Joshua, Book of

Joshua, Book Of, the first in order of the,רַאשׁוֹנַיםנבַיאי, or Former. Prophets in the Hebrew Canon. SEE BIBLE. It is so called from the personage who occupies the principal place in the narration of events contained therein, and may be considered as a continuation of the Pentateuch, since it commences with "vav continuative" in the word יִיהַי, which may be rendered thereupon it happened.

I. Contents. — This book gives an account of the fortunes of the Israelites from the death of Moses to that of Joshua, the son of Nun. Beginning with the appointment of Joshua to succeed Moses as the leader of the people, it proceeds to describe the arrangements made by Joshua in prospect of passing over Jordan (3); the crossing of the river, and the setting up of a memorial on the further side at Gilgal (3-4); the dismay which this occasioned to the Canaanites (Jos 5:1); the circumcision of the males among the people. that rite having been neglected in the wilderness; the observance of the Passover by them in the camp at Gilgal; the ceasing of the manna on the day after they had entered Canaan (Jos 5:2-12); the encouragement given to Joshua to proceed on his enterprise by the appearance of an angel to him (Jos 5:13-15); the siege and capture of Jericho (6); the defeat of the Israelites at Ai (7); the taking of Ai (Jos 8:1-29); the writing of the law on tables of stone, and the solemn repetition from Ebal and Gerizim of the blessings and the curses which Moses had written in the book of the law (Jos 8:30-35); the confederation of the kings of Northern Canaan against the Israelites; the cunning device by which the Gibeonites secured themselves from being destroyed by the Israelites; the indignation of the other Canaanites against the Gibeonites, and the confederation of the kings around Jerusalem against Joshua, with their signal defeat by him (9, 10); the overthrow at the waters of Megiddo of the great northern confederacy, with the destruction of the Anakim (11); the list of kings whose country the Israelites had taken under Moses and Joshua (12); the division of the country, both the parts conquered and those yet remaining under the power of the Canaanites, among the different tribes, chiefly by lot; the setting up of the tabernacle in Shiloh; the appointment of cities of refuge and of cities for the Levites; the return of the Reubenites, the Gadites, and the half tribe of Manasseh, to their possessions on the east of the Jordan, after the settlement of their brethren in Canaan (13-22); and the farewell addresses of Joshua to the people, his death and burial (23-24). The book naturally divides itself into two parts; the former (1-12) containing an account of the conquest of the land; the latter (8-24) of the division of it among the tribes. These are frequently cited distinctively as the historical and the geographical portions of the book.

a. The first twelve chapters form a continuous narrative, which seems never to halt or flag. The description is frequently so minute as to show the hand not merely of a contemporary, but of an eyewitness. An awful sense of the divine Presence reigns throughout. We are called out from the din and tumult of each battle field to listen to the still small voice. The progress of events is clearly foreshadowed in the first chapter (vers. 5, 6). Step by step we are led on through the solemn preparation, the arduous struggle, the crowning triumph. Moving everything around, yet himself moved by an unseen power, the Jewish leader rises high and calm amid all.

b. The second part of the book (ch. 13-21) has been aptly compared to the Domesday book of the Norman conquerors of England. The documents of which it consists were doubtless the abstracts of such reports as were supplied by the men whom Joshua sent out (Jos 18:8) to describe the land. In the course of time it is probable that changes were introduced into their reports whether kept separately among the national archives, or embodied in the contents of a book — by transcribers adapting them to the actual state of the country in later times when political divisions were modified, new towns sprung up, and old ones disappeared (comp. the two lists of Levitical towns, Joshua 21 and 1Ch 6:54, etc.).

II. Design. — The object of the book is manifestly to furnish a continuation of the history of the Israelites from the point at which it is left in the closing book of the Pentateuch, and at the same time to illustrate the faithfulness of Jehovah to his word of promise, and his grace in aiding his people by miraculous interference to obtain possession of the land promised to Abraham. The ground idea of the book, as Maurer (Comment. p. 3) observes, is furnished by God's declaration to Joshua, recorded 1, 5, 6, that the work which Moses commenced he should finish by subduing and dividing to the tribes of Israel the Promised Land. The book, therefore, may be regarded as setting forth historically the grounds on which the claims of Israel to the proprietorship of the land rested; and as possessing, consequently, not merely a historical, but also a constitutional and legal worth. As illustrating God's grace and power in dealing with his people, it possesses also a religious and spiritual interest.

III. Unity. — On this head a variety of opinions have been entertained. It has been asserted,

1. That the book is a collection of fragments from different hands, put together at different times, and the whole revised and enlarged by a later writer. Some make the number of sources whence these fragments have been derived ten (Herwerden, Disp. de Libro Jos. Groning. 1826); others

five, including the reviser (Knobel, Exeget. Hbk. pt. 13; Ewald, Gesch. der Israel. 1, 73 sq.); while others content themselves with three (Bleek, Einleit. ins. A.T. p. 325).

2. That it is a complete and uniform composition, interspersed with glosses and additions more or less extensive.

3. That the first part is the composition of one author; but the second betrays indications of being a compilation from various sources (Hävernick Einleit. 2, 1, 34).

4. That the book is complete and uniform throughout, and, as a whole, is the composition of one writer. It is impossible here to enter into all the details of this discussion. The reader will find these fully presented by De Wette, Einleit. ins. A.T., 4th and subsequent editions; Havernick, Einleit. 1, 1, 1; König, Alt-testamentl. Studien, 1, 4; Maurer, Comment.; Keil, Comment. E. T. p. 3; Bleek, Einleit. ins. A.T., p. 311; Knobel, in the Exeget. Handbuch, pt. 13; and Davidson, Introd. to the O.T. 1, 412.

a. Events alleged to be twice narrated in this. book are. Joshua's decease, ch. 23 and 24; the command to appoint twelve men, one out of each tribe, in connection with the passing over Jordan (Jos 3:12; Jos 4:3); the stoning of Achan and his dependents (Jos 7:25); the setting of an ambush for the taking of Ai (Jos 8:9,12); the rest from war of the land (Jos 11:23; Jos 14:15); the command to Joshua concerning dividing the land (Jos 13:6); and the granting of Hebron to Caleb (Jos 14:13; Jos 15:13). This list we have transcribed from Knobel (Exeget. Hdbk. 13, 498). Is it incredible that Joshua should have twice assembled the representatives of the people to address them before his decease? May he not have felt that, spared beyond his expectation, it behooved him to avail himself of the opportunity thus afforded to address once more to the people words of counsel and admonition? In the case of the grant to Caleb of Hebron there is undoubtedly a repetition of the same fact, but it is such a repetition as might proceed from the same pen; for the two statements are made in different connections, the one in connection with Caleb's personal merits, the other in connection with the boundaries and occupation allotted to Judah. The taking of Ai will be considered further on. As for the other in. stances, we leave them to the judgment of our readers.

b. Of the alleged discrepancies, one on which much stress has been laid is, that in various parts of the book Joshua is said to have subdued the whole land and destroyed the Canaanites (Jos 11:10; Jos 12:7 sq.; 21:43; 22:4), whereas in others it is stated that large portions of the land were not conquered by Joshua (Jos 13:1 sq.; 17:14 sq.; 18:3 sq.; 23:5-12). It is worthy of note, however, in the outset, that this is a discrepancy which pervades the book, and on which, consequently, no argument for diversity of authorship, as between the first and the second parts of it, can be built. Again, a discrepancy of this sort is of a kind so obvious, that it is exactly such as a compiler, coolly surveying the materials he is putting together, would at once detect and eliminate; whereas an original writer might write so as to give the appearance of it from looking at the same object from different points of view in the course of his writing. Viewed in relation to purpose and effect, the land was conquered and appropriated;. Israel was settled in it as master and proprietor, the power of the Canaanites was broken, and God's covenant to his people was fulfilled. But through various causes, chiefly the people's own fault, the work was not literally completed; and therefore, viewed in relation to what ought to have been done and what might have been done, the historian could not but record that there yet remained some enemies to be conquered, and some portions of the land to be appropriated. It was intended (Ex 23:28,30) (Ex 23:28,30) that the people should occupy the land little by little. In like manner, it can not be allowed that the general statement (Jos 11:23) that Joshua gave the land unto all Israel according to their divisions by their tribes is inconsistent with the fact (Jos 18:1; Jos 19:51) that many subsequent years passed before the process of division was completed and the allotments finally adjusted.

The boundaries of the different tribes, it is said, are stated sometimes with greater, sometimes with less exactness. Now this may be a fault of the surveyors employed by Joshua; but it is scarcely an inconsistency to be charged on the writer of the book who transcribed their descriptions. Again, the divine promise that the coast of Israel shall extend to the Euphrates (Jos 1:4) is not inconsistent with the fact that the country which Joshua was commanded to divide (Jos 13:16) does not extend so far. Again, the statement (Jos 13:3) that Ekron, etc., remained yet to be possessed is not inconsistent with the subsequent statement (Jos 15:45) that it was assigned to Judah. Dr. Davidson gives no proof either of his assertion that the former text is in fact subsequent to the latter, or of his supposition that Ekron was in the possession of Judah at the time of its assignment.

Another apparent discrepancy has been found between Jos 22:2; Jos 24:14,23. How, it is asked, could there be "gross idolatry" amongst a people who had in all things conformed to the law of God given by Moses? This difficulty is dealt with by Augustine (Quoest. in Jos. qu. 29), who solves it by understanding the injunction of Joshua to refer to alienation of heart on the part of the people from God. This explanation is followed in substance by Calvin and others, and it is apparently the true one. Had Joshua known that "gross idolatry" was practiced by the people, he would have taken vigorous measures before this to extirpate it. But against secret and heart idolatry he could use only words of warning and counsel.

Another discrepancy is thus set forth by Dr. Davidson (Introd. 1, p. 415): "It is related that the people assembled at Sichem, 'under an oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord,' and 'they presented themselves before God,' implying that the tabernacle and ark were there. But we know from 18:1 that the tabernacle had been removed from its former place at Gilgal to Shiloh, where it remained for a long period after Joshua's death" (1Sa 3:21; 1Sa 4:3). Here are several mistakes. The phrase "before God" (לַפנֵי הָאֵֹּלהַים) does not necessarily mean "before the ark of the Lord" (comp. Ge 27:7; Jg 11:11; Jg 20:1; 1Ki 17:1, etc.; Hengstenberg, Beitr. 3, 43); and it is not related that "the people assembled under an oak that was by the sanctuary of the Lord," but that Joshua "took a great stone and set it up there under the oak that was within the sanctuary of the Lord" (24:26). The oak referred to was probably a well known one that stood within the spot which had been the first sanctuary of the Lord in Canaan (Ge 12:6-7), and where the nation had been convened by Joshua, on first entering the Promised Land, to listen to the words of the law (Jos 8:30-35). No place more fitting as the site of a memorial stone such as Joshua is here said to have set up could be found.

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 Introduction to Keil's Commentary on Joshua, p. 9 sq. The treatment of the Canaanites which is sanctioned in this book has been denounced for its severity by Eichhorn and earlier writers. But there is nothing in it inconsistent with the divine attribute of justice, or with God's ordinary way of governing the world. SEE JOSHUA; also SEE 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 of phraseology and style in different parts of the book might deserve more extended notice were it not for the very unsatisfactory state in which this method of inquiry as yet is. Without doubt, it is true that, if it can be shown that these differences are such as to indicate diversity of authorship, the argument must be admitted as legitimate, and the conclusion 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 common standard to which to appeal; and hence their conclusions 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 שֶׁבֶט is used for a tribe, while in others מִטֶּה is used, and this is employed as a test to distinguish one fragment from another. Accordingly, for instance, in Jos 18:2,4,7 are pronounced to belong to one writer, and ver. 11 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 sect, and some critic were to come after him and say, "This could not have been written by one author, for he would not have called the same body by different names." Could it be shown that either שֶׁבֶט or מִטֶּה 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 advanced; 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 trifling. Again, it is said that "the historical parts have the rare word מִחלקֹת, inheritance [rather, divisions] (Jos 11:23; Jos 12:7; Jos 18:10), which does not appear in the geographical sections" (Davidson, 1, 417). Is chap. 18, then, not in the geographical part of the book? or does a part become geographical or historical as suits the caprice or the preconceived theory of the critic? "Similarly. the geographical portion has יִרדֵן ירַיהוֹ, Jordan by Jericho, 13:32; 16:1; 20:8; a mode of expression wanting in the historical" (ibid.). True; but suppose there was no occasion to use the phrase in the historical portions, what then? Are they, therefore, from a different pen from that which produced the geographical? "Again, in the historical parts occur the words,כֹהֲנַי [הִכּהֲנים],הִלּוַיַּ, the priests, the Levites (Jos 3:3; Jos 8:33); or simply,כֹּחֲנַי, priests (3:6, 15; 6:4, 6, etc.); but in the geographical sections the same persons are termed sons of Aaron (Jos 21:4,10,13,19)" (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 Kohathites 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, perfectly 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 Deuteronomistic 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 were sons of Aaron by immediate descent, and must have been so described by any writer, whether Deuteronomist or Elohist.

A number of other words are adduced by the opponents of the unity of the book of Joshua for the purpose of showing that it includes fragments from different authors. On these we do not linger. There are two considerations 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 phraseology of those who preceded them, and, moreover, that they frequently altered the phrases which they found in the earlier documents." On this Keil (from whom we borrow 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 Joshua 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 undergone a careful revision by a later editor, who has altered expressions and interpolated brief statements that would not seriously impeach the unity of the book, it would still remain substantially the work of one author. We cannot forbear adding that, in all such inquiries, more faith is to be placed on a sound literary perception and taste than on those minutiae 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 country. The impression undoubtedly left on the mind of the reader is, that this book contains a continuous and uniform narrative; and its claims in this respect can be brought into doubt only by the application to it of a species of criticism which would produce the same result were it applied to the histories of Livy, the commentaries of Caesar, or any other ancient work of narrative.

IV. Date of Composition. — This can only be approximately 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 phrase indicates indubitably that the narrative was written while the object referred to was still 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 period up to which the two tribes and a half had continued with their brethren (Jos 22:3), or when he uses it of the period up to which the Israelites had been suffering for the iniquity of Peor (Jos 22:17); comp. also Jos 23:8-9. Now we find 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 (Jos 4:9), and which we cannot suppose remained in that position for a very long time; it is used also of Rahab's dwelling in the midst of Israel (Jos 6:25), which must have ceased, at the furthest, very soon after Joshua's death; also of Caleb's personal possession of Hebron (Jos 14:14), 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 (Jos 5:1), where one who was present on the occasion 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 Joshua.

Several words occurring in this book have been adduced as belonging to the later Hebrew, and as, consequently, indicating a later date of composition for the book than the age of Joshua, or that immediately succeeding. But it strikingly shows the precarious basis on which all such reasoning rests, that words are pronounced archaic or late just as it suits the purpose of the inquirer; what De Wette calls late being declared to be ancient by Hävernick and Keil, and what Hävernick and Keil 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 importance, however, is, that whether the writer has used what modern scholars, judging a priori, call 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. Author. — Assuming that the book is the production 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 himself is the tradition of the Jews (Baba Bathra, cap. 1, fol. 14, B); and this has been embraced by several Christian writers, and among others, in recent times, by König, and, as respects the first half of the book, by Hävernick. That this might have been the case as respects all but the concluding section of the book cannot be denied, but the reasons which have been adduced in support of it have not appeared sufficient to the great majority of critics. These may be thus briefly stated:

(a) It is evident (Jos 24:26) that Joshua could and did write some account of at least one transaction which is related in this book;

(b) the numerous accounts of Joshua's intercourse with God (Jos 1:1; Jos 3; Jos 7; Jos 4:2; Jos 5; Jos 2; Jos 9; Jos 6:2; Jos 7:10; Jos 8:1; Jos 10:8; Jos 11:6; Jos 13:1-2; Jos 20:1; Jos 24:2), 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 addresses which were Joshua's legacy to his people (23 and 24);

(d) no one was so well qualified by his position to describe the events related, and to collect the documents contained in the book;

(e) the example of his predecessor and master, Moses, would have suggested to him such a record of his acts.;

(f) one verse (Jos 6:25) must have been written by some person who lived in the time of Joshua; and two other verses, 5, 1 and 6 — assuming the common reading of the former to be correct — are most fairly interpreted as written by actors in the scene.

No one would deny that some additions to the book might be made after the death of Joshua without detracting from the possible fact that the book was substantially his composition. The last verses (Jos 24:29-33) were obviously added by some later hand. If, as is possible, though not certain, some subordinate events, as the capture of Hebron, of Debir (Jos 15:13-19, and Jg 1:10-15), and of Leshem (Jos 19:47; and Jg 18:7), and the joint occupation of Jerusalem (Jos 15:63, and Jg 1:21) did not occur till after Joshua's death, they may have been inserted in the book of Joshua by a late transcriber. The passages Jos 13:2-6; Jos 16:10; Jos 17:11, which also are subsequently repeated in the book of Judges, may doubtless describe accurately the same state of things existing at two distinct periods.

Other authors have been conjectured, as Phinehas by Lightfoot; Eleazar by Calvin; Samuel by Van Til; Jeremiah by Henry; one of the elders who survived Joshua by Keil. Von Lengerke thinks it was written by some one in the time of Josiah: Davidson by someone in the time of Saul, or somewhat later; Masius, Le Clerc, Maurer, and others, by some one who lived after the Babylonian captivity.

VI. Credibility. — That the narrative contained in this book is to be accepted as a trustworthy account of the transactions it records is proved alike by the esteem in which it was always held by the Jews; by the references to events recorded in it in the national sacred songs (comp. Psalm 44:2-4; 78:54, 55; 68:13-15. 114:1-8; Hab 3:8-13), and in other parts of Scripture (comp. Jg 18:31; 1Sa 1:3,9,24; 1Sa 3:21; Isa 28:21; Ac 7:45; Heb 4:8; Heb 11:30-32; Jas 2:25); by the traces which, both in the historical and in the geographical portions, may be found of the use by the writer of contemporary documents; by the, minuteness of the details which the author furnishes, and which indicates familiar acquaintance with what he records; by the accuracy of his geographical delineations, an accuracy which the results of modern investigation are increasingly demonstrating; by the fact that the tribes never had any dispute as to the boundaries of their respective territories, but adhered to the arrangements specified in this book; and by the general fidelity to historical consistency and probability which the book displays (Hävernick, Einl. sec. 148 sq.). Some of the narratives, it is true, are of a miraculous kind, but such are wholly in keeping with the avowed relation to the Almighty of the people whose history the book records, and they can be regarded as unhistorical only on the assumption that all miracles are incredible — a question we cannot stop to discuss here. SEE MIRACLES. In the list of such miraculous interpositions we do not include the standing still of the sun, and the staying of the moon, recorded in Jos 10:12-13. That passage is apparently wholly a quotation from the book of Jasher, and is probably a fragment of a poem composed by some Israelite on the occasion; it records in highly poetical language the gracious help which God granted to Joshua by the retarding of the approach of darkness long enough to enable him to complete the destruction of his enemies, and is no more to be taken literally than is such a passage as Ps 114:4-6, where the Red Sea is described as being frightened and fleeing, and the mountains as skipping like rams. SEE JASHER, BOOK OF. That God interposed on this occasion to help his people we do not doubt; but that he interposed by the working of such a miracle as the words taken literally would indicate, we see no reason to believe.

The account given, Jos 8:1 sq., of the taking of Ai has been much dwelt upon as presenting a narrative which is unhistorical. It is incredible that Joshua sent two bodies of men, one comprising 30,000 soldiers, the other 5000, to lie in ambush against the city, while he himself advanced on it with the main body of his army; and yet this seems to be what the narrative states. What increases the improbability here is that the larger body is never mentioned as having come into action at all, for the whole exploit was accomplished by the 5000 and those who were with Joshua. If the case were stated thus: That Joshua took 30,000 of his warriors, and of these sent away 5000 to lie in ambush, while he, with the remaining 25,000, advanced against the city, the narrative would be perfectly simple and credible. The suggestion that verses 12 and 13 are a marginal gloss which has been supposed to creep into the text, leaves the narrative burdened with the improbable statement that 30,000 men could advance on Ai in daylight, and lie concealed in its immediate neighborhood for several hours without their presence being suspected by the inhabitants. Still less probable seems the suggestion that in these verses we have a fragment of an older record. Keil labors to show that from the peculiar style of Shemitic narrative it is competent to supply, in ver. 3, in thought, from the subsequent narrative, that from the 30,000 whom Joshua took he selected 5000, whom he sent away by night. But, whatever may be the difficulties in this text, it would be unreasonable on this account to relinquish our confidence on the general credibility of the book.

VII. Relation to the Pentateuch. — The Pentateuch brings down the history of the Israelites to the death of Moses, at which it naturally terminates. The book of Joshua takes up the history at this point, and continues it to the death of Joshua, which furnishes another natural pause. From resemblances between the language and forms of expression used by the author of the book of Joshua and those found in Deuteronomy, it has been supposed that both are to be ascribed, in part at least, to the same writer. This, of course, proceeds on the supposition that the book of Deuteronomy is not the composition of Moses; a question on which it would be out of place to enter here. SEE DEUTERONOMY; SEE PENTATEUCH. It may suffice to observe, that while it is natural to expect that many similarities of phraseology and language would be apparent in works so nearly contemporaneous as that of Deuteronomy and that of Joshua, there are yet such differences between them as may seem to indicate that they are not the production of the same writer. Thus, in the Pentateuch, we have the word Jericho always spelled ירֵחוֹ, while in Joshua it is always ירַיחוֹ; in Deuteronomy we have אֵל קִנָּא (iv, 24; 5, 9; 6:15), in Joshua אֵל קִנּוֹא (24:19); in Deuteronomy the inf. of יָרֵא, to fear, is יַראָה (4:10; 5:26; 6:24, etc.), in Joshua it is ירא (22:25); in Deuteronomy we have warriors described as בּנּוֹיּ ץִיַּלּ (3:18), while in Joshua they are called גַּבּוֹרֵי הִחִיַל; (1:14; 6:2, etc.). We have also in Joshua the peculiar formula דָּמוֹ בֵראֹשּׁוֹ, which nowhere occurs in the Pentateuch, but only דָּמוֹ בוֹ (Le 20:9,11-12, etc.); the expression אֲדוֹן כֹּל הָאִרֶוֹ. (3:11, 13), which occurs again only in Zec 6:5; the phrase, "the heart melted" (ii, 11; 5, 1; 7:5); etc. In the Pentateuch, also, we find the usage with respect to the third personal pronoun feminine fluctuating between הַיא and הוּא; in the book of Joshua the usage is fixed down to היא which became the permanent usage of the language. We find, also, that in the Pentateuch the demonstrative pronoun, with the article, sometimes appears in the form הִאֵל, while in Joshua and elsewhere it is always הִאֵלֶּה. The evidence here is the same in effect as would accrue in the case of Latin writers from the use of ipsus and ipse, ollus and ille. That the author of the book of Joshua derived part of his information from the Pentateuch is evident, if we compare De 18:1-2, and Nu 18:20, with Jos 13:14,33; Jos 14:4. Even the unusual form אשׁר is repeated in Joshua. Compare also Nu 31:8, with Jos 13:21-22. The author of the book of Joshua frequently repeats the statements of the Pentateuch in a more detailed form, and mentions the changes which had taken place since the Pentateuch was. written. Compare Nu 34:13-14, with Jos 13:7 sq.; Nu 32:37, with Jos 13:17 sq.; Numbers 35 with Joshua 21.

There is also considerable similarity between the following passages in the books of Joshua and Judges; Jos 13:4; Jg 3:3; Jos 15:13 sq., Jg 1:1,20; Jos 15:15-19; Jg 1:11-15; Jos 15:62; Jg 1:21; Jos 16:10; Jg 1:29; Jos 17:12; Jg 1:27; Jos 19:47; Jg 18.

VIII. Commentaries. — The exegetical helps expressly on the whole book of Joshua exclusively are the following, of which we designate the most important by an asterisk prefixed: Origen, Selecta (in Opp. 2, 393) also Homilioe (ib. 2, 397); also Scholia (in Bibl. Patr. Gallandii, 14); Ephraem Syrus, Explanatio (in Opp. 4, 292); Procopius, Notoe (in his Octateucham); Theodoret, Quoestiones (in Opp. 1, 1) Isidore, Commentaria (in Opp.); Bede, Quoestiones (in Opp. p. 8); Rabanus, in Jos. (in Opp. ed. Martene et Durand, p. 668); Rupert, In Jos. (in Opp. 1, 321); Tostatus, In Jos. (in Opp.); Rashi or Jarchi, Commentarius (from the Heb. [found in the Rabbinical Bibles] by Breithaupt., Goth. 1710, 4to); Rabbi. Esaia, פֵּירוּשׁ (ed. with Lat. notes by Abicht, Lips. 1712, 4to; also in the Thes. Nov. Theol.-Phil. L.B. 1732, 1, 474 sq.); Borrhäus or Cellarius, Commentarii [includ. Ruth, Samuel, and Kings] (Basil. 1557, fol.); Lavater, Homilioe (Tigur. 1565, 4to); Calvin, Commentarius (in Opp. 1; in French, Genev. 1565; 8vo; transl. in Engl. by W.F., Lond. 1578, 4to; by Beveridge, Edinb. 1854, 8vo); Brentius, Commentarii (in Opp. 2);

Karweus, Excerpta (in Ugolini Thesaur. 20, 497); Strigel, Scholia (Lips. 1570, 1575, 8vo); Ferus, Enarrationes [includ. Exodus. etc.] (Colon. 1571, 1574, 8vo); *Masius [Rom. Cath.], Illustratio (Antw. 1574, fol.; also in Walton's Polyglot, 6, and in the Critici Sacri, 2); Chytraeus, Proelectiones (Rost. 1577, 8vo); Montanus, Commentarius (Antwerp, 1583, 4to); Heidenreich, Predigten (Leipz. 1589; Stet. 1604, 4to); Heling, Periocha [includ. Ruth, Samuel, and Kings] (Norib. 1593-4, 2 vols. 8vo); Laniado, כּלַי יָקָר (Venice, 1603, fol.); Ibn-Chajim, לֵב אִהֲרֹן [including Judges] (Venice, 1609, fol.; also in Frankfurter's Rabbinical Bible); Serarius, Commentarius (Mogunt. 160910, 2 vols. fol.; Par. 1610, fol.), Magalianus, Commentarius (Turnon. 1612, 2 vols. fol.); Hänicken, Reisepredigten (Leipz. 1613, 4to); Drusius, Commentarius [including. Judges and Samuel] (Franeck. 1618,4to); Baldwin, Predigten (Wittenb. 1621,4to); Stocken, Predigten (Cassel, 1648, 4to); De Naxera, Commentarii (vol. 1, Antw. 1650; 2, Lugd. 1652, fol.); a Lapide, In Jos. [and other books] (Antw. 1658, fol.); Cocceius, Note (in Opp. 1, 309; 11, 47); Bonfrere, Commentarius [includ. Judges and Ruth] (Paris, 1659, fol.); Marcellius, Commentarius (Herbip. 1661,4to); Hannecken, Adnotata (Giss. 1665, 8vo); Osiander, Commentarius (Tübing. 1681, fol.); Ising, Exercitationes (Regiom. 1683, 4to); *Schmidt, Proelectiones [with Isaiah] (Hamb. 1693, 1695, 1703, 4to); Heidegger, Exegetica [includ. Matthew, etc.] (Tigur. 1700,4to); Uhlemann, Commentarius (ed. Martin, Dresd. 1701, 4to); Felibien, Commentarii [includ. Judges, Ruth, and Kings] (Paris, 1704, 4to); Le Clerc, Commentarius (Amst. 1708; Tübing. 1733, fol.); Moldenhauer, Erläuterung [includ. Judges, etc.] (Quedlinb. 1774, 4to); Obornik,תִּרגּוּ. etc. (in the Hebrew Commentary, Vienna, 1792,8vo, pt. 156); Lightfoot, Annotationes (in Woorks, 10); Horsley, Notes (in Bibl. Crit. 1); Meyer, Bestandtheile, etc. (in Ammon and Berthold's Krit. Journ. 1815, 4to, 2, 337 sq.); Kley, Ueberstz. (Leipz. 1817, 8vo); Paulus, Blicke, etc. (in his Theol.-Exeg. Conserv. Heldeb. 1822, 2, 149 sq.); Herdwerden, Disputatio, etc. (Groningen, 1826, 8vo); Maurer, Commentar (Stuttg. 1831. 8vo); *Rosenmüller, Scholia (Lips. 1833, 8vo); *Keil, Commentar (Erlangen, 1847, 8vo; transl. in Clarke's Lib. Edinb. 1857, 8vo; different from that in Keil and Delitzsch's Commentary); *Bush, Notes (N.Y. 1852, 12mo); Miller Lectures (Lond. 1852, 12mo); Cumming, Readings (London, 1857, 8vo); *Knobel, Erklärung [including Numbers and Deuteronomy] (in the Kurzgef. Exeg. Hdbch. Leipz. 1861, 8vo); Anon., Gospel in Joshua (Lond. 1867, 8vo). SEE COMMENTARY.