Joshua 14:1

This short chapter is actually an introduction to the next five chapters (Joshua 14:15-19), where is recorded the apportionment of the Land of Canaan among the Twelve Tribes of Israel. It is an introduction: (1) because it gives the names of the principal persons who conducted the casting of lots; and (2) because it deals with a matter that was required to be taken care of before the casting of lots take place, the granting of Caleb's claim to Hebron, based upon a prior promise given by Moses. Woudstra also pointed out a third function of this introductory chapter; (3) "The introduction of this pericope was an example of what could have been done and should have been done with the whole land allotted to the tribes."[1] There can be no doubt that JOSHUA himself was responsible for this account being in the holy record at exactly the place where it appears. It does not appear here through the choice of some "Deuteronomic editor,"[2] as frequently alleged. Furthermore, as Plummer noted, "The author of Joshua had access to sources of information besides the Pentateuch,"[3] and the nature of that information is such that Joshua is most likely the author. Who but Joshua (besides Caleb) would have known of the oath that Moses swore? Plummer cited this as being not alone conclusive, but as being "inconsistent with the `Elhoist' and `Jehovist' theory."[4]

"And these are the inheritances which the children of Israel took in the land of Canaan, which Eleazar the priest, and Joshua the son of Nun, and the heads of the fathers' houses of the tribes of the children of Israel, distributed unto them."

The mention here of the dignitaries who presided at the allotment has been alleged by Morton and others to be an indication of three "different traditions" from as many "sources" brought together here by "a Priestly editor."[5] In our own view, we consider this to be among the MOST RIDICULOUS and unsupportable allegations to be encountered anywhere. There is only one basis for finding a "Priestly editor" here, and that is the mention of Eleazar, the son of Aaron, and the High Priest of Israel. Since, without any doubt, Eleazar was indeed present at this allocation of the land, that alone is sufficient reason for his being mentioned, and, as John Lilley put it, "If it is admitted that the tribes had a central shrine, and few would deny this, it would have been inconceivable for Joshua to have acted without the priest, or for any Israelite historian to represent him as having done so."[6] This truth eliminates all grounds for dragging some so-called "editor" into this passage.

Even J. R. Dummelow thought he saw the hand of "P" here, writing: "The mention of the priest here in association with the leader, to whom he is here given precedence, is one of the characteristics of the Priestly narrative."[7] The "precedence" which Dummelow mentioned, however, could have been due to one thing alone: Israel was at this point in the process of calling upon the God of heaven and earth to divide the land to the tribes by casting lots, and it is inconceivable that Israel would have done a thing like that without calling upon God for his blessing and guidance. That would have required both the presence and the "precedence" of Eleazar. We have repeatedly emphasized that there is actually no such thing as "a Priestly narrative (P)," except in the IMAGINATION of Bible critics. There has never been published a copy of that alleged narrative, for the simple reason that there has never been any agreement in what is in it! Until it is produced and made available for close study, our allegation that there is no such thing stands!

The dignitaries who conducted the casting of lots were Eleazar, Joshua, and the twelve princes. "These heads or princes were twelve in number, Joshua and Eleazar included (Numbers 34:19-29)."[8] We should also note that Caleb himself was also in this list of princes (Numbers 34:19). Plummer stated that:

"It is a strong evidence for the truth of this narrative that we read of no conflicts between the various tribes respecting the division of territory. In no one case was there any complaint of unfairness, or any attempt to disturb the territorial arrangement made at the time of the original settlement in Palestine."[9]