THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE
EDITED BY THE REV.
W. ROBERTSON NICOLL, M.A., LL.D.
_Editor of "The Expositor"_
THE BOOK OF JOSHUA
BY
WILLIAM GARDEN BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.
London
HODDER AND STOUGHTON
27, PATERNOSTER ROW
MDCCCXCIII
THE EXPOSITOR'S BIBLE.
_Crown 8vo, cloth, price 7s. 6d. each vol._
FIRST SERIES, 1887-8.
Colossians.
By A. MACLAREN, D.D.
St. Mark.
By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.
Genesis.
By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.
1 Samuel.
By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.
2 Samuel.
By the same Author.
Hebrews.
By Principal T.C. EDWARDS, D.D.
SECOND SERIES, 1888-9.
Galatians.
By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.
The Pastoral Epistles.
By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.
Isaiah I.-XXXIX.
By G. A. SMITH, M.A. Vol. I.
The Book of Revelation.
By Prof. W. MILLIGAN, D.D.
1 Corinthians.
By Prof. MARCUS DODS, D.D.
The Epistles of St. John.
By Rt. Rev. W. ALEXANDER, D.D.
THIRD SERIES, 1889-90.
Judges and Ruth.
By Rev. R. A. WATSON, D.D.
Jeremiah.
By Rev. C. J. BALL, M.A.
Isaiah XL.-LXVI.
By G. A. SMITH, M.A. Vol. II.
St. Matthew.
By Rev. J. MONRO GIBSON, D.D.
Exodus.
By Very Rev. the Dean of Armagh.
St. Luke.
By Rev. H. BURTON, B.A.
FOURTH SERIES, 1890-1.
Ecclesiastes.
By Rev. SAMUEL COX, D.D.
St. James and St. Jude.
By Rev. A. PLUMMER, D.D.
Proverbs.
By Rev. R. F. HORTON, M.A.
Leviticus.
By Rev. S. H. KELLOGG, D.D.
The Gospel of St. John.
By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. I.
The Acts of the Apostles.
By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. I.
FIFTH SERIES, 1891-2.
The Psalms.
By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. I.
1 and 2 Thessalonians.
By JAS. DENNEY, B.D.
The Book of Job.
By R. A. WATSON, D.D.
Ephesians.
By Prof. G. G. FINDLAY, B.A.
The Gospel of St. John.
By Prof. M. DODS, D.D. Vol. II.
The Acts of the Apostles.
By Prof. STOKES, D.D. Vol. II.
SIXTH SERIES, 1892-3.
1 Kings.
By Ven. Archdeacon FARRAR.
Philippians.
By Principal RAINY, D.D.
Ezra, Nehemiah, Esther.
By Prof. W. F. ADENEY, M.A.
Joshua.
By Prof. W. G. BLAIKIE, D.D.
Daniel.
By Prof. FULLER, M.A.
The Psalms.
By A. MACLAREN, D.D. Vol. II.
THE BOOK OF JOSHUA
BY
WILLIAM GARDEN BLAIKIE, D.D., LL.D.
NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH
London
HODDER AND STOUGHTON
27, PATERNOSTER ROW
MDCCCXCIII
_Printed by Hazell, Watson, & Viney, Ld., London and Aylesbury._
CONTENTS.
CHAPTER I.
PAGE
INTRODUCTORY:--THE BOOK OF JOSHUA 1
CHAPTER II.
JOSHUA'S ANTECEDENTS 22
CHAPTER III.
A SUCCESSOR TO MOSES 37
CHAPTER IV.
JOSHUA'S CALL 48
CHAPTER V.
JOSHUA'S ENCOURAGEMENT 60
CHAPTER VI.
JOSHUA'S CHARGE TO THE PEOPLE 70
CHAPTER VII.
THE SPIES IN JERICHO 82
CHAPTER VIII.
JORDAN REACHED 95
CHAPTER IX.
JORDAN DIVIDED 106
CHAPTER X.
CIRCUMCISION AND PASSOVER--MANNA AND CORN 117
CHAPTER XI.
THE CAPTAIN OF THE LORD'S HOST 128
CHAPTER XII.
THE FATE OF JERICHO 140
CHAPTER XIII.
RAHAB SAVED 153
CHAPTER XIV.
ACHAN'S TRESPASS 165
CHAPTER XV.
ACHAN'S PUNISHMENT 177
CHAPTER XVI.
THE CAPTURE OF AI 189
CHAPTER XVII.
EBAL AND GERIZIM 201
CHAPTER XVIII.
THE STRATAGEM OF THE GIBEONITES 211
CHAPTER XIX.
THE BATTLE OF BETHHORON 223
CHAPTER XX.
THE BATTLE OF MEROM 236
CHAPTER XXI.
JOSHUA'S OLD AGE--DIVISION FOR THE EASTERN TRIBES 249
CHAPTER XXII.
THE INHERITANCE OF CALEB 262
CHAPTER XXIII.
THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND 275
CHAPTER XXIV.
THE INHERITANCE OF JUDAH 287
CHAPTER XXV.
THE INHERITANCE OF JOSEPH 300
CHAPTER XXVI.
THE DISTRIBUTION COMPLETED 312
CHAPTER XXVII.
THE CITIES OF REFUGE 326
CHAPTER XXVIII.
THE INHERITANCE OF THE LEVITES 340
CHAPTER XXIX.
NO FAILURE OF GOD'S PROMISE 353
CHAPTER XXX.
THE ALTAR ED 365
CHAPTER XXXI.
JEHOVAH THE CHAMPION OF ISRAEL 376
CHAPTER XXXII.
JOSHUA'S LAST APPEAL 388
CHAPTER XXXIII.
JOSHUA'S WORK FOR ISRAEL 402
CHAPTER I.
_INTRODUCTORY: THE BOOK OF JOSHUA._
With a purely historical book like Joshua before us, it is of
importance to keep in view two ways of regarding Old Testament
history, in accordance with one or other of which any exposition of
such a book must be framed.
According to one of these views, the historical books of Scripture,
being given by inspiration of God, have for their _main_ object not to
tell the story or dwell on the fortunes of the Hebrew nation, but to
unfold God's progressive revelation of Himself made to the seed of
Abraham, and to record the way in which that revelation was received,
and the effects which it produced. The story of the Hebrew nation is
but the frame in which this Divine revelation is set. It was God's
pleasure to reveal Himself not through a formal treatise, but in
connection with the history of a nation, through announcements and
institutions and practical dealings bearing in the first instance on
them. The historical books of the Hebrews therefore, while they give
us an excellent view of the progress of the nation, must be studied in
connection with God's main purpose, and the supernatural
interpositions by which from time to time it was carried out.
The other view regards the historical books of the Hebrews in much the
same light as we look on those of other nations. Whatever may have
been their origin, they are, as we find them, like other books, and
our purpose in dealing with them should be the same as in dealing with
books of similar contents. We are to deal with them, in the first
instance at least, from a natural point of view. We are to regard them
as recording the history and development of an ancient nation--a very
remarkable nation, no doubt, but a nation whose progress may be
referred to ascertainable causes. If we find natural causes sufficient
to account for that progress, we are not to call in supernatural. It
is an acknowledged law, at least as old as Lord Bacon, that no more
causes are to be assigned for phenomena than are true and sufficient
to account for them. This law, and the investigations which have taken
place under it, have expunged much that used to be regarded as
supernatural from the history of other nations; and it will only be
according to analogy if the same result is reached in connection with
the history of Israel.
In this spirit we have recently had several treatises dealing with
that history from a purely natural standpoint. Very earnest endeavours
have been made to clear the atmosphere, to expiscate facts, to apply
the laws of history, to weigh statements in the balances of
probability, to reduce the Hebrew history to the principles of
science. The general effect of this method has been to bring out
results very different from those previously accepted. In particular,
there has been a thorough elimination of the supernatural from Hebrew
history. Natural causes have been judged sufficient to explain all
that occurred. The introduction of the supernatural in the narrative
was due to those obvious causes that have operated in the case of
other nations and other religions:--love of the mythical, a patriotic
desire to glorify the nation, the exaggerating tendency of tradition,
and readiness to translate symbolical pictures into statements of
literal occurrences. Hebrew historians were not exempted from the
tendencies and weaknesses of other historians, and were ready enough
to colour and apply their narratives according to their own views. It
is when we subject the Hebrew books to such principles as these (such
writers tell us) that we get at the real history of the nation,
deprived no doubt of much of the glory with which it has usually been
invested, but now for the first time reliable history, on which the
most scientific may depend. And as to its moral purpose, it is just
the moral purpose that runs through the scheme of the world, to show
that, amid much conflict and confusion, the true, the good, the just,
and the merciful become victorious in the end over the false and the
evil.
The difference between the two methods, as an able writer remarks, is
substantially this, that "the one regards the Hebrew books as an
unfolding of God's nature, and the other as an unfolding of the nature
of man."
The naturalistic method claims emphatically to be scientific. It
reduces all events to historical law, and finds for them a natural
explanation. But what if the natural explanation is no explanation?
What becomes of the claim to be scientific if the causes assigned are
not sufficient to account for the phenomena? If science will not
tolerate unnatural causes, no more should it tolerate unnatural
effects. A truly scientific method must show a fit proportion between
cause and effect. Our contention is that, in this respect, the
naturalistic method is a failure. In many instances its causes are
wholly inadequate to the effects. We are compelled to fall back on the
supernatural, otherwise we are confronted with a long series of
occurrences for which no reasonable explanation can be found.
We are reminded of an incident which a popular writer, under the _nom
de plume_ of Edna Lyall, has introduced in a novel, bearing the title
"We Two." Erica, the daughter of an atheist, assists her father in
conducting a journal. She gets from him for review a Life of David
Livingstone, with instructions to leave his religion entirely out. As
she proceeds with the work, she becomes convinced that the condition
is impossible. To describe Livingstone without his religion would be
like playing _Hamlet_ without the part of Hamlet. Not only does she
find her task impossible, but when she comes to an incident where
Livingstone, in most imminent danger of his life, gets entire
composure of mind from an act of devotion, she becomes convinced that
this could not have happened had there not been an objective reality
corresponding to his belief; and she is an atheist no more. Erica now
believes in God. _Se non e vero e bene trovato._
In like manner, we believe that to delineate Old Testament history
without reference to the supernatural is as impossible as to describe
Livingstone apart from his religion. You are baffled in trying to
explain actual events. Long ago, Edward Gibbon tried to account for
the rapid progress and brilliant success of Christianity in the early
centuries by what he called secondary causes. It was really an attempt
to eliminate the supernatural from early Christian history. But the
five causes which he specified were really not causes, but
effects,--effects of that supernatural action which had its source in
the supernatural person of Jesus Christ. These "secondary causes"
never could have existed had not Jesus Christ already commended
Himself to all sorts of men as a Divine Saviour, sent by God to bless
the world. In like manner we maintain that behind the causes by which
our naturalistic historians attempt to explain the remarkable history
of the Jewish people, there lay a supernatural force, but for which
the Hebrews would not have been essentially different from the
Edomites, the Ammonites, the Moabites, or any other Semitic tribe in
their neighbourhood. It was the supernatural element underlying Hebrew
history that made it the marvellous development it was; and that
element began at the beginning, and continued more or less actively
till Jesus Christ came in the flesh.
Let us try to make good this position. Let us select a few of the more
remarkable occurrences of early Hebrew history, and, in the language
of Gibbon, make "a candid and reasonable inquiry" whether or not they
can be accounted for, on the ordinary principles of human nature,
without a supernatural cause.
1. It is certain that from the earliest times, and during at least the
first four centuries of their history, the Hebrew people had an
immovable conviction that the land of Canaan was divinely destined to
be theirs. Of the singular hold which this conviction took of the
minds of the patriarchs, we have innumerable proofs. Abraham leaves
the rich plains of Chaldæa to dwell in Canaan, and spends a hundred
years in it, a stranger and a pilgrim, without having a single acre of
his own. When he sends to Padan Aram for a wife to Isaac he conjures
his servant on no account to listen to any proposal that Isaac should
settle there; the damsel must at all hazards come to Canaan. When
Jacob determines to part from Laban, he sets his face resolutely
towards his native land across the Jordan, although his injured
brother is there, thirsting as he knows for his blood. When Joseph
sends for his father to go down to Egypt, Jacob must get Divine
permission at Beersheba before he can comfortably go. Joseph, for his
services to Egypt, might reasonably have looked for a magnificent tomb
in that country to cover his remains and perpetuate his memory; but,
strange to say, he prefers to remain unburied for an indefinite time,
and leaves a solemn charge to his people to bury him in Canaan,
carrying his bones with them when they leave Egypt. In the bitterness
of their oppression by Pharaoh it would have been much more feasible
for their champions, Moses and Aaron, to try to obtain a relaxation of
their burdens; but their demand was a singular one--liberty to go into
the wilderness, with the hardly concealed purpose of escaping to the
land of their affections. Goshen was a goodly land, but Canaan had a
dearer name--it was the land of their fathers, and of their brightest
hopes. The uniform tradition was, that the God whom Abraham worshipped
had promised to give the land to his posterity, and along with the
land other blessings of mysterious but glorious import. With this
promise was connected that Messianic hope which like a golden thread
ran through all Hebrew history and literature, brightening it more and
more as the ages advanced.
It is vain to account for this extraordinary faith in the land as
theirs, and this remarkable assurance that it would be the scene of
unwonted blessing, apart from a supernatural communication from God.
To suppose that it originated in some whim or fancy of Abraham's or in
the saga of some old bard like Thomas the Rhymer, and continued
unimpaired century after century, is to suppose what was never
realized in the history of any people. In vain do we look among
natural causes for any that could have so impressed itself on a whole
nation, and swayed their whole being for successive ages with
irresistible force. That "God spake to Abraham to give him the land"
was the indefeasible conviction of his descendants; nor could any
consideration less powerful have sustained their hopes, or nerved them
to the efforts and perils needful to realize it.
2. No more can the leaving of Egypt, with all that followed, be
accounted for without supernatural agency. It is the contention of the
naturalistic historian that the Israelites were very much fewer in
number than the Scripture narrative alleges. But if so, how could an
empire, with such immense resources as the monuments show Egypt to
have had, have been unable to retain them? Wellhausen affirms that at
the time Egypt was weakened by a pestilence. We know not his authority
for the statement; but if the Egyptians were weakened, the Israelites
(unless supernaturally protected) must have been weakened too. Make
what we may of the contest between Moses and Pharaoh, it is beyond
dispute that Pharaoh's pride was thoroughly roused, and that his firm
determination was not to let the children of Israel go. And if we
grant that his six hundred chariots were lost by some mishap in the
Red Sea, what were these to the immense forces at his disposal, and
what was there to hinder him from mustering a new force, and attacking
the fugitives in the wilderness of Sinai? Pharaoh himself does not
seem to have entered the sea with his soldiers, and was therefore free
to take other steps. How, then, are we to account for the sudden
abandonment of the campaign?
3. And as to the residence in the wilderness, even if we suppose that
the Israelites were much fewer in number than is stated, they were far
too great a multitude to be supported from the scanty resources of the
desert. The wilderness already had its inhabitants, as Moses knew
right well from his experience as a shepherd; it had its Midianites
and Amalekites and other pastoral tribes, by whom the best of its
pastures were eagerly appropriated for the maintenance of their
flocks. How, in addition to these, were the hosts of Israel to obtain
support?
4. And how are we to explain the extraordinary route which they took?
Why did they not advance towards Canaan by the ordinary way--the
wilderness of Shur, Beersheba, and Hebron? Why cross the Red Sea at
all, or have anything to do with Mount Sinai and its awful cliffs,
which a glance at the map will show was entirely out of their way? And
when they did take that route, what would have been easier than for
Pharaoh, if he had chosen to follow them with a new force, to hem them
in among these tremendous mountains, and massacre or starve them at
his pleasure? If the Israelites had no supernatural power to fall back
on, their whole course was simply madness. We may talk of good fortune
extricating men from difficulties, but what fortune that can be
conceived could have availed a people, professing to be bound for the
land of Canaan, that, without food or drink or stores of any kind, had
wandered into the heart of a vast labyrinth, for no reasonable purpose
under the sun?
5. Nor can the career of Moses be made intelligible without a
supernatural backing. The contention is, that the desire of the people
in Egypt for deliverance having become very strong, especially in the
tribe of Levi, they sent Aaron to find Moses, remembering his former
attempt on their behalf; and that, under the able leadership of Moses,
their deliverance was secured by natural means. But does this explain
the actual campaign in Sinai? Who ever heard of a leader that, after
he had roused the enthusiasm of his people by a brilliant deliverance,
arrested their further progress in order to preach to them for a
twelvemonth, and give them a system of law? Did Moses not possess that
instinct of a general that must have urged him to push on the moment
the Egyptians were drowned, and amid the enthusiasm of his own troops
and the consternation of the Canaanites, fling his army upon the seven
nations, and seize their land by a _coup de main_? Abraham before him
and Joshua after him found the value of such prompt, sudden movements.
Never had a leader a more splendid opportunity. What could have
induced Moses to throw away his chance, bury his people among the
mountains, and remain inactive for months upon months? Is there any
conceivable explanation but that he acted by supernatural direction?
The Divine plan was entirely different from any that human wisdom
would have contrived. It is as clear as day that, had there been no
Divine power controlling the movement, the course taken by Moses would
have been simply insane.
6. Nor could the law of Moses, first given in such circumstances, have
acquired the glory which surrounded it ever after, had there been no
manifestation of the Divine presence at Sinai. The people were greatly
dissatisfied, especially at their delays. The only course that would
have quieted them was to push on towards Canaan, so that their minds
might be animated by the enthusiasm of hope. Under their detentions
they greedily seized every occasion that presented itself for growling
against Moses. How little they were in sympathy with his ideas of
religion and worship was apparent from the affair of the golden calf.
The history of the time is an almost unbroken record of murmuring,
complaining, and rebellion. Yet the law which originated with Moses in
these circumstances became the very idol of the people, and, according
to the naturalistic historians, was the means of creating the nation,
and welding the tribes into a living unity! We can quite easily
understand how, in spite of all their growlings, the law as given at
Sinai should have taken the firmest hold of their imagination and
kindled their utmost enthusiasm in the end, if it was accompanied by
those tokens of the Divine presence which the whole literature of the
Hebrews assumes. And if Moses was closely identified with the Divine
Being, the surpassing glory of the occasion must have been reflected
on him. But to suppose that a discontented people should have had
their enthusiasm roused for the law simply because this Moses
commanded them to observe it, and that they should ever after have
counted it the holiest, the most Divine law that men had ever known,
is again to postulate an effect without a cause, and to suppose a
whole people acting in disregard of the strongest propensities of
human nature.
7. Then, as to the generalship of Moses. How are we to explain the
further detention of the people in the wilderness for nearly forty
years? If this was not the result of a supernatural Divine decree, it
must have proceeded from the inability of Moses to lead the people to
victory. No people who had struggled out of bondage in order to enter
a land flowing with milk and honey, would of their own accord have
spent forty years in the wilderness. At Hormah, they were willing to
fight, but Moses would not lead them, and they were beaten. Either the
wandering of the forty years was a Divine punishment, or the
generalship of Moses was at fault. He abandoned himself to inaction
for an unprecedented period. There was no shadow of benefit to be
gained by this delay; nothing could come of it (apart from the Divine
purpose) but wearing out the patience of the people, and killing them
with the sickness of hope deferred. And if it should be said that the
forty years' wandering was a myth, and that probably the wilderness
sojourn did not exceed a year or two at most, is it conceivable that
any people in its senses would invent such a legend?--a legend that
covered them with shame, and that was felt to be so disgraceful that
the whole region was shunned by them; insomuch that with the exception
of Elijah, we do not read of any member of the nation ever making a
pilgrimage to the spot which otherwise must have had overwhelming
attractions.
8. At last Moses suddenly awakes to activity and courage. And the next
difficulty is to account for his success at the eleventh hour of his
life, if he had no supernatural help. No phrase occurs more frequently
in naturalistic explanations than "it is likely." Likelihood is the
touchstone to which all extraordinary statements are brought,
although, as Lord Beaconsfield used to tell us, "it is the unexpected
that happens." Borrowing the touchstone for the nonce, we may ask, Is
it likely that, after a sleep of eight-and-thirty years, Moses of his
own accord, without any apparent change of circumstances, sprang
suddenly to his feet, and urged the people to attempt the invasion of
the land? Is it likely that all the inertia and fears of the people
vanished in a moment, as if at the touch of a magician's wand? And
when it came to actual fighting, is it likely that these shepherds of
the desert were able of themselves not only to stand before a trained
and successful warrior like Sihon King of the Amorites, who had so
lately overrun the country, but to defeat him utterly and take
possession of his whole territory? Is it likely that Sihon's
neighbour, Og King of Bashan, though warned by the fate of Sihon, and
therefore sure to make a more careful defence, shared the fate of the
other king? Or if Og was a mere myth, as Wellhausen strangely
maintains, is it likely that the Israelites got possession of the
powerful cities and well-defended kingdom of Bashan without striking a
blow? Is it likely that, after this brilliant victory, Moses, who was
still in full vigour, detained them again for weeks to preach old
sermons, and sing them songs, and make pathetic speeches, instead of
dashing at once at the petrified people on the other side, and
acquiring the great prize--Western Palestine? Strange mortal this
Moses must have been!--wise enough to give the people an unexampled
constitution and system of laws, and yet blind to the most obvious
laws of military science, and the most elementary perceptions of
common sense.
* * * * *
And now we come to Joshua, and to the book that records his
achievements.
Joshua was no prophet; he made no claim to the prophetic character; he
succeeded Moses only as military leader. Consequently the Book of
Joshua contains little matter that would fall under the term
"revelation." But both the work of Joshua and the book of Joshua
served an important purpose in the plan of Divine manifestation,
inasmuch as they showed God fulfilling His old promises, vindicating
His faithfulness, and laying anew a foundation for the trust of His
people. In this point of view, both the work and the book have an
importance that cannot be exaggerated. The naturalistic historian
regards the book as merely setting forth, with sundry traditional
embellishments, the manner in which one people ousted another from
their country, much as those who were then evicted had dispossessed
the previous inhabitants. But whoever believes that, centuries before,
God made a solemn promise to Abraham to give that land to his seed,
must see in the story of the settlement the unfolding of a Divine
purpose, and a solemn pledge of blessings to come. "The Ancient of
days," who "declares the end from the beginning," is seen to be
faithful to His promises; and if He has been thus faithful in the
past, he may surely be trusted to be faithful in the future.
If, then, Joshua's work was a continuation of the work of Moses, and
his book of the books of Moses, both must be regarded from the same
point of view. You cannot explain either of them reasonably in a
merely rationalistic sense. Joshua could no more have settled the
people in Canaan by merely natural means than Moses could have
delivered them from Pharaoh and maintained them for years in the
wilderness. In the history of both you see a Divine arm, and in the
books of both you find a chapter of Divine revelation. It is this that
gives full credibility to the miracles which they record. What
happened under Joshua formed a most important chapter of the process
of revelation by which God made Himself known to Israel. In such
circumstances, miracles were not out of place. But if the Book of
Joshua is nothing more than the record of a raid by one nation on
another, miracles were uncalled for, and must be given up.
Rationalists may count us wrong in believing that the Hebrew
historical books are more than Hebrew annals--are the records of a
Divine manifestation. But they cannot hold us unreasonable or
inconsistent if, believing this, we believe in the miracles which the
books record. Miracles assume a very different character when they are
connected into a sublime purpose in the economy of God; when they
signalize a great epoch in the history of revelation--the completion
of a great era of promise, the fulfilment of hopes delayed for
centuries. The Book of Joshua has thus a far more dignified place in
the history of revelation than a superficial observer would suppose.
And those historians who bring it down to the level of a mere record
of an invasion, and who leave out of account its bearing on Divine
transactions so far back as the days of Abraham, spoil it of its chief
glory and value for the Church in every age. There is nothing of more
importance, whether for the individual believer or for the Church
collectively, than a firm conviction, such as the Book of Joshua
emphatically supplies, that long delays on God's part involve no
forgetfulness of His promises, but that whenever the destined moment
comes "no good thing will fail of all that He hath spoken."
* * * * *
The Book of Joshua consists mainly of two parts; one historical, the
other geographical. It was the old belief that it was the work of a
single writer, with such slight revision at an after time as a writing
might receive without essential interference with its substance. The
author was sometimes supposed to be Joshua himself, but more commonly
one of the priests or elders who outlived Joshua, and who might
therefore fitly record his death. It has been remarked that there are
several traces in the book of contemporary origin, like the remark on
Rahab--"She dwelleth in Israel even unto this day" (vi. 25). It must
be allowed, we think, that there is not much in this book to suggest
to the ordinary reader either the idea of a late origin or of the use
of late materials.
But recent critics have taken a different view. Ewald maintained that,
besides the Jehovist and Elohist writers of whose separate
contributions in Genesis the evidence seems incontrovertible, there
were three other authors of Joshua, with one or more redactors or
revisers. The view of Kuenen and Wellhausen is similar, but with this
difference, that the Book of Joshua shows so much affinity, both in
object and style, to the preceding five books, that it must be classed
with them, as setting forth the origin of the Jewish nation, which
would not have been complete without a narrative of their settlement
in their land. The composition of Joshua is therefore to be brought
down to a late date; we owe it to the documents, writers, and editors
concerned in the composition of the Pentateuch; and instead of
following the Jews in classing the first five books by themselves, we
ought to include Joshua along with them, and in place of the
Pentateuch speak of the Hexateuch. Canon Driver substantially accepts
this view; in his judgment, the first part of the book rests mainly on
the JE (Jehovist-Elohist) document, with slight additions from P (the
priestly code) and D^2 (the second Deuteronomist). The second half of
the book is derived mainly from the priestly code. But Canon Driver
has the candour to say that much more difficult to distinguish the
writers in Joshua than in the earlier books; and so little is he sure
of his ground that even such important documents as J and E have to be
designated by new letters, _a_ and _b_. But, all the same, he goes
right on with his scheme, furnishing us with tables all through, in
which he shows that the Book of Joshua consists of ninety different
pieces, no two consecutive pieces being by the same author. Most of it
he refers to three earlier writings, but some of these were composite,
and it is hard to say how many hands were engaged in putting together
this simple story.
One is tempted to say of this complicated but confidently maintained
scheme, that it is just too complete, too wonderfully finished, too
clever by half. Allowing most cordially the remarkable ability and
ingenuity of its authors, we can hardly be expected to concede to them
the power of taking to pieces a book of such vast antiquity, putting
it in a modern mincing machine, dividing it among so many supposed
writers, and settling the exact parts of it written by each! Is there
any ancient writing that might not yield a similar result if the same
ingenuity were exercised upon it?
To judge of the source of writings by apparent varieties of style, and
call in a different writer for every such variety, is to commit
oneself to a very precarious rule. There are doubtless cases where the
diversity of style is so marked that the inference is justified, but
in these the evidence is unmistakably clear. Often the evidence
against identity of authorship _appears_ very clear, while it is
absolutely worthless. Suppose that three thousand years hence an
English book should be found, consisting, first, of an eloquent
exposition of a parliamentary budget; secondly, a scheme for Home Rule
in Ireland; thirdly, a dissertation on Homer; and fourthly, essays on
the "Impregnable Rock of Holy Scripture"--how convincingly might the
critics of the day demonstrate, beyond possibility of contradiction,
that the book could not be the work of the single man who bore the
name of William E. Gladstone! In like manner, it might be made very
plain that Milton could never have written both "L'Allegro" and "Il
Penseroso," or "Paradise Lost" and the "Defence of the English
People." Cowper could not have written "John Gilpin" and "God moves in
a mysterious way." Samuel Rutherford could not have written his
"Letters" and his "Divine Right of Church Government." Moreover, in
the course of years a writer may change his style, even when his
subject is the same. The earlier essays of Mr. Carlyle show no traces
of that most quaint, terse, graphic style which became one of his
outstanding characteristics in later years. Perhaps the most
remarkable instance of change of style in a great writer is that of
Jeremy Bentham. In Sir James Mackintosh's Dissertation prefixed to the
_Encyclopædia Britannica_ (eighth edition) he says: "The style of Mr.
Bentham underwent a more remarkable revolution than perhaps befell
that of any other celebrated writer. In his early works, it was clear,
free, spirited, often and seasonably eloquent.... He gradually ceased
to use words for conveying his thoughts to others, but merely employed
them as a short hand to preserve his meaning for his own purpose. It
is no wonder that his language thus became obscure and repulsive.
Though many of his technical terms are in themselves exact and pithy,
yet the overflow of his vast nomenclature was enough to darken his
whole diction."
If we compare the criticism of the Book of Joshua with that (let us
say) of Genesis, the difference in the clearness of the conclusions
is very great. By far the most striking basis of the criticism of
Genesis is the feature that was noticed first--the occurrence of
different Divine names, Elohim and Jehovah, in different portions of
the book. Now, although it is held that the _combined_ JE document was
used in compiling Joshua, there is no trace of this distinction of
names in that book. Nor is there much trace of other distinctions
found in Genesis. So that it is no great wonder that Canon Driver is
uncertain whether, after all, that was the document that was used in
compiling Joshua. Then, as to the grounds on which the Deuteronomist
is supposed to have had a share in the book. Wherever anything is said
indicating that under Joshua the Divine purposes and ordinances
enjoined by God on Moses were fulfilled, that is referred to the
Deuteronomist writer, as if it would have been unnatural for an
ordinary historian to call attention to such a circumstance. For
instance, the remark of Rahab that as soon as the Canaanites heard
what God had done to Egypt, and to the two kings of the Amorites on
the other side of Jordan, their hearts fainted, is referred to the
Deuteronomist, as if it had rather been an idea of his than a
statement of Rahab's. It is strange that Canon Driver should not have
seen that this is the very hinge of Rahab's speech, because it gives
us the explanation of the remarkable faith that had taken possession
of her polluted heart. The truth is, we can hardly conceive that any
part of the book should have been written by one who did not connect
Joshua with Moses, and both of them with the patriarchs, and who was
not impressed by the vital connection of the earlier with the later
transactions, and likewise by the single Divine purpose running
through the whole history.
But we are far from thinking that there is no foundation for any of
the conclusions of the critics regarding the Book of Joshua. What
seems their great weakness is the confidence with which they assign
this part to one writer and that part to another, and bring down the
composition of the book to a late period of the history. That various
earlier documents were made use of by the author of the book seems
very plain. For instance, in the account of the crossing of the
Jordan, use seems to have been made of two documents, not always
agreeing in minute details, and pieced together in a primitive fashion
characteristic of a very early period of literary composition. The
record of the delimitation of the possessions of the several tribes
must have been taken from the report of the men that were sent to
survey the country, but it is not a complete record. There are other
traces of different documents in other parts of the book, but any
diversities between them are quite insignificant, and in no degree
impair its historical trustworthiness.
As to the hand of a reviser or revisers in the book, we see no
difficulty in allowing for such. We can conceive an authorized reviser
expanding speeches, but thoroughly in the line of the speakers, or
inserting explanatory remarks as to places, or as to practices that
had prevailed "unto this day." But it is atrocious to be told of
revisers colouring statements and modifying facts in the interests of
religious parties, or even in the interest of truth itself. Any
alterations in the way of revision seem to have been very limited,
otherwise we should not find in the existing text those awkward
joinings of different documents which are not in perfect accord.
Whoever the revisers were, they seem to have judged it best to leave
these things as they found them, rather than incur the responsibility
of altering what had already been written.
* * * * *
It has generally been assumed by spiritual expositors that there must
be something profoundly symbolical in a book that narrates the work of
Joshua, or Jesus, the first, so far as we know, to bear the name that
is "above every name." The subject is considered with some fulness in
Pearson's "Exposition of the Creed," and various points of
resemblance, not all equally valid,[1] are noted between Joshua and
Jesus.
[1] "The hand of Moses and Aaron brought the people out of Egypt,
but left them in the wilderness, and could not seat them in
Canaan.... Joshua, the successor, only could effect that in which
Moses failed.... The death of Moses and the succession of Joshua
pre-signified the continuance of the law till Jesus came.... Moses
must die that Joshua might succeed.... If we look on Joshua as the
judge and ruler of Israel, there is scarce an action which is not
predictive of our Saviour. He begins his office at the banks of
the Jordan where Christ is baptized, and enters upon the public
exercise of his prophetical office. He chooseth there twelve men
out of the people to carry twelve stones over with them; as our
Jesus thence began to choose His twelve apostles.... It hath been
observed that the saving Rahab the harlot alive foretold what
Jesus once should speak to the Jews--'Verily I say unto you, that
the publicans and the harlots go into the kingdom of God before
you.'..."
The one point of resemblance on which we seem to be warranted to lay
much stress is, that Joshua gave the people REST. Again and again we
read--"The land rested from war" (xi. 23), "The land had rest from
war" (xiv. 15), "The Lord gave them rest round about" (xxi. 44), "The
Lord your God hath given rest unto your brethren" (xxii. 4), "The Lord
had given rest unto Israel from all their enemies round about" (xxiii.
1). That was Joshua's great achievement, as the instrument of God's
purpose. Yet in Hebrews we read that this was not the real rest--it
was only a symbol of it: "If Joshua had given them rest, then would
God not afterward have spoken of another day." The real rest was the
rest arising from faith in Jesus Christ. Many persons look on Joshua
as a somewhat dry book, full of geographical names, as unsuggestive as
they are hard and unfamiliar. Yet on every one of the places so named
faith may see inscribed, as in letters from heaven, the sweet word
REST. Each of these places became a home for men who had been
wandering for some forty years in a waste howling wilderness. At last
they reached a spot where they did not fear the long familiar summons
to "arise and depart." The sickly mother, the consumptive maiden, the
paralysed old man might rest in peace, no longer terrified at the
prospect of journeys which only increased their ailments and
aggravated their sufferings.
The spiritual lesson of this book then is, that in Jesus Christ there
is rest for the pilgrim. It is no slight or unevangelical lesson. It
is the echo of His own glorious words, "Come unto Me, all ye that
labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest." Whosoever is
weary--whether under the burden of care, or the sense of guilt, or the
bitterness of disappointment, or the anguish of a broken heart, or the
conviction that all is vanity--the message of this book to him
is,--"There remaineth a rest to the people of God." Even now, the rest
of faith; and hereafter, that rest of which the voice from heaven
proclaimed--"Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from
henceforth: yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their
labours; and their works do follow them."