[1] Generally identified with Ramathaim-Zophim, the city of Elkanah
in the hilly district of Ephraim (1 Sam. i. 1), near Diospolis
(Lydda). See Euseb., _Onomasticon_, 225. 12.
JOSEPH I. (1678-1711), Roman emperor, was the elder son of the emperor
Leopold I. and his third wife, Eleanora, countess palatine, daughter of
Philip William of Neuburg. Born in Vienna on the 26th of July 1678, he
was educated strictly by Prince Dietrich Otto von Salm, and became a
good linguist. In 1687 he received the crown of Hungary, and he was
elected king of the Romans in 1690. In 1699 he married Wilhelmina
Amalia, daughter of Duke Frederick of Brunswick-Lüneburg, by whom he had
two daughters. In 1702, on the outbreak of the War of the Spanish
Succession, he saw his only military service. He joined the imperial
general Louis of Baden in the siege of Landau. It is said that when he
was advised not to go into a place of danger he replied that those who
were afraid might retire. He succeeded his father as emperor in 1705,
and it was his good fortune to govern the Austrian dominions, and to be
head of the Empire during the years in which his trusted general Prince
Eugène, either acting alone in Italy or with the duke of Marlborough in
Germany and Flanders, was beating the armies of Louis XIV. During the
whole of his reign Hungary was disturbed by the conflict with Francis
Ráckóczy II., who eventually took refuge in France. The emperor did not
himself take the field against the rebels, but he is entitled to a large
share of the credit for the restoration of his authority. He reversed
many of the pedantically authoritative measures of his father, thus
placating all opponents who could be pacified, and he fought stoutly for
what he believed to be his rights. Joseph showed himself very
independent towards the pope, and hostile to the Jesuits, by whom his
father had been much influenced. He had the tastes for art and music
which were almost hereditary in his family, and was an active hunter. He
began the attempts to settle the question of the Austrian inheritance by
a pragmatic sanction, which were continued by his brother Charles VI.
Joseph died in Vienna on the 17th of April 1711, of small-pox.
See F. Krones von Marchland, _Grundriss der Oesterreichischen
Geschichte_ (1882); F. Wagner, _Historia Josephi Caesaris_ (1746); J.
C. Herchenhahn, _Geschichte der Regierung Kaiser Josephs I._
(1786-1789); C. van Noorden, _Europäische Geschichte im 18.
Jahrhundert_ (1870-1882).
JOSEPH II. (1741-1790), Roman emperor, eldest son of the empress Maria
Theresa and her husband Francis I., was born on the 13th of March 1741,
in the first stress of the War of the Austrian Succession. Maria Theresa
gave orders that he was only to be taught as if he were amusing himself;
the result was that he acquired a habit of crude and superficial study.
His real education was given him by the writings of Voltaire and the
encyclopaedists, and by the example of Frederick the Great. His useful
training was conferred by government officials, who were directed to
instruct him in the mechanical details of the administration of the
numerous states composing the Austrian dominions and the Empire. In 1761
he was made a member of the newly constituted council of state
(_Staatsrath_) and began to draw up minutes, to which he gave the name
of "reveries," for his mother to read. These papers contain the germs of
his later policy, and of all the disasters which finally overtook him.
He was a friend to religious toleration, anxious to reduce the power of
the church, to relieve the peasantry of feudal burdens, and to remove
restrictions on trade and on knowledge. So far he did not differ from
Frederick, Catherine of Russia or his own brother and successor Leopold
II., all enlightened rulers of the 18th-century stamp. Where Joseph
differed from great contemporary rulers, and where he was very close
akin to the Jacobins, was in the fanatical intensity of his belief in
the power of the state when directed by reason, of his right to speak
for the state uncontrolled by laws, and of the reasonableness of his own
reasons. Also he had inherited from his mother all the belief of the
house of Austria in its "august" quality, and its claim to acquire
whatever it found desirable for its power or its profit. He was unable
to understand that his philosophical plans for the moulding of mankind
could meet with pardonable opposition. The overweening character of the
man was obvious to Frederick, who, after their first interview in 1769,
described him as ambitious, and as capable of setting the world on fire.
The French minister Vergennes, who met Joseph when he was travelling
incognito in 1777, judged him to be "ambitious and despotic."
Until the death of his mother in 1780 Joseph was never quite free to
follow his own instincts. After the death of his father in 1765 he
became emperor and was made co-regent by his mother in the Austrian
dominions. As emperor he had no real power, and his mother was resolved
that neither husband nor son should ever deprive her of sovereign
control in her hereditary dominions. Joseph, by threatening to resign
his place as co-regent, could induce his mother to abate her dislike to
religious toleration. He could, and he did, place a great strain on her
patience and temper, as in the case of the first partition of Poland and
the Bavarian War of 1778, but in the last resort the empress spoke the
final word. During these wars Joseph travelled much. He met Frederick
the Great privately at Neisse in 1769, and again at Mährisch-Neustadt in
1770. On the second occasion he was accompanied by Prince Kaunitz, whose
conversation with Frederick may be said to mark the starting-point of
the first partition of Poland. To this and to every other measure which
promised to extend the dominions of his house Joseph gave hearty
approval. Thus he was eager to enforce its claim on Bavaria upon the
death of the elector Maximilian Joseph in 1777. In April of that year he
paid a visit to his sister the queen of France (see MARIE ANTOINETTE),
travelling under the name of Count Falkenstein. He was well received,
and much flattered by the encyclopaedists, but his observations led him
to predict the approaching downfall of the French monarchy, and he was
not impressed favourably by the army or navy. In 1778 he commanded the
troops collected to oppose Frederick, who supported the rival claimant
to Bavaria. Real fighting was averted by the unwillingness of Frederick
to embark on a new war and by Maria Theresa's determination to maintain
peace. In April 1780 he paid a visit to Catherine of Russia, against the
wish of his mother.
The death of Maria Theresa on the 27th of November 1780 left Joseph
free. He immediately directed his government on a new course, full speed
ahead. He proceeded to attempt to realize his ideal of a wise despotism
acting on a definite system for the good of all. The measures of
emancipation of the peasantry which his mother had begun were carried on
by him with feverish activity. The spread of education, the
secularization of church lands, the reduction of the religious orders
and the clergy in general to complete submission to the lay state, the
promotion of unity by the compulsory use of the German language,
everything which from the point of view of 18th-century philosophy
appeared "reasonable" was undertaken at once. He strove for
administrative unity with characteristic haste to reach results without
preparation. His anti-clerical innovations induced Pope Pius VI. to pay
him a visit in July 1782. Joseph received the pope politely, and showed
himself a good Catholic, but refused to be influenced. So many
interferences with old customs began to produce unrest in all parts of
his dominions. Meanwhile he threw himself into a succession of foreign
policies all aimed at aggrandisement, and all equally calculated to
offend his neighbours--all taken up with zeal, and dropped in
discouragement. He endeavoured to get rid of the Barrier Treaty, which
debarred his Flemish subjects from the navigation of the Scheldt; when
he was opposed by France he turned to other schemes of alliance with
Russia for the partition of Turkey and Venice. They also had to be given
up in the face of the opposition of neighbours, and in particular of
France. Then he resumed his attempts to obtain Bavaria--this time by
exchanging it for Belgium--and only provoked the formation of the
_Fürstenbund_ organized by the king of Prussia. Finally he joined Russia
in an attempt to pillage Turkey. It began on his part by an unsuccessful
and discreditable attempt to surprise Belgrade in time of peace, and was
followed by the ill-managed campaign of 1788. He accompanied his army,
but showed no capacity for war. In November he returned to Vienna with
ruined health, and during 1789 was a dying man. The concentration of his
troops in the east gave the malcontents of Belgium an opportunity to
revolt. In Hungary the nobles were all but in open rebellion, and in his
other states there were peasant risings, and a revival of particularist
sentiments. Joseph was left entirely alone. His minister Kaunitz refused
to visit his sick-room, and did not see him for two years. His brother
Leopold remained at Florence. At last Joseph, worn out and
broken-hearted, recognized that his servants could not, or would not,
carry out his plans. On the 30th of January 1790 he formally withdrew
all his reforms, and he died on the 20th of February.
Joseph II. was twice married, first to Isabella, daughter of Philip,
duke of Parma, to whom he was attached. After her death on the 27th of
November 1763, a political marriage was arranged with Josepha (d. 1767),
daughter of Charles Albert, elector of Bavaria (the emperor Charles
VII.). It proved extremely unhappy. Joseph left no children, and was
succeeded by his brother Leopold II.
Many volumes of the emperor's correspondence have been published.
Among them are _Maria Theresia und Joseph II. Ihre Korrespondenz samt
Briefen Josephs an seinen Bruder Leopold_ (1867-1868); _Joseph II. und
Leopold von Toskana. Ihr Briefwechsel 1781-1790_ (1872); _Joseph II.
und Katharina von Russland. Ihr Briefwechsel_ (1869); and _Maria
Antoinette, Joseph II. und Leopold II. Ihr Briefwechsel_ (1866); all
edited by A. Ritter von Arneth. Other collections are: _Joseph II.,
Leopold II. und Kaunitz. Ihr Briefwechsel_, edited by A. Beer (1873);
_Correspondances intimes de l'empereur Joseph II. avec son ami, le
comte de Cobenzl et son premier ministre, le prince de Kaunitz_,
edited by S. Brunner (1871); _Joseph II. und Graf Ludwig Cobenzl. Ihr
Briefwechsel_, edited by A. Beer and J. von Fiedler (1901); and the
_Geheime Korrespondenz Josephs II. mit seinem Minister in den
Oesterreichischen Niederlanden, Ferdinand Graf Trauttmannsdorff
1787-1789_, edited by H. Schlitter (1902). Among the lives of Joseph
may be mentioned: A. J. Gross-Hoffinger, _Geschichte Josephs II._
(1847); C. Paganel, _Histoire de Joseph II._ (1843; German translation
by F. Köhler, 1844); H. Meynert, _Kaiser Joseph II._ (1862); A. Beer,
_Joseph II._ (1882); A. Jäger, _Kaiser Joseph II. und Leopold II._
(1867); A. Fournier, _Joseph II._ (1885); and J. Wendrinski, _Kaiser
Joseph II._ (1880). There is a useful small volume on the emperor by
J. Franck Bright (1897). Other books which may be consulted are: G.
Wolf, _Das Unterrichtswesen in Oesterreich unter Joseph II._ (1880),
and _Oesterreich und Preussen 1780-1790_ (1880), A. Wolf and H. von
Zwiedeneck-Südenhorst, _Oesterreich unter Maria Theresia, Joseph II.
und Leopold II._ (1882-1884); H. Schlitter, _Die Regierung Josephs II.
in den Oesterreichischen Niederlanden_ (1900); and _Pius VI. und
Joseph II. 1782-1784_ (1894); O. Lorenz, _Joseph II. und die Belgische
Revolution_ (1862); and L. Delplace, _Joseph II. et la révolution
brabançonne_ (1890).
JOSEPH, FATHER (FRANÇOIS LECLERC DU TREMBLAY) (1577-1638), French
Capuchin monk, the confidant of Richelieu, was the eldest son of Jean
Leclerc du Tremblay, president of the chamber of requests of the
parlement of Paris, and of Marie Motier de Lafayette. As a boy he
received a careful classical training, and in 1595 made an extended
journey through Italy, returning to take up the career of arms. He
served at the siege of Amiens in 1597, and then accompanied a special
embassy to London. In 1599 Baron de Mafflier, by which name he was known
at court, renounced the world and entered the Capuchin monastery of
Orleans. He embraced the religious life with great ardour, and became a
notable preacher and reformer. In 1606 he aided Antoinette d'Orléans, a
nun of Fontevrault, to found the reformed order of the Filles du
Calvaire, and wrote a manual of devotion for the nuns. His proselytizing
zeal led him to send missionaries throughout the Huguenot centres--he
had become provincial of Touraine in 1613. He entered politics at the
conferences of Loudun, when, as the confidant of the queen and the papal
envoy, he opposed the Gallican claims advanced by the parlement, which
the princes were upholding, and succeeded in convincing them of the
schismatic tendency of Gallicanism. In 1612 he began those personal
relations with Richelieu which have indissolubly joined in history and
legend the cardinal and the "Eminence grise," relations which research
has not altogether made clear. In 1627 the monk assisted at the siege of
La Rochelle. A purely religious reason also made him Richelieu's ally
against the Habsburgs. He had a dream of arousing Europe to another
crusade against the Turks, and believed that the house of Austria was
the obstacle to that universal European peace which would make this
possible. As Richelieu's agent, therefore, this modern Peter the Hermit
manoeuvred at the diet of Regensburg (1630) to thwart the aggression of
the emperor, and then advised the intervention of Gustavus Adolphus,
reconciling himself to the use of Protestant armies by the theory that
one poison would counteract another. Thus the monk became a war
minister, and, though maintaining a personal austerity of life, gave
himself up to diplomacy and politics. He died in 1638, just as the
cardinalate was to be conferred upon him. The story that Richelieu
visited him when on his deathbed and roused the dying man by the words,
"Courage, Father Joseph, we have won Breisach," is apocryphal.
See Fagniez, _Le Père Joseph et Richelieu_ (1894), a work based
largely on original and unpublished sources. Father Joseph, according
to this biography, would seem not to have lectured Richelieu in the
fashion of the legends, whatever his moral influence may have been in
strengthening Richelieu's hands.
JOSEPHINE (MARIE ROSE JOSEPHINE TASCHER DE LA PAGERIE) (1763-1814),
empress of the French, was born in the island of Martinique on the 23rd
of June 1763, being the eldest of three daughters of Joseph Tascher de
la Pagerie, lieutenant of artillery. Her beauty and grace, though of a
languid Creole style, won the affections of the young officer the
vicomte de Beauharnais, and, after some family complications, she was
married to him. Their married life was not wholly happy, the frivolity
of Josephine occasioning her husband anxiety and jealousy. Two children,
Eugène and Hortense, were the fruit of the union. During Josephine's
second residence in Martinique, whither she proceeded to tend her
mother, occurred the first troubles with the slaves, which resulted from
the precipitate action of the constituent assembly in emancipating them.
She returned to her husband, who at that time entered into political
life at Paris. Her beauty and vivacity won her many admirers in the
salons of the capital. As the Revolution ran its course her husband, as
an ex-noble, incurred the suspicion and hostility of the Jacobins; and
his ill-success at the head of a French army on the Rhine led to his
arrest and execution. Thereafter Josephine was in a position of much
perplexity and some hardship, but the friendship of Barras and of Madame
Tallien, to both of whom she was then much attached, brought her into
notice, and she was one of the queens of Parisian society in the year
1795, when Napoleon Bonaparte's services to the French convention in
scattering the malcontents of the capital (13 Vendémiaire, or October 5,
1795) brought him to the front. There is a story that she became known
to Napoleon through a visit paid to him by her son Eugène in order to
beg his help in procuring the restoration of his father's sword, but it
rests on slender foundations. In any case, it is certain that Bonaparte,
however he came to know her, was speedily captivated by her charms. She,
on her side, felt very little affection for the thin, impecunious and
irrepressible suitor; but by degrees she came to acquiesce in the
thought of marriage, her hesitations, it is said, being removed by the
influence of Barras and by the nomination of Bonaparte to the command of
the army of Italy. The civil marriage took place on the 9th of March
1796, two days before the bridegroom set out for his command. He failed
to induce her to go with him to Nice and Italy.
Bonaparte's letters to Josephine during the campaign reveal the ardour
of his love, while she rarely answered them. As he came to realize her
shallowness and frivolity his passion cooled; but at the time when he
resided at Montebello (near Milan) in 1797 he still showed great regard
for her. During his absence in Egypt in 1798-1799, her relations to an
officer, M. Charles, were most compromising; and Bonaparte on his return
thought of divorcing her. Her tears and the entreaties of Eugène and
Hortense availed to bring about a reconciliation; and during the period
of the consulate (1799-1804) their relations were on the whole happy,
though Napoleon's conduct now gave his consort grave cause for concern.
His brothers and sisters more than once begged him to divorce Josephine,
and it is known that, from the time when he became first consul for
life (August 1802) with large powers over the choice of a successor, he
kept open the alternative of a divorce. Josephine's anxieties increased
on the proclamation of the Empire (May 18, 1804); and on the 1st of
December 1804, the eve of the coronation at Notre Dame, she gained her
wish that she should be married anew to Napoleon with religious rites.
Despite her care, the emperor procured the omission of one formality,
the presence of the parish priest; but at the coronation scene Josephine
appeared radiant with triumph over her envious relatives. The august
marriages contracted by her children Eugène and Hortense seemed to
establish her position; but her ceaseless extravagance and, above all,
the impossibility that she should bear a son strained the relations
between Napoleon and Josephine. She complained of his infidelities and
growing callousness. The end came in sight after the campaign of 1809,
when Napoleon caused the announcement to be made to her that reasons of
state compelled him to divorce her. Despite all her pleadings he held to
his resolve. The most was made of the slight technical irregularity at
the marriage ceremony of the 1st of December 1804; and the marriage was
declared null and void.
At her private retreat, La Malmaison, near Paris, which she had
beautified with curios and rare plants and flowers, Josephine closed her
life in dignified retirement. Napoleon more than once came to consult
her upon matters in which he valued her tact and good sense. Her health
declined early in 1814, and after his first abdication (April 11, 1814)
it was clear that her end was not far off. The emperor Alexander of
Russia and Frederick William III. of Prussia, then in Paris, requested
an interview with her. She died on the 24th of May 1814. Her friends,
Mme de Rémusat and others, pointed out that Napoleon's good fortune
deserted him after the divorce; and it is certain that the Austrian
marriage clogged him in several ways. Josephine's influence was used on
behalf of peace and moderation both in internal and in foreign affairs.
Thus she begged Napoleon not to execute the duc d'Enghien and not to
embroil himself in Spanish affairs in 1808.
See M. A. Le Normand, _Mémoires historiques et secrets de Joséphine_
(2 vols., 1820); _Lettres de Napoléon à Joséphine_ (1833); J. A.
Aubenas, _Hist. de l'impératrice Joséphine_ (2 vols., 1858-1859); J.
Turquan, _L'Impératrice Joséphine_ (2 vols., 1895-1896); F. Masson,
_Joséphine_ (3 vols., 1899-1902); _Napoleon's Letters to Josephine_
(1796-1812), translated and edited by H. F. Hall (1903). Also the
_Memoirs of_ Mme. de Rémusat and of Bausset, and P. W. Sergeant, _The
Empress Josephine_ (1908). (J. Hl. R.)
JOSEPHUS, FLAVIUS (c. 37-c. 95?), Jewish historian and military
commander, was born in the first year of Caligula (37-38). His father
belonged to one of the noblest priestly families, and through his mother
he claimed descent from the Asmonaean high priest Jonathan. A precocious
student of the Law, he made trial of the three sects of
Judaism--Pharisees, Sadducees and Essenes--before he reached the age of
nineteen. Then, having spent three years in the desert with the hermit
Banus, who was presumably an Essene, he became a Pharisee. In 64 he went
to Rome to intercede on behalf of some priests, his friends, whom the
procurator Felix had sent to render account to Caesar for some
insignificant offence. Making friends with Alityrus, a Jewish actor, who
was a favourite of Nero, Josephus obtained an introduction to the
empress Poppaea and effected his purpose by her help. His visit to Rome
enabled him to speak from personal experience of the power of the
Empire, when he expostulated with the revolutionary Jews on his return
to Palestine. But they refused to listen; and he, with all the Jews who
did not fly the country, was dragged into the great rebellion of 66. In
company with two other priests, Josephus was sent to Galilee under
orders (he says) to persuade the ill-affected to lay down their arms and
return to the Roman allegiance, which the Jewish aristocracy had not yet
renounced. Having sent his two companions back to Jerusalem, he
organized the forces at his disposal, and made arrangements for the
government of his province. His obvious desire to preserve law and order
excited the hostility of John of Giscala, who endeavoured vainly to
remove him as a traitor to the national cause by inciting the Galileans
to kill him and by persuading the Sanhedrin at Jerusalem to recall him.
In the spring of 67 the Jewish troops, whom Josephus had drilled so
sedulously, fled before the Roman forces of Vespasian and Titus. He sent
to Jerusalem for reinforcements, but none came. With the stragglers who
remained, he held a stronghold against the Romans by dint of his native
cunning, and finally, when the place was taken, persuaded forty men, who
shared his hiding-place, to kill one another in turn rather than commit
suicide. They agreed to cast lots, on the understanding that the second
should kill the first and so on. Josephus providentially drew the last
lot and prevailed upon his destined victim to live. Their companions
were all dead in accordance with the compact; but Josephus at any rate
survived and surrendered. Being led before Vespasian, he was inspired to
prophesy that Vespasian would become emperor. In consequence of the
prophecy his life was spared, but he was kept close prisoner for two
years. When his prophecy was fulfilled he was liberated, assumed the
name of Flavius, the family name of Vespasian, and accompanied his
patron to Alexandria. There he took another wife, as the Jewess allotted
him by Vespasian after the fall of Caesarea had forsaken him, and
returned to attend Titus and to act as intermediary between him and the
Jews who still held Jerusalem. His efforts in this capacity failed; but
when the city was stormed (70) Titus granted him whatever boon he might
ask. So he secured the lives of some free men who had been taken and (by
the gift of Titus) certain sacred books. After this he repaired to Rome
and received one of the pensions, which Vespasian (according to
Suetonius) was the first to bestow upon Latin and Greek writers. He was
also made a Roman citizen and received an estate in Judaea.
Thenceforward he devoted himself to literary work under the patronage of
Vespasian, Titus and Domitian. As he mentions the death of Agrippa II.
it is probable that he lived into the 2nd century; but the date of
Agrippa's death has been challenged and, if his patron Epaphroditus may
be identified with Nero's freedman, it is possible that Josephus may
have been involved in his fall and perished under Domitian in 95.
WORKS.--1. _The Jewish War_ ([Greek: Peri tou Ioudaïkou polemou]), the
oldest of Josephus' extant writings, was written towards the end of
Vespasian's reign (69-79). The Aramaic original has not been
preserved; but the Greek version was prepared by Josephus himself in
conjunction with competent Greek scholars. Its purpose in all
probability was, in the first instance, to exhibit to the Babylonian
Jews the overwhelming power of Rome and so to deter them from
repeating the futile revolt of the Jews of Palestine. Of its seven
books, the first two survey the history of the Jews from the capture
of Jerusalem by Antiochus Epiphanes to the outbreak of war in 67, and
here Josephus relies upon some such general history as that of
Nicolaus of Damascus. The rest deals with the events of the war
(67-73) which fell more or less within his own knowledge. Vespasian,
Titus and Agrippa II. testified (he tells us) to his accuracy.
Representatives of the Zealots would probably have protested against
his pro-Roman prejudices.
2. _The Jewish Antiquities_ ([Greek: Ioudaïkê Archaiologia]) covers in
twenty books the history of the Jews from the creation of the world to
the outbreak of the war with Rome. It was finished in the thirteenth
year of Domitian (93). Its purpose was to glorify the Jewish nation in
the eyes of the Roman world. In the part covered by the books of the
Bible Josephus follows them, and that mainly, if not entirely as they
are translated into Greek by the Seventy (the Septuagint version).
Being a Pharisee, he sometimes introduces traditions of the Elders,
which are either inferences from, or embroideries of, the biblical
narrative. Sometimes, also, he gives proof of some knowledge of Hebrew
and supplements his scriptural authorities, which include 1 Esdras,
from general Greek histories. For the later period he uses the Greek
Esther, with its additions, 1 Maccabees, Polybius, Strabo and Nicolaus
of Damascus. But towards the end he confesses that he has grown weary
of his task, and his history becomes meagre. The work contains
accounts of John the Baptist and Jesus, which may account for the fact
that Josephus' writings were rescued from oblivion by the Christians.
But the description of Jesus as "a wise man, if indeed one should call
him a man," can hardly be genuine, and the assertion "this was the
Christ" is equally doubtful, unless it be assumed that the Greek word
_Christos_ had become technical in the sense of false-Christ or
false-prophet among non-Christian Jews.
3. Josephus wrote a narrative of his own _Life_ in order to defend
himself against the accusation brought by his enemy Justus of Tiberias
to the effect that he had really been the cause of the Jewish
rebellion. In his defence Josephus departs from the facts as narrated
in the _Jewish War_ and represents himself as a partisan of Rome and,
therefore, as a traitor to his own people from the beginning.
4. The two books _Against Apion_ are a defence or apology directed
against current misrepresentations of the Jews. Earlier titles are
_Concerning the Antiquity of the Jews_ or _Against the Greeks_. Apion
was the leader of the Alexandrine embassy which opposed Philo and his
companions when they appeared in behalf of the Alexandrine Jews before
Caligula. The defence which Josephus puts forward has a permanent
value and shows him at his best.
The Greek text of Josephus' works has been edited with full collection
of different readings by B. Niese (Berlin, 1887-1895). The Teubner
text by Naber is based on this. The translation into English of W.
Whiston has been (superficially) revised by A. R. Shilleto
(1889-1890). Schürer (_History of the Jewish People_) gives a full
bibliography. (J. H. A. H.)
JOSHEKAN, a small province of Persia covering about 1000 sq. m. Pop.
about 5000. It has a yearly revenue of about £1200, and is held in fief
by the family of Bahram Mirza, Muizz ed Dowleh (d. 1882). Its chief town
and the residence of the governor used to be Joshekan-Kali, a large
village with fine gardens, formerly famous for its carpets (_kali_), but
now the chief place is Maimeh, a little city with a population of 2500,
situated at an elevation of 6670 ft., about 63 m. from Isfahan in a
north-westerly direction and 13 m. south-west of Joshekan-Kali.
JOSHUA, BOOK OF, the sixth book of the Old Testament, and the first of
the group known as the "Former Prophets." It takes its name from
Joshua[1] the son of Nun, an Ephraimite who, on the death of Moses,
assumed the leadership to which he had previously been designated by his
chief (Deut. xxxi. 14 seq., 23), and proceeded to the conquest of the
land of Canaan. The book differs from the Pentateuch or Torah in the
absence of legal matter, and in its intimate connexion with the
narrative in the books which follow. It is, however, the proper sequel
to the origins of the people as related in Genesis, to the exodus of the
Israelite tribes from Egypt, and their journeyings in the wilderness. On
these and also on literary grounds it is often convenient to class the
first six books of the Bible as a unit under the term "Hexateuch." For
an exhaustive detailed study has revealed many signs of diversity of
authorship which combine to show that the book is due to the
incorporation of older material in two main redactions; one deeply
imbued with the language and thought of Deuteronomy itself (D), the
other of the post-exilic priestly circle (P) which gave the Pentateuch
its present form. That the older sources (which often prove to be
composite) are actually identical with the Yahwist or Judaean (J) and
the Elohist or Ephraimite (E) narratives (on which see GENESIS) is not
improbable, though, especially as regards the former, still very
uncertain. In general the literary problems are exceedingly intricate,
and no attempt can be made here to deal with them as fully as they
deserve.
_The Invasion._--The book falls naturally into two main parts, of which
the first, the crossing of the Jordan and the conquest of Palestine
(i.-xii.) is mainly due to Deuteronomic compilers. It opens with the
preparations for the crossing of the Jordan and the capture of the
powerful city Jericho. Ai, near Bethel, is taken after a temporary
repulse, and Joshua proceeds to erect an altar upon Mt Ebal (north of
Shechem). For the fullness with which the events are recorded the
writers were probably indebted to local stories.
The Israelites are at Abel-Shittim (already reached in Num. xxv. 1).
Moses is dead, and Joshua enters upon his task with the help of the
Transjordanic tribes who have already received their territory (i).
The narrative is of the later prophetic stamp (D; cf. Deut. iii.
18-22, xi. 24, where Moses is the speaker; xxxi. 1-8), but may be
based upon an earlier and shorter record (E; vv. 1 seq., 10, 11a). Of
the mission of the spies to Jericho, two versions were current
(duplicates ii. 3, 12, 18; v. 15 seq. breaks the connexion between vv.
13 and 18, but is resumed in vv. 22-24); D's addition is to be
recognized in ii. 9b-11. The incident occupies at least four days, but
the main narrative reckons three days between i. 11 and iii. 2. Next
follow the passage of the Jordan (commemorated by the erection of
twelve stones), the encampment at Gilgal, and the observance of the
rite of circumcision and of the passover (iii.-v.). The complicated
narrative in iii.-iv. is of composite origin (contrast iii. 17 with
iv. 10 seq., 19; iv. 3, 8 with vv. 9, 20; and cf. iii. 12 with the
superfluous iv. 2, &c.). As in ii., D has amplified (iii. 4b, 7, 10b,
iv. 9-10a, 12, 14; more prominently in iv. 21-v. 1, v. 4-8), and
subsequently P (or a hand akin to P) has worked over the whole (iii.
4, note the number and the prohibition, cf. Num. i. 51; iii. 8, 15
seq.; iv. 13, 19; v. 10-12). Circumcision, already familiar from Exod.
iv. 26, Deut. x. 16, is here regarded as a new rite (v. 2, 9,
supplemented by vv. 1, 4-8), but the conflicting views have been
harmonized by the words "the second time" (v. 2). Gilgal is thus named
from the "rolling away" of the "reproach of Egypt" (v. 9), but iv. 20
suggests a different origin, viz. the sacred stone-circle (cf. Judges
iii. 19, R.V. marg.). An older account of the divine commission to
Joshua appears in the archaic passage v. 13-15 (cf. Moses in Exod.
iii.). Fusion of sources is obvious in the story of the fall of
Jericho (contrast vi. 5 and v. 10, vv. 21 and 24, vv. 22 and 25);
according to one (E?) the people march seven times round the city on
one day, the ark and the priests occupying a prominent position (vi.
4-6, 7b-9, 12 seq., 16a, 20 [part], 22-24); but in the other they
march every day for seven days. Both here and in the preceding
chapters the Septuagint has several variations and omissions, due
either to an (unsuccessful) attempt to simplify the present
difficulties, or to the use of another recension. The curse pronounced
by Joshua upon the destroyed city of Jericho (vi. 26) should be
associated with an incident in the reign of Ahab which is acquainted
with the story (1 Kings xvi. 34); the city, however, reappears in
Joshua xviii. 21; 2 Sam. x. 5. Achan's sacrilege, the cause of the
repulse at Ai and of the naming of the valley of Achor (vii.), is
introduced by vi. 18 seq., 24b, and, as its spirit shows, is of
relatively later date. It contains some probable traces of D (in vii.
5, 7, 11 seq., 15, 25) and P (in vv. 1, 18, 24 seq.). The capture of
Ai has marks of the same dual origin as the preceding chapters (cf.
viii. 3a with 10, and contrast viii. 3-9 with v. 12; vv. 5-7 with 18,
26; v. 19 with 28). The general resemblance between chs. vii.-viii.
and the war with Benjamin (Judges xx.) should be noticed.
_Conquests in Palestine._--The erection of the altar, not at the scene
of battle (cf. 1 Sam. xiv. 35) but on Mt Ebal (viii. 30-35, D),
presupposes the conquest of central Palestine and the removal of the ark
from Gilgal. These, however, are not narrated, and, unless some account
of them has been replaced by the present passage, this portion of the
conquest was ignored. Possibly the passage is not in its original
position: in the Septuagint it appears after ix. 2, while Josephus
(_Ant._ v. 1, 19) and the Samaritan book of Joshua read it before ch.
xiii.; Dillmann, however, would place it after xi. 23. The capture of
Jericho and Ai is followed by the successful stratagem of the Gibeonites
to make peace with Israel (ix.). This involves them in a war with the
southern Canaanites; Joshua intervenes and obtains a crowning victory
(x.). The camp is still at Gilgal. A similar conquest of the northern
Canaanites follows (xi.), and the first part of the book concludes with
a summary of the results of the Israelite invasion (xii.).
No satisfactory explanation of viii. 30-35 has been found, yet ix. 1
seq. seems to show that it was the prelude to the Canaanite wars. In
contrast to the absence of any reference to the occupation of central
Palestine, the conquest of the south was current in several divergent
traditions. Two records are blended in ix.; one narrates the covenant
with the Gibeonites, the other that with the Hivites (properly
Hivvites); and in the latter Joshua has no place (vv. 4 seq., 6b, 7,
11-14, &c.). The former has additions by D (vv. 9b, 10, 24 seq.) and
by P (v. 15 last clause, 17-21); the latter, in accordance with the
legislation of its day (posterior to Ezek. xliv. 6 sqq.), does not
allow the Gibeonites to minister to the temple or altar, but merely to
the "congregation," a characteristic post-exilic term (contrast vv. 21
and 23; and on 27 see Sept. and commentaries). The story of the
covenant conflicts with the notice that Gibeon was still an
independent Canaanite city in David's time (2 Sam. xxi. 2). The defeat
of the southern coalition is based, as the doublets show, upon two
sources; the war arises from two causes (vengeance upon the
Gibeonites, and the attempt to overthrow Israel), and concludes with a
twofold victory: in x. 16-24 the kings are pursued to Makkedah and
slain, in v. 11 they are smitten by a great hailstorm in their flight
to Azekah (cf. 1 Sam. vii. 10, xiv. 15, in the same district).
Redactional links have been added, apparently by D, to whom is
possibly due the stanza quoted from the book of Jashar (v. 12 seq.), a
poetical address to the sun and moon, of the nature of a prayer or
spell for their aid (cf. Judges v. 20, and see Ecclus. xlvi. 4). The
literal interpretation of this picturesque quotation has been
influenced by the prosaic comments at the end of v. 13 and beginning
of v. 14. Verse 15, which closes the account, anticipates v. 43; the
Septuagint omits both. The generalizing narrative (x. 28-43), which is
due to D in its present form, is partly based upon old matter (e.g.
the capture of Makkedah), but is inconsistent with what precedes (v.
37, see v. 23 sqq.) and follows (capture of Debir, v. 38 seq., see xv.
15; Judges i. 11). The description of the conquest of the northern
Canaanites is very similar to that of the south. The main part is from
an older source (xi. 1, 4-9; see DEBORAH), the amplifications (v. 2
seq.) are due to D, as also are the summary (vv. 10-23, cf. style of
x. 28-43), and the enumeration of the total results of the invasion
(xii.), which includes names not previously mentioned.
_Division of the Land._--The result of the events narrated in the first
part of the book is to ascribe the entire subjugation of Canaan to
Joshua, whose centre was at Gilgal (x. 15, 43). He is now "old and
advanced in years," and although much outlying land remained to be
possessed, he is instructed to divide the conquered districts among the
western tribes (xiii. 1 sqq.). This is detailed at length in the second
part of the book. With the completion of the division his mission is
accomplished. The main body of this part (xiii. 15-xiv. 5; xv.-xvii.;
xviii. 11-xxi. 42; xxii. 7-34) is in its present form almost entirely
due to P.
In regard to details, xiii. 2-6 (now D) expresses the view that the
conquest was incomplete, and numbers districts chiefly in the
south-west and in the Lebanon. Two sources deal with the inheritance
of the east Jordan tribes in terms which are--(a) general (xiii. 8-12,
D), and (b) precise (vv. 15-32, P). The latter stands between the
duplicate passages xiii. 14 and 32 seq. (see the Sept.). With the
interest taken in these tribes, cf. for (a) i. 12-18; Deut. iii.
12-22, and the sequel in Joshua xxii. 1-6; and for (b) xxii. 9 seq.;
Num. xxxii. P's account of the division opens with an introductory
notice of the manner in which Eleazar the priest and Joshua (note the
order) prepare to complete the work which Moses had begun (xiv. 1-5).
It opens with Judah, its borders (xv. 1-12) and cities (vv. 20-62),
and continues with the two Joseph tribes, Ephraim (xvi. 4-9, contrast
details in vv. 1-3) and Manasseh (xvii. 1-10, cf. Num. xxvi. 30-32,
xxvii. 1-11; P). There is now a break in the narrative (xviii. 2-10,
source uncertain); seven tribes have not yet received an inheritance,
and Joshua (alone) encourages them to send three men from each tribe
to walk through the land--excluding the territory of Judah and
Joseph--and to bring a description of it to him, after which he
divides it among them by lot. P[2] now resumes with an account of the
borders and cities of Benjamin (xviii. 11-28), Simeon, Zebulun,
Issachar, Asher, Naphtali and Dan (xix.; on v. 47, see below); and,
after the subscription (xix. 51), concludes with the institution of
the cities of refuge (xx., cf. Num. xxxv.), and of the Levitical
cities (xxi., contrast the earlier brief notice, xiii. 14, 33).
Chapter xx., belonging to the Predaction, has certain points of
contact with Deut. xix. which, it is very important to observe, are
wanting in the Septuagint; and xxi. 43-45 closes D's account of the
division, and in the Septuagint contains matter most of which is now
given by P in xix. 49 seq. Two narratives describe the dismissal of
the trans-Jordanic tribes after their co-operation in the conquest,
viz. xxii. 1-6 (D), and xxii. 9 seq. (P); cf. above, on xiii. 8 seq.
P, with the description of the erection of the altar (v. 34, Gilead?;
cf. Gen. xxxi. 47 seq.), is apparently a late re-writing of some now
obscure incident to emphasize the unity of worship. P's account of the
distribution of land among the _nine and a half_ tribes by Eleazar and
Joshua (from xiv. 1-5 to xix. 51) appears to have been on the lines
laid down in Num. xxxiv. (P). The scene, according to xviii. 1, is
Shiloh, and this verse, which does not belong to the context, should
apparently precede P's narrative in xiv. 1. But of the occupation of
_Shiloh_, the famous Ephraimite sanctuary and the seat of the ark, we
have no information. The older source, however, presupposes that Judah
and the two Joseph tribes have acquired their territory; the remaining
seven are blamed for their indifference (xviii. 2-10, see above), and
receive their lot conjointly at the camp at Shiloh. But if the
location is an attempt to harmonize with xviii. 1, _Gilgal_ should
probably be restored. The section xviii. 2-10 is followed by xxi. 43
seq. (above), and may have been preceded originally by xiii. 1, 7
(where read: inheritance for the _seven_ tribes); in its present form
it appears to be due to D. Another account of the exploits of Judah
and Joseph can be traced here and there; e.g. in xiv. 6-15 (where
Caleb receives Hebron as his inheritance and the "land had rest from
war"), and xvii. 14-18 (where Joseph receives an additional lot); but
where these traditions have not been worked into later narratives,
they exist only in fragmentary form and are chiefly recognizable by
their standpoint. They are characterized by the view that the conquest
was only a partial one, and one which was neither the work of a single
man nor at his instigation, but due entirely to individual or tribal
achievements. This view can be traced in xiii. 13, xv. 63 (cf. the
parallel Judges i. 21 in contrast to v. 8), xvi. 10 (Judges i. 29),
xvii. 11-13 (Judges i. 27 seq.), and in the references to separate
tribal or family exploits: xv. 13-19, xix. 47 (cf. Judges i. 34 seq.,
xviii.).
Two closing addresses are ascribed to Joshua, one an exhortation similar
to the homilies in secondary portions of Deuteronomy (xxiii.; cf. Moses
in Deut. xxviii. seq., and Samuel's last address in 1 Sam. xii.), which
virtually excludes the other (xxiv.), where Joshua assembles the tribes
at Shechem (Shiloh, in the Septuagint) and passes under review the
history of Israel from the days of heathenism (before Abraham was
brought into Canaan) down through the oppression in Egypt, the exodus,
the conquest in East Jordan and the occupation of Canaan. A few
otherwise unknown details are to be found (xxiv. 2, 11 seq. 14). The
address (which is extremely important for its representation of the
religious conditions) is made the occasion for a solemn covenant whereby
the people agree to cleave to Yahweh alone. This is commemorated by the
erection of a stone under the oak by the sanctuary of Yahweh (for the
tree with its sacred pillar, see Gen. xxxv. 4; Judges ix. 6). The people
are then dismissed, and the book closes in ordinary narrative style with
the death of Joshua and his burial in his inheritance at Timnath-serah
in Mt Ephraim (cf. xix. 49 seq.); the burial of Joseph in Shechem; and
the death and burial of Eleazar the son of Aaron in the "hill of
Phinehas."
Chapter xxiv. presupposes the complete subjection of the Canaanites
and is of a late prophetic stamp. Some signs of amplification (e.g.
vv. 11b, 13, 31) suggest that it was inserted by a Deuteronomic hand,
evidently distinct from the author of xxiii. But elsewhere there are
traces of secondary Deuteronomic expansion and of internal
incongruities in Deuteronomic narratives; contrast xiv. 6-15 with
Joshua's extermination of the "Anakim" in xi. 21 seq.; the use of this
name with the "Philistines" of xiii. 2 (see PHILISTINES), or the
conquests in xi. 16-22 with the names in x. 36-43. All these passages
are now due to D; but not only is Deuteronomy itself composite, a
twofold redaction can be traced in Judges, Samuel and Kings, thus
involving the deeper literary problems of Joshua with the historical
books generally.[3] Both Joshua xxiii. and xxiv. are closely connected
with the very complicated introduction to the era of the "judges" in
Judges ii. 6 sqq., and ii. 6-9 actually resume Joshua xxiv. 28 sqq.,
while the Septuagint appends to the close of Joshua the beginning of
the story of Ehud (Judges iii. 12 seq.). Both Judges i.-ii. 5 and
chap. xvii.-xxi. are of post-Deuteronomic insertion, and they
represent conditions analogous to the older notices imbedded in the
later work of P (Judges i. 21, xix. 10-12, cf. Joshua xv. 63; see
JUDGES _ad fin._). Moreover, P in its turn shows elsewhere definite
indications of different periods and standpoints, and the fluid state
of the book at a late age is shown by the presence of Deuteronomic
elements in Joshua xx., not found in the Septuagint, and by the
numerous and often striking readings which the latter recension
presents.
_Value of the Book._--The value of the book of Joshua is primarily
religious; its fervency, its conviction of the destiny of Israel and its
inculcation of the unity and greatness of the God of Israel give
expression to the philosophy of Israelite historians. As an historical
record its value must depend upon a careful criticism of its contents in
the light of biblical history and external information. Its description
of the conquest of Canaan comes from an age when the event was a shadow
of the past. It is an ideal view of the manner in which a divinely
appointed leader guided a united people into the promised land of their
ancestors, and, after a few brief wars of extermination (x.-xii.), died
leaving the people in quiet possession of their new inheritance (xi. 23;
xxi. 44 seq.; xxiii. 1).[4] On the other hand, the earlier inhabitants
were not finally subjugated until Solomon's reign (1 Kings ix. 20);
Jerusalem was taken by David from the Jebusites (2 Sam. v.); and several
sites in its neighbourhood, together with important fortresses like
Gezer, Megiddo and Taanach, were not held by Israel at the first. There
are traces of other conflicting traditions representing independent
tribal efforts which were not successful, and the Israelites are even
said to live in the midst of Canaanites, intermarrying with them and
adopting their cult (Judges i.-iii. 6). From a careful consideration of
all the evidence, both internal and external, biblical scholars are now
almost unanimous that the more finished picture of the Israelite
invasion and settlement cannot be accepted as a historical record for
the age. It accords with this that the elaborate tribal-lists and
boundaries prove to be of greater value for the geography than for the
history of Palestine, and the attempts to use them as evidence for the
early history of Israel have involved numerous additional difficulties
and confusion.[5]
The book of Joshua has ascribed to one man conquests which are not
confirmed by subsequent history. The capture of Bethel, implied rather
than described in Joshua viii., is elsewhere the work of the Joseph
tribes (Judges i. 22 sqq., cf. features in the conquest of Jericho,
Joshua vi. 25). Joshua's victory in north Palestine has its parallel in
Judges iv. at another period (see DEBORAH), and Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem
(Joshua x.) can scarcely be severed from the Adoni-bezek taken by the
tribes of Judah and Simeon (Judges i. 5-7). The prominence of Joshua as
military and religious leader, and especially his connexion with Shechem
and Shiloh, have suggested that he was a hero of the Joseph tribes of
central Palestine (viz. Ephraim and Manasseh). Moreover, the traditions
in Joshua viii. 30-ix. 2, and Deut. xxvii. 1-8 seem to place the arrival
at Mt Ebal immediately after the crossing of the Jordan. This implies
that Israel (like Jacob in Gen. xxxii.) crossed by the Jabbok, and in
fact the Wadi Fari'a provides an easy road to Shechem, to the south-east
of which lies Juleijil; and while this is the Gilgal of Deut. xi. 30,
the battles at Jericho and Ai (Joshua ii. seq.) occur naturally after
the encampment at the southern Gilgal (near Jericho). The alternative
view (see especially Stade, _Gesch. Isr._ 1. 133 sqq.) connects itself
partly with the ancestor of all the tribes (Jacob, i.e. Israel), and
partly with the eponym of the Joseph tribes whose early days were spent
around Shechem, the removal of whose bones from Egypt must have found a
prominent place in the traditions of the tribes concerned (Gen. l. 25;
Exod. xiii. 19; Joshua xxiv. 32). According to one view (Stade,
Wellhausen, Guthe, &c.) only the Joseph tribes were in Egypt, and
separate tribal movements (see JUDAH) have been incorporated in the
growth of the tradition; the probability that the specific traditions of
the Joseph tribes have been excised or subordinated finds support in the
manner in which the Judaean P has abridged and confused the tribal lists
of Ephraim and Manasseh.
The serious character of the problems of early Israelite history can be
perceived from the renewed endeavours to present an adequate outline of
the course of events; for a criticism of the most prominent hypotheses
see Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._ art. "Tribes" (col. 5209 seq.); a new theory
has been more recently advanced by E. Meyer (_Die Israeliten u. ihre
Nachbarstämme_, 1906). But Joshua as a tribal hero does not belong to
the earliest phase in the surviving traditions. He has no place in the
oldest surviving narratives of the exodus (Wellhausen, Steuernagel); and
only later sources add him to Caleb (Num. xiv. 30; the reference in
Deut. i. 38 is part of an insertion), or regard him as the leader of all
the tribes (Deut. iii. 21, 28). As an attendant of Moses at the tent of
meeting he appears in quite secondary passages (Exod. xxxiii. 7-11; Num.
xi. 28). His defeat of the Amalekites is in a narrative (Exod. xvii.
8-16) which belongs more naturally to the wilderness of Shur, and it
associates him with traditions of a movement direct into south Palestine
which finds its counterpart when the clan Caleb (q.v.) is artificially
treated as possessing its seats with Joshua's permission. But points of
resemblance between Joshua the invader and Saul the founder of the
(north) Israelite monarchy gain in weight when the traditions of both
recognize the inclusion or possession of Judah, and thus stand upon
quite another plane as compared with those of David the founder of the
Judaean dynasty. Instead of rejecting the older stories of Joshua's
conquests it may be preferable to infer that there were radical
divergences in the historical views of the past. Consequently, the
parallels between Joshua and Jacob (see Steuernagel's _Commentary_, p.
150) are more significant when the occupation of central Palestine,
already implied in the book of Joshua, is viewed in the light of Gen.
xlviii. 22, where Jacob as conqueror (cf. the very late form of the
tradition in Jubilees xxxiv.) agrees with features in the patriarchal
narratives which, in implying a settlement in Palestine, are entirely
distinct from those which belong to the descent into Egypt (see
especially, Meyer, op. cit. pp. 227 seq., 414 seq., 433; Luther, ib. 108
seq.). The elaborate account of the exodus gives the prevailing views
which supersede other traditions of the origin both of the Israelites
and of the worship of Yahweh (Gen. iv. 26). Several motives have
influenced its growth,[6] and the kernel--the revelation of Yahweh to
Moses--has been developed until all the tribes of Israel are included
and their history as a people now begins. The old traditions of conquest
in central Palestine have similarly been extended, and have been adapted
to the now familiar view of Israelite origins. It is this subordination
of earlier tradition to other and more predominating representations
which probably explains the intricacy of a book whose present text may
not have been finally fixed until, as Dillmann held, as late as about
200 B.C.
BIBLIOGRAPHY.--See the commentaries of Dillmann, Steuernagel Holzinger
(German), or the concise edition by H. W. Robinson in the _Century
Bible_; also articles on "Joshua" by G. A. Smith, Hastings's _D. B._,
and G. F. Moore, _Ency. Bib._; Kittel in _Hist. of the Hebrews_, i.
262 sqq.; W. H. Bennett, in Haupt's _Sacred Books of the Old
Testament_; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, _Comp. of Hexateuch_, ch.
xvii; S. R. Driver, _Lit. of the O. T._ (8th ed., 1909). These give
further bibliographical information, for which see also the articles
on the books of the Pentateuch. (S. A. C.)