{"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":11,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["The War in Northern Canaan. - Jos 11:1-3. On receiving intelligence of what had occurred in the south, the king of Hazor formed an alliance with the kings of Madon, Shimron, and Achshaph, and other kings of the north, to make a common attack upon the Israelites. This league originated with Jabin the king of Hazor, because Hazor was formerly the head of all the kingdoms of northern Canaan (Jos 11:10). Hazor, which Joshua conquered and burned to the ground (Jos 11:10, Jos 11:11), was afterwards restored, and became a capital again (Jdg 4:2; Sa1 12:9); it was fortified by Solomon (Kg1 9:15), and taken by Tiglath-Pileser (Kg2 15:29). It belonged to the tribe of Naphtali (Jos 19:36), but has not yet been discovered. According to Josephus (Ant. v. 5, 1), it was above the Lake of Samochonitis, the present Bahr el Huleh. Robinson conjectures that it is to be found in the ruins upon Tell Khuraibeh, opposite to the north-west corner of the lake of Huleh, the situation of which would suit Hazor quite well, as it is placed between Ramah and Kedesh in Jos 19:35-36 (see Bibl. Res. p. 364). On the other hand, the present ruins of Huzzur or Hazireh, where there are the remains of large buildings of a very remote antiquity (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 62), with which Knobel identifies Hazor, cannot be thought of for a moment, as these ruins, which are about an hour and a quarter to the south-west of Yathir, are so close to the Ramah of Asher (Jos 19:29) that Hazor must also have belonged to Asher, and could not possibly have been included in the territory of Naphtali. There would be more reason for thinking of Tell Hazr or Khirbet Hazr, on the south-west of Szafed (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 81); but these ruins are not very ancient, and only belong to an ordinary village, and not to a town at all. Madon is only mentioned again in Jos 12:19, and its situation is quite unknown. Shimron, called Shimron-meron in Jos 12:20, was allotted to the tribe of Zebulun (Jos 19:15), and is also unknown. For Meron cannot be connected, as Knobel supposes, with the village and ruins of Marn, not far from Kedesh, on the south-west (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 371), or Shimron with the ruins of Khuraibeh, an hour to the south of Kedesh; as the territory of Zebulun, to which Shimron belonged, did not reach so far north, and there is not the slightest ground for assuming that there were two Shimrons, or for making a distinction between the royal seat mentioned here and the Shimron of Zebulun. There is also no probability in Knobel's conjecture, that the Shimron last named is the same as the small village of Semunieh, probably the Simonias of Josephus (Vita, 24), on the west of Nazareth (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 201). Achshaph, a border town of Ashwer (Jos 19:25), is also unknown, and is neither to be sought, as Robinson supposes (Bibl. Res. pp. 55), in the ruins of Kesf, which lie even farther north than Abel (Abil), in the tribe of Naphtali, and therefore much too far to the north to have formed the boundary of Asher; nor to be identified with Acco (Ptolemais), as Knobel imagines, since Acco has nothing in common with Achshaph except the letter caph (see also at Jos 19:25).\nJos 11:2\nJabin also allied himself with the kings of the north \"upon the mountains,\" i.e., the mountains of Naphtali (Jos 20:7), and \"in the Arabah to the south of Chinnereth\" (Jos 19:35), i.e., in the Ghor to the south of the sea of Galilee, and \"in the lowland,\" i.e., the northern portion of it, as far down as Joppa, and \"upon the heights of Dor.\" The town of Dor, which was built by Phoenicians, who settled there on account of the abundance of the purple mussels (Steph. Byz. s. v. Δῶρος), was allotted to the Manassites in the territory of Asher (Jos 17:11; cf. Jos 19:26), and taken possession of by the children of Joseph (Ch1 7:29). It was situated on the Mediterranean Sea, below the promontory of Carmel, nine Roman miles north of Caesarea, and is at the present time a hamlet called Tantura or Tortura, with very considerable ruins (Wilson, The Holy Land, ii. 249, and V. de Velde, Journey, i. p. 251). The old town was a little more than a mile to the north, on a small range of hills, which is covered with ruins (Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 608-9; V. de Velde, Mem. p. 307), and on the north of which there are rocky ranges, with many grottos, and houses cut in the rock itself (Buckingham, Syria, i. pp. 101-2). These are \"the heights of Dor,\" or \"the high range of Dor\" (Jos 12:23; Kg1 4:11).\nJos 11:3\n\"Namely, with the Canaanites on the east and west, the Amorites\" and other tribes dwelling upon the mountains (vid., Jos 3:10), and \"the Hivites under the Hermon in the land of Mizpah,\" i.e., the country below Hasbeya, between Nahr Hasbany on the east, and Merj. Ayn on the west, with the village of Mutulleh or Mtelleh, at present inhabited by Druses, which stands upon a hill more than 200 feet high, and from which there is a splendid prospect over the Huleh basin. It is from this that it has derived its name, which signifies prospect, specula, answering to the Hebrew Mizpah (see Robinson, Bibl. Res. p. 372).\nJos 11:4-5\nThese came out with their armies, a people as numerous as the sand by the sea-shore (vid., Gen 22:17, etc.), and very many horses and chariots. All these kings agreed together, sc., concerning the war and the place of battle, and encamped at Merom to fight against Israel. The name Merom (Meirm in the Arabic version) answers to Meirm, a village whose name is also pronounced Meirm, a celebrated place of pilgrimage among the Jews, because Hillel, Shammai, Simeon ben Jochai, and other noted Rabbins are said to be buried there (see Robinson, Pal. iii. p. 333), about two hours' journey north-west of Szafed, upon a rocky mountain, at the foot of which there is a spring that forms a small brook and flows away through the valley below Szafed (Seetzen, R. ii. pp. 127-8; Robinson, Bibl. Res. pp. 73ff.). This stream, which is said to reach the Lake of Tiberias, in the neighbourhood of Bethsaida, is in all probability to be regarded as the \"waters of Merom,\" as, according to Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 18), \"these kings encamped at Berothe (de. Bell. Jud. xx. 6, and Vit. 37, 'Meroth'), a city of Upper Galilee, not far from Kedese.\"\n(Note: The traditional opinion that \"waters of Merom\" is the Old Testament name for the Lake of Samochonitis, or Huleh, is not founded upon any historical evidence, but is simply an inference of Hadr. Reland (Pal. Ill. p. 262), (1) from the statement made by Josephus (Ant. v. 5, 1), that Hazor was above the Lake of Somochonitis, it being taken for granted without further reason that the battle occurred at Hazor, and (2) from the supposed similarity in the meaning of the names, viz., that Samochonitis is derived from an Arabic word signifying to be high, and therefore means the same as Merom (height), though here again the zere is disregarded, and Merom is arbitrarily identified with Marom.)\nJos 11:6\nOn account of this enormous number, and the might of the enemy, who were all the more to be dreaded because of their horses and chariots, the Lord encouraged Joshua again, \n(Note: \"As there was so much more difficulty connected with the destruction of so populous and well-disciplined an army, it was all the more necessary that he should be inspired with fresh confidence. For this reason God appeared to Joshua, and promised him the same success as He had given him so many times before.\" - Calvin.)\nas in Jos 8:1, by promising him that on the morrow He would deliver them all up slain before Israel; only Joshua was to lame their horses (Gen 49:6) and burn their chariots. אנכי before נתן gives emphasis to the sentence: \"I will provide for this; by my power, which is immeasurable, as I have shown thee so many times, and by my nod, by which heaven and earth are shaken, shall these things be done\" (Masius).\nJos 11:7-8\nWith this to inspirit them, the Israelites fell upon the enemy and smote them, chasing them towards the north-west to Sidon, and westwards as far as Misrephothmaim, and into the plain of Mizpah on the east. Sidon is called the great (as in Jos 19:28), because at that time it was the metropolis of Phoenicia; whereas even by the time of David it had lost its ancient splendour, and was outstripped by its daughter city Tyre. It is still to be seen in the town of Saida, a town of five or six thousand inhabitants, with many large and well-built houses (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 415, and Movers, Phnizier, ii. 1, pp. 86ff.). Misrephothmaim (mentioned also at Jos 13:6), which the Greek translators have taken as a proper name, though the Rabbins and some Christian commentators render it in different ways, such as salt-pits, smelting-huts, or glass-huts (see Ges. Thes. p. 1341), is a collection of springs, called Ain Mesherfi, at the foot of the promontory to which with its steep pass the name of Ras el Nakhra is given, the scala Tyriorum or Passepoulain of the Crusaders (see V. de Velde, Mem. p. 335, and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. p. 807). מצפּה בּקעת (Eng. Ver. \"the valley of Mizpeh\") is probably the basin of the Huleh lake and of Nahr Hasbany, on the western side of which lay the land of Mizpah (Jos 11:3).\nJos 11:9\nJoshua carried out the command of the Lord with regard to the chariots and horses.\nJos 11:10-15\nAfter destroying the foe, and returning from the pursuit, Joshua took Hazor, smote its king and all the inhabitants with the edge of the sword, and burned the town, the former leader of all those kingdoms. He did just the same to the other towns, except that he did not burn them, but left them standing upon their hills. על־תּלּם העמחות (Jos 11:13) neither contains an allusion to any special fortification of the towns, nor implies a contrast to the towns built in the valleys and plains, but simply expresses the thought that these towns were still standing upon their hill, i.e., upon the old site (cf. Jer 30:18 : the participle does not express the preterite, but the present). At the same time, the expression certainly implies that the towns were generally built upon hills. The pointing in תּלּם is not to be altered, as Knobel suggests. The singular \"upon their hill\" is to be taken as distributive: standing, now as then, each upon its hill. - With Jos 11:15, \"as Jehovah commanded His servant Moses\" (cf. Num 33:52.; Deu 7:1., Deu 20:16), the account of the wars of Joshua is brought to a close, and the way opened for proceeding to the concluding remarks with reference to the conquest of the whole land (Jos 11:16-23). דּבר הסיר לא, he put not away a word, i.e., left nothing undone. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":16,"content":["Retrospective View of the Conquest of the Whole Land. - Jos 11:16, Jos 11:17. Joshua took all this land, namely, those portions of Southern Canaan that have already been mentioned in Jos 10:40-41; also the Arabah, and the mountains of Israel and its lowlands (see Jos 11:2), i.e., the northern part of the land (in the campaign described in Jos 11:1-15), that is to say, Canaan in all its extent, \"from the bald mountain which goeth up to Seir\" in the south, \"to Baal-gad, in the valley of Lebanon under Hermon.\" The \"bald mountain\" (Halak), which is mentioned here and in Jos 12:7 as the southern boundary of Canaan, is hardly the row of white cliffs which stretches obliquely across the Arabah eight miles below the Dead Sea and forms the dividing line that separates this valley into el-Ghor and el-Araba (Rob. Pal. ii. pp. 489, 492), or the present Madara, a strange-looking chalk-hill to the south-west of the pass of Sufah (Rob. ii. p. 589), a steep bare mountain in a barren plain, the sides of which consist of stone and earth of a leaden ashy hue (Seetzen, R. iii. pp. 14, 15); but in all probability the northern edge of the Azazimeh mountain with its white and glistening masses of chalk. Baal-gad, i.e., the place or town of Baal, who was there worshipped as Gad (see Isa 65:11), also called Baal-hermon in Jdg 3:3 and Ch1 5:23, is not Baalbek, but the Paneas or Caesarea Philippi of a later time, the present Banjas (see at Num 34:8-9). This is the opinion of v. Raumer and Robinson, though Van de Velde is more disposed to look for Baal-gad in the ruins of Kalath (the castle of) Bostra, or of Kalath Aisafa, the former an hour and a half, the latter three hours to the north of Banjas, the situation of which would accord with the biblical statements respecting Baal-gad exceedingly well. The \"valley of Lebanon\" is not Coele-Syria, the modern Beka, between Lebanon and Antilibanus, but the valley at the foot of the southern slope of Jebel Sheik (Hermon). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":18,"content":["Joshua made war with the kings of Canaan a long time; judging from Jos 14:7, Jos 14:10, as much as seven years, though Josephus (Ant. v. 1, 19) speaks of five (see at Jos 14:10). No town submitted peaceably to the Israelites, with the exception of Gibeon: they took the whole in war. \"For it was of the Lord\" (Jos 11:20), i.e., God ordered it so that they (the Canaanites) hardened their heart to make war upon Israel, that they might fall under the ban, and be destroyed without mercy. On the hardening of the heart as a work of God, see the remarks upon the hardening of Pharaoh (Exo 4:21). It cannot be inferred from this, that if the Canaanites had received the Israelites amicably, God would have withdrawn His command to destroy them, and allowed the Israelites to make peace with them; for when they made peace with the Gibeonites, they did not inquire what as the will of the Lord, but acted in opposition to it (see at Jos 9:14). The remark is made with special reference to this, and has been correctly explained by Augustine (qu. 8 in Jos.) as follows: \"Because the Israelites had shown mercy to some of them of their own accord, though in opposition to the command of God, therefore it is stated that they (the Canaanites) made war upon them so that none of them were spared, and the Israelites were not induced to show mercy to the neglect of the commandment of God.\" \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":21,"content":["In Jos 11:21, Jos 11:22, the destruction of the Anakites upon the mountains of Judah and Israel is introduced in a supplementary form, which completes the history of the subjugation and extermination of the Canaanites in the south of the land (Josh 10). This supplement is not to be regarded either as a fragment interpolated by a different hand, or as a passage borrowed from another source. On the contrary, the author himself thought it necessary, having special regard to Num 13:28, Num 13:31., to mention expressly that Joshua also rooted out from their settlements the sons of Anak, whom the spies in the time of Moses had described as terrible giants, and drove them into the Philistine cities of Gaza, Bath, and Ashdod. \"At that time\" points back to the \"long time,\" mentioned in Jos 11:18, during which Joshua was making war upon the Canaanites. The words \"cut off,\" etc., are explained correctly by Clericus: \"Those who fell into his hands he slew, the rest he put to flight, though, as we learn from Jos 15:14, they afterwards returned.\" (On the Anakim, see at Num 13:22.) They had their principal settlement upon the mountains in Hebron (el Khulil, see Jos 10:3), Debir (see at Jos 10:38), and Anab. The last place (Anab), upon the mountains of Judah (Jos 15:50), has been preserved along with the old name in the village of Anb, four or five hours to the south of Hebron, on the eastern side of the great Wady el Khulil, which runs from Hebron down to Beersheba (Rob. Pal. ii. p. 193). \"And from all (the rest of) the mountains of Judah, and all the mountains of Israel:\" the latter are called the mountains of Ephraim in Jos 17:15. The two together form the real basis of the land of Canaan, and are separated from one another by the large Wady Beit Hanina (see Rob. Pal. ii. p. 333). They received their respective names from the fact that the southern portion of the mountain land of Canaan fell to the tribe of Judah as its inheritance, and the northern part to the tribe of Ephraim and other tribes of Israel.\n(Note: The distinction here made may be explained without difficulty even from the circumstances of Joshua's own time. Judah and the double tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and Manasseh) received their inheritance by lot before any of the others. But whilst the tribe of Judah proceeded into the territory allotted to them in the south, all the other tribes still remained in Gilgal; and even at a later period, when Ephraim and Manasseh were in their possessions, all Israel, with the exception of Judah, were still encamped at Shiloh. Moreover, the two parts of the nation were now separated by the territory which was afterwards assigned to the tribe of Benjamin, but had no owner at this time; and in addition to this, the altar, tabernacle, and ark of the covenant were in the midst of Joseph and the other tribes that were still assembled at Shiloh. Under such circumstances, then, would not the idea of a distinction between Judah, on the one hand, and the rest of Israel, in which the double tribe of Joseph and then the single tribe of Ephraim acquired such peculiar prominence, on the other, shape itself more and more in the mind, and what already existed in the germ begin to attain maturity even here? And what could be more natural than that the mountains in which the \"children of Judah\" had their settlements should be called the mountains of Judah; and the mountains where all the rest of Israel was encamped, where the \"children of Israel\" were gathered together, be called the mountains of Israel, and, as that particular district really belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, the mountains of Ephraim also? (Jos 19:50; Jos 20:7; also Jos 24:30.))\nGaza, Gath, and Ashdod were towns of the Philistines; of these Gaza and Ashdod were allotted to the tribe of Judah (Jos 15:47), but were never taken possession of by the Israelites, although the Philistines were sometimes subject to the Israelites (see at Jos 13:3). - With Jos 11:23, \"thus Joshua took the whole land\" etc., the history of the conquest of Canaan by Joshua is brought to a close; and Jos 11:23, \"and Joshua gave it for an inheritance unto Israel,\" forms a kind of introduction to the second part of the book. The list of the conquered kings in Josh 12 is simply an appendix to the first part.\nThe taking of the whole land does not imply that all the towns and villages to the very last had been conquered, or that all the Canaanites were rooted out from every corner of the land, but simply that the conquest was of such a character that the power of the Canaanites was broken, their dominion overthrown, and their whole land so thoroughly given into the hands of the Israelites, that those who still remained here and there were crushed into powerless fugitives, who could neither offer any further opposition to the Israelites, nor dispute the possession of the land with them, if they would only strive to fulfil the commandments of their God and persevere in the gradual extermination of the scattered remnants. Moreover, Israel had received the strongest pledge, in the powerful help which it had received from the Lord in the conquests thus far obtained, that the faithful covenant God would continue His help in the conflicts which still remained, and secure for it a complete victory and the full possession of the promised land. Looking, therefore, at the existing state of things from this point of view, Joshua had taken possession of the whole land, and could now proceed to finish the work entrusted to him by the Lord, by dividing the land among the tribes of Israel. Joshua had really done all that the Lord had said to Moses. For the Lord had not only promised to Moses the complete extermination of the Canaanites, but had also told him that He would not drive out the Canaanites at once, or \"in one year,\" but only little by little, until Israel multiplied and took the land (Exo 23:28-30; cf. Deu 7:22). Looking at this promised, therefore, the author of the book could say with perfect justice, that \"Joshua took the whole land according to all that (precisely in the manner in which) the Lord had said to Moses.\" But this did not preclude the fact, that a great deal still remained to be done before all the Canaanites could be utterly exterminated from every part of the land. Consequently, the enumeration of towns and districts that were not yet conquered, and of Canaanites who still remained, which we find in Jos 13:1-6; Jos 17:14., Jos 18:3; Jos 23:5, Jos 23:12, forms no discrepancy with the statements in the verses before us, so as to warrant us in adopting any critical hypotheses or conclusions as to the composition of the book by different authors. The Israelites could easily have taken such portions of the land as were still unconquered, and could have exterminated all the Canaanites who remained, without any severe or wearisome conflicts; if they had but persevered in fidelity to their God and in the fulfilment of His commandments. If, therefore, the complete conquest of the whole land was not secured in the next few years, but, on the contrary, the Canaanites repeatedly gained the upper hand over the Israelites; we must seek for the explanation, not in the fact that Joshua had not completely taken and conquered the land, but simply in the fact that the Lord had withdrawn His help from His people because of their apostasy from Him, and had given them up to the power of their enemies to chastise them for their sins. - The distribution of the land for an inheritance to the Israelites took place \"according to their divisions by their tribes.\" מחלקות denote the division of the twelve tribes of Israel into families, fathers' houses, and households; and is so used not only here, but in Jos 12:7 and Jos 18:10. Compare with this Ch1 23:6; Ch1 24:1, etc., where it is applied to the different orders of priests and Levites. \"And the land rested from war:\" i.e., the war was ended, so that the peaceable task of distributing the land by lot could now be proceeded with (vid., Jos 14:15; Jdg 3:11, Jdg 3:30; Jdg 5:31). \n"]}]},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOS/11.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOS","chapter":11},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOS/12.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOS","chapter":12},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOS/10.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOS","chapter":10},"numberOfVerses":4}