Page:02.BCOT.KD.HistoricalBooks.A.vol.2.EarlyProphets.djvu/146

 and Hammoth-dor (Jos 19:35; Jos 21:32). If the author, on the other hand, had drawn from later sources, or had simply given the results of later surveys, as Knobel supposes, there can be no doubt that much greater uniformity would be found in the different lists. The arguments employed by Knobel in support of his assertion, consist on the one had of inconclusive and incorrect assertions, and are founded on the other hand upon arbitrary assumptions. In the first place, for example, he asserts that “a large number of towns are omitted from the lists, which were within the boundaries mentioned and were in existence in the very earliest times, viz., in the south, Tamar (Gen 14:7), Arad (Num 21:1), Atbach, Rachal, Aroer, and Siphamoth (1Sa 30:28.), Gerar (Gen. 20:26); in the Shephelah, Gaza, Askalon, Gath, Ashdod, Jabne, and Joppa (see Jos 15:45.); in Benjamin, Michmash and Nob (1Sa 13:2., Jos 22:19); in the north, Aphek, Lassaron, Madon, Shimron-meron, and Merom (Jos 11:5; Jos 12:18-20), as well as Meroz and Ajjalon (Jdg 5:23; Jdg 12:12); and these with other places would assuredly not be wanting here, if Joshua and his associates had distributed the towns as well as the land, and furnished our author with the lists.” But it would be difficult to bring forward the proofs of this, since Knobel himself acknowledges that there are gaps in the lists which have come down to us, some of which can be proved to be the fault of the copyists, - such, for example, as the want of a whole section after Jos 15:19 and Jos 21:35. Moreover, the Philistine towns of Ashdod and Gaza are really mentioned in Jos 15:46, and the others at all events hinted at; whereas Knobel first of all arbitrarily rejects Jos 15:45-47 from the text, in order that he may afterwards be able to speak of it as omitted. Again, with many of the places mentioned as omissions, such as Atbach, Rachal, Siphamoth, etc., it is very questionable whether they were towns at all in Joshua's time, or, at all events, such towns as we should expect to find mentioned. And lastly, not only are no catalogues of towns given at all in the case of Ephraim and Manasseh, but we have only imperfect catalogues in the case of Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali; and, as we have already observed, this incompleteness and these gaps can be satisfactorily explained from the historical circumstances under which the allotment of the land took place. Secondly, Knobel also maintains, that “Joshua's conquests did not extend to the Lebanon (Jos 13:4-5), and yet the author mentions towns of the Asherites there (Jos 19:28, Jos 19:30): Bethel was not taken till after the time of Joshua (Jdg 1:22.), and this was also the case with Jerusalem (Jdg 1:8), and in the earliest times of the judges they had no Hebrew inhabitants (Jdg 19:12), yet the author speaks of both places as towns of the Benjamites (Jos 18:22, Jos 18:28); Jericho and Ai were lying in ruins in Joshua's time (Jos 6:24; Jos 8:28), yet they are spoken of here as towns of Benjamin that had been rebuilt (Jos 18:21, Jos 18:23); it is just the same with Hazor in Naphtali (Jos 11:13; Jos 19:36); and according to Jdg 1:1, Jdg 1:10., Hebron and Debir also were not conquered till after Joshua's time.” But all this rests (1) upon the false assumption, that the only towns which Joshua distributed by lot among the tribes of Israel were those which he permanently conquered, whereas, according to the command of God, he divided the whole land among the Israelites, whether it was conquered or not; (2) upon the erroneous opinion, that the towns which had been destroyed, such as Jericho, Ai, and Hazor, were allotted to the Israelites as “rebuilt,” whereas there is not a word about this in the text. It is just the same with the arguments used by Knobel in proof of the composition of Josh 13-21 from three different documents. The material discrepancies have been forced upon the text, as we shall see when we come to an explanation of the passages in question; and the verbal differences prove nothing more than that the geographical account of the boundaries and towns contains no allusion to the priesthood, to sacrifice, or to certain other things which no one would think of looking for here.