ver. 13) shows that, as a rule, they bound themselves to abstinence by an oath. The inf. constr., ^?'^'?j is used here, as in other places, for the inf, ahs. (cf. Ges. § 131, 4, note 2). hr\]^ from ^.^n, for i^n;, as in Ezek. xxxix. 7 (cf. Ges, § 67, note 8), to desecrate (his word), i.e. to leave it unfulfilled or break it. — Vers. 3-15 contain the rules relating to positive and negative vows made by a woman, and four different examples are giveji. The first case (vers. 3-5) is that of a woman in her youth, while still unmarried, and living in her father's house. If she made a vow of performance or abstinence, and her father heard of it and remained silent, it was to stand, i.e. to remain in force. But if her father held her back when he heard of it, i.e. forbade her fulfilKng it, it was not to stand or remain in force, and Jehovah would forgive her because of her father's refusal. Obedience to a father stood higher than a self-imposed rehgious service. — The second case (vers. 6-8) was that of a vow of performance or abstinence, made by a woman before her marriage, and brought along with her (f^ yi^, " upon herself") into her marriage. In; uch a case the husband had to decide as to its validity, in the samt way as the father before her marriage. In the day when he heard of it he could hold back his wife, i.e. dissolve her vow; but if he did not do this at once, he could not hinder its fulfilment afterwards. [}^^^^ ^9"?^? gossip of her lips, that which is uttered thoughtlessly or without reflection (cf. Lev. v. 4). This expression implies that vows of abstinence were often made by unmarried women without thought or reflection. — The third case (ver. 9) was that of a vow made by a widow or divorced woman. Such a vow had full force, because the woman was not dependent upon a husband. — The fourth case (vers. 10-12) was that of a vow made by a wife in her married state. Such a vow was to remain in force if her husband remained silent when he heard of it, and did not restrain her. On the other hand, it was to have no force if her husband dissolved it at once. After this there follows the general statement (vers. 13-16), that a husband could establish or dissolve every vow of performance or abstinence made by his wife. If, however, he remained silent " from day to day," he confirmed it by his silence; and if afterwards he should declare it void, he was to bear his wife's iniquity. i^Jli^, the sin which the wife would have had to bear if she had broken the vow of her own accord. This consisted either in a sin-offering to expiate her sin (Lev. v. 4 sqq.); or if this was omitted, in the punishment which God suspended over the sin (Lev. v. 1). — Ver. 16, concluding formula.
Vers. 1-12. The Campaign. — After the people of Israel had been mustered as the army of Jehovah, and their future relation to the Lord had been firmly established by the order of sacrifice that was given to them immediately afterwards, the Lord commanded Moses to carry out that hostility to the Midianites which had already been commanded in chap. xxv. 16-18. Moses was to revenge (ix, to execute) the revenge of the children of Israel upon the Midianites, and then to be gathered to his people, i.e, to die, as had already been revealed to him (chap, xxvii. 13). " The revenge of the children of Israel" was revenge for the wickedness which the tribes of the Midianites who dwelt on the east of Moab (see at chap. xxii. 4) had practised upon the Israelites, by seducing them to the idolatrous worship of Baal Peor. This revenge is called the "revenge of Jehovah" inver. 3, because the seduction had violated the divinity and honour of Jehovah. The daughters of Moab had also taken part in the seduction (chap. xxv. 1, 2); but they had done so at the instigation of the Midianites (see p. 203), and not of their own accord, and therefore the Midianites only were to atone for the wickedness. — Vers. 3-6. To carry out this revenge, Moses had 1000 men of each tribe delivered (^'^prs'ij see at ver. 16) from the families (alaphim, see chap. i. 16) of the tribes, and equipped for war; and these he "sent to the army (into the war) along with Phinehas the son of Eleazar the high priest, who carried the holy vessels, viz. the alarm-trumpets, in his hand. Phinehas was attached to the army, not as the leader of the soldiers, but as the high priest with the holy trumpets (chap. x. 9), because the war was a holy war of the congregation against the enemies of themselves and their God. Phinehas had so distinguished himself by the zeal which he had displayed against the idolaters (chap. xxv. 7), that it was impossible to find any other man in all the' priesthood to attach to the army, who would equal him in holy zeal, or be equally qualified to inspire the army with zeal for the holy conflict. "The holy vessels" cannot mean the ark of the covenant on account of the plural, which would be inapplicable to it; nor the Urim and Thummim, because Phinehas was not yet high priest, and the expression v3 would also be unsuitable to these. The allusion can only be to the trumpets mentioned immediately afterwards, the 1 before nmVn being the) explic, " and in fact." Phinehas took these in his hand, because the Lord had assigned them to His congregation, to bring them into remembrance before Him in time of war, and to ensure His aid (chap. x. 9). — Vers. 7-10. Of the campaign itself, the results are all that is recorded. No doubt it terminated with a great battle, in which the ^lidianites were taken unawares and completely routed. As it was a w^ar of vengeance of Jehovah, the victors slew all the males, i.e. all the adult males, as the sequel shows, without quarter; and " upon those that were slain," i.e. in addition to them, the five Midianitish kings and Balaam, who first advised the Midianites, according to ver. 16, to tempt the Israelites to idolatry. The five kings were chiefs of the larger or more powerful of the Midianitish tribes, as Zur is expressly said to have been in chap. xxv. 15. In Josh. xiii. 21 they are called " vassals of Sihon," because Sihon had subjugated them and made them tributary when he first conquered the land. The women and children of the Midianites were led away prisoners; and their cattle (behemaJiy beasts of draft and burden, as in Ex. XX. 10), their flocks, and their goods taken away as spoil. The towns in their dwellings, and all their villages (tiroth, tent-villages, as in Gen. xxv. 16), were burnt down. The expression " towns in their dwellings " leads to the conclusion that the towns were not the property of the Midianites themselves, who were a nomad people, but that they originally belonged in all probability to the Moabites, and had been taken possession of by the Amorites under Sihon. This is confirmed by Josh. xiii. 21, according to which these five Midianitish vassals of Sihon dwelt in the land, i.e. in the kingdom of Sihon. This also serves to explain why the conquest of their country is not mentioned in the account before us, although it is stated in Joshua (I.e.), that it was allotted to the Reubenites with the kingdom of Sihon. — Vers. 11, 12. All this booty (shalal, booty in goods), and all the prey in man and beast (inalkoacli), was brought by the conquerors to Moses and Eleazar and the congregation, into the camp in tlie steppes of Moab. In ver. 12, ""^tJ^ applies to the women and children who were taken prisoners, nippo to the cattle taken as booty, and p^p to the rest of the prey.
Vers. 13-18. Treatment of the Prisoners. — When Moses went out to the front of the camp with Eleazar and the princes of the congregation to meet the returning warriors, he was angry with the commanders, because they had left all the women alive, since it was they who had been the cause, at Balaam's instigation, of tlie falling away of the Israelites from Jehovah to worship Peor; and he commanded all the male children to be slain, and every woman who had lain with a man, and only the young girls who had hitherto had no connection with a man to be left alive. p\^[} "*?P?) lit. the appointed persons, i.e. the officers of the army, who were then divided into princes (captains) over thousands and hundreds. — " Which came from the battle,^ i.e. who had returned. The question in ver. 15, '^ Have ye left all the women alive V^ is an expression of dissatisfaction, and reproof for their having done this. bvty^'DW... vrij " they have become to the Israelites to work unfaithfulness towards Jehovah^'* i.e. they have induced them to commit an act of unfaithfulness towards Jehovah. The word ")DD, which only occurs in this chapter, viz. in vers. 5 and 16, appears to be used in the sense of giving, delivering, and then, like jnj, doing, making, effecting. On the fact itself, see chap. xxv. 6 sqq. The object of the command to put all the male children to death, was to exterminate the whole nation, as it could not be perpetuated in the women. Of the female sex, all were to be put to death who had known the lying with a man, and therefore might possibly have been engaged in the licentious worship of Peor (chap. xxv. 2), to preserve the congregation from all contamination from that abominable idolatry.
Vers. 19-24. Purification of the Warriors^ the Prisoners j and the Booty. — Moses commanded the men of war to remain for seven days outside the camp of the congregation, to carry out upon the third and seventh day the legal purification of such persons and things as had been rendered unclean through contact with dead bodies. Every one who had slain a soul (person), or touched one who had been slain, was to be purified, whether he were a warrior or a prisoner. And so also were all the clothes, articles of leather, materials of goats' hair, and all wooden things. — Vers. 21-24. To this end Eleazar, whose duty it was as high priest to see that the laws of purification were properly observed, issued fuller instructions with reference to the purification of the different articles, in accordance with the law in chap. xix. nnnpsp D^'j^zrij those who came to the war, i.e. who went into the battle (see at chap. x. 9). " The ordinance of the law:" as in chap. xix. 2. The metal (gold, silver, copper, tin, lead), all that usually comes into the fire, i.e. that will bear the fire, was to be drawn through the fire, that it might become clean, and was then to be sprinkled with water of purification (chap. xix. 9); but everything that would not bear the fire was to be drawn through water. — The washing of clothes
'''''Vers 25-47. Distribution of the Booty.-Qod directed Moses, with Eleazar and the heads of the fathers' houses ("fathers for "fathers' houses:" see at Ex. vi. 14) of the congregation, to take the whole of the booty in men and cattle, and divide it mto two halves: one for the men of war (nnnfen >bDn, those who grasped at war, who engaged in war), the other for the congregation, and to lew a tribute upon it (D?0= nD2t?, computatio, a certain amount: see Ex xii 4) for Jehovah.' Of the half that came to the warriors, one person and one head of cattle were to be handed over to Eleazar the Jriest out of every 500 {i.e. one-fifth per cent.), as a heave-offenng for Jehovah; and of the other half that was set apart for the children of Israel, i.e. for the congregation, one out of every titty a e 2 per cent.) was to be taken for the Levites. tns, laid hold of, i e snatched out of the whole number during tlie process of counting; no"t seized or touched by the lot, as in 1 Chron. xxiv 6, as there was no reason for resorting to the lot in this instance. The division of the booty into two equal halves, one of which was given to the warriors, and the other to the congregation that had taken no part m the war, was perfectly reasonable and just. As the 12,000 warriors had been chosen out of the whole congregation to carry on the war on their behalf, the congregation itself could properly lay claim to its share of the booty. But as the 12,000 had had all the trouble, hardships, and dangers of the war, they could very properly reckon upon some reward for their service; and this was granted them by their receivin<r quite as much as the whole of the congregation which had taken no part in the war,-in fact, more, because the warriors only gave one-fifth per cent, of their share as a thank-offoring tor the victory that had been granted them, whilst those who remained at home had to give 2 per cent, of their share to Jehovah tor the benefit of the priests and Levites. The arrangement, however, was only made for this particular case, and not as a law for all times, although it was a general rule that those who remained at home received a share of the booty brought back by the warnors (cf. Josh. xxii. 8; 1 Sam. xx.x. 24, 25; 2 Mace. viii. 28, 30).- Vers. 31 sqq. The booty, viz. " the rest of the booty, which the men of war had taken," i.e. all the persons taken prisoners that had not been put to death, and all the cattle taken as booty that^ had not been consumed during the march home, amounted to 07 J,0UU head of small cattle, 72,000 oxen, G1,000 asses, and 32,000 maidens.
Each half, therefore, consisted of 337,500 head of small cattle, 36,000 oxen, 30,500 asses, and 16,000 maidens (vers. 36 and 43-46). Of the one half the priests received 675 head of small cattle, 72 oxen, 61 asses, and 32 maidens for Jehovah; and these Moses handed over to Eleazar, in all probability for the maintenance of the priests, in the same manner as the tithes (chap, xviii. 26-28, and Lev. xxvii. 30—33), so that they might put the cattle into their own flocks (chap. xxxv. 3), and slay oxen or sheep as they required them, whilst they sold the asses, and made slaves of the girls; and not in the character of a vow, in which case the clean animals w^ould have had to be sacrificed, and the unclean animals, as well as the human beings, to be redeemed (Lev. xxvii. 2—13). Of the other half, the Levites received the fiftieth part (vers. 43-47), that is to say, 6750 head of small cattle, 720 oxen, 610 asses, and 320 girls. The "iin nwn ("the half," etc.), in ver. 42, is resumed in ver. 47, and the enumeration of the component parts of this half in vers. 43-46 is to be regarded as parenthetical.
Vers. 48-54. Sacred Oblations of the Officers, — When the officers reviewed the men of war who were " in their hand," i.e. who had fought the battle under their command, and found not a single man missing, they felt constrained to give a practical expression to their gratitude for this miraculous preservation of the whole of the men, by presenting a sacrificial gift to Jehovah; they therefore brought all the golden articles that they had received as booty, and offered them tt) the Lord " for the expiation of their souls " (see at Lev. i. 4), namely, with the feeling that they were not worthy of any such grace, and not " because they had done wrong in failing to destroy all the enemies of Jehovah" (^Knohel), This gift, wdiich was offered as a heave-offering for Jehovah, consisted of the following articles of gold: '^*]^V^7 " arm-rings,^^ according to 2 Sam. i. 10 (LXX. '^eXiSojva; Suidas: '^eKihovat ko(t/jloI irepl tov<; ^pa'^Lova<;, Ka\ovvTai Se ^pa')(LaXi{i); *T'9^, bands, generally armlets (Gen. xxiv. 22, etc.); riyzitpj signet-rings; /'"'Jy, hoops, — according to Ezek. xvi. 12, ear-rings; and T^^^^ gold balls (Ex. xxxv. 22). They amounted in all to 16,750 shekels; and the men of war had received their own booty in addition to this. This gift, presented on the part of the officers, was brought into the tabernacle " as a memorial of the children of Israel before Jehovah " (cf. Ex. xxx. 16); that is to say, it was placed in the treasury of the sanctuary.
The fact that the Israelites did not lose a single man in the battle, is certainly a striking proof of the protection of God; but it is not so marvellous as to furnish any good ground for calling in question the correctness of the narrative.^ The Midianites were a nomad tribe, who lived by rearing flocks and herds, and therefore were not a warlike people. Moreover, they were probably attacked quite unawares, and being unprepared, were completely routed and cut down without quarter. The quantity of booty brought home is also not so great as to appear incredible. Judging from the 32,000 females who had never lain with a man, the tribes governed by the five kings may have numbered about 130,000 or 150,000, and therefore not have contained much more than 35,000 fighting men, who might easily have been surprised by 12,000 brave w^arriors, and entirely destroyed. And again, there is nothing in the statement that 675,000 sheep and goats, 72,000 oxen, and 61,000 asses were taken as booty from these tribes, to astonish any one who has formed correct notions of the wealth of nomad tribes in flocks and herds. The only thing that could appear surprising is, that there are no camels mentioned. But it is questionable, in the first place, whether the Midianites were in the habit of rearing camels; and, in the second place, if they did possess them, it is still questionable whether the Israelitish army took them away, and did not rather put to death all that they found, as being of no value to the Israelites in their existing circumstances. Lastly, the quantity of jewellery seized as booty is quite in harmony with the well-known love of nomads, and even of barbarous tribes, for ornaments of this kind; and the peculiar liking of the Midianites for such things is confirmed by the account in Judg. viii. 26, according to which Gideon took as much as 1700 shekels in weight of golden rings from the Midianites alone, beside ornaments of other kinds. If we take the golden shekel at 10 thalers (30 shillings: see vol. ii. p. 250), the value of the ornaments taken by the officers under Moses would be about 167,500 thalers (L.25,125). It is quite possible that the kings and other chiefs, together with their wives, may have possessed as much as this.
^ Jlosenmiiller has cited an example from Tacitus (Aim. xiii. 39), of the Jtoiuans having slaugliturod all the foe without losing a single man on tlie capture of a Parthian castle; and another from Straho (xvi. 1128), of a battle in which 1000 Arabs were slain, and only 2 Romans. And Iliirernick mentions a similar accoimt from the life of Saladin in his Introduction (i. 2, p. 452).
DIVISION OF THE CONQUERED LAND BEYOND THE JORDAN AMONG THE TRIBES OF REUBEN, GAD, AND HALF-MANASSEH. — CHAP. XXXII.^
Vers. 1-5. The Reubenltes and Gadites, who had very large flocks and herds, petitioned Moses, Eleazar, and the princes of the congregation, to give them the conquered land of Gilead for a possession, as a land that was peculiarly adapted for flocks, and not to make them pass over the Jordan, ^t^p D^^'y^ " very strong," is an apposition introduced at the close of the sentence to give emphasis to the yi. The land which they wished for, they called the " land of Jaezer (see chap. xxi. 32), and the land of Gilead^ They put Jaezer first, probably because this district was especially rich in excellent pasture land. Gilead was the land to the south and north of the Jabbok (see at Deut. iii. 10), the modern provinces of Belka in the south between the Jabbok and the Arnon, and Jehel Ajlun to the north of the Jabbok, as far as the Mandhur. Ancient Gilead still shows numerous traces of great fertility even in its present desolation, covered over as it is with hundreds of ruins of old towns and hamlets. Belka is mountainous towards the north, but in the south as far as the Arnon it is for the most part table-land; and in the mountains, as Buckingham says, " we find on every hand a
pleasant shade from fine oaks and wild pistachio-trees, whilst the whole landscape has more of a European character. The pasturage
1 This chapter is also cut in pieces by Knohel: vers. 1, 2, 16-19, 24, 28-30, and 33-38, being assigned to the Elohist; and the remainder, viz. vers. 3-5, 6-15, 20-23, 25-27, 31, 32, and 39-42, to the Jehovist. But as the supposed Elohistic portions are fragmentary, inasmuch as it is assumed, for example, in ver. 19, that the tribes of Reuben and Gad had already asked for the land of the Jordan and been promised it by Moses, whereas there is nothing of the kind stated in vers. 1 and 2, the Elohistic account is said to have been handed down in a fragmentary state. The main ground for this violent hypothesis is the fancy of the critic, that the tribes mentioned could not have been so shameless as to wish to remain on the eastern side of the Jordan, and leave the conquest of Canaan to the other tribes, and that the willingness to help their brethren to conquer Canaan which they afterwards express in vers. 16 sqq., is irreconcilable with their previous refusal to do this, — arguments which need no refutation for an unprejudiced reader of the Bible who is acquainted with the seliishness of the natural heart. The arguments founded upon the language employed are also all weak. Because there are words in vers. 1 and 29, which the critics j)ronounce to be Jehovistic, they must proceed, both here and elsewliere, to remove all that offends them with their critical scissors, in order that they may uphold the full force of their dicta!
in Belha is much better than it is anywhere else throughout the whole of southern Syria, so that the Bedouins say, ^ You can find no country like Belka.' The oxen and sheep of this district are con-
sidered the very best" (see v, Raumer, Pal. p. 82). The mountains of Gilead on both sides of the Jabbok are covered for the most part with glorious forests of oak. " Jebel Ajlun,^ says Robinson (Pal. App. 162), "presents the most charming rural scenery that I have seen in Syria. A continued forest of noble trees, chiefly the evergreen oak (Sindi^n), covers a large part of it, while the ground beneath is covered with luxuriant grass, which we found a foot or more in height, and decked with a rich variety of flowers" (see v. Baumer, ut sup.). This also applies to the ancient Basan^ which included the modern plains of Jaulan and Ilauran^ that were also covered over with ruins of former towns and hamlets. The plain of Hauran^ though perfectly treeless, is for all that very fertile, rich in corn, and covered in some places with such luxuriant grass that horses have great difficulty in making their way through it; for which reason it is a favourite resort of the Bedouins (Burckhardty p. 393). " The whole of Hauran," says Hitter (JErdkunde, xv. pp.
988, 989), " stretches out as a splendid, boundless plain, between Hermon on the west, Jebel Hauran on the east, and Jebel Ajlun to the south; but there is not a single river in which there is water throughout the whole of the summer. It is covered, however, with a large number of villages, every one of which has its cisterns, its ponds, or its birket; and these are filled in the rainy season, and by the winter torrents from the snowy Jebel Hauran. Wherever the soil, which is everywhere black, deep, dark brown, or ochre-coloured, and remarkably fertile, is properly cultivated, you find inimitable corn-fields, and chiefly golden fields of wheat, which furnish Syria in all directions with its principal food. By far the larger part of this plain, which was a luxuriant garden in the time of the Pomans, is now uncultivated, waste, and without inhabitants, and therefore furnishes the Bedouins of the neighbourhood with the desired para-
dise for themselves and their flocks." On its western slope Jebel Hauran is covered wdth splendid forests of oak, and rich in meadow land for flocks (Burckhardt, pp. 152, 169, 170, 173, 358; Wetstein, Reiseber, pp. 39 sqq. and 88). On the nature of the soil of Ilauran, see at Deut. iii. 4. The plain of Jaulan appears in the distance like the continuation of Hauran (Robinson^ App. 162); it has much bush-land in it, but the climate is not so healthy as in Hauran (Seetzen, i. pp. 353, 130, 131). "In general, Hauran, Jaulan, el
Botthin, el Belka, and Ejlun, are the paradise of nomads, and in all their wanderings eastwards they find no pasture like it" (Seetzen, i. p. 364). Dip9, a locality, or district. n:pp Dipo = n:pp fnx (ver. 4), a district adapted for grazing. In ver. 3 the country is more distinctly defined by the introduction of the names of a number of important towns, whilst the clause " the country which the Lord smote before the congregation of Israel," in which the defeat of Sihon is referred to, describes it as one that was without a ruler, and therefore could easily be taken possession of. For more minute remarks as to the towns themselves, see at vers. 34 sqq. On the construction riN |ri^, see at Gen. iv. 18. — The words, " let us not go over the Jordan,^^ may be understood as expressing nothing more than the desire of the speakers not to receive their inheritance on the western side of the Jordan, without their having any intention of withdrawing their help from the other tribes in connection with the conquest of Canaan, according to their subsequent declaration (vers. 16 sqq.); but they may also be understood as expressing a wish to settle at once in the land to the east of the Jordan, and leave the other tribes to conquer Canaan alone. Moses understood them in the latter sense (vers. 6 sqq.), and it is probable that this was their meaning, as, when Moses reproved them, the speakers did not reply that they had not cherished the intention attributed to them, but simply restricted themselves to the promise of co-operation in the conquest of Canaan. But even in this sense their request did not manifest " a shamelessness that would hardly be historically true" (Knobel). It may very well be explained from the opinion which they cherished, and which is perfectly intelligible after the rapid and easy defeat of the two mighty kings of the Amorites, Sihon and Og, that the remaining tribes were quite strong enough to conquer the land of Canaan on the west of the Jordan. But for all that, the request of the Reubenites and Gadites did indicate an utter want of brotherly feeling, and complete indifference to the common interests of the whole nation, so that they thoroughly deserved the reproof which they received from Moses.
Vers. 6-15. Moses first of all blames their want of brotherly feeling: " Shall your brethren go into the war, and ye sit here? ^^ He then calls their attention to the fact, that by their disinclination they would take away the courage and inclination of the other tribes to cross over the Jordan and conquer the land, and would bring the wrath of God upon Israel even more than their fathers who were sent from Kadesh to spy out the land, and who led away the heart of the people into rebelUon through their unfavourable account of the inhabitants of Canaan, and brought so severe a judgment upon the congregation, ip ^?'^^ ^''^f?? to hold avray the heart, i.e. render a person averse to anything* The Keri I'l^'^JJii, as in ver. 9, is unquestionably to be preferred to the Kal |^i<^iri, in the Kethih of ver. 7. — In vers. 8-13, Moses reminds them of the occurrences described in chap. xiii. and xiv. On the expression, ''"wliolly followedJeliovah^^ cf. chap. xiv. 24. The words, ""He drove them about in the desert,^'' caused them to wander backwards and forwards in it for forty years, point back to chap. xiv. 33-35. — Ver. 14. " Behold J ye rise up instead of your father s,^^ i.e. ye take their place, " an increase (J^^^")^, from nin; equivalent to a brood) of sinners, to augment yet the burning of the ivrath of Jehovah against Israeir 7^ nsp^ to add to, or increase. — Ver. 15. "7/" ye draw back behind Him,^ i.e. resist the fulfilment of the will of God, to bring Israel to Canaan, " He will leave it (Israel) still longer in the desert^ and ye prepare destruction for all this nation.^^
Vers. 16-27. The persons thus reproved came near to Moses, and replied, " We will build sheep-folds here for our flocks, and towns for our children; but we ivill equip ourselves hastily (C^'tJ^n, part. pass, hasting) before the children of Israel, till ive bring them to their place''' {i.e. to Canaan). Wi ^^l?, folds or pens for flocks, that were built of stones piled up one upon another (1 Sam. xxiv. 4).^ By the building of towns, we are to understand the rebuilding and fortification of them, ^p, the children, including the women, and such other defenceless members of the family as were in need of protection (see at Ex. xii. 37). When their families were secured in fortified towns against the inhabitants of the land, the men who could bear arms would not return to their houses till the children of Israel, i.e. the rest of the tribes, had all received their inheritance: for they did not wish for a,n inheritance on the other side of Jordan and farther on, if (^3) their inheritance was assigned them on this side Jordan towards the east. The application of the expression r7"i*n "i|?Vp to the land on the east of the Jordan, as well as to that on the west, points to a time when the Israelites had not
^ Accordinc; to Wetstein {Reiseher. p. 29), it is a regular custom with the nomads in Lejd, to surround every place, where they pitch their tents, with a Sira^ i.e. with an enclosure of stones about the height of a man, tliat the flocks may not be scattered in the night, and that they may know at once, from the noise made by the falling of the smaller stones which are laid at the top, if a wolf attempts to enter the enclosure during the night.
yet obtained a firm footing in Canaan. At that time the land to the west of the river could very naturally be spoken of as " beyond the Jordan^' from the subjective stand-point of the historian, who was then on the east of the river; whereas, according to the objective and geographical usage, the land " beyond Jordan" signifies the country to the east of the river. But in order to prevent misunderstanding, in this particular instance the expression VPt^J] "^^J^ is defined more precisely as '^'^"^IP, " towards the east" when it is intended to apply to the land on the east of the Jordan. — Vers. 20-24. Upon this declaration Moses absolves them from all guilt, and promises them the desired land for a possession, on condition that they fulfil their promise; but he reminds them again of the sin that they will commit, and will have to atone for, if their promise is not fulfilled, and closes with the admonition to build towns for their families and pens for their flocks, and to do what they have promised. Upon this they promise again (vers. 25-27), through their spokesman (as the singular ^9^'- i^ ^^^- 25, and the suffix in ''J"^^5 in ver. 27, clearly show), that they will fulfil his command. The use of the Expression " before Jehovah," in the words, " go armed before Jehovah to war," in vers. 20 and 21, may be explained from the fact, that in the war which they waged at the command of their God, the Israelites were the army of Jehovah, with Jehovah in the midst. Hence the ark of the covenant was taken into the war, as the vehicle and substratum of the presence of Jehovah; whereas it remained behind in the camp, when the people wanted to press forward into Canaan of their own accord (chap. xiv. 44). But if this is the meaning of the expression " before Jehovah," we may easily understand why the Keubenites and Gadites do not make use of it in ver. 17, namely, because they only promise to go equipped " before the children of Israel," i.e, to help their brethren to conquer Canaan. In ver. 32 they also adopt the expression, after hearing it from the mouth of Moses (ver. 20).^ D*p^, innocent, " free from guilt before Jehovah and before Israel." By drawing back from participation in the war against the Canaanites, they would not only sin against Jehovah, who had promised Canaan to all Israel, and commanded them to take it, but also against Israel
^ This completely sets aside the supposed discrepancy which Knobel adduces in support of his fragmentary hypothesis, viz. that the Elohist writes " before Israel" in vers. 17 and 29, when the Jehovist would write " before Jehovah," — a statement which is not even correct; since we find '' before Jehovah" in ver, 29, which Knobel is obliged to erase from the text in order to establish his assertion.
itself, i.e, against the rest of the tribes, as is more fully stated in vers. 7-15. In ver. 22h, " before Jehovah" signifies according to the judgment of Jehovah, with divine approval. D^nsisn ^V^\ " ye will know your sin" vv^hich will overtake (^^*9) ^^ smite you, i.e. ye will have to make atonement for them.
Vers. 28-33. Moses thereupon commanded Eleazar, Joshua, and the heads of the tribes of Israel, i.e. the persons entrusted in chap, xxxiv. 17 sqq. With the division of the land of Canaan, to give the Gadites and Reubenites the land of Gilead for a possession, after the conquest of Canaan, if they should go along with them across the Jordan equipped for battle. But if they should not do this, they were to be made possessors (i.e. to be settled; TnN3 in a passive sense, whereas in Gen. xxxiv. 10, xlvii. 27, it is reflective, to fix oneself firmly, to settle) in the land of Canaan along with the other tribes. In the latter case, therefore, they were not only to receive no possession in the land to the east of the Jordan, but were to be compelled to go over the Jordan with their wives and children, and to receive an inheritance there for the purpose of preventing a schism of the nation. — Ver. 31. The Gadites and Reubenites repeated their promise once more (ver. 25), and added still further (ver. 32): " JVe will pass over armed before JeJiovah into the land of Canaan^ and let our inheritance he with us (i.e. remain to us) beyond the Jordan." — Ver. 33. Moses then gave to the sons of Gad and Reuben, and the half-tribe of Manasseh, the kingdom of Sihon king of the Amorites, and Og king of Bashan, namely, " the land according to its towns, in (its) districts, (namely) the towns of the land round about" i.e. the whole of the land with its towns and the districts belonging to them, or surrounding the towns. It appears strange that the half-tribe of Manasseh is included here for the first time at the close of the negotiations, whereas it is not mentioned at all in connection with the negotiations themselves. This striking fact may easily be explained, however, on the supposition that it was by the two tribes of Reuben and Gad alone that the request was made for the land of Gilead as a possession; but that when Moses granted this request, he did not overlook the fact, that some of the families of Manasseh had conquered various portions of Gilead and Bashan (ver. 39), and therefore gave these families, at the same time, the districts which they had conquered, for their inheritance, that the whole of the conquered land might be distributed at once. As 0. v. Gerlach observes, " the participation of this half-tribe in the possession is accounted for in ver. 39." Moses restricted himself, however, to a general conveyance of the land that had been taken on the east of the Jordan to these two and a half tribes for their inheritance, without sharing it amongst them, or fixing the boundaries of the territory of each particular tribe. That was left to the representatives of the nation mentioned in ver. 28, and was probably not carried out till the return of the fighting men belonging to these tribes, who went with the others over the Jordan. In the verses which follow, we find only those towns mentioned which were fortified by the tribes of Gad and Reuben and in which they constructed sheep-folds (vers. 34-38), and the districts which the families of Manasseh had taken and received as their possession (vers. 39-42).
Vers. 34-36. The Gadites built, i.e. restored and fortified, the following places. Dibon, also called Dibon Gad, an hour's journey to the north of the central Arnon (see p. 149). ^^aro^/i, probably preserved in the extensive ruins of Attarus, on Jebel Attarus, between el Korriath (Kureyat) and Mkaur, i.e. Machaerus (see Seetzen, ii. p. 342). Ay^oevj not the Aroer before Kabbah, which was allotted to the Gadites (Josh. xiii. 25), as v. Raumer supposes; but the Aroer of Reuben in the centre of the valley of the Arnon (Josh, xii. 2, xiii. 9, 16), which is still to be seen in the ruins of Araayr, on the edge of the lofty rocky wall which bounds the Modjeb {Burckhardt, p. 633). A troth ShopJian: only mentioned here; situation unknown. Jaezer: probably to be sought for in the ruins of es Szir, to the west of Amman (see at chap. xxi. 32). Jogbehah: only mentioned again in Judg. viii. 11, and preserved in the ruins of Jebeiha, about two hours to the north-west of Amman (Burckhardtj p. 618; Robinson, App. p. 168). Beth-Nimrah, contracted into Nimrah (ver. 3), according to Josh. xiii. 27, in the valley of the Jordan, and according to the Onomast. (s. v. BijOvaffpdv) Bethamnaram, five Koman miles to the north of Libias {Bethliaram), now to be seen in the ruins of Nimrein or Nemrin, where the Wady Shaib enters the Jordan {Burckhardt, pp. ^609, 661; Robinson, ii. p. 279), in a site abounding in water and pasturage (Seetzen, ii. pp. 318, 716). Beth-IIaran, or Beth-IIaram (Josh. xiii. 27): Bethrawplitha, according to Josephus, Ant. xviii. 2, 1, which was called Jidias, in honour of the wife of Augustus. According to the Onomast. it was called Beih-Ramtha by the Syrians (^5^p*^ n'^Bj the form of the Aramaean stat. emphat.), and was named Livias by Herod Antipas, in honour of Livia, the wife of Augustus. It has been preserved in the ruins of Rameliy not far from the mouth of the
Wady Hesban (Burckhardt, p. 661, and Robinson, ii. 305). The words '1^1 "iV^p ""ni; in ver. 36 are governed by li^^l in ver. 34: " they built them as fortified cities and folds for flocks," i.e, they fortified them, and built folds in them.
Vers. 37 and 38. The Reuhenites built Heshhon, the capital of king Sihon (see chap. xxi. 16), which was allotted to the tribe of Reuben (Josh. xiii. 17), but relinquished to the Gadites, because it was situated upon the border of their territory, and given up by them to the Levites (Josh. xxi. 39; 1 Chron. vi. QQ). It stood almost in the centre between the Arnon and Jabbok, opposite to Jericho, and, according to the^ OnomasL, twenty Roman miles from the Jordan, where the ruins of a large town of about a mile in circumference are still to be seen, with deep bricked wells, and a large reservoir, bearing the ancient name of Hesban or Hil^ban (^Seetzen; Burckhardt, p. 623; Robinson, Pal. ii. 278; cf. v. Raumer, Pal. p. 262; and Ritters Brdkunde, xv. p. 1176). — Elealeh: half-an-hour's journey to the north-east of Heshbon, now called el Aal, i.e, the height, upon the top of a hill, from which you can see the ^vliole of southern Belka; it is now in ruins with many cisterns, pieces of wall, and foundations of houses (^Burckhardt, p. 623). — Kirjathaim, probably to the south-west of Medeba, where the ruins of el Teym are now to be found (see at Gen. xiv. 5). Nebo, on Mount Nebo (see at chap, xxvii. 12). The Onomast, places the town eight Roman miles to the south of Heshbon, whilst the mountain is six Roman miles to the west of that town. Baal-Meon, called Beon in ver. 3, Beth-Meon in Jer. xlviii. 23, and more fully Beth-Baal- Meon in Josh. xiii. 17, is probably to be found, not in the ruins of Maein discovered by Seetzen and Legh, an hour's journey to the south-west of Tueme (Teim), and the same distance to the north of Habbis, on the north-east of Jebel A'ttarus, and nine Roman miles to the south of Heshbon, as most of the modern commentators from Rosenmilller to Knobel suppose; but in the ruins of Mi/un, mentioned by Burckhardt (p. 624), three-quarters of an hour to the south-east of Heshbon, where we find it marked upon Kiepert's and Van de Veldes maps.^ Shibmah (ver. 3, Shebam), which was only 500 paces from Heshbon, according to Jerome (on Isa. xiv. 8),
' Although Baal-Meon is unquestionably identified with Mac'ui in the Onom. (see V. Raumer^ Pal. p. 259), 1 Chron. v. 8 is decidedly at variance with this. It is stated there that " Bcla dwelt in Aroer^ and even unto Neho and Baal- Meon^'" a statement which places Baal-Meon in the neighbourhood of Neho^ like the passage before us, and is irreconcilable with the supposition that it was has apparently disappeared, without leaving a trace behind.^ Thus all the places built by the Reubenites were but a short distance from Heshbon, and surrounded this capital; whereas those built by the Gadites were some of them to the south of it, on the Arnon, and others to the north, towards Rabbath-Ammon. It is. perfectly obvious from this, that the restoration of these towns took place before the distribution of the land among these tribes, without any regard to their possession afterwards. In the distribution, therefore, the southernmost of the towns built by the Gadites, viz. Aroer, Dibon, and Ataroth, fell to the tribe of Reuben; and Heshbon, wln'ch was built by the Reubenites, fell to the tribe of Gad. The words U^ n'^DlDj " changed of name," are governed by 1J^: " they built the towns with an alteration of their names," mutatis nominihus (for 23D^ in the sense of changing, see Zech. xiv. 10). There is not sufficient ground for altering the text, ^^ into "il^ {Knohel)^ according to the 7r€pLKVK\a)/jLeva(; of the LXX., or the TrepLTeTevy^Lorjjbeva'^ of Symmachus. The Masoretic text is to be found not only in the Chaldee, the Syi'iac, the Vulgate, and the Saadic versions, but also in the Samaritan. The expression itself, too, cannot be justly described as " awkward," nor is it a valid objection that the naming is mentioned afterwards; for altering the name of a town and giving it a new name are not tautological. The insertion of the words, " their names being changed," before Shibmah, is an indication that the latter place did not receive any other name. Moreover, the new names which the builders gave to these towns did not continue in use long, but were soon pressed out by the old ones again. " And they called by names the names of the towns:" this is a identical with Maein in the neighbourhood of Attarus. In the case of Seetzen^ however, the identification of Maein with Baal-Meon is connected with the supposition, which is now generally regarded as erroneous, namely, that Neho is the same as the Jebel Attarus. (See, on the other hand, Hengstcnberg^ Balaam; and Ritter''s Erdkunde^ xv. pp. 1187 sqq.)
^ The difference in the forms Shibmah, Baal-Meon (ver. 38), and Beth-Nimrah (ver. 36), instead of Sheham, Beon, and Nimrah (ver. 3), is rendered useless as a proof that ver. 3 is Jehovistic, and vers. 36-38 Elohistic, from the simple fact that Baal-Meon itself is a contraction of Beth -Baal-Meon (Josh. xiii. 17). If the Elohist could write this name fully in one place and abbreviated in another, he could just as well contract it still further, and by exchanging the labials call it Beon; and so also he could no doubt omit the Beth in the case of Nimrah, and use the mascuhne form Sheham in the place of Shibmah. Tiie contraction of the names in ver. 3 is especially connected with the fact, that diplomatic exactness was not required for an historical account, but that the abbreviated forms in common use were quite sufficient.
roundabout way of saying, they called the towns by (other, or new) names: cf. 1 Chron. vi. 50.
Vers. 39-42. Moses gave the Manassites the land vvhich was conquered by them; in fact, the whole of the kingdom of Bashan, including not only the province of Bashan, but the northern half of Gilead (see at chap. xxi. 33, 34). Of this the sons of MacMr received Gilead, the modern Jehel Ajlun, between the Jabhok (Zerka) and the Mandhur (Hieromax, Jarmuk)j because they had taken it and driven out the Amorites and destroyed them (see Deut. iii. 13). The imperfects in ver. 39 are to be understood in the sense of pluperfects, the different parts being linked together by 1 consec. according to the simple style of the Semitic historical writings explained in the note on Gen. ii. 19, and the leading thought being preceded by the clauses which explain it, instead of their being logically subordinated to it. " The sons of MacMr went to Gilead and took it.... and Moses gave" etc., instead of " Moses gave Gilead to the sons of Machir, who had gone thither and taken it...." The words 1^3 l^l^l, " Machir dwelt therein (in Gilead)," do not point to a later period- than the time of Moses, but simply §tate that the Machirites took possession of Gilead. As soon as Moses had given them the conquered land for their possession, they no doubt brought their families, like the Gadites and Reubenites, and settled them in fortified towns, that they might dwell there in safety, w^hilst the fighting men helped the other tribes to conquer Canaan. y^*l signifies not merely " to dwell," but literally to place oneself, or settle down (e.g. Gen. xxxvi. 8, etc.), and is even applied to the temporary sojourn of the Israelites in particular encampments (chap. xx. 1). — Machir (ver. 40): for the sons of Machir, or Machirites (chap, xxvi. 29). But as Gilead does not mean the whole of the land with this name, but only the northern half, so the sons of Machir are not the whole of his posterity, but simply those who formed the family of Machirites which bore its father's name (chap. xxvi. 29), i.e. the seven fathers' houses or divisions of the family, the heads of which are named in 1 Chron. v. 24. The other descendants of Machir through Gilead, who formed the six families of Gilead mentioned in chap. xxvi. 29-33, and Josh. xvii. 2, received their inheritance in Canaan proper (Josh. xvii.). — Ver. 41. The family of Manasseh named after Machir included " Jair the son (i.e. descendant) of Manasseh." Jair, that is to say, was the grandson of a daughter of Machir the son of Manasseh, and therefore a great-grandson of Manasseh on the mother's side. His father Segub was the son of
Hezron of the tribe of Judah, who had married a daughter of Manasseh (1 Chron. ii. 21, 22); so that Jair, or rather Segub, had gone over with his descendants into the maternal tribe, contrary to the ordinary rule, and probably because Machir had portioned his daughter with a rich dowry like an heiress. Jair took possession of the whole of the province of Argoh in Bashan, i.e, in the plain of Jaulan and Hauran (Deut. iii. 4 and 14), and gave the conquered towns the name of Havvotli Jair, i.e. Jair s-lives (see at Deut. iii. 14). — Yer. 42. Nobah, whose family is never referred to, but who probably belonged, like Jair, to one of the families of Machirites, took the town of Kenath and its daughters, Le. the smaller towns dependent upon it (see chap. xxi. 25), and gave it his own name Nohah, The name has not been preserved, and is not to be sought, as Kurtz supposes, in the village of Nowa (Newe), in Jotan, which is mentioned by Burckhardt (p. 443), and was once a town of half an hour's journey in circumference. For Kenath, which is only mentioned again in 1 Chron. ii. 23 as having been taken from the Israelites by Gesur and Aram, is KdvaOa, which Josephus {de hell. Jud, i. 19, 2) and Ptolemy speak of as belonging to Coelesyria, and Pliny (h. n. 5, 16) to Decapolis, and which was situated, according to Jerome, "in the region of Trachonitis, near to Bostra." The ruins are very extensive even now, being no less than 2^ or 3 miles in circumference, and containing magnificent remains of palaces from the times of Trajan and Hadrian. It is on the western slope of Jebel Hauran, and is only inhabited by a few families of Druses. The present name is Kanuat. (For descriptions, see Seetzen, i. pp. 78 sqq.; Burckhardt, pp. 157 sqq.; cf. Bitter, Erdk.)
As the Israelites had ended their wanderings through the desert, when they arrived in the steppes of Moab by the Jordan opposite to Jericho (chap. xxii. 1), and as they began to take possession when the conquered land beyond Jordan was portioned out (chap, xxxii.), the history of the desert wandering closes with a list of the stations which they had left beliind them. This list was written out by Moses " at the command of Jehovah " (ver. 2), as a permanent memoriol for after ages, as every station which Israel left behind on the journey from Egypt to Canaan " through the great and terrible desert," was a memorial of the grace and faithfulness with which the Lord led His people safely "in the desert land and in the waste howling wilderness, and kept him as the apple of His eye, as an eagle fluttereth over her young, spreadeth abroad her wings, taketh them, beareth them on her wings " (Ex. xix. 4; Deut. xxxii. 10 sqq.).
Vers. 1-15. The first and second verses form the heading: " These are the marches of the children of Israel^ which they marched out^^ i.e. the marches which they made from one place to another, on going out of Egypt. V^'O does not mean a station, but the breaking up of a camp, and then a train, or march (see at Ex. xii. 37, and Gen. xiii. 3). C3nknV7 (see Ex. vii. 4). TS, under the guidance, as in chap. iv. 28, and Ex. xxxviii. 21. Dn\ypp7 DiTk^d^ " their goings out (properly, their places of departure) according to their marches^^ is really equivalent to the clause which follows: " their marches according to their places of de'parture^ The march of the people is not described by the stations, or places of encampment, but by the particular spots from which they set out. Hence the constant repetition of the word ^^9*1, " and they broke upT In vers. 3-5, the departure is described according to Ex. xii. 17, 37-41. On the judgments of Jehovah upon the gods of Egypt, see at Ex. xii. 12. " With an high hand:" as in Ex. xiv. 8. — The places of encampment from Succoth to the desert of Sinai (vers. 5—15) agree with those in the historical account, except that the stations at the Red Sea (ver. 10) and those at JDophkah and Alush (vers. 13 and 14) are passed over there. For Raemses, s6e at Ex. xii. 37. Succoth and Etham (Ex. xiii. 20). Pihahiroth (Ex. xiv. 2). " The wilderness " (ver. 8) is the desert of Shurj according to Ex. xv. 22. Marah, see Ex. xv. 23. JElim (Ex. XV. 27). For the Bed Sea and the wilderness of Sin, see Ex. xvi. 1. For Dophkahy Alush, and Rephidim, see Ex. xvii. 1; and for the wilderness of Sinai, Ex. xix. 2.
In vers. 16—36 there follow twenty-one names of places where the Israelites encamped from the time that they left the luilderness of Sinai till they encamped in the wilderness of Zin, i.e. Kadesh. The description of the latter as " the wilderness of Zin, which is Kadesh," which agrees almost word for word with Num. xx. 1, and still more the agreement of the places mentioned in vers. 37-49, as the encampments of Israel after leaving Kadesh till their arrival in the steppes of Moab, with the march of the people in the fortieth year as described in chap. xx. 22-xxii. 1, put it beyond all doubt that the encampment in the wilderness of Zin, i.e. Kadesh (ver. 36), is to be understood as referring to the second arrival in
Kadesli after the expiration of the thirty-eight years of wandering in the desert to which the congregation had been condemned. Consequently the twenty-one names in vers. 16-36 contain not only the places of encampment at which the Israelites encamped in the second year of their march from Sinai to the desert of Paran at Kadesh, whence the spies were despatched into Canaan, but also those in which they encamped for a longer period during the thirty-eight years of punishment in the wilderness. This view is still further confirmed by the fact that the two first of the stations named after the departure from the wilderness of Sinai, viz, Kihroth-hattaavah and Hazerothj agree with those named in the historical account in chap. xi. 34 and 35. Now if, according to chap. xii. 16, when the people left Hazeroth, they encamped in the desert of Paran, and despatched the spies thence out of the desert of Zin (chap. xiii. 21), who returned to the congregation after forty days "into the desert of Paran to Kadesh^^ (chap. xiii. 26), it is as natural as it well can be to seek for this place of encampment in the desert of Paran or Zin at Kadesh under the name of Pithmah, which follows Hazeroth in the present list (ver. 18). This natural supposition reaches the highest degree of probability, from the fact that, in the historical account, the place of encampment, from which the sending out of the spies took place, is described in so indefinite a manner as the " desert of Paran," since this name does not belong to a small desert, just capable of holding the camp of the Israelites, but embraces the whole of the large desert plateau which stretches from the central mountains of Horeb in the south to the mountains of the Amorites, which really form part of Canaan, and contains no less than 400 (? 10,000 English) square miles (see pp. 57-8). In this desert the Israelites could only pitch their camp in one particular spot, which is called Pithmah in the list before us; whereas in the historical account the passage is described, according to what the Israelites performed and experienced in this encampment, as near to the southern border of Canaan, and is thus pointed out with sufficient clearness for the purpose of the historical account. To this we may add the coincidence of the name Pithmah with the Wady Abu Petemat, which is not very far to the south of Kadesh, " a wide plain with shrubs and retem,^^ i.e. broom {Pohinson, i. p. 279), in the neighbourhood of which, and behind the chalk formation which bounds it towards the east, there is a copious spring of sweet water called Ain el Kudeirdt, This spot was well adapted for a place of encampment for Israel, which was so numerous that it might easily stretch into the desert of Zin, and as far as Kadesh.
The seventeen places of encampment, therefore, that are mentioned in vers. 19-36 between Rithmah and Kadesh, are the places at which Israel set up camps during the thirty-seven years of their wandering about in the desert, from their return from Kadesh into the "desert of the way to the Red Sea" (chap. xiv. 25), till the reassembling of the whole congregation in the desert of Zin at Kadesh (chap. xx. 1).^ Of all the seventeen places not a single one is known, or can be pointed out with certainty, except Eziongeher. Only the four mentioned in vers. 30-33, Moseroth, Bene- Jaakan, Hor-hagidgad, and JotbathaJi, are referred to again, viz. in Deut. X. 6, 7, where Moses refers to the divine protection enjoyed by the Israelites in their wandering in the desert, in these words: " And the children of Israel took their journey from Beerotli-hene- Jaakan to Mosera; there Aaron died, and there he was buried.... From thence they journeyed unto Gudgodah, and from Gudgodah to Jothathah, a land of water-brooks." Of the identity of the places mentioned in the two passages there can be no doubt whatever. Bene Jaakan is simply an abbreviation of Beeroth-bene-Jaakan, wells of the children of Jaakan. Now if the children of Jaakan were the same as the Horite family of Jakan mentioned in Gen.
^ The different hypotheses for reducing the journey of the Israelites to a few years, have been refuted by 'Kurtz (iii. § 41) in the most conclusive manner possible, and in some respects more elaborately than was actually necessary. Nevertheless Knohel has made a fresh attempt, in the interest of his fragmentary hypothesis, to explain the twenty-one places of encampment given in vers. 16-37 as twenty-one marches made by Israel from Sinai till their first arrival at Kadesh. As the whole distance from Sinai to Kadesh by the straight road through the desert consists of only an eleven days' journey, Knohel endeavours to bring his twenty-one marches into harmony with this statement, by reckoning only five hours to each march, and postulating a few detours in addition, in which the people occupied about a hundred hours or more. The objection which might be raised to this, namely, that the Israelites made much longer marches than these on their way from Egypt to Sinai, he tries to set aside by supposing that the Israelites left their flocks behind them in Egypt, and procured fresh ones from the Bedouins at Sinai. But this assertion is so arbitrary and baseless an idea, that it is not worth while to waste a single word upon the subject (see Ex. xii. 38). The reduction of the places of encampment to simple marches is proved to be at variance with the text by the express statement in chap. x. 33, that when the Israelites left the wilderness of Sinai they went' a three days' journey, until the cloud showed them a resting-place. For it is perfectly evident from this, that the march from one place to another cannot be understood without further ground as being simply a day's march of five hours.
xxxvi. 27, — and the reading ]?V\ for ]?V[ in 1 Chron. i. 42 seems to favour this, — the wells of Jaakan would have to be sought for on the mountains that bound the Arahah on either the east or west. Gudgodah is only a slightly altered and abbreviated form of Horhagidgadj the cave of Gidgad or Gudgodah; and lastly, Moseroth is simply the plural form of Mosera. But notwithstanding the identity of these four places, the two passages relate to different journeys. Deut. x. 6 and 7 refers to the march in the fortieth year, when the Israelites went from Kadesh through the Wady Murreh into the Arabah to Mount Hor^ and encamped in the Arabah first of all at the wells of the children, and then at Mosera^ where Aaron died upon Mount Hor^ v/hich was in the neighbourhood, and whence they travelled still farther southwards to Gudgodah and Jothathah. In the historical account in chap. xx. and xxi. the three places of encampment, Bene-Jaahauj Gudgodah, and Jothathah, are not mentioned, because nothing worthy of note occurred there. Gudgodah was perhaps the place of encampment mentioned in chap. xxi. 4, the name of which is not given, where the people were punished with fiery serpents; and Jothathah is probably to be placed before Zalmonah (ver. 41). The clause, " a land of water-brooks " (Deut. x. 7), points to a spot in or near the southern part of the Arabah, where some wady, or valley with a stream flowing through it, opened into the Arabah from either the eastern or western mountains, and formed a green oasis through its copious supply of w^ater in the midst of the arid steppe. But the Israelites had encamped at the very same places once before, namely, during their thirty-seven years of wandering, in which the people, after returning from Kadesh to the Red Sea through the centre of the great desert of et Tih, after wandering about for some time in the broad desert plateau, went through the Wady el Jerafeh into the Arabah as far as the eastern border of it on the slopes of Mount Hor, and there encamped at Mosera (Moseroth) somewhere near Ain et Taiyiheh (on RohinsoriLS map), and then crossed over to Bene-Jaakan, which was probably on the western border of the Arabah, somewhere near Ain el Ghamr {Rohinson), and then turning southwards passed along the Wady el Jeih by Hor-gidgad (^Gudgodah), Jothathah, and Ahronah to Eziongeher on the lied Sea; for there can be no doubt whatever that the Eziongeher in vers. 35, 36, and that in Deut. ii. 8, are one and the same town, viz. the well-known port at the northern extremity of the Elanitic Gulf, where the Israelites in the time of Solomon and
Jehoshaphat built a fleet to sail to Ophir (1 Kings ix. 26, xxii. 49). It was not far from Elath (i.e. Akaha), and is supposed to have been " the large and beautiful town of Asziurij^ which formerly stood, according to Makrizi, near to Aihy where there were many dates, fields, and fruit-trees, though it has now long since entirely disappeared.
Consequently the Israelites passed twice through a portion of the Arabah in a southerly direction towards the E-ed Sea, the second time from Wady Murreh by Mount Hor, to go round the land of Edom, not quite to the head of the gulf, but only to the Wady el Itlun, through which they crossed to the eastern side of Edomitis (p. 142); the first time during the thirty-seven years of wandering from Wady el Jerafeh to Moseroth and Bene Jaakan, and thence to Eziongeber. — Ver. 36. " And they removed from Eziongeber, and encamped in the desert of Zin, that is Kadesh: " the return to Kadesh towards the end of the thirty-ninth year is referred to here. The fact that no places of encampment are given between Eziongeber and Kadesh, is not to be attributed to the " plan of the author, to avoid mentioning the same places of encampment a second time," for any such plan is a mere conjecture; but it may be simply and perfectly explained from the fact, that on this return route — which the whole of the people, with their wives, children, and flocks, could accomplish without any very great exertion in ten or fourteen days, as the distance from Aila to Kadesh through the desert of Paran is only about a forty hours' journey upon camels, and Robinson travelled from Akabah to the Wady Ketemath, near Kadesh, in four days and a half — no formal camp was pitched at all, probably because the time of penal wandering came to an end at Eziongeber, and the time had arrived when the congregation was to assemble again at Kadesh, and set out thence upon its journey to Canaan. — Hence the eleven names given in vers. 19—30, between Rithmah and Moseroth^ can only refer to those stations at which the congregation pitched their camp for a longer or shorter period during the thirty-seven years of punishment, on their slow return from Kadesh to the Red Sea, and previous to their entering the Arabah and encamping at Moseroth.
This number of stations, which is very small for thirty-seven years (only seventeen from Rithmah or Kadesh to Eziongeber), is a sufficient proof that the congregation of Israel was not constantly wandering about during the whole of that time, but may have remained in many of the places of encampment, probably those which furnished an abundant supply of water and pasturage, not only for weeks and months, but even for years, the people scattering themselves in all directions round about the place where the tabernacle was set up, and making use of such means of support as the desert afforded, and assembling together again when this was all gone, for the purpose of travelling farther and seeking somewhere else a suitable spot for a fresh encampment. Moreover, the words of Deut. i. 46, " ye abode in Kadesh many days," when compared with chap. ii. 1, " then we turned, and took our journey into the wilderness of the way to the Red Sea," show most distinctly, that after the sentence passed upon the people in Kadesh (chap, xiv.), they did not begin to travel back at once, but remained for a considerable time in Kadesh before going southwards into the desert. With regard to the direction which they took, all that can be said, so long as none of the places of encampment mentioned in vers. 19-29 are discovered, is that they made their way by a very circuitous route, and with many a wide detour, to Eziongeber, on the Red Sea.^
Vers. 37-49. The places of encampment on the journey of the fortieth year from Kadesh to Mount Hor, and round Edom and Moab into the steppes of Moab, have been discussed at chap. xx. and xxi. On Mount Hor, and Aaron's death there, see at chap. xx. 22. For the remark in ver. 40 concerning the Canaanites of Arad,
^ We agree so far, therefore, with the view adopted by Fries ^ and followed by Kurtz (History of Old Covenant, iii. 306-7) and Schultz (Deut. pp. 153-4), that we regard the stations given in vers. 19-35, between Rithmah and Eziongeber^ as referring to the journeys of Israel, after its condemnation in Kadesh, during the thirty-seven years of its wandering about in the desert. But we do not regard the view which these writers have formed of the marches themselves as being well founded, or in accordance with the text, — namely, that the people of Israel did not really come a second time in full procession from the south to Kadesh, but that they had never left Kadesh entirely, inasmuch as when the nation was rejected in Kadesh, the people divided themselves into larger and smaller groups, and that portion which was estranged from Moses, or rather from the Lord, remained in Kadesh even after the rest were scattered about; so that, in a certain sense, Kadesh formed the standing encampment and meeting-place of the congregation even during the thirty-seven years. According to this view, the removals and encampments mentioned in vers. 19-36 do not describe the marches of the whole nation, but are to be understood as the circuit made by the headquarters during the thirty-seven years, with Moses at the head and the sanctuary in the midst (Kurtz)^ or else as showing " that Moses and Aaron, with the sanctuary and the tribe of Levi, altered their resting-place, say from year to year, thus securing to every part of the nation in turn the nearness of the sanctuary, in accordance with the signals appointed by God (Num. X. 11, 12), and thus passed over the space between Kadesh and Eziongeber within the first eighteen years, and then, by a similar change of i)lace,
These instructions, with which the eves of the IsraeHtes were directed to the end of all their wandering, viz. the possession of the promised land, are arranged in two sections by longer introductory formulas (chap, xxxiii. 50 and xxxv. 1). The former contains the divine commands (a) with regard to the extermination of the Canaanites and their idolatry, and the division of the land among the tribes of Israel (chap, xxxiii. 50—56); (b) concerning the boundaries of Canaan (chap, xxxiv. 1—15); (c) concerning the men who were to divide the land (chap, xxxiv. 16-29). The second contains commands (a) respecting the towns to be given up to the Levites (chap. xxxv. 1-8); (b) as to the setting apart of cities of refuge gradually drew near to Kadesh during the remaining eighteen or nineteen years, and at length in the last year summoned the whole nation (all the congregation) to assemble together at this meeting-place." Now we cannot admit that in this view " we find all the different and scattered statements of the Pentateuch explained and rendered intelligible." In the first place, it does not do justice even to the list of stations; for if the constantly repeated expression, '' and they (the children of Israel, ver. 1) removed... and encamped," denotes the removal and encamping of the whole congregation in vers. 3-18 and 37-49, it is certainly at variance with the text to explain the same words in vers. 19-36 as signifying the removal and encamping of the headquarters only, or of Moses, with Aaron and the Levites, and the tabernacle. Again, in all the laws that were given and the events, that are described as occurring between the first halt of the congregation in Kadesh (chap. xiii. and xiv.) and their return thither at the commencement of the fortieth year (chap, xx.), the presence of the whole congregation is taken for granted. The sacrificial laws in chap, xv., which Moses was to address to the children of Israel (ver. 1), were given to " the whole congregation" (cf. vers. 24, 25, 26). The man who gathered wood on the Sabbath was taken out of the camp and stoned by " all the congregation " (chap. XV. 36). " All the congregation " took part in the rebellion of the company of Korah (chap. xvi. 19, xvii. 6, 21 sqq.). It is true this occurrence is supposed by Kurtz to have taken place " during the halt in Kadesh," but the reasons given are by no means conclusive (p. 105). Besides, if we assign everything that is related in chap, xv.-xix. to the time when the whole congregation abode in Kadesh, this deprives the hypothesis of its chief support in Deut. i. 46, ''and ye abode in Kadesh a long time, according to the days that ye abode." For in that case the long abode in Kadesh would include the period of the laws for unintentional man slayers, and the course to be adopted in relation to such manslayers (chap. xxxv. 9—34); and (c) a law concerning the marrying of heiresses within their own tribes (chap, xxxvi.). — The careful dovetailing of all these legal regulations by separate introductory formulas, is a distinct proof that the section chap, xxxiii. 50-56 is not to be regarded, as Baumgarten, Knohel, and others suppose, in accordance with the traditional division of the chapters, as an appendix or admonitory conclusion to the list of stations, but as the general legal foundation for the more minute instructions in chap, xxxiv.-xxxvi.
Israel. — Vers. 51-53. When the Israelites passed through the Jordan into the land of Canaan, they were to exterminate all the inhabitants of the land, and to destroy all the memorials of their idolatry; to take possession of the land and dwell therein, for Jehovah had given it to them for a possession. ^'''^Sn^ to take possession of (vers. 53, etc.), then to drive out of their possession, to and incidents recorded in chap, xv.-xix., and yet, after all, "the whole congregation " went away. In no case, in fact, can the words be understood as signifying that a portion of the nation remained there during the thirty-seven years. Nor can this be inferred in any way from the fact that their departure is not expressly mentioned; for, at all events, the statement in chap. xx. 1, "and the children of Israel, the whole congregation, came into the desert of Zin," presupposes that they had gone away. And the " inconceivable idea, that in the last year of their wanderings, when it was their express intention to cross the Jordan and enter Canaan from the east, they should have gone up from Eziongeber to the southern boundary of Canaan, which they had left thirtyseven years before, merely to come back again to the neighbourhood of Eziongeber, after failing in their negotiations with the king of Edom, which they might have carried on from some place much farther south, and to take the road from that point to the country on the east of the Jordan after all" {Fries)^ loses all the surprising character which it apparently has, if we only give up the assumption upon which it is founded, but which has no support whatever in the biblical history, viz. that during the thirty-seven years of their wandering in the desert, Moses was acquainted with the fact that the Israelites were to enter Canaan from the east, or at any rate that he had formed this plan for some time. If, on the contrary, when the Lord rejected the murmuring nation (chap, xiv. 2G), He decided nothing with reference to the way by which the generation that would grow up in the desert was to enter Canaan, — and it was not till after the return to Kadesh that Moses was informed by God that they were to advance into Canaan from the east and not from the south, — it was perfectly natural that when the time of punishment had expired, the Israelites should assemble in Kadesh again, and start from that point upon their journey onward.
exterminate (ver. 52; cf. chap. xiv. 12, etc.). On ver. 52, see Ex. xxxiv. 13. JT'S^'P, an idol of stone (cf. Lev. xxvi. 1). HbD^ ""p^^, idols cast from brass. MassecaJiy see at Ex. xxxii. 4. Bamoth, altars of the Canaanites upon high places (see Lev. xxvi. 30).— Ver. 54. The command to divide the land by lot among the families is partly a verbal repetition of chap. xxvi. 53-56. '^:i1 Sh ^T., ^W^^- ' literally, "into that, whither the lot comes out to him, shall be to him" (i.e. to each family); in other words, it is to receive that portion of land to which the lot that comes out of the urn shall point it. " According to the tribes of your fathers:" see at chap, xxvi. 55.— The command closes in vers. 55, 56, with the threat, that if they did not exterminate the Canaanites, not only would such as were left become "thorns in their eyes and stings in their sides," i.e. inflict the most painful injuries upon them, and make war upon them in the land; but Jehovah would also do the very same things to the Israelites that He had intended to do to the Canaanites, i.e. drive them out of the land and destroy them. This threat is repeated by Joshua in his last address to the assembled congregation (Josh, xxiii. 13).
Yer. 2. " When ye come into the land of Canaan, this shall be the land which will fall to you as an inheritance, the land of Canaan according to its boundaries;" i.e. ye shall receive the land of Canaan for an inheritance, within the following limits. — Vers. 3-5. The southern boundary is the same as that given in Josh. xv. 2-4 as the boundary of the territory of the tribe of Judah. We have first the gen-^ral description, " The south side shall be to you from the desert of Zin on the sides of Edom onwards,'' i.e. the land was to extend towards the south as far as the desert of Zin on the sides of Edom. ^II'^V, " on the sides," differs in this respect from ^P^, " on the side" (Ex. ii. 5; Josh. xv. 46; 2 Sam. xv. 2), that the latter is used to designate contact at a single point or along a short line; the former, contact for a long distance or throughout the whole extent (= T-b, Deut. ii. 37). " On the sides of Edom'' signifies, therefore, that the desert of Zin stretched along the side of Edom, and Canaan was separated from Edom by the desert of Zin. From this it follows still further, that Edom in this passage is not the mountains of Edom, which had their western boundary on the Arabah, but the country to the south of the desert of Zin or Wady Murreh (see p. 87), viz. the mountain land of the Azazimeh, which still bears the name of Seir or Serr among the Arabs (see Seetzen and Bovjiand in Bitter s Erdk. xiv. pp. 840 and 1087). The statement in Josh. XV. 1 also agrees with this, viz. that Judah's inheritance was " to the territory of Edom, the desert of Zin towards the south," according to which the desert of Zin was also to divide the territory of Edom from that of the tribe of Judah (see the remarks on chap. xiv. 45). With ver. 35 the more minute description of the southern boundary line commences: " The south horder shall he from the end of the Salt Sea eastward^^ i.e. start from " the tongue which turns to the south" (Josh. xv. 2), from the southern point of the Dead Sea, where there is now a salt marsh with the salt mountain at the south-west border of the lake, " And turn to the south side (^y.9) of the ascent of Akrahhim^^ (ascensus scorpionum), i.e. hardly " the steep pass of es Sufahf 1434 feet in height, which leads in a south-westerly direction from the Dead Sea along the northern side of Wady Fikrehj a wady three-quarters of an hour's journey in breadth, and over which the road from Petra to Heshbon passes,"^ as Knohel maintains; for the expression 2Di (turn), in ver. 4, according to which the southern border turned at the height of Akrabbim, that is to say, did not go any farther in the direction from N.E. to S.W. than from the southern extremity of the Salt Sea to this point, and was then continued in a straight line from east to west, is not at all applicable to the position of this pass, since there would be no bend whatever in the boundary line at the pass of es Sufah, if it ran from the Arabah through Wady Fikreh, and so across to Kadesh. The " height of Akrabbiniy^ from which the country round was afterwards called Akrahattine, Akrahatene (1 Mace. V. 3; Josejyhus, Ant. xii. 8, 1),^ is most probably the lofty row of "white cliffs" of sixty or eighty feet in height, which run obliquely across the Arabah at a distance of about eight miles below the Dead Sea and, as seen from the south-west point of the Dead Sea, appear to shut in the Ghor, and which form the dividing line between the two sides of the great valley, which is called el Ghor on one aide, and el Araha on the other (Bohinson, ii. 489, 494, 502). Consequently it was not the Wady Fikreh, but a wady
2 It must be distinguished, however, from the Akrahatta mentioned by Josephus in his Wars of the Jews (iii. 3, 5), the modern Akrabeh in central Palestine (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 296), and from the io^^irchy Akrabattene mentioned in Josephus (Wars of the Jew^ ii. 12, 4; 20, 4; 22, 2), which was named after this place.
which opened into the Arabah somewhat farther to the south, possibly the southern branch of the Wady Murreh itself, which formed the actual boundary. ''And shall pass over to Zin" (i.e. the desert of Zin, the great Wady Murreh^ see at chap. xiv. 21), '' ayid its going forth shall he to the south of Kadesh-Barnea,^ at the western extremity of the desert of Zin (see at chap. xx. 16). From this point the boundary went farther out (^^^) " to Ilazar-Addar, and over (p^V) to AzmonJ' According to Josh. xv. 3, 4, it went to the south of Kadesh-Barnea over (p^V) to Hezron, and ascended Q^^V) to Addar, and then turned to KarJcaa, and went over to Azmon, Consequently Hazar-Addar corresponds to Hezron and Addar (in Joshua); probably the two places were so close to each other that they could be joined together. Neither of them has been discovered yet. This also applies to Karhaa and Azmon, The latter name reminds us of the Bedouin tribe Azazimeh, inhabiting the mountains in the southern part of the desert of Zin {Robinson^ i. pp. 274, 283, 287; Seetzen, iii. pp. 45, 47). Azmon is probably to be sought for near the Wady el Ain, to the west of the Hebron road, and not far from its entrance into the Wady el Arish; for this is " the river (brook) of Egypt^'' to which the boundary turned from Azmon, and through which it had " its outgoings at the sea," i.e. terminated at the Mediterranean Sea. The "brook of Egypt," therefore, is frequently spoken of as the southern boundary of the land of Israel (1 Kings viii. ^^^ 2 Kings xxiv. 7, 2 Chron. vii. 8, and Isa. xxvii. 12, where the LXX. express the name by 'PivoKopovpa). Hence the southern boundary ran, throughout its whole length, from the Arabah on the east to the Mediterranean on the west, along valleys which form a natural division, and constitute more or less the boundary line between the desert and the cultivated land.^ Yer. 6. The western boundary/ was to be " the great sea and its territory," i.e. the Mediterranean Sea with its territory or coast (cf Deut. iii. 16, 17; Josh. xiii. 23, 27, xv. 47).
^ On the lofty mountains of Madara, where the Wady Murreh is divided into two wadys {Fikreh and Murreh) which run to the Arabah, v. Schubert observed "some mimosen-trees," with which, as he expresses it, "the vegetation of Arabia took leave of us, as it were, as they were the last that we saw on our road." And Dieterici (Reisebilder^ ii. pp. 156-7) describes the mountain ridge at Nakb es Sufah as " the boundary line between the yellow desert and green steppes," and observes still further, that on the other side of the mountain (i.e. northwards) the plain spread out before him in its fresh green dress. " The desert journey was over, the empire of death now lay behind us, and a new life blew towards us from fields covered with green.'' — In the same way the
Vers. 7-y. The northern boundary cannot be determlMed with certainty. " From the great sea, mark out to you (l^nrij from nsn = njr), to mark or point out), i.e. fix, Mount Hor as the boundary" — from thence " to come to Hamath; and let the goings forth of the boundary be to Zedad. And the boundary shall go out to Ziphron, and its goings out be at Hazar-enan^ Of all these places, Hamath, the modern Hamah, or the Epiphania of the Greeks and Romans on the Orontes (se6 at chap. xiii. 21, and Gen. x. 18), is the only one whose situation is well known; but tlie geographical description of the northern boundary of the land of Israel HDH t^hp (chap. xiii. 21; Josh. xiii. 5; Judg. iii. 3; 1 Kings viii. 65; 2 Kings xiv. 25; 1 Chron. xiii. 5; 2 Chron. vii. 8; Amos vi. 14; Ezek. xlvii. 15, 20, xlviii. 1) is so indefinite, that the boundary line cannot be determined with exactness. For no proof can be needed in the present day that riDn fc<hp cannot mean "to Hamath" {Ges. thes. i. p. 185; Studer on Judg. iii. 3, and Baur on Amos vi. 2), in such a sense as would make the town of Hamath the border town, and t<3 a country between Kadesh and the Hebron road, which has become better known to us th"rough the descriptions of travellers, is described as a natural boundary. Seetzen^ in his account of his journey from Hebron to Sinai (iii. p. 47), observes that the mountains of Tih commence at the TVady el Ain (fountain -valley), which takes its name from a fountain that waters thirty date-palms and a few small corn-fields {i.e. Ain el Kuderat^ in Robinson., i. p. 280), and describes the country to the south of the small flat Wady el Kdeis (el Kideise)., in which many tamarisks grew {i.e. no doubt a wady that comes from Kadesh, from which it derives its name), as a " most dreadful wilderness, which spreads out to an immeasurable extent in all directions, without trees, shrubs, or a single spot of green" (p. 50), although the next day he " found as an unexpected rarity another small field of barley, which might have been an acre in extent" (pp. 52, 53). Bobinson (i. pp. 280 sqC[.) also found, upon the route from Sinai to Hebron, more vegetation in the desert between the "Wady el Kusaimeh and el Ain than anywhere else before throughout his entire journey; and after passing the TVady el Ain to the west of Kadesh, he " came upon a broad tract of tolerably fertile soil, capable of tillage, and apparently once tilled." Across the whole of this tract of land there were long ranges of low stone walls visible (called "e? Muzeiridty''^ "little plantations," by the Arabs), which had probably served at some former time as boundary walls between the cultivated fields. A little farther to the north the Wady es Serdm opens into an extended plain, which looked almost like a meadow with its bushes, grass, and small patches of wheat and barley. A few Azazimeh Arabs fed their camels and flocks here. The land all round became more open, and showed broad valleys that were capable of cultivation, and were separated by low and gradually sloping hills. The grass became more frequent in the valleys, and herbs were found upon the hills. "We heard (he says at p. 283) this morning for the first time the songs of many birds, and among them the lark."
perfectly superfluous pleonasm. In all the passages mentioned, Hamath refers, not to the town of that name (Epiphania on the Orontes), but to the kingdom of Hamath^ which was named after its capital, as is proved beyond all doubt by 2 Chron. viii. 4, where Solomon is said to have built store cities " in Hamath." The city of Hamath never belonged to the kingdom of Israel, not even under David and Solomon, aud was not reconquered by Jeroboam II., as Baur supposes (see my Commentary on the Books of Kings, and Thenius on 2 Kings xiv. 25). How far the territory of the kingdom of Hamath extended towards the south in the time of Moses, and how much of it was conquered by Solomon (2 Chron. viii. 4), we are nowhere informed. We simply learn from 2. Kings xxv. 21, that Riblah (whether the same Riblah as is mentioned in ver. 11 as a town upon the eastern boundary, is very doubtful) was situated in the land of Hamath in the time of the Chaldeans. Now if this Riblah has 'been preserved in the modern Rthleh, a miserable village on the Orontes, in the northern part of the Bekaa, ten or twelve hours' journey to the south-west of Humsy and fourteen hours to the north of Baalbek {Rohinsoriy iii. p. 461, App. 176, and Bibl. Researches, p. 544), the land of Canaan would have reached a little farther northwards, and almost to Hums (Emesa), Knobel moves the boundary still farther to the north. He supposes Mount Hor to be Mons Casius, to the south-west of Antioch, on the Orontes, and agrees with Robinson (iii. 461) in identifying Zedad, in the large village of Zadad {Sudud in Bob,), which is inhabited exclusively by Syriac Christians, who still speak Syriac according to Seetzen (i. 32 and 279), a town containing about 3000 inhabitants {Wetstein, Reiseber, p. 88), to the south-east of Hums, on the east of the road from Damascus to Hunes, a short day's journey to the north of Neblc, and four (or, according to Van de Velde's memoir, from ten to twelve) hours' journey to the south of Hasya {Robinson, iii. p. 461; Ritter, Erdk, xvii. pp. 1443-4). Ziphron, which was situated upon the border of the territory of Hamath and Damascus, if it is the same as the one mentioned in Ezek. xlvii. 16, is supposed by Knobel and Wetstein (p. 88) to be preserved in the ruins of Zifran, which in all probability have never been visited by any European, fourteen hours to the north-east of Damascus, near to the road from Palmyra. Lastly, Hazar-enan (equivalent to fountain-court) is supposed to be the station called Centum Biitea (TIovTea in PtoL V. 15, 24), mentioned in the Tabid. Peuting. x. 3, on the road from Apamia to Palmyra, twenty-seven miles, or about eleven hours, to the north-west of Palmyra. — But we may say with certainty that all these conclusions are incorrect, because they are irreconcilable with the eastern boundary described in vers. 10, 11. For example, according to vers. 10, 11, the Israelites were to draw (fix) the eastern boundary " from Hazar-enan to Shephain" which, as Knohel observes, " cannot be determined with exactness, but was farther south than Hazar-enan, as it was a point on the eastern boundary which is traced here from north to south, and also farther west, as we may infer from the allusion to Riblah, probably at the northern end of Antilibanus" (?). From Shepham the boundary was " to go down to Riblahj^ which Knohel finds in the Rihleh mentioned above. Now, if we endeavour to fix the situation of these places according to the latest and most trustworthy maps, the incorrectness of the conclusions referred to becomes at once apparent. From Zadad {Sudad) to Zifrany the line of the northern boundary would not have gone from west to east, but from north to soath, or rather towards the south-west, and from Zifran to Centum Fiitea still more decidedly in a south-westerly direction. Consequditly the northern boundary would have described a complete semicircle, commencing in the north-west and terminating in the south-east. But if even in* itself this appears very incredible, it becomes perfectly impossible when we take the eastern boundary into consideration. For if this went down to the south-west from Hazar-enan to Shepham according to Knohets conclusions, instead of going down (ver. 11) from Shepham to Biblah, it would have gone up six or seven geographical miles from south to north, and then have gone down again from north to south along the eastern coast of the Lake of Gennesareth. Now it is impossible that Moses should have fixed such a boundary to the land of Israel on the north-east, and equally impossible that a later Hebrew, acquainted with the geography of his country, should have described it in this way.
If, in order to obtain a more accurate view of the extent of the land towards the north and north-east, we compare the statements of the book of Joshua concerning the conquered land with the districts which still remained to be taken at the time of the distribution; Joshua had taken the land " from th3 bald mountain which ascends towards Seir," i.e, probably the northern ridge of the Azazimeh mountains, with its white masses of chalk {Fries, ut sup, p. 76; see also at Josh. xi. 17), " to Baal-Gad, in the valley of Lebanon, below Mount Hermon'' (Josh. xi. 17; cf. chap. xii. 7). But Baal- Gad in the valley ("^yp?) of Lebanon is not Heliopolis (now Baal- hek in the BeJcaa, or Coelesyria), as many, from Ikeii and J. D. Michaelis down to Kiiobel, suppose; for " the Bekaa is not under the Hermon,^ and " there is no proof, or even probability, that Joshua's conquests reached so far, or that Baalbek was ever regarded as the northern boundary of Palestine, nor even that the adjoining portion of Anti-Lebanon was ever called Hermon" (Robinson, Biblical Ivesearches, p. 409). Baal-Gad^ which is called Baal-I/ermon in Judg. iii. 3 and 1 Chron. v. 23, was the later Paneas or Ccpsarea Philippi, the modern Banias, at the foot of the Ilermon (cf. v. Baumer, Pal. j^. 245; Bob. Bibl. Kes. pp. 408-9, Pal. iii. pp. 347 sqq.). This is placed beyond all doubt by 1 Chron. v. 23, according to which the Manassites, who were increasing in numbers, dwelt " from Bashan to Baal-IIermon, and Senir, and the mountains of Hermon," since this statement proves that Baal-IIermon was between Bashan and the mountains of Hermon. In harmony with this, the following places in the north of Canaan are mentioned in Jos 1. xiii. 4, 5, and Judg. iii. 3, as being left unconquorcd by Jos lua: — (1.) " All the land of the Canaanites (i.e. of the Phoeniciai s who dwelt on the coast), and the cave of the Sidonians to Aphek;'' •"'"^iP, probably the spclunca ine,rpngnabilis in territorio Sidoniensiy quce vulao dicitur cavea de Tyrum ( Willi, Tyr. xix. 11), the present Mughr Jezzin, i.e. caves of Jezzin, to the east of Sidon upon Lebanon (Bitter, Erdk. xvii. pp. 99, 100); and Aphek, probably the modern Afka, to the north-east of Beirut (Bobinson, Bibl. Ees.). (2.) " The land of the Giblites,'' i.e. the territory of By bios, and " all Lebanon towards the east, from Baal-Gad below Hermon, till you come to Hamath," i.e. not Antilibanus, but Lebanon, which lies to the east of the land of the Giblites. The land of the Giblites^ or territory of Gebal, which is cited here as the northernmost district of the unconquered land, so that its northern boundary must have coincided with the northern boundary of Canaan, can hardly have extended to the latitude of Tripoli, but probably only reached to the cedar grove at Bjerreh, in the neighbourhood of which the highest peaks of the Lebanon are found. The territory of the tribes of Asher and Xaphtali (Josh. xix. 24—39) did not reach farther up than this. From all these accounts, we must not push the northern boundary of Canaan as far as the Eleutheims, Nahr el Kebir, but must draw it farther to the south, across the northern portion of the Lebanon; so that we may look for Hazar-enan (fountain-court), which is mentioned as the end of the northern boundary, and the starting-point of the etatern, near the fountain of T^thweh. This fountain forms tho water-shed in tho Bekaa, between the Orontes, which flows to tho north, and the Leontes, which flows to the south (cf. Rohinsorij Bibl. Kes. p. 531), and is not only a very largo fountain of the finest clear water, springing at dlfTorent points from underneath a broad piece of coarse gravel, which lies to the west of a vein of limestone, but the whole of the soil is of such a character, that " you have only to dig in the gravel, to get as many springs as you please." The quantity of water which is found here is probably even greater than that at the Anjar. In addition to the four principal streams, there are three or four smaller ones {Robinson^ Bibl. Kes. p. 532), so that this place might be called, with perfect justice, by the name of fountain-court. The probability of this conjecture is also considerably increased by the fact, that the Ain^ mentioned in ver. 1 1 as a point upon the eastern boundary, can also be identified without any difliculty (see at ver. 11).
Vers. 10-12. The Eastern Boundary. — If we endeavour to trace the upper line of the eastern boundary from the fountain-place just mentioned, it ran from I fazar-enan to Shepham^ the site of which is unknown, and " from Shcpham it was to go down to Riblah, on the east of Ain" (the fountain). The article •"'^^19, and still more the precise description, ^' to the east of Ain, the fountain, or fountain locality" (Knobel), show plainly that this Riblah is to be distinguished from the Riblah in the land of ITamath (2 Kings xxiii. 33, XXV. 21; Jer. xxxix. 9, Hi. 27), with which it Is mostly identified. Ain is supposed to be " the great fountain of Neba Anjar, at the foot of Antllibanus, which is often called Birket Anjar ^ on account of its taking its rise in a small reservoir or pool" (Robinson^ Bibl. Res. p. 498), and near to which 3fej-del-Anjar is to be seen, consisting of " the ruins of the walls and towers of a fortified town, or rather of a large citadel" {Robinson, p. 496; cf. Ritter, xvii. pp. 181 sqq.).^ From this point the boundary went farther down, and pressed {^^^) " upon the shoulder of the lake of Chinnereth towards the east," i.e, upon the north-east shore of the Sea of Galilee (see Josh. xix. 35). Hence it ran down along the Jordan to the Salt Sea (Dead Sea). According to these statements, therefore, the eastern boundary went from Bekaa along the western slopes of
^ Knohel regards Ain as the source of tlie Orontes, i.e. Neba Lebwe\ and yet, notwithstanding this, identifies Riblah with the village of Ribleh mentioned above. But can this Ribleh^ which is at least eight hours to the north of Neba Lebweh^ be described as on the east of Ain, i.e. Neba Lebweh?
Antilibanus, over or past Basheya and BanyaSj at the foot of Hermon, along the edge of the mountains which bound the Huleh basin towards the east, down to the north-east corner of the Sea of Galilee; so that Hermon itself {Jehel es Sheikh) did not belong to the land of Israel. — Vers. 13-15., This land, according to the boundaries thus described, the Israelites were to distribute by lot (chap. xxvi. 56), to give it to the nine tribes and a half, as the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh had already received their inheritance on the other side of the Jordan (chap, xxxii. 33 sqq.).
Vers. 16-29. List of the Men appointed to distribute THE Land. — In addition to Eleazar and Joshua, the former of whom was to stand at the head as high priest, in accordance with the divine appointment in chap, xxvii. 21, and the latter to occupy the second place as commander of the army, a prince was selected from each of the ten tribes who were interested in the distribution, as Keuben and Gad had nothing to do with it. Of these princes, namely heads of fathers' houses of the tribes (Josh. xiv. 1), not heads of tribes (see at chap. xiii. 2), Caleb, who is well known from chap, xiii., is the only one whose name is known. The others are not mentioned anywhere else. The list of tribes, in the enumeration of their princes, corresponds, with some exceptions, to the situation of the territory which the tribes received in Canaan, reckoning from south to north, and deviates considerably from the order in which the lots came out for the different tribes, as described in Josh. 15-19. ''H: in the Kal, in vers. 17 and 18, signifies to give for an inheritance, just as in Ex. xxxiv. 8, to put into possession. There is not sufficient ground for altering the Kal into Piel, especially as the Piel in ver. 29 is construed with the accusative of the person, and with the thing governed by n; whereas in ver. 17 the Kalis construed with the person governed by ^, and the accusative of the thing.
— As the Levites were to receive no inheritance of their own, i.e. no separate tribe-territory, in the land of Canaan (chap, xviii. 20 and 23), Moses commanded the children of Israel, i.e. the rest of the tribes, in accordance with the divine instructions, to give (vacate) towns to the Levites to dwell in of the inheritance that fell to them for a possession, with pasturage by the cities round about them for their cattle. " Towns to dwell in," i.e. not the whole of the towns as their own property, but as many houses in the towns as sufficed for the necessities of the Levites as their hereditary possession, which could be redeemed, if sold at any time, and which reverted to them without compensation in the year of jubilee, even if not redeemed before (Lev. xxv. 32, 33); but any portion of the towns which was not taken possession of by them, together with the fields and villages, continued the property of those tribes to which they had been assigned by lot (cf. Josh; xxi. 12, and my commentary on this passage: also Bdhr, Symholik, ii. p. 50; Eivald, Gesch, ii. p. 403). They were also to give them ^^^p (from ^^3^ to drive, drive out), pasturage or fields, to feed their flocks upon, all round the cities; and according to Lev. xxv. 34, this was not to be sold, but to remain the eternal possession of the Levites. Dripri37j for their oxen and beasts of burden, and 0^*13")/', for their (remaining) possessions in flocks (sheep and goats), which are generally described in other cases as mikneh, in distinction from hehemah (e.g. chap, xxxii. 26; Gen. xxxiv. 23, xxxvi. G). Dn*n"7D7j and for all their animals, is merely a generalizing summary signifying all the animals which they possessed. — Ver. 4. The pasture lands of the different towns were to measure ^^ from the town wall outwards a thousand cubits round ahout,^ i.e. on each of the four sides. " And measure from without the city, the east side 2000 cubits, and the south side 2000 cubits, and the west side 2000 cubits, and the north side 2000 cubits, and the city in the middle^^ i.e. so that the town stood in the middle of the measured lines, and the space which they occupied was not included in the 2000 cubits. The meaning of these instructions, which have caused great perplexity to commentators, and have latterly been explained by Saalschutz {Mos. R. pp. 100, 101) in a marvellously erroneous manner, was correctly expounded by J. D. Michaelis in the notes to his translation. We must picture the towns and the surrounding fields as squares, the pasturage as stretching 1000 cubits from the city wall in every direction, as the accompanying figures show, and the length of each outer side as 2000 cubits, apart from the length of the city wall: so that, if the town itself occupied a square of 1000 cubits (see fig. a), the outer side of the town fields would measure 2000 + 1000 cubits in every direction; but if each side of the city wall was only 500 cubits long (see fig. b)j the outer side of the town fields would measure 2000 + 500 cubits in every direction. — Vers. 6-8. Of these cities which were given up to the Levites, six were to serve as cities of refuge (see at v^. 12) for manslayers, and in addition to these (Q^ivV, over upon them) the Israelites were to give of their possessions forty-two others, that is to say, forty-eight in all; and they were to do this, giving much from every tribe that had much, and little from the one which had little (chap. xxvi. 54). With the accusatives C]"'nvn DfcJ and ''7.^ ^^ nx (ver. 6), the writer has already in his mind the verbs ^nnn and ^t3''i^pri of ver. 8, where he takes up the object again in the word D''"iVrn. AccordinfT to Josh, xxi., the Levites received nine cities in the territory of Judah and Simeon, four in the territory of each of the other tribes, with the exception of Naphtali, in which there were only three, that is to say, ten in the land to the east of the Jordan, and thirty-eight in Canaan proper, of which the thirteen given up by Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin were assigned to the families of the priests, and the other thirty-five to the three Levitical families. This distribution of the Levites among all the tribes — by which the curse of division and dispersion in Israel, which had been pronounced upon Levi in Jacob's blessing (Gen. xlix. 7), was changed into a blessing both for the Levites themselves and also for all Israel — was in perfect accordance with the election and destination of this tribe. Called out of the whole nation to be the peculiar possession of Jehovah, to watch over His covenant, and teach Israel His rights and His law (Deut. xxxiii. 9, 10; Lev. x. 11; Deut. xxxi. 9-13), the Levites were to form and set forth among all the tribes the eKXoyrj of the nation of Jehovah's possession, and by their walk as well as by their calling to remind the Israelites continually of their own divine calling; to foster and preserve the law and testimony of the Lord in Israel, and to awaken and spread the fear of God and piety among all the tribes. Whilst their distribution among all the tribes corresponded to this appointment, the fact that tliey were not scattered in all the towns and villages of the other tribes, but were congregated together in separate towns