were subsequently added to the history by the inspired collectors, in order to confirm, and illustrate it, to those of their own age. The learned commentator Henry, to whom we are indebted for these hints, thinks it not unlikely that the historical books, to the end of Kings, were compiled by the prophet Jeremiah, a short time before the captivity: he founds this opinion upon 1 Sam. xxvii. 6. where it is said of Ziglag, that it "pertaineth to the kings of Judah to this day;” which form of expression, he very justly remarks, commenced after the time of Solomon, and consequently terminated at the time of the captivity. The remaining five books, from 1 Chronicles to Esther, he thinks it still more probable, were compiled by Ezra the scribe, sometime after the captivity; to whom uninterrupted testimony ascribes the completion of the sacred canon.

But, although we cannot determine with certainty the authors of the historical books, "yet we may rest assured that the Jews, who had already received inspired books from the hands of Moses, would not have admitted any others as of equal authority, if they had not been fully convinced that the writers were supernaturally assisted. Next to the testimony of Christ and his apostles, which corroborates all our reasoning respecting the inspiration of the Old Testament, (and, when distinct arguments for any particular book cannot be found, supplies their place,) we must depend, in the case before us, upon the testimony of the Jews. And although the testimony of a nation is far from being, in every instance, a sufficient reason for believing its sacred books to be possessed of that divine authority which is ascribed to them; yet the testimony of the Jews has a peculiar title to be credited, from the circumstances in which it was delivered. It is the testimony of a people, who, having already in their possession genuine inspired books, were the better able to judge of others which advanced a claim to inspiration: and who, we have reason to think, far from being credulous with respect to such a claim, or disposed precipitately to recognise it, proceeded with deliberation and care in examining all pretensions of this nature, and rejected them when not supported by satisfactory evidence. They had been forewarned that false prophets should arise, and deliver their own fancies in the name of the Lord and, while they were thus put upon their guard, they were furnished with rules to assist them in distinguishing a true from a pretended revelation. (Deut. xviii. 15-22.) We have a proof that the antient Jews exercised a spirit of discrimination in this matter, at a period indeed later than that to which we refer, in their conduct with respect to the apocryphal books: for, although they were written by men of their own nation, and assumed the names of the most eminent personages, Solomon, Daniel, Ezra, and Baruch,-yet they rejected them as human compositions, and left the infallible church to mistake them for divine. The testimony, then, of the Jews, who without a dissenting voice have asserted the inspiration of the historical books, authorises us to receive them as a part of the oracles of God, which were committed to their care."1

1 Dick's Essay on the Inspiration of the Scriptures, pp. 184. 186.

The historical books are of very great importance for the right understanding of some other parts of the Old Testament: those portions, in particular, which treat on the life and reign of David, furnish a very instructive key to many of his psalms: and the prophetical books derive much light from these histories. But the attention of the sacred writers was not wholly confined to the Jewish people: they have given us many valuable, though incidental, notices concerning the state of the surrounding nations; and the value of these notices is very materially enhanced by the consideration, that, until the time of Ezra and Nehemiah, the two latest Jewish historians, little or no dependence can be placed upon the relations of heathen writers.1 But these books are to be considered not merely as a history of the Jewish church they also clearly illustrate the proceedings of God towards the children of men, and form a perpetual comment on the declaration of the royal sage, that "Righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." (Prov. xiv. 34.) While they exhibit a mournful but impartial view of the depravity of the human heart, and thus prove that "man is very far gone from original righteousness;" they at the same time show "the faithfulness of God to his promises, the certain destruction of his enemies, and his willingness to extend mercy to the returning penitent. They manifest also the excellency of true religion, and its tendency to promote happiness in this life, as well as in that which is to come: and they furnish us with many prophetical declarations, the striking fulfilment of which is every way calculated to strengthen our faith in the word of God."

SECTION II.

ON THE BOOK OF JOSHUA.

1. Author and genuineness of this book. II. Argument. — III. Scope.-IV. Synopsis of its contents.-V. Observations on the book of Jasher mentioned in Josh. x. 13.

I. THE book of Joshua, which in all the copies of the Old Testament immediately follows the Pentateuch, is thus denominated, because it contains a narration of the achievements of Joshua the son of Nun, who had been the minister of Moses, and succeeded him in the command of the children of Israel; but by whom this book was written is a question concerning which learned men are by no means agreed. From the absence of Chaldee words, and others of a later date, some are of opinion, not only that the book is of very great antiquity, but also that it was composed by Joshua himself. Of this opinion were several of the fathers, and the talmudical writers, and among the moderns, Gerhard, Diodati, Huet, Bishops Patrick and

1 Herodotus and Thucydides, the two most antient profane historians extant, were contemporary with Ezra and Nehemiah, and could not write with any certainty of events much before their own time. Bishop Stillingfleet has admirably proved the obscurity, defects, and uncertainty of all antient profane history, in the first book of his Origines Sacra, pp. 1-65. 8th edit. folio.

Tomline, and Dr. Gray, who ground their hypothesis principally upon the following arguments:

1. Joshua is said (ch. xxiv. 26.) to have written the transactions there recorded "in the book of the law of God," so that the book which bears his name forms a continuation of the book of Deuteronomy, the two last chapters of which they think were written by Joshua. But, if we examine the context of the passage just cited, we shall find that it refers, not to the entire book, but solely to the renewal of the covenant with Jehovah by the Israelites.

2. In the passage (chap. xxiv. 29. et seq.) where the death and burial of Joshua are related, the style differs from the rest of the book, in the same manner as the style of Deut. xxiii. and xxxiv. varies, in which the decease and burial of Moses are recorded: and Joshua is here called, as Moses is in Deuteronomy, the servant of God, which plainly proves that this passage was added by a later hand.

3. The author intimates (v. 1.) that he was one of those who passed into Canaan.

4. The whole book savours of the law of Moses, which is a strong argument in favour of its having been written by Joshua, the particular servant of Moses.

The last three of these arguments are by no means destitute of weight, but they are opposed by others which show that the book, as we now have it, was not coeval with the transactions it records. Thus, we read in Josh. xv. 63. that the children of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, "but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem to this day." Now this joint occupation of Jerusalem by these two classes of inhabitants did not take place till after Joshua's death, when the children of Judah took that city, (Judg. i. 8.) though the Jebusites continued to keep possession of the strong hold of Zion, whence they were not finally expelled until the reign of David, (2 Sam. v. 6—8.) The statement in Josh. iv. 9. (that the stones set up as a memorial of the passage of the Israelites over Jordan are standing to this day), was evidently added by some later writer. The same remark will apply to Josh. xv. 13-19. compared with Judg. i. 10—15. Josh. xvi. 10. with Judg. i. 29. and to Josh. xix. 47. collated with Judg. xviii. 29. Since, then, it appears from internal evidence that the book was not written by Joshua himself, the question recurs again, by whom was the book composed or compiled? Dr. Lightfoot ascribes it to Phineas; Calvin thinks their conjecture most probable, who refer the writing of this book, or at least the compilation of the history, to the high priest Eleazar, (whose death is recorded in the very last verse of the book); because it was the high priest's duty not only to teach the people orally, but also by writing to instruct posterity in the ways of God.' Henry, as we have already seen, ascribes it to Jeremiah; and Van Til, to Samuel.3 But, by whatever

1 Calvin, Proleg. in Jos. op. tom. i. in fine. This great reformer, however, leaves the question undetermined, as being at most conjectural and uncertain. 2 See p. 27. supra. 3 Opus Analyticum, vol. i. p. 410.

prophet or inspired writer this book was composed, it is evident from comparing Josh. xv. 63. with 2 Sam. v. 6-8. that it was written before the seventh year of David's reign.

Further, if the book of Judges were not written later than the beginning of Saul's reign, as some eminent critics are disposed to think, or later than the seventh year of David's reign, which is the opinion of others, the book of Joshua must necessarily have been written before one or other of those dates, because the author of the book of Judges not only repeats some things verbatim from Joshua,' and slightly touches upon others which derive illustration from it;2 but also in two several instances (Judg. i. 1. and ii. 6—8.), commences his narrative from the death of Joshua, which was related in the close of the preceding book. If the book of Joshua had not been previously extant, the author of Judges would have begun his history from the occupation and division of the land of Canaan, which was suitable to his design in writing that book.

Whoever was the author of the book of Joshua, it is manifest that it was compiled from antient, authentic, and contemporary documents. The example of Moses, indeed, who committed to writing the transactions of his own time, leads us to expect that some continuation would necessarily be made, not only to narrate the signal fulfilment of those promises, which had been given to the patriarchs, but also to preserve an account of the division of the land of Canaan among the particular tribes, as a record for future ages; and thus prevent disputes and civil wars, which in process of time might rise between powerful and rival tribes. This remark is corroborated by express testimony for in Josh. xviii. we not only read that the great captain of the Israelites caused a survey of the land to be made and described in a book, but in xxiv. 25. the author relates that Joshua committed to writing an account of the renewal of the covenant with God; whence it is justly inferred that the other transactions of this period were preserved in some authentic and contemporaneous document or commentary. Further, without some such document, the author of this book could not have specified the limits of each tribe with so much minuteness, nor have related with accuracy the discourses of Caleb (Josh. xiv. 6-12.); neither could he have correctly related the discourses of Phinehas and the delegates who accompanied him, to the tribes beyond Jordan (Josh. xxii. 18-20.), nor the discourses of the tribes themselves (xxii. 21-30.), nor of Joshua (xxiii. and xxiv.); nor could he have so arranged the whole, as to be in perfect harmony with the law of Moses. Lastly, without a contem poraneous and authentic document, the author would not have expressed himself, as in ch. v. 1. as if he had been present in the transactions which he has related, nor would he have written, as he has done in vi. 26. that "she dwelleth in Israel unto this day;" and this document he has expressly cited in x. 13. by the title of the 'Book of Jasher,' or of the Upright.

1 Judg. ii. 6-9, is repeated from Josh. xxiv. 28-31. and Judg. i. 29. from Josh. xvi. 10 2 Thus Judg. i. 10-15. 20. derives light from Josh. xv.

Equally clear is it that the author of this book has made his extracts from authentic documents with religious fidelity, and consequently is worthy of credit: for,

In the first place, he has literally copied the speeches of Caleb, Phinehas, of the tribes beyond Jordan, and of Joshua, and in other passages has so closely followed his authority, as to write in v. 1. "until we were passed over," and in vi. 25. that Rahab "dwelleth in Israel until this day." Hence also, the tribes are not mentioned in the geographical order in which their respective territories were situate, but according to the order pursued in the original document,— namely, according to the order in which they received their tracts of land by lot, (Josh. xv. xvi. xviii. xix.) Lastly, in conformity to his original document, the author has made no honourable mention of Joshua until after his death; whence it is highly probable that the commentary from which this book was compiled, was originally written by Joshua himself.

Secondly, this book was received as authentic by the Jews in that age when the original commentary was extant, and the author's fidelity could be subjected to the test of examination: and,

Thirdly, several of the transactions related in the book of Joshua are recorded by other sacred writers with little or no material variations; thus, we find the conquest and division of Canaan, mentioned by Asaph (Psal. lxxviii. 53-65. compared with Psal. xliv. 2-4.); the slaughter of the Canaanites by David (Psal. lxviii. 13—15.); the division of the waters of Jordan (Psal. cxiv. 1-5. cxvi. 5, 6. Habak. iii. 8.); the terrible tempest of hail-stones after the slaughter of the southern Canaanites (Heb. iii. 11-13. compared with Josh. x. 9-11.); and the setting up of the tabernacle at Shiloh, (Josh. xviii. 1.) in the books of Judges (xviii. 31.) and Samuel. (1 Sam. i. 3. 9. 24. and iii. 21.)

Lastly, every thing related in the book of Joshua not only accurately corresponds with the age in which that hero lived, but is further confirmed by the traditions current among heathen nations, some of which have been preserved by antient and profane historians of undoubted character.1 Thus there are antient monuments extant, which prove that the Carthaginians were a colony of Tyrians who escaped from Joshua; as also that the inhabitants of Leptis in Africa. came originally from the Sidonians, who abandoned their country on account of the calamities with which it was overwhelmed.2 The fable of the Phenician Hercules originated in the history of Joshua:3

1 See particularly Justin, lib. xxxvi. c. 2. and Tacitus, Hist. lib. v. cc. 2, 3. On the falsely alleged contradictions between the sacred and profane historians, see Vol. I. Appendix, No. III. Sect. VII. pp. 584-590.

2 Allix's Reflections upon the Books of the Old Testament, chap. ii. (Bishop Watson's Collection of Theological Tracts, vol. i. p. 354.)

3 Procopius (Vandal. lib. ii. c. 10.) cites a Phenician inscription; containing a passage which he has translated into Greek, to the following purport:-"We are they who flee from the face of Jesus (the Greek name of Joshua) the robber, the son of Nave." Suidas cites the inscription thus: - "We are the Canaanites whom Jesus the robber expelled." The difference between these two writers is not material, and may be accounted for by the same passage being differently rendered by