These are the only discrepancies that have even the appearance of seriously affecting the claim of the book to be regarded as the work of one author throughout. The others, which have been discovered and urged by some recent critics in Germany, are such that it seems unnecessary to take up space by noticing them. The reader will find them noted and accounted for in the In- troduction to Keil's Covimentary on Joshua, p. 9 sq. The treatment of the Canaanites which is sanctioned in this book has been denounced for its severity by Eich- horn and earlier writers. But there is nothing in it in- consistent with the divine attribute of justice, or with God's ortUnary way of governing the world. See above, Joshua ; also Canaanites. Therefore the sanction which is given to it does not impair the authority of this book. Critical ingenuity has searched it in vain for any incident or sentiment inconsistent with what we know of the character of the age, or irreconcilable with other parts of canonical Scripture.
c. The alleged differences oi phi-aseology and style in different parts of the book might deserve more extend- ed notice were it not for the very unsatisfactory state in which this method of inquiry as j'et is. Without doubt, it is true that, if it can be shown that these differences are such as to indicate diversity of authorship, the argu- ment must be admitted as legitimate, and the conclu- sion as valid; but before dealing with such questions, it would be well if it were settled on some scientific basis what is the competent test in such a case, what kind and amount of difference in phraseology and style are sufficient to prove a diversity of authorship. On this head critics seem wholly at sea ; they have no com- mon standard to which to appeal ; and hence their con- clusions are frequently determined by purely personal leanings and subjective affections, and hardly any two of them agree in the judgment at which they arrive. This is remarkably the case with the instances which have been adduced from the book before us. Of these, some are of such a kind as to render an argument from them against the unity of the book little better than puerile. Thus we are told that in some places the word U31^ is used for a tribe, while in others fl^^ is used, and this is emploj'ed as a test to distinguish one fragment from another. Accordingly, for instance, in chap, xviii, verses 2, 4, 7 are pronounced to belong to one writer, and ver. 1 1 to another; which is just as if an author, in giving an account of the rebellion of 1745, should speak in the same chapter first of a body of Highlanders as a clan, and then of the same as a sept, and some critic were to come after him and say, " This could not have been writ- ten by one author, for he would not have called the same body by different names." Could it be shown that ei- ther 'O'^'ii or n^'5 is a word introduced into the language for the first time at a date much later than the age of Joshua, while the other word had then become obsolete, an argument of some weight, and such as a scholar like Bentley might have employed, would have been ad- vanced; but to attempt to assign parts of the same chapter to different authors and to different epochs
simply because synonymous appellations of the same object are employed, is nothing better than sheer tri- fling. Again, it is said that " the historical parts have the rare word T\pht\'0, inheritance [rather, divisions'\ (xi, 23 ; xii, 7 ; xviii, 10), which does not appear in the geographical sections" (Davidson, i, 417). Is chap, xviii, then, not in the geographical part of the book ? or does a part become geographical or historical as suits the ca- price or the preconceived theory of the critic ? " Simi- larly, the geographical portion has in'^'l^ T^?!?? Jordan hy Jericho, xiii, 32 ; xvi, 1 ; xx, 8 ; a mode of expression wanting in the historical" (iUd.). True ; but suppose there was no occasion to use the phrase in the historical portions, what then ? Are they, therefore, from a differ- ent pen from that which produced the geographical? "Again, in the historical parts occur the words D'^Stlb [QiaqisriJ ^^i^^^}, the priests, the Levites (iii, 3; viii, 33) ; or simply D'^Dri'3,p?-jM/s (iii, G, 15; vi, 4, G, etc.) ; but in the geographical sections the same persons are termed sons of Aaron (xxi, 4, 10, 13, 19)" {ibid.). Is there not, however, a reason for this in the fact that, as it was in virtue of their being descended from Aaron, and not in virtue of their being priests, that the Ko- hathites received their portion, it was more proper to designate them "children of Aaron, of the Levites," than " priests," or " the priests the Levites." Davidson scouts this explanation as one which " only betrays the weakness of the cause." We confess ourselves unable to see this; the explanation is, in our judgment, per- fectly valid in itself, and sufficient for the end for which it is adduced ; and he has made no attempt to show that it is otherwise. All he says is, " The former is a Deuter- onomistic expression ; the latter Elohistic." What this is meant to convey we are at a loss to determine, for the only places in which the phrase " sons of Aaron" occurs is in connection with the names of Nadab and Abihu, who tvere sons of Aaron by immediate descent, and must have been so described by any writer, whether Deuter- onomist or Elohist.