Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

COMMAND OF GOD TO DIVIDE THE LAND OF CANAAN. DESCRIP- TION OF THE TERRITORY OF THE TWO TRIBES AND A HALF. — CHAP. XIII.

Vers. 1-14. Introduction to the Division of the Land. — Vers. 1-7. Command of the Lord to Joshua to distribute the land of Canaan by lot among the nine tribes and a half. Yer. 1 contains only the commencement of the divine command; the conclusion follows in ver. 7. Vers. 2-6 form a parenthesis of several clauses, defining the last clause of ver. 1 more fully. When Joshua had grown old, the Lord commanded him, as he was advanced in years, and there was still much land to be taken, to divide " this land," i.e. the whole of the land of Canaan, for an inheritance to

1 The arguments employed by Knobel in support of his assertion, consist on the one hand of inconclusive and incorrect assertions, and are founded on the other hand upon arbitrary assumptions. In the first place, for example, ho asserts that " a large number of towns are omitted from the lists, which were within the boundaries mentioned and were in existence in the very earliest times, viz. in the south, Tamar (Gen. xiv. 7), Arad (Num. xxi. 1), Atbach, Kachal, Aroer, and Siphamoth (1 Sam. xxx. 28 sqq.), Gerar (Gen. xx. 26); in the Shephelah, Gaza, Askalon, Gath, Ashdod, Jabne, and Joppa (see chap. xv. 45 sqq.); in Benjamin, Michmash and Nob (1 Sam. xiii. 2 sqq., xxii. 19); in the north, Aphek, Lassaron, Madon, Shimron-meron, and Merom (chap. xi. 5, xii. 18-20), as well as Meroz and A jjalon (Judg. v. 23, xii. 12); and these with other places would assuredly not be wanting here, if Joshua and his associates had distributed the towns as well as the laud, and furnished our author with the lists." But it would be difficult to bring forward the proofs of this, since Knobel himself acknowledges that there are gaps in the lists which have come down to us, some of which can be proved to be the fault of the copyists, — such, for example, as the want of a whole section after chap. xv. 19 and xxi. 35. Moreover, the Philistine towns of Ashdod and Gaza are really mentioned in chap. xv. 46, and the others at all events hinted at; whereas Knobel first of all arbitrarily rejects chap. xv. 45-47 from the text, in order that he may afterwards be able to speak of it as omitted. Again, with many of the places mentioned as omissions, such as Atbach, Rachal, Siphamoth, etc., it is very questionable whether they were towns at all in Joshua's time, or, at all events, such towns as we should expect to find mentioned. And lastly, not only are no catalogues of towns given at all in the case of Ephraim and Manasseh, but we have only imperfect, -jatalogues in the case of Zebulun, Asher, and Naphtali; and, as we the nine tribes and a half, and promised him at the same time that lie would drive out the Canaanites from those portions of the land that were not yet conquered (ver. 6). The words "grown old and come into years" (vid. Gen. xxiv. 1, xviii. 11, etc.) denote advanced age in its different stages up to the near approach of death (as, for example, in chap, xxiii. 1). Joshua might be ninety or a hundred years old at this time. The allusion to Joshua's great age serves simply to explain the reason for the command of God. As he was already old, and there still remained much land to be taken, he was to proceed to the division of Canaan, that he might accomplish this work to which he was also called before his death; whereas he might very possibly suppose that, under existing circumstances, the time for allotting the land had not yet arrived. — In vers. 2-6 the districts that were not yet conquered are enumerated separately. — Vers. 2, 3. All the circles of the Philistines (gelilothj circles of well-defined districts lying round the chief city). The reference is to the five towns of the Philistines, whose princes are mentioned in ver. 3. " And all Geshuri:" not the district of Geshur in Peraea have already observed, this incompleteness and these gaps can be satisfactorily explained from the historical circumstances under which the allotment of the land took place. Secondly, Knobel also maintains, that " Joshua's conquests did not extend to the Lebanon (chap. xiii. 4, 5), and yet the author mentions towns of the Asherites there (chap. xix. 28, 30): Bethel was not taken till after the time of Joshua (Judg. i. 22 sqq.), and this was also the case with Jerusalem (Judg. i. 8), and in the earliest times of the judges they had no Hebrew inhabitants (Judg. xix. 12), yet the author speaks of both places as towns of the Benjamites (chap, xviii. 22, 28); Jericho and Ai were lying in ruins in Joshua's time (chap. vi. 24, viii. 28), yet they are spoken of here as towns of Benjamin that had been rebuilt (chap, xviii. 21, 23); it is just the same with Hazor in Naphtali (chap. xi. 13, xix. 36); and according to Judg. i. 1, 10 sqq., Hebron and Debir also were not conquered till after Joshua's time." But all this rests (1) upon the false assumption, that the only towns which Joshua distributed by lot among the tribes of Israel were those which he permanently conquered, whereas, according to the command of God, he divided the whole land among the Israelites, whether it was conquered or not; (2) upon the erroneous opinion, that the towns which had been destroyed, such as Jericho, Ai, and Hazor, were allotted to the Israelites as " rebuilt," whereas there is not a word about this in the text. It is just the same with the arguments used by Knobel in proof of the composition of chap, xiii.-xxi. from three different documents. The material discrepancies have been forced upon the text, as we shall see when we come to an explanation of the passages in question; and the verbal differences prove nothing more than that the geographical account of the boundaries and towns contains no allusion to the priesthood, to sacrifice, or to certain other tnings which no one would think of looking for here.

(vers. 11, 13, xii. 5; Deut. Hi. 14), but the territory of the Geshurites, a small tribe in the south of Pliilistia, on the edge of the northwestern portion of the Arabian desert which borders on Egypt; it is only mentioned again in 1 Sam. xxvii. 8. The land of the Philistines and Geshurites extended from the Sichor of Egypt (on the south) to the territory of Ekron (on the north). Sichor (Sihor), lit, the black river, is not the Nile, because this is always called iftjn (the river) in simple prose (Gen. xli. 1, 3; Ex. i. 22), and was not " before Egypt," i.e. to the east of it, but flowed through the middle of the land. The "Sichor before Egypt" was the brook (nachal) of Egypt, the fPivo/copovpa, the modern Wady el Arishy which is mentioned in chap. xv. 4, 47, etc., as the southern border of Canaan towards Egypt (see at Num. xxxiv. 5). Ekron i^Appako)v, LXX.), the most northerly of the five chief cities of the Philistines, was first of all allotted to the tribe of Judah (chap. xv. 11, 45), then on the further distribution it was given to Dan (chap. xix. 43); after Joshua's death it was conquered by Judah (Judg. i. 18), though it was not permanently occupied. It is the present Akir, a considerable village in the plain, two hours to the southwest of Ramlah, and on the east of Jamnia, without ruins of any antiquity, with the exception of two old wells walled round, which probably belong to the times of the Crusaders (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 23). " To the Canaanites is reckoned (the territory of the) five lords of the Philistines" i.e. it was reckoned as belonging to the land of Canaan, and allotted to the Israelites like all the rest. This remark was necessary, because the Philistines were not descendants of Canaan (see at Gen. x. 14), but yet were to be driven out like the Canaanites themselves as being invaders of Canaanitish territory (cf. Deut. ii. 23). ^pD, from pD, the standing title of the princes of the Philistines (vid. Judg. iii. 3, xvi. 5 sqq.; 1 Sam. v. 8), does not mean kings, but princes, and is interchangeable with DpK> (cf. 1 Sam. xxix. 6 with vers. 4, 9). At any rate, it was the native or Philistian title of the Philistine princes, though it is not derived from the same root as Sar, but is connected with seren, axis rota?, in the tropical sense of princeps, for which the Arabic furnishes several analogies (see Ges. Thes. p. 972). The capitals of these five princes were the following. Azzah (Gaza, i.e. the strong): this was allotted to the tribe of Judah and taken by the Judaeans (chap. xv. 47; Judg. i. 18), but was not held long. It is at the present time a considerable town of about 15,000 inhabitants, with the old name of Ghazzeh, about an hour from the sea, and with a seaport called Majuma; it is the farthest town of Palestine towards the south-west (see Rob, Pal. ii. pp. 374 sqq.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 35 sqq.; Stark, Gaza, etc., pp. 45 sqq.). Ashdod ( AtjcoTos, Azotus): this was also allotted to the tribe of Judah (chap. xv. 46, 47), the seat of Dagon-worship, to which the Philistines carried the ark (1 Sam. v. 1 sqq.). It was conquered by Uzziah (2 Chron xxvi. 6), was afterwards taken by Tartan, the general of Sargon (Isa. xx. 1), and was besieged by Psammetichus for twenty-nine years (Herod, ii. 157). It is the present Esdud, & Mahometan village with about a hundred or a hundred and fifty miserable huts, upon a low, round, wooded height on the road from Jamnia to Gaza, two miles to the south of Jamnia, about half an hour from the sea (yid, Rob, i. p. 368). Ashkalon: this was conquered by the Judaeans after the death of Joshua (Judg. i. 8, 9); but shortly afterwards recovered its independence (vid, Judg. xiv. 19; 1 Sam. vi. 17). It is the present Askuldn on the sea-shore between Gaza and Ashdod, five hours to the north of Gaza, with considerable and widespread ruins (see v, Raum. pp. 173-4; Ritter, xvi. pp. 69 sqq.). Gath (Te9): this was for a long time the seat of the Rephaites, and was the home of Goliath (chap. xi. 22; 1 Sam. xvii. 4, 23; 2 Sam. xxi. 19 sqq.; 1 Chron. xx. 5 sqq.); it was thither that the Philistines of Ashdod removed the ark, which was taken thence to Ekron (1 Sam. v. 7-10). David was the first to wrest it from the Philistines (1 Chron. xviii. 1). In the time of Solomon it was a royal city of the Philistines, though no doubt under Israelitish supremacy (1 Kings ii. 39, v. 1). It was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 8), was taken by the Syrians in the time of Joash (2 Kings xii. 18), and was conquered again by Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 6; Amos vi. 2); but no further mention is made of it, and no traces have yet been discovered1 (see Rob. ii. p. 420, and v,

1 According to the Onom. (s. v. Geth), it was a place five Roman miles from Eleutheropolis towards Diospolis, whereas Jerome (on Micah i.) says: " Gath was near the border of Judaea, and on the road from Eleutheropolis to Gaza; it is still a very large village; " whilst in the commentary on Jer. xxv. he says: " Gath was near to and conterminous with Azotus," from which it is obvious enough that the situation of the Philistine city of Gath was altogether unknown to the Fathers. Hitzig and Knobel suppose the Bxtroyx/ipx of Ptolemy (v. 16, 6), Betogabri in Tab. Peuting. ix. e. (the Eleutheropolis of the Fathers, and the present Beit Jibrhr, a very considerable ruin), to be the ancient Gath, but this opinion is only founded upon very questionable etymological combinations; whereas Thenius looks for it on the sito of the present Deir Dubban, though without any tenable ground.

Raumer, Pal. pp. 191-2). u And the Avvites (Avvaeans) towards the south" Judging from Deut. ii. 23, the Avvim appear to have belonged to those tribes of the land who were already found there by the Canaanites, and whom the Philistines subdued and destroyed when they entered the country. They are not mentioned in Gen. x. 15-19 among the Canaanitish tribes. At the same time, there is not sufficient ground for identifying them with the Geshurites as Ewald does, or with the Anakites, as Bertheau has done. Moreover, it cannot be decided whether they were descendants of Ham or Shem (see Stark. Gaza, pp. 32 sqq.). I^PiD (from, or on, the south) at the commencement of ver. 4 should be attached to ver. 3, as it is in the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, and joined to E^yn (the Avvites). The Avvaeans dwelt to the south of the Philistines, on the south-west of Gaza. It gives no sense to connect it with what follows, so as to read u towards the south all the land of the Canaanites;" for whatever land to the south of Gaza, or of the territory of the Philistines, was still inhabited by Canaanites, could not possibly be called " all the land of the Canaanites." If, however, we were disposed to adopt the opinion held by Masius and Hosenmuller, and understand these words as relating to the southern boundaries of Canaan, " the possessions of the king of Arad and the neighbouring petty kings who ruled in the southern extremity of Judaea down to the desert of Paran, Zin, Kadesh," etc., the fact that Arad and the adjoining districts are always reckoned as belonging to the Negeb would at once be decisive against it (compare chap. xv. 21 sqq. with chap. x. 40, xi. 16, also Num. xxi. 1). Moreover, according to chap. x. 40, 41, and xi, 16, 17, Joshua had smitten the whole of the south of Canaan from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza and taken it; so that nothing remained unconquered there, which could possibly have been mentioned in this passage as not yet taken by the Israelites. For the fact that the districts, which Joshua traversed so victoriously and took possession of, were not all permanently held by the Israelites, does not come into consideration here at all. If the author had thought of enumerating all these places, he would have had to include many other districts as well.

Beside the territory of the Philistines on the south-west, there still remained to be taken (vers. 4, 5) in the north, " all the land of the Canaanites" i.e. of the Phoenicians dwelling on the coast, and " the caves which belonged to the Sidonians unto Aphek." Mearah (the cave) is the present Mugr Jezzin, i.e. cave of Jezzin, on the east of

Sidon, in a steep rocky wall of Lebanon, a hiding-place of the Druses at the present time (see at Num. xxxiv. 8; also F. v. Bichter, Wallfahrten in Morgenland, p. 133). Aphek, or Aphik, was allotted to the tribe of Asher (chap. xix. 30; Judg. i. 31); it was called "Acpafca by the Greeks; there was a temple of Venus there, which Constantine ordered to be destroyed, on account of the licentious nature of the worship {Euseb. Vita Const, iii. 55). It is the present Afka, a small village, but a place of rare beauty, upon a terrace of Lebanon, near the chief source of the river Adonis (Nahr Ibrahim), with ruins of an ancient temple in the neighbourhood, surrounded by groves of the most splendid walnut trees on the north-east of Beirut (see 0. F. v. Bidder, pp. 106-7; Bob. Bibl. Kes. p. 663; and V. de Velde, Reise. ii. p. 398). " lb the territory of the Amorites:" this is obscure. We cannot imagine the reference to be to the territory of Og of Bashan, which was formerly inhabited by Amorites, as that did not extend so far north; and the explanation given by Knobel, that farther north there were not Canaanites, but Amorites, who wrere of Semitic origin, rests upon hypotheses which cannot be historically sustained. — Ver. 5. There still remained to be taken (2) " the land of the Giblites," i.e. the territory of the population of Gebal (1 Kings v. 32; Ezek. xxvii. 9), the Byblos of the classics, on the Mediterranean Sea, to the north of Beirut, called Jebail by the Arabs, and according to Edrisi (ed. Jaubert, i. p. 356), " a pretty town on the sea-shore, enclosed in good walls, and surrounded by vineyards and extensive grounds planted with fruit trees" (see also Abulfed. Tab. Syr. p. 94). It is still a town with an old wall, some portions of which apparently belong to the time of the Crusades (see Burckhardt, Syr. p. 296, and Bitter, Erdk. xvii. pp. 60 sqq.).1 " And all Lebanon toward the sunrising;" i.e. not Antilibanus {Knobel), but the Lebanon which is to the east of the territory of Gebal, " from Baal-gad under Mount Hermon" i.e. Baneas Banjas at the foot of Hermon (see at chap. xi. 17), " unto the entering in to Hamath" i.e. as far up as the territory of the kingdom of Hamath, with the capital of the same name on the Orontes (see at Num. xxxiv. 8). Lastly, there still remained (3) " all the inhabitants of the mountains, from Lebanon to Misrephothmaim," i.e. the promontory of Nakura (see at chap. xi. 8), namely " all the Sidonians," i.e. all the Phoenicians \Vho dwelt from Lebanon southwards, from the boundary of the territory of Hamath down

1 The evidence adduced by Movers (1'hbnizier, ii. 1, p. 103), that the Giblites did not belong to the Canaanites, has more plausibility than truth.

to the promontory of Nakura. According to ancient usao-e, the Sidonians stand for the Phoenicians generally, as in Homer, on account of Sidon being the oldest capital of Phoenicia (see Ges. on Is. i. pp. 724 sqq.). All these the Lord would root out before Israel, and therefore Joshua was to divide the whole of northern Canaan, which was inhabited by Phoenicians, among the Israelites. " Only divide thou it by lot for an inheritance" etc. P"], only, i.e. although thou hast not yet taken it. tW, to cause it to fall, here used with reference to the lot, i.e. to divide by lot. " Fulfil thy duty in the distribution of the land, not even excepting what is still in the firm grasp of the enemy; for I will take care to perform what I have promised. From this we may learn to rely so perfectly upon the word of God, when undertaking any duty, as not to be deterred by doubts or fears" (Calvin).

Vers. 8-14. To the command of God to divide the land on this side the Jordan among the nine tribes and a half (ver. 7), the historian appends the remark, that the other two tribes and a half had already received their inheritance from Moses on the other side (ver. 8). This he proceeds to describe in its full extent (vers. CJ-13), and then observes that the tribe of Levi alone received no landed inheritance, according to the word of the Lord (ver. 14). After this he gives a description in vers. 15-33 of the land assigned by Moses to each of the two tribes and a half.1 The remark in ver. 8 is so closely connected with what precedes by the expression " with whom" (lit. with it), that this expression must be taken as somewhat indefinite: " with whom," viz. with half Manasseh, really signifying with the other half of Manasseh, with which the Reubenites and Gadites had received their inheritance (see Num. xxxii. and Deut. iii. 8-17). The last words of ver. 8, " as Moses the servant of Jehovah gave them" are not a tautological repetition of the clause " which Moses gave them," but simply affirm that these tribes received the land given them by Moses, in the manner commanded by Moses, without any alteration in his arrangements. The boundaries of the land given in vers. 9-13 really agree with those given in chap. xii. 2-5 and Deut. iii. 8, although the expression

1 KnobeVs remark, that vers. 8-14 anticipate the following section (vers. 15-33) in an unsuitable manner, rests upon a thorough misunderstanding of the whole; for the account of the division of the land to the east of the Jordan among the two tribes and a half (vers. 15-33) could not be introduced in a more appropriate manner than by a description of the circumference of the land and of its principal parts (vers. 9-13).

varies in some respects. The words of ver. 9, " the city that is in the midst of the river;' i.e. the city in the valley, viz. Ar, are more distinct than those of chap. xii. 2, " and from the middle of the river." " All the plain" is the Amoritish table-land, a tract of land for the most part destitute of trees, stretching from the Arnon to Heshbon, and towards the north-east to Rabbath-Amman (see at Deut. iii. 10), which is called in Num. xxi. 20 the field of Moab Medeba, now called Medaha (see at Num. xxi. 30). Dibon, now a ruin called Dibdn, to the north of Arnon (see at Num. xxi. 20). —Ver. 10, as in chap. xii. 2.— Ver. 11. Gilead is the whole country of that name on both sides of the Jabbok (see at chap. xii. 2 and Deut. iii. 10), the present Belka and Jebel Ajlun, for the description of which see the remarks at Num. xxxii. 1. " The territory of the Geshurites and Maachathites" is referred to in chap. xii. 5 as the boundary of the kingdom of Og, and in Deut. iii. 14 as the boundary of the land which was taken by Jair the Manassite; here it is included in the inheritance of the tribes on the other side of the Jordan, but it was never really taken possession of by the Israelites, and (according to ver. 13) it had probably never been really subject to king Og. The other notices in vers. 11 and 12 are the same as in chap, xii. 4, 5.— Ver. 14. The tribe of Levi was to receive no land, but the firings of Jehovah, i.e. the offerings, including the tithes and first-fruits (Lev. xxvii. 30-32, compared with Num. xviii. 21-32), were to be its inheritance; so that the God of Israel himself is called the inheritance of Levi in ver. 33 as in Num. xviii. 20, to which the words " as He said unto them" refer (see the commentary on Num. xviii. 20).

Vers. 15-33. The Possessions of the Two Tribes and a Half.— Vers. 15-23. The tribe of Reuben received its inheritance in the south— namely, the territory from Aroer in the Arnon valley, and from Ar in that valley, onwards, and the plain (table-land) by Medeba (see ver. 9), with Heshbon the capital and her towns, i.e. the towns dependent upon it, in the plain. Heshbon, almost in the centre between the Arnon and the Jabbok, was situated upon the border of the inheritance of the Reubenites, and was ceded to the Gadites, who gave it up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 39; 1 Chron. vi 66: see at Num. xxxii. 37). Dibon, called Dibon of Gad in Num. xxxiii. 45, because the Gadites had built, i.e. fortified it, was on the south of Heshbon, only an hour from Aroer, on the Arnon (ver. 9). Bamoth-baal, also called Bamoth simply (Num. xxi. 20; Isa. xv. 2), is to be sought for on the Jebel Attarus (see at Num. xxi. 20). It was thence that Balaam saw the end of the Israelitish camp (Num. xxii. 41). Bethbaal-meon, the present ruin of Myun, threequarters of an hour s.e. of Heshbon (see at Num. xxxii. 38). Jahza, where Sihon was defeated, was to the east of Medeba, according to the Onom.; and Dibon was on the border of the desert (see at Num. xxi. 23). Kedemoth, on the border of the desert, to the north-west of Kalaat Balua, is to be sought on the northern bank of the Balua, or upper Arnon (see at Num. xxi. 13). Mephaath, where there was a garrison stationed (according to the Onom.) as a defence against the inhabitants of the desert, is to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Jahza, with which it is always associated (Jer. xlviii. 21). Kedemoth and Mephaath were given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 37; 1 Chron. vi. 64). — Vers. 19, 20. Kirjathaim, where Chedorlaomer defeated the Emim, is probably to be found in the ruins of et-Teym, half an hour to the west of Medaba (see at Gen. xiv. 5). Sibmah (Num. xxxii. 38), according to Jerome (on Isa. xvi. 8), only 500 paces from Heshbon, appears to have hopelessly disappeared. Zereth-hashachar, i.e. splendor aurora, which is only mentioned here, was situated " upon a mountain of the valley." According to ver. 27, the valley was the Jordan valley, or rather (according to Gen. xiv. 3, 8) the vale of Siddim, a valley running down on the eastern side of the Dead Sea. Seetzen conjectures that the town referred to is the present ruin of Sard, on the south of Zerka Maein. — Beth-peor, opposite to Jericho, six Roman miles higher than (to the east of) Libias; see at Num. xxiii. 28. The " slopes of Pisgah" (chap. xii. 3; Deut. iii. 17): to the south of the former, on the north-eastern shore of the Dead Sea (see at Num. xxvii. 12). Beth-jeshimoth (chap. xii. 3), in the Ghor el Seisaban, on the north-east side of the Dead Sea (see at Num. xxii. 1). In ver. 21a, the places which Reuben received in addition to those mentioned by name are all summed up in the words, " and all the (other) towns of the plain, and all the kingdom of Sihon," sc. so far as it extended over the plain. These limitations of the words are implied in the context: the first in the fact that towns in the plain are mentioned in ver. 17; the second in the fact that, according to ver. 27, " the rest of the kingdom of Sihon," i.e. the northern portion of it, was given to the Gadites. The allusion to Sihon induced the author to mention his defeat again; see at Num. xxxi., where the five Midianitish vassals who were slain with Sihon are noticed in ver. 8, and the death of Balaam is also mentioned.

" Dukes of Sihon" properly vassals of Sihon; Msp3 does not signify anointed, however, but means literally poured out, i.e. cast, moulded, enfeoffed. The word points to the u creation of a prince by the communication or pouring in of power" (Gusset, s. v.). — Ver. 23. " And (this) was the boundary of the sons of Reuben, the Jordan and its territory" i.e. the Jordan, or rather land adjoining it. The meaning is, that the territory of Reuben, viz. with the places mentioned last (ver. 20), reached to the territory of the Jordan; for so far as the principal part was concerned, it was on the east of the Dead Sea, as it only reached from the Anion to Heshbon, i.e. up to the latitude of the northern extremity of the Dead Sea. a The towns and their villages" TEH, farm premises, used, as in Lev. xxv. 31, to denote places not enclosed by a wall.

Vers. 24-28. Inheritance of the tribe of Gad. — This tribe received Jaezer (probably es Szyr: see at Num. xxi. 32) and " all the towns of Gilead" i.e. of the southern half of Gilead, which belonged to the kingdom of Sihon; for the northern half, which belonged to the kingdom of Og, was given to the Manassites (ver. 31), u and the half of the land of the sons of Ammon, to Aroer before Rabbah" i.e. that portion of the land of the Ammonites between the Arnon and the Jabbok, which the Amorites under Sihon had taken from the Ammonites, namely, the land on the east of Gilead, on the western side of the upper Jabbok (Nahr Amman: Deut. ii. 37, iii. 16; cf. Judg. xi. 13); for the land of the Ammonites, i.e. the land which they still held in the time of Moses, on the eastern side of Nahr Amman, the Israelites were not allowed to attack (Deut. ii. 19). Aroer before Rabbah, i.e. Amman (see Deut. iii. 11), is Aroer of Gad, and must be distinguished from Aroer of Reuben on the Arnon (ver. 16). It is only mentioned again in Judg. xi. 33 and 2 Sam. xxiv. 5, and was situated, according to 2 Sam., in the valley of Gad, that is to say, in a wady or valley through which Gesenius supposes an arm of the Jabbok to have flowed, and Thenius the Jabbok itself, though neither of them has sufficient ground for his conjecture. It is also not to be identified with the ruin of Ayra to the south-west of Szalt, as this is not in a wady at all; but in all probability it is to be sought for to the northeast of Rabbah, in the Wady Nahr Amman, on the side of the Kalat Zerka Gadday the situation of which suits this verse and 2 Sam. xxiv. 5 very well, and may easily be reconciled with Judg. xi. 33. — In ver. 26 the extent of the territory of Gad is first of all described from north to south: viz. from Heshbon (see ver. 17)

to Ramath-micpeh) or Ramoth in Gilead (chap. xx. 8), probably on the site of the present Szalt (see at Deut. iv. 43), " and Betonim" probably the ruin of Batneh, on the mountains which bound the Ghor towards the east between the Wady Shaib and Wady Ajlun, in the same latitude as Szalt (V. de Velde, Mem. p. 298); and then, secondly, the northern boundary is described from west to east, u from Mahanaim to the territory of Lidbir." Mahanaim (doublecamp: Gen. xxxii. 2), which was given up by Gad to the Levites (chap. xxi. 30), in which Ishbosheth was proclaimed king (2 Sam. ii. 8, 9), and to which David fled from Absalom (2 Sam. xvii. 24, 27; 1 Kings ii. 8), is not to be sought for, as Knobel supposes, in the ruins of Meysera, to the south of Jabbok, four hours and a half from Szalt, but was on the north of the Jabbok, since Jacob did not cross the ford of the Jabbok till after the angel had appeared to him at Mahanaim (Gen. xxxii. 3, 23). It was in or by the valley of the Jordan (according to 2 Sam. xviii. 23, 24), and has probably been preserved in the ruins of Mahneh, the situation of which, however, has not yet been determined (see at Gen. xxxii. 3). Lidbir is quite unknown; the lamed, however, is not to be taken as a prefix, but forms part of the word. J. D. Michaelis and Knobel suppose it to be the same as Lo-debar in 2 Sam. ix. 4, 5, xvii. 27, a place from which provisions wrere brought to David at Mahanaim on his flight from Absalom, and which is to be sought for on the east of Mahanaim. — Yer. 27. On the north, the territory of Gad seems to have extended to the Jabbok, and only to have stretched beyond the Jabbok at Mahanaim, which formed the boundary of half-Manasseh, according to ver. 30. In the valley of the Jordan, on the other hand, the boundary reached to the Sea of Galilee. u The valley " is the valley of the Jordan, or the Arabah from Wady Hesban above the Dead Sea up to the Sea of Galilee, along the east side of the Jordan, which belonged to the kingdom of Sihon (chap. xii. 3; Deut. iii. 17). The northern boundary of the tribe of Reuben must have touched the Jordan in the neighbourhood of the Wady Hesban. In the Jordan valley were Beth-haram, the future Libias, and present er Rameh (see at Num. xxxii. 36); Bethnimra, according to the Onom. five Roman miles to the north, the present ruin of Nimrein (see at Num. xxxii. 36); Succoth, according to the Ono7n. trans Jordanem in parte Scythopoleos (see at Gen. xxxiii. 17); Zaphon (i.e. north), probably not far from the southern extremity of the Sea of Galilee. " The rest of the kingdom of Sihon] the other part having been given to the Reubenites (ver. 21).

Vers. 29-31. The territory of the half tribe of Manasseh extended from Mahanaim onwards, and embraced all Bashan, with the sixty Jair towns and the (northern) half of Gilead (see the comm. on Deut. iii. 13-15). — Ver. 32 is the concluding formula. (For the fact itself, see Num. xxxiv. 14, 15.) — Ver. 33 is a repetition of ver. 14.

COMMENCEMENT OF THE DIVISION OF THE LAND OF CANAAN. INHERITANCE OF CALEB. — CHAP. XIV.

Vers. 1-5 form the heading and introduction to the account of the division of the land among the nine tribes and a half, which reaches to chap, xix., and is brought to a close by the concluding formula in chap. xix. 51. The division of the land of Canaan according to the boundaries laid down in Num. xxxiv. 2-12 was carried out, in accordance with the instructions in Num. xxxiv. 16-29, by the high priest Eleazar, Joshua, and ten heads of fathers' houses of the nine tribes and a half, whose names are given in Num. xxxiv. 18-28. " By the lot of their inheritance" i.e. by casting lots for it: this is dependent upon the previous clause, u which they distributed for inheritance to them." " As the Lord commanded through Moses" (Num. xxvi. 52-56, xxxiii. 54, and xxxiv. 13), "to the nine tribes and a half" (this is also dependent upon the clause "which they distributed for inheritance"). — Vers. 3, 4. So many tribes were to receive their inheritance, for the two tribes and a half had already received theirs from Moses on the other side of the Jordan, and the tribe of Levi was not to receive any land for an inheritance. According to this, there seem to be only eight tribes and a half to be provided for (2£ + l + 8J= 12); but there were really nine and a half, for the sons of Joseph formed two tribes in consequence of the adoption of Ephraim and Manasseh by the patriarch Jacob (Gen. xlviii. 5). But although the Levites were to have no share in the land, they were to receive towns to dwell in, with pasture adjoining for their cattle; these the other tribes were to give up to them out of their inheritance, according to the instructions in Num. xxxv. 1-8 (see the notes upon this passage).

So far as the division of the land itself was concerned, it was to be distributed by lot, according to Num. xxvi. 52 sqq.; but, at the same time, the distribution was carried out with such special regard to the relative sizes of the different tribes, that the more numerous tribe received a larger share of the land than one that wTas not so numerous. This could only be accomplished, however, by their restricting the lot to the discrimination of the relative situation of the different tribes, and then deciding the extent and boundaries of their respective possessions according to the number of families of which they were composed.1 The casting of the lots was probablv effected, as the Rabbins assumed, by means of two urns, one filled with slips having the names of the tribes upon them; the other, with an equal number, representing separate divisions of the land: so that when one slip, with a name upon it, was taken out of one urn, another slip, with a division of the land upon it, was taken from the other. The result of the lot was accepted as the direct decree of God; " for the lot was not controlled in any way by the opinion, or decision, or authority of men" (Calvin). See the fuller remarks at Num. xxvi. 56. In the account of the casting of the lots, the first fact which strikes us is, that after the tribes of Judah and Joseph had received their inheritance, an interruption took place, and the camp was moved from Gilgal to Shiloh, and the tabernacle erected there (chap, xviii. 1-9); after which the other tribes manifested so little desire to receive their inheritance, that Joshua reproved them for their indolence (chap, xviii. 3), and directed them to nominate a committee of twenty-one from their own number, whom he sent out to survey the land and divide it into seven parts; and it was not till after this had been done that the casting of the lots was proceeded with, and each of these seven tribes received its inheritance. The reason for this interruption is not given; and the commentators have differed in their opinions as to the cause (see Keifs former Comm. on Joshua, pp. 347 sqq.). The following appears to be the most probable supposition. When Joshua received the command from the Lord to divide the land among the tribes, they made an approximative division of the land into nine or ten parts, according to the general idea of its extent and principal features, which they had obtained in connection with the conquest

1 " This was the force of the lot: there were ten lots cast in such a manner as to decide that some were to be next to the Egyptians, some to have the seacoasts, some to occupy the higher ground, and some to settle in the valleys. When this was done, it remained for the heads of the nation to determine the boundaries of their different territories according to some equitable standard. It was their place, therefore, to ascertain how many thousand heads there were in each tribe, and then to adjudicate a larger or smaller space according to the size of the tribe " {Calvin). Or, as Clericus observes (Num. xxvi. 52), " the lot seems to have had respect to the situation alone, and not to the extent of territory at all."

of the country, and then commenced distributing it without any more minute survey or more accurate measurement, simply fixing the boundaries of those districts which came out first according to the size of the tribes upon whom the lots fell. As soon as that was done, these tribes began to move off into the territory allotted to them, and to take possession of it. The exact delineation of the boundaries, however, could not be effected at once, but required a longer time, and was probably not finally settled till the tribe had taken possession of its land. In this manner the tribes of Judah, Ephraim, and half Manasseh had received their inheritance one after another. And whilst they were engaged in taking possession, S/uloh was chosen, no doubt in accordance with divine instructions, as the place where the tabernacle was to be permanently erected; and there the sanctuary was set up, the whole camp, of course, removing thither at the same time. But when the casting of the lots was about to be continued for the remainder of the tribes, they showed no great desire for fixed abodes, as they had become so accustomed to a nomad life, through having been brought up in the desert, that they were much more disposed to continue it, than to take possession of a circumscribed inheritance, — a task which would require more courage and exertion, on account of the remaining Canaanites, than a life in tents, in which they might wander up and down in the land by the side of the Canaanites, and supply their wants from its productions, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had formerly done, since the Canaanites who were left were so weakened by the war that the Israelites had no occasion for a moment's anxiety about them, provided they did not attempt to expel or to exterminate them. But Joshua could not rest contented with this, if he would remain faithful to the charge which he had received from the Lord. He therefore reproved these tribes for their tardiness, and commanded them to take steps for continuing the casting of lots for the land. But as the tribe of Joseph had expressed its dissatisfaction with the smallness of the inheritance allotted to it, and by so doing had manifested its cowardice, which prevented it from attacking the Canaanites who were still left in the territory that had fallen to their lot, Joshua may possibly have had his eyes opened in consequence to the fact that, if the casting of lots was continued in the manner begun, and with- nothing more than an approximative definition of the different portions of the land, there was a possibility of still greater dissatisfaction arising among the other tribes, since some of them at any rate would be sure to receive portions of the land in which the Canaanites were more numerous and still stronger than in the possessions of Ephraim. He therefore gave orders, that before the casting of lots was proceeded with any further, the rest of the land should be carefully surveyed and divided into seven districts, and that a statement of the result should be laid before him, that these seven districts might be divided by lot among the seven tribes. This survey of the land no doubt very clearly showed that what remained, after deducting the possessions of Judah and Joseph, was too small for the remaining seven tribes, in proportion to what had been already divided. Moreover, it had also been discovered that Judah* s share was larger than this tribe required (chap. xix. 9). Consequently it was necessary that certain partial alterations should be made in the arrangements connected with the first division. The lot itself could not be pronounced invalid when it had once been cast, as its falling was regarded as the decision of God himself, and therefore it was impossible to make a fresh division of the whole land among all the tribes. The only thing that could be done was to leave the two tribes in those districts which had fallen to them by lot (chap, xviii. 5), but to take certain parts of their territory for the other tribes, which would leave the lot in all its integrity, as the lot itself had not determined either the size or the boundaries. This will serve to explain both the interruption to the casting of the lots, which had been commenced at Gilgal, and also the peculiar manner in which it was continued at Shiloh.

casting of the lots commenced, Caleb came to Joshua along with the sons of Judah, and asked for the mountains of Hebron for his possession, appealing at the same time to the fact, that forty-five years before Moses had promised it to him on oath, because he had not discouraged the people and stirred them up to rebellion, as the other spies that were sent from Kadesh to Canaan had done, but had faithfully followed the Lord.1 This occurred at Gilgal, where

1 The grounds upon which Knobel follows Maurer and others in affirming that this account does not belong to the so-called Elohist, but is merely a fragment taken from the first document of the Jehovist, are formed partly from misinterpretations of particular verses and partly from baseless assumptions. To the former belongs the assertion, that, according to vers. 8, 12, Joshua was not one of the spies (see the remarks on ver. 8); to the latter the assertion, that the Elohist does not represent Joshua as dividing the land, or Caleb as receiving so large a territory (see on the contrary, however, the the casting of the lots was to take place. Caleb was not u the head of the Judahites," as Knobel maintains, but simply the head of a father's house of Judah, and, as we may infer from his surname, " the Kenizzite" or descendant of Kenaz (" the Kenizzite" here and Num. xxxii. 12 is equivalent to "son of Kenaz," ch. xv. 17, and Judg. i. 13), head of the father's house which sprang from Kenaz, i.e. of a subdivision of the Judahite family of Hezron; for Caleb, the brother of Jerahmeel and father of Achzah, according to 1 Chron. ii. 42 (cf. 1 Chron. ii. 49), was the same person as Caleb the descendant of Hezron mentioned in 1 Chron. ii. 18. From the surname " the Kenizzite" we are of course not to understand that Caleb or his father Jephunneh is described as a descendant of the Canaanitish tribe of Kenizzites (Gen. xv. 19); but Kenaz was a descendant of Hezron, the son of Perez and grandson of Judah (1 Chron. ii. 5, 18, 25), of whom nothing further is known Consequently it was not the name of a tribe, but of a person, and, as we may see from 1 Chron. iv. 15, where one of the sons of Caleb is called Kenaz, the name was repeated in the family. The sons of Judah who came to Joshua along with Caleb were not the Judahites generally, therefore, or representatives of all the families of Judah, but simply members or representatives of the father's house of Judah which took its name from Kenaz, and of which Caleb was the head at that time. Caleb reminded Joshua of the word which the Lord had spoken concerning them in Kadeshbarnea, i.e. of the promise of God that they should both of them enter the land of Canaan (Num. xiv. 24, 30), and then proceeded to observe (ver. 7): " When I vms forty years old, and was sent by Moses as a spy to Canaan, I brought back an answer as it was in my?nind," i.e. according to the best of my convictions, without fear of man or regard to the favour of the people. — Yer. 8. Whereas the other spies discouraged the people by exaggerated reports concerning the inhabitants of Canaan, he had followed the Lord with perfect fidelity (Num. xiii. 31-33). He had not been made to waver in his faithfulness to the Lord and His promises either by the evil reports which the other spies had brought of the land, or by the murmuring and threats of the excited crowd (see Num. xiv. 6-10). "My brethren" (ver. 8) are the rest of the spies, of course with the exception of Joshua, to whom Caleb was speaking.1 Vppn, exposition of ver. 13), as well as the enumeration of all kinds of words which are said to be foreign to the Elohistic document.

for *Don (see Ges. § 75, anm. 17, and Ewald, § 142, a.), from nDO ss DDO (see chap. ii. 11). — Ver. 9. Jehovah swore at that time, that the land upon which his (Caleb's) foot had trodden should be an inheritance for him and his sons for ever. This oath is not mentioned in Num. xiv. 20 sqq., nor yet in Deut. i. 35, 36, where Moses repeats the account of the whole occurrence to the people. For the oath of Jehovah mentioned in Num. xiv. 21, 24, viz. that none of the murmuring people should see the land of Canaan, but that Caleb alone should come thither and his seed should possess it, cannot be the one referred to, as the promise given to Caleb in this oath does not relate to the possession of Hebron in particular, but to the land of Canaan generally, " the land which Jehovah had sworn to their fathers" We must assume, therefore, that in addition to what is mentioned in Num. xiv. 24, God gave a special promise to Caleb, which is passed over there, with reference to the possession of Hebron itself, and that Joshua, who heard it at the time, is here reminded of that promise by Caleb. This particular promise from God was closely related to the words with which Caleb endeavoured to calm the minds of the people when they rose up against Moses (Num. xiii. 30), viz. by saying to them, " We are well able to overcome it," notwithstanding the Anakites who dwelt in Hebron and had filled the other spies with such great alarm on account of their gigantic size. With reference to this the Lord had promised that very land to Caleb for his inheritance. Upon this promise Caleb founded his request (vers. 10-12) that Joshua would give him these mountains, of which Joshua had heard at that time that there were Anakites and large fortified cities there, inasmuch as, although forty-five years had elapsed since God had spoken these words, and he was now eighty-five years old, he was quite as strong as he had been then. From the words, " The Lord hath kept me alive these forty-five years," Theodoret justly infers, that the conquest of Canaan by Joshua was completed in seven years, since God spake these words towards the end of the second year after the exodus from Egypt, and therefore thirty-eight years before the entrance into Canaan. The clause '131 ^n i^R (ver. 10)

and consequently it is a complete perversion on the part of Knobel to argue, that because the expression is a general one, i.e. because Joshua is not expressly excepted by name, therefore he cannot have been one of the spies, not to mention the fact that the words " concerning me and thee" in ver. 6, are sufficient to show to any one acquainted with the account in Num. xiii., xiv., that Joshua was really one of them.

is also dependent upon 'ttl E^nx n?: viz. " these forty-five year* that Israel has wandered in the desert" (on this use of "HWjj, see Ewaldy § 331, c). The expression is a general one, and the years occupied in the conquest of Canaan, during which Israel had not vet entered into peaceful possession of the promised land, are reckoned as forming part of the years of wandering in the desert. As another reason for his request, Caleb adds in ver. 11: "/ am still as strong to-day as at that time; as my strength was then, so is it now for war, and to go out and in" (see Num. xxvii. 17). — Ver. 12. " The mountain" according to the context, is the mountainous region of Hebron, where the spies had seen the Anakites (Num. xiii. 22, 28). The two clauses, in ver. 12, beginning with *3 are not to be construed as subordinate to one another, but are coordinate clauses, and contain two distinct motives in support of his petition: viz. u for thou heardest in that day" sc. what Jehovah said to me then, and also " for (because) the Anakites are there "... "perhaps Jehovah is with me (^K for *RK, see Ges. § 103, 1, anm. 1, and Ewald, § 264, 6.), and I root them out" (vid. chap. xv. 14). The word "perhaps" does not express a doubt, but a hope or desire, or else, as Masius says, " hope mixed with difficulty; and whilst the difficulty detracts from the value, the hope stimulates the desire for the gift." — Ver. 13. Then Joshua blessed Caleb, i.e. implored the blessing of God upon his undertaking, and gave him Hebron for an inheritance. Hebron is mentioned as the chief city, to which the surrounding country belonged; for Caleb had asked for the mountains (ver. 9), i.e. the mountainous country with and around Hebron, which included, for example, the fortified town of Debir also (chap. xv. 15). — Ver. 14. This inheritance, the historian adds, was awarded to Caleb because he had followed the God of Israel with such fidelity. — In ver. 15 there follows another notice of the earlier name of Hebron (see at Gen. xxiii. 2). The expression B^D? (before), like the words " to this day," applies to the time when the book was composed, at which time the name Kirjath-arba had long since fallen into disuse; so that it by no means follows that the name Hebron was not so old as the name Kirjath-arba, which was given to Hebron for the first time when it was taken by Arba, " the great man among the Anakites," i.e. the strongest and most renowned of the Anakites (vid. chap. xv. 13). The remark, " and the land had rest from war" is repeated again at the close of this account from chap. xi. 23, to show that although there were Anakites still dwelling ii Hebron whom Caleb lioped to exterminate, the work of distributing the land by lot was not delayed in consequence, but was carried out in perfect peace

Under the superintending providence of God, the inheritance which fell to the tribe of Judah by lot was in the southern part of Canaan, where Caleb had already received his inheritance, so that he was not separated from his tribe. The inheritance of Judah is first of all described according to its boundaries (vers. 1-12); then for the sake of completeness it is stated once more with regard to Caleb, that he received Kirjath-arba for his inheritance, and took possession of it by expelling the Anakites and conquering Debir (vers. 13-20); and after this a list is given of the towns in the different parts (vers. 21-G3).

Vers. 1-12 —Boundaries of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah, — Ver. 1. Its situation in the land. " And there was (i.e. fell, or came out; cf. chap. xvi. 1, xix. 1) the lot to the tribe of Judah according to its families to the frontier of Edom (see at Num. xxxiv. 3), to the desert of Zin southward, against the extreme south" (lit. from the end or extremity of the south), i.e. its inheritance fell to it, so that it reached to the territory of Edom and the desert of Zin, in which Kadesh was situated (see at Num. xiii. 21), on the extreme south of Canaan. — Vers. 2-4. The southern boundary. This was also the southern boundary of the land of Israel generally, and coincided with the southern boundary of Canaan as described in Num. xxxiv. 3-5. It went out " from the end of the salt sea, namely, from the tongue which turneth to the south" i.e. from the southern point of the Dead Sea, which is now a salt marsh. — Vers. 3, 4. Thence it proceeded u to the southern boundary of the ascent of Akrabbim" i.e. the row of lofty whitish cliffs which intersects the Arabah about eight miles below the Dead Sea (see at Num. xxxiv. 4), " and passed across to Zin" i.e. the Wady Murreh (see at Num. xiii. 21), " and went up to the south of Kadesh-barnea" i.e. by Ain Kudes (see at Num. xx. 16), " and passed over to Hezron, and went up to Adar, and turned to Karkaa, and went over to Azmon, and went out into the brook of Egypt" i.e. the Wady el Arish. On the probable situation of Ilezron, Adar, Karkaa, and Azmon, see at Num. xxxiv. 4, 5. " And the outgoings of the boundary were to the sea" (the Mediterranean). The Wady el Arish, a marked boundary, takes first of all a northerly and then a north- westerly course, and opens into the Mediterranean Sea (see Pent, vol. ii. p. 58). njn in the singular before the subject in the plural must not be interfered with (see Ewald, § 316, a.). — The words " this shall be your south coast" point back to the southern boundary of Canaan as laid down in Num. xxxiv. 2 sqq., and show that the southern boundary of the tribe-territory of Judah was also the southern boundary of the land to be taken by Israel. — Ver. 5a. " The eastern boundary was the salt sea to the end of the Jordan" i.e. the Dead Sea, in all its length up to the point where the Jordan entered it.

In vers. 55-11 we have a description of the northern boundary, which is repeated in chap, xviii. 15-19 as the southern boundary of Benjamin, though in the opposite direction, namely, from west to east. It started " from the tongue of the (salt) sea, the end {i.e. the mouth) of the Jordan, and went up to Beth-hagla" — a border town between Judah and Benjamin, which was afterwards allotted to the latter (chap, xviii. 19, 21), the present Ain Hajla, an hour and a quarter to the south-east of Riha (Jericho), and three-quarters of an hour from the Jordan (see at Gen. 1. 11, note), — " and went over to the north side of Beth-arabah" a town in the desert of Judah (ver. 61), afterwards assigned to Benjamin (chap, xviii. 22), and called Ha-arabah in chap, xviii. 18, about twenty or thirty minutes to the south-west of Ain Hajla, in a " level and barren steppe" (Seetzen, R. ii. p. 302), with which the name very well agrees (see also Rob. Pal. ii. pp. 268 sqq.). " And the border went up to the stone of Bohan, the son of Reuben." The expression " went up " shows that the stone of Bohan must have been on higher ground, i.e. near the western mountains, though the opposite expression " went down" in chap, xviii. 17 shows that it must have been by the side of the mountain, and not upon the top. According to chap, xviii. 18, 19, the border went over from the stone of Bohan in an easterly direction " to the shoulder over against (Beth) Arabah northwards, and went down to (Beth) Arabah, and then went over to the shoulder of Beth-hagla northwards" i.e. on the north side of the mountain ridge of Beth-arabah and Beth-hagla. This rid^e is " the chain of hills or downs which runs from Kasr Hajla towards the south to the north side of the Dead Sea, and is called Katar Hhadije, i.e. a row of camels harnessed together." — Ver. 7. The boundary ascended still farther to Debir from the valley of Achor. Debir is no doubt to be sought for by the Wady Daber, which runs down from the mountains to the Dead Sea to the south of Kasr Hajla, possibly not far from the rocky grotto called Choret ed Daber, between the Wady es Sidr and the Khan Chadrur on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, about half-way between the two. On the valley of Achor see at chap. vii. 24. Then "it turned northwards to Gilgal, opposite to the ascent of Adummim south of the brook.9* Gilgal, which must not be confounded, as it is by Knobel, with the first encampment of the Israelites in Canaan, viz. the Gilgal between Jericho and the Jordan, is called Geliloth in chap, xviii. 17. The situation of this place, which is only mentioned again in Judg. iii. 19, and was certainly not a town, probably only a village or farm, is defined more precisely by the clause " opposite to the ascent of Adummim" Maaleh Adummim, which is correctly explained in the Onom. (s. v. Adommim) as avaftaais iruppcov, ascensus rufforum, u was formerly a small villa, but is now a heap of ruins, which is called even to the present day Maledomim — on the road from ^Elia to Jericho " (Tobler). It is mentioned by ancient travellers as an inn called a terra ruff a, i.e. "the red earth;" terra russo, or "the red house." By later travellers it is described as a small place named Adomim, being still called " the red field, because this is the colour of the ground; writh a large square building like a monastery still standing there, which was in fact at one time a fortified monastery, though it is deserted now" (Arvieux, Merk. Nachr. ii. p. 154). It is the present ruin of Kalaat el Dem, to the north of the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, or Kalaat ed Domm, near the Khan CJiadrur. Gilgal, or Geliloth (circle), was probably the " small round valley " or " field of A dommim" of which Pococke speaks as being at the foot of the hill on which the deserted inn was standing (viz. ed Domm; see Pococke, Reise ins Morgenland, ii. p. 46). The valley (nachal, rendered river) to the south of which Gilgal or the ascent of Adummim lav, and which was therefore to the north of these places, may possibly be the Wady Kelt, or the brook of Jericho in the upper part of its course, as we have only to go a quarter or half an hour to the east of Khan Chadrur, when a wide and splendid prospect opens towards the south across the Wady Kelt as far as Taiyibeh; and according to Van de Veldes map, a brook-valley runs in a northerly direction to the Wady Kelt on the north-east of Kalaat ed Dem. It is probable, however, that the reference is to some other valley, of which there are a great many in the neighbourhood. The boundary then passed over to the water of En Shemesh (sun-fountain), i.e. the present Apostle's Well, Ain el Hodh or Bir el Khot, below Bethany, and on the road to Jericho (Toller, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 398, 400; Van de Velde, Mem. p. 310), and then ran out at the fountain of Rogel (the spies), the present deep and copious fountain of Job or Nehemiah at the south-east corner of Jerusalem, below the junction of the valley of Ilinnom and the valley of Jehoshaphat or Kedron valley (see Rob. Pal. i. p. 491, and Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 50 sqq.). — Ver. 8. It then went up into the more elevated valley of Ben-hinnom, on the south side of the Jebusite town, i.e. Jerusalem (see at chap. x. 1), and still farther up to the top of the mountain which rises on the west of the valley of Ben-hinnom, and at the farthest extremity of the plain of Rephaim towards the north. The valley of Ben-hin- 710771, or Bne-hin7iom (the son or sons of Hinnom), on the south side of Mount Zion, a place which was notorious from the time of Ahaz as the seat of the worship of Moloch (2 Kings xxiii. 10; 2 Chron. xxviii. 3, xxxiii. 6; Jer. vii. 31, etc.), is supposed to have derived its name from a man who had possessions there, but of whom nothing further is known (see Robinson, Pal. i. pp. 402 sqq.). The plain of Repluu77i (LXX. <yfj 'Pacpaeiv, in 2 Sam. v. 18, 22, xxiii. 13 KoiXas to)v TirdvcDv), probably named after the gigantic race of Rephai77i, and mentioned several times in 2 Sam. as a battle-field, is on the west of Jerusalem, and is separated from the edge of the valley of Ben-hi>i7io?n by a small ridge of rock. It runs southwards to Mar JElias, is an hour long, half an hour broad, and was very fertile (Isa. xvii. 5); in fact, even to the present day it is carefully cultivated (see Rob. Pal. i. p. 323; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii pp. 401 sqq.). It is bounded on the north by the mountain ridge already mentioned, which curves westwards on the left side of the road to Jaffa. This mountain ridge, or one of the peaks, is " the mountain on the west of the valley of Hinnom," at the northern end of the plain referred to. — Yer. 9. From this mountain height the boundary turned to the fountain of the waters of Nephtoah, i.e., according to Van de Velde s Mem. p. 336, the present village of Liftah (7iun and lamed being interchanged, according to a wellknown law), an hour to the north-west of Jerusalem, where there is a copious spring, called by the name of Samuel, which not only supplies large basons, but waters a succession of blooming gardens (Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 758 sqq.; Dieterici, Reisebilder, ii. pp. 221-2). It then "went out to the toums of Mount Ephraimf which is not mentioned again, but was probably the steep and lofty mountain ridge on the west side of the Wady Beit Ila7wia (Tere- binth valley), upon which Kulonia, a place which the road to Joppa passes, Kastal on a lofty peak of the mountain, the fortress of Milane, Soba, and other places stand (Seetzeny R. ii. pp. 64, 65; Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 158). The boundary then ran to Baala, i.e. Kirjath-jearim, the modern Kureyet el Enab, three hours to the north-west of Jerusalem (see at chap. ix. 17). — Ver. 10. From tin's point " the boundary (which had hitherto gone in a north-westerly direction) turned westwards to Mount Seir, and went out to the shoulder northwards (i.e. to the northern side) of IIar-jearimy that is Chesaloiiy and went down to Beth-shemesh, and passed over to Timnali" Mount Seir is the ridge of rock to the south-west of Kureyet el Enab, a lofty ridge composed of rugged peaks, with a wild and desolate appearance, upon which Saris and Mishir are situated (Rob. Bibl. lies. p. 155). Chesalon is the present Kesla on the summit of a mountain, an elevated point of the lofty ridge between Wady Ghurdb and Ismail, south-west of Kureyet el Enab (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 154). Beth-shemesh (i.e. sun-house), a priests' city in the territory of Judah (chap. xxi. 16; 1 Chron. vi. 44), is the same as Ir-shemesh (chap. xix. 41), a place on the border of Dan, where the ark was deposited by the Philistines (1 Sam. vi. 9 sqq.), and where Amaziah was slain by Joash (2 Kings xiv. 11, 12; 2 Chron. xxv. 21). It was conquered by the Philistines in the time of Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 18). According to the Onom. it was ten Roman miles, i.e. four hours, from Eleutheropolis towards Nicopolis. It is the present A in Shems, upon a plateau in a splendid situation, two hours and a half to the south-west of Kesla (Rob. Pal. iii. p. 17; Bibl. Res. p. 153). Timnah, or Timnatah, belonged to Dan (chap. xix. 43); and it was thence that Samson fetched his wife (Judg. xiv. 1 sqq.). It is the present Tibneh, three-quarters of an hour to the west of Ain Shems (Rob. Pal. i. p. 344). — Ver. 11. Thence "the border went out towards the north-west to the shoulder of Ekron (Akir: see at chap. xiii. 3), then bent to Shichron, passed over to Mount Baalah, and went out to Jabneeir Shichron is possibly Sugheir, an hour to the south-west of Jebna (Knobel). But if this is correct, the mountain of Baalah cannot be the short range of hills to the west of Akir which runs almost parallel with the coast (Rob. Pal. iii. p. 21), as Knobel supposes; but must be a mountain on the south side of the Wady Surar, since the boundary had already crossed this wady between Ekron and Shichron. Jabneel is the Philistine town of Jabneh, the walls of which were demolished by Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 6), a place frequently mentioned in the books of Maccabees as well as by Josephus under the name of Jamnia. It still exists as a good-sized village, under the name of Jeb?iah, upon a small eminence on the western side of Nahr Rubin, four hours to the south of Joppa, and an hour and a half from the sea (Rob. Pal. iii. p. 22). From Jabneh the boundary went out to the (Mediterranean) Sea, probably along the course of the great valley, i.e. the Nahr Rubin, as Robinson supposes (Pal. ii. p. 343). The western boundary was the Great Sea, i.e. the Mediterranean.

Vers. 13-19. The account of the conquest of the inheritance, which Caleb asked for and received before the lots were cast for the land (chap. xiv. G-15), by the extermination of the Anakites from Hebron, and the capture of the fortified town of Debir, is repeated with very slight differences in Judg. i. 10-15, in the enumeration of the different conflicts in which the separate tribes engaged after the death of Joshua, in order to secure actual possession of the inheritance which had fallen to them by lot, and is neither copied from our book by the author of the book of Judges, nor taken from Judges by the author of Joshua; but both of them have drawn it from one common source, upon which the accounts of the conquest of Canaan contained in the book of Joshua are generally founded. — Ver. 13. As an introduction to the account of the conquest of Hebron and Debir, the fact that they gave Caleb his portion among the sons of Judah, namely Hebron, is first of all repeated from chap. xiv. 13. 10} impers., they gave, i.e. Joshua (chap. xiv. 13). The words " according to the command of Jehovah to Joshua" are to be explained from chap. xiv. 9-12, according to which Jehovah had promised, in the hearing of Joshua, to give Caleb possession of the mountains of Hebron, even when they were at Kadesh (chap. xiv. 12). The " father of Anak" is the tribe father of the family of Anakites in Hebron, from whom this town received the name of Kirjath-arba; see at Num. xiii. 22 and Gen. xxiii. 2. — Ver. 14. Thence, i.e. out of Hebron, Caleb drove (V~}% i.e. rooted out: cf. CP, Judg. i. 10) the three sons of Anak, i.e. families of the Anakites, whom the spies that were sent out from Kadesh had already found there (Num. xiii. 22). Instead of Caleb, we find the sons of Judah (Judaeans) generally mentioned in Judg. i. 10 as the persons who drove out the Anakites, according to the plan of the history in that book, to describe the conflicts in which the several tribes engaged with the Canaanites. But the one does not preclude the other. Caleb did not take Hebron as an individual, but as the head of a family of Judaeans, and with their assistance. Nor is there any discrepancy between this account and the fact stated in chap. xi. 21, 22, that Joshua had already conquered Hebron, Debir, and all the towns of that neighbourhood, and had driven out the Anakites from the mountains of Judah, and forced them back into the towns of the Philistines, as Knobel fancies. For that expulsion did not preclude the possibility of the Anakites and Canaanites returning to their former abodes, and taking possession of the towns again, when the Israelitish army had withdrawn and was engaged in the war with the Canaanites of the north; so that when the different tribes were about to settle in the towns and districts allotted to them, they were obliged to proceed once more to drive out or exterminate the Anakites and Canaanites who had forced their way in again (see the remarks on chap. x. 38, 39, p. 117, note). — Vers. 15, 16. From Hebron Caleb went against the inhabitants of Debir, to the south of Hebron. This town, which has not yet been discovered (see at chap. x. 38), must have been very strong and hard to conquer; for Caleb offered a prize to the conqueror, promising to give his daughter Achzah for a wife to any one that should take it, just as Saul afterwards promised to give his daughter to the conqueror of Goliath (1 Sam. xvii. 25, xviii. 17). — Ver. 17. Othniel took the town and received the promised prize. Othniel, according to Judg. iii. 9 the first judge of the Israelites after Joshua's death, is called 3^>3 ^nN MP j3 i.e. either " the son of Kenaz (and) brother of Caleb," or " the son of Kenaz the brother of Caleb.'' The second rendering is quite admissible (comp. 2 Sam. xiii. 3, 32, with 1 Chron. ii. 13), but the former is the more usual; and for this the Masorites have decided, since they have separated acid Caleb from ben-Kenaz by a tiphcJiah. And this is the correct one, as " the son of Kenaz" is equivalent to " the Kenizzite" (chap. xiv. 6). According to Judg. i. 13 and iii. 9, Othniel was Caleb's younger brother. Caleb gave him his daughter for a wife, as marriage with a brother's daughter was not forbidden in the law (see my Bibl. Archaol. ii. § 107, note 14). — Vers. 18, 19. When Achzah had become his wife (" as she came" i.e. on her coming to Othniel, to live with him as wife), she urged him to ask her father for a field. " A field:" in Judg. i. 14 we find " the field," as the writer had the particular field in his mind. This was not " the field belonging to the town of Debir" {Knobel), for Othniel had no need to ask for this, as it naturally went with the town, but a piece of land that could be cultivated, or, as is shown in what follows, one that was not deficient in springs of water. "What Othniel did is not stated, but only what Achzah did to attain her end, possibly because her husband could not make up his mind to present the request to her father. She sprang from the ass upon which she had ridden when her father brought her to Othniel. n:v which only occurs again in Judg. iv. 21, and in the parallel passage, Judg. i. 14, is hardly connected with VN, to be lowly or humble (Ges.); the primary meaning is rather that suggested by Fiirst, to force one's self, to press away, or further; and hence in this case the meaning is, to spring down quickly from the animal she had ridden, like 7Q3 in Gen. xxiv. 64. Alighting from an animal was a special sign of reverence, from which Caleb inferred that his daughter had some particular request to make of him, and therefore asked her what she wanted: " What is to thee?" or, " What ivilt thou?" She then asked him for a blessing (as in 2 Kings v. 15); " for" sne added, " thou hast given me into barren land." 333 n jn» (rendered a south land) is accus. loci; so that negeb is not to be taken as a proper name, signifying the southernmost district of Canaan (as in ver. 21, etc.), but as an appellative, u the dry or arid land," as in Ps. cxxvi. 4. " Give me springs of water," i.e. a piece of land with springs of water in it. Caleb then gave her the " upper springs and lower springs: this was the name given to a tract of land in which there wTere springs on both the higher and lower ground. It must have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of Debir, though, like the town itself, it has not yet been found. — Ver. 20 contains the closing formula to vers. 1-19, i.e. to the description of the territory of Judah by its boundaries (yid. chap. xviii. 20).

In vers. 21-63 there follows a list of the towns of the tribe of Judah, arranged in the four districts into which the land was divided, according to the nature of the soil, viz. the south-land (negeb), the lowland (shephelah) on the Mediterranean Sea, the mountains, and the desert of Judah.

Vers. 21-32. The towns in the south land. — Negeb (south-land) was the name given to the southernmost district of Canaan in its full extent, from the Arabah, at the southern end of the Dead Sea, right across to the coast of the Mediterranean, and from the southern border of Canaan, as described in vers. 2-4, as far north as Wady Sheriah, below Gaza, on the western side, and up to the mountains and desert of Judah on the east, stretching across the wadys of es Seba, Milh, and Ehdeib, above which that part of

Palestine commences where rain is more abundant, and to which, as we have already observed at Num. xiii. 17, the Negeb formed a kind of intermediate link between the fertile land and the desert. It was a line of steppe-land, with certain patches here and there that admitted of cultivation, but in which tracts of heath prevailed, for the most part covered with grass and bushes, where only grazing could be carried on with any success. The term which Eusebius and Jerome employ for Negeb in the Onom. is Daromas, but they carry it farther northwards than the Negeb of the Old Testament (see JReland, Pal. 111. pp. 185 sqq.). The numerous towns mentioned in vers. 21-32 as standing in the Negeb, may none of them have been large or of any importance. In the list before us we find that, as a rule, several names are closely connected together by the copula vav, and in this way the whole may be divided into four separate groups of towns.

Vers. 21-23. First group of nine places. — Yer. 21. The towns "from" i.e. at " the end of the tribe- territory of Judah, towards the territory of Edom" Kabzeel: the home of the hero Benaiah (2 Sam. xxiii. 20), probably identical with Jekabzeel, which is mentioned in Neh. xi. 25 in connection with Dibon, but has not been discovered. This also applies to Eder and Jagur. — Yer. 22. Kinah: also unknown. Knobel connects it with the town of the Kenites, who settled in the domain of Arad, but this is hardly correct; for with the exception of Judg. i. 16, where the Kenites are said to have settled in the south of Arad, though not till after the division of the land, the Kenites are always found in the western portion of the Negeb (1 Sam. xv. 6, xxvii. 10, xxx. 29), whereas Kinah is unquestionably to be looked for in the east. Dimonah, probably the same as Dibon (Neh. xi. 25); possibly the ruins of el Dheib, on the south side of the wady of the same name, to the north-east of Arad (V. de Velde, Mem. p. 252), although Robinson (Pal. ii. p. 473) writes the name Ehdeib. Adadah is quite unknown. — Yer. 23. Kedesh, possibly Kadesh-barnea (ver. 3). Hazor might then be Hezron, in the neighbourhood of Kadesh-barnea (ver. 3). Ithnan is unknown.

Yers. 24, 25. Second group of five or six places. — Of these, Ziph and Telem are not met with again, unless Telem is the same as Telaim, where Saul mustered his army to go against the Amalekites (1 Sam. xv. 4). Their situation is unknown. There was another Ziph upon the mountains (see ver. 55). Knobel supposes the one mentioned here to be the ruins of Kuseifeh, to the south-west of Arad (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 020). Ziph would then be contracted from Ceziph; but the contraction of Achzib (chap. xix. 29) into Zib does not present a corresponding analogy, as in that case the abbreviated form is the later one, whereas in the case of Ziph a lengthening of the name must have taken place by the addition of a K. Bealoth, probably the same as the Simeonitish Baaloth-beer (chap. xix. 8), which is called Baal simply in 1 Chron. iv. 33, and which was also called Ramath-negeb (chap. xix. 8) and Ramoth-uegeb (1 Sam. xxx. 27). It is not to be identified with Baalath, however (chap. xix. 45; 1 Kings ix. 18), as V. de Velde supposes (Reise, ii. pp. 151-2). Knobel fancies it may be the ridge and place called Kubbet el Baal, between Milh and Kurnub (Rob. ii. p. 617); but Baal and Baal are very different. Hazor Hadatta (Chazor Chadathah), i.e. new Hazor, might be the ruins of el Iladhaira on the south of Jebel Khulil (Rob. Appendix). Kenoth was supposed by Robinson (Pal. ii. p. 472, and Appendix) to be the ruins of el Kuryetein, on the north-east of Arad and at the foot of the mountains, and with this V. de Velde agrees. Reland (Pal. p. 708) connects the following word Hezron with Kenoth, so as to read Kenoth-hezron, i.e. Hezron's towns, also called Hazor. This is favoured by the Sept. and Syriac, in which the two words are linked together to form one name, and probably by the Chaldee as well, also by the absence of the copula vav (and) before Hezron, which is not omitted anywhere else throughout this section, except at the beginning of the different groups of towns, as, for example, before Ziph in ver. 24, and Amain in ver. 26, and therefore ought to stand before Hezron if it is an independent town. The Masoretic pointing cannot be regarded as a decisive proof of the contrary.

Vers. 26-28. Third group of nine towns. — Ver. 26. Amam is not mentioned again, and is quite unknown. Shema, which is called Sheba in chap. xix. 2, and is mentioned among the towns of the Simeonites between Beersheba and Moladah, is supposed by Knobel to be the ruins of Sadwe (Sdweh) between Milh and Beersheba (see V. de Velde, ii. p. 148). Molada, which was given to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 2; 1 Chron. iv. 28) and was still inhabited by Jews after the captivity (Neh. xi. 26), was the later MdXaBa, an Idumgean fortress (Josephus, Ant. xviii. 6, 2), which Easebias and Jerome describe as being twenty Roman miles, i.e. eight hours, to the south of Hebron on the road to Aila (Elath). It has been identified by Robinson (Pal. ii. p. 621) in the ruins of el Milh, by the Wady Malaih or Malahh. — Ver. 27. Ilazar-gaddah, Heshmon, and Beth-palet have not yet been identified. The last of the three is mentioned again in Neh. xi. 26, by the side of Molada, as still inhabited by Judaeans. — Yer. 28. Hazar-shual, i.e. fox-court, which was assigned to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 3) and still inhabited after the captivity (Neh. xi. 27), answers, so far as the name is concerned, to the ruins of Thdly (Rob. Pal. iii. App.). Beersheba, which was a well-known place in connection with the history of the patriarchs (Gen. xxi. 14 sqq., xxii. 19, etc.), and is frequently mentioned afterwards as the southern boundary of the land of Israel (Judg. xx. 1; 2 Sam. xvii. 11, etc.), was also given up to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 2), and still inhabited after the captivity (Neh. xi. 27). It is the present Bir es Seba on the Wady es Seba (see at Gen. xxi. 31). Bizjothjah is unknown.

Vers. 29-32. The four groups of thirteen towns in the western portion of the Negeb. — Ver. 29. Baalah, which was assigned to the Simeonites, is called Balah in chap. xix. 3, and Bilhah in 1 Chron. iv. 29. Knobel identifies it with the present Deir Belah, some hours to the south-west of Gaza (Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 41, 42); but it cannot have been so far to the west, or so near the coast as this. Iim (or Ivvim, according to the Avei^i of the LXX.) is probably the ruins of Beit-auwa (Rob. iii. App.). Azem, which was also given up to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 3; 1 Chron. iv. 29), is supposed by Knobel to be Eboda} the present Abdeh, eight hours to the south of Elusa, a considerable mass of ruins on a ridge of rock (Rob. i. p. 287), because the name signifies firmness or strength, which is also the meaning of the Arabic name — a very precarious reason. — Ver. 30. Eltolad, which was given to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 4), and is called Tolad (without the Arabic article) in 1 Chron. iv. 29, has not been discovered. Chesil, for which the LXX. have BcuOrfK, is probably, as Reland supposes, simply another name, or as Knobel suggests a corrupt reading, for Bethul or Bethuel, which is mentioned in chap. xix. 4 and 1 Chron. iv. 30, between Eltolad and Uormah, as a town of the Simeonites, and the same place as Beth-el in 1 Sam. xxx. 27 As this name points to the seat of some ancient sanctuary, and there was an idol called Khalasa worshipped by the Arabs before the time of Mahomet, and also because Jerome observes (vita Hilar. c. 25) that there was a temple of Venus at Elusa, in which the Saracens worshipped Lucifer (see Tuchy Deutsch. Morgenl. Ztschr. iii. pp. 194 sqq.), Knobel supposes Bethul (Chesil) to be Elusa, a considerable collection of ruins five hours and a half to the south of Beersheba (see Rob. i. p. 296): assuming first of all that the name el Khulasa, as the Arabs called this place, was derived from the Mahometan idol already referred to; and secondly, that the Saracen Lucifer mentioned by Jerome was the very same idol whose image and temple Janhari and Kamus call el Khalasa. Ilormah: i.e. Zephoth, the present Sepata (see at chap. xii. 14). Ziklag, which was assigned to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 5; 1 Chron. iv. 30), burnt down by the Amalekites (1 Sam. xxx. 1 sqq.), and still inhabited after the captivity (Neh. xi. 28), is supposed by Rowland to be the ancient place called Asluj or Kasluj, a few hours to the east of Zepata, with which Knobel, however, in a most remarkable manner, identifies the Asluj to the south-west of Milh on the road to Abdeh, which is more than thirty-five miles distant (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 621). Both places are too far to the south and east to suit Ziklag, which is to be sought for much farther west. So far as the situation is concerned, the ruins of Tell Sheriah or Tell Mellala, one of which is supposed by V. de Velde to contain the relics of Ziklag, would suit much better; or even, as Ritter supposes (Erdk. xvi. pp. 132-3), Tell el Hasy, which is half an hour to the south-west of Ajlan, and in which Felix Fabri found the ruins of a castle and of an ancient town, in fact of the ancient Ziklag, though Robinson (i. pp. 389 sqq.) could discover nothing that indicated in any way the existence of a town or building of any kind. Madmannah and Sansannah cannot be traced with any certainty. Madmannah, which is confounded in the Onom. (s. v. Medemena) with Madmena, a place to the north of Jerusalem mentioned in Isa. x. 31, though elsewhere it is correctlyxlescribed as Menois oppidum juocta civitatem Gazam, has probably been preserved in the present Miniay or Minieh, to the south of Gaza. Sansannah, Knobel compares with the Wady Suni, mentioned by Robinson (i. p. 299), to the south of Gaza, which possibly received its name from some town in the neighbourhood. But in the place of them we find Beth-mar •caboth (i.e. carriage-house) and Hazar-susa (i.e. horse-court) mentioned in chap. xix. 5 and 1 Chron. iv. 31 among the towns of the Simeonites, which Reland very properly regards as the same as Madmannah and Sansannah, since it is very evident from the meaning of the former names that they were simply secondary names, which were given to them as stations for carriages and horses. — Ver. 32. Lebaoth, one of the Simeonite towns, called Beth-lebaoth (i.e. lion -house) in chap. xix. 6, and Beth-birci in 1 Chron. iv. 31, has not been discovered yet. Shilchim, called Sharuchen in chap. xix. 6, and Shaaraim in 1 Chron. iv. 31, may possibly have been preserved in Tell Sheriah, almost half-way between Gaza and Beersheba (V. de Velde, ii. p. 154). Ain and Rimmon are given as. Simeonite towns, and being written without the copula, are treated as one name in chap. xix. 7 and 1 Chron. iv. 32, although they are reckoned as two separate towns in chap. xix. 7. But as they were also called En Rimmon after the captivity, and are given as one single place in Neh. xi. 29, they were probably so close together that in the course of time they grew into one. Rimmon, which is mentioned in Zech. xiv. 10 as the southern boundary of Judah, probably the Eremmon of the Onom. (" a very large village of the Judaeans, sixteen miles to the south of Eleutheropolis in Daroma "), was probably the present ruin called Um er Rummanim, four hours to the north of Beersheba (Rob. iii. p. 8). Not more than thirty or thirty-five minutes distant from this, between Tell Khuweilifeh {Rob. iii. p. 8) or Chewelfeh (V. de Velde) and Tell Ilhora, you find a large old but half-destroyed well, the large stones of which seem to belong to a very early period of the Israelitish history (V. de Velde, ii. p. 153). This was mentioned as a very important drinking-place even in the lifetime of Saladin, whilst to the present day the Tiyalah Arabs water their flocks there (see Rob. iii. p. 8). To all appearance this was Ain (see V. de Velde, Mem. p. 344). a All the cities ivere twenty and nine, and their villages." This does not agree with the number of towns mentioned by name, which is not twenty-nine, but thirty-six; so that the number twenty-nine is probably an error of the text of old standing, which has arisen from a copyist confounding together different numeral letters that resembled one another.1

1 Some commentators and critics explain this difference on the supposition that originally the list contained a smaller number of names (only twentynine), but that it was afterwards enlarged by the addition of several other places by a different hand, whilst the number of the whole was left just as it was before. But such a conjecture presupposes greater thoughtlessness on the part of the editor than we have any right to attribute to the author of our book. If the author himself made these additions to his original sources, as Havernick supposes, or the Jehovist completed the author's list from his second document, as Knobel imagines, either the one or the other would certainly have altered the sum of the whole, as he has not proceeded in so thoughtless a manner in any other case. The only way in which this conjecture could be defended, would be by supposing, as J. D. Michaelis and others have done, that the names added were originally placed in the margin, and that these marginal glosses were afterwards interpolated by some thoughtless copyist into the

Vers. 33-47. Towns in the lowland or shephelah. — The lowland (shephelah), which is generally rendered rj irehwr) in the Sept., rarely to irehiov (Deut. i. 7), but which is transferred as a proper name y %e(f)7]\d in Obad. 19, Jer. xxxii. 44, xxxiii. 13, as well as in 1 Mace. xii. 38, where even Lutlier has Sephela, is the name given to the land between the mountains of Judah and the Mediterranean Sea, — a broad plain of undulating appearance, intersected by heights and low ranges of hills, with fertile soil, in which corn fields alternate with meadows, gardens, and extensive olive groves. It is still tolerably well cultivated, and is covered with villages, which are situated for the most part upon the different hills. Towards the south, the sheplielah was bounded by the Negeb (ver. 21); on the north, it reached to Ramleh and Lydda, or Diospolis, where the plain of Sharon began, — a plain which extended as far as Carmel, and was renowned for the beauty of its flowers. Towards the east the hills multiply and shape themselves into a hilly landscape, which forms the intermediate link between the mountains and the plain, and which is distinguished from the shephelah itself, in chap. x. 40 and xii. 8, under the name of Ashedoth, or slopes, whereas here it is reckoned as forming part of the shephelah. This hilly tract is more thickly studded with villages than even the actual plain. (See Rob. Pal. ii. p. 363, and iii. p. 29.) The towns in the shephelah are divided into four groups.

Vers. 33-36. The first group contains the towns in the northern part of the hilly region or slopes, which are reckoned as forming part of the lowland: in all, fourteen towns. The most northerly part of this district was given up to the tribe of Dan on the second division (chap. xix. 41 sqq.). Eshtaol and Zoreah, which were assigned to the tribe of Dan (chap. xix. 41), and were partly in- text. But this conjecture is also rendered improbable by the circumstance that, in the lists of towns contained in our book, not only do other differences of the same kind occur, as in ver. 36, where we find only fourteen instead of fifteen, and in chap. xix. 6, where only thirteen are given instead of fourteen, but also differences of the very opposite kind, — namely, where the gross sum given is larger than the number of names, as, for example, in chap. xix. 15, where only five names are given instead of twelve, and in chap. xix. 38, where only sixteen are given instead of nineteen, and where it can be shown that there are gaps in the text, as towns are omitted which the tribes actually received and ceded to the Levites. If we add to this the fact that there are two large gaps in our Masoretic text in chap. xv. 59, 60, and xxi. 35, which proceed from copyists, and also that many errors occur in the numbers given in other historical books of the Old Testament, we are not warranted in tracing the differences in ques~ tion to any other cause than errors in the text.

habited by Danites (Judg. xiii. 25, xviii. 2, 8, 11) and partly by families of Judah, who had gone out from Kirjath-jearim (1 Chron. ii. 53, iv. 2), probably after the removal of the 600 Danites to Laish-Dan (chap. xix. 47; Judg. xviii.), were situated, according to the Onom. (s. v. Esthaul and Saara), ten Roman miles to the north of Eleutheropolis, on the road to Nicopolis. Zoreah, the home of Samson, who was buried between Zoreah and Eshtaol (Judg. xiii. 2, xvi. 31), was fortified by Rehoboam, and still inhabited by Judseans after the captivity (2 Chron. xi. 10; Neh. xi. 29); it has been preserved in the ruins of Surd, at the south-western end of the mountain range which bounds the Wady es Surar on the north {Rob. ii. p. 341, and Bibl. Res. p. 153). Eshtaol has probably been preserved in Um Eshteiyeh, to the south-west {Rob. ii. p. 342). Aslinah is possibly to be read Ashvah, according to the LXX., Cod. Vat. (^'Aaoa). In that case it might resemble a town on the east of Zorea (Tobler, p. 180), as Knobel supposes. — Yer. 34. Zanoah was still inhabited by Judseans after the captivity (Neh. xi. 30, iii. 13), and is the present Zanua, not far from Zoreah, towards the east (see Rob. ii. p. 343). Engannim and Tappuah are still unknown. Enam, the same as Enabn (Gen. xxxviii. 14: rendered " an open place"), on the road from Adullam to Timnah on the mountains (ver. 57), has not yet been discovered. — Ver. 35. Jarmuth, i.e. Jarmuk; see chap. x. 3. Adullam has not yet been discovered with certainty (see at chap. xii. 15). Socoh, which was fortified by Rehoboam, and taken by the Philistines in the reign of Ahaz (2 Chron. xi. 7, xxviii. 18), is the present Shuweikeh by the Wady Sumt, half an hour to the south-west of Jarmuk, three hours and a half to the south-west of Jerusalem (see Rob. ii. pp. 343, 349). The Onom. (s. v. Socoh) mentions two viculi named Sochoth, one upon the mountain, the other in the plain, nine Roman miles from Eleutheropolis on the road to Jerusalem. On Azekah, see at chap. x. 10. — Ver. 36. Sharaim, which was on the west of Socoh and Azekah, according to 1 Sam. xvii. 52, and is called Sa/capl/j, or Sapyapelfi in the Sept., is probably to be sought for in the present Tell Zakariya and the village of Kefr Zakariya opposite, between which there is the broad deep valley called Wady Sumt, which is only twenty minutes in breadth (Rob. ii. p. 350). This is the more probable as the Hebrew name is a dual. Adithaim is unknown. Gederah is possibly the same as the Gederoth which was taken by the Philistines in the time of Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 18), and the Gedrus of the Onom. (s. v. Gcedur} or Gahedur), ten Roman miles to the south of Diospolis, on the road to Eleutheropclis, as the Gederoth in ver. 41 was in the actual plain, and therefore did not stand between Diospolis and Eleutheropolis. Gederoth aim is supposed by Winer, Knobel, and others, to be an ancient gloss. This is possible no doubt, but it is not certain, as neither the omission of the name from the Sept., nor the circumstance that the full number of towns is given as fourteen, and that this is not the number obtained if we reckon Gederothaim, can be adduced as a decisive proof, since this difference may have arisen in the same manner as the similar discrepancy in ver. 32.

Vers. 37-41. The second group, containing the towns of the actual plain in its full extent from north to south, between the hilly region and the line of coast held by the Philistines: sixteen towns in all. — Ver. 37. Zenan, probably the same as Zaanan (Micah i. 11), is supposed by Knobel to be the ruins of Chirbet-es-Senat, a short distance to the north of Beit-jibrin (Tobler, Dritte Wand. p. 124). Hadashah, according to the Mishnah Erub. v. vi. the smallest place in Judah, containing only fifty houses, is unknown, and a different place from the Adasa of 1 Mace. vii. 40, 45, and Joseph. Ant. xii. 10, 5, as this was to the north of Jerusalem (Onom.). — Migdal-gad is unknown. Knobel supposes it to be the small hill called Jedeideh, with ruins upon it, towards the north of Beit-jibrin ( V. de Velde, R. ii. pp. 162, 188). — Ver. 38. Dilean is unknown; for -Bet Dula, three full hours to the east of Beit-jibrin, with some relics of antiquity (Tobler, pp. 150-1), with which Knobel identifies it, is upon the mountains and not in the plain. Mizpeh, i.e. specula, a different place from the Mizpeh of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 26), was on the north of Eleutheropolis, according to the Onom. (s. v. Maspha), and therefore may possibly be the castle Alba Specula, or Alba Custodia of the middle ages, the present Tell es Saphieh, in the middle of the plain and upon the top of a lofty hill, from which there is an extensive prospect in all directions (see Rob. ii. p. 363). Joktheel has possibly been preserved in the ruins of Keitidaneh (Rob. Pal. iii. App.), which are said to lie in that neighbourhood. — Ver. 39. Lachish, i.e. Um Lakis (see at chap. x. 3). Bozkath is unknown: according to Knobel, it may possibly be the ruins of Tubakah, on the south of Um Lakis and Ajlan {Rob. ii. pp. 388, 648). Eglon, i.e. Ajlan; see at chap. x. 3. — Ver. 40. Cabbon, probably the heap of ruins called Kubeibeh or Kebeibeh, " which must at some time or other have been a strong fortification, and have formed the key to the central mountains of Judah" (V. de

Velde9 R. ii. p. 156), and which lie to the south of Beit-jibrin, and two hours and a half to the east of Ajlan (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 394). Lachmas: according to Knohel a corruption of Lachmam, which is the reading given in many MSS. and editions, whilst the Vulgate has Leheman, and Luther (and the Eng. VerS) Lahmam. Knobel connects it with the ruins of el Lahem to the south of Beit-jibrin (Tobler). Kithlish (jChitlis) is unknown, unless it is to be found in Tell Chilchis, to the s.s.e. of Beit-jibrin (V. de Velde, R. ii. p. 157). — Ver. 41. Gederoth, Beth-dagon, and Naamah have not yet been traced. The village mentioned in the Onom. ($. v. Bethdagon) as grandis vicas Capher-dagon, and said to lie between Diospolis and Jamnia, the present Beit-dejan (Rob. iii. p. 30), was far beyond the northern boundary of the tribe of Judah. Makkedah: see at chap. x. 10.

Vers. 42-44. The third group, consisting of the towns in the southern half of the hilly region: nine towns. — Ver. 42. Libnah: see at chap. x. 29. Ether and Ashan, which were afterwards given to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 7), and are probably to be sought for on the border of the Negeb, have not yet been discovered. The conjecture that Ether is connected with the ruins of Attdrah (Rob. iii. App.) in the province of Gaza, is a very uncertain one. Ashan, probably the same as Kor-ashan (1 Sam. xxx. 30), became a priests' city afterwards (1 Chron. vi. 44; see at chap. xxi. 16). — Ver. 43. Jiphtah, Ashnahy and Nezib have not yet been traced. Beit-nesib, to the east of Beit-jibrin on the Wady Sur (Rob. ii. p. 344, and iii. p. 13), the Neesib of the Onom., seven Roman miles to the east of Eleutheropolis, does not suit this group so far as its situation is concerned, as it lies within the limits of the first group. — Ver. 44. Keilah, which is mentioned in the history of David (1 Sam. xxiii.), and then again after the captivity (Neh. iii. 17), is neither the KeeiXd, Ceila of the Onom., on the east of Eleutheropolis, the present Kila (Tobler, Dritte Wand. p. 151), which lies upon the mountains of Judah; nor is it to be found, as Knobel supposes, in the ruins of Jugaleh (Rob. iii. App.), as they lie to the south of the mountains of Hebron, whereas Keilah is to be sought for in the shephelah, or at all events to the west or south-west of the mountains of Hebron. Achzib (Micah i. 14), the same as Chesib (Gen. xxxviii. 5), has been preserved in the ruins at Kussdbeh, a place with a fountain (Rob. n. p. 391), i.e. the fountain of Kesaba, about five hours south by west from Beit-jibrin. 31areshah, which was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 8; cf. Micah i. 15), and was the place where

Asa defeated Zerah the Ethiopian (2 Chroi. xiv. 9), the home of Eliezer (2 Chron. xx. 37), and afterwards the important town of Marissa (see v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 211-12), was between Hebron and Ashdod, since Judas Maccaba3us is represented in 1 Mace. v. 65-68 (where the reading should be Maplaaav instead of Sa^dpetav, according to Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, 6) as going from Hebron through Marissa into the land of the Philistines, and turning to Ashdod. According to the Onom. (s. v. Mareshah), it was lying in ruins in the time of Eusebius, and was about two Roman miles from Eleutheropolis, — a description which applies exactly to the ruins of Maresh, twenty-four minutes to the south of Beit-jibrin, which Robinson supposes for this reason to be Maresa (Rob. ii. p. 422), whereas Knobel finds it in Beit-mirsim, sl place four hours to the south of Beit-jibrin.1

Vers. 45-47. The fourth group, consisting of the towns of the Philistine line of coast, the northern part of which was afterwards given up to the tribe of Dan (chap. xix. 43), but which remained almost entirely in the hands of the Philistines (see at chap. xiii. 3). — Ver. 45. Ekron, i.e. Akir (see chap. xiii. 3). " Her daughters are the other towns of the principality of Ekron that were dependent upon the capital, and B^n the villages and farms. — Yer. 46. Judah was also to receive "from Ekron westwards all that lay on the side of Ashdod and their (i.e. Ekron's and Ashdod's) villages" The different places in this district are not given, because Judah never actuallyobtained possession of them. — Ver. 47. Ashdod, now Esdud, and Gaza, now Ghuzzeh: see at chap. xiii. 3. Also " the daughter towns

1 Knobel founds his opinion partly upon 2 Chron. xiv. 9, according to which Mareshah was in the valley of Zephatah, which is the bason-like plain at Mirsim, and partly upon the fact that the Onom. also places Moraste on the east (southeast) of Eleutheropolis; and Jerome (ad Mich. i. 1) describes Morasthi as Jiaud grandem viculum juxta Eleuiheropolin, and as sepulcrum quondam Michex prophetse nunc ecclesiam (ep. 108 ad Eustoch. § 14); and this ecclesia is in all probability the ruins of a church called Santa Hanneh, twenty minutes to the south-east of Beit-jibrin, and only ten minutes to the east of Marash, which makes the assumption a very natural one, that the Maresa and Morasthi of the fathers are only different parts of the same place, viz. of Moreseth-gath, the home of Micah (Micah i. 1, 14; Jer. xxvi. 18). But neither of these is decisive. The valley of Zephatah might be the large open plain which Hobinson mentions (ii. p. 355) near Beit-jibrin; and the conjecture that Morasthi, which Euseb. and Jer. place irpos dvetro'hoig, contra orientem Eleutheropoleos, is preserved in the ruins which lie in a straight line towards the south from Beit-jibrin, and are called Marash, has not much probability in it.

3 There is no fcrce in the reasons adduced by Ewald, Bertheau, and Knobel, and villages, unto the brook of Egypt (Wady el Arish: see ver. 4), and the great sea with its territory" i.e. the tract of land lying between Gaza and the coast of the Mediterranean. Gath and Askalon are not mentioned, because they are both of them included in the boundaries named. Askalon wa3 between Ashdod and Gaza, by the sea-coast (see at chap. xiii. 3), and Gath on the east of Ekron and Ashdod (see chap. xiii. 3), so that, as a matter of course, it was assigned to Judah.

Vers. 48-60. The towns on the mountains are divided into five, or more correctly, into six groups. The mountains of Judah, which rise precipitously from the Negeb, between the hilly district on the west, which is reckoned as part of the shephelah, and the desert of Judah, extending to the Dead Sea on the east (ver. 61), attain the height of 3000 feet above the level of the sea, in the neighbourhood of Hebron, and run northwards to the broad wady of Beit-hanina, above Jerusalem. They are a large rugged range of limestone mountains, with many barren and naked peaks, whilst the sides are for the most part covered with grass, shrubs, bushes, and trees, and the whole range is intersected by many very fruitful valleys. Josephus describes it as abounding in corn, fruit, and wine; and to the present day it contains many orchards, olive grounds, and vineyards, rising in terraces up the sides of the mountains, whilst the valleys and lower grounds yield plentiful harvests of wheat, millet, and other kinds of corn. In ancient times, therefore, the whole of this district was thickly covered with towns (see Bob. ii. pp. 185, 191-2, and C. v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 45 sqq.).

for regarding these verses as spurious, or as a later interpolation from a different source. For the statement, that the " Elohist" merely mentions those towns of which the Hebrews had taken possession, and which they held either partially or wholly in his own day, and also that his list of the places belonging to Judah in the shephelah never goes near the sea, are assertions without the least foundation, which are proved to be erroneous by the simple fact, that according to the express statement in ver. 12, the Mediterranean Sea, formed the western boundary of the tribe of Judah; and according to chap. xiii. 6, Joshua was to distribute by lot even those parts of Canaan which had not yet been conquered. The difference, however, which actually exists between the verses before us and the other groups of towns, namely, that in this case the " towns" (or daughters) are mentioned as well as the villages, and that the towns are not summed up at the end, may be sufficiently explained from the facts themselves, namely, from the circumstance that the Philistine cities mentioned were capitals of small principalities, which embraced not only villages, but also small towns, and for that very reason did not form connected groups, like the towns of the other districts.