The Vocabulary of the Septuagint and Literary Criticism 61 original text (9). The verse interrupts the original flow of the text, which links God’s command to Moses to lean his hands on Joshua in v. 18 with the command to place his dwh on him in v. 20. The reference to the placing of dwh here is clearly associated with Moses’ leaning his hands upon Joshua — rather than constituting a separate and independent action. If this assessment is correct, the words “place some of your dwh upon him” represent a purpose clause: “thereby placing some of your dwh upon him.” According to such a reading, this clause ought to follow immediately after the words “lean your hands upon him.” The commands to stand Joshua before Eleazar and the community and to appoint him in v. 19 are consequently not to be understood as belonging to the original text. I have assumed that v. 19 was added in order to harmonize the priestly account of Joshua’s investiture in Numbers 27 with the account in Deuteronomy (Deut 3,28; 31,7.14.23, and to emphasize Eleazer’s role in the national leadership (10). On this basis, I concluded that the reference to these actions in the description of the implementation of the command (vv. 22-23) similarly constitutes a secondary addition. I further argued that not only these two actions but the entire detailed description of the implementation and the restatement of the general implementation formula (vv. 22b-23) constitute a latter addition (11). In support of this claim we can adduce the fact that vv. 22-23 contain two formulations of the implementation of the instructions: “Moses did as the LORD had commanded him” (22a) and “As the LORD had spoken through Moses” (23b). Between these two verses a detailed description of the specific actions performed is inserted. While such a formulation is occasionally preceded or followed by a detailing of actions, the occurrence of a double formulation enveloping a detailed list is exceptional; such examples are almost unattested in the priestly literature (12). The second expression describing the implementation therefore appears to constitute a form of resumptive repetition—indicative of the fact that the entire list of actions represents a latter addition (13). (9) KISLEV, “The Investiture of Joshua”. A specification of the considerations appears there, with a full discussion. (10) KISLEV, “The Investiture of Joshua”. (11) See KISLEV, “The Investiture of Joshua”, and S. MITTMAN, Deuteronomium 1:1–6:3 (BZAW 139; Berlin 1975) 110. (12) MCEVENUE, following ELLIGER, argues that the fulfillment of the divine word in general, and that of the commandments in particular, is typical of the priestly literature. In a survey of the various occurrences of descriptions of such fulfillments of the divine will, he notes that Gen 1,7.24b-25; Num 20,27-28; 27,22-23 are exceptional in containing both a general implementation formula and a detailed description of the fulfillment of the command: K. ELLIGER, “Sinn und Ursprung der Priesterlichen Geschichtserzählung”, Kleine Schriften zum Alten Testament (Munich 1966) 174-199 (= ZTK 49 [1952] 121- 143); S. MCEVENUE, “Word and Fulfilment: A Stylistic Feature of the Priestly Writer,” Semitics 1 (1970) 104-106; cf. also J. BLENKINSOPP, “The Structure of P”, CBQ 38 (1976) 275-277. Num 27,22-23 is unique in this regard in containing a double formulation of the implementation process in addition to an enumeration of the details. A similar phenomenon can be found in the description of the preparation of the priestly garments in Exodus 39,1-31 and the description of the erection of the Tabernacle in Exodus 40,16-33 (and cf. Num 8,20-22). (13) KISLEV, “The Investiture of Joshua”.