DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY CLARK'S FOREIGN THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY. NEW SEEIES. VOL. XIV. litil on tlie Boofe of JTostjua EDINBURGH : T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET; London : rivington and co. ; j. gladding ; ward and co. ; and JACKSON AND WALFORD. DUBLIN *. JOHN ROBERTSON. MDCCCLVII. COMMENTARY THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. KARL FRIEDRICH KEI L, D.D. PH.D. PaOFESSOROF EXEGETICAL THEOLOGY AND THE ORIENTAL LANGUAGES IN TEE UNIVERSITY OFDORPAT. TRANSLATED BY JAMES MARTIN, B.A., EDINBURGH. EDINBURGH : T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET. LONDON : HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO. | SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO. DUBLIN : JOHN ROBERTSON, AND HODGES AND SMITH. MDCCCLVII. Yale Divinity Library DLI8 K2.G>FcE PRINTED BY 110BERT PARK, DUNDEE,, PREFACE. Within a very short space of time works have been published upon the Book of Joshua by both Rosenmuller and Maurer. But every one who looks upon the historical writings of the Old Testament as the original fountain of sacred history, containing the records of the mighty works, which God performed for his chosen people, knows well how unsatisfactory both of these -expositions are in a theological point of view ; whilst even the more material department of criticism has received but little benefit from their publication. Moreover, the researches of Robinson, which have since been made public, are in themselves sufficiently important to render another work upon Joshua neces sary. And therefore no preface is required to defend the issue of a commentary, which is based upon the acknowledgment of a revelation from God, and aims at a careful examination of every work of merit produced by earlier theologians, or resulting from modern philological and archaeological research. — The historical books of the Old Testament have unfortunately been hitherto too much neglected. Hence every one, who endeavours to culti vate this department of labour, must devote the greater portion of his attention to the overthrow of current opinions, which are ,-apt only false and whimsical, but diametrically opposed to the ¦spirit of biblical revelation, and must seek to refute the many ¦prevalent errors concerning Old Testament history, that have arisen from the spiritless manner in which it has been handled. At the same time he can only expect to pave the way for a com plete theological and ecclesiastical exposition, rather than to bring one to perfection. If rationalism rejects the revelation connected with the ancient iv PREFACE. covenant, it must also reject the history of the Old Testament ; for this history is, and professes to be, nothing but an account of the gradual development of divine revelation in successive ages of the world. For it the historical books of the Old Testament, as works which lay claim to historical veracity, have no worth or meaning ; and therefore criticism alone can find occupation in them, and resolve their historical details into myths and legends. Such a process, however, leaves nothing but a miserable residuum of inorganic matter, a few dregs which cannot be evaporated, but which nevertheless resist every attempt to construct of them a connected history of the Israelites, and, as Ewald's last attempt most clearly proves, can at best be only thrown into the fanciful shape of a historical romance without truth and without life. This mode of treating the Old Testament history has been very disadvantageous to the believing theological science, which has lately arisen, inasmuch as it can find no objective ground or standpoint free from uncertainty, and can only set up its own sub jective views and opinions with reference to the fundamental prin» ciples of the revelation and inspiration of the Holy Scriptures; and these are of course destitute of scientific and historical foundation. The evil is the greater, because the Christian revelation cannot be fully understood without a thorough acquaintance with that of the Old Testament, which prepared the way for it ; and this again cannot be comprehended without a careful study of the history of the Old Testament ; and lastly, it is from these that the light is thrown upon the writings of the prophets, which alone renders their meaning intelligible. The words of Christ, addressed to the woman of Samaria at Jacob's well : " ye know not what ye worship ; we know what we worship, for salvation is of the Jews" (John iv. 22), are applicable to any description of theology, which mistakes or denies the historical development of the divine plan of salvation. Hence if the scientific theology of the evangelical church is anxious to strengthen its foundations again, it must force rationalism away from the Old Testament where till the present time it has planted its foot so firmly, that many an acute theologian has doubted whether it is possible to rescue again the fides humana et divina of the historical writings of the ancient covenant. • There is no other ground, however, for this fear, than that those writings have not been independently PREFACE. examined, but have been read under the directions and in the dim light of theological criticism and exegesis. To overthrow the sway of rationalism in the Old Testament, to remove prejudices, which are widely spread and have grown into formal articles of faith, and' to assist in the promotion of a correct understanding of the Old Testament, and one inspired by faith, was the design of my commentary on the Books of Kings, which was published a short time since, and which, with the favour of God, shall be followed by similar works on the other historical books of the Old Testament. With this object in view, it was not necessary that 1 should enter upon a thorough critical examination of the ancient versions, or notice the frag ments from the Samaritan book of Joshua, which printing has brought to light. I do not indeed look upon the Masoretic text as infallible and free from errors, but I do regard it as more ancient and, with very rare exceptions, more correct than the very corrupt text of the thoroughly inaccurate Alexandrine ver sion, to which many modern critics are inclined always to give the prefei-ence. On the whole, too, I take it to be the original text of the Old Testament, whioh has been handed down invio late. Hence I do not believe that any essential aid, in the interpretation of the book of Joshua, can be afforded by the bungling work of the Samaritans, which both external and internal evidence prove to be of later origin. And although it is true, that it is of great advantage to institute an unprejudiced and careful comparison between the text of the Hebrew and the ancient versions, and also between the contents and spirit of the historical writings of the Old Testament, and the manner in which Hebrew history was afterwards treated by both Jews and Samaritans, inasmuch as it serves to confirm both theology and the church in their belief in the integrity and authenticity of our canonical books ; yet the great want of our church, at the pre- , sent day, is a clear comprehension of the meaning of the Old Testament, in its fulness and purity, in order that the God of Israel may again be universally recognised as the eternal God, whose faithfulness is unchangeable, the one living and true God, who performed all that he did to Israel for our instruction and salvation, having chosen Abraham and his seed to be his people, to preserve his revelations, that from him the whole world might VI PREFACE. receive salvation, and in him all the families of the earth be blessed. Should the following commentary contribute in any way to the satisfaction of this want of our evangelical church, it will have fulfilled its vocation. May this be granted by the Lord God! THE AUTHOR. TABLE OF CONTENTS Intboduction. Page. PART I. CONQUEST OF CANAAN. Joshua's Commission, Preparation for crossing the Jordan, Two spies sent out, The Israelites cross the Jordan, Circumcision of the People, Celebration of the Passover, An Angel appears to Joshua, Directions to attack Jericho, Capture of the City, Repulse of the Israelites before Ai, Detection of Achan's theft, Capture of Ai, Removal of the camp to Mount Ebal, Promulgation of the Law, Stratagem of the Gibeonites, Joshua defeats five Kings in the south, Commemoration of the Victory in the Book of Jasher, Capture of six^Cities, Campaign in the north, . Defeat of the Canaanites, Destruction of the Anakim, List of Kings defeated by Moses, List of Kings defeated by Joshua, 6172 80 93 126 143151158 160 176 190 202 218 222 227 244 251 272 280 286 292301311 PAET II. DIVISION OF THE LAND AND LAST ACTS OF JOSHUA. Command to divide the Land, .... 318 Inheritance of the two Tribes and a- half, . . 328 The Lord the Inheritance of Levi, . 330 Inheritance of Reuben, . ... 332 Do. Gad 338 Do. the half Tribe of Manasseh, . ' . 342 viii CONTENTS. P:i|re. Division of the Land on this side, 343 355362 Caleb's request, . Inheritance of Judah, Do. Ephraim and half-Manas sen, '. . ¦ .391 Erection of the Tabernacle at Shiloh, 412 Inheritance of Benj amin, . 415 Do. Simeon, 419 Do. Zebulon, . 422 Do. Issachar, . 427 Do. Asher, . i 429 Do. Naphtali, . 436 Do. Dan, 440 Cities of Refuge selected, 444 Cities of the Priests and Levites, 450 Return of the two Tribes and a- half, 459 They erect an Altar, 463 Deputation from their Brethren, 465 The last acts of Joshua, 474 He corivenes the Tribes, 476 His first Address, 478 Renewal of the Covenant at Sichem, 482 His second Address, 484 Death of Joshua, 499 Burial of Joseph's bones, 500 Death of Eleazar, 501 ERRATA, 14, last line, 25, for ibki read v&*i. 71,«8, 107,123,157, 158, 236, 277,422,465,499, ne 3, for were read was. ne 22, for show read shows. ne 8, for pih read pTh. ne 2 from bottom, for but they read but that they. ne 3 from bottom, for with -p^x is connected, #c, read is connected with ii^ji. ne 6, for ijb^s read is£>, ne 11, for act read fact. ne 1, for opposition read apposition. ne 17, for Brfwr? read BrfrhV ne 6 from bottom, for rr^TiS read DiVflS. ne 5 from bottom, for 33j read aja. ne 2 from bottom, for -pip read ipnp. ne 10 from bottom, for ttE'iBS: read bbbbi. COMMENTARY BOOK OF JOSHUA. INTRODUCTION. §. 1. NAME, SUBJECT, AND DESIGN OF THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. The Book of Joshua derives its name from its contents. It describes the history of the theocracy under the presidency of Joshua, the son of Nun. Joshua had previously been the ser vant of Moses, and was appointed by the Lord to be his successor, and to bring his work to completion by leading the people of Israel into Canaan, the land promised to their fathers. The book commences, therefore, with the issue of a divine com mand to Joshua after the death of Moses, to enter upon the office, to which he had already been appointed, and concludes with the death and burial of Joshua and of Eleazar, the high priest at that time. The work, to which Joshua was called, was not merely the conquest of the land of Canaan and the expul sion and extermination of the inhabitants, but also the distribu tion of the conquered country amongst the tribes of Israel (chap. i. 2 — 6). The Book consists, therefore, of two sections. The first (chap. i. — xii.), contains a description of the conquest of the land ; the second (chaps, xiii. — xxiv.), of the distribution of it amongst the Israelites. But this does not exhaust its con tents. The call of Joshua comprised not merely the command to conquer Canaan and divide it amongst the Israelites, but also INTRODUCTION. the assurance of divine assistance, on condition that the law of God, as given by Moses, should be inviolably observed ; and hence the contents of the book are not restricted to the history of the war and of the division of Canaan, but furnish an account of the miraculous way in which the Lord assisted His people in the conquest of the promised land, and of all the means adopted by Joshua for carrying out the laws of Moses, and securing the perpetual observance of them on the part of the people. In all these points a very close-connexion is apparent between this book and the Pentateuch, of which, iu fact, it is a continuation. At the same time it repeats the account of the conquest by Moses of the land on the eastern side of the Jordan, and of its division amongst two tribes and a half, as well as of the appointment of three cities of refuge on that side for those who should uninten tionally take away another man's life, all of which had already been described in the Pentateuch. The repetition was made in order that the book might contain a complete survey of the con quest of the whole country on both sides of the Jordan. The design of the writer, therefore, was not merely to display the great deeds of Joshua, nor even to trace the history of the theocracy under Joshua, and thus continue the narrative con tained in the Pentateuch from the death of Moses to that of Joshua ; but to furnish historical evidence that Joshua, by the help of God, faithfully performed the work to which the Lord had called him ; and by the side of that to show how, in fulfil ment of the promises which He gave to the patriarchs, God drove out the Canaanites before Israel, and gave their land to the twelve tribes of Jacob for a permanent inheritance. Hence, notwithstanding the close connexion between this book and the Pentateuch, it is in itself a complete and independent work, being the historical record of the conquest and distribution of the land, which the Lord gave to his chosen people as their posses sion,- that they might dwell therein, serving their God and Lord in truth and love. INTRODUCTION. 3 §2. UNITY OF THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. A careful examination of the contents of the book, such as we shall attempt in the introduction to each section, but which L. Konig has carried out even more completely (Alttestl. Studien 1. H. Authentie des B. Josua s. 4. sqq.), furnishes incontrovertible evidence of its unity throughout. Nevertheless, this unity has heen disputed by different critics even to the present day ; and on trivial grounds they have broken into fragments a connected work. Nachtigall,1 and after him Beriholdt (Einl. iii. p. 849 sqq.) and Meyer (iiber die Bestandtheile und die Oeconomie des B. Josua in Ammons und Bertholdts Krit. Journ. ii. p. 337 sqq.) have endeavoured to apply to the Book of Joshua the fragmen tary hypothesis, which is such a favourite one in the case of the Pentateuch. Beriholdt regards the " numerous repetitions of the same thing," and " still more the detached position and com pleteness in themselves of particular passages," as " a clear proof that the book was not written at once as a continuous narra tive." Yet, in his opinion, the first eleven chapters are evi dently connected and complete in themselves, and it is only the second part of the book, which consists of nothing but fragments. Meyer, on the other hand, says, that "the book seems for the most part to have been originally a complete work, inasmuch as the different accounts follow very readily one upon another in the order in which the events occurred," but that " in the first half of the book, more than in the second, it is very easy to distinguish, in some places later glosses which have crept in, and in others heterogeneous fragments taken probably from fragmentary documents, relating to the 1 " Fragments on the gradual construction of the sacred writings of the Israelites," in Henke's Magaz. iv. 2 p. 362 sqq. and in Eichhorn's alg. Bibl. iv. p. 1088 sqq. Nachtigall sees in this book only frag ments from the earliest periods'of Hebrew literature, detached passages from a poetical history more complete in form and more ancient in date, together with parenthetical and supplementary clauses extracted from other narratives, both earlier and later, and also interpolations by the last compiler and editor. Is 4 INTRODUCTION. same events, which have subsequently been interpolated into the text." De Wette warmly opposed the theory of glosses, and especially urged the supposed " contradictions and discrep ancies between particular passages of the book," as a proof that it was a compilation of various fragments, though he omitted in the first four editions of his work to give any distinct idea of the nature of its composition. — In the meantime Eichhorn (Einl. iii. p. 302 sqq.), and Paulus (Blicke in das Buch Josua, in s. theol. exeg. conservat. ii. p. 149 sqq.), in their anxiety to get rid of the miraculous character of the Book of Joshua, which was such a stumbling-block in theh" eyes, had published their opinion that the book was composed partly of historical notices and partly of legendary traditions ; endeavouring at the same time to point out a double source for the descriptions of the crossing of the Jordan and the capture of Ai.1 Maurer justly opposed this hy pothesis (Comm. iib. d. B. Josua), and completely refuted it. At the same time he endeavoured to give a more correct expla nation of the composition of the Book. " In the first part, chapters i. — xi., form a complete narrative, furnished with an ap propriate conclusion, but interrupted by two smaller interpolations (chaps, iv. 9, and viii. 12, 13,) and two larger ones, (chaps, viii. 30 — 35, and x. 12, 15). Chapter xii., of which the author found vers. 9—24 already prepared as a distinct fragment by another hand, is the index to the rest. In the second part the" following portions bear certain marks, more or less distinct, of having existed before in a detached form : the description in chap. xiii. 2 — 6; the narrative in chap. xiv. 6 — 15 ; the boundaries of the tribe of Judah, chap. xv. 1 — 12 ; the list of cities belonging to that tribe, vers. 20—62 ; the decision of the inheritance of the Josephites, chap. xvi. 1 — 4 ; of that of Ephraim, vers. 5 — 10 ; of those of the last seven tribes, chap, xviii. 11, 19, 51 ; and lastly the consecration of the theocracy, chaps, xxiii., xxiv. 1 — 28." The book is therefore of a fragmentary nature, especially the second part. (See chap. xiii. seq.) Independently of these opinions the Dutch theologian C. H. 1 Paulus only does this in the case of the first account, which in his opinion, is formed from the combination of a simple narrative and a ? poetical one. INTRODUCTION. 5 van Herwerden (disputatio de libro Jos. Gron. 1826) has dis covered in the style of the book ten different monumenta, from which it is compiled. But his philological observations indicate a great want of penetration, and there is so little force in his arguments, that his hypothesis has met with little approval, at least in Germany. De Wette, Maurer, and Herwerden, were opposed by Konig, in the alttestl. Studien already referred to. He argued the unity of the book with great cleverness and completeness, from the un broken train of thoughts observable in the contents, the identity of the thoughts and ideas, and of the spirit and style, and also from the sameness of the language. Moreover, he attempted to prove that the whole book was drawn up by Joshua, but on this point his arguments are not convincing. Havernick also (Hdb. d. hist. Krit. Einl. ii. 1, p. 12, sqq.) declared himself thoroughly opposed to the breaking up of the book into fragments, and de fended with invincible arguments the unity of the first half. He granted, however, that there was a combination of fragments in the second half, and thus failed to establish a clear and tenable theory on the unity and construction of the book.1 Now, although the researches of these two critics are not en tirely free from errors and weak points, yet they have in most respects so forcibly attacked the fragmentary hypothesis, that neolqgian critics have more frequently ignored than refuted their arguments. The latter, for example, have followed out the hints, which were given by Bleeh (in Rosenmuller's Kepert. 1, p. 44, sqq.), and Ewald (in the theol. Studien und Kritiken 1831, H. 3, p. 602, seq.), with regard to the original connexion between the writings that formed the ground-work of the Pentateuch and the book of Joshua. They also applied to the latter the worn out theory of the Elohim — and Jehovah — documents, in the new form which Tuch had given to it in his commentary on Genesis ; and endeavoured to prove that the Book of Joshua was also composed of the same supposed Elohistic records, 1 I have already shown in my article " on the parallel passages in the books of Joshua and Judges" (in Budelbach's und Quericke's Zeitschrift 1846, H. 1, p. 9, sqq.), how weak are the arguments with which Havernick (ut supra p. 25) attempts to disprove the unity of the second half of the book. 6 INTRODUCTION. which are said to be the original of the four books of Moses, with certain Jehovistic or Deuteronomistic portions interspersed. The hypothesis was most fully carried out by Stdhelin (partly in the theol. Stud, und Krit. 1835 H. 2, p. 472, seq., and partly in the " Kritischen Untersuch. iiber den Pent, die B.B. Josua, Richter, &c. Berl. 1843), who thought that he could " demonstrate that there were in this book two distinct varieties of thought and language, namely those found in the geographi cal sections and those in the historical." His conclusions were adopted, with a few slight modifications, by De Wette (in the 5th and 6th editions of his Introduction, § 168), and C. v. Len- gerke (Kenaan Bd. i. p. 135 seq.) Ewald pursued the same course, in a way peculiar to himself, and endeavoured still fur ther to resolve the historical books of the Old Testament into their component parts (Geschichte des Volks , Israel.) G. A. Hauff, on the other hand, contented himself with bringing for ward again the supposed contradictions in the book of Joshua, without any reference to the arguments of Konig and Havernick in disproof of them, and spun them out by additions, for the pur pose of founding upon them a theory of his own concerning so- called revelation and inspiration (Offenbarungsgl. u. Kritik der bibl. Geschichtsbucher. Stuttgard 1843.) If we look a little closer at the' proceedings of these critics and their conclusions, we find, according to Ewald (Gesch. i. p. 73 sqq.), that the "extensive book of original documents " (as he calls our Pentateuch and book of Joshua) " underwent several altera tions and revisions, before it came forth from the deluge of works of similar import, as the only one which seemed to subsequent generations worthy of preservation. It is our one representative of all the other works. But before it underwent its last altera tions, historical works of earlier date, and extracts from sources of various kinds, flowed into it like rivers into the sea." Of these earlier works of history Ewald thinks that he can distinguish the following in the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua: (a) numerous fragments from the oldest work of all, which he calls the " cove nant book," or " book of covenants," most of them dating from the period of the Judges, a few from the time of Moses or a still earlier date ; (b) the " book of origins," drawn up by a Levite of exalted rank in the first thirteen years of the reign of Solomon " as INTRODUCTION. 7 •a law-book rather than as a history," which represents Moses principally as a legislator and leader of the sacred community, and chief of the priestly tribe, and makes use of the legen dary material, which has been handed down, in order to con struct a definite historical frame for the laws and institutions which passed as Mosaic at that time ; (c) certain portions of a work by a prophetic author of the history of the early times, in which the prophetical element was traced to the period of Moses and the patriarchs, and the personal worth and dignity of Moses as a prophet is fully set forth. Out of these three works upon the history of the earliest times and various frag ments of still greater antiquity (d) the fourth historian, at the commencement of the eighth century, compiled the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua in the form in which we now possess them, with the exception of a few passages which have been interpolated since. He worked up freely the material, which had been handed down, from a prophetical point of view, " throwing a great deal into a new form, to suit his own views and meet the wants of his age, but for the most part merely copying verbatim from earlier writings, or making here and there some slight alteration. On the whole, therefore, he was more a compiler and editor than an independent author and original historian." (Ewald i. p. 137.) Lastly (e), in the reigns of Manasseh and Josiah, part of Leviticus (xxvi. 3 — 45), the whole of Deuteronomy, with the exception of chap, xxxii. 48 — 52 and xxxiv. 1 — 9, and several paragraphs of the Book of Joshua, were interpolated by the Deuteronomist. In the Book of Joshua, chaps, ii., v. 13, vi., and viii., are set down as the productions of the third and fourth historian ; chaps, i. and xxiii. seq., as those of the Deuteronomist. By the latter, also, many separate passages have been introduced, revised, and described in his own way, and even chaps, viii. 30, and ix. 2, and chaps, x. — xiii. 14 owe to him far less of their contents than of the description and arrangement; All the rest is the work of the two earliest writers of the ancient history (Ewald Gesch. ii., p. 227 sqq.) — This fine-spun hypothesis is nothing but a bold extension of the views expressed by Tuch, Stdhelin, and others, that some earlier writing, commonly called the Elohim records, formed the ground-work of our Pentateuch and 8 INTRODUCTION. Book of Joshua, and that at a later period this was rewritten with the addition of several fresh narratives. Nearly all that Ewald attributes to the first three historians, is traced by these critics to the Elohim records, which were founded, they also imagine, upon many other written documents of still earlier date, though they do not attempt to carry their analysis farther. That which Ewald ascribes to the fourth historian, they regard as part of the Jehovistic work ; and lastly, the concluding clauses, which Ewald and the other critics suppose to be the work of the Deuteronomist, Stahelin is alone in assigning to the Jehovist. Thus, in the leading points, Ewald agrees with the rest of the neological critics ; but so much the more does he differ from them in his ultimate conclusions. For, whilst they endeavour to strengthen their hypothesis upon critical grounds, by pointing out variations and contradictions in the statements, and demon strating that the books which have come down to us, are written in two different styles : Ewald builds up in a dogmatical way a prolix theory of myths and legends, and their changes of form, and founds upon that his anatomical dissection of our history into its supposed component parts. In this dissection the only principle which guides him, is the old rationalistic doctrine, that a supernatural revelation, accompanied by miracles and prophe cies, is neither a fact nor a possibility, that the theocratic view of the Israelitish history is altogether a creation of poetic sagas and myths ; that the people of Israel were not chosen by the Lord God to be the guardians of his revelation, or led by special messengers from God to the fulfilment of this divine vocation ; but that they rose to the high position which they attained amongst the nations of the earth, simply by the natural gifts with which they were endowed by the Creator, and the assistance of distin guished men and heroes from amongst themselves. This fore gone conclusion of common rationalism is both the chief assump tion and the decisive rule employed in the determination of the dif ferent original sources. Hence those portions of the Pentateuch, in which the theocratic element is not prominent, are set down as fragments from the earliest work of history, and those, in which the prophetic character of Moses is placed in the fore ground, are pronounced the most modern. The different pas sages are said to date from the periods to which, in Ewald 's INTRODUCTION. 9 opinion, the predictions contained in them refer, since ',the pro phecies are nothing but the veiled poetical method of picturing present events, or at most, forebodings of future occurrences which are already involved in the present. Actual predictions do not exist. We look in vain for any critical evidence in support of Ewald' 's decisions as to the original sources of the Old Testa ment history. It is true that whenever he assumes the existence of any work of history, he does not fail to point out some pecu liarity in the style ; but all that he says with reference to certain characteristic words and expressions can have but little weight, inasmuch as he himself constantly adds, that the later historians imitated the words and phraseology of those who preceded them, and moreover that they frequently altered the phrases, wliich they found in the earlier documents. If that was the case, we can no longer think of peculiarities in style as characteristic signs by which the different sources may be distinguished. His entire theory is, therefore, built upon sand. It has not the slightest objective truth in it, and does not admit of examination in detail, of which, however, it is not worthy, as it is not founded upon any scientific principle. Whatever critical arguments can be brought forward in its favour have been adduced by other critics, principally in proof of the construction of the Book of Joshua from Elohistic, and Jehovistic, or Deuteronomistic elements. Of these the former are said to be discernible chiefly in the geographical sections, the latter in the historical.1 The following are actual discrepancies in peculiarities of style upon which stress has been laid. I. Of the actual discrepancies or contradictions pointed out by Hauff and De Wette, the first we shall notice is, that " in one part of the book Joshua is said to have conquered the land of Canaan entirely, and destroyed all the Canaanites (chaps, xi. 16, 23, xii. 7 sqq. cf., xxi. 43 sqq., xxii. 4), whereas in another we find that considerable tracts of country were unsubdued, and 1 Stdhelin, accordingly (Krit. Unters. p. 88 and 89), classifies chaps, xiii. 15 — xiv. 5 ; xv.— xvii. 13; and xviii. 11— xxi. as geo graphical sections, all the rest of the book being historical. Of this chaps, v. 10—12, and xxii. are distinguished bythe style of the ancient Elohim documents, and both of the chapters are supposed to have undergone revision. 10 INTRODUCTION. still remained in the possession of the Canaanites, who had not been expelled (chap. xiii. I sqq. compared with xvii. 14 sqq., xviii. 3, xxiii. 5, 12). (Hauffy. 73 sqq. 109, 116, De Wette § 167).1 Even if this discrepancy could be established, it would not prove anything in favour of the hypothesis of our opponents, for it is not true that the historical or the Jehovistic-Deuterono- mistic elements of the book say nothing of land unconquered and Canaanites not yet subdued. In the twenty-third chapter, which is reckoned by all the critics as one of the historical 1 Stdhelin (ut supra p. 87) has made a somewhat different application of the same argument. " In the historical part," he says, " the extermi nation of the Canaanites is commanded, and it is mentioned with praise that Joshua has executed this as far as possible (chaps, x. 40 ; xi. 14, 15) ; in the geographical portion, however, it is reported, without blame, which tribes have failed to destroy the Canaanites, and have merely made them tributary." But thetext of the Bible does not contain any express approval of Joshua's actions, or condemnation of the con duct of the Israelites in failing to exterminate the Canaanites. All that is said is, that Joshua performed all that Jehovah had enjoined upon his servant Moses, and Moses upon Joshua, and suffered nothing to fail of all that Jehovah had commanded Moses (chap. xi. 1 5). And there is no inconsistency between the performance on the part of Joshua of all that Jehovah had enjoined upon Moses, and the fact that he did not exterminate the Canaanites to the very last man, and that the tribes of Israel were unable to dislodge the remaining Canaanites from certain places after they had taken possession of the land assigned them. The remarks, which occur in the geographical section with reference to the failure of the Israelites to expel the Canaanites from particular cities (chaps, xv. 63 ; xvi. 10; and xvii. 12, 13), do not ex press the least approbation of their being suffered to remain. They merely mention the fact, and in the case of two tribes, assign their weakness as the reason (they were not able to drive out the Canaanites (chaps, xv. 63 ; xvii. 12 seq.). Stdhelin is therefore quite wrong in his next statement (p. 88), that the original sources of the geo graphical sections are of a milder character than those of the historical, partly on account of their never blaming the Israelites for sparing the Canaanites, and partly because chap. xx. 9 apparently presupposes that there were foreigners dwelling in the midst of Israel, who en joyed, in some respects at least, the same privileges as the Israelites. The last remark, even if it were correct, instead of being refuted by chap. viii. 35, would prove nothing unless we could show that the foreigners referred to in chap. xx. 9, meant only the Canaanites, who were doomed to destruction, but had not yet been destroyed or that the so-called Elohistic parts of the Pentateuch were the only ones which spoke of the residence of strangers in Israel. But there is no foundation for either. INTRODUCTION. 1 1 sections, it is stated as clearly as possible in v. 4 seq. and 12 seq., that there were still Canaanites in the country, and in the possession of land. But the discrepancy is merely apparent. It arises from the two different points of view from which, as is evident throughout the book, all the circumstances were contem plated as objectively ideal or as subjectively real. This our op ponents have failed to discover, having overlooked the fact, not withstanding their assertion of the unity of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, that the former furnishes the means which we want, of bringing into harmony these . different points of view. The objectively ideal view, which predominates in the historical portion of the work, and exhibits the whole land as conquered, and all the Canaanites as exterminated, rests entirely upon the promises of God contained in the Pentateuch, and from them the explanation must be obtained. According to these promises the land of Canaan was to be given by the Lord to his people Israel, and he would destroy the Canaanites before them. This he did through Joshua. The latter defeated the Canaanites on every hand, and so far took their country, that the Israelites became masters of it, whilst its former possessors were confined -to but a few cities and districts, and had become powerless fugitives. This was a fulfilment of the promise of God, which ensured the complete destruction of the Canaanites, but not their sudden extermination to the very last man at a single blow, Ex. xxiii. 28—39, Deut. vii. 22. And therefore when the author of our book concluded the history of the conquest of Canaan by saying : " Thus Joshua took the whole land, accord ing to all that the Lord said unto Moses (chap. xi. 23), there was no necessity for him to mention the " exceptions," i. e., the cities and districts that were not yet subdued, and the Canaanites who still remained, for, notwithstanding these exceptions, the whole land was taken, as the Lord had said to Moses. On the other hand, when the land was divided, it was necessary to mention these exceptions and to say what was the subjectively real state of affairs, both because this served to enforce the divine com mand that Joshua should proceed at once to the division of the land, and also because he was to allot the whole country equally, whether conquered at that time or not. Now it is very evident that these two points of view are not incompatible the 12 INTRODUCTION. one with the other, and do not deserve to be called contradict tions. For even the geographical sections, in which the excep tions are named, are written from the same objectively ideal point of view as the historical portions. Joshua is ordered to divide the land, without making any distinction between the part which is subdued and that which is not yet taken. Accordingly he distributes the whole land without exception amongst the tribes as an inheritance, because the Lord had promised to drive out the rest of the Canaanites before them. See the re marks on chap. xi. 23.1 (2.) These critics observe further that : " by one portion of the book (chap. i. 6, xi. 23, xii. 7, xiv. 1 — 5), we are led to expect the partition of the land to be made in the same manner through out and to be continued without interruption, but the other re ports a delay in the midst of the work, ostensibly on account of the inactivity of the people (chap, xviii. 3) ; moreover, it seems to have been resumed at another place, Shiloh (chap, xviii. 1, xix. 51), where several alterations were made in the previous decision." (Hauff p. 119, sqq.; De Wette p. 232). The last remark is quite correct, and shows that there was no ground for the expectation of the critics, as there is nothing said in the passages cited above with reference to an "uninterrupted" division. See also the commentary on chap. xiv. 1. (3.) " According to chaps, i. — xi. and xxii. the people remained 1 As a confirmation of the discrepancy which we have thus showu to be merely imaginary, De Wette adds that the statements, contained in chap. xii. 10, 12, 16, 21, and 23, to the effect that the kings of Jeru salem, Gezer, Bethel, Megiddo, and Dor were slain by Joshua, are at variance with chap. xv. 63 (not ver. 69 as it is printed in De Wette) com pared with Judges i. 21 ; with chap. xvi. 10 and Judges i. 29 and 22 ; and with chap. xvii. 12 and Judges i. 27, where the same cities are said to be still in the hands of the Canaanites. But even V. Lengerke (ut supra p. 670) admits the correctness of Konig's remarks (p. 19) that a distinction must be made between the defeat of kings and the capture of their cities, and there is nothing in chap. xii. 7 that is not in harmony with this. The discrepancy, with reference to the conquest of Hebron and Debir and the expulsion of the Anakim frorn the mountains, between chaps, x. 36, 38, xi. 21 on the one hand, and xiv 12, xv. 14—17 on the other, De Wette would not have ventured to speak of again, had he not passed by without notice the complete re futation which Havernick and others have long since given to his aro-u ment. See Comm. chap. x. 36. s INTRODUCTION. 1 3 together, until the land was conquered and divided in peace and order, and then every tribe took possession of the portion which had been assigned him ; but, on the contrary, we find in chaps, xv. 13 sqq., xvii. 14 sqq., and xix. 47, that some of the tribes went away to effect conquests for themselves." (Hauff, p. 1 17 seq., De Wette, p. 232). This contradiction, which Hauff was the first to speak of, he could only bring out by a transposition of the accounts contained in the book ; namely, by assuming that the conquests mentioned in chap, xv., xvii., and xix., which the words of the text evidently describe as occurring after the division of the land, and for the most part after the death of Joshua, were made before either of these events (see my article in Rudelbach's und Guericke's Zschr. 1846, H. 1, p. 3 sqq.) (4). " The statements, so frequently made, which represent the religion of the people under Joshua as in all respects in agree ment with the law, are not in harmony with the description given of the people, as still serving strange gods, which we find in chap. xxiv. 23." But this passage does not involve the exis tence of gross idolatry or imply that they worshipped idolatrous images. It merely refers to an attachment of the heart to strange gods ; and this could easily co-exist with perfect obedience to the law in all the outward ceremonies of religion. See the com mentary on chap. xxiv. 14 and 23. All that Hauff (p. 122 sqq.) says, in addition to this, with reference to diversity in the ideas and in the descriptions of the character of Joshua and the people, or concerning the places and persons associated with the worship of the Israelites, is so trivial and unfounded, that even De Wette lays no stress upon it. We may, therefore, leave it, and pass on to the evidence adduced by Stdhelin (p. 87 seq.) in proof of the difference in the style of thought, which is apparent in the geographical and his torical sections. (5). "In the historical sections, even in chap.. ix., we have only the deeds of Joshua prominently described, but in the geographical, Eleazar acts in concert with him." Had then the High Priest Eleazar the same vocation in the theocracy as Joshua the general ? Was it the place of the High Priest to command the army, fight battles, and conduct conquests ? And if not, is there anything in the historical portion of the book, which could furnish occasion for the High Priest to appear 14 INTRODUCTION. at the head of the people, or justify us in expecting even his name to be mentioned I In the event narrated in chap, ix., there was nothing for Eleazar to do, for it formed no part of the duties of his office to give audience to the Gibeonites, who were sent to treat with the general of the Israelites, or to conclude peace with them. The reason why Eleazar remains in the back ground and is not mentioned in the historical portion of the book, where Joshua is prominent, is to be found in the subject of that portion alone. With the geographical section it is diffe rent. The division of the land, which is there described, had been entrusted by Moses at the command of God to the repre sentatives of the whole nation, viz., the High Priest Eleazar, Joshua and a prince of each tribe, (Num. xxxiv. 17 sqq.) Hence it was quite natural for the author, whenever he had occasion to mention the commission for the distribution of the land (chap. xiv. 1, xix. 51, xxi. 1), to give the names of the members in the order in which they occur in the law. Ought he to have wilfully adopted any other ? Or if our opponents are inclined to explain this agreement by saying that Num. xxxiv. was also written by the Elohist, they would do well to consider that the same writer would hardly be likely to apply the word fc^to to the priests of the tribes in Num. xxxiv., and f^N ifEJN"V in T " T the Book of Joshua. It is well known that j^ft)} is regarded by our critical opponents as one of the characteristics of the. Elohistic style of writing : how is it, then, that the Elohist in the geographical sections -of this book has shown it so little respect, that he has written jtqN ""I^N") three times and CWtW on'y once> and tnat m the "semi-historical section," chap. xvii. 4; whereas the supposed Jehovistic or Deuteronomistic author of the Book of Joshua has mentioned the Di^tM in six. places (chap. ix. 15, 18, 19, 21, and xxii. 14, 30) ?— (6). In the same manner may the diversity be explained, which Stdhelin brings forward amongst the examples of difference of style, but which is really a difference in matter ; that " in the historical, sections the qv^^ are actively employed on every occasion (chap. i. 10, iii. 2), or the elders and judges with them (chap. viii. 33, xxiii. 2, to which xxiv. 1 might be added), whereas the geographical portions only speak of pfy^ rfo# -ijftn (chap.. INTRODUCTION. 15 xxi. 1, xiv. 1)." The simple explanation is that the Shoterim, the elders and the judges, did not belong to the commission which Moses appointed for the work of distribution. — (7.) The next remark, " that in chap. i. 4 the Euphrates is given as the eastern boundary of the possessions of the Hebrews, and in chap. xiii. 13 sqq., a totally different boundary is named," shows that the oratorical character of the former passage is quite overlooked. It is not intended as a determination of boundaries in the man ner of a protocol, but in the divine promise certain well-known points were fixed upon as the limits within which the land, that was to be given to the Israelites, was situated. See the com mentary at chap. i. 4. Again Stdhelin says (8): "in chap. xv. 11 and 33 (it should probably be 45 — 47) the cities of the Philistines are apparently held by Judah, and this is confirmed by ver. 63, for if it had not been so, it would have been stated that the Hebrews were unable to drive out the Philistines ; in chap. xiii. 3, on the contrary, we have a totally different account, and, indeed, the Philistines are not mentioned anywhere in the geographical portion." But from the fact that the borders of Judah were to extend to the side of Ekron on the north (chap. xv. 11), and that Ekron, Gaza, Ashdod, and the surrounding places were assigned by lot to that tribe (vers. 43 — 45), it does not follow that these cities were ever held by it. Nor does ver. 63 prove this ; for the author had not merely stated already in chap. xiii. 2 — 7, that the territory of the five princes of the Philistines formed part of the land that was not subdued when the casting of the lots com menced, but had also recorded the divine command that the rest of the land, i.e., the land which . was not yet conquered, so far as it was reckoned as belonging to the Canaanites, should be portioned out, "because the Lord would drive out before the Israelites the tribes which were not yet subjugated." It would therefore have been an unnecessary repetition, if in chap. xv. he had given another complete list of the cities that were not yet taken. It is only by arbitrarily separating the introduc tion and the commencement from the geographical portion, as Stdhelin has done, that any one can possibly say that in that sec tion no mention is made of the Philistines, or, as he afterwards expresses it, that the geographical section knows nothing of the 16 INTRODUCTION. Philistines in the Pentapolis. If we take the passages in the connexion to which they belong, every discrepancy vanishes away. (9). Lastly, Stdhelin says that " the original of the geogra phical accounts is very exact in its details. If the sections are large, introductory observations are attached (chap. xiv. 1 — 5.) In the descriptions of the portion of each tribe, a concluding for mula is never forgotten (chaps, xv. 12, xvi. 9, xviii. 20, 28, xix. 8, 16, 23, 31, 39, 48, xx. 9); and in chap. xix. 51 the history of the division of the land is brought to an end with a more exten sive peroration than usual." And so also in the historical por tion there is no lack of introductory remarks, when the sections are long (see for example v. 1, ix. 1, x. 1, xi. 1), or even of for mal headings (cf. xii. 1 and 7), and of concluding formularies (cf. x. 40 — 43, xi. 23, xiv. 15.) Is not the history of the conquest of the land followed by lengthy final observations (chap. xi. 16 — 23 ?) The simple reason, why such conclusions are more rarely met with, is that there was not the same opportunity for intro ducing them, the whole section consisting of long accounts with varied contents, which could not possibly have been finished off with standing formularies perpetually recurring. This argument, to which great importance is attached in the case of the Penta teuch also, does not prove in the slightest degree that the two portions have been copied originally from different documents. One thing it certainly does prove, namely, the mechanical way in which these critics proceed, who pay attention to externals alone, and have no suspicion, to say nothing of a clear idea, of the relation between the contents and the form. (See the strik ing manner in which the. characteristics of this style of criticism have been pointed out by J. H. Kurtz [in his "Beitrage zur Vertheidigung und Begriindung der Einheit des Pent." i. p. 74.]) II. We have thus seen that the diversities pointed out as existing between the leading parts of the book do not prove that it was composed of Elohistic and Jehovistic materials, for they are not discrepancies, but apparent differences, which admit of being easily and naturally harmonised. But, perhaps, in the language, we may find greater difficulties ? With reference to this Hauff (p. 132 seq.) presses (1) the difference of style, and INTRODUCTION. 17 says that the first half of the book is "remarkable for a full expression of the meaning, a care to avoid obscurity, and a har monious rounding off of the sentences ; whereas in many passages of the second half, repetitions are made and parentheses intro-> duced, at the cost of clearness." In proof of this, some passages are cited from chaps, xvi. and xvii." This is so far correct, that in the historical chapters there are paragraphs, which are com plete in themselves, and longer than any which occur in the geographical section ; and the expressions are certainly obscure in several verses in the 16th and 17th chapters. But this may easily be explained from the great difference in the subjects of which they treat. Descriptions of borders and lists of towns do not admit of elaborate periods, beautifully dovetailed together ; and the occasional obscurity may be attributable to the docu ments employed. All the instances quoted by Hauff (p. 141 sqq.), in which different or peculiar words occur, will fail to establish a difference in the authorship of the portions referred to, so long as he cannot show that the same things are said else where without the peculiar phraseology employed here. And this Hauff has never shown. (2). Stdhelin (ut supra), on the other hand, has brought for ward the following as proofs of the difference of style in the historical and geographical sections : " In the historical portions the word iq^XD is most frequently used for a tribe (chap iii. 12, iv. 2, 4,. 12," vii. 14, 16, xviii. 2, 4, 7, xxii. 7, 9, 10, 11, 13,, &c , xxiii. 4, xxiv. 1), and it is but rarely that we meet with the synonymous word ntflft (chap. vii. 1, xxii. 1) ; in the geographical, on the contrary, ntOO 1S neax'y always used (chap. xiii. 15, 24, xiv. 1, 2, 3, 4, xv. 1, 20, 21, xvii. 1, xviii. 11, xix. 1, 24, 40, 48, xx. 8, xxi. 4, 5, 6, &c), and j^x^ very seldom (chap. xiii. 33). This twofold use of the words is the rule ; so much so that even in the historical section (chap. xiv. 1 — 5) we always find the word fitDE> and in another section of similar character (chap, xviii. 1 — d0) only the word I22©-" ^s it then, we ask? so fully proved that there is no difference in the meaning of these words, as Stdhelin assumes, that the use of one or the other can safely be set down as determined by nothing but the particular style of individual writers ? Why, then, did each of the two authors occasionally use the word which was a 2 18 INTRODUCTION. peculiar characteristic of the other % For the author of the historical sections uses the word j-|131D> not twice 0IU"y> as Stdhelin says, but four times (chap. vii. 1, 18, and xxii. 1, 14), and the author of the other employs ^qj three times (chap. xiii. 29, 33, xxi. 16). Or does it follow that they have the same meaning, because in Num. xviii. 2 ; Josh. xiii. 29 ; Ezek. xix. 11, 14, the two words stand side by side, and both signify stock and tribe (baculus and tribus) ? By no means. They might refer to the same object, but in different relations, and in that case would not be synonymous. From Ezek. xix. 11, "and her strong stems (ty rfitSD> *'• e-> the strong branches of the vine) became rulers' sceptres (o^^Jft ittlttj)/' an<^ v* ^, " an(^ there went fire out of her grape-stem (n^T! ntflTSTD) and devoured her fruit, and there remained thereon no strong stem (ty n&to)> no sceptre to rule," i. e., no branch, which could be made into a sceptre, it is evident that the two words have not the same meaning. Here j-mO 1S no* om"y pointedly distinguished from I33tlj» but its radical signification is clearly given. The root of ntDft 1S i"TO2> to spread out, and hence its meaning, a branch or limb which .has grown out of a trunk or root. But, as such branches were cut into sticks, ntflD 1S applied to (a) the stick or staff by which the weak or aged support themselves, and, figu ratively, the staff, e.g., of bread, Lev. xxvi. 26, &c. ; (b) the stick, crook of the shepherd, with which he tends the flock, keeps off and slays beasts of prey, and hence the rod as an instru ment of chastisement, Is. ix. 4, x. 5, &c. ; it never denotes the staff as an emblem of rule, a sceptre. Even in Ps. ex. 2 and Jer. xlviii. 17, the only passages which could be brought forward with even apparent plausibility, fy TWO means nothing more than the strong club with which enemies are defeated and slain. t03MJ> on ^e contrary, the etymology of which is obscure, though it also means a rod which is used for smiting (Ex. xxi. 20, &c), never means such a stick as is employed for support. Thus Gussetius (s. v.) says : " It is never spoken of as used for the purpose of supporting the weak, either on account of old age or disease or when upon a journey." Gesenius, however, has by mistake cited Ps. xxiii. 4 in connexion with the meaning : baculus cui quis innititur. It only occurs as a shepherd's staff INTRODUCTION. 19 in the phrase : to pass under the rod (Lev. xxvii. 32 ; Ex. xx. 37), and in the figurative passages Ps. xxiii. 4 and Micah vii. 14, in all of which the idea of supremacy is the most prominent one. For, whatever the etymology of ts^y may be, it always means the staff of a superior, a lord or governor, and therefore most frequently a sceptre, and is thus distinguished from pjtflft, 7pft, and ]-|3jftjjt3. And in the secondary meaning, tribe, there is just as marked a distinction between the two words. ;-jtOE means a branch of the people, and is applied to the tribes of Israel only when their descent from one common father is kept in view, or the relation of the branches to one another. In such cases as these i£y\& never occurs ; for this points out the race as a cor poration or political power, and is a mark of independence and rule. Thus, whilst in the word ntSD the meaning "tribe" is immediately derived from the radical signification branch of a tree, in j^ty it is directly connected with the meaning sceptre, tOltl? being the whole body of those who are under one sceptre. This is the interpretation correctly given by Winer (Lex. s. v.), tribus Israel, quae sceptro h. e. duci paret, fere ut german. Fahnlein (angl. flag tr.) de iis qui vexillum sequuntur. Gesenius, on the other hand, continues to give the unfounded explanation : locutio est metaphorica, repetita a planta, e cujus radice plures virgae, stirpes assurgunt. This may apply to nt2£> but is quite inapplicable to ft^ffi, which does not mean virga at all. This difference in the meaning of the two words will fully explain the use of one or other of them in every passage of the Pentateuch and Book of Joshua in which it occurs. It is also quite sufficient in itself to account for the frequent occurrence of ilIOD m the Book of Numbers, and its entire omission from that of Deuteronomy ; as well as for the combination of the two words in Num. xviii. 2, and Josh. xiii. 29, for these passages are not tautological. And since j-ftflft denotes a tribe viewed ¦ in its genealogical connexion with the other tribes, as a branch of the same people, it is appropriately used in the geographical chapters of this book, which describe the division of the land as based upon the genealogy of the tribes, and also in the historical sections, chap. vii. 1 and 18, where the pedigree of Achan is given, and chap. xxii. 1 and 14, with reference to the halfrtribe of Manas-. seh. So also ^^f 1S employed in the historical sections, not " 2 2 20 INTRODUCTION. only in chap. i. — xii., but also in chap, xviii. 1 — 10, xxiii. and xxiv., because in all these places the tribes of Israel appear as corporate bodies, as small independent powers ; and tbis is also the idea upon which the use of the word in chap. xiii. 29, 33, and xxi. 16, is founded. (3.) Stdhelin again observes that " the historical portion (chap. xi. 23, xii. 7, xviii. 10) contains the unusual word nphfKi) which we do not meet with anywhere in the geographical." But the last of these passages actually belongs to the geographical por tion. And the only way in which Stdhelin can make it appear otherwise is by arbitrarily assigning to the historical part every verse and paragraph which contains any historical explanation of the division of the land, even though it occur in the geogra phical part, and thus leaving as geographical nothing biufthe description of the boundary lines of the different tribes, and the catalogues of their cities. But even if we had no further wish to contend with him as to his thus arbitrarily rending apart these closely connected clauses, we must at least demand of him a proof that in the fragments which he still leaves in the geographical portion, there are occasions on which this word might have been introduced. Now there is no such op portunity anywhere ; for the different classes of the people, tribes, families, and households, are nowhere comprised under one common name in this, as they are in the historical section ; and it is only in such cases that Dp'^yrVfi is used. The geo graphical chapters treat only of individual tribes and their sub division into families (ninSttto)" (4.) Stdhelin also notices the omission from the historical sec tions of the phrase ^pp"^ ITVj which occurs in the geographical (chap. xiii. 32, xvi. 1, xx. 8) ; and maintains that in the former the same meaning is conveyed in other words (e.g., chap. xviii. 7.) But either he has not reflected upon the meaning of this phrase, or else he fancied that it stood for the whole of the territory of the Israelites on the other side of the Jordan (Peraea). Now if he had endeavoured to find out the meaning of this expression by a more careful examination of the passages in which it occurs, he would have discovered that it is only applied to the plains of Moab, which were situated in a direct line from Jericho towards the east (see Num. xxii. 1, xxvi. 3, 63 xxxi. 12 INTRODUCTION. 21 xxxiii. 48," 50, xxxvi. 13)^ and that it could not have been used at all in Joshua xviii. 7, since the reference there is to the whole of the land, which was given as a possession to the two tribes and a half on the east of the Jordan, and the author could never have thought of saying of this, that it was on the other side of the Jor dan near to Jericho. No one would adduce as an argument against this, Num. xxxiv. 15, "the two tribes and a half have received their inheritance on this side Jordan near Jericho east ward, toward the sun rising :" for here ¦jn'H1 fTY''? "llVD does not describe the geographical situation of the inheritance of these tribes, but the place at which the assignment of that terri tory to the tribes mentioned was made, i.e., the country opposite to Jericho in the plains of Moab, where the Israelites were then encamped. (5.) The next argument : " Moses is called ^n'1 11V onty in the historical sections," is apparently a sound one, provided we separate from the geographical portion the historical remarks, which really form a part of it and are necessary to elucidate it, and place them amongst the historical sections, The true state of the case, however, is different from that which Stdhelin's words would lead us to believe. In the whole of the book Moses is only called the servant of Jehovah seventeen times, whereas the name of Moses, without anything further, is met with thirty-four times, and of these twenty-two are in the sections described by Stdhelin as historical, and that not merely in passages in which the title " servant of Jehovah" has already occurred, and there fore this predicate might be omitted for the sake of brevity on the repetition of the name, but in whole chapters, in purely his torical sections, e.g., chap. iv. 10, 12, 14, chap, xxiii. 6, xxiv. 5. What right, then, has any one to say that because this honourable title of Moses is omitted in the geographical descrip^- tion of boundaries and the statistical accounts of cities, therefore these sections cannot be the work of the same author as the his torical, when in reality this title occurs five times in the historical explanations of the geographical portion (chap. xii. 6, twice,, xiii. 8, xiv. 7, xviii. 7) ? (6.) A simple answer to the next argument, that " in the historical portions the priests are called QV^n O^rDPT (chap. . iii. 3, viii. 33), or simply D^nDH (°bap. iii- 6, 15, and several. 22 INTRODUCTION. times in chap, vi.) ; in the geographical they are called sons of Aaron, chap. xxi. 4, 9, 13, 19," may be found in the fact that the priests are referred tc^in the last-named chapter, not in con nexion with their office, but with their genealogical descent, as the division of the tribes into families formed the basis upon which the distribution of the land was founded. As in the case of every other tribe, "the sons of such and such, a tribe" "re ceived their inheritance by lot, according to their families," so did the sons of Levi also receive their cities according to their families. Lastly (7), "It is only in the geographical sections that we meet with the unusual word j-y*Jp|ft chap. xxi. 25." This is inserted, we imagine, merely for the purpose of adding one more to the number of the arguments, and by that means increasing their force. For it is impossible that this form, which only occurs once in the whole book, should prove anything at all, especially as the synonymous word ijjj-j is found three times in the same chapter (v. 5, 6, and 27), and six times in the other sections, which Stdhelin describes as geographical (chap. xiii. 25, 29, and twice in 31, xiv. 2, 3), while the full form n^HD in chap. xxi. 25, is undoubtedly used there only because it stands at the com mencement of one of the paragraphs, into which the chapter is very carefully divided. Thus, when we look carefully into the contents and spirit of the book, do all those diversities of subject-matter and style, which a superficial criticism has set down as discrepancies or as proofs of a difference in the original documents, vanish away. It is true that our opponents have endeavoured still further to support their arguments by affirming that the same differences are to be detected in the Pentateuch. But although some of the sections in this book are very similar in style and contents to such sections in the Pentateuch as treat of the - same events, yet it by no means follows that the origin of the two books was » the same, that they were composed at the same time, or were originally one work. For, in the first place, the hypothesis of original documents is not more strongly established with refe rence to the Pentateuch, than to the Book of Joshua (see my article in Rudelbach's und Guericke's Zeitschrift, 1846, 1. p. 23, note), and secondly, even the assumption, that the so-called INTRODUCTION. 23 Elohistic elements of this book were originally connected with the Elohim sources of the Pentateuch, is quite untenable. The death of Moses, it is said, does not form a good conclusion, a resting point at which we should expect an author to break off his history. For " Moses is not the real hero of the history, but the people of Israel in their relation to Jehovah ; and the people were in such a condition at the death of Moses (on the borders of the promised land and ready to take possession of it, but still outside it), that a writer who had brought down the history from the creation of the world to that point, could hardly break off there." (Bleek ut supra p. 46, Stdhelin p. 93 seq.) The whole force of this argument is derived from the fact that " Moses was not the real hero of the history, but the people of Israel in their relation to Jehovah." This is quite correct ; but it is put in so general and indefinite a form, that we might with equal justice say, that a work which, after commencing with the creation, described the origin of the people of Israel and the election of them as the people of the covenant, could not possibly have been broken off with the conquest of Canaan, but must have carried on the history of tbis people down to the fall of the Jewish state ; for the conquest of Canaan was not the end but the beginning of its historical development. Or did the relation of Jehovah to the people of Israel terminate perchance when they took posses sion of this land % Was it the design of Jehovah to give them Canaan as an inheritance, and then let them go their way alone ? Did the giving of the law at Sinai only refer to the conquest of Canaan % Was it not intended as the model of the whole historical development of Israel 1 Were all the promises that had been given to the patriarchs fulfilled when their descendants entered the promised land ; so that a writer intending to trace the his tory of Israel in its relation to Jehovah, could finish his work with the death of Joshua ? The argument of our opponents falls to the ground with the false premises upon which it was founded. In the history of the Israelites, in the sense of our opponents, the death of Moses was certainly not an event which marked an epoch ; but in the history of the theocracy it was so. Moses was not merely the leader of his people, but also the founder of the theocracy, the mediator of the ancient covenant, through whom Israel received the constitution by which the Old Testa- 24 INTRODUCTION. •'ment economy was established and distinguished. With his death all legislation terminated ; every subsequent leader of the people, every judge or king, every priest Or prophet was ap- ¦ pointed in subordination to the law, which had been given by Moses, and was so bound by its precepts that he could not trans gress them with impunity, and durst not in any respect alter or repeal them. See Havernick Einl. ii. 2, p. 17. " There arose from that time no prophet in Israel like unto Moses, whom the' Lord knew face to face." (Deut. xxxiv. 10, compared with Ex. xxxiii. 11 and Num. xii. 8.) The Pentateuch, moreover, is not a purely historical work, but by far the greater part of it is " the law-book" of the Israelites, and this is what it professes to be. (Deut. xxxiv. 10. See Ranke 's Untersuchungen i. |p. 36 sqq.) Could there then be a more appropriate point at which to bring the law-book of the theocracy to a close, than the death of the law giver, and the termination of the legislation eo ipso with that event? Hence, when v. Lengerke (Ken. i. p. 85) says that " the design of the original work (the Pentateuch) was to describe the manner in which the people of Israel came into possession of the land of Canaan, and therefore nothing but the conquest of the land could be a fitting termination," he should have proved his pre mises before venturing to draw this conclusion. Stdhelin, indeed, (p. 94) observes further: "that in no other instance do the his torical books of the Old Testament contain predictions of impor tance, without at the same time giving an account of their ful filment, and here, in the case of the important promise relating to the taking of Palestine, an exception would be made." The writer, however, has not yet furnished any proof of his assertion. And it would not be difficult to demonstrate the very opposite. For not to speak of the Messianic prophecies, does the Penta teuch, including the Book of Joshua, contain the fulfilment of the promise given to Jacob, " Kings shall come out of thy loins," Gen. xxxv. 11 ? And lastly, when v. Lengerke says that "in the earlier work the principal part of the deeds performed by Joshua are anticipated, and everywhere there is a prospective view of these times, and therefore a history of the later period is presupposed," there is so far truth in his remarks, that Moses is described in the Pentateuch as making many preparations for taking possession of Canaan, and appointing Joshua before his INTRODUCTION. 25 death, at the command of God, as his successor to lead thejpeople to the conquest of the land ; but this by no means proves that the history of the achievements of Joshua were written by the same author as the life and deeds of Moses. No clear and con vincing arguments can be brought forward in support of this hypothesis ; though we might certainly be inclined^to adopt it as a probable conjecture, if it were not that many things decidedly oppose it and prevent its being sustained. There are two things that must not be overlooked, which clearly show that the author intended to make his history of the theocracy under Joshua an independent work : viz., that he has given (as we noticed in § 1) a complete account of the conquest effected by Moses of the land beyond the Jordan, and the divi sion of it amongst the two tribes and a-half, and also of the selection by Moses of the cities of refuge ; and moreover that he has supplied in the case of the former several details wliich were omitted in the Pentateuch, as we shall show in the commentary on chap. xiii. 21. The independence of the book is still more clearly evinced by the style. The fact that the contents are so closely related to those of the Pentateuch, rendered it of course inevitable that the expressions employed should frequently re semble those of the Books of Moses. And the simplicity of the Hebrew prose would cause the same thing to be described in almost the same words, whenever it recurred. Moreover, the Book of Joshua contains many accounts of the execution of the commands of Moses, or the completion of his plans ; and hence it would be quite in order for tbe same expressions to be used, that is for the performance to be related in the same words as the precept. But notwithstanding all these connecting links, which led inevitably to similarity and even identity of language, there are many peculiarities in the phraseology of the Book of Joshua, which greatly distinguish it from the Pentateuch. Very prominent amongst these is the different manner in which the word Jericho is constantly written in the two books. In the Pentateuch it is always spelt 'inT (see Num. xxii. I, xxvi. 3, 63, xxxi. 12, xxxiii. 48, 50, xxxiv. 15, xxxvi. 13 ; Deut. xxxii. 49, xxxiv. 1, 3) ; in the Book of Joshua everywhere "frTvyi (chap. ii. 1, 2, 3, iii. 16, iv. 13, 19, v. 10, 13, vi. 1, 2, 2?, 26, vii. 2, viii. 2, ix. 3, x. 1, xii. 9, xiii. 32, xvi. 1 (three times), 7, xviii. 3 26 INTRODUCTION. 12, 21, xx. 8, xxiv. II).1 This is such a marked difference that Hengstenberg (Gesch. Bil. p. 256) has already cited it as a proof that the works were written by different authors. (See also Tholuck's litt. Anz. 1833, No. 45, p. 354.) Again, we do not meet anywhere in the Pentateuch with the following forms : — VDCJ) chap. vi. 27, and ix. 9, which .only occurs again in Jer. vi. 24, and Esth. ix. 4 ; and fc$i2p5 Josh. xxiv. 19, which we find again in Nahum i. 2. For these we have yj2\D (Gen. xxix. 23 ; Ex. xxiii. 1 ; Num. xiv. 15 ; Deut. ii. 25), and j^jp (Ex. xx. 5, xxxiv. 14; Deut. iv. 24, v. 9, vi. 15.) And instead of the in finitive form ^«i (Josh. xxii. 25), we have n^"^ (Deut. iv. 10, v. 26, vi. 24, &c.) The phrase ^inn 'H'iSS' which is so fre quently used in this book to denote brave warriors (chap. i. 14, vi. 2, viii. 3), is not found anywhere in the Pentateuch ; but in the place of it ^ipf 133, is employed (Deut. iii. 18.) So, again, the legal expression ^Qj^i 'i7D'TT> which is adapted to the law (Josh. ii. 19 ; Ezek. xxxiii. 4), does not occur in the same words in the Pentateuch,?and mus£ be regarded as an expansion of the phraseology of the law, which only says ^ ^-ry (Lev. xx. 9, 11, 12, 13, 16.) The absence too of the Archaisms which are peculiar to the Pentateuch, such as ^«||-j for j^pj ; ^^pi for j-r^pl, and others, show that when our book was written further progress had been made in the formation of the language.2 1 Konig says (p. 42) that in many passages the name is written de fectively "ftry, Jericho (chap. ii. 1, 2, 3, iv. 13, &c.) But upon what does he ground this statement ? I have not met with this form in any of the editions of the Bible issued by J. H. Michaelis and Hahn. Nor does Gesenius mention it in his thesaurus (iii. 1293.) 2 I should not be inclined to lay so much stress as Havernick (Einl. i. 1, p. 198) upon the abbreviation of the proverb, "not a dog moved his tongue against Israel" (Ex. xi. 7), in Joshua x. 21, where ^n is omitted, because proverbs become quickly cut down in the mouths' of the people, and the same writer might use at one time the full form and at another the abbreviated. But Stahelin's objection (Theol Stud u. Krit. 1838, p. 272), that " otherwise Gen. xii. 49 would be of later date than Josh. xi. 4, since the former gives the same expression in an abbreviated form," does not affect the question which he is writing about. On the other hand he is right in rejecting the meaning which Havernick gives to the word fVntfty plain, in Josh. x. 40 ; (see the INTRODUCTION. 27 Such examples as these of words peculiar to the Book of Joshua, and altogether different from those found in the Penta teuch, sufficiently prove that the former was not written by the author either of Deuteronomy or of the whole of the Pentateuch. Just as little have the geographical sections of this book, or its so-called Elohistic portions, ever formed part of the supposed groundwork of the Pentateuch. For, apart from the impotence of all the arguments by which this hypothesis is sustained, it is impossible to imagine such a work as our opponents speak of. The account of the death of Moses (Deut. xxxii. 48—52, and xxxiv. 1 — 9) is said to have followed immediately after the book of Numbers ; and this again to have been directly succeeded by the description of the camp at Gilgal, Josh. v. 10 — 12, and this by Josh. xiii. 15 sqq. What a connexion ! Moses died upon Mount Nebo, in the country of the Moabites; the people of Israel, at the period of his death,, were encamped in the plains of Moab. By a forced leap, a true Saldo mortale, the ancient Elohist is said to have conjured more than 600,000 men, with women, children, and cattle, over the Jordan into the camp at Gilgal, where they celebrated the passover, began to eat of the natural produce of the ground, and entered at once upon the partition of the country, without having first conquered the land which they were about to divide ! Is it conceivable that any sensible man, who was writing systematically, could omit to say a word about the crossing of the Jordan or the conquest of Canaan, and give an account of the distribution of a country without having first described in what manner it had been taken ! " There are," says Stdhelin (p. 89 seq.), " analogous cases else where, which prevent our being surprised at this brevity in matters of history ; the Elohim sources are often very brief in the historical parts of the Pentateuch, e.g., nothing is said about the passage through the Red Sea, and we have only a list of the various places at which the Israelites halted in the desert (Num. xxxiii.) But these analogies prove nothing, both because they are to a great extent mere assumptions, the existence of such Elohim-originals being neither proved nor probable, and also commentary in loco.) There is no force in the examples brought forward by De Wette (Einl. § 170) of deviations from the style of the Jehovist and Deuteronomist. 28 INTRODUCTION. because in the Book of Joshua, or rather in the supposed ground work of it, it is not with abridgements that we have to do, but with the omission of any historical account whatever of the en trance of the Israelites into the land of Canaan, and of the con quest of it. The assumption of our opponents, therefore, is not merely a strange notion, but unintelligible, inconceivable, and therefore altogether untenable. Ewald saw this, and conse quently not only added the list of the thirty-one kings of Canaan who were defeated (chap. xii. 9 — 24), to the ancient Elohim- documents or book of original sources, but also supposed the same early writing to have furnished the materials for the history of the conquest of the land (in chap. vi. — xi.), although the alte-. rations made in it had been considerable (Gesch. der Israeliten ii. p. 227 sqq.) The other critics, however, gain very little by this. . For since, in their opinion, the first half of the book, with the exception of chap. v. 10 — 12, does not present a single trace of the style of writing or of thought peculiar to the Elohists, the only alternative left to them is to deny that the Elohists had any share in chap. i. — xii., with the exception of v. 10 — 12 ; or, as such a denial leads to absurdities, to give up their critical method as a complete failure. Since, then, the theory of the critics referred to, with reference to the composition of the Book of Joshua, rests upon no firm foundation and leads to absurd results, the unity and indepen dence of the work are thoroughly established. All parts of it are linked together most closely, and every distinct section is not only in its right place, but introduces the next section just as naturally as it follows the preceding. The divine command to Joshua (in chap. i. 1 — 9) to enter upon his work points out the subject of the whole book. It not only embraces the first half, in which the conquest of Canaan is described, and all that Joshua did to secure its accomplishment, at Gilgal, Ebal, and Gerizim, by sanctifying the people and firmly grounding them in the law, which God had given by Moses ; but the second part also, which contains the account of the distribution of the land and of the two assemblies convened by Joshua before his death for the renewal of the covenant with the Lord. The chrono- " logical arrangement is equally clear, and the unity with which the different events are linked together throughout the Book. INTRODUCTION. 29 Joshua enters upon his work by setting on foot the operations necessary for preparing to enter the land of Canaan (chap. i. 10—16, and ii. 1—22). Then follow the breaking up of the encampment at Shittim (chap. iii. 1, which refers back to i. 11), and the passage over the Jordan (chaps, iii. and iv.). We have next the account of all that took place in the camp at Gilgal, on this side of the Jordan (chap. iv. 19, v. 1 to vi. 5). This is con nected with the previous account by the words ^^nn ni?2 (ch ,v' 2), and includes the preparations for taking Jericho. The con quest of this city and its proscription was next accomplished, and led to the sin of Achan, with the description of which that of the capture of Ai is closely connected (chap. vii. 1 to viii. 29.) This was followed, as the fj^ (chap. viii. 30) clearly shows, by the T march to Ebal and Gerizim (chap. viii. 30 — 35). The connec tion is very plain between this account and the subsequent one, which describes the resistance offered by the 0anaanites to the Israelites, in consequence of the fall of Jericho and Ai (chap. ix. 3. x. 1, xi. 1), and which led to the overthrow of the former, and, after two campaigns, to the complete establishment of the latter as masters of the country, both in the north and south (chap. ix. — xi). After describing these the author had nothing left for him to do but to append, in chap, xii., a list of the kings of Canaan who had been subdued, and to proceed, in chap xiii., to the account of the distribution of the land, which he had already hinted at towards the conclusion of chap. xi. This is introduced, however, very appropriately with the divine directions to portion out Canaan, in which a statement of the districts not yet conquered is included, and with a review of the division already made by Moses of the land beyond the Jordan, which he had given to tbe two tribes and a-half. It is then described in its historical order (chap. xiv. 1 to xxi. 45), and terminated by a concluding formula (xxi. 43 — 45) which recals the commencement (chap. xiv. 1 — 5). The book, however, could not be brought to a close at this point ; for nothing had yet been said about the dis missal and return of the troops from the tribes beyond Jordan, who had accompanied their brethren, according to the command of Moses and the consequent summons of Joshua (chap. i. 12 — 18), for the purpose of rendering them assistance (chap. iv. 30 INTRODUCTION. 12 seq.) This is related in chap, xxii., and followed by the account of Joshua's abdication of his office and the notice of his death (chap, xxiii. and xxiv.) Peculiar, therefore, as the con tents of the last three chapters are, and however little they seem to agree with those which immediately precede them, yet we shall inevitably perceive their original connexion with chap. xiv. — xxi. and the rest of the book, if we only notice how evidently the expressions and thoughts of chap, xxiii. 1 refer to xxii. 3, 4, how these again point back to chap. xxi. 43 — 45 ; whilst the two addresses of Joshua in chap, xxiii. and xxiv. presuppose the con quest of the land and not less distinctly its distribution. § 3. DATE OF COMPOSITION. Critics differ from each other, to the extent of not less than a thousand years, in their opinions as to the date at which the Book of Joshua was written. Some suppose it to have been composed during the captivity, or after it ; and others regard it as the work of Joshua himself, or one of his contemporaries. (See, for a list of the various opinions, Carpzov's Introd. i., p. 150, sqq., and Konig's alttestl. Stud. i. p. 133, sqq.) I. The opinion held by Masius, Spinoza, Clericus, and Hasse, that it was written after the captivity, has been given up by De Wette, though Maurer has lately appeared as an advocate of it. According to the latest phase of neological criticism it was com posed, at the same time as Deuteronomy, either in the days of Josiah (y Lengerke. Ken. i. p. cxxv sqq.), or during the second half of the reign of King Manasseh (Ewald Gesch. i. p. 146, 160 sqq.), i. e. not long before the captivity. The arguments by which this opinion is supported stand or fall with the hypothesis, already discussed in § 2, that this book and the Pentateuch were originally one. All that has been said besides is dissipated in the last edition of De Wetle's introduction. It can only be a very hopeless kind of dogmatical blindness that finds any critical evidence of the age of the book in its mythological and levitical spirit or its etymologies. (Maurer Comm. p. xix., De Wette § 166.) The same may be said of the. curse pronounced by INTRODUCTION. 31 Joshua upon the re-building of Jericho, and its accomplishment under Ahab (vi. 26, compared with 1 Kings xvi. 34), which rationalistic dogmatism has changed into a vaticinium post eventum, for the purpose of drawing from it uncritical conclu sions ; (see the Comm. on vi. 26). With much greater propriety Michaelis (on Jos. vi. 26,) Eichhorn (Einl. p. 396), Herbst (Einl. ii. l,,p. 91), De Wette (Einl. p. 93 seq.) and Konig (ut supra p. 70), have agreed that the absence of all reference to Hiel, in the Book of Joshua, and to the fulfilment of the curse in his person in the time of Ahab, shows that it must have been written before Ahab's reign, but the argumentum e silentio has not much force. — The name Jerusalem (chap. x. 1, xviii. 28), and the dis tinction made between the mountains of Judah and Israel (chap. xi. 16, and xxi.) even De Wette does not attach much importance to (Einl. § 169), since Konig (p. 85 seq.), and Havernick (Einl. ii. 1, p. 51) have most conclusively demonstrated that the dis tinction between Judah and Israel may be traced back to the time of Moses (see the Comm. on chap. xi. 21) ; and others have long since shown that there is no ground for the supposition that this name was first given by David to the city of the Jebusites (see the Comm. on x. 1). — Maurer' s argument from the later style of writing has also been properly dropped by De Wette, who, although he points out (§ 170) some more examples of a later style, does not press them, because the absence of any certain trace of the Chaldaic style furnishes an argument of no little weight against the. supposition that the book was written at so late a period (see further on). — Thus there remain for De Wette, as proofs that the work was composed in the time of David, only the passages "chap. xvi. 10 (Canaanites at Gezer, as in Judg. i. 29 ; see 1 Kings ix. 16) ; xiii. 30 (sixty towns of Jair, as in 1 Kings iv. 13; see, on the other hand, Judg. x. 4), and the song book referred to in chap. x. 13." But the fact that the "rCJTT "ISDj fr°m which the poetical quotation is made by our T T— V ¦• author, descriptive of the victory of Joshua at Gibeon (chap. x. 12 — 15), is also cited as containing the elegy which David com posed upon Saul and Jonathan (2 Sam. i. 18), does not furnish the least evidence that this book did not exist before the time of David. It may very well have been a collection of songs in favour of theocratic heroes, to which contributions were being 32 INTRODUCTION. continually made from the time of Joshua onwards (see the Comm. on chap. x. 13) ; and the reference to it here is no more a proof that our book was not written by Joshua, than the intro duction of the Book of the Wars of the Lord in Num. xxi. 14 disproves the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch. (See Heng^ stenberg, Beitr. iii. p. 223 sqq.) It is impossible to see in what way the account of the sixty Havoth Jair (chap. xiii. compared with 1 Kings iv. 13) favours the opinion that the book was written at a late period. For though we find in the time of the Judges a reference to thirty sons of another Jair, who possessed thirty of these Jair-towns (Judg. x. 40), and from whom the ancient name acquired a fresh signification, yet this does not invalidate in any way the testimony of our book, or prove that it must be a later account. (See my Comm- on 1 Kings iv. 13.) Lastly the words, " the Ephraimites did not drive out the Canaanites who dwelt in Gezer, and the Canaanites dwelt in the midst of Ephraim to this day" (chap. xvi. 10 compared with 1 Kings ix. 16), show that the time of David is the latest date at which our book can have been written. For Pharaoh burned this city, and destroyed the Canaanites who were in it, and then gave it as the portion of his daughter, who was married to Solomon at the commencement of his reign. The destruction of the Canaanites in Gezer must, therefore, have taken place within the first few years of the reign of Solomon, and the re mark made in this book must have been penned as early as the concluding years of David's life. A still earlier date is indicated by the statement made in chap. xv. 63, "as for the Jebusites, who dwelt at Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out, but the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day." For David took the city of Jerusalem from the Jebusites, and destroyed the inhabitants at the very commencement of his reign over all the tribes, inasmuch as he was king at Jerusalem thirty-three years (2 Sam. v. 6—9 compared with v. 5.) The small number of Jebusites, whom David did not slay, but who continued in Jeru salem after the capture of their fortress Jebus (2 Sam. xxiv. 18 sqq.), cannot possibly be referred to in this passage, wliich states that the children of Judah could not drive out the Jebusites. Even von Lengerke says (Ken. i. p. 658) : " these are evidently INTRODUCTION. 33 the words of a writer before the time of David ; for David would certainly have been able to drive out the Jebusites and destroy them if he had wished it."1 To a still earlier period, namely, to the reign of Saul, are we brought by chap. ix. 27 : " Joshua made them (the Gibeonites) that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation and the altar of Jehovah, even unto this day, in the place which he should choose." Not only was the place for the temple still undecided when the book was written, so that it must have been composed by the time of David (2 Sam. xxiv. 18 sqq., 1 Chr. xxi. 18 sqq., and xxii. 1 ; — see my work " the temple of Solomon," p. 24) ; but in the days of our author, as the last clause shows, the Gibeonites were still serving at the altar ; the treaty which Joshua and the elders of Israel concluded with them had not been violated. These words must, therefore, have been written before that slaughter of them by Saul, for which David had to take vengeance upon the descen dants of Saul, in order to appease those who had not been slain, 2 Sam. xxi. 1 sqq. The statements contained in our book respect ing the Phoenicians, also refer to a period anterior to the reign of David. In chap. xi. 8, and xix. 28, Sidon is called nS"l> "the T — great," which predicate implies that it was the metropolis of Phoenicia, and superior to Tyre. But this had changed before the time of David. Tyre had then quite eclipsed the splendour of Sidon (see the Comm. on chap. xi. 8.) Moreover, the inhabi tants of Tyre and Sidon are reckoned in chap. xiii. 4 — 6 amongst the Canaanites who were to be exterminated by the Israelites, whereas David was on the most friendly terms with Tyre (2 Sam. v. 11 ; 1 Kings v. 15 ; 1 Chr. xiv. 1), and did not entertain a thought of making war upon that city, either to subjugate it or destroy it, although he subdued all the enemies of Israel. A writer who lived in. the time of David, or at a subsequent period, could not possibly have spoken without any limitation of the 1 Even J. S. Vater (Comm. lib. d. Pent. iii. p. 570) is obliged to have recourse to the subterfuge that " the paragraph chap. xv. 20— 63 is a detached fragment, taken from the earlier documents upon which this book was founded," in order to get over this argument which John (Einl. ii. 1, p. 165) had previously employed. (See also Bertholdt, Einl. iii. p. 865, and B. Welte in Herbsi's Einl. ii. p. 95 "*] 3* Yale Divinity Library 34 INTRODUCTION. hostile position in which the Israelites thus stood to Tyre and Sidon. (See Konig p. 74, Welte in Herbsts Einl. ii. 1 p. 95, and Scholz. Einl. ii. p. 249). Lastly, this is confirmed by the fact that the Psalmist, who composed the first Psalm (v. 2) evi dently had before him the injunction which God gave to Joshua, to meditate in his law day and night (Josh. i. 8). For even if we cannot prove that David was the writer of the Psalm, the arguments by which Ewald, Hitzig, Vaihinger, and others, would establish a later date, have no force, and there is nothing in the Psalm to lead us to assign it to a later period than, the reign of David.1 1 There are several things mentioned by Konig (p. 72 — 80) as signs of a still earlier date, which I cannot regard as decisive. The diffe rence in the names of the cities of the Simeonites, and in those of the priests and Levites, between this book and the Chronicles, does not affect the time at which the former was written. For even if 1 Chr. iv. 31 shows that the tribe of Simeon held till the reign of David the1 cities mentioned before, which tally with Josh. xix. 2 — 6, and granting that the other names of the Levitical cities in the Chronicles are partly later additions, and partly the names of different cities, which were subsequently given to the Levites ; there was no reason why our author should refer to* these changes, supposing him to be acquainted with them, as his work was to describe the actual history of the time of Joshua. This is also a sufficient explanation of the omission of Nob from the list of priests' cities, of which it was one in the time of Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 19, cf. xxi. 1 — 9); for we look in vain for the name of this place in the list contained in 1 Chr. vi. 39 sqq. The absence of Bethlehem from the cities of Judah may be acounted for, not on the ground that this city did not exist or was of too little importance in the time of Joshua, but from the fact that several names have been omitted from the Masoretic text between chap. xv. 59 and 60. (See the note to the Comm. on chap. xv. 59.) It is from an oversight, however, that Konig (p. 80) speaks of the author as not mentioning the city of Jericho, after it had been burnt, even amongst the cities which were allotted to the tribes, for Jericho stands at the head of the cities assigned to the tribe of Benjamin (chap. xviii. 21. See also chap, xviii. 12, xx. 8.) We cannot follow Konig (p. 79) in laying stress upon the omission of the formula " from Dan to Beersheba," for no opportunity is presented in the book for its intro duction, even in chap. xi. 17 and xii. 7. The formula is never used for the mere purpose of describing the length of the country from north to south, but to denote the whole people, as spreading over all the land from the most northerly city to that in the extreme south ; and only occurs in connexion with the phrase : all Israel, the whole' congrega'- tion, or all Israel and Judah from Dan to Beersheba; see Judg-. xx. 1 • 1 Sam. iii. 20; 2 Sam. iii. 10, xvii. 1], xxiv. 2, 15; 1 Kings'iv.25 ¦ INTRODUCTION. • 35 The result which we thus obtain from the historical data fur nished by the Book, is confirmed by the style of its composition. It is true that Maurer (p. xix.) mentions, as one of the proofs of its having been written at a very late date, the correctness of style and language. To establish the former, however, he has not adduced a single example, nor could he have done so, for the large collection of passages which Konig (p. 122 sqq.) has made, most convincingly proves that the so-called scriptio defectiva pre dominates over the scriptio plena to such an extent, that it must be ranked amongst the earliest books of the Old Testament. His remarks (p. xviii.) upon the unmistakeable evidence of a late period of composition, found in single words and forms of words, even De Wette (§ 170) no longer considers of importance, since they have been for the most part answered by Havernick (Einl. i. 1, p. 198 seq.) and Konig (p. 113 seq.) The only word that could be brought forward with any plausibility as of later date is q^D32 (chap. xxii. 8), as it is only met with again in 2 Chr. i. 11, 12 ; Eccl. v. 18, vi. 2, and is very current in Aramaean. But it cannot be inferred from this with any certainty that it therefore belongs to a later period of the Hebrew language. Still less can this inference be drawn from the word "^!ft}?j which is only found in Josh. v. 11 and 12. All the other words that have been quoted, so far as they have any force at all, lead rather to the opposite conclusion. ~)i3ton is an old Hebrew word, and the meaning " to be happy," which it is said to have in chap. i. 7, 8, is a mere invention. The expressions VJpihn -Q}>a, (chap. v. l,ix. 1, xii. 7), and HTTTISSJO (chap. xxii. 7), meaning the land of Canaan on this side, belong, not to the time of the cap tivity, but to the Mosaic age ; for we can only explain the diffe rence between the subjective stand-point of the speaker and the geographical phraseology, which gave rise to these expressions, on the ground that they belonged to a period when the Israelites 1 Chr. xxii. 2 ; 2 Chr. xxx. 5. Again, the reference in chap. iii. 3, to the Avites, that ancient tribe, whom the Philistines had subjugated (cf. Deut. ii. 23), and whose name never occurs afterwards, proves nothing as to the time when the book was written, and' only shows its historical fidelity. Lastly, we cannot infer from Judg. i. 18, that the book of Joshua was written before the taking of the Philistine cities, Gaza, Askelon, and Gath, as there described. 3« 36 INTRODUCTION. had not yet obtained a firm footing in the country on this side of the Jordan. (See Hengstenberg Beitr. iii. p. 313 sqq., and my Commentary on 1 Kings v. 4). Q3n.iN (chap, xxiii. 15), for D'SriM' is the original and regular form, j-yiN having been con-; tracted into j-^ at a later period (see Ewald Lehrb. § 264, a.) " It may, therefore, be quite as properly pronounced to be the old form as an Archaism of more recent writers." . (Havernick Einl. i. 1 p. 198.) The use of ify^ for ip^ (chap. xiv. 12) occurs in 2 Sam. xxiv. 24, and may have been very probably caused by the fact "that if-fix had just before been used three times as an accusative (chap. xiv. 7, 10, 11), and this form stood ready in the mouth of Caleb, who was speaking." (Konig p. 116). It is not the occurrence of the word one single time, but the regular interchange of the two forms, that is the mark of a later period in the language.1 Again, the use of the article as a relative pronoun (chap. x. 24) is found according to the Masora in the earliest writings of the Old Testament, Gen. xviii. 21, xxi. 3, xlvi. 46, 27, Judg. xiii. 8, &c, and, as Ewald correctly observes, the idea always admits of their being used interchangeably (Lehrb. d. hebr. Spr. § 321. b.) Again, it is altogether arbitrary to endeavour to set aside the passages cited, by altering the punctuation and treating the words as participial forms.2 Still less can any evidence in 1 Maurer cites chap. xxii. 19 also, but there r)}]-^ is an accusa tive, and there is no necessity for altering i)"f"i»V7i into Ti-t-^Qfti, as Konig has done. In Lev. xv. 18 and 24, where Havernick (Einl. i. 1, p. 198) and after him De Wette (Einl, p. 237) discover a change of this kind, p\p^ is an accusative, and v. 18 must be rendered "a T woman whose husband lies with her," and v. 24, "if a man lie with her." For J. G. Sommer's objection to this interpretation of the two passages (bibl. Abhandlungen 1846, B. 1, p. 226 sqq.) cannot be sustained. 2 On this point Kleinert has well remarked (Echth. des Jesai. i. p. 214) that : " it is also apparent from the course which men's thoughts would naturally take, that at first j-j, like 6 in Homer and other ancient vyriters, may have had simply a demonstrative and relative significa tion, and the use of it as an article may have grown out of that at a lhter period. Nor is there anything to surprise us in the fact that this the earliest use of it, should be lost for a time, and then again appear INTRODUCTION. 3T favour of a later date be obtained from the fact that the numeral is placed last in chap. xii. 24, xv. 36, and other passages, on which Maurer lays such stress, as Gesenius and Ewald had pre viously done ; or from the frequent inattention, to outward forms, ' especially in the use of pronouns, chap. i. 7, ii. 4, 17, 20, iv. 8, xiii. 14, xviii. 17. For the importance attached to the first is founded upon a misunderstanding of the passages named (see the Comm. on chap. xii. 24) ; the second relates to peculiarities of language, which are met with in all the books of the Old Testa ment, in the earlier in some cases more frequently than the later, as will be evident from the explanations given in the Commen tary on the various passages, and the paragraphs cited from Ewald s grammar. Lastly, the resemblance of the word yiDftjT to the Aramaean form (chap. xiv. 8) is no proof that it is a Chal- daism, for this is really the regular and earliest form, which the Hebrew lost (Ewald Lehrb. § 142 a.) but the Chaldee retained. Moreover, we cannot but perceive that these single words and forms, instead of being idioms of a later period in the history of the language, are relics of an earlier date, from the indubitable traces which are found by the side of them of the language and diction of ancient times. Nowhere in this book do we find the name ni^jj !"TirP> which occurs as early as 1 Sam. i. 3, 11, iv. 4, and is used in innumerable instances afterwards ; nowhere have we ]-\50^19j which appears in 1 Sam. xx. 31, Ps. xly. 7, but p[3^Q>2 and ryflV)0J3» the latter of which is not met with in any of the later works, with the exception of Jer. xxvi. 1. We do not see the prefix ^j, which, in addition to the Song of Deborah, occurs as early as Judg. vii. 12, in a phrase which we also have in this book (chap. xi. 4), and which is taken in both instances from the Pentateuch. (Gen. xxii. 17, xxxii. 13, xii. 49). Nor do we find the form ^ft]-\fr$> as in 1 Sam. iv. 7, v. 2, x. 11 ; Micah ii. 8 ; Is. xxx. 33, but ^fop or ^ejti (chap. iii. 4, iv. 18, xx. 5), as ih the Pentateuch. The suffix qi-ji — is only used three times (chap. xi. 6, 9, xviii. 21), the earlier form q — times without number. We may also mention the close connexion which is more frequently in the later Hebrew literature, for there arc other phenomena to be met with quite analogous to this. 38 INTRODUCTION. generally allowed to exist between this book and the Pentateuch, both in words and general style. And this is not confined to such as are also used occasionally by other writers when making quotations from the Pentateuch ; namely, j-fin;1 "^rW N^Q (chap. xiv. 8, 9, 14; cf. Num. 14, 24, xxxii. 11, 12;' Deut. i. 36, and 1 Kings xi. 6) ; tnppn (chap. i. 14 ; cf. Ex. xiii. 18, and Judg. vii. 11), UQ-fi 3^1 nit VIN (chap. v. 6, see the Commentary in loco, and Jer. xi. 5, xxxii. 22, Ezek. xx. 6) ; and "i$N, from ;-r$N> chap. xiii. 14, which is only used in one other place besides the Pentateuch, namely, 1 Sam. ii. ,28, and is there copied from it. We have also words which are not to be found in any of the later books of the Old Testament^ e.g. nilffify chap. x. 40 (see the Commentary) ; ^ti chap. x. 10 (cf. Deut. xxv. 25) ; w^j from vfc, which is employed in Exodus and Num bers to describe the murmuring of the Israelites against Jehovah, and in the place of which \yy is used in Deut. i. 27 ; ^jiq^j in the peculiar meaning which it bears here, chap. xiii. 23, 27, xv. 12, 47 (compare Num. xxxiv. 6, Deut. iii. 16, 17, and the Commen tary on chap. xiii. 23) ; ^NiD nillS? (chap. xiii. 32), the name given to the land of the Moabites, of which no trace is discern ible in the lengthened negotiations between Jephtha and the Ammonites with reference to this tract of land, described in Judg. xi. 12, sqq., and which, therefore, must have fallen into disuse after the Mosaic age, as it is copied into our book from passages in Numbers in which the same things are related, (see Hengstenberg Gesch. Bil. p. 230) ; and lastly, the unusual old forms fnjlN chap. xxi. 9, (like ?nn^» Gen. xxxii. 1) ; il3ft^M> chap. xxi. 10, which is only used once more, in a poeti cal work (Job xv. 7), and N*0^n> chap. x. 24, seq. (See the Commentary on the passage.) From all this we may justly conclude that the period cannot have been a late one at which the book was written. II. It may next be asked whether the whole book, with the' exception of chap. xxiv. 29 — 33, or at least the former part of it (Havernick Einl. ii. 1, p. 26 and 62, seq.), may not have been written by Joshua himself, as Konig (p. 63, seq.) after the Talmudists and several of the earlier theologians, has attempted INTRODUCTION. 39 to prove. Havernick's opinion that the first half only is Joshua's must be rejected on account of its only going half way. For we have demonstrated tbe unity of the book in § 2, and therefore the composition of the book at different times cannot be thought of any more. The only question is whether the whole of the book is contemporary with the events and written by Joshua, or whether it was composed at a longer or shorter period after his death. If the first part of the book contains indubitable marks of being a contemporary work, then the same is true of the second part ; or if, on the other hand, the second part is proved by unmistakeable signs to belong to the times after Joshua, the first part can, at the most, only have been founded upon contem porary documents ; in its existing shape it cannot have been written by Joshua. But if we take a survey of the numerous . points brought forward by Konig (from p. 63 onwards) to prove that it was composed in the age in which the events occurred, we find that many of his arguments are not regarded, even by himself, as leading to this conclusion, but simply as telling against a very late date and in favour of a tolerably early one ; e.g. vid. p. 69 and 82. The following are the only grounds on which he seeks to establish the authorship of Joshua (p. 126 sqq.) 1. In chap. xxiv. 26 Joshua is said to have written the two addresses which he delivered to, the assembled people (chap. xxiii. and xxiv.), or at least the last transactions with the people (chap, xxiv.), in the book of the law. And as the book before us is a complete work, it " follows directly, from the statement that Joshua wrote the last events narrated, that he also wrote in the Thorah all that comes before." (Konig p. 127.) Havernick (ut sup. p. 62) draws the same inference from the supposed -original connexion between the last two chapters and the first part of the book, which other criteria prove to be a work of the same period. But the correctness of this conclusion is very doubtful. If the whole book, or only the first half of it, con tained " the most decisive marks of being a contemporary work," it would not by any means follow that because it was stated that Joshua wrote in the book of the law the last transactions between himself and the people, therefore he must have written in the same book the complete history of his times. It may be argued with far greater propriety that, inasmuch as the renewal of the 40 INTRODUCTION. covenant is the only thing said to have been entered into the book of the law, therefore the rest of the contents of our book were not written there. 2. Konig (p. 120) and Jahn (Einl. ii. 1, p. 160) discover a further proof in the title given to Joshua, Hirf 1iy» chap. xxiv. 29 ; for it follows from the fact that " this most honourable title in the history of the kingdom of God" is only given to Joshua in this one passage, where his death is described, not only that the last clause was written by a different hand from the rest of the book, but also that all the rest, in which this expressive title nowhere occurs, was written by Joshua himself, since any one else would have introduced the title of honour not in one place alone, but in many places throughout the book. Was it not possible, then, that another than Joshua might think it befitting that this title of distinction should be given to Joshua for the first time when he departed from the stage of history with his work finished, and the name of a servant of the Lord won by his life, and that thus, asKonighas beautifully expressed it, it might serve as an epitaph, simple but divine 1 In the fact that the author designates Joshua a servant of the Lord, when his death is related and not before, I can detect nothing but that sensitive modesty, so characteristic of the sacred writers, which makes them shrink from praising the chosen instruments of God, and which is the cause that in the sacred history the human agent always falls into the back ground, behind the work which God accomplishes through him : their deeds are never celebrated as the achievements of heroes, and the glory is given to the Lord, to whom alone it is due. The fear of the praise of men would probably have restrained the author from calling Joshua, even in this one passage, the servant of the Lord, were it not that the immediate context, the contrast between the conduct of the people towards the Lord under the guidance of Joshua and after his death, seemed to demand a verdict upon Joshua and his life, and this is pronounced in the title given to him here. For the biblical historians, and this ought to be noticed, are so sparing in the use of that honourable title, that they give it to none but those who, as prophets, were servants of the Lord by virtue of their office, or who were expressly called so by the Lord. (See the Commentary on verse 1.) The only passages in which the INTRODUCTION. 41 name is applied to Joshua are the one under consideration and the parallel passage Judg. ii. 8, which resembles it in all re spects. 3. Just as little can the authorship of our book be traced to Joshua on account of the frequency, with which honourable mention is made, of Caleb (Konig p. 129), or because the whole work breathes the spirit of Moses, in such a manner as it could not have done if any but Joshua, the coadjutor of Moses, had written it (John ut supra). All that is established by these two points is the fidelity with which the historical accounts are writ ten, and the conscientiousness with which the various sources of information have been employed, but not that it was a contempo rary work ; (see Steudel iib. d. B. Josua, Beil. 1. to his Vorlesun- gen iib. d. Theol. d. A. T. p. 483 seq.) — Even less can be learned from the place which the book occupies in tbe canon, or from the Jewish tradition in the Talmud (Konig p. 130). 4. Only two passages remain,1 which are supposed to indicate that it was written at that time, viz., chap. v. 1 and 6 (Jahn ut supra, Konig p. 91 sqq., Havernick p. 26). But the words chap. v. 6, "that he would not show them the land, which the Lord sware unto their fathers that he would give us" (<%fo rtf~b)> maJ be easily taken as inclusive. Even if the writer lived a consider able time after Joshua, he could very well look upon the land as given to himself and his countrymen, and place himself and his contemporaries in contrast with the rebellious people who came out of Egypt and perished in the wilderness, just as well as with the patriarchs.2 — On the other passage, chap. v. 1 : " When all the Kings of the Amorites .... and Canaanites .... heard, that Jehovah had dried up the waters of the Jordan before the children of Israel, until we were passed over (^y\23} IV)' Havernick has not only justly observed that Ps. lxvi. 6, and lxxxi. 6, being poetical passages, cannot afford any support to 1 Havernick has correctly said (p. 27), that the other passages brought forward by Konig, viz., chap. iv. 23, xi. 10, xv. 4, xxii. 11, do not furnish the least proof that it was a contemporary production. 2 I cannot possibly see how the antithesis in which ^^ is placed to Dnil^L prevents this form of speech from being applicable to the t —: — . « . present case, as Havernick imagines. 42 INTRODUCTION. the opinion of De Wette and Maurer, that the expression is used by a later writer with a. general reference to the nation, but has also pointed out an exact parallel in nTVONl m Ezra v* ^> as clearly showing that an eye-witness of the event is speaking here. It is true that one might be inclined to assume in the present case, as in Ezra v. 4, (see my apol. Vers. iib. d. Chronik p. 117), that the author had transferred the expression without alteration from the contemporary sources. But such an assumption seems to me to be inadmissible, inasmuch as irj^jj occurs in an inter- mediate verse, which it is not likely that the author found in his original documents, unless we take for granted that these docu ments contained a complete and connected history of the conquest of Canaan, or attribute the whole of the first part of the book to an author, who wrote as the events occurred ; a supposition which is beset with many difficulties. I take the words therefore to be those of the author of our book, who shows by them that he had taken part in the passage through the Jordan. But I cannot on that account find therein evidence at all convincing that the work was composed by Joshua, or even during his lifetime. It is quite possible that one of the Israelites who outlived Joshua, and who in his youth had crossed the Jordan, found ample time after Joshua's death to write the history of his people under the command of Joshua ; and that, what he and a few of his country men had experienced, he pictured as the experience of all the people. — It is evident that the book cannot have been written by Joshua, or even during his life, for in several passages reference is made to a period beyond his lifetime. I refer not so much to the statement which frequently occurs, that a certain thing con tinued " unto this day," as to the description of certain events which did not happen till after the death of Joshua. The formula " unto this day," which Spinoza and others regard as one of the leading arguments against the general opinion that our book was written in the age in which the events took place, does not prove much ; for, as Konig p. 95 sqq. has clearly shown, such an expression does not necessarily suppose a continuance for centuries, but, according to the nature of the things to which it refers, may be very well used of those which have only lasted a few years. (See also Hengstenberg Beitr. iii. p. 326 seq.) In INTRODUCTION. 43 the Book of Joshua, besides chap. xxii. 3, 17, and xxiii. 8, 9, where no one has yet discovered any reference to the period after Joshua's death, it is found in chap. iv. 9, v. 9, vi. 25, vii. 26, viii. 28, 29, ix. 27, xiii. 13, xiv. 14, xv. 63, and xvi. 10. Some of these passages1 indicate the times of Joshua, rather than the subsequent period, e.g., the remark contained in chap. iv. 9, that the twelve stones set up in the Jordan, in the place where the priests stood with the ark of the covenant, were there " unto this day," and another in chap. vi. 25, to the effect that Eahab dwelt in Israel "unto this day." The latter of these must have been written before Rahab died, and therefore either before or shortly after the death of Joshua ; (see Havernick p. 40 seq.) The same may also be said of the former, for it is not probable that the stones, which were placed in the Jordan, remained there many generations ; see the Commentary on the two passages. Again, it is quite unmistakeable, as Konig (p. 101 seq.) and Welte (on Herbst's introd. ii. 1, p. 94 seq.) have pointed out, that the passage in chap. xiv. 14, " therefore Hebron became the inheritance of Caleb, the son of Jephunneh the Kenezite, unto this day," relates to the time of Joshua, for the author is speaking of Caleb only, not of his family, and the remark is evidently made with reference to the division of the land, which is after wards described. All that it means, therefore, is that no altera tion was made, on account of that division, in the inheritance, which had been given to Caleb at his request, but that Hebron was assigned to him as a permanent inheritance, because he had faithfully followed Jehovah the God of Israel. Then, again, the similar statements, which are made in chap. v. 9, vii. 26, with regard to the names Gilgal and Achor, that were given to the first encampment of the Israelites in Canaan, and to the valley in which Achan was stoned, do not presuppose even the death of Joshua, much less the expiration of a considerable time after that event. For with regard to names, the principal thing required is that the name should survive the first few years, and make its way to general adoption. If this is done, its continuance for 1 Chap. x. 27 is generally reckoned as one of these passages, but quite incorrectly, for ;-j!j;-[ Q^n 025? ~ TV 18 by no means equivalent to n-tn D^Tf IV' ^ee Commentary on chap. x. 27. 44 INTRODUCTION. ages is ensured (see Hengstenberg Beitr. iii. p. 328). It is there fore of greater importance to show that the name of a place continued for a few years after the event, than that it existed at a later period. And so also with the heaps of stones which were raised over the bodies of criminals who had been executed, and of hostile kings, and which are said to have remained to this day (chap. vii. 26, viii. 29) ; it may be justly said, that they do not necessarily relate to a distant date, for such heaps can hardly be supposed to have lasted for centuries. And when it is said that the Geshurites and Maachathites dwelt in the midst of Israel, the Jebusites with the children of Judah in Jerusalem, and the Canaanites amongst the Ephraimites " unto this day" (chap. xiii. 13, xv. 63, xvi. 10), this may have been written a few years after the distribution of the land, as it was probably decided by that time that the Israelites who had entered into the various possessions that had fallen to them by lot, were not able to exter minate such of the previous inhabitants as still remained. Nor is there anything to cause surprise in the fact, that after the land was taken by the Israelites, the Gibeonites are said in chap. ix. 27 to have been appointed by Joshua to be hewers of wood and drawers of water for the altar unto this day. It was written lest any one should imagine that their condition was improved after the conquest of the country. There would be more reason for supposing that the account contained in chap. viii. 28: " Joshua made Ai a perpetual heap of desolation unto this day," indicated a period at some distance from the time of Joshua ; but the towns, which had been reduced to ashes during the war, would be almost sure to be rebuilt after the land was divided and the tribes had taken possession (such, for example, was the case with Jericho, which we find inhabited again in the earliest years of the Judges, Judg. i. 16, iii. 13) ; and therefore a historian toward the end of the life of Joshua, or a short time after, might think it needful to observe, that Ai had continued in ruins, a perpetual heap of desolation to that day, as Joshua had decreed. It will scarcely be urged as an answer to these explanations, that we cut down the meaning of the expression " to this day" to too great an extent. Such an objection is entirely refuted by chap. xxii. 3, 17, and xxiii. 8, 9, where Joshua himself in speak ing not only of the guilt incurred by the people in the desert, INTRODUCTION. 45 when they took part in the idolatrous worship of Baal Peor, but also of the conquest of Canaan, applies to both of them this same phrase, and thus points them out as past events, removed to a considerable distance from the period at which he was speaking.1 From all that has been said, then, it is apparent that this for mula only proves that our book in its present form was not con temporary with the events. But there is not a single passage in which it forces to the conclusion that several ages, if not centu ries, intervened between those events and the writing of the book ; nor does it supply us with any safe criterion for arriving at a more exact decision as to its age. If there were nothing else in the book but this formula to disprove that Joshua was the author, we might safely assume that Joshua himself wrote the history of his times a short period before his death, and that shortly afterwards some one else added the account of his death and that of Eleazar. But the book also describes events, which did not happen till Joshua was dead. Amongst these are the account of the con quest of Hebron by Caleb, of Debir by Othniel (chap. xv. 13 — 19), and of Leshem by the Danites (chap. xix. 47.) It is true that, if we consulted only this book, we might suppose these con quests to have been completed before Joshua's death, as Joshua lived for several years after he had dismissed the people to their possessions (chap. xix. 50, and xxiii. 1, compared with xxii. 4, and xxi. 43 seq. See also my article, referred to above, in Rudel- bach's und Guericke's Ztschr. 1846, p. 27 seq.) But when we 1 Konig endeavours still further to overthrow the meaning which our opponents give to the phrase "to this day," by remarking (1), that it is only found in the historical part up to chap. xvi. 10 ; and (2) that in several places afterwards, where we should expect it from the style, and the habitual practice of the writer on other occasions, it does not occur. But if we examine these passages more closely (they are chap. xix. 47, xxii. 34, and xxiv. 26), the first will at once show the risk we run when we avail ourselves of arguments e silentio. For if we refer to the fact that when the city of Leshem is said to have been called Dan, it is not also said that the latter name continued to this day, as a proof that the historian must have lived when the event occurred ; we must also apply the same argument to the more detailed account of the same event in Judg. xviii., which also does not contain this remark in v. 29, though the signs are unmistakeable of its having been written at a much later period. Nor do the other two passages fur nish the evidence which Konig would draw from them. 46 INTRODUCTION. refer to the parallel passages in Judg. i. 10 — 15, and xviii. it is very evident that they were not completed till after his decease (see my article ut supra p. 3 sqq. 7 seq.) Again, we find from Judg. i. 21 that the statement made in Josh. xv. 63, "as for the Jebusites, the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children of Judah could not drive them out," also refers to the times sub sequent to Joshua's death, inasmuch as it presupposes the attack which was made upon Jerusalem after Joshua died, and which is related in Judg. i. 8 ; for after that the Jebusites maintained their ground in Jerusalem in the midst of the Israelites. With these distinct accounts before us, we must explain the other pas sages of our book by the parallel passages of the Book of Judges ; and not merely refer to the same period the references made to the continuance of the Canaanites in. many of the districts and cities (in Josh. xiii. 2 — 5, and Judg. iii. 3 ; Josh. xvi. 10, and Judg. i. 29; Josh. xvii. 11, and Judg. i. 27 — 28); but must also pronounce the account of the deaths of Joshua and Eleazar, and of the burial of the bones of Joseph (chap. xxiv. 29 — 33), to be a portion of the original work ; for unless we assume that Joshua himself was the author of the work, there is no ground for the opinion that these verses were added at a later period ; and that assumption we have overthrown. But although these passages uniformly prove that the book cannot have been written either by Joshua or during his life time, yet they do not by any means force us to the conclusion that the author must have lived some time after Joshua. For everything that is contained in them may very well have taken place within twenty or twenty-five years after Joshua's death. It would undoubtedly be very different if the correctness of the hypothesis of Maurer, Havernick, and Bertheau (d. B. der Rich ter) could be established, viz., that all the passages referred to, which are common to our book and that of Judges, were copied from the latter. But we have shown the incorrectness of this hypothesis in the article to which we have so frequently referred (in RudelbacKs und Guericke's Zeitschrift), and may, therefore, bring our discussion to a close, and pronounce, as the result, that both the contents and the form of the Book of Joshua both the historical references and the peculiarities of style completely dis prove the supposition that it was written during the captivity ; INTRODUCTION. 47 that they do not point to the times of Samuel, or Saul, or David, as the date of its composition, but rather to those after Joshua and within a generation of his death. Who then was the author ? From the extreme dearth of historical information re specting the whole of the period of the Judges, it is impossible to offer any safe conjectures. But if I may be allowed to venture a. supposition, I think it most probable that one of the elders who lived for some time after Joshua, and who had seen all the works of Jehovah which he did for Israel (chap. xxiv. 31 ; Judg. ii. 7), occupied himself at the close of his life with writing down, partly from recollection and partly also from contemporary documents and other written notices, the things which he himself had wit nessed, and thus composed the work which we possess under the name of Joshua. § 4. CREDIBILITY OF THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. The credibility or historical fidelity of every work depends upon the extent to which the author was mixed up with the events that he describes, or the faithfulness and intelligence with which he made use of the contemporarj' records within his reach. It will, therefore, show itself in the evident existence of harmonj' between the spirit and character of the narrative and the leading ideas which were peculiar to the times and the men whom the history describes. If we apply this test to the Book of Joshua, the author of which, though unknown to us, speaks of himself as having lived in the midst of the events, and as having passed with the rest of the people through the Jordan under the guid ance of Joshua (chap. v. 1) ; we naturally expect to find it from the very commencement a trustworthy history of the times and deeds of that leader. But when we come to the second part and observe the things of which it particularly treats ; how the his tory which it contains of the division of Canaan amongst the tribes is accompanied with full descriptions of the boundaries of the territory of each tribe, with catalogues of cities, and so on, we are necessarily led to the conclusion that the writer availed himself of written records, if not of official documents. This conclusion is confirmed by the express statement of chap, xviii. 48 INTRODUCTION. 1 — 10, that, before distributing the land which remained after the tribes of Judah and Joseph had received their portions, Joshua had a commission appointed to describe the land, and to write down the results of their survey. With reference to this description ("iqd chap, xviii. 9) Beriholdt says (Einl. iii. p. 857) : " do we not possess it in the chorographical accounts contained, with some interruptions, in the section commencing at v. 12 V But even if this were not the case, inasmuch as the descriptions, drawn up by the commission, were prepared with express refe rence to the casting of the lots, and the more exact details given in that section, with regard to the territory allotted to each tribe, in proportion to its size, could not have been completed till after the lots were drawn ; yet it was requisite, from the very nature of such details, that they should be handed down in a permanent form, and be made perpetually available as an authoritative sur vey, by being committed to writing. For it was only by its being made thus authoritative, that subsequent disputes about the division made by the representatives of the people could be pre vented. Moreover, it is clearly evident that these written or offi cial documents formed the groundwork of our chorography, from the fact that the result of the first division at Gilgal, which was altered in some respects at the subsequent one at Shiloh (Judah and Ephraim having to give up several places and districts to other tribes), is related with close fidelity to the documents.1 " What interest," as Konig justly says (p. 71), " could any one Jiave at a later period in giving prominence to the particular fact, that at first too much land and too many cities were given to the tribe of Judah, and in first of all running over the list of 1 On this subject Eichhorn says with great point (Einl. iii. p. 365) : " the account of the division of the land, contained in this book, bears still in many places the marks of a protocol, which, from its very nature, never gives at once a brief sketch of the whole arrangement, but describes its gradual progress, and relates, one after another, all the alterations, improvements, and additions, that were made from time to time. Thus it announces how one tribe, which at first had received too much, afterwards gave up whole districts to others, that their portion might be made up. In this way, the tribe of Simeon received its inheritance in the midst of the children of Judah, (Josh. xix. 9) and many cities, of which, according to Josh, xv., the tribe of Judah had taken possession (?), were subsequently assigned to that of Dan (Josh. xix. 40)." "' INTRODUCTION. 49: every one of these cities, and then stating that out of them the tribe of Simeon, and for the most part that of Dan, received their inheritance, and so repeating the names which had already been mentioned in Judah's list?" To this we may add that, unless there were written records, it would have been impossible for a later writer to show such historical accuracy. — The use of such contemporary documents will be equally evident if we look at the lists of a similar description, which have been handed down. to us in 1 Chr. iv. 28—32, and vi. 39—66. These lists, both in the case of the tribe of Simeon, and in that of the cities of the Priests and Levites, differ so much from those given in the book of Joshua (chap. xix. 2 — 8, and xxi.), in their descriptions of sites, as well as in names, that they cannot have been copied from our book, and must therefore have been taken from some ancient and independent records (see my apolog. vers. iib. die Chron. p. 174 seq., and 182 sqq.) If, therefore, records of this kind having no connexion with our book, had been handed down in copies and fragments to a period subsequent to the captivity, and were saved from falling into oblivion by being introduced by the author of the Book of Chronicles into his work ; we may, with much greater reason, suppose that the writer of our book made use of such documents as were drawn up at the time when the land was divided, with reference to the inheritance of the various tribes. There is also another fact, tending to confirm this supposition, viz. that it repeatedly happens that, in the lists of cities, the number given at the end does not tally with the sum of the names mentioned, and in many cases is less than this ; owing, no doubt, to the fact that the author added some names to the original list, without altering the number, which he found set down there. See the commentary on chap. xv. 32. This employment of contemporary written documents we do not restrict to the geographical portion of the book ; but believe that they were also made use of in the historical accounts. As Joshua is said in chap. xxiv. 26 to have written in the book of the law, a description of all that was done at Sichem, in con nexion with the renewal of the covenant, in order that a written document might be preserved in that book in the sanctuary, as a witness against the people before the Lord ; we are justified in assuming that other important events were written down as soon 50 INTRODUCTION. as they occurred, that the remembrance of the miraculous works which the Lord performed for his people, might be transmitted to posterity in full force and integrity. And as some men are said in chap. x. 13 to have felt themselves impelled to celebrate in verse the mighty works of that day, there will certainly not have been wanting others, who wrote down those events with his torical fidelity. We cannot, it is true, point out the original sources with the same clear evidence in the historical, as in the geographical chapters ; but the traces of them are unmistakeable in the list of Canaanitish kings, who were slain by Joshua (chap. xii. 7, sqq.) ; in those sections which are common to our book and to that of Judges (viz., chap. xv. 13 sqq., compared with Judg. i. 10 sqq.), the almost verbal agreement of which, without any dependence upon each other, can only be explained on the supposition that the authors both availed themselves of the same written documents ; and again, in the address of Caleb (chap. xiv. 6 sqq.), which " contains too strikingly the marks of an address from the mouth of an old man of eighty-five years of age, and breathes too thoroughly in every word, in its circum stantiality and its self-consciousness, his spirit, his age, and his position, to have been put in his month by a later writer, who had merely placed himself in his situation." (Eichhorn p. 366.) The same signs are also apparent in the words of Phinehas, and the reply of the two tribes and a-half (chap. xxii. See Jahn. Einl. ii. 1, p. 170, and Bertholdt Einl. p. 859) ; in the complaint of the tribe of Joseph respecting the smallness of the lot which had fallen to them, and Joshua's answer (chap. xvii. 14 sqq.) ; and in other descriptions, which even Ewald admits to " stand high on account of their clearness and historical antiquity." If then the author was himself an eye-witness of much that he relates, and also made use of contemporary writings and public documents, he was in all respects in a position to hand down a credible history of the people of the theocracy under the command of Joshua. The contents of the book will suffice to convince every unprejudiced reader, that he has really produced a trust worthy history of those times. — He proves himself to be thoroughly acquainted with the most minute details. He knows the number of fighting men supplied by the two tribes and a half, to accom pany their brethren across the Jordan, and assist them in the INTRODUCTION. 51 conquest of the land of Canaan (chap. iv. 13), the amount of the population of Ai (viii. 25), the strength of the first army that was sent to attack this city, and how many of the Israelites fell (chap. vii. 4, 5), as well as the number of men that were placed in ambush between Ai and Bethel (chap. viii. 12). He can tell us the old Canaanitish names of many of the cities, though they fell into disuse after the Israelites had taken possession of the land, e.g., Baala (chap. xv. 8), and Kirjath-Baal (chap. xv. 60), i.e. Kirjath-Jearim ; Har-Jearim, i.e. Chesalon (chap. xv. 10) ; Kirjath-Arba, i.e. Hebron (chap. xiv. 15, xv. 54, &c.) ; Kirjath- Sepher (chap. xv. 16) ; Kirjath-Sanna (chap. xv. id), i.e., Debir and many others. He can describe most accurately the boun dary lines of the tribes ; indeed, the more we become acquainted with the soil of Palestine by means of the discoveries of modern travellers, the more clearly do we perceive with what correctness all the borders are given, not only as regards their directions and windings, but also the heights and valleys over which they passed.1 fit is not only in these outward events, however, that our author displays the greatest historical fidelity. In his picture of the whole period, his references to prominent individuals, such as Joshua, Caleb, and Phinehas, his descriptions of particular events, with their causes and consequences, his selection and treatment of the historical materials, he proves himself to have been a man, who could enter with spirit into the different cir cumstances, not merely relating things according to their out ward appearance, but at the same time grasping the idea, which manifested itself in each occurrence ; and who knew how to look at history and describe it in the light of divine revelation. But it is just this excellence in the theocratic history, distinguishing it from the ordinary method adopted by his torians, who mould their writings upon the principles of this 1 These internal marks furnish a much stronger proof of the credi bility of our book than the statement of Procopius (Vandal ii. 10), which so many have quoted, and last of all Scholz (Einl. i. p. 694), to the effect that there were two pillars of white stone near the city of Tingis (Tangar) in Numidia, with the following inscription in the Phoenician language : " We are the fugitives from Joshua, the son of Nave, the plunderer ;" for this can hardly be anything but a Babbini- cal legend, which Procopius may have heard from African Jews. See Ant. van Dale de orig. et progr. Idololatr. p. 749 sqq. 4* 52 INTRODUCTION. or that human or philosophical system, that has been the greatest stumbling-block in the way of neological critics. In consequence of this, they deny to our book its historical character, pronounce its contents, whenever they go beyond the limits of ordinary occurrences, legendary and mythical, and even go so far as to say that the author " never had any historical design, but merely intended to show the fulfilment of the ancient promises in the complete conquest of the land by Joshua, and to set up a model of obedience to the theocratic laws ; and that he was therefore careless whether the earlier accounts harmonized with his de scriptions, and whether the latter even hung consistently together." (De Wette Einl. p. 230 and 236 ; Hauff p. 191 sqq.) The latter part of this assertion has already been refuted at-§ 2. The rest of it is founded upon the preposterous dogmatical assumption that the description of the acts of a man of God must of necessity be unhistorical, because the life of this servant of the Lord forms a model of faithful obedience to the law, and of the fear of God ; that an account of the fulfilment of ancient pro mises cannot possibly lay any claim to historical truth, because promises fulfilled presuppose true prophecies, and, according to the first principles of rationalism, there are no such things ; and lastly, that every description of supernatural occurrences is eo ipso legendary and mythological, because everything in the universe happens according to invariable natural laws, and it would be inconsistent for the omnipotent God to stretch forth his hand from the clouds and interfere in the affairs of men. We shall not stay to answer such absurdities as these, but merely suggest the enquiry whether the contents of this book are at variance with scriptural and rational ideas of God and divine justice ? " How ungodly," exclaims Eichhorn, one of the champions in the cause of rationalistic criticism (in his Einl. iii.: p. 403), " are the contents of the book of Joshua ! It not merely describes God as handing Canaan over to the Israelites in a manner opposed to all justice, since the Canaanites, as the first inhabitants, had the most perfect right to its possession, but also as planning a conquest of the most frightful description, and directly ordering the most appalling bloodshed, and the complete extermination of the Canaanites. Who can reconcile this with even imperfect conceptions of the Deity ?" This objection to. INTRODUCTION. 53 the history contained in our book has been raised by heathens, Manicheans, English deists, and German naturalists.1 But Eichhorn (ut supra), Herder (vom Geiste der hebr. Poesie 1787, ii. p. 187 sqq.), Paulus, and every rationalist who has attempted an explanation, and has not with mythical scepticism rejected any opinion which treated the book as a history, and every attempt to find out and separate its historical kernel, have en deavoured to meet the objection by making a distinction between the actual history and the conceptions of the writer, which were founded upon contracted religious notions, inasmuch as he was imbued with the romantic theocratical ideas of the Jews. But Havernick has unanswerably proved that the contents of the book can never be really apprehended by means of this arbitrary distinction, that on the contrary such a view of the subject leads to contradictions that cannot be reconciled (Einl. ii. 1 p. 3 sqq.) The miraculous accounts contained in the Book of Joshua are not peculiar to that book, but on the one hand rest on the Pentateuch, and on the other are confirmed by the subsequent historical, prophetical, and poetical writings of the Old Testa ment. They must be taken, therefore, in their connexion with the whole of the revelation of the ancient covenant, and judged accordingly. In Eichhorn' s objection it is assumed with perfect correctness, that the title of the Israelites to the possession of Canaan was not founded upon any human rights or legal claims, but simply upon the gift of God. This is stated expressly in our book, and in the clearest manner ; and it is in perfect harmony with the whole of the Old Testament. See Gen. xii. 7, xiii. 15, xv. 18, xvii. 8, xxiv. 7, xxvi. 3, 4, xxviii. 4, 13, xxxv. 12 ; Exod. xxiii. 31 ; Lev. xx. 24, xxv. 2 ; Num. xv. 2, xxxiii. 53, xxxiv. 2, sqq. ; Deut. iii. 18, iv. 1, xxi. 40, vii. 13, viii. 1, xi. 9, and others ; Josh. i. 2, 3, 6, 11, 15, ii. 9, v. 6, xviii. 3, xxi. 43, xxiii. 3—5, 13, 15, 16, xxiv. 13; Judg. ii. 1 ; 2 Sam. vii. 10; 1 Kings viii. 34, 40, ix. 7 ; 2 Chr. vi. 25, 27, 31, vii. 20 ; Nehem. ix. 8, 15; Jer. xvi. 15, xxx. 3; Ezek. xx. 15, 28; Psalms lxxviii. 54, and other passages. — All the attempts that have been 1 See for the proof of this Lilienthal's die gute Sache d. gottl. Offenb. Th. 4^ p. 891 sqq. W. A. Bachienne hist. u. geogr. Beschr. von Palast. i. 2, p. 194 seq., and Hengstenberg Beitr. p. 471 seq. 54 INTRODUCTION. made to get rid of this real state of the case, and to defend the conquest of Canaan on the part of the Israehtes, on the ground of imaginary human claims to the possession of the land, have been proved by Hengstenberg to be utterly vain and unfounded. See his excellent treatise on the claims of the Israelites to the possession of Palestine (in the Evang. K. Z. 1833 No. 6 — 8 and 10, 11, and the Beitrage Z. Einl. ins. A. T. iii. p. 471 sqq.), in which he answers all the objections that have been offered to the scriptural view of . the matter, with complete success. The error, which lies at the root of the whole objection, is founded upon certain previous notions concerning God and the divine government of the world, which are both unscriptural and irra tional. The supporters of these notions deny a priori that the Deity exerts any living influence, that he operates in any spiritual manner upon the earth and its inhabitants ; and therefore main tain that " he can neither help them nor do them harm" (Jer. x. 5). On the contrary, the Lord, the God of Israel, the Almighty Maker, Preserver, Governor of the heavens and the earth, is " a living God, an eternal King" (Jer. x. 10), who has not only determined for the people the bounds of their habitations, but has also fixed the appointed times, that they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him and find him (Deut. xxxii. 8; Acts xvii. 26 seq.); and because he has given, to every people upon the earth life and being, goods and lands, that they might rightly use them, and promote their own happi ness by glorifying the name of God, He has also the power and the right to take away from them all that they possess, and to destroy every trace of them from the earth, whenever, by an obstinate abuse of the possessions and gifts entrusted to them, they dishonour and despise his name. The only true God, who judges the earth with eternally unchangeable wisdom and righteousness, and manifests his wrath in the infliction of great judgments as much as his mercy in unnumbered blessings con ferred upon all the children of men, had promised to give the land of Canaan for a possession to the descendants of Abraham, as soon as the iniquity of the Amorites, who then possessed the land, was full, that is, had reached its highest point (Gen. xii. 7, xv. 13—16). Hence, we must regard the expulsion of the Canaanites from possessions, which rightfully belonged to them INTRODUCTION. 55 no doubt, but to which they had forfeited their right by their misuse of them, as being assuredly as much an act of just punish ment on the part of God, as the gift of them to the Israelites was an act of unmerited favour. And therefore the destruction of the Canaanites, and the seizure of the property, which they had alienated by their folly and misdeeds (see Lev. xviii. 24 — 28 ; Deut. xii. 29 — 31), were perfectly justifiable on the part of the Israelites, inasmuch as they had been commanded by God, in whose hands, as our book shows, they were but acting as instru ments. Undoubtedly the mere gift of the land on the part of God did not in itself warrant them in entering upon a war of extermination against the Canaanites, as David, for instance, when Samuel had promised him the kingdom at the command of God, and had anointed him king of Israel, did not feel himself justified in slaying Saul who was their king, though the Lord had rejected him, or in forcibly seizing upon the kingdom, which was promised to himself. But it was not of their own accord or by their own power, that the children of Israel went from Egypt to Canaan. They were brought out of this land of bondage by the God of their fathers with a mighty arm, and he led them through the wilderness into the promised land. In the same manner as Moses had done, so did Joshua obey the direct command of God. And it is evident that this command was not merely the effect of imagination, but was real and well founded, from the visible signs by which God acknowledged the hosts of Israel as his servants, who were fighting in his name and at his command, and were executing his righteous judgments. These signs were shown in the miracles, by which the Lord of the whole earth divided the waters of Jordan before the Israelites, overthrew the walls of Jericho, filled the Canaanites with terror and despair, slew them at Gibeon with hailstones, and thwarted all their efforts to resist the children of Israel, enabling Joshua to slay and exterminate great and mighty nations, and prevent ing any one from standing before him. Hence the Psalmist was able to say, " thou didst drive out the heathen with thy hand and plantedst them ; thou didst afflict the people and cast them out. For they got not the land in possession by their own sword, neither did their own arm save them : but thy right hand and thine arm and the light of thy countenance, because thou hadst 56 INTRODUCTION. a favour unto them," Ps. xliv. 2 — 3. If then Israel was thus proved to be the executor of the judgments of God, they fulfilled their vocation perfectly in all their efforts to perform the work assigned them. Cheerfully and obediently they submitted to all the arrangements of Joshua, they sanctified themselves by the circumcision of all who had remained uncircumcised in the desert, and by the celebration of the passover at Gilgal. They renewed their covenant with the Lord at Ebal and Gerizim. They executed the ban upon the Canaanites, as the Lord had com manded. They punished the breach of this ban in the case of Achan and his house, that they might purge the sin from the midst of the nation. They promised most solemnly, when they had obtained possession of the promised land, that they would renounce all idolatry, and serve none but Jehovah their God, and hearken only to his voice. And they served the Lord all the days of Joshua, and of the elders that survived him, who knew all the works of the Lord, that he did to Israel. Thus the whole of the contents of our book may be traced to this central point in which their unity and truth are apparent, the striking manifestation of the justice, holiness, and mercy of God, in one grand event in the history of the world. His justice is revealed in the case of the Canaanites, his mercy in that of the Israelites, and the holiness of the omnipotent God is made manifest in both, in the case of the Canaanites on whom judg ment fell, by their destruction, in that of the Israelites, who were chosen to communion with the Lord, by the sanctification of their life, as seen in the faithful performance of the work assigned them. Both contributed to the honour of God, by both his name was glorified. § 5. EXEGETICAL, AIDS. Ephraem Syri explanatio in libr. Josuae, Opera Syriace, vol. i. Theodoreti quaestiones in Josuam, Opera, vol. i. Ed. Schulze. Aurel. Augustini quaestiones in libr. Josuae, Opp. v. 3 Ant werp, 1700 fol. R. Sal. Jarchi (Raschi) comment hebr. in libr. Josuae, etc., lat. vers, a Jo. Fr. Breithaupto Goth. 1714, 4. INTRODUCTION. 57 Jo. Calvini commentarii in libros Mosis nee non in librum Josue. Amstel. 1667 fol. Nic. Serarius, comment, in libr. Josuae, etc. Mog. 1609, vol. i.fol. Andreas Masius, Josuae imperatoris historia illustrata. Ant werp. 1574 fol. Dav. Chytraei in historiam Josuae, etc., explicationes utilissimae. Lips. 1592 fol. (containing a practical exposition of the loci doctrinae praecipui in historia Josuae observandi). J. A. Osiander, commentarius in Josuam Tub. 1681 fol. J. Christ. Ising exercitationes historicae in Pentateuchum et librum Josuae. Regiom.' 1683, 4. Seb. Schmidt, Annotationes in libr. Josuae, appended to his com ment, in Jesajam, ed. 2. Frcf. 1692, 4. Critici Sacri, containing Annotata in libr. Josuae, by Seb. Munster, Fr. Vatdblus, Isid. Clarius, A. Masius, Jo. Drusius and Hugo Grotius, vol. i. ed. 2. Frcf. 1696 fol. • Synopsis Criticorum, etc., adorn, a Matth. Polo. Frcf. 1694, vol. i. 4. Corn, a Lapide, commentar. in Josuam, etc. Antwerp, 1718 fol. Jo. Clerici, Veteris Test, libri historici, etc., ed. nov. Tub. 1783 fol. Aug. Calmet, Commentaire literal sur le V. Test. — Josue, les Juges, etc. Paris, 1711, 4. J. Dav. Michaelis, Anmerkungen fiir Ungelehrte, appended to his German translation of the Old Testament. Th. v. 1. Gott. 1774, 4. Jo. Christ. Frid. Schulzii Scholia in Vet. Test. vol. ii. Norimb. 1784, 8. Exegetisches Handbuch des A. Testaments. Part 1, and Nachtrage in the 3d Part. Leipz. 1797, 8. Tliadd. Ant. Dereser., Anmerkungen zu der vor Dom. v. Brentano und ihm herausg. Heil. Schrift des A. Test. Th. ii. Bd. 1. Frkf. 1801, 8. F. J. V. D. Maurer, Commentar fiber das B. Josua. Stuttg. 1831. 8. Em. Fr. Car. RosenmulUri Scholia in Vet. Test. P. xi. vol. 1 Josuam continens. Lips. 1833. 8. ( 59 ) FIRST PART CONQUEST OF THE LAND OF CANAAN. After the death of Moses, Joshua is commanded by the Lord to conduct the people of Israel over the Jordan, take possession of the land of Canaan, and divide it amongst the tribes of Israel. This command is accompanied with the promise that if he observes the law of Moses, the Lord will be with him, and crown all his undertakings with success, chap. i. 1 — 9. Joshua then makes immediate preparations to carry out the command, (a) by reminding the two tribes and a-half, to whom Moses had given the land already conquered on the east of the Jordan, of the promise they had made to him that they would march with their brethren across the river, and help them to conquer Ca naan ; which promise they readily engage to perform, chap. i. 10 — 18 ; and (b) by sending spies to Jericho from the camp at Shittim, to explore the land and ascertain the disposition of its inhabitants (chap, ii.) After these preparations the people break up their encampment in Shittim, pass through the Jordan, and pitch their tents in Gilgal (chap. iii. and iv.) Here, on the bor ders of the promised land, they are again admitted into covenant with the Lord, by the circumcision of all the males, born in the wilderness, and a solemn celebration of the passover immediately afterwards (chap. v. 1 — 12). Joshua is then once more en couraged to enter upon the conquest of the land, by the appear ance of an angel of the Lord, as prince of the army of Jehovah, and commences by taking Jericho, which he devotes to destruc tion (chap. v. 13 — vi. 27.) The further progress of his victory, 60 CONQUEST OF CANAAN. however, is stopped for a short time by the sin of Achan, who takes some of the devoted things ; and the small town of Ai cannot be conquered till the curse brought upon the people through this sin is removed by the punishment of the criminal (chap. vii. — viii. 29.) As soon as this town is taken, Joshua advances with the people to the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, that he may there renew the covenant with the Lord, by pro claiming the law in the land of Canaan, according to the com mandment which the Lord had given to Moses (chap. viii. 30 — 35.) It is now for the first time that the Canaanites, who were thrown into despair by the miracles wrought at the crossing of the Jordan and at the fall of Jericho, unite their forces for a combined resistance to the Israelites ; whilst Gibeon and the associated towns resort to a stratagem, which is so far successful, that they are saved from the destruction they feared; though as soon as the trick is discovered, they are sentenced to perform for ever that part of the work of the sanctuary which was assigned to slaves (chap, ix.) The king of Jerusalem, aided by the kings of the south, besieges Gibeon, but Joshua defeats the allied monarchs, and pursues them till thei,r army is completely de stroyed ; he then takes a series of fortified cities, breaks the power of the Canaanites in the whole of the southern part of Canaan, and in one campaign conquers the land from Gibeon to Kadesh-Barnea and Gaza (chap, x.) At length a general attack upon Israel is concerted by the king of Hazor and the other kings of the north ; but even this army, terrible as its horses and chariots make it, cannot withstand the people of God. The allied kings are overthrown by Lake Merom, the fugitives are pursued and slain, and their cities are taken (chap. xi. 1 15.) Thus, in two campaigns, which occupy a considerable time, Joshua conquers the whole of the land of Canaan, and even expels the dreaded Anakim from the mountains of Judah and Israel. And having brought the war to a close he is in a position to enter upon the division of the land (chap. xi. 16 23.) CHAPTER I. 1—9. 61 CHAPTER I. JOSHUA IS COMMANDED BY THE LORD TO CROSS THE JORDAN WITH THE PEOPLE, TO TAKE POSSESSION OF THE LAND OF CANAAN, AND TO GIVE IT TO THE TRIBES FOR AN INHERI TANCE (VERS. 1 — 9). HE MAKES PREPARATIONS FOR DOING SO (V. 10—18). Vv. 1 — 9. These verses contain the introduction to the whole book. Joshua, the son of Nun, who had been already appointed as the successor of Moses, receives directions from tlie Lord, after the death of Moses, to enter upon his office and pro ceed with the people across the Jordan ; and also to take posses sion of the whole of the land of Canaan, which had been pro mised to the fathers, and portion it out as an inheritance amongst the sons of Israel. He obtains at the same time an assurance that he shall receive Divine assistance, and that all his under takings shall be successful ; the only condition being that he shall obey the law of Moses with fidelity and zeal. V. I. The words, "And it came to pass after the death of Moses, the servant of Jehovah," serve to connect the Book of Joshua with the Pentateuch, though not so closely as to justify the inference that they are productions of the same author. ipjY^, which is the form ordinarily adopted in history (see my commentary on the Books of Kings, p. 2) merely " establishes a connection, by means of the emphatic ' and,' with some previous circumstance that has either already been mentioned or is supposed to be known," (Ewald, ausf. Lehrbuch der Hebr. Sprache, 1844, § 231 b.) The connection in this case is all the closer, since the Book of Deuteronomy terminates with the account of the death of Moses. After the death of Moses, i.e., at the end of the thirty days, during which the people mourned for his death ; see Deut. xxxiv. 8. TfiTi^ T2V 1S not a general expression, applied to any pious man or true worshipper of God, as equivalent to ;ri;-ji N"^ or QipfSM HT1? ^ut indicates sometimes one who carries out, or 62 JOSHUA'S COMMISSION. is endeavouring to carry out the general will of God, at other times one who has been charged with the execution of some particular divine command. In the widest sense the heavens and the earth are called servants of Jehovah (Ps. cxix. 91), as having been created to accomplish the will of God and declare His glory. In a similar sense Jehovah calls Job his servant (Job i. 8, ii. 3, xiii. 7, 8), because throughout his whole life he sought to perform the will of the Lord. The children of Israel are named by God his servants, in a still higher sense, as those whom he had brought out of the house of bondage in Egypt, and had elevated to the rank of his servants, his peculiar treasure, a holy people (Ex. xix. 5 seq.), never to be the servants of -aaj man again (Lev. xxv. 42 and 55.) But this title is applied still more emphatically to (a) the heavenly spirits who serve him, i.e., the angels (Job. iv. 18) ; (b) the prophets, whom the Lord ap pointed to be the special messengers of his word to his people, and to whom he imparted his spirit (Jer. vii. 25, xxvi. 5, &c. ; Amos iii. 7 ; 2 Kings xvii. 13, 23 ; Dan. ix. 6 ; Ezra ix. 11) ; (c) particular individuals, such as the prophet Isaiah (Is. xx. 3), Eliakim the minister (Is. xxii. 20), Zerubbabel (Hag. ii. 32), and Nebuchadnezzar (Jer. xxv. 9, xxvii. 6, xliii. 10), all with refe rence to special commissions, which they had to execute in the name of the Lord ; (d) King Hezekiah, as theocratic ruler (2 Chr. xxxii. 16) ; (e) all Israel as a nation, on account of its election to be the people of God (Is. xii. 8, xliv. 1, 2, &c.) ; (f) the Messiah with reference to his appointments as Redeemer of Israel and a light to the Gentiles (Is. xiii. 1, xlix. 6, &c. ; Zech. iii. 8.) Lastly, Jehovah designated, as his servants, Abraham (Gen. xxvi. 24), Moses (Num. xii. 7—8 ; Josh. i. 2, 7 ; 2 Kings xxi. 8), and David (2 Sam. iii. 18, vii. 5, 8, compare Ps. lxxxix. 4, 21 ; Jer. xxxiii. 21, &c.) ; and hence the same appellation is often applied to them by others, thus to Abraham (Ps. cv. 6 and 42), to David (Ps. xviii. 1, xxxvi. 1, lxxviii. 70 ; 1 Kings viii. 66 ; 2 Kings viii. 19), and to Moses so frequently that it became: his regular official title (see Deut. xxxiv. 5 ; Josh. i. 1, 13, 15 ; viii. 31, 33, ix, 24, xi. 15, xii. 6, xiii. 8, xiv. 7, xviii. 7, xxii. 2, 4, 5 ; Ps. cv. 26 ; 1 Kings viii. 56 ; 2 Kings xviii. 12 ; 2 Chr. i. 3, xxiv. 6). The later writers also use q^^L,^ «^y q Qnr # vi. 34 ; 2 Chr. xxiv. 9 ; Dan. ix. 11 ; Neh. x 30> The title is CHAPTER I. 1—9. 63 one of great honour, expressive not only of the obedience ren dered to God, but also of the choice made by God, and of his special protection ; since only he can be the servant of God who has received from the Lord himself both the appointment and the name. As a standing official title, "servant of the Lord' denoted the highest dignity which could be conferred upon any mortal in the theocracy. Hence, as Moses had previously received this title, it was also conferred upon Joshua his chosen succes sor and the finisher of his work (chap. xxiv. 29, and Judg. ii. 8). Tlie Lord spake unto Joshua, — whether directly by an inward revelation, or by means of the Urim and Thummim of the High Priest, is a question about which commentators are not agreed. Most of the earlier ones advocate the former ; whilst Hess (Gesch. Jos. i., p. 29), and Rosenmuller decide in favour of the latter ; Clericus, Michaelis, and Schultz leave the question unsettled. The principal argument adduced in favour of the second opinion, is drawn from Num. xxvii. 15, sqq., where God commands Moses, in order that the people may not be left at his death without a shepherd and a leader, to appoint Joshua as his successor, and " to put of his honour upon him ;" at the same time, saying (v. 21) " and he (Joshua) shall stand before Eleazar the priest, who shall ask for him by the method of the Urim before Jehovah ; and at his (Eleazar's) command shall they go out and come in, he and all the children of Israel with him, even all the congrega tion.")1 But these words of God by no means compel us, when ever we meet with the assertion " The Lord spake to Joshua," which is so frequently repeated in the book before us, to under stand it as denoting a revelation of the will of God by the Urim and Thummim. They merely contained an assurance that the ordinary revelations of that will, for which provision had been 1 The explanation of this verse, which is given by Beriheau (the^ Book of Judges, p. 9), " Joshua shall stand before Eleazar, and shall enquire for him (Eleazar) before the Lord (see 1 Sam. xxii. 10), after the judgment of the Urim (i.e. just as successfully as if the High Priest had enquired of Jehovah), and at his (Joshua's) command they shall go out, &c," is not only thoroughly unfounded, for 1 Sam. xxii. 10, teaches the very opposite, but betrays an utter misconception, both of the institution of the Urim and Thummim, and also of their exclusive and inseparable connection with the theocratic idea of the office of High Priest. 64 JOSHUA'S COMMISSION. made in the theocracy, should be continued to the people when under the guidance of Joshua ; that is to say, they contained nothing but a promise, that the people should not be left, after the death of Moses, without any communications from God ; but that, in all cases of difficulty, which might arise to the com munity, Joshua would be able to ask counsel of the Lord through the High Priest, and might rely with certainty upon receiving an answer. But this by no means precludes the possibility of Joshua's also receiving direct communications from God of an extraordinary character. On the contrary, we have indubitable evidence that such communications were made to Joshua, and that he was not altogether restricted to the method referred to ; for the Prince of the army of Jehovah, i.e. the angel of the Lord, the medium of all intercourse between the invisible God and the theocracy, appeared to him under the walls of Jericho to infuse into him courage and strength, and to foretel the capture of that city. And if in this instance (vi. 2) the words " and Jehovah spake to Joshua," denote a direct communication from Jehovah, who in his angel appeared to him in a visible form ; then in the other passages of the book, in which the same words occur (iii. 7, iv. 1, 15, v. 2, 9, vii. 10, &c.,) but where it is not expressly said that God appeared, we may conclude that a direct internal revelation was made to the spiritual senses of Joshua. When Paulus, Maurer, and Rosenmuller contend for the superior dignity and authority of the High Priest, and Joshua's dependence upon him, on the ground that Joshua is usually mentioned after Eleazar, (e.g. Num. xxxiv. 17 ; Josh. xiv. 1, xix. 51, xxi. 1), they overlook the fact that all these passages refer to the division of the land, and that Eleazar was appointed by Moses (Num. xxxiv. 17), to superintend the performance of that work, whilst on the other hand Joshua was both called by the Lord to take possession of the land, and miraculously assisted in doing so. The subjugation of Canaan formed part of the work assigned by the Lord to his servant Moses, and in this respect it was, that Joshua was his successor appointed to bring it to completion. Hence the Lord gave him the promise that he would be with him, as he had been with Moses ; and revealed his will to him as he had to Moses, without, however, addressing him like Moses " mouth to mouth" (Num. xii. 8). CHAPTER I. 1 — 9. 65 Joshua (yt$\pp)i *be son of Nun, a prince (fc^iM) of the tribe of Ephraim (Num. xiii. 8, compared with v. 2), was originally named Hosea, and received his name Joshua (i.e. God-help) from Moses, either when he entered into his service, or before the war with the Amalekites. (Num. xiii. 8, 16 ; Deut. xxxii. 44. — See Hengstenberg, Beitr. iii., p. 395.) Born in Egypt, and, when a youth, selected by Moses as his attendant (Num. xi. 28), he fought at the head of the Israelites against the Amalekites in the very first year of the journey through the desert (Ex. xvii. 9 — 14) ; and at a later period, when the land was explored by the spies, proved himself to be a man of great courage and dis cernment, full of' faith and confidence in the promises of God (Num. xiv. 6 — 14). On this account, he received from God the assurance that he and Caleb should enter the promised land, from which all the others, who were twenty years old when they came out of Egypt, would be excluded ; for in them there was a different spirit, and they had faithfully followed the Lord (Num. xiv. 24, 30, 38, xxvi. 65, xxxii. 11, 12 ; Deut. i. 35). For the same reason he was also appointed, as the successor of Moses, to lead Israel into the possession of the promised land (Num. xxvii. 18, sqq.; Deut. i. 38, iii. 28); and just before the death of Moses was solemnly set apart for this office (Deut. xxxi. 14, 23). — TV1JO mEft> ^ie servant °f Moses. fntt) = Stcucovelv, minis- trare, to wait, to wait upon, to do service, to serve (any one), never denotes the work of a slave, as Hitzig maintains (on Is. lvi. 6) ; but, (even though ]-nfiJQ should not etymologically come from rTMSSDO) as Redslob fsprachl. Abhandlungen z. Theol. 1840, p. 50 sqq.) endeavours to prove) is synonymous with Sd IWDttJQ "\73tt) to ^eeP 9u^-rdfor any one, i.e., to attend upon his person, his commands (Num. iii. 6, xviii. 2 — 4, &c), and is therefore interchangeable with \q vjq'j) -jej? to stand before any one waiting for his instructions (see Deut. i. 38). Joshua stood in immediate proximity to Moses, attending to the execu tion of his commands ; he was in fact what we should now call " his aide-de-camp, the adjutant in attendance upon him" (Redsr lob p. 48). yv. 2 — 4. The word of the Lord to Joshua contains instruc tions to cross the Jordan with all the people, and enter the land 5 * 66 JOSHUA'S COMMISSION. of Canaan, which he was about to give to the Israelites in all its length and breadth, according to his promise to Moses. " Moses my servant is dead," &c. ; that is, in other words, " since Moses my servant is dead, do thou therefore arise," &c. — The death of Moses is not mentioned here, with the subordinate idea : 'f there is therefore no longer any reason for remaining on this side of the Jordan," as Clericus supposes, nor with the reference introduced by Seb. Schmidt, "you have mourned for him long enough, it is now time for you to enter the promised land, for which thou hast already been appointed leader ;" but with the simple meaning, "since the death of Moses has deprived the people of a leader, do thou conduct them into the promised land." We have not here Joshua's first election to this office, for that had taken place before, but the command to enter upon the office already conferred upon him, and to perform the work assigned him. Jam quidem electus erat Josue ad gubernandum populum ; neque munus injunctum duntaxat, sed spiritualibus quoque donis ipse fuerat instructus. Verum quia fortissimi. etiam quique, licet probe comparati, ubi ad rem ventum est, vel subsistunt vel vacillant : minime supervacua fuit haec exhortatio, ut Josue mox ad expeditionem se accingeret. Quamquam non tantum ejus causa iterum sancitur ejus vocatio : sed ut populus collectis animis eum sequi ducem non dubitet, quem videt pedem non movere nisi praeeunte Deo. (Calvin.) — pitn> which is joined. to 1TT»;-!> is used Se<.«T««n> an5PJ1PT in Deut. vii. 24, and xi. 25, mean liter- rally to place ones self before any one for the purpose of opposing "him. qm XVr\ to oe wtih a person, to assist him. The promise tII^N-NT) tISHN fcO ls taken from Deut. xxxi. 6 and 8, where Moses makes the announcement first to the people and then to Joshua, j-jfj-^, in Hiphil, to withdraw the hand from any one (x. 6. See Hebr. xiii. 5.) The 6th verse is simply a repetition of that which Moses and the Lord himself had already said to Joshua, Deut. xxxi. 7 and 23. The main sentence " for thou shalt give the land to this people for an inheritance," is not to be taken as assigning the reason of the Lord's command to Joshua to be firm and strong, namely, because he had before him a great and difficult work, but is evidently to be regarded as a promise. This is partly required by the circumstances, inasmuch as the Lord never demands anything of men without giving CHAPTER I. 1—9. 69 them a promise in return, and is confirmed by a comparison of the passage with v. 5 and 9, and by the evident reference to Deut. xxxi. 7 and 23. The distinction between pfpf and wqN has been correctly shewn by J. H. Michaelis, namely, that p'jn properly means " strength of hand for taking and firmly retain ing anything ;" W|3M> on the other hand, " strength of knee3, so that one cannot be thrown down by another," see Is. xxxv. 3. The two words are combined, both here and in other places, to denote intrepidity, fearlessness, and a resolute mind. ^n3> t0 — T receive as an inheritance ; in the Piel to cause to inherit, to give an inheritance (xiii. 32), with accus. pers. (xiv. 1). not also with *j pers. as Gesenius says (thes. s. v.) with reference to xix. 51 ; in the Hiphil with ace. rei et pers. to confer anything upon a person as an inheritance (Deut. iii. 28, xix. 3, &c.) The reading V"lNrr h& 'n some Codd. is merely a copyist's error ; see Rosen- miiller ad h. 1. Vv. 7, 8. The promise is followed by a statement of the condi tions, on which the Lord will perform it in its fullest extent. Joshua must " be strong and very courageous to observe to do according to all that is written in the law of Moses." The in finitives j-njr;^ "\fowh are n°t to be connected by -), as in xxiii. 6, and as in some Codd. it is written here, but fl'lto^7 ls governed by ifollta as mtrty1? "lEt^n ]Vt2h in v- 8 clearly proves ; see also Deut. v. 29, xvii. 11, &c. The phrase Si^atol VW "ftD* to wander to the right hand and to the left, is taken from Deut. v. 32, xxviii. 14, &c. ; see also xvii. 11 and 20. "The metaphor is taken from a road from which it is impossible to deviate without danger of going altogether astray" (J. H. Michaelis ad Deut. xvii. 11.) ^l^to'l PES'1 nt03> to turn to the ri9^lt ^an^ an^ to the left is a synonymous expression ; compare Deut. ii. 27 with Num. xx. 17. The masculine suffix in *i2fta may be explained tin the supposition that the speaker had the book of the law VlH "1DD m bis mind, when mentioning the law itself. The words ^ ^i3©,n tyoh remind us of Deut. xxix. 9, where Moses urges the people to observe the law, that they may make all their actions wise. ^J^n to make wise, to act wisely, including the idea of' the beneficial results of such actions ; (compare 70 JOSHUA'S COMMISSION. Hengstenberg Cbristol. iii. p. 519, and my Com. on the Books of Kings, p. 21.) In verse 8 ^%WT\ 1S expressly distinguished from j-pl^fi- V. 8. The further instructions, " the book of the law shaif not depart from thy mouth, and thou shalt meditate on it day and night," are connected not only with the directions given by Moses to the whole people (Deut. vi. 6 sq. and xi. 18 sq.) in order to ensure the strict observance of the law, that they should " keep it in the heart and speak of it at home and in " the way, on lying down and rising up," but even more closely with the instructions prepared for the future king (Deut. xvii. 19), " the book of the law shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life." " The book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth ;" this does not mean " you shall always bring for ward its precepts and judgments, and make use of its authority" (Clericus) ; but " not to depart out of," is to be continually in the mouth. Now the law is in the mouth " when it is spoken by the mouth, in such a manner that the words of it are pro nounced either openly or silently, that is when we speak either to ourselves or to others of the book of the law and its contents" (Seb. Schmidt.) The words " it shall not depart out of thy mouth," are followed by an injunction " to meditate upon it day and night," denoting that the mind is to be continually occupied with it. This does not mean, however, scientific research and criticism, but a thoroughly practical employment of it, a speaking of the law and meditation upon it, with the simple purpose to carry it out in all its details and in every sphere which it em braces, to perform all that it commands and abstain from all that it prohibits. The Psalmist had this verse in his mind when describing the righteous man (Ps. i. 2) ; see Hengstenberg in loco. ^p"Y7 ]-|N IT^T! TfcOS) for the™ shalt thou make thy ways prosperous, i.e., whatever thou undertakest thou shalt successfully accomplish. V. 9. The Lord's address to Joshua concludes with another command to be courageous and undaunted, and another promise that he would assist him in all his undertakings (compare v. 5, 6.) The words "have I not commanded thee," refer to the divine exhortation given immediately before, though this was itself only a renewal of the promise which Joshua had received CHAPTER I. 10—18. 7 1 from God before tbe death of Moses, when called to be the cap tain of the army. The question fc^n ls a rhetorical mode of expressing the strongest and most earnest assurance. " An emphatic enquiry is a stronger form of affirmation, and is gene rally employed by those who wish to infuse into another courage and alacrity" (Michaelis.) The assurance is rendered all the stronger from the addition of tbe negative J'-ir,.FrJ7N'} Y*Wr"Vfc* to the positive Vfcijfi pT[i as in Deut. xxxi. 6 and 8. Vv. 10 — 18. Joshua, thus encouraged and equipped for the office of general, makes immediate preparations for the perform ance of the work assigned him. He sends orders to the people by the Qi-^QJ to provide stores for their journey that they may be "ready in three days to cross the Jordan and take possession of the land of Canaan, v. 10 and 11. He also reminds the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh, that Moses had commanded them to march with their brethren across the Jordan and help them to conquer the land. This they readily promise to do ; vv. 12 — 18. V. 10. oj?n 'HttiZJ were those officers, whose duty it was to draw up the genealogies of the people, and who therefore, when in Egypt, had to allot to each one his share of the work, which was given out by the Egyptian taskmasters, and to see that it was performed, see Ex. v. 10 sqq. In the civil arrangements of Moses they were associated with the chiefs of the people, the captains over thousands, hundreds, &c, who were appointed as judges (Deut. i. 15), and are, therefore, frequently mentioned in connexion with the elders and judges (Num. xi. 16 ; Deut. xvi. 18, xxix. IO, xxxi. 28 ; Josh. viii. 33, xxiii. 2, xxiv. 1 ; 1 Chr. xxiii. 4.) As the writers and keepers of the genealogical lists, they had to assist in levying troops for military service, and to mark off those whom the law excused (Deut. xx. 5, compared with 2 Chr. xix. 11.) They had also to stand by the side of the judges when they administered the law, because all questions of property and many other judicial proceedings were connected with families and correct lineal descent.1 After the time of 1 It is quite certain, and generally admitted, that they were officers connected with the administration of justice, who conducted the usual examinations and executed the sentence ; and that jio .one was in a 72 PREPARATIONS FOR CROSSING. David, both they and the judges were chiefly, if not exclusively, chosen from the Levites (1 Chr. xxiii. 4, 2 Chr. xix. 11, xxxiv. 13.) See Michaelis Mos. R. i. § 51. The word -yftir) means a writer, ypafip.aTev's (LXX.) from U«, to write. The forced mean ing praefectus, which many modern critics have given to it, cannot be etymologically defended, as Hoffmann (hebr. Alterth. p. 302) and Gesenius have clearly shown. Compare Hengstenberg Beitr. ii. p. 449 sqq.) As officers entrusted with the genealogical affairs of the nation, they are employed by Joshua, both here and ch. iii. 2, to convey to the people his orders for making ready to depart, and to arrange everything that was required for the march; V. 11. Prepare you victuals. pn2 means here natural pro duce, which they were to collect together for their further pror~ gress across the Jordan, and not manna, as many of the earlier commentators thought, which they were to gather up ; for not only was it impossible to keep this, as it became putrid on the second day (Ex. xvi. 20), but the Israehtes were only supported by manna till they reached an inhabited country (Ex. xvi. 35), and it had therefore ceased from the time when the land beyond Jordan was taken. (See the remarks on v. 12.) For in three days ye shall pass over this Jordan, that is on the third day reckoning from that one, as we see from a comparison of Gen. xl. 13 and 19 with v. 20. In chap. ii. we are informed that Joshua sent spies from Shittim to Jericho, who were obliged to hide themselves for three days in the mountains, after their flight from the town, before they could "return to the camp of the Israelites (ii. 22.) In any case, therefore, they were absent for three whole days and did not return till the fourth. But it was not till after their return that the Israelites left Shittim, and then they encamped for three days on the bank of the Jordan, before crossing the river (iii. 1, 2); so that altogether seven whole days elapsed from the time that the spies were sent out till the Israelites went over the river.1 How, it may be asked, can we position to exercise jurisdiction without them. Selden de Svnedr d 342. J ' v' i The order of these events has been differently arranged by other commentators. Following the example of Josephus (Ant. v. 1—3) CHAPTER I. 10 — 18. 73 reconcile with this the declaration " after three days ye shall cross over this Jordan ? " Very easily, if we regard it not as a pre diction of the actual moment of crossing, but as fixing the length they start with the supposition that the three days spoken of in chap. iii. 2, are identical with those named here (thus the Rabbinical writers, Miinster, Vatablius, Masius, C. a Lapide, Calvin, Osiander, Clericus, Seb. Schmidt, J. H. Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, also V. Lengerke, in the Ken. i. p. 613 and 617, and Havernick Einl. ii. l,p. 23), and then attempt in different ways to arrange the particular events, either by plac ing the despatch of the spies before the issue of this command to the people to provide themselves with food, or else by supposing that it occurred at the same time. In either case it is assumed that there is a hysteron- proteron in the narrative, in the first, at chap. i. 11, sqq., in relation to chap, ii., in the second at chap. iii. 1 and 2, in relation to chap ii. This assumption is not indeed a priori inadmissible, but may certainly be justified, on the ground that the Hebrews in their historical writings often repeat particular occurrences, and arrange the order of events according to subjects, rather than exact chronological succession ; so that the form peculiar to historical narrative, the so-called fut. with ^ conversive indicates, not the order of time, but that of thought. StiU the reasons should always be very cogent, when they lead us to decide in favour of such an assumption. And not only are there no such reasons shown here, but we are met by difficulties of no little impor tance. For let us look first at the simplest form which this explana tion assumes, viz., that of C. a Lapide. He arranges the different events in the following order : on the 3d Nisan the spies are sent out (ii. 1), on the 6th they return (ii. 23), on the 7th the camp is removed from Shittim to the eastern bank of the Jordan (iii. 1), and the people are commanded to provide themselves with food for their march across the river (i. 11), and the 10th they pass over, (iv. 19). Now we can see no reason why the historian, in narrating the three different measures adopted by Joshua, (a) the orders to the people to prepare for their departure, (b) the address to the 1\ tribes reminding them of the command of Moses, that they should help their brethren to conquer Canaan, (c) the despatch of the spies, should not have mentioned the third before the others, if it really did precede them ; for tin re was nothing to hinder such an arrangement, but on the contrary, chap. ii. 1 — iii. 1, could have been easily joined on to chap. i. 10, and chap. i. 11 — 18 could have been just as easily inserted between verse 1 and 3 of the third chapter. And moreover it is by no means probable that Joshua waited till they had removed to the bank of the Jordan, before issuing his orders for food to be provided, since from the barrenness of the place scarcely anything could be procured there. — If, on the other hand, we suppose that the events occurred in the order in which Kimchi has arranged them, viz., that on the 5th Nisan the spies were despatched, on the 7th the orders were issued to provide food, on the 8th the spies returned, on the 9th the camp was removed to the Jordan, and on the 10th the river was crossed; it may indeed be said that the 74 PREPARATIONS FOR CROSSING. of time that would be allowed them for getting ready to cross. In this simple manner the difficulty has been solved by Vata- s, who explains &-QV DttN to mean, " ye will be ready to reason why the despatch of tho spies is not mentioned till after the command was issued to provide food, is simplybecause the historian wished to give a connected account of every thing relating to the spies ; but, though this difficulty may be overcome, we are met by others which cannot easily be set aside. Why did Joshua wait two days after he had sent out the spies and had come to the determination to remove from Shittim to the Jordan whilst they were absent, and not at once give orders for provision to be made for decamping and crossing the Jordan ? Moreover, if the command was given on the 7th, and the people did not cross till the 10th, we must arbitrarily substitute two days in the passage " at the end of three days, i.e., after three days were passed" (chap. iii. 2), and even then shall not succeed in bringing the period mentioned in chap. iii. 2 into harmony with that given in chap. i. 11. The last objection applies equally to v. Lengerke's arrangement, viz., on the 4th Nisan the despatch of the spies, on the 5th, the issue of the orders respecting food, on the 7th, the return of the spies, on the 8tb, the removal from Shittim, on the 9th, preparations at the Jordan (chap. iii. 2 sqq.), on the 10th, the crossing ; an arrangement which supposes 5 days to have intervened between the command to provide food and the passage across the river, and renders the statement " in three days more" (chap. i. 11) alto gether inaccurate. But if once we pronounce this statement incorrect, there is no possible reason for the supposition that the spies were despatched before the orders in chap. i. 11 were given. And if we suppose that the spies were sent out at the same time as the orders were issued, we shall find it just as difficult to identify the periods referred to in i. 11 and iii. 2. In tbis case we must follow ¦Masius and others, who place both these occurrences on the 7th, and arbitrarily shorten the period during which, according to chap. ii. 16 and 22, the spies were concealed in the mountains, making the spies who were sent out on the 7th, return on the evening of the 8th, that is, according to Hebrew reckoning, on the beginning of the 9th. If this does not please, there remains only the plan adopted by Josephus, Maurer, and Havernick, namely, to fix the 6th for the despatch of the spies and the command to collect provisions ; the 7th for the removal of the camp from Shittim ; and the 9th for the return of the spies and the command to cross over the Jordan. But this compels us to say that the tffryy p/ofcrQ} I'WI within three days (chap. i. 11) is used inaccurately for ryyyi ntijSttJ Tf$pJ2 after iJlree daysi exacto triduo ; and not only so, but also to reckon the three days from the second day, and thus extend three days into four, since the Jordan was not crossed till the 10th ; and lastly to assume that Q^twn (chap. iii. 1 ) is em ployed incorrectly for the pluperfect — And what is gained by all these exegetical acts of violence? Nothing but the identitv of the CHAPTER I. 10 — 18. 75 cross." Joshua commands the people to collect provisions, in order that they may go over the Jordan in three days, i.e., in order that they may be ready to leave Shittim at the end of this period, and then cross the river and commence the conquest of Canaan. The same explanation of the meaning of these disputed words has also been given by J. J. Hess (Gesch. Josua's (1779) i. p.31.) Vv. 12 — 18. — On account of their numerous flocks, Moses had listened to the request of the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh, and had given them the rich pasture land of Gilead, the country of the Amoritish kings, Sihon and Og, as their possession. This gift, however, was made on the express condition that those amongst them who were fit for war should go with their brethren over the Jordan, and help them to conquer the land of Canaan (Num. xxxii.) Joshua now number three in the statements : " within three days " (i. 11) and "after the lapse of three days" (iii. 2), but not the identity of the periods referred to in the two statements. For if we conclude that Joshua waited for three days before the last preparations for crossing the Jordan were made, whilst the passage itself did not take place till the following day, we attribute incorrectness to the declaration " within three days ye shall pass over Jordan." In this case we are involun tarily driven to adopt the explanation given by Augustine, which earlier expositors rejected, that Joshua issued the orders in chap. i. 11, non ex revelatione et certitudine divina sed ex spe humana, that is only conditionally, in the hope that the spies would soon return ; or as Schulz says, " if nothing unforeseen prevented, which however was the case," &c. But this is not a satisfactory way of getting over the difficulty. If we regard Joshua as nothing more than a general with ordinary sagacity, we cannot suppose that he would fix the day for crossing the Jordan before he was quite sure on the matter. We therefore give up the attempt to establish the identity of the three days spoken of in chap. iii. 2 with those referred to in chap. i. 11, since the text in iii, 2 does not contain the slightest reference to such a con nexion ; qiqi (chap. iii. 2), not even having the article, which would connect qiqi rittJ^ttJ w'tn chap. i. 11. We abide by the simple state- • t v : ments of the text, that is to say, we suppose that immediately after the orders in chap. i. 11 were given, the spies were sent off, probably on the same day, i.e., on the 3d Nisan ; that after three whole days, that is on the evening of the 6th, they returned (chap. ii. 22) ; that on the following morning, i.e., on the 7th, Joshua removed with the camp from Shittim, and proceeded to the banks of the Jordan (iii. 1), where they rested three days ; and that on the 10th they crossed over the 76 PREPARATIONS FOR CROSSING. reminds these tribes of that condition ; and they readily repeat to Joshua the promise they bad given to Moses (Num. xxxii. 17 sq. 25 — 27) that they will carry it out and hearken to him as tbey had hearkened to Moses in all things. The infinitive absolute -^f stands for the imperative; see Ewald, Lehrbuch § 318 c. — The words of Moses, which Joshua brings to the re membrance of the two tribes and a half, only belong to Moses so far as the thoughts are concerned ; the form of them is Joshua's, and they are spoken from his point of view. Hence the expres sions employed bear a greater resemblance to those in Deut. iii. 18 — 20, where Moses himself repeats the command he had given before, than to those found in the original passage (Num. xxxii.) The words r$fo rMID c'° n°t occur in either of the two passages in the Pentateuch ; they contain, however, an inference drawn by Joshua from the expression -^ ppy* -jgJN -|j> in Deut. iii. 20 (compare Joshua i. 15.) rpJil to bring to rest, i.e., to assign a fixed residence, in which one may rest from the changes of a nomad life. j-INtn V"lMn this land (here and Deut. iii. 18) shows that the speaker was still beyond the Jordan ; from which it also follows that H-jiipT llj?!'1 v- 14> is not used with refe rence to the position in which he was then standing, but in its geographical signification. And in order that the reader may not imagine that it is spoken from the subjective stand-point of the speaker, we have in v. 1 5 the words flJDltfn m tE towards the East. At verse 14 compare Deut. iii. ' 18 sq. and Num. xxxii. 17, 27, and 32. Instead of a^Qn we find there Qijfl^n and ^12 yiSn- Of the different meanings assigned to QigJ^ni which only occurs in three other passages, viz., chap. iv. 12, Exod. xiii. 18, and Judg. vii. 11, there are but two which de serve consideration. The first is that which Ewald has brought forward again (Gesch. des Volkes Israel ii. p. 54) " in five divi sions, that is, divided into centre, right and left wings, vanguard, and rearguard, according to the simplest arrangement ofevery army which marches out in battle array" (see the examples of this in Gesenius, thesaurus s. v. and Ewald ut supra.) The _ * Beyond Jordan, incorrectly rendered " on this side " in our ver sion.— ^Tr. 3 CHAPTER I. 10 — 18. 77 second is that adopted by Gesenius (thesaurus s. v.) and Ftirst (cone. s. v.), who derive it from ^j-, lumbus, venter, tanquam sedes roboris vel pinguedinis, from which it properly means " girt about the loins," and then generally " ready, equipped, drawn up for battle."1 But the first of these renderings assumes the read ing QiJIJOn to be the correct one ; and as the evidence for tbis is far less than that by which the other, Qi^n or oi^En, is supported, we must decide in favour of the second. Instead of ^DD T^lil ^5 we find in Deut- ii1- 18 ^H— 121-^3- The former expression, which so frequently occurs in the Old Testa ment to designate warriors, was not in use so early as the Pen tateuch ; so that we cannot describe it as merely accidental that it is not found in the writings of Moses, as Stdhelin has done (Ullmann's and Umbreit's theol. Studien 1838, p. 272.) "We must not understand ^nn->1Tillil-^3 as meaning that all the fighting men to the very last crossed over the Jordan, and left their wives and children and flocks on the eastern side unpro tected. The word ^3 is not to be taken too stringently, but in a loose sense. According to chap. iv. 13, there were not more than 40,000 who went over, whereas we learn from Num. xxvi. 7, 18 and 34, that in Reuben there were 43,730 men ; in Gad, 40,500 ; and in Manasseh, 52,700, in the half of it, therefore, 26,350. In these two tribes and a half together, then, there were 110,580 men of twenty years old and upward, able to bear arms (Num. xxvi. 2) ; so that more than 70,000 remained behind to protect the women and children and flocks, and to defend the land of which they had already taken possession. — V. 15 comp. Deut. iii. 20. On the form Oft^'V see Ewald, Lehrb. § 34 d. and § 199 b. ^jQ^jn HPTD 1S to be taken as equivalent to tfpiLsn Nil?? i'1 v. 4. V. 16 sqq. And they answered Joshua. Masius and others 1 The other, untenable explanations of this word are given in Ful ler's Miscell. v. 2, Michaelis Suppl. p. 835, and Gesenius ut supra. On the meaning given by Cocceius, and again brought forward by v. Lengerke (Kenaan i. p. 426) " counted," literally fived, like nefnrd&o-- 8ai to count on the five fingers, Michaelis has already said, " it is a mere conjecture, transferred ex Graecismo, and there is no example to prove that ttjpn '" Oriental languages means to count." 78 THE TWO SPIES. think that this refers not only to the two tribes and a half just' mentioned, but to all the other tribes as well, who had been in structed by the proclamation of the officers to prepare for the removal of the camp. But they had not all occasion to answer, the rest having merely received a command from their general through the Shoterim, which they had simply to execute in order that they might approach more closely to the object they longed to attain, namely, the possession of the promised inheri tance. The two tribes and a half, on the contrary, were required to reply to the summons of Joshua, and express their readiness to comply with it. But in the fact that they do more than this, giving utterance to their desire that the Lord may be with him (v. 17 compared c. v. 5), even declaring that whoever opposes his commands shall be put to death, and lastly repeating (v. 18) the exhortation given by God, " only be strong" and of good courage" (v. 6) ; in this they express most heartily their earnest wish to support their brethren, and as far as they possibly can to co-operate with them, that they may secure a peaceful possession of the land which the Lord has promised them. V. 18. iS-jiN mtoil generally denotes resistance to the com mands of God ; see Deut. i. 26, 43, ix. 23 ; 1 Sam. xii. 14. Here it is used for opposition to his representative, the captain of the people, whom God had chosen ; a crime to which the law (Deut. xvii. 12) also attached the punishment of death. CHAPTER II. DEPARTURE OF TWO SPIES TO JERICHO, AND THEIR RETURN. V. 1. Notwithstanding the promise which Joshua had re ceived from the Lord, that he would assist him to conquer the land of Canaan, and that no one should be able to stand against him, he did not omit anything by which he himself could con tribute to the success of the work entrusted to his hands. He CHAPTER II. 1. 79 therefore sent two spies away secretly from Shittim to Jericho, the border-fortress of Canaan, to procure information concerning the country, and especially with regard to this fortified town. nSflJil is not " he had sent," but then he sent. Even if the spies had been despatched before the events narrated in chap. i. 10 — 18, it would not be grammatically correct to render n7tZy,*l as a pluperfect ; and much less is this allowable, if such a supposition be unfounded, which we have shown (at chap. i. 11) to be the case. Qi^^n (the Acacias) Shittim; also called D^j^n VlN> the Acacia-meadow (Num. xxxiii. 49), the last place in which the Israelites encamped before they removed to the Jordan, where Moses delivered his last address to the people (Num. xxv. 1). It was situated in the Arboth of Moab, at the foot of the moun tainous range Abarim, and immediately under Nebo, opposite to Jericho (see Deut. xxxii. 49, and Hengstenberg' s Hist, of Balaam, p. 247 sq.) Hence it is to be looked for near the point at which ' the Wady Hesban enters the plains of Moab, probably to the south of this Wady. According to Josephus (Antiq. iv. 8, 1) the town of Abila was afterwards built on the site previously occupied by Shittim, in a country abounding with date-bearing palm-trees ($>oivik6<$vtov S' earl to ^oapiov), sixty stadia from the Jordan. — yj-^rj (*'w quiet, secretly) is united by the accents to -^j2^^: "saying to them privately." This settles the dispute of the earlier commentators "whether ^n is used Wltb reference to the secret manner in which they were to perform their work, or signifies that they were sent away secretly by the commander to explore the land without the cognisance of the people" (Masius). The decision is in favour of the latter opinion ; though the former is not excluded, since in any case the spies had to explore the country secretly. Joshua sent them away privately, partly in order that the inhabitants of the land might not receive any intimation of it, and partly also that the Israelites themselves might not be disheartened by the report, if it should prove un favourable, as they had formerly been in the time of Moses. — •)N»"\ view, i.e., explore, see Gen. xiii. 9. — ^nvY,-,nN,l an^ especially Jericho. This strongly fortified town (chap. vi. 11) was the key to the conquest of Canaan for the Israelites, who entered the land from the north-east of the Dead Sea. Jericho, 80 THE TWO SPIES. which is always written ¦in^'1 ln the Book of Joshua, but in the Pentateuch im'1 (see Gesenius thes. iii. 1273), was situated in the valley of the'Jordan, the so-called plain of Jericho, which is surrounded by a naked and barren range of mountains, stretch ing in the form of an amphitheatre from Bethsean on the north to the Dead Sea on the south.1 It stood probably to the west of the present dirty and impoverished village Eriha or Riha (L^j 1 or \.sZj.), which still perpetuates the name of this ancient and celebrated city of palms : but the city itself, after many centuries of wealth and prosperity, has long since perished and left no trace behind. (For Jericho, consult Winer's bibl. Real- Worterbuch (i. 639) which contains a full account of all the earlier writings, v. Raumer's Palestine (p. 204 sq.), and Robin son's Palestine (ii. p. 523 sqq., and 514 sqq.); the latter of whom made very careful researches near the castle and village of Riha in the Wady Kelt, but without discovering any remains of the ancient town). — j-j^j pjli?N is a harlot, not an inn-keeper, T t • HrPiTTilOj i.e., iravSo/cevrpia (Chald. the Rabbins, and many t I. : T others). The spies went into the house of such a woman, partly, no doubt, because it was built against the wall of the town, (v. 15), and they could therefore easily leave it again, and partly also because their entrance into such a house would not be so likely to arouse suspicion. But the Lord was their guide in such a manner, that this woman was in herself the person most suitable for his designs, as she had both the knowledge and fear of the true God.— -fl^ IIJUJIT they lay down there. As they arrived in the night, according to v. 2, that is at the beginning of the night, before the gates were shut (v. 5), they wished to remain there for the night and sleep there, though they were obliged to leave the house shortly after dark. These words are sometimes differently explained, viz. "they turned aside for the sake of passing the night and resting" (Masius, Rosenmuller) "they put up at her house" (Luther) ; but this rendering is not in harmony with the rules of the language. 1 Est namque vallis, quae continuis montibus velut muro clauditur. Justini hist, xxxvi. 3. Compare with this Strabo xvi. 2 § 41 • Josephus de bell. Jud. iv. 8, 2, and the passage from Cotovicus, cited by Winer (bibl. Real-Worterbuch i. 639) which entirely accords with these accounts. CHAPTER II. 2 — 6. 81 Vv. 2 — 6. The king of Jericho is informed of the arrival of the Israelitish spies." " It is probable that, according to the plan usually adopted in times of disturbance, or when there is a fear of war, guards were appointed for the especial purpose of watch ing suspicious strangers. It is not, therefore, surprising that the men were observed, or that they were immediately reported to the king, as there would be many things to indicate that they had come with hostile intent." (Calvin.) The king at once sends to Rahab to demand that they should be delivered up. But she has concealed them, and declares to the messengers that they went away again before the gates were shut. V. 2. Pr?1 v>!"T to-night, is more exactly defined in v. 5 : as night was coming on, before the town-gates were closed. V. 4. Commen tators justly remark that Rahab had hidden the spies not only before she made any reply to the messengers from the king, but even before they arrived at her house. " The woman, no doubt expecting an accusation, and in fear of a search, concluded that, by some means or other, she ought to conceal the men, on whose safety she foresaw that her own safety also and that of all her house depended. It is not likely that the messengers from the king were kept waiting at the door whilst she was concealing the spies ; for any delay would have thrown suspicion upon Rahab." (Rosen miiller). But n&JTl and 'iiQ^iTl are not on that account to be rendered in the pluperfect. The historian has merely arranged the particular occurrences in such a manner that he describes first what was done by the king, and then all that was done by the woman. The king sent to Rahab and commanded her to deliver up the spies, but she took them and concealed them, and then said to the servants of the king, and so on. It is here evi dent from the nature of the case, that the spies were hidden before the king's messengers arrived at Rahab's house. The singular suffix in ^gj}^, which Schulz and others would change unnecessarily into the plural q — , may be easily explained on the supposition that the writer is speaking indefinitely, and passes from the many to the individual (Ewald, Lehrb. § 309 a.) We meet with this in two cases. First, when the historian has only one individual in his mind, but first expresses his thought in the plural, because that which is true of one is equally true of all, 6* 82 THE TWO SPIES. e.g., Deut. xxi. 10 : " when thou goest forth to war against thine enemies, and the Lord thy God delivereth him (the enemy at each particular time) into thy hand," Deut. xxviii. 48 ; 2 Sam. xxiv. 13, &c. ; and secondly, when the narrative relates to several persons, and the writer transfers to one that which applies to the majority or to all, in order to point out that what has been said of many or of the whole is true of every individual without exception, e.g., Jer. xxxi. 15 : " Rachel weeping for her chil dren, !)3^N because it is not," each one of her children is no more. Our text resembles the latter, " she concealed him," i.e., each of the two spies, "p it is so, yes.-- -V. 5. Ti|ilp7-^rt*|l1 *' eame to pass at the shutting, i.e., when the town gate was about to be shut. For this construction compare Gen. xv. 12. Trftjni " «« it vjas getting dark." Rahab does not hesitate to deceive the royal mes sengers by a lie ; and pretends that she had not the least suspi cion that the men of Israel were spies, and therefore had neither asked them whence they came, nor troubled herself about whither they were going. In order, moreover, to save her house from further scrutiny, she recommends the servants of 'the king to go as quickly as possible in pursuit of them, as they would be sure to overtake them soon. The deception thus practised upon the king's servants was not a licita tentatio, as Seb. Schmidt terms it, but a positive falsehood, wliich cannot be justified either on the ground assigned by Grotius, that "before the gospel a lie, which contributed to the safety of good men, was not regarded as a sin," or by saying that the virtue of hospitality rendered it a lie of necessity told from good motives and for praiseworthy ends. For though Rahab's subsequent conversation with the spies (v. 9) proves that she was both convinced of the omnipo tence of Jehovah and of the reality of the miracles he had per formed for his people, and also firmly believed that this God was about to give them the land of Canaan, and therefore that all opposition to Israel would be futile, being in fact resistance to the Almighty God himself; yet this is no justification of her falsehood, which still remains nothing but a sinful expedient by which she thought it necessary to contribute her part toward the accomplishment of the decrees of God and the safety of herself and her family. The lie which Rahab told is still a sin, not- CHAPTER II. 2 — 6. 83 withstanding that the feelings which dictated it had their root in faith in the true God (ino-rei, Hebr. xi. 31), and the help she rendered from these motives to the spies and therefore to the cause of the Lord, was counted to her for righteousness (e'f epyojv iSiKaubOn, James ii. 25), and her sin was forgiven her as a. -sin of weakness.1 V. 6 explains more fully ^q^i (v. 4), by giving a descrip tion of the place and manner in which the spies had been con cealed, namely, on the flat roof under the flax-stalks which were stowed away there. YVH VltiJS is rendered by J. D. Michaelis, Winer (lex. hebr.) and others, pods of cotton ; but this meaning is merely supported by the Arabic version, in which it is translated / . JoJill i_a1o=», whereas in all the early translations, with the exception of this, we find it rendered flax-stalks (KivoKaXafi-n, stipulae lini), and also in those of more recent date ; see Gesenius thes. ii. 1136, and Winer, R.W. i. 438.2 As flax grows in Egypt to the height of more than three feet, and the thickness of a cane (Winer, R.W., i. 439), and therefore undoubtedly attained to similar dimensions in the neighbourhood of Jericho, 1 The opinion pronounced by Calvin on this point is perfectly correct : De mendacio sic habendum est : quam vis in bonum finem tenderet, non tamen fuisse extra culpam. Nam qui mendacium officiosum prorsus excusant, non satis attendunt, quam pretiosa sit Deo Veritas. Ergo quamvis fratres nostros juvare, eorum saluti consulere et ipsos sublevare propositum sit ; nunquam mentiri fas erit, quia rectum esse non potest, quod Dei naturae est contrarium. Atqui Deus est Veritas. Neque tamen ideo virtutis laude exuitur opus Rahab, quamvis macula sit aspersum. Saepe enim contingit, dum sancti rectam viam tenere student, in obliquos tamen circuitus divertere. In proof of this he ad duces theexampleof Rebekah, Gen. xxvii., and then proceeds : Perperam quoque Rahab, dum nuncios abiisse mentitur ; praecipua tamen actio Deo grata, quia vitium virtuti admistum non imputatur. Interea sicuti voluit Deus liberari speculatores, ita mendacio protegi eorum vitam non probavit. This scriptural decision presents a striking con trast to the utterly unfounded assertion of Hauff (Offenbarungsgl. u. Krit., p. 267) : that the author of the book before us regarded the lie and the deception of Rahab as " not only allowable, but even praise worthy." 2 Thenius (in the review of De Wette's hebr. Archaologie in tho Hall, A. L. Z., April 1845, p. 742) is the only one who is still of opinion, that the most natural interpretation of vvn VlttJS tree-flax favours the rendering cotton. 62 84 THE TWO SPIES. where the climate resembles that of Egypt, the flax-stalks, which were spread out or piled up (p'to-yjr) on tbe fiat roof to dry in the heat of the sun, formed an excellent hiding-place for the spies. (See also Celsii hierob., ii. 299 seq., and Rosenmiiller bibl. Althk., iv. 1, p. 172 sqq.) V. 7. QiuJaNn are ^e men °^ ^ericb°j wbo went in pursuit of the spies at the command of their king. rfiliyftil hv ^oes not mean "near" or "at the ford of the river" (Vatablius, Drusius, Rosenmiiller, and others), but over the fords. It does not depend upon *|pn"> but is to be taken in connexion with IT^il Tpl : "the way of the Jordan over the fords," i.e., on the road which led to the Jordan and across the fords (Syriac, Vulgate, Seb. Schmidt, Maurer, and others). The Jordan has several fords, which can be waded through, when the water is at its usual height, and can even be crossed by an army. There is, namely, the one mentioned here, near Jericho (compare Judges iii. 28, xii. 5, 6; 2 Sam. xvii. 22, 24, xix. 15, 17, 39), one at Bethsean (Beisan) leading thence to Succoth (Judg. viii. 4; 1 Maccab. v. 32), by which Burckhardt crossed the river (Reise ii., p. 593 and 595), and several others between Beisan and the southern point of the Sea of Galilee ; (compare Robin son ii., p. 500). — Still it is by no means probable that the men of Jericho extended their pursuit of the spies to the other side of the Jordan ; for if they did not overtake them before reaching the river, they could have but little hope of doing so on the other side, with the Israelitish camp in the immediate neighbour hood. — And the gate was shut, as soon as they who pursued after them were gone out. They took this precaution, because it was just possible, that the spies might be still in the city. It is mentioned here, however, with reference to the description, which immediately follows, of the fortunate escape of the spies in spite of these precautionary measures. Vv. 8 — 14. As soon as the messengers from the king had left Rahab's house, she went up to the spies who were concealed on the roof, and told them how the inhabitants of the land, had lost all their courage, on account of the reports which had reached tbem of the great miracles that the Lord had performed for Israel, and of the victories gained by the Israelites over the CHAPTER II. 8 — 14. 85 Amoritish kings. She then requested that they would promise her on oath, that when the land was conquered they would show mercy to her family and spare their lives, and asked for a token in confirmation of their promise. — V. 8. \yy@ J-jEm. Iji)23yjl,i before they lay down to sleep, i.e., before the spies had come out of their hiding-place and lain down to sleep, Rahab went up to them upon the roof. They probably intended to sleep on the roof, a very usual practice in summer time in eastern countries; see Rosenmiiller A. u. N. Morgenland iii. p. 85, and Winer, R.W. i. 283. — The three clauses commencing with 13 are co-ordinate, and all depend on ij^-p. Luther, Masius, Osiander, and others erroneously translate the last two in such a way, as to make them express the source from which Rahab had obtained her assurance, that Jehovah had given the land to the Israelites. The three co-ordinate clauses merely relate what Rahab knows ; the foundation for her statement follows in v. 10. It was not because dread of the Israelites had come upon the Canaanites, and all the inhabitants of the land were in des pair, that Rahab had arrived at the conclusion that Jehovah had given, or rather had determined to give (>]-£ denotes here the design of God, as in chap. i. 3) the land to the children of Israel. On the contrary, her faith was founded on the miraculous deeds which Jehovah had performed for Israel at the Red Sea, and in their victory over the two kings of the Amorites (v. 10). From these she had arrived at the conclusion that the Lord had given the land of Canaan to Israel ; and she believed, what observation confirmed, that all the Canaanites had been over come by dread of the Israelites, and that they were in per fect despair. The reports of these wondrous acts had strength ened her belief that Canaan was destined by Jehovah to become the possession of the Israelites, and, on the other hand, had deprived the unbelieving Canaanites of all their courage ; for they were sufficient to prove to any man, who had the least per ception of Divine things, that the God of Israel was the Almighty God in heaven and on earth, whom no one could possibly with stand (v. 11). The name Jehovah in Rahab's address is not introduced by the biblical historian, who has substituted his own words for hers, as Clericus, Rosenmuller, and others say ; but 86 THE TWO SPIES. Rahab calls the God of the Israelites by the name which he bore amongst them, and which she had heard by report. The use of this name does not of itself involve the confession of Jehovah as the one true God ; it is only from the words of Rahab in verse 11, that we discover that she acknowledged him as the Almighty God in heaven and on earth. The last two clauses (v. 9) re semble in their modes of expression Ex. xv. 15, 16. That which Moses and the congregation had sung after passing through the Red Sea : " all the inhabitants of Canaan melt away (from fear) ; fear and dread are falling upon them," is shown by the testimony of Rahab to the spies to be now fulfilled. Dread of the Israelites had fallen upon them, according to the prediction which Moses had uttered in his last discourse (Deut. ii. 25 and xi. 25), in firm reliance upon the promise of God (Ex. xxiii. 27) ; the Lord had brought both fear and dread of them upon the Canaanites. 13i^y> which forms the antithesis to ^yj, refers not merely to " .T # V T the inhabitants of Jericho, but to the Canaanites as a whole (Seb. Schmidt). — ^qj, from j^q diffluere, is employed in Ex. -T xv. 15, and thence both in the passage before us and verse 24, in the Niphal to denote complete prostration of all. the powers of both body and soul from fear and dread ; it means, therefore, to despair, to lose all courage. V. 10. Of the numerous miracles which the Lord had wrought for his people, the two most adapted to produce a powerful im pression upon all the heathen nations round about, and to fill them with the greatest alarm, were the drying up of the Red Sea, so that Israel was able to go over dry-shod, whilst the Egyptians, who pursued them, with all their chariots and horse men, were buried beneath the waves (Ex. xiv. 15 sqq.), and the assistance afforded them in the battle with the Amorites, through which they were enabled to conquer the two powerful kings of Gilead and Bashan (Num. xxi. 24—35), and to take their king doms and devote all the towns to destruction, together with their inhabitants (JJeut. ii. 31— iii. 10.) It is true the short account of the latter event, which we have in Num. xxi. and Deut. ii. and iii., does not give prominence to any special miraculous as sistance on the part of God, yet it must certainly have been attended with striking proofs that the Israelites were sustained by the omnipotence of Jehovah, since the Lord had foretold CHAPTER II. 8 — 14. 87 their victory over the king of Sihon in such words as these: " This day will I begin to put the dread of thee, and the fear of thee upon the nations that are under the whole heaven, who shall hear reports of thee, and tremble and be in anguish because of thee," (Deut. ii. 25 compared with Josh. xxiv. 12.) For Qi-inn see chap. vi. 21. — V. 11. Then our hearts despaired. D1D2 fr°m DDE 1S frequently used to denote despondency of heart, which the Hebrews represented as melting to water (chap. vii. 5.) See also the remarks on ^^^ at v. 9. The description T receives additional force from the negative clause, which is ap pended both here and at chap. v. 1 : " and there is no man in ichom any more courage remains" This phrase is used in 1 Kings x. 5 to denote being beside one's self from astonishment. Here it indicates the same effect from terror, complete loss of spirit. ]-p|-^ is that active power of the mind which we call courage. When Rahab speaks of her belief, that Jehovah is God in heaven above and in earth beneath, as shared in by all her countrymen, she merely extends to them the impression pro duced upon her heart; since they had by no means attained to the same faith. If the Canaanites had all attained to this, they would not have suffered the punishment of extermination, but the same miracle which produces real faith in a heart inclined already to believe, only brings the unbelieving heart to greater hardness than before ; just as the same word of God becomes to the believer a savour of life unto life, and to the unbeliever a savour of death unto death (2 Cor. ii. 16). On account of the hardness of their hearts, all the mighty wonders of God failed to lead the Canaanites to the knowledge of the Lord and faith in him. In spite of all they hardened themselves more and more till the judgment came upon them. But however closely the con fession here made by Rahab, of belief in the God of Israel, resembles that perfect living faith to which, according to Deut. iv. 39, the Israelites were to be brought by the miraculous assistance they would receive from their God ; there is still this difference that in her confession we find 0VT7N onty> not D^n'^>Nn> and also that -fly vi^ " there is none else," is omitted. Rahab confesses, it is true, that Jehovah is God in heaven and on earth, but not that he is the only God in heaven and on THE TWO SPIES. earth. Though very near, therefore, to a sincere and perfect acknowledgment of the Lord, she has not yet completely escaped from polytheism. V. 12 seq. After thus informing the spies of the general feel ings of the people, and confessing to them her belief in the omni potence of Jehovah, Rahab entreats them to save her family, and to confirm their promise by swearing by Jehovah and by giving to her a true token. She bids them swear by Jehovah,. not only because nothing but an oath by their God could oblige the Israelites to perform their promise, but also because she is herself convinced of the almighty power of this God. «q quod, introduces the contents of the oath itself. The two clauses, " I have shown you kindness," and " ye will also show kindness to my father's house, i.e., to my family," stand in antithetical rela tion to each other, denoting " as 1 have shown kindness to you, so do you also show it to my family." What this -JDH HWV. 1S to consist of is not explained till v. 13. For before describing more fully the kindness which she wishes them to show to her family, Rahab asks the spies to give her an pfoi* "VlN a token of truth, a token by which they were to bind themselves to truth, i.e., to the real or true performance of their oath. Gesenius arbi trarily assigns to the word j^)^ in this passage the meaning securitas, signum securitatis, i.e., securum, certum (thes. i. 117). Df2H never means anything else than truth, either spoken or acted, in word or deed. The material man is not contented with a word alone ; for greater security he requires a material token, a visible pledge of the word, which may serve either to remind the other of his oath, or if he break it, to convict him of perjury. It has therefore been a common custom with all nations to give such tokens in connexion with oaths and treaties. They have only been driven out by the written signature of oaths, contracts, and other things of the same description, the document in writing taking the place of a token chosen at pleasure. — V. 13. The kindness to be shown to her family consists of this, that when Jericho is taken, an event which Rahab regards as so sure to occur that she does not once mention it, all her relatives are to be preserved alive. She does not speak of herself, because the preservation of her life followed as a matter of course. More- CHAPTER 11. 15, 16. 89 over, the suffix in ^ijitTSi (v- 13), which is in the first person, shows that she included herself in the i^ j-^ (v- 12)- "HIJN-^S q;~H does not refer to their material possessions, but, as chap. V T vi. 23, 25, clearly shows, the children and other relatives of her brothers and sisters. The spies took the oath, as desired, witb the words " our soul shall die for you." The meaning of this expression is not " we will rather die than allow you to be slain," (as Clericus and the exegetical Handbook, after the example of Kimchi, explain it). It is a form of oath, which Osiander has thus accurately paraphrased : " we place our life and soul in the hand of God, as a pledge for thee, in order that he may destroy us if any one injures thee or thine." The ordinary form ^WJQi "in has the same meaning (see 1 Sam. i. 26, xvii. 55, xx. 3, xxv. 26 ; 2 Kings ii. 2, 4, &c.) The name of Jehovah is not indeed expressed in this oath, but it is certainly implied, and therefore it is to be regarded as an oath by Jehovah. The clause $fo q^ "CTI 'iTSn is not to be treated as a parenthesis, as it has been by most commentators, nor is it appended as a condition to the pre vious oath ; but the oath itself forms an independent sentence, whilst ^ ^ £3^ is the antecedent to ^ pPm which follows • t t : (Maurer) : " If ye do not make this our business known, it will come to pass that, when Jehovah we will show you kindness and truth." j-fts^ "ion T1&V means not merely " to show sincere kindness to any one (Gesenius thes. i. 117), but to show kindness and truth, i.e., to verify our words by deeds. The favourite supposition of a ev hia hvolv, in this as in most other cases, only weakens the thought. — On -ft *l3"^1> see Ewald Lehrb. §298 a. Vv. 15, 16. After the spies had given Rahab an assurance of safety and deliverance on the occasion of the capture of Jericho, she let them down by a rope from her house, which was built against the town wall, and at the same time advised them to hasten to the mountains, and conceal themselves there for three days till the men who were sent in pursuit of them had returned. — According to the opinion of Masius, Osiander, Clericus, Rosen miiller, and others, v. 15 contains a prolepsis, and it was not till after the words contained in v. 16 — 20 that they were let down 90 THE TWO SPIES. the wall of the town. " For," says Masius, " it is not to be sup posed that the spies were let down before the oath taken was given. And a confusion in the order of the events is by no means uncommon in sacred literature." Of these remarks the second is altogether unfounded ; though the first is certainly plausible. The difficulty in question might be obviated by noticing that the Hebrews often connect together the principal circumstances attending any particular event, and after fully describing these, proceed to fill up the details of minor im portance. This, however, is not a confusion in the order of events, but an anticipation of the result, consequent upon a well arranged division of the subject matter. In the passage before us such an assumption, plausible as it seems on the first reading, is shown at once to be inadmissible by S|3frrYi}-j (" thou didst let us down," v. 18), which proves that the spies had, been already let down, at the time when they gave the promised token to Rahab. Masius had not indeed overlooked the perfect 12rn"TirF» but has set it aside by the unfounded remark that " a change in the tenses was very frequent amongst the Hebrews," whilst Clericus and Rosenmiiller pass it by without notice. The only conclusion which we can draw from the arrangement of the text is, that Rahab was satisfied with the assurance given to her by the spies, that she should be saved, and so let them down, and that it was not till she had given them further directions from the window with regard to their way of escape, as they were standing below (v. 16), that they named to her the token, together with the conditions on which alone she was to expect deliverance.— In order to picture to ourselves the situation of the house, we must suppose that the town-wall formed the back- wall of the house ; and that the house itself, which rose above the wall, had a window behind, through which the spies could be let down by a rope outside the town. — V. 16. Go up to the mountains, lest the pursuers meet with you. As there were mountains on three sides of Jericho (see v. 1), the spies "could easily flee to them. It is not likely, however, that they went to those on the west of the town ; they would be sure to select either the northern or southern, that they might be as near to the Jordan as possible. — Most interpreters have decided in favour of those to the north, which afterwards received the CHAPTER II. 17—20. 91 name of Quarantana, amongst the Arabians that of VkJ,3 Kuruntul. They form a rocky wall rising almost perpendicularly to the height of 1200 to 1500 feet above the plain, and on the eastern side are full of grottoes and caverns (Robinson ii. p. 552). This range certainly appears to have offered the most suitable hiding place for the spies, for "to the south of the opening of the Wady Kelt, where Jericho probably stood, the mountains on the west fall considerably back, forming a curve from the plain in a south-westerly direction, and then bending towards the Dead Sea, terminate abruptly in the promontory of Ras el Feshkhah," Robinson ii. p. 534 seq. — And hide yourselves therefor three days till the pursuers return. As Jericho, according to Josephus, Ant. v. 1, 4, was only 60 stadia from the Jordan, they did not require three days for going and returning; but they might possibly stay by the Jordan and search the neighbour hood in different directions. Hence it was advisable that the spies should conceal themselves for this length of time. Vv. 17 — 20. Before the spies depart, they protect themselves against any wrong interpretation or application of their oath, and give to Rahab the token she desired. " Behold, we are released from our oath which thou hast made us swear, sa, if thou do not observe the following conditions. We must supply this or some similar idea. The historian was at liberty to omit these words, because he repeats in v. 20 the words of the 17th verse, after he has described what the conditions were. XO ^W Pure from the oath, i.e., released from the obligation to perform it, (compare Gen. xxiv. 41). — The connexion of the masc. p.'jpj with the fem. p^lti) may be accounted for from V ~ T J the fact that j-jf is frequently used dependently and impersonally, and hence loses all distinction of gender and number ; see Ewald, Lehrb. § 183 a. On the other hand j-ftj-j ^C?n tain mp.Fl (v. 18) may be explained, on the ground that the gender of the pronoun is determined by that of the nomen rectum j^j-j ; see Ewald, Lehrb. § 307, c. — ijqj j^pf fYlDfi a cord spun of crimson threads. ^IpD = lp or TVp a cord- "»i«J = ^C) rtybifi (Ex- Ti. . i_ vr.. . T . T — — xxv. 4, &c) is the cochineal, coccus ilicis. From the dried bodies of the females of this insect, together with their eggs, a splendid deep-red colour is procured, the crimson so called from 92 THE TWO SPIES. - V . the Arabic t^S \ hence the name ygj was applied both to the tf V ' T colour itself and to the material dyed with it ; see Braun, de vest, sacerd. 1, i. c. 15, and Rosenmiiller bibl. Althk. iv. 2, p. 447 sqq. — There is no foundation for the opinion of some com mentators, that it was this red cord by which the spies were let down from the window. That is called ^|-j. — The demonstra tive pronoun might certainly be explained by supposing that Rahab held in her hand the cord, to which the spies referred; but it is more natural to assume that the spies had given Rahab the cord, as the token for which she asked. — The "mjfc$, which follows, is connected with "mfi not with /ypjr|. — On the form llPVTfin consult Ewald, Lehrb. § 249 d. — The red cord, bound to the window, was to be the sign by which, at the capture of the town, she was to distinguish her house. This was the first condition ; the second was that she was to bring all her relatives together into her house. Any of them who might leave the house when the Israelites entered the town, would bring their death upon themselves, if they should be slain in the streets ; but if any of the persons who were assembled in the house should be injured by the Israelites, they (the spies) would hold themselves guilty (v. 18 seq.) The formula "HUNI! i^n, though it is not itself found in the law, is a technical term, formed in imitation of the phraseology of the law, and used to denote the punish ment of death when justly brought upon one's self (see my com mentary on the Books of Kings, p. 33). Its real meaning is : let the guilt of his death fall back upon himself. ;o$N~ll tol has an analogous meaning : let the guilt of the crime committed against him fall upon us ; we will lay down our life in conse quence. V. 20. Lastly, the spies repeat the condition already mentioned in v. 14. V. 21. When Rahab had promised to observe these conditions, the spies left her. She then bound the crimson cord in the window, probably not immediately, but as soon as the Israelites proceeded to Jericho. Before this time the precaution would be unnecessary, and could only excite suspicion in the minds of her countrymen. The historian mentions it at once for the purpose of bringing the subject to a close,. CHAPTERS III. AND IV. 93 Vv. 22 — 24. The spies follow Rahab's advice, and hide them selves for three days in the mountains ; they then return to the camp and relate to Joshua all that had happened to them ; especially how Rahab had said (v. 9), that the Lord had given the land into their hands, since all the inhabitants of it were in despair through their dread of the Israelites. — ^-fljjV) stands alone, because the more minute description lnn*,iT_riN can easily be supplied from the context. — DniN rViN2Q!T"V3 1S svnony~ mous with qh.'S rfl!?rT~73 Gren. xiii. 29. W$2 w^h an accusa- tive of the person literally means to find any one, to light upon him, ppto, with an accusative of the person, to meet any one, to T T run up against him. — Of that which they had met with, and now relate to Joshua, the principal thing is again especially mentioned in v. 24, namely, the information they had gained with reference to the feelings of the Canaanites. This of course was the one great thing they had been sent out to discover. CHAPTERS III. & IV. THE ISRAELITES PASS THROUGH THE JORDAN. The contents of these two chapters are very carefully arranged in sections, as follows. We have an account, in chap. iii. 1 — 6, of the grand preparations for the miraculous crossing, in vv. 7 — 17, of the commencement of it, in chap. iv. 1 — 14, of the actual passage, and in vv. 1 5 — 24 of the termination of the whole affair. This careful division, together with the custom, peculiar to Hebrew historical literature, of marking the close of each section by a sentence embracing the whole transaction and forming a temporary conclusion (see Ewald, die Compos, der Genes, p. 127 and 144 sqq.), necessarily involved several repetitions. These repetitions, which are said to be accompanied by contradictions, have been adduced by Paulus (theol. Conservat. ii. p. 156 sqq.) 94 PASSAGE THROUGH THE JORDAN. and Eichhorn (Einl. iii. p. 384 sqq.) in support of the hypothesis, that the narrative before us was compiled from two documents, the one of which described the passage through the Jordan, as performed entirely in the natural and ordinary manner across the fords, whilst according to the other it was, on the con trary, an event altogether miraculous. But most critics are now agreed that there are no such contradictions as these writers imagine, and that the repetitions can be satisfactorily explained from the simple style of narrative, which we have already spoken of as peculiar to the Hebrews (see, for example, Hauff. Offenba- rungsgl. p. 209 seq.) There is, therefore, no necessity for us to offer any particular refutation of this hypothesis, which has only sprung from the attempt to reduce the miracle to a natural occurrence ; especially as the exposition of the chapters them selves will furnish sufficient proof that neither superfluous repe titions nor actual contradictions are to be found in the narrative before us. V. 1. On the morning following the return of the spies, Joshua removed with the people from Shittim and advanced to the Jor dan, where they rested before crossing the river. That the re moval from Shittim did not occur before the return of the spies, and that o^vi is not to be regarded as a pluperfect, has already been proved (see chap. i. 11). <*h does not mean here simply to pass the night, i.e., to remain there for one night, but to take rest, to remain quiet, a sense in which we frequently find it em ployed, especially in poetry. How long the rest continued is shown in v. 2. Vv. 2 — 4. At the end of three days the Shoterim (see chap. i. 10) go through the camp, and furnish the people with prelimi nary instructions for breaking up the encampment and crossing the Jordan. The " three days," which are different from those mentioned in chap. i. 11, arc to be reckoned from the arrival of the people at the Jordan. We are not told why the Israelites remained three days at the Jordan, but it was probably on ac count of the numerous preparations which had yet to be made for the passage. If we bear in mind that the camp of the Israelites consisted not merely of armed men, but of the whole population, including women and children, together with all their CHAPTER III. 2 — 4 95 possessions, and that all these people on crossing the river would find themselves in an enemy's country, we shall not think it strange that the multifarious arrangements which had to be made on the banks of the Jordan were sufficient to occupy three days. — V. 3.1 When ye see the ark of the covenant of Jehovah your God, and the priests, the Levites, bearing it,2 i.e., " when ye see that the ark of the covenant is carried by the Levitical priests, then," &c. Several Codd. have D3pij«$*)l instead of D3n^^3" ^he difference between the two particles is not great ; ^, dum, refers to the transaction during a certain definite space of time, 3, quum, leaves the time more indefinite; D3I"\N11 means " at the sight of," Q3p\N"Q " while you see ;" see Ewald,, Lehrb. § 221 and 327 c. On the apparently frequent interchange of the two particles, Maurer has very correctly ob served : " it' should not be forgotten that of the different ideas 1 Masius, Houbig, Dathe, the exegetical Handbook, and Dereser, regard the order of events, contained in vv. 3 — 14, as inverted.iii4he arrangement of the narrative is somewhat confu.Be&!^-Masius) and suppose that Joshua was first instructed as to the manner in which the passage was to be effected (vv. 7, 8), that he then informed the people of this communication from God (vv. 9, 10), and that it was not till after this that he issued the command contained in vv. 3 and 4, and gave orders to the priests to go with the ark in front of the people (v. 6). This opinion, which Maurer, Rosenmiiller, and others reject, is founded on an erroneous interpretation of vv. 7 and 8. The promise of Jehovah, that on that day he would magnify Joshua, and the in structions to the priests to remain with the ark in the river, were given on the day of the passage itself, whereas Joshua had previously re ceived from God the command to cross, and therefore had been enabled to issue the necessary directions to the people on the day before. Masius and his imitators understand vv. 7 and 8 as containing the whole of the Divine instructions with reference to the passage. But Joshua issued the command to the people (vv. 3 — 5), and probably also that to the priests (v. 6) the evening before they crossed. And the next morning, just as the passage was about to commence, he received the promise from God in v. 7, and also the directions for the priests in v. 8. He then delivered the address to the people (vv. 9 — 13) just before they crossed the river. This shows that the narrative is arranged in the best order. N 2 De Wetle's rendering " who carry it," is grammatically incorrect. This would require the reading ^p|^ CNftJSPT' (see Deut. xxxi. 9), or '* fHN 'Wfo or ]V")Nn "W'ttja 5 compare vv..8, 13, 15 ; chap. iv. 9, 10, and'viii. 33. 96 PASSAGE THROUGH THE JORDAN. conveyed by the two, the writer might frequently have in his mind that which strikes us least, and also that ^ and ^ might easily have been exchanged by the very first copyists." D^ilijll gvi^pj means sacerdotes stirpis Leviticae, as the Vulgate correctly renders it. The LXX., Chaldee, Syriac, and several Hebrew Codd. have arbitrarily interpolated the copula, ^ " and" between the two words, probably because the expression Levite-priests appeared to them pleonastic, as there were no priests in the Mosaic theocracy excepting those of the tribe of Levi. But the phrase was expressly intended " to point out the legitimacy of the priests of the tribe of Levi, in contradistinction to all priests who were not Levitical." (Havernick, Einleitung i. 2 p. 492.) Of these some occasionally arose in the Jewish state during the times of apostasy from the law.1 With regard to the fact itself, 1 The passages in which the expression occurs prove clearly, that the explanation given in the text is correct, and that it is not intended ts-do away with the distinction between priests and levites, as De Wette ; (Kf it. d. isr. Gesch., p. 335), Vater (Comm. z, Pent, iii., p. 500 seq.), and Hauff, (1. c, p. 131) affirm, (see Hengstenberg, Beitr. iii., p. 401 sqq. in opposition to this view.) Nor is it designed to sus tain the superior dignity of the tribe of Levi, as De Wette (Einl. p. 214) fancies. It is copied from Deuteronomy by the author of this book, who had Deut. xxxi. 9 in his mind, both in writing the passage before us and also in chap. viii. 33, when speaking of the levite-priests as the bearers of the ark of the covenant. It is true that they are there called y^ «,j^ Qijniirfj but D^l^n Dunlin means the same thing. Hence our author, who was not likely to have the Pentateuch open before him when. composing the present book, but who made use of its contents freely and from memory, might easily vary the form of the expression, especially as the frequent use in Deut! of ni1~)!"T O^PD!! made it a familiar phrase. In most of the passages of Deuteronomy the term levitical or levite-priests, i.e., priests who are levites, descen dants of Levi (not priestly levites as v. Lengerke expresses it) is evi dently used in opposition to unlawful, non -levitical priests ; thus Deut. xvii. 9, where the people are commanded in future to refer their dis putes to the levite-priests, and whoever may be judge at the time ; and again, v. 18, where the future king is instructed to make a transcript of the law according to the copy kept by the levite-priests, and xxiv. 8, where the Israelites are ordered, in the plague of leprosy, to do all that the levite-priests shall teach them according to the commandments of God. These precepts all refer to times, in which, as Moses foresaw in spirit, false, non-levitical priests might exist in the state, to whom the people were not to apply. If, then, the distinction is here so very CHAPTER III. 2 — 4. 97 that levitical priests, and not merely levites carried the ark of the covenant : this was the rule on all festive occasions (compare chap. vi. 6, and 1 Kings viii. 3, 6), and was quite in accordance with the spirit of the Mosaic economy, Num. iii. 31, and iv. 5 sqq. Compare Hengstenberg, Beitr. iii. p. 403, and my com mentary on the Books of Kings, p. 116. V. 4. When the ark of the covenant is removed, the people also are to remove and follow it. They are not, however, to approach too near, but to keep at a distance of 2000 cubits from it, that they may be able to see the way, with which, at present, they are unacquainted. These orders only refer to their march from their last quarters near the Jordan into the river itself, not to their passage through it ; for the priests remained standing in the river whilst the people passed through (v. 8, 17). The design of this has been misunderstood by many commentators. It was not because of the sacredness of the ark (an explanation which Masius, C. a Lapide, Seb. Schmidt, and v. Lengerke (p. 619) have forced upon the text) that the people were to follow it at the distance of 2000 cubits, but in order that they might see the way. The ark of the covenant was both to show the road through the Jordan and to open it, and therefore it was carried in advance of the procession into the river. But if the people had followed en masse close upon the heels of the priests who were carrying the ark, from the pressure of the crowd those who were nearest would have completely hidden it from the rest, and thus have prevented the more distant from seeing the way which it opened before them.1 — ^^ is most probably evident, we cannot hesitate to admit that it also exists in Deut. xxvii. 9, though it is somewhat less prominent there. The passage which De Wette cites in addition, from Deut. xviii. 1, " The priests, the Levites, and all the tribe of Levi, shall have no part nor inheritance with Israel," does not belong to the same class, since the Levites' are there distinguished from the priests (compare Hengstenberg, ut supra,. p. 402.) 1 Dr Paulus (theol. conservat. ii. p. 157) translates the words «£) D'tihw hSaiyQ T!Hl o^niJ! *& "ye have not made tte Passase yesterday and the day before (i.e., lately) ;'' and takes this as an in dication that the miracle may be explained as merely " the crossing of the Jordan by one of the fords." For the instructions to remain a few thousand cubits behind the ark of the covenant " because they had 7 * 98 PASSAGE THROUGH THE JORDAN. to be read ^S^ both here and chap. viii. 11 ; this is preferable to the reading "p^l; which is supported by the Masorites, who substituted -py^ in the Keri, since the plural 131^ is almost ex clusively restricted to those cases in which the suffix also is in the plural ; see Ewald, Lehrb. § 266 a. In opposition to all the rules of grammar, the later Rabbins regard the suffix in ^"Q as plural, and refer it to the two arks, which the people took with them, the ark of the covenant, and that which contained the bones of Joseph ; see Ising. exercit. p. 175 seq. and others of the earlier commentators. DiZ&E? ^IDfl* yesterday and the day before, is frequently used, not merely with reference to the time just past, but also to denote more distant periods ; being equiva lent to before, at an earlier period, e.g., Gen. xxxi. 2, 5 ; Ruth ii. 11, &c. In the same sense the Greeks used yQitp. ica\ irpwtt/i, e.g., Eiad ii. 303. V. 5 seq. After the Shoterim had published the arrangements for the passage amongst the people, a commandment was issued by Joshua that they should all sanctify themselves ; after which the priests were ordered to take the ark of the covenant and pass with it before the host. — ^Qy^pnpt is explained by very many as referring, according to Ex. xix. 10, 14 seq., only to the cleaning of the clothes and abstinence from connubial intercourse with their wives, but this was only the outward form of sanctification, and as such merely a symbol of the inward cleansing of the never crossed the fords before," would have been entirely unnecessary if the river had receded to make way for the Israelites." " As it was, they were obliged to yield and submit to the opportunities afforded by the river, and to follow the priests to a plaee where it was very wide, and where on that account the depth was so much the less." Unfortunately for this discovery, there is not a syllable about it in the text. According to this, it was not before the Israelites that the river retreated, but before the ark which opened the way for the Israelites ; and "Tp-rypi means, not the ford, but generally the way by which they had never gone before, and therefore does not denote the ford, with which they were unacquainted, as both Maurer and Paulus assume, hut "an uncommon way, as Hauff, p. 211, calls it, that is, a way opened for them by the power of God, at which the people were to look attentively, not in order that they might not miss the road, for that would have been impossible under the circumstances, but they might clearly perceive the wonders of God." CHAPTER III. 7 — 17. 99 heart. Both sides, however, must be firmly held. " He re quired not only outward sanctification or purifying, which con sisted in the washing of clothes and abstinence from their wives, but more especially holiness within, that they should hold fast the promises of God, fix on him their hope, and seek after true holiness of life." (Calovius.) In Exod. xix. 10 and 14 the wash ing of clothes is expressly mentioned in connection with g^p ; it is therefore questionable whether it occurred on this occasion, as there was hardly time for it, and they could change their clothes instead of washing them ; see Gen. xxxv. 2. The reason assigned for this sanctification is, " to-morrow the Lord will do wonders among you." " Because on the morrow God would be with them, and reveal his presence in an extraordinary manner, viz., by miracles; and therefore they also ought properly to prepare themselves for such an advent and manifestation of God." (Seb. Schmidt.) fri^703 are the miraculous proofs of the power and x I * goodness of God, which were connected with the performance of the covenant he had made with Israel, and therefore included both the miracles by which he overthrew the Egyptians, and delivered his people from the Egyptian bondage (Ex. iii. 20), and also those with which he assisted them to obtain possession of the promised land (Ex. xxxiv. 10). The " marvels" promised in the latter passage were now about to commence. It is im possible to decide whether the command in v. 6 was given on the evening before the passage, as Maurer thinks, or on the morning of the day on which they crossed, according to Rosenmiiller' s opinion, for the one is as possible as the other. The former, however, is the more probable. It is certain that the execution of this command is anticipated in the last elause of the verse ; for the message from God to Joshua (vv. 7, 8), and the address of the latter to the people (vv. 9 — 13) could not have been de livered after the priests had set themselves in motion with the ark of the covenant. Vv. 7 — 17. Commencement of the passage. V. 7 seq. Imme diately before the camp is broken up, the Lord promises Joshua that he will this daymagnify him in the sight of all Israel, that they may know that he will be with him as he was with Moses. He then instructs him to order the priests, who carry the ark of the 72 100 PASSAGE THROUGH THE JORDAN. covenant, as soon as they step into the water of the Jordan to stand still in the river. This day will I begin to make thee great in the eyes of Israel, that they may know The Lord had indeed selected and summoned Joshua to be the leader of the people, but hitherto the fact had not been publicly attested by miracles. Now, however, this was about to be done. Just as the miraculous division of the waters of the Red Sea (Ex. xiv. 31) had demonstrated to the people that Moses was the servant of the Lord, in whom they might confide ; so also was an analo gous miracle, the division of the river Jordan, to prove that, according to the Divine promise (chap. i. 5), the Almighty God was now with Joshua as he had been with Moses. The accom plishment of this design is expressly stated in chap. iv. 14. ^pj^ 1 will begin — this was only the first of the whole series of miracles by which the Lord magnified Joshua as his servant in the sight of Israel. — V. 8. The priests are to continue standing in the Jordan with the ark of the covenant (ch. iv. 11). This was not, as Maurer supposes, to prevent the people from missing the ford, there was no necessity to guard against this, but to keep back the waters of the Jordan. That which Moses accomplished with his staff, through the word of the Lord, was here performed by the* ark of the covenant, which had been appointed at the establish ment of the theocracy as the regular symbol of the gracious pre sence of the Lord. Where the ordinary means of grace exist, the goodness and power of God operate through them, and not directly. Israel was to learn this now, and at the same time to receive a striking fulfilment of the assurance which God had given them, that he would manifest his glory to them out of the ark of the covenant. r^pyipi iq pj^p--jy to the end of the water of Jordan, i.e., not to the further bank of the Jordan, but to the point at which the water ends on the eastern side ; so that from the Israelitish point of view at that time it was to the beginning of the water; compare v. 15 and chap. iv. 11. j-^ -j^ is used with the same meaning in Ex. xvi. 35. From the subsequent address of Joshua to the people, Masius has correctly inferred that the instructions which God gave to him are not all reported here, but " only such particulars as were required to prove that the orders, which Joshua had issued to the priests concerning the CHAPTER III. 7—17. 101 arrangement of the ceremony, were not given on his own authority, but by the command and authority of God." Vv. 9 — 13. Joshua next announces to the people the miracle which is about to be performed, and at" the same time directs them to elect twelve men, one from every tribe, as witnesses of it. — V. 9. In order to show the importance of the word of the Lord, which he is going to declare to them, Joshua commences with the solemn appeal, " Come near, and hear the words of Jeho vah your God." With reference to the form >)^, with the accent thrown back (here and also Ruth ii. 14 ; 1 Sam. xiv. 38), con sult Ewald, Lehrb. § 100 a and 227 b.— V. 10. Joshua first directs the attention of the people to the design of the miracle, and then explains the miracle itself, v. 11 sqq. Hereby shall ye see that a living God is in the midst of you, and will surely drive out the Canaanites before you. " He extends the force of the miracle beyond the mere entrance into the land ; and properly so, since the opening of a way into a hostile country, from which there could be no way of escape, would in itself have been nothing but exposure to death. They would either have been easily, entrapped in narrow passes and an unknown territory, and so have fallen, or have perished through exhaustion from hunger and the want of necessaries of every description. Hence Joshua assures them at the outset, that when God rolls back the river, it will be like the stretching forth of his hand to scatter all the inhabitants of the land ; and that the proof of his power, which he gives them in their passage through the Jordan, will be also a sure presage of the victory, that they will gain over all the people." (Calving — plSIl refers to the miracle announced in v. 11 sqq. God is called ipj ^^ a living (meaning a powerful) God in contrast with the Gods of the heathen, who have neither strength, omnipotence, nor life. The epithet is very appro priately chosen in this place. " For," says Masius with great point, "the design of the commander in this address was to strengthen the hopes and confidence of the people with reference to the victory to be gained over the seven tribes enumerated ; as it was entirely on their belief and assurance that success was suspended." His explanation, however, of the epithet itself is not so good as that of Seb. Schmidt, who says : "I am inclined 102 PASSAGE THROUGH THE JORDAN. to think that the word living in this passage, is used with refe rence to the operations of God, by which he proves that he is living and watchful over the interests of his people. In the same manner, to be in the midst of the people denotes, not the bare presence of God, but presence of a remarkable kind, as evinced by extraordinary operations or special protection." The seven nations,1 enumerated here and chap. xxiv. 11, are all mentioned in Deut. vii. 1, though in a somewhat different order, and there is the same variation in the two lists in the book of Joshua itself. These three passages, to which we must add Deut. xx. 17, Josh. ix. 1, xi. 3, xii. 8, and Judg. iii. 5, where only the Girgashites are omitted, are themselves founded upon still earlier promises, contained in Ex. iii. 8 and 17, xxiii. 23, xxxiii. 2, xxxiv. 11, in which the Lord assures the Israelites, through Moses, that he will bring them into the land of these nations, all of whom are named with the exception of the Gir gashites, and after driving outj the people before them, will give them their country to possess. We find the same promise in Ex. xiii. 5 ; but the names of only five nations are given there, the Perizzites and Girgashites being both omitted. In this passage, and also in Ex. xxxiii. 1 — 5, it is expressly stated that the Lord had already promised to the patriarchs that he would give the territory of these nations to the Israelites. We are thus referred to the original promise in Gen. xv. 19 — 21, in which ten nations are mentioned whose land the Lord will give to the seed of Abraham. These ten tribes include all those named in the pas sages cited above, with the exception of the Hivites. According to Gen. x. 15 sqq. they all belonged to the Canaanitish popula tion of the country,2 whose descent is traced from Canaan, the son of Ham. Hence they are often spoken of under the common name of Canaanites ; e.g., Gen. x. 19, xii. 6, xiii. 7, xxiv. 3, xxxiv. 30, 1. 11 ; Ex. xiii. 11, &c. In the strict sense of the word, ^53pj denotes one particular branch of the Canaanitish population of Palestine, inhabiting (according to Num. xiii. 29, Deut. xi. 30, and Josh. v. 1) the coast of the Mediterranean Sea 1 The opinions of the earlier theologians with reference to the nations of Canaan are to be found in Bochart, Pal. iv. c. 36 Reland Pal. ill. p. 135 sqq., and Michaelis, Spicileg. ii. p. 9 sqq. 2 The Perizzites are omitted in this passage. CHAPTER III. 7—17. 103 and the bank of the Jordan. Thus they possessed the eastern and western border-lands of the " land of Canaan," properly so called (Josh. xi. 3), viz., the lower provinces of the country, both on the frontier and on the coast. They held "first, the western bank of the Jordan, as far northward as to the Sea of Galilee, including the remarkably warm and fertile lands in the valley of the Jordan, and, secondly, the coasts of the Mediterranean Sea," (Ewald, Gesch. d, V. Isr. i. p. 281 seq.) See also Bertheau z. Gesch. d. Isr. p. 161. The Hittites (Hethites, ij^piP? derived from p)pj Gen, x. 15,) dwelt in Abraham's time in the country round Hebron (Gen. xxiii. 3 sqq., xxv. 9 seq.), as far southward as Beersheba (Gen. xxvi. 34, xxvii. 46), and on the same mountains as the Jebusites and Amorites.1 Ewald (ut supra, p. 281) describes the Hittites as dwelling in the valley, in contradistinction from the Amorites, who dwelt on the mountains and governed from the heights; and supposes that they were less warlike than the latter, and at an early period became more refined, and lived in well-organized communities, with popular assemblies. But the supposition that they lived in the valleys is not only without evidence to support it, but is contrary to the express statement in Num. xiii. 29 and Josh. xi. 3 that they dwelt upon the mountains. Nor is there any account in history of their greater refinement. The Hivites (i*)pj) dwelt at Gibeon (chap. ix. 7, xi. 19) ; at Sichem, where, at least in Jacob's time, the prince was a Hivite (Gen. xxxiv. 2) ; and at the foot of the Hermoni in the land of Mizpeh (Josh. xi. 3), from Baal-Hermon to Hamath (Judg. iii. 3). In these northern provinces there are towns of the Hivites 1 The opinion of Rosenmiiller (bibl. Althk. ii. 1 p. 258), Ewald (ut supra) and Bertheau (d. B. d. Richt. p. 35), that the Hittites had spread northwards as far as to Bethel, cannot be proved from Judges i. 26 ; compare Winer R.W. ii. p. 45, under the word Lus. Still less can it be inferred from Josh. i. 4, 1 Kings x. 29, 2 Kings vii. 6, that a part of the Hittites, when hard pressed by the Israelites, had retreated to the north and taken refuge in the provinces of Syria, as Bertheau (z. Gesch. d. Isr. p. 158, and d. B. d. Eicht, p. 35) and v. Lengerke (Kenaan i. p. 191) maintain ; for inpf is used in a more extended sense in these passages to denote the Canaanites generally. Compare the notes on chap. i. 4. — v. Lengerke (p. 191 seq.) has shown how various and uncertain have been the explanations given of this name. 1 04 PASSAGE THROUGH THE JORDAN. referred to as late as the time of David (2 Sam. xxiv. 7). Ewald (p. 282) explains V|p[ as meaning " city-men, men who followed the more quiet pursuits of trade and commerce in well-organized communities and fortified towns, and who were mostly settled in such districts as were best adapted to a quiet city life, and from the earliest times have been the sites of the most flourishing inland towns." This description, in some respects, suits Gibeon very well, but whether it applies to the whole tribe must remain un decided for want of information. No such inference can be drawn from the name V|p| ; for there is just as little evidence that pplpj in the Canaanitish meant a community (as Ewald affirms), x — as that i«)pj meant a villager, which v. Lengerke (p. 193) prefers. In the list of the Canaanitish tribes in Gen. xv. 19 sqq., the Hivites are omitted in the Hebrew text, but in the LXX. and the Samaritan Pentateuch they are inserted between the Canaanites and the Girgashites. The Perizzites (i-p^g) are not named in Gen. x. 15 amongst the descendants of Canaan, but in Gen. xiii. 7 and xxxiv. 30, they are classed with the Canaanites, as the inhabitants of the land ; and in all the other passages, with the exception of Ex. xiii. 5 and Num. xiii. 29 they are placed in the list of the Canaanitish tribes. From this Bertheau (z. Gesch. d. Isr. p. 162) concludes that it may have been an oversight that led to the omission in Gen. x. 15 ; a conjecture which has no critical fornix dation to rest upon, and is altogether improbable ; (compare J. H. Kttrz on the early inhabitants of Palestine, in Rudelbach's u. Guericke's Ztschr. 1845, H. 3 p. 52). The name «ip^Q is cor rectly explained by Hengstenberg (Beitr. iii. p. 186) as denoting ITi'nS V"1^ H^V1 (Ezek. xxxviii. 11), inhabitants of the land of villages, i.e., those who lived in the level country, and occupied themselves with agriculture and the rearing of cattle. This explanation, which is quite in harmony with the rules of the language, is confirmed partly by Gen. xiii. 7 and xxxiv. 30 (com pare also Judg. i. 4, 5), where all the inhabitants of the country are divided into Canaanites, (i.e., those who lived in towns and engaged in trade and commerce), and Perizzites, (i.e., those who lived in villages and on the land, and devoted themselves to agricultural pursuits). It is partly also confirmed by Josh. xvii. CHAPTER III. 7—17. 105 15 seq. where they are mentioned, in connexion with the Rephaim, as Canaanites, who dwelt in pft^pf t>-^ the valley-country, i.e. for the most part, the plain of Jezreel, which was peculiarly adapted for grazing and agriculture. Hence the Perizzites, in the wider sense of the word, consisted of all the Canaanites who lived in villages and followed agricultural pursuits in distinction from those who lived in towns and engaged in trade and com merce. In the more limited sense, however, it was applied par ticularly to the inhabitants of the villages in the plain of Jezreel.1 The Girgashites (iQ^nj) are mentioned less frequently than • t : • • any other of the Canaanitish nations. The name only occurs in Gen. xv. 21, Deut. vii. 1, and Josh. xxiv. 11, from which we may infer that they were a very small tribe. According to Josh. xxiv. 11 they dwelt in Canaan proper, but it is impossible to fix their settlements more accurately. The conjecture which Ewald (p. 278) has repeated, that the town Gergesa derived its name from the Girgashites, has been pronounced by Reland (Pal. p. 138) "to rest on a questionable foundation." Eusebius says that this town was situated in the land of Gilead (compare Gesenius, thes. i. 300.) Nor is there any historical evidence for the other assertion of Ewald, that the name Girgashi was pro bably applied to the Canaanitish kingdom, which is called in Josh. xi. the kingdom of Hazor. The Amorites (v^jf$) dwelt, according to Num. xiii. 29, and Josh. xi. 3, in the mountains, and must certainly have been the greatest and most powerful of the nations of Canaan ; for not only is there no list of the Canaanitish tribes from which they are omitted, but their name is often used to denote the Canaan ites universally (Gen. xv. 16," xlviii. 22 ; Josh. xxiv. 18 ; Judg. vi. 10 ; 2 Sam. xxi. 2 ; 1 Kings xxi. 26 ; Amos. ii. 9 ; Ezek. xvi. 3.) This is also evident from the fact that, shortly before the time of Moses, they conquered from the Ammonites and Moabites all the country between the Arnon and the Jabbok, which had previously been taken by the latter from the Rephaim (Num. xxi. 26 ; Judg. xi. 13 — 26), and founded two large king- 1 Ewald' s notion that the name Perizzites in the central parts of the hind appears to have been interchangeable with Chittim, which has a similar meaning, does not rest on any historical foundation. 106 PASSAGE THROUGH THE JORDAN. doms in Gilead and Bashan, which were overthrown by the Israelites under Moses (Num. xxi. 24, 35, xxxii. 33, 39 ; Deut. iii. 8, &c.) As early as the time of Abraham they covered the mountains in the south of Canaan as far as the Dead Sea (Gen. xiv. 7, 13), and hence these mountains were called the moun tains of the Amorites (Deut. i. 7, 19, 20, 44.) From this posi tion they seem to have extended their government over other tribes, for in Josh. v. 1 we read only of the kings of the Amorites on the mountains, and the kings of the Canaanites in the plains ; and in Josh. x. 5 the king of Jerusalem, which was inhabited by Jebusites, is reckoned as one of the five kings of the Amorites who besieged Gibeon and were defeated by Joshua. Moreover, they had spread northward at least to the centre of the land, for there they afterwards forced the Danites into the mountains (Judg. i. 34 seq.), whilst their southern frontier extended to the scorpion steps on the south of the Dead Sea, and to Petra in Wady Musa~(Judg. i. 36). Gesenius traces the name to the lost word "^foN elatio, mons (thes. i. 122) ; Bertheau (z. Gesch. p. 161), Ewald (p. 279), Fiirst (cone. s. v.), and Kurtz (ut supra, p. 54) connect it with *pftfc$ the top (Is. xvii. 6, 9). Ewald, * T accordingly, supposes that the Canaanites applied the name both to the tops of trees and the summits of mountains with their castles, and that the word Amorites means " the mountaineers, or inhabitants of the mountains." On this Kurtz (ut supra) remarks with probability : " but as the Amorites, who were so widely spread, cannot possibly have confined themselves to the cacumina et summos vertices montium, it is more natural to keep to the primitive meaning of the word, and render it the lofty, high-towering." In a similar manner, Fiirst in his small dic tionary, in addition to the meaning dwellers on the summit, men tions also as probable : " the gigantic, high-born people." The Jebusites (iQ^yi) had their central position at Jerusalem, the upper part of which, situated on Mount Zion, was called the fortress of Jebus. Of this they maintained possession till the time of David (2 Sam. v. 6—8). According to chap. xi. 3, they seem also to have extended further towards the north. V. 11. Joshua first announces what is about to occur : " Be hold the ark of the covenant of the Lord of the whole earth CHAPTER 111. 7—17. 107 passeth before you into Jordan." y-^j-j-L^ ^^ though sepa rated from pp-ppr fi-^ by Sakeph-Katon, is nevertheless depen dent upon it, and connected with it in the construct state. But as there are in reality four words here dependent on one another, the first two are drawn more closely together so as to express a single idea, and are specially defined by the article, whilst the connection between the second member of the construct state (yiNpf-?! Ills) ancl the first is slackened in consequence. In such cases we generally find that, in order to prevent obscurity, either the governing noun is repeated in the construct state (Dent. ix. 9), or the third noun is separated and again attached by lp; compare Ewald, Lehrb. § 291 a, and 292 b. This, how ever, has not been done here, as there was no fear of ambiguity.1 The term applied to God, Lord of the whole earth, is very ap propriately chosen for the purpose of quieting every doubt and apprehension of the natural heart. Calvin has very forcibly observed : " Because the thing was difficult to believe, Joshua directs the minds of the people to a consideration of the power of God, #y which all difficulties are overcome. For the title by which God is distinguished here, Lord of the whole earth, is no cold expression, but exalts his government over all the elements of the world, in order that the Israelites may believe that, since seas and rivers are subject to his authority, the waters, though liquid by nature, will stand, as though solid, at his nod." Masius makes a similar remark, whereas the neological critics can dis cover nothing in this description of God, but the mark of a later period (Maurer), or a departure from the peculiarities of the Elohists and Jehovists (De Wette, Einleitung, p. 237,), and have no idea of its actual meaning. — We are not to conclude from l^psis, Q113D7 "Qi7 that the priests passed at once with the ark of the covenant to the opposite side of the river. These words must be explained according to the more detailed account given in v. 8, 15, &c. ; here they merely indicate the protection 1 Masius, Drusius, and J. Buxtorf (histor. arc. foed., p. 21) have altogether erred in supposing that '^pj ^ VHN wi{h IyIN ls con" nected by apposition and asyndeton, and therefore the ark of the covenant is called the Lord of the whole earth. 108 PASSAGE THROUGH THE JORDAN. which would be afforded to Israel by the ark of the covenant, as the symbol of the presence of the ruler of the whole earth. V. 12. The command to elect twelve men, one from every tribe, is not out of place here, as Masius supposes ; nor does it support the assumption that there were two original documents, as Paulus and Eichhorn fancy. Again, it has not crept in here from chap. iv. 2, through an oversight on the part of an ancient copyist, as Meyer (ut supra, p. 341) conjectures ; nor, lastly, is it probable, as Meyer and Maurer say, that " the historian was about to narrate at chap. iii. 12 sqq., what is afterwards narrated in chap. iv. 3 — 9 ; but, after he had written down the command, altered his plan, and resumed the thread which he had broken off at v. 11, without, however, erasing v. 12." There is no reason whatever for attributing such forgetfulness to the his torian. The command is reported in this place, because it was given by Joshua at this time ; for the election of twelve men by the people would have been impossible whilst they were crossing, though, after they were chosen, Joshua could easily explain to them, whilst the rest were passing over, what they were to do. They are to be elected by the people, first of all that they may act as their representatives, and be witnesses of the miracles which are about to be wrought at their passage through the river. The emphasis is here laid upon pjpiy, upon the time when the election of the men was to take place. The literal repetition of the command at chap. iv. 2, without any indication of the time when it was given, is easily explained from the simplicity of the Hebrew style, which led to an exact repetition of the com mand in the very same words, in which it was first given in chap. iii. 12, instead of an indirect reference to it in such words as : " the twelve men whom ye have chosen, taking one from every tribe." Compare Havernick, Einl. ii. 1. p. 14. V. 13. Announcement of the coming miracle : " When the soles of the feet of the priests, who bear the ark of the covenant, shall rest in the waters of the Jordan, the water of the Jordan which flows down from above shall be cut off and remain standing in a heap." pn33> abscindi, to be cut off, so that no more water flows down from above. The meaning discidentur, or "the waters shall part," is not admissible as the rendering of ftrnsi. CHAPTER III. 7 — 17. 109 We should then have to supply " from the waters below"1 after "uTI2 O^T^n 0/i2PT> as Maurer has done. The words Qiftpj "lyyQ 'TJ are in apposition to the subject ftp^pj iq, and are wanted to define it more minutely, lest V^pn^i should be mis understood as denoting the complete drying up, annihilation of the water. This more minute explanation, however, the author has placed after the verb in the form of apposition, and thus has given a poetical tinge to the whole period. The LXX. and Vulg., and most of the commentators, have overlooked this con struction, and, on the supposition that ft^ft /-Spj D^ftn 1S the subject of the next sentence, have either arbitrarily transposed the copula ^ before YTO5^> t,e,> left it out before ¦pjQjyi and sup plied it before Q^ftpf, or have explained it to be the sign of the subordinate clause, and regarded ""ft^ft ip| Cftpj as nominative absolute. The Chaldee, the Arabic, and Luther, however, have rendered it correctly, except that the last two, in order to make the meaning more plain, have left out w^*ipj iq. Of the com mentators, Masius hints at the correct explanation, but without positively declaring himself in its favour. — -The repetition in full of the description of Jehovah, as V^NIT^S fi*JN> is neither super fluous nor a useless amplification, but serves to give prominence to the causa efficiens of the miracle, which was before rather im plied than decidedly expressed, ipj^ -ft in a heap. -ft is ren dered in Symm. aa/cco/ia ev, in the Chaldee "fpj NlpVl a sMn} — t' : -p »p -n ? .y (bottle), in the Syriac |1-»j td^? -»-"l as in a skin, from which it does not follow that they read -^3 ; though they have con founded *^ with -^3. Vv. 14 — 17. Commencement of the miraculous passage through the Jordan. Vv. 14 — 16 form one period; vv. 14, 15 a. are antecedent clauses. V. 15 b. is a middle clause, and v. 16 the apodosis. The second hemistich of the 14th verse is not the apodosis to the first, as it is supposed to be by Piscat. and Rosenmiiller who change the participle ifr$j»J2 into the finite sense, but forms a part of the antecedent clause, and therefore renders 1 The assumption of Meyer (p. 343), that the words "Spy Qiftpj "lyjfo are a gl°ss; which has arisen from v. 16, because they are an unnecessary addition, is altogether arbitrary. 110 PASSAGE THROUGH THE JORDAN. it necessary either to supply the substantive verb : " and (when) the priests were before the people, bearing the ark of the cove nant," or to repeat the verb yfcft! : " an<* the priests opened the way in front of the people, bearing the ark of the covenant." — On the construction pyn^pi rplNn see Ewald, Lehrb. § 290 e. In v. 15 the construction with the infinitive is dropped, and the finite verb introduced. This occurs in chap. iv. 18, x. 20 and in so many other places, that it is a rule in Hebrew not to continue long the infinitive or participial construction with which a sentence is commenced, but to introduce in a very short time the finite verb ; see Ewald, Lehrb. § 337. The clause v. 15 b. is neither a parenthesis, nor, certainly, a gloss (as Eichhorn [Einl. iii. p. 389] and others fancy), which breaks off the connection, and must have found its way at a later period into the text ; on the contrary, it is a subordinate substantive clause, introduced into the sentence for the purpose of giving a fuller explanation of the meaning. Such clauses are frequently met with in good Hebrew prose (see chap. vi. 1 ; Gen. xviii. 11 ; and Ewald, Lehrb. § 331 c.) In this case it is absolutely requisite to complete the narra tive, and hence it is again referred to in chap. iv. 18. The natural explanation of the miracle, of which the rationalists are so fond, is rendered absolutely impossible by this clause ; and just for this reason it must be set aside as a gloss. — N7D "ppyi'-ft-Ss-^ is translated by Robinson (ii. p. 262)1: "it was full up to all its banks, i.e., it ran with full banks or was brim- full ;" he also refers to the LXX. : eV/Ujpou naff o\rjv ttjv KprjTrtSa, avTov, and to the Vulgate : Jordanis autem ripas alvei sui tempore messis impleverat. Gesenius also appears to have given tbe same meaning to the parallel passage in 1 Chr. xii. 15, for in the thesaurus (ii. 788) he translates the words fc$VftO fcflpf TTVH^^S hv iS(lue implebat (alveum aquis) super omnes ripas suas. But even if we do not dispute the possibility of this ex planation being correct — though the fact, that fc$Stt ln °tner places is always followed by the accusative of the thing, ought to be sufficient to render this doubtful — yet it seems inadmissible, if we compare the passage in chap. iv. 18 : " and the waters of 1 The references to Robinson are to the London Ed., Murray 1841. — Tr. ' " CHAPTER III. 7 — 17. 1 1 1 Jordan returned to their place, and went over all its banks, as they did yesterday and the day before. The expression used here YTWlSrvl-'?^ iT^n to go over all its banks, must imply the over flowing of the banks, the pouring of the water over the top of the banks, and not merely the filling of the banks to the very brim ; as we may see from Is. viii. 7 : The Euphrates " shall come up over all its channels, and go over all its banks."1 And since in chap. iv. 18 it is said that this " flowing of the river over all its banks" happened Qjjj^ty ^foj"0> an<^ 1S thus extended beyond the time at which the Israelites crossed the river; the •pp^J. ^3 ^7V V^yO in the verse before us must be explained in the same way. But it by no means follows from this that the river had overflowed the whole breadth of the Ghor, as many of the earlier commentators supposed ; compare Faber in Harmars Beob. ii. p. 228 sqq. The Jordan flows, as is well known, in a deep valley in the Ghor, which is three-quarters of a mile wide, and 40 feet (which is Bwckhardis estimate, p. 593), or from 50 to 60 feet (as Robinson supposes) deeper than the Ghor itself. In this lower valley a narrow fringe of canes, inter mingled with trees, runs along the edge of the bed of the river. Above the last ford toward the south, el Helu, this fringe is wider and contains a larger number of trees (Robinson, ii. p. 254 seq.) In the vicinity of Beisan Burckhardt (p. 594) found it "covered with lofty trees and a luxuriant green, which pre sented a striking contrast to the sandy cliffs that border it on all sides." (See also Robinson, p. 260). In several places this strip of vegetation covers a still deeper part of the lower valley, which is " skirted by banks five or six feet high, so that here the river might strictly be said to have three sets of banks, viz., the upper or outer ones, forming the first descent from the level of the great valley ; the lower or middle ones enclosing the tract of canes and other vegetation and the actual banks of the channel." (Robinson, p. 255 — 256.) From this it follows that, even if it cannot be proved that the Jordan ever spread 1 It is admitted by all commentators that lpjVp|!\ ~h^~hv T?i~T ln T • T ~ /-V ¦ Is. viii. 7 denotes a great overflowing of the Euphrates ; see Gesenius, Hitzig, Drechsler, and others in loco. 112 PASSAGE THROUGH THE JORDAN. beyond the strip of land on either side, which fe covered with trees and shrubs, since, as Robinson has correctly observed, this would necessarily have caused the line of vegetation to extend to a greater distance from the bed of the river, yet when this strip of land on each side was covered, the actual banks of the river would be overflowed. Hence the adoption of this explanation completely satisfies the terms of the passages quoted from the Old Testament, with which we may also com pare Sirach xxiv. 26. And to the present day this strip of vegetation is sometimes overflowed. Robinson himself, when he visited the Jordan on the 12th May 1838, found the stream so swollen that the water reached to the very top of the banks, and in some places flowed a little over and covered the roots of the bushes (p. 255 compared with p. 263). In the same passage he expresses the correct opinion, that its rise was not the same every year, but varied in proportion to the difference in the quantity of rain which fell. If so, this would for the most part account for the extent to which the reports and statements of travellers differ from each other. Now if we suppose that when the Israelites crossed the river it had not swollen to a greater extent than when Robinson saw it with his own eyes, even in that case the depth of the water would be sufficient to overthrow the idea that the Israelites crossed in the ordinary way by a ford of the river, on the simple ground that it would be abso lutely impossible. According to his own calculation, says this traveller, the breadth of the stream was as much as 80 — 100 feet, but according to the observations of his companions it was from 30 to 40 yards. The guides were of opinion that at that time it was ten or twelve feet deep. He bathed in the river (at the ford, where the banks were broken, and it was therefore easier to walk in) without going into the deep bed of the river. He waded 10 or 12 feet from the shore, and so far the water did not reach above his hips ; but a little further in, some of the travellers wjio were swimming in a diagonal direc tion, found all at once that they could not touch the bottom. The current was so strong that even Komeh, a good swimmer in the Nile, was carried several feet down the stream as he was swimming over. At this time the ford was of course impassable CHAPTER III. 7—17. 113 for dattle except by swimming ; and the Aga of Jericho told them afterwards that he was in the habit of letting his horse swim across the stream somewhat farther up.1 — -p^p "VQV-^g through • I t •• : t 1 Notwithstanding this, Maurer maintains that " the depth was not great, and even when the river overflowed, the passage by no means impossible." But he cannot maintain the arguments which he brings forward in support of a proposition, merely invented in order to set aside the miracle. His first point is, that formerly the river had pro bably more level banks, and was not so deep as it is now. But this hypothesis is founded upon a conjecture, of which we have no proof, that the annual overflow of the Jordan has diminished of late years, since it is said to have onee covered the whole of the Ghor. This statement, however, though certainly found in the works of early travellers and geographers, does not rest upon actual observation, but on their own interpretation of the passages of scripture we have already quoted. Volney, indeed, has said (Journey ii. p. 224), " The Jordan swells in winter to such an extent, in consequence of the rain, that it forms a lake on each side of its bank3, which is sometimes as much as a quarter of a mile in breadth." But this assertion, standing as it does- quite alone, without support from any other traveller, seems some what exaggerated. At any rate it does not at all favour Maurer's hypothesis, as it was written in modern times, and the supposed increase in the height of the banks, and in the depth of the channel of the river, cannot have occurred since then. " But it must be admitted," says Maurer again, " that the spies crossed over the Jordan three days before, and even the evening before the passage (chap. ii. 7, 23) ; and at the present day the Arabs pass over the river in the rainy season." The latter assertion, however, is merely an inference drawn from a remark in Burckhardt (p. 295) to the effect that " there are many places in which the Jordan can be waded through in summer (especially at the fords mentioned in chap. ii. 7) ; but the few places in which it can be crossed in the rainy season, are known only to the Arabs." But Maurer has not considered, that this statement is too indefinite to allow of its being adduced to prove the possibility of the river being crossed by the Israelites in a natural way/ For, in the first place, the river is not swollen to the same height during the whole of the rainy season, but, on the contrary, is not at the highest till the spring (the end of April or the beginning of May)l till the end therefore of the rainy season (see Robinson, p. 264) ; ai^d, secondly, Burckhardt does not say that the Arabs wade through it at the time when it is most swollen, but merely that they cross it in the rainy season, they may therefore possibly swim across, as the Aga of Jericho did, whom Robin son mentions ; and, lastly, we can much more easily admit the pos sibility of a few Arabs passing through^ the river, than of its being crossed by a whole people with women, children, and baggage. It was considered so extraordinary a feat in ancient times to cross the river in the first month of the Jewish year when it overflowed all its banks, that it is mentioned as a remarkably heroic act on the part of 114 PASSAGE THROUGH THE JORDAN. the whole time of the harvest. The harvest commences in Pales tine in the first month of the Jewish year, the month of ears (Ex. xiii. 4), afterwards called Nisan (Neh. ii. 1 ; Esther iii. 7). The commencement was celebrated, according to the law, by offering the first ripe sheaf on the second day of the passover (Lev. xxiii. 10 sqq.) The Israelites crossed the Jordan, accord ing to chap. iv. 19, on the tenth day of the first month, foui days before the feast of the passover, and therefore at the proper time for the harvest to begin, or in fact when it might have begun in some places, as the corn ripens three weeks earlier in the plain of Jericho than on the mountains of Hebron and Car mel (Robinson ii. p. 278). V. 16. The Keri q-jND> though found in many codices and editions, and adopted in most of the ancient versions, and re garded by very many commentators, including Rosenmiiller, as preferable to the Ketib 0"TN!> 1S properly rejected by Maurer. r T : It has merely arisen from the fact that Q"^2 was taken in con nexion with ppni> and therefore »q seemed more appropriate than 21- The meaning, however, is this : " very far, scil. from the spot at which they crossed, near Adam." Q1^ which is T X incorrectly rendered as an appellative in the A rabic and Luther's versions, was a town whose name only occurs here. It must not be confounded with p|£prfc$ in the tribe of Naphtali (chap. xix. 36). Its situation is more exactly pointed out in the clause : "the city which is beside Zaretan ;" which Meyer (p. 344) and Eichhorn (iii. p. 389) have erroneously pronounced to be a gloss. Zaretan stood in the valley of the Jordan below Beisan (see my the eleven brave Gadites (1 Chron. xii. 15) ; see Havernick, Einl. ii. 1, p. 31. Hence the fact that the spies passed over the river and returned a few days before, cannot prove anything ; both because it is well known that a river may rise several feet in twenty-four hours, and thus the passage may be possible to-day and utterly impossible on the morrow ; and also because the spies are not said in the text to have crossed by the ford, and therefore they may have swam over and back again in some other place, just as easily as the Arabs do now. — The different attempts which have been made, to turn the passage of the Israelites through the Jordan into a natural event, (described by Winer, R.W. i. 709), rest upon such arbitrary suppositions and unnatural perversions of the text, that they furnish their own refutation (see, in opposition to these, Havernick, Einl. ii. 1, p. 31 seq) CHAPTER IV. 1 —14. 115 commentary on the Books of Kings, p. 49 and 113), and hence the water stood -f^ft prn!T» *-ev about 8 or 9 geographical miles above the place near Jericho, at which the passage was made. ni"l5^n D"1 the sea of the plain, i.e., of the Ghor (for pft"^pi compare my com. on the Books of Kings, p. 612). This name is given not only here, but also in chap. xii. 3 ; Deut. iii. 17, iv. 49, to the Dead Sea, which is more clearly described by the apposition, ppS!"T~D'1 the salt sea, so called from the great quantity of salt which distinguishes this sea and the surround ing country from all others. (See v. Raumer, Pal. p. 63 seq. and Robinson ii. p. 204, 209, and 217 sqq.) — }pnD3 113D they were completely cut off; that is to say, as no more water came down from above, they all flowed into the Dead Sea, and thus left the channel perfectly dry for the Israelites to cross. And the people passed over right against Jericho, and therefore above the ford el Helu, going in a straight line from the opening of the Wady Hesban over to Jericho. — V. 17. Thus the priests stood with dry feet in the Jordan, bearing the ark of the covenant, and continued standing there till the people had all crossed over on dry ground, p^ firme, firmo pede, compare Gesenius, thes. ii. 666. The words fTpn "niDl* use& here and in chap. iv. 9 seq., for which we find only ^pig, in the command itself in v. 8, must not be so pressed as to be made to mean that the priests stood exactly in the middle of the river at an equal distance from each bank; on the contrary, we gather from v. 15 that they stood still, as soon as they had touched the edge of the water and it was miraculously cut off, in the bed of the river, i.e., not merely by the river. The same expression is applied in Ezek. xxvi. 5 to Tyre, which is said to stand ^Tl TTini? although the city stood in the sea at a very short distance from the mainland. tTVCT 'n'ifilDj in chap. iv. 3, 8, 18 must be explained in a similar manner. Chap. iv. — Vv. 1 — 14. Completion of the passage across the Jordan. As soon as the people had all crossed the river, Joshua, according to the command of the Lord, directed the men who had been chosen from the twelve tribes, to take twelve stones from the spot on which the priests had stood, and carry them 116 COMPLETION OF THE PASSAGE. over to the place where they encamped for the night, that they might remain as a memorial to their posterity of the miraculous division of the Jordan when the Israelites passed over, vv. 1 — 7. After the twelve men had executed this command (v. 8), Joshua himself set up another monument of twelve stones, in the river, upon the spot where the priests had stood, v. 9. Up to this time the priests were standing with the ark of the covenant in the bed of the river. But as soon as all this had been done, and the people had all crossed, they also went over with the ark (vv. 10 and 11), as well as the armed men of the two tribes and a-half from the other side Jordan, who went to assist their brethren in the conquest of the land on this side, vv. 12 and 13.1 1 In the opinion of Hasse (p. 97), Meyer (p. 344 seq.), and v. Len gerke (i. p. 622), v. 1 b. — 10 contain a supplement, which ought properly to have been introduced before, but which the inexperienced historian did not well know how to weave into the previous narrative. This opinion is incorrect, for the circumstances related in these verses belong to the close of the passage. It was after the people had crossed that Joshua issued his instructions with regard to the monuments to be erected ; but the priests were still standing with the ark at their post in the Jordan. Since, then, all that is mentioned in vv. 1 — 9 occurred after the people had passed over, it could not have been appropriately mentioned before. The 1 0th verse forms a terminating point and resting place in the narrative, and therefore it is mentioned again that the priests remained in the Jordan with the ark, till all the events just described had occurred (see chap. iii. 17). At the same time it is said that the people went hastily over the river. The his torian then proceeds to the further account, commencing with v. 11 of the subsequent crossing of the priests with the ark of the covenant. V. 11 certainly commences with the same words as v. 1, and thus appears to be merely a renewal of the narrative, commenced in v. 1, whilst all the intermediate verses closely resemble an interpolation.; but as soon as we observe the manner in which the historian connects the commencement of the I lth verse with the conclusion of the 10th, the appearance entirely vanishes. By the simple remark, that the people went quickly over, with which the narrative closes the 10th verse, and the statement immediately connected with it, that the priests crossed as soon as the people were all gone over (v. 11), it is clearly shown that the events reported in vv. 1 — 9 occurred, not after the people had all passed over, hut towards the end of the passage. I find it also impossible to agree with Kimchi, Calvin, Masius, and many others, including Rosenmiiller, who regard v. 1 b. — 3 as a parenthesis, and render >-insi*i1 (v. 1) in the pluperfect ; there is just as little ground for this as for the opinion already refuted (chap. iii. 3), that in the third chapter the order of events is confused. CHAPTER IV. I — 14. 117 ' Vv, 1 — 3. Many inadmissible opinions have been offered, in explanation of the meaning of the Piska in v. 1 ; for which see Hupfeld, ausfuhrliche hebr. Grammatik, p. 86 and 89.— We have already said (at chap. iii. 12) that the second verse is to be regarded as a parenthesis subordinate to the third, so far as the meaning is concerned, although in form it is an independent sentence ; and that, whilst it has the appearance of a fresh com mand, it is merely a repetition of the command previously given to choose twelve men. — V. 3. The infinitive absolute Ji^n* which has caused much trouble to expositors, stands adverbially, and according to the opinion of Maurer and Gesenius (thes.), with which I agree, has the same meaning as ppj in chap. iii. 17, firmo pede. Notwithstanding the accents I connect it with ^jftao, and render it " from the spot where the priests stood firm." For the unusual connexion of the adverb, deriv. verb, with the noun, see Ewald, Lehrb. § 280 c. Vv. 4 — 8. After Joshua had given instructions to the repre sentatives of the twelve tribes with reference to the stones, which they were to take out of the Jordan, and carry over into the camp (v. 4, 5), he also told them what was the object of this divine command. The stones were to be a memorial in the midst of them, which would serve to transmit to their posterity the remembrance of the miraculous division of the waters of the Jordan (v. 6, 7). When the stones were set up, he repeated to the people this description of their design. The repetition, there fore, is not an unnecessary one, nor does it indicate, as Meyer (p. 451) fancies, that the history has been drawn from two dif ferent sources. V. 6. p^V this, scil. their taking twelve stones out of the Jordan, &c. — "ipift to-morrow is used sensu latiori for x x in future.1 — V. 7. The words vryipj iq W133 are rePeated 'for the sake of emphasis ; and therefore are not unmeaning, and still less a gloss, as Meyer (p. 344) supposes. — q^jj "jy to all eternity, i.e., in all ages ; not merely in seculum, for ^y\j} does not mean seculum, but eternity only. It is not always used for this in the metaphysical sense, but at times simply in a popular way, as in the present case, when the speaker is led by his strong 1 For the form -^ before gutturals, see Ewald, Lehrb. § 182 b. 118 COMPLETION OP THE PASSAGE. desire to overlook the fact, that what he is speaking of must have an end; compare Hengstenberg, christol. ii. p. 427 sqq. — V. 8. And the Sons of Israel did so. hvFftP ^l " this name is aP" plied here to the twelve men, who were chosen to carry the stones, because they represented each one the tribe from which he was chosen, and therefore together the whole people, who are usually embraced in the term sons of Israel;" (Rosenmuller, preceded by Masius and Drusius).^^')^^. The personal pronoun in the masculine, as the common form, is very frequently used in the place of the feminine, especially in the third person ; see chap. xiii. 28, xiv. 4, and Ewalds Lehrb. § 184 c.^-^pft^ jjgj does not denote the erection of the monument (Dereser and Maurer) but means : they laid them down there. The erection of them as a monument is described in v. 20 by the term ^pT\- V. 9. " And Joshua set up twelve stones in the midst of the Jordan, in the place where the feet of the priests who bare the ark of the covenant stood." This passage, which relates to a second monument erected in the Jordan itself, is designated by Meyer (p. 349) as " a heterogeneous section, an unconnected fragment, which gives a short and somewhat different account of the event," more fully described in chap. iv. 1 — 8. Maurer, Rosenmuller, and v. Lengerke (p. 623 seq) pronounce it to be a later gloss. Meyer's opinion has met with just as little approba tion as the unnatural explanation of Bellermann ; for which see Maurer. It is by no means difficult to refute- also the argu ments adduced by more modern critics, to support their theory of a gloss. Tlieir first arguments, that " the command given in v. 3 only speaks of one monument, that at Gilgal," derives all its force from the assumption that it is characteristic of the Book of Joshua " to report not merely the events themselves, but also the commands of God with reference to all that was to be per formed ;" (Rosenmuller preceded by Bellermann). But this assumption is not quite correct, for the author of the Book before us frequently reports the command itself with great brevity, and leaves the full purport of it to be afterwards explained by Joshua ; compare chap. iii. vv. 7, 8, with vv. 9—13, and iv. w. 2, 3, with 4—7. In the former of these passages the command of God contains no reference to the choice of the twelve men, CHAPTER IV. 1 — 14. 119 (v. 12) ; and in the latter, nothing is said of the purpose for which the twelve stones were to be carried over from the Jordan to the plaee of encampment, still less is it said that they were to be erected there as a memorial (v. 6, 7). Hence the fact that the Divine command, to erect the second memorial, is not mentioned in v. 3, does not prove that it was not actually erected.1 The second argument is this : " The memorial in the Jordan would have completely failed to answer its end, for it could not possibly have remained long after its erection before it was thrown down by the waters ; not to mention that even during this short space of time it would scarcely be visible to persons crossing the ford" (Maurer). This objection has been answered by Calvin. " I grant," he says, " that the monument would have been useless if it had been buried there in silence. But when they conversed with each other of the sign of the passage which had been left there, it was sufficient to confirm their faith, to hear of what they did not see. The ark of the covenant was shut up in the sanc tuary, and hidden from sight by a veil, yet its hidden glory was not lost and fruitless, when they learned from the law that the covenant of God was deposited there. Moreover, it is possible that the top of the heap may have been seen sometimes when the river fell." The latter we must admit the more readily, as the historian expressly says that the stones were there " to this day," an assertion which he would not have made if no one had ever been able to see them. But who can reasonably question the possibility of it, when they were set up, not in the deepest part of the river, but near the eastern bank, where the priests stood, according to chap. iii. 8 and xv. 17, with the ark of the cove nant ; especially as we know neither their size, nor the firmness with which they were set up. We cannot suppose that they remained for centuries ; but they were more, especially designed 1 The earlier theologians were much more correct in their conclu sions. " Although we do not read that God gave any command to Joshua with reference to these stones, yet from the fact that, he set them up we learn that he did it in accordance with the command of the blessed God. We have also observed before, that the sacred history is generally so concise that part of a command is omitted, or sometimes' the whole command, and left to be filled up in the description of its execution." (Seb. Schmidt preceded by Kimchi.) 120 COMPLETION OF THE PASSAGE. for the existing generation, whilst the monument at Gilgal was intended to serve as a memorial to future ages, to call to remem brance the miraculous assistance of God.1 Whilst, then, the arguments in favour of the opinion that v. 9 is a later gloss are thus proved to be baseless,2 the authenticity of the verse is established, first, by the fact that it is found in every ancient version (even the Arabic has this reading in the text, though it is altogether wrong in the translation) ; and secondly, by the impossibility of conceiving of anything which could have given rise to such a gloss. V. Lengerke has observed (p. 624) with reference to Meyer's notion " that the historian had two accounts in his possession and carelessly wrote them both side by side," "it is nothing less than a charge of want of brains on the part of the historian, to affirm that he wrote such contradictory state ments, one after the other, without even comparing them to gether ;" and the same remark is equally applicable to the more favourite mode of removing the difficulty by supposing the intro duction of a gloss, the only difference being that the charge is not directed against the historian but the author of the gloss, and all subsequent readers and commentators who have failed to detect it. This reproach, however, only applies to those who suppose that there is an irreconcileable discrepancy between this verse and the one before it. For the writer has shown clearly enough that he was not referring to the twelve stones, which were to be set up in Gilgal, but to some other twelve stones, both by the omission of the article, and also by dropping the previous construction, and placing the object with the cop. ^ at the head of a fresh sentence, instead of proceeding with the his torical tense QWy This was noticed long ago by the LXX., the i...T— Vulgate, and the earlier expositors, who therefore inserted aXKovs, 1 V. Lengerke 's remark (p. 624), that even in modern times some have fancied they could distinguish the twelve stones mentioned in Josh. iv. 9, in support of which he appeals to Robinson ii. p. 285 seq., is founded upon a misunderstanding of the paragraph, as Robinson is only speaking of the twelve stones set up in Gilgal. 2 It is strange that the author seems to have overlooked the fact that, if his own theory he correct, when the waters returned to their proper channel the stones would be left dry, and would remain so for the greater portion of the year. — Tr. CHAPTER IV. 1 14. 121 alios, or some other word of similar meaning, for the sake of expressing more clearly the sense of the writer. (See, on this manner of explaining the discrepancy, Ewald, Lehrb. § 330 a.) Vv. 10 and 11. After the monument had been set up in the Jordan, "the ark of the Lord passed over, and the priests." "Ul n*)5}~1ttfb$ "^lin-?! every thing that Jehovah had ordered' T " •• -I T T - T Joshua to say to the people, "every thing that Joshua had said to the people, with reference to the passage itself, and the carrying across and erection of the stones, and anything else that may have been addressed to them, after the priests entered the river" (Seb. Schmidt.) -Q^n~V5 1S mostly rendered omnia, id totum, ¦ T T — T "^1*1 being taken in the sense of res ; Seb. Schmidt, on the other hand, translates it omne -verbum. Both renderings, however, convey precisely the same meaning, for Qp|, to complete, can only mean here to carry out, to realise, as a word or command is only completed or fulfilled by the performance of the thing commanded. The words " according to all that Moses commanded Joshua" are not to be taken as referring to any special commands which Moses gave with reference to the passage, since there are no such special directions to be found in the Pentateuch, and they cannot be inferred from Num. xxvii. 23, Deut. iii. 28, and xxxi. 23, as Havernick supposes (Einl. i. 2, p. 556 seq.) They merely refer to the clause just before, in which it is stated that Joshua had performed all that God commanded him, in complete ac cordance with the injunction given to him by Moses, when he appointed him as the captain of the people. Calvin has ex plained the words in the same way : " Moses had strictly com manded, him to be very attentive to the words of God, saying that he himself had been truly obedient, and thus had always done that which pleased God." Masius gives a similar explana tion, but not so concisely. On the other hand, the expression" is restricted far too narrowly by Seb. Schmidt, J. H. Michaelis, and Rosenmuller, who suppose that it refers merely to the instruc tions given by Moses to Joshua, " to make known to the people whatever was commanded by God."— And the people went hastily over. This remark forms an antithesis to the preceding one : " the priests stood still in Jordan," and is quite in its place here at the end of the history of the passage, inasmuch as it also 122 COMPLETION OP THE PASSAGE. serves to open the way for the further progress of the narrative. It was in haste that they passed over, not merely because " their hearts trembled as they passed beneath the threatening moun tain of water, although they knew that the hand of the mighty God was holding it" (Maurer and v. Lengerke, p. 620), but because haste was necessary, in order that the immense mass of men, women, and children might cross in one day with all their possessions, before night came on. Thus the haste was an evidence of their obedience to the Divine command, given through Joshua. — V. 11. In ^ pfipp-Tni* "liSW? the ark °f Jehovah is placed in the foreground as the principal subject, and D^n^m is subordinate to it, because it was the ark of the Lord which rendered the miraculous passage through the Jordan a possible thing. The river was divided, not by the power of the priests, but by the ark, with which the Lord connected his gracious and almighty presence, in accordance with the cove nant he had made with Israel. — ovn ^2?h may be interpreted t t •• : • in two ways, either : before the people, i.e., they went over, passing through the river and through the people who stood upon the opposite shore, and thus came again to the front of the people and went on before them ; or in the sight of the people, who were standing on the further shore. The second explana tion is undoubtedly the more simple of the two ; still we must give the preference to the former, as most commentators have done, since we not only find Qyj-j i^dV use(i in chap. iii. 6 and xi. 14 with this meaning, but also meet with i^rfc in the same sense in other passages ; e.g., chap. vi. 4, 6, 7, 8, 9. Vv. 12 — 14. A few remarks are here appended to the fore going narrative. The first refers to the two tribes and a-half from beyond Jordan, and their accompanying the rest to make an attack upon the land. ^-QysiT (v. 12) would seem to imply that the soldiers belonging to these tribes crossed over the river after or behind the priests with the ark of the covenant ; but such an idea is evidently at variance with the whole tendency of the narrative, which aims at giving as marked a prominence as possible to the fact that the ark of the covenant, the causa efficiens of the miraculous division of the water, was the first to enter and the last to leave, remaining in the Jordan till all the CHAPTER IV. 15 — 24. 123 people had crossed over. From this it necessarily follows that the priests who carried the ark were the last persons who went over the river. We therefore regard yilSVl as indicating, not their crossing the river so much as their going forward to war into the plains of Jericho ; and should explain ^fc^ftp. "ft^ ^3qV in the same manner as Q^pj vfi^ (v. 11.) Hence the ») relat. denotes the order of thought, and not of events. The author' supposed it necessary to lay stress again upon the fact that the soldiers out of the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh accompanied their brethren, and placed them selves at the head of the people in readiness for war, as they thus fulfilled the promise which they had made to Joshua (chap. i. 16 seq.) On Qigj^n compare chap. i. 14. — ^Jtpj ijfl^n the warriors equipped for battle, see Gesenius, thes. i. 482. — pfyy^f "ipp'Vi the plains of Jericho, is the name given to that part of the Araba or Ghor, which is in the neighbourhood of Jericho. The mountains, which form the boundary of the Ghor to the west, fall considerably back to the south of the entrance into the Wady Kelt, and after taking a circuitous direction from the plain towards the south-west, turn again towards the Dead Sea, and terminate abruptly in the promontory of Ras el Feshkhah. In this place the valley of the Jordan is as much as seven miles broad on the western side of the river. (See Robinson ii. p. 289 sqq.) In v. 14 the further remark is made that the Lord fulfilled his promise (chap. iii. 7), and by the miraculous division of the river established the authority of Joshua in the eyes of the people, in such a manner that they feared him, as they had feared Moses, all the days of his life. " This was not, indeed, the chief design of the miracle, to exalt the power and authority of Joshua. But as it was of the greatest importance to the people generally, that the government of Joshua should be firmly established, it is very properly mentioned as the crown ing advantage resulting from it, that he was, as it were, invested with sacred insignia, which produced such veneration amongst the people, that no one dared to despise him." (Calvin.) Vv. 15 — 24. The priests come up out of the Jordan. Return of the waters. Day of the passage (vv. 15 — 19). Erection of the monument at Gilgal (vv. 20 — 24). — V. 15 sqq. The priests ] 24 COMPLETION OF THE PASSAGE. had, indeed, already crossed the river with the. ark of the cove nant (v. 11), but the historian had not yet mentioned their coming up upon the bank. This he does in v. 15 sqq. These verses do not therefore contain a repetition of that which has already been described in v. 11, as C. a Lapide, Dathe, the exe getical handbook, and Maurer affirm, nor are they extracted from a different source, from that from which vv. 11 and 14 were taken, as Meyer (p. 350) and Paulus (p. 159) suppose. As it was in consequence of an express command from the Lord, given to them through Joshua, that the priests entered the river with the ark of the covenant (chap. iii. 8) ; so did they also come up from it upon the opposite bank at the same command (chap. iv. 15, 17) ; and as the waters which flowed down from above were miraculously stopped the moment they touched the edge of the water with the soles of their feet (chap. iii. 14, 16), so did they flow again as soon as they had lifted up their feet from the river and placed them upon dry ground (v. 18). The stream, which had been held back by the omnipotence of God, returned and filled the river over all its banks, as it had done before (v. 18 compared with chap. iii. 15). — pfi-jjjpl TV^M the ark of the testimony, so called from the tables of the law which were kept in it, and which contained the testimony of the Lord against Israel's sin, Ex. xxv. 16. On pvpft?!l see Hengstenberg, Beitr. ... *' T . J m. p. 640 seq. The connexion of *|ppft with ^^ must be re garded as constructio praegnans : they tore themselves away from the soft bed of the river, and stept upon the dry ground, i.e., upon the firm bank. — V. 19. The crossing took place on the tenth day of the first month, only four days, therefore, before the feast of the passover (chap. v. 10) ; and the camp was pitched on the eastern border of the territory of Jericho ('in'''"!^ m .Q TOpl)> on the spot which was called from this circumstance Gilgal. The name Gilgal is used here and in v. 20 Kara, -n-poXntyiv ; compare the notes on chap. v. 9. According to Josephus (Ant. V. 1, 4), this place of encampment was 50 stadia from the Jor dan, and 10 stadia from Jericho. Vv. 20 — 24. At the place where they encamped Joshua erected the 12 stones, which had been brought out of the bed of the river for a memorial, in order, as he explained to the people chapter iv. 20—24. 125 when he set them up (vv. 21—24), that the remembrance of the miraculous passage of the 12 tribes of Israel through the Jordan might be handed down to posterity. For this purpose he gave instructions that whenever the children enquired the meaning of these stones, their fathers were to explain to them that the Lord their God had dried up the waters of the Jordan before them, until they had all crossed over, in the same manner as he, the same God, had divided the Red Sea when they passed through it.1 The verb Qp^pf> literally to dry up, does not par ticularly describe the manner in which the two roads through the Jordan and the Red Sea were made dry, and could therefore be equally applied to either of tbe miracles, although at the Red Sea the division of the waters and drying of the bed of the ocean was not brought about in the same manner as at the Jordan ; compare Ex. xiv. 21, 27 — 29. — *^fc$, at the commencement of the 23d verse, means quod, and depends on QpijH'ipj in v* 22 ; as the ^ejn in v. 7 upon Opp^fr$ (Maurer.) — V. 24. The design of these miracles was twofold : (1) to the people of the land, i.e. the heathen, they were a sign of the omnipotence . of Jehovah (compare Ex. xiv. 4, 18, with ix. 16) ; (2) to the Israelites they offered additional motives to the continual worship of tlieir God (see Ex. xiv. 31 and Ps. lxxvii. 15 seq.) pTptn ^ "y T> the mighty hand of the Lord, is the phrase 'tt-: — usually employed in the Pentateuch to indicate the manifestations of the omnipotence of God for the deliverance of his people ; see my Com. on the Books of Kings, p. 129. DpiN"p tyiy? that ye may fear. As f 37137 is always connected in other passages with the imperfect or the infinitive, Ewald (Krit. Gram. p. 555) and Maurer have taken offence at the use of the perfect Qp^-^} and v t : 1 The Israelites were frequently in the habit of perpetuating the re membrance of great events by stone monuments, and also by altars (see chap. xxii. 10, 34, xxiv. 26 ; Gen. xxxi. 45 ; 1 Sam. vii. 12) ; but after the establishment of the tabernacle as the national sanctuary, they were not allowed to use the altars as places of sacrifice (see chap. xxii. 16 sqq.), and still less for the purpose of idolatrous worship ; the law of Moses prohibiting any place of sacrifice, except that in the tabernacle, just as stringently as the erection of py'Qjjft dedicated to idols (see Lev. xvii. 4 sqq., xxvi. 1 ; Deut. xii. 2 sqq., and xvi. 22) ; whilst the patriarchs set up stones as altars in several places, in which the Lord had appeared to them (see Gen. xii. 8, xxviii. 18, xxxv. 14). 126 CIRCUMCISION OF THE PEOPLE. wish to alter the points so as to read ?piN"V,> regarding this as the unusual form of the infinitive, pfNT1 wlth the suffix attached. But it is evident that such a change cannot be correct, (1) because this form of the infinitive never takes a suffix, in fact, never can take one, and (2) because all the ancient versions render it in the second person (ye may fear). The fact that O^-f^N follows is also another proof that this is the correct reading ; for the words fear the Lord your God for ever could not be suitably addressed to the heathen nations, but are fre quently addressed to the Israelites ; see Deut. iv. 10, vi. 2, &c. These reasons are quite sufficient to counterbalance the gram matical difficulty, especially when we consider that in Hebrew the perfect is frequently used in connexion with actions, which the disposition or lively imagination of the writer leads him to regard as certain and unconditional. See Ewald, Lehrb. § 135. CHAPTER V. vv. 1—12. CIRCUMCISION OF THE PEOPLE, VV. 1 — 9 ; AND CELEBRATION OF THE PASSOVER IN THE CAMP AT GILGAL, VV. 10—12. Vv. 1 — 9. The miraculous passage of the Israelites through the Jordan spread such terror amongst the Canaanites that they lost all their courage (v. 1). Joshua was therefore able, without any fear of an attack from them, to proceed to the circumcision in the camp at Gilgal of all who had been born in the desert. — v. I.1 On the Amorites and Canaanites compare the notes at chap. iii. 10. Here all the Canaanitish tribes who held the 1 V. 1 is not, as Paulus (p. 160) and many of the earlier commen tators maintain, an epiphonema forming the conclusion to the preceding narrative, but an introduction to the account which follows, intended to indicate one of the motives which prompted it. It was because the Canaanites had been so greatly alarmed by the miraculous passage of the Israelites through the Jordan, as to lose all courage and utterly despair, that Joshua was able, without interruption, to have the people circumcised and celebrate the passover before their eyes, and under the walls of Jericho. CHAPTER V. 1 — 12. 127 mountainous country are called Amorites, and all those who lived along the sea-coast Canaanites. — "H-ppf -QJ^j the applica tion of this phrase to the country on the west or" the Jordan, may be explained on the supposition that the historian still fancied himself writing from the same point of view as before the pas sage through the Jordan. To avoid, however, all ambiguity, he adds pj^i to the west, as he did in chap. i. 15. tlJOl^PT fmft 1S used to denote the land to the east, QUpj-^y by the Mediter ranean Sea (see chap. i. 4). — ^"^^"""ly till we had crossed over. The Keri Q^j?, although it has been adopted by all the ancient versions, and is found in many MSS., and preferred by most commentators, is merely a critical conjecture after all ; and therefore the Ketib ought not to be altered, iin^jft as D. "Z x Kimchi has observed, is an expression employed by an eye wit ness, though we cannot infer from it either that the book was written by Joshua himself or that it was composed during his lifetime. The historian may have spoken collectively, just as Joshua in chap. iv. 23 refers to what he and a few of his con temporaries had witnessed, as though it had been seen by all the people. (See the Introduction). — On qj^i see chap. ii. 11. x » "Their heart melted, for they were without counsel and strength, and did not move : but with regard to obstinacy the same hard ness fettered them still." — Calvin. Vv. 2, 3. NTTil Jnyi at this time, that is, whilst the Israelites • — •¦ T were encamped at Gilgal, and the Canaanites had become spirit less from fear. At the command of the Lord, Joshua had the people now circumcised again. This occurred as soon as they had pitched their camp at Gilgal, between the 10th and 14th days of the first month ; compare chap. iv. 19 with v. 10. — hh llttf "circumcise again." The addition of pp^ttj, a second time, which is used both here and in Is. 11 to strengthen the llttJj gave a great deal of trouble to the earlier commenta tors, for, if its literal meaning be pressed, it follows that at some earlier period a first general circumcision of the people had taken place ; and no indications of such an event can be found in history.1 But ppjflj only serves to strengthen y(Q}, and 1 See Masius, C. a Lapide, Osiander, Seb. Schmidt (in loco), Ising (exerc. p. 182) and Pfeiffer (dub. vex. p. 324 sqq. Even the LXX. 128 CIRCUMCISION OF THE PEOPLE. must not, therefore, be pressed, as though it denoted the repeti tion of the same event, with all the outward circumstances which attended it. It merely means : circumcise the people again or the second time, as they used to be (not were) circumcised formerly. The words pi^Q) ^yfi do not therefore imply that on some pre vious occasion the rite of circumcision had been performed upon all the people at one time ; but simply refer to the fact that all the people were formerly circumcised. The author himself gives the same explanation immediately afterwards, in v. 5, where found a difficulty in ppj^j 11!Z?> an<^' Per conjeeturam, reading ^j for yMj, rendered it Kadlo-as. The Vulgate passes over ^y altogether, and the Arabic substitutes for it |»Xe to-morrow. Of the Rabbins some explained pji^yj by means of the distinction, invented by the Tal mudists, between pf^iQ circuincisio, and pjw-»g retectio (see Mishna Shabb. xix. 2 and 6. Buxtorf&e Syn. Jud. p. 91 seq. Carpzovius Appar. p. 607 seq.) Others, like Kimchi, force upon f^Q} the mean ing crebro or vices. Others again, as Jarchi and Levi ben Gerson, assume that Moses ordered a general circumcision of the people before they left the land of Egypt, because the Israelites had neglected it whilst there. This opinion has been adopted by C. a Lapide, Balduin, Ising, and Pfeiffer. Theodoret assumes at the outset, that the circum cision, in its deeper signification, was a circumcision of the heart and a type of Christian baptism; and then says: to roivvv iie Sevrepov tt/v akijdeiav nporVTroi' ty}V yap o~dpKa his Trepirpndrjvai t&v ahvvarav. With this allegorical interpretation, Ephraim Syrus is satisfied ; but Theo doret, in addition to this, explains the use of ppjtrt, when taken in its literal meaning, by a reference to the repetition of the command of God : on KaBcmep t& 'A/3paap. tovtov k£ apx*ls ° Qebs iSebaKei tov vopov, ovras e(c Sevripov Trpoo-era^e ra '\na~ov robs airepiTprjTovs irepirepveiv. This opinion, which Seb. Schmidt, Clericus, and others have repeated, is similar to the explanation given by Masius : that the circumcision of the people, ordered by Joshua, is called the second with reference to that which Abraham performed on all his house ; " for then the whole of the peculiar people of God, i.e., of the church as we call it, was found in the one family of Abraham. The first time was when the whole people of God was circumcised by Abraham, and this sign was insti tuted by God as the most certain pledge of the promised possession of Canaan." The other commentators, for the most part, content them selves with the simple remark of Augustine : " it was not that the same man was to be circumcised a second time ; but because the one people, viewed with reference to the one part of it, was circumcised, and to the other, uncircumcised ; therefore it is said a second time, not that a circumcised mart was circumcised again, but a circumcised people." This explanation, however, rather overlooks than solves the difficulty. CHAFTER V. 1—9. 129 he says : " for they were all circumcised men (*ppj o^ft) who came out of Egypt," (not they were circumcised, ^q, when they came out). — QV^ pvi2"lfl 1S rendered sharp knives by several Rabbins (e.g., Jarchi), Seb. Milnster, Calvin, Buxtorf (de synag. jud. p. 102), Chytraeus, Michaelis, Paulus (p. 161), Winer, and Gesenius (lexicon), in imitation of the Chaldee. For this mean ing they appeal to Ps. lxxxix. 44, where -^ is said to mean acies. On the other hand, Masius has correctly observed that it has not the meaning acies anywhere in the Scriptures, but always means flint or rock ; and Hengstenberg has shown, in his notes on Ps. lxxxix. that ^j} means nothing but rock there. Hence the earlier translators, and the rest of the commenta tors, have properly taken qi^jj pflTin to mean stone-knives. Instruments of iron were in use as early as the time of Joshua, but from attachment to the customs of their forefathers, stone- knives were still retained.1 On the same ground, as late as 150 years ago, the Ethiopian tribe of the Alnaei performed circum cision with stone-knives, according to the testimony of Hiob Ludolph (hist, aethiop. iii. 1. 21). Modern Jews employ iron or steel knives generally, and the Talmud shows that it was cus tomary even then (see Mishn. Schabb. 19. 1 and Buxtorf \. c.) — pyi"Hyn m^J, hM of foreskins, this was the name given to the t — : t - : • hill on which the circumcision occurred, and where the fore skins were buried, not, however, on account of the quantity of foreskins which were heaped up there, as many of the Rabbins fancied. Vv. 4 — 6. V. 4 contains the reason why Joshua had the people circumcised : viz., because all the men of war had died 1 Not because they regarded iron tools as unpropitious, as Clericus and Rosenmiiller suppose in their notes on Ex. iv. 25, and the latter also in his A. and N. Morgenland, i. p. 268. The use of stone knives or sharp stones instead of knives is confined to the earliest antiquity, and to uncultivated tribes ; or if it is found any where in modern times, it is to be attributed to a faithful adherence to the ancient and simple customs of their forefathers. Tnus Zipporah circumcised her son with . a stone (Ex. iv. 25), and thus the ancient Egyptians opened the bodies with a stone to embalm them, Herod, ii. 86, and the priests of Cybele are said by Pliny, Martial, Catullus, and Juvenal to have emasculated themselves with sharp stones. Dougtaei, anall. ss. i. 59 sq., Rosenmuller, Schol. 1. c, and Winer R.W. i. p. 184 seq. 9 * 130 CIRCUMCISION OF THE PEOPLE. in the wilderness during the journey from Egypt to Canaan (for they were all circumcised when they came out), and a new generation had grown up in the desert, that had not been cir cumcised by the way. The cause of this was,: that Jehovah had sworn that, as they had not hearkened to his voice, he would not give them the land which was promised to their fathers, and that they should wander about in the wilderness for forty years, till that generation was extinct (v. 6). "iiyN.^l'nn pit V ""I X x — haec est causa quod or propter quam. For this meaning of -\y-f see Deut. xxii. 24 ; 2 Sam. xiii. 22. — rronban 1tMN~'?5 a^ t t : • — •¦ : - t the men who were fit for war. According to Numbers xiv. 29 and 32, only those who were numbered (Num. i. 45 seq.), from twenty years old and upwards, were to die in the wilderness for having murmured against the Lord; and all of these, with the exception of Joshua and Caleb, had actually died when Israel arrived at the borders of Canaan (Num. xxvi. 64 seq. ; Deut. ii. 14). — Ov^JQQ DDK21 means, not after they had come out of Egypt (Clericus, the Exegetical Handbook, Rosenmuller, and others) ; for ^ does not mean postquam, but : " on their passing out of Egypt to Canaan," i.e., during the journey, ""gryft ^l ^s only a more exact definition of "¦p'^. " Egypt alone is men tioned, the terminus a quo, but the land of Canaan is also to be understood the terminus ad quern," (Seb. Schmidt).' — V. 5. VT[ Q'h'O "O for circumcised were they. The participle with pppj is not used as a preterite or pluperfect, they underwent cir cumcision, or had been circumcised, but as an adjective : " cir cumcised" men. qit'jipj 03>t~r^5 corresponds with Qypi-^3 .. •*— xxt Ttxt MSTl ln v* 4- — V. 6. For the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness. Tbey came out of Egypt by night, on the 14th Abib (Ex. xii.) In the 11th month of the fortieth year of their journeyings, Moses addressed the people for the last time, in the plains of Moab (Deut. i. 3), and died immediately after wards. On the 10th day of the first month of the following year they crossed the Jordan (Jos* iv. 19). Hence we see that from the day of their departure from Egypt to that of their entrance into Canaan, exactly forty years elapsed, with the excep tion of four days. For so many years they had to wander in the desert, as the Lord had sworn to them, as a punishment for CHAPTER V. 1 — 9. 131 revolting against the Lord on account of the exaggerated report of the terrible appearance of the inhabitants of Canaan, which was brought back by the spies who were sent from Kadesh (Num. xiv. 21 — 35, xxxii. 13). — Dp)-13> donee absumptus est is taken from Num. xxxii. 13 compared with xiv. 33 and 35. This serves to explain the reading -ft^n-"^ which is found instead of "v^pj-*23 in several MSS. and editions. — '\i y^yjj "lttJN not because Jehovah had sworn to them, but : to whom, &c. In the place of *\yj P\pl7 some codices read ?pr^ nrhj an^ this reading ^ T V T V T V T is also adopted by the LXX., Syriac and Arabic versions, but the former is evidently the correct one. For these words are not to be regarded as an extract from the oath contained in Num. xiv. 23 ; but as a clause appended by the historian, and referring to the Israelites who actually entered the land of Canaan.1 — The phrase o}n-p| y?f] pll.> flowing with milk and T I T T — T hongy, is a standing expression in the Pentateuch (not only in the so-called Jehovistic, but also in the Elohistic portions of it), and indeed had become proverbial, as a representation of the great fertility and loveliness of the land of Canaan (see Ex. iii. 8, 17, xiii. 5, xxxiii. 3.; Lev. xx. 24; Num. xiii. 27, xiv. 8, xvi. 13; Deut. vi. 11, 9, and other passages). Milk and honey are pro duced by a land which is rich in grass and flowers, and render it pleasant to dwell in. They were both of them plentiful in Canaan, even when it was uncultivated ; see Is. vii. 15 and 22. Milk, not only of cows but that of sheep and goats also (Deut. xxxii. 14), and eaten sometimes sweet, at other times thick or curdled (piN50Pl)> was a leading article of food amongst the ancient Hebrews, as it is in the present day in most of the countries in the East ; and Palestine was peculiarly adapted for the rearing of cattle; see Winer, R.W. ii. p. 768 seq. Honey also, especially that of wild bees, was found in large quantities 1 The word ^S cann°t be adduced in support of the theory that T Joshua himself was the writer of our book ; it may easily be regarded as employed communicative, especially as the pp^fc$, to whom the word yjU is opposed, are not the Israelites who were destroyed in the wilder ness, but the patriarchs to whom God had sworn that he would give the iand. 92 132 CIRCUMCISION OP THE PEOPLE. (Judg. xiv. 8 seq.; 1 Sam. xiv. 26 seq. ; Matth. iii. 4), and is still found, notwithstanding its present desolate condition.1 (See Bochart, hieroz. ii. lib. 4 c. 12, Oedmann, verm. Samml. vi. p. 136 seq.', Winer, R.W. 1 p. 210 seq. and 603 seq., Robinson, Pal. ii. p. 442 seq). On the great fertility of Palestine generally, in former times, see Deyling, observ. ss. ii. obs. 9, Warnekros in Eichhorn's Repert. xiv. p. 252 sqq. and xv. p. 176 sqq., Rosenmuller, A. and N. Morgenland i. p. 263 sqq., and v. Raumer, Pal. p. 88 sqq. V. 7. DrMl-flNI 's introduced as an antithesis to i^pf-^s (v. 6). All the people (i.e., all who were fit for military service) who came out of Egypt were destroyed in the desert ; and their sons, of whom the murmurers had said that they would become 1 Dereser follows the example of Michaelis suppl. p. 392, and ex plains $2^ as meaning not the honey of bees, but syrup of raisins or Dibs, which is still found in such abundance in Palestine, notwith standing its uncultivated condition, that many camel-loads are sent annually to Egypt. But though the honey of grapes continues even to the present time to be an important article of commerce in Palestine, (see Winer R.W., i. p. 603 seq., and Robinson, ii. p. 442) ; it is nevertheless very doubtful, whether j^-j in the Old • t : Testament means grape-honey or syrup, notwithstanding its identity with jjMji (Dibs). In most of the passages, as even Winer (ut supra) admits, it denotes the honey of bees ; and in Gen. xliii. 11, and Ezek. xxvii. 17, where Michaelis, Rosenmuller, Tuch (on Genesis), Winer and Gesenius (thes. s. v.) render it syrup of grapes, there is nothing whatever to necessitate such an interpretation ; compare Havernick (comm. on Ezekiel, p. 468). At any rate the proverbial expression flowing with milk and honey must certainly refer to the honey of bees, (1) because in Palestine the bees do actually deposit honey in the holes of the rocks to such an extent that it flows out of them and is gathered in vessels placed beneath (see Oedmann vi. p. 136, and Steph. Schulz. Leit. des Hochsten v. p. 133), and it is more natural to seek the derivation of a proverbial expression in the ordinary phenomena of the country ; though it is not right to apply these, as some have done, to the interpretation of Deut. xxxii. 13, andPs. lxxxi. 17, (see on the other hand Hengstenberg on the Psalms). (2) Because similar descriptions occur in the writings of the Greeks, e.g., in Euripides in Bacchis. V. 142. 'Pet Se yaKanTi ire&ov 'Pel &' oii/6>, pel 8e pe\ia-(rS>v Ncktu/h .... and also in Theocritus (quoted in Rosenmuller, A. and N. Morgenland, i. p. 264) where See-honey is named in connexion with milk. CHAPTER V. 1 — 9. 133 a prey to the Canaanites (Num. xiv. 3), Jehovah had put in their place, according to his own word at that time (Num. xiv. 31) : " Them will I bring in, and they shall know the land which ye have despised." Qp^nfl D^pPb he put in their place, i.e., he caused them to grow up and take the place of their fathers. — These Joshua circumcised (i.e. he had them circumcised) because they had not circumcised them by the way. But why were the sons not circumcised during the journey through the desert? This question has been answered by Commentators in various ways. Theodoret is of opinion that after the Israelites were delivered from their bondage in Egypt, and during their wan derings in the desert, they were neither required by God to observe this law, nor punished for transgressing it, eVetSij icad' eavrov's fftwres na\ t?js t&v dXKoifrvkav idvmv iwip,i!-la<} airrfK- \ar/fiivoi tov arjp^elov tt}<; Trepnofir)^ ovk iSeovTO. The same reason is also assigned by Jerome i. 1, in epist. ad. Gal. fin., Joh. Damasc. de fide lib. iv., c. 27, and Clericus. It is generally re jected, however, as unsatisfactory, because circumcision was not merely instituted for the purpose of distinguishing the Israelites outwardly from the Gentiles, but as a means of federal grace, oblativum et in infantibus collativum et obsignativum, ut hodie baptismus (Pfeiffer, dub. vex., p. 326) ; whilst the real reason is supposed to have been that, " whilst the Israelites were in the desert, they were always in suspense and uncertainty with regard to the continuance of their journey, since they were required to be in constant readiness to strike their tents and march at the first movement of the pillar of cloud ; and the boys who had just been circumcised and were still suffering from the wound could not have been moved without endangering their lives." This is the opinion of Rosenmiiller, and was previously maintained by Vatab- lius, C. a Lapide, Osiander, Seb. Schmidt, Ising. (exerc. p. 104), Pfeiffer (1. c), Buddeus (hist. eccl. i. 643), and many others. Masius also supposes that this was one of the principal reasons for the remission of the command, but Augustine (quaest. vi. in Jos.) traces the neglect of it solely to disobedience to God. To this, however, it has been very correctly replied, that we do not find anywhere proofs of such disobedience, and that Moses would hardly have tolerated it. Moreover, the constant wandering of the people, and the consequent danger to which the children 134 CIRCUMCISION OF THE PEOPLE. would have been exposed, do not, in themselves, furnish a satis factory explanation for the omission ; for, in the first place, the people were not travelling every day ; in fact they often halted for a long period in the different places in which they encamped, and at such times circumcision might have been performed with out any danger on those who were uncircumcised ; and secondly as Calvin has truly remarked, " if there was really any danger of fatal results, their best and only course was to rely upon the fatherly care of God, who would certainly never have allowed his own precepts to cause the destruction of their offspring;" and in another place, "if the children had thus been exposed to certain death, God ought, nevertheless, to have been obeyed, for the sign of the Covenant, by which they were received into the church, was of greater value than a hundred lives." — The real reason is given in v. 6 : " All who came out of Egypt were cir cumcised, but all the people that were born in the wilderness by the way, them they had not circumcised, for the children of Israel walked forty years in the wilderness (or were sentenced by God to do so) till all the people that were men of war, which came out of Egypt, and had not hearkened to the voice of the Lord, were consumed'' We find it here clearly expressed, that the reason why the circumcision was not performed was, that the people had been condemned to perish, they had been rejected of the Lord, and therefore had ceased to be the people of the covenant.i 1 This has been already pointed out by Calvin, " For it is not said that they were circumcised again, because in tlieir wanderings they had passed rapidly from place to place : but because it was necessary that lorty years should elapse, in order that* those wicked apostates might be destroyed, who had forfeited their claim to the promised inheritance. This therefore must be assigned as the reason : the children of Israel wandered through the desert till the whole of that generation which had refused to follow God had died out ; and from this, in my opinion, we may gather that the practice of circumcision was discontinued dur ing the whole of that period, as a sign of the curse or rejection. It is true that this punishment was inflicted upon the innocent; but it was important that the fathers should suffer in the persons of their children, by its appearing as if God would reject them afterwards. And when they saw that their offspring differed in no respect from the heathen and strangers, they perceived at once what they had deserved." — .Masius also had come upon the right track, when amongst other things he said : " Moreover the fact that the children were not circumcised, .stems to have been a kind of punishment, with which God intended CHAPTER V. 1—9. 135 We shall arrive even more certainly at the same result if we compare the verse before us with the passage contained in Num. xiv. 29 — 34, where the divine sentence is recorded, that all who had murmured against God, of twenty years old and upwards, should die in the wilderness, and that, although their sons would enter the promised land, they should feed (Le. lead a nomad life) in the wilderness for forty years, and bear the apostasy of their fathers until the bodies of the latter were wasted away. From this it follows that the whole nation was rejected by the Lord, not, indeed, for ever, but only until the older generation had died out. And for so long a period the children were to en dure the punishment of the apostasy. Since, ' therefore, this sentence suspended the covenant as long as the term of punish ment lasted, the children who were born during this period could not be admitted into the covenant, and hence they could not receive the sign of the covenant till the punishment had come to an end. For the Lord had rejected not only the older generation, but the children also ; with this difference, not so much to chastise the sons themselves, as to wound the minds of the impious parents, when they saw that their children were deprived of the sign of the sacred covenant. And this seems to me to be evidently hinted at by the words of God in Numbers xiv. 33, in which he says : " But as for you, your carcases, they shall fall in this wilder ness. And your children shall be wanderers in the wilderness forty years, and bear the punishment of your apostasy, until ye have been consumed in the desert;" that is to say : "because ye have departed from my family by your rebellion, your children also shall be deprived of the sign of your adoption as long as you are alive." But instead of following this track, he gives the preference to the ordinary explanation, "the necessity for continual motion." According to the statement of C. a. Lapide, the correct explanation is also given by Gabriel Valdez. the Jesuit (Professor at Alcala, d. 1604) in the third part of his dis putations, where he says : " these children remained uncircumeised in the desert on account of the sin and murmuring of their parents ; and hence the parents themselves were punished by God, both by their own death and by the uncircumcision of their children." This explanation, however, Was for a time entirely forgotten, and many others, especially Vater (comm. on the Pentateuch) followed the example of Nachtigall, and adduced the neglect of circumcision during the wandering in the wilderness as a leading argument against the genuineness of the Mosaic legislation. At last Hengstenberg (Beitr. iii. p. 16 sqq.) again brought forward the actual reason, and so completely secured it against all objections, that now even rationalistic critics (as for example, v. Lengerke) arlopt it. ] 36 CIRCUMCISION OP THE PEOPLE. however, that the former were condemned to die out, the latter merely to bear the apostasy. To the children, moreover, the assurance was expressly given that the Lord would bring them into the promised land ; an assurance which necessarily implied that he would renew the covenant with them. He therefore continued to the nation the presence of the pillars of cloud and fire, as well as the manna and other signs of his grace, in order to preserve them from despair, and still keep alive the feeling that the existing " status quo" was one of punishment and dis cipline, which at a future period was to come to an end. — But if the practice of circumcision ceased in consequence of the rejec tion of the people by God, this did not occur till tbe second year of their journey, when the people were in Kadesh, and therefore THl "111131 Di-rVn £>Vr\-bp (v- 5) must be restricted to those who were born during the last thirty-eight years of the march. The earlier commentators, however, have asked why those born during this period were not circumcised before, when Israel was encamped in the fields of Moab ; inasmuch as the whole generation of those who were fit for war was then dead, and there fore the sentence of God was completely executed before the people crossed the brook Zared and entered the land of the Amorites (Deut. ii. 14, compared with Num. xxi. 12, seq.) % In reply to this question Masius says (on v. 8) : the reason was that it was still uncertain how long they would remain there, and whether they would not have to strike their tents unexpectedly and con tinue their march. This answer, however, is not satisfactory, for the question is not so much : Why did not Moses renew the rite? as why did not the Lord command it before they had entered the promised land ? Masius is further of opinion : first, that the forty years of punishment, the period mentioned in the sentence to correspond with the number of days during which the spies were in the country (Num. xiv. 33, seq.), were not ex hausted. But the forty here is simply a round number, inasmuch as the punishment actually lasted only thirty-eight years, and therefore the difference of a month or two cannot have been taken into consideration. He also thinks, secondly, that the circumcision was performed in the land of Canaan, terra omnibus sacris caeremoniis dicata; because it was here that God appointed circumcision for the first time ; and, lastly, because Joshua, not CHAPTER V. 1 — 9. 137- Moses, was a type of Christ, who in the promised land admi nisters the circumcision made without hands. But these reasons do not suffice, although it is a fact, which must not be overlooked, that Moses himself was one of those who were not to tread the promised land. The reply given by Calvin is : " God delayed the issue of this command till the Israelites were surrounded by enemies, that he might try them by a severe test ; and also waited till his miraculous assistance had brought them safely into the promised land, in order that the hope of conquering it, which they would then feel, might increase their willingness to obey the command." But the test cannot have been a very severe one to the Israelites, who had just witnessed so glorious a proof of the omnipotent help afforded them by their God, and had also discovered that the Canaanites were so terrified in conse quence, that they had lost all courage and disposition to attack them. This could not but greatly increase their confidence in the almighty protection of the Lord. And, even apart from this, the Israelites cannot have felt any great fear of the Canaanites, after they had allowed them quietly to cross the Jordan, without even making an effort to prevent them. Moreover, as Michaelis has pointed out, in his usual manner of carefully calculating every particular, the people did not all require to be circumcised, but there were at least 50,000 men left (there were really more, as we shall presently show), who could have been opposed to the Canaanites, if they had shown any desire to attack the Israelitish camp. — The true reason why the Lord did not order their circumcision till after their entrance into the promised land can only be found in the mercy of God, which is unchanging in all its operations, and which never imposes duties upon any man till it has given him sufficient actual proofs of love to make the performance of these duties easy. Just as the Lord first gave to Abraham repeated promises of a very numerous posterity, and of the land of Canaan as the future inheritance of his descend ants, and then enjoined circumcision as the sign of the covenant ; just as he first miraculously dehvered the people of Israel out of Egypt with his powerful arm, and showed them such evident proofs of his mercy that they were induced, as his peculiar people, cheerfully to promise obedience to whatever he might command, and then gave his law on Sinai ; so now did he first 138 CIRCUMCISION OP THE PEOPLE. grant them his powerful help in the conquest of the two kings of the Amorites on the other side Jordan, and also miracu lously divide the waters of the Jordan, and thus prove to them by his acts that he would not leave nor forsake them, but, as he had hitherto removed all obstacles and brought them into the promised land, would help them still further, would exterminate the Canaanites before them, and would give them their land for ' a possession, and thus entirely fulfil the promise which he had given to the fathers and confirmed with an oath ; and not till after he had done all this, did he require them again to submit to circumcision, which, as the sign of the covenant, involved the observance of the whole law.1 V. 8. After the circumcision of the people was over, those who had been circumcised remained quietly in the camp till they vvere healed. Qpinn UttF? bt. they sat under themselves, i.e., on the spot of which they had taken pessession ; they kept them selves quiet in their tents ; comp. Ex. xvi. 29, on which Clericus remarks : " the phrase seems to be taken from the custom of Eastern nations, who sit on the ground or pavement; for to remain under ourselves is properly to remain on that spot which was under us when we first sat down." opyp-pj 1V> till they recovered. See for this meaning of pppj 2 Kings i! 2, xx. 7, &c. — As the Israelites crossed the Jordan on the 10th, and therefore could not undertake fhe circumcision till the 11th, and yet kept the passover as early as the 14th, some have founded on this an argument against the truth of the whole narrative. Rosenmuller (Schol. ad. v. 5) regards the narrative as improbable, partly be cause, according to Gen. xxxiv. 25, the pain arising from the wound caused by circumcision lasted several days, and was most acute on the third day ; and partly, also, because it would have J The question has also been asked : when were those of the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half-tribe of Manasseh, who remained on the other side of the Jordan circumcised ? History is altogether silent with regard to this Clericus thinks it probable "that Joshua took cure that it should be performed on the eastern side of the Jordan at the same time. Masius and Seb. Schmidt suppose that it took place before the Jordan was crossed just as those tribes were about to take possession of the land aw.gned to them.-It is impossible to arrive at any certainty on the matter. «m»e «n CHAPTER V. 1—9. 139 been impossible to circumcise all those who were uncircumcised in one day, as the number probably amounted to a million. He is not, however, on that account, inclined to agree with Paulus (ut supra, p. 161) that the whole account was invented for the mere purpose of explaining the origin of the name Gilgal. But, as far as the latter point is concerned, the actual number of the uncircumcised is of less consequence than the proportion between those who were already circumcised and those who had to be circumcised now. This, according to the usual and most pro bable calculation, was in the ratio of three or four to one, and, therefore, the operation could very easily be performed in a day, and there is no necessity for our supposing, as Rosenmuller does, that the mothers and other women were called in to assist.1 The second objection, that the pain was most acute on the third day, has been repeated, since Rosenmiiller, by Winer (R.W. i., p. 188), who refers to Chardin in Harmar's Beobachtungen iii. 1 The ratio mentioned in the text is arrived at by the following cal culation, founded on the tables of Kerseboom, for which I am indebted to the kindness of my colleague, Dr Minding. The first census, taken at Sinai, showed that there were then 603,550 men of twenty years of age and upwards. It is therefore estimated that there were 378,000 males under twenty years of age. Of these, according to the ordinary laws of mortality, 338,000 would be still living at the period of the census, which was taken thirty-eight years afterwards, and as they were all born before the rejection of the nation, they were not only circumcised, but, being more than thirty-eight years old, were well able to perform the operation of circumcising the rest. If, then, when the people were numbered the second time, there were 601,730 of twenty years old and upwards, and 376,000 males under twenty years of age have to be added to these, bringing the whole number to nearly a million ; there were still 338,000 amongst them, who were already circumcised, and therefore only about 640,000 remained, who needed circumcision. But the mortality was unusually great during the thirty-eight years' march through the wilderness, on account of the sentence of God, since accord ing to the known laws of mortality, of the 603,550 males above twenty years of age,-who were living at the first census, about a fifth should have been still alive thirty-eight years afterwards, and we may justly assume that amongst the younger generation of 378,000 persons, the mortality was as great as in that which was sentenced to die. But even if it were so, there would still be left at the time when they entered Canaan about 270,000 or 280,000 who were born before the people were cast off, and therefore had been circumcised. The first calculation gives a ra^io of three to one ; and if the latter supposition be correct, there would still be one circumcised for every four who were not so. 140 CIRCUMCISION OP THE PEOPLE. p. 366, without, however, having read his remarks. But this objection derives no support either from Gen xxxiv. 25, or from Chardin's actual words. All that the latter says is, that the renegades in the East, who were circumcised in their thirtieth or fortieth year, were generally obliged to keep their beds for twenty or twenty-two days, and could not walk without the greatest pain; but then — and this ought to be particularly noticed — they applied nothing but burnt paper to the wound. The Jews, on the con trary, at least according to the account in the Talmud, rubbed it immediately with oil ; so that from the very first the pain must have been considerably diminished, and the wound would cer tainly heal much more quickly. In Gen. xxxiv. 25 it is merely said that Simeon and Levi, the sons of Jacob, attacked the Shechemites on the third day, when they were suffering pain ; and Seb. Schmidt draws from this the very opposite conclusion, viz. : " that after the third or fourth day they would have so far recovered as to be out of danger." At any rate there is nothing said in this passage to the effect that on the the third day the pain was most acute. And the celebration of the Passover does not necessarily presuppose entire freedom from pain. So long as the father of the family, whose duty it was to slay the paschal lamb, was able to do this, all the others, even without leaving their tents, could partake of the Passover, since it was only Levitical uncleanness, and not illness or pain, which excluded from it. (Num. ix. 10). And there could not be any scarcity of fathers to slay the paschal lamb, for there were at least a fourth of the males who had been circumcised long ago; and, according to the law (Ex. xii. 4), two small families could unite in the cele bration of the Passover. The directions given in the Talmud allow as many as ten persons to form themselves into a family.1 1 The objections raised by Paulus (ut supra), Maurer and Gramberg (Krit. Gesch. d. Religionsid. d. A, T. i. p.' 406) are founded upon erroneous suppositions.— The first : "that it is incredible that Moses should have left the children of the Israelites uncircumcised for forty years, merely because they were marching so long," has been already met by the explanation given above of the actual reason why circum cision was suspended. The second : " that the resolution to render the whole army ill at the same time, and unfit for battle for several days, is one that cannot possibly have been formed," has been equally refuted by the proportion which, as we have shown above, really existed CHAPTER V. 1 — 9. 141 V. 9. This day have I rolled away the reproach of Egypt from °ff y°u- D'J'TSQ r\S"in *be reproach which is cast upon you by the Egyptians. This explanation is sustained by such passages as Is. li. 7, Ezek. xvi. 57, xxxvi. 15, Zeph. ii. 8, &c, where the genitive always denotes the_pg,rgon Jram- whom the reproach comesT"and hence in Ps. lxxiv. 22 the genitive is expressed periphrastically ^ i^ ^piSHpf This sweePs away a bost of t t • • ' : t : v erroneous explanations, which rest upon the supposition that the genitive is used with reference to those upon whom the reproach falls. But even by those whoTegard it as denoting: "the re proach which one casts upon another," many arbitrary interpre tations have been given. For example, Theodoret supposes that the reproach of Egypt signifies the Egyptian bondage ; Drusius, Spencer, Clericus, and others, imagine that the Egyptians, either because they were all circumcised — of wliich there is not the slightest proof — or because (as Michaelis thinks) they regarded circumcision as something connected with cleanliness, had looked upon their state of uncircumcision as a disgrace ; whilst Flatt (in Authenrieth's treatise on the origin of circumcision, Tubingen 1829) has pronounced it to be the contempt heaped upon them by the Egyptians, because they were a people unfit for war. The latter is the explanation adopted by Maurer. The correct one we find given by Vatablius : " the ridicule which was cast upon the Israelites by the Egyptians, who said that God bad brought them out in order that he might destroy them." This is evident from Ex. xxxii. 12 : " wherefore should the Egyptians speak and say : for mischief did he bring them out, to slay them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth," and Num. xiv. 13 — 16 ; Deut. ix. 28. These passages show that " the object of reproach was their rejection, which was made manifest by the cessation of circumcision at the command of God," and " the restoration of circumcision was regarded as a practical declaration of the restoration of the covenant, and there fore as a removal of the reproach which its omission had caused." between those who had to be circumcised, and those who already were so. There remains, therefore, only the argument founded on the so- called " false etymology" of the name Gilgal. To this we shall reply at verse 9. 142 CIRCUMCISION OF THE PEOPLE. (Hengstenberg, Beitr. iii. p. 19). — The place of encampment re ceived from this circumstance ' the name Gilgal, i.e., a rolling away. The criticism of the rationalists has severely attacked this etymology ; but they have not been able to substitute a better. Hasse maintains that the name is derived from the meandering (^)^) of a river through the valley, but ^yy^ never means to meander, though it is certainly used in Amos v. 24 to denote the rolling of a flood of water. Gesenius (in the thesaurus i. 288) gives as the meaning of ^J^J orbis, circulus ; but there is no evidence of this. In a manner still more arbitrary, v. Len gerke, p. 31 and 625, deduces from orbis the meaning, " a ring sc. a boundary, a place on the frontier." Now even if the mean ing assigned by Gesenius were admissible, the signification circle or ring would still be only a derivative ; whereas rolling, that which rolls, hence a cart-wheel, is the actual meaning of the word, and from this the notion of rolling off or away easily fol lows. Paulus regards the etymology given in the verse before us as " exceedingly unfortunate," because it only expresses the subordinate idea rolling away, instead of the compound idea: the rolling away of shame ; but Maurer, on the other hand, although he agrees with the others in rejecting the etymology as incorrect, cites an exactly similar account from Ovid's Trist. iii. 9, 33, of the etymology of the name Tomi : Inde Tomos dictus locus est quia fertur in illo Membra soror fratris consecuisse sui. All these objections indicate an utter inattention to the fact that most of the Old Testament etymologies contain allusions to words and their meaning, rather than such full explanations of them, as befit a lexicon. The people, when they gave the name, never thought of conforming accurately to grammar and dic tionary, but were merely anxious to hand down to posterity the remembrance of some remarkable event by means of a name, which hinted at it. Hence the oft-repeated assertion found in neological criticism, that an imperfect or incorrect etymology is sufficient to prove that the event, with which the name is said to be connected, is mythical, rests upon a thoroughly erroneous supposition, and is altogether destitute of proof. Lastly, Maurer also adduces the fact that the name occurs in Deut. xi. 30 and is thus older than the event recorded here, and v. Lengerke adds CHAPTER V. 10—12. 143 that Joshua (xv. 7) speaks of another Gilgal in mistake for Geliloth (xviii. 17). But this does not in the least disprove the etymology given here ; first, because we do not at all know what was the origin of the name in the case of the other Gilgals, and secondly, because such was the liberty taken in the formation of names, that it is by no means beyond the limits of possibility for names to have the same meaning, and yet to have originated in alto gether different events, the radical signification of the word being of course differently applied. Moreover the place of encampment, in which the circumcision of the people was performed, was not then a town, nor did it become one afterwards ;J and the only other passages in the whole of the Old Testament in which this Gilgal is mentioned, are Josh. iv. 20, and Micah vi. 5, where the prophet refers to the present account, and thus places its histori cal veracity beyond the reach of doubt. For if the place never existed as a town or village, its name cannot have had any other origin than that given here, and therefore the preservation of the name furnishes the surest guarantee that the event which it hands down to posterity actually occurred. V. Lengerke (p. 622) has indirectly admitted this, by the forced attempt which he makes to get rid of the inconvenient reference made by the prophet Micah to the passage of the Israelites through the Jor dan and the circumcision at Gilgal, when, in the face of all critical authorities, he pronounces the words " from Shittim to Gilgal" (vi. 5) to be an old marginal gloss. Vv. 10 — 12. After Israel had been once more received into the covenant of the Lord by circumcision, the passover could be celebrated again. The feast of the passover at Gilgal was the second that had been observed since the departure from Egypt. The first had occurred at Sinai, in the second year of their journey in the desert (Num. ix. 1, sqq). In the same year the Israelites were rejected on account of their rebellion against the Lord in Kadesh-Barnea ; and from this time the celebration of 1 All that Havernick (Einl. ii. 1, p. 37 seq.) has said to prove that Gilgal is frequently mentioned in the subsequent history as a sacred place, falls to the ground for the simple reason, that the passages all refer to the Gilgal, which still exists under the name of Djildjilia, and not to the place in which the Israelites were now encamped ; see on chap. ix. 6. 144 CELEBRATION OF THE PASSOVER. the covenant-festival was of necessity suspended, because the covenant itself was broken. Calvin, indeed, is of opinion that, by the special permission of God, the feast of the passover, as well as the offering of sacrifice, was permitted still to continue. But there is no foundation for such an opinion. If the argumentum e silentio has force anywhere it certainly has here ; for a permis sion on the part of God of so extraordinary a character, would undoubtedly have been mentioned in the Books of Moses. Nor is there any reference in the Scriptures to the offering of sacrifice in the wilderness, after the people were condemned to die. — On the 14th day of the first month at even; the period appointed in the law (Ex. xii. 18 ; Lev. xxiii. 5 ; Num. xxviii. 16). In Ex. xii. 6, and Lev. xxiii. 5, 2"iJ?l 1S more definitely explained by D^i-iyrr pi> and in Deut- XV1- 6> by ^n^pi t^iis-— r°r ^pp"p r-lil"lSh see cbap. iv. 13. — V. 11. The next day they eat some of the produce of the country unleavened and parched. — Kimchi explains the phrase T>-^pj *^ll^> which occurs only here and in verse 12, as meaning the corn which had been produced by the sowing of the year before ; but this does not harmonise with v. 12, where t>-^pj "YQJ? is unmistakeably used as synonymous with y^n nN'llfl 5 notwithstanding the assertion of v. Lengerke (p. 627), who comes to an opposite conclusion, that " they would not have been allowed to eat the new (pjfc^QPl) on fbat day (Lev. xxiii. 24, compared with v. 11)." But Lev. xxiii. 24 (most pro bably v. 14 is intended) contains nothing to this effect. All that is commanded is (in v. 11) that the priest wave the sheaf of the first fruits of the new harvest before Jehovah r-Q$p? TVlniSft on the morrow of the Sabbath, i.e., on the clay following thVfirst day of the passover, or on the 16th of the first month ; for pQffi means here the first day of the festival, so called because no work was allowed to be done on that day, (Lev. xxiii. 7 ; Ex. xii. 16 ; Num. xxviii. 18). Von Lengerke, on the contrary, and many other expositors, seem to have understood pjDSrr mUlSE m tne present passage to mean the first day of the feast (the'lSth day of the month). This is certainly admissible, but not necessary, as Maurer is inclined to infer from a comparison of the subse quent clause, prtPT D'iipr D2yi> with the legal precept con tained in Lev. xxiii. 5, 6 : "'in 'the fourteenth day of the first CHAPTER V. 10 — 12. 145 month between the two evenings is the Lord's passover. And on the fifteenth day of the same month is the feast of un leavened bread; seven days ye must eat unleavened bread." For piDOn mrTOft may a^so mean : " after the following day of the passover;" i.e., on the day which followed the first feast- day after the paschal meal ; compare Hos. vi. 2, qi^e "from two days onwards," i.e., immediately after the end of the second day, see Ewald, Lehrb. p. 409 ; or pjpg may include the first feast day, since, as Clericus has observed, the paschal meal, on the evening of the 14th of Nisan, actually fell also upon the 15th day of the month which commenced on this evening. Either of these explanations is quite as admissible, according to the rules of grammar, as that of v. Lengerke. But in accordance with the use of pplfTOO in otber passages (e.g., Lev. xxiii. 11, 15), I should give the preference to the latter, although in Num. xxxiii. 3, nQfi?] pnrflDQ 1S used for the 15th of Nisan. For the difference in the meaning of the same words in the two. pas sages (Num. xxxiii. 3, and Josh. v. 11) arises from a difference in the use of the word pjpjj, and not of pni"TOD- ^ ^rs^ HDD was applied only to the sacrifice and meal-time of the passover, but at a later-period it was used with reference to the seven days of unleavened bread, or the whole festival of the passover ; e.g., 2 Chr. xxxv. 18, 19, where pf^S Pitoj? signifies the whole pass- — V T T over of seven days; though in the same passage (v. 17) the writer makes a distinction between pipQ and pyyjjo ^H, in the same manner as in the Pentateuch. Also in Ez. xiv. 21, pjDO is called a feast of seven days. The transition to this wider meaning of the word pjpg we find as early as Deut. xvi. 2, " thou shalt sacrifice for the passover to the Lord thy God, sheep and oxen ;" pjOQ here includes all the sacrifices which were to be offered during the seven days of the feast (see Hengstenberg, Beitr. iii. p. 377 seq.), and is thus applied to the whole of the seven days' festival. It is in this less limited sense that our author uses the word p[g£ in v. 11. He could therefore with the less hesitation employ the ambiguous phrase piD^pt PHPI1DI2> as he naturally took for granted that the readers of his book were acquainted with the Pentateuch, and would expect them to know, from Lev. xxiii., that the new corn was not allowed to be eaten 10* 146 CELEBRATION OF THE PASSOVER. before the 16th of Nisan. We have thus removed the difficulty, which led Kimchi to feel himself compelled to refer t>*^!"f "S'Q.V to the produce of the previous year, namely, that the present passage could not in any other way be reconciled with Lev. xxiii. 14. For literally V^^n Tliy means merely the produce I V T T — : _p t, of the land, the corn, Chaldee ~\!Qy, Syriac pom, ; see Gesenius, thes. s. v. — i^pl pp-JJO unleavened bread and parched, i.e., baked ears of corn. — These words are not to be regarded as meaning that the 1 6th was the first day on which they ate un leavened bread of any kind, for they had to eat it with the paschal lamb ; but unleavened bread made of the produce of the land, the new corn of the year, was not eaten before this day, since they were not allowed to partake of this till the sheaf of first fruits had been offered on the second day of the feast, Lev. xxiii. 14. — i^p stand for ^j^l ""l^ft ^^x (Lev. ii. 14), ears of corn 't •¦ T It t, baked at the fire, commonly called y-yr) (Lev. xxiii. 14 ; 1 Sam. .. T xvii. 17, &c), an article of food still much relished by the Arabs ; see Celsii, hierob. ii. p. 231 seq. ; Harmar, Beob. i. p. 255 sqq. — D-tn D'iTl D2JJ71 on the very same day, i.e., on the day pre viously mentioned. This expression is the one universally em ployed when it is important to point out with accuracy the day referred to, (compare chap. x. 27 ; Gen. vii. 13, xvii. 23, 26; Ex. xii. 17, 41, 51 ; Lev. xxiii. 14, 21, 28—30; Deut. xxxii. 48; Ezek. ii. 3, xxiv. 2, xl. 1), and therefore it is not an idiom of the Elohists, that proves the present verse to be one of the Elohistic portions of the Book of Joshua, as Stdhel in (Krit. unters. p. 89), De Wette, (Einl. p. 234) and v. Lengerke (p. 626) fancy. V. 12. As soon as the Israelites had tasted the produce of the land, the manna ceased. There is an evident reference in this statement to Ex. xvi. 35 : " And the children of Israel did eat manna forty years, until they came to a land inhabited, until they came unto the borders of the land of Canaan." This refe rence, however, has been used by Hasse, p. 101, Eichhorn (Einl. iii. p. 382 seq.), and Maurer, as an argument against the his torical veracity of the verse. The account, in their view, arose from the legendary history of a later period, and grew out of an inference drawn from Ex. xvi. 35, since the Israelites- to the present day are not without manna, the Tamarix orientalis, from CHAPTER V. 10—12. 147 which it was chiefly obtained, and which grows, as is well known, in great abundance on the banks of the Jordan. For this fact, however, which is supposed to be so well known, there is no evi dence whatever. No traveller ever speaks of manna in the neighbourhood of the Jordan ; but on the contrary, according to the express testimony of Burckhardt, there is no place, except Sinai, where manna is produced by the tamarisk.1 The objec tion, moreover, is founded upon a false interpretation of the verse before us, and also of the other passage, Ex. xvi. 35. The latter is supposed, (e.g. by v. Raumer, der Zug d. Isr. p. 26 seq.) to imply that the manna was the only food of the Israelites during their forty years' wandering in the desert, with the ex ception of the quails which were sent once or twice ; and from this the inference is drawn that it continued after the Jordan was crossed, until the 15th day of the first month, and, accord ing to the verse before us, on the 16th suddenly ceased.2 But Hengstenberg (Hist, of Balaam p.284 seq.) has shown that this does not necessarily follow from the two passages, and has proved on the same grounds as Vitringa, that the Israelites, when in the desert, were able to procure, and actually had many other kinds of food, so that manna was only the extra supply, by which God amply provided for the wants, which would otherwise have been very frequently if not constantly felt by so numerous a people, on account of the scarcity of the provisions to be obtained in the desert. There is only one point in which I cannot agree vriih^Hengstenberg, namely, that it was in the peninsula of Sinai 1 " In Nubia and the whole of Arabia, the tamarisk is one of the commonest trees. It grows in large quantities on the Euphrates and Astaboras, and in all the valleys of Hedshaz and Bedsha, but I never heard of its bearing manna anywhere but at Sinai." (Burckhardt Reise ii. p. 955). And Ehrenberg says the same : " it is only upon the tamarisks of the peninsula of Sinai that manna is found" (see v. Raumer, d. Zug d. Isr. p. 27). There are, it is true, other travellers who say that manna is found not only in Arabia, but also in Syria and Mesopotamia, near Haleb, between Merdin and Diarbeker, and in Persia, being procured both from the eastern oak, and fhe el-Hadsch and Akul shrubs (see Rosenmiiller, Althk. iv. 1, p. 317 sqq.) ; but no one says that it is found wherever tamarisks grow. 2 Hauff (Offenbarungsgl. p. 213seq.) supposes that our verse con tains a different account of the manna from that given in Ex. xvi. 35, but he stands alone, and has failed to prove his point. 10 3 148 CELEBRATION OF THE PASSOVER. alone that they received the manna ; this is by no means a neces sary inference from Deut. ii. 6, since the purchase of provisions does not preclude the gift of manna also, even if this was not their sole article of food. Moreover, when the Israelites were passing round the mountains of Edom they had not reached an inhabited country, and according to Ex. xvi. 35 they received the manna until then.1 On tbe other hand I thoroughly agree with Hengstenberg in the opinion, that the present verse refers to the definite cessation of the manna, simply for the purpose of announcing the corresponding termination of the period, during which the manna, was their food in the desert, and the com mencement of that in which bread became their ordinary means of sustenance. According to this view, the manna continued to be their food for forty years, for the Israelites did not arrive at Shittim, on the border of the inhabited country, till about the end of the 40th year of their march. Much has been written about the manna (vq) (compare Oed mann, verm. Samml. vi. p. 1 sqq. ; Rosenmuller, A. and N. Morgenland, i. p. 34 sqq., and bibl. Althk. iv. 1, p. 316 sqq. ; i'. Raumer, d. Zug d. Isr. p. 24 sqq. ; Gesenius, thesaurus ; and Winer, R.W. s. v). Manna, in many respects corresponding to the manna of the Bible, is found in the peninsula of Sinai ; it is found on the Tamarix mannifera, from which it exudes in conse quence of the puncture of an insect of the Coccus tribe (called by 1 Hengstenberg has also gone too far, first, in his assertion that the quantity of manna mentioned in Ex. xvi. 16 seq., as falling daibj^only referred to the first period ; for there is nothing in the verses them selves or in the context to suggest this, however probable it may be in itself, that the quantity of manna collected varied at different periods according to the necessities of the time ; and secondly, in the inference which he draws from Ex. xxxii. 6, 18, that at the festival of the golden calf, the Israelites drank wine, which, as Augustine thought (quaest. 51 in Deut.), they had brought with them from Egypt. There is nothing to this effect in the biblical text ; and it is only in the LXX. that the drinking in v. 18 is rendered by the word de noting the drinking of wine. It is certainly possible that at this festival something besides water may have been drunk ; but it might be prepared from dates, for there are palms and palm-forests in many of the valleys of Arabia Petrsea (compare Ex. xv. 27. xvi. 1 and Burck hardt, Reise ii. p. 815 and 828 ; Robinson i. p. 90), and the monks of Sinai to this day drink spirits prepared from dates. (Robinson.) CHAPTER V. 10—12. 149 Ehrenberg, Coccus nianniparus) ; (see von Raumer, Gesenius, and Winer, ut supra, also Robinson i. p. 170 and 550). There are many who fancy, not only that they have discovered in this the manna of the Bible, but also that they can explain by means of this all that the Scriptures say on the subject. Von Raumer (p. 28) on the other hand, says : " if a sincere student of the Scriptures compares the clear and unambiguous description of the manna of the Israelites, given in the sacred Scriptures, with the statements made by trustworthy naturalists, he must of necessity come to the conclusion that there is not the slightest connexion between the tamarisk-manna found at the present day, and the manna of the Israelites. He cannot possibly suppose that the " food from heaven," the " angels' food," as the Psalmist calls it (Ps. lxxviii. 24 seq.), with which God fed his people, was no thing but the produce of a louse, such as naturalists have dis covered." — The truth lies between the two. As Hengstenberg (p. 280) has correctly observed, in the gift of the manna the supernatural was founded upon the natural, as in the case of the miracles in Egypt and the feeding with quails. This is apparent, not only from the fact that it is still found in the peninsula of Sinai, but more particularly from the agreement between tbe time and place at which the Israelites first partook of the- manna, and those at which it is still usually found. The tamarisk- manna is met with in exactly the same district of the peninsula of Sinai, as that in which it is probable that the manna from heaven first fell upon the camp of the Israelites ; and the time of year, when they first received it, corresponds with that at which it is most abundant now, namely, June and July. We are thus necessarily led to trace a connexion between the natural and supernatural manna ; but notwithstanding this, there still remain essential differences between the heavenly food of the Israelites and the natural produce of the Tamarix mannifera. The first difference which strikes us is founded upon the quantity of manna sent to the Israelites. According to von Raumer' s cal culation, which is not too high, the Israelites gathered, at least on certain occasions, 600,000 pounds; whereas at the present time, in the most rainy seasons, there are never more than fifty or sixty pounds collected. Secondly, it is now found only in the months of June and July, and in dry seasons altogether fails; 1 50 CELEBRATION OF THE PASSOVER. but the Israelites, even if they did not gather it every day for forty years, and always in the same quantities, must certainly have received and collected it at all seasons, and always in large quantities, or it would have been impossible to preserve from starvation about two millions of men gathered together in one spot in the desert ; for there is scarcely a single spot in the whole of the Arabian desert, fitted to sustain even for a few days so large a number of men, however much 'more fertile it may have been formerly than it is now (see Hengstenberg, ut supra, p. 288 seq). Again, there is anothervery great and manifest difference be tween the natural manna and that given by God to the Israelites ; the tamarisk-manna drops from the shrub, and is gathered partly from the branch itself, and partly from the ground upon which it has fallen, but the manna of the Bible fell like dew upon the earth (that is from the air), and, after the dew which had fallen passed away, it was seen lying upon the surface of the wilderness like scales, and as fine as the hoarfrost upon the ground (Ex. xvi. 13 seq. ; Num. xi. 9). Some have endeavoured to explain the account given in the Scriptures by means of a statement made by Josephus, and by some ancient writers and travellers,. that the common manna found in the East falls from the air during the night like dew or hoarfrost. But the passage taken from Josephus (Ant. iii. 1, 6) : " In the present day it still rains manna in the whole of that district (the wilderness of Sinai), just as formerly God sent that food to please Moses," cannot be cited as containing in itself evidence sufficient to establish the fact, for it is not confirmed by any credible authority, and Josephus, who evidently always attempts to describe the miracles of the Bible in a manner likely to gratify the heathen, has, no doubt, made this assertion about the manna, which was then met with in Arabia, merely from uncertain accounts which had reached him by hearsay. Nor have the somewhat similar statements made by Avicenna, Aristotle, Pliny, and earlier travellers, such as Breidenbach, Felix Faber, Wormser, and Tucher, and which are quoted by Oedmann (vi. p. 8 sqq.), and Rosenmuller (Althk. iv. 1, p. 324 sqq.), met with any confirmation from more recent and more scrupulously observant travellers, who have investigated and discovered the actual origin of the tamarisk-manna. And even if any of these statements were founded upon truth, the CHAPTER V. 13 — VI. 27. 151 phenomenon would be sufficiently explained by supposing that the great heat of the sun caused the vapour generated by the sap of the tamarisk and similar shrubs to diffuse itself through the air, and that this was afterwards precipitated by the cold of the night ; hut this would not suffice as an explanation of the origin of the biblical manna. For, lastly, the substance of this was essentially different from the natural produce of the tamarisk. According to the account given in the Bible, the manna was seen lying upon the ground in grains like coriander seed, and the Israelites either ground it in handmills, or crushed it in mortars, and then boiled it in saucepans, or made it into cakes (Num. xi. 7, 8) ; but from the unanimous testimony of travellers, the tamarisk-manna can neither be crushed, nor ground, nor baked into cakes, in fact it is of no use at all as bread for the regular daily meals; it is only eaten as an accompaniment to other things, or used as a dainty, and even as a purgative medicine (see Rosenmiiller, p. 328 seq., and Winer, R.W. ii. p. 66) ; and Winer at last acknowledges that " it must be fully ad mitted that the nature of the manna of the East does not enable us to explain every particular in the description contained in the Bible." Hence the feeding of the Israelites with manna remains a miracle wrought by God, to which indeed a slight analogy may be found in nature, but which cannot in any way be naturally explained. CHAPTER V. 13.— VI. 27. APPEARANCE OF THE ANGEL OF THE LORD BEFORE JERICHO. CAPTURE OF THE CITY BY THE ISRAELITES. After the Israelites had entered once more into covenant with the Lord by the renewal of circumcision and the celebration of the passover, they were in a position to proceed at once to the conquest of the promised land. To incite Joshua to this, there appeared to him, in the vicinity of Jericho, a man with a drawn sword, who, in reply to his enquiry, made himself known as the 152 APPEARANCE OF THE ANGEL BEFORE JERICHO. captain of the army of Jehovah", and assured him that he should take the city of Jericho, which was now firmly closed, chap. v. 13; vi. 2. Vv. 13 — 15. *|pp"^l> % Jericho, in agris urbis Jericho (Vul gate). It is evident from the verses which follow, that Joshua was not in the city. ^ means here " the immediate neighbour hood, the closest connection with another thing, and, as it were, the act of entering into it" (Ewald, Lehrb. p. 412). 'irp'T1! also implies not only that Joshua was on the outskirts of Jericho, but that in imagination he was already in it, that is, that he was occupied with the thought of conquering the town, at the very time when the man appeared. «i;p "Pity Nto'H denotes the unexpected sight of an object, and is used not merely with refe rence to heavenly appearances, but also of unexpected earthly ones ; see Gen. xviii. 2, xxxiii. 1, &c. — ^pfc$ a man ; the angel of the Lord appeared in the form of a warrior, " with a drawn sword in his hand," as he had before appeared to Balaam, Num. xxii. 23, 31. Joshua therefore asks him: " Dost thou belong to us or to our enemies ?" He replies (v. 14), " Nay, but . . ." ^ is not a pronoun, though several codices have the reading y-y, and this reading is adopted by the LXX. and Syriac ver sions. In the Chaldee and Vulgate, however, it is translated as the particle of negation, and the Masora has not inserted this verse amongst the fifteen passages in which $fo is written for *fo, see Aurivillii, dissert, p. 469. The 13, which follows, when compared with chap. xxiv. 21, decides the point. — ^y, nay, may be referred either to the second member of the question, as being the nearest, or to both members, inasmuch as he who appeared was neither an Israelite nor one of their enemies. ppiT^NlS-"^ t : t : t the prince of the army of Jehovah. pfii"P— H12J does n°f refer to the children of Israel as being the chosen people of God, as CaU vin, Masius, and others imagine ; for even if the armies of Israel (Ex. vi. 26, xii. 51), which came out of Egypt, are described in two passages, viz., Ex. vii. 4 and xii. 41, as p^j-p pfiNllfc yet Israel is never called the army of the Lord, ppipp ^2 'in the singular. This unusual expression is synonymous with ^12 D^D^il? which means the angels, who are also called in Ps. cxlviii'. CHAPTER V. 13—15. 153 2 ,!|i$l2 his (Jehovah's) army. p]^p|i ^2 "Itt?1 1S therefore the prince of the angels. This title is supposed by Theodoret and others to belong to the Archangel Michael, who is described in Daniel x. 21 and xii. 1 as fighting for the people of God. But although there is no doubt whatever that Michael is identical with the prince of the army of Jehovah (see Hengstenberg, Beitr. i. p. 165 seq.), it does not therefore follow that pflpp ^^2 "Ttt^ was a created angel. In the Book of Daniel itself ^^l^O 1S om nor would it be easy to discover the harmony between such a vision and the expression " he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold there stood a man over against him." — Modern rationalists go still farther ; they even deny the objective reality of the vision altogether, and condemn the whole narrative as a legend, formed upon the model of Ex. iii. 5. This is done by Eichhorn, Einl. iii. p. 383 seq., Paulus, 1. c. p. 162, De Wette, Einl. p. 230, Maurer, in loco, and v. Lengerke, p. 629. One of the arguments, however, adduced to support their views, namely that the vision ends here without any result, has been rejected as worthless even by Maurer, on the ground that the interview does not terminate with v. 15, but that chap. vi. 2 sqq. form part of it. And the argument founded upon the verbal agreement between v. 14 and Ex. iii. 5 is just as weak. For the reason of this agreement is to be found in the design of God that a similarity should exist between the two appearances, and does not in the least affect the leading points, which constitute the peculiar characteristics of the narra tive and are in fact exactly suited to the circumstances. To Moses the Lord appears in a burning bush, answering to the furnace of Egypt, in which the Israelites were languishing ; to Joshua as a warrior, as prince of the army of Jehovah, that he might inspire him, the earthly general, with confidence and power. The difference is quite as great between the ends to be answered by these two appearances. Moses is said to have been thereby called to be the deliverer of his people. Joshua, on the contrary, already stands a servant called by the Lord at the head of the people of Israel, who were armed for the conquest of Canaan, and merely receives the promise that the Lord would give into his hand the fortified city of Jericho, the key of the CHAPTER VI. 1, 2. 157 land of Canaan, and is instructed as to the manner in wliich he is to take the city. Imitation, therefore, is altogether out of the question. See Havernick, Einleitung ii. 1 p. 39 seq. Chap. vi. Vv. 1, 2. If ever the chapters are improperly divided, they certainly are here, for verse 1 is not even the com mencement of a new period, but merely a parenthesis introduced into the longer paragraph, chap. v. 14 to vi. 2, .(like the one inserted at the end of chap. iii. 15), to prepare the way for the striking announcement made by the Lord. The wonderful part of this announcement is to be found, not so much in the act that G°d was about to give Jericho into the hands of the Israelites, as in his giving into their po-wer a city so firm and so strongly fortified, and in the manner in which it was to be done. — On Jericho itself, see chap. ii. 1. The city was mSDft*! rnib shutting (the gates) and firmly shut up, The participles express the continuation of any condition, -^q in Kal has only the transitive meaning to shut, and not the in transitive also to be closed; it is, however, sometimes used absolutely without the object being expressed, to denote the shutting of doors and gates, e.g. Gen. vii. 16 ; Judges ix. 51 ; Is. xxii. 21. pn3Dft> as a stronger form, means to be shut fast, perhaps- bolted or barricaded. The earlier translators endea voured to express this increased emphasis; the LXX. has crvyice- ickeio-fievr] Kal arxypw/jbevn ; the Vulgate clausa erat atque munita ; the Chaldee, " shut with iron gates strengthened with bars of brass." The thought is rendered still more emphatic by the ad dition of the clause which follows ^^ p,^ N2TP VN there was no one going out or in, i.e., it was kept so closely shut that no one was allowed either to enter or depart. — V. 2. The identity of pi^pp with piin11 N12J ito (chap. v. 14) is so evident from the context that every commentator admits it. In the same manner pp;-p ITN^E is often used as identical with Jehovah, see Heng stenberg, Christology, vol. i. p. 108 sqq.1 — Theperfect ipjpij is used with reference to the determination of God, which was already formed, though it might not be carried out till a future period, see notes on chap. i. 3. — ^piil ''Tim the brave heroes (see chap. 1 Clark's For. Theol. Lib. ] 58 DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE ANGEL. i. 14) is put in opposition to ptS^ErnNI iffy? -JIN as ^TVV means " not a town but a city" (Masius). Vv. 3 — 5. After the Lord had thus placed the city in the power of Joshua, he gave him instructions with regard to the manner in which it was to be taken. For seven days the warriors of Israel were to march in procession round the city with the ark of the covenant and with seven priests blowing trumpets. Once every day they were to do this until the seventh. On the seventh they were to do it seven times, and the seventh time the people were to raise a loud war cry, upon which the walls would fall to the^ground, and the people pass over them into the city. — V. 3. tppn, for which we find in v. 11, the more usual form sjT)p[, is employed in connexion with QpfiSD, to define it more exactly. — Once thus shalt thou do six days, i.e., for six days they are to go round once every day. — V. 4 contains, first, additional instructions with reference to the six days' march round the city, namely, that seven priests are to accompany them bearing trumpets of jubilee before the ark of the covenant, from which it follows eo ipso, that the ark itself was to be carried with them in their solemn procession round the city ; and, secondly, the command, that on the seventh day they were to compass the city seven times, and the priests to blow the trumpets not only on the seventh day, but every time they went round. The pfi"^© Q-QliTb as we may see from v. 5, are the same as the pip ^l^ppf) for which in Ex. xix. 1 3, only l^p is used, and in Ex. xix. 16 ; Lev. xxv. 9, "^ttj. — "^Qittj is a bent trumpet, made of r T a large horn, as is evident from its being interchangeable with pp, and therefore different from the straight trumpet, pnj&pfo1 so often engraved on Egyptian monuments, where as yet no crooked one has been discovered, though Eustathius says that an instrument in the form of a bent trumpet was in use amongst the Egyptians, for the purpose of calling the people together to the sacrifices ; see Hengstenberg, Egypt and the Books of Moses, p. 135. — The explanations of the word t^i given by old writers 1 In opposition to Credner's opinion (Com. on Joel, p. 164 sqq.) that -IDitB and pn!&Pr are identical. See Bohr, Symbolik ii. p. 575, and t t : -: ' Havernick, Einl. ii. 1 p. 45. CHAPTER VI. 3 — 5. 1 59 differ greatly, see Carpzov (appar. p. 447 sqq.), and Bochart (hieroz. i. p. 425 seq). The most probable rendering is that given by Gesenius (thes. ii. 561), and Fiirst (cone. p. 462) who follow Masius in translating it onomatopoetically " jubilee," in which they are strongly supported by the fact that in Lev. xxv. 9> VlP "iQlto 1S called pfi^Jn "lErittJ- — The seven days' proces sion, the sevenfold repetition of it on the seventh day, and the use of seven trumpets are unmistakeable proofs of the importance of the number seven. Clericus and others suppose that the inten tion was "that all might perceive that it was done by the power of God, who had created all things in seven days." But although the periods of the Sabbath, the Sabbatic year and the year of jubilee, were undoubtedly arranged with reference to this, it is not applicable here, for there is no reasonable connexion between the creation in seven days and the overthrow of the walls of Jericho, after a seven days' procession round them. The num ber seven amongst the Israelites was the seal of the covenant between Jehovah and Israel j1 and by this march of seven days, and the repetition of it seven times on the seventh day, together with the seven priests walking before the ark of the covenant and blowing seven trumpets, the host of Israel were to show that they were the people of the covenant, and that as the gracious presence of God was bound up with the ark of the covenant, they had in the midst of them their God and Lord and were fighting in his name. — But why, ask some of the earlier com mentators, was not a single march round the walls sufficient ? Why was it repeated several days in succession ? Rosenmiiller supposes that this was done as a challenge to their enemies, who were seized with terror on account of the Israelites (chap. ii. 9), in order that they might be induced to come out and fight, and the strength of the Israelites be tested by their skirmishes with them. This supposition is most certainly erroneous, and cannot be sustained from chap. xxiv. 11. Nor was there any test required of the warlike power of the Israelites, if the Lord was about to deliver the city into their hands by miraculously over throwing the walls. The opinion expressed by others, that the 1 Bdhr (Symb. i. p. 193), and Hengstenberg (d. Gesch. Bil. p. 71) are both agreed on this, though they differ in opinion as to the reason of the sacredness of the number 7. 160 DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE ANGEL. intention of these measures was to increase the confidence which the inhabitants of Jericho felt in their safety, and then by the sudden storming of their walls to surprise them in the midst of their fancied security, is equally inadmissible ; for the walls were not stormed, and the repetition of the march seven times on the seventh day could only draw their attention more strongly to the plan which was to be carried out on that day. The continua tion of the march for several days could not be with any other design than to exercise the Israelites in unqualified faith, and patient confidence in the power and promise of their God, and to impress deeply upon their minds the fact, that it was only the omnipotence and faithfulness of Jehovah, which had given into their hands this fortified city, the key to the entire land. — V. 5. ^i }}p"V dll the people shall shout with a great shout, i.e. not every time, but, as we see from v. 10 and 16, only when they are going round the seventh time on the seventh day. — rwrtf7) — n^D31 the city-wall shall fall under itself, i.e., shall be t -.- : — t : t : overthrown from the foundations. " And the people shall ascend it ^^ Qp^ every man straight before him. Luther renders this "right before him," v. Lengerke (p. 629) "with a quick run," and refers to Amos iv. 3, and Is. xlvii. 15 ; the latter passage, however, is altogether irrelevant, and the former proves nothing. All that >pj^3 tfc^N means is, that every man is to go straight over the fallen wall, and press into the city (v. 20), without look ing about on either side, or troubling himself about his neigh- . hour. Vv. 6 and 7. Joshua reports to the priests (v. 6) and to the rest of the people (v. 7) the command which he had received from the angel of the Lord. Many codices and editions, as well as translators, both ancient and modern, have preferred the Keri -|J3N*1> to the reading in the text !pfl2X!,1 (v- "0> but the pro babilities are in favour of the latter on account of its being the more difficult reading. — They said, &c, those whose duty it was to convey Joshua's commands to the people, probably the Shote- rim (see chap. i. 10 seq. iii. 2). Vv. 8 — 11. The first procession, with supplementary instruc tions in v. 10. — "pp -|foN3 T^l 1S rendered by the Syriac, Michaelis, and Maurer, " and it happened according to the words CHAPTER VI. 8 — 11. 161 of Joshua." But since g with the infinitive is found in in numerable instances after ippi, meaning : it came to pass, when . . . . (see Gesenius, thes. i. 372) ; the latter is the sense in which we must take it here. It is true that in mos't cases ^pj«i^ is followed by the imperfect with •) conversive in the second clause, but very frequently we find merely the perfect, e.g. Gen. xxii. 1 ; 1 Kings viii. 54 ; Is. xxxvii. 38 ; (see Ewald, Lehrb. § 333 b.) — n^ 135^ is used in the place of pfipp. ^-^ ipp^, because Jehovah was enthroned above the cherubim of the ark of the covenant. — V. 9. t>^nn 1S used collectively for ^^pi NISSn (chap. iv. 13), referring, as Kimchi an&Jarchi have shown, T T — to the armed men of the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh. These marched in front of the ark of the covenant ; behind it came hBfr$ftpjj *,ev the warriors of the other tribes.1 The Keri ivppi is preferred by Maurer to the Kethibh 13?&fa> because no certain example can be found of the omission of-^y^, even in prose, after a definite noun in casu recto (see Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 747), and because u^pi in vv. 4, 8, 9, 13, i.e., in every other instance in which it occurs, is fol lowed by 2- But here it is attached immediately to the object rrnQ'lttJnj proving unmistakeably the existence of a closer connexion between them, viz., that of the construct state. The two reasons, however, are not conclusive, since each of the rules has its exceptions, "lyjfrfc for example, is omitted in prose after a definite noun in the accusative, in Ex. xviii. 20 (see Ewald, Lehrbuch § 322 a.) ; and the cases are not rare in which ypft is followed by the accusative ib^bjpj, e.g. Ps. lxxxi. 4 ; Jer. iv. 1 Many of the earlier commentators improperly connected Num. x. 25 with, the verse before us, and were led to imitate the Chaldee, and refer nn^npj to *ne tribe °f Dani which brought up the rear in the order of march observed during the journey through the desert. See Seb. Schmidt on v. 7 for a refutation of several erroneous explana tions. Rosenmuller, however, is still of opinion that in the procession round Jericho the whole of the warriors of all the tribes marched before the ark of the covenant, and that the unarmed and any of the people who liked to accompany them brought up the rear. But this is in direct contradiction to v. 3, where the command to go round the city-is only issued to -^l^-, .j^-L,!. tt :.-•¦:- t n- 162 CAPTURE OF JERICHO. 5, vi. 1, li. 27 ; Hos. v. 8 ; Joel ii. 1, 15 ; but the most con vincing example is Judges vii. 22, where it is joined to an accu sative after having been written with ^ in vv. 18, 19, and 20. In the same manner also may "ij^pp^ be regarded as a perfect and -^ supplied.— ^ gpjy) TjiVn refers not only to *]pN£pj but to the whole procession which advanced with the sounding of trumpets. On the use of *i^n m this passage see Ewald, T Lehrbuch, § 280 b. — The tenth verse forms a parenthesis : " and Joshua had commanded the people," which now fully explains the meaning of v. 5 by giving further information concerning the instructions issued by Joshua with reference to the war cry. V. 11. The Hiphil ^D^ 1S regarded by most translators, amongst others by Winer and Gesenius (in the lex.) as equiva lent to Kal : " thus the ark of the Lord went round the city." Kimchi, Masius, Seb. Schmidt, Dereser, Maurer, and Rosenmiiller, are the only expositors who agree with the Arabic version in retain ing the accusative meaning. They take jftjj^pp in v* 10 to be the subject. But this construction seems forced, as v. 10 is merely a parenthesis, and the regular sign of the accusative is not found before pjIPT1 111 N- My views, therefore, accord with those of Winer and Gesenius, which are not opposed either to grammar or the usages of the language, since there are many verbs of which the Kal and Hiphil are both used with an active signifi cation (see Ewald, Lehrb. § 122 c), and since the fact that ^DPI bas the active meaning to go round, to surround, is placed beyond the reach of doubt by 2 Sam. v. 23 and Ps. cxl. 10.— With reference to the form 2&>p see Ewald, Lehrb. § 193 c. Vv. 12 — 14. Second day's procession. This resembled the first in every thing except that Joshua made preparations for it very early in the morning. In every other respect, even in the most minute details, the description of the second day is exactly like that of the first, and merely serves to extend the narrative, and give it the fulness peculiar to ancient oriental history. At the end the remark is appended that they did the same thing for six days.— V. 13. On ttypH) Maurer observes: "instead of the second infinitive jfipfi (v. 9), the finite verb is introduced here." This remark is incorrect, for siyppn does not correspond CHAPTER VI. 15 — 19. 163 to the last clause of the 9th verse, which is literally repeated at the end.of v. 13, but to }Uppn m v- 8. Nor is it "to be taken in close connexion with the preceding word w^pj ;" but on the contrary "rp^pj itself is connected with the participle Qi^pj, which represents the finite verb (see Ewald, Lehrb. § 168 c.)j in order to expresss the uninterrupted continuance of the action ; and siyppfl is to be regarded as following tbe participle Qi^pf, for the participial construction is never continued long in Hebrew, but the proper tense of the verb is soon introduced, (see Ewald, Lehrb. § 337 a).1 — The Keri Tj^n m the place of Tj^pf is a superfluous emendation, since the idea conveyed by the participle when used to denote continuance, differs very little from that expressed by the infinitive absolute. It may therefore be used instead of it ; or at all events we frequently find it where otherwise a second infinitive absolute would stand; e.g. Gen. xxvi. 13; Judg. iv. 24; 2 Sam. xvi. 5; see Ewald, Lehrb. § 280 b., p. 520. Vv. 15 — 19. On the seventh day they went round the city seven times. The seventh time Joshua commanded the people to raise a war-cry, because the Lord had given them the city, and ordered them to devote it to the Lord by the ban, together with everything in it, except Rahab and those that were with her. At the same time he warned them not to take possession of anything that was thus laid under the ban. — V. 15. On pp^y^ and the Keri pyi^j^, see our remarks at chap. iii. 3. t£SttJ!23 pj.fpj in this manner ; j^SffiD denotes here the manner prescribed and adopted on previous days, which had thus both by precept and practice become a rule. (On this word see my commentary on the Books of Kings, p. 316). — The construction in v. 16, >l»7ppl .... ipp^ it came to pass . . . the p?'iests had blown the trumpets, instead of when the priests had blown the trumpets, is more spirited than it would have been with -^^3 1 Ewald (Lehrb. § 520) has shown just as great a misapprehension as Maurer, of the use of !|yppy), when he cites Josh. vi. 13, and 2 Sam. xvi. 13, in proof of his remark that " instead of the infinitive absolute, the last verb may also fall back into the historical form." Neither of the passages is an example of the rule he lays down ; and 2 Sam. xvi. 13 exact! v corresponds to the verse before us. II2 164 CAPTURE OF JERICHO. before )|ypp|, or with the infinitive J^ppQ in the place of the perfect. Maurer' s remarks on the selection of this construction are incorrect.— V. 17. Q-ip| means the ban; this is the primary meaning of the word in Hebrew ; see Hengstenberg, Christol. iii. p. 455. The ban was the devotion of either persons or things to Jehovah as irreclaimable and irredeemable property, in the execution of which men and animals were killed, and other things either completely destroyed, or set apart for ever for the purposes of the sanctuary. Persons or things were put under the ban either in consequence of a vow (Num. xxi. 2), or as a judicial sentence of the theocracy at the command of God (Deut. vii. 2, xx. 17 ; I Sam. xv. 3). In either case it was an act of divine service, a sacrifice made for God's sake and for his glory. And even when the result of a vow, it did not proceed merely from human caprice, it was not a common vow, but a sentence exe cuted by men, through which the Lord was sanctified on those who had not sanctified him in their own hearts. Hence it is at once apparent that the ban could never be pronounced upon things and property alone, but only upon open idolaters either with or without their possessions.1 When it was pronounced 1 Most of the modern commentators follow the example of Michaelis (Mos. R. iii., § 145) and treat the ban, when it did not proceed from an express command of God, as a vow which only differed from ordinary vows in the fact, that there was no release from it, but that the men must be killed (thus Winer R.W., s. v. Bann., De Wette, Archaol. § 210). This view is properly rejected by Hengstenberg, (Christol. iii., p. 453 sqq., and Beitr. iii., p. 128 seq.) who maintains that the exact idea of the ban is " the forced dedication to God, of those who have obstinately refused to dedicate themselves to him of their own accord, and the manifestation of the glory of God in the destruc tion of those who would not whilst they lived serve as a mirror to reflect it, and thus answer the purpose for which the world was created, and for which especially man was formed." He has not however ex amined and satisfactorily discussed all the passages which are adduced in support of the other opinions (viz., Num. xxi. 1 — 3, compare xviii. 14 ; Ezek. xliv. 29 ; Lev. xxvii. 21, 28). On Num. xxi. 1—3, indeed, Hengstenberg says (p. 454) : " here the dedication by the ban ap pears evidently to be not something resulting from human caprice, and subservient to human ends, but an act of divine service commanded by God, and regarded by Israel as a sacrifice offered for God's sake ;" but in the words, "and Israel vowed a vow unto the Lord, and said, if thou wilt indeed deliver this people into my hand, then I will utterly destroy (banne, execute the ban upon) all their cities," it is expressly CHAPTER VI. 15— 19. 165 upon an idolatrous people in warfare, the men were generally slain with the sword, whilst their cattle and other possessions stated that it was a vow, or at least that it partook of all the elements of one. Was not then a vow a voluntary act ? Certainly, but it does not fol low that the ban itself was a vow, but only that it might be pronounced upon men and things as the result of a vow. All that was voluntary in the ban in the present instance was the dedication to the Lord of the cities of the Canaanitish King Arad, as an irreclaimable and irredeemable possession which the Israelites might have plundered and taken possession of for themselves in case of victory. We may see from Lev. xxvii. 28 seq., how great the difference was between the ban and a vow. This passage has, it is true, been cited in favour of the opposite opinion by Michaelis, who infers from the words : " no devoted thing (bann), that a man shall devote (bannt) unto the Lord of all that he hath, both of man and beast and the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed," that sometimes a man consecrated his field, and that a field thus dedicated by Cherem could not be redeemed like one which was dedicated in the ordinary manner. But the verb ni^pjpT is alone sufficient to prove that there is no reference here to a mere vow of an unusual kind, for ^p^ppj and pfipp*} \pn are terms that are always applied to vows. Moreover, the Cherem is by this very passage excluded from the list of vows, by the decree that n-^pi-^ is neither to be sold nor redeemed, whereas everything that was dedicated by a vow, with the exception of beasts, which were sacrificed at other times also, could be redeemed, and if not redeemed, might be sold by the priests ; on the other hand, men devoted by the ban were always to be slain (v. 28). The ban does certainly appear to be treated here as a matter dependent upon human free will ; hut we cannot infer from this passage that every one could pronounce the ban at will on men and cattle and fields ; for in that case, even the murderer might have sheltered himself behind the laws of the ban. But I cannot agree with Hengstenberg (p. 456) in his opinion, that the cattle and fields referred to in v. 27 are such only as had previously been in the possession of proscribed individuals, and had fallen into the hands of the conquerors. This opinion is proved to be erroneous by the words " all that he hath of man, and beast, and of the field of his possession." For if it were a correct explanation, the men also must have been previously in the possession of proscribed persons, and have just fallen into the hands of the conquerors. What kind of men can we suppose them to have been ? Can they have been slaves ? Were then the slaves of an enemy to be excluded from the ban, by which he was condemned ? If the ban was pronounced upon the people on account of their un godliness, it is not likely that their slaves will have been free from the ungodliness or exempt from the ban. And if they were not, they were already Cherem along with the rest of the people, and therefore could not form a part of the property of the victor, and be disposed of by him as he thought proper. Altogether it is very questionable 166 CAPTURE OF JERICHO. were given up as booty to the conquerors (Deut. ii. 34 seq., iii. 6 seq). And even in the case of the Canaanites (Deut. vii. 2, xx. 17) when the Lord himself pronounced the ban, it was generally executed upon the inhabitants only, the cattle and booty and most of the towns being awarded to the Israelites (Josh. viii. 26 seq., x. 28, &c). In some cases, however, men, cattle and property were all laid under the ban and destroyed, for example, in the war of Saul against the Amalekites (1 Sam. xv. 3), and not only so, but sometimes the towns themselves were reduced to ashes. This was the case with Jericho, in con sequence of its being the first town conquered in Canaan, " to show," as Hengstenberg (p. 454) truly says, " that the first pos sessors of the land were not exterminated by human authority, but in consequence of the anger of God, and that their country and possessions had been awarded to the Israelites, not merely as whether the passage refers at all to that which had been conquered in a war against proscribed nations, for there is no hint at. such a thing, either in the context or the words themselves. All that it shows is, that a man might dedicate to God, by the ban, the men, cattle, and fields which he possessed. But whether he could do this without any other limit than his own inclination, the passage does not say, for it is assumed that the idea of the Q-^pj is already well understood, and therefore no farther explanation is given. Nor is the question solved by any other passage in the whole of the Old Testament, for Num. xviii. 14, and Ezek. xliv. 29 merely refer to the fact that there was such a thing as Q-^p; in Israel, without giving any information as to what it was ; and in the passage cited by Winer, p. 157, (1 Sam. xiv. 24), the ban is not even referred to.— The law provided (Ex. xxii. 20) that any one who sacrificed to any other God than Jehovah, should be laid under the ban. This is amplified in Deut. xiii. 13 — 18, where it is ordered that if an Israelitish town should allow itself to be led away to idolatry by worthless men, the ban was to be pronounced upon the whole town ; all its inhabitants, together with their cattle, were to be destroyed, and all the things found within it were to be gathered together in a heap in the centre of the market place, and there burned together with the town, and made a rubbish heap for ever. According to this, public idolatry wras the only crime which could be, and which was to be laid under the ban. A person must be guilty of this crime before another could pronounce the ban upon him. The law did not sanction any further extension of it than this; and, as Hengstenberg (Beitr. Hi., p. 128) has correctly observed: "if every one had been free to put the innocent to death for the glory of God, if they depended upon him, the laws which permitted this would be irre- concileable with the authority of Moses as an ambassador of God." CHAPTER VI. 15 — 19. 167 plunder, but as a fief of God which he had reclaimed, and with which he was now investing another vassal, to see if he would faithfully render the service to which it bound him." That Jericho was regarded as the first fruit of the land, and therefore entirely sacrificed to the Lord, with all that was in it, in the same manner as the first fruits were offered to the Lord, has been admitted by Josephus, Theodoret, the Rabbins, and many other commentators ; but to this explanation, which is the only correct and perfectly satisfactory one, they added others, such as any one can see to be untenable. — Rahab and her relations were the only persons exempted from the ban ; the reason of her exemp tion being that her faith in the omnipotence of Jehovah had led her to conceal the spies, and that they had promised her on oath that she should he spared and delivered, comp. v. 22, with ch. ii. 12 sqq With reference to the form, pjp|N3p,n instead °f nfc^inn (v* 25) see Ewald, Lehrb., § 194 b. V. 18. The stringent injunctions already given by Moses with regard to the ban, that nothing which had been laid under it was to be taken possession of by those who executed it (Deut. xiii. 18), are again strictly laid down by Joshua ; the people are " to keep themselves from the ban," they are not to take of the pro scribed thing, lest they make the camp of Israel itself a ban. 131 l^lfin \Q that ye do not execute the ban (upon the city), and take of the ban ; i.e. that ye do not seize upon anything pro scribed, when carrying the proscription into effect.1 Seb. Schmidt has shown that "V^i-inn 1S not to be taken, as it has been by Luther and others, as a reflective verb signifying " to bring the ban upon one's self." The appropriation of that which had been proscribed was naturally followed by the ban. At least Moses said as much in Deut. vii. 26 with reference to the gold and silver upon the idols.2 — V. 19. All the gold and silver in the city, 1 " That ye do not both dedicate the thing and yet take it to your selves. The two could not be reconciled to each other. It would be truly inconsistent to devote the whole to God and yet appropriate some thing to their own use. Either the thing should not be dedicated, or when dedicated should not be touched." Lud. de Dieu. 2 " Hasse's assertion :-that the command (v. 18) is only introduced here on account of the narrative which follows, and for the purpose of putting Achan's theft in a clearer light, has been rejected by Maurer 168 CAPTURE OF JERICHO. and all the vessels of iron and brass, were to be brought into the treasury of the sanctuary, since they could not be burned. It is unnecessary now to prove that pj'ipii "^N does not refer to Solomon's temple, as Hasse and others fancied, but to the trea sury in the tabernacle, for even rationalists admit this. (See v. Lengerke, p. 629). V. 20 — 25. Execution of the foregoing commands of Joshua. V. 20. We must not regard the words "^ l^ppPI QVTl V*\#\ as implying that the war-cfy preceded the blast of the trumpets ; for we are afterwards told that the very opposite was the case. It is easy to see that the reason why jpyV) is placed first is that Joshua in his directions mentions }}p^pj first. The author, for instance, with the !|jp-in of v. 16 in his mind, writes Qypj y-p>| ; he then suddenly stops, as if with the idea that vv. 17 — 19 had led his readers too far away from v. 16, and instead of proceeding with pjainn h&Ff\> extends the narrative by taking up the thread anew. Plence py.'lB'^l lySfVI does not in any way depend • upon QJ?n jrpl> but " both are equally dependent upon a pre vious clause." (Maurer.) We shall perceive, moreover, if we compare v. 20 with v. 16, that the following must be regarded as the order of events : during the seventh march round the walls the trumpets were blown as in every previous inarch, and when they had completed the circuit, or nearly so, the army stood still at the command of Joshua, the priests left off blowing the trumpets, and Joshua issued the orders contained in vv. 17 — 19. Immediately after this, the priests blew the trumpets once more, the people immediately raised a loud war-cry, and in con sequence of this the walls fell to the ground. The destruction of the walls, however, is not to be regarded as a natural result of the noise caused by the blast of the trumpets and the war-cry, but as an act of divine power which was put forth simultaneously with as unhistorical. But Maurer himself regards it as almost certain that the author, who wrote after the event and therefore was acquainted with Achan's embezzlement, makes a passing reference to it in the use of the word "^n. But the probability is very small, for -i^v is not an uncommon word; it is used by Jacob (Gen. xxxiv. 30) in the same sense, and though a reference to Achan is evidently intended in chap. vii. 25, the use of the word may be accidental here. CHAPTER VI. 20—25. 169 the war-cry and the trumpets.1 V. 21. The use of iin^D^ in connection with ^i^pp is to be explained from Deut. xiii. 1 5, 1 The various attempts made by the earlier rationalists to give a natural explanation of the miraculous capture of Jericho, whether on the hypothesis, adopted by Paulus, that the walls were undermined, and that preparations were made for this by the mission of the spies, whilst the work itself was masked by the seven days' march round the city, or by assuming that a sudden attack was made when the inhabi tants had been thrown off their guard by the extraordinary procession, and were therefore unprepared (Ditmar, Geschichte der Isr. p. 70 sqq., the Exeg. Handbook, Ewald, Geschichte ii. p. 247, and others, compare Winer, R.W. i. 721 seq.), have been properly rejected by the more modern ones, who, however, do not hesitate to say that since there is too little colouring in the narrative for it to be regarded as a fiction, as it is by Eckermann (Beitr. v. p. 302), it is a mythical saga or legend elaborately adorned. It is candidly acknowledged by Maurer, Winer (p. 722), v. Lengerke (p. 630 seq.), and Ewald, that the writer intended to give an account of a miracle. But if this be the case, it follows most certainly that he has related a miracle, for all attempts to give a natural explanation of the events are equally condemned by these same critics as failures, and (as Havernick, Einl. ii. 1 p. 43 seq. has shown) they certainly fail altogether to explain this enigmatical event. And if the narrative before us does relate a miracle, it shows a prejudice thoroughly unscientific, to pronounce it on that ground alone historically untrue. All that scientific criticism can ask is whether a miracle is in harmony with the whole chain of events connected with divine revelation. And in the present instance it is universally acknowledged that the miracle before us follows most appropriately upon the miraculous pas sage through the Jordan. All that remains, then, is to enquire into its particular design. On this Hess has said (Gesh. Jos. p. 110): " Nothing could have given to the Israelites a more convincing proof that God had delivered the city into their hands. First the river had been compelled to retreat and open a way into the land, and now the walls were overthrown to make an open road into the first fortress they reached. Two such striking demonstrations of the co-operation of Jehovah, and that so soon after the death of Moses, must surely have been regarded even by the most sensual as a pledge that the God, who had so mightily and miraculously led their fathers through the midst of the sea, was still with them." It is apparent from the conclusion of the narrative (v. 27) that this was one end to be answered by the miracle. But the true reason why the city was given up to them by the Lord, through the miraculous overthrow of the walls, even without any co-operation on their part, is to be found in the fact that Jericho was both the first city they reached in the promised land, and also one of the most strongly fortified cities in Canaan, and was at the same time so completely the key to the country, that if this city were taken the whole land would be thrown open. The first city of Canaan was delivered into their hands as the first fruit of the land, without any 170 CAPTURE OF JERICHO. from which the expression is copied, and where it is used synony mously with ^-|pi ir^ pf3iT I* clearly proves that the ban was executed by smiting or putting to death with the sword.1 The 22d verse is to be rendered in the pluperfect tense, for it merely amplifies the command given by Joshua with regard to the rescue of Rahab before the capture of the city, which was alluded to in passing in verse 17, but is fully described here just before its execution. "It is not to be supposed that Joshua said this after the city was taken, and when the promiscuous slaughter was raging everywhere, but that he had issued these injunctions at an earlier period, in connexion with those given in v. 17." (Masius.) — V. 23. qv^j^ young men, not boys or servants. ("PUN lier brothers and sisters. Since sisters as well as brothers exertion on their part, both as a sign that the Lord their God was about to fulfil his promise and give them the land for a possession, and iu order that they might not look upon it as obtained through their own merit or as the fruit of their own exertions, but might always regard it as a gift of God's mercy, placed in their hands simply as a fief, which could be withdrawn whenever they were unfaithful to him. And it was all the more apparent to the people at large that this was the in tention of God, because the city of Jericho was so strong that it must have seemed impossible for a people trained in the desert and altogether inexperienced in the art of besieging and storming fortresses, to take the walls ; in fact, without divine assistance, it would have continued impossible, at least for a long time to come. 1 The remark made by Ewald (Gesch. i. p. 77) to the effect that the phrase ^pj iq^ by the edge of the sword is one of the modes of speech peculiar to what he calls the earliest historical work, is refuted by the fact that the same expression is found in every historical book from Gen. xxxiv. 26 to 2 Kings x. 25 (see the passages enumerated in Furst' s Concordance, p. 891), and even in the Book of Job; in fact, wherever reference is made to death without quarter. Bertheau's state ment, too (in his observations on Judg. i. 8), that this phrase is only used in connexion with the bloody wars of extermination waged by the Israelites against the Canaanites, with which no other wars can he compared, of at any rate only in connexion with wars whose cruelty brought to mind those of the Canaanites," is shown to be erroneous by Job i. 15, and more clearly still by Deut. xx. 13, where Moses gives orders that in every war, not merely in those waged in Canaan, whenever a town, which had offered resistance, should be taken, all the males were to be smitten with the edge of the sword, whilst the women and children, the cattle and all the goods in the city, were to be retained as booty. Hence the expression denotes, not a cruel exterminating war, but unsparing slaughter with the sword. 1 CHAPTER VI. 20—25. 171 are spoken of in chap. ii. 13, these must be included in ^IIM- rv? "!tt5N~73 "flN cannot mean her goods, for of these they could not possibly take more than each person was able to carry with him ; it evidently denotes all who belonged to her, that is, all the persons who constituted her household. pppripfSffiD-^ a^ her families, i.e., all who were related to Rahab, her brothers and sisters, and also their families (chap. ii. 13.) From vv. 22, 23, Clericus has drawn the very correct inference that, as the house of Rahab was built against the city wall in such a manner as partly to rest upon it (chap. ii. 15), that part of the wall which supported her house cannot have fallen along with the rest, otherwise, with the wall giving way, no one would venture to stay in the house.1 — ^ Q^lPPiM an<^ they left them before the camp of Israel on the outside (not outside the city in the Israelitish camp, as Michaelis, Dathe, and Dereser wrongly ren der it). " This was done in order that everything might be performed then, which was necessary to fit them to dwell in the midst of the Israelites." (Seb. Schmidt.) " For it was not law ful," adds Rosenmiiller, " for males who were uncircumcised, or for females who had not made a public profession of the Jewish religion, to enter the camp, which was always to be regarded as sacred, because in the midst of it the supreme Deity dwelt in the ark, as in a kind of palace." This temporary separation, how ever, of Rahab and her relations was arranged not merely because the Israelites would have been defiled by intercourse with them, but more especially for the good of Rahab and her family, who were thus to be induced to lay aside their former heathenish mode of life. " For if they had been admitted at once, and had mingled with the people without distinction, they would probably never have become conscious of their own impurity, but in con sequence of this have actually been confirmed in it. But now, when they were placed apart lest the rest should be infected by contact with them, the very shame which they felt might urge 1 We cannot of course infer from this that Bahab's house was spared when the city was destroyed by fire. And therefore when travellers of the middle ages pretend that they found the house still standing, we must set this down as one of the many delusions which were kept alive for centuries by pious superstition in the Holy Land. 172 CAPTURE OF JERICHO. them to a true conversion." (Calvin.) As soon as this end was answered, they were admitted into the society of Israel (v. 25.) V. 24 seq. After the men and cattle had been killed, and Rahab was placed in safety as well as her relations, the city was set on fire, and every thing in it consumed, except the silver and gold and the vessels of iron and copper which were put into the treasury of the tabernacle. — The description of the destruction or burning of Jericho is said by Hasse (p. 102) and De Wette (Einleitung p. 232) to be exaggerated, because the city is spoken of again in Judges i. 16, and iii. 13 ; but the author of the Exe getical Handbook (iii. p. 45) has shown that the first passage does not even presuppose the existence of the town, whilst all that can possibly be inferred from the second is that it had been rebuilt after its destruction. The capture of the city of palm- trees by the Moabites (Judges iii. 13) occurred at least sixty years after it had been burned by Joshua ; and sixty years is more than sufficient for the rebuilding of a city which has been consumed. — V. 25. The writer, had mentioned the rescue of Rahab from the demolished city, but had not yet stated that she remained alive. This he does in v. 25, in order that he may thus show that all the commands of Joshua (v. 17 seq.) were fully obeyed, and bring the narrative to a close. And she dwelt in the midst of Israel unto this day. From this it follows that the nar rative was written during the lifetime of Rahab, and therefore not very long after the event itself. Maurer explains the phrase !ltn DlTf IV IttJm as meaning that " her descendants continued to dwell amongst them ;" but such an explanation is altogether arbitrary.1 1 This Rahab is evidently the same as the Rachab mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus in Matthew i. 5, as the wife of the Jewish chief, Salmon, and the mother of Boaz, one of the ancestors of David. It is indeed true that Theophylact (on Matthew) questions their identity, and G. Outhov in a "dissertation on Rahab and Rachab" (in the biblioth. Brem. histor. philol. theol. cl. iii. p. 438) has adduced four reasons in proof of the difference between the harlot Rahab ('Padp) and the mother of Boaz ('Paya/3) ; but Wolf (cur. philol. et. crit. in Matth. i. 5) has shown the insufficiency of these reasons to establish his point. Two of them are argumenta e silentio ; tbe third is founded on the chronological difficulties, arising from the fact that Salmon and Rahab must have been too old to be the parents of Boaz, at the time when he was born, since he is mentioned both in Ruth iv. 20 seq., and 1 Chr. CHAPTER VI. 26. 173 V. 26. In order that the destruction of Jericho might be a perpetual memorial of the power and justice of God, Joshua completed the ban by pronouncing the adjuration : " Cursed be the man before the Lord that riseth up and buildeth this city Jericho : he shall lay the foundation thereof at the cost of his first-born, and set up the gates of it at the cost of his youngest son." "y^i^ in his first-born, i.e., at the "cost of his life. ^ de notes the price at which anything is procured (see Ewald, Lehrb. p. 413). Most commentators suppose the adjuration to mean that the builder of the city would suffer the loss of all his chil dren from the oldest to the youngest in connexion with its resto- ii. 11, as being only two generations removed from David; a reason which might have some force if the genealogies always contained the whole of the generations. The fourth, which is the most plausible, is that the names are different, that of the harlot Rahab being written,, 'Pad/3, both in the Septuagint version of the Book of Joshua, and also* in Heb. xi. 31 and James ii. 25, that of the mother of Boaz, on the contrary, in Matth. i. 15, 'Pavd|3. But this is deprived of all force by the fact that Josephus always speaks of the harlot Rahab as r) 'PaYd/3r/.. The identity of the two names, therefore, cannot be doubted, especially when we take into account, that the only women mentioned in the genealogy of Jesus are such as were renowned in the history of Israel, and that, whilst the harlot Rahab was undoubtedly one of these, no other woman of the same name is anywhere spoken of in the Old Testa ment. The hesitation which has been shown to admit that the harlot Rahab and the mother of Boaz were the same, has, no doubt, arisen from the feeling which induced the Chaldeans to change the former into the hostess of an inn, viz., the offence taken at her dishonourable mode of life. But Jerome (on Matthew) has made upon this point the following striking remarks, " In genealogia salvatoris nulla sanctarum assumitur mulierum, sed eae quas scriptura reprehendit, ut qui propter peccatores venerat, de peccatoribus nascens omnium peccata deleret. In the genealogy of David, no mention is made of Rahab, either in Ruth iv. 20 seq., or 1 Chr. ii. 11 sqq., and from this, Fritzsche (on Matthew), and Maurer (on Joshua) have inferred that Matthew fol lowed some tradition of doubtful authority. Such an inference, how ever, could only be plausible if Matthew had taken his genealogy of Jesus from the Old Testament, and this has evidently not been done. — Lastly, the historical veracity of the genealogy of Jesus in the Gospel of Matthew is no more affected by the statement made by a Talmudist, to the effect that Rahab was married to Joshua (see Light- foot, hor. hebr. ad Matth. i. 5), than by the rest of the groundless fables, related by later Rabbins with reference to the woman, to whom the history before us has given such renown. (For an account of these fables, see Lightfoot, ut supra, Wetstein, New Test, ad Matth. i. 5, and Meuschen, N. Test, ex Talmud, illustr. p. 40 seq). 174 CAPTURE OF JERICHO. ration. Seb. Schmidt, Clericus, and the author of the Exegetical Handbook, stand alone in their opinion that only the eldest and youngest are intended, as being the most valued and dear. But the former explanation is evidently more in harmony with the poetico-rhythmical style of the adjuration, as it is characteristic of this style to select certain parts, in order by the parallelism of the different members to express the whole. The adjuration is rendered very insipid by the paraphrase of Clericus: "let. the commencement and termination of the whole affair be associated with the greatest misfortunes." The rationalists go still further, and either deny altogether that Joshua uttered such an adjura tion (Hasse), or question its having been uttered in the form given here (Paulus, the Exegetical Handbook, Maurer, v. Lengerke p. 630, and others). Hence Paulus (p. 162 sqq.) regards the words 'ippTi— p)N nfcVtn "V3Jn-.riN as a £d°ss> ai]d the concluding clauses of the verse as an interpolation made after the curse had taken effect in the reign of Ahab, and inserted in consequence of the event. Maurer does not adopt this opinion, but in the place of it assumes that the author of the book of Joshua, who in his view wrote at a late period, extracted the curse from an ancient song book, probably the sepher hajjaschar, mentioned in chap. x. 13. Such an assumption, however, is just as groundless as the corruption of the text, of which Paulus speaks. The rhythmical form of the curse does not in the least indicate this. For who is in a position to prove that Joshua cannot have pro nounced the curse in words rhythmically arranged ? The real ground, however, of the objections made by the rationalists to the historical truth of the verse before us, is to be found in their dogmatical decision, that no prophecy can ever have been delivered, and therefore that no curse can have been pro nounced by Joshua, and fulfilled by God some centuries after wards. To such a prejudiced decision criticism cannot for a moment listen, without ceasing in consequence to be criticism at all. An attempt has certainly been made to conceal this fore gone conclusion by the introduction of another reason why Joshua cannot have pronounced the curse on the rebuilding of Jericho, namely, that we find from Judges iii. 13 and 2 Sam. x. 5 that the city was then again inhabited, and therefore had been already rebuilt. But even Maurer considered this argument too weak CHAPTER VI. 26. 175 to be repeated. The earlier expositors unanimously agree that pri*-. does not mean to build only, but is used to denote the forti- TT fication of a city both in Hebrew and Syriac, e.g. 1 Kings xv. 17; 2 Chr. xi. 5, 6, xiv. 6 (see Michaelis, suppl. p. 190, and Gesenius, Thes. i. 215). And it is evident that in the present instance p|^ denotes the restoration of Jericho as a fortress, or TT ¦ the erection of the walls of the city, both because it is not merely a number of houses built side by side which constitute a city, but the formation of these houses, by means of a wall, into a compact and isolated whole ; and also because Joshua himself, in the concluding words of the curse, further defines pj^ by , TT !"!j"TDvl and TTTvyi l^* ^or tbe erection of a certain number of houses in a given place is not laying the foundation of a city, a village is founded in this way ; and certainly no one will say that setting up the gates thereof signifies the putting up of the doors of the houses. A city wall, too, must exist before city gates can be erected. But if the erection of gates, spoken of in these parallel lines, implies the completion of the city wall, it follows of necessity that laying the foundation denotes the com mencement or laying the first stone* of the same city wall.1 Moreover there is yet another proof that the curse was only pronounced upon the man who should erect walls and so endea vour to make Jericho into a fortified city, namely, that Joshua himself allots Jericho, along with other towns, to the tribe of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 21),3 and that Jericho was shortly after an inhabited plaee (Judges iii. 13 ; 2 Sam. x. 5), whereas the curse did not take effect till the reign of the ungodly king Ahab, when the attempt was made by the Bethelite Chiel, to form it into a fortified city (see 1 Kings xvi. 34, and my Commentary on that passage). Lastly, Havernick (Einl. ii. 1 p, 42) supports this opinion on the ground that the fundamental idea of the curse is, that " as the city which was once so 'strong had been 1 " By the founding of a city," says Michaelis (ut supra), " who would understand the laying of the foundations of separate houses ? It can only mean the laying of the first stone of the wall, i.e. the commence ment of fortification, as the erection of the gates is the end." 2 This passage has been overlooked by Konig (alttest. Stud. i. p. 80) and he has been drawn in consequence into incorrect assertions and inferences. 176 CAPTURE OF JERICHO. deprived by a miracle of its fortifications, the fallen walls should never be rebuilt, that the memorial of their overthrow by the power of Jehovah might be perpetually preserved." He also cites, as a remarkable parallel, the curse of Croesus pronounced over Sidene, Kara, tojv tbi^owtcov irakiv tov-tottov, which Grotius quotes from Strabo (xiii. 1, 42). V. 27. The account of the capture of Jericho is appropriately closed by the remark that Jehovah was with Joshua, according to his promise (ch. i. 5 sqq.), and that this miraculous assistance from the Lord caused his fame to spread through the whole land. Such a remark does not, as Maurer supposes, contain a " flattering and panegyrical" sentence, indicative of a later authorship. CHAPTER VII. ACHAN S THEFT DISCOVERED AND PUNISHED. " At Jericho, Jehovah had just shown himself to be merciful. At Ai, he magnified himself as the just one, who will not allow his laws to be broken with impunity." (Havernick, Einl. ii. 1, p. 45). V. 1. Notwithstanding Joshua's warning (ch. vi. 18) Achan, a member of the tribe of Judah, had taken some of the things which were laid under the ban, and thus had brought the ban upon the whole camp of Israel. — On what ground, we may ask, could the sin of one man be laid to the charge of the whole nation ? Many answers have been given to this question by early commentators, but very few of them are satisfactory. Masius regards the words, " and the children of Israel laid hands upon the accursed thing" (lit. the ban), as a synecdochical ex pression, since very often that which applies to one individual is imputed per synecdochen to the whole. But it stands to reason that this can only be the case, when the one individual and all the rest are so closely linked together, that the deed of the one CHAPTER VII. 1. 177 Can actually be predicated of the whole. Hence the mention of a Synecdoche merely throws the difficulty into the back-ground, but does not remove it. — Calvin, Seb. Schmidt, and others, endea vour to show that the whole nation may have been implicated in the guilt of Achan, if on no other ground, yet because "probably on other occasions they had not been sufficiently strict in punish ing crime, and this may have rendered Achan more daring iu the commission of it now." But whilst Seb. Schmidt, in the stress which he lays upon this conjecture, seeks to involve even Joshua himself to some extent in the transgression, Calvin does not conceal from himself the insufficiency of the explanation, and therefore advises " that we should suspend our decisions till the time when the books are opened, and the judgments of God, now hidden in darkness, are clearly explained." This explanation is rejected by Osiander also, as one which only brings us to " im putation improperly so called." On the other hand, he tries to show, by a distinction which he draws and elaborately works out between imputatio naturalis, moralis, and civilis, that this is an example of imputatio civilis, the act of the individual being re garded as the act of the whole body, on the ground that a state, as a political body, must be supposed to be also possessed of a soul and a will. There is certainly truth in this distinction which deserves consideration. For the sin of Achan cannot have been imputed to the whole nation, either by imputatio realis, that is in the sense in wliich the sin of Adam was imputed as guilt to all his descendants to whom it was actually transmitted, nor by imputatio moralis in the sense in which the righteousness of Christ is counted as righteousness to all who believe in his merits ; since the biblical text does not warrant us in assuming that the whole of the people resembled Achan in disposition, and cherished in their hearts the same sinful desires as Achan carried into prac tice by his theft. The participation of the people, therefore, in the guilt of Achan can only be explained on the ground*that Achan was a member of the nation, and that the sin of one member infected the entire body, robbing it of the purity and holiness with which it ought to appear in the presence of God, and withdrawing from it the favour of God, which the nation enjoyed, as being God's pure and holy church. However truly the whole Scriptures speak of each man as individually an object of 12* 178 ACHAN'S THEFT DISCOVERED AND PUNISHED. divine mercy and justice, they teach just as truly that a nation is one organic whole, in which the individuals are merely mem bers of the same body, and are not atoms isolated from one another and the whole. The state is there treated as a divine institution, founded upon family relationships, and intended to promote the love of all to one another, and to the invisible Head of all. As all then are combined in a fellowship established by God, the good or evil deeds of an individual affect, injuriously or benefi cially, the welfare of the whole society. And, therefore, when we regard the state as a divine organisation, and not merely as a civil institution, a compact into which men have entered by treaty, we cease to discover caprice and injustice in consequences, which necessarily follow from the moral unity of the whole state ; namely, that the good or evil deeds of one member are laid to the charge of the entire body. Caprice and injustice we shall always find if we leave out of sight this fundamental unity, and merely look at the fact that the many share in the consequences of the sin of one ; and much more if, as sometimes happens, we regard the death of the thirty-six Israelites slain in the attack upon Ai, not merely as a punishment of the innocent for the theft of Achan, but as a judgment which drew in its train everlasting condemnation. A correct explanation is given by Augustine, who shows at the same time the right point of view from which to arrive at a correct conclusion. The question is thus answered by him : Non enim aliquid dirum, quantum attinet ad universi mundi administrationem, contingit mortalibus, cum moriuntur quandoque morituri : et tamen apud eos qui talia metuunt, dis- ciplina sancitur ut non se solum quisque curet in populo, sed invicem sibi adhibeant diligentiam, et tanquam unius corporis et unius hominis alia pro aliis sint membra sollicita. Nee tamen credendum est, etiam poenis quae post mortem irrogantur, alium pro alio posse damnari : sed in his tantum rebus hanc irrogari poenam, quae finem fuerint habiturae, etiamsi non eo modo fini- rentur. Simul etiam ostenditur, quantum connexa sit in populi societate ipsa universitas, tanquam in corpore universo quaerere quod admissum est. Simul etiam significatum est, quantum mali fieret, si universa ilia congregatio peccasset; quando ne unus quidem ita potuit judicari, ut ab eo possent ceteri esse securi. — •-jj'Q bvfo> to act unfaithfully, to^ commit a breach of CHAPTER VII. 2—5. 179 trust, is frequently used in the Pentateuch to denote the faithless apostasy of the nation from the Lord ; in the passage before us it is connected with 0"^p|l> a"d means, faithlessly to disregard the ban, to seize upon that which had been devoted by the ban to the Lord. The treachery of Achan consisted in his purloining some of the things wbich were laid under the ban. — Achan's genealogy is traced back to Judah, the father of his tribe, in anticipation of the subsequent account of the discovery of his person by means of the lot (v. 16 sqq.)— py, as the name is spelt both here and chap. xxii. 20, is called -^y in 1 Chr. xxii. T T 7. The exchange of the liquid ¦> for -^ can hardly have been unintentional, but was probably intended as a play upon the word ^^v (v. 25), as the expression ¦-3^^'" "ttV ^V in tne same passage clearly shows. Josephus also calls him "A^apo? for the same reason ; the Vatican Codex of the LXX. reads JAyap, the Alexandrian 'Axdv. — t^j is called in 1 Chr. ii. 6 ^"lEt* a name which certainly occurs iu other passages, but in the present instance has arisen from an alteration in the letters. — jm Zerah, a twin-brother of Perez, son of Judah by Tamar (Gen. xxxviii. 29 seq.) — And the anger of the Lord was kindled against the children of Israel, i.e. against the whole community, which, as we have already shown, had involved itself in guilt through the crime of one of its members. Vv. 2 — 5. The account of Israel's offence is followed by a description of the manner in which the whole community was brought to a consciousness of the guilt that was resting upon it. The first thing which indicated that there was something wrong, was the failure of an expedition undertaken against the small town of Ai. — At the suggestion of the spies who had been des patched from Jericho to reconnoitre, Joshua sent only about 3000 men against the town. They were repulsed, however, and obliged to fly with the loss of thirty-six of their number. The whole nation was thrown into despair by this untoward event. — The town of Ai (iypf) was situated near Beth-Aven, to the east of Bethel. It was between Ai and Bethel that Abraham pitched his tent and erected an altar, as soon as he entered Canaan, and called upon the name of the Lord (Gen. xii. 8, xiii. 3). The exact position of Ai can only be ascertained after that of Bethel 180 ACHAN'S theft DISCOVERED AND PUNISHED. has been determined. Robinson (ii. p. 1 26—128) thought he had lighted upon Bethel, in the ruins of Makhrun or Beitin. 0. Thenius, on the contrary (in Kauffers Studien ii., p. 127 sqq.), has brought forward satisfactory evidence to prove that the situa tion of Beitin does not at all answer to the description given in the Old Testament of that of Bethel, which must have stood either on the same spot as Sinjil, or in the immediate neigh bourhood. The points adduced by Thenius (ut supra) in support of his views, a detailed account of which will be found in my commentary on the Books of Kings, p. 326 sqq., are strengthened by another argument of considerable force. Geba, that is Jibia, in the Wady el Jib (chap, xviii. 24) formed the northern boundary of the kingdom of Judah (2 Kings xxiii. 8 ; compare my commentary, p. 580 seq.) ; whilst Bethel belonged to the kingdom of Israel (1 Kings xii. 28 sqq.) But if Bethel stood on the same spot as Beitin, it must have been within the borders of the kingdom of Judah, since the latter is more than five miles to the south of Jibia. — Robinson's mistake with reference to the situation of Bethel, prevented his discovering that of Ai. He looked for it in the vicinity of Deir Diwan; hut in the few ruins on the south of this, he was unable to discover the least probable trace of this ancient town (ii. 118). Subsequently, however, he really came upon the track of Ai, when he arrived at Sinjil. And as he looked at the village of Turmus Aya, which stands upon rising ground in the neighbourhood, he gave utterance to the con jecture that this name was probably connected with the Ai of the Scriptures ; but having, as he thought, found Bethel in Beitin, he could not suppose that Turmus Aya, which stands at a great distance from Beitin, was the same as Ai, which was near to Bethel. Now, however, that the exact situation of Bethel has been ascertained, there cannot be any further doubt as to the identity of Ai and Turmus Aya ; especially since Thenius (p. 131 seq.) has shown that the country round the village answers exactly to the scene of the burning of Ai, as described in chap, viii.1 — The position of Beth-Aven has yet to 1 There are other passages in the Old Testament besides Joshua vii. and viii. in which Ai is mentioned. In Ezra ii. 28, and Nehemiah vii. 32, we meet with it under the name therefore Migron must have been close to Gibeah. For since Saul during the war en camped with his army first at Michmash and in Mount Bethel (Sinjil), then at Gilgal and Jiljilia (see my commentary on the Books of Kings, p. 322 sqq.), and afterwards at Gibeah (1 Sam. xiii. 2, 4, 8, 16), the expression " in the uttermost part of Gibeah under the pome granate tree in Migron (1 Sam. xiv. 2) may very properly be supposed to refer to a place on the borders of the territory of Gibeah, and these borders may easily have stretched in a northerly direction as far as the vicinity of Makhrun. In the same manner ^pp^i pJJJSl ls use^ ln Joshua iv. 19, to denote the frontier of the possessions of Jericho. — The identity of V^Vi^ with . . Tjr^vo derives support also from the names themselves, which almost exactly resemble each other, ^ frequently passing into the Guttural pj, and therefore into g. also ; see Gesenius, thes. i. 252. 182 achan's theft discovered AND PUNISHED. rendered j"^ pp^ Bv\Qav. — But this does not tally with 1 Sam. xiii. 5 ;x whilst the description contained in Josh, xviii. 12, evi dently favours the conclusion that the wilderness of Beth-Aven stretched away to the south-east of Ai. V. 3. pjan DjftD "'S for there are but few of them, i.e. there are not many inhabitants in the town. From chap. viii. 25, we learn that the number of its inhabitants was 12,000 ; it was there fore not so very small. But it probably appeared so to the spies in contrast with Jericho; or they may perhaps not have ex amined its size very accurately, and this may have been the reason that they fixed the number of warriors required to capture it so low. — V. 4. S)5;pi an^ they fled^ namely, as soon as they found their attack upon the town bravely resisted. — V. 5. 133^ "IJNZJn before the gate, i.e. outside the town. Oi"illlJn~ny 1S rendered by the LXX., the Targum, and Syriac : usque contri- vissent eos. But this rendering cannot be admitted, even if we 1 This passage, indeed, has never yet been satisfactorily explained, >for the words : " and they (the Philistines) pitched pfl^-jp \JJftiJ31 ^^-^y^)" if the latter be rendered " in Michmash to the east of Beth- Aven," neither agrees with our description of the position of Bethel and Ai, nor with that given by Robinson. It is impossible, however, that Michmash can have been at the east of Beth-Aven, or, what is the same thing, Beth-Aven to the west of Michmash, since there is no waste land whatever on the west of Michmash, and according to Joshua xviii. 12, there was a wilderness in the neighbourhood of Beth-Aven. The words in question must mean, " at or near Michmash in an easterly direction towards'Beth-Aven." This rendering is supported by the fact that the word tfryiD towards the east is used, and not Q"7jp)2 ^tom the east, i.e. on the eastern side. Moreover, the Philistines, who had invaded the land, " a numerous people, like the sand which is on the sea shore for multitude," cannot possibly have all encamped in Mich mash and the immediate neighbourhood. We may therefore assume without hesitation, that the army of the Philistines was spread over the country almost as far as Beth-Aven, provided the wilderness of this name consisted of the tract of land which stretches eastward from Turmus Aya to the vicinity of the mountains of Kuruntul ; and we may justly infer this from Joshua xvi. 1, compared with xviii. 12. Thenius, in his commentary on 1 Sam. xiii. 5, and xiv. 23, proposes an emandation, viz., to substitute VpippfVl *°r llN PP5, i but the geographical difficu'ties in the passage are not sufficient to justify such an alteration. CHAPTER VII. 6 — 9. 183 adopt the opinion of Maurer, who explains yytiJ as meaning a breaking, or breach in the sense of entire dissolution or de struction. As only thirty-six were killed out of 3000, there can have been no thought of the complete destruction of the army. D'HltiJ* probably stone-quarries, is evidently a proper name, as " t : the Vulgate, Arabic, and most commentators agree, belonging to some locality between Ai and Jericho. All that can be decided, however, with reference to its situation is that it must have been somewhere near the rising ground mentioned in the following clause. This declivity, T^ftpfr was supposed by the earlier T *" expositors to be somewhere in the immediate neighbourhood of Ai. But the country round Ai does not admit of this opinion, since the town itself was situated on the flat surface of a rocky height in the midst of level ground (Robinson iii. 85). It was most probably one of the slopes of the deep Wady el Mutyah, which is hemmed in on both sides by precipitous cliffs ; or pos sibly it may have been in the Wady el Nawairneh, which is a continuation of the other.1 This Wady, it is true, is at some distance from Turmus Aya, but the words of the text by no means prevent our assuming, that the pursuit was kept up to a great distance from Ai. — For oa*n> see *be notes on chap. ii. 11. The word is rendered still more emphatic in the passage before us by the addition of Q^? >,n,,1j " became as water." Vv. 6 — 9. Joshua is so deeply affected by the unsuccessful ' issue of the attack upon Ai, that he prostrates himself, with the elders, before the ark of the covenant, in deep sorrow, and pours out the feelings of his heart in prayer before the Lord. — V. 6. 1 That portion of the latter Wady, which must have been crossed by the Israelites, if they approached Ai on the eastern side of the Kuruntul, i.e. by the Taiyibeh road, is described by Robinson (ii. 304) as a deep ravine, bounded by steep rugged slopes, very difficult of ascent, at least on the southern side. In my opinion, however, it is much more probable, that the Israelites went from Jericho on the western side of the Kuruntul, and along the Wady el Mutyah. All that Robinson saw of this Wady was in the vicinity of Rummon (p. 118 and 312), and with regard to this he merely says that it forms a large channel, by which the waters of the surrounding district are carried off, that the bed is deep and narrow, and that a few tombs were to be seen, which had been excavated there. 184 ACHAN'S THEFT DISCOVERED AND PUNISHED. CiJJjt tbe old men, the eldest, irpeaBvrepoi, means all the chiefs of Israel, since the whole form of government was an offshoot of the patriarchal life, in which the eldest was also the chief of all his descendants. Thus the elders of Israel (7^-^ ijpf) are frequently referred to as the natural heads and representatives of the people (e.g. Ex. iii. 16, 18, iv. 29, xii. 21, xvii. 5, 6, xviii. 12, xix. 7 ; Lev. ix. 1 ; Num. xi. 30, xvi. 25 ; Deut. xxvii. 1, xxxi. 9 ; Josh. vii. 6, viii. 10 ; 1 Sam. iv. 3, viii. 4, xv. 30 ; Joel i. 14, ii. 16, and others). And inasmuch as the whole people formed one community, these, its natural representatives, are also called pnyn ^pt? Lev. iv. 15 ; Judg. xxi. 16. But as t •• t ¦¦' : ¦ it was also divided into sections, and there were different tribes and families dwelling in their own provinces and cities, we also meet with elders of tribes (Deut. xxxi. 28 ; 2 Sam. xix. 12 ; 2 Chr. xxxiv. 29), of provinces (Judg. xi. 5), and even of cities (Deut. xix. 12, xxi. 3, 16 ; 1 Sam. xi. 3, xvi. 4, &c.) All the heads of tribes, heads of families, and heads of households were elders (see v. 14). Hence the very same thing which is attributed to all the people in Ex. xx. 18 sqq., in Deut. v. 23, is imputed to the heads of the tribes and the elders, because they represented the whole of the people. A certain number were often set apart from the rest for especial purposes. Thus seventy elders ascended Mount Sinai with Moses and Aaron (Ex. xxiv. 1, 9) ; and the spirit of prophecy was given to seventy in the wilderness that they might sustain the authority of Moses (Num. xi. 23 sqq.). The Shoterim (see chap. i. 10) as well as the judges of the people were also chosen from the elders. For the command given in Num. xi. 16 : " Gather together seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of Israel, and its Shoterim (yna&Jl QVpt I2pt)'" Proves very t : : t t • •' : • clearly that the QV^tDC belonged to the elders, and had been elected from amongst them. The elders of the cities are also introduced in the capacity of Judges in Deut. xxii. 15 sqq., xxv. 7 sqq. ; Josh. xx. iv. The elders, of course, had not all special offices, and this would account for our reading sometimes of "elders and judges" (Deut. xxi. 2 ; Ezra x. 14), at other times of " elders of tribes and Shoterim" (Deut. xxxi. 28), then again CHAPTER VII. 6 — 9. 185 of " captains of tribes, elders, and Shoterim" (Deut. xxix. 10), and still more fully of " the elders of Israel, and its heads, and its judges, and its Shoterim" (Josh. viii. 33, xxiii. 2, xxiv. 1). The design in each case is to show that all the officers of every ~ description were referred to. — With reference to the tearing of the clothes as an outward expression of agony of mind, see my commentary on Kings, p. 298 ; and for the covering of the head with ashes, consult Rosenmuller, A. u. N. Morgenland iii. p. 2 seq., and Winer, Real-Worterbuch ii. p. 732. •pjg tjy h^\ ll^n IV — he fell down upon his face, and continued lying there till the evening. From these words the earlier commentators correctly inferred that Joshua and the elders ate nothing during that time, that is, that they fasted the whole day. " Joshua and the elders not only gave way to sadness and grief; but expressed their sorrow, in the usual manner, by rending their clothes and scattering dust upon their heads. This mode of expressing grief was customary amongst unbelievers also ; but there were special reasons for its adoption by the pious worshippers of God, in order to deprecate his anger. With them the rending of the garments and other similar acts were a profession of true penitence ; as we may gather from the prayer associated with them in the instance before us." (Calvin.) V. 7. The words " Alas, O Lord God, wherefore hast thou brought this people over Jordan," &c, are not intended as a complaint on account of God's actions, but contain, in connexion with earnest prayer, a strong expression of belief that God the Lord could not possibly give up his people to destruction by the Canaanites, after having so miraculously ^ brought them across the Jordan. The enquiry wherefore God had given such miraculous proofs of his favour before, is but another form of presenting an earnest and importunate petition, that the Lord would finish in a manner no less glorious the work he had so remarkably commenced. The words which follow, " Oh that we had been content to remain on the other side Jor dan," presuppose the expression of a wish on the part of the Israelites, before they crossed the Jordan, to obtain possession of the land of Canaan, and express the thought that probably the misfortune which had now befallen the people might possibly have resulted from the gratification of that wish. On that ground, therefore, Joshua now regrets that such a desire had 186 ACHAN'S THEFT DISCOVERED AND PUNISHED. ever been felt by Israel or gratified by the Lord.1 — On the use of the rare form pmjrpj instead of JTpjjpT see EwoMs Lehrbuch, § 41 b. pr^yn is employed in a similar way in Hab. i. 15 in the place of pnypj- — The infin. abs. T^^n 1S used here emphatically : " why hast thou brought us completely over," see Ewald, Lehrb. § 280 b. — *nfofr$n refers in this passage to the tribes dwelling in the mountains, the Canaanites of the east, in contradistinction from vjj^n (v< 9) those who dwelt in the plain and on the borders of the Mediterranean Sea, the Canaan? ites of the west, as we may see more clearly in reference to chap. v. 1. Maurer has correctly observed (in his notes on v. 9), that " if the Israelites, when on the eastern side of Canaan, are afraid lest the report of their defeat should come to the ears of the Canaanites, they must naturally be thinking of the Canaanites on the west." Compare the notes on chap. iii. 10. — V. 8 seq. These verses are paraphrased thus, by Clericus, Michaelis, and Rosenmuller : " what can I say now to these people, to whom I have given the assurance that thou wouldst be with us, as thou thyself didst promise me % They will regard me as a liar." But Masius has justly pronounced this explanation " both pointless and absurd." Such anxiety about his own dear self and the re spect which might be entertained for his person could never have been felt by Joshua, the servant of God. Nor do his words express the least mistrust in the promise made by God, that no J It might be urged in opposition to the explanation given in the text, that the people gave utterance to a similar complaint, as we find in Num. xiv. 2 seq. : " Would God that we had died in the land of Egypt 1 or would God we had died in this wilderness I Wherefore hath the Lord brought us unto this land, to fall by the sword, that our wives and our children should be a prey ?" and that this expression is described as a murmuring against Moses and Aaron. But duo si dicunt idem, non est idem. The words may be the same, but their meaning depends upon the views and feelings with which they are uttered. The people in the wilderness said also. " we will appoint a leader and return to Egypt" (v. 4), and by this proclaimed their un belief in God, and their rebellion against Moses, the leader appointed by the Lord. Joshua, on the contrary, manifests his faith, not only hy turning to God in the anguish of his heart, and pouring out his grief before the Lord, but also by pleading (vv. 8, 9) the dreaded destruction of the people, and consequent injury to the glory of God, as the motive for his importunate prayer. CHAPTER VII. 6 — 9. 187 one should be able to withstand him (i. 5), as Dereser supposes. They are intended merely to explain the great distress with which Joshua was overwhelmed. " The leader here tells the reason of the trouble of mind, which was so clearly shown by his manner, his look, and his words." — Masius. — iq^ pia 1S not used to express perplexity, as if Joshua did not know what to say, for he immediately afterwards gives utterance to his thoughts. It rather indicates hesitation as to the correctness of the fears which he was about to utter ; and is so far the result of faith that it indicates hesitation on the part of Joshua, to admit the possibility of his fears being realized, since they are evidently at variance with the promises of God. But since the words ™ia& na> " what shall I say," with which Joshua commences his "~ T prayer, evince some doubt as to the ground for his fear that the Canaanites, if once they heard that the Israelites had turned their backs upon their enemies, would attack them on every side and utterly exterminate them, and yet adds the enquiry, " what wilt thou do then for thy great name I" we regard the whole as showing, on the one hand, the motive which impelled him to employ words almost amounting to a reproach (v. 1), and, on the other hand, as adding emphasis to the request, which the words indirectly contain, that the Lord would avert such a calamity from Israel for the sake of his people and of his own name. — I agree with Gesenius (Thes. i. 222) in regarding vj as a contraction for ijjjj " pray." This is the. only derivation which will explain its being used before i^^ " to add greater intensity T — • to earnest prayers." The explanation suggested by Ewald (Lehrb. § 101 c), that it is a contraction of Vq^ and «r^, is quite inadmissible. — The peculiar phrase fpjjj TTQpjj ror which in v. 12 prty pfts is used " to turn the neck before any one," corresponds to our phrase ; to turn the back, i.e. to flee. — ntoVfvna* what wilt thou do with regard to thy great name? i.e., how wilt thou rescue from contempt and scorn amongst the nations that name of thine, which hitherto thou hast made great amongst them by thy miraculous guidance of Israel ? That this is a correct explanation is apparent from Ex. xxxii. 11 sqq. and Num. xiv. 23 sqq., where Moses urges on the same ground his 188 achan's THEFT DISCOVERED AND PUNISHED. appeal on behalf of the people ; see also Deut. ix. 28. — Gesenius regards the form prtojtfl-na instead of nto5?n~na as an Ara- maism (Lehrgeb. p. 432 seq.) ; Ewald supposes that the Zeri is used on account of the intimacy with which the previous word is connected with pfty^pi (Lehrb. p. 428.) Other analogous forms,, however, he generally regards as arbitrary, and Maurer gives the same explanation in the case before us. The words themselves he regards as containing " an exhortation, not to say a demand." Vv. 10 — 15. The Lord's answer expresses anger on account of Israel's transgression. This is indicated first by the reproach ful introduction in v. 10, then by the earnestness with which the words are crowded together, and also by the frequent use of qj, which serves to bring the whole to a climax. Clericus is of opinion that Jehovah communicated this reply through the medium of the High Priest ; but in that case, it would be neces. sary to assume that Joshua offered his prayer through the same medium, an assumption evidently at variance with the tone of the whole narrative ; see the remarks on chap. i. 1. — The ques tion : " wherefore fallest thou thus upon thy face ? " is one of reproof, implying that Joshua had no reason to doubt the faith fulness of the Lord, or to implore its continuance ; since it was not to God, but to the sin of the people that he must trace the calamity which had befallen Israel. The reproof does not of course apply to the mere fact of Joshua's turning to the Lord and prostrating himself in prayer, nor even to the tone of com plaint against the Lord observable in the words of his prayer, but to the disposition, which he manifested, to seek the cause of his misfortune in God and his superintendence, whereas it was to be found altogether in the transgression of the people. — V. 11. Israel hath sinned, said the Lord, so far as the sin of one had tainted the whole community ; (see comment on v. 1). The sin that had been committed was a transgression of the covenant, which the Lord had made with the Israelites, i.e. a treacherous neglect of the obligations involved in the covenant which they had entered into with Jehovah (Ex. xix. 8 and xxiv. 7) ; yea more, the Israelites had appropriated that which was placed under the ban, and thus had brought the ban upon themselves (chap. vi. 18). The first three clauses describe the sin in its relation to God, the following three refer to the actual nature 2 CHAPTER VII. 10—15. 189 of the sin itself, as theft, concealment and misappropriation to their own use of the stolen goods, i.e. as a daring, obstinate, and reckless crime.1 *^pi5 does not mean denial upon enquiry, for no enquiry had yet been instituted, but " concealment of that which ought to have been confessed with penitence" (»S. Schmidt). — 0^73 does not mean the tent in which Achan had buried the stolen articles (v. 21) but the furniture, amongst which they had been placed, that they might be used along with the rest for Tiis-own purposes. This is mentioned last, because it was the very worst feature of the crime, since the articles stolen had been consecrated to the Lord, and therefore it proved the ex istence of extreme depravity, for them to be perverted by any man to his own private use. — V. 12. On account of this sin, the Lord had withdrawn his aid from Israel, so that they could not stand before tlieir enemies ; nor would he render them any fur ther assistance, until the. ban was removed from the midst of them.2 — The removal of the ban from the midst of Israel is said 1 Of the earlier commentators, S. Schmidt has made the most careful attempt to point out the gradation which is contained in the passage before us, and also to trace the parallel between the description of the crime contained here, and Achan's subsequent confession of it (v. 21). He discovers the gravity of the offence, indicated by the gradation and cumulation of words, not so much in the different steps themselves, as in the course of sin, continuance therein, and an obstinate impeni tence and neglect to remove the evil thing. By ^j^pj he understands T T the first impulse of a wicked mind, by pp"^ "\2,V an aPProa°h to the object, ^j its secret abstraction ; and in the concealment of the stolen — T goods amongst his own things, he discovers the proof of obstinate im penitence. Achan's confirmed obstinacy and impenitence he thus describes : " When Achan longed, he ought to have resisted ; when he planned, he ought to have stopped before taking; when he had taken, he should have cast it away instead of stealing ; when he had stolen, he should freely have confessed it ; and when .it was buried, he ought to have dug it up again." This explanation, however, of ^j/jpj and ]-p*Q ~\2V 1S evidently arbitrary. 2 The reason assigned in the text for the defeat of the army, which was sent against Ai, is rejected by rationalists as mythical. From the fact, that Joshua subsequently led the whole of the army against the town, they infer that the defeat was really attributable to the haste of the general, who placed too much reliance upon the small military skill of the band first set out. They suppose that the embezzlement of the treasures of the temple, said to have been assigned by the oracle 190 ACHAN'S THEFT DISCOVERED AND PUNISHED. in v. 15 to be impossible without the destruction of Achan, with his family and possessions. Vv. 13 15. After explaining the cause of the calamity the Lord commands Joshua to remove the ban from the people. And in order to accomplish this he is to instruct the people to sanctify themselves against the next day (see chap. iii. 5), and then to bring them before God by tribes and families, and house holds and individuals, that the criminal may be detected by lot ; and when discovered he is to be burned with all his possessions. as the reason, was merely invented for the sake of rekindling the en thusiasm of the disheartened people. (Paulus p. 165, Hasse p. 107 sqq., Maurer on v. 11, and v. Lengerke p. 634 seq). — But this hypothesis is overthrown by the fact that it does not explain the discovery of Achan's theft. Paulus, indeed, goes to the very root, and main tains that the priests had privately discovered that a certain Achan had kept back some of the things, which ought to have been brought into the tabernacle of God, as part of the booty of Jericho. They then arranged for the people the spectacle of Achan's detection by divine lot. But Maurer and v. Lengerke did not venture to carry their criticism to such a length as this, so as, for the mere sake of giving to their own fanciful conjectures more validity than to the historical narrative, to change the government, which God exercised in Israel, into blind chance, into such uncertainties as the accidental discovery of a theft, and to represent the execution of the judgment of God by means of the lot, as nothing but jugglery and deception. Yet by re jecting this, they only confess their inability to explain the actual event. Maurer thinks, that possibly they had all taken some of the booty, and that therefore the lot must necessarily fall upon a guilty man, and only happened to fall upon Achan. So the whole of the people are to be stamped as thieves to please the rationalists 1 V. Lengerke is no more willing to admit this, than that it was all mere accident. He supposes that Achan's previous deeds had rendered it very easy to point him out as the ringleader, or that there may have been others punished besides him, whilst tradition singled him out on account of the resemblance between his name and that of the valley Achor, where he is said in the legend to have suffered. But if the tale is not a pure invention, in which case it is evident that the name of Achor might have furnished the occasion for the invention of such a crime as is here attributed to Achan ; if, we say, the punish ment was actually inflicted upon Achan, as here described, and the discovery which the High Priest made by the lot, was not mere chance (and v. Lengerke expressly admits all this), then nothing re mains but to declare that the lot was a pretence and cheat, and with- , out any ground to impute to Achan earlier crimes, in order that the knot may be cut, in which they find themselves entangled, who persist in denying an overruling providence of God in the history of Israel. Credat Judaeus Apella !— See also the note at chap. viii. l" CHAPTER VII. 13 — 15. 191 — V. 14. QpQ-^hj ye shall approach,Mt. be brought near. The Niphal has not precisely the same meaning as the Kal, but, both in the present instance and also in Ex. xxii. 7, the only other passage in which ^153 occurs, denotes an involuntary entrance into the presence of God, a compulsory approach to his judgment seat (o^pf^N 7N)- — TftTV* ,)3^^^,, "ltt?N which Jehovah shall take by the lot. The lot, it is true, is not expressly mentioned, and hence some of the earlier expositors questioned its having been used in the present instance, and arbitrarily substituted other contrivances (see Masius and Seb. Schmidt in loco) ; but *Tzh}, as we may see from 1 Sam. xiv. 42, is the technical term used for decision by lot (see also 1 Sam. x. 20). Moreover, the fact that first the tribe is taken, then the family, &c, is in itself a proof that the lot was employed to discover the guilty man. If God intended to point out the culprit at once, such a mode of proceeding was altogether superfluous. — From this verse we learn how from the patriarchal custom there had grown up a natural division and classification of the people in tribes, clans, families, and households.1 The tribes were founded by the twelve sons of Jacob, and the two sons of Joseph who were placed on an equality with them by adoption, so that whenever Levi was reckoned, Joseph was counted as one tribe, hut when Levi was omitted, as, for example, in the division of the country, Joseph, through his sons, was regarded as forming two tribes. The tribes again were divided into pfipfQtiJa clans,2 which were founded by the sons, or T S " 1 The same division is also met with amongst the Arabians, and existed amongst the ancient Greeks in the Athenian state. The • t: the men. Since, however, not merely the sons but also the grandsons and great-grandsons of the patriarchs were founders of clans, it necessarily follows that the distinction between the clans and the fathers' houses was merely relative, and had no well-defined and settled limits. And with reference to individual cases we have no means of ascertaining on what principles the arrangement was made.1 The absence of any fixed and general principle of division is still more apparent from the indefinite manner in which the heads of these different classes are de scribed. The heads or princes of the tribes, for instance, are named Qi^iM C^"um" ii- 3, 5, 7 sqq., x. 4, xxxiv. 18 ; Josh. xvii. 4, xxii. 1.4, 32), ^Nlfctp "Wtoi (Num. i. 44, vii. 2 sqq.), nitsan ^^ (Num- vii.T2), &rfiii$ ntoa "a (Num- *• 16)> Hitman ""ttfiO (Num. xxx. 2 ; 1 "Kings viii. 1), Qitptf 'WN"} (Deut. v. 20) ; and in Num. xxxi. 13, xxxii. 2 ; Josh. "xxii. 30, 1 There is great plausibility in the conjecture of Michaelis (Mos. R. i., § 48) that a certain number of individuals were essential to the formation of clans and family-groups ; at least we are led to infer this from 1 Chr. xxiii. 11, where it is said of two grandsons of Gershon : " they had not many sons, therefore they were reckoned together as a IN JV1 father's house. CHAPTER VII. 13 — 15. 193 as the representatives of the congregation of the people, they are called pnypt 'Wto- The heads of the clans and of the fathers' houses are not distinguished from each other by peculiar names. The following they have in common, *lj fyQN "WfrO C^x" V1, ^ ' T " T Josh. xxii. 1 ; 1 Chr. viii. 6) ; DfTilt^ nl ^Nl or D^UJM"]! ?nii« n^ib (Ex- vi- 14 ; l Chr- v" 24)"> and cab^n "•tffcn C1 Chr. xii. 20). But the same titles are frequently applied to the heads of the tribes ; who are not only referred to under the names mentioned above, but are called very frequently pyilM "'ttJN'l PTiyn (Num. xxxi. 26 compared with v. 13), pyitsan HilN ''ttJN'l (Num. xxxii. 28 ; Josh. xiv. 1, xxi. 1), nit£ft^ nil^n ifflNl — • T T " T (Josh. xix. 51), pynN ppl ''ffifcn (Num. i. 4, 44-, vii. 2 ; Josh. xxii. 14), and ^Nifeyi iFpSa "'tttNn * (Num. i. 16, x. 4 ; Josh. 1 As this name is not found anywhere else than in the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, Winer (R.W. ii. p. 597) fancies that the 'rfcOto'' ^D^M "WfcO were merely military leaders, appointed during the journey through the wilderness, — a thoroughly unfounded con jecture, which a single glance at the proper passages is sufficient to demolish. The military leaders were called, both during the journey through the wilderness and afterwards : pi^JSpj *r}\ff) 0^27fc$n "Hto (Num. xxi. 14, 48, 52, 54; 1 Sam. viii. 12 ; 2 Sam.' xviii." !)." The only reason that can be assigned for the fact, that the title i^fc^ SfcOty'11 ''DbN ^oes n°t occur afterwards, is that the natural classifica tion of the people, which prevailed till the time of the Kings, was subsequently changed for one of a more artificial character, and hence the title Q^fcyi was superseded by Q^^"1, an^ su°b official designa- • T ¦ T tions as pfQ^pj itfJN'V and nptGHtfp! >,C5M"1 (Deut- ii- 20) Save Place to TT" T *T:— " T n'llNn i"lto (comp. 1 Chr. xxix. 6 with xxvii. 1), and Q^l^n "Hto T T •• T . • T I — ¦• T (1 Chr. xxviii. 1), or ^-^fcp ^tflltlj "HID (* ^nr. xxvii. 26, xxix. 6). From the very first, too, the names ppfc^ftpj V^Q} aud Q^Q~)^ 'vyQf were applied not merely to military officers, but also to the civil magis trates, whom Moses selected from the heads of the tribes, according to the advice of Jethro, and to whom he gave the authority of judges (Ex. xviii. 17 — 26) to settle disputes, which might arise amongst the people ( Deut. i. 15). It was very natural, therefore, that the same name should be afterwards applied both to the military commanders and civil magis trates ; especially if, as was probably the case, the two posts were fre quently filled by the same individual, who acted as the chief magistrate of his tribe in time of peace, and fought at its head in time of war. We have evidence that this sometimes occurred. In 1 Chr. xii. 20, 21, for 13* 194 achan's detection. xxii. 14, 21, 30). This also serves to explain how it is that the terms pyfoN n^l and HinSttJa' which evidently differ in meaning t •• t ; ¦ t both in the Book of Joshua and also in Num. i. 2, 18, 20 sqq., ii. 34, iii. 15, &c, are often used as synonymes and even inter changed (e.g. Ex. vi. 14 — 25 ; Num. xxvi., 2 comp. c. v. 7), and that the former is most frequently employed as a generic term, applicable to all the divisions and sub-divisions of the various tribes (Num. i. 4, 45, ii. 2, 32, xvii. 21 ; Josh. xxiv. 14, &c). V. 15. Q^n^, "75~>2n he, upon whom the ban falls, i.e., he upon whom the lot falls and who is thus proved to have sinned against the ban. 2J^3^|TOi let Thrxi be burned with fire. This does not mean aljjre, for accordhhg to v. 25 he was first stoned to death, and/when dead his bpdy was burned, for the purpose of adding severity to the pu,mshment of death. Burning alive does not oefiiir anywhere amongst the punishments inflicted under the Mosaic law (see Michaelis, Mos. K. v. § 235). The reason for the omission of any orders with reference to the previous stoning, was evidently that this was too well established both by law- and custom as the proper punishment, to render any particular in junction necessary. (On the use of the Niphal with *|p^ see Ewald Lehrb. § 273 b.) This punishment is said to be ordered because, first, he had broken the covenant of Jehovah, and secondly, he had committed a folly in Israel, and therefore offended both his God and his people. pj^2 folly, not in an intellectual sense merely, but in a moral sense also, not only folly of the head but also of the heart. In this sense the expression to commit a folly is used with reference to crimes, in the passage before us, and also Gen. xxxiv. 7 ; Judges xx. 6; 2 Sam. xiii. 12. They are regarded as follies, since the criminal commits them with the idea that there is no God to see and to punish them. example, it is expressly said that the QiQ^^pj i^Nl of the tribe of Manasseh, who accompanied David to Ziklag, were -nsn fi'nto' Again, in 1 Chr. xiii. 1, all the leaders of the people -jv^-l-* are em braced in the term ppNarTl O^D^Nn "Htoi who appear as representa tives of the whole congregation of Israel ^j^jjp, 'ppfS (v. 2). And in 1 Chr. xv. 25, xxvi. 26, xxvii. 1, xxviii. "l", xxix! 6 ; 2 Chr. i. 2, xxy. 5, we find py^a!"!1! p^L,^ ^^ nseft w;th reference Dotn to military commanders and civil authorities. chapter vii. 1 6 — 26. 195 n?13 does not literally mean either vice or crime. (See Heng- t t : stenberg, Psalms i. p. 277 seq.) Vv. 16 — 18. At the casting of the lots, we are not of course to suppose that all the male members of the tribes were present ; but that the heads of the people attended, and the lots were cast on them in the following order ; first, upon the heads of the twelve tribes, then upon the heads of all the clans of Judah, thirdly, upon the heads of the fathers' houses of the clan of Zerah, and lastly, upon the individual members of the father's house of Zabdi. — The occurrence of the singular in connexion with the first p\ptQllJa~nN is very remarkable. There are, it is true, seven Codd. in whicb we find the plural, but the number is too small to have any weight. Still less can the ancient versions, which have preferred the plural, justify us in accepting them as witnesses for the reading ppnDiy,a' and altering the text as Clericus, Dathe, and Rosenmiiller have done, especially when we take into account not only the license which their authors allowed themselves, but also the fact that the Chaldee and Arabic both render the word in the singular. Hence Gesenius and Winer (in the lexicon) suggest the conjectural explanation that pinSt^b t t : " ' is used here in a careless manner for *3Hl)> or tbat it denotes a whole tribe. It is more correct, however, to adopt the explana tion given by S. Schmidt and others, that nnSffia is employed here collectively or distributively for omnes or singulas gentes. There is even less propriety in altering QV^Jpj (v. 17) into D^nib (as some MSS. Clericus, Dathe, Maurer, Rosenmuller, and others have done). QV^j is applied to the heads of the fathers' houses, since all the members were not present at the lot, but merely the head of each, who appeared as the representative of the whole group of families composing a father's house. Vv. 19—26. After Achan had been detected as the criminal, by means of the lot, he was adjured by Joshua to confess his crime. Whereupon he made known how many things he had stolen from Jericho, and where he had concealed them. Joshua then ordered the things to be fetched from his tent, and laid them before the Lord in the presence of Achan and all the people. — "Ol " H® does not call him son ironically, or from affectation, but to show the sincerity of the paternal affection which he feels 132 196 achan's detection. towards him, though he has already condemned him to death. This example contains a lesson to judges, so to restrain their severity when punishing the criminal, as still to preserve the feelings of humanity ; and yet so to regulate their mercy, as not to fall into laxity and carelessness," (Calvin). — Give glory to the Lord, 80s Sogav ra 6e& (John ix. 24), was not the regular form by which a judicial oath was administered, but a solemn adjuration, in which a man was appealed to in the presence of God to con fess the truth. To give glory to God frequently means : to acknowledge by one's deeds the omniscience, omnipotence, and holiness of God, or render to God the glory that is due, (e.g. 1 Sam. vi. 5 ; Eom. iv. 20 ; Acts xii. 23 ; Luke xvii. 18.) — pHiPl ^-Ipi is rendered by Calvin, Masius, Rosenmuller, Winer, and Gesenius : "make confession to him," and Ezra x. 11 is re ferred to in support of the rendering ; but this passage, of all others, contains the proof, that such is not the meaning of ppTiPl) T and that the correct translation is glory or praise. Ezra there calls upon the Jews, who had married foreign wives : to praise God and do his will, namely, by putting away these foreign wives. Moreover, the parallelism of the clauses, and the use of min as synonymous with -pQ3> show that this is the only ap- T propriate meaning. — V. 21. The full form nfcOfcO is not to be given up for the reading of the Keri N"1NV for there are many V •• T analogies in its favour, and in the first person at least, the con tracted form is the less frequent (cf. Ewald, Lehrbuch § 232 d. — ""l}72t2J n*nW a Babylonish cloak, as it has been literally rendered by Aquila, and in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic versions, ^yjj being the earlier name for Babylon, Gen. x. 10, t : • xii. 2. A Babylonish cloak is a superior work of ark, tytXr) irouc'CKr) (LXX.),1 pallium coccineum (Vulgate) ; for according to Pliny (hist. nat. viii. 48) : colores diversos picturae vestium intexere Babylon maxime celebravit et nomen imposuit. Other proofs are adduced by Bochart in his Phul. i. c. 6, (compare too Heeren,IAeen i. 2, p. 205 sqq.) — 200 shekels of silver are said by Bertheau to have 1 Peristroma babylonicum i/nXr) dicitur, quia erat tonsum neque villosum et asperum, sed noiKikq, quia intextas sive insutas acu ostentabat variis coloribus hominum et belluarum species et figuras. Fischer Proluss. de versionibus graec. libror. V. T. etc. p. 88. chapter vii. 19 — 26. 197 been equivalent to about 150 Thalers (£22, 10s sterling), assuming that the old Mosaic shekel is here referred to. If the shekel were the later or common one,itwould only be worth half the amount. — int Vi2}7 a golden tongue. We cannot determine what this was. Because Naevius, as Gellius informs us (Noct. Attic, x. 25), calls a small sword ligulam,- Masius and Rosenmuller fancy that this was a sword, with which perhaps one of the deities of Jericho had been adorned by its inhabitants. This is not very probable. Vatablius supposes it to have been a plate of gold ; Gesenius (thes. ii. 763), a bar of gold in the shape of a tongue. At any rate, it was a golden ornament, the exact nature and use of which are unknown to us, but which was of considerable size, as it weighed fifty shekels = 13,700 Parisian grains. — i^pfXn Tfini' - t: it t ' : contrary to the general rule the noun has both a suffix and the article. Maurer explains it on the ground that it is demonstra tive ; in fact, almost of the nature of a demonstrative adverb : "yonder in the midst of my tent." At chap. viii. 33, he calls it " almost a demonstrative pronoun." But the explanation is not natural in either of the passages ; and in Lev. xxvii. 33, and Micah ii. 12, it is altogether forced. Ewald (Krit. Gram. p. 581) supposes the article to have been inserted because the small suffix had gradually lost its force (vid. also Lehrbuch § 290 d.) ; but Hengstenberg' s explanation (Christol. iii. p. 362) is the most correct one, viz., that the article sometimes lost its force, and became absorbed into the noun. A parallel to this is found in Syriac, In the frequent use of indefinite nouns in the emphatic state. — And the silver under it, i.e. under the Babylonish cloak ; or rather under them, the neuter suffix being intended to refer to each of the articles mentioned before. Many infer from this, and not without probability, that the cloak was placed in the same chest with the golden tongue, and the silver laid under neath. — V. 22. The form pjVn&n witb Cholem and Chateph ¦ T VI A T » Seghol, in the place of i^pi^ and y^pj^ which occur both be- * t: It < t: |t fore and afterwards, is owing in the present instance to the Athnach, which makes j$ the tone syllable, and therefore pre vents its being shortened, though there are cases in which the two forms are interchanged, even where this reason does not exist (cf. Ewald Lehrbuch § 41 b. and 255 b.)— V. 23. And 198 punishment of achan. they laid them (the things which had been fetched from the tent) on the ground before Jehovah, ryg\ means to pour out, to shake out. The Hiphil form pijftpi (2 Kings iv. 5), has also this mean ing ; but the form ni.jfpf has nearly the same signification as ;pjjpf, and means, both here and 2 Sam. xv. 24, to lay down. — For pj'ipji i^ob see cbap. vi. 8. Vv. 24 — 26. After the stolen things, which were brought from Achan's tent, had been laid down before the ark of the covenant, as a sign that they belonged to Jehovah on account of the ban, Joshua took Achan and the stolen articles, together with his children, his cattle, his tent, and all that belonged to him, and brought them down into the valley, accompanied by all the people. There the punishment of stoning was inflicted upon them.. The bodies and all the articles that had been brought down were then burnt; and upon the ashes a large heap of stones was raised, as a memorial of the crime and a warning token to posterity. V. 24. The sons and daughters of Achan were taken with him into the valley, not as mere spectators of their father's punishment, that they might take warning thereby (as some of the Rabbins, Schulz, the author of the Exegetical Handbook, Hess (Gesch. Jos. i. p. 120), and others have sup posed), but to share his punishment and be stoned with him (cf. chap. xxii. 20). The law of Moses, however, expressly forbids that the sons should die for their father's sins (Deut. xxiv. 16), and therefore it has been assumed by C. a Lapide, Clericus, Michaelis (Mos. Recht. v. § 229), Rosenmuller, and others, that they had been implicated in their father's crime. But there is nothing in the account before us to warrant such an assumption, and hence Calvin, Masius, and S. Schmidt simply appeal to the unsearchable nature of the decrees of the righteous God, and make no attempt to settle the question. Still if it he true, that we have no ground for supposing that the children had taken part in their father's crime, we have also just as little right to assume that the punishment was inflicted upon them as innocent persons. The custom of extending to the children of criminals the punishment of their parents was very prevalent amongst the heathen nations of antiquity (see Hengstenberg Beitr. iii. p. 546) ; but this custom is so thoroughly at variance with the instructions chapter vii. 24 — 26. 199 of the Old Testament, and so directly opposed to the love and justice of God, which it constantly proclaims (cf. Hengstenberg p. 544 sqq.), that we cannot for a moment imagine God as com manding here the very thing which he had previously prohibited, because it was opposed to his own nature (Deut. xxiv. 16). The only way, therefore, in which we can explain the sentence pro nounced upon the children of Achan, is by supposing that, although they may not have taken part in the crime, they shared in the corrupt nature and desires which had prompted the father's deed, and therefore received from the searcher of hearts the just reward of their sin. Such a punishment could never have been properly inflicted by man, who reads actions only, and not the secrets of the heart.1 — 'rV-"ltt)N"-'73 is not " a general and un meaning phrase," as Maurer says, " inserted to round off the sentence," but refers to Achan's property and goods. — All Israel, i.e. the heads and representatives of all Israel ; the whole of the people, amounting to two millions, could not possibly have ac companied them, i^jjV), " they led them up to the valley of Achor," -is to be explained from the fact that this valley was situated on higher ground than the spot on which the Israelites were encamped in the vicinity of Jericho (cf. notes on v. 26). Rosenmuller is wrong in supposing that there is any analogy between the use of pp?V bere and in such passages as Deut. xvii. T T 8 seq., and xxv. 7, where a person is said to go up to the taber nacle and to the place of judgment. S. Schmidt has correctly 1 By this means we entirely remove the supposed discrepancy between the passage before us and the command given in Deut. xxiv. 16, with reference to the punishments to be inflicted by the Jews. This dis crepancy Maurer sets aside with the flippant remark : " surely the law of Moses had been disregarded before now." And Hauff (Offen- barungsgl. p. 224 sqq.) supposes, without any reason, that in order to promote his didactic design and keep his countrymen from breaking the law of God, the author not only described this instance of ancient punishment, but allowed himself some liberty in working up the his torical materials ; in other words, altered and falsified the narrative. Much nearer the truth is the remark of Havernick (Einl. ii. 1 p. 47), that this very departure from the law contained in Deut. xxiv. 16 is a strong proof of the historical veracity of the whole account. For if it had been merely founded upon some legend of later times, it is hardly likely that any legend would have imputed to Joshua, the faithful ser vant of God, so flagrant a violation of the law. 200 PUNISHMENT of achan. accounted for the use of the word : " they had first to ascend, and then went down into the valley." The name Achor is used here per prolepsin (cf. notes on v. 26). V. 25. *|2ppY3}7 pjft how hast thou troubled us. -}^y to disturb, to trouble, then generally to bring into misfortune, destruction (cf. Gen. xxxiv. 30; 1 Kings xviii. 17.) — ^pSJT is not to be regarded as imperative, but as the : t : — simple future : " the Lord will trouble thee." Joshua does not, therefore, give utterance to his own wish, but to the consequences which Achan had brought upon himself through his own conduct. — D3T aQd 7l?D> 'which are generally used in the Pentateuch ~*.T t . - promiscuously to denote stoning, are here distinguished, Qyy meaning to stone, i.e., to kill by casting stones, K^p to heap stones upon the dead. For further particulars with reference to this punishment see Carpzov's Appar. p. 583, and Winer's R.W. ii. 606 sqq. — It does not necessarily follow from the use of the singular suffixes ^p^ (v. 25) and -p^y (v. 26), that only Achan T T was stoned, and not his children ; on the contrary the singular is used interchangeably with the plural (cf. Qpifc$ vv. 24, 25), because Achan was the person most prominent in the punishr- ment, and therefore he is repeatedly mentioned alone. In v. 26 COINI *l ?DD'1 1S more fully described in the words siEiwri , • t -:t ': .: ¦ . T~ TITS Q^lN^bn : they raised a large heap of stones over him, for a perpetual reproach to Achan, and a constant warning to others. The custom of throwing stones upon the graves of criminals, as a mark of disgrace, is still prevalent in the East (cf. Michaelis Mos. R. v. § 235 p. 33 seq). — The expression " so Jehovah turned from the fierceness of his anger," refers us back to v. 1, and closes the narrative. The only further remark is that the valley, in which the punishment had been inflicted, received in consequence the name -fi^y Achor, i.e. disturbance, and had re tained it till the writer's own days. The name was derived from -l3y, the word by which Joshua described in v. 25 both the crime and punishment of Achan. In direct opposition to the text, Hasse and v. Lengerke (p. 635), maintain that it was the name of the valley which gave occasion to the story respecting Achan. But if there was nothing else to prove the fallacy of such an assertion, we should find proof enough in the fact that the valley was never sufficiently known for its name to serve as CHAPTER VII. 24—26. 201 the groundwork of such a legend as this. With the exception of the present passage and Josh. xv. 7, where it is mentioned as one of the limits of the territory of the tribe of Judah, there are only two places in which the name occurs, viz., Hos. ii. Tft^ and Is. Ixv. 10, and in both instances with reference to this event. We are not even able to determine its situation with accuracy. We merely learn that it was on the east of Canaan, from Is. Ixv. 10, and from the chapter before us and chap. xv. 7, that it was not far from Jericho. Jerome (in the Onom.) says that it was situated on the north of Jericho near to Gilgal, and that even in his day its inhabitants called it by the ancient name. But this assertion merely rests upon an uncertain tradition, which had its origin in the present chapter, and does not accord with chap. xv. 7. According to this passage the northern boundary of the tribe of Judah ran through the valley of Achor, and therefore the valley must have been on the south or southwest of Jericho, since this town was not within the territory of Judah. We have no means of ascertaining whether v. Lengerke is right in saying that it was naturally a dark gloomy valley, or Haver nick (Einl. ii. 1 p. 46), who says that it was a valley of the greatest beauty. We cannot infer the one from Hos. ii. 17, nor the other from Is. Ixv. 10. The prophets were induced to refer to the valley merely by its situation on the east of Canaan, near the border of the desert, and by the notoriety it had acquired in consequence of the events related in this chapter, which had given it a most significant name. Upon this name both of the prophets evidently play ; but it is particularly evident in Hosea (cf. Hengstenberg, Christol. iii. p. 103 seq., and Havernick ut supra). In fact so evident is it that v. Lengerke (p. 634), in order to explain it away, is obliged to resort to the arbitrary as sumption that Hosea and the writer of this book had both gone to the same ancient source for their materials. But even in Isaiah it is unmistakeable, though the reference in that book is not so much to the historical significance of the name as to the situation of the place on the eastern boundary of Canaan, and the renown which it had acquired in consequence of the narrative before us. Isaiah would never have mentioned the valley of Achor in connexion with the well-known plain of Sharon, to show the extent of the land, if the history of Achan had not gained for it so wide-spread a renown. 202 CAPTURE OF AI. CHAPTER VIII. AI TAKEN AND DESTROYED BY FIRE, W. 1—29 ; ERECTION OF AN ALTAR UTON EBAL, VV. 30 — 35. Vv. 1, 2. The ban had no sooner been removed from Israel, by the punishment of Achan, who had brought it upon the people by his crime, than the Lord encouraged Joshua to go up and take Ai, and assured him that the town might be captured. At the same time, He explained to him the best plan to adopt for securing the success of the enterprise. — V. 1. As Joshua and all the people had been completely discouraged by the failure of the first expedition against Ai, the Lord commences his promise that the town shall be taken with the same form of words, with which he had previously encouraged Joshua to accept the com mand of the army (chap. i. 9, Deut. xxxi. 6, 8), and at a still earlier period had urged Moses and all the people to press forward to the conquest of the land of Canaan (Deut. i. 21, vii. 18) : " fear not, neither be thou dismayed." — The order, " take all the people of war with thee," forms an antithesis to the declaration of the spies, that it would not be necessary to put all the people to the trouble of going up in order to take so small a town as Ai, but that two or three thousand would be sufficient (chap. vii. 3). It does not follow, however,1 from this command, that the cause of the failure of the first expedition was the smallness of the force sent against it (see the notes on chap. vii. 12). For 3000 men would certainly have been able with the assistance of God to take a town with 12,000 inhabitants. It was, on the contrary, merely from a considerate regard to the weakness of the people, that God now ordered the whole army to be engaged. " Since, as we have seen before, their hearts melted, God con sulted their weakness, and would not impose a burden which would be too heavy for them to bear, until they had recovered from their excessive alarm, and were ready to receive his com mands with greater alacrity." (Calvin.) We do not however suppose that Dypj-^5 in chap. vii. 3, included all the people who CHAPTER VIII. 1,2. 203 were able to bear arms ; but as a select band of about 40,000 was chosen from the two and a-half tribes to accompany the others across the river, so here we may assume without hesitation, even though it is not expressly stated, that a proportionate number was also chosen from the nine and a-half tribes, and that these were usually called " all the people of war," in distinction from other detachments of inferior size. What the whole force amounted to is mentioned in v. 3. nhv 1S used in a military sense to describe the advance of an army against a town, without any regard to the actual position of the town itself, every place against which an attack was directed being regarded as a height to be scaled. In the present instance, indeed, as Ai was situated upon a hill, and the army approached it from the plains of Jericho, the primitive meaning of " local ascent" and the derivative mean ing coincide.— For ^i ip,p\3 p,)^ vid. chap. vi. 2.— ^H-TIN 1S the surrounding country, which formed part of the territory of Ai, and was governed by its king. — V. 2. The words : " do to Ai and her king as thou hast done to Jericho and her king," are explained by chap. vi. 21. He is to lay both town and king under the ban, i.e. to destroy both the town and its inhabitants. In the case of Jericho, however, the cattle and spoil were offered to the Lord as the first fruits of the land, which he had given to the Israelites ; but at Ai they were allowed to take possession of both of these, since it was not the intention of the Lord to give to his people a barren and empty land, but, as Moses said (Deut. vi. 10 seq.), he had sworn to their fathers, that he would give them " great and goodly cities, which thou buildedst not, and houses full of all good things, which thou filledst not, and wells digged which thou diggedst not, vineyards and olive-trees which thou plantedst not." 2,-vN ^"?"'to P^ace for thee men in ambush. ^-|j$ denotes those who were placed in ambush ; nfc^a (v* 9) the place in which they were concealed. pp^pfNa behind it, i.e. on the western side of the town. Tip|^ has the T same meaning in Is. ix. 11 ; Job xxiii. 7, 8. — The sanction given by God to the employment of stratagem in warfare was a sub ject of warm discussion amongst earlier commentators. The remarks of Calvin on the point are concise and conclusive. " The question put by many," he says, " with reference to the pro- 204 CAPTURE OF AI. priety of employing stratagem in order to deceive an enemy; indicates excessive ignorance. For it is certainly not physical force alone which determines the issue of war ; but, on the con trary, those are pronounced the best generals, whose success is due less to force than to skilful manoeuvres. — And, therefore, if war is lawful at all, it is indisputably right to avail one's self of those arts by which victory is usually obtained. It is of course understood that neither must treaties be violated, nor faith broken in any other way." Vv. 3 — 13. According to v. 3, Joshua chose 30,000 men out of the main body of the army, and sent them out by night, with orders to place themselves in ambush on the west of Ai, not far from the town (vvJ^Q) y in v. 12, however, we read that he placed about -50t)0 men ih ambush on the west of the town between Bethel and Ai. JIMost of the previous expositors have sought to reconcile these discrepant statements by assuming that there were two companies in ambush near Ai. Some suppose that 30,000 men were concealed at some distance from the town for the purpose of pressing into it and setting it on fire after the inhabitants had sallied out, and 5000 in the immediate neigh bourhood, with orders to engage them as soon as they left the town, perhaps, as Vatablius thinks, in order that the second am bush might divert their attention from the first. Others fancy that the one company was posted on the north western, the other on the south western side of the town, so as to hem in the enemy on all sides, and preclude the possibility of their escape in any direction. The latter is advocated by Havernick, Einl. ii. I, p. 15. This seems at first sight a simple mode of explaining the apparent discrepancy, but there are so many difficulties in the way of its adoption, that we are obliged to pronounce it untenable. For, first, it is highly improbable that so numerous a force would ever have formed an ambuscade.1 How could 1 " Who can for a moment suppose that 30,000 men could remain for a whole day in a spot close to the city, without the inhabitants knowing it, and this in addition to another force of 5000, especially with Bethel, a city in alliance with Ai, close behind them? Hence I think it most probable that the people of war were not all engaged in this expedition, but that thirty thousand were selected from the main body of the army, and that of these five thousand were placed in ambush." — Masius. CHAPTER VIII. 3 — 13. 205 30,000 have been concealed a whole day close to Ai, in such a manner as to escape the notice of the inhabitants ? Again, the place in which the thirty thousand were stationed (v. 9), is des cribed in precisely the same terms as that in which the 5000 were to lie in ambush (v. 12), viz., qd^ ij?pj Ti^ ^N-pVil VI iyfo ; and we should hesitate before interpreting the same words in different senses in these two passages. In reply to this, it is said that the Hebrews had no special names for south-west and north-west, and therefore always spoke of the four quarters, even when actually referring to intermediate points of the compass. But it is not merely the expression iv'? Qlft that we have to do with - T T 'm here, but the further description of the situation, between Bethel and Ai, which is sufficient to convince any unbiassed mind that the 5000 men were posted on the same spot in which, according to v. 9, the thirty thousand had encamped. Lastly, stress has been properly laid upon the fact that when Ai is afterwards taken, there is only one ambuscade referred to. The objections here enumerated are quite sufficient to show that the discrepancy cannot be removed in the manner before mentioned, even if they were sufficient in themselves, which they are not, to clear the passage of difficulties. For if we admit the correctness of the assumptions, by which it is sought to harmonise the two pas sages, we must interpret vv. 9 — 11 as meaning that Joshua spent the same night, in which he sent away the 30,000 men into am bush, along with the rest of the soldiers in the camp, and the next morning advanced to the heights on the north of Ai, and encamped there with only a narrow valley separating him from the town. Now, if he dispatched the second body of 5000 men from this point, he must have waited till the following night be fore doing so. But, according to v. 13, after the army and the ambuscade were settled in their respective positions, Joshua went that night, (i.e. the night which he is said in v. 9 to have spent in the midst of the army, in other words, the night before he advanced to the heights over against Ai) into the midst of the valley, where he was seen in the morning and attacked by the men of Ai. Now since pfinn Tlh^ Tl (v- 13) cannot without violence be explained as indicating a different night from that spoken of in v. 9, which is described in the same words, the usual 206 CAPTURE OF AI. interpretation of the section leads to an irreconcileable discre pancy between v. 9 and v. 13 ; and even if we adopted the con jecture of Konig (Alt-test Studien i. p. 34) that there is an error in the number 30,000 in v. 3, arising, as Thenius supposes, from the insertion of a wrong numeral letter on the part of the copyist, and that in both instances we should read 5,000, the difficulty would not be entirely removed. — We seem, therefore, to be re duced to the necessity of either supposing, as Masius and Rosen miiller do, that there is some confusion in the text (narrationis confusio), attributable to the fact that the author " did not write on in a continuous and smooth narrative, but compiled his account from sources at variance with each other," or else of adopting the hypothesis of Maurer and v. Lengerke (p. 639 seq.), that vv. 12, 13 are an ancient marginal gloss which found its way into the text.1 Neither of these suppositions, however, really solves the difficulty ; they merely cut the knot. Moreover, there is no critical ground whatever for pronouncing vv. 12, 13 a gloss, and removing it from the text. The Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic versions all agree with the Masoretic text in the retention of these verses, and therefore it forms no argument against their authenticity, that they are not found in the earliest MSS. of the LXX., into the later MSS. of which they are supposed to have been introduced by Origen from another Greek version. The great liberty which the translators of the LXX. allowed them selves is well known, and it is pretty clear that they omitted the verses, simply because they did not know how to explain them. But if it were really impossible to light upon any satisfactory explanation of the difficulty, we should still have no right to fly to the critical scissors, but could only say " non liquet." A careful examination of the text, however, will show us that there 1 Hasse (p. 113) and Eichhorn (Einl. iii. p. 390 seq.) both imagine that the author copied these two verses from a different document. Ewald then avails himself of this hypothesis (Gesch. ii. p. 248) to support his peculiar views with reference to the compilation of the Pentateuch and the Book of Joshua, and decides that vv. 12, 13 are taken from -the earliest historical document, (which is an invention of his own), and inwoven with sundry alterations into the account of the so-called fourth historian; thus charging the Deuteronomist with having in the present instance blended together the contradictory state ments in a tolerably confused style. CHAPTER VIII. 3 — 13. 207 is no actual discrepancy, though there may be a slight inaccuracy, and that the apparent contradiction arises from our overlooking the peculiarities of the oriental style. — Ewald has shown in his Compos, der Genesis, p. 151 seq., that it is characteristic of Semitic historians to announce as far as possible at the very out set of a narrative the termination of the whole affair, or at least of the event they have immediately in hand ; and then to com plete the historical sketch by proceeding with their description of the intermediate occurrences. It is the attempt to do this which has crowded so many repetitions into the historical books of the Bible ; whilst again the utter absence of any artistic mode of marking the transitions, led the writer to wind up each section with a formal conclusion in order that he might secure some resting places in his narrative. If now we bear all this in mind, we have prepared the way for solving our difficulties. — As a preparation for the capture of Ai, Joshua had been ordered by Jehovah to place men in ambush behind the town. This com mand is described in full by the historian, as soon as he has re corded the fact that Joshua had made arrangements for march ing against Ai, and had selected men for that purpose. He evidently regarded it as the most important part of tbe whole affair, and therefore gave it in the very same form in which the announcement had first been made by Joshua to the band selected for the attack (vv. 3 — 8). In accordance with the custom we have already noticed, he immediately writes down that the order was executed (v. 9). This leads him, however, to relate on the other hand what Joshua and the rest of the army did (latter part of v. 9) ; though he has not yet stated that the army had advanced and stood before the town. He proceeds to this in vv. 10 and 12, and gives at the same time a minute description of the place of encampment. After having thus described the spot in which the ambuscade was concealed, as well as the position of the main body of the army, he repeats the account he has already given of the position of the ambush in the very same words as in v. 9, but mentions more exactly the number of the men. And then to complete the sketch of the arrangements made for the conquest of Ai, he refers again in v. 13 to the situation of the two divisions of the army, and thus passes to the last decisive step which was taken by Joshua, and immediately followed by 208 CAPTURE OF AI. the engagement that led to the capture of the town. The fol lowing then was the order in which the events connected with this expedition occurred. As soon as Joshua had received from Jehovah an assurance that the town should be taken, and had been directed to resort to a certain stratagem, he selected 30,000 men, and rose up with all the people of war to advance towards the town. Early in the morning he reviewed the troops, and then set them in motion in the direction of Ai. The whole day was probably required for the march thither, for if Ai stood in the same situation as Turmus Aya does now, it was about twenty or twenty-five miles distant from Jericho. As soon as they ap proached the town, he sent away 5000 men to place themselves in ambush, and gave them the instructions contained in vv. 4 — 8. They went without delay, and took up their position to the west of Ai during the night. Joshua himself remained with the main body of the army, and encamped on an eminence near the north side of the town. But before morning, probably just at day break, he led the army through the valley, and in the morning they stood in sight of the town on the eastern or north-eastern side. The inhabitants perceived them, and immediately made an attack.i Before the words ppji^ rrS©*n> therefore, we must supply, from the subsequent paragraph, that Joshua made a second selection of about 5000 men from the larger body of 30,000, and sent them away by night to place themselves in ambush. — V. 4. qvjjj parati (Ex. xix. 11, 15) ready, so as to be 1 The arrangement given above has the support of Calvin, Masius, and the Exegetical Handbook. By none of them, however, is it re garded as established, but simply mentioned as a conjecture. The want of exactness in the history, to which we have referred above, and which has given rise to the general misinterpretation and to so many unsuccessful attempts at solving the difficulty, consists in the omission of all reference to the fact that, after choosing 30,000 men (v. 3), Joshua made a second selection from that number of 5000. This is left to be appended afterwards in v. 12. I cannot call to mind an instance of similar inaccuracy in the historical books of the Old Testa ment, but there is a passage in the New Testament, in the 18th chapter of John, in which the analogy is perfect. And there all kinds of arbitrary expedients have been resorted to by expositors to reconcile the supposed discrepancy, simply because they failed to perceive that v. 24 contains a supplementary remark ; see Winer, Gram. d. neutestl. Sprachid. p. 318, Ed. v. CHAPTER VIII. 10. 209 able to raise up at any moment and force their way into the town. — V. 5. nsiyNIl refers to the first attack made upon Ai, which f T • T is described in v. 4. — V. 8. According to the word of the Lord shall ye do. It is not expressly stated in the command given by God (ver. 2), that the town is to be set on fire, but this is implied in the direction to do to it, as had been done to Jericho. — In v. 9, just as in chap. iii. 6, iv. 8, &c, the execution of the command is placed in juxtaposition with the command itself. -|;p 11.UJ*>1 and they (i.e. the 5000 men who had been sent away) lay down, posted themselves between Bethel and Ai, on the west side of Ai. The exact spot cannot be ascertained. Thenius thinks (p. 133) : "it was in the Wady which runs near Sinjil, and in some places is very deep," (Robinson iii. 85) : i.e. the deep valley into which Robinson descended by a very steep path from the village of Sinjil, and through which the road passes from Jeru salem to Nabulus (Sichem.) But this ravine is close to Sinjil (Bethel), and therefore too far from Ai, even though the whole distance from Sinjil to Turmus Aya is not quite a mile and a half. I am inclined to fix in preference upon the small Wady which passes close by Turmus Aya on the western side, and runs in a north-easterly direction. Unfortunately the descrip tion given by Robinson, who passed through it, is not sufficiently exact for us to be able to decide with certainty whether it was naturally adapted for the purposes of an ambush. — ygj'ipp ^yr\ forms an antithesis to Qpnttpl ; Joshua despatched 5000 men, who placed themselves in ambush, whilst he himself passed the night among the people, i.e. in the camp with the rest of the army. V. 10. The commencement of this verse is not a continuation of the 9th, but refers to >^ 05*1 in v. 3, of which it gives an explanation and further particulars. The author describes the despatch of the ambuscade, and then returns to the commence ment of the expedition, and gives an account of Joshua's pro ceedings with the rest of the army, though in reality the people were numbered (v. 10) before the 5000 were sent away (vv. 4 — 9). — The elders of Israel went at the head of the army with Joshua against Ai. ^j^SC "vjpf were not " military tribunes," as Masius supposed, " who were called elders on account of their 14 * 210 CAPTURE OF AI. superiority in military tactics," but here and everywhere else, the heads and representatives of the people (cf. notes on chap. vii. 6), who assisted Joshua as counsellors. In v. 11 the position which was occupied by the main body of the army is more fully de scribed ; it encamped on the north side of Ai, so that there was a valley between it (the army) and the town, ijpj the valley ; the valley on the north side of Ai, with which every reader was acquainted who knew anything of the locality. The portion of the plain referred to lies between Turmus Aya and Abu el Auf, and is much narrower than the other part of the valley in which Turmus Aya stands. A little further on this valley widens, so as to form a fine oval basin, and stretches for two or three miles in an easterly direction, the whole being surrounded by beautiful hills (Robinson iii. 85, and Tfienius ut supra). — For qv;-j nan^an see cbap. iii. 14, and for >^1 chap. iii. 4. — V. 12. T t : ¦ — T •¦ pjpip is translated as a pluperfect by Masius, C. a Lapide, and others. This expresses the sense, but is not justifiable as a trans lation. For though the verse is supplementary to v. 3, yet the author does not give it the form of a note appended to that which he has long before narrated, but rather by the Vav. con- versive attaches it to the verse immediately preceding. Hence plp^l is in a certain sense used aoristically, corresponding to the Greek Aorist, which was employed in a similar manner ( Winer Gram. p. 318.) — -pj^ is not to be altered for the reading of the Keri *%fot The various reading iy^ is evidently an accommo dation to v. 9, and therefore has been very properly rejected by Clericus. — V. 13 sums up the previous account, and introduces the further proceedings of Joshua, which led to the battle. "UT DJ^n l^to^l *. thus the people posted the whole camp, &c, T T • T— L which we may render thus : " after the people had established the camp in its position near the north side of the town, and had placed their ambuscade near the west side, Joshua went during the night into the midst of the valley." q«^-j in my opinion is T T to be taken as the subject, not as the object of the verb. In this I am supported by the Chaldee, the Vulgate, S. Schmidt, Lud. de Dieu, Clericus, Rosenmuller, Maurer, and others ; amongst those who render it as object are the Syriac, Arabic, CHAPTER VIII. 14—17. 211 Luther, Masius, and others. If it were the object, and pjDnan-73-nN in apposition to it, the sign of the Accusative G"IN) would hardly have been omitted. — ^py is not the rear of an army, as Gesenius, Winer, and many expositors render it, but a verbal adjective from ^SJ? insidiari, meaning the ambuscade, insidiae, and corresponds to ^Ti^; as we may see from a com parison of -pv'? QH£) with v. 12 (compare also Ps. xlix. 6 "QpV " those that supplant me"). The meaning : rearguard cannot be deduced from Gen. xlix. 19. — ^pjn nV^l nieans the same night as that spoken of in v. 9. It does not, however, follow that «rt^ip should be altered into i^!p, according to the reading of certain Codd. — After the preparations for the attack were all made, the main body of the army marched through the valley to the eastern side of the town, and by this movement induced the inhabitants of Ai to sally from the town in the morning, and make an attack in the manner described, v. 14 sqq. Vv. 14 — 17. As soon as the king of Ai perceived the army of Israel, he sallied out of the town, arid quite early in the morning attacked them with all his forces. The Israelites made no resis tance but fled towards the wilderness, whereupon all the people of the town were summoned to pursue them, and the town was left entirely undefended.' pij^3 when he saw — whether this means with his own eyes, or merely that his watchmen discovered the Israelites, cannot be decided. It is not necessary to assume, as Masius does, that he received information during the night of the approach of the Israelites ; this might have been carried to him at daybreak. — ^^""^3 surely refers to the whole body of soldiers, for we find from v. 15, that, after the first attack had been made, and the Israelites had fled, there were still people in the town, who were called together to pursue the enemy. "75^a^ is rendered by some: at the time appointed; by others, at the place appointed, and again by others, at the signal agreed upon, cf. Judges xx. 38. It is not easy to choose between the three, as the word admits of any one of the meanings, and they are all suitable here. The most appropriate is perhaps " at the place appointed," as in 1 Sam. xx. 35 ; cf. Gesenius thes. ii. 606. Evidently before making the sally, the king had arranged with 14 212 CAPTURE OF AI. the army, upon what point the attack should be concentrated. This point is described as ni*1#n 'OdV "TVian- nilV is not t t— : t •• : • •¦ — the valley of the Jordan (J. D. Michaelis), but the steppe, which is mentioned in v. 15 under the name *£pia> or at least one por- T I • tion of it ; cf. 1 Sam. xxiii. 24, which shows that there was an pfl"W in the wilderness of Maon also. — V. 15. i\m^i they suf- ' |T" fered themselves to be beaten. The objection made by Masius to this rendering is founded upon an arbitrary treatment of the two phrases : "suffering themselves to be beaten" and "pretending to be beaten," as identical. The passive rendering : "to be beaten," which Ewald supports as the correct one, is altogether inappropriate in the present instance (see Ewald Krit. Gram. p. 203). By "^"TOpj "jpn we understand the road to the wilder ness, i.e., "the desert which stretches from Jericho to the moun tains of Bethel" (chap. xvi. 1), the wilderness of Beth-aven ; (cf. notes on chap. vii. 2 and xvi. 1). — V. 17. And there was not a man left in Ai and Bethel that went not out after Israel, m^ gp^, no one who could bear arms and join in the pursuit. It is evident from the context, as well as from the nature of the case, that some persons were left in the town (women, children, and old men), and that only the fighting men had gone out. This is also confirmed by v. 24. — It follows from the notice of ^^-ppa here, that the inhabitants of Bethel were also engaged in this battle. Nothing further is said with reference to it ; but the occurrence of the name of the king of Bethel, in chap. xii. 16, in the list of kings defeated by Joshua, probably refers to the pre sent conflict.1 1 I say probably ; for the defeat of the king of Bethel is not men tioned there in immediate connexion with that of the king of Ai, and therefore it may still he considered doubtful, whether they were both defeated at the same time, or the king of Bethel on some subsequent occasion. We are not in a position to decide with certainty what part the Bethelites took in the battle of the Aites and Israelites; whether, as most expositors imagine, they had already come to Ai as allies, and sallied from the town at the same time as the Aites, or, as Clericus supposes, were summoned by messengers to join in the pursuit, after the latter had left the town. The latter conjecture does not appear to me so probable as the former ; though we cannot adduce as decisive on the point the ambush which was posted between Ai and Bethel. For if the men in ambush were hidden in a deep valley on the north CHAPTER VIII. 18—23. 213 Vv. 18 — 23. As soon as the men of war had all been drawn out of Ai in pursuit of the Israelites, Joshua raised bis hand with the spear, acco-rding to the command of God, and this gave the signal to the men in ambush to rise as quickly as possible from their hiding place and set the city on fire, and also to the rest of the army to halt, and turn their weapons upon their pur suers. At the same time the others attacked them in the rear, after having set fire to the town, and, thus enclosed, they were entirely beaten, not a man escaping, and the King of Ai being taken alive. — V. 18. ^pps^ pH32 stretch out (thy hand) with the spear. as we mav see fr°m v- 19 (pp pfit^s) an(i v- 26 (cf. also Ex. viii. 1). The meaning t : ¦ of Vpp^ is uncertain. In the different passages in which it occurs (1 Sam. xvii. 6. 45 ; Job xxxix. 23, xii. 29 ; Jer. vi. 23, 1. 42) it is rendered by the earlier expositors sometimes shield clypeus, scutum, at other times telum, gaesum, i.e., a large spear (see Bochart hieroz. i. p. 135 sqq.). But the former of these is thoroughly inappropriate in 1 Sam. xvii. 6, 45, and still more so in the other passages, where the word evidently denotes a weapon of attack, most probably a long spear, in distinction from ppjn a lance (cf. Gesenius thes. ii. 683, and Maurer in loco). The latter supposes that at the head of this spear a metal or gilded shield was fixed, resembling the Roman standard, since the men in ambush would not otherwise have been able at so great a distance to see when the spear was stretched out. To west of Ai, the Bethelites might easily pass from one town to the other without noticing them. In any case, however, the fact that the absence of more definite information involves the passage in obscurity, does not justify us in rejecting Sfr$-pp^ as a gloss, as Maurer has done. Neither the absence of the word from the LXX., nor the want of any further reference to the part taken by the Bethelites, throws suspicion upon this passing'notice. The former is sufficiently accounted for by the arbitrary manner in which the LXX. always acted ; the latter is explained by the intention of the historian to confine himself exclusively to the capture of Ai. Havernick (Einl. ii. 1, p. 47), with far greater propriety, deduces from the cursory manner in which the part taken by Bethel is hinted at, a proof that the narrative is both contemporaneous and credible. If it had been merely founded upon a legend of later date, the relation of Bethel to Ai would certainly have been more fullv defined. 214 CAPTURE OF AI. this Gesenius objects that such a shield would have rendered the spear useless, and therefore suggests in preference that there- was a small flag attached to the \"\-]^, as there are in the present day to those of the lancers. Some of the earlier commentators thought of this, and at the same time suggested that persons might have been stationed at different posts to watch for the elevation of the spear, and transmit the signal to the ambuscade. It is at all events clear from v. 19, that the spear was held out as a signal to the men in ambush to leave their hiding place. And even if there were men posted at different stations to watch for it, the nearest must still have had to see it from a consider able distance, so that if it was not a customary thing for a shield or flag to be attached to the JYYO, we must suppose that some thing of the kind enabled them to see Joshua's in the distance, though what it was cannot be decided with certainty. — V. 19. At the appointed signal the men rushed from their hiding place, entered the town, which was now undefended, and speedily set it on fire. — V. 20. Then the Aites turned round behind them and saw. This sudden action on the part of the Aites can only be explained on the supposition that the spear, which Joshua stretched out, was also a signal to the army to halt and turn round upon their pursuers, though it is not till afterwards that we find it actually stated that they did so. Probably as soon as the signal was given by their leader, the Israelites began to halt and defend themselves vigorously against the enemy. Such an unexpected turn of affairs may have excited suspicion in the minds of the Aites, and led them to look round. At once they discern the smoke rising from the town, and also discover that, they are attacked in both front and rear. — Qi-p qpq pppj tf*r) is rendered by Calvin, Masius, Clericus, and others : neque erant eis spatia, or non erat iis locus ( Gesenius thes. ii. 568) ; in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic versions, and by Jarchi, Drusius, Rosenmuller, Qi>p is taken as equivalent to N^ipj virtus, facultas, vires. Valablius and C. a Lapide regard these as equally admis sible, and do not decide in favour of either ; Seb. Schmidt, on the other hand, condemns them both, and supposes that Qvp is used in the place of Qi-jv^ or Q«i-p ^n. To tbe first rendering it has been properly objected by Drusius, that qj-j-j would then be CHAPTER VIII. 18— 23. 215 unsuitable, and QprV must be substituted in its place ; the second is overthrown by the impossibility of sustaining the meaning strength as a rendering of Qi-p, In Ps. lxxvi. 5, the literal mean- • — T ing hands is quite sufficient, and though the word -p appears to mean power or might, yet the reference to the hand is very evi dent, as the instrument of power and might.1 For my own part, therefore, I look upon Qf-p as being an adverbial accusative, meaning on both sides, i.e. "it was not in them to flee on either side," in other words, they were not able to escape in either direction. This meaning is supported by the words which im mediately follow : *\y\ G^nis " tbey bad no power to flee this t t ; way or that way, for the people, that were fleeing to the wilder ness, turned back upon the pursuers," and (v. 2) the ambuscade, which had entered the town, issued out of it against them, so that they were in the midst of Israel. The historian, however, has merely related the events in their external order, without stating the actual connexion between them. V. 21 is simply an expansion of the last clause of v. 20, "Joshua, namely, and all Israel, when they saw that .... turned again and slew the men of Ai."— nVfcO in v* ^2 forms the antithesis to fjjpj Qypp *• " * T "* T T I (v. 20), and refers to the Israelites composing the ambuscade. — 131 Tiffin inSl-"!^ these are the words generally employed to show that all were destroyed even to the last man ; (cf. Num. xxi. 35 ; Deut. iii. 3 ; Josh. x. 33, xi. 8 ; 2 Kings x. 11 j com pare also Josh. x. 28, 30, 37, 39, 40). In all these passages,, how ever, T^to stands alone without 121737) ; the only passages in • T ' T which the two words are found together are Jer. xiii. 17, xliv. 14 ; Lam. ii. 22. Masius supposes the distinction in their mean ing to have been, that •yr^j signified one who had been taken prisoner, top ^a^pnOevra, ^75 one who had escaped and thus avoided death by flight. For this distinction there is no warrant, as Rosenmuller has clearly shown, "p^ft? means, generally, one who has remained alive, j^i^g has the special meaning of 1 Licet nomen ^\ potestatem et. virtutem aliquid agendi, et perfini- endi denotet ; non tamen memini, nomen QVTi in plurali unquam in Scriptura vires, potestatem et virtutem significare. see Ewald Lehrb. § 238, d.— Compare also v. 29 with v. 23. Vv. 24 — 27. After the men who went out of Ai to battle had all been killed, the Israelites returned to the town, and killed those of the inhabitants who had remained behind. For Joshua did not draw back the hand, with which he had stretched out his spear, until the ban had been fully executed on all the inhabi tants of Ai. Only the cattle and the spoil of the town were given up as booty to the victors. — V. 24. ppT2?l *'n the field is placed in antithesis to the town. -Qiai is explanatory of ppj&l to which it stands in apposition ; (on the wilderness yid. v. 15). Dan-1J? usque ad absolutionem eorum, i. e. promts (Gesenius). — On the Piska, in the middle of the verse, see the remarks at chap. iv. 1. — pjp)i$ *|3*p and they smote it (the town), i.e., "all the unwarlike inhabitants who were left behind, the old men, the women, and the children. (J. H. Michaelis). — On y^ ig'p, see chap. vi. 21. — V. 25. All that fell on that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, all the people of A i. From this it is evident that the whole of the population of Ai did not exceed 12,000 men. And there is just as little ground for the explanation given by Masius, that the 12,000 merely refers to those who remained behind in the town, as for that of S. Schmidt, who includes in that number only those who were engaged in tbe battle. The phrase iypj 'TE}3N_'r3 cannot be adduced in support of Schmidfs opinion, for "ij^pj igjj^ means the people of Ai, the inhabitants generally. — V. 26 refers us back to v. 18. The elevation of the spear was the signal to the Israelites to commence the attack, and therefore Joshua did not draw back his hand till the Aites were not only conquered, but destroyed, and thus the design of the expedition was fully accomplished.. We find the same custom amongst other nations of antiquity, of not lowering the signal'of war, till the engagement was at an end. (Cf. Lipsius de milit. rom. 1. iv. dial. 12, and Rosenmuller and Maurer on v. 18.1 — For v. 27, see the remarks on v. 2.) - 1 C. von Lengerke (p. 640) maintains, that a mystical power is here attributed to the signal of war, just as to the elevation of the hands of CHAPTER VIII. 28, 29. 217 Vv, 28, 29. At last the town itself was burnt down, and made into a perpetual heap of rubbish. Its king was hanged upon a stake until the evening, when the body was taken down, thrown down at the gate of the town, and covered with a great heap of stones.— V. 28. As Ai was set on fire at the very outset by the men in ambush (v. 19), we must understand ppftpl bere to mean that it was burnt entirely down. And made it into a permanent heap of ruins. As we meet with Ai again after the captivity, if not in the time of Isaiah (see chap. vii. 2), o^lj; appears to mean here merely a period of indefinite extent. Moreover the additional clause to this day would be superfluous, if Q^y meant everlasting. Evidently the historian merely intended to say, that in his days the heap still existed as a memorial of the destruction of the town, without making any reference to the question, whether it would ever be removed. And it does not follow from the reappearance of Ai in the subsequent history that therefore the town was rebuilt, which had been formerly burnt down. The ruins of the former Ai might still have remained, and a new town have been built near the spot with the old name. It frequently happens that a new town rises in the vicinity of one that has been destroyed, without the ruins of the old one being entirely removed. Hence there is no substantial reason for an arbitrary limitation of the meaning of the word zfoy. — V. 29. The king of Ai he hanged (had him hanged) upon the tree (the stake destined for that purpose) till the eventide. The instruc tions contained in the law with reference to this punishment (Deut. xxi. 22, seq.), were that the criminal should not be hanged alive, but that after he had been put to death his body should be hanged upon a tree. It was only to remain there during the day, and before night came on was to be taken down and buried. This was the course pursued with reference to the king of Ai ; at sunset the body was taken down from the stake, thrown down inside the gate of the town, and, like the body of Achan (chap. vii. 26), covered with a large heap of stones. Moses in the war against the Amalekites, and therefore he rejects this as an incongruous element introduced by the writer. The incongruous element, however, is introduced by v. Lengerke himself; for there is nothing of the kind in the narrative. 218 REMOVAL TO EBAL. Vv. 30 — 35. As soon as Ai was taken, Joshua went with the. whole of the people to the mountains Ebal and Qevizixa, and there carried out the instructions of Moses, that after crossing the Jordan he should set up on Mount Ebal stones covered with plaister, and inscribe the law upon them, and that he should also erect an altar there, and offer burnt-offerings and thank-offerings thereon. (Deut. xxvii. 2- — 8.) The account of this whole transaction has been pronounced by modern critics, e.g. Meyer (in Amnion's and BertholdSs Krit. Journ. ii. p. 353 seq.), Herwerden (ut sup. p. 105 sqq.), Maurer and Rosenmuller (in their commentary on the passage), Hauff (ut sup. p. 142) and v. Lengerke (p. 641), to be a later inter polation. But the arguments brought forward in support of this are so extremely weak and insufficient, that even De Wette in the sixth edition of his introduction, after repeating his former doubts, takes away all their force, by saying : " but after all, this passage is so thoroughly in the style of the author, that it cannot be regarded as a later interpolation." The main argument is that adduced by Meyer, viz., that the paragraph is at variance with the rest of the history, according to which Joshua had not yet proceeded to Mount Gerizim. V. Lengerke goes further (p. 642), and says : " before the first partition of the land the Israelites had not advanced uearly so far towards the north ; for it is evident from x. 41 that they had only reached the country of Gibeon, the actual (?) limit of the furthest expedition, (chap. x. 10.)" Havernick has clearly exposed the incorrectness of this assertion (Einl. ii. 1 p. 17), by showing that Ebal and Gerizim were only about twenty miles distant from Ai ; and as the history states that Joshua had already been on the north of Ai, there is nothing to prevent our supposing that the alarm excited by the fate of Jericho and Ai enabled him to go thus much farther to the north without opposition. (Cf. Konig i. p. 29 seq.) The objection to this account, however, falls completely to the ground, from tbe fact that the assumptions, upon which it is founded, are altogether erroneous. V. Lengerke, for ex ample, assumes without authority that the expedition against the Canaanites of the north (chap, xi.) was not undertaken till after the first partition of the land, and therefore Joshua did not advance farther than Gibeon. Equally unfounded is the other CHAPTER VIII. 30—35. 219 supposition, upon which the objection rests, viz., that the Gilgal, to which Joshua proceeded after the capture of Ai, was the place of his first encampment in the valley of Jordan on the east of Jericho, and that it was thither that the Gibeonites came to his camp. But this is quite a mistake ; the Gilgal, in which we find the camp of the Israelites after chap, viii., as we shall show at chap. ix. 6, is in the neighbourhood of Sichem, on the spot occupied by the modern village of Jiljilia, to the west cf Sinjil (Bethel). Moreover, Ai itself has hitherto been sought too far to the south. But if it was situated where Turmus Aya now stands, Joshua would only be about thirteen miles from Gerizim ; and he could certainly advance so much farther with out the least fear of being attacked by the Canaanites, who were again alarmed at the conquest of Ai, and could also undertake the solemn promulgation of the law in the manner enjoined by Moses. In this respect it would matter little whether he pro ceeded thither immediately after the destruction of Ai, or whether he first marched upon Bethel and took this town, whose inhabitants had tried to succour the Aites, and then advanced to Gilgal, for the sake of making it the base of future operations, before proceeding to Ebal and Gerizim. There is another point upon which Maurer lays stress, namely, that " the passage com mences with i^, in the same manner as the interpolated section, T Deut. iv. 41 — 43." But to found an argument upon this pas sage is a pure petitio principii, nor is there in fact the least foundation for the assertion, made by other critics and adduced in support of their fragment hypothesis, that every paragraph commencing with f^, and followed by an imperfect is either a fragment or an interpolation ; for this particle is universally em ployed, when the historian introduces contemporaneous events, which do not carry the action forward ; in other words, whenever he diverts his attention from the historical order of events, and merely describes particular circumstances as they occurred at the time, without regard to their connection with any other. In the first class we should place Ex. xv. 1 and xxi. 17, where we find songs introduced in the course of the history, as they were sung by the Israelites after the events occurred, and Josh. x. 12, where a passage from an old Book of Songs is quoted in confir- 220 REMOVAL TO EBAL. mation of the miracle, which is there described. The second class comprises the passage before us, and also chap. xxii. 1 ; Deut. iv. 41 ; 1 Kings iii. 16, viii. 1, ix. 11, 24, xi. 7, xvi. 21 ; 2 Kings viii. 22, xii. 18, xv. 16, xvi. 5. In all these passages j^ is followed by the future or the imperfect, descriptive of T " an event as it occurred in past time." " For when any simple event of past days has to be described in a spirited narrative, the writer may suppose himself to be standing on some point from which he views it in its actual occurrence, and as in imagi nation he sees it pass before him as he writes, he can also transport the reader to the period in which it occurred." (Ewald Lehrbuch p. 263.) Lastly, Maurer observes that chap. ix. follows far more naturally upon chap. viii. 29 than upon v. 35 ; and, in fact, we find this paragraph in the Vatican Cod. of the LXX. inserted between the second and third verses of the next chapter. It does not follow, however, from this that it had no fixed place in the text when that translation was made. It is merely another example of the arbitrary manner in which the translators made transpositions in the text to suit their own taste. The particular subject of the paragraph contains in itself a sufficient explanation of the first point adduced. Objections have been brought against the credibility, as well as the authenticity of the verses before us, but on the most trivial grounds. V. Lengerke, for example (p. 642), refuses to accept them as historically true, because " they pre-suppose the existence of Deuteronomy, which belongs to a later period, and the event described is evidently intended as a parallel to the sacrifice offered when the covenant was made on Sinai." But the event recorded here bears too little resemblance to the solemn acceptance of the law by the children of Israel, and the seal thereof by covenant sacrifices (Ex. xxiv. 3 sqq.), for us to speak of imitation ; in fact, the covenant sacrifice, the essential part of the transaction at Sinai, is altogether absent here. It is true that the proceedings at Ebal pre-suppose the covenant made at Sinai, as every renewal of the covenant implied its first establishment, but this reference to the past is one of the strongest proofs of the veracity of the whole account. And in the same way the fact that Deuteronomy is pre-supposed, whilst the passage before us merely mentions the execution of the com- CHAPTER VIII. 30— 31. 221 mands of Moses, as they are contained in Deut. xxvii., furnishes not an argument against, but decisive evidence in favour of its truth. Hence it is with perfect justice that Havernick (Einl. ii. 1 , p. 48) condemns as " far too hasty," the inference drawn by Bleek from this agreement : that " the historian who penned the account of the precepts, also interpolated the present descrip tion of their fulfilment," (Rosenmuller' s Repert. i. p. 55), and founds upon their agreement a powerful argument in favour of the credibility of the present history ; for the author simply writes as one " who had those precepts vividly before his eyes, and re ferred to them on account of the completeness with which they are recorded." Vv. 30, 31. Mount Ebal, where Joshua erected the altar, was situated on the north of Sichem, opposite to Mount Gerizim, which was on the south side of the same town.1 These moun tains rise with rocky cliffs almost perpendicularly to the height of about 800 feet on every side, from a broad valley of 3000 paces long, and from 500 to 1000 in width, in which the city of Sichem (Nabulus) is built (see Winer R.W. i. p. 455, and Robinson iii. p. 96). Most of the earlier travellers describe Gerizim as fruitful and picturesque, Ebal on the contrary as a rugged and barren mass of rock (cf. Winer ut supra) ; but ac cording to Robinson the sides of both, as seen from the valley, are equally bleak and barren, the only difference being that there is a small cleft in the side of Gerizim, towards the western end of the city of Nabulus, which is certainly full of springs and trees. With this exception the mountains are both barren, having only two or three olive trees scattered about. — The altar on Ebal was built, as Moses had commanded (Deut. xxvii. 5 seq.), of uninjured i.e. unhewn stones, f^yy^j D^IN' " on which no man had lifted up any iron." The reason for this command was not, " that unhewn stones still retain the sanctity of nature, 1 There is no necesssity now to prove that the reading in the Sama ritan Pentateuch, Deut. xxvii. 4, which is defended by Kennicott, and where the altar is said to have been built upon Mount Gerizim, is not the original reading, but an alteration, arbitrarily made in the text to suit the peculiarities of the later Samaritan worship, which was offered upon this mountain. Cf. Verschuir dissert, phil. exeg. p. 41 sqq. and Gesenius de Pentat. Samarit. p. 61. 222 ERECTION OF AN ALTAR. and are therefore more suitable for their holy purpose," as Spencer (de legib. Hebr. rit. ii. c. 4, 2), Maurer, Rosenmuller, and others suppose,1 but that every altar of the true God ought properly to have been built of earth (Ex. xx. 24), and if ever it was constructed of stone (Ex. xx. 25), rough unhewn .stones were to be employed, that it might retain both the appearance and nature of earth. " Had the stones been hewn, they would not have represented the earth, in its elementary state, and therefore would not have tallied with either the meaning or the essential nature of an altar." The altar of sacrifice must be of earth, or at least must retain the look and nature of earth, since every bloody sacrifice was immediately connected with sin and death, by which man, the creature of earth, is brought to earth again. Gen. iii. 17—19. (cf. Bdhr Symbolik i. p. 488, and my work entitled: der Tempel Salomo's p. 154). — "And they offered thereon burnt offerings unto the Lord, and sacrificed peace offerings," as Moses had commanded (Deut, xxvii. 6, seq.), and as had been done before when the covenant was made, (Ex. xxiv. 5). The transaction, recorded here, was a solemn renewal of the covenant, on which occasion the people were again recon ciled to the Lord by means of the burnt offering, whilst by the repast, associated with the thank offering (Deut. xxvii. 7), the communion of life with God, a communion both of house and table, was once more restored. V. 32. The covenant of Israel with Jehovah rested, however, upon the law, which Jehovah had given to his people, that they might perform all its words. Hence every renewal of the cove nant involved a renewal of the law. And therefore Moses had commanded that, as soon as they entered the promised land, the law should be inscribed upon stones overlaid with plaister, and that the stones should be set upon Mount Ebal ; Deut. xxvii. 2 — 4 and 8. The execution of this command is described here with brevity. Only the principal thing is mentioned : " he wrote there upon the stones a copy of the law of Moses ;" the rest, viz., the setting up of the stones and the covering of them with plaister, being passed over in silence, since it followed as 1 Other reasons, equally arbitrary and unfounded, are mentioned and refuted by Spencer lib. ii. 6. 1. (cf. also Lundius die jud Heiligth. p. 317, and Bdhr Symbol, i. p. 487. sqq.) CHAPTER VIII. 32. 223 a matter of course that the precepts of Moses were obeyed in all respects. — The definite article in Q^l^n hv " uPon the stones" n • . " T — *T "" ? refers, as is generally admitted, to the same words Q^l^n hv in Deut. xxvii. 8, and still further back to the stones spoken of in vv. 2 — 4 of the same chapter, proving clearly that we are not to understand by them the stones of the altar, as Josephus (Ant. iv. 8 — 44, and v. 1 — 19), the Syriac, and Maurer have done, but the large stones covered with plaister, which were set upon Mount Ebal, in addition to the altar, -and probably by the side of it ; (cf. Hengstenberg Beitr. ii. p. 461 note). — pjjtyft is rendered by the LXX and Vulgate : Aevrepovo/uov, Deuterono- mium, by the Chaldee and Syriac. p$piD> I1 it " 'fl> a c0Py (compare Esther ii. 14), literally a duplicate. pi21E>a 1S use^ in the same sense in Deut. xvii. 18. — Several of the Rabbins and Mich. Baumgarten (on Deut. xxvii.) suppose that the whole of the law was written upon_the stones; some indeed, following the Tal mudists (in the tract. Sota c. 7), speak of it as written in 70 lan guages, that all the people of the earth might be able to read it. Michaelis (Mos. R. ii. § 69) explains it as meaning "every thing in the books of Moses that has the character of law ;" by Serar. and C. a Lapide it is supposed to have been "the whole of Deuteronomy ;" by Seb. Milnster, Clarius, and Steudel (Vorle- sungen iiber d. alttestl. Theol. S. 452) an extract from the law, to what extent it is impossible to determine ; by Grotius, Kenni- kott,Hasse" the Decalogue as the essence of the whole law ;" by Ising (ut sup. p. 106), Masius, Maurer, Rosenmiiller, and many others, " the curses and blessings contained in Deut. xxvii. ;" and by Vater and. Hengstenberg (ut supra), "the so-called second law," viz., the section from Deut. iv. 44 to xxvi. 19. Between these explanations it is not an easy matter to make a choice. The whole of the Thordh cannot for a moment be thought of, its extent being far too great for it to have been all written upon stones, however large they might have been. On the other hand it seems arbitrary to interpret it as meaning an extract from the law, or the Decalogue as the essence of it, since the text does not hint at this , either here or in Deut. xxvii. 2 sqq. To limit the law to the blessings and curses is out of the question, for these are not the law, but motives added to impel or rather 224 PROMULGATION OF THE LAW. adjure the people to keep the law inviolate. And the only argu ment adduced in support of this explanation, viz., " that it is by no means probable that one law was proclaimed byword of mouth,and another written upon the stones," tells rather against than for it, since a distinction is expressly made in Deut. xxvii. between the law, which was to be inscribed upon the stones, (v. 8) and the blessings and curses which were to be uttered in the hearing of the people upon the two mountains (ver. 11 sqq.). The true interpretation is evidently that given by Vater and Hengstenberg. For, according to Deut. xxvii. 2 and 8, the law, which the Israelites were to inscribe upon the stones, must mean "the laws, which had b>en given* on that day, in their whole .extent, the quintessence" of the Th'irah, which constitutes the kernel of Deuteronojny, and from -winch the book derives its name," i. e. the so-g^led "second law from Deut. iv. 44 — xxvi. 29, which belaflged peculiarly to that day." Of course it is understood that only the commandments were written, which Moses gave them on that day, and not the exhortations, with which he urged their ob servance. The design of this inscription was not, as Michaelis and Dereser suppose, to transmit the law unaltered to future genera tions ; but, as Maurer and Hengstenberg observe, the immediate purpose was answered " when the act itself was performed ; it only related to posterity in so far as the record of the event would be handed down in the Book of Joshua, or the documents which formed the ground work of it." " The external inscription was a symbol of the internal ;" as we may see from v. 26 : " cursed is he that doth not set up all the words of this law to do them," compared with ver. 4 : " therefore it shall be when ye be gone over Jordan, that ye shall set up these stones, which 1 command you this day, in Mount Ebal ;" cf. Hengstenberg p. 462 seq.1 1 The fall of this erroneous conjecture with regard to the design of the inscription is also fatal to the opinion of Michaelis, that Moses in tended the law to be engraved upon stones and then covered with plaister, " in order that the inscription might remain for many years, uninjured by either the air or rain, and when the plaister should at length fall off after hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, might be exposed to view for the first time, and show to men in the most distant ages how far the law had been fully observed." But it is evident from the words of Moses : " cover them (the stones) with plaister, and write upon them all the words of the law," that the law was written upon the coating of plaister itself (Deut. xxvii. 2 seq). chapter viii. 33 — 35. 225 The words " which he wrote in the presence of the children of Israel" refer to Moses' having written out the second code imme diately after its promulgation, and then placed the whole book of the law in the hands of the priests, Deut. xxxi. 9 and 24 sqq. Vv. 33 — 35. The people were all assembled before the ark of the covenant, six tribes standing on one side of it towards Gerizim, and six on the other towards Ebal, the ark itself being placed in the valley, near to Sichem, with the priests, who usually carried it, in a circle round. As soon as the stones bad been set up, with the law written upon them, the whole of the law was solemnly read,% together with the blessings and curses contained in it. Of these each was read aloud by the Levites, in the order in which they stood, and as they read, to each blessing the six tribes, which were stationed on Gerizim, uttered Amen, and to each curse those upon Ebal responded in the same way. By this they declared their approbation of the blessings and curses, so proclaimed, and accepted the law, with all its results, whether good or evil. Such were the instructions given by Moses, Deut. xxvii. 11 sqq. The historian took. for granted that these in structions were known, and therefore merely mentioned the ful filment of the most important, that every reader might see how faithfully Joshua had carried out the precepts of Moses. The reason why the people upon Mount Gerizim responded to the blessings, and those upon Mount Ebal to the curses, has been sought by most commentators, down to the time ofSteudel, in the natural difference between the two mountains ; (see Rosenmiiller on Deut. xxvii. 4 and Winer R. W. 1 p. 456). But this opinion falls to the ground when we find that the supposed difference be tween the two mountains is not quite established (see above v. 30), and also consider that the altar was erected on Ebal, on which the Israelites offered the burnt and thank-offerings as a sign of the renewal of their fellowship with the Lord. M. Baumgarten (Com. i. 2, p. 516) imagines that this arrangement was intended to show " that the curse was wiped away by means of the sacri fice, for thereby Israel carried out the curse upon itself and con demned itself, and thus escaped the condemnation of God, (1 Cor. xi. 31 )." But even if such a meaning were ever traceable in sacrifice (a doubtful point), in the present instance a sacrificial ceremony, which sealed the renewal of the covenant with God, 15 * 226 PROMULGATION OP THE LAW. could hardly have had so limited a signification. Moreover the' curse was not pronounced upon the whole nation, but upon those alone who should transgress the law, and for such the curse re mained in full force, and was by no means wiped away. The erection of the altar upon the mountain, on which the curses were uttered, seems to have been intended, much more probably, to teach that the Israelites need never fear the curse, so long as they kept the covenant and preserved their fellowship of life with God. I do not think that there is anything in the nature of the case to enable us to decide why Ebal was selected in preference to Gerizim for that purpose. It is probable, however, that Moses (Deut. xi. 29 and xxvii. 12 sqq.) appointed Gerizim as the spot from which the blessings should be proclaimed, and Ebal for the curses, merely with reference to their geographical position. For as the Levites would be sure to stand with their faces towards the ark when reading the law, they would have Gerizim on their right hand and Ebal on the left. And as the right side has generally been regarded as the more honourable position, Gerizim would certainly seem better suited for the blessing, and Ebal for the curse. On the Levite-priests see chap. iii. 3 ; and on the article in ¦pjjnn chap. vii. 21. — PUUJNIl belongs, not to Tn^,. ; V — T • T ' •• t : but to pp^ "as Moses had previouslycommanded, that theyshould T' bless the people of Israel." — V. 34. p-i-iHNl an<^ after this (had been done, i. e. after the altar had been erected, and the people had taken the places assigned), he read all the icords of the law, the blessings and cursings. pj3"^in an(i Pl^^ipn are not restricted t t : — t tI: — to the blessings contained in Deut. xxviii. 1 — 14, and the curses in Deut. xxvii. 15 — 26, and xxviii. 15 — 68, but embrace all the words of the law, expressive of either a blessing or a curse, of which the so-called blessings and curses merely form a part; although they really contain the sum and substance of all the blessing and cursing contained in the law. The words pf3"llrl tlhhpTl are not connected by the copula with pplPin i-QT-'^ and are therefore to be taken as explaining, or intended to bring out prominently, the contents of the law. From which it follows that all the words of the law are described as either a blessing or a curse. The commandments of the law themselves, apart alto gether from the promises and threats attached to them, contain CHAPTER IX. 227 a blessing and a curse, a blessing if obeyed, a curse if broken. We have a full explanation of the words in Deut. xi. 26 sqq., where Moses, referring to the law which he had been impressing upon the hearts of the people in the plains of Moab, says he has laid before them a blessing and a curse, " a blessing if ye obey the commandments of the Lord your God, which I command you this day ; a curse, if ye will not obey the commandments of the Lord your God, but turn aside out of the way, which I com mand you this day, to go after other gods, which ye have not known." It is clearly expressed in v. 35, that Joshua had the whole law read to the people ; " there was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not (did not have read) before all the congregation of Israel," i. e. not only before the 7^tol "OS mV> tne assembly of men with the heads of the people, but ^N^to1 ^np~^3 "T!Gj before all the people, including women, children, and even the foreigners in the midst of them. CHAPTER IX. THE GIBEONITES BY CRAFT SAVE THEMSELVES FROM DESTRUCTION. Vv. 1 and 2 contain the introduction to chaps, ix. — xi. When the Canaanites perceived that the Israelites had pene trated into the interior of the laud, and had established them selves at Gilgal, they assembled their forces, that they might make a combined attack updh them. A similar introduction is found at chap. v. 1. The miraculous division of the waters of the Jordan had so terrified them at first, that the Israelites were able to encamp at Gilgal, and take Jericho and Ai, without any general resistance being offered by the rest of the kings of Canaan. Gradually, however, they recovered themselves, pro bably under the influence of the first defeat of the Israelites at 15-» 228 COMBINATION AGAINST ISRAEL. Ai, and when their panic subsided they determined to unite their forces for an attack upon the foreign invaders. ^atU3 ls with out an object ; but it is easy to supply from the context the words : " what the Israelites had already done, and what they were about to undertake." fTPpj "11171 1S applied here to that part of Canaan which is on this side of tbe Jordan, as in chap. v. 1, without, however, the addition of pj^, which we find T — there. The land is classified under three heads: -)pin the hill , t T T country, pj~iQ$n the plain, and Qitpi nipt the sea coast over against Lebanon, -|pjn °-oes n°t refer exclusively to the hilly country in the province afterwards allotted to the tribe of Judah, as it does in chap. x. 40, xi. 16, &c, and as Rosenmuller sup poses that it does here. It includes the whole range which was afterwards divided into the mountains of Ephraim and the mountains of Judah (cf. v. Raumer pal. p. 43). pJT>Dl$n is the low country along the Mediterranean, reaching from the pro montory of Carmel to Gaza (see v. Raumer p. 52 sqq.) ; it embraces the whole tract of land from the sea-coast to the moun tains, and includes, therefore, — as we may see from chap. xv. 33-47, — the hills which intervene between the mountains and the actual plain, pppj coast, shore, is only used in poetry, with the exception of the present passage and Deut. i. 7. We find it Gen. xlix. 13 ; Judg. v. 17 ; Jer. xlvii. 7 ; Ezek. xxv. 16. The coast of the great sea is the shore of the Mediterranean from the isthmus of Tyre to the plain of Joppa, see v. Raumer p. 50 seq. : and tlilVn ^>ia~7N is attached to h'ipj as a more precise description of this northern part of the sea coast.— For the six tribes of Canaan mentioned here see chap. iii. 10. — V. 2. pjQ "in^ w"ith one mouth (1 Kings xxii. 13) ; hence in the present case with one accord. Hauff (p. 148) has made a mistake in referring this merely to the tribes in the south of Canaan, who are spoken of in the tenth chapter as associated in war: in doing so he has overlooked the fact that the first two verses contain the introduction to the whole account of the two following cam paigns of Joshua in chapters x. and xi. Vv. 3 — 5. There was one exception to the unanimity which prevailed amongst the Canaanites. The elders of Gibeon pre- CHAPTER IX. 3—5. 229 ferred craft to force, and endeavoured to save themselves from -destruction by forming an alliance with Israel (vv. 3 — 16). They sent ambassadors to the camp of the Israelites at Gilgal, who pretended to have come from a far distant land, dressed themselves in a manner likely to support their assertion, and by means of this deception actually succeeded in forming the alliance they desired. V. 3. Il^n^ TaBawv or Tafiaoo (LXX. and Josephus), Gibeon was a city situated, as its name indicates, upon a hill. It was about 40 stadia from Jerusalem, according to Josephus Ant. vii. 11. 7 (50 according to his bell. jud. ii. 19, 1), on the road towards Beth-horon and Lydda.1 In size it sur passed Ai, being one of the royal cities, though then without a king. Its constitution was republican ; under the government of elders : the republic embracing, in addition to Gibeon, the towns of Chephirah, Beeroth, and Kirjath-jearim (v. 17). It was inhabited by Hivites, a brave population (v. 7 ; chap. x. 2, and xi. 19). In the division of the land it was allotted by Joshua to Benjamin (chap, xviii. 25), and was one of the cities given by them to the Levites (chap, xxi, 17). The tabernacle stood there for several years during the reigns of Saul and David (1 Chr. xvi. 39, xxi. 29 ; 2 Chr. i. 3 ; cf. Reland Pal. p. 810 seq.). At present its site is occupied by a village called <-__*a^» 11 (el Jib), which stands upon a detached hill (Robin son ii. p. 132 sqq.). — V. 4. They did work wilily. There have been different opinions expressed with reference to the compari son implied in the words p[ftp| Q^. Calvin, Masius, Clericus, and Rosenmuller suppose that they refer to the consultationes conspirationesque spoken of in v. 2, as having been entered upon 1 Eusebius describes Gibeon as being four Roman miles distant from Bethel irpbs ras 8vEJ}n (v' 12) may easily have led them to give the preference to the same word here. In reply to the objection offered to the text on the ground that s£^ then becomes altogether superfluous, it may be said that there will be the same redundancy if we adopt the reading of the ancient versions ; it is sufficiently accounted for from the verbosity of the popular style. Still the passages brought forward by Maurer in proof of this are quite inapplicable, and the use of ^y^f\ is still very strange if we are to render CHAP PER IX. 3—5. 231 ll^aST1 " they started upon their way." But this rendering is as far from expressing the meaning of the word as that of the ancient expositors, "legatos se simularunt," to which Capellus and others have justly objected that " they did not pretend to be ambassadors, for they were ambassadors, the pretence consisted, in tlieir saying that they came from a distant land." -p^, which is not met with any where else, except as a substantive with the meaning nuncius, corresponds to the Arabic '\ ivit, pervenit, and means in Hebrew ; nuncium s. legatum semetipsum facere, ablegatum s. missum proficisci (Fiirst cone. s. v.) Hence the whole passage should be translated : " they went and travelled as ambassadors," or "they started on their journey as ambassa dors ;" and "f{^yf\ then ceases to be out of place. — \y^7'2. O^&iDj old, worn out sacks, into which the provisions required for the journey were placed, pi nllNb' wineskins. To the present day leathern bags are used in the East for the purpose either of preserving or carrying liquids (e.g. water, milk, and wine) ; these are generally made of goatskins, prepared in a peculiar manner, of which a description is given by Robinson (ii. p. 441.) Compare on the whole subject Winer R. W. ii. p. 490. — O^i&jl D^p^ft torn and mended, yfi's, to split, to tear, to tear in pieces. *p^jj to bind together. This word is very significant, since in the East, as we learn from Cherdin (in Rosenmiiller 's A. u. N. Morgen land iii. p. 4), they repair the skins, when torn, either by sewing in a new piece, or by tying the two torn parts together like a purse. The Gibeonites had no doubt adopted the latter mode, as they pretended that the skins were worn out in consequence of the long journey (v. 13), and they would therefore not have had time to sew in new pieces. — V. 5. pfiN ^ft strongly mended. Observe the emphatic form Pual. CH&l either crumbs, micae panis, i^advpm/j.evo'i (Aquila), tcdwupos (Symmachus), in frusta comminuti (Vulgate) ; or mouldy, evpariav (LXX), BeBprnpe- voi (Theodoret.) It is difficult to determine which is correct. Nothing is proved by the remark made by Rosenmuller, in opposition to the rendering " crumbled :" that " loaves are composed of crumbs when not mouldy, and it was therefore no sign of age for them to have crumbled to pieces," for if bread is 232 RUSE OF THE GIBEONITES. so dry, that it falls to pieces, this is a tolerably conclusive sign of its being old. The meaning " mouldy " rests only upon the use of -ft-yy with the signification, covered with spots, spotted, Gen. • T xxx. 32 sqq. ; QV753 ppp| would therefore mean turned to spots. •I "•. ¦ T T Whether this is a suitable description of anything mouldyL very ruch question, and certainly prefer the former meaning crumbs. I 1 favour of this we may further adduce 1 Kings xiv. 3, where CHM is nse& f°r baked pastry of a fine description, cracknels ; a meaning nearly allied to crumbs, but not in the least to mouldy. Vv. 6, 7. In this state the Gibeonitish ambassadors come to Joshua in the camp at Gilgal, introduce themselves as ambassa dors from a far country, and endeavour to form an alliance with the Israelites. By the words " from a distant land," which they repeat with greater emphasis (v. 9), " from a very far country we are come," they mean that they do not belong to the Canaanites, that their country is situated on the outside, or be yond the borders of tbe land of Canaan. This is confirmed by the saying that they had heard, that the Israelites were only about to take possession of Canaan, and destroy its inhabitants. — Gilgal, though regarded bj' the great body of commentators and geographers as the same place as that in which the Israelites first encamped (chap. iv. 19), is a different place altogether. It was no other than the Gilgal we frequently meet with in Judges and the first Book of Samuel, situated on the mountains in the vicinity of Bethel, and which still exists under the name of Jiljilia (cf. Robinson iii. p. 81, seq.). The probability of this I have shown in my Comm. on the Book of Kings, p. 233, sqq. Nothing but the fact of there being no other Gilgal in Canaan could justify us in supposing that the present Gilgal was situated in the valley of Jordan. But as there was another, and it is said moreover to have stood opposite to the mountains Ebal and Gerizim (Deut. xi. 30), we assume without hesitation that Joshua pitched his tent there. For we dare not for a moment attribute to Joshua the folly of going back, after he had penetrated to the very heart of the country, and again taking up his position on the extreme eastern border of the land, thus leaving the Canaanites at perfect liberty to move unfettered amidst the very cities and places that he had already conquered. It may be objected to CHAPTER IX. 6, 7. 233 this, that we are not told that he removed the camp to Gilgal after the capture of Ai. This is true, but it proves nothing, as any one may perceive, who reflects that in chap. viii. 30, we find no account of his proceeding from Ai to the mountains Ebal and Gerizim, and that in fact the Book does not give a consecutive account of all the marches and tactics of Joshua, but merely a cursory description, from the theocratic point of view, of the con quest of Canaan by the Israelites under Joshua. It was, no doubt, the favourable opportunities, which Gilgal afforded to Joshua for the execution of his plans both in the North and South of the land, that induced him to select it as his head quarters. It was in the centre of the country, situated upon a steep hill, with good table land upon the top, and commanded a most extensive prospect of the large plain in the West, and also towards the North and East. — V. 7. The Keri ^ftfc^ is found iu many MSS., yet it is only a grammatical emendation, made, not on account of the singular \jp.fc$, for this is frequently met with in the historical books, construed as a noun of multitude with a. plural verb (e.g. Judges viii. 22, xx. 36, 1 Sam. xiv. 22, and others), but in accommodation to the singular suffix "rtpWi. The Kethibh Jp^QX"! 1S therefore not to be altered. We may easily account for the singular in "Q^p^ on the supposition that only one of the Israelites spoke as the representative of the whole people, and therefore that the suffix relates not to this individual, but to the people regarded as one. This we may clearly deduce from the words : — " how shall / make a league with thee." i!)pfpj are the Gibeonites, who are here classed in the Hivite division of the Canaanites ; cf. chap. iii. 10. The obstacle pointed out by the Israelites, that, if the Gibeonites dwelt in the midst of them, that is in the land of Canaan, they could not form an alliance with them, arose from the express command of God, that they were not to make a league with the inhabitants of Canaan (Ex. xxiii. 32, xxxiv. 12 ; Deut. vii. 2 ; cf. Michaelis Mos. R. 1, § 62). With reference to other nations there was no such restriction. The reason assigned for this prohibition was the danger, that the Canaanites would become a snare to the Israelites and tempt them to idolatry (Ex. xxiii. 33, xxxiv. 12 ; Num. xxxiii. 55 ; Deut. vii. 4, &c.) But this danger did not exist, at least to the 234 TREATY WITH THE GIBEONITES. same extent, in the case of others, and therefore, as we may infer from Deut. xx. 11, they were not absolutely forbidden to con clude a treaty with them. — On q^-py'niN an<^ tbe Keri -pniN see Gesenius Lehrgeb. p. 308. Vv. 8 — 13. On further examination the ambassadors from Gibeon gave to Joshua the full explanation, that they had heard of the mighty works which God had wrought on behalf of his people Israel, and had been induced in consequence to come from their land afar off, and enter into an alliance with the Israelites in the name of the elders of their latid. In proof of the distance from which they had come, they point to the condition of the travelling utensils and provisions. — The expression " we are thy servants" must be regarded as an oriental mode of speech, by which they endeavoured to win the favour of Joshua, and not as a declaration of readiness on their part to submit to the Israelites and serve them, which Serarius, C. a Lapide, Rosenmuller sup pose it to have been. For the alliance they wished for was, as Grotius correctly observes, foedus sociale, quo terra et plena libertas ipsis relinqueretur. — i|NlFl p&$a whence may you have come ? The use of the imperfect or future in this question, in stead of the perfect or preterite, which we generally find (Gen. xvi. 8, xiii. 7), is thus explained by Maurer, "He who says n^l Wa* Pats tbe question sternly and emphatically ; but he who says ^llPl l^Na* puts it with modesty and politeness." This explanation is more satisfactory than that offered by Ewald (Lehrb. § 136) viz. : that the sense is varied in order that the same action may be represented either as just completed, or as still in progress, and thus the imperfect may be used in the place of the real present ; in which view Gesenius joins (Lehrgeb. p. 770). — ^j*ipt 7S! nln"1 Dph because of the name, or to the name of Jehovah thy God. ^ expressed the outward cause or the object with reference to which anything has been done (Ewald Lehrb. p. 411.) — From the mighty works performed by the Lord, the Gibeonites select only those which were done in Egypt and the overthrow of the two kings of the Amorites (see at ii. 10), and mention these as having come to their ears ; for sufficient time had elapsed since these occurred, for the report of them to be carried to distant lands. They pass over in silence the miracles CHAPTER IX. 8 — 13. 235 wrought at the crossing of the Jordan and at Jericho, " because it would have been impossible for the rumour of those events to reach them, if they came, as they said, from so distant a land." (Masius). — On the towns Heshbon and Ashtaroth, see chap. xii. 2 and 4. — V. 11. iiiiyMj our elders, as the heads of the repub lic. — V. 12. 12J3piV nt this bread of ours, sc. look at it. On the use of the pronoun before the definite substantive, see Ewald, Lehrb. § 298 b- It is evident from the parallel pj 7N v* 1°", that pCj is a true pronoun, and not, as Maurer supposes, a particle with the meaning there. — "ptGJjn from -y^ provision for a journey, is not to be rendered, as has been done by modern lexicographers : " to take provision for a journey," but as the addition of lp^ shows, " to take it as their provision." (Maurer). Vv. 14 — 15. The Israelites were deceived by these representa tions, and trusting to their own eyes and ears instead of enquir ing at the mouth of the Lord, they made peace with the Gibeonites at their desire. Different explanations have been given of the words ^ inplV The Chaldee paraphrases it in the following manner llppaSnQ? N'Hl^l iV^lpl an^ the men listened to their words, taking -p,jj as synonymous with pnjj> which means insi- • — TT diatus est, and so rendering it by verbis insidiosis, as Jarchi has done. But this is altogether arbitrary. By others it is gene rally translated correctly, " and the men (the Israelites) took of their provisions. But why did they do this ? Vatablius and others suppose that this was a confirmation of the treaty they had made, a ceremony proving their readiness to form an alliance and retain their friendship. But no such custom can be inferred from Gen. xxxi. 46, as they suppose ; all that we read there is that Jacob and Laban ate together, after they had made a cove nant. Others imagine that the Israelites took some of their pro visions and tasted them that they might be satisfied with reference to the age. But the text says nothing about eating or tasting. Still less ground is there for the opinion expressed by Dereser and in the Exegetical Handbook, that the taking referred to was the acceptance of gifts, brought by the Gibeonites. The correct explanation is that given by Masius and addressed by Michaelis and Rosenmuller, that " a contrast is intended between taking of 236 DISCOVERY OF THEIR STRATAGEM. the bread of the Gibeonites in their hands and trusting their own eyes on the one hand, and asking of the mouth, or oracle of the Lord, on the other." The same idea is hinted at in the remark made by Calvin : " In my opinion the stress is laid upon their excessive credulity, in easily swallowing the fabulous story, and yet overlooking the absurdity of the tales, whilst tliey looked closely at the bread. Taking the provision was merely a sign, that they relied upon the statement made by the Gibeonites, instead of asking at the mouth of the Lord, i.eT, enquiring his will by means of the Urim and Thummim of the High Priest (Num. xxvii. 21). In this the Israelites were wrong, though they did not thereby break any express commandment of God, so as to enable us to describe their offence as a disregard of the law of Moses, as Maurer (in chap. vii. 24) and v. Lengerke have done. — V. 15 ijyrjj-p} toj^l all(^ Joshua granted them peace, (cf. Is. xxvii. 5) ; not, " made peace with them " (De Wette), and made a covenant with them (?nS in their favour). Qpy'pn'? to T T — '. let them live, i.e., not to make war upon them or destroy them. This covenant was confirmed by the oaths of the princes of the congregation (the heads of tribes). Vv. 16 — 21. Three days only had elapsed after the treaty was made, when the Israelites discovered that the Gibeonites had overreached them. They proceeded at once to their cities, and though they did not smite them, notwithstanding the murmurs of the people, on account of the oath of the princes ; yet, whilst they gave them their lives, they decided, according to the advice of their leaders, that they should for ever be hewers of wood and drawers of water in the tabernacle for the use of the congrega tion. — V. 16. The suffixes in f^N and 1^-pa, are used collec tively, referring to ^N^fep as a people. — V. 17. And came to '• t : • their cities on the third day, sc. after they had discovered the trick which had been played upon them. Gibeon was not more than 18 or 20 miles distant from Gilgal, and on a subsequent occasion Joshua passed from one place to the other with his whole army in a single night (chap. x. 9). Hence when it is said that the Israelites arrived there on the third day, this is not to be interpreted as meaning that their journey occupied three days ; though at the same time it is to be borne in mind CHAPTER IX. 16—21. 237 that there was no necessity for their hurrying this time. — pppQSn Chephirah was afterwards allotted to the tribe of Benjamin along with Gibeon and Beeroth (chap, xviii. 25, 26) and continued standing after the captivity (Ezra ii. 25 ; Nehem. vii. 29). No thing farther is known about it. py'nfc^a, Beeroth (2 Sam. iv. 2) is still represented by the village x-aa. 31 el Bireh, which numbers about 700 inhabitants and retains many traces of antiquity, (cf. Robinson ii. p. 130 sqq.) It is about three hours' journey from Jerusalem, from el Jib only about fifteen or twenty minutes. Eusebius says that Beeroth was seven Roman miles distant from Jerusalem on the road towards Nicopolis (Am was). Instead of Nicopolis Jerome writes Neapolis. The reading of Jerome has been rejected by Reland (Pal. p. 618 seq.) and all modern writers after him, and that of Eusebius adopted in preference ; (cf. Hamelsv. iii. p. 265, Rosenmuller Althk. ii. p. 184; Winer R.W. i. p. 171 seq. ; Gesenius thes. i. p. 176 ; v. Raumer Pal. p. 195). Even Robinson says that Jerome's statement is erroneous. But it is unjustly rejected, for el Bireh is not on the road from Jerusalem to "Nicopolis,1 but to the north of el Jib on the way to Neapolis (Robinson iii. p. 76 seq.), and, according to Robin son's map, just seven Roman miles from Jerusalem ; so that a person travelling quickly might very well reach it in two hours and three-quarters.2 — 0"Hjn rp'lp Kirjath-Jearim, also called Kirjath-Baal (chap. xv. 60), Baala (chap. xv. 9) and Baale Jehuda (2 Sam. vi. 2), was assigned to the tribe of Judah, 1 Even if we look, as Robinson does, at the present camel-road, which runs from Jerusalem to Ramleh past el Jib, whilst the straight road from Aelia to Nicopolis runs to the south of el Jib at a much greater distance. 2 But even Robinson has suffered himself to be led astray by the authority of Reland, whose decision- in favour of Eusebius is supported by three very insufficient reasons. He has in consequence endeavoured to bring the discovery, which he had himself made of the situation of Beeroth from personal observation, into harmony with the description given by Eusebim, by giving the following arbitrary interpretation of the words Ku>p,r) ttXtjo-iov 'Aikias Kariovnov irrl tliKoirokiv diro £' v : " Beeroth was seen by the traveller at the seventh Roman milestone on the, wav from Jerusalem to Nicopolis," since the traveller, on issu ing from the mountains into the plain around el Jib, sees el Bireh on his right hand, when rather more than two hours' journey from Jeru salem. 238 THE GIBEONITES ARE SPARED. and was afterwards celebrated on account of the length of time during which the ark remained there (chap. xv. 60, xviii. 15; 1 Chr. ii. 50 ; also 1 Sam. vii. 2 ; 2 Sam. vi. 2 ; 1 Chr. xiii 6). It stood upon the borders of the tribe of Benjamin, at a dis tance of nine or ten Roman miles, according to the Onomast., on the road to Diospolis or Lydda. Hence Robinson (ii. p. 335 sqq.) has endeavoured with great plausibility to prove that Kirjath Jearim is still to be found in the modern. Kurjet el Enab (i__^ Is'j j). At all events the situation of this place an swers well to all that we can gather from the Old Testament and the Onomast. of Eusebius, with regard to that of Kirjath Jearim. V. 18. The Israelites smote them not, i.e., they did not de stroy them by the sword, because the princes of the congregation had sworn to them by Jehovah the God of Israel. To this oath the heads of the tribes adhered, in spite of the murmurings of the people against them (v. 19). Most of the expositors are of opinion that the Israelites were under no obligation to observe the treaty which they had entered into with the Gibeonites. Even Buddeus says (h. e. i. 658) : "If Joshua had been deter mined to act with strict justice towards them, he need not have kept the treaty. For the very condition, on which it rested, that they did not belong to the tribes of Canaan, formed part of the essence of the treaty. And the oath presented no obstacle, since that could only be binding, provided the treaty itself was one that could be maintained. The opposite opinion is expressed by Osiander, Ising (p. 208), C. a Lapide, and Clericus. The latter speaks most strongly on the subject ; " The Hebrew chiefs," says he, " do not seem to have introduced any proviso into the treaty, to the effect that they entered into covenant with them simply on the understanding that they were living in a distant country, and that if this were not the case it would be null and void. They merely swore that they would not take away the lives of the Gibeonites, and strengthened their oath by an appeal to the name of the God of Israel. They were therefore no longer in a position to revoke their oath." The arguments on both sides, however, contain something which is untenable. Nearly all the expositors assume that, in accordance with Deut. xx. 10 sqq., any Canaanites, who sued for peace, were to be spared, and only CHAPTER IX. 18. 239 those to be destroyed who did not peaceably yield. But the incorrectness of such an assumption is most clearly proved by the express declaration in v. 15, that the instructions given in vv. 10 — 18 only relate to wars with cities situated at a distance, and outside the land of Canaan ; nor does it derive any support from Josh. xi. 18 — 20, which is often quoted in its favour. J. D. Michaelis (Mos. Recht. i. § 62) has also observed : " Per haps the biographer of Joshua intended to say, that if the Canaanites had sued for peace, the Israelites would have been kinder than the law, and would have granted them what Moses had forbidden." When the writer of the book of Joshua says in chap. xi. 18 sqq. : " It was of the Lord, that none of the Canaanites made peace with the Israelites, except the Hivites, the inhabitants of Gibeon, that he might harden their hearts to engage in war, and so they might be destroyed without mercy," he merely perceives in the fact that they did not submit, but came against Israel in battle, a proof that God had devoted them to destruction. But it does not follow from this, that according to the laws of Moses it would have been proper to spare them, in case they had offered peace. Hence the covenant, which the Israelites made with the Gibeonites, was not a res licita, and is blamed in v. 14, not merely because the Israelites suffered themselves to be deceived, but because they had done that which they were not justified in doing, without first enquiring of the Lord and obtaining his permission. If then every treaty with tbe Canaanites was forbidden, it seems evident that the Israelites were by no means bound to observe the treaty they had entered into with the Gibeonites ; for .they had concluded it solely on the understanding that there was truth in their asser tion, that they were not inhabitants of Canaan. For although the princes of the tribes of Israel did not expressly state that the validity of the treaty depended upon the correctness of their statement, or insert this in the covenant in so many words ; yet their oath was founded upon this supposition, as the Gibeonites well knew, and hence the craft with which they announced themselves as coming from a distant land. The Israelites there fore had not taken so simple an oath, as Clericus supposes, to preserve their lives, and were under no obligation to do so, when once their deceit was laid bare. Still the princes imagine that 240 OBSERVANCE OF THE TREATY. they are bound by the oath they have sworn by Jehovah ; and this Calvin regards as a fresh violation of the will of God, inas much as they now " obstinately maintain, upon the pretext of their oath, the promise which they had foolishly made." How ever, correct as the rest of Calvin's opinions upon this subject are,1 he here goes too far, for the conscientiousness, which leads a person to hold himself bound by an oath which he has sworn by- the true God cannot possibly be a sin, even though the oath may have been imprudently taken.2 The Israelites would indeed have i As most expositors have confused the question, by introducing into it assumptions, for which there is no foundation, such, for example, as that, at the very outset, the Gibeonites promised to renounce idolatry and worship Jehovah, we may be allowed to quote the whole of Calvin's lucid remarks. " The obligation of an oath," says he, " should be so far held sacred by us, as to prevent our departing on pretence of an error even from engagements, into which we may have been led by mistake ; the sacred name of God being of more import ance than all the wealth of the world. Therefore, although a man may have taken an oath without sufficient consideration, no loss or injury can release hiin from his engagement. In this, sense, no doubt, it is that David says : ' the true worshipper of God changeth not, though he has sworn to his own hurt' (Ps. xv. 4), because they would rather suffer loss than withdraw from their engagement, and expose to insult the name of God. My decision, therefore, would be that, whenever it is only our own advantage that is in question, we are bound to per form whatever we have promised on oath. The words of the passage before us, however, evidently show that the 'Israelites were afraid of bringing the name of their God into contempt amongst the nations of Canaan. For there is, in my opinion, an emphasis upon the clause: because they had sworn by the God of Israel. Yet, on the other hand, there were special circumstances in this case, which left the Israelites at perfect liberty to depart- from their unfortunate treaty ; for they had not only given up their own rights, but had sinfully trans gressed the commandment of God, the smallest tittle of which it was unlawful for them to touch. It was not left to their option either to spare the conquered, or to decree conditions of surrender. Yet here they come to a decision, as if it had been left entirely to them. And thus they offended a second time against the name of God, by obsti nately maintaining, upon the pretext of their oath, the promise which they had foolishly made." 2 Hauff (p. 268) is altogether wrong in the decision to which he comes, that the view here expressed is, that an oath, as an outward sacred act, possesses an unqualified binding power ; for such a view would be irreconcileable with the conviction that the duty of veracity is unqualified. If the elders of Israel had merely regarded their oath as an externally sacred act, they would not have felt bound by their consciences to keep it. CHAPTER IX. 18. 241 committed a fresh sin against God, if, after discovering the deceit that had been practised upon them, they had done nothing to wards carrying into effect the sentence, pronounced upon the Canaanites by the Lord, so far as this could be done without violating their oath, and thus had neglected to ward off the dis astrous consequences of the haste and thoughtlessness of which they had been guilty. Joshua, however, and the elders at once determined, whilst leaving them alive, to make them slaves of the congregation in the tabernacle, an effectual means of" avert ing any danger of the Israelites' being led away by them to idol atry. — s£pj!,l ano^ they murmured, w^ is applied in Ex. xvi. 2, &c, Num. xiv. 2, 36, &c, to the rebellion of the Israelites against Jehovah and Moses. The word is only met with in the books of Exodus and Numbers, and from these it has been taken by our author. We cannot agree with Calvin, Masius, and others, in their opinion that the congregation murmured against the elders, who had made this treaty with the Gibeonites, merely on account of the spoil which they would consequently lose ; un doubtedly they thought also of the imprudence with which the elders had entered into a covenant contrary to the law of God. — V. 19. ^ yyz to touch, to do an injury to any one, Gen. xxvi. : — t 11 ; Zech. ii. 12. — V. 20. ftnlN n^nm an(i (will) let them live. On the use of the infin. absolute, see Ewald Lehrb. § 280 a. The insertion of •) may be explained from the extreme simplicity of the style, which led to the use of " and" even in subordinate and explanatory sentences, cf. Ewald § 330 b. — ftjjp \&T\ that wrath may not come upon us, i.e., a judgment, such as fell upon Israel in the lifetime of David, on account of the attempt which was made by Saul, in spite of this oath, to destroy the Gibeonites (2 Sam. xxi. 1. sqq.). — V. 21. Qpji^j^ refers to the Israelites, Qpp^i on *be other hand in v. 20 to the V T Gibeonites. ^ spppi cannot mean " and they may (shall) be," as Clericus, Michaelis, Dathe, and others render it. Nor are we at liberty to alter ^pih"i into spppi, as Masius has arbitrarily done ; it is not even grammatically admissible, since in this sense we should rather expect *pp)Y Equally arbitrary and out of place would it be to follow Jerome, Michaelis, Dathe, and 16* 242 SENTENCE ON THE GIBEONITES. Maurer, who connect the clause «i;p VIII "ittfNfi witb the follow ing verse, and render ""|ftjfc$3 by postquam or quum. «^ ippp') and so they became woodcutters &c, as the princes had said to them, i.e., according to the sentence which they had pronounced upon them. Instead of reporting in full the decision of the princes of the tribes, the historian contents himself with merely announcing the «|^p|i contained in it, and immediately proceeds to describe the manner iu which the rest of it was carried out. This is the ordinary mode adopted by Hebrew historians ; they pass over the intermediate members, that they may arrive as quickly as possible at the final issue (cf. Ewald Compos, d. Gen. p. 151). There is a strict analogy between the present passage and 1 Kings xv. 22, where instead of the words of the command being given, as it was issued by the king, we have a description of its execution. In the Syriac and Arabic versions, and by the Rabbins, the words before us are therefore correctly regarded as an abbreviated form of speech ; and in the former the command is thus supplied : " they shall live and be hewers of wood and carriers of water to the whole congregation, and they became hewers of wood," &c. ppryp,-^ d°es not mean the Israelites T •• T T in their individual capacity, in which case the Gibeonites would have been condemned to actual slavery, but the whole nation, when collected together as a congregation of the Lord. They were appointed to serve them as hewers of wood and drawers pf water in the house of God (v. 23 and 27), and thus became slaves of the sanctuary. At«a later period, when David and other princes had set apart prisoners of war to perform the same office in the tabernacle (Ezra viii. 20), they were all known by the common name Qijipij Deo dati, donati (not deditii, as Bochart Phal. ii. 1 p. 68 renders it), 1 Chr. ix. 2 ; Ezra ii. 70, &c. ; cf. Num. viii. 16, 19. Vv. 22 — 27. After the princes had decided upon the future condition of the Gibeonites, Joshua charged them with their deceit, and pronounced upon them the sentence of perpetual bondage, as a punishment for what they had done. V. 23. ^ "Tiy D3a tVW there shall no servant be cut off from you, i.e., ye shall never cease to be servants, shall remain servants for ever chapter ix. 22—27. 243 (cf. 2 Sam. iii. 29 ; 1 Kings ii. 4, &c). Maurer is wrong in speaking of the use of -qjj without the article as an error, for 71V ^oes not stand for the abstract bondage, but is used as a collective noun for servants, and therefore the co-ordinate nouns, which follow, are in the plural. — The hewers of wood and drawers of water are referred to in Deut. xxix. 11 as the lowest class of the community. In other nations also the same work was performed by slaves (see Aeliani var. hist. ix. 17). — pp% ipf 7N is to be taken as equivalent to nln'1 JVl in cbap. vi. 24. — Thus the curse which Noah pronounced on Canaan (Gen. ix. 25) was literally executed upon the Canaanitish tribe of Hivites in Gibeon.— V. 24 seq. As an apology for their deceit the Gibe onites alleged that, when they heard of the command, which God had issued through Moses, to exterminate all the Canaan ites (Deut. vii. 1 seq., xx. 16 seq.), they trembled for their lives; and, in order that they might not lose them, they cast them selves upon the mercy and justice of Joshua. On the form ^jpj consult Ewald, Lehrb. p. 451, where a different explanation of the Zere is given from that contained in the Krit. Gramm,, p. .256. On the form pfto}^ Wltb Zere refer to chap. vii. 9. — V. 26, seq. Thus they were saved from the hands of tbe children of Israel, who murmured at the covenant (v. 18) and wished to put them to death, and were preserved alive ; they were condemned, however, to be for ever hewers of wood and drawers of water at the altar for the congregation, pilta^l m^S for the congregation and for the altar, Le., for the congregation at the altar. pQ.a7 is merely added to define more precisely the meaning of ppT2?V> to show, namely, that they were not to be employed by the con gregation for private purposes, but to assist in the performance of the general service at the altar, which belonged to the whole congregation, cf. v. 21. — It follows from the use of the words -\pQi "i^y^ Dlpan~^N a°i locum quem eligetin connection with p|.fpj Ql*ipf-*7y, that the author wrote before Solomon's temple was erected, since it shows that in his day God had not yet chosen a permanent place for his sanctuary.1 1 The objections offered to the historical veracity of this chapter by Hasse (p. 117 sqq.), Grambsrg (Religionsidee ii. p. 195), and De Wette 244 OFFENSIVE ALLIANCE OF FIVE KINGS. CHAPTER X. VICTORY OVER FIVE CANAANITISH KINGS, AND TAKING OF OTHER CITIES IN THE SOUTH. Yv. 1 — 5. As soon as it was known that the important city ot Gibeon, with its brave inhabitants, had concluded a treaty with the Israelites, rather than venture to oppose them ; the Canaan itish kings of the south formed an alliance for the purpose of resisting 'the further progress of the Israelites in Canaan. Adonizedek, king of Jerusalem, united with the kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon, that they might go to war in concert, and make a combined attack upon Gibeon. — V. 1. Adonizedek = Melchizedek, Gen. xiv. 18. The two names are titles of the kings of the Jebusites, as Pharaoh was that of the kings of Egypt. — QS^mVp composed of Q^ltf and qfo-p peaceful possession (Hengstenberg, Ps. iii. p. 331, Vol. iii. p. 430, Trans lation, Foreign Theol. Library), not possessio tranquillitate gaudentium (A. Schultens Origg. hebr. p. 232), or possession of peace.1 On Jerusalem see the works referred to in Winer's (in the earlier, editions of his introduction) have been overthrown by Maurer (on v. 27) and more thoroughly still by Havernick (Einl. ii. 1 p. 48 seq.) ; hence they may be regarded as no longer existing, De Wette himself having omitted them from the last edition of his intro duction. And even apart from the various details, given in the chap ter, of the peculiarities in the political constitution of Gibeon, the historical truthfulness of the narrative, so far as any unprejudiced reader is.concerned, is placed by 2 Sam. xxi. 1 — 6 beyond the possi bility of dispute. 1 This derivation is more correct than that proposed by Hitzig (on Isaiah p. 1 seq.), viz., from Q^^j and pjttj>)"p " district or territory of Salem," or that of Gesenius from ry^yfi and »pp 'domus pacis (Lehrb. " T ¦ p. 537 seq.), or fundatio pacis (thes. ii. 629), since «pp means neither house nor foundation. With regard to the form of the word Q^UJVV is not an old form of the plural, as A. Schultens, supposes (q^JJ plural of pj^ttJ), and as Gesenius explains it (Lehrg. p. 538), but according to the Masoretic punctuation it is a Dual (Ewald, Lehrb. § CHAPTER X. 1—5. J 245 Realworterbuch s. v., and also Robinson (Pal. ii. 1. sqq.) and E. G. Schultz (Jerusalem, with a map hjKiepert, Berlin 1845.) — 13 must be repeated before pjtoy "lttJND. For the rest compare the remarks on chap. viii. 2 and xxvi. 9, 15. nilpl l^n*1! an0^ (tbat) they (the Gibeonites) were in the midst of them (the Israelites), i.e., were living peaceably amongst them, and holding friendly inter course with them. — V. 2. Then they (Adonizedek and his people) icere exceedingly afraid, not so much on account of the alliance between the Israelites and the powerful inhabitants of Gibeon, as because the power of the Israelites was so great, that this free state, with all its strength, did not venture to oppose them, but had sought its safety in a treaty of peace.1 — V. 3. Hebron, one of the most ancient of the cities which have continued to exist to the present day (Gen. xiii. 18; Num. xiii. 22), was rendered sacred by the frequency with which the patriarchs sojourned there. Previous to its capture by the Israelites, and the expul sion of the Anakite family of Arba from the city and the country 180 a.) Hence originally it was pronounced Jerushalem, as we may infer partly from the still older name Shalem (Gen. xiv. 18 ; Ps. lxxvi. 3), and partly also from the fact that the Dual in Hebrew is constantly written with Yod qi-, whereas Jerusalem, on the contrary, is invariably written without Yod in the earlier writings, and is only found in the later ones with it (Jer. xxvi. 18 ; 2 Chr. xxv. 1, and several other passages, in which, however, the MSS. vary considerably) ; cf. Gesenius thes. 1. c. There is no ground for questioning the identity of Q^ltj (fien- ^v- 18) and the city which was afterwards called Jeru- ¦• T shalem. The supposition that the name Jerusalem dates from the time of David, is altogether without support from history, and overthrown by the fact that the city of the Jebusites was called the city of David (2 Sam. v. 9) after David had taken it ; whilst the name Jerusalem bears no relation whatever to the circumstances of David's time (cf. Hengstenberg ut supra.) It does not follow that because Jerusalem was also called Jebus, before the time of David, so long as it was in possession of the Jebusites (Josh, xviii. 28 ; Judg. xix. 10 ; 1 Chr. xi. 4), therefore it had formerly no name beside Jebus. All that can be inferred is that in addition to its proper name Jerusalem, contracted Salem, it was also called Jebus, from its inhabitants, just as Hebron was also called Kirjath-Arba, from the family of Arba. Compare chap. xiv. 15. 1 Hasse's assertion, that the narrative is confused, and that v. 2 should stand after v. 7, has been, met by Maurer, and shown to be unfounded and preposterous. 246 OFFENSIVE ALLIANCE OF FIVE KINGS. around, it was also called Kirjath-Arba, the city of Arba the father of the Anakim (chap. xiv. 15, xv. 13, xxi. 11, Judg. i. 10.) Its present name is iJ^ll, el Khulil, i.e. the friend (of God, so-called from Abraham's sojourn there.) The ancient city, like the modern one, stood in a deep valley, on the slopes of the mountains of Judah on either side of the valley, at about twenty-two Roman miles to the south of Jerusalem (see v. Raumer Pal. p. 198, sqq., and Robinson i. 314, seq., ii. 456 sqq.) — Jarmuth, in the lowlands of Judah (chap. xv. 35 ; Nehem. xi. 20), on the southwest of Jerusalem, was situated, according to the Onomast (s. v Jermus), at ten Roman miles distance from Jerusalem on the road to Eleutheropolis, and was then called villa Jermucha. Its present name is S^t» Jarm.uk ; see Robin-.- son ii. p. 344.1 — Lachish, also in the lowlands of Judah, was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chr. xi. 9), and captured after a siege hy Sennacherib (2 Kings xviii. 14, 17, xix. 8). It is probably still to be seen in the ruins of j^Jiy f\ Um Lakis on the west of Adjlan.2 — Eglon, which was similarly situated in the low country of Judah (chap. xv. 39), is described by Eusebius and Jerome as identical with Odollam (Adullam). This is at variance with Josh. xii. 12, 15, xv. 35, 39, and therefore incorrect. They place it twelve Roman miles distant from Eleutheropolis on the east. It is more probably to be seen in the ruinsof . .^-eve Adjlan, about twelve Roman miles from Eleutheropolis on the southwest, on the road to Gaza (see Robinson ii. 392). — V. 4. i^-l^y, 1 There is great plausibility in Robinson's opinion, that the Jari- muth, of which Jerome says : quarto distans ab Eleutheropoli lapide juxta villam Esthaol, was the same place as Jermus, since the- latter is said to have been near to Esthaol, and that the distance of four miles is merely a numerical error. 2 The identity of Lachish and Um Lakis has been supported by v. Raumer (Beitrage z. bibl. Geogr. 1843, p. 23) in opposition to Robin son (ii. p. 388), on the ground that Lachish is often mentioned in con nexion with Eglon, and, after the conquest of Lachish, Joshua passed by Eglon on the way to Hebron (x. 31—36). This agrees with the relative positions of the three places, whereas the account of the Onomast, that Lachish was seven miles from Eleutheropolis, in a southern direction, cannot be adduced as a proof to the contrary, since it contains so many errors, and even Robinson rejects its authority in the case of Eglon. CHAPTER X. 6 — 11. 247 come up to me. ?yyy is correctly explained by Rosenviiiller as used in " a military sense — come up with forces." The king of Jerusalem invites the other kings to a combined resistance, fear ing lest the short distance of Jerusalem from Gibeon should induce the Israelites to make their first attack upon him. He therefore proposes war against Gibeon, which they enter upon partly for the purpose of punishing this city for its submission to Israel, and partly also in order that the conquest of it might supply them with a strong bulwark against the further progress of the Israelites. — In verse 5 the allied monarchs are called Amorites, because this tribe was the most powerful amongst the Canaanites pf the South ; see chap. iii. 10. Vv. 6 — 11. As soon as the Gibeonites are attacked by the kings of the Amorites, they send to the camp at Gilgal, intreat- ing Joshua to come quickly to their assistance. Joshua com plies at once with their request, and sets out with the bravest of his troops, performing the journey from Gilgal to Gibeon in one night by means of a forced march. Encouraged by an assurance from the Lord that he should be victorious, he falls suddenly upon the besiegers of Gibeon, defeats them with great slaughter, and pursues them, as they fly in confusion, beyond Bethhoron to Azekah and Makkedah. He is also miraculously assisted by the Lord, who causes heavy hailstones to fall upon the enemy, as they fly past Bethhoron, which slay even a greater number than the swords of the Israelites.1— >\y\ FHn~^N do not draw away thy hand from us, i.e., do not withdraw thine assistance from us. On nD1> see chap. i. 5. — *£i"JN 121P3 there have assembled near us, t t •• ¦¦ : ': • sc. to make war upon us. The previous petition for help renders it easy to complete tbe sentence in this manner. Masius and Rosenmuller suppose, .but without reason, that ^^ has been written here instead of ^, for ^ 121p3 does n°t mean to assemble against, but to gather round, 2 Cbr. xiii. 7 ; 1 Kings xi. 24. — The words -)pipf "Qttp> which are in apposition to the t t •• : Amorites, must be understood a potiori. The Amorites in the mountains were the most powerful of their enemies, and for that reason are named here instar omnium. We cannot therefore conclude from this clause, that all the towns mentioned in verse 3 were situated upon the mountains of Judah, as Rosenmuller 248 THE GIBEONITES APPLY FOR HELP. supposes. — V. 7, l?y*r\ he drew near (not he went up, as De Wette has wrongly translated it), for pj^y stands here in sensu militari, T T and Gilgal was not in the valley of the Jordan, see chap. ix. 6. — brtn ¦nlia-^ is explanatory of nanban av-hs> t0 which .-..:•.. t t t : • - - t it is in apposition, " in fact all the brave warriors," meaning the bravest men in the whole army. " In my opinion this indicates all the bravest and most eager men, who were selected from the whole of the forces." (Masius.) — The words addressed to Joshua by God, that he is not to fear his enemies &c, are a renewal of the general promise, given to him when he was first called (chap. i. 5, 9), and are repeated here with a special application, because he has now for the first time to contend with several Canaanitish kings, who have combined to resist him. — Instead of the plural tPT1!' we find in the Masoretic text and several MSS. the singular ^t*p£, which is the more usual form in this connection ; see chap. ii. 24, vi. 2, viii. 1, 18. — ")ftN*n cannot be rendered as a pluperfect, as has been done by Clericus and Rosenmiiller, even if the divine promise was given before the preparations for this expedition were made. This, however, cannot be proved, for it may possibly not have been given to him till they were upon the march. V. 9. And Joshua came upon them (the enemy) suddenly. O^nS is explained and more exactly defined by the additional words, " he had marched from Gilgal during the whole night," i.e., in one night he had accom plished the march from Gilgal to Gibeon. From a mistaken view pf the distance between the two places, Calvin explains the words as meaning nothing more than that Joshua started immediately, without even waiting for the next morning. There is no ground for this, see chap. ix. 17. ¦. V. 10. And Jehovah discomfited them before Israel. These words point to the promise contained in Ex. xxiii. 27, "I will discomfit all thine enemies, against whom thou marchest," which was thus ful filled by the Lord on behalf of Israel. The promise itself, again, was based upon the fact that the Lord had thus discomfited and destroyed the Egyptians, who pursued the Israelites through the Red Sea (Ex. xiv. 24.) The means employed by God for the discomfiture of the enemy are not CHAPTER X. 6 — 11. 249 described either in this or the other passage. We might be led, by Psalm xviii. 15, cxliv. 6, and 1 Sam. vii. 10, to imagine that he terrified them by lightning and thunder of a fearful kind. Hengstenberg (Psalms Vol. 1, p. 302, Clark's theol. lib.) regards this as evidently implied in Ex. xiv. 24, though he does not agree with Rosenmuller (Schol. ad. Ex. 1. c.) that it is also apparent from Ps. lxxvii. 18, 19. The latter in his opinion is purely figurative (Psalms Vol. ii. p. 448, Translation). But the expressions employed in Ex. xiv. 24, " Jehovah looked (hptpvi) at the camp of the Egyptians through the pillar of fire, and the cloud," are too indefinite for any certain conclusion to be drawn from them. And with reference to the verse before us, we might also be led, by the mention of hail-stones in v. 11, to the idea that the discomfiture was the result of terrible thunder and lightning. But the fact that the enemy were afterwards de stroyed in their flight by terrific hail-stones, does not render it certain that the storm had been gathering during the engage ment at Gibeon, and by its lightning had caused them to tremble and thrown them into confusion, — "And slew them with a great slaughter at Gibeon, and pursued them on the way that goeth up to Bethhoron," i.e., Higher Bethhoron (Beit Ur el Foka). It was nearest to Gibeon, about ten miles distant, and was separated from Lower Bethhoron (Beit Ur el Tachta) by a pass. The road between the two places is so rocky and rugged, that there is a path made by means of steps cut in the rock (Robinson iii. 60). The pass which ran between them from Gibeon to the western plain, was called the ascent to Bethhoron (pj^ft), and also the descent from it ("pila v. 11), avaBao-L lapides grandine vel grandinis instar coelo dejecti, stone-hail, which they defend on the ground that actual hail could hardly have killed so many men, and that there have been many witnesses of the fact that stones have really descended like rain ; moreover, that this is the only explanation which fully meets the requirements of the text. The latter assertion, however, may be changed into the opposite one, for 133^ -pQ, according to the well-known rules of Hebrew grammar, means,. and can only mean hailstones, i.e., violent hail falling in large pieces resembling stones, and not a hailing of stones or stone-hail, see Is. xxx. 30, and Ezek. xiii. 11 — 13. There is no force in the other two arguments. For the evidence, upon which the actual fall of showers of stones rests, is for the most part not sufficiently authenticated, being generally connected with other legends ; whilst the remaining ac counts refer to meteoric stones or volcanic eruptions, which have no bearing upon this passage. On the other hand it is not so very rare an event, for violent hail-storms to do considerable damage, and even to destroy the life of both men and beasts. (The fullest col lection of evidence in support of the fall of stones has been made by Calmet. The Exegetical Handbook in loco, Rosenmiiller A. and N. Morgenland iii. p. 5 seq., and Winer E.W. i. 723, should also he consulted). CHAPTER X. 12 — 15. 251 Egypt (Exod. ix. 24) assumed a miraculous form, inasmuch as it fell with destructive violence upon the fugitives, and did no injury to the Israelites, who were pursuing them. This fact " rendered it apparent to the latter, that they had not gained the victory by their own strength, but by the power of God alone ; and that it was also he who had given success to their arms. On the other hand it proved most convincingly to the Canaanites that their calamity had befallen them not from the injustice of men, but from the judgment of God." (Evang. Kirchenzeitung 1832, p. 698). Vv. 12 — 1 5. Having thus described the glorious proof, here displayed, of the omnipotence and mercy of God, the author breaks off for a moment the thread of his history of this miracu lous victory, to introduce a quotation from an ancient poem, in which the mighty acts of that day were commemorated. These verses, 12 — 15, have therefore been justly pronounced by the latest critics, both orthodox and rationalist, to be parenthetical. They differ, however, in this respect ; the latter suppose them to have been inserted by a later hand, and, on the assumption that they are meant to be in part historical, maintain that the last editor literally affirms in v. 13 b. and 14 the historical veracity of the statement quoted from the Sepher Hayyashar (v. 12, 13 a.) ; the former on the contrary regard the whole section (v. 12 — 15) as a poetical description of the victory, which was miraculously gained by the helpof God; and are of opinion that it was in troduced by the author himself as an extract from the poetical Sepher Hayyashar. — Let us first examine the critical dispute with reference to the integrity of the section. Maurer follows De Wette (in the earlier editions of his introduction) and Meyer (p. "355 sqq.) in the assumption that it is a later interpolation, and seeks to establish it on the following grounds : " (a) the passage is introduced with ^ ; (b) it is closed by a regular form of conclusion ; (c) the miracle described in it does not tally with the previous account ; (d) the 16th verse follows very well upon the llth*." Of these four there is no force in a and c ; for we have already shown (at chap. viii. 80) that the particle j^ is not the sign of the commencement of an interpolation, and with reference to the alleged discrepancy between the account of the standing of the sun and the violent hail-storm, Konig has already 252 ' QUOTATION FROM THE BOOK OF JASHER. remarked (Alttestl. Stud. i. p. 30), " The fall of the terrific stone- hail and the miraculous standing still of the sun and moon at the same time seem to me to harmonize so well, that I am dis posed to regard the latter as the cause of the former." " Nor can much be inferred from b and d, as stated by Maurer ; for even if v. 16 might be very well connected with v. 11, and there is a formal conclusion in v. 15, it does not by any means follow that v. 12 — 15 are an interpolation of later date. — The whole theory, which we find also in Stahelin's histor. Untersuchungen (p. 92) and Ewald's Geschichte (ii. p. 232 seq. and 251), is mixed up with the erroneous assumption that the book is a com pilation made by different editors and at various times ; and this assumption we have refuted in the Introduction. In the verses before us we have, not an interpolation by a later hand, but a parenthesis, introduced by the author himself, con sisting of a quotation from the Sepher Hayyashar mentioned in ver. 13. From this he has not merely taken the latter half of v. 12, and the former of v. 13, and then commented on them in the last half of v. 13, and the whole of v. 14 ; but has quoted the whole passage, v. 12 — 15 inclusive, verbatim from the ori ginal. This has been correctly pointed out and demonstrated by J. D. Michaelis (in loco), Havernick (Einl. ii. 1. p. 50) and the writer of the article in the Evang. Kirchen-Zeitung 1832 on " the sun's standing still, Josh. chap, x."1 (1.) It is evi dent, from the close • connection between v. 11 and 16, yoyt\ taking up the DD^l ^n*1! (v- H)> aQd thus showing that all which intervenes is closely associated and forms a small para graph by itself. (2.) Both the opening and close of the section clearly prove that it is not the production of the author of the Book of Joshua, either wholly or in part, but is word for word an extract without alteration from the Sepher Hayyashar. The opening words " when the Lord delivered up the Amorites," &c, show that a different writer is speaking ; and the concluding sentence (v. 15) cannot be by our historian, inasmuch as Joshua did not return to the camp at Gilgal then, but followed up his vic tory, by collecting his army together in a camp at Makkedah, as soon as the enemy was thoroughly dispersed (v. 21), and then after 1 V. Lengerke (p. 644) also acknowledged this. CHAPTER X. 12 — 15. 253 slaying there the five kings, who had been taken prisoners, besieged and captured one by one the fortified cities of the south, in which the enemy had taken refuge. It was not in fact till the whole of the South had been completely conquered, that he returned to the camp at Gilgal (v. 43). The fifteenth verse, "then Joshua returned, and all Israel with him, to the camp at Gilgal," is unintelligible, unless we suppose it to form part of the quota tion from the Sepher Hayyashar. And therefore in this verse alone we find the strongest proof that the quotation extends to v. 15 inclusive.1 Lastly, this is confirmed by the fact that the 1 The force of this argument is the more apparent and convincing from the fact, that every writer, who supposes v. 15 to contain the words of our author himself, is at a loss to know how to explain them. Calvin, Masius, Clericus, Ilgen, and others, pronounce the verse an in appropriate interpolation or a later gloss, and support their opinion by the fact, that it is omitted from the Alexandrian and Vatican Codices of the Septuagint. But it is very evident that they have been driven to this opinion by their inability to escape from the difficulty in which they found themselves involved, on account of the impossibility of ima gining, how any one could ever have thought of interpolating the verse . in so inappropriate a place. All that can be gathered from its absence from some Codices of the Septuagint is, that the translators or some of the earliest readers of this version could not understand the verse, and therefore of their own accord removed it from the text. There are others, e. g. Drusius, C. a Lapide, and Calmet, who render 'pp yjjif) : " Joshua began to return," or " thought of returning," or " was on the point of returning to the camp at Gilgal ;" and further explain it by saying that " he changed his mind when he heard that the five kings had hidden themselves in the cave at Makkedah, and continued to pur sue the enemy still further." " But it is hardly conceivable that such an intention could ever have existed. Is it possible that Joshua can have thought for a moment of hurrying back to Gilgal, and thus rob bing himself of the fruits of his victory, when by so doing he would lose the grand opportunity, thus evidently put within his reach by the Lord, of effecting at once the conquest of the whole land, a work which at any future time would inevitably be attended with interminable dif ficulty and danger?" (Evang. Kirchen-Zeitung 1832, p. 702). Moreover, the language does not admit of our giving such a meaning to ^^1, for in ver. 43, where the clause is repeated, it denotes the actual return ; and it must be taken in the same sense here, since every attempt at giving a different explanation stamps itself so clearly as an arbitrary loophole, and has no analogy to sustain it. Masius, indeed, quotes Num. xxiv. 25 as an analogous passage, but no support can be derived from this verse, in which yQpr\ is said to mean " he thought of returning," as we can easily imagine that Balaam actually returned 254 QUOTATION FROM THE BOOK OF JASHER. same poetic parallelism is observable in the clauses of v. 13 b, and 14, as in those of v. 12 b, and 13 a; a clear proof that the former cannot be a "tame prosaic comment upon the poetical extract from the Sepher Hayyashar (v. 12 b, 13 a), as Maurer home, and then at a later period joined the Midianites again, and was killed at the time of their defeat. (Num. xxxi. 8). Konig is obliged to acknowledge (ut supra p. 32 seq), that this evasion of the difficulty does not satisfy his mind either critically or exegetically. An unknown writer in the Evang. Kirchen-Zeitung (1833, No. 25, p. 197), has made another attempt to show that the verse was written by the author him self, and to defend it as anticipatory. He refers to the simple and inartificial manner in which Hebrew histories are written, and the fre quency with which the historian, through not casting his eye at once over the whole of the circumstances, either anticipates, what should properly be related further on, or defers what ought to have been in serted before. Moreover, from the want of particles in the Hebrew language, where such cases of anticipation or postponement occur, the proper arrangement cannot be indicated without a brief repetition of that which has already been written, but did not really occur till after wards ; for this was the only way in which the writer could show that he had merely been filling up what he had previously omitted. Thus in the present instance, the fact mentioned by the author in v. 15 is an anticipation; v. 15 to v. 42 are occupied in the filling up of the events which occurred previously to that fact, and this is indicated by the repetition of the fifteenth verse, word for word, in ver. 43. But whatever truth there may be in the general remarks as to the pecu liarly inartificial manner in which the Hebrew historians wrote, they do not apply to the case before us. This is apparent from the examples quoted by the anonymous writer himself. He refers to chap. iii. 16, 17, where the people are represented as having completed their passage through the Jordan, before the orders were issued with reference to the setting up of the stones as a memorial, which are contained in chap. iv., although the command of the Lord must naturally have been given before the crossing of the Jordan, and therefore certainly before they had all crossed over. In both respects the writer is mistaken. The command was first given to Joshua during the passage, and was not executed till all the people had passed over. And he is wrong in his supposition that we have in chap. iv. 10 a verbal repetition. On the contrary that passage contains an entirely fresh remark, indicative of the progress of the event, to the effect that the priests stood in the midst of the river, not merely, as we read in chap. iii. 17, till all the people had passed over, but also till Joshua had performed all that the Lord commanded him, viz., that he should set up the memorial in the river, and carry twelve stones from the Jordan into the camp. (See also our exposition of the chapter). Hence this example is not in any respect analogous to the case before us. Still less so is the next passage, Gen. xxxix. 1. The history it is true does there return, after introducing the narrative contained in chap, xxxviii., to the subject, with which chap. CHAPTER X. 12 — 15. 255 imagines. The only apparent difficulty in the way of our ex planation has been pointed out with great emphasis by two anonymous writers in the Evang. Kirchen-Zeitung (1833, No. 17 p. 135 seq., and No. 25 seq. p. 197 seq., and 201 seq.), viz. that the sign of quotation, " Is it not written in the book of the just 1" would in that case stand in the middle of the extract, whereas in other cases this formula and others of a similar description are placed either at the commencement (as Num. xxi. 14, 27) or at the close (as in several places in the Books of Kings and Chronicles.) But it cannot be affirmed that this is a rule without exception. The documents referred to in the Books of Kings and Chronicles are of quite a different character ; and they are mentioned at the end of the reigns of the kings of Israel, not in proof of " the correctness of the descriptions given, nor as writings, from which the authors have copied their history verbatim" but as Works in which the reader may find more copious and complete accounts of the lives of the various kings. These notices, therefore, are not appended to the preceding narrative, as though this was extracted word for word from the original documents named, but refer to independent records, unconnected with the history before us, and show that the latter contains a summary of the things which are more fully detailed in the former. In the book of Kings the formula is always xxxvii. ends, and repeats the concluding remark, before continuing the history of Joseph. But then the 39th chapter commences with the pluperfect "TYipj, in order that it may be made evident that it is a recapitulation. The anonymous writer might with much greater plausibility have mentioned 1 Kings vi. 9, 15, and vii. 1, for in each of these passages we have the completion indicated by the formula, " and he built the house and finished it," and yet immediately after the historian proceeds to describe the progress of the erection. Yet even here we have not passages corresponding to the one before us. By the words " he built the house and finished it," the writer does not intend to convey the idea that the building was already complete, but that it was approaching completion, that it was about to be finished, and therefore indicates its gradual progress towards completion. But the words " Joshua returned to the camp at Gilgal," cannot in any way be taken as indicating his progress in the subjugation of the enemy and the capture of their cities. And, therefore, even if v. 15 was written by the author, it is not to be regarded as anticipating the event, nor is v. 43 a recapitulation. 256 QUOTATION FROM THE BOOK OF JASHER. worded thus : " the rest of the history of such and such a king, and all that he did, and his wisdom (or otherv important deeds), are they not written in the book of . . . ," see 1 Kings xi. 41, xiv. 19, 29, xv. 7, &c. In the Chronicles it reads thus, " The acts, or the rest of the acts of- such and such a king, first and last, are they not written ... . ;" see 1 Chr. xxix. 29 ; 2 Chr. ix. 29, xii. 15, xiii, 22, &c. These passages, therefore, do not help us at all to find out where the Hebrews were accus tomed to place the notice of quotation, when extracts were copied verbatim from other works. Nor can we learn it from Num. xxi. 14, 27, and 2 Sam. i. 18, for here, although the works quoted are certainly named before the extracts from them are given, it is important to observe, that the notice of those works is so inwoven with the general narrative that it of necessity stood first. Under such circumstances, we ourselves are accustomed to mention the name of the work before making the quotation ; but it would never occur to any one to infer from this, that German writers are never in the habit of inserting the name of a work in the middle of passages, which are literally quoted from it. Nor have we any more reason for saying that the Hebrews never did so. It may be that the instance before us is the only example of it extant ; but we have an analogy in the prophetical formula " thus saith the Lord," which is sometimes placed at the beginning of the message that the prophet has to deliver from the Lord, sometimes in the middle and at other times at the end. Connected with this is the second question, which has fur nished equal occasion for controversy, respecting the quotation itself. First, the Fathers and the earlier theologians followed the Son of Sirach, xlvi. 4,1 and Josephus (Ant. v. 17) in the sup position that the sun miraculously stood still.2 But when the 1 'Ouyi iv Xelpi avrov avenSdioev 6 rJXtos Kal pia rjpepa eyevii&ij irpbs bio. Sirach xlvi. 4. 2 This opinion was held by Justin (in dial. c. Tryph.), Ephraim Syrus, Tertullian, (de-jejun. 1 — 10), Jerome (c. Jovin 1. 11), Chrysostom (homil. 27 in epist. ad Hebr.), Augustine (de civ. Dei xvi. 8), Theo doret, the Rabbins, Serrarius, Masius, C. a Lapide, Calvin, Osiander, and many others. Justin Martyr supposes the day to have been 36 hours long, C. a Lapide estimates it at 28 hours, because the longest day in Palestine is about 14 hours. CHAPTER X. 12 — 15. 257 Copernican theory had begun to prevail, and the revolution of the planets round the sun was generally admitted, then, secondly, the explanation offered by theologians was, that it was described according to the appearance, i.e., there was a miraculous cessation of the rotation of the earth upon its axis, and as a consequence of this the sun apparently stood still.1 Thirdly, there are a few who have tried to reduce the miracle to a natural phenomenon. Grotius was' the first to give utterance to the conjecture that it was not impossible for God, " by means of refraction, to retard the sun's course, or, even after it had set, still to show its disc in a cloud above the horizon." Is. Peyrerius, with even greater confidence, explains the miracle in the same manner.2 Clericus imagines that there was some unusual refraction of the rays of the sun, or that there was some other extraordinary light, " quod illic speciem ac vicem Solis et Lunae praebuerit." Ben. Spinoza (tract, theol. pol. 2 p. 22 and 6, p. 78 edit. Hamb. 1670) conjectures that an unusually powerful refraction, or something resembling it, was caused by the violent hail. J. D. Michaelis and Schulz suppose that it continued to lighten all night, and that this assisted the Israelites in their pursuit, whilst it prevented the Canaanites from concealing themselves anywhere or from escaping by flight. Similar explanations are given by Hess 1 The opinion, that the earth ceased to revolve upon its axis, has been adopted by many Cartesians, but Osiander warmly rejected it, on the ground that it was opposed to the Scriptures. Even Buddeus (h. e. i. p. 663) thinks that " such an assumption exposes the authority and truthfulness of the Holy Scriptures to great danger," though he does not venture to pronounce decidedly against it. Calmet too (Bibli cal researches) is unable to choose between the two opinions ; whilst Mosheim (in his remarks upon Calmet) and Lilienthal (die gute Sache v. p. 167 sqq. and ix. p. 296) decide without hesitation in favour of the second. 2 " We must, therefore, explain the miracle thus : when the sun had really set, without any change in the celestial and natural order of things, the light of the sun, but not the sun itself, by a very great miracle, continued in the atmosphere, or in the region of vapour, which .was in the midst of the sky and the air, above the city of Gibeon. The sunshine, however, fell upon the city of the Gibeonites in such a way that the reflected rays lighted up the neighbouring valleys on all sides, and thus prevented the Amorites, who were routed and flying, from escaping the pursuit of Joshua, which in fact was the design of the miracle." System. Praeadam. i. 4, 5. 17 * 258 QUOTATION FROM THE BOOK OF JASHER. (Gesch. Jos. i. p. 140 seq.), Dathe, the Exegetical Handbook} Dereser, and others ; see also Winer, R.W. i. 722 seq. — The last of these three hypotheses must be rejected as arbitrary, together with all the various modifications of it. The supporters of it appeal, it is true, to the poetical character of the description, and to the fact that some of the verses are taken from the poeti cal " Book of the Just ;" but they all agree in the opinion that part of the passage was written by the author, and that he cites the " Book of the Just" as a testimony to the veracity of his history.1 But if the author of the Book of Joshua quoted the other work as relating a historical fact, he certainly referred to something very different from lightning, refraction of the sun's rays, &c. He assures us, on the contrary, that the sun and moon stood still. Not that we should hesitate to admit the ex planation that he is merely describing the occurrence as it appeared and therefore we need only understand it as denoting the cessation of the earth's rotation upon its axis, by which that day became longer than any other. For " natural things are described in the Bible according to their appearance, from the first book to the last, in the discourses of Christ, not less than the history of the creation." (Evang. Kirchen-Zeitung 1832, p. 699). The Scriptures are not intended to furnish us with in struction in astronomy, physics, and other similar subjects ; but merely to hand down the revelation which God has made to men for their salvation. We do not hesitate to believe in such a miracle in its fullest extent whenever this is the meaning obtained from a literal interpretation of the words, or when it can be exegetically proved to be the only admissible and necessary one. For even though in the whole of the world's history no other such miracle may ever have occurred, yet in the fact that- it only happened once there is just as little to disturb our faith, as in objections founded upon the invariable order, with which the heavenly bodies revolve according to the eternal laws implanted in them by the author of nature. These laws, in our opinion, are nothing more than 1 The rationalists, on the other hand, maintain that the author of our book misunderstood the words of the poet, and quoted as history what was only intended for poetry ; Paulus (p. 168 seq.), Maurer (in loco), Winer (ut supra), Ewald (Gesch. ii. p. 251 seq.), and others. CHAPTER X. 12 — 15. 259 terms by which men are accustomed to designate certain mani festations of the creative power of God, the nature of which no mortal has explored ; and we can therefore believe that the Creator, in his omnipotence, would depart from the so-called laws of nature, whenever in his inscrutable wisdom he saw that it was necessary for the salvation of men, for whose redemption he did not spare even his only-begotten Son. We are not even perplexed by the difficulty that if the earth was thus suddenly stopped in its rotation upon its axis, all the works of men's hands, which existed anywhere upon its surface, would be de stroyed, and the earth itself, with its satellite the moon, would be thrown out of its orbit ; for we know that the almighty hand of God, which not only first created the stars and so arranged them that they move with unvaried regularity in their orbits, but which continues to move, preserve, and govern all things in heaven and on earth, would not be too weak to ward off any such disastrous consequences. Still less would the fact that no account of such a miracle is met with in the annals of any other nation on the earth, although it must have extended over the entire globe, either excite any doubt as to its historical veracity, or induce us to imitate Saml. Shuckford (Harmonie d. heil. und Profanscrib iii. p. 291), who has brought together confirma tory statements of a very problematical character, from the annals of the Chinese ; for there are no annals, so far as we are aware, of any people on the face of the earth, containing complete accounts of all that happened at that early period of time. In a word, if this were the correct exegetical interpreta tion of the passage, there is no objection, founded upon the sup posed impossibility or inutility, which would have the least weight with us, or excite a doubt as to the actual occurrence of so re- markqhle a miracle.1 But, first of all, we must remember that we have in these verses not the words of our historian himself, but a quotation from the " Book of the Just ;" and that, in the only other place in which this book is named (2 Sam. i. 18), a song is copied from it, namely the elegy of David, occasioned by the death of Jona- 1 The objections are fully stated and answered in Calmet's Biblical Researches and Lilienthal's die gute Sache d. g. Offenbarung v. p. 154 sqq. and ix. p. 296 sqq. 17 2 260 QUOTATION FROM THE BOOK OF JASHER. than, whilst in the passage before us there can also be no doubt as to the poetical form of the quotation which is made from that book. This at least is admitted by every commentator. The lllpn *^qq (Book of Jashar, or Book of the Just) was "in all T T V ¦* probability a collection of odes in honour of theocratic heroes, to which fresh contributions were made at different times " (Ev. K. Zeitung 1832, p. 701); for -^i means, as modern writers generally admit, the true theocrats. The different opinions enter tained respecting this book, some of which have been very trivial, are collected by Wolf (in the bibliotheca hebr. ii. p. 219 sqq.). At the close he modestly gives it as his own opinion (p. 225) that " the book contained various songs, either kirivUia, dpnvrjTiKa, or eiraiveTiKa." If then the Sepher hayyashar was a collection of songs, we must interpret the extract before us ac cording to the analogy of other songs and imaginative works of a similar kind, i.e. as a poetical work of imagination and not as a history in prose.1 But, it has been said in reply, " we are only justified in resorting to a poetical explanation, provided it can be proved indisputably that the poet did not confine himself to the simple historical truth, but merely intended to express in forcible language and clothe in purely imaginative drapery the fact that Joshua uttered the wish that the day might not end till the defeat of the enemy was complete." (Evang. Kirchen Zeitung, 1833, p. 193). We must certainly make the general acknow ledgment that a poet may communicate historical truth. Thus in the case before us, the quotation from this ancient book of songs ends most indisputably (v. 15) with pure prose and a his torical statement like the song of Moses (Ex. xv.), which in v. 19 has a purely historical termination.2 But it would certainly not occur to any one to infer from this that every poetical ex- 1 In every commentary and treatise on this subject since Masius, we read that Maimonides (More Nevoch. ii. 35) regarded the passage as poetical and imaginative ; but in the translation of the More Nevoch., published by Buxtorf (Basil. 1629) we find nothing of the kind. It merely contains (p. 292) a peculiar explanation of n^n Dl^3 v" ^' which we shall refer to presently. 2 This analogy serves also to confirm the evidence adduced above, to prove that v. 15 formed part of the quotation from the Sepher hayya shar. CHAPTER X. 12 — 15. 261 pression and figure in this song of Moses must be understood literally or interpreted as historical. It is time, however, that we proceed to the explanation of the passage itself. V. 12. f^ tunc, then, is more closely defined by ^ r*\pi Dl*! " on the day on which Jehovah delivered up the Amorites to the sons of Israel." i^h nn to deliver up, see Deut. ii. 31, 33, &c. ¦ — "!1T> is rendered by the Chaldee pjl®> *-e- not laudavit, but decantavit, as we may see from Ex. xv. 1, and Judg. v. 1, where ¦yiQj is translated in the same way. This is the explanation which most of the Rabbinical writers, as well as Masius, Vatablius, and Drusius give to the word, because it is followed by a song, and the Hebrews were accustomed to use -^fc$, even to denote the singing of a song, Ex. xv. 1. — Still we are not prepared to adopt this explanation, inasmuch as Joshua would certainly not sing the words, but merely speak them, although they contain a poetical rhythm. C. a Lapide gives this interpretation : " when offering praise to God he asked, with confidence, that the sun might stand still." That of Calvin is similar, " I have no doubt that the first clause, ' then Joshua spake to the Lord,' refers to a prayer or vow, and the second, ' he said in the sight of Israel,' contains a proof of his confidence, after he had been heard. For it would have been rash and presumptuous to com mand the sun to stand still, without having received permission. He therefore consults God, and presents his request ; and when he has received an answer he boldly utters the command to the sun, which he knows will be pleasing to God." But there is no intimation in the passage to the effect that after Joshua had spoken or prayed to the Lord, he waited for his request to be granted before he addressed his words to the sun. Moreover, it would have been opposed to the nature of believing prayer, for him to put oft' the expression of his desires until God had given him permission, or had assured him that they would be granted* We conclude therefore that the words "Joshua spake to the Lord," refer to his address to the sun, and regard that address as the utterance of a desire to the Lord and Creator of the sun. ^Nlto1 *yvh before the eyes, i.e., in the presence of Israel. These words do not prove that the miracle actually took place, as the anpnymous writer in the Ev. K. Zeitungl833, p. 202, sup- 262 JOSHUA'S ADDRESS TO THE SUN. poses, but, at the most, only show that the words which follow were actually spoken by Joshua, and are not merely put into his mouth by the poet. — The words themselves are " Sun, wait at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.' q^-j from qq'tj does not mean " stand still," but wait. Qfy\ literally means to be silent, then to keep one's self silent or quiet, to wait. The rendering " to stand still" only rests upon this passage and 1 Sam. xiv. 9, and therefore cannot be sustained, for in the latter place yjyq only signifies " wait, till we overtake you." The Chaldee and Syriac both adopt this rendering. — The former translates it Tp^lN' exspecta, morare ; the latter J/J2 with the same meaning. This is also the word by which the Syriac renders tip-^pta in Gen. xxiv. 21.1 If then q^ signifies wait; the words of Joshua must be elliptical, and it will be necessary to complete them from the sentence which follows, " until the people have avenged themselves upon their enemies." Another question has been asked in this place, viz., when and where does the poet suppose Joshua to have spoken these words ? In the opinion of C. a Lapide, Clericus, and v. Lengerke (p. 645), it was in the evening, just as the sun was setting, and after the moon had risen. There was no necessity, they say, for Joshua to feel anxious before then, lest he should not have time to com plete the annihilation of the enemy ; and, moreover, the sun and moon would not before that time be both visible together.- The first of these reasons, however, is quite worthless, and the second is disproved by the relative positions of Gibeon and Ajalon. — Most commentators infer from the words, " the sun stood still in the midst of heaven" (v. ] 3) that Joshua expressed his wish at Gibeon in the middle of the day. " There in the heat of the 1 Gesenius (thes. i. 344) supports the meaning " to stand still " by the Arabic A$, which, he says, is used in conj. ii. *^, de sole in coelo subsistente. But this statement rests upon a misunderstanding of the words of Djeuhari \^\ U^j (j**^! CL**»ji the sun stands in the midst of the heavens, i.e. at its culminating point, not " it stands still ;" for f ^ means convertit se in coelo gyrumque agit (sol) ; see Freitag lex. arab. ii. 73. CHAPTER X. 12 — 15. 263 battle did Joshua feel the desire that the sun should stand still ; by the time that the moon shone he hoped to reach Ajalon in his pursuit of the flying enemy. And from that place the moon is not to withdraw her light, till he no longer stands in need of it." (Evang. Kirchen Zeitung 1832, p. 703). This presupposes, however, that the moon was not shining at all in the heavens at the time when Joshua uttered the words. For if the sun was standing at mid-day above Gibeon, the moon could not possibly have been visible at the same time in the west or south-west, above the valley of Ajalon. And such a supposition is unnatural. The address to the sun and moon at the same time implies that both were then visible in the heavens (see Evang. K. Z. 1833, p. 204 seq). For since Joshua's one wish would be that the sun might not set, in other words, that the day might not close till he had entirely subdued his enemies ; the only thing that induced him to address the moon also, must have been the fact that he saw it in the heavens. The setting of the moon could not in any way affect his purpose, and this is perhaps the reason why the poet afterwards only mentions the sun, and speaks of its delaying to go down. This is confirmed, moreover, by the geographical position of the two places. The valley of Ajalon must of course be looked for somewhere near Ajalon itself. This was one of the places within the territory of the tribe of Dan (chap. xix. 43), that were assigned to the Levites (chap. xix. 23). Robinson (iii. 63 seq.) with the greatest plausibility identifies it with the small village of Yah (JIj)> which still exists, and supposes that the valley of Ajalon was the wide Wady on the north of the village. But there is not the same ground for the opinion, held by this scholar and v. Lengerke, that when Joshua uttered his celebrated words, he had reached some point near upper Beth-horon in his pursuit of the enemy, and so looked back towards Gibeon and forwards across this magnificent valley. For if the sun was above Gibeon, and Joshua had it behind him whilst he was pursuing the enemy in their flight to the west or south-west, the moon could hardly have been in front of him above the valley of Ajalon. If Joshua really saw both the sun and moon when he delivered this memorable ad dress, it must have been in the early part of the day, and during the engagement before Gibeon itself; for then the sun might 264 joshua's address to the sun. have been visible on the east or south-east of Gibeon, and the moon in the south-west, above the valley of Ajalon, as it would then be about to set. What then is the meaning of Joshua's words, " Sun, wait at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Ajalon, till the people avenge themselves on their enemies V Joshua can scarcely have intended by this to express the wish that God would work a miracle by his omnipotence, and make the sun and moon stand still ; at the most he can only have been anxious that the sun and moon should not set till Israel had entirely defeated his enemies. And, therefore, when the poet announces in the fol lowing words the fulfilment of that desire, "and the sun waited and the moon stood still till the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies" (v. 13) ; he is only saying that God hearkened to Joshua's prayer,- and gave the Israelites a complete victory over their enemies before the setting of the sun and moon, with out intending to affirm that the sun and moon miraculously stood still. There have been some, however, who have supposed this meaning to be clearly expressed in the last two clauses of the 13th verse ; " and the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day." But these verses in which the poet describes in his own words the accomplishment of Joshua's wishes, lead to the very opposite conclusion. The expression "it stood still," is explained by the corresponding words in the parallel clause, "it hastened not to go down ;" and if any one were inclined to take this literally and lay stress upon if, it would indicate not a complete cessation of motion, but a retardation of the sun's course, a slower movement. And this has already been brought forward by R. Levi ben Gerson and Mose ben Nachman. — The absence of the article from Y\yi and i^ is to be explained from the poetical style in which the whole is written ; the omission of the article being frequently allowable in poetry, where it could not be left out in prose (see Ewald Lehrb. § 299 b.) It is evident at once that i^ refers to the people of Israel, in the same manner as ilJj-^S in chap. iii. 17 ; though some of the earlier commentators have misinterpreted it. — D^an Dl'O circa diem integrum. Clericus has rendered it • t ; incorrectly " when the day had passed ;" for pf^pftp) pftQj (Lev. CHAPTER X. 12—15. 265 xxv. 30) does not mean " a year gone," but " a whole year." Maimonides (More Nevoch ii. 35) gives this explanation, " the greatest and longest day," adding that " it is as if the writer had said, that to those in Gibeon- that day was like a very long day in summer." Rosenmuller again supposes ryt2D OYO to be an elliptical comparison, and that the complete sentence would be " as is the case in a perfect and entire day." This is so far in harmony with the usage of the language, that in Is. ix 3 for example, "rrjp Dl^S is equivalent to " as it happened in the day of Midian." In the case before us, however, such an explana tion would be unnatural, for QiQn 01^ does not really signify either a whole day or the longest day. All that Qiftpi Q"pl can mean is, " nearly or somewhere about a whole day ;" and the literal rendering of the whole clause would therefore be, " the sun did not hasten to go down (delayed its setting) for nearly a whole day," i.e. it remained in the sky nearly a whole day longer. This literal explanation of the words, however, is not necessarily required either by the context which precedes them, or by that which follows (v. 14). In the 14th verse the poet says, "and it was not like this day, either before it or after it," i.e. there was no other day equal to it either before or since. But it is not by any means clear that he means by this, that the day really lasted longer than any other.1 For the thing which chiefly dis tinguished this day from all others was, " that Jehovah hearkened unto the voice of a man ;" i.e., that in. compliance with the wish of Joshua he did not allow the day to end, till he had avenged himself upon his enemies, " because Jehovah fought for Israel:" 1 The rendering of the Vidgate undoubtedly is non fuit antea nee postea tam longa dies, but there is nothing answering to longa in the Hebrew text, and it can only be understood as meaning this, if the preceding words must necessarily mean that the sun and moon stood still. Some of the earlier expositors who took this for granted, and also arbitrarily supported it by v. 14, endeavoured to establish an analogy between the text, and Is. xxxviii. 8, or 2 Kings xx. 11, when they supposed that the shadow went back on the dial of Ahaz on account of a corres ponding retrograde movement of the sun for ten degrees, and that the day must therefore have become so much longer (see Pfeiffer dubia vex. p. 330 seq.). — It is however apparent from Ex. x. 14, 2 Kings xviii. 5, and xxiii. 25, that the words *' there was none like it either before or afterwards," cannot be urged in support of this view. (See my commentary on the Books of Kings, p. 517). 266 DID THE SUN STAND STILL 1 If we had before us simple prose or the words of the historian himself, we should without the least hesitation admit that the day was miraculously lengthened in consequence of a delay in the course and setting of the sun. But vv. 13 and 14 contain merely an amplification or poetical expansion of the words really uttered by Joshua in the heat of the conflict : " Sun, wait .... till the people have avenged themselves upon their enemies ;" and we should therefore entirely overlook the essential nature of poetry, if we adhered closely to the words of the poet, and so understood them to mean that the day was miraculously pro longed because the sun stood still. In fact it would betray an utter inability to enter into the spirit of poetry or of figurative writing, to continue to regard the words of Joshua, " Sun, wait at Gibeon, and Moon, in the valley of Ajalon," either as a com mand to the sun and moon, or as a prayer that God would cause them to stand still.1 When Isaiah prayed to the Lord in the name of his people, " Oh that thou wouldest rend the heavens and come down, that the mountains might flow down at thy presence," &c. (Is. Ixiii. 19) ; or when David sings, " In my distress I called upon the Lord, he heard my voice out of his temple, .... he bowed the heavens also and came down, .... he sent from above and took me, he drew me out of many waters" (Ps. xviii. 7 — 17) ; who is there who ever thinks of understanding their words literally, as de noting an actual rending of the heavens, or a desire that God would actually descend from heaven and stretch out his hand to draw David out of the water ? Undoubtedly the idea of a fearful storm accompanied by earthquake has furnished materials for the imagery of the eighteenth Psalm ; but it is as clear as day that the striking figures, which it contains, are not fully explained by referring them to an earthquake and storm. And so again, when Deborah sings, " they fought from heaven, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera" (Judg. v. 20) ; there have certainly been some who have endeavoured to explain her 1 Buddeus, indeed, observes, " who could persuade himself without rashness that such a commander spoke poetically in the heat of the battle and when burning with a desire to pursue the foe ?" (hist. eccl. i. 662). But in this he assumes that the sacred writer, i.e., the author of this book, reports the words of Joshua as a historian, and overlooks the fact that they are copied from the poetical " Book of the Just." CHAPTER X. 12—15. 267 words historically, and suppose that the stars actually contended against Sisera, " by concealing themselves, and as it were with drawing their light ; i.e., when night came on the heavens were obscured, and thus the fugitive had not even the advantage of the starlight" (Evang. K. Z. 1833, p. 195 seq.). But to change the fighting of the stars into a concealment and apparent with drawal of their light is such an unnatural perversion of the words, that instead of furnishing an argument against the figurative interpretation of the verses before us, they decidedly confirm it. The most important passage in relation to this subject is Ha bakkuk iii. 11, where the majority of commentators, down to the latest times (see Ev. K. Z. 1833, p. 196, and Konig Alttestl. Stud. i. p. 31 seq.), render the words n^lf IftV n*V ttjatt) " sun and moon stood still in their habitation, i.e. in the sky," and regard them as a direct confirmation of the fact that the sun miraculously stood still at Gibeon. But from what we know of the Hebrew language at the present day, no one at all acquainted with it will require that we should show that such a translation is not grammatically correct. The literal meaning is : " Sun and moon have entered into their habitation ;" and hence the expression denotes not even their actual setting, but a darkening of the sun and moon resembling their setting. "Even if n^lt conld be taken as equivalent to ^yfj, (in the heavens), yet the historical reference of this verse to the standing of the sun and moon at the strong word of faith uttered by Joshua (Josh, x.), which nearly all the earlier commentators from the Targum to Herder and Steudel have endeavoured to establish, would be dis proved by the grammatically incorrect and really trivial argu ments by which they have tried to show the close connexion between v. 11 a and 11 b. The ancient miracle and the words of our author (Habakkuk) are in direct antithesis to each other." (Delitzsch in loco). Thus instead of proving that our verses contain the description of a miracle, this passage (Hab. iii. 11) furnishes evidence of the contrary.1 For if hy the entrance of 1 We do not meet with a single reference to these verses of the book of Joshua in any part of the Old or New Testament, whereas if they really relate the occurrence of so extraordinary a miracle, in fact of the only one of its kind, we certainly should have expected to do So. Konig does, it is true, find such a reference in Is. xxviii. 21 ; but even 268 THE PASSAGE POETICAL. the'sun and moon into their habitation we are not to understand a literal withdrawal, but are to regard it merely as a poetical figure descriptive of total darkness ; then here also we cannot interpret it literally, when it is said that the sun and moon stood still in the midst of heaven and did not hasten to go down. — It has, indeed, been said, that if we have here only a poetical quotation, since it occurs in a historical narrative, the writer ought to have added, as in fact is done in every other instance, a description in prose of the event which the poet intended to celebrate ; and that it is the more requisite in this case, inasmuch as the quotation is introduced without any explanation, and therefore the reader cannot but come to the conclusion, that it contains historical truth, and that on that account there is no necessity for farther explanation." (Ev. K. Z. 1833, p. 201 seq.) — To this, however, we reply that the explanation required is given clearly enough in the context. We have already shown that the whole passage (vv. 12 — 15) is a parenthetical section inserted in the history from a poetic description of Joshua's vic tory in the neighbourhood of Gibeon, and therefore it is apparent from the manner in which it is introduced that it cannot contain any fresh historical details. Moreover, we must observe, that in vv. 10, 11 the author has already fully narrated the actual course of the victory over the enemy, first in the neighbourhood of Gibeon, and then in their flight to Azekah and Makkedah, not only describing the defeat they had sustained from the Israelites, but also recording that more of them had been destroyed by the large hailstones sent down from the heavens by God than by the swords of the Israelites. And then again, after inserting this quotation, he resumes the thread of his narrative, which he dropped at v. 11, and relates in what way the fugitive kings were taken and destroyed. Now if we look attentively at the close connexion betwen v. 11 and 16, it will be evident enough that the intervening section, consisting of the extract from the if it were there, it would merely relate to the miracle described in v. 11, in the same manner as Is. xxx. 30; but would not in any way establish the fact that the sun stood still, as v. Lengerke (p. 644) and others suppose. On the other hand there are not a few expositors (Hitzig, Umbreit, Knobel, &c.) who believe that Is. xxviii. 21 is founded upon 2 Sam. v. 20 — 25, and 1 Chr. xiv. 16. > CHAPTER X. 16—19. 269 ancient book of songs, does not relate any fresh occurrence, dif ferent from what had already been told, but is merely a poetical picture of the historical events referred to in vv. 10, 11. The only difference is in the form in which those events are described, for in reality it is the same thing whether the omnipotence of God extends one day to the length of two, or causes as much to be accomplished in one day as, without the help of the Almighty, would inevitably require two. Vv. 16 — 19. The five fugitive kings concealed themselves in a cave near Makkedah. As soon as Joshua was informed of this, he ordered large stones to be rolled before the mouth of the cave, and left some men to guard it, whilst he went with the ^army in pursuit of the foe.-^-V. 16. ppVai is the (well-known) T T I — cave near Makkedah. As the situation of the city has not yet been ascertained, the cave near it is also unknown.1 — V. 17. On the form Q*i^pj;j from the singular fr$3pi2> see Ewald, Krit. Gr. p. 455. — V. 19. ^3f denom. from yjft, caudam laedere to injure the tail, means here to attack the rear, battre en queue; LXX., Kal KaraXaBere -rr)v ovpaylav avTebv. The meaning is given still more closely by the Vulgate, et extremos quosque fugientium caedite. On this word, which is only met with in one other place, viz., Deut. xxv. 18, see W. Gesenius, thes. s. v. — Let them not come unto their cities, i.e. endeavour to slay them in their flight, "for the Lord has given them into your bands." Vv. 20 — 27. When the pursuit of the enemy was over, and Joshua had collected his army in the camp at Makkedah, there being no other enemy who ventured to resist the Israelites, he executed judgment upon the five kings who were confined in the cave. V. 20. On o^p^-iy see chap. viii. 24. — ^ Q'nv^pp is not the commencement of the apodosis, as Jerome, Michaelis, Dereser, and others suppose ; but of a parenthesis, inserted in the primary clause, as in chap. iii. 15. The proper rendering is, therefore, 1 Robinson (ii. 353) found a large cave not far from Deir Dubban ; but this was not the cave of Makkedah. There are many large caverns, both natural and excavated, in the mountains of Palestine, which chiefly consist of limestone and chalk-cliffs See Winer R.W. i. 601 ; and v. Raumer, Pal. p. 50. On some of the most remarkable of these, see Robinson ii. 395, sqq., 354 sqq., &c. ; v. Raumer, Beitr. z. Bib. Geog. p. 64 sqq. 270 DEFEAT AND DEATH OF THE FIVE KINGS. " so that only a remnant of them was left and took refuge in the fortified cities." *Q{tf>p v. 21, is the commencement of a second '% T"" antecedent clause, with another minor clause subordinate to it; and it is only in v. 23 that the apodosis follows. — It must have been the day after the battle (v. 10 seq.), that the army returned to the camp at Makkedah, for the engagement and the pursuit occupied the whole day till the evening. But even if the army returned to the camp during the night, all that is narrated in vv. 22 — 28, must have taken place on the day following. — There is some difficulty connected with the word Qp^ in the proverb ; " no one or not a dog pointed his tongue against the children of Israel" (see Exod. xi. 7, and Judith xi. 19). The \ cannot be redundant, not does it stand before the nominative, as Gesenius (Gram. p. 681) and the earlier expositors affirm. {Jp^^ either means " against any one," or is a more particular definition of ^Nlto11 "'il^- ^he nominative y^^ could easily be supplied in the case of a well known proverb. Still it is possible, that the conjecture expressed by Houbig and Maurer may be correct, that the lp before yp^ arose through the mistake of a copyist, from the preceding word V^nlT1- — ^n that case ^p^ would be the subject ; no one pointed his tongue, i.e. no one ventured in any way to injure the Israelites. The Vulgate has adopted this trans lation : nullusque contra filios Israel mutire ausus est. — V. 24. " All the men of Israel" are all the fighting men in the camp. N137>nn ! on the use of the article as a pronoun, see Ewald Lehrb. § 321 b. The termination ^, which many regard as derived from the Arabic (see Gesenius, Lehrgeb. p. 264) is pro bably an early ending related to ft, which still shows the con traction of ft into >| by its more extended form ; see Ewald, Lehrb. §190b. — It is by no means a sign of barbarism, that the officers of the army are ordered by Joshua to place their feet upon the necks of the conquered kings, nor does it " need to be justified by the greater barbarism of the Canaanites," as is the case with the circumstance related in Judges i. 7. It was a symbolical action, the design of which is clearly pointed out in v. 25, a signum extremae et perfectae subjectionis intended to inspirit the people and so prepare them for further conflict with the Canaanites. As these captive kings lay powerless before them, trodden beneath CHAPTER X. 16—19. 271 their feet, so would all their enemies, who should make war upon them, be laid prostrate by the Lord (v. 25). Masius, C. a Lapide, Clericus, and others, regard this as a special fulfilment of the prediction of Moses (Deut. xxxiii. 29), " thou shalt tread upon their high places." But the pilft^ are not the necks of T conquered enemies. On the other hand, the scriptural expres sion, " to make any one his footstool" (Ps. ex. 1), appears to have been derived from the custom exemplified here. — V. 25. In order that he might inspire his army with greater courage, Joshua made use of the same words as the Lord had employed when he urged him to enter upon the conquest of Canaan (chap. i. 9). — For vv. 26, 27, see chap. viii. 29. The last clause of the 27th verse is supposed by most commentators to mean, that the Israelites threw the bodies of the five kings into the cave after they had been slain, and placed large stones at the mouth of it ; and that those stones had been left there until the days of the historian, as a memorial of the victory, just as in other cases, heaps of stones were raised above the graves of criminals. But this does not furnish any explanation of the words o^n DJjy-*!^ ^pi, for in every other place rygy is used to call attention to the fact that the day named was the very same day and no other ; see chap. v. 11 ; Gen. vii. 13, xvii. 23 ; Ex. xii. 17, 41, &c. r^^V is never met with in the formula " to this day," when it means nothing more than that anything had continued to the time when the book was written ; but only when emphasis is to be laid upon the day itself, until the selfsame day, Lev. xxiii. 14 ; Ezek. ii. 3. Hence, if q^ has any meaning at all here, the whole sentence must be taken in connection with the pre ceding words, and be rendered, as a relative clause : " where they had concealed themselves, and where large stones had been placed at the mouth of the cave till that same day (viz., the day on which they were executed)." A grammatical difficulty is not a sufficient reason for rejecting this explanation, for very fre quently where there are several subordinate clauses, the second member of the sentence is connected with the rest by ^ relative and the imperfect ; as is the case just before in v. 21 ; and there is nothing surprising in the repetition of the noun pn}?an> instead of the introduction of a pronoun, since the use of ^ftp"} had ¦ T — weakened the connection between the clauses. 272 SIX CITIES TAKEN. Vv. 28 — 39. After the sentence of war had been executed upon the five kings, Joshua followed up his victory and took the fortified cities of the south, where those of the enemy who escaped the sword of the Israelites had taken refuge. He took Makkedah on tbe same day (v. 28) and after that Libnah (v. 29), Lachish (v. 31), Eglon (v. 34), Hebron (v. 36) and Debir (v. 38). The taking of each city is separately described, and in nearly every case the same words are employed. From this uniformity in the narrative, and from a supposed discrepancy between vv. 36 — 39 and chap. xi. 21, xiv. 12, xv. 13 — 17, Maurer infers that the historical part of the narrative is mixed up with mythical ingre dients. But there is no discrepancy between the passages re ferred to, as we shall show at vv. 36 — 39 ; and the uniformity in the statements is so completely in accordance with the simple style which prevailed in the earliest times that it cannot possibly be regarded as a sign of mythical fiction. — V. 28. The words " that day," show that the five kings were still hanging on the stakes when Makkedah was taken ; so that this occurred on the day on which they were executed. This is the reason for our finding ~\yy and not -[S^Vy It is left to be described here on account of its connexion with the subsequent events. — For the particular word used here see chap. vi. 21, viii. 22 and 24. ttJD2~^3 means every individual. This is evident both from the fact that, except in the case of Jericho, the ban under whieh the Canaanites were laid applied only to human beings (see chap. viii. 2), and also from v. 40 and chap. xi. 14, where piatM'^S T T : T- is used in the same sense, like Deut. xx. 16, and is expressly said to refer to the Canaanites themselves (v. 17). — From the words " as he had done to the king of Jericho," (cf. chap. viii. 2, 29) many commentators suppose that the king of Jericho had been suspended from a stake in the same manner as the king of Makkedah. But there is nothing to bind us to such an infe rence ; for we are no where told how the king of Jericho died, and it does not strictly follow from chap. viii. 2 that he was killed in the same way as the king of Ai (chap. viii. 29). See our remarks on chap. viii. 2. Vv. 29, 30. Taking of Libnah. All Israel means simply all the men who had been selected for this war, as we may clearly see from chap. viii. 15, compared with chap. viii. 1. Libnah CHAPTER X. 31 — 35. 273 was situated in the low country of Judah (chap. xv. 42) and was given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 13). The exact position of this city, which was strongly fortified under the kings of Judah (2 Kings viii. 22, xix. 8), has never been discovered; (see Robinson ii. 389). Eusebius and Jerome describe it as villa in regione Eleutheropolitana, quae appellatur Lobna, AoBavd. It certainly stood on the west of Makkedah, probably also to the west of Eleutheropolis. Vv. 31 — 33. From Libnah Joshua proceeded towards the west or southwest to Lachish, i.e., Um Lakis (see v. 3), and conquered this town ij$pj Qli3,, ie,, on the second day from the commencement of the siege (Kimchi and others), although the king of Gezer came to relieve it. The kings of Lachish and Eglon are not mentioned here, or in v. 35, as they had already been slain (vv. 23 — 27). We cannot learn from v. 33, whether the king of Gezer was defeated with his army before, or after the taking of Lachish. Nor is it anywhere said that Joshua took the city of Gezer ; but we find the name of its king in chap. xii. 12, in the list of kings slain by Joshua, and reference is evidently made to the account contained in the verse before us. According to chap. xvi. 10, and Judges i. 29, Gezer was still in the hands of the Canaanites after the division of the land , and the death of Joshua. But it does not follow from this that it was never taken by Joshua, for the Canaanites regained pos session of many of the cities, which had been conquered by him. From its situation, however, it is probable that Joshua did not attack it at this time, as it was too far out of his way, and at too great a distance from Lachish. According to chap. xvi. 3, the southern boundary of the tribe of Ephraim ran from Lower Bethhoron past Gezer towards the sea, i.e., the seaport town Joppa (chap. xix. 46). Gezer must therefore be looked for in the direct line from Bethhoron to Lydda ; with which the state ment of Eusebius, that it was four Roman miles from Nicopolis on the north, agrees. (See v. Raumer Pal. p. 188 seq., and my Commentary on Kings, p. 141 seq.) Vv. 34, 35. From Lachish Joshua turned towards the east to Eglon (Adjlan, see v. 3) ; which city he took and burned in the same manner as Lachish. V. 36, 37. From Eglon he went up 18 * 274 HEBRON TAKEN. (byi) to *be mountains to Hebron (see v. 3.) Having taken this place, he executed the ban upon it and its inhabitants, destroying its king and slaying the inhabitants with the edge of the sword. He also overthrew the towns belonging to it. nb^JJa from Eglon ; see Ewald Lehrb. § 216 b. The king of Hebron mentioned in v. 37 is not the Hoham spoken of in v. 3, for he had already been slain at Makkedah (v. 28) ; it must therefore have been his successor, who had ascended the throne whilst Joshua was engaged in the conquest of the cities men tioned in vv. 28 — 35. In the opinion ofi Maurer, De Wette (Einl. § 167), and Hauff (p. 81), this account of the conquest of Hebron is not historical, or at all events is introduced too early, as it is at variance with another description of a conquest con tained in chap. xi. 21, and both of these are contradicted by a third in chap. xiv. 12, xv. 13 — 17 (compare Judges i. 10 — 13). But. this supposed contradiction has been satisfactorily explained by Havernick (Einl. ii. 1, p. 19 seq.) ; though neither De Wette nor Hauff has noticed his explanation, to say nothing of refuting it. " Let us first," says Havernick, " take chap. x. 36 — 38 and xi. 21, 22. There is no discrepancy between these two. From them we learn that Joshua first took Hebron and Debir, and afterwards drove back the Anakim of the mountains, who were obliged to take refuge in the cities of the Philistines. There were no Anakim left in the land at the termination of this cam paign, though they were by no means exterminated." (See our remarks at chap. xi. 21). The taking of Hebron and Debir, and the expulsion of the Anakim from those cities and the sur rounding country, were two different things, which may very well be placed side by side. Nor is there any greater discrepancy between the latter event and that related in chap. xiv. 12, xv. 13— 17 (cf. Judg. i. 10—13) ; for the conquest of Hebron and Debir, referred to in these passages, and the expulsion of the three tribes of Anakim from them, took place after the death of Joshua, and therefore at a much later period than the events described in chap. x. 36—38 and xi. 21. In the meantime the Anakim might very easily have extended themselves again as far as Hebron and Debir, for Joshua had not exterminated them, but had merely driven them back upon the cities of the chapter x. 38, 39. 275 Philistines, Gaza, Gath and Ashdod ; and whilst the Israelites were engaged in the conquest and partition of the land, they had very probably fortified themselves there.1 There is no discrepancy between the passages referred to, unless our account is so misin terpreted as to be made to say that all the cities without exception, in the whole of the south of Palestine, were taken, and all their inhabitants to the last man destroyed. But Masius acknow ledges that the words do not imply this, and has wisely observed that " in this expedition Joshua merely ran over the southern provinces rapidly with an armed force, and did not entirely depopulate it at once. He thought that for the present it was sufficient for all the inhabitants to be smitten with terror by his victories, and thus prevented from offering any obstruction to himself and the people of God. All, therefore, whom he attacked, he destroyed according to the commands of God, not sparing any ; but he did not diligently search out all the hiding-places in every locality. This was left as a gleaning, for each tribe to accomplish by its own valour, when it entered upon its inheri tance." Rosenmuller and v. Lengerke give the same explanation. See also Konig i. p. 18 sqq. From the words all the cities thereof (ver. 37 and 39), it is evident that Hebron and Debir were the capital cities of small kingdoms, which included other towns in the vicinity. Vers. 38, 39. ^ttPl does not mean, he returned, but he turned T T — from Hebron towards Debir. This city (^yyr\ or pnn)> for merly called Kirjaih-Sepher (chap. xv. 15, and Judg. i. li), and Kirjath-Sanna (chap. xv. 49),2 was situated in the mountains of 1 Even van Herwerden (I.e. p. 39 seq.) observes : " But as regards chap. x. 36 — 38 (cf. chap. xi. 21) may it not have happened, that Hebron and Debir had been once destroyed, but were afterwards recovered by the enemy, when Joshua was in another part of the country, and that thence they harassed the Israelites and laid waste their fields ? And is it not possible that this resistance on their part induced Joshua to attack them again and utterly destroy them ? If so, why could not the same thing happen again at a later period, after the death of Joshua, when the giants had gained fresh courage ; and lead to the events described in Judg. i. 10, 11 ? 2 "1DD n'HD an<^ nSD-n^lD are rendered by the LXX. : noKis ... .. — :'. t — — :' « ypappareov literally, book- town or town of books ; Targum ijp^ pl^p ' 18 2 _:" 276 CLOSE OF THE campaign. Judah, and, so far as we can learn from chap. xv. 48 sqq., to the south of Hebron. This agrees very well with the statement of the author that he turned, for Joshua had attacked Hebron on his way from tbe west, and therefore had to turn towards the south, to reach Debir. Vv. 40—43 bring the narrative to a close with a summary of the conquests of Joshua in the south. " This epilogue gives us a general idea of the expedition and victory, which were most complete, placing the whole before our eyes, and enabling us to see at a glance how great a space had been traversed and reduced by force of arms." (Masius.) This connexion between the verses before us and those which precede them, has been altogether overlooked by Maurer, who supposes vv. 40 — 42 to refer to another "victorious campaign, in which Joshua first urbs archivoruni. Bochart (Can. ii. c. 17) explains pjjp : id Phoe- T — nicibus idem fuit quod Arabibus Sunna (3U«) lex, doctrina, jus canoni- cum. Hinc phoenicia urbs eadem modo appellatur -^Qp PPIp ur'DS litterarum, modo pj^p n'Ht? ur^s doctrinae seu legis. There is cer tainly more to be said in favour of this explanation, than of that suggested by Gesenius (thes. ii. 962 and iii. 1237), viz., that pj^D ls T — equivalent to n'2D!3D tne branch of a palm-tree, pi2D /THi? meaning t - : — ' the city of the palm. The name Kirjath Sepher supplies some evi dence that the Canaanites were acquainted with writing and books, though it does not justify us in concluding that the inhabitants were exclusively occupied with writing and the sciences ; see Ewald Gesch. i. p. 287. The name -yyi is derived by some of the Rabbins from the Persian Aji a writer. But Gesenius has properly said in opposition to this (thes. i. 318) "what can Persian have to do with this period of antiquity ?" The assumption of Hitzig, Bertheau (Jud. i. 11) and others, that "Q"| must necessarily mean the same as ^£Q H^lp' 1S proved to be unfounded by such examples as Hebron and Kirjath Arba, Bethel and Lus. Bertheau's explanation of "\yi, which he supposes to be a passive participle, with the meaning " of things arranged in a row, i.e., of writing, or of that which is written," is too far-fetched to meet with much approbation. Or are we to suppose that Debir, king of Eglon (ver. 3), received his name from writing? Ewald (Gesch. ii. p. 289) imagines, that Debir was so called on account of its standing behind the others, the farthest city towards the west, on the mountains over against Negeb or Daromas ; he also thinks that as it was strongly fortified, it may prohably have been the same as the El Burdj marked upon Robinson's map. chapter x. 40—43. 277 conquered the hill-country, that still remained, then the extreme south from one end to the other, and lastly, the western pro vinces from Gaza back to Gibeon." There is no foundation for this, and it is quite beside the mark. The whole land means that which has already been spoken cf, i.e., the whole of the south of Palestine from Gibeon. This part of the country was divided according to its natural features into the mountain-district, the south, the low country, and the slopes. The hills were the dis trict that was afterwards known by the name of the mountains of Judah (see chap. xi. 16). The list of cities is given in chap. xv. 48 — 60. 252n the south (see chap. xi. 16; Gen. xiii. 1; Num. xiii. 17, 29, &c), the most southerly part of Canaan, ex tending from the borders of Edom on the east to the land of the Philistines on the west, was bounded on the south by the desert and on the north by the mountains, which run from Maon to the Wady Arara, and thence in a north-westerly direction to the , Wady el Khuweilifeh ; see Robinson ii. p. 623. On the first division of the land this southern country was all allotted to the tribe of Judah, and its cities are included in the number given in chap. xv. 21 — 32. But when the second division was made, many of them were assigned to the tribe of Simeon, chap. xix. 1 — 9. This tract of land was called pj^pii ^33 even at a later period, on account of its having once belonged to Judah ; 1 Sam. xxvii. 10; xxx. 14; 2 Sam. xxiv. 7, &c. — pp?Gtt?n tbe low country refers here to the larger southern portion of the level country, which stretches from the promontory of Carmel as far as Gaza (see chap. ix. 1), and does not include the hills, which connect the mountains with the actual plain. The hilly region is mentioned by itself under the name of ppnc?Nn> both here and in chap. xii. 8. This word only occurs in our book and the Pen tateuch. In the latter it is applied to the slopes of the moun tains of Pisgah (see Deut. iii. 17, iv. 49; Josh. xii. 3, and xiii. 20). It is a derivative of ~\$jtf effusio, o^pQ -j©^ effusio tor- rentium (Num. xxi 15), the low ground of brooks, " the low places into which the torrents ran down from the mountains," Gesenius thes. s. v.) Hence pn^j^ and pp-fty^ the slopes, i. e. the hilly country, into which the wadys from the mountains run. The Septuagint, Vulgate, and Syriac have all treated the word as a 278 SUMMARY OF THE CONQUESTS. proper name ; on the other hand the Chaldee has rendered it correctly Npiaia "ilBtDD en?usio or projectio e locis elevatis, that is, as Masius has properly observed, such places as were called vircbpeiai by the Greeks, the lower heights which form the con necting link between mountains or hills and the level ground. — natt)3n~^3 is equivalent to tijsjpr-^s in verse 28. In the T T : — T V V — T words, " as Jehovah the God of Israel had commanded," there is a reference to Num. xxxiii. 51 sqq.; Deut. vii. 1 seq. xx. 16. V. 41 contains a statement of the geographical extent of the land that had been conquered in this campaign, measured from East to West and from North to South. Kadesh Barnea, also called Kadesh in Num. xx. 14 (cf. xxxii. 8), was a city in the desert of Sin, which forms one part of that of Paran (Num. xx. 16). It is mentioned as early as Gen. xiv. 7, xvi. 14, xx. 1. The Israelites encamped there under Moses at two separate times, but on both occasions were obliged to leave it and go down the Araba ; tbe first time, because they murmured against • the Lord (Num. x. ,12, 33, xii. 16, xiii. and xiv.; Deut. i. 20 — 46), the second, on account of the refusal of the King of Edom to allow them to pass through his land (Num. xx. J, 14 sqq., xxxiii." 36). Kadesh Barnea was on the western borders of the country of the Edomites, and the southern boundary of Canaan, which was then in the hands of the Amalekites and Amorites, who dwelt upon the mountains (Num. xiv. 45 ; Deut. i. 19 seq.). It is either to be looked for near the fountain el Weibeh in the Wady el Jeib, on the eastern side of the moun tains of Paran, which bound the Arabah on the west, at about 25 to 30 English miles from the southern extremity of the Dead Sea ; or a little further north, in the ruins of Ain Hasb. The former is supposed by Robinson to have been the site (ii. p. 580 sqq. 610 sqq,), the latter by v. Raumer (Beitr. p. 9 seq.).1 1 It is unnecessary to adduce any proof that Kadesh Barnea and Kadesh were two names of the same place, and that Reland is wrong in supposing that they refer to different cities (Pal. p. 114 sqq.); see Winer R. W. (s. v.) and Gesenius thes. (iii. 1197). There is no his torical evidence to sustain Ewald's opinion (Gesch. ii. p. 197), that the name Kadesh Barnea was given in consequence of there being some other place of greater importance in the neighbourhood, from which Kadesh had to take its name. Again, there is only one Paran men tioned,' either in the Pentateuch (as v. Raumer Beitr. p. 8 says), or in chapter x. 40—43. 279 Kadesh Barnea was the extreme point of Canaan towards the south-east, and on that account is placed in antithesis to Gaza, the most southerly city of the Philistines, which was only an hour's journey from the Mediterranean (Robinson ii. 374 sqq.), and according to Gen. x. 19 was the limit of the territory of the Canaanites on the south-west. The land of Goshen spoken any part of the Old Testament'; see Hengstenberg Gesch. Bil. p. 222. The mountains of Paran (Deut. xxxiii. 2 ; Hab. iii. 3) must be looked for in the desert of that name, which extends to the Arabah, where it is bounded by a steep mountain range. It is impossible to discover any reference to a city in Paran, either in Gen. xiv. 6 seq. as Ewald imagines (Gesch. ii. p. 198), or in 1 Kings xi. 18, as Delitzsch supposes (Hab. p. 145.) With reference to the connection between the deserts of Paran and Sin, it is frequently assumed that they joined each other. M. Baumgarten (Com. ii. p. 309) and Delitzsch (ut sup.) stand alone in their opinion, that the latter was that part of the desert of Paran, in which Kadesh was situated ; in other words, that the desert of Paran included the smaller space, known by the name of the desert of Sin. A careful examination of all the passages in which the latter occurs will raise this conjecture into a certainty. The desert of Sin is only named in connection with Kadesh in the desert of Paran. It was from the desert of Paran that Moses sent out the spies, and they re turned to him and the people, to the desert of Paran near to Kadesh (Num. xii. 16, and xiii. 3, compared with chap. xiii. 26, Deut. i. 19 sqq.), after having explored the land from the desert of Sin to Rechob near to Hamath (Num. xiii. 21.) The desert of Sin must, therefore, to some extent at least, have coincided with that of Paran, for the point from which the spies set out must naturally have formed the terminus a quo in the country to be explored. This may be seen still more clearly from Num. xx. 1, xxvii. 14, and xxxiii. 36, where Kadesh is placed in the desert of Sin (see also Num. xxxiv. 3 — 4, and Josh. xv. 1 — 3.) It is true that we might be led to infer from this, that Paran and Sin were merely different names of one and the same desert. But it is evident that the former is the more general name, the latter a Bpecial one, partly from the fact that it is always the desert of Paran which is associated with that of Sinai, to point out the two extreme points by which the wanderings of the children of Israel in the wilder ness of Arabia were bounded, whilst we never find that of Sin (see Num. x. 12; Deut. xxxiii. 2; also Deut. i. 1, 2, cf. Hengstenberg ut upra) ; and partly also from the application of the name Sin in the passage before us to the desert, which formed the southern boundary of Palestine, whilst in other places it is called Paran (Gen. xxi. 21 ; 1 Sam. xxv. 1.) From all this it necessarily follows, that the whole of the north-eastern portion of the peninsula of Sinai bore the name of Paran ; but that that particular portion of it, in which Kadesh stood, was named Sin, and this is all the description that we can give of that portion. 280 campaign in the north. of here and chap. xi. 16, must of course not be confounded with the province of the same name, which was given to the Israelites, as a dwelling-place, in Egypt (Gen. xlvi. 48.) It derived its. name from a city of Goshen, on the mountains at the extreme south of Palestine (chap. xv. 51); and this is all that can be decided in reference to it. — V. 42 -jpj^ QVB at one ^me > Chaldee Wat Nim> UD0 tempore, i.e. in one campaign, which may have t : ¦ t -: : lasted for a considerable time; see chap. xi. 18, and Clericus (on this book.) All this Joshua was able to perform, because Jehovah, the God of Israel, fought for his people, giving them the victory everywhere by his own power. The final clause of the 42d verse and the whole-of the 43d agree word for word with the concluding words of the quotation from the Sepher hayya shar, vv. 14, 15. CHAPTER XI. DEFEAT OF THE ALLIED KINGS OF NORTHERN CANAAN, VV. 1— 15. COMPLETION OF THE CONQUESTS, VV. 16 — 23. Vv. 1 — 5. After Joshua had subdued the southern part of Canaan, Jabin, King of Hazor, induced the whole of the kings of the north to enter into an alliance and oppose the Israelites. With this intent they encamped by Lake Merom with an innu merable army and a large number of horses and chariots. V. 1. And it came to pass, when Jabin heard, sc. of the overthrow of the Canaanites of the south (c. 10.) Jabin, king of Hazor, placed him self at thehead of the alliance, because Hazor had been hitherto the leading kingdom in northern Canaan (v. 10.) The city of^jjp( called by Josephus" Acraopos, by Eusebius 'Aawp, was situated on the north of Lake Merom (Samochonitis), viripKenat rr) The town of Dor — T stood upon the Mediterranean Sea, below the promontory of Car mel, nine Roman miles from Caesarea, and opposite to a spot called Tartura or Tortura. (See my Comm. on the Books of Kings, p. 47 seq.). — V. 3. Compare the remarks on ch. iii. 10. Hermon, called by the Sidonians Sirion, by the Amorites Shenir (Deut. iii. 9), and in Deut. iv. 48 ^ijjj* is *be southernmost portion of Antilibanus, the Jebel-esh-Sheikh with its south-eastern arm Jebel Heisch, the loftiest mountain-peak in Syria, which rises, at the point where the Jebel Heisch diverges from the Jebel- esh-Sheikh, to the height of 10,000 feet above the level of the Mediterranean Sea, and is covered with perpetual ice, for which reason the Arabs call it the snow-mountain (,sOi»Jl U*) ; (see WinerH. W. s-. v., v. Raumer, Pal. 33 seq., and Robinson iii. 609 sqq. and 625). The Hermon, i.e., the Jebel-esh-Sheikh, was the northern boundary of Palestine on the east of the Jordan (v. 17, Deut. iii. 8, iv. 48.) The land of Mizpeh cannot be any other than 1 According to Jerome (Comment, in Ezech. xlviii. 21), and the Onomast. s.v. Chennereth, the city of Tiberias was formerly named Chennereth. But this is opposed by all the Rabbins, who unani mously agree in the statement that Rakkath, ch. xix. 35, was thesa:ne as Tiberias. Cf. Lightfoot opp. ii. p. 223, and the notes on ch. xix. 35. CHAPTER XI. 1 — 15. 283 the tract of country at the foot of the Jebel-esh-Sheikh between the Jebel Heisch and Nahr Hasbeya, through which a broad arm or line of hills of inconsiderable height runs southwards from the foot of the loftiest part of the Jebel-esh-Sheikh, forming the high land which shuts in Lake Huleh on the east. This tract is called Jebel Heisch according to Burckhardt (cf. Robinson iii. 344). 1 V. 4. These kings collected their forces, which formed, when united, an innumerable army, and seemed especially terrible to the Israelites on account of the large number of its horses (its strong cayalry), and chariots. " Much people, even as the sand that is upon the sea-shore in multitude" was a standing phrase amongst the Hebrews to denote an innumerable crowd (cf. Gen. xxii. 17, xxxii. 13 ; Judg. vii. 12 ; 2 Sam. xvii. 11, &c.) Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 18), according to a calculation of his own reckons the numbers at 300,000 foot, 10,000 cavalry, and 20,000 chariots. ^^-^ according to chap. xvii. 1 6, and Judg. iv. 3, were iron chariots. They were not, however, as most expositors be fore Rosenmuller supposed, chariots with scythes. These were first introduced by Cyrus, and were altogether unknown to the Medes, Syrians, and Arabians, that is to all the Asiatic tribes before the time of Cyrus, as well as to the ancient Egyptians ; (cf. Xenophon Cyropaed vi. 1. 27 and 30, and Wilkinson, Man ners and Customs of the Ancient Egyptians i. 350). Bertheau has correctly observed (on Judg. i. 19), that they were chariots fastened with iron, like the Egyptian war-chariots, which, as Wilkinson has shown (p. 342 and 348) were made of wood but nailed and tipped with iron. — Yl}?!1'! they agreed together about the war, which was to be waged in concert, and fixed upon the waters of Merom as the place of encampment. This was the lake Samochonitis, Se/tte^owtTis or Jjajtio^Gwrn? Xl/jivr] (Josephus Ant. v. 5, 1 de bell. jud. iii. 9, 7 ; iv. 1, 1 ), now known by the name of el Huleh Xl.^dl »fsx>, a small fresh water lake, through which the Jordan flows, about four or five English geographical miles long and of almost equal breadth. Josephus calls it 60 stadia long and 60 broad. On the north it is bounded by a tract of 1 The Mizpeh. assigned to the Gadites in Gilead (Judg. xi. 29), or Ramath Mizpe (Josh. xiii. 26), and the land of Mizpah below the Hermon, have been very carelessly confounded by many commentators including v. Lengerke p. 677. 284 THE LORD ENCOURAGES JOSHUA. land of the same or even greater extent, covered by reeds and bulrushes, through which two or three rivulets wind their course to the lake, and which is undoubtedly covered with water when the lake is full. Hence the whole may be regarded as actually included in the area of the lake, making it in all eight or ten geographical miles long and four or five broad ; cf. Robinson iii. 341 sqq. On the east and west the lake is bounded by mountain slopes. It was probably on the rising ground on the western side that the allied kings pitched their tents ; for we find them in vers. 7 Qlia "VG hv ab°ve the waters of Merom. V. 6 — 9. As the Israelites were sure to be alarmed at the sight of the enemy, with its innumerable forces, and especially with its cavalry and war-chariots, the Lord again confirmed the courage of Joshua, and promised him a complete conquest over the foe. At the same time he commands him to hough the horses and burn the chariots. Thus encouraged, Joshua suddenly attacks them with all his army, completely routes them, and pursues them for a great distance, giving no quarter, and destroy ing horses and chariots as well as men. — V. 6. N"pp)_^ltf id. qu. chap. viii. 1 and x. 8. " The greater the difficulty and labour involved in the overthrow of an army so vast and well discip lined, the greater also was the necessity for the confidence of Joshua to be strengthened anew. Hence God appears to his servant and promises him the same success as he had given him on former occasions." (Calvin.) — Many expositors have stumbled at the words, " for to-morrow about this time will I deliver them up all slain before Israel." Starting with the supposition that Joshua was still in the camp at Gilgal, they saw that it was impossible for him to advance to the Lake Merom in one day. Hence Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 18) paraphrases : "Joshua came suddenly upon them by Bia 71-6/477x77? r)p,epa<; eV amovs iXdmv; from which Michaelis hastily concludes that he read in his He brew text (as in 1 Sam. xx. 12) ppttfrann IMa (see Orient. * • — ; — XT Bibl. v. p. 232). The explanation adopted in the Exegetical Handbook is that pi^-tH fty5 ina is equivalent to " at this time on an early day." This is quite arbitrary. And the infe rence drawn by Calvin from the difficulties that beset the ques tion of time, that " the kings had advanced some distance to attack Joshua in Gilgal," is entirely negatived by the express CHAPTER XI. 6 — 9. 285 assertion in v. 7 that Joshua fell upon the enemy in their encampment by Lake Merom. We must therefore assume, as Calmet, Dereser, and others have done, that Joshua did not wait for the allied kings to attack him in his camp at Gilgal, but marched against them, with the intention of coming upon them, before their army could be brought into order, and that whilst on his way, and when only a day's journey from the enemy's camp, he received the divine promise that the victory should be his. — There is a peculiar emphasis intended in the V]jn which pre- • T cedes the participle which is added to the preceding negative clause " that they might have no favour," for the purpose of making it more emphatic— "^ ni5J ItiJND see vv- 1^ an<^ ^* Vv. 21 and 22 are supposed by Hasse, Maurer, Hauff (p. 198), and De Wette (Einl. p. 234), to form a small fragment, inserted afterwards either by the author himself, or by some other hand. There is no ground for the supposition ; for v. 19 seq. does not conclude the first half of the book, as these critics fancy. On the contrary it has not even the same appearance of a conclusion, as the 23d verse has. The explanations of vv. 21 and 22 given by various expositors have differed widely one from another. Most of them take it to be a supplementary account. And so it is ; but not of another expedition, undertaken by Joshua himself or some other general, Caleb for instance, on his behalf after the kings of the north had been overthrown.1 It is an appendix to the history given in chap. x. of the subjection and extermination of the Canaanites in the south of the land, and is introduced by the author with especial reference to Numbers xiii. 28 and 31 sqq. At the close of the whole account of the conquest of the land by Joshua, the historian felt it necessary to refer to the giants, whom the spies sent by Moses had described as dwelling of the Canaanites resembles that of Pharaoh, also adds : Sed hie aliud movet, quomodo dictum sit ad hoc eis confortatum cor, ut exsurgerent in bellum ad versus Israel et ob hoe eis non praeberent misericordiam : quasi praebenda esset, si non bellarent, cum Deus praeceperit, nulli eorum esse parcendum, et ob hoc Gabaeonitis pepercerint, quia se de longinqua terra venisse fingentes eorum jurationem tenuerant. Sed quoniam quibusdam ultro praebuerunt Israelitae misericordiam, quamvis contra Dei mandatum ; ad hoc dictum esse intelligendum est, istos ita bellasse ut non eis parceretur, nee ab eis ipsis Israelitae neglecto Dei mandato ad misericordiam flecterentur. 1 WT\T\ fl5Q 1S tlms Paraphrased by Clericus and Rosenmiiller .- "after the termination of the war with the inhabitants of the north of Canaan." Masius also is of opinion that the Anakim came out again from their places of retreat after the conquest of the south, and that Joshua was therefore obliged to attack them once more after the war in the north, in order to exterminate them altogether from the land. CHAPTER XI. 21, 22. 2'93 in the land, and to relate expressly that Joshua had also expelled the dreaded sons of Anak from their settlements in and around Hebron, and had driven them back upon three of the cities of the Philistines, Gaza, Gath, and Ashdod. At that time refers to the long time (v. 18), during which Joshua made war upon the inha bitants of the iand.1— Qp^p,-^^ TT)^ is correctly explained by Clericus : " he killed those who fell into his hands, the rest he expelled, but after a short time, as we learn from chap. xv. 14, they came back again."— Qip^n the Anakim (chap. xiv. 12, 15 ; Deut. ii. 10 seq. 21), also called pjjfl-y or p^ i^ (chap.. xv. 14 ; Num. xiii. 33 ; Deut. ix. 2 ; Judg'/i. 20),T ftvh VT,S'1 (chap. xv. 14 ; Num. xiii. 22, 28), and ry>p^ v^ (Deutix.Y^ were a race of giants, descended from the giant Arba, from whom Hebron derived amongst the Canaanites the name of " the city of Arba." They are mentioned in Num. xiii. 33 as coming " of the giants," and in Deut. ii. 10 — 21, and ix. 2, as a people great, and many, and tall. (See also chap. xiv. 15, xv. 13). The opinion expressed by Bertheau (z. Gesch. p. 141), Ewald (Gesch. i. p. 276 seq.), and v. Lengerke (p. 182 seq.), that the Anakim formed part of the aborigines of Canaan, who were driven out by the later Canaanites, and so nearly exterminated, that in the time of Moses and Joshua only a few scattered remnants were here and there to be found, has been shown by J. H. Kurtz (Rudelbach's and Guericke's Zeitschrift 1845. H. 3. p. 41 sqq. Art. " die Ureinwohner Palastinas") to be entirely baseless. The children of Anak were not a separate race ; and not more than three families of them are ever referred to (Num. xiii. 22 ; Josh. xv. 14; Judg. i. 10), who dwelt upon the mountains of Judah in and around Hebron, which really belonged to the Amorites. 1 The correctness of this explanation is evident from the position of these verses amongst the concluding remarks upon the conquest of the land ; for, after completing the account of the wars of Joshua, and speaking (v. 16) of the whole land as conquered, the author cannot possibly have referred to a fresh campaign. And even Masius allows it to be admissible, by adding to his own explanation the following remark : " though, if any one prefers the supposition, that these two verses contain a corollary of the two great expeditions described in this and the previous chapter, and that those accounts are merely amplified by this reference to the extermination of the powerful giants by Joshua, he will find me quite ready to admit it." 294 THE ANAKIM. Hence it is with perfect correctness that Kurtz says (p. 53 seq.) : " When we notice the meaning of the word atp^Jfr *,e>' longnecked, men with extended necks, giants, and also the fact that in the case of every one of the Anakim, introduced in the history, the name and stature correspond ; and moreover when we observe that, whenever they are referred to in the sober historical narrative (to which the account brought by the spies, whose terror blinded them [Num. xiii. 27 sqq.J, cannot be said to belong), we only read of single individuals or families of giants (e.g. Num. xiii. 22 ; Josh. xiv. 15, xv. 14 ; Judg. i. 10 ; 2 Sam. xxi. 15 — 23; 1 Chr. 4 — 8), we are inclined to adopt the opinion, that the name Anakim is rather an appellation than a family name, and that the race of giants in the mountains of Judah were merely certain families or branches of the wide spread and powerful tribe of the Amorites, distinguished from the rest by their extraordinary size. — "^pjpj la ls supposed by Masius, Rosenmuller, and others to refer to the southern portion of the mountains of Judah (r/ bpuvr), Lk. i. 39), where Hebron, Debir, and Anab were situated. But it is evident that this is incorrect, from the words which immediately follow, pn~73 — T mm"1 the whole of the mountains of Judah, in which of course t : the southern portion was included. It is more correct to refer inn la to all the mountainous country in Palestine, as in ch. ix. i. The principal parts of this are subsequently specified as (the country of), Hebron, Debir, and Anab, and all the moun tains of Judah and Israel, as far, that is, as the Anakim had spread themselves. The mountains of Judah form the southern, the mountains of Israel the northern part of the great mountain range which runs from the plain of Esdrelom to the southern boundary of Palestine (v. Raumer Pal. p. 43 sqq.) The line, which separated them, is not mentioned anywhere in the Old Testament, but seems to have been the great Wady Beit Hanina (see Robinson ii. 333 and my commentary on the Books of Kings p. 46.)1 For Hebron and Debir comp. chap. x. 3. yyy Anab, T T 1 The assertion, made by Eichhorn (Einl. iii. p. 372), Rosenmuller (on v. 16), and Maurer (on v. 21), to the effect that the phrase "the mountains of Israel " first came into use in the days of David and Solomon, if indeed it was employed at all before the division of the chapter xi. 21. 22. 295 upon the mountains of Judah (chap. xv. 50), still exists and bears its ancient name L_JUfi. It stands on the south of Hebron, at a distance of about ten or twelve miles, on the eastern side of the great Wady at el Khulil, wliich runs from Hebron to Beer sheba (cf. Robinson ii. 195 sqq.)1 — V. 22. On the use of the singular -ip\l;3 with the subject in the plural, cf. Ewald Lehrb. § 306 a. The " land of the children of Israel " denotes the land, which the Israelites subsequently obtained possession of, and, when the present book was written, already held. Gaza kingdom after Solomon's death, even De Wette has not ventured to repeat, since it has been so completely disproved by Konig (ut supra p. 58 seq.) and Havernick (Einl. ii. 1, p. 51 seq.), that Stdhelin (Krit, Unters. p. 101), and v. Lengerke (p. 691) are convinced by their argu ments. The distinction between the mountains of Israel and Judah can be explained from the circumstances of Joshua's days, indeed it can be traced back even to the times of the patriarchs (Konig p. 85). " Whilst Judah," says Konig (ut sup.), proceeds to take possession of his territory in the south, the other tribes still remain in Gilgal. Afterwards, when Ephraim and Manasseh are settled in their territory, all Israel with the exception of Judah encamp in Shiloh ; and the ter ritory of Judah is separated from all the rest by the land, which is after wards allotted to the tribe of Benjamin, but is now without an owner. Moreover, the altar, and tabernacle, and ark of the covenant are all in the midst of Joseph and the other tribes, that assembled in the camp at Shiloh. Did not the idea of a distinction between Judah on the one side and the rest of Israel on the other, in which, first, the double tribe of Joseph, and then the tribe of Ephraim, stood so prominently forward, necessarily establish itself more and more ? Was not this the certain fruit of a germ which had existed long before ? And what, therefore, was more natural than that the mountains, which were in the settlements of Judah, should be called the mountains of Judab, and those where all Israel besides were encamped, where the other ^N^to^ "Ol were assembled together, the mountains of Israel (-y\ b^1to,)> aa we^ as tbe mountains of Ephraim (qy-^N *|pj) ou account of their being within the territory assigned to the tribe of Ephraim ? They are referred to under the latter name in Josh. xix. 50, xx. 7, and xxiv. 30." 1 Up to the time of Robinson Anab was constantly sought in the neighbourhood of Lydda (Diospolis), to which locality it had been assigned by Eusebius and Jerome. This was altogether beside the mark. The Bethoannaba (Bethannaba, corrupted by Eusebius into Meroavvdic), which is mentioned by both of them in the article on A«!>/3, as identical with the Anab of the passage before us, corresponds most probably to Beitnuba or Nobe in the vicinity of Talo, cf. Robinson m. 64. 296 SUMMARY OF THE CONQUESTS. Gath, and Ashdod were cities of the Philistines, of which Gaza and Ashdod, as we learn from chap. xv. 47, were allotted to the tribe of Judah. They never really came, however, into the power of the Israelites, even though tbe Philistines were some times subjugated by them. For Gaza refer to chap. x. 40. The situation of Gath, the native city of Goliath and other giants (1 Sam. xvii. 4 ; 1 Chron. xx. 4—8), Robinson (ii. 420 sqq.) was unable to determine. Eusebius (s.v. Ted) says that at that time it was still in existence as a Koifin, at the distance of five Roman miles from Eleutheropolis in the direction of Diospolis. Thenius adopts, this as correct, and endeavours (in Kauffer's Studien ii. p. 152) to trace the Gath of the Philistines to the site occupied by the modern Deir Dubban, which is just five Roman miles to the north of Eleutheropolis. In support of this he adduces both the account contained in 1 Sam . xvii. 53, and also the extraordinary caverns which are found in this place, and maj' probably have been employed by the Philistines for the celebration of the mysteries of their worship (p. 155 sqq.) But there is not much force in these arguments. For if, after the overthrow of Goliath, the Philistines fled through the Wady Sumt and the Wady Surar to the gates of Ekron, they can hardly have been beaten as far as Gath and also as far as Ekron (1 Sam. xvii. 53), since Deir Dubban is at least five miles distant from the Wady Sumt, on the south-west. Moreover, Jerome, in the Onomast., merely copies the words of Eusebius, whereas in his commentary on Micah i., he says : Geth una est de quinque urbibus Palaestinae (of Philistia) vicina Judaeae confinio et de Eleutheropoli euntibus Gazam nunc usque vicus vel maximus. Thus he gives here quite a different description of the situation of Gath. Ashdod, 'A&tos, is still to be seen in the Mohammedan village Esdud, which stands upon a small round hill, thickly covered with trees, on the way from Jamnia to Gaza, about ten miles to the south of Jamnia. There are no ancient ruins, however, to be met with, cf. Robinson ii. 368. V. 23 forms the conclusion to the first part of the book, and the transition to the second part. " So Joshua took the whole land, and gave it for an inheritance unto Israel according to their divisions into tribes." De Wette (Einl. § 167), Maurer (on w. 16 and 23), and Hauff (p. 73 seq., 109 sqq.) point out a dis- CHAPTER XI. 23. 297 crepancy between this verse (compared with v. 16, and chap. x. 40) and chap. xiii. 1 sqq. (compared with chap. xvii. 14 sqq., xviii. 3, xxiii. 5, 12), inasmuch as in the verse before us, and those first mentioned, the conquest of the whole land, without exception, is ascribed to Joshua, whereas in the last named pas sages many places are mentioned as still unconquered. But it has been already shown by earlier expositors, that the ^3 iu these passages is not to be taken in its full and literal meaning. At the same time they have pointed out various ways in which its meaning may be limited.1 These are not, indeed, perfectly satisfactory, though they generally contain some portion of truth. The explanation given by Konig (p. 18), and adopted by v. Lengerke (p. 672 seq.), is inadequate. He says that V""iNn_^>5 " does not mean the whole of the land of Canaan, with all its towns, all its fortresses, and all its soil, but merely, as the context shews, the land to the whole extent, which had been referred to in all the previous chapters, as far as to chapter xi. 15. For even if he is right in saying, that, according to chap. x. 33, the king of Geser was slain (ch. xii. 7, 13), whereas it is nowhere said that his city was also captured, much less that it was occu pied; and that great care must be taken not to confound these three, which are so distinct the one from the other ; and further, that the king of Jerusalem also was defeated (chap. x. 10 sqq.) 1 Masius, for example, says : " It is indeed afterwards said in the commencement of chap, xiii., that a large portion of Canaan was not yet subjugated by Joshua. But he had taken itali Kara o-vv€k8oxtiv, i.e. he had taken both mountain and plain, both slopes or valleys, and open or sunny glebes. Or, again, he had so far subjugated the whole, that no one was left of his adversaries, who was able to oppose by arms the distribution of the land." The former of these explanations is also given by Drusius, who adds another, viz., that "it is so well-known as to need no proof, that all is frequently used to denote the greater part." ¦53 is thus explained by C. a Lapide and Clericus, though the former also brings forward the hypothesis advanced by Rosenmiiller, Konig, and others, that " by the whole land only those portions of it are meant, which the Israelites had attempted to conquer." Calvin, on the other hand, regards the phrase, " the whole land," as explained and limited at once by the clause which follows, " according to all that the Lord said unto Moses." This clause, in his opinion, refers to Deut. vii. 22, where Moses says to the Israelites : " And the Lord thy God will put out these nations before thee by little and little ; thou mayest not con sume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee." 298 SUMMARY OF THE CONQUESTS. and slain (chap. x. 26), where ashis city certainly was not taken ; if, we say, he is right in all this, yet we must remember that these and other cases in which the limitation of t>^N!"T~7;3 is absolutely necessary, are only discovered to be such when we compare together tbe first and second portions of the book, and therefore have no force at all for those who deny that these two portions were originally connected. And besides this, even though it is true that the foregoing chapters do not expressly mention the conquest of all the cities, and the slaughter of all the kings, yet the verses, which close the accounts of the grand campaigns of Joshua in the southern and northern portions of the land (chap. x. 40 — 42, and xi. 12 — 15 and 16 — 19), speak in such unqualified terms of the conquest of all the cities, and the extermination of all the kings and all the Canaanites, that, if it were not for the second part of the book, no one would sup pose for a moment, that after all there still remained in the land fortified cities of great importance, and extensive tracts of country in which the Canaanites were unsubdued. Of course any one would admit that the word all is so far used in the ordinary popular sense, as not to mean that all the Canaanites, even to the last individual, had been destroyed, and all their habitations taken, even to the most distant villages and hamlets. So far then the opponents are right in their assertions. The first part of the book does attribute to Joshua the conquest of the whole land without exception, whilst there are passages in the second part, which mention a smaller or greater number of exceptions. They are wrong, however, in the inference which they draw from this, that it is impossible to reconcile the accounts contained in these two portions of the book. This inference proves, as Havernick has justly observed (Einl. ii. 1 p. 18 seq.), "that the point of view from which the book was written has been alto gether overlooked." " In accordance with its design, to make the fulfilment of the divine promises everywhere prominent, Jehovah, who fights for Israel, is described as giving to them the land of promise, and the work is so far completed by Joshua, that he is able to portion out the whole land. This does not, however, place the Israelites in such a position that they have nothing more to do. On the contrary, the strongholds of the Canaanites are to serve as a test of the faith, even of future chapter xi. 23. 299 generations. By means of these the question is to be decided, whether Israel will henceforth continue to be what it has been under the command of Joshua. This view is rendered most apparent in chap, xxiii. 3, 4, where the Israelites are called upon to regard all the nations as really conquered, and yet are ex horted to be mindful of their duty to drive out those who still remain. There is no discrepancy between this ideal view and the description of the actual state of things. The author's theo- cratical standpoint resolves the whole difficulty. According as he looks at the circumstances from the one or the other point of view, does he express himself in the one way or the other." Thus far we have the explanation of Havernick. The harmony between the ideal and the actual view, which this erudite scholar has not further elucidated, may be thus established. At first the conquest of the land and the extermination of the Canaanites, so far as this had been effected by Joshua, were points of such great importance that all that yet remained to be done sank completely into the shade. " Joshua," as Konig (p. 18) has correctly remarked, " had overthrown the kings who combined to oppose him, had conquered most of their cities, and destroyed some of them, and had also taken the other cities whose names are given." By this the power of the Canaanites had been broken, their land was subdued, their dominion anni hilated, and the promise of Jehovah, that he would drive out the Canaanites before the Israelites, had been fulfilled. For even if they still retained possession of several cities, yet they were reduced to the condition of powerless fugitives, who could do nothing to resist the people of Israel, provided only that the latter remained true to their God and to his commandments, and proceeded to exterminate gradually the scattered fragments that still remained. In this case the powerful assistance, which the Lord had afforded to Israel in all that had yet been per formed, carried with it the surest guarantee that the same covenant God would still aid it in the inferior conflicts that yet remained, and enable it to secure complete and sole possession of the promised land. Looked at in this light, Joshua had con quered the land and was able to proceed to the division of it, and thus to finish the work which had been entrusted to him by the Lord (chap. i. 6). Joshua had really done all that the Lord 300 SUMMARY OF THE CONQUESTS. had said to Moses; for the Lord had not merely spoken to Moses of the expulsion and extermination of the Canaanites, but had also said that he would not drive out the Canaanites at once, nor " in one year, lest the land should become desolate, and the beast of the field multiply against thee, but by little and little (lfl}?a t33?a) until thou become fruitful (be increased) and inherit the' land," (Ex. xxiii. 28—30, cf. Deut. vii. 22). With this promise in view, the author of the present book was per fectly justified in saying: "Joshua took (conquered) the whole land according to all that (just as) the Lord had said to Moses." The opponents have entirely overlooked this clause, though it establishes the harmony between the assertion in the passage before us, that the whole land was conquered, and the reference to exceptions in the second half of the book. It is not correct, however, to refer this clause, as Rosenmuller has done, to Num. xxxiv. 2 sqq., nor, as Calvin does, exclusively to Deut. vii. 22. The reference is to all the declarations in the Pentateuch, which contain the promises of God that the land of Canaan shall be portioned out, and the Canaanites expelled and destroyed. Amongst these are Ex. xxiii. 22 and 27 — 31 ; Num. xxxiii. 52, 53 ; Deut. vii. 1, 2, and 17 — 24. " And Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel, according to their divisions by their tribes." The division of the land amongst the tribes of Israel was the other part of the work assigned by Joshua to God (chap. i. 6). pnpT2 does not mean possession, so as to be equi valent to pf$TV,> bit inheritance, i.e., a permanent possession to be handed down from father to son, (compare Num. xxxvi. 2 sqq., especially v. 8, where it is clearly distinguished from gpp, 1 Kings xxi. 3, 4, and Bertheau on Judges xviii. 1). — pih^pta from pip'^pjo is used both here and in chap. xii. 7, xviii. 10 to denote the different divisions of the people into tribes, families, and households ; in other instances the word is only used with reference to the divisions which were made by David for the purpose of service in war (1 Chr. xxvii. 1 sqq.), and to the divi sions or classes of priests and Levites (1 Chr. xxiii. 6 xxiv. 1 xxvi. 1—12, &c.) That this word is not peculiar to the style of any one section in the work before us, has been proved in the introduction, and in Rudelbach's and Guericke's Zeitschrift 1846 CHAPTER XII. 301 i. p. 16. And the land rested from war (cf. chap.[xiv. 15, Judg. iii. 11, 30, v. 31, &c), i.e., the war was now brought to an end, so that it was possible to enter upon the work of peace, the distribution of the land. CHAPTER XII. CATALOGUE OF THE KINGS DEFEATED BY MOSES ON THE OTHER SIDE (VV. 1 — 6), AND BY JOSHUA ON THIS SIDE OF THE JORDAN, VV. 7 — 24. This catalogue is pronounced by Hasse (p. 131), Beriholdt (Einl. iii. p. 859), and De Wette (Einl. p. 251, seq. Ed. 3) a heterogeneous fragment, which came into the hands of the author in its present form, and was inserted by him as a kind of index to the first part. Maurer, on the other hand, and also De Wette in the 5th and 6th editions of his introduction (§ 168) apply this only to vv. 19 — 24, which, being merely a list of names, is said both in its contents and its form to bear every mark of being a detached fragment. But the argument, by which this is sup ported, namely, that the second part of the catalogue contains more than the foregoing history of the war, several cities being entered as taken, of which no mention has been made before, rests upon a misinterpretation of the words : " These are the kings of the country which Joshua and the children of Israel smote on this side Jordan." These words are understood as im plying that the cities of the kings were conquered ; whereas, as Konig (p. 19) and v. Lengerke after him (p. 670) have long ago shown, a distinction must be made between the defeat of the kings themselves, and the conquest of their capitals,1 and there 1 De Wette indeed maintains (Einl. p. 232. Ed. 6) that this distinc tion is overthrown by chap. xii. 7, though he does not say which par ticular part of the verse ; probably he means by the last : " and Joshua gave it (the land on this side) unto the tribes of Israel for a possession." But it does not follow that, because Joshua gave the lands of the 302 LIST OF CONQUERED KINGS. is therefore no discrepancy when the overthrow of a king is narrated first and the taking of the city at a subsequent period. Moreover, the objection is founded upon an erroneous assump tion, that the catalogue must not contain the names of any cities that have not been previously mentioned in the history, — an as sumption which the concluding verses of the history of Joshua's campaigns in the south and the north (chap. x. 40 — 42, and xi. 12 sqq.), clearly prove to be incorrect. If Joshua, as it is stated in chap. x. 40, had really subdued the whole of the south of Canaan in the length and breadth of it, and had slain all the kings and taken their country, it is evident that he must have slain more kings and conquered more cities than those which are men tioned by name in chap. x. In chapter xi. we have only an account of the conquest and burning of Hazor, and the slaying of its king, who was the leader of the allied Canaanites in the north (v. 10), the conquest of the other cities and the death of their kings is merely described in a summary manner in v. 11, without the record of a single name. Where then is the justice of objecting to the special catalogue, which is introduced at the close of this history, simply on the ground that it supplies the details omitted in the previous narrative, and gives the names of all the slaughtered kings ? Maurer has undertaken the defence of the first eight verses of this chapter, and maintains their authenticity with perfect justice, partly on account of the resemblance between the clause ^ Sfljyipp niTl"! *n caaP x*' ^> ano- tne correspond ing clause in chap. xii. 7, and partly from the fact that the list of the conquests on the other side in chap. xii. 1 — 6, stands in just the~ same relation to the list of those on this side in v. 7 sqq. as the account of the distribution of the land beyond Jordan in chap. xiii. 8 sqq., to that of the partition of the country on this side in chap. xiv. sqq. But by his own arguments he has deprived himself of all ground for rejecting the remaining verses of the chapter. For just as certainly as vv. 1 — 6, the first half of the list, would be incomplete without vv. 7 — 24, the second half; so certain, or even much more indisputable is it, that vv. 9 — slaughtered kings to the Israelites for a possession, therefore all their cities had been taken, for when the land was divided, the unconquered as well as the conquered parts were portioned out. CHAPTER XII. 1 — 6. 303 24 are absolutely necessary to the completeness of vv. 7—8 ; unless, indeed, we are inclined to attribute to the author the absurdity of announcing that he is about to draw up a cata logue of the kings, who were slain by Joshua, and then of stop ping short at the heading instead of completing the list. The present chapter is undoubtedly in form merely an appen dix to the first part. Still it is wanted to supply omissions in the history of the conquest of the land, and is thus indispensable to the completeness of the history. It, cannot therefore be a heterogeneous fragment. Moreover, the fact that it contains nothing but names is so inevitably involved in the very nature and intention of the list itself, that it is impossible to comprehend how it can ever have been made a ground of objection. Vv. 1 — 6. Summary sketch of the defeat by Moses of the kings on the other side Jordan, whose country was given to the tribes of Reuben and Gad and the half tribe of Manasseh for a possession (cf. Num. xxi. 21 sqq. ; Deut. ii. 31 sqq., iii. 1 sqq., iv. 46 sqq.). — V. 1. On $£&T» pimta "TT "V2l in contradis tinction to pjjji Npf "yy (v. 7) consult the remarks on chap. i. T T 15 and v. 1. — On the pj local in pipnta c^- Ewald Lehrb. § 216 t ; t • b. — " From the brook Arnon to Mount Hermon," as in Deut. iii. 8. The brook Arnon now called ^j" ^U Wady Mud- jeb, rises near Katrane in the Pilgrim-road, and after flowing through a wild, romantic rocky valley, empties itself into the Dead Sea. As it now separates the provinces of Belka and Kerek, so formerly it divided the land of the Moabites from that of the Amorites (Num. xxi. 13, xxii. 36 ; Judg. xi. 18), and afterwards formed the southern boundary of the land which the Israelites held in their possession (Num. xxi. 24; Deut. ii. 36 ; Josh. xiii. 15, &c), cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 73 seq — For Mount Hermon, which was the boundary on the north, see chap. xi. 3. — nmta nnj?n-^5 *be whole valley of the Jordan on the eastern side of the river, nil^n h>2 1S erroneously regarded by Masius, Drusius, and others, as identical with ^i2pfiPT-^3 (chap. xiii. 16). — V. 2. The first king slain by the Israelites was Sihon, who dwelt in Heshbon, and ruled from the banks of the Arnon to the Jabbok (Num. xxi. 21 sqq. ; Deut. ii. 36). — Heshbon, 'EaeBmv (LXX.), at first belonged to the Moabites 304 KINGS DEFEATED BY MOSES. (Num. xxi. 26), it then became the capital of Sihon king of the Amorites, and was afterwards allotted by Moses to the tribe of Reuben (chap. xiii. 17 ; Num. xxxii. 37) ; subsequently, however, it came into the hands of the Gadites, probably because it stood upon the border of their inheritance, and they gave it up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 39 ; 1 Chr. vi. 66). In the time of Isaiah it had again fallen into the possession of the Moabites (Is. xv. 4, xvi. 9 ; Jer. xlviii. 2 and 45 — 49). It stood nearly half-way between the Arnon and the Jabbok, opposite to Jericho. Accord ing to the Onomast., it was twenty Roman miles from the Jor dan. There still exist ruins, but nothing more, extending over the space of about a mile, and bearing the name qjU*,£. Hesban or Husban. They are found upon a hill, from which there is an extensive prospect across the Dead Sea towards Bethlehem. Seetzen was the first to discover them, and they have since been visited by Burckhardt, Buckingham, and others ; cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 253, Gesenius thes. i. 532, and Robinson ii. 278. Aroer was situated on the northern slope of the valley of the Arnon (Deut. ii. 36, iv. 48). It was allotted to the Reu benites (chap. xiii. 16), and must not be confounded with the " Aroer that is before Rabbah," which was assigned to the tribe of Gad.1 The name still exists, though now only in connection with a heap of ruins, which were discovered by Burckhardt (Reise ii. 633) on the summit of the lofty wall of rock, by which the Modjeb is bounded, bearing tbe name Araayr ( .Uj)- The words ^p|3n "^Ini are rendered by Clericus (dominabatur) iis quae sunt inter eum torrentem, by which he understands the tract of country situated between the Arnon and the Jabbok or half-Gilead. De Wette, on the other hand, supposes it to be a more exact description of tbe situation of Aroer, and trans lates it : " and it stands in the midst of the brook." They are neither of them correct. But, as Rosenmiiller has correctly pointed out, we find the explanation in chap. xiii. 9 and 16 ; though " the city which is in the midst of the valley " (chap. xiii. 9 and 16) is not Aroer, as he supposed, but Ar Moab (see 1 There was a third Aroer upon the mountains in the south of Judah (1 Sam. xxx. 28). Of these Robinson discovered ruins still remaining in the Wady Ararah (Pal.ii. 618.) CHAPTER XII. 3. 305 observations on ch. xiii. 9). The only possible interpretation is that given by J. D. Michaelis and Dathe, " and from the midst of the valley of the Arnon," which furnishes a more exact definition of the previous clause ; since the Arnon which flowed through the middle of the valley, formed the actual boundary, whereas Aroer stood not upon the river itself, but on the northern slope of the valley of the Arnon. And over the half of Gilead, and as far as the brook Jabbok, which is the border of the children of Ammon. The whole of the land of Gilead (Deut. iii. 10; 1 Kings iv. 19), in distinction from Bashan, reached from the Arnon (Modjeb) almost to the Manshur, and was divided by the Jabbok into two equal portions (cf. v. Raumer Fa], p. 228 seq.), of which that on the south of the Jabbok belonged to the king of Sidon. Jabbok, now un called Zerka (Uf • the blue). This stream does not take its rise, as Seetzen supposes (Zach's mon. corresp. 18, p. 427), near Kastell- Zerka on the Pilgrim-road ; but its source is the Nahr Ammon, which flows from the ancient capital of the Ammonites Rab- bath Ammon, as Abulfeda (Tab. Syr. p. 91) and Buckingham (Reise ii. 124), have shown. The Nahr Ammon, also called the upper Jabbok, was the western boundary of the territory of the Ammonites, dividing it at first from the kingdom of Sihon, and afterwards from Gad, as we learn from the present passage, and also from Numbers xxi. 24, and Deut. iii. 16. The lower Jabbok, which bounded the kingdom of Sihon on the north, divided Gilead into two parts, and now separates the pro vinces of Morad and el Belka; cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 73. V. 3. (Compare Deut. iii. 17). And (he ruled) over the Araba (northwards) as far as the lake of Chinneroth towards the east, and (southwards) as far as the sea of Araba, the Salt Sea on the East ; i.e., over the whole of the eastern half of the Ghor, from the Sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea. On the Sea of Chin neroth compare chap. xi. 2. For pp^23 the Targums write ^D^il' 1D"'33> 1Dl3il (see Buxtorf, lex. Chald. p. 460) from which have arisen the Greek expressions vSoop Tbvvno-dp (1 Mace. xi. 67), Tevvno-ap&T (Matth. xiv. 34 ; Mk. vi. 53 ; Lk. v. 1), and revvrjo-apiTK Xlfivrj (Josephus Ant. xviii. 2. 1). For a descrip tion of the lake consult v. Raumer's Palestine p. 58 seq. and Winer R.W. i. p. 477. — On the sea of the plain see chap. iii. 20* 306 BETH-JESHIMOTH. 16. — The way to Beth-Jeshimoth ; Beth-Jeshimoth was situated in the desert (la^ttJTr) at the northern extremity of the Dead Sea (Num. xxi. 20, xxiii. 28), and is sometimes called Arboth Moab, (cf. Hengstenberg Bileam p. 248 seq.) According to Numbers xxxiii. 48, when the Israelites were encamped in tbe Arboth Moab, tlieir camp reached from Beth-Jeshimoth to Abel Shit tim. Eusebius (s. v. BnOaaifiovQ) says that its site was opposite Jericho at a distance of ten Roman miles in a southerly (? south easterly) direction, on the Dead Sea ; and there it is marked on Kieperis map. Reland is wrong in his assertion that this situa tion is unsuitable (see Pal. p. 642). It was assigned to the tribe of Reuben (chap. xiii. 20), but at a later period it came into the possession of the Moabites (Ez. xxv. 9). — And towards the South, under the cliffs (on the cliff) of Pisgah. On ppfgj^ refer to chap. x. 40. Tlie explanation of these words may be obtained from Deut. iii. 17, where the expression "tinder the cliffs of Pisgah towards the east" is added as a more exact description of the Salt Sea, which formed the boundary of the portion of the Araba allotted to the Gadites. We must accordingly understand it in the present instance as descriptive of the southern boundary of the Araba, so far as it belonged to Sihon the king of the Amorites, at the north-eastern corner of the Dead Sea ; whilst the previous line, " the way towards Beth-Jeshimoth," gives the direction of the Araba towards the East. Mount Pisgah was the northern part of the mountains of Abarim (see v. Raumer Pal. p. 71 seq.), whose highest point, Mount Nebo (Deut. xxxiv. 1), is opposite to Jericho, between that part of the Jordan, near which Jericho stood, and Heshbon, about three miles to the west of the latter. Seetzen, Burckhardt and others are wrong in their opinion that Nebo was the modern Jebel Attarus (see Hengstenberg Bil. p. 244—248). Mount Pisgah was for the most part table-land at a great elevation. It is called in Numbers xxi. 20, "the field of Moab," and in Numbers xxiii. 14, "the field of the watchmen upon Pisgah," (cf. Hengstenberg Bil. p. 240 and 243). From this a valley descended to the desert, in which Beth-Jeshimoth was situated (Num. xxi. 20) ; and thus the two phrases, "in the way towards Beth-Jeshimoth," and " towards the south (from the south) under the cliffs of Pisgah," describe the same boundary line of that part of the Araba, which CHAPTER XII. 4. 307 belonged to the kingdom of Sihon, the former giving the direc- . tion towards the east, the latter its southern limit. V. 4, seq. The other king, who was subdued by the Israelites under Moses, was Og, king of Bashan. He dwelt at Ashtaroth and Edrei, and ruled over the northern half of Gilead and all Bashan, (Num. xxi. 33 sqq. ; Deut. iii. 1 — 6 and 13). — And the dominion of Og. " The expressed intention was to give a list of the conquered kings, but here the kingdom is mentioned instead of Og the king." (Masius.) Hence we must regard this clause, as dependent upon J^pp^ in verse 1. Og is always called king of Bashan, although his kingdom embraced the northern half of Gilead also ; be took his title a parte potiori. The province of Bashan (BaaaviTis, Baravala, cf. Gesenius thes. i. 249, seq.) extended as far as Saleta towards the east, and to the Hermon^ Gessuri and Maachati towards the north ; on the west it was bounded by the upper Jordan and Lake Gennesaret, and on the south, not by the Jabbok, the limit of the kingdom of Og, but by the Mandhur or by a line drawn from the south point of the Sea of Galilee across Erbad to Salcha. Ancient Bashan was, therefore, of much greater extent than the more modern Batanaea, and included the five provinces, Gaulanitis (Jolan), Trachonitis (Ledja), Auranitis (Hauran), Batanaea (most pro bably the region to the south of Trachonitis in the mountains of Hauran), and Ituraea (Jedur) ; cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 224 sqq. The physical characteristics of Bashan were very different from those of Gilead. In Gilead white chalky limestone predominates, in Bashan the mountains consist principally of black basalt, (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 74 sqq.). — Of the remnants of the Rephaim. The Rephaim (i.e. the tall men from £if altus, excelsus fuit altitudine superavit, cf. Gesenius thes. iii. 1302) once occupied the whole of Palestine on the east of the Jordan, and in the time of Abraham formed three kingdoms (Gen. xiv. 5), called by the Moabites Emim (the terrible), by the Ammonites Zamzum- mim (meaning, according to Gesenius, thes. i. 419, populi, stre- pentes, according to v. Lengerke, p. 181, the contrivers of wicked ness). By the Moabites and Ammonites they were afterwards forced out of the southern portions of Peraea ; which were held by these two nations, until they again were expelled by the 308 THE REPHAIM. Amorites from the country between the Arnon and the Jabbok (Deut. ii. 10 and 20; Num. xxi. 24 sqq.; Deut. ii. 19—21). Of northern Gilead, however, and Bashan they seem to have retained such firm possession, that in Deut. iii. 13 the whole of Bashan is called the land of the Rephaim. Besides this we meet with them on the western side of the Jordan, along with the Perizzites, upon the mountains afterwards called the mountains of Ephraim (Gen. xv. 20, and Josh. xvii. 15).1 And lastly, there were descendants of this nation of giants still living in the time of David in the land of the Philistines, namely at Gath, and they were slain by David and his heroes in the war against the Philistines (2 Sam. xxi. 16—22 ; 1 Chr. xx. 4— 8.)* In the opinion of Bertheau (zur Gesch. p. 138 seq.), Ewald (Gesch. i. p. 274 sqq.), and v. Lengerke (p. 179 sqq.), they and the Anakim were the aboriginal inhabitants of the land, who had been destroyed by the Canaanites, with the exception of some small remnants, who continued till the land was occupied by the Israelites. But this conjecture with regard to the Rephaim is just as unfounded as we have shown it to be with reference to the Anakim (see chap. xi. 21). The Rephaim also belonged to the Canaani tish inhabitants of the land. In proof of this we adduce first the fact that the Rephaite kingdom of Og king of Bashan is fre quently spoken of as a kingdom of Amorites (Deut. iii. 8, iv. 47, xxxi. 4 ; Josh. ix. 10). Secondly, the Rephaim are evidently reckoned amongst the Canaanites in chap. xvii. 15, compared with v. 1 8. Let us add to this, thirdly, that even in the prae- mosaic times the Rephaim were only called by this name in Ashtaroth Karnaim (Gen. xiv. 5), whereas the Emim and Zam- 1 Kurtz (die Ureinwohner Palsestinas, in Rudelbach's and Guerieke's- Zeitschr. 1845, H. 3, p. 56) is decidedly wrong in his supposition that the Bephaim mentioned in Gen. xv. 20 were those living on the east of the Jordan. This is disproved both by the parallel passage Josh. xvii. 15, and also by the fact that the design of the passage itself is to give an account of those nations only, who dwelt on the western side of the Jordan, that is in Canaan proper. 2 They are always spoken of in these passages, it is true, under the name of NBppj->H'17> not QiNEnn hut the analogy in this case to D^a^pagn "Ol* and piVTy^rh^ precludes all doubt as to their identity; see chap. xi. 21, and Gesenius thes. iii. 1302. CHAPTER XII. 4. 309 zummim are merely reputed to be Rephaim, and as such are again reckoned amongst the Amorites (Deut. ii. 10 and 20 seq.) ; and lastly tha.t as early as the time of Moses and Joshua, as well as at a later period, it is simply of individual giants or families of giants that we read (Deut. iii. 1 1 ; Josh. xii. 4, xiii. 12 ; 2 Sam. xxi. 16 sqq.):i and it will not appear far-fetched to pronounce the Rephaim, as well as the Anakim, merely a branch of the Amorites or Canaanites, distinguished above the rest for their remarkable stature, as Kurtz has already done (ut supra p. 55). In the very earliest times they had obtained possession of Pales tine on the east of the Jordan ; but at a later period they were dispossessed and overthrown by the Moabites and Ammonites. Subsequently, however, the Amorites, having been reinforced by their kinsmen from western Canaan, again obtained the upper- hand, and under Sihon and Og founded the two powerful king doms, which were subdued by the Israelites under Moses. Hence when the giant Og is described both here and in chap. xiii. 1 2, Deut. iii. 1 1 , as one of the remnant of the Rephaim, it is not im plied that all the Rephaim were exterminated excepting him ; nor, on the other hand, can we subscribe to the opinion expressed by Kurtz (ut supra p. 67), that the "remnant of the Rephaim" were " Og and his subjects, who are called a remnant not in an absolute but relative sense, i.e., not because the number of Rephaim remaining was actually very small and reduced to a few individuals, but because formerly they had been much more numerous, two-thirds of them having been destroyed by the Moabites and Ammonites." For if a third of their number had still been left, and all Bashan had been in their possession, Og would scarcely have been called, as he constantly is, king of the Amorites. It is true that Bashan is also called the country of the Rephaim in Deut. iii. 13, but it does not follow from this that the inhabitants were all Rephaim, but only that amongst the Amorites there was still a remnant of the Rephaim, including Og himself. Moreover, we must not overlook the rhetorical style 1 There is nothing in either Gen. xv. 20, or Josh. xvii. 15, that is necessarily at variance with this, since it does not follow from these passages that the Rephaim were a numerous people. It may be that in both cases they are mentioned by name along with the other Canaanitish nations merely on account of their being a family of giants. 310 ASHTAROTH. of an address, the intention of which was to remind the people of the goodness of their God, in having given into their hands a country, in which giants dwelt. Ashtaroth, or as it is called in Gen. xiv. 5, Ashtaroth Karnaim, probably from the goddess Astarte, who was worshipped there with the horned head of a bull (Eusebius praep. evang. i. 10), was the seat of the Rephaim in the time of Abraham, and afterwards the dwelling-place of Og (Deut. i. 4 &c). It was allotted to the tribe of Manasseh (chap. xiii. 13), and given up to the Levites (1 Chr. vi. 56). It was probably the same as the Kapvaiv, which was destroyed by Judas Maceabaeus (1 Mace. \. 43 ; 2 Mace. xii. 21 — 26). Leake (in his notes on Burckhardt's travels, Germ, transl. p. 18) places it on the site now occupied by Mezareib in the Pilgrim-road from Damascus to Mecca. For it is said by Euse bius (s. v. 'AarapcbO and Aaapmff) to have been situated at the distance of six Roman miles from Adraa (Edrei), between this place and Abil, and 25 Roman miles from Bostra : and Mezareib answers very well to this description, (cf. Rosenmuller — Althk. ii. 1 p. 278, and Gesenius thes. ii. 1083). V. Raumer, on the other hand, inclines to the opinion that Mezareib has taken the place of Pella (Pal. p. 235 and 245). Edrei, where Og was slain by the Israelites (Num. xxi. 33 sqq. ; Deut. iii. 1 sqq.), was also assigned to Manasseh (chap. xiii. 31). It is met within later times as an episcopal see, and is frequently mentioned in connexion with the crusades (cf. Reland Pal. p. 547 seq.). At the present day Draa (*s,sJl) is described by Seetzen, Burckhardt, Buckingham, and 0. v. Richter as a desolate city of basalt with out inhabitants (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 238 seq. and Gesenius thes. i. 354). V. 5. Salcah, the southern boundary of the kingdom of Bashan, and subsequently the limit of the possessions of the Gadites (1 Chr. v. 11), is now called Salchat uizs*X*3 or Sarchad j«ijo a town with 800 houses and a castle of basaltic rock. Accord ing to Burckhardt and Buckingham, it is seven hours' journey distant from Bostra (see v. Raumer Pah p. 246 seq. and Gesenius thes. i. 957). — Unto the border (the terntory) of the Gesurites and the Maachathites, (cf. Deut. iii. 14) : The Geshurite and the Maachathite were the inhabitants of the districts of Geshur and CHAPTER XII. 7 — 24. 311 Maachat chap. xiii. 13. Geshur was bounded ou one side by Aram. In the time of David it was governed by a king named Talniai, whose daughter was married to David and became the mother of Absalom (2 Sam. iii. 3, xiii. 37 ; 1 Chr. iii. 2.) The position of this country has never been exactly determined. It was pro bably situated on the north-west of Bashan, between that land and Aram, near to Hermon, on the eastern side of the upper Jordan and in the neighbourhood of the bridge of the Jordan, Jisr Beni Yakub. -^^ signifies bridge in every dialect in which it occurs. This opinion is supported by Rosenmuller (Althk. i. 2, p. 255 sqq.), and Gesenius (thes. i. 308). Maacah or Maachat was an Aramaean kingdom in David's time (2 Sam. x. 6, 8.) In 1 Chr. xix. 6 it is ealled Syria-maachah, and was probably situated on the east of Geshur, and to the south of Damascus. At least this was evidently the opinion of the Syriac translator of ff 0 the Chronicles, who renders it by ^}-k», i.e., according to Burck hardt (i. p. 350), the city of Harran , . \\rs>, the ruins of which are still to be seen in Ledja; (cf. Rosenmuller Althk. i 2, p. 251 and 309.) These districts were both of them set down as form ing part of the territory of the Israelites, but they never con quered or took possession of them, chap. xiii. 11 and 13. — ijjni ly^iin is explained by Rosenmuller as meaning " as far as the boundary line of half Gilead." This, however, is incorrect. We must suppose the ^ repeated here, and render it, " and over the half of Gilead as far as the territory of Sihon;" for the northern half was under the dominion of Og (see v. 2). — V. 6. p^n*1! an<^ t : ••" he gave it (the country of these two kings.) Consult the passages mentioned under vv. 1 — 6. Vv. 7 — 24. Summary review of the kings slain by Joshua on the western side of the Jordan. — V. 7. With regard to the expression pfl^ Vrp^pi -Q}?> " beyond Jordan on the west," see the remarks on v. 1, and for other points connected with the geography, those on chap. xi. 17. — V. 8. Compare the observa tions on chap. xi. 2, x. 40, ix. 1, and iii. 10. — V. 9. See chap. vi. 1 sqq., vii. 2, viii. 1 sqq.— For vv. 10 — 13 refer to chap. x. 312 KINGS SLAIN BV JOSHUA. The king of Geder is the only one who is not mentioned there. Geder is generally regarded as identical with Gederah (chap. xv. 36), a city iu the lowlands of Judah. — V. 14. pjft-}p| (pro scription), Hormah, was on the south of Judah (chap. xv. 30), and was assigned to the tribe of Simeon (chap. xix. 4.) It was called by the Canaanites Zephath, and the name of Hormah was given to it by Moses after the victory which the Israelites were enabled by the Lord to obtain over the king of Arad on the southern frontier of Canaan (Num. xxi. 3.) It stood, as we learn from Num. xiv. 45, on the southern side of the mountains of the Amalekites and Amorites, by which Canaan was bounded on the south (v. Raumer, Pal. p. 49); and the very steep pass, es Sufah (sl**a)0) which Robinson ascended on his return from the Wady Musa to Hebron (Pal. ii. 591 seq.), still preserves the ancient name. — Arad, on the mountains of the south, placed by Eusebius at a distance of 20 Roman miles to the south of Hebron, still exists in Tell Arad s,^, which Robinson saw in the distance (ii. 473.) These two kings were defeated by Joshua during his cam paign in the south, when he slew the Canaanites from Kadesh Barnea to Gaza (chap. x. 41.) In the time of Moses the Amalekites and Canaanites repulsed the Israelites, who attempted to force an entrance into Canaan from Kadesh contrary to the advice of Moses, and pursued them as far as Zephath (Num. xiv. 45.) On their arrival the second time at Kadesh they made another successful attack upon them, but eventually the Israelites defeated them, laid their cities under the ban, and called the • place Hormah, i.e. proscription, in addition to the previous name Zephath (Num. xxi. 1 — 3.) However, the steepness of the mountains prevented the Israelites from entering Canaan at this point, and therefore they lost the fruit of their victory, and Joshua had to make another attack upon the Kings of Hormah and Arad, and conquer their land again. Soon after this Zephath fell once more into the hands of the Canaanites, so that subsequently to the death of Joshua the associated tribes of Judah and Simeon, to whom this district had been allotted, had to go to war again with the inhabitants of Zephath, and were obliged to effect a fresh conquest of the city, to lay it under CHAPTER XII. 15. 313 the ban, and to revive the name Hormah, which had been given to it when it was first taken by Moses. 1 V. 15. On Libnah see the remarks at chap. x. 29 seq. The defeat of the king of Adullam is not expressly mentioned in chap. x. Adullam is placed in chap. xv. 35 amongst the cities of the valley between Jarmuth and Socho. The Onomast. (s. v. Odollam) describes it as standing on the east of Eleuthero polis at a distance of ten Roman miles ; if we take this as meaning the north east, it harmonizes tolerably well with chap. xv. 35.2 — V. 16. With regard to the king of Makkedah compare chap. x. 10 and 28, and for the king of Bethel see the remarks on chap. viii. 17. — V. 17. Tappuah is classed in chap. xv. 34 amongst the cities of the valley of Judah, and distinguished from Beth-Tappuah in the mountains (chap. xv. 53). As we find Beth-Tappuah and Apheka placed together in the latter passage, and in the former Tappuah, Chepher, and Aphek, we might be inclined to regard the Tappuah mentioned here as the same as Beth-Tappuah upon the mountains, which Robinson has dis covered in the village Teffuh on the west of Hebron (ii. p. 428). But this conjecture is without foundation, since historical consi derations prevail in this list above the geographical, and hence the fact that two places are mentioned in immediate connexion does not involve their having originally stood close together. The site of Tippuah in the valley has not yet been ascertained (cf. also chap. xvi. 8). — Hepher is the same as the land of Hepher (1 Kings iv. 10), and different from Gittah-hepher in the tribe of Zebulon (chap. xix. 13). It was probably another of the cities 1 The opinion expressed by Reland (Pal. p. 721), Bachienne (Beschr. v. Pal. ii. 2, § 366), Rosenmuller (Althk. ii. 2, p. 313), Studer (Judges i. 17), and others, that the occurrences narrated in Numbers xxi. 3 did not take place till the time of Joshua, or rather till after his death, and are the same as those described in Judg. i. 17, has been satisfactorily disproved by Hengstenberg (Beitr. iii. p. 220 sqq.) Notwithstanding this, Bertheau (on Judg. i. 17) has reproduced it, and has made no reference to the refutation, with which he was not unacquainted. 2 There was a large cave at Adullam, in which David took refuge when he fled from Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 1 ; 2 Sam. xxiii. 13), and the tradition of the monastery fixes upon the cave near Khureitun in the Wady of the same name as the one referred to ; but Adullam cannot well have been situated so far towards the east ; cf. Robinson ii. 17t>. 2 314 KINGS SLAIN BY JOSHUA. in the plain of Judah (cf. my commentary on 1 Kings iv. 10). — V. 18. Aphek : There are four cities of this name mentioned in the Old Testament ; one in the north assigned to the tribe of Asher (chap. xiii. 4, xix. 30), and called in Judges i. 31 Aphik (compare chap. xix. 30) ; a second in the plain of Jezreel, in the possession of the tribe of Issachar near to Endor (1 Sam. xxix. 1 compared with xxviii. 4) ; it was here that Ahab defeated Ben hadad the Syrian (1 Kings xx. 26 sqq.), (see my commentary on this passage). The third was not far from Bethshemesh, where the ark of the covenant was taken from the Israelites by the Philistines (1 Sam. iv. 1), it is still to be seen in the village of Ahbek (£ms,\, Robinson ii. 432). This is the Aphek men tioned here. The fourth stood upon the mountains of Judah, and was called Aphekah (chap. xv. 53, cf. remarks on this pas sage).1 — V'nc^) is taken by Jerome (rex Saronis), and after him by Clericus, Michaelis, Dathe, Maurer, and others, to be a com pound word, formed from the prefix ^ and ljl"^^n- -"-n confir mation of this they refer to Ezra v. 11, where lj is used as a sign of the Genitive. Maurer also cites vv. 22 and 23, where ^j is attached as a prefix to proper names. But Rosenmuller has pro perly objected to this, that " in the case of these nouns va, whilst the critical evidence in favour of 'Ao-o-ap&v is very small (cf. Bengel Appar. crit. p. 289). Bachienne and Rosenmiiller suppose that Lassaron is another name for the village CHAPTER XII. 15. 315 consult chap. xi. 1.— V. 21. Taanach and Megiddo were both of them included within the borders of the land assigned to the tribe of Issachar, though they were themselves allotted to that of Manasseh (chap. xvii. 11). For a long time they remained in the possession of the Canaanites (chap. xvii. 12; Judges i. 27). They were situated in the plain of Esdraelon by the brook Kishon (cf. my commentary on the Books of Kings, p. 48). Taanach still continues to exist in the small hamlet Taannuk, and there is great probability that Megiddo stood upon the site now occupied by Legio (el Ledjun).1 — V. 22. Kedesh, a Levitical city of refuge on the mountains of Naphtali (chap. xix. 37, xx. 7, xxi. 32), according to the Onomast. (s.v. Cedesch) twenty Roman miles from Tyre. It still exists as a village in the mountains to the west of Haleh under the ancient name (cf. Robinson iii. 355). There are two other cities mentioned of the same name, one in Judah (chap. xv. 23), and the other in Issachar (1 Chr. vi. 57). Jokneam, on Mount Carmel, was allotted to Zebulon, and given to the Levites (chap. xix. 11, xxi. 34). — V. 23. For the city of Dor see chap. xi. 2. — King of the Goyim at Gilgal. qi^ generally means Gentiles ; but this rendering does not seem appropriate here, since all the Canaan ites were of course Gentiles. And from the fact that in Gen. xiv. 1 a king of the Goyim is mentioned in connection with of Sharon in the celebrated valley of that name, cf. Winer R.W. ii. p. 451. 1 V. Raumer (Beitr. p. 42 seq.) opposes this, partly on the strength of the old ecclesiastical lists of episcopal sees, and partly on account of the statement made by Jerome (on Zechariah xii.) : Adad Remmon hodie vocatur Maximianopolis in Campo Mageddon, and is led by them to regard the spot called Legio- M aximianopolis as identical with Hadad Rimmon and different from Megiddo. But in the first place it is a question whether Hadad Rimmon (i.e., decus granatorum) is really itself a different place from the city Megiddo, and not in fact an epithet of that city, as Wichmanshausen (de p!anctu Hadad Rimmon, in the Thes. nov. theol. philol. i. p. 1107 sqq.) conjectures, (cf. Heng stenberg Christol. ii. p. 312.) And again, it may be asked whence Jerome obtained such exact information with reference to the site of this unimportant Hadad-Rimmon, when he could not determine any thing with regard to the situation of the city of Megiddo, which Solomon fortified. — Did the name Hadad-Rimmon possibly supplant the ancjent name Megiddo, after the exile, and thus this place continue to exist in later times ? 316 KINGS SLAIN BY JOSHUA. Shinar, Elasar, and Elam, it seems most natural to suppose that there were certain tribes, called by the proper name of qv^ Goyim, and that the inhabitants of Gilgal belonged to these tribes. The Gilgal mentioned here is not the city spoken of in chap. ix. 6, x. 6, &c, and Deut. xi. 30, which still exists in the village of Jiljilia (cf. chap. ix. 6) ; but is the villa nomine Galgulis ab Antipatride in sexto milliario contra Septemtrio- nem (v. Raumer Pal. p. 152 seq. would read meridiem), as de scribed in the Onomast. s.v. Gelgel, which is still to be seen as a village in Jiljule jd^saXs-) (cf. Robinson iii. 47). — V. 24. PEPin Tirza, the residence of the kings of Israel till the time of t : • Omri (1 Kings xv. 21), is probably the same as Tersa, situated on the east of Samaria, at a distance of three miles (see my com mentary on the Books of Kings p. 234). — On the words " all the kings, thirty and one" Maurer observes that " the position of the numeral after the noun is known to be a peculiarity of the later epochs of Hebrew writing." But this remark does not apply to the passage before us ; not to mention that there are many exceptions in later Hebrew, the numeral being- frequently placed before the noun, e.g., Jer. xxxviii. 10 ; 1 Kings xx. 16 ; 2 Chr. ii. 17, iv. 1, ix. 15; Esther ix. 30, &c. Here the numeral is a predicate, and in such cases it always follows the noun ; cf. Gen. xxxv. 23, 27, xlvi. 15, 22, 26, 27 ; Numbers i. 21, 23, 25, &c. ( 317 ) SECOND PART. DIVISION OP THE LAND OP CANAAN ; THE TRIBES CONVENED BY JOSHUA FOR THE LAST TIME. As the successful campaigns of Joshua had brought the land of Canaan in all its length and breadth into the power of the tribes of Israel, and as Joshua himself was now advanced in years, he was commanded by the Lord to proceed at once to portion out the whole of the land amongst the tribes, including even the cities and districts that were not yet taken (chap. xiii. 1 — 7). In his account of the distribution, the author embraces the land on the east of the Jordan, which had already been allotted by Moses, and describes the cities and boundaries of the possessions of the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half-tribe of Manasseh (chap. xiii. 8 — 33). Then follows a history of the distri bution of Canaan amongst the other nine tribes and a half; Caleb's claim to the possession of Hebron being satisfied first (chap. xiv.) After this the shares of Judah and Joseph, i.e., Ephraim and the half-tribe of Manasseh, are determined by lot (chaps. xv.— xvii.) The tabernacle is then set up in Shiloh, and, after the removal of the camp to that place, messengers are despatched from the seven tribes, who had not yet received their inheri tance, to make a more exact survey of that part of the land which still remained (chap, xviii. 1 — 9). As soon as their survey is complete, the rest of the country is portioned out by lot a* Shiloh amongst the tribes of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 10 — 28), Simeon, Zebulon, Issachar, Asher, Naphthali, and Dan (chap. xix. 1 — 48); and the tribes present to Joshua, their 318 COMMAND TO DIVIDE THE LAND. leader, a possession "among" them (vv. 49 — 51). The free cities had next to be selected (chap, xx.), and the cities of the priests and Levites (chap, xxi.) The work of distribution was thus complete ; and as all Israel had obtained possession of the promised inheritance, Joshua was able to thank the tribes from beyond the Jordan for the assistance rendered to their brethren, and dismiss them to their homes (chap, xxii.) Joshua was now drawing near to the end of his life. He therefore called together once more the chiefs and representatives of the whole nation, that he might urge them to constant fidelity to Jehovah and his law, and renew the covenant with the Lord their God (chap, xxiii. and xxiv. 1 — 28). He had then finished the work of his life, and the writer siniply adds an account of the death and burial of Joshua and Eleazar, and of the interment of the bones of Joseph, which had been brought out of Egypt (vv. 29 — 33) ; and with these notices, brings the history to a close. CHAPTER XIII. COMMAND TO DIVIDE THE LAND AMONGST THE NINE TRIBES AND A HALF ; AND A LIST OP THE CITIES THAT WERE NOT YET TAKEN (w. 1 — 7). — DESCRIPTION OF THE LAND THAT HAD BEEN GIVEN BY MOSES TO THE TWO TRIBES AND A HALF ON THE OTHER SIDE OP THE JORDAN. Vv. 1 — 7. When Joshua had grown old, he received from the Lord a command to portion out the land on this side of the Jordan amongst the nine tribes and a half, although much of it still remained to be conquered. — V. 1. The words qiq^ Ni pf denote the different stages of greatly advanced age (see my com mentary on the Books of Kings, p. 2) ; comp. ch. xxiii. 1 where the same expressions are used, when Joshua is upon the point of death, as are here applied to the first approach of old age. The simple reason, for noticing Joshua's advanced age in this CHAPTER XIII. 1—7. 319 place, was that it gave occasion to the command of God that he should proceed to the division of the land. For since there still remained, notwithstanding the defeat of thirty-one kings, many parts of the land, especially on the borders, that were not yet conquered, Joshua might feel doubtful whether the time had arrived for the performance of the second part of his duty, the partition of the country. The Lord, therefore, reminds him of his age, as furnishing the motive for his command.1 — nflttT,^ to occupy it ; gj-p means here to capture, to get into one's power, as in Deut. ii. 24, 31, &c. — V. 2 — 6 are a paren thesis. The writer has no sooner mentioned the fact that very much land yet remains to be conquered, than he proceeds to reckon what places there are that have not been taken. After niNtSSn in v- 2 we must supply pjnffil^ fr°m v. 1. All the v v : • ~ x : • : circumference of the Philistines, cf. Joel iv. 4. — ip^Jpi is not the land of the Geshurites in Peraea (chap. xii. 5, xiii. 11, 13), but the tribe mentioned in 1 Sam. xxvii. 8, who occupied the desert which separates Egypt from Palestine, and against whom David undertook several expeditions from Ziklag in the land of the Philistines. — V. 3. The whole land of the Philistines and Geshurites reached from Sihor, which is before Egypt, to the borders of Ekron northwards (inclusive), -tfppltt; *,e,> *be black river, is generally supposed to be the Nile, which was called ItehtK even by Greeks on account of its turbid and slimy water (e.g. Servius ad Virgil. Georg. iv. 291) ; for this river is so desig- 1 Masius observes here : " Joshua probably thought that all the Canaanites were to be exterminated, before he could enter upon the work of dividing the land. For otherwise, through the departure of one tribe after another, as soon as they learned which was their share, to the possessions assigned to them, he might find himself at last without a sufficient army. And when he felt the infirmities of age coining upon him, and yet saw that extensive provinces had still to be con quered, the perplexities which troubled the mind of this pious man were no doubt numerous and severe. God, therefore, comes to his relief, and sets him free from his anxieties. Thou, said he, art stricken in years, and there remain many enemies to be subdued. But there is no reason why thou shouldst defer the partition of the land beyond the period that was first fixed by me. I will exterminate the rest in due time. Meantime, I myself shall require their service for the purpose of chastising the criminal slothfulness of my people after thy depar ture." 320 THE LAND TO BE DIVIDED. nated in Is. xxiii. 3 and Jer. ii. 18, and moreover the river of Egypt, Le., the Nile, is mentioned in Gen. xv. 18 as the southern boundary of the land, which was to be given to the seed of Abraham. But the oratorical character of the last passage pre vents its being adduced in evidence (see chap. i. 3 seq.) The verse before us fixes a geographical boundary ; to determine the meaning of which we must refer to Numbers xxxiv. 3 — 5 and Joshua xv. 2 — 5. Moreover, we must observe that it is only in the poetical passages just mentioned that TippgJ Sihor is used as a name of the Nile. In prose the term regularly employed is ^^ipj (Gen. xii. 1, 3; Ex. i. 22, ii. 3, vii. 15, &c), for which we find in Gen. xv. 18, the river of Egypt. Again in the book of Joshua we meet with another river with the same name, Sihor. It is true that a distinctive term p\3^? is appended, and so here T • " the name Sihor is followed by the explanatory clause, " which is before Egypt." 1353 ^y, in the front of, when used as a geo graphical term, generally means towards the east (cf. Gesenius thes. ii. 1112, see also ch. xxv. 8), and, therefore, by no means favours the supposition that Tipp$ ^ere means the Nile. For the Nile does not flow to tbe east of Egypt, but through the very centre of it, and even the Pelusiac arm, which some suppose to be intended, does not constitute, from the biblical point of view, the eastern boundary of Egypt, as the land of Goshen, which is always regarded as part of Egypt, was situated on the eastern side of this arm.1 The Sihor, which is before (on the east of) Egypt, can therefore be no other than the Qi^ga ^TOj (which is described as being the southern boundary of Canaan towards Egypt, not only in chap. xv. 4, 47, and Num. xxxiv. 5, but also in Is. xxvii. 11 ; 1 Kings viii. 65 ; and 2 Chr. vii. 8), that is, the brook, which flows into the Red Sea" near to Rhinocorura (el Arish) ; (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 55 seq). In 1 Chr. xiii. 5 this 1 The Eastern boundary of Egypt is differently described by the Greeks and Romans. Pliny (h. nat. v. 12) reckons the country be yond Pelusium as part of Arabia; and ancient writers after Strabo (xvii. 1 ) restrict the name Egypt to the tract of land watered by the Nile. More modern writers, however, extend the name to all the country between the valley of the Nile and the Red Sea ; (cf. Rosen muller Althk. iii. p. 195. and Winer R.W. i. p. 32). CHAPTER XIII. 1 7. 321 is actually called Shihor of Egypt. — To the territory of Ekron towards the north. Ekron, the most northerly of the chief cities of the Philistines, was reckoned as part of the inheritance of the tribe of Judah (chap. xv. 11, 45). On the second division, however, it was assigned to that of Dan, (chap. xix. 43). After the death of Joshua it was certainly conquered by Judah (Judg. i. 18), but it was not held long; (cf. v. Raumer, Pal. p. 183). The Onomast. (s.v. Accaron) places it between Ashdod and Jamnia, " that is to say on the east of a straight line drawn between these two places." At present it is called Akir ( j'lc) a village of considerable size in a plain to the north of the Wady Surar, without any very ancient ruins (cf. Robinson iii. 21 sqq.). — The whole country of the Philistines and Geshurites is Said to have been " counted to the Canaanite," i.e. to have been looked upon as part of the land of Canaan, and divided amongst the nine and a-half tribes. The reason why the whole country of the Philistines was to be given up to the Israelites, notwithstanding that they were descended from Mizraim, and not from Canaan, was no doubt, as Masius, Michaelis, and Ro senmiiller suppose, " that formerly those provinces had been in the possession of the Canaanites, who had been forcibly expelled by the Philistines, cf. Deut. ii. 23. For even greater explicit- ness the inhabitants of this district are called : " five princes of the Philistines, the Gazathites and the Avites." q^id is the ordinary title of the princes of the Phi listines, Judg. iii. 3, xvi. 5 sqq. ; I Sam. v. 8, 11, vi. 4, 12, 16, 18. The meaning of the word is not kings but princes ; for it is interchangeable with qi^^j (1 Sam xxix. 6, compared with vv. 4 and 9). At the same time it is applied to the gover nors of the five chief cities, who are also called QV^ in 1 Sam. xviii. 30. At any rate it was the national title of the princes of the Philistines, and was therefore so far a Philistine word, as Masius conjectured, and Ewald (Gesch. i. p. 294) and Bertheau (on Judg. iii. 3) more positively affirm. , We cannot, however, adopt the opinion of Ewald, that it is derived from the same root as -fa, which is a contraction of Sarran ; but rather regard it as connected with the Hebrew word "pp axis rotae, with the figura tive meaning princeps. This is supported by the analogy of the Arabic word <^iaj! axis, polus, which is used metaphorically de 21* 322 THE LAND TO BE CONQUERED. viro principe, populi quasi cardine ; and adopted by Michaelis (Supplem. p. 1809), Gesenius (Thes. ii. 972) and Winer (lex. s. v.). The cities Gaza, Ashdod, and Gath are spoken of in the notes on chap. xi. 22. Eshkalon was conquered by Judah after the death of Joshua, as was also Ekron (Judg. i. 18) ; but it is not mentioned among the cities allotted to the tribe of Judah (chap. xv). The city stood upon the coast, about fifteen miles from Gaza, and 520 stadia from Jerusalem. At present it only consists of the remains of very thick walls and ruins of temples, theatres and monasteries, and still bears the name of Askulan; (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 171 seq. and Robinson, ii. 368 seq.) — The Avites are said by Bertheau (z. Gesch. p. 142), Ewald (Gesch. 1. 288 seq.), and v. Lengerke (p. 183) to have been some of the aborigines of Palestine, who "dwelt in their villages even unto Gaza" (Deut. ii. 23), but were subjugated and destroyed by the Philistines who migrated from Caphtor.1 But the inference cannot be drawn from Deut. ii. 23, nor can it in any way be 1 According to Hitzig (on Isaiah p. 425, and " Urgeschichte und My- thologie der Philister p. 1 sqq.) the Avites migrated before the Phi listines from the city or district of Ava, which is spoken of in 2 Kings xvii. 24, xviii. 34 ; Is. xxxvii. 13. This place he supposes to have been near the Persian Gulf. He also regards the city ryv\y (Josh. xviii. 23) held by the tribe of Benjamin, as having derived its name from some of the Avites who had continued to dwell there. But the arguments, by which Hitzig supports these opinions, are just as little ¦likely to convince sober-minded enquirers, as the hypothesis of the identity of the Philistines and Pelasgians, which he founds upon other daring hypotheses in the same " Urgeschichte." — Ewald, Stahelin (Krit. Unters. p. 98) and others suppose that the Philistines did not migrate into Canaan before the time of Joshua ; and Hitzig not only defends this supposition, but endeavours to supply further particulars. But this is in direct opposition to the historical statements of the Old Testament, which affirm that there were Philistines in Gerar in the time of Abraham and Jacob (Gen. xx. and xxi. 22 — 34, xxvi. 1, 8, Sea.). Ewald, it is true, endeavours to set aside the force of this his torical evidence, by saying (Gesch. i. p. 289) that the king of Gerar, Abimelech, is not called the king of the Philistines either in Gen. xx. or xxi. 22 — 34 ; and that chapter xxvi., in which he is so called for the first time, has been revised by the hand of the third or fourth historian. But in making this assertion he overlooks the fact, that in Gen. xxi. 32^ 34 the land of Abimelech is called the land of the Phi listines, and therefore the king of that land is clearly enough described as king of the Philistines. We have, however, not space for a com plete refutation of this hypothesis, since it would compel us to enter into the whole question of the origin of the Pentateuch. CHAPTER XIII. 1—7. 323 shown either that they were aborigines, or that Avites was the distinctive name of the Anakim in the land of the Philistines, (as Bertheau maintains.) On the contrary, both from Gen. x. 19,' where the Canaanites are said to have extended southwards as far as to Gaza, and also from the fact that such of them as remained either near, or amongst the Philistines, were exterminated, and their country given to the Israelites, it is evident that the Avites were of the same race as tbe Canaanites (cf. Kurtz in RudelbacKs and Guericke's Zeitschrift 1845, H. 3. p. 62 — 64). For since they did not enter the land after the Canaanites, as the Philistines did, the only reason for their extermination must have been that they were a branch of the Canaanitish race. — V. 4. ^ la^fia to wards the south the whole land of the Canaanites. If we grant the correctness of the Masoretic text, we must explain these words as indicating the southern boundary of Canaan, as Masius and Rosenmuller have done, who refer them to the possessions of king Arad and the surrounding princes, who reigned in the southern part of Judaea, along the deserts of Paran, Sin, Kadesh, &c. For that harmonizes with the account given in Num. xxi. 1 . And although Joshua, according to the statement made in chap. x. 41, had smitten "all that region from Kadesh-barnea even unto Gaza," yet he had only so far subdued the inhabitants, as to be able to traverse the country as conqueror and prevent their making any attempts to hinder the distribution of the land." However there are several objections to this explanation. In the first place, the territory of King Arad is described in Num. xxi. 1 as being on the y^ of Canaan, and this word is constantly used in Joshua whenever the same region is spoken of, (cf. chap.- 1 The following is the correct translation of this passage : " And the territory of the Canaanites was (extended) from Sidon in the direction towards Gerar as far as Gaza, (and) in the direction towards Sodom, Gomorrha, Adama and Zeboim as far as Lescha," i.e., it stretched from the Phoenician coast as far as Gaza towards the south-west and to Lescha towards the south-east. Lescha was somewhere in the neigh bourhood of the Dead Sea. Tuch is wrong in supposing that n^Nia t — : is equivalent to n3Na,_"i}>- Tne ^ nas Pa8sed for assuming 8Ucn ellipses as these. "Even more incorrect is the assertion made by Kurtz (ut supra p. 57) that pftMS, means "* far as' and pointS 0Ut the ter" minus ad quem. (Compare my commentary on Kings p. 134). 21 324 THE LAND TO BE CONQUERED. xv. 21 sqq. with x. 40 and xi. 16). p"ijffi> on 'be °^er hand, is applied to a district to the south of the territory of the Philis tines. Yet that part of the country on the south of Gaza, which was still inhabited by Canaanites, can hardly have been called the whole land of the Canaanites. Then, secondly, in the present passage there is not a single district, mentioned as yet to be con quered, of which the conquest had been mentioned before. Hence since Joshua is already said to have smitten and taken the whole of the southern part of Canaan from Kadesh-barnea, which is still more to the south than Arad and Zephath (Horma), as far as to Gaza (chap. x. 40 seq. and xi. J 6 — 22), it cannot be the same region or even the greater part of it that is here said to be unconquered. The fact that the districts, and towns, which Joshua had passed through so victoriously and even taken pos session of, were not all held for any length of time, does not affect the present question. For if the author had intended to give a list of all these places, many other districts should have been in cluded. We have no other course open, therefore, than to give up the Masoretic arrangement of the verses, and to follow the example of the LXX., Vulgate, and Syriac, and connect }ftip|Q with Q'tfiyn ln v- °S (as J- D. Michaelis and Dereser have already • — T done.) It will then read, and the Avites towards the south, i.e., on the south of Philistia.1 Whilst the Avites, according to Deut. ii. 23, had been driven out of the territories, which the Philistines took possession of as far as Gaza; they seem to have taken up a strong position in the southern district beween Gaza and the desert of Shur, and to have reached to the frontier of Egypt near Rhinocolura ; where they continued till the time of Joshua. — "Sin Y"^--^' " all the land, &c," and also ppyai (Mearah), 1 v v x x r : must be joined to the following words, Qi^-p.^ "lttJN- ^teI describing the south-western district, the historian passes to the coast on the north-west. So far the Israelites had not yet extended their conquests, and therefore " the whole land of the Canaanites and the cave of the Sidonians" were not yet taken. 1 Havernick also (Einl. ii. 1, p. 19) has defended this change as necessary, and correctly observes that Jftipia « evidently in antithesis t0 ntfDs fnpv> ' CHAPTER XIII. 1 — 7. 325 Mearah is not to be taken as a proper name, as it has been by Jerome. The Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, have correctly trans lated it cave. It probably refers to the same cave as the crusaders fortified, which is described by Wiih. Tyrius (histor. Hieros. lib. xix. c. 11) as municipium quoddam nostrum in territorio Sidonensi situm, speluncam videlicet inexpugnabilem, quae vulgo dicitur cavea de Tyro, (cf. Rosenmiiller Althk. ii. 1 p. 39 seq. and 66, and Robinson iii. 415).j Aphek ("AcpaKa) belonged to the tribe of Asher, see chap. xix.. 30. — There is some obscurity in the words which follow, " to the border of the Amorites." Masius supposes them to refer to "the country between Aphek and that part of Mount Hermon which over looks Paneas and the sources of the Jordan," because the Amorites of the kingdoms of Og and Sihon seem to have ex tended as far as this, and we learn also, from Judg. i. 31 — 33, that neither the Asherites nor the Naphthalites were able to drive out the inhabitants of that tract of land. According to this interpretation the author first gives the direction towards the north-east from the sea coast to Aphek, then that towards the south from Aphek. This is not very probable. Others, e.g., Michaelis and Dereser, understand it as meaning, " to the land which was formerly inhabited by Amorites, and belonged to Og, King of Bashan." In this case, as Rosenmuller observes, " to the borders of the Amorites" would give another terminus ad quem, namely, in an easterly direction, and thus describe the breadth of the unconquered district. In this there is more plausibility. — V. 5. And all the land of the Giblites, and all Lebanon toward the sunrising, sc. from Gebal (Byblus). Our author divides the places which are not yet subdued into three districts : 1, the south, the whole country of the Philistines and Geshurites (vv. 2 and 3) ; 2, the north, the Canaanites of the Phoenician coast as far as Aphek and the country of the Amorites towards the east (v. 4) ; and 1 If this -celebrated cave is not the spot alluded to, nothing certain can be ascertained with regard to it. The opinion expressed by Clericus is improbable, viz., "that the mountain district of upper Galilee is intended, in which there were numerous caves, where thieves concealed themselves, and other persons in time of war. Josephus speaks of them several times." The rendering of Masius, " the meadows of the Sidonians," is quite inadmissible.. 326 THE LAND TO BE DISTRIBUTED. 3, still farther towards the north, the land of the Giblites as well as the whole of Lebanon from Baalgad at the foot of the Hermon to the territory of Hamath (v. 5). The Giblites : the in- _ S~U Sit - habitants of ^y^, *Xa-, Vaa~. *'•«•» -Bt/6fosontheMediterranean; see my commentary on 1 Kings v. 32. For Baalgad see chap. xi. 17. piftpi NilV~"13J to the entrance into Hamath : so that Hamath itself, the Etnfydveia of the Greeks on the Orontes, did not form part of the land which had to be conquered (see my commentary on Kings p. 134.) V. 6. "^p^\ ^y^-^y^i ab" tbe inhabitants of the mountain (Lebanon), is equivalent to Oi^-pJJ-^) otll the Sidonians. The ¦ ' T Q,,2!"p2J were not merely the inhabitants of Sidon, but the Phoe nicians generally, who, according to ancient custom, were called Sidonians from the city whence they had sprung, as in Judg. iih 3, xviii. 7, and by Homer (cf. Gesenius on Isaiah i. p. 724 seq.) — For Misrephotb-maim, see chap. xi. 8, all these Canaanites will the Lord drive out before Israel from tlieir possessions. The words, only portion it out by lot to Israel as an inheritance, are connected with the end of v. 1. The intermediate verses form a parenthesis, commencing with v. 2 and terminating the clause immediately preceding the present. Hence the main sentence reads thus : "There remaineth yet very much land to be possessed . . . only divide thou it by lot (both the part of the land of Canaan, which is conquered, and that wliich is unconquered), unto the Israelites for an inheritance." prSsn cadere fac earn, i.e., assign it by lot. This meaning may be explained from the phrase 7 ^Ti3 Vsn to cause the lot to fall, to throw the lot to a person, then to award a thing to any one by lot (Is. xxxiv. 17). Then again it is used in the same sense without ^-^j here and chap. xxiii. 4 ; Ezek. xlvii. 22 ; and even without a Dative in Ezek. xiv. 1 ; and Ps. lxxviii. 55. — The words, " as I have commanded thee," refer to chap. i. 6. — V. 7. Although many parts of the land, which had been promised to Israel for an inheritance, were still unconquered and in possession of the Canaanites, yet Joshua was to portion out the whole land among the nine tribes and a half. This was not to be done, as Masius and Rosenmiiller say, " for the purpose of keeping alive a constant flame of hatred CHAPTER XIII. 8 — 32. 327 between the Israelites and the barbarians, and thus preventing the growth of injurious friendships and intercourse between them." For even if the disposition of men be really such that " when they see others in possession of any thing, which they consider theirs, the only thing that can pacify them is to take it from them and get it into tlieir own hands ;" yet the biblical manifestations of God never exhibit him as making the selfish ness of men an inducement to obedience to his commandments. The partition of the whole land is to be regarded, on the one hand, as a pledge, that the Lord would certainly perform his promise, and drive out and destroy the Canaanites who yet remained, provided only that Israel did not forget either him, or his commandments. On the other hand it furnished an occasion for exercising the Israelites in faith and fidelity towards God, the test of which was to be their actually proceeding to take possession of the inheritance assigned them by lot, and to exter minate the remaining inhabitants. Calvin has given promi nence to the first of these : " Hence," says he, " the command is given : only do your duty in distributing the land, and do not even exempt from the lot that which is still firmly held by the enemy. For I will take care to fulfil what I have promised. From this -we may learn, when entering upon any work, to pay such regard to the word of God than no hesitation shall impede us in the performance of it. It is not for us, indeed, to form baseless expectations for ourselves. But when our confidence is founded upon God, we have only to obey his commands, and there is no fear of our being disappointed at the result." — For pit^ftpf tfllffiipf *>%TT) the half tribe of Manasseh, see chap. iii. 14, viii. 11, and Ewald Lehrb. § 290. e. Vv. 8 — 32. The command to divide the whole of the land on this side the Jordan amongst the nine tribes and a-half, is fol lowed by the remark that the two tribes and a-half had already received their inheritance from Moses on the other side, whilst the tribe of Levi, according to the command of the Lord, was not to possess any land, but to receive the sacrifices of Jeho vah as their inheritance (v. ] 4). Nor is the author satisfied with merely describing the boundaries of the country beyond Jordan (vv. 9—13), but in order that his survey of the inheritance granted to the chosen people may be complete, he enumerates 328 INHERITANCE OF THE TWO TRIBES AND A HALF. one by one the cities which had been assigned to each tribe (vv. 15 31) and at the conclusion repeats the statement he had already made in v. 14 with reference to the tribe of Levi. — This section appears to be very closely connected with the preceding one. There is some obscurity, however, about it ; though it may be easily passed over, inasmuch as an acquaintance with the subject prevents all possible doubt as to the exact meaning of iaV' iai> refers to the half tribe of Manasseh, mentioned at the conclusion of v. 7; not, however, to the half tribe of Manasseh to which Joshua was to allot an inheritance along with the nine tribes, but to the other half of the same tribe, which had already received its inheritance from Moses. Hence ^gjy must be regarded as meaning " with the other half of Manasseh ;" and thus the Arabic has correctly paraphrased it. In the words " even as Moses the servant of Jehovah gave them," immediately after the previous clause " which Moses gave them beyond Jordan eastward," there appears at first sight to be a tautology. But, as Calvin has observed : " there is nothing superfluous in this clause, for the gift is ratified in the second clause, where God commands that all, which has been done, shall be esta blished." With reference to the circumstances themselves, see Numbers xxxii. and Deut. iii. 8 — 17. Vv. 9 — 13. The description of the land beyond the Jordan is in perfect harmony with chap. xii. 2 — 5, though the verbal agreement is only partial. In the place of ^jpiSPF Tpm (cbap. xii. 2), we have here, and also in vv. 9 and 16, the more exact definition ^pi2H TfipQ "IffiN ~PVTl an^ (from) the city, which is in the midst of the valley (of Arnon), as in Deut. ii. 36. -pypf is not to be taken as a collective noun, as it has been by Clericus and the Exegetical Handbook, referring to " the whole extent of country between the Arnon and the other stream, the Jabbok." Nor does it stand for the city of Aroer, as Masius and Rosen muller suppose. It can be no other than the " city of Moab, on the border of Arnon, that is at the extremity of the boundary of the Moabites," mentioned in Numbers xxii. 36. This is called in other places -,y (Deut. ii. 18, 29) or ^io -)# (Num. xxi. 28 ; Is. xv. 1;, and by the Greeks was named 'A~pe6wo\i$. It stood at the confluence of the Arnon (Modjeb) and Nahaliel CHAPTER XIII. 9 — 13. 329 (Ledj um) . We must not confound it with Rabbath Moab, the pre sent Rabbah, which stood at a distance of fifteen miles from the Arnon (cf. Hengstenberg Bil. p. 234-37). Hence "the city, &c," the external boundary, is placed in contradistinction to Aroer the inner boundary. — And the whole plain from Medeba to Dibon. The name TiQpftpi, the plain kot i^o^rjv, describes the southern portion of the territory of the Amorites, which was assigned to the tribe of Reuben, Deut. iii. 10, iv. 43 ; Josh. xx. 8 ; Jer. xlviii. 21. In this plain there were four cities, vv. 16, 17, and 21. The following description is given of it by C. v. Raumer (Pal. p. 70) : " Southwards from Rabbath Ammon as far as the Arnon the country is mostly table land, in some places for a con siderable distance without a tree, but covered with the ruins of cities that have been destroyed. This is especially the case in the neighbourhood of Eleale. Towards the east it stretches away into the desert of Arabia, and on the west slopes away to the Jordan." The portion of this table land mentioned here, from Medeba to Dibon, is called in Num. xxi. 20 after its former inha bitants " the field of Moab," and Num. xxiii. 14, " the field of the watchmen," (cf. Hengstenberg Bil. p. 241 and 243). — Medeba, MnSaBd, 1 Mace ix. 36, was allotted to the Reubenites (v. 16 and Num. xxi. 30). In the time of David it was besieged by the Ammonites (1 Chr. xx. 7), and at a later period was taken by the Moabites (Is. xv. 2). It stood, about five miles from Heshbon on the south, upon a circular hill ; and to the present day a large quantity of ruins have remained bearing the name Madeba (LsL)); (cf. Burckhardt Reise ii. p 625 seq., and v. Raumer Pal. p. 256). — Farther south, about three miles to the north of Aroer or the Arnon, stood Dibon, - which was also called Dibon Gad (Num. xxxiii. 45, cf. Hengstenberg Bil. p. 242), because it was fortified by the Gadites after the conquest (Num. xxxii. 2, 34). It was allotted, however, to the Reubenites (v. 17), but was afterwards recaptured by the Moabites (Is. xv. 2 ; Jer. xlviii. 24). The ruins of this city, now called Diban, were seen by Burckhardt in the distance (Reise ii. 632). Seetzen explored them (Zachs mon. Corr. 18, p. 431); they are found in the beautiful plain of el Kura.—For v. 10 see chap. xii. 2, Num. xxi. 25. — Ver. 11. Gilead stands here for the. whole of Gilead 330 THE LORD THE INHERITANCE OF LEVI. on both sides of the Jabbok, cf. chap. xii. 2. With reference to the other places mentioned in this verse, consult chap. xii. 5. — For v. 12 see chap. xii. 4. — V. 13. The inhabitants of Geshur and Maacha were not destroyed, and even in David's time formed small independent states, 2 Sam. iii. 3, xiii. 37, and x. 6. V. 14. But to the tribe of Levi Moses gave no inheritance. " Moses is said not to have given an inheritance to the Levites, because he had told Joshua that no inheritance was to be given them. For he did not in fact give one to any of the nine tribes and a half," (Masius). The Levites received only cities to dwell in and the surrounding meadows, where they might feed their flocks (chap. xiv. 4), but no separate share of the land, like each of the other twelve tribes. The reason for this was that the sacrifices of Jehovah the God of Israel were to be their inheri tance, or according to the expression employed in v. 33, because Jehovah the God of Israel was their inheritance. The author considered it necessary to make this remark, because there were actually thirteen tribes, the descendants of Joseph having been formed into two tribes (chap xiv. 4). And as he had hitherto only spoken of nine tribes and a half, and two tribes and a-balf, he felt it necessary to refer to the tribe of Levi, which was not included among the twelve, and to state what they received, ij^ from pfljj^ signifies primarily the sacrificial fire, the fire by which the sacrifice was consumed, it was then applied to the sacrifice itself, as consumed by the fire ; and ' lastly it denoted any sacrifice, even the showbread which was not burned (Lev. xxiv. 7, 9.J In this broader signification the term nifT1 "^N is a^so use<^ here, viz., to denote all the offerings that were presented to the Lord, including the tithes and first-fruits. Hence it is rendered by the Chaldee N!>23,*VI& » an£l by Jerome, x — : i sacrificia et victimae. For according to Lev. xxviii. 30—33 (compared with Num. xviii. 21 — 32) the Levites were to receive a tenth of the fruits of the field and the trees, and the same proportion of all cattle ; and a tenth part of this was to be given to the priests. Moreover, the priests received the first- fruits of the produce of the land and the firstlings of the flock, as well as certain parts of every sacrifice, according to the nature of the sacrifice, with the exception of the sin-offerings, which CHAPTER XIII. 1 4. 331 were presented to God for the High Priest and all the people. (cf. Bdhr Symbolik ii. p. 36 sqq.) All these gifts, which were assigned to the Levites as their inheritance and possession, instead of a portion of the land, are repeatedly described as offerings to be brought to the Lord (Lev. xxvii. 30; Num.xviij. 24.) In accor dance with this it is also said in the passage before us : the sacri fices of the Lord (the sacrifices to be offered to the Lord) that is their inheritance. And when we find instead of this the words " Jehovah the God of Israel is their inheritance," (v. 33 ; Num. xviii. 20; Deut. x. 9, xviii. 1 — 2), we must not regard " the God of Israel " as employed per metonymiam for " tenths and first- fruits," but take the words, as Bdhr has correctly said, in their literal meaning. " In the same sense in which, out of the whole peculiar people, the tribe of Levi was the especial possession of Jehovah, Jehovah also was the especial posession of Levi, and as the other tribes were to be sustained by that which was pro duced for them by the land assigned them, so Levi was to live from all that Jehovah provided for him. And inasmuch as Jehovah was the possessor not only of the whole land, which he had entrusted to the twelve tribes, but also of the whole earth (Ex. xix. 5), He could not but be regarded as the greatest posses sion of all, beyond which nothing can possibly be imagined, and in comparison with which every other falls into the shade. To have Him, therefore, as the portion and inheritance, was evidently the .greatest privilege, the highest honour" (Symbolik ii. p. 44.)1 The words "as he (Jehovah) hath said," which we find also in 1 The further striking observations of Bahr (ut supra) are worth consulting. He traces the close connection between this arrange ment and the duties of the tribe of Levi, and shows how strong a motive it must have presented for the zealous discharge of those duties. Masius has also, in a convincing manner, thus explained the meaning of the phrase : the Lord is the inheritance of the Levites. "This, says he, points out most clearly the wealth and dignity of the, priests. — For certainly he who possesses God, possesses all things ; and his service is more fruitful and more full of delight than the cultivation of any possessions; Hence the Levites could not complain that they had been defrauded of their lawful share in the inheritance, when instead of a portion of the soil, they had received God himself for their portion, even the God of Israel, that is, that most gracious aud bountiful Father and Protector, who of his own accord had adopted Israel as bis peculiar people, had called them to the most sacred service, had urged 332 THE INHERITANCE OF REUBEN. the same connexion in Deut. x. 9, xviii. 2, refer to Num. xviii. 20 sqq. compared with xxxv. 2 sqq. V. 15 sqq. After the general description of the inheritance, which Moses gave to the two tribes and a half, we have now a particular account of the cities assigned to each of those tribes. The first section (vv. 1 6 — 23) describes the inheritance of Reuben in the south. — After " he gave," in v. 15, it is only necessary to supply p|^Ji2> inheritance, from the context, in order to complete the sentence. — For v. 16 refer to v. 9. Nl-pO-^ near, round Medeba. Medeba was situated, it is true, upon a hill ; " yet it might still be possible for the surrounding plain to be more elevated than the city ; and even if this were not the case, ^y might very properly be used, for upon an ordinary glance (from optical delusion) a plain always appears to command any slight elevations within it." (Maurer.) The -jy which is substituted for ^ in the LXX., Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic versions, is merely an emendation made in consequence of the previous ^ before ">yi"il?- — ^. 17. On Heshbon see chap. xii. 2 ; and for Dibon chap. xiii. 9. Bamoth Baal (the heights of Baal), from which Baal saw the outskirts of the camp of the Israelites (Num. xxii. 41), and which is the same as the maS mentioned in Num. xxi. 20 and Is. xv. 2, and probably also as the J^fc$ rfiBS, *hv% (Num. xxi. 28) must have been situated in the vicinity of the Arnon. This is the position assigned to it in the Onomast. (s.v. Bamoth), " civitas Amorrhaeorum in Arnona (the country about the Arnon), quam possederunt filii Ruben." The site was pro bably upon the hill which Burckhardt (Reise ii. p. 632) ascended, on the southern side of the Wale, and upon the summit of which there is a beautiful piece of table land. This is Hengstenberg' s opinion (Bil. p. 242 seq.), and if correct, it was only about two or three miles from Dibon. — Of Beth-Baal-Meon, also called Baalr Meon (Num. xxxii. 38 ; Ezek. xxv. 9), and even contracted into them forward by mighty wonders, taught them his most holy laws, and lastly invited and aroused them by his magnificent promises. For whatever promises had been made by God to the posterity of Abra ham, and they were both vast and infinite, all of these were placed, as- it were, before the eyes of the people, when he was called the God of Israel." CHAPTER XIII. 15. 333 i?eon .(Num. xxxii. 3), the ruins were discovered by Burckhardt (ii. 624) under the name of Myun ( , . ^y**.*) at about two miles from Hesban on the south east.1 — V. 18. Jahza, where Sihon was defeated (Num. xxi. 23 ; Deut. ii. 23 ; Judg. xi. 20), was given up by Reuben to the Levites (chap, xxi.- 36 ; 1 Chr. vi. 63). Eusebius (Onom. s.v. Jassa) places it between Mn8a/j,a>v (Medeba) and Ar)Bovs (Dibon ?) ; Jerome says it stood between Medeba and Deblathaim. But in Num. xxi. 23 we find that it was on the borders of the desert, and hence it must be sought on the east of Dibon near to Nahaliel (Ledjum), for Sihon goes against the Israelites into the wilderness," and comes to Jahza, where he is defeated by them ; after which they pass as conquerors through his land, (cf. v. Raumer, d. Zug der Isr. p. 53, and Hen- stenberg, Bil. 239).2 — tyfilDi from ry-^p the East, the eastern territory, was no doubt situated in the neighbourhood of Jahza on the borders of the desert, since Moses sent messengers to Sihon from the wilderness of Kedemoth (Deut. ii. 26). Mephaath (ni^Da an<^ TOD^Q chap. xxi. 37 ; 1 Chr. vi. 64) must be looked for somewhere in the same neighbourhood, since it is always mentioned in connection with Jahza, even in Jer. xlviii. 21. Eusebius and Jerome (s.v. Mephaath) say that a garrison was stationed here as a defence against the inhabitants of the 1 These ruins are erroneously confounded by Rosenmuller (Althk. ii. l.-p. 627), Gesenius (thes. i. 194), v. Raumer (Pal. p. 250), and Havernick (on Ezek. p. 412), with the ruins of Maein discovered by Seetzen (Zachs. mon. con. 18. p. 420) on the east of Attarus where there are hot springs. This Maein was supposed by Jerome to be the same as Baal-Meon, hence he says in the Onom. (s.v. Beelmeon) : Est autem vicus usque nunc grandis juxta Baara in Arabia, ubi aquas calidas sponte humus effert, cognomento Beelmaus, distans a Hesbus 9 m. p. This agreement between Jerome's description and the hot springs still found near Maein, might induce us to conclude that Baal Meon is to be found, not in Myun but in Maein ; but it is evident from the statements in Num. xxxii. 37 seq. and 1 Chr. v. 8 ("the sons of Reuben built . . Nebo and Baal Meon and Sibma," " Bela dwelt in Aroer as far as to Nebo and Baal Meon"), that Baal Meon must have stood somewhere near Nebo, i.e., in Myun, since Nebo is not the same as Attarus, but to be found somewhere on the west of Heshbon ; cf. Hengstenberg Bileam p. 244 sqq. 2 Many persons confound Jahza with Jahaz, Is. xv. 4 ; but this is incorrect. A distinction is drawn between the two names in Jer.. xlviii. 21 and 34. cf. Hitzig on Is. xv. 4. 334 THE INHERITANCE OF REUBEN. desert. The cities were both of them given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 37). V. 19 seq. Kirjaihaim, where Chedarlaomer defeated the Einim (Gen. xiv. 5), was fortified by the Reubenites (Num. xxxii. 37). The reviewer of v. Pawner's Palestine (in the Milnchner gel. Anz. 1836. p. 998) conjectured that it was to be found in the ruins of Kureijath, wliich Seetzen discovered on the south of Attarus. This agrees with the description given by Eusebius and Jerome in the Onomast. : kcu vvv iariv o\n Xpur- rtavwv K&) cannot at all determine. This opinion is held by Heng stenberg (Bil. p. 246),and Havernick(on~Ezek.-p. 413). Burckhardt. (Beise ii. p. 626) imagined that the ruins found about a mile anda half to the west of Madeba, i.e., about three miles from Hesbon under the name of el Teym(fJsi\) are those of Kirjathaim, andthere it is marked upon Grimm's map. Sibmah, which was also fortified by the Reubenites (Num. xxxii. 38) and was at a later period celebrated amongst the cities of Moab' for its vines (Is. xvi. 8 seq.), according to Jerome's description, was not more than 500 paces from Heshbon. — Zereth Hashachar ("^niljn n^2f splendor [j-n^ = pnnjj] aurorae) " the name of a place, situated pro bably upon a sunny hill, which is only mentioned in this pas sage " (Rosenmuller ad h. 1.). It is here said to have stood upon the mount of the valley, i.e. probably in the vicinity of Nebo or Pisgah, not far from Heshbon towards the west, since the towns which are mentioned afterwards were in that district. — V. 20. Beth Peor, on Mount Peor (Num. xxiii. 28), is said in the Onom. (s.v. Bethphogor) to have stood opposite to Jericho, six Roman miles above Livias on the road to Heshbon, cf. Deut. iv. 46. A short distance off were Pisgah with its cliffs, and Beth- Jeshimoth (cf. chap. xii. 3.) V. 21 seq. In the phrase : and all the cities of the plain, andall the kingdom of Sihon. the historian sums up all the places belong- CHAPTER XIII. 21. 335 ing to Reuben, which had not been specially named. The mean ing therefore is : and all the other cities of the plain, and the whole of the kingdom of Sihon, so far as it extended over the plain. This limitation of the words is shewn by the context to be a necessary one. For since the previous section not merely contains a list of the cities upon the mountains, but also in v. 17 the cities of the plain which were subject to Heshbon, the words " all the cities &c," can only mean the other cities of the plain, which have not been mentioned by name. And so also TiPPD m37aa~b3 cannot mean the whole of the kingdom of Sihon without exception, for it is expressly stated in v. 27 that the other, i. e. the northern part of this kingdom, viz., the half of the mountains of Gilead on the south of the Jabbok, was also subject to Sihon. It can therefore only apply to that portion of the kingdom which stretched across the plain towards the mountains of Gilead. Masius, Clericus, Rosenmuller, and others look upon "q ppS^aa-^ as a relative clause signifying : " all of which belonged to the kingdom of Sihon ;" but the words themselves entirely preclude this. — The introduction of the name of Sihon leads the historian to refer again to his defeat by Moses, and that even more fully than in ver. 12. Not only Sihon the king of the Amorites, but also the princes of Midian, the vassals of Sihon and Balaam the Soothsayer, had been slain by the Israelites under Moses. The account of this is found in Num. xxxi., which contains a description of the war that was waged by Israel against the Midianites, to punish them for uniting with the Moabites in the attempt to destroy the Israelites by tempting them to join in the idolatrous worship of Baal Peor, after the failure of Balaam's efforts to destroy them by a curse. The Pen tateuch does not inform us in what relation the Midianites stood to Sihon. They seem, from all that is said, however, to have been allies of the Moabites, who made common cause with king Balak (Num. xxii.), and to have lived amongst them (Num. xxxi. 1 sqq.). But in v. 21 of the present chapter the five princes of the Midianites are called vassals of Sihon, from which we may clearly infer that Sihon the king of the Amorites, who had taken from the Moabites the greatest part of their territory, had also made them tributary. From this subjection they were delivered by 336 THE INHERITANCE OF REUBEN. the defeat of Sihon (cf. Hengstenberg Bil. p. 33) ; and then, fear ing that they should receive from the Israelites the same treat ment as the Amorites, — a groundless fear, since Israel was not to touch the land of the Moabites (Deut. ii. 9 sqq.), — they imme diately conspired to destroy the Israelites, and thus brought destruction upon themselves. In Num. xxxi. 8, where the names of the five princes are given, they are called p-jQ "^a* but in Num. xxii. 4 we only read of the "elders of Midian." Evidently the Midianites, like the Israelites, lived under a patriarchal constitution, and the most powerful among the chiefs of the different clans formed the council of the nation, and bore the title of either princes, or kings (Hengstenberg Bil. ' p. 34). |"|piiD ^DS means here not princes, but vassals of Sihon.1 It is true that EP3D3 does a's0 mean princes (e.g. Ps. Ixxxiii. 12 ; Micah v. 4 ; Ezek. xxxii. 30), but not uncti, as is generally supposed ; for •s^ does not mean to anoint (cf. Heng stenberg Psalms i. p. 35), and, moreover, QV^DJ is always applied ' to foreign princes. It is always used, too, in the plural ; we never find -rp^ meaning a prince ; and this, as Gussetius (lex. s. v.) has rightly observed, sane congruit cum alterna auctoritate, quasi nempe nemo unus sic dictus, sit ejusmodi Monarcha. D^SpJj ht. cast, then constituted, enfeoffed, has thus the meaning vassals, and as Gussetius has correctly remarked, points out the productio principis per communicationem influxumque potentiae. It may either refer to generation, or, what is more probable, to the relation of an artist to a cast (Hengstenberg ut supra). Hence the meaning princes, in the passages quoted, is derivative ; whereas here the primary meaning is clearly the right one. 1 " It is worthy of remark, that when the country of the Midianites is spoken of, the chiefs, who exercised the government there, are called Satraps of Sihon. This is to show us that they were involved in his overthrow because they took part in an unjust war, and adhered to the government of Sihon their professed enemy. And in order that it may be still more apparent that they perished justly, Balaam, by whose tongue they had attempted to wound the Israelites more severely than by a thousand swords, is said to have been slain amongst them. It is as if it had been said, that amidst the slain there was found that hostile standard, which they had sworn to follow against the Israel ites." Calvin. CHAPTER XIII. 23. 337 i^Uji who dwelt in the land, sc. from a long time back in common with the Moabites, whereas the Amorites on the other hand had only recently effected an entrance (cf. Hengstenberg Bil. p. 33). — V. 22. On the soothsayer, Balaam, see Hengstenberg' s history of Balaam. His death took place in the war which the Israelites waged against the Midianites after the defeat of Sihon, that is at the same time as that of the princes of Midian (Num. xxxi. 8.) 0PP7Sn~7fr$ omong their slain (those of the Midian ites.) In Num. xxxi. 8 we find U^ ; but in Lev. xviii. 18 ^ is used with the same meaning as here. V. 23. " Thus the boundary of the children of Reuben was the Jordan and adjoining land," i.e. the Jordan and its boun dary, or the country by which it was bounded.1 ^rQ^p, in the . peculiar phraseology of the Pentateuch and the book -before us, must be regarded as explanatory (cf. Num. xxxiv. 6 ; Deut. iii. 16, 17 ; Josh. xiii. 27, xv. 12 and 47), meaning : " or rather the border " of the Jordan, or of the great sea (Num. xxxiv. 6), or of the midst of the valley of the Arnon (Deut. iii. 16) ; i.e. the actual boundary was not the river, or the sea itself, but the land immediately adjoining the river or the sea, since the river and the sea did not really constitute the end of the country, but the land directly joining them. Another, but an unnatural explanation of this peculiar formula is given by Gesenius (thes. i. 394 seq.) He attributes to «| the meaning simul or etiam, and renders it thus, Jordanes qui simul terminus erat, observing at the same time that the sea and the river were not the actual ter mini limitesve, but merely represented terminorum vices : " they also had boundaries." In this respect, however, he is right, that he maintains, in opposition to Houbigant and Clericus, who pronounce the passages corrupt, that there is no necessity for an emendation of the text. — }i~p"l2jm o,nd their villages, "ygr^ farm- premises, a village, 'iiravkis;, kw/uit] (LXX.), not surrounded by 1 Thus we find in the Chaldee generally pp£)Sp|PP (e-9-t here and v. 27 ; Deut. iii. 17) ; only in Deut. iii. 16, and Josh. xv. 47 do we find ^J^ptpp The Syriac also, in Num. xxxiv. 6, and Deut. iii. T 16, has OlSsOQjoZo, In other places the reading is different. 22 * 338 INHERITANCE Of GAD. walls (cf. Lev. xxv. 31.) Instead of ¦jpplSn some MSS. read DrPIJjn in the present passage as well as in v. 28 ; but the dif ference of form is the best evidence of its being the original reading. On the use of the masculine as the more general form see chap. iv. 8. Vv. 24 — 28. Inheritance of the tribe of Gad. — V. 25. Jaezer ("W1 or "^Ty 1 Chr. xxvi. 31 ; 'Ia$p LXX. and 1 Mace. v. 8) was taken from the Amorites and fortified by the Gadites (Num. xxi. 32, xxxii. 35). It was assigned to the Levites (Josh. xxi. 39 ; 1 Chr. vi. 66) and afterwards taken by the Moabites. After the exile it belonged to the Ammonites (Is. xvi. 8 ; Jer. xlviii. 32 ; 1 Mace. v. 8). Its situation, according to Eusebius (s.v. 'Ia$p), was ten Roman miles westward from Philadelphia (Rabbath-Amman) and fifteen miles from Heshbon. In this neighbourhood are found the ruins of Szyr (yjo) in the Wady Szyr, which are placed on Kiepert's map just ten Roman miles to the west of Rabbath-Amman and twelve miles from Heshbon. I agree with Seetzen (Zachs Mon. Corr. 18 p. 430) in believing that this Szyr. is Jaeser. Eusebius says that a large river took its rise there, and fell into the Jordan ; this is the Nahr Szyr, and Seetzen found some ponds still there, which are possibly the remains of the -^fj?i q>i, mentioned in Jer. xlviii. 23 (cf. Winer R.W. i. 624).1 And all the cities of Gilead : i.e., of the southern part of 1 V. Raumer (Pal. p. 254) also thinks there is some plausibility in this conjecture, but attributes still greater probability to that of Burck hardt (p. 609), who supposes Jaezer to have stood where there are now found the ruins of an important town close to Szalt, in the valley which runs in a southward direction, near the beautiful spring Ain Hazir ( j-fe. . ->x), and on the spot which is called by the Arabs Kherbet el Suk. The description of Eusebius tallies with this spot : 'laffip ttoKis . . napareivei de eats 'Aporjp, ij earl Kara irpotrayiTCV Vafifia. Aroer is the modern Ayra, and the valley of Ain Hazir reaches as far as that, since the two points are not a German mile distant from each other. But this statement of Eusebius seems to be merely founded upon the present verse, " to Aroer, which is before Rabbah," and does not tally with the distance mentioned before. For the map shows Khurbet el Suk at a distance of eighteen Roman miles on the north-west of Rabba, and twenty-five Roman miles on the north of Heshbon. — On the east of Szyr, and only five Roman miles from Rabba, are the ruins of Sar (.)„,), which, in the opinion of Gesenius (on Burckhardt p. 1062) and Winer (ut supra) might possibly be Jaezer; but these point chapter xiii. 24—28. 339 Gilead, which belonged to the kingdom of Sihon ; for the other t half, on the north of the Jabbok, which was governed by king Og, was allotted to the half tribe of Manasseh (v. 31). And half the land of the children of Ammon : i.e., that portion of the land of the Ammonites which lay between the Arnon and the Jabbok, and which had been taken from them by the Amorites under Sihon ; for the Israelites, as we learn from Deut. ii. 19, were prohibited from attacking the land of the Ammonites (cf. Judges xi. 13 sqq. and v. Raumer Pal. p. 231). Unto Aroer, that (is) before Rabbah : pj^ was the capital of the Ammonites ; in Deut. iii. 11 it is called pfty i^ ni"l. I* was besieged by Joab and taken by David (2 Sam. xi. 1, xii. 26 sqq.) It is named by Polybius 'PaBBo-fo/^ava, afterwards it bore the name of Philadel phia. Abulf. speaks of it as _ ^e Amman, the name which its ruins still bear (cf. Burckhardt[ii.ip. 612 — 618],&etoerc[18.p.408], v. Raumer [Pal. p. 260 seq.J and Gesenius thes. iii. 1255.). Aroer of Gad before 'Rabbah is properly distinguished by Reland (Pal. p. 583) from the Aroer of Reuben on the Arnon (v. 1 6, cf. chap. xii. 2) ; the only other places in which the former is mentioned are Judges xi. 33, and 2 Sam. xxiv. 5.1 In the last mentioned passage it is said to have been situated in the midst of the ^py »jj, that is in a Wady or by a stream, which is supposed by Gesenius (thes. ii. 1074) to have been an arm of the Jabbok ; by Thenius (on 2 Sam.), to have been the Jabbok itself. There is no satisfactory ground for either. Burckhardt (p. 699), and v. Raumer (Pal. p. 249), fix upon the ruins of Ayra ,.*£ on the south west of Szalt as the site ; but these are not found in a Wady. It probably stood on the north east of Rabba in the Wady Nahr Amman, where Kulat Zurka Gadda is marked upon Kiepert's map. This position would not only suit the passage before us and 2 Sam. xxiv. 5, but could easily be shown to be in harmony with Judges xi. 33. The words " to Aroer more probably to Hazor (-^p| Jer. xlix. 28), the ' A&p of Eusebius, x which Jerome (s.v. Azor) confounds with Jazer. 1 The Aroer, which the Gadites fortified (Num. xxxii. 34), was that upon the Arnon ; Aroer before Rabbah is not once mentioned in the Pentateuch (cf. Hengstenberg Bil. p. 246). 340- inheritance of gad. before Rabbah " point out how far the half of the land of the Ammonites, which was allotted to the Israelites, extended towards the east. Rabbah itself may therefore have remained in the pos session of the Ammonites. — In v. 26, the extent of the territory of the tribe of Gad is described first in the direction from south to north, and then along the northern boundary from west to east. — From Heshbon unto Hamath Mizpeh. Heshbon, which was allotted to the Reubenites (v. 17), appears to have stood upon the common boundary of the tribes of Reuben and Gad. It came subsequently into the possession of the Gadites, and was given up to the Levites (cf. xii. 2). — Ramath Mizpeh is traced by Gesenius (on Burckhardt p. 1061) and v. Raumer, Pal. p. 257, to the site of the modern Szalt ; (compare my commentary on 1 Kings iv. 13). — Betonim must have stood somewhere in the neighbourhood of Ramath Mizpeh. Eusebius (s.v. Botviiz, r) Kal Boreveiv) says that in his days it was still in existence under this name, though he knew nothing about its situation. — Mahanaim (double-camp, according to Gen. xxxii. 2), on the north of the Jabbok, was given up by the tribe of Gad to the Levites (chap. xxi. 39). It was there that Ishbo sheth was proclaimed king, and thither David fled from Absalom (2 Sam. ii. 8, xvii. 24, 27 ; 1 Kings ii. 8, compared with 1 Kings iv. 14). The position of this city, which is mentioned for the last time in the reign of Solomon, cannot be accurately deter mined ; and even Eusebius and Jerome are unable to afford any information. C. v. Raumer (Pal. p. 244) fancies that it stood somewhere in the valley of the Jordan, because it was on the north of the Jabbok, and yet belonged to Gad, for most proba bly the Jabbok formed the northern boundary of the territory of Gad, as far as the valley of the Jordan, whilst on the north of the Jabbok it was only along the valley that it extended to the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee (v. 27 and v. Raumer Tal p. 231). But as Mahanaim was also situated upon the frontier of Manasseh, and belonged to Bashan, it may have stood upon the heights on the north of the Jabbok, possibly near to one of the fords of that stream, for the Jabbok is never spoken of in the Old Testament as the northern boundary of the territory of Gad. -n"]S has been treated in all the versions as composed of ^ prefix and p;pj ; the Chaldee at least being the only CHAPTER XIII. 24—28. 341 one in which this is doubtful. In the LXX. we find Aai- Boov. And all the expositors have followed in the same steps ; but the use of ^ to indicate the construct state is so re markable a thing in the book of Joshua, that Hitzig (Begr. der Krit. p. 137) supposes the ^ to have crept in through an error of the copyist, who doubled the ^ in fpJQj. It is a possible thing, however, that the ^ may form part of the name, Lidbir, for we know nothing at all about the place, and even Eusebius (s.v. AaBeip) merely says that it was a 7ro?u? tS>v 'Apioppalav. We cannot decide, then, whether Debir or Lidbir was on the east or west of Mahanaim, all that we can say is that " from Maha- nain to Debir" describes the northern boundary of the inheritance of the tribe of Gad either in the direction from west to east or from east to west.1 — V. 27 contains a description of the pos sessions of the Gadites in the valley of the Jordan, extending as far northwards as the sea of Galilee. From this it is very evi dent that the districts previously referred to were situated upon the heights, and therefore Mahanaim must not be looked for in the valley of the Jordan. pfoVTl is khe valley of the Jordan or the Araba which runs along the eastern side of the river from the Wady Heshban, above the Dead Sea, to the Sea of Galilee, and formed part of the kingdom of Sihon (chap. xii. 3). This is apparent from the fact that the cities situated in the pftj; con stituted " Jordan and his border, even unto the edge of the Sea of Chinnereth." The boundary line of the tribes of Reuben and Gad must have touched the Jordan near to the Wady Heshban. Beth-Haram, Qppj p\i^ (in Num. xxxii. 36 r^Tl mn)> which the T T < I TT Gadites fortified, was situated according to the Onomast. (s.v. Betharam) — juxta Jordanem, below the Wady Fogor — at the foot of the Peor. By the Syrians it was called Bethramtha (BnQpaficpda Eusebius and Josephus, i.e., the Aramean emphatic state Npift"! pp3, cf. Gesenius thes. i. 194) ; from Herod t : It Antipas it received the name of Livias, AiBw in honour ot Augustus. Josephus and Ammian Marcellus also call it Julias : 1 J. D. Michaelis would read Lodebar ; and refers to 2 Sam. ix. 4 and xvii. 27, where -q-j ^^ 1S mentioned as a city in that part of t : Gilead. 342 inheritance of manasseh. (cf. Gesenius I.e. and v. Raumer Pal. p. 251).— Five Roman miles to the north of this the Onomast. (s.v. Bethamnaran, Bnd- vaBdv) places Beth Nimra (Num. xxxii. 36), which was also fortified by the Gadites. The ruins of this town still remain, under the name of Nimrin ( . .j,*)), in the valley of the Jordan; at the entrance to the Wady Shaib (<__«,x£) ; cf. Burckhardt (p. 609 and 661), Gesenius (on Burckhardt p. 1062) and Robinson (ii. 279). — Still further north, probably near to the entrance of the Wady Jabes from the valley of the Jordan, stood Succoth. The ruins called Sukkot (lax**), which Burckhardt (p- 595) discovered, were on the western side of the Jordan ; (cf. my Commentary on 1 Kings vii. 46). — Zaphon (the North) was most likely near to the southern point of the Sea of Galilee. — For Jordan and his border see v. 23, and for pp^3 Ql chap. xi. 2. Vv. 29 — 31. Inheritance of the half tribe of Manasseh, cf. Deut. iii. 13 — 15. The reason why Moses gave to the half of the tribe of Manasseh an inheritance on the eastern side of the river, whereas it was only the tribes of Reuben and Gad, who requested that they might receive the land of Gilead as their portion on account of the "great multitude" of their cattle, was not, as Ibn Ezra supposes, that the Manassites had made a similar request ; but the bravery of the tribe of Manasseh (chap. xvii. 1) induced Moses to assign to them Bashan, which they immediately conquered for themselves (Num. xxxii. 33 — 42.) — V. 29. On the difference between j/^qj and pitflft see the Intro duction. — V. 30. " And their territory was from Mahanaim, all Bashan, all the kingdom of Og king of Bashan," i.e., not merely the province of Bashan, but the whole kingdom of Bashan, including the northern portion of Gilead ; (cf. chap. xii. 4). The whole of Bashan embraced (1) all the Havoth Jair, sixty cities, in the district of Argob (Deut. iii. 4 ; 1 Kings iv. 13), i.e. the province of Bashan; (vid. my Commentary on Kings, p. 50 sqq.) ; and (2) the northern half of Gilead together with the two capitals Ashtaroth and Edrei (v. 31). The •) before ppn-^3 (v. 30) corresponds to that before i;jn (v- 3l)> meaning: both • • ¦ and . . . — The province of Bashan with its sixty fortified towns came into the possession of Jair, the grandson chapter xiv. 343 of a daughter of Machir, who was a grandson of Manasseh. Segub, the father of Jair, was the son of Hezron of the tribe of Judah. This Jair, together with Nobah, conquered the province of Bashan (Num. xxxii. 41 seq.; Deut. iii. 14), and hence the cities in that province were called Jair's life, because Moses had given them to him and his family as their inheritance (Num. xxxii. 40). — V. 31. The noi'thern part of Gilead was given to the descendants of Machir, or rather to the half of the male descendants of Machir ; consisting of the seven families, whose heads are named in 1 Chr. v. 24. The other descendants of Machir, through Gilead, i.e. the six families of Gilead, who received their inheritance on this side of the Jordan, are described both in chap. xvii. 2 seq., and in Num. xxvi. 29 — 33, with which the genealogical fragment in 1 Chr. vii. 14 — 19 should be com pared. — -Ver. 32 concludes this section ; and to it there is attached a repetition of the remark made in v. 33 with reference to the inheritance of Levi (cf. 14). The word pp^, which might just as well refer to the persons who received the portions, as to the portions themselves, is shown by the analogy of chap. xiv. 1 and xix. 51 to relate to the portions which had been distributed. — For Upjj vid. chap. i. 6. — The distribution was made in the plains of Moab, opposite to Jericho; compare Num. xxxiv. 15 with chap. xxii. 1, xxvi. 3, 63, and other passages, from which, as Hengstenberg has correctly observed (Bil. p. 230), the description, given in the present book, of the last encampment of the Israelites on the other side of the Jordan has been taken. CHAPTER XIV. commencement of the distribution of the land on this side of the jordan. caleb's inheritance. The first five verses contain the heading and introduction to the account of the distribution of Canaan amongst the nine tribes and a half. The section, which these verses introduce, extends 344 DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND ON THIS SIDE. to chap, xix., and terminates with the fifty-first verse of that chapter. — With regard to the distribution of the land, there is apparently a discrepancy in the Mosaic instructions. In Num. xxvi. 53 — 56 we find the command that the land shall be divided according to the numbers which had just been taken ; where the number was large the inheritance was to be large, and where it was small the inheritance was to be less. And yet the distribution of tbe various possessions was to be decided by lot. Now the lot could certainly not determine the proportion be tween a share of the land and the size of a tribe. This apparent discrepancy, however, has been easily and satisfactorily solved by Calvin and Masius (on this chapter), and by most of the expositors of the Pentateuch in their notes on Num. xxvi. 52, sqq. "The lot," says Clericus (ad h. 1.), "appears to have de termined only the situation, but not the size of the fields, &c." A fuller explanation is given by Calvin : " The lot decided - in general the position of the tribes ; it placed the tribe of Zebulon by the sea shore, removed that of Ephraim to a distance from it. The use of the lot in fact was this : within the country which extended from Egypt towards Syria, and from the northern quarter to the Mediterranean Sea, the ten lots, which were cast, decided that some should settle close to the Egyptians, whilst others inhabited the sea coast ; and that some should take possession of the heights, whilst others dwelt in the valley. When this had been decided, the heads of the people had still their duty to perform, of fixing the extent of the territory according to the size of each. It was therefore in their power to reckon how many thousands there were in each tribe, and, according to the number, to allot to each a larger or smaller extent of land." The decision was made by lot, not merely to prevent all disputes with reference to their respective pos sessions, and to remove every ground of discontent and com plaint, but also in order that each tribe might cheerfully and thankfully accept the share awarded to him, as the inheritance intended for him by God. " For the casting of lots is not regu lated by either the opinion, or caprice, or authority of men." (Calvin.) The belief, that the falling of the lot is decided by God, was not peculiar to the Hebrews, but prevails, is in fact almost innate, in every land. " The lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposing thereof is of the Lord" (Prov. xvi. 33), CHAPTER XIV. 345 and " The lot causeth contentions to cease, and decideth between the mighty" (Prov. xviii. 18). Hence not only in ancient nations (vid. the proofs given by Clericus and Rosenmuller, ad Num. xxvi. 55), but even now we find the lot resorted to in distributions of land. Amongst the Israelites, however, this be lief was not only founded upon their conviction of the general superintendence exercised by Providence over the affairs of men, but had its deepest and strongest foundations in the special rela tion to Israel into which the Almighty God, as Jehovah, had entered. Hence decision by lot in the name of the Lord was perfectly equivalent to an immediate decision on the part of God. It is true that it seems as though this might have been as easily accomplished, if Joshua or the High Priest had been divinely inspired to give to every tribe its inheritance. But men are never so ready to submit cheerfully to the decisions of another man, even though they may be the result of divine inspiration, as they are to a decision, arrived at by a lot over which the Lord presides, and thus entirely raised above human caprice. The lot was therefore the best means of stopping the mouth of doubters and unbelievers. But the use of the lot did not prevent the necessity for a subsequent decision as to the exact dimensions of the territory, which were to be regulated in each case by the size of the tribe. For this purpose a special commission was appointed, composed of the elders of all the tribes, and thus it was rendered impossible for any one to have just cause of complaint, that his rights and claims had been either overlooked or unfairly dealt with. With regard to the manner in which the lots were cast, we cannot subscribe to the opinion of Clericus, who sup poses that the names of the ten tribes were written down, and placed in the urn, and that after the land had been divided into ten parts, each tribe, as its name was drawn, selected that portion which . pleased it best.1 This would to a great extent have frustrated the express purpose of the lot. We must therefore 1 Josephus (Ant. v. 1 — 22) seems to have entertained the same opinion ; but, as C. a Lapide (on chap. xv. 1) has well said, " this would have been but half a lottery viz. one for the tribes only, and not for the provinces ; in fact it would have been rather a selection according to taste than a decision by lot." Masius, on the other hand, conjectures that only the names of the provinces were placed in the urn, and that each tribe drew its lot according to its rank ; because otherwise it would be difficult to explain how it was that the first was drawn by 346 DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND ON THIS SIDE. assume, as the Rabbins and other expositors have done, that there were two urns, one containing the names of the tribes, the other those of the ten divisions of the land, and that a name was taken at the same time from each of the urns. The argument which Clericus brings forward in opposition to this explanation and in support of his own, viz., that Caleb would not have received the possession which he solicited in Hebron, unless his tribe had selected that part of Canaan in which Hebron was situated, does not at all establish his point, for the lot could certainly have been so regulated by the Lord God, that that part of the country, in which Caleb had already chosen his inheritance, should fall to the tribe of Judah, and thus he might have been associated with his tribe notwithstanding his own independent choice.1 It is somewhat remarkable, however, that the casting of the lots was stopped as soon as Judah and Joseph had received their shares. The command of God, that the whole land, even that which had not yet been conquered, should be portioned out amongst the nine tribes and a half (chap. xiii. 1 — 7), would lead us to expect that when once the casting of the lots had com menced, it would proceed uninterruptedly, until every tribe had received its share ; and that it would only have to enter it in reliance upon the divine promise, and exterminate or at least subjugate the Canaanites who still remained. But, instead of this, as soon as the shares had been allotted to one tribe and a half, the camp was removed from Gilgal to Shiloh (chap. xiv. 6, xviii. 1 and 9), and the tabernacle set up there (chap, xviii. 1) ; and the other tribes manifested so little anxiety to receive their inheritance, that J oshua had to say to them : " how long are ye slack to go to possess the land, which the Lord God of your fathers hath given you ?" He then appointed a commission, con- Judah, the second by Joseph, the next by the other sons whom Jacob had by his wives, and the last by the sons of the handmaidens. But this order does not support the supposition in the least, especially as it does not apply in every case. For on what ground of prerogative did Zebulon precede his elder brother Issachar, or Naphtali the elder bro ther Dan ? 1 Those who do not believe in this have of »ourse no other alterna tive than to prouounce the whole mere chance, or else to regard the result of the lot as an arrangement on the part of the priests. V. Lengerke (p. 655 seq.), though he does not say as much, yet clearly shows that he believes the lot to have been regulated by the High Priest according to the existing circumstances. CHAPTER XIV. 347 sisting of twenty-one men, three from each tribe, and sent them out to survey the country, and bring home a description of it, and to divide it into seven parts. And it was not till after the description of the country, thus arranged according to its cities, had been received, that he was able to proceed with the lot, and distribute to each tribe its appointed share. The reason for this interruption is not stated. Masius (on chap. xv. 1 — 4) thinks it necessary to assume, that after the defeat of the Canaanites in the south and north, the division of the conquered land was commenced by the territory which fell to the tribes of Judah and Joseph being awarded by lot, without any accurate measure ment, and that only the two tribes mentioned, as being the most powerful, were allowed to draw lots for it. By the appro priation of the southern district of Palestine to these tribes, the camp at Gilgal was well guarded from any sudden attack on the part of the enemy ; an important precaution, as the other tribes had shown so little desire to take possession of the inheritance, which was hereafter to be assigned them. The exact distribu tion of the land was therefore postponed until messengers had been despatched in every direction to make a survey of the country, and to bring back an accurate description. This view is generally approved by Rosenmiiller (bibl. Althk. ii. 1 p. 285 seq. and 294 sqq.), De Wette (Einl. p. 232), and v. Lengerke (p. 651 seq.) The latter, however, supposes that the first division took place immediately after the earliest campaign against the Canaanites of the south (chap, x.), and that the war against those of the north intervened between the first division at Gilgal and the second at Shiloh ; the division thus keeping pace with the conquests. But it is scarcely necessary to remark that the modi fication of the above-mentioned hypothesis, which is here sug gested by v. Lengerke, stands in most glaring opposition to the statements of the present Book. In chap. xiii. Joshua is said to have been instructed to enter upon the work of distribution and to have commenced that work, after the whole of the country had been conquered from the south to the north, with the exception of the districts mentioned in chap. xiii. 2 — 5.1 And even the hypo- 1 V. Lengerke 's assertion in support of his opinion (p. 651 seq.), viz., " that it may be proved from the Scriptural history itself, that the appro- 348 DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND ON THIS SIDE. thesis of Masius aniRosenmillleris at variance with the divine com mand to divide the whole country by lot amongst the nine tribes and a half, the unconquered as well as the conquered portions, and almost destroys the value and defeats the purpose of the lot.1 Cleri cus and Rosenmiiller (Schol.) think it probable, "that some dispute may have arisen amongst the tribes, either on account of the permission given to the tribe of Judah to choose any part of the land of Canaan which pleased it ; or because so large a share priation by lot proceeded gradually, according as the success and advance of particular tribes rendered it possible," rests altogether upon erroneous assumptions at variance with the text. Thus, for example, he says : " the double tribe of Joseph at first received but one portion (chap. xvi. 1 — 4, xvii. 17), and it was not till afterwards that a distinc tion was made between Ephraim and Manasseh (chap. xvi. 5 seq.)" (There is no foundation for this, as we shall show at chap. xvi. 1 sqq.). " Let it be further observed, how in chap. xix. some of the tribes receive such tracts of land, as Ephraim and Manasseh had not ob tained possession of, when an earlier division was made (chap. xvii. 14 — 18)." (But in the so-called earlier division they had been assigned by lot to Ephraim and Manasseh, though, on account of the still remaining Canaanites, they had not taken possession). " And how, moreover, Simeon received his share within the inheritance of Judah, because it had been found from experience, that Judah's share was too large," (this is granted, but it does not prove that the progress of the division kept pace with that of the conquest) ; " how at the first division the territory which afterwards belonged to Benjamin was assigned to Ephraim, and was then on the subsequent division at Shiloh, given up to Benjamin, because the altered circumstances required it (chap, xvi., xviii. 1, seq., 11 seq.)." (This is pure imagi nation ; compare on the other hand chap, xviii. 11 sqq.). "And also how Dan is put in between Judah and Ephraim" (only because between these two there was still an unappropriated tract of land), " and how cities were allotted to one. tribe, and if they could not take them, were afterwards transferred to another." (This fact does not favour the supposition that the distribution proceeded gradually according to the progress made in the conquest, but merely proves that the first arrange ments were afterwards variously modified). 1 For this reason J. J. Hess (Gesch. Jos. i. p. 197) has suggested a modification of the opinion held by Masius : " It is not improbable," he says, " that Joshua let these two powerful tribes first draw the lot, that they might be thus impelled to act more courageously in a pro vince of their own, and to exert themselves the more strenuously to expel the ancient inhabitants." But this does not throw any light upon the cause of the interruption of the work of distribution ; nor, in fact, as we have already shown, is there any probability in the conjec ture itself. CHAPTER XIV. 349 had been given that tribe, that, if it kept it all to itself, there would not be sufficient to distribute amongst the other tribes." The first of the arguments, by which their hypothesis is supported, has already been refuted ; the second appears to be sustained, not only by the fact that the inheritance of the tribe of Simeon was assigned to it within that of the tribe of Judah, but also by another, viz., that cities were given up to the tribe of Dan by both Judah and Ephraim. C. a Lapide imagines that the distri bution was interrupted "partly on account of the sloth and cowar dice of the seven tribes (v. 3), and partly also because a suspicion had arisen, that the first measurement of the Holy Land had not been made with sufficient accuracy, but that some mistake had been made by the surveyors ; for Joshua subsequently despatches nine men, to take a more exact measurement of the land which was left for the seven tribes, and to divide it into seven parts." But the outbreak of any dispute or the existence of any suspicion seems to be disproved by the removal of the tabernacle from Gilgal to Shiloh after the portions of Judah and Joseph had been arranged, for no dispute or suspicion can pos sibly explain that. If the rest of the tribes had expressed any . dissatisfaction at the territory assigned to Judah and Joseph, or any suspicion that they had been injured in consequence, steps would certainly have been taken immediately to settle the dis pute, before removing the tabernacle from Gilgal to Shiloh. Moreover, any such reason as this, for breaking off the lot, would assuredly have been mentioned by the historian, who has not omitted to record the satisfaction of the especial claims of Caleb and the discontent of the children of Joseph with the lot which had fallen to them. We cannot therefore even admit the cor rectness of the supposition of C. a Lapide, that a survey, however general, had been made before the commencement of the distri bution. But the following appears to us to be the most plau sible explanation of the course of events : Without any accurate description of the land in their possession, but from a general notion, acquired by traversing the various districts after the conquest, of its extent and the nature of the different parts, a rough division was made into nine or ten portions for the pur pose of distribution. The casting of the lots then commenced, and the exact dimensions of the portion which fell to the lot of 350 DISTRIBUTION OP THE LAND ON THIS SIDE. any tribe, were decided afterwards according to the number of its families. When this was done, the tribe entered into the inheritance thus allotted to it, and took possession. The exact determination of the boundaries, however, was not the work of one day or even of several days. On the contrary, it required a considerable time, and was probably not altogether settled until the tribe had actually taken possession. In this manner the tribes of Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh, had one after another received their inheritance. But this occupied some time, and whilst they were engaged in taking possession, the spot was decided upon where the tabernacle should permanently stand ; and there, viz., at Shiloh, it was set up.1 The whole camp natu rally accompanied it to that place. But when they arrived there, and the casting of the lots was about to be proceeded with, the rest of the tribes manifested no great desire to enter upon any settled possessions. They had been born in the desert, and hav ing grown up in the camp, had become so accustomed to a nomad-life, that they preferred a continuance of it to the posses sion of a fixed inheritance. Moreover, with Canaanites still remaining in the land, it would demand far more courage and exertion to seize upon an inheritance, than to live in tents and wander about the country with their flocks, as Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob had done, living by the side of the Canaanites and sustained by the produce of the land. For the inhabitants, who still remained, were too thoroughly broken down by the war for the Israelites to fear opposition or harm from them, so long as they made no attempt to expel or exterminate them. But Joshua could not let things take such a turn, without being un faithful to the task assigned him by the Lord. He therefore condemns the indifference of these tribes, and orders them to make preparations for proceeding with the lot. Now the tribe of Joseph had no sooner entered upon its inheritance than com- 1 The reason for the setting up of the tabernacle whilst they were engaged in dividing of the land, is to be found in the importance of that event to the whole of the Israelites. As the sanctuary which God himself had appointed, it ought properly to have been fixed in its place at the very outset, in order that the worship might commence. This, however, was impossible, until the Ephraimites, in the midst of whom its settled position, according to the will of the Lord, was to he, had re ceived their inheritance. CHAPTER XIV. 351 plaints were heard that it was too small. This complaint, how ever, only showed that they had not courage to attack the Canaanites who were still left within the borders of their terri tory. And Joshua at once perceived that, if the division by lot were completed, without the different portions of the land being- more exactly defined than they had been, even greater discontent might arise amongst the other tribes, some of whom would be sure to receive districts in which the Canaanites were still more numerous and powerful than in the portion of Ephraim. He therefore issued orders that, before any further progress was made in the casting of the lots, the rest of the land should be carefully surveyed, and divided into seven districts, and that the descrip tion should be laid before him. The districts, as thus definitely arranged, were then to be assigned by lot to the seven tribes. This survey immediately showed that, when the territories of Judah and Joseph were taken awaj7, the land which remained to be divided amongst the other tribes would be too small in comparison with that which had already been allotted. It had also been found that Judah's share was larger than this tribe required (chap. xix. 9), and hence it was necessary for partial alterations to be made in the results of the first division. But the lot, which had once been cast, could not be set aside, since the result was regarded as the decision of God himself, and therefore they could not recommence the distribution of the whole land amongst all the tribes. The only alternative was for the two tribes to be left in the districts which had fallen to them by lot (chap, xviii. 5), and for them to cede certain portions of their territory to the other tribes. Thus the decision of the lot was fully maintained, for it had never determined the extent and boundaries of each inheritance. By such an explanation of the general order in which the events occurred, — and so far as I can see it is not at variance with a single statement in the book before us, — the interruption of the casting of the lots, which had been commenced at Gilgal, is satisfactorily accounted for, and every difficulty completely re moved.1 1 Neological criticism has magnified the difficulties into contradic tion. Hauff (p. 119 sqq.) says that the statement in chap, xviii. 2, to ff 352 DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND ON THIS SIDE. In chap. xiv. we have an account of the approach of Caleb to Joshua, at the head of the children of Judah, just as the casting of the lots was about to commence (vv. 1 — 5), with the request that the city of Hebron, which Moses had pro mised him 45 years before (vv. 6 — 12), might be given to him and to his family for an inheritance; a request with which Joshua complied (vv. 13 — 15). Vv. 1 — 5. And this is, what they received for an inheritance. cf. chap. xiii. 32. Canaan refers here merely to the land, which lay between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and which had been promised as a permanent possession to the descendants of Abraham, within the limits fixed in Gen. x. 19, and Num. xxxiv. 2 — 12. — The description the effect that the distribution was interrupted, gives us a totally diffe rent view of the matter from that which we had obtained from the previous chapters. The latter, especially chap. xiv. 1 sqq., when taken in connection with the instructions of Num. xxvi. 53 sqq., xxxiii. 54, to divide the land, represent the affair in no other way than that, after the conquest was completed, the land was portioned out in the most admirable order, according to the precepts already given by Moses. " Now this, says he, is altogether at variance with the interruption re ferred to in chap, xviii. 2, and with the view thus presented of the two most powerful tribes first receiving their share and taking possession, whilst the other tribes are obliged to wait, not only till this has been done, but also till the rest of the land has been measured. And it is also at variance with the result of the survey, which showed that the tribes of Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh, had received too much, and led to their giving up a portion of their territory to the others, chap. xix. 9." — But it is impossible to fix the charge of contradiction upon the book before us, unless we start with the erroneous idea that the lots were all drawn on the same day, and that immediately afterwards the persons who had been entrusted with the division of the land proceeded to fix the boundaries of each tribe. Such an opinion, however, is not called for or favoured either by Num. xxvi. 53 sqq., or by Josh. xiv. 1. Moreover, to prove the existence of any discrepancy, it is necessary also to assume that a complete and accurate measurement of the land had been made before the casting of the lots was commenced ; an assumption which is not founded upon either the precepts of Moses (Num. xxvi. and xxxiii.), or the command of God to Joshua (chap. xiii. 6 seq.), or upon the account contained in chaps, xiv. — xvii. It is only by first forcing upon these passages in an arbitrary manner the mean ing, that the distribution by lot was both commenced and completed " in the most perfect order," that it becomes possible to detect a dis crepancy in the subsequent portions of the narrative, in chap1', xviii. and xix. CHAPTER XIV. 353 of the men, who superintended the distribution by lot, corresponds exactly to the instructions given by God to Moses (Num. xxxiv. 16 sqq.) In both passages Eleazar is mentioned before Joshua, in consequence of the division being settled by lot ; for this was presided over by the High Priest as the representative of the government of the Lord in Israel. In every other respect, even in the distribution of the land, Joshua was at the head of the commission, appointed for that purpose, as we may clearly see from v. 6, chap. xvii. 14 and xviii. 3 sqq. — Eleazar, the third son of Aaron, succeeded his father in the office of High Priest, Ex. xxiii. 25 and Num. xx. 26—28. — pvitS^rr nilfc* "'tttfcO are tne princes of the tribes, Q^ffiSn (c^* cbap- vii. 14), whose names are given in Num. xxxiv. 19 sqq. — The ^ before ^fc^fcp ^Sl is a slSn of the genitive, and is used here to prevent the frequent recur rence of nouns in the construct state. — V. 2. The words 7-^35 Qp^prj depend upon J|^pi3 "^ffiN (v. 1 ) : " by the lot of their inheritance," i. e. by the division of it by lot. — " As the Lord had commanded," cf. Num. xxvi. 53—56, xxxiii. 54, and xxxiv. 13- ''an njWnV 1S not governed by pp;}, as it was supposed to be by the LXX., but must be explained from Num. xxxiv. 13, where it is preceded by pip\~i. It is true that in several MSS. and editions the same word is found in the present passage, but Buxtorf (Anticrit. p. 520) has properly rejected it as an inter polation of later date. Grammatically *£pj pijfljjn'? is dependent upon !)7pj2 (v. 1 ) (Maurer), and gives a fuller explanation of the - : t word ?pY'lfc?. ^he construction is changed simply on account of x the distance at which it stands, the writer probably having r^j^ f^Hi in his mind. V. 3 states the reason why there were only nine tribes and a half, to whom the land of Canaan was distri buted by lot ; viz., because two tribes and a half had already received their inheritance from Moses on the other side of the Jordan, and no land was given to the Levites as an inheritance. — V. 4. From this it would appear, that, as there were twelve sons of Jacob, there would be only eight tribes and a half left ; but the two sons of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, had been adopted by Jacob as his sons (Gen. xlviii. 5), and were reckoned 23 * 354 DISTRIBUTION OF THE LAND ON THIS SIDE. as tribes, and therefore there were still nine tribes and a half to receive their inheritance. Compare with this the observations already made at chap. xiii. 14. The repetition of the statement which had been made at chap. xiii. 8, with reference to the inheritance of the two tribes and a half, does not indicate a difference in the authorship, as Beriholdt supposes (iii. p. 850); but may easily be explained from the redundancy of the early Semitic style ; as may also the similar repetition of the Mosaic arrangement with regard to the tribe of Levi, which had in fact been mentioned twice before (chap. xiii. 14 and 33) ; (cf. Ewald, Compos, der Gen. p. 144 sqq.) — Still the announcement made here, to the effect that " they gave no part unto the Levites in the land, but only cities, &c," is not an instance of repetition, so much as a completion of the narrative, intended to show the reader that the . instructions left by Moses (Num. xviii. 20 and xxxv. 2 sqq.) respecting the Levites had also been literally ful filled. pQttj'? Wi~)V dties to dwell in (ef. Num. xxxv. 2); i.e. so V V x • X as actually to hold the cities as their property and to inhabit them, having full power, as the owners of the cities, to sell the houses and redeem them again (Lev. xxv. 32 seq.) ; (cf. Lundius jud. Heiligthiimer. p 867). In addition to the cities they were to receive the Qiup^Qj i.e. pasture ground within the precincts of * x I • the cities, or certain districts round about them, in which their cattle might graze.1 (Cf. Gesenius on Ej-i^ft thes. s.v.). — On t : • 1 The extent of these suburbs is accurately laid down in Num. xxxv. 4, 5, but apparently with such obscurity, that there is the greatest diversity in the descriptions and diagrams given by expositors of that passage. Compare Masius (in loco), Pfeiffer (dub. vex. p. 299 sqq.), Lundius (die jiid. Heiligth. p. 867 seq.), Rosenmiiller (in an excursus, appended to his Scholia in libr. Numer. p. 447 sqq.), Vater (on Num. xxxv. 5), and Doderlein (theol. Biblioth iv. p. 727 sqq.) Their explanations, however, are all unsatisfactory, especially that of Rosenmiiller, who treates the superficies of the city as a mathematical point, in direct opposition to the drawing, in which it appears as a small square. The words of the text are : " the suburbs of the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites (shall be or shall reach), from the wall of the city outwards a thousand cubits round about (i. e., on every side of the city); and ye shall measure outside the city, the east side two thousand cubits, and the south side two thousand cubits, and the west side two thousand cubits, and the north side two thousand cubits, and the city in the centre (i.e. so that the city shall stand within the CHAPTER XIV. () — 12. 355 the masculine suffix in OppQpyift see chap. iv. 18. — DJTDpav O^p^l for their herds and for their (other) possessions. The Rabbins adopt the rendering of the Chaldee and refer pftjja to larger cattle, and for all their beasts. — V. 5. On i;p ppsj ptzjsia, cf. verse 2. i|pSpP"l does not niean merely : " they began to prepare for the division of the land of Canaan, and actually divided some parts of it," (as Clericus and Rosenmuller say) but " they portioned out the land'' For if the division was not finished at once (cf. chap, xviii." 1 sqq.), that is not the point in consideration here ; as the first five verses con tain the introduction to the whole section relating to the distri bution of the land. Vv. 6 — 12. Before the casting of the lots commenced, Caleb came to Joshua with the children of Judah, and asked for the mountains of Hebron to be given to him as a possession. In sup port of his claim he appealed to the fact that, forty-five years before, Moses had promised on oath that he would give him that land, because he did not make common cause with the rest of lines thus measured)." The correct explanation is that briefly hinted at by J. D. Michaelis (in his notes upon Num. xxxv. 4), and none of the unfounded or unjust objections of later writers have been able to overthrow it. We must picture to ourselves the cities as square, each side being 1 000 cubits in length. These dimensions would be quite in accordance with the importance of the cities (cf. Bdhr Symbolik ii. p. 51.) And the agreement between the measurements given will then be apparent from the following diagram : — 1000 Cub. 1CO0 Cub. s W E s 23 356 CALEB'S REQUEST. the spies, who were sent from Kadesh to Canaan, when they stirred up the people to rebellion, but faithfully followed the Lord. This occurrence is inserted here, because it took place between the preparations for distributing the land by lot and the actual commencement of the distribution. There is nothing either in the narrative itself, or in the apparent, but not real dis crepancy between v. 12 and chap. x. 36 — 39, to support the assumption of Maurer and others, that this section was taken from a different source from the rest of the book, and that its historical credibility is greater than that of the other portions of the book. — The event itself occurred at Gilgal (Sinjil, see chap. ix. 6), where the casting of the lots commenced. — Caleb, the son of Jephunneh, was a prince of the tribe of Judah, and a member of the commission for the division of the land (Num. xxxiv. 19.) According to 1 .Chr. ii. 42 and 49 he was a brother of Jerah- meel ; he was therefore the same person as the Caleb mentioned in 1 Chr. ii. 18, a descendant of Hezron, the son of Pharez, and grandson of Judah (1 Chr. ii. 5, 18 and 25). We find him, or more correctly his father Jephunneh, described both here and in Num. xxxii. 12 as the Kenizzite, but this cannot be supposed to indicate a descent from the tribe spoken of in Gen. xv. 19, who were probably Edomites, and (as Bertheau imagines) had be come mixed up with the Israelites (cf. Gen. xxxvi. 15, 42. Bertheau z. Gesh. p. 1 60, and commentary on Judges i. 13.) For if such an association had taken place, Jephunneh could only be called the Kenizzite, because on the father's side he was descended from this people, and on the mother's from Judah. This supposition, however, is precluded by the genealogy given. The Kenizzite means the descendant of Kenaz, of whom nothing further is known, but who must have belonged to the posterity of Judah, it is therefore equivalent to Ep-fo chap. xv. 17; Judg. i. 13. We learn from 1 Chr. iv. 15 that one of Caleb's sons was named Kenaz ; Othniel also is called f3p-& (chap. xv. 17 ; Judg. i. 13; 1 Chr. iv. 13), so that the name was evidently held in great affection in this family, and it was customary both with Hebrews and Arabs to perpetuate certain family names; (cf.Hdver- nickEml. ii. 1, p. 179, and, on the frequent repetition of Arabic names, especially the first names, Kosegarten, Zeitschrift fiir die CHAPTER XIV. 6—12. 357 Kunde des Morgenl. i. 3, p. 312 sqq.) — Caleb refers to the cir cumstances narrated in Num. xiii. and xiv. "The word of the Lord concerning Caleb and Joshua " we find in Num. xiv. 24 and 40, but all that is said there is that the Lord will bring Caleb into the land whereinto he went, and give it to his seed for a possession. — Dipi'^^pj-Qp^ is equivalent to fcp^} a pro phet, cf. 1 Kings xiii. 1 and 18. i;p ^nlTN hv ls translated by the LXX. and Vulgate correctly : -rrepl ifiov Kal aov, de me et te. — On Kadesh-Barnea, see chap. x. 41. — V. 7. And I brought him an answer, as it was in my heart (De Wette), i.e., accord ing to my thorough conviction.1 " It was as if he said, that he had neither courted the favour of any man by his words, nor feared their anger, but had spoken fully what he be lieved" (Masius.) At the same time the words imply that " without falsehood or dissimulation he had faithfully obeyed the commands which were given him." (Calvin.) — V. 8. He boasts moreover of the integrity which he maintained, in that when he was opposed by all his associates, except Joshua, he neither yielded to their malice nor was overcome by their wicked conspiracy, but still adhered firmly to his decision." (Calvin.) — 131 VDan dissolverunt cor populi, they brought the hearts of the people to such despair by the accounts, which their unbelieving fear led them to bring back of the giants who were dwelling in Canaan (Num. xiii. 31 — 33), that they murmured against Moses and Aaron and wished to return to Egypt (Num. xiv. 1, 4.) — VDan (instead of !)Dan formed like the Aramean verbs Lamed i for pf , see Ewald Lehrb. § 142 a) from nDa = DDa T T T — T to despair, cf. chap ii. 11. — TTfSTfi "HnN fcs?a> which are the words employed by Jehovah with reference to Caleb's conduct in Num. xiv. 24, are constructio praegnans for p\3^7 N 7a TfffV "HnN t° follow the Lord perfectly, cf. Num. xxxii. 11, 12. Deut. i. 36 ; 1 Kings xi. 8. Caleb did not allow himself to be 1 Instead of VQ^ nv tbe LXX. read Kara tov vovv airov ,- and so also one of the MSS. in Kennikoit has the reading <\yyj ; Clericus has improperly given this the preference, for Caleb could not possibly have meant that he spoke according to the desire of Moses. 358 PROMISE OF MOSES TO CALEB. shaken in his faithfulness to God and his promises, either by the evil report, which was brought by the other spies respecting the land, or by the murmuring and threats of the rebellious masses of the people. V. 9. The oath of Moses, which is spoken of here, we do not find either in Num. xiv. 20 sqq., or in Deut. i. 35 seq., where Moses again refers to the same event ; but instead of this we find an oath of Jehovah, that the murmuring race shall not see the land which was promised to tlieir fathers, but shall die in the wilderness, and that none but Joshua and Caleb shall enter the land of promise. Nor is it sufficient to say with Clericus and Rosenmiiller, that " because the words of the oath of God were reported by Moses in the hearing of the people, Moses himself is said to have sworn." For if Caleb had referred to the oath, contained in the Penta teuch, he would certainly have spoken of it as an oath of the Lord. And again there is no special reference made in that promise to Hebron and its neighbourhood ; for though the spies are said in Num. xiii. 22 to have come to Hebron, yet they went farther still (vv. 23, 24), "and searched the land unto Rehob, as men come to Hamath," (v. 21), and therefore Caleb could not without further explanation apply the two promises, " I will bring thee unto the land, whither thou hast come, and thy seed shall possess it" (Num. xiv. 24), and " he (Caleb) shall see it, and to him will I give the land that he hath trodden upon, and to his children," (Deut. i. 36), to Hebron and its neighbourhood, especially as yi^n is defined in the context in both passages as " the land, which I sware to their fathers," i.e., all Canaan. And when we also observe that in these passages, where Moses announces to the whole people the divine sentence of rejection (Num. xiv. 26 — 35), both Caleb, and Joshua, the son of Nun, are named as those who shall enter the promised land (v. 30) ; it is evident that it could not have been upon the words of the Lord and of Moses, which are reported in the Pentateuch, that Caleb founded his claim to possess the land around Hebron. We must therefore suppose that as the fourteenth chapter of Numbers contains not merely a report of the announcement made by the Lord to Moses of his condemnation of the people (v. 21 — 24), but also of the proclamation by Moses of the same sentence in the hearing of the people (vv. 28 — 35) ; so also the CHAPTER XIV. 6—12. 359 Lord God made an express declaration with reference to Caleb, which Moses repeated to him. The declaration itself, which, according to Num. xiv. 35, was sure to be carried out, is not recorded in the Pentateuch, but is here mentioned by Caleb to Joshua, in whose hearing it was probably first related by Moses. This promise on the part of God, which Moses confirmed to Caleb by oath, was given in consequence of the words employed by Caleb, to still the people before Moses (Num. xiii. 30) ; and, to judge from vv. 9 — 12 of the present chapter, was probably to the effect, that the land in wliich the Anakim dwelt, who had so terrified the other spies by their enormous size, i.e., the country round Hebron, should be given by the Lord God to him (Caleb) and his descendants for ever, and that the giants, who dwelt there, should be driven out before him. — V. 10. From the words " and now, behold, the Lord hath kept me alive, as he said, these forty-five years, since tbe Lord spake this word unto Moses, &c." Theodoret drew the correct conclu sion, that the conquest of Canaan was completed in seven years, and the division then commenced ; since the circumstances, here referred to, occurred in the desert in the second year after the exodus from Egypt. — Tr^pj "rttJM is connected with Qi^-ty pft "t£? "TT\> " these forty and five years, that (during which) Israel has walked in the wilderness." On the use of "^fc$ in this sense, see Ewald Lehrb. § 321 c. — V. 11. And not only had the Lord prolonged his life these forty-five years, but he had also pre served his strength in such full vigour, that, although now in his eighty-fifth year, he felt as strong, and as well able to engage in war, or to perform the duties of citizenship, as when he was forty years old. fc^m n^iJ denotes the performance of the T active duties of life (cf. Deut. xxviii. 6, xxxi. 2, &c). — ipt^: the accent of this word is thrown back on account of the mono syllable and Milel which follow, vid. Gesenius Lehrgeb. p. 212. — V. 12. This mountain, as the words which follow "clearly show, is the mountain of Hebron (cf. chap. xi. 21). The ex pression used by Caleb : " the mountain, whereof Jehovah spake in that day," is an evident proof that it was not merely a general promise which God gave through Moses, that Caleb should receive an inheritance in the land of Canaan, but a 360 CALEB'S INHERITANCE. special assurance that the country of Hebron should be his possession. — For thou heardest in that day how the Anakim were there and large fortified cities. The second 13 is wrongly trans lated by Clericus, quamvis} — ^ Pl'in'1 '•/IN perhaps Jehovah is t : — with me, and I may drive them out. The word perhaps does not indicate any doubt, but expresses a hope and desire, or, as Masius says, " hope not free from difficulty, and whilst the diffi culty diminishes the value, the hope excites the wish for the gift." — VTiN f°r ''.TIN 1S verv frequent in the later writings ; vid. Ewald Lehrb. § 264 b. Vv. 13 — 15. Joshua complies with the wishes of Caleb, and gives him Hebron for an inheritance, i.e., the city and the country round about. The city itself was afterwards given up to the Levites, and declared a free city (chap. xxi. 11, xx. 7). "Iff^-^^i does not stand for " some solemn ceremony, by which ¦• : x ; Joshua set apart Hebron, and delivered it to him as an entailed possession" (as Rosenmuller supposes) ; nor does it merely mean to congratulate ; but according 'to the paraphrase of Abulensis (in C. a Lapide), " Joshua prayed for a successful issue to all the efforts of Caleb, and especially to his attack upon the cities of the mountains, which were inhabited by giants, when he offered the supplication ' may God make you prosperous, may God bless you, and may he subdue the giants before you.' " — In vv. 14 and 15 the author appends to some observations of his own, the narrative, which he has copied verbatim from the original documents. — V. 15. " The name of Hebron before was Kirjath-Arba, i.e., the city of Arba, who was the greatest man amongst the Anakim." Before, just as " to this day" in v. 14, is used with reference to the date at which the book was com posed ; from that point of view Kirjath-Arba was " formerly" the ordinary name, and therefore it by no means follows that the name Hebron was more modern than Kirjath-Arba. On the 1 In chap. xi. 21 we read that Joshua had expelled the Anakim from the mountains of Hebron and the neighbourhood ; but when the Israelites left that part of the country, and whilst they were engaged with the Canaanites of the north, they may easily have re-assembled there ; and thus there is no discrepancy, as we showed at chap x. 36, between this passage and chap. xi. 21 or x. 36 39. CHAPTER XIV. 13 — 15. 361 contrary, as Hengstenberg has conclusively shown (Beitr. iii. p. 187 sqq.) Hebron was the original name of the city, and it was not till after Abraham's stay there that it received the name Kirjath-Arba from a giant, named Arba, who was not the founder but a conqueror of the city, having accompanied the Anakim, to which tribe he belonged, and who did not arrive in that neighbourhood till after the time of Abraham. It retained this name till it came into the possession of Caleb, when the Israelites restored the original name Hebron} The concluding formula, " and the land had rest from war," which occurs once before at chap. xi. 23, is repeated here, in order to furnish a point of transition to the history of the peaceful distribution of the land, which was interrupted by the insertion of the narrative of Caleb's demand. For as the reference to the Anakim, who dwelt at Hebron, and whom Caleb hoped to drive out of that place, might easily excite the thought, that Caleb immediately entered upon the war ; the author considered it necessary to repeat, that the land rested from war, and therefore the division of it could proceed without interruption. 1 The Eabbins, in the Beresh Rabba, interpret the name p)ipp 5^"iV c% °f the four, and take Ql^pj to be the proper name of the — : — T T T firBt man. They then invent the fiction that the city received its name, amongst other reasons, because the four patriarchs, Adam, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, were buried there. This baseless Jewish tradition was received by Jerome from his Jewish teacher ; and has not merely been indicated in his rendering of this passage : Adamus maximus ibi inter Enakim situs est, but repeated in several of his works. From this the legend was introduced into the Catholic church that Adain lived at Hebron and was buried there. In the Fathers before Jerome nothing of the kind is hinted at. None but the ancestors of the Israelites were buried there (cf. Gen. xxiii. 19, xxv. 9, xlix. 30, 1. 13), and the Haram which is still found there is sup posed to be their monument ; vid. Robinson i. 318 sqq., and ii. 350 sqq. 362 INHERITANCE OF JUDAH. CHAPTER XV. INHERITANCE OP THE TRIBE OF JUDAH. V. 1 . Under the divine superintendence the inheritance which fell by lot to the tribe of Judah was at the south of Canaan, where Caleb had already received his possession, and therefore he was not separated from his tribe. The lot to the tribe of the children of Judah, according to their families, was to the border of Edom, i.e. the lot which was drawn or fell to them (vid. chap. xvi. 1 ; Num. xxxiv. 2) contained the tract of country bordering upon Edom. Verse f contains a general description of the por tion of the land which fell to the tribe of Judah ; the details follow in vv. 2 — 12. '?!Q!l"'?N is not used for ^iQJ-^y as Va tablius, Masius, and apparently Rosenmiiller suppose, because in Num. xxxiv. 3 we find Q'nN i"p ^y. For even if it is the same boundary as is given there, yet it is described in a different manner. — "Dp QYlN 7*Q3-Vn on or to the border of Edom the wilderness of Zin towards the south, i.e. the territory of Judah extended to Edom on the east, and was bounded on the south by the wilderness of Zin. The wilderness of Zin is that part of the wilderness of Paran, in which Kadesh Barnea was situated; vid. chap. x. 41. 'nyip\ njftja ab extremitate Austri, i.e., from our point of view, on the extreme south. The meaning may probably be that the territory of Judah reached to the extreme south of Canaan. Vv. 2 — 4. The southern boundary, which corresponds in ge neral to the south border of Canaan as described in Num. xxxiv. 3 — 5^ is given here with still greater regard to details. It com menced " from the end of the Salt Sea," (or more particularly) "from the tongue which turneth towards the south." This tongue is the southern portion of the Dead Sea reaching from the peninsula, which runs out a great distance into the sea on the west of Kerek (vid. Robinson ii. 216 sqq.), to the south point of the sea by the so-called Salt-hill and Salt-marsh. At this point the boundary of Judah commenced. — V. 3. " And it went out to the south side of the heights of Akrabbim." ^£>0 anc* the other preterites or perfects, which follow, must not be taken CHAPTER XV. 2—4. 363 as futures or imperatives, as they have been by Stdhelin (Krit. Unters. p. 95), for they are not preceded by an imperative in this passage, as in Num. xxxiv., but by the historical tense ippl- — The future or the imperative with i relat. could not have been used in these descriptions, for there is no continuation- either of time or thought, as there is in the case of ippi in the first and second verses. D^^pJ? TYjyfe' Maaleh-acrabbim, ascensus scor- pionum was probably a pass, with which we are not fur ther acquainted, in the "bald mountain," mentioned in chap. xi. 17, and xii. 7, which "goeth up to Seir," (vid. chap. xi. 17). — " And went over to Zin (i.e. a certain spot in the desert of Zin not far from Kadesh), and ascended towards the south from Kadesh (that is to the hill-country which rises in the west of Kadesh, cf. chap. x. 41), and passed over to Hezron, and went up to Adar, and turned to Karka." All these places are un known to us. Hezron is mentioned in verse 25 amongst the cities of the south, with the additional clause "i.e. Hazor." Adar is called in Num. xxxiv. 4 Hazar-addar, villa nomine Adar (Vulg.) Karkaa is not met with anywhere else. The word vp~yp means the floor of a building (Num. v. 17 ; 1 Kings vi. 15) and the bottom of the sea (Amos ix. 3). — V. 4. Azmon is also unknown (see Num. xxxiv. 4, 5). As the boundary line ran into the stream of Egypt (Wady el Arish), and ascended the hill in a southward direction from Kadesh, we may assume that it passed in a tolerably straight line from Ain el Weybeh across the mountain-plateau to the Wady el Ain, or the Wady el Abyad, and entered through one of these Wadys into the Wady el Arish. In this case the territory of Judah extended tolerably far into the desert ; still that does not militate against the correctness of our conjecture, since there are really found in the present day ruins of cities, that were once of consider able extent, at some distance within the limits of the desert. For example there are the ruins el Aujeh or el Abdeh, in the Wady el Hufir running into the Wady el Abyad, which Robinson sup posed to be the remains of the ancient Ebode, (i. 287 and 560). nifc$2n rPffi an^ the goings out of the border were at the (Medi- : t x ! * terranean) Sea. The alteration, made by the Keri, of pfnpil into 364 INHERITANCE OF JUDAH. «l«ipl>) is unnecessary ; vid. chap. xi. 22 and Ewald Lehrb. § 306 a. — There is something striking in the last words : " this shall be your southern boundary." But they may be explained, as Masius has shown, by supposing a tacit reference to the southern boundary of the land which Israel was to enter into possession of, as described by Moses, Num. xxxiv. 2 sqq. V. 5. a. The boundary on the East was the Salt Sea in its whole length, "to the end (i.e. the mouth), of the Jordan." V. 5, b. — 1 1. The northern boundary. This passed from the northern point of the Dead Sea, where the Jordan entered it, and ascended to Beth Hogla. The name Beth Hogla still exists in Ain Hadjla, a beautiful spring of perfectly sweet and clear water, at the northern extremity of the Dead Sea, and about two miles from the Jordan, (Robinson 268 ii. seq.). At the distance of twenty minutes' walk in the S.W.W. direction lie the ruins of Kusr Hadjla, near to which spot it is certain that Ain Hogla stood. It was upon the confines of Judah, and was assigned, not to Judah but to Benjamin (chap, xviii. 21). — The boundary line proceeded in a northerly direction past Betharabah, and went up to the stone of Bohan, the son of Reuben. Betharabah, a place in the desert of Judah (v. 61) is undoubtedly the same as the Betharaba mentioned in chap, xviii. 22 amongst the cities of Benjamin. In chap, xviii. 18 it is merely called Arabah. The exact site of the city is not known, but it probably stood upon the border, and hence was first assigned to Judah, and afterwards given up to Benjamin. Nor do we know anything about the stone of Bohan, the son of Reuben ; it is only named once more, namely, in the description of the boundaries of the tribe of Ben jamin in chap, xviii. 17, and all that we can infer from the word PI^V is, that it stood upon the side of the mountains. — V. 7. x x " And the boundary went up toward Debir from the valley of Achor, and turned northward to Gilgal, which stands opposite to the height of Adummim, that is on the south side of the stream." The valley of Achor is to be looked for on the south of Jericho, chap. vii. 26. Debir is not the same as the city of that name near to Hebron (chap. x. 38), but must have been situated upon tbe mountains. Gilgal cannot have been the place in which the Israelites first encamped (chap. iv. 19), because of the different CHAPTER XV. 5. 365 situation assigned it here. Moreover the Gilgal, spoken of in the passage before us, is called Geliloth in chap, xviii. 17, and whilst the place of the Israelitish encampment was on the east of Jericho, this Gilgal or Geliloth was on the south-west of that city. With reference to the Heights of Adummim Jerome (in the Onom. s.v. Adommim) says : quondam villula, nunc ruinae, in sorte tribus Judae, qui locus usque hodie vocatur Maledomim (a^aiN n7J?a) et graece dicitur aj/a/3acrt<; irvppoav, latine autem appellari potest ascensus ruforum seu rubentium proper sanguinem, qui illic crebro a latronibus funditur. Est autem confinium tribus Judae et Benjamini, descendentibus ab Aelia, ubi et castellum militum situm est, ob auxilia viatorum. But this explanation of the name is hardly correct. It was more probably derived from the red colour of the rocks (arubicundis rupibus, quemadmodum oppidulum prope Romam Saxa ra&neappellatum fuit, alias Rubrae sc. petrae, vide Ciceron. Philipp. ii. 7 1 in Rosenmuller on the present verse). But Jerome's information with regard to the position of the place, viz., that it stood in the road to Jerusa lem, is certainly correct. Adummim is said in the verse before us to have been situated on the south of the stream, referring undoubtedly to the stream near Jericho, which flowed between the village of Riha and the plain on the south of it (Robinson ii. 279), and is called in chap. xvi. 1 " the water of Jericho." — The boundary then passed to En-shemesh (©OQJ-W the fountain oj the sun), probably the spring which is now called the well of the Apostles below Bethany on the road to Jericho,1 and thence to the well of the spies (^^ "pjj Enrogel) i. e. the so-called well of Job or Nehemiah on the south-east of Jerusalem, below the junction of the valleys of Hinnom and Jehoshaphat ; (vid. my Commentary on the Books of Kings p. 7 ; Robinson and Shulz Jerusalem p. 79). From the points thus given we may decide with certainty that the boundary ran from the mouth of the Jordan to Ain = or Kusr-Hadjla, and proceeded thence, not in a curve towards the north (as Thenius has marked it upon his map in Kduffer's Studien vol. ii.), but, in a tolerably straight 1 Robinson says that En Shemesh was probably "either the present well of the Apostles below Bethany on the road to Jericho, or the fountain near to St Saba." But the latter lies too much to the south east to be thought of for a moment. 366 INHERITANCE OP JUDAH. line to the mountains and indeed to the valley which intersects the eastern end of the mountains below Jericho, and followed this valley to a point below el Azirieh (Bethany), where it entered the Wady, which opens into the valley of Kidron, and then passed along this valley to the well of the spies. — V. 8. From this point " it went up by the valley of Ben Hinnom (on which see my Commentary on Kings p. 582), on the south side of the Jebusites (the same is Jerusalem), and went up to the top of the mountain, that (lieth) before the valley of Hinnom west ward, which is at the end of the valley of Rephaim northward." Q^y\ is not used elliptically for iD^n "VV (Juag- Xlx- H) the city of the Jebusite, but is the name of the tribe, the inhabitants being mentioned instead of the city. The plain of the valley Qi^Qp (valley of the giants, yiyavrasv, titovcov, LXX.), is on • t : the west of Jerusalem, separated by a small ridge of rock from the end of the valley of Hinnom. Robinson (i. U25) describes it as broad and bending gradually towards the south-west until it contracts into a deeper and narrower valley, called the Wady el Werd, which unites farther on with the Wady Ahmed. On the south it extends as far as Bethlehem (Josephus Ant. vii. 4. 1 and 12. 2 ; see also Robinson ii. 156) ; on the north it is bounded by the same range of hills, which separates it on the east from the valley of Benhinnom, the latter bending towards the west on tbe left side of the Joppa road. Hence the mountains before the valley of Hinnom on the west and at the end of the valley of Rephaim towards the north must be one of the heights between which the road runs from Jerusalem to Kirjath Jearim and Joppa (i.e., the ordinary Joppa road). Thenius (in Kauffer ii. p. 188), decides in favour of the range on the north of this road. V. 9. From the summit of this hill the boundary passed " to the fountain of the water of Nephtoah." This is certainly not the present fountain Yah in the Wady el Werd, as Robinson says (ii. 156) ; for in that case the boundary must have passed down the plain of Rephaim, which is at variance with v. 8. Nor is it probable that it was Ain Karim, the fountain by the Monastery of St John in the desert (Robinson ii. 156) ; this lies too far to the south. The fountain of Nephtoah must have CHAPTER XV. 9. 367 been more to the north than that. p^fl is found in the Piel in - x Is. xliv. 1 3 with the meaning delineare aliquid. In the Kal it can only have the intransitive signification, to stretch out in a line; in the Pual definitum esse, to be marked off (chap. xix. 13). — " And it went out to the cities of Mount Ephron." Mount Ephron is not mentioned anywhere else, though we meet with a city of that name in 2 Chr. xiii. 19 ; but there the Keri has the reading pp^y. With regard to this Eusebius says : 'Epwv (pv\fjpatfi /Meyio-Tr) irepl ra, Spia^AiXia'!, a>? cnrb o-np,eia>v k '. Jerome places it twenty Roman miles from Aelia contra septentrionem. But this description suits far better the conjectural site of the city of Ephron, which belonged to the kingdom of the ten tribes (2 Chr. xiii. 19).1 And neither the statement of Eusebius nor that of Jerome is in harmony with the present verse, which places Mount Ephron between Jerusalem and Kirjath Jearim. — Baala or Kirjath Jearim is the modern Kuryet el Enab (see chap. ix. 17). — V. 10. " And the border described a curve from Baala westward unto Mount Seir." ^D3 — x is explained by the change in the direction of the boundary line, which ran to Kirjath Jearim in a north-westerly direction, and beyond Kirjath Jearim turned towards the southwest. Mount Seir ("vyto) *s entirely distinct from the Idumean mountains of Seir, and is evidently the range, which runs on the west of Kuryet el Enab in a southwesterly direction to Surah and the Wady Surar ; (cf. Robinson ii. 339 seq.). The name still continues in the place called Sairah U.*^) on the south of the Wady Surar, (Robinson ii. 339). — "And it passed over to the northern side of Har Jearim, i.e. Chesalon," which has continued to exist in the place called Kesla (Sl^,<=^)- Robinson (ii. 364) saw it on the south of the Wady Surar from Tell es Safieh.2 1 Reland (Pal. ill. p. 765) speaks of another 'Eippav beyond the Jordan. z The argument adduced by Robinson (ut supra), against the identity of the names Saira and Seir, and also Kesla and Chesalon, viz., that Chesalon and Seir seem to have been situated on the north of Beth- shemesh, and the Wady Surar, whereas Kesla and Sairah are on the south of this valley, seems to me to have little weight. The village 368 INHERITANCE OF JUDAH. — "And went down (from the mountain) to Bethshemesh," the ruins of which Robinson discovered in Ain-Shems in a beautiful valleyof considerable depth below the Wady Surar (ii. 343. 17); cf.also iii. 224 sqq. and my Commentary on the Books of Kings, p. 46)— " And passed on to Timnah," p|3an or nn^an Timnathah (chap. x : • t t ; • xix. 43), from which Samson fetched his wife (Judg. xiv. 1 sqq.), now called Tibneh (*1+j), on the south-west of Zarea, only an hour's walk from that place (Robinson ii. 343), a different place from the Timnah on the mountains, (v. 57). — V. 11. Ekron, i.e. Akir, vid. chap. xiii. 3. — About Sichron nothing is known. Mount Baalah, which is only mentioned here, is undoubtedly to be looked for in the range of hills, on the eastern side of the Wady Rubin, which Robinson says (iii. 21) were to be seen from Akir, and hid the country round Jebna from his view,, — Jabneel was probably the same as Jabneh, the city of the Philis tines, the walls of which were demolished by TJzziah (2 Chr. xxvi. 6), and Jamnia, so frequently mentioned by Josephus, and in the Books of the Maccabees. The Onomast. (s.v. Jamneel) places it between Ashdod and Diospolis. It is now called Jebna (U»j.) (Vid. Robinson ii. 343 and iii. 22, and for the history of Jamnia, Reland Pal. p. 822 seq., Rosenmuller, Althk. ii. 2, p. 366 sqq. and v. Raumer Pal. p. 200 seq.)2 — From Jabneel the boundary continued to tbe Mediterranean Sea ; whether it pro ceeded in a straight line, or, as Robinson supposes (ii. 343), fol lowed the course of the great valley, i.e. the Nahr Rubin, cannot be determined. V. 12. The western boundary was formed by the Mediterra nean Sea. — On ^y\y$\ see chap. xiii. 23. of Saira is of course not the same as Mount Seir, but merely bears the same name, and so may very well have stood upon the southern side of the mountains of Seir, which stretch as far as the Wady Surar; but the city of Chesalon is placed in the verse before us on the southern side of the boundary line ; and therefore may also have stood on the south of the Wady Surar. 1 There is less probability in the conjecture offered by Thenius (in Kduffer's Studien ii. p. 138), that Baala was the range of mountains on the north-west of the plain Merdj Ibn Omeir, running parallel to that plain from the neighbourhood of Jimza, and ending above Akir. 2 There was another Jabneel belonging to Naphthali, chap. xix. 33. CHAPTER XV. 13 — 20. 369 Vv. 13 — 20. As verses 13 — 19 are repeated with slight altera tions, almost verbatim, in Judg. i. 10 — 20, it has been long since perceived that the two sections are derived from a common source. The narrative was not copied by the author of the Book of Judges from the book before us, as Stdhelin (Krit. Unters. p. 102 seq.) maintains, nor on the other hand was it taken by our author from the Book of Judges, as Paulus (Conserv. ii. p. 175), De Wette (Einl. p. 234 seq.), Maurer and Rosenmuller (on this verse), Havernick (Einl. ii. 1 p. 58), Hauff (1. c. p. 195), and Bertheau (on Judges p. 16 sqq.) assume; but the authors of the two books have taken it from the same document of an earlier date, as I have shown in an article on " the parallel passages in the books of Joshua and Judges" (in Rudelbach's and Guericke's Zeitschrift 1846. H. i. p. 1 sqq.). The verses themselves are quite in accordance with the plan of our book and also with the context ; and they are in their place in Judges i. though the purpose for which they are introduced is not the same in the two passages. There they are intended to give completeness to the account of the wars, which were carried on by the different tribes, after the death of Joshua, against the Canaanites who were left in the various districts assigned to them ; here to complete the history of the division of the land amongst the tribes. As Caleb had brought forward his claims to the posses sion of Hebron, before the casting of the lots commenced, and those claims had been admitted by Joshua (chap. xiv. 6 — 15), it was quite in order for our author, when giving here the list of cities assigned to the tribe of Judah, to refer especially to the portion which Caleb had received, not by lot, but in fulfilment of the divine promise made to him by Moses, and at the same time to record how fully his hopes had been realised of driving out the Anakim, and thus securing the undisputed possession of Hebron and its vicinity to himself and his descendants. But this could not be fully detailed without a repetition, for the sake of both perspicuity and order, of the statement already made in chap. xiv. 13, that Joshua gave this tract of land to Caleb for an inheritance.1 And the position occupied by the account, viz., 1 The explanation given by Masius, in defence of the position occu pied by these accounts, is correct, but not altogether sufficient. He 24* 370 CALEB'S PORTION. between the description of the boundary of the territory allotted to Judah and the list of its cities, is quite appropriate ; as I have shown in the article mentioned above (p. 28). For as Caleb had really received his portion first, it was perfectly correct to give the history of this and of its results, viz., the actual conquest of the territory assigned him, before giving the list of the cities of Judah, but after describing the boundaries of the whole terri tory of the tribe, of which the portion of Caleb formed a part. V. 13. »j^2 He gave (viz., Joshua) or it gave (i.e., the com mission to which the distribution was entrusted). "S^ iq-Vn is explained in chap. xiv. 9 — 12, and the remarks upon that pass- age- p21?n~>,2ty f°r wbich we find p^^n ^IN m chap. xxi. 11, does not mean the father of Anak, but the founder (father) of the family of the Anakim, for p2VH = D^pil^ (Deut. i. 28, ix. 2) is not the name of an individual, but denotes the family of the Anakim, cf. Hengstenberg Beitr. iii. p. 189. — And so the three p^VH ^l) spoken of here and in Judges i. 10, are not three sons of Anak, but three chiefs of the Anakim ; or rather, as the same names occur in Num. xiii. 22, in the second year of the journey in connection with the entrance of the spies, we must understand the words not of chiefs, who were then ahve, but of the families descended from them. p2Vn ',"T1^', progenies Ena- kitarum is added as a still further definition of p^pj i^ to prevent us from thinking of the actual sons of Anak ; (cf. Num. xiii. 22 and 28, where they are merely called pjypj il^)' ' t,— : t ¦¦ • : V. 15. On Debir, see chap. x. 38.— V. 16. Caleb's daughter Achsah is also mentioned in the genealogy in 1 Chr. ii. 49. As Caleb here promises his daughter for a wife to the conqueror of Debir, so Saul promised his to the victor over Goliath, 1 Sam. xvii. 25 and xviii. 17. — V. 17. Othniel is the man who was afterwards the first judge, Judg. iii. 9. He was y\)^ ij-jn T2P-!! either filius Kenasi, frater Calebi, or filius Kenasi fratris Calebi. says: "Levi Ben Gerson supposes the intention to be, to show us that neither the promises of God nor the hopes of Caleb were vain. To this we may add, that the dowry of Achsah, to whom we are intro duced in the course of the narrative, was necessarily treated of as part of the land to be distributed." CHAPTER XV. 13 20. 371 The second explanation is quite admissible; cf. 2 Sam. xiii. 3, 32, "Jonadab, the son of Shimeah, David's brother" (1 Chr. ii. 13). But the first is the more usual; cf. 1 Sam. xxvi. 6, " Abishai, the son of Zeruiah, and brother to Jonadab." This is adopted by the Masorites, who have separated y^^ ipjN by Tiphcha from ftp p ; by the LXX., according to the Codex Alex. (though in the present passage we find dSe\(pov in this Codex also), by the Vulgate, and by most of the modern expositors. The objection offered by earlier expositors, that marriage with a brother's daughter was prohibited, is unfounded ; (cf. Michaelis' " Mosaic laws of marriage," § 82 and Mos. R. § 117). Othniel, the descendant of Kenaz (cf. chap. xiv. 6), was thus a brother of Caleb, according to Judges i. 13 and iii. 9 his younger brother.1 — V. 18. nWllS on her entering into the house of Othniel, to live with x : him as his wife. ppDPi to impel, entice, induce, here stimulavit.2 pplto> for which we have in Judg. i. 14 pn&PT the field (which V T . -.' T - has been more particularly described in the context), does not mean the field belonging to the city, for there was no reason why Othniel should ask particularly for this, as it came to him in regular course with the city itself, but land fit for cultivation, in which there was a sufficient supply of water, as we learn from what follows. pi32m an(^ she passed down from the ass, on which she had ridden from her father to Othniel, (Bertheau). The word only occurs in Judg. i. 14, in the same connection as here, and in Judg. iv. 21, where it is applied to the plug, which passed through Sisera's temples into the ground. The original meaning is not to glide, connected with p]jj glided (Bertheau), but to press, to force one's self away or further (cf. Fiirst Cone. s.v.). Here it has the same meaning as ^irip) (Gen. xxi,v. 64), to descend quickly from an animal, and this so astonished Caleb, that he asked " what was the matter." To understand the affair properly, we must suppose that Othniel 1 There is no foundation for Havernick' s opinion, (Einl. ii. 1, p. 58) that «)2)3J2 tbPn (J^g. i. 13) is omitted here on account of its obscu rity, for there is no obscurity whatever in the words. 2 Ewald (Gesch. ii. p. 289) proposes that vinrppni 8nould be a1" tered into ipppDni' derlved from TiD> NiPnal ID^ " sne let nira into the secret ;" but this is as unnecessary as it is arbitrary. 24 2 372 achsah's request. could not make up his mind to present such a request to her father, and that Achsah therefore determined to go herself. — V. 19. pi3~Q a blessing, then a gift connected with the blessing, (cf. 2 Kings v. 15 and my Commentary on the passage).1 For thou hast given me the south land. The LXX., Chaldee, Syriac, and Arabic, render this " for thou hast placed me in the south land," i.e., sent me thither in marriage, and this rendering is adopted by Michaelis, Dereser, Studer, and Bertheau (on Judges). It may possibly be correct, for ^3in V^N ™igbt be an accusat. loci. But the arguments adduced by Studer and Bertheau against the ordinary translation are not convincing. Bertheau says : " Caleb, who only received Hebron and its vicinity as his possession, could not present to his daughter the south land, for it did not belong to him." But this is not correct. If Caleb had had no claim to Debir, he could not have given his daughter as a reward for the conquest of that city. His doing this is a proof that Debir was within the bounds of the territory assigned to him. The grammatical difficulty, arising from the fact that the suffix in ^2pip\j is not a dative («= ^ JVC)* is easily removed if • t — : ' T — T we regard »p^ as construed with a double accusative, = donare aliquem aliqua re, " thou hast presented me with the south land," as Ewald (Lehrb. § 283), Maurer, and others have done. More over, the suffix 1^ — is sometimes used for i^ at least by the poets, and this is supposed by Eioald (Lehrb. § 305 b.) to have arisen from the influence of the colloquial expressions of the people ; so that in this phrase, as well as in the form v^pp ift (Is. xxvii. 4 ; Jer. ix. 1), the suffix might be regarded as a dative. For my part, however, I adhere to the ordinary rendering : " for thou hast given me the south land." Caleb had given it to her, inasmuch as he had given her as a wife to the conqueror of Debir. y^Sl V^lN 1S employed in a double sense, " the south land," equivalent to the barren and dry land, as y^ in Ps. cxxvi. 4. — Qift py^ springs of water. The only places in which pi'l^j occurs in this signification are the present and the 1 Instead of ^-p^ we find in Judg. i. 15 ^L,--^^ whieh is fre quently used when addressing another, and is not Tmore rarely met with than pjj]-^, as Havernick (ut supra) supposes. CHAPTER xv. 21—32. 373 parallel passage, Judges i. 15. In the Song of Solomon iv. 12, we have ^3 instead.— Whether the word denotes a peculiar description of springs, round wells for example, as Bertheau imagines, remains undecided. rfrffOto n'^l nY»fe> JY^ upper springs and lower springs are proper names, belonging to a particular tract of land, which was so called from the springs within it both on the higher and lower ground. This tract was near to Debir, the situation of which is still unknown to us. The twentieth verse contains the concluding formula to the first division of the chapter, and closes the description of the borders of the inheritance of Judah. V. 21 commences the list of the cities of Judah, arranged according to the four districts, into which the whole territory was divided ; viz. vv. 21—32, the cities in the south land (yy^) ; vv. 33— 47, those in the lowlands (pp^Sty)> vv. 48—60, those 'on the heights (-\T\), and 61, 62, those in the desert of Judah (-^-fft). To this is added in v. 63 a notice of the relation in which the tribe of Judah stood to the Jebusites.1 Vv. 21 — 32. The cities in the south lands of Judah. — V. 21. " And the cities at the extremity of the tribe of the children of Judah on the borders of Edom towards the south were " (the following), naa1? n^pa is not in antithesis to cft-ft* Vl^-L,^ " from the end of the tribe of Judah to the borders of Edoni, 1 It has been maintained by Vater (comm. d. Pent. iii. 570), Bertholdt (Einl. iii. p. 850 and 855), De Wette (in the earlier editions of his in troduction), and Maurer (on the passage), that this list of cities is not by the same hand as the other topographical descriptions, but is an independent fragment, copied by the author into his work. There is, however, so little ground, either apparent or real, for this assertion, that even van Herwerden (I.e., p. 66 sqq.) has opposed it, and De Wette also has now given it up. The first argument employed by Maurer, that the heading in v. 20 should read differently, more after the manner of chap, xviii. 21, is based upon an error, which a single glance at chap, xviii. 20, 21 would serve to expose. From chap. xviii. 20 it is very clear that v. 20 is not the heading of the catalogue of cities, but the conclusion of the description of boundaries ; for chap. xviii. 21 corresponds, not to v. 20 of this chapter, but to v. 21. — The other argument, on which Bertholdt (p. 855) relies, and which Maurer pronounces decisive, that the list of cities is separated from the descrip tion of the boundaries, has already been answered by our remarks on v. 3. — To the rest Maurer himself attaches no importance. 374 CITIES OF JUDAH. as De Wette renders it ; but pi2pa> according to the peculiar Hebrew method of giving the direction of a place, must be ex plained as meaning " to the extreme point of the territory of the tribe of Judah on the Edomite frontier " (" from the end" being equivalent "to the end"), and q^-jj^ ^125 ^N merely serving to define more accurately the ntflaS TTUp, Masius has already pointed out the fact, that this catalogue of the cities commences almost at the same spot as the description of the boundaries in v. 1, viz., at the south-eastern point of the Dead Sea on the borders of Edom. — Kabzeel, probably the same as Jekabzeel (Nehem. xi. 25), the birth-place of the hero Benaiah (2 Sam. xxiii. 20), is otherwise unknown. Eder and Jagur are only mentioned here and altogether unknown. — V. 22. The same remark also applies to Kina. Dimonah is no doubt the same city as Dibon (Nehem. xi. 25), but this is all we know of it. Masius imagines that Adadah is the same as the villa, men tioned by Eusebius and Jerome (s.v. Gadda), in extremis finibus Daromae contra orientem, imminens mari mortuo, and that instead of Gadda we should read Gadgada, as the LXX. gene rally express y by T. There is not much probability in this conjecture, since the Cod. Alex, reads ASaBd, and the Cod. Vat. has altogether different names here. — V. 23. Kedesh in the south of Judah is unknown (cf. chap. xii. 22), and so also isHazor (cf. v. 25 and chap. xi. 1). Jithnan is supposed by Reland (Pal. p. 862) and v. Raumer (Pal. p. 205), to be the same as the Jedna, mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome, between Eleuthero polis and Hebron, now called Idhna (Ui\) ; but this is situated in the Shephela on the edge of the mountains, whereas Jith nan was in the south ; cf. Robinson ii. 425. — V. 24, Ziph, Telem, and Bealoth, are also not known. There was another Ziph upon the mountans, v. 55. Telem was regarded by Kimchi as identical with Telaim (1 Sam. xv. 4), and several others (e.g. v. Raumer, p 219) have adopted his opinion, but the words \yyQ and Difr^ta are derived from entirely different roots. On • T J Bealoth see my Commentary on 1 Kings iv. 16. — V. 25. -pjjpi nmn New Hazor. The account given of the situation of this city by Eusebius and Jerome(s.v. Asor) is altogether inapplicable. It is, they say, villa usque hodie Asor in finibus Ascalonis contra orien- CHAPTER XV. 21—32. 375 tem ejus : quae cecidit in sortem tribus Juda, cujus et scriptura meminit, appellans earn ad distinctionem veteris, Asor novam. The Hazor of the Onom. still exists under the name of Jasur on the south east of Ashdod (Robinson ii. 370.) — pp*ipp, to judge from the Masoretic accentuation, was the name of some particu lar city; in Jer. xlviii. 24, it occurs as the name of a city of the Moabites. The LXX. (at 7ro\et9 [or r) ttoXk'] 'Ao-tpwv), the Syriac, and probably the Chaldee, however, connect it with fip^n as an appellative, cities of Hezron, like cities of Arba ;' Hazor being taken as its other name. This view' has been defended by Maurer with great emphasis, and there is no little probability of its correctness, though our ignorance of the locality ^prevents its being decisively established. For though it is true that Hezron frequently occurs as the name of a man, yet the weight of this is counterbalanced by the fact that in v. 3 we meet with it as the name of a place.1 — Ver. 26. Amam is altogether unknown, jjft^j x : Shema is pronounced by Capellus (crit. S. i. ch. § 6) and Reland (Pal. p. 145), the same as yy$> Sheba, which occurs in chap. xix. 2 amongst the cities of Simeon, and just before Moladah as it is here, the labials ^ and y being frequently interchanged, and Clericus supposes that yy$j is an error of the pen, which has arisen from its following immediately after jntlp-p^S? Beersheba ; cf, chap. xix. 2. But the fact that Moladah follows directly, both in the present passage and in chap. xix. 2, does not warrant us in pronouncing the two places identical. Nor is the order quite the same, as Beersheba is mentioned there before Moladah. Moladah was subsequently given to the tribe of Simeon (chap. xix. 2 ; 1 Chr. iv. 28.) After the captivity it was inhabited by the children of Judah (Nehem. xi. 26.) It was probably the same as MaXdda, an Idumean fortress (Josephus Ant. xviii. 6. 2), which is frequently mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome in the Onomast. (cf. Reland p. 885 seq.) Robinson is disposed to trace Moladah and Malatha to the ruins of el Milh (^d*J\), the situa- 1 Reland Pal. p. 700 and 708) was inclined to connect ppjipp with lTl2n> and Robinson (ii. 472) conjectures that the ruins of el Kuryetein (the two cities) on the south of Main and Jenbeth are associated with Kirioth, apart from the question whether the proper reading in this passage is Kirioth Hezron. 376 CITIES OF JUDAH. tion of which certaiuly answers pretty well to the description? given by Eusebius and Jerome, that it was four Roman miles from Arad ; el Milh being marked on Robinson's map five Roman miles from Tell Arad towards the south west. But there is no etymological connection between the names Milh and Moladah. V. 27. pi^ pjjpi Hazar Gaddah is supposed by some to be the same as pJD^lD "l^n Hazar-susah in chap. xix. 5. Eusebius divides the two words from each other in the Onomast., and mentions a city of Aser, and another of Gadda, the latter in extremis finibus Daromae, imminens mari mortuo ; cf. Reland Pal. p. 707. Heshmon does not occur anywhere else. Beilir Relet, on the contrary, is mentioned in Nehem. xi. 26 along with Moladah, as inhabited by the children of Judah. — V. 28. p\}p| 7J7TO Hazar-Shual (fox-hole) was afterwards given up to the x tribe of Simeon (chap. xix. 3), and after the captivity inhabited by the children of Judah (Nehem. xi. 27.) The same remarks apply to Beersheba, chap. xix. 2, and Nehem. xi. 27.) This ancient place, in which the patriarchs frequently sojourned, stood upon the borders of Palestine and the desert by the Wady es Seba, where there are still two deep wells Bir es Seba, and various ruins on the low hills to the north of the wells, thirty-one Roman miles from Hebron on the south west, cf. Robinson i. 300 sqq., and v. Raumer Pal. p. 174 seq — pppyiitSl Bizjothjahis unknown, as are also the places mentioned in v. 29. Baalah and Ezem were afterwards assigned to the tribe of Simeon, chap. xix. 3 and 1 Chr. iv. 29. — ppjJD Baalah is written pp^ Balah in chap. xix. 3 , and pfpj^^ Bilhah in 1 Chr. iv. 29, and must not be con- x : » founded with Baala-Kirjath-Jearim, vv. 9 — 10 ; cf. Reland p. 609 seq, — Qiiiy Um was also the name of a city of the Moabites (Num. xxxiii. 45), whose full name was Q^IIVPI "bfy (Num. xxxiii. 44).— V. 30. -fan^N Eltholad, also given up to the tribe of Simeon (chap. xix. 4), is called in 1 Chr. xix. 4 simply Tolad. —Instead of Chesil we find in chap. xix. 4 Bethul between Eltho lad and Hormah, written also ^fc^pQ in 1 Chr. iv. 30, from which Reland (p. 152) infers, and not' without probability, that the two words may have been only different names for the same place.— On Hormah, originally called Zephath, vid. chap. xii. CHAPTER XV. 21 — 32. 377 14. — V. 31. The three cities, whose names are given in this verse, were also relinquished to the Simeonites (chap. xix. 5 ; 1 Chr. iv. 30 seq.) Ziklag at a subsequent period belonged to Achish, king of Gath, who presented it to David, when he was persecuted by Saul (1 Sam. xxvii. 5 seq.) ; after which it was burned by the Amalekites (1 Sam. xxx. 1 sqq.) It must therefore have stood upon the frontier of the land of the Amalekites. After the cap tivity it was inhabited by the children of Judah, (Nehem. xi. 28). — Instead of pJ3aia Madmannah and pyJD^D Sansannah, we find in chap. xix. 5 and 1 Chr. iv. 31 amongst the cities of the Simeonites pfo3"ian~ni3. Beth- Mar caboth and pjD^lD "litfl Hazar Susah. I agree with Reland (p. 152), however, in regarding them as different names of the same cities, especially as the last-mentioned names, from their appellative signification "coach-house" and "horse-village," are so evidently merely descriptive titles. Madmanna, moreover, is not the same as Madmena in Is. x. 31, which is to be looked for on the north of Jerusalem, although Eusebius and Jerome (s.v. Medemena) treat them as the same. According to their account Madmanna was then a hamlet Mnovrnk near to Gaza. — V. 32. These four cities also came into the possession of the Simeonites, chap. xix. 6, 7. HIN^ Lebaoth is called in chap. xix. 6 by the fuller name of pyiN^~)-pp^ Beth-Lebaoth Mansio leamarum, and in 1 Chr. iv." 31, Beth-Birei (^"\2~TV'2)j which is evidently the same as Beth- Lebaoth. For QiprStt? Shilhim we have in chap. xix. 6, fpp*W Sharuhen, and 1 Chr. iv. 31, ffnjW Shaaraim. It is quite as certain that these are only three names of one and the same place. as that the different names have not merely arisen from errors on the part of copyists. — piy Ain and ft^p Rimmon are also men tioned in chap. xix. 7 and 1 Chr. iv. 32 as cities of the Simeonites ; in both these passages, however, the names are written without the copulative conjunction ¦), though they are evidently reckoned as two different cities. But as we meet with a place after the captivity called fiftp viy Enrimmon (Nehem. xi. 29), Movers (Krit. Unters. ii. die Chron. p. 73) imagines that the two words only denote one citjr in the verse before us, and that the copu lative i crept in from a misapprehension of the meaning of the 378 CITIES OF JUDAH. words. To this may also be added that the conjunction is want ing in chap. xix. 7 and 1 Chr. iv. 32, whereas in both these chapters all the other places are connected together by and. Still we feel great hesitation in pronouncing the passage, which gives the number of the cities, corrupt in both instances, espe cially as we may explain Nehem. xi. 29 by supposing with Grotius and Rosenmuller that the two places were afterwards united in one. The site of Ain is altogether unknown.1 Rimmon is referred to again in Zech. xiv. 10 as the southern boundary of the land of Judah ; cf. Reland Pal. p. 973, who also gives the adverse statements of the Onomast. with reference to this place ; vid. also v. Raumer p. 216. — "All the cities are twenty and nine and their villages." This does not tally with the number of cities whose names have been given. These amount to thirty-six, or, if we take pp\$n fYVHp Kerioth Hezron (v. 25) as two cities, to thirty-seven. In order to explain this discrepancy, the Rabbins assume that the number here given embraces only the cities which were retained by the tribe of Judah, and that those which were given to the Simeonites are omitted ; but, apart from the arbitrary character of such an assumption, it is rendered nugatory by the fact that there were not eight only, but at least twelve, if not fifteen, cities given up to the Simeonites.— Masius, .Drusius, and C. a Lapide, are of opinion that some of the places named were merely hamlets or villages, and were therefore not counted with the rest. Such an opinion, however, is merely the result of perplexity. Nor can anything better be said of the suggestion of Reland (Pal. p. 143 seq.), that in some cases two names may have belonged to tbe same city. There is something unsatisfactory, too, in escaping from the difficulty, by assum- 1 The Onomast. observes with reference to Ain, in tribu Judae, urbs sacerdotibus separata. Est et usque villa Bethennim (Brjraviv) nomine in secundo lapide a Terebintho, (h. e. a tabernaculo Abraham) quatuor millibus a Chebron. The first part of this statement is founded upon chap. xxi. 16, where py occurs, but according to the parallel passage 1 Chr. vi. 44, the reading should probably be fnjy. The rest hardly refers to Ain, but to the Be ravn mentioned in Judith i. 18 • cf. Reland (Pal. p. 554 and 625 seq.)— There is another py mentioned iii Num. xxxiv. 11 on the north east of Palestine — Robinson fancies that el Ghuwein is the same as Ain ; but it stands on the mountains. chapter xv. 33—47. 379 ing that there is an error in the number twenty-nine, which has arisen from a confusion of the numeral letters ; for we meet with similar discrepancies afterwards. And even though the Syriac reads thirty-six instead of twenty-nine, yet as the other ancient versions all agree with the Masoretic text, we can only regard the Syriac variation as a critical correction, and are not at liberty to touch the reading of the He brew text. Hence there is the greatest probability in the opinion expressed by Michaelis, and adopted by Hasse, Eichhorn (Einl. iii. p. 378), Maurer, and v. Lengerke (p. 674), that the author originally wrote fewer names, and that others were added by a later hand without a corresponding alteration being made in the number. — This view has also been supported by Havernick (Einl. ii. 1, p. 55), so far at least that he supposes the author to have made these additions to the original list. Vv. 33 — 47. The cities on the loio ground (prVsu} c^- °bap. ix. 1 and x. 40), are arranged in four groups. The first of these, vv. 33 — 36, so far as individual localities can be ascertained, embraces the cities which were situated in the northern part of the hilly region, that was regarded as part of the lowlands, as far as the road from Jerusalem to Beit Jibrin. The most northerly portion of this district was afterwards given up to the tribe of Dan (chap. xix. 41). — Eshtaol and Zorea are described in the Onomast. (s.v. Esthaul and Saara) as situated at the dis tance of ten Roman miles to the north of Eleutheropolis on the road to Nicopolis. Of Eshtaol, Robinson was unable to discover a single trace (iii. 19). Zorea still exists in the ruins, which lie near the Wady Sura (xajo) above the Wady Surar (Robin son ii. 343 and iii. 17) about half-way between Jerusalem and Jabneh. The places were both of them afterwards ceded to the tribe of Dan (chap. xix. 41 ; Judg. xiii. 25, xviii. 11), and Sam son was buried at a spot between the two (Judg. xvi. 31). — Ashnah is quite unknown ; there is a second place of the same name mentioned in v. 43.— V. 34. Zanoah in the plain was occupied by the children of Judah after the captivity (Nehem. xi. 30 and iii. 13). It stood near to Zorea, on the eastern side, and is still called Zanua £,^ (Robinson ii. 343). The other Zanoah upon the mountains (v. 56) has not been discovered.— 380 cities of judah. Engammim is still unknown ; there was another in Issachar, see chap. xix. 21 and xxi. 29 ; cf. Reland p. 762 seq. — On Tappuah see chap. xii. 17. — Enam (rjytypf = U^V Double-spring) stood on the road to Timnah (Gen. xxxviii. 14, 21); cf. Reland p. 761. — V. 35. On Jarmuih see chap. x. 3 ; and on Adullam chap. xii. 15. The ruins of Socoh in the plain (pji'ito) are still visible in Shuweikeh (aJCj^kJI) in the Wady Sumt, about three miles and a half to the south-west of Jerusalem, not far from Jarmuth (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 218 seq. ; and Robinson ii. 344 and 349). — On Azekah see chap. x. 10. — V. 36. Shaaraim is not known ; but it is not the same as the Shaaraim = Saruhen = Silchim (ver. 32) in the tribe of Simeon. — Adithaim is also un known ; see, however, Reland p. 546. — So also is pn*72n Gederah, the gentile name of which is ij-pn-1 0- Chr. xii. 4) and Qiplpp^ Gederothaim. The descriptions in the Onomast (s.v. Gadera) : nunc appellatur villa ad regionem civitatis Aeliensis pertinens nomine Gadora circa Terebinthum, and (s.v. Gaedur) : hodieque vocatur Gedrus vicus pergrandis in decimo milliario Diospoleos pergentibus Eleutheropolim, are founded upon an error, Gedor in the mountains (v. 58) having been confused with Gederoth (v. 40) or Gederothaim in the plain. Reland (p. 802) has shown that the first account does not answer to our Gedera (p. 802) ; but v. Raumer still accepts it as applicable (Pal. p. 1 93) and by the circa Terebinthum understands the vallis Tere- binthi (1 Sam. xvii. 1). But this is quite inadmissible, for Terebinthus in the Onomast. is always used for the wood of Mamre near Hebron. Gedor, however, stood upon the moun tains between Hebron and Jerusalem, and has continued in the place called Jedur ( ,5s.s.) ; cf. Robinson ii. 343 seq. — The other account of Gaedur or Gedrus, which Reland (p. 803), Rosen miiller (on v. 58), and Winer (R.W. i. 471) refer to Gedor upon the mountains, is with greater probability applied by v. Raumer (ut- supra) to Gederoth in the low ground (v. 41). But if the distance given is correct, viz., "ten Roman miles from Diospolis on the road to Eleutheropolis," even this Gederoth cannot be thought of; for this belonged to the second group, the places situated in the plain, and cannot therefore have stood between Diospolis and Eleutheropolis, but on the west of the former city 3 CHAPTER XV. 37 — 41. 381 either towards the north or the south.1 On the other hand Gedera and Gederothaim are most probably to be sought for on the north of Beit Jibrin, i.e. in the situation described in the Onomast. For all the cities mentioned hitherto, the site of which can be discovered, stand between Diospolis and Eleuthe ropolis, and must, as they are classed together, have been in the north-eastern part of the plain (or the northern part of the hill- country). Schulz, (ad h. 1.) and Winer (ut supra) are inclined to regard QifrYWl as an ancient gloss, because the whole are said to amount to only " fourteen cities," whereas if Gederothaim is reckoned, there will be fifteen. This difference, however, does hot justify us in assuming that there is a gloss, but must be explained in the same manner as the similar difference in ver 32. Vv. 37 — 41. Second group, comprising the cities of the actual plain in its whole extent from north to south, between the hillv region and the Philistine coast.— V. 37. Zenan is universally ad mitted to be the same city as Zaanan (Micah i. 11), but nothing is known of its situation. — ntlHn Hadashah : the Talmud t t — : speaks of a town pp£Hn which was the smallest city in Judea,' consisting of only fifty houses (cf. Reland p. 701) ; and Jerome (s.v. Adasa) says : in tribu Judae jutxa Guphnas ; sed miror quomodo (Eusebius) Guphnensem regionem in tribu Judae posuerit, quum perspicuum sit secundum librum Jesu in sortem earn cecidisse tribus Ephraim. On this Rosenmuller observes : " but no doubt Eusebius referred to Aphine, a city of the tribe of Benjamin" (chap, xviii. 24). Yet even this was much too far removed from the northern boundary of Judah, for Hadashah to have stood near it. Migdal-Gad is quite unknown. — V. 38. So also is Dilan. — Mizpeh in Judah, which must not be con founded with Mizpeh in Benjamin (chap, xviii. 26), is de scribed in the Onomast. (s.v. Maspha) as standing in finibus Eleutheropoleos contra septentrionem pergentibus Aeliam ; which suits the present passage very well. Not far from this, probably on the western side towards Lachish, Joktheel must have stood. 1 Nothing can be decided from 2 Chap, xxviii. 18, with reference to the situation of Gederoth, for the cities in the plain and the south of Judah, there described as taken by the Philistines, are not arranged in any definite geographical order, but even places so far removed front each other as Socho and Genizo are placed side by side. 382 CITIES OF JUDAH. — V. 39. On Lachish and Eglon vid. chap. x. 3 — Bozkath, the birth-place of the mother of Josiah (2 Kings xxii. 1), stood some where near to these two cities.— V. 40. The three names con tained in this verse, Cabbon, Lachmas, and Cithlish, are never mentioned again ; and it is utterly impossible to determine their situation. — V. 41. On Gederoth vid. verse 36. — 'fyy^ r\\y (House of Dagon) Beth-Dagon, occurs again as the name of a city in the tribe of Asher, (chap. xix. 27.) But nothing is known respect ing the situation of either ; for the Beth-Dagon, spoken of in the Onomast. as a hamlet of the name of Caphar-dagon (fi;pj "1D3) between Diospolis (Lydda) and Jamnia, which Reland (p. 635) and v. Raumer (Pal. p. 176) suppose to be the Beth-Dagon of the text, was probably the present Beit Dejan (. . ^.^ c*jj) on the road from Lydda to Jaffa (Robinson iii. 30 seq. and 102) ; but this is considerably above the northern boundary of Judah. — Naamah is also unknown. — On Makkedah see chap. x 10.— Vv. 42 — 44. Third group, consisting of the cities in the south ern part of the hill-region. — V. 42. For Libnah see chap. x. 29. Ether and Asan were afterwards given to Simeon (chap. xix. 7), but we are not acquainted with the situation of either. The Onomast. (s.v. Ether) confuses Ether with Jattir (written in the On. 'Iedep, Jether) as Reland (p. 494) has pointed out. The same mistake occurs in v. Raumer's Palestine p. 188, as he himself afterwards acknowledged (Beitr. p. 27). On wjy Ashan, which most writers regard as the same as fttJjJ-p'iS Chor-ashan (1 Sam. xxx. 30), the Onomast. (s.v. Ason) observes : est usque hodie vicus nomine Bethasan ad Aeliam pertinens, in quinto decimo ab ea milliario. If we suppose the direction to have been towards the south west, as Eusebius adds (77-po? SvapAi), the place would then have stood between Socho and Nezib, and this would suit very well. — V. 43. Jiphiha and Ashnah are unknown. Nezib, placed by Eusebius (s.v. Necrt/3) at the distance of nine miles, by Jerome seven miles, from Eleutheropolis on the road to Hebron, has continued to exist in the ruins of Beit Nusib (. •• ... , ,juoj) in the Wady Sur ; (cf. Robinson iii. 13 seq. with 396.) — V. 44. Keilah (1 Sam. xxiii. 1 ; Nehem. iii. 17 ; 1 Chr. iv. 19), where ^Habakkuk is said to have been buried, was chapter xv. 45—47. 383 situated, according to Jerome, at about eight Roman miles to the east of Eleutheropolis on the road to Hebron (cf. Reland p. 488 and 698). — ^iftj^ Achzib (mentioned here and Micah i. 14) was probably identical with yyy Chezib, Gen. xxxviii. 5. Its site has not been discovered. There was another Achzib in the tribe of Asher, see chap. xix. 29. Mareshah was fortified by Reho boam (2 Chr. xi. 8, cf. also Micah i. 15; 2 Chr. xiv. 9 and xx. 37), and is frequently mentioned in later times (cf. Reland p. 888 sqq., and v. Raumer Pal. p. 209). It was lying in ruins in the time of Eusebius, two Roman miles from Eleutheropolis ; and hence Robinson conjectures that the ruins at the distance of a Roman mile and a-half on the south of Beit Jibrin may probably indicate the site of the ancient Maresa. V. 45 — 47. Fourth group, including the Philistine line of coast, the most northerly portion of which was afterwards given to the tribe of Dan, chap. xix. 43. The whole of this land upon the coast, however, remained in the possession of the Philistines, (cf. chap. xiii. 3.1 — V. 45. Ekron (cf. chap. xiii. 3) and her daughters, i. e., the smaller cities, which were dependent upon Ekron as the capital, and which were therefore distinct from the Qip^n? the villages and farms. — V. 46. " From Ekron westwards all that was on the side of Ashdod and its villages," i.e., all the cities, from 1 Ewald (Gesch. ii. p. 258) and Bertheau (Commentary on Judges, p. 28 compared with p. 36) maintain, that vv. 45 — 47 are evidently so different from the rest of the description of the ten districts and their cities (vv. 20 — 62), that they must be a later interpolation ; and that these cities were not originally reckoned as belonging to the ten dis- • tricts of the. tribe of Judah. But this assertion is untenable. For it is based upon the weakest arguments, (a) that not only pppjjpi but also *n"ip\"fl are mentioned in connection with the cities, as if the two words^neant the same thing ; (b) that the number of the cities is stated at the end of the list of all the other districts, whilst in this case it is omitted ; and, (c) that to reckon the Philistine cities as part of the ter ritory of Judah is at variance with the description of the boundaries given in v. 11. But the last is incorrect, and the second may be ex plained from the fact that here the cities are not all mentioned singly by name. It is evident that the whole of the Philistine coast belonged to the tribe of Judah, for, as even Bertheau acknowledges, it is reckoned in chap. xiii. 2—4 as part of the territory, which the Israelites were to conquer, and which, according to chap. xiii. 6, Joshua was to distribute amongst the tribes. 384 CITIES OF JUDAH. Ekron to the Mediterranean Sea and southwards to Ashdod, together with their villages. The separate places are not named, because the Israelites did not expel tbe Philistines from this neigh bourhood.— V. 47. On Ashdod and Gaza see chap. xi. 21 and x. 41. On the stream of Egypt vid. chap. xiii. 3 ; and on^«Q^| chap. xiii. 23. ^^an is evidently an error of the pen for ^-ftpi- T — # X _ The latter is the reading of the Keri, and is found in more than fifty codices.1 Vv. 48 — 60. The cities in the mountains, divided into five groups. — V. 48 — 51. First group of eleven cities on the south-western position of the hills. V. 18. Shamir is still unknown ; there was another upon the mountains of Ephraim, Judg. x. 1. Jattir was given up to the priests (chap. xxi. 14) ; according to Eusebius and Jerome (s. v. Jether) it was in their days a very large hamlet inhabited by Christians, twenty Roman miles from Eleutheropolis in interiore Daromae juxta Molatham. This agrees pretty well with the situation of the ruins Attir (rjXc) on the south of these mountains, which Robinson (ii. 194 seq.) supposed to be those of Jattir. About five English miles from this in a north-westerly direction stood Socho, now called Shuweikeh (iS^JaiS a diminutive of aS J^ Shaukeh) see Robinson ii. 195. The Onomast. (s.v. Socho) says : Dicuntur autem usque hodie viculi duo, pergentibus Aeliam de Eleutheropoli in nono milliario viae publicae, unus in monte alter in campo situs, qui Sochoth (Eusebius Sok-^co, nuncupatur. This statement answers very well to the Socho of the plain (v. 35), but not at all to that of the moun tains. — V. 49. Dannah is unknown. The LXX. and Syriac read 'Pewd, p5 ; the other versions have the same reading as the 1 It is very remarkable that Gath and Ashkalon are omitted here. For they were to be reckoned as part of Canaan as much as the other cities of the Philistines, and were also governed by princes of their own (chap. xiii. 3), so that we cannot suppose them to have been included in the riftys. °^ the three other cities named. But the inference, drawn T from the omission by Stdhelin (Krit. Unters. p. 98, cf. p. 87 and 95) and others, that the three cities named were actually in the possession of the Israelites at the time, when the so-called Elohim documents were drawn up, and that the two not mentioned were still held by the Philistines, who had been driven back, is a hypothesis destitute of all historical evidence. See the note in chap. xiii. 3. chapter xv. 52—54. 385 Masoretic text. — On Kirjath- Sanna = Debir see chap. x. 38. — V. 50. Anab is still standing on the north-west of Socho ; cf. chap. xi. 21 — ptanilJN or i^anitfN (chap. xxi. 14) Eshtemoa was subsequently assigned to the' priests (chap. xxi. 14 ; 1 Chr. vi. 42). It stood on the east of Socho and Anab ; and is at pre sent an inhabited village, called Semua (£j<>wJi) with remains of walls and an ancient castle, cf. Robinson ii. 195 and iii. 626 seq. — Anim must have stood close to Eshtemoa. Accprding to Eusebius (s.v. Avo-qp) and Jerome (s.v. Anim), the place was entirely inhabited by Christians, and stood near to Anaea, a large village on the east of it, inhabited by Jews, nine Roman miles to the south of Hebron (see also s.v. Avdp,, Anab).— V. 51. The three cities of this verse are unknown. On Goshen, see chap. x. 41. Holon was afterwards appropriated to the priests (chap. xxi. 15). Giloh is mentioned again in 2 Sam. xv. 12 as the birth-place of Ahithophel. V. 52 — 54. Second group of nine cities on the north of the foregoing in the country round Hebron. The account given in the Onomast. (s.v. Ereb) applies well to Arab : est hodieque villa in Daroma, i.e., ad Austrum, quae et Eremiihtha nuncupa- tur. Dumah was in the time of Eusebius, Ktbjin p.eyio-T-n iv tc3 Aapoofia, belonging to the territory of Eleutheropolis, seventeen Roman miles from that city. Many MSS. read Ruma, which is also the reading of the LXX., Syriac, and Vulgate. Jehoiakim's mother was born in Ruma, 2 Kings xxiii. 36. If this Ruma was the same as Aruma mentioned in Judg. ix. 41, it does not suit the present passage, for Aruma was near to Sichem. Eshan is not mentioned again. — V. 53. Janurn is also unknown. Beth- Tappuah is now a village Theffuh (_j*j) on the west of Hebron ; cf. chap. xii. 17. — Aphekah upon the mountains, I agree with v. Raumer (Pal. p. 170) in regarding as identical with the Aphek near to Bethshemesh, mentioned in chap. xii. 18, as I said in my commentary on the books of Kings, p. 287. But this was not situated upon the mountains, but in the hilly region, which was reckoned as part of the plain, and therefore cannot have been the same as the Aphekah of the text. The latter must be ¦sought near to Hebron, probably between Hebron and Teffuh. —V. 54 Humtah is not known, cf. Reland Pal. p. 723.— On 25 * 386 cities of judah. Kirjath-Arba, i.e., Hebron, see chap. x. 3. — Zior is also un known ; the description given in the Onomast. (s.v. Sior) : villa inter Aeliam et Eleutheropolim in tribu Juda, which Rosen miiller regards as applicable to this place, is not so, for this Zior was situated upon the mountains near to Hebron. Vv. 55 — 57. Third group of ten cities, on the east of the two preceding groups, towards the desert. V. 55. Maon, where Nabal dwelt (1 Sam. xxv. 2), stood upon the border of the desert of Judah, which is there called the desert of Maon (1 Sam. xxiii. 25) ; according to the Onomast., contra solis ortum Daromae. It is now called Main ( .jx*), a village upon a conical hill, with ruins of a castle and of cisterns. - From this spot Robinson (ii. 193 seq.) could see nine places in the mountains of Judah. It is about nine Roman miles from Hebron on the S.S.E. On the north of Maon stood Carmel, now called Kurmul ( \t t=L'). where there are still the ruins of churches and other edifices, together with a castle and a cistern hewn in the rock, about seven Roman miles from Hebron on the south ; (cf. Robinson ii. 196 sqq.) — Ziph, which stood in the desert of the same name, and where David took refuge twice when he fled from Saul (1 Sam. xxiii. 14 sqq., xxv. 2 seq.), may still be seen in ruins on the hill Zif (i_JL> f), about five miles from Hebron on the southwest, cf. Robinson ii. 191 seq. — Jutah, which was given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 16), was seen by Robinson (ii. 191) in the distance, standing five Roman miles to the south of Hebron. — V. 56. The situation of the three cities named in this verse has not been ascer tained. ^JHp Jizreel is not the same place as the Jezreel in the plain of Esdraelom (chap. xvii. 16). It is only mentioned in one other place, viz., 1 Sam. xxv. 43. — Jokdeam and Zanoah are not named again. — V. 57. Kain is unknown. Gibeah upon the mountains of Judah is identified by Robinson (ii. 327 and 343) with the village of Jebah (g**.), which stands upon an isolated hill in the midst of the Wady el Musurr on the southern side, and near to the mountains, and is probably the Gabatha mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome (s.v. Gabaath) as twelve Roman miles distant from Eleutheropolis. But this was chapter xv. 58, 59. 387 too far from Carmel, Maon, Ziph, and Jutah, to be linked with them in one group. It is true that the situation of the other cities of this group is not sufficiently known for us to be able to determine accurately how wide a circle they embraced; but since Halhul, Bethzur, and Geder (v. 58), which were much nearer than this to the village of Jebah, are classed together in a separate group, we are not at liberty to extend the limits of the former one so far towards the north-west, as to embrace Gibeah, supposing, that is, that Gibeah is the same as Jebah. The question, however, may certainly be asked whether the village of Jebah does really represent any ancient place, for Robinson says nothing about ruins there. The similarity of the name proves nothing in the case of Gibeah (i.e., hill), since it is a name so likely to have been given to many places. In fact there were two places of that name in the tribe of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 24 and 28) ; Eusebius and Jerome (s.v. Gabathon) reckon up seven places called Gabe, Gabaa, and Gabatha ; and Robinson himself (iii. 151) found a village named Jebah on the north of Sichem (Nabulus). Timnah upon the mountains is not mentioned anywhere else ; certainly not in Gen. xxxviii. 12—14, as v. Raumer supposes (Pal. p. 221) ; for this Timnah was in the low ground near to Adullam (cf. vv. 10 and 35), though it is identified with the Timnah of the text by Eusebius, Jerome (s.v. Thamna), Reland (p. 1042), Rosenmuller (Althk, ii. 2 p. 350), Tuch (on Genesis xxxviii. 12), Winer (R.W. ii. 711), and others. Vv. 58 and 59. Fourth group of six cities, on the north of Hebron. Halhul, according to Jerome (s.v. Elul), a village called Alula juxta Chebron. The ruins of an ancient town, called by the Arabs Halhul ( }>sS&s>), were seen by Robinson about four miles from Hebron on the north. The Jews still venerate there the sepulchre of the prophet Jonas, or, as others say, of the prophet Nathan.— Bethzur was fortified by Rehoboam (2 Chr. xi. 7), and is frequently mentioned as a fortress in the time of the Maccabees, (cf. Reland p. 658 seq., and v. Raumer Pal. p. 179 seq.). Eusebius and Jerome (s.v. Bethsur) say that it was twenty (?) Roman miles from Aelia on the road to Hebron, and that it was there that Philip baptized the eunuch of Queen 25 2 388 cities of judah. Candace in the water which flows from a fountain at the foot of the mountain (Acts viii. 26) ; cf. also v. Schubert Reise ins Mor genland ii. p. 488. But the eunuch, who was travelling to Gaza, cannot have passed by this Bethzur, notwithstanding all that Reland (p. 659) has said in defence of the tradition (cf. Robinson i. 320 note). The legend, which afterwards asso ciated this event with another place (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 180 note), probably arose from our Bethzur being confounded either with the alia villa Bethsur, mentioned in the Onomast. (I.e.), in tribu Juda, mille passibus distans ab Eleutheropoli, or else with the Bethzur of the crusaders, near the fountain of St Philip, in the Wady el Werd (Robinson iii. 14). The Bethzur of the text was situated on the north of Hebron, at the distance of five miles, where Robinson (i. 320) saw some ruins resembling those of an ancient town by ed-Dirweh (s.-jJ!), and discovered a spring. He conjectured that this was our Bethzur ; a conjecture which Wolcott afterwards confirmed, as his Arab guide called by that name the ruins of the tower near to Dirweh; see. Hall. A. L. Z. Juni 1843, Nr. Ill p. 279.— On Gedor, now called Jedur, see v. 36. — V. 59. The three places, Maaraih, Beth-Anoth, and Eltekon, are not mentioned again, and their position is not known. — On a Bethanath in the tribe of Naphtali, see chap. xix. 38. 1 1 Between vv. 59 and 60 the LXX., in the Cod. Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, insert another group of eleven cities, viz., eeicat ko.1 E(ppa6d, avrj) e'orl BaiSkeip. Kal $ayatp Kal 'Airdv (Alex. 'Airdp, Jerome Aetham) Kal KouXoi/ Kal Tardp (Alex. Tarapl, Jerome Tami) Kal 8 which is implied in the idea of ^-pan ; and must therefore be rendered x — 1 There is not much probability in the opinion expressed by Thenius (ut supra) that the Wady en Nawaimeh constitutes the boundary. CHAPTER XVI. 2 — 4. 393 " namely the desert." This desert is the same as the desert of Bethaven mentioned in chap, xviii. 12, for Bethaven was on the east of Bethel (see chap. vii. 2). ppQ is separated in the Masoretic text from ^ pp^, but, notwithstanding the adop tion of this reading by the LXX., Chaldee, and Arabic, it is undoubtedly to be connected with l^ pp^ as in 1 Sam. xiii. 2 ; in which case the pointing should be ppQ, Thus the Vulgate renders it : ad montem Bethel, and the Syriac : ¦ \ro> fao.^ ^j| AjLo ad montem qui ascendit ad Bethel. — ^fc$-pp2i in cannot, however, be restricted to the mountain upon which Jil- jilia was situated, or in fact to any one mountain (as it is by Thenius ut supra p. 130), but denotes the mountains in the vicinity of Bethel, the range upon which Sinjil stands. — V. 2. " And (the boundary) went out from Bethel to Luz and passed over to the borders of the Archites to Ataroth. ^-pp^a is a repetition of ^fc$-pp;i ppQ> and' must therefore be referred, not to the city, but to the mountains of Bethel, from which the boundary line proceeded to the city of Luz, i.e., Bethel, or as it is more particularly described in chap, xviii. 13, on the southern side of Luz or Bethel.1 — i^p^n ^"Q3 the territory of the Archites is not 1 Our passage does not contain a geographical datum of a later epoch, as Hasse (p. 142), Maurer (on the present verse), and formerly De Wette also have maintained ; for they have mistaken the Luz of the text for the more modern Luz (Judg. i. 26) built after the death of Joshua. In this view, they followed Masius, as it appears, without knowing it. The rest of the expositors, on the other hand, either regarded pirt^n Sfc4~ TS^> as a composite noun, Bethel-Luzah, or, as Clericus, Rosenmuller and Winer (R.W. i. 198) have done, under stood by Bethel not the city, but that spot in the vicinity of Luz, where Jacob saw in his dream the heavenly ladder (Gen. xxviii. 11 sqq.) This distinction, however, cannot be sustained ; for Jacob did not give the name of Bethel to the particular spot upon which he had slept, but to the city of Luz which stood near that spot, cf. Gen. xxviii. 19 with xii. 8 and xiii. 3. There is still less probability in the suggestion of Thenius (ut supra) for escaping the difficulty, viz., by assuming that -rft^ has been shifted in the Masoretic text and ought properly to stand at the end of v. 1 : "to the Mountain of Bethel as far as Luz." The authority of the LXX. is pleaded in support of it, and certainly the change of position is found in the Cod. Vat., but the 394 INHERITANCE OF EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH. known, for ^p^pt only occurs again in 2 Sam. xv. 32 and.xvi. 16, to describe the origin of Hushai. It is supposed to be the district now called Beni-Zeid, on account of its connection with Hi'itO^. Ataroth is the same place as ptj^ pVIPtay (c^ v- •> an(i chap, xviii. 13), and is indisputably the modern village of Atara (1 IUr.) about four miles to the south of Jiljilia (Robinson iii. 80 seq.), and different from the ruins of Atara near to erRam (Robin son ii. 315). Eusebius, (s.v. A6apd>&), mentions both places ; but he gives an incorrect description of the one, which was situated in the borders of Ephraim, when he places it at the distance of four Roman miles from Sebaste, (to which Jerome adds ad aquilonem.) A taroth near er Ram belonged to the tribe of Benjamin, although it is not named amongst the cities of this tribe in chap, xviii. — V. 3. " And it goeth down westward to the coast of the Japhletites unto the border of the lower Bethhoron." puji may appear T T ' strange, since lower Bethhoron is situated on the south-west of Ataroth, and hence it is not mentioned in the same boundary line of the tribe of Benjamin, chap, xviii. 13. It may be justified, however, on account of the brevity of the descriptions here given. The boundary ran from the southern side of Bethel in a south westerly direction to Atara, and thence along the principal ridge in the mountains of Ephraim to Bethhoron on the south-west. From this point it ran due west, and followed a line drawn from Bethhoron across or near Lydda, till it reached the sea at Jaffa.1 Cod. Alex, and all the other ancient versions agree with the Masoretic text. Apart, however, from the absence of sufficient critical authority, this transposition is rendered improbable by the fact that in that case the same city would be called Luz in v. 1, and Bethel in v. 2, which would be quite at variance with the practice of our author, who always connects the two names with ^ipj, if they belong to the same city (cf. chap, xviii. 13, where he does this in the case of Luz.) 1 Thenius in his map, in the second volume of Kduffer's Studien, has marked this boundary incorrectly in two respects : 1, he has made it describe a large curve on the north of Sinjil (Bethel) round Jiljilia to Atara, in direct opposition to chap, xviii. 13 ; and 2, he has drawn it as running from Bethhoron towards the south-west past Zorea to Timnath, and thence in a north-westerly direction across Ekron to the sea, making it coincide with the northern boundary of the tribe of J udah at a short distance to the south of Bethhoron, and thus placing the portion of Dan within the inheritance of both Judah and Ephraim. This again is in contradiction to chap. xix. 40 — 46, where not a word CHAPTER XVI. 5. 395 — >1tp7D!,n the Japhletite is unknown ; for the name cannot be identical with ta^gi the descendant of Asher (1 Chr. vii. 32 seq.). —Lower-Bethhoron is now called Beit- Ur et Tachta ; cf. Robinson iii. 59 seq. — Gezer was probably situated between Bethhoron and Lydda, cf. chap. x. 33. V. 5 sqq. The description, which follows, of the borders of Ephraim, is very obscure. At the commencement of the 6th, and probably also of the 8th verse, the text must be faulty ; though all the ancient versions are renderings of the Masoretic text as we have it here, and the changes suggested by Houbigant are altogether arbitrary. — In the 5th verse the author starts from the centre of the southern boundary of the double- tribe of Joseph, and observes that it was the boundary of the inheritance of the children of Ephraim on the eastern side, and formed (a line) from Ataroth Addor to upper Bethhoron. This agrees with the line mentioned in vv. 2, 3, as " from Ataroth to the country of Lower Bethhoron," for it does not amount to a discrepancy that in v. 5 we find Upper Bethhoron, and in v. 3 the country of Lower Bethhoron. The two places must have been sufficiently near together, for the territory of the one to touch that of the other. And it also harmonizes with chap, xviii. 13, where the same line is given as the western boundary of the tribe of Benjamin. — But clear as the description, contained in the 5th verse, is, when we know the position of Ataroth and Bethhoron, we cannot but per ceive that it is introduced very abruptly. With verse 6, how ever, I am as much at a loss as the earlier expositors what to do. It appears as if vv. 6—8 ought to give the northern boun dary of the territory of Ephraim, and starting from a central point should trace it in vv. 6 and 7 in an easterly direction, and then in the 8th verse towards the west. But if this be correct, the first clause of v. 6 is inexplicable and must be corrupt. Perhaps the original reading was : " towards the north the border went out to Michmethah." Michmethath (LXX. Max&md) stood, is said of the Ephraimites giving up a portion of their territory to Dan. Nor do we read anywhere that the territory of Ephraim touched that of Judah ; but as there was a free space on the eastern side of the land, between the borders of the two portions, which was afterwards given to Benjamin, so there was another district of the same kind, which was allotted to Dan. 396 ephraim's inheritance. according to chap. xvii. 7, before, i.e. on the east or north east of Sichem, which is said in chap. xx. 7, and xxi. 21, to have belonged to Ephraim. — " And the border turned towards the east to Taanath-Shiloh, and passed by it on the east to Janohah." nVtl) n^^n Taanath near Shiloh is said in the Onomast. to have stood between Neapolis (Sichem) and the Jordan, at the distance of ten Roman miles from the city. Hence it was situated on the east of Shiloh, and was probably the @r)va, which Ptolernaus mentions in connection with Neapolis (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 163.) — pin'to'1 Janohah, which is different from the pfiyi Janoah T T — T in Galilee, spoken of in 2 Kings xv. 29 (cf. my Commentary on the Book of Kings p. 465), is Jano in Acrabittena regione in duodecimo lapide Neapoleos contra orientem (Onomast. s.v. Jano), and is therefore to be looked for near to Taanath Shiloh ; (see v. Raumer p. 203.) The Acrabittena regio is still indicated by the village of Akrabah, nine Roman miles from Neapolis, towards the east (vid. Robinson iii. 103). — V. 7. From Janohah the boundary ran to Ataroth and Naarath, and touched (the terri tory of) Jericho, so that the northern boundary met the southern near Ataroth, and the territory of Ephraim did not really extend to the Jordan. If Ataroth is the same place as the Ataroth in v. 3, and there is little if any reason to doubt it, the boundary line turned sharply round from Janoha to the south west, run ning probably between Turmus Aya and Seilun on the south of Sinjil (Bethel), and proceeding in a straight line to Atara. At this point it formed an acute angle and passed through the Wady el Jib, thence it ran in an easterly direction and met the southern boundary, which went in a north-westerly direction from the Jordan. Thus Jiljilia and Sinjil (Bethel) were situated within the limits of the tribe of Ephraim, though Bethel was subsequently assigned to Benjamin (chap, xviii. 13 and 22.) pip\-^j^2 Naarath, is evidently the same as p^ Naaran, (1 Chr. 28) ; according to the Onomast. (s.v. Naaratha): nunc est Naorath villula Judaeorum in quinto milliario Jerichus, probably on the north-west of Jericho (cf. v. 1 with chap, xviii. 21, where Jericho is said to belong to the tribe of Benjamin.) — V. 8. " The border went out from Tappuah westward to the river of reeds and the goings out thereof were at the sea." As Tappuah CHAPTER XVI. 5. 397 is not previously mentioned, and therefore ppDFia bas no direct connection with anything in the text before us, the corrupt state of the Masoretic text is clearly proved. Tappuah seems, from chap. xvii. 7, to have been situated on the south of Michmethath ; v. Raumer (Pal. p. 163), on the contrary, is of opinion that " it was probably the present Belad Tafue on the north east of Sichem." If this be correct,1 I cannot possibly understand the descriptions in chap. xvii. 7 and 9, " and the coast of Manasseh was from Asher (to) Michmethah, which (is) before Sichem, and the border went on the right hand, i.e. southwards to the inhabi tants of En-Tappuah — and the border descended to the river of reeds" For if the border ran from Michmethah before Sichem southwards to En-Tappuah, and proceeded thence to the river of reeds, Michmethah must have been further to the north than Tappuah. And whether we place Michmethah before Sichem on the eastern, north eastern, or, as i^Q-^, according to chap. xv. 8, may also signify, western side of Sichem, Tappuah must still be sought on the south west of Sichem. To the same result we are also brought by the description contained in chap. xvii. 9, which is in harmony with the verse before us, that the boundary ran westwards from Tappuah to the stream of reeds. The river of reeds, ^^ hm *s not tne ^ahr Audjeh (l.3»j*3l &) above Joppa, as Thenius supposes (Kduffer's Stud. ii. p. 140), but the stream which flows into the Mediterranean Sea between Arsuf and Caesarea (according to the vita Saladini p. 191) called the • _ ..~i\\ ^j, i.e. the river of reeds (cf. the Milnchner Review referred to above No. 240 p. 888). In Kiepert's map it is called the Nahr Abu Zabura. na"n is erroneously explained by Jerome to mean ad mare salsissimum. It is indisputably the Mediterranean.— V. 9. Qipynv and the cities, i.e., together with the cities.— rri^lian : theplaces which were portioned off. This is a substantive, in opposition to QV-,ypj; hence there is no neces- 1 This statement of v. Raumer is supported by the remark made by the reviewer of the first edition of his Palestine (Milnchner gel. Anz. 1836. No. 252 p. 983), who says : "Tappuah is certainly to be looked for on the north east of Sichem, where the present Belad Tafue = the land of Tappuah lies ; as we find from Brokard (p. 862 and 863) Josh. xvii. 8. 398 inheritance of manasseh. sity for altering the vowels, nor can we make it into a Hophal participle (vid. Maurer in loco). Tappuah was one of the cities thus appropriated to Ephraim within tbe limits of the territory of Manasseh, cf. chap. xvii. 8 seq. The reason why certain cities were assigned to the Ephraimites in the inheritance of Manasseh, is supposed by Calvin, Masius and others to have been, that after their relative boundaries had been decided upon, it was found upon comparison that the territory of Ephraim was too small in proportion to its strength. This is possible, but other reasons might be thought of. — V. 10. The remark, appended by the author to the description of the country, which he has taken from the original record, to the effect that the Canaanites were not driven out of Gezer, leads us beyond the lifetime of Joshua, to the period between his death and the reign of Solomon. When Solomon ascended the throne, Pharaoh had taken and burnt the city and had expelled the Canaanites (1 Kings ix. 16). This is added by the LXX. — On Gezer see chap. x. 33. — "n^-Da : tbe tributary dependent, (see my Commentary on the Books of Kings p. 44 and 67 seq.) Chapter xvii. 1 — 6. The inheritance of Manasseh on this side of the Jordan. As one half of the tribe of Manasseh had already received their inheritance on the other side of the Jordan (chap, xiii. 29 sqq.), the author thought it necessary, before describing the territory assigned to the other half on this side, to give a list of the families, who received their portion on each side (vv. 1 — 6.) — V. 1. The first clause contains the introduction to the descrip tion, which follows, of the lot that fell to the Manassites (chap. xv. 1). — On the expression, "for he (Manasseh) was the first born of Joseph," (cf. Gen. xlvi. 20 and xlviii. 5), Masius observes that, " his birth is mentioned as an explanation of the reason why he was so richly endowed by God, as to receive possessions on both sides of the Jordan." Rosenmuller, on the other hand, thinks it more probable " that it is mentioned as the reason why Manasseh, who was not one of the sons of Jacob, received a share of the land of Canaan, in common with Jacob's sons." Neither of these opinions can be established. That of Masius is at variance with the fact that although Manasseh was the first born, yet when CHAPTER XVII. 1—6. 399 the patriarch Jacob adopted him together with his brother as his own sons, he placed him below Ephraim with the prophetic words, "Ephraim will be greater than Manasseh" (Gen xlviii. 5 and 14 — 19). That of Rosenmuller is illogical, for the two sons of Jacob could not possibly have received two portions in Canaan, because Manasseh was the first-born. — No stress is to be laid upon the "13, and the remark is simply made in anticipation of the genealogical information which follows. — p^^ commences the • x : genealogical account, which precedes the description of the terri tory, and reaches to ver. 6. With regard to the construction, i;p p^3J37 is brst written absolutely, and is then resumed in the V ls not a spring by the city of Tappuah, but the name of the city itself, which is some times abbreviated into Tappuah. — Shechem, a city frequently occurring in the history of the patriarchs, between the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim, called at a later period Flavia Neapolis, which was afterwards changed into Nabulus or Nablus, the name that it bears at the present day (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 158 sqq., and Robinson iii. 102 sqq. and 96 sqq.) If, then, the boundary ran from Asher past Sichem to Michmethah, the territory of Manasseh, as Reland (Pal. p. 157) has observed, did not extend to the Jordan ; and if, according to the probable account of chap. xvi. 6, the northern boundary of Ephraim ran from Mich methah in a south-easterly direction to Jericho and met the southern border at Ataroth, the territory of Ephraim also did not reach the Jordan, notwithstanding that the boundary is drawn to the river in chap. xvi. 1 and 7, probably with reference to the borders of Benjamin (chap, xviii. 12). The tract of land, be tween the Jordan and the line drawn from Asher across Mich methah to Ataroth, must therefore have been reckoned as part of the inheritance of the tribe of Issachar, which bounded that of Manasseh on the east (v. 10). But as Manasseh received some cities within the territory of Issachar, e.g., Bethsean in the valley of the Jordan (v. 11), this tract of land may have been subse quently considered as belonging to the tribe of Joseph ; as it was by Josephus (Ant. v. i. 22)— V. 9. "And the boundary descended (from the mountains to the plain) to the river of reeds, on the south of the river." This furnishes an explanation of chap, xvi. 8. " These cities belonged to Ephraim amongst the cities of Manasseh." Which cities? It is certainly further added, " and the territory of Manasseh was on the north of the ' 26* 402 CITIES OF MANASSEH. stream." But this does not throw any light upon the question. The explanation given by Masius is no doubt the correct one : " The line, which separated the possessions of the two brothers from each other, ran to the south of the river Cannosus (mp ^nj the river of reeds) and thus the river was in the territory of Ma nasseh, but the cities which were upon the river, though all were within the limits of the possession of Manasseh, were assigned partly to Ephraim and partly to Manasseh, those upon the south ern side being given to the former, those upon the north to the latter." For in v. 10 it is still more distinctly said : " On the south (of the river, the land was given) to Ephraim, on the north to Manasseh ; and the sea was his boundary (towards the west)." The additional particulars, " and they touched upon Asher on the north (cf. chap. xix. 26) and upon Issachar on the east" (chap. xix. 22), are inserted with reference to the statement which follows in v. 11, that the Manassites also received certain cities with the surrounding districts within the inheritance of both these tribes. V. 11 — 13. The Manassites were unable to expel the Canaan ites from the cities, which were assigned them within the borders of Asher and Issachar, and were obliged to content themselves, when their strength increased, with making the Canaanites their serfs. The following were the pities allotted to them. \V$ TV2. Bethsean, afterwards called 2 ' kv66ttoXi<;, at the present time Beisan, was situated in the valley of the Jordan where it touches the eastern end of the plain of Jezreel, and therefore was in Issachar ; (cf. Robinson iii. 175 sqq., and my Commentary on the Books of Kings p. 48 seq.) — For pppfi^V and her towns, see xv : ¦ chap. xv. 45. — Jibleam, as we learn from 2 Kings ix. 27, stood near to Megiddo ; but even Eusebius was unable to de termine its site. — )^-j ^ytfn-ft^et incolas Dorae. There is some thing striking in the sudden introduction of an accusative here. Hence Rosenmuller renders it, et cum incolis Dorae. But j-|N cannot be taken as a preposition, partly from grammatical diffi culties, viz. on account of the copulative conjunction ^ ; and also because Dor was situated on the coast of the Mediterranean Sea (chap. xii. 23) and therefore at far too great a distance from Jibleam, to be subordinate to the cities of Bethsean and Jibleam. CHAPTER XVII. 7— 13. 403 ^Studer (on Judges i. 27) looks upon it as an accusative abso lute, and connects it with v. 12, translating it thus : " as for the inhabitants of Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo, the Manas sites were unable to obtain possession of these cities," &c. " It is evident," says Studer, " that this is the correct mode of con struing the sentence, from the fact that in the case of all these cities, the inhabitants are mentioned as well as the cities, and the previous verb ^ pjip| is by no means applicable to them, : x x whereas the following verb tyi-ppj is. (See Judges i. 30)." Studer therefore regards these words as an antithesis to the fore going clause ; the possession of Bethsean and Jibleam was secured to the Manassites, that of Dor, &c, they failed to obtain. In this statement he discovers a hopeless contradiction to Judges i. 27, where Bethsean and Jibleam are both mentioned among the cities, which had not been captured, and therefore were not secured to the Manassites. But it can only be as the result of a very superficial observation that any discrepancy is detected here. For a more careful examination of the passage will show that the author says that the Canaanites were not driven out, only in reference to those towns, of which he had expressly said that they were assigned to a tribe, which could not expel the Canaanites, or where this was at least pre supposed. Apart from the parallel passage. Judges i. 27 seq., the meaning of vv. 11 and 12 cannot be anything else than that, in Issachar and Asher the cities of Bethsean, Jibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo were allotted to Manasseh, together with their dependent towns, and that the Manassites were unable to drive out the inhabitants of Dor, Endor, Taanach, Megiddo, and their dependent towns. Hence we might imagine that after ppppin 05>bl'1 t^ie worcls had' been omitted through an error of the copyist caused by the ofjLoioreXevTov. But if we compare the parallel passage Judges i. 27 seq., we shall find that the antithesis, when com plete, is as follows: "but Bethsean, Jibleam, and their daughters, and the inhabitants of Dor, Endor, and Megiddo and their daughters Manasseh , could not drive out. We are thus reduced to this alternative : we must either assume an omission, after the words already supposed to be omitted, of the additional 26 404 CITIES OF MANASSEH. words ppptoTj oyrhy nwi srvrtani tNBJ-rrci nN"i>or> if we tv : t : : ¦ v : t v : It: •• v : hesitate to admit the existence of such a gap as this (though it is not impossible, seeing that the eye of a copyist might easily wander from pprri^ Ovh^ to ppn^ QV^ Tl«])> we must suppose that the author, 'afteF he had written pppyto*| OS^GV tv : x : : ¦ was drawn away by the thought, which he had all along had in his mind, that the Manassites were unable to expel the Canaanites, who dwelt in those cities, and therefore deviated from the con struction adopted at the commencement of the sentence, and placed the sign of the accusative, p^j before "i^p-^UP- Be- tween these two theories it might be impossible to arrive at any decision, were it not that an examination of the clause in verse 12, fc^Nn D'1^yn-nM liP'rin^ renders it almost certain that the latter is the correct one ; the author wrote down in v. 11 the names of all the cities, which Manasseh received within the territory of Asher and Issachar, and then merely added in v. 12 that the Manassites had never been able to obtain actual posses sion of these cities. We cannot therefore admit the necessity of connecting the words i;p PNP_l,ntlP fiNI witb v- 12, as Studer has done. The addition of the inhabitants to the names of the cities in the case of the last mentioned places does not prove anything, for in Judg. i. 27 Uppipj is connected first with "•il f^ttHT^nty an<* then immediately afterwards with "tt*"T ''HZ^-nN- -"-n tbe same way may ^ pjipj have been first ••iv : x t construed with the names of the cities and then with the inhabi tants, especially as the harshness of such a construction is suffi ciently explained by the deviation from the original one, with which the sentence commenced.1 — The next clause, "theinhabi- 1 Bertheau has formed entirely different Conclusions on comparing these verses with the parallel passage already referred to (Comm. on Judges at chap. i. 27, 28). Starting with the assumption that the passages in the book of Joshua, which are also found in tbe Book of Judges, were copied from the latter, he pronounces the text of the verse before us corrupt, and believes that he has found the original text in the Vatican Codex of the Septuagint. The reading there is Kal eo-rai Mavaaarj ev 'lo-a-d^ap Kal iv 'AoTyp Batdo-av Kal ai K&pai avrdv Kal CHAPTER XVII. 7—13. 405 tants of Endor and her daughters," is wanting in Judg. i. 27, probably from an accidental omission of the words from that roOs KaroiKovvras Aitp Kal ras Kapas air^s Kal tous- KaroiKovvras MayeUm Kal rds Kitpas at-rijs Kal t6 rplrov rfji Matpera Kal ras K&pas abrtjs. This translation of the LXX., in which tfie influence of Judges i. 27 may be seen in the same change from the nominative in Baido-dv -<., at k- t. A. to the accusative in roi/s KaroiKovvras Aap, as is said to have resulted in the Hebrew from a combination of the different constructions in Judg. i. 27 and Josh. xvii. 11, would require the following Hebrew text la^ rmsm jNty-rrn -rawm ~ow&o. rmxb lrng ram nwb& nnsji-n rwa *>y&*\ rrnsm Tin. The words rrrim nwi ^vn nwi and n^rvm n«i ay1^ ¦atip-ntfi were introduced into the text from Judges i. 27, and this led to the altera tion of pppjtfl lnt° nV.131 in the case of the other three cities. The sixth place, Endor, is apparently an additional name to which Dor has given rise. The two cities, Taanach and Jibleam, introduced from Judges i. 27, must thus have been situated in the inheritance of Manasseh ; they are mentioned, the former in Josh. xxi. 25, the latter in 1 Chr. vi. 55, as Levitical cities in the western part of Manasseh, and we have thus a confirmation of our opinion, that they originally belonged to Manasseh, and did not form part of the cities that were given up to bim by Issachar and Asher." But the arguments, by which this bold hypothesis is supported, will not bear examination. The probability that the cities of Megiddo and Taanach were interpolated into the text of Joshua from Judg. i. 27, only rests upon the weak ground, that these cities must have been situated in the portion allotted to Manasseh, because they are spoken of in chap. xxi. 25 and 1 Chr. vi. 55 as Levi tical cities in Western Manasseh. But all that we read in those passages is that these cities were assigned to the Levites in the western half of Manasseh ; there is not a word about their being situated within the actual inheritance of the tribe of Manasseh. On the contrary we may infer with far greater probability, that as Megiddo, near to which the two cities were standing, was within the territory of Issachar, the actual inheritance of Manasseh did not extend northwards beyond the range of mountains, which runs diagonally from Carmel in a south easterly direction through the land, and touches the south of the plain of Jezreel ; and from this it would further follow that Taanach and Jibleam were situated in Issachar, and were two of the cities that Issachar gave up to Manasseh. — The reasons are no better wliich Bertheau assigns for supposing that the Masoretic text of the 11th verse is not genuine. " 1. It is stated at the conclusion of the verse that nD2n rwhtif' three districts, were given by Issachar and Asher to Manasseh; but in the verse itself it is said that six cities, Bethsean, Jibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo, with the smaller towns belonging to them, *. e. six cities with their districts, were allotted ; 406 CITIES OF MANASSEH. passage. They cannot have been interpolated here, for there is not the slightest ground for such a supposition, as the subsequent words piS3pf pffij^U) rather disprove than favour it. — p^Tty Endor is celebrated on account of the necromancer who was there consulted by Saul (1 Sam. xxviii. 7 sqq.) It was four Roman miles from Tabor on the south, and is now a common village -jol Endor; (cf. Robinson iii. 218 and 225 seq.) — On Taanach and Megiddo, see chap. xii. 21. — piQjn n!Z5^ty the how does this tally with the ' three districts ' given as the number at the end ? 2. In the account of the cities given in Joshua, chap. xv. —xix., we always read of cities Ipppjjm and their villages, (chap. xv. 32, 36, 41, &c.) ; it is only in chap, xv.' 45 — 47, in the supplement respecting the cities of tho Philistines, and in chap. xvii. 11, that we find the expression cities pppflfil and their daughters, how then did the expression come into the latter passage? 3. After vtfV), we should expect to find the cities mentioned in the nominative, and instead of that, the first two are in the nominative, and the rest follow abruptly in the accusative ; such a change as this proves that two passages have been intermixed." The first of these three difficulties arises from the mistaken supposition that piQjpj' prtZ77'l^ the triple hill or triple dis trict is used for ppQ2 n?EHC?> three districts or three provinces, a sup- T V '. position at variance with the first rules of grammar. According to a correct grammatical interpretation the words can only stand for a common designation of the three cities just named, indicative of the close connexion in which they stood to each other, and are not intended as a statement of the number of the cities mentioned before. The force of the second objection is in the assumption that verses 45 — 47 of chap. xv. are the addition of a later hand ; but we have already shown at chap. xv. 45 that this is unfounded, and that a different explanation must be given of the ppppi^t which occurs there. And as in the case of the chief towns of the Philistines there, so with regard to the districts, which the Manassites received in the territories of Asher and Issachar, we have not all the towns mentioned singly with their vil lages, but the chief towns, with the daughter-towns dependent upon them ; for the Manassites did not merely receive certain towns in Asher and Issachar with their villages, but whole districts were por tioned out to them, comprising chief-cities and the daughter-towns de pendent upon them. Lastly, with reference to the third objection, the theory, founded upon the change from the nominative to the accusative, of an intermingling of two passages, affords no evidence that the original text is preserved in the Septuagint, since precisely the same alteration occurs there. In the text of both this alteration is said to have resulted from the influence of Judges i. 27. But how can such a supposition be entertained ? Bertheau has not thoroughlv thought out CHAPTER XVII. 7 — 13. 407 triple hill or triple province. The Chaldee translates this ^n^n p^Q tres regiones. The Septuagint and Vulgate take p|fj2 asa proper name, and p\t2&$ as an ordinal number. The former renders it to i-pirov tt?? Naipedd, the latter tertiam partem regionis Nopheth. This is quite arbitrary. The singular with the article piajpj cannot stand for the plural without the article. The term: "the triple province" (lit. three province), brings the three cities Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo, into close con nexion with each other. Videtur piropf pittJ'^ty ( an0- the Greek translator, in his rendering of the passage, thought of Judges i. 27, and finding there -p-^ ^ty,>' H^V interpolated Kai tovs before KaroiKovvras Aa>p ; then, apart from the fact that we can hardly imagine a man acting with such thoughtlessness as to translate the words n^ni^3.1 t^^-!"^) an^ then suddenly copy the next words in the accusative from Judges i. 27, we cannot possibly conceive, why he did not also copy from the same passage the other names con tained in it, Taanach and Jibleam, which, according to the book of Judges, were also surrounded by towns, from which the Manassites were unable to expel the Canaanites. The same thoughtlessness is apparent, if the Hebrew text is supposed to bear marks of the inter mingling of two different constructions caused by the influence of Judges i. 27. In this case also the author of the original Hebrew text must have copied all the names from Judg. i. 27. But the change of con struction from the nominative to the accusative could not then be explained as resulting from the influence of Judg. i. 27, either in the supposed original text of the Septuagint, or in our present Hebrew text. The translation of the LXX., quoted above, presupposes the reading -flTf "QttP DNl in the original text, and this is only intelligi ble if we suppose it to have arisen in the manner we have_ described above. This, too, removes all doubt as to the authenticity of the Masoretic text. For, from what has been said, it is evident that the reading of the Codex Vatic, is not the original one, but must be pro nounced corrupt, and corrected by that of the Cod. Alexandrinus. 408 COMPLAINT OF THE JOSEPHITES. For vv. 12 and 13 compare Judg. i. 27—28. We have already shewn that these verses were not copied from the Book of Judges, and are not at variance with the context. Bertheau, it is true (on Judges p. 37), defends this hypothesis on the ground that we do not find the words rB&h "^S^n ^N^l any where else in the Book of Joshua, whilst in that of Judges it occurs three times (i. 27, 35 and xvii. 11.) This is correct. But it proves nothing, for the verb ^i^ln is use<^ by the author on other occasions (cf. chap. vii. 7), and the formula ^V ny&h is by no means peculiar to the writer of Book of Judges, being found as early as Exod. ii. 21. fty&h "Ojain ^N"P does not mean : coepit Cananaeus habitare ; but " the Canaanite chose to dwell in the land." The radical meaning of ^i is ve^e> to wish ; and from this follow the derivative meanings : to plan, or commence anything. — With v. 13 compare chap. vi. 10. Vv. 14 — 18. The Josephites were dissatisfied with the inheri tance which had fallen to them, because they were a numerous people, and had only received one lot and one inheritance. In consequence of their complaint Joshua directs them to go like a mighty people, cut down the wood, and destroy the Canaanites, and thus make room for themselves in the country of the Perizzites and the Rephaim. Masius, Osiander, and Rosen muller, suppose that this complaint was made after the rest of the land had been measured, and the northern boundary of the Josephites had been fixed ; for before that period they could not tell how large or how small their territory was. Undoubtedly it does not follow from the position of this section, that the event described in it occurred directly after the drawing of the lot of the Josephites. Yet the reasons for coming to a different con clusion are not very apparent. The omission of all information with reference to the northern boundary of the land, which fell by lot to this double tribe, does not prove that at first it was not fixed. For since it was not merely that part of the land, which had been actually conquered and thus belonged to no one, that was to be portioned out, but those places also, which were still in the possession of the Canaanites, we cannot discover any rea son why the limits of the territory of Joseph should be fixed only towards the south, and not on the northern side also, that is, in its CHAPTER XVII. 14 — 18. 409 whole extent. In fact the appropriation to the tribe of Joseph of several districts beyond the borders of his territory, in the subsequent possessions of Issachar and Asher, presupposes the arrangement of the northern boundary of the descendants of Joseph from the very first. Hence there is nothing to lead us to imagine that the events narrated in the verses before us occurred at a later period. — V. 14 seq. The children of Joseph are not the Manassites only, nor even chiefly, but the tribe of Ephraim and the half tribe of Manasseh, or " the house of Joseph," so far as it had received an inheritance on this side of the Jordan. It does not follow from the words " why hast thou given me (the house of Joseph) one lot and one portion," that only one of the two tribes, into which the descendants of Joseph were divided, made any complaint, or that the inheritance which fell to them had not then been shared by them ; but it is with reference to its size that they call their portion of the land one lot, one portion. C. a Lapide has therefore paraphrased their words correctly : cur nobis, qui facimus duas tribus, scil. Ephraim et Manasse, tam augustos dedisti limites, ut unius funiculi, id est, unius sortis et tribus esse videatur, quia vix uni soli tribui sufficiunt ; cum tamen Deo nobis benedicente in magnam multitudinem excreveri- mus. ^"y^ an(^ Vin are synonymous, and are used together for the sake of emphasis. ^p^ is the lot, that is thrown, ^pj the measure, hence the inheritance that is measured. — So far as Jehovah has hitherto blessed me. pttfN py refers to the degree, pl3 — jy to the time (Maurer.) There is a species of delicate irony in Joshua's answer. ^"1 OV " a numerous people," as they had called themselves, he uses in the sense of " a powerful people ;" and hence advises them, if the mountains, which they have received, are too contracted for them, to go into the forest, and there in the land of the Perizzites to clear a wider space for themselves, pjppj the forest, which they were to clear, must have been the mountainous region near Bethsean, extending to Endor, the so-called mountains of Gilboah, which, according to this passage, were then covered with wood, and belonged to the Perizzites and Rephaim ; for in v. 18 the forest is also called ppj. The name, Mount Ephraim, is applied here, partly in anticipation, to the mountains which afterwards received the standing name 410 COMPLAINT OF THE JOSEPHITES. of Mount Ephraim, from the tribe of Ephraim to which it was first assigned. — For the Perizzite see chap. iii. 10, and for the Rephaim chap. xii. 5. — V. 16. The children of Joseph repeat that the mountain (allotted to them) is not sufficient for them, and the forest land they are unable to take, because all the Canaanites, who dwell in the neighbouring valley, those of Bethsean and those of the plain of Jezreel, have chariots of iron. Ihis clearly proves that pjppj refers to the mountains of Gilboah, which were bounded on the east by Bethsean and on the west by the plain of Jezreel. ^a m the Kal means to be sufficient (Num. xi. 22) ; T T it is used with the same meaning in the Niphal both here and Zech. x. 10. — The hill = Mount Ephraim. The valley country &ayn Y"^N' in contradistinction to the mountains, includes both the valley of the Jordan near Bethsean, and the large plain of Jezreel. Rosenmuller would restrict the pftyp|t>pN to the plain of Jezreel or Esdrelom, but this is incorrect. On the large plain in the valley, now called Merdj ibn Amer .^\s. ,.jj -,.c, see v. Raumer Pal. p. 39 seq., and Robinson iii. 227 sqq. — On ^SP ^t"Q chariots of iron cf. chap. xi. 4. Vv. 17 and 18. As the reply of the children of Joseph evidently betrayed cowardice and unbelief in the promise of God, Joshua contented himself with a repetition of his first answer, though some what amplified. " The captain gives the same reply as before, but more fully and explicitly. Since, says he, you are a nume rous people, and possess great strength, unless you are very timid, you will easily obtain possession of the mountain, and although it is covered with a wood, you will clear it. And not only will |you take the mountain, but all the adjacent places. For you are furnished with such resources, that you will easily conquer even the Canaanites, with all their chariots of iron." (Masius.) Most of the commentators have called attention to the perfect justice, and freedom from partiality towards his own tribe, with which Joshua acted here. — " Thou art a strong people and hast great power ; thou shalt not have one lot ; that is, since thou art a strong people and hast great power, thou shalt not have one lot, but the mountains shall be thine (thou shalt obtain possession of them) ; because it is a forest, clear it, and the out- CHAPTER XVII. 14 — 18. 411 goings of it shall be thine."— p^n the outgoings of the wood, i.e., the fields and plains bordering upon the wood. CpTipy-is for thou wilt drive out the Canaanites, just because they have iron chariots, because they are strong. " None of the tribes of Israel is able to fight against him, because he is strong, but thou hast strength enough to drive him out." (Jarchi.) Maurer has already shown that 13 does not mean although, but just because} 1 Ewald (Gesch. ii. p. 242 seq.) concludes from this narrative that the earliest saga concerning Joshua described him " as a hero, who opposed with humiliating sarcasm the assumptions of his own tribe ; as a true man of the people in the best sense of the word," " whereas later historians could only discover in him a great general and con queror ;" and is of opinion that " the LXX. did not understand this passage, whose biting scorn makes it obscure, and that modern exposi tors have comprehended it even less." The real meaning of this pas sage, which Ewald thinks he was the first to discover, is said to be the following : " At first the children of Joseph complained of Joshua, that he had only given them one lot and one portion, though they were so numerous and so greatly blessed, i.e., that he had given them only one province as their inheritance instead of two. He was not at a loss for a reply, and said : ' If they were so numerous and the moun tains of Ephraim were too small for them, they had better go into the wood, i.e., into the plain, which was thickly populated and well culti vated, and there cut down with little trouble the tall trees that would bring them some profit (i.e., the Perizzites and Repbraim).' But when to this sharp reply they answer again : ' that is impracti cable, the mountains are sufficient for us, for the Canaanites in the plain have dangerous chariots of iron,' Joshua sends away these earnest petitioners, who wish for much, but yet from absolute fear will not exert themselves to secure what they wish, with the still more bitter sarcasm, they might well indeed be a numerous and powerful tribe, and yet only have one portion 1 the mountains truly (which they already possess) they shall have, for that is a wood, whose trees they could cut down and whose plants they could preserve, to possess that and to enjoy it would not cost them so much trouble as the other forest of enemies 1 and the land of the Canaanites they should have, because these were well equipped and strong ! (but as long as they were afraid of them they would never secure it !)' — a biting sarcasm, worthy of a Samson." — The only misfortune is that the sarcasm 'is neither striking nor new. It is not striking, for we have first to fill up the text and introduce it, before we can find it there ; it is not new, for C. a Lapide, when commenting upon the words " get thee up to the forest, and there make room for thyself in the land of the Perizzites and Rephaim " (v. 15), said long_ ago: "this is a metaphor, he calls the land occupied by the Canaanites a forest, because, as a forest would have to be cut down for the land to be ploughed, ( 412 ) CHAPTER XVIII. ERECTION OF THE TABERNACLE AT SHILOH (v. 1.) PREPARA TION FOR THE SECOND DISTRIBUTION OF LAND, AND COM MENCEMENT OF IT (w. 2 — 10). INHERITANCE OF BENJAMIN (VV. 11—28). V. 1. As soon as the tribe of Ephraim had received its inheri tance, the tabernacle was erected in it, viz., at Shiloh, in order that the worship might be recommenced and continued regularly there. Why Shiloh was chosen for this purpose, whether it was in accordance with a divine command, or decided by the High Priest with the Urim and Thummim, or selected by Joshua and the High Priest, is not stated. We must, however, assume the first without hesitation, since in Deut. xii. 11 the Lord expressly reserves to himself the appointment of the place, where his name shall dwell, in one of the tribes, and therefore the reason for the selection of Shiloh must be sought in the wisdom of God.1 Per haps Shiloh was chosen because its name rendered it more appro priate than other places to be a type of the promised Shiloh (Gen. xlix. 10). It could not in any case have been from the merely external reasons, which Josephus assigns (Ant. v. 1 — 19), iircr^Beiov yap iBoKei to ymplov hia -to koXXo';, or because the place was situated upon a hill in the centre of the land, for there were many other places in the centre of the country, pos sessing equal earthly advantages. The tabernacle continued at Shiloh during the whole of the period of the Judges, until the Lord forsook his sanctuary there on account of the sins of the so the Perizzites must be cut down, in order that the Josephites might take possession of their land." C. a Lapide, however, is more consistent, for by the term wood he understands the Canaanites not only in v. 15, to which Ewald restricts it, but also in v. 18 ; and he did not attri bute to pifc^n the meaning " vegetation, trees ;" with which meaning Ewald (p. 229) was certainly the first to enrich the Lexicon. 1 Hengstenberg has well said (Ps. iii. p. 380), " The erection of the sanctuary was the work of men, only so far as the setting up of the boards, &c, was concerned, and even in this they acted under the direc tion of God, S;c. CHAPTER XVIII. 2 — 10. 413 people, and allowed the ark of the covenant to fall into the hands of the Philistines. Upon this the sacred tent, which after that catastrophe, being robbed of its soul by the removal of the ark, had become the dead shadow of a sanctuary, was taken to Nob (1 Sam. xxi. 2), and when that place was destroyed by Saul (1 Sam. xxii. 19), to Gibeon (1 Kings iii. 4), (cf. my apolog. vers, fiber die Chronik p. 392, and Hengstenberg, Beitr. iii. p. 52 sqq.) After that time Shiloh fell, because the Lord had rejected it, (Ps. lxxviii. 60 ; Jer. vii. 12, xxvi. 6). (See Hengstenberg, Psalmen iii. p. 378 sqq.) In the time of Jerome it was com pletely in ruins. These ruins are still to be seen there, and have retained the name in the form of Seilun (, , j«Li*y) ; (vid. Robin son iii. 85 sqq.). — The subjoined remark, " and the land was subdued before them," means, that immediately after the con quest of the land it was their intention to set up the sacred tent, but that this purpose could not be carried into effect, until the tribe, in the midst of which the Lord intended it to stand, had received its inheritance. Vv. 2 — 10. As soon as the congregation at Shiloh had set up the sanctuary, the casting of the lots and the division of the land amongst the other seven tribes was to be proceeded with, and this was to be done at Shiloh, whither the camp had been removed with the tabernacle. >j;p !)p^pf fc^ "lltfN whose inheri tance had not (yet) been portioned out. — V. 3. These tribes, how ever, for the reasons explained at chap. xiv. 1, showed themselves backward in coming to take possession of the land, which the Lord had given them ; i.e., not merely to conquer it, but to have it shared out ' amongst them, and to enter and seize upon it. — V. 4 sqq. The reasons which induced Joshua now for the first time to have the land carefully surveyed, are also given at chap. xiv. 1. ^ q^ *Qn 9et three men for each tribe, i.e., they were to elect twenty-one men for the seven tribes and to bring them to him, that he might send them out to go through the land and describe it according to the measure of their inheritance, ig^ Dn^>n3 's thus explained by Clericus and Rosenmuller, " accord ing to the size of the tribes, each family of which was to receive an inheritance," or, as the same opinion has been more clearly expressed by Jarchi, " in proportion to the size of the tribes who * 414 SECOND DISTRIBUTION. were to share it (the land), for the greater in proportion to its- greatness, for the smaller in proportion to its littleness." To this Masius has properly objected : "how could the surveyors make such and such a province great or small in proportion to the size of such and such a tribe, when it had still to be decided by the lot, where each tribe should be located V — Qpnpt2 hB7 can only mean : having regard to the fact that they were to receive it as an inheritance, or, as it is explained in v. 5, 6, with refer ence to its being divided into seven parts, which could be allotted as an inheritance to the seven tribes. — ypft does not mean to — T measure, as is generally supposed ; hence the survey cannot have consisted of actual measurement, but was restricted principally to the preparation of a list of the cities (v. 9), and information re specting the peculiar characteristics of the different districts, such as " what lands were barren, and what fertile, whether a district was hilly or flat, whether well watered or destitute of springs, and any thing else which served to show the goodness of the soil, and the comparative worth of different localities" (Rosenmiiller.) Hence Josephus has correctly observed (Ant. v. 1 — 21), after having pointed out the diversities in the soil of Palestine : xal Bid tovto np,r)Tov<; p,aXXov r) p,eTfrnTovi rovs KXr}pow; elvai, Becv vTrekdBe (Joshua) ttoXXukk eVos irXedpov Kav y^iXlaiv avra^lov yevopAvov. Although the survey was most probably connected with a general estimate of the extent of the various districts, and the Israelites had acquired a knowledge of the art of mensuration in Egypt, where it had been practised every year from the earliest times, on account of the annual overflowing of the Nile (cf. Herodotus ii. chap. 109, Strabo xvii. c. 1, p. 417 ed. ster. and Diodorus Siculus i. p. 69) ; yet, for all this, we cannot suppose that a complete geometrical measurement of the land was taken, because this is not the meaning of ^PO> and also because such a measure ment was not requisite for the casting of the lots, or the preparatory division into seven districts, even if there had been sufficient time and means. The difference in size of the several tribes rendered it necessary that the limits of the different por tions should be fixed after the lot had decided which portion each tribe was to receive. We thus get rid of the objection, that the Canaanites, who were very numerous still in some parts of the country, would scarcely have allowed the twenty-one men to pass CHAPTER XVIII. 2 — 10. 415 quietly and without resistance through every corner of the land and measure it accurately with the line, and also of De Wette' s arguments against the historical veracity of the narrative, founded upon the want of exactness in the description of the limits of tbe portions allotted to the seven tribes, which is given in the sub sequent chapters. For if the survey did not consist of an actual measurement, we cannot be surprised at the absence of all evi dence of the employment of a land-chart in the topographical accounts, which our book contains. — V. 5. !)p^p|p\pp and divide it for yourselves. This division, however, was still to leave the tribes of Judah and Joseph in the lands which had fallen to them by lot. — V. 6. ri^Tl"1 ^bV before the Lord, i.e., before the tabernacle, in which Jehovah manifested his presence to the people (chap. xix. 51). When cast in the presence of the Lord, who was enthroned above the cherubim of the ark of the cove nant, the lot acquired a still more indisputable validity. — Verse 7 explains the reason why the land was to be divided into seven parts. On this reason see the remarks at chap. xiii. 14 compared with v. 8. The singular suffix in ^JY^TO refers to the Levites as a tribe. — Vv. 8 — 10. Execution of these commands of Joshua. V. 8. ^piy^ is dependent on Qi^nn> be commanded those, who went to describe the land. — V. 9. And they described it by (its) cities in seven parts, i.e., they surveyed it so as to divide the cities and then the land itself into seven parts. Rosenmiiller' s explanation of Qipj^, " by cities, i.e. adding a description even of the cities in each district," is quite arbitrary. — We are not in formed how long a time was occupied by the messengers in the survey of the country ; and when Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 21) says, that they returned to Joshua in seven months, this is no more to be depended upon, than the statement of the Rabbins, that the division of the land at Shiloh occurred seven years after that at Gilgal. — On v. 10, see chap. xi. 23. Vv. 11 — 28. Inheritance of the tribe of Benjamin. Vv. 11 — 20. Boundary of it. — V. 11. The inheritance which fell to the lot of Benjamin was between those of Judah and Joseph. rhv>. (ascendit) is applied to the lot in Lev. xvi. 9. " The lot comes up, when it is drawn out of the urn, and in a certain sense the boundaries come out of the urn along with the lot, seeing that the lot determines what they are to be." (Masius).— Vv. 12, 13. 416 INHERITANCE OF BENJAMIN. On the north Benjamin touched upon Ephraim, its northern boundary coinciding with the southern boundary of Ephraim (chap. xvi. 1 — 13). In most respects a description of it will be found in the note upon that passage. ^ DT? "'n*!? " an/A»7 AipprjX (Jerome vicus Effrem) at the distance of five Roman miles from Bethel on the east, refers to pnBJh which the LXX. write Acppd. The name of Parah may, perhaps, have been retained in the Wady el Far ah (x \#\)} — Ophrah, which was in the land of Shual according to 1 Sam. xiii. 17, is supposed by Robinson ii. 124 to have been 1 Robinson says (ii. 112) : " The name of this Wady might suggest a coincidence with the Parah of Benjamin (Josh, xviii. 23). But these names come from different roots. The Hebrew word meaning " a heifer," the Arabic " a mouse." We could hear of no village called Farah, as related by Buckingham. (Travels, &c, 4to,, p. 312)." 27 * 418 CITIES OF BENJAMIN. the same as et Taiyibeh, because the situation of this place agrees so well with the site of Ophrah (Afra) as given by Eusebius. And Thenius (in Kauffer's Stud. ii. p. 149) finds a confirmation of this opinion in the fact that the land of 7^2) (1 Sam. xiii. 17) is evidently identical with the land of Qi^flj (1 Sam. ix. 4), and that the Beni Salim still dwell at et Taiyibeh. This supposition, however, is by no means a certain one, for the statement of Eusebius, that Afra was five Roman miles fromBethel, may have been made in consequence of his mistake respecting the situation of Bethel, in which case it would lose all authority. The Ophrah of Gideon (Judg. vi. 11, 15, viii. 27) was not the same as the Ophrah of the text. — V. 24. ijiaypi prQ, for which the Keri and the Chaldee read piJia^n "3> Pagus Ammonitae,is T — T quite unknown. So also is V]Q27p| Ophni. The two names : - T x only occur here. yy% Geba, which we must distinguish from T1V2Z Gibeah, or the Gibeah of Saul, which is also sometimes called Geba, stood upon the northern boundary of the subse quent kingdom of Judah (2 Kings xxiii. 8 ; Zech. xiv. 10), and has continued in the Moslem village of Jibia (Laws.) in the Wady el Jib (Robinson iii. 80.) See my commentary on Kings, p. 580 seq. Vv. 25 — 28. Second group of fourteen cities. V. 25. For Gibeon, see chap. ix. 3. Ramah, according to Judg. xix. 13, 1 Kings xv. 17, was near to Gibeah. At present it is a miser able village called er Ram (Robinson, ii. 315) between Gibeah and Gibeon (see my commentaries on Kings, p. 232.) For Beeroth see chap. ix. 17.1 — V. 26. Mizpeh in Benjamin (different But there is no weight in the philological argument, for it is still doubt- ful whether g Jill is really a contracted form of g.lill mus. 1 De Wette and Maurer affirm that the name of Beeroth was intro duced at a later period, since it is spoken of in 2 Sam. iv. 2 as a new thing for Beeroth to be reckoned as belonging to Benjamin. But this is wrong. For it is not said there, that Beeroth was assigned to Ben jamin for the first time in the reign of Saul. Nor is the remark there made " because Beeroth was so close to the borders of another tribe (probably Ephraim) that it might seem doubtful who were the owners of it," — as Thenius supposes — but " because the writer wishes to show that the evil-doers were of the tribe of Benjamin." CHAPTER XIX. 1—9. 419 from the place in Judah of the same name, chap. xv. 38), where the war against Benjamin was determined upon (Judg. xx. and xxi.), and where Samuel judged the people and chose Saul as king (1 Sam. vii. 5 sqq., x. 17), is undoubtedly the present Neby Samwil (cf. Robinson, ii. 136 and my commentary on Kings, p. 235).— On Chephirah, see chap. ix. 17. — The places which follow, Mozah, Rekem, Jirpeel, and Taralah, are only named here, and altogether unknown.— V. 28. Nor is anything known of Zela - and Eleph. The LXX. have rendered p^pj j^jj as a com pound name SnXaXetp. But in that case there are not fourteen cities; and the omission of the conjunction -^ proves nothing, since it is also omitted before piy^ and pp-\p. In Zelah, Saul and Jonathan were buried, 2 Sam. xxi. 14. iCJrQ*in Jebus, i.e. Jerusalem, cf. chap. x. 1, and xv. 8. — Gibeath is the Gibea of Benjamin or Saul so frequently referred to, which is still to be seen in the village of Jeba (**..&), between the Wady es Suwei- nit and the Wady Farah ; see my commentary on the Books of Kings, p. 580 seq. — Fp~)p Kirjath is identified by Rosenmuller and Maurer with Kirjath-Jearim; the rjipjp, they suppose to have been lost from the text. V. Raumer (Pal. p. 195) has pro perly opposed this conclusion ; since Kirjath-Jearim is not merely reckoned as one of the cities of Judah in chap. xv. 60, but in chap, xviii. 14 is expressly called the city of the children of Judah. The situation of Kirjath is unknown ; see Reland Pal. p. 724. CHAPTER XIX. INHERITANCE OF THE TRIBES OF SIMEON, VV. 1 — 9 ; ZEBULON, w. 10—16; issachar, vv. 17—23; asher, w. 24—31 ; naphthali, w. 32 — 39 ; and dan, vv. 40—48. conclu sion OF THE CASTING OF LOTS FOR THE LAND, VV. 49 — 51. V. 1—9. The inheritance of Simeon. V. 1. The second lot, which was drawn at Shiloh, fell to the tribe of Simeon, and 27 2 420 SIMEON'S INHERITANCE. fixed its inheritance within the limits of the tribe of Judah, the portion allotted to this tribe at Gilgal being too large for the hildren of Judah to occupy (v. 9 cf. the remarks on chap. xiv. This cession by Judah of part of his territory to the other tribes, and its falling by lot to Simeon, led to the fulfilment of the prophecy of Jacob, when dying : " I will divide them in Jacob, and scatter them in Israel" (Gen. xlix. 7). It was not, however, fulfilled as a curse, but as a blessing, and in the case of Simeon in a different manner from that of Levi, whose descen dants were dispersed in Israel, on account of their receiving, as servants of the sanctuary, cities to dwell in amongst all the tribes. Whether the inheritance of Simeon was a compact terri tory or not cannot be determined with certainty, because only the cities allotted to him are given, and the situation of many of them is unknown. The first group of thirteen cities belonged to the southland of Judah, and formed probably a connected district. Of the second group of four cities, two were situated in the south, two in the lowlands of Judah (v. 7). — Our list of the cities of Simeon should be compared with 1 Chr. iv. 28— 32, where the same cities are named in the same order as here, but with slight alterations in a few of the names. — V. 2. For Beersheba see chap. xv. 28. The next name yy$} Sheba is wanting in 1 Chr. iv. 28 ; hence it might be supposed to have arisen from tbe repetition of the yy& °^ the preceding word, through the error of the copyist, especially as v. 6 gives thirteen as the number of the cities, whereas there are fourteen, if yy$} be reckoned as one. But inasmuch as the number given in chap. xv. 32 does not correspond to the actual number of names mentioned, and as we find in chap. xv. 26 the name yft$ before Moladah, and from the frequent interchange of the labials ^ and £, this could easily be called yy& also, I look upon it as more probable that the name yytf has been omitted from 1 Chr. iv. 28. Moreover, all the ancient versions have yyy here, and the Syriac, according to its usual custom of making the number agree with the cities named, gives in v. 6 not thirteen but fourteen cities. — On Moladah, i.e. el Milh, see chap. xv. 26. — For vv. 3 and 4, see chap. xv. 28 — 30. — V. 5. For Ziklag also see chap. xv. 31. niSpan-n^ Beth-marcaboth, i.e. CHAPTER XIX. 1—9. 421 coach-house, and pfCpo p;ijp[> Hazar-susah, i.e. horse-village, also mentioned in 1 Chr. iv. 31, are probably the same places as Mad- mannah and Sansannah (chap. xv. 31). See the remarks on that passage. — V. 6. Beth-Lebaoth, contracted into Lebaoth (chap. xv. 32), is called in 1 Chr. iv. 31 Beth-Birei; Sharuhen or Saaraim (1 Chr. iv. 31) is called Silchim in chap. xv. 32 (see this passage). — V. 7. For Ain and Rimmon, see chap. xv. 32 ; and for Ether and Ashan, both in the plain of Judah, chap. xv. 42. In the parallel passage, 1 Chr iv. 32, there are five cities named Etam, Ain, Rimmon, Thochen (Yy\p\), and Ashan; hence iy\f) must be another name for Wfiy, — V. 8. "And all the villages, which (were) round about these cities to Baalath- Beer." Masius regards the insertion of ^3 here as somewhat striking, and supposes that it is used " to indicate the large number of the towns, villages, and hamlets by which these cities were surrounded, and the great fertility of the soil." But this meaning is not contained in the words ; all that they imply is that the Simeonites received not merely certain cities in the ter ritory of Judah, but the whole country around the cities named, together with all the villages that were situated hear them. 1N3 JT75Q ^aalath-Beer, for which we find only ^y^ Baal in 1 Chr. iv. 33, is unknown ; for there is no ground whatever for the conjecture of Masius, that it was the same as Beersheba. It seems to be only another name for y^ p\a^ > *"or there is no copulative conjunction before pfo-\, and therefore we are not justified in supposing that the two names represent two places,, as the LXX. and Arabic versions and Clericus have done. 232 na"l Ramah of the south, in distinction from the other Ramah, is undoubtedly the same as yyy pyfayv 1 Sam. xxx. 27 ; but its T situation is not known.1 — V. 9. nna Tl too large for them, larger than they required. For the rest see the remarks on verse 1. 1 Em. Rodiger (in the notice of Robinson's Bibliothtca Sacra, Hall. A.L.Z., 1843 June, No. iii. p. 278) supposes that our Ramah towards the south is the same as Ramet el Khulil, which was visited by Robin son (Pal i. 318 seq.) and afterwards by Wolcolt. It consists of a very massive foundation, belonging to some immense building, which seems never to have been completed. In the north-western corner there is a well, vaulted over, but not deep. On this Rodiger remarks : "What, 422 zebulon's inheritance. Vv. 10—16. The inheritance of Zebulon. Vv. 10—14. Its boundaries. Jacob and Moses (Gen. xlix. 13; Deut. xxxiii. 19) had both predicted that Zebulon should dwell upon the sea shore, and suck of the abundance of the seas. But so far. as we can tell from the boundaries of that tribe as given in this book, their territory did not quite touch tbe Mediterranean ; though it may possibly have been afterwards extended to the coast. — V. 10. The territory of their inheritance went to Sarid. The situa tion of this place is unfortunately not known ; but it cannot have formed the south-western boundary, as Rosenmuller and Masius suppose, or have stood on the south of Carmel, and near to the Mediterranean. On the contrary, judging from verse 11 seq., it must have been situated somewhere inland, in the plain of Esdrelom, to the north or north-east of Legio (Lejjun) ; for in v. 11 we have the boundary line from east to west, and then in v. 12 from the plain towards the east. — V. 11. " And their border went up westwards, even towards Maralah." Ma sius and Rosenmiiller imagine that this gives the direction ab Austro ad Aquilonem, because this is the direction denoted by ppy. This, however, is an unfounded conjecture, for pibj? maS be applied to any direction, if the road ascends. And hence they are decidedly wrong in the further inference which they draw, that " the boundary passed from Sarid by Mount Carmel to the sea, and then followed the coast.'' Apart from the fact that na^ T T - cannot mean to the sea, this is disproved by the circumstance, if pfc$^ rOV2 0-e- the city with the well) which stood near, pointed to the ancient place by the remarkable well, described by Wolcott (p. 45 and 46 of the Bib. s.) ? The passage in 1 Sam. xxx. 27, where ^33 ma"l stan .j*), was allotted to the tribe of Issachar, who gave it up to the Levites, chap. xxi. 28 ; 1 Chr. vi. 57 (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 124, and Robinson iii. 210.) The boundary line must therefore have passed on the western side of it. On jpqi Japhia, Reland observes (Pal. p. 826) : oppidum Sycaminum, rj 2vKap,Ivo<;, ad mare' situm prope Carmelum inter Caesaream et Ptolemaida, 'Hcpa nuncupatur, teste Eusebio s.v. 'Id(pe8, Hodie li^ ab Arabibus appellator. Vide Golii Not. ad Alfrag. p 132. Forsitan est Jebba Plinii lib. v. c. 18. Gesenius repeats this in the Thesaurus (s.v. ) adding : " but Sycaminon and Jebba (al Jeba, Geeba) are spoken of by Pliny I.e. as diffe rent towns." We cannot, however, think of this town in any case, for its situation does not at all answer to the description before us. It is much more probable that Japhia corresponds to the modern village of Jafa, about a mile and a half on the south west of Nazareth, which tradition fixes upon as the birth place of the Apostle James (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 127, and Robinson iii. 201 seq.) For although Jafa lies in a valley, the boundary must have passed over the hills from Deburieh to Jafa, and thus the use of f^yy would be sufficiently explained. — V. T X 13. " And from thence it passed on eastward towards the sunrising to Gath-Heber, Eth-Kazin." pj^j is evidently formed from p|j with the pj local. Gath-Hepher, the birth place of the prophet Jonah (2 Kings xiv. 25), was probably the same as the present village of el Meshad (jsacvcjjl) about five miles from Nazareth on the north-east, where a grave of the Neby Junas is still shown (cf. Robinson iii. 209 ¦•)— Eth-Kazin is not known, but it cannot have been very far from Gath-hepher (cf. Reland Pal. p. 768). — " And went out to Rimmon which is marked off CHAPTER XIX. 14. 425 to Neah." j^p or "i^pftp (1 Chr. vi. 62) Rimmon was given up to the Levites. ^ It is probably to be seen still in the village of Rummanneh (nJS^j.), about seven miles to the north of Nazareth (ef. Robinson iii. 195.) iNptan has been rendered in many of tbe ancient versions as a proper name ; in the Septuagint, 'Ap,pada- plp, ; the Vulgate, Amthar ; the Syriac, loAio\ ad Mathvam ; - o ^ the Arabic, \^ Mathwa.1 Jarchi, on the other hand, has taken it as a participle from -^pj (cf. chap. xv. 9) and gives this - x explanation : " it turned (^pl^pf) to ^ea> which is as much as to say, it described a curve (pfc$K) from that point to Nea." Vatablius, Masius, and the latest expositors, adopt this interpreta tion. But the best rendering of the participle is that given by Fiirst (Concord, s.v.), "marked off (abgemarkt, abgesteckt)." Gesenius, Rosenm.uller, and others, render it " quae describitur, porrigitur," which extends to — ; this gives the sense pretty well, but the actual meaning of the word is not retained. Neah is unknown. V. 14. " And the border compassed it (Rimmon) on the north side to Hannathon," (l^pi^n : which is also unknown), " and the outgoings thereof were in the valley of Jiphtah-el." It is evident at once from ^p^ and Wqjjq, that this verse contains a description of the northern boundary. It becomes still more apparent from v. 27, where the border of the tribe of Asher, which was situated on the north west, is also said to have passed by the valley of Jiphtah-el. This valley (S^-pinD'1 *'•*• &oa" opens) has unfortunately not been discovered, and therefore we are utterly unable to trace the northern boundary of Zebulon. ln addition to this, the account of the cities of Zebulon in v. 15 1 The Chaldee has paraphrased the words p^^^^f pfc$p,ftpj by pJIPiS pnnDa lana l^lnai > hut Masius and Rosenmiiller are of opinion that pfc^"^!^ in the printed text is a gloss. Masius says briefly : " the pSi"ip|J2p la the common Chaldee books ought cer tainly to be expunged." Rosenmiiller with less distinctness says, " in- the ordinary Chaldee books we read -^pift-r] ; but Jarchi gives pp|£jp£, no doubt correctly, for that is always the Chaldee equivalent to the Hebrew p^p)," 426 zebulon 's inheritance. is faulty. We have only the names of five cities given, and yet there are said to have been " twelve cities and their villages." Many commentators will not admit that there is any gap in the text even here. Clericus, Maurer, and Rosenmuller are of opinion that to the cities named in v. 15 we must add the other seven from the places on the frontiers mentioned in vv. 11 — 14. Clericus thinks that all of these may be found in v. 13, and therefore reckons the compound names -)Q^ p|p|^ and prjp Tirty as tfle names of four cities, and discovers the fifth in ~)Nnan> which x I — he takes to be a proper name. But this is altogether arbitrary. Maurer, in opposition to the conjecture of Michaelis, that there is an omission in the text, says : " but the number mentioned in the 30th verse, which is much larger than the sum of the names actually given, without doubt includes the cities on the borders (vv. 25 — 29), for in that case the numbers would exactly correspond ; and so also here, — as vv. 14 and 1 5 are connected by the copulative conjunction in the same manner as w. 29 and 30, and of the three cities, which are wanting in v. 15, Jokneam, Karta, and Dimna (according to xxi. 34 seq.), one at least is found in the description of the borders in v. 11, — it is certainly possible that the number twelve may include the cities named in vv. 10 — 14, with the omission of six (?) or if p^na is a proper name of seven (?), which belonged to other tribes. One of these was Dabrath, v. 12, which belonged to the tribe of Issachar, (chap. xxi. 28)." The whole force of this argument is derived from the analogy between the passage before us and the descrip tion of the possessions of the tribe of Asher in vv. 25 — 29. But in the latter, it is only by arbitrarily including the cities pre viously named, that the sum can actually be made to amount to the number given in v. 30 (see the remarks on that verse). Moreover, the description itself is very different from the present one, for it does not commence with an account of the borders, but with a list of the cities (vv. 25, 26), and with this it not merely begins, but continues (v. 28) and concludes (v. 30) ; so that the catalogue is the chief thing, the description of the borders being introduced as a subordinate affair. The copula, therefore, before vv. 28 and 30 readily attaches itself to the towns named in vv. 26 and 29 ; but here, since vv. 11 — 14 contain merely chapter xix. 1 7. 427 a description of the borders, there is nothing to which the list of towns in v. 15, introduced by "and," can possibly be attached. The " and" before Kattath, &c. (v. 15) is an evident proof that there is an omission in the text, as J. D. Michaelis has clearly shown. We have only to add that, according to chap. xxi. 34 seq., the cities of Kartha and Dimna were given by lot to the tribe of Zebulon, and according to Judg. i. 30 that of Kitron, Le., three cities which are not referred to in vv. 11 — 14, and all question will be removed as to the corruption of the text, especially as tbe number twelve occurs in every ancient version, except the Septuagint, and there it has been omitted because of its apparent inaccuracy. — Of none of the five cities • mentioned in this verse has the situation been discovered. Rosenmiiller' s conjecture that nap Kattath is the same as Vip^p Kitron (Judg. i. 30), is just as unfounded as that of Bertheau (on Judg. i. 30), that ppEp is a misspelling for Vipft^j. For ^pf3) as it 1S spelt here and chap. xxi. 35, we find 7'^pi2 Nahalol in Judg. i. 30. With reference to Simron see chap. xi. 1. — Bethlehem in Zebulon, which is not the same as Bethlehem Ephratah in Judah, (Gen. xxxv. 19, &c), is thought by many to have been the birth-place of the Judge Ibzan (Judg. xii. 8). — V. 16. From all that has been hitherto ascertained, we can merely decide respecting the inheritance of Zebulon, that it comprised the western half of the plain of Esdrelom between Jokneam and the Tabor, and extended to the mountains of Galilee. Vv. 17 — 23. Inheritance of the tribe of Issachar. — V. 18. "And their border was towards Jezreel," i.e., their territory stretched over Jezreel. There is something striking in the use of ipp^ in connexion with the p[ local in pi^ypp, for tlle author, instead of continuing to describe the boundaries, is merely giving the names of the cities, of which the territory was composed. However, the use of «ipp>j, and also the occurrence of ^^n 173Efl (v- 22) show, that it was the author's intention to mention the boun daries, but that instead of carrying out this plan, he contented himself with merely giving a list of the cities. Jezreel, in the celebrated plain of that name, the summer residence of Ahab (1 Kings xxi. 1), is now called Zerin, and stands upon a hill commanding a splendid and extensive view, (cf. Robinson iii. 428 issachar's inheritance. 161 sqq. and my commentary on Kings, p. 49 and 268). — Hardly six miles to the north stood Shunem, now Solam, (cf. Robinson iii. 169, and my commentary p. 4). — Chesulloth, pro bably the Chasalus of Jerome juxta montem Thabor (see chap. ix. 2), and the %aXd>d of Josephus (de bell. jud. iii. 3. 1), seems to have continued in the village of Iksal ( M...^.t) on the west of Thabor, where there are many excavated tombs (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 123 and Robinson iii. 183 seq.). — V. 19. Hapharaim must have been situated on the west of Solam, according to the description in the Onomast. (s.v. Aphraim) : est hodie villa Affaraea nomine in sexto milliario Legionis contra Septentrionem. Sion in the time of Eusebius was still a villa juxta montem Thabor (Onomast. s.v. Sion). — Of Anaharath, Eusebius could not say anything with cer tainty (Onom. s.v. Avepd. Anerith). — V. 20. The cities in this verse are also unknown. On Rabbith, Jerome says (s.v. Rabboth in tribu Issachar) : est usque hodie alia villa Rebbo in finibus" Eleutheropoleos ad ortum solis ; but of the Rabbith mentioned here, to wliich Reland (Pal. p. 958) refers this statetnent,.lie cannot give any account. On Kishion, Masius observes that " it seems to have given its name to the brook Kison." Rosenmiiller inverts this and says, " it probably derived its name from the stream p\jj^p, which took its rise in Mount Tabor, and flowed into the bay of Ptolemais." The statements are both incorrect, for the two names have different roots, that of Vpyjp is pRyp, that of ^tljip, Upp. Kishion was afterward allotted to the Levites, chap. xxi. 28. Ebez does not occur again. — V. 21. Instead of ^\ry^ Remeth we find in chap. xxi. 29 amongst the cities, which Issachar gave up to the Levites, pj^ii Jarmuth, and in 1 Chr. vi. 58 ppcNI Ramoth. We are so thoroughly x unacquainted with the place itself, that it is impossible to tell whether these various readings are really different names, or merely the result of errors in spelling. — En-gannim is different from the place of the same name in Judah mentioned, chap. xv. 34. It was also, assigned to the Levites, and is called pjy Anem in 1 Chr. vi. 58. Robinson suggests (iii. 155) that there may probably have been some connexion between Jenin, the Fivaia of Josephus, and this Engannim. We have not sufficient chapter xix. 24—31. 429 data for deciding this point.— Enchadda and Beih-Patzez are only mentioned here. — V. 22. Tabor is not the mountain, but a town upon the mountain (cf. v. 12), which -was given to the Levites, not indeed by Issachar but by Zebulon (1 Chr. vi. 62). Here it is undoubtedly reckoned as one of the towns of Issachar, for otherwise there would not be sixteen. But as it was on the borders of Zebulon, it may possibly have been considered as belonging to both of them. Shahazumah and Bethshemesh are not known, the latter continued in the hands of the Canaanites, Judg. i. 33. — V. 23. Although the site of most of the cities of Issachar is unknown, we can fix with tolerable accuracy the limits of the inheritance of this tribe, partly from the places with which we are acquainted, and partly also from the boundary lines of the neighbouring tribes. Hence it may easily be shown that the province, marked off upon Kiepert's map as belonging to this tribe, is as incorrectly marked as that of the half-tribe of Manasseh and several other tribes. It was only the eastern part of the plain of Esdrelom which belonged to Issachar, and not the whole plain. The western half belonged to Zebulon, and the boundary line between them ran from Tabor to Lejjun. The land on the east of this line all fell to the portion of Issachar, but there were several cities within their territory allotted to the half-tribe of Manasseh. From the neighbourhood of Lejjun the western border of Issachar passed in a south-easterly direction to Asher, so that Issachar first touched upon Manasseh, and then extended farther to the northern boundary of Ephraim, for the possessions of Manasseh did not reach the Jordan (vid. chap. xvii. 7 sqq.) The valley of the Jordan, therefore, together with the mountain-range, which bounded it on the west, in nearly its whole extent from the sea of Galilee to the Dead Sea, belonged to this tribe, and it was bounded on the north by Naphtali, on the south by Ephraim and Benjamin, and on the east by the Jordan, though Beth-shean in the valley of the Jordan was given to the Manassites (chap. xvii. 11), just as the eastern side of the valley was allotted to the tribe of Gad. Vv. 24— 31. — Inheritance of Asher.— -V. 25. The boundary was formed by the cities of Helkath, which was subsequently given to the Levites (chap. xxi. 31), HaU, Beten, and Achsaph (cf. chap, xi: 1). We are not acquainted with the situation of any 430 asher's inheritance. of these places. Beten, according to the Onomast. (s.v. Bathne), was eight Roman miles from Ptolemais on the east, and was then called BeBerev or Bethbeten (cf. Reland Pal. p. 617).— V. 26. Alammelech, Amead, and Misheal, are also unknown. Misheal was given up to the Gershonites (chap. xxi. 30, and 1 Chr. vi. . 59, where the name is spelt *?{2Ja)* According to the Onomast. T T (s.v. Masan) it stood juxta Carmelum ad mare. This is in har mony with the words which follow : " and reached to Carmel westward, and to Shihor-Libnath." The river ryyy^> p^pp© Shihor-Libnath is said by Masius and Michaelis (in the historia vitri apud Hebraeos, in the Commentar. Soe. Reg. Gott. 1754 Pars philol. et histor. p. 59 sqq.) to have been the Belus of Pliny and Tacitus, on the banks of which glass was invented ; j-)22,^ p'ippli) signifying the Glass-river. But this river, which t : • • falls into the Mediterranean near to Acre or Ptolemais (Pococke Morgenl. ii. p. 80. Hamelsveld bibl. geogr. i. p. 519 seq., and v. Raumer Pal. p. 51) cannot possibly be thought of here; 1, because it flows to the north of the Kishon and Carmel, whereas it is evident from this passage that the Shihor Libnath was on the south of Carmel, the western boundary being traced from north to south, as v. 27 clearly shows ; 2, because the territory of Asher extended below Dor (Tortura), as we find from chap. xvii. 10 seq., Dor being assigned to the Manassites within the inheritance of Asher ; and therefore, since the Shihor Libnath formed the southern boundary of that part of Asher which was towards the Mediterranean, it must have been farther south than Tortura. It is obvious then that it must either have been the small river, flowing to the south of Tortura, and emptying itself into the Mediterranean, which Pococke and v. Raumer call Koradsche, but which is marked Nahr Belka upon the map of Robinson and Kiepert ; or else the Zerka, which is still further to the south, the crocodile-river of Pliny (cf. v. Raumer ut supra) Dereser and Reland (Pal. p. 730) decide in favour of the latter,1 which may have been called p'ipptljj the black or 1 There is incorrectness in part, and in part a want of force, in the answer given by Michaelis (I.e.) to Reland's opinion. " The river Crocodilon," says he, " if it be the same as Reland supposes, flows almost close to Caesarea, and is too far from Carmel to have been chapter xix. 24 — 31. 431 turbid river, on account of the slimy state of the water. — V 27. " And (the border) turned (from the Shihor Libnath) toward the sunrising to Beth-Dagon. — The Beth-Dagon mentioned here is as little known as that in Judah (cf. chap. xv. 41). Eusebius says, in the Onomast., that it stood upon the border which divided Zebulon from Issachar; but this has only been inferred from the passage before us, and, unless for Issachar we read Asher, it is incorrect. We may much rather conclude from this passage that Beth-Dagon must have been on the south of Car mel, because it was after passing Beth-Dagon that the border of Asher touched that of Zebulon, and, according to v. 11, a por tion of Carmel belonged to Zebulon. " And touched upon Zebulon and the valley of Jiphtah-el, on the north of Beth- Haemek and Neiel, and went out to Cabul on the left hand." The Zebulon mentioned here is supposed by Reland (Pal. p. 129 and 1062), Masius and Rosenmuller (on this verse), and Winer (R.W. ii. 517), to be, not the tribe of Zebulon, but a city of Zebulon near to Ptolemais, which Josephus speaks of (de bell. Jud. ii. 18. 9) as iroXiv KapTepdv ttj? raXiXaias ZaBovXwv, rj KaXeirai dvSp&v. The same city, in Rosenmuller' s opinion, is mentioned in Judg. xii. 11 seq. (Althk. ii. 2, p. 67). But Gesenius (thes. i. 403) has justly asked : possitne ipsa tribus Sebulon intelligi 1 There is no reference to a city, either here or in Judg. xii. 11 seq., but to the tribe of Zebulon, which formed one of the boundaries of Asher, just as in chap. xvii. 10 the Manassites are said to have touched upon (fty^rp) Asher on the north, and Issachar on the east. They met in the valley of Jiphtah-el, in which, according to v. 14, were " the outgoings" of the north western boundary of the tribe of Zebulon (cf. also v. 34). Before "pj p)"!^ pi3iKJ Rosenmuller supplies, "hence •• XT the border turned." But there is no ground for doing so. It is true that the words seem to be taken in this sense in the Vulgate, and Masius also gives this interpretation, but in connexion with it he gives another, viz., that " towards the north, &c." means " that these borders passed into the valley of Jephtah-el in such linked with it in the description of the borders, or for it to have been possible that the territory of the Asherites should extend to it ; hence the Crocodilon cannot have been the same as the Sihor by Carmel." 432 asher's inheritance. a direction as to leave Beth Emek and Neiel on the south in the territory of the Zebulonites. He also adds that " this opinion is more in harmony with the punctuation of the Hebrew Scriptures." The other opinion can only have been formed, because it seemed impossible to make out the twenty-two cities, given in v. 30, unless Beth Emek and Neiel were reckoned as cities of Asher. But we must not allow such a reason to lead us to do violence to the text (cf. v. 30). As the words stand, Beth Emek and Neiel were on the south of the boundary line, i.e., in the terri tory of the tribe of Zebulon. No trace, however, has yet been discovered of either place. — Cabul is not the same as the dis trict of twenty cities, to which Hiram contemptuously gave the name Cabul (cf. 1 Kings ix 11 — 13, and my commentary on the passage). It is probably identical with the Kcoprj XaBoiXm IlToXep,at8os fiedoptov ovua, mentioned by Josephus (de vita S. § 43) ; but we must not in that case press p,e06ptov. The ques tion whether it maj- also be the castle 5}x5C Cabul in eparchia Safadensi spoken of by Edrisi (Rosenmuller Annal. Arab. iii. p. 20 (41) cannot be decided, and is of little consequence, for we do not know where this castle was situated. — ^NailJa on the left, i.e. towards the north. Tbe meaning is that " the boundary ran northwards from the valley of Jiphtah-el as far as Cabul," which must therefore have belonged to Asher. — V. 28. Instead of VT2.V Ebron we find Tip^y Abdon named in chap. xxi. 30, 1 Chr. vi. 59, amongst the cities which Asher gave up to the Levites. Twenty MSS. have the same'reading here, but all the ancient versions read jS'SyV Ebron, and therefore the " MSS., which are of later date, possess no authority, and have copied the name from chap. xxi. 30 and 1 Chr. vi. 59. Simple as it seems, then, to pronounce the form 'fy^y^ a copyist's mistake for fip^j?, as Reland (Pal. p. 518), Gesenius (thes. ii. 980), Maurer, and Rosenmuller have done, we must hesitate to adopt their opinion, because the cities of Asher are not all given here, Acco at least being omitted if not Achlab and Chelba} also (Judg. i. 31), and 1 Bertheau, on Judg. i. 31, is disposed to identify ^ptN Achlab Wltn F)ffi:3N Achsaph, and r\y^n Chelba with L,apl Hebel. This is highly improbable, for Uyr^ (v. 29) is not a proper name at all. chapter xix. 24—31. 433 it is thus possible either that Abdon and Ebron are different places, or else that ftp^y 1S written incorrectly. — The name ^pp Rehob occurs again in v. 30, so that there were two cities of that name in the tribe of Asher, a supposition by no means impro bable, inasmuch as we frequently meet with cities in Palestine bearing the same name, although not far from each other (cf. Robinson). One of the Rehobs was given to the Levites, chap. xxi. 30; 1 Chr. vi. 60. There was a third Rehob, namely tne nan NlS "StT] Rehob, as men come to Hamath, Num. xiii. 21. Thjs was probably the same as the I'ippy-pp;! Beth-rehob (Judg. xviii. 28) near to Dan-Lais, in the tribe of Naphtali. Reland (Pal. p. 119), Rosenmuller (Althk. ii. 2, p. 52), and Winer (R.W. ii. 365) erroneously identify this with the Rehob of Asher, and Gesenius (thes. i. 196) confounds all three with Beth-Rehob. Rehob on the road to Hamath and Beth-Rehob must be different places from the Rehob of Asher, for the border of Asher did not anywhere touch the Jordan. — fi^n Hammon does not occur again ; for the rtjjjpf> which is said in 1 Chr. vi. 61 to have been given by Naphtali to the tribe of Levi, is either a misspelling or another form of fffoTi Hammath (v. 35), or ik'rnan Hammath-dor (cf. chap. xxi. 32 with 1 Chr. vi. 61). Kanah, a different place from Kavd tt)? rdXiXala<; (John ii. 1), is still a large village \i\S, not far from Tyre (Robinson iii. 384). " To Zidon the great " must be taken as inclusive (cf. chap. xi. 8). According to Judges i. 31, Sidon was regarded as belonging to the tribe of Asher, although it was never taken by the Israehtes. V. 29. "And the coast turned (from Sidon on the extreme north, southwards) to Ramah." This place (pjEnn) must have ' y T X X t stood somewhere between Sidon and Tyre upon a mountain. " To the fortified city Tyre " |j}-p}na ; vid. also 2 Sam. xxiv. 7 Vater (on the Pentateuch iii. p. 568) and Bertholdt (Einl. iii. p. 853) adopt the erroneous opinion of Marsham (in the Can. chron.) that Tyre was not built for 300 years after the time of Joshua. John (Einl. ii. 1, p. 162), Rosenmuller (Althk. ii. 1, p. 29), Steudel (bibl. Theol. p. 474) and Maurer (in loco) all fall into the same error, and in consequence suppose that the refe- 28 434 asher's inheritance. rence here is not to the Tyre upon the island, but to a more ancient fortress, which was situated at a distance from the coast, and was afterwards called Palaetyrus. The assumption that the insular fortress, Tyre, was not built till so late a period, rests only upon the statement made by Josephus (Ant. viii 3. 1), that Tyre was erected 240 years before the Temple of Solomon. With this compare Justin's history xviii. 3. — Clericus, on the other hand, referring to Herodotus ii. 44, observed long since that "a history, of such inaccuracy, might easily have con founded the restoration of Tyre with its first erection, and thus have supposed that it was first built, when in reality it was re stored and enlarged." Josephus is so thoroughly reckless in his statements and dates, that he never deserves credence when other witnesses are opposed to him. The great antiquity of Tyre upon the island had been demonstrated long before by des Vignolles (chronol. ii. p. 22 sqq.), but Voter and Beriholdt took no notice of this. In the present, passage, however, we cannot suppose that the insular Tyre alone is intended, for an island could not be called a point upon a land-boundary ; and just as little could ""l!£~"^3a refer to Palaetyrus alone, as being the more ancient city. For, as Hengstenberg (de reb. Tyr. p. 4 sqq.) has shown, and Hitzig (on Isaiah p. 279), and Havernick (on Ezekiel p. 421) agree, the name p^jj rock, rock-city, presupposes the exist- tence of the island-city, since such a name is altogether unsuit able to Palaetyrus, which was situated in a fruitful plain. But Hengstenberg and Hitzig (ut supra) are wrong in their opinion that an argument in favour of the insular Tyre may be found in the predicate -££ia> as denoting an extraordinary natural for tress ; for P23D is applied in Num. xxxii. 17, 26 and Joshua xix. 35 to all the fortified towns of Canaan. " The island-city,. as Havernick (p. 422) has properly inferred from this passage, must have had some territory upon the mainland, and as this would be reckoned as part of it, the author (of the Book before us), has appropriately described it as being so."1 — " And the boun- 1 Hengstenberg (p. 25 seq.), Hitzig (ut supra), and Havernick (p. 423) unanimously agree that the name Palaetyrus does not show the later origin of the island-Tyre. It either means the former Tyre, urbs quae quondam fuit, (and in this case the name must have arisen after CHAPTER XIX. 24 — 31. 435 dary turned (from the fortress of Tyre) to Hosah (p,pp| is not known), and the outgoings thereof were at the sea byTthe land towards Achzib." ^ypfo is remarkable on account of the j£, to which it is difficult to assign any other meaning than : the boun dary ran to the sea " from the district toward Achzib." It follows from this that, although the seaport towns Sidon and Tyre were assigned to this tribe, the boundary from Sidon southwards was not the Mediterranean Sea ; but the line was drawn from those maritime towns to the inland cities Ramah and Hozah, and it was only from Achzib that Asher was bounded on the west by the sea. Achzib, called by the Greeks "E/cSi7T7ra, was nine Roman miles according to Eusebius, (twelve according to the Itiner. Hieroz.) to the north of Acco, and on the sea-coast. It is now called Zib t *j .; (cf. Gesenius thes. ii. 674, and Reland Pal. p. 543). — 7^n the district (cf. Deut. iii. 4, ^p^ S^n the district of v ¦• : — v v Argob.) We have no account of the extent of the district of Achzib. It remained unconquered, Judg. i. 31. — V. 30. Ummah is not known. pQ# or p^DN Aphek (Judg. i. 31) is erroneously supposed by J. D. Michaelis (suppl. p. 114), Rosenmuller (Althk. ii. 2, p. 96), Winer (R.W. i. 78), Gesenius (thes. i. 140), and v. Raumer (Pal. p. 120) to be the same as the modern village of Afka on the road from Baalbec to Byblus on the river Adonis.1 Reland, on the other hand, has correctly observed (Pal. p. 572), " but that city was situated too far to the north beyond Sidon and the confines of the Israelitish land, for us to suppose that it could have been the same city as Joshua refers to." This remark the destruction of Tyre by Alexander the Great), or else the inland city was actually older than the insular Tyre, but was not called by the name of Tyre, until it was conquered by the insular city and re garded as belonging to it. For the situation and history of this cele brated commercial city of antiquity, see, in addition to the writings quoted by Winer R.W. ii. 739 sqq., Robinson 3. 392, and Haver nick on Ezekiel p. 420 sqq. The latter has also proved that, notwith standing the arguments of Winer and Hitzig, Tyre was conquered by Nebuchadnezzar, as Hengstenberg (ut sup.) had previously shown. 1 I was also misled myself by these authorities when I wrote my Commentary on the Books of Kings (p. 286), and identified Aphek with Afka ; since the passage 1 Kings xx. 26 sqq. did not require any very careful investigation with reference to the position of Aphek in the tribe of Asher. 28 3 436 NAPHTALl'S INHERITANCE. is not weakened by the unsubstantiated objection of Michaelis and Gesenius (I.e.) : that Reland contracts the boundaries of Palestine too much ; for Michaelis, in the Mos. Recht § 25, to which they refer, has not given any proofs that the northern limits of Palestine extended beyond Sidon and the latitude of Sidon. Afka is eight or nine geographical miles beyond that latitude, and therefore cannot have belonged to the tribe of Asher or have formed part of the land assigned to the Israelites. — For yfV} Rehob see v. 28. — In v. 30 the number of the cities is said to have been " twenty-two cities and their villages." We can only make the names tally with this number, if we arbitrarily take Zebulon (v. 27) to be a city, and, what is still more arbitrary, imitate Michaelis, who includes the fortified city of Tyre (or, as he calls it, the city near the castle of Tyre), and omits Sidon. Rosenmuller, on the other hand, follows Clericus, and shuts out both Tyre and Sidon, because the Israelites never possessed either of these cities. This is equally unfounded, for nearly everywhere there are cities included, which were never conquered. More over Rosenmuller excludes Beth-Haemek and Neiel, as not belong ing to the tribe of Asher (cf. v. 27.) We have then twenty-one cities, and these with Acco (Judg. i. 31) make up the number given ; provided, that is, we identify Achlab with Achshaph, and Chelba with Helkath. But since it so frequently happens, that the number of names mentioned does not agree with the amount given ; it is perhaps going too far, to attempt to establish an agreement by such improbable assumptions.1 Vv. 32—39. Inheritance of the tribe of Naphtali. V. 33. The territory of the Naphtalites extended " from Heleph, from the oak by Zaanannim etad Adami-Nekeb to Lakkum, and the outgoings thereof were at Jordan." From our utter want of acquaintance with the position of any of the places mentioned in 1 Ewald maintains (Gesh. ii. p. 259) without any ground, that in v. 28 seq. Sidon and Tyre are excluded from the inheritance of Israel. He does this in order to make out a discrepancy between the book of original records, which he has discovered, and those whom he assumes to be the most ancient historians; for he himself regards it as most probable (from Judg. i. 31) that on the first rapid conquest of the land by Joshua the Sidonians and other Phoenicians had submitted to the Israelites. This is only one of the many unhistorical fancies, with which Ewald 's history of the people of Israel swarms. chapter xix. 82—39. 437 v. 33, there is great obscurity in the description given there. But the last named point, and also the fact that in v. 34 the southern boundary is drawn from the Jordan, prove that it is intended to show the northern boundary line of Naphtali drawn from the west or from Asher. Heleph, Adami-Nekeb, Jabneel, and Lakkum, are not named any where else ; and no traveller has yet discovered a trace of either of them, ypm i^jpx is divided by the Septuagint into two words, and taken as referring to two cities. So also in the Talmud. See Reland's Palestine (p. 545 and 716), where several passages are cited, in which the Talmud has substituted for these places names more modern, but equally unknown. Qi^jftEi fthto the oak by Zaanannim, is evidently the same as Qi^Sl \*hi$> mentioned in Judg. iv. 11 with the further explanation : " which is by Kedesh" (on the north-west of Lake Merom, cf. chap. xii. 22). If, then, we place the oak by Zaanannim on the west of Kedesh, the boundary described in v- 33 did not run directly from west to east, but from the south-west towards the north-east up to the sources of the Jordan. — V. 34 "And the boundary turned (from the Jordan) westward to Aznoth- Tabor, and went thence to Hukkok, and reached to Zebulon on the south." — p^D ni3.N> according to Raschi aures Thaboris, x : -" i.e. fastigium ejus, is unknown (cf. Gesenius thes. i. 60.) The Onomast. (s.v. Azanoth) says: est autem et nunc vicus ad regionem Diocaesareae pertinens in campestribus ; upon which Masius and Rosenmuller observe : " and this site indeed seems to suit the description given here very well, since Mount Tabor was in the portion of the Zebulonites." But the statement is far too indefinite to be of any use. Aznoth-Tabor must have been on the east of the Tabor towards the Jordan, for the border ran thence to Hukkok, and then first touched upon that of Zebulon^ which at any rate extended to the vicinity of the Tabor (cf. verse 12). And as the territory of Zebulon did not reach as far as the Jordan, Aznoth-Tabor and Hukkok must have been border towns upon the line which separated Naphtali from Issachar. Hukkok, according to Jerome (s.v. Icoc), was situated in confinio trium tribuum, i.e. in tribu Zabulon ad australem plagam, in tribu Aser ad occidentera, porro in tribu Juda ad Solis ortum. This is an unfounded assertion, made in consequence of a misapprehen- 438 inheritance of naphtali. sion as to the meaning of the verse before us. Nor can Hukkok be the same as Helkath, cf. chap. xxi. 31. — As we have no information respecting the northern boundary of either Issachar or Zebulon, it is impossible to fix upon the line, which separated Naphtali on the south from these two tribes. — On the west Naphtali bordered upon Asher, " and reached to Judah on the Jordan toward the sunrising." Ipplpi is to be taken as in apposi tion to pn^rPH zr' Jarden Jericho ; this is required to make the clauses harmonize, for it is evident that the Masoretic punctua- tion is founded upon some mistake as to the meaning of the words. Both commentators and geographers foundmuch difficulty in explaining this last statement — (see the various unfounded and forced assumptions, to which many have resorted, in Rosen- muller's bibl. Althk. ii. 1. p. 301 seq.), until C. v. Raumer (in the treatise : Judaea on the east of the Jordan, in TholucKs litt. Anz. 1834, No. 1, 2) removed the obscurity by showing that the sixty cities. Havvoth Jair, which were on the eastern side of the Jordan opposite to Naphtali, were reckoned as belonging to Judah, because Jair their possessor was a descendant of Judah on the father's side through Hezron, as we learn from 1 Chr. ii. 5 and 21 seq.1 1 To this solution of the difficulty it might indeed be objected, that the possessions of Jair are spoken of above in chap. xiii. 30 as belong ing to Manasseh, and that Jair himself is called a descendant of Manasseh in Num. xxxii. 41, because on the mother's side he was descended from Machir the Manassite. But, as Clericus has observed (on Num. xxxii. 41), this is contrary to the usual custom, and to the legal prescription, " Every one of the children of Israel shall keep him self to the inheritance of the tribe of his fathers" (Num. xxxvi. 7). It may possibly be accounted for on the supposition, which v. Raumer suggests (Tholuck's Anz. 1836, p. 11), that Jair's father was a bastard. We should not, however, expect, in chap, xiii., any expla nation of the reason why the living of Jair was to be reckoned as belonging to Judah, as we have there (v. 30 seq.) only a brief notice of the fact that Moses gave the whole of Bashan to one half of the descendants of the Manassite Machir. In the passage before us the author himself, by adding pp"ppj to pn*)PP Judah on the Jordan, has shown that he did not refer to the inheritance of the tribe of Judah described in chap. xv. "We must therefore accept the solution of v. Raumer as correct, and that the more readily, because the favourite assumption of Clericus, Rosenmuller, Maurer, and Eioald, that the text is corrupt, is inadmissible, apart from the fact that such a theory only chapter xix. 35 — 38. 439 Vv. 35—38. The fortified towns of Naphtali were: Zid- dim, Zer (both altogether unknown); p)^^ Hammath, which is wrongly confounded by Masius and v. Raumer (Pal. p. 126) with piftpj Hamath (Epiphaneia) on the Orontes. There is much more probability in the opinion of Lightfoot (centur. geogr. Matth. praem. c. 74 in the Opp. ii. 224 seq.), who adopts the statements of the Talmud, which place it near to the more modern Tiberias, and therefore on the western shore of the Lake of Gennesaret. This is supported not only by the meaning of the word p^n thermae (Tiberias being celebrated for its warm baths), but also by the testimony of Josephus that in the neighbourhood of Tiberias there were thermae iv KOjp,y Ap,paoii<; ovopa airfj. (See Josephus de bell. jud. iv. 1, 3.) nan 1S aiso called -^^ PW2H in chap. xxi. 32. Rakkaih, according to the Rabbins, was near to Hammath ; and was the place which Herod completed and called Tiberias (cf. Lightfoot ut sup. c. 72. Opp. ii. 223). This opinion has been objected to by Reland (Pal. p. 1036), but on slender grounds. See, how ever, Robinson iii. 516 seq. — On Chinnereth see chap. xi. 2. The statement of Jerome (Onomast. s.v. Chennereth), that this Chinnereth was not the same place as the town which Herod finished and called Tiberias, does not rest upon historical cuts the knot and does not loosen it. It cannot, however, be admitted here, because it fails to give any probable explanation of the origin of iTRrPi which is found in every ancient MS. and version, except the Septuagint, and the translators omitted it from that, only because they did not know what to do with it. Clericus fancied that pnimi might have been written by mistake for rVn^l ad ripas Jordanis (as in Ex. ii. 5, and Deut. ii. 37) or for. ip^S > but neither of these expressions occurs in the book of Joshua, whilst the word in the text is frequently met with in this part of the book, and more than once in the same connection (cf. xvii. 10, xix. 22.) Rosenmuller and Maurer are of opinion that the reading should be Q^iQiV This is quite as improbable in the present connection. Ewald (Gesch. ii. p. 294) would substitute py."i23S> uPon wnicb be forces the meaning brooks without the slightest evidence ; and which he regards as indicating the " various appearances of the Jordan." This is more arbitrary still, and only furnishes a proof of the inability of criticism to explain the origin of piTTTa- 440 inheritance of dan. grounds, but upon the supposition of Jerome himself that this Chennereth did not stand upon the Lake of Gennesaret. On the other hand, however, there is no historical foundation for the opinion that Tiberias was originally called Chinnereth. All that is certain is, that Chinnereth was situated upon the Sea of Galilee. — V. 36. With reference to piaiN Adamah, nothing at x t - : all is known, though some have fancied that it is identical with 2Mn >,a>1N (v- 33). Ramah also, which must not be eon- founded with the Ramah in Asher near to the Mediterranean Sea (v. 29), is altogether unknown. — For Hazor, see chap. xi. 1. — V. 37. For Kedesh, too, see chap. xii. 22. Edrei, a different place from the Edrei in Bashan (chap. xii. 4), and En-hazor, are also unknown. The same may be said of the places men tioned in v. 38, Jireon, Harem, Bethanath (cf. chap. xv. 29), and Bethshemesh. The last named place was probably the same as the Bethshemesh which stood upon the borders of Issachar, though, from our ignorance of their position, it is impossible to come to any decisive conclusion. Migddh-el was most probably the MaySaXd referred to in Matth. xv. 39, now a wretched little Mahometan village called 5jvaa^o Mejdal, on the western shore of the Lake of Gennesaret, between Capernaum and Tiberias (cf. Rosenmuller Althk. ii. 2 73, and Robinson iii. 279 sqq.)1 The towns named in the list only amount to sixteen, and therefore do not tally with the number given in v. 38, " nine teen cities." The three missing names are probably to be found amongst those contained in vv. 33 and 34, in the list of places upon the borders. See also chap. xv. 32. Vv. 40 — 48. Inheritance of the tribe of Dan. This was on the west of Benjamin, between Judah and Ephraim ; and in order that the possessions might be sufficient for the wants of the tribe, Judah had to give up to Dan some of his northern cities, and Ephraim some of his cities in the south (see the introduction to chap. xiv. 1). There is no description given of the boundaries 1 The objection, raised by v. Raumer (Pal. p. 130), against the identity of Migdalel and Magdala or Mejdal, on the ground that it must in that case have belonged to Zebulon, rests upon a wrong opinion as to the boundaries of Zebulon, which he erroneously extends to the Lake of Gennesareth. CHAPTER XIX. 40—48. 441 of this tribe, as they naturally follow from those of Judah, Ephraim, and Benjamin.— V. 41. From Judah Dan received , the cities of Zoreah and Eshtaol, cf. chap. xv. 33. qjq© piy Ir-shemesh (city of the sun) is equivalent to QJQgJ pp^ Bethshe mesh (house of the sun, 1 Kings iv. 9, see my commentary on this passage). It was on the borders of Judah (cf. chap. xv. 10), and was not taken possession of by the Danites, but, as we find from chap. xxi. 16, was given up by the tribe of Judah to the Levites. — V. 42. Shaalabbin or Shaalbim (Judg. i 35 ; 1 Kings iv. 9), and Ajjalon, which were raised to the rank of cities of refuge (chap. xxi. 24) remained in the hands of the Canaanites, Judg. i. 35. Ajjalon has continued in the village of Jalo, cf. chap. x. 12. Of Shaalabbin no trace has yet been discovered. Jiihlah only occurs here, and is quite unknown. — V. 43. Elon is mentioned again in 1 Kings iv. 9 with the additional name appTVS Beth-hanan, but is also unknown. — pfp)3an = It t T t : • n3afi Timnah (Tibneh) was on the borders of Judah (see chap. t : • xv. 10) ; so also was Ekron (Akir), but it was within the terri tory of Judah (chap. xv. 11 and 45.) — V. 44. Eltekeh and Gib bethon were relinquished to the Levites (chap. xxi. 23) ; the former is not named again, the latter we find at a later period in the hands of the Philistines (cf. 1 Kings xv. 27, and my commentary on that passage). — Baalaih, which is to be dis tinguished from Baala or Kirjath-Jearim (chap. xv. 9), was built by Solomon (1 Kings ix. 18), and, according to Jose phus (Ant. viii. 6. 1), who writes it BaXed, stood near to Gezer. — V. 45. Jehud and Bne-Berak are only met with here. Jehud may perhaps be still seen in the village of el Jehudieh in the district of Ludd (Lydda, see Robinson iii. 45). Bne Berak we know nothing of; for the vicus BaprjKa mentioned hy Eusebius, near to Azotus (cf. Reland Pal. p. 615) cannot be thought of, as it was too far within the inheritance of Judah. — Gatli-Rimmon was given up to the Levites (chap. xxi. 24 ; 1 Chr. vi. 54.) According to the Onomast. (s.v.) it was: villa praegrandis in duodecimo milliario Diospoleos pergentibus Eleutheropolin (cf. Reland Pal. p. 787.) Hence Robinson (ii. 422) imagines that it was the same as Deir Dubban. But on his map this is marked, not twelve, but twenty Roman miles from Diospolis, and 442 INHERITANCE OF DAN. much too far to the south, to have belonged to the tribe of Dan. The description in the Onomast., on the contrary, points to a place in the centre of the land of Dan. — V. 46. fippipl "73 (aquae flavedinis) Me Jarkon and Rakkon are not known. The conclud ing words *\Qi ^£ f?T)23rr-!DJ? together with the land opposite to Japho, seem " to embrace the cities, which could be seen from Joppa " (Masius and Rosenmiiller). ^gi the well known har bour of Palestine, 'lo-mrn, now called Jaffa 1,'L, cf. v. Raumer, Pal. p. 201 sqq. V. 47. In addition to the inheritance here described, the Danites of Zorea and Eshtaol, after the death of Joshua, con quered the city of Leshem or Laish (Judg. xviii. 29) on the northern borders of Palestine, and gave to it the name of Dan. This was probably done on account of their inheritance being too small, for according to Judg. i. 34 seq., there were several cities out of which they were unable to expel the Amorites ; and these were so powerful that they were obliged to retire before them into the mountains. Hence in Judg. xviii. 1 it is said " the tribe of the Danites sought tbem an inheritance to dwell in ; for unto that day (sufficient land) had not fallen to them as an inheritance amongst the children of Israel." The history of this conquest is given in Judg. xviii. with great amplitude (see my treatise in Rudelbach's and Guericke's Zeitschr. 1836. H. i. p. 7 sqq.). — ?P,a-N2!n " and the border of the children of Dan went out from them," i.e., beyond them, or beyond the inheritance allotted to them. Masius has correctly explained this somewhat unusual expression as follows : " the Danites emigrated beyond themselves, i.e., beyond the inheritance, in which they were first placed by the divine lot, and set out in search of other posses sions." Jarchi, on the other hand, regards DpjQ as a compara tive : " the boundary went put . . . too short a distance to be sufficient for them." Vatablius gives a similar explanation : " it went out from them, i.e., it was drawn away from them or left them destitute, meaning that it was too small and confined to receive them all." There is no such meaning in the words themselves, but it is inferred from the context. Laish or Dan, according to Eusebius and Jerome, was viculus quarto a Paneade milliario euntibus Tyrum. It stood by the most westerly of the chapter xix. 49, 50. 443 sources of the Jordan, the present Tell el Kady (cf. Robinson iii. 351 seq. and 358), and is frequently spoken of as the northern boundary of Palestine (cf. v. Raumer Pal. p. 124). Vv. 49 and 50. After the distribution of the land by lot was completed, the Israelites gave to Joshua at the command of the Lord the city which he wished for, viz., Timnath Serah in the mountains of Ephraim. This was given to him as a perpetual inheritance. After he had finished the city, he lived in it till the time of his death ; and at length was buried there (chap. xxiv. 30.) — pppp *B~hv °-t the command of the Lord. We do not find any divine injunction in the Pentateuch, to the effect that Joshua was to receive a particular share in the land of Canaan, as his own inheritance. And therefore many expositors suppose that pppp iQ-^5? refers to an oracle of God delivered through the High Priest. But as Caleb had received a definite promise of this kind, which is not to be met with in a literal form in the Pentateuch (cf. chap. xiv. 9), we may properly assume that Joshua received a similar promise. — ppD n3an Timnath-Serah was on the mountains of Ephraim, to the north of mount Gaas ; but neither the position of this mountain nor that of the city is known. According to the Onomast. (s.v. Thamnathsara) Joshua's grave was still shown in the time of Eusebius in a place called Thamna in the tribe of Dan. Jerome (in epitaph. Paulae) says that Paula also saw it there. But Timnath-Serah cannot possibly have been in the tribe of Dan, and Eusebius seems only to have followed an uncertain tradition. For this Thamna, like the Thimna of Josephus (de bell. jud. iii. 3, 5), from which the name of the Thamnitic Toparchy was derived, was no other than the Timnah of the tribe of Dan on the borders of the tribe of Judah, which was situated, not on the mountains of Ephraim, but in the plain of Judah, and must not therefore be confounded with Tim nath-Serah. In the parallel passage, Judg. ii. 9, instead of mD n3an we nnd the form D"in-n3an; ^is has arisen, however, no doubt from a transposition of the letters, and can hardly be regarded, as it is by Havernick (Einl. ii. 1, p. 79), as the ancient Canaanitish name (cf. Bertheau on Judg. ii. 9.) V. 51 contains the formula which concludes the section relat ing to the distribution of the land, and refers not only to chaps. 444 CITIES OF REFUGE. xviii. and xix., to which the clause " at Shiloh before the Lord, at the door of the tabernacle of the congregation," points (cf. chap, xviii. 10), but also to chaps, xiv. — xvii., as we may see from the fact that the names of the members of the committee for the division and allotment of tbe land are given here as well as in chap. xiv. 1. CHAPTER XX. SELECTION OF THE CITIES OF REFUGE OR FREE CITIES. ' As soon as the tribes had received their inheritance, six cities were selected, according to the command of Moses (Num. xxxv.), as asylums for those who had unintentionally taken away- the life of another. There were three on each side of the Jordan. It is evident that this was done immediately after the distribu tion of the land, from the word p;n*p (v. 1), which connects the chapter with the foregoing narrative ; and also from the nature of the case, since the selection of the asylums was as much a part of the work of division, as the appointment of the Levitical cities (chap, xxi.) ; and lastly, from the conclusion to chap. xxi. (vv. 43 — 45), which binds together as a closely connected series the whole narrative from chap. xiii. 1 to chap. xxi. 42. Bertholdt was therefore quite wrong, when he pronounced (Einl. iii. p. 851) this chapter a detached fragment by another hand, simply because he could not see the connection between it and the chapters which precede and follow it. Vv. 1 — 6. In the command of God, that the injunctions, which Moses had left respecting the free cities, should be carried out, and asylums appointed, the most important of the Mosaic laws (Num. xxxv. 9 — 28; Deut. xix. 1 — 13) with reference to the selection of these cities is quoted. — V. 2. p^U ^^f] date, i.e. con- v t ; stitutevobis (Clericus, Rosenmiiller, and others). — tfl^pan "HJ7 the CHAPTER XX. 1 — 6. 445 cities of refuge are cities which were to serve p-^pj ^an vhpoh as a refuge from the avenger of blood. (V. 3*and Num. xxxv. 12). lD7pa (from j^p contrahere, 2. colligere, i.e. recipere fugi- tivum) an asylum, a refuge ; LXX. (pvya&etov, (pvyahemmpLov, Karatyvyrj. — V. 3. n^P natlj D137 that the manslayer may flee thither, not every pr^p, but only *^jy t2JD3-n3a ^e w^° s^ays a person by mistake, in ignorance, i.e. unintentionally. The marks by which intentional and unintentional acts of murder were to be distinguished from each other, as laid down in the law (Num. xxxv. 15 — 24 ; Deut. xix. 4 — 6, 11 — 13), are then described. The wilful manslayer, or murderer, was to be torn even from the altar, and put to death (Ex. xxi. 14). In this respect there was an essential distinction between the asylum of the Israelites and those of the Greeks and Romans, and even of the middle ages, where criminals of every kind found protection.1 — pppj ^N3 T — ¦• vindex sanguinis, the avenger of blood, cf. Gesenius thes. i. 254. — V. 4. " And he shall stand before the gate of the city, and shall declare his cause before the elders of that city, and they shall take him into the city unto them," &c. This is not to be understood, as it is by Michaelis, as implying that he was to stand outside the city gate, and there relate his cause to the elders, and that he was not to enter the city till they had de clared him not guilty of premeditated murder ; but piyn P5TO> the gate of the city, means the forum, the public place of judg ment in the city (cf. Winer R.W. ii. 715), where the elders were to hear and examine his statement. — pp^n t\Oft does not denote mere admission, but reception into the protection of the city, and permission to reside there. — (Vv. 5 and 6). If the man- 1 On the asylums see Winer (bibl. R. W., in the Article Freistatt), Aug. Pauly (Real Encyc. der class. Alterthums wissenschaft Vol. 1. s. v. Asylum), and especially K. Daun (" iiber den Ursprung des Asylrechts und dessen Schicksale und Ueberreste in Europa," in the Zeitschr. fiir deutsches Recht, herausg. von Reyscher u. Wilda Vol. iii. p. 327 sqq.) — " In entire contrast, says Daun p. 335, with the asyla of the He brews, which were not established with the design of saving the actual criminal from the punishment he deserved, but for the purpose of affording to those who had accidentally inflicted an injury, the opportu nity of obtaining a just verdict, those of Greeks, Romans, and Ger mans stand prominently forward, since they enabled the criminal, who was amenable to the laws, to escape the sentence he justly merited." 446 CITIES OF REFUGE. slayer was admitted into the asylum, because he had killed his neighbour unintentionally, not with knowledge, and not from long cherished hatred, he was not to be delivered up to the avenger of blood, who was in pursuit of him, nor was he to leave the city of refuge until the death of the then living High Priest, for, if he did, the avenger of blood might kill him, wherever he met with him, without being guilty of blood (Num. xxxv. 26 seq.) After the death of the High Priest he might return to his native city and his house, and the avenger of blood durst not pursue him further (Num. xxxv. 28). The two clauses, which stand side by side without a copulative conjunction, " until he stand before the congregation for judgment" (cf. Num. xxxv. 12), and " till the death of the High Priest," do not mean the same thing, as if standing before the congregation for judgment took place at the death of the High Priest ; but must be inter preted by the more lucid directions given in Num. xxxv. 24, 25. It is there said that the congregation is to judge between the slayer and the avenger of blood according to tlieir (the before-men tioned) judgments, i.e. it was to hear the statements of both parties, the slayer and the avenger of blood, and to decide accord ingly, whether the deed was accidental or premeditated. If he was acquitted of wilful murder, " the congregation was to de liver the slayer out of the hand of the revenger of blood, and to bring him back to the city of refuge, to which he had fled, that he might dwell there until the death of the High Priest." From this it is very evident that v. 4 merely refers to a pro visional decision, with reference to the extension of the pro tection of the city, and that as soon as the avenger of blood appeared with his complaint, a more complete investigation of the affair followed. For this purpose the slayer was taken by the congregation to the place, where the event oc curred, in order that the examination might be more easily and speedily made; and it was not till it had been proved that the deed was accidental, that he was taken back to the city of refuge, where he was to remain till the death of the High Priest, We have in this arrangement a manifestation of the perfect rigour of divine justice in the most beautiful concord with compassionate mercy. By the destruction of life, even when not wilful, human blood had been shed, and that required CHAPTER xx. 1—6. 447 expiation. This expiation did not consist in the death of the sinner for he had not sinned with purpose ; he had therefore to flee to the city of refuge, not merely into exile (as Michaelis explains the affair in the Mos. R. ii. § 131 sqq., vi. § 279),1 although it was certainly a punishment to be obliged to absent himself from house and home, and be severed from his family, but also under the protection of the mercy of God, which had opened in the cities of refuge a place of escape from the human ardour of the avenger of blood, where he might remained concealed, until his sin had been expiated by the death of the High Priest.— Very different answers have been given to the question, why the slayer was under restraint till the death of the High Priest ; (cf. Masius on this verse, Ising exercit. p. 223 seq., and Lundii jiid Heiligth. p. 875 seq.)— The various conjectures of the Rabbins are inadmissible, including even that of Maimonides (More Nevoch. iii. c. 40.)2 The opinion of the latter, which Bdhr (Symbol, ii. p. 52) in the main has adopted, was that " the death of the High Priest, the head of the theocracy and repre sentative of the whole people, was regarded as of such impor tance, that every other death was forgotten in consequence, and was no longer to be avenged." But there is no connection between this explanation and the significant clause in Num. xxxv. 25, "who was anointed with the holy oil." This clause evidently proves, as Masius has shown, that there was a close connection between the return of the slayer and the death of the High Priest. The anointing with holy oil was a symbol of the communication of the Holy Ghost, by which the High Priest was empowered to act as mediator and representative of 1 This shallow view of the whole affair, which represents the aveng ing of blood as nothing but a relic of the barbarous state of nature, and the Mosaic laws as having no higher purpose than to place some restraint upon the false " point of honour," has been well commented upon by M. Baumgarten in his theol. commentar. 3, A. T. ii. p. 411 sqq. 2 The words of Maimonides are " Reditus autem ejus (of the mur derer) dependebat a morte hominis in toto Israele praestantissimi et carissimi (Summi Sacerdotis nempe), quod hoc quoque medio placaretur animus ejus, cujus cognatus aut consanguineus occisus erat. Est enim natura omnibus hominibus in afflictione constitutis insitum, ut consolationem inveniant, quando alii simile quid vel majus contigisse vident. Nulla autem tristfor mors nobis evenire potest, quam mors Sacerdotis raagni." 448 CITIES OF REFUGE. the people in the presence of God, and in consequence of which he alone was able to offer the annual expiation for the whole people on the great day of atonement. And as his life and deeds thus acquired a representative character through this anointing with the Holy Ghost, so also, on account of this com munication to him of the Holy Ghost, his death might be regarded as a death for the sins of the people, by which the unintentional manslayer received the benefits of the propitiation for his sin before God, and being cleansed from that sin, might return to his native city, without further exposure to the revenge of the avenger of blood.1 Thus the death of the earthly High Priest became a type of that of the heavenly one, who through the eternal (holy) spirit offered himself without spot, that we might be redeemed from our transgressions, and receive the promise of eternal inheritance, Heb. ix. 14, 15.2 Just as the blood of 1 According to Theod. Hackspan (notae philol. theol. ad Num. xxxv. 25) the Jews in the Talmud inferred from this passage : mortem summi Sacerdotis expiasse homicidium per imprudentiam admissum, 2 The earliest writers perceived that this typical reference was the real foundation of the institution. Theodoret (quaest. 50 in Num.) makes this reply to the question, why the slayer was not allowed to return till after the death of the High Priest : on tov Kara rr\v rd^iv tov MeXyio-eSeK dpxiepeats 6 Odvaros Xvais rijs toiv dv8pimatv apaprias iyevero- ovtos eis 7W napdSeio-ov enavrjyaye tov eKeidev i^opioSevra. Ambro- sius (in Ising p. 234) gives a similar explanation. Masius also, after running over the different opinions, acknowledges that " truly the dvayayrj is both the most certain and the most appropriate." So also Serarius, Bonfrer (on Num. xxxv 25), Lundius (ut supra, p. 876), and others, who all pronounce the " typical reason," as Lundius calls it, the most satisfactory. At the same time they erred in setting this down as pure allegory or mysticism, and endeavouring to find out, as Theodoret has done, some literal meaning besides. M. Baumgarlen was the first to enter into this view of mediation. " The High Priest," says he (ii. p. 413), "is described as the man who had been anointed with the holy oil, which gave to his death a peculiar significance. For just as the holy oil, as the new quickening power of the spirit, passes from without into the body of death, so the body is transformed into the life of the spirit, and delivered from the power of death. If then the anointed priest dies, notwithstanding ; this may be regarded as a voluntary death, to which he submits not as the debt of nature, but from the power of his spirit and will. Such a death of the High Priest, who by virtue of his office embraced the whole nation, must therefore effect a universal redemption from the ban of death ; and by this general redemption, even the murderer, placed as he was under the ban of nature, was of necessity restored to perfect freedom." CHAPTER XX. 7 — 9. 449 Christ wrought out eternal redemption, only because Bio. -irvev- uaros alaviov he offered himself to God ap,a>p,os, so tbe death of the High Priest of the Old Testament secured the complete deliverance of the manslayer from his sin, only because he had been anointed, with the holy oil, the symbol of the Holy Ghost. Calvin makes the following correct remarks upon the words " through the eternal Spirit" (Heb. ix.) : " he now clearly shows whence the value of the death of Christ was derived : not from the outward act, forsooth, but by virtue of the Spirit. Christ suffered as a man, but the saving power of that death for us arises from the efficacy of the Spirit." Vv. 7 — 9. And they sanctified (vigpypsp). ttp'lpn d°es not mean merely to set apart, but to set a thing apart from the rest for some sacred purpose. The cities of refuge were " intended to preserve the people and the land of Jehovah free from blood- guiltiness ; and stood there as memorials of the love of Jehovah to his chosen people" (Ranke, Unters. lib d. Pent. ii. p. 316). Hence they were not at liberty to select any cities they pleased, but only Levitical cities (Num. xxxv. 6), which were the pos sessions of the Lord in a more especial sense than the rest of the land. By this it was, at the same time, made more apparent that the manslayer, who was admitted into these cities, was taken under the immediate protection of the mercy of God. And in order that they might answer their purpose completely, it was necessary that they should be so distributed over the whole land, that any one from whatever district, who was seeking refuge, would find one of them at a distance not too remote for him to reach it quickly. Moses had therefore enjoined, that three should be chosen on each side of the Jordan, because the extent of the land on the one side was not much smaller than that on the other. — In the country on this side, Kedesh in Galilee (i.e. in the northern part of the province subsequently called Galilee (see my commentary on Kings p. 139) in the mountains of Naphtali), was chosen in the north (cf. chap. xii. 22) ; Sichem on the moun tains of Ephraim in the centre of the land (cf. chap. xvii. 7) ; and in the south, Hebron on the mountains of Judah (cf. chap. x. 3 and xiv. 15.) — V. 8. The three cities on the other side had been selected by Moses (Deut. iv. 41—43.) The account of their selection, however, is repeated here, just as that of the conquest in 29 * 450 CITIES OF THE PRIESTS AND LEVITES. chap. xii. 1 sqq. and that of the division of the land beyond the Jordan in chap. xiii. 8 sqq. Bezer (Boo-op LXX.) was in the plain of the tribe of Reuben (p^pES cf. chap. xiii. 9), in the same latitude as Jericho, and is probably mentioned again in 1 Mace. v. 26. — Ramoth in Gilead is called Ramath-Mizpeh in chap. xiii. 26. — rt^j Galon, as it is called both here and in chap. xxi. 27, is written *^ Golan in both places in the Keri, as in Deut. iv. 13 ; 1 Chr. vi. 56. According to Eusebius TavXdav or ToXdv was in his time Kcaprj p,eylaTr\ iv tjj BaTavata, situated on the eastern side of the Galilean sea. Josephus says that it was from it that the surrounding country received the name of ravXaviTK, Jolan (cf. Gesenius thes i. 285). — V. 9. ipy myian urbes constitutae, — not urbes congregationis as Kimchi renders it, nor urbes asyli, the rendering of Gesenius. For although the Syriac, with reference to their design, has cor rectly paraphrased the words, " cities of refuge or asylum," yet " asylum " cannot be given as the meaning of ppjjpa on the strength of the Syriac |AO ; for | Ao neither signifies portus or asylum. (Vid. Bernstein lex. syr. chrestom. Kirschiariae, p. 1 38). — For the rest see verses 3 and 6. CHAPTER XXI. APPOINTMENT OF THE CITIES FOR THE PRIESTS AND LEVITES. Vv. 1 — 3. The heads of the families of the Levites come to Shiloh to the committee for dividing the land, and request them to appoint them cities, as Moses promised them, for a dwelling place, together with the suburbs thereof for their cattle (Num. xxxv. 2 sqq.) ; and these are assigned to them by lot.— From the fact that the heads of the Levites remind the members of the commission of the command of God, which was given through Moses, Calvin infers that the Levites had been forgotten until CHAPTER XXI. 1 3. 45] they came to urge their claims. This does not by any means follow ; all that is implied in the words " The heads of the families of the Levites came to Eleazar .... and spake unto them, &c." is " that, when the proper occasion arrived, they came to the distributors of the land in the name of their families, that they might receive by lot the cities intended for them. They simply rehearse the commands of God, whilst standing there : as if to say, that they had come as a deputation from the rest of the Levites, to receive by lot those forty-eight cities, with their pasture land, which were appointed for that tribe." (Masius.) Nor is there any foundation for the further remarks of Calvin : "the occurrence narrated here ought to have been inserted be fore ; for the cities of refuge were not selected till after they had been given to the Levites." The cities may just as well have been set apart in the first place as asylums, and then allotted to the Levites. In fact this order was exactly in accordance with the command of Moses (Num. xxxv. 6), that the six cities of refuge should be given to the Levites and forty-two other cities added to them.1 — V. 1. For ppQN itfJiO) the heads of the fathers, see chap. 1 Bertholdt (Einl. iii. p. 851) and Maurer suppose this chapter to be a distinct document, drawn up at a later period. Their arguments are founded partly upon a fancied, but not actual discrepancy between v. 11 seq. and chap. xiv. 13 seq. (compared with chap. xv. 13), partly upon the assumption, which we have already refuted in the notes on chap. xv. 13, that Caleb did not receive his inheritance till after the death of Joshua, and, lastly, in part on the impossibility of the increase in the number of Aaron's two sons having been sufficiently large for them to fill two cities, during the lifetime of Joshua, to say nothing of thirteen (I Chr. xxiv. 2 ) But this supposes the distributors to have been so short-sighted, that they only selected dwelling-places to meet the wants of the priestly families at that time, and made no allowance for subsequent increase. Moreover, the size of the cities is exagge rated, and the estimate of the number of the priests much too low. _ It is true that the number is not stated anywhere. But if we take into account that, on the departure of the Israelites from Egypt, Aaron was eighty-three years old, for he died in the fortieth year of the journey, and his age was then 123 (Num. xxxiii. 38), we shall see that the fifth generation of his descendants might have been living at the time when the land was distributed, which was seven years after his death. Moreover his two sons had together twenty-four male children, who were the ancestors of the twenty-four priestly ranks organised by David (1 Chr. xxiv.), and if we suppose each of these to have been the father of only six sons, in the third generation the sons of Aaron would 452 CITIES OF THE PRIESTS AND LEVITES. vii. 14. — V. 2. The clause attached to Shiloh, " in the land of Canaan," is written with reference to Num. xxxiv. 29 and xxxv. 10, and is no proof either that there was a Shiloh, which was not in the land of Canaan, or that this section was written during the captivity, cf. chap. xxii. 10. — The command of Jehovah respecting the cities to be given to the Levites is found in Num. xxxv., where the number of the cities is also fixed at 48 (vv. 6 and 7). — On pi^jp;^ the suburbs, see chap. xiv. 4. Vv. 4 — 8. We have first the number of the cities, which were given by each tribe to the different families of the Levites. The names of the cities follow in vv. 9 — 42. They were assigned to the Levites by lot ; but probably it had been decided before hand what cities each tribe was to give up, and therefore it only remained for the lot to determine which branch of the Levites each city should be given to. — The Levites were divided into three classes, the Gershonites, the Kohathites, and the Merarites, after the three sons of Levi. Of these the Kohathites were sub divided into the families of Amran, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel (Ex. vi. 18), and the family of Amran into two branches com posed of the lineal descendants of his two sons, Moses and Aaron (Ex. vi. 20.) The priesthood was conferred upon the house 'of have amounted to 144. On the same scale there would be 864 male descendants in the fourth generation, and in the fifth, 5184. And even if the fifth generation still consisted of infants, there might easily be 975 families in existence, and thus in every city there could well be seventy-five families of priestly rank, or about 750 inhabitants, since the majority of the third, and even a small portion of the second gene ration, would be still alive, as well as the fourth and their children ; for Eleazar, the head of the first, was not yet dead. And beside this, very few of the cities of Canaan can have been at that time of any magnitude, as we may infer from the fact that there were so many of them ; and therefore, as the Levites were not the only inhabitants of their cities, but were associated with such of the other tribes as owned the land in the neighbourhood (cf. v. 12), the number of cities assigned to the priests does not appear too great. Much less will it appear so, when we remember that from the very first several of these cities re mained in the possession of the Canaanites, and were only wrested from them, after a severe struggle, at a subsequent period. — From all this, then, it is evident that there is no ground for disputing the antiquity of this account ; which, in fact, cannot belong to a later period, for if it did, Nob would not be omitted, as that was a Levitical city in the reign of Saul, 1 Sam. xxii. 19. CHAPTER XXI. 9— 42. 453 Aaron (Num. xviii. 1—7) ; and the other descendants of Amran, Le. the posterity of Moses, were reckoned as Levites, on an equality with the rest of the descendants of Levi (Num. iii. and 1 Chr. v.27— vi. 34).— The first lot was drawn by the Kohathites, and again the first of theirs by the Aaronites or priests. To these thirteen cities were given by the tribes of Judah, Simeon and Benjamin (v. 4). " This did not happen by chance; but, accord ing to his own admirable design, God placed them in the situa tion, which he had determined to select as the site of his temple." (Calvin). — V. 5. The rest of Kohath's descendants, i.e. the Kohathites, who sprang from Moses, Izhar, Hebron, and Uzziel, received from Ephraim, Dan, and the half tribe of Manasseh, ten cities ; v. 6, the Gershonites received from Issachar, Asher, Naph tali, and the half tribe of Manasseh in Bashan, thirteen cities ; and v. 7, the Merarites from Reuben, Gad and Zebulon, twelve cities. Vv. 9 — 42. List of the Levitical cities} Vv. 9 — 19. List of the cities of the priests ; a. in Judah and Simeon (vv. 9 — 16.) — V. 11 seq. On Hebron, the city of Arba, the father of the Anakim see chap. xiv. 15. " But the fields of the city and the villages thereof, gave they to Caleb ;" cf. chap. xiv. 1 3, xv. 13. — If the fields, belonging to the Levites, were thus left in the hands of the tribe, by whom the city had been given up, the Levites cannot have been the sole inhabitants of these cities. For, if they were, where can the Israelities have lived, by whom the land was cultivated ? We must certainly assume that the Levites only received as many houses in the cities assigned them, as their numerical strength required, and that it was these which remained in their hands as an inalienable possession, Lev. xxv. 33 and 34. At least there were in the cities as many other inhabitants, as were necessary to cultivate the soil (cf. Bdhr Symbolik ii. p. 50). Moreover, the law (Lev. xxv. 32—34), which prohibited a perpetual alienation of the houses of the Levites,- and the sale of the pasture-land belonging to their cities (ppppy VFOiQ n"Tto)>in addition to itspro- 1 There is a similar list in 1 Chr. vi. 39—66, but not so systemati cally arranged. Many of the names, too, are differently spelt, and several passages are corrupt, as I have shown more in detail in my Apol. Versuch uber die Chronik p. 182 sqq. 454 PRIESTLY CITIES. vision that, if sold, the houses should revert to the Levites in the year of jubilee, presupposed that there would be other Israelites besides the Levites living in the Levitical cities. At the same time, it proves that the Levites held the houses allotted to them not merely as usufructuarii, but as owners and landlords in full possession. — V. 13. The repetition of v. 11 is induced by -the parenthetical observations contained in v. 12. — On Libnah in the lowlands of Judah, see chap. x. 29 and xv. 42. — V. 14 seq. Jattir, Eshthemoa, Holon, and Debir, were situated on the mountains of Judah, vid. ch. xv. 48—51 V. 16. Instead of py we have My in 1 Chr. vi. 44, and this is probably the correct reading. Whichever reading we prefer, a city of the Simeonites is referred to (chap. xix. 7.) — Jutta in the mountains of Judah (chap. xv. 55) is omitted from 1 Chr. vi. 44. Bethshemesh was in the low lands of Judah (chap. xv. 10), though the name does not occur in the list of the cities of that tribe. Vv. 17 — 19. b. Cities of the priests in the tribe of Benjamin. For Gibeon (which is not mentioned in 1 Chr. vi. 45) see chap. xviii. 25 and chap. ix. 3 ; and for Geba, ch. xviii. 24. — V. 18. Anathoth and Almon, or Alemeth (1 Chr. vi. 45) are not men tioned in the list of the cities of Benjamin in chap, xviii. 21 — 28. Anathoth, the birth-place of the prophet Jeremiah, still exists as a small village {'J\^ Anata, about four miles to the N.N.E. of Jerusalem (cf. Robinson ii. 109 sqq.) Almon is not known at all. Vv. 20—42. The Levitical cities. Vv. 20—26. The rest of the Kohathites (cf. vv. 4, 5) received ten cities, ppjpS2$a7 according to their families (cf. Ewald Lehrb. § 301. d.) — V. 2 1 seq. Out of the tribe of Ephraim they received the city of refuge Sichem, (cf. chap. xvii. 7), Gezer (see chap. x. 33), Kibzaim (for which 1 Chr. vi. 53 reads Jokneam, probably another name for the same city, the situation of which is unknown, cf. my commen- tary on Kings p. 49), and Bethhoron, whether the upper or lower is not stated (vid. chap. x. 10.)— V. 23 seq. Out of the tribe of Dan they received, Elthekeh and Gibbeilion, see chap. xix. 44 (both names have been left out of 1 Chr. vi. 53) ; Ajalon and Gath Rimmon (cf. chap. xix. 42 and 45 ) — V. 25 seq From the half-tribe of Manasseh they had, on this side of the Jordan, chapter xxt. 27—33. 455 laanach (see chap. xii. 21) and Gath Rimmon (?) Instead of ^25tn_nSt Taanach, 1 Chr. vi. 70, reads -oy-piN Aner (evi dently an error) ; and instead of rtoi-pij Gath-Rimmon, we find there py^a, Bileam, another form of py^"1 Jibleam (chap. T ¦ " t : : • xvii. 11). This reading in the Chronicles is evidently the cor rect one, and our ¦fiftp-pii has most probably crept into the text, through an oversight, out of the preceding verse (cf. Winer R.W. i. 461), although from the frequent occurrence of this name in connection with different places, it is certainly possible that Gath Rimmon in the half-tribe of Manasseh may have been another name for the city of Jibleam. Vv. 27 — 33. The Gershonites received thirteen cities. V. 27. From the half-tribe of Manasseh in Bashan they had the city of refuge Golan (cf. chap. xx. 8), and Beeshterah or Ashtaroth (1 Chr. vi. 56.) pnfittJSQ is a contraction of pnnttJy-TPl (c*"- t : : v : T ¦ * " Gesenius thes. i. 175), and therefore, as jyiy often falls away before compound nouns, there can be no doubt respecting the identity of Beeshterah and Ashtaroth, the former residence of King Og (cf. chap. xii. 4.) — V. 28 seq. From the tribe of Issachar they received Kishon (cf. chap. xix. 20, the form gjpp in 1 Chr. vi. 57 is probably an error), Dabrath, (cf. chap. xix. \2),Jarmuth = Remeih (cf. chap. xix. 21), and Engannim or Anem (1 Chr. vi. 58, cf. chap. xix. 21). — V. 30 seq. From the tribe of Asher they had Misheal or Masai (1 Chr. vi. 59, cf. chap. xix. 26), Abdon, proba bly the same place as Ebron (chap. xix. 28), Helkath (chap. xix. 25), (instead of this we find pp^ Hukok, in 1 Chr. vi. 60, whether in consequence of an error in copying, or as another name of the same city we cannot tell, as the place is unknown ; in no case, however, can we think of the Hukok in the tribe of Naphtali [chap. xix. 34], as this was not upon the boundary towards Asher, but towards Issachar, cf. chap. xix. 34), and also Rehob (cf. chap. xix. 28). — V. 32. From the tribe of Naphtali they had Kedesh in Galilee (cf chap. xx. 7 and xii. 22) ; Hammoth-Dor, called Hammath in chap. xix. 34, and Hammon in 1 Chr. vi. 61 (cf. chap. xix. 35) ; Kartan (jppp contracted from pppp = j-,^-,,-,-,, i Chr. vi. 61, as »n^ in 2 Kings vi. 13 from ppppr 456 LEVITICAL CITIES. Gen. xxxvii. 17.) Kartan is not mentioned amongst the cities of Naphtali in chap. xix. 35 sqq., and is supposed without reason hy Hiller to be identical with Rakkath (chap. xix. 35), for there are other cities, whose names do not occur, e.g., Anathoth and Almon (v. 18), amongst those of Benjamin. V. 34 — 40. The Merarites received twelve cities. V. 34 seq. From the tribe of Zebulon: Jokneam (cf. chap. xix. 11, and xii. 32) ; Kartah and Dimnah (these two are not named in the list of the cities of Zebulon in chap. xix. 11 seq , or anywhere else), and Nahalal (see chap. xix. 15).1 — V. 36 seq. From the tribe of Reuben: Bezer (cf chap. xx. 8), Jahza, Kedemoth, and Mepliaath 1 In the place of these four cities, only two are given in the parallel passage, 1 Chr. vi. 62, Rimmono and Tabor. The Septuagint, on the other hand, in the Codex Vat., has the names of three cities, Madv, KoSt/s, and ZeAAa, whilst Breitinger's edition of the Codex Alex, con ¦ tains the same four names as the Hebrew text. Many ancient writers were inclined-to identify pija^ wltb 'i2a"l (c^ Reland Pal. p. 735.) t : « • But the want of all resemblance between the text of the Book of Chronicles and that before us prohibits this. Movers (Krit. [Inters. iib. d. Chronik. p. 72) takes the reading in the Chronicles to be the correct one, and supposes that the ^, by a mistake of the copyist, was added to the word, as it originally stood, from the conjunction (^) which was attached to the following word and, therefore that instead of "^ftp we should follow the Septuagint Peppav, and read Tia"> " This," continues Movers, " and not Dimnah, which never existed, was a city in the tribe of Zebulon, Josh. xix. 13. The translator of the Septuagint had also at Josh. xxi. 35, the cor rect reading in the text before him. It is true that he writes AeKpav, but his Hebrew Manuscript contained pnftpj wltb the Dagesh forte resolved, and it was only by mistaking p for p, and £ for y that he supposed it to be pa^p." Where did Movers learn so certainly that Dimnah never existed ? Had Anathoth no existence, because it is not mentioned in the list of the cities of Benjamin in chap, xviii ? Or did none of the cities ever exist, which are only named once in the lists which this book contains ? Again, in what MS. or edition of the Septuagint did Movers meet with AeKpatv, as the name of one of the cities which Zebulon gave up to the Levites (Josh. xxi. 35) ? It is a pity that he did not mention his authority, as none of the principal editions of the LXX. speak of any AeKpitv amongst the cities of Zebulon. It is only in vv. 36 or 37 that the name AeKp6v occurs in the edit. Bom. of the Septuagint as one of the cities which were given up by the tribe of Reuben, and Movers seems to have transferred it to v. 35. Just as erroneous and unfounded, as the reasoning already chapter xxi. 43—45. 457 (cf. chap. xiii. 18).1— V. 38 seq. From the tribe of Gad: Ramoth in Gilead and Mahanaim (cf. chap. xiii. 26), Heshbon, cf. chap. xii. 2, and Jaezer (see chap. xiii. 25.) Vv. 41 and 42 : concluding formula to the list of Levitical cities. In v. 41 the total number of them is given ; in v. 42 it is again stated that the suburb yjpjQ around every city belonged to t : • that city, cf. v. 2. — The LXX. have inserted here a long clause, taken partly from chap. xix. 49, 50, and partly from a Jewish legend. (See Rosenmuller' 's Schol. ad. h. 1.) Vv. 48 — 45 conclude the history of the division of the land (chap. xiii. — xxi.), and refer not merely to chap. xi. 23, but directly to chap. i. 2 — 6, and connect the two halves of the book together. By the distribution of the land amongst the tribes, the promise, which Joshua received after the death of Moses (chap. i. 2 sqq.), had been fulfilled. The Lord had given to Israel the land, which he promised to the fathers (cf. Gen. xii. 7, xv. 18, with the remarks on Josh. i. 3 and 4). They took possession of it and dwelt therein. V. 44. The Lord had like wise given them rest round about, according to all that he had sworn to their fathers. pp2n refers back to Deut. xii. 9, 10, referred to, is the further assertion of Movers (p. 210), that the author of the Chronicles, when writing p^p), substitutes Mount Tabor for the T three cities Jokneam, Kartah, and Nahalal, intending only to point out the locality in which these cities stood. The whole list contains nothing but the names of cities, and is not intended, in fact is unable to give anything but cities, as the Levites had nothing else assigned them except the adjoining pasture ground. They had no lands allotted to them. Hence it follows that both the text of the Chronicles, and the Septuagint, in the Cod. Vat. are corrupt ; and that the text of the pas sage before us is not to be altered to suit them. 1 Both of these verses (36 and 37) have been omitted as spurious by R. B. Chajim on the authority of Kimchi and the larger Masora, but their genuineness has been so thoroughly vindicated by J. H. Michaelis in his notes to his Hebrew Bible, and by De Rossi, John, Maurer, and Rosenmuller, that we can only repeat their arguments. These verses are found in many good MSS., even in Spanish ones, and in every edition before 1525, as well as in all the ancient versions. They also occur in the LXX. in spite of the addition made from 1 Chr. vi. 63, and are not copied from that passage. Lastly they cannot be dispensed with ; because, according to vv. 7 and 40, twelve cities were given to the Merarites, and four of them must have belonged to the tribe of Keuben, but the 6poiore\evvov may easily have led to their omission by copyists. 458 LEVITICAL CITIES. and relates to all the promises of a peaceful and undisturbed possession of Canaan which the Pentateuch contains. "Not one of all tlieir enemies had stood before them ; the Lord had given them all into their hand," as he had at the out set promised to Joshua, chap. i. 5. For even if the Canaanites were not all exterminated, yet those who remained did not venture to make an attack upon the Israelites, so long as they remained faithful to their God, or so long as Joshua and his cotemporaries lived (Judg. ii. 6 sqq.), because the Lord had taken away all their courage.— "If any one," says Cal vin, "raises an objection with regard to the rest, it may easily be answered. The nations of Canaan were so terrified, and their fear so thoroughly disheartened them, that they thought nothing would answer their purpose so well as to secure peace from the children of Israel by servile flattery. Clearly therefore their land was subdued and a peaceful occupation ensured, when there was no one to annoy or to attempt any injury ; when there were no threats or plots, no violence or conspiracies."1 — V 45. Thus not a single word, of all the good words that the 1 There is therefore no ground for the charge of exaggeration, which is brought against these verses by Maurer and other rationalistic critics ; but they are perfectly true. For although the Israelites did not immediately obtain sole and undisputed possession of the whole land, yet the promise of God was then fulfilled, since He himself had designed that the Canaanites should be gradually ex terminated (Ex. xxiii. 29 seq. ; Deut. vii. 22.) And if after the death 'of Joshua Israel became slothful in the work entrusted to it and unfaithful to its God, and therefore never obtained complete possession of the whole land to the full extent predicted in Num. xxxiv. 1 — 12, e.g. never conquered Tyre and Sidon, this was no breach of the divine promise, for its complete fulfilment depended upon Israel's fidelity. The remarks of Calvin upon this apparent discrepancy are therefore quite to the point. "In order," says he, " that all appearance of discre pancy may be removed, we must note on the one hand the clear and constant faithfulness of God, in keeping his promises, and on the other the effeminacy and sloth of the people, by which the blessings of God slipped, as it were, out of their hands. For whatever war the people engaged in, wherever they carried their standards, victory was ready for them ; and there was nothing but their own wilful inactivity to impede or prevent the extermination of all their enemies. Hence although they did not defeat them all, so as to open the way for com plete possession, yet the truthfulness of God was apparent and promi nent ; because there would have been no difficulty in securing the rest, CHAPTER XXII. 1 — 8. 459 Lord had spoken to the house of Israel, remained unfulfilled. All had come to pass, y]^ ^y^ the good word, is the sum of all the gracious promises, which God had made to Israel (cf. 1 Kings viii. 56.) Of these the peaceful possession of the land of Canaan was regarded as the essence and central point, because this possession was to be for Israel the foundation of all further blessings, the pledge of the continued fulfilment of the rest of the promises of God; cf chap, xxiii. 14. CHAPTER XXII. RETURN OF THE TWO TRIBES AND A HALF INTO THEIR OWN LAND, AND ERECTION OF THE ALTAR BY THE JORDAN. V. 1 — 8. After Joshua had divided the land of Canaan, and tbe nine tribes and a half were in a position to enter into the peaceful possession of their inheritance, he dismissed the auxi liaries of the two tribes and a half from the other side of the Jordan. At the same time he acknowledged, with commendation, the assistance which they had rendered to their brethren, and affec tionately urged them to adhere with fidelity to the Lord and to his law. Thus he sent them to their homes, not only with the expression of good wishes, but enriched with the booty, which they shared with their brethren. — This chapter is not attached to tbe preceding one by Vav, the mark of sequence. Yet it must be connected with that chapter, and cannot be a detached frag ment, as Bertholdt imagines (Einl. iii. p. 851.) The account of the return of the auxiliary troops, who had crossed the Jordan at Joshua's command to render assistance to their brethren in if they had chosen to accept the victories, which were offered them. The sum of the whole, therefore, is that nothing but their own cowardice prevented their enjoying the blessings of God in all their fulness." Compare with this the notes on chap. xi. 23. 460 RETURN OF THE TWO TRIBES AND A HALF. making war upon the Canaanites (chap. i. 12 — 18), is absolutely indispensable to the historical completeness of the Book, and there would have been a gap if it had been omitted. It is moreover untrue that the events narrated in this chapter occurred previously to those of the preceding one, for the Levitical cities were appointed before the death of Joshua ; (see the note on chap. xxi. 1.) — As the return of the armed men belonging to the two tribes and a half, is only described in general terms, by ^ v. 1, T as recurring somewhere about the same time as the events nar rated before (on f^ see chap. viii. 30) ; it would not be at all at variance with the text to suppose, as C. a Lapide, Clericus, and others have done, that they were dismissed immediately after the conclusion of the wars. But such an assumption is disproved by v. 9, where they are said to have been dismissed from Shiloh, to which the Israelites only proceeded during the distribution of the land (chap, xviii. 1), by v. 12 (see the remarks on that verse), and also by the fact that their presence was necessary, when the Levitical cities were selected, for this concerned them as much as the other tribes.1 Dereser is therefore correct in thus paraphras ing f^ : " then, when Joshua had brought the war to a sue- T cessful termination, had conquered the land of Canaan, and, with the help of the committee, had completed the work of dis tribution." — Instead of pi^Q several MSS. in Kennicott and.de Rossi read wyifi, which is found in vv. 7 and 9 seq., and certainly seems more appropriate here. The choice, however, between these two synonymous words often depends entirely upon the question, whether the writer had his attention most strongly 1 From the position in which the chapter stands, apart from other considerations, no decision can be formed with reference to the period at which the auxiliary troops returned. For even if they did return at an earlier period, the account of their return would be in its right place here, " because it was proper for the historian to relate everything which belonged to the subjugation and occupation of the land, before he allowed the thread of his narrative to be broken by descriptions of other events" (Lightfoot Opp. i. 42.) — As the summons to these auxi liary troops, to go over with the others into Canaan to war, forms the introduction to Joshua's plans for the conquest of Canaan, so the dis mission of them to their home is quite in place, at the conclusion of that conquest, and of the occupation of the land by the nine tribes and a-half. CHAPTER XXII. 1 — 8. 461 directed to the connection between the tribes or to the political unity and power of the particular tribe. In this instance there fore we must pronounce pftaft the original reading, for i^yoj may easily have found its way into the MSS., in which it occurs, from vv. 7, 9, and 10. — In v. 2 — 4, Joshua commends them for the faithfulness with which they have performed their obligations. " Ye have kept all that Moses commanded you," viz. to help your brethren to effect the conquest of the land (cf. Num. xxxii. 20 sqq. and chap. i. 13—15), " and have hearkened to my voice in all that I have commanded you," i.e. they had during the whole time cheerfully and regularly obeyed all the commands of Joshua (as they had promised) chap. i. 16 seq. — V. 3. "And have not left your brethren all this time unto this day," i.e. ye have helped them in a friendly and brotherly manner, and by your obedience to Moses and Joshua, as well as by the assist ance rendered to your brethren, have " observed the command ment of Jehovah your God." (On pnaOJa patl) see mv com mentary on the Books of Kings p. 20). — V. 4. Now as Jehovah has given rest to your brethren according to his word, (vid. chap. xxi. 44) ye may return to your tents, to the land, which was given you for a possession (cf. chap. i. 15.) — For ppp several MSS. and editions, and the Arabic version read p^L, ; but this V T reading is only a conjecture founded upon chap. i. 15 and Num. xxxii. 22. The ^p also, which is found in several MSS. and editions, derives its origin from a reminiscence of Num. xiv. 25, or Deut. i. 17, and it is not all appropriate here, as it is not con strued with ^ and ^^. — The word "tents" is used here for houses — Metaphora ex usu Nomadum quales fuerant Israelitae desumta (Clericus), (cf. Judg. vii. 8 ; 1 Sam. iv. 10, xiii. 2 ; 2 Sam. xviii. 17, xix. 9, xx. 1 ; 1 Kings viii. 66 and others)— for these tribes had not left their families in tents, but in fortified cities (Num. xxxii. 17), and therefore in houses.— V. 5. Com mendation for their fidelity is followed by a fatherly exhortation, to keep the law of Moses, by loving the Lord their God, and walking in his ways, by observing His commandments, cleaving unto Him, and honouring Him with all their heart and soul. The expressions are crowded together, in order that obedience to the commandments of God may be deeply impressed upon 462 RETURN OF THE TWO TRIBES AND A HALF. their hearts ; whilst the whole exhortation is a repetition of scattered injunctions in the Pentateuch (cf. Deut. vi. 5, x. 12, xi. 13, 22, xix. 19 ; xxx. 6, 16, 20, &C.)1 V. 7 seq. In verse 7 we find, as Maurer correctly observes, another remark quite characteristic of the author, who, in his endeavour to be lucid, sometimes falls into verbosity and super fluous repetitions. Just as he considered it necessary, for ex ample, to repeat four times that the tribe of Levi did not receive any share in the land, viz. chap. xiii. 14, 33, xiv. 3, and xviii. 7 ; and could not content himself with mentioning in chap. xiii. 8, that the two tribes and a-half had already received their in heritance from Moses on the other side of the Jordan, but says it again in chap. xiv. 3 and xviii. 7 ; so here, having referred in verse 1 to the half-tribe of Manasseh, he considers it necessary to remind the reader again, that one half of this tribe had received its possessions from Moses in Bashan, and "the other half had been placed by Joshua amongst the other tribes on the western side of the Jordan. This again renders it necessary that he should repeat, that Joshua also dismissed them (the Manassites of the eastern side) with a blessing, in order that he may pass to the eighth verse, where he reports the words with which Joshua dismissed them. — Wltb *be ^ not pronounced as a guttural, occurs also in Num. xxxii. 30. Ewald (Lehrb. § 140 a.) supposes that the usual form 'jpifcW differs in meaning from that employed in the text. The former, in his opinion, is only used in a passive sense " to be held " (vid. Gen. xxii. 13 ; Ecclesiastes ix. 12), whilst the latter, in the earlier mode of pronouncing it, has the reflective signification : to hold one's self to a land, i.e. to lay one's hand upon it, to take possession of it. — Fiirst' s explanation of the Niphal inm as a verb denom. from pVjpjN cannot be sustained. - V. 10. 'ippipT rffo^h} is equivalent to pjpupj P5| the district 464 THEY BUILD AN ALTAR. of the Jordan, the Ghor, or rather that part of it " which is in the land of Canaan," viz. on the western side of the river. t'TT'n 'hv Ctt? there by the Jordan, i.e. on the western bank they erected an altar ni^"iaS ^"fa ma9num adspectui — large enough to be seen and noticed by everybody. Maurer and Rosenmuller are wrong in their assertion, that the altar was erected on the eastern bank of the Jordan, " as is apparent from v. 11 and all the rest of the narrative." For even if v. 11 favoured such a supposition, the rest of the narrative is decidedly opposed to it, notwithstanding Rosenmuller' s opinion that " there was no reason why the Trans-jordanic Israelites should build an altar on the western bank of the river." The reason for this is very appa rent both from the design and the meaning of the altar. Accord ing to the explanation which they themselves give (v. 24 seq.), it was to serve as a witness in after times that they also (the tribes on the other side) had a part in Jehovah and in his altar, which was at his tabernacle in Canaan (the land on this side), and to prevent the descendants of the Israelites (on this side) from saying to their children : "ye have no part in Jeho vah, the God of Israel, Jehovah has placed the Jordan as a barrier between us and you," i.e. has separated you from us by the Jordan. If the altar was to guard against this danger, if it was to be a witness that the tribes of the other side had also a part in Jehovah, who was worshipped on this side, and in his tabernacle; the altar must have been erected on this side — as v. 10 clearly says. And if rightly understood the 11th verse harmonizes with this. The Israelites (of this side) hear that the Reubenites, &c, have built the altar ^ft-^N !3a3 V^N versus terram Can., or in faciem s. frontem terrae Canaan. For this meaning of 7^-7^4 see Gesenius thes. ii. 777. — ^NtoT1 ''il 125>~7N versus ulteriorem regionem Isr. or versus regionem faciei Israelitarum oppositam. These expres sions may apply to one side of the Jordan as well as the other, according to the point of view from which the direction is given. Here, however, they refer to the bank on this side, the western bank, because they are spoken from the standpoint of those who built the altar, viz. the tribes who lived on the other side of the Jordan. — V. 12. The whole congregation of the CHAPTER XXII. 13 — 20. 465 children of Israel assembled at Shiloh (by the tabernacle), to prepare for a hostile expedition against the tribes beyond the Jordan, in order to punish them for the supposed crime, which they had committed against the law of Moses with reference to the unity of the altar (Lev. xvii. 8 seq. ; Deut. xii. 4 sqq. v. 13 s(\1-)> by the erection of an altar on the Jordan ; and thus to carry out the commands of Moses contained in Deut. xiii. 13 sqq. The great eagerness of the Israelites on this side was per fectly justifiable. For, although the altar was not intended as a sacrificial altar, and therefore was not contrary to the Mosaic law, yet the builders of it had given to their brethren on this side sufficient reason for their anger, " on account of their having made an innovation without the approbation of the High Priest, or the advice of their brethren ; and also because the very form of the witness might lead to evil. We know how sternly the law prohibited two altars, because God would not be wor shipped in more places than one. And therefore, when they all supposed from appearances that a second altar bad been built, how could they avoid condemning the sacrilegious conduct of those, who were establishing a corrupt worship at variance with the laws of God ? Hence, as there was a possibility that their act might be regarded as so evil a thing, they ought certainly in an affair of such seriousness to have communicated their inten tion to their brethren ; and especially was it wrong to pass by the High Priest, at whose mouth the will of God should have been ascertained. They were, then, deserving of blame, because they acted as if they were alone in the world, and did not consider what offence might be given by the novelty of their act." (Calvin.) — The congregation gathered themselves together, for they had gone away at the same time as the tribes from beyond the Jordan, each one into his own inheritance, as soon as the divi sion of the land was complete. From this it is evident, there fore, that the auxiliary troops remained in the camp at Shiloh until the completion of the distribution. If they had returned sooner and built the altar on their way home, the congregation of Israel would have heard of it before leaving Shiloh and separat ing from one another. Vv. 13—20. Before the Israelites (on this side) declare war, thev send Phinehas and ten princes, one from each tribe, to tlieir J 30 * 466 DEPUTATION FROM THEIR BRETHREN. brethren at Gilead, to make enquiry respecting the supposed rebellion against Jehovah. In tbis they obeyed the instructions of Deut. xiii. 14, where it is commanded that the report of such crimes shall be investigated before anything further is done. The same course was pursued by the tribes on a subequent occasion, when the Benjamites committed their great crime at Gibeah ; but there the guilt was proved and tbe mission without result, Judg. xx. 12 sqq. — V. 14. As every one of the ten pi^lM who were sent with Phinehas the Priest is described as ^j^p ^,N"^iZ7, ''dSkV ?JTQN-n>,Il> a head of the house of their fathers among the thousands of Israel, we might suppose that they were not the princes of the tribes, but heads of families, as n^ an(^ pp^fc^j-Pl properly mean families and fathers' houses (cf. chap. vii. 14.) But as the deputation is described in v. 30 as consist ing of the n~T}?n ""fcOtM princes of the congregation (princes of T '•• T »• • I tribes) and heads of families of Israel, we must decide that it was composed partly of princes of tribes and partly of heads of families, some tribes being represented in the one way and others in the other ; and that the latter were sent in cases, in which the heads of the tribes were either too old, or otherwise unfitted to take part in the deputation. This supposition is favoured by the expressions used in the verse before us, though they are too ambiguous to decide the question of themselves ; but it is still more strongly confirmed by the fact that the tribe of Levi was not represented by the chief of the tribe, the High Priest Eleazar, his son and presumptive successor Phinehas being chosen instead for that purpose. — V. 16. As the messengers believed that the altar was erected to serve as a second altar of sacrifice, in violation of the command of God, they commenced their address with the charge of unfaithfulness, and of rebellion against the Lord God of Israel. The congregation of the people is described by its representatives as the congregation of Jehovah, which is quite appropriate here, as it was in zeal for their God and Lord that they had risen up. — P3pfi232l *re that ye have built an altar «yp p^PPS^ that ye may now rebel against Jehovah. ~\"yft is a much stronger expression than h>Vfc' Every transgression of a positive command of God — T is rebellion against him, a treason against his majesty. — In v. 17—20 Phinehas brings forward two examples of sins committed CHAPTER XXII. 13 — 20. 467 against the Lord, which had been followed by severe punish ment ; and shows thereby the judgment which the two tribes and a half would bring not only upon themselves but upon the whole congregation by their apostasy from the Lord. In vv. 17 and 18 he reminds them of the guilt which the people incurred in the desert through the idolatrous worship of the Moabitish Baal Peor (Num. xxv. 3), and from which they had not been cleansed to that day. ' q fi^-p)^ ^S_aj?an 4S there too little for us in the iniquity of Peor, i.e., do you look upon this sin as too small? pl^ here is the sign of the accusative, (cf. Ewald Lehrb. p. 571.) ptyg fty the guilt through Peor, the guilt which was brought upon us by the worship of Baal Peor, (vid. Num. xxv.).— According to Num. xxv. 7 — 9, compared with v. 19, the plague which was suspended over the Israelites in consequence of this sin, was averted, after twenty-four thousand bad died, principally by the zeal which Phinehas had shown in opposing the idolatrous wor shippers. What then can Phinehas have meant, when he said that, up to that day, Israel had not been cleansed from the sin of Peor % Masius and Rosenmiiller make this reply : " God was indeed appeased by the zeal of Phinehas, but only so far that he was unwilling that any more should fall in indiscriminate slaughter ; those, however, who had taken part in that impiety, were still involved in guilt notwithstanding, and would at some future time suffer the just punishment of the divine sentence." But the passage appealed to, Num. xiv. 20, where God with draws the threat, that he will exterminate the people, on account of the intercession of Moses, and adds that the murmurers shall all die in the wilderness and not see the promised land, cannot be cited as an analogous case, for there God does not stay the punishment, but moderates it, and in the mildness of the sentence proves his forgiveness. Besides, God cannot punish a sin which he has once forgiven. And therefore if the crime of the worship of Baal Peor was avenged by the plague ; after the plague had been endured, Israel was free from guilt, provided that the punishment had produced a deep abhorrence of the sin. The only hindrance to their complete purification would be in them selves, if their heart still delighted in the sin, and they were only restrained from the commission of it by the fear of further punish- 30 ! 468 DEPUTATION FROM THEIR BRETHREN. ment and plagues.1 R. Levi ben Gerson is therefore correct in the explanation which he gives, and wliich C. a Lapide and Clericus have adopted : " from which we do not yet sufficiently shrink ; for there seem to have been many who did not yet com prehend the greatness of the crime. See Prov. xx. 9. And there were even some who secretly worshipped the gods of the Canaanites and Chaldeans, as we may clearly gather from Joshua's address in chap. xxiv. 14—23." The words of Phinehas do not imply that adultery with Peor was actually practised then, but that the hearts of many were still corrupt. -^I rp2P! ipT»p and there was the plague, sent upon the congregation of the Lord, which caused the death of 24,000 men (Num. xxv. 9.) — V. 18. The mean ing is : And to-day you are disposed to turn away from the Lord, and by another rebellion against him to bring his anger again to-morrow upon the whole congregation, ¦yp Qp|^ H^lPl and »'* V — T T : will come to pass, ye rebel, &fc. , for "if ye rebel to-day, . . . then . . . ." — V. 19. " But if the land of your possession is unclean, then pass ye over unto the land of the possession of Jehovah," &c. Unclean : their land might seem to them unholy, because the Lord had not fixed his abode there, but in the country on this side, in Canaan, and had thus characterised it as his own possession. They might therefore have built an altar for themselves on the borders of this land, within the possession of Jehovah, for the purpose of preserving for themselves a share in its God. If such be the case, Phinehas advises them to "cross over and receive a share in the land of the Lord's possession, rather than fall away from the Lord. Masius has well para phrased this verse as follows : " if ye think that God has not received your land into the same favour as ours, because he seems to dwell with us, and it is for that reason that ye are about to establish a worship of your own, change your abode and come over to us. For we will share our possessions with you, rather than allow you to sin against both God and ourselves, i.e. break up the community of religion, without which no nation can 1 Calvin's explanation is not satisfactory : " the remembrance was not yet quite buried, nor the anger of God extinct." Nor is that of Calmet, Michaelis, the. Exegetical Handbook, and others, " it still ex poses us to reproach and shame." CHAPTER XXII. 21—29. 469 stand." — trtNiP to take possession, cf. v. 9. *yyQ here is construed first with ^ and then with the accusative. In the latter con struction it only occurs here and in Job xx. 13. — V. 20. The 19th verse contains a thought, which suggested itself as Phinehas was speaking, and v. 20 is directly connected with vv. 17 and 18. The second case referred to by Phinehas, in which the grievous sin of an individual brought down the wrath of God upon the whole congregation, was that of Achan, who committed a trespass in the accursed thing (chap, vii.) Phinehas argues a minori ad majus, as Calvin and Masius have observed. But the contrast between the minus and the majus is not, as Calvin supposes, between " the secret sin of one man" and " open idolatry." The paraphrase of Masius is better, " if Achan, after committing sacrilege, did not perish alone, but even then God was angry with the whole congregation, what do you suppose will be the case if you, so great a number of men, commit so grievous a sin against God?" — The words -yp yp^ PPllTl bave been misunderstood in various ways. Luther however rendered them correctly. The proper translation is " and he died not alone for his iniquity," i.e. he was not the only one who perished on account of his guilt, but his children were also involved in his punishment, cf. chap. vii. 24. Vv. 21 — 29. The two tribes and a half were startled at the suspicion, expressed by the ambassadors of the nine tribes and a half, that they intended to rebel against the Lord, and made the strongest protestations of their innocence. At the same time they explained that they were so far from having any such intention, that they had erected the altar, not for an altar of sacrifice, but that it might serve as a witness to posterity, that they were not separated by the Jordan from the God of their fathers who was worshipped in Canaan, but had the same part in him as the Israelites on this side.1— V. 22. pnn; DVT'Sl$ hvf is rendered 1 Calvin and Masius, with justice, call attention to the modesty with which the two tribes and a half defend themselves. Masius gives prominence to the "admirable modesty of these holy men, who, with out indignation, without recrimination, but calmly and seriously throw off the charge of the most atrocious crime ; of which they were in tact so innocent, that the very act, which had brought them into suspicion, was but an attempt on their part to guard both themselves and their 470 RliPLT TO THE DEPUTATION. by many, including Maurer: Deus Deorum Jehova. This is incorrect, and weakens the sense; (1) because Deus Deorum would be in the Hebrew Qin^Nn ^T\ ^N (c^ Deut. x- 17 ; Ps. • -.y t ,¦¦ v: cxxxvi. 2), and (2) because pipf 7N 74-5 would then as a predi cate have to stand after the proper name pppp- These three names of God are arranged in order according to their expres siveness : ^ God as the strong one, the Almighty, pip^N God with reference to the completeness of the divine nature, pppp the truly living Being, as he revealed himself in Israel ; t : and all three are repeated a second time, as -the most earnest appeal that could be made to the only true God, as the witness of the truth of what they were about to say.1 The q^, which follows, is a form of asseveration ; the verb is left out, quite in accordance with " the broken speech of suddenly accused inno cence," and may be best supplied from v. 34, as it has been by the Arabic and others : pi^'j-jp^ ^to^ " */ we have, i.e., that we have not done this in rebellion, or in transgression against Jehovah (v. 23), to build an altar and turn away from Jehovah." The words pj.f -j p*pp[ irjjPBPjp-^N help us not this day, i.e., do thou rather punish and destroy us, are a direct appeal to God introduced into their asseveration, for the purpose of giving to their declaration still greater force and removing all doubt as to the truthfulness of what they say. This appeal is weakened, if posterity for ever from the commission of such a crime," and urges Christians to copy their example. In this respect Calvin well says : " Their avoiding all reproach on account of the injury done to them, is a rare example of modesty, which is set before us for our imitation, so that if it should ever happen to us to be unjustly blamed for doing a thing which it was right to do, we should be satisfied with clearing ourselves, and thus rebutting the charge." 1 These three names of God are placed in the same ascending order ii Ps. 1. 1, where Hengstenberg has the following appropriate remarks : " The heaping up of name? must fill the hypocrites with terror, as they bring before their eyes the majesty of him to whose judgment they are exposed. In the relation of these titles to each other there is a grada tion. Elohim means mere than El, which is equivalent to its singular Eloah. The plural marks the fulness and riches of the divine nature. Jehovah is the most exaltedname, both from its derivation — it describes God as the only real existence — and from the ordinary usage of the language, which ascribes to Jehovah the most glorious revelations of God to and in behalf of his people." (cf. Beitr. ii. p. 260 seq.) CHAPTER XXII. 21 — 29. 471 we follow the ancient translators, who all, with the exception of the Chaldee, alter the second into the third person, and thus do away with the direct address to God Having thus cleared themselves of the charge of rebellion against the Lord, they rebut with equal force the suspicion of intending to offer upon the altar either burnt-offerings, meat-offerings, or peace-offer ings.— Bjjpi'i pppj pppp Jehovah will seek it, i.e. will punish it (cf. 1 Sam. xx. 11), -is another parenthetical adjuration. — V. 24. The clause, " And if we have not (meaning, that we have) done it rather from anxiety, for a reason, for we said to-morrow, &c," introduces the description of the purpose for which they built the altar, p^pft does not mean : consulto, cogitate (Dathe), and T T • therefore is not to be placed in subordination to p^^na* as i* is t t ; ¦ in the Septuagint and by Maurer, " from anxiety about the thing." This only weakens the expression, which means "for a reason." The reason for the erection of the altar was their anxiety, lest at some subsequent period (ppift) tbe descendants of the nine tribes T T and a half might say to their descendants : " what have ye to do with Jehovah, the God of Israel ?" i e. Jehovah does not con cern you, He is only our God, for we have his sanctuary in the midst of us (v. 25.). Jehovah has placed the Jordan for a border between us and you ; ye have no part in Jehovah. This anxiety was not altogether uncalled for. In all the promises only Canaan (the land on this side of the Jordan) had been mentioned (Num. xxxiv. 1 — 12) as the land which Jehovah would give to his people for an inheritance ; and therefore at some future period it would be easy for the false inference to be drawn that only the Israelites who dwelt in Canaan proper, belonged to the people of Jehovah, and none but they had part in Jehovah. — ^ppnfflni - y. n^a, " so will your children make our children cease (pre vent them) from fearing the Lord."— The infinitive form ^pi instead of the abbreviated form tffc (1 Sam. xviii. 29) is analogous to pjp Ezek. xxiv. 9, pflp^ Eccl. v. 11, but is a de parture from the only form employed in the Pentateuch, n«"P (cf. Deut. iv. 10, v. 26, vi. 24, &c.)— V. 26. Let us prepare to build the altar is an example of self-exhortation adopted from the current language of ordinary life, in which the finite 472 THE REPLY SATISFACTORY. verb with Vav relative may be used for the infinitive (cf. Gen. xxxi. 26.) — pQT is tae general term employed to denote all bloody sacrifices, of wliich only certain portions were placed upon the altar in distinction from pt^py, which was entirely consumed. — V. 27. Between our families after us, i.e., between our descendants on the two sides. That we may perform the service of Jehovah before his face, i.e., before the tabernacle, in which Jehovah was enthroned. — V. 28. "And it will come to pass, if they shall speak (thus) .... that we shall say (in the persons of our descendants) : behold the pattern of the altar of Jehovah, &c." Rosenmuller is wrong in his wish to give to the word pp2^]p the meaning structnra, on the ground that the altar, which was built by the two tribes and a half, was not a copy of the altar of Jehovah, but an altar of Jehovah. This meaning is not supported by Ps. cxliv. 12, and the reply of the two tribes and a half leads to the very opposite conclusion. In its form anil meaning this altar was nothing more than a copy of the one altar of Jehovah, that namely by the tabernacle. — V. 29. The speakers conclude by expressing their horror at the thought of rebellion against the Lord. I agree with most of the commentators in supposing the meaning of f^t^ ^V nS^n *° V ' - TfcJ T • T be : " be it far from us," and in taking s^ to be pleonastic, as i^ frequently is in common parlance. Gesenius (thes. i. 478) on the other hand renders it : absit a nobis per eum (Jehovam.) This interpretation, it is true, seems to be favoured by the formula prima *h rhhn (Sam. xxiv. 7, &c.) ; still I T : •• . T • T cannot regard it as correct, because in that case ppPPa ougbt to stand in the place of ^Qft, that is, the person, should be named by whom they swore, as it is unnatural to use a mere suffix in such a connexion. Vv. 30—34. Phinehas and the heads of Israel, who had been deputed with him, were satisfied with this explanation of the two tribes and a half; and acquitted their brethren of the charge of rebellion against Jehovah. They then return to their tribes, and their report gives perfect satisfaction All thought of war is therefore relinquished.— V. 31. " This day (now) we perceive that Jehovah is in the midst of us, because ye have not committed this CHAPTER XXII. 30—34. 473 tresspass against Jehovah, i.e., we now perceive that Jehovah has not withdrawn his gracious presence from us, as we could not but fear, so long as we believed, that you had faithlessly revolted from him. ^ pjp^n ,N " then (if this was your sole intention) ye have delivered Israel out of the hand of the Lord," i.e., ye have saved them from his judgment.— V. 33. tflpy D^n'^N they praised God, namely, for having preserved their brethren from rebellion, and the whole people from destruction. lifl Pfhvh ^"la^ ^Vl and they thought no more of going to war against them. For this meaning of -,^^ see 2 Sam. xxi. 16; 1 Kings v. 19, &c— V. 34. And the children of Reuben and Gad (the half-tribe of Manasseh is left out here, as in vv. 25 and 32, for tbe sake of brevity) called the altar : " a witness is it between us that Jehovah is God." By the side of pOtaV several codices and editions of the fifteenth and sixteenth cen turies have a second pjf as the name of the altar. The Arabic ¦- - ,P. » e also gives )•&]£ testem, and the Syriac |Z.0jC7l£D testimonium. Hence Clericus, Michaelis, Schulz, Dathe, the Exegetical Hand book, and Dereser, would supply py, which they suppose to have been omitted after pQta^>* — "But," as Maurer correctly observes, "apart from the fact that the LXX. (where, however, a com plete misunderstanding of the passage is apparent), the Vulgate and the Chaldee do not contain the word ; it is evidently merely a gloss, since several MSS. have it before pQTaS an£i another, which places it after pQ.a^>> an(^ before vj, does not contain the other py after ^ ; the Syriac has also the abstract, the Arabic the concrete." Luther gave the sense correctly : " and the children of Reuben and Gad named the altar, that it may be a witness between us, &c." Hence tbe words ^"ipilPa Nin IV "O contain both the name and the explanation ; or a name, not inscribed upon the altar as Ising supposed (exercit. p. 238), but intended tixexplain both its design and importance. Stones, or heaps of stones, were generally raised to commemorate extraordinary events (cf. chap. iv. 9 and 20.) Thus Jacob raised a heap of stones as a witness of the covenant concluded with Laban, and called it in Hebrew py^> in Chaldee NPPinto p£ (Gen. xxxi. 474 LAST ACTS OF JOSHUA. 47 seq.) The tribes of the other side erected an altar, resem bling that of Jehovah, because they were anxious to set up a true, speaking witness to their part in Jehovah and his legal sanctuary. — The {^pj found in some MSS. between mn1 a,'d . t : D^n'TN is a superfluous interpolation. CHAPTERS XXIII. & XXIV. THE LAST ACTS OF JOSHUA, CHAP. XXIII. 1 — XXIV. 28. HIS DEATH AND BURIAL, AND THAT OF ELEAZAR, V. 29 — 33. When the land had been portioned "out amongst the tribes, Joshua had finished the principal work assigned him by the Lord. He then retired to his city of Timnath-Serah on the mountains of Ephraim (chap. xix. 50.) There he spent the last years of his pilgrimage in the earthly Canaan in the peaceful possession and enjoyment of his inheritance, until the time of his departure from the earth drew near. He then, having been himself seriously warned by the Lord not to depart from his law (chap. i. 6 — 8), felt himself constrained1 to summon the representatives of the people together once more, that he might set before tbem the danger of their revolting from Jehovah, and the destruction that would result from it (chap, xxiii.) He then, in a solemn assembly of the people at Sichem, impresses upon 1 " The pious anxiety of Joshua is here set before all, who preside over others, for their imitation. For as the father of a family is not thought sufficiently prudent, if he only considers what will be well for his children to the end of his life, and does not extend his care be yond that, by striving as far as possible to promote their welfare after he is dead : so good magistrates and governors should endeavour to provide for the stability and permanent duration of the safe condition in which affairs are left by them. To this effect Peter writes, that he should endeavour, that after his decease, the church might be able to remember his admonitions, and discover the fruit thereof, 2 Pet. i 13 —15." -Calvin. CHAPTERS XXIII. 1 XXIV.. 28. 475 tlieir hearts the fulness of the divine mercy, which had been shown to Israel from the call of Abraham to that day, and after charging them to be faithful and constant in the worship of Jehovah, renews the covenant with the Lord (xxiv. 1 — 24). The two discourses of Joshua belong to the same period. But when Maurer concludes from this, that Joshua probably de livered only one address at Sichem, and that we have received two different reports, drawn up independently of each other, he only shows in what a superficial manner they were read by him.1 For although the principal design is the same in both addresses, namely to confirm the fidelity of the people to God, yet the con tents of the first (chap, xxiii.) are essentially different from those of the second (chap, xxiv.) The former, in which the predominant 1 Maurer might have'spared himself his astonishment at the fact that no one had arrived at the conclusion before him, if he had read the earlier commentators. He would have found that it had been sug gested by Masius, who immediately rejected it with the following re marks. " But we shall bring forward sufficient arguments in the pro per place to prove that this assembly was not the same as those comitia. It is surely probable, that a father and chief, so careful as Joshua was on every occasion, often exhorted his people to the performance of works of uprightness and religion, although only these two have been committed to writing, and handed down." At chap. xxiv. 1, Masius Bhows the difference between these two discourses from the complete difference in their contents. "In the former (chap, xxiii.) after calling to mind merely the recent favours, which God had bestowed upon them, he exhorts them to cultivate religion, and to guard against sin ; in the latter (chap, xxiv.), he first reminds them of the benefits, which God had conferred upon the nation from the time when Abraham was called out of his own country, and then shows that he justly claims of them this return, that they should worship him alone, and put away the gods, which their ancestors served to no purpose in Mesopotamia and Egypt. Yet he does not dwell upon this conclusion as if it were the point chiefly aimed at, nor strengthen it by threats, as in the upper assembly. He allows them the option of forming a different conclu sion. This he does, that he may prepare the way for renewing the covenant, which could only be done with the free consent of the people. And therefore when we see that in the upper assembly the people are warned against serving strange gods by the fear of losing their inheri tance the danger of which is set before them as many as three times ; whilst in the other he even pretends that the worship of them is easier than that of Jehovah, i.e. of the true God; who can come to any other conclusion than that the assemblies were two different ones, and not the same? See also Havernick 's Einl. ii- 1 p. 61, and Rosenmuller Scholia in chap, xxiii. 1. 476 THE TRIBES CONVENED BY JOSHUA. feature is a warning against entering into alliance with the Canaanites, or rebelling against God, is preparatory and intro ductory to the latter, which recalls to the memory of the people all the previous acts of mercy on the part of their God, that they may be aroused to determine upon unwavering fidelity to the Lord, and may be induced to make the declaration, that they will serve none but God, without which the covenant could not have been solemnly renewed. Chapter xxxiii. Vv. 1 and 2. The introduction to this last act of Joshua is not a continuation of chaps, xi. and xii., and especially connected with chap. xi. 18, as Havernick (Einl. ii. 1 p. 25 and 61) and other modern critics suppose. It is on the contrary im mediately connected with chap. xxii. 3, 4, and more remotely with chap. xxi. 43 and 44, for the words " ye have not left vour brethren these many days" (pi^p p^Qi pjf) and " now has Jehovah given your brethren rest (r-pjn) as i)e said to them" (chap. xxii. 3 and 4), to which >|«p p^p P^a TM (chap. xxiii. 1) refer, are merely a repetition of those which terminate the history of the division of the land (chap. xxi. 43 — 44). (See my article in Rudelbach's and Guericke'sZeitshvift 1846. H. l.p. 9 sqq.). — The phrase, " Joshua was old and come into years," refers to chap. xiii. 1, and indicates the still further advance of Joshua's age, so that be might any day anticipate his death, cf v. 14. — V. 2. TJien Joshua called for all Israel, namely, its elders, and heads, and judges, arid scribes. On the different rulers and authorities of the people, see chap. vii. 6, 14, and i. 10. With reference to this assembly Calvin, Masius, C. a Lapide, Drusius, Clericus, and others, have already observed, that the words " its elders and its heads, &c," are exegetical of ^fcOiZF^S- " Oer- •* t : • t tainly," says Calvin with justice, " it is not to be supposed that the whole nation was convened ; nor, indeed, could it have been. Hence the nation was called together, inasmuch as tbe elders, judges, and others were commanded to come and to bring with them as many as were willing to accompany them." — It is not stated where tbe meeting was held ; probably it was at the tabernacle at Shiloh, as this place seems to have been the cen tral point of the nation from tbe period referred to in chap, xviii. 1 to the death of Joshua, (cf. Bachienne bibl. Geogr. ii. 3, p. CHAPTER XXIII. 1, 2. 477 412 sqq., and Hengstenberg Beitr. iii. p. 14). — The address (vv. 2 — 16) is divided into two parts, vv. 2—13 and vv. 14—16. In both of them Joshua speaks of his age and the near approach of his death as tbe motive which impelled him to remind the people what great things the Lord had done for them, so as to connect with this a warning against falling away from so gracious a God. —The whole address is filled with reminiscences of the Penta teuch, taken principally from Deuteronomy, and is merely an abridgment and confirmation of the words of reproof and warning which Moses uttered at the close of his earthly career. Vv. 3 — 13. In the first part Joshua commenced by reminding the people of all the acts of kindness which God had done for them, that he might arouse and persuade them to fidelity to so gracious a God (vv. 3 — ll),1 and then pointed out the ruin which would come upon Israel, if they entered into alliance or formed intermarriages with the Canaanites (vv. 12—14). — In v. 3 he brings before the people the mighty acts, by which Jehovah, who fought for them, had banished and destroyed the Canaanites, — as related in the Book before us. p^Qft- e conspectu vestro, i.e. not " on your account, for your sake" (Rosenmuller), but : " driving them out before you ;" this meaning is obtained with out there being any cause for assuming with Clericus either that there is an ellipsis or that qjrfyv\ has been left out. It is merely an example of constructio praegnans. " For the Lord your God is he that hath fought for you,"— as Moses had promised, Deut. i. 30 and iii. 22.— V. 4. The consequences of this divine assistance in the expulsion of the Canaanites had been seen in the division of the land amongst tbe tribes as an inheritance, in cluding the Canaanitish tribes which still remained, as well as 1 " He first poiuts out to them, briefly indeed but carefully, the favours of God which had been conferred upon the Israelites, especially during the time that he had been their leader, and which God was still ready to confer ; and shows from that, how just it was that they should make to him some return by their piety and holiness and should strive earnestly to do all that he had commanded them to do. For it would indicate a disposition, both ungrateful and despicable, to fail to recipro cate the love of one so kind and gracious, in every possible way especially when He^vas also their God, their creator and father. For thisls the meaning of the phrase, which he repeats so frequently, the Lord your God." (Masius.) 478 Joshua's first address. those which had been exterminated, from Jordan to the great sea on the west. — On "ippspfj see chap. xiii. 6. The p>p^ nations are mentioned, instead of the land, which they possessed, because they were given into the hands of the Israelites to be destroyed. The breadth (extent) of the land of Canaan is singularly described here, its two limits being so given, that only the terminus a quo is stated in the first clause, the terminus ad quern in the second. Hence in each clause, by means of the parallelism of the terms, the limit required to complete the sense must be supplied in thought from the other clause. There is no transposition of the words or conturbatior verborum collocatio, as Rosenmuller sup poses. — *^p3n p>ipj the great sea, is an accusative of direction — T — T — towards the sea, meaning as far as the Great Sea. As this terminus ad quem is separated from the terminus a quo, py could naturally be left out. — V. 5. The acts of kindness on the part of the Lord include the promise, that he would also expel and destroy the rest of the Canaanites, and give them their land for a possession (chap. xiii. 6, cf. Exodus xxiii. 29 sqq.).— The form ppprp is the same as !)2Qppp, Num. xxxv. 20 ; the Kateph-Kametz is required on account of the weakness of the py. — For DjpQppv see chap. i. 15.— V. 6. Only they must be strong, to observe inviolably the law, which was given by Moses — accord ing to the command which the Lord had given in the same words to Joshua, when he first called him to his office, chap. i. 7- — Vv. 7, 8. Their complete obedience to the law, however, was to be attested by their abstaining from all intercourse with the Canaanites, who remained in the land, and from the worship of their Gods, and firmly adhering to Jehovah their God. a?i-& Nil " signifies marriage and fellowship, see v. 12, Deut. xxiii. 2 sqq." (J. H. Michaelis.)— Four different expressions are used to describe idolatry. ,'(1.) pipjS« ottfr T3]pr to make men tion of the name of their gods, in such a" manner that he who mentions them gives himself up to them, approaches them with love, Le., to mention them with admiration, pi^ does not mean to praise, as is evident from Ex. xxiii. 13 ; see also Ps. xx. 8 and Hengstenberg' s notes on that passage.— (2.) smi^ffipi ^ not to cause to swear by the gods of the Canaanites. Swearing CHAPTER xxiii. 9, 10. 479 and causing to swear by a god, were in ordinary life tbe most frequent evidence of belief in that god, and therefore the law was enforced, that the name of Jehovah was to be the only one by which they swore. (Deut. vi. 13, x. 20.)— (3.) p^y to serve them, colere; and (4.) ppnMJn to worship, are distinguished from each other in tbis way : the former expresses rather the external worship by sacrifice, the latter, calling upon God from the heart. The two words are frequently connected together. They are so in the original passage, Ex. xx. 5 ; see also Ex. xxiii. 24; Deut. iv. 19, v. 9, viii. 19, xxx. 17, &c. — V. 8. py\ to cling to Jehovah, denotes complete surrender of the heart to God, as is done in marriage by husband and wife, Deut. iv. 4, x. 20, &c. See my commentary on 1 Kings xi. 2. — As ye have done to this day. These words are used to urge them to continue steadfastly in the faithful adherence to the Lord, which they had already mani fested. " Joshua says this, however, not because the Israelites had hitherto done all things fully and perfectly ; for who does not know how few men there are, who devote themselves to God with all the piety and love which are due ? But since the people, as a whole, had observed the rites of religion, as commanded by Moses, at least whilst Joshua had been their leader, he does not refer to the sins of individual men." (Masius.) Vv. 9, 10. " He points out to them the great benefits that have resulted from the affection, with which they have hitherto devoted themselves to God and adhered to him, referring them in vv. 9 and 10 to their great victories; that it may be evident to them that they have not loved for nought." (Masius-) The first half of v. 9 indicates the fulfilment of Deut. iv. 38, vii. 1, ix. 1, and xi. 23 ; the second, that of Deut. vii. 24 and xi. 25. See chap. i. 5.— The first words of v. 10 are taken verbatim from Deut. xxxii. 30, and are founded, as that passage also is, upon the promise contained in Lev. xxvi. 7 seq. and Deut. xxviii. 7. On the second part of the verse see v. 3.— \. 11. The phrase ppijpitfwV TNa OITplp^ which is copied from Deut. iv. 15, does not mean "be upon your guard for your life " (Winer and Gesenius in the lexicon), but " take heed with all your soul," diligentem operam ex animo date (Clericus and Schulz). Hence p^n^M1? is not used for j^U,, but for the sake of emphasis, to denote that inward 480 Joshua's first address. vigilance, which comes from the soul. — The love of Jehovah is described by Moses as the complete fulfilment of the law, Deut. vi. 5, x. 12, xi. 13. See Matthew xxii. 36 sqq. And Joshua accordingly sums up his exhortations in the one injunction, to take heed from the heart, to love the Lord their God. Vv. 12, 13. " He proceeds to threats, according to the third method employedin the law, that if anyarenottouched by the good ness of God they may at least be impelled to obedience by fear. It is base indeed, where God kindly invites men, that theydo not im mediately turn to him and reply by a prompt and ready obedience. But such is the slothfulness of the flesh, that it always needs to be stimulated by threats." (Calvin.) — Marriage and intercourse with the Canaanites are prohibited in Ex.xxxiv.12 — 16 and Deut. vii. 3, to guard against the temptation, which would thus be pre sented to the Israelites to fall into idolatry. If they should trans gress this prohibition, Joshua assures them, that the Lord their God will no more drive out these people before them, and thus they will be snares leading to their destruction. This threat is founded upon Ex. xxiii. 33 and Deut. vii. 16, where the Israel ites are told that the worship of the Canaanitish gods would become to them MTift'? a snare; and especially upon the denun ciation contained in Num. xxxiii. 55, "but if ye will not drive out the inhabitants of the land from before you, then it shall come to pass, that those which ye allow to remain of them will be DlPP^a, P"Q"02'?'l Opa^a. O"'?!??'? thorns in your eyes and goads in your sides, and will oppress you in the land in which ye dwell. Joshua has connected these passages together, as their meaning is the same ; for their failing to expel the Canaanites presupposed both intercourse and friendship with them, and these again would inevitably be followed by idolatry. The figure employed, snares, is rendered more emphatic, as in Isaiah viii. 155 by tiJjTiO"! PIS traps and snares.— The form ^to© whips, scourges, for j^ttf, is not used anywhere else as a substantive, but as an emphatic word it is very appropriate here. It is formed from the Poel. Joshua crowds together his similes in order to describe the shame, and trouble, and oppression, which they would bring upon themselves by joining in the idolatry of the Canaanites. He thus seeks by his threats to make the strongest CHAPTER XXIII. 14—16. 481 impression possible, as he knew the fickleness of the people and the recklessness of the human heart, and therefore foresaw, that after his departure zeal for the Lord and his law would be but too easily extinguished, and the rebellion predicted by Moses would only too soon occur. And unfortunately, as soon as that generation had died out, this rebellion actually occurred (Judg. ii. 3 and 11 sqq.)— The concluding words of the 13th, 15th, and 16th verses : " Till ye perish from the good land, which the Lord your God has given you," are a repetition of the threat held out by Moses, Deut. xi. 17, and bring to mind at the same time the terrible formula, which recurs again and again after the manner of a refrain, in the curses pronounced by Moses, " till thou art destroyed and hast perished," " till he has destroyed thee from the land, into which thou comest to possess it." (Deut. xxviii. 21, 22, 24, 48, 51, 61, 63, and xxx. 18.) Vv. 14 — 16. The second part of the address consists of a brief but energetic repetition of the leading thoughts contained in the first part, and a more evident reference to the blessings and curses of Moses. — V. 14. Behold I am going this day the way of all the world ; (cf. 1 Kings ii. 2 and my commentary on that passage), p^ipj to-day is used here as in Deut. ix. 1, to denote that which may happen any day. " To-day I am looking for my decease." (J. H. Michaelis.) With reference to the words which follow, see chap. xxi. 45. — V. 15. But as every good word, which Jehovah spake to you, has come upon you, i.e., as the substance of the promises of God has been fulfilled, in the peaceful possession of the land of Canaan which you enjoy ; so will Jehovah bring upon you every evil word which he spake by his servant Moses (Deut. xxviii. 15 — 68 compared with xxix. 14 — 28, and Lev. xxvi. 14 — 33), viz., the curse of rejection, until he has destroyed you from this good land, if ye transgress his covenant, &c. To aXrjOis, dwjtH, t&v Oelasv iirayyeXiwv bk tojv evepyeo-i&v p,ep.adiJKaT6. TreTrXijpcoKe yap a-irep inreoyero. toi- yapovv ivTevOev p,ddere Kal to tSsv direiXaiv dyJrevSis. (Theodoret.) — IHn 11T1 is tae term applied by the people in Ex. xxxiii. T T T T — 4 to the threat of God, that on account of the obstinacy of Israel he will no longer go up in the midst of them to Canaan. Here the expression refers to the rhbt) (Deut. xxx- *)> "death and evil" 31 * 482 RENEWAL OF THE COVENANT. (Deut. xxx. 15), which Moses previously to his departure set' before the people. — V. 16. After the circumstances have been explained, under which these things will occur, the threat, which has been already shown to be inevitably bound up with those cir cumstances, is once more repeated in a different form. Among the many similar passages in Deuteronomy, the words employed here are most closely connected with the threat in Deut.xi. 17. They are taken up by Joshua, merely with the omission of the context, " and he will shut up the heaven and give no rain ;" which would be out of place ; at the same time he alters |pj into »j-|2> to suit the different circumstances under which the words were spoken, and to give them fresh force. Chap. xxiv. v. 1 — 28. Renewal of the covenant at Sichem. — V. 1. After Joshua had seriously warned the heads of the people against falling into apostasy and idolatry after his death, and had earnestly exhorted them to unwavering fidelity to Jehovah their God, he summoned them to Sichem to a solemn renewal of the covenant with the Lord. There were two reasons for. his selecting Sichem (not Shiloh, as some MSS. of the LXX. read here) for that purpose ; first, because this place, which stood between the mountains of Ebal and Gerizim, had already been the scene of the solemn renewal of the covenant, which was made there -at the express command of Moses soon after their entrance into Canaan (chap. viii. 30—35), and the transaction about to be entered upon, was a repetition of the essential part of that ceremony, and therefore closely connected with it ; and secondly, because it was here that the patriarch Jacob had sanctified his house in a similar manner. This is apparent from the unmistakeable connection between the words ' in v. 23, " and now put away the strange gods, which are among you," and in v. 26, "and he took a great stone, and set it up there under the oak, which was in the sanctuary of the Lord," and those in Gen. xxxv. 2—4, " and Jacob said to his house and to all that were with him : put away the strange gods, which are among you, and cleanse yourselves and change your, clothes.— And they gave to Jacob all the strange gods .... and Jacob buried them under the oak, which is at Sichem." The first of these reasons is admitted by almost all expositors, the CHAPTER XXIV. 1—28. 483 second only by Hengstenberg (Beitr. iii. p. 14 seq.) But the second is so far from excluding the first that it rather involves it. As Jacob selected the oak at Sichem for the solemn cere mony, because it had already been consecrated as a sanctuary of God by the fact that it was on that spot that Abraham, on his entrance into Canaan, was honoured with the first appearance of the Lord, and had erected his first altar in Canaan, and there also, that he himself had built an altar on his return from Mesopo tamia (Gen. xxxiii. 18—20) ; so Moses selected this spot for the solemn promulgation of the law (chap. viii. 30 sqq.), and Joshua chose it on the present occasion, because it was there that Jacob had put away the strange gods and consecrated his whole house to the worship of Jehovah alone. This relation between the pre sent ceremony and the similar act of Jacob is rendered so promi nent by the reference to Gen. xxxv. 2 — 4 contained in v. 23 and 26, that Hengstenberg was quite justified in only mentioning this ; especially as we do not find in chap. viii. 30 — 35 any mention of Sichem, or reference to Gen. xxxv. 2 — 4. — We see at a glance how thoroughly appropriate this place was for the special object of the ceremony. " The exhortation, to be faithful to the Lord and to cleanse themselves from all kinds of idolatry, must have made a very deep impression when uttered upon the spot where the honoured patriarch had done the same thing, as his descen dants were now exhorted to do ; the monument spoke more loudly in this place than in any other" (Hengstenberg, p. 15). — And they presented themselves before God. From the words piprp^n ^h before God, compared with n^f-p tiHpOS by the sanctuary of the Lord (v. 26), all the commentators conclude, that the ark of the covenant was brought from Shiloh to Sichem to this solemn ceremony. (See also Movers Krit. TJnters. iib. d. Chron. p. 290). But this is not involved in either of the expressions, as Heng stenberg (p. 13 seq.) has observed. The presence of the ark of the covenant or of the tabernacle does not always follow from the phrase Tipp ^D^j1 wbich is used in chap, xviii. 6, xix. 51, &c, T I " ¦ ' i " Undoubtedly the phrase -fi-p ^g^ before Jehovah, is frequently used in connexion with ceremonies, which were performed at the sanc tuary but this was only because Jehovah announced his presence there in an 'especial manner. If, however, ' before Jehovah ' could only refer o L 484 JOSHUA'S SECOND ADDRESS. to indicate the presence of the Lord above the ark of the cove nant ; much less is it implied in the more general term vjp^ q^-L,^-, before God, which is used here. A correct explana tion is given by Calvin, though he infers from v. 26 that the ark of the covenant was present at Sichem : " it is said that they all appeared before God ; to show the sacred dignity and religious character of the assembly. For there is no doubt, that in the solemn ceremony Joshua invoked the name of God : and addressed the people, as in his sight, that each one might feel for himself, that God was presiding over all that was performed there, and that they were not transacting any private business in that place, but confirming a sacred and inviolable covenant with God himself." Before God indicates therefore only " the reli gious character of the ceremony." (Hengstenberg, p. 13.) \\ES2 2 — 15. Joshua commences his address to the representa tives of the nation with a summary of the proofs, which Jehovah had afforded of his goodness to his people Israel, from the call of Abraham to that day (vv. 2—13), and founds upon them a strong appeal, that they would renounce idolatry and serve God alone (v. 14 seq.) — Thus the review of God's favours lays the foundation for his- appeal. All that the Lord had done for his people, ought to impel and allure the Israelites to reject every other god, and to render exclusive obedience to the Lord, who, from his fatherly kindness and mercy alone, had done such great things for them. — Vv. 2 — 4. The first act of free, unmerited favour on the part of God, was the call of Abraham from an idolatrous family ; and the guidance of him into the land of Canaan, where his descendants multiplied so rapidly that Esau obtained possession of Mount Seir for his family, and Jacob went down with his children to Egypt. " He commences with their unpurchased elevation, which God had so truly originated, that they could not boast of any excellence or merit. God had bound them to himself by a tighter chain, in that, when they were on an equality with all others, he had taken them under his care as to ceremonies at the sanctuary, Jehovah would only be present there, shut up in his holy place; an absurd idea, destructive of the divine omnipresence, and one which can never be found in the Holy Scrip tures." (Hengstenberg Beitr. iii. p. 44.) CHAPTER XXIV. 2—15. 485 his own people, for no other reason than his own good pleasure And in order that it might be evident that they had nothing to boast of, he refers them to their origin, and shows that their fathers who dwelt in Chaldaea worshipped idols as well as others, and were not in any respect different from the multitude." (Calvin.)- -V. 2. pyp,-^ all the people; not that all were actu- T T T ally present, but that all were represented by their heads and officers (v. 1).— Jehovah is called at the very outset and after wards, repeatedly, ^^P ^b$ the God of Israel; a title most appropriate to the object of the whole address. " For the whole discourse is occupied with an account of the goodness of God, as manifested to the people of Israel" (Masius.) ^^Tf p^wi on t t — v " : the other side of the river (Euphrates), namely at Ur in Chal daea ; which Terah left, in company with Abraham and Lot, his brother's son, for Haran (Kdppat, Carrae) in Mesopotamia, whence Abraham proceeded to Canaan according to the com mand of God (Gen. xi. 31, xii. 1 sqq.).— p^fyft from the begin- T ¦¦ niug, from time immemorial. — Terah had three sons, Abram, Nahor, and Haran (Gen. xi. 27). Only the first two are men tioned here, as it was from them that the people of Israel descended, from Nahor, on the mother's side, through Rebekka and her nieces Leah and Rachel, Gen. xxii. 23, and xxix. 10, 16 sqq. — "rm "^n HP2JP1 and (your fathers) served other gods, not the one true God, Jehovah, who revealed himself to Abra ham and chose you as his peculiar people. We cannot determine from these words what kind of idolatry that of Abraham's ances tors was, as the phrase other gods in contradistinction to the one true God is far too indefinite. According to Gen. xxxi. 1 9, 34, Laban possessed Teraphim, or Penates (see my commentary on the Books of Kings, p. 586.) — Nor can we arrive at any certain conclusion with reference to the much-disputed question, whe ther Abraham was an idolater before his call.1 All that can 1 There is one tradition with reference to Abraham, that he was trained to Sabaeism when at home, (see Hottinger,hist. orient, p. 246, and Philo in several passages of his works, cf. Winer R.W. i. p. 14 note). According to another (in the Targum Jonath, on Gen. ii. 23, and the later Rabbins), he was persecuted on account of his antipathy to idolatry, and obliged to leave his fatherland. 486 joshua's second address. be said is, that he was neither deeply sunk in idolatry, nor, when in his father's bouse, entirely free from superstition. His call, therefore, was not a reward for his righteousness before God, but an act of free and unmerited favour on the part of God. — V. 3. " I took your father Abraham and made him go (led him) throughout all the land of Canaan." " It is not said that he sought God of his own accord, but.that he was taken by him and led to another place. He multiplies his benefits, by his wondrous preservation of Abraham during his long-continued wanderings." (Calvin.) — And I multiplied his posterity, by giving to him Isaac, and to Isaac two sons, Esau and Jacob, from the latter of whom the whole of the people of Israel descended. — The Kethib y^tf) must not be altered, as it is the less usual form ; nor must nN'aN in verse 8 (see Ewald Lehrb. § 232 d.) — V. 4. Esau T • — obtained for himself and his descendants possession of Mount Seir (Gen. xxxvi. 6 sqq. ; Deut. ii. 5), and had no part in the promised land of Canaan, because he had despised the divine blessing of the promises, by thoughtlessly parting with his birth right. — The'next statement, " Jacob and his sons went down into Egypt," serves to introduce the account, which follows, of the glorious manifestations of the mercy of God. Vv. 5 — 7. Joshua presupposes an acquaintance on their part with all that occurred in Egypt, and proceeds immediately to the mission of Moses and Aaron (Ex, iii. 10 sqq., iv. 14 sqq., v. 27 — 29), which led to the overthrow of Egypt by the Lord, and tlie deliverance of Israel out of bondage with his mighty arm — pip^ft-plb* tHilWl anc^ ? smote Egypt. pspjjft ^oes not stand for p^p^jft ^EJSNj as the Rabbins suppose, but signifies the kingdom — the land and people of Egypt, p^j frequently occurs in connexion with divine plagues and judgments, and refers in this passage to all the Egyptian plagues, by which the Lord compelled the obstinate Pharoah to set his people free. The words before us point to Ex. iii. 20, " I will smite Egypt with all my wonders, which I will do in the midst thereof." In that passage, however, p(3n is use(i instead of f\yi ; but in Ex. vii. 27, 32$ is applied to the plague of frogs, and in xii. 23 and 37 to the aughter of the first born of Egypt. — The words : " and after- wards I brought you out," answer to Ex iii 20, " and after that CHAPTER XXIV. 8 — 13. 487 he will let you go."— V. 6 seq. The Egyptians, who pursued the Israelites, were overthrown by the Lord, by his bringing upon them the waters of the sea and covering the whole army, together with its chariots and horsemen (i.e., drowning them in the sea). Ex. xiv. 9 — ai.—pfipp ^ IpJJ^I is taken from Ex. xiv. 10. — The clause, " and he put darkness between you and the Egyp tians," refers to the fact that the angel of the Lord, who led Israel in the symbol of the pillar of fire and of cloud, passed to the rear of the army of Israel during the passage, and separated it by the cloud from the Egyptians, in such a manner that the cloud spread darkness over the latter, and a bright light over the Israelites, Ex. xiv. 19, 20. — "And ye dwelt in the wilderness many days," viz., forty years, as we learn from Num. xiv. 33 and other passages. Vv. 8 — 10. After this God gave them the land of the Amorites on the other side of the Jordan, the land of the kings Sihon and Og (Num. xxi. 21 — 35. See the remarks at chap. ii. 10), and defeated the counsel of Balak, king of the Moabites, by compelling Balaam the soothsayer, who was sent for by Balak, to bless Israel instead of cursing them, as Balak desired. (See the history of Balaam, Num. xxii. — xxiv., and Hengstenberg' s .explanation). — V. 9. ^"lto1^ SnV',,'V and he warred against Israel, animo scilicet et voluntate ( Vatablius.) It is nowhere stated that Balak actually fought a battle with the Israelites. — V. 10. "And I would not hearken unto Balaam," i.e., I would not comply with his wishes, by allowing him to curse Israel at the request of Balak, and receive the reward of soothsaying. I would not do as he wished, but he was obliged to follow my will and pronounce a blessing. "And I delivered you out of his hand," i.e., the hand of Balak, who wished to destroy Israel by the instrumentality of Balaam, Num. xxii. 6 and 11. yv. 11 13. In the same manner did the Lord drive out the Canaanites on this side of the Jordan by his mighty power, and give the land, with its cities and produce, to Israel to possess and enjoy without the labour of building or of cultivating.— The last mentioned proofs of the favour of God, which had been witnessed by the people themselves, are all summarily classed together by Joshua, who first speaks of Jericho as tbe starting- 488 joshua's second address. point of the war, and then connects with the inhabitants of Jericho all the other tribes of Canaan, who fought against the Israelites and were given into their hand. !)ftpr?vl refers not only to ''ipp'V^^S.j but also to the seven other Canaanitish tribes, who are mentioned here, as well as chap. iii. 10. 17373, "ipppi does not mean the same as 'ipppi v^ip (chap. ii. 9, 24), as Herwerden (de libr. Jos. p. 99) supposes. Nor does it denote the lords, authorities, as Masius and Maurer say ; but the occu piers, the men of property in Jericho. In this connexion no title could be found, which would be more appropriate as a designation of the inhabitants of Jericho, since the greatness of the divine favour was manifested most strikingly in the fact, that Jehovah took away both the city and land from the owners, and gave them to his people Israel. — In verse 12 especial promi nence is given to the agency of God in the defeat and destruc tion of the Canaanites on both sides of the Jordan. The words, " I sent hornets before you, and thou didst drive out (the Canaanites and) the two kings of the Amorites, not by thy sword nor by thy bow," point out the divine promise : "I will send hornets before thee, that they may drive out before thee the Hivites, the Canaanites, and the Hittites " (Ex. xxiii. 28 ; Deut. vii. 20) as now fulfilled, and must be explained in agreement with those passages, pr^pj} t : • is the hornet, the largest species of wasp (vid. Bochart hieroz. torn. ii. lib. 4. c. 13, Rosenmuller bibl. Althk. iv. 2, p. 429 sqq., and Gesenius thes. iii. 1186.) The article denotes a species, viz. the hornets, as a peculiar species of animals. Most of the earlier expositors understood these words in their literal signification, and Bochart, whose extensive reading is well known, has cited from Pliny, Justin, and Aelian, various accounts of the ancients, which tell of whole tribes that were driven from their possessions by frogs, mice, wasps, and other small animals. But the argu ments by which Rosenmuller (ut supra and Schol. in Jos.) still defends the literal interpretation of the verse before us, are not convincing. The decision of this point does not depend upon the question whether hornets could become a plague sufficiently fearful to compel a whole population to leave their abodes, nor, on the other hand, upon the absence of any account of the Canaanites having been thus expelled by hornets (for we CHAPTER XXIV. 8—13. 489 willingly grant that the Old Testament does not contain a record of every single event), but upon the question whether we are at liberty to refer these words to a particular plague, with which God afflicted the Canaanites. This must have been the case, if we are to take the words literally, for we cannot possibly suppose, as C. a Lapide does, that God always sent hornets before the Israelites on both sides of the Jordan, which so plagued the Amorites and Canaanites, that "the Hebrews, who followed, easily slew them with their swords and defeated them with their arrows." So universal a plague would certainly have been recorded in the history of the conquest of Canaan. But to refer the words to one single plague would be opposed to the context, not only in the passage before us, but also in Ex. xxiii. 28, and Deut. vii. 20. In these two passages the hornets are described as the means by which God would drive out before Israel, not only one Canaanitish tribe in particular, but all the Canaanites ; for the three tribes, the Hivites, Hittites and Canaanites, stand for the whole. And, according to the verse before us, not merely the seven tribes of Canaan on this side of the Jordan, but the two kings of the Amorites on the other side were driven out by hornets. A figurative interpretation is therefore evidently neces sary, and the only one which is admissible. Still the hornets are not a figure of speech used to represent " all kinds of natural evils with which they were afflicted by God," as Rosenmuller (ad Exod. xxiii. 28), the Exegetical Handbook, and Maurer (in loco) take it to be. They denote (to use the words of Augustine, quaest. 27 in Jos.) acerrimos timoris aculeos, quibus quodam- modo volantibus rumoribus pungebantur, ut fugerent.1 This is clearly confirmed by Exod. xxiii. 28 compared with v. 27. In the latter verse God promises, " I will send my fear before thee," and then in v. 28, " and I will send hornets before thee." It is true that, in the opinion of Bochart and Rosenm'illler, " the fear which was sent by God was not the same as the hornets which he sent. 1 This explanation is found in the Arabic version, where pJIH^n is rendered »y ^lai^n ^S^ ale not °^ mu°b moment. For the fact that the Sep tuagint reads oabeKa flao-iXeis t. a. proves that the words were in the text, whilst lyjgj alone is misinterpreted. The omission of the words from the Arabic only proves that the translators thought them unsuit able, and3 therefore left them out. And, lastly, it is not at all sur prising that after the author had brought us to the western side of the Jordan in v. 11, he should take us again to the eastern side by the introduction of the two Kings of the Amorites, for the miraculous assistance of God, which is mentioned in v. 12, was rendered to the people on the one side as well as the other. Maurer' s improbable con jecture with reference to the origin of the supposed gloss falls of course at the same time. 3 chapter xxiv. 14, 15. 491 the greatness of the benefits which the Lord had conferred upon Israel in the gift of Canaan. Vv. 14 and 15. After having thus briefly reviewed the great and glorious acts of God, and set them before the eyes of the Israelites, Joshua calls upon them for gratitude, and urges them to worship their God in sincerity and truth, on account of the abundance of his mercy towards them. prni?l and n°w> as ye have received from your God such inexhaustible proofs of his love, " fear the Lord, and serve Him in sincerity and truth." The whole stress of this exhortation is laid upon p|ftfr$^| D^anS. in integritate et veritate, i.e. integro et vero s. sincero animo. For they already worshipped him with words and deeds ; there was no gross idolatry existing amongst them then. Their heart, however, was not given completely and undividedly to the Lord, but still clung to the foreign gods, which their fathers had wor shipped beyond the river and in Egypt. These they were to put away and to worship Jehovah with entire and sincere heart, pigjpi, * T which in other places is an adjective, is used here and in Judg. ix. 13, 16 as a noun: that which is irreproachable, integrity.1 Masius has well said : " Integrity is here opposed to feigned religion, a fault so prevalent amongst men in the present day, that it might almost be thought to be inherent. p,ftfc$ truth (see chap. ii. 12) refers to integrity, sincerity in worship.— The D^n^N or' as tnev are caue(i in v- 23, P33PT TITfcJ strange gods, which they were to put away, do not involve the existence of gross or outward idolatry, as Hauff (Offenbarungs gl. p. 125 seq.), De Wette (Einl. p. 233), and other modern critics affirm, for the purpose of pointing out a disagreement between this account and the rest of the book, which describes the people as worshipping Jehovah alone. For if they had actually brought idolatrous images with them, they would undoubtedly, when i It is doubtful whether rpftft in the phrase pi£P£i Tr^pi, Ps- lxxxiv 4, is a substantive or an adjective : to walk in 'an upright, i.e. as an upright man, as Hengstenberg (in loco) explains ,t. But Hmg- stenberg&es too far, when be says that in the verse before us the word is not used as a substantive ; for both here and in Judg. ix. 16 and 19, the combination with np^ proves that it must be so. 492 joshua's second address. they responded to Joshua's appeal and promised to serve the Lord, have produced these idols, in order that Joshua might destroy them, or buy them as Jacob had done before (Gen. xxxv. 4.) Nor can this be inferred from the words, " which your fathers served on the other side of the flood, and in Egypt ;" for it cannot be proved that Terah's family practised gross ido latry. The authentic accounts of the Old Testament only speak of Teraphim, Penates (cf. v. 2), which are somewhat different from actual idols; and the idolatryof the people in Egypt, to which Ezekiel also refers in chap. xx. 7 sqq. and xxiii. 3, 8, was only an " intermixture of the worship of the true god with certain idolatrous elements." (Havernick on Ezek. p. 311.) It was therefore a condition in which the heart was divided between Jehovah, the God of their fathers, and the ' foreign gods of the heathen ; and there can only have been a few individuals, in whom it grew for brief periods into open idolatry, i.e. the worship of idols by sacrifice and other such rites. But from attachment of heart to foreign gods the people never became entirely free, and therefore Joshua had good ground for his exhortation, that they would put away the strange gods. (See also v. 23.) — V. 15. As. the worship of God from the heart cannot be forced by commandments and prohibitions, but must be the result of free decision, of sincere inclination and love, which admits of no authority ; Joshua called upon the people, if they were unwilling to serve the Lord, to choose that day the gods whom they would serve, whether the gods of their fathers beyond the Euphrates, or the gods of the Amorites, the people of the land in which they were dwelling ; whilst he with his house would serve Jehovah. The early commentators did not fail to perceive that this demand was not a discharge from obli gation, but the most earnest exhortation to the faithful worship of Jehovah. Hence Calvin has no doubt "that his tongue was directed by the spirit to express those sentiments. For when God brings men under command, they are generally ready to profess a love of religion, from which, however, they immediately fall away ; thus building without a foundation. This happens because they are not sufficiently distrustful of their own weak ness, and do not consider how difficult it is to give themselves up entirely to God. Hence there is need of serious examination, CHAPTER XXIV. 16 — 21. 493 that we may not upon slight impulse be driven to great efforts, and fail of success in our very first attempts. For this reason Joshua, in order to try the Jews, releases them from obligation, that, like free men, and of their own accord, they may honestly decide what god they will serve. He does not, by this, excuse from religion those, who were already too much inclined that way ; but saves them from thoughtlessly promising what they would quickly forget. The intention of Joshua, as we shall see, was solemnly to renew the covenant, which had already been broken. Not without reason, therefore, is liberty of choice granted to them, in order that they might not afterwards plead that they were compelled ; when they had bound themselves of their own free will. At the same time, in order that he may ex cite a feeling of shame in their minds, he declares that he with his house will persevere in the worship of God." Vv. 16 — 18. The people immediately express their abhorrence of idolatry, and declare their hearty determination to serve Jehovah, as he is their God, and has done such great things for them. " The substance of their reply is this, that as God by his wonderful deliverance has constituted them his pe culiar people, and has constantly assisted them, and proved that he is their God, the ingratitude on their part would be despi cable, if they were to reject him, and turn to other gods." (Cal vin.) — The words "that brought us up and our fathers out of the land of Egypt, from the house of bondage," call to mind the clause attached to the first commandment (Ex. xx. 2 ; Deut. v. 6). Those which follow, " who did those great wonders before our eyes " refer to all the miracles of the Lord, of which Joshua had just reminded them ; vv. 3 — 13. — V. 18. i£ptifc$ DU we a^so as well as thou and thy house (v. 15). Vv. 19 — 21. Joshua is not satisfied with this declaration, but represents to the assembly how difficult it is to serve Jehovah, the holy and jealous God, in order that they may be led seri ously to consider, under what kind of obligation they are placing themselves, and may not afterwards thoughtlessly break their vow by idolatry. "Joshua points out the holiness of God, and the necessity that his worship should be most holy, and concludes from this that his service is most difficult." (Masius.) — " Ye cannot serve Jehovah," i.e. not in the state of heart in 494 joshua's second address. which you are at present. " Ye will not be able from merely human resolutions, and apart from the help of the grace of God, without seriously turning away from all idols, or without true penitence and faith." (J.H. Michaelis.) For he is r^y^-r) pipt'")^, a holy God. On the plural pipj '^ God, Ewald observes (Lehrb. § 178 b) : " the word seems, not so much to be used on account of its similarity to the idea Lord, as to have come down in a plural form from the earlier times in which the Deity was re garded as infinitely divisible and infinite in number, and then again as connected and combined in one." There is more depth in the remarks of Hengstenberg, in his excellent treatise on the growth of the name of God, Elohim (Beitr. ii. p. 251 seq.) He gives this explanation of the idea contained in the name, " It directs attention to the infinite riches and infinite fulness, con tained in the one divine Being, and therefore to the fact, that if we were to believe in innumerable gods, and endow them with perfection, they would still all be contained in the one pin^N-" fcftpp indicates " the distance of God in general from the nature 't of tbe creature," and " especially his distance from sin." " The scriptural idea of holiness includes that of the dogmatists, who define holiness as ' the highest purity in God, who desires the same purity in the creature,' but it is not the same thing. The holiness of the Scriptures combines most closely both glory and holiness ; God is holy, inasmuch as he is separated from every thing created and finite, and elevated above it, especially above sin, which could only fix its seat within the limits of the finite." (Hengstenberg on the Psalms). — In this place the contrast to sin is the prominent idea ; for p'vQpp is explained by the words, " he will not forgive your transgressions nor your sins ;" just as DVtVn is more closely defined by tfiapp^N. N"Up b& a jealous God, is not merely frXcorrj?, an eager avenger of sin, but %qka- TU7ro?, one who requires of his people, whom he has married, the unbroken fidelity of marriage, and punishes most inflexibly any attachment to another God, any departure from him (v^Jg) ; whilst he continues his blessings upon love and fidelity even to distant generations ; see Ex. xx. 5 ; Deut. v. 9 ; and Ex. xxxiv. 14 ; Deut. iv. 24, vi. 15. In all these passages, however, we have the form ^jp, here we have a different form tf\m, which chapter xxiv. 22 — 25. 495 also occurs in Nahum i. 2. ^to wben used to denote the for giveness of sins, is generally construed with the accusative of the thing, it is more rarely found with ^ rei, (besides this passage, Ex. xxiii. 21 ; Ps. xxv. 18), but with a slight modification of the meaning: to grant forgiveness of sin. — V. 20. The expression "D3n T}'bl$ is taken from Gen. xxxv. 2 ; see v. 23.— yppp 2ttft then he will turn and do you hurt. y$y\ does not mean : et vertet se a vobis ; but he will turn round, i.e., alter his attitude, change the 2^t2^n into V"^^' ^s I'^n includes all the blessings pro mised in the law, which Jehovah had hitherto bestowed upon his people, ^ppj embraces all the punishments, with which the law threatens the people, in case of apostasy from their God and Lord. — V. 21. tffj means minime, nequaquam, as in chap. v. 14. Vv. 22 — 25. After the representatives of the people had once more repeated their vow, to serve the Lord, Joshua said to them, that this declaration would make them witnesses against them selves in case they should fall away. He then called upon them to put away all idolatry and to incline their hearts entirely to the Lord their God. After they had promised this also, he renewed the covenant with them.— V. 22 seq. The clear and unmistake able declaration of the heads of the people, that they had chosen the service of Jehovah, and that in case they should subsequently fall away from him, they would be witnesses against themselves, i.e., they would condemn themselves by their own evidence, is called by Masius with justice "the substance of the covenant" with the Lord, and the demand of Joshua that they should put away from the midst of them the foreign gods and worship Jehovah (v. 35) " the condition of that covenant." — " And they said pny, witnesses are we against ourselves. It was "as if they had said : we promise fully, and reaffirm what we have said." (Rosenmuller.) — The " strange gods, which are among you," which they were to put away, are supposed by Augustine (quaest. 29 in Jos.) and ;. Levi ben Gerson, to include " cogitationes a Deo alienas or cogitationes damnosas," by Calvin " falsorum Deorum figmenta;" and therefore the simple meaning would be, " put away all idols and abstain from everything profane, that you may worship in purity God alone." My explanation of v. 14 will show that I regard this as the correct interpretation, with this addition, bow- 496 renewal of the covenant. ever, that I suppose the expression to refer to idolatry of the heart of every description. For although some of the arguments used by Augustin and Calvin have not much force, yet the principal argu ment remains, that nothing is said about the removal of idolatrous images, which is mentioned in other cases, where the people make the same sacrifice as readily as here ; see e.g. Gen xxxv. 4^1 Sam. vii. 4. Even Masius, though he does not adopt this inter pretation, is obliged to confess that Joshua is speaking " most strongly of the images of foreign deities ; not as affirming, that the people had any amongst iliem at that time, but because he feared that they might have some concealed, and therefore solemnly pro claimed that it would be a crime for them even to possess them?' In fact it is impossible to find in any passage of the whole Bible a single argument against the fact so universally set forth in this book, that the people were free from outward or gross idolatry as long as Joshua was their leader. The expressions used by the prophet Amos (v. 26) and quoted by Stephen (Acts vii. 43), to which Masius refers as opposed to our opinion, relate to the forty years' journey in the desert, during which time the people, undoubtedly,- did not continue free from outward idolatry. This has been demonstrated by Hengstenberg (Beitr. p. 109 sqq.), who traces the fact most minutely to its psyschological' causes ; and if we carefully peruse the context, we shall see that the words of the prophet rather substantiate the fact that this idolatry did not exist during the time of Joshua. For Amos is anxious to tear away from his contemporaries the props on which their false security rests, their trust in the mere forms of worship, festivals, sacrifices, and such like, and therefore he declares to them that "all this can never stay the course of the divine judgment. It deserves," says he in vv. 25, 26, "just as little to be called true worship as the open idolatry in the wilderness. And therefore, as those who were outwardly idolatrous, were not allowed to enter the promised land, so they who are inwardly idolatrous, will be cast out from it, and sent into captivity." (Hengstenberg ut supra.) — Outward idolatry died out with the people who were rejected in the desert. The new race, which had been received again into the covenant of the Lord by the cir cumcision and passover at Gilgal, and had renewed that cove nant at Ebal, and which was assembled once more, before chapter xxiv. 22—25. 497 Joshua's death, to ratify it at Sichem, had no idols made with hands, but only idols of the heart; these they were to put away, and incline their hearts to Jehovah, who asks not a divided affection, but the whole heart, Deut. vi. 5 sqq V. 24 seq. After the declaration of the people : « The Lord our God will we serve and his voice will we obey," Joshua concluded a covenant with them. As this covenant imposed no new obligations upon the people, no new law, but merely enforced those, under which they were already laid, namely, that they should worship none but their God and Lord, it was actually only a renewal of the cove nant, which was concluded at Sinai (Ex. xxiv. 3 sqq.), and therefore no fresh sacrifices were offered here, though many com mentators have assumed that there were. — "And set them a statute and an ordinance in Sichem." Most of the expositors (Seb. Miinster, Vatablius, Masius, C. a Lapide, and many others) suppose these words to mean, " he laid before them a synopsis of the statutes and judgments of the law of God," or had the principal, points of the Mosaic law read to them. But on the other hand Calvin has quite correctly observed : " those who ex plain these words as referring to some new address of Joshua, spoil the sense entirely. For they can only be properly applied to the law of Moses, and are really intended to say, that Joshua promulgated nothing, except that they were to be steadfast in their obedience to the law ; and that no new demands were made by the covenant, but that the doctrine, which they had already received and professed, was here confirmed." The words before us call to mind Ex. xv. 25, where an event, which proved that the Israelites were preserved by Jehovah from those destructive elements in nature, to which Egyptians and other heathen were exposed, is called a "qsqj^ pn a statute and- an ordinance which God set (made) for Israel." It consisted in the promise, that if the Israelites diligently hearkened to the voice of the Lord, and kept all his statutes, he would, as their physician, deliverthem from all thediseases, to which Egyptians were exposed (v. 26.) Just as in that instance the manifestation of God, as the physician of his people, was a statute and an ordinance for Israel, inasmuch as the same manifestation would be made on every occasion, so long as they remained faithful to the Lord ; so was the renewal of the covenant by Joshua at this time an actual 32 * 498 A STONE ERECTED. establishment and confirmation of all the obligations and ordi nances of Israel, that were included in the covenant. The renewal of the covenant at Sichem was a ppj a statute, binding Israel to a renewed and earnest observance of the law, and a IflBttJa an ordinance, giving it a title to expect, on this condition, the fulfilment on the part of Jehovah of all the blessings of the covenant. — The rendering of p^ga in the Septuagint : ev XnXa> kvoyiTLov ttj? aul *be transactions connected with the ratification of the covenant (see the Introduction) in the book of the law of God, and set up a large stone, as a visible memorial of the solemn ceremony. This stone was placed upon the spot on which it had taken place, " under the oak which was in the sanctuary of God." nVt^n the oak, is written n^Mn in , T — T T ¦• T Gen. xxxv. 4, and rt*jj$ in Gen. xii. 6, see Gesenius thes. i. 50 seq. — ppn^ UHpaS ItCM is generally rendered " which was at the sanctuary of Jehovah," ^ being supposed to stand for ^^. But there is no ground for this ; ^ never means at in the sense of juxta, near. And nothing can be proved from chap. v. 13, which Rosenmuller quotes ; for the meaning within is very appa-; rent there (see the passage). — Just as arbitrary an explanation is given by Vatablius and Rosenmuller, " on the spot in which the sanctuary of God, i.e., the ark, had been placed," and by C. a Lapide, " at the threshold of the tabernacle, which Joshua had caused to be brought, with the ark, from Shiloh to Sichem." The correct interpretation is given by Masius, " I think that that spot- is called the sanctuary of God, which was the first in all Canaan to be consecrated by Abraham, when he erected an altar, and offered worship by the tree which was standing there, and when he received from God his most welcome announce ment. In a similar manner Bethel also, i.e. the house of God, was the name given by Jacob to the place, in which he first saw a divine vision, and heard words similar to those addressed to Abraham, Gen. xxviii. 12." Michaelis is of the same opinion. He renders ^pp723 " at the holy place," and describes it as the chapter xxiv. 29—33. 499 place " where Abraham once offered sacrifice and God appeared to him." Hengstenberg too (Beitr. iii. p. 15), says, "the sanc tuary is merely the open space under that venerable oak." This sanctuary, therefore, is not at variance with the sanctuary of the tabernacle, which was set up at Shiloh, as Hauff (p. 129), De Wette (Einl. p. 233), and others suppose. — In v. 27 Joshua ex plains the reason of his setting up the stone. The stone is to be a witness against the people if they break their vow and deny their God. By a poetical prosopopeia Joshua describes the stone as hearing the words of God, since it had been set up for the purpose of reminding the people of the promise which they had given to the Lord and, in case they should be unfaithful, of bear ing witness against them. pipi'^NS tifrtS to deny Godin thought, word, and deed. — V. 28. Joshua had thus finished his work. Having done all in his power to confirm the people in their fidelity to God, he had only to send them away, every man to his inheritance. Vv. 29 — 33. Our historian also has reached the end of his work To bring it entirely to a close he has only a few re marks to add, with reference to (1) the death of Joshua, vv. 29 — 30, (2) the conduct of the people after his death, v. 31, (3) the burial of the bones of Joseph, which had been brought out of Egypt, v. 32, and (4) the death of Eleazar the high priest in the days of Joshua, v. 33.1 V. 29. The title given to Joshua of pi'ipji p^y (servant of the Lord, see chap. i. 1), does not prove that this section is a later interpolation ; as Bertholdfs assertion (Einl. iii. p. 855), that the title only dates from the period when Moses, Joshua, and others were first raised to the rank of national saints, is destitute of all foundation. — V. 30. On the site of Timnath-Serah see chap. xix. 50. — The Alexandrine and Arabic versions have appended to v. 30 the traditionary legend, that the knives of 1 The four verses 28—31 occur again in Judg. ii. 6—9, but the wder is different, and a few other changes of slight importance are made, the authors of the two books having taken them, for different purposes, nearly word for word from some common source ; see the introduction and my article in Rudelbach's u. Guericke's Zeitschr. 1846. H. 1. p. 41. 500 burial of Joseph's bones. stone, with which Joshua performed the rite of circumcision at Gilgal, were buried with him. V. 31. The remark, )that Israel served the Lord during all the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who. survived him, who had known all the works of the Lord that he had done for' Israel, is closely connected with the plan of our book, and is quite in its place here as an evidence of the fruit, which resulted from Joshua's faithful activity for the Lord in Israel. " All the works of the Lord" refer to all the miraculous proofs of the mercy of God, which had been shown in the deliverance of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, their guidance through the desert of Arabia, and their introduction to the peaceful possession of the land that was promised to their fathers. V 32. The account of the burial of the bones of Joseph, which they had brought with them out of Egypt, is also not a mere supplement or appendix to the book. It forms, on the con trary, a part of the plan of it, since it was an evidence of the fulfilment of the promise, which the sons of Israel gave to their brother Joseph, when he died (Gen. 1. 25), and was necessary to complete the account contained in Ex. xiii. 19, that the Israelites, when they left Egypt, took with them the chest in which the bones of Joseph had been placed. But it does not follow from the position of this statement at the end of the book, that the bones were not buried till after the death of Joshua. — The bones of Joseph were buried in Sichem, in the plot of ground which Jacob bought of the children of Hamor, the proprietor of Sichem, for one hundred kesita, after his return from Mesopo tamia (Gen. xxxiii. 19), and which he had set apart for his descendants by the erection of an altar (Gen. xxxiii. 20), ^ *)in*,1 and (which) then became an inheritance for the sons of Joseph, Le., the plot of ground as well as Sichem, not the bones of Joseph, as Abrav. and others, including Dereser and Maurer suppose. If l^n^l belonged to pflQjjy, we ought to have the feminine •"OVpIfiY — It cannot be proved from Gen. xlviii. 22, that Jacob TVS ¦ " gave this piece of land to his son Joseph, as Masius, J. H. Michaelis, Dereser, and others suppose, (cf. Tuch and Baumgarten in loco). CHAPTER XXIV. 33. 501 V. 33. In order that the hook may contain everything of theocratic importance connected with the period, the author concludes with a notice of the death and burial of Eleazar the High Priest during the lifetime of Joshua.— p^ he had died probably before Joshua, though it cannot be inferred with cer tainty from chap. xxii. 13, 31, 32, that Phinehas was then High Priest, and Eleazar already dead.— The hill of Phinehas was on the mountains of Ephraim. The LXX., Syriac, and Vulgate render P\V2i as *be name of a town. And Eusebius accordingly (s.v. TaBad