iii. 16, 24), and the road from which to Upper Beth-horon (cf. Robinson) was very difficult of access. Both places were situated somewhat to the north, between Emmaus (Nicopolis) and Jerusalem, about one hundred stadia distant from the latter city. (Josephus, Wars, ii. 12, 2; cf. Ant., xx. 6, 4.)

(K). Прty, 'Aynxά, Azekah, and p, Mannda, Makedah, two small cities in the plain of Juda, whose exact position_has_not as yet been ascertained. The former was, according to Eusebius (Onom.), situated in an easterly direction, half-way between Jerusalem and Eleutheropolis, and which is in accordance with 1 Sam., xvii. 1. The latter is placed by Eusebius at a distance of eight Roman miles to the east of Eleutheropolis (cf. Von Raumer's Palæst., p. 208), consequently in the vicinity of Keilah; but this has been thought irreconcileable with Josh. xv. 41, cf. 37-40.

(L). Niba N, great stones, described in the next sentence as 7, by some translated 'hailstones,' by others, ‘stones like hail,' both renderings being admissible in conformity with the rules of Hebrew grammar. Much may be advanced in support of either interpretation. The real fact will probably never be ascertained; and as it is not of any material importance for us to know whether the Amorites were destroyed by masses of stone or by masses of ice, the question, perhaps, had better be left to the bias of individual judgment. For our own part, we strongly incline to the opinion that the sacred text alludes to one of those fearful hailstorms of not very unfrequent occurrence in the East, single stones of which have been found to weigh two pounds and upwards. The LXX. translate both times Xilovs xaλáns, and in the same sense our passage is interpreted by Jesus Sirach, xlvi. 6, and Joseph, Antiq., v. i. 17.

(M). then. Another meaning of the word is because,' and IN it is so translated in our version of the Bible (Jer. xxii. 15, etc.). We conceive the latter to be the proper construction in this place also, and for two reasons. Firstly, if I were here equivalent to 'then,'' at that time,' it would render the following words Di1a a pleonasm, which is evidently not their intended character; and secondly, it is (ver. 14) positively stated that never was prayer of man so graciously listened to by Jehovah as was

• Prof. Keil (Commentar über das Buch Josua, Erlangen, 1847), p. 176, objects to the latter interpretation, that 7 can grammatically be only rendered, hailstones. This is perfectly correct; but the learned professor overlooks that our text reads, and that the article may consequently be here construed according to its comparative property (cf. Gesenius, Gram. §. 107, anm. 1. a.)

the

the prayer of Joshua on this occasion, because the Lord himself fought for Israel; which proves both that Joshua prayed to God, not for power to work a miracle (the effects of which, had the battle been lost by the Israelites, must have proved as disastrous to them as, in the opposite case, to the Amorites), but for His direct assistance, and that God rendered this assistance because Joshua prayed to Him. Now ver. 14 being but the conclusion of an argumentative review of the events of the day, the above clearly demonstrates that when the sacred writer, after having (ver. 10, 11) described in what manner the Lord fought for Israel, adds, these words must be rendered, because Joshua, on the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel

(N). T spake to, i. e. communed with,' 'prayed to the Lord' (cf. Annot. м and o). The Chaldean translator renders 27 he sang, decantavit, which interpretation, solely on account of the poetical character of Joshua's address to the sun, has been adopted by the majority of the Jewish and the earlier Christian commentators. Corn. a Lapide explains it by laudando Deum rogavit. We always, however, hold the Bible to be the best interpreter of its own words.

(0). SN, and he said in the sight of Israel. Having been engaged in private prayer to God, and received from Him the assurance of victory, Joshua wished to animate his followers with the same confidence, and consequently addressed to them a public harangue, of which the text probably gives but the concluding words. The above sentence is, therefore, to be regarded as the antitheton to that which forms the subject of our preceding annotation. Calvin appears to us to have seized the correct meaning of the whole of our passage: Ego vero non dubito,' are his words, priore membro [tunc locutus est Jesus ad Dominum] notari precationem aut votum, altero autem [et dixit coram Israel] fiduciæ testimonium, postquam exauditus est. Soli enim mandare

ut se sisteret, nisi impetrata venia, temerarium fuisset ac superbum.'

(P). I stand thou still! The primitive meaning of 17 is, 'to be silent,'' to remain listless,' 'to rest' (Gen. xxiv. 21; Levit. x. 3; Lam. ii. 18; Job xxx. 27, etc.); thence to wait,' 'to tarry,' 'to stand still' (1 Sam. xiv. 9, and in our passage). It

6

d In our work, Ueber den altjüdischen Kalender, etc., Brussels, 1848, in which, whilst treating on the character of the old Jewish mid-day, we had occasion very briefly to touch upon the subject of the present inquiry, we inadvertently, in rendering, p. 42, the address of Joshua to the sun, connected the words

with

has

has been contended that, to put the latter construction upon this term, there is not sufficient linguistical authority. Rabbi Esaias, in his Comm. in Jos.o, explains 17 by 778; and R. Levi Ben Gerson, as quoted by Abicht (De Statione Solis), remarks

ועוד כי כבר יראה משפטי אלו. הדברים שלא נתבטל השמש מהתנועה ולא הירח וזה יתבאר מפנים מהם מה שנאי ולא אץ לבוא רייל שלא מהר לבוא וזה לא ישלול ממנו התנועה אבל ישלול .ממנו מהירוי התנועה וגו'

'From the text, moreover, it would appear that neither sun nor moon ceased to move, and this we conclude from the words—" and the sun hasted not to go down (ver. 13), i. e. did not hurry his course. But this shows that the sun was not deprived of motion, but rather of accelerated motion. A similar opinion is entertained by Mose ben Nachman and most other Jewish Rabbis, and in which also Prof. Keil shares. He maintains (Comm. p. 187) that Gesenius, who, in his Thesaurus, adduces the contrary testimony of Dsjeuhari (after Schedius) in

دومت الشمس في كبد السما quoting from it the words

دوم

has

mistaken their meaning, and that in Conjug. II. is not here used, as he alleges, in the sense of de sole in cœlo subsistente, but, according to Freytag (Lex. Arab. ii. 73), in that of convertere se in calo gyrumque agere. He finds a further support to his view in the Chaldaic and Syriac translations, the former rendering the

44

of our passage 7, the latter and he lays, with others, much stress on the difference between 'to tarry' and 'to stand still.' It is somewhat doubtful, it is true, which of these two meanings the ancient Hebrews connected with the verb 7, when applied to the sun (cf. Annot. U.); but, as to our passage, its poetical character would, in the first place, seem to us to demand the rendering to stand still;' and that, in the second place, this rendering is linguistically admissible, appears from the Book of Joshua itself: for, ch. x. v. 13, the verb Ty 'to cease doing,' 'to arrest a peculiar course,' 'to stand still' (Gen. xxix. 35; xxx. 9; 1 Sam. xx. 38; Hab. iii. 11), 'to stand fast,' 'to remain immovable' (Ps. xxxiii. 9, 11, etc.), is used as a substitute for

=

, and the identical meaning of both terms thereby clearly proved. Under any circumstances, we cannot look upon the above arguments-favourable though they be to our own view-except as mere contentions about words; for, as it is (v. 13) stated that the sun in the midst of heaven,' i. e. in his zenith, or over the

6

• In Hasaei et Ikenii Thes. nov. Theol. Phil., tom. i., p, 474, seq.

f Hasaei et Ikenii Thes. nov. Theol. Phil., tom. i., p. 516, seq. VOL. III.NO. V.

L

6

head

head of all men' (cf. Annot. v.), it becomes a matter of little importance whether the sun took about a whole day' 'ad convertendum se in cœlo gyrumque agendum,' or whether he 'tarried' or 'stood still' that time in the midst

of heaven.'

(a). by pya, in the valley of Ajalon. This valley is no ji doubt to be looked for in the vicinity of the city of Ajalon, which Eusebius places at a distance of two Roman miles from Emmaus (Nicopolis), on the road to Jerusalem. Jerome, in Epith. Paula, c. iii., remarks: Atque Nicopoli proficiscens ascendit Beth-horon inferiorem et superiorem ad dextram aspiciens Ajalon et Gabaon, ubi Jesus filius Nave contra quinque reges dimicans soli imperavit et lunæ.' Its former site has, with great appearance of truth, been recognized by Robinson in the small village of Jalo, and that of the valley of Ajalon in a northerly direction from the latter.

(R). THY WOW, and the sun stood still, and the moon stayed. It appears to us self-evident that these words, interrupting as they do the connection of Joshua's harangue, and leaving it but half finished, form a parenthesis; yet the striking truth of this remark (cf. also our observ. p. 5) would seem to have altogether escaped the notice of commentators. In all probability the words of our parenthesis, when sung, formed the response of the chorus to the preceding solo.

until the people had avenged themselves ,עַד־יִקָם גּוֹי איביו .(s)

upon their enemies. The imperfect tense of the Hebrew verb, frequently serving to express the future as well as the perfect, both which powers it here combines, it is impossible to do full justice to the text in an English translation. With reference to the parenthesis, the former should be rendered as above; with reference to the whole period, 'until the people shall have avenged themselves upon their enemies.' To obviate this difficulty, we might translate:

[Solo.]

Chorus.] [Solo.]

Sun, stand thou still over Gibeon,

And thou, moon, over Ajalon's vale
-And the sun stood still, the moon stayed-
For the people

To

avenge themselves upon Israel's foes!

But the passing over is inadmissible. The import of the concluding sentence must, therefore, in the English translation, be supplied as an ellipsis to our parenthesis.

(T).

is not this written in the book הֲלֹא-הִיא כְתוּבָה עַל־סֵפֶר הַיָּשָׁר .(T)

TT

of Jasher? By the more modern biblical expositors it has almost unanimously been acknowledged that hajashar, here denotes the true Theocrates, and that the lost, another fragment from which is preserved in the second book of Samuel, i. 18, contained a collection of national songs in praise of theocratical heroes. The various and sometimes strange opinions on this book (which the Peshito also, confirmatory of the character just assigned to it, once names JALḥ, liber hymnorum) have been most fully collected by Wolf, Bibl. Hebr., ii. p. 219, seq.

Several commentators have been of opinion, that the whole passage, v. 12-15, is a literal quotation from the Sepher Hajashar. The reasons adduced are: 1. the natural connection between v. 11 and 16. It is quite true that the sacred writer resumes, v. 16, the general thread of his historical narrative, broken off at the beginning of v. 12; but surely this is no proof that the intervening episode, which he introduces, must of necessity be a quotation, much less one from a different author. 2. The words, occurring in the twelfth verse: when the Lord delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel.' The validity of this ground, extremely feeble of itself, has already been disproved by our preceding explanations. 3. The contents of v. 15, which, it is objected, cannot possibly have been inserted in their place by the author of the Book of Joshua. As they stand, evidently not. But granting our author had merely quoted them; yet he would wittingly have quoted an error, and that is out of the question.

We have already pointed out those portions of verses 12 and 13, which we consider the quotation from the Sepher Hajashar to comprise. Our reasons in favour of this, and against the former view, are threefold. 1. The sacred annalist himself, by the words, 'But in the sight of Israel he said,' which are the first to interrupt the thread of his general narrative, distinctly marks the commencement, and by the words is it not thus written in the book of Jasher?' as distinctly the end of the quotation. 2. The latter is taken from a collection of songs, and the rhythmical verses to which we allude, form the only poetical portion of our prose narrative. 3. If v. 15, which, in positive contradiction with the following relation, implies Joshua's return to the camp at Gilgal immediately after his victory at Gibeon, were to be admitted as a proof against the clear evidence of the following text, it would be admitting an error to testify against and overcome truth. Independently, however, of the inspired character of the Bible, can it for one moment be supposed, that a historical writer should ap

L 2

provingly,