Biblical Commentary on the Old Testament

Vers. 17-23. The Inheritance of Issachar. — In this instance only towns are given, and the boundaries are not delineated, with the exception of the eastern portion of the northern boundary and the boundary line; at the same time, they may easily be traced from the boundaries of the surrounding tribes. Issachar received for the most paii; the large and veiy fertile plain of Jezreel (see at chap. xvii. 16, and Bitter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 689 sqq.), and was bounded on the south by Manasseh, on the west by Manasseh and Asher, on the north by Zebulun, and farther east by Naphtali also, and on the east by the Jordan. — Yer. 18. " And their boundary icas towards Jezreel," i.e. their territory extended beyond Jezreel. Jezreel, the summer residence of Ahab and his house (1 Kings xviii. 45, 46, etc.), was situated upon a mountain, with an extensive and splendid prospect over the large plain that was called by its name. It was afterwards called Esdraela, a place described in the Onom. (s. v. Jezreel) as standing between Scythopolis and Legio; it is the present Zerin, on the north-west of the mountains of Gilboa (see Seetzen, ii. pp. 155-6; Rob. iii. pp. 161 sqq.; Van de Velde, R. ii.

pp. 320 sqq.). Chesullothy possibly the same as Chisloth-tahor (see at ver. 12). Sunem, the home of Abishag (1 Kings i. 3-15, etc.), also mentioned in 1 Sam. xxviii. 4 and 2 Kings iv. 8, was situated, according to the Onom., five Roman miles (two hours) to the south of Tabor; it is the present Solum or Sidem, at the south-western foot of the Duhy or Little Hermon, an hour and a half to the north of Jezreel (see Hob. in. pp. 170 sqq.; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 323). — Ver. 19. Haphraim, according to the Onom. (s. v. Aphraim) villa Affarcea, six Roman miles to the north of Legio, is identified by Knohel with the village of Afnleh, on the west of Salem, and more than two hours to the north-east of Lejun (Bob. iii. pp. 163, 181). Sio7i, according to the Onom. villa juxta montem Thabor, has not yet been discovered. Anaharath is supposed by Knohel to be Naurah, on the eastern side of the Little Hermon (Bibl. Res. p. 337); but he regards the text as corrupt, and following the Cod. Al. of the LXX., which has 'Pevdd and ^AppaveO, maintains that the reading should be Archanath, to which At'dneh on the north of Jenin in the plain corresponds (Seetzen, ii. p. 156; Rob. iii. p. 157). But the circumstance that the Cod. Al. has two names instead of one makes its reading very suspicious. — Ver. 20. Hardbbit is supposed by Knohel to be Arahoneh, on the north-east of Araneh, at the southern foot of Gilboa {Rob. iii. p. 157). Kishion, which was given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 28) and is erroneously written Kedesh in 1 Chron. vi. 57, is unknown. This also applies to Ahez or Ebez, which is never mentioned again. — Ver. 21. Remeth, for which Jarmuth stands in the list of Levitical towns in chap. xxi. 29, and Ramoth in 1 Chron. vi. 58, is also unknown.^ En-gannim^ which was also allotted to the Levites (chap. xxi. 29; also 1 Chron. T. 58, where it is called Aneni), has been associated by Robinson (iii. p. 155) with the Tcvaia of Josephus, the present Jenin. The name En-gannim signifies fountain of gardens, and Jenin stands at the southern side of the plain of Jezreel in the midst of gardens

^ Knobel imagines Remeth, whose name signifies height, to be the village of Wezar, on one of the western peaks of Gilboa (Seetzen, ii. p. 156; Rob. iii. p. 166, and Bibl. Res. p. 339), as the name also signifies " a lofty, inaccessible mountain, or a castle situated upon a mountain." This is certainly not impossible, but it is improbable. For this Mahometan village evidently derived its name from the fact that it has the appearance of a fortification when seen from a distance (see Ritter, Erdk. xv. p. 422). The name has nothing in common therefore with the Hebrew Remeth, and the travellers quoted by him say nothing at all about the ru'^s wh'f^h he mentions in connection with Wezar (Wusar).

and orchards, which are watered by a copious spring (see Seefzen, ii. pp. 156 sqq.); "unless perhaps the place refen'ed to is the heap of ruins called Um el Ghamm, on the south-east of Tabor, mentioned by Berggrerij ii. p. 240, and Van de Velde, Mem. p. 142 " {Knohel). En-chadda and Beth-pazzez are only mentioned here, and have not yet been discovered. According to Knohel, the former of the t\\o may possibly be either the place by Gilboa called Judeidek, with a fountain named Ain Judeideh {JRoh. Bibl. Ees. p. 337), or else Beit-Tcad or Kadd near Gilboa, mentioned by Seetzen (ii. p. 159) and Bohinson (iii. p. 157). — Yer. 22. "And the boundary touched Talor, Sahazim, and Beth-shemesh." Tabor is not t!ie mountain of that name, but a town upon the mountain, which was given to the Levites, though not by Issachar but by Zebulun (1 Chron. vi. 62), and was fortified afresh in the Jewish wars (Josephus, Bell. Jud. iv. 1, 8). In this passage, however, it appears to be reckoned as beloncjincr to Issachar, since otherwise there are not sixteen cities named. At the same time, as there are several discrepancies between the numbers given and the names actually mentioned, it is quite possible that in this instance also the number sixteen is incorrect. In any case. Tabor was upon the border of Zebulun (ver. 12), so that it might have been allotted to this tribe. There are still the remains of old walls and ruins of arches, houses, and other buildings to be seen upon Mount Tabor; and round the summit there are the foundations of a thick wall built of large and to a great extent fluted stones (see Rob. iii. pp. 453 sqq.; Seetzen, ii. p. 148; Buckingham, Syr. i. pp. 83 sqq.). The places which follow are to be sought for on the east of Tabor towards the Jordan, as the boundary terminated at the Jordan. Sachazim (Shahazimah) Knohel connects with el Hazetheh, as the name, which signifies heights, points to a town situated upon hills; and el Hazetheh stands upon the range of hills, bounding the low-lying land of Ard el Hamma, which belonged to Naphtali. The reason is a weak one, though the situation would suit. There is more probability in the conjectui'e that Beth-shemesh, which remained in the hands of the Canaanites (Judg. i. 33), has been preserved in the ruined village of Bessum {Bob. iii. p. 237), and that this new name is only a corruption of the old one, like Beth-shean and Beisan. It is probable that the eastern portion of the northern boundary of Issachar, towards Naphtali, ran in a north-easterly direction from Tabor through the plain to Kefr Sabt, and thence to the Jordan along the Wady Bessum. It is not stated how far the territory of Issachjir

Vers. 24-31. The Inheritance of Asher. — Asher received its territory along the Mediterranean Sea from Carmel to the northern boundary of Canaan itself. The description commences with the central portion, viz. the neighbourhood of Acco (ver. 25), going first of all towards the south (vers. 26, 27), and then to the north (vers. 28, 30). — Ver. 25. The territory of the Asherites was as follows. Helkath, which was given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 31, and 1 Chron, vi. 75, where Huhok is an old copyist's error), is the present Jelka, three hours to the east of Acco (Akka: Scholz, Reise, p. 257), or Jerka^ a Druse village situated upon an eminence, and judging from the remains, an ancient place {Van de Velde, R. i. p. 214; JRob. iii. App.). Uali, according to Knohel possibly Jidis, between Jerka and Akka, in which case the present name arose from the form Halit, and t was changed into s. Beten, according to the Onom. (s. v. Barvat: Bathne) a vicus Bethheten, eight Roman miles to the east of Ptolemais, has not yet been found. Achshaph is also unknown (see at chap. xi. 1). The Onom. (s. v. Achsaph) says nothing more about its situation than tliat it was in tribu Aser, whilst the statement made s. v. Acsaph (^AKadcji), that it was villula Chasalus {KcofiTj 'JSfaSov?), eight Roman miles from DiocaBsarea ad radicem montis Thahor, leads into the teri'itory of Zebulun. — Ver. 26. Alammalech has been preserved, so far as the name is concerned, in the Wady Malek or Malik (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 110), which runs into the Kishon, since in all probability the wady was named after a place either near it or within it. Amad is supposed by Knobel to be the pi'esent Haifa, about three hours to the south of Acre, on the sea, and this he identifies with the sycamore city mentioned by Strabo (xvi. 758), Ptolemy (v. 15, 5), and Pliny (Ji. n. v. 17), which was called Epha in the time of the Fathers (see Bitter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 722 sqq.). In support of this he adduces the fact that the Hebrew name resembles the Arabic noun for sycamore,' — an argument the weakness of which does not need to be pointed out. Misheal was assigned to the Levites (chap. xxi. 30, and 1 Chron. vi. 74, where it is called MashaV). According to the Onom. (s. v. Masari) it was on the sea-coast near to Carmel, which is in harmony with the next clause, " and reacheth to Carmel westwards, and to Shihor-libnath." Carmel {i.e. fruit-field), which has acquired celebrity from the history of Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 17 sqq.), is a wooded mountain ridge which stretcnes in a north-westerly direction on the southern side of the Kishon, and projects as a promontory into the sea. Its name, " fruit-field," is well chosen; for whilst the lower part is covered with laurels and olive trees, the upper abounds in figs and oaks, and the whole mountain is full of the most beautiful flowers. There are also many caves about it (vid. v. Raumer^ Pal. pp. 43 sqq.; and Hitter, Erdk. xW. pp. 705-6). The Shihor-libnath is not the Belus, or glassriver, in the neighbourhood of Acre, but is to be sought for on the south of Carmel, where Asher was bounded by Manasseh (chap, xvii. 10), i.e. to the south of Dor, which the Manassites received in the territory of Asher (chap. xvii. 11); it is therefore in all probability the Nahr Zerka, possibly the crocodile river of Pliny (Reland, Pal. p. 730), which is three hours to the south of Dor, and whose name (blue} might answer both to shihor (black) and libnath (white). — Ver. 27. From this point the boundary " turned towards the east" probably following the river Libnath for a short distance upwards, "to Beth-dagon" which has not yet been discovered, and must not be identified with Beit Dejan between Yafa and Ludd (Diospolis), " and touched Zebulun and the valley of Jlphtali-el 071 the north of Beth-emeh, and Nehiel, and weiit out on the left to Cabul," i.e. on the northern side of it. The north-west boundaiy went from Zebulun into the valley of Jiphtah-el, i.e. the upper part of the "Wacly Abilin (ver. 14). Here therefore the eastern boundary of Asher, which ran northwards from Wady Zerka past the western side of Issachar and Zebulun, touched the north-west comer of Zebulun. The two places, Beth-emek and Nehiel (the latter possibly the same as Neah in ver. 13), which were situated at the south of the valley of Jiphtah-el, have not been discovered; they may, however, have been upon the border of Zebnlun and yet have belonged to Asher. Cabul, the kco/xt] Xa^coXo) of Josephiis (Vit. § 43), in the district of Ptolemais, has been preserved in the village of Kabul, four hours to the southeast of Acre {Rob. Bibl. Ees. p. 88, and Van de Velde, E. i. p. 218).

In vers. 28-30 the towns and boundaries in the northern part of the territory of Asher, on the Phoenician frontier, are given, and the Phoenician cities Sidon, T}-re, and Achzib are mentioned as marking the boundary. First of all we have four towns in ver. 28, reaching as far as Sidon, no doubt in the northern district of Asher. Ebron has cot yet been traced. As Abdon occurs among the towns wliich Asher gave up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 30; 1 Chron. vi. 59), and in this verse also twenty mss. have the reading Abdon, many writers, like Reland (Pal. p. 514), regard Ehron as a copyist's error for Ahdon. This is possible enough, but it is by no means certain. As the towns of Asher are not all given in this list, since Acco, Achlab, and Helba (Judg. i. 31) are wanting, Abdon may also have been omitted. But we cannot attach any importance to the reading of the twenty MSS., as it may easily have arisen from chap, xxi. 30; and in addition to the Masoretic text, it has against it the authority of all the ancient versions, in which the reading Ehron is adopted. But even Ahdon cannot be traced with certainty. On the supposition that A hdon is to be read for Ehron, Knohel connects it with the present Ahhadiyeh, on the east of Beirut {Roh. iii. App.; Ritter, Erdk. xvii. pp. 477 and 710), or with Ahidat, on the east (not the north) of Jobail (Byblus), mentioned by Burckhardt (Syr. p. 296) and Rohinson (iii. App.); though he cannot adduce any other argument in support of the identity of Abdon with these two places, which are only known by name at present, except the resemblance in their names. On the supposition, however, that Ahdon is not the same as Ehron, Van de Veldes conjecture is a much more natural one; namely, that it is to be found in the ruins of Abdeh, on the Wady Kurn, to the north of Acca. Rehob cannot be traced. The name occurs again in ver. 30, from which it is evident that there were two towns of this name in the territory of Asher (see at ver. 30). Schultz and Van de Velde connect it with the village of Hamul by the wady of that name, between E,as el Abyad and Has en Nakura; but this is too far south to be included in the district which reached to great Sidon. KnoheVs suggestion would be a more probable one, namely, that it is connected with the village of Hammana, on the east of Beirut, in the district of el Metn, on the heights of Lebanon, where there is now a Maronite monastery {vld, Seetzen, i. p. 260; Rob. iii. App.; and Ritter, xvii. pp. 676 and 710), if it could only be shown that the territory of Asher reached as far to the east as this. Kanali cannot be the village of Kdna, not far from Tyre {Rob. iii. p. 384), but must have been farther north, and near to Sidon, though it has not yet been discovered. For the supposition that it is connected with the existing place called Ain Kanieh (Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, xvii. pp. 94 and 703), on the north of Jezzin, is overthrown by the fact that that place is too far to the east to be thouscht of in this connection; and neither Robinson nor Ritter makes any allusion to " Ain Kana, in the neighbourhood of

Jurjera, six hours to the south-east of Sidon," which JSjiobel mentions without quoting his authority, so that the existence of such a place is very questionable. On Sidon, now Saida, see at chap. xi. 8. — Ver. 2y. ^^And the boundary turned (probably from the territory of Sidon) to Hamah, to the fortijied town of Zor.^' Rohinson supposes that Rama is to be found in the village of Ramehj on the south-east of Tyre, where several ancient sarcophagi are to be seen (Bibl. Kes. p. 03). " The fortified town of Zor,'' i.e. Tyre, is not the insular Tyre, but the town of Tyre, which was on the mainland, the present 5wr, which is situated by the sea-coast, in a beautiful and fertile plain (see Bitter, Erdk. xvii. p. 320, and Clovers, Phonizier, ii. 1, pp. 118 sqq.). " Arid the boundary turned to Hosahf and the outgoings thereof were at the sea, by the side of the district of Achzib." Hosah is unknown, as the situation of Kausah, near to the Rameh already mentioned (Bob. Bibl. Res. p. 61), does not suit in this connection. <-^^y lit. from the district, i.e. by the side of it. Achzib, where the Asherites dwelt with the Canaanites (Judg. i. 31, 32), is the Ekdippa of the Greeks and Romans, according to the Onom. {s. V. Achzipli) nine Roman miles, or according to the Itiner. Hieros. p. 584, twelve miles to the north of Acco by the sea, the present Zib, a ver^^ large village, three good hours to the north of Acre, — a place on the sea-coast, with considerable ruins of antiquity (see Ges. Thes. p. 674; Seetzen, ii. p. 109; Bitter, xvi. pp. 811-12). — In ver. 30 three separate towns are mentioned, which were probably situated in the eastern part of the northern district of Asher, whereas the border towns mentioned in vers. 28 and 29 describe this district in its western half. Ummah (L>XX. ^Afi/xa) may perhaps have been preserved in Kefr Ammeih, upon the Lebanon, to the south of Hammana, in the district of Jurd {Bob. iii. App.; Bitter, xvii. p. 710). Aphek is the present Afka (see at chap. xiii. 4) Behob cannot be traced with certainty. If it is Hub, as Knobel supposes, and the name Hub, which is borne by a Maronite monastery upon Lebanon, in the diocese of el-Jebail (to the north-east of Jebail), is a corruption of Behob, this would be the northernmost town of Asher (see Seetzen, i. pp. 187 sqq., and Bitter, xvii. p. 791). The number " twenty-two towns and their villages" does not tally, as there are twenty-three towns mentioned in vers. 26-30, if we include Sidon, Tyre, and Achzib, according to Judg. i. 31, 32. The only way in which the numbers can be made to agree is to reckon Neldel (ver. 27) as identical with Neah (ver. 13). But this point cannot be determined with certamty, as the Asheiites received other towns, such as Acco and Aclaph, which are wanting in this list, and may possibly have simply fallen out.

Vers. 32-39. The Inheritance of NArnTALi. — This fell between Asher and the upper Jordan. It reached northwards to the northern boundary of Canaan, and touched Zebulun and Issachar on the south. In vers. 33 and 34 the boundary lines are given: viz. in ver. 33 the western boundary towards Asher, with the northern and eastern boundaries: in ver. 34 the southern boundary; but with the uncertainty which exists as to several of the places named, it cannot be traced with certainty. — Ver. 33. " Its boundary was (its territory reached) from Heleph, from the oak-forest at Zaanannim, and Adami Nekeh and Jahneel to Lakkum; and its outgoings were the Jordan^ Heleph is unknown, though in all probabiHty it was to the south of Zaanannim, and not very far distant. According to Judg. iv. 11, the oak-forest (allon: see the remarks on Gen. xii. 6) at Zaanannim was near Kedesh, on the north-west of Lake Huleh. There are still many oaks in that neighbourhood (Rob. Bibl. Kes. p. 386); and on the south of Bint Jebail Robinson crossed a low mountain-range which was covered with small oak trees (Pal. iii. p. 372). Adami hannekeb, i.e. Adami of the pass {Nekeb, judging from the analogy of the Arabic, signifying foramen, via inter montes), is supposed by Knohel to be Deir-el-ahmar, i.e. red cloister, a place wliich is still inhabited, three hours to the north-west of Baalbek, on the pass from the cedars to Baalbek (Seetzen, i. pp. 181, 185; Burckhardt, Syr. p. 60; and Ritter, Erdk. xvii. p. 150), so called from the reddish colour of the soil in the neighbourhood, which would explain the name Adami. Knobel also connects Jabneel with the lake Jemun, Jemuni, or Jammune, some hours to the north-west of Baalbek, on the eastern side of the western Lebanon range {Rob. Bibh Res. p. 548; Ritter, xvii. pp. 304 sqq.), where there are still considerable ruins of a very early date to be found, especially the ruins of an ancient temple and a celebrated place of pilgrimage, with which the name " God's building" agrees. And lastly, he associates Lakkum with the mountains of Lokham, as the northern part of Lebanon on the Syrian mountains, from the latitude of Laodicea to that of Antioch on the western side of the Orontes, is called by the Arabian geographers Isztachri, Abidfeda, and others. So far as the names are concei'ned, these combinations seem appropriate enough, but they are hardly tenable. The resemblance between the names Lakkum and Lokham is only in appearance, as the Hebrew name is written with p and the Arabic with 3. Moreover, the mountains of Lokham are much too far north for the name to be adduced as an explanation of Lakkum. The interpretation of Adami NeJceh and Jahneel is also irreconcilable with the circumstance that the lake Jamun was two hours to the west of the red convent, so that the boundaiy, which starts from the west, and is drawn first of all towards the north, and then to the north-east and east, must have run last of all from the red convent, and not from the Jamun lake to the Jordan. As Jahneel is mentioned after Adami Nekeh, it must be sought for to the east of Adami Xekeb, whereas the Jamun lake lies in the very opposite direction, namelj, directly to the west of the red convent. The three places mentioned, therefore, cannot be precisely determined at present. The Jordan, where the boundary of Asher terminated, was no doubt the upper Jordan, or rather the Nahr Hashany, one of the sources of the Jordan, which formed, together with the Huleh lake and the Jordan itself, between Lake Huleh and the Sea of Tiberias, and down to the point where it issues from the latter, the eastern boundary of Asher. — Ver. 34. From the Jordan below the Lake of Tiberias, or speaking more exactly, from the point at which the Wady Bessum enters the Jordan, " the boundary (of Asher) turned westvcards to Asnoth-tabor, and went thence out to Hukkok." This boundary, i.e. the southern boundary of Asher, probably followed the course of the Wady Bessum from the Jordan, which wady was the boundary of Issachar on the north-east, and then ran most hkely from Kefr Sabt (see at ver. 22) to Asnothtabor, i.e., according to the Onom. (s. v. Azanoth), a vicus ad regionem ZHoccesarece pertinens in campestribus, probably on the southeast of DioccEsarea, i.e. Sepphoris, not far from Tabor, to which the boundary of Issachar extended (ver. 22). Hukkok has not yet been traced. Robinson (Bibl. Res. p. 82) and Van de Velde (Mem. p. 322) are inclined to follow Rahhi Parchi of the fourteenth century, and identify this place with the village of Yakuk, on the north-west of the Lake of Gennesareth; but this villaore is too far to the north-east to have formed the terminal point of the southern boundary of Naphtali, as it ran westwards from the Jordan. After this Naphtali touched " Zehulun on the south, Asher on the west, and Judah by the Jordan toward, the sun-rising or east J' "The Jordan" is in apposition to " Judah," in the sense of " Judah of the Jordan," like " Jordan of Jericho " in Num. xxii. 1, xxvi. 3, etc. The Masoretic pointing, wh'ch separates these two words, was founded upon some false notion respecting this definition of the boundary, and caused the commentators great perplexity, until C. v. Raumer succeeded in removing the difficulty, by showing that the district of the sixty towns of Jair, which was upon the eastern side of the Jordan, is called Judah here, or reckoned as belonging to Judah, because Jair, the possessor of these towns, was a descendant of Judah on the father's side through Ilezron (1 Chron. ii. 5, 21, 22); whereas in chap. xiii. 30, and Num. xxxii. 41, he is reckoned contra morenij i.e. against the rule laid down in Num. xxxvi. 7, as a descendant of Manasseh, on account of his descent from Machir the Manassite, on his mother's side.^

Vers. 35 sqq. The fortified towns of Naphtali were the following. Ziddim: unknown, though Knohel suggests that " it may possibly be preserved in Chirhet es Saudeh, to the west of the southern extremity of the Lake of Tiberias (^Rob. iii. App.);" but this place is to the west of the Wady Bessum, i.e. in the territory of Issachar. Zer is also unknown. As the LXX. and Syriac give the name as Zo7\ Knohel connects it with Kerah, which signifies fortress as well as Zor (= "^^^''?), a heap of ruins at the southern end of the lake (Rob. iii. p. 263), the place wdiich Josephus calls Tarichece (see Reland, p. 1026), — a very doubtful combination! Hammath {i.e. thermce), a Levitical town called Ilammoth-dor in chap. xxi. 32, and Hammon in 1 Chron. vi. 61, was situated, according to statements in the Talmud, somewhere near the later city of Tiberias, on the western shore of the Lake of Gennesareth, and was no doubt identical with the kwixtj 'AfifjbaoiKi in the neighbourhood of Tiberias, a place with warm baths (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2, 3; Bell. Jud. iv. 1, 3). There are warm springs still to be found half an hour to the south of Tabaria, which are used as baths (BurckJiardt, Syr. pp. 573-4; Rob. iii. pp. 258 sqq.). Rakkath (according to the Talin. and Rabb. ripa littus) was situated, according to rabbinical accounts, in the immediate neighbourhood of Hammath, and was the same place as Tiberias; but the account given by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 2, 3; cf. Bell. Jud. ii. 9, 1) respecting the founding of Tiberias by Herod the tetrarch is at variance with this; so that the rabbinical statements appear to have no other foundation than the etymology of the name

^ See C. V. Raumer's article on " Judaea on the east of Jordan," in Tkoluck's litt. Anz. 1834, Nos. 1 and 2, and his Palastina, pp. 233 sqq. ed. 4; and for the arbitrary attempts that had been made to explain the passage by alterations of the text and in other ways, see Rosenmiiller's Bill. Alterthk. ii. l,pp. 301-2; and Keifs Comm on Joshua, pp. 438-9.

Tlakkath. Chinnereth is given in the Targums as "1?^.^, "^^^^ "'P^^a, i.e. FewTjadp. According to Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 10, 8), this name was given to a strip of land on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, which was distinguished foi its natural beautv, its climate, and its fertility, namely the long plain, about twenty minutes broad and an hour long, which stretches along the western shore of this lake, from el-Mejdel on the south to Khan Minyeh on the north {BiircJchardt, Syr. pp. 558-9; Bob. iii. pp. 279, 290). It must have been in this plain that the town of Chinnereth stood, from which the plain and lake together derived the name of Chinnereth (Deut. iii. 17) or Chinneroth (chap. xi. 2), and the lake alone the name of " Sea of Chinnereth," or " Sea of Chinneroth" (chap. xii. 3, xiii. 27; Num. xxxiv. 11). — Yer. 36. Adamah is unknown. Knohel is of opinion, that as Adamah signifies red, the place referred to may possibly be Ras el Ahmar, i.e. red-head, on the north of Safed {Roh. iii. p. 370; Bibl, Ees. p. 69). RamaJi is the present Rameh {Ramed), a large well-built village, inhabited by Christians and Druses, surrounded by extensive olive plantations, and provided with an excellent well. It stands upon the slope of a mountain, in a beautiful plain on the south-west of Safed, but without any relics of antiquity (see Seetzen, ii. p. 129; Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 78-9). Hazor has not yet been traced with certainty (see at chap. xi. 1). — Ver. 37. Kedesh (see at chap, xii. 2). Edreij a different place from the town of the same name in Bashan (chap. i. 2, 4), is still unknown. En-hazor is probably to be sought for in Tell Hazur and Ain Hazur, which is not very far distant, on the south-west of Eameh, though the ruins upon Tell Hazur are merely the ruins of an ordinary village, with one single cistern that has fallen to pieces {Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 80, 81). — Yer. 38. Jireon (IroJi) is probably the present village of Jariin, an hour to the south-east of Bint-Jebeil, with the ruins of an ancient Christian church {Seetzen, ii. pp. 123-4; Van de Velde, R. i. p. 133). Migdal-el, so far as the name is concerned, might be Magdala (^latt. XV. 39), on the western shore of the Lake of Gennesareth, between Capernaum and Tiberias {Rob. iii. pp. 279 sqq.); the only diflBculty is, that the towns upon this lake have already been mentioned in ver. 35. Knobel connects Migdal-el with Chorein, so as to form one name, and finds Migdal el Chorem in the present Mejdel Kerum, on the west of Rameh {Seetzen, ii. p. 130 j Van de Velde, i. p. 215), a common Mahometan village. But there is nothing to favour this combination, except the similarity in sound between the two names;• whereas it has against it not only the situation of the village, which was so far to the west, being not more tlian three hours from Acca, that the territory of Naphtali can liardly have reached so far, but also the very small resemblance between Chorem and Kerum, not to mention the fact that the accents separate Chorem from Migdal-el, whilst the omission of the copula {vav) before Chorem cannot have any weight, as the copula is also wanting before Zer and JRakkath. Chorem and Beth-anath have not yet been discovered. From the latter place Naphtali was unable to expel the Canaanites (Judg. i. 33). Beth-shemesh, a different place from the town of the same name in Issachar (ver. 22), is also still unknown. The total number of towns is given as nineteen, whereas only sixteen are mentioned by name. It is hardly correct to seek for the missing places among the border towns mentioned in vers. 33 and 34, as the enumeration of the towns themselves is introduced by "1^20 ''"}})] in ver. 35, and in this way the list of towns is separated from the description of the boundaries. To this we may add, that the town of Karthan or Kirjathaim, which Naphtali gave up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 32; 1 Chron. vi. 61), does not occur either among the border towns or in the list of towns, from which we may see that the list of towns is an imperfect one.

Vers. 40-48. The Inheritance of the Tribe of Dan. — This fell to the west of Benjamin, between Judah and Ephraim, and was formed by Judah giving up some of its northern towns, and Ephraim some of its southern towns, to the Danites, so as to furnish them with a territory proportionate to their number. It was situated for the most part in the lowland {shepheldi), including, however, the hill country between the Mediterranean and the mountains, and extended over a portion of the plain of Sharon, so that it belonged to one of the most fruitful portions of Palestine. The boundaries are not given, because they could be traced from those of the adjoining territories. — Ver. 41. From Judah the families of Dan received Zorea and Eshtaol (see at chap. xv. 33), and Ir-shemesh, also called Beth-shemesh (1 Kings iv. 9), on the border of Judah (see chap. xv. 10); but of these the Danites did not take possession, as they were given up by Judah to the Levites (chap. xxi. 16: see at chap. xv. 10). Saalabhin, or Saalbim, which remained in the hands of the Canaanites (Judg. i. 35), is frequently mentioned in the history of David and Solomon (2 Sam. xxiii. 32; 1 Chron. xi. 33; 1 Kings iv. 9). It may possibly be the present Selbit (Bob. iii. App.; Bibl. Res. p. 144), some distance to the north of the three places mentioned (Knobel). Ajalon, which was also not taken from the Canaanites (Judg. i. 35), was assigned to the Levites (chap. xxi. 24; 1 Chron. vi. 54). It is mentioned in the wars with the Philistines (1 Sam. xiv. 31; 1 Chron. \m. 13), was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chron. xi. 10), and was taken by the Philistines from King Ahaz (2 Chron. xx\iii. 18). It has been preserved in the village of Yalo (see at chap. x. 12). JetJdah is only mentioned here, and has not yet been discovered. So far as the name is concerned, it may possibly be preserved in the Wady Atallah^ on the west of Yalo (Bibl. Res. pp. 143-4).— Ver. 43. Ehn, which is mentioned aijain in 1 Kincrs iv. 9, with the addition of Beth-hanan, has not yet been traced; according to Knohel, it " may possibly be Elliiij near Timnath and Beth-shemesh, mentioned by Robinson in his Pal. vol. iii. App." Thimna {ThimnathaJi) and Ekron, on the boundary of Judah (see at chap. xv. 10, 11). — Ver. 44. Eltekeh and Gibbethon, which were allotted to the Levites (chap, xxi. 23), have not yet been discovered. Under the earliest kings of Israel, Gibbethon was in the hands of the Philistines (1 Kings xv. 27, xvi. 15, 17). Baalaih was fortified by Solomon (1 Kings ix. 18). Actt^rding to Josephus (Ant. viii. 6, 1), it was " Baleth in the neighbourhood of Geser;" probably the same place as BaalaJi, on the border of Judah (chap. xv. 11). — ^Ver. 45. Jehud has probably been preserved in the village of Jehiidieh (^Hudieh), two hours to the north of Ludd (Diospolis), in a splendidly cultivated plain (Berggren, R. iii. p. 162; Bob. iii. p. 45, and App.). Bene-berak, the present Ibn Abrak, an hour from Jehud {Scholz, R. p. 256). Gaihrimmon, which was given to the Levites (chap. xxi. 24; 1 Chron. vi. 54), is described in the Onom. (s. r.) as villa pnegrandis in duodecimo milliario Diospoleos pergentibus Eleutheropolin, — a statement which points to the neighbourhood of Thimnah, though it has not yet been discovered. — Ver. 46. Ife-jarkon, i.e. aquw Jbivedinis, and Rakkon, are unknown; but from the clause which follows, " with the territory before Japho" it must have been in the neighbourhood of Joppa (Jaffa). " The territory before Japho" includes the places in the environs of Joppa. Consequently Joppa itself does not appear to have belonged to the territory of Dan, although, according to Judg. V. 17, the Danites must have had possession of this town. Japho, the well-known port of Palestine (2 Chron. ii. 15; Ezra iii. 7; Jonah i. 3), which the Greeks called 'Iottttt? (Joppa), the present JaJ'a (see v. Raxaner, Pal. pp. 204-5, and Ritter, Ei'dk. xvi. pp. 574 sqq.). — Ver. 47. Besides this inheritance, the Danites of Zorea and Eshtaol went, after Joshua's deatli, and conquered the town of Lesliem or Laish, on the northern boundary of Canaan, and gave it the name of Dan, as the territoiy which was allotted to them under Joshua was too small for them, on account of their inability to drive out the Amorites from several of their towns (Ju'lg. i. 34, 35, xvui. 2). For further particulars concerning this conquest, see Judg. xviii. Lesliem oy Laish (Judg. xviii. 7, 27), i.e. Darij which the Onom. describes as viculus quarto a Paneadu milliario euntibus Tyrum, was the present Tell el Kadi, or el Leddaity the central source of the Jordan, to the west of Banjas, a place with ancient ruins (see Rob. iii. p. 351; Bibl. Ees. pp. 390, 393). It was there that Jeroboam set up the golden calves (1 Kings xii. 29, 30, etc.); and it is frequently mentioned as the northernmost city of the Israelites, in contrast with Beersheba, which was in the extreme south of the land (Judg. xx. 1; 1 Sam. iii. 20; 2 Sam. iii. 10: see also Ritter, Erdk. xv. pp. 207 sqq.).

Vers. 49-51. Conclusion of the Distribution of the Land. — Vers. 49, 50. When the land was distributed among the tribes according to its territories, the Israelites gave Joshua an inheritance in the midst of them, according to the command of Jehovah, namely the town of Timnath-serah, upon the mountains of Ephraim, for which he asked, and which he finished building; and there he dwelt until the time of his death (chap. xxiv. 30; Judg. ii. 9). " According to the word of the Lord^' (lit. " at the mouth of Jehovah") does not refer to a divine oracle communicated through the high priest, but to a promise which Joshua had probably received from God at the same time as Caleb, viz. in Kadesh, but which, like the promise given to Caleb, is not mentioned in the Pentateuch (see at chap. XV. 13, xiv. 9). Timnath-serah, called Timnath-heres in Judg. ii. 9, must not be confounded with Timnah in the tribe of Dan (ver. 43, chap. XV. 10), as is the case in the Onom. It has been preserved in the present ruins and foundation walls of a place called Tibneh, which Avas once a large town, about seven hours to the north of Jerusalem, and two hours to the west of Jiljilia, standing upon two mountains, with many caverns that have been used as graves (see Eli Smith In Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 562 sqq., and Rob. Bibl. Ees. p. 141). — Ver. 51. Closing formula to the account of the distribution of the land, which refers primarily to chap, xviii. 1 sqq., as the expression " in Shiloh" shows, but which also includes chap. adv.— xvii.

After the distribution of the land by lot among the tribes of Israel, six towns were set apart, in accordance with the Mosaic instructions in Num. xxxv., as places of refuge for unintentional manslayers. Before describing the appointment and setting apart of these towns, the writer repeats in vers. 1-6 the main points of tlie Mosaic law contained in Num. xxxv. 9-29 and Deut. xix, 1-13, with reference to the reception of the manslayers into these towns. DD7 yn, " give to youj* i.e. appoint for yourselves, " cities of refuge^^ etc. In ver. 6, the two regulations, " until he stand before the congregation for judgment" and " until the death of the high priest^ are to be understood, in accordance with the clear explanation given in Num. xxxv. 24, 25, as meaning that the manslayer was to live in the town till the congregation had pronounced judgment upon the matter, and either given him up to the avenger of blood as a wilful murderer, or taken him back to the city of refuge as an unintentional manslayer, in which case he was to remain there till the death of the existing high priest. For further particulars, see at Num. xxxv. — Vers. 7-9. List of the cities: Levitical cities were chosen, for the reasons explained in the Commentary on the Pentateuch, iii. p. 262. — Ver. 7. In the land on this side (viz. Canaan) they sanctified the following cities. In the north, Kedesh (see at chap. xii. 22), in Galil, on the mountains of Naphtali. Galil (a circle) was a district in the northera part of the subsequent province of Galilee; it is called D^isn ''7?, circle of the heathen, in Isa. viii. 23, because an unusually large number of heathen or Gentiles were living there. In the centre of the land, Shechem, upon the mountains of Ephraim (see at chap. xvii. 7). And in the south, Kirjatharba, i.e. Hebron, upon the mountains of Judah (see at chap. x. 3). — Ver. 8. The cities in the land on the other side had already been appointed by Moses (Deut. iv. 41-43). For the sake of completeness, they are mentioned here again: viz. Bezer, Ramoth in Gilead, and Golan (see at Deut. iv. 43). The subject is brought to a close in ver. 9. nnjnsn ny signifies neither urhes congregationis (Kimchi) nor urhes asyli {Gesenius^, but cities of appointment, — those which received the appointment already given and repeated again in what follows.

Vers. 1-3. After the cities of refuge had been set apart, the towns were also selected, which the different tribes were to give up for the priests and Levites to dwell in according to the Mosaic instructions in Num. xxxv. 1-8, together with the necessary fields as pasturage for their cattle. "-The setting apart of the cities of refuge took place before the appointment of the Levitical towns, because the Lord had given commandment through Moses in Num. xxxv. 6, that they were to give to the Levites the six cities of refuge, and forty-two cities besides, i.e. forty-eight cities in all. From the introductory statement in vers. 1, 2, that the heads of the fathers (see Ex. vi. 14, 25) of the Levitical families reminded the distribution committee at Shiloh of the command of God that had been issued through Moses, that towns were to be given them to dwell in, we cannot infer, as Calvin has done, that the Levites had been forgotten, till they came and asserted their claims. All that is stated in these words is, " that when the business had reached that point, they approached the dividers of the land in the common name of the members of their tribe, to receive by lot the cities appointed for them. They simply expressed the commands of God, and said in so many words, that they had been deputed by the Levites generally to draw lots for those forty-eight cities with their suburbs, which had been appointed for that tribe" (Masius). The clause appended to Shiloh, " in the land of Canaan," points to the instructions in Num. xxxiv. 29 and xxxv. 10, to give the children of Israel their inheritance in the land of Canaan.

Vers. 4—8. Number of the cities which the different families of Levi received from each tribe. The tribe of Levi was divided into three branches, — the Gershonites, the Kohathites, and the Merarites (see Num. iii. and Ex. vi. 16-19). The Kohathites again were divided into the four families of Amram, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel (Ex. vi. 18); and the family of Amram into two lines, consisting of the descendants of Moses and Aaron (Ex. vi. 20). The priesthood was committed to the line of Aaron (Num. xviii. 1-7); but the other descendants of Amram, i.e. the descendants of Moses, were placed on a par with the other descendants of Levi, and numbered among the simple Levites (Num. iii.; 1 Chron. v. 27- vi. 34). The towns in which the different families of Levi were to dwell were determined by lot; but in all probability the towns which each tribe was to give up to them were selected first of all, so that the lot merely decided to which branch of the Levites each particular town was to belong. — Ver. 4. The first lot came out for the families of Kohath, and among these again for the sons of Aaron, i.e. the priests. They received thirteen towns from the tribes of Judah, Simeon, and Benjamin. " This did not happen by chance; but God, according to His wonderful counsel, placed them just in that situation which He had determined to select for His own temple" {Calvin). — Ver. 5. The rest of the Kohathites, i.e. the descendants of Aloses, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, received ten towns from Ephraim, Dan, and half Manasseh. — Ver. 6. The Gershonites received thirteen towns from Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and half Manasseh in Bashan. — Ver. 7. The Merarites received twelve towns from Reuben, Gad, and Zebulun.

The number of towns thus assigned to the Levites will not appear too large, if we consider, (1) that judging from the number of towns in so small a land, the greater part of them cannot "have been very large; (2) that the Levites were not the sole possessors of these towns, but simply received the number of dwelling-houses which they actually required, with meadow land for their cattle in the suburbs of the towns, whilst the rest of the space still belonged to the different tribes; and (3) that if the 23,000 males, the number of the Levites at the second census which was taken in the steppes of!Moab, were distributed among the thirty-five towns, it would give 657 males, or 1300 male and female Levites for eveiy town. On the other hand, offence has been taken at the statement, that thirteen towns were given up to the priests; and under the idea that Aaron could hardly have had descendants enough in Joshua's time from his two sons who remained alive to fill even two towns, to say nothing of thirteen, the list has been set down as a document which was drawn up at a much later date (J/aurer, etc.). But any one who takes this ground not only attributes to the distribution commission the enormous shortsightedness of setting apart towns for the priests merely to meet their existing wants, and without any regard to the subsequent increase which would take place in their numbers, but he also forms too large an estimate of the size of the towns, and too small an estimate of the number of the priests. ^loreover, it was never intended that the towns should be filled with priests' families; and the number of priests alive at that time is not mentioned anywhere. But if we bear in mind that Aaron died in the fortieth year of the journeys of the Israelites, at the age of 123 years (Num. xxxiii. 38), ana therefore was eighty-three years old at the time of the exodus from Egypt, his descendants might have entered upon the fourth generation seven years after his death. Now his two sons had twenty-four male descendants, who were the founders of the twenty-four classes instituted by David (1 Chron. xxiv.). And if we only reckon six males to each of the next generations, there would be 144 in the third generation, who would be between the ages of twenty-five and thirty-five when the distribution of the land took place, and who misht therefore have had 864 male children livincr at that time; so that the total number of males in the families of the priests might have amounted to more than 1000, that is to say, might have consisted of at least 200 families.

Vers. 9-42. Names of the Levitical Towns} — Vers. 9-19. The jyviests* towns: (a) in Judah and Simeon (vers. 9-16); (b) in Benjamin (vers. 17—19). — Vers. 9 sqq. In the tribe of Judah the priests received Kirjath-arha, or Hebron, with the necessary pasturage round about the town (see Num. xxxv. 2), whilst the field of the town with the villages belonging to it remained in the hands of Caleb and his family as their possession (chap. xiv. 12 sqq.). — Ver. 13 contains a repetition of ver. 11, occasioned by the parenthetical remark in ver. 12. They also received Libnah in the lowland (see chap. xv. 42, x. 29); Jattir (chap. xv. 48), Eshtemoah

1 There is a similar list in 1 Chron. vi. 54-81, though in some respects differently arranged, and with many variations in the names, aud corruptions of different kinds in the text, -which show that the author of the Chronicles has inserted an ancient document that was altogether independent of the book before 113. Thus in the Chronicles there are only forty-two towns mentioned by name instead of forty-eight, although it is stated in vers. 45 sqq. that 13 -f- 10 -j- 13 -\- 12, i.e. forty-eight towns in all, were given up to the Levites. The names omitted are (1) Jutta in Judah; (2) Gibeon in Benjamin; (3 and 4) Ethekeh and Gibbethon in Dan; (5 and 6) and Jokneam and Nahalal in Zebulun (compare vers. 16, 17, 23, 34, and 35, with 1 Chron. vi. 59, 60, 68, 77. In some cases also the author of the Chronicles gives different names, though some of them indeed are only different forms of the same name, e.g. Hilen for Holon, Alemeth for Almon, Ashtaroth for Beeshterah, Mash-vl for Misheal, Hammon for ITammoth-dor, Kirjathaim for Kartan (compare 1 Chron. vi. 58, 60, 71, 74, 76, with Josh. xxi. 15, 18, 27, 30, 32); or in some cases possibly different names of the same town, e.g. Jokmeam for Kibzaim, and Ramoth for Jarmuth, and Anem for En-gannim (1 Chron. vi. 68, 83, and Josh. xxi. 22, 29); whilst some evidently give the true reading, viz. Ashan for Ain, and Bileam for Gath-rimmon (1 Chron. vi. 59, 70; Josh. xxi. 16, 25). The majority, however, are faulty readings, viz. Aner for Tanach, Kedesh for Kishon, Hukok for Helkath, Rimmon and Tabor (compare 1 Chron. vi. 70, 72, 75, 77, with Josh, xxi 25, 28, 31, 34, 35)

(chap. XV. 50), Ilolon (chap. xv. 51), and Debir (chap. xv. 15, 49, X. 38) on the mountains of Judah; Ain, for which we should read Ashan (1 Chron. vi. 44; cf. chap. sx. 42), in the tribe of Simeon (chap. xix. 7); Juttah on the mountains (chap. xv. 55); and Bethshemesh in the lowland (chap. xv. 10). — Vers. 17 sqq. In the tribe of Benjamin they received Giheon (see chap. ix. 3), Geba (chap, xviii. 24), also Anathotk and Almon, which are missing in the list of tlie towns of Benjamin (see at chap, xviii. 24). — ^Vers. 20-42. Toicns of the Levites. — ^Vers. 20-26. The other Kohatlnteii received four towns from the tribe of Ephraim (vers. 21, 22), four from Dan (vers. 23, 24), and two from the half tribe of Manasseli on this side of the Jordan (ver. 25). From Ephraim they received Shechem (see chap. xvii. 7), Gezer (chap. x. 33), Kihzaim — for which we find Jockmeain in 1 Chron. vi. 68, possibly a different name for the same place, which has not yet been discovered — and Beth-horon, whether Upper or Lower is not stated (see chap. x. 10). From Dan they received Eltheheh and Gihhethon (chap. xix. 44), Ajalon and Gath-rimmon (chap. xix. 42, 45). From half Manasseh they received Taanach (chap. xvii. 11, xii. 21) and Gath-inmmon — this is evidently a copyist's error, occasioned by the wandering of the eye to the previous verse, for Bileam (1 Chron. vi. 70), i.e. Jihleam (chap. xvii. 11). — Yer. 26. Thus they received ten towns in all. — Vers. 27-33. The Gershonites received two towns from eastern Manasseh: Golan (chap. xx. 8; Dent. iv. 43), and Beeshterah. BeesJiterak (contracted from Beth-eshterah, the house of Astarte), called Ashtaroth in 1 Chron. vi. 56, may possibly have been the capital of king Og {Ashtaroik-hamaijn, Gen. xiv. 5), if not one of the two villages named Astaroth, which are mentioned by Eusebius in the Onom. (s. v. Astharoth-kaimaim), and are described by Jerome as duo castella in Batancsa, novem inter se millibus separata inter Adaram et Abilam civitates, though Adara and Abila are too indefinite to determine the situation with any exactness. At any rate, the present Busra on the east of the Hauran cannot be thought of for a moment; for this was called Boaaopa or Boaoppa^ i.e. •"■"^Vrj in ancient times, as it is at the present day (see 1 Mace. v. 2^^ and Joseph. Ant. xii. 8, 3), and was corrupted into Bostra by the Greeks and Romans. Nor can it be the present KnVat Bustra on the north of Banyas upon a shoulder of the Hermon, where there are the ruins of a magnificent building, probably a temple of ancient date {Burckhardt, Syr. pp. 93, 94; Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 414-15), as Knobel supposes, sin ze the territory of the Israelites did not reach so far north, the land conquered by Joshua merely extending to Baal-gad, i.e. Banyas, at the foot of the Herraon (see chap. xi. 17), and the land to the east of the Jordan, or Bashan, only to the Hermon itself, or more correctly, merely to the districts of Geshuri and Maacah at the south-eastern border of the Hermon (see at Deut. iii. 8, 14). — ^Vers. 28, 29. From Issachar they received four towns: Kishon (chap. xix. 20), Dahrath (chap. xix. 12), Jarmuth = Remeth (see chap. xix. 21), and En-gannim (chap. xix. 21, or Anem, 1 Chron. vi. 73). — Vers. 30, 31. From Asher they received four towns: Mishal or Masai (chap. xix. 26; cf. 1 Chron. vi. 74), Ahdon (chap. xix. 28), Helkaih (chap. xix. 25, called Hukok in 1 Chron. vi. 75, probably a copyist's error), and Rehob (chap. xix. 28). — Ver. 32. From Naphtali they received three towns: Kedesh (chap. xix. 37 and xii. 22), Hammoth-dor (called Hammath in chap. xix. 35, and Hammon in 1 Chron. vi. 76), and Kartan (contracted from Kartain for Kirjathaim, 1 Chron. vi. 76; like Dothan in 2 Kings vi. 13, from Dothain in Gen. xxxvii. 17). Kartan is not mentioned among the towns of Naphtali in chap. xix. 33 sqq.; according to Knohel it may possibly be Katanah, a place with ruins to the north-east of Safed {Van de Velde, Mem. p. 147). — Ver. 33. They received thirteen towns in all. — Vers. 34-40. The Merarites received twelve towns. From the tribe of Zebulun they received four: Jokneam (chap. xix. 11: see at chap. xii. 22), Kartah and Dimnah,^ which are not mentioned among the towns of Zebulun in chap. xix. 11 sqq., and are unknown, and Nahalal (chap. xix. 15). — Vers. 36, 37. From Reuben they received four: Bezer (chap. xx. 8: see Deut. iv. 43), Jahza, Kedemoth, and Mephaath (chap. xiii. 18).'"^ — ^Vers. 38, 39. From Gad they received four towns: Ramoth in Gilead, and Mahanaim (see at chap. xiii. 26), Heshbon (chap. xiii. 17) and Jaeger (chap. xiii. 25: see at Num. xxi. 32). — Ver. 40. They received

^ Many commentators identify Dlmnah with Rimmono in 1 Chron. vi. 77, but without sufficient reason; for the text of the Chronicles is no doubt corrupt in this passage, as it has only two names, Rimmono and Tabor, instead of four.

2 R. Jacob ben Chajim has omitted vers. 36 and 37 from his Rabbinical Bible of the year 1525 as spurious, upon the authority of Kimchi and the larger Masora; but upon insufficient grounds, as these verses are to be found in many good MSS. and old editions of an earlier date than 1525, as well as in all the ancient versions, and could not possibly have been wanting from the very first, since the Merarites received twelve towns, which included the four that belonged to Reuben. In those MSS. in which they are wanting, the omission was, no doubt, a copyist's error, occasioned by the ofioiort'KivTov (see de Rosn varise lectt. ad h. I., and J. H. Mic'haelis' Note to his Hebrew Bible).

twelve towns in all. — In vers. 41 and 42 the list of the Levitical towns is closed with a statement of their total number, and also with the repetition of the remark that " these cities were every one with their suburbs round about them." 'Cl "CJ? "i"*];, city city, i.e. every city, with its pasture round about it.

Vers. 43-45 form the conclusion to the account of the division of the land in chap, xiii.-xxi., which not only points back to chap. xi. 23, but also to chap. i. 2-6, and connects the two halves of our book together. By the division of Canaan among the tribes of Israel, the promise which Joshua had received from God after the death of Moses was fulfilled (chap. i. 2 sqq.). The Lord had given Israel the whole land which He had sworn to the fathers (Gen. xii. 7, XV. 18, compared with Josh. i. 3, 4); and they had now taken possession of it to dwell therein. — Yer. 44. He had also procured them rest round about, as He had sworn to their fathers, inasmuch as not a man of all their enemies stood against them. The expression " gave them rest," etc., points back to Deut. xii. 9, 10, and refers to all the divine promises of the Pentateuch which assured the Israelites of the peaceable possession of Canaan, such as "Ex. xxxiii. 14, Deut. iii. 20, etc. No enemy had been able to withstand them, as the Lord had promised Joshua (chap. i. 5). " The Lord delivered all their enemies into their hand^ It is true the Canaanites were not all exterminated; but those who were left had become so powerless, that they could neither accomplish nor attempt anything against Israel, so long as the Israelites adhered faithfully to their God, or so long as Joshua and the elders who were his contemporaries were alive (Judg. ii. 6 sqq.), because the Lord had overwhelmed them with fear and terror before the Israelites.^ — Ver. 45. Of all the good words which the Lord had spoken to the house of Israel not one had fallen, i.e. remained unfulfilled (Num. vi. 12); all had come to pass {yid. chap, xxiii. 14). 3isn na'nn'i'a relates to the gracious promises of God with regard to the peaceful possession of Canaan, which formed the basis of all the salvation promised to Israel, and the pledge of the fulfilment of all the further

^ " If any one should raise a question as to their actual peace, the solution is easy enough. The tribes of Canaan were so alarmed and broken down with their fear, that in their opinion nothing could serve their purpose better than to purchase peace from the children of Israel by the most obsequious servility. Clearly, therefore, the land was subdued and their home at peace, since no one disturled them, or attempted anything against them; there were no threata, no snares, no violence, and no conspiracy.'' — Calvin

promises of God. Notwithstanding the fact tliat many a tract of country still remained in the hands of the Canaanites, the promise that the land of Canaan should be given to the house of Israel for a possession had been fulfilled; for God had not promised the immediate and total destruction of the Canaanites, but only their gradual extermination (Ex. xxiii. 29, 30; Deut. vii. 22). And even though the Israelites never came into undisputed possession of the whole of the promised land, to the full extent of the boundaries laid down in Num. xxxiv. 1-12, never conquering Tyre and Sidon for example, the promises of God were no more broken on that account than they were through the circumstance, that after the death of Joshua and the elders his contemporaries, Israel was sometimes hard pressed by the Canaanites; since the complete fulfilment of this promise was inseparably connected with the fidelity of Israel to the Lord.^

Vers. 1-8. After the conquest and division of the land, Joshua sent the auxiliaries of the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half Manasseh back to their homes, with a laudatory acknowledgment of the help they had given to their brethren, and a paternal admonition to adhere faithfully to the Lord and His law, and with a parting blessing (vers. 1-6). By the expression " then Joshua called " etc., the occurrence described in this chapter is placed in a general manner after the conquest and subjugation of Canaan, though not of necessity at the close of the distribution of the land. As the summons to these tribes to go with their brethren into Canaan, to assist them in the war, formed the commencement of Joshua's plans

^ With reference to this apparent discrepancy between the promises of God and the actual results, Calvin observes, that " in order to remove every appearance of discrepancy, it is right to distinguish well between the clear, unwavering, and certain fidelity of God in the fulfilment of His promises, and the weakness and indolence of the people, which caused the blessings of God to slip from their hands. "Whatever war the people undertook, in whatever direction they carried their standards, there was victory ready to their hand; nor was there anything to retard or prevent the extermination of all their enemies except their own slothfulness. Consequently, although they did not destroy them all, so as to empty the land for their own possession, the truth of God stood out as distinctly as if they had; for there would have been no difficulty in their accomplishment of all that remained to be done, if they had only been disposed to grasp the victories that were ready to their liand. ' for the conquest of Canaan (chap. i. 12 sqq.), their dismission to tlieir home very properly forms the conclusion to the history of the conquest of this land by the Israelites. We might therefore assume, ■without in any way conti'adicting the words of the text, that these auxili&nes had been dismissed immediately after the war was ended. Even in that case, the account of their dismission would stand in its proper place, " since it was only right that the history itself, which relates to the conquest and possession of the land, should be fully completed before any other narratives, or any casual occurrences which took place, were introduced to break the thread" {Lightfoot, App. i. p. 42). On the other hand, however, the circumstance that the two tribes and a half were dismissed from Shiloh, where the tribes assembled for the first time during the casting of the lots, favours the conclusion that the dismission did not take place till after the lots had been cast; that is to say, contemporaneously with the advance of the other tribes into their possessions.— Vers. 2, 3. Joshua acknowledged that they had done all that they were under any obligation to do towards Moses and himself (Num. xxxii. 20 sqq.; Josh. i. 16, 17). ^^ Kept the charge of the commandment^^ i.e. observed what had to be observed in relation to the commandment of the Lord (see at Lev. viii. 35 and Gen. xxvi. 5). — ^Ver. 4 points back to chap. i. 15. " Unto your tents" for to your homes, — an antiquated form of expression, as in Deut. xvi. 7, Judg. vii. 8, etc. — Ver. 5. Remembering, however, the changeableness of the human heart, Joshua appends to the acknowledgment of their fidelity in the performance of their duty the pressing admonition, to continue still to observe the law of Moses faithfully, to walk in the ways of the Lord and serve Him with the whole heart, which was simply a repetition of what Moses had impressed in a fatherly way upon the hearts of the people (see Deut. iv. 4, 29, vi. 5, x. 12, xi. 13, etc.). — ^Ver. 6. Thus Joshua dismissed them with blessings. — In ver. 7, the writer, for the sake of clearness, refers again to the fact that only half of Manasseh had received its inheritance from Moses in Bashan, whereas the other had received its inheritance through Joshua on the west of the Jordan (cf. chap. xiv. 3, and xviii. 7). To us such repetitions appear superfluous; but they are closely connected with the copious breadth of the early historical style of the Hebi'ews, which abounded in repetitions. The verb jri3 (gave) wants its object, i^^ns or i^prij^ which may easily be supplied from the context. This interpolation involved a further repetition of the fact, that Joshua also dismissed them (the Manassites of the other side) with a blessing, in order that the words might be appended with which Joshua dismissed the two tribes and a half to their homes, namely, the admonition to share the rich booty which they had accumulated with their brethren at home, in accordance with the instructions which Moses had given them with reference to the war with the Midianites (Num. xxxi. 25 sqq.j. Vers. 9-12. On the way home, when the two tribes and a half had reached the border of Canaan, they built a large conspicuous altar in the district of the Jordan, in the land of Canaan, i.e. on this side of the Jordan: " a great altar to see to" i.e. one which caught the eye on account of its size, since it was to serve for a memorial (vers. 24 sqq.). The definition appended to Shiloh, " in the land of Canaan" (ver. 9), serves to bring out the antithesis " into the land of Gilead" by which we are to understand the whole of the country to the east of the Jordan, as in Num. xxxii. 29, Deut. xxxiv. 1, Judg. V. 17, etc. triNJ, both in the form and meaning the same as in Num. xxxii. 30, made possessors, i.e. settled down, tuyj] riip^ii, the circles of the Jordan, is synonymous with ni"i*n "133 in Gen. xiii. 10, and signifies that portion of the Ghor which was upon the western side of the Jordan. — Vers. 11, 12. The Israelites (on this side) heard that the tribes in question had built the altar " opposite to the land of Caiiaan" (lit. in the face or in front of the land of Canaan), l3y"?K, " at the opposite region of the children of Israel" (two descriptions which may be explained on the supposition that the name of Canaan is used in a restricted sense, the valley of the Jordan being expressly excepted, and Canaan considered as only extending to the valley of the Jordan). When they heard this, the whole congregation (in its heads and representatives) assembled at Shiloh, to go up, i.e. with the intention of going, to make war against them. The congregation supposed that the altar had been built as a place for sacrifice, and therefore I'egarded it as a wicked violation of the commandment of God with regard to the unity of the sacrificial altar (Lev. xvii. 8, 9; Deut. xii. 4 sqq.), which they ought to punish according to the law in Deut. xiii. 13 sqq. This zeal was perfectly justifiable, and even praiseworthy, as the altar, even if not erected as a place for sacrifice, might easily be abused to that purpose, and thus become an occasion of sin to the whole nation. In any case, the two tribes and a half ought not to have erected such a building without the consent of Joshua or of the high priest.^

1 " We know how sternly the law prohibited the use of two altars: because it was the will of God that His worship should be restricted to one place. When,

Vers. 13-20. The congregation therefore sent Phinehas, the son of the high priest and his presumptive successor in this office, with ten princes, one from each tribe (not the tribe-princes, but a head of the fathers' houses of the families of Israel), to Gilead, to tho two tribes and a half, to call them to account for building the altar. — Ver. 16. Assuming at the outset that the altar was intended for a second place of sacriBce in opposition to the command of God, the delegates, with Phinehas no doubt as their speaker, began by reproaching them for falling away from the Lord. " What faithlessness is this (?>^: see at Lev. v. 15) that ye have committed against the God of Israel, to turn away this day from Jehovah, in that ye have hxiilded you an altar, that ye might rebel this day against Jehovah V* T]^ (^o rebel) is stronger than?yo. — Vers. 17 sqq. To show the greatness of the sin through apostasy from the Lord, the speaker reminds them of two previous acts of sin on the part of the nation, which had brought severe judgments upon the congregation. " Is there too little for us in the iniquity of Peor (i.e. with Peor, or through the worship of Peor, Num. xxv. 3), frorn which ice have not cleansed ourselves till this day, and there came the plague upon the congregation of Jehovah?" PJT^?? is an accusative: see Ges. § 117, 2; Ewald, § 277, (/. That plague, of which 24,000 Israelites died, was stayed through the zeal of Phinehas for the honour of the Lord (Num. xxv. 4-9, 11). The guilt connected with the worship of Peor had thereby been avenged upon the congregation, and the congregation itself had been saved from any further punishment in consequence of the sin. When Phinehas, therefore, affirmed that the congregation had not yet been cleansed from the crime, he did not mean that they were still bearing or suffering from the punishment of that crime, but that they were not yet cleansed from that sin, inasmuch as many of them were still attached to idolatry in their hearts, even if they had hitherto desisted from it outwardly from fear of the infliction of fresh judgments. — Ver. 18. " And

therefore, from the very appearance it could not fail to occur to the mind of any one that they were establishing a second altar, who would not have condemned them as guilty of sacrilege, for introducing rites and ceremonies at variance with the law of God? And since it might so naturally be regarded as a wicked deed, they ought certainly to have consulted their brethren in so grave and important a matter; and it was especially wrong to pass by the high priest, when the will of God might have been learned from his lips. They were deserving of blame, therefore, because they act^d as if they had been alone in the world, and did not consider what offence might easily arise from the novelty of their proceedings."— Calvin.

to-day ye turn away from the Lord again^'' and aie about to brinf^ His wrath upon the whole congregation again through a fresh rebellion. — Ver. 19. ^^ And truly" the speaker continued, " z/ the land of your possession should be unclean,^' sc. so that you think it necessary to have an altar in the neighbourhood to expiate your sins and wipe away your uncleannesses, " pass over into the land of JehovaKs possession, lohere His dwelling-place stands, and settle in the midst of us (' settle,' as in Gen. xxxiv. 10); but do not rebel against Jehovah nor against us, by building an altar beside the (one) altar of Jehovah our God." T}» is construed first of all with 3, and then with the accusative; the only other place in which the latter occurs is Job xxiv. 13. — Ver. 20. He finally reminded them of the sin of Achan, how that had brought the wrath of God upon the whole congregation (chap, vii.); and, moreover, Achan was not the only man who had perished on account of the sin, but thirty-six men had fallen on account of it at the first attack upon Ai (chap. vii. 5). The allusion to this fact is to be understood as an argument a minori ad majus, as Masius has shown. " If Achan did not perish alone when he committed sacrilege, but God was angry with the whole congregation, what think ye will be the consequence if ye, so great a number, commit so grievous a sin against God?"

Vers. 21—29. In utter amazement at the suspicion expressed by the delegates of the congregation, the two tribes and a half affirm with a solemn oath, that it never entered into their minds to build an altar as a place of sacrifice, to fall away from Jehovah. The combination of the three names of God — El, the strong one; Elohim, the Supreme Being to be feared; and Jehovah, the truly existing One, the covenant God (ver. 22) — serves to strengthen the invocation of God, as in Ps. 1. 1; and this is strengthened still further by the repetition of these three names. God knows, and let Israel also know, sc. what they intended, and what they have done. The D5< which follows is the usual particle used in an oath. " Verily (it was) not in rebellion, nor in apostasy from Jehovah," se. that this was done, or that we built the altar. " Mayst Thou not help us to-day" sc. if we did it in rebellion against God. An appeal addressed immediately to God in the heat of the statement, and introduced in the midst of the asseveration, which was meant to remove all doubt as to the truth of their declaration. The words which follow in ver. 23, " that we Iiave built," etc., continue the oath: Tf we have done this, to build us an altar, to turn away from the Lord, or to offer thereon hiimt-offeTing, meat-offering, or peaceoffering, may Jehovah himself require it (t^J^, as in Deut. xviii. 19; cf. 1 Sara. XX. 16). Another earnest parenthetical adjuration, as the substance of the oath, is continued in ver. 24. " But truly (iO DXI, with an affirmative signification) from anxiety, for a reason {lit. on account of a thing) have ice done this, thinking (p^^^, since we thought) in time to come your sons might say to our sons, WJiat have ye to do icith Jehovah, the God of IsraelV i.e. He does not concern you; He is our God. " Jehovah has made the Jordan a boundary between us and your sons; ye have no part in Jehovah. Urns your sons might make our sons cease to fear Jehovah," i.e. might make them desist from the worship of Jehovah (for the infinitive form Ki^ instead of the abbreviated form tt^P used in 1 Sam. xviii. 21), there are analogies in p'i] in Ezek. xxiv. 3, and P'^'Vj Eccl. v. 11, whereas nx"i^ is the only form used in the Pentateuch). There was some reason for this anxiety. For, inasmuch as in all the promises and laws Canaan alone (the land on this side of the Jordan, Num. xxxiv. 1-12) is always mentioned as the land which Jehovah would give to His people for their inheritance, it was quite a possible thins that at some future time the false conclusion micrht be drawn from this, that only the tribes who dwelt in Canaan proper were the true people of Jehovah. — Vers. 26 sqq. " So we thought, ice icill make ourselves to build an altar (an expression derived from the language of ordinary life, for 'we will build ourselves an altar'), not for burnt-offerings and slain-offeinngs; but it shall be a witness between xts and you, and between our generations after us, that we may perform the service of Jehovah before His face {i.e. before the tabernacle in which Jehovah was enthroned), with our burnt-offerings, slain-offerings, and peace-offerings," — in order, as they repeat in ver. 276 from vers. 2-4, 25, that they might not be denied a part in Jehovah in time to come. For if it should so happen in time to come, that this should be said to them and to their descendants, they would say (or reply), " Behold the copy of the altar of Jehovah, tchich our fathers made, not for burnt-offerings" etc. (ver. 286, as in vers. 266, 27a). For this reason they had built the altar according to the pattern of the altar before the tabernacle, and that not in their own land, but on the western side of the Jordan, where the dwelling-place of Jehovah was standing, as a witness that they worshipped one and the same God with the tribes on this side. — Ver. 29. The speakers conclude with an expression of horror at the thought of rebelling against Jehovah. «SO ^7 n^pn ^^ far be it

Vers. 30-34. This explanation pleased the delegates of the congregation, so that Phinelias bore this testimony to the tribes on the east of the Jordan: " Now (to-day) we perceive that Jehovah is in the midst of us; because C^^^., quod, as in Gen. xxxi. 49, etc.) ye have not committed this unfaithfulness toicards Jehovah, since (TK, then, if ye had only this intention) ye have saved the children of Israel out of the hand of Jehovah^'' i.e. preserved them from His judgments. — Vers. 32, 33. They then returned to Canaan and informed the congregation. And the thing pleased them, so that they praised the Lord, sc. for having kept their brethren on the other side from rebellion, and they thought no more of going to war against them, or laying waste the land of the tribes on the east of the Jordan. — Ver. 34. The Reubenites and Gadites (half Manasseh is omitted in vers. 33, 34, for the sake of brevity) called the altar '■'• witness is it between us that Jehovah is God" C*? introduces the words). This is at once a name and an explanation, namely in this sense: they gave the altar the name of " witness between us,' because it was to be a witness that they also acknowledged and worshipped Jehovah as the true God.

After the division of the land among the tribes, Joshua had withdrawn to Timnath-serah, on the mountains of Ephraim (chap. xix. 50), to spend the last days of his life there in the quiet enjoyment of his own inheritance. But when the time of his departure from the earth was drawing near, remembering the call which he had received from the Lord (chap. i. 6-8), he felt constrained to gather the people together once more in the persons of their representatives, to warn them most earnestly of the dangers of apostasy from the Lord, and point out the evils that would follow (chap, xxiii.); and then after that, in a solemn assembly of the nation at Shechem, to review the abundant mercies which the Lord had conferred upon Israel from the calling of Abraham to that day, that he might call upon them to remain stedfast and faithful in the worship of their God, and then solemnly renew the covenant with the Lord.^

' " The pious solicitude of Joshua furnishes an example worthy of imitation by all who have the charge of others. For just as a father would not be

Chap, xxiii. Exhortation to the Teibes of Israel to REMAIN FAITHFUL TO THEIR CALLING. — Vers. 1, 2. The introduction to the discourse which follows is attached in its first part to chap. xxii. 3, 4, and thus also to chap. xxi. 43, 44, whilst in the second part it points back to chap. xiii. 1. The Lord had given the people rest from all their enemies round about, after the land had been subdued and divided by lot (chap. xxi. 43, 44). Joshua was already an old man at the termination of the war (chap. xiii. 1); but since then he had advanced still further in age, so that he may have noticed the signs of the near approach of death. He therefore called together the representatives of the people, either to Timnath-serah where he dwelt (chap. xix. 50), or to Shiloh to the tabernacle, the central sanctuary of the whole nation, as the most suitable place for his purpose. "All Israel" is still further defined by the apposition, " its elders, and its heads, and its judges, and its officers." This is not to be understood, however, as referring to four different classes of rulers; but the term elders is the general term used to denote all the representatives of the people, who were divided into heads, judges, and officers. And the heads, again, were those who stood at the head of the tribes, families, and fathers' houses, and out of whose number the most suitable persons were chosen as judges and officers (Deut. i. 15; see my Bibl. Arch. ii. § 143). Joshua's address to the elders of all Israel consists of two parts, which run parallel to one another so far as the contents are concerned, vers. 2J-13 and vers. 14-16. In both parts Joshua commences with a reference to his age and his approaching death, in consequence of which he felt constrained to remind the people once more of all the great things that the Lord had done for them, and to warn them against falling away from their gracious covenant God. Just as Joshua, in this the last act of his life, was merely treading in the footsteps of Moses, who had concluded his life with the fullest exhortations to the people to be faithful to the Lord (Deut. i. 30), so his address consists entirely of reminiscences from the Pentateuch, more especially from Deuteronomy, as he had

regarded as stifficiently careful if he merely thought of the interests of his children up to the time of his own death, and did not extend his thoughtfulness on their behalf still further, and as far as was in his power endeavour to provide for their welfare when he himself should be dead; so good rulers ought to look forward that they may not only leave behind them a well-organized Btate, but may also strengthen and secure its existence for a long time to come." — Calvin (with special reference to 2 Pet. i. 13-16).

nothing fresh to announce to the people, but could only impress the old truth upon their minds once more.

Vers. 26-13. Joshua commenced his address by reminding them of the greatest manifestations of grace which they had received from the Lord, namely, by referring to what the Lord had done to all these nations (the Oanaanites) before them, when He fought for Israel, as Moses had promised them (Deut. i. 30 and iii. 22). — Ver. 3. ^^ Before you^^ sc. smiting and driving them away. — Ver. 4. He (Joshua) had now divided by lot among the tribes of Israel as their inheritance these still remaining (Canaanitish) nations, as the Lord had commanded (chap. xiii. 6, 7), "from Jordan and further all the nations, which 1 have exterminated {i.e. which Joshua had destroyed when Canaan was taken), and the great sea (for * to the great sea') in the west^ The breadth of the land of Canaan is here given in a peculiar manner, the terminus a quo being mentioned in the first clause, and the terminus ad quern (though without the preposition *iy) in the second; and through the parallelism which exists between the clauses, each clause is left to be completed from the other. So that the whole sentence would read thus: "All these nations which remain... from Jordan to the great sea, also all the nations which I have cut off from Jordan, and to the great sea westward.'^ — Ver. 5. For the Lord would drive all these still remaining nations before the Israelites, and cut them off, and give the Israelites their land for a possession, as He had promised (chap. xiii. 6; cf. Ex. xxiii. 23 sqq.). Hli^, as in Deut. vi. 19, ix. 4; and the form Q?'[i.i?.1, with Chateph-kametz, on account of the weakness of the n, as in Num. xxxv. 20. CjriK^Tj as in chap. i. 15. — Vers. 6 sqq. Only let them be strong, i.e. be brave, to keep the law of Moses without fail (cf. chap. i. 7), to enter into no fellowship with these remaining nations (xi3, to enter into close intimacy with a person; see ver. 12), and not to pay reverence to their gods in any way, but to adhere stedfastly to the Lord their God as they had hitherto done. To make mention of the names of the idols (Ex. xxiii. 13), to swear by them, to serve them (by sacrifices), and to bow down to them (to invoke them in prayer), are the four outward forms of divine worship (see Deut. vi. 13, x. 20). The concluding words, "as ye have done unto this day," which express a reason for persevering in the attachment they had hitherto shown to Jehovah, " do not affirm that the Israelites had hitherto done all these things fully and perfectly; for who does not know how few mortals there are who devote themselves to God with all the piety and love which He justly demands? But because the nation as a whole had kept the laws delivered to them by Moses, during the time that the government had been in the hands of Joshua, the sins of individual men were left out of sight on this occasion" (Masius). — Vers. 9, 10. For this reason the Lord had driven out great and strong nations before the Israelites, so that no one was able to stand before them. The first hemistich points to the fulfilment of Deut. iv. 38, vii. 1, is. 1, xi. 23; the second to that of Deut. vii. 24, xi. 25. CP.Xl_ is placed at the beginning absolutely. — In ver. 10a, the blessing of fidelity to the law which Israel had hitherto experienced, is described, as in Deut. xxxii. 30, upon the basis of the promise in Lev. xxvi. 7, 8, and Deut. xxviii. 7, and in ver. 106 the thought of ver. 35 is repeated. To this there is attached, in vers. 11-13, the admonition to take heed for the sake of their souls (cf. Deut. iv. 15), to love the Lord their God (on the love of God as the sum of the fulfilment of the law, see Deut. vi. 5, x. 12, xi. 13). For if they turned, i.e. gave up the faithfulness they had hitherto displayed towards Jehovah, and attached themselves to the remnant of these nations, made marriages with them, and entered into fellowship with them, which the Lord had expressly forbidden (Ex. xxxiv. 12-16; Deut. vii. 3;, let them know that the Lord their God would not cut off these nations before them any more, but that they would be a snare and destruction to them. This threat is founded upon such passages of the law as Ex. xxiii. 33, Deut. vii. 16, and more especially Num. xxxiii. 55. The figure of a trap, which is employed here (see Ex. X. 7), is still further strengthened by ns^ a snare (cf. Isa. viii. 14, 15). Shotet, a tohip or scourge^ an emphatic form of the word derived from the poel of D^K*, only occurs here. " Scourges in your sides, and thorns in your eyes" (see Num. xxxiii. 55). Joshua crowds his figures together to depict the misery and oppression which would be sure to result from fellowship with the Canaanites, because, from his knowledge of the fickleness of the people, and the wickedness of the human heart in its natural state, he could foresee that the apostasy of the nation from the Lord, which Moses had foretold, would take place but too quickly; as it actually did, according to Judg. ii. 3 sqq., in the very next generation. The words " until ye perish" etc., resume the threat held out by Moses in Deut. xi. 17 (cf. chap. xx\-iii. 21 sqq.).

Yers. 14-16. In the second part of his address, Joshua sums up briefly and concisely the leading thoughts of the first part, giving greater prominence, however, to the curse which would follow apostasy from the Lord. — Ver. 14. Now that Joshua was going the way of all the earth (all the inhabitants of the earth), i.e. going to die (1 Kings ii. 2), the Israelites knew with all the heart and all the soul, i.e. were fully convinced, that of all the good words (gracious promises) of God not one had failed, but all had come to pass (yid. chap. xxi. 45). But it was just as certain that the Lord would bring upon them every evil word that He spake through Moses (Lev. xxvi. 14-33; Deut. xxviii. 15—68, and xxix. 14—28), if they transgressed His covenant. " The evil word^^ is the curse of rejection (Deut. xxx. 1, 15). " Until He have destroyed:" see Deut. vii. 24, and xxviii. 48. The other words as in ver. 12>h. If they went after other gods and served them, the wrath of the Lord would burn against them, and they would be quickly destroyed from the good land which He had given them {vid. Deut. xi. 17).

Chap. xxiv. 1-28. Renewal of the Covenant at the national Assembly in Shechem. — Ver. 1. Joshua brought his public ministry to a close, as Moses had done before him, with a solemn renewal of the covenant with the Lord. For this solemn act he did not choose Shiloh, the site of the national sanctuary, as some MSS. of the LXX. read, but Shechem, a place which was sanctified as no other was for such a purpose as this by the most sacred reminiscences from the times of the patriarchs. He therefore summoned all the tribes of Israel, in their representatives (their elders, etc., as in chap, xxiii. 2), to Shechem, not merely because it was at Shechem, i.e. on Gerizim and Ebal, that the solemn establishment of the law in the land of Canaan, to which the renewal of the covenant, as a repetition of the essential kernel of that solemn ceremony, was now to be appended, had first taken place, but still more because it was here that Abraham received the first promise from God after his migration into Canaan, and built an altar at the time (Gen. xii. 6, 7); and most of all, as Hengsienherg has pointed out (Diss. ii. p. 12), because Jacob settled here on his return from ^Mesopotamia, and it was here that he purified his house from the strange gods, burying all their idols under the oak (Gen. xxxiii. 19, XXXV. 2, 4). As Jacob selected Shechem for the sanctification of his house, because this place was already consecrated by Abraham as a sanctuary of God, so Joshua chose the same place for the renewal of the covenant, because this act involved a practical renunciation on the part of Israel of all idolatry. Joshua expressly states this in ver. 23, and reference is also made to it in the account in ver. 26. " The exhortation to be faithful to the Lord, and to purify themselves from all idolatry, could not fail to make a deep impression, in the place where the honoured patriarch had done the veiy same things to which his descendants were exhorted here. The example preached more loudly in this spot than in any other" {Hengstenberg). " And they placed themselves before God." From the expression " before God," it by no means follows that the ark liad been brought to Shechem, or, as Knobel supposes, that an altar was erected there, any more than from the statement in ver. 26 that it was " by the sanctuary of the Lord'* For, in the first place, '•' before God " {Elohim) is not to be identified with " before Jehovali," which is used in chap, xviii. 6 and xix. 51 to denote the presence of the Lord above the ark of the covenant; and secondly, even " before Jehovah" does not always presuppose the presence of the ark of the covenant, as Hengstenberg has clearly shown. " Before God" simply denotes in a general sense the religious character of an act, or shows that the act was undertaken with a distinct reference to the omnipresent God; and in the case before us it may be attributed to the fact that Joshua delivered his exhortation to the people in the name of Jehovali, and commenced his address with the words, " Thus saith Jehovah." ^

Vers. 2-15. Joshua's address contains an expansion of two thoughts. He first of all recalls to the recollection of the whole nation, whom he is addressing in the persons of its representatives, all the proofs of His mercy which the Lord had given, from the calling of Abraham to that day (vers. 2-13); and then because of these divine acts he calls upon the people to renounce all idolatry, and to serve God the Lord alone (vers. 14, 15). Jehovah is described as the " God of Israel" both at the commencement (ver. 2) and also at the close of the whole transaction, in perfect accordance with the substance and object of the address, which is occupied throughout with the goodness conferred by God upon the race of

^ " It is stated that they all stood before God, in order that the sanctity and religious character of the assembly may be the more distinctly shown. And there can be no doubt that the name of God was solemnly invoked bjf Joshua, and that he addressed the people as in the sight of God, so that each one might feel for himself that God was presiding over all that was transacted there, and that they were not engaged in any merely private affair, but were entering into a sacred and inviolable compact with God himself.'' — Calvin.

Israel. The first practical proof of the grace of God towards Israel, was the calling of Abraham from his idolatrous associations, and his introduction to the land of Canaan, where the Lord so multiplied his seed, that Esau received the mountains of Seir for his family, whilst Jacob went into Egypt with his sons/ The ancestors of Israel dwelt "from eternity ^^ i.e. from time immemorial, on the other side of the stream (the Euphrates), viz. in Ur of the Chaldees, and then at Haran in Mesopotamia (Gen. xi. 28, 31), namely Terah, the father of Abraham and Nahor. Of Terah's three sons (Gen. xi. 27), Nahor is mentioned as well as Abraham, because Rebekah, and her nieces Leah and Rachel, the tribe-mothers of Israel, were descended from him (Gen. xxii. 23, xxix. 10, 16 sqq.). And they (your fathers, Terah and his family) served other gods than Jehovah, who revealed himself to Abraham, and brought him from his father's house to Canaan. Nothing definite can be gathered from the expression " other gods," with reference to the gods worshipped by Terah and his family; nor is there anything further to be found respecting them throughout the whole of the Old Testament. We simply learn from Gen. xxxi. 19, 34, that Laban had terapJmn, i.e. penates, or household and oracular gods.^ The question also, whether Abraham was an idolater before his call, which has been answered in different ways, cannot be determined with certainty. We may conjecture, however, that he Avas not deeply sunk in idolatry, though he had not remained entirely free from it in his father's house; and therefore that his call is not to be regarded as a reward for his righteousness before God, but as an act of free unmerited grace. — Vers. 3, 4. After his

^ " He commences with their gratuitous training, by which God had precluded them from the possibility of boasting of any pre-eminence or merit. For God had bound them to himself by a closer bond, because when they were on an equality with others, He drew them to himself to be His own peculiar people, for no other reason than His own good pleasure. Moreover, in order that it may be clearly seen that they have nothing whereof to glory, he leads them back to their earliest origin, and relates how their fathers had dwelt in Chaldaea, worshipping idols in common with the rest, and with nothing to distinguish them from the crowd." — Calvin.

2 According to one tradition, Abraham was brought up in Sabseism in his father's house (see Hottinger, Histor. Orient, p. 246, and PJiilo, in several passages of his works); and according to another, in the J'argum Jonathan on Gen. xi. 23, and in the later Rabbins, Abraham had to suffer persecution on account of his dislike to idolatry, and was obliged to leave his native land in consequence. But these traditions are both of them nothing more than conjectures by the later Rabbins.

call, God conducted Abraham through all the land of Canaan (see Gen. xii'.), protecting and shielding him, and multiplied his seed, giving him Isaac, and giving to Isaac Jacob and Esau, the ancestors of two nations. To the latter He gave the mountains of Seir for a possession (Gen. xxxvi. 6 sqq.), that Jacob might receive Canaan for his descendants as a sole possession. But instead of mentioning this, Joshua took for granted that his hearers were well acquainted with the history of the patriarchs, and satisfied himself with mentioning the migration of Jacob and his sons to Eg}^pt, that he might pass at once to the second great practical proof of the mercy of God in the guidance of Israel, the miraculous deliverance of Israel out of the bondage and oppression of Egj^t. — Vers. 5-7. Of this also he merely mentions the leading points, viz. first of all, the sending of Moses and Aaron (Ex. iii. 10 sqq., iv. 14 sqq.), and then the plagues inflicted upon Egypt. " / smote Egypt^^ i.e. both land and people. ^\ is used in Ex. vii. 27 and xii. 23, 27, in connection with the plague of frogs and the slaying of the first-bom in Egypt. The words which follow, " according to that winch I did among them, and afterward I brought you out,^' point back to Ex. iii. 20, and show that the Lord had fulfilled the promise given to Moses at his call. He then refers (vers. 6, 7) to the miraculous deliverance of the Israelites, as they came out of Egypt, from Pharaoh who pursued them with his army, giving especial prominence to the crying of the Israelites to the Lord in their distress (Ex. xiv. 10), and the relief of that distress by the angel of the Lord (Ex. xiv. 19, 20). And lastly, he notices their dwelling in the wilderness " many days" i.e. forty years (Num. xiv. 33). — Vers. 8-10. The third great act of God for Israel was his giving up the Amorites into the hands of the IsraeHtes, so that they were able to conquer their land (Num. xxi. 21-35), and the frustration of the attack made by Balak king of the Moabites, through the instrumentality of Balaam, when the Lord did not allow him to curse Israel, but compelled him to bless (Num. xxii.-xxiv.). Balak " warred against Israel" not with the sword, but with the weapons of the curse, or animo et voluntate (Vatahl.). " I would not hearken unto Balaam" i.e. would not comply with his wish, but compelled him to submit to my will, and to bless you; " aiid delivered you out of his (Balak's) hand" when he sought to destroy Israel through the medium of Balaam (Num. xxii. 6, 11). — ^Vers. 11-13. The last and greatest benefit which the Lord conferred upon the Israelites, was His leading them by miracles of His omnipotence across the Jordan into Canaan, delivering the " lords (or possessors) of Jericho ^^ not " the rulers, i.e. the king and his heroes," as Knohel maintains (see 2 Sam. xxi. 12; 1 Sam. xxiii. 11, 12; and the commentary on Judg. ix. 6), " and all the t7'ihes of Canaan into their hand,'* and sending hornets before them, so that they were able to drive out the Canaanites, particularly the two kings of the Amorites, Sihon and Og, though " not with their sword and their bow" (vid. Ps. xliv. 4); i.e. it was not with the weapons at their command that they were able to take the lands of these two kings. On the sending of hornets, as a figure used to represent peculiarly effective terrors, see at Ex. xxiii. 28, Deut. vii. 20. In this way the Lord gave the land to the Israelites, with its towns and its rich productions (vineyards and olive trees), without any trouble on their part of wearisome cultivation or planting, as Moses himself had promised them (Deut. vi. 10, 11). — Vers. 14, 15. These overwhelming manifestations of grace on the part of the Lord laid Israel under obligations to serve the Lord with gratitude and sincerity. " N'ow therefore fear the Lord {^i^"^] for ^5<'i1, pointed like a verb n"^, as in 1 Sam. xii. 24, Ps. xxxiv. 10), and serve Him in sincerity and in truth" i.e. without hypocrisy, or the show of piety, in simplicity and truth of heart (vid. Judg. ix. 16, 19). " Put away the gods {Elohim=^i\\Q strange gods in ver. 23) which your fathers served on the other side of the Euphrates and in Egypt." This appeal does not presuppose any gross idolatry on the part of the existing generation, wliich would have been at variance with the rest of the book, in which Israel is represented as only serving Jehovah during the lifetime of Joshua. If the people had been in possession of idols, they would have given them up to Joshua to be destroyed, as they promised to comply with his demand (vers. 16 sqq.). But even if the Israelites were not addicted to gross idolatry in the worship of idols, they were not altogether free from idolatry either in Egypt or in the desert. As their fathers were possessed of teraphim in Mesopotamia (see at ver. 2), so the Israelites had not kept themselves entirely free from heathen and idolatrous ways, more especially the demon-worship of Egypt (comp. Lev. xvii. 7 with Ezek. xx. 7 sqq., xxiii. 3, 8, and Amos V. 26); and even in the time of Joshua their worship of Jehovah may have been corrupted by idolatrous elements. This admixture of the pure and genuine worship of Jehovah with idolatrous or heathen elements, which is condemned in Lev. xvii. 7 as the worship of Seirim, and by Ezekiel (/. c.) as the idolatrous worship of the people in Egypt, had its roots in the corruption of the natural heart, through which it is at all times led to make to itself idols of mammon, worldly lusts, and other impure thoughts and desires, to which it cleaves, without being able to tear itself entirely away from them. This more refined idolatry might degenerate in the case of many persons into the grosser worship of idols, so that Joshua had ample ground for admonishing the people to put away the strange gods, and serve the Lord. — Ver. 15. But as the true worship of the li\'ing God must have its roots in the heart, and spring from the heart, and therefore cannot be forced by prohibitions and commands, Joshua concluded by calHng upon the representatives of the nation, in case they were not inclined ('' if it seem e^■il unto you") to serve Jehovah, to choose now this day the gods whom they would serve, whether the gods of their fathers in Mesopotamia, or the gods of the Araorites in whose land they were now dwelling, though he and his house would serve the Lord. There is no necessity to adduce any special proofs that this appeal was not intended to release them from the obligation to sers'e Jeliovah, but rather contained the strongest admonition to remain faithful to the Lord.

Vers. 16-25. The people responded to this appeal by declaring, with an expression of horror at idolatry, their hearty resolution to serve the Lord, who was their God, and had shown them such great mercies. The words, " that brought us tip and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage" call to mind the words appended to the first commandment (Ex. xx. 2; Deut. v. 6), which they hereby promise to observe. With the clause which follows, " who did those great signs in our sight," etc., they declare their assent to all that Joshua had called to their mind in vers. 3—13. " We also" (ver. 18), as well as thou- and thy house (ver. 15). — Vers. 19-21. But in order to place most ^^vidly before the minds of the people to what it was that they bound themselves by this declaration, that they mi^t not inconsiderately vow what they would not afterwards observe, Joshua adds, " Ye cannot serve Jehovah," sc. in the state of mind in which ye are at present, or " by your own resolution only, and without the assistance of divine grace, without solid and serious conversion from all idols, and without true repentance and faith" (J. H. Jlichaelis). For Jehovah is " a holi/ God," etc. Elohim, used to denote the Supreme Being (see at Gen. ii. 4), is construed with the predicate in the plural. On the holiness of God, see the exposition of Ex. xix. 6. On the expression " a jealous God," see Ex. xx. 5; and on Vi's? Nb'3, Ex. xxiii. 21. The only Other place in wliicli the form Ni3p is used for N3p is Nali. i. 2. " If ye forsake the Lord and serve strange gods, He loill turn {i.e. assume a different attitude towards you) and do you hurt, after He has done you good," i.e. He will not spare you, in spite of the blessings which He has conferred upon you. jnn is used to denote the judgments threatened in the law against transgressors. — Yer. 21. The people adhered to their resolution, ^h, minime, as in chap. v. 14, i.e. we will not serve other gods, but Jehovah. — ^Vers. 22, 23. Upon this repeated declaration Joshua says to them, " ye are witnesses against yourselves," i.e. ye will condemn yourselves by this your own testimony if ye should now forsake the Lord, " for ye yourselves have chosen you Jehovah to serve Him;" whereupon they answer 2""*]?^, " loitnesses are ive against ourselves," signifying thereby, " we profess and ratify once more all that we have said" {Rosenmuller). Joshua then repeated his demand that they should put away the strange gods from within them, and incline their hearts (entirely) to Jehovah the God of Israel. D^^nipn nti'si issn >rh^ might mean the foreign gods which are in the midst of you, i.e. among you, and imply the existence of idols, and the grosser forms of idolatrous worship in the nation; but 2"]ipil also signifies " within," or "in the heart," in which case the words refer to idols of the heart. That the latter is the sense in which the words are to be understood is evident from the fact, that although the people expressed their willingness to renounce all idolatry, they did not bring any idols to Joshua to be destroyed, as was done m other similar cases, viz. Gen. xxxv. 4, and 1 Sam. vii. 4. Even if the people had carried idols about with them in the desert, as the prophet Amos stated to his contemporaries (Amos v. 26; cf. Acts vii. 43), the grosser forms of idolatry had disappeared from Israel with the dying out of the generation that was condemned at Kadesh.. The new generation, which had been received afresh into covenant with the Lord by the cii'cumcision at Gilgal, and had set up this covenant at Ebal, and was now assembled around Joshua, the dying servant of God, to renew the covenant once more, had no idols of wood, stone, or metal, but only the " figments of false gods," as Calvin calls them, the idols of the heart, which it was to put away, that it might give its heart entirely to the Lord, who is not content with divided affections, but requires the whole heart (Deut. vi. 5, 6). — Vers. 24, 25. On the repeated and decided declaration of the people, " the Lord our God will we serve, and to His voice loill we hearken,^' Joshua completed the covenant with them that day. This conclusion of a covenant was really a solemn renewal of the covenant made at Sinai, like that which took place under Moses in the steppes of Moab (Deut. xxviii. 69). " And set them a statute and right at Shechem,^' sc. through the renewal of the covenant. These words recall Ex. xv. 25, where the guidance of Israel to bitter water, and the sweetening of that water by the means which the Lord pointed out to Moses, are described as setting a statute and right for Israel, and then explained by the promise, that if they would hearken to the voice of Jehovah, He would keep them from all the discuses of Egypt. And in accordance with this, by the renewal of the covenant at Shechem, there were set for Israel a phy i.e. a statute, which bound the people to a renewed and conscientious maintenance of the covenant, and a t^By'Pj or right, by vuiue of which they might expect on this condition the fulfilment of all the covenant mercies of the Lord.