Vers. 48-51. The first group consists of eleven towns on the south-west of the mountains. — Ver. 48. Shamir has probably been preserved in the ruins of Um Shaumerah, mentioned by Robinson (iii. App.), though the situation of these ruins has not yet been precisely determined. Jattir, which was given up to the priests (chap, xxi. 14), and is mentioned again in 1 Sam. xxx. 27, is described in the Onom. (s. v. Jether) as a large place inhabited by Christians, twenty miles from Eleutheropolis, in interiori Daroma juxta Malathan, — a description which suits the ruins of Attir, in the southern portion of the mountains (see Rob. ii. p. 194; called Ater by Seetzen, R. iii. p. 6). Socoh, two hours N.w. of this, the present Shuweikeh (Rob. ii. p. 194), called Sueche by Seetzen (R. iii. p. 29), a village about four hours from Hebron. — Ver. 49. Dannah (Sept., Syr., Renna) is unknown. Knobel imagines that Dannah should be Danah, for Deanah, plur. Deanoth, which would then be suggestive of Zanute, the last inhabited place upon the mountains, five hours from Hebron, between Shuweikeh and Attir (see Rob. ii. p. 626; Seetzen, iii. pp. 27, 29). Kirjath-sannah, or Debir, has not been traced (see at chap. x. 38). — Ver. 50. Anab, on the north-east of Socoh (see at chap. xi. 21). Eshtemoh, or Eshtemoa, which was ceded to the priests (chap. xxi. 14; 1 Chron. vi. 42), and is mentioned again in 1 Sam. xxx. 28, 1 Chron. iv. 17, 19, is the present Semua, an inhabited village, with remains of walls, and a castle of ancient date, on the east of Socoh (Rob. ii. pp. 194, 626; Seetzen, iii. 28; and v. Schubert, 11. ii. p. 458). Anim, contracted, according to the probable conjecture of Wilson, from Ay anim (fountains), a place still preserved in the ruins of the village of el Glmwein, on the south of Semua, though Robinson erroneously connects it with A in (ver. 32: see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 626). — Ver. 51. Goshen, Ilolon, and Giloh, are still unknown. On Goshen, see at chap. x. 41. Ilolon was given up to the priests (chap. xxi. 15; 1 Chron. vi. 43); and Giloh is mentioned in 2 Sam. xv. 12 as the birth-place of Ahithophel.
Vers. 52-54. The second group of nine towns, to the north of the former, in the country round Hebron. — Ver. 52. Arab is still unknown; for we cannot connect it, as Knobel does, with the ruins of Husn el Ghurab in the neighbourhood of Semua (Rob. i. p. 312), as these ruins lie within the former group of towns. Duma, according to Eusebius the largest place in the Daromas in his time, and seventeen miles from Eleutheropolis, is probably the ruined village of Daumeh, by the Wady Dilbeh (Rob. i. p. 314), which is fourteen miles in a straight line to the south-east of Eleutheropolis according to the map. Esau (Eshean) can hardly be identified with Asan (1 Chron. iv. 32), as Van de Velde supposes, but is more likely Korasan (1 Sam. xxx. 30). In that case we might connect it with the ruins of Kliursah, on the north-west of Daumeh, two hours and a half to the south-west of Hebron {Rob. iii. p. 5). As the Septuagint reading is Sofia, Knobel conjectures that Eshean is a corrupt reading for Shema (1 Chron. ii. 43), and connects it with the ruins of Simia, on the south of Daumeh (Seetzen, iii. 28, and Rob. iii. App.). — Ver. 53. Janum is still unknown. Beth-tappuah has been preserved in the village of Teffuh, about two hours to the west of Hebron (Rob. ii. p. 428). Apheka has not been discovered. — Yer. 54. Humtah is also unknown. Kirjath-arba, or Hebron: see at chap. x. 3. Zior has also not been traced; though, " so far as the name is concerned, it might have been preserved in the heights of Tugra, near to Hebron" (Knobel).
Vers. 55-57. The third group of ten towns, to the east of both the former groups, towards the desert. — Ver. 55. Maon, the home of Nabal (1 Sam. xxv. 2), on the border of the desert of Judah, which is here called the desert of Maon (1 Sam. xxiii. 25), has been preserved in Tell Main, on a conical mountain commanding an extensive prospect, east by north of Semua, three hours and three-quarters to the s.s.E. of Hebron (Rob. ii. p. 193). Carmel, a town and mountain mentioned in the history of David, and again in the time of Uzziah (1 Sam. xv. 12, xxv. 2 sqq.; 2 Chron. xxvi. 10). In the time of the Romans it was a large place, with a Roman garrison (Onom.), and is the present Kurmul, on the north-west of Maon, where there are considerable ruins of a very ancient date (Rob. ii. pp. 196 sqq.). Ziph, in the desert of that name, to which David fled from Saul (1 Sam. xxiii. 14 sqq., xxvi. 2, 3), was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 8), and has been preserved in the ruins upon the hill Ziph, an hour and three-quarters to the south-east of Hebron (Rob. ii. p. 191). Juttah, which was assigned to the priests (chap. xxi. 16), and was a vicus prcegrandis Judaorum in the time of the fathers (Onom. s. v. Jethan), was eighteen Roman miles to the south (south-east) of Eleutheropolis, and is the present Jutta or Jitta, a large Mahometan place with ruins, an hour and threequarters to the south of Hebron (Seetzen, iii. p. 8; Rob. ii. pp. 191, o28). — Ver. 5Q. Jezreel, the home of Ahinoam (1 Sam. xxv. 43, xxvii. 3, etc.), a different place from the Jezreel in the plain of Esdraelon, has not yet been discovered. This also applies to Jokdeam and Zanoah, which are only met with here. — Ver. 57. Cain
(llahkain) Is possibly the same as Jukin, on the south-east of Hebron (Rob. ii. p. 44(J). Gibeah cannot be the Gabatha near Bethlehem, mentioned in the Onom. (s. v. Gabathon), or the Gibea mentioned by Robinson (ii. p. 327), i.e. the village of Jeba, on a hill in the AVady el Musurr, as this does not come within the limits of the present group; it must rather be one of the two places (Gebaa and Gebathd) described as viculi contra orientalem plagam Daromo?, though their situation has not yet been discovered. Timnah, probably the place already mentioned in Gen. xxxviii. 12 sqq., has not been discovered.
Vers. 58, 59. The fourth group of six towns, on the north of Hebron or of the last two groups. — Halhul, according to the Onom. ($. v. Elul) a place near Hebron named Alula, has been preserved in the ruins of Halhul, an hour and a half to the north of Hebron (Rob. i. p. 319, ii. p. 186, and Bibl. Res. p. 281). Beth-zur, which was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 7), and is frequently mentioned in the time of the Maccabees as a border defence against the Idumseans (1 Mace. iv. 29, 61, etc.), was twenty (? fifteen) Roman miles from Jerusalem, according to the Onom. (s. v. Bethzur), on the road to Hebron. It is the present heap of ruins called Beit-zur on the north-west of Halhul (Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 276-7; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 236, 267-8). Gedor, the ruins of Jedur, an hour and a half to the north-west (Rob. ii. p. 338; Bibl. Res. pp. 282-3). — Ver. 59. Maarath and Eltehon have not yet been discovered. Beth-anoth (probably a contraction of Beth-ay anoth) has been discovered by Wolcott in the ruins of Beit-anum, on the east of Halhul (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 279; cf. Pal. ii. p. 186).
Between vers. 59 and 60, the fifth group of towns given in the Septuagint is wanting in the Masoretic text. This group lay to the north of the fourth, and reached as far as Jerusalem. It comprised a district in which even now there are at least fifteen places and ruins, so that we have not an arbitrary interpolation made by the LXX., as Jerome assumed, but rather a gap in the Hebrew text, arising from the fact that an ancient copyist passed by mistake from the word I^VrYj in ver. 59 to the same word at the close of the missing section. In the Alexandrian version the section reads as follows in Cod. Al. and Vat.: QeKco ical 'EfypaOd, aurrj earl BacdXeefjL, nal tpaycop ical Alrav koX KovXou koX Tarafj, teal Q(o/3r]<; (Cod. A I. ^(oprjs) teal Kape/j, teal PaXe/x /cal &e6i]p (Cod. A I. BatOrjp) Kal Mavo%a), 7roXet? ev&efca teal al KOJfiat, avrtov. — Theko, the well-known Tekoah, the home of the wise woman and of the prophet Amos (2 Sam. xiv. 2; Amos l. 1), was fortified by Rehoboam, and still inhabited after the captivity (2 Chron. xi. 6; Neh. iii. 5, 27). It is the present Tekua, on the top of a mountain covered with ancient ruins, two hours to the south of Bethlehem (Rob. ii. pp. 181-184; Tobler, Denkbl. aus Jerus. pp. 682 sqq.). Ephratah, i.e. Bethlehem, the family seat of the house of David (Ruth i. 1, iv. 11; 1 Sam. xvi. 4, xvii. 12 sqq.; Micah v. 2), was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 6), and is a place frequently mentioned. It was the birth-place of Christ (Matt. ii. 1 sqq.; Luke ii. 4), and still exists under the ancient name of Beit-lahm, two hours to the south of Jerusalem (Seetzen, ii. pp. 37 sqq.; Hob. ii. pp. 159 sqq.; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 464 sqq.). Bethlehem did not receive the name of Ephratah for the first time from the Calebite family of Ephrathites (1 Chron. ii. 19, 50, iv. 4), but was known by that name even in Jacob's time (Gen. xxxv. 19, xlviii. 7). Phagor, which was near to Bethlehem according to the Onom. (s. v. Fogor), and is also called Phaora, is the present Faghur, a heap of ruins to the south-west of Bethlehem (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 275). Aetan was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 6), and has been preserved in the Wady and Ain Attan between Bethlehem and Faghur (Tobler, dritte Wand. pp. 88, 89). Kulon, the present village of Kulomeh, an hour and a half west by north from Jerusalem on the road to Ramleh (see Bob. ii. p. 146; Bibl. Res. p. 158: it is called Kolony by Seetzen, ii. p. 64). Tatam cannot be traced. Sores (for Thobes appears to be only a copyist's error) is probably Saris, a small village four hours to the east of Jerusalem, upon a ridge on the south of Wady Aly (Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 154-5). Karem, now Ain Karim, a large flourishing village two hours to the west of Jerusalem, with a Franciscan convent dedicated to John the Baptist in the middle, and a fountain (Rob. ii. p. 141; Bibl. Res. p. 271). Galem, a different place from the Gallim on the north of Jerusalem (Isa. x. 30), has not yet been discovered. Baither, now a small dirty village called Bettir or Bittir, with a beautiful spring, and with gardens arranged in terraces on the western slope of the Wady Bittir, to the south-west of Jerusalem (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 266). Manocho, possibly the same place as Manachat (1 Chron. viii. 6), has not been found.
Ver. 60. The sixth group of only two towns, to the west of Jerusalem, on the northern border of the tribe of Judah. — Kirjathbaal, or Kirjath-jearim, the present Kureyet el Enab; see at ver. 9, and chap. ix. 17, Rabbah (Ha-rabbah, the great) is quite unknown.
Vers. 61, 62. The towns in the desert of Judah, which ran along the Dead Sea from the northern border of J udah (vers. 6, 7) to Wady Fikreh on the south, and reached to the districts of Maon, Ziph, Tekoah, and Bethlehem towards the west. This tract of land is for the most part a terrible desert, with a soil composed of chalk, marl, and limestone, and with bald mountains covered with flint and hornstone, and without the slightest trace of vegetation on the side bordering on the Dead Sea (see v. Schubert, Reise, iii. pp. 94, 96; Rob. ii. pp. 202, 475, 477). Yet wherever there are springs even this desert is covered with a luxuriant vegetation, as far as the influence of the water extends (Seetzen, ii. pp. 249, 258); and even in those parts which are now completely desolate, there are traces of the work of man of a very ancient date in all directions (Rob. ii. p. 187). Six towns are mentioned in the verses before us. Beth-arabah: see at ver. 6. Middin and Secaca are unknown. According to Knobel, Middin is probably the ruins of Mird or Mardehj to the west of the northern end of the Dead Sea (Rob. ii. p. 270). — Yer. 62. Nibsan, also unknown. The city of salt (salt town), in which the Edomites sustained repeated defeats (2 Sam. viii. 13; Ps. lx. 2; 2 Kings xiv. 7; 1 Chron. xviii. 12; 2 Chron. xxv. 11), was no doubt at the southern end of the Dead Sea, in the Salt Valley (Rob. ii. p. 483). Engedi, on the Dead Sea (Ezek. xlvii. 10), to which David also fled to escape from Saul (1 Sam. xxiv. 1 sqq.), according to the Onom. (s. v. Engaddi) a vicus prcegrandisj the present Ain-Jidir a spring upon a shelf of the high rocky coast on the west of the Dead Sea, with ruins of different ancient buildings (see Seetzen, ii. pp. 227-8; Rob. ii. pp. 214 sqq.; Lynch, pp. 178-9, 199, 200). — In ver. 63 there follows a notice to the effect that the Judseans were unable to expel the Jebusites from Jerusalem, which points back to the time immediately after Joshua, when the Judaeans had taken Jerusalem and burned it (Judg. i. 8), but were still unable to maintain possession. This notice is not at variance with either chap, xviii. 28 or Judg. i. 21, since it neither affirms that Jerusalem belonged to the tribe of Judah, nor that Judah alone laid claim to the possession of the town to the exclusion of the Benjamites (see the explanation of Judg. i. 8).
The descendants of Joseph drew one lot, that the inheritance of the half tribe of Manasseh might not be separated from that of the tribe of Ephraim. But the territory was immediately divided between the two separate tribes of the children of Joseph, Ephraim receiving the southern portion of the land that had fallen to it by lot, and half Manasseh the northern. Accordingly we find the southern boundary of the whole territory described first of all in chap. xvi. 1-4, both the boundary which separated it from the tribe of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 11 sqq.), and that which divided it from Dan (chap. xix. 40 sqq.); then the territory of Ephraim is given, with a minute description of the northern boundary (chap. xvi. 5-10); and finally the territory assigned to the families of Manasseh (chap. xvii. 1-13), without any precise delineation of its northern boundaries, all that is stated being that the Manassites touched Asher and Issachar towards the north, and also received some scattered towns with their villages in the territory of both those tribes (chap. xvii. 10, 11). To this there is appended in vers. 14-18 the complaint of the children of Joseph concerning the inheritance that had fallen to them.
Chap. xvi. 1—4. Territory of the Tribe of Joseph. — Yer. 1. " And there came out the lot of the children of Joseph from Jordan by Jericho." " The lot came out," viz. from the urn (cf. chap. xix. 1, 17, 24). The expression " came up" is used in the same sense in chap, xviii. 11. The connection of these two words with the rest of the sentence, "from Jordan by Jericho" may be explained on the supposition that the lot which came out of the urn determined the inheritance that fell to the tribe, so that we might paraphrase the verse in this manner: " There came out the lot to the children of Joseph, namely, the inheritance, which goes out from, or whose boundary commences at, the Jordan by Jericho," i.e. from that part of the Jordan which is opposite to Jericho, and which is still more precisely defined by the additional clause, " by the water of Jericho eastward." The water of Jericho is the present fountain of es Sultan, half an hour to the north-west of ftiha, the only large fountain in the neighbourhood of Jericho, whose waters spread over the plain, and form a small brook, which no doubt flows in the rainy season through the Wady Kelt into the Jordan (see Hob. ii. pp. 283-4; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 5.58-9). " The wilderness" is in opposition to " the lot," so that the sense is, u namely, the desert going up from Jericho to the mountains to Bethil." According to chap, xviii. 12, the reference is to the desert of Beth-aven, which was on the east of Bethel, between the Wady Suwar (Tuwar) and Mutyah (see at chap. vii. 2). Towards the east this desert ter minates with the Jebel Kuruntul (Quarantana) on the north-west of Jericho, where it descends precipitously into the valley of the Jordan, or v. v., where it rises out of the Jordan valley. According to chap, xviii. 12, the same boundary went up by the shoulder of Jericho towards the north, i.e. along the northern range of mountains by Jericho, which cannot be any other than the " conspicuous double height, or rather group of heights," in front of the mountain of Quarantana, at the eastern foot of which lies the fountain of Ain es Sultan (Rob. ii. p. 284). In all probability, therefore, the boundary ran up towards the north-west, from the Sultan fountain to Ain Duk, and thence in a westerly direction across to Abu Seba (along which road Robinson had a frightful desert on his right hand: Pal. ii. p. 310), and then again towards the north-west to Beitin (Bethel), according to chap, xviii. 13, along the southern shoulder (or side) of Luz, i.e. Bethel. — Ver. 2. " And it ivent out from Bethel to Luz." Bethel is distinguished from Luz in this passage, because the reference is not to the town of Bethel, which was called Luz by the Canaanites (vid. Gen. xxviii. 19), but to the southern range of mountains belonging to Bethel, from which the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which stood upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 22). From this point the boundary went over " to the territory of the A rkite to Ataroth." We know nothing further about the Arkite than that David's friend Hushai belonged to that family (2 Sam. xv. 32, xvi. 16; 1 Chron. xxvii. 33). Ataroth, called Ataroth-Adar in chap, xviii. 13, was not the present village of Atara, an hour and a half to the south of Jiljilia {Rob. iii. p. 80), as I once supposed, but the ruins of Atdra, three-quarters of an hour to the south of Bireh (Beeroth, Rob. ii. p. 314), with which the expression " descended" in chap, xviii. 13 perfectly harmonizes. Consequently the boundary was first of all drawn in a south-westerly direction from Beitin to Bireh (chap, xviii. 25), and then southwards to Atarah. — Ver. 3. From this point " it went down westward to the territory of the Japhletites to the territory of 'lower Beth-horon" or, according to chap, xviii. 13, " to the mountain (or range) which is on the south by lower Beth-horon." The Japhletite is altogether unknown, as the Asherite of this name cannot possibly be thought of (1 Chron.
vii. 32, 33). Lower Beth-horon is the present Beit-Ur Tachta, a village upon a low ridge. It is separated from Upper Beth-horon, which lies farther east, by a deep wady (see at chap. x. 10, and Bob. iii. p. 59). " And to Gezer," which was probably situated near the village of el Kubab (see at chap. x. 33). u And the goings out thereof are at the sea" (the Mediterranean), probably running towards the north-west, and following the Wady Muzeireh to the north of Japho, which was assigned to the Danites, according to chap. xix. 46. — Ver. 4. The territory commencing at the boundary lines mentioned was allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh as theii inheritance.
Vers. 5-10. Territory of the tribe of Ephraim, according to its families. — Ver. 5. " The border of their inheritance was from the east Atroth-addar and (along the line) to Upper Beth-horon" — a brief description of the southern boundary, which is more minutely described in vers. 1-3. Upper Beth-horon is mentioned here instead of Lower Beth-horon (ver. 3). This makes no difference, however, as the two places stood quite close to one another (see at chap. x. 10). In vers. 6-8 the northern boundary of Ephraim is given, namely, from the middle, or from " a central point near the watershed" (Knobel), first towards the east (vers. 6 and 7), and then towards the west (ver. 8). The eastern half of the northern boundary went n©J, i.e. when regarded from the west, or looked at towards the west, to the north side of Michmethah. According to chap. xvii. 7, this place was before Shechem, and therefore in any case it was not far from it, though it has not been discovered yet. Knobel supposes it to have been on the site of the present Kabate (Seetzen, ii. p. 166), Kubatiyeh, an hour and a half to the south of Jenin {Rob. iii. 154), assuming that Michmethah might also have been pronounced Chemathah, and that b may have been substituted for m. But Kabate is six hours to the north of Shechem, and therefore was certainly not " before Shechem" (chap. xvii. 7). It then turned " eastward to Taanath-shiloh" (TrjvaO XrfKdo, LXX.), according to the Onom. (s. v. Thenatli) ten Roman miles from Neapolis (Sichem), on the way to the Jordan, most probably the Thena of Ptol. (v. 16, 5), the present Tana, Ain Tana, a heap of ruins on the south-east of Nabulus, where there are large cisterns to be found (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 295; Ritter, Erdk. xv. p. 471). And " then went by on the east to Janoah" (i.e. Jano in Acrabittena regione, twelve Roman miles from Neapolis: Onom?), the present ruins of Janun, a miserable village, with extensive ruins of great antiquity, about three hours to the south-cast of Nabulus, three-quarters of au hour to the north-east of Akrabeh (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 297; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 268). — Ver. 7. From Janoah the boundary went down " to Ataroth and Naarath." Ataroth, a different place from the Ataroth or Atroth-addar mentioned in vers. 3 and 5, is apparently to be sought for on the eastern slope of the mountains by the side of the Ghor, judging from the expression "went down;" but it has not yet been discovered. Naarath, probably the same as Naaran, in eastern Ephraim (1 Chron. vii. 28), is described in the Onom. (s. v. Naarathd) as viculus Judo3orum Naorath, five Roman miles (i.e. two hours) from Jericho, probably on the north-east. The boundary line then touched Jericho, i.e. the district of Jericho, namely on the north side of the district, as Jericho was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 21). At this point it also coincided with the southern boundary of the tribe of Joseph (ver. 1) and the northern boundary of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 12). — Ver. 8. The western half of the northern boundary went from Tappuah westwards to the Cane-brook, and terminated at the sea. Tappuah, called En-tappuah in chap. xvii. 7, as the southern boundary of Manasseh, which is there described, and which ran from Michmethah to En-tappuah, coincides with the northern boundary of Ephraim, must not be identified with the royal town of that name mentioned in chap. xii. 17, and therefore was not Kefr Kud (Capercota), on the west of Jenin (Ginaa). This place was so far to the north, viz. seven hours to the north of Nabulus, that the boundary from Michmethah, in the neighbourhood of Shechem (Nabulus) onwards, would have run from south to north instead of in a westerly direction. Still less can En-tappuah be found, as Van de Velde supposes, in the old well of the deserted village of Atiif, five hours to the east of Nabulus. It must have been to the west of Shechem; but it has not yet been discovered, as the country to the west of Nabulus and Sebastieh has "not been examined" (Van de Velde). The Cane-brook is no doubt the brook of that name mentioned by Bohad. (tita Salad, pp. 191, 193); only it is not quite clear " whether the Abu Zabura is intended, or a brook somewhat farther south, where there is still a Nahr el Kassab." — Ver. 9. Tlu* tribe of Ephraim also received some scattered towns in the territory of the tribe of Manasseh, in fact all those towns to which Tappuah belonged, according to chap. xvii. 8, with the dependent villages.1 —
1 The reason why the Ephraitnites received scattered towns and villages in the tribe-territory of Manasseh, is supposed by Calvin, Masius, and others, to
Ver. 10. From Gezer, however (see ver. 3), they could not drive out the Canaanites, so that they still dwelt among the Ephraimites^ but were reduced to a state of serfdom. Tin's notice resembles the one in chap. xv. 63, and is to be interpreted in the same way.
Chap. xvii. 1-13. The inheritance of Manasseh on this side of the Jordan was on the north of Ephraim. — Vers, lb-Q. Before proceeding to the more detailed description of the inheritance, the historian thinks it necessary to observe that the Manassites received a double inheritance. This remark is introduced with the words "for he was the first-born of Joseph" On this account, in addition to the territory already given to him in Gilead and Bashan, he received a second allotment of territory in Canaan proper. With the word *^p? (for Machir) the more minute account of the division of the Manassites commences. 'W T3DP is first of all written absolutely at the beginning of the sentence, and then resumed in V W1: a to Machir, the first-born of Manasseh... to him were Gilead and Bashan assigned, because he was a man of war" i.e. a warlike man, and had earned for himself a claim to the inheritance of Gilead and Bashan through the peculiar bravery which he had displayed in the conquest of those lands. By Machir, however, we are not to understand the actual son of Manasseh, but his family; and W3H ^K does not mean " father of Gilead," but lord (possessor) of Gilead, for Machir s son Gilead is always called "Wp3 without the article (yid. chap. xvii. 3; Num. xxvi. 29, 30, xxvii. 1, xxxvi. 1; 1 Chron. vii. 17), whereas the country of that name is just as constantly called IJ&sn (see ver. 1, the last clause, ver. 5, chap. xiii. 11, 31; Num. xxxii. 40; Deut. iii. 10 sqq.). " And there came, i.e. the lot fell (the lot is to be repeated from ver. 1), to the other descendants of Manasseh according to their families" which are then enumerated as in Num. xxvi. 30-32. " These are the male descendants of Manasseh" E^^n must not be altered, notwithstanding the fact that it is preceded and followed by D'nrrian; it is evidently used deliberately as an antithesis to the female descendants of Manasseh mentioned in ver. 3. — Vers. 3 sqq. Among the six families of Manasseh (ver. 2), Zelophehad, a descendant of Hepher, left no son; but he had five daughters, whose names are given in ver. 3 have been, that after the boundaries had been arranged, on comparing the territory allotted to each with the relative numbers of the two tribes, it was found tnat Ephraim had received too small a possession. This is quite possible; at the same time there may have been other reasons which we cannot discover now, as precisely the same thing occurs in the case of Manasseh (chap. xvii. 11).
(as in Num. xxvi. 33, xxvii. 1, xxxvi. 10). These daughters had petitioned Moses for a separate portion in the promised land, and their request had been granted (Num. xxvii. 2 sqq., compared with chap, xxxvi.). They therefore came before the committee appointed for dividing the land and repeated this promise, which was at once fulfilled. Consequently there were ten families of Manasseh who had received portions by the side of Ephraim, five male and five female. " And (ver. 5) there fell the measurements of Manasseh (as) ten" i.e. ten portions were assigned to the Manassites (on the west of the Jordan), beside the land of Gilead, because (as is again observed in ver. 6) the daughters of Manasseh, i.e. of Zelophehad the Manassite, received an inheritance among his sons (i.e. the rest of the Manassites).
Vers. 7-13. Boundaries and extent of the inheritance of the ten families of Manasseh. — Vers. 7-10a, the southern boundary, which coincides with the northern boundary of Ephraim described in chap. xvi. 6-8, and is merely given here with greater precision in certain points. It went " from Asher to Michmethah, before Shechem" Asher is not the territory of the tribe of Asher, but a distinct locality; according to the Onom. (s. v. Ashe?') a place on the high road from Neapolis to Scythopolis, fifteen Roman miles from the former. It is not to be found, however, in the ruins of Tell Urn el Aschera (V. de Velde) or Tell Urn Ajra (Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 310, 327), an hour to the south of Beisan, as Knobel supposes, but in the village of Yasir, where there are magnificent ruins, about five hours and ten minutes from Nabulus on the road to Beisan (V. de Velde, Mem. pp. 237, 289; R. ii. p. 295). Michmethah, before Shechem, is still unknown (see chap. xvi. 6). Shechem was founded by the Hivite prince Shechem (Gen. xxxiii. 18), and is frequently mentioned in the book of Genesis. It stood between Ebal and Gerizim, was given up by Ephraim to the Levites, and declared a free city (city of refuge: chap. xxi. 21, xx. 7). It was there that the ten tribes effected their separation from Judah (1 Kings xii. 1 sqq.), and Jeroboam resided there (1 Kings xii. 25). In later times it was the chief city of the country of Samaria, and the capital of the Samaritans (John iv. 5); and the name of Neapolis, or Flacia Neapolis, from which the present Nabulus or Nablus has come, was given to it in honour of Vespasian (see v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 161 sqq.). From this point the boundary went pWTTK (i.e. either " to the right side," the south side, or to Yamin), " to the inhabitants of En-tappuaJi" Whether Yamin is an appellative or a proper name Is doubtful. But even if it be the name of a place, it is quite certain that it cannot be the village of Yamon, an hour to the south-east of Taanuk (Rob. iii. pp. 161. 167, etc.), as this is much too far north, and, judging from ver. 11, belonged to the territory of Asher. In the case of En-tappuah, the inhabitants are mentioned instead of the district, because the district belonged to Manasseh, whilst the town on the border of Manasseh was given to the Ephraimites. The situation of the town has not yet been discovered: see at chap. xvi. 8. From this point the boundary ran down to the Cane-brook (see chap. xvi. 8), namely to the south side of the brook. " These towns were assigned to Ephraim in the midst of the towns of Manasseh, and (but) the territory of Manasseh was on the north of the brook" The only possible meaning of these words is the following: From Tappuah, the boundary went down to the Cane-brook and crossed it, so that the south side of the brook really belonged to the territory of Manasseh; nevertheless the towns on this south side were allotted to Ephraim, whilst only the territory to the north of the brook fell to the lot of the Manassites. This is expressed more plainly in ver. 10a: " To the south (of the brook the land came) to Ephraim, and to the north to Manasseh? In ver. 10b the northern and eastern boundaries are only briefly indicated: " And they (the Manassites) touched Asher towards the north, and Issachar towards the east." The reason why this boundary was not described more minutely, was probably because it had not yet been fixed. For (ver. 11) Manasseh also received towns and districts in (within the territory of) Issachar and Asher, viz. Beth-shean, etc. Beth-shean, to the wall of which Saul's body was fastened (1 Sam. xxxi. 10 sqq.; 2 Sam. xxi. 12), was afterwards called Scythopolis. It was in the valley of the Jordan, where the plain of Jezreel slopes off into the valley; its present name is Beisan, a place where there are considerable ruins of great antiquity, about two hours from the Jordan (vid. Seetzen, ii. pp. 162 sqq.; Bob. iii. p. 174; Bibl. Res. p. 325; v. Baumer, Pal. pp. 150-1). This city, with its daughter towns, was in the territory of Issachar, which was on the east of Manasseh, and may have extended a considerable distance towards the south along the valley of the Jordan, as the territory of Manasseh and Ephraim did not run into the valley of the Jordan; but Asher (Yasir) is mentioned in ver. 7 as the most easterly place in Manasseh, and, according to chap. xvi. 6, 7, the eastern boundary of Ephraim ran down along the eastern edge of the mountains as far as Jericho, without including the Jordan valley. At the same time, the Ghor on the western side of the Jordan below Beisan, as far as the plain of Jericho, was of no great value to any tribe, as this district, according to Josephus (de Bell. Jud. iv. 8, 2, and iii. 10, 7), was uninhabited because of its barrenness. The other towns, Ibleam, etc., with the exception of Endor perhaps, were in the territory of Asher, and almost all on the south-west border of the plain of Esdraelon. Ibleam, called Bileam in 1 Chron. vi. 55 (70), a Levitical town (see at chap. xxi. 25), was not very far from Megiddo (2 Kings ix. 27), and has probably been preserved in the ruins of Khirbet-Belameh, half an hour to the south of Jenin; according to Schultz, it is the same place as Belamon, Belmen, or Belthem (Judith iv. 4, vii. 3, viii. 3). With INT *3fmw the construction changes, so that there is an anacolouthon, which can be explained, however, on the ground that? n\i may not only mean to be assigned to, but also to receive or to have. In this last sense n^*! is attached. The inhabitants are mentioned instead of the towns, because the historian had already the thought present in his mind, that the Manassites were unable to exterminate the Canaanites from the towns allotted to them. Dor is the present Tortura (see at chap. xi. 2). Endor, the home of the witch (1 Sam. xxviii. 7), four Roman miles to the south of Tabor (Onom.), at present a village called Endor, on the northern shoulder of the Duhy or Little Hermon (see Bob. iii. p. 225; Bibl. Res. p. 340). Taanach and Megiddo, the present Taanuk and Lejun (see at chap. xii. 21). The three last towns, with the places dependent upon them, are connected more closely together by riQ3n TW?&9 the three-hillcountry, probably because they formed a common league. — Vers. 12, 13. The Manassites were unable to exterminate the Canaanites from these six towns, and the districts round; but when they grew stronger, they made them tributary slaves (cf. chap. xvi. 10).
Vers. 14-18. Complaint of the Descendants of Joseph respecting the inheritance allotted to them. — Ver. 14. As the descendants of Joseph formed two tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh), they gave utterance to their dissatisfaction that Joshua had given them (" me," the house of Joseph, ver. 17) but one lot, but one portion (^n, a measure, then the land measured off), for an inheritance, although they were a strong and numerous people. " So far hath Jehovah blessed me hitherto." "^N~""W, to this (sc. numerous people), is to be understood de gradu; H^T?, hitherto, de tempore. There was no real ground for this complaint. As Ephraim numbered only 32,500 and Manasseh 52,700 at the second census in the time of Moses (Num. xxvi.), and therefore Ephraim and half Manasseh together did not amount to more than 58,000 or 59,000, this tribe and a half were not so strong as Judah with its 76,500, and were even weaker than Dan with its 64,400, cr Issachar with its 64,300 men, and therefore could not justly lay claim to more than the territory of a single tribe. Moreover, the land allotted to them was in one of the most fertile parts of Palestine. For although as a whole the mountains of Ephraim have much the same character as those of Judah, yet the separate mountains are neither so rugged nor so lofty, there being only a few of them that reach the height of 2500 feet above the level of the sea (see Bitter, Erdk. xv. pp. 475 sqq.; V. de Velde, Mem. pp. 177 sqq.); moreover, they are intersected by many broad valleys and fertile plateaux, which are covered with fruitful fields and splendid plantations of olives, vines, and fig trees (see Bob. iii. p. 78, Bibl. Res. pp. 290 sqq.; Seetzen, ii. pp. 165 sqq., 190 sqq.). On the west the mountains slope off into the hill country, which joins the plain of Sharon, wTith its invariable fertility. " The soil here is a black clay soil of unfathomable depth, which is nearly all ploughed, and is of such unusual fertility that a cultivated plain here might furnish an almost unparalleled granary for the whole land. Interminable fields full of wheat and barley with their waving ears, which were very nearly ripe, with here and there a field of millet, that was already being diligently reaped by the peasants, presented a glorious sight" (Bitter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 567-8). — Ver. 15. Joshua therefore sent them back with their petition, and said, " If thou art a strong people, go up into the ivood and cut it away" i.e. make room for houses, fields, and meadows, by clearing the forests, " in the land of the Perizzites and Bephaim, if the mountain of Ephraim is too narrow for thee." The name " mountain of Ephraim" is used here in a certain sense proleptically, to signify the mountain which received its name from the tribe of Ephraim, to which it had only just been allotted. This mountain, which is also called the mountain of Israel (chap. xi. 16, 21), was a limestone range running from Kirjath-jearim, where the mountains of Judah terminate (see at chap. xi. 21), to the plain of Jezreel, and therefore embracing the greater part of the tribe-territory of Benjamin. The wood, which is distinguished from the mountain of Ephraim, and is also described in ver. 18 as a mountainous land, is either the mountainous region extending to the north of Yasir as far as the mountains of Gilboa, and lying to the west of Beisan, a region which has not yet been thoroughly explored, or else, as KnoLel supposes, u the broad range of woody heights or low woody hills, by which the mountains of Samaria are connected with Carmel on the northwest (Rob. iii. p. 189), between Taanath and Megiddo on the east, and Ca3sarea and Dor on the west." Possibly both may be intended, as the children of Joseph were afraid of the Canaanites in Beisan and in the plain of Jezreel (ver. 16). The Rephaim were dwelling there, a tribe of gigantic stature (see at Gen. xiv. 5), also the Perizzites (see at Gen. xiii. 7). — Ver. 16. The children of Joseph replied that the mountain (allotted to them) would not be enough for them (Wflp, as in Num. xi. 22; Zech. x. 10); and that all the Canaanites who dwelt in the land of the plain had iron chariots, both those in Beth-shean and its daughter towns, and those in the valley of Jezreel. Pp^'H**? the land of the plain or valley land, includes both the valley of the Jordan near Beisan, and also the plain of Jezreel, which opens into the Jordan valley in the neighbourhood of Beisan (Bob. iii. p. 173). The plain of Jezreel, so called after the town of that name, is called the "great field of Esdrelom" in Judith i. 4, and to /jueya ireSlov by Josephus. It is the present Merj (i.e. pasture-land) Ibn Aamer, which runs in a south-westerly direction from the Mediterranean Sea above Carmel, and reaches almost to the Jordan. It is bounded on the south by the mountains of Carmel, the mountain-land of Ephraim and the range of hills connecting the two, on the north by the mountains of Galilee, on the west by the southern spurs of the Galilean highland, and on the east by the mountains of Gilboa and the Little Hermon (Jebel Duhy). Within these boundaries it is eight hours in length from east to west, and five hours broad; it is fertile throughout, though very desolate now (see v. Returner, Pal. iii. pp. 39 sqq.). " Iron chariots" are not scythe chariots, for these were introduced by Cyrus, and were unknown to the Medes, Persians, and Arabians, i.e. to the early Asiatics before his time (Xen. Cyr. vi. 1, 27, 30), as well as to the ancient Egyptians (see Wilkijison, Manners and Customs, i. p. 350); they were simply chariots tipped with iron, just as the Egyptian war-chariots were made of wood and strengthened with metal nails and tips (Wilkinson, pp. 342, 348). — Vers. 17, 18. As the answer of the children of Joseph indicated cowardice and want of confidence in the help of God, Joshua contented himself with repeating his first reply, though more fully and with the reasons assigned. " Thou art a strong people, and hast great power; there will not be one lot to thee:" i.e.
because thou art a numerous people and endowed with strength, there shall not remain one lot to thee, thou canst and wilt extend thine inheritance. " For the mountain will be thine, for it is forest, and thou wilt hew it out, and its goings out will become thine" By the mountain we are not to understand the mountains of Ephraim which were assigned to the Ephraimites by the lot, but the wooded mountains mentioned in ver. 15, which the children of Joseph were to hew out, so as to make outlets for themselves. " The outgoings of it" are the fields and plains bordering upon the forest. For the Canaanites who dwelt there (ver. 15) would be driven out by the house of Joseph, just because they had iron chariots and wrere strong, and therefore only a strong tribe like Joseph was equal to the task.. " Not one of the tribes of Israel is able to fight against them (the Canaanites) because they are strong, but you have strength enough to be able to expel them (Rashi).
THE TABERNACLE SET UP AT SHILOH. SURVEY OF THE LAND THAT HAD STILL TO BE DIVIDED. INHERITANCE OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN. — CHAP. XVIII.
Ver. 1. The Tabernacle set up at Shiloh. — As soon as the tribe of Ephraim had received its inheritance, Joshua commanded the whole congregation to assemble in Shiloh, and there set up the tabernacle, in order that, as the land was conquered, the worship of Jehovah might henceforth be regularly observed in accordance with the law. The selection of Shiloh as the site for the sanctuary was hardly occasioned by the fitness of the place for this purpose, on account of its being situated upon a mountain in the centre of the land, for there were many other places that would have been quite as suitable in this respect; the reason is rather to be found in the name of the place, viz. Shiloh, i.e. rest, which called to mind the promised Shiloh (Gen. xlix. 10), and therefore appeared to be pre-eminently suitable to be the resting-place of the sanctuary of the Lord, where His name was to dwell in Israel, until He should come who was to give true rest to His people as the Prince of Peace, In any case, however, Joshua did not follow his own judgment in selecting Shiloh for this purpose, but acted in simple accordance wTith the instructions of God, as the Lord had expressly reserved to himself the choice of the place where His name should dwell (Deut. xii. 11). Shiloh, according to the Onom., was twelve Roman miles or five hours to the south of Neapolis (Nablus), and about eight hours to the north of Jerusalem; at present it is a heap of ruins, bearing the name of Seilun (see Rob. iii. p. 85). The tabernacle continued standing at Shiloh during the time of the judges, until the ark of the covenant fell into the hands of the Philistines, in the lifetime of Eli, when the holy tent was robbed of its soul, and reduced to the mere shadow of a sanctuary. After this it was removed to Nob (1 Sam. xxi. 2); but in consequence of the massacre inflicted by Saul upon the inhabitants of this place (1 Sam. xxii. 19), it was taken to Gibeon (1 Kings iii. 4: see Kelt, Bibl. Arch. i. § 22). From this time forward Shiloh continued to decline, because the Lord had rejected it (Ps. lxxviii. 60; Jer. vii. 12, xxvi. 6). That it was destroyed by the Assyrians, as Knobel affirms, is not stated in the history.
Vers. 2-10. Survey of the Land that had yet to be divided. — Ver. 2. After the tabernacle had been set up, the casting of the lots and division of the land among the other seven tribes were to be continued; namely at Shiloh, to which the congregation had removed with the sanctuary. — Vers. 3, 4. But, for the reasons explained in chap. xiv. 1, these tribes showed themselves " slack to go to possess the land which the Lord had given them" i.e. not merely to conquer it, but to have it divided by lot, and to enter in and take possession. Joshua charged them with this, and directed them to appoint three men for each of the seven tribes, that they might be sent out to go through the land, and describe it according to the measure of their inheritance. " According to their inheritance" i.e. with special reference to the fact that seven tribes were to receive it for their inheritance. The description was not a formal measurement, although the art of surveying was well known in Egypt in ancient times, and was regularly carried out after the annual inundations of the Nile (Herod, ii. 109; Strabo, xvii. 787; Diod. Sic. '*. 69); so that the Israelites might have learned it there. But 3H3 does not mean to measure; and it was not a formal measurement that was required, for the purpose of dividing the land that yet remained into seven districts, since the tribes differed in numerical strength, and therefore the boundaries of the territory assigned them could not be settled till after the lots had been cast. The meaning of the word is to describe; and according to ver. 9, it was chiefly to the towns that reference was made: so that the description required by Joshua in all probability consisted simply in the preparation of lists of the towns in the different parts of the land, with an account of their size and character; also with " notices of the quality and condition of the soil; what lands were fertile, and what they produced; where the country was mountainous, and where it was level; which lands were well watered, and which were dry; and any other things that would indicate the character of the soil, and facilitate a comparison between the different parts of the land" (Rosenmuller). The reasons which induced Joshua to take steps for the first time now for securing a survey of the land, are given in chap. xiv. 1. The men chosen for the purpose were able to carry out their task without receiving any hindrance from the Canaanites. For whilst the latter were crushed, if not exterminated, by the victories which the Israelites had gained, it was not necessary for the twenty-one Israelitish men to penetrate into every corner of the land, and every town that was still inhabited by the Canaanites, in order to accomplish their end. — Vers. 5, 6. " And divide it into seven parts" viz. for the purpose of casting lots. Judah, however, was still to remain in its land to the south, and Ephraim in its territory to the north. The seven portions thus obtained they were to bring to Joshua, that lie might then cast the lot for the seven tribes " before the Lord," i.e. before the tabernacle (chap. xix. 51). — Ver. 7. There were only seven tribes that had still to receive their portions; for the tribe of Levi was to receive no portion in the land (yid. chap. xiii. xiv.), and Gad, Reuben, and half Manasseh had received their inheritance already on the other side of the Jordan. — Vers. 8, 9. Execution of this command. — Yer. 10. Joshua finishes the casting of the lots at Shiloh.
Vers. 11-28. Inheritance of the Tribe of Benjamin. — Vers. 11-20. Boundaries of the inheritance. — Ver. 11. The territory of their lot {i.e. the territory assigned to the Benjaminites by lot) came out (through the falling out of the lot) between the sons of Judah and the sons of Joseph. — Vers. 12, 13. The northern boundary (" the boundary towards the north side") therefore coincided with the southern boundary of Ephraim as far as Lower Beth-horon, and has already been commented upon in the exposition of chap. xvi. 1-3. The western boundary follows in ver. 14. At Beth-horon the boundary curved round and turned southwards on the western side, namely from the mountain before (in front of) Beth-horon southwards; and " the goings out thereof were at Kirjathbaal} which is Kirjath-jearim" the town of the Judaeans mentioned in cliap. xv. 60, the present Kureyet el Enab (see at chap. ix. 17).- Vers. 15-19. " As for the southern boundary from the end of Kirjathjearim onwards, the (southern) boundary went out on the west (i.e. it started from the nest), and went out (terminated) at the fountain of the water of NephtoahP Consequently it coincided with the northern boundary of Judah, as described in chap. xv. 5-9, except that it is given there from east to west, and here from west to east (see at chap. xv. 5-9). In the construction P^an pntottta, the noun P^an is in apposition to the suffix: the outgoings of it, namely of the border (see Ewald, § 291, b.). — Ver. 20. The eastern boundary was the Jordan.
Vers. 21-28. The towns of Benjamin are divided into two groups. The first group (vers. 21-24) contains twelve towns in the eastern portion of the territory. Jericho: the present Riha (see at chap. ii. 1). Beth-hoglah, now Ain Hajla (see chap. xv. 6). Emek- Keziz: the name has been preserved in the Wady el Kaziz, on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, on the south-east of the Apostle's Well (see Van de Velde, Mem. p. 328).— Ver. 22. Beth-arabah: see at chap. xv. 6. Zemaraim, probably the ruins of es Sumrah, on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, to the east of Khan Hadhur, on Van de Velde s map. Bethel: now Beitin (see chap. vii. 2). — Ver. 23. Avvim (i.e. ruins) is unknown. Phara has been preserved in the ruins of Fara, on Wady Fara, three hours to the north-east of Jerusalem, and the same distance to the west of Jericho. Ophrah is mentioned again in 1 Sam. xiii. 17, but it is a different place from the Ophrah of Gideon in Manasseh (Judg. vi. 11, 24, viii. 27). According to the Onom. (s. v. Aphra), it was a kcd/jlt) 'AfypijX in the time of Eusebius (Jer. vicus Effrem), five Roman miles to the east of Bethel; and according to Van de Velde, v. Raumer, and others, it is probably the same place as Ephron or Ephrain, which Abijah took from Jeroboam along with Jeshanah and Bethel (2 Chron. xiii. 19), also the same as Ephraim, the city to which Christ went when He withdrew into the desert (John xi. 54), as the Onom. (s. v. Ephron) speaks of a villa pro?grandis Ephr&a nomine ('Ecppat/jL in Euseb.), although the distance given there, viz. twenty Roman miles to the north of Jerusalem, reaches far beyond the limits of Benjamin. — Ver. 24. Chephar-haammonai and Ophni are only mentioned here, and are still unknown. Gaba, or Geba of Benjamin (1 Sam. xiii. 16; 1 Kings xv. 22), which was given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 17; 1 Chron. vi. 45), was in the neighbourhood of Ramah (1 Kings xv. 22, 2 Chron. xvi. 6). It is mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii. 8, Zech.
xiv. 10, as the northern boundary of the kingdom of Judah, and was still inhabited after the captivity (Neh. vii. 30). It is a different place from Gibea, and is not to be found, as I formerly supposed, in the Moslem village of Jibia, by the Wady el Jib, between Beitin and Sinjil (Rob. iii. p. 80), but in the small village of Jeba, which is lying half in ruins, and where there are relics of antiquity, three-quarters of an hour to the north-east of er-Ram (Ramah), and about three hours to the north of Jerusalem, upon a height from which there is an extensive prospect (vid. Bob. ii. pp. 113 sqq.). This eastern group also included the two other towns Anathoth and Almon (chap. xxi. 18), which were given up by Benjamin to the Levites. Anathoth, the home of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. i. 1, xi. 21 sqq.), which was still inhabited by Benjaminites after the captivity (Neh. xi. 32), is the present village of Anata, where there are ruins of great antiquity, an hour and a quarter to the north of Jerusalem (Rob. ii. pp. 109 sqq.). Almon, called Allemeth in 1 Chron. vi. 45, has been preserved in the ruins of Almit (Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 287 sqq.), or el-Mid (Tobler, Denkbl. p. 631), on the south-east of Anata. — Vers. 25-28. The second group of fourteen towns in the western portion of Benjamin. — Ver. 25. Gibeon, the present Jib: see at chap. ix. 3. Ramah, in the neighbourhood of Gibeah and Geba (Judg. xix. 13; Isa. x. 29; 1 Kings xv. 17; Ezra ii. 26), most probably the Ramah of Samuel (1 Sam. i. 19, ii. 11, xxv. 1, xxviii. 3), is the present village of er-Rdm, upon a mountain with ruins between Gibeon and Geba, half an hour to the west of the latter, two hours to the north of Jerusalem (see Rob. ii. p. 315). Beeroth, the present Bireh: see at chap. ix. 17. — Ver. 26. Mizpeh, commonly called Mizpah, where the war with Benjamin was decided upon (Judg. xx. xxi.), and where Samuel judged the people, and chose Saul as king (1 Sam. vii. 5 sqq., x. 17), was afterwards the seat of the Babylonian governor Gedaliah (2 Kings xxv. 23; Jer. xl. 6 sqq.). According to the Onorn. (s. v. Massepha), it was near Kirjath-jearim, and Bobinson (ii. p. 139) is no doubt correct in supposing it to be the present Neby Samvil (i.e. prophet Samuel), an hour and a quarter to the east of Kureyet Enab (Kirjath-jearim), two hours to the north-west of Jerusalem, half an hour to the south of Gibeon, a place which stands like a watch-tower upon the highest point in the whole region, and with a mosque, once a Latin church, which is believed alike by Jews, Christians, and Mahometans to cover the tomb of the prophet Samuel (see Rob. ii. pp. 135 sqq.). Chephirah, i.e. Kejir: see at chap. ix. 17. Mozah is only mentioned here, and is still unknown Ver. 27. This also applies to Rekem, Irpeel, and Taralah. — Ver. 28 Zelah, the burial-place of Saul and his family (2 Sam. xxi. 14), is otherwise unknown. Gibeath or Gibeah, i.e. Gibeah of Benjamin, which was destroyed by the other tribes of Israel in the time of the judges, on account of the flagrant crime which had been committed there (Judg. xix. xx.), is also called Gibeah of Saul, as being the home and capital of Saul (1 Sam. x. 26, xi. 4, etc.), and was situated, according to Judg. xix. 13 and Isa. x. 29, between Jerusalem and Ramah, according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. v. 2, 1, 8) about twenty or thirty stadia from Jerusalem. These statements point to the Tell or Tuleil el Phul, i.e. bean-mountain, a conical peak about an hour from Jerusalem, on the road to er-Ram, with a large heap of stones upon the top, probably the ruins of a town that was built of unhewn stones, from which there is a very extensive prospect in all directions (Rob. ii. p. 317). Consequently modern writers have very naturally agreed in the conclusion, that the ancient Gibeah of Benjamin or Saul was situated either by the side of or upon this Tell (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 286; Strauss, Sinai, etc., p. 331, ed. 6; v. Raumer, Pal. p. 196). Kirjath has not yet been discovered, and must not be confounded with Kirjath-jearim, which belonged to the tribe of Judah (ver. 14; cf. chap. xv. 60).
Vers. 1-9. The inheritance of Simeon fell within the inheritance of the children of Judah, because the land allotted to them at Gilgal was larger than they required (ver. 9). Thus the curse pronounced upon Simeon by Jacob of dispersion in Israel (Gen. xlix. 7) was fulfilled upon this tribe in a very peculiar manner, and in a different manner from that pronounced upon Levi. The towns allotted to the tribe of Simeon are divided into two groups, the first (vers. 2-6) consisting of thirteen or fourteen towns, all situated in the Negeb (or south country); the second (ver. 7) of four towns, two of which were in the Negeb and two in the shephelah. All these eighteen towns have already been enumerated among the towns of Judah (chap. xv. 26-32, 42), and are mentioned again in 1 Cliron. iv. 28-32, in just the same order, and with only slight differences in the spelling of some of the names. If the classification of the names in two groups might seem to indicate that Simeon received a connected portion of land in Judah, this idea is overthrown at once by the circumstance that two of the four towns in the second group were in the south land and two in the lowland, and, judging from chap. xv. 32, 42, at a great distance from one another. At the same time, we cannot decide this point with any certainty, as the situation of several of the towns is still unknown. — Ver. 2. Beersheba: see at chap. xv. 28. Sheba is wanting in the Chronicles, but has no doubt been omitted through a copyist's error, as Shema answers to it in chap. xv. 26, where it stands before Moladah just as Sheba does here. — On the names in vers. 3-6a, see the exposition of chap. xv. 28-32. — The sum total given in ver. 65, viz. thirteen towns, does not tally, as there are fourteen names. On these differences, see the remarks on chap. xv. 32 (p. 163, the note). — Ver. 7. Ain and Rimmon were in the south land (chap. xv. 32), Ether and Ashan in the lowlands (chap. xv. 42). — Vers. 8, 9. In addition to the towns mentioned, the Simeonites received all the villages round about the towns to Baalath-beer, the Ramah of the south. This place, up to which the territory of the Simeonites extended, though without its being actually assigned to the Simeonites, is simply called Baal in 1 Chron. iv. 33, and is probably the same as Bealoth in chap. xv. 24, though its situation has not yet been determined (see at chap. xv. 24). It cannot be identified, however, with Ramet el Khulil, an hour to the north of Hebron, which Roediger supposes to be the Ram ah of the south, since the territory of Simeon, which was situated in the Negeb, and had only two towns in the shephelah, cannot possibly have extended into the mountains to a point on the north of Hebron. So far as the situation is concerned, V. de Velde would be more likely to be correct, when he identifies Rama of the south with Tell Lekiyeh on the north of Beersheba, if this conjecture only rested upon a better foundation than the untenable assumption, that Baalath-beer is the same as the Baalath of Dan in ver. 44.
Vers. 10-16. The inheritance of Zebulun fell above the plain of Jezreel, between this plain and the mountains of Naphtali, so that it was bounded by Asher on the west and north-west (ver. 27), by Naphtali on the north and north-east (ver. 34), and by Issachar on the south-east and south, and touched neither the Mediterranean Sea nor the Jordan. It embraced a very fertile country, however, with the fine broad plain of el Buttauf, the fieya
Tre&tov above Nazareth called Asochis in Joseph, vita, § 41, 45 (see Rob. iii. p. 189, Bibl. Res. pp. 105 sqq.; Hitter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 742, 758-9). — Ver. 10. " And the boundary (the territory) of their inheritance was (went) to Sarid." This is no doubt the centre of the southern boundary, from which it is traced in a westerly direction in ver. 11, and in an easterly direction in ver. 12, in the same manner as in chap. xvi. 6. Unfortunately, Sarid cannot be determined with certainty. Knobets opinion is, that the name, which signifies "hole" or "incision," after the analogy of 1"H?, perforavit, and B"]tt>, incidit, does not refer to a town, but to some other locality, probably the southern opening of the deep and narrow wady which comes down from the basin of Nazareth, and is about an hour to the south-east of Nazareth, between two steep mountains (Seetzen, ii. pp. 151-2; Bob. iii. p. 183). This locality appears suitable enough. But it is also possible that Sarid may be found in one of the two heaps of ruins on the south side of the Mons prcecipitii upon V. de Veldes map (so called from Luke iv. 29). — Yer. 11. From this point u the border went up westwards, namely to Marala, and touched Dabbasheth, and still far titer to the brook of Jokneam." If Jokneam of Carmel has been preserved in the Tell Kaimun (see at chap. xii. 22), the brook before Jokneam is probably the Wady el Milh, on the eastern side of which, near the point where it opens into the plain, stands Kaimun, and through which the road runs from Acca to Ramleh, as this wady separates Carmel from the small round hills which run to the south-east (see Bob. Bibl. Res. p. 114, and V. de Velde, i. p. 249). Here the boundaries of Zebulun and Asher met (ver. 27). Marala and Dabbasheth are to be sought for between Kaimun and Sarid. The Cod. Vat. has MayeXBd instead of MapCkd. Now, however little importance we can attach to the readings of the LXX. on account of the senseless way in which its renderings are made, — as, for example, in this very passage, where '"vjn:T"UT"~iy is rendered 'EaeSetcycoka, — the name Magelda might suggest a Hebrew reading Magedlah or Mageldah, and thus lead one to connect the place with the village of Mejeidil {Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 114), or Mshedil {Seetzen, ii. p. 143), on the west of Mons pro?cipitii, though neither of these travellers visited the place, or has given us any minute description of it. Its situation upon a mountain would suit Marala, to which the boundary went up from Sarid. In the case of Dabbasheth, the name, which signifies "lump" (see Isa. xxx. 6), points to a mountain. Upon this Knobel has founded the conjecture that Gibeah or G Heath took the place of this uncommon word, and that this is connected with the Gabatlion of the Onom. (juxta campum Legionis), the present Jebdta between Mejeidil and Kaimiin, upon an isolated height on the edge of the mountains which skirt the plain of Jezreel, where there are signs of a remote antiquity (Rob. iii. p. 201, and Bibl. Res. p. 113; Hitter, Erdk. xvi. p. 700); although Tell Thureh (i.e. mountain) might be intended, a village upon a low and isolated hill a little farther south (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 116, and Ritter, ut sup.). — Ver. 12. "And from Sarid the boundary turned eastwards toward the sun-rising to the territory of Chisloth-tabor, and went out to Dabrath, and went up to Japhia." Chisloth-tabor, i.e. according to Kimchis explanation lumbi Taboris (French, les flancs), was at any rate a place on the side of Tabor, possibly the same as Kesulloth in ver. 18, as Masius and others suppose, and probably the same place as the Xaloth of Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 3, 1), which was situated in the "great plain," and the vicus Chasalus of the Onom. (juxta montem Thabor in campestribus), i.e. the present village of Iksdl or Ksdl, upon a rocky height on the west of Thabor, with many tombs in the rocks (Rob. iii. p. 182). Dabrath, a place in the tribe of Issachar that was given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 28; 1 Chron. vi. 57), called Dabaritta in Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 21, 3) and Dabira in the Onom. (villula in monte Thabor), the present Deburieh, an insignificant village which stands in a very picturesque manner upon a stratum of rock at the western foot of Tabor (Rob. iii. p. 210; V. de Velde, R. ii. p. 324). Japhia certainly cannot be the present Hepha or Haifa (Khaifa) on the Mediterranean, and near to Carmel (Rel. Pal. p. 826, and Ges. Thes. s. v.); but it is just as certain that it cannot be the present Jafa, sl place half an hour to the south-west of Nazareth, as Robinson (Pal. iii. p. 200) and Knobel suppose, since the boundary was running eastwards, and cannot possibly have turned back again towards the west, and run from Deburieh beyond Sarid. If the positions assigned to Chisloth-tabor and Dabrath are correct, Japhia must be sought for on the east of Deburieh. — Yer. 13. u From thence it went over towards the east to the sun-rising to Gath-hepher, to Eth-kazin, and went out to Rimmon, which is marked off to NeahP Gath-hepher, the home of the prophet Jonah (2 Kings xiv. 25), was " haud grandis viculus Geth" in the time of Jerome (see prol. ad Jon.). It was about two miles irom Sephoris on the road to Tiberias, and the tomb of the prophet was shown there. It is the present village of Meshed, a place about an hour and a quarter to the north of Nazareth {Rob. in. p. 209; V. de Velde, Mem. p. 312). Eth-kazin is unknown. Bimmon, a Levitical town (chap. xxi. 35; 1 Chron. vi. G2), has probably been preserved in the village of Rummaneh, about two hours and a half to the north of Nazareth (Rob. iii. p. 195). Ham-methoar is not a proper name, but the participle of "itfn, with the article in the place of the relative pronoun, a bounded off," or pricked off. Neah is unknown; it is possibly the same place as Neiel in the tribe of Asher (ver. 27), as Knobel supposes. — Ver. 14. " And the boundary turned round it (round Rimmon), on the north to Channathon, and the outgoings thereof ivere the valley of Jiphtah-el." Judging from the words 2D3 and jtoJfPj this verse apparently gives the north-west boundary, since the last definition in ver. 13, " to Gath-hepher," etc., points to the eastern boundary. Jiphtah-el answers no doubt to the present Jefdt, two hours and a half to the north of Sefurieh, and is the Jotapata which was obstinately defended by Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 7, 9: see Rob. Bibl. Res. pp 104 sqq.). Consequently the valley of Jiphtah-el, at which Zebulun touched Asher (ver. 27), is probably " no other than the large Wady Abilin, which takes its rise in the hills in the neighbourhood of Jefat" (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 107). And if this be correct, Channathon (LXX. iEvva6coO) is probably Cana of Galilee, the home of Nathanael (John ii. 1, 11, iv. 46, xxi. 2), the present Kana el Jelil, between Rummaneh and Yefat, on the northern edge of the plain of Buttauf, upon a Tell, from which you overlook the plain, fully two hours and a half in a straight line from Nazareth, and directly north of that place, where there are many ruins found (see Rob. iii. p. 204; Bibl. Res. p. 108). — Ver. 15. The towns of Zebulun were the following. Kattath, probably the same as Kitron, which is mentioned in Judg. i. 30 in connection with Nahalol, but which is still unknown. Nehalal, or Nahalol (Judg. i. 30), is supposed by V. de Velde (Mem. p. 335), who follows Rabbi Schwartz, to be the present village of Maalul, a place with ruins on the south-west of Nazareth (see Seetzen, ii. p. 143; Rob. iii. App.; and Bitter, Erdk. xvi. p. 700). Simron is supposed by Knobel to be the village of Semunieh (see at chap. xi. 1). But neither of these is very probable. Idalah is supposed by V. de Velde to be the village of Jeda or Jeida, on the west of Semunieh, where are a few relics of antiquity, though Bobinson (Bibl. Res. p. 113) states the very opposite, llethlehem (of Zebulun), which many regard as the home of the judge Ibzan (Judg. xii. 8), has been preserved under the old name in a miserable village on the north of Jeida and Semunieh (see Seetzen, ii. p. 139; Bob. Bibl. Res. p. 113). The number of the towns is given as twelve, though only five are mentioned by name. It is true that some commentators have found the missing names in the border places mentioned in vers. 11-14, as, after deducting Chisloth-tabor and Dabrath, which belonged to Issachar, the names Sarid, Maralah, Dabbasheth, Japhia, Gittah-hepher, Eth-kazin, and Ohannathon give just seven towns. Nevertheless there is very little probability in this conjecture. For, in the first place, not only would it be a surprising thing to find the places mentioned as boundaries included among the towns of the territory belonging to the tribe, especially as some of the places so mentioned did not belong to Zebulun at all; but the copula vav, with which the enumeration of the towns commences, is equally surprising, since this is introduced in other cases with WW?} WJ1 (WJ5)j e.g. chap, xviii. 21, xv. 21. And, in the second place, it is not a probable thing in itself, that, with the exception of the five towns mentioned in ver. 15, the other towns of Zebulun should all be situated upon the border. And lastly, the towns of Kartah and Dimnah, which Zebulun gave up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 34), are actually wanting. Under these circumstances, it is a natural conclusion that there is a gap in the text here, just as in chap. xv. 59 and xxi. 36.
Vers. 17-23. The Inheritance of Issachar. — In this instance only towns are given, and the boundaries are not delineated, with the exception of the eastern portion of the northern boundary and the boundary line; at the same time, they may easily be traced from the boundaries of the surrounding tribes. Issachar received for the most part the large and very fertile plain of Jezreel (see at chap. xvii. 16, and Bitter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 689 sqq.), and was bounded on the south by Manasseh, on the west by Manasseh and Asher, on the north by Zebulun, and farther east by Naphtali also, and on the east by the Jordan. — Ver. 18. " And their boundary was towards Jezreel" i.e. their territory extended beyond Jezreel. Jezreel, the summer residence of Ahab and his house (1 Kings xviii. 45, 46, etc.), was situated upon a mountain, with an extensive and splendid prospect over the large plain that was called by its name. It was afterwards called Esdraela, a place described in the Onom. (s. v, Jezreel) as standing between Scythopolis and Legio; it is the present Zerin, on the north-west of the mountains of Gilboa (see Seetzen, ii. pp. 155-6; Bob. iii. pp. 161 sqq.; Van de Velde, R. ii- pp. 320 sqrp). Chesulloth, possibly the same as Chisloth-tabor (see at ver. 12). Sunem, the home of Abishag (1 Kings i. 3-15, etc.), also mentioned in 1 Sam. xxviii. 4 and 2 Kings iv. 8, was situated, according to the Onom., five Roman miles (two hours) to the south of Tabor; it is the present Solam or Sulem, at the south-western foot of the Duhy or Little Hermon, an hour and a half to the north of Jezreel (see Rob. iii. pp. 170 sqq.; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 323). — Ver. 19. Haphraim, according to the Onom. (s. v. Aphraim) villa Affarcva, six Roman miles to the north of Legio, is identified by Knobel with the village of Afuleh, on the west of Sulem, and more than two hours to the north-east of Lejun (Rob. iii. pp. 163, 181). Sion, according to the Onom. villa juxta montem Thabor, has not yet been discovered. Anaharath is supposed by Knobel to be Natural^ on the eastern side of the Little Hermon (Bibl. Res. p. 337); but he regards the text as corrupt, and following the Cod. Al. of the LXX., which has 'PevaO and 'AppaveO, maintains that the reading should be Archanath, to which Ardneh on the north of Jenin in the plain corresponds (Seetzen, ii. p. 156; Rob. iii. p. 157). But the circumstance that the Cod. Al. has two names instead of one makes its reading very suspicious. — Ver. 20. Harabbit is supposed by Knobel to be Araboneh, on the north-east of Araneh, at the southern foot of Gilboa (Rob. iii. p. 157). Kishion, which was given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 28) and is erroneously written Kedesh in 1 Chron. vi. 57, is unknown. This also applies to Abez or Ebez, which is never mentioned again. — Ver. 21. Remeth, for which Jarmuth stands in the list of Levitical towns in chap. xxi. 29, and Ramoth in 1 Chron. vi. 58, is also unknown.1 En-gannim, which was also allotted to the Levites (chap. xxi. 29; also 1 Chron. v. 58, where it is called Anem), has been associated by Robinson (iii. p. 155) with the Tivaia of Josephus, the present Jenin. The name En-gannim signifies fountain of gardens, and Jenin stands at the southern side of the plain of Jezreel in the midst of gardens
1 Knobel imagines Remelh, whose name signifies height, to be the village of Wezar, on one of the western peaks of Gilboa (Seetzen, ii. p. 156; Rob. iii. p. 1G6, and Bibl. Res. p. 339), as the name also signifies " a lofty, inaccessible mountain, or a castle situated upon a mountain." This is certainly not impossible, but it is improbable. For this Mahometan village evidently derived its name from the fact that it has the appearance of a fortification when seen from a distance (see Rilter, Erdk. xv. p. 422). The name has nothing in common therefore with the Hebrew Rcmeth, and the travellers quoted by him say nothing at all about the ruins which he mentions in connection with Wezar (Wusar).
and orchards, which are watered by a copious spring (see Seetzen, ii. pp. 156 sqq.); " unless perhaps the place referred to is the heap of ruins called Um el Ghanim, on the south-east of Tabor, mentioned by Berggren, ii. p. 240, and Van de Velde, Mem. p. 142 " (Knobel). En-chadda and Beth-pazzez are only mentioned here, and have not yet been discovered. According to Knobel, the former of the two may possibly be either the place by Gilboa called Judeideh, with a fountain named Ain Judeideh (Bob. Bibl. Res. p. 337), or else Bcit-kad or Kadd near Gilboa, mentioned by Seetzen (ii. p. 159) and Bobinson (iii. p. 157). — Ver. 22. " And \ the boundary touched Tabor, Sahazim, and Beth-shemesh." Tabor is not the mountain of that name, but a town upon the mountain, which was given to the Levites, though not by Issachar but by Zebulun (1 Chron. vi. 62), and was fortified afresh in the Jewish wars (Josephus, Bell. Jud. iv. 1, 8). In this passage, however, it appears to be reckoned as belonging to Issachar, since otherwise there are not sixteen cities named. At the same time, as there are several discrepancies between the numbers given and the names actually mentioned, it is quite possible that in this instance also the number sixteen is incorrect. In any case, Tabor was upon the border of Zebulun (ver. 12), so that it might have been allotted to this tribe. There are still the remains of old walls and ruins of arches, houses, and other buildings to be seen upon Mount Tabor; and round the summit there are the foundations of a thick wall built of large and to a great extent fluted stones (see Bob. iii. pp. 453 sqq.; Seetzen, ii. p. 148; Buckingham, Syr. i. pp. 83 sqq.). The places which follow are to be sought for on the east of Tabor towards the Jordan, as the boundary terminated at the Jordan. Sachazim (Shahazimah) Knobel connects with el Hazetheh, as the name, which signifies heights, points to a town situated upon hills; and el Hazetheh stands upon the range of hills, bounding the low-lying land of Ard el Hamma, which belonged to Naphtali. The reason is a weak one, though the situation would suit. There is more probability in the conjecture that Beth-shemesh, which remained in the hands of the Canaanites (Judg. i. 33), has been preserved in the ruined village of Bessum (Bob. iii. p. 237), and that this new name is only a corruption of the old one, like Beth-shean and Beisan. It is probable that the eastern portion of the northern boundary of Issachar, towards Naphtali, ran in a north-easterly direction from Tabor through the plain to Kefr Sabt, and thence to the Jordan along the Wady Bessum. It is not stated how far the territory of Issachar
Vers. 24-31. The Inheritance of Asher. — Asher received its territory along the Mediterranean Sea from Carmel to the northern boundary of Canaan itself. The description commences with the central portion, viz. the neighbourhood of Acco (ver. 25), going first of all towards the south (vers. 26, 27), and then to the north (vers. 28, 30). — Ver. 25. The territory of the Asherites wras as follows. Helkath, which was given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 31, and 1 Chron. vi. 75, where Hukok is an old copyist's error), is the present Jelka, three hours to the east of Acco (Akka: Scholz, Reise, p. 257), or Jerka, a Druse village situated upon an eminence, and judging from the remains, an ancient place {Van de Velde, R. i. p. 214; Bob. iii. App.). Hali, according to Knobel possibly Julis, between Jerka and Akka, in which case the present name arose from the form Halit, and t was changed into 5. Beten, according to the Onom. {s. v. Barvat: Bathne) a vicus Bethbeten, eight Roman miles to the east of Ptolemais, has not yet been found. Achshaph is also unknown (see at Chap. xi. 1). The Onom. {s. v. Achsaph) says nothing more about its situation than that it was in tribu Aser, whilst the statement made s. v. Acsaph (^Atccrd<f)), that it was villula Chasalus {Kcofirj 'E%dhov<$), eight Roman miles from Diocsesarea ad radicem montis Thabor, leads into the territory of Zebulun. — Ver. 26. Alammalech has been preserved, so far as the name is concerned, in the Wady Malek or Malik {Bob. Bibl. Res. p. 110), which runs into the Kishon, since in all probability the wady was named after a place either near it or writhin it. Amad is supposed by Knobel to be the present Haifa, about three hours to the south of Acre, on the sea, and this he identifies with the sycamore city mentioned by Strabo (xvi. 758), Ptolemy (v. 15, 5), and Pliny {h. n. v. 17), which wras called Epha in the time of the Fathers (see Bitter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 722 sqq.). In support of this he adduces the fact that the Hebrew name resembles the Arabic noun for sycamore, — an argument the weakness of which does not need to be pointed out. Misheal was assigned to the Levites (chap. xxi. 30, and 1 Chron. vi. 74, where it is called Mashal). According to the Onom. {s. v. Masari) it wras on the sea-coast near to Carmel, which is in harmony with the next clause, " and reacheth to Carmel westwards, and to Shihor-libnath." Carmel {i.e. fruit-field), which has acquired celebrity from the history of Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 17 sqq.), is a wooded mountain ridge which stretcnes in a north-westerly direction on the southern side of the Kishon, and projects as a promontory into the sea. Its name, "fruit-field," is well chosen; for whilst the lower part is covered with laurels and olive trees, the upper abounds in figs and oaks, and the whole mountain is full of the most beautiful flowers. There are also many caves about it (yid. v. Returner, Pal. pp. 43 sqq.; and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 705-6). The Shihor-libnath is not the Belus, or glassriver, in the neighbourhood of Acre, but is to be sought for on the south of Carmel, where Asher was bounded by Manasseh (chap, xvii. 10), i.e. to the south of Dor, which the Manassites received in the territory of Asher (chap. xvii. 11); it is therefore in all probability the Nahr Zerka, possibly the crocodile river of Pliny (Reland, Pal. p. 730), which is three hours to the south of Dor, and whose name (blue) might answer both to sJdhor (black) and libnath (white). — Ver. 27. From this point the boundary " turned towards the east" probably following the river Libnath for a short distance upwards, " to Beth-dagon" which has not yet been discovered, and must not be identified with Beit Dejan between Yafa and Ludd (Diospolis), " and touched Zebidun and the valley of Jiphtah-el on the north of Beth-emeh, and Nehiel, and went out on the left to Cabul" i.e. on the northern side of it. The north-west boundary went from Zebulun into the valley of Jiphtah-el, i.e. the upper part of the Wady Abilin (ver. 14). Here therefore the eastern boundary of Asher, which ran northwards from Wady Zerka past the western side of Issachar and Zebulun, touched the north-west corner of Zebulun. The two places, Beth-emeh and Nehiel (the latter possibly the same as Neah in ver. 13), which were situated at the south of the valley of Jiphtah-el, have not been discovered; they may, however, have been upon the border of Zebulun and yet have belonged to Asher. Cabul, the /ccofMij Xa(3(D\cb of Josephus (Vit. § 43), in the district of Ptolemais, has been preserved in the village of Kabul, four hours to the southeast of Acre (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 88, and Van de Velde, R. i. p. 218).
In vers. 28-30 the towns and boundaries in the northern part of the territory of Asher, on the Phoenician frontier, are given, and the Phoenician cities Sidon, Tyre, and Achzib are mentioned as marking the boundary. First of all we have four towns in ver. 28, reaching as far as Sidon, no doubt in the northern district of Asher. Ebron has not yet been traced. As Abdon occurs among the towns which Asher gave up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 30; 1 Chron. vi. 59), and in this verse also twenty mss. have the reading Abdon, many writers, like JReland (Pal. p. 514), regard Ebron as a copyist's error for Abdon. This is possible enough, but it is by no means certain. As the towns of Asher are not all given in this list, since Acco, Achlab, and Helba (Judg. i. 31) are wanting, Abdon may also have been omitted. But we cannot attach any importance to the reading of the twenty mss., as it may easily have arisen from chap, xxi. 30; and in addition to the Masoretic text, it has against it the authority of all the ancient versions, in which the reading Ebron is adopted. But even Abdon cannot be traced with certainty. On the supposition that Abdon is to be read for Ebron, Knobel connects it with the present Abbadiyeh, on the east of Beirut (Rob. iii. App.; Bitter, Erdk. xvii. pp. 477 and 710), or with Abidat, on the east (not the north) of Jobail (Byblus), mentioned by Burckliardt (Syr. p. 296) and Robinson (iii. App.); though he cannot adduce any other argument in support of the identity of Abdon with these two places, which are only known by name at present, except the resemblance in their names. On the supposition, however, that Abdon is not the same as Ebron, Van de Veldes conjecture is a much more natural one; namely, that it is to be found in the ruins of Abdeh, on the Wady Kurn, to the north of Acca. Rehob cannot be traced. The name occurs again in ver. 30, from which it is evident that there were two towns of this name in the territory of Asher (see at ver. 30). ScJadtz and Van de Velde connect it with the village of Ilamul by the wady of that name, between Ras el Abyad and Has en Nakura; but this is too far south to be included in the district which reached to great Sidon. KnobeVs suggestion would be a more probable one, namely, that it is connected with the village of Hammana, on the east of Beirut, in the district of el Metn, on the heights of Lebanon, where there is now a Maronite monastery (vid, Seetzen, i. p. 260; Rob. iii. App.; and Ritter, xvii. pp. 676 and 710), if it could only be shown that the territory of Asher reached as far to the east as this. Kanah cannot be the village of Kdna, not far from Tyre (Rob. iii. p. 384), but must have been farther north, and near to Sidon, though it has not yet been discovered. For the supposition that it is connected with the existing place called A in Kanieh (Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, xvii. pp. 94 and 703), on the north of Jezzin, is overthrown by the fact that that place is too far to the east to be thought of in this connection; and neither Robinson nor Ritter makes any allusion to u Ain Kana, in the neighbourhood of
Jurjera, six hours to the south-east of Sidon," which Knobel mentions without quoting his authority, so that the existence of such a place is very questionable. On Sidon, now Saida, see at chap. xi. 8. — Ver. 29. u And the boundary turned (probably from the territory of Sidon) to Ramah, to the fortified town of Zor." Robinson supposes that Rama is to be found in the village of Rameh, on the south-east of Tyre, where several ancient sarcophagi are to be seen (Bibl. Res. p. 63). " The fortified town of Zor" i.e. Tyre, is not the insular Tyre, but the town of Tyre, which was on the mainland, the present Sur, which is situated by the sea-coast, in a beautiful and fertile plain (see Ritter, Erdk. xvii. p. 320, and Movers, Phonizier, ii. 1, pp. 118 sqq.). " And the boundary turned to Hosah, and the outgoings thereof were at the sea, by the side of the district of Achzib" Hosah is unknown, as the situation of Kausah, near to the Rameh already mentioned {Rob. BibL Res. p. 61), does not suit in this connection. ^no, lit. from the district, i.e. by the side of it. Achzib, where the Asherites dwelt with the Canaanites (Judg. i. 31, 32), is the Ekdippa of the Greeks and Romans, according to the Onom. (s. v. Achzipli) nine Roman miles, or according to the Itiner. Hieros. p. 584, twelve miles to the north of Acco by the sea, the present Zib, a very large village, three good hours to the north of Acre, — a place on the sea-coast, with considerable ruins of antiquity (see Ges. Thes. p. 674; Seetzen, ii. p. 109; Ritter, xvi. pp. 811-12). — In ver. 30 three separate towns are mentioned, which were probably situated in the eastern part of the northern district of Asher, whereas the border towns mentioned in vers. 28 and 29 describe this district in its western half. Ummah (LXX. ^Afifxa) may perhaps have been preserved in Kefr Ammeih, upon the Lebanon, to the south of Hammana, in the district of Jurd {Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, xvii. p. 710). Aphek is the present Afka (see at chap. xiii. 4) Rehob cannot be traced with certainty. If it is Hub, as Knobel supposes, and the name Hub, which is borne by a Maronite monastery upon Lebanon, in the diocese of el-Jebail (to the north-east of Jebail), is a corruption of Rehob, this would be the northernmost town of Asher (see Seetzen, i. pp. 187 sqq., and Ritter, xvii. p. 791). The number u twenty-two towns and their villages" does not tally, as there are twenty-three towns mentioned in vers. 26-30, if we include Sidon, Tyre, and Achzib, according to Judg. i. 31, 32. The only way in which the numbers can be made to agree is to reckon Nehiel (ver. 27) as identical with Neah (ver. 13). But this point cannot be determined with certainty, as the Asherites received other towns, such as Acco and Aclaph, which are wanting in this list, and may possibly have simply fallen out.
Vers. 32-39. The Inheritance of Nathtali. — This fell between Asher and the upper Jordan. It reached northwards to the northern boundary of Canaan, and touched Zebulun and Issachar on the south. In vers. 33 and 34 the boundary lines are given: viz. in ver. 33 the western boundary towards Asher, with the northern and eastern boundaries: in ver. 34 -the southern boundary; but with the uncertainty which exists as to several of the places named, it cannot be traced with certainty. — Yer. 33. " Its boundary teas (its territory reached) from Heleph, from the oak-forest at Zaanannim, and Adami Nekeb and Jabneel to Lakkum; and its outgoings were the Jordan." Heleph is unknown, though in all probability it was to the south of Zaanannim, and not very far distant. According to Judg. iv. 11, the oak-forest (allon: see the remarks on Gen. xii. 6) at Zaanannim was near Kedesh, on the north-west of Lake Huleh. There are still many oaks in that neighbourhood (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 386); and on the south of Bint Jebail Robinson crossed a low mountain-range which was covered with small oak trees (Pal. iii. p. 372). Adami hannekeb, i.e. Adami of the pass (Nekeb, judging from the analogy of the Arabic, signifying foramen, via inter montes), is supposed by Knobel to be Deir-el-ahmar, i.e. red cloister, a place which is still inhabited, three hours to the north-west of Baalbek, on the pass from the cedars to Baalbek (Seetzen, i. pp. 181, 185; Burckhardt, Syr. p. 60; and Ritter, Erdk. xvii. p. 150), so called from the reddish colour of the soil in the neighbourhood, which would explain the name Adami. Knobel also connects Jabneel with the lake Jemun, Jemuni, or Jammime, some hours to the north-west of Baalbek, on the eastern side of the western Lebanon range (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 548; Ritter, xvii. pp. 304 sqq.), where there are still considerable ruins of a very early date to be found, especially the ruins of an ancient temple and a celebrated place of pilgrimage, with which the name u God's building" agrees. And lastly, he associates Lakkum with the mountains of Lokham, as the northern part of Lebanon on the Syrian mountains, from the latitude of Laodicea to that of Antioch on the western side of the Orontes, is called by the Arabian geographers Isztachri, Abulfeda, and others. So far as the names are concerned, these combinations seem appropriate enough, but they are hardly tenable. The resemblance between the names Lakkum and Lokham is only in appearance, as the Hebrew name is written with p and the Arabic with D. Moreover, the mountains of Lokham are much too far north for the name to be adduced as an explanation of Lakkum. The interpretation of Adami Neheb and Jabneel is also irreconcilable with the circumstance that the lake Jamun was two hours to the west of the red convent, so that the boundary, which starts from the west, and is drawn first of all towards the north, and then to the north-east and east, must have run last of all from the red convent, and not from the Jamun lake to the Jordan. As Jabneel is mentioned after Adami Nekeb, it must be sought for to the east of Adami Nekeb, whereas the Jamun lake lies in the very opposite direction, namely, directly to the west of the red convent. The three places mentioned, therefore, cannot be precisely determined at present. The Jordan, where the boundary of Asher terminated, was no doubt the upper Jordan, or rather the Nahr Hasbany, one of the sources of the Jordan, which formed, together with the Huleh lake and the Jordan itself, between Lake Huleh and the Sea of Tiberias, and down to the point where it issues from the latter, the eastern boundary of Asher. — Yer. 34. From the Jordan below the Lake of Tiberias, or speaking more exactly, from the point at which the Wady Bessum enters the Jordan, " the boundary (of Asher) turned westwards to Asnoth-tabor, and went thence out to Hukkok." This boundary, i.e. the southern boundary of Asher, probably followed the course of the Wady Bessum from the Jordan, which wady was the boundary of Issachar on the north-east, and then ran most likely from Kefr Sabt (see at ver. 22) to Asnothtabor, i.e., according to the Onom. (s. v. Azanoth), a vicus ad regionem JDiocwsarece pertinens in campestribus, probably on the southeast of Dioccesarea, i.e. Sepphoris, not far from Tabor, to which the boundary of Issachar extended (ver. 22). Hukkok has not yet been traced. Robinson (Bibl. Res. p. 82) and Van de Velde (Mem. p. 322) are inclined to follow Rabbi Parchi of the fourteenth century, and identify this place with the village of Yakuk, on the north-west of the Lake of Gennesareth; but this village is too far to the north-east to have formed the terminal point of the southern boundary of Naphtali, as it ran westwards from the Jordan. After this Naphtali touched " Zebulun on the south, Asher on the west, and Judah by the Jordan toward the sun-rising or east." "The Jordan" is in apposition to " Judah," in the sense of " Judah of the Jordan," like " Jordan of Jericho " in Num. xxii. 1, xxvi. 3, etc. The Masoretic pointing, wlrch separates these two words, was founded upon some false notion respecting this definition of the boundary, and caused the commentators great perplexity, until C. v. Raumer succeeded in removing the difficulty, by showing that the district of the sixty towns of Jair, which was upon the eastern side of the Jordan, is called Judah here, or reckoned as belonging to Judah, because Jair, the possessor of these towns, was a descendant of Judah on the father's side through Hezron (1 Chron. ii. 5, 21, 22); whereas in chap. xiii. 30, and Num. xxxii. 41, he is reckoned contra mo?em, i.e. against the rule laid down in Num. xxxvi. 7, as a descendant of Manasseh, on account of his descent from Machir the Manassite, on his mother's side.1
Vers. 35 sqq. The fortified towns of Naphtali were the following. Ziddim: unknown, though Knobel suggests that " it may possibly be preserved in Chirbet es Saudeh, to the west of the southern extremity of the Lake of Tiberias (Rob. iii. App.);" but this place is to the west of the Wady Bessum, i.e. in the territory of Issachar. Zer is also unknown. As the LXX. and Syriac give the name as Zor, Knobel connects it with Kerak, which signifies fortress as well as Zor (= "1^'9)J a heap of ruins at the southern end of the lake (Rob. iii. p. 263), the place which Josephus calls Tarichece (see Relandy p. 1026), — a very doubtful combination! Hammath (i.e. thermce), a Levitical town called Hammoth-dor in chap. xxi. 32, and Ilammon in 1 Chron. vi. 61, was situated, according to statements in the Talmud, somewhere near the later city of Tiberias, on the western shore of the Lake of Gennesareth, and was no doubt identical with the /cco^t] 'Afifiaovs in the neighbourhood of Tiberias, a place with warm baths (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2, 3; Bell. Jud. iv. 1, 3). There are warm springs still to be found half an hour to the south of Tabaria, which are used as baths (Burckhardt, Syr. pp. 573-4; Rob. iii. pp. 258 sqq.). Rakkath (according to the Talm. and Rabb. ripa littus) was situated, according to rabbinical accounts, in the immediate neighbourhood of Hammath, and was the same place as Tiberias; but the account given by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 2, 3; cf. Bell. Jud. ii. 9, 1) respecting the founding of Tiberias by Herod the tetrarch is at variance with this; so that the rabbinical statements appear to have no other foundation than the etymology of the name
1 See C. v. Raumer's article on " Judaea on the east of Jordan," in Thohick's litt. Anz. 1834, Nos. 1 and 2, and his Palfistina, pp. 233 sqq. ed. 4; and for the arbitrary attempts that had been made to explain the passage by alterations of the text and in other ways, see RosenmUller's Bibl. Altcrthk. ii. 1, pp. 301-2; and Kerfs Comm on Joshua, pp. 438-9.
Rakkatk. Chinnereth is given in the Targums as 1p*2?j "IDfrJ, "ipi33, i.e. Tevv7)<rdp. According to Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 10, 8), this name was given to a strip of land on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, which was distinguished foi its natural beauty, ils climate, and its fertility, namely the long plain, about twenty minutes broad and an hour long, which stretches along the western shore of this lake, from el-Mejdel on the south to Khan Minyeh on the north (Burchhardt, Syr. pp. 558-9; Bob. iii. pp. 279, 290). It must have been in this plain that the town of Chinnereth stood, from which the plain and lake together derived the name of Chinnereth (Deut. iii. 17) or Chinneroth (chap. xi. 2), and the lake alone the name of " Sea of Chinnereth," or " Sea of Chinneroth" (chap. xii. 3, xiii. 27; Num. xxxiv. 11). — Ver. 36. Adamah is unknown. Knobel is of opinion, that as Adamah signifies red, the place referred to may possibly be Bas el Ahmar, i.e. red-head, on the north of Safed (Bob. iii. p. 370; Bibl. Res. p. 69). Bamah is the present Bameh (Bamea), a large well-built village, inhabited by Christians and Druses, surrounded by extensive olive plantations, and provided with an excellent well. It stands upon the slope of a mountain, in a beautiful plain on the south-west of Safed, but without any relics of antiquity (see Seetzen, ii. p. 129; Bob. Bibl. Res. pp. 78-9). Hazor has not yet been traced with certainty (see at chap. xi. 1).— Ver. 37. Kedesh (see at chap, xii. 2). Edrei, a different place from the town of the same name in Bashan (chap. i. 2, 4), is still unknown. En-liazor is probably to be sought for in Tell Hazur and Ain Hazur, which is not very far distant, on the south-west of Bameh, though the ruins upon Tell Ilazur are merely the ruins of an ordinary village, with one single cistern that has fallen to pieces (Bob. Bibl. Res. pp. 80, 81). — Ver. 38. Jireon (Iron) is probably the present village of Jarun, an hour to the south-east of Bint-Jebeil, with the ruins of an ancient Christian church (Seetzen, ii. pp. 123-4; Van de Velde, R. i. p. 133). Migdal-el, so far as the name is concerned, might be Magdala (Matt, xv. 39), on the western shore of the Lake of Gennesareth, between Capernaum and Tiberias (Bob. iii. pp. 279 sqq.); the only difficulty is, that the towns upon this lake have already been mentioned in ver. 35. Knobel connects Migdal-el with Chorem, so as to form one name, and finds Migdal el Chorem in the present Mejdel Kerum, on the west of Rameh (Seetzen, ii. p. 130; Van de Velde, i. p. 215), a common Mahometan village. But there is nothing to favour this combination, except the similarity in sound between the two names; whereas it has against it not only the situation of the village, which was so far to the west, being not more than three hours from Acca, that the territory of Naphtali can hardly have reached so far, but also the very small resemblance between Chorem and Kerum, not to mention the fact that the accents separate Chorem from Migdal-el, whilst the omission of the copula (yav) before Chorem cannot have any weight, as the copula is also wanting before Zer and Rakkath. Chorem and Beth-anath have not yet been discovered. From the latter place Naphtali was unable to expel the Canaanites (Judg. i. 33). Beth-shemesh, a different place from the town of the same name in Issachar (ver. 22), is also still unknown. The total number of towns is given as nineteen, whereas only sixteen are mentioned by name. It is hardly correct to seek for the missing places among the border towns mentioned in vers. 33 and 34, as the enumeration of the towns themselves is introduced by "TCip ^V) in ver. 35, and in this way the list of towns is separated from the description of the boundaries. To this we may add, that the town of Karthan or Kirjathaim, which Naphtali gave up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 32; 1 Chron. vi. 61), does not occur either among the border towns or in the list of towns, from which we may see that the list of towns is an imperfect one.
Vers. 40-48. The Inheritance of the Tribe of Dan. — This fell to the west of Benjamin, between Judah and Ephraim, and was formed by Judah giving up some of its northern towns, and Ephraim some of its southern towns, to the Danites, so as to furnish them with a territory proportionate to their number. It was situated for the most part in the lowland (shephelah), including, however, the hill country between the Mediterranean and the mountains, and extended over a portion of the plain of Sharon, so that it belonged to one of the most fruitful portions of Palestine. The boundaries are not given, because they could be traced from those of the adjoining territories. — Ver. 41. From Judah the families of Dan received Zorea and JEshtaol (see at chap. xv. 33), and Ir-shemesh, also called Beth-shemesh (1 Kings iv. 9), on the border of Judah (see chap. xv. 10); but of these the Danites did uot take possession, as they were given up by Judah to the Levites (chap. xxi. 16: see at chap. xv. 10). Saalabbin, or Saalbim, which remained in the hands of the Canaanites (Judg. i. 35), is frequently mentioned in the history of David and Solomon (2 Sam. xxiii. 32; 1 Chron. xi. 33; 1 Kings iv. 9). It may possibly be the present Selbit {Rob. iii. App.; Bibl. Ives. p. 144), some distance to the north of the three places mentioned (KnobeT). Ajalon, which was also not taken from the Canaanites (Judg. i. 35), was assigned to the Levites (chap. xxi. 24; 1 Chron. vi. 54). It is mentioned in the wars with the Philistines (1 Sam. xiv. 31; 1 Chron. viii. 13), was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 10), and was taken by the Philistines from King Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 18). It has been preserved in the village of Yalo (see at chap. x. 12). Jethlah is only mentioned here, and has not yet been discovered. So far as the name is concerned, it may possibly be preserved in the Wady Atallah, on the west of Yalo (Bibl. Res. pp. 143-4). — Ver. 43. Elon, which is mentioned again in 1 Kings iv. 9, with the addition of Beth-hanan, has not yet been traced; according to Knobel, it " may possibly be Ellin, near Timnath and Beth-shemesh, mentioned by Robinson in his Pal. vol. iii. App." Tkimna (Thimnathah) and Ekron, on the boundary of Judah (see at chap. xv. 10, 11). — Yer. 44. Eltekeh and Gibbethon, which were allotted to the Levites (chap. xxi. 23), have not yet been discovered. Under the earliest kings of Israel, Gibbethon was in the hands of the Philistines (1 Kings xv. 27, xvi. 15, 17). Baalath was fortified by Solomon (1 Kings ix. 18). According to Josephus (Ant. viii. 6, 1), it was " Baleth in the neighbourhood of Geser;" probably the same place as Baalah, on the border of Judah (chap. xv. 11). — Yer. 45. Jehud has probably been preserved in the village of Jehudieh (Hudieh), two hours to the north of Ludd (Diospolis), in a splendidly cultivated plain (Berggren, R* iii. p. 162; Bob. iii. p. 45, and App.). Bene-berah, the present Ibn Abrak, an hour from Jehud (Scholz, R. p. 256). Gathrimmon, which was given to the Levites (chap. xxi. 24; 1 Chron. vi. 54), is described in the Onom. (s. u.) as villa prcegrandis in duodecimo milliario Diospoleos pergentibus Eleutheropolin, — a statement which points to the neighbourhood of Thimnah, though it has not yet been discovered. — Yer. 46. Me-jarkon, i.e. aquo? flavedinis, and Bakkon, are unknown; but from the clause which follows, " with the territory before Japho," it must have been in the neighbourhood of Joppa (Jaffa). " The territory before Japho" includes the places in the environs of Joppa. Consequently Joppa itself does not appear to have belonged to the territory of Dan, although, according to Judg. v. 17, the Danites must have had possession of this town. Japho, the well-known port of Palestine (2 Chron. ii. 15; Ezra iii. 7; Jonah i. 3), which the Greeks called ^Iottitt) (Joppa), the present Jaffa (see v. Baumer, Pal. pp. 204-5, and Bitter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 574 sqq.). — Yer. 47. Besides this inheritance, the Danites of Zorea and Eshtaol went, after Joshua's death, and conquered the town of Leshem or Laish, on the northern boundary of Canaan, and gave it the name of Dan, as the territory which was allotted to them under Joshua was too small for them, on account of their inability to drive out the Amorites from several of their towns (Judg. i. 34, 35, xvui. 2). For further particulars concerning this conquest, see Judg. xviii. Leshem or Laish (Judg. xviii. 7, 27), i.e. Dan, which the Onom. describes as viculus quarto a Paneade milliario euntibus Fyrum, was the present Tell el Kadi, or el Leddan, the central source of the Jordan, to the west of Banjas, a place with ancient ruins (see Rob. iii. p. 351; Bibl. Res. pp. 390, 393). It was there that Jeroboam set up the golden calves (1 Kings xii. 29, 30, etc.); and it is frequently mentioned as the northernmost city of the Israelites, in contrast with Beersheba, which was in the extreme south of the land (Judg. xx. 1; 1 Sam. iii. 20; 2 Sam. iii. 10: see also Ritter, Erdk. xv. pp. 207 sqq.).