64 Itamar Kislev with Joshua’s investiture (v. 23). In this case, the Septuagint text translates the Hebrew root by the Greek verb sunivsthmi, whose meaning in this context is “to appoint” (24). The translator here correctly understood that the verb hwx is not used in its regular signification of “command” but in its much rarer meaning of “to appoint” (25). While in the command section, wherein God explains to Moses the process of Joshua’s investiture (vv. 18- 20), the verb hwx similarly signifies “to appoint,” the Greek text renders this root by the verb ejntevllomai, whose meaning is “to command”. It is highly unlikely that the translator suddenly understood this unusual usage of the verb hwx precisely between his translation of v. 19 and v. 23. Even were this true, he could easily have gone back and emended his translation of v. 19(26). The alternation between these terms is distinctive and of considerable significance for our argument. The appearance of the word kaqavper in this context and the fact that, in contrast to v. 19, the root hwx is rendered by the Greek sunivsthmi — which accurately reflects the meaning of the Hebrew verb in this context (27) — point to the irregular nature of vv. 22b-23 in the Septuagintal text. The anomaly can be ascribed to various causes. It may represent variations within Septuagintal vocabulary (28), the reworking of the section by a later hand, or a switch in translators at this point and onwards. Nonetheless, it is implausible that a reworking which correctly translated hwx as sunevsthsen in v. 23 would have failed to employ the same verb in v. 19. The suggestion that these differences reflect variations within Septuagintal vocabulary is also unconvincing, especially where a significant discrepancy in meaning between the two verbs in question exists. Moreover, in order to demonstrate the replacement of one translator by another from this point on, further evidence that a new translator began his work exactly at this point is necessary. The appearance of kaqavper in this context makes the possibility of a switch in translators even more improbable. Were it not for the fact that other considerations exist, we would be compelled to adopt one or other of these solutions. We have previously referred to the factors that led us to conclude that vv. 22b-23 represent a secondary insertion into the Hebrew text. This is consistent with the finding (24) On the various meanings of the verb sunivsthmi in the LXX, see J.A.L. LEE, “sunivsthmi: A Sample Lexical Entry”, Melbourne Symposium on Septuagint Lexicography (ed. T. MURAOKA) (Atlanta, GA 1990) 1-16. For the development of the meaning “to appoint” for the verb sunivsthmi, see, ibid., 11-12. (25) See n. 7 above. (26) In fact, the translation of v. 19 contains a form of double translation of the phrase wta htywxw: kai; ejntelh'/ aujtw'/, kai; ejntelh'/ peri; aujtou'. While this doubling is apparently a scribal error, it witnesses to variant attempts to translate the phrase wta htywxw. (27) The verb sunivsthmi renders the verb hwx one other time, in Num 32,28. LEE (“Multiple Authorship of the Septuagint Pentateuch”, 11-12) considers that there, too, the meaning is “to appoint”. WEVERS (Notes on the Greek Text of Numbers, 154), on the other hand, argues for a variant meaning. (28) See SEELIGMANN, “Problems and Perspectives in Modern Septuagint Research”, 181-201; GOODING, The Account of the Tabernacle, 8-13; RABIN, “The Translation Process and the Character of the Septuagint”, 24.