{"commentary":{"id":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","website":"https://worthy.bible/commentaries/keil-delitzsch-commentary","licenseUrl":"https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/mark/1.0/","licenseNotes":null,"licenseNotice":null,"englishName":"Carl Friedrich Keil and Franz Delitzsch Old Testament Commentary","language":"eng","textDirection":"rtl","sha256":"bb5cc0f9cfe0a93b3c903bb6972c6bc8c4e9f2bd3be6c2a6d276737cf9c5edce","availableFormats":["json"],"listOfBooksApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/books.json","listOfProfilesApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/profiles.json","numberOfBooks":39,"totalNumberOfChapters":909,"totalNumberOfVerses":6516,"totalNumberOfProfiles":0,"languageName":"English","languageEnglishName":"English"},"book":{"id":"JOS","commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","name":"Joshua","commonName":"Joshua","introduction":"The Book of Joshua\n\nIntroduction\n\nContents, Date, and Character of the Book\n\nThe book of Joshua derives its name, יהושע, Ἰησοῦς Ναυή or υἱὸς Ναυή (lxx), not from its author, but from its contents, viz., the history of the guidance of Israel into the land of Canaan, the land promised to the fathers, by Joshua the son of Nun. It commences immediately after the death of Moses, with the command addressed by the Lord to Joshua, to lead the children of Israel over the Jordan into Canaan, and not only to take possession of this land, but to divide it among the tribes of Israel (Jos 1:1-9), and closes with the death and burial of Joshua and his contemporary, the high priest Eleazar (Jos 24:29-33). The contents may be divided into two parts of nearly equal length-the conquest of Canaan (Josh 1-12), and the division of it among the tribes of Israel (Josh 12-24); Jos 1:1-9 forming the introductory notice, that when Moses was dead the Lord commanded Joshua, who had been called to be the leader of Israel in his stead, to carry out the work entrusted to him, and encouraged him by the promise of His omnipotent help in the completion of it (Jos 1:1-9), the history opens in the first part, (1) with the preparations made by Joshua for advancing into Canaan; viz., (a) the command of Joshua to the people to prepare for crossing the Jordan, the summons to the two tribes and a half to help their brethren to conquer Canaan (Jos 1:10-18), and the despatch of spies to Jericho (Josh 2); (b) the crossing of the river, which had been laid dry by a divine miracle (Josh 3 and 4); and (c) the preparation of Israel for the conquest of the land, by the performance of circumcision and the passover at Gilgal (Jos 5:1-12). Then follow (2) the conquest and subjugation of Canaan; viz., (a) the commencement of it by the miraculous fall of Jericho (Josh 5:13-6:27), the attack upon Ai, and capture of that town, after the expiation of the guilt that had been brought upon the congregation through the sin of Achan against the ban (Josh 7-8:29), and the solemn act of setting up the law in the land on Ebal and Gerizim (Jos 8:30-35); (b) the further conquest of the land through the subjugation of the Gibeonites, who had succeeded surreptitiously in obtaining a treaty from Israel which guaranteed their safety (Josh 9); the two great victories over the allied kings of Canaan in the south (Josh 10) and north (Josh 11), with the capture of the fortified towns of the land; and lastly, at the close of the first part, the list of the conquered kings (Josh 12). - The second part commences with the command of God to Joshua to divide the whole land among the nine tribes and a half for a possession, although several parts of it still remained unconquered; as two tribes and a half had already received from Moses their inheritance on the eastern side of the Jordan, the boundaries and towns of which are then described (Josh 13). Accordingly Joshua, with the heads of the people appointed for the purpose, proceeded to the distribution of the land, first of all (a) in the camp at Gilgal, where Caleb was the first to receive his inheritance (Jos 14:1-15), and then, according to the lot, the tribes of Judah (Josh 15) and Joseph, i.e., Ephraim and (half) Manasseh (Jos 16:1-10 and 17); and afterwards (b) at Shiloh, where the tabernacle was first of all erected, and a description of the land to be divided written down (Jos 18:1-10), and then the rest of the tribes-Benjamin (Josh 18:11-28), Simeon, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali, and Dan (Josh 19), - received their inheritance, after which the cities of refuge were selected (Jos 20:1-9), and forty-eight cities were given up by the twelve tribes for the Levites to occupy (Josh 21); and finally, (c) the warriors belonging to the tribes beyond Jordan were sent back by Joshua to their own inheritance (Josh 22). To this there is appended, in the next place, an account of what Joshua did towards the end of his life to establish the tribes of Israel securely in their inheritance: viz., (a) an exhortation to the heads of the tribes, who were gathered round him, to carry out their calling with fidelity (Josh 23); and (b) the renewal of the covenant at the diet at Shechem (Josh 24:1-28). This is followed by an account of the close of Joshua's life, and the conclusion of the whole book (Jos 24:29-33). Thus the two parts or halves of the book correspond exactly to one another, both in form and in contents. As the events described in Josh 1:10-5:12 were preparatory to the conquest of Canaan, so the diets held by Joshua after the distribution of the land by lot (Josh 23-24:28) had no other object than to establish the covenant people firmly in the inheritance bestowed upon them by God, by exhorting them to be faithful to the Lord. And just as Josh 12 rounds off the first part, as a kind of appendix which completes the history of the conquest of the land, so Josh 22 is obviously an appendix to the distribution of the land among the tribes, which brings to a close the dismission of the people to the separate portions of their inheritance.\n\nThe book of Joshua is not intended merely as a continuation of the history of Israel from the death of Moses to the death of Joshua, still less as a description of the acts of Joshua only. The purpose of the book is rather to show how, after the death of Moses, the faithful covenant God fulfilled to the children of Israel, whom He had adopted as His people of possession through the mediation of His servant, the promise which He had made to the patriarchs; how the Canaanites were destroyed, and their land given to the tribes of Israel for an hereditary possession through the medium of Joshua, the servant of Moses, whom he had consecrated as leader of the people through the laying on of hands and by putting some of his honour upon him. As the servant of Moses treading in his footsteps, Joshua finished the work which Moses was not allowed to bring to a conclusion on account of his sin at the water of strife, viz., the planting and establishment of Israel in Canaan, the land of its inheritance, which the Lord had selected for His dwelling (Exo 15:17) and chosen as the nursery ground of His kingdom. As Joshua simply carried on in this respect, and brought to completion, the work which Moses had begun, arranged, and set on foot, the book of Joshua is naturally connected very closely with the books of Moses, though without forming an integral part, or the last portion of it, and without being written by Joshua himself.\n\nThe origin of the book of Joshua is involved in obscurity, as we can neither find out its author, nor determine with certainty the date of its composition. Whereas, on the one hand, the historical account bears throughout the mark of having been written by an eye-witness, and even by one who had taken part in the events described, and the description given of the possessions allotted to the different tribes according to their respective boundaries and the cities which they contained is unquestionably founded upon contemporaneous writings, and in one passage the writer actually classes himself with those who crossed over Jordan into Canaan under the guidance of Joshua (Jos 5:1, \"until we were passed over\"); on the other hand we find a number of historical statements in the book, which point beyond the life of Joshua and are opposed to the idea that it was written by Joshua himself. We do not include in these either the closing accounts of the death of Joshua and Eleazar (Jos 24:29, Jos 24:33), or the allusion to the \"book of the righteous\" (Jos 10:13): for these accounts might have been appended to a writing of Joshua's by a later hand, just as in the case of the Pentateuch; and the book of the righteous is not a work that was composed after the time of Joshua, but a collection of odes in praise of the acts of the Lord in Israel, which were composed by pious minstrels during the conquest of the land, and were added one by one to this collection. Even the frequent repetition of the statement that this or the other has continued \"to this day,\" furnishes no certain proof that the book was not written in the closing years of Joshua's life, when we consider the purely relative signification of the formula, which is sometimes used in connection with things that only lasted a few years. Apart from such passages as Jos 22:3, Jos 22:17, and Jos 23:8-9, in which no one has discovered any allusion to a later time than that of Joshua, we find the formula \"to this day\" in Jos 4:9; Jos 5:9; Jos 6:25; Jos 7:26; Jos 8:28-29; Jos 9:27; Jos 13:13; Jos 14:14; Jos 15:63, and Jos 16:10. But if the remark made in Jos 6:25 with regard to Rahab, \"she dwelleth in Israel unto this day,\" was certainly written during her lifetime, such statements as that the first encampment of Israel in Canaan \"is called Gilgal unto this day,\" on account of the circumcision of the people that took place there, and that the valley in which Achan was stoned is called Achor \"unto this day\" (Jos 5:9; Jos 7:26), or that the memorial stones set up in the bed of the Jordan (Jos 4:9), and the heaps of stones raised upon the bodies of Achan and the king of Ai (Jos 7:26; Jos 8:29), remain \"unto this day;\" that \"unto this day\" Ai remains an heap (Jos 8:28), the Gibeonites are hewers of wood and drawers of water to the congregation (Jos 9:27), and Hebron is the inheritance of Caleb (Jos 14:14); that the Geshurites and Maachathites have not been expelled (Jos 13:13), nor the inhabitants of Jerusalem and Gezer (Jos 15:63; Jos 16:10), but dwell among and by the side of Israel \"unto this day,\" may be just as easily understood, if they were made ten of fifteen years after the conquest and division of Canaan, as if they were made after an interval of eighty or a hundred years. For even in giving names, the remark that the new name has remained to this day is of greater significance at the end of ten years than after an interval of a century, since its permanence would be fully secured if it made its way to general adoption during the first ten years. The formula \"to this day\" proves nothing more than that the written record was not quite contemporaneous with the events; but it does not warrant us in concluding that the book itself was written several generations, or even centuries, after the settlement of Israel in Canaan.\n\nIt is different with the accounts of the conquest of Hebron by Caleb, Debir by Othniel, and Leshem by the Danites (Jos 15:13-19 and Jos 19:47). Considered by themselves, these conquests could no doubt have taken place before the death of Joshua, as he lived for some time after the distribution of the land and the settlement of the different tribes in the possessions allotted to them (compare Jos 19:50 and Jos 23:1, with Jos 22:4 and Jos 21:43-44). But if we compare these accounts with the parallel accounts of the same conquests in Jdg 1:10-16 and Jdg 1:18, there can be no doubt that it was after Joshua's death that the places mentioned were taken permanently from the Canaanites, came into the actual and permanent possession of the Israelites. For, according to Jdg 1:1-15, the Israelites inquired of the Lord, after the death of Joshua, who should begin the war with the Canaanites, i.e., with those who had not yet been destroyed, and received this reply, \"Judah shall go up: behold, I have delivered the land into his hand;\" whereupon Judah and Simeon smote the Canaanites at Bezek, then advanced against Jerusalem, took this city and set it on fire, and \"afterward\" (Jdg 1:9) proceeded against the Canaanites on the mountains and in the south, and took Hebron and Debir. From this account it is evident at once that even the capture of Jerusalem did not take place till after the death of Joshua, and that even then the Jebusites were not driven out of Jerusalem, but continued to dwell there by the side of the Benjamites (Jdg 1:21), so that the same statement in Jos 15:63 also points beyond the death of Joshua. It is equally evident from Judg 18 that the Danites of Zorah and Eshtaol did not enter upon the expedition against Leshem or Laish till after Joshua's death. This also applies to the other statements concerning the failure to expel the Canaanite out of different districts and towns, which are common to this book and the book of Judges (compare Jos 13:2-5; Jos 16:10, and Jos 17:11-12, with Jdg 3:3; Jdg 1:29, and Jdg 1:27-28), so that we might infer from every one of these passages that this book of Joshua was not written till after Joshua's death, and therefore that the closing accounts of his death in Jos 24:29-33 formed a part of the original work.\n\nIf we endeavour to determine the date of composition more exactly, we have first of all to bear in mind the fact, that the wars and conquests just referred to cannot have occurred a very long time after Joshua's death; for, in the first place, it was in the very nature of things, that when the different tribes of Israel proceeded into their different possessions, even if they did not commence the attack upon the remaining Canaanites immediately, they would certainly do so very soon, in order that they might obtain complete and undisputed possession of the land. Moreover, when the division of the land by lot took place, Caleb was eighty-five years old; and yet he lived to see the capture of Hebron and Debir, and even took part in it, inasmuch as he not only promised but was able to give his daughter to the conqueror of Debir for a wife (Jos 15:13-19; Jdg 1:11.). It was no doubt shortly after these wars, in which Judah took possession of the mountains, but was unable to destroy the Canaanites who dwelt in the valley, because of their possessing iron chariots (Jdg 1:19), that the Danites felt obliged to go northwards to conquer Leshem, and take it for a possession, on account of the inheritance assigned them by lot between Judah and Ephraim being too small for them, because the Canaanites had not been expelled. And whilst all these occurrences, which are mentioned in the book of Joshua, fell within the period immediately succeeding the death of Joshua, we can find distinct evidence in the book itself that it was not written after, but before, the establishment of the monarchy in Israel. According to Jos 16:10, the Canaanites were still dwelling in Gezer; yet they were destroyed at the close of David's reign, or the commencement of that of Solomon, when Pharaoh, the king of Egypt, conquered the town (Kg1 9:16). According to Jos 15:63, the Jebusites had not yet been driven out of Jerusalem; but this was accomplished by David at the beginning of his reign over all the tribes of Israel (Sa2 5:3, Sa2 5:6-9). According to Jos 9:27, the place for the temple had not yet been chosen, but this was done in the time of David (Sa2 24:8.; Ch1 21:16.). And the Gibeonites were still hewers of wood and drawers of water to the congregation for the altar of the Lord, by virtue of the treaty which Joshua and the elders had made with them; whereas this treaty was violated by Saul, who endeavoured to destroy the Gibeonites (Sa2 21:1.). If we add to this, that our book shows no traces whatever of later times and circumstances either in its style or contents, but that it is closely connected with the Pentateuch in the language as well as in its peculiar stand-point-for example, when the only Phoenicians mentioned are the Sidonians, and they are reckoned as belonging to the Canaanites who were to be destroyed (Jos 13:4-6), whereas in the time of David we find the circumstances entirely changed (Sa2 5:11; Kg1 5:15; Ch1 14:1); and again when Sidon is referred to as the chief city of Phoenicia, and the epithet \"great\" is applied to it (Jos 11:8; Jos 19:28), whereas Tyre had outstripped Sidon even in the days of David, - the conclusion becomes an extremely probable one, that the book was written not later than twenty or twenty-five years after the death of Joshua, in all probability by one of the elders who crossed the Jordan with Joshua, and had taken part in the conquest of Canaan (vid., Jos 5:1, Jos 5:6), but who survived Joshua a considerable time (Jos 24:31; Jdg 2:7).\n\nBut even if the book of Joshua was not composed till some time after the events recorded (and the authorship cannot be determined with certainty), this does not affect its historico-prophetic character; for both the contents and form of the book show it to be an independent and simple work composed with historical fidelity, and a work which is as thoroughly pervaded with the spirit of the Old Testament revelation as the Pentateuch itself. However closely it is connected with the Pentateuch both in language and contents, there is no tenable ground for the hypothesis set up in various forms by modern critics, that it has arisen, just like the Pentateuch, from the fusion of two or three earlier writings, and was composed by the so-called \"Deuteronomist.\" For, even if we leave altogether out of sight the fact that this hypothesis is unfounded and untenable in the case of the Pentateuch, the supposed community of authorship between the book of Joshua and that of Deuteronomy, as well as the rest of the Pentateuch, in the revised from in which it has come down to us, is founded chiefly upon the opinion that the death of Moses, with which the Pentateuch closes, \"does not form a fitting conclusion for a work which commenced with the creation, and treated the earlier history in the manner in which this is done in the Pentateuch;\" because \"it is hardly conceivable that a historical work, which was written at any rate some time after the conquest of the land of Canaan by the Israelites, should describe all the preparations that were made for the conquest of the land, and then break off without including either the capture of the land, or the division of it among the remaining tribes\" (Bleek's Einleitung, Sthelin, and others). But, in the first place, it is to be observed that the Pentateuch was not written \"some time after the conquest of Canaan by the Israelites,\" and is not to be regarded as a historical work in the sense intended by these critics. It is the law book of the Old Testament, to which, as even Bleek admits, the book of Deuteronomy forms an appropriate close. And, in the second place, although the book of Joshua is closely connected with the Pentateuch, and carries on the history to the conquest of the promised land by the Israelites, there is evidence that it is an independent work, in the fact that it repeats the account of the conquest of the land on the east of Jordan, and its distribution by Moses among the two tribes and a half, and also of the cities of refuge which Moses had already appointed in that part of the land, for the purpose of giving a full and complete account of the fulfilment of the promise made by God to the patriarchs, that their seed should receive the land of Canaan for a possession; and still more in the peculiarities of language by which it is obviously distinguished from the books of Moses. In the book of Joshua not only do we find none of the archaisms which run pretty uniformly through all the books of the Pentateuch, such as הוּא for היא, נער for נערה, האל for האלּה, and other words which are peculiar to the Pentateuch; but we find, on the other hand, words and expressions which never occur in the Pentateuch, e.g., the constant form יריחי (Jos 2:1-3, etc., in all twenty-six times) instead of the form ירחי, which is quite as uniformly adopted in the Pentateuch (Num 22:1; Num 26:3, etc., in all eleven times): also ממלכוּת, for the kingdom of Sihon and Og (Jos 13:12, Jos 13:21, Jos 13:27, Jos 13:30-31), instead of ממלכת (Num 32:33; Deu 3:4, Deu 3:10, etc.); קנּוא (Jos 24:19) instead of קנּא (Exo 20:5; Exo 34:14; Deu 4:24; Deu 5:9, etc.); שׁמע, fama (Jos 6:27; Jos 9:9), for שׁמע (Gen 29:13, etc.); ירא (Jos 22:25) for יראה (Deu 4:10; Deu 5:26, etc.); and lastly, החיל גּבּורי (Jos 1:14; Jos 6:2; Jos 8:3; Jos 10:7) for חיל בּני (Deu 3:18); נאד, a bottle (Jos 9:4, Jos 9:13), for חמת (Gen 21:14-15, Gen 21:19); hitsiyt, to set on fire or burn (Jos 8:8, Jos 8:19); צנח, to spring down (Jos 15:18); קצין, a prince or leader (Jos 10:24); שׁקט, to rest (Jos 11:23; Jos 14:15); and other words besides, which you seek for in vain in the Pentateuch, whereas they frequently occur in the later books.\n\n(Note: How completely the hypothesis that the book of Joshua was written by the Deuteronomist is wrecked on these differences in language, is evident even from the attempts which have been made to set them aside. For example, when Sthelin observes that the later editor retained the form ירחי in the Pentateuch as he found it in the original work, whereas in the book of Joshua he altered the original work into the form he commonly used, this assumption is just as incredible as the hitherto unheard of assertion that the archaistic use of הוּא as a feminine instead of היא is traceable to a later form. What can have induced the later editor, then, to alter the form ממלכת, which he so commonly uses in Deuteronomy, into ממלכוּת in Joshua? The \"reliable\" Bleek prefers, therefore, to take no notice of these differences, or at least to express no opinion about them.)\n\nWhilst the independence of the book of Joshua is thus placed beyond all doubt, its internal unity, or the singleness of the authorship, is evident in general from the arrangement and connection of the contents, as shown above, and in particular from the fact, that in the different parts of the book we neither meet with material differences or discrepancies, nor are able to detect two different styles. The attempt which was formerly made by De Wette, Hauff, and others, to show that there were material discrepancies in the different parts, has been almost entirely given up by Bleek and Sthelin in their introductions. What Bleek still notices in this respect, in chs. 3 and 4, Josh 8:1-29 and other passages, will be examined in our exposition of the chapters in question, along with the arguments which Knobel employs against the unity of the book. The many traces of different modes of thought which were adduced by Sthelin in 1843, have been dropped in his special introduction (1862): the only one that he insists upon now is the fact, that the way in which Joshua acts in Jos 18:1-10 is very different from Jos 14:1-15 ff.; and that in the historical sections, as a rule, Joshua is described as acting very differently from what would be expected from Num 27:21, inasmuch as he acts quite independently, and never asks the high priest to give him an answer through the Urim and Thummim. This remark is so far correct, that throughout the whole book, and not merely in the historical sections, Joshua is never said to have inquired the will of the Lord through the medium of the Urim and Thummim of the high priest, and Eleazar is not mentioned at all in the historical portions. But it does not follow from this that there is any such difference in the mode of thought as would point to a difference of authorship. For, on the one hand, Joshua is blamed in Jos 14:14 for having made a treaty with the Gibeonites, without asking at the mouth of Jehovah, and in this there is evidently a gentle allusion to Num 27:21; and on the other hand, even Num 27:21 by no means implies that God would only make known His will to Joshua through the Urim and Thummim: so that when Joshua is there referred to the high priest for instructions, all other communications, such as those which he received directly from the Lord with regard to the conquest and division of Canaan, are thereby precluded. If the Lord made known to him what he was to do in this respect, partly by the direct communication of His will, and partly by His angel (Jos 5:13.), there was no occasion at all for Eleazar to be mentioned in the historical portion of the book, since the direction of the army to fight battles and conquer towns did not form part of the official functions of the high priest, even if he did accompany Joshua in his campaigns. In the geographical portion, however, Eleazar is only mentioned in connection with the committee of heads of the nation appointed according to the law in Num 34:17. for the distribution of the land (Jos 14:1; Jos 19:51; Jos 21:1); and even here he does not stand out with any peculiar prominence, as Joshua was still at the head of the whole nation when this was performed (Jos 13:1, Jos 13:7). Consequently, not only did Caleb apply to Joshua with the request for the inheritance promised him by the Lord (Jos 14:6.); but even in other cases, where there was no reason for enumerating the different members of the commission for dividing the land, Joshua is mentioned as appointing and superintending the casting of the lots (Jos 18:3-10; Jos 20:1).\n\nThe proofs adduced of the \"double style\" of the book are equally weak. The principal ones are the fact, that the word generally used for tribe in the historical sections is shebet, whereas matteh is the word employed in the geographical sections, and that in the latter the word machaloketh is altogether wanting (Jos 11:23; Jos 12:7). But the interchange of shebet and matteh may be fully explained from the difference in the meaning of these two words, shebet denoting the tribe as a political corporation, possessing independence and power, and matteh having simple regard to its genealogical aspect-a distinction which is not overthrown by the assurance, that \"in Jos 7:14, Jos 7:16, Jos 7:18, and Jos 22:1, as compared with Jos 13:29, and in Jos 3:12, as compared with Num 34:18, the charge is perfectly arbitrary.\" But whether it be involuntary or carefully considered, there is no ground for inferring that there have been two writers engaged upon the work, for the simple reason that both words occur in the historical as well as the geographical sections-sometimes, in fact, in the very same verse, e.g., Jos 13:29 and Num 18:2, where we cannot possibly imagine a fusion of different documents to have taken place. (For further remarks, see at Jos 7:1.) The word machaloketh, however, is not synonymous with mishpachah, as Sthelin supposes, but denotes the various subdivisions of the tribes into families, fathers' houses and families; and this also not only occurs in Jos 11:23 and Jos 12:7, but in the geographical portion also, in Jos 18:10. The other remark, viz., that \"in the place of the אבות ראשׁי, who are the leading actors in the geographical sections, we find the elders, judges, heads ראשׁים and שׁטרים in the historical, or else simply the shoterim (Jos 1:10; Jos 3:2; Jos 8:33; Jos 23:2; Jos 24:1), or the elders,\" is neither quite correct, nor in the least degree conclusive. It is incorrect, inasmuch as even in the geographical portion, namely Jos 17:4, the נשׂיאים are mentioned instead of the raa'sheey 'aabowt, along with Eleazar and Joshua. But the notion upon which this argument is founded is still more erroneous, viz., that \"the נשׂיאים, אבות ראשׁי, זקנים, שׁפטים and שׁטרים are all the same, as we may clearly see from Deu 1:15;\" for the identity of the terms elders and heads with the terms judges and officers (shoterim) cannot possibly be inferred from this passage, in which the judges and shoterim are said to have been chosen from the elders of the nation. Even the \"heads of the fathers' houses\" (see at Exo 6:14) were only a section of the princes and heads of the nation, and those mentioned in the book of Joshua are simply those who were elected as members of the distribution committee, and who are naturally referred to in connection with the division of the land by lot; whereas the judges and shoterim had nothing to do with it, and for this very reason are not mentioned at all in the geographical sections. - And if, instead of confining ourselves to the words, we turn our attention to the facts, all the peculiarities that we meet with in the different parts of the book may be explained in this way, and the seeming differences brought into harmony. In a work which embraces two such different subjects as the forcible conquest and the peaceable distribution of the land of Canaan, the same ideas and expression cannot possibly be constantly recurring, if the words are to be at all in conformity with the actual contents. And not the smallest conclusion can be drawn from such differences as these with regard to the composition of the book; much less can they be adduced as proofs of diversity of authorship. Moreover, the unity of authorship is not to be overthrown by proving, or showing it to be probable, that the author made use of written documents for some of the sections, - such, for example, as the official records prepared for the distribution of the land by lot, - in his description of the possession of the different tribes.\n\nLastly, the historical fidelity of the book of Joshua cannot justly be called in question; and so far as all the narratives and descriptions are concerned, which lie within the sphere of the ordinary laws of nature, this is generally admitted. This applies not only to the description oft he possessions of the different tribes according to their boundaries and towns, which are almost universally acknowledged to have been derived from authentic records, but to such historical passages as the words of Caleb (Jos 14:6.), the address of Phinehas, and the reply of the two tribes and a half (Josh 22), the complaint of the children of Joseph on account of the smallness of the possessions that had fallen to their lot, and Joshua's answer (Jos 17:14.), which are so thoroughly original, and so perfectly appropriate to the persons and circumstances, that their historical credibility cannot be disputed.\n\n(Note: Even Eichhorn, for example, says in his Introduction, \"The words of Caleb, in Jos 14:1., in which he asks for the inheritance that had been promised him, bear too strongly the characteristics of an appeal from the mouth of an old man of eighty years of age, and breathe too thoroughly in every word his spirit, and age, and peculiar situation, for it to be possible that it should be merely the composition of a later writer, who placed himself in imagination in his situation, and put the words into his mouth.\")\n\nIt is chiefly at the miraculous occurrences that the opponents of the biblical revelation have taken offence: partly therefore because of the miracles themselves, and partly because the statement that God commanded the destruction of the Canaanites is irreconcilable with correct (?) views of the Godhead, they deny the historical character of the whole book. But the miracles recorded in this book do not stand alone; on the contrary, they are most intimately connected with the great work of divine revelation, and the redemption of the human race; so that it is only through unscriptural assumptions as to the character of God, and His operations in nature and the world of men, that they can be pronounced unreal, or altogether denied.\n\nAnd the objection, that the destruction of the Canaanites, as an act commanded by God, \"cannot be reconciled even with only half correct notions of the Deity,\" as Eichhorn maintains, rests upon totally unscriptural and irrational views of God and the divine government, which deny a priori all living influence on the part of the \"Deity\" upon the earth and its inhabitants. But the true God is not a Deity who can neither help nor injure men (Jer 10:5); He is the almighty creator, preserver, and governor of the world. This God was Jehovah, who chose Israel for His own people, \"a living God, an everlasting King\" (Jer 10:10); who not only fixed for the nations the bounds of their habitations, but their appointed times as well, that they should seek Him, if haply they might feel after Him, and find Him (Deu 32:8; Act 17:26-27); who, because He has given to every nation upon earth life and being, property and land, to be rightly used, and to promote their own happiness through the glorification of the name of God, possesses both the power and the right to deprive them of all their possessions, and wipe out every trace of them from the earth, if they dishonour and disgrace the name of God by an obstinate abuse of the blessings and gifts entrusted to them. Thus the only true God, who judges the earth in eternally unchangeable wisdom and righteousness, and manifests His wrath in great judgments, as well as His mercy in innumerable blessings to all the children of men, had promised to Abraham that He would give him the land of Canaan for a possession for his seed the children of Israel, when the iniquity of the Amorites, who possessed it at that time, was full, i.e., had reached its full measure (Gen 12:7; Gen 15:13-16). The expulsion of the Canaanites, therefore, from p","order":6,"numberOfChapters":24,"sha256":"aba43949a0f9a43b82004430fda2ba518f4bed2eba2915ca221b982af3291ba3","firstChapterNumber":1,"firstChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOS/1.json","firstChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOS","chapter":1},"lastChapterNumber":24,"lastChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOS/24.json","lastChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOS","chapter":24},"totalNumberOfVerses":141},"chapter":{"number":10,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["The report that Joshua had taken Ai, and put it, like Jericho, under the ban, and that the Gibeonites had concluded a treaty with Israel, filled Adonizedek the king of Jerusalem with alarm, as Gibeon was a large town, like one of the king's towns, even larger than Ai, and its inhabitants were brave men. He therefore joined with the kings of Hebron, Jarmuth, Lachish, and Eglon, to make a common attack upon Gibeon, and punish it for its alliance with the Israelites, and at the same time to put a check upon the further conquests of Israel. Adonizedek, i.e., lord of righteousness, is synonymous with Melchizedek (king of righteousness), and was a title of the Jebusite kings, as Pharaoh was of the Egyptian. Jerusalem, i.e., the founding or possession of peace, called Salem in the time of Abraham (Gen 14:18), was the proper name of the town, which was also frequently called by the name of its Canaanitish inhabitants Jebus (Jdg 19:10-11; Ch1 11:4), or \"city of the Jebusite\" (Ir-Jebusi, Jdg 19:11), sometimes also in a contracted form, Jebusi (היבוּסי, Jos 18:16, Jos 18:28; Jos 15:8; Sa2 5:8).\n(Note: In our English version, we have the Hebrew word itself simply transposed in Jos 18:16, Jos 18:28; whilst it is rendered \"the Jebusite\" in Jos 15:8, and \"the Jebusites\" in Sa2 5:8. - Tr.)\nOn the division of the land it was allotted to the tribe of Benjamin (Jos 18:28); but being situated upon the border of Judah (Jos 15:8), it was conquered, and burned by the sons of Judah after the death of Joshua (Jdg 1:8). It was very soon taken again and rebuilt by the Jebusites, whom the sons of Judah were unable to destroy (Jos 15:63; Jdg 19:10-12), so that both Benjaminites and Judahites lived there along with the Jebusites (Jdg 1:21; Jos 15:63); and the upper town especially, upon the summit of Mount Zion, remained as a fortification in the possession of the Jebusites, until David conquered it (Sa2 5:6.), made it the capital of his kingdom, and called it by his own name, \"the city of David,\" after which the old name of Jebus fell into disuse. Hebron, the town of Arba the Anakite (Jos 14:15, etc.; see at Gen 23:2), was twenty-two Roman miles south of Jerusalem, in a deep and narrow valley upon the mountains of Judah, a town of the greatest antiquity (Num 13:22), now called el Khalil, i.e., the friend (of God), with reference to Abraham's sojourn there. The ruins of an ancient heathen temple are still to be seen there, as well as the Haram, built of colossal blocks, which contains, according to Mohammedan tradition, the burial-place of the patriarchs (see at Gen 23:17). Jarmuth, in the lowlands of Judah (Jos 15:35; Neh 11:29), according to the Onom. (s. v. Jermus) a hamlet, Jermucha (Ἰερμοχωῶς), ten Roman miles from Eleutheropolis, on the road to Jerusalem, is the modern Jarmuk, a village on a lofty hill, with the remains of walls and cisterns of a very ancient date, the name of which, according to Van de Velde (Mem. pp. 115-6), is pronounced Tell 'Armuth by the Arabs (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 344). Lachish, in the lowlands of Judah (Jos 15:39), was fortified by Rehoboam (Ch2 11:9), and besieged by Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar (Kg2 18:14; Kg2 19:8; Jer 34:7), and was still inhabited by Jews after the return from the captivity (Neh 11:30). It is probably to be found in Um Lakis, an old place upon a low round hill, covered with heaps of small round stones thrown together in great confusion, containing relics of marble columns; it is about an hour and a quarter to the west of Ajlun, and seven hours to the west of Eleutheropolis.\n(Note: It is true that Robinson dispute the identity of Um Lakis with the ancient Lachish (Pal. ii. p. 388), but \"not on any reasonable ground\" (Van de Velde, Mem. p. 320). The statement in the Onom. (s. v. Lochis), that it was seven Roman miles to the south of Eleutheropolis, cannot prove much, as it may easily contain an error in the number, and Robinson does not admit its authority even in the case of Eglon (Pal. ii. p. 392). Still less can Knobel's conjecture be correct, that it is to be found in the old place called Sukkarijeh, two hours and a half to the south-west of Beit Jibrin (Eleutheropolis), as Sukkarijeh is on the east of Ajlun, whereas, according to Jos 10:31-36, Lachish is to be sought for on the west of Eglon.)\nEglon: also in the lowlands of Judah (Jos 15:39). The present name is Ajln, a heap of ruins, about three-quarters of an hour to the east of Um Lakis (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 392, and Van de Velde, Mem. p. 308). In the Onom. (s. v. Eglon) it is erroneously identified with Odollam; whereas the situation of Agla, \"at the tenth stone, as you go from Eleutheropolis to Gaza\" (Onom. s. v. Βηθαλαΐ́μ, Bethagla), suits Eglon exactly. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":5,"content":["These five kings marched against Gibeon and besieged the town. The king of Jerusalem headed the expedition, as his town was so near to Gibeon that he was the first to fear an attack from the Israelites. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":6,"content":["The Gibeonites then sent to Joshua to the camp at Gilgal, and entreated him to come to his help as speedily as possible. \"Slack not thy hand from thy servants,\" i.e., withhold not thy help from us. The definition appended to \"the kings of the Amorites\" (\"that dwelt in the mountains\") is to be understood a potiori, and does not warrant us in drawing the conclusion, that all the towns mentioned in Jos 10:3 were in the mountains of Judah. The Amorites who dwelt in the mountains were the strongest of all the Canaanites.\nJos 10:7\nIn accordance with this petition Joshua advanced from Gilgal (ויּעל, not went up) with all the people of war, even (vav expl.) all the men of valour.\nJos 10:8\nThe Lord then renewed the assurance of His help in this particular war, in which Joshua was about to fight for the first time with several allied kings of Canaan (cf. Jos 2:24; Jos 6:2; Jos 8:1, Jos 8:18).\nJos 10:9\nJoshua came suddenly upon them (the enemy), as he had marched the whole night from Gilgal, i.e., had accomplished the entire distance in a night. Jiljilia is fully fifteen miles from el-Jib.\nJos 10:10\n\"Jehovah threw them into confusion,\" as He had promised in Exo 23:27, and in all probability, judging from Jos 10:11, by dreadful thunder and lightning (vid., Sa1 7:10; Psa 18:15; Psa 144:6 : it is different in Exo 14:24). \"Israel smote them in a great slaughter at Gibeon, and pursued them by the way of the ascent of Bethhoron,\" i.e., Upper Bethhoron (Beit Ur, el-Foka), which was nearest to Gibeon, only four hours distant on the north-west, on a lofty promontory between two valleys, one on the north, the other on the south, and was separated from Lower Bethhoron, which lies further west, by a long steep pass, from which the ascent to Upper Bethhoron is very steep and rocky, though the rock has been cut away in many places now, and a path made by means of steps (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 59). This pass between the two places leads downwards from Gibeon towards the western plain, and was called sometimes the ascent, or going up to Bethhoron, and sometimes the descent, or going down from it (Jos 10:11), ἀνάβασις καὶ κατάβασις Βαιθωρῶν (1 Macc. 3:16, 24). Israel smote the enemy still further, \"to Azekah and Makkedah:\" so far were they pursued and beaten after the battle (cf. Jos 10:16, Jos 10:21). If we compare Jos 10:11, according to which the enemy was smitten, from Bethhoron to Azekah, by a violent fall of hail, it is very evident that the two places were on the west of Bethhoron. And it is in perfect harmony with this that we find both places described as being in the lowland; Azekah in the hill-country between the mountains and the plain (Jos 15:35), Makkedah in the plain itself (Jos 15:41). Azekah, which was fortified by Rehoboam (Ch2 11:9), besieged by Nebuchadnezzar (Jer 34:7), and still inhabited after the captivity (Neh 11:30), was not far from Socoh, according to Jos 15:35; whilst sideways between the two was Ephes-dammim (Sa1 17:1). Van de Velde has discovered the latter in the ruins of Damm, about an hour's journey east by south from Beit Nettif (Mem. p. 290), and consequently imagines that Azekah is to be found in the village of Ahbek, which stands upon a lofty mountain-top a mile and a half to the north of Damm, and about four of five miles N.N.E. of Shuweikeh, supposing this to be Aphek. The statement in the Onom. (s. v. Ἀζηκά), ἀνάμεσον Ἐλευθεροπολεως καὶ Αἰλίας, agrees with this. Makkedah is described in the Onom. as being eight Roman miles to the east of Eleutheropolis, and hence Knobel supposes it to have been near Terkumieh, or Morak; but he is wrong in his supposition, as in that case it would have been in the hill-country or upon the mountains, whereas it was one of the towns in the plain (Jos 15:41). Van de Velde's conjecture (p. 332) is a much more probable one, viz., that it is to be found in Summeil, a considerable village on an eminence in the plain, with a large public well 110 feet deep and 11 feet in diameter, with strongly built walls of hewn stones, where there is also part of an old wall, which to all appearance must formerly have belonged to a large square castle built of uncemented stones, resembling in some respects the oldest foundation wall of Beit Jibrin (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 368). It is two hours and a half to the north-west of Beit Jibrin, and there Van de Velde discovered the large cave (see at Jos 10:16), which Robinson has not observed (see his Journey through Syria and Palestine).\nJos 10:11\nThe large stones which the Lord threw upon the flying foe at the slope of Bethhoron were hail-stones (see Isa 30:30), not stone-hail, or a shower of stones, but a terrible hail-storm, in which hail fell upon the foe in pieces as large as stones (see Wis. 46:6), and slew a greater number of them than the swords of the Israelites. This phenomenon, which resembled the terrible hail in Egypt (Exo 9:24), was manifestly a miraculous occurrence produced by the omnipotent power of God, inasmuch as the hail-stones slew the enemy without injuring the Israelites, who were pursuing them. By this the Israelites were to be made to see that it was not their own power, but the supernatural help of their God, which had given them the victory; whilst the enemy discovered that it was not only the people of Israel, but the God of Israel, that had devoted them to destruction. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":12,"content":["In firm reliance upon the promise of God (Jos 10:8), Joshua offered a prayer to the Lord during the battle, that He would not let the sun go down till Israel had taken vengeance upon their foes; and the Lord hearkened to the prayer of His servant, and the sun hastened not to go down till the defeat of the Amorites was accomplished. This miraculous victory was celebrated by the Israelites in a war-song, which was preserved in the \"book of the Righteous.\" The author of the book of Joshua has introduced the passage out of this book which celebrates the mighty act of the Lord for the glorification of His name upon Israel, and their foes the Amorites. It is generally admitted, that Jos 10:12-15 contain a quotation from the \"book of Jasher,\" mentioned in Jos 10:13. This quotation, and the reference to the work itself, are analogous to the notice of \"the book of the wars of the Lord,\" in Num 21:14, and to the strophes of a song which are there interwoven with the historical narrative; the object being, not to confirm the historical account by referring to an earlier source, but simply to set forth before other generations the powerful impression which was made upon the congregation by these mighty acts of the Lord. The \"book of Jasher,\" i.e., book of the upright, or righteous man, that is to say, of the true members of the theocracy, or godly men. ישׁר (Jasher, the righteous) is used to denote the genuine Israelite, in the same sense as in Num 23:10, where Balaam calls the Israelites \"the righteous,\" inasmuch as Jehovah, the righteous and upright one (Deu 32:4), had called them to be His people, and to walk in His righteousness. In addition to this passage, the \"book of the righteous (Jasher)\" is also mentioned in Sa2 1:18, as a work in which was to be found David's elegy upon Saul and Jonathan. From this fact it has been justly inferred, that the book was a collection of odes in praise of certain heroes of the theocracy, with historical notices of their achievements interwoven, and that the collection was formed by degrees; so that the reference to this work is neither a proof that the passage has been interpolated by a later hand, nor that the work was composed at a very late period. That the passage quoted from this work is extracted from a song is evident enough, both from the poetical form of the composition, and also from the parallelism of the sentences. The quotation, however, does not begin with ויּאמר (and he said) in Jos 10:12, but with תּת בּיום (in the day when the Lord delivered) in Jos 10:12, and Jos 10:13 and Jos 10:14 also form part of it; so that the title of the book from which the quotation is taken is inserted in the middle of the quotation itself. In other cases, unquestionably, such formulas of quotation are placed either at the beginning (as in Num 21:14, Num 21:27; Sa2 1:18), or else at the close of the account, which is frequently the case in the books of Kings and Chronicles; but it by no means follows that there were no exceptions to this rule, especially as the reason for mentioning the original sources is a totally different one in the books of Kings, where the works cited are not the simple vouchers for the facts related, but works containing fuller and more elaborate accounts of events which have only been cursorily described. The poetical form of the passage in Jos 10:13 also leaves no doubt whatever that Jos 10:13 and Jos 10:14 contain the words of the old poet, and are not a prose comment made by the historian upon the poetical passage quoted. The only purely historical statement in Jos 10:15; and this is repeated in Jos 10:43, at the close of the account of the wars and the victory. But this literal repetition of Jos 10:15 in Jos 10:43, and the fact that the statement, that Joshua returned with all the people to the camp at Gilgal, anticipates the historical course of the events in a very remarkable manner, render it highly probable, it not absolutely certain, that Jos 10:15 was also taken from the book of the righteous.\nIn the day when Jehovah delivered up the Amorites to the children of Israel (\"before,\" as in Deu 2:31, Deu 2:33, etc.), Joshua said before the eyes (i.e., in the presence) of Israel, so that the Israelites were witnesses of his words (vid., Deu 31:7): \"Sun, stand still (wait) at Gibeon; and, Moon, in the valley of Ajalon.\" דּמם, to be silent, to keep one's self quiet or still, to wait (Sa1 14:9). The address to the sun and moon implies that they both of them stood, or were visible in the heavens at the time; and inasmuch as it was spoken to the Lord, involves a prayer that the Lord and Creator of the world would not suffer the sun and moon to set till Israel had taken vengeance upon its foes. This explanation of the prayer is only to be found, it is true, in the statement that the sun and moon stood still at Joshua's word; but we must imagine it as included in the prayer itself. גּוי without an article, when used to denote the people of Israel, is to be regarded as a poetical expression. In the sequel (Jos 10:13) the sun only is spoken of: \"and the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.\" The poetical word אוּץ, to press or hurry, is founded upon the idea that the sun runs its course like a strong man, with vigour, and without weariness or cessation (Psa 19:6-7). It follows from this, that Joshua merely prayed for the day to be lengthened, i.e., for the setting of the sun to be delayed; and that he included the moon (Jos 10:12), simply because it was visible at the time. But even if this is the case, we are not therefore to conclude, as C. v. Lapide, Clericus, and others have done, that Joshua spoke these words in the afternoon, when the sun was beginning to set, and the moon had already risen. The expression השּׁמים בּחצי, \"in the half,\" i.e., the midst, \"of the sky,\" is opposed to this view, and still more the relative position of the two in the sky, the sun at Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon, i.e., in the fine broad basin on the north side of Yalo (see at Jos 19:42), the present Merj Ibn Omeir (Rob. iii. p. 63, 64), which is four hours' journey to the west of Gibeon. As Joshua smote the enemy at Gibeon, and they fled to the south-west, he was not doubt on the west of Gibeon when he commanded the sun and moon to stand still; and therefore from his point of view the sun would be in the east when it stood over Gibeon, and the moon in the far west when it stood over the valley of Ajalon. But that could only be the case before noon, a few hours after sunrise, when the moon had not yet set in the western sky. In all probability the battle took place quite early in the morning, as Joshua had marched from Gilgal the night before, and fell quite suddenly upon the enemy (Jos 10:9). But after the conflict had lasted for some hours, and Joshua began to be anxious lest he should be unable to overcome the enemy before night came on, he addressed the prayer to the Lord to lengthen out the day, and in a short time saw his prayer so far fulfilled, that the sun still stood high up in the sky when the enemy was put to flight. We take for granted that these words were spoken by Joshua before the terrible hail-storm which fell upon the enemy in their flight, when they were near Bethhoron, which is about two hours from Gibeon, and smote them to Azekah. There is nothing to prevent our assuming this. The fact, that in the historical account the hail is mentioned before the desire expressed by Joshua and the fulfilment of that desire, may be explained on the simple ground, that the historian, following the order of importance, relates the principal incident in connection with the battle first, before proceeding to the special point to be cited from the book of the righteous. תמים כּיום, \"towards (about, or as it were) a whole day,\" neither signifies \"when the day was ended\" (Clericus), nor \"as it usually does when the day is perfected or absolutely finished\" (Rosenmller); but the sun did not hasten or press to go down, delayed its setting, almost a whole day (\"day\" being the time between sunrise and sunset).\nWhat conception are we to form of this miraculous event? It is not stated that the sun actually stood still in one spot in the heavens-say, for instance, in the zenith. And if the expression, \"the sun stood still in the midst of heaven,\" which is added as an explanation of ויּדּום, is so pressed as to mean that the sun as miraculously stopped in its course, this is hardly reconcilable with לבוא אץ לא, \"it hasted not to go down,\" as these words, if taken literally, merely denote a slower motion on the part of the sun, as many of the Rabbins have observed. All that is clearly affirmed in Jos 10:12 and Jos 10:13 is, that at Joshua's word the sun remained standing in the sky for almost a whole day longer. To this there is added, in Jos 10:14, \"There was no day like that before it, or after it, that Jehovah hearkened to the voice of a man; for Jehovah fought for Israel.\" This expression must not be pressed too far, as the analogous passages (\"there was none like him,\" etc.) in Kg2 18:5 and Kg2 23:25 clearly show. They merely express this thought: no other day like this, which God so miraculously lengthened, ever occurred either before or afterwards. So much, therefore, is obvious enough from the words, that the writer of the old song, and also the author of the book of Joshua, who inserted the passage in his narrative, were convinced that the day was miraculously prolonged. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that it is not stated that God lengthened that day at the request of Joshua almost an entire day, or that He made the sun stand still almost a whole day, but simply that God hearkened to the voice of Joshua, i.e., did not permit the sun to go down till Israel had avenged itself upon its enemies. This distinction is not without importance: for a miraculous prolongation of the day would take place not only if the sun's course or sun's setting was delayed for several hours by the omnipotent power of God, and the day extended from twelve to eighteen or twenty hours, but also if the day seemed to Joshua and all Israel to be miraculously prolonged; because the work accomplished on that day was so great, that it would have required almost two days to accomplish it without supernatural aid. It is not easy to decide between these two opposite views; in fact, it is quite impossible if we go to the root of the matter. When we are not in circumstances to measure the length of the day by the clock, it is very easy to mistake its actual length, especially in the midst of the pressure of business or work. The Israelites at that time had neither sun-clocks nor any other kind of clock; and during the confusion of the battle it is hardly likely that Joshua, or any one else who was engaged in the conflict, would watch the shadow of the sun and its changes, either by a tree or any other object, so as to discover that the sun had actually stood still, from the fact that for hours the shadow had neither moved nor altered in length. Under such circumstances, therefore, it was quite impossible for the Israelites to decide whether it was in reality, or only in their own imagination, that the day was longer than others. To this there must be added the poetical character of the verses before us. When David celebrates the miraculous deliverance which he had received from the Lord, in these words, \"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, He took me, He grew me out of many waters\" (Psa 18:7-17), who would ever think of interpreting the words literally, and supposing them to mean that God actually came down from the sky, and stretched out His hand to draw David out of the water? Or who would understand the words of Deborah, \"They fought from heaven, the stars in their courses fought against Sisera\" (Jdg 5:20), in their literal sense? The truthfulness of such utterances is to be sought for in the subjective sphere of religious intuition, and not in a literal interpretation of the words. And it may be just the same with these verses, without their actual contents being affected, if the day was merely subjectively lengthened, - that is to say, in the religious conviction of the Israelites. But even if the words really affirmed that a miraculous and objective lengthening of the day did actually take place, we should have no reason whatever for questioning the credibility of the statement.\nAll the objections that have been raised with reference to the reality or possibility of such a miracle, prove to have no force when we examine the subject more closely. Thus, for example, the objection that the annals of the other nations of the earth contain no account of any such miracle, which must have extended over the whole world, loses all its significance from the simple fact that there are no annals in existence belonging to other nations and reaching back to that time, and that it is altogether doubtful whether the miracle would extend far beyond the limits of Palestine. Again, an appeal to the unchangeableness of the motions of the stars according to eternal and unchangeable laws, is not adapted to prove the impossibility of such a miracle. The eternal laws of nature are nothing more than phenomena, or forms of manifestation, of those divine creative powers, the true character of which no mortal has ever fathomed. And does not the almighty Creator and Upholder of nature and all its forces possess the power so to direct and govern the working of these forces, as to make them subservient to the realization of His purposes of salvation? And lastly, the objection that a sudden stoppage of the revolution of the earth upon its axis would have dashed to pieces all the works of human hands that were to be found upon its surface, and hurled the earth itself, with its satellite the moon, out of their orbits, cannot prove anything, because it leaves out of sight the fact that the omnipotent hand of God, which not only created the stars, but gave them the power to revolve with such regularity in their orbits as long as this universe endures, and which upholds and governs all things in heaven and on earth, is not too short to guard against any such disastrous consequences as these. But to this we may add, that even the strictest and most literal interpretation of the words does not require us to assume, as the fathers and earlier theologians did, that the sun itself was miraculously made to stand still, but simply supposes an optical stopping of the sun in its course, - that is to say, a miraculous suspension of the revolution of the earth upon its axis, which would make it appear to the eye of an observer as if the sun itself were standing still. Knobel is by no means warranted in pronouncing this view of the matter an assumption at variance with the text. For the Scriptures speak of the things of the visible world as they appear; just as we speak of the sun as rising and setting, although we have no doubt whatever about the revolution of the earth. Moreover, the omnipotence of God might produce such an optical stoppage of the sun, or rather a continuance of the visibility of the sun above the horizon, by celestial phenomena which are altogether unknown to us or to naturalists in general, without interfering with the general laws affecting the revolution of the heavenly bodies. Only we must not attempt, as some have done, to reduce the whole miracle of divine omnipotence to an unusual refraction of the light, or to the continuance of lightning throughout the whole night. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":16,"content":["The five kings fled and hid themselves in the cave that was a Makkedah. When they were discovered there, Joshua ordered large stones to be rolled before the entrance to the cave, and men to be placed there to watch, whilst the others pursued the enemy without ceasing, and smote their rear (vid., Deu 25:18), and prevented their entering into their cities. He himself remained at Makkedah (Jos 10:21). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":20,"content":["When the great battle and the pursuit of the enemy were ended, and such as remained had reached their fortified towns, the people returned to the camp to Joshua at Makkedah in peace, i.e., without being attacked by anybody. \"There pointed not (a dog) its tongue against the sons of Israel, against any one\" (see at Exo 11:7). לאישׁ is in apposition to ישׂראל לבני, and serves to define it more precisely. It is possible, however, to regard the ל as a copyist's error, as Houbigant and Maurer do, in which case אישׁ would be the nominative to the verb. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":22,"content":["Joshua then commanded the five kings to be fetched out of the cave, and directed the leaders of the army to set their feet upon the necks of the kings; and when this had been done, he ordered the kings to be put to death, and to be hanged upon trees until the evening, when their bodies were to be thrown into the cave in which they had concealed themselves. Of course this did not take place till the day after the battle, as the army could not return from their pursuit of the foe to the camp at Makkedah till the night after the battle; possibly it did not take place till the second day, if the pursuit had lasted any longer. In Jos 10:24, \"all the men of Israel\" are all the warriors in the camp. ההלכוּא, with ה artic., instead of the relative pronoun (see Ges. 109; Ew. 331, b.); and the ending וּא for וּ or וּן, as in Isa 28:12 (see Ew. 190, b.). The fact that the military leaders set their feet at Joshua's command upon the necks of the conquered kings, was not a sign of barbarity, which it is necessary to excuse by comparing it with still greater barbarities on the part of the Canaanites, as in Jdg 1:7, but was a symbolical act, a sign of complete subjugation, which was customary in this sense even in the Eastern empire (see Bynaeus de calceis, p. 318, and Constant. Porphyrogen de cerimon. aulae Byzant. ii. 19). It was also intended in this instance to stimulate the Israelites to further conflict with the Canaanites. This is stated in the words of Joshua (Jos 10:25): \"Fear not, nor be dismayed (vid., Jos 1:9; Jos 8:1); for thus shall the Lord do to all your enemies.\" On the putting to death and then hanging, see Jos 8:29 and Deu 21:22-23. The words וגו ויּשׂימוּ (Jos 10:27) are generally understood as signifying, that after the bodies of the kings had been cast into the cave, the Israelites placed large stones before the entrance, just as in other cases heaps of stones were piled upon the graves of criminals that had been executed (vid., Jos 7:25), and that these stones remained there till the account before us was written. But this leaves the words עצם עד unexplained, as עצם never occurs in any other case where the formula \"until this day\" is used with the simple meaning that a thing had continued to the writer's own time. הזּה היּום עצם expresses the thought that the day referred to was the very same day about which the author was writing, and no other (see Jos 5:11; Gen 7:13; Gen 17:23; Exo 12:17, etc.). If, therefore, it has any meaning at all in the present instance, we must connect the whole clause with the one preceding, and even construe it as a relative clause: \"where they (the kings) had hidden themselves, and they (the Israelites) had placed large stones at the mouth of the cave until that very day\" (on which the kings were fetched out and executed). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":28,"content":["Further prosecution of the victory, by the conquest of the fortified towns of the south, into which those who escaped the sword of the Israelites had thrown themselves.\nJos 10:28\nOn the same day on which the five kings were impaled, Joshua took Makkedah (see at Jos 10:10), and smote the town and its king with the edge of the sword, banning the town and all the persons in it, i.e., putting all the inhabitants to death (many MSS and some editions adopt the reading אתהּ for אתם, as in Jos 10:37), taking the cattle and the property in the town as booty, as in the case of Ai (Jos 8:27-28), and treating its king like the king of Jericho, who was suspended upon a stake, to judge from Jos 8:2, Jos 8:29, although this is not stated in Josh 6.\nJos 10:29-30\nFrom Makkedah he went with all Israel, i.e., all the men of war, against Libnah, and after effecting the conquest of it, did just the same as he had done to Makkedah. Libnah was one of the towns of the plain or of the hill-country of Judah (Jos 15:42); it was allotted to the priests (Jos 21:13), revolted from Judah in the reign of Joram (Kg2 8:22), and was besieged by Sennacherib (Isa 37:8). It is to be sought on the north-west of Lachish, not on the south as Knobel erroneously infers from Isa 37:8. According to the Onom. (s. v. Lebna), it was at that time villa in regione Eleutheropolitana, quae appellatur Lobna. It has not been discovered yet; but according to the very probable conjecture of V. de Velde (Mem. p. 330), the ruins of it may perhaps be seen upon the hill called Ark el Menshiyeh, about two hours to the wets of Beit Jibrin.\n(Note: Knobel is decidedly wrong in his supposition, that Libnah is to be seen in the considerable ruins called Hora, which lie in the plain (Seetzen and V. de Velde) and are called Hawara by Robinson. He founds his conjecture upon the fact that the name signifies white, and is the Arabic translation of the Hebrew name. But Hora is only two hours and a half to the north of Beersheba, and is not in the plain at all, but in the Negeb.)\nJos 10:31-32\nLachish, i.e., Um Lakis (see at Jos 10:3), shared the same fate.\nJos 10:33\nJoshua also smote the king of Gezer, who had come with his people to help of Lachish, and left no one remaining. Nothing is said about the capture of the town of Gezer. According to Jos 16:10 and Jdg 1:29, it was still in the possession of the Canaanites when the land was divided, though this alone is not sufficient to prove that Joshua did not conquer it, as so many of the conquered towns were occupied by the Canaanites again after the Israelites had withdrawn. But its situation makes it very probable that Joshua did not conquer it at that time, as it was too much out of his road, and too far from Lachish. Gezer (lxx Γάζερ, in Ch1 14:16 Γαζηρά, in 1 Macc. Γαζήρα or Γάζαρα plur., in Josephus Γάζαρα, Ant. vii. 4, 1, viii. 6, 1, and also Γάδαρα, v. 1, 22, xii. 7, 4) was on the southern boundary of Ephraim (Jos 16:3), and was given up by that tribe to the Levites (Jos 16:9-10; Jos 21:20-21. It is very frequently mentioned. David pursued the Philistines to Gezer (Gazer), after they had been defeated at Gibeon or Geba (Sa2 5:25; Ch1 14:16). At a later period it was conquered by Pharaoh, and presented to his daughter, who was married to Solomon; and Solomon built, i.e., fortified it (Kg1 9:16-17). It was an important fortress in the wars of the Maccabees (1 Macc. 9:52; 2 Macc. 10:32; cf. 1 Macc. 4:15; 7:45; 13:53; 14:34; 15:28, 35). According to the Onom. (s. v. Gazer), it was four Roman miles to the north of Nicopolis, i.e., Anwas, and was called Γαζάρα. This is not only in harmony with Jos 16:3, according to which the southern border of Ephraim ran from Lower Bethhoron to Gezer, and then on to the sea, but also with all the other passages in which Gezer is mentioned, \n(Note: The statement in 1 Macc. 7:45, that Judas Maccabaeus pursued the army of Nicanor, which had been beaten at Adasa, for a day's journey, as far as Gazera (\"a day's journey from Adasa into Gazera\"), is perfectly reconcilable with the situation of el Kubab; for, according to Josephus (Ant. xii. 10, 5), Adasa was thirty stadia from Bethhoron, and Bethhoron is ten miles to the west of Jubab (measuring in a straight line upon the map); so that Judas pursued the enemy fifteen miles - a distance which might very well be called \"a day's journey,\" if we consider that the enemy, when flying, would not always take the straightest road, and might even make a stand at intervals, and so delay their pursuers. Still less do the statement in 1 Macc. 14:34, that Simon fortified Joppa on the sea, and Gazara on the border of Ashdod, the combination of Joppa, Gazara, and the tower that is in Jerusalem (1 Macc. 15:28, 35), and the fact that the country of Gadaris, with the town of Gadara, occurs between Joppa and Jamnia in Strabo xvi. 759, warrant us in making a distinction between Gazara (Gezer) and the place mentioned in the Onom., as Grimm does (on 1 Macc. 4:15), and identifying it with the village of Jazr, an hour and a half from Jaffa, although Arvieux calls this village Gesser. The objections of Van de Velde against the identity of Jubab and Gazer are without any force. It does not necessarily follow from the expression \"went up,\" that Lachish stood on higher ground than Gezer, as going up often signifies nothing more than making a hostile attack upon a fortification. And no importance can be attached to the conjecture, that with the great distance of Jubab from Um Lakis, the king of Gezer would have come to the help of the kings of Makkedah and Libnah, who were much nearer and were attacked first, as the circumstances which determined his conduct are too thoroughly unknown to us, for it to be possible to pronounce an opinion upon the subject with any certainty.)\nand answers very well to the situation of El Kubab, a village of considerable size on a steep hill at the extreme north of the mountain chain which runs to the north-west of Zorea, and slopes off towards the north into the broad plain of Merj el Omeir, almost in the middle of the road from Ramleh to Yalo. For this village, with which Van Semden identifies Gezer (Van de Velde, Mem. p. 315), was exactly four Roman miles north by west of Anwas, according to Robinson's map, and not quite four hours from Akir (Ekron), the most northerly city of the Philistines; so that Josephus (Ant. vii. 4, 1) could very properly describe Gazara as the frontier of the territory of the Philistines. Robinson discovered no signs of antiquity, it is true, on his journey through Kubab, but in all probability he did not look for them, as he did not regard the village as a place of any importance in connection with ancient history (Bibl. Res. pp. 143-4).\nJos 10:34-35\nFrom Lachish Joshua proceeded eastwards against Eglon (Ajlan, see Jos 10:3), took the town, and did to it as he had done to Lachish.\nJos 10:36-37\nFrom Eglon he went up from the lowland to the mountains, attacked Hebron and took it, and did to this town and its king, and the towns belonging to it, as he had already done to the others. The king of Hebron cannot of course be the one who was taken in the cave of Makkedah and put to death there, but his successor, who had entered upon the government while Joshua was occupied with the conquest of the towns mentioned in Jos 10:28-35, which may possibly have taken more than a year. \"All the cities thereof\" are the towns dependent upon Hebron as the capital of the kingdom.\nJos 10:38-39\nJoshua then turned southwards with all Israel (i.e., all the army), attacked Debir and took it, and the towns dependent upon it, in the same manner as those mentioned before. Debir, formerly called Kirjath-sepher, i.e., book town, πόλις γραμμάτων (lxx Jos 15:15; Jdg 1:11), and Kirjath-sanna, i.e., in all probability the city of palm branches (Jos 15:49), was given up by Judah to the priests (Jos 21:15). It stood upon the mountains of Judah (Jos 15:49), to the south of Hebron, but has not yet been certainly discovered, though V. de Velde is probably correct in his supposition that it is to be seen in the ruins of Dilbeh, on the peak of a hill to the north of Wady Dilbeh, and on the road from Dhoberiyeh to Hebron, about two hours to the south-west of the latter. For, according to Dr. Stewart, there is a spring at Dilbeh, the water of which is conducted by an aqueduct into the Birket el Dilbeh, at the foot of the said hill, which would answer very well to the upper and lower springs at Debir, if only Debir might be placed, according to Jos 15:49, so far towards the north.\n(Note: Knobel imagines that Debir is to be found in the modern village of Dhoberiyeh (Dhabarije), five hours to the south-west of Hebron, on the south-west border of the mountains of Judah, upon the top of a mountain, because, in addition to the situation of this village, which is perfectly reconcilable with Jos 15:49, there are remains of a square tower there (according to Krafft, a Roman tower), which point to an ancient fortification (vid., Rob. Pal. i. pp. 308ff.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 202ff.), and because the name, which signifies \"placed behind the back,\" agrees with Debir, the hinder part or back (?), and Kirjath-sepher, if interpreted by the Arabic words, which signify \"extremitas, margo, ora.\" But both reasons prove very little. The meanings assigned to Debir and Kirjath-sepher are improbable and arbitrary. Moreover, it has not been shown that there are any springs near Dhoberiyeh, such as there were in the neighbourhood of Debir (Jos 15:19.). The view held by Rosenmller, and adopted by Bunsen, with regard to the situation of Debir, - namely, that it was the same as the modern Idwirbn or Dewirbn, an hour and a quarter to the west of Hebron, because there is a large spring there with an abundant supply of excellent water, which goes by the name of Ain Nunkr, - is also quite untenable; for it is entirely at variance with Jos 15:49, according to which Debir was not on the west of Hebron, but upon the mountains to the south, and rests entirely upon the erroneous assumption that, according to Jos 10:38 (ויּשׁב, he turned round), as Joshua came from Eglon, he conquered Hebron first, and after the conquest of this town turned back to Debir, to take it also. But שׁוּב, does not mean only to turn round or turn back: it signifies turning generally; and it is very evident that this is the sense in which it is used in Jos 10:38, since, according to Jos 15:49, Debir was on the south of Hebron.)\nMoreover, not very long afterwards, probably during the time when the Israelites were occupied with the subjugation of northern Canaan, Hebron and Debir were taken again by the Canaanites, particularly the Anakites, as Joshua had not entirely destroyed them, although he had thoroughly cleared the mountains of Judah of them, but had left them still in the towns of the Philistines (Jos 11:21-22). Consequently, when the land was divided, there were Anakites living in both Hebron and Debir; so that Caleb, to whom these towns were given as his inheritance, had first of all to conquer them again, and to exterminate the Anakites (Jos 14:12; Jos 15:13-17 : cf. Jdg 1:10-13).\n(Note: By this simple assumption we get rid of the pretended contradictions, which neological critics have discovered between Jos 10:36-39 on the one hand, and Jos 11:21-22, and Jos 14:12; Jos 15:13-17 on the other, and on account of which Knobel would assign the passages last named to a different document. On the first conquest of the land by Joshua, Masius observes that \"in this expedition Joshua ran through the southern region with an armed band, in too hurried a manner to depopulate it entirely. All that he needed was to strike such terror into the hearts of all through his victories, that no one should henceforth offer any resistance to himself and to the people of God. Those whom he pursued, therefore, he destroyed according to the commands of God, not sparing a single one, but he did not search out every possible hiding-place in which any could be concealed. This was left as a gleaning to the valour of each particular tribe, when it should take possession of its own inheritance.\") \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":40,"content":["Summary of the Conquest of the Whole of Southern Canaan. - In the further prosecution of his victory over the five allied kings, Joshua smote the whole land, i.e., the whole of the south of Canaan from Gibeon onwards, in all its districts, namely the mountains (Jos 15:48), the Negeb (the south land, Jos 15:21), the lowlands (Jos 15:33), and the slopes, i.e., the hill region (Jos 12:8, and comm. on Num 21:15), and all the kings of these different districts, banning every living thing (כּל־נשׁמה = כּל־נפשׁ, Jos 10:28, Jos 10:30, i.e., all the men; vid., Deu 7:1-2; Deu 20:16. He smote them from Kadesh-barnea, on the southern boundary of Canaan (Jos 15:3; see at Num 12:16), to Gaza (see at Gen 10:9), and all the country of Goshen, a different place from the Goshen of Egypt, deriving its name in all probability from the town of Goshen on the southern portion of the mountains (Jos 15:51). As the line \"from Kadesh-barnea to Gaza\" defines the extent of the conquered country from south to north on the western side, so the parallel clause, \"all the country of Goshen, even unto Gibeon,\" defines the extent from south to north on the eastern side. There is no tenable ground for the view expressed by Knobel, which rests upon very uncertain etymological combinations, that the land of Goshen signifies the hill country between the mountains and the plain, and is equivalent to אשׁדות. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":42,"content":["All these kings and their country Joshua took \"once,\" i.e., in one campaign, which lasted, however, a considerable time (cf. Jos 11:18). He was able to accomplish this, because Jehovah the God of Israel fought for Israel (see Jos 10:14). After this he returned with the army to the camp at Gilgal (Jiljilia; cf. Jos 10:15). \n"]}]},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOS/10.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOS","chapter":10},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOS/11.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOS","chapter":11},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOS/9.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOS","chapter":9},"numberOfVerses":10}