pages is the possession of what is unquestionably possessed by man, the power, ~ithout suspending the action of a single force, so to control its operation as to produce the results He desires. If man can drain marshes at his will, and turn them into fruitful field8, why should not God be able, at His mll, to make a path across the sea, or arrest the course of a river? If man can, by touching a wire, cause an explosion that might lay half London in ruins, how can we assert it to be impossible for the Creator of heaYcn and earth to bring the walls of Jericho to the ground by means the secret of which is known to Him, but which is, and may for ever remain, hidden from us ? So far from the discoveries of science rendering the belief in miracles impossible, it is, in fact, supplying the defenders of revela- tion -with the strongest evidence in the opposite direction. For if during the last few years man has become possessed of powers the existence of which, previous to their discovery, would have seemed in the highest degree incredible, there is the best reason fol: believing that Nature possesses powers and possibilities yet unknown, which, in the hands of the Author of Nature, may produce results which appear to us beyond measure extraordinary and portentous. It now remains to consider the vexed question of Joshua's command to the snn and moon to stand still, which has been so great a difficulty, not only to commentators, but to all apologists of revealed religion. It may be well first to state the various interpretations which ·have been given of the passage, before discussing it more particularly. Maimonides (a medireval writer, be it remembered), whom Rabbi ben Gerson among the Jewish, Grotius * and Masiue among the earlier, and Hengstenberg among the later Christian commentators follow, regards it as simply a poetic way of saying that the day: was long enough to enable the Israelites to complete the slaughter of their enemies. We read in his 'Moreh Nevochim' (ii. 85) : "Sicut diem integrum mihi videtur intelligi dies maximus et longissimus (Thamim enim idem est quad schal,em, perfectus), et idem ease si dix.isset quad dies ille apud ipsoe in Gibeone fuerit sicut dies magnus et longus in restate." Masius is very confident in this view, and says that if Kimchi thinks other- wise, it is only a proof how little the Jews of hie day knew of their own scriptures. The earlier Rabbis are unanimous that the sun literally stood still, though they differ, like the Fathers, as to the time that it remained above the horizon. Da..-id Kimchi thought that the period was twenty-four hours, and that after the sun had set, the moon still remained stationary that
• Keil represents Grotius e.s being in favour of the notion of e. refraction which kept the sun's appears.nee e.bove the horizon long e.fter it se.nk below the horizon. But hie inter- pretation is the one stated above, although he a.dds, "quanque.m impossibile Deo non est sulis cursum morari, aut etiam post eoliB occasum speciem ejus in nube super horizontem exeta.nti repercussum ostendere." TO THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. xxf
Joshua might complete the ele.ughter of hie foes.'' The Fathers generally take the literal view of the passage, and suppose the sun to have literally stood still in the heavens, some for a longer, some for a shorter period, some supposing it to be forty-eight, some thirty-six (eo Justin Martyr, • Dial, Tryph.' 182), some twenty-eight hours (as Cornelius it Lapide, whose commentary ie of course based on the patristic writings). Keil seems finally to have decided in favour of what he calls a "subjective" lengthening of the day. He believes that the day was supposed by the Israelites to have been lengthened, they being too fully engaged in the conflict with their enemies to take any very accurate note of time. Curiosities of interpretation, such as that of Michaelis, t who supposed that the lightning which accompanied the hailstorm was prolonged far into the night; or that of Konig, t who sup- poses that the hailstorm which, according to the history, preceded the standing still of the sun, was a consequence of that occurrence, need only be noticed to be rejected. We come next to inquire which of these views is the most probable. And here, with Keil and Grotius, we may dismiss all notions from our mind of the impossibility of the miracle. He who holds the heavens in the hollow of His hand could arrest the revolution of the earth and prevent all the tre- mendous consequences (as they seem to us) of such a cessation, as easily as a man can arrest the progress of a vast macl1ine inore than ten thousand times as powerful as himself. The former event is not more antecedently incredible than the latter, but the contrary. But though it seems eminently . unreasonable to doubt the possibility of such an occurrence, we may. with far more reason, doubt its probability. It is a fair question whether a miracle of so stupendous a kind were really worked for such a purpose by Him, the economy of whose means to His ends ie one of the most striking features of His works. It may be reasonably doubted whether He who de-
• The following specimens, for which I am indebted to the kindness of a well-known Rabbinic scholar, of the way in which this subject is treated in the Ro.bbinical writings will not be without interest. In the Midrash on Genesis (Bereshith Rabbe., cap. 6) we read ths.t the Book of Deuteronomy we.a Joshua's banner. When God spake to him as recorded in Josh. i. he ha.d the Book of Deuteronomy in his hand, BDd he was bidden (says R. Simeon hen J ocha.i) not to let it depa.rt out of his hand. Thus, in the thick of the fight at Beth-boron, he re.ised the Book of Deuteronomy on high, and said, "As I never ceased (01i) to study this book, so do thou stBDd still (01i) in the heavens." R. Isaac says that Joshua. addressed the sun IIB follows: "Thou wicked serva.nt, art thou not the slave of my father (Joseph)? Did not my father see thee thus in a. dream?" Others held that tbo standing still of the sun a.nd moon, BDd the retiring of the waters, were pnrt of the original compa.ct with them at the beginning of the world. t J. D. Mioha.elis, 'Deutsche Uebereetzung des Alten Testaments, mit Anmerkungen fur Ungelehrte.' 1774. t Cited by Keil, who is, however, very ina.ccuro.te in his representations of the views ol the authors he mentions. xxii INTRODUCTION