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 oi being a compilation from various sources (Haver nick, Elmkit. 11. p. 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 \Vette, Ein his A. T., 4th and subsequent editions ; Havernick, 2ter Th. Abt. p. 1, ff. ; Konig, Alt-testamentl.
Studien, p. 4, ff. ; Maurer, Comment. ; Keil, Comment., E. T., p. 3, ff. ; Bleck, Elul. ins T., p. 311, ff. ; Knobel, in the Exeget. Hand buch, pt. 13; and Davidson, Introd. to the O. T, p. 412. It may suffice here to notice a few of the grounds on which principally the unity of the book has been denied. These are found partly in alleged double narratives of the sante event, partly in supposed discrepancies of statement, and partly in marked differences of phmseology and style in different parts of the book.
The events so alleged to be twice narrated in this book are, Joshua's decease, ch. xxiii. and xxiv. ; the command to appoint twelve men, one out of each tribe, in connection with the passing over Jordan (iii. 12 ; iV. 3) ; the stoning of Achan and his dependants (vii. 25) ; the setting of an ambush for the taking- of Ai (viii. 9, r2) ; the rest from war of the land (xi. 23 ; xiv. 15) ; the com mand to Joshua concerning dividing the land (xiii. 6, ff.) ; and the granting of Hebron to Caleb (xiv. 13 ; XV. 13). This list we have transcribed from Knobel (Kritik des Pentat. und yosua,Exeget. Hdb., xiii. p. 498). On referring to the passages, the reader will probably be surprised that they should be gravely adduced as instances of repetition, such as can be accounted for only by the hypothesis of different authors. What evidence, for instance, is there that the address of Joshua rcported in ch. xxiv. is a repetition of the address reported in ch. xxiii. ? 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 behoved him to avail himself of the opportunity thtis afforded to address once more to the people words of counsel and admonition ? This surely is more probable than that these two chapters con tain different reports of the same speech. In the case of the grant to Caleb of Hebron, there is un doubtedly a repetition of the same fact ; but it is Ruch 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 of the portion allotted to Judah. The taking of Ai will be considered further on. As for the other instances, we leave them to the judgment of our readers.
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 (xi. to ; xii. 7, ff. ; xxi. 43 ; xxii. 4), whereas in others it is stated that large portions of the land were not con quered by Joshua (xiii. t, ff ; xvii. 14, ff. ; xviii.
3, ff. ; xxiii. 542). Now, at first sight, the dis crepancy here appears very manifest and somewhat serious. It is worthy of note, however, in the outset, that it is a discrepancy which pervades the book, and on which, consequently, no argument for diversity of authorship, as between the firsi and the second parts of it, can be built. Is it, then, of such a kind as to prove that the whole book is a compilation of fragments ? This will hardly be affirmed by any one who reflects that a discrepancy of this sort is of a kind so obvious, that it is exactly such as a compiler, coolly survey ing 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. It is on this latter hypothesis alone, we think, that the phenomenon before us is to be accounted for. 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. To find in such differ ences of statement discrepancies fatal to the unity of authorship in the book, seems really being critical overmuch, critical to the extent of being captious. Supposing a historian were to narrate that William the Conqueror subdued all England, and yet afterwards to tell us of the numbers of Anglo-Saxons who refused to acknowledge his rule, and the consequent revolts on the part of the English which disturbed his reign, would any reader be at a loss how to reconcile his statements? or would any candid and intelligent man resort to the violent hypothesis that, because of these diverse statements, the unity of the book must be impeached, and the authorship of it parcelled out among different annalists ? Why, then, apply to the sacred historian a test which all would declare unsound and unfair if applied to writers of secular history ? Another apparent discrepancy has been found between xxii. 2 and xxiv. 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 (Quasi% in 7os., 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 :--` Non ait Et nunc auferte dcos alienos siqui sint in vobis ; sed omnino tanquam sciens esse, Qui sunt, inquit, in vobis. Proinde Propheta sanctus in cordibus eorum esse cernebat cogitationes de Deo alienas a Deo, et ipsas admo nebat auferri.' This explanation is followed in substance by Calvin and others ; and it is appa rently the true one. Had Joshua known that gross idolatry' was practised by the people, he Nvoulcl have taken vigorous measures before this to extirpate it But against secret and heart idolatry he could use only Nvords of Nvarning and counsel.