Potential category 3 variants. 4Q47 is inconsistent in minor differences as demonstrated in the previous discussion. Most often these differences make the text more or less explicit. These inconsistences, however, do not qualify the text to be considered non-aligned according to the guidelines advanced here since the differences can be ascribed to the scribal process.
Nonetheless, the three potential differences identified by Tov could potentially mark this text as independent or textually non-aligned. These differences are as follows:
First, Col 1:1-4 potentially amalgamates verses from chapters 8, 4, and 5 in that order with additional elements not found in any text.38 Moreover, Joshua 4:19-5:1 might be omitted in 4Q47. Second, 4Q47 may be missing most of 8:11b-13. Third, 4Q47 may lack 8:14b-17.39
Fragment 1 and 2 (Col 1:1-4). Fragment 1 preserves an upper margin and four lines preserving legible text. On the basis of this fragment and fragment 2, several scholars propose that 4Q47 presents a sequence of text at variance with the MT and LXX. Ulrich argues that the demonstrable data of fragment 1 is as follows: The fragment begins with part of Joshua 8:34-35; namely, the reading of the law. Next, there is a transitional temporal clause initiated by רחא “after” not found in any other text. Last, the fragment ends with what appears to be the beginning of Joshua 5:2, the circumcision account. The sequence of events in fragment 1 according to Ulrich is Joshua 8:34-35, 5:X, and 5:2-3.39F40
38 The content labeled by Tov as belonging to chap. 4 is labeled by most other scholars as X, which indicates that it is a reading not found in any other text. See Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 314-15.
39 Ibid.
40 Ibid.
Tov identifies the remains of fragment 1 slightly differently. He argues that the sequence of events corresponds to Joshua 8:34-35 in lines 1-2, Joshua 4:18 in lines 2-3, and Joshua 5:2 in line 4.41 What Ulrich identifies as a unique verse (i.e., 5:X),42 Tov identifies as the remains of Joshua 4:18, although differing in detail from the MT and LXX.43
Two facts about this datum are unclear. First, the nature of the temporal clause is unclear as evident from the disagreement between Ulrich and Tov. There is
correspondence between these lines and Joshua 4:18 since the verb וקתנ “be lifted out”
occurs in both texts. Nonetheless, these lines differ in many details from Joshua 4:18.
Deciding between Tov and Ulrich’s proposal is difficult because of the poor state of preservation. This, therefore, calls into question Tov’s claim that 4Q47 omitted Joshua 4:19-5:1 since this proposed omission depends on the proposal that lines 2-3 preserve Joshua 4:18.
Second, the suggestion that the circumcision account followed the crossing of the Jordan is plausible, but unsure. According to Ulrich’s analysis of F1:L4, the beginning of the circumcision account begins on fragment 1, but Ulrich has rightly noted that there is “little unique text [on line 4] to prove conclusively that chapter 5 followed 8:35” if one were to base their argument on fragment 1 alone.44 Rather, Ulrich bases his conclusion on the proposal that fragment 2 immediately succeeds fragment 1. This proposal is possible.
Ulrich argues that fragment 2’s “first partly preserved word fits perfectly with the last preserved letter on fragment 1.”45 This reasoning sounds strong, but the entire first line of
41 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 314-15.
42 See Ulrich, “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar,” 91, who describes 5:X as a transitional temporal clause.
43 Tov, Textual Criticism of the Hebrew Bible, 314-15.
44 Ulrich, “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar,” 92.
45 Ibid.
fragment 2 is inconclusive. Ulrich agrees with this point as is evident by the sigla he uses in his transcription: his transcription is marked as only a possible reading, not a probable reading, and definitely not the certain reading.46 Ulrich’s nuance that the circumcision appears to come after the reading of the law is appropriate.
The following is a more cautious assessment of fragment 1 and 2. Fragment 1 (Col 1) contains a reading of the law, but possibly not that of Joshua 8:34-35 (L1-2). It is entirely possible that lines 1-2 do not represent a transposition of the material from Joshua 8:34-35 (cf. Ulrich), but an addition (see van der Meer).47 What follows is a temporal clause that might describe the crossing of the Jordan (3-4).48 Whether or not the
circumcision account immediately follows depends on the correct placement of fragment 2.
This more cautious assessment of fragment 1 and 2 not only calls into question the nature of lines 2-3 and the placement of the circumcision account after the reading of the law, but it further calls into question the consensus conclusion that 4Q47 preserves a literary tradition that records the building of the first altar in the Promised Land
immediately after entering the land as opposed to after the battle with Ai (MT and LXX).49 Ulrich, however, reasons that the building of the altar likely preceded Joshua’s reading of the words of Moses found in fragment 1 line 1-2 since the reading of the law and the building of the altar are connected in Deuteronomy 27:1-8 and in the MT and LXX Joshua.50
46 Ulrich, “4QJosha,” 147.
47 Van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 513, also makes this point.
48 As mentioned, the presence of the verb קתנ certainly brings Josh 4:18 to mind, but not enough of the verse is present to make this connection. See Ulrich, “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar,”
91, for a discussion of the demonstrable data.
49 This is Tov’s conclusion in Tov, “The Literary Development of the Book of Joshua,” 152.
Van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 512, makes the same conclusion.
50 Ulrich, “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar,” 91. Here, he further argues that fragment 3 (preserving portions of Josh 6: the battle of Jericho) followed directly to the left of fragment 1 since these
Several factors weaken Ulrich’s conclusion. First, the building of the altar is not preserved in the text at all.51 This fact causes Ulrich’s conclusion to be tentative, which he admits.52 Second, is Ulrich right to assume that the reading of the Law must coincide with the building of the altar? He asserts that Deuteronomy 27:1-8 links the reading of the Law and the building of the altar, but a close reading of Deuteronomy 27:1-8 indicates that these verses say nothing about the reading of the law, but only that the words of the Law are to be written on these stones. Thus, Ulrich’s conclusion depends on unproven assumptions.53
Although many of Ulrich’s conclusions are uncertain, he has rightly noted the peculiarity of fragment 1. What is the nature of lines 2-4? And what is the relationship between Joshua reading the Law in line 1 and these enigmatic lines? Contrary to Ulrich, van der Meer accounts for the demonstrable data without recourse to proposing
extensive differences. He argues that fragment 1 may have added a detail not found in the MT; namely, Joshua read the law while Israel crossed the Jordan. This assertion is much more cautious than Ulrich’s suggestion that 4Q47 originally transposed all of Joshua
pieces fit together incredibly well. Better evidence to support this proposal is found in the preserved text of fragment 1: it preserves the additionן] ׄדריה תא “the Jordan” at F1:L2 which situates the reading of the law at the Jordan. Van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 512, makes this point. Nonetheless, even though good evidence suggests that fragment 1 preceded fragment 3, this proposal does not prove that Joshua erected an altar immediately after crossing the Jordan since it could be possible for Joshua to read the law without erecting an altar.
51 Ulrich, “4QJoshuaa and Joshua’s First Altar,” 91.
52 Ibid. Nonetheless, many have adopted a less nuanced conclusion about 4Q47. See an example of this phenomenon in Trebolle, “A ‘Canon within a Canon,’” 385. García Martínez’s too is less nuanced than Ulrich in Florentino García Martínez, “Light on the Joshua Books from the Dead Sea Scrolls,” in After Qumran: Old and Modern Editions of the Biblical Texts : The Historical Books, ed. Hans Ausloos, Bénédicte Lemmelijn, and Julio C. Trebolle Barrera, Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium 246 (Leuven, Belgium: Peeters, 2012), 147-48.
53 Cf. Ulrich who says that 4Q47 “strongly suggests” the building of the altar immediately after crossing the Jordan. Eugene Ulrich, “The Absence of ‘Sectarian Variants’ in the Jewish Scriptural Scrolls Found at Qumran,” in Herbert and Tov, The Bible as Book, 182.
8:30-35.54 In light of van der Meer’s suggestion, lines 2-4 may be a reworking of the crossing of the Jordan (Josh 4:18) to accommodate the new addition. What follows may be the circumcision account. This suggestion accounts for the data and represents a less invasive change than that suggested by Ulrich. Tov’s point, therefore, that 4Q47 contains a sequence of text from Joshua 8, 4, and 5 in that order and the omission of Joshua 4:19- 5:1 is uncertain.
A potential omission of Joshua 8:11b-13. Tov’s second point that 4Q47 is missing large sections of Joshua 8 is also uncertain. This proposed omission depends on the following: approximately 40 letter spaces would need to fit between lines 1 and 2 of fragment 15 (based on reconstructions, these lines would correspond to Col 5:10-11) if 4Q47 read with the MT, 218 letter spaces would need to fit between its lines 2 and 3 (Col 5:11-12), and 48 letter spaces would need to fit between lines 2 and 3 (Col 5:12-13).55 The fact that 218 letter spaces separate lines 2 and 3 of fragment 15 (Col 5:12-13) invites Tov’s suggestion.
Although Tov’s proposal appears plausible, it is not certain. First, as already mentioned, reconstructions should always be viewed tentatively.56
Second, the discrepancy between letter spaces depends on Ulrich’s proposed placement of fragment 16, which, according to Ulrich, corresponds to fragment 15 in that both lines preserve content from lines 12-13 of the reconstructed column 5. Ulrich’s placement of fragment 16, however, is suspect, and thus, the large discrepancy between
54 See van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 513. See also Tov, “The Literary Development of the Book of Joshua,” 151-53, who makes this conclusion.
55 For a similar count of the letter spaces, see van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 461.
These counts were done manually so they are approximations.
56 See Lucassen’s comments about textual reconstructions in Birgit Lucassen, “Possibility and Probability of Textual Reconstruction: The Transition from 4QJoshb, Frg. 2 to Frg. 3 and the Transit of the Israelites through the Jordan,” Textus 20 (2000): 73.
letter spaces may be a mere allusion.57 Contrary to Ulrich, van der Meer, suggests that fragment 16 preserves content from Joshua 8:18-19, not Joshua 8:14.58 This suggestion does not necessitate the large-scale omission proposed by Tov, and thus, it is preferable.59
Third, a lack of correspondence between fragment 15 and Joshua 8 might suggest that this fragment does not belong to 4Q47. Out of the six partially preserved words, excluding the correction from a second hand, the fragment contains two minor variants in agreement with the LXX against the MT and one more peculiar variant that does not align with either the LXX or the MT (this is the reading ובושיו at F15:L2 [Col 5:11]).59F60
Further lack of correspondence includes a large vacant space that likely corresponds to a bottom margin.61 Other explanations offered to account for this vacant space are implausible. For example, the vacate could be explained as an open or closed section. However, van der Meer argues against this view since no other text preserves an open or closed section at this place in the narrative. He furthers argues that an open or closed section would be unusual from a narrative perspective.62 Moreover, the vacat
57 If Ulrich’s placement of fragment 15 and 16 is right, then the reconstructed line 12 of fragment 16 (F16:L1) would begin with content from Josh 8:11, but the line would end with content from Josh 8:14 (F15:3). This fact suggests that the text of 4Q47 was much shorter than the MT. Nonetheless, several factors suggest that the placement of fragment 16 is suspect.
58 See van der Meer’s comments about the verb בושׁ of fragment 15 and how it is unclear how it could function in the context of Joshua 8:11, in Meer, Formation and Reformation, 461.
59 Ulrich, however, reasons that the large-scale omission has precedent in the LXX. See Ulrich,
“4QJosha,” 150. Van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 462, shows that reconstructing 4Q47 to the LXX does not solve the spatial problems since it would result in lines much shorter than expected. Van der Meer’s reasoning is strong, but too depends on reconstructions based on spatial considerations; considerations that are not certain. For example, see column 52 of 1QIsaa, which is much narrower than most other columns of the text.
60 Van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 463.
61 See how part of this vacant space is filled in with a correction deriving from a second hand.
62 Van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 463.
could be the result of a scribe skipping space because of damaged leather, but this is not an adequate solution since a second hand has written in this space. The vacat space may further represent a phenomenon found in the second half of 1QIsaa where the scribe of 1QIsaa intentionally leaves several spaces blank, and these spaces are not paragraph markers or bottom margins, but likely depict an obscure exemplar.63 The blank space found in 4Q47 corresponds in part to those vacat spaces found throughout the second half of 1QIsaa since correctors of 1QIsaa, at times, correct the text by filling in the originally blank space with the omitted text. A second hand has corrector the text here in the vacate space, or at least written in it. Despite this correspondence, blank spaces found in
manuscripts more likely correspond to paragraph markers and margins rather than depicting obscure exemplars. A bottom margin, therefore, is still the better explanation for this vacate space.
Ulrich, however, argues that this blank space is not a bottom margin. This conclusion depends on his placement of the fragment in his reconstructed column that necessitates this column being 13 lines short if this vacat were a bottom margin.64 However, this lack of correspondence is only a problem if one groups this fragment as belonging to 4Q47.
Despite this evidence, three facts suggest Ulrich’s placement of fragment 15.
First, there is not a suitable alternative location for this fragment if it originally preserved a text of Joshua.65 Second, fragment 15 corresponds to the rest of the fragments of 4Q47 paleographically. Third, according to Ulrich, fragment 15 corresponds to 4Q47, materially
63 See Drew Longacre, “Developmental Stage, Scribal Lapse, or Physical Defect? 1QIsaa’s Damaged Exemplar for Isaiah’s Chapters 34-66,” Dead Sea Discoveries 20, no. 1 (2013): 17-50.
64 Ulrich, “4QJosha,” 150.
65 See van der Meer’s conclusion of fragment 15 in van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 463.
since the leather preserves unusually large pores, as is the case with the rest of the
fragments that make up column 4 and 5.66 However, van der Meer argues that these facts do not necessarily mean that the fragment originally belonged to 4Q47. It is possible that the same scribe wrote this fragment and that it came from the same animal, but this does not necessitate that the fragments derived from the same work.67
This evidence demonstrates that the placement of fragment 15 and 16 by Ulrich is uncertain. Fragment 16 may be situated further down the column and fragment 15 may not belong to 4Q47.68 Tov’s conclusion that 4Q47 omitted Joshua 8:11b-13 is uncertain since the evidence can be explained in alternative ways. In short, Tov’s
conclusion that 4Q47 omitted Joshua 8:11b-13 depends on one way of reading the evidence which is not the only way.
A potential omission of Joshua 8:14b-17. The third main point advanced by Tov to demonstrate the independent character of 4Q47 is also uncertain. This proposed omission concerns Joshua 8:14b-17 and depends on the reading found at F15:L5 reconstructed as Col 5:L14 (possibly Josh 8:18), which reads יעהלא ךד ׄי[ב “your hand to Ai.”68F69 Evidence for a large-scale omission depends on the fact that the prior line
preserves text presumably deriving from Joshua 8:14. One line between Joshua 8:14 and the end of Joshua 8:18 seems too little space if the text originally contained Joshua 8:14b- 17 of the MT. Thus, the evidence invites the proposal that 4Q47 originally preserved a large omission.
66 Ulrich, “4QJosha,” 144.
67 See van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 464.
68 Klaus Bieberstein, Lukian und Theodotion im Josuabuch: mit einem Beitrag zu den Josuarollen von Ḫirbet Qumrān, Biblische Notizen. Beihefte 7 (München, Duetschland: M. Gorg, 1994), 81.
69 The prepositional phrase is written as one word.
Many facts call into question this suggestion. First, it depends on the proper placement of fragment 15, which is not certain as just demonstrated. Second, both Ulrich and Tov are uncertain about the nature of this line. Ulrich tentatively reconstructs line 5 as preserving Joshua 8:18 יעהלא ךד ׄי[ב רשא ןודיכב הטנ עשוהי לא הוהי רמאיו] “[And the Lord said to Joshua, ‘Stretch out the javelin which is in] your hand to Ai.’”70 Third, Tov himself admits that this omission is possible, not certain.71 Fourth, the text from line F15:L5 (Col 5:14) derives from a second hand, likely a corrector. Tov reasons that this hand may not be a corrector but may demonstrate that 4Q47 was originally coupled by multiple scribes.72 He asserts that “there are several parallels for the interchange of hands in the middle of Qumran scrolls” and this may be another example of this phenomenon.73 Although this is possible, two facts may weaken Tov’s suggestion. The script of 4Q47 is quite different than that found in this line—they come from different time periods. The script of 4Q47, according to Ulrich, is “in larger letters, in different ink, and lacks a space between the two words יעה לא. The form of the final kap in ךדׄי[ב was not common prior to the early Herodian period.”73F74 Moreover, fragments 17-22 presumably preserve text after this line, and the hand resembles the script used throughout the text rather than that found in this line. The evidence as preserved, therefore, does not suggest Tov’s proposal, but suggests that this text is a correction. Fifth, van der Meer argues that these verses perform an essential function in the narrative, and therefore, could not be omitted74F75 although Tov
70 Ulrich, “4QJosha,” 150.
71 See Tov, “The Literary Development of the Book of Joshua,” 147n18.
72 Ibid., 135.
73 Ibid. Tov, Scribal Practices and Approaches, 20-21.
74 Ulrich, “4QJosha,” 150.
75 Van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 439.
disagrees with this point.76 To van der Meer’s point, the omission proposed by Tov would divide verse 14 in half, possible mid-clause.
Thus, the text written by a subsequent hand is likely a correction in the bottom margin or perhaps a marginal note. The limited amount of textual evidence precludes certainty, and thus, Tov’s suggestion that 4Q47 may have originally omitted Joshua 8:14b- 17 must be understood as a suggestion.
Statistics and Conclusion of 4Q47’s Textual Tradition
The previous discussion demonstrates two facts. First, 4Q47 preserves several minor differences that at times agree with the MT, at other times agree with the LXX, and are unique in other cases. These inconsistences, however, do not qualify the text to be considered non-aligned according to the guidelines advanced here since these differences are all minor and can be ascribed to the scribal process.77
Second, the three potential differences identified by Tov that could potentially mark this text as independent or textually non-aligned can all be explained in different ways: some explanations are more extensive while others are less extensive.
Multiple conclusions could reasonably be drawn about the textual tradition of 4Q47. First, the fragmentary nature of the text plus the obscure nature of fragment 1 could reasonably lead scholars to withhold judgment about the textual tradition of this text.
Second, 4Q47 could be labeled as a reworked biblical text (namely, a non- biblical text). Tov identifies 4Q47 as a biblical text, but he describes it more specifically as an exegetical Bible text like 4QRP.78 There is currently debate about whether reworked
76 See Tov, “The Literary Development of the Book of Joshua,” 135n20.
77 Van der Meer also makes this point in van der Meer, Formation and Reformation, 97.
78 Tov, “The Literary Development of the Book of Joshua,” 152-53. For a critique of this opinion, see Joachim J. Krause, Exodus und Eisodus: Komposition und Theologie von Josua 1-5,