to the latter part of the 13th verse, it should be remarked, that it is chiefly the manner in which it has been translated that gives it the appearance of a historical statement made by the author. It is in fact, however, merely a poetical iteration or intensification, as will appear from the following rendering of the 13th verse, omitting the reference to the book of Jasher:- And the sun waited and the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Yea, the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down as it were a whole day.'

If

We have thought it due to our readers to state the above view of the passage under consideration, accompanied with the chief of those arguments which have been advanced in its support. Whether they may be able to adopt it or not, they will at all events perceive that it is in entire harmony with that spirit of reverence with which the Scriptures ought to be regarded. If the honour due to the Word of God requires us to believe implicitly its statements, it no less requires that we should earnestly endeavour to ascertain what its statements really are. we neglect this latter duty, the Scriptures may become a curse to us, instead of-what they are designed by God to be a blessing. In such a spirit have we sought to conduct the above inquiry. The question has not been, whether we are to believe what the Word of God says, but what in fact it does say; not whether we are to believe in the miracle it narrates, but whether it intends to narrate a miracle at all. It is only the latter question which has been discussed in the preceding observations; and whether the view therein contained is to be adopted or rejected, must be determined by exegesis. The whole question is simply one of interpretation. (See on this point a review of Keil's Commentary on Joshua, in the Foreign Evangelical Review, No. 2, August 1852.)

NOTE 16, p. 592.-The distinction here implied, and in verse 21 formally expressed, between the mountains of Judah and the mountains of Israel, is alleged by the rationalistic critics to have arisen first in the times of David and Solomon, or rather after the separation under Rehoboam. In that case, it would follow, either that the book of Joshua was composed long after the events narrated took place, or that it was subjected to interpolation after it had been composed. But the assertion is not true.

The germ of the distinction and opposition between Judah and Israel appears so early as the time of Jacob, and is exhibited in the blessings pronounced by him upon his children. But the distinction between the mountains of Judah and Israel indicated in the text, is fully explained by the relations of the tribes in the time of Joshua, without going back to patriarchal times, as is well shewn in the following quotation from König in Keil's Commentar:

- Whilst Judah enters into its possession in the south (see Joshua xv.), all the tribes are still at Gilgal; and when at a later period Ephraim and Manasseh have entered upon their possession, the whole of Israel yet encamps in Shiloh, beyond the borders of Judah; the two parts being separated from each other by the territory as yet unappropriated, which afterwards fell to the lot of Benjamin. Moreover, the Altar, the Tabernacle, and the Ark of the Covenant, abide in the midst of Joseph and of the remaining tribes yet assembled in the camp at Shiloh. Was it not inevitable, that the idea of an opposition between Judah on the one side, and the rest of Israel, in which the double tribe of Joseph, and in it again Ephraim, was predominant, on the other, should become more and more prevalent.... And what was more natural, than that the mountains where the children of Judah had their seat should be called the mountains of Judah, and those where the rest of Israel encamped should be called the mountains of Israel, and also more particularly still, as being Ephraim's possession, the mountain of Ephraim ?'

We may remark here, in regard to verse 21, which seems to come in rather awkwardly, and, in fact, has been regarded as an interpolation, that it seems to have been inserted by the author from a desire to draw particular attention to the fact, that even the giants who had

NOTE 17, p. 594.-It has been too easily taken for granted that the Anakim were of a different race from the Canaanites; that they belonged to the original inhabitants of the land, who were dispossessed and rooted out by the more recent Canaanites; and that those who remained here and there, at the time of Moses and Joshua, were merely the scattered fragments of a once great people. There is really no evidence that the Anakim were a distinct people. Mention is made invariably of only three individuals (or families): sons of Anak, for example, in Numbers xiii. 22: And they ascended by the south, and came unto Hebron, where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, the children of Anak, were.' (See also Joshua xv. 14; Judges i. 10). 'Let us consider now,' says Kurtz, quoted by Keil in his Commentar, 'the appellative signification of the word Anakim-that is, long-necked, men of longstretched necks-giants; let us reflect further, that in the case of the Anakim who are described to us, the name and stature correspond; and let us, lastly, remember, that in every case where they are spoken of in a deliberate historical statement-the description of them by the spies (Numb. xiii. 27, seq.) cannot be so regarded-mention is made always of only single individual giants or families of giants (Numb. xiii. 22; Jos. xiv. 15; xv. 14; Judges i. 10; 2 Sam. xxi. 15-23; 1 Chron. xx. 4-8); and we will be compelled to adopt the view, that the name Anakim is rather appellative than Gentile, and that the giant-races of the mountain of Judah were only particular families and tribes of the race of the wide-spread and powerful Amorites, distinguished from all other tribes and families of that people by the size of their bodies.'

NOTE 18, p. 594.-The statement in this verse seems to be inconsistent with those contained in subsequent chapters of Joshua, from which it appears that there still remained many portions of the land in the possession of the Canaanites (see xiii. 1-6; xvii. 14-18; xviii. 3; xxiii. 5, 12). This seeming discrepancy is one of the arguments adduced by the rationalistic critics, to prove that the book of Joshua consists of two distinct and often conflicting divisions, written by different authors. Some have sought to evade the difficulty by the remark, that when it is said that Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the Lord said unto Moses, we must not press the word 'whole' so as to mean every part of the land without exception. It is quite true that we ought not to press the expression so far as to make it signify that the Canaanites were literally exterminated, all their kings slain, or every city, great and small, taken. But such general language as is employed in verse 23, could not be employed with propriety if such very important exceptions were to be made as are those which are noticed in the passages above referred to. In the face of such extensive exceptions, we must escape from the apparent contradiction, not by limiting the meaning of the word 'whole,' but by determining the sense of the word 'took,' and of the clause, according to all that the Lord said unto Moses.' What, then, in point of fact, had hitherto been accomplished? In one expedition, Joshua, with the host of Israel, had utterly routed and ruined at Gibeon the armies of the kings of the south; slain the kings themselves; taken and partly destroyed their chief cities; and, in fact, so thoroughly demolished his southern foes, that they had no longer power to offer resistance. In a second expedition against the kings of the north, who had been alarmed and roused by the disasters that had happened in the south, the leader of the Israelites achieves a like triumph, discomfiting their hosts at the waters of Merom; slaying Jabin, king of Hazor, and 'the head of all those kingdoms;' burning Hazor with fire, and utterly destroying all the royal cities.

It might be said, therefore, with propriety, because it was literally true, that Joshua had taken the whole land in a strategical point of view; because, though there were many cities yet in the possession of the Canaanites, yet the latter were quite powerless, and utterly unable to take the field against their triumphant enemies. In fact, the war, viewed as a war carried on by the whole of Israel against the nations of Canaan, had come to an end, since the latter had been so reduced that there was no enemy worthy of opposition from the united forces of the Israelites. The enemies that now remained must be dealt with by detachments; they were incapable of combination, and were separately too insignificant to be an object worthy of attack to the whole army. Indeed, it would have been madness to have kept such an immense force marching hither and thither through the land, searching out the remnants of those hostile nations in their isolated retreats: such work could only be done by detached portions of the army. It was now necessary, therefore, even in a strategical point of view, to divide the army into detachments, and send them into different parts of the country, in order to oppress or root out their enemies in detail. But this division of the people to form, as it were, separate armies, was not a thing yet to be done, for it already existed in the natural division into tribes. And as for the division of the land into corresponding parts, for the purposes of carrying on the war, that would be accomplished in the dividing of it for the purpose of possession; at the same time that a powerful motive would be supplied for prosecuting the operations against the enemy, by making the part of the country to be cleared of the Canaanites coincide in the case of each tribe with that which had been assigned to it as its own inheritance.

The time had now arrived, therefore, when the allotment of the land for possession should be proceeded with; and accordingly it is stated in the present passage, that Joshua gave the land for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions by their tribes.' This division of the land, summarily noticed here, forms the principal subject of the remaining portion of the book. The clause, 'according to all that the Lord said unto Moses,' has been held by some to refer to Numbers xxxiv., where the boundaries of the promised land are laid down; whilst others think that reference is made to Exodus xxiii. 29-30, and Deut. vii. 22, where it is stated that God would drive out their enemies only by little and little. Most probably it is a general reference to all the passages in the Pentateuch referring to the extent and conquest of Canaan. For, in truth, Joshua had conquered, in the sense above explained, the whole land in its full extent, so that he might now divide all Canaan between the twelve tribes, in order that they might separately drive out their enemies 'little by little,' as the Lord had said unto Moses. (See Note 19.)

It

NOTE 19, p. 603.-It is no solution of the difficulties connected with the allotment of the land to say, as is done in the text, that there were two distributions; for, in fact, the precise point of the difficulty is how to account for the division not having been accomplished at one time. seems to us that we shall most readily find an answer to this question, if we keep constantly in view the military situation of the people (see on this point Note 18). We observed in the note referred to, that now the war as between all Canaan and all Israel was at an end, hostilities must now be carried on by detachments against the inhabitants of different parts of the country. Now, therefore, was the time for the division of the land for inheritance amongst the tribes. How, then, might we expect the allotment to proceed, supposing it made in subordination to military considerations? Would the land be divided by lot, and the tribes be dispersed, all at once, to take possession each of its own section, by force if necessary; or would the distribution proceed gradually, only one or perhaps two lots being disposed of at a time? The latter method, we apprehend, was the one adopted. Although there was no enemy to face them any longer, yet it was not absolutely impossible, nay not even very improbable, that ere

long a force might appear against them, which it would need all their available strength to resist. Their enemies, indeed, were for the present thoroughly quelled; dismay had seized the hearts of the people of Canaan. But it was possible, though in fact it did not happen, that the latter might recover from their panic after a time, and effect a strong combination against the common enemy. This being so, a prudent general would not rashly disperse his forces all at once, but would rather act on the plan of sending out a division to accomplish the work of conquest in a part of the country where a single tribe would be sufficient, and which it was important to occupy as soon as possible; keeping meanwhile the main body of the forces together at head-quarters, in order to be able to meet every emergency. Before applying these views to the facts of the case regarding the allotment, we must first of all give some explanations regarding the manner in which the lot was taken. There are three possible ways in which the lot might have been taken. According to any one of these, it was necessary that the land should have been previously divided into ten parts, in order that at least the localities might be known for which lots were to be drawn. This division of the land was necessarily of a rude and merely preliminary character, as no regular survey had yet been made; all the knowledge of Canaan possessed by the Israelites being derived solely from their casual observations whilst engaged in their warlike expeditions. The exact extent and limits of these ten portions could only be determined after the various tribes had entered into possession, for of course, although the lot might determine which tribe should receive this or that portion, it could not fix more definitively than before the limits of the latter. Hence, in order to comply with the law in Numbers xxvi. 53-56-that the extent of inheritance should bear a proportion to the numbers of the inhabitants-it was necessary to make a re-adjustment subsequently, as we shall shew more particularly afterwards. According to the first of the three possible ways of casting the lots, the names of the tribes were cast into an urn, and then whatever name came out, the tribe to which it belonged had the privilege of choosing any portion that it preferred. On this method, the lot determined merely the priority of choice. Those who hold this view bring forward in proof of it, that previous to the allotment Caleb had obtained Hebron as his portion, so that unless the above method were employed, Caleb might have been isolated from his brethren of the tribe of Judah. This objection, however, ceases to have force when we reflect that the disposal of the lot belonged to the Lord, and was not an affair of chance. But, moreover, it appears to us that the giving of Hebron to Caleb as his portion, is not narrated in historical order. It is one of those incidents which are recorded more for the sake of some peculiar interest with which they are invested, than because of their importance in the regular chain of events. Chapter xiv. is in a manner introductory to the account of the division of the land which follows. In the 5th verse, it is remarked quite generally: 'As the Lord commanded Moses, so the children of Israel did, and they divided the land.' Here, then, if the writer of our book preferred to narrate the incident which follows apart from the dry details of the division, here, immediately on the back of this general announcement, an excellent opportunity for his purpose occurred, where indeed the historical order would not be violated, inasmuch as the fact of the division of the land is stated previously. The first method, therefore, is not required in order to explain any difficulty, and certainly it is in itself objectionable. The scope which it would give to the individual will of the tribes, would be sure to engender discontent, the repression of which was one of the principal purposes to be served by the use of the lot, viewed as an appeal to God to determine. According to the second view, a particular portion of the land was selected by Joshua, or some other proper authority, to be assigned by lot. The tribe to which it should belong was determined by the drawing of the name of a tribe from the urn in which the names were

contained. The advantage supposed to be gained by this method is, that thus we can then explain how Judah and Ephraim and Manasseh came to be the parts of the country first allotted, as it was desirable on military grounds that they should be. This, however, is again a rationalistic reason, for if we believe that God disposed the lot, then we can also easily believe that he so disposed it as to suit the circumstances in which the Israelites were placed, and make that portion be first occupied whose occupation was in the first place most desirable. The second method is also open, though to a less extent than the first, to the objection that it would leave one of the contingent elements to the disposal of man, and so give occasion for discontent.

According to the third and preferable method, there were two urns, into one of which were put the names of the tribes, whilst into the other were put the descriptions of the ten divisions of the land. Out of these urns were drawn successively one name and one division, from which the lot and the possessor at once appeared. There is one fact in the history of the division of the land which it is difficult to account for, if we suppose that the second method was followed, but which is perfectly consistent with the third. We refer to the circumstance, that the territory of Benjamin was not disposed of along with that of Judah and Joseph. If the territory to be balloted for was selected by Joshua on military grounds, we are unable to assign a reason why the territory of Benjamin was not included in the first allotment. We cannot but believe that Joshua would have selected precisely those portions of the land to be first occupied which were first disposed of by lot. These parts of the country were the best known and the most thoroughly subdued; and though occupying a large portion of the land of Canaan, yet the most important parts of the territory included in them were not far distant from the camp at head-quarters, which was situated in the centre on the mount of Ephraim. But these reasons were just as applicable to the territory of Benjamin as to that of the two other tribes, and no cause can be assigned why it should not have been included in the first allotment if that matter depended on Joshua. So soon, however, as we suppose the lot to have been taken, according to the third method, the difficulty disappears, for the omission of Benjamin is referred to the counsels of God, which it is not necessary that we should understand.

In every case, then, whichever of these methods we may regard as the one actually adopted, we cannot but observe that the parts of the land first allotted were determined with reference to the military situation of the Israelites, viewed as endeavouring to establish themselves in an enemy's country. The portions of Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh, having been determined, these tribes would proceed immediately to enter upon their possession. This, however, could not be accomplished in a day; it would require a considerable time to occupy the various towns, together with the country parts, and to fix properly the limits of the land which each tribe would require for its accommodation. Whilst this process was going on, the tabernacle and the camp were transferred to Shiloh, the latter place, doubtless, having been selected according to a divine intimation. Meanwhile, also, the other tribes seem to have relapsed into a nomadic manner of life, wandering about amongst the inhabitants as did the patriarchs Isaac

and Jacob. In course of time it became evident that the power of the Canaanites had been thoroughly broken in the great wars, and the people ceased at length to be in the least degree apprehensive of an attack from them. By degrees, therefore, they spread themselves abroad over the unoccupied country, neither troubled by nor giving much trouble to the native inhabitants (see chap. xviii. 1-3). Thus, when the tribes of Judah and Joseph had taken possession of their territory, and the time had arrived for proceeding further with allotment, it had become evident that no fear need be entertained any longer of the Canaanites, and there was therefore no longer any reason for keeping the tribes together; the remainder of the land might be divided at once. But, meanwhile, the experience acquired from the previous settlement, had shewn that it was desirable first of all to determine more definitely the extent and boundaries of the land that remained. Ephraim had found his possession too little, and had requested and obtained more (chap. xvii. 14). The tribe of Judah had, on the contrary, obtained too much; so that the tribe of Simeon subsequently had their portion assigned to them out of that of Judah. These facts shewed the desirableness of a regular survey of the land, which was therefore immediately set about (chap. xviii. 4-9). The survey being made, and the results recorded, the land was divided amongst the seven remaining tribes, as it is related in chapters xviii. and xix. We may here remark, that the objurgatory tone of Joshua's speech in chap. xviii. 3, implies that the seven tribes were not anxious to obtain regular possession of the land, but were content to lead the unsettled life of nomades, as they had done in the desert. Instead of wearying for the time when their lots should be drawn, it seems to have been necessary to stir them up to take any interest in the matter at all.

NOTE 20, p. 624.-The following reasons for the choice of Shechem as the scene of the transaction related in chapter xxiv. seem to be satisfactory:-1. The present renewal of the covenant between God and the people was but a repetition of the solemn transaction on Ebal and Gerizim, narrated in chapter viii. 30-35. It was natural and suitable, therefore, to select the same spot (Shechem was situated in the valley between the two summits), when the object for which the Israelites assembled thither on either occasion was the same. 2. The associations by which the place was connected with Jacob, their common progenitor, seem to have had an influence in the choice of a locality. Here Jacob renounced idols, and resolved, along with his family, to worship only the living God. Then Jacob said unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and change your garments. And they gave unto Jacob all the strange gods which were in their hand, and all their earrings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was by Shechem,' Gen. xxxv. 2, 4. In Joshua xxiv. 23, we find almost a literal repetition of the words which Jacob addressed to his household, which strongly suggests that the leader of Israel had the example of the latter in his mind. The statement that the Israelites 'presented themselves before the Lord,' does not necessarily imply that the ark had been transferred from Shiloh to Shechem. The phrase, 'before the Lord,' merely denotes the religious character of the transaction.