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 his torians imitated the words and phraseology of those who preceded them, and moreover, that they fre quently altered the phrases which they found in the earlier documents.' On this Kurz (from whom we borrow the statement) remarks with great force ---` If that was 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 ' (Com ment. on Yoslz., 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 interpo lated 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 per ception and taste, than on those minutke of expres sion and phraseology on which so much stress has of late been laid by some of the scholars of Ger tnany 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 Cxsar, or any other ancient work of narrative.
4. Date of Composition. — This can be only 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 dura tion of certain objects of which lie 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 in 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 (xxii. 3), or when he uses it of the period up to which the Israelites had been suffering for the iniquity of Peor (xxii. 17) ; comp. also xxiii. 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 in 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 (iv. 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 (vi. 25), which must have ceased, at the furthest, very soon after Joshua's death ; also of Caleb's personal pos session of Hebron (xiv. 14), which of course terminated soon after the time of Joshua. From these notices we infer that tbe 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 (v. t), 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 any thing that is known to have been long posterior to the time of Joshua. From all this we may infer, that the book was written not later than a quarter of a century at furthest, after the death 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 compo sition for the book than the age of Joshua, or that immediately succeeding. But it strikingly shews 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 Havernick and Keil, and what Havernick 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 g-iven evi dence of antiquity which common sense Inquirers can appreciate.
5. Author.—Assuming that the book is the pro duction 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. i. fol. 14, B) ; and this has been embraced by several Christian writers, and among others in recent times, by Konig, and, as respects the first half of the book, by Haver nick. 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 briefly noticed here. From xxiv. 26, where it is said tha-t Joshua wrote tbese words in the book of the law,' it is inferred that whether by these words,' we arc to understand all the pre ceding part of the book, or only the things nar rated- in the last two chapters, it may be alike concluded that Joshua is the author of the book ; on the former supposition, from direct assertion ; on the latter, from the consideration that, if he wrote tbe last two chapters in the Thorah, the pre sumption is that he wrote the whole book. But it is probable that it is to the covenant which Joshua made with the people as expressed in his farewell addresses to them, that reference is made in this passage, and not to the preceding narrative, either m whole or in part ; and if so, the inference is, that as the writing of that part alone is ascribed to Joshua, the rest of the book is not from his pen, Again, it has been contended that, in the account of the death and burial of Joshua, which must, oi course, have been written by some other than Joshua himself, the style is so different as to render it probable that Joshua wrote the rest of the book (Jahn, Intrad., p. 243). But an argument of this sort is always very uncertain, especially in the case of a book which has appeared to some critics to present traces of different styles throughout ; to say nothing of the consideration that it is assuming more than can be conceded, that, supposing a di versity of style made out, the only way of account ing for that is, that the writer of the book was dead before the concluding portion was added. As for the title of honour given to Joshua, xxiv. 29, where he is called inn, "MY a title nowhere else bestowed on him throughout the book, one can hardly infer from this that its absence in the earlier part of the book is a proof that that part was written by Joshua himself. He might indeed have from modesty refrained from using such a desig nation ; but such a title comes in more appropri ately in connection with the death of one who has faithfully served his generation by the will of God, than it does in the narrative of his exploits, and consequently, whilst the historian, in record ing the events of Joshua's life, may have refrained from any such designation, he may have felt him self at perfect liberty to bestow it on him when narrating his death. Stress has also been laid on the use of the first person in v. 1, 6 ; but though the use of the we' in the former passage indicates that the writer was one of those who passed over, it does not necessarily prove that the writer was Joshua ; and in the latter passage, the us' stands evidently for the nation as such, and might have been used by an Israelite at any period of the national existence. On the other hand, there are statements in the book which seem incompatible with the supposition that it was written by Joshua himself. Such is the account of the capture of Hebron by Caleb, of Debir by Othniel (xv. 13 19), and of Leshem by the Danites ; events which, as we learn from Judg. 15, did not take place till after Joshua's death. Again, when Josh. xv. 63 is compared with Judg. 21, it seems evident that the event narrated took place after the time of Joshua, for, according to the author of Judges, it occurred subsequent to the assault on Jerusalem mentioned Judg. i. 8, and this is distinctly referred to the period after Joshua's death. It is probable, also, that such notices as those contained Josh. xiii. 2-5 (comp. Judg. iii. 3), Josh. xvi. ro (comp. Judg. 29), and Josh. xvii. II (comp. Judg. i. 27, 28), relate to a period subsequent to that of Joshua. That the account of Joshua's death and burial, of the interment of the bones of Joseph, and of the burial of Eleazar (xxiv. 29-33), was not written by Joshua, all admit as a matter of course; but, if it be also admitted that Joshua did not write the rest of the book, there is no need for supposing the author of these verses to be different from the author of the book. Who this was we can only conjecture. There seems no serious ob jection to the suggestion of Keil that Ile was one of the elders who lived for some time after Joshua, and who had seen all the works of Jehovah which He had done for Israel (xxiv. 31 ; Judg. 7), ' and who occupied himself at the close of his life with writing down, partly from recollection, and partly also from contemporary documents and other written notices, the things which he himself had witnessed' (p. 47). In this case the title which the book bears must be referred to the principal subject of the book, and not to the author of it.