JOSHUA
Makkedah
(10>5-"-
"'■),
and
to
the
victory
at
the
Waters
of
Merom
(ll'-»
[in
part]).
This
account
has
been
thoroughly
revised
by
an
editor
who
is
closely
akin
in
spirit
and
language
to
the
author
of
the
framework
of
Deuteronomy.
He
added
an
introduction
into
which
he
has
fused
earlier
material
(ch.
1).
He
brought
out
certain
features
in
connexion
with
the
passage
of
Jordan
—
the
fear
inspired
in
the
Canaanites,
the
presence
of
the
2i
tribes,
the
exaltation
of
Joshua
by
Jahweh
(2i«-
3"-
«-'
4"i>.
m.
u.
si-m
51).
He
gave
a
different
reason
for
the
circumcision
at
Gilgal
(5'-'),
and
added
some
details
to
the
fraud
of
the
Gibeon-ites
(9"-
"I.
10.
24f.
27b.),
and
to
the
story
of
Beth-horon
(98.
ISO.
i4b.
2s).
He
concluded
the
conquest
of
the
South
(102»-4S)
and
the
victory
at
Merom
(ll'°-!»),
with
a
summary
of
the
result;
and
he
added
a
review
of
the
entire
conquest
in
ch.
12.
In
his
work
he
does
not
add
independent
material
to
his
original,
but
by
his
arrange-ment
and
omissions
gives
a
new
aspect
to
the
account.
Thus
several
indications
point
to
his
having
omitted
much
from
his
documents.
It
is
sufficient
to
mention
one
—
the
absence
of
any
account
of
the
conquest
of
Central
Palestine.
This
is
the
more
remarkable
since
at
8'°-^
we
have
a
statement
of
how
Joshua
built
an
altar
at
Ebal,
before
the
country
between
Gilgal
and
Mount
Ephraim
was
subdued.
Probably
this
formed
the
conclusion
to
JE's
narrative
of
the
conquest
of
Central
Palestine;
possibly
it
was
derived
from
E,
a
source
which
was
specially
interested
in
North
Israelite
sanctu-aries,
and
which
(see
Deuteronomy)
was
a
favourite
source
with
D.
Further,
the
conquest
of
South
Palestine
in
its
present
form
does
not
agree
with
Jos
15"-"
=
jg
110-16.
The
latter
passages
represent
South
Palestine
as
conquered,
not
in
one
sweeping
rush,
but
gradually;
not
by
the
action
of
the
united
tribes
under
one
head,
but
by
the
effort
of
one
tribe
or
of
several
in
combina-tion.
Again,
ll^"-
assigns
to
Joshua
the
victory
over
the
Anakim,
which
in
14'^
15'™-
and
Jg
l'"-"
is
attributed
to
Judah,
and
especially
to
Caleb.
Evi-dently
the
editor
has
sought
to
group
round
one
repre-sentative
figure,
and
assign
to
a
specific
period,
the
conquest
which
covered
a
considerable
time
and
engaged
many
leaders.
His
chief
interest
in
the
details
of
history
centres
round
their
capacity
to
be
used
to
point
a
moral.
Thus
it
is
noteworthy
how
few
chron-ological
data
appear
in
the
chapters
in
comparison
with
earUer
books.
He
gives
prominence
to
the
motives
which
governed
Joshua,
and
to
the
Divine
support
promised
to
and
received
by
him.
He
magnifies
the
leader's
successes,
and
considers
him
the
representative
of
the
nation
and
the
successor
of
Moses.
A
tew
veraes
in
this
section,
4>'-
"
5"i-«
?•
9">>-
"-«,
are
generally
assigned
to
P,
but
they
are
so
isolated
and
ao
vague
that
nothing
can
be
done
with
them
except
catalogue
them,
and
express
the
doubt
whether
they
ever
belonged
to
a
separate
work.
(6)
In
chs.
13-21
the
situation
is
different,
and
the
critical
results
more
uncertain.
The
same
three
sources
can
be
traced
as
in
the
earlier
section;
but,
on
the
one
hand,
the
portions
assigned
to
P
take
a
character
and
range
wholly
unlike
those
which
characterize
this
document
throughout
the
Pentateuch;
on
the
other,
it
is
still
a
subject
of
debate
whether
the
section
owes
its
final
form
to
a
Deuteronomic
or
a
Priestly
editor,
D
or
P.
The
present
writer's
view
is
that
D
edited
this
section
also,
using
as
his
sources
JE
and
what
is
called
P.
(The
other
view
is
held,
e.g.,
by
Driver.)
(1)
P
(so
called),
as
the
more
complete,
is
given
first.
It
began
with
the
assembly
of
the
tribes
at
Shiloh
for
the
division
(18'),
and
a
statement
as
to
the
lot
assigned
to
the
2i
tribes
(13'5-»).
It
then
pro-ceeded
to
the
division
(14'-5).
The
lot
of
Judah
is
first
described
(15'-"-
'"-*'■
"-'^).
Then
follows
the
lot
of
the
children
of
Joseph
(le'-s
17'»-
"■
'■
»«■
»■:■
"i»),who
are
counted
as
two,
and
of
whom
Manasseh,
as
first-
born,
is
named
first.
The
lots
of
Benjamin
(IS"-''),
JOSIAH
Simeon
(19'-»),
Zebulun
(vv.'"-"),
Issachar
(vv."-«),
Asher
(vv.«-»'),
NaphtaU
(vv.'*-"),
Dan
(vv."-«-
")
are
described,
and
then
comes
a
conclusion
(v.")
corre-sponding
with
the
opening
(18').
On
this
followed
the
law
and
Ust
of
the
cities
of
refuge
(20'
-3-
•••
'-»),
and
a
hst
of
the
Levitical
cities
(.2V-").
(2)
D
incorporated
with
this,
material
drawn
from
JE.
He
introduced
the
division
of
the
land
with
a
review
of
the
undivided
land,
and
a
statement
of
the
lot
assigned
to
the
2J
tribes
(13'-").
He
therefore
dislodged
the
introduction
(18').
Into
the
lot
of
Judah
he
inserted
the
account
of
Caleb's
settlement
there
(148-"
15'<-'9),
and
of
Jerusalem
(v.'s).
[Vv.»-"
may
be
a
late
addition,
written,
after
the
Philistines
had
disappeared,
to
conform
Judah's
boundary
to
the
ideal
of
v."'].
Into
the
lot
of
the
children
of
Joseph
he
inserted
material
from
the
older
source
(16'-'-
"■
171b.
2.
5.
8.
Bb.
iob.i8),
which
represented
the
lot
of
the
sons
as
one
(17"-").
Before
the
lot
of
Benjamin
he
placed
the
statement
of
a
survey
made
for
the
seven
remaining
tribes
(IS'-'-
s-'o
[from
JE;
v.'
is
from
DJ).
This
may
represent
the
historical
fact
that
the
two
strong
clans
of
Judah
and
Ephraim
were
the
first
to
be
settled.
But
the
break
at
this
point
in
the
original
source
gave
occasion
to
insert
18'
here.
In
the
descrip-tion
of
the
remaining
seven
lots
only
a
few
verses
(IQ*-
"•
"'■)
come
from
JE,
but
the
Ust
of
NaphtaU's
cities
(VV.S2-S9),
which
is
entirely
different
in
character
from
the
description
of
the
other
lots,
may
be
from
JE,
according
to
which
(18=)
the
country
was
distributed
by
cities.
This
is
one
of
the
facts
which
support
those
who
hold
that
P
edited
JE.
It
deserves
notice
that
the
account
of
Judah,
Benjamin,
and
Simeon
—
the
districts
which
were
inhabited
after
the
Exile
—
is
more
exhaustive
than
that
of
the
others.
The
fact
suggests
that
the
editor,
who
gave
the
book
its
final
form,
wiote
at
a
late
date,
or
at
least
that
late
hands
re-touched
the
book.
In
the
account
of
the
cities
of
refuge
(ch.
20),
w.*'-
*'',
which
have
been
added
to
the
earlier
source,
are
absent
from
the
LXX.
They
must
have
been
added
at
a
late
date
to
bring
the
section
into
agreement
with
the
Deuteronomic
law.
(3)
D
concluded
the
section
on
the
division
of
the
land
with
his
formal
close,
21"-«.
(c)
In
chs.
22-24
D
took
the
account
of
the
dismissal
of
the
2i
tribes
(22'-«)
from
P,
providing
it
with
his
own
introduction
(vv.'-*).
The
account
is
late,
since
it
views
the
conquest
as
simultaneous,
complete,
and
national.
He
took
ch.
24
—
the
renewal
of
the
covenant
—
from
JE
(probably
E),
and
added
only
a
few
verces
(lib.
13,
31).
To
these
he
attached
Joshua's
parting
counsels
(ch.
23).
The
source
named
P
takes
much
the
same
position
about
the
conquest
as
the
final
editor.
The
chief
difference
lies
in
the
fact
that
it
associates
Eleazar
with
Joshua,
but
these
two
formally
divide
the
con-quered
territory.
It
seems
probable
that
the
Book
of
Joshua
once
formed
part
of
a
greater
whole—
a
history
written
in
the
Deuteronomic
spirit
and
based
on
earUer
sources,
which
covered
the
period
from
the
conquest
to
the
kingdom.
This
view
is
tenable
along
with
the
opinion
that
P
was
the
final
editor,
who,
adding
some
sections
on
the
division
which
he
extracted
from
older
sources,
brought
the
book
to
its
present
form.
A.
C.
Welch.
JOSIAH.
—
1.
King
of
Judah,
who
succeeded
his
father
Amon
when
only
eight
years
old
(2
K
22').
The
reUgious
condition
of
the
people,
which
was
bad
under
Amon,
continued
without
essential
improvement,
so
far
as
we
know,
until
the
eighteenth
year
of
Josiah.
The
sudden
change
then
made
resulted
from
the
finding
of
the
Book
of
Instruction
in
the
Temple
(v.*");
but
it
is
possible
that
the
minds
of
king
and
people
were
prepared
for
it
by
the
Scythian
invasion.
'The
demand
of
the
book
for
a
thorough
reformation
powerfully
affected
the
king
and
his
officers.
The
book
was
read
