Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/597

 JOSUE

525

JOSUE

Composition des Hexateuchs unci dcr historischen Bucher des A. T.", Berlin, 1S89; Driver, "Introd. to Lit. of O. T.", New York, 1892, 96).

The Jews knew no such Hexateuch, no such six books set together by a final editor; the)' always kept a marked distinction between the Pentateuch and Josue, and rather linked Josue with Judges than with Deuteronomy. The well-known preface to Ecclus. (Sept.) separates the ''Law" from the "Prophets". The Samaritans have the Torah entirely separate from the recently discovered Samaritan Josue.

Catholics almost universally defend the unity of Josue. It is true that, before the decree of the Bibli- cal Commission on the question of the multiple author- ship of the Pentateuch, some Catholics assigned Josue, as well as the five Mosaic books, to J, E, D, and P. Catholic Biblical scholars favour the pre-ExiHc unity of composition of Josue and its editorial independence of the Pentateuch. This independence is shown by the completeness and originality of the plan of the book. We have seen the unity of this plan — Josue's con- quest and division of the promised land. The purpose is clear — to carrj- on the history of the chosen people after the death of Moses. The purpose of the Penta- teuch was very different — to codify the laws of the chosen people as well as to sum up their primitive history. No laws are codified in Josue. The critics argue that the death of Moses leaves a void to be filled up, i. e. the conquest of the land of promise, and there- fore postulate this conquest for the historical, if not for the legal, completeness of the Pentateuch. Such an hypothesis would j ust ify one in postulating also that the history of the conquest after the death of Josue be needed for the historical completeness of the Penta- teuch. Again, the completeness of Josue's narrative of the conquest of the promised land is clear from the fact that it repeats data which are already given in the Pentateuch and are details of that conquest. The orders of Moses to the cliildren of Ruben and of Gad are clear cut in the Pentateuch (Num., .xx.xii. 20 sqq.) ; so, too, is the execution of these orders by the Ruben- ites and Gadites in the lands of the Amorrhites and of Basan (Num., xxxii, 33-38). If Josue is part of the composite and late composition which the critics make the Mosaic books out to be, how comes it that these very data concerning the children of Ruben and of Gad are repeated by the supposititious Deuteronomic D' or D- when he comes to set together the J and E and P of Josue? Why does he break in upon his con- tinued narrative (see Jos., i, 12; xiii, 15-28) ? Why this useless repetition of the same names, if not be- cause of the unity of composition of Josue 7 Why are the cities of refuge given again (cf. xx, 8; Deut., iv, 41 sqq.)? To answer these and similar difficulties, the critics have recourse to an uncritical subterfuge — D' or D^ was not brought up in the school of modern criticism ; hence his blunderings. We cannot accept so uncritical and free-handed a writer as the God-chosen and inspired editor of the Pentateuch and Josue. For a full refutation of the critics, see Comely, "Introd. Specialis in Hist. V. T. Libros", II (Paris, 1887, 177).

(4) Authorship. — (a) The Book of Josue was certainly written before the time of David, for the Chanaanite still dwelt in Gazer (xvi, 10), the Jebusite in Jeru- salem (xv, 63), and Sidon held supremacy in Phoenicia (xix, 28); whereas, before the time of Solomon, the Egyptians had driven the Chanaanite from Gazer (III Kings, ix, 16), David had captured Jerusalem in the eighth year of his reign (II Kings, v, 5), and T\Te (twelfth century b. c.) had supplanted Sidon in the supremacy of Phoenicia. Moreover, in David's time, no writer could have set down his allies the Phoenicians among the peoples to be destroyed (xiii. fi). (b) Inter- nal evidence favours the view that the author lived not long after the death of Josue. The territory assigned to each tribe is very exactly described. Only the land allotted to Ephraim is set down (xvi, 5), since occu-

pation was delayed (xvii, IC); on the other hand, we are told not only the portion of land allotted to Juda and Benjamin, but the cities they had captured (xv, 1 sqq.; xviii, 11 sqq.); as for the other tribes, the progress they had made in winning the cities of their lot is told us with an accuracy which could not be explained were we to admit that the narrative is post- Exilic in its final redaction. Only the inadmissible bungling of the uncritical D' or D" will serve to explain away this argument, (c) The question remains: Did Josue write all save the epilogue? Catholics are di- vided. Most of the Fathers seem to have taken it for granted that the author is Josue; still there have ever been Catholics who assigned the work to some one sliortly after the death of the great leader. Theo- doret (In Jos., q. xiv), Pseudo-Athanasius (SjTiopsis Sacr. Scrip.), T'ostatus (In Jos., i, q. xiii; vii), Maes (" Josue Imperatoris Historia", Antwerp, 1574), Hane- berg (" Gesch. der bibl. ffenbarung", Katisbnn, 1863, 202), Danko ("Hist. Rev. Di,-, W T ■, \ iiniKi. Is(i2, 200). Meignan (" Dc MoiM ■! Davi.!'. Pari.-, iv.ir,. :;:;5).

App.^rition of the Angel to Josue (Jos. V, 13-15 — God. Grtec. 405, Vatican Library)

and many other Catholic authors admit that the Book of Josue contains signs of later editing; but all insist that this editing was done before the Exile.

(5) Historicity. — The Biblical Commission (15 Feb., 1909) has decreed the historicity of the primitive narrative of Gen., i-iii; a fortiori it will not tolerate that a Catholic deny the historicity of Josue. The chief objection of rationalists to the historical worth of the book is the almost overwhelming force of the miraculous therein; this objection has no worth to the Catholic exegete. Other objections are forestalled in the treatment of the authenticity of the work. Full answer to the rationalistic objections will be found in the standard works of Catholics on introduction. Saints Paul (Heb., xi, 30, 31; xiii, 5), James (ii, 25), and Stephen (Acts, vii, 45), the tradition of the Syna- gogue and of the Church accept the Book of Josue as historical. To the Fathers Josue is an historical per- son and a type of the Messias. As an antidote to accusations that Josue was cruel and murderous, etc., one should read the Assyrian and Egyptian accounts of the almost contemporary treatment of the v.an- quished. St. .\ugastiiic s<)lv<'d the ratioiiall.-itii- diffi- culty by sa\ing that the alioniinatinnsor tlii't 'lianaan- ites merited the punishment which (.!od, as Master of the world, meted out to them by the hand of Israel (In