Jg 119. JO. 10-16 ; After Judah receives the hill^xmntry for &a inheritance, Caleb in obedience to a command by Moses receives Hebron, and takes it, slaying its Anakite lords ;
* On Jg 1 f. consult Wellhausen, Crnnp. d. Hex. 213-21B ; E. Meyer, ZATWi. p. 135ff.; but especially Budde, both in HATW vii. p. 94 ft., and Richt. u. Samuel, pp. 2£t., gi-S9; and Moore, Jttdaes, in the Intemat. Cril. Comm. p. 3 ff . The verses to b« elinunated from Jg 1-26 are 1»- «- 6- »- 18- »« 21'^»»- «. Of these 1« Is redundant in face of w.^7 ; v.8, intimating the capture of Jenv Is contradicted by later history and the rest of the nanstiv*.
JOSIIUA
JOSIIUA
7fd
he oITers his daughter to the conqueror of ^siriath-et-pher. This is 'oihniel. 'uthniel reccivea Achsuh, Caleb's dan^'hter, an- with her liie * upper antl lower Guluth.' Jos l^ly""-: Caleb, in oiiedi'-nce to a divine eouimand by Joshua, receives Hebron. Blayinff its Anakite lords ; then from v.ic the story of Debir, 'Uthniel, and Achsah foUowB exactly as in Jjr ll2ff-.
Jgr 1*° " : The settlement of the Kenit« and conqnait of Simeon's land find no parallel In Joshua.
Jg 1^ : The continued hold of the Jebusite upon Jerusalem, the »(m» of Benjamin do not drive him out. Jofl 1&<Q : The same, but it i^ the sons of Judtih who are said not to huM been able to drive out the Jebusite.
Jf 12a-28 ; The bouse of Joseph ^o up to Bethel, and with them Jehovah (an unusual expression, and not found in the relation of the other campaigns ; for Jehovah LXX reads Judah ; Budde reasonably conjectures Joshua u the orit^inal reading) ; the house of Joseph takes Dethel. To this there is no parallel in the Bk. of Jo«hua ; but a reminiscence of the capture of Bethel crops up in the •torj- of the taking of Ai, Jos 8" ' Ai and Bethel ' (but this is omitted by the Wst ilSS of LXX).
Jglt7. la ; Manasseh did not disvossest the inhabitants of Beth-shan, Tajanach, Dor, Ibleam, Megiddo, and th«ir subject villages. But the Canaanite resolved to dwei\ \» that land. When Israel grew strong they forced CanK^n* ite« to work for them. Jos 171* *» : The Bene-Manasseh were not able to dispossess the inhabitanta of Beth-eban, Ibleam, Dor, En-dor. Taanach, Megiddo, but the Canaan- it« resolved to dioell in this land ; when the Bene Israel grew strong they forced the Canaanltes to work for tbem.
Jg 129 ; Ephraim did not dispoMesa the Oanaanite of Gezer, but the 0. dwelt in his midst in Gezer. |j Jos lOi" : And he (b-phraim) did not dispossess the Canaanite who dwelt in Qezer, but the 0. dwelt in the midst of Lphraim to this day, and * had to take up the forced service of a labourer.'
Jg 130-53 ; Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali did not dispossess the Canaanltes of certain towns. No parallels to this in Jos.
Jg ISi 34 : The Amorites forced the Bene- Dan into the hill- country, and did not allow them to come down into the 'emek. And the Amorite resolved to dwell in Mt. Heres In Aijalonand in Sha'albim, and the hand of the house of Joseph was heav v, and they were reduced to forced labour. Jos 19*' : And the Bene-Dan went up and fought with Leshem and took it, and smote it at the edge of the sword, and took possession of It, and dwelt in it. and called Leshem Dan after Dan their father. From these two passages Budde proposes to restore the full text of the original in this order : Jg 1>», Jos 19<'«- (LXX)*'', Jg 13» (cf. the LXX additions to Jos l»ni>).
This comparison, besides revealing the similarity of general conception and identity of several passages and characteristic phrases, shows that tlie passages in Jg 1, besides being set under a wrong date (v."* 'after the death of Joshua'), have been ' edited ' to serve the purpose of the compiler of this part of the Bk. of Judges, which as revealed in ch. 2"'-* is that the failure to di.spossess all the Canaanltes is the reason why Jehovah proceeded now to punish Israel. For instance, the passages in Joshua generally declare that the tribes were not able to drive out certain Canaanite com- munities ; in Jg 1 the words in italics are omitted.* And in v.'* the Benjamites have been Bubstituted for Judah, which is given in the parallel Jos 15°*. From all this it is clear that in the Bk. of Joshua we have the more original text of these passages ; it is impossible that Uie editor of that oook took them from Jg 1. Nor is the convei'se probable ; for in the Kk. of Joshua, as we have seen, these passages have been inserted in a setting, the whole tendency of which is to give a conception of the conquest different from that to which they testify. There remains po.ssible, there- fore, only this conclusion, as Budde has clearly e.xhibitetf, that the editors, both of the Bk. of Joshua and of Jg 1 f., have tnken them from a common source, 'riiis source, with its conception of the coniiue.-<t so different from that of D and P, must, in our ignorance of any other sources of the Hexateuch, be assigned to JE. Can we decide whether it belongs to J or E? It so happens that in ch. 24 we have a piece which, for very obvious reasons, critics are agreed in a».Migniii_' to E. But its cpnception of the conquest approaches too nearly to that of the Deuteronomic redaction of