Enough has been said to show that the prophetic document, as we have
it, is composite, though there can seldom be any manner of certainty
about the ultimate analysis into its J and E constituents. There is
reason to believe that most of the isolated notices of the struggle
with the Canaanites scattered throughout xiii.-xxii. and repeated in
Judges i. are from J, while ch. xxiv., with its interest in Shechem
and Joseph, and its simple but significant statement, "They
presented themselves before _God_ (Elohim)," xxiv. 1, is almost
entirely from E.

It used to be maintained, on the strength of a phrase in v. 1--"until
_we_ were passed over"--that the book of Joshua must have been
written by a contemporary. But the true reading there is undoubtedly
that given by the Septuagint--until _they_ passed over-which
involves only a very slight change in the Hebrew. On what, then, do
the narratives of the book really rest? The answer is suggested by
x. 12, 13, where the historian appeals to the book of Jashar in
confirmation of an incident in Joshua's southern campaign. Doubtless
the whole battle was described in one of the war-ballads in this
famous collection (cf. Jud. v.), and it is not unreasonable to suppose
that other narratives in the book of Joshua similarly rest upon other
ballads now for ever lost. The capture of Jericho, e.g., may well have
been commemorated in a stirring song which was an inspiration alike
to faith and patriotism.

If, however, it be true that the book of Joshua has thus a poetic
basis, it is only fair to remember that its prose narratives must
not be treated as bald historical annals; they must be interpreted
in a poetic spirit. There is the more reason to insist upon this, as
a later editor, by a too inflexible literalism, has misinterpreted