would show that they never were said to have been placed in the middle of ,Tor,fa.n, at least as we understand the words. The etymology of the word Gilgal, again, presents some difficulties (see note on eh. v. 9). But it is surely cutting the Gordian knot in a very summary manner to assume that this etymology was invented at the time of Manasseh. The placing the tabernacle at Shechem is, we arc told, another instance of inaccuracy. But without resorting to the hypothesis of a copyist's blunder again here, though it is less violent than Dr. Davidson's, is it quite inadmissible to adopt the explanation that the author was narrating facts, and did not stop to con- sider what difficulties his simple narrative might present to those who, many centuries after, were not in full 11ossession of the details? Is not this far n_:iore probable than the theory that the redactor, or inventor, or by whatever name he be called, had quite forgotten, or never observed, what he had :itated six chapters previously ? Are we to believe that the compiler of the time of Manasseh never took the trouble to read over his own work, or that no one in his own day was likely to ask the questions which occur at once to every reader now? The Shoterim, again, we are told (see note on eh. i. 10), were an institution of later date, and their place in Joshua's time was supplied by the fathers and heads of the tribes. No proof of this assertion is given. But is it credible that a vast invasion, in which their wives and families accompanied the warriors, can have been conducted without a con- siderable organisation, Ol' that the Israelites could have lived in a civilised country like Egypt without being familiar with that principle of division and subdivision of labour without which no great undertaking can possibly be carried out ? Then we are asked to observe the discrepancies between eh. xi. 16-23 and eh. xiii 1-6; between chs. x. 86, 88; xi. 21; xv. 14-17, and Judg. i. 10, 11; and between chs. xv. 63; xvi. 10, and 1 Kings ix. 16. These questions will be found fully discussed in the notes. The only question which will be asked here is this. We have supposed that the later, or geo• graphical, portion of the book is the expansion of the passage in eh. xi. 28, which concludes the historical portion. But if this explanation be not accepted, how comes it,. we ask again, that such a bungling mass of contra- dictions could have been accepted in a civilised age like that of Manasseh, when ex hypothesi a large body of literature was in existence? There were the Chronicles, as we have seen, of the Kings of Israel and Judah. There was, according to Knobel, the "clear and orderly" narrative of the Elohist. The historian's calling, if we may trust Ewald, had become a special art (' History of Israel,' i. 59) which "needed ability and dexterity" (ib.), and the result is described as "elegant and perfect " (p. 60). The perfection of a method which gives, as we are required to believe, three inconsistent vernions, from various sources, of the conquest of Hebron, Debir, and the Anakim, which describes the country as completely subdued when the work TO THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. fa of subduing it had hardly begun, which displays eo little literary skill ae to copy out of an old record a statement (eh. xv. 68) which had ceased to be true for three centuries and a half, may eeem a little doubtful. But if this be a mere question of taste, the more formida.ble difficulty remains behind, how such a narrative ever came to be received, in the later days of the Jewish kingdom, as authentic history, It ie not contended that no difficulties are presented by the history as it stands. What ie denied ie that what has been called the " destructive criticism" has found a way out of them. On the contrary, it involves us in far greater difficulties than it removes. When dealing with a narrative of such remote antiquity, which does not pretend to be an exhaustive record of everything that happened, it would be strange indeed if we did not find difficulties. And we must be content to leave them unsolved, for the simple reason that we have not sufficient information at hand to explain them, The theory that some of the passages that suggest a later date were inter- polations is an arbitrary one. But it cannot therefore be dismissed, as is dismissed with lofty scorn by Ewald, ae entirely untenable. It offers at least a possible solution of some of the difficulties that beset us. And it is by no means impossible that the greatest difficulty of all in the way of the earlier origin of the Book of Joshua, the citation of the Book of Jasher, may be thus explained. The most natural interpretation of 2 Sam. i. 18 would lead us to conclude that the Book of Jasher was not composed till the time of David. Therefore its citation in J oehua proves that book 11ot to have been written earlier than the time of David, unless we believe the passage to have been an interpolation. The only other alternative is to adopt the explanation of Maurer and Keil, that the Book of J asher was a collection of national songs, to which additions were made from time to time.* We proceed to enumerate the reasons for believing that the Book of Joshua was composed at an early date. The first is, the entire absence of any allusion to the later condition of Israel in it. We have already noticed how entirely the idea of regal pomp or authority is absent from the whole conception of Joshua's character, and from the whole treatment of the sub- ject. That it was written before the time of David seems clear from the statement (eh. xv. 63) that the Jebusites dwelt among the children of Israel "until this day." The mention of the place which Jehovah" should choose" implies, not only that the temple was not yet built, but that its site had not yet been fixed upon. The mention of the Gibeonites without any reference to Saul's neglect of the solemn promise me.de to them in God's name would lead to the belief that it was written before the time of Saul. We have a yet more distinct intimation of an early date in eh. xvi. 10. It could hardly
• See notes on eh. x. 12-15, X. INTRODUCTION