Six opinions about this I see. The first is in Abulensis (quest. 13): [that] there was a certain [author] later than Joshua’s times — or rather equal to those times, as [it is] in St. Athanasius’s Synopsis. The second — in the same Abulensis (below, ch. 4, before quest. 14; and ch. 7, quest. 9) — wishes the Prophet Isaiah to be the author. But [he does so] on no argument. The third reckons Eleazar the Pontiff [to be the] author. “For,” says the author of this opinion, “it was properly his parts [duty] not only, by living voice, to teach the people of his age, but also to make GOD’s grace in preserving the Church attested to posterity, that the true religion might be better propagated. And before the Levites had degenerated” (says the same [author]) “there were, of that order, ‘actuaries’ [record-keepers], who would enter into perpetual records whatever was worthy of remembrance in the governance of the Church.” And this could perhaps be confirmed from Isaiah 36, vv. 3 & 22, and other places, where certain of the Levites are called mazkirim [מזכירים, “recorders”] — as it were [those] who guarded the memory of things by writing; or, as our Translator often renders [it], [those] who were “of the commentaries” [registrars]. There is added [that] Josephus (bk. 1 Against Apion) says [that], among the Egyptians and Babylonians, it was the custom that the Priests should handle [lit. “philosophize about”] the public records of things done; but that the Jews entrusted this very [office] τοῖς ἀρχιερεῦσι καὶ τοῖς προφήταις τῶν πραγμάτων [tois archiereusi kai tois prophētais tōn pragmatōn, “to the high priests and to the prophets of affairs”] — to the Pontiffs and Prophets. The fourth is of the same Abulensis (quest. 13 on ch. 1; and quest. 9 [on] ch. 7; quest. 11 [on] ch. 16): [that] Samuel was the writer of Joshua. The fifth, of Andreas Masius (preface to this book): [that it] was Ezra [Esdras] — and indeed either alone, or together with pious and learned men of his age (about whom the same [Masius], ch. 8, fol. 142). The sixth establishes Joshua himself [as] writer; and this seems to me more inclined toward the truth. 1. His Master Moses judged [it right] that the state of the Church which had been in his own time was to be committed to letters by himself. Why should the good disciple and successor not imitate him? 2. The very same seems to be entirely asserted [in] Ecclesiasticus [Sirach] ch. 46, v. 1, where it is said: “Valiant in war [was] Jesus [Joshua] son of Nave, the successor of Moses in—
(col. 251)
—prophecies. For thus the Greeks show it should there be read. But what prophecies does he mean? Those, I think, by which the Lord illumined Joshua’s mind — but most of all those which he conveyed to others by words and by letters. For that the Sacred Scriptures are called by the name of “prophecies” is established from 2 St. Peter, ch. 1, v. 19. Now thirdly, in the last chapter of this book, v. 26, we read thus: “Joshua also wrote” (he who, in the Hebrew and Greek, is distinctly named) “all these words in the volume of the law of the Lord.” What [are] these words? Certainly not only those which contained the covenant, of which mention is there made, but universally all the matters which that book recounts. For otherwise it would have sufficed to say: “Joshua struck a covenant on that day, and set before the people precepts and judgments in Shechem, and wrote them all in the volume of the law of the Lord.” Then, what is “the volume of the law of the Lord”? Is it not either Deuteronomy, or the whole Pentateuch of Moses? And in it he wrote, when, in the same Codex which was in the ark, he joined that [book] of his. Hence also the Chaldee manuscript, which Masius writes (fol. 114) [that] he possesses, thus rendered that place: “Joshua wrote these words in a book, and joined [them] to the book of the law of GOD.” Fourthly, this is the more received opinion among learned men — not only the recent [ones]: Vatablus, Abulensis, Driedo (bk. 1, ch. 3), Pineda (preface 3 on Job); but the ancient and Christian [ones] too, as Junilius (bk. 1 On the parts of the divine law, ch. 8), and in his synopsis Dorotheus, show; and the Hebrews, who (in Baba Bathra, ch. 1) teach [that] Joshua wrote his own book (fol. 14b of the Basel edition, and again fol. 15, where it is added how he also wrote the last eight verses of Deuteronomy, as will presently be said again). And the same [holds] Radak [Radako], as it seems, in the Book of the Paths of the Holy Tongue. Fifthly, from the dissolution of those [things] which are proposed against [it], the same is confirmed. For Castellio objects two [things], in his Annotations. 1. In ch. 10 the Book of the Just [Sefer ha-Yashar] is cited, to prove the history of the sun bidden to stand still — which book, however, could not be cited by Joshua, since it was written after David’s times. For [in] 3 Kings [1 Kgs] ch. 1, the history about David is cited from the Book of the Just. 2. Those [things] are written [in] ch. 15 of this book about Achsah, Caleb’s daughter, which were done after Joshua’s death (Judg. ch. 1). 3. The expedition of the sons of Dan against Leshem [Jessem] (below, ch. 19, v. 47), which was undertaken after Joshua (Judg. ch. 18). The same [things] are objected also by Masius. But that [things] of this kind were added by some of the later Prophets — for example by Samuel, or [those] who lived in David’s or Solomon’s time (as below, ch. 16, is indicated from the 70), by others, and by name by that great and most learned Ezra — we gladly confess; nor is the book therefore to be denied to Joshua himself. Otherwise we shall deny Moses [to be] the father [author] of Genesis and of the other following books, since in them the name Hebron is found — which not a few think was afterward imposed by Caleb’s son — and the like; and even Moses’s own departure from life and burial [is found there], just as here too the death of Joshua himself is narrated (last chapter, v. 29). Certainly the Talmudists expressly assert (in Baba Bathra, ch. 1) [that] our Joshua added to Moses’s Deuteronomy the last eight verses; but [that] Eleazar added to this [Joshua-]book those [things] which [treat] of Joshua’s dea—
(col. 252)
—death — [these] are below, ch. 24, from v. 29 to 33; which [book-ending], because it treats of Eleazar’s own death, they say [was] added by Phinees. A fourth [objection] could be added, from ch. 4, v. 9, and ch. 5, v. 9, where the stones are said to remain, erected in the midst of the Jordan, “unto the present day.” And this Abulensis and Masius object there. But the same response can be applied [to it] which is to be recalled to memory again below (ch. 14, quest. 5; and ch. 16, num. 7). Sixthly and lastly, [there] accedes the emptiness of the other opinions. For the first, third, and fourth bring forward no reasons. The second, indeed, teaches that Pontiffs, Levites, and Prophets put labor and study upon the public records — yet not [that] all [things] were written by them alone. Then, is not Joshua also entirely among the Prophets? Did not Ecclesiasticus [Sirach], a little before (ch. 46), say [that] he succeeded Moses in prophecies? And below it will be said [that] by the Jews he is aggregated with the first prophets.