The Pulpit Commentary — Joshua — Section 397

EXPOSITION. CHAPTER XXIV. 1-28. 17 ; xi. 11 ; xx. 1 (cf. ver. 27) ; 1 Sam. vii. 5). See, however,Judg. xxi. 12, as we_ll as THE LAST RENEWAL OF THE COVENANT. Josh. xxi. 2; xxn. 12. Some add1t1onal -Ver. 1.-To Bhechem. The LXX. and probability is given to this view by the fa.et the Are.hie version read Shiloh here, e.nd noticed above that it is thought necessary a.a the words " they presented themselves to describe th~ situation of Shiloh in Judg. (literally, took up their station) before God " xxi. 19 and we may also fail to notice that follow, this would seem the natural reading. the w~rds translated " house of God " in But there is not the slightest MSS. authority Judg. xx. 18, 26 in our version, is in reality for the ree.ding, e.nd it is contrary to all Bethel, there being no " honse of God " sound principles of criticism to resort to properly so called, but only the " tabernac_le arbitrary emendations of the text. Besides, of the congregation." The tabernacle m the LXX. itself reads l:vxiµ, in ver. 26, and that case would be moved from place to adds " before the tabernacle of the God of place within the centre.I dist~ct assigned to Isra~l," words implied, but not expressed in it as necessity or convemence dictated. the Hebrew. We a.re therefore driven to Hengstenberg objects to the idea that the the supposition that this gathering was one tabernacle was moved to Shechem that 1t yet more solemn than the one described in would have led to i>n idea that God was only the previous chapter. The tabernacle was present in His Holy Place, to _which it is ho doubt removed on this great occasion to sufficient to reply, (1) that this does not Shechem. The locality, as Poole reminds us, necessarily follow, and (2) that such a con- was well ce.lculated to inspire the Israelites ception was entertained, though errone- with the deepest feelings. It was the_ scene ously, by some minds. The Samaritan of God's first covenant with Abraham (Gen. woman, for instance, supposed the Jews to xii. 6, 7 ), and of the forme.l renewal of the believe that in Jerusalem only ought men covenant related in Gen. xxxv. 2-4 (see to worship (John iv. 20). "-'hen Heng- note on vers. 23, 26), and in Joshua viii. stenberg says, however, that the meetI.Dg m 30-35, when the blessings and the curses the last chapter had reference to Israel from were inscribed on Mount Gerizim and Ebe.I, a theocratic and religious, and this one from and the place where Joseph'sbones (ver. 32) an historical point of vie1v, he is on firmer were laid, possibly at this ~ime, or if not, ground. The former e:iliortation is ethical, at the time when the blessmgs e.nd curses this historical. He goes on to refer to the were inscribed. And now, once again, II deeply interestin~ historical traditions formal renewal of the covenant was de- centering round this place,_wh1ch h~rn been manded from Israel by their aged chieftain, noticed above. The oak m ver. 26, Heng- before his voice should cease to be heard l!tenberg maintains to be the same tree that among them any more. Rosenmiiller re- is mentioned in Gen. xii. 6 (where our -.._er- minds us that Josephus-, the Cho,Jdee and sion has, erroneously, "plain"), and wluch Syriac translators, and the Ald.ine· e.nd is .referred to both in Gen. xx:.:v. 4 and he!e Complutensia.n editions of the LXX. itself, as the (i.e., the well-known) terebmth m have Sichem. Bishop Horsley makes 'the Shechem (see note on ver. 26). He has very reasonable suggestion that Shiloh we.s overlooked the fact th11t the tree in Gen. not as yet the name of e. town, but_ po_ssib)y xii. 6 is not e.n ;,~~ but an if.,~. He goes of the tabernacle itself, or the d1stnct ID which it had been pitched. And he ~dds on to· contend that the terebinth was not that Mizpeh and Sheohem, not Shiloh, merely "by,, but ~'in" the sanctuary of appear to have been the plocea fixed upon the Lord, which he supposes to be another for the gathering of the tnbea (see J udg. x. sanctnary _beside the tabernacle, perhapa  'I'HE DOOi{ OF JOSHUA. [en. XXI\'. 1-28. --- -~--------------- the B1tcred enclosure round Abr1th1tm's 11ltitr. the sun-god, Nana, the equivalent of Astiirte But he is wrong, its bas been shown below, tl1e daughter of the moon-god, Bel e.nd Belat' (,er. 2o \. when be says that !I never signi- "_his _lady." "In t111th," says Mr. Tom'. fies. near (see eh. ,. 25). The question is kms, m the work above cited, "polytheism one of mueh difticulty, and cttnnot be s11tis• was stamped on the earth in temples and fe.ctoril~- settled. But we m1ty dismiss towers, and the warlike and beneficent without fear, in the light of the narative in works of kings. Rimmon was the patron eh. xxii., Knohel's suggestion that 1111 altar of the all-important irrigation, Sin of was erected her~ on this occasion. II there brickmaking and building, Nergal of war." were am· altar. it must ha,e been the altar A full account of these deities will be found in the tabemncle. Other gods. That the in Rawlinson's 'Ancient Monarchies,' vol. i. f~y of Nnhor were not exactly wor- Ver. 2.-All the people (see note on eh. shipper,; ol the one true God in the same xxiii. 2). The Lord God of Israel Rather pure ritual as Abraham, mtty be gathered Jehovah, the God of ls,·ael (see Exod. iii'. from the fact that Laban had teraphim 13). Until the vision to Moses, the God of (Gen. nxi. In, 30). But recent researches Israel had no distinctive name. After that have thrown some light on the condition time Jehovah wae the recognised name of of Abraham's fe.mily e.nd ancestors. II the God of Israel, as Chemoeh of the Ur Casdim be identified, as recent dis- Moabites, Milcom of the Ammonites. Baal cov_erers have supposed, with Mugeyer, of the Phrnnicians. Our translation·" the which, though west of Euphrates as a Lord,'' somewhat obscures this. Yourfil.tbers whole, is Yet to the eastward of one of dwelt on the other Bide of the flood. its subordinate channels (see • Transactions Rather, of the river. Euphrates is meant, ?~ the Societ_, of Biblical Archmology ,' on the other side of which (see, however, llL 229 ; Tomkins, • Studies on the Time note on last verse) lay Ur of the Chaldees. of Abraham,' p. 4), its ruins give us plenti- It is worthy of notice that there is no evi- ful information concerning the creed of its dence of the growth of a myth in the inhabitants. "e may also find some in- narrative here. We have a simple abstract formation about this prime-va.l city in of the history given us ill the Pentateuch, Re.wlinson's • Ancient Monarchies,' i. 15, without the slightest addition, and cer- and in Smith's 'Assyrian Discoveries,' tainly without the invention_of any further p. 233. The principal building of this city miraculous details. All this goes to es- is the temple of the moon-god Ur. One of tablish the position that we have here the liturgical h:i=ns to this moon-god is in a simple unvarnished history of what oe- existence, and has been translated into cnrred. The manufacture of prodigies, as French by M. Lenormant. In it the moon every mythical history, down to the biogra- is addressed as Father, earth-enlightening phies of DomIDic and Francis, tells us, is god, primeml seer, giver of liie, king of a process that cannot stand still. Each kings, and the like. The o1lll and stars seem successive narrator deems it to be his duty also to have been objects of worship, and to embellish his narrative with fresh mar- a highly de,eloped polytheistic system vels. Compare this with the historical seems to have culminated in the horrible abridgment before us, and we must at least custom of human sacrifices. Thie was a acknowledge that we are ID the presence of recognised practice among the early Acca- phenomena of a very different order. dians. a Turanian race which preceded the Professor Goldziher has argued, ID his Semitic in these regions. A fragment of au ' Mythology among the Hebrews,' that early Accadian hymn has been preserved, in Abraham, Sarab, Isaac, and Jacob a.re which the words "his offspring for his life solar myths, such as we find in immense he gave " occur, and it seems that the abnndance in Cox's 'Aryan Mythology.' Semit-ic people of T,;r adopted it from them. Abraham (father of height) is the nightly A similar view is attributed to Balak ID sky. Sarah (princess) ie the moon. Isaac Micah vi. 5, 6, and was probably derived (he sha.ll laugh) is the smiling sunset or from documents which have sIDce perished dawn. It would be difficult to find any (see Tomkins,' Studies on the Time of Abra- history which, by an exercise of similar ham,' p. ~4J. Hence, no doubttheMoloch, IDgenuity, might not be resolved into myths. or Molech, worship which wae common in Napoleon Bonaparte, for instance, might be the neighbourhood of Palestine, and which resolved into the rushing onset of the con- th~ descendants of Abraham on their first queror who was never defeated. The retreat entrance thither rejected with such disgust from Moscow is a solar myth of the most (see also Gen. xxi.i., where Abraham seems obvious description. The battle of Bu)l's to have some difficulties connected with his Rnn is clearly so named from the cowardice e.ncestra.1 creed). Other deities were wor- displayed there by the sons of John Bull. llhipped ill the Or of the Chaldees. Sumas, It is rem~rked by )fr. Tomkius that Ur,  011, XXIV, 1-1!8.] THE BOOK OF ,JOSHUA. 349