"... The motive behind the alterations would have been the wish to conform to the original story in which the shofar was blown by lay people to the priestly legislation found in Numbers 10.1-10, which reserves this right exclusively for the Aaronide priests (compare Targum Jonathan, Josephus, Antiquities of the Jews 5:22-23, 27 and the War Scroll). With respect to the story of the fall of Ai (Joshua 8:1-29), she argued (Mazor, ‘Textual’) that the Old Greek version reflects an intermediate stage between the pristine narrative contained in 4QJosha (lacking Joshua 8:14) and the expansionistic Masoretic text (including the pluses vis-à-vis LXX found in Joshua 8:7-8, 9, 12, 13, 15-16, 20 and 26). In her view, the textual accretions resulted from narrative conflation with Judges 20, a narrative with a similar plot. In reaction to these maximalist positions, scholars over the last decade have pointed once more to the interpretative character of the Greek translation. In a careful text-critical analysis of Joshua 6, Bieberstein concluded that most of the major divergences between the Masoretic text and LXX in these chapters are the result of a deliberate restructuring and reformulation by the translator. Although in his view the book has had a very long process of literary formation, there is no overlap between the history of redaction and textual transmission ..."

van der Meer, Michaël N. "Joshua" in Aitken, J. K. (ed.) T&T Clark Companion to the Septuagint (pp. 86-101) T&T Clark International, 2015