Positive Evidence in the Book of Joshua.

1. Jehovah's Charge to Joshua. We find in Joshua a direct continuance of the history in Numbers and Deuteronomy. The former closes with this statement: "These are the commandments and the judgements, which Jehovah commanded by the hand of Moses unto the children of Israel in the plains of Moab by the Jordan at Jericho." The latter closed its historical portion, before the account of the death of Moses was appended, with the statement that Moses wrote "this law." The Book of Joshua opens with an address by Jehovah to Joshua, in which occurs this admonition: "Only be strong and very courageous, to observe to do according to all the law, which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest. 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: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success" (i. 7, 8). These words are worthy of Jehovah, and it is hard to believe that they were written by some human being and put into his mouth. If they were spoken as here described, they make it absolutely certain that when Joshua took command of the hosts of Israel he already held in his hand the book of the law of Moses.  

We shall now see how this piece of history is dealt with by our critics. Driver paves the way for an explanation by saying:  

In this book, JE, before It was combined with P, passed through the hands of a writer who expanded it in different ways, and who, being strongly imbued with the spirit of Deuteronomy, may be termed the Deuteronomic editor, and denoted by the abbreviation D². The parts added by this writer are in most cases readily recognized by their characteristic style (Int., 104).  

That the reader who is not an expert in critical signs may understand this, let us remember that according to the analytical theory of the "Hexateuch" the hypothetical writers J and E each wrote a narrative beginning with Adam and coming down to the death of Joshua. The two were combined in one by an editor, and the resulting document was JE. But our Joshua is not the original left by JE. Before it reached its present form it was edited by an author who made additions to it "in the spirit of Deuteronomy," and on this account he is called D². He wrote, of course, after Deuteronomy had been discovered by Hilkiah. All passages, therefore, which would prove that the latter was written before Joshua, were added to the original Joshua by this D². So, on the next page, Driver says:  

Chapter i. is based probably upon an earlier and shorter narrative, from which, for instance, the substance of verses 1, 2, 10 and 11 may be derived, but in its present form it is the composition of D².  

And what is the proof of this? The next sentence gives it: "It is constructed almost entirely of phrases borrowed from Deuteronomy." Then follows a list of these phrases.  

Let us suppose, now, that all the phrases cited, and as many more as you please, were actually borrowed from Deuteronomy; and what does it prove? It proves precisely what Driver aims to prove by it, that Deuteronomy was written before these passages in Joshua were. But that is precisely what is true if Deuteronomy was written by Moses. Its bearing, then,, on the question whether Moses is the author of Deuteronomy, is absolutely nil. It leaves the evidence from this first chapter of Joshua, that he had in hand the book of the law of Moses, untouched; and this chapter, if it stood alone, would prove conclusively, to a candid mind, that the book of the law came from the hand of Moses.  

In thus disposing of this evidence, Driver has not only made an argument that is good for the Mosaic authorship, but he has inadvertently done the same in another remark following the one first quoted above:  

The chief aim of these Deuteronomic additions to JE is to illustrate and emphasize the zeal shown by Joshua in fulfilling Mosaic ordinances, especially the command to extirpate the native population of Canaan, and the success which in consequence crowned his efforts (104).  

The command "to extirpate the native population of Canaan" was, then, a "Mosaic ordinance," was it? It certainly was. But it is found only in Deuteronomy. In the other books there is the command to "drive them out" (Ex. xxiii. 2733; Num. xxxiii. 50-56), but only in Deuteronomy is found the command to extirpate them (xx. 16-18). This, then, is "the Mosaic ordinance" the fulfilling of which showed the zeal of Joshua, and thus Driver has inadvertently admitted that Deuteronomy is Mosaic. Men often reveal the truth by their very efforts to conceal it. The case is much like that in the old story of the man who was sued by his neighbor for a kettle which he had borrowed and sent home with a crack in it. Hia plea before the magistrate was this: "In the first place, may it please Your Honor, I never borrowed the kettle. In the second place, it was cracked when I got it. In the third place, it was sound when I took it home."  

2. The Case of the Altar Ed. The twenty-second chapter of Joshua contains a narrative which, if true, demonstrates the pre-existence of the Book of Deuteronomy, and therefore ite Mosaic origin. It does so by showing that the distinctive legislation of Deuteronomy as interpreted by destructive critics, the restriction of sacrifices under the law to one central altar, existed and was in force when Joshua succeeded Moses. The warriors of the two and a half tribes whose homes had been assigned them east of the Jordan, having served with their brethren through the war of conquest, are dismissed by Joshua with his blessing, and they march away to their families (1-8). When they reach the vicinity of the Jordan they build an altar, probably on a mountain overlooking the Jordan valley, so large that it is styled in the quaint phraseology of the text, "a great altar to see to" (ix. 10). The report of this undertaking spreads like wild-fire through all the tribes, "and the whole congregation of the children of Israel gathered themselves together at Shiloh, to go up against them to war" (xi. 12). This shows that the erection of another altar than the one constructed by Moses, was held to be unlawful, and to such a degree criminal as to justify making war on those who might be guilty of it  

At this point another law, the denial of the existence of which at this early date is common with our critics, is carefully observed. It is the law that when Israel should hear that any city of their people had turned away to idolatry they should "inquire, and make search, and ask diligently," and "if it be true, and the thing certain," they should go and smite the inhabitants and utterly destroy the city (Deut . xiii. 12-18). Believing that the two and a half tribes were erecting this altar as an act of rebellion against Jehovah (verse 16), and that the law just cited was applicable in the case, the people sent Phinehas, who was yet alive, with ten princes, one representing each of the tribes, to make the careful inquiry enjoined by this law (13-20).  

The remonstrance was met by a most emphatic and indignant denial that they were erecting the altar for the purpose of offering on it any kind of sacrifice; and the respondents admit that if they were, they would not deserve to be spared (21-24). They state their real purpose to be the erection of a monument to bear witness in coming ages that they, although separated from the main body of the nation by the river and its deep valley, were a constituent part of the people who offered sacrifice to Jehovah on an altar of this pattern (24-29). The deputation was pleased with the answer, Phinehas pronounced a benediction on the builders, and all Israel was delighted when the commissioners returned and made their report (30-34).  

Now, whoever wrote this account, and whatever date may be assigned to the Book of Joshua, if the account is true, all debate about the Mosaic authorship of the Book of Deuteronomy ought here to terminate.  

But let us hear how the destructive critics dispose of this evidence. Of course, they must dispose of it or give up their whole contention about the origin of Deuteronomy. Robertson Smith says of it:  

Chap. xxii. 9-34 is a very peculiar piece, which has its closest parallel in Judges xx. Both chapters are for the most part post-priestly, and certainly not historical (O. T., 413).  

No reason whatever does he assign for this decision. But, reason or no reason, he was forced to the decision to prevent his theory from breaking down. It was a case of necessity somewhat like that of Uncle Remus's rabbit:  

"Br'er Fox was chasing Br'er Rabbit, and getting closer and closer, closer and closer, so Br'er Rabbit clumb a tree."  

"Hold on, Uncle Remus," said the little boy who was listening, "you know a rabbit can't climb a tree."  

"I know he can't, honey, but dat rabbit was 'bleeged to climb a tree."  

Professor Driver treats the passage with a little more respect, He says:  

The source of verses 9-34 is uncertain. The phraseology Is In the main that of P; but the narrative does not display throughout the characteristic style of P, and in some parts of it there occur expressions which are not those of P. Either a narrative of P. has been combined with elements from another source in a manner which makes it difficult to effect a satisfactory analysis, or the whole of it is the work of a distinct writer, whose phraseology is in part that of P, but not entirely (Int., 113).  

This is foggy enough for any German author. If it is the best that the clear-headed Driver can do, Robertson Smith, might well say, as quoted above, that the passage is "a very peculiar piece." If Driver could settle down on the assertion that P wrote it, this would place its origin nearly a thousand years after the days of Joshua and Phinehas, and it would be equivalent to Robertson Smith's flat assertion that it is certainly unhistorical. But Driver can not do this. He runs about through the fog trying to find a place for it, and finally drops it, nobody knows where.  

Professor Bennett, editor of the Polychrome Joshua, succeeds no better than Smith or Driver. After remarking that "the problem of this section is very difficult," he says:  

As it bears no sufficient marks of having passed through the hands of the Deuteronomic editor, we gather that the story in its original form did not seem to him of an edifying character, and was therefore omitted from his edition of Joshua (Notes on Joshua, in loco).  

This Deuteronomic editor, then, called by Driver and others D², wrote an "edition of Joshua"! This story was already in existence, and D² had seen it, but, seeing nothing edifying in it, he left it out of his book. But why could he see nothing edifying in it, when it so completely confirmed his own assumption that Deuteronomy came from Moses, and when it presented Phinehas, the two and a half tribes, and all Israel as displaying a devotion to the law of God, and a regard for one another, that is truly edifying? This is a lame excuse invented to account for an assumption that is lamer still. Bennett adds:  

The original story can not therefore have had for its moral the obligation to restrict Israel to a single altar; for to establish this restriction is a main object of Deuteronomy.  

This means, that if the Deuteronomic editor had seen in the story the purpose to restrict Israel to one altar, he would have copied it into his edition of Joshua. Well, if he could not see that, he was blind; for Robertson Smith saw it, Driver sees it, Bennett sees it and everybody now living can see it. It is as plain as the sun in the sky. These two authors would have done better to follow Smith's plan, deny the truth of the story, and stop there Smith saw, no doubt, that to go further would be to run into a fog bank, and he prudently kept out. The rabbit might have run into a briar patch, but there the fox would have caught him; so it was prudent in Uncle Remus to let him climb a tree.  

3. The Devoted in Jericho. When Jehovah gave directions about the destruction of Jericho, he is said to have uttered these words: "The city shall be devoted, even it and all that is therein, to Jehovah: only Rahab the harlot shall live, she and all that are with her in the house, because she hid the messengers that we sent. And ye, in anywise keep yourselves from the devoted thing, lest when ye have devoted it, ye take of the devoted thing: so shall ye make the camp of Israel devoted, and trouble it" (vi. 17, 18).  

Now, without some preceding instruction in reference to the meaning of the word "devoted," this command would have been very obscure, even if it had been at all intelligible to Israel. It is now obscure to many a Bible reader who has not learned something of it elsewhere. AH such readers have to take it for granted that a command on which the life of every man in the camp might be involved was understood by the people, though he can not clearly understand it himself. But what previous source of understanding did the people have on the subject? If they were already in possession of the Books of Leviticus and Deuteronomy, all was plain enough; for in the former they would have read, "No devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto Jehovah of all that he hath, whether of man or beast, or of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing is most holy unto Jehovah. None devoted, which shall be devoted of men, shall be ransomed; he shall surely be put to death" (Lev. xxvii. 28, 29). And in the latter they would have read: "But of the cities of these peoples, which Jehovah thy God giveth thee for an inheritance, thou shalt save alive nothing that breatheth: but thou shalt utterly destroy [devote] them" (xx. 16, 17). By these two books of the law the people would have known what it meant to devote any person or thing, and from the latter especially they would have known that the cities of Canaan were to be thus devoted. It follows, that if this account in Joshua is true, these laws existed before Joshua took Jericho, and consequently that they came, as they professed to have come, from the hand of Moses.  

This conclusion being fatal to the critical hypothesis, our critics are compelled to deny the truth of the story. We should expect them in this instance, as in the two disposed of above, to ascribe the account to D², or to some other writer of later date than Deuteronomy. But this is not their device. For some reason best known to themselves, they assign the story to JE, the composite document that was in circulation before Deuteronomy was found by Hilkiah. (See Driver, Int., 106; D. of H.; Addis, 106, cf. 210.) To the full extent that this assignment has any probability, it is evidence in favor of the early date of both Leviticus and Deuteronomy, and evidence furnished by the critics themselves.  

The Polychrome Joshua changes colors thirty-eight times to represent the many sources whence some later critics imagine the twenty-seven verses of this chapter to have been derived. This is one of the countless absurdities in which the analytical critics involve themselves.  

4. The Altar at Mount Ebal, and the Reading. The account of this well-known transaction is given in Josh. viii. 30-35. It is introduced with these statements: "Then Joshua built an alter unto Jehovah the God of Israel, in mount Ebal, as Moses the servant of God commanded the children of Israel, as it is written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of unhewn stones, upon which no man had lift up any iron: and they offered thereon burnt offerings unto Jehovah, and peace offerings."  

Here it is expressly stated that this, and the rest of these proceedings, had been commanded by Mosos, "as it is written in the book of the law of Moses." But the only book in which such an order was written, is the Book of Deuteronomy (xi. 29; xxvii. 1-14). If, then, the account in Joshua is not false; if, in other words, Joshua actually built this altar, and conducted the other proceedings here described, then beyond all possibility of doubt the Book of Deuteronomy came from Moses. There is no way in which to avoid this conclusion except by robbing this account of all truthfulness. This the destructive critics do without hesitation. It is with them another case of necessity. They ascribe the account to D² (Driver, 106). This means that, after the publication of Deuteronomy in the reign of Josiah, an editor "imbued with the spirit of Deuteronomy" got out a new edition of Joshua, and inserted in it this account . And why did he insert it? He could have had no motive except to make it appear that the command in Deuteronomy was obeyed by Joshua; and this, when he knew that Deuteronomy was written centuries after the death of Joshua, and that Joshua had never heard of such a command. In other words, Moses had been falsely represented in Deuteronomy as having given this command, and then, to bolster up this false ascription to Moses, Joshua is falsely represented as obeying the command. All this was done, and yet our apologetical critics insist that no fraud was committed. It is becoming wearisome to note how often these critics deliberately set aside, as untrue, pieces of history for no other reason than that they conflict with their critical theory. They persist in this unscientific method in the boasted name of "modern scientific criticism."  

5. The Doom of the Gibeonites. The account in the ninth chapter of Joshua of the cunning device of the Gibeonites, contains another proof that Joshua was in possesion of the Book of Deuteronomy. It uproots, at one blow, two of the "assured results" of "modern scientific criticism." Three times in the latter part of the chapter it is asserted, once in the words of Joshua, and twice in those of the author, that the Gibeonites were doomed to be hewers of wood and drawers of water. It is expressed, the third time, in these words: "And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of Jehovah, unto this day, in the place which he should choose" (verse 27). In the lips of Joshua, pronouncing the sentence, the expression is, "hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God" (23).  

If this account is true, it follows that the tabernacle here called by Joshua "the house of my God," had a real existence, contrary to the united voice of the destructive critics. It follows also, that Israel then had, in contradistinction to the many altars of the critics, one styled "the altar of Jehovah;" and that to this the Gibeonites were to bring water and wood "in the place which he should choose." This evidence is so obvious and so incontrovertible that the critics are again compelled, by the demands of their foregone conclusions, to pronounce it false They ascribe the twenty-seventh verso to JE, thus admitting its existence before the date they assign to D, though only as a tradition; but they detach the last clause, "in the place which he shall choose," and assign it to D² (Driver, Int.. 107). To such trifling they find it necessary to descend, in order to keep Deuteronomy this side of Joshua. The Polychrome Joshua disposes of this clause in the same way, and it changes colors twenty-one times in representing the various sources of this account of the Gibeonites.  

6. The Cities of Refuge. In Josh. xx. 1, 2, we read: "And Jehovah spake to Joshua, saying, Speak to the children of Israel, saying, Assign you the cities of refuge, whereof I spake unto you by the hand of Moses;" and this is followed by the account of formally setting apart six cities, which are named (7, 8). Now, unless some one has here put into the mouth of Jehovah words which he never uttered, and which are not true, he had, previously to this time, given commandment "by the hand of Moses" respecting the assignment of these cities. As the Pentateuch now stands, the first command on the subject is in the thirty-fifth chapter of Numbers. There the order to appoint cities of refuge is given, the number of them is stated, and the law by which their use is to be regulated is elaborated. No one of the cities is named. Next, in Deut . iv. 41-43, it is said that Moses, after the conquest of the country east of the Jordan, selected three of them, and their names are given. Next, in Deut. xix. 1-13, Moses directs that after they shall have possessed the country west of the Jordan, they shall select three cities of refuge on that side; he repeats the law less elaborately, and orders that if Jehovah shall enlarge their borders, and give them all the land promised to their fathers, they shall add three other cities on that side, so that all manslayers may have the benefit of a place of refuge. Their borders were never thus extended until the reign of David, and they remained so only till the close of Solomon's reign, and consequently these three additional cities were never appointed.  

Now, whatever may be the origin of the words quoted above from Joshua, they refer back to these passages in Numbers and Deuteronomy; or, at least, to the latter. If God actually spoke them, as is here asserted, then Deuteronomy, or Numbers, or both, had certainly been written before Joshua selected the three western cities. On the other hand, if these books had not been already written, then some editor who lived after they were written, put these words into the mouth of Jehovah —words which he never uttered—for the purpose of making people believe that Deuteronomy did precede Joshua, and did come from the hand of Moses. Thus again the critics arefound guilty of repudiating a piece of history which stands in the way of their theory. This false ascription of words to Jehovah is credited to P, the writer of the laws in Numbers, who wrote after the Babylonian exile (Driver, Int., 112; Poly. Josh., in loco).  

7. The Levitical Cities. In the twenty-first chapter of Joshua we have an account of the distribution of forty-eight cities among the Levites, and it is preceded by this statement: "Then came near the heads of the fathers' houses of the Levites unto Eleazar the priest, and unto Joshua the son of Nun, and unto the heads of the fathers' houses of the tribes of the children of Israel; and they spake unto them at Shiloh in the land of Canaan, saying, Jehovah commanded by the hand of Moses to give us cities to dwell in, with the suburbs thereof for our cattle." This command is found in Num. xxxv. 1-8. Did the Levites thus come to Eleazar and Joshua, and the elders, with their petition? Did they thus say that Jehovah had commanded "by the hand of Moses" that the cities should be given them? With one voice the destructive critics answer, No. This piece of history must be rejected; and why? Because it demands the pre-existence of the Book of Numbers. And if it is not true, by whom and for what purpose was it written in this book? The answer is that it was written by P, a thousand years after Joshua, and for the purpose of still further leading the readers of Joshua to accept the deception that Numbers preceded Joshua and came from Moses. And yet, no fraud was perpetrated!  

After this review of the evidence for the Mosaic authorship of Deuteronomy and the earlier law-books which is furnished by the Book of Joshua, the reader can more adequately appreciate the remark of Robertson Smith, "I exclude the Book of Joshua." (See page 137.)