A number of other words are adduced by the oppo- nents of the unity of the book of Joshua for the pmpose of showing that it includes fragments from different au- thors. On these we do not linger. There are two con- siderations which seem to us entirely to destroy their force as evidences for that which they are adduced to prove. The one of these is that, according to Ewald, " the later historians imitated the words and phraseolo- gy of those who preceded them, and, moreover, that they frequenth' altered the phrases which they found in the earlier documents." On this Ktil (from whom we bor- row the statement) remarks with great force, " If that be the case, we can no longer think of peculiarities of style as characteristic signs by which the different sources may be distinguished. His entire theory is therefore built on sand" (Comment, on Josh. Introd. p. 9, E.T.). The other observation we would make is, that supposing it made out by indubitable marks that the book of Joshua has midergone a careful revision by a later editor, who has altered expressions and interpo- lated brief statements that would not seriously impeach the unity of the book, it would still remain substantially the work of one author. We camiot forbear adding that, in all such inquiries, more faith is to be placed on a sound literary perception and taste than on those mi- nutiaj of expression and phraseology on which so much stress has of late been laid by some of the scholars of Germany and their followers in this comitry. The im- pression undoubtedly left on the mind of the reader is, that this book contains a continuous and uniform narra- tive; and its claims in this respect can be brought into doubt onlj' by the application to it of a species of criti- cism which would produce the same result were it ap- plied to the histories of Livy, the commentaries of Caesar, or any other ancient work of narrative.
IV. Bate of Composition. — This can only be approxi-
JOSHUA
1030
JOSHUA
matcly determined. Of great value for this purpose is the frequent use of the phrase " until this day" by the writer, in reference to the duration of certain objects of which he writes. The use of such a plirase indicates indubitably that the narrative was written while the object referred to was stUl existing. It is a phrase, also, which may be used with reference to a very limited period ; as, for instance, when Joshua uses it of the pe- riod up to which the two tribes and a half had continued with their brethren (xxii, 3), or when he uses it of the period up to which the Israelites had been suffering for the iniquity of Peor (xxii, 17) ; comp. also xxiii, 8, 9. ^'ow we lind this phrase used by the historian in cases where the reference is undoubtedly to a period either within the lifetime of Joshua, or not long after his death. Thus it is used with reference to the stones which Joshua set up in the midst of Jordan, in the place where the priests had stood as the people passed over (iv, 9), and which we cannot suppose remained in that position for a very long time ; it is used also of Raliab's dwelling in the midst of Israel (vi, 25), which must have ceased, at the furthest, very soon after Joshua's death; also of Caleb's personal possession of Hebron (xiv, 14), which of course terminated soon after the time of Joshua. From these notices we infer that the book may have been written during Joshua's lifetime, and cannot, have been written long after. With this falls in the use of the first person in the reference to the crossing of the Jordan (v, 1), where one who was present on the occa- sion is evidently the writer. To the same effect is the fact that no allusion is anywhere made to anything that is known to have been long posterior to the time of Jqshua.
Several words occurring in this book have been ad- duced as belonging to the later Hebrew, and as, conse- quently, indicating a later date of composition for the book than tlie age of Joshua, or that immediately suc- ceeding. But it strikingly showl the precarious basis on which all such reasoning rests, that words are pro- nounced archaic or late just as it suits the purpose of the inquirer ; what De Wette calls late being declared to be ancient by Hiivernick and Keil, and what Hiiver- nick and KeU call ancient being again pronounced late by Knobel and Davidson, and with equal absence of any show of reason on both sides. One thing of impor- tance, however, is, that whether the writer has used what modern scholars, judging a priori, c&Vl later forms or not, he has undoubtedly made no allusions to later facts, and so has given evidence of antiquity which common-sense inquirers can appreciate.
V. A H?/io?-.— Assuming that the book is the produc- tion of one writer, and that it was written about the time above suggested, the question arises, To whom is it to be ascribed? That it is the work of Joshua him- self is tlie tradition of the Jews {Buha Bafhra, cap. i, fol. 14, B) ; and this has been embraced by several Chris- tian writers, and among others, in recent times, by Ko- nig, and, as respects the first half of the book, by Hiiver- nick. That this might have been the case as respects all but the concluding section of tlie book cannot be de- nied, Init the reasons which have been adduced in sup- port of it have not appeared sufficient to the great ma- jority of critics. These may be thus briefly stated : («) It is evident (xxiv, 2G) that Joshua could and did write some account of at least one transaction Avhich is related iu this book ; (h) the numerous accounts of Josluia's intercourse with (Jod (i, 1 ; iii, 7 ; iv, 2 ; v, 2, 9; vi, 2 ; vii, 10 ; viii, 1 ; x, 8 ; xi, 0 ; xiii, 1, 2 ; xx, 1 ; xxivi 2), and with the captain of the Lord's host (ver. 13), must have emanated from himself ^ (c) no one is more likely than the speaker himself to have committed to writing the two adchresses which were Joshua's legacy to his people (xxiii anfl xxiv) ; {,!) no one was so^^weil qualified by his position to describe the events related, and to collect the documents contained in the book ; (c) the example of his predecessor and master, Moses, would have suggested to him such a record of his acts; {/)