whether sacred or profane, of the whole ancient world (although extant works in the Hebrew, Sanscrit, and Chinese languages reach up to the period in question, and beyond it), so much as the slightest trace, so much as the remotest allusion to the presumed event is to be discovered; and that this unanimous silence is the more striking as some of the labours of the Chaldean astronomers since the days of Moses were still known to the Greeks at the most brilliant epoch of their civilisation, whilst the Chinese observations date from a time more than a thousand years anterior to the birth of Joshua; and 3rd, that the fact of the erroneous interpretation of Jesus Sirach and Josephus having found adherents among the equally credulous of subsequent ages, and at last, in the course of seventeen centuries, raised itself to the level of a more or less vulgar notion among Jews and Christians, is, in opposition to the universal and unbroken silence of the FIRST fifteen hundred years, and the but once broken silence of the next four hundred years, a circumstance, to which, as regards the TRUTH of that interpretation, absolutely no value whatever can or ought to be attached. Lastly, I have endeavoured to show, 1st, that Joshua's address to his army, of which the sacred writer quotes a passage in the words of the poet, was delivered, as it usually is, at the commencement of the battle; 2nd, that, according to the biblical narrative, the battle was decided during the Jewish hour of mid-day; 3rd, that the TIME necessary for the pursust of the defeated Canaanites was limited, and solely limited, on the one hand by the distance, to which that pursuit was carried, and on the other by the speed of human feet; 4th, that, from the end of the Jewish noon-tide to the close of the day, comprising an interval of upwards of six hours, this interval affords, in the usual course of things, more than ample time for the pursuit and following occurrences related by the sacred writer; and 5th, that, consequently, there could exist no possible reason for Joshua to desire a prolongation of the day; but on the contrary, that, when he had secured the fruits of his victory, as far as it was in his power to do, he must have felt anxious to grant to his army that rest of which they cannot but have stood so greatly in need. And thus I leave it to your readers, after combining and duly weighing all these various arguments, to decide for themselves whether they will be convinced by the authority of the Word of God, the power of reason, and the historical testimony of the whole ancient world; or whether they will yield their judgment to the force of inherited impressions, the voice of prejudice, and the allurings of the imagination. J. VON GUMPACH.h h The discussion of the Miracle of Joshua has run through so many Numbers of the Journal, and has occupied so much of the attention of our readers, that we think it may suitably close here, with the full reply of the author of the article which raised this discussion to the different Correspondents who have questioned his views.-EDITOR. PROFESSOR PROFESSOR WEIR'S ANSWER TO DR. SAMUEL LEE. To the Editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature. DEAR SIR,-In the Eighth Number of your Journal- you inserted a paper of mine on the Tenses of the Hebrew Verb, which, I observe, has brought out two more on the same subject; the one by Dr. Murphy, the other by Dr. Lee. These communications I have read with attention and interest; and, with your permission, I shall now lay before your readers such remarks as they have suggested. At the outset, however, I must advert to a charge of a rather serious nature which Dr. Lee has brought against both Dr. Murphy and myself. We are accused of appropriating Dr. Lee's ideas and discoveries without due acknowledgment. I think I shall be able to satisfy your readers that there is not the slightest ground for such an accusation. In expounding the theory of the Tenses which I ventured to propose, I had made large use of the fact that the Hebrews were accustomed to regard and describe past events as present, because they transported themselves, as it were, to the period when the events of which they speak took place, and thus viewed and described as if they were spectators of them.' These words Dr. Lee quotes, adding, I am sorry that I am under the necessity of finding some fault with Mr. Weir. The truth is, he has taken this, his favourite principle, from my Grammar. I do blame Mr. Weir for not acknowledging the source from which he took it; and from none but my Grammar could it have been taken, for it is nowhere else to be found except in the Grammarians of the East. It was for this, among other things, that I deemed it my duty to chastise Dr. Ewald, and it will presently be seen that I must remind Dr. Murphy of the same plagiarism.' And again, at p. 204-- These are what I term in my Grammar the absolute and relative uses of the Tenses. In this particular, therefore, Dr. Murphy adopts my theory, just as Mr. Weir has done, and this without one word of acknowledgment as to its author.' And again, at p. 207-They have, like Dr. Ewald, both ploughed with my heifer, and they have misused her.' Such is the charge; and now let us see how the matter really stands. 1. First of all, let it be remarked, I made no claim to the original discovery of the principle in question. Immediately after the sentence Dr. Lee quotes, I add the following: This is a principle which is adopted, to some extent, by all Hebrew grammarians, but is not, I think, carried out far enough by any of them.' I certainly do think that this, which Dr. Lee calls my favourite principle, has been more fully illustrated in my paper than ever before; and all will allow that there is some novelty in the application of it. But the words just quoted will show that I never claimed to be the first to bring it to light. 2. Moreover, it is not true that my paper contains no acknowledgment ment of Dr. Lee's acquaintance with this usage. At p. 331 of your Eighth Number, your readers will find the following quotation from his Grammar: From what has been said, it must have appeared that the writer placing both himself and his reader in times contemporary with the events of which he is treating,' &c.; and I add,' With the first sentence of this paragraph,' the sentence just quoted, 'I agree entirely, believing it to be precisely the principle which the Hebrew writers adopted.' What terms could have been more express? What acknowledgment more explicit? Yet Dr. Lee, with his eye upon this statement (for he quotes in another part of his letter the words in immediate connection with it), accuses me of adopting his theory without one word of acknowledgment. 3. But the truth is, I do not admit Dr. Lee's claim to be the original discoverer of this Hebrew usage. What will Dr. Lee say if I retort on himself the charge of plagiarism? I make no such accusation, however, for I believe Dr. Lee to be not only a learned Hebraist, but what is better-an honest man, who would shrink from laying claim to what he knows to be another's. And yet the idea which he avers so stoutly to be his own, and which he charges Dr. Ewald and Dr. Murphy, as well as myself, with appropriating without acknowledgment, is not his. He has no more right to it than we. I am so situated at present that I have not access to any extensive collection of Hebrew grammatical works, and but little time to consult such a collection, even though I had. But there is now before me a Hebrew Grammar, written by Professor Robertson of Edinburgh, from the second edition of which, published nearly seventy years ago, I extract the following sentences. Your readers will bear in mind the words of Dr. Lee: 'These are what I term in my Grammar the absolute and relative uses of the Tenses.' I quote from the notes to p. 248- Tempora definita, vero, vel absoluta vel relativa dici possint. Absoluta tempora ea sunt, quæ in se spectata sine ullâ relatione ad aliquod præcedens sive consequens tempus vel præsentia vel præterita vel futura sunt. . . . Tempora vero relativa sunt, sive non adeo absoluta seu in se spectata, sed in relatione ad aliquod sive præcedens sive consequens tempus vel ut Præsentia vel ut Præterita vel ut Futura consideranda veniunt. Imperfectum præteritum plane videtur esse præsens quoddam relativum seu præsens in re præterita,' &c. Now here we have the very principle which Dr. Lee insists is his and his only. It is plain it once belonged to Dr. Robertson, the author of the Grammar I have quoted; and how Dr. Lee has come to inherit it I cannot conjecture. In truth, if it is to be the property of some one in particular, I think I have myself as good a claim as any other, seeing that Dr. Robertson was a countryman of my own. However, I cheerfully waive my claim, provided Dr. Lee retracts his charge." So much for the accusation of plagiarism. Will Dr. Lee pardon a Dr. Robertson refers to the Dissertations of Koolhaas for a fuller exposition of his views. Vir doctissimus Koolhaas, Professor Amstelodamensis, vestigia prædicti De Bruin premens, in dissertationibus suis de analogia temporum et modorum Hebrææ linguæ hanc rem fusius illustravit.' 2 K VOL. VI.NO. XII. the PROFESSOR WEIR'S ANSWER TO DR. SAMUEL LEE. To the Editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature. DEAR SIR,-In the Eighth Number of your Journal you inserted a paper of mine on the Tenses of the Hebrew Verb, which, I observe, has brought out two more on the same subject; the one by Dr. Murphy, the other by Dr. Lee. These communications I have read with attention and interest; and, with your permission, I shall now lay before your readers such remarks as they have suggested. At the outset, however, I must advert to a charge of a rather serious nature which Dr. Lee has brought against both Dr. Murphy and myself. We are accused of appropriating Dr. Lee's ideas and discoveries without due acknowledgment. I think I shall be able to satisfy your readers that there is not the slightest ground for such an accusation. In expounding the theory of the Tenses which I ventured to propose, I had made large use of the fact that the Hebrews were accustomed to regard and describe past events as present, because they transported themselves, as it were, to the period when the events of which they speak took place, and thus viewed and described as if they were spectators of them.' These words Dr. Lee quotes, adding, 'I am sorry that I am under the necessity of finding some fault with Mr. Weir. The truth is, he has taken this, his favourite principle, from my Grammar. I do blame Mr. Weir for not acknowledging the source from which he took it; and from none but my Grammar could it have been taken, for it is nowhere else to be found except in the Grammarians of the East. It was for this, among other things, that I deemed it my duty to chastise Dr. Ewald, and it will presently be seen that I must remind Dr. Murphy of the same plagiarism.' And again, at p. 204-- These are what I term in my Grammar the absolute and relative uses of the Tenses. In this particular, therefore, Dr. Murphy adopts my theory, just as Mr. Weir has done, and this without one word of acknowledgment as to its author.' And again, at p. 207-They have, like Dr. Ewald, both ploughed with my heifer, and they have misused her.' Such is the charge; and now let us see how the matter really stands. 1. First of all, let it be remarked, I made no claim to the original discovery of the principle in question. Immediately after the sentence Dr. Lee quotes, I add the following: This is a principle which is adopted, to some extent, by all Hebrew grammarians, but is not, I think, carried out far enough by any of them.' I certainly do think that this, which Dr. Lee calls my favourite principle, has been more fully illustrated in my paper than ever before; and all will allow that there is some novelty in the application of it. But the words just quoted will show that I never claimed to be the first to bring it to light. 2. Moreover, it is not true that my paper contains no acknowledg ment er of the Hebrew Tenses we must examine the Hebrew at theory of the Tenses is the true theory, which is in removing the difficulties which those writings uses. inary question relates to the terms by which to deDr. Murphy strongly objects to those commonly resent, Past, Future. He prefers the terms Anterior, osterior. It appears to me that old terms, like old friends, ot to be summarily discarded. In the present case there does pear to be any strong necessity for the change Dr. M. proposes. mple explanation is all that is needed to obviate mistake. I. The leading principle which I endeavoured in my former paper to establish by showing its value in unravelling the intricacies of the Hebrew tense-usages, was this:-that the Hebrew writers, instead of keeping constantly in view the period at which they wrote, and employing a variety of tenses to describe the different shades of past, present, and future time, accomplished the same object by keeping their own times quite out of view, and regarding as their present the period not at which but of which they wrote.' In other words; In that language an action done and a present action seem to be one and the same thing. The very mention of an action as performed, implies that the action spoken of is regarded by the speaker as actually present. The period of performance is for the moment his standing-point.' Grant me this, I said, and I undertake to explain all the difficulties of the Hebrew tense-system. This modest request Dr. Lee rejects with indignation. He says, that disregarding the paradoxes which it involves, it can lay claim to nothing beyond a thorough-going tissue of assumption.' Now assumption to a certain extent, and in a certain sense, it undoubtedly is. The principle is not put forth as one deduced from the nature of things or from the peculiar conformation of the Hebrew mind, but simply as a hypothesis by means of which to explain some acknowledged difficulties of the Hebrew language. The truth of the hypothesis I rested mainly on its power of explaining these difficulties. If it failed in this, I was prepared to abandon it. But, if it succeeded, at least to a greater extent than any theory before propounded, then I was prepared to show, as I did show, that the principle itself, instead of involving any paradox, is extremely natural, and quite in accordance with the habits of thought and expression prevalent in a simple state To set one's self to discuss and define the tense usages of these cognate languages, as a means of getting at right views of the Hebrew tense-usages, is a very roundabout mode of procedure. Rather does the opposite course seem_preferable, especially when one has to do with the first principles of language. Explain the uses of the tenses in Hebrew (which I believe to be the oldest of all the Semitic languages, and therefore most likely to contain what is primitive and original), you throw light upon the usages of the later dialects. I believe the views of the Hebrew tenses I have unfolded may be thus extensively applied. Dr. Lee, I know, is no Papist: yet with him traditionary usages seem to be more regarded than Scriptural forms, and Arabian grammarians as highly venerated as Latin Fathers. |