Jordan Scott Jones on the LXX vs. the MT of Judges 20:26-28

 Judg 20:26-28 in the MT reads:

 

‎ ²⁶ וַיַּעֲלוּ כָל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָל־הָעָם וַיָּבֹאוּ בֵית־אֵל וַיִּבְכּוּ וַיֵּשְׁבוּ שָׁם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וַיָּצוּמוּ בַיּוֹם־הַהוּא עַד־הָעָרֶב וַיַּעֲלוּ עֹלוֹת וּשְׁלָמִים לִפְנֵי יְהוָה׃²⁷ וַיִּשְׁאֲלוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל בַּיהוָה וְשָׁם אֲרוֹן בְּרִית הָאֱלֹהִים בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם׃

 ²⁸ וּפִינְחָס בֶּן־אֶלְעָזָר בֶּן־אַהֲרֹן עֹמֵד לְפָנָיו בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם לֵאמֹר הַאוֹסִף עוֹד לָצֵאת לַמִּלְחָמָה עִם־בְּנֵי־בִנְיָמִן אָחִי אִם־אֶחְדָּל וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה עֲלוּ כִּי מָחָר אֶתְּנֶנּוּ בְיָדֶךָ׃

 

The 1985 JPS Tanakh renders the Hebrew thusly:

 

²⁶ Then all the Israelites, all the army, went up and came to Bethel and they sat there, weeping before the Lord. They fasted that day until evening, and presented burnt offerings and offerings of well-being to the Lord.

 ²⁷ The Israelites inquired of the Lord (for the Ark of God's Covenant was there in those days,

 ²⁸ and Phinehas son of Eleazar son of Aaron the priest ministered before Him in those days), "Shall we again take the field against our kinsmen the Benjaminites, or shall we not?" The Lord answered, "Go up, for tomorrow I will deliver them into your hands."

 

The LXX has additional material concerning Phinehas:

 

 ²⁶  καὶ ἀνέβησαν πάντες οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ καὶ πᾶς ὁ λαὸς καὶ ἦλθον εἰς Βαιθηλ καὶ ἔκλαυσαν καὶ ἐκάθισαν ἐκεῖ ἐνώπιον κυρίου καὶ ἐνήστευσαν ἐν τῇ ἡμέρᾳ ἐκείνῃ ἕως ἑσπέρας καὶ ἀνήνεγκαν ὁλοκαυτώσεις καὶ τελείας ἐνώπιον κυρίου

 ²⁷  ὅτι ἐκεῖ κιβωτὸς διαθήκης κυρίου τοῦ θεοῦ

 ²⁸  καὶ Φινεες υἱὸς Ελεαζαρ υἱοῦ Ααρων παρεστηκὼς ἐνώπιον αὐτῆς ἐν ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις καὶ ἐπηρώτησαν οἱ υἱοὶ Ισραηλ ἐν κυρίῳ λέγοντες εἰ προσθῶμεν ἔτι ἐξελθεῖν εἰς παράταξιν πρὸς υἱοὺς Βενιαμιν ἀδελφοὺς ἡμῶν ἢ ἐπίσχωμεν καὶ εἶπεν κύριος ἀνάβητε ὅτι αὔριον δώσω αὐτοὺς εἰς τὰς χεῖρας ὑμῶν

 

The verse is translated as follows in the Lexham English Septuagint (2d ed.):

 

²⁶ All the sons of Israel and all the people went up, going to Bethel. They wept and sat there before the Lord and fasted in that day until evening. They brought burnt offerings and perfect offerings before the Lord; ²⁷ for in that place was the ark of the covenant of the Lord God. ²⁸ And Phinehas, son of Eleazar son of Aaron, stood before it in those days. And the sons of Israel inquired of the Lord saying, “Shall we again yet go out to battle against the sons of Benjamin, our brothers, or hold back?” And the Lord said, “Go up, because tomorrow I will give them into your hands.”

 

Jordan Scott Jones offered the following commentary in his 2025 PhD dissertation:

 

Judges 20:27b–28a presents a second post-covenant Phinehas expansion, and notably, unlike with Josh 24:33, it is present in both the MT and LXX. While Judg 20:27b–28a is widely regarded as a late P insertion into an already late section of Judges, the reason for Phinehas’ inclusion and the specific date of the insertion itself are less frequently considered. As with the insertion to LXX Josh 24:33, we again see an addition in Judg 20:27b–28a that draws on the first wave of Phinehas’ inner-biblical wake, repeating and affirming his role as a genealogical link within the Aaronite line (Exod 6:25) as well as his position as a warrior priest (Num 25:6–9) who is also connected to inter-Israelite conflicts (Josh 22) but also knows of a new phase in Phinehas’ inner-biblical tradition. Given the broad consensus regarding the late date of Judg 19–21 and the similarities between the nature of the expansions in LXX Josh 24 and Judg 20, some scholars, like Schmid, have argued that MT Judg 20 must have emerged at the same time as MT Josh 24. However, if the MT account of Josh 24:33 is given preference as reflecting a more original tradition onto which the LXX expanded rather than seeing the MT as a minus from the LXX account, the connection between the editorial concerns within the priestly gloss in Judg 20:27b– 28a and MT Josh 24:33—which lacks an such expanded view of Phinehas and knows him only as genealogical entry connected to Eleazar—is lost.

 

The connection, however, can be seen clearly when Judg 20:27b–28a is compared to LXX Josh 24:33. Read together, both insertions reveal the distinct imprint of the Zadokite scribal system as well as an explicit knowledge of a post-covenant Phinehas. As with the insertion seen in LXX Josh 24:33, the scribes responsible for the late insertion of Judg 20:27b–28a are acting in response to the emergence of Phinehas’ covenant. Seeing a situation replete with a context reminiscent of previous moments within Phinehas’ inner-biblical discourse, they take the opportunity to expand Phinehas’ position through the inclusion of a brief description of priestly activity and proximity to the ark. Therefore, the insertion in Judg 20:27b–28a is not only subordinate to MT Josh 24 but Num 25:10–13 as well, representing the last moment of scribal expansion regarding Phinehas seen in the MT.

 

The inclusion of a reference to Phinehas in Judg 20 is not, however, without its difficulties, most notably the “chronological absurdity” that the appearance of Phinehas at such a late stage presents. The sheer improbability of Phinehas’ appearance here at such a late phase in the book of Judges has led to a wide range of interpretations, such as the argument that this Phinehas is not the same Phinehas known elsewhere as the son of Eleazar who is first referenced in Exod 6:25 but some other Phinehas who is also a descendant of Eleazar. Another prominent theory is that what is seen in Judg 20 should be understood as having happened chronologically earlier in the period of the Judges but has been placed later by an editor for narrative purposes to accentuate the decline of pre-monarchic Israel and that its inclusion at the end of Judges is indicative of “the lack of chronological order as the structural key to the book of Judges.” The cause for such reaching interpretations is clear: the presence of Phinehas in Judg 20 is highly problematic chronologically, as with this insertion, Phinehas’ life is now reported to span from the period of the Exodus through the end of the judges in the MT. The LXX has an even more remarkable problem as it had previously recorded Phinehas’ death in Josh 24:33, yet here he is again ministering before the ark!

 

Several key textual oddities should be noted, which further betray the roughshod efforts of the Zadokite scribes to force a portrayal of Phinehas acting in a priestly manner in accordance with his covenant, regardless of broader norms for priestly activity within the book of Judges. Not only is Judg 20:27b–28a the only reference to the ark of the covenant in the book of Judges, it is the only description of Phinehas’ activity—priestly or otherwise—in the book. In fact, it is one of but a few references to a priest in the book—though Phinehas is not himself called either a priest or the high priest, nor is his ascension to the priesthood relayed, but is merely contextualized as a priest in his activity and presence before the ark—and this is the only reference in the book to anything that could be argued to resemble the presence or activity of a high priest. Furthermore, there exist within the varied MSS traditions—seen most clearly by comparing the MT, LXX^A, and LXX^B—traces of a pre-Phinehas version of the text where it is not the singular Phinehas inquiring of the Yhwh in v. 28 (MT/LXX^A) but a plural speaker (LXX^B/VL). A divergence repeated in the divine answer in v. 28 wherein the MT and ^LXXA report that the enemies will be given בידך /ἐν χειρί σου (“into your hand”) (that is, the singular hand of Phinehas) while the LXX^B and VL report it will be είς τὰς χεῖρας ὑμῶν/vobis in manibus (“into the hands of the you (pl)”).

 

Considering the significant chronological and inter-textual difficulties born by the appearance of Phinehas in the book of Judges, only a considerable motivation could have possibly lay behind the development and perpetuation of such a tradition—a motivation so essential that improbability and explicit contradiction are dwarfed in comparison with the need. Within the inner-biblical discourse of Phinehas, there exists only one motivation capable of inspiring the insertion seen in Judg 20:27b–28a: the dissonance that emerged between the covenant of Phinehas in Num 25:10–13 and the absence of any priestly activity capable of being seen as a fulfillment of the covenant within Phinehas’ literary wake. Having successfully created for themselves a covenant capable of securing the Zadokite hold on the high priesthood, the Zadokites were forced to address the problem of the complete absence of adequate priestly activity that could be seen as the fulfillment of Phinehas’ covenant. In response to this breach, the Zadokites developed Judg 20:27b–28a. Through this minor but essential insertion to the MT, the covenant of Num 25:10–13 can now be seen as having been fulfilled in the person of Phinehas as he is seen ministering before the ark and acting as high priest for the people.

 

It is from this initial insertion in Judg 20 that the addition of LXX Josh 24:33 expands, a development that reveals the ever-increasing need the Zadokites have for Phinehas and his covenant. Because the scribal hand responsible for LXX Josh 24:33 is so desirous to make explicit Phinehas’ ascension to the high priesthood, they are willing to allow the contradiction that is created when Phinehas, who was reported to have died in LXX Josh 24:33, reappears in Judg 20:27b–28a. What mattered most was not inner-biblical narrative consistency but the security of the high priesthood within the Zadokite line and the anchoring of Phinehas’ covenant and its fulfillment within the Pentateuch. (Jordan Scott Jones, “The Forgotten Promise to Phinehas: A Reception History of Numbers 25:10-13” [PhD Dissertation; The University of Iowa, August 2025], 140-46)

 

On the LXX, we have the following note:

 

Though interestingly, LXX^A and LXX^B bear different versions of the insertion and the Vetus Latina does not contain it. See Appendix J for divergences between LXX^A and LXX^B and an expansion seen in the Lucian recension. The absence of this material from the Vetus Latina likely reflects an early Hebrew original, or early Greek translation, of Judg 20 that lacked the expansion rather than reflecting a redactional removal. (Ibid., 140-41 n. 399)