Lectionary Calendar
Monday, December 23rd, 2024
the Fourth Week of Advent
Attention!
StudyLight.org has pledged to help build churches in Uganda. Help us with that pledge and support pastors in the heart of Africa.
Click here to join the effort!

Bible Encyclopedias
Joshua, Book of

The 1901 Jewish Encyclopedia

Search for…
or
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W Y Z
Prev Entry
Joshua Phabi
Next Entry
Joshua, the Samaritan Book of
Resource Toolbox
Additional Links

—Biblical Data:

The first book of the second greater division in the Hebrew canon, the "Nebi'im," and therefore also the first of the first part of this division, the "Nebi'im Rishonim." It bears in Hebrew the superscription ; in the Septuagint, using the post-exilic form of the name (; Nehemiah 8:17), Ἰησοῦς (in some manuscripts with the addition of υἱὸς Ναυῆ); in the Peshiṭta, "Ketaba de-Yeshu' bar-Nun Talmideh de-Mushe" (Book of Joshua, son of Nun, the Disciple of Moses). It belongs to the historical books of the Old Testament, its theme being the invasion and conquest under Joshua of west-Jordanic Palestine and its apportionment among the tribes, with an account of the closing days and death of the great leader.

The book, which comprises twenty-four chapters, readily falls into two main parts and an appendix, which may be summarized thus: (1) the events following Moses' death; the invasion and capture of the land; (2) the division of the country; (3) the conduct of the Reubenites, etc.; two hortatory addresses by Joshua shortly before his death, followed by a brief gloss on his burial-place and the disposition made of the bones of Joseph. In detail the contents are as follows:

Part I., ch. i-

Crossing of Jordan.

The Confederacy Against Joshua.

Part II., ch. -

Appendix, ch. -

E. G. H.

—Critical View:

The Rabbis ascribe the authorship of the book, as of the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, to Joshua (B. B. 14b); the account of Joshua's death (Joshua 24:29-32) was added, according to them, by Eleazar, the son of Aaron (B. B. 15a), and that of Eleazar's demise (Joshua 24:33) by Phinehas (B. B. c.). But this view has been rejected by Isaac Abravanel (see preface to his commentary on the Earlier Prophets), who correctly observes that the use of the phrase = "unto this day" (Joshua 4:9, 7:26, 9:27, 14:14, 15:62, 16:10) controverts this assumption, and that certain events mentioned in the Book of Joshua are recorded in the Book of Judges (19:45) as occurring "long after the death of Joshua" (Abravanel, "Comm. in Prophetas Priores," pp. 2b, col. 2; 3a, col. 1; Leipsic, 1686).

Views as to Authorship.

Christian commentators have for similar reasons contended that the book was by a later author, who had access to documents composed by Joshua or by contemporaries of his (Theodoret, "In Josue Quæst." ). In the "Synopsis Sacræ Scripturæ" (, col. 309), attributed to St. Athanasius, the title of the book is explained not as the name of the author, but as indicating the hero of the events. Alphonsus Tostat ("Opera," Cologne, 1613; "In Josue I. Quæst." ) rejects the authorship of Joshua, and advances the theory that the book is the work of King Solomon, while Maes ("Josue Imperatoris Historia," Antwerp, 1574) ascribes it to Ezra, who had access to ancient Hebrew archives. These and modern Catholic critics also (Cardinal Meignan, "De Moïse à David," Paris, 1896) thus make the book posterior to the time of Joshua, but, for the greater part, pre-exilic and always based on documents coeval with the events reported.

Among modern Jewish critics L. Wogue ("Histoire de la Bible," Paris, 1881) defends the traditional view, with reference to B. B. 14b and 15a. More recently the passage in Ecclus. (Sirach) 46:1 has been invoked in proof of the authorship of Joshua; προΦητεῖαι in Ecclesiasticus means "books," so that Joshua being designated (ib.) as διάδόχος Μωϋσῆ ἔν προΦητείαίς would imply that he was the "author" of the "book." The Hebrew text, however, has (see Israel Lévi, "L'Ecclésiastique," Paris, 1898), but this has also been construed, with reference to 2 Chronicles 9:29, where means "book," as supporting the traditional view.

Keil in his commentary has endeavored to defend this view by urging the force of = "until we had passed over" (Joshua 5:1) as demonstrating that the narrative must have been written by an eyewitness; but the ancient versions show this reading to be erroneous. Nor is 18:9 conclusive: at the utmost it proves that the catalogue of cities (18:11-19:46) was abstracted from a document contemporary with Joshua. In the same way 24:26 may be taken as evidence only that 24:1-25 is by him, though upon closer inspection even this passage is seen to be merely the honest opinion of a later writer. The objections by Abravanel have not been answered.

Comparison with Judges.

Later Biblical books exhibit incidents which demonstrate that the situation assumed in Joshua could not have been that of the period of invasion. For instance, Jericho, represented in Joshua as completely overthrown and upon the rebuilding of which a solemn curse is invoked, is found to exist at a much later date, even as a city of the Prophets (see see ELISHA; comp. Joshua 6:2-27, 16:1; Judges 3:12-30; 2 Samuel 10:5; 2 Kings 2:5,15; 5:19-22; 1 Chronicles 19:5; for the curse see 1 Kings 16:34). Ai, reported burned, is known to Isaiah (as "Aiath"; Isaiah 10:28). Gezer (Joshua 16:10), described as being reduced to vassalage, is not rendered tributary until the time of Solomon (1 Kings 9:16). But a comparison with the Book of Judges suffices to discredit the theory that the Book of Joshua is an autobiography of its eponymous hero. The narrative in Judges reveals the fact that the invasion was not directed by a general-in-chief, nor undertaken at one time by the tribes united under a national commander, nor accomplished in the lifetime of one man, much less in two decades.

Nor is the book the work of one man. Contradictions abound, e.g., in the chronology: in 3:1 the crossing is set for the next day; 3:2, three days intervene; 3:5, the start is again delayed one day; comp. 5:10 with 4:19 and 5:2-9. In 11:21 the Anakim are expelled by Joshua, while in 15:13 Caleb is reported as having performed this feat. Double and variant versions are given, as, for instance, the explanation of the name GILGAL (4:20; comp. 5:9 and 14:6 et seq. with 15:13 et seq.).

The Book of Joshua must be regarded as a compilation; and analysis of its contents makes it certain that its sources are of the same character as those of the Pentateuch. This, to a certain degree, was the impression of the Rabbis. According to Mak. 11a, the chapter () concerning the cities of refuge was taken from the Pentateuch. The Book of Joshua was regarded by them as written in the light of the Deuteronomic legislation (Gen. R. 6:14). At all events, Joshua and the Pentateuch are treated as of one character in the saying that the sins of Israel alone necessitated the adding of other books to these (Ned. 22b). Joshua is often compared with Moses (Ta'an. 20a; Soṭah 36a; B. B. 75a; Sanh. 20a; Mak. 9b).

While modern critics generally are agreed that the Book of Joshua is a compilation from sources that have been utilized in the Pentateuch (J, E, JE, D, and P), with additions by the editor (R = Redactor), they differ very widely as regards the details. According to Steuernagel ("Joshua," in Nowack's"Hand-Kommentar"), Albers' attempt in his "Die Quellenberichte in Josua," i-, 1891, to separate the components of J from E in part (-) is unsatisfactory. In fact, Steuernagel assumes that J and E combined as JE never were accessible to the compiler of Joshua, the two being then still uncombined. A few fragments from J (after Budde, in Stade's "Zeitschrift," ), parallel with passages in Judges 1, and others somewhat more numerous from E, are all that he finds in Joshua. He insists that for - another work, D, was the main source. This D is not identical with the author of Deuteronomy, but is rather D2 (= the author of Deuteronomy 1-), and is on the whole an independent elaboration of E. The few fragments of J and E in Joshua he concedes were added by R, and only after D2 had been combined with P (mostly in part ).

Steuernagel's analysis has not been accepted by Holzinger ("Josua," in Marti's "K. H. C."), who rejects D2 and works out a scheme on the basis of J, E, and JE, with a pronounced Deuteronomic coloring: Deuteronomist, Priestly Code, and Redactor. Contrary to the Pentateuchal R, who makes P the original document, in Joshua JED is the basis, supplemented by extracts from P. Still later additions are noticeable as well as changes in phraseology (e.g., the use of in 7:13,19 et seq.; 8:30; 9:18,20; 10:40,42; 13:14,33; 14:14; 22:16,24;; 24:2,23). For a detailed analysis on this basis see Holzinger, "Das Buch Josua," pp. -

Steuernagel in his translation prints the different sources in different types. W. H. Bennett in "The Book of Joshua" (in "S. B. O. T." 1895) indicates the various documents by the use of different colors.

Redaction.

Summing up, these various analyses have certainly demonstrated that, on the whole, in the narrative portion of the book (-) the introduction () is Deuteronomic, as is the conclusion of the whole book (21:43-22:6, ), and that Deuteronomic coloring is to be found in both parts, naturally in a greater degree in the narrative chapters. The basis of the book was a Deuteronomic history of Joshua, founded on material from J and E perhaps not as yet combined as JE, thus excluding Rje (=Redactor of JE). The main current of the narrative is not originally Deuteronomic, the Deuteronomic editor heightening its coloring, and dwelling on the moral and religious implications of the story. The narrative is not always consistent. In - many fragments are for the most part parallels to Judges 1, which make it appear that the conquest was a slow, laborious process, the tribes acting without concerted plan and nowhere under united central command. These belong to J.

But even in the narrative portion, strictly so-called, as distinct from the statistical, a twofold account is almost always discernible: one apparently older and more prosy; the other, with a clear tendency to magnify the importance of the events and the absolute annihilation of the inhabitants (though this may be set down as by Rd), and to emphasize the miraculous. The older recalls the method of J in the Pentateuch; the younger, that of E. P's share in the narrative section is very limited. Additions of a few verses may be ascribed to it. In - the contributions from P are much more extensive. The boundaries and the lists of the cities of refuge and of the Levitical towns belong to it. The combining of the Deuteronomic Joshua (Rd, J, E, perhaps JE [Rje]) with P was the work of R, who made verbal changes to suit his ends. But even after this additions were made, e.g., 22:9-24 (comp. Numbers 32-; Judges 20). Ch. and have come down in mutilated form. When they were abridged can not be determined. The duplication of Joshua's farewell also is by a later hand; or it is possible that one account of it () is from E, while the other is clearly Deuteronomistic, resembling Deuteronomy 4:29-30.

Historical Character of the Book.

After eliminating the pragmatic elements and toning down the Deuteronomic coloring, the critical study of the Book of Joshua penetrates to a bed of traditions that in a more or less confused way reflect actual occurrences; but these did not take place in the sequence here assumed, nor in the manner detailed. The division of the land is, on the whole, the work of a theorist who utilizes actual conditions to a certain extent, but always to bring into prominence his priestly program. Local legends, snatches of folk-lore and folk-songs, the tendency to concentration in one man of the experiences of tribes and generations (always characteristic of legend), have had a decisive share in the shaping of the original material. Explanations of names (Achor, Gilgal), old local shrines, and reminiscences of former religious usages are also detectable as the raw data upon which popular fancy had been at work long before the various literary sources had leaped into existence. To deny in toto, with Eduard Meyer (in Stade's "Zeitschrift," ), the historical character of the book is dogmatic. It may, however, be noticed that, in contrast with Judges, the Book of Joshua has no chronological scheme (comp. 11:18, 14:10, 23:1, 24:31).

The Hexateuch.

In view of the identity of its sources, and also of the fact that throughout the Pentateuch the conquest of the land is presupposed and emphasized as the goal (Genesis 13:14-17, 15:13-16, 26:3, 28:13-15; Exodus 3:8,17; 32:13; 33:1-3; Numbers 13:17 et seq., ,; Deuteronomy 1:38, 3:21, 31:3-6; P Genesis 17:6-8, 28:3; Numbers 27:18-23, 33:50-54, ,; Deuteronomy 34:9), critics have held that Joshua at one time formed with the Pentateuch the so-called HEXATEUCH. If this was the case, it must have been at a time anterior to the separation of the Samaritans from the Jews, as the Samaritans have only the Pentateuch; but the books of Ezra and Nehemiah give no intimation of the existence of a hexateuch. In all probability the sources J, E, as well as D and P, carried the narrative to the conquest of the land; but in their present forms the Pentateuch and Joshua were never combined. Volck (in Herzog-Hauck, "Real-Encyc." 9:390), assuming that P is older than JE and D, argues that before D was incorporated into the present Pentateuch, Joshua (-) formed a part of a work composed of P, JE, and Deuteronomy 31:14-23, 32:1-44,48-52, , 1-9, and that it was when Deuteronomy 5- was incorporated that Joshua was made a separate book. This theory, while not convincing, helps to make plain that the sources must have contained the story of the conquest. That Hosea, Amos, and Micah knew this Hexateuch (minus Deuteronomy) is not proved by such passages as Micah 6:5 et seq. (or Hosea 9:10, 12:4 et seq., and Amos 2:10, 5:25, 7:4). The traditions at the base of the histories were known to these early prophets. More than this can not be inferred from their references to Shittim and Gilgal (e.g., in Micah 6:5 et seq.).

The Text.

The fact that in Joshua the Pentateuchal archaic forms ( for or for ) are not found is not evidence against the Hexateuchal hypothesis. This circumstance merely indicates that at the time (post-exilic) when the consonantal text was fixed Joshua was not one work with the Pentateuch. Jericho is pointed for Pent. . The text is in fairly good condition. The Septuagint is without some of the glosses (5:4-7, 6:3-5, 20:4-6). The omissions in the Hebrew (in 15:59, names of eleven cities; in , a passage between verses 35 and 36) are supplied in the Greek. At the end of the Septuagint presents additions of interest.

The Samaritan Book of Joshua.

The Samaritan Book of Joshua, an extracanonical book written in Arabic, pretends to be a translation from the Hebrew ("Chronicon Samaritanum CuiTitulus Est Liber Josuæ," ed. Juynboll, Leyden, 1848). It relates the consecration of Joshua (Deuteronomy 31), the Balaam episode, and the war under Joshua as general against the Midianites; then, with a new title ("Book of Joshua the Son of Nun"), the conquest of the land and its division, continuing the story from Joshua's demise to Eli's death. Interpolations (-) deal with other personages, and in the concluding chapters Nebuchadnezzar, Alexander, and Hadrian are the heroes. This book is a medieval compilation of the time when the Samaritans were under Mohammedan rule, but contains also old haggadic material (SHOBACH).

Bibliography:
  • The introductions of Driver, Cornill, König, Baudissin, Reuss, Bleek-Wellhausen, Schrader-De Wette, and Kuenen;
  • the histories of Israel by Guthe, Stade, Piepenbring, Kittel, Winckler;
  • the Bible dictionaries of Cheyne and Black, Hastings, Riehm (2d ed.), Schenckel, Hamburger, Winer (3d ed.);
  • Herzog-Hauck, Real-Encyc.;
  • Vigouroux,;
  • L. König, Alttest. Studien,;
  • idem, Die Authentie des Buches Josua, Meurs, 1836;
  • Keil, Kommentar über das Buch Josua, Erlangen, 1847;
  • J. Hollenberg, Die Deuteronomischen Bestandtheile des Buches Josua, in Theologische Studien und Kritiken, 1874;
  • idem, Die Alexandrinische Uebersetzung des Buches Josua, Meurs, 1876;
  • Wellhausen, Die Komposition des Hexateuchs (originally in Jahrbuch der Theologie, 1876-77);
  • Budde, Richter und Josua, in Stade's Zeitschrift, 1877, pp. 93 et seq.;
  • J. S. Black, The Book of Joshua, Cambridge, 1891;
  • E. Albers, Die Quellenberichte in Josua (Joshua 1-), Bonn, 1891;
  • Dillmann, Numeri, Deuteronomium, und Josua, in the Kurzgefasstes Exegetisches Handbuch, Leipsic, 1886;
  • Oettli, commentary to the book in Deuteronomium, Josua, Richter (Strack-Zöckler, Komment. zum A. T. 1893);
  • Wellhausen, Prolegomena, 4th ed.;
  • Holzinger, Einleitung in den Hexateuch, 1893;
  • idem, Das Buch Josua, Tübingen and Leipsic, 1901;
  • Steuernagel, Das Buch Josua, 1900;
  • W. H. Bennett, The Book of Joshua, in S. B. O. T. Leipsic and Baltimore, 1895.
E. G. H.
Bibliography Information
Singer, Isidore, Ph.D, Projector and Managing Editor. Entry for 'Joshua, Book of'. 1901 The Jewish Encyclopedia. https://www.studylight.org/​encyclopedias/​eng/​tje/​j/joshua-book-of.html. 1901.
 
adsfree-icon
Ads FreeProfile