The victorious advance of the Israelites in the land induced the kings of Canaan to form a common league for the purpose of resisting them. But, as frequently happens, the many kings and lords of the towns and provinces of Canaan were not all united, so as to make a common and vigorous attack. Before the league had been entered into, the inhabitants of Gibeon, one of the largest towns in the central part of Canaan, together with the smaller neighbouring towns that were dependent upon it, attempted to anticipate the danger which threatened them by means of a stratagem, and to enter into a friendly alliance with the Israelites. And they succeeded, inasmuch as Joshua and the elders of the congregation of Israel fell into the snare that was laid for them by the ambassadors of the Gibeonites, who came to the camp at Gilgal, and made the desired treaty with them, without inquiring of the Lord. " This account," as 0. v. Gerlach says, " is a warning to the Church of God of all ages against the cunning and dissimulation of the world, which often seeks for a peaceable recognition on the part of the kingdom of God, and even for a reception into it, whenever it may be its advantage to do so."
Vers. 1, 2, form the introduction to chaps, ix.-xi., and correspond to the introduction in chap. v. 1. The news of the miraculous passage of the Israelites through the Jordan had thrown all the kings of Canaan into such despair, that they did not venture to make any attack upon Israel. But they gradually recovered from their first panic, partly, no doubt, in consequence of the failure of the first attack of the Israelites upon Ai, and resolved to join together in making war upon the foreign invaders. The kings of Canaan did this when they heard, sc. what Israel had hitherto undertaken and accomplished, not merely " what Joshua had done to Jericho and Ai" (Knobel): that is to say, all the kings across the Jordan, i.e. in the country to the west of the Jordan (JTWi *uy? as in chap. v. 1), viz. " upon the mountains" (not only the mountains of Judah, as in chap. x. 40, xi. 16, etc., but all the mountains which run throughout the whole length of Canaan, as in Deut. i. 7 and Num. xiii. 17: see the explanation of the latter passage); " in the lowlands" (shephelah, the low-lying country between the mountains and the sea-coast, which is simply intersected by small ranges of hills; see at Deut. i. 7); " and on all the coast of the Great Sea towards Lebanon" i.e. the narrow coast of the Mediterranean Sea from Joppa up to the Ladder of Tyre (see at Deut. i. 7). The different tribes of the Canaanites are also mentioned by name, as in chap. hi. 10, except that the Girgashites are omitted. These gathered themselves together to fight with Joshua and Israel with one mouth, or with one accord (1 Kings xxii. 13).
Vers. 3-5. But the inhabitants of a republic, which included not only Gibeon the capital, but the towns of Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim also, acted differently from the rest. Gibeon (Tafidodv, Gabaon, LXX. Vulg.) was larger than Ai, being one of the royal cities (chap. x. 2), and was inhabited by Hivites, who were a brave people (chap. x. 7, xi. 19). It was afterwards allotted to the tribe of Benjamin, and set apart as a Levitical town (chap, xviii. 25, xxi. 17). After the destruction of Nob by Saul, the tabernacle was removed thither, and there it remained till the building of Solomon's temple (1 Chron. xvi. 39, xxi. 29; 1 Kings iii. 4, 5; 2 Chron. i. 3 sqq.). According to Josephus, it was forty or fifty stadia from Jerusalem, and judging from its name was built upon a hill. It is to be found in the modern Jib, two good hours' journey to the north-west of Jerusalem, a village of moderate size, on a long chalk hill which overlooks a very fertile, well cultivated plain, or rather a basin, consisting of broad valleys and plains, and rises like a vineyard, in the form of separate terraces (Strauss, Sinai, p. 332). The remains of large massive buildings of great antiquity are still to be seen there, also some fountains, and two large subterraneous reservoirs (vid. Bob. Pal. ii. p. 136). When the Gibeonites heard of the fate of Jericho and Ai, they also did (something) with stratagem. In the expression HDn D3 (" they also") there is a reference implied to what Joshua had done at Jericho and Ai; not, however, to the stratagem resorted to in the case of Ai, as such an allusion would not apply to Jericho. They set out as ambassadors: *"TO?¥j from "Is?, which occurs in every other instance in the form of a noun, signifying a messenger (Prov. xiii. 17, etc.). In the Hithpael it means to make themselves ambassadors, to travel as ambassadors. The translators of the ancient versions, however, adopted the reading *TH33fj they provided themselves with food; but this was nothing more than a conjecture founded upon ver. 12, and without the slightest critical value. They also took " old sacks upon their asses, and old mended wineskins." D^vVVD, from TW^ lit. bound together, is very characteristic. There are two modes adopted in the East of repairing skins when torn, viz. inserting a patch, or tying up the piece that is torn in the form of a bag. Here the reference is to the latter, which was mc-st in harmony with their statement, that the skins had got injured upon their long journey. Also " old mended sandals upon their feet, and old clothes upon them (upon their bodies); and all the bread of their provisions had become dry and quite mouldy" 0H& lit.
Vers. 6-15. Having made these preparations, they went to the Israelitish camp at Gilgal (Jiljilia), introduced themselves to the men of Israel (t^SJ, in a collective sense, the plural being but little used, and only occurring in Prov. viii. 4, Isa. liii. 3, and Ps. cxli. 4) as having come from a distant land, and asked them to make a league with them. But the Israelites hesitated, and said to the Hivites, i.e. the Gibeonites who were Hivites, that they might perhaps be living in the midst of them (the Israelites), i.e. in the land of Canaan, which the Israelites already looked upon as their own; and if so, how could they make a league with them? This hesitation on their part was founded upon the express command of God, that they were not to make any league with the tribes of Canaan (Ex. xxiii. 32, xxxiv. 12; Num. xxxiii. 55; Deut. vii. 2, etc.). In reply to this the Gibeonites simply said, " We are thy servants" (ver. 8), i.e. we are at thy service, which, according to the obsequious language common in the East, was nothing more than a phrase intended to secure the favour of Joshua, and by no means implied a readiness on their part to submit to the Israelites and pay them tribute, as Rosenmiiller, Knobel, and others suppose; for, as Grotius correctly observes, what they wished for was " a friendly alliance, by which both their territory and also full liberty would be secured to themselves." The Keri ^^) (ver. 7) is nothing more than a critical conjecture, occasioned not so much by the singular fc^N, which is frequently construed in the historical writings as a collective noun with a plural verb, as by the singular suffix attached to *3nj?3j which is to be explained on the ground that only one of th^ Israelites (viz. Joshua) was speaking as the mouthpiece of all the rest. The plural ViDfc^ is used, because Joshua spoke in the name of the people. — Ver. 8. To the further question put by Joshua, where they had come from, the Gibeonites replied, " From a very distant land have thy servants come, because of the name of Jehovah thy God," or as they themselves proceed at once to explain: " for we have heard the fame (fama) of Him, and all that lie did in Egypt, and to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites" They very wisely say nothing about the miracles connected with the crossing of the Jordan and the taking of Jericho, since, " as the inhabitants of a very far distant region, they could not have heard anything about things that had occurred so lately, even by report" (Mariua). — Vera. 11 sqq. When these tidings reached them, they were sent off by the elders (the leaders of the republic) and the inhabitants of the land to meet the Israelites, that they might offer them their service, and form an alliance with them. In confirmation of this, they point to their dried provisions, and their torn and mended skins and clothes.— Vers. 14, 15. The Israelites suffered themselves to be taken in by this pretence. " The men (the elders of Israel) took of their provisions; but they did not ask the month of the Lord:' Instead of inquiring the will of the Lord in this matter through the Urim and Thummim of the high priest (Num. xxvii. 21), they contented themselves with taking some of the bread that was shown them, and tasting it; as if the dry mouldy bread furnished a safe guarantee of the truth of the words of these foreign ambassadors. Some commentators regard their taking of their provisions as a sign of mutual friendship, or of the league which they made; but in that case their eating with them would at any rate have been mentioned. Among the Arabs, simply eating bread and salt with a guest is considered a sign of peace and friendship.— Yer. 15. So Joshua made (granted) them peace (vid. Isa, xxvii. 5), and concluded a covenant with them (D«v, in their favour), to let them live; and the princes of the congregation sware unto them. Letting them live is the only article of the league that is mentioned, both because this was the main point, and also with special reference to the fact that the Gibeonites, being Canaanites, ought properly to have been destroyed. It is true that Joshua and the princes of the congregation had not violated any express command of God by doing this; for the only thing prohibited in the law was making treaties with the Canaanites, which they did not suppose the Gibeonites to be, whilst in Dent. xx. 11, where wars with foreign nations (not Canaanites) are referred to, permission is given to make peace with them, so that all treaties with foreign nations are not forbidden. But they had failed in this respect, that, trusting to the crafty words of the Gibeonites, and to outward appearances only, they had forgotten their- attitude to the Lord their God, who had promised to His congregation, in all important matters, a direct revelation of His own will.
Vers. 16-27. Three days after the treaty had been concluded, the Israelites discovered that they had been deceived, and that their allies dwelt among them (see ver. 7). They set out therefore to deal with the deceivers, and reached their towns Gibeon, Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim on the third day. Chephirah, which was afterwards allotted to the tribe of Benjamin along with Gibeon and Beeroth, and was still inhabited after the captivity (chap, xviii. 25, 26; Ezra ii. 25; Neh. vii. 29), is to be seen in the ruins of Kefir, an hour's journey to the east of Yalo, in the mountains, and three hours to the west of Gibeon (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 146, and Van de Velde, Memoir, pp. 303-4). Beeroth, BrjpcoO, according to Eusebius (Onom. s. v.) a hamlet near Jerusalem, and seven miles on the road to Nicopolis (it should read Neapolis), was in the tribe of Benjamin (2 Sam. iv. 2), and still exists in the large village of Birch, which is situated upon a mountain nine Roman miles to the north of Jerusalem in a stony and barren district, and has still several springs and a good well, besides the remains of a fine old church of the time of the Crusades (see Rob. Pal. ii. pp. 130 sqq.; Seetzen, R. ii. pp. 195-6). Kirjathjearim, also called Kirjath-baal (chap. xv. 60), Baalah (chap. xv. 9), and Baal-Jehuda (2 Sam. vi. 2), was allotted to the tribe of Judah. It stood upon the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (chap. xv. 60, xviii. 15); and the ark remained there, after it had been sent back by the Philistines, until the time of David (1 Sam. vii. 2; 2 Sam. vi. 2; 1 Chron. xiii. 5, 6). According to the Onom., s. v. KapiaOcapetfi and BaaX, it was nine or ten Roman miles from Jerusalem, on the road to Diospolis (Lydda), and is probably to be seen in the present Kuryet el Enab, a considerable village with a large number of olive trees, figs, pomegranates, and vineyards, from the last of which the old " town of the forests" has received the more modern name of " towm of the vine" (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 335, and Bibl. Res. pp. 156-7; and Seetzen, ii. p. 65). These towns, which formed one republic with Gibeon, and were governed by elders, were at so short a distance from Gilgal (Jiljilia), that the Israelites could reach it in one or two days. The expression " on the third day" is not at variance with this; for it is not stated that Israel took three days to march there, but simply that they arrived there on the third day after receiving the intelligence of the arrival of the ambassadors. — Yer. 18. " The Israelites smote them not" sc. with the edge of the sword, " because the princes of the congregation had sworn to them," sc. to let them live (ver. 15); but, notwithstanding the murmuring of the congregation, they declared that they might not touch them because of their oath. " This (sc. what we have sworn) we will do to them, and let them live (p?J}J}> ***/• abs. with special emphasis instead of the finite verb), lest wrath corns upon us because of the oath." Wrath (sc. of God), a judgment such as fell upon Israel in the time of David, because Saul disregarded this oath and sought to destroy the Gibeonites (2 Sam. xxi. 1 sqq.). But how could the elders of Israel consider themselves bound by their oath to grant to the Gibeonites the preservation of life which had been secured to them by the treaty they had made, when the very supposition upon which the treaty was made, viz. that the Gibeonites did not belong to the tribes of Canaan, was proved to be false, and the Gibeonites had studiously deceived them by pretending that they had come from a very distant land? As they had been absolutely forbidden to make any treaties with the Canaanites, it might be supposed that, after the discovery of the deception which had been practised upon them, the Israelitish rulers would be under no obligation to observe the treaty which they had made with the Gibeonites in full faith in the truth of their word. And no doubt from the stand-point of strict justice this view appears to be a right one. But the princes of Israel shrank back from breaking the oath which, as is emphatically stated in ver. 19, they had sworn by Jehovah the God of Israel, not because they assumed, as Hauff supposes, "that an oath simply regarded as an outward and holy transaction had an absolutely binding force," but because they were afraid of bringing the name of the God of Israel into contempt among the Canaanites, which they would have done if they had broken the oath which they had sworn by this God, and had destroyed the Gibeonites. They were bound to observe the oath which they had once sworn, if only to prevent the sincerity of the God by whom they had sworn from being rendered doubtful in the eyes of the Gibeonites; but they were not justified in taking the oath. They had done this without asking the mouth of Jehovah (ver. 14), and thus had sinned against the Lord their God. But they could not repair this fault by breaking the oath which they had thus imprudently taken, i.e. by committing a fresh sin; for the violation of an oath is always sin, even when the oath has been taken inconsiderately, and it is afterwards discovered that what was sworn to was not in accordance with the will of God, and that an observance of the oath will certainly be hurtful (vid. Ps. xv. 4).1 By taking an oath to the ambassadors that they
1 " The binding power of an oath ought to be held so sacred among us, that we should not swerve from our bond under any pretence of error, even though we had been deceived: since the sacred name of God is of greater worth than all the riches of the world. Even though a person should have sworn therefor©
would let the Gibeonites live, the princes of Israel had acted unconsciously in violation of the command of God that they were to destroy the Canaanites. As soon therefore as they discovered their error or their oversight, they were bound to do all in their j>ower to ward off from the congregation the danger which might arise of their being drawn away to idolatry — the very thing which the Lord had intended to avert by giving that command. If this could by any possibility be done without violating their oath, they were bound to do it for the sake of the name of the Lord by which they swore; that is to say, while letting the Gibeonites live, it was their duty to put them in sucli a position, that they could not possibly seduce the Israelites to idolatry. And this the princes of Israel proposed to do, by granting to the Gibeonites on the one hand the preservation of their lives according to the oath they had taken, and on the other hand by making them, slaves of the sanctuary. That they acted rightly in this respect, is evident from the fact that their conduct is never blamed either by the historian or by the history, inasmuch as it is not stated anywhere that the Gibeonites, after being made into temple slaves, held out any inducement to the Israelites to join in idolatrous worship, and still more from the fact, that at a future period God himself reckoned the attempt of Saul to destroy the Gibeonites, in his false zeal for the children of Israel, as an act of blood-guiltiness on the part of the nation of Israel for which expiation must be made (2 Sam. xxi. 1 sqq.), and consequently approved of the observance of the oath which had been sworn to them, though without thereby sanctioning the treaty itself. — Ver. 21. The princes declared again most emphatically, " They sJiall live" Thus the Gibeonites became hewers of wood and drawers of water to the congregation, as the princes had said to them, i.e. had resolved concerning them. This resolution they communicated to the congregation at the time, using the expression W. {let them live); but the historian has passed this over at ver. 21a, and instead of mentioning the resolution proceeds at once to describe its execution.— Vers. 22, 23. Joshua then summoned the Gibeonites, charged them with their deceit, and pronounced upon them the curse of
without sufficient consideration, no injury or loss will release him from his oath." This is the opinion expressed by Calvin with reference to Ps. xv. 4;
yet for all that he regards the observance of their oath on the part of the princes of Israel as a sin, because he limits this golden rule in the most arbitrarymanner to private affairs alone, and therefore concludes that the Israelites were not bound to observe this " wily treaty."
eternal servitude: " There shall not be cut off from you a servant" i.e. ye shall never cease to be servants, ye shall remain servants forever (via1. 2 Sam. iii. 29; 1 Kings ii. 4), " and that as hewers of wood and drawers of waters for our God's house" This is a fuller definition of the expression " for all the congregation" in \cr. 21. The Gibeonites were to perform for the congregation the slaves' labour of hewing wood and drawing water for the worship of the sanctuary, — a duty which was performed, according to Deut. xxix. 10, by the lowest classes of the people. In this way the curse of Noah upon Canaan (Gen. ix. 25) was literally fulfilled upon the Hivites of the Gibeonitish republic. — Vers. 24, 25. The Gibeonites offered this excuse for their conduct, that having heard of the command of God which had been issued through Moses, that all the Canaanites were to be destroyed (Deut. vii. 1, xx. 16, 17), they had feared greatly for their lives, and readily submitted to the resolution which Joshua made known to them. — Vers. 26, 27. " And so did he unto them, and delivered them out of the hand of the children of Israel, that they slew them not. He made them hewers of vjood and drawers of water for the congregation, and indeed for the altar of the Lord" (assigning them) " to the place which God would choose" viz. for the altar. Dipsrr?^ (to the place) is grammatically dependent upon D^rw (he "gave them"). It by no means follows, however, that Joshua sent them there at that very time, but simply that he sentenced them to service at the altar in the place which would be chosen for the sanctuary. From the words " unto this day" it no doubt follows, on the one hand, that the account was written after the fact had taken place; but, on the other hand, it also follows from the future ira* (should, or shall choose), that it was written before the place was definitely fixed, and therefore before the building of Solomon's temple.
Vers. 1-5. The report that Joshua had taken Ai, and put it, like Jericho, under the ban, and that the Gibeonites had concluded a treaty with Israel, filled Adonizedek the king of Jerusalem with alarm, as Gibeon was a large town, like one of the king's towns, even larger than Ai, and its inhabitants were brave men. He therefore joined with the kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon, to make a common attack upon Gibeon, and punish it for its alliance with the Israelites, and at the same time to put a check upon the further conquests of Israel. Adonizedek} i.e. lord of righteousness, is synonymous with Melchizedek (king of righteousness), and was a title of the Jebusite kings, as Pharaoh was of the Egyptian. Jerusalem, i.e. the founding or possession of peace, called Salem in the time of Abraham (Gen. xiv. 18), was the proper name of the town, which was also frequently called by the name of its Canaanitish inhabitants Jehus (Judg. xix. 10, 11; 1 Chron. xi. 4), or "city of the Jebusites" (Ir-Jehud, Judg. xix. 11), sometimes also in a contracted form, Jehusi (ND^n, chap, xviii. 16, 28, xv. 8; 2 Sam. v. 8).1 On the division of the land it was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 28); but being situated upon the border of Judah (chap. xv. 8), it was conquered, and burned by the sons of Judah after the death of Joshua (Judg. i. 8). It was very soon taken again and rebuilt by the Jebusites, whom the sons of Judah were unable to destroy (Judg. xv. 63, xix. 12), so that both Benjaminites and Judahites lived there along with the Jebusites (Judg. i. 21, xv. 63); and the upper town especially, upon the summit of Mount Zion, remained as a fortification in the possession of the Jebusites,. until David conquered it (2 Sam. v. 6 sqq.), made it the capital of his kingdom, and called it by his own name, a the city of David," after which the old name of Jebus fell into disuse. Hebron, the town of Arba the Anakite (chap. xiv. 15, etc.; see at Gen. xxiii. 2), was twenty-two Roman miles south of Jerusalem, in a deep and narrow valley upon the mountains of Judah, a town of the greatest antiquity (Num. xiii. 22), now called el Khalil, i.e. the friend (of God), with reference to Abraham's sojourn there. The ruins of an ancient heathen temple are still to be seen there, as well as the Haram, built of colossal blocks, which contains, according to Mohammedan tradition, the burial-place of the patriarchs (see at Gen. xxiii. 17). Jarmuth, in the lowlands of Judah (chap. xv. 35; Neh. xi. 29), according to the Onom. (s. v. Jerrnus) a hamlet, Jermucha ('lep/xo^o)?), ten Roman miles from Eleutheropolis, on the road to Jerusalem, is the modern Jarmuk, a village on a lofty hill, with the remains of walls and cisterns of a veiy ancient date, the name of which, according to Van de Velde (Mem. pp. 115-6), is pronounced Tell ' 'Armuth by the Arabs (see Bob. Pal. ii. p. 344). Lachish, in the lowlands of Judah (chap. xv. 39), was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 9), and besieged by Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar (2 Kings xviii. 14, xix. 8; Jer. xxxiv. 7), and was otill inhabited by Jews after the return from the captivity (Nell xi. 30). It is probably to be found in Um Lakis, an old place upon a low round hill, covered with heaps of small round stones thrown together in great confusion, containing relics of marble columns; it is about an hour and a quarter to the west of Ajlun, and seven hours to the west of Eleutheropolis.1 Eglon: also in the lowlands of Judah (chap. xv. 39). The present name is Ajldn, a heap of ruins, about three-quarters of an hour to the east of Um Lakis (see Hob. Pal. ii. p. 392, and Van de Velde, Mem. p. 308). In the Onom. (s. v. Eglon) it is erroneously identified with Odollam; whereas the situation of Agla, " at the tenth stone, as you go from Eleutheropolis to Gaza" [Onom. s. v. Brj9aXai)i, Bethagla), suits Eglon exactly. — Ver. 5. These five kings marched against Gibeon and besieged the town. The king of Jerusalem headed the expedition, as his town was so near to Gibeon that he was the first to fear an attack from the Israelites.
Vers. 6-11. The Gibeonites then sent to Joshua to the camp at Gil gal, and entreated him to come to his help as speedily as possible. u Slack not thy hand from thy servants" i.e. withhold not thy help from us. The definition appended to " the kings of the Amorites " (" that dwelt in the mountains ") is to be understood a potiori, and does not warrant us in drawing the conclusion, that all the towns mentioned in ver. 3 were in the mountains of Judah. The Amorites who dwelt in the mountains were the strongest of all the Canaanites. — Ver. 7. In accordance with this petition Joshua advanced from Gilgal (/V]], not went up) with all the people of war, even (yav. expl.) all the men of valour. — Ver. 8. The Lord then renewed the assurance of His help in this particular war, in which Joshua was about to fight for the first time with several allied kings of Canaan (cf. chap. ii. 24, vi. 2, viii. 1, 18). — Ver. 9. Joshua came
1 It is true that Robinson disputes the identity of Um Lakis with the ancient Lachish (Pal. ii. p. 388), but " not on any reasonable ground " (Van de Velde, Mem. p. 320). The statement in the Onom. (5. v. Lochis), that it was seven Roman miles to the south of Eleutheropolis, cannot prove much, as it may easily contain an error in the number, and Robinson does not admit its authority even in the case of Eglon (Pal. ii. p. 392). Still less can KnobeVs conjecture be correct, that it is to be found iu the old place called Sukkarijeh, two hours and a half to the south-west of Beit Jibrin (Eleutheropolis), as Sukkarijeh is on the east of Ajlun, whereas, according to vers. 31-36, Lachish is to be sought foi on the west of Eglon.
suddenly upon them (the enemy), as he had marched the whole night from Gilgal, i.e. had accomplished the entire distance in a night. Jiljilia is fully fifteen miles from el-Jib. — Ver. 10. " Jehovah threw them into confusion" as lie had promised in Ex. xxiii. 27, and in all probability, judging from ver. 11, by dreadful thunder and lightning (vid. 1 Sam. vii. 10; Ps. xviii. 15, cxliv. 6: it is different in Ex. xiv. 24). " Israel smote them in a great slaughter at Gibeon, and pursued them by the way of the ascent of Bethhoron" i.e. Upper Bethhoron (Beit Ur, el-Foka), which was nearest to Gibeon, only four hours distant on the north-west, on a lofty promontory between two valleys, one on the north, the other on the south, and was separated from Lower Bethhoron, which lies further west, by a long steep pass, from which the ascent to Upper Bethhoron is very steep and rocky, though the rock has been cut away in many places now, and a path made by means of steps (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 59). This pass betwreen the two places leads downwards from Gibeon towards the western plain, and was called sometimes the ascent, or going up to Bethhoron, and sometimes the descent, or going down from it (ver. 11), avd/3aai<; teal fcaTa/3acri<; Bai6cop6ov (1 Mace. iii. 16, 24). Israel smote the enemy still further, " to Azehah and Makkedah:" so far were they pursued and beaten after the battle (cf. vers. 16, 21). If we compare ver. 11, according to which the enemy was smitten, from Bethhoron to Azekah, by a violent fall of hail, it is very evident that the two places were on the west of Bethhoron. And it is in perfect harmony with this that we find both places described as being in the lowland; Azekah in the hill-country between the mountains and the plain (chap. xv. 35), Makkedah in the plain itself (chap. xv. 41). Azekah, which was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 9), besieged by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xxxiv. 7), and still inhabited after the captivity (Neh. xi. 30), was not far from Socoh, according to chap. xv. 35; whilst sideways between the two was Ephes-dammim (1 Sam. xvii. 1). Van de Velde has discovered the latter in the ruins of Damum, about an hour's journey east by south from Beit Nettif (Mem. p. 290), and consequently imagines that Azekah is to be found in the village of Ahbek, which stands upon a lofty mountain-top a mile and a half to the north of Damum, and about four or five miles n.n.e. of Shuweikeh, supposing this to be Aphek. The statement in the Onom. (s. v, 'Atyjica)) avafieaov ' E\evdepo7r6\eca<; /col Al\la<;, agrees with this. Makkedah is described in the Onom. as being eight Roman miles to the east of Eleutheropolis, and hence Knobel supposes it to have been near Terkumieh, or Morale; but he is wrong in his supposition, as in that case it would have been in the hill-country or upon the mountains, whereas it was one of the towns in the plain (chap. xv. 41). Van de Veldes conjecture (p. 332) is a much more probable one, viz. that it is to be found in Summeil, a considerable village on an eminence in the plain, with a large public well 110 feet deep and 11 feet in diameter, with strongly built walls of hewn stones, where there is also part of an old wall, which to all appearance must formerly have belonged to a large square castle built of uncemented stones, resembling in some respects the oldest foundation wall of Beit Jibrin (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 368). It is two hours and a half to the north-west of Beit Jibrin, and there Van de Velde discovered the large cave (see at ver. 16), which Robinson has not observed (see his Journey through Syria and Palestine). — Ver. 11. The large stones which the Lord threw upon the flying foe at the slope of Bethhoron wrere hail-stones (see Isa. xxx. 30), not stonehail, or a shower of stones, but a terrible hail-storm, in which hail fell upon the foe in pieces as large as stones (see Wisd. xlvi. 6), and slew a greater number of them than the swords of the Israelites. This phenomenon, which resembled the terrible hail in Egypt (Ex. ix. 24), was manifestly a miraculous occurrence produced by the omnipotent power of God, inasmuch as the hail-stones slew the enemy without injuring the Israelites, who were pursuing them. By this the Israelites were to be made to see that it was not their own power, but the supernatural help of their God, which had given them the victory; whilst the enemy discovered that it was not only the people of Israel, but the God of Israel, that had devoted them to destruction.
Vers. 12-15. In firm reliance upon the promise of God (ver. 8), Joshua offered a prayer to the Lord during the battle, that He would not let the sun go down till Israel had taken vengeance upon their foes; and the Lord hearkened to the prayer of His servant, and the sun hastened not to go down till the defeat of the Amorites was accomplished. This miraculous victory was celebrated by the Israelites in a war-song, which was preserved in the " book of the Righteous." The author of the book of Joshua has introduced the passage out of this book which celebrates the mighty act of the Lord for the glorification of His name upon Israel, and their foes the Amorites. It is generally admitted, that vers. 12-15 contain a quotation from the " book of Jasher," mentioned in ver. 13. This quotation, and the reference to the work itself, are analogous to the notice of " the book of the wars of the Lord," in Num. xxi. 14, and to the strophes of a song which are there interwoven with the historical narrative; the object being, not to confirm the historical account by referring to an earlier source, but simply to set forth before other generations the powerful impression which was made upon the congregation by these mighty acts of the Lord. The " booh of Jasher" i.e. book of the upright, or righteous man, that is to say, of the true members of the theocracy, or godly men. 1BPJ {Jasher, the righteous) is used to denote the genuine Israelite, in the same sense as in Num. xxiii. 10, where Balaam calls the Israelites " the righteous," inasmuch as Jehovah, the righteous and upright one (Deut. xxxii. 4), had called them to be His people, and to walk in His righteousness. In addition to this passage, the " book of the righteous (Jasher)" is also mentioned in 2 Sam. i. 18, as a work in which was to be found David's elegy upon Saul and Jonathan. From this fact it has been justly inferred, that the book was a collection of odes in praise of certain heroes of the theocracy, with historical notices of their achievements interwoven, and that the collection was formed by degrees; so that the reference to this work is neither a proof that the passage has been interpolated by a later hand, nor that the work was composed at a very late period. That the passage quoted from this work is extracted from a song, is evident enough, both from the poetical form of the composition, and also from the parallelism of the sentences. The quotation, however, does not begin with ""?^s!! (and he said) in ver. 126, but with nn DV3 (in the day when the Lord delivered) in ver. 12a, and vers. 13 and 14 also form part of it; so that the title of the book from which the quotation is taken is inserted in the middle of the quotation itself. In other cases, unquestionably, such formulas of quotation are placed either at the beginning (as in Num. xxi. 14, 27; 2 Sam. i. 18), or else at the close of the account, which is frequently the case in the books of Kings and Chronicles; but it by no means follows that there were no exceptions to this rule, especially as the reason for mentioning the original sources is a totally different one in the books of Kings, where the works cited are not the simple vouchers for the facts related, but works containing fuller and more elaborate accounts of events which have only been cursorily described. The poetical form cf the passage in ver. 13 also leaves no doubt whatever that vers., 13 and 14 contain the words of the old poet, and are not a prose comment made by the nistorian upon the poetical passage quoted. The only purely historical statement is ver. 15; and this is repeated in ver. 43, at the close of the account of the wars and the victory. But this literal repetition of ver. 15 in ver. 43, and the fact that the statement, that Joshua returned with all the people to the camp at Gilgal, anticipates the historical course of the events in a very remarkable manner, render it highly probable, if not absolutely certain, that ver. 15 was also taken from the book of the righteous.
In the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites to the children of Israel (" before," as in Deut. ii. 31, 33, etc.), Joshua said before the eyes (i.e. in the presence) of Israel, so that the Israelites were witnesses of his words (vid. Deut. xxxi. 7): " Sun, stand still (wait) at Gibeon; and, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon" D*?^ to be silent, to keep one's self quiet or still, to wait (1 Sam. xiv. 9). The address to the sun and moon implies that they both of them stood, or were visible in the heavens at the time; and inasmuch as it was spoken to the Lord, involves a prayer that the Lord and Creator of the world would not suffer the sun and moon to set till Israel had taken vengeance upon its foes. This explanation of the prayer is only to be found, it is true, in the statement that the sun and moon stood still at Joshua's word; but we must imagine it as included in the prayer itself. *)% without an article, when used to denote the people of Israel, is to be regarded as a poetical expression. In the sequel (ver. 13b) the sun only is spoken of: " and the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day? The poetical word pS, to press or hurry, is founded upon the idea that the sun runs its course like a strong man, with vigour, and without weariness or cessation (Ps. xix. 6, 7). It follows from this, that Joshua merely prayed for the day to be lengthened, i.e. for the setting of the sun to be delayed; and that he included the moon (ver. 12), simply because it was visible at the time. But even if this is the case, we are not therefore to conclude, as C. v. Lapide, Clericus, and others have done, that Joshua spoke these words in the afternoon, when the sun was beginning to set, and the moon had already risen. The expression D^tpn ^VH?, " i* the half," i.e. the midst, u of the sky," is opposed to this view, and still more the relative position of the two in the sky, the sun at Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon, i.e. in the fine broad basin on the north side of Yah (see at chap. xix. 42), the present Merj Ibn Omeir (Bob. iii. pp. 63, 64), which is four hours' journey to the west of Gibeon. As Joshua smote the enemy at Gibeon, and they fled to the south-west, he was no doubt on the west of
Gibeon when he commanded the sun and moon to stand still; and therefore from his point of view the sun would be in the east when it stood over Gibeon, and the moon in the far west when it stood over the valley of Ajalon. But that could only be the case before noon, a few hours after sunrise, when the moon had not yet set in the western sky. In all probability the battle took place quite early in the morning, as Joshua had marched from Gilgal the night before, and fell quite suddenly upon the enemy (ver. 9). But after the conflict had lasted for some hours, and Joshua began to be anxious lest he should be unable to overcome the enemy before night came on, he addressed the prayer to the Lord to lengthen out the day, and in a short time saw his prayer so far fulfilled, that the sun still stood high up in the sky when the enemy was put to flight. We take for granted that these words were spoken by Joshua before the terrible hail-storm which fell upon the enemy in their flight, when they were near Bethhoron, which is about two hours from Gibeon, and smote them to Azekah. There is nothing to prevent our assuming this. The fact, that in the historical account the hail is mentioned before the desire expressed by Joshua and the fulfilment of that desire, may be explained on the simple ground, that the historian, following the order of importance, relates the principal incident in connection with the battle first, before proceeding to the special point to be cited from the book of the righteous. D^pri DV3, " towards (about, or as it were) a whole day" neither signifies " when the day was ended" (Clericus), nor " as it usually does when the day is perfected or absolutely finished" (Rosenmiiller); but the sun did not hasten or press to go down, delayed its setting, almost a whole day (" day" being the time between sunrise and sunset).
What conception are we to form of this miraculous event? It is not stated that the sun actually stood still in one spot in the heavens, — say, for instance, in the zenith. And if the expression, " the sun stood still in the midst of heaven," which is added as an explanation of EHS1? is so pressed as to mean that the sun was miraculously stopped in its course, this is hardly reconcilable with KU7 yx fc6, "it hasted not to go down," as these words, if taken literally, merely denote a slower motion on the part of the sun, as many of the Rabbins have observed. All that is clearly affirmed in vers. 12 and 13 is, that at Joshua's word the sun remained standing in the sky for almost a whole day longer. To this there is added, in ver. 14, " There was no day like that before it, or after it, that
Jehovah hearkened to the voice of a man; for Jehovah fought for Israel" This expression must not be pressed too far, as the analogous passages (" there was none like him," etc.) in 2 Kings xviii. 5 and xxiii. 25 clearly show. They merely express this thought: no other day like this, which God so miraculously lengthened, ever occurred either before or afterwards. So much, therefore, is obvious enough from the words, that the writer of the old song, and also the author of the book of Joshua, who inserted the passage in his narrative, were convinced that the day was miraculously prolonged. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that it is not stated that God lengthened that day at the request of Joshua almost an entire day, or that He made the sun stand still almost a whole day, but simply that God hearkened to the voice of Joshua, i.e. did not permit the sun to go down till Israel had avenged itself upon its enemies. This distinction is not without importance: for a miraculous prolongation of the day would take place not only if the sun's course or sun's setting was delayed for several hours by the omnipotent power of God, and the day extended from twelve to eighteen or twenty hours, but also if the day seemed to Joshua and all Israel to be miraculously prolonged; because the work accomplished on that day was so great, that it would have required almost two days to accomplish it without supernatural aid. It is not easy to decide between these two opposite views; in fact, it is quite impossible if we go to the root of the matter. When we are not in circumstances to measure the length of the day by the clock, it is very easy to mistake its actual length, especially in the midst of the pressure of business or work. The Israelites at that time had neither sun-clocks nor any other kind of clock; and during the confusion of the battle it is hardly likely that Joshua, or any one else who was engaged in the conflict, would watch the shadow of the sun and its changes, either by a tree or any other object, so as to discover that the sun had actually stood still, from the fact that for hours the shadow had neither moved nor altered in length. Under such circumstances, therefore, it was quite impossible for the Israelites to decide whether it was in reality, or only in their own imagination, that the day was longer than others. To tins there must be added the poetical character of the verses before us. When David celebrates the miraculous deliverance which he had received from the Lord, in these words, " In my distress I called upon the Lord.... He heard my voice out of His temple.... He bowed the heavens also, and came down.... He sent from above, He took me, He drew me out of many waters" (Ps. xviii. 7-17), wno would ever think of interpreting the words literally, and supposing them to mean that God actually came down from the sky, and stretched out His hand to draw David out of the water? Or who would understand the words of Deborah, u They fought from heaven, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera" (Judg. v. 20), in their literal sense? The truthfulness of such utterances is to be sought for in the subjective sphere of religious intuition, and not in a literal interpretation of the words. And it may be just the same with these verses, without their actual contents being affected, if the day was merely subjectively lengthened, — that is to say, in the religious conviction of the Israelites. But even if the words reallv affirmed that a miraculous and objective lengthening of the day did actually take place, we should have no reason whatever for questioning the credibility of the statement. All the objections that have been raised with reference to the reality or possibility of such a miracle, prove to have no force when we examine the subject more closely. Thus, for example, the objection that the annals of the other nations of the earth contain no account of any such miracle, which must have extended over the whole world, loses all its significance from the simple fact that there are no annals in existence belonging to other nations and reaching back to that time, and that it is altogether doubtful whether the miracle would extend far beyond the limits of Palestine. Again, an appeal to the unchangeableness of the motions of the stars according to eternal and unchangeable laws, is not adapted to prove the impossibility of such a miracle. The eternal laws of nature are nothing more than phenomena, or forms of manifestation, of those divine creative powers, the true character of which no mortal has ever fathomed. And does not the almighty Creator and Upholder of nature and all its forces possess the power so to direct and govern the working of these forces, as to make them subservient to the realization of His purposes of salvation? And lastly, the objection that a sudden stoppage of the revolution of the earth upon its axis would have dashed to pieces all the works of human hands that were to be found upon its surface, and hurled the earth itself, with its satellite the moon, out of their orbits, cannot prove anything, because it leaves out of sight the fact that the omnipotent hand of God, which not only created the stars, but gave them the power to revolve with such regularity in their orbits as long as this universe endures, and which upholds and governs all things in heaven and on earth, is not too short to guard against any such disastrous consequences as these. But to this we may add, that even the strictest and most literal interpretation of the words does not require us to assume, as the fathers and earlier theologians did, that the sun itself was miraculously made to stand still, but simply supposes an optical stopping of the sun in its course, — that is to say, a miraculous suspension of the revolution of the earth upon its axis, which would make it appear to the eye of an observer as if the sun itself were standing still. Knobel is by no means warranted in pronouncing this view of the matter an assumption at variance with the text. For the Scriptures speak of the things of the visible world as they appear; just as we speak of the sun as rising and setting, although we have no doubt whatever about the revolution of the earth. Moreover, the omnipotence of God might produce such an optical stoppage of the sun, or rather a continuance of the visibility of the sun above the horizon, by celestial phenomena which are altogether unknown to us or to naturalists in general, without interfering with the general laws affecting the revolution of the heavenly bodies. Only we must not attempt, as some have done, to reduce the whole miracle of divine omnipotence to an unusual refraction of the light, or to the continuance of lightning throughout the whole night.
Vers. 16-27. The five kings fled and hid themselves in the cave that was at Makkedah. When they were discovered there, Joshua ordered large stones to be rolled before the entrance to the cave, and men to be placed there to watch, whilst the others pursued the enemy without ceasing, and smote their rear (vid. Deut. xxv. 18), and prevented their entering into their cities. He himself remained at Makkedah (ver. 21). — Vers. 20, 21. When the great battle and the pursuit of the enemy were ended, and such as remained had reached their fortified towns, the people returned to the camp to Joshua at Makkedah in peace, i.e. without being attacked by anybody. " There pointed not (a dog) its tongue against the sons of Israel, against any one" (see at Ex. xi. 7). t^Kp is in apposition to T>N"^ >p37)? and serves to define it more precisely. It is possible, however, to regard the 7 as a copyist's error, as Houbigant and Maurer do, in which case B*K would be the nominative to the verb. — Vers. 22-27. Joshua then commanded the five kings to be fetched out of the cave, and directed the leaders of the army to set their feet upon the necks of the kings; and when this had been done, he ordered the kings to be put to death, and to be hanged upon trees until the evening, when their bodies were to be thrown into the cave in which they had concealed themselves. Of course this did not take place till the day after the battle, as the army could not return from their pursuit of the foe to the camp at Makkedah till the night after the battle; possibly it did not take place till the second day, if the pursuit had lasted any longer. In ver. 24, " all the men of Israel" are all the warriors in the camp. Nuprin, with n artic.y instead of the relative pronoun (see Ges. §109; Ew. § 331, b.); and the ending tn for * or pi, as in Isa. xxviii. 12 (see Ew. § 190, b.). The fact that the military leaders set their feet at Joshua's command upon the necks of the conquered kings, was not a sign of barbarity, which it is necessary to excuse by comparing it with still greater barbarities on the part of the Canaanites, as in Judg. i. 7, but was a symbolical act, a sign of complete subjugation, which wras customary in this sense even in the Eastern empire (see Bynceus de calceis, p. 318, and Constant Porphyrogen de cerimon. aula? Byzant. ii. 19). It was also intended in this instance to stimulate the Israelites to further conflict with the Canaanites. This is stated in the words of Joshua (ver. 25): " Fear not, nor be dismayed (yid. chap. i. 9, viii. 1); for thus shall the Lord do to all your enemies" On the putting to death and then hanging, see chap. viii. 29 and Deut. xxi. 22, 23. The words 'W \ff^\ (ver. 27b) are generally understood as signifying, that after the bodies of the kings had been cast into the cave, the Israelites placed large stones before the entrance, just as in other cases heaps of stones were piled upon the graves of criminals that had been executed (vid. chap. vii. 25), and that these stones remained there till the account before us was written. But this leaves the words DSJJ IV unexplained, as D¥y never occurs in any other case where the formula " until this day" is used with the simple meaning that a thing had continued to the writer's own time, njn Di»n Dvy expresses the thought that the day referred to was the very same day about which the author was writing, and no other (see chap. v. 11; Gen. vii. 13, xvii. 23; Ex. xii. 17, etc.). If, therefore, it has any meaning at all in the present instance, we must connect the whole clause with the one preceding, and even construe it as a relative clause: " where they (the kings) had hidden themselves, and they (the Israelites) had placed large stones at the mouth of the cave until that very day" (on which the kings were fetched out and executed).
Vers. 28-39. Further prosecution of the victory, by the conquest of the fortified towns of the south, into which those who escaped the sword of the Israelites had thrown themselves.— Ver. 28. On the same day on which the five kings were impaled, Joshua took Makkedah (see at ver. 10), and smote the town and its king with the edge of the sword, banning the town and all the persons in it, i.e. putting all the inhabitants to death (many M8S. and some editions adopt the reading Pink for Drtfc, as in ver. 37), taking the cattle and the property in the town as booty, as in the case of Ai (chap. viii. 27, 28), and treating its king like the king of Jericho, who was suspended upon a stake, to judge from chap. viii. 2, 29, although this is not stated in chap, vi.— Vers. 29, 30. From Makkedah he went with all Israel, i.e. all the men of war, against Libnah, and after effecting the conquest of it, did just the same as he had done to Makkedah. Libnah was one of the towns of the plain or of the hill-country of Judah (chap. xv. 42); it was allotted to the priests (chap. xxi. 13), revolted from Judah in the reign of Joram (2 Kings viii. 22), and was besieged by Sennacherib (Isa. xxxvii. 8). It is to be sought on the north-west of Lachish, not on the south as Knobel erroneously infers from Isa. xxxvii. 8. According to the Onom. (s. v. Lebna), it was at that time villa in regione Eleutheropolitana, quce appellatur Lobna. It has not been discovered yet; but according to the very probable conjecture of V. de Velde (Mem. p. 330), the ruins of it may perhaps be seen upon the hill called Ardk el Menshiyeh, about two hours to the west of Beit Jibrin.1— Vers. 31, 32. Lachish, i.e. Urn Lakis (see at ver. 3), shared the same fate.— Ver. 33. Joshua also smote the king of Gezer, who had come with his people to the help of Lachish, and left no one remaining. Nothing is said about the capture of the town of Gezer. According to chap. xvi. 10 and Judg. i. 29, it was still in the possession of the Canaanites when the land was divided, though this alone is not sufficient to prove that Joshua did not conquer it, as so many of the conquered towns were occupied by the Canaanites again after the Israelites had withdrawn. But its situation makes it very probable that Joshua did not conquer it at that time, as it was too much out of his road, and too far from Lachish. Gezer (LXX. Td&p, in 1 Chron. xiv. 16 Ta'Qnpd, in 1 Mace. Ta^rjpa or TaCfipa plur., in
1 Knobel is decidedly wrong in his supposition, that Libnah is to be seen in the considerable ruins called Hora, which lie in the plain (Seetzen and V. de Velde) and are called Hawara by Robinson. He founds his conjecture upon the fact that the name signifies white, and is the Arabic translation of the Hebrew name. But Hora is only two hours and a half to the north of Beersheba, and is not in the plain at all, but in the Negeb.
Josephus rd^apa, Ant. vii. 4, 1, viii. 6, 1, and also rd&apa, v. 1, 22, xii. 7, 4) was on the southern boundary of Ephraim (chap. xvi. 3), and was given up by that tribe to the Levites (chap. xvi. 9, 10, xxi. 20, 21. It is very frequently mentioned. David pursued the Philistines to Gezer (Gazer), after they had been defeated at Gibeon or Geba (2 Sam. v. 25; 1 Chron. xiv. 16). At a later period it was conquered by Pharaoh, and presented to his daughter, who was married to Solomon; and Solomon built, i.e. fortified it (1 Kings ix. 16, 17). It was an important fortress in the wars of the Maccabees (1 Mace. ix. 52; 2 Mace. x. 32; cf. 1 Mace. iv. 15, vii. 45, xiii. 53, xiv. 34, xv. 28, 35). According to the Onom. (s. v. Gazer), it was four Roman miles to the north of Nicopolis, i.e. Anwas, and was called Ta^dpa. This is not only in harmony with chap. xvi. 3, according to which the southern border of Ephraim ran from Lower Bethhoron to Gezer, and then on to the sea, but also with all the other passages in which Gezer is mentioned,1 and answers very well to the situation of el Kubab, a village of considerable size on a steep hill at the extreme north of the mountain
1 Tho statement in 1 Mace. vii. 45, that Judas Maccabaeus pursued the army of Nicanor, which had been beaten at Adasa, for a day's journey, as far as Gazera (" a day's journey from Adasa into Gazera"), is perfectly reconcilable with the situation of el Kubab; for, according to Josephus (Ant. xii. 10, 5), Adasa was thirty stadia from Bethhoron, and Bethhoron is ten miles to the west of Kubab (measuring in a straight line upon the map); so that Judas pursued the enemy fifteen miles — a distance which might very well be called " a day's journey," if we consider that the enemy, when flying, would not always take the straightest road, and might even make a stand at intervals, and so delay their pursuers. Still less do the statement in 1 Mace. xiv. 34, that Simon fortified Joppa on the sea, and Gazara on the border of Ashdod, the combination of Joppa, Gazara, and the tower that is in Jerusalem (1 Mace. xv. 28, 35), and the fact that the country of Gadaris, with the town of Gadara, occurs between Joppa and Jamnia in Strabo xvi. 759, warrant us in making a distinction between Gazara (Gezer) and the place mentioned in the Onom., as Grimm does (on 1 Mace. iv. 15), and identifying it with the village of Jazur, an hour and a half from Jaffa, although Arvieux calls this village Gesser. The objections of Van de Velde against the identity of Kubab and Gazer are without any force. It does not necessarily follow from the expression " went up,!' that Lachish stood on higher ground than Gezer, as going up often signifies nothing more than making a hostile attack upon a fortification. And no importance can be attached to the conjecture, that with the great distance of Kubab from Um Lakis, the king of Gezer would have come to the help of the kings of Makkedah and Libnah, who were much nearer and were attacked first, as the circumstances which determined his conduct are too thoroughly unknown to us, for it to be possible to pronounce an opinion upon the subject with any certainty.
chain which runs to the north-west of Zorea, and slopes off towards the north into the broad plain of Merj el Omeir, almost in the middle of the road from Ramleh to Yalo. For this village, with which Van Semden identifies Gezer {Van de Velde, Mem. p. 315), was exactly four Roman miles north by west of Anwas, according to Robinsons map, and not quite four hours from Akir (Ekron), the most northerly city of the Philistines; so that Josephus (Ant. vii. 4, 1) could very properly describe Gazara as the frontier of the territory of the Philistines. Robinson discovered no signs of antiquity, it is true, on his journey through Kubab, but in all probability he did not look for them, as he did not regard the village as a place of any importance in connection with ancient history (Bibl. Res. pp. 143-4).
Vers. 34, 35. From Lachish Joshua proceeded eastwards against Eglon (Ajlan, see ver. 3), took the town, and did to it as he had done to Lachish. — Vers. 36, 37. From Eglon he went up from the lowland to the mountains, attacked Hebron and took it, and did to this town and its king, and the towns belonging to it, as he had already done to the others. The king of Hebron cannot of course be the one who was taken in the cave of Makkedah and put to death there, but his successor, who had entered upon the government while Joshua was occupied with the conquest of the towns mentioned in vers. 28-35, which may possibly have taken more than a year. " All the cities thereof" are the towns dependent upon Hebron as the capital of the kingdom. — Vers. 38, 39. Joshua then turned southwards with all Israel (i.e. all the army), attacked Debir and took it, and the towns dependent upon it, in the same manner as those mentioned before. Debir, formerly called Kirjath-sepher, i.e. book town, 7ro\t9 ypa/jb/jLarcov (LXX. chap. xv. 15; Judg. i. 11), and Kirjath-sa?ina, i.e. in all probability the city of palm branches (chap. xv. 49), was given up by Judah to the priests (chap. xxi. 15). It stood upon the mountains of Judah (chap. xv. 49), to the south of Hebron, but has not yet been certainly discovered, though V. de Velde is probably correct in his supposition that it is to be seen in the ruins of Dilbeh, on the peak of a hill to the north of Wady Dilbeh, and on the road from Dhoberiyeh to Hebron, about two hours to the south-west of the latter. For, according to Dr Stewart, there is a spring at Dilbeh, the water of which is conducted by an aqueduct into the Birket el Dilbeh, at the foot of the said hill, which would answer very well to the upper and lower springs at Debir, if only Debir might be placed, according to chap. xv. 49, so far towards the north.1 Moreover, not very long afterwards, probably during the time when the Israelites were occupied with the subjugation of northern Canaan, Hebron and Debir were taken again by the Canaanites, particularly the Anakites, as Joshua had not entirely destroyed them, although he had thoroughly cleared the mountains of Judah of them, but had left them still in the towns of the Philistines (chap. xi. 21, 22). Consequently, when the land was divided, there were Anakites living in both Hebron and Debir; so that Caleb, to whom these towns were given as his inheritance, had first of all to conquer them again, and to exterminate the Anakites (chap. xiv. 12, xv. 13-17: cf. Judg. i. 10-13).2
Vers. 40-43. Summary of the Conquest of the whole of Southern Canaan, — In the further prosecution of his victory over the five allied kings, Joshua smote the whole land, i.e. the whole of the south of Canaan from Gibeon onwards, in all its districts, namely
1 Knobel imagines that Debir is to be found in the modern village of Dhoberiyeh (Dhabarije), five hours to the south-west of Hebron, on the south-west border of the mountains of Judah, upon the top of a mountain, because, in addition to the situation of this village, which is perfectly reconcilable with chap. xv. 49, there are remains of a square tower there (according to Krafft, a Roman tower), which point to an ancient fortification (vid. Rob. Pal. i. pp. 308 sqq.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 202 sqq.), and because the name, which signifies " placed behind the back," agrees with Debir, the hinder part or back (?), and Kirjath-sepher, if interpreted by the Arabic words, which signify u extremitas, margo, ora." But both reasons prove very little. The meanings assigned to Debir and Kirjath-sepher are improbable and arbitrary. Moreover, it has not been shown that there are any springs near Dhoberiyeh, such as there were in the neighbourhood of Debir (chap. xv. 19 sqq.). The view held by RoscnmiiUer, and adopted by Bunsen, with regard to the situation of Debir, — namely, that it was the same as the modern Idwirbdn or Dewirban, an hour and a quarter to the west of Hebron, because there is a large spring there with an abundant supply of excellent water, which goes by the name of Ain Nunkur, — is also quite untenable; for it is entirely at variance with chap. xv. 49, according to which Debir was not on the west of Hebron, but upon the mountains to the south, and rests entirely upon the erroneous assumption that, according to ver. 38 (3t^s% he turned round), as Joshua came from Eglon, he conquered Hebron first, and after the conquest of this town turned back to Debir, to take it also. But yiW does not mean only to turn round or turn back: it signifies turning generally; and it is very evident that this is the sense in which it is used in ver. 38, since, according to chap. xv. 49, Debir was on the south of Hebron.
2 By this simple assumption we get rid of the pretended contradictions, which neological critics have discovered between chap. x. 36-39 on the one hand, and chap. xi. 21, 22, and xiv. 12, xv. 13-17 on the other, and on account of which Knobel would assign the passages last named to a different document. On the first conquest of the land by Joshua, Masius observes that M in the mountains (chap. xv. 48), the Negeb (the south land, chap. xv. 21), the lowlands (chap. xv. 33), and the slopes, i.e. the hill region (chap. xii. 8, and comm. on Num. xxi. 15), and all the kings of these different districts, banning every living thing (pnti)~?3 = W£}~?3y vers. 28, 30, i.e. all the men; vid. Deut. xx. 16), as Jehovah had commanded, viz. Num. xxxiii. 51 sqq.; Deut. vii. 1, 2, xx. 16. Pie smote them from Kadesh-barnea, on the southern boundary of Canaan (chap. xv. 3; see at Num. xii. 16), to Gaza (see at Gen. x. 9), and all the country of Goshen, a different place from the Goshen of Egypt, deriving its name in all probability from the town of Goshen on the southern portion of the mountains (chap. xv. 51). As the line "from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza" defines the extent of the conquered country from south to north on the western side, so the parallel clause, " all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon" defines the extent from south to north on the eastern side. There is no tenable ground for the view expressed by Knobel, which rests upon very uncertain etymological combinations, that the land of Goshen signifies the hill country between the mountains and the plain, and is equivalent to Jink's. — Ver. 42. All these kings and their country Joshua took " once," i.e. in one campaign, which lasted, however, a considerable time (cf. chap. xi. 18). He was able to accomplish this, because Jehovah the God of Israel fought for Israel (see ver. 14). After this he returned with the army to the camp at Gilgal (Jiljilia, see p. 93; cf. ver. 15).
DEFEAT OF THE KINGS OF NORTHERN CANAAN. SUBJUGATION OF THE WHOLE LAND. — CHAP. XI.
Vers. 1-15. The War in Northern Canaan. — Vers. 1-3. On receiving intelligence of what had occurred in the south, the king of Hazor formed an alliance with the kings of Madon, Shimron, and Achshaph, and other kings of the north, to make a common attack upon the Israelites. This league originated with Jabin the king of Hazor, because Hazor was formerly the head of this expedition Joshua ran through the southern region with an armed band, in too hurried a manner to depopulate it entirely. All that he needed was to strike such terror into the hearts of all through his victories, that no one should nenceforth offer any resistance to himself and to the people of God. Those whom he pursued, therefore, he destroyed according to the commands of God, not sparing a single one, but he did not search out every possible hiding-place in which any could be concealed. This was left as a gleaning to the valour of each particular tribe, when it should take possession ( f its own inheritance."
all the kingdoms of northern Canaan (ver. 10). Hazor, which Joshua conquered and burned to the ground (vers. 10, 11), was afterwards restored, and became a capital again (Judg. iv. 2; 1 Sam. xii. 9); it was fortified by Solomon (1 Kings ix. 15), and taken by Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings xv. 29). It belonged to the tribe of Naphtali (chap. xix. 36), but has not yet been discovered. According to Josephus (Ant. v. 5, 1), it was above the Lake of Samochonitis, the present Bahr el Huleh. Robinson conjectures that it is to be found in the ruins upon Tell Khuraibeh, opposite to the north-west corner of the lake of Huleh, the situation of which would suit Hazor quite well, as it is placed between Ramah and Kedesh in chap. xix. 35, 36 (see Bibl. Res. p. 364). On the other hand, the present ruins of Huzzur or Hazireh, where there are the remains of large buildings of a very remote antiquity (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 62), with which Knobel identifies Hazor, cannot be thought of for a moment, as these ruins, which are about an hour and a quarter to the south-west of Yathir, are so close to the Ramah of Asher (chap. xix. 29) that Hazor must also have belonged to Asher, and could not possibly have been included in the territory of Naphtali. There would be more reason for thinking of Tell Hazur or Khirbet Hazur, on the south-west of Szafed (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 81); but these ruins are not very ancient, and only belong to an ordinary village, and not to a town at all. Madon is only mentioned again in chap. xii. 19, and its situation is quite unknown. Shimron, called Shimron-meron in chap. xii. 20, was allotted to the tribe of Zebulun (chap. xix. 15), and is also unknown. For Meron cannot be connected, as Knobel supposes, with the village and ruins of Maron, not far from Kedesh, on the southwest (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 371), or Shimron with the ruins of Khuraibeh, an hour to the south of Kedesh; as the territory of Zebulun, to which Shimron belonged, did not reach so far north, and there is not the slightest ground for assuming that there were two Shimrons, or for making a distinction between the royal seat mentioned here and the Shimron of Zebulun. There is also no probability in KnobeTs conjecture, that the Shimron last named is the same as the small village of Semunieh, probably the Simonias of Josephus (Yita, § 24), on the west of Nazareth (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 201). Achshaph, a border town of Asher (chap. xix. 25), is also unknown, and is neither to be sought, as Robinson supposes (Bibl. Res. p. 55), in the ruins of Kesdf, which lie even farther north than Abel (Abil)} in the tribe of Naphtali, and therefore much too far to the north to have formed the boundary of Asher; nor to be identified with Acco (Ptolemais), as Knohel imagines, since Acco lias nothing in common with Achshaph except the letter caph (see also at chap. xix. 25). — Ver. 2. Jabin also allied himself with the kings of the north " upon the mountains" i.e. the mountains of Naphtali (chap. xx. 7), and " in the Arabah to the south of Chinnereth" (chap. xix. 35), i.e. in the Ghor to the south of the sea of Galilee, and " in the lowland" i.e. the northern portion of it, as far down as Joppa, and " upon the heights of Dor." The town of Dor, which was built by Phoenicians, who settled there on account of the abundance of the purple mussels (Steph. Byz. s. v. Acopos), was allotted to the Manassites in the territory of Asher (chap. xvii. 11; cf. xix. 26), and taken possession of by the children of Joseph (1 Chron. vii. 29). It was situated on the Mediterranean Sea, below the promontory of Carmel, nine Roman miles north of Caesarea, and is at the present time a hamlet called Tantura or Tortura, with very considerable ruins ( Wilson, The Holy Land, ii. 249, and V. de Velde, Journey, i. p. 251). The old town was a little more than a mile to the north, on a small range of hills, which is covered with ruins (Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 608-9; V. de Velde, Mem. p. 307), and on the north of which there are rocky ranges, with many grottos, and houses cut in the rock itself (Buckingham, Syria, i. pp. 101-2). These are " the heights of Dor," or " the high range of Dor" (chap. xii. 23; 1 Kings iv. 11). — Ver. 3. "Namely, with the Canaanites on the east and west, the Amorites " and other tribes dwelling upon the mountains (yid. chap. iii. 10), and " the Hivites under the Hermon in the land of Mizpah" i.e. the country below Hasbeya, between Nahr Hasbany on the east, and Merj Ayun on the west, with the village of Mutulleh or Mtelleh, at present inhabited by Druses, which stands upon a hill more than 200 feet high, and from which there is a splendid prospect over the Huleh basin. It is from this that it has derived its name, which signifies prospect, specula, answering to the Hebrew Mizpah (see Robinson, Bibl. Res. p. 372).
Vers. 4-9. These came out with their armies, a people as numerous as the sand by the sea-shore {yid. Gen. xxii. 17, etc.), and very many horses and chariots. All these kings agreed together, sc. concerning the war and the place of battle, and encamped at Aferom to fight against Israel. The name Merom (Meirum in the Arabic version) answers to Meirom, a village whose name is also pronounced Meirum* a celebrated place of pilgrimage among the
Jews, because Hillel, Shammai, Simeon ben Jochai, and other noted Rabbins are said to be buried there (see Robinson, Pal. iii. p. 333), about two hours' journey north-west of Szafed, upon a rocky mountain, at the foot of which there is a spring that forms a small brook and flows away through the valley below Szafed (Seetzen, R. ii. pp. 127-8; Robinson, Bibl. Res. pp. 73 sqq.). This stream, which is said to reach the Lake of Tiberias, in the neighbourhood of Bethsaida, is in all probability to be regarded as the u waters of of Merom," as, according to Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 18), "these kings encamped at Berothe (de. Bell. Jud. xx. 6, and Vit. 37, * Meroth'), a city of Upper Galilee, not far from Kedese." 1
Vers. 6 sqq. On account of this enormous number, and the might of the enemy, who were all the more to be dreaded because of their horses and chariots, the Lord encouraged Joshua again,2 as in chap. viii. 1, by promising him that on the morrow He would deliver them all up slain before Israel; only Joshua was to lame their horses (Gen. xlix. 6) and burn their chariots. "•aiWT before fro gives emphasis to the sentence: " I will provide for this; by my power, which is immeasurable, as I have shown thee so many times, and by my nod, by which heaven and earth are shaken, shall these things be done" (Masius). — Vers. 7, 8. With this to inspirit them, the Israelites fell upon the enemy and smote them, chasing them towards the north-west to Sidon, and westwards as far as Misrephothmaim, and into the plain of Mizpah on the east. Sidon is called the great (as in chap. xix. 28), because at that time it was the metropolis of Phoenicia; whereas even by the time of David it had lost its ancient splendour, and was outstripped by its daughter city Tyre. It is still to be seen in the town of Saida, a town of five or six thousand inhabitants, with many large and well-built
1 The traditional opinion that '* waters of Merom" is the Old Testament name for the Lake of Samochonitis, or Huleh, is not founded upon any historical evidence, but is simply an inference of Hadr. Reland (Pal. 111. p. 262), (1) from the statement made by Josephus (Ant. v. 5, 1), that Hazor was above the Lake of Samochonitis, it being taken for granted without further reason that the battle occurred at Hazor, and (2) from the supposed similarity in the meaning of the names, viz. that Samochonitis is derived from an Arabic word signifying to be high, and therefore means the same as Merom (height), though here again the zere is disregarded, and Merom is arbitrarily identified with Marom.
2 uAs there was so much more difficulty connected with the destruction of so populous and well-disciplined an army, it was all the more necessary that he should be inspired with fresh confidence. For this reason God appeared to Joshua, and promised him the same success as He had given him so many tim*s before."— Calvin.
houses (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 415, and Movers, Phonizier, ii. 1, pp. 86 sqq.). Misrephothmaim (mentioned also at chap. xiii. 6), which the Greek translators have taken as a proper name, though the Rabbins and some Christian commentators render it in different ways, such as salt-pits, smelting-huts, or glass-huts (see Ges. Thes. p. 1341), is a collection of springs, called Ain Mesherji, at the foot of the promontory to which with its steep pass the name of Ras el Nakhura is given, the scala Tyriorum or Passepoulain of the Crusaders (see V. de Velde, Mem. p. 335, and Bitter, Erdk. xvi. p. 807). nBTO nypa (Eng. Ver. " the valley of Mizpeh") is probably the basin of the Huleh lake and of Nahr Hasbany, on the western side of which lay the land of Mizpah (ver. 3). — Ver. 9. Joshua carried out the command of the Lord with regard to the chariots and horses.
Vers. 10-15. After destroying the foe, and returning from the pursuit, Joshua took Hazor, smote its king and all the inhabitants with the edge of the sword, and burned the town, the former leader of all those kingdoms. He did just the same to the other towns, except that he did not burn them, but left them standing upon their hills. D?rr?y nil pyn (ver. 13) neither contains an allusion to any special fortification of the towns, nor implies a contrast to the towns built in the valleys and plains, but simply expresses the thought that these towns were still standing upon their hill, i.e. upon the old site (cf. Jer. xxx. 18: the participle does not express the preterite, but the present). At the same time, the expression certainly implies that the towns were generally built upon hills. The pointing in D?n is not to be altered, as Kuobel suggests. The singular " upon their hill" is to be taken as distributive: standing, now as then, each upon its hill. — With ver. 15, u as Jehovah commanded His servant Moses " (cf. Num. xxxiii. 52 sqq.; Deut. vii. 1 sqq., xx. 16), the account of the wars of Joshua is brought to a close, and the way opened for proceeding to the concluding remarks with reference to the conquest of the whole land (vers. 16-23). "izn Ypn K?, he put not away a wrord, i.e. left nothing undone.
Vers. 16-23. Retrospective View of the Conquest of the whole Land. — Vers. 16, 17. Joshua took all this land, namely, those portions of Southern Canaan that have already been mentioned in chap. x. 40, 41; also the Arabah, and the mountains of Israel and its lowlands (see ver. 2), i.e. the northern part of the land (in the campaign described in vers. 1-15), that is to say, Canaan in all its extent, " from the bald mountain which goeth up to
Seirn in the south, " to Baal-gad, in the valley of Lebanon under Hermon." The "bald mountain" (Halak), which is mentioned here and in chap. xii. 7 as the southern boundary of Canaan, is hardly the row of white cliffs which stretches obliquely across the Arabah eight miles below the Dead Sea and forms the dividing line that separates this valley into el-Ghor and el-Araba (Rob. Pal. ii. pp. 489, 492), or the present Madara, a strange-looking chalk-hill to the south-west of the pass of Sufah (Rob. ii. p. 589), a steep bare mountain in a barren plain, the sides of which consist of stone and earth of a leaden ashy hue (Seetzen, R. iii. pp. 14, 15); but in all probability the northern edge of the Azazimeh mountain with its white and glistening masses of chalk. Baal-gad, i.e. the place or town of Baal, who was there worshipped as Gad (see Isa. lxv. 11), also called Baal-hermon in Judg. iii. 3 and 1 Chron. v. ^23, is not Baalbek, but the Paneas or C&sarea Philippi of a later time, the present Banjas (see at Num. xxxiv. 8, 9). This is the opinion of v. Raumer and Robinson, though Van de Velde is more disposed to look for Baal-gad in the ruins of Kalath (the castle of) Bostra, or of Kalath Aisafa, the former an hour and a half, the latter three hours to the north of Banjas, the situation of which would accord with the biblical statements respecting Baal-gad exceedingly well. The " valley of Lebanon " is not Coele-Syria, the modern Bekda, between Lebanon and Antilibanus, but the valley at the foot of the southern slope of Jebel Sheik (Hermon). — Vers. 18 sqq. Joshua made war with the kings of Canaan along time; judging from chap. xiv. 7, 10, as much as seven years, though Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 19) speaks of five (see at chap. xiv. 10). No town submitted peaceably to the Israelites, with the exception of Gibeon: they took the whole in war. "For it was of the Lord" (ver. 20), i.e. God ordered it so that they (the Canaanites) hardened their heart to make war upon Israel, that they might fall under the ban, and be destroyed without mercy. On the hardening of the heart as a work of God, see the remarks upon the hardening of Pharaoh (Ex. iv. 21). It cannot be inferred from this, that if the Canaanites had received the Israelites amicably, God would have withdrawn His command to destroy them, and allowed the Israelites to make peace with them; for when they made peace with the Gibeonites, they did not inquire what was the will of the Lord, but acted in opposition to it (see at chap. ix. 14). The remark is made with special reference to this, and has been correctly explained by Augustine (qu. 8 in Jos.) as follows: " Because the Israelites had shown mercy to some of them of their own accord, though in oppo sition to the command of God, therefore it is stated that they (the Canaanites) made war upon them so that none of them were spared, and the Israelites were not induced to show mercy to the neglect of the commandment of God."
In vers. 21, 22, the destruction of the Anakites upon the mountains of Judah and Israel is introduced in a supplementary form, which completes the history of the subjugation and extermination of the Canaanites in the south of the land (chap. x.). This supplement is not to be regarded either as a fragment interpolated by a different hand, or as a passage borrowed from another source. On the contrary, the author himself thought it necessary, having special regard to Num. xiii. 28, 31 sqq., to mention expressly that Joshua also rooted out from their settlements the sons of Anak, whom the spies in the time of Moses had described as terrible giants, and drove them into the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. "At that time'1 points back to the "long time," mentioned in ver. 18, during which Joshua was making war upon the Canaanites. The words " cut off," etc., are explained correctly by Clericus: " Those who fell into his hands he slew, the rest he put to flight, though, as we learn from chap. xv. 14, they afterwards returned." (On the Anakim, see at Num. xiii. 22.) They had their principal settlement upon the mountains in Hebron (el Khulil, see chap. x. 3), Debir (see at chap. x. 38), and Anab. The last place (Anab), upon the mountains of Judah (chap. xv. 50), has been preserved along with the old name in the village of Anab, four or five hours to the south of Hebron, on the eastern side of the great Wady el Khulil, which runs from Hebron down to Beersheba (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 193). u And from all (the rest of) the mountains of Judah, and all the mountains of Israel:" the latter are called the mountains of Ephraim in chap. xvii. 15. The two together form the real basis of the land of Canaan, and are separated from one another by the large Wady Beit Hanina (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 333). They received their respective names from the fact that the southern portion of the mountain land of Canaan fell to the tribe of Judah as its inheritance, and the northern part to the tribe of Ephraim and other tribes of Israel.1 Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod were towns
1 The distinction here made may be explained without difficulty even from the circumstances of Joshua's own time. Judah and the double tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) received their inheritance by lot before any of the others. But whilst the tribe of Judah proceeded into the territory allotted to of the Philistines; of these Gaza and Ashdod were allotted to the tribe of Judah (chap. xv. 47), but were never taken possession of by the Israelites, although the Philistines were sometimes subject to the Israelites (see at chap. xiii. 3). — With ver. 23a, " thus Joshua took the whole land" etc., the history of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua is brought to a close; and ver. 23&, u and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel" forms a kind of introduction to the second part of the book. The list of the conquered kings in chap, xii. is simply an appendix to the first part.
The taking of the whole land does not imply that all the towns and villages to the very last had been conquered, or that all the Canaanites were rooted out from every corner of the land, but simply that the conquest was of such a character that the power of the Canaanites was broken, their dominion overthrown, and their whole land so thoroughly given into the hands of the Israelites, that those who still remained here and there were crushed into powerless fugitives, who could neither offer any further opposition to the Israelites, nor dispute the possession of the land with them, if they would only strive to fulfil the commandments of their God and persevere in the gradual extermination of the scattered remnants. Moreover, Israel had received the strongest pledge, in the powerful help which it had received from the Lord in the conquests thus far obtained, that the faithful covenant God would continue His help in the conflicts which still remained, and secure for it a complete victory and the full possession of the promised land. Looking, them in the south, all the other tribes still remained in Gilgal; and even at a later period, when Ephraim and Manasseh were in their possessions, all Israel, with the exception of Judah, were still encamped at Shiloh. Moreover, the two parts of the nation were now separated by the territory which was afterwards assigned to the tribe of Benjamin, but had no owner at this time; and in addition to this, the altar, tabernacle, and ark of the covenant were in the midst of Joseph and the other tribes that were still assembled at Shiloh. Under such circumstances, then, would not the idea of a distinction between Judah, on the one hand, and the rest of Israel, in which the double tribe of Joseph and then the single tribe of Ephraim acquired such poculiar prominence, on the other, shape itself more and more in the mind, and what already existed in the germ begin to attain maturity even here? And what could be more natural than that the mountains in which the " children of Judah" had their settlements should be called the mountains of Judah; and the mountains where all the rest of Israel was encamped, where the M children of Israel" were gathered together, be called the mountains of Israel, and, as that particular district really belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, the mountains of Ephraim also? (chap, xix. 50, xx. 7; also xxiv. 30.)
therefore, at the existing state of things from this point of view, Joshua had taken possession of the whole land, and could now proceed to finish the work entrusted to him by the Lord, by dividing the land among the tribes of Israel. Joshua had really done all that the Lord had said to Moses. For the Lord had not only promised to Moses the complete extermination of the Canaanites, but had also told him that He would not drive out the Canaanites at once, or " in one year," but only little by little, until Israel multiplied and took the land (Ex. xxiii. 28—30; cf. Deut. vii. 22). Looking at this promise, therefore, the author of the book could say with perfect justice, that " Joshua took the whole land according to all that (precisely in the manner in which) the Lord had said to Moses." But this did not preclude the fact, that a great deal still remained to be done before all the Canaanites could be utterly exterminated from every part of the land. Consequently, the enumeration of towns and districts that were not yet conquered, and of Canaanites who still remained, which we find in chap. xiii. 1-6, xvii. 14 sqq., xviii. 3, xxiii. 5, 12, forms no discrepancy with the statements in the verses before us, so as to warrant us in adopting any critical hypotheses or conclusions as to the composition of the book by different authors. The Israelites could easily have taken such portions of the land as were still unconquered, and could have exterminated all the Canaanites who remained, without any severe or wearisome conflicts; if they had but persevered in fidelity to their God and in the fulfilment of His commandments. If, therefore, the complete conquest of the whole land was not secured in the next few years, but, on the contrary, the Canaanites repeatedly gained the upper hand over the Israelites; we must seek for the explanation, not in the fact that Joshua had not completely taken and conquered the land, but simply in the fact that the Lord had withdrawn His help from His people because of their apostasy from Him, and had given them up to the power of their enemies to chastise them for their sins. — The distribution of the land for an inheritance to the Israelites took place "according to their divisions by their tribes." rrtPJDB denote the division of the twelve tribes of Israel into families, fathers' houses, and households; and is so used not only here, but in chap. xii. 7 and xviii. 10. Compare with this 1 Chron. xxiii. 6, xxiv. 1, etc., where it is applied to the different orders of priests and Levites. " And the land rested from war:" i.e. the war was ended, so that the peaceable task of distributing the land by lot could
In the historical account of the wars of Joshua in the south and north of Canaan, the only kings mentioned by name as having been conquered and slain by the Israelites, were those who had formed a league to make war upon them; whereas it is stated at the close, that Joshua had smitten all the kings in the south and north, and taken possession of their towns (chap. x. 40, xi. 17). To complete the account of these conquests, therefore, a detailed list is given in the present chapter of all the kings that were slnin, and not merely of those who were defeated by Joshua in the country on this side of the Jordan, but the two kings of the Amorites who had been conquered by Moses are also included, so as to give a complete picture of all the victories which Israel had gained under the omnipotent help of its God.
Vers. 1-6. List of the kings whom the Israelites smote, and whose land they took, on the other side of the Jordan, — namely, the land by the brook Arnon (Mojeb; see Num. xxi. 13) to Hermon (Jebel es Sheikh, Deut. iii. 8), and the whole of the eastern Arabah (the valley of the Jordan on the eastern side of the river). — Vers. 2, 3. On Sihon and his kingdom, see Num. xxi. 24; Deut. ii. 36, iii. 16, 17. " Aroer on the Arnon:" the present ruins of Araayr, on the northern bank of the Mojeb (see Num. xxxii. 34). Pn^n ipni, "and (from) the middle of the valley onwards:" i.e., according to the parallel passages in chap. xiii. 9, 16, and Deut. ii. 36, from the town in the Arnon valley, the city of Moab mentioned in Num. xxii. 36, viz. Ar or Areopolis (see at Num. xxi. 15) in the neighbourhood of Aroer, which is mentioned as the exclusive terminus a quo of the land taken by the Israelites along with the inclusive terminus Aroer. " Half-Gilead" i.e. the mountainous district on the south side of the Jabbok (see at Deut. iii. 10), " to the river Jabbok" i.e. the upper Jabbok, the present Nahr Amman (see at Num. xxi. 24). — Ver. 3. " And (over) the Arabah, etc., Sihon reigned," i.e. over the eastern side of the Ghor, between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea (see at Deut. iii. 17). "By the way to Bethjeshimoth, and towards the south below the slopes of Bisgah*' (see at Num. xxi. 15 and xxvii. 12), i.e. to the north-
Vers. 7-24. List of the thirty-one kings of Canaan whom Joshua smote on the western side of the Jordan, "from Baal-gad, in the valley of Lebanon, to the bald mountain that goeth up towards Seir" (see chap. xi. 17). This land Joshua gave to the other tribes of Israel. (On the different parts of the land, see at chap. ix. 1, x. 40, and xi. 2.) — Vers. 9 sqq. The different kings are given in the order in which they were defeated: Jericho (chap. vi. 1); Ai (chap. vii. 2); Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon (chap. x. 3); Gezer (chap. x. 33); and Debir (chap. x. 38). Those given in vers. 136 and 14 are not mentioned by name in chap. x. Geder, possibly the same as Gedor upon the mountains of Judah (chap. xv. 58), which has been preserved under the old name of Jedur (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 186, and Bibl. Res. p. 282). Hormah (i.e. banning) was in the south of Judah (chap. xv. 30), and was allotted to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 4). It was called Zephath by the Canaanites (Judg. i. 17; see at Num. xxi. 3), was on the southern slope of the mountains of the Amalekites or Amorites, the present ruins of Sepdta, on the western slope of the table-land of Rakhma, two hours and a half to the south-west of Khalasa (Elusa: see Ritter, Erdk. xiv. p. 1085). Arad, also in the Negeb, has been preserved in Tell Arad (see at Num. xxi. 1). Libnah (see at chap. x. 29). Adullam, which is mentioned in chap. xv. 35 among the towns of the plain between Jarmuth and Socoh, was in the neighbourhood of a large cave in which David took refuge when flying from Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 1; 2 Sam. xxiii. 13). It was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 7), and is mentioned in 2 Mace. xii. 38 as the city of Odollam. The Onomast. describes it as being ten Roman miles to the east of Eleutheropolis; but this is a mistake, though it has not yet been discovered. So far as the situation is concerned, Deir Dubbdn would suit very well, a place about two hours to the north of Beit Jibrin, near to a large number of caves in the white limestone, which form a kind of labyrinth, as well as some vaulted grottos (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 353, and Van de Velde, Reise. pp. 162—3). Makkedah: possibly Summeil
(see at chap. x. 10). Bethel, i.e. Beitin (see chap. viii. 17). The situation of the towns which follow in vers. 17 and 18 cannot be determined with certainty, as the names Tappuach, Aphek, and Refer are met with again in different parts of Canaan, and Lassaron does not occur again. But if we observe, that just as from ver. 10 onwards those kings'-towns are first of all enumerated, the capture of which has already been described in chap, x., and then in vers. 15 and 16 certain other towns are added which had been taken in the war with the Canaanites of the south, so likewise in vers. 19 and 20 the capitals of the allied kings of northern Canaan are given first, and after that the other towns that were taken in the northern war, but had not been mentioned by name in chap. xi.: there can be no doubt whatever that the four towns in vers. 17 and 18 are to be classed among the kings'-towns taken in the war with the king of Jerusalem and his allies, and therefore are to be sought for in the south of Canaan and not in the north. Consequently we cannot agree with Van de Velde and Knobel in identifying Tappuach with En-Tappuach (chap. xvii. 7), and looking for it in Atuf a place to the north-east of Nablus and near the valley of the Jordan; we connect it rather with Tappuach in the lowlands of Judah (chap. xv. 34), though the place itself has not yet been discovered. Hefer again is neither to be identified with Gath-hepher in the tribe of Zebulun (chap. xix. 13), nor with Chafaraim in the tribe of Issachar (chap. xix. 19), but is most probably the capital of the land of Hefer (1 Kings iv. 10), and to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Socoh in the plain of Judah. Aphek is probably the town of that name not far from Ebenezer (1 Sam. iv. 1), where the ark was taken by the Philistines, and is most likely to be sought for in the plain of Judah, though not in the village of Ahbek (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 343); but it has not yet been traced. Knobel imagines that it was Aphek near to Jezreel (1 Sam. xxix. 1), which was situated, according to the Onom., in the neighbourhood of Endor (1 Sam. xxix. 1; 1 Kings xx. 26, 30); but this Aphek is too far north. Lassaron only occurs here, and hitherto it has been impossible to trace it. Knobel supposes it to be the place called Saruneh, to the west of the lake of Tiberias, and conjectures that the name has been contracted from Lassaron by aphaaresis of the liquid. This is quite possible, if only we could look for Lassaron so far to the north. Bachienne and Rosenmiiller imagine it to be the village of Sharon in the celebrated plain of that name, between Lydda and Arsuf. — Yers. 19, 20. Madon, Hezcr,
Shimron-meron, and Achshaph (see at chap. xi. 1). — Ver. 21. Taanacli, which was allotted to the Manassites in the territory of Issachar, and given up to the Levites (chap. xvii. 11, xxi. 25), but was not entirely wrested from the Canaanites (Judg. i. 27), is the present Tell Taenak, an hour and a quarter to the south-east of Lejun, a flat hill sown with corn; whilst the old name has been preserved in the small village of Tadnak, at the south-eastern foot of the Tell (see Van de Velde, i. p. 269, and Rob. Pal. iii. p. 156). — Megiddo, which was also allotted to the Manassites in the territory of Issachar, though without the Canaanites having been entirely expelled (chap. xvii. 11; Judg. i. 27), was fortified by Solomon (1 Kings ix. 15), and is also well known as the place were Ahaziah died (2 Kings ix. 27), and where Josiah was beaten and slain by Pharaoh Necho (2 Kings xxiii. 29, 30; 2 Chron. xxxv. 20 sqq.). Robinson has shown that it was preserved in the Legio of a later time, the present Lejun (Pal. iii. pp. 177 sqq.; see also Bibl. Res. p. 116). — Yer. 22. Kedesh, a Levitical city and city of refuge upon the mountains of Naphtali (chap. xix. 37, xx. 7, xxi. 32), the home of Barak (Judg. iv. 6), was conquered and depopulated by Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings xv. 29), and was also a well-known place after the captivity (1 Mace. xi. 61 sqq.). It is now an insignificant village, still bearing the ancient name, to the north-west of the lake of Huleh, or, according to Van de Velde (Reise. ii. p. 355), nothing but a miserable farmstead upon a Tell at the south-west extremity of a well-cultivated table-land, with a large quantity of antiquities about, viz. hewn stones, relics of columns, sarcophagi, and two ruins of large buildings, with an open and extensive prospect on every side (see also Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 367 sqq.). Jokneam, near Carmel, was a Levitical town in the territory of Zebulun (chap. xix. 11, xxi. 34). Van de Velde and Robinson (Bibl. Res. p. 114) suppose that they have found it in Tell Kaimon, on the eastern side of the Wady el Milh, at the north-west end of a chain of hills running towards the south-east; this Tell being 200 feet high, and occupying a very commanding situation, so that it governed the main pass on the western side of Esdraelon towards the southern plain. Kaimon is the Arabic form of the ancient KafXjjLwvd, Citnana, which Eusebius and Jerome describe in the Onom. as being six Roman miles to the north of Legio, on the road to Ptolemais. — Yer. 23. Dor: see chap. xi. 2. Gilgal: the seat of the king of the Goyim (a proper name, as in Gen. xiv. 1), in all probability the same place as the villa nomine Galgulis mentioned in the Onom. (s. v. Gelgel) as being six Roman miles to the north of Antipatris, which still exists in the Moslem village of Jiljule (now almost a ruin; see Bob. Bibl. Res. p. 136), although this village is only two miles e.s.e. of Kefr Saba, the ancient Antipatris (see Hitter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 568—9). Thirza, the capital of the kings of Israel down to the time of Omri (1 Kings xiv. 17, xv. 21, 33, xvi. 6 sqq.), is probably the present Talluza, an. elevated and beautifully situated place, of a considerable size, surrounded by large olive groves, two hours to the north of Shechem (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 302, and Van de Velde, ii. p. 294).
The distribution of the conquered land among the Israelites is introduced by the command of the Lord to Joshua to enter upon this work, now that he was old, although different portions of land were still unconquered (chap. xiii. 1-7); and to this there is appended a description of the land on the east of the Jordan which had already been conquered and divided among the two tribes and a half (chap. xiii. 8-33). The distribution of the land on this side among the nine tribes and a half is related in its historical order; so that not only are the territories assigned by lot to the different tribes described according to their respective boundaries and towns, but the historical circumstances connected with the division and allotting of the land are also introduced into the description. These historical accounts are so closely connected with the geograpJiical descriptions of the territory belonging to the different tribes, that the latter alone will explain the course pursued in the distribution of the land, and the various ways in which the different territories are described (see the remarks on chap. xiv. 1). For example, in the account of the inheritance which iell to the lot of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, not only are the boundaries most carefully traced, but the towns are also enumerated one by one (chap. xv. and xviii. 11-28); whereas in the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and half Manasseh) the list of the towns is altogether wanting (chap, xvi. and xvii.); and in the possessions of the other tribes, either towns alone are mentioned, as in the case of Simeon and Dan
(chap. xix. 1-9, 40-48), or the boundaries and towns are mixed up together, but both of them given incompletely, as in the case of Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali (chap. xix. 10-16, 17-23, 24-31, 32-39). This incompleteness, particularly in the territories of the tribes mentioned last, may be explained from the fact, that in northern Canaan there were still very many tracts of land in the hands of the Canaanites, and the Israelites had not acquired a sufficiently exact or complete knowledge of the country, either through Joshua's campaign in the north, or through the men who were sent out to survey the northern land before it was divided (chap, xviii. 4—9), to enable them to prepare a complete account of the boundaries and towns at the very outset. In the same way, too, we may explain the absence of the list of towns in the case of the tribes of Ephraim and half Manasseh, — namely, from the fact that a large portion of the territory assigned to the tribe of Joseph was still in the possession of the Canaanites (yid. chap. xvii. 14-18); whilst the omission of any account of the boundaries in the case of Simeon and Dan is attributable to the circumstance that the former received its inheritance within the tribe of Judah, and the latter between Judah and Ephraim, whilst the space left for the Danites was so small, that Ephraim and Judah had to give up to them some of the towns in their own territory. Thus the very inequality and incompleteness of the geographical accounts of the possessions of the different tribes decidedly favour the conclusion, that they are the very lists which were drawn up at the time when Joshua divided the land. There is nothing to preclude this supposition in the fact that several towns occur with different names, e.g. Beth-shemesh and Ir-shemesh (chap. xv. 10, xix. 41, xxi. 16), Madmannah and Beth-marcaboth, Sansanna and Hazar-susa (chap. xv. 31, xix. 5), Shilchim and Sharuchen (chap. xv. 32, xix. 6), Remeth and Jarmuth (chap. xix. 21, xxi. 29), or in other smaller differences. For variations of this kind may be sufficiently explained from the fact that such places were known by two different names, which could be used promiscuously; whilst in other cases the difference in the name amounts to nothing more than a different mode of writing or pronouncing it: e.g. Kattah and Kartah (chap. xix. 15, xxi. 34), Eshtemoh and Eshtemoa (chap. xv. 50, xxi. 14), Baalah and Bulah (chap. xv. 29, xix. 3); or simply in the contraction of a composite name, such as Ramoth in Gilead for Ramothnrizpeh (chap. xxi. 36, xiii. 26); Bealoth and Baalath-beer (chap. xv. 24, xix. 8), Lebaoth and Beth-lebaoth (chap. xv. 32, xix. 6), Hammath and Ilammoth-dor (chap. xix. 35, xxi. 32). If the author, on the other hand, had drawn from later sources, or had simply given the results of later surveys, as Knobel supposes, there can be no doubt that much greater uniformity would be found in the different lists.1