is in the main that of P (cf. the citations, p. 123 ff.1); but the narrative does not display throughout the characteristic style of P, and in some parts of it' there occur expressions which are not those of P. Either a narrative of P has been combined with elements from another source in a manner which makes it difficult to effect a satisfactory analysis, or the whole is the work of a distinct writer, whose phraseology is in part that of P, but not entirely.

C. 23. The first of the two closing addresses of Joshua to the people, in which he exhorts them to adhere faithfully to the principles of the Deuteronomic law, and in particular to refrain from all intercourse with the native inhabitants of Canaan.

C. 24. (a) The second of Joshua's closing addresses to the people, delivered at Shechem, differing in scope from that in c. 23, and consisting of a review of the mercies shown by God to His people from the patriarchal days, upon which is based the duty of discarding all false gods, and cleaving to Him alone. The people, responding to Joshua's example, pledge themselves solemnly to obedience; and a stone, in attestation of their act, is erected in the sanctuary at Shechem, vv. 1-28; (b) notices of the death and burial of Joshua, of the burial of Joseph's bones at Shechem, and of the death and burial of Eleazar, vv. 29-33.

C. 23 shows throughout the hand of D2: comp. c. 1 and 22, 1-6; its object apparently being to supplement 24, I ff. by inculcating more particularly the principles of the Deuteronomic law. C. 24 is generally admitted to belong to E; it is incorporated here, with slight additions, by D2. In v. 11 the words "the Amorite . . . the Jebusite" (cf. Dt. 7, 1) in point of fact interrupt the connexion: the context speaks only of the contest with the "lords" of Jericho. With v. 13 comp. Dt. 6, 10°. 11; with v. 31 Dt. 11, 7. Other similar slight additions by D2 are probably v. I middle clause (cf. Dt. 29, 10), 12a to before you (cf. Ex. 23, 28. Dt. 7, 20). In v. 12 twelve for two should certainly be read with LXX. The context requires imperatively a reference

1 Which, however, do not include all the marks of P's style which the section contains.

2

Esp. vv. 22-29, and in the expression (n) by vv. 7. 9. 10. II. 13. 15. 21, which, though common in D and D2 (e.g. 1, 12), occurs, in lieu of P's regular term, only in two doubtful passages of P (13, 29*. Nu. 32, 33).

3 The sense of v. 11 is uncertain. If the rendering of RV. be correct, one chief reason for treating the narrative as composite-viz. that the altar is represented in v. 10 as on the west side of Jordan, and in v. 11 on its east -disappears. (On a cf. W. A. Wright, Journal of Philology, xiii.117 fi.)

to some event subsequent to the capture of Jericho; so that the two kings of the Amorites on the east of Jordan (Sihon and Og)—who have, moreover, been noticed in v. 8—are here out of place. This retrospect differs in some respects from the previous narrative, and mentions incidents not otherwise recorded, e.g. the worship of "other gods" beyond the Euphrates vv. 2. 14; the war of Balak with Israel v. 9; the "lords" or citizens of Jericho fighting against Israel v. II; the number of the kings in v. 12, which, whether two or twelve, disagrees in either case with the 31 (30) of 12, 24.

Points of contact with E: v. 1 "before Got," cf. Ex. 18, 12; vv. 12. 15. 18 "the Amorite" (p. 112); v. 25°, cf. Ex. 15, 25; further, with vv. 2". 23. 26 (the oak), comp. Gen. 35, 2-4; with v. 26, Gen. 28, 18; with v. 27, Gen. 31, 44 f. 52; and with v. 32, Gen. 33, 19. 50, 25. Ex. 13, 19.

The Book of Joshua thus assumed the form in which we have it by a series of stages. First, the compiler of JE (or a kindred hand), utilizing older materials, completed his work: this was afterwards amplified by the elements contributed by 12: finally, the whole thus formed was combined with P. From a historical point of view, it is of importance to distinguish the different elements of which the narrative is composed. Historical matter, as such, is not that in which D2 is primarily interested; except in his allusions to the 2 trans-Jordanic tribes (which are of the nature of a retrospect), the elements contributed by him either give prominence to the motives actuating Joshua, or generalize and magnify the successes achieved by him. Looking at JE, we observe that it narrated the story of the spies sent to explore Jericho, the passage of the Jordan (in two versions), the circumcision of the Israelites at Gibeath-araloth (5, 2 f.) or Gilgal (5, 8 f.), the capture of Jericho and of Ai (c. 6; 7-8), in each of which accounts traces are perhaps discernible of an earlier and simpler story than that which forms the body of the existing narrative, the compact made with the Gibeonites, the defeat at Beth-horon of the five kings who advanced to attack Gibeon, with their execution at Makkedah, and Joshua's victory over the kings of the North at the waters of Merom. From this point the narrative of JE is considerably more fragmentary, consisting of little more than partial notices of the territory occupied by the tribes (15, 45-7, and parts of c. 16-17), and anecdotes of the manner in which, in particular cases, they completed, or failed to complete, the conquest of the districts allotted to them." 1 This view is preferred deliberately to that of Dillmann.

213, 13; perhaps the nucleus of 14, 6-15; 15, 13-19; 63; 16, 10; 17, 12 f.; 14-18; 18, 2-6; 8-10; 19, 47.

The account of the close of Joshua's life is preserved more fully C. 24 (E).

That JE's narrative is incomplete is apparent from many indications, e.g. the isolated notice of Bethel assisting Ai in 8, 17, the entire absence of any mention of the conquest of Central Palestine (p. 100), the fragmentary character of the notices of the conquest of Judah, &c. It is, however, remarkable that a series of notices, similar in form and representation, and sometimes in great measure verbally identical with those found in the Book of Joshua, occur in the first chapter of Judges; and the resemblance is of such a character as to leave little doubt that the two series are mutually supplementary, both originally forming part of one and the same continuous account of the conquest of Palestine (see below, under Judges). From the entire group of these notices, narrating, partly the successes, partly the failures, of individual tribes, we learn that the oldest Israelitish tradition represented the conquest of Palestine as having been in a far greater degree due to the exertions of the separate tribes, and as having been effected, in the first instance, much less completely than would be judged to have been the case from the existing Book of Joshua, in which the generalizing summaries of D2 (eg. 10, 40-43; 11, 16-23; 21, 43-45) form a frequent and prominent feature. The source of the notices in question is supposed by many critics (Budde, p. 157) to be J, though not of 18, 2-6. 8-10, where the survey of Canaan is represented as being carried out as though no unfriendly population were still holding its own in the land. C. 24 also stands on a different footing from the notices referred to J, the conquest, as it seems, being conceived as more completely effected (vv. 12. 18) than in the representation contained in these notices. C. 24, however, is assigned, upon independent grounds, to the source E, which might almost be said to be written from a standpoint approaching (in this respect) that of D2.

P entertains the same view of the conquest as D2 (18, 13), and carries it to its logical consequences: Eleazar and Joshua formally divide the conquered territory among the tribes (18, 1; 14, 1-5). The limits of the different tribes, and the cities belonging to them, are no doubt described as they existed in a later day; but the partition of the land being conceived as ideally effected by Joshua, its complete distribution and occupa

tion by the tribes are treated as his work, and as accomplished in his lifetime. A difference between P and JE may here be noted. P mentions Eleazar the priest as co-operating with Joshua, and even gives him the precedence (14, 1. 17, 4. 19, 51. 21, 1; cf. Nu. 27, 19. 21. 34, 17 P); in JE Joshua always acts alone (14, 6. 15, 13. 17, 14. 18, 3. 8. 10. 24, 1).

On the phraseology of D' see, besides the citations pp. 93 ff., 98 ff., JOSHUA, in the Dict. of the Bible (ed. 2), § 5. It has, in particular, affinities with the margins of Dt.; and includes also a few expressions not found in Dt. One term, frequent in D's summaries, may be here noted, to ban or devole, 2, 10. 10, 1. 28. 35. 37. 39 f. 11, 11 f. 20 f.: see Dt. 2, 34. 3, 6, and esp. in the injunctions (cf. p. 97, note) 7, 2. 13, 15, 20, 17. the must be a very old institution in Israel: it is mentioned in JE Ex. 22, 20. Nu. 21, 2 f. Josh. 6-7. Note also the servant of Jehovah, of Moses: 1, 1. 2. 7. 13. 15. 8, 31. 33. 9, 24. 11, 12. 15. 12, 6. 13, 8. 14, 7. 18, 7. 22, 2. 4. 5 (Dt. 34, 5).

§ 7.

But

Our analysis of the Hexateuch is completed, and the time has arrived for reviewing the characteristics of its several sources, and for discussing the question of their probable date. Deuteronomy, indeed, has been considered at sufficient length; but there remain J, E, and P. Have we done rightly, it will perhaps be asked, in distinguishing J and E? That P and "JE" formed. originally two separate writings will probably be granted; the distinguishing criteria are palpable and abundant: but is this established in the case of J and E? is it probable that there should have been two narratives of the patriarchal and Mosaic ages, independent, yet largely resembling each other, and that these narratives should have been combined together into a single whole at a relatively early period of the history of Israe (approximately, in the 8th century B.C.)? The writer has often considered these questions; but, while readily admitting the liability to error, which, from the literary character of the narrative, accompanies the assignment of particular verses to J or E, and which warns the critic to express his judgment with reserve, he must own that he has always risen from the study of "JE" with the conviction that it is composite; and that passages occur frequently in juxtaposition which nevertheless contain indications of not being the work of one and the same hand.

It is no doubt possible that some scholars may have sought to analyse JE with too great minuteness; but the admission of this fact does not neutralize inferences drawn from broader and more obvious marks of composition. The similarity of the two narratives, such as it is, is sufficiently explained by the fact that their subject-matter is (approximately) the same, and that they both originated in the same general period of Israelitish literature. Specimens have already been given of the grounds upon which the analysis of JE mainly rests, of the cogency of which the reader will be able to form his own opinion as the notes appended will have shown, the writer does not hold the particulars, even in the book of Genesis, to be throughout equally assured. If, however, minuter, more problematical details be not unduly insisted on, there does not seem to be any inherent improbability in the conclusion, stated thus generally, that "JE" is of the nature of a compilation, and that in some parts, even if not so frequently as some critics have supposed, the independent sources used by the compiler are still more or less clearly discernible.

J and E, then (assuming them to be rightly distinguished), appear to have cast into a literary form the traditions respecting the beginnings of the nation that were current among the people,-approximately (as it would seem) in the early centuries. of the monarchy. In view of the principles which predominate in it, and in contradistinction to the "Priests' Code," JE, as a whole, may be termed the prophetical narrative of the Hexateuch. In so far as the analysis contained in the preceding pages is accepted, the following features may be noted as characteristic of J and E respectively. In the Book of Genesis both narratives deal largely with the antiquities of the sacred sites of Palestine. The people loved to think of their ancestors, the patriarchs, as frequenting the spots which they themselves held sacred: and the traditions attached to these localities are recounted by the two writers in question.

Thus in J Abraham builds altars at Shechem, Bethel, and Hebron (12, 7. 3; 13, 4. 18), Isaac at Beer-sheba (26, 25), and Jacob erects a "pillar" at Bethel (35, 14): in E Abraham builds an altar on Moriah (22, 9); Jacob erects and anoints a "pillar" (28, 18. 22. 31, 13) at Bethel, and afterwards builds an altar there (35, 1. 3. 7); another pillar is built by him near Bethel, over Rachel's grave (35, 20); and an altar, on ground bought by himself, at Shechem (33, 19 f.); he also sacrifices at Beer-sheba (46, 1). Jacob and Laban, moreover, erect a "pillar," marking a boundary, in Gilead (31, 45.