Josephus, in relating the miracle narrated in Josh, x, appeals for confirmation of his account to certain docu- ments deposited in the Temple (Aiit.v, ], 17), and his words are supposed to contain a covert allusion to the book of Jasher as the source of his authority. But in his treatise against Apion he says the Jews did not possess myriads of books, discordant and contradictory, but twenty-two only; from which Abicht concludes that the books of Scripture were the sacred books hint- ed at in the former passage, while Jlasius understood by the same the Annals which were written by the proph- ets or by the royal scribes. Theodoret (Qucest. xiv in Jesum Nave) explains the words in Josh, x, 13, which he quotes as to jiijiXiov to evpeOtv (prob. an error for iuBkc, as he has in Qitcest. iv in 2 Ee(/.), as referring to the ancient record from which the compiler of tlie book of Joshua derived the materials of his history, and ap- plies the passage in 2 Sam. ii, 18 to prove that other documents, written by the prophets, were made use of in the composition of the historical books. Jerome, or, rather, the author of the. Quwstiones Ilebraicce, under- stood by the book of Jasher the books of Samuel them- selv( s. inasmuch as they contained the historj' of the jii~t |iin|,liit:-. Samuel, Gad, and Nathan. Another opin- ion, nuoicd \,\ sixtus Senensis, but on no authority, that it was the book of eternal predestination, is scarcely worth more than the bare mention.
That the book of Jaslicr was one of the writings which perished in the Cajitivity was held by R. Levi ben-Gershom, though he gives the traditional explana- tion above mentioned. His opinion has been adopted by Junius, Hottinger {Thes. Phil, ii, 2, § 2), and many other modem writers (Wolfii Bibl. Heb. ii, 223).
What the nature of the book may have been can only be inferred from the two passages in which it is men- tioned and their context, and, tliis being the case, there is clearly wide room for conjecture. The theory of Ma- sius (quoted by Abicht) was, that in ancient times, what- ever was worthy of being recorded for the instruction of posterity was written in the form of annals by learned men, and that among these annals or records was the book of Jasher, so called from the trustworthiness and methodical arrangement of the narrative, or because it contained the relation of the deeds of the people of Is-
rael, who are elsewhere spoken of under the symbolical name Jeshurun. Of the latter hypothesis Fiirst ap- proves {Ilandu: s. v.). Sanctius {Comment, ad 2 Reg. 1) conjectured that it was a collection of pious hymns, ^^Titten by different authors, and sung on various occa- sions, and that from this collection the Psalter was com- piled. That it was written in verse may reasonably be inferred from the only specimens extant, which exhibit unmistakable signs of metrical rhythm ; but that it took its name from this circumstance is not supported by etymology. Lowth, indeed {Prcel. p. 30G-7), imagined that it was a collection of national songs, so called be- cause it probably commenced with "i^iy'' tX, dz i/dshir, '• then sang," etc., like the song of Moses in Exod. xv, 1 ; his view of the question was that of the Syriac and Ar- abic translators, and was adopted by Herder. But, granting that the form of the book was poetical, a diffi- culty still remains as to its subject. That the book of Jasher contained the deeds of national heroes of all ages embalmed in verse, among which David's lament over Saul and Jonathan had an appropriate place, was the opinion of Calovius. A fragment of a similar kind is thought to appear in Numb, xxi, 14. Gesenius conjec- tured that it was an anthology of ancient songs, which acquired its name, " the book of the just or upright,"' from being written in praise of upright men. He quotes, but does not approve, the theorj' of Illgen, that, like the Hamasa of the Arabs, it celebrated the achievements of illusti-ious warriors, and from this derived the title of " the book of valor." But the idea of warlike A'alor is entirely foreign to the root ydshur. Dupin contended, from 2 Sam. i, 18, that the contents of the book were of a military nature; but Montanus, regarding rather the etymology, considered it a collection of political and moral precepts. Abicht, taking the lament of David as a sample of the whole, maintained that the fragment quoted in the book of Joshua was part of a fimeral ode composed upon the death of that hero, and narrating his achievements. At the same time, he does not conceive it necessary to suppose that one book only is alluded to in both instances. It must be admitted, however, that there is very slight ground for any conclusion beyond that which affects the form, and that nothing can be confidently asserted with regard to the contents.
From the passage above referred to (2 Sam. i, 18 — "Also he bade them teach the children of Israel [the use of] the bow"), it has been supposed by some (see Dr. Adam Clarke's Comment, ad loc, and Home's Introd. vol. i) that the book of Jasher contained a treatise on arch- er}' ; but it has been observed (see Parker's translation of De Wette's Introd. i, 301) that, according to the an- cient mode of citation, which consisted in referring to some particular word in the document, " the bow" which the children of Israel were to be taught indicated the poetical passage from the book of Jasher in which the " bow of Jonathan" is mentioned (2 Sam. i, 22). One writer (Rev. T. M. Hopkins, in the Biblical Repository, 1845, p. 97 sq.) rashly proposes to reject both references to the book in question as spurious, and even the whole account of the miracle in Joshua.