Innocents abroad

ἡμεῖς ἐσμὲν Χαναναῖοι, οὓς ἐδίωξεν Ἰησοῦς ὁ λῃστής

Thus, according to the Suda, read an inscription in Numidia (=Africa, west of Carthage) as translated into Greek. Procopius of Caesarea related similar, pinpointing its site to a double-stele near our Tangier; there, the Canaanim had "fled before Joshua's face". (h/t Linh Dinh himself citing "Twain" Clemens.) Movses of Khorene is also sometimes noted.

It would be easy to claim this as a forgery; W Bacher did just that in 1891, and so has Amitay in 2011. Amitay is assuredly correct that nobody knew or cared about Joshua/Jesus ben Nun until and unless they were in intimate contact with the Jewish Bible and, later, with the Christian Old Testament. Amitay is also right not to take Movses seriously, although he is more polite than I would be. And Procopius parallels Hippolytus, as the Suda and Movses parallel a fragment of John Antiochene. Of course Hippolytus had spoken no word of an inscription.

I would add, that version of "Manetho" with which, in the 80s AD, Josephus was in dialogue comprised, in part, a satire on the Exodus. It seems inevitable that someone might do the same with the Book of Joshua.

In any version, I would rule out Caesarea. The local Samaritans believed themselves Israelite and had no real problem with Joshua, although they didn't adopt that particular book for their canon.

Bacher thinks Procopius or his predecessors in Caesarea made it all up; Amitay blames a "Mandela Sign Language Guy" in Africa catering to Procopius' heroic and semiChristian tastes. Procopius certainly had an ear for scandal, as is rife in his Anecdota. Bacher sees this passage as a reaction to Josephus, who had denied that his race was λῃστής. Amitay points to the Moorish revolt of the 500s AD, the quelling of which revolt brought Procopius hither.

I will throw a bone to Amitay here: these words would indeed distance the Punic people from that newer, Christian Ἰησοῦς. More to the point "fled before the face" concedes the Divine khwarrah to Joshua. It reads to me as something a Bible-steeped victor would say - like Hippolytus, and in the 500s AD like Procopius; not like something the Punics would say of themselves.

Still, I propose that the translator was more honest than Amitay allows.

In the early 100s AD, after Josephus had published his work, his coethnics in the Diaspora rebelled across the African coast. But there, too, survived non Jewish descendants of Carthage and of other "Punics".

So, a context: I can imagine bilingual steles erected after Rome had quelled THAT revolt; alluding to Josephus in Greek, and translated to Punic - perhaps in Latin letters. These would assert the non-Jewish identity of the surviving Punic populace against this latest Jewish threat. These would also serve the Punics against pagan Roman suspicions, when that newer Ἰησοῦς attracted Roman attention. Later readers could impute what additional context they might impute.