Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

bin til valley), upon which Kulonia, a place which the road to Joppa passes, Kastal on a lofty peak of the mountain, the fortress of Milane, Soba, and other places stand {^Seetzen, E. ii. pp. 64, 65; Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 158). The boundary then ran to Baala, i.e. Kirjath-jearim, the modern Kureyet el Enab, three hours to the north-west of Jerusalem (see at chap. ix. 17). — Yer. 10. From this point " the boundary (wliich had hitherto gone in a north-westerly direction) turned westwards to Mount Seir, and went out to the shoulder northwards {i.e. to the northern side) of JIar-jearim, that is Chesalon, and went down to Beth-shemesh, and passed over to Timnah." Blount Seir is the ridge of rock to the south-west of Kureyet el Enab, a lofty ridge composed of rugged peaks, with a wild and desolate appearance, upon which Saris and Mishir are situated {Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 155). Chesalon is the present Kesla on the summit of a mountain, an elevated point of the lofty ridge between Wady Ghurdb and Ismail, south-west of Kureyet el Enab {Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 154). Beth-shemesh {i.e. sun-house), a priests' city in the territory of Judah (chap. xxi. 16; 1 Chron. vi. 44), is the same as Ir-shemesh (chap. xix. 41), a place on the border of Dan, where the ark was deposited by the Philistines (1 Sam. vi. 9 sqq.), and where Amaziah was slain by Joash (2 Kings xiv. 11, 12; 2 Chron. xxv. 21). It was conquered by the Philistines in the time of Ahaz (2 Chron. xxviii. 18). According to the Onom. it was ten Roman miles, i.e. four hours, from Eleutheropolis towards Nicopolis. It is the present Ain Shems, upon a plateau in a splendid situation, two hours and a half to the south-west of Kesla {Rob. Pal. iii. p. 17; Bibl. Res. p. 153). Timnah, or Timnatah, belonged to Dan (chap. xix. 43); and it was thence that Samson fetched his wife (Judg, xiv. 1 sqq.). It is the present Tibneh, three-quarters of an hour to the west of Ain Shems {Rob. Pal. i. p. 344). — Yer. 11. Thence "the border icent out towards the north-west to the shoulder of Ekron {Akir: see at chap. xiii. 3), then bent to Shichron, passed over to Mount Baalah, and went out to Jabneel." Shichron is possibly Sugheir, an hour to the south-west of Jebna {Knobel). But if this is correct, the mountain of Baalah cannot be the short range of hills to the west of Akir which runs almost parallel with the coast {Rob. Pal. iii. p. 21), as Knobel supposes; but must be a mountain on the south side of the Wady Surar, since the boundaryhad already crossed this wady between Ekron and Shichron. Jabneel is the Philistine town of Jabneh, the walls of which were demolished by Uzziah (2 Chron. xxvi. 6), a place frequently men- tionecl in the books of Maccabees as well as by Josephus under the name of Jamnia. It still exists as a good-sized village, under the name of Jebnah, upon a small eminence on the western side of Nahr Rubin, four hours to the south of Joppa, and an hour and a half from the sea {Rob. Pal. iii. p. 22). From Jabneh the boundary went out to the (Mediterranean) Sea, probably along the course of the great valley, i.e. the Nahr Rubin, as Robinson supposes (Pal. ii. p. 343). The western boundary was the Great Sea, i.e. the Mediterranean.

Vers. 13-19. The account of the conquest of the inheritance, which Caleb asked for and received before the lots were cast for the land (chap. xiv. 6-15), by the extermination of the Anakites from Hebron, and the capture of the fortified town of Debir, is repeated with very slight differences in Judg. i. 10-15, in the enumeration of the different conflicts in which the separate tribes engaged after the death of Joshua, in order to secure actual possession of the inheritance which had fallen to them by lot, and is neither copied from our book by the author of the book of Judges, nor taken from Judges by the author of Joshua; but both of them have drawn it from one common source, upon which the accounts of the conquest of Canaan contained in the book of Joshua are generally founded. — Ver. 13. As an introduction to the account of the conquest of Hebron and Debir, the fact that they gave Caleb his portion among the sons of Judah, namely Hebron, is first of all repeated from chap. xiv. 13. \^\ impers., they gave, i.e. Joshua (chap. xiv. 13). The words " according to the command of Jehovah to Joshua'''' are to be explained from chap. xiv. 9-12, according to which Jehovah had promised, in the hearing of Joshua, to give Caleb possession of the mountains of Hebron, even when they were at Kadesh (chap. xiv. 12). The " father of Anak" is the tribe father of the family of Anakites in Hebron, from whom this town received the name of Kirjath-arba; see at Num. xiii. 22 and Gen. xxiii. 2. — Ver. 14. Thence, i.e. out of Hebron, Caleb drove (EnMj i.e. rooted out: cf. ^3^, Judg. i. 10) the three sons of Anak, i.e. families of the Anakites, whom the spies that were sent out from Kadesh had already found there (Num. xiii. 22). Instead of Caleb, we find the sons of Judah (Judajans) generally mentioned in Judg. i. 10 as the persons who drove out the Anakites, according to the plan of the history in that book, to describe the conflicts in which the several tribes engaged with the Canaanites. But the one does not preclude the other. Caleb did not take Hebron as an iiidiviclual, but as the head of a family of Judaeans, and with their assistance. Nor is there any discrepancy between this account and the fact stated in chap. xi. 21, 22, that Joshua had already conquered Hebron, Debir, and all the towns of that neighbourhood, and had driven out the Anakites from the mountains of Judah, and forced them back into the towns of the Philistines, as Knohel fancies. For that expulsion did not preclude the possibility of the Anakites and Canaanites returning to their former abodes, and taking possession of the towns again, when the Israelitish army had withdrawn and was engaged in the war with the Canaanites of the north; so that when the different tribes were about to settle in the towns and districts allotted to them, they were obliged to proceed once more to drive out or exterminate the Anakites and Canaanites who had forced their way in again (see the remarks on chap. x. 38, 39, p. 117, note). — Vers. 15, 16. From Hebron Caleb went against the inhabitants of Debir, to the south of Hebron. This town, which has not yet been discovered (see at chap. x. 38), must have been very strong and hard to conquer; for Caleb offered a prize to the conqueror, promising to give his daughter Achzah for a wife to any one that should take it, just as Saul afterwards promised to give his daughter to the conqueror of Goliath (1 Sam. xvii. 25, xviii. 17). — Yer. 17. Othniel took the town and received the promised prize. Othniel, according to Judg. iii. 9 the first judge of the Israelites after Joshua's death, is called 373 ^nx HP |3, i.e. either " the son of Kenaz (and) brother of Caleb," or " the son of Kenaz the brother of Caleb." The second rendering is quite admissible (comp. 2 Sam. xiii. 3, 32, with 1 Chron. ii. 13), but the fonner is the more usual; and for this the Masorites have decided, since they have separated achi Caleb from ben-Kenaz by a tiphchah. And this is the correct one, as " the son of Kenaz" is equivalent to " the Kenizzite" (chap. xiv. 6). According to Judg. i. 13 and iii. 9, Othniel was Caleb's younger brother. Caleb gave him his daughter for a wife, as marriage with a brother s daughter was not forbidden in the law (see my Bibl. Archaol. ii. § 107, note 14). — Vers. 18, 19. When Achzah had become his wife (" os she came,'^ i.e. on her coming to Othniel, to live with him as wife), she urged him to ask her father for a field. « A field:" in Judg. i. 14 we find « the field," as the writer had the particular field in his mind. This was not " the field belonging to the town of Debir" {Knobel), for Othniel had no need to ask for this, as it naturally went with the town, but a piece of land that could be cultivated, or, as is shown in what follows, one that was not deficient in springs of water. AVhat Othniel did is not stated, but only what Achzah did to attain her end, possibly because her husband could not make up his mind to present the request to her father. She sprang from the ass upon which she had ridden when her father brought her to Othniel. TOV, which only occurs again in Judg. iv. 21, and in the parallel passage, Judg. i. 14, is hardly connected with J?J^, to be lowly or humble (Ges.); the primary meaning is rather that suggested by Filrst, to force one's self, to press away, or further; and hence in this case the meaning is, to spring down quickly from the animal she had ridden, like?S3 in Gen. xxiv. 64. Alighting from an animal was a special sign of reverence, from which Caleb inferred that his daughter had some particular request to make of him, and therefore asked her what she wanted: " What is to thee?" or, " What loilt thou?" She then asked him for a blessing (as in 2 Kings v. 15): " /or," she added, " thou hast given me into barren land." 3J3n p» (rendered a south land) is accus. loci; so that negeh is not to be taken as a proper name, signifying the southernmost district of Canaan (as in ver. 21, etc.), but as an appellative, " the dry or arid land," as in Ps. cxxvi. 4. " Give me springs of water,^' i.e. a piece of land with springs of water in it. Caleb then gave her the " upper springs and lower springs:" this was the name given to a tract of land in which there were springs on both the higher and lower ground. It must have been somewhere in the neighbourhood of Debir, though, like the town itself, it has not yet been found. — Ver. 20 contains the closincj formula to vers. 1-19, i.e. to the description of the territory of Judah by its boundaries {yid. chap, xviii. 20).

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

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

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

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

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

Vers. 26-28. Third group of nine towns. — Ver. 20. Amam is not mentioned again, and is quite unknown. Shema, which is called Sheba in chap. xix. 2, and is mentioned among the towns of tiie Simeonites between Beersheba and Moladah, is supposed by Knobel to be the ruins of Sadwe [Sdweh) between Milh and Beersheba (see V. de Velde, ii. p. 148). Molada, which was given to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 2; 1 Chron. iv. 28) and was still inhabited by Jews after the captivity (Neh. xi. 20), was the later MdXaBa, an Idumgean fortress (Josephus, Ant. xviii. 6, 2), which Eusebius and Jerome describe as being twenty Roman miles, i.e. eight hours, to the south of Hebron on the road to Aila (Elath). It has been identified by Robinson (Pal. ii. p. 621) in the ruins of el Milh, by the Wady Malath or Malahh. — ^Ver. 27. Hazar-^addah, Heshmon, and Beth-palet have not yet been identified. The last of the three is mentioned again in Neh. xi. 26, by the side of Molada, as still inhabited by Judseans. — Ver. 28. Hazar-shual, i.e. fox-court, which was assigned to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 3) and still inhabited after the captivity (Neh. xi. 27), answers, so far as the name is concerned, to the ruins of Thdly (Roh. Pal. iii. App.). Beersheba, which was a well-known place in connection with the history of the patriarchs (Gen. xxi. 14 sqq., xxii. 19, etc.), and is frequently mentioned afterwards as the southern boundary of the land of Israel (Judg. xx. 1; 2 Sam. xvii. 11, etc.), was also given up to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 2), and still inhabited after the captivity (Neh. xi. 27). It is the present Bir es Seba on the "VTady es Seba (see at Gen. xxi. 31). Bizjothjah is unknown.

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

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

Vers. 33-47. Towns in the lowland or shephehh. — The lowland (shephelah), which is generally rendered 17 ireBii'ij in the Sept., rarely to irehiov (Dent. i. 7), but which is transferred as a proper name 7; Xe^rjXd in Obad. 19, Jer. xxxii. 44, xxxiii. 13, as well as in 1 Mace. xii. 38, where even Luther has Sephela, is the name given to the land between the mountains of Judah and the Mediterranean Sea, — a broad plain of undulating appearance, intersected by heights and low ranges of hills, with fertile soil, in which corn fields alternate with meadows, gardens, and extensive olive groves. It is still tolerably well cultivated, and is covered with villages, which are situated for the most part upon the different hills. Towards the south, the shephelah was bounded by the Negeb (ver. 21); on the north, it reached to Eamleh and Lydda, or Diospolis, where the plain of Sharon began, — a plain which extended as far as Carmel, and was renowned for the beauty of its flowers. Towards the east the hills multiply and shape themselves into a hilly landscape, which forms the intermediate link between the mountains and the plain, and which is distinguished from the shephelah itself, in chap. x. 40 and xii. 8, under the name of Ashedoth, or slopes, whereas here it is reckoned as forming part of the shephelah. This hilly ti'act is more thickly studded with villages than even the actual plain. (See Rob. Pal. ii. p. 363, and iii. p. 29.) The towns in the shephelah are divided into four groups.

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

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

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

VelJe^ R. ii. p. 156), and which lie to the south cf Beit-jibrin, and two hours and a half to the east of Ajlan (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 394). Lachmas: according to Knohel a corruption of Lachmam, which is the reading given in many MSS. and editions, whilst the Vulgate has LeJieman, and Luther (and the Efig. Ver.^ Lahnam. Knohel connects it with the ruins of el LaJiem to the south of Beit-jibrin {Toller). Kiihlish (Chitlis) is unknown, unless it is to be found in Tell ChilcMs, to the S.S.e. of Beit-jibrin (V. de Velde, R. ii. p. 157). — Ver. 41. Gederoth, Beth-dagon, and Naamah have not yet been traced. The village mentioned in the Onom. (s. v. Bethdagon) as grandis viciis Capher-dagon, and said to lie between Diospolis and Jamnia, the present Beit-dejan (Rob. iii. p. 30), was far beyond the northern boundary of the tribe of Judah. Makkedah: see at chap. x. 10.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vers. 48-51. The first group consists of eleven towns on the south-west of the mountains. — Ver. 48. Shamir hai probably been preserved in the ruins of Um Shaumerah, mentioned by Robinson (iii. App.), though the situation of these ruins has not yet been precisely determined. Jaitir, which was given up to the priests (chap. xxi. 14), and is mentioned again in 1 Sam. xxx. 27, is described in the Onom. (s. v. Jether^ as a large place inhabited by Christians, twenty miles from Eleutheropolis, in interiori Daroma juxta Malathan, — a description which suits the ruins of Attir, in the southern portion of the mountains (see Mob. ii. p. 194; called Ater by Seetzen, R. iii. p. 6). Socoh, two hours N.w. of this, the present Shuweikeh i^Rob. ii. p. 194), called Sueche by Seetzen (R. iii. p. 29), a village about four hours from Hebron. — Ver. 49. Dannah {Sept., Si/r., JRenna) is unknown. Knobel imagines that Dannah should be Danah, for Deanah, plur. Deanoth, which would then be suggestive of Zanute, the last inhabited place upon the mountains, five hours from Hebron, between Shuweikeh and Attir (see Rob. ii. p. 626; Seetzen, iii. pp. 27, 29). Kirjath-sannah, or Debir, has not been traced (see at chap. x. 38). — Ver. 50. Anab, on the north-east of Socoh (see at chap. xi. 21). Eshtemoh, or J^shtemoa, which was ceded to the priests (chap. xxi. 14; 1 Chron. vi. 42), and is mentioned again in 1 Sam. xxx. 28, 1 Chron. iv. 17, 19, is the present Semua, an inhabited village, with remains of walls, and a castle of ancient date, on the east of Socoh {Rob. ii. pp. 194, 626; Seetzen, iii. 28; and v. Schubert, R. ii. p. 458). Anim, contracted, according to the probable conjecture of Wilson, from Ayanim (fountains), a place still preserved in the ruins of the village of el Ghuwein, on the south of Semua, though Robinson erroneously connects it with Ain (ver. 32: see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 626). — Ver. 51. Goshen, Ilolon, and Giloh, are still unknown. On Goshen, see at chap. x. 41. Holon was given up to the priests (chap. xxi. 15; 1 Chron. vi. 43); and Giloh is mentioned in 2 Sam. xv. 12 as the birth-place of Ahithophel.

Vers. 52-54. The second group of nine towns, to the north of the former, in the country round Hebron. — Ver. 52. Arab is still unknown; for we cannot connect it, as Knobel does, with the ruins of Husn el Ghurab in the neighbourhood of Semua {Rob. i. p. 312), as these rums lie within the former group of towns. Duma, according to Eusebius the largest place in the Daromas in his time, and seventeen miles from Eleutheropolis, is probably the ruined village of Daumeh, by the Wady Dilbeh {Rob. i. p. 314), which is fourteen miles in a straight line to the south-east of Eleutheropolis according to the map. Esau (Eshean) can hardly be identified with Asan (1 Chron. iv. 32), as Van de Velde supposes, but is more likely Korasan (1 Sam. xxx. 30). In that case we might connect it with the ruins of KJncrsah, on the north-west of Daumeh, two hours and a half to the south-west of Hebron (^Rob. iii. p. 5). As the Septuagint reading is So/xd, Knobel conjectures that Eshean is a corrupt reading for Shema (1 Chron. ii. 43), and connects it with the ruins of Simia, on the south of Daumeh {Seetzm, iii. 28, and Bob. iii. App.). — Yer. 53. Janum is still unknown. Beth-tappuah has been preserved in the village of Teffuh, about two hours to the west of Hebron (Rob. ii. p. 428). Apheka has not been discovered. — Ver. 54. Hiimtah is also unknown. Kirjath-arba, or Hebron: see at chap. X. 3. Zior has also not been traced; though, " so far as the name is concerned, it might have been preserved in the heights of Tugra, near to Hebron" {Knobel).

Vers. 55-57. The third group of ten towns, to the east of both the former groups, towards the desert. — Ver. 55. Maon, the home of Nabal (1 Sam. xxv. 2), on the border of the desert of Judah, which is here called the desert of Maon (1 Sam. xxiii. 25), has been preserved in Tell Main, on a conical mountain commanding an extensive prospect, east by north of Semua, three hours and three-quarters to the s.S.E. of Hebron {Rob. ii. p. 193). Carmel, a town and mountain mentioned in the history of David, and again in the time of Uzziah (1 Sam. xv. 12, xxv. 2 sqq.; 2 Chron. xxvi. 10). In the time of the Romans it was a large place, with a Roman garrison {Onom.), and is the present Kiirmid, on the north-west of jMaon, where there are considerable ruins of a very ancient date {Rob. ii. pp. 196 sqq.). Ztph, in the desert of that name, to which David fled from Saul (1 Sam. xxiii. 14 sqq., xxvi. 2, 3), was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 8), and has been preserved in the ruins upon the hill Ziphj an hour and three-quarters to the south-east of Hebron {Rob. ii. p. 191). Jultah, which was assigned to the priests (chap. xxi. 16), and was a vicus prcegrandis JudcBorum in the time of the fathers {Onom. s. v. Jeihan), was eighteen Roman miles to the south (south-east) of EleutheropoHs, and is the present Jutta or Jittaj a large Mahometan place with ruins, an hour and threequarters to the south of Hebron {Seetzen, iii. p. 8; Rob. ii. pp. 191, 1)28). — Ver. 56. Jezreel, the home of Ahinoam (l^Sam. xxv. 43, xxvii. 3, etc.), a different place from the Jezreel in the plain of Esdraelon, has not yet been discovered. This also applies to Jokdeam and Zanoah, which are only met with here. — Ver. 57. Cain

(TTakkahi) is possibly the same as Juk'uif on the south-east of Hebron {Rob. ii. p. 449). Giheah cannot be the Gabatha near Betlilehem, mentioned m the Onom. (s. v. Gabathon), or the Gibea mentioned by Robinson (ii. p. 327), i.e. the village of Jeba, on a hill in the AVady el Musurr, as this does not come within the limits of the present group; it must rather be one of the two places {Gebaa and Gebatha) described as viculi contra orientalem plagam Daromce, though their situation has not yet been discovered. TimnaJi, probably the place already mentioned in Gen. xxxviii. 12 sqq., has not 'been discovered.

Vers. 58, 59. The fourth group of six towns, on the north of Hebron or of the last two groups. — Halhul, according to the Onom. {s. V. Elul) a place near Hebron named Alula, has been preserved in the ruins of Halhul, an hour and a half to the north of Hebron {Bob. i. p. 319, ii. p. 186, and Bibl. Res. p. 281). Beth-zur, which was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron, xi. 7), and is frequently mentioned in the time of the Maccabees as a border defence against the Idumgeans (1 Mace. iv. 29, 61, etc.), was twenty (? fifteen) Roman miles from Jerusalem, according to the Onom. (s. v. Bethzur), on the road to Hebron. It is the present heap of ruins called Beit-zur on the north-west of Halhul {Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 276-7; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 236, 267-8). Gedor, the ruins of Jedur, an hour and a half to the north-west {Rob. ii. p. 338; Bibl. Res. pp. 282-3). — Ver. 59. Maarath and Eltekon have not yet been discovered. Beth-anoth (probably a contraction of Beth-ayanoth) has been discovered by Wolcott in the ruins of Beit-anum, on the east of Halhul {Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 279; cf. Pal. ii. p. 186).

Between vers. 59 and 60, the Jifth group of towns given in the Septuagint is wanting in the Masoretic text. This group lay to the north of the fourth, and reached as far as Jerusalem. It comprised a district in which even now there are at least fifteen places and ruins, so that we have not an arbitrary interpolation made by the LXX., as Jerome assumed, but rather a gap in tlie Hebrew text, arising from the fact that an ancient copyist passed by mistake from the word ti!'"'?.>''!?'! in ver. 59 to the same word at the close of the missing section. In the Alexandrian version the section reads as follows in Cod. Al. and Vat.: GeKco kuI ^E^padd, avTrj ecrrt Bac9X€€fi, Kal ^aycop Kal Alrav Koi KovXou koI Tarap, Kal @(o^t)<; {Cod. A I. ^o)pr]<;) Kal Kape/J, Kal TaXefx. Kal Oedrjp {Cod. Al. BaiOfjp) Kal Mavo)(oo, iroXei^; evheKa koI al KcofJ-at amoyv. — Thekoy the well-known Tekoah, the home of the wise woman and of the prophet Amos (2 Sam. xiv. 2; Amos i. 1), was fortified bv Rehoboam, and still inhabited after the captivity (2 Chron. xi. 6; Neh. iii. 5, 27). It is the present Tehia, on the top of a mountain covered with ancient ruins, two hours to the south of Bethlehem {Rob. ii. pp. 181-184; Toiler, Denkbl. aus Jerus. pp. 682 sqq.). Ephratah, i.e. Bethlehem, the family seat of the house of Da-vnd (Ruth i. ], iv. 11; 1 Sam. xvi. 4, xvii. 12 sqq.; Micah v. 2), was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron, xi. 6), and is a place frequently mentioned. It was the birth-place of Christ (Matt. ii. 1 sqq.; Luke ii. 4), and still exists under the ancient name of Beit-hxhm, two hours to the south of Jerusalem {Seetzen, ii. pp. 37 sqq.; Bob. ii. pp. 159 sqq.; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 464 sqq.). Bethlehem did not receive the name of Ephratah for the first time from the Calebite family of Ephrathites (1 Chron. ii. 19, 50, iv. 4), but was known by that name even in Jacob's time (Gen. xxxv. 19, xlviii. 7). Phagor, which was near to Bethlehem according to the Onom. {s. v. Fogor), and is also called Phaora, is the present Faghur, a heap of ruins to the south-west of Bethlehem {Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 275). Aetan was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 6), and has been preserved in the ^Vadi/ and Ain Attan between Bethlehem and Faghur (Tobler, dritte Wand. pp. 88, 89). Kidoiif the present village of Kulomeh, an hour and a half west by north from Jerusalem- on the road to Ramleh (see Rob. ii. p. 146; Bibl. Res. p. 158: it is called Kolony by Seetzen, iL p. 64). Tatam cannot be traced. Sores (for Thobes appears to be only a copyist's error) is probably Saris, a small village four hours to the east of Jerusalem, upon a ridge on the south of Wady Aly {Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 154-5). Karem, now Ain Karim, a large flourishing village two hours to the west of Jerusalem, with a Franciscan convent dedicated to John the Baptist in the middle, and a fountain {Rob. ii. p. 141; Bibl. Res. p. 271). Galem, a different place from the Gallim on the north of Jerusalem (Isa. X. 30), has not yet been discovered. Baither, now a small dirty village called Betiir or Bittir, with a beautiful spring, and with gardens arranged in terraces on the western slope of the "VVady Bittir, to the south-west of Jerusalem {Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 266). Maiwclio, possibly the same place as Manachat (1 Chron. viii. 6), has not been found.

Ver. 60. The sixth group of only two towns, to the west of Jeiiisalem, on the northern border of the tribe of Judah. — Kirjathbaal, or Kirjath-jearim, the present Kureyet el Enah; see at ver. 9, and chap. ix. 17. Rabbah {Ha-rabbah, the great) is quite unknown.

Vers. 61, 62. The towns in the desert of Judali, which ran along the Dead Sea from the northern border of J adah (vers. 6, 7) to Wady Fikreh on the south, and reached to the districts of Maon, Ziph, Tekoah, and Bethlehem towards the west. This tract of land is for the most part a terrible desert, with a soil composed of chalk, marl, and limestone, and with bald mountains covered with flint and hornstone, and without the slightest trace of vegetation on the side bordering on the Dead Sea (see v. Schubert, Reise, iii. pp. 94, 96; Rob. ii. pp. 202, 475, 477). Yet wherever there are springs even tiiis desert is covered with a luxuriant vegetation, as far as the influence of the water extends (Seetzen, ii. pp. 249, 258); and even in those parts which are now completely desolate, there are traces of the work of man of a very ancient date in all directions {Bob. ii. p. 187). Six towns are mentioned in the verses before us. Beth-arabah: see at ver. 6. Middin and Secaca are unknown. According to Knobel, Middin is probably the ruins of Mird or Mardeh, to the west of the northern end of the Dead Sea {Rob. ii. p. 270). — Ver. 62. Nibsan, also unknown. The city of salt (salt town), in which the Edomites sustained repeated defeats (2 Sam. viii. 13; Ps. Ix. 2; 2 Kings xiv. 7; 1 Chron. xviii. 12; 2 Chron. XXV. 11), was no doubt at the southern end of the Dead Sea, in the Salt Valley {Rob. ii. p. 483). Engedi, on the Dead Sea (Ezek. xlvii. 10), to which David also fled to escape from Saul (1 Sam. xxiv. 1 sqq.), according to the Onom. {s. v. Engaddi) a vicus prcegrandisj the present Ain-Jidi, a spring upon a shelf of the high rocky coast on the west of the Dead Sea, with ruins of different ancient buildings (see Seetzen, ii. pp. 227-8; Bob. ii. pp. 214 sqq.; Li/nch, pp. 178-9, 199, 200). — In ver. 63 there follows a notice to the effect that the Judaeans were unable to expel the Jebusites from Jerusalem, which points back to the time immediately after Joshua, when the Judseans had taken Jerusalem and burned it (Judg. i. 8), but were still unable to maintain possession. This notice is not at variance with either chap, xviii. 28 or Judg. i. 21, since it neither affirms that Jerusalem belonged to the tribe of Judah, nor that Judah alone laid claim to the possession of the town to the exclusion of the Benjamites (see the explanation of Judg. i. 8)..

The descendants of Joseph drew one lot, that the inheritance of the half tribe of Manasseh might not be separated from that of the tribe of Ephraira. But the territory was immediately divided between the two separate tribes of the children of Joseph, Ephraiin receiving the southern portion of the land that had fallen to it by lot, and half Manasseh the northern. Accordingly we find the southern boundary of the whole territory described first of all in chap. xvi. 1-1, both the boundary which separated it from the tribe of Benjamin (chap. x%'iii. 11 sqq.), and that which divided it from Dan (chap. xix. 40 sqq.); then the territory of Ephraim is given, with a minute description of the northern boundary (chap. xvi. 5-10); and finally the territory assigned to the families of Manasseh (chap. xvii. 1-13), without any precise delineation of its northern boundaries, all that is stated being that the Manassites touched Asher and Issachar towards the north, and also received some scattered towns with their villages in the territory of both those tribes (chap. xvii. 10, 11). To this there is appended in vers. 14-18 the complaint of the children of Joseph concerning the inheritance that had fallen to them.

Chap. x\-i. 1—4. Territory of the Tribe of Joseph. — ^Ver. 1. " And there came out the lot of the children of Joseph from Jordan by JerichoV " The lot came out," viz. from the um (cf. chap. xix. 1, 17, 24). The expression " came up" is used in the same sense in chap, xviii. 11. The connection of these two words with the rest of the sentence, '''■from Jordan by Jericho" may be explained on the supposition that the lot which came out of the um determined the inheritance that fell to the tribe, so that we might paraphrase the verse in this manner: " There came out the lot to the children of Joseph, namely, the inheritance, which goes out from, or whose boundary' commences at, the Jordan by Jericho," i.e. from that part of the Jordan which is opposite to Jericho, and which is still more precisely defined by the additional clause, " by the water of Jencho eastward." The water of Jericho is the present fountain of es Sultan, half an hour to the north-west of JRiha, the only large fountain in the neighbourhood of Jericho, whose waters spread over the plain, and form a small brook, which no doubt flows in the rainy season through the Wady Kelt into the Jordan (see Bob. ii. pp. 28^4; Tobler, Topogr. v. Jerus. ii. pp. 558-9). " The icildemess^^ is in opposition to " the lot," so that the sense is, " namely, the desei't going up from Jericho to the mountains to Bethiir Accordinfr to chap, xviii. 12, the reference is to the desert of Beth-aven, wliich was on the east of Bethel, between the Wady Suwar (Tuwar) and Mutyah (see at chap. vii. 2). Towards the east this desert ter minates with the Jebel Kuruntul (Quarantana) on the north-west of Jericho, where it descends precipitously into the valley of the Jordan, or v. v., where it rises out of the Jordan valley. According to chap, xviii. 12, the same boundary went up by the shoulder of Jericho towards the north, i.e. along the northern range of mountains by Jericho, which cannot be any other than the " conspicuous double height, or rather group of heights," in front of the mountain of Quarantana, at the eastern foot of which lies the fountain of Ain es Sultan (Rob. ii. p. 284). In all probability, therefore, the boundary ran up towards the north-west, from the Sultan fountain to Ain Duk, and thence in a westerly direction across to Abu Seba (along which road Robinson had a frightful desert on his right hand: Pal. it. p. 310), and then again towards the north-west to Beitin- (Bethel), according to chap, xviii. 13, along the southern shoulder (or side) of Luz, i.e. Bethel. — Ver. 2. " And it icent out from Bethel to Luz^ Bethel is distinguished from Luz in this passage, because the reference is not to the town of Bethel, which was called Luz by the Canaanites {yid. Gen. xxviii. 19), but to the southern range of mountains belonging to Bethel, from which the boundary ran out to the town of Luz, so that this town, which stood upon the border, was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (chap, xviii, 22). From this point the boundary went over '' to the territory of the Arkite to Ataroth." We know nothing further about the Arkite than that David's friend Hushai belonged to that family (2 Sam. XV. 32, xvi. 16; 1 Chron. xxvii. 33). Aiaroth, called Ataroth-Adar in chap, xviii. 13, was not the present village of Atara, an hour and a half to the south of Jiljilia (Rob. iii. p. 80), as I once supposed, but the ruins of Atdra, three-quarters of an hour to the south of Bireh (Beeroth, Rob. ii. p. 314), with which the expression " descended^* in chap, xviii. 13 perfectly harmonizes. Consequently the boundary was first of all drawn in a south-westerly direction from Beitin to Bireh (chap, xviii. 25), and then southwards to Atarah. — ^Ver. 3. From tliis point " it went down westward to tlie temtory of the Japhletites to the territory of lower Beth-horon^* or, according to chap. xviii. 13, "to the mountain (or range) which is on the south by lower Beth-horon." The Japhletite is altogether unknown, as the Asherite of this name cannot possibly be thought of (1 Chron.

vii. 32, 33). Lower Beth-horon is the present Beit-Ur Tachta, a village upon a low ridge. It is separated from Upper Beth-horon, which lies farther east, by a deep wady (see at chap. x. 10, and /?o&. iii. p.. 59). ^^ And to Gezer" which was probably situated near the village of el Kuhab (see at chap. x. 33). " And the goings out thereof are at the sea" (the Mediterranean), probably running towards the north-west, and following the Wady Muzeireh to the north of Japho, which was assigned to the Danites, according to chap. xix. 46. — Yer. 4. The territory commencing at the boundary lines mentioned was allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh as theii inheritance.

Vers. 5—10. Territory of the tnhe of Ephraim, according to its families. — Ver. 5. " The border of their inheritance teas from the east Atroth-addar and (along the line) to Upper Beth-horon" — a brief description of the southern boundary, which is more minutely described in vers. 1-3. Upper Beth-horon is mentioned here instead of Lower Beth-horon (ver. 3). This makes no difference, however, as the two places stood quite close to one another (see at chap. x. 10). In vers. 6-8 the northern boundary of Ephraim is given, namely, from the middle, or from " a central point near the watershed" (Knobel), first towards the east (vers. 6 and 7), and then towards the west (ver. 8). The eastern half of the northeni boundary went ■"iS', t.€. when regarded from the west, or looked at towards the west, to the north side of Michmethah. According to chap. xvii. 7, this place was before Shechem, and therefore in any case it was not far from it, though it has not been discovered yet. Knobel supposes it to have been on the site of the present Kabate (Seetzen, ii. p. 166), Kubatiyeh, an hour and a half to the south of Jenin {Rob. iii. 154), assuming that Michmethah might also have been pronounced Chemathah, and that b may have been substituted for i7i. But Kabate is six hours to the north of Shechem, and therefore was certainly not " before Shechem" (chap. xvii. 7). It then turned " eastward to Taanath-shiloh" (TijvaO XrfKci), LXX.), according to the Onom. (s. V. Thenath) ten Roman miles from Neapolis (Sichem), on the way to the Jordan, most probably the Thena of Ptol. (v. 16, 5), the present Tana, Ain Tana, a heap of ruins on the south-east of Nabulus, where there are large cisterns to be found (see Bob. Bibl. Res. p. 295; Bitter, Erdk. xv. p. 471). And " then went by on the east to Janoah" {i.e. Jano in Acrabittena regione, twelve Roman miles from Neapolis: Onom.), the present ruins of Janun, a miserable village, with extensive ruins of great antiquity, about three hours to the south-east of Nabulus, three-quarters of an hour to the north-east of Akrabeh (Roh. Bibl. Res. p. 297; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 268). — Ver. 7. From Janoah the boundary went down " to Ataroth and Naarath^ Ataroih, a different place from the Ataroth or Atroth-addar mentioned in vers. 3 and 5, is apparently to be sought for on the eastern slope of the mountains by the side of the Ghor, judging from the expression "went down;" but it has not yet been discovered. Naarath, probably the same as Naaran, in eastern Ephraim (1 Chron. vii. 28), is described in the Onom. {s. V. Naaratlid) as viculus Judceorum JVaorath, five Roman miles (i.e. two hours) from Jericho, probably on the north-east. The boundary line then touched Jericho, i.e. the district of Jericho, namely on the north side of the district, as Jericho was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 21), At this point it also coincided with the southern boundary of the tribe of Joseph (ver. 1) and the northern boundary of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 12). — Ver. 8. The western half of the northern boundary went from Tappuah westwards to the Cane-brook, and terminated at the sea. Tappuah, called En-tappuah in chap. xvii. 7, as the southern boundary of Manasseh, which is there described, and which ran from Michmethah to En-tappuah, coincides with the northern boundary of Ephraim, must not be identified with the royal town of that name mentioned in chap. xii. 17, and therefore was not Kefr Kud {Capercota), on the west of Jenin (Ginaa). This place was so far to the north, viz. seven hours to the north of Nabulus, that the boundary from Michmethah, in the neighbourhood of Shechem (Nabulus) onwards, would have run from south to north instead of in a westerly direction. Still less can En-tappuah be found, as Van de Velde supposes, in the old well of the deserted village of Atuf, five hours to the east of Nabulus. It must have been to the west of Shechem; Dut it has not yet been discovered, as the country to the west of Nabulus and Sebastieh has "not been examined" {Van de Velde). The Cane-brook is no doubt the brook of that name mentioned by Bohad. (lita Salad, pp. 191, 193); only it is not quite clear " whether the Abu Zahura is intended, or a brook somewhat farther south, where there is still a Nahr el Kassab.^^ — Ver. 9. The tribe of Ephraim also received some scattered towns in the territory of the tribe of Manasseh, in fact all those towns to which Tappuah belonged, according to chap. xvii. 8, with the dependent villages.' —

^ The reason why the Ephraimites received scattered towns and villages in the tribe-territory of Manasseh, ig supposed by Calvin, Masius, and others, to

Ver. 10. From Gezer, however (see ver. 3), they could not drive ont the Canaanites, so that they still dwelt among the Ephraimites, but were reduced to a state of serfdom. This notice resembles the one in chap. xv. 63, and is to be interpreted in the same way.

Chap. xvii. 1-13. The inheritance of Manasseh on tJiis side of the Jordan was on the north of Ephraim. — Vers. 16-6. Before proceeding to the more detailed description of the inheritance, the historian thinks it necessary to observe that the Manassites received a double inheritance. This remark is introduced with the words "for he was the first-bom of Joseph^ On this account, in addition to the territory already given to him in Gilead and Bashan, he received a second allotment of territory in Canaan proper. With the word "^"rr? (for Machir) the more minute account of the division of the ^lanassites commences. '^^ "''?9- ^^ ^^^ °^ ^ written absolutely at the beginninjj of the sentence, and then resumed in i? ^n*i: " to Machir, the first-horn of Manasseh... to him xcere Gilead and Baslian assigned, because he was a man of war" i.e. a warlike man, and had earned for himself a claim to the inheritance of Gilead and Bashan through the peculiar braveiy which he had displayed in the conquest of those lands. By Machir, however, we are not to understand the actual son of Manasseh, but his family; and 'li'??'] ^^>* does not mean " father of Gilead," but lord (possessor) of Gilead, for Machir's son Gilead is always called ^iv? without the article {vid. chap. xvii. 3; Num. xxvi. 29, 30, xxvii. 1, xxxvi. 1; 1 Chron. vii. 17), whereas the country of that name is just as constantly called ^V??'!) (see ver. 1, the last clause, ver. 5, chap. xiii. 11, 31; Num. xxxii. 40; Deut. iii. 10 sqq.). " And there came, i.e. the lot fell (the lot is to be repeated from ver. 1), to the other descendants of Manasseh according to their families ^^ which are then enumerated as in Num. xxvi. 30-32. " These are the male descendants of Manasseh." ^'^^J} must not be altered, notwithstanding the fact that it is preceded and followed by cnnian; it is evidently used deliberately as an antithesis to the female descendants of Manasseh mentioned in ver. 3. — Vers. 3 sqq. Among the six families of Manasseh (ver. 2), Zelophehad, a descendant of Hepher, left no son; but he had five daughters, whose names are given in ver. 3 have been, that after the boundaries had been arranged, on comparing the territory allotted to each with the relative numbers of the two tribes, it was found tnat Ephraim had received too small a possession. This is quite possible; at the same time there may have been other reasons which we cannot discover now, as precisely the same thing occurs in the case of Manasseh (chap. xvii. 11).

(as in Num. xxvl. 33, xxvii. 1, xxxvi, 10). These daughters had petitioned Moses for a separate portion in the promispd land, and their request had been granted (Num. xxvii. 2 sqq., compared with chap, xxxvi.). They therefore came before the committee appointed for dividing the land and repeated this promise, which was at once fulfilled. Consequently there were ten families of Manasseh who had received portions by the side of Ephraim, five male and five female. " And (ver. 5) there fell the measurements of Manasseh (as) ten," i.e. ten portions were assigned to the Majiassites (on the west of the Jordan), beside the land of Gilead, because (as is again observed in ver. 6) the daughters of Manasseh, i.e. of Zelophehad the Manassite, received an inheritance among his sons (i.e. the rest of the Manassites).

Vers. 7-13. BoundaHes and extent of the inheritance of the ten families of Manasseh. — Vers. 7- 10a, the southern boundary, which coincides with the northern boundary of Ephraim described in chap. xvi. 6-8, and is merely given here with greater precision in certain points. It went ^^ from Asher to Michmethah, before Shechem." Asher is not the territory of the tribe of Asher, but a distinct locality; according to the Onom. (s. v. Asher) a place on the high road from Neapolis to Scythopolis, fifteen Roman miles from the former. It is not to be found, however, in the ruins of Tell Urn el Aschera {V. de Velde) or Tell Urn Ajra {Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 310, 327), an hour to the south of Beisan, as Knobel supposes, but in the village of Yasir, where there are magnificent ruins, about five hours and ten minutes from Nabulus on the road to Beisan (F. de Velde, Mem. pp. 237, 289; R. ii. p. 295). Michmethah, before Shechem, is still unknown (see chap. xvi. 6). Shechem was founded by the Hivite prince Shechem (Gen. xxxiii. 18), and is frequently mentioned in the book of Genesis. It stood between Ebal and Gerizim, was given up by Ephraim to the Ijcvites, and declared a free city (city of refuge: chap. xxi. 21, xx. 7). It was there that the ten tribes effected their separation from Judah (1 Kings xii. 1 s:\c[.), and Jeroboam resided there (1 Kings xii. 25). In later times it was the chief city of the country of Samaria, and the capital of the Samaritans (John iv. 5); and the name of Neapolis, or Flavia Neapolis, from which the present Nabulus or Nablus has come, was given to it in honour of Vespasian (see v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 161 sqq.). From this point the boundary went I*p»n"i'K (i.e. either " to the right side," the south side, or to Yamin), " to the inhabitants of En-tappuah." Whether Yamin is an appella- tlve or a proper name is doubtful. But even if it be the name of a place, it is quite certain that it cannot be the ^•illage of Ya7noiif an hour to the south-east of Taar^uk (Bob. iii. pp. 161. 167, etc.), as this is much too far north, and, judging from ver. 11, belonged to the teiTitorj of Asher. In the case of En-tappuah, the inhabitants are mentioned instead of the district, because the district belonged to Manasseh, whilst the town on the border of ]Manasseh was given to the Ephraimites. The situation of the town has not jet been discovered: see at chap. xvi. 8. From this point the boundary ran down to the Cane-brook (see chap. xvi. 8), namely to the south side of the brook. " These towns were assigned to Ephraim in tha midst of the towns of Manasseh, and (but) the tenntory of Manasseh was on the north of the brook" The only possible meaning of these words is the following: From Tappuah, the boundary went down to the Cane-brook and crossed it, so that the south side of the brook really belonged to the territory of Manasseh; nevertheless the towns on this south side were allotted to Ephraim, whilst only the territory to the north of the brook fell to the lot of the Manassites. This is expressed more plainly in ver. 10a: " To the south (of the brook the land came) to Ephraim, and to the north to Manasseh" In ver. 10b the northern and eastern boundaries are only briefly indicated: " And they (the Manassites) touched Asher towards the north, and Issachar towards the east." The reason why this boundary was not described more minutely, was probably because it had not yet been fixed. For (ver. 11) Manasseh also received towns and districts in (within the territory of) Issachar and Asher, viz. Beth-shean, etc. Beth-shean, to the wall of which Saul's body was fastened (1 Sara. xxxi. 10 sqq.; 2 Sam. xxi. 12), was afterwards called Scythopolis. It was in the valley of the Jordan, where the plain of Jezreel slopes off into the valley; its present name is Beisan, a j)lace where there are considerable ruins of great antiquity, about two hours from the Jordan (yid. Seetzen, ii. pp. 162 sqq.; Rob. iii. p. 174; Bibl. Res. p. 325; v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 150-1). This city, with its daughter towns, was in the territory of Issachar, which was on the east of Manasseh, and may have extended a considerable distance towards the south along the valley of the Jordan, as the territory of Manasseh and Ephraim did not run into the valley of the Jordan; but Asher (Yasir) is mentioned in ver. 7 as the most easterly place in Manasseh, and, according to chap. xvi. 6, 7, the eastern boundary of Ephraim ran down along the eastern edge of the mountains as far as Jericho, without including the Jordan valley. At the same time, the Glior on the western side of the Jordan below Beisan, as far as the plain of Jericho, was of no great value to any tribe, as this district, according to Josephus (de Bell. Jud. iv. 8, 2, and iii. 10, 7), was uninhabited because of its barrenness. The other towns, Ibleam, etc., with the exception of Endor perhaps, were in the territory of Asher, and almost all on the south-west border of the plain of Esdraelon. Ibleam, called Bileam in 1 Chron. vi. 55 (70), a 1/evitical town (see at chap. xxi. 25), was not very far from Megiddo (2 Kings ix. 27), and has probably been preserved in the ruins of Khirbet-BelameJi, half an hour to the south of Jenin; according to Schultz, it is the same place as Belamon, Belmen, or Belthem (Judith iv. 4, vii. 3, viii. 3). With ^NT '?^'''nxi the construction changes, so that there is an anacolouthon, which can be explained, however, on the ground that p HNT may not only mean to be assigned to, but also to receive or to have. In this last sense nxi is attached. The inhabitants are mentioned instead of the towns, because the historian had already the thought present in his mind, that the Manassites were unable to exterminate the Canaanites from the towns allotted to them. Dor is the present Tortura (see at chap. xi. 2). Endor, the home of the witch (1 Sam. xxviii. 7), four Roman miles to the south of Tabor (^Onom.), at present a village called Endor, on the northern shoulder of the Duhy or Little Hermon (see Roh. iii. p. 225; Bibl. Ees. p. 340). Taanach and Megiddo, the present Taanuk and Lejun (see at chap. xii. 21). The three last towns, with the places dependent upon them, are connected more closely together by nS3n riB9K>, the three-hillcountry, probably because they formed a common league. — Vers. 12, 13. The Manassites were unable to exterminate the Canaanites from these six towns, and the districts round; but when they grew stronger, they made them tributary slaves (cf. chap. xvi. 10).

Vers. 14-18. Complaint of the Descendants of Joseph respecting the inheritance allotted to them. — Ver. 14. As the descendants of Joseph formed two tribes (Ephraim and Manasseh), they gave utterance to their dissatisfaction that Joshua had given them (" me,^' the house of Joseph, ver. 17) but one lot, but one portion (/'3n, a measure, then the land measured off), for an inheritance, although they were a strong and numerous people. " So far hath Jehovah blessed me hitherto" "l5J'^<"^y, to this (sc. numerous people), is to be understood de gradu; nanVj hitherto, de tempore. There was no real ground for this complaint. As Ephraim numbered only 32,500 and Manasseh 52,700 at the second census in the lime of Moses (Num. xxvi.), and therefore Epbraim and half Manasseh together did not amount to more than 58,000 or 59,000, this tribe and a half were not so strong as Judah with its 76,500, and were even weaker than Dan with its 6-4,400, or Issachar with its 64,300 men, and therefore could not justly lay claim to more than the territory of a single tribe. Moreover, the land allotted to them was in one of the most fertile parts of Palestine. For although as a whole the mountains of Ephraim have much the same character as those of Judah, yet the separate mountains are neither so rugged nor so lofty, there being only a few of them that reach the height of 2500 feet above the level of the sea (see Hitter, Erdk. xv. pp. 475 sqq.; V. de Velde, Mem. pp. 177 sqq.); moreover, they are intersected by many broad valleys and fertile plateaux, which are covered with fruitful fields and splendid plantations of olives, vines, and fig trees (see Rob. iii. p. 78, Bibl. Res. pp. 290 sqq.; Seetzen, ii. pp. 165 sqq., 190 sqq.). On the west the mountains slope off into the hill country', which joins the plain of Sharon, with its invariable fertility. " The soil here is a black clay soil of unfathomable deptii, which is nearly all ploughed, and is of such unusual fertility that a cultivated plain here might furnish an almost unparalleled granary for the whole land. Interminable fields full of wheat and barley with their waving ears, which were very nearly ripe, with here and there a field of millet, that was already being diligently reaped by the peasants, presented a glorious sight" {Rittei'f Erdk. xvi. pp. 567-8). — ^Ver. 15. Joshua therefore sent them back with their petition, and said, " If thou art a strong people, go up into the xcood and cut it aicai/," i.e. make room for houses, fields, and meadows, by clearing the forests, " in the land of the Perizzites and Bephaim, if the mountain of Ephraim is too narrow for thee." The name " mountain of Ephraim" is used here:n a certain sense proleptically, to signify the mountain which received its name from the tribe of Ephraim, to which it had only just been allotted. This moimtain, which is also called the mountain of Israel (chap. xi. 16, 21), was a limestone range rtmniug from Kirjath-jearim, where the mountains of Judah terminate (see at chap. xi. 21), to the plain of Jezreel, and therefore embracing the greater part of the tribe-territory of Benjamin. The wood, which is distinguished from the mountain of Ephraim, and is also described in ver. 18 as a mountainous land, is either the mountainous region extending to the north of Yasir as far as the mountains of Gilboa, and lying to the west of Beisan, a region which has not yet been thoroughly explored, or else, as Knohel supposes, "the broad range of woody heights or low woody hills, by which the mountains of Samaria are connected with Carmel on the northwest {Roh. iii. p. 189), between Taanath and Megiddo on the east, and Cassarea and Dor on the west." Possibly both may be intended, as the children of Joseph were afraid of the Canaanites in Beisan and in the plain of Jezreel (ver. 16). The Rephaim were dwelling there, a tribe of gigantic stature (see at Gen. xiv. 5), also the Perizzites (see at Gen. xiii. 7). — Ver. 16. The children of Joseph replied that the mountain (allotted to them) would not be enough for them (KVD, as in Num. xi. 22; Zech. x. 10); and that all the Canaanites who dwelt in the land of the plain had iron chariots, both those in Beth-shean and its daughter towns, and those in the valley of Jezreel. PPJ^i^"n^> the land of the plain or valley land, includes both the valley of the Jordan near Beisan, and also the plain of Jezreel, which opens into the Jordan valley in the neighbourhood of Beisan (Roh. iii. p. 173). The plain of Jezreel, so called after the town of that name, is called the "great field of Esdrelom" in Judith i. 4, and to fjLe<ya ireZiov by Josephus. It is the present Merj {i.e. pasture-land) Ihn Aamer, which runs in a south-westerly direction from the Mediterranean Sea above Carmel, and reaches almost to the Jordan. It is bounded on the south by the mountains of Cai'mel, the mountain-land of Ephraira and the range of hills connecting the two, on the north by the mountains of Galilee, on the west by the southern spurs of the Galilean highland, and on the east by the mountains of Gilboa and the Little Hermon (Jebel Duhy). Within these boundaries it is eight hours in length from east to west, and five hours broad; it is fertile throughout, though very desolate now (see v. Raumcr, Pal. iii. pp. 39 sqq.). " Iron chariots" are not scythe chariots, for these were introduced by Cyrus, and were unknown to the Modes, Persians, and Arabians, i.e. to the early Asiatics before his time {Xen. Cyr. vi. 1, 27, 30), as well as to the ancient Egyptians (see Wilkinson, Manners and Customs, i. p. 350); they were simply chariots tipped with iron, just as the Egyptian war-chariots were made of wood and strengthened with metal nails and tips (Wilkinson, pp. 342, 348). — Vers. 17, 18. As the answer of the children of Joseph indicated cowardice and want of confidence in the help of God, Joshua contented himself with repeating his first reply, though more fully and with the reasons assigned. " Thou art a strong people, and hast great power; there will not he one lot to thee:'* i.e.

because thou art a numerous people and endowed with strength, there shall not remain one lot to thee, thou canst and wilt extend thine inheritance. " For the mountain icill be thine, for it is forest, and thou wilt heic it out, and its goings out tcill become thine.'* By the mountain we are not to understand the mountains of Ephraim which were assigned to the Ephraimites by the lot, but the wooded mountains mentioned in ver. 15, which the children of Joseph were to hew out, so as to make outlets for themselves. " The outgoings of it " are the fields and plains bordering upon the forest. For the Canaanites who dwelt there (ver. 15) would be driven out by the house of Joseph, just because they had iron chariots and were strong, and therefore only a strong tribe like Joseph was equal to the task. " Not one of the tribes of Israel is able to fight against them (the Canaanites) because they are strong, but you have strength enough to be able to expel them (Rashi).

THE TABERNACLE SET UP AT SHILOH. SURVEY OF THE LAND THAT HAD STILL TO BE DIVIDED. INHEEITANXE OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN. CHAP. XVIII.

Ver. 1. The Tabernacle set up at Shiloh. — As soon as the tribe of Ephraim had received its inheritance, Joshua commanded the whole congregation to assemble in Shiloh, and there set up the tabernacle, in order that, as the land was conquered, the worship of Jehovah might henceforth be regularly observed in accordance with the law. The selection of Shiloh as the site for the sanctuary was hardly occasioned by the fitness of the place for this purpose, on account of its being situated upon a mountain in the centre of the land, for there were many other places that would have been quite as suitable in this respect; the reason is rather to be found in the name of the place, viz, Shiloh, i.e. rest, which called to mind the promised Shiloh (Gen. xlix. 10), and therefore appeared to be pre-eminently suitable to be the resting-place of the sanctuary of the Lord, where His name was to dwell in Israel, until He should come who was to give true rest to His people as the Prince of Peace. In any case, however, Joshua did not follow his own judgment in selecting Shiloh for this purpose, but acted in simple accordance with the instructions of God, as the Lord had expressly reserved to himself the choice of the place where His name should dwell (Deut. xii. 11). Shiloh, according to the Onom., was twelve Roman miles or five hours to the south of Neapolis (Nablus), and about eight hours to the north of Jerusalem; at present it is a heap of ruins, bearing the name of Seilun (see Rob. iii. p. 85). The tabernacle continued standing at Shiloh during the time of the judges, until the ark of the covenant fell into the hands of the Philistines, in the lifetime of Eli, when the holy tent was robbed of its soul, and reduced to the mere shadow of a sanctuary. After this it was removed to Nob (1 Sam. xxi. 2); but in consequence of the massacre inflicted by Saul upon the inhabitants of this place (1 Sara. xxii. 19), it was taken to Gibeon (1 Kings iii. 4: see Keil, Bibl. Arch. i. § 22). From this time forward Shiloh continued to decline, because the Lord had rejected it (Ps. Ixxviii. 60; Jer. vii. 12, xxvi. 6). That it was destroyed by the Assyrians, as Knohel affirms, is not stated in the history.

Vers. 2-10. Sukvey of the Land that had yet to be DIVIDED. — Ver. 2. After the tabernacle had been set up, the casting of the lots and division of the land among the other seven tribes were to be continued; namely at Shiloh, to which the congregation had removed with the sanctuary. — Vers. 3, 4. But, for the reasons explained in chap. xiv. 1, these tribes showed themselves " slach to go to possess the land which the Lord had given them,^ i.e. not merely to conquer it, but to have it divided by lot, and to enter in and take possession. Joshua charged them with this, and directed them to appoint three men for each of the seven tribes, that they might be sent out to go through the land, and describe it according to the measure of their inheritance. " According to their inheritance" i.e. with special reference to the fact that seven tribes were to receive it for their inheritance. The description was not a formal measurement, although the art of surveying was well known in Egypt in ancient times, and was regularly carried out after the annual inundations of the Nile {Herod, ii. 109; Strabo, xvii. 7874 Diod. Sic. >. 69); so that the Israelites might have learned it there. But 203 does not mean to measure; and it was not a formal measurement that was required, for the purpose of dividing the land that yet remained into seven districts, since the tribes differed in numerical strength, and therefore the boundaries of the territory assigned them could not be settled till after the lots had been cast. The meaning of the word is to describe; and according to ver. 9, it was chiefly to the towns that reference was made: so that the description required by Joshua in all probability consisted simply in the preparation of lists of the towns in the different parts of the land, with an account of their size and character; also with " notices of the quality and condition of the soil; what lands were fertile, and what they produced; where the countiy was mountainous, aud where it was level; which lands were well watered, and which were dry; and any other thinss that would indicate the character of the soil, and facilitate a comparison between the different parts of the land" {Rosenmuller). The reasons which induced Joshua to take steps for the first time now for securing a survey of the land, are given in chap. xiv. 1. The men chosen for the purpose were able to carry out their task without receiving any hindrance from the Canaanites. For whilst the latter were crushed, if not exterminated, by the victories which the Israelites had gained, it was not necessary for the twenty-one Israelitish men to penetrate into every comer of the land, and every town that was still inhabited by the Canaanites, in order to accomplish their end. — Vers. 5, 6. " And divide it into seven parts,^' viz. for the purpose of casting lots. Judah, however, was still to remain in its land to the south, and Ephraira in its territory to the north. The seven portions thus obtained they were to bring to Joshua, that he might then cast the lot for the seven tribes " before the Lord," i.e. before the tabernacle (chap. xix. 51). — Ver. 7. There were only seven tribes that had still to receive their portions; for the tribe of Levi was to receive no portion in the land {vid. chap. xiii. xiv.), and Gad, Reuben, and half Manasseh had received their inheritance already on the other side of the Jordan. — Vers. 8, 9. Execution of this command. — Ver. 10. Joshua finishes the casting of the lots at Shiloh.

Vers. 11-28. Inheritance of the Tribe of Benjamin. — Vers. 11-20. Boundaries of the inheritance. — Ver. 11. The territory of their lot (i.e. the territory assigned to the Benjaminites by lot) came out (through the falling out of the lot) between the sons of Judah and the sons of Joseph. — Vers. 12, 13. The northern boundary (" the boundary towards the north side") therefore coincided with the southern bovmdary of Ephraim as far as Lower Beth-horon, and has already been commented upon in the exposition of chap. xvi. 1-3. The western boundary follows in ver. 14. At Beth-horon the boundary curved round and turned southwards on the western side, namely from the mountain before (in front of) Beth-horon southwards; and " the goings out thereof were at Kirjathbaalj which is Kirjath-jearim^^ the town of the Judseans mentioned in chap. xv. 60, the present Kureyet el Enah (see at chap. ix. 17). — Vers. 15-19. " As for the southern boundary from the end of Kirjathjearim onwards, the (southern) boundary loent out on the west (i.e. it started from the west), and went out (terminated) at the fountain of the water of Nephtoahy Consequently it coincided with the northern boundary of Judah, as described in chap. xv. 5-9, except that it is given there from east to west, and here from west to east (see at chap. XV. 5-9). In the construction ^^33n vnis^rij the noun ^isan is in apposition to the suffix: the outgoings of it, namely of the border (see Ewaldj § 291, b.). — Ver. 20. The eastern boundary was the Jordan.

Vers. 21-28. The toions of Benjamin are divided into two groups, mhe first group (vers. 21-24) contains twelve towns in the eastern portion of the territory. Jericho: the present Riha (see at chap. ii. 1). Beth-hoglah, now Ain Hajla (see chap. xv. 6). Emek- Keziz: the name has been preserved in the Wady el Kaziz, on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, on the south-east of the Apostle's Well (see Van de Velde, Mem. p. 328). — Ver. 22. Beth-arabah: see at chap. XV. 6. Zemaraim, probably the ruins of es Sumrah, on the road from Jerusalem to Jericho, to the east of Khan Hadhur, on Van de Velde s map. Bethel: now Beitin (see chap. vii. 2). — Ver. 23. Avvim {i.e. ruins) is unknown. Phara has been preserved in the ruins of Fara, on Wady Fara, three hours to the north-east of Jerusalem, and the same distance to the west of Jericho. Ophrah is mentioned again in 1 Sam. xiii. 17, but it is a different place from the Ophrah of Gideon in Manasseh (Judg. vi. 11, 24, viii. 27). According to the Onom. {s. v. Aphra), it was a Kcofirj *A(f)p7'j\ in the time of Eusebius (Jer. vicus Effrem), five Roman miles to the east of Bethel; and according to Van de Velde, v. Raioner, and others, it is probably the same place as Ephron or Ephrain, which Abijah took from Jeroboam along with Jeshanah and Bethel (2 Chron. xiii. 19), also the same as Ephraim, the city to which Christ went when He withdrew into the desert (John xi. 54), as the Onom. (s. v. Ephron) speaks of a villa prcegrandis Ephrcea nomine (^E^paifi in Euseb.), although the distance given there, viz. twenty lloman miles to the north of Jerusalem, reaches far beyond the limits of Benjamin. — Ver. 24. Chephar-haammonai and Ophni are only mentioned here, and are still unknown. Gaba, or Geba of Benjamin (1 Sam. xiii. 16; 1 Kings XV. 22), which was given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 17; 1 Chron. vi. 45), was in the neighbourhood of Ramah (1 Kings xv. 22, 2 Chron. xvi. 6). It is mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii. 8, Zecli.

xiv. 10, as the northern boundary of the kingdom of Judah, and was still inhabited after the captivity (Neh. vii. 30). It is a different place from Gibea, and is not to be found, as I formerly supposed, in the Moslem village of Jibia, by the Wady el Jib, between Beitin and Sinjil (Rob. iii. p. 80), but in the small village of Jeba^ which is lying half in ruins, and where there are relics of antiquity, three-quarters of an hour to the north-east of er-Eam (Ramah), and about three hours to the north of Jerusalem, upon a height from which there is an extensive prospect (vid. Bob. ii. pp. 113 sqq.). This eastern group also included the two other towns Anathoth and Almon (chap. xxi. 18), which were given up by Benjamin to the Levites. Anatlwtit, the home of the prophet Jeremiah (Jer. i. 1, xi. 21 sqq.), which was still inhabited by Benjaminites after the captivity (Neh. xi. 32), is the present village of Anata, where ther? are ruins of great antiquity, an hour and a quarter to the north of Jerusalem (Rob. ii. pp. 109 sqq.). Almon, called Allemetk in 1 Chron. vi. 45, has been preserved in the ruins of Aimit (Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 287 sqq.), or el-Mid (Tobler, Denkbl. p. 631), on the smith-east of Anata. — Vers. 25-28. The second group of fourteen towns in the western portion of Benjamin. — Ver. 25. Gibeon, the present Jib: see at chap. ix. 3. Ramah, in the neighbourhood of Gibeah and Geba (Judg. xix. 13; Isa. x. 29; 1 Kings xv. 17; Ezra ii. 26), most probably the Ramah of Samuel (1 Sam. i. 19, ii. 11, XXV. 1, xxviii. 3), is the present village of er-Rdm, upon a mountain with ruins between Gibeon and Geba, half an hour to the west of the latter, two hours to the north of Jerusalem (see Rob. ii. p. 315). Beeroth, the present Bireh: see at chap. ix. 17. — Ver. 26. Mizpeh, commonly called MizpaJi, where the war with Benjamin was decided upon (Judg. xx. xxi.), and where Samuel judged the people, and chose Saul as king (1 Sam. vii. 5 sqq., X. 17), was afterwards the seat of the Babylonian governor Gedaliah (2 Kings xxv. 23; Jer. xl. 6 sqq.). According to the Onom. (s. V. Massepha), it was near Kirjath-jearim, and Robinson (ii. p. 139) is no doubt correct in supposing it to be the present Nehj Samvil (i.e. prophet Samuel), an hour and a quarter to the east of Kureyet Enab (Kirjath-jearim), two hours to the north-west of Jerusalem, half an hour to the south of Gibeon, a place which stands like a watch-tower upon the highest point in the whole region, and with a mosque, once a Latin church, which is believed alike by Jews, Christians, and Mahometans to cover the tomb of the prophet Samuel (see Rob. ii. pp. 135 sqq.). Chephirah, i.e. Kejir: see at chap. ix. 17. Mozah Is only mentioned here, and is still unknovvr. Ver. 27. This also applies to Rekem, Irpeel, and Taralah. — Ver. 28 Zelah, the burial-place of Saul and his family (2 Sam. xxi. 14), is otherwise unknown. Gibeath or Gibeah, i.e. Gibeah of Benjamin, which was destroyed by the other tribes of Israel in the time of the judges, on account of the flagrant crime which had been committed there (Judg. xix. xx.), is also called Gibeah of Saul, as being the home and capital of Saul (1 Sam. x. 26, xi. 4, etc.), and was situated, according to Judg. xix. 13 and Isa. x. 29, between Jerusalem and Ramah, according to Josephus (Bell. Jud. v. 2, 1, 8) about twenty or thirty stadia from Jerusalem. These statements point to the Tell or Tuleil el Phul, i.e. bean-mountain, a conical peak about an hour from Jerusalem, on the road to er-Ram, with a large heap of stones upon the top, probably the ruins of a town that was built of unhewn stones, from which there is a very extensive prospect in all directions {Rob. ii. p. 317). Consequently modern writers have very naturally agreed in the conclusion, that the ancient Gibeah of Benjamin or Saul was situated either by the side of or upon this Tell (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 286; Strauss, Sinai, etc., p. 331, ed. 6; v. Raumer, Pal. p. 196). Kirjath has not yet been discovered, and must not be confounded with Kirjath-jearim, which belonged to the tribe of Judah (ver. 14; cf. chap. xv. 60).

Vers. 1-9. The inheritance of Simeon fell within the inheritance of the children of Judah, because the land allotted to them at Gilgal was larger than they required (ver. 9). Thus the curse pronounced upon Simeon by Jacob of dispersion in Israel (Gen. xlix. 7) was fulfilled upon this tribe in a very peculiar manner, and in a different manner from that pronounced upon Levi. The towns allotted to the tribe of Simeon are divided into two groups, the first (vers. 2-6) consisting of thirteen or fourteen towns, all situated in the Negeb (or south country); the second Cver. 7) of four towns, two of which were in the Negeb and two in the shephelah. All these eighteen towns have already been enumerated among the towns of Judah (chap. xv. 26-32, 42), and are mentioned again in 1 Chron. iv. 28-32, in just the same order, and with only slight differences in the spelling of some of the names. If the classification of the names in two groups might seem to indicate that Simeon received a connected portion of land in Judah, this idea is overthrown at once by the circumstance that two of the four towns in the second group were in the south land and two in the lowland, and, judging from chap. xv. 32, 42, at a great distance from one another. At the same time, we cannot decide this point with any certainty, as the situation of several of the towns is still unknown. — Ver. 2. Beersheba: see at chap. xv. 28. Sheba is wanting in the Chronicles, but has no doubt been omitted through a copyist's error, as Shema answers to it in chap. XV. 26, where it stands befoi'e Moladah just as Sheba does Jiere. — On the names in vers. 3-6a, see the exposition of chap. xv. 28-32. — The sum total given in ver. 66, viz. thirteen towns, does not tally, as there are fourteen names. On these differences, see the remarks on chap. xv. 32 (p. 163, the note). — Ver. 7. Ain and Rimmon were in the south land (chap. xv. 32), Ether and Ashaii in the lowlands (chap. xv. 42). — Vers. 8, 9. In addition to the towns mentioned, the Simeonites received all the villages round about the towns to Baalath-beer, the Ramah of the south. This place, up to which the territory of the Simeonites extended, though without its being actually assigned to the Simeonites, is simply called Baal in 1 Chron. iv. 33, and is probably the same as Bealoth in chap. xv. 24, though its situation has not yet been determined (see at chap. xv. 24). It cannot be identified, however, with Ramet el Khulil, an hour to the north of Hebron, which Roediger supposes to be the Hamah of the south, since the territory of Simeon, which was situated in the Negeb, and had only two towns in the shephelah, cannot possibly have extended into the mountains to a point on the north of Hebron. So far as the situation is concerned, V. de Velde would be more likely to be correct, when he identifies Rama of the south with Tell Lekiyeh on the north of Beersheba, if this conjecture only rested upon a better foundation than the untenable assumption, that Baalath-beer is the same as the Baalath of Dan in ver. 44.

Vers. 10-16. The inheritance of Zebulun fell above the plain of Jezreel, between this plain and the mountains of Naphtali, so that it was bounded by Asher on the west and north-west (ver. 27), by Naphtali on the north and north-east (ver. 34), and by Issachar on the south-east and south, and touched neither the Mediterranean Sea nor the Jordan. It embraced a very fertile country, however, with the fine broad plain of el Buttaiif, the jxeya

TreBiov above Nazaretli called Asochis in Joseph, vita, § 41, 45 (see Rob. iii. p. 189, Bibl. Res. pp. 105 sqq.; Bitter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 742, 758-9). — Ver. 10. " And the boundary (the territory) of their inheritance was (went) to Sarid" This is no doubt the centre of the southern boundary, from which it is traced in a westerly direction in ver. 11, and in an easterly dii'ection in ver. 12, in the same manner as in chap. xvi. 6. Unfortunately, Saiid cannot be determined with certainty. KnobeVs opinion is, that the name, which signifies "hole" or "incision," after the analogy of "^"^i^, perforavit, and t3"ib', incidit, does not refer to a town, but to some other locality, probably the southern opening of the deep and narrow wady which comes down from the basin of Nazareth, and is about an hour to the south-east of Nazareth, between two steep mountains (Seetzen, ii. pp. 151-2; Bob. iii. p. 183). This locality appears suitable enough. But it is also possible that Sand may be found in one of the two heaps of ruins on the south side of the Mons prctcipitii upon V. de Veldes map (so called from Luke iv. 29). — Ver. 11. From this point ^Hhe border went up westwards, namely to Afar^ala, and touched Dabbasheth, and still farther to the brook of Jokneam." If Jokneam of Carmel has been preserved in the Tell Kaimun (see at chap. xii. 22), the brook before Jokneam is probably the "Wady el Milh, on the eastern side of which, near the point where it opens into the plain, stands Kaimun, and through which the road runs from Acca to Ramleh, as this wady separates Carmel from the small round hills which run to the south-east (see Bob. Bibl. Res. p. 114, and V. de Velde, i. p. 249). Here the boundaries of Zebulun and Asher met (ver. 27). Afar''ala and Dabbasheth are to be sought for between Kaimdn and Sarid. The Cod. Vat. has MayeXBd instead of MapCkd. Now, however little importance we can attach to the readings of the LXX. on account of the senseless way in which its renderings are made, — as, for example, in this very passage, where npjn:T'"iB>^y is rendered ' EaeBeKjcoXa, — the name Magelda might suggest a Hebrew reading Magedlah or Mageldah, and thus lead one to connect the place with the village of Mejeidil (Bob. Bibl. Res. p. 114), or Mshedil (Seetzen, ii. p. 143), on the west of Mons prcecipitii, though neither of these travellers visited the place, or has given us any minute description of it. Its situation upon a mountain would suit Marala, to which the boundary went up from Sarid. In the case of Dabbasheth, the name, which signifies "lump" (see Isa. xxx. 6), points to a mountain. Upon this Knohel has founded the conjecture that Gibeah or Giheath took the place of this uncommon word, and that this is connected with the Gahathon of the Onom. (^juxta campum Legiojiis), the present Jehdta between Mejeidil and Kaimun, upon an isolated height on the edge of the mountains which skirt the plain of Jezreel, where there are signs of a remote antiquity (Roh. iii. p. 201, and Bibl. Res. p. lls"; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. p. 700); although Tell Thiireh (i.e. mountain) might be intended, a village upon a low and isolated hill a little farther south (see Boh. Bibl. Res. p. 116, and JRitter, ut sup.). — Ver. 12. "And from Saynd the boundary turned easticards toward the sun-rising to the territory of Chisloth-tahoTj and went out to Dabrath, and tcent up to Japhia." Chishth-tahor, i.e. according to Kimchfs explanation lumbi Tabons (French, les flancs), was at any rate a place on the side of Tabor, possibly the same as Kesulloth in ver. 18, as Masius and others suppose, and probably the same place as the Xaloth of Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 3, 1), which was situated in the " great plain," and the vicus Chasalus of the Onom. (juata montem Thahor in campestribus), i.e. the present village of Iksdl or Ksdl, upon a rocky height on the west of Thabor, with many tombs in the rocks (^Rob. iii. p. 182). Dabrath, a place in the tribe of Issachar tliat was given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 28; 1 Chron. vi. 57), called Dahaintta in Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 21, 3) and Dabira in the Onom. (yillula in monte Thabor), the present Deburieh, an insignificant village which stands in a very picturesque manner upon a stratum of rock at the western foot of Tabor (^Roh. iii. p. 210; V. de Velde, R. ii. p. 324). Japhia certainly cannot be the present Hepha or Haifa (Khaifa) on the Mediterranean, and near to Carmel (Rel. Pal. p. 826, and Ges. Thes. s. v.); but it is just as certain that it cannot be the present Jofa, a place half an hour to the south-west of Xazareth, as Robinson (Pal. iii. p. 200) and Knobel suppose, since the boundary was running eastwards, and cannot possibly have turned back again towards the west, and run from Deburieh beyond Sarid. If the positions assigned to Chisloth-tabor and Dabrath are correct, Japhia must be sought for on the east of Deburieh. — Ver. 13. '•^From thence it went over toicards the east to the sun-rising to Gath-hepher, to Eth-hazin, and went out to Rimmon, which is marked off to Neah." Gath-hepher, the home of the prophet Jonah (2 Kings xiv. 25), was "hand grandis vicuius Geth" in the time of Jerome (see p7'ol. ad Jon.). It was about two miles Irom Sephoris on the road to Tiberias, and the tomb of the prophet was shown there. It is the present \411age of Meshed, a place about an hour and a quarter to the north of Nazareth (Roh. iii. p. 209; V. de Velde, Mem. p. 312). Eth-hazin is unknown. Rimynon, a Levitical town (chap. xxi. 35; 1 Ohron. vi. 62), has probablybeen preserved in the village of JRummaneh, about two hours and a half to the north of Nazareth (Rob. iii. p. 195). Ham-metlioar is not a proper name, but the participle of "li^JJi, with the article in the place of the relative pronoun, " bounded off," or pricked off. Neah is unknown; it is possibly the same place as Neiel in the tribe of Asher (ver. 27), as Knohel supposes. — Ver. 14. " And the boundary turned o^ound it (round Eimmon), on the north to Channathon, and the outgoings thereof loere the valley of Jiphtah-el." Judging from the words 1D3 and ps^f^, this verse apparently gives the north-west boundary, since the last definition in ver. 13, " to Gath-hepher," etc., points to the eastern boundary. Jiphtah-el answers no doubt to the present Jefdt, two hours and a half to the north of Sefurieh, and is the Jotapata which was obstinately defended by Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 7, 9: see Rob. Bibl. Kes. pp 104 sqq.). Consequently the valley of Jiphtah-el, at which Zebulun touched Asher (ver. 27), is probably " no other than the large Wady Abilin, which takes its rise in the hills in the neighbourhood of Jefat" (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 107). And if this be correct, Channathon (LXX. ^Evvadwd) is probably Cana of Galilee, the home of Nathanael (John ii. 1, 11, iv. 46, xxi. 2), the present Kana el Jelil, between Rummaneh and Yefat, on the northern edge of the plain of Buttauf, upon a Tell, from which you overlook the plain, fully two hours and a half in a straight line from Nazareth, and directly north of that place, where there are many ruins found (see Rob. iii. p. 204; Bibl. Res. p. 108). — Ver. 15. The towns of Zehidun were the following. Kattath, probably the same as Kitron, which is mentioned in Judg. i. 30 in connection with Nahalol, but which is still unknown. Nehalalf or Nahalol (Judg. i. 30), is supposed by V. de Velde (Mem. p. 335), who follows Rabbi Schwartz, to be the present village of Maalul, a place with ruins on the south-west of Nazareth (see Seetzen, ii. p. 143; Rob. iii. App.; and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. p. 700). Simron is supposed by Knobel to be the village of Semunieh (see at chap. xi. 1). But neither of these is very probable. Idalah is supposed by V. de Velde to be the village of Jeda or Jeida, on the west of Semunieh, where are a few relics of antiquity, though Robinson (Bibl. Res. p. 113) states the very opposite. Bethlehem (of Zebulun), which many regard as the home of the judge Ibzan (Judg. xii. 8), has been preserved under the old name in a miserable village on the north of Jeida and Semunieh (see Seet~eri, ii. p. 139; Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 113). The number of the towns is given as twelve, though only five are mentioned by name. It is true that some commentators have found the missing names in the border places mentioned in vers. 11-14, as, after deducting Chisloth-tabor and Dabrath, which belonged to Issachar, the names Sarid, ^laralah, Dabbasheth, Japhia, Gittah-hepher, Eth-kazin, and Channathon give just seven towns. Nevertheless there is very little probability in this conjecture. For, in the first place, not only would it be a surprising thing to find the places mentioned as boundaries included among the towns of the territory belonging to the tribe, especially as some of the places so mentioned did not belong to Zebulun at all; but the copula vav, with which the enumeration of the towns commences, is equally surprising, since this is introduced in other cases with Q'^V^ ^"'^^ 0^'^?5)j e.g. chap, xviii. 21, xv. 21. And, in the second place, it is not a probable thing in itself, that, with the exception of the five towns mentioned in ver. 15, the other towns of Zebulun should all be situated upon the border. And lastly, the tovNTis of Kartah and Dimnah, which Zebulun gave up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 34), are actually wanting. Under these circumstances, it is a natural conclusion that there is a gap in the text here, just as in chap. xv. 59 and xxi. 36.