.2 The Targum are Aramaic editions and are considered by most scholars as containing much commentary.

3

The Septuagint as Translated into English(Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851).

2 And about this time the Lord said toJoshua, Make thee stone knives of sharpstone, and sit down and circumcise thechildren of Israel the second time.3 And Joshua made sharp knives of stone,and circumcised the children of Israel at theplace called the "Hill of Foreskins."4 And this is the way in which Joshuapurified the children of Israel; as many aswere born in the way, and as many as wereuncircumcised of them that came out ofEgypt,5 all these Joshua circumcised; for fortyand two years Israel wondered in thewilderness of Mabdaris—6 Wherefore most of the fighting men thatcame out of the land of Egypt, wereuncircumcised, who disobeyed thecommands of God; concerning whom alsohe determined that they should not see theland, which the Lord sware to give to theirfathers, even a land flowing with milk andhoney.7 And in their place he raised up their sons,whom Joshua circumcised, because theywere uncircumcised, having been born bythe way.8 And when they had been circumcised theyrested continuing there in the camp till theywere healed.

[Italics and Emphasis added].

The Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible inEnglish JPS 1917 Edition).

2 At that time the LORD said unto Joshua:'Make thee knives of flint, and circumciseagain the children of Israel the second time.'3 And Joshua made him knives of flint, andcircumcised the children of Israel atGibeath-ha-araloth.4 And this is the cause why Joshua didcircumcise: all the people that came forthout of Egypt, that were males, even all themen of war, died in the wilderness by theway, after they came forth out of Egypt.5 For all the people that came out werecircumcised; but all the people that wereborn in the wilderness by the way as theycame forth out of Egypt, had not beencircumcised.6 For the children of Israel walked fortyyears in the wilderness, till all the nation,even the men of war that came forth out ofEgypt, were consumed, because theyhearkened not unto the voice of the LORD;unto whom the LORD swore that He wouldnot let them see the land which the LORDswore unto their fathers that He would giveus, a land flowing with milk and honey.7 And He raised up their children in theirstead; them did Joshua circumcise; for theywere uncircumcised, because they had notbeen circumcised by the way.8 And it came to pass, when all the nationwere circumcised, every one of them, thatthey abode in their places in the camp, tillthey were whole.

[Emphasis added].

4

An easy to detect inconsistency is in the number of years of wandering in the wilderness–

42 for the OG and 40 for the MT. It is easy to explain away this rather de minimus disagreement

by asserting that the MT consciously used the number 40 to conform with the Semitic allegory

for expressing a large number. Furthermore, the English translation of the OG identifies the

wilderness with the name Mabdaris3 whereas the MT simply refers to the wilderness, without

any mention of a proper name. This type of omission can be compared to Genesis 21:22 and 32,

wherein the OG versions of these verses contain the proper name of Ochozath who is identified

as the 'bride finder' of King Abimelech, while the MT omits this detail. Both of the above two

inconsistencies can be assigned another explanation: clerical or copying error. Any of these

explanations appear sufficient for the difference of two or even more years is inconsequential in

the big picture for it is generally understood that the Israelites wandered in the Sinai for a “long

time,” and the omission of the proper names of a place or a person or a place can be argued as

being immaterial since these names have little bearing theologically.

Reading of the substance of the juxtaposed texts also reveals more critical differences in

the events presented. A more serious contradiction can be observed over whether the male

Israelites who walked out of Egypt were circumcised. The OG reports that “as many as were

uncircumcised of them that came out of Egypt,”4 and again, “most of the fighting men that came

out of the land of Egypt, were uncircumcised”5 The OG reports twice that many men, if not

most fighting men were uncircumcised. The MT differs in reporting that while “all the people

that came forth out of Egypt, that were males, even all the men of war, died in the wilderness by

the way, after they came forth out of Egypt,” but “all the people that came out were

3 Perhaps, Mabdaris is a derivative of the Hebrew (midbar) which literally means wilderness.4 Verse 4.5 Verse 6.

5

circumcised.” This fundamental issue is triggered by the command of the LORD to circumcise

the Israelites prior to entering the promised land, as it makes no sense to circumcise a man twice.

Thus, the issue per se is the critical question of whether the original members of the exodus were

faithful to the Covenant with Abraham.6 Respecting those born during the wandering, both the

OG and MT are in agreement that the children born along the way were not circumcised.7 The

lingering and rather significant question raised by the OG is “Who were included among those

who left Egypt with Moses, especially those fighting men among them who were

uncircumcised?” Did Moses take with him a large number of non-Israelite warriors for

additional protection in the desert? This question will be explored in greater depth in Subpart

3D, infra.

2. Authorship and Date of Composition

There exist a number of opinions respecting the authorship, and subsequently, the date of

composition of Joshua. Jewish Rabbinic tradition, first transmitted by the oral Talmud,

proclaims Joshua himself as the author except for Joshua 24:29-33, verses that record the death

6 Genesis 17: 7-14: I will establish my covenant between me and you, and your offspring after you throughout theirgenerations, for an everlasting covenant, to be God to you and to your offspring after you. 8And I will give to you,and to your offspring after you, the land where you are now an alien, all the land of Canaan, for a perpetual holding;and I will be their God.’ 9God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspringafter you throughout their generations. 10This is my covenant, which you shall keep, between me and you and youroffspring after you: Every male among you shall be circumcised. 11You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins,and it shall be a sign of the covenant between me and you. 12Throughout your generations every male among youshall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your house and the one bought with yourmoney from any foreigner who is not of your offspring. 13Both the slave born in your house and the one bought withyour money must be circumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 14Anyuncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cut off from his people; he hasbroken my covenant.’7 Responsibility for this serious oversight of compliance with the Covenant can be placed on Moses as rankingpatriarch.

6

and burial of Joshua, these being attributed to Phinehas the priest and son of Eleazer. To this

day, Orthodox Judaism is steadfast in clinging rigorously to this belief.

The Reformed School is more relaxed on this issue and the modern viewpoint is

suggested in this preamble to Joshua:

…the [fact that the] land promise of Genesis is only fulfilled in Joshua led many scholarsin the 19th and 20th century to speak of the Hexateuch, the first six books of the Bible.Comprising Genesis through Joshua. Even more widely accepted now is the idea that,because Deuteronomic features are found throughout the Former Prophets (Joshua to 2Kings), Joshua in the final form is the work of the compilation of a comprehensivehistorical work called Deuteronomistic History, which begins in Deuteronomy and ends n2 Kings. Such a work may have initially taken shape in the late 7th century BCE whenKing Josiah is said to have found a “scroll of the Teaching” and subsequently institutedreforms that reflect Deuteronomic rules and perspectives (see 2 Kings 22-23). Becausethe last events of this “history” take place during the exile, it probably received its finalediting in the 6th century BCE. This sequence of redactions may explain some of theduplications and inconsistencies of the book.8

Christian scholarship is likewise split on this question. The Catholic Encyclopedia

provides this careful analysis with many references:

The Book of Josue was certainly written before the time of David, for the Chanaanite stilldwelt in Gazer (xvi, 10), the Jebusite in Jerusalem (xv, 63), and Sidon held supremacy inPhoenicia (xiv, 28); whereas, before the time of Solomon, the Egyptians had driven theChanaanite from Gazer (III Kings, ix, 16), David had captured Jerusalem in the eighthyear of his reign (II Kings, v, 5), and Tyre (twelfth century B.C.) had supplanted Sidon inthe supremacy of Phoenicia. Moreover, in David's time, no writer could have set downhis allies the Phoenicians among the peoples to be destroyed (xiii, 6). (b) Internalevidence favours the view that the author lived not long after the death of Josue. Theterritory assigned to each tribe is very exactly described. Only the land allotted toEphraim is set down (xvi, 5), since occupation was delayed (xvii, 16); on the other hand,we are told not only the portion of land allotted to Juda and Benjamin, but the cities theyhad captured (xv, 1 sqq.; xviii, 11 sqq.); as for the other tribes, the progress they hadmade in winning the cities of their lot is told us with an accuracy which could not beexplained were we to admit that the narrative is post-Exilic in its final redaction. Only theinadmissible bungling of the uncritical D¹ or D² will serve to explain away this argument.(c) The question remains: Did Josue write all save the epilogue? Catholics are divided.

8 The Jewish Study Bible, The Jewish Publication Society Tanakh Translation, Berlin, A & Brettler M.Z., ed.Oxford University Press, 1999.

7

Most of the Fathers seem to have taken it for granted that the author is Josue; still therehave ever been Catholics who assigned the work to some one shortly after the death ofthe great leader. Theodoret (In Jos., q. xiv), Pseudo-Athanasius (Synopsis Sacr. Scrip.),Tostatus (In Jos., i, q. xiii; vii), Maes ("Josue Imperatoris Historia", Antwerp, 1574),Haneberg ("Gesch. der bibl. Offenbarung", Ratisbon, 1863, 202), Danko ("Hist. Rev.Div. V. T.", Vienna, 1862, 200), Meignan ("De Moïse à David", Paris, 1896, 335), andmany other Catholic authors admit that the Book of Josue contains signs of later editing;but all insist that this editing was done before the Exile.9

Conservative Protestants follow the rigorous Orthodox Jewish position and they are

exemplified by this statement;

Basically the book was composed by Joshua himself. To be sure, a few sections – suchas 15:13-17 (cf. Judges 1:9-13) and Joshua 24:29-31 – could not have been written byhim. These were probably added by Eleazer the priest or Pinehas, his son. But Joshua isspecifically identified as the author of 24:1-26 [Joshua’s farewell speech], and clearly theauthor was an eyewitness of many of the events recorded – see, for example,, 5:1(contains “we” in some manuscripts) and 5:6 (“us”). It is also evident that the book waswritten not long after the events happened (6:25).10 [Citation to and paraphrasing ofevents omitted]. Assuming the earlier date for the Exodus from Egypt, the conquest ofCanaan under Joshua took place around 1400 BC.[sic] The later date for the Exodusplaces the conquest for Canaan around 1240, a date more difficult to harmonize with theslight mention in the Book of Joshua (13:2-3) of the Philistines, who were strong inPalestine around 1200.

Other editors of the protestant Bible echo the Jewish Reformed School. Consider this example:

A widely accepted hypothesis regards the book of Joshua as part of a historical work thatincludes also the books of Judges, 1 and 2 Samuel and 1 and 2 Kings, with the book ofDeuteronomy as theological preface or introduction – thus a “Deuteronomic History.”The main edition of the work probably comes from the reign of the reforming KingJosiah and the discovery of a long lost Book of the Law during repairs at the JerusalemTemple (ca. 622 BCE; see 2 Kings 22-23). For the era of Joshua, the historian(s) had acollection of stories, lists, and poetic fragments (all of varying antiquity) which they usedto present Joshua as a military ideal for the Jerusalem king.11

Yet other another well subscribed editor takes the trouble to present both viewpoints:

9 The Catholic Encyclopedia, Classic 1914 Ed. accessed at http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08524a.htm .10 Ryrie Study Bible, King James Version, Ryrie C.C., Ed., expanded ed. Moody Press. 1994.

8

It is the judgment of many scholars that Joshua was not written until the end of the periodof the kings, some 800 years after the actual events. But there are significant reasons toquestion this conclusion and to place the time of composition much earlier. The earliestJewish traditions (Talmud) claim that Joshua wrote his own book except for the finalsection about his funeral, which is attributed to Eleazer, son of Aaron (the last verse musthave been added by a later editor). [Citations omitted] It seems safe to conclude that thebook, at least in its early form dates from the beginning of the monarchy. Some thinkthat Samuel may have had a hand in shaping or compiling the materials of the book, butin fact we are unsure who the final author or editor was.12 [Emphasis added].

Perhaps, it is best to take leave of the paper trail of the question of who wrote Joshua on

this scholarly and accommodative note of uncertainty. The door should be appropriately left ajar

for various approaches to this not-so-easy question. However, for pedagogical purposes, this

writer tends to lean towards to suggestion that Joshua is part of Deuteronomistic History.

3. The Circumstances of Composition

A. General Historical Circumstances During the Time of Composition

Assuming that Joshua was composed into the final form by a pre-exilic Deuteronomistic

Historian (Dtr1), the time of composition and the Sitz im Leben would be Judah during the reign

of King Josiah, its last great king before the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadrezzar of

Babylon in 586 BCE. Josiah reigned from 640-609 BCE13 and it was during this timeframe that

a lost “book of law” was discovered by the high priest Hilkiah during repairs to the Temple in

Jerusalem14. This discovery of this text coupled with the oracles of an obscure prophetess

11 The Harper Collins Study Bible, New Revised Standard Version, Meeks, W.A. gen. Ed., Harpers Collins 1993.12 The NIV Study Bible, Zondervon, 1995.13 Frick, F. S., A Journey Through the Hebrew Scriptures, 2nd ed. Thomson Wadsworth 2003, Table 10.1 at p.322.14 The Talmud maintains that the scroll discovered by Hilkiah was none other than the Book of Deuteronomy.

9

Huldah inspired Josiah to implement benchmark religious reforms. Huldah’s prophecy consisted

of (i) judgment calling for the destruction of Judah that is spelled out in typical deuteronomistic

fashion15 and (ii) of assurance that Josiah “shall be gathered to [his] grave in peace.”16

Unfortunately for Josiah, the latter did not materialize because he was killed under treacherous

circumstances during a meeting with Pharaoh Neco at Megiddo.17 Unfortunately for Judah, the

prophecy of disaster by reason of the worship of other gods was fulfilled - after the death of

Josiah, Jerusalem survived for only 23 years under a succession of four weak kings.

Even as Josiah sat on the throne, Judah was alone for Israel in the north had fallen to the

Assyrians in 722 BCE and its people, the “ten lost tribes” were permanently exiled. The southern

kingdom was in constant dread of invasion by the same nemesis. Judah nursed hopes of its

survival on two planes: (i) spiritually by appealing to the Covenant with Yahweh Sabaoth, the

LORD of Armies, and (ii) physically on the impregnability of fortress Jerusalem. The earlier

fall of Israel in 721 BCE was to be explained by its infidelity towards the LORD by having other

gods. This syncretic sin of idolatry is often cast in the sexual imagery of the wanton harlot.18

The hope was that the southern monarchy, the true House of David with its capital and Temple

centered in Jerusalem would weather the Assyrian threat through the revival of the strict

observation of the Law. When Sennacherib laid siege to Jerusalem in 701 BCE, there came forth

the prophet Isaiah who predicted the miraculous salvation of the holy city by the LORD as king

Hezekiah had instituted religious reforms that cleansed the city of idols. 2 Kings 19:32-37

records that an angel of the LORD descended on the Assyrian camp in the night and annihilated

15 2 Kings 22:16-17 (NRSV).16 2 Kings 22:18-20 (NRSV).17 2 Kings 23:29 (NRSV).18 See, e.g. Hosea 1-3, this prophet having lived in the days of Kings Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah of Judah(783-686 BCE). The prophetic tradition of the Old Testament, beginning with Nathan preserves a body ofindependent criticism of the other institutions of the monarchies and their critique also extend to the issue of socialjustice.

10

the besiegers, thereby obliging Sennacherib to abandon the siege of Jerusalem.19 The irony was

that Jerusalem actually outlived Assyria, only to succumb to the new power from the land of two

rivers, Babylon. In 612 BCE a Medes-Babylonian force first overran Nineveh and then

destroyed the Assyrian remnant at Haran, despite aid from Neco of Egypt. After

Nebuchadrezzar defeated the Egyptian garrison in Palestine at the battle of Carchemish in 605

BCE, the road to Jerusalem was open. All Judah could do was to desperately buy time via a

shifting alliance with an enfeebled Egypt. In 597 BCE, Nebuchadrezzar entered Jerusalem,

deposed Jehoiakim and installed his uncle, Mattaniah as vassal. When Zedekiah (royal name of

Mattaniah) attempted rebellion, the City of David was razed in 598/597 BCE and the upper

classes were exiled to Babylon.

The pre-exilic Deuteronomistic Historian (Dtr1), having explained the fall of Israel, was

seeking to justify the religious-political reform of Josiah. The royal theologian(s) used Joshua to

set the stage for the need for a monarchy in Israel and to showcase the superiority of the Davidic

system within Judah. After the fall to Israel to Assyria, and in the face of invasion from the

north, Joshua is used to convince the defenders of their invincibility from external enemies by

reason of a reciprocated loyalty arising from Jerusalem’s covenant with Yahweh Sabaoth. The

solemn understanding was that provided Judah was true to the Covenant, the God of Armies who

fought and will fight for the faithful, will descend from the spiritual plane into the temporal and

19"Therefore thus saith the LORD concerning the king of Assyria, He shall not come into this city, nor shoot an

arrow there, nor come before it with shield, nor cast a bank against it. By the way that he came, by the same shall hereturn, and shall not come into this city, saith the LORD. For I will defend this city, to save it, for mine own sake,and for my servant David's sake. And it came to pass that night, that the angel of the LORD went out, and smote inthe camp of the Assyrians an hundred fourscore and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning,behold, they were all dead corpses. So Sennacherib king of Assyria departed, and went and returned, and dwelt atNineveh. And it came to pass, as he was worshipping in the house of Nisroch his god, that Adrammelech andSharezer his sons smote him with the sword: and they escaped into the land of Armenia. And Esarhaddon his sonreigned in his stead." 2 Kings 19:32-37. When Sennacherib returned to Nineveh, he was murdered by his ownsons.

11

deliver to Jerusalem the victory. In addition, Joshua served to bolster the courage of Judah by

reassuring the worried warriors of their supremacy at arms through the example of the godly yet

flesh-and-blood Hero-Conqueror of Canaan who warred victorious in the temporal plane.

B. The Rhetorical Situation

The fundamental rhetoric throughout the book of Joshua is the ardent use of reiterative

amplification and repeated exhortation. By the use of words, the Deuteronomistic Historian

sought to remind Judah that the laws of the Torah play a critical normative role in lives of the

nation and the people’s stringent adherence to the Covenant with the LORD is the difference

between national life or death. To ignore the law is to invite anathema per the standard of cause

and effect given to Moses in Deuteronomy 28. The fervent insistence for strict obedience to the

Law of Moses is especially prominent in Joshua 1 and 23 (beginning and end). In the main

corpus of the book, the military victories of the Israelites against the Canaanites are elevated to

divine triumph and thus exaggerated by any mortal measure. – the general theme is that with the

LORD on their side, the abiding Israelite warrior is invincible, and vice versa, as exemplified by

the sin of Achan and the defeat at Ai.

Specifically, Chapter 5 of Joshua journalizes three events: (1) the resumption of

circumcision of the people at Gilgal, (2) the celebration of Passover at the same place and (3)

Joshua’s encounter with the commander of the army of the LORD on ground so holy that Joshua

was compelled to remove his sandals. These three events in Chapter 5 are intrinsically the

restatement of three salient events experienced by Israel through Moses while the tribes were still

Egypt, specifically: (1) the circumcision of Israel symbolically through the circumcision of

12

Moses’ first born by Zipporah20 and the LORD’s command to Moses and Aaron that no one shall

partake of Passover without circumcision,21 (2) the Passover of the Hebrews immediately before

the great Exodus from Egypt,22 and (3) the epiphany of an angel of the LORD at the burning

bush who commanded Moses to remove his sandals because he was standing on holy ground.23

Just as king Josiah sought to renew the orthodox worship of the LORD at Jerusalem through the

discovery of the Law of Moses in the Temple, so did the Deuteronomist editor parallel that royal

effort by renewing the Covenant of Moses with a stroke of the pen in Joshua Chapter 5,

immediately after the entry into the Promised Land through the Jordan River. Like the Red Sea

in the time of Moses, the water of Jordan was miraculously parted by the LORD in order that the

children of Israel may walk in safety.

A difference may be discerned in the sequence of the three events in Joshua as they are

not in the same chronological order as reported with Moses. However, this does not distract

from the effectiveness of the reiterative narration of Mosaic themes in Chapter 5 of Joshua

towards reaching the calculated goal of installing a parallel theology, one which bridges any

covenantal gap between Moses and Joshua. Thus, just as Josiah repaired the temple and

renewed the Yahwist Covenant at Jerusalem, so did the pre-exilic Deuteronomist attempt to

salvage the covenantal fidelity of Israel under Joshua by the use of hallowed rhetoric post hoc.

Perhaps, in an overwrought display of rhetorical zeal, the Deuteronomistic Historian can be

justified or even blessed for he was faithful to his theology in his prayer for a temporal but

perpetual Temple in the holy City of David.

20 The traditional Jewish and Christian wisdom is that Zipporah is Moses' Cushite (or Ethiopian, i.e. of dark skin)wife alluded to Numbers 12:1, but some early sources (including Josephus Jewish Antiquities 2.10-11 and TargumPseudo-Jonathan) state they were different women, as do some modern scholars, as it is not unusual for thepatriarchs to have more than one wife.21 Genesis 4:24-26; 12:43-48 (NRSV).22 Genesis 12.23 Genesis 3:2-6 (NRSV).

13

C. Cultural and Linguistic Aspects

The Sitz im Leben of Joshua is Gilgal,24 or alternately, “Gilbeath-haaraloth.”25 Both

names are plays on words. Gilgal, arguably, sounds akin to the Hebrew verb (galal)

which means “to roll,” or “to wheel.” This pun is made explicit in Joshua 5:8 – 9 as the rolling

away of the foreskin after circumcision:

When the circumcising of all the nation was done, they remained in their places in thecamp until they were healed. The LORD said to Joshua, "Today I have rolled away fromyou the disgrace of Egypt." And so that place is called Gilgal to this day.

The association with Gilgal with circumcision is reinforced by the other name for this site:

“Gilbeath-haaraloth” which is translated as the “Hill of the Foreskins.”

An alternate translation for Gilgal is that it means “a circle,” and it is conjectured that the

place derived this name from the presence of a shrine in the form of a circle of stones. Joshua

15:7 mentions another place also called Gilgal which is opposite the ascent of Adummin. In

addition, while Joshua 21:32 in the NRSV refers to Galilee, the Hebrew noun which appears is

(Galiyl). The presence of multiple places with the Gilgal motif is used as evidence that

the name is associated with any shrine with a circle of stones. A third inclusive possibility is

that circumcision rituals were performed within a circle of stones.

24 Joshua 5:9 (NRSV).25 Joshua 5:3 (NRSV).

14

Joshua 5 is set at the time after the Israelites had crossed the Jordan River which the

LORD had parted for Joshua, as was done to the Red Sea for Moses,26 but before the destruction

of Jericho. In historical time, this event is placed during the Late Bronze Age, circa 1200 BCE

and the culture of the Israelites would be commensurate with that time period. It is probable that

the tribes at this time possessed tools and weapons such as swords made of bronze. Yet when

the command was given to circumcise, both the NRSV and JPS have Joshua making “knives of

flint.” This is not so with the King James Version which recites merely “sharp knives” without

specifying the materials the sharp knives were to be constructed from. The naturally question is

why the reversion to stone knives during the Late Age of Bronze? Strong’s Concordance pin-

points the Hebrew word as (tsuwr) which translates literally but in context as “rock with

a flat surface.” A plausible explanation is the Deuteronomist’s penchant to link the acts of

Joshua to that of Moses, even though it was his wife Zipporah who circumcised with a flint knife

(in order to save Moses from destruction at the hands of an irate LORD).27 The insistence on the

ritual use of flint tends to indicate that covenant circumcision is a very old practice, probably

predating the sojourn in Egypt. The Hebrew for circumcise is (muwl) which basically

means to “cut off,” and this word occurs 36 times in 32 verses in the Old Testament.

The next salient event after circumcision is, of course, the celebration of the Passover

( pecach) feast. This ritual meal of the paschal lamb, unleavened bread,

(matstsah) and bitter herbs is first prescribed in Exodus 12. The solemn renewal of the Passover

rite at Gilgal, coupled with the cessation of manna (man) suggests that during their

26 As is succinctly stated in Joshua 4:23 - For the LORD your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you untilyou crossed over, as the LORD your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up for us until we crossed over, 24so

15

wandering in the desert, the Israelites did not observe Passover. A possible exception is the

“anniversary occasion” at Sinai cited in Numbers 9:5.

The final landmark event is the epiphany of the “commander of the army of the LORD,”

who appeared to Joshua as a man “with a drawn sword (chereb) in this hand.”28 This

human figure is identified in Hebrew as (sar) which carries a host of meanings ranging

from prince, captain, commander, patron-angel, and, finally, Ruler of rulers (God). Thus under

the culture of the time, it was a fearsome manifestation but of imprecise identification with the

terrifying possibility that it is God himself, made even more so as his sword is drawn. Certainly,

Joshua knew that he was on ground that is holy (qodesh) and he was obliged to remove

his shoes.

On the basis of the foregoing analysis, it can be seen that a conscious effort is made by

the scribe to duplicate by the use of words, three acts of Moses with that Joshua. The parallelism

is obvious and may disclose an intention to consolidate Joshua as the lawful successor of Moses.

There may lurk a desire to elevate Joshua to the equal of Moses, if not his superior.

Theologically, an effort is made to establish the continuous existence of the Covenant from the

LORD and the faithful compliance of the Covenant by the people, an unblemished reciprocal

relationship that the redactor of Joshua 5 strains to show.

D. An Exegesis of Joshua Chapter 5 Respecting Circumcision.

that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the LORD is mighty, and so that you may fear the LORDyour God forever."27 See, Exodus 4:25 (NRSV).28 Joshua 5:13-15 (NRSV).

16

The controversy to be reviewed is the question of whether all the men who left Egypt

with Moses were circumcised. Circumcision originated by reason of a Covenant between the

LORD and Abraham, and therefore predates the Mosaic Law, although it certainly is reaffirmed

as such in the books of Exodus and Leviticus. The Abrahamic Law is as follows:

9God said to Abraham, ‘As for you, you shall keep my covenant, you and your offspringafter you throughout their generations. 10This is my covenant, which you shall keep,between me and you and your offspring after you: Every male among you shall becircumcised. 11You shall circumcise the flesh of your foreskins, and it shall be a sign ofthe covenant between me and you. 12Throughout your generations every male among youshall be circumcised when he is eight days old, including the slave born in your houseand the one bought with your money from any foreigner who is not of your offspring.13Both the slave born in your house and the one bought with your money must becircumcised. So shall my covenant be in your flesh an everlasting covenant. 29

The duty to circumcise is mandatory and a penalty is imposed for failure to obey:

Any uncircumcised male who is not circumcised in the flesh of his foreskin shall be cutoff from his people; he has broken my covenant.’30

Abraham being faithful to the command of the LORD complied:

And Abraham circumcised his son Isaac when he was eight days old, as God hadcommanded him.31

Immediately before the Exodus, the LORD laid down this prerequisite for Passover:

The LORD said to Moses and Aaron: This is the ordinance for the passover: no foreignershall eat of it, 44but any slave who has been purchased may eat of it after he has beencircumcised; 45no bound or hired servant may eat of it. 46It shall be eaten in one house;you shall not take any of the animal outside the house, and you shall not break any of its

29 Genesis 17:9-13 (NRSV).30 Genesis 17:14 (NRSV).31 Genesis 21:4 (NRSV).

17

bones. 47The whole congregation of Israel shall celebrate it. 48If an alien who resides withyou wants to celebrate the passover to the LORD, all his males shall be circumcised; thenhe may draw near to celebrate it; he shall be regarded as a native of the land. But nouncircumcised person shall eat of it;32

After the Exodus, the LORD repeated his command to Moses at Mount Sinai:

The LORD spoke to Moses, saying: [Verse 2 omitted] 3On the eighth day the flesh ofhis foreskin shall be circumcised.33

Given the Law pertaining to circumcision, it is apparent that the cutting edge concern in

Joshua 5 is state of circumcision of the Israelites before the renewed celebration of Passover at

Gilgal. As set forth above, the Septuagint OG reported that that many of the males who walked

out of Egypt including most of the fighting men were uncircumcised while the MT insisted that

all the men who left Egypt were circumcised. The most grave implication of the OG, is that it

convicts Moses of failure to obey the explicit command of the LORD given to Moses and Aaron

in Exodus 12 even before they left Egypt, while the MT absolves Moses of any such omission.

The question then is which Text best reflects the original document?

For a satisfactory exegesis of this question, one can revisit Exodus 4:24-26 which states

that the LORD34 was sufficiently furious with Moses to want to kill him in the dead of night, and

that it was Zipporah, his Midianite wife and daughter of Jethro the priest of Midian35 who

hastened to circumcise Gershom. This narrative suggests that Moses himself was lax in

complying with the Abrahamic Law of Circumcision to the point that he did not circumcise his

own first-born after eight days, thus rousing the murderous wrath of the LORD. It would appear

32 Exodus 12:43-48 (NRSV).33 Leviticus 12:1, 3 (NRSV). Tradionally,. Leviticus embodies all the Laws dictated by the LORD to Moses atMount Sinai.34 In the alternate, if one prefers, an Angel of the LORD.

18

that the Midianites were more apt to observe this ancient covenant than Moses who was born and

raised in Egypt. More light on this intriguing and much debated question can be obtained by

comparing the OG and MT:

35 Jethro is also is also known as Reuel. See, Exodus 2:18 (NRSV).

The Septuagint as Translated into English(Sir Lancelot C. L. Brenton 1851).

24 And it came to pass that the angel of the

Lord met him by the way in the inn, and

sought to kill him.

25 And Zipporah having taken a stone, cut

off the foreskin of her son, and fell at his

feet and said, “The blood of the

circumcision of my son is established!”

26 and he departed from him, because she

said, “The blood of the circumcision of my

son is established. “

[Emphasis added].

The Masoretic Text (Hebrew Bible inEnglish (JPS 1917 Edition).

24 And it came to pass on the way at the

lodging-place, that HaShem met him, and

sought to kill him.

25 Then Zipporah took a flint, and cut off

the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet;

and she said: 'Surely a bridegroom of

blood art thou to me.'

26 So He let him alone. Then she said: 'A

bridegroom of blood in regard of the

circumcision.'

[Emphasis added].

What are the differences between the OG and MT? In verse 24, there is a de minimus

discrepancy of whether Moses stayed at “an inn” (OG), or simply at “the lodging place” (MT).

A more significant difference is whether Moses was confronted by “angel of the LORD,” (OG)

or in person by the LORD (HASHEM). The MT elevates the standing of Moses by having the

19

LORD appear and having Moses survive the theophany. The OG euphemistically identifies the

epiphany as that of an angel, which lowers the stature of Moses. Last, verse 24 is ambiguous as

who the divine manifestation was addressing by the word “him,” thus begging the question of

whether “him” refers to Moses or their son. My opinion is that it is to Moses as patriarch of the

household and he was under a duty to circumcise his son.

The confusion of verse 25 is more subtle as it must be read in conjunction with verse 26.

The obvious difference in verse 25 per se is that the MT states that Zipporah uttered the word

“bridegroom” whereas the OG does not. Subsequent English translations, being based on the

MT perpetuate the word “bridegroom.” Most commentators have then assigned Moses as the

“bridegroom,” as he is Zipporah’s husband. But wait! I would ask that consideration be given to

the proposition that Zipporah was addressing the divine manifestation as “bridgegroom.” After

circumcising her first-born, she was falling not at the feet of her flesh and blood husband, but

before the LORD. Verse 26 which follows, in my opinion, makes my position clear. The OG

states “and he departed from him, because she said, ‘The blood of the circumcision of my son is

established.’” Neither h’s in “he” and “him” is capitalized by the translator, thus creating in the

English translation a prima facie ambiguity of who left whom. But any discerning reader can

infer that it was the LORD who left Moses. The MT’s scripture leaves no room for doubt – “So

He let him alone. Then she said: “A bridegroom of blood in regard of the circumcision.” Why

would Zipporah address her husband of many years as “bridgegroom” as if she and Moses were

in the process of consummating a marriage covenant? Together, they already had sons, Gershom

and Eliezer. Furthermore it was He (HASHEM or the LORD) who let him (Moses) alone. An

alternate suggestion is that after having seen the LORD face to face for the first time, Zipporah is

20

consummating a potentially lethal encounter by addressing the LORD as her “bridgegroom,” and

this is consistent even under the MT’s frame of reference.

Continuing with the MT convention, and going back of the MT verse 25, “his feet”

therefore logically means “Moses’ feet.” However, the OG verse 25 does not benefit from such

a convention – “his feet” can refer to either the LORD’s feet or Moses’ feet. In my opinion, the

original text referred to the LORD’s feet, as accurately reflected in the OG, especially when read

in context, but not in the MT. This is bolstered by Zipporah’s repeated utterance: “The blood of

the circumcision of my son is established” – she is begging to the LORD to forgive Moses’

oversight in not circumcising Gershom, an oversight she has made right with her own hands. A

plea for the life of Moses cannot possibly be made to Moses, but only to the divine

manifestation. Therefore, once again, the MT’s “bridegroom” addressed by Zipporah’s is not

Moses but can only be the divine LORD.

Conventional Christian commentators take the routine way since the exegesis of Adam

and Eve, by placing the blame of an uncircumcised Gershom on his Midianite36 mother

Zipporah. This easy approach absolves Moses of the grave breach of the covenant between the

LORD and Abraham. A representative example of such commentary is the one of Matthew

Henry (1662-1714):

The sin of Moses, which was neglecting to circumcise his son [sic]. This was probablythe effect of his being unequally yoked with a Midianite, who was too indulgent of herchild, while Moses was too indulgent of her.

Another commentary contains these suggestions:

36 The Midianites are the descendants of Abraham and Keturah, the woman whom Abraham marries after the deathof Sarah. Keturah bears Abraham six sons, Zimran, Jokshan, Medan, Midian, Ishbak, and Shuah. Genesis 25:1-3(NRSV).

21

Perhaps Zipporah had objected to the rite of circumcision; she was not an Israelite, andmay have thought it a barbaric custom. Perhaps this was why God held Mosesaccountable (for not doing what was right, even though his wife didn't like it), but made itso where Zipporah had to perform the circumcision itself .

Some have wondered why Moses' wife [was] so embittered; perhaps for the first timeshe is recognizing the serious nature of her husband's call and how critical their walk as afamily is. 37

If this is the case, when confronted by a wrathful LORD aroused to kill, why did Moses not

rebuke his wife and correct the error by quickly circumcising Gershom himself? Instead, it was

Zipporah who seized the moment by taking up the flint. How could she do a circumcision at a

moment’s notice and under such frightful circumstances with the presence of the LORD? She

could if she had done it before and at the very least, had seen circumcision done. After all,

Zipporah was the daughter Jethro, the priest of Midian. Of course, the LORD too could have

divinely imparted the knowledge of circumcision to her.

It was also Zipporah (and not Moses who said not a word during the entire encounter)

who courageously addressed the LORD by pointing out that since Gershom had been

circumcised by her, the LORD must reciprocate by showing mercy to her tongue-tied husband.

By falling at the feet of the LORD, this faithful and brave Midianite woman stood up for the life

of Moses and won the favor of the LORD who at her behest let Moses be. Her faith was double

strength – she was faithful to Moses and at the same time to the LORD. Here was a woman who

spoke directly to an epiphany of the LORD and lived. While this exegesis is contrary to

conventional Christian commentaries, this is what I perceive as being supported by a critical

examination of the texts. Zipporah by standing up with and for her kin, has a claim to join the

37 Text Commentary by Paster David Guzik.

22

ranks of heroic women of decisive action which includes, inter alia, Esther, Deborah, Ruth, and

even Rahab, all of whom are blessed by the LORD.38

The broader theological implication of giving credit to Zipporah for saving Moses and

mending with the LORD is the inference that the Midianite was better at keeping the Covenant

than Moses’ Israelite. It also supports the argument that there were abiding Yahwists outside of

Egypt before the Exodus and possibly in Canaan, as Midian is understood generally as being the

desert north of the Arab Peninsula. Note, however, Numbers 22 states later that the Midianites

were allied with the Moabites.39 This unholy alliance, notwithstanding the fact that Moses’

father-in-law was a Midianite priest and his Midianite wife had beat Moses in circumcision,

resulted in the LORD’s command to Moses to wage war against the Midianites,. The outcome

was that all the male Midianites were slain during the days of Moses.40 Even so, after the deaths

of Moses and Joshua, Gideon’s war in Canaan inexplicably was still against the Midianites.41

The elevation of Zipporah as faithful Yahwist, and furthermore, as the interlocutor for Moses

would remove all moral and theological justifications for exterminating the Midianites.

After Aaron met up with Moses and ushered him back to Egypt, did Moses learn his

lesson on the importance of circumcision? Did he abide by circumcision even after the stern and

detailed reminder of the LORD given to him and Aaron prior to Passover? According to the OG,

he did not, for Joshua 5 documents that “as many as were uncircumcised of them that came out

of Egypt,”42 and for the second time, “most of the fighting men that came out of the land of

38 Such an exegesis is also gender neutral in that it is not derived from a presumption of inferiority or innatesinfulness on the female and gives the extraordinary Zipporah her rightful place as a heroine of Exodus, standingstrong with her husband and not against him.39 See, Numbers 22:4, 3 (NRSV).40 See, e.g., Numbers 31 (NRSV).41 See, Judges 8.42 Joshua 5:4 (OG – Brenton Translation).

23

Egypt, were uncircumcised”43 Either, Moses failed to heed the command of the LORD, or he

allowed uncircumcised non-Israelites to join the Exodus as fellow-travelers or as a protective

guard of fighting men. As noted earlier, the OG version is contradicted by the MT which insists

that “all the people that came out were circumcised.”44

The revealing uncontroverted part of episode of the circumcision by Zipporah as

transmitted by both the OG and the MT in (i.e. it was Zipporah not Moses who pacified the

LORD by circumcising Gershom) tends to corroborate the OG version of Joshua 5:4 and 6. This

being the case, it must follow on the foundation of comparing the words of OG and MT, that the

Hebrew MT had been substantially revised to conform to later ideals of an obedient Moses who

made sure his selected people were circumcised before the Passover. On the basis of the above,

it is probable that the original text would state that not all the men who left Egypt with Moses

were circumcised (and they were not first-born sons45).

This is the harder question which flows from the conclusion that the MT manifests a

revision of the original text to state that all the men who came out of Egypt were circumcised:

“Why did the Masoretes do this?” Assigning motivations is the most difficult aspect of biblical

hermeneutics. However, the answer to the question may lie in understanding the motivation of

the Deuteronomist Historian, who is the final redactor of Joshua and whose not-so-subtle touch

stretches from the book of Deuteronomy through II Kings. Joshua is likely to be the last book

where J, E, and P material can be discerned and as such some scholars speak of the Hexateuch.

While the presence of the hands of J, E, and P is in Joshua can be debated, most scholars agree

43 Joshua 5:6 (OG – Brenton Translation).44 Joshua 5:5 (JPS 1917).45 For “[a]t midnight the LORD struck down all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn of Pharaoh whosat on his throne to the firstborn of the prisoner who was in the dungeon, and all the firstborn of the livestock.”Exodus 12:29 (NRSV). Only those households who had complied with circumcision could partake of Passover andwere spared.

24

that the handiwork of the Deuteronomist is definitely present, especially at the beginning and end

of the book, including Chapter 5.

The Deuteronomistic writings generally sought to: (i) Preserve ethnic identity, (ii)

Perpetuate Deuteronomistic Theology, (iii) Exalt the heroes of Israel, and (iv) Provide hope for

national survival. Therefore, it is not a surprise that Joshua recounts a glorious and triumphant

entry into Canaan after many generations of subjugation in Egypt. Before Canaan can be

properly turned into Eretz Israel, the wandering tribes must first be properly purified. This is

achieved by the renewal of circumcision in Joshua 5. The MT also desired to convey the

impression that Moses had obeyed the command of the LORD by ensuring circumcision before

Passover, a holiness condition which precedes any claim on the Promised Land. Joshua 5 opens

with the remark that “When all the kings of the Amorites beyond the Jordan to the west, and all

the kings of the Canaanites by the sea, heard that the LORD had dried up the waters of the

Jordan for the Israelites until they had crossed over, their hearts melted, and there was no longer

any spirit in them, because of the Israelites.”46 This proclamation makes clear that the LORD is

fighting for Joshua, just as for Moses. The Deuteronomistic Theology is that the LORD would

stand up for Israel only if the people kept the Covenant. The Deuteronomistic Theology would

be tainted if there were uncircumcised men leaving Egypt. Hence only the children born in the

wilderness were uncircumcised and this fault had to be rectified by Joshua by “rolling away the

disgrace of Egypt.”47

In line with Deuteronomistic Theology, Joshua is the exalted hero without blemish (even

Moses has his blemishes, an example being his failure to circumcise his first-born and Zipporah

had to do it for him in order to save Moses from being killed by the LORD). After he made

46 Joshua 5:1 (NRSV).47 Joshua 5:9 (NRSV).

25

things right by circumcising, Joshua, in the style of a diminished Moses before him, received an

epiphany in the form of the commander of the Army of the Lord who came with sword drawn.

He removed his sandals and survived the encounter with the Divine. He now is fully

commissioned to lead the tribes and to conquer the Promised Land with the sword.

The pre-exilic Deuteronomist lived in Judah after the fall of Israel. The Deuteronomistic

Theology in reality had been shattered first by the division of the kingdom of Solomon into Israel

in the north and Judah in the south. This was followed by the Assyrian destruction of Israel.

The Deuteronomist attributed this latter national debacle to the idolatrous worship of foreign

Gods by the northern tribes which brought down the anger of the LORD. For this reason, strict

adherence to the Covenant is emphasized throughout Joshua and in the other works of the

Deuteronomistic Historian.

Conclusion

Chapter 5 of Joshua focuses on two important observances: Circumcision and

Passover.48 By creating a scene of perfect fidelity to the Law of Abraham and the Law of Moses

at Gilgal, the Deuteronomist sought to reassure the Judah of his day that the promises of the

LORD together with divine protection are still available to the faithful and that national survival

is assured if the people kept their faith for the LORD will carry the battle on behalf of the

faithful. In this sense, the Masoretes follow the Deuteronomistic Theology and this adherence

was preserved in Rabbinic Judaism and continues to the present day in Orthodox Judaism and all

its branches. By transmitting the statement that “all the people that came out were circumcised,”

the Masoretes were merely conforming to Deuteronomistic Theology that proclaims the LORD

26

will save the faithful who obey the Laws of the Covenant and the Israelites who left Egypt, being

perfectly circumcised, fully merited miraculous salvation from the LORD and the subsequent

delivery of the Promised Land to the faithful. As the Masoretes were writing after the Roman

destruction of the Temple in 70 CE, their hope is the temporal restoration of Zion, which

includes the rebuilding of the Temple and the reinstatement of the throne of David, all by divine

intervention of the LORD.

Charleston C. K. Wang

48 Another observance not referred to in Joshua is the Sabbath.

27

Appendix

The Latin Vulgate49 provides yet another variation on the story of circumcision:

English Translation of the Vulgate The Latin Vulgate

5 4 Now this is the cause of the secondcircumcision:All the people that came out of Egypt thatwere males, all the men fit for war, died inthe desert, during the time of the longgoing about in the way:

haec autem causa est secundae circumcisionisomnis populus qui egressus est ex Aegyptogeneris masculini universi bellatores viri mortuisunt in deserto per longissimos viae circuitus

5 5 Now these were all circumcised. But thepeople that were born in the desert,

qui omnes circumcisi erant populus autem quinatus est in deserto

5 6 During the forty years of the journey inthe wide wilderness, wereuncircumcised: till all they wereconsumed that had not heard the voice ofthe Lord, and to whom he had swornbefore, that he would not shew them theland flowing with milk and honey.

per quadraginta annos itineris latissimaesolitudinis incircumcisus fuit donecconsumerentur qui non audierant vocem Dominiet quibus ante iuraverat ut ostenderet eis terramlacte et melle manantem

5 7 The children of these succeeded in theplace of their fathers, and were circumcisedby Josue: for they were uncircumcisedeven as they were born, and no one hadcircumcised them in the way.

horum filii in locum successerunt patrum etcircumcisi sunt ab Iosue quia sicut nati fuerantin praeputio erant nec eos in via aliquiscircumciderat

The English translation of Vulgate version of Joshua 5:4 -7 appears to this writer to state that all

those who left Egypt, including the fighting men, were circumcised but they died in the

wilderness. Their children were not and that generation also died in the wilderness. (Actual

sentence: But the people that were born in the desert, During [sic] the forty years of journey in

the wide wilderness, were uncircumcised: till they were all consumed that had not heard the

voice of the Lord. The difficulty is to whom does the pronoun “they” refer?) The third

generation, too were not circumcised and it was these children who were circumcised by Joshua

at the command of the LORD.

49 Source: http://www.latinvulgate.com/verse.aspx?t=0&b=6&c=5

28

The Septuagint Text of Joshua 5:2-8

5:2 υπο δε τουτον τον καιρον ειπεν κυριος τω ιησοι ποιησον σεαυτω μαχαιρας πετρινας εκ πετρας ακροτομου και καθισας περιτεμε τους υιους ισραηλ

5:3 και εποιησεν ιησους μαχαιρας πετρινας ακροτομους και περιετεμεν τους υιους ισραηλ επι του καλουμενου τοπου βουνος των ακροβυστιων

5:4 ον δε τροπον περιεκαθαρεν ιησους τους υιους ισραηλ οσοι ποτε εγενοντο εν τη οδω και οσοι ποτε απεριτμητοι ησαν των εξεληλυθοτων εξ αιγυπτου

5:5 παντας τουτους περιετεμεν ιησους

5:6 τεσσαρακοντα γαρ και δυο ετη ανεστραπται ισραηλ εν τη ερημω τη μαδβαριτιδι διο απεριτμητοι ησαν οι πλειστοι αυτων των μαχιμων των εξεληλυθοτων εκ γης αιγυπτου οι απειθησαντες των εντολων του θεου οις και διωρισεν μη ιδειν αυτους την γην ην ωμοσεν κυριος τοις πατρασιν αυτων δουναι ημιν γην ρεουσαν γαλα και μελι

5:7 αντι δε τουτων αντικατεστησεν τους υιους αυτων ους ιησους περιετεμεν δια το αυτους γεγενησθαι κατα την οδον απεριτμητους

5:8 περιτμηθεντες δε ησυχιαν ειχον αυτοθι καθημενοι εν τη παρεμβολη εως υγιασθησαν

Wikipedia gives the following caveat on the Septuagint:

Some scholars, comparing existing copies of the Septuagint, Masoretic text, the Samaritan text,and the Dead Sea scrolls, suggest that the Septuagint was not translated directly from what istoday the Masoretic Text, but rather from an earlier Hebrew text that is now lost. However, otherscholars suggest that the Septuagint itself changed for various reasons, including scribal errors,efforts at exegesis, and attempts to support theological positions, a charge that could equally bemade against the Masoretic text. Accordingly, the Septuagint went through a number of revisionsand recensions, the most famous of which include those by Aquila (AD 128), a student of RabbiAkiva; and Origen (235), a Christian theologian in Alexandria.50

50 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Septuagint

29

The Masoretic Text of Joshua 5:2-8.

;חרבות צרים,עשה לך,יהושע-אמר יהוה אל,בעת ההיאב.שנית,ישראל-בני-ושוב מל את

גבעת -אל,בני ישראל-וימל את;חרבות צרים,לו יהושע-ויעשג.הערלות

העם היצא ממצרים הזכרים - כל:ל יהושעמ-אשר,וזה הדברד.ממצרים,בצאתם,מתו במדבר בדרך,כל אנשי המלחמה

העם הילדים במדבר -וכל;העם היצאים-כל,מלים היו-כיה.מלו-לא--צריםבצאתם ממ,בדרך

הגוי -תם כל-עד,ישראל במדבר-הלכו בני,כי ארבעים שנהו:שמעו בקול יהוה-אשר לא,אנשי המלחמה היצאים ממצרים

ארץ אשר נשבע ה-לבלתי הראותם את,להם,אשר נשבע יהוה.ארץ זבת חלב ודבש,יהוה לאבותם לתת לנו

כי ,ערלים היו- כי:אתם מל יהושע,בניהם הקים תחתם-ואתז.מלו אותם בדרך-לא

עד ,ישבו תחתם במחנהו;להמול,הגוי-תמו כל-ויהי כאשרח}פ{.חיותם

30

Bibliography

1. Frick, F. S., A Journey Through the Hebrew Scriptures, 2nd ed. Thomson Wadsworth2003.

2. Collins, J. J., Introduction to the Hebrew Bible, Fortress Press, 2004.

3. Merrill, E.H, An Historical Survey of the Old Testament, The Craig Press, 1975.

4. Anderson, B.W. Understanding the Old Testament, 4th ed., Prentice Hall, Inc., 1989.

5. De Bary E.O., Year One: The Old Testament, 3rd ed., Education for Ministry at theUniversity of the South, 1999.

6. The Harper-Collins Study Bible (NRSV), Harpers-Collins, 1989.