Page images

that the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua should have had the same author, or even authors.

Never in antiquity, so far as we know, was the Book of Joshua united to the Pentateuch in such a way as to form with it one book. The Greek version of the books of Moses, made about B. C. 280, forming a part of the Septuagint, did not include the Book of Joshua. Evidently the translators did not consider it as belonging to the Mosaic books. That the Book of Joshua was regarded as of inferior value to the Pentateuch may be inferred from the fact that the translators of the Mosaic books in the Septuagint render the Hebrew very faithfully into Greek, without taking liberties with the text, while the Greek version of Joshua has not been faithfully made, and great liberties have been taken with the Hebrew text. But it is possible that the translators may not be wholly to blame in the matter, and that the Hebrew text of the book has not been preserved with all the scrupulous fidelity that has characterized the transmission of the Pentateuch.

The Samaritans at Nablùs in Syria have the Hebrew Pentateuch, but not the Book of Joshua. Whether their Pentateuch came down to them from the ten tribes of Israel, or was obtained from Jerusalem after they had built their own temple on Mount Gerizim (B. C. 330) we cannot certainly determine, but in either case it is clear that the Book of Joshua did not belong to the Pentateuch. Nor does the description of the Pentateuch, as given in Neh. viii, 1 (B. C. 415), where it is characterized as “the book of the law of Moses, which the Lord had commanded to Israel," suit the Book of Joshua, which is not a book of commands.

The Testimony of the Book of Joshua to the Pentateuch, Having shown that the Book of Joshua is separate and distinct from the Pentateuch, and of different authorship, we can now use it as a witness for the Mosaic books. In Josh. i, 2, we find a reference to Deut. xi, 2+; i, 7, relates to Num. xxvii, 23 and Deut. xxxi, 7; and in i, 13 there is a reference to Num. xxxii, 20–24. In i, 8, the Mosaic law book is referred to in the following words: “This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth,” etc. In v, 6, there is a reference to Num. xiv, 23. In viii, 29, it is stated that the body of the King of Ai, hanged on a tree, was taken down after sunset. This was


[ocr errors]

in accordance with Deut. xxi, 23. We find also in Joshua x, 27, the carrying out of the same Deuteronomic law, not to allow a dead body to hang upon a tree all night. In Josh. viii, 30-35, it is stated that Joshua built an altar on Mount Ebal in accordance with a command " written in the book of the law of Moses, an altar of whole stones, over which no man hath lifted up any iron (tool): and they offered thereon burnt-offerings unto the Lord, and sacrificed peace-offerings.” In this

In this passage there is a reference to Exod. xx, 25. It is further stated that Joshua “ wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses” (viii, 32). The building of an altar, the offering of sacrifices, and the writing of the words of the law upon stones were in accordance with Deut. xxvii, 4-8. There is in Joshua no men. tion of the plastering of the stones with lime. Joshua also executed (ver. 33) the commands of Moses respecting the blessings to be pronounced from Gerizim and the curses from Ebal. Deut. xxvii, 12–15. It is not stated that Joshua wrote the whole law upon the stones; that was not necessary, as “this law” in Deuteronomy may mean that book only, and indeed not the whole of it, but its laws. The writing of numerous laws in this way is not incredible when one thinks of the immense quantity of writings on clay tablets that are found in the Assyrian ruins, and that what the Assyrians did on clay the Hebrews could do on plaster of lime, which they could have had in abundance, as the central mountain range of Palestine is largely composed of limestone rock. It is apparent from an inspection of the command in Deuteronomy, and the history of its execution by Joshua, that the two are independent of each other; the cornmand was not made to suit the history, nor the history adapted to the command.

The account of the daughters of Zelophehad (chap. xvii, 3, 4), corresponds with Num. xxvii, 1, 7. Passing by some other references to the Pentateuch, we have in Josh. xxii, 10-34, a clear proof that all Israel was acquainted with the precept in Lev. xvii, 3-5, 8, 9 which prohibits the offering of sacrifice anywhere except at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, and that all Israel deemed it rebellion against God to build any other altar for sacrifice besides that one at Shiloh. The incident is this: The two tribes and a half having been dismissed by Joshua to return to their homes east of the Jordan, upon their arrival on the east bank of the river they built a great altar as a witness that they belonged to Israel. The western tribes, supposing it was built for sacrifice, regarded it as treason against God, and assembled at Shiloh to fight the eastern tribes. But upon their disclaiming all intention of offering sacrifice upon their altar, which they themselves would consider treason against God, they satisfied the western tribes. We see no reason to question the truth of the occurrence, which has in itself no improbability and served no party interest. If the tribes east of the Jordan in the subsequent centuries had established a sanctuary of their own, the narrative miglit be supposed by skeptics to have been invented to prove that the ancestors of these tribes acknowledged the claims of the west Jordanic sanctuary. But nothing of the kind ever occurred, and the eastern tribes themselves were carried away captive into Assyria about B. C. 770. 1 Chron. v, 26.


1 In the address Joshua delivers the people at Shechem he rehearses the IIebrew history from Abraham to the conquest of Canaan, in which he follows the Pentateuch. And after making a covenant with the people, it is stated that Joshua wrote these words in the book of the law of God (xxiv, 26)that is, his address and the pledge of the people to perform what he had exhorted them to do. The reference in the passage is doubtless to the law of Moses, contained in a book to which Joshua's covenant with the people was added.

The author of the Book of Joshua is unknown: but it is probable that Joshua had left memoirs of his time, and that these, with the book of the division of the land, served as basis of the work, which was probably composed by Eleazar or Phinehas.

We find in the book indications of fairness and impartiality in the statement that Joshua was deceived by the Gibeoniteswhich was certainly not creditable to the great llebrew leader. Nor does it seem likely that the priestly scribes dwelling in Jerusalem, Judah's capital from the time of David to the Christian epoch, would have allowed the statement to stand that Achan was of the tribe of Juilah, unless compelled by the force of truth.

Henry Me, Harman

ART. II.-JESUS OF NAZARETH. Day by day the teachings, the personal influence, and the spirit of Jesus of Nazareth are gaining the mastery of the world. Christianity is the miracle of history. From the Pentecostal anointing through all the centuries to this year of grace, men have looked on and wondered. They have seen that the preaching of the Gospel which he taught has been attended by a manifestation of spiritual life without a precedent in the history of the race. The notable fact is, that they who have come into possession of this new regenerative power, transforming the spiritual nature and producing a life of purity and righteousness, testify that it is of faith in Jesus. So general is this testimony, from all classes of persons, that we are compelled to admit that the personality of Jesus is the chief element in Christianity. To know him in the experience of the “new birth” is life eternal—the highest aspiration of man.

The relation of Jesus to men is not that of a natural development of humanity. He is out of the common order, and must be regarded as a new divine element introduced into the world for the spiritual regeneration of society. We find in him all that had been in the best thought of the past; all that had been conceived in the imagination of the purest souls as something beyond their grasp. He appears among men claiming an origin and authority which no one had ever advanced, but his life was in such perfect accord with the assertion that he was of divine parentage that we cannot accept any other statement. We do not, then, hesitate to affirm that Jesus was God manifest in the flesh, under such conditions and limitations as are common to human-kind. Ile passed through the stages of

child-life into manhood, growing in such orderly physical and mental development as his associates of like age, and keeping step with the ordinary life of his times. A life, however, so pure and wise that the comprehensive record of it is, that “he advanced in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men.” The few saintly souls endowed with spiritual insight that came in contact with the divine Infant declared that the Messiah had appeared; and that he was “a light to lighten the Gentiles, and the glory of Israel.”

A mysterious silence broods over the years which he spent in Nazareth. We have only the slightest knowledge of his surroundings and personal associations, but what we know is in harmony with the after-life. Wise beyond his years, while still a child in the interpretation of the sacred writings, and in some measure conscious that he had a mission from on high, he possessed the graces which loving obedience imparts to childhood. His youth was pure and reverent, full of intelligence, endowed with those higher qualities which enable manhood to become all that it should be. He followed the simple but honorable craft of the head of the family into which he was born, without an effort to break away from the reputable duties of a life of manual labor. a

Nazareth had a synagogue and followed the Jewish ritual, and it was his custom to assemble with his bretliren in the Sabbath services. What spiritual communions and confidences he had with the heavenly Father during these years, when his soul was threading the experiences which devout study of the word and a constantly enlarging outlook of life and the world brought to him, we have no hint. Under divine tuition he was passing through the self-discipline which establishes exalted character in those sensitive souls whose spiritual nature has been quickened into true living.

The voice of the Baptist, crying in the wilderness that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, was the signal for Jesus to leave his home in Nazareth and take up lis life-work. This was followed by two striking manifestations of supernatural witnessing to his character and work--the direct testimony of God to his divine Sonship, and the visible descent upon him of the Iloly Spirit.

Jesus began his personal ministry by giving emphasis to the declaration of the Baptist in regard to the Messianic period. But those who heard him readily perceived that it was not the same “ voice;” they found themselves listening to a new preacher of righteousness. The announcement of the kingdom of God among men acquired new meaning under his teaching. A little company of disciples were chosen out of the district bordering on the Lake of Galilee; taken from the common people, but of those whose souls had been quickened by the preaching of Joh. There is nothing more singular in these initiatory steps than the selection of his disciples. The choice was made

« PreviousContinue »