Joshua 14:13

"And Joshua blessed him; and gave Hebron unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh for an inheritance. Therefore Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb the son of Jephunneh unto this day; because that he wholly followed Jehovah, the God of Israel. Now the name of Hebron beforetime was Kiriath-arba; which Arba was the greatest man among the Anakim. And the land had rest from war."

"And Joshua blessed him ..." (Joshua 14:13). These words show the endorsement by Joshua of all that Caleb had claimed, including a number of things nowhere mentioned in the Pentateuch, indicating, as Plummer said, that Joshua had access to information not even mentioned in the Pentateuch, including such things as the oath that Moses swore in this connection.

"Kiriath-arba ..." "This means `city of four.' It is unlikely that ARBA is a proper name."[24] Behold the wisdom of the critics! Against a fact clearly stated in the Holy Bible, such men offer their opinion instead of what the text says. We will have none of this. Of course, "The Rabbis have translated the place, `the city of four,' telling us that the `four' are Adam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob who were buried there."[25] Still others suppose `the four' to have been four great giants who captured the city and took possession of it. We are confronted with diverse opinions regarding the Septuagint (LXX) here. Sizoo stated that it reads, "Kiriath-arba the metropolis (or mother city) of the Anakim."[26] Boling tells us that, "Read with LXX, the Hebrew text of the O.T. has, `He was the great man among the Anakim.'"[27] Our own copy of the Septuagint (LXX) reads, "It is the metropolis of the Anakim."[28] Dummelow pointed out that the Septuagint translates a reference to this city in Joshua 15:13 as, "the metropolis of Anak," and another similar reference in Joshua 21:11 as "the metropolis of the sons of Anak," adding that:

"`Metropolis of Anak' may be the true sense."[29] On such evidence as this, therefore, we are bound to agree with our translators of the ASV and to reject the fanciful substitutes often offered.

"Arba, the greatest man among the Anakim ..." "This is the literal meaning of the Hebrew text here; he was the renowned ancestor of the tribe and the founder of its greatness."[30]

"Unto this day ..." This is precisely the kind of etiological expression that critics seize upon in order to make it the grounds of all kinds of irresponsible allegations. Yes, as Woudstra said, "All history has an etiological element in it, seeking to preserve those memories of the past that make the present meaningful. This kind of etiology is squarely rooted in fact, and not in fictitious compositions invented by the author."[31] "Unto this day," "to this day," etc. "are actually meant as the confirmation of the veracity of the account."[32] In this usage, the words are absolutely idiomatic. They are not a typical expression introducing an etiological tale. It is possible of course, that the words were added in days following the death of Joshua by some inspired author such as Samuel, Ezra, Nehemiah, or others unknown to us. They have no bearing whatever upon allegations of a late date for Joshua.