Please explain the issues surrounding plenary inspiration and the phenomenological approach, using Joshua 10 as an example

[Phil D.]

So here's a little twist on the matter... The well-respected OT exegetes Keil and Delitzsch (Lutheran) propose that Joshua 10:12-14 likely comprise a poetical expression. Importantly, this does not materially affect the factuality of the miracle described, yet such a genre does pose some interesting questions about how the phraseology of the passage might be understood as phenomenological.

In addition to this passage, the "book of the righteous (Jasher)" is also mentioned in 2 Samuel 1:18, as a work in which was to be found David's elegy upon Saul and Jonathan. From this fact it has been justly inferred, that the book was a collection of odes in praise of certain heroes of the theocracy, with historical notices of their achievements interwoven, and that the collection was formed by degrees; so that the reference to this work is neither a proof that the passage has been interpolated by a later hand, nor that the work was composed at a very late period.​

​

That the passage quoted from this work is extracted from a song is evident enough, both from the poetical form of the composition, and also from the parallelism of the sentences. The quotation, however, does not begin with ויּאמר (and he said) in Joshua 10:12, but with תּת בּיום (in the day when the Lord delivered) in Joshua 10:12, and Joshua 10:13 and Joshua 10:14 also form part of it; so that the title of the book from which the quotation is taken is inserted in the middle of the quotation itself. In other cases, unquestionably, such formulas of quotation are placed either at the beginning (as in Numbers 21:14, Numbers 21:27; 2 Samuel 1:18), or else at the close of the account, which is frequently the case in the books of Kings and Chronicles; but it by no means follows that there were no exceptions to this rule, especially as the reason for mentioning the original sources is a totally different one in the books of Kings, where the works cited are not the simple vouchers for the facts related, but works containing fuller and more elaborate accounts of events which have only been cursorily described.​

​

The poetical form of the passage in Joshua 10:13 also leaves no doubt whatever that Joshua 10:13 and Joshua 10:14 contain the words of the old poet, and are not a prose comment made by the historian upon the poetical passage quoted. The only purely historical statement in Joshua 10:15; and this is repeated in Joshua 10:43, at the close of the account of the wars and the victory. But this literal repetition of Joshua 10:15 in Joshua 10:43, and the fact that the statement, that Joshua returned with all the people to the camp at Gilgal, anticipates the historical course of the events in a very remarkable manner, render it highly probable, it not absolutely certain, that Joshua 10:15 was also taken from the book of the righteous.​

​

In the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites to the children of Israel ("before," as in Deuteronomy 2:31, Deuteronomy 2:33, etc.), Joshua said before the eyes (i.e., in the presence) of Israel, so that the Israelites were witnesses of his words (vid., Deuteronomy 31:7): "Sun, stand still (wait) at Gibeon; and, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon." דּמם, to be silent, to keep one's self quiet or still, to wait (1 Samuel 14:9). The address to the sun and moon implies that they both of them stood, or were visible in the heavens at the time; and inasmuch as it was spoken to the Lord, involves a prayer that the Lord and Creator of the world would not suffer the sun and moon to set till Israel had taken vengeance upon its foes. This explanation of the prayer is only to be found, it is true, in the statement that the sun and moon stood still at Joshua's word; but we must imagine it as included in the prayer itself. גּוי without an article, when used to denote the people of Israel, is to be regarded as a poetical expression. In the sequel (Joshua 10:13) the sun only is spoken of: "and the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day."​

​

The poetical word אוּץ, to press or hurry, is founded upon the idea that the sun runs its course like a strong man, with vigour, and without weariness or cessation (Psalm 19:6-7). It follows from this, that Joshua merely prayed for the day to be lengthened, i.e., for the setting of the sun to be delayed; and that he included the moon (Joshua 10:12), simply because it was visible at the time. ​

 

[Phil D.]

So, apart from the apparent phenomenonological language used in Acts 27, as I mentioned above, what about Gen 1 "16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"? The moon is called a "light." Does that mean the moon creates light just as the sun does? I think that is what people of the ANE would have thought, and that is what our senses tell us, but science tells us the moon only reflects light. Compare Isaiah 30:26; Ezekiel 32:7; and Mark 13:24.

Calvin again had an interesting take on the nature of the moon as a luminary body. I can't say that I find it particularly compelling, however, because it seems entirely reasonable to call something a source of light whether it is so due to its own integral generation, or is reflective of another.

For as it became a theologian, he [Moses] had respect to us rather than to the stars. Nor, in truth, was he ignorant of the fact, that the moon had not sufficient brightness to enlighten the earth, unless it borrowed from the sun; but he deemed it enough to declare what we all may plainly perceive, that the moon is a dispenser of light to us. That it is, as the astronomers assert, an opaque body, I allow to be true, while I deny it to be a dark body. For, first, since it is placed above the element of fire, it must of necessity be a fiery body. Hence it follows, that it is also luminous; but seeing that it has not light sufficient to penetrate to us, it borrows what is wanting from the sun. He calls it a lesser light by comparison; because the portion of light which it emits to us is small compared with the infinite splendor of the sun. [Commentary, on Gen. 1:15]​

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Doesn’t the fact that Joshua 10:13 speaks of the sun “not setting” negate your argument? Since the sun doesn’t really do that, but only appears to. What do you think?

It looks to me like the Hebrew word is simply the idea of going; the various translators have translated it as “down” or “setting.” Someone please correct if this is wrong.

To add, though: I would see the use of words like rise and go down, in relation to the sun and the moon, as appropriate, since it’s in relation to the horizon (above and below it) they are being observed. They are above or below that line of demarcation; they sink out of our sight and then rise above that line back into view. (Others might squawk at me for that.) Whatever the case, in Joshua 10
there is a day that lasted much longer than a normal day and the sun observationally stopped moving across the sky for “about a whole day” (KJV)

 

[Apologia Christou]

It looks to me like the Hebrew word is simply the idea of going; the various translators have translated it as “down” or “setting.” Someone please correct if this is wrong.

Good point, I realized that, too. But when I checked some various translations, they all said "go down", and so I thought that maybe this is what the text is saying. But yeah, I don't know Hebrew as well.

 

[Apologia Christou]

So I checked how the ancients translated the passage in the Septuagint and Vulgate:

Josua 10,13 (Brenton LXX Gk): Καὶ ἔστη ὁ ἥλιος καὶ ἡ σελήνη ἐν στάσει, ἕως ἠμύνατο ὁ Θεὸς τοὺς ἐχθροὺς αὐτῶν· καὶ ἔστη ὁ ἥλιος κατὰ μέσον τοῦ οὐρανοῦ· οὐ προεπορεύετο εἰς δυσμὰς εἰς τέλος ἡμέρας μιᾶς.

Strong's Greek: 4313. προπορεύομαι (proporeuomai) -- to make to go before, to cause to go before

Josua 10,13 (VGCLEM): Steteruntque sol et luna,
donec ulcisceretur se gens de inimicis suis.
Nonne scriptum est hoc in libro justorum? Stetit itaque sol in medio cæli, et non festinavit occumbere spatio unius diei.

Lewis and Short

So the Greek is pretty clear, I am not so sure about the Latin, since I am not familiar with it. And it says concerning the word in the link: To go down, to set, of the heavenly bodies (postclass.). Not sure what that means. But the dictionary seems to be fine, it’s this one: https://de.logos.com/product/16014/lewis-and-shorts-latin-dictionary

And ye, it would be nice if someone could decipher the Hebrew for me, like what is it really saying there. All I have is the word of the Net Bible notes, which says that the Hebrew actually reads this way: Heb “and did not hurry to set [for] about a full day.” See the note on Joshua 10:13 here: https://netbible.org/bible/Joshua+10

 

[Apologia Christou]

Wait a minute, the sun did not hurry to set for about a full day, does that mean:

1) the sun did not hurry to go down for a full day, or
2) the sun immediately stopped for a full day?

I guess it’s 2, right? Since 1 can not make any sense out of hurry. Now it’s not only the Hebrew but also the English that’s confusing me, mind you I am from Germany.

No, it has to be 2, since 1 would turn the whole miracle upside down and demand that the sun immediately went down for about a full day.

 

[itsreed]

In other words, exegesis is beside the point when you ask the wrong question?

Exegesis is non-existent when one asks a question the text isn’t answering.

 

[itsreed]

So, apart from the apparent phenomenonological language used in Acts 27, as I mentioned above, what about Gen 1 "16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also"? The moon is called a "light." Does that mean the moon creates light just as the sun does? I think that is what people of the ANE would have thought, and that is what our senses tell us, but science tells us the moon only reflects light. Compare Isaiah 30:26; Ezekiel 32:7; and Mark 13:24.

I’d be very cautious about assuming what the ancients would have thought. May end up committing a modern vs. ancients snobbery; moderns are more informed, therefore more intelligent.

Use of mirrors to reflect light in a room, a very old tech, would disprove your observation. Ancients understood the mirror wasn’t
producing the illumination from their “night light”.

 

[Apologia Christou]

Use of mirrors to reflect light in a room, a very old tech, would disprove your observation. Ancients understood the mirror wasn’t
producing the illumination from their “night light”.

Wait, what exactly do you mean by that? Could you clarify somehow more in-depth, please?

 

[itsreed]

Wait, what exactly do you mean by that? Could you clarify somehow more in-depth, please

Wait, what exactly do you mean by that? Could you clarify somehow more in-depth, please?

Um, sorry, thought what I meant was obvious. Ancient tech for a "night llight" involved a candle in front of a mirror (earliest, polished bronze). The reflected light from the candle magnified the candle's light. Ancients understood the bronze mirror was not creating light.

Similarly, the moon reflects light from the sun. There is no reason to assume they though the moon created light.