Achenbach, R 2005. Pentateuch, Hexateuch und Enneateuch. Eine Verhältnisbestimmung, ZAR 11:122–154.  Albertz, R 2007. Die kanonische Anpassung des Johuabuches. Ein Neubewertung seiner sog.”Priesterschriftelike Texte”, in Römer and Schmid 2007:199–217.  Aurelius, E 2003. Zukunft jenseits des Gerichts: Eine redaktionsgeschichltliche Studie zumEnneateuch. BZAW 319. Berlin: de Gruyter.  Barrick, W B & Spencer, J R (eds) 1984. In the shelter of Elyon: essays on ancient Palestinian life in honour of GW Ahlström. JSOTSup 31. Sheffield: JSOT Press.  Becker U, 2006. Endredaktionelle Kontextvernetzungen des Josua-Buches, in Witte, Schmid, Prechel and Gertz 2006:139–161.  Bieberstein, K 1995. Josua-Jordan-Jericho. Archäologie, Geschichte und Theologie der Landnahmeerzählungen Josua 1–6. OBO. Friborg: Universitätsverlag, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.  Blum, E 1990. Studien zur Komposition des Pentateuch. BZAW 189. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter. _______ 1997. Die Kompositionelle Knoten am Übergang von Josua zu Richter: Ein Entflechtungsvorschlag, in Lust and Vervenne 1997:181–212. _______ 2006. The literary connection between the books of Genesis and Exodus and the end of the book of Joshua, in Dozeman and Schmid 2006:80–106. _______ 2011. Pentateuch-Hexateuch-Enneateuch, in Dozeman , Römer and Schmid 2011:43–71.  Carr, D M 1996. Reading the fractures of Genesis. Historical and literary approaches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox. _______ 2006. What is required to identify pre-Priestly narrative connections between Genesis and Exodus? in Dozeman and Schmid 2006:159–180. _______ 2012. The Moses story: literary and historical reflections, HeBAI 1–2:7–36.  Dozeman, T B & Schmid, K (eds) 2006. Farewell to the Yahwist? The composition of the Pentateuch in recent European discussion. SBL Symposium Series 34. Atlanta: SBL.  Dozeman, T B, Römer, T C & Schmid, K (eds) 2011. Pentateuch, Hexateuch, or Enneateuch. Identifying literary works in Genesis through Kings. SBL 8. Atlanta: SBL.  Du Pury, A, Römer, T C & Macchi, J P (eds) 2000. Israel constructs its history. Deuteronomistic historiography in recent research. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press.  Edenburg, C & Pakkala, J (eds) 2013. Is Samuel amongst the Deuteronomists? Current views on the place of Samuel in a Deuteronomistic History. Atlanta: SBL.  Eisffeldt, O 1964. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. Tübingen: Mohr.  Frevel, C 2000. Mit Blick auf das Land die Schöpfung erinnern. Zum Ende der Priestergrundschrift. HBS 23. Freiburg/New York: Herder. _______ 2011. Die Wiederkehr der Hexateuchperspektive. Eine Herausforderung für die These vom Deuteronomistischen Geschictswerk, in Stipp 2011:13–53.  Frey, J, Schattner-Rieser, U & Schmid, K (eds) 2012. Die Sameritaner und die Bibel: Historische und literarische Wechselwirkungen zwischen biblischen und Sameritanischen Traditionen. Studia Judaica/Studia Samaritana 7. Berlin/New York.  Fritz, V 1994. Das Buch Josua. Hat 1/7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Garciá-Martinez, F (ed.) 1998. Perspectives in the study of the Old Testament and early Judaism: a symposium in honour of Adam S. van der Woude on the occasion of his 70th Birthday. VTSup 73. Leiden: Brill.  Gertz, J C 2000. Tradition und Redaktion in der Exoduserzählung. Untersuchungen zur Endredaktion des Pentateuch. FRLANT 186. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht.  Görg, M 1991. Josua. NEB 26. Würzburg: Echter Verlag.  Gunkel, H 1910. Genesis. 3rd ed. GHK 1. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.  Hjelm, I 2000. The Samaritans and early Judaism: a literary analysis. JSOTSup 303. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press. Keel, O 1973. Das Vergaben der “Fremder” Götter in Genesis xxxv 4b, VT 23:305–336.  Knauf, E A 2000. Does Deuteronomsitic Historiography (DH) exist? in du Pury , Römer and Macchi 2000:388–398. _______ 2007. Buchschlüsse im Josuabuch, in Römer and Schmid 2007:217–224. _______ 2008. Josua. ZBKAT 6. Zurich: Theologisher Verlag.  Knoppers, G N & McConville, J G (eds) 2000. Reconsidering Israel and Judah: recent studies on the Deuteronomistic History. SBTS 8. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.  Köckert, M 1988. Vätergott und Väterverheisssungen. Eine Auseinandersetzung mit Albrecht Alt und seine Erben. FRLANT 142. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.  Konkel, M 2008. Sünde und Vergebung:Eine Rekontruktion der Redaktionsgeschichte der hinterein Sinaiperikope (Ex 32–34). Vor dem Hintergrund aktueller Pentateuchmodelle. FAT 88. Tübingen: Mohr.  Koopmans, W T 1990. Joshua 24 as poetic narrative. JSOTSup 93. Sheffield: JSOT Press. Kratz, R G 2000. Die Komposition der erzählender Bücher des Alten Testaments: Grundwissen der Bibelkritik. UTB 215.Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.  Levin, C 1993. Der Jahwist. FRLANT 157.Göttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht.  Lipschits, O, Knoppers, G N & Albertz, R (eds) 2007. Judah and the Judeans in the fourth century B.C.E. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.  Lust, J & Vervenne, M (eds) 1997. Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic literature. BETL 133. Leuven: Peeters.  Mckenzie, S L & Römer, T C (eds) 2000. Rethinking the foundations: historiography in the ancient world and the Bible. Essays in honour of John Van Seters. Berlin/New York: de Gruyter.  Nelson, R D 1997. Joshua: a commentary. Louisville: Westminster John Knox.  Nentel, J 2000. Trägerschaft und Intentionen des deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerks: Untersuchungen zu Refelexionreden: Jos1; 23; 24; 1 Sam12 und 1 Kön 8. BZAW 297. Berlin: de Gruyter.  Nihan, C 2012. The literary relationship between Deuteronomy and Joshua: a reassessment, in Schmid and Person 2012:79–114. _______ 2013. 1 Sam 8 and 12 and the Deuteronomsitic edition of Samuel, in Edenburg and Pakkala 2013: 225–274.  Na`man, N 2000. The law of the altar in Deuteronomy and the cultic site near Shechem, in Mckenzie and Römer 2000:141–161.  Noll, K L and Schramm, B (eds) 2010. Raising a faithful exegete: essays in honour of Richard Nelson. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.  Noort, E 1997. The traditions of Ebal and Gerizim: theological positions in the book of Joshua, in Vervenne and Lust 1997:161–180. _______ 1998. Zu Stand und Perspektiven: Der Glaube Israels zwischen Religionsgeschichte und Theologie, der Fall Josua 24, in Garciá-Martinez 1998:82–108.  Noth, M 1943. Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Studien. Tübingen: Niemeyer. _______ 1953. Das Buch Josua. 2nd ed. HAT 7. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  O’Brien, M A 1989. The Deuteronomistic History hypothesis: a reassessment. OBO 92. Fribourg: Éditions. Universitaires/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht.  Otto, E 1999. Bruckensläge in der Pentateuchsforschung, TRU 64:84–99. _______ 2000. Das Deuteronomium im Pentateuch und Hexateuch. Studien zur Literaturgeschichte von Pentateuch und Hexateuch im Lichte des Deuteronomiumrahmens. FAT 30. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Otto, E & Achenbach, R (eds) 2004. Das Deuteronomium zwischen Pentateuch undDeuteronomistischem Geschictswerk. FRLANT 206. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.  Perlitt, L 1968. Bundestheologie im Altes Testament. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Verlag. _______ 1994. Priesterschrift in Deuteronomium34? VT 59:475–494.  Popovich, M 2009. Conquest of the land, loss of the land. Where does Joshua 24 belong?, in von  Ruiten and de Vos 2009:87–98.  Rofé, A 2000. Ephraimite versus Deuteronomistic History, in Knoppers & McConville 2000:462–474.  Römer, T C 2010. Book-endings in Joshua and the question of the so-called Deuteronomistic History, in Noll and Schramm 2010:85–99.  Römer, T C & Brettler, M Z 2000. Deuteronomy 34 and the case for a Persian Hexateuch, JBL 119/3:401–419.  Römer, T C and Schmid, K (eds) 2007. Les dernières rédactions du Pentatueque, de l` Hexateuge,et de l` Henneatuege. BETL 203. Leuven: Peeters.  Rösel, H N 1980. Die Überleitungen vom Josua-ins Richterbuch, VT 30:342–350.  Schmid K, 1999. Erzväter und Exodus: Untersuchungen zur doppelten Begründing der Ursprünge Israels innerhalb der Geschichtsbücher des Alten Testaments. WMANT 81. Neukirchen-Vluyn:  Neukirchener Verlag. _______ 2007. The late Persian formation of the Torah: observations on Deuteronomy 34, in Lipschits, Knoppers & Albertz 2007:236–245. _______ 2012. Die Sameritaner und die Judaër. Die biblische Diskussion um ihr Verhältnis in Josua 24, in Frey, Schattner-Rieser & Schmid 2012:21–49.  Schmid, K & Person, R (eds) 2012. Deuteronomy in the Pentateuch, Hexateuch, and the Deuteronomistic History. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Schmidt, L 2009. P in Deuteronomium 34, VT 59:475–494.  Schmitt, G 1964. Der Landtag von Sichem. Stuttgart: Calwer Verlag.  Schmitt, H C 2004. DTN 34 als Verbindingstuck zwischen Tetrateuch und Dtr. Geschictswerk, in Otto and Achenbach 2004:181–192.  Smend, R 1970. Das Gesetz un die Völker, in Wolff 1970:494–504.  Sperling, S D 1987. Joshua 24 re-examined. HUCA 58:119–136.  Steuernage, l C 1923. Das Buch Josua. GHK 1,3 (2). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.  Stipp, H J (ed.) 2011. Das deuteronomistische Geschichtswerk. ÖBS 39. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.  Van Seters, J 1984. Joshua 24 and the problem of tradition in the Old Testament, in Barrick and Spencer 1984:139–158. _______ 2003. Deuteronomy between Pentateuch and Deuteronomistic History, HTS 59/3:947–956.  Vervenne, M & Lust, J (eds) 1997. Deuteronomy and Deuteronomistic literature. FS C.H.W Brekelmans. BETL 133. Leuven: Peeters.  Von Ruiten, J and de Vos, C (eds) 2009. The land of Israel in Bible, history and theology: studies in honour of Ed Noort. VTSup 124. Leiden: Brill.  Weimar, P 2008. Studien zur Priesterschrift. FAT 56. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.  Westermann, C 1994. Die Geschictsbücher des Alten Testaments: Gab es ein deuteronomsitisches Geschichtswerk? TB Altes Testament 87. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlag.  Witte, M 1998. Die biblische urgeschichte. Redaktions-und Theologiegeschichtliche Beobachtungen zu Genesis 1,1–11:26. BZAW 265. Berlin: de Gruyter.  Witte M, Schmid K, Prechel, D & Gertz, J C (eds) 2006. Die deuteronomistischenGeschichtswerke: Redaktions- und religionsgeschichtliche Perspektiven zur “Deuteronomismus”-Diskussion in Tora und vorderen Propheten. BZAW 365. Berlin: de Gruyter.  Wolff, H W (ed.) 1970. Probleme biblischer Theologie: Gerard von Rad zum 70. Geburtstag. Munich: Kaiser Verlag.  Würthwein, E 1994a. Erwägungen zum sog. Deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk: eine Skizze, in  Würthwein 1994b:1–11.  Würthwein, E 1994b. Studien zum deuteronomistischen Geschichtswerk BZAW227. Berlin: de Gruyter,  Zakovitch, Y 1980. The object of the narrative of the burial of the foreign gods at Shechem, BeTM 25:300–337.  Zenger, E 2004. Einleitung in das Alte Testament. 5th ed. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

In the context of this article, the term 'Sinai pericope' refers specifically to Exodus 19-24, which contains the Decalogue and the Covenant Code. I am aware of the fact that several scholars use this term in a broader sense to refer to Exodus 19 to Numbers 10. 2.For instance, the Covenant Code seems to interrupt the narrative. Therefore, Hyatt (1971:197) and Noth (1962:154) have argued that the Decalogue originally followed Exodus 20:18-21 and was therefore inserted into the current narrative. Eissfeld (1965:213-219) and Boecker (1980:130) took this argument further by proposing that the whole of the Covenant Code (Ex 20:22-23:33) was inserted into the present narrative.3.Otto`s proposal dictates that the Covenant Code was inserted into the Sinai pericope. Therefore, Otto `s proposal can also fall into this first category. However, Otto blends diachronic and synchronic approaches in a rather unique way, and therefore his proposal will be discussed separately.The composition of the Sinai pericope presents the reader with several literary problems, with specific reference to the incoherence of the text caused by textual irregularities in the sense of time, genre and theological issues. The chronological issues have led to the proposal that the legal codes (The Decalogue and Covenant Code) were interpolated into a broader narrative framework. Several scholars have attempted to unravel the Sinai pericope with diachronic or synchronic tools. This article investigates several solutions in order to understand Eckart Otto's contribution to the current debate.Intradisciplinary and/or interdisciplinary implications: This article engages literary criticism and hermeneutics to evaluate Eckart Otto's solution in the broader framework of the history of research.

Joshua 24 is generally assumed to be the concluding chapter of a Hexateuch. Several texts in Genesis and Exodus are indeed taken up in Joshua 24. In recent times, these texts have generally been assigned to a post-Priestly layer of redaction. In this essay, I argue that the direction of influence runs from Joshua 24 to the books of Genesis and Exodus, instead of linearly from Genesis-Exodus to Joshua. I propose that Genesis 34 and 35:1–4 reacts to the assumed pro-Samaritan viewpoint of Joshua 24. Furthermore, I postulate that Genesis 33:18–20, 50:24–26, and Exodus 13:19 aim to explain the unique traditions in Joshua 24. This emphasises the theological importance of Joshua 24 in the debate surrounding the Samaritan identity in post-exilic times, while reassessing the literary question surrounding a Hexateuch redaction.

The differences between the MT and LXX texts of Joshua 24 are numerous and complex. In this essay, I will discuss these differences from a theological viewpoint. I will start with the assumption that the MT of Joshua 24 displays a distinctive pro-Samaritan attitude. The aim of this essay is to determine the theological viewpoint of the LXX of Joshua 24 regarding the attitude toward the Samaritan question. I will argue that the LXX of Joshua 24 displays an antiSamaritan attitude and that it embeds the covenant of Joshua 24 in the broader narrative of apostasy and fall, in sharp contrast to the MT of Joshua 24.