Another discrepancy is thus set forth by Dr. Davidson (Introd. 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 xviii. that tbe tabernacle had been re moved from its former place at Gilgal to Shiloh, where it remained for a long period after Joshua's death (I Sam. iii. 21 ; iv. 3).' Here are seve ral mistakes. The phrase before God' m6 n+r6NrI) does not necessarily mean before the ark of the Lord' (comp. Gen. xxvii. 7 ; Judg. xi.
; xx. ; r Kings xvii. 1, etc. ; Hengstenberg, Beitr., Bd. iii. 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' (xxiv. 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 (Gen. xii. 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 (Josh. viii. 30-33). No place more fitting, as the site of a meniorial 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 dis covered and urged by some recent critics in Ger many, 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 yoshna, p. 9, ff.
The alleged differences of phraseology and style in different parts of the book might deserve more extended notice, were it not for the very unsatis factory state in which this method of inquiry as yet is. Without doubt, it is true that, if it can be shewn that these differences a.re 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 scien. tific 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 laead 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 D:t;:j is used for a tribe, while in others rltDO is used, and this is employed as a test to disting.uish one fragment from another.
Accordingly, for instance, in ch. xviii. vers. 2, 4, 7, are pronounced to belong to one writer, and ver. 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 IIighlanders as a elan, and them of the same as a rept, 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 dif ferent names.' Could it be shewn that either rzZt", or rico 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 tnight 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 Qpbject are employed, is nothing better than sheer trifling. Again, it is said that the historical parts have the rare word inheritance* (xi. 23; xii. 7 ; xviii.10), which does not appear in the geographical sections' (Davidson, i. 417). Is ch. xviii., then, not in the geographical part of the book ? or does a part become geographical or histoiical as suits the caprice or the preconceived theory of the critic? Similarly, the geographical portion has r11-0 '11-1414., 7ordan by 7erieho, xiii. 32; xvi. , xx. 8 ; a mode of expression wanting in the historical' vba) 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, ton:: [nrbro, the priests, the Levites (iii. 3; 33); or simply IW,171., priests (iii. 6, 15 ; vi. 4, 6, etc.) ; but in the geographical sections the same persons are termed sons of Aaron (xxi. 4, loy 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.' David son scouts this explanation as one which only betrays the weakness of the cause.' We confess ourselves unable to see this ; the explanation is, in oul judgment, perfectly valid in itself, and suffi cient for the end for which it is adduced ; and he bas 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 other places in which tbe phrase sons of Aaron' occurs is in connection with the names of Nadal) and Abiliu, who were sons of Aaron by im mediate descent, and must have been so described by any writer, whether Deuteronomist or Elolaist.