source whence it was taken. Letters are quoted in Nehemiah, speeches in Job, a poem in Kings, commands, remarks and prayers by most of the sacred writers; but they are pre

ceded by a statement of their source. And this is a very

natural arrangement. It accords with the prevailing usage of modern languages. In Hebrew, where no marks of quotations-except, perhaps, the particle '—were used, and the only way of indicating that words were borrowed from another writer was by saying so, it would seem doubly desirable that the reference should be placed directly before the extract; or, in case it were not put before the borrowed passage, we might suppose it would stand just after it. Accordingly, some writers have mentioned the formula occurring so often in Kings, (see 1 Kings xi. 41; xiv. 19, 29; xv. 7, 23, 31; xvi. 5, 14, 20, 27, &c.,)" Now the rest of the acts" of this or that king," are they not written in the Book of the Chronicles of the kings of" Judah or Israel? as an example of this latter kind. They bring forward the similar formula used in Chronicles as another instance. Yet it may be doubted whether these formulæ ever followed accounts taken verbally from the records to which they direct the reader's attention. The writers may, in fact, have been wholly independent of those records, making mention of them for the benefit of studious and inquisitive persons who might desire a fuller account of any particular reign. For this reason, they called attention to them, not as the sources of their narrative, but as containing "the rest of the acts," &c. A notice of this sort would naturally follow so much of the history of each king as was given. These cases are not, therefore, at all to the purpose in showing the usage of Hebrew writers when verbal extracts were made. It is then their uniform practice to notify us of the source of each quotation before giving the words of it. But our passage furnishes an exception to that practice. Either the whole, or a part, of the extract goes before the reference. The usus loquendi of Old Testament writers does not enable us to decide whether, if no allusion is made at the outset to the source of a quotation, it will be left to follow the extract, or be inserted somewhere in the course of it.

c. We can mention also the judgment of a large majority of intelligent readers in favor of the view, that the inspired historian speaks in the latter half of these verses, and confirms the truth of the borrowed passage. The sacred writers sought to instruct and benefit men. They had no motive to study ambiguity or obscurity, for they were not announcing the oracles of false gods. They did not make use of words

to conceal thought, but to express it. Hence the meaning which any passage conveys to those who read solely for instruction, without any view to criticism, will be found in most cases its true meaning. There is, therefore, an antecedent probability in favor of that interpretation of our passage which has long been approved by the great body of intelligent readers. Yet this probability is very far removed from certainty. No men, however taught and guided, could be expected to express their thoughts with such entire perspicuity that persons living in other ages and parts of the world, speaking different languages, familiar with different customs, and trained by opposite modes of education, would always, in the capacity of general readers, apprehend their statements correctly.

d. But the popular opinion respecting the import of our passage has been supported by the more cautious judgment of scholars. Until recently, commentators, after the example of Josephus and the early fathers, have been nearly unanimous in believing these verses to contain not only an appeal to the Book of Jasher, or an extract from it, but also a declaration made by the inspired historian, confirming the literal truth of the narrative or extract—a declaration that the day on which Israel smote the armies of Gibeon was prolonged to about twice the length of an ordinary day. So far, at least, they have been mainly agreed, whatever diversity has existed in their methods of explaining particular words and clauses, or the precise nature of the miracle, namely, whether it was an interruption of the earth's revolution upon its axis, a change in the refraction of light, or something else.

But of late, several eminent scholars have advocated the opinion that the verses under examination, from first to last, except the clause of reference, are an extract from a collection of songs celebrating the exploits of distinguished Hebrews, and called, from this circumstance, the Book of the Upright. We must consider the arguments for this interpretation. For the names of J. D. Michaelis, Hengstenberg, Hävernick, and Keil, which may be cited in its support, are good security for its being worthy of attention. The last three are men who would adopt no exposition derogatory to the Word of God.

a. The prophetic formula, "Thus saith the Lord," is thought to be analogous to a citation of the author or book from which any words are taken. But this formula is found sometimes before, sometimes after, and sometimes in the midst of a discourse referred by it to Jehovah.

b. The section, v. 12-15, interrupts the narrative, and

and these fled, these five and it came to pass as

forms a complete whole of itself, kings, of verse 16, taking up they fled, of verse 11, and continuing the story of the battle and pursuit.

c. The phrase, "In the day when the Lord delivered up the Amorites," &c., used to define more strictly the word then, indicates a new author. The inspired historian, relating an occurrence like that of Joshua's addressing the sun, would naturally have introduced it at the proper point in the series of events described by him, and so doing, the adverb " then " would have been perfectly definite alone. But in the first line of an independent poetic description of that wonderful victory, the adverb would have no meaning without the limiting clause. The extract, therefore, begins with the first word of verse 12. Moreover the last verse of this section cannot be easily explained, unless by supposing it a part of the quotation.. "And Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, unto the camp to Gilgal." The same words are repeated at the close of the chapter, where they are perfectly in place as the words of the writer of this book. But it cannot be thought the host of Israel returned to Gilgal before the events related in the latter half of the chapter. Joshua was too old and skillful a captain to forego the advantage which was afforded him, by the terror and confusion of his enemies, for following them up and completing their overthrow. Besides, would the five kings be likely to remain hidden in a cave while the Israelites could go a day's march to Gilgal, and return? Or would their followers have been unable in so long a time to reach their "fenced cities," or even to get so much the start of the Hebrews as to render pursuit entirely vain? Let us look at the course of the Israelites ;-a rapid march all night from the camp to Gibeon-a conflict and pursuit of twelve or twenty-four hours-a return to the camp, requiring more than a whole day, for the battle had drawn them some miles towards the south-west-the return to the vicinity of Makkedah, occupying more than another day-the time for necessary rest, two nights at least. The kings of the Amorites must have remained no less than two full days and nights in the cave before Joshua returned, shut them in, and resumed the pursuit. And this must have been so much time given by Israel to their enemies for flight to the "fenced cities." Yet some of these cities were nearer the place where the armies were at the close of the first day than was the camp at Gilgal. It is impossible to examine this chapter carefully without feeling a conviction amounting to assurance, that only one return of

Joshua and his army to Gilgal actually took place. Hence the difficulty which almost all have felt in attempting to explain verse 15, and the rejection of it by the LXX., by Calvin, and by many other interpreters. As, however, there is no reason to suppose the verse an interpolation, others assign a new meaning to namely, he began to return, or thought of returning, but changed his mind when he heard that the kings were in a cave at Makkedah. Only those who were hard pressed, and felt this to be the last way of vindicating the truthfulness of the historian, would have ventured to impose a new signification upon so common a word. Still, another class of interpreters understand the declaration of v. 15 to have been made by way of anticipation. The mind of the sacred writer, after resting upon the great miracle and victory of the first day, is supposed to glance forward to the end of the campaign, overlooking the series of conquests in southern Palestine which preceded the return to Gilgal. But how a writer perfectly acquainted with the events of this campaign could deliberately set down for history a statement so certain to be misunderstood, it is difficult to conceive. The express object of the historian was to describe the conquest and occupation of Canaan, (see i. 5, 6.) Could the return to the camp be of so much more consequence to such a writer than a succession of victories, and the subjection of a considerable portion of the land, that it must distract his attention from the order of events, and lead him to anticipate the natural place for mentioning it, at the expense of repetition and confusion in his narrative? We find nothing elsewhere in the Book of Joshua to warrant such a charge. The supposed parallels to be found in this book, or in other historical portions of the Old Testament, are examined by Keil, in his recent commentary, and are shown not to be such in reality. Accordingly, if verse 15 does not belong to the extract, no satisfactory explanation of it has yet been found. If it does belong to the extract, all difficulty vanishes at once; the words have their proper and established sense, and but one going back of the Israelites to Gilgal is spoken of in our chapter.

But verse 15 is, undoubtedly, prose, and the rest of the passage poetry; does not this prove a difference of origin? Would a poetic description terminate with a statement in bald and simple prose? To say nothing of the intermingling of prose and poetry in some of the prophets, we have a case just to the point in the song of Moses and the children of Israel after passing the Red Sea, (Ex. xv. 1-19.) This song closes with a plain declaration that "the horse of Pharaoh went in,

with his chariots and with his horsemen into the sea; and the Lord brought again the waters of the sea upon them: but the children of Israel went on dry land in the midst of the sea." This is just as poetical in our English version as in the original Hebrew, yet the preceding verses of this song have all the characteristics of finished poetry.

In view of these considerations we must conclude, in spite of the arguments for an opposite opinion, that the whole section, v. 12-15, is an extract from the Book of Jasher. Besides our passage, 2 Sam. i. 19-27, contains an extract from this book. Both are poetical; the latter, David's beautiful elegy upon Saul and Jonathan, is unquestionably so throughout. It is inferred from these quotations, and from the title of the book, that it was a collection of songs, written at different times, and by different men in honor of Israelites distinguished for heroic deeds and piety.

But if the verses under examination are poetry, we are next to inquire after their meaning. They may relate an actual miracle; but is it absolutely certain they do? The thirteenth chapter of Isaiah predicts the destruction of Babylon by the Medes; yet Jehovah says, "the stars of heaven and the constellations thereof shall not give their light; the sun shall be darkened in his going forth, and the moon shall not cause her light to shine. I will shake the heavens, and the earth shall remove out of her place." In the eighteenth Psalm David describes his deliverance from the hand of his enemies and of Saul, by saying, "Then the earth shook and trembled-He bowed the heavens also and came down-He rode upon a cherub, and did fly," &c. God is here represented as doing in person by visible, extraordinary means, what He really brings to pass by his customary methods of operation in connection with the agency of man. When Isaiah in the name of his people prays, "O that thou wouldest rend the heavens, that thou wouldest come down," lxiv. 1, we do not suppose a literal rending of the heavens is called for, or a visible descent of the Almighty. In the song of Deborah and Barak, Judges v. 20, it is said, "They fought from heaven, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera," but we should wholly mistake the spirit of Hebrew poetry, and the proper use of figurative language by inferring that a change unfavorable to Sisera really took place in the skies. And if our passage in Joshua is to be regarded as a poetical extract from the Book of Jasher, and is to be interpreted by its own language merely, as compared with other specimens of Hebrew poetry, then we cannot safely assert upon the