{"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":19,"content":[{"type":"verse","number":1,"content":["The Inheritance of Simeon fell within the inheritance of the children of Judah, because the land allotted to them at Gilgal was larger than they required (Jos 19:9). Thus the curse pronounced upon Simeon by Jacob of dispersion in Israel (Gen 49:7) was fulfilled upon this tribe in a very peculiar manner, and in a different manner from that pronounced upon Levi. The towns allotted to the tribe of Simeon are divided into two groups, the first (Jos 19:2-6) consisting of thirteen or fourteen towns, all situated in the Negeb (or south country); the second (Jos 19:7) of four towns, two of which were in the Negeb and two in the shephelah. All these eighteen towns have already been enumerated among the towns of Judah (Jos 15:26-32, Jos 15:42), and are mentioned again in Ch1 4:28-32, in just the same order, and with only slight differences in the spelling of some of the names. If the classification of the names in two groups might seem to indicate that Simeon received a connected portion of land in Judah, this idea is overthrown at once by the circumstance that two of the four towns in the second group were in the south land and two in the lowland, and, judging from Jos 15:32, Jos 15:42, at a great distance from one another. At the same time, we cannot decide this point with any certainty, as the situation of several of the towns is still unknown.\nJos 19:2-6\nBeersheba: see at Jos 15:28. Sheba is wanting in the Chronicles, but has no doubt been omitted through a copyist's error, as Shema answers to it in Jos 15:26, where it stands before Moladah just as Sheba does here. - On the names in Jos 19:3-6, see the exposition of Jos 15:28-32. - The sum total given in Jos 19:6, viz., thirteen towns, does not tally, as there are fourteen names. On these differences, see the remarks on Jos 15:32.\nJos 19:7\nAin and Rimmon were in the south land (Jos 15:32), Ether and Ashan in the lowlands (Jos 15:42).\nJos 19:8-9\nIn addition to the towns mentioned, the Simeonites received all the villages round about the towns to Baalath-beer, the Ramah of the south. This place, up to which the territory of the Simeonites extended, though without its being actually assigned to the Simeonites, is simply called Baal in Ch1 4:33, and is probably the same as Bealoth in Jos 15:24, though its situation has not yet been determined (see at Jos 15:24). It cannot be identified, however, with Ramet el Khulil, an hour to the north of Hebron, which Roediger supposes to be the Ramah of the south, since the territory of Simeon, which was situated in the Negeb, and had only two towns in the shephelah, cannot possibly have extended into the mountains to a point on the north of Hebron. So far as the situation is concerned, V. de Velde would be more likely to be correct, when he identifies Rama of the south with Tell Lekiyeh on the north of Beersheba, if this conjecture only rested upon a better foundation than the untenable assumption, that Baalath-beer is the same as the Baalath of Dan in Jos 19:44. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":10,"content":["The Inheritance of Zebulun fell above the plain of Jezreel, between this plain and the mountains of Naphtali, so that it was bounded by Asher on the west and north-west (Jos 19:27), by Naphtali on the north and north-east (Jos 19:34), and by Issachar on the south-east and south, and touched neither the Mediterranean Sea nor the Jordan. It embraced a very fertile country, however, with the fine broad plain of el Buttauf, the μέγα πεδίον above Nazareth called Asochis in Joseph. vita, 41, 45 (see Rob. iii. p. 189, Bibl. Res. pp. 105ff.; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 742, 758-9).\nJos 19:10\n\"And the boundary (the territory) of their inheritance was (went) to Sarid.\" This is no doubt the centre of the southern boundary, from which it is traced in a westerly direction in Jos 19:11, and in an easterly direction in Jos 19:12, in the same manner as in Jos 16:6. Unfortunately, Sarid cannot be determined with certainty. Knobel's opinion, is, that the name, which signifies \"hole\" or \"incision,\" after the analogy of שׂרד, perforavit, and שׂרט, incidit, does not refer to a town, but to some other locality, probably the southern opening of the deep and narrow wady which comes down from the basin of Nazareth, and is about an hour to the south-east of Nazareth, between two steep mountains (Seetzen, ii. pp. 151-2; Rob. iii. p. 183). This locality appears suitable enough. But it is also possible that Sarid may be found in one of the two heaps of ruins on the south side of the Mons praecipitii upon V. de Velde's map (so called from Luk 4:29).\nJos 19:11\nFrom this point \"the border went up westwards, namely to Mar'ala, and touched Dabbasheth, and still farther to the brook of Jokneam.\" If Jokneam of Carmel has been preserved in the Tell Kaimn (see at Jos 12:22), the brook before Jokneam is probably the Wady el Milh, on the eastern side of which, near the point where it opens into the plain, stands Kaimn, and through which the road runs from Acca to Ramleh, as this wady separates Carmel from the small round hills which run to the south-east (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 114, and V. de Velde, i. p. 249). Here the boundaries of Zebulun and Asher met (Jos 19:27). Mar'ala and Dabbasheth are to be sought for between Kaimn and Sarid. The Cod. Vat. has Μαγελδά instead of Μαριλά. Now, however, little importance we can attach to the readings of the lxx on account of the senseless way in which its renderings are made-as, for example, in this very passage, where ועלה עד־שׂריד׃ is rendered Ἐσεδεκγώλα, - the name Magelda might suggest a Hebrew reading Magedlah or Mageldah, and thus lead one to connect the place with the village of Mejeidil (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 114), or Mshedil (Seetzen, ii. p. 143), on the west of Mons praecipitii, though neither of these travellers visited the place, or has given us any minute description of it. Its situation upon a mountain would suit Mar'ala, to which the boundary went up from Sarid. In the case of Dabbasheth, the name, which signifies \"lump\" (see Isa 30:6), points to a mountain. Upon this Knobel has founded the conjecture that Gibeah or Gibeath took the place of this uncommon word, and that this is connected with the Gabathon of the Onom. (juxta campum Legionis), the present Jebta between Mejeidil and Kaimn, upon an isolated height on the edge of the mountains which skirt the plain of Jezreel, where there are signs of a remote antiquity (Rob. iii. p. 201, and Bibl. Res. p. 113; Ritter, Erdk. xvi. p. 700); although Tell Thureh (i.e., mountain) might be intended, a village upon a low and isolated hill a little farther south (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 116, and Ritter, ut sup.).\nJos 19:12\n\"And from Sarid the boundary turned eastwards toward the sun-rising to the territory of Chisloth-tabor, and went out to Dabrath, and went up to Japhia.\" Chisloth-tabor, i.e., according to Kimchi's explanation lumbi Taboris (French, les flancs), was at any rate a place on the side of Tabor, possibly the same as Kesulloth in Jos 19:18, as Masius and others suppose, and probably the same place as the Xaloth of Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 3, 1), which was situated in the \"great plain,\" and the vicus Chasalus of the Onom. (juxta montem Thabor in campestribus), i.e., the present village of Iksl or Ksl, upon a rocky height on the west of Thabor, with many tombs in the rocks (Rob. iii. p. 182). Dabrath, a place in the tribe of Issachar that was given up to the Levites (Jos 21:28; Ch1 6:57), called Dabaritta in Josephus (Bell. Jud. ii. 21, 3) and Dabira in the Onom. (villula in monte Thabor), the present Deburieh, an insignificant village which stands in a very picturesque manner upon a stratum of rock at the western foot of Tabor (Rob. iii. p. 210; V. de Velde, R. ii. p. 324). Japhia certainly cannot be the present Hepha or Haifa (Khaifa) on the Mediterranean, and near to Carmel (Rel. Pal. p. 826, and Ges. Thes. s. v.); but it is just as certain that it cannot be the present Jafa, a place half an hour to the south-west of Nazareth, as Robinson (Pal. iii. p. 200) and Knobel suppose, since the boundary was running eastwards, and cannot possibly have turned back again towards the west, and run from Deburieh beyond Sarid. If the positions assigned to Chisloth-tabor and Dabrath are correct, Japhia must be sought for on the east of Deburieh.\nJos 19:13\n\"From thence it went over towards the east to the sun-rising to Gath-hepher, to Eth-kazin, and went out to Rimmon, which is marked off to Neah.\" Gath-hepher, the home of the prophet Jonah (Kg2 14:25), was \"haud grandis viculus Geth\" in the time of Jerome (see prol. ad Jon.). It was about two miles from Sephoris on the road to Tiberias, and the tomb of the prophet was shown there. It is the present village of Meshed, a place about an hour and a quarter to the north of Nazareth (Rob. iii. p. 209; V. de Velde, Mem. p. 312). Eth-kazin is unknown. Rimmon, a Levitical town (Jos 21:35; Ch1 6:62), has probably been preserved in the village of Rummaneh, about two hours and a half to the north of Nazareth (Rob. iii. p. 195). Ham-methoar is not a proper name, but the participle of תּאר, with the article in the place of the relative pronoun, \"bounded off,\" or pricked off. Neah is unknown; it is possibly the same place as Neiel in the tribe of Asher (Jos 19:27), as Knobel supposes.\nJos 19:14\n\"And the boundary turned round it (round Rimmon), on the north to Channathon, and the outgoings thereof were the valley of Jiphtah-el.\" Judging from the words נסב and מצּפון, this verse apparently gives the north-west boundary, since the last definition in Jos 19:13, \"to Gath-hepher,\" etc., points to the eastern boundary. Jiphtah-el answers no doubt to the present Jeft, two hours and a half to the north of Sefurieh, and is the Jotapata which was obstinately defended by Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 7, 9: see Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 104ff.). Consequently the valley of Jiphtah-el, at which Zebulun touched Asher (Jos 19:27), is probably \"no other than the large Wady Abiln, which takes its rise in the hills in the neighbourhood of Jeft\" (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 107). And if this be correct, Channathon (lxx Ἐνναθώθ) is probably Cana of Galilee, the home of Nathanael (Joh 2:1, Joh 2:11; Joh 4:46; Joh 21:2), the present Kana el Jelil, between Rummaneh and Yeft, on the northern edge of the plain of Buttauf, upon a Tell, from which you overlook the plain, fully two hours and a half in a straight line from Nazareth, and directly north of that place, where there are many ruins found (see Rob. iii. p. 204; Bibl. Res. p. 108).\nJos 19:15-16\nThe towns of Zebulun were the following. Kattath, probably the same as Kitron, which is mentioned in Jdg 1:30 in connection with Nahalol, but which is still unknown. Nehalal, or Nahalol (Jdg 1:30), is supposed by V. de Velde (Mem. p. 335), who follows Rabbi Schwartz, to be the present village of Maalul, a place with ruins on the south-west of Nazareth (see Seetzen, ii. p. 143; Rob. iii. App.; and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. p. 700). Simron is supposed by Knobel to be the village of Semunieh (see at Jos 11:1). But neither of these is very probable. Idalah is supposed by V. de Velde to be the village of Jeda or Jeida, on the west of Semunieh, where are a few relics of antiquity, though Robinson (Bibl. Res. p. 113) states the very opposite. Bethlehem (of Zebulun), which many regard as the home of the judge Ibzan (Jdg 12:8), has been preserved under the old name in a miserable village on the north of Jeida and Semunieh (see Seetzen, ii. p. 139; Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 113). The number of the towns is given as twelve, though only five are mentioned by name. It is true that some commentators have found the missing names in the border places mentioned in Jos 19:11-14, as, after deducting Chisloth-tabor and Dabrath, which belonged to Issachar, the names Sarid, Maralah, Dabbasheth, Japhia, Gittah-hepher, Eth-kazin, and Channathon give just seven towns. Nevertheless there is very little probability in this conjecture. For, in the first place, not only would it be a surprising thing to find the places mentioned as boundaries included among the towns of the territory belonging to the tribe, especially as some of the places so mentioned did not belong to Zebulun at all; but the copula vav, with which the enumeration of the towns commences, is equally surprising, since this is introduced in other cases with הארים והיוּ (ויּהיוּ), e.g., Jos 18:21; Jos 15:21. And, in the second place, it is not a probable thing in itself, that, with the exception of the five towns mentioned in Jos 19:15, the other towns of Zebulun should all be situated upon the border. And lastly, the towns of Kartah and Dimnah, which Zebulun gave up to the Levites (Jos 21:34), are actually wanting. Under these circumstances, it is a natural conclusion that there is a gap in the text here, just as in Jos 15:59 and Jos 21:36. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":17,"content":["The Inheritance of Issachar. - In this instance only towns are given, and the boundaries are not delineated, with the exception of the eastern portion of the northern boundary and the boundary line; at the same time, they may easily be traced from the boundaries of the surrounding tribes. Issachar received for the most part the large and very fertile plain of Jezreel (see at Jos 17:16, and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 689ff.), and was bounded on the south by Manasseh, on the west by Manasseh and Asher, on the north by Zebulun, and farther east by Naphtali also, and on the east by the Jordan.\nJos 19:18\n\"And their boundary was towards Jezreel,\" i.e., their territory extended beyond Jezreel. Jezreel, the summer residence of Ahab and his house (Kg1 18:45-46, etc.), was situated upon a mountain, with an extensive and splendid prospect over the large plain that was called by its name. It was afterwards called Esdraela, a place described in the Onom. (s. v. Jezreel) as standing between Scythopolis and Legio; it is the present Zern, on the north-west of the mountains of Gilboa (see Seetzen, ii. pp. 155-6; Rob. iii. pp. 161ff.; Van de Velde, R. ii. pp. 320ff.). Chesulloth, possibly the same as Chisloth-tabor (see at Jos 19:12). Sunem, the home of Abishag (Kg1 1:3-15, etc.), also mentioned in Sa1 28:4 and Kg2 4:8, was situated, according to the Onom., five Roman miles (two hours) to the south of Tabor; it is the present Solam or Sulem, at the south-western foot of the Duhy or Little Hermon, an hour and a half to the north of Jezreel (see Rob. iii. pp. 170ff.; Van de Velde, R. ii. p. 323).\nJos 19:19\nHaphraim, according to the Onom. (s. v. Aphraim) villa Affaraea, six Roman miles to the north of Legio, is identified by Knobel with the village of Afuleh, on the west of Sulem, and more than two hours to the north-east of Legun (Rob. iii. pp. 163, 181). Sion, according to the Onom. villa juxta montem Thabor, has not yet been discovered. Anaharath is supposed by Knobel to be Na'urah, on the eastern side of the Little Hermon (Bibl. Res. p. 337); but he regards the text as corrupt, and following the Cod. Al. of the lxx, which has Ῥενάθ and Ἀῤῥανέθ, maintains that the reading should be Archanath, to which Arneh on the north of Jenin in the plain corresponds (Seetzen, ii. p. 156; Rob. iii. p. 157). But the circumstance that the Cod. Al. has two names instead of one makes its reading very suspicious.\nJos 19:20\nHarabbit is supposed by Knobel to be Araboneh, on the north-east of Arneh, at the southern foot of Gilboa (Rob. iii. p. 157). Kishion, which was given up to the Levites (Jos 21:28) and is erroneously written Kedesh in Ch1 6:57, is unknown. This also applies to Abez or Ebez, which is never mentioned again.\nJos 19:21\nRemeth, for which Jarmuth stands in the list of Levitical towns in Jos 21:29, and Ramoth in Ch1 6:58, is also unknown.\n(Note: Knobel imagines Remeth, whose name signifies height, to be the village of Wezar, on one of the western peaks of Gilboa (Seetzen, ii. p. 156; Rob. iii. p. 166, and Bibl. Res. p. 339), as the name also signifies \"a lofty, inaccessible mountain, or a castle situated upon a mountain.\" This is certainly not impossible, but it is improbable. For this Mahometan village evidently derived its name from the fact that it has the appearance of a fortification when seen from a distance (see Ritter, Erdk. xv. p. 422). The name has nothing in common therefore with the Hebrew Remeth, and the travellers quoted by him say nothing at all about the ruins which he mentions in connection with Wezar (Wusar).)\nEn-gannim, which was also allotted to the Levites (Jos 21:29; also Ch1 6:73, where it is called Anem), has been associated by Robinson (iii. p. 155) with the Γιναία of Josephus, the present Jenin. The name En-gannim signifies fountain of gardens, and Jenin stands at the southern side of the plain of Jezreel in the midst of gardens and orchards, which are watered by a copious spring (see Seetzen, ii. pp. 156ff.); \"unless perhaps the place referred to is the heap of ruins called Um el Ghanim, on the south-east of Tabor, mentioned by Berggren, ii. p. 240, and Van de Velde, Mem. p. 142\" (Knobel). En-chadda and Beth-pazzez are only mentioned here, and have not yet been discovered. According to Knobel, the former of the two may possibly be either the place by Gilboa called Judeideh, with a fountain named Ain Judeideh (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 337), or else Beit-kad or Kadd near Gilboa, mentioned by Seetzen (ii. p. 159) and Robinson (iii. p. 157).\nJos 19:22-23\n\"And the boundary touched Tabor, Sahazim, and Beth-shemesh.\" Tabor is not the mountain of that name, but a town upon the mountain, which was given to the Levites, though not by Issachar but by Zebulun (Ch1 6:62), and was fortified afresh in the Jewish wars (Josephus, Bell. Jud. iv. 1, 8). In this passage, however, it appears to be reckoned as belonging to Issachar, since otherwise there are not sixteen cities named. At the same time, as there are several discrepancies between the numbers given and the names actually mentioned, it is quite possible that in this instance also the number sixteen is incorrect. In any case, Tabor was upon the border of Zebulun (Jos 19:12), so that it might have been allotted to this tribe. There are still the remains of old walls and ruins or arches, houses, and other buildings to be seen upon Mount Tabor; and round the summit there are the foundations of a thick wall built of large and to a great extent fluted stones (see Rob. iii. pp. 453ff.; Seetzen, ii. p. 148; Buckingham, Syr. i. pp. 83ff.). The places which follow are to be sought for on the east of Tabor towards the Jordan, as the boundary terminated at the Jordan. Sachazim (Shahazimah) Knobel connects with el Hazetheh, as the name, which signifies heights, points to a town situated upon hills; and el Hezetheh stands upon the range of hills, bounding the low-lying land of Ard el Hamma, which belonged to Naphtali. The reason is a weak one, though the situation would suit. There is more probability in the conjecture that Beth-shemesh, which remained in the hands of the Canaanites (Jdg 1:33), has been preserved in the ruined village of Bessum (Rob. iii. p. 237), and that this new name is only a corruption of the old one, like Beth-shean and Beisan. It is probable that the eastern portion of the northern boundary of Issachar, towards Naphtali, ran in a north-easterly direction from Tabor through the plain to Kefr Sabt, and thence to the Jordan along the Wady Bessum. It is not stated how far the territory of Issachar ran down the valley of the Jordan (see the remarks on Jos 17:11). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":24,"content":["The Inheritance of Asher. - Asher received its territory along the Mediterranean Sea from Carmel to the northern boundary of Canaan itself. The description commences with the central portion, viz., the neighbourhood of Acco (Jos 19:25), going first of all towards the south (Jos 19:26, Jos 19:27), and then to the north (Jos 19:28, Jos 19:30).\nJos 19:25\nThe territory of the Asherites was as follows. Helkath, which was given up to the Levites (Jos 21:31, and Ch1 6:75, where Hukok is an old copyist's error), is the present Jelka, three hours to the east of Acco (Akka: Scholz, Reise, p. 257), or Jerka, a Druse village situated upon an eminence, and judging from the remains, an ancient place (Van de Velde, R. i. p. 214; Rob. iii. App.). Hali, according to Knobel possibly Julis, between Jerka and Akka, in which case the present name arose from the form Halit, and t was changed into s. Beten, according to the Onom. (s. v. Βατναι%: Bathne) as vicus Bethbeten, eight Roman miles to the east of Ptolemais, has not yet been found. Achshaph is also unknown (see at Jos 11:1). The Onom. (s. v. Achsaph) says nothing more about its situation than that it was in tribu Aser, whilst the statement made s. v. Acsaph (Ἀκσάφ), that it was villula Chasalus (κώμη Ἐξάδους), eight Roman miles from Diocaesarea ad radicem montis Thabor, leads into the territory of Zebulun.\nJos 19:26\nAlammalech has been preserved, so far as the name is concerned, in the Wady Malek or Malik (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 110), which runs into the Kishon, since in all probability the wady was named after a place either near it or within it. Amad is supposed by Knobel to be the present Haifa, about three hours to the south of Acre, on the sea, and this he identifies with the sycamore city mentioned by Strabo (xvi. 758), Ptolemy (v. 15, 5), and Pliny (h. n. v. 17), which was called Epha in the time of the Fathers (see Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 722ff.). In support of this he adduces the fact that the Hebrew name resembles the Arabic noun for sycamore-an argument the weakness of which does not need to be pointed out. Misheal was assigned to the Levites (Jos 21:30, and Ch1 6:74, where it is called Mashal). According to the Onom. (s. v. Masan) it was on the sea-coast near to Carmel, which is in harmony with the next clause, \"and reacheth to Carmel westwards, and to Shihor-libnath.\" Carmel (i.e., fruit-field), which has acquired celebrity from the history of Elijah (Kg1 18:17.), is a wooded mountain ridge which stretches in a north-westerly direction on the southern side of the Kishon, and projects as a promontory into the sea. Its name, \"fruit-field,\" is well chosen; for whilst the lower part is covered with laurels and olive trees, the upper abounds in figs and oaks, and the whole mountain is full of the most beautiful flowers. There are also many caves about it (vid., v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 43ff.; and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 705-6). The Shihor-libnath is not the Belus, or glass-river, in the neighbourhood of Acre, but is to be sought for on the south of Carmel, where Asher was bounded by Manasseh (Jos 17:10), i.e., to the south of Dor, which the Manassites received in the territory of Asher (Jos 17:11); it is therefore in all probability the Nahr Zerka, possibly the crocodile river of Pliny (Reland, Pal. p. 730), which is three hours to the south of Dor, and whose name (blue) might answer both to shihor (black) and libnath (white).\nJos 19:27\nFrom this point the boundary \"turned towards the east,\" probably following the river Libnath for a short distance upwards, \"to Beth-dagon,\" which has not yet been discovered, and must not be identified with Beit Dejan between Yafa and Ludd (Diospolis), \"and touched Zebulun and the valley of Jiphtah-el on the north of Beth-emek, and Nehil, and went out on the left of Cabul,\" i.e., on the northern side of it. The north-west boundary went from Zebulun into the valley of Jiphtah-el, i.e., the upper part of the Wady Abiln (Jos 19:14). Here therefore the eastern boundary of Asher, which ran northwards from Wady Zerka past the western side of Issachar and Zebulun, touched the north-west corner of Zebulun. The two places, Beth-emek and Nehil (the latter possibly the same as Neah in Jos 19:13), which were situated at the south of the valley of Jiphtah-el, have not been discovered; they may, however, have been upon the border of Zebulun and yet have belonged to Ashwer. Cabul, the κώμη Χαβωλώ of Josephus (Vit. 43), in the district of Ptolemais, has been preserved in the village of Kabul, four hours to the south-east of Acre (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 88, and Van de Velde, R. i. p. 218).\nJos 19:28-30\nIn Jos 19:28-30 the towns and boundaries in the northern part of the territory of Asher, on the Phoenician frontier, are given, and the Phoenician cities Sidon, Tyre, and Achzib are mentioned as marking the boundary. First of all we have four towns in Jos 19:28, reaching as far as Sidon, no doubt in the northern district of Asher. Ebron has not yet been traced. As Abdon occurs among the towns which Asher gave up to the Levites (Jos 21:30; Ch1 6:59), and in this verse also twenty MSS have the reading Abdon, many writers, like Reland (Pal. p. 514), regard Ebron as a copyist's error for Abdon. This is possible enough, but it is by no means certain. As the towns of Asher are not all given in this list, since Acco, Achlab, and Helba (Jdg 1:31) are wanting, Abdon may also have been omitted. But we cannot attach any importance to the reading of the twenty MSS, as it may easily have arisen from Jos 21:30; and in addition to the Masoretic text, it has against it the authority of all the ancient versions, in which the reading Ebron is adopted. But even Abdon cannot be traced with certainty. On the supposition that Abdon is to be read for Ebron, Knobel connects it with the present Abbadiyeh, on the east of Beirut (Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, Erdk. xvii. pp. 477 and 710), or with Abidat, on the east (not the north) of Jobail (Byblus), mentioned by Burckhardt (Syr. p. 296) and Robinson (iii. App.); though he cannot adduce any other argument in support of the identity of Abdon with these two places, which are only known by name at present, except the resemblance in their names. On the supposition, however, that Abdon is not the same as Ebron, Van de Velde's conjecture is a much more natural one; namely, that it is to be found in the ruins of Abdeh, on the Wady Kurn, to the north of Acca. Rehob cannot be traced. The name occurs again in Jos 19:30, from which it is evident that there were two towns of this name in the territory of Asher (see at Jos 19:30). Schultz and Van de Velde connect it with the village of Haml by the wady of that name, between Ras el Abyad and Ras en Nakura; but this is too far south to be included in the district which reached to great Sidon. Knobel's suggestion would be a more probable one, namely, that it is connected with the village of Hammana, on the east of Beirut, in the district of el Metn, on the heights of Lebanon, where there is now a Maronite monastery (vid., Seetzen, i. p. 260; Rob. iii. App.; and Ritter, xvii. pp. 676 and 710), if it could only be shown that the territory of Asher reached as far to the east as this. Kanah cannot be the village of Kna, not far from Tyre (Rob. iii. p. 384), but must have been farther north, and near to Sidon, though it has not yet been discovered. For the supposition that it is connected with the existing place called Ain Kanieh (Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, xvii. pp. 94 and 703), on the north of Jezzin, is overthrown by the fact that that place is too far to the east to be thought of in this connection; and neither Robinson nor Ritter makes any allusion to \"Ain Kana, in the neighbourhood of Jurjera, six hours to the south-east of Sidon,\" which Knobel mentions without quoting his authority, so that the existence of such a place is very questionable. On Sidon, now Saida, see at Jos 11:8.\nJos 19:29-31\n\"And the boundary turned (probably from the territory of Sidon) to Ramah, to the fortified town of Zor.\" Robinson supposes that Rama is to be found in the village of Rameh, on the south-east of Tyre, where several ancient sarcophagi are to be seen (Bibl. Res. p. 63). \"The fortified town of Zor,\" i.e., Tyre, is not the insular Tyre, but the town of Tyre, which was on the mainland, the present Sur, which is situated by the sea-coast, in a beautiful and fertile plain (see Ritter, Erdk. xvii. p. 320, and Movers, Phnizier, ii. 1, pp. 118ff.). \"And the boundary turned to Hosah, and the outgoings thereof were at the sea, by the side of the district of Achzib.\" Hosah is unknown, as the situation of Kausah, near to the Rameh already mentioned (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 61), does not suit in this connection. מחבל, lit. from the district, i.e., by the side of it. Achzib, where the Asherites dwelt with the Canaanites (Jdg 1:31-32), is the Ekdippa of the Greeks and Romans, according to the Onom. (s. v. Achziph) nine Roman miles, or according to the Itiner. Hieros. p. 584, twelve miles to the north of Acco by the sea, the present Zib, a very large village, three good hours to the north of Acre, - a place on the sea-coast, with considerable ruins of antiquity (see Ges. Thes. p. 674; Seetzen, ii. p. 109; Ritter, xvi. pp. 811-12). - In Jos 19:30 three separate towns are mentioned, which were probably situated in the eastern part of the northern district of Asher, whereas the border towns mentioned in Jos 19:28 and Jos 19:29 describe this district in its western half. Ummah (lxx Ἀμμά) may perhaps have been preserved in Kefr Ammeih, upon the Lebanon, to the south of Hammana, in the district of Jurd (Rob. iii. App.; Ritter, xvii. p. 710). Aphek is the present Afka (see at Jos 13:4). Rehob cannot be traced with certainty. If it is Hub, as Knobel supposes, and the name Hub, which is borne by a Maronite monastery upon Lebanon, in the diocese of el-Jebail (to the north-east of Jebail), is a corruption of Rehob, this would be the northernmost town of Asher (see Seetzen, i. pp. 187ff., and Ritter, xvii. p. 791). The number \"twenty-two towns and their villages\" does not tally, as there are twenty-three towns mentioned in Jos 19:26-30, if we include Sidon, Tyre, and Achzib, according to Jdg 1:31-32. The only way in which the numbers can be made to agree is to reckon Nehiel (Jos 19:27) as identical with Neah (Jos 19:13). But this point cannot be determined with certainty, as the Asherites received other towns, such as Acco and Aclaph, which are wanting in this list, and may possibly have simply fallen out. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":32,"content":["The Inheritance of Naphtali. - This fell between Asher and the upper Jordan. It reached northwards to the northern boundary of Canaan, and touched Zebulun and Issachar on the south. In Jos 19:33 and Jos 19:34 the boundary lines are given: viz., in Jos 19:33 the western boundary towards Asher, with the northern and eastern boundaries: in Jos 19:34 the southern boundary; but with the uncertainty which exists as to several of the places named, it cannot be traced with certainty.\nJos 19:33\n\"Its boundary was (its territory reached) from Heleph, from the oak-forest at Zaanannim, and Adami Nekeb and Jabneel to Lakkum; and its outgoings were the Jordan.\" Heleph is unknown, though in all probability it was to the south of Zaanannim, and not very far distant. According to Jdg 4:11, the oak-forest (allon: see the remarks on Gen 12:6) at Zaanannim was near Kedesh, on the north-west of Lake Huleh. There are still many oaks in that neighbourhood (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 386); and on the south of Bint Jebail Robinson crossed a low mountain-range which was covered with small oak trees (Pal. iii. p. 372). Adami hannekeb, i.e., Adami of the pass (Nekeb, judging from the analogy of the Arabic, signifying foramen, via inter montes), is supposed by Knobel to be Deir-el-ahmar, i.e., red cloister, a place which is still inhabited, three hours to the north-west of Baalbek, on the pass from the cedars to Baalbek (Seetzen, i. pp. 181, 185; Burckhardt, Syr. p. 60; and Ritter, Erdk. xvii. p. 150), so called from the reddish colour of the soil in the neighbourhood, which would explain the name Adami. Knobel also connects Jabneel with the lake Jemun, Jemuni, or Jammune, some hours to the north-west of Baalbek, on the eastern side of the western Lebanon range (Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 548; Ritter, xvii. pp. 304ff.), where there are still considerable ruins of a very early date to be found, especially the ruins of an ancient temple and a celebrated place of pilgrimage, with which the name \"god's building\" agrees. And lastly, he associates Lakkum with the mountains of Lokham, as the northern part of Lebanon on the Syrian mountains, from the latitude of Laodicea to that of Antioch on the western side of the Orontes, is called by the Arabian geographers Isztachri, Abulfeda, and others. So far as the names are concerned, these combinations seem appropriate enough, but they are hardly tenable. The resemblance between the names Lakkum and Lokham is only in appearance, as the Hebrew name is written with ק and the Arabic with כ. Moreover, the mountains of Lokham are much too far north for the name to be adduced as an explanation of Lakkum. The interpretation of Adami Nekeb and Jabneel is also irreconcilable with the circumstance that the lake Jamun was two hours to the west of the red convent, so that the boundary, which starts from the west, and is drawn first of all towards the north, and then to the north-east and east, must have run last of all from the red convent, and not from the Jamun lake to the Jordan. As Jabneel is mentioned after Adami Nekeb, it must be sought for to the east of Adami Nekeb, whereas the Jamun lake lies in the very opposite direction, namely, directly to the west of the red convent. The three places mentioned, therefore, cannot be precisely determined at present. The Jordan, where the boundary of Asher terminated, was no doubt the upper Jordan, or rather the Nahr Hasbany, one of the sources of the Jordan, which formed, together with the Huleh lake and the Jordan itself, between Lake Huleh and the Sea of Tiberias, and down to the point where it issues from the latter, the eastern boundary of Asher.\nJos 19:34\nFrom the Jordan below the Lake of Tiberias, or speaking more exactly, from the point at which the Wady Bessum enters the Jordan, \"the boundary (of Asher) turned westwards to Asnoth-tabor, and went thence out to Hukkok.\" This boundary, i.e., the southern boundary of Asher, probably followed the course of the Wady Bessum from the Jordan, which wady was the boundary of Issachar on the north-east, and then ran most likely from Kefr Sabt (see at Jos 19:22) to Asnoth-tabor, i.e., according to the Onom. (s. v. Azanoth), a vicus ad regionem Diocaesareae pertinens in campestribus, probably on the south-east of Diocaesarea, i.e., Sepphoris, not far from Tabor, to which the boundary of Issachar extended (Jos 19:22). Hukkok has not yet been traced. Robinson (Bibl. Res. p. 82) and Van de Velde (Mem. p. 322) are inclined to follow Rabbi Parchi of the fourteenth century, and identify this place with the village of Yakk, on the north-west of the Lake of Gennesareth; but this village is too far to the north-east to have formed the terminal point of the southern boundary of Naphtali, as it ran westwards from the Jordan. After this Naphtali touched \"Zebulun on the south, Asher on the west, and Judah by the Jordan toward the sun-rising or east.\" \"The Jordan\" is in apposition to \"Judah,\" in the sense of \"Judah of the Jordan,\" like \"Jordan of Jericho\" in Num 22:1; Num 26:3, etc. The Masoretic pointing, which separates these two words, was founded upon some false notion respecting this definition of the boundary, and caused the commentators great perplexity, until C. v. Raumer succeeded in removing the difficulty, by showing that the district of the sixty towns of Jair, which was upon the eastern side of the Jordan, is called Judah here, or reckoned as belonging to Judah, because Jair, the possessor of these towns, was a descendant of Judah on the father's side through Hezron (Ch1 2:5, Ch1 2:21-22); whereas in Jos 13:30, and Num 32:41, he is reckoned contra morem, i.e., against the rule laid down in Num 36:7, as a descendant of Manasseh, on account of his descent from Machir the Manassite, on his mother's side.\n(Note: See C. v. Raumer's article on \"Judaea on the east of Jordan,\" in Tholuck's litt. Anz. 1834, Nos. 1 and 2, and his Palstina, pp. 233ff. ed. 4; and for the arbitrary attempts that had been made to explain the passage by alterations of the text and in other ways, see Rosenmller's Bibl. Alterthk. ii. 1, pp. 301-2; and Keil's Comm. on Joshua, pp. 438-9.)\nJos 19:35\nThe fortified towns of Naphtali were the following. Ziddim: unknown, though Knobel suggests that \"it may possibly be preserved in Chirbet es Saudeh, to the west of the southern extremity of the Lake of Tiberias (Rob. iii. App.);\" but this place is to the west of the Wady Bessum, i.e., in the territory of Issachar. Zer is also unknown. As the lxx and Syriac give the name as Zor, Knobel connects it with Kerak, which signifies fortress as well as Zor (= מצור), a heap of ruins at the southern end of the lake (Rob. iii. p. 263), the place which Josephus calls Taricheae (see Reland, p. 1026), - a very doubtful combination! Hammath (i.e., thermae), a Levitical town called Hammaoth-dor in Jos 21:32, and Hammon in Ch1 6:61, was situated, according to statements in the Talmud, somewhere near the later city of Tiberias, on the western shore of the Lake of Gennesareth, and was no doubt identical with the κώμεε Αμμαούς in the neighbourhood of Tiberias, a place with warm baths (Jos. Ant. xviii. 2, 3; Bell. Judg. iv. 1, 3). There are warm springs still to be found half an hour to the south of Tabaria, which are used as baths (Burckhardt, Syr. pp. 573-4; Rob. iii. pp. 258ff.). Rakkath (according to the Talm. and Rabb. ripa littus) was situated, according to rabbinical accounts, in the immediate neighbourhood of Hammath, and was the same place as Tiberias; but the account given by Josephus (Ant. xviii. 2, 3; cf. Bell. Judg. ii. 9, 1) respecting the founding of Tiberias by Herod the tetrarch is at variance with this; so that the rabbinical statements appear to have no other foundation than the etymology of the name Rakkath. Chinnereth is given in the Targums as גניסר, גינוסר, גּנּוסר, i.e., Γεννησάρ. According to Josephus (Bell. Jud. iii. 10, 8), this name was given to a strip of land on the shore of the Sea of Galilee, which was distinguished for its natural beauty, its climate, and its fertility, namely the long plain, about twenty minutes broad and an hour long, which stretches along the western shore of this lake, from el-Mejdel on the south to Khan Minyeh on the north (Burckhardt, Syr. pp. 558-9; Rob. iii. pp. 279, 290). It must have been in this plain that the town of Chinnereth stood, from which the plain and lake together derived the name of Chinnereth (Deu 3:17) or Chinneroth (Jos 11:2), and the lake alone the name of \"Sea of Chinnereth,\" or \"Sea of Chinneroth\" (Jos 12:3; Jos 13:27; Num 34:11).\nJos 19:36\nAdamah is unknown. Knobel is of opinion, that as Adamah signifies red, the place referred to may possibly be Ras el Ahmar, i.e., red-head, on the north of Safed (Rob. iii. p. 370; Bibl. Res. p. 69). Ramah is the present Rameh (Ramea), a large well-built village, inhabited by Christians and Druses, surrounded by extensive olive plantations, and provided with an excellent well. It stands upon the slope of a mountain, in a beautiful plain on the south-west of Safed, but without any relics of antiquity (see Seetzen, ii. p. 129; Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 78-9). Hazor has not yet been traced with certainty (see at Jos 11:1).\nJos 19:37\nKedesh (see at Jos 12:2). Edrei, a different place from the town of the same name in Bashan (Jos 1:2, Jos 1:4), is still unknown. En-hazor is probably to be sought for in Bell Hazur and Ain Hazur, which is not very far distant, on the south-west of Rameh, though the ruins upon Tell Hazur are merely the ruins of an ordinary village, with one single cistern that has fallen to pieces (Rob. Bibl. Res. pp. 80, 81).\nJos 19:38-39\nJireon (Iron) is probably the present village of Jarn, an hour to the south-east of Bint-Jebeil, with the ruins of an ancient Christian church (Seetzen, ii. pp. 123-4; Van de Velde, R. i. p. 133). Migdal-el, so far as the name is concerned, might be Magdala (Mat 15:39), on the western shore of the Lake of Gennesareth, between Capernaum and Tiberias (Rob. iii. pp. 279ff.); the only difficulty is, that the towns upon this lake have already been mentioned in Jos 19:35. Knobel connects Migdal-el with Chorem, so as to form one name, and finds Migdal el Chorem in the present Mejdel Kerum, on the west of Rameh (Seetzen, ii. p. 130; Van de Velde, i. p. 215), a common Mahometan village. But there is nothing to favour this combination, except the similarity in sound between the two names; whereas it has against it not only the situation of the village, which was so far to the west, being not more than three hours from Acca, that the territory of Naphtali can hardly have reached so far, but also the very small resemblance between Chorem and Kerum, not to mention the fact that the accents separate Chorem from Migdal-el, whilst the omission of the copula (vav) before Chorem cannot have any weight, as the copula is also wanting before Zer and Rakkath. Chorem and Beth-anath have not yet been discovered. From the latter place Naphtali was unable to expel the Canaanites (Jdg 1:33). Beth-shemesh, a different place from the town of the same name in Issachar (Jos 19:22), is also still unknown. The total number of towns is given as nineteen, whereas only sixteen are mentioned by name. It is hardly correct to seek for the missing places among the border towns mentioned in Jos 19:33 and Jos 19:34, as the enumeration of the towns themselves is introduced by מבצר וערי in Jos 19:35, and in this way the list of towns is separated from the description of the boundaries. To this we may add, that the town of Karthan or Kirjathaim, which Naphtali gave up to the Levites (Jos 21:32; Ch1 6:61), does not occur either among the border towns or in the list of towns, from which we may see that the list of towns is an imperfect one. \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":40,"content":["The Inheritance of the Tribe of Dan. - This fell to the west of Benjamin, between Judah and Ephraim, and was formed by Judah giving up some of its northern towns, and Ephraim some of its southern towns, to the Danites, so as to furnish them with a territory proportionate to their number. It was situated for the most part in the lowland (shephelah), including, however, the hill country between the Mediterranean and the mountains, and extended over a portion of the plain of Sharon, so that it belonged to one of the most fruitful portions of Palestine. The boundaries are not given, because they could be traced from those of the adjoining territories.\nJos 19:41-42\nFrom Judah the families of Dan received Zorea and Eshtaol (see at Jos 15:33), and Ir-shemesh, also called Beth-shemesh (Kg1 4:9), on the border of Judah (see Jos 15:10); but of these the Danites did not take possession, as they were given up by Judah to the Levites (Jos 21:16 : see at Jos 15:10). Saalabbin, or Saalbim, which remained in the hands of the Canaanites (Jdg 1:35), is frequently mentioned in the history of David and Solomon (Sa2 23:32; Ch1 11:33; Kg1 4:9). It may possibly be the present Selbt (Rob. iii. App.; Bibl. Res. p. 144), some distance to the north of the three places mentioned (Knobel). Ajalon, which was also not taken from the Canaanites (Jdg 1:35), was assigned to the Levites (Jos 21:24; Ch1 6:54). It is mentioned in the wars with the Philistines (Sa1 14:31; Ch1 8:13), was fortified by Rehoboam (Ch2 11:10), and was taken by the Philistines from King Ahaz (Ch2 28:18). It has been preserved in the village of Yalo (see at Jos 10:12). Jethlah is only mentioned here, and has not yet been discovered. So far as the name is concerned, it may possibly be preserved in the Wady Atallah, on the west of Yalo (Bibl. Res. pp. 143-4).\nJos 19:43\nElon, which is mentioned again in Kg1 4:9, with the addition of Beth-hanan, has not yet been traced; according to Knobel, it \"may possibly be Ellin, near Timnath and Beth-shemesh, mentioned by Robinson in his Pal. vol. iii. App.\" Thimna (Thimnathah) and Ekron, on the boundary of Judah (see at Jos 15:10-11).\nJos 19:44\nEltekeh and Gibbethon, which were allotted to the Levites (Jos 21:23), have not yet been discovered. Under the earliest kings of Israel, Gibbethon was in the hands of the Philistines (Kg1 15:27; Kg1 16:15, Kg1 16:17). Baalath was fortified by Solomon (Kg1 9:18). According to Josephus (Ant. 8:6, 1), it was \"Baleth in the neighbourhood of Geser;\" probably the same place as Baalah, on the border of Judah (Jos 15:11).\nJos 19:45\nJehud has probably been preserved in the village of Jehudieh (Hudieh), two hours to the north of Ludd (Diospolis), in a splendidly cultivated plain (Berggren, R. iii. p. 162; Rob. iii. p. 45, and App.). Bene-berak, the present Ibn Abrak, an hour from Jehud (Scholz, R. p. 256). Gath-rimmon, which was given to the Levites (Jos 21:24; Ch1 6:54), is described in the Onom. (s. v.) as villa praegrandis in duodecimo milliario Diospoleos pergentibus Eleutheropolin, - a statement which points to the neighbourhood of Thimnah, though it has not yet been discovered.\nJos 19:46\nMe-jarkon, i.e., aquae flavedinis, and Rakkon, are unknown; but from the clause which follows, \"with the territory before Japho,\" it must have been in the neighbourhood of Joppa (Jaffa). \"The territory before Japho\" includes the places in the environs of Joppa. Consequently Joppa itself does not appear to have belonged to the territory of Dan, although, according to Jdg 5:17, the Danites must have had possession of this town. Japho, the well-known port of Palestine (Ch2 2:15; Ezr 3:7; Jon 1:3), which the Greeks called Ἰόππη (Joppa), the present Jaffa (see v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 204-5, and Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 574ff.).\nJos 19:47-48\nBesides this inheritance, the Danites of Zorea and Eshtaol went, after Joshua's death, and conquered the town of Leshem or Laish, on the northern boundary of Canaan, and gave it the name of Dan, as the territory which was allotted to them under Joshua was too small for them, on account of their inability to drive out the Amorites from several of their towns (Jdg 1:34-35; Jdg 18:2). For further particulars concerning this conquest, see Judg 18. Leshem or Laish (Jdg 18:7, Jdg 18:27), i.e., Dan, which the Onom. describes as viculus quarto a Paneade milliario euntibus Tyrum, was the present Tell el Kadi, or el Leddan, the central source of the Jordan, to the west of Banjas, a place with ancient ruins (see Rob. iii. p. 351; Bibl. Res. pp. 390, 393). It was there that Jeroboam set up the golden calves (Kg1 12:29-30, etc.); and it is frequently mentioned as the northernmost city of the Israelites, in contrast with Beersheba, which was in the extreme south of the land (Jdg 20:1; Sa1 3:20; Sa2 3:10 : see also Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 207ff.). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":49,"content":["Conclusion of the Distribution of the Land. - Jos 19:49, Jos 19:50. When the land was distributed among the tribes according to its territories, the Israelites gave Joshua an inheritance in the midst of them, according to the command of Jehovah, namely the town of Timnath-serah, upon the mountains of Ephraim, for which he asked, and which he finished building; and there he dwelt until the time of his death (Jos 24:30; Jdg 2:9). \"According to the word of the Lord\" (lit. \"at the mouth of Jehovah\") does not refer to a divine oracle communicated through the high priest, but to a promise which Joshua had probably received from God at the same time as Caleb, viz., in Kadesh, but which, like the promise given to Caleb, is not mentioned in the Pentateuch (see at Jos 15:13; Jos 14:9). Timnath-serah, called Timnath-heres in Jdg 2:9, must not be confounded with Timnah in the tribe of Dan (Jos 19:43; Jos 15:10), as is the case in the Onom. It has been preserved in the present ruins and foundation walls of a place called Tibneh, which was once a large town, about seven hours to the north of Jerusalem, and two hours to the west of Jiljilia, standing upon two mountains, with many caverns that have been used as graves (see Eli Smith in Ritter, Erdk. xvi. pp. 562ff., and Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 141). \n"]},{"type":"verse","number":51,"content":["Closing formula to the account of the distribution of the land, which refers primarily to Jos 18:1., as the expression \"in Shiloh\" shows, but which also includes Josh 14-17. \n"]}]},"thisChapterLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOS/19.json","thisChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOS","chapter":19},"nextChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOS/20.json","nextChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOS","chapter":20},"previousChapterApiLink":"/api/c/keil-delitzsch/JOS/18.json","previousChapterReference":{"commentaryId":"keil-delitzsch","book":"JOS","chapter":18},"numberOfVerses":8}