Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Yers. 40-43. Summary of the Conquest of the xchole of Southern Canaan. — In the further prosecution of his victory over the five allied kings, Joshua smote the whole land, i.e. the whole of the south of Canaan from Gibeon onwards, in all its districts, namely

1 Knohel imagines that Debir is to be found in the modern village of Dhoheriyeh (Dhabarije), five hours to the south-west of Hebron, on the south-west border of the mountains of Judah, upon the top of a mountain, because, in addition to the situation of this village, which is perfectly recoAcilable with chap. IV. 49, there are remains of a square tower there (according to Krafft, a Roman tower), which point to an ancient fortification (yid. Rob. Pal. i. pp. 308 sqq.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 202 sqq.), and because the name, which signifies " placed behind the back," agrees with Debir, the hinder part or back (?), and Kirjath-sepher, if interpreted by the Arabic words, which signify " extremitas, margo, ora.'^ But both reasons prove very httle. The meanings assigned to Debir and Kirjath-sepher are improbable and arbitrary. Moreover, it has not been shown that there are any springs near Dhoberiyeh, such as there were in the neighbourhood of Debir (chap. xv. 19 sqq.). The view held by Rosenmiiller, aud adopted by Bunsen, with regard to the situation of Debir, — namely, that it was the same as the modern Idwirbdn or Dewirbdn, an hour and a quarter to the west of Hebron, because there is a large spring there with an abundant supply of excellent water, which goes by the name of Ain XunkHr, — is also quite untenable; for it is entirely at variance with chap. xv. 49, according to which Debir was not on the west of Hebron, but upon the mountains to the south, and rests entirely upon the erroneous assumption that, according to ver. 38 (^II**!, he turned round), as Joshua came from Eglon, he conquered Hebron first, and after the conquest of this town turned back to Debir, to take it also. But y\^ does not mean only to turn round or turn back: it signifies turning generally; and it is very evident that this is the sense in which it is used in ver. 38, since, according to chap. xv. 49, Debir was on the south of Hebron.

* By this simple assumption we get rid of the pretended contradictions, which neological critics have discovered between chap. i. 36-39 on the one hand, and chap. xi. 21. 22, and xiv. 12, xv. 13-17 on the other, and on account of which Knobel would assign the passages last named to a different document. On the first conquest of the land by Joshua, Masiiis observes that " in the mountains (chap. xv. 48), the Negeb (the south land, chap. xv. 21), the lowlands (chap. xv. 33), and the slopes, i.e. the hill region (chap. xii. 8, and coram, on Num. xxi. 15), and all the kings of these different districts, banning every living thing (n»K'i~?3 = t^'23~7^, vers. 28, 30, i.e. all the men; vid. Deut. xx. 16), as Jehovah had commanded, viz. Num. xxxiii. 51 sqq.; Deut. vii. 1, 2, xx. 16. He smote them from Kadesh-barnea, on the southern boundary of Canaan (chap. xv. 3; see at Num. xii. 16), to Gaza (see at Gen. X. 9), and all the country of Goshen, a different place from the Goshen of Egypt, deriving its name in all probability from the town of Goshen on the southern portion of the mountains (chap. XV. 51). As the line "from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza^' defines the extent of the conquered country from south to north on the western side, so the parallel clause, " all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon," defines the extent from south to north on the eastern side. There is no tenable ground for the view expressed by Knobel, which rests upon very uncertain etymological combinations, that the land of Goshen signifies the hill country between the mountains and the plain, and is equivalent to nnB'N. — Yer. 42. All these kings and their country Joshua took " once," i.e. in one campaign, which lasted, however, a considerable time (cf. chap. xi. 18). He was able to accomplish this, because Jehovah the God of Israel fought for Israel (see ver. 14). After this he returned with the army to the camp at Gilgal (Jiljilia, see p. 93; cf. ver. 15).

DEFEAT OF THE KINGS OF NORTHERN CANAAN. SUBJUGATION OF THE WHOLE LAND. — CHAP. XI.

Vers. 1-15. The War in Northern Canaan. — ^Vers. 1-3. On receiving intelligence of what had occurred in the south, the king of Hazor formed an alliance with the kings of Madon, Shimron, and Achshaph, and other kings of the north, to make a common attack upon the Israelites. This league originated with Jabin the king of Hazor, because Hazor was formerly the head of this expedition Joshua ran through the southern region with an armed band, in too hurried a manner to depopulate it entirely. All that he needed was to p.trike such terror into the hearts of all through his victories, that no one should Henceforth offer any resistance to himself and to the people of God. Those whom he pursued, therefore, he destroyed according to the commands of God, not sparing a single one, but he did not search out every possible hiding-place in which any could be concealed. This was left as a gleaning to the valour of each particular tribe, when it should take possession of its own inheritance."

all the kingdoms of northern Canaan (ver. 10). Hazor^ which Joshua conquered and burned to the ground (vers. 10, 11), was afterwards restored, and became a capital again (Judg. iv. 2; 1 Sam. xii. 9); it was fortified by Solomon (1 Kings is. 15), and taken by Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings xv. 29). It belonged to the tribe of Naphtali (chap. xix. 36), but has not yet been discovered. According to Josephus (Ant. v. 5, 1), it was above the Lake of Samochonitis, the present Bahr el Huleh. Robinson conjectures that it is to be found in the ruins upon Tell Kliuraiheh, opposite to the north-west comer of the lake of Huleh, the situation of which would suit Hazor quite well, as it is placed between Ramah and Kedesh in chap. xix. 35, 36 (see Bibl. Res. p. 364). On the other hand, the present ruins of Huzzur or Hazireh, where there are the remains of large buildings of a very remote antiquity (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. Q2), with which Knobel identifies Hazor, cannot be thought of for a moment, as these ruins, which are about an hour and a quarter to the south-west of Yathir, are so close to the Ramah of Asher (chap. xix. 29) that Hazor must also have belonged to Asher, and could not possibly have been included in the territory of Naphtali. There would be more reason for thinking of Tell Hazur or Khirbet Ilazur, on the south-west of Szafed (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 81); but these ruins are not veiy ancient, and only belong to an ordinary village, and not to a town at all. Madon is only mentioned again in chap. xii. 19, and its situation is quite unknown. Shimron, called Shimron-meron in chap. xii. 20, was allotted to the tribe of Zebulun (chap. xix. 15), and is also unknown. For Meron cannot be connected, as Knobel supposes, with the village and ruins of Maron, not far from Kedesh, on the southwest (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 371), or Shimron with the ruins of Khuraibehj an hour to the south of Kedesh; as the territory of Zebulun, to which Shimron belonged, did not reach so far north, and there is not the slightest ground for assuming that there were two Shimrons, or for making a distinction between the royal seat mentioned here and the Shimron of Zebulun. There is also no probability in KnobeTs conjecture, that the Shimron last named is the same as the small village of Semunieh, probably the Simonias of Josephus (Yita, § 24), on the west of Nazareth (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 201). Achshaph, a border town of Asher (chap. xix. 25), is also unknown, and is neither to be sought, as Robinson supposes (Bibl. Res. p. 55), in the ruins of Kesdf, which he even farther north than Abel {Abil), in the tribe of Naphtali, and therefore much too far to the north to have formed the boundary of Asher; nor to be identified with Acco {Ptolemais), as Knohel imagines, since Acco has nothing in common with Achshaph except the letter caph (see also at chap. xix. 25). — Ver. 2. Jabin also allied himself with the kings of the north " upon the mountains," i.e. the mountains of Naphtali (chap. xx. 7), and " in the Arahah to the south of Chinnereth" (chap. xix. 35), i.e. in the Ghor to the south of the sea of Galilee, and " in the lowland," i.e. the northern portion of it, as far down as Joppa, and " tipon the heights of Dor J' The town of Dor, which was built by Phoenicians, who settled there on account of the abundance of the purple mussels (Steph. Byz. s. v. Acapa), was allotted to the Manassites in the territory of Asher (chap. xvii. 11; cf. xix. 26), and taken possession of by the children of Joseph (1 Chron. vii. 29). It was situated on the Mediterranean Sea, below the promontory of Carmel, nine Roman miles north of Csesarea, and is at the present time a hamlet called Tantura or Tortura, with very considerable ruins (^Vilson, The Holy Land, ii. 249, and V. de Velde, Journey, i. p. 251). The old town was a little more than a mile to the north, on a small range of hills, which is covered with ruins {Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 608-9; V. de Velde, Mem. p. 307), and on the north of which there are rocky ranges, with many grottos, and houses cut in the rock itself {Buckingham, Syria, i. pp. 101-2). These are " the heights of Dor," or " the high range of Dor" (chap. xii. 23; 1 Kings iv. 11). — Ver. 3. ^^ Namely, with the Canaanites on the east and west, the Amorites " and other tribes dwelling upon the mountains (vid. chap. iii. 10), and " the Hivites under the Hermon in the land of Mizpahf i.e. the country below Hasheya, between Nahr Hasbany on the east, and Merj Ayun on the west, with the village of Mutulleh or Mtelleh, at present inhabited by Druses, which stands upon a hill more than 200 feet high, and from which there is a splendid prospect over the Huleh basin. It is from this that it has derived its name, which signifies prospect, specula, answering to the Hebrew Mizpah (see Robinson, Bibl. Res. p. 372).

Vers. 4-9. These came out with their armies, a people as numerous as the sand by the sea-shore (yid. Gen. xxii. 17, etc.), and very many horses and chariots. All these kings agreed together, sc, concerning the war and the place of battle, and encamped at Merom to fight against Israel. The name Merom (Meirum in the Arabic version) answers to Meirom, a village whose name is also pronounced Meirum, a celebrated place of pilgrimage among the

Jews, because Hillel, Shammai, Simeon ben Jochai, and otlier noted Rabbins are said to be buried there (see JRobinson, Pal. iii. p. 333), about two hours' journey north-west of Szafed, upon a rockv mountain, at the foot of which there is a spring that forms a small brook and flows away through the vallev below Szafed {Seetzen, R. ii. pp. 127-8; Robirison, Bibl. Res. pp. 73 sqq.). This stream, which is said to reach the Lake of Tiberias, in the neighbourhood of Bethsaida, is in all probability to be regarded as the " waters of of Merom," as, according to Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 18), " these kings encamped at Berothe (de. Bell. Jud. xx. 6, and Vit. 37, ' MerotK')^ a city of Upper Galilee, not far from Kedese." ^

Vers. 6 sqq. On account of this enormous number, and the might of the enemy, who were all the more to be dreaded because of their horses and chariots, the Lord encouraged Joshua again,^ as in chap. viii. 1, by promising him that on the morrow He would deliver them all up slain before Israel; only Joshua was to lame their horses (Gen. xlix. 6) and bum their chariots. *^JX before 1^3 gives emphasis to the sentence: " I will provide for this; by my power, which is immeasurable, as I have shown thee so many times, and by my nod, by which heaven and earth are shaken, shall these things be done" (Masius). — Vers. 7, 8. With this to inspirit them, the Israelites fell upon the enemy and smote them, chasinc them towards the north-west to Sidon, and westwards as far as Misrephothmaim, and into the plain of Mizpah on the east. Sidon is called the great (as in chap. xix. 28), because at that time it was the metropolis of Phcenicia; whereas even by the time of David it had lost its ancient splendour, and was outstripped by its daucrhter city Tyre. It is still to be seen in the town of Saida, a town of five or six thousand inhabitants, with many large and well-built

^ The traditional opinion that " waters of Merom " is the Old Testament name for the Lake of Samochonitds, or Huleh, is not founded upon any historical evidence, but is simply an inference of Hadr. Reland (Pal. 111. p. 262), (1) from the statement made by Josephus (Ant. v. 5, 1), that Hazor was above the Lake of Samochonitis, it being taken for granted without further reason that the battle occurred at Hazor, and (2) from the supposed similarity in the meaning of the names, viz. that Samochonitis is derived from an Arabic word signifving to be high, and therefore means the same as Merom (height), though here again the zereis disregarded, and Merom is arbitrarily identified with Marom.

* "As there was so much more difficulty connected with the destruction of so populous and well-disciplined an army, it was all the more necessary that he should be inspired with fresh confidence. For this reason God appeared to Joshua, and promised him the same success as He had given him so many timts before. "— Calvin.

liouses (see Roh. Pal. iii. p. 415, and Movers, Phonizier, ii. 1, pp. 86 sqq.). Misrephothmaim (mentioned also at chap. xiii. 6), which the Greek translators have taken as a proper name, though the Rabbins and some Christian commentators render it in different ways, such as salt-pits, smelting-huts, or glass-huts (see Ges. Thes. p. 1341), is a collection of springs, called Ain Mesherjl, at the foot of the promontory to which with its steep pass the name of Mas el Nakhura is given, the scala Tyriorum or Passepoulain of the Crusaders (see V. de Velde, Mem. p. 335, and Bitter, Erdk. xvi. p. 807). na^o ni?p3 (Eng. Ver. " the valley of Mizpeh") is probably the basin of the Hideh lake and of Nahr Hashany, on the western side of which lay the land of Mizpah (ver. 3). — Ver. 9. Joshua carried out the command of the Lord with regard to the chariots and horses.

Vers. 10-15. After destroying the foe, and returning from the pursuit, Joshua took Hazor, smote its king and all the inhabitants with the edge of the sword, and burned the town, the former leader of all those kingdoms. He did just the same to the other towns, except that he did not burn them, but left them standing upon their hills. D?n"?y nnoyn (ver. 13) neither contains an allusion to any special fortification of the towns, nor implies a contrast to the towns built in the valleys and plains, but simply expresses the thought that these towns were still standing upon their hill, i.e. upon the old site (cf. Jer. xxx. 18: the participle does not express the preterite, but the present). At the same time, the expression certainly implies that the towns were generally built upon hills. The pointing in D?Jn is not to be altered, as Knohel suggests. The singular " upon their hilV is to be taken as distributive: standing, now as then, each upon its hill. — With ver. 15, " as Jehovah commanded His servant Moses " (cf. Num. xxxiii. 52 sqq.; Deut. vii. 1 sqq., XX. 16), the account of the wars of Joshua is brought to a close, and the way opened for proceeding to the concluding remarks with reference to the conquest of the whole land (vers. 16-23). i^T T'On N7j he put not away a word, i.e. left nothing undone.

Vers. 16-23. Retrospective View of the Conquest of THE WHOLE Land. — Vers. 16, 17. Joshua took all this land, namely, those portions of Southern Canaan that have already been mentioned in chap. x. 40, 41; also the Arabah, and the mountains of Israel and its lowlands (see ver. 2), i.e. the northern part of the land (in the campaign described in vers. 1-15), that is to say, Canaan in all its extent, ^^ from the bald mountain which goeth up to

Hermonr The " hald mouniam'* (HalaF), which is mentioned here and in chap. xii. 7 as the amthem hoondary of Canaan, is hardly the row of white cliffs which stretches ohliquelj across the Arabah eight miles below the Dead Sea and forms the ditriding line that separates this valley into el-Ghor and el-Araba (Bob. PaL ii. pp. 489, 492), or the present Mantra, a straogie-looidiig chalk-hill to the south-west of the pass of Sofah {Rob. ii. p. 589}, a steep bare mountain in a barren plain, the sides of which condst of stone and earth of a leaden ashy hue (Seeizeny B. iiL pp. 14, 15); but in all probability the northern edge of the A /azimeh momitain with its white and glistening masses of chalk. Baal-gad, Le. the place or town of Baal^ who was there worshipped as Gad (see Isa. Ixy. 1 1), also called Baai-hermon in Jndg. iiL 3 and 1 ChrofL. r. 23, is not Baalbek, bat the Paneas or dBtarea, JPkilqjpi of a lat^r time, the present Bxnjas (see at Nam. sxnr. 8, 9). This is the opinion of v. Baumer and Bolingovt, thon^ Van de Velde is more disposed to locdc for Baal-gad in the rains of Kalath (the castle of) Bostra, or of Kalath Aisafa, the former an hoar and a half, the latter three hours to the north of Banjas, the situation of which would accord with the biblical statements respecting Baal-gad exceedingly well. The ^valley of LAaaum** is not Coele-Syria, the modem Bekda, between Lebanon and Antilibanas, bat the ralky at the foot of the southern slope of Jebel Sheik (Hermon). — ^Vers. 18 sqq. Joshua made war with the kings of Canaan a long time; judging from chap, xiv, 7, 10, as much as seyen years, though Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 19) speaks of five (see at chap. aiv. 10). No town submitted peaceably to the Israelites, with the exception of Gibeon: they took the whole in war. ^' For it was of the JOord" (ver. 20), i^. God ordered it so that they (the Canaanltes) hardened their heart to make war upon Israel, that they might fall under the ban, and be destroyed without mercy. On the hardening of the heart as a work of God, see the remarks upon the hardening of Pharaoh (Ex, iv. 21). It cannot be inferred from this, that if the Canaanites had received the Israelites amicably, God would have withdrawn His command to destroy them, and allowed the Israelites to make peace with them; for when they made peace with the Gibeonites, they did not inquire what was the will of the Lord, but acted in opposition to it (see at chap. ix. 14). The remark is made with ^)ecial reference to this, and has been correctly explained by Augustine (qu. 8 in Jos.) as follows: " Because the Israelites had shown mercy to some of them of their own accord, though in oppo sition to the command of God, therefore it is stated that they (the Canaanifees) made war upon them so that none of them were spared, and the Israehtes were not induced to show mercy to the negjlect of the commandment of God."

In vers. 21, 22, the destruction of the Anakites upon the mountains of Judah and Israel is introduced in a supplementary form, which completes the history of the subjugation and extermination of the Canaanites in the south of the land (chap. x.). This supplement is not to be regarded either as a fragment interpolated by a different hand, or as a passage borrowed from another source. On the contrary, the author himself thought it necessary, having special regard to Num. xiii. 28, 31 sqq., to mention expressly that Joshua also rooted out from their settlements the sons of Anak, whom the spies in the time of Moses had described as terrible giants, and drove them into the Philistine cities of Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. "At that time" points back to the "long time," mentioned in ver. 18, during which Joshua was making war upon the Canaanites. The words " cut off," etc., are explained correctly by Clericus: " Those who fell into his hands he slew, the rest he put to flight, though, as we learn from chap. xv. 14, they afterwards returned." (On the AnaMm, see at Num. xiii. 22.) They had their principal settlement upon the mountains in Hebron (el Khulilj see chap. x. 3), Debir (see at chap. x. 38), and Anab. The last place {Anab), upon the mountains of Judah (chap. xv. 50), has been preserved along with the old name in the village of Anab, four or five hours to the south of Hebron, on the eastern side of the great Wady el Khulil, which runs from Hebron down to Beersheba (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 193). " And from all (the rest of) the mountains of Judah, and all the mountains of Israel:" the latter are called the mountains of Ephraim in chap. xvii. 15. The two together form the real basis of the land of Canaan, and are separated from one another by the large Wady Beit Hanina (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 333). They received their respective names from the fact that the southern portion of the mountain land of Canaan fell to the tribe of Judah as its inheritance, and the northern part to the tribe of Ephraim and other tribes of Israel.^ Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod were towns

1 The distinction here made may be explained without difficulty even from the circumstances of Joshua's own time. Judah and the double tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Mauasseh) received their inheritance by lot before any of the others. But whilst the tribe of Judah proceeded into the territory allotted to of the Philistines; of these Gaza and Ashdod were allotted to the tribe of Judah (chap, xv, 47), but were never taken possession of by the Israelites, although the Philistines were sometimes subject to the Israelites (see at chap. xiii. 3). — With ver. 23a, " thus Joshua took the tchole land''^ etc., the history of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua is brought to a close; and ver. 236, " and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel,* forms a kind of introduction to the second part of the book. The hst of the conquered kings in chap, xii. is simply an appendix to the first part.

The taking of the whole land does not imply that all the towns and villages to the very last had been conquered, or that all the Canaanites were rooted out from every comer of the land, but simply that the conquest was of such a character that the power of the Canaanites was broken, their dominion overthrown, and their whole land so thoroughly given into the hands of the Israelites, that those who still remained here and there were crushed into powerless fugitives, who could neither offer any further opposition to the Israelites, nor dispute the possession of the land with them, if they would only strive to fulfil the commandments of their God and persevere in the gradual extermination of the scattered remnants. Moreover, Israel had received the strongest pledge, in the powerful help which it had received from the Lord in the conquests thus far obtained, that the faithful covenant God would continue His help in the conflicts which still remained, and secure for it a complete victory and the full possession of the promised land. Looking, them in the south, all the other tribes still remained in Gilgal; and even at a later period, when Ephraim and Manasseh were in their possessions, all Israel, with the exception of Judah, were still encamped at Shiloh. Moreover, the two parts of the nation were now separated by the territory which was afterwards assigned to the tribe of Benjamin, but had no owner at this time; and in addition to this, the altar, tabernacle, and ark of the covenant were in the midst of Joseph and the other tribes that were stiU assembled at Shiloh. Under such circumstances, then, would not the idea of a distinction between Judah, on the one hand, and the rest of Israel, in which the double tribe of Joseph and then the single tribe of Ephraim acquired such pc-culiar prominence, on the other, shape itself more and more in the mind, and what already existed in the germ begin to attaia maturity even here? And what could be more natural than that the mountains in which the " children of Judah" had their settlements should be called the mountains of Judah; and the mountains where all the rest of Israel was encamped, where the " children of Israel " were gathered together, be called the mountains of Israel, and, as that particular district really belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, the mountains of Ephraim also? (chap, xix. 50, XX. 7; also xxiv. 30.)

therefore, at the existing state of things from this point of view, Joshua had taken possession of the whole land, and could now proceed to finish the work entrusted to him by the Lord, by dividing the land among the tribes of Israel. Joshua had really done all that the Lord had said to Moses. For the Lord had not only promised to Moses the complete extermination of the Canaanites, but had also told him that He would not drive out the Canaanites at once, or " in one year," but only little by little, until Israel multiplied and took the land (Ex. xxiii. 28—30; cf. Deut. vii. 22). Looking at this promise, therefore, the author of the book could say with perfect justice, that " Joshua took the whole land according to all that (precisely in the manner in which) the Lord had said to Moses.'* But this did not preclude the fact, that a great deal still remained to be done before all the Canaanites could be utterly exterminated from every part of the land. Consequently, the enumeration of towns and districts that were not yet conquered, and of Canaanites who still remained, which we find in chap. xiii. 1-6, xvii. 14 sqq., xviii. 3, xxiii. 5, 12, forms no discrepancy with the statements in the verses before us, so as to warrant us in adopting any critical hypotheses or conclusions as to the composition of the book by different authors. The Israelites could easily have taken such portions of the land as were still unconquered, and could have exterminated all the Canaanites who remained, without any severe or wearisome conflicts; if they had but persevered in fidelity to their God and in the fulfilment of His commandments. If, therefore, the complete conquest of the whole land was not secured in the next few years, but, on the contrary, the Canaanites repeatedly gained the upper hand over the Israelites; we must seek for the explanation, not in the fact that Joshua had not completely taken and conquered the land, but simply in the fact that the Lord had withdrawn His help from His people because of their apostasy from Him, and had given them up to the power of their enemies to chastise them for their sins. — The distribution of the land for an inheritance to the Israelites took place ''according to their divisions hy their tribes'* ^ip^D? denote the division of the twelve tribes of Israel into families, fathers' houses, and households; and is so used not only here, but in chap. xii. 7 and xviii. 10. Compare with this 1 Chron. xxiii. 6, xxiv. 1, etc., where it is applied to the different orders of priests and Levites. *' And the land rested from war:" i.e. the war was ended, 80 that the peaceable task of distributing the land by lot could

In the historical account of the wars of Joshua in the south and north of Canaan, the only kings mentioned by name as having been conquered and slain by the Israelites, were those who had formed a league to make war upon them; whereas it is stated at the close, that Joshua had smitten all the kings in the south and north, and taken possession of their towns (chap. x. 40, xi. 17). To complete the account of these conquests, therefore, a detailed list is given in the present chapter of all the kings that were slain, and not merely of those who were defeated by Joshua in the country on this side of the Jordan, but the two kings of the Amorites who had been conquered by Moses are also included, so as to give a complete picture of all the victories which Israel had gained under the omnipotent help of its God.

Vers. 1-6. List of the kings whom the Israelites smote, and whose land they took, on the other side of the Jordan, — namely, the land by the brook Arnon (^lojeb; see Num. xxi. 13) to Hermon (Jebel es Sheikh, Deut. iii. 8), and the whole of the eastern Arabah (the valley of the Jordan on the eastern side of the river). — Vers. 2, 3. On Sihon and his kingdom, see Num. xxi. 24; Deut. ii. 36, iii. 16, 17. " Aroer on the Arrion:'' the present ruins of ^raayr, on the northern bank of the Mojeb (see Nimi. xxxii. 34). ^ron Tjini, "and (from) the middle of the valley omcards:^^ i.e., according to the parallel passages in chap. xiii. 9, 16, and Deut. ii. 36, from the town in the Arnon valley, the city of Moab mentioned in Num. xxii, 36, viz. Ar or Areopolis (see at Num. xxi. 15) in the neighbourhood of Aroer, which is mentioned as the exclusive terminus a quo of the land taken by the Israelites along with the inclusive terminus Aroer. " Half-Gilead," i.e. the mountainous district on the south side of the Jabbok (see at Deut. iii. 10), '' to the river Jahbok," i.e. the upper Jabbok, the present Nahr Amman (see at Num. xxi. 24). — Ver. 3. "And (over) the Arabah, etc., Sihon reigned," i.e. over the eastern side of the Ghor, between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea (see at Deut. iii. 17). "By the way to Bethjeshimoth, and toicards the south below the slopes of I\sgah'' (see at Num. xxi. 15 and xxvii. 12), i.e. to the north-

Vers. 7-24. List of the thirty-one kings of Canaan whom Josliua smote on the western side of the Jordan, ^^ from, Baal-gad^ in the valley of Lebanon, to the bald mountain that goeth up towards Seir' (see chap. xi. 17). This land Joshua gave to the other tribes of Israel. (On the different parts of the land, see at chap, ix. 1, X. 40, and xi. 2.) — Vers. 9 sqq. The different kings are given in the order in which they were defeated: Jericho (chap. vi. 1); Ai (chap. vii. 2); Jerusalem, Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon (chap. x. 3); Gezer (chap. x. 33); and Debir (chap. x. 38). Those given "in vers. 136 and 14 are not mentioned by name in chap. X. Geder, possibly the same as Gedor upon the mountains of Judah (chap. xv. 58), which has been preserved under the old name of Jedur (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 186, and Bibl. Ees. p. 282). Ho7'mah (i.e. banning) was in the south of Judah (chap. xv. 30), and was allotted to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 4). It was called Zephath by the Canaanites (Judg. i. 17; see at Num. xxi. 3), was on the southern slope of the mountains of the Amalekites or Amorites, the present ruins of Sepdta, on the western slope of the table-land of Rakhma, two hours and a half to the south-west of Khalasa (Elusa: see Bitter, Erdk. xiv. p. 1085). Arad, also in the Negeb, has been preserved in Tell Arad (see at Num. xxi. 1). Lihnah (see at chap. x. 29). Adullam, which is mentioned in chap. XV. 35 among the towns of the plain between Jarmuth and Socoh, was in the neighbourhood of a large cave in which David took refuge when flying from Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 1; 2 Sam. xxiii. 13). It was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 7), and is mentioned in 2 Mace. xii. 38 as the city of OdoUam. The Onomast. describes it as being ten Roman miles to the east of Eleutheropolis; but this is a mistake, though it has not yet been discovered. So far as the situation is concerned, Deir Dubbdn would suit very well, a place about two hours to the north of Beit Jibrin, near to a large number of caves in the white limestone, which form a kind of labyrinth, as well as some vaulted grottos (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 353, and Van de Velde, Reise. pp. 162—3). Makkedah: possibly Summeil

(see at chap. x. 10). Bethel, i.e. Beitin (see cliap. viii. 17). Tlie situation of the towns which follow in vers. 17 and 18 cannot be determined with certainty, as the names Tappuach, Aphek, and liefer are met with again in different parts of Canaan, and Lassaron does not occur again. But if we observe, that just as from ver. 10 onwards those kings'-towns are first of all enumerated, the captiu"e of which lias already been described in chap, x., and then in vers. 15 and 16 certain other towns are added which had been taken in the war with the Canaauites of the south, so likewise in vers. 19 and 20 the capitals of the allied kings of northern Canaan are given first, and after that the other towns that were taken in the northern war, but had not been mentioned by name in chap. xi.: there can be no doubt whatever that the four towns in vers. 17 and 18 are to be classed among the kings'-towns taken in the war with the king of Jerusalem and his allies, and therefore are to be sought for in the south of Canaan and not in the north. Consequently we cannot agree with T an de Velde and Knobel in identifying Tappuach with En-Tappuach (chap. xvii. 7), and looking for it in Atuf, a place to the north-east of Xablus and near the valley of the Jordan; we connect it rather with Tappuach in the lowlands of Judah (chap. xv. 34), though the place itself has not yet been discovered. Hefer again is neither to be identified with Gath-hepher in the tribe of Zebulun (chap. xix. 13), nor with Chafaraim in the tribe di Issachar (chap. xix. 19), but is most probably the capital of the land of Hefer (1 Kings iv. 10), and to be sought for in the neighbourhood of Socoh in the plain of Judah. Aphek is probably the town of that name not far from Ebenezer (1 Sam. iv. 1), where the ark was taken by the Philistines, and is most likely to be sought for in the plain of Judah, though not in the village of Ahhek (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 343); but it has not yet been traced. Knobel imagines that it was Aphek near to Jezreel (1 Sam. xxix. 1), which was situated, according to the Onom., in the neighbourhood of Endor (1 Sam. xxix. 1; 1 Kings xx. 26, 30); but this Aphek is too far north. Lassaron only occurs here, and hitherto it has been impossible to trace it. Knobel supposes it to be the place called Saruneh, to the west of the lake of Tiberias, and conjectures that the name has been contracted from Lassaron by aphgeresis of the liquid. This is quite possible, if only we could look for Lassaron so far to the north. Bachienne and Rosenmuller imagine it to be the village of Sharon in the celebrated plain of that name, between Lydda and Arsuf. — Vers. 19, 20. 2Iadon, Hezor,

Shimron-meroTi, and Achshaph (see at chap. xi. 1). — Ver. 21. Taanach, which was allotted to the Manassites in the territoiy of Issachar, and given up to the Levites (chap. xvii. 11, xxi. 25), but was not entirely wrested from the Canaanites (Judg. i. 27), is the present Tell Taenak, an hour and a quarter to the south-east of Lejun, a flat hill sown with corn; whilst the old name has been preserved in the small village of Tadnak, at the south-eastern foot of the Tell (see Van cle Velde, i. p. 269, and Bob. Pal. iii. p. 156). — Megiddo, which was also allotted to the Manassites in the territory of Issachar, though without the Canaanites having been entirely expelled (chap. xvii. 11; Judg. i. 27), was fortified by Solomon (1 Kings ix. 15), and is also well known as the place were Ahaziah died (2 Kings ix. 27), and where Josiah was beaten and slain by Phai*aoh Necho (2 Kings xxiii. 29, 30; 2 Chron. xxxv. 20 sqq.). Robinson has shown that it was preserved in the Legio of a later time, the present Lejun (Pal. iii. pp. 177 sqq.; see also Bibl. Res. p. 116). — Ver. 22. Kedesh, a Levitical city and city of refuge upon the mountains of Naphtali (chap. xix. 37, XX. 7, xxi. 32), the home of Barak (Judg. iv. 6), was conquered and depopulated by Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings xv. 29), and was also a well-known place after the captivity (1 Mace. xi. 61 sqq.). It is now an insignificant village, still bearing the ancient name, to the north-west of the lake of Huleh, or, according to Van de Velde (Reise. ii. p. 355), nothing but a miserable farmstead upon a Tell at the south-west extremity of a well-cultivated table-land, with a large quantity of antiquities about, viz. hewn stones, relics of columns, sarcophagi, and two ruins of large buildings, with an open and extensive prospect on every side (see also Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 367 sqq.). Jokneam, near Carmel, was a Levitical town in the territory of Zebulun (chap. xix. 11, xxi. 34). Van de Velde and Robinson (Bibl. Res. p. 114) suppose that they have found it in Tell Kaimon, on the eastern side of the Wady el Milh^ at the north-west end of a chain of hills running towards the south-east; this Tell being 200 feet high, and occupying a very commanding situation, so that it governed the main pass on the western side of Esdraelon towards the southern plain. Kaimon is the Arabic form of the ancient Ka/xfioovd, Cvnana, which Eusebius and Jerome describe in the Onom. as being six Roman miles to the north of Legio, on the road to Ptolemais. — Ver. 23. Dor: see chap. xi. 2. Gilgal: the seat of the king of the Goyim (a proper name, as in Gen. xiv. 1), in all probability the same place as the villa nomine Galgulis mentioned in the Onom. (s. v. Gelgel) as being six Roman miles to the north of Antlpatris, which still exists in the Moslem villac'e of Jiljule (now almost a ruin; see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 136), although this village is only two miles E.S.E. of Kefr Saba, the ancient Antipatris (see Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 568-9). Thirza, the capital of the kings of Israel down to the time of Omri (1 Kings xiv. 17, XV. 21, 33, xvL 6 sqq.), is probably the present Talluza, aa elevated and beautifully situated place, of a considerable size, surrounded by large olive groves, two hours to the north of Shechem (see Rob. Bibl. Ees. p. 302, and Van de Velde, ii. p. 294).

The distribution of the conquered land among the Israelites is introduced by the command of the Lord to Joshua to enter upon this work, now that he was old, although different portions of land were still imconquered (chap. xiii. 1-7); and to this there is appended a description of the land on the east of the Jordan which had already been conquered and divided among the two tribes and a half (chap. xiii. 8-33). The distribution of the land on this side among the nine tribes and a half is related in its historical order; so that not only are the territories assigned by lot to the different tribes described according to their respective boundaries and towns, but the historical circumstances connected with the division and allotting of the land are also introduced into the description. These historical accovmts are so closely connected with the geographical descriptions of the territory belonging to the different tribes, that the latter alone will explain the course pursued in the distribution of the land, and the various ways in which the different territories are described (see the remarks on chap. xiv. 1). For example, in the account of the inheritance which iell to the lot of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, not only are the boundaries most carefully traced, but the towns are also enumerated one by one (chap. xv. and xviii. 11-28); whereas in the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and half Manasseh) the list of the towns is altogether wanting (chap, xvi. and xvii.); and in the possessions of the other tribes, either towns alone are mentioned, as iu the case of Simeon and Dan

(chap. xlx. 1-9, 40-48), or the boundaries and towns are mixed up together, but both of them given incompletely, as in the case of Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali (chap. xix. 10-16, 17-23, 24-31, 32-39). This incompleteness, particularly in the territories of the tribes mentioned last, may be explained from the fact, that in northern Canaan there were still very many tracts of land in the hands of the Canaanites, and the Israelites had not acquired a sufficiently exact or complete knowledge of the country, either through Joshua's campaign in the north, or through the men who were sent out to survey the northern land before it was divided (chap, xviii. 4—9), to enable them to prepare a complete account of the boundaries and towns at the very outset. In the same way, too, we may explain the absence of the list of towns in the case of the tribes of Ephraim and half Manasseh, — namely, from the fact that a large portion of the territory assigned to the tribe of Joseph was still in the possession of the Canaanites (vid. chap. xvii. 14-18); whilst the omission of any account of the boundaries in the case of Simeon and Dan is attributable to the circumstance that the former received its inheritance within the tribe of Judah, and the latter between Judah and Ephraim, whilst the space left for the Danites was so small, that Ephraim and Judah had to give up to them some of the towns in their own territory. Thus the very inequality and incompleteness of the geographical accounts of the possessions of the different tribes decidedly favour the conclusion, that they are the very lists which were drawn up at the time when Joshua divided the land. There is nothing to preclude this supposition in the fact that several towns occur with different names, e.g. Beth-shemesh and Ir-shemesh (chap. xv. 10, xix. 41, xxi. 16), Madmannah and Beth-marcaboth, Sansanna and Hazar-susa (chap, xv. 31, xix. 5), Shilchim and Sharuchen (chap. xv. 32, xix. 6), Remeth and Jarmuth (chap. xix. 21, xxi. 29), or in other smaller differences. For variations of this kind may be sufficiently explained from the fact that such places were known by two different names, which could be used promiscuously; whilst in other cases the difference in the name amounts to nothing more than a different mode of writing or pronouncing it: e.g. Kattali and Kartah (chap. xix. 15, xxi. 34), Eshtemoh and Eshtemoa (chap. xv. 50, xxi. 14), Baalah and Balah (chap. xv. 29, xix. 3); or simply in the contraction of a composite name, such as Ramoth in Gilead for Ramothmizpeh (chap. xxi. 36, xiii. 26); Bealoth and Baalath-heer (chap. xv. 24, xix. 8), Lehaoih and Beth-lebaoth (chap. xv. 32, xix. 6), Hammatk and Hammoth-dor (chap. xix. 35, xxi. 32). If the author, on the other hand, had drawn from later sources, or had simply given the results of later surveys, as Knobel supposes, there can be no doubt that much greater uniformity would be found in the different lists. ^

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

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

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

(vers. 11, 13, xii. 5; Deut. iii. 14), but the territory of the Gesliurites, a small tribe in the south of Philistia, on the edge of the northwestern portion of the Arabian desert which borders on Egypt; it is only mentioned again in 1 Sam. xxvii. 8. The land of the Philistines and Geshurites extended from the Sichor of Eg}'pt (on the south) to the territory of Ekron (on the north). Sichor (Sihor), lit. the black river, is not the Nile, because this is always called "iNin (the river) in simple prose (Gen. xli. 1, 3; Ex. i. 22), and was not '' before Egj-pt," i.e. to the east of it, but flowed through the middle of the land. The "Sichor before Egypt" was the brook (iiachal) of Egypt, the 'PivoKopovpa, the modern Wady el Arish, which is mentioned in chap. xv. 4, 47, etc., as the southern border of Canaan towards Egypt (see at Num. xxxiv. 5). Ekron (Appa^ Ka)Vj LXX.), the most northerly of the five chief cities of the Philistines, was first of all allotted to the tribe of Judah (chap. xv. 11, 45), then on the further distribution it was given to Dan (chap. xLx. 43); after Joshua's death it was conquered by Judah (Judg. i. 18), though it was not permanently occupied. It is the present Akir, a considerable village in the plain, two hours to the southwest of Eamlah, and on the east of Jamnia, without ruins of any antiquity, with the exception of two old wells walled round, which probably belong to the times of the Crusaders (see Hob. Pal. iii. p. 23). " To the Canaanites is reckoned (the territorj' of the) Jive lords of the Philistines" i.e. it was reckoned as belonging to the land of Canaan, and allotted to the Israelites like all the rest. This remark was necessary, because the Philistines were not descendants of Canaan (see at Gen. x. 14), but yet were to be driven out like the Canaanites themselves as being invaders of Canaanitish territory (cf. Deut. ii. 23). ''PP, from n.°, the standing title of the princes of the Philistines (yid. Judg. iii. 3, xvi. 5 sqq.; 1 Sam. v. 8), does not mean kings, but princes, and is interchangeable with Dnb* (cf. 1 Sam. xxix. 6 with vers. 4, 9). At any rate, it was the native or Philistian title of the Philistine princes, though it is not derived from the same root as Sar, but is connected with seren, a.ris rotcE, in the tropical sense of princeps, for which the Arabic furnishes several analogies (see Ges. Thes. p. 972). The capitals of these five princes were the following. Azzah (Gaza, i.e. the strong): this was allotted to the tribe of Judah and taken by the Judseans (chap. XV. 47; Judg. i. 18), but was not held long. It is at the present time a considerable town of about 15,000 inhabitants, with the old name of Ghazzehj about an hour from the sea, and with a seaport called Majuma; it is the farthest town of Palestine towards the south-west (see Roh. Pal. ii. pp. 374 sqq.; Ritter^ Erdk. xvi. pp. 35 sqq.; Stark, Gaza, etc., pp. 45 sqq.). AsMod ( ^^&)to9, Azotus): this was also allotted to the tribe of Judah (chap. xv. 46, 47), the seat of Dagon-worship, to which the Philistines carried the ark (1 Sam. v. 1 sqq.). It was conquered by Uzzlah (2 Chron* xxvi. 6), was afterwards taken by Tartan, the general of Sargon (Isa. XX. 1), and was besieged by Psammetichus for twenty-nine years (Herod, ii. 157). It is the present Esdud, a Mahometan village with about a hundred or a hundred and fifty miserable huts, upon a low, round, wooded height on the road from Jamnia to Gaza, two miles to the south of Jamnia, about half an hour from the sea (vid. Roh. i. p. 368). Ashkalon: this was conquered by the Judaeans after the death of Joshua (Judg. i. 8, 9); but shortly afterwards recovered its independence (vid. Judg. xiv. 19; 1 Sam. vi. 17). It is the present Askuldn on the sea-shore between Gaza and Ashdod, five hours to the north of Gaza, with considerable and widespread ruins (see v. Raum. pp. 173-4; Ritter, xvi. pp. 69 sqq.). Gath (Ted): this was for a long time the seat of the Rephaites, and was the home of Goliath (chap. xi. 22; 1 Sam. xvii. 4, 23; 2 Sam. xxi. 19 sqq.; 1 Chron. xx. 5 sqq.); it was thither that the Philistines of Ashdod removed the ark, which was taken thence to Ekron (1 Sam. v. 7-10). David was the first to wrest it from the Philistines (1 Chron. xviii. 1). In the time of Solomon it was a royal city of the Philistines, though no doubt under Israelitish supremacy (1 Kings ii. 39, v. 1). It was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 8), was taken by the Syrians in the time of Joasli (2 Kings xii. 18), and was conquered again by Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 6; Amos vi. 2); but no further mention is made of it, and no traces have yet been discovered^ (see Rob. ii. p. 420, and v.

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

Baumer, Pal. pp. 191-2). "And the AvvUes (Awaeans) towards the south." Judging from Deut. ii. 23, the Avvim appear to have belonged to those tribes of the land who -svere already found there by the Canaanites, and whom the Philistines subdued and destroyed when they entered the country. They are not mentioned in Gen. X. 15-19 among the Canaanitish tribes. At the same time, there is not sufficient ground for identifying them with the Geshurites as Ewald does, or with the Anakites, as Bertheau has done. Moreover, it cannot be decided whether they were descendants of Ham or Shem (see Stark. Gaza, pp. 32 sqq.). i9''?!'P {from, or on, the south) at the commencement of ver. 4 should be attached to ver. 3, as it is in the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, and joined to 2^i.VI|l (the Awites). The Awaeans dwelt to the south of the Philistines, on the south-west of Gaza. It gives no sense to connect it with what follows, so as to read " towards the south all the land of the Canaanites;^^ for whatever land to the south of Gaza, or of the territory of the Philistines, was still inhabited by Canaanites, could not possibly be called " all the land of the Canaanites." If, however, we were disposed to adopt the opinion held by Masius and JRosenmilller, and understand these words as relating to the southern boundaries of Canaan, " the possessions of the king of Arad and the neighbouring petty kings who ruled in the southern extremity of Judaea down to the desert of Paran, Zin, Kadesh," etc., the fact that Arad and the adjoining districts are always reckoned as belonging to the Negeb would at once be decisive against it (compare chap. XV. 21 sqq. with chap. x. 40, xi. 16, also Num. xxi. 1). Moreover, according to chap. x. 40, 41, and xi. 16, 17,, Joshua had smitten the whole of the south of Canaan from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza and taken it; so that nothing remained unconquered there, which could possibly have been mentioned in this passage as not yet taken by the Israelites. For the fact that the districts, which Joshua traversed so victoriously and took possession of, were not all permanently held by the Israelites, does not come into consideration here at all. If the author had thought of enumeratins all these places, he would have had to include manv other districts as well.

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

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

^ The evidence adduced by Movers (I'honizier, ii. 1, p. 103), that the GibliteR did not belong to tlie Canaanites, has more plausibility than truth.

to the promontory of Nakura. According to ancient usage, the Sidonians stand for the Phoenicians generally, as in Homer, on account of Sidon being the oldest capital of Phoenicia (see Ges. on Is. i. pp. 724 sqq.). All these the Lord would root out before Israel, and therefore Joshua was to divide the whole of northern Canaan, which was inhabited by Phoenicians, among the Israelites. " Only divide thou it hy lot for an inheritance" etc. P^, only, i.e. although thou hast not yet taken it.?^2n, to cause it to fall, here used with reference to the lot, i.e, to divide by lot. " Fulfil thy duty in the distribution of the land, not even excepting what is still in the firm grasp of the enemy; for I will take care to perform what I have promised. From this we may learn to rely so perfectly upon the word of God, when undertaking any duty, as not to be deterred by doubts or fears" (^Calviii).

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

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

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

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

" Dulces of Sihon,'" properly vassals of Sihon; D''3''P^ does not signify anointed, however, but means literally poured out, i.e. cast, moulded, enfeoffed. The word points to the " creation of a prince by the communication or pouring in of power" (^Gusset, s.v.). — Yer. 23. " And (this) loas the boundary of the sons of Reuben, the Jordan and its territory" i.e. the Jordan, or rather land adjoining it. The meaning is, that the territory of Eeuben, viz. \f ith the places mentioned last (ver. 20), reached to the territory of the Jordan; for so far as the principal part was concerned, it was on the east of the Dead Sea, as it only reached from the Anion to Heshbon, i.e. up to the latitude of the northern extremity of the Dead Sea. " The towns and their villages." "i)fn, farm premises, used, as in Lev. xxv. 31, to denote places not enclosed by a wall.

Vers. 24-28. Inheritance of the tribe of Gad. — This tribe received Jaezer (probably es Szyr: see at Num. xxi. 32) and " all the towns of Gilead," i.e. of the southern half of Gilead, which belonged to the kingdom of Sihon; for the northern half, which belonged to the kingdom of Og, was given to the Manassites (ver. 31), "and the half of the land of the sons of Ammon, to Aroer before Babbah" i.e. that portion of the land of the Ammonites between the Arnon and the Jabbok, which the Amorites under Sihon had taken from the Ammonites, namely, the land on the east of Gilead, on the western side of the upper Jabbok (Nahr Amm^n: Deut. ii. 37, iii. 16; cf. Judg. xi. 13); for the land of the Ammonites, i.e. the land which they still held in the time of Moses, on the eastern side of Nahr Amman, the Israelites were not allowed to attack (Deut. ii. 19). Aroer before Rabbah, i.e. Amm^n (see Deut. iii. 11), is Aroer of Gad, and must be distinguished from Aroer of Reuben on the Arnon (ver. 16). It is only mentioned again in Judg. xi. 33 and 2 Sam. xxiv. 5, and was situated, according to 2 Sam., in the valley of Gad, that is to say, in a wady or valley through which Gesenius supposes an arm of the Jabbok to have flowed, and Thenius the Jabbok itself, though neither of them has sufficient ground for his conjecture. It is also not to be identified with the ruin of Ayra to the south-west of Szalt, as this is not in a wady at all; but in all probability it is to be sought for to the northeast of Rabbah, in the Wady Nahr Amman, on the side of the Kalat Zerka Gadda, the situation of which suits this verse and 2 Sam. xxiv. 5 very well, and may easily be reconciled with Judg. xi. 33. — In ver. 26 the extent of the territory of Gad is first of all described from north to south: viz. from Heshbon (see ver. 1 7)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vers. 6-15. Caleb's Inheritance. — Vers. 6 sqq. Before the casting of the lots commenced, Caleb came to Joshua along with the sons of Judah, and asked for the mountains of Hebron for his possession, appealing at the same time to the fact, that forty-five years before Moses had promised it to him on oath, because he had not discouraged the people and stirred them up to rebellion, as the other spies that were sent from Kadesh to Canaan had done, but had faithfully followed the Lord.^ This occurred at Gilgal, where

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

for "Con (see Ges. § 75, anm. 17, and Etcald, § 142, a.), from riDO = DDD (see chap. ii. 11). — Ver. 9. Jehovah swore at that time, that the land upon which his (Caleb's) foot had trodden should be an inheritance for him and his sons for ever. This oath is not mentioned in Num. xiv. 20 sqq., nor yet in Deut. i. 35, 36, where Moses repeats the account of the whole occurrence to the people. For the oath of Jehovah mentioned in Num. xiv. 21, 24, viz. that none of the murmuring people should see the land of Canaan, but that Caleb alone should come thither and his seed should possess it, cannot be the one referred to, as the promise given to Caleb in this oath does not relate to the possession of Hebron in particular, but to the land of Canaan generally, " the land which Jehovah had stcom to their fathers.'* AVe must assume, therefore, that in addition to what is mentioned in Num. xiv. 24, God gave a special promise to Caleb, which is passed over there, with reference to the possession of Hebron itself, and that Joshua, who heard it at the time, is here reminded of that promise by Caleb. This particular promise from God was closely related to the words with which Caleb endeavoured to calm the minds of the people when they rose up against Moses (Num. xiii. 30), viz. by saying to them, " We are well able to overcome it," notwithstanding the Anakites who dwelt in Hebron and had filled the other spies with such great alarm on account of their gigantic size. With reference to this the Lord had promised that very land to Caleb for his inheritance. Upon this promise Caleb founded his request (vers. 10-12) that Joshua would give him these mountains, of which Joshua had heard at that time that there were Anakites and large fortified cities there, inasmuch as, although forty-five years had elapsed since God had spoken these words, and he was now eighty-five years old, he was quite as strong as he had been then. From the words, " The Lord hath kept me alive these forty-five years," Tlieodoret justly infers, that the conquest of Canaan by Joshua was completed in seven years, since God spake these words towards the end of the second year after the exodus from Egypt, and therefore thirty-eight years before the entrance into Canaan. The clause 'U1 "^^^ ">t;**X (ver. 10)

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

is also dependent upon '131 C'l'S'i^! '"IT; viz. 'Uhese forty'five yeari> that Israel has wandered in the desert" (on this use of "^^^.j see Ewald^ § 331, c). The expression is a general one, and the years occupied in the conquest of Canaan, during which Israel had not yet entered into peaceful possession of the promised land, are reckoned as forming part of the years of wandering in the desert. As another reason for his request, Caleb adds in ver. 11: "/ am still as strong to-day as at that time; as my strength vms then, so is it now for war, and to go out and in" (see Num. xxvii. 17). — Ver. 12. " The mountain" according to the context, is the mountainous region of Hebron, where the spies had seen the Anakites (Num. xiii. 22, 28). The two clauses, in ver. 12, beginning with ""S are not to be construed as subordinate to one another, but are coordinate clauses, and contain two distinct motives in support of his petition: viz. "/or thou heardest in that day," sc. what Jehovah said to mB then, and also "for (because) the Anakites are there;"... "perhaps Jehovah is with me (''nx for ''^^, see Ges. § 103, 1, anm. 1, and Ewald, § 264, b.), and I root them out" (vid. chap. xv. 14). The word "perhaps" does not express a doubt, but a hope or desire, or else, as Masius says, " hope mixed with difficulty; and whilst the difficulty detracts from the value, the hope stimulates the desire for the gift." — Ver. 13. Then Joshua blessed Caleb, i.e. imploi'ed the blessing of God upon his undertaking, and gave him Hebron for an inheritance. Hebron is mentioned as the chief city, to which the surrounding country belonged; for Caleb had asked for the mountains (ver. 9), i.e. the mountainous country with and around Hebron, which included, for example, the fortified town of Debir also (chap. xv. 15). — Ver. 14. This inheritance, the historian adds, was awarded to Caleb because he had followed the God of Israel with such fidelity. — In ver. 15 there follows another notice of the earlier name of Hebron (see at Gen. xxiii. 2). The expression ^"'^27 (before), like the words " to this day," applies to the time when the book was composed, at which time the name Kirjath-arha had long since fallen into disuse; so that it by no means follows that the name Hebron was not so old as the name Kirjath-arba, which was given to Hebron for the first time when it was taken by Arba, " the great man among the Anakites," i.e. the strongest and most renowned of the Anakites (vid. chap. xv. 13). The remark, " and the land had rest from war" is repeated again at the close of this account from chap. xi. 23, to show that although there were Anakites still dwelling in Hebron whom Caleb lioped to exterminate, the work of distributing the land by lot was not delayed in consequence, but was carried out in perfect peace

Under the superintending providence of God, the inheritance which fell to the tribe of Judah by lot was in the southera part of Canaan, where Caleb had already received his inheritance, so that he was not separated from his tribe. The inheritance of Judah is first of all described according to its boundaries (vers. 1-12); then for the sake of completeness it is stated once more with regard to Caleb, that he received Kirjath-arba for his inheritance, and took possession of it by expelling the Anakites and conquering Debir (vers. 13-20); and after this a list is given of the towns in the different parts (vers. 21-63).

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

In vers. 56-11 we have a description of the northern boundary, which is repeated in chap, xviii. 15-19 as the southern boundary of Benjamin, though in the opposite direction, namely, from west to east. It started ^^ from, the tongue of the (salt) sea, the end {i.e. the mouth) of the Jordan, and went 7ip to Beth-hagla" — a border town between Judah and Benjamin, which was afterwards allotted to the latter (chap, xviii. 19, 21), the present Ain Hajla, an hour and a quarter to the south-east of Riha (Jericho), and three-quarters of an hour from the Jordan (see at Gen. 1. 11, note), — " and went over to the north side of Beth-arabah" a town in the desert of Judah (ver. 61), afterwards assigned to Benjamin (chap, xviii. 22), and called Ha-arabah in chap, xviii. 18, about twenty or thirty minutes to the south-west of Ain Hajla, in a " level and barren steppe" {Seetzen, R. ii. p. 302), with which the name very well agrees (see also Rob. Pal. ii. pp. 268 sqq.). ^^ And the border went up to the stone of Bohan, the son of Reuben." The expression " went up " shows that the stone of Bohan must have been on higher ground, i.e. near the western mountains, though the opposite expression " went down" in chap, xviii. 17 shows that it must have been by the side of the mountain, and not upon the top. According to chap, xviii. 18, 19, the border went over from the stone of Bohan in an easterly direction " to the shoulder over against (Beth) Arabah northwards, and went down to (Beth) Arabah, and then loent over to the shoulder of Beth-hagla northwards," i.e. on the north side of the mountain ridge of Beth-arabah and Beth-hagla. This ridge is " the chain of hills or downs which runs from Kasr Hajla towards the south to the north side of the Dead Sea, and is called Katar Hhadije, i.e. a row of camels harnessed together." — Ver. 7. The boundary ascended still farther to Debir from the valley of Achor. Debir is no doubt to be sought for by the Wady Daber, which runs down from the mountains to the Dead Sea to the south of Kasr Hajla, possibly not far from the rocky grotto called Choret ed Daber, between the Wadv ^5 Sidr and the Khan Chadrur on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, about half-way between the two. On the valley of Achor see at chap. vii. 24. Then "V< turned northwards to Gilgal, opposite to the ascent of Adummim south of the brookJ' Gilgal, which must not be confounded, as it is by Knobel, with the first encampment of the. Israelites in Canaan, viz. the Gilgal between Jericho and the Jordan, is called Geliloth in chap, xviii. 17. The situation of this place, which is only mentioned again in Judg. iii. 19, and was certainly not a town, probably only a village or farm, is defined more precisely by the clause " opposite to the ascent of Adummim.'* Maaleh Adummim^ which is correctly explained in the Onom. (s. v. Adommim) as avd^aai^ Trvppav, ascensus rvfforum, " was formerly a small villa, but is now a heap of ruins, which is called even to the present day Maledomim — on the road from JElia to Jericho " (Tobler). It is mentioned by ancient travellers as an inn called a terra ruff a J i.e. "the red earth;" ter^a ntsso, or "the red house." By later travellers it is described as a small place named Adominij being still called " the red field, because this is the colour of the ground; with a large square building like a monaster^' still standing there, which was in fact at one time a fortified monastery, though it is deserted now" {Arvieiur, Merk. Nachr. ii. p. 154). It is the present ruin of Kalaat el Dem, to the north of the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, or Kalaat ed Domm, near the Khan Chadrur. Gilgal, or Geliloth (circle), was probably the " small round valley " or "field of Adommim,' of which Pococke speaks as being at the foot of the hill on which the deserted inn was stanchng (viz. ed Domm; see Pocoche, Reise ins Morgenland, ii. p. 46). The valley (nachal, rendered river) to the south of which Gilgal or the ascent of Adummim lay, and wliich was therefore to the north of these places, may possibly be the Wady Kelt, or the brook of Jericho in the upper part of its course, as we have only to go a quarter or half an hour to the east of Khan Chadrur, when a wide and splendid prospect opens towards the south across the Wady Kelt as far as Taiyibeh; and according to Van de Veldes map, a brook-valley runs in a northerly direction to the Wady Kelt on the north-east of Kalaat ed Dem. It is probable, however, that the reference is to some other valley, of which there are a great many in the neighbourhood. The boundary then passed over to the water of En Shemesh (sun-fountain), i.e. the present Apostle's Well, Ain el HodJi or Bir el Khot, below Bethany, and on the, road to Jericho (^Tohler^ Topogr. V. Jerus. ii. pp. 398, 400; Van de Velde, Mem. p. 310), and then ran out at the fountain of Hogel (the spies), the present deep and copious fountain of Job or Nehemiah at the south-east corner of Jerusalem, below the junction of the valley of Hinnom and the valley of Jehoshaphat or Kedron valley (see Roh. Pal. i. p. 491, and Toiler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 50 sqq.). — Ver. 8. It then went up into the more elevated valley of Ben-hinnom, on the south side of the Jebusite town, i.e. Jerusalem (see at chap. x. 1), and still farther up to the top of the mountain which rises on the west of the valley of Ben-hinnom, and at the farthest extremity of the plain of Rephaim towards the north. The valley of Ben-hinnom, or Bne-hinnom (the son or sons of Hinnom), on the south side of Mount Zion, a place which was notorious from the time of Ahaz as the seat of the worship of Moloch (2 Kings xxiii. 10; 2 Chron. xxviii. 3, xxxiii. 6; Jer. vii. 31, etc.), is supposed to have derived its name from a man who had possessions there, but of whom nothing further is known (see Robinson, Pal. i. pp. 402 sqq.). The plain of Rephaim (LXX. yij 'Pa(f)aeiv, in 2 Sam. v. 18, 22, xxiii. 13 Koika<; Tcov Ttrdvcov), probably named after the gigantic race of Rephaim, and mentioned several times in 2 Sam. as a battle-field, is on the west of Jerusalem, and is separated from the edge of the valley of Ben-hinnom by a small ridge of rock. It runs southwards to Mar Elias, is an hour long, half an hour broad, and was very fertile (Isa. xvii. 5); in fact, even to the present day it is carefully cultivated (see Rob. Pal. i. p. 323; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii pp. 401 sqq.). It is bounded on the north by the mountain ridge alread}'- mentioned, which curves westwards on the left side of the road to Jaffa. This mountain ridge, or one of the peaks, is " the mountain on the west of the valley of Hinnom," at the northern end of the plain referred to. — Ver. 9. From this mountain height the boundary turned to the fountain of the waters of Nephtoah, i.e., according to Van de Velde's Mem. p. 336, the present village of Liftah (nun and lamed being interchanged, according to a wellknown law), an hour to the north-west of Jerusalem, where there is a copious spring, called by the name of Samuel, which not only supplies large basons, but waters a succession of blooming gardens (^Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 758 sqq.; Dieterici, Reisebilder, ii. pp. 221-2). It then ^^ went out to the towns of Mount Bphraim,^' which is not mentioned again, but was probably the steep and lofty mountain ridge on the west side of the Wady Beit Ilanina (Tere-