* V.K Some KhoUin think thmt according to thia flrat account Joshua sent bis ambush ahead /rom Gilgal. Thia can be main- tained only by denying that v.8» belongs to the first account. But there is no cause in the clause it«elf (or separating it from what follows. And it is not probable that any account would have made Joshua send the ambush ahead from GilpU, for thia place is 6 or 7 hours distant from AI, and If the main body had remained there during the night in which the ambush took up its position west of Ai, starting next morning, it would not have reached Ai till the ambush haid been exposed for several houra to the daylight. Take v.3» with what follows It, and we find the first account Imply that the ambush was not chosen and despatched till the whole army had gone up towards AI, which does not contradict the second and more detailed account, thai it started after Joshua and the army had arrived In the neigh- bourhood of AL
f This still may be, though not probably, the first account.
J nj^io^ * to the appointed place.' Dillmann's theorj', that one of the two narratives had preWously described this tryst, U surely impossible, for the men of Ai did not know of Urael'l arrival. Bennett emends "nioS 'to the descent.'
i Heb. adds ' and Bethel,' but hSJi omita ; It mnit b* th« addition of a late scribe inserting an allusion to Jg 1.
JOSHUA
JOSHUA
r83
taken the city, and that smoke goes up, and tnm ami smite the men of Ai' ; ami in v." n-wi 12102). Tlie.su are quite eiiougli (without supposing that a dillerent use has been imputed to Joshua's javelin in V.'" from that in v.-') to prove the fusion of two tales of the same event, v." is of course Dt. In the Dt paa.sjige w.*'-*' the part that must have been taken from E h.-us lieen m ready pointed out
In ch. 9 (the Guile of Giheon), after the Dt introduction in vv'-', the JE narrative commences independently in v.'. Its style is distinguish- able from the Dt portions, vv. "''■"'■'■"• ^- -'^'' ; and both in style and substance it differs from the P account, ^T.i'i'-i'-ai. But even within JE a double account is as discernible as it was in the JE portions of chs. 3. 4. 6 and 8: of. the doublets in vv.«-"».* In cli. lO'-" we have the JE account of the defeat by Joshua of the kin"S of Jerusalem, Hebr(m,.Iarmutli,Lachisli,and lJebir,aIl with terri- tories that afterwards became Judah's. Vv.''"- '""" read continuously, and relate fully how God smote the Canaanites before Israel by a great hailstorm. Vv.'--" break into this with a story suggested by an ancient verse of poetry, a prayer of Joshua for a day long enough to slay his foes; they add that this prayer was answered by God commanding the sun to stand still for a whole day in the heavens, and that .loshua and his force returned to their camp ; while vv.'""- relate that they continued the pursuit of the 5 kings whose forces liad been Ijcaten by the hailstorm recounted in v.". Vv.'"'" are plainly an interpolation by another, who finding in the Bk. of Jasliar this jioetical ejaculation of Joshua for a day sufficient for his big task, prosaically added, vv.'"'- ", that this actually happened. This account of the defeat of the southern kings is not compatible with that in ch. IS""- and in Jg l'"- (see below, § vii.). In ch. 1 !'-'»• '» we have the JE account of the conquest of N. Canaan.
In tbe Second Section, chs. 13-21, on the Division of the Land, tlie portions by JE are comparatively few, some of them mere fragments : in ch. 13, TV.'"", in ch. 15, v>'.'*-"-'' (see helow, § vii.), in ch. 16, vv.'"', the boundary of Joseph ; v.'" the Canaan- ite enclaves at Gezer and in Ephraim, the latter assigned to E; in ch. 17, vv.'"- details on Manas- seh, and vv,""'""^ Manasseh's difficulties %vith the Canaanites and Joshua's treatment of the house of Joseph; in ch. 18, vv.'"''"'" Joshua's allotment of land to 7 tribes, by casting lots ; in ch. 19" a detail about Simeon, vv."- " the removal of Dan to Laish (see below, § vii.), and vv."" the tribes take pos- session and Joshua gets Timnath-serah.
In the Appendix (chs. 22-24) the whole of ch. 24, except a few insertions from Dt and P, is assigned to E.
V. Problems of the Relation and Composi- tion OF THE DociTMENTS. — The evidence thus collected from the to.\t itself of the Bk. of Joshua, may be ambiguous in this or that detail ; but its cumulative force and its main direction are unmistakable. Were it only by the 'doublets' it contains on the varioua episodes of the conquest, and by the different degrees of completeness to which various passages describe the division of the land to have been carried, the Bk. of .Joshua is amply proved to be a compilation from several .sources. Of these, the oldest, which supplies the bulk of the narrative of the conquest in chs. 1-12, and gives the conclusion of Joshua's history in ch. 24, but also suiiplies some details concerning the division of the land, belongs by linguistic evidence to the document entitled by critics JE. This document is it.sclf composed from two narratives; for, a« we have seen, in those parta of it which run through chs. 3, 4, 6 and 8, two accounts of the