THE BOOK OF JOSHUA

In regard to the Book of Joshua, its date, and its relations to the other books of the so-called Hexateuch, our critics are all at sea. Reuss at one time declares that it is uncertain whether priority should be assigned to Deuteronomy or to Joshua. At another, he affirms "the necessity of concluding that the Book of Joshua, in its actual form, is posterior to the Deuteronomic code, but contemporary with, or rather an integral part of, the Deuteronomic book.¹ Graf makes the following statement: "Reuss hat darauf aufmerksam gemacht, dass die Beziehung des B. Josua auf den Pentateuch in gesetzlicher Rücksicht sowohl als in historischer sich auf das Deuteronomium und den letzen Theil des B. Numeri beschränkt, ein neuer Beweis, wenn es dessen noch bedürfte, dass die Theile des jetzigen Pentateuchs, die sich uns als nachexilische erwiesen haben, bei der Abfassung des B. Josua noch nicht vorhanden waren"² (" Reuss has called attention to the fact that the connection of the Book of Joshua with the Pentateuch, in a legal as well as historical view, is limited to Deuteronomy and the last part of the Book of Numbers — a new proof, if any were needed, that the parts of the present Pentateuch which exhibit themselves to us as post-exilic were not on hand at the composition of the Book of Joshua"). Kuenen is quite sure that there is in Joshua a Deuteronomic recasting of an older story, either by the author of Deuteronomy or by some of its redactors, but in regard to the date of the book he has little to say.³ Wellhausen pronounces it to be historically untrue, and thus imperiously waves aside whatever in it comes in conflict with his views.⁴ This treatment of the Book of Joshua by the critics, and their conflicting views concerning it, are in consequence of two facts, one of which is that the Book of Joshua presupposes the books of the Pentateuch, and the other is that it was written near the time of the conquest of Canaan. It is these two facts, we think, that produce the paralysis of the critics referred to above. Let us first attend to the date of the book.

1. Our first proposition is, that it was written before the exile. The proof is as follows: At the time Joshua was written, the city of Ai was lying in ruins, and a place uninhabited. This is expressly stated. "And Joshua burnt Ai, and made it an heap forever, even a desolation unto this day."⁵ But Ai was rebuilt and inhabited before the time of Ezra and Nehemiah. It is mentioned once in Ezra⁶ and twice in Nehemiah⁷ as having been inhabited before the exile. Since the author of Joshua describes Ai as still lying in ruins in his day, it is evident that he lived and wrote before the exile.

2. By parity of reasoning it is shown that he lived and wrote before the time of Isaiah; for Ai is spoken of by this prophet as an inhabited city. " He is come to Aiath."⁸ It is generally admitted that this is another name for Ai. Even Professor Cheyne unhesitatingly accepts this opinion.⁹ Hence Joshua was written before the time of Isaiah.

3. It is further in evidence that Joshua was written before the time of Solomon, for the author expressly states that in his time, at the very time he wrote, the Canaanites were dwelling in Gezer among the Ephraimites. "And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer; but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute."¹⁰ But it is further in evidence that the Canaanites ceased to inhabit Gezer in the time of Solomon. This is stated in the Book of Kings, as follows: "For Pharaoh king of Egypt had gone up and taken Gezer, and burnt it with fire, and slain the Canaanites that dwelt in the city, and given it for a present unto his daughter, Solomon's wife. And Solomon built Gezer, and Beth-horon the nether."¹¹ It is clear that Joshua was written before the destruction of Gezer and its inhabitants by the king of Egypt.

Up to this point our critics make but little resistance. But to admit that Joshua was written before the time of Solomon would endanger their theories, and here they begin to contend. Kuenen admits that if the passage in I. Kings 9:16 is taken literally "we should have to place Joshua 16:10 before Solomon,"¹² but he endeavors to get out of the difficulty by the supposition that Gezer did "not become tributary to the Israelites until after its conquest by Solomon's father-in-law."¹² But, in the first place, this is merely a supposition, made without evidence, to avoid an undesirable conclusion. Second, though Kuenen affirms this supposition to be probable, we think it very improbable that Solomon would compel a city which he himself had built "to serve under tribute." Third, the supposition, even if admitted, would not meet the case. For the declaration is, that the Canaanites, at the time the author of Joshua was writing, were living with the Ephraimites and serving under tribute. But the declaration in Kings is, that in the time of Solomon Pharaoh burned the city and slew the Canaanites. They certainly did not pay tribute, nor even live in Gezer, after Pharaoh had killed them. The two facts then remain: the Canaanites were living in Gezer in the time of the author of Joshua, but they ceased to live there during the early part of Solomon's reign. Hence the author of Joshua lived and wrote before the time of Solomon.

4. Joshua was written before the time of King David, for at the time it was written the Jebusites held and inhabited Jerusalem; but in David's time they were conquered. "As for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out: but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day."¹³ Their subjugation by David is related both in Samuel¹⁴ and in Chronicles.¹⁵ The plain and legitimate conclusion is, that the above declaration was made by the author of Joshua before the conquest of Jerusalem, which took place in the earlier part of the reign of David.

Kuenen's way of meeting this argument is as follows: He affirms that this passage in Joshua points to the time after David, "for till then Jerusalem was still completely in the power of the Jebusites, but after its capture by David they remained there side by side with the Israelites."¹⁶ Reuss favors this interpretation by his rendering of the passage, as follows: "The Jebusites have inhabited Jerusalem conjointly with those of Judah until this day."¹⁷ To all this it may be replied, (1) that if the Jebusites dwelt in Jerusalem and the Israelites in the surrounding country and towns, the conditions of the declaration would be fulfilled, so far as the dwelling together of the two races is concerned. (2) The passage in question refers to a time when the Israelites "could not drive the Jebusites out of Jerusalem." If the Israelites did not expel the Jebusites in David's time, it was not for the want of power. The passage, then, refers to a state of things before David's time. For he conquered and captured Jerusalem.¹⁸

5. There are several passages in Joshua which point to a time not long after the conquest. The writer states that Joshua placed in Jordan twelve stones as a memorial of the miraculous crossing of the children of Israel, and he adds that at the time he was writing these stones were still remaining in the midst of Jordan, where Joshua had placed them: "And they are there unto this day."¹⁹ But it is not probable that these stones would remain in the Jordan a very long time. Freshets would wash them away. The rushing waters of the rapid river would wear them away, in accordance with the old adage that the constant drop will wear the stone. About four hundred years intervened between the crossing of the Jordan and the reign of King David. It is preposterous to suppose that those memorial stones remained in the swift current of the Jordan during one-half of that time, or even one-fourth. But the author of Joshua says, "They are there unto this day." If they remained there only fifty years, the Book of Joshua was written within fifty years after the crossing of the Jordan. If they remained only twenty-five years, the book must have been written within that period after the crossing.

There are other and similar indications of time. The writer says that the pile of stones placed over the dead body of Achan was still to be seen in his day: "And they raised over him a great heap of stones unto this day."²⁰ How long would that pile of stones probably remain? Would it be likely to remain five hundred, four hundred, or three hundred years? Would it be likely to remain a century even, exposed to frost, and flood, and fire, and earthquake, and whirlwind, and the doings of men and beasts?

Again, the writer employs the formula "unto this day" in regard to the stones which were placed in the mouth of the cave of Makkedah, in which the five kings were buried. It is not probable that these stones would remain five hundred years, or even a century. Curiosity, if nothing else, would induce some one to remove the stones and enter the cave.

Once more, the declaration concerning the Gibeonites points to a time before Samuel and Saul: "And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the Lord, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose."²¹ There are two notes of time in this declaration: (1) The words "should choose," being the words of the historian, not of Joshua, indicate that at the time of writing the choice of a place for the altar and worship of God had not yet been made. The time, therefore, was at least before the building of the temple. (2) The other indication of time is by the phrase "unto this day." Evidently the author means that in his day the Gibeonites were in the condition in which they were placed by Joshua. But they were not in this condition in the time of Saul, David, or Solomon, or in succeeding times. The Nethinim were not mere wood-cutters and water-drawers. Clearly, then, the writer of Joshua 9:27 lived at least before the time of Samuel.

Kuenen makes two remarks about this passage. One is that Saul did not kill all the Gibeonites,²² which is true. The other remark is, that in this verse we have a double representation put together in defiance of consistency and grammar. This is not criticism, but mere skeptical dogmatism.

6. The date of the Book of Joshua is fixed by the declaration made concerning Rahab: "And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive, and her father's household, and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day; because she hid the messengers which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho."²³ The obvious meaning of this passage is that Rahab was still living at the time it was written. And this clearly proves that this passage, and presumptively the whole Book of Joshua, were written not later than the generation immediately succeeding Joshua and the conquest.

The critics, of course, make an effort to set aside this testimony so damaging to their theories. Kuenen asserts, and in this case does nothing more than assert, that Joshua 6:25 "does not refer to Rahab, but to her descendants."²⁴ We ask the reader's attention to the absurdity of this construction. It makes the name of Rahab change from a personal to a figurative meaning, and back again from a figurative to a personal meaning in one short verse. "And Joshua saved Rahab the harlot alive and her father's household and all that she had; and she dwelleth in Israel even unto this day, because she hid the messengers, which Joshua sent to spy out Jericho." To say that the pronoun "she" in the middle clause does not mean Rahab, though it does so mean immediately before and after, is an illustration of the shifts to which some critics will resort in order to refute an unanswerable argument. Reuss also tries his hand on the passage, and his effort is to get rid of the reference to present time. Avoiding the present tense of the English version and the present-perfect of the French, he translates as follows:" Josué la laissa vivre, et elle demeura parmi les Israelites jusqu'a ce jour"²⁵ (" Joshua saved her life, and she lived among the Israelites until this day"). But, after all, the words "until this day" signify present time, and even if in Reuss' s translation the death of Rahab is implied, it is further implied that she had lived on up to the time in which the author lived and wrote, and that she had died only a short time previous. The critic seems to have been aware of this, and in a marginal note says, "S'il est dit que Rahab demeure encore in Israel, il s'agit naturellement de ses descendants"²⁵ ("If it is said that Rahab lives still in Israel, it naturally applies to her descendants"). This is as much as to say that "Rahab" does not naturally mean Rahab, but her descendants. Evidently the critic felt the necessity of holding this construction, as it were, in reserve, to be resorted to in case of failure of his other expedient. But Reuss has completely spoiled this construction by his translation. For the expression, "She lived until this day," implies that she was dead at the time of writing. But as her posterity did not cease to exist, this clause cannot apply to them, and must refer to Rahab personally.

We are not aware that Wellhausen deals specially with this passage. He recognized the necessity of getting rid entirely of the testimony of the Book of Joshua to the early existence of the Pentateuch, and hence denies its historical character. This delivers him from the necessity of petty shifts and unnatural constructions.

7. Another passage bearing on the question in hand is as follows: "And Israel served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that overlived Joshua."²⁶ It is to be observed that the writer in this declaration does not go beyond the time covered by the life of Joshua and the lives of his contemporaries that survived him, and that he is entirely silent in regard to the course of the Israelites after that time. Why this silence? The hypothesis that the writer was one of those contemporaries that outlived Joshua, and wrote in the age immediately succeeding, accounts for this silence. Nothing else accounts for it, or at least so well. There is, then, a strong presumption in favor of this hypothesis. This presumption is strengthened by what the author of the Book of Judges says concerning the subsequent course of the Israelites. He first repeats the declaration made in Joshua that "the people served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua, who had seen all the great works of the Lord that he did for Israel"; then, after mentioning the death of Joshua, he adds: "And also all that generation were gathered unto their fathers. And there arose another generation after them, which knew not the Lord, nor yet the works which he had done for Israel. And the children of Israel did evil in the sight of the Lord, and served Baalim."²⁷ The author of the Book of Judges, living after Joshua and his surviving contemporaries, is a competent witness to testify as to what took place in the succeeding generation as well as to the course of Israel in Joshua's time. But, to use the phrase of the critics, the author of Joshua "knows nothing" of what took place in Israel in the generation after Moses and his contemporaries. There is a marked difference between the two writers in this respect.

8. Finally, the author of Joshua speaks of himself as taking part in the conquest of Canaan. In speaking of the crossing of the Jordan by the Israelites, under the command of Joshua, to attack Jericho, he employs the pronoun we, — "until we were passed over."²⁸ According to the plain meaning of these words, the writer of this declaration was one of those who crossed the Jordan under the leadership of Joshua. It is by just such evidence that it is proved that the author of the Acts was the contemporary and companion of Paul.²⁹ The analytic critics do not agree as to the mode of getting rid of the testimony of this passage. Kuenen claims that the text is erroneous, and that the true reading gives us "they" instead of "we." He thinks he knows how the error originated, namely, by the eye of the transcriber resting on the twenty-third verse of the preceding chapter and by his copying there from the word "we."³⁰ This is mere assertion based on conjecture. There is, however, a various reading which gives the pronoun in the third person. The Revised Version places this reading in the margin. The accepted reading is, however, sustained by the manuscripts, and is probably correct. The argument is therefore entitled to consideration. De Wette, without questioning the correctness of the reading, maintains that the writer, though living long afterward, identified himself in thought with the Israelites as they crossed the Jordan, and therefore said "we." He refers to Psalm 66:6, which is not a parallel case. Our passage in Joshua is a historical statement and is to be understood in a literal way. Reuss's way of getting rid of the pronoun in the first person is certainly the most convenient, if not the most successful. He omits it from his translation and says nothing about it. He is by no means singular in this, but such a procedure was not to be expected in a famous critical work gotten up to overthrow traditional beliefs.

Such are the evidences of the early date of the Book of Joshua. To plead that these marks of antiquity are the work of revisers is of no avail unless that plea is accompanied wath the proved charge of dishonesty. For the book revised must precede the revision, and the original writer be more ancient than the reviser. The hypothesis, then, of revision only makes matters worse for the analysts, unless it can be shown that the revisers inserted marks of antiquity for the purpose of deceiving. Our critics, however, are not very forward to make, at least in a direct way, the charge of fraud against the biblical writers. Kuenen does indeed indulge pretty freely in charges of this kind, in his work entitled, "The Bible for Learners," but when he assumes to write with the dignity of a critic he suppresses pretty thoroughly out-givings of that sort, being led, perhaps, by a sense of decency.

Now the antiquity of the Book of Joshua demonstrates the mistakes of our critics. The existence of this book soon after the death of Moses plays havoc with their hypotheses and arguments.

1. The Book of Joshua presupposes the Mosaic laws. It makes express mention of them. "Only be thou strong and very courageous, that thou mayest observe to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded thee."³¹ "This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein."³² "As Moses the servant of the Lord commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lift up any iron."³³ "There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the congregation of Israel, with the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that were conversant among them."³⁴ "Be ye therefore very courageous to keep and to do all that is written in the book of the law of Moses, that ye turn not aside there from to the right hand or to the left."³⁵

These and other passages set forth the following facts: (1) that in the time of Joshua the Israelites had a body of laws for their guidance as a nation and as individuals; (2) that these laws were written; (3) that Moses was their recognized author; (4) that they were recorded in a book, called the "book of the law" and the "book of the law of Moses"; (5) that the law and the book of the law were distinguished from one another. Joshua wrote a copy of the law of Moses on the stones of the altar, in the presence of the Israelites; but he read to the people all the words of the law, according to all that was written in the book of the law.³⁶

These facts are an additional proof, if any were needed, of the utter inadmissibility of the hypothesis of the analysts that the so-called "Mosaic code" originated by development after the time of Moses.

2. The Book of Joshua recognizes the existence of the ark and the tabernacle. The ark was prominent in the crossing of the Jordan and in the capture of Jericho. The first mention of it indicates its prior and well-known existence.³⁷ This is true also of the tabernacle. The first mention of it presupposes its previous institution and history: "And the whole congregation of the children of Israel assembled together at Shiloh, and set up the tabernacle of the congregation there."³⁸ Aside from the time of the writing of the Book of Joshua, the historical statement just quoted must be pronounced false by every one who follows our critics in holding that the Mosaic tabernacle existed only in the imagination and fictions of later writers. But in view of the antiquity of the book, he who agrees with these critics in this matter must conclude that its author was guilty of known and willful falsehood; for a writer who was partly contemporary with Joshua must have known whether any Mosaic tabernacle then existed. The antiquity of this book, then, proves the existence of the ark and the tabernacle in the time of Joshua, unless we assume that the writer of Joshua affirmed what he knew to be false. On the other hand, the existence of the tabernacle and the ark presupposes a Levitical code and service, in opposition to the evolutionary hypothesis of the analysts.

3. Accordingly, in this book Levitical ideas and customs are set forth very prominently. We have an example of this in the account of the destruction of Jericho. The ark borne by the priests, preceded by seven priests bearing seven trumpets, proceeded around the beleaguered city once a day for six days, the seven priests blowing their seven trumpets; but on the seventh day they thus marched around the walls seven times: "And seven priests bearing seven trumpets of rams' horns before the ark of the Lord went on continually, and blew with the trumpets: and the armed men went before them; but the rearward came after the ark of the Lord, the priests going on, and blowing with the trumpets."³⁹ Here are brought to view the Levitical priests and their service. To use Reuss's expression, we have here "Leviticism in full view."⁴⁰ The account, merely as history, is a blow to the hypothesis of the origin of the Levitical code by development, and greater force is imparted to it by the antiquity of the book,

4. The Book of Joshua reveals the fact that in Joshua's time it was recognized as an existing law that there should be but one central place of worship. When the two and a half tribes east of the Jordan erected an altar, their brethren charged them with trespass and rebellion, and were restrained from going to war only by the assurance that the new altar was not intended for sacrifice and worship, but merely as a memorial. They of the east side said, "God forbid that we should rebel against the Lord, and turn this day from following the Lord, to build an altar for burnt-offerings, for meat-offerings, or for sacrifices, besides the altar of the Lord our God that is before his tabernacle."⁴¹ Thus both the parties accepted the law as requiring the centralization of worship, and recognized the offering of sacrifices elsewhere than at the altar before the tabernacle as disobedience and rebellion. This is the statement of the author of Joshua. Who has a right to contradict this statement and pronounce it a mistake or a lie? But, in addition to this, the accuracy and truthfulness of the account are guaranteed by the fact that it was written in the time of Joshua.

5. The Book of Joshua presupposes the books of the Pentateuch. It more especially presupposes Deuteronomy and through it the preceding books. As an example, let us take the first chapter of Joshua. Almost every verse contains a quotation from, or a reference to, some passage found in the Pentateuch; more generally in the last book. In the first and second verses the words, "Now after the death of Moses the servant of the Lord," and "Moses my servant is dead," clearly, point to Deuteronomy 34:5. The words, "Joshua the son of Nun, Moses' minister," in the first verse, point to Exodus 24:13; 33:11 Verses 3, 4, and 5 are a repetition of Deuteronomy 11:24, 25. Verses 6 and 7 are taken from Deuteronomy 31:6, 7. The eighth verse refers to Deuteronomy 31:9, 26; 5:32, 33Verses 14 and 15 refer to Numbers 32:28-33.

The twenty-third chapter also abounds in references to the preceding books. To be convinced that Joshua makes almost continual reference to the books of the Pentateuch the reader needs only to hunt up the references in an ordinary polyglot Bible.

1) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. 1., p. 216.

2) Geschictlichen Bücher des Alten Testaments, p. 95.

3) Hexateuch, pp. 130, 131.

4) Israel, p. 442.

5) Josh. 8:28.

6) Ezra 2:28.

7) Neh. 7:32; 11:31.

8) Isa. 10:28.

9) Cheyne on Isaiah, p. 74.

10) Josh. 16:10.

11) I. Kings 9:16, 17.

12) 12) Hexateuch, p. 36.

13) Josh. 15:63.

14) II. Sam. 5:6-9.

15) I. Chr. 11:4-8.

16) Hexateuch, p. 36.

17) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. II., p. 398.

18) II. Sam. 5:6-9; I. Chr. 11:4-8.

19) Josh. 4:9.

20) Josh. 7:26.

21) Josh. 9:27.

22) Hexateuch, p. 36.

23) Josh. 6:25.

24) Hexateuch, p. 36.

25) 25) L'Histoire Sainte, Vol. II., p. 373.

26) Josh. 24:31.

27) Judg. 2:7-11

28) Josh. 5:1.

29) Acts 16:10.

30) Hexateuch, p. 36.

31) Josh. 1:7.

32) Josh. 1:8.

33) Josh. 8:31.

34) Josh. 8:35.

35) Josh. 23:6.

36) Josh. 8:32, 34.

37) Josh. 3:3.

38) Josh. 18:1.

39) Josh. 6:13.

40) "En pleiue Leviticism."

41) Josh. 22:29.