Professor Willett has contributed another article to the Sunday edition of the Chicago Record-Herald. This time he tries to rob Joshua of the credit of the great miracle at Beth-horon. He denies that the sun and the moon stood still at the command of Joshua, and brings forward the usual stock arguments of rationalists in support of his denial.

      First, of course, is the assertion that the account of this miracle is a quotation from the Book of Jashar, with the implication that the author of the Book of Joshua is not responsible for it. After quoting the passage, he says: "It is at once seen that we are indebted for the whole episode of the arrested sun to the quotation from a work called in the text 'the book of Jashar.'"

      Here the account is not only belittled by styling it an episode, but we are said to be indebted for the whole of it to the quotation from the Book of Jashar. This assumption has been disproved many a time, but I must disprove it again. Note, then, that the account contains two assertions with a question between them. The first assertion is this: "Then spake Joshua to Jehovah in the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites before the children of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel,

      Sun, stand thou still upon Gibeon,
      And thou, Moon, in the valley of Aijalon.
      And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed,
      Until the nation had avenged themselves of their enemies."

      Then follows the question: "Is not this written in the book of Jashar?" The question undoubtedly refers to the preceding assertion. [391]

      Then follows the second assertion: "And the sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day. And there was no day like that before it or after it, that Jehovah hearkened to the voice of a man: for Jehovah fought for Israel" (Josh. 10:12-14).

      The question, "Is not this written in the book of Jashar?" is an indirect assertion that it was; that is, that the lines preceding the question were thus written; but the author of the Book of Joshua follows this by the assertion on his own part that the sun did stay as Joshua commanded, and that it stayed "about a whole day." He is then just as responsible for the truth of the story as if he had made no allusion whatever to the Book of Jashar. This independent assertion shows, too, that he was not dependent on the Book of Jashar for his information.

      Obvious as these facts are, Professor Willett says: "The extent of the quotation it is somewhat difficult to determine." And yet, on the supposition that our Revised Version is correct, he virtually concedes that it is as I have represented; for he says: "In the Revised Version it would seem to be confined to verses 12b and 13a." He also, on this supposition, agrees, though he expresses himself in a very nebulous way, that the author of Joshua affirms the truth of the story; for he adds: "If so, it would indicate that the writer of the prose narrative accepted the miraculous explanation of Israel's victory suggested by the poetical work from which he quoted." The supposition, however, on which he is forced to this concession--that is, that the Revised Version is here correct-lie tries in his next sentence to set aside, or to render at least doubtful; for he adds: "But it is by no means clear that the whole of verses 12-14 [392] is not the original quotation. This seems probable upon comparison with the Greek text of the LXX." When I read this, I wondered what the text of the LXX. contains to justify the remark, and I expected, of course, to find in it something with at least a hint in that direction; but, on turning to it, I found it in perfect accord with the Revised Version, with this exception, that it omits entirely the reference to the Book of Jashar. And now I am left to wonder why Professor Willett, in aiming to show the extent of the quotation from the Book of Jashar, refers his Chicago readers, not one in a thousand of whom could read Greek, or ever saw the LXX., to a version which says not a single word about the quotation. I am not willing to think him so tricky as to do this if he has ever examined the passage in the LXX. I prefer to suppose that he saw this reference in a work by some author not so scrupulous as himself, and incautiously adopted it. He should be more cautious hereafter.

      But whoever is responsible for what our Professor styles "the episode of the arrested sun," he denies that any such event occurred, or that any miracle was wrought in connection with Joshua's victory. He says: "In the account of an important battle there has been incorporated a quotation from a poetic book, giving in imaginative and graphic language a description of the battle intended to emphasize its significance and the religious importance of Israel's victory."

      Again: "Probably few modern commentators would venture to uphold the view that the narrative of the arrested sun is to be taken otherwise than as a literary feature, adding vividness to the account of Joshua's victory."

      The "narrative of the arrested sun," then, is not true, but it is a "literary feature." It might be illustrated in [393] this way. After delivering to the managing editor of the Record-Herald the manuscript of his essay, Professor Willett might have said, I wanted to add a paragraph after the press was started, and at a word from me the great machine was made to stand still a whole hour. The foreman of the pressroom, hearing afterward that he had said this, and knowing that it was not true, being also of rather an irreverent spirit, demands of him, "See here, Professor, what made you tell that lie about our stopping the press last night for you to write another paragraph?" The Professor answers, "It was not a lie, sir; it was only 'a literary feature.' It was only a description in 'imaginative and graphic language.'" All the big yarns that Artemus Ward and Bill Nye and Mark Twain used to tell were of the same kind. And this is the estimate put upon the Book of Joshua at "the Disciples' Divinity House, University of Chicago."

      In arguing against the occurrence of a miracle in this instance, Professor Willett makes this point: "If a miracle were to be wrought in connection with this battle, would it be likely to occur after the victory had been won, and when the only remaining object was the destruction of the Amorites?" This argument shows his want of appreciation of the event. Joshua knew very well that if a large body of the fleeing army should escape into walled cities, the sieges that would be necessary in order to take these would greatly prolong the war of conquest, and the loss of life among his own men; and it was in order to prevent this that he prayed for a prolongation of the day. This appears from the context, in which, after the capture of the five kings, he ordered that they be shut up in a cave, and said to his men, "Stay not ye; pursue after your enemies, and smite the hindmost of them; suffer them not to enter into their [394] cities: for Jehovah your God hath delivered them into your hand." So completely was this accomplished that all the chief cities of southern Canaan fell into his hand with little fighting (23-40), and without besieging one of them.

      I can not see why this miracle of the "arrested sun" should be fixed upon by unbelievers for adverse criticism, rather than that of the arrested current of the overflowing Jordan, or the prostrated walls of Jericho. Professor Willett speaks of it as if, on the supposition of its reality, "the solar system was arrested by an all-inclusive miracle." But what disturbance of the solar system would have resulted from the suspension of the earth's rotation on its axis? About as much as would result to the machinery of a large planing-mill if a workman in one corner should stop turning his grindstone. And to stop the rotation of the earth would have been no bigger a job with the Lord than stopping the grindstone with the carpenter.

      If I were required to work either of Joshua's miracles, and had my choice, I would about as soon try to stop the sun as to cut off the river Jordan by stepping into it, or to blow down the walls of Jericho with a ram's horn. Let us be reasonable.

[SEBC 391-395]