Chapter VII: Part 7

JOSHEKAN, a small province of Persia covering about 1000 sq. m. Pop. about 5000. It has a yearly revenue of about £1200, and is held in fief by the family of Bahram Mirza, Muizz ed Dowleh (d. 1882). Its chief town and the residence of the governor used to be Joshekan-Kali, a large village with fine gardens, formerly famous for its carpets (_kali_), but now the chief place is Maimeh, a little city with a population of 2500, situated at an elevation of 6670 ft., about 63 m. from Isfahan in a north-westerly direction and 13 m. south-west of Joshekan-Kali.

JOSHUA, BOOK OF, the sixth book of the Old Testament, and the first of the group known as the "Former Prophets." It takes its name from Joshua[1] the son of Nun, an Ephraimite who, on the death of Moses, assumed the leadership to which he had previously been designated by his chief (Deut. xxxi. 14 seq., 23), and proceeded to the conquest of the land of Canaan. The book differs from the Pentateuch or Torah in the absence of legal matter, and in its intimate connexion with the narrative in the books which follow. It is, however, the proper sequel to the origins of the people as related in Genesis, to the exodus of the Israelite tribes from Egypt, and their journeyings in the wilderness. On these and also on literary grounds it is often convenient to class the first six books of the Bible as a unit under the term "Hexateuch." For an exhaustive detailed study has revealed many signs of diversity of authorship which combine to show that the book is due to the incorporation of older material in two main redactions; one deeply imbued with the language and thought of Deuteronomy itself (D), the other of the post-exilic priestly circle (P) which gave the Pentateuch its present form. That the older sources (which often prove to be composite) are actually identical with the Yahwist or Judaean (J) and the Elohist or Ephraimite (E) narratives (on which see GENESIS) is not improbable, though, especially as regards the former, still very uncertain. In general the literary problems are exceedingly intricate, and no attempt can be made here to deal with them as fully as they deserve.

_The Invasion._--The book falls naturally into two main parts, of which the first, the crossing of the Jordan and the conquest of Palestine (i.-xii.) is mainly due to Deuteronomic compilers. It opens with the preparations for the crossing of the Jordan and the capture of the powerful city Jericho. Ai, near Bethel, is taken after a temporary repulse, and Joshua proceeds to erect an altar upon Mt Ebal (north of Shechem). For the fullness with which the events are recorded the writers were probably indebted to local stories.

The Israelites are at Abel-Shittim (already reached in Num. xxv. 1).
Moses is dead, and Joshua enters upon his task with the help of the
Transjordanic tribes who have already received their territory (i).
The narrative is of the later prophetic stamp (D; cf. Deut. iii.
18-22, xi. 24, where Moses is the speaker; xxxi. 1-8), but may be
based upon an earlier and shorter record (E; vv. 1 seq., 10, 11a). Of
the mission of the spies to Jericho, two versions were current
(duplicates ii. 3, 12, 18; v. 15 seq. breaks the connexion between vv.
13 and 18, but is resumed in vv. 22-24); D's addition is to be
recognized in ii. 9b-11. The incident occupies at least four days, but
the main narrative reckons three days between i. 11 and iii. 2. Next
follow the passage of the Jordan (commemorated by the erection of
twelve stones), the encampment at Gilgal, and the observance of the
rite of circumcision and of the passover (iii.-v.). The complicated
narrative in iii.-iv. is of composite origin (contrast iii. 17 with
iv. 10 seq., 19; iv. 3, 8 with vv. 9, 20; and cf. iii. 12 with the
superfluous iv. 2, &c.). As in ii., D has amplified (iii. 4b, 7, 10b,
iv. 9-10a, 12, 14; more prominently in iv. 21-v. 1, v. 4-8), and
subsequently P (or a hand akin to P) has worked over the whole (iii.
4, note the number and the prohibition, cf. Num. i. 51; iii. 8, 15
seq.; iv. 13, 19; v. 10-12). Circumcision, already familiar from Exod.
iv. 26, Deut. x. 16, is here regarded as a new rite (v. 2, 9,
supplemented by vv. 1, 4-8), but the conflicting views have been
harmonized by the words "the second time" (v. 2). Gilgal is thus named
from the "rolling away" of the "reproach of Egypt" (v. 9), but iv. 20
suggests a different origin, viz. the sacred stone-circle (cf. Judges
iii. 19, R.V. marg.). An older account of the divine commission to
Joshua appears in the archaic passage v. 13-15 (cf. Moses in Exod.
iii.). Fusion of sources is obvious in the story of the fall of
Jericho (contrast vi. 5 and v. 10, vv. 21 and 24, vv. 22 and 25);
according to one (E?) the people march seven times round the city on
one day, the ark and the priests occupying a prominent position (vi.
4-6, 7b-9, 12 seq., 16a, 20 [part], 22-24); but in the other they
march every day for seven days. Both here and in the preceding
chapters the Septuagint has several variations and omissions, due
either to an (unsuccessful) attempt to simplify the present
difficulties, or to the use of another recension. The curse pronounced
by Joshua upon the destroyed city of Jericho (vi. 26) should be
associated with an incident in the reign of Ahab which is acquainted
with the story (1 Kings xvi. 34); the city, however, reappears in
Joshua xviii. 21; 2 Sam. x. 5. Achan's sacrilege, the cause of the
repulse at Ai and of the naming of the valley of Achor (vii.), is
introduced by vi. 18 seq., 24b, and, as its spirit shows, is of
relatively later date. It contains some probable traces of D (in vii.
5, 7, 11 seq., 15, 25) and P (in vv. 1, 18, 24 seq.). The capture of
Ai has marks of the same dual origin as the preceding chapters (cf.
viii. 3a with 10, and contrast viii. 3-9 with v. 12; vv. 5-7 with 18,
26; v. 19 with 28). The general resemblance between chs. vii.-viii.
and the war with Benjamin (Judges xx.) should be noticed.

_Conquests in Palestine._--The erection of the altar, not at the scene of battle (cf. 1 Sam. xiv. 35) but on Mt Ebal (viii. 30-35, D), presupposes the conquest of central Palestine and the removal of the ark from Gilgal. These, however, are not narrated, and, unless some account of them has been replaced by the present passage, this portion of the conquest was ignored. Possibly the passage is not in its original position: in the Septuagint it appears after ix. 2, while Josephus (_Ant._ v. 1, 19) and the Samaritan book of Joshua read it before ch. xiii.; Dillmann, however, would place it after xi. 23. The capture of Jericho and Ai is followed by the successful stratagem of the Gibeonites to make peace with Israel (ix.). This involves them in a war with the southern Canaanites; Joshua intervenes and obtains a crowning victory (x.). The camp is still at Gilgal. A similar conquest of the northern Canaanites follows (xi.), and the first part of the book concludes with a summary of the results of the Israelite invasion (xii.).

No satisfactory explanation of viii. 30-35 has been found, yet ix. 1
seq. seems to show that it was the prelude to the Canaanite wars. In
contrast to the absence of any reference to the occupation of central
Palestine, the conquest of the south was current in several divergent
traditions. Two records are blended in ix.; one narrates the covenant
with the Gibeonites, the other that with the Hivites (properly
Hivvites); and in the latter Joshua has no place (vv. 4 seq., 6b, 7,
11-14, &c.). The former has additions by D (vv. 9b, 10, 24 seq.) and
by P (v. 15 last clause, 17-21); the latter, in accordance with the
legislation of its day (posterior to Ezek. xliv. 6 sqq.), does not
allow the Gibeonites to minister to the temple or altar, but merely to
the "congregation," a characteristic post-exilic term (contrast vv. 21
and 23; and on 27 see Sept. and commentaries). The story of the
covenant conflicts with the notice that Gibeon was still an
independent Canaanite city in David's time (2 Sam. xxi. 2). The defeat
of the southern coalition is based, as the doublets show, upon two
sources; the war arises from two causes (vengeance upon the
Gibeonites, and the attempt to overthrow Israel), and concludes with a
twofold victory: in x. 16-24 the kings are pursued to Makkedah and
slain, in v. 11 they are smitten by a great hailstorm in their flight
to Azekah (cf. 1 Sam. vii. 10, xiv. 15, in the same district).
Redactional links have been added, apparently by D, to whom is
possibly due the stanza quoted from the book of Jashar (v. 12 seq.), a
poetical address to the sun and moon, of the nature of a prayer or
spell for their aid (cf. Judges v. 20, and see Ecclus. xlvi. 4). The
literal interpretation of this picturesque quotation has been
influenced by the prosaic comments at the end of v. 13 and beginning
of v. 14. Verse 15, which closes the account, anticipates v. 43; the
Septuagint omits both. The generalizing narrative (x. 28-43), which is
due to D in its present form, is partly based upon old matter (e.g.
the capture of Makkedah), but is inconsistent with what precedes (v.
37, see v. 23 sqq.) and follows (capture of Debir, v. 38 seq., see xv.
15; Judges i. 11). The description of the conquest of the northern
Canaanites is very similar to that of the south. The main part is from
an older source (xi. 1, 4-9; see DEBORAH), the amplifications (v. 2
seq.) are due to D, as also are the summary (vv. 10-23, cf. style of
x. 28-43), and the enumeration of the total results of the invasion
(xii.), which includes names not previously mentioned.

_Division of the Land._--The result of the events narrated in the first part of the book is to ascribe the entire subjugation of Canaan to Joshua, whose centre was at Gilgal (x. 15, 43). He is now "old and advanced in years," and although much outlying land remained to be possessed, he is instructed to divide the conquered districts among the western tribes (xiii. 1 sqq.). This is detailed at length in the second part of the book. With the completion of the division his mission is accomplished. The main body of this part (xiii. 15-xiv. 5; xv.-xvii.; xviii. 11-xxi. 42; xxii. 7-34) is in its present form almost entirely due to P.

In regard to details, xiii. 2-6 (now D) expresses the view that the
conquest was incomplete, and numbers districts chiefly in the
south-west and in the Lebanon. Two sources deal with the inheritance
of the east Jordan tribes in terms which are--(a) general (xiii. 8-12,
D), and (b) precise (vv. 15-32, P). The latter stands between the
duplicate passages xiii. 14 and 32 seq. (see the Sept.). With the
interest taken in these tribes, cf. for (a) i. 12-18; Deut. iii.
12-22, and the sequel in Joshua xxii. 1-6; and for (b) xxii. 9 seq.;
Num. xxxii. P's account of the division opens with an introductory
notice of the manner in which Eleazar the priest and Joshua (note the
order) prepare to complete the work which Moses had begun (xiv. 1-5).
It opens with Judah, its borders (xv. 1-12) and cities (vv. 20-62),
and continues with the two Joseph tribes, Ephraim (xvi. 4-9, contrast
details in vv. 1-3) and Manasseh (xvii. 1-10, cf. Num. xxvi. 30-32,
xxvii. 1-11; P). There is now a break in the narrative (xviii. 2-10,
source uncertain); seven tribes have not yet received an inheritance,
and Joshua (alone) encourages them to send three men from each tribe
to walk through the land--excluding the territory of Judah and
Joseph--and to bring a description of it to him, after which he
divides it among them by lot. P[2] now resumes with an account of the
borders and cities of Benjamin (xviii. 11-28), Simeon, Zebulun,
Issachar, Asher, Naphtali and Dan (xix.; on v. 47, see below); and,
after the subscription (xix. 51), concludes with the institution of
the cities of refuge (xx., cf. Num. xxxv.), and of the Levitical
cities (xxi., contrast the earlier brief notice, xiii. 14, 33).
Chapter xx., belonging to the Predaction, has certain points of
contact with Deut. xix. which, it is very important to observe, are
wanting in the Septuagint; and xxi. 43-45 closes D's account of the
division, and in the Septuagint contains matter most of which is now
given by P in xix. 49 seq. Two narratives describe the dismissal of
the trans-Jordanic tribes after their co-operation in the conquest,
viz. xxii. 1-6 (D), and xxii. 9 seq. (P); cf. above, on xiii. 8 seq.
P, with the description of the erection of the altar (v. 34, Gilead?;
cf. Gen. xxxi. 47 seq.), is apparently a late re-writing of some now
obscure incident to emphasize the unity of worship. P's account of the
distribution of land among the _nine and a half_ tribes by Eleazar and
Joshua (from xiv. 1-5 to xix. 51) appears to have been on the lines
laid down in Num. xxxiv. (P). The scene, according to xviii. 1, is
Shiloh, and this verse, which does not belong to the context, should
apparently precede P's narrative in xiv. 1. But of the occupation of
_Shiloh_, the famous Ephraimite sanctuary and the seat of the ark, we
have no information. The older source, however, presupposes that Judah
and the two Joseph tribes have acquired their territory; the remaining
seven are blamed for their indifference (xviii. 2-10, see above), and
receive their lot conjointly at the camp at Shiloh. But if the
location is an attempt to harmonize with xviii. 1, _Gilgal_ should
probably be restored. The section xviii. 2-10 is followed by xxi. 43
seq. (above), and may have been preceded originally by xiii. 1, 7
(where read: inheritance for the _seven_ tribes); in its present form
it appears to be due to D. Another account of the exploits of Judah
and Joseph can be traced here and there; e.g. in xiv. 6-15 (where
Caleb receives Hebron as his inheritance and the "land had rest from
war"), and xvii. 14-18 (where Joseph receives an additional lot); but
where these traditions have not been worked into later narratives,
they exist only in fragmentary form and are chiefly recognizable by
their standpoint. They are characterized by the view that the conquest
was only a partial one, and one which was neither the work of a single
man nor at his instigation, but due entirely to individual or tribal
achievements. This view can be traced in xiii. 13, xv. 63 (cf. the
parallel Judges i. 21 in contrast to v. 8), xvi. 10 (Judges i. 29),
xvii. 11-13 (Judges i. 27 seq.), and in the references to separate
tribal or family exploits: xv. 13-19, xix. 47 (cf. Judges i. 34 seq.,
xviii.).

Two closing addresses are ascribed to Joshua, one an exhortation similar to the homilies in secondary portions of Deuteronomy (xxiii.; cf. Moses in Deut. xxviii. seq., and Samuel's last address in 1 Sam. xii.), which virtually excludes the other (xxiv.), where Joshua assembles the tribes at Shechem (Shiloh, in the Septuagint) and passes under review the history of Israel from the days of heathenism (before Abraham was brought into Canaan) down through the oppression in Egypt, the exodus, the conquest in East Jordan and the occupation of Canaan. A few otherwise unknown details are to be found (xxiv. 2, 11 seq. 14). The address (which is extremely important for its representation of the religious conditions) is made the occasion for a solemn covenant whereby the people agree to cleave to Yahweh alone. This is commemorated by the erection of a stone under the oak by the sanctuary of Yahweh (for the tree with its sacred pillar, see Gen. xxxv. 4; Judges ix. 6). The people are then dismissed, and the book closes in ordinary narrative style with the death of Joshua and his burial in his inheritance at Timnath-serah in Mt Ephraim (cf. xix. 49 seq.); the burial of Joseph in Shechem; and the death and burial of Eleazar the son of Aaron in the "hill of Phinehas."

Chapter xxiv. presupposes the complete subjection of the Canaanites
and is of a late prophetic stamp. Some signs of amplification (e.g.
vv. 11b, 13, 31) suggest that it was inserted by a Deuteronomic hand,
evidently distinct from the author of xxiii. But elsewhere there are
traces of secondary Deuteronomic expansion and of internal
incongruities in Deuteronomic narratives; contrast xiv. 6-15 with
Joshua's extermination of the "Anakim" in xi. 21 seq.; the use of this
name with the "Philistines" of xiii. 2 (see PHILISTINES), or the
conquests in xi. 16-22 with the names in x. 36-43. All these passages
are now due to D; but not only is Deuteronomy itself composite, a
twofold redaction can be traced in Judges, Samuel and Kings, thus
involving the deeper literary problems of Joshua with the historical
books generally.[3] Both Joshua xxiii. and xxiv. are closely connected
with the very complicated introduction to the era of the "judges" in
Judges ii. 6 sqq., and ii. 6-9 actually resume Joshua xxiv. 28 sqq.,
while the Septuagint appends to the close of Joshua the beginning of
the story of Ehud (Judges iii. 12 seq.). Both Judges i.-ii. 5 and
chap. xvii.-xxi. are of post-Deuteronomic insertion, and they
represent conditions analogous to the older notices imbedded in the
later work of P (Judges i. 21, xix. 10-12, cf. Joshua xv. 63; see
JUDGES _ad fin._). Moreover, P in its turn shows elsewhere definite
indications of different periods and standpoints, and the fluid state
of the book at a late age is shown by the presence of Deuteronomic
elements in Joshua xx., not found in the Septuagint, and by the
numerous and often striking readings which the latter recension
presents.

_Value of the Book._--The value of the book of Joshua is primarily religious; its fervency, its conviction of the destiny of Israel and its inculcation of the unity and greatness of the God of Israel give expression to the philosophy of Israelite historians. As an historical record its value must depend upon a careful criticism of its contents in the light of biblical history and external information. Its description of the conquest of Canaan comes from an age when the event was a shadow of the past. It is an ideal view of the manner in which a divinely appointed leader guided a united people into the promised land of their ancestors, and, after a few brief wars of extermination (x.-xii.), died leaving the people in quiet possession of their new inheritance (xi. 23; xxi. 44 seq.; xxiii. 1).[4] On the other hand, the earlier inhabitants were not finally subjugated until Solomon's reign (1 Kings ix. 20); Jerusalem was taken by David from the Jebusites (2 Sam. v.); and several sites in its neighbourhood, together with important fortresses like Gezer, Megiddo and Taanach, were not held by Israel at the first. There are traces of other conflicting traditions representing independent tribal efforts which were not successful, and the Israelites are even said to live in the midst of Canaanites, intermarrying with them and adopting their cult (Judges i.-iii. 6). From a careful consideration of all the evidence, both internal and external, biblical scholars are now almost unanimous that the more finished picture of the Israelite invasion and settlement cannot be accepted as a historical record for the age. It accords with this that the elaborate tribal-lists and boundaries prove to be of greater value for the geography than for the history of Palestine, and the attempts to use them as evidence for the early history of Israel have involved numerous additional difficulties and confusion.[5]

The book of Joshua has ascribed to one man conquests which are not confirmed by subsequent history. The capture of Bethel, implied rather than described in Joshua viii., is elsewhere the work of the Joseph tribes (Judges i. 22 sqq., cf. features in the conquest of Jericho, Joshua vi. 25). Joshua's victory in north Palestine has its parallel in Judges iv. at another period (see DEBORAH), and Adoni-zedek of Jerusalem (Joshua x.) can scarcely be severed from the Adoni-bezek taken by the tribes of Judah and Simeon (Judges i. 5-7). The prominence of Joshua as military and religious leader, and especially his connexion with Shechem and Shiloh, have suggested that he was a hero of the Joseph tribes of central Palestine (viz. Ephraim and Manasseh). Moreover, the traditions in Joshua viii. 30-ix. 2, and Deut. xxvii. 1-8 seem to place the arrival at Mt Ebal immediately after the crossing of the Jordan. This implies that Israel (like Jacob in Gen. xxxii.) crossed by the Jabbok, and in fact the Wadi Fari'a provides an easy road to Shechem, to the south-east of which lies Juleijil; and while this is the Gilgal of Deut. xi. 30, the battles at Jericho and Ai (Joshua ii. seq.) occur naturally after the encampment at the southern Gilgal (near Jericho). The alternative view (see especially Stade, _Gesch. Isr._ 1. 133 sqq.) connects itself partly with the ancestor of all the tribes (Jacob, i.e. Israel), and partly with the eponym of the Joseph tribes whose early days were spent around Shechem, the removal of whose bones from Egypt must have found a prominent place in the traditions of the tribes concerned (Gen. l. 25; Exod. xiii. 19; Joshua xxiv. 32). According to one view (Stade, Wellhausen, Guthe, &c.) only the Joseph tribes were in Egypt, and separate tribal movements (see JUDAH) have been incorporated in the growth of the tradition; the probability that the specific traditions of the Joseph tribes have been excised or subordinated finds support in the manner in which the Judaean P has abridged and confused the tribal lists of Ephraim and Manasseh.

The serious character of the problems of early Israelite history can be perceived from the renewed endeavours to present an adequate outline of the course of events; for a criticism of the most prominent hypotheses see Cheyne, _Ency. Bib._ art. "Tribes" (col. 5209 seq.); a new theory has been more recently advanced by E. Meyer (_Die Israeliten u. ihre Nachbarstämme_, 1906). But Joshua as a tribal hero does not belong to the earliest phase in the surviving traditions. He has no place in the oldest surviving narratives of the exodus (Wellhausen, Steuernagel); and only later sources add him to Caleb (Num. xiv. 30; the reference in Deut. i. 38 is part of an insertion), or regard him as the leader of all the tribes (Deut. iii. 21, 28). As an attendant of Moses at the tent of meeting he appears in quite secondary passages (Exod. xxxiii. 7-11; Num. xi. 28). His defeat of the Amalekites is in a narrative (Exod. xvii. 8-16) which belongs more naturally to the wilderness of Shur, and it associates him with traditions of a movement direct into south Palestine which finds its counterpart when the clan Caleb (q.v.) is artificially treated as possessing its seats with Joshua's permission. But points of resemblance between Joshua the invader and Saul the founder of the (north) Israelite monarchy gain in weight when the traditions of both recognize the inclusion or possession of Judah, and thus stand upon quite another plane as compared with those of David the founder of the Judaean dynasty. Instead of rejecting the older stories of Joshua's conquests it may be preferable to infer that there were radical divergences in the historical views of the past. Consequently, the parallels between Joshua and Jacob (see Steuernagel's _Commentary_, p. 150) are more significant when the occupation of central Palestine, already implied in the book of Joshua, is viewed in the light of Gen. xlviii. 22, where Jacob as conqueror (cf. the very late form of the tradition in Jubilees xxxiv.) agrees with features in the patriarchal narratives which, in implying a settlement in Palestine, are entirely distinct from those which belong to the descent into Egypt (see especially, Meyer, op. cit. pp. 227 seq., 414 seq., 433; Luther, ib. 108 seq.). The elaborate account of the exodus gives the prevailing views which supersede other traditions of the origin both of the Israelites and of the worship of Yahweh (Gen. iv. 26). Several motives have influenced its growth,[6] and the kernel--the revelation of Yahweh to Moses--has been developed until all the tribes of Israel are included and their history as a people now begins. The old traditions of conquest in central Palestine have similarly been extended, and have been adapted to the now familiar view of Israelite origins. It is this subordination of earlier tradition to other and more predominating representations which probably explains the intricacy of a book whose present text may not have been finally fixed until, as Dillmann held, as late as about 200 B.C.

BIBLIOGRAPHY.--See the commentaries of Dillmann, Steuernagel Holzinger
(German), or the concise edition by H. W. Robinson in the _Century
Bible_; also articles on "Joshua" by G. A. Smith, Hastings's _D. B._,
and G. F. Moore, _Ency. Bib._; Kittel in _Hist. of the Hebrews_, i.
262 sqq.; W. H. Bennett, in Haupt's _Sacred Books of the Old
Testament_; Carpenter and Harford-Battersby, _Comp. of Hexateuch_, ch.
xvii; S. R. Driver, _Lit. of the O. T._ (8th ed., 1909). These give
further bibliographical information, for which see also the articles
on the books of the Pentateuch. (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Heb. _Jehoshua_; later _Jeshua_; Gr. [Greek: Iêsous], whence
"Jesus" in the A.V. of Heb. iv. 8; another form of the name is Hoshea
(Num. xiii. 8, 16). The name may mean "Yah(weh) is wealth, _or_ is
(our) war-cry, _or_ saves." The only extra-biblical notice of Joshua
is the inscription of more than doubtful genuineness given by
Procopius (_Vand._ ii. 20), and mentioned also by Moses of Chorene
(_Hist. Arm._ i. 18). It is said to have stood at Tingis in
Mauretania, and to have borne that those who erected it had fled
before [Greek: Iêsous ho lêstês]. For the medieval Samaritan Book of
Joshua, see T. Juynboll, _Chronicum Samaritanum_ (1846); J. A.
Montgomery, _The Samaritans_ (1907), pp. 301 sqq.

[2] Traces of composite material may be recognized--(a) where, in
place of boundaries, P has given lists of cities which appear to be
taken from other sources (cf. the instructions in xviii. 9), and (b)
in the double headings (see Addis, _The Hexateuch_, i. 230, note 1,
and the commentaries).

[3] The close relation between what may be called the Deuteronomic
history (Joshua-Kings) and its introduction (the legal book of
Deuteronomy) independently show the difficulty of supporting the
traditional date ascribed to the latter.

[4] G. F. Moore (_Ency. Bib._, col. 2608, note 2) draws attention to
the instructive parallel furnished by the Greek legends of the Dorian
invasion of the Peloponnesus (the "return" of the Heracleidae, the
partition of the land by lot, &c.).

[5] The historical problems are noticed in all biblical histories,
and in the commentaries on Joshua and Judges. Against the ordinary
critical view, see J. Orr, _Problem of the O.T._ (1905) pp. 240 seq.
This writer (on whom see A. S. Peake, _The Interpreter_, 1908, pp.
252 seq.) takes the book as a whole, allowance being made for "the
generalizing tendency peculiar to all summaries." His argument that
"the circumstantiality, local knowledge and evidently full
recollection of the narratives (in Joshua) give confidence in the
truth of their statements" is one which historical criticism in no
field would regard as conclusive, and his contention that a redactor
would hardly incorporate conflicting traditions in his narrative "if
he believed they contradicted it" begs the question and ignores
Oriental literature.

[6] E.g. the vicissitudes of Levitical families, other migrations
into Palestine, &c. The story of Joseph has probably been used as a
link (see Luther, _op. cit._ pp. 142 seq.).

JOSHUA THE STYLITE, the reputed author of a chronicle which narrates the history of the war between the Greeks and Persians in 502-506, and which is one of the earliest and best historical documents preserved to us in Syriac. The work owes its preservation to having been incorporated in the third part of the history of pseudo-Dionysius of Tell-Mahre, and may probably have had a place in the second part of the _Ecclesiastical History_ of John of Asia, from whom (as Nau has shown) pseudo-Dionysius copied all or most of the matter contained in his third part. The chronicle in question is anonymous, and Nau has shown that the note of a copyist, which was thought to assign it to the monk Joshua of Zuknin near Amid, more probably refers to the compiler of the whole work in which it was incorporated. Anyhow the author was an eye-witness of many of the events which he describes, and must have been living at Edessa during the years when it suffered so severely from the Persian War. His view of events is everywhere characterized by his belief in overruling Providence; and as he eulogizes Flavian II., the Chalcedonian patriarch of Antioch, in warmer terms than those in which he praises his great Monophysite contemporaries, Jacob of Serugh and Philoxenus of Mabbog, he was probably an orthodox Catholic.

The chronicle was first made known by Assemani's abridged Latin
version (_B. O._ i. 260-283) and was edited in 1876 by the abbé Martin
and (with an English translation) by W. Wright in 1882. After an
elaborate dedication to a friend--the "priest and abbot" Sergius--a
brief recapitulation of events from the death of Julian in 363 and a
fuller account of the reigns of the Persian kings Peroz (457-484) and
Balash (484-488), the writer enters upon his main theme--the history
of the disturbed relations between the Persian and Greek Empires from
the beginning of the reign of Kawad I. (489-531), which culminated in
the great war of 502-506. From October 494 to the conclusion of peace
near the end of 506, the author gives an annalistic account, with
careful specification of dates, of the main events in Mesopotamia, the
theatre of conflict--such as the siege and capture of Amid by the
Persians (502-503), their unsuccessful siege of Edessa (503), and the
abortive attempt of the Greeks to recover Amid (504-505). The work was
probably written a few years after the conclusion of the war. The
style is graphic and straightforward, and the author was evidently a
man of good education and of a simple, honest mind. (N. M.)

JOSIAH (Heb. _yo' shiyyahu_, perhaps "Yah[weh] supports"), in the Bible, the grandson of Manasseh, and king of Judah. He came to the throne at the age of eight, after the murder of his predecessor Amon. The circumstances of his minority are not recorded, nor is anything related of the Scythian inroads which occurred in the latter half of the 7th century B.C., although some passages in the books of Jeremiah and Zephaniah are supposed to refer to the events. The storm which shook the external states was favourable to the peace of Judah; the Assyrian power was practically broken, and that of the Chaldeans had scarcely developed into an aggressive form. Samaria thus lay within the grasp of Josiah, who may have entertained hopes of forming an independent power of his own. Otherwise, it is not clear why we find him opposing himself to the Egyptian king Necho, since the assumption that he fought as an Assyrian vassal scarcely agrees with the profound reforming policy ascribed to him. At all events, at the battle of Megiddo[1] he lost both his kingdom and his life (608 B.C.), and for a few years Judah was in the hands of Egypt (2 Kings xxiii. 29 seq.). The chronicler gives a rather different account of the battle, and his allusion to the dirge uttered by Jeremiah over his death (2 Chron. xxxv. 20-25; 1 Esd. i. 32) represents the tradition which makes this prophet the author of the book of Lamentations.

The reign of Josiah is important for the biblical account of the great religious reforms which began in his eighteenth year, when he manifested interest in the repair of the Temple at Jerusalem. In the course of this work the high priest Hilkiah discovered a "law-book" which gave rise to the liveliest concern. The reasons for believing that this roll was substantially identical with the book of Deuteronomy were already appreciated by Jerome, Chrysostom, Theodoret and others,[2] and a careful examination shows that the character of the reformation which followed agrees in all its essential features with the prescriptions and exhortations of that book. (See DEUTERONOMY.) But the detailed records in 2 Kings xxii. seq. are evidently written under the influence of the reforms themselves, and are not contemporary (see KINGS, BOOK OF). They are further expanded, to agree with still later ideals, in 2 Chron. xxxiv. seq. The original roll was short enough to be read at least twice in a day (xxii. 8, 10), and hence only some portions of Deuteronomy (or of an allied production) may be intended. Although the character of the reforms throws remarkable light upon the condition of religion in Judah in the time of Josiah, it is to be observed that the writings of the contemporary prophets (Jeremiah, Ezekiel) make it very questionable whether the narratives are thoroughly trustworthy for the history of the king's measures. (See further JEWS, § 16.) (S. A. C.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Or "Magdolos" (Herod, ii. 159), i.e. some "Migdal" (tower) of
Judaea, not the Migdol of Exod. xiv. 2; Jer. xliv. 1.

[2] See _Zeit. f. Alttest. Wissenschaft_ (1902), pp. 170 seq., 312
seq.; _Journ Bib. Lit._ (1903), p. 50.

JÓSIKA, MIKLOS [NICHOLAS], BARON (1794-1865), Hungarian novelist, was born on the 28th of April 1794 at Torda in Transylvania, of aristocratic and wealthy parents. After finishing the usual course of legal studies at Kolozsvár (Klausenburg), he in 1811 entered the army, joining a cavalry regiment, with which he subsequently took part in the Italian campaign. On the battlefield of Mincio (February 8, 1814) he was promoted to the grade of lieutenant. He served in the campaign against Napoleon, and was present at the entry of the Allied Troops into Paris (March 31, 1814). In 1818 Jósika resigned his commission, returned to Hungary, and married his first wife Elizabeth Kallai. The union proving an unhappy one, Jósika parted from his wife, settled on his estate at Szurdok in Transylvania, and devoted himself to agricultural and literary pursuits. Drawn into the sphere of politics, he took part in the memorable Transylvanian diet of 1834. About this time Jósika first began to attract attention as a writer of fiction. In 1836 his _Abafi_ laid the foundation of his literary reputation. This novel gives a vivid picture of Transylvania in the time of Sigismund Bátori. Jósika was soon afterwards elected member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and of the Kisfaludy Society; of the latter he became, in 1841, director, and in 1842 vice-president. In 1847 he appeared at the Transylvanian diet as second deputy for the county of Szolnok, and zealously supported the movement for the union of Transylvania with Hungary proper. In the same year he was converted to Protestantism, was formally divorced from his wife, and married Baroness Julia Podmaniczky, herself a writer of considerable merit, with whom he lived happily until his death. So great was Jósika's literary activity that by the time of the revolution (1848) he had already produced about sixty volumes of romances and novels, besides numerous contributions to periodicals. Both as magnate of the upper house of the Hungarian diet and by his writings Jósika aided the revolutionary movement, with which he was soon personally identified, being chosen one of the members of the committee of national defence. Consequently, after the capitulation at Világos (Aug. 13, 1849) he found it necessary to flee the country, and settled first at Dresden and then, in 1850, at Brussels, where he resumed his literary pursuits anonymously. In 1864 he removed to Dresden, in which city he died on the 27th of February 1865. The romances of Jósika, written somewhat after the style of Sir Walter Scott, are chiefly of an historical and social-political character, his materials being drawn almost entirely from the annals of his own country. Among his more important works may be specially mentioned, besides _Abafi_--_The Poet Zrinyi_ (1843); _The Last of the Bátoris_ (1837); _The Bohemians in Hungary_ (1839); _Esther_ (1853); _Francis Rákóczy II._ (1861); and _A Végváriak_, a tale of the time of the Transylvanian prince Bethlen Gábor, 1864. Many of Jósika's novels have been translated into German.

See K. Moenich and S. Vutkovich, _Magyar Irók Névtára_ (1876); M.
Jókai, "Jósika Miklós Emlékezete," _A Kisfaludy-Társaság Evlapjai, Új
folyam_, vol. iii. (1869); G. W. Steinacker, _Ungarische Lyriker_
(1874). Cf. also Jósika's autobiography--_Emlékirat_, vol. iv. (1865).

JOSIPPON, the name usually given to a popular chronicle of Jewish history from Adam to the age of Titus, attributed to an author Josippon or Joseph ben Gorion.[1] The name, though at one time identified with that of the historian Josephus, is perhaps a corruption of Hegesippus, from whom (according to Trieber) the author derived much of his material. The chronicle was probably compiled in Hebrew early in the 10th century, by a Jewish native of south Italy. The first edition was printed in Mantua in 1476. _Josippon_ subsequently appeared in many forms, one of the most popular being in Yiddish (Judaeo-German), with quaint illustrations. Though the chronicle is more legendary than historical, it is not unlikely that some good and even ancient sources were used by the first compiler, the _Josippon_ known to us having passed through the hands of many interpolators. The book enjoyed much vogue in England. Peter Morvyn in 1558 translated an abbreviated version into English, and edition after edition was called for. Lucien Wolf has shown that the English translations of the Bible aroused so much interest in the Jews that there was a widespread desire to know more about them. This led to the circulation of many editions of _Josippon_, which thus formed a link in the chain of events which culminated in the readmission of the Jews to England by Cromwell. (I. A.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] A prefect of Jerusalem of this name is mentioned by Josephus,
_Bell. Jud._ ii. 20.

JOSS, in the pidgin-English of the Chinese seaports, the name given to idols and deities. It is used adjectivally in regard to many things connected with religious rites, such as "joss-house," a temple; "joss-stick," a stick which when burned gives forth a fragrant odour and is used as incense; "joss-paper," paper cut to resemble money (and sometimes with prayers written upon it) burned in funeral and other ceremonies. "Joss" is not a Chinese word, and is probably a corruption of Port. _deos_, god, applied by Portuguese navigators in the 16th century to the idols worshipped in the East Indies. The Dutch form is _joosge_ (diminutive of _joos_), whence the Javanese _dejos_, and the English _yos_, later _joss_. The word seems to have been carried to China by English seamen from Batavia.

JOST, ISAAK MARKUS (1793-1860), Jewish historical writer, was born on the 22nd of February 1793 at Bernburg, and studied at the universities of Göttingen and Berlin. In Berlin he began to teach, and in 1835 received the appointment of upper master in the Jewish commercial school (called the Philanthropin) at Frankfort-on-the-Main. Here he remained until his death, on the 22nd of November 1860. The work by which he is chiefly known is _Geschichte der Israeliten seit der Zeit der Maccabäer_, in 9 vols. (1820-1829), which was afterwards supplemented by _Neuere Geschichte der Israeliten von 1815-1845_ (1846-1847), and _Geschichte des Judenthums und seiner Sekten_ (1857-1859). He also published an abridgment under the title _Allgemeine Geschichte des israelitischen Volkes_ (1831-1832), and an edition of the Mishna with a German translation and notes (6 vols., 1832-1834). The _Israelitische Annalen_ were edited by him from 1839 to 1841, and he contributed extensively to periodicals.

See Zirndorf, _Isaak Markus Jost und seine Freunde_ (Cincinnati,
1886).

JOTUNHEIM, or JOTUN FJELDE, a mountainous region of southern Norway, lying between Gudbrandsdal on the east and Jostedalsbrae and the head of the Sogne fjord on the west. Within an area of about 950 sq. m. it contains the highest mountain in the Scandinavian Peninsula--Galdhöpiggen (8399 ft.)--and several others but little inferior. Such are Glittertind or Glitretind (8380), and Memurutind (7966), which face Galdhöpiggen across the northward-sloping Visdal; Knutshulstind (7812) and several other peaks exceeding 7000 ft., to the south, between lakes Gjende and Bygdin, and Skagastölstind (7723) in the west of the region, above the Utladal, the chief summit of the magnificent Horunger. The upper parts of the main valleys are of characteristic form, not ending in lofty mountain-walls but comparatively low and level, and bearing lakes. The name Jotunheim (giants' home) is a modern memorial of the mountain-dwelling giants of Norse fable; the alternative name Jotun Fjelde was the first bestowed on the region, when it was explored in 1820 by the geologist Balthasar Matthias Keilhau (1797-1858). In modern times the region has attracted mountaineers and many visitors accustomed to rough lodging and difficult travelling.

JOUBERT, BARTHÉLEMY CATHERINE (1769-1799), French general, the son of an advocate, was born at Pont de Vaux (Ain) on the 14th of April 1769. In 1784 he ran away from school to enlist in the artillery, but was brought back and sent to study law at Lyons and Dijon. In 1791 he joined the volunteers of the Ain, and was elected by his comrades successively corporal and sergeant. In January 1792 he became sub-lieutenant, and in November lieutenant, having in the meantime made his first campaign with the army of Italy. In 1793 he distinguished himself by the brilliant defence of a redoubt at the Col di Tenda, with only thirty men against a battalion of the enemy. Wounded and made prisoner in this affair, Joubert was released on parole by the Austrian commander-in-chief, Devins, soon afterwards. In 1794 he was again actively engaged, and in 1795 he rendered such conspicuous service as to be made general of brigade. In the campaign of 1796 the young general commanded a brigade under Augereau, and soon attracted the special attention of Bonaparte, who caused him to be made a general of division in December, and repeatedly selected him for the command of important detachments. Thus he was in charge of the retaining force at the battle of Rivoli, and in the campaign of 1799 (invasion of Austria) he commanded the detached left wing of Bonaparte's army in Tirol, and fought his way through the mountains to rejoin his chief in Styria. He subsequently held various commands in Holland, on the Rhine and in Italy, where up to January 1799 he commanded in chief. Resigning the post in consequence of a dispute with the civil authorities, Joubert returned to France and married (June) Mlle de Montholon. But he was almost immediately summoned to the field again. He took over the command in Italy from Moreau about the middle of July, but he persuaded his predecessor to remain at the front and was largely guided by his advice. The odds against the French troops in the disastrous campaign of 1799 (see FRENCH REVOLUTIONARY WARS) were too heavy. Joubert and Moreau were quickly compelled to give battle by their great antagonist Suvorov. The battle of Novi was disastrous to the French arms, not merely because it was a defeat, but above all because Joubert himself was amongst the first to fall (Aug. 15, 1799). Joubert died before it could be shown whether his genius was of the first rank, but he was at any rate marked out as a future great captain by the greatest captain of all ages, and his countrymen intuitively associated him with Hoche and Marceau as a great leader whose early death disappointed their highest hopes. After the battle his remains were brought to Toulon and buried in Fort La Malgue, and the revolutionary government paid tribute to his memory by a ceremony of public mourning (Sept. 16). A monument to Joubert at Bourg was razed by order of Louis XVIII., but another memorial was afterwards erected at Pont de Vaux.

See Guilbert, _Notice sur la vie de B. C. Joubert_; Chevrier, _Le
Général Joubert d'après sa correspondance_ (2nd ed. 1884).

JOUBERT, JOSEPH (1754-1824), French moralist, was born at Montignac (Corrèze) on the 6th of May 1754. After completing his studies at Toulouse he spent some years there as a teacher. His delicate health proved unequal to the task, and after two years spent at home in study Joubert went to Paris at the beginning of 1778. He allied himself with the chiefs of the philosophic party, especially with Diderot, of whom he was in some sort a disciple, but his closest friendship was with the abbé de Fontanes. In 1790 he was recalled to his native place to act as _juge de paix_, and carried out the duties of his office with great fidelity. He had made the acquaintance of Mme de Beaumont in a Burgundian cottage where she had taken refuge from the Terror, and it was under her inspiration that Joubert's genius was at its best. The atmosphere of serenity and affection with which she surrounded him seemed necessary to the development of what Sainte-Beuve calls his "esprit ailé, ami du ciel et des hauteurs." Her death in 1803 was a great blow to him, and his literary activity, never great, declined from that time. In 1809, at the solicitation of Joseph de Bonald, he was made an inspector-general of education, and his professional duties practically absorbed his interests during the rest of his life. He died on the 3rd of May 1824. His manuscripts were entrusted by his widow to Chateaubriand, who published a selection of _Pensées_ from them in 1838 for private circulation. A more complete edition was published by Joubert's nephew, Paul de Raynal, under the title _Pensées, essais, maximes et correspondance_ (2 vols. 1842). A selection of letters addressed to Joubert was published in 1883. Joubert constantly strove after perfection, and the small quantity of his work was partly due to his desire to find adequate and luminous expression for his discriminating criticism of literature and morals.

If Joubert's readers in England are not numerous, he is well known at
second hand through the sympathetic essay devoted to him in Matthew
Arnold's _Essays in Criticism_ (1st series). See Sainte-Beuve,
_Causeries du lundi_, vol. i.; _Portraits littéraires_, vol. ii.; and
a notice by Paul de Raynal, prefixed to the edition of 1842.

JOUBERT, PETRUS JACOBUS (1834-1900), commandant-general of the South African Republic from 1880 to 1900, was born at Cango, in the district of Oudtshoorn, Cape Colony, on the 20th of January 1834, a descendant of a French Huguenot who fled to South Africa soon after the revocation of the Edict of Nantes by Louis XIV. Left an orphan at an early age, Joubert migrated to the Transvaal, where he settled in the Wakkerstroom district near Laing's Nek and the north-east angle of Natal. There he not only farmed with great success, but turned his attention to the study of the law. The esteem in which his shrewdness in both farming and legal affairs was held led to his election to the Volksraad as member for Wakkerstroom early in the sixties, Marthinus Pretorius being then in his second term of office as president. In 1870 Joubert was again elected, and the use to which he put his slender stock of legal knowledge secured him the appointment of attorney-general of the republic, while in 1875 he acted as president during the absence of T. F. Burgers in Europe. During the first British annexation of the Transvaal, Joubert earned for himself the reputation of a consistent irreconcilable by refusing to hold office under the government, as Paul Kruger and other prominent Boers were doing. Instead of accepting the lucrative post offered him, he took a leading part in creating and directing the agitation which led to the war of 1880-1881, eventually becoming, as commandant-general of the Boer forces, a member of the triumvirate that administered the provisional Boer government set up in December 1880 at Heidelberg. He was in command of the Boer forces at Laing's Nek, Ingogo, and Majuba Hill, subsequently conducting the earlier peace negotiations that led to the conclusion of the Pretoria Convention. In 1883 he was a candidate for the presidency of the Transvaal, but received only 1171 votes as against 3431 cast for Kruger. In 1893 he again opposed Kruger in the contest for the presidency, standing as the representative of the comparatively progressive section of the Boers, who wished in some measure to redress the grievances of the Uitlander population which had grown up on the Rand. The poll (though there is good reason for believing that the voting lists had been manipulated by Kruger's agents) was declared to have resulted in 7911 votes being cast for Kruger and 7246 for Joubert. After a protest Joubert acquiesced in Kruger's continued presidency. He stood again in 1898, but the Jameson raid had occurred meantime and the voting was 12,858 for Kruger and 2001 for Joubert. Joubert's position had then become much weakened by accusations of treachery and of sympathy with the Uitlander agitation. He took little part in the negotiations that culminated in the ultimatum sent to Great Britain by Kruger in 1899, and though he immediately assumed nominal command of the operations on the outbreak of hostilities, he gave up to others the chief share in the direction of the war, through his inability or neglect to impose upon them his own will. His cautious nature, which had in early life gained him the sobriquet of "Slim Piet," joined to a lack of determination and assertiveness that characterized his whole career, led him to act mainly on the defensive; and the strategically offensive movements of the Boer forces, such as Elandslaagte and Willow Grange, appear to have been neither planned nor executed by him. As the war went on, physical weakness led to Joubert's virtual retirement, and, though two days earlier he was still reported as being in supreme command, he died at Pretoria from peritonitis on the 28th of March 1900. Sir George White, the defender of Ladysmith, summed up Joubert's character when he called him "a soldier and a gentleman, and a brave and honourable opponent."

JOUFFROY, JEAN (c. 1412-1473), French prelate and diplomatist, was born at Luxeuil (Haute-Saône). After entering the Benedictine order and teaching at the university of Paris from 1435 to 1438, he became almoner to Philip the Good, duke of Burgundy, who entrusted him with diplomatic missions in France, Italy, Portugal and Castile. Jouffroy was appointed abbot of Luxeuil (1451?) bishop of Arras (1453), and papal legate (1459). At the French court his diplomatic duties brought him to the notice of the dauphin (afterwards Louis XI.). Jouffroy entered Louis's service, and obtained a cardinal's hat (1461), the bishopric of Albi (1462), and the abbacy of St Denis (1464). On several occasions he was sent to Rome to negotiate the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction and to defend the interests of the Angevins at Naples. Attached by King Louis to the sieur de Beaujeu in the expedition against John V., count of Armagnac, Jouffroy was accused of taking the town of Lectoure by treachery, and of being a party to the murder of the count of Armagnac (1473). He died at Reuilly the same year.

See C. Fierrille, _Le Cardinal Jean Jouffroy et son temps_ (1412-1473)
(Coutances, Paris, 1874).