In ch. 7 (the Defeat before Ai and Achan's Sin and Doom) all is from JE except v.' and parts of yy 24. 28 'pi,e latter verses atiord so instructive an example as to how the original JE narrative has been worked upon by subsequent editors that it is worth examining their details. To begin with, the LXX omits in v." the words anin — "jD^rrnNi, and in v.^ am — idjti. Moreover, in v." the term ' and all Israel ' has been separated from its fellow- nominative 'Joshua' at the beginning of the verse * by the words omitted in the LXX, and by the rest of the catalogue of Achan's property, whUe in v.** not only does the phrase beginning iDjTi ' and they stoned him with stones,' which is in the language of P, form a mere doublet to the phrase introduced by iVpo'i ' and they stoned them with stones,' but when we remove the former, the latter is still preceded by the words 'and they burned them with fire,' an impossible order : we cannot conceive of Achan and his pro- perty as first burned and then stoned. Besides, while v.*", which is JE, speaks of a cairn being raised over Achan alone, v.** describes them as brought up to the valley of Achor, and v." de- scribes them as being burned and stoned. Of this confusion Albers has given the following reason- able explanation. The original JE narrative re- corded the punishment only of Achan, but a Deuter- onomic editor, wishing to bring the process into conformity with Dt IS'*- ", which enjoins that goods subject to the 9erem or Ban shall be burned, has ad I led to v." the catalogue of Achan's property, which we have already seen to be an evident in- trusion, and to v." the notice of the burning which we have seen to be impossible before that of the stoning. This editor must have also changed the ' him ' of both these verses into ' them ' ; it is remarkable that in both the LXX has 'him.' If, now, we take out of the verses those intruded elements of Dt and P, the JE remainder reads consistently : ' And Joshua, and all Israel with him, took Achan the son of Zerah, and brought him (LXX A) to the valley of Achor ; and Joshua said, "Why hast thou brought trouble upon usT Jehovah wul bring trouble upon thee." And they •toned him (LXX BA ; avrovs F) with stones.* • Though in AV they have been brought together.
In ch. S'"^ (the Taking of Ai) everything except the Dt fragments already noticed is from JE. But as in chs. 3. 4. 6, two accounts appear to have been fused (thougli it is not certain how we are to divide them between J and E). This is clear not only from the reduplication of certain details (yy 14. 18 ^ic., see below), and awkward connexions (v.", and v.'* witli v."), but still more from a double and contradictory story of the ambush, as well ivs from an attempt in the Massoretic text to reconcile these, and from the omission by the LXX both of the attempt and of the contradictory dat-a. The lirst of the two accounts starts with v.' (perhaps earlier, for though vv.'-'are mainly Dt, the}' contain ctlier elements). According to this, after Joshua and all the army started from Gilgal for Ai, he chose and sent forward* 30,000 (?3000) men by night to conceal themselves on the opposite or western side of Ai, and charged them to wait there till the army should pretend to flee from Ai, and drawing its inhabitants out of it, leave it empty, when tiie ambush were to take possession. The men chosen go forth and effect this movement, whUe Joshua passes the same night in the valley (in v." for □>' read with Ewald pnv). At this point the second account starts from v.'", or at least from v.", which relates that all the people (omit for grammatical reasons the words ' of war ') which were with him came over against Ai,t and (v.") Joshua took about 5000 men and ' set them as an ambush between Bethel and Ai, westward of Ai.' Then comes the difficult v.'^, which seems an attempt to combine and summarize the two accounts. The Greek translator, or the editor of the texts he used, feeling that the combination was impossible, has substituted for S'"" the word 'eastward,' and for ''^ with its contradictory data, the words ' the ambushes of the city from the sea {i.e. westward)' ; and has omitted all v.". To this explanation the only alternative is th.at the data in v.", which conflict with those of the previous account of the ambush, and v." have been added to the Massoretic text after the LXX translation was made, which is hardly possible. V." alike by its repetitions, in ditferent words, of the same actions and theawkward grammar by which theyare combined, is obviously the fusion of two accounts — one : ' And it came to pass, when the king of Ai saw, that he and all his people hastened to th» . . .J in front of the Arabah, not knowing of the ambush against them behind (to the west of) the city ' ; the other : ' And the men of the city rose up early, and came forth to meet Israel in battle.' The Israelites flee, and draw the men of Ai § after them. Here, again, in w."- " there are small doublets, and so, in fact, to the end of v.* (e.g. in v.*"" the people fleeing to the wilderness 'turn on their pursuers,' omitted by LXX; yet in v." 'Joshua and all Israel see that the ambnsh have