It was a cunning device of the destructive critics to connect the Book of Joshua with the Pentateuch in their critical theory, thus making up the Hexateuch; for it enabled them, by bringing down the date of this book as low as that of the others, to evade the evidence which Joshua affords for the Mosaic origin of the law. But when one fact after another is set aside to make room for a theory, the effect is not only to throw suspicion on the theory, but to confirm the facts which the theory wishes to get rid of.

      The Book of Joshua is an anonymous book, and the date of its composition as a whole can not be very definitely fixed. The last paragraph of it was certainly not written by Joshua himself; for it contains the account of his death and burial; nor can it have been written by one of his contemporaries, for it contains the statement that "Israel served Jehovah all the days of Joshua, and all the days of the elders that outlived Joshua." But this is not proof that Joshua, or some contemporary, did not write the main body of the book; for it was most natural, if he did, for an editor at some later date to add this last paragraph as a supplement to the story of his career. One thing at least is certain, if we may rely at all on the historical statements of the book, and that is, that it contains narratives which were written by one or more contemporaries of Joshua, if not by Joshua himself. The first of these is the account of crossing the Jordan. The writer of this narrative uses at one place [30] the pronoun "we" for the company that passed over; and he uses it in that quiet, incidental way which disarms the suspicion that he used it fraudulently. He says: "When all the kings of the Amorites which were beyond Jordan westward, and all the kings of the Canaanites which were by the sea, heard how that the Lord had dried up the waters of the Jordan from before the children of Israel, until we were passed over, their heart melted" (5:1). It is true that another reading of this text has the pronoun in the third person, but the text, as we have it, is supported by the preponderance of the textual evidence, and it must stand unless new evidence against it shall be found. Again, in the narrative respecting Rahab, it is said: "But Rahab the harlot, and her father's household, and all that she had, did Joshua save alive; and she dwelt in the midst of Israel unto this day" (6:25). This shows that Rahab was still alive when this portion of the book was written; and unless we have evidence that the date of this part is different from that of the main body of the book, we must so conclude in regard to the latter.

      We now turn from the question of the date of the book to that for which we started out, the evidence which it furnishes for the early origin of the law of Moses. In its opening paragraph it represents God as saying to Joshua: "Only be strong and very courageous to observe to do according to all the law which Moses my servant commanded thee: turn not from it to the right hand or to the left, that thou mayest have good success whithersoever thou goest. This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth, but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for so shalt thou make thy way prosperous, and then shalt thou have good success" [31] (1:7, 8). Now, if this communication was made to Joshua, it demonstrates the existence at that time, which was just thirteen days after the death of Moses, of a book of the law, written by Moses, which was to be the guide of Joshua's life; and he who denies that such a book did then exist, charges the author of the Book of Joshua with falsely putting these words into the mouth of God.

      Again, the reading at Mount Ebal, recorded in the eighth chapter, proves not only the existence of the law in the days of Joshua, but the existence of the Book of Deuteronomy, which the critics say was written in the time of King Josiah. It is there stated that Joshua "wrote upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses, which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel;" and that "afterward he read all the words of the law, the blessing and the curse, according to all that is written in the book of the law. There was not a word of all that Moses commanded which Joshua read not before all the assembly of Israel" (8:30-35). The reference here, as the last quotation clearly shows, is to that which Moses had commanded Israel to write and read on this occasion; for it is limited by the expression, "the blessing and the curse." What was written, therefore, and what was read, was the passage in Deuteronomy in which the blessings and the curses are laid down, and the directions given for this writing and reading (Deut. 27:1-26). This shows that Deuteronomy was then in the hand of Joshua, and as the critics agree that this book was written after the Jehovistic and the Elohistic portions of the Pentateuch, they should concede that the latter were written in the days of Moses. But here they resort to their easy way of setting aside evidence by saying that this narrative is not historical. [32]

      The next evidence is found in the transaction respecting the altar erected by the two and a half tribes near the Jordan. This was regarded as so gross a departure from the law that all the tribes assembled for war upon the transgressors, and sent Phinehas with ten princes to inquire into the matter. The nature of the supposed offense is expressed by Phinehas in these words, "Rebel not against Jehovah, nor rebel against us, in building you up an altar beside the altar of Jehovah our God;" and the iniquity of such a procedure is acknowledged by the accused in their reply, "God forbid that we should rebel against Jehovah, and turn away this day from following Jehovah, to build an altar for burnt offering, or for sacrifice, besides the altar of Jehovah our God that is before the tabernacle" (22:19-29). In these words of the two parties to the discussion, it is made clear that the grievous sin which the accused were supposed to have committed, and for which they were to be punished with death if guilty, was that of erecting, for the purposes of sacrifices, an altar other than that which stood before the door of the tabernacle. But it is only in Deuteronomy that the law is written which makes this a sin; and this again shows conclusively that Israel then had this book, and, as this was the last written of the four books of the law, it proves that all the books were then in existence and in use. The only escape from this conclusion is, as usual, the denial of the truth of this narrative, and thus, step by step, as we have proved again and again in these columns, destructive criticism would destroy all confidence in the truthfulness of the Biblical books.

      We might add to these evidences the fact that Joshua twice observed a law of Deuteronomy by taking down before night dead bodies which had been hanged on a [33] tree (8:29; 10:27; cf. Deut. 21:22, 23); and that he observed another found in Numbers, by the distribution of the Levites in forty-eight cities, including six cities of refuge (Josh. 20, 21; cf. Num. 35); but there is no need of multiplying evidences when a few are given that are obviously conclusive. Enough is now before us to show that we must throw away the Book of Joshua as a book of legends and myths, if we deny the Mosaic origin of the Pentateuch. If any man is prepared for this, let him go on his way, and let us remain where we are.

[SEBC 30-34]