1 For a latest commentary on the Book of Joshua and Joshua 24 see R. D. Nelson, Joshua: A Commentary, The Old Testament Library, Kentucky 1997, 265–6. For a new look at the redaction of the book of Joshua see M. N. van der Meer, Formation and reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, Leiden 2004.

2 Both studies include detailed summaries of previous works on this chapter: W. T. Koopmans, Joshua 24 as poetic Narrative, JSOTSS 93, Sheffield 1990, 1–95. The book by M. Anbar was published first in French under the title Josué et l'alliance de Sichem (Josué 24: 1–28), Beiträge zur biblichen Exegese und Theologie 25, Frankfurt 1992; later it was translated into Hebrew under the title: Joshua and the Covenant at Shechem (Jos. 24: 1–28) Tel Aviv 1999, 1–14. [In the following the Hebrew edition is quoted].

3 Koopmans, Joshua (above n. 2), 410–413.

4 Anbar, Joshua and the Covenant at Shechem (above n. 2), 128–129.

5 For the latest evaluation of the theory of “treaty texts” in the Bible see Noel Weeks, Admonition and Curse: The Ancient Near Eastern Treaty/Covenant Form as a Problem in Inter-Cultural Relationships, JSOTSS 407, London 2004, 134–173.

6 Anbar, Joshua (above n. 2), 129 with note 577.

7 A new article on understanding the Book of Joshua in light of land-grants from North Syria was recently published by R. S. Hess, The Book of Joshua as a land Grant, Bib 83, 2002, 493–506.

8 I am not able to linger on the commentary of these idioms here, therefore a reference is made to Koopmans' and Anbar's treatment of these passages respectively.

9 G. E. Mendenhall, Ancient Oriental and Biblical Law, together with his article, Covenant Forms in Israelite Tradition, BA 17, 1954, 26–46and 50–76.

10 The most critical among them was E. W. Nicholson, God and his People: Covenant and Theology in the Old Testament, Oxford 1986, 151–163.

11 D. J. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant2 ‚Analecta Biblica 21A, Rome 1978, 241.

12 G. M. Tucker, Covenant Forms and Contract Forms, VT 15, 1965, 501–503.

13 One such an example is the treaty between the Hittite king Tudhaliya IV and his sub-king Kurunta, see H. A. Hoffner, The Treaty of Tudhaliya IV with Kurunta of Tarhuntašša on the Bronze Tablet Found in Hattuša, in: The Context of Scripture, eds. W.W. Hallo and K. L. Younger, Leiden – Boston – Kolen 2000, vol.2: 106 §27. And also the treaty between Muwattalli II of Hatti and Talmi-Šarrumma of Aleppo, see G. Beckman, Hittite Diplomatic Texts2 ‚Atlanta 1999, 95.

14 See H. G. Güterbock, Siegel aus Bogazkoy 1, AfO Beiheft 5 1940, 51; and also his article, Das Siegeln bei den Hethitern, Symbolae Koschaker, Symbolae ad iura Orientis Antiqui Pertinentes P. Koschaker dedicatae, Leiden 1939, 27. See also McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant, Analecta Biblica 21, Rome 1963, 43–44.

15 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School, Oxford 1972. Idem, Covenant Terminology in the Ancient Near East, JAOS 93, 1973, 190–199. Idem, The Covenant of Grant in the Old Testament and in the ANE, JAOS 90, 1970, 184–203. See criticism of Weinfeld's theory by G. N. Knoppers, ANE Royal Grants and the Davidic Covenant: A Parallel?, JAOS 116, 1996, 670–697. See also a summary in R. Hess, The Book of Joshua as a land Grant (above n. 7), 493–494.

16 For an overview of the redaction of the book of Joshua see recently M. N. van der Meer, Formation and reformulation: The Redaction of the Book of Joshua in the Light of the Oldest Textual Witnesses, Leiden 2004, 119–153. Apart from these three layers, a later layer by a post-exilic redactor is also identified by scholars, especially regarding Jos. 24. Anbar, Joshua (above n. 2), 128–130, states that the author of Jos. 24 is familiar with the style and ideas of the Deuteronomistic school, but his style and language differ and is closer to the later books of the Bible. Therefore Anbar suggested to date the chapter to the period between the destruction of the first temple and the period of Nehemiah. For an extremely late redaction of the book, which we reject, see J. Strange, The Book of Joshua – Origin and Dating, SJOT 16,1, 2002, 44–51.

17 This is explained under 6.2.1 below.

18 J. Muilenburg, The Form and Structure of the Covenantal Formulations, VT 9, 1959, 357–360.

19 The words וַיּאׁמְרוּ עֵרִים are missing in the LXX. Since the next verse continues Joshua's speech with no additional וַיּאׁמְר יְהוֹשֻׁעַ but rather the word וְעַתַּה we may regard it as a gloss introduced by the final redactor.

20 M. R. Lehmann, Abraham's Purchase of Machpelah and Hittite Law, BASOR 129, 1953, 15–18; J. J. Rabinowitz, Neo-Babylonian Legal Documents and Jewish Law, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 13, 1961, 131–175; H. Petschow, Die Neubabylonische Zwiegesprächsurkunde und Genesis 23, JCS 19, 1965, 103–120; idem, Mittelbabylonische Rechts und Wirtschaftsurkunden der Hilprecht-Sammlung Jena, Berlin 1974, 36–39; G. M. Tucker, The Legal Background of Genesis 23, JBL 85, 1966, 77–84; R. Westbrook, Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah, Israel Law Review 6, 1971, 29–38; And recently E. Sand, Two Dialogue Documents in the Bible: Genesis 23:3–18 and 1Kings 5:15–25, ZAR 8, 2002, 88–130.

21 G. M. Tucker, The Legal Background (above n. 20), 81, who follows Petschow, Die Neubabylonische Zwiegesprächsurkunde, and M. San Nicolo, Die Schlussklauseln der Altbabylonischen Kauf-und Tauschverträge, München 1974.

22 For the meaning of that phrase see Tucker, The Legal Background (above n. 20), 79–80. See also V. A. Hurowitz, kesep over lassoher (Genesis 23,16), ZAW 108, 1996, 12–19.

23 Westbrook, Purchase of the Cave of Machpelah (above n. 20), 33, interprets אֲחֻזַּת קֶבֶר as “inherited land, related to the tribe and family.” See also D. R. Hellers, Palmyrene Aramaic Inscriptions and the Bible, ZAH 11/1, 1998, 40–44, who understands Gen. 23 in light of sales of “tomb property” in the Palmyrene inscriptions in Aramaic.

24 See Petschow, Die Neubabylonische Zwiegesprächsurkunde (above n. 20), 111–112.

25 For the importance of the symbolic act indicating ownership see M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian Legal Symbolism, AOAT 221, Neukirchen-Vluyn 1988, 381 and esp. 394–5.

26 See J. J. Rabinowitz, The Susa Tablets, the Bible and the Aramaic Papyri, VT 11, 1961, 59–61. See also E. Cussini, The Aramaic Law of Sale and the Cuneiform Legal Tradition, dissertation, The Johns Hopkins University, 1992, 99–100.

27 שׁמע בקול in the meaning of “accept an offer” appears for example in Numbers 21,1–3 where it is said that “God listened to the voice of Israel.” Within that context we understand that God accepts the people offer starting: “if you will indeed give”; the people of Israel are to have a vow to offer God all they conquer. The offer is presented with the word אם “if”, and thus also in Genesis 23,8 as well as Jos. 24,15.

28 Such concluding sentences are well known in Akkadian documents starting from Old-Babylonian period. They were termed in the research “Schlussklauseln”. I shall relate to them below.

29 Within Joshua's proposal vv. 19–20, Joshua introduces a new law. I presented this interpretation at length in a separate study: Joshua 24 and the Holiness School, forthcoming. One can indicate here that the usage of לא תוכלו parallels the apodictic formula לא תעשה “you shall not do it” or “let him not do it”. Verse 20 starts with the casuistic form כי “if”.

30 For the Ugaritic texts see B. Kienast, Rechtsurkunden in ugaritischer Sprache, UF 11, 1979, 445–447. For the Aramaic texts see below.

31 See above 3.2.1.

32 For which it is possible to find an additional example in Ruth 4,1–10.

33 J. J. Rabinowitz, Jewish components in legal formula from Babylon in the Persian period, Book for Asaph, ed. M.d. Casuto, Jerusalem 1953, 433–443.

34 R. Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, Oxford 1961; Y. Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri from Elephantine, Leiden 1969.

35 B. Porten & A. Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents from Ancient Egypt (=TDA) A-D, Jerusalem 1986–1999. The Elephantine contracts used for this study will be quoted according to this edition from Vol.2 – The contracts. (Texts are marked with B and running numbers).

36 For detailed references see below. For a bibliographical list see Porten & Yardeni, Textbook of Aramaic Documents vol. 2, v-xiv.

37 For a general description of the Elephantine documents see B. Porten, Elephantine, in: A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook, Leiden-Boston 2003, vol. 2, 863–881; idem, Elephantine and the Bible, Semitic Papyrology in Context: A Climat of Creativity. Papers from a New York University conference marking the retirement of Baruch A. Levine, ed. L. H. Schiffman, Leiden-Boston 2003, 50–84.

38 See already B. A. Levin, On the Origins of the Aramaic Legal Formulary at Elephantine, Christianity, Judaism and other Greco-Roman Cults: Studies for Morton Smith at 60, III. Judaism before 70, ed. Jacob Neusne, Leiden 1975, 37–54.

39 See Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri (above n. 34), 12–16.

40 Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri (above n. 34), 17 note 2.

41 Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri (above n. 34), 17.

42 R. Yaron, Introduction to the Law of the Aramaic Papyri, Oxford 1961.

43 Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri (above n. 34), 17–22.

44 Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri (above n. 34), 179–194. A recent work in that direction is the dissertation of E. Cussini, The Aramaic Law (above n. 26), 167–210, where she presents the direct correlation between the Aramaic legal tradition and the cuneiform legal tradition in particular on the sale documents.

45 Yaron, The Schema of the Aramaic Legal Documents, JSS 2, 1957, 33–61. idem, Aramaic deeds of Conveyance, Bib 41, 1960, 248–274. B. Porten, Structure and Chiasm in Aramaic Contracts and Letters, Chiasmus in Antiquities, Ed. J. W. Welch, Hildesheim 1981, (169–182) 169.

46 Regarding the Elephantine calendar see B. Porten, The Calendar of Aramaic Texts from Achamenid and Ptolemaic Egypt, Irano-Judaica 2, Jerusalem 1990, 13–32.

47 The word “then” gives the beginning of the document a more figurative language, as if telling a story which happened at a certain time. Another comparison may be done with Ugaritic texts, which open with the phrase “from this day on” instead of a definite date. See Tucker, Covenant Forms and Contract Forms, VT 15, 1965, 498. Yaron indicates that such an opening also appears in the Egyptian-Demotic document which is a little earlier to the Elephantine Aramaic texts. Yaron, The Schema of the Aramaic Legal Documents (above n. 45), 59.

48 Other participants may be mentioned such as in a document of adoption conducted at a court in Syene the name of the judge B3.9:2–3 is indicated. The scribe repeated twice the name of the judge, assuming there was an importance to indicating the official's name (see also B2.10:2–3).

49 For this term indicating a gift, in contrast to sale, see E. Cussini, The Aramaic Law of Sale above n. 26), 102 with note 185.

50 Yaron, Aramaic deeds of Conveyance (above n. 45), 252–254.

51 See H.Z. Szubin & B. Porten, A Life Estate of Usufruct: A New Interpretation of Kraeling 6, BASOR 269, 1988, 29–45.

52 Yaron, Aramaic deeds of Conveyance (above n. 45), 255. For all possible forms of this paragraph see pp. 254–261.

53 Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri (above n. 34), 40–50. See also R. Westbrook, The Phrase “His Heart is Satisfied” in ANE Legal Sources, JAOS 111, 1991, 219–224.

54 The word אפם is translated by Yaron as “again” but by Porten & Szubin as “indeed”. It strengthens the investiture. See B. Porten & H. Z. Szubin, An Aramaic Deed of Bequest (Kraeling 9), in: Community and Culture: Essays in Jewish Studies, Philadelphia 1987, 178–192. See also T. Muraoka & B. Porten, A Grammar of Egyptian Aramaic, Handbuch der Orientalistic; Brill 1998, §90b.

55 This is in contrast with the Demotic texts of the same period, where the witnesses appear on the other side of the papyrus.

56 For such a custom see Rabinowitz, A legal Formula in Egyptian, Egyptian-Aramaic, and Murabba'at Documents, BASOR 145, 1957, 33–34.

57 Yaron, The Schema of the Aramaic Legal Documents (above n. 45), 44–54. Some of the documents indicate four witnesses while some have eight witnesses. There is also a case of six witnesses, of which Yaron says that we have extra witnesses just because they were at the place, or they were of one of the parties, but they were not needed legally.

58 See recently A. Millard, Aramaic Documents of the Assyrian and Achaemenid Periods, Ancient Archives and Archival Traditions, ed. M. Brosius, Oxford 2003, 234–235.

59 In Elephantine documents the word שטר is also used to indicate the legal text. For a description of the external inscription see B. Porten, The Aramaic Marriage Contract of the Handmaiden Tamut, Bible and the Jewish History: Studies dedicated to the memory of Jacob Liver, ed. B. Uffenheimer, Tel-Aviv 1972, 307–329[Hebrew].

60 A difference in the legal terminology or phraseology in the various documents could be expected, but as we shall see, the core of the format of the legal document is similar.

61 As in the Aramaic text: the names of the parties, their status or professional position are indicated.

62 Above 2.2.

63 See also king David's purchase of the threshing floor from Arawnah in 2Sam. 24, 21–25.

64 For the point view of the seller or buyer see the change in the Old and Neo-Babylonian contracts in J. Oelsner, Neo-Babylonian Period, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law, ed. R. Westbrook, Leiden – Boston 2003, vol. 2, 945.

65 See a more detailed discussion below 6.2.2.

66 Yaron, Aramaic deeds of Conveyance (above n. 45), 250–261.

67 Porten, Structure and Chiasm (above n. 45), 169.

68 Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri (above n. 34), 41–43.

69 The use of Akkadian leqû-nadānu to indicate a grant in Hittite and Akkadian texts and in parallelism also in biblical texts as נתן - לקח was shown long ago by J. C. Greenfield, našûnadānu and its Congeners, in: Essays on the Ancient Near East in Memory of J.J. Finkelstein, ed. M. de Jong Ellis, Hamden 1977, 87–91.

70 For the use of the verb in legal texts of the Bible see TDOT 10, 1999, 96–101.

71 TDOT 10, 1999, 100.

72 There is still a counterpart to the gift and it is the obligation of Abraham and his descendants to accept the demand of YHWH “to be your God” (such as Gen. 17,7; Lev. 22,33). For the Aramaic texts see for example B2.3:9; B3.5:2–11 further below.

73 Yaron, Aramaic deeds of Conveyance (above n. 45), 255.

74 See Cussini, The Aramaic Law of Sale (above n. 26), 73, 76.

75 The phrasing here, of the list of what is granted, resembles royal grants from Ugarit see K. Baltzer, The Covenant Formulary, tr. D. E. Green, Oxford 1971, 20–21; and from Assyria for which see J. N. Postgate, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents, Warminster 1976, 2–3.

76 For the legal use of the verb אכל “eat” as “allowed in use” see Lev. 22: 4–16 and compare with J. J. Rabinowitz, Neo-Babylonian legal Documents and Jewish Law, Journal of Juristic Papyrology 13, 1961, (131–175), 157–158. For the Akkadian verb akālu used in the same sense in Neo-Assyrian texts of conveyance, where the land is given in lease, see J. N. Postgate, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents (above n. 74), 29–31.

77 S. Greengus, The Old Babylonian Marriage Contract, JAOS 89, 1969, (505–532), 517–518 “may you be my wife and I will be your husband” or “may he be your son”.

78 This declarative form can be found in many texts of the Bible relating to covenant with YHWH: 2Sam. 7,14; Exod. 6,7 “I will take you as my people, and I will be your God.”; Deut. 27,9; Hos. 1,9 negative form; Hos. 2,4.

79 For which see B. Porten, The Elephantine Papyri in English, Leiden-New York-Koeln 1996, 177 note 10, where he identifies it as a possible verba solemnia, and compares it with the same phraseology in B3.8: 4. see p. 227.

80 B. Porten & Szubin, A Dowry addendum (Kraeling 10) JAOS 107, 1987, (231–238), 235. See also the Aramaic grammar by T. Muraoka & B. Porten, Grammar (above n. 54) § 73a.

81 M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic School, Oxford 1972, 2–3, has already noted that the use of לא תוכלו in Deuteronomy appears often at the opening of cultic laws, when the authers felt that they present a law with a novelty. In our text the cultic context is less visible than the legal context.

82 Mainly the Aramaic word ‘yš ‘hrn for which see B. Porten & H. Z. Szubin, Litigants in the Elephantine Contracts: The Development of Legal Terminology, MARAV 4, 1987, (54–67), 52.

83 See B3.7:14; B2.7:16; B2.2:15.

84 See also E. Cussini, The Aramaic Law of Sale (above n. 26), 62.

85 In the demotic contracts the witnesses appear on the back of the papyri see Muffs, Studies in the Aramaic Legal Papyri (above n. 34), 43.

86 See Yaron, The Schema of the Aramaic Legal Documents (above n. 45), 55–61 for an attempt to compare the different traditions.

87 See: Gen. 15,18; Deut. 31,22; Josh. 9,27; 1Sam. 27,6.

88 J. J. Rabinowitz, Neo-Babylonian Legal Documents and Jewish Law (above n. 75), 137–139.

89 For example J. T. Milik, Un Contract Juif de L'an 134 Apres J.-C, RB 61, 1954, 183 line 1 of the contract.

90 M. San Nicoló, Babylonische Rechtsurkunden: des ausgehenden 8. und des 7. Jahrhunderts v. Chr., München 1951, 40 lines 28–34, and M. San-Nicoló & H. Petschow, Babylonische Rechtsurkunden: aus dem 6 Jahrhundert v. Chr., München 1960, 14–15lines 32–40.

91 T. Kwasman & S. Parpola, Legal transaction of the royal court of Nineveh: Part 1: Tiglath-Pileser III through Esarhadon, State Archives of Assyria 4, Helsinki 1991, 109–110.

92 Compare Deut. 24,1: ספר כריתת.

93 Postgate, Fifty Neo-Assyrian Legal Documents (above n. 74), 4–5.

94 R. Westbrook, Property and the Family in Biblical Law, JSOTSS 113, Sheffield 1991, 11–23.

95 For the relationship between H and Joshua 24 see my article “Joshua 24 and the Holiness School,” forthcoming.

96 Muffs has already noted that this legal relation between God and his people, a concept used by the Priestly source, is unnatural and rather artificial one, and therefore is less certain, and obligates the people to fulfill the terms. Y. Muffs, Studies in Biblical Law IV: The Antiquity of P, Lectures at the Jewish Theological Seminary, 1965 [offprint], 5–6.