Skip to main content

Full text of "Joshua, Judges, Ruth"

See other formats


iHlife 


Hb 


mSSSm 


PRESENTED  TO  THE  LIBRARY 


PRINCETON  THEOLOGICAL  SEMINARY 


Professor  J4ent»y  van  Dyke,  D.D.,  üLi.D. 


^51205 


CLARK'S 


FOREIGN 


THEOLOGICAL   LIBRARY. 


FOURTH  SERIES. 
VOL.  VIII. 


Bctl  anfc  Mtlitpcl)  on  SJoöfjua,  ^utJgcö,  ButJ>. 


EDINBURGH: 
T.  AND    T.    CLARK,    3  8,   GEORGE   STREET. 


MDCCCLXXII. 


MURRAY  AND  GIBB,  EDINBURGH, 
PRINTERS  TO  HER  MAJESTY'S  STATIONERY  OFFICE. 


BIBLICAL  COMMENTARY 


ON 


THE    OLD    TESTAMENT. 


BY 


C.  F.  KEIL,  D.D.,  and  F.  DELITZSCH,  D.D.. 

fROFESSORS  OF  THEOLOGY. 


VOLUME  IV. 

JOSHUA,    JUDGES,   RUTH. 


TRANSLATED  FROM  THE  GERMAN 
BY  THE 

REV.    JAMES   MARTIN,   B.  A., 

NOTTINGHAM. 


EDINBURGH: 
T.  &  T.  CLARK,  38,  GEORGE  STREET. 

MDCCCLXXII. 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


PAGE 

Introduction  to  the  Prophetical  Histories  of  the  Old  Testament,  .          1 


THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

INTRODUCTION. 

Contents,  Date,  and  Character  of  the  Book  of  Joshua,        .  13 

EXPOSITION. 
The  Preamble  (Chap.  i.  1-9),    ......        27 


I.  The  Conquest  of  Canaan  (Chap,  i.-xii.)  : — 

Preparations  for  entering  Canaan  (Chap.  i.  10— ii.  24), 

Passage  through  the  Jordan  (Chap.  iii.  iv.), 

Circumcision  of  the  People,  and  Celebration  of  the  Passover  at 

Gilgal  (Chap.  v.  1-12),  .... 

Appearance  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord,  and  Conquest  of  Jericho 

(Chap.  v.  13-vi.  27),     ..... 
Achan's  Theft  and  Punishment  (Chap,  vii.), 
Conquest  of  Ai ;    Blessings  and  Curses  upon  Gerizim  and  Ebal 

(Chap,  viii.),      ...... 

Stratagem  of  the  Gibeonites,  and  their  consequent  Preservation 

(Chap,  ix.),        ...... 

Victory  at  Gibeon,  and  Conquest  of  Southern  Canaan  (Chap,  x.), 
Defeat  of  the  Kings  of  Northern  Canaan ;  Subjugation  of  the  whole 

Land  (Chap,  xi.),  ..... 

List  of  the  Kings  slaughtered  by  the  Israelites  (Chap,  xii.), 


30 
39 

52 

61 
74 

83 

94 

102 

118 
127 


Vi  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 

PAGK 

II.  Division  of  tue  Land  of  Canaan  among  the  Teibes  of  Israel 

(Chap,  xiii.-xxiv.),      .  .  .  .  .  .131 

Command  of  God  to  divide  the  Land  of  Canaan  ;  Description  of  the 

Territory  of  the  Two  Tribes  and  a  Half  (Chap,  xiii.),    .  .       133 

Commencement  of  the  Division  of  the  Land  of  Canaan ;  Inheritance 

of  Caleb  (Chap,  xiv.),    ......       144 

Inheritance  of  the  Tribe  of  Judah  (Chap,  xv.),        .  .  .       151 

Inheritance  of  the  Tribe  of  Joseph  (Chap.  xvi.  xvii.),  .  .       175 

The  Tabernacle  set  up  at  Shiloh  ;    Survey  of  the  Land  that  had 

still  to  be  divided  ;    Inheritance  of  the  Tribe  of  Benjamin 

(Chap,  xviii.),    .......       185 

Inheritance  of  the  Tribes   of   Simeon,   Zebulun,  Issachar,  Asher, 

Naphtali,  and  Dan  (Chap,  xix.),  ....       190 

Selection  of  Cities  of  Eefuge,  or  Free  Cities  (Chap,  xx.),      .  .       209 

Appointment  of  Towns  for  the  Priests  and  Levites  (Chap,  xxi.),  .  210 
Eeturn  of  the  Two  Tribes  and  a  Half  to  their  own  Inheritance 

(Chap,  xxii.),     .......       216 

Joshua's  Farewell  and  Death  (Chap,  xxiii.  xxiv.),  .  .       222 


THE   BOOK   OF   JUDGES. 

INTKODUCTION. 

Contents  and  Character,  Origin  and  Sources,  of  the  Book  of 

Judges,  ........      237 

EXPOSITION. 

I.  Attitude  of  Israel  towards  the  Canaanites,  and  towards  Jehovah 

its  God  (Chap,  i.— hi.  6)  : — 
Hostilities  between  Israel  and  the  Canaanites  after  Joshua's  Death 

(Chap.  i.  1-ii.  5),  .  .  .  .  .249 

Conduct  of  Israel  towards  the  Lord,  and  Treatment  of  Israel  by  the 

Lord,  in  the  Time  of  the  Judges  (Chap.  ii.  6-iii.  6),      .  .       267 

II.  History  of  the  People  of  Israel  under  the  Judges  (Chap.  hi.  7- 

xvi.  31),  ...  ...      276 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


vil 


Times  of  tho  Judges :   Othniel ;   Ehud  and  Shamgar ;   Deborah 

and  Barak  (Chap.  in.  7-v.), 292 

Oppression  of  Israel  by  Chushan-rishathaim,  and  Dehverance  by 

Othniel  (Chap.  iii.  7-11), 292 

Oppression  of  Israel  by  Eglon,  and  Deliverance  by  Ehud  ;  Sham- 
gar's  heroic  Deeds  (Chap.  iii.  12-31),     ....       295 

Oppression  of  Israel  by  Jabin,  and  Dehverance  by  Deborah  and 

Barak  (Chap.  iv.  v.),      .  .  .  .  .  .300 

Deborah's  Song' of  Victory  (Chap,  v.),       .  .      307 

The  Times  of  Gideon  and  his  Family,  and  of  the  Judges  Tola  and 

Jair  (Chap,  vi.-x.  5),     .  .  .  .  .  .325 

Oppression  of  Israel  by  the  Midianites,  and  call  of  Gideon  to  be 
their  Deliverer  (Chap.  vi.  1-32),  .  .  .  .327 

Gideon's  Victory  over  the  Midianites  (Chap.  vi.  33-viii.  3),  .       338 

Pursuit  of  the  Midianites.  Other  Acts  of  Gideon  ;  his  Appoint- 
ment as  Judge  (Chap.  viii.  4-35),  ....       351 

Judgment  upon  the  House  of  Gideon,  or  Abimelech's  Sins  and 

End  (Chap,  ix.),  .  .  .  .  .  .360 

The  Judges  Tola  and  Jair  (Chap.  x.  1-5),  .  .  .371 

Period  of  Oppression  by  the  Ammonites  and  Philistines  (Chap. 

x.  6-xvi.),  .......      373 

Israel's  renewed  Apostasy  and  consequent  Punishment  (Chap.  x. 

6-18),     .  373 

Jephthah  elected  as  Prince  ;  Negotiations  with  the  Ammonites  ; 

Victory,  Vow,  and  Office  of  Judge  (Chap,  xi.-xii.  7),   .  .       378 

The  Judges  Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon  (Chap.  xii.  8-15),     .  .       397 

Samson's  Life,  and  Conflicts  with  the  Philistines  (Chap,  xiii.- 

xvi.),  .......       398 


III.  Image-worship  of  Micaii  and  the  Danites  ;  Infamous  Conduct  of 
the  Inhabitants  of  Gibeah  ;  Vengeance  taken  upon  the 
Tribe  of  Benjamin  (Chap,  xvii.-xxi.),  .  .  .      426 

Image-worship  of  Micah  the  Ephraimite,  and  its  Removal  to  Laish- 

Dan  (Chap.  xvii.  xviii.),  ....  429 

War  of  the  Congregation  with  the  Tribe  of  Benjamin  on  account  of 

the  Crime  at  Gibeah  (Chap.  xix.  xx.),  ....       442 

Preservation  of  the  Tribe  of   Benjamin  ;   the    Remnant  provided 

with  Wives  (Chap,  xxi.),  ....       458 


Vlll  TABLE  OF  CONTENTS. 


THE  BOOK   OF  RUTH. 


INTBODUCTION 

PAGE 

Contents,  Character,  and  Origin  of  the  Book  of  Ruth,          .  .      465 


EXPOSITION. 

Ruth  goes  with  Naomi  to  Bethlehem  (Chap,  i.),  .  .  .  470 

Ruth  gleans  in  the  Field  of  Boaz  (Chap,  ii.),  .  .  .  476 

Ruth  seeks  for  Marriage  with  Boaz  (Chap,  iii.),  .  .  .  481 

Boaz  marries  Ruth  (Chap,  iv.),  .  .  .  .  487 


INTRODUCTION 


THE  PROPHETICAL  HISTORIES  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT. 


HE  tJiorah,  or  five  books  of  Moses,  which  contains  an 
account  of  the  founding  of  the  Old  Testament  king- 
dom of  God,  and  the  laws  which  were  given  through 
Moses,  is  followed  in  the  Hebrew  canon  by  the  writings 
of  the  "  earlier  prophets,"  D^ICNl  DWS3,  prophetce  priores.  This 
collective  name  is  given  to  the  four  historical  books  of  Joshua, 
Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings,  which  trace,  in  the  light  of  divine 
revelation,  and  of  the  gradual  unfolding  of  the  plan  of  salvation, 
the  historical  development  of  this  kingdom  of  God  from  the  death 
of  Moses,  the  mediator  of  the  old  covenant,  or  from  the  entrance 
of  the  people  of  Israel  into  the  land  of  Canaan  promised  to  their 
fathers,  till  the  dissolution  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and  the 
Babylonian  captivity ;  the  whole  embracing  a  period  of  nearly 
nine  hundred  years.  The  names  given  to  these  books  are  taken 
from  the  men  whom  the  God-king  of  Israel  called  and  appointed 
at  different  times  as  the  leaders  and  rulers  of  His  people  and  king- 
dom, and  indicate,  very  suitably  on  the  whole,  the  historical  periods 
to  which  the  books  refer. 

The  book  of  Joshua  describes  the  introduction  of  the  people  of 
Israel  into  the  promised  land  of  Canaan,  through  the  conquest 
effected  by  Joshua,  and  the  division  of  the  land  among  the  tribes 
of  Israel.  As  Joshua  only  completed  what  Moses  had  commenced 
but  had  not  been  permitted  to  carry  out,  on  account  of  his  sin  at 
the  water  of  strife  (Num.  xx.  12)  ;  and  as  he  had  not  only  been 
called  by  the  Lord,  and  consecrated  by  the  laying  on  of  the  hands 
of  Moses,  to  accomplish  this  work,  but  had  also  been  favoured  with 
direct  revelations  from  God,  and  with  His  miraculous  help  in  the 

A 


2  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 

execution  of  it ;  the  book  which  is  named  after  him,  and  contains 
the  account  of  what  he  did  in  the  power  of  the  Lord,  is  more  closely 
related  to  the  Pentateuch,  both  in  its  form  and  contents,  than  any- 
other  book  of  the  Old  Testament.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  it 
might  be  regarded  as  an  appendix,  although  it  was  never  actually 
joined  to  it  so  as  to  form  part  of  the  same  work,  but  was  from  the 
very  first  a  separate  writing,  and  simply  stood  in  the  same  depen- 
dent relation  to  the  writings  of  Moses,  as  that  in  which  Joshua  stood 
to  Moses  himself,  of  whom  he  was  both  the  servant  and  successor. 

The  book  of  Judges  embraces  the  period  of  350  years,  from  the 
death  of  Joshua  to  the  rise  of  Samuel  as  a  prophet  of  the  Lord ; 
that  is  to  say,  the  time  appointed  to  the  people  of  Israel  to  establish 
themselves  in  the  complete  and  sole  possession  of  the  land  that  had 
been  given  them  for  an  inheritance,  by  fighting  against  the  Canaan- 
ites  who  remained  in  the  land  and  exterminating  them,  and,  when 
settled  in  this  inheritance  as  the  congregation  of  the  Lord,  to  set 
up  the  covenant  concluded  with  God  at  Sinai,  and  to  maintain  and 
build  up  the  kingdom  of  God  according  to  the  principles  and 
ordinances,  the  laws  and  rights,  prescribed  by  Moses  in  the  law. 
The  Lord  had  promised  His  help  to  the  covenant  nation  in  carrying 
on  the  conflict  with  the  remaining  Canaanites,  on  condition  that 
they  adhered  with  fidelity  to  His  covenant,  and  willingly  obeyed 
His  commandments.  It  was  but  very  imperfectly,  however,  that 
the  tribes  of  Israel  observed  these  conditions,  which  had  been  ear- 
nestly impressed  upon  their  hearts,  not  only  by  Moses,  but  also  by 
Joshua  before  his  death.  They  soon  grew  weary  of  the  task  of 
fighting  against  the  Canaanites  and  destroying  them,  and  contented 
themselves  with  making  them  merely  tributary ;  in  fact,  they  even 
began  to  form  friendships  with  them,  and  worship  their  gods.  As  a 
punishment  for  this,  the  Lord  gave  them  over  to  their  enemies,  so 
that  they  were  repeatedly  oppressed  and  deeply  humiliated  by  the 
Canaanites,  and  the  nations  that  were  living  round  about  Canaan. 
But  whenever  they  repented  and  turned  again  in  their  distress  to 
the  Lord  their  God,  He  raised  up  helpers  and  deliverers  for  them 
in  the  persons  of  the  judges,  whom  He  filled  with  the  power  of  His 
Spirit,  so  that  they  smote  the  enemy,  and  delivered  both  the  people 
and  the  land  from  their  oppression.  But  inasmuch  as  in  every 
instance  the  judge  was  no  sooner  dead  than  the  people  fell  into 
idolatry  again,  they  sank  deeper  and  deeper  into  bondage  to  the 
heathen,  the  theocratic  constitution  fell  more  and  more  into  decay, 
and  the  life  of  the  nation  as  a  religious  community  was  rapidly 


PROPHETICAL  HISTORIES  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  3 

coming  to  an  end.  This  constant  alternation,  of  apostasy  from  the 
Lord  to  the  Canaanitish  Baals  and  Astartes  and  the  consequent 
punishment  by  deliverance  into  the  power  of  their  enemies  on  the 
one  hand,  and  of  temporary  return  to  the  Lord  and  deliverance  by 
the  judges  out  of  their  bondage  on  the  other,  which  characterizes 
the  post-Mosaic  period  of  the  Israelitish  history,  is  clearly  set  forth 
in  the  book  of  Judges,  and  placed  distinctly  before  the  eye  in 
separate  pictures  of  the  various  oppressions  and  deliverances  of 
Israel,  each  one  being  complete  in  itself,  and  the  whole  arranged 
in  chronological  order.  Whilst  the  book  of  Joshua  shows  how  the 
Lord  fulfilled  His  promise  to  Israel  with  a  mighty  arm,  and  led  His 
people  into  the  land  promised  to  the  fathers,  the  book  of  Judges 
shows  how  Israel  continually  broke  the  covenant  of  its  God  in  the 
land  which  He  had  given  it  for  an  inheritance,  and  thus  fell  into 
bondage  to  its  foes,  out  of  which  the  judges  were  not  able  to  secure 
it  a  permanent  deliverance  ;  so  that  the  Lord  was  obliged  to  create 
a  new  thing  in  Israel,  in  order  to  carry  out  His  purpose  of  salva- 
tion, and  to  found  and  erect  His  kingdom  in  Canaan,  through  the 
medium  of  the  children  of  Israel.  This  new  thing  consisted  in  the 
institution  of  prophecy  as  promised  by  Moses,  or  rather  in  the  intro- 
duction of  it  into  the  political  and  national  life,  as  a  spiritual  power 
by  which  it  was  henceforth  to  be  pervaded,  guided,  and  controlled ; 
as  neither  the  judges,  nor  the  priests  as  custodiers  of  the  sanctuary, 
were  able  to  uphold  the  authority  of  the  law  of  God  in  the  nation, 
or  turn  the  idolatrous  nation  to  the  Lord.  It  is  true  we  meet  with 
certain  prophets  as  early  as  the  times  of  the  judges ;  but  the  true 
founder  of  the  Old  Testament  prophecy  (prophetenthums,  prophet- 
hood)  was  Samuel,  with  whom  the  prophets  first  began  their  con- 
tinuous labours,  and  the  prophetic  gift  was  developed  into  a  power 
which  exerted  an  influence,  as  strong  as  it  was  salutary,  upon  the 
future  development  of  the  Israelitish  state. 

The  books  of  Samuel  contain  the  history  of  Israel  from  the 
appearance  of  Samuel  as  a  prophet  to  the  end  of  the  reign  of  David, 
and  include  the  renewal  of  the  theocracy  by  the  labours  of  Samuel, 
and  the  establishment  of  the  earthly  monarchy  by  Saul  and  David. 
At  the  close  of  the  period  of  the  judges,  when  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant had  fallen  into  the  hands  of  the  Philistines,  and  the  removal 
of  this  visible  symbol  and  substratum  of  the  presence  of  God  from 
the  tabernacle  had  caused  the  central  sanctuary  of  the  congregation 
to  lose  all  its  significance  as  the  place  where  God  manifested  him- 
self, and  when  the  judgments  of  God  had  even  fallen  upon  the 


4  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 

members  of  the  high-priesthood  itself,  in  the  death  of  Eli  and  his 
worthless  sons,  when  the  word  of  Jehovah  was  dear,  and  there  was 
little  prophecy  to  be  found  (1  Sam.  iii.  1), — the  Lord  raised  up 
Samuel,  the  son  of  the  pious  Hannah,  who  had  been  asked  for  of 
the  Lord  and  consecrated  to  His  service  from  his  mother's  womb, 
to  be  His  prophet,  and  appeared  to  him  continually  at  Shiloh ;  so 
that  all  Israel  acknowledged  him  as  the  prophet  appointed  by  the 
Lord,  and  through  his  prophetic  labours  was  converted  from  dead 
idols  to  serve  the  living  God.  In  consequence  of  this  conversion, 
the  Lord  gave  to  the  Israelites,  in  answer  to  Samuel's  prayer,  a 
complete  and  wondrous  victory  over  the  Philistines,  by  which  they 
were  delivered  from  the  heavy  oppression  they  had  endured  for 
forty  years  at  the  hands  of  these  foes.  From  that  time  forward 
Samuel  judged  all  Israel.  But  when  he  had  grown  old,  and  his 
sons,  who  had  been  appointed  by  him  as  judges,  failed  to  walk  in 
his  steps,  the  people  desired  a  king  to  judge  them,  to  go  before 
them,  and  to  conduct  their  wars.  In  accordance  with  the  command 
of  God,  Samuel  chose  Saul  the  Benjamite  as  king,  and  then  laid 
down  his  own  office  as  judge.  He  continued,  however,  to  the  very 
end  of  his  life  to  labour  as  a  prophet,  in  and  through  the  schools  of 
the  prophets,  which  he  had  called  into  existence  for  the  strengthen- 
ing and  confirmation  of  Israel  in  its  fidelity  to  the  Lord  ;  and  not 
only  announced  to  King  Saul  his  rejection  by  God,  on  account  of 
his  frequent  resistance  to  the  divine  command,  as  made  known  to 
him  by  the  prophet,  but  anointed  David  to  be  his  successor  as  king 
over  Israel.  He  died  at  the  close  of  the  reign  of  Saul,  and  did 
not  live  to  see  the  accession  and  reign  of  David,  with  which  the 
second  book  of  Samuel  is  occupied.  The  reason  why  the  name  of 
Samuel  is  given  to  both  these  books,  which  form,  both  in  style  and 
contents,  an  indivisible  whole,  is  in  all  probability  therefore,  that 
Samuel  not  only  inaugurated  the  monarchy  in  Israel  by  anoint- 
ing Saul  and  David,  but  exerted  so  decided  an  influence  upon  the 
spirit  of  the  government  of  both  these  kings,  through  his  prophetic 
labours,  that  even  the  latter  may  be  regarded  in  a  certain  sense  as 
the  continuation  of  that  reformation  of  the  Israelitish  state  which 
the  prophet  himself  began.  It  was  in  David  that  the  true  king  of 
the  kingdom  of  God  under  the  Old  Testament  arose, — a  mighty 
warrior  in  conflict  with  the  enemies  of  Israel,  and  yet  at  the  same 
time  a  pious  servant  of  the  Lord, — a  man  of  true  humility  and 
faithful  obedience  to  the  word  and  commandment  of  God,  who  not 
only  raised  the  state  to  a  lofty  height  of  earthly  power  and  glory, 


PROPHETICAL  HISTORIES  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  5 

through  the  strength  and  justice  of  his  rule,  but  who  also  built  up 
the  kingdom  of  God,  by  reviving  and  organizing  the  public  worship 
of  God,  and  by  stimulating  and  fostering  the  true  fear  of  God, 
through  the  cultivation  of  sacred  song.  When  God  had  given  him 
rest  from  all  his  enemies  round  about,  he  wished  to  build  a  temple 
to  the  Lord.  But  God  did  not  grant  him  this  desire  of  his  heart : 
He  gave  him  a  promise,  however,  instead,  viz.  that  He  would  build 
him  a  house,  and  establish  the  throne  of  his  kingdom  for  ever;  and 
that  He  would  raise  up  his  seed  after  him,  who  would  build  a  house 
to  the  name  of  the  Lord  (2  Sam.  vii.).  This  promise  formed  not 
only  the  culminating  point  in  the  life  and  reign  of  David,  but  the 
indestructible  basis  for  the  further  development  of  the  Israelitish 
state  and  kingdom,  and  was  not  only  a  sure  pledge  of  the  continu- 
ance of  the  Davidic  monarchy,  but  a  firm  anchor  of  hope  for  the 
covenant  nation  in  all  time  to  come. 

Lastly,  the  books  of  Kings  carry  on  the  history  of  the  Old 
Testament  kingdom  of  God  through  a  period  of  450  years,  viz. 
from  the  accession  of  Solomon  to  the  Babylonian  captivity,  and 
furnish  the  historical  proof  that  the  promise  given  by  the  Lord  to 
His  servant  David  was  stedfastly  fulfilled.  Notwithstanding  the 
attempt  of  Adonijah  to  usurp  the  throne,  He  preserved  the  whole 
of  the  kingdom  of  David  to  his  son  Solomon,  who  had  been  chosen 
as  his  successor,  and  at  the  very  commencement  of  his  reign  renewed 
His  promise  to  him,  so  that  Solomon  was  able  to  carry  out  the  work 
of  building  the  temple  ;  and  under  his  wise  and  peaceful  govern- 
ment in  Judah  and  Israel  every  one  could  sit  in  safety  under  his 
own  vine  and  fig-tree.  But  when  Solomon  allowed  himself  to  be 
drawn  away  by  his  foreign  wives  to  turn  from  the  Lord  and  worship 
idols,  the  Lord  chastened  him  with  the  rod  of  men,  and  with  the 
stripes  of  the  children  of  men ;  but  His  mercy  did  not  depart 
away  from  him,  as  He  had  promised  to  David  (2  Sam.  vii.  14, 
15).  After  Solomon's  death,  the  ten  tribes,  it  is  true,  revolted 
from  the  house  of  David,  and  founded  a  kingdom  of  their  own 
under  Jeroboam ;  but  one  tribe  (Judah  along  with  Benjamin) 
remained  with  his  son  Rehoboam,  and  along  with  this  tribe  the 
capital,  Jerusalem,  and  the  temple.  During  the  whole  time  that 
this  one  brother-nation  was  divided  into  two  distinct  kingdoms, 
which  were  frequently  engaged  in  hostility  with  one  another,  the 
Lord  preserved  the  throne  to  the  seed  of  David  ;  and  the  kingdom 
of  Judah  survived  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes  of  Israel  134 
years,  having  as  firm  a  political  foundation  in  the  unbroken  sue- 


6  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 

cession  of  the  royal  family  of  David,  as  it  had  a  strong  spiritual 
foundation  in  the  capital  Jerusalem,  with  the  temple  which  had  been 
sanctified  by  the  Lord  as  the  dwelling-place  of  His  name.  In  the 
kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  on  the  other  hand,  Jeroboam  introduced 
the  germ  of  what  eventually  led  to  its  destruction,  by  establishing 
as  the  state  religion  the  unlawful  worship  of  the  golden  calves. 
The  destruction  of  his  house  was  at  once  foretold  to  him  on  account 
of  this  sin  (1  Kings  xiv.  7)  ;  and  this  threat  was  carried  out  in  the 
person  of  his  son  (1  Kings  xv.  28  sqq.).  As  the  kings  of  Israel  who 
followed  did  not  desist  from  this  sin  of  Jeroboam,  but,  on  the  con- 
trary, the  dynasty  of  the  house  of  Omri  attempted  to  make  the 
worship  of  Baal  the  leading  religion  of  the  kingdom,  and  the  king 
and  people  gave  no  heed  to  the  voice  of  the  prophets,  and  did  not 
return  with  sincerity  of  heart  to  the  Lord,  He  gave  up  the  sinful 
kingdom  and  people  to  the  consequences  of  their  sins,  so  that  one 
dynasty  overthrew  another;  and  after  the  lapse  of  250  years,  the 
kingdom,  which  was  already  shattered  by  the  frequently  recurring 
civil  wars,  fell  a  prey  to  the  Assyrians,  by  whom  the  whole  land 
was  conquered,  and  its  inhabitants  were  led  into  captivity.  The 
kingdom  of  Judah  was  also  hard  pressed  by  this  powerful  empire, 
and  brought  to  the  very  verge  of  destruction ;  but  in  answer  to  the 
prayer  of  the  pious  king  Hezekiah,  it  was  delivered  and  preserved 
by  the  Lord  for  His  own  and  His  servant  David's  sake,  until  at 
length  the  godless  king  Manasseh  filled  up  the  measure  of  its  sins, 
so  that  even  the  good  king  Josiah  could  only  suspend  the  destruc- 
tion for  a  certain  time,  but  could  not  ward  it  off  altogether.  A 
short  time  after  his  death  the  judgment  fell  upon  Judah  and  Jeru- 
salem on  account  of  the  sins  of  Manasseh  (2  Kings  xxiii.  26,  27, 
xxiv.  3),  when  King  Nebuchadnezzar  came  from  Babylon,  con- 
quered the  land,  and  laid  it  waste ;  and  having  taken  Jerusalem, 
led  away  Jehoiachim  to  Babylon,  with  a  considerable  portion  of  the 
people.  And  when  even  Zedekiah,  who  had  been  raised  by  him  to 
the  throne,  rebelled  against  him,  the  Chaldeans  returned  and  put 
an  end  to  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  by  destroying  Jerusalem  and 
burning  the  temple,  Zechariah  himself  being  deprived  of  his  sight, 
and  led  away  into  captivity  with  a  large  number  of  prisoners.  Yet 
even  when  Judah  and  its  king  were  rejected  and  scattered  among 
the  heathen,  the  Lord  did  not  leave  His  servant  David  without  any 
light  shining ;  but  after  Jehoiachim  had  been  in  prison  for  thirty- 
seven  years,  paying  the  penalty  of  his  own  and  his  father's  sins,  he 
was  released  from  his  imprisonment  by  Evil-merodach,  the  king  of 


PROPHETICAL  HISTORIES  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  7 

Babylon,  and  his  seat  was  placed  above  the  seats  of  the  kings  who 
were  with  him  in  Babylon  (2  Kings  xxv.  27-30).  This  joyful 
turn  in  the  destinies  of  Jehoiachim,  with  which  the  books  of  Kings 
are  brought  to  a  close,  throws  the  first  gleam  into  the  dark  night  of 
the  captivity  of  that  better  future  which  was  to  dawn  upon  the  seed 
of  David,  and  through  it  upon  the  people  of  Israel  when  they  should 
be  delivered  out  of  Babylon. 

These  four  historical  writings  have  been  very  justly  called 
prophetical  boohs  of  history:  not,  however,  because  they  all,  but 
more  especially  the  books  of  Samuel  and  the  Kings,  give  very  full 
accounts  of  the  labours  of  the  prophets  in  Israel ;  nor  merely  be- 
cause, according  to  the  early  Jewish  tradition,  they  were  written  by 
prophets ;  but  rather  because  they  describe  the  history  of  the  Old 
Testament  covenant  nation  and  kingdom  of  God  in  the  light  of 
the  divine  plan  of  salvation,  setting  forth  the  divine  revelation,  as  it 
was  accomplished  in  the  historical  development  of  Israel,  or  show- 
ing how  the  Almighty  God  and  Lord  of  the  whole  earth  continued 
as  King  of  Israel  uninterruptedly  to  fulfil  the  covenant  of  grace 
which  He  had  concluded  with  the  fathers  and  had  set  up  at  Sinai, 
and  built  up  His  kingdom,  by  leading  the  people  whom  He  had 
chosen  as  His  own  possession,  notwithstanding  all  the  opposition  of 
their  sinful  nature,  further  and  further  onwards  towards  the  goal 
of  their  divine  calling,  and  thus  preparing  the  way  for  the  salva- 
tion of  the  whole  world.  These  books,  therefore,  do  not  contain  a 
general  history  of  the  natural  development  of  the  Israelitish  nation 
from  a  political  point  of  view,  but  trace  the  history  of  the  people  of 
God,  or  Israel,  in  its  theocratic  development  as  a  covenant  nation, 
and  as  the  channel  of  that  salvation  which  was  to  be  manifested  to 
all  nations  in  the  fulness  of  time.  Their  authors,  therefore,  by 
virtue  of  prophetic  illumination,  have  simply  selected  and  described 
such  events  and  circumstances  from  among  the  rich  and  plentiful 
variety  contained  in  the  accounts  handed  down  by  tradition,  whether 
relating  to  families,  tribes,  or  the  nation  as  a  whole,  as  were  of  im- 
portance to  the  history  of  the  kingdom  of  God ;  that  is  to  say,  in 
addition  to  the  divine  revelations  in  word  and  deed,  the  wonders 
wrought  by  God,  and  the  prophetic  declarations  of  His  counsel  and 
will,  they  have  recorded  chiefly  such  points  in  the  life  and  conduct  of 
the  nation  and  its  more  prominent  members  as  affected  advantage- 
ously or  otherwise  the  development  of  the  divine  kingdom  in  Israel. 
Whatever  had  no  inward  connection  with  this  higher  aim  and  pecu- 
liar calling  of  Israel,  was,  as  a  rule,  passed  over  altogether,  or,  at  all 


8  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 

events,  was  only  touched  upon  and  mentioned  so  far  as  it  served 
to  exhibit  the  attitude  of  the  nation  generally,  or  of  its  rulers  and 
leaders,  towards  the  Lord  and  His  kingdom.  This  will  help  to 
explain  not  only  the  apparent  inequality  in  the  treatment  of  the  his- 
tory, or  the  fact  that  here  and  there  we  have  long  periods  merely 
referred  to  in  a  few  general  remarks,  whereas,  on  the  other  hand, 
the  adventures  and  acts  of  particular  individuals  are  depicted  with 
biographical  minuteness,  but  also  another  distinctive  peculiarity, 
viz.  that  the  natural  causes  of  the  events  which  occurred,  and  the 
subjective  motives  which  determined  the  conduct  of  historical  per- 
sonages, are  for  the  most  part  left  unnoticed,  or  only  briefly  and 
cursorily  alluded  to,  whilst  the  divine  interpositions  and  influence 
are  constantly  brought  into  prominence,  and,  so  far  as  they  were 
manifested  in  an  extraordinary  manner,  are  carefully  and  circum- 
stantially described. 

In  all  these  respects  the  prophetic  histories  are  so  intimately  con- 
nected with  the  historical  narrative  in  the  books  of  Moses,  that  they 
may  be  regarded  as  a  simple  continuation  of  those  books.  This 
not  only  applies  to  the  book  of  Joshua,  but  to  the  other  prophetic 
histories  also.  Just  as  the  book  of  Joshua  is  linked  on  to  the  death 
of  Moses,  so  the  book  of  Judges  is  linked  on  to  the  death  of 
Joshua ;  whilst  the  books  of  Kings  commence  with  the  termination 
of  the  reign  of  David,  the  point  to  which  the  history  of  David  is 
brought  in  the  books  of  Samuel.  These  books,  again,  are  con- 
nected just  as  closely  with  the  book  of  Judges ;  for,  after  giving  an 
account  of  the  high-priesthood  of  Eli,  and  the  birth  and  youth  of 
Samuel,  which  forms  the  introduction  to  the  labours  of  Samuel, 
they  describe  the  continuance  and  close  of  the  subjugation  of  Israel 
by  the  Philistines,  the  commencement  and  prolongation  of  which 
are  related  in  the  last  section  of  the  book  of  Judges,  although  in 
this  case  the  link  of  connection  is  somewhat  hidden  by  the  appen- 
dices to  the  book  of  Judges  (chap,  xvii.-xxi.),  and  by  the  introduction 
to  the  history  of  Samuel  (1  Sam.  i.-iii.).  This  close  connection  be- 
tween all  the  writings  in  question,  which  is  still  further  strengthened 
by  their  evident  agreement  in  the  selection  and  treatment  of  the 
historical  materials,  does  not  arise,  as  some  suppose,  from  the  fact 
that  they  received  a  last  finish  from  the  editorial  hand  of  some  one 
man,  by  whom  this  harmony  and  the  so-called  theocratic  pragma- 
tism which  is  common  to  them  all  was  stamped  upon  the  history ; 
but  it  arose  from  the  very  nature  of  the  historical  facts  themselves, 
i.e.  from  the  fact  that  the  history  of  Israel  was  not  the  result  of  a 


PROPHETICAL  HISTORIES  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT  9 

purely  natural  development,  but  was  the  fruit  and  result  of  the 
divine  training  of  the  covenant  nation.  The  prophetic  character, 
by  which  these  works  are  distinguished  from  the  other  sacred  his- 
tories of  the  Israelites,  consists  in  the  fact  that  they  do  not  trace  the 
theocratic  history  from  an  individual  point  of  view,  but  according 
to  its  actual  course,  and  in  harmony  with  the  successive  steps  in  the 
development  of  the  divine  counsels  of  salvation ;  and  thus  furnish 
their  own  proof  that  they  were  written  by  prophets,  to  whom  the 
Spirit  of  the  Lord  had  given  a  spiritual  insight  into  the  divine  law 
of  the  kingdom. 

With  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  prophetical  books  of  history, 
and  the  date  of  their  composition,  all  that  can  be  determined  with 
certainty  is,  that  they  were  all  composed  some  time  after  the  last 
event  which  they  record,  but  were  founded  upon  written  contem- 
poraneous accounts  of  the  different  events  referred  to.  Although 
no  sources  are  mentioned  in  the  books  of  Joshua,  of  the  Judges, 
and  of  Samuel,  with  the  exception  of  the  "  book  of  Jasher"  (Josh. 
x.  13,  and  2  Sam.  i.  18),  from  which  the  poetical  extracts  contained 
in  the  passages  have  been  taken,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
historical  materials  even  of  these  books  have  been  obtained,  so  far 
as  everything  essential  is  concerned,  either  from  public  documents 
or  private  writings.  In  the  books  of  Kings  we  meet  for  the  first 
time  with  the  original  sources  regularly  cited  at  the  close  of  each 
king's  reign ;  and,  judging  from  the  titles,  "  book  of  the  Acts  of 
Solomon"  (1  Kings  xi.  41),  and  "  book  of  the  Chronicles  (or 
*  daily  occurrences,'  i.e.  contemporaneous  history7)  of  the  Kings  of 
Israel  and  Judah"  (1  Kings  xiv.  19,  29,  etc.),  they  were  in  all 
probability  fuller  annals  to  which  reference  is  made,  as  containing 
further  accounts  of  the  acts  and  undertakings  of  the  several  kings. 
We  find  a  similar  work  cited  in  the  books  of  the  Chronicles  under 
different  titles,  whilst  certain  prophetic  works  are  referred  to  for 
the  history  of  particular  kings,  such  as  words  of  Samuel  the  seer, 
Nathan  the  prophet,  and  Gad  the  seer  (1  Chron.  xxix.  29) ;  of 
Shemaiah  the  prophet,  and  Iddo  the  seer  (2  Chron.  xii.  15),  and 
others ;  also  the  prophecies  (vision)  of  Isaiah  (2  Chron.  xxxii.  32), 
and  words  of  Jehu  the  prophet  (2  Chron.  xx.  34),  both  of  which 
are  expressly  said  to  have  been  received  into  the  book  of  the  kings 
of  Israel  (or  of  Judah  and  Israel).  It  is  obvious  from  these  state- 
ments, not  only  that  prophetic  writings  and  collections  of  oracles 
were  incorporated  in  the  more  comprehensive  annals  of  the  king- 
dom, but  also  that  the  prophets  themselves  were  engaged  in  various 


10  INTRODUCTION  TO  THE 

ways  in  committing  the  history  of  Israel  to  writing.  The  founda- 
tion for  this  occupation  had  no  doubt  been  laid  in  the  companies  or 
schools  of  the  prophets,  which  had  been  called  into  existence  by 
Samuel,  and  in  which  not  only  sacred  music  and  sacred  song  were 
cultivated,  but  sacred  literature  also,  more  especially  the  history  of 
the  theocracy.  Consequently,  as  Oehler  supposes,  in  all  probability 
the  foundation  was  laid  even  in  the  ccenobium  at  Ramah  (1  Sam. 
xix.  19  sqq.)  for  that  great  historical  work,  which  was  composed  by 
prophets  during  the  following  centuries  and  is  frequently  referred 
to  in  the  books  of  Kings,  and  which  certainly  lay  before  the  writer 
of  the  Chronicles,  though  possibly  in  a  revised  form.  The  task  of 
writing  down  the  history  of  the  theocracy  was  very  closely  con- 
nected with  a  prophet's  vocation.  Called  as  they  were  to  be  watchers 
(zophim  or  mezappim :  vid.  Micah  vii.  4;  Jer.  vi.  17;  Ezek.  iii.  17, 
xxxiii.  7)  of  the  theocracy  of  the  Lord,  it  was  their  special  duty  to 
test  and  judge  the  ways  of  the  nation  and  its  rulers  according  to 
the  standard  of  the  law  of  God,  and  not  only  to  work  in  every 
possible  way  for  the  recognition  of  the  majesty  and  sole  glory  of 
Jehovah,  to  bear  witness  before  both  high  and  low  against  every 
instance  of  apostasy  from  Him,  against  every  violation  of  His 
ordinances  and  rights,  and  to  proclaim  judgment  upon  all  who 
hardened  themselves  against  the  word  of  God  and  salvation  and 
deliverance  to  the  penitent  and  desponding ;  but  also  to  set  forth 
the  guidance  of  Israel  in  the  light  of  the  saving  purpose  of  God, 
and  the  inviolable  rule  of  divine  retribution, — to  pass  sentence  upon 
the  past  circumstances  of  the  nation,  particularly  the  life  and  con- 
duct of  its  kings,  according  to  the  standard  of  the  law, — and  to 
exhibit  in  their  fate  the  reality  of  the  divine  promises  and  threats ; 
and  through  all  this  to  hold  up,  in  the  past  history  of  the  fathers, 
a  mirror  for  the  warning  and  comfort  of  future  generations. 
With  all  these  facts  before  us,  we  are  fully  warranted  in  assuming, 
that  the  prophetic  works  of  history  were  employed  as  sources  even 
in  the  composition  of  the  books  of  Samuel.  But  this  is  not  a  probable 
supposition  so  far  as  the  times  of  the  judges  are  concerned,  as  we  can 
find  no  certain  traces  of  any  organized  prophetic  labours  by  which 
the  national  life  could  be  at  all  deeply  influenced,  notwithstanding 
the  fact,  that  beside  the  prophetess  Deborah  (Judg.  iv.  4),  there  is 
a  prophet  mentioned  in  Judg.  vi.  7  sqq.,  and  1  Sam.  ii.  27.  But 
even  if  the  author  of  our  book  of  Judges  could  not  avail  himself 
of  any  prophetic  writings,  we  must  not  on  that  account  deny  that 
he  may  have  made  use  of  other  written  statements  and  accounts, 


PROPHETICAL  HISTOPvIES  OF  THE  OLD  TESTAMENT.  11 

handed  down  by  contemporaries  of  the  events.  In  the  book  of 
Joshua  it  is  almost  universally  admitted,  that  at  all  events  the  geo- 
graphical portions  have  been  taken  from  public  documents. — For 
further  remarks  upon  this  subject,  see  the  introductions  to  the 
different  books. 

The  employment  of  written  sources,  from  living  auditors  or 
eye-witnesses  of  the  events,  in  all  the  prophetic  books  of  history,  is 
evident  as  a  general  fact  from  the  contents  of  the  books,  from  the 
abundance  of  genuine  historical  details  which  they  contain  although 
many  of  them  extend  over  very  long  periods  of  time ;  from  the 
exactness  of  the  geographical  data  connected  with  the  different 
accounts,  and  the  many  genealogical  as  well  as  chronological  particu- 
lars ;  and,  in  fact,  from  the  clearness  and  certainty  of  the  descrip- 
tions given  of  circumstances  and  occurrences  which  are  often  very 
complicated  in  their  character.  But  this  is  still  more  obvious  from 
the  style  in  which  the  different  books  are  written,  where  the  gradual 
development  of  the  language,  and  the  changes  which  occurred  in 
the  course  of  centuries,  are  unmistakeably  apparent.  For  whilst  the 
books  of  Kings,  which  date  from  the  time  of  the  captivity,  contain 
many  words,  forms,  and  phrases  that  indicate  that  corruption  of 
the  Hebrew  through  Aramaean  idioms,  which  commenced  with  the 
invasions  of  Israel  and  Judah  by  the  Assyrians  and  Chaldeans, 
there  are  no  certain  traces  of  the  decline  of  the  language  to  be 
found  in  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Judges,  but  the  style  throughout 
is  the  pure  style  of  the  age  of  David  and  Solomon ;  whilst  in  the 
book  of  Joshua,  as  a  whole,  we  still  find  the  old  forms  of  the  Mosaic 
times,  although  the  actual  archaisms  of  the  Pentateuch  have 
already  disappeared.  This  difference  in  the  words  employed  in  the 
different  books  cannot  be  satisfactorily  explained  from  the  simple 
fact,  that  the  sources  used,  and  from  which  extracts  were  made, 
were  written  in  different  ages.  To  quote  but  one  example,  since 
the  fuller  discussion  of  this  point  belongs  to  the  introduction  to  the 
separate  books,  this  is  perfectly  obvious  from  the  use  of  the  word 
niriSj  in  connection  with  Solomon's  governors,  in  1  Kings  x.  15; 
since  the  author  of  our  books  of  Kings  cannot  possibly  have  taken 
this  word  from  his  original  sources  for  the  history  of  Solomon's  reign, 
as  it  was  not  till  the  time  of  the  Chaldean  and  Persian  dominion 
that  this  foreign  word  was  adopted  into  the  Hebrew  language. 

The  peculiarities  in  the  language  of  the  different  prophetic  books 
of  history  do  furnish  decisive  evidence,  however,  against  the  hypo- 
thesis propounded  by  Spinoza,  and  lately  revived  by  Stahelin  and 


12    INTRODUCTION  TO  PROPHETICAL  HISTORIES  OF  OLD  TESTAMENT. 

Bertheau,  viz.  that  "  in  the  historical  books,  from  Gen.  i.  to  2  Kings 
xxv.,  in  the  form  and  connection  in  which  we  possess  them  now, 
we  have  not  several  historical  works  which  have  been  composed 
independently  of  one  another,  but  rather  a  connected  treatment  of 
the  history  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  to  the  time  of  the 
captivity"  (JBertlieau),  or  "  one  work,  which  owes  its  present  form 
to  one  man,  or  at  any  rate  to  one  age"  (Stähelin).  The  arguments 
adduced  in  support  of  this  are  all  very  weak.  u  The  close  connec- 
tion in  which  these  writings  stand  to  one  another,  so  that  each  book 
in  succession  is  closely  connected  with  the  one  before  it,  and  pre- 
supposes all  that  the  latter  contains,  and  none  goes  back  to  an  earlier 
period  than  that  at  which  the  previous  book  closes"  (Stähelin),  does 
prove  indeed  that  they  have  not  been  written  independently  of 
one  another ;  but  it  by  no  means  proves  that  they  belong  to  one 
author,  or  even  to  one  age.  Nor  can  we  infer  that  they  have  been 
composed  or  finally  revised  by  one  man,  from  the  fact,  "  that  very 
often,  in  some  one  writing,  as  it  has  come  down  to  us,  we  not  only 
find  two  different  styles,  or  a  totally  different  mode  of  description, 
so  that  we  can  with  certainty  conclude  that  the  work  is  founded 
upon  two  different  sources,  but  these  sources  run  through  writings 
that  are  separated  from  one  another,  and  are  frequently  ascribed  to 
entirely  different  ages."  For  the  circumstance,  that  a  writing  is 
founded  upon  two  sources,  is  no  proof  at  all  that  it  is  nothing  more 
than  a  portion  of  a  larger  work  ;  and  the  proof  which  Stähelin 
adduces  of  his  assertion,  that  the  same  source  runs  through  several 
of  the  works  in  question,  is  much  too  weak  and  untenable  to  be 
regarded  as  an  established  fact,  not  to  mention  that,  according  to 
the  first  rules  of  logic,  what  applies  to  several  cannot  therefore  be 
predicated  of  all.  The  actual  root  of  this  hypothesis  is  to  be  found 
in  the  naturalistic  assumption  of  modern  critics,  that  the  theocratic 
spirit,  which  is  common  to  all  the  prophetic  histories,  was  not  to  be 
found  in  the  historical  facts,  but  was  simply  the  "  theocratic  prag- 
matism" of  the  historians  themselves,  which  had  at  the  most  a  certain 
subjective  truth,  but  no  objective  reality.  From  such  an  assump- 
tion, however,  it  is  impossible  to  come  to  a  correct  conclusion  with 
regard  to  either  the  contents  or  the  origin  of  the  prophetic  histories 
of  the  Old  Testament. 


THE   BOOK   OF   JOSHUA. 


INTRODUCTION. 

CONTENTS,  DATE,  AND  CHARACTER  OF  THE  BOOK. 

j|HE  book  of  Joshua  derives  its  name,  J?tyiiT,  'I^croi^  Navrj 
or  vlbs  Navrj  (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  (chap.  i.  1-9),  and  closes  with 
the  death  and  burial  of  Joshua  and  his  contemporary,  the  high 
priest  Eleazar  (chap.  xxiv.  29-33).  The  contents  may  be  divided 
into  two  parts  of  nearly  equal  length, — the  conquest  of  Canaan 
(chap,  i.-xii.),  and  the  division  of  it  among  the  tribes  of  Israel 
(chap,  xii.-xxiv.) ;  chap.  i.  1-9  forming  the  introduction,  and  chap, 
xxiv.  29—33  the  conclusion.  After  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  (chap.  i.  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  (chap.  i. 
10-18),  and  the  despatch  of  spies  to  Jericho  (chap,  ii.)  ;  (b)  the 
crossing  of  the  river,  which  had  been  laid  dry  by  a  divine  miracle 
(chap.  iii.  and  iv.)  ;  and  (c)  the  preparation  of  Israel  for  the  con- 
quest of  the  land,  by  the  performance  of  circumcision   and  the 


14  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

passover  at  Gllgal  (chap.  v.  1-12).  Then  follow  (2)  the  conquest 
and  subjugation  of  Canaan ;  viz.  (a)  the  commencement  of  it  by 
the  miraculous  fall  of  Jericho  (chap.  v.  13-vi.  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  (chap,  vii.-viii.  29),  and  the  solemn  act  of  setting 
up  the  law  in  the  land  on  Ebal  and  Gerizim  (chap.  viii.  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  (chap,  ix.)  ;  the  two  great 
victories  over  the  allied  kings  of  Canaan  in  the  south  (chap,  x.) 
and  north  (chap,  xi.),  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  (ch.  xii.). — 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 
(chap.  xiii.).  Accordingly  Joshua,  with  the  heads  of  the  people 
appointed  for  the  purpose,  proceeded  to  the  distribution  of  the 
land,  first  of  all  («)  in  the  camp  at  Gilgal,  where  Caleb  was  the 
first  to  receive  his  inheritance  (chap,  xiv.),  and  then,  according  to 
the  lot,  the  tribes  of  Judah  (chap,  xv.)  and  Joseph,  i.e.  Ephraim 
and  (half)  Manasseh  (chap.  xvi.  and  xvii.)  ;  and  afterwards  (b)  at 
Shiloh,  where  the  tabernacle  was  first  of  all  erected,  and  a  de- 
scription of  the  land  to  be  divided  written  down  (chap,  xviii.  1-10), 
and  then  the  rest  of  the  tribes — Benjamin  (chap,  xviii.  11-28), 
Simeon,  Zebulun,  Issachar,  Asher,  Naphtali,  and  Dan  (chap,  xix.) 
— received  their  inheritance,  after  which  the  cities  of  refuge  were 
selected  (chap,  xx.),  and  forty-eight  cities  were  given  up  by  the 
twelve  tribes  for  the  Levites  to  occupy  (chap,  xxi.)  ;  and  finally, 

(c)  the  warriors  belonging  to  the  tribes  beyond  Jordan  were  sent 
back  by  Joshua  to  their  own  inheritance  (chap.  xxii.).  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  (chap,  xxiii.)  ;  and  (b)  the  renewal  of  the 
covenant  at  the  diet  at  Shechem  (chap.  xxiv.  1-28).  This  is  fol- 
lowed by  an  account  of  the  close  of  Joshua's  life,  and  the  conclu- 


INTRODUCTION.  15 

slon  of  the  whole  book  (chap.  xxiv.  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  ch.  i.  10-v.  12 
were  preparatory  to  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  so  the  diets  held  by 
Joshua  after  the  distribution  of  the  land  by  lot  (chap,  xxiii.-xxiv. 
28)  had  no  other  object  than  to  establish  the  covenant  people 
firmly  in  the  inheritance  bestowed  upon  them  by  God,  by  exhort- 
ing them  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord.  And  just  as  chap.  xii.  rounds 
off  the  first  part,  as  a  kind  of  appendix  which  completes  the  his- 
tory of  the  conquest  of  the  land,  so  chap.  xxii.  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  por- 
tions of  their  inheritance. 

The  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  faith- 
ful 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  foot- 
steps, 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 
(Ex.  xv.  17)  and  chosen  as  the  nursery  ground  of  His  kingdom. 
As  Joshua  simply  carried  on  in  this  respect,  and  brought  to  com- 
pletion, 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. 

The  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 


1 6  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

the  different  tribes  according  to  their  respective  boundaries  and  the 
cities  which  they  contained  is  unquestionably  founded  upon  con- 
temporaneous writings,  and  in  one  passage  the  writer  actually  classes 
himself  with  those  who  crossed  over  Jordan  into  Canaan  under  the 
guidance  of  Joshua  (chap.  v.  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  in- 
clude in  these  either  the  closing  accounts  of  the  death  of  Joshua 
and  Eleazar  (chap.  xxiv.  29,  33),  or  the  allusion  to  the  "  book  of 
the  righteous"  (chap.  x.  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  com- 
posed 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  chap.  xxii.  3,  17,  and  xxiii.  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  chap.  iv.  9,  v.  9,  vi.  25,  vii.  26,  viii.  28,  29,  ix.  27, 
xiii.  13,  xiv.  14,  xv.  63,  and  xvi.  10.  But  if  the  remark  made  in 
chap.  vi.  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"  (chap.  v.  9,  vii.  26),  or  that  the 
memorial  stones  set  up  in  the  bed  of  the  Jordan  (chap.  iv.  9),  and 
the  heaps  of  stones  raised  upon  the  bodies  of  Achan  and  the  king 
of  Ai  (chap.  vii.  26,  viii.  29),  remain  "unto  this  day;"  that  "unto 
this  day"  Ai  remains  an  heap  (chap.  viii.  28),  the  Gibeonites  are 
hewers  of  wood  and  drawers  of  water  to  the  congregation  (chap.  ix. 
27),  and  Hebron  is  the  inheritance  of  Caleb  (chap.  xiv.  14) ;  that 
the  Geshurites  and  Maachathites  have  not  been  expelled  (chap.  xiii. 
13),  nor  the  inhabitants  of  Jerusalem  and  Gezer  (chap.  xv.  63,  xvi. 
10),  but  dwell  among  and  by  the  side  of  Israel  "  unto  this  day," 


INTRODUCTION.  17 

may  be  just  as  easily  understood,  if  they  were  made  ten  or  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. 

It  is  different  with  the  accounts  of  the  conquest  of  Hebron  by 
Caleb,  Debir  by  Othniel,  and  Leshem  by  the  Danites  (chap.  xv. 
13-19  and  xix.  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  settle- 
ment of  the  different  tribes  in  the  possessions  allotted  to  them 
(compare  chap.  xix.  50  and  xxiii.  1,  with  chap.  xxii.  4  and  xxi. 
43,  44).  But  if  we  compare  these  accounts  with  the  parallel 
accounts  of  the  same  conquests  in  Judg.  i.  10-16  and  xviii.,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  it  was  after  Joshua's  death  that  the  places 
mentioned  were  taken  permanently  from  the  Canaanites,  and  came 
into  the  actual  and  permanent  possession  of  the  Israelites.  For, 
according  to  Judg.  i.  1-15,  the  Israelites  inquired  of  the  Lord,  after 
the  death  of  Joshua,  who  should  begin  the  war  with  the  Canaan- 
ites, 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  Canaan- 
ites at  Bezek,  then  advanced  against  Jerusalem,  took  this  city 
and  set  it  on  fire,  and  "afterward"  (ver.  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  (Judg. 
i.  21),  so  that  the  same  statement  in  Joshua  xv.  63  also  poiuts 
beyond  the  death  of  Joshua.  It  is  equally  evident  from  Judg. 
xviii.  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 

B 


18  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

the  Canaanites  out  of  different  districts  and  towns,  which  are  com- 
mon to  this  book  and  the  book  of  Judges  (compare  chap.  xiii.  2-5, 
xvi.  10,  and  xvii.  11,  12,  with  Judg.  iii.  3,  i.  29,  and  i.  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  chap.  xxiv.  29-33  formed 
a  part  of  the  original  work. 

If  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  (chap.  xv.  13-19  ; 
Judg.  i.  11  sqq.).  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  (Judg.  i.  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  establish- 
ment of  the  monarchy  in  Israel.  According  to  chap.  xvi.  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 
(1  Kings  ix.  16).  According  to  chap.  xv.  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 
(2  Sam.  v.  3,  6-9).  According  to  chap.  ix.  27,  the  place  for  the 
temple  had  not  yet  been  chosen,  but  this  was  done  in  the  time  of 
David  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  18  sqq. ;  1  Chron.  xxi.  16  sqq).     And  the 


INTRODUCTION.  19 

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 
(2  Sam.  xxi.  1  sqq.).  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  (chap.  xiii.  4-6),  whereas  in  the  time  of  David  we  find 
the  circumstances  entirely  changed  (2  Sam.  v.  11 ;  1  Kings  v.  15  ; 
1  Chron.  xiv.  1)  ;  and  again  when  Sidon  is  referred  to  as  the  chief 
city  of  Phoenicia,  and  the  epithet  "  great "  is  applied  to  it  (chap.  xi. 
8,  xix.  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  {viel.  chap.  v.  1,  6),  but  who  survived  Joshua 
a  considerable  time  (chap.  xxiv.  31 ;  Judg.  ii.  7). 

But  even  if  the  book  of  Joshua  wras  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  in- 
dependent 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  author- 
ship between  the  book  of  Joshua  and  that  of  Deuteronomy,  as  well 
as  the  rest  of  the  Pentateuch,  in  the  revised  form  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 


20  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

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"  (BleeJcs 
Einleitung,  Stähelin,  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  inde- 
pendent 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  KOT  for  KOT,  1JH  for  ™,  Ssn 
for  n"?Kn,  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  OT^T  (chap.  ii.  1-3, 
etc.,  in  all  twenty-six  times)  instead  of  the  form  Srn*,  which  is  quite 
as  uniformly  adopted  in  the  Pentateuch  (Num.  xxii.  1,  xxvi.  3, 
etc.,  in  all  eleven  times)  :  also  rPüPOO,  for  the  kingdom  of  Sihon 
and  Og  (chap.  xiii.  12,  21,  27,  30*  31),  instead  of  ha^DD  (Num. 
xxxii.  33  ;  Deut.  iii.  4,  10,  etc.)  ;  Kfag  (chap.  xxiv.  19)  instead  of 
K3J3  (Ex.  xx.  5,  xxxiv.  14 ;  Deut.  iv.  24,  v.  9,  etc.)  ;  TO,  fama 
(chap.  vi.  27,  ix.  9),  for  TO  (Gen.  xxix.  13,  etc.)  ;  ¥fH[  (chap.  xxii. 
25)  for  nx-p  (Deut.  iv.  10,  v.  26,  etc.)  ;  and  lastly,  *>OTn  niaa 
(chap.  i.  14,  vi.  2,  viii.  3,  x.  7)  for  h'n  »»  (Deut.  iii.  18)  ;  "1K3,  a 
bottle  (chap.  ix.  4,  13),  for  non  (Gen.  xxi.  14,  15,  19)  ;  n^n,  to  set 
on  fire  or  burn  (chap.  viii.  8,  19) ;  n^V,  to  spring  down  (chap.  xv. 
^8) ;  P?iJ,  a  prince  or  leader  (chap.  x.  24) ;  üj5C>,  to  rest  (chap.  xi.  23, 


INTRODUCTION.  21 

xiv.  15)  ;  and  other  words  besides,  which  you  seek  for  in  vain  in 
the  Pentateuch,  whereas  they  frequently  occur  in  the  later  books.1 

Whilst  the  independence  of  the  book  of  Joshua  is  thus  placed 
beyond  all  doubt,  its  internal  unity,  or  the  singleness  of  the  author- 
ship, 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 
Stähelin  in  their  introductions.  What  Bleek  still  notices  in  this 
respect,  in  chaps,  iii.  and  iv.,  viii.  1-20  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  ad- 
duced by  Stähelin  in  1843,  have  been  dropped  in  his  special  intro- 
duction (1862)  :  the  only  one  that  he  insists  upon  now  is  the  fact, 
that  the  way  in  which  Joshua  acts  in  chap,  xviii.  1-10  is  very  dif- 
ferent from  chap.  xiv.  sqq. ;  and  that  in  the  historical  sections,  as  a 
rule,  Joshua  is  described  as  acting  very  differently  from  what  would 
be  expected  from  Num.  xxvii.  21,  inasmuch  as  he  acts  quite  inde- 
pendently, 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, 

1  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 
Stähelin  observes  that  the  later  editor  retained  the  form  inT1  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  mn  as 
a  feminine  instead  of  NTI  is  traceable  to  a  later  form.  What  can  have  induced 
the  later  editor,  then,  to  alter  the  form  rütao,  which  he  so  commonly  uses  in 
Deuteronomy,  into  rvütaö  in  Joshua?  The  "reliable"  Bleek  prefers,  there- 
fore, to  take  no  notice  of  these  differences,  or  at  least  to  express  no  opinion 
about  them. 


22  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

on  the  one  hand,  Joshua  is  blamed  in  chap.  ix.  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. 
xxvii.  21;  and  on  the  other  hand,  even  Num.  xxvii.  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  (chap.  v.  13  sqq.),  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.  xxxiv.  17  sqq. 
for  the  distribution  of  the  land  (chap.  xiv.  1,  xix.  51,  xxi.  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  per- 
formed (chap.  xiii.  1,  7).  Consequently,  not  only  did  Caleb  apply 
to  Joshua  with  the  request  for  the  inheritance  promised  him  by  the 
Lord  (chap.  xiv.  6  sqq.)  ;  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  super- 
intending the  casting  of  the  lots  (chap,  xviii.  3-10,  xx.  1).  The 
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  (chap.  xi.  23,  xii.  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 
chap.  vii.  14,  16,  18,  and  xxii.  1,  as  compared  with  chap.  xiii.  29, 
and  in  chap.  iii.  12,  as  compared  with  Num.  xxxiv.  18,  the  charge 
is  perfectly  arbitrary."  But  whether  it  be  involuntary  or  carefully 
considered,  there  is  no  ground  for  inferring  that  there  have  been 


INTRODUCTION.  23 

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.  chap.  xiii.  29  and 
Num.  xviii.  2,  where  we  cannot  possibly  imagine  a  fusion  of  dif- 
ferent documents  to  have  taken  place.  (For  further  remarks,  see 
at  chap.  vii.  1.)  The  word  machaloketh,  however,  is  not  synony- 
mous with  mishpachah,  as  Stähelin  supposes,  but  denotes  the  various 
subdivisions  of  the  tribes  into  families,  fathers'  houses  and  families ; 
and  this  also  not  only  occurs  in  chap.  xi.  23  and  xii.  7,  but  in  the 
geographical  portion  also,  in  chap,  xviii.  10.  The  other  remark, 
viz.  that  "  in  the  place  of  the  l"ri2X  ^"8"),  who  are  the  leading  actors 
in  the  geographical  sections,  wre  find  the  elders,  judges,  heads 
D^tPfcO  and  D^Ofe*  in  the  historical,  or  else  simply  the  shoterim  (chap, 
i.  10,  iii.  2,  viii.  33,  xxiii.  2,  xxiv.  1),  or  the  elders,"  is  neither  quite 
correct,  nor  in  the  least  degree  conclusive.  It  is  incorrect,  inas- 
much as  even  in  the  geographical  portion,  namely  chap.  xvii.  4,  the 
D'Wb'J  are  mentioned  instead  of  the  rnnx  ^W,  along  with  Eleazar 
and  Joshua.  But  the  notion  upon  which  this  argument  is  founded 
is  still  more  erroneous,  viz.  that  "  the  DWKtf,  Dins'  '»B'sn,  Enpr,  D^BÖE» 
and  DnDbJ  are  all  the  same,  as  we  may  clearly  see  from  Deut.  i.  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  Ex.  vi.  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 


24  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

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  possessions  of  the  different  tribes. 

Lastly,  the  historical  fidelity  of  the  book  of  Joshua  cannot  justly 
be  called  in  question ;  and  so  far  as  all  the  narratives  and  descrip- 
tions are  concerned,  which  lie  within  the  sphere  of  the  ordinary 
laws  of  nature,  this  is  generally  admitted.  This  applies  not  only  to 
the  description  of  the  possessions  of  the  different  tribes  according 
to  their  boundaries  and  towns,  which  are  almost  universally  acknow- 
ledged to  have  been  derived  from  authentic  records,  but  to  such 
historical  passages  as  the  words  of  Caleb  (chap.  xiv.  6  sqq.),  the 
address  of  Phinehas,  and  the  reply  of  the  two  tribes  and  a  half  (chap, 
xxii.),  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  (chap.  xvii.  14  sqq.),  which  are  so  thoroughly  original,  and  so 
perfectly  appropriate  to  the  persons  and  circumstances,  that  their 
historical  credibility  cannot  be  disputed.1  It  is  chiefly  at  the  mira- 
culous 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  destruc- 
tion of  the  Canaanites  is  irreconcilable  with  correct  (?)  views  of 
the  Godhead,  they  deny  the  historical  character  of  the  whole  book. 
Bat  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.  And  the  objec- 
tion, 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 

1  Even  Eichhorn,  for  example,  says  in  his  Introduction,  "  The  words  of 
Caleb,  in  chap.  xiv.  1  sqq.,  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." 


INTRODUCTION.  25 

deny  a  priori  all  living  influence  on  the  part  of  the  "Deity"  upon 
the  eartli  and  its  inhabitants.     But  the  true  God  is  not  a  Deity 
who  can  neither  help  nor  injure  men  (Jer.  x.  5) ;  He  is  the  al- 
mighty 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.  x.  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  (Deut.  xxxii.  8 ;  Acts  xvii.  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.  xii.  7,  xv.  13-16).     The  expulsion  of  the  Canaanites,  there- 
fore, from  possessions  which  they  had  no  doubt  rightfully  held,  but 
to  which  they  had  forfeited  their  right  through  the  misuse  they  had 
made  of  them,  is  to  be  regarded  quite  as  decidedly  as  an  act  of 
penal  justice  on  the  part  of  God,  as  the  presentation  of  this  land  to 
Israel  was  an  act  of  His  free  grace ;  and  the  destruction  of  the 
Canaanites  by  the  Israelites,  as  well  as  their  capture  of  the  pos- 
session which  the  Canaanites  had  forfeited  through  their  sins  (yid. 
Lev.  xviii.  24-28  ;  Deut.  xii.  29-31),  was  perfectly  justifiable,  if,  as 
our  book  affirms,  the  Israelites  were  only  acting  as  instruments  in 
the  hands  of  the  Lord.     It  is  true  they  were  not  warranted  in 
carrying  on  a  war  of  extermination  against  the  Canaanites  simply 
because  the  land  had  been  given  them  by  God,  any  more  than  David 
was  warranted  in  putting  Saul  to  death  and  wresting  the  kingdom 
from  him,  although   he  had  been  rejected  by  the  Lord,   simply 
because  Samuel  had  promised  him  the  kingdom  by  the  command  of 
God,  and  had  even  anointed  him  king  over  Israel.    But  the  Israelites 
did  not  proceed  from  Egypt  to  Canaan  of  their  own  accord,  or 
by  their  own  power;  they  were  brought  out  of  this  land  of  their 


26  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

bondage  by  the  God  of  their  fathers  with  a  mighty  arm,  and  led  by 
Him  through  the  wilderness  into  the  promised  land.  Joshua  acted, 
as  Moses  had  done  before  him,  by  the  immediate  command  of  God ; 
and  the  fact  that  this  command  was  real  and  well-founded,  and  not 
a  mere  fancy,  is  proved  by  the  miraculous  signs  through  which  God 
accredited  the  armies  of  Israel  as  the  servants  of  His  judicial  right- 
eousness, who  were  fighting  in  His  name  and  by  His  command, 
when  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth  divided  the  waters  of  Jordan 
before  them,  threw  down  the  walls  of  Jericho,  filled  the  Canaanites 
with  fear  and  despair,  killed  them  with  hailstones  at  Gibeon,  and 
brought  to  nought  all  their  plans  and  endeavours  to  resist  the 
advance  of  Israel,  so  that  Joshua  smote  great  and  mighty  nations, 
and  no  one  could  stand  before  him.  Hence  the  Psalmist  was  able 
to  write,  "Thou  didst  drive  out  the  heathen  with  Thy  hand,  and 
plantedst  them  (the  Israelites)  ;  Thou  hast  destroyed  nations,  and 
cast  them  out.  For  they  got  not  the  land  in  possession  by  their  own 
sword,  neither  did  their  own  arm  help  them ;  but  Thy  right  hand, 
and  Thine  arm,  and  the  light  of  Thy  countenance,  because  Thou 
hadst  a  favour  unto  them"  (Ps.  xliv.  2,  3). — And  whilst  the  Israelites 
were  thus  proved  to  be  the  executors  of  the  penal  judgments  of 
God,  they  acted  in  perfect  accordance  with  this  vocation  by  the 
manner  in  which  they  carried  out  the  judgment  entrusted  to  them. 
They  submitted  cheerfully  and  obediently  to  all  the  appointments 
of  Joshua ;  they  sanctified  themselves  by  the  circumcision  of  all 
who  had  remained  uncircumcised  in  the  desert  and  by  keeping  the 
passover  at  Gilgal;  they  set  up  the  law  of  the  Lord  upon  Ebal  and 
Gerizim ;  they  executed  the  ban  upon  the  Canaanites,  as  the  Lord 
had  commanded,  and  punished  Achan  and  his  house  for  transgress- 
ing this  ban,  that  they  might  expunge  the  sin  from  their  midst ; 
they  vowed,  in  the  most  solemn  manner,  that  when  they  had  come 
into  peaceable  possession  of  the  promised  inheritance,  they  would 
renounce  all  idolatry,  would  serve  Jehovah  their  God  alone,  and 
would  hearken  to  His  voice,  to  renew  the  covenant  with  the  Lord ; 
and  they  served  the  Lord  as  long  as  Joshua  lived,  and  the  elders 
after  him,  who  knew  all  the  works  of  the  Lord  which  He  had  done 
for  Israel. — (For  further  remarks  upon  this  subject,  see  Hengsten- 
berg's  Dissertations  on  the  Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.  pp.  387-417,  Eng. 
trans.,  Art.  "  On  the  Right  of  the  Israelites  to  Palestine.") 

Thus  the  contents  of  the  book  have  their  higher  unity  and  their 
truth  in  the  idea  of  the  justice,  holiness,  and  grace  of  God,  as  they 
were  manifested  in  the  most  glorious  manner  in  the  great  historical 


CHAP.  I.  1-9.  27 

event  which  forms  the  subject  of  the  whole.  Whilst  justice  was 
revealed  in  the  case  of  the  Canaanites,  and  grace  in  that  of  the 
Israelites,  the  holiness  of  the  Almighty  God  was  manifested  in 
both, — in  the  Canaanites,  who  were  liable  to  judgment,  through 
their  destruction ;  and  in  the  Israelites,  who  were  chosen  to  fellow- 
ship with  the  Lord,  through  the  sanctification  of  their  lives  to  the 
faithful  performance  of  the  duties  of  their  vocation,  both  to  the 
honour  of  God  and  the  glory  of  His  name. 

The  different  views  that  have  been  expressed  as  to  the  time 
when  the  book  was  written  are  given  more  fully  in  KeWs  Commen- 
tary on  Joshua  (1847,  Eng.  trans.  1857),  where  the  exegetical  aids 
are  also  given. 


EXPOSITION. 

THE    PREAMBLE. 
Chap.  i.  1-9. 


After  the  death  of  Moses  the  Lord  summoned  Joshua,  the  servant 
of  Moses,  whom  He  had  appointed  as  the  leader  of  Israel  into 
Canaan,  to  go  with  all  the  people  across  the  Jordan,  and  take  the 
land  which  had  been  promised  to  the  fathers  on  oath,  assuring  him 
at  the  same  time  of  His  powerful  aid,  on  condition  that  he  observed 
the  law  of  Moses  faithfully.  This  summons  and  promise  of  God 
form  the  preamble  to  the  whole  book,  which  is  linked  on  to  the 
conclusion  of  the  Pentateuch  by  the  introductory  words,  "  And  it 
came  to  pass  after  the  death  of  Moses,  the  servant  of  the  Lord," 
though  it  is  not  so  closely  connected  as  to  warrant  the  conclusion 
that  the  two  works  have  been  written  by  the  same  author. — Ver.  1. 
The  imperfect  with  vav  consec,  the  standing  mode  of  expressing 
a  continued  action  or  train  of  thought,  "  simply  attaches  itself  by 
the  conjunction  'and'  to  a  completed  action,  which  has  either 
been  mentioned  before,  or  is  supposed  to  be  well  known"  (Ewald, 
§  231,  b.).  "  After  the  death  of  Moses,"  i.e.  after  the  expiration  of 
the  thirty  days  of  general  mourning  for  him  (vid.  Deut.  xxxiv.  8). 
"  Servant  of  JehovaJC  is  a  standing  epithet  applied  to  Moses  as  an 
honourable  title,  and  founded  upon  Num.  xii.  7,  8  (vid.  Deut. 
xxxiv.  5;  1  Kings  viii.  56;  2  Kings  xviii.  12;  Ps.  cv.  2G,  etc.). 


28  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

On  "Joshua,  Moses'  minister,"  see  at  Ex.  xvii.  9  and  Num.  xiii.  16. 
Minister  (meshareth),  as  in  Ex.  xxiv.  13,  etc.  Although  Joshua 
had  already  been  called  by  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  to  be  the  suc- 
cessor of  Moses  in  the  task  of  leading  the  people  into  Canaan 
(Num.  xxvii.  15  sqq.),  and  had  not  only  been  presented  to  the  people 
in  this  capacity,  but  had  been  instituted  in  this  office  by  the  Lord, 
with  the  promise  of  His  help  (Deut.  xxxi.  3-7  and  23),  the  word 
of  the  Lord  came  to  him  a  second  time  after  the  death  of  Moses, 
with  the  command  to  enter  upon  the  office  to  which  he  had  been 
called,  and  with  the  promise  that  He  would  help  him  to  fulfil  its 
duties,  as  he  had  already  helped  His  servant  Moses.  "  Because  even 
some  of  the  bravest  men,  although  fully  prepared  beforehand,  either 
stand  still  or  hesitate  when  the  thing  has  to  be  done :  this  exhorta- 
tion to  Joshua,  to  gird  himself  at  once  for  the  expedition,  was  by 
no  means  superfluous  ;  though  his  call  was  ratified  again  not  only 
for  his  own  sake,  but  in  order  that  the  people  might  not  hesitate  to 
follow  him  with  their  minds  collected  and  calm,  when  they  saw 
that  he  took  no  step  without  the  guidance  of  God"  (Calvin). — 
Joshua  received  this  word  of  the  Lord  by  a  direct  address  from 
God,  and  not  through  the  intervention  of  the  Urim  and  Thummim 
of  the  high  priest ;  for  this  appointed  medium  for  the  revelation  of 
the  will  of  God,  to  which  he  had  been  referred  on  the  occasion  of 
his  first  call  (Num.  xxvii.  21),  whenever  difficulties  should  arise  in 
connection  with  his  office,  was  not  sufficient  for  the  renewal  and 
confirmation  of  his  divine  calling,  since  the  thing  required  here  was 
not  merely  that  the  will  of  God  should  be  made  known  to  him,  but 
that  he  should  be  inspired  with  courage  and  strength  for  the  fulfil- 
ment of  it,  i.e.  for  discharging  the  duties  of  his  office,  just  as  he 
afterwards  was  when  in  front  of  the  fortified  town  of  Jericho  which 
he  was  directed  to  take,  where  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to 
him  and  assured  him  of  its  fall  (chap.  v.  13).  Moreover,  the  conquest 
of  Canaan  formed  part  of  the  work  which  the  Lord  entrusted  to  His 
servant  Moses,  and  in  which  therefore  Joshua  was  now  Moses' 
successor.  Consequently  the  Lord  would  be  with  him  as  He  had 
been  with  Moses  (ver.  5)  ;  and  for  this  reason  He  revealed  His  will 
directly  to  him,  as  He  had  done  to  Moses,  though  without  talking 
with  him  mouth  to  mouth  (Num.  xii.  8). — Ver.  2.  As  Moses  had 
died  without  having  brought  the  Israelites  to  Canaan,  Joshua  was 
to  arise  and  go  with  all  the  nation  over  this  Jordan  (i.e.  the  river 
then  before  him)  into  the  land  which  the  Lord  would  give  them. — 
Ver.  3.  "  Namely,  every  place  that  the  sole  of  your  foot  shall  tread 


CHAP.  I.  1-9.  29 

upon"  i.e.  I  have  given  you  the  whole  land,  not  excepting  a  single 
foot's  breadth.  The  perfect,  "  /  have  given,"  refers  to  the  counsel 
of  God  as  having  been  formed  long  before,  and  being  now  about  to 
be  carried  into  execution.  These  words,  which  are  connected  with 
Deut.  xi.  24,  so  far  as  the  form  is  concerned,  rest  upon  the  promise 
of  God  in  Ex.  xxiii.  30,  31,  to  which  the  words  "  as  I  said  unto 
Moses"  refer. — Yer.  4.  The  boundaries  of  the  land  are  given  as  in 
Deut.  xi.  24,  with  the  simple  difference  in  form,  that  the  boundary 
line  from  the  desert  (of  Arabia)  and  Lebanon,  i.e.  from  the  southern 
and  northern  extremity,  is  drawn  first  of  all  towards  the  east  to  the 
great  river,  the  Euphrates,  and  then  towards  the  west  to  "the  great 
sea,  toward  the  going  down  of  the  sun,"  i.e.  the  Mediterranean  ;  and 
then  between  these  two  termini  ad  quern  the  more  precise  definition 
is  inserted,  "  all  the  land  of  the  Hittites ; "  whereas  in  Deuteronomy 
the  southern,  northern,  and  eastern  boundaries  are  placed  in  anti- 
thesis to  the  western  boundary,  and  the  more  precise  definition  of 
the  country  to  be  taken  is  given  by  an  enumeration  of  the  different 
tribes  that  were  to  be  destroyed  by  the  Israelites  (ver.  23).  On 
the  oratorical  character  of  these  descriptions,  see  at  Gen.  xv.  18. 
The  demonstrative  pronoun  "this,"  in  connection  with  Lebanon, 
may  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  Lebanon,  or  at  all  events  Anti- 
libanus,  was  visible  from  the  Israelitish  camp.  The  expression  "  the 
Jlittites"  (see  at  Gen.  x.  15)  is  used  here  in  a  broader  sense  for 
Canaanites  in  general,  as  in  1  Kings  x.  29;  2  Kings  vii.  6;  Ezek. 
xvi.  3.  The  promise  in  ver.  5a  is  adopted  from  Deut.  xi.  25, 
where  it  was  made  to  the  whole  nation,  and  specially  transferred  to 
Joshua ;  and  ver.  5b  is  repeated  from  Deut.  xxxi.  8,  as  compared 
with  ver.  6. — Vers.  6-9.  The  promise  is  followed  by  the  condition 
upon  which  the  Lord  would  fulfil  His  word.  Joshua  was  to  be 
firm  and  strong,  i.e.  well-assured,  courageous,  not  alarmed  (vid. 
Deut.  xxxi.  6).  In  the  first  place  (ver.  6),  he  was  to  rely  firmly 
upon  the  Lord  and  His  promise,  as  Moses  and  the  Lord  had  already 
told  him  (Deut.  xxxi.  7  and  23),  and  as  is  again  repeated  here, 
whilst  at  the  same  time  the  expression,  "thou  shaft  divide  for  an 
inheritance,"  recalls  to  mind  Deut.  i.  38,  iii.  28 ;  and  in  the  second 
place  (vers.  7,  8),  he  was  to  strive  to  attain  and  preserve  this  firm- 
ness by  a  careful  observance  of  the  law.  "  Observe  to  do"  etc.,  as 
Moses  had  already  impressed  upon  the  hearts  of  all  the  people  (Deut. 
v.  29,  cf.  xxviii.  14  and  ii.  27).  The  suffix  in  «S?  is  to  be  ex- 
plained on  the  supposition  that  the  speaker  had  the  book  of  the  law 
in  his  mind.     The  further  expansion,  in  ver.  8,  is  not  only  attached 


30  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

to  the  exhortations,  with  which  Moses  urges  upon  all  the  people  in 
Deut.  vi.  6,  7,  and  xi.  18,  19,  an  uninterrupted  study  and  laying  to 
heart  of  the  commandments  of  God,  but  even  more  closely  to  the 
directions  to  the  king,  to  read  every  day  in  the  law  (Deut.  xvii.  19). 
" Not  to  depart  out  of  the  mouth"  is  to  be  constantly  in  the  mouth. 
The  law  is  in  our  mouth,  not  only  when  we  are  incessantly  preach- 
ing it,  but  when  we  are  reading  it  intelligently  for  ourselves,  or  con- 
versing; about  it  with  others.  To  this  there  was  to  be  added  medi- 
tation,  or  reflection  upon  it  both  day  and  night  (viol.  Ps.  i.  2).  run 
does  not  mean  theoretical  speculation  about  the  law,  such  as  the 
Pharisees  indulged  in,  but  a  practical  study  of  the  law,  for  the  pur- 
pose of  observing  it  in  thought  and  action,  or  carrying  it  out  with 
the  heart,  the  mouth,  and  the  hand.  Such  a  mode  of  employing  it 
would  be  sure  to  be  followed  by  blessings.  "  T7ie)i  shalt  thou  make 
thy  way  prosperous"  i.e.  succeed  in  all  thine  undertakings  (via1. 
Deut.  xxviii.  29),  "  and  act  wisely"  (as  in  Deut.  xxix.  8). — Ver.  9. 
In  conclusion,  the  Lord  not  only  repeats  His  exhortation  to  firmness, 
but  the  promise  that  He  gave  in  vers.  5  and  6.  "  Have  I  not" 
(nonne)  is  a  rhetorical  mode  of  saying,  "  Behold,  I  have,"  the  assur- 
ance being  clothed  in  the  form  of  an  affirmative  question.  On  the 
words  "  be  not  afraid"  etc.,  see  Deut.  xxxi.  6  and  8. 


I.— THE  CONQUEST  OF  CANAAN. 

Chap,  i.-xii. 

preparations  for  entering  canaan. — chap.  i.  10-11.  24. 

In  consequence  of  the  divine  command  (chap.  i.  2-9),  Joshua 
began  without  delay  to  make  the  necessary  preparations  for  carry- 
ing out  the  work  appointed  him  ;  first  of  all  by  issuing  instructions 
to  the  people  to  make  ready  for  crossing  the  river  (i.  10,  11) ; 
secondly,  by  reminding  the  tribes  of  Reuben,  Gad,  and  half  Ma- 
nasseh  of  their  promise  to  help  the  other  tribes  to  conquer  Canaan, 
and  calling  upon  them  to  fulfil  it  (vers.  12-18) ;  and  thirdly,  by 
sending  two  spies  to  Jericho,  to  explore  the  land,  and  discover  the 
feelings  of  its  inhabitants  (chap.  iL). 

Chap.  i.  10-18.  Preparations  for  crossing  the  Jordan. 


CHAP.  I.  10-18.  31 

— Vers.  10,  11.  For  the  purpose  of  carrying  out  the  commands  of 
the  Lord,  Joshua  first  of  all  directed  the  officers  of  the  people 
(shoterim :  see  at  Ex.  v.  vi.),  whose  duty  it  was,  as  the  keepers  of 
the  family  registers,  to  attend  not  only  to  the  levying  of  the  men 
who  were  bound  to  serve  in  the  army,  but  also  to  the  circulation  of 
the  commands  of  the  general,  to  issue  orders  to  the  people  in  the 
camp  to  provide  themselves  with  food,  so  that  they  might  cross  the 
Jordan  within  three  days,  and  take  the  land  that  was  promised 
them  by  God.  By  zedah,  provision  for  a  journey  (Gen.  xlii.  25, 
etc.),  we  are  not  to  understand  manna,  for  that  had  already  ceased 
(see  at  chap.  v.  12),  but  simply  the  natural  produce  of  the  inhabited 
country.  The  expression  "  in  three  days"  i.e.,  as  we  may  see  from 
comparing  Gen.  xl.  13,  19,  with  ver.  20,  on  the  third  day  from  the 
publication  of  the  command,  "  will  ye  go  over  the  Jordan"  is  not  to 
be  regarded  as  a  prediction  of  the  time  when  the  crossing  actually 
took  place,  but  to  be  taken  as  the  latest  time  that  could  be  allowed 
to  the  people  to  prepare  for  crossing  :  viz.  in  this  sense,  "  Prepare 
you  victuals  for  crossing  over  the  Jordan  within  three  days,"  i.e. 
that  you  may  be  able  to  leave  Shittim  within  that  time,  to  cross 
over  the  Jordan,  and  commence  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  If  we 
understand  the  words  in  this  way,  they  are  in  perfect  harmony  with 
chap.  ii.  and  iii.  According  to  chap,  ii.,  Joshua  sent  out  spies  from 
Shittim  to  Jericho,  who  were  obliged  to  hide  themselves  for  three 
days  in  the  mountains  after  their  flight  from  that  city  (chap.  ii.  22), 
before  they  could  return  to  the  Israelitish  camp  ;  so  that  they  were 
absent  three  or  four  days  at  any  rate,  and  came  back  at  the  earliest 
in  the  evening  or  night  of  the  fourth  day  after  they  had  been  sent 
out.  It  was  not  till  the  morning  after  this  that  the  Israelites  left 
Shittim  and  proceeded  to  the  Jordan,  where  they  halted  again. 
Then,  three  days  afterwards,  they  went  across  the  river  (chap.  iii. 
1,  2),  so  that  at  least  4  +  1  +  3,  i.e.  eight  whole  days  must  have 
intervened  between  the  day  when  the  spies  were  sent  out  and  the 
day  on  which  the  people  crossed  the  river.  Joshua  no  doubt 
•intended  to  proceed  to  the  Jordan  and  cross  it  within  three  days 
after  despatching  the  spies  ;  he  therefore  sent  the  spies  to  Jericho 
on  the  same  day  on  which  he  issued  the  command  to  the  people  to 
prepare  for  crossing  within  three  days,  so  that  he  might  reasonably 
hope  that  they  would  fulfil  their  commission  and  return  in  two  or 
three  days.  But  as  they  were  compelled  to  hide  themselves  for 
three  days  in  the  mountains,  in  consequence  of  the  unexpected 
discovery  of  their  arrival  in  Jericho,  and  the  despatch  of  men  iu 


32  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

pursuit  of  them,  Joshua  could  not  remove  with  the  people  from 
Shittim  and  proceed  to  the  Jordan  till  the  day  after  their  return ; 
and  even  then  he  could  not  cross  the  river  at  once,  but  waited  three 
days  after  reaching  the  bank  of  the  river  before  he  crossed  to  the 
other  side  (vid.  chap.  iii.  1  sqq.).1 

Vers.  12-18.  Joshua's  appeal  to  the  two  tribes  and  a  half,  to 
remember  the  condition  on  which  Moses  gave  them  the  land  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan  for  an  inheritance,  and  to  fulfil  it,  met  with  a 
ready  response;  so  that  these  tribes  not  only  promised  to  obey  his 
commandments  in  every  respect,  but  threatened  every  one  with 
death  who  should  refuse  obedience.  In  recalling  this  condition  to 
the  recollection  of  the  tribes  referred  to,  Joshua  follows  the  expres- 
sions in  Deut.  iii.  18-20,  where  Moses  himself  recapitulates  his 
former  command,  rather  than  the  original  passage  in  Num.  xxxii. 
The  expression  "  this  land"  shows  that  the  speaker  was  still  on  the 
other  side  of  the  Jordan.  Ö^Bfori,  with  the  loins  girded,  i.e.  prepared 
for  war,  synonymous  with  E^C!  in  Deut.  iii.  18  and  Num.  xxxii.  32 
(see  at  Ex.  xiii.  18).  ??H  'niaa-;'!),  all  the  mighty  men  of  valour,  i.e. 
the  brave  warriors  (as  in  chap.  vi.  2,  viii.  3,  x.  7,  and  very  frequently 
in  the  later  books),  is  not  common  to  this  book  and  Deuteronomy, 
as  Knob  el  maintains,  but  is  altogether  strange  to  the  Pentateuch 
(see  p.  9).  The  word  "all"  (ver.  14,  like  Num.  xxxii.  21,  27) 
must  not  be  pressed.  According  to  chap.  iv.  13,  there  were  only 
about  40,000  men  belonging  to  the  two  tribes  and  a  half  who  crossed 
the  Jordan  to  take  part  in  the  war ;  whereas,  according  to  Num. 
xxvi.  7,  18,  34,  there  were  110,000  men  in  these  tribes  who  were 
capable  of  bearing  arms,  so  that  70,000  must  have  remained  behind 
for  the  protection  of  the  women  and  children  and  of  the  flocks  and 
herds,  and  to  defend  the  land  of  which  they  had  taken  possession. 
On  ver.  15  see  Deut.  iii.  18  ;  and  on  the  more  minute  definition  of 
"  on   this  side  (lit.  beyond)  Jordan "  by  "  toward  the  sun-rising" 

1  In  this  way  the  different  statements  in  the  three  chapters  harmonize  per- 
fectly well.  But  the  majority  of  commentators  have  arranged  the  order  of 
succession  differently  and  in  a  very  arbitrary  way,  starting  with  the  unwarrant- 
able assumption  that  the  time  referred  to  in  this  verse,  "within  three  days,"  is 
identical  with  that  in  chap.  iii.  2,  "  it  came  to  pass  after  three  days."  Upon 
the  strength  of  this  groundless  assumption,  Knobel  maintains  that  there  is  great 
confusion  in  the  order  of  succession  of  the  events  described  in  chap.  i. — iii.,  that 
chap.  i.  11  is  irreconcilable  with  chap.  iii.  1-6,  and  that  accounts  written  by 
three  different  authors  have  been  mixed  up  together  in  these  chapters.  (For 
the  different  attempts  to  reconcile  the  accounts,  see  KeiVs  Commentary  on 
Joshua,  pp.  72-75,  note,  Eng.  trans.  Clark,  1857.) 


CHAP.  II.  1.  33 

compare  the  remarks  on  Num.  xxxii.  19.  The  answer  of  the  two 
tribes  and  a  half,  in  which  they  not  only  most  cheerfully  promise 
their  help  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  but  also  express  the  wish  that 
Joshua  may  have  the  help  of  the  Lord  (ver.  17  compared  with 
ver.  4),  and  after  threatening  all  who  refuse  obedience  with  death, 
close  with  the  divine  admonition,  "  only  be  strong  and  of  a  good 
courage  "  (ver.  18,  cf.  ver.  6),  furnishes  a  proof  of  the  wish  that 
inspired  them  to  help  their  brethren,  that  all  the  tribes  might 
speedily  enter  into  the  peaceable  possession  of  the  promised  inherit- 
ance. The  expression  " rebel  against  the  commandment"  is  used 
in  Deut.  i.  26,  43,  ix.  23,  1  Sam.  xii.  14,  to  denote  resistance  to 
the  commandments  of  the  Lord  ;  here  it  denotes  opposition  to  His 
representative,  the  commander  chosen  by  the  Lord,  which  was  to 
be  punished  with  death,  according  to  the  law  in  Deut.  xvii.  12. 

Chap.  ii.  Two  Spies  sent  over  to  Jericho.  —  Ver.  1. 
Although  Joshua  had  received  a  promise  from  the  Lord  of  His 
almighty  help  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  he  still  thought  it  neces- 
sary to  do  what  was  requisite  on  his  part  to  secure  the  success  of 
the  work  committed  to  him,  as  the  help  of  God  does  not  preclude 
human  action,  but  rather  presupposes  it.  He  therefore  sent  two 
men  out  secretly  as  spies  from  Shittim  the  place  of  encampment 
at  that  time  (see  at  Num.  xxv.  1),  to  view,  i.e.  explore,  the  land, 
especially  Jericho,  the  strongly  fortified  frontier  town  of  Canaan 
(chap.  vi.  1).  The  word  "secretly"  is  connected  by  the  accents 
with  "  saying,"  giving  them  their  instructions  secretly ;  but  this 
implies  that  they  were  also  sent  out  secretly.  This  was  done  partly 
in  order  that  the  Canaanites  might  not  hear  of  it,  and  partly  in 
order  that,  if  the  report  should  prove  unfavourable,  the  people 
might  not  be  thrown  into  despair,  as  they  had  been  before  in  the 
time  of  Moses.  The  spies  proceeded  to  Jericho,  and  towards  evening 
they  entered  the  house  of  a  harlot  named  Eahab,  and  lodged  there, 
lit.  laid  themselves  down,  intended  to  remain  or  sleep  there.  Jericho 
was  two  hours'  journey  to  the  west  of  the  Jordan,  situated  in  a  plain 
that  was  formerly  very  fertile,  and  celebrated  for  its  palm  trees  and 
balsam  shrubs,  but  which  is  now  quite  desolate  and  barren.  This 
plain  is  encircled  on  the  western  side  by  a  naked  and  barren  range 
of  mountains,  which  stretches  as  far  as  Beisan  towards  the  north  and 
to  the  Dead  Sea  on  the  south.  Every  trace  of  the  town  has  long 
since  passed  away,  though  it  evidently  stood  somewhere  near,  and 
probably  on  the  northern  side  of,  the  miserable  and  dirty  village  of 

c 


34  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Riha,  by  the  Wady  Kelt  (see  Robinson,  Pal.  il.  pp.  279  sqq.,  289 
sqq. ;  v.  Räumer,  Pal.  pp.  206  sqq.).  Rahab  is  called  a  zonah,  i.e. 
a  harlot,  not  an  innkeeper,  as  Josephus,  the  Chaldee  version,  and 
the  Rabbins  render  the  word.  Their  entering  the  house  of  such  a 
person  would  not  excite  so  much  suspicion.  Moreover,  the  situation 
of  her  house  against  or  upon  the  town  wall  was  one  which  facili- 
tated escape.  But  the  Lord  so  guided  the  course  of  the  spies,  that 
they  found  in  this  sinner  the  very  person  who  was  the  most  suitable 
for  their  purpose,  and  upon  whose  heart  the  tidings  of  the  miracles 
wrought  by  the  living  God  on  behalf  of  Israel  had  made  such  an 
impression,  that  she  not  only  informed  the  spies  of  the  despondency 
of  the  Canaanites,  but,  with  believing  trust  in  the  power  of  the  God 
of  Israel,  concealed  the  spies  from  all  the  inquiries  of  her  country- 
men, though  at  the  greatest  risk  to  herself. 

Vers.  2-G.  When  the  king  of  Jericho  was  informed  of  the  fact 
that  these  strange  men  had  entered  the  house  of  Rahab,  and  sus- 
pecting their  reason  for  coming,  summoned  Rahab  to  give  them 
up,  she  hid  them  (lit.  hid  him,  i.e.  each  one  of  the  spies :  for  this 
change  from  the  plural  to  the  singular  see  Ewald,  §  219),  and  said 
to  the  king's  messengers :  J3,  recte,  "  It  is  quite  correct,  the  men 
came  to  me,  but  I  do  not  know  where  they  were  from ;  and  when  in 
the  darkness  the  gate  was  at  the  shutting  (i.e.  ought  to  be  shut :  for 
this  construction,  see  Gen.  xv.  12),  they  went  out  again,  I  know 
not  whither.  Pursue  them  quickly,  you  will  certainly  overtake 
them."  The  writer  then  adds  this  explanation  in  ver.  6 :  she  had 
hidden  them  upon  the  roof  of  her  house  among  stalks  of  flax.  The 
expression  "  to-night "  (lit.  the  night)  in  ver.  2  is  more  precisely  de- 
fined in  ver.  5,  viz.  as  night  was  coming  on,  before  the  town-gate 
was  shut,  after  which  it  would  have  been  in  vain  for  them  to  attempt 
to  leave  the  town.  "Stalks  of  flax"  not  "cotton  pods"  (Arab., 
J.  I).  Mich.),  or  "  tree-flax,  i.e.  cotton,"  as  Thenius  explains  it,  but 
flax  stalks  or  stalk-flax,  as  distinguished  from  carded  flax,  in  which 
there  is  no  wood  left,  XivoKaXd/xr),  stipula  Uni  (LXX.,  Vulg.).  Flax 
stalks,  which  grow  to  the  height  of  three  or  four  feet  in  Egypt, 
and  attain  the  thickness  of  a  reed,  and  would  probably  be  quite  as 
large  in  the  plain  of  Jericho,  the  climate  of  which  resembles  that  of 
Egypt,  would  form  a  very  good  hiding-place  for  the  spies  if  they 
were  piled  up  upon  the  roof  to  dry  in  the  sun.  The  falsehood  by 
which  Rahab  sought  not  only  to  avert  all  suspicion  from  herself  of 
any  conspiracy  with  the  Israelitish  men  who  had  entered  her  house, 
but  to  prevent  any  further  search  for  them  in  her  house,  and  to 


CHAP.  II.  7-14.  35 

frustrate  the  attempt  to  arrest  them,  is  not  to  be  justified  as  a  lie  of 
necessity  told  for  a  good  purpose,  nor,  as  Grotius  maintains,  by  the 
unfounded  assertion  that,  "  before  the  preaching  of  the  gospel,  a 
salutary  lie  was  not  regarded  as  a  fault  even  by  good  men."  Nor 
can  it  be  shown  that  it  was  thought  "  allowable,"  or  even  "  praise- 
worthy," simply  because  the  writer  mentions  the  fact  without  express- 
ing any  subjective  opinion,  or  because,  as  we  learn  from  what  fol- 
lows (vers.  9  sqq.),  Rahab  was  convinced  of  the  truth  of  the  miracles 
which  God  had  wrought  for  His  people,  and  acted  in  firm  faith 
that  the  true  God  would  give  the  land  of  Canaan  to  the  Israelites, 
and  that  all  opposition  made  to  them  would  be  vain,  and  would  be, 
in  fact,  rebellion  against  the  Almighty  God  himself.  For  a  lie  is 
always  a  sin.  Therefore  even  if  Rahab  was  not  actuated  at  all  by 
the  desire  to  save  herself  and  her  family  from  destruction,  and  the 
motive  from  which  she  acted  had  its  roots  in  her  faith  in  the  living 
God  (Heb.  xi.  31),  so  that  what  she  did  for  the  spies,  and  thereby 
for  the  cause  of  the  Lord,  was  counted  to  her  for  righteousness 
("  justified  by  works,"  James  ii.  25),  yet  the  course  which  she 
adopted  was  a  sin  of  weakness,  which  was  forgiven  her  in  mercy 
because  of  her  faith.1 

Vers.  7-14.  Upon  this  declaration  on  the  part  of  the  woman, 
the  king's  messengers  ("  the  men  ")  pursued  the  spies  by  the  road  to 
the  Jordan  which  leads  across  the  fords.  Both  the  circumstances 
themselves  and  the  usage  of  the  language  require  that  we  should 
interpret  the  words  in  this  way ;  for  ]"ii"Qj;E>n  ?y  cannot  mean  "  as 
far  as  the  fords,"  and  it  is  very  improbable  that  the  officers  should 
have  gone  across  the  fords.  If  they  did  not  succeed  in  overtaking 
the  spies  and  apprehending  them  before  they  reached  the  fords,  they 
certainly  could  not  hope  to  do  this  on  the  other  side  of  the  river 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Israelitish  camp.  By  "  the  fords" 
with  the  article  we  are  to  understand  the  ford  near  to  Jericho  which 
was  generally  used  at  that  time  (Judg.  iii.  22  ;  2  Sam.  xix.  16  sqq.) ; 
but  whether  this  was  the  one  which  is  commonly  used  now  at  the 

1  Calvin's  estimate  is  also  a  correct  one :  "  It  has  often  happened,  that  even 
when  good  men  have  endeavoured  to  keep  a  straight  course,  they  have  turned 
aside  into  circuitous  paths.  Rahab  acted  wrongly  when  she  told  a  lie  and  said 
that  the  spies  had  gone ;  and  the  action  was  acceptable  to  God  only  because 
the  evil  that  was  mixed  with  the  good  was  not  imputed  to  her.  Yet,  although 
God  wished  the  spies  to  be  delivered,  He  did  not  sanction  their  being  protected 
by  a  lie."  Augustine  also  pronounces  the  same  opinion  concerning  Rahab  as 
that  which  he  expressed  concerning  the  Hebrew  midwives  (see  the  comni.  on 
Ex.  i.  21). 


36  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

mouth  of  Wady  Shaib,  almost  in  a  sti'aight  line  to  the  east  of  Jericho, 
or  the  more  southerly  one,  el  Helu,  above  the  mouth  of  Wady  Hes- 
ban  {Rob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  254),  to  the  south  of  the  bathing-place  of 
Christian  pilgrims,  or  el  Meshra  {Lynch,  p.  155),  or  el  Mocktaa 
{Seetzen,  ii.  p.  320),  it  is  impossible  to  determine.  (On  these  and 
other  fords  near  Beisan,  and  as  far  up  as  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  see  Mob. 
ii.  p.  259,  and  Ritter  Erdk.  xv.  pp.  549  sqq.)  After  the  king's  mes- 
sengers had  left  the  town,  they  shut  the  gate  to  prevent  the  spies 
from  escaping,  in  case  they  should  be  still  in  the  town.  ">^K3  "nnx 
for  "it^N  "Hns  is  uncommon,  but  it  is  analogous  to  "it^S  !?"'r!D.^  m  Gren. 
vi.  4. — Vers.  8  sqq.  Notwithstanding  these  precautions,  the  men 
escaped.  As  soon  as  the  officers  had  left  Rahab's  house,  she  went 
to  the  spies,  who  were  concealed  upon  the  roof,  before  they  had  lain 
down  to  sleep,  which  they  were  probably  about  to  do  upon  the  roof, 
— a  thing  of  frequent  occurrence  in  the  East  in  summer  time, — and 
confessed  to  them  all  that  she  believed  and  knew,  namely,  that  God 
had  given  the  land  to  the  Israelites,  and  that  the  dread  of  them  had 
fallen  upon  the  Canaanites  ("  us"  in  contrast  with  "you"  the  Israel- 
ites, signifies  the  Canaanites  generally,  and  not  merely  the  inhabi- 
tants of  Jericho),  and  despair  had  seized  upon  all  the  inhabitants  of 
the  land.  The  description  of  the  despair  of  the  Canaanites  (ver.  9) 
is  connected,  so  far  as  the  expressions  are  concerned,  with  Ex.  xv. 
15  and  16,  to  show  that  what  Moses  and  the  Israelites  had  sung 
after  crossing  the  Red  Sea  was  now  fulfilled,  that  the  Lord  had 
fulfilled  His  promise  (Ex.  xxiii.  27  compared  with  Deut.  ii.  25  and 
xi.  25),  and  had  put  fear  and  dread  upon  the  Canaanites. — Ver.  10. 
The  report  of  the  drying  up  of  the  Red  Sea  (Ex.  xiv.  15  sqq.),  of 
the  defeat  of  the  mighty  kings  of  the  Amorites,  and  of  the  conquest 
of  their  kingdoms,  had  produced  this  effect  upon  the  Canaanites. 
Even  in  the  last  of  these  occurrences  the  omnipotence  of  God  had 
been  visibly  displayed,  so  that  what  the  Lord  foretold  to  Moses 
(Deut.  ii.  25)  had  now  taken  place ;  it  had  filled  all  the  surround- 
ing nations  with  fear  and  dread  of  Israel,  and  the  heart  and  courage 
of  the  Canaanites  sank  in  consequence. — Ver.  11.  "  When  we  heard 
this " — Rahab  proceeded  to  tell  them,  transferring  the  feelings  of 
her  own  heart  to  her  countrymen — "  our  heart  did  melt"  (it  was  thus 
that  the  Hebrew  depicted  utter  despair ;  "  the  hearts  of  the  people 
melted,  and  became  as  water,"  chap.  vii.  5),  "  and  there  did  not  re- 
main any  more  spirit  in  any  one  : "  i.e.  they  lost  all  strength  of  mind 
for  acting,  in  consequence  of  their  fear  and  dread  (vid.  chap.  v.  1, 
though  in  1  Kings  x.  5  this  phrase  is  used  to  signify  being  out  of 


CHAP.  II.  15-24.  37 

one's-self  from  mere  astonishment).  "  For  Jehovah  your  God  is 
God  in  heaven  above,  and  upon  the  earth  beneath"  To  this  confes- 
sion of  faith,  to  which  the  Israelites  were  to  be  brought  through  the 
miraculous  help  of  the  Lord  (Deut.  iv.  39),  Rahab  also  attained  ; 
although  her  confession  of  faith  remained  so  far  behind  the  faith 
which  Moses  at  that  time  demanded  of  Israel,  that  she  only  dis- 
cerned in  Jehovah  a  Deity  (Elohim)  in  heaven  and  upon  earth,  and 
therefore  had  not  yet  got  rid  of  her  polytheism  altogether,  however 
close  she  had  come  to  a  true  and  full  confession  of  the  Lord.  But 
these  miracles  of  divine  omnipotence  which  led  the  heart  of  this 
sinner  with  its  susceptibility  for  religious  truth  to  true  faith,  and 
thus  became  to  her  a  savour  of  life  unto  life,  produced  nothing  but 
hardness  in  the  unbelieving  hearts  of  the  rest  of  the  Canaanites,  so 
that  they  could  not  escape  the  judgment  of  death. — Vers.  12-14. 
After  this  confession  Rahab  entreated  the  spies  to  spare  her  family 
(father's  house),  and  made  them  promise  her  on  oath  as  a  sign  of 
their  fidelity,  that  on  the  capture  of  Jericho,  which  is  tacitly  assumed 
as  self-evident  after  what  had  gone  before,  they  would  save  alive 
her  parents,  and  brothers  and  sisters,  and  all  that  belonged  to  them 
(i.e.,  according  to  chap.  vi.  23,  the  children  and  families  of  her 
brothers  and  sisters),  and  not  put  them  to  death ;  all  of  which  they 
promised  her  on  oath.  "  A  true  token,"  lit.  a  sign  of  truth,  i.e.  a 
sign  by  which  they  guaranteed  the  truth  of  the  kindness  for  which 
she  asked.  This  sign  consisted  in  nothing  but  the  solemn  oath 
with  which  they  were  to  confirm  their  assurance,  and,  according  to 
ver.  14,  actually  did  confirm  it.  The  oath  itself  was  taken  in  these 
words,  "  our  soul  shall  die  for  you"  by  which  they  pledged  their  life 
for  the  life  of  Rahab  and  her  family  in  this  sense  :  God  shall  punish 
us  with  death  if  we  are  faithless,  and  do  not  spare  thy  life  and 
the  lives  of  thy  relations.  Though  the  name  of  God  is  not  really 
expressed,  it  was  implied  in  the  fact  that  the  words  are  described  as 
swearing  by  Jehovah.  But  the  spies  couple  their  assurance  with 
this  condition,  "if  ye  utter  not  this  our  business,"  do  not  betray  us, 
sc.  so  that  we  should  be  pursued,  and  our  life  endangered ;  "  then 
will  we  show  thee  mercy  and  truth"  (cf.  Gen.  xxiv.  27). 

Vers.  15-24.  Rahab  then  let  them  down  by  a  rope  through  the 
window,  namely,  into  the  open  country  ;  for  her  house  stood  against 
or  upon  the  town  wall,  so  that  she  lived  upon  the  wall,  and  advised 
them  to  get  to  the  mountains,  that  they  might  not  meet  the  men 
who  had  been  sent  out  in  pursuit  of  them,  and  to  hide  themselves 
there  for  three  days,  when  the  pursuers  would  have  returned. — 


38  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Vers.  17-20.  In  conclusion,  the  spies  guarded  against  any  arbi- 
trary interpretation  and  application  of  their  oath,  by  imposing  three 
conditions,  on  the  non-fulfilment  of  which  they  would  be  released 
from  their  oath,  n*?  for  J"iMn  is  to  be  explained  in  ver.  17  from 
the  fact  that  the  gender  is  often  disregarded  in  the  use  of  the  pro- 
noun (see  Ewald,  §  183,  a.),  and  in  ver.  18  from  the  fact  that  there 
the  gender  is  determined  by  the  nomen  rectum  (see  Eivald,  §  317,  d.). 
— Ver.  18.  The  first  condition  was,  that  when  the  town  was  taken 
Rahab  should  make  her  house  known  to  the  Israelites,  by  binding 
"  the  cord  of  this  crimson  thread"  i.e.  this  cord  made  of  crimson 
thread,  in  the  window  from  which  she  had  let  them  down.  The 
demonstrative  "  this"  leads  to  the  conclusion  adopted  by  Luther  and 
others,  that  "  this  cord"  is  the  rope  (?3n)  mentioned  in  ver.  15,  as  no 
other  cord  had  been  mentioned  to  which  they  could  refer ;  and  the 
fact  that  nothing  has  been  said  about  the  sign  in  question  being 
either  given  or  received,  precludes  the  idea  that  the  spies  gave  the 
cord  to  Rahab  for  a  sign.  The  crimson  or  scarlet  colour  of  the 
cord  ("OS?  =  'OK'  nypin  ;  see  at  Ex.  xxv.  4),  as  the  colour  of  vigorous 
life,  made  this  cord  an  expressive  sign  of  the  preservation  of  Rahab's 
life  and  the  lives  of  her  relations.  The  second  condition  was,  that 
when  the  town  was  taken,  Rahab  should  collect  together  her  parents, 
and  her  brothers  and  her  sisters,  into  her  own  house. — Ver.  19. 
Whoever  went  outside  the  door,  his  blood  should  be  upon  his  own 
head ;  i.e.  if  he  was  slain  outside  by  the  Israelitish  soldiers,  he  should 
bear  his  death  as  his  own  fault.  But  every  one  who  was  with  her 
in  the  house,  his  blood  should  fall  upon  their  (the  spies')  head,  if 
any  hand  was  against  them,  i.e.  touched  them  or  did  them  harm 
{yid.  Ex.  ix.  3).  The  formula,  "  his  blood  be  upon  his  head"  is 
synonymous  with  the  legal  formula,  "  his  blood  be  upon  him" 
(Lev.  xx.  9).  The  third  condition  (ver.  20)  is  simply  a  repetition 
of  the  principal  condition  laid  down  at  the  very  outset  (ver.  14). — 
Ver.  21.  When  Rahab  had  accepted  all  these  conditions,  she  let  the 
men  go,  and  bound  the  red  cord  in  the  window.  It  is  not  to  be 
supposed  that  she  did  this  at  once,  but  merely  as  soon  as  it  was 
necessary.  It  is  mentioned  here  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  the 
subject  to  a  close. — Ver.  22.  The  spies  remained  three  days  in  the 
mountains,  till  the  officers  returned  to  the  town,  after  searching  for 
them  the  whole  way  in  vain.  The  mountains  referred  to  are  pro- 
bably the  range  on  the  northern  side  of  Jericho,  which  afterwards 
received  the  name  of  Quarantana  (Arab.  Kuruntul),  a  wall  of  rock 
rising  almost  precipitously  from  the  plain  to  the  height  of  1200  or 


CHAP.  III.  IV.  39 

1 500  feet,  and  full  of  grottoes  and  caves  on  the  eastern  side.  These 
mountains  were  well  adapted  for  a  place  of  concealment ;  moreover, 
they  were  the  nearest  to  Jericho,  as  the  western  range  recedes 
considerably  to  the  south  of  Wady  Kelt  (vid.  Bob.  ii.  p.  289). — 
Vers.  23,  24.  After  this  they  returned  to  the  camp  across  the 
Jordan,  and  informed  Joshua  of  all  that  had  befallen  them,  and 
all  that  they  had  heard.     On  ver.  24,  see  ver.  9. 

PASSAGE  THROUGH  THE  JORDAN. — CHAP.  III.  AND  IV. 

The  following  morning,  after  the  return  of  the  spies  into  the 
camp,  Joshua  proceeded  with  the  people  from  Shittim  to  the  bank 
of  the  Jordan,  to  complete  the  necessary  preparations  there,  and 
then  cross  the  river  and  enter  Canaan  (chap.  iii.  1).  The  crossing 
of  this  boundary  river  of  Canaan,  or  rather  the  passage  through  the 
bed  of  the  river,  which  had  been  dried  up  by  a  miracle  of  divine 
omnipotence  at  the  place  of  crossing,  is  narrated  in  these  two 
chapters  in  the  following  manner :  first  (chap.  iii.  15-6),  the  final 
preparations  for  crossing ;  and  then  the  passage  through  the  bed 
of  the  river,  and  the  erection  of  stones  as  a  permanent  memorial  of 
this  miracle.  This  is  arranged  in  three  parts  :  viz.  vers.  7-17,  the 
commencement  of  the  crossing ;  chap.  iv.  1-14,  its  further  progress ; 
and  chap.  iv.  15-24,  its  close.  The  account  is  also  arranged  upon 
the  following  plan  :  in  every  one  of  these  three  sections  the  com- 
mand of  God  to  Joshua  is  mentioned  first  (cf.  chap.  iii.  7,  8,  iv. 
2,  3,  iv.  15,  16)  ;  then  the  communication  of  this  command  to  the 
people  by  Joshua;  and  finally  its  execution  (chap.  iii.  9-17,  iv. 
4-13,  iv.  17-20).  This  arrangement  was  adopted  by  the  author 
for  the  purpose  of  bringing  distinctly  out  to  view,  not  only  the 
miracle  itself,  but  also  the  means  with  which  God  associated  the 
performance  of  the  miracle,  and  also  of  impressing  deeply  upon  the 
memory  of  the  people  both  the  divine  act  .and  the  end  secured.  In 
doing  this,  however,  some  repetitions  were  inevitable,  in  conse- 
quence of  the  endeavour,  so  peculiar  to  the  Hebrew  mode  of  writing 
history,  to  mark  and  round  off  the  several  points  in  the  occurrences 
described,  by  such  comprehensive  statements  as  anticipate  the  actual 
course  of  events.  It  is  to  this  arrangement  and  dovetailing  of  the 
different  points  that  we  must  attribute  the  distribution  of  the  reve- 
lation and  commands  which  Joshua  received  from  God,  over  the 
several  portions  of  the  history;  and  consequently  we  are  not  to 
suppose,  that  at  each  separate  point  during  the  passage  God  revealed 


40  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

to  Joshua  what  he  was  to  do,  but  must  rather  assume  that  He 
actually  revealed  and  commanded  whatever  was  requisite  all  at  once, 
on  the  day  before  the  miraculous  passage.1 

Chap.  iii.  1-6.  Arrangements  for  the  Passage  through  the  Jordan. 
— When  they  reached  the  Jordan,  the  Israelites  rested  till  they 
passed  over,  'p,  to  pass  the  night ;  then  in  a  wider  sense  to  tarry, 
Prov.  xv.  31 ;  here  it  means  to  rest.  According  to  ver.  2,  they 
stayed  there  three  days.  "At  the  end  (after  the  expiration)  of  three 
days"  cannot  refer  to  the  three  days  mentioned  in  chap.  i.  11,  if 
only  because  of  the  omission  of  the  article,  apart  from  the  reasons 
given  in  the  note  upon  chap.  i.  11,  which  preclude  the  supposition 
that  the  two  are  identical.  The  reasons  why  the  Israelites  stayed 
three  days  by  the  side  of  the  Jordan,  after  leaving  Shittim,  are  not 
given,  but  they  are  not  difficult  to  guess ;  for,  in  the  first  place, 
before  it  could  be  possible  to  pass  into  an  enemy's  country,  not  only 
with  an  army,  but  with  all  the  people,  including  wives,  children, 
and  all  their  possessions,  and  especially  when  the  river  had  first  of 
all  to  be  crossed,  it  must  have  been  necessary  to  make  many  prepa- 
rations, which  would  easily  occupy  two  or  three  days.  Besides  this, 
the  Jordan  at  that  time  was  so  high  as  to  overflow  its  banks,  so  that 
it  was  impossible  to  cross  the  fords,  and  they  were  obliged  to  wait 
till  this  obstruction  was  removed.  But  as  soon  as  Joshua  was 
assured  that  the  Lord  would  make  a  way  for  His  people,  he  issued 
the  following  instructions  through  the  proper  officers  to  all  the 
people  in  the  camp  :  "  When  ye  see  the  ark  of  the  covenant  of  the 
Lord  your  God,  and  (see)  the  .Levitical  priests  bear  it,  then  ye  shall 
remove  from  your  place,  and  go  after  it :  yet  there  shall  be  a  space 
between  you  and  it,  about  two  thousand  cubits  by  measure :  come  not 
near  unto  it;  that  ye  may  know  the  way  by  which  ye  must  go  :  for  ye 
have  not  passed  this  way  yesterday  and  the  day  before"  On  the 
expression  "  the  Levitical  priests,"  see  at  Deut.  xxxi.  25,  as  com- 
pared with  ver.  9  and  xvii.  9.  13*3,  both  here  and  in  chaj%  viii.  11, 
should  probably  be  pointed  1^3  (vid.  Ewald,  §  266,  a.).  (This  com- 
mand referred  simply  to  the  march  from  the  last  resting-place  by 
the  Jordan  into  the  river  itself,  and  not  to  the  passage  through  the 

1  The  assertion  made  by  Paulus,  Eichhorn,  Bleeh,  Knobel,  and  others,  that 
the  account  is  compounded  from  two  different  documents,  is  founded  upon 
nothing  else  than  a  total  oversight  of  the  arrangement  explained  above  and 
doctrinal  objections  to  its  miraculous  contents.  The  supposed  contradictions, 
which  are  cited  as  proofs,  have  been  introduced  into  the  text,  as  even  Hauff 
acknowledges  (Offenbarungsgl.  pp.  209,  210). 


CHAP.  III.  1-6.  41 

river,  during  which  the  priests  remained  standing  with  the  ark  in 
the  bed  of  the  river  until  the  people  had  all  passed  through  (vers.  8 
and  17).1  The  people  were  to  keep  about  2000  cubits  away  from, 
the  ark.  This  was  not  done,  however,  to  prevent  their  going  wrong 
in  the  unknown  way,  and  so  missing  the  ford,  for  that  was  impos- 
sible under  the  circumstances ;  but  the  ark  was  carried  in  front  of 
the  people,  not  so  much  to  show  the  road  as  to  make  a  road  by 
dividing  the  waters  of  the  Jordan,  and  the  people  were  to  keep  at 
a  distance  from  it,  that  they  might  not  lose  sight  of  the  ark,  but 
keep  their  eyes  fixed  upon  it,  and  know  the  road  by  looking  at  the 
ark  of  the  covenant  by  which  the  road  had  been  made,  i.e.  might 
know  and  observe  how  the  Lord,  through  the  medium  of  the  ark, 
was  leading  them  to  Canaan  by  a  way  which  they  had  never  tra- 
versed before,  i.e.  by  a  miraculous  way  .A- Vers.  5,  6.  Joshua  then 
issued  instructions  (a)  to  the  people  to  sanctify  themselves,  because 
on  the  morrow  the  Lord  would  do  wonders  among  them ;  and  (b) 
to  the  priests,  to  carry  the  ark  of  the  covenant  in  front  of  the  people. 
The  issuing  of  these  commands  with  the  prediction  of  the  miracle 
presupposes  that  the  Lord  had  already  made  known  His  will  to 
Joshua,  and  serves  to  confirm  our  conclusions  as  to  the  arrangement 
of  the  materials.  The  sanctification  of  the  people  did  not  consist 
in  the  washing  of  their  clothes,  which  is  mentioned  in  Ex.  xix.  10, 
14,  in  connection  with  the  act  of  sanctification,  for  there  was  no 
time  for  this ;  nor  did  it  consist  in  merely  changing  their  clothes, 
which  might  be  a  substitute  for  washing,  according  to  Gen.  xxxv.  2, 
or  in  abstinence  from  connubial  intercourse  (Ex.  xix.  15),  for  this 
was  only  the  outward  side  of  sanctification.  It  consisted  in  spiri- 
tual purification  also,  i.e.  in  turning  the  heart  to  God,  in  faith  and 
trust  in  His  promise,  and  in  willing  obedience  to  His  command- 
ments, that  they  should  lay  to  heart  in  a  proper  way  the  miracle  of 
grace  which  the  Lord  was  about  to  work  in  the  midst  of  them  and 
on  their  behalf  on  the  following  day.  "  Wonders  ;"  those  miracu- 
lous displays  of  the  omnipotence  of  God  for  the  realization  of  His 
covenant  of  grace,  which  He  had  already  promised  in  connection 

1  Knobel  maintains  that  this  statement,  according  to  which  the  Israelites 
were  more  than  2000  cubits  from  the  place  of  crossing,  is  not  in  harmony  with 
ver.  1,  where  they  are  said  to  have  been  by  the  Jordan  already ;  but  he  can  only 
show  this  supposed  discrepancy  in  the  text  by  so  pressing  the  expression,  they 
"  came  to  Jordan,"  as  to  make  it  mean  that  the  whole  nation  was  encamped  so 
close  to  the  edge  of  the  river,  that  at  the  very  first  step  the  people  took  their 
feet  would  touch  the  water. 


42  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

with  the  conquest  of  Canaan  (Ex.  xxxiv.  10).  In  ver.  6,  where  the 
command  to  the  priests  is  given,  the  fulfilment  of  the  command  is 
also  mentioned,  and  the  course  of  events  anticipated  in  consequence. 
Vers.  7-17.  Commencement  of  the  Crossing. — First  of  all  (in 
vers.  7  and  8),  the  revelation  made  by  God  to  Joshua,  that  He 
would  begin  this  day  to  make  him  great,  i.e.  to  glorify  him  before 
the  Israelites,  and  the  command  to  the  priests  who  bore  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  to  stand  still  in  the  river,  when  they  came  to  the  water 
of  the  Jordan  ;  then  (vers.  9-13)  the  publication  of  this  promise  and 
command  to  the  people;  and  lastly  (vers.  14-17),  the  carrying  out 
of  the  command,  ^nN,  I  will  begin  to  make  thee  great.  The  mira- 
culous guidance  of  the  people  through  the  Jordan  was  only  the 
beginning  of  the  whole  series  of  miracles  by  which  the  Lord  put 
His  people  in  possession  of  the  promised  land,  and  glorified  Joshua 
in  the  sio-ht  of  Israel  in  the  fulfilment  of  his  office,  as  He  had  glori- 
fied Moses  before.  Just  as  Moses  was  accredited  in  the  sight  of 
the  people,  as  the  servant  of  the  Lord  in  whom  they  could  trust,  by 
the  miraculous  division  of  the  Red  Sea  (Ex.  xiv.  31),  so  Joshua  was 
accredited  as  the  leader  of  Israel,  whom  the  Almighty  God  acknow- 
ledged as  He  had  His  servant  Moses,  by  the  similar  miracle,  the 
division  of  the  waters  of  Jordan.  Only  the  most  important  points 
in  the  command  of  God  to  the  priests  are  given  in  ver.  8.  The 
command  itself  is  communicated  more  fully  afterwards  in  the  ad- 
dress to  the  people,  in  ver.  13.  When  they  came  with  the  ark  to 
the  end  of  the  waters  of  Jordan, — i.e.  not  to  the  opposite  side,  but 
to  the  nearest  bank ;  that  is  to  say,  as  soon  as  they  reached  the 
water  in  the  bed  of  the  river, — they  were  to  stand  still  {yid.  ver.  15, 
and  chap.  iv.  11),  in  order,  as  we  see  from  what  follows,  to  form  a 
dam  as  it  were  against  the  force  of  the  water,  which  was  miracu- 
lously arrested  in  its  course,  and  piled  up  in  a  heap.  Moses  divided 
the  waters  of  the  Red  Sea  with  his  rod;  Joshua  was  to  do  the  same 
to  the  Jordan  with  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  the  appointed  symbol  and 
vehicle  of  the  presence  of  the  Almighty  God  since  the  conclusion  of 
the  covenant.  Wherever  the  ordinary  means  of  grace  are  at  hand, 
God  attaches  the  operations  of  His  grace  to  them  ;  for  He  is  a  God 
of  order,  who  does  not  act  in  an  arbitrary  manner  in  the  selection 
of  His  means. — Vers.  9,  10.  The  summons  to  the  children  of  Israel, 
i.e.  to  the  whole  nation  in  the  persons  of  its  representatives,  to  draw 
near  (Y01  for  *tra,  as  in  1  Sam.  xiv.  38 ;  Ruth  ii.  14)  to  hear  the 
words  of  the  Lord  its  God,  points  to  the  importance  of  the  follow- 
ing announcement,  by  which  Israel  was  to  learn  that  there  was  a 


CHAP.  III.  7-17.  43 

living  God  in  the  midst  of  it,  who  had  the  power  to  fulfil  His  word. 
Jehovah  is  called  a  "  living  God,"  in  contrast  with  the  dead  gods  of 
the  heathen,  as  a  God  who  proved  himself  to  be  living,  with  special 
reference  to  those  "  divine  operations  by  which  God  had  shown 
that  He  was  living  and  watchful  on  behalf  of  His  people  ;  just  as 
His  being  in  the  midst  of  the  people  did  not  denote  a  naked  presence, 
but  a  striking  degree  of  presence  on  the  part  of  God  in  relation  to 
the  performance  of  extraordinary  operations,  or  the  manifestation 
of  peculiar  care"  (Seb.  Schmidt).  The  God  of  Israel  would  now 
manifest  himself  as  a  living  God  by  the  extermination  of  the 
Canaanites,  seven  tribes  of  whom  are  enumerated,  as  in  Deut.  vii.  1 
(see  the  remarks  on  this  passage).  Joshua  mentions  the  destruction 
of  these  nations  as  the  purpose  which  God  had  in  view  in  the  mira- 
culous guidance  of  Israel  through  the  Jordan,  to  fill  the  Israelites 
with  confidence  for  their  entrance  into  the  promised  land.1 — Vers. 
11-13.  After  this  inspiriting  promise,  Joshua  informed  the  people 
what  the  Lord  intended  to  do  first :  "  Behold,  the  ark  of  the  cove- 
nant of  the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth  will  go  before  you  into  Jordan? 
pxn~73  Jiltf  is  a  genitive  dependent  upon  ^"izin  |i"ix,  the  strict  sub- 
ordination of  the  construct  state  being  loosened  in  this  case  by  the 
article  before  the  nomen  regens.  The  punctuators  have  therefore 
separated  it  from  the  latter  by  salceph-katon,  without  thereby  explain- 
ing it  as  in  opposition  or  giving  any  support  to  the  mistaken  expo- 
sition of  Buxtorff  and  Drusius,  that  "  the  ark  of  the  covenant  is 
called  the  ruler  of  the  whole  earth."  The  description  of  Jehovah 
as  "  Lord  of  the  whole  earth,"  which  is  repeated  in  ver.  13,  is 
very  appropriately  chosen  for  the  purpose  of  strengthening  con- 
fidence in  the  omnipotence  of  the  Lord.  This  epithet  "  exalted 
the  government  of  God  over  all  the  elements  of  the  world,  that  the 
Israelites  might  have  no  doubt  that  as  seas  and  rivers  are  under  His 
control,  the  waters,  although  liquid  by  nature,  would  become  stable 
at  His  nod"  (Calvin).  The  expression,  "  passeth  over  before  you  into 
Jordan"  is  more  precisely  explained  in  the  course  of  the  narrative : 

1  "  He  extends  the  force  of  the  miracle  beyond  their  entrance  into  the  land, 
and  properly  so,  since  the  mere  opening  of  a  way  into  a  hostile  country,  from 
which  there  would  be  no  retreat,  would  be  nothing  but  exposure  to  death.  For 
they  would  either  easily  fall,  through  being  eutangled  in  difficulties  and  in  an 
unknown  region,  or  they  would  perish  through  want.  Joshua  therefore  foretold, 
that  when  God  drove  back  the  river  it  would  be  as  if  He  had  stretched  out  His 
hand  to  strike  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land,  and  that  the  proof  which  He  gave 
of  His  power  in  their  crossing  the  Jordan  would  be  a  certain  presage  of  victory, 
to  be  gained  over  all  the  tribes." 


44  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA 

the  ark  of  the  covenant  went  (was  carried)  before  the  people  into 
the  river,  and  then  stood  still,  as  the  bulwark  of  the  people,  till  the 
passage  was  completed;  so  that  the  word  "before"  indicates  the 
protection  which  it  would  afford. — Ver.  12.  li  And  take  to  you  {i.e. 
appoint)  twelve  men  out  of  the  tribes  of  Israel,  one  for  each  tribes 
For  what  purpose  is  not  stated  here,  but  is  apparent  from  what 
follows  (chap.  iv.  2  sqq.).  The  choice  or  appointment  of  these  men 
was  necessarily  commanded  before  the  crossing  commenced,  as  they 
were  to  stand  by  the  side  of  Joshua,  or  near  the  bearers  of  the  ark 
of  the  covenant,  so  as  to  be  at  hand  to  perform  the  duty  to  be  en- 
trusted to  them  (chap.  iv.  3  sqq.).  Joshua  then  concludes  by  fore- 
telling the  miracle  itself  :  "It  will  come  to  pass,  that  when  the  soles 
of  the  feet  of  the  priests  ivho  bear  the  ark  of  the  Lord  shall  settle  down 
in  the  water  of  the  Jordan,  the  waters  of  the  Jordan  shall  be  cut  off ; 
namely,  the  icaters  flowing  down  from  above,  and  shall  stand  still  as 
one  heap."  "  Shall  be  cut  off"  so  as  to  disappear;  namely,  at  the 
place  where  the  priests  stand  with  the  ark  of  the  covenant.  This 
took  place  through  the  waters  standing  still  as  a  heap,  or  being 
heaped  up,  at  some  distance  above  the  standing-place,  inx  *U  is  an 
accusative  of  more  precise  definition.  The  expression  is  taken  from 
the  song  of  Moses  (Ex.  xv.  8). 

The  event  corresponded  to  the  announcement. — Vers.  14-16. 
When  the  people  left  their  tents  to  go  over  the  Jordan,  and  the 
priests,  going  before  with  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  dipped  their 
feet  in  the  water  ("  the  brim  of  the  water,"  ver.  15,  as  in  ver.  8), 
although  the  Jordan  was  filled  over  all  its  banks  throughout  the 
whole  time  of  harvest,  the  waters  stood  still :  the  waters  flowing 
down  from  above  stood  as  a  heap  at  a  very  great  distance  off,  by 
the  town  of  Adam,  on  the  side  of  Zarthan ;  and  the  waters  flowing 
down  to  the  salt  sea  were  entirely  cut  off,  so  that  the  people  went 
through  the  dried  bed  of  the  river  opposite  to  Jericho.  Vers.  14- 
16  form  one  large  pei'iod,  consisting  of  three  protases  (vers.  14,  15), 
the  first  and  third  of  which  are  each  of  them  more  precisely  defined 
by  a  circumstantial  clause,  and  also  of  three  apodoses  (ver.  16).  In 
the  protases  the  construction  passes  from  the  infinitive  (?b:3  and 
Nina)  into  the  finite  verb  (v^p?), — a  thing  of  frequent  occurrence 
(see  Ewald,  §  350).  The  circumstantial  clause  (ver.  15£),  "  and 
the  Jordan  was  filled  over  all  its  banks  all  the  days  of  harvest," 
brings  out  in  all  its  fulness  the  miracle  of  the  stoppage  of  the  water 
by  the  omnipotence  of  God.  Every  attempt  to  explain  the  miracle 
as  a  natural  occurrence  is  thereby  prevented;    so  that  Eichhorn 


CHAP.  III.  7-17.  45 

pronounces  the  clause  a  gloss,  and  endeavours  in  this  manner  to 
get  rid  of  it  altogether.  vrina~72r;>y  might  mean  full  against  all  its 
banks,  flowing  with  its  banks  full,  or  "full  to  the  brim"  {Robinson, 
Pal.  ii.  p.  262,  according  to  the  LXX.  and  Vulg.)  ;  but  if  we 
compare  chap.  iv.  18,  "the  waters  of  Jordan  returned  to  their  place, 
and  went  over  all  its  banks  as  before,"  with  the  parallel  passage  in 
Isa.  viii.  7,  "  the  river  comes  up  over  all  its  channels  and  goes  over 
all  its  banks,"  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  words  refer  to  an 
overflowing  of  the  banks,  and  not  merely  to  their  being  filled  to  the 
brim,  so  that  the  words  must  be  rendered  "  go  over  the  banks." 
But  we  must  not  therefore  understand  them  as  meaning  that  the 
whole  of  the  Ghor  was  flooded.  The  Jordan  flows  through  the 
Ghor,  which  is  two  hours'  journey  broad  at  Beisan,  and  even 
broader  to  the  south  of  that  (see  at  Deut.  i.  1),  in  a  valley  about  a 
quarter  of  an  hour  in  breadth  which  lies  forty  or  fifty  feet  lower, 
and,  being  covered  with  trees  and  reeds,  presents  a  striking  contrast 
to  the  sandy  slopes  which  bound  it  on  both  sides.  In  many  places 
this  strip  of  vegetation  occupies  a  still  deeper  portion  of  the  lower 
valley,  which  is  enclosed  by  shallow  banks  not  more  than  two  or 
three  feet  high,  so  that,  strictly  speaking,  we  might  distinguish 
three  different  banks  at  the  places  referred  to  :  namely,  the  upper 
or  outer  banks,  which  form  the  first  slope  of  the  great  valley ;  the 
lower  or  middle  banks,  embracing  that  strip  of  land  which  is  covered 
with  vegetation ;  and  then  the  true  banks  of  the  river's  bed  (see 
Burckhardt,  Syr.  pp.  593  sqq.,  and  Robinson,  Pal.  ii.  pp.  254  sqq., 
and  Bibl.  Researches,  pp.  333  sqq.).  The  flood  never  reaches 
beyond  the  lower  line  of  the  Ghor,  which  is  covered  with  vegetation, 
but  even  in  modern  times  this  line  has  sometimes  been  overflowed. 
For  example,  Robinson  (Pal.  ii.  p.  255,  compared  with  p.  263)  found 
the  river  so  swollen  when  he  visited  it  in  1838,  that  it  filled  its  bed 
to  the  very  brim,  and  in  some  places  flowed  over  and  covered  the 
ground  where  the  bushes  grew.  This  rise  of  the  water  still  takes 
place  at  the  time  of  harvest  in  April  and  at  the  beginning  of  May 
(see  at  Lev.  xxiii.  9  sqq.;,  and  therefore  really  at  the  close  of  the 
rainy  season,  and  after  the  snow  has  been  long  melted  upon  Ilermon, 
as  it  is  then  that  the  lake  of  Tiberias  reaches  its  greatest  height,  in 
consequence,  of  the  rainy  season  and  the  melting  of  the  snow,  so 
that  it  is  only  then  that  the  Jordan  flows  with  its  full  stream  into 
the  Dead  Sea  {Robinson,  ii.  p.  263).  At  this  time  of  the  year  the 
river  cannot  of  course  be  waded  through  even  at  its  shallowest 
fords,  whereas  this  is  possible  in  the  summer  season,  when  the  water 


46  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

is  low.  It  is  only  by  swimming  that  it  can  possibly  be  crossed,  and 
even  that  cannot  be  accomplished  without  great  danger,  as  it  is  ten 
or  twelve  feet  deep  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jericho,  and  the  current 
is  very  strong  (yid.  Seetzen,  R.  ii.  pp.  301,  320-1 ;  Bob.  ii.  p.  256). 
Crossing  at  this  season  was  regarded  as  a  very  extraordinary  feat  in 
ancient  times,  so  that  it  is  mentioned  in  1  Chron.  xii.  15  as  a  heroic 
act  on  the  part  of  the  brave  Gadites.  It  may  possibly  have  been 
in  this  way  that  the  spies  crossed  and  recrossed  the  river  a  few  days 
before.  But  that  was  altogether  impossible  for  the  people  of  Israel 
with  their  wives  and  children.  It  was  necessary,  therefore,  that 
the  Lord  of  the  whole  earth  should  make  a  road  by  a  miracle  of 
His  omnipotence,  which  arrested  the  descending  waters  in  their 
course,  so  that  they  stood  still  as  a  heap  "very  far"  sc.  from  the 
place  of  crossing,  "  by  the  town  of  Adam"  (B^Ka  must  not  be  altered 
into  E^P,  from  Adam,  according  to  the  Keri),  "  which  is  by  the  side 
of  Zarthan."  The  city  of  Adam,  which  is  not  mentioned  anywhere 
else  (and  which  Luther  has  erroneously  understood  as  an  appella- 
tive, according  to  the  Arabic,  "  people  of  the  city "),  is  not  to  be 
confounded  with  Adamah,  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali  (chap.  xix.  36). 
The  town  of  Zarthan,  by  the  side  of  which  Adam  is  situated,  has 
also  vanished.  Van  de  Velde  and  Knobel  imagine  that  the  name 
Zarthan  has  been  preserved  in  the  modern  Kurn  (Horn)  Sartabeh, 
a  long  towering  rocky  ridge  on  the  south-west  of  the  ford  of  Damieh, 
upon  which  there  are  said  to  be  the  ruins  of  a  castle.  This  conjec- 
ture is  not  favoured  by  any  similarity  in  the  names  so  much  as  by 
its  situation.  For,  on  the  one  hand,  the  mountain  slopes  off  from 
the  end  of  this  rocky  ridge,  or  from  the  loftiest  part  of  the  horn, 
into  a  broad  shoulder,  from  which  a  lower  rocky  ridge  reaches  to 
the  Jordan,  and  seems  to  join  the  mountains  on  the  east,  so  that 
the  Jordan  valley  is  contracted  to  its  narrowest  dimensions  at  this 
point,  and  divided  into  the  upper  and  lower  Ghor  by  the  hills  of 
Kurn  Sartabeh ;  and  consequently  this  was  apparently  the  most 
suitable  point  for  the  damming  up  of  the  waters  of  the  Jordan  (see 
Robinson,  Bibl.  Researches,  pp.  293-4).  On  the  other  hand,  this 
site  tallies  very  well  with  all  the  notices  in  the  Bible  respecting  the 
situation  of  the  town  of  Zarthan,  or  Zeredetha  (1  Kings  vii.  46, 
compared  with  2  Chron.  iv.  17)  :  viz.  at  1  Kings  iv.  12,  where 
Zarthan  is  said  to  have  been  by  the  side  of  the  territory  of  Beth- 
shean  ;  also  at  1  Kings  vii.  46,  where  Zarthan  and  Succoth  are 
opposed  to  one  another ;  and  at  Judg.  vii.  22,  where  the  reading 
should  be   nrn~i¥;   according  to  the  Arabic  and  Syriac  versions. 


CHAP.  IV.  1-14.  47 

Hence  Knolel  supposes  that  Adam  was  situated  in  the  neighbour- 
hood of  the  present  ford  Damieh,  near  to  which  the  remains  of  a 
bridge  belonging  to  the  Roman  era  are  still  to  be  found  (Lynch, 
Expedition).  The  distance  of  Kurn  Sartabeh  from  Jericho  is 
a  little  more  than  fifteen  miles,  which  tallies  very  well  with  the 
expression  "very  far."  Through  this  heaping  up  of  the  waters 
coming  down  from  above,  those  which  flowed  away  into  the  Dead 
Sea  (the  sea  of  the  plain,  see  Deut.  iv.  49)  were  completely  cut  off 
(W}M  V3fl  are  to  be  taken  together,  so  that  ^BPi  merely  expresses 
the  adverbial  idea  wholly,  completely),  and  the  people  went  over, 
probably  in  a  straight  line  from  Wady  Hesbän  to  Jericho. — Ver.  17. 
But  the  priests  stood  with  the  ark  of  the  covenant  "  in  the  midst  of 
Jordan"  i.e.  in  the  bed  of  the  river,  not  merely  by  the  river,  "  upon 
dry  ground,  Ijn,"  lit.  firmando,  i.e.  with  a  firm  foot,  whilst  all  Israel 
went  over  upon  dry  ground,  "  till  all  the  people  were  passed  over" 
This  could  easily  have  been  accomplished  in  half  a  day,  if  the  people 
formed  a  procession  of  a  mile  or  upwards  in  breadth. 

Chap.  iv.  1-14.  Crossing  the  River. — In  the  account  of  the 
crossing,  the  main  point  is  their  taking  twelve  stones  with  them 
from  the  bed  of  the  river  to  the  opposite  side  to  serve  as  a  memorial. 
To  set  forth  the  importance  of  this  fact  as  a  divine  appointment, 
the  command  of  God  to  Joshua  is  mentioned  first  of  all  (vers.  2,  3) ; 
then  the  repetition  of  this  command  by  Joshua  to  the  men  appointed 
for  the  work  (vers.  4-7);  and  lastly,  the  carrying  out  of  the  in- 
structions (ver.  8).  This  makes  it  appear  as  though  God  did  not 
give  the  command  to  Joshua  till  after  the  people  had  all  crossed 
over,  whereas  the  twelve  men  had  already  been  chosen  for  the 
purpose  (chap.  iii.  12).  But  this  appearance,  and  the  discrepancy 
that  seems  to  arise,  vanish  as  soon  as  we  take  the  different  clauses, 
— which  are  joined  together  here  by  vav  consec.,  according  to  the 
simple  form  of  historical  composition  adopted  by  the  Hebrews, 
"  and  Jehovah  spake,  saying,"  etc.  (vers.  2,  3)  ;  "  and  Joshua  called 
the  twelve  men"  etc.  (ver.  4), — and  arrange  them  in  logical  order, 
and  with  their  proper  subordination  to  one  another,  according  to  our 
own  modes  of  thought  and  conversation,  as  follows  :  "  Then  Joshua 
called  the  twelve  men, — as  Jehovah  had  commanded  him,  saying, 
'  Take  you  twelve  men  out  of  the  people,'  etc., — and  said  to  them,'" l 

1  So  far  as  the  meaning  is  concerned,  Kimchi,  Calvin,  and  many  others,  were 
perfectly  correct  in  taking  vers.  16-3  as  a  parenthesis,  and  rendering  T0NS1  as  a 
pluperfect,  though,  grammatically  considered,  and  from  a  Hebrew  point  of  view, 
the  historical  sense  with  vav  consec.  does  not  correspond  to  our  pluperfect,  but 


48  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

etc. Vers.  1  sqq.  When  all  the  people  had  crossed  over  Jordan,1 

Joshua  issued  to  the  twelve  men  who  had  been  appointed  by  the 
twelve  tribes  the  command  given  to  him  by  God  :  "  Go  before  the 
ark  of  Jehovah  into  the  midst  of  Jordan,  and  take  every  man  a  stone 
upon  his  shoulder,  according  to  the  number  of  the  tribes  of  the  Israel- 
ites," or,  as  it  is  expressed  in  the  fuller  explanation  in  the  divine 
command  in  ver.  3,  "  from  the  standing-place  of  the  priests,  the  setting 
up  of  twelve  stones  (pn  is  an  infinitive  used  as  a  substantive,  or 
else  it  should  be  pointed  as  a  substantive),  and  carry  them  over  with 
you,  and  lay  them  down  in  the  place  of  encampment  where  ye  shall 
pass  the  night." — Vers.  6,  7.  This  (viz.  their  taking  the  twelve 
stones  with  them  and  setting  them  up)  was  to  be  a  sign  in  Israel ; 
the  stones  were  to  serve  as  a  memorial  of  the  miraculous  crossing 
of  the  Jordan  to  all  succeeding  generations.  For  the  expression 
u  if  your  children  ash  to-morrow  (in  future),"  etc.,  see  Ex.  xiii.  14, 
xii.  26,  27,  and  Deut.  vi.  20,  21.— Ver.  8.  The  children  of  Israel 
carried  out  these  instructions.  The  execution  is  ascribed  to  the 
"  children  of  Israel,"  i.e.  to  the  whole  nation,  because  the  men 
selected  from  the  twelve  tribes  acted  in  the  name  of  the  whole 
nation,  and  the  memorial  was  a  matter  of  equal  importance  to  all. 
Dins*  does  not  signify  that  they  set  up  the  stones  as  a  memorial,  but 
simply  that  they  laid  them  down  in  their  place  of  encampment. 
The  setting  up  at  Gilgal  is  mentioned  for  the  first  time  in  ver.  20. 
In  addition  to  this,  Joshua  set  up  twelve  stones  for  a  memorial,  on 
the  spot  where  the  feet  of  the  priests  had  stood  as  they  bore  the  ark 
of  the  covenant,  which  stones  were  there  "  to  this  day,"  i.e.  the  time 
when  the  account  was  written.  There  is  nothing  to  warrant  our 
calling  this  statement  in  question,  or  setting  it  aside  as  a  probable 
gloss,  either  in  the  circumstance  that  nothing  is  said  about  any 
divine  command  to  set  up  these  stones,  or  in  the  opinion  that  such 

always  expresses  the  succession  either  of  time  or  thought.  This  early  Hebrew 
form  of  thought  and  narrative  is  completely  overlooked  by  Knobel,  when  he 
pronounces  vers,  lfi-3  an  interpolation  from  a  second  document,  and  finds  the 
apodosis  to  ver.  la  in  ver.  4.  The  supposed  discrepancy— namely,  that  the  setting 
up  of  the  memorial  is  not  described  in  vers.  5  sqq.  as  a  divine  command,  as  in 
vers.  8,  10 — by  which  Knobel  endeavours  to  establish  his  hypothesis,  is  merely  a 
deduction  from  the  fact  that  Joshua  did  not  expressly  issue  his  command  to  the 
twelve  men  as  a  command  of  Jehovah,  and  therefore  is  nothing  more  than  an 
unmeaning  argumentum  e  silentio. 

1  The  pUika  in  the  middle  of  ver.  1  is  an  old  pre-Masoretic  mark,  which  the 
Masorites  have  left,  indicating  a  space  in  the  midst  of  the  verse,  and  showing 
that  it  was  the  commencement  of  a  parashah. 


CHAP.  IV.  1-14.  49 

a  memorial  would  have  failed  of  its  object,  as  it  could  not  possibly 
have  remained,  but  would  very  speedily  have  been  washed  away  by 
the  stream.  The  omission  of  any  reference  to  a  command  from 
God  proves  nothing,  simply  because  divine  commands  are  frequently 
hinted  at  but  briefly,  so  that  the  substance  of  them  has  to  be  gathered 
from  the  account  of  their  execution  (compare  chap.  iii.  7,  8,  with 
iii.  9-13,  and  iv.  2,  3,  with  iv.  4-7)  ;  and  consequently  we  may 
assume  without  hesitation  that  such  a  command  was  given,  as  the 
earlier  commentators  have  done.  Moreover,  the  monument  did  not 
fail  of  its  object,  even  if  it  only  existed  for  a  short  time.  K  The 
account  of  its  erection,  which  was  handed  down  by  tradition,  would 
necessarily  help  to  preserve  the  remembrance  of  the  miraculous 
occurrence.  But  it  cannot  be  so  absolutely  affirmed  that  these 
stones  would  be  carried  away  at  once  by  the  stream,  so  that  they 
could  never  be  seen  any  more.  As  the  priests  did  not  stand  in  the 
middle  or  deepest  part  of  the  river,  but  just  in  the  bed  of  the  river, 
and  close  to  its  eastern  bank,  and  it  was  upon  this  spot  that  the 
stones  were  set  up,  and  as  we  neither  know  their  size  nor  the  firm- 
ness with  which  they  stood,  we  cannot  pronounce  any  positive 
opinion  as  to  the  possibility  of  their  remaining.  It  is  not  likely  that 
they  remained  there  for  centuries ;  but  they  were  intended  rather  as 
a  memorial  for  the  existing  generation  and  their  children,  than  for 
a  later  age,  which  would  be  perpetually  reminded  of  the  miraculous 
help  of  God  by  the  monument  erected  in  Gilgal. — Vers.  10,  11. 
Whilst  Joshua  was  carrying  out  all  that  Jehovah  had  commanded 
him  to  say  to  the  people,  according  to  the  command  of  Moses, — 
that  is  to  say,  whilst  the  people  were  passing  through  the  Jordan 
before  the  ark,  and  the  twelve  men  were  carrying  over  the  stones 
out  of  the  river  to  the  resting-place  on  the  other  side,  and  Joshua 
himself  was  setting  up  twelve  stones  in  Jordan  for  a  memorial, — 
during  all  this  time,  the  priests  stood  with  the  ark  in  the  bed  of  the 
river ;  but  after  all  the  people,  including  the  twelve  men  who  took 
the  stones  out  of  the  Jordan,  had  finished  crossing,  the  ark  of  the 
Lord  passed  over,  with  the  priests,  before  the  people :  that  is  to  say, 
it  stationed  itself  again,  along  with  the  priests,  at  the  head  of  the 
people.  The  words  "  according  to  all  that  Moses  had  commanded 
Joshua"  do  not  refer  to  any  special  instructions  which  Moses  had 
given  to  Joshua  with  reference  to  the  crossing,  for  no  such  instruc- 
tions are  to  be  found  in  the  Pentateuch,  nor  can  they  be  inferred 
from  Num.  xxvii.  23,  Deut.  iii.  28,  or  xxxi.  23  ;  they  simply  affirm 
that  Joshua  carried  out  all  the  commands  which  the  Lord  had 

D 


50  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

given  him,  in  accordance  with  the  charge  which  he  received  from 
Moses  at  the  time  when  he  was  first  called.  Moses  had  called  him 
and  instructed  him  to  lead  the  people  into  the  promised  land,  in 
consequence  of  a  divine  command ;  and  had  given  him  the  promise, 
at  the  same  time,  that  Jehovah  would  be  with  him  as  He  had 
been  with  Moses.  This  contained  implicite  an  admonition  to  Joshua 
to  do  only  what  the  Lord  should  command  him.  And  if  this  was 
how  Joshua  acted,  the  execution  of  the  commands  of  God  was  also 
an  observance  of  the  command  of  Moses.  The  remark  in  ver.  106, 
"  and  the  people  hastened  and  passed  over"  i.e.  passed  hastily  through 
the  bed  of  the  river,  is  introduced  as  an  explanation  of  the  fact  that 
the  priests  stood  still  in  the  bed  of  the  river  the  whole  time  that  the 
crossing  continued.  As  the  priests  stood  in  one  spot  whilst  all  the 
people  were  passing  over,  it  was  necessary  that  the  people  should 
hasten  over,  lest  the  strength  of  the  priests  should  be  exhausted. 
This  reason  for  hastening,  however,  does  not  preclude  the  other, — 
namely,  that  the  crossing  had  to  be  finished  in  one  day,  before  night 
came  on.  The  statement  in  ver.  11,  that  when  all  the  people  had 
passed  over,  the  ark  of  the  Lord  also  passed  over  with  the  priests, 
is  so  far  anticipatory  of  the  actual  course  of  the  events,  that  up  to 
this  time  nothing  has  been  said  about  the  fighting  men  belonging 
to  the  two  tribes  and  a  half  having  passed  over  (vers.  12,  13) ;  nor 
has  the  command  of  God  for  the  ark  to  pass  over  been  mentioned 
(vers.  15  sqq.),  though  both  of  these  must  have  preceded  the  crossing 
of  the  ark  in  order  of  time.  It  is  to  be  observed,  that,  in  the  words 
"  the  ark  of  the  Lord  passed  over,  and  the  priests"  the  priests  are 
subordinate  to  the  ark,  because  it  was  through  the  medium  of  the 
ark  of  the  Lord  that  the  miracle  of  drying  up  the  river  had  been 
effected :  it  was  not  by  the  priests,  but  by  Jehovah  the  Almighty 
God,  who  was  enthroned  upon  the  ark,  that  the  waters  were  com- 
manded to  stand  still.  "  Before  the  people "  (Eng.  Ver.  "  in  the 
presence  of  the  people")  has  the  same  signification  in  ver.  11  as  in 
chap.  iii.  6,  14.— Vers.  12,  13.  The  account  of  the  fighting  men  of 
the  tribes  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  passing  over  along  with  them, 
in  number  about  40,000,  is  added  as  a  supplement,  because  there 
was  no  place  in  which  it  could  be  appropriately  inserted  before,  and 
yet  it  was  necessary  that  it  should  be  expressly  mentioned  that  these 
tribes  performed  the  promise  they  had  given  (chap.  i.  16,  17),  and 
in  what  manner  they  did  so.  The  words  'til  *vgn  do  not  imply 
that  these  40,000  men  crossed  over  behind  the  priests  with  the  ark, 
which  would  not  only  be  at  variance  with  the  fact  so  expressly 


CHAP.  IV.  15-24.  51 

stated,  that  the  ark  of  the  covenant  was  the  medium  of  the  miracu- 
lous division  of  the  water,  but  also  with  the  distinct  statement  in 
ver.  18,  that  when  the  priests,  with  the  ark,  set  their  feet  upon  the 
dry  land,  the  waters  filled  the  river  again  as  they  had  done  before. 
The  imperfect  with  vav  consec.  here  expresses  simply  the  order 
of  thought,  and  not  of  time.  "  Arboth  Jericho,"  the  steppes  of 
Jericho,  were  that  portion  of  the  Arabah  or  Ghor  which  formed 
the  environs  of  Jericho,  and  which  widens  here  into  a  low-lying 
plain  of  about  three  and  a  half  or  four  hours'  journey  in  breadth, 
on  account  of  the  western  mountains  receding  considerably  to  the 
south  of  the  opening  of  the  Wady  Kelt  (Rob.  Pal.  ii.  pp.  263 
sqq.). — In  ver.  14  the  writer  mentions  still  further  the  fact  that 
the  Lord  fulfilled  His  promise  (in  chap.  iii.  7),  and  by  means  of 
this  miracle  so  effectually  confirmed  the  authority  of  Joshua  in 
the  eyes  of  Israel,  that  the  people  feared  him  all  the  days  of  his 
life  as  they  had  feared  Moses.  "  This  was  not  the  chief  end  of 
the  miracle,  that  Joshua  increased  in  power  and  authority ;  but 
since  it  was  a  matter  of  great  importance,  so  far  as  the  public 
interests  were  concerned,  that  the  government  of  Joshua  should  be 
established,  it  is  very  properly  mentioned,  as  an  addition  to  the 
benefits  that  were  otherwise  conferred,  that  he  was  invested  as 
it  were  with  sacred  insignia,  which  produced  such  a  feeling  of 
veneration  among  the  people,  that  no  one  dared  to  treat  him  with 
disrespect"  (Calvin). 

Vers.  15-24.  Termination  of  the  mii'acidous  Passage  through  the 
Jordan. — As  soon  as  the  priests  left  their  standing-place  in  the  river 
with  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  according  to  the  command  of  God 
made  known  to  them  by  Joshua,  and  the  soles  of  their  feet  "  tore 
themselves  loose  upon  the  dry  ground"  (ninnn  7S  npn^?  constructio 
prwgnans,  for  they  tore  themselves  loose  from  the  soft  soil  of  the 
river,  and  trode  upon  the  dry  or  firm  ground),  the  waters  of  the 
Jordan  returned  again  to  their  place,  and  went  over  all  its  banks  as 
before  (yid.  chap.  iii.  15).  This  affirms  as  clearly  as  possible  that 
it  was  the  ark  which  kept  back  the  stream. — Ver.  19.  The  crossing 
took  place  on  the  tenth  day  of  the  first  month,  that  is  to  say,  on 
the  same  day  on  which,  forty  years  before,  Israel  had  begun  to 
prepare  for  going  out  of  Egypt  by  setting  apart  the  paschal  lamb 
(Ex.  xii.  3).  After  crossing  the  river,  the  people  encamped  at 
Gilgal,  on  the  eastern  border  of  the  territory  of  Jericho.  The 
place  of  encampment  is  called  Gilgal  proleptically  in  vers.  10  and 
20  (see  at  chap.  v.  9). — Vers.  20  sqq.  There  Joshua  set  up  the 


52  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

twelve  stones,  which  they  had  taken  over  with  them  out  of  the 
Jordan,  and  explained  to  the  people  at  the  same  time  the  import- 
ance of  this  memorial  to  their  descendants  (vers.  21,  22),  and  the 
design  of  the  miracle  which  had  been  wrought  by  God  (ver.  24). 
On  vers.  21,  22,  see  vers.  6,  7.  "MPK  (ver.  23),  quod,  as  (see  Deut. 
ii.  22).  The  miracle  itself,  like  the  similar  one  at  the  Dead  Sea, 
had  a  double  intention,  viz.  to  reveal  to  the  Canaanites  the  omni- 
potence of  the  God  of  Israel,  the  strong  hand  of  the  Lord  (compare 
Ex.  xiv.  4,  18,  with  chap.  vi.  6 ;  and  for  the  expression  "  the  hand 
of  the  Lord  is  mighty,"  see  Ex.  iii.  19,  vi.  1,  etc.),  and  to  serve  as 
an  impulse  to  the  Israelites  to  fear  the  Lord  their  God  always  (see 
at  Ex.  xiv.  31). 

CIRCUMCISION  OF  THE  PEOPLE,  AND  CELEBRATION  OF  THE 
PASSOVER  AT  GILGAL. — CHAP.  V.  1—12. 

When  the  Israelites  had  trodden  the  soil  of  Canaan,  Joshua 
began  immediately  to  make  arrangements  for  conquering  the  land, 
and  destroying  its  inhabitants.  As  the  Lord  had  only  promised 
him  His  assistance  on  condition  that  the  law  given  by  Moses  was 
faithfully  observed  (chap.  i.  7  sqq.),  it  was  necessary  that  he  should 
proceed  first  of  all  to  impose  it  as  an  inviolable  obligation,  not  only 
upon  himself,  but  also  upon  all  the  people  entrusted  to  his  charge, 
to  fulfil  all  the  precepts  of  the  law,  many  of  which  could  not  be 
carried  out  during  the  journey  through  the  wilderness,  whilst  many 
others  had  only  been  given  with  special  reference  to  the  time  when 
the  people  should  be  dwelling  in  Canaan.  The  first  duty  which 
devolved  upon  him  in  this  respect,  was  to  perform  the  rite  of  cir- 
cumcision upon  the  generation  that  had  been  born  in  the  wilderness, 
and  had  grown  up  without  circumcision,  so  that  the  whole  congre- 
gation might  be  included  in  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  and  be  able 
to  keep  the  passover,  which  was  to  be  celebrated  in  a  few  days  in 
the  manner  prescribed  by  the  law. 

Vers.  1-9.  Circumcision  of  the  People. — Ver.  1.  Whilst, 
on  the  one  hand,  the  approach  of  the  passover  rendered  it  desirable 
that  the  circumcision  of  those  who  had  remained  uncircumcised 
should  be  carried  out  without  delay,  on  the  other  hand  the  exist- 
ing circumstances  were  most  favourable  for  the  performance  of  this 
covenant  duty,  inasmuch  as  the  miracle  wrought  in  connection  with 
the  passage  through  the  Jordan  had  thrown  the  Canaanites  into 


CHAP.  V.  1-9  53 

such  alarm  that  there  was  no  fear  of  their  attacking  the  Israelitish 
camp.  To  indicate  this,  the  impression  produced  by  this  miracle  is 
described,  namely,  that  all  the  kings  of  Canaan  had  been  thrown 
into  despair  in  consequence.  All  the  tribes  of  Canaan  are  grouped 
together  here  under  the  names  of  Amorites  and  Canaanites,  the 
tribes  in  possession  of  the  mountains  being  all  called  Amorites,  and 
those  who  lived  by  the  sea,  i.e.  by  the  shore  of  the  Mediterranean, 
Canaanites  (vid.  chap.  i.  4)  :  for  the  Amorites  upon  the  moun- 
tains were  the  strongest  of  all  the  Canaanitish  tribes  at  that  time 
(see  at  Gen.  x.  16) ;  whilst  the  name  Canaanite,  i.e.  the  bent  one 
(see  at  Gen.  ix.  25),  was  peculiarly  appropriate  to  the  inhabitants 
of  the  lowlands,  who  relied  upon  trade  more  than  upon  warfare, 
and  were  probably  dependent  upon  the  strong  and  mighty  Amorites. 
The  application  of  the  expression  "  beyond  Jordan"  {Eng.  Ver.  "  on 
the  side  of")  to  the  country  on  this  side,  may  be  explained  on  the 
ground  that  the  historian  was  still  writing  from  the  stand-point  of 
the  crossing.  But  in  order  to  prevent  any  misunderstanding,  he 
adds  "  towards  the  west"  as  he  had  previously  added  "  towards  the 
sunrise,"  in  chap.  i.  15,  when  speaking  of  the  land  on  the  eastern 
side.  That  we  have  the  report  of  an  eye-witness  here  is  evident 
from  the  words,  "  until  we  were  passed  over :"  the  reading  of  the 
Keri,  D"^y  (till  they  were  passed  over),  is  nothing  but  an  arbitrary 
and  needless  conjecture,  and  ought  not  to  have  been  preferred  by 
Bleek  and  others,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  the  ancient  versions 
and  some  mss.  also  adopt  it. — Vers.  2-8.  At  that  time  (sc.  the 
time  of  their  encampment  at  Gilgal,  and  when  the  Canaanites  were 
in  despair)  Joshua  had  the  people  "  circumcised  again,  the  second 
timer  The  word  rMB>  (a  second  time)  is  only  added  to  give  em- 
phasis to  3sity,  or  as  an  explanation  of  it,  and  is  not  to  be  pressed, 
either  here  or  in  Isa.  xi.  11,  as  though  it  denoted  the  repetition  of 
the  same  act  in  every  respect,  i.e.  of  an  act  of  circumcision  which 
had  once  before  been  performed  upon  the  whole  nation.  It  merely 
expresses  this  meaning,  "  circumcise  the  people  again,  or  the  second 
time,  as  it  was  formerly  circumcised"  (i.e.  a  circumcised  people,  not 
in  the  same  manner  in  which  it  once  before  had  circumcision  per- 
formed upon  it).  When  the  people  came  out  of  Egypt  they  were 
none  of  them  uncircumcised,  as  distinctly  affirmed  in  ver.  5 ;  but 
during  their  journey  through  the  wilderness  circumcision  had  been 
neglected,  so  that  now  the  nation  was  no  longer  circumcised,  and 
therefore  it  was  necessary  that  circumcision  should  be  performed 
upon  the  nation  as  a  whole,  by  circumcising  all  who  were  uncir- 


54  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

cumcised.  The  opinion  of  Masius  and  0.  v.  Gerlach,  that  the  expres- 
sion "  the  second  time "  refers  to  the  introduction  of  circumcision, 
when  Abraham  was  circumcised  with  all  his  house,  is  very  far- 
fetched. D^y  rf&yn  are  not  "  sharp  knives,"  but  " stone  knives" 
which  were  used  according  to  ancient  custom  (see  at  Ex.  iv.  25), 
literally  knives  of  rocks  (the  plural  zurim  is  occasioned  by  charboth, 
as  in  Num.  xiii.  32,  etc. ;  the  singular  might  have  been  used  :  see 
Ewald,  §  270,  c). — Ver.  3.  Joshua  had  the  circumcision  performed 
"  at  the  hill  of  the  foreskins"  as  the  place  was  afterwards  called 
from  the  fact  that  the  foreskins  were  buried  there. — Vers.  4-7. 
The  reason  for  the  circumcision  of  the  whole  nation  was  the  follow- 
ing :  all  the  fighting  men  who  came  out  of  Egypt  had  died  in  the 
wilderness  by  the  way ;  for  all  the  people  that  came  out  were  cir- 
cumcised ;  but  all  that  were  born  in  the  wilderness  during  the  jour- 
ney had  not  been  circumcised  (D^SSO  °nxV3,  on  their  coming  out 
of  Egypt,  which  only  came  to  an  end  on  their  arrival  in  Canaan). 
They  walked  forty  years  in  the  wilderness ;  till  all  the  people — that 
is  to  say,  all  the  fighting  men — who  came  out  of  Egypt  were  con- 
sumed, because  they  had  not  hearkened  to  the  voice  of  the  Lord, 
and  had  been  sentenced  by  the  Lord  to  die  in  the  wilderness  (ver.  6 ; 
cf.  Num.  xiv.  26  sqq.,  xxvi.  64,  65,  and  Deut.  ii.  14-16).  But 
He  (Jehovah)  set  up  their  sons  in  their  place,  i.e.  He  caused  them 
to  take  their  place;  and  these  Joshua  circumcised  (i.e.  had  them 
circumcised),  for  they  were  uncircumcised,  because  they  had  not 
been  circumcised  by  the  way.  This  explains  the  necessity  for  a 
general  circumcision  of  all  the  people,  but  does  not  state  the  reason 
why  those  who  were  born  in  the  wilderness  had  not  been  circum- 
cised. All  that  is  affirmed  in  vers.  5  and  7  is,  that  this  had  not 
taken  place  "by  the  way."  The  true  reason  may  be  gathered  from 
ver.  6,  if  we  compare  the  statement  made  in  this  verse,  "  for  the 
children  of  Israel  walked  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  till  all  the 
men  that  were  capable  of  bearing  arms  were  consumed  . . .  unto  whom 
the  Lord  sware  that  He  would  not  show  them  the  land  promised  to 
the  fathers,"  with  the  sentence  pronounced  by  God  to  which  these 
words  refer,  viz.  Num.  xiv.  29-34.  The  Lord  is  then  said  to  have 
sworn  that  all  the  men  of  twenty  years  old  and  upwards,  who  had 
murmured  against  Him,  should  perish  in  the  wilderness  ;  and  though 
their  sons  should  enter  the  promised  land,  they  too  should  pasture, 
i.e.  lead  a  nomad  life,  for  forty  years  in  the  wilderness,  and  bear 
the  apostasy  of  their  fathers,  till  their  bodies  had  fallen  in  the  desert. 
This  clearly  means,  that  not  only  was  the  generation  that  came  out 


CHAP.  V.  1-9.  55 

of  Egypt  sentenced  to  die  in  the  wilderness  because  of  its  rebellion 
against  the  Lord,  and  therefore  rejected  by  God,  but  the  sons  of 
this  generation  had  to  bear  the  whoredom,  i.e.  the  apostasy  of  their 
fathers  from  the  Lord,  for  the  period  of  forty  years,  until  the  latter 
had  been  utterly  consumed ;  that  is  to  say,  during  all  this  time  they 
were  to  endure  the  punishment  of  rejection  along  with  their  fathers  : 
with  this  difference  alone,  that  the  sons  were  not  to  die  in  the  wil- 
derness, but  were  to  be  brought  into  the  promised  land  after  their 
fathers  were  dead.  The  sentence  upon  the  fathers,  that  their  bodies 
should  fall  in  the  desert,  was  unquestionably  a  rejection  of  them  on 
the  part  of  God,  an  abrogation  of  the  covenant  with  them.  This 
punishment  was  also  to  be  borne  by  their  sons ;  and  hence  the  reason 
why  those  who  were  born  in  the  desert  by  the  way  were  not  cir- 
cumcised. As  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  with  the  fathers  was  abro- 
gated, the  sons  of  the  rejected  generation  were  not  to  receive  the 
covenant  sign  of  circumcision.  Nevertheless  this  abrogation  of  the 
covenant  with  the  generation  that  had  been  condemned,  was  not  a 
complete  dissolution  of  the  covenant  relation,  so  far  as  the  nation 
as  a  whole  was  concerned,  since  the  whole  nation  had  not  been 
rejected,  but  only  the  generation  of  men  that  were  capable  of  bear- 
ing arms  when  they  came  out  of  Egypt,  whilst  the  younger  genera- 
tion which  had  grown  up  in  the  desert  was  to  be  delivered  from  the 
ban,  which  rested  upon  it  as  well,  and  brought  into  the  land  of 
Canaan  when  the  time  of  punishment  had  expired.  For  this  reason 
the  Lord  did  not  withdraw  from  the  nation  every  sign  of  His  grace ; 
but  in  order  that  the  consciousness  mirjht  still  be  sustained  in  the 
young  and  rising  generation,  that  the  covenant  would  be  set  up 
again  with  them  when  the  time  of  punishment  had  expired,  He  left 
them  not  only  the  presence  of  the  pillar  of  cloud  and  fire,  but  also 
the  manna  and  other  tokens  of  His  grace,  the  continuance  of  which 
therefore  cannot  be  adduced  as  an  argument  against  our  view  of 
the  time  of  punishment  as  a  temporary  suspension  of  the  covenant. 
But  if  this  was  the  reason  for  the  omission  of  circumcision,1  it  did 

1  This  reason  was  admitted  even  by  Calvin,  and  has  been  well  supported  by 
Hengstenberg  (Diss.  ii.  pp.  13  sqq.).  The  arguments  adduced  by  Kurtz  in  oppo- 
sition to  this  view  are  altogether  unfounded.  We  have  already  observed  that 
the  reason  for  the  suspension  is  not  given  in  ver.  7  ;  and  the  further  remark, 
that  in  ver.  5  ("all  the  people  that  were  born  in  the  wilderness  by  the  way  as 
they  came  forth  out  of  Egypt,  them  they  had  not  circumcised")  the  book  of 
Joshua  dates  the  suspension  not  from  the  sentence  of  rejection,  but  expressly 
and  undoubtedly  (?)  from  the  departure  from  Egypt,  has  no  force  whatever, 
unless  we  so  press  the  word  all  ("  all  the  people  that  were  born  in  the  desert ") 


56  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

not  commence  till  the  second  year  of  their  journey,  viz.  at  the  time 
when  the  murmuring  nation  was  rejected  at  Kadesh  (Num.  xiv.) ; 
so  that  by  "  all  the  people  that  were  born  in  the  wilderness  "  we  am 
to  understand  those  who  were  born  after  that  time,  and  during  the 
last,  thirty-eight  years  of  their  wanderings,  just  as  "all  the  people 
that  came  out  of  Egypt "  are  to  be  understood  as  signifying  only 
those  men  who  were  twenty  years  old  and  upwards  when  they  came 
out.  Consequently  circumcision  was  suspended  as  long  as  the  nation 
was  under  the  ban  of  the  divine  sentence  pronounced  upon  it  at 
Kadesh.  This  sentence  was  exhausted  when  they  crossed  the  brook 
Zared  and  entered  the  country  of  the  Amorites  (compare  Deut.  ii. 
14  with  Num.  xxi.  12,  13).  Why,  then,  was  not  the  circumcision 
performed  during  the  encampment  in  the  steppes  of  Moab  either 

as  not  to  allow  of  the  slightest  exception.  But  this  is  decidedly  precluded  by 
the  fact,  that  we  cannot  imagine  it  possible  for  God  to  have  established  His 
covenant  with  the  people  at  a  time  when  they  had  neglected  the  fundamental 
law  of  the  covenant,  the  transgression  of  -which  was  threatened  with  destruction 
(Gen.  xvii.  14),  by  neglecting  to  circumcise  all  the  children  who  had  been  born 
between  the  departure  from  Egypt  and  the  conclusion  of  the  covenant  at  Sinai. 
We  are  also  prevented  from  pressing  the  little  word  "  all "  in  this  manner  by 
the  evident  meaning  of  the  words  before  us.  In  vers.  4  and  5  the  Israelites  are 
divided  into  two  classes:  (1)  All  the  people  that  came  out  of  Egypt  and  were 
circumcised;  and  (2)  All  the  people  that  were  born  in  the  desert  and  were 
uncircumcised.  The  first  of  these  died  in  the  wilderness,  the  second  came  to 
Canaan  and  were  circumcised  by  Joshua  at  Gilgal.  But  if  we  should  press  the 
word  "  all "  in  these  clauses,  it  would  follow  that  all  the  male  children  who 
were  under  twenty  years  of  age  at  the  time  of  the  exodus,  either  died  in  the 
desert  or  were  circumcised  a  second  time  at  Gilgal.  Lastly,  it  does  not  follow 
from  ver.  6  that  the  circumcision  was  suspended  for  exactly  forty  years ;  for 
the  forty  years  during  which  Israel  journeyed  in  the  desert  until  the  mur- 
muring generation  was  consumed,  are  to  be  interpreted  by  Num.  xiv.  33,  34, 
and  amounted,  chronologically  considered,  to  no  more  than  thirty-eight  years 
and  a  few  months  (see  the  commentary  on  Num.  xxiv.  28  sqq.).  On  the  other 
hand,  the  other  very  general  view  which  Kurtz  adopts — namely,  that  the  circum- 
cision was  omitted  during  the  journey  through  the  desert  on  account  of  the 
hardships  connected  with  travelling,  and  because  it  was  impossible  to  have  regard 
to  particular  families  who  might  wish  for  longer  rest  on  account  of  their  chil- 
dren who  had  just  been  circumcised,  and  were  suffering  from  the  wound,  just 
at  the  time  when  they  had  to  decamp  and  journey  onward,  and  they  could  not 
well  be  left  behind— throws  but  little  light  upon  the  subject,  as  the  assumption 
that  the  people  were  constantly  wandering  about  for  forty  years  is  altogether 
an  unfounded  one.  The  Israelites  were  not  always  wandering  about :  not  only 
did  they  stay  at  Sinai  for  eleven  whole  months,  but  even  after  that  they  halted 
for  weeks  and  months  at  the  different  places  of  encampment,  when  they  might 
have  circumcised  their  children  without  the  slightest  danger  of  their  suffering 
from  the  wound. 


CHAP.  V.  1-9.  57 

before  or  after  the  numbering,  since  all  those  who  had  been  sen- 
tenced to  die  in  the  wilderness  were  already  dead  (Num.  xxvi.  65)  1 
The  different  answers  which  have  been  given  to  this  question  are 
some  of  them  wrong,  and  others  incomplete.  For  example,  the 
opinion  held  by  some,  that  the  actual  reason  was  that  the  forty 
years  had  not  yet  expired,  is  incorrect  (see  Deut.  ii.  14).  And  the 
uncertainty  how  long  they  would  remain  in  the  steppes  of  Moab 
cannot  be  adduced  as  an  explanation,  as  there  were  no  circumstances 
existing  that  were  likely  to  occasion  a  sudden  and  unexpected  de- 
parture from  Shittim.  The  reason  why  Moses  did  not  renew  the 
circumcision  before  the  end  of  his  own  life,  is  to  be  sought  for  in 
the  simple  fact  that  he  would  not  undertake  an  act  of  such  import- 
ance without  an  express  command  from  the  Lord,  especially  as  he 
was  himself  under  sentence  to  die  without  entering  the  promised 
land.  But  the  Lord  did  not  enjoin  the  renewal  of  the  covenant 
sign  before  Israel  had  been  conducted  into  the  promised  land, 
because  He  saw  fit  first  of  all  to  incline  the  hearts  of  the  people  to 
carry  out  His  commandment  through  this  magnificent  proof  of  His 
grace.  It  is  the  rule  of  divine  grace  first  to  give  and  then  to  ask. 
As  the  Lord  did  not  enjoin  circumcision  as  a  covenant  duty  upon 
Abraham  himself  till  He  had  given  him  a  practical  proof  of  His 
grace  by  leading  him  to  Canaan,  and  by  repeated  promises  of  a 
numerous  posterity,  and  of  the  eventual  possession  of  the  land  ;  and 
just  as  He  did  not  give  the  law  to  the  children  of  Israel  at  Sinai 
till  He  had  redeemed  them  with  a  mighty  arm  from  the  bondage 
of  Egypt,  and  borne  them  on  eagles'  wings,  and  brought  them  to 
Himself,  and  had  thereby  made  them  willing  to  promise  gladly  to 
fulfil  all  that  He  should  say  to  them  as  His  covenant  nation  ;  so 
now  He  did  not  require  the  renewal  of  circumcision,  which  involved 
as  the  covenant  sign  the  observance  of  the  whole  law,  till  He  had 
given  His  people  practical  proofs,  through  the  help  afforded  in  the 
defeat  of  Sihon  and  Og,  the  kings  of  the  Amorites,  and  in  the 
miraculous  division  of  the  waters  of  Jordan,  that  He  was  able  to 
remove  all  the  obstacles  that  might  lie  in  the  way  of  the  fulfilment 
of  His  promises,  and  give  them  the  promised  land  for  their  inherit- 
ance, as  He  had  sworn  to  their  fathers. 

Ver.  8.  When  the  rite  of  circumcision  had  been  performed  upon 
them  all,  the  people  remained  quietly  in  the  camp  till  those  who 
were  circumcised  had  recovered.  "  They  abode  in  their  places" 
i.e.  sat  still  as  they  were,  without  attempting  anything,  rpn,  to 
revive  (Gen.  xlv.  27  ;  Job  xiv.  14),  or  recover  (2  Kings  L  2,  viii.  8, 


58  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

etc.).  The  circumcision  of  the  people  could  not  be  performed 
earlier  than  the  clay  after  the  crossing  of  the  Jordan,  i.e.,  according 
to  chap.  iv.  19,  not  earlier  than  the  11th  day  of  the  first  month. 
Now,  as  the  passover  was  to  be  kept,  and  actually  was  kept,  on  the 
14th  (ver.  10),  the  two  accounts  are  said  to  be  irreconcilable,  and 
the  account  of  the  circumcision  has  been  set  down  as  a  later  and 
unhistorical  legend.  But  the  objections  made  to  the  historical 
credibility  of  this  account — viz.  that  the  suffering  consequent  upon 
circumcision  made  a  person  ill  for  several  days,  and  according  to 
Gen.  xxxiv.  25  was  worst  on  the  third  day,  so  that  the  people  could 
not  have  kept  the  passover  on  that  day,  and  also  that  the  people 
could  not  possibly  have  been  all  circumcised  on  one  day — are  founded 
upon  false  assumptions.  In  the  latter,  for  example,  the  number  of 
persons  to  be  circumcised  is  estimated,  most  absurdly,  at  a  million ; 
whereas,  according  to  the  general  laws  of  population,  the  whole 
of  the  male  population  of  Israel,  which  contained  only  601,730  of 
twenty  years  of  age  and  upwards,  besides  23,000  Levites  of  a 
month  old  and  upwards,  when  the  census  was  taken  a  short  time 
before  in  the  steppes  of  Moab,  could  not  amount  to  more  than  a 
million  in  all,  and  of  these  between  280,000  and  330,000  were 
thirty-eight  years  old,  and  therefore,  having  been  born  before  the 
sentence  was  pronounced  upon  the  nation  at  Kadesh,  and  for  the 
most  part  before  the  exödus  from  Egypt,  had  been  already  circum- 
cised, so  that  there  were  only  670,000,  or  at  the  most  720,000,  to 
be  circumcised  now.  Consequently  the  proportion  between  the 
circumcised  and  uncircumcised  was  one  to  three  or  three  and  a 
half  ;  and  the  operation  could  therefore  be  completed  without  any 
difficulty  in  the  course  of  a  single  day.  As  regards  the  conse- 
quences of  this  operation,  Gen.  xxxiv.  25  by  no  means  proves  that 
the  pain  was  most  acute  on  the  third  day ;  and  even  if  this  really 
were  the  case,  it  would  not  prevent  the  keeping  of  the  passover,  as 
the  lambs  could  have  been  killed  and  prepared  by  the  280,000  or 
330,000  circumcised  men  ;  and  even  those  who  were  still  unwell 
could  join  in  the  meal,  since  it  was  only  Levitical  uncleanness,  and 
not  disease  or  pain,  which  formed  a  legal  impediment  to  this  (Num. 
ix.  10  sqq.).1  But  if  there  were  about  300,000  men  of  the  age  of 
forty  and  upwards  who  could  not  only  perform  the  rite  of  circum- 
cision upon  their  sons  or  younger  brothers,  but,  if  necessary,  were 
able  at  any  moment  to  draw  the  sword,  there  was  no  reason  what- 

1  For  the  basis  upon  which  this  computation  rests,  see  KeiFs  Commentary  on 
Joshua,  p  "139  (Eng.  trans.  1857). 


CHAP.  V.  1-9.  59 

ever  for  their  being  afraid  of  an  attack  on  the  part  of  the  Canaan- 
ites,  even  if  the  latter  had  not  been  paralyzed  by  the  miraculous 
crossing  of  the  Jordan. — Ver.  9.  When  the  circumcision  was  com- 
pleted, the  Lord  said  to  Joshua,  "  This  day  have  I  rolled  away  the 
reproach  of  Egypt  from  off  you."  "  The  reproach  of  Egypt"  is  the 
reproach  proceeding  from  Egypt,  as  "  the  reproach  of  Moab,"  in 
Zeph.  ii.  8,  is  the  reproach  heaped  upon  Israel  by  Moab  (cf.  Isa.  li. 
7  ;  Ezek.  xvi.  57).  We  are  not  to  understand  by  this  the  Egyptian 
bondage,  or  the  misery  which  still  cleaved  to  the  Israelites  from 
Egypt,  and  the  still  further  misery  which  they  had  suffered  during 
their  journey,  on  account  of  the  displeasure  of  Jehovah  (Knobel), 
but  the  reproach  involved  in  the  thoughts  and  sayings  of  the 
Egyptians,  that  Jehovah  had  brought  the  Israelites  out  of  Egypt 
to  destroy  them  in  the  desert  (Ex.  xxxii.  12  ;  Num.  xiv.  13-16; 
Deut.  ix.  28),  which  rested  upon  Israel  as  long  as  it  was  condemned 
to  wander  restlessly  about  and  to  die  in  the  wilderness.  This 
reproach  was  rolled  away  from  Israel  with  the  circumcision  of  the 
people  at  Gilgal,  inasmuch  as  this  act  was  a  practical  declaration  of 
the  perfect  restoration  of  the  covenant,  and  a  pledge  that  the  Lord 
would  now  give  them  the  land  of  Canaan  for  their  inheritance. 
From  this  occurrence  the  place  where  the  Israelites  were  encamped 
received  the  name  of  Gilgal,  viz.  "  rolling  away,"  from  ??3?  to  roll. 
This  explanation  and  derivation  of  the  name  is  not  to  be  pro- 
nounced incorrect  and  unhistorical,  simply  because  it  merely  pre- 
serves the  subordinate  idea  of  rolling,  instead  of  the  fuller  idea  of 
the  rolling  away  of  reproach.  For  the  intention  was  not  to  form 
a  word  which  should  comprehend  the  whole  affair  with  exhaustive 
minuteness,  but  simply  to  invent  a  striking  name  which  should 
recall  the  occurrence,  like  the  name  Tomi,  of  which  Ovid  gives  the 
following  explanation  :  hide  Tomos  dictus  locus  est  quia  fertur  in 
illo  membra  soror  fratris  consecuisse  sui  (Trist,  iii.  9,  33).  Knohel 
is  wrong  in  maintaining  that  the  name  should  be  explained  in  a 
different  way,  and  that  this  Gilgal  is  the  same  as  Geliloth  (circles) 
in  chap,  xviii.  17  (see  the  explanation  given  at  chap.  xv.  7).  The 
word  gilgal,  formed  from  &i,  to  roll,  signifies  primarily  rolling,  then 
a  wheel  (Isa.  xxviii.  28)  ;  and  if  by  possibility  it  signifies  orbis  also, 
like  7?3,  this  is  neither  the  original  nor  the  only  meaning  of  the 
word.  According  to  Josephus  (Ant.  v.  1,  4),  Israel  encamped  fifty 
stadia,  i.e.  two  hours  and  a  half,  from  the  Jordan,  and  ten  stadia,  or 
half  an  hour,  from  Jericho, — that  is  to  say,  in  the  plain  or  steppe 
between  Jericho  and  the  Jordan,  in  an  uninhabited  and  unculti- 


60  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

vated  spot,  which  received  the  name  of  Gilgal  for  the  first  time,  as 
the  place  where  the  Israelites  were  encamped.  No  town  or  village 
ever  existed  there,  either  at  the  period  in  question  or  at  any  later 
time.  The  only  other  places  in  which  this  Gilgal  can  be  shown  to 
be  evidently  referred  to,  are  Micah  vi.  5  and  2  Sam.  xix.  16,  41 ;  and 
the  statement  made  by  Eusebius  in  the  Onom.  s.  v.  Galgala,  BeiKvvrat 
6  T07ro?  eprj/jLos  d>9  iepbs  6pr)crKev6fievo<;,  which  Jerome  paraphrases 
thus,  "  Even  to  the  present  day  a  deserted  place  is  pointed  out  at 
the  second  mile  from  Jericho,  which  is  held  in  amazing  reverence 
by  the  inhabitants  of  that  region,"  by  no  means  proves  the  exist- 
ence of  a  town  or  village  there  in  the  time  of  the  Israelites.  Con- 
sequently it  is  not  to  be  wondered  at,  that  in  spite  of  repeated 
search,  Robinson  has  not  been  able  to  discover  any  remains  of 
Gilgal  to  the  east  of  Jericho,  or  to  meet  with  any  Arab  who  could 
tell  him  of  such  a  name  in  this  locality  (see  Mob.  Pal.  ii.  pp.  287-8 
and  278).  On  the  situation  of  the  GHgal  mentioned  in  chap.  ix.  6, 
x.  6,  etc.,  see  at  chap.  viii.  35. 

Vers.  10-14.  The  Passover  at  Gilgal. — When  the  whole 
nation  had  been  received  again  into  covenant  with  the  Lord  by 
circumcision,  they  kept  the  passover,  which  had  no  doubt  been 
suspended  from  the  time  that  they  left  Sinai  (Num.  ix.  1  sqq.),  on 
the  14th  of  the  month  (Nisan),  in  the  evening  (according  to  the 
law  in  Ex.  xii.  6,  18,  Lev.  xxiii.  5,  Num.  xxviii.  16,  Deut.  xvi.  6). 
The  next  day,  i.e.  on  the  16th,  or  the  day  after  the  first  feast-day, 
they  ate  unleavened  loaves  and  parched  corn  ("  roasted  grains,"  see 
at  Lev.  ii.  14)  of  the  produce  of  the  land  ("^J?,1  which  only  occurs 
in  vers.  11  and  12,  is  synonymous  with  PfKOFl8  in  ver.  12),  i.e.  corn 
that  had  grown  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  as  the  manna  entirely 
ceased  from  this  day  forwards.  "  The  morrow  after  the  passover" 
is  used  in  Num.  xxxiii.  3  for  the  15th  Nisan  ;  but  here  it  must  be 
understood  as  signifying  the  16th,  as  the  produce  of  the  land,  of 
which  they  ate  not  only  on  that  day,  but,  according  to  ver.  12, 
throughout  that  year,  cannot  mean  the  corn  of  the  previous  year, 
but  the  produce  of  this  same  year,  i.e.  the  new  corn,  and  they  were 
not  allowed  to  eat  any  of  that  till  it  had  been  sanctified  to  the 
Lord  by  the  presentation  of  the  wave  sheaf  on  the  second  day  of 
the  passover  (Lev.  xxiii.  11).  According  to  Lev.  xxiii.  11,  the 
presentation  was  to  take  place  on  the  day  after  the  Sabbath,  i.e.  the 

1  Rendered  "  old  corn"  in  the  Eng.  version. 

2  Rendered  fruit  in  our  version. 


CHAP.  V.  13-VI.  27.  61 

first  day  of  the  feast  of  Mazzoth,  which  was  kept  as  a  Sabbath,  or 
the  16th  of  Nisan,  as  the  seven  days'  feast  of  Mazzoth  commenced 
on  the  15th  (Lev.  xxiii.  6  ;  Num.  xxviii.  17).  "  On  the  morrow 
after  the  passover"  is  the  same  as  "  on  the  morrow  after  the  Sab- 
bath" in  Lev.  xxiii.  11,  the  term  passover  being  used  here  not  in 
its  original  and  more  restricted  sense,  in  which  it  applies  exclusively 
to  the  observance  of  the  paschal  meal,  which  took  place  on  the 
evening  of  the  14th,  and  is  expressly  distinguished  from  the  seven 
days'  feast  of  Mazzoth  (Ex.  xii.  23,  27  ;  Lev.  xxiii.  5  ;  Num.  xxviii. 
16),  but  in  the  broader  sense,  which  we  have  already  met  with  in 
Deut.  xvi.  2,  in  which  the  name  was  gradually  extended  to  the 
whole  of  the  seven  days'  feast.  The  writer  assumed  that  the  facts 
themselves  were  already  well  known  from  the  Mosaic  law,  and 
therefore  did  not  think  it  necessary  to  give  any  fuller  explanation. 
Moreover,  the  words,  "  they  did  eat  of  the  fruit  of  the  land,"  etc., 
are  not  to  be  understood  as  signifying  that  they  began  to  eat  un- 
leavened bread  for  the  first  time  on  the  16th  Nisan  (they  had 
already  eaten  it  as  an  accompaniment  to  the  paschal  lamb)  ;  but 
unleavened  bread  of  the  produce  of  the  land,  the  green  corn  of 
that  year,  was  what  they  ate  for  the  first  time  on  that  day. 
Especial  prominence  is  given  to  this  by  the  words,  "  in  the  self- 
same day,"  because  not  only  did  the  eating  of  the  new  corn  com- 
mence on  that  day,  but  from  that  day  forward  "  the  children  of 
Israel  had  manna  no  more?  This  statement  is  evidently  related  to 
Ex.  xvi.  35,  and  must  be  understood,  according  to  that  passage, 
as  merely  signifying,  that  on  that  day  the  gift  of  the  manna 
entirely  ceased  (see  Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.  pp.  70  sqq.). 

APPEARANCE  OF  THE  ANGEL  OF  THE  LORD,  AND  CONQUEST  OF 
JERICHO. — CHAP.  V.  13-VI.  27. 

Having  been  confirmed  and  fortified  in  the  covenant  with  the 
Lord  through  the  observance  of  the  passover,  Joshua  determined 
to  proceed  at  once  to  the  work  entrusted  to  him,  viz.  the  conquest 
of  the  land  of  Canaan.  But  the  town  of  Jericho,  which  was  sur- 
rounded with  strong  walls,  as  the  border  defence  of  Canaan  against 
any  foe  approaching  from  the  east,  had  its  gates  shut  before  the 
children  of  Israel.  And  whilst  Joshua  was  deep  in  meditation 
concerning  its  capture,  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to  him  to 
announce  that  the  Lord  had  given  Jericho  and  its  king  into  his 
power,  and  would  miraculously  throw  down  its  walls. 


62  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Chap.  v.  13-vi.  5.  Appearance  and  Message  of  the  Angel 
of  the  Lord. — Vers.  13-15.  When  Joshua  was  by  Jericho,  fn*V3, 
lit.  in  Jericho  (2  expressing  immediate  proximity,  the  entrance  as 
it  were  into  some  other  object,  vid.  Ewald,  §  217), — that  is  to  say, 
inside  it  in  thought,  meditating  upon  the  conquest  of  it, — he  saw,  on 
lifting  up  his  eyes,  a  man  standing  before  him  with  a  drawn  sword 
in  his  hand ;  and  on  going  up  to  him,  and  asking,  "  Dost  thou  belong 
to  us  or  to  our  enemies  V  he  received  this  reply :  "  Nay  (fcO  is  not 
to  be  altered  into  V,  which  is  the  reading  adopted  in  the  Sept., 
Syr.,  and  a  few  MSS.),  but  I  am  the  prince  of  the  army  of  Jehovah ; 
now  I  am  come."  The  person  who  had  appeared  neither  belonged 
to  the  Israelites  nor  to  their  enemies,  but  was  the  prince  of  the 
army  of  Jehovah,  i.e.  of  the  angels.  "  The  Lord's  host"  does  not 
mean  "  the  people  of  Israel,  who  were  just  at  the  commencement 
of  their  warlike  enterprise,"  as  v.  Hof  mann  supposes ;  for  although 
the  host  of  Israel  who  came  out  of  Egypt  are  called  "  the  hosts  of 
the  Lord"  in  Ex.  xii.  41,  the  Israelites  are  never  called  the  host  or 
army  of  Jehovah  (in  the  singular).  "The  host  of  Jehovah"  is 
synonymous  with  "  the  host  of  heaven"  (1  Kings  xxii.  19),  and 
signifies  the  angels,  as  in  Ps.  cxlviii.  2  and  ciii.  21.  With  the 
words  "  now  I  am  come"  the  prince  of  the  angels  is  about  to  enter 
upon  an  explanation  of  the  object  of  his  coming;  but  he  is  interrupted 
in  his  address  by  Joshua,  who  falls  down  before  him,  and  says, 
"  What  saith  my  lord  to  his  servant1?"  so  that  now  he  first  of  all  com- 
mands Joshua  to  take  off  his  shoes,  as  the  place  on  which  he  stands 
is  holy.  It  by  no  means  follows  that  because  Joshua  fell  down 
upon  the  ground  and  *nnt^  {Eng.  Ver.  "  did  worship"),  he  must 
have  recognised  him  at  once  as  the  angel  of  the  Lord  who  was 
equal  with  God ;  for  the  word  ninniprij  wThich  is  connected  with  the 
falling  down,  does  not  always  mean  divine  worship,  but  very  fre- 
quently means  nothing  more  than  the  deep  Oriental  reverence  paid 
by  a  dependant  to  his  superior  or  king  (e.g.  2  Sam.  ix.  6,  xiv.  33), 
and  Joshua  did  not  address  the  person  who  appeared  to  him  by  the 
name  of  God,  tflK,  but  simply  as  ^'"ix,  "My  lord."  In  any  case, 
however,  Joshua  regarded  him  at  once  as  a  superior  being,  i.e.  an 
angel.  And  he  must  have  recognised  him  as  something  more  than 
a  created  angel  of  superior  rank,  that  is  to  say,  as  the  angel  of 
Jehovah  who  is  essentially  equal  with  God,  the  visible  revealer  of 
the  invisible  God,  as  soon  as  he  gave  him  the  command  to  take 
off  his  shoes,  etc., — a  command  which  would  remind  him  of  the 
appearance  of  God  to  Moses  in  the  burning  bush,  and  which  im- 


CHAP.  VI.  1-5.  63 

plied  that  the  person  who  now  appeared  was  the  very  person  who 
had  revealed  himself  to  Moses  as  the  God  of  Abraham,  Isaac,  and 
Jacob.  (On  the  meaning  of  the  command  to  take  off  the  shoes,  see 
the  exposition  of  Ex.  iii.  5.)  The  object  of  the  divine  appearance 
was  indicated  by  the  drawn  sword  in  the  hand  (cf.  Num.  xxii.  31), 
by  which  he  manifested  himself  as  a  heavenly  warrior,  or,  as  he 
describes  himself  to  Joshua,  as  prince  of  the  army  of  Jehovah. 
The  drawn  sword  contained  in  itself  this  practical  explanation : 
"  I  am  now  come  with  my  heavenly  army,  to  make  war  upon  the 
Canaanites,  and  to  assist  thee  and  thy  people"  (Seb.  Schmidt).  It 
was  not  in  a  vision  that  this  appearance  took  place,  but  it  was  an 
actual  occurrence  belonging  to  the  external  world  ;  for  Joshua 
saw  the  man  with  the  drawn  sword  at  a  certain  distance  from 
himself,  and  went  up  to  him  to  address  him, — a  fact  which  would 
be  perfectly  incompatible  with  an  inward  vision. 

Chap.  vi.  1-5.  When  Joshua  had  taken  off  his  shoes,  the  prince 
of  the  army  of  God  made  known  to  him  the  object  of  his  coming 
(vers.  2-5).  But  before  relating  the  message,  the  historian  first  of 
all  inserts  a  remark  concerning  the  town  of  Jericho,  in  the  form 
of  an  explanatory  clause,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  precise 
meaning  of  the  declaration  which  follows.1  This  meaning  is  to 
be  found  not  merely  in  the  fact  that  the  Lord  was  about  to  give 
Jericho  into  the  hands  of  the  Israelites,  but  chiefly  in  the  fact 
that  the  town  which  He  was  about  to  give  into  their  hands  was  so 
strongly  fortified. — Ver.  1.  "Jericho  was  shutting  its  gates  (via1.  Judg. 
ix.  51),  and  closely  shut."  The  participles  express  the  permanence 
of  the  situation,  and  the  combination  of  the  active  and  passive  in 
the  emphatic  form  n^jpp  (LXX.  crvyKeKXeia fievrj  teal  lo^vpwjxkvt) ; 
Vulg.  clausa  erat  atque  munita)  serves  to  strengthen  the  idea,  to 
which  still  further  emphasis  is  given  by  the  clause,  "  no  one  was 

1  If  there  is  any  place  in  which  the  division  of  chapters  is  unsuitable,  it  is 
so  here ;  for  the  appearance  of  the  prince  of  the  angels  does  not  terminate  with 
chap.  v.  15,  but  what  he  had  come  to  communicate  follows  in  chap.  vi.  2-5,  and 
chap.  vi.  1  merely  contains  an  explanatory  clause  inserted  before  his  message, 
which  serves  to  throw  light  upon  the  situation  (vid.  Ewald,  §  341).  If  we 
regard  the  account  of  the  appearance  of  the  angel  as  terminating  with  chap.  v. 
15,  as  Knobel  and  other  commentators  have  done,  we  must  of  necessity  assume 
either  that  the  account  has  come  down  to  us  in  a  mutilated  form,  or  that  the 
,rij)|  learance  ceased  without  any  commission  being  given.  The  one  is  as  incredible 
as  the  other.  The  latter  especially  is  without  analogy ;  for  the  appearance  in 
Acts  x.  9  sqq.,  which  0.  v.  Gerlach  cites  as  similar,  contains  a  very  distinct 
explanation  in  vers.  13-16. 


64  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

going  out  and  in"  i.e.  so  firmly  shut  that  no  one  could  go  out  or  in. 
— Ver.  2.  "And  the  Lord  said  to  Joshua :"  this  is  the  sequel  to 
chap.  v.  15,  as  ver.  1  is  merely  a  parenthesis  and  Jehovah  is  the 
prince  of  the  army  of  Jehovah  (chap.  v.  14),  or  the  angel  of 
Jehovah,  who  is  frequently  identified  with  Jehovah  (see  Penta- 
teuch, vol.  i.  pp.  184  sqq.).  "See,  I  have  given  into  thy  hand 
Jericho  and  its  king,  the  mighty  men  of  valour"  ("  Have  given," 
referring  to  the  purpose  of  God,  which  was  already  resolved  upon, 
though  the  fulfilment  was  still  in  the  future.)  "  The  mighty  men 
of  valour"  (hrave  warriors)  is  in  apposition  to  Jericho,  regarded  as 
a  community,  and  its  king.  In  vers.  3-5  there  follows  an  expla- 
nation of  the  way  in  which  the  Lord  would  give  Jericho  into  the 
hand  of  Joshua.  All  the  Israelitish  men  of  war  were  to  go  round 
the  town  once  a  day  for  six  days,  rinx  Dys  .  .  .  fcpgrtj  "  going  round 
about  the  city  once"  serves  as  a  fuller  explanation  of  EHi^D  ("ye 
shall  compass").  As  they  marched  in  this  manner  round  the  city, 
seven  priests  were  to  carry  seven  jubilee  trumpets  before  the  ark, 
which  implies  that  the  ark  itself  was  to  be  carried  round  the  city  in 
solemn  procession.  But  on  the  seventh  day  they  were  to  march 
round  the  town  seven  times,  and  the  priests  to  blow  the  trumpets ; 
and  when  there  was  a  blast  with  the  jubilee  horn,  and  the  people 
on  hearing  the  sound  of  the  trumpet  raised  a  great  cry,  the  wall  of 
the  town  should  fall  down  "  under  itself."  The  "  jubilee  trumpets" 
(Eng.  Ver.  "  trumpets  of  rams'  horns")  are  the  same  as  the  "  jubilee 
horn"  (Eng.  Ver.  "rams'  horn")  in  ver.  5,  for  which  the  abbreviated 
form  shophar  (trumpet,  ver.  5  ;  cf.  Ex.  xix.  16)  or  jobel  (jubilee: 
Ex.  xix.  13)  is  used.  They  were  not  the  silver  trumpets  of  the 
priests  (Num.  x.  1  sqq.),  but  large  horns,  or  instruments  in  the 
shape  of  a  horn,  which  gave  a  loud  far-sounding  tone  (see  at  Lev. 
xxiii.  24,  xxv.  11).  For  'BE  JJ&Fl,  blow  the  trumpet  (lit.  strike  the 
trumpet),  in  ver.  4,  p.ip3  W^,  draw  with  the  horn,  i.e.  blow  the  horn 
with  long-drawn  notes,  is  used  in  ver.  5  (see  at  Ex.  xix.  13).  The 
people  were  then  to  go  up,  i.e.  press  into  the  town  over  the  fallen 
wall ;  "  every  one  straight  before  him"  i.e.  every  one  was  to  go 
straight  into  the  town  without  looking  round  at  his  neighbour  either 
on  the  right  hand  or  on  the  left  (yid.  ver.  20). 

Vers.  6-27.  Taking  of  Jericho. — In  the  account  of  this  we 
have  first  of  all  a  brief  statement  of  the  announcement  of  the 
divine  message  by  Joshua  to  the  priests  and  the  people  (vers.  6,  7) ; 
then  the  execution  of  the  divine  command  (vers.  8-20)  ;  and  lastly 


CHAP.  VI.  6-27.  G5 

the  burning  of  Jericho  and  deliverance  of  Rahab  (vers.  21-27). — 
Vers.  6,  7.  In  communicating  the  divine  command  with  reference 
to  the  arrangements  for  taking  Jericho,  Joshua  mentions  in  the 
first  place  merely  the  principal  thing  to  be  observed.  The  plural 
npx'l  ("  they  said"),  in  ver.  7,  must  not  be  altered,  but  is  to  be 
explained  on  the  ground  that  Joshua  did  not  make  the  proclama- 
tion to  the  people  himself,  but  through  the  medium  of  the  shoterim, 
who  were  appointed  to  issue  his  commands  (see  chap.  i.  10,  11,  iii. 
2,  3).  In  this  proclamation  the  more  minute  instructions  concerning 
the  order  of  march,  which  had  been  omitted  in  vers.  3-5,  are  given ; 
namely,  that  P^O-  was  to  march  in  front  of  the  ark.  By  p-'nri, 
"  the  equipped  (or  armed)  man"  we  are  not  to  understand  all  the 
fighting  men,  as  Knohel  supposes ;  for  in  the  description  of  the 
march  which  follows,  the  whole  of  the  fighting  men  ("  all  the  men 
of  war,"  ver.  3)  are  divided  into  pi?nn  and  ^BNftn  (Eng.  Ver.  "  the 
armed  men"  and  "the  rereward,"  vers.  9  and  13),  so  that  the  former 
can  only  have  formed  one  division  of  the  army.  It  is  very  natural 
therefore  to  suppose,  as  Kimchi  and  Rashi  do,  that  the  former  were 
the  fighting  men  of  the  tribes  of  Reuben,  Gad,  and  half  Manasseh 
(X3i'n  *jp?n,  chap.  iv.  13),  and  the  latter  the  fighting  men  of  the  rest 
of  the  tribes.  On  the  meaning  of  ^BNO,  see  at  Num.  x.  25.  If 
we  turn  to  the  account  of  the  facts  themselves,  we  shall  see  at  once, 
that  in  the  report  of  the  angel's  message,  in  vers.  3-5,  several 
other  points  have  been  passed  over  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  too 
many  repetitions,  and  have  therefore  to  be  gathered  from  the 
description  of  what  actually  occurred.  First  of  all,  in  vers.  8-10, 
we  have  the  appointment  of  the  order  of  marching,  namely,  that 
the  ark,  with  the  priests  in  front  carrying  the  trumpets  of  jubilee, 
was  to  form  the  centre  of  the  procession,  and  that  one  portion  of 
the  fighting  men  was  to  go  in  front  of  it,  and  the  rest  to  follow 
after ;  that  the  priests  were  to  blow  the  trumpets  every  time  they 
marched  round  during  the  seven  days  (vers.  8,  9,  13)  ;  and  lastly, 
that  it  was  not  till  the  seventh  time  of  going  round,  on  the  seventh 
day,  that  the  people  were  to  raise  the  war-cry  at  the  command  of 
Joshua,  and  then  the  walls  of  the  town  were  to  fall  (vers.  10,  IG). 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  we  are  right  in  assuming  that  Joshua 
had  received  from  the  angel  the  command  which  he  issued  to  the 
people  in  vers.  17  sqq.,  that  the  whole  town,  with  all  its  inhabitants 
and  everything  in  it,  was  to  be  given  up  as  a  ban  to  the  Lord,  at  the 
time  when  the  first  announcement  concerning  the  fall  of  the  town 
was  made. 


66  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Vers.  8-20.  Execution  of  the  divine  Command. — Vers.  8-11. 
The  march  round  on  the  first  day ;  and  the  instructions  as  to  the 
war-cry  to  be  raised  by  the  people,  which  are  appended  as  a  supple- 
ment in  ver.  10.  " Before  Jehovah,"  instead  of  "  before  the  ark  of 
Jehovah,"  as  the  signification  of  the  ark  was  derived  entirely  from 
the  fact,  that  it  was  the  medium  through  which  Jehovah  communi- 
cated His  gracious  presence  to  the  people.  In  ver.  9,  Wpn  is  in  the 
perfect  tense,  and  we  must  supply  the  relative  "WK,  which  is  some- 
times omitted,  not  only  in  poetry,  but  also  in  prose,  after  a  definite 
noun  in  the  accusative  (e.g.  Ex.  xviii.  20 ;  see  Ewald,  §  332,  a.). 
There  is  not  sufficient  ground  for  altering  the  form  of  the  word 
into  *?i?h,  according  to  the  Keri,  as  J?pn  is  construed  in  other  cases 
with  the  accusative  "iBi$n,  instead  of  with  3,  and  that  not  only  in 
poetry,  but  also  in  prose  (e.g.  Judg.  vii.  22,  as  compared  with  vers. 
18-20).  JPP^l  W^1)  "  trumpeting  continually"  (Eng.  Ver.  "  going 
on  and  blowing").  *]vn  is  used  adverbially,  as  in  Gen.  viii.  3,  etc. 
— Ver.  11.  a  So  the  ark  of  the  Lord  compassed  the  city"  not  "  Joshua 
caused  the  ark  to  compass  the  city."  The  Hiphil  has  only  an 
active,  not  a  causative,  meaning  here,  as  in  2  Sam.  v,  23,  etc. — Vers. 
12—14.  The  march  on  each  of  the  next  five  days  resembled  that  on 
the  first.  "  So  they  did  six  days."  In  ver.  13,  Wprn  does  not  stand 
for  yipfil,  but  corresponds  to  U'pni  in  ver.  8  ;  and  the  participle  ?]?in 
is  used  interchangeably  with  the  inf.  abs.  ^P^},  as  in  Gen.  xxvi.  13, 
Judg.  iv.  24,  etc.,  so  that  the  Keri  w|1  is  an  unnecessary  emenda- 
tion.— Vers.  15-19.  On  the  seventh  day  the  marching  round  the  town 
commenced  very  early,  at  the  dawning  of  the  day,  that  they  might 
go  round  seven  times.  tDQE'EQ,  in  the  manner  prescribed  and 
carried  out  on  the  previous  days,  which  had  become  a  right  through 
precept  and  practice.  On  the  seventh  circuit,  when  the  priests  had 
blown  the  trumpet,  Joshua  commanded  the  fighting  men  to  raise  a 
war-cry,  announcing  to  them  at  the  same  time  that  the  town,  with 
all  that  was  in  it,  was  to  be  a  ban  to  the  Lord,  with  the  exception 
of  Kahab  and  the  persons  in  her  house,  and  warning  them  not  to 
take  of  that  which  was  laid  under  the  ban,  that  they  might  not 
bring  a  ban  upon  the  camp  of  Israel.  The  construction  in  ver.  16, 
"  it  came  to  pass  at  the  seventh  time  the  piiests  had  blown  the  trumpets, 
then  Joshua  said,  .  .  ."  is  more  spirited  than  if  the  conjunction  "i^'&O 
had  been  used  before  Wpn,  or  yiprm  had  been  used.  Because  the 
Lord  had  given  Jericho  into  the  hands  of  the  Israelites,  they  were 
to  consecrate  it  to  Him  as  a  ban  (cherem),  i.e.  as  a  holy  thing  be- 
longing to  Jehovah,  which  was  not  to  be  touched  by  man,  as  being 


CHAP.  VI.  8-20.  G7 

the  first-fruits  of  the  land  of  Canaan.  (On  cherem,  see  the  remarks 
at  Lev.  xxvii.  28,  29.)  Rahab  alone  was  excepted  from  this  ban, 
along  with  all  that  belonged  to  her,  because  she  had  hidden  the 
spies.  The  inhabitants  of  an  idolatrous  town  laid  under  the  ban 
were  to  be  put  to  death,  together  with  their  cattle,  and  all  the  pro- 
perty in  the  town  to  be  burned,  as  Moses  himself  had  enjoined  on 
the  basis  of  the  law  in  Lev.  xxvii.  29.  The  only  exceptions  were 
metals,  gold,  silver,  and  the  vessels  of  brass  and  iron ;  these  were 
to  be  brought  into  the  treasury  of  the  Lord,  i.e.  the  treasury  of  the 
tabernacle,  as  being  holy  to  the  Lord  (ver.  19  ;  vid.  Num.  xxxi.  54). 
Whoever  took  to  himself  anything  that  had  been  laid  under  the 
ban,  exposed  himself  to  the  ban,  not  only  because  he  had  brought 
an  abomination  into  his  house,  as  Moses  observes  in  Deut.  vii.  25, 
in  relation  to  the  gold  and  silver  of  idols,  but  because  he  had 
wickedly  invaded  the  rights  of  the  Lord,  by  appropriating  that 
which  had  been  laid  under  the  ban,  and  had  wantonly  violated  the 
ban  itself.  The  words,  "  beware  of  the  ban,  that  ye  do  not  ban  and 
take  of  the  ban'  (ver.  18),  point  to  this.  As  Lud.  de  Dieu  observes, 
11  the  two  things  were  altogether  incompatible,  to  devote  everything 
to  God,  and  yet  to  apply  a  portion  to  their  own  private  use ;  either 
the  thing  should  not  have  been  devoted,  or  having  been  devoted,  it 
was  their  duty  to  abstain  from  it."  Any  such  appropriation  of 
what  had  been  laid  under  the  ban  would  make  the  camp  of  Israel 
itself  a  ban,  and  trouble  it,  i.e.  bring  it  into  trouble  (conturbare,  cf. 
Gen.  xxxiv.  30).  In  consequence  of  the  trumpet-blast  and  the 
war-cry  raised  by  the  people,  the  walls  of  the  town  fell  together, 
and  the  Israelites  rushed  into  the  town  and  took  it,  as  had  been 
foretold  in  ver.  5.  The  position  of  Dyn  jn^>  is  not  to  be  understood 
as  signifying  that  the  people  had  raised  the  war-cry  before  the 
trumpet-blast,  but  may  be  explained  on  the  ground,  that  in  his 
instructions  in  ver.  16  Joshua  had  only  mentioned  the  shouting. 
But  any  misinterpretation  is  prevented  by  the  fact,  that  it  is  ex- 
pressly stated  immediately  afterwards,  that  the  people  did  not  raise 
the  great  shout  till  they  heard  the  trumpet-blast. 

As  far  as  the  event  itself  is  concerned,  the  different  attempts 
which  have  been  made  to  explain  the  miraculous  overthrow  of  the 
walls  of  Jericho  as  a  natural  occurrence,  whether  by  an  earthquake, 
or  by  mining,  or  by  sudden  storming,  for  which  the  inhabitants, 
who  had  been  thrown  into  a  false  security  by  the  marvellous  proces- 
sion repeated  day  after  day  for  several  days,  were  quite  unprepared 
(as  Ewald  has  tried  to  explain  the  miracle  away),  really  deserve  no 


R8  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

serious  refutation,  being  all  of  them  arbitrarily  forced  upon  the 
text.  It  is  only  from  the  naturalistic  stand-point  that  the  miracle 
could  ever  be  denied ;  for  it  not  only  follows  most  appropriately 
upon  the  miraculous  guidance  of  Israel  through  the  Jordan,  but  is 
in  perfect  harmony  with  the  purpose  and  spirit  of  the  divine  plan 
of  salvation.  "  It  is  impossible,"  says  Hess,  "  to  imagine  a  more 
striking  way,  in  which  it  could  have  been  shown  to  the  Israelites 
that  Jehovah  had  given  them  the  town.  Now  the  river  must  retire 
to  give  them  an  entrance  into  the  land,  and  now  again  the  wall 
of  the  town  must  fall  to  make  an  opening  into  a  fortified  place. 
Two  such  decisive  proofs  of  the  co-operation  of  Jehovah  so  shortly 
after  Moses'  death,  must  have  furnished  a  pledge,  even  to  the  most 
sensual,  that  the  same  God  was  with  them  who  had  led  their  fathers 
so  mightily  and  so  miraculously  through  the  Red  Sea."  That  this 
was  in  part  the  intention  of  the  miracle,  we  learn  from  the  close 
of  the  narrative  (ver.  27).  But  this  does  not  explain  the  true  object 
of  the  miracle,  or  the  reason  why  God  gave  up  this  town  to  the 
Israelites  without  any  fighting  on  their  part,  through  the  miraculous 
overthrow  of  their  walls.  The  reason  for  this  we  have  to  look  for 
in  the  fact  that  Jericho  was  not  only  the  first,  but  the  strongest 
town  of  Canaan,  and  as  such  was  the  key  to  the  conquest  of  the 
whole  land,  the  possession  of  which  would  open  the  way  to  the 
whole,  and  give  the  whole,  as  it  were,  into  their  hands.  The  Lord 
would  give  His  people  the  first  and  strongest  town  of  Canaan,  as 
the  first-fruits  of  the  land,  without  any  effort  on  their  part,  as  a 
sign  that  He  was  about  to  give  them  the  whole  land  for  a  pos- 
session, according  to  His  promise;  in  order  that  they  might  not 
regard  the  conquest  of  it  as  their  own  work,  or  the  fruit  of  their 
own  exertions,  and  look  upon  the  land  as  a  well-merited  possession 
which  they  could  do  as  they  pleased  with,  but  that  they  might  ever 
use  it  as  a  gracious  gift  from  the  Lord,  which  he  had  merely  con- 
ferred upon  them  as  a  trust,  and  which  He  could  take  away  again, 
whenever  they  might  fall  from  Him,  and  render  themselves  un- 
worthy of  His  grace.  This  design  on  the  part  of  God  would  of 
necessity  become  very  obvious  in  the  case  of  so  strongly  fortified  a 
town  as  Jericho,  whose  walls  would  appear  impregnable  to  a  people 
that  had  grown  up  in  the  desert  and  was  so  utterly  without  expe- 
rience in  the  art  of  besieging  or  storming  fortified  places,  and  in 
fact  would  necessarily  remain  impregnable,  at  all  events  for  a  long 
time,  without  the  interposition  of  God.  But  if  this  was  the  reason 
why  the  Lord  gave  up  Jericho  to  the  Israelites  by  a  miracle,  it  does 


CHAP.  VI.  8-20.  69 

not  explain  either  the  connection  between  the  blast  of  trumpets  or 
the  war-cry  of  the  people  and  the  falling  of  the  walls,  or  the  reason 
for  the  divine  instructions  that  the  town  was  to  be  marched  round 
every  day  for  seven  days,  and  seven  times  on  the  seventh  day.  Yet 
as  this  was  an  appointment  of  divine  wisdom,  it  must  have  had 
some  meaning. 

The  significance  of  this  repeated  marching  round  the  town  cul- 
minates unquestionably  in  the  ark  of  the  covenant  and  the  trumpet- 
blast  of  the  priests  who  went  before  the  ark.  In  the  account  before 
us  the  ark  is  constantly  called  the  ark  of  the  Lord,  to  show  that  the 
Lord,  who  was  enthroned  upon  the  cherubim  of  the  ark,  was  going 
round  the  hostile  town  in  the  midst  of  His  people ;  whilst  in  ver.  8 
Jehovah  himself  is  mentioned  in  the  place  of  the  ark  of  Jehovah. 
Seven  priests  went  before  the  ark,  bearing  jubilee  trumpets  and 
blowing  during  the  march.  The  first  time  that  we  read  of  a  trumpet- 
blast  is  at  Sinai,  where  the  Lord  announced  His  descent  upon  the 
mount  to  the  people  assembled  at  the  foot  to  receive  Him,  not  only 
by  other  fearful  phenomena,  but  also  by  a  loud  and  long-continued 
trumpet-blast  (Ex.  xix.  16,  19,  xx.  14  (18)).  After  this  we  find  the 
blowing  of  trumpets  prescribed  as  part  of  the  Israelitish  worship  in 
connection  with  the  observance  of  the  seventh  new  moon's  day  (Lev. 
xxiii.  24),  and  at  the  proclamation  of  the  great  year  of  jubilee  (Lev. 
xxv.  9).  Just  as  the  trumpet-blast  heard  by  the  people  when  the 
covenant  was  made  at  Sinai  was  as  it  were  a  herald's  call,  announcing 
to  the  tribes  of  Israel  the  arrival  of  the  Lord  their  God  to  complete 
His  covenant  and  establish  His  kingdom  upon  earth;  so  the  blowing 
of  trumpets  in  connection  with  the  round  of  feasts  was  intended 
partly  to  bring  the  people  into  remembrance  before  the  Lord  year  by 
year  at  the  commencement  of  the  sabbatical  month,  that  He  might 
come  to  them  and  grant  them  the  Sabbath  rest  of  His  kingdom,  and 
partly  at  the  end  of  every  seven  times  seven  years  to  announce  on 
the  great  day  of  atonement  the  coming  of  the  great  year  of  grace 
and  freedom,  which  was  to  bring  to  the  people  of  God  deliverance 
from  bondage,  return  to  their  own  possessions,  and  deliverance  from 
the  bitter  labours  of  this  earth,  and  to  give  them  a  foretaste  of  the 
blessed  and  glorious  liberty  to  which  the  children  of  God  would 
attain  at  the  return  of  the  Lord  to  perfect  His  kingdom  (vid.  Pen- 
tateuch, vol.  ii.  pp.  466-7).  But  when  the  Lord  comes  to  found,  to 
build  up,  and  to  perfect  His  kingdom  upon  earth,  He  also  comes  to 
overthrow  and  destroy  the  worldly  power  which  opposes  His  kingdom. 
The  revelation  of  the  grace  and  mercy  of  God  to  His  children,  goes 


70  fHE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

ever  siae  by  side  with  the  revelation  of  justice  and  judgment  towards 
the  ungodly  who  are  His  foes.  If  therefore  the  blast  of  trumpets 
was  the  signal  to  the  congregation  of  Israel  of  the  gracious  arrival 
of  the  Lord  its  God  to  enter  into  fellowship  with  it,  no  less  did  it 
proclaim  the  advent  of  judgment  to  an  ungodly  world.  This  shows 
clearly  enough  the  meaning  of  the  trumpet-blast  at  Jericho.  The 
priests,  who  went  before  the  ark  of  the  covenant  (the  visible  throne 
of  the  invisible  God  who  dwelt  among  His  people)  and  in  the  midst 
of  the  hosts  of  Israel,  were  to  announce  through  the  blast  of  trumpets 
both  to  the  Israelites  and  Canaanites  the  appearance  of  the  Lord  of 
the  whole  earth  for  judgment  upon  Jericho,  the  strong  bulwark  of 
the  Canaanitish  power  and  rule,  and  to  foretel  to  them  through  the 
falling  of  the  walls  of  this  fortification,  which  followed  the  blast  of 
trumpets  and  the  war-cry  of  the  soldiers  of  God,  the  overthrow  of 
all  the  strong  bulwarks  of  an  ungodly  world  through  the  omnipotence 
of  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth.  Thus  the  fall  of  Jericho  became 
the  symbol  and  type  of  the  overthrow  of  every  worldly  power  before 
the  Lord,  when  He  should  come  to  lead  His  people  into  Canaan 
and  establish  His  kingdom  upon  earth.  On  the  ground  of  this 
event,  the  blowing  of  trumpets  is  frequently  introduced  in  the 
writings  of  the  prophets,  as  the  signal  and  symbolical  omen  of  the 
manifestations  of  the  Lord  in  great  judgments,  through  which  He 
destroys  one  worldly  power  after  another,  and  thus  maintains  and 
extends  His  kingdom  upon  earth,  and  leads  it  on  towards  that 
completion  to  which  it  will  eventually  attain  when  He  descends 
from  heaven  in  His  glory  at  the  time  of  the  last  trump,  with  a 
great  shout,  with  the  voice  of  the  archangel  and  the  trump  of  God, 
to  raise  the  dead  and  change  the  living,  to  judge  the  world,  cast 
the  devil,  death,  and  hell  into  the  lake  of  fire,  create  a  new  heaven 
and  new  earth,  and  in  the  new  Jerusalem  erect  the  tabernacle  of 
God  among  men  for  all  eternity  (1  Cor.  xv.  51  sqq. ;  1  Thess.  iv. 
16,  17  ;  Rev.  xx.  and  xxi.). 

The  appointment  of  the  march  round  Jericho,  which  was  to  be 
continued  for  seven  days,  and  to  be  repeated  seven  times  on  the 
seventh  day,  was  equally  significant.  The  number  seven  is  a 
symbol  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  work  of  God  and  of  the  perfection 
already  produced  or  to  be  eventually  secured  by  Him ;  a  symbol 
founded  upon  the  creation  of  the  world  in  six  days,  and  the  comple- 
tion of  the  works  of  creation  by  the  resting  of  God  upon  the  seventh 
day.  Through  this  arrangement,  that  the  walls  of  Jericho  were 
not  to  fall  till  after  they  had  been  marched  round  for  seven  days, 


CHAP.  VI.  21-27.  71 

and  not  till  after  this  had  been  repeated  seven  times  on  the  seventh 
day,  and  then  amidst  the  blast  of  the  jubilee  trumpets  and  the 
war-cry  of  the  soldiers  of  the  people  of  God,  the  destruction  of  this 
town,  the  key  to  Canaan,  was  intended  by  God  to  become  a  type 
of  the  final  destruction  at  the  last  day  of  the  power  of  this  world, 
which  exalts  itself  against  the  kingdom  of  God.  In  this  way  He  not 
only  showed  to  His  congregation  that  it  would  not  be  all  at  once, 
but  only  after  long-continued  conflict,  and  at  the  end  of  the  world, 
that  the  worldly  power  by  which  it  was  opposed  would  be  over- 
thrown, but  also  proved  to  the  enemies  of  His  kingdom,  that 
however  long  their  power  might  sustain  itself  in  opposition  to  the 
kingdom  of  God,  it  would  at  last  be  destroyed  in  a  moment 

Vers.  21-27.  After  the  taking  of  Jericho,  man  and  beast  were 
banned,  i.e.  put  to  death  without  quarter  (ver.  21 ;  cf.  ver.  17)  ; 
Rahab  and  her  relations  being  the  only  exceptions.  Joshua  had 
directed  the  two  spies  to  fetch  them  out  of  her  house,  and  in  the 
first  instance  had  them  taken  to  a  place  of  safety  outside  the  camp 
of  Israel  (vers.  22,  23).  "  Her  brethren"  i.e.  her  brothers  and 
sisters,  as  in  chap.  ii.  13,  not  her  brothers  only.  "All  that  she  had  " 
does  not  mean  all  her  possessions,  but  all  the  persons  belonging  to 
her  house  ;  and  "all  her  kindred"  are  all  her  relations  by  birth  or 
marriage,  with  their  dependants  (cf.  chap.  ii.  13).  Clericus  is 
correct  in  observing,  that  as  Rahab's  house  was  built  against  the 
town-wall,  and  rested  partly  upon  it  (chap.  ii.  15),  when  the  wall 
fell  down,  that  portion  against  or  upon  which  the  house  stood 
cannot  have  fallen  along  with  the  rest,  "  otherwise  when  the  wall 
fell  no  one  would  have  dared  to  remain  in  the  house."  But  we 
must  not  draw  the  further  inference,  that  when  the  town  was  burned 
Rahab's  house  was  spared.1  *UI  Pn?  DWfW  (ver.  23  ;  cf.  Gen.  xix. 
16),  "they  let  them  rest"  i.e.  placed  them  in  safety,  "outside  the 
camp  of  Israel"  sc.  till  they  had  done  all  that  was  requisite  for  a 
formal  reception  into  the  congregation  of  the  Lord,  viz.  by  giving 
up  idolatry  and  heathen  superstition,  and  turning  to  the  God  of 
Israel  as  the  only  true  God  (to  which  circumcision  had  to  be  added 
in  the  case  of  the  men),  and  by  whatever  lustrations  and  purifica- 
tions were  customary  at  the  time  in  connection  with  reception  into 
the  covenant  with  Jehovah,  of  which  we  have  no  further  informa- 
tion.— Vers.  24,  25.  After  man  and  beast  had  been  put  to  death, 

1  The  statements  made  by  travellers  in  the  middle  ages,  to  the  effect  that 
they  had  seen.  Rahab's  house  (Rob.  Pal.  ii.  pp.  295-6),  belong  to  the  delusions 
of  pious  superstition. 


72  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

and  Kahab  and  her  relatives  had  been  placed  in  security,  the 
Israelites  set  the  town  on  fire  with  everything  in  it,  excepting  the 
metals,  which  were  taken  to  the  treasury  of  the  tabernacle,  as  had 
been  commanded  in  ver.  19.  On  the  conquest  of  the  other  towns 
of  Canaan  the  inhabitants  only  were  put  to  death,  whilst  the  cattle 
and  the  rest  of  the  booty  fell  to  the  conquerors,  just  as  in  the  case  of 
the  conquest  of  the  land  and  towns  of  Sihon  and  Og  (compare  chap, 
viii.  26,  27,  x.  28,  with  Deut.  ii.  34,  35,  and  iii.  6,  7),  as  it  was  only 
the  inhabitants  of  Canaan  that  the  Lord  had  commanded  to  be  put 
under  the  ban  (Deut.  vii.  2,  xx.  16,  17).  In  the  case  of  Jericho, 
on  the  contrary,  men,  cattle,  and  booty  were  all  put  under  the  ban, 
and  the  town  itself  was  to  be  laid  in  ashes.  This  was  because 
Jericho  was  the  first  town  of  Canaan  which  the  Lord  had  given  up 
to  His  people.  Israel  was  therefore  to  sacrifice  it  to  the  Lord  as 
the  first-fruits  of  the  land,  and  to  sanctify  it  to  Him  as  a  thing 
placed  under  the  ban,  for  a  sign  that  they  had  received  the  whole 
land  as  a  fief  from  his  hand,  and  had  no  wish  to  grasp  as  a  prey 
that  which  belonged  to  the  Lord. — Ver.  25.  But  Rahab  and  all 
that  belonged  to  her  Joshua  suffered  to  live,  so  that  she  dwelt  in 
Israel  " unto  this  day"  It  is  very  evident  from  this  remark,  that 
the  account  was  written  not  very  long  after  the  event.1 

Vers.  26,  27.  But  in  order  to  complete  the  ban  pronounced 
upon  Jericho  in  perfect  accordance  with  the  command  of  God  in 
Deut.  xiii.  17,  and  to  make  the  destruction  of  it  a  memorial  to  pos- 
terity of  the  justice  of  God  sanctifying  itself  upon  the  ungodly, 
Joshua  completed  the  ban  with  an  oath  :  "  Cursed  be  the  man  before 
the  Lord  that  riseth  up  and  buildeth  this  city  Jericho ;  he  shall  lay 
the  foundation  thereof  at  the  price  of  his  first-born,  and  set  up  its 
gates  at  the  price  of  his  youngest  son"  (2  denoting  the  price  of  a 

1  Eahab  is  no  doubt  the  same  person  as  the  Rachab  mentioned  in  the 
genealogy  of  Jesus  Christ,  who  married  Salmon  the  tribe  prince  of  Judah,  to 
whom  she  bore  Boaz,  an  ancestor  of  David  (Matt.  i.  5).  The  doubts  which 
Theophylact  expressed  as  to  the  identity  of  the  two,  and  which  J.  Outliou  has 
since  sought  to  confirm,  rest  for  the  most  part  upon  the  same  doctrinal  scruples 
as  those  which  induced  the  author  of  the  Chaldee  version  to  make  Rahab 
an  innkeeper,  namely,  the  offence  taken  at  her  dishonourable  calliDg.  Jerome's 
view,  on  the  other  hand,  is  a  very  satisfactory  one.  "  In  the  genealogy  of  the 
Saviour,"  he  says,  "  none  of  the  holy  women  are  included,  but  only  those 
whom  the  Scriptures  blame,  that  He  who  came  on  behalf  of  sinners,  being 
himself  born  of  sinners,  might  destroy  the  sins  of  all."  The  different  ways  in 
which  the  name  is  written,  viz.  ^  'P«#«/3  in  Matthew,  and  'Pxuß  in  the  Sept. 
version  of  Joshua,  and  in  Heb.  xi.  31  and  James  ii.  25,  is  not  enough  to  throw 


CHAP.  VI.  26,  27.  73 

thing).  The  rhythmical  parallelism  is  unmistakeable  in  this  curse. 
The  two  last  clauses  express  the  thought  that  the  builder  of  the 
town  would  pay  for  its  restoration  by  the  loss  of  all  his  sons,  from 
the  first-born  to  the  very  youngest.  The  word  "  buildeth,"  how- 
ever, does  not  refer  to  the  erection  of  houses  upon  the  site  of  the 
town  that  had  been  burnt  to  ashes,  but  to  the  restoration  of  the 
town  as  a  fortification,  the  word  HJ2  being  frequently  used  to  denote 
the  fortification  of  a  town  (e.g.  1  Kings  xv.  17  ;  2  Chron.  xi.  6,  xiv. 
5,  6).  This  is  evident  in  general  from  the  fact  that  a  town  is  not 
founded  by  the  erection  of  a  number  of  houses  upon  one  spot,  but 
by  the  joining  of  these  houses  together  into  an  enclosed  whole  by 
means  of  a  surrounding  wall,  but  more  particularly  from  the  last 
words  of  the  verse,  in  which  rua  is  explained  as  WlB^  (lay  the  foun- 
dation thereof)  and  ^f\  3*£  (set  up  the  gates  of  it).  Setting  up 
the  gates  of  a  town  is  not  setting  up  doors  to  the  houses,  but  erect- 
ing town-gates,  which  can  only  be  done  when  a  town-wall  has  been 
built.  But  if  setting  up  the  gates  would  be  a  sign  of  the  comple- 
tion of  the  wall,  and  therefore  of  the  restoration  of  the  town  as  a 
fortification,  the  "  founding"  (laying  the  foundation)  mentioned 
in  the  parallel  clause  can  only  be  understood  as  referring  to  the 
foundation  of  the  town-wall.  This  view  of  the  curse,  which  is  well 
supported  both  by  the  language  and  the  facts,  is  also  confirmed  by 
the  subsequent  history.  Joshua  himself  allotted  Jericho  to  the 
Benjamites  along  with  certain  other  towns  (chap,  xviii.  21),  which 
proves  that  he  intended  them  to  inhabit  it;  and  accordingly  we 
find  the  city  of  palms,  i.e.  Jericho,  mentioned  afterwards  as  an  in- 
habited place  (Judg.  iii.  13 ;  2  Sam.  x.  5),  and  yet  it  was  not  till 
the  time  of  Ahab  that  Joshua's  curse  was  fulfilled,  when  Hiel  the 
Bethelite  undertook  to  make  it  into  a  fortified  town  (1  Kings  xvi. 

any  doubt  upon  the  identity  of  the  two,  as  Josephus  always  calls  the  harlot 
Rahab  ij  'Pos^a/3«.  The  chronological  difficulty,  that  Salmon  and  Rahab  lived 
much  too  soon  to  have  been  the  parents  of  Boaz,  which  is  adduced  by  Kndbel 
as  an  argument  against  the  identity  of  the  mother  of  Boaz  and  the  harlot 
Rahab,  has  no  force  unless  it  can  be  proved  that  every  link  is  given  in  the 
genealogy  of  David  (in  Ruth  iv.  21,  22  ;  1  Chron.  ii.  11  ;  Matt.  i.  5),  and  that 
Boaz  was  really  the  great-grandfather  of  David  ;  whereas  the  very  opposite, 
viz.  the  omission  from  the  genealogies  of  persons  of  no  celebrity,  is  placed 
beyond  all  doubt  by  many  cases  that  might  be  cited.  Nothing  more  is  known 
of  Rahab.  The  accounts  of  the  later  Rabbins,  such  as  that  she  was  married  1o 
Joshua,  or  that  she  was  the  mother  of  eight  prophets,  and  others  of  the  same 
kind,  are  fables  without  the  slightest  historical  foundation  (see  Lightfoot,  hor. 
hebr.  et  talm.  in  Matt.  i.  5). 


74  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

34V1 Yer.  27.  Thus  the  Lord  was  with  Joshua,  fulfilling  His 

promise  to  him  (chap.  i.  5  sqq.),  so  that  his  fame  spread  through  all 
the  land. 


achan's  theft  and  PUNISHMENT. — CHAP.  VII. 

Ver.  1.  At  Jericho  the  Lord  had  made  known  to  the  Canaanites 
His  great  and  holy  name ;  but  before  Ai  the  Israelites  were  to  learn 
that  He  would  also  sanctify  Himself  on  them  if  they  transgressed 
His  covenant,  and  that  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  could  only 
conquer  the  power  of  the  world  so  long  as  it  was  faithful  to  His 
covenant.  But  notwithstanding  the  command  which  Joshua  had 
enforced  upon  the  people  (chap.  vi.  18),  Achan,  a  member  of  the 
tribe  of  Judah,  laid  hands  upon  the  property  in  Jericho  which  had 
been  banned,  and  thus  brought  the  ban  upon  the  children  of  Israel, 
the  whole  nation.  His  breach  of  trust  is  described  as  unfaithful- 
ness (a  trespass)  on  the  part  of  the  children  of  Israel  in  the  ban,  in 
consequence  of  which  the  anger  of  the  Lord  was  kindled  against 
the  whole  nation.  ?VO  ?J?0,  to  commit  a  breach  of  trust  (see  at 
Lev.  v.  15),  generally  against  Jehovah,  by  purloining  or  withhold- 
ing what  was  sanctified  to  Him,  here  in  the  matter  of  the  ban,  by 
appropriating  what  had  been  banned  to  the  Lord.  This  crime  was 
imputed  to  the  whole  people,  not  as  imputatio  moralis,  i.e.  as  though 
the  whole  nation  had  shared  in  Achan's  disposition,  and  cherished 
in  their  hearts  the  same  sinful  desire  which  Achan  had  carried  out 
in  action  in  the  theft  he  had  committed ;  but  as  imputatio  civilis, 
according  to  which  Achan,  a  member  of  the  nation,  had  robbed  the 
whole  nation  of  the  purity  and  holiness  which  it  ought  to  possess 
before  God,  through  the  sin  that  he  had  committed,  just  as  the 
whole  body  is  affected  by  the  sin  of  a  single  member.2     Instead  of 

1  KnöbeVs  opinion,  that  the  Jericho  mentioned  between  the  times  of  Joshua 
and  Ahab  in  all  probability  did  not  stand  upon  the  old  site  which  Hiel  was  the 
first  to  build  upon  again,  is  at  variance  with  1  Kings  xvi.  34,  as  it  is  not  stated 
there  that  he  rebuilt  the  old  site  of  Jericho,  but  that  he  began  to  build  the 
town  of  Jericho,  which  existed,  according  to  2  Sam.  x.  5  and  Judg.  iii.  13,  in 
the  time  of  David,  and  even  of  the  judges,  i.e.  to  restore  it  as  a  fortified  town  ; 
and  it  is  not  raised  into  a  truth  by  any  appeal  to  the  statements  of  Slrabo, 
Appian,  and  others,  to  the  effect  that  Greeks  and  Romans  did  not  choose  places 
fur  building  upon  which  any  curse  rested. 

2  In  support  of  this  I  cannot  do  better  than  quote  the  most  important  of  the 
remarks  which  I  made  in  my  former  commentary  (Keil  on  Joshua,  pp.  177-8, 
Eng.  trans.)  :  "  However  truly  the  whole  Scriptures  speak  of  each  man  as  indi- 


CHAP.  VII.  2-5.  75 

Achan  (the  reading  here  and  in  chap.  xxii.  20)  we  find  Achar  in 
1  Ohron.  ii.  7,  the  liquids  n  and  r  being  interchanged  to  allow  of  a 
play  upon  the  verb  "13JJ  in  ver.  25.  Hence  in  Josephus  the  name  is 
spelt  Acharos,  and  in  the  Cod.  Vat.  of  the  LXX.  Achar,  whereas  the 
Cod.  Al.  has  Achan.  Instead  of  Zabdi,  we  find  Zimri  in  1  Chron. 
ii.  6,  evidently  a  copyist's  error.  Zerah  was  the  twin-brother  of 
Pharez  (Gen.  xxxviii.  29,  30).  Mattel/,  from  niM,  to  spread  out,  is 
used  to  denote  the  tribe  according  to  its  genealogical  ramifications ; 
whilst  shebet  (from  an  Arabic  root  signifying  "  uniform,  not  curled, 
but  drawn  out  straight  and  long  without  any  curvature  at  all ")  was 
applied  to  the  sceptre  or  straight  staff  of  a  magistrate  or  ruler  (never 
to  the  stick  upon  which  a  person  rested),  and  differed  from  matteh 
not  only  in  its  primary  and  literal  meaning,  but  also  in  the  deri- 
vative meanino;  tribe,  in  which  it  was  used  to  designate  the  division 
of  the  nation  referred  to,  not  according  to  its  genealogical  rami- 
fications and  development,  but  as  a  corporate  body  possessing  autho- 
rity and  power.  This  difference  in  the  ideas  expressed  by  the  two 
words  will  explain  the  variations  in  their  use :  for  example,  matteh 
is  used  here  (in  vers.  1  and  18),  and  in  chap.  xxii.  1-14,  and  in 
fact  is  the  term  usually  employed  in  the  geographical  sections; 
whereas  shebet  is  used  in  vers.  14,  16,  in  chap.  iii.  12,  iv.  2,  and  on 
many  other  occasions,  in  those  portions  of  the  historical  narratives 
in  which  the  tribes  of  Israel  are  introduced  as  military  powers. 

Vers.  2-5.  The  anger  of  God,  which  Achan  had  brought  upon 
Israel,  was  manifested  to  the  conores-ation  in  connection  with  their 
attempt  to  take  Ai.  This  town  was  situated  near  Bethaven,  on 
the  east  of  Bethel.  Bethel  was  originally  called  Luz  (see  at  Gen. 
xxviii.  19),  a  place  on  the  border  of  Ephraim  and  Benjamin  (chap. 

vidually  an  object  of  divine  mercy  and  justice,  they  teach  just  as  truly  that  a 
nation  is  one  organic  whole,  in  which  the  individuals  are  merely  members  of  the 
same  body,  and  are  not  atoms  isolated  from  one  another  and  the  whole,  since 
the  state  as  a  divine  institution  is  founded  upon  family  relationship,  and  intended 
to  promote  the  love  of  all  to  one  another  and  to  the  invisible  Head  of  all.  As 
all  then  are  combined  in  a  fellowship  established  by  God,  the  good  or  evil  deeds 
of  an  individual  affect  injuriously  or  beneficially  the  welfare  of  the  whole  society. 
And,  therefore,  when  we  regard  the  state  as  a  divine  organization  and  not  merely 
as  a  civil  institution,  a  compact  into  which  men  have  entered  by  treaty,  we  fail 
to  discover  caprice  and  injustice  in  consequences  which  necessarily  follow  from 
the  moral  unity  of  the  whole  state  ;  namely,  that  the  good  or  evil  deeds  of  one 
member  are  laid  to  the  charge  of  the  entire  body.  Caprice  and  injustice  we 
shall  always  find  if  we  leave  out  of  sight  this  fundamental  unity,  and  merely 
look  at  the  fact  that  the  many  share  the  consequences  of  the  sin  of  one." 


76  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

xvi.  2,  xviii.  13).  It  is  frequently  mentioned,  was  well  known  at  a 
later  time  as  the  city  in  which  Jeroboam  established  the  worship 
of  the  calves,  and  was  inhabited  again  even  after  the  captivity 
(see  v.  Raumer,  Pal.  pp.  178,  179).  It  has  been  preserved,  in  all 
probability,  in  the  very  extensive  ruins  called  Beitin  (see  Robinson, 
Pal.  ii.  pp.  126  sqq.),  about  four  hours'  journey  on  horseback  to  the 
north  of  Jerusalem,  and  on  the  east  of  the  road  which  leads  from 
Jerusalem  to  Sichern  (Nablus).1  No  traces  have  ever  been  dis- 
covered of  Bethaven.  According  to  chap,  xviii.  12, 13,  the  northern 
boundary  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  which  ran  up  from  Jericho  to 
the  mountains  on  the  west,  passed  on  to  the  desert  of  Bethaven, 
and  so  onwards  to  Luz  (Bethel).  If  we  compare  with  this  the 
statement  in  1  Sam.  xiii.  5,  that  the  Philistines  who  came  against 
Israel  encamped  at  Michmash  before  (in  front  of)  Bethaven, 
according  to  which  Bethaven  was  on  the  east'  or  north-east  of 
Michmash  (Mukhmas),  the  desert  of  Bethaven  may  very  possibly 
have  been  nothing  more  than  the  table-land  which  lies  between 
the  Wady  Mutyah  on  the  north  and  the  Wadys  Fuwar  and 
Suweinit  (in  Robinson's  map),  or  Wady  Tuwär  (on  Van  de  Veldis 
map),  and  stretches  in  a  westerly  direction  from  the  rocky  moun- 
tain Kuruntel  to  Abu  Sebah  (Subbah).  Bethaven  would  then  lie 
to  the  south  or  south-east  of  Abu  Sebah.  In  that  case,  however, 
Ai  (Sept.  Gai  or  Aggai,  Gen.  xii.  8)  would  neither  be  found  in  the 
inconsiderable  ruins  to  the  south  of  the  village  of  Deir  Diwan,  as 
Robinson  supposes  (Pal.  ii.  pp.  312  sqq.),  nor  on  the  site  of  the 
present  Tell  el  Hajar,  i.e.  stone  hill,  three-quarters  of  an  hour  to 
the  S.e.  of  Beitin,  on  the  southern  side  of  the  deep  and  precipi- 
tous Wady  Mutyah,  as  Van  de  Velde  imagines ;  but  in  the  ruins  of 
Medinet  Chai  or  Gai,  which  Krafft2  and  Strauss3  discovered  on  the 
flat  surface  of  a  mountain  that  slopes  off  towards  the  east,  about 
forty  minutes  on  the  eastern  side  of  Geba  (Jeba),  where  "  there 
are  considerable  ruins  surrounded  by  a  circular  wall,  whilst  the 
place  is  defended  on  the  south  by  the  valley  of  Farah,  and  on  the 
north  by  the  valley  of  Es  Suweinit,  with  steep  shelving  walls  of 
rock"  (Strauss :  vid.  C.  Ritter  Erdk.  xvi.  pp.  526-7).  On  the 
advice  of  the  men  who  were  sent  out  to  explore  the  land,  and  who 

1  The  statements  of  the  Onomasticon  of  Euscbius  s.  v.  'Ayycti  agree  with 
this  :  Keircct  Hottd^K  diriovruv  rig  Ai'kict.v  oL-ko  Nf«?  Tohiug  iv  hxioi;  rijs  ohoZ 
etpiQi  to  Quhix.ce.TOv  d-K1  Al'kict;  av\p.uov.  Also  S.  v.  3on6ti>.  :  kui  vvu  iotI  hco/ayi, 
Aixfx;  oLirofov  o-y[teioi;  iß'  (twelve  Roman  miles  are  four  or  five  hours'  journey). 

2  Topograph,  v.  Jerusalem,  p.  ix.  8  Sinai  u.  Golgoth.  pp.  326-7. 


CHAP.  VII.  6-9.  77 

described  the  population  on  their  return  as  small  ("  they  are  but 
few"),  Joshua  did  not  send  the  whole  of  the  fighting  men  against 
Ai,  but  only  about  3000  men.  As  there  were  not  more  than 
1  "2,000  inhabitants  (chap.  viii.  25),  there  could  hardly  have  been 
8000  fighting  men,  who  might  easily  have  been  beaten  by  3000 
Israelitish  warriors.  But  when  the  Israelites  attacked  the  town 
they  fled  before  its  inhabitants,  who  slew  about  thirty-six  men,  and 
pursued  them  before  the  gate,  i.e.  outside  the  town,  to  the  stone 
quarries,  and  smote  them  on  the  sloping  ground.  The  Shebarim, 
from  sheber,  a  breach  or  fracture,  were  probably  stone  quarries 
near  the  slope  on  the  east  of  the  town.  Nothing  more  can  be 
decided,  as  the  country  has  not  been  thoroughly  explored  by  travel- 
lers. On  account  of  this  repulse  the  people  lost  all  their  courage. 
u  The  hearts  of  the  people  melted"  (see  chap.  ii.  15)  :  this  expression 
is  strengthened  still  further  by  the  additional  clause,  "  and  became 
as  water." 

Vers.  6-9.  Joshua  and  the  elders  of  the  people  were  also  deeply 
affected,  not  so  much  at  the  loss  of  thirty-six  men,  as  because 
Israel,  which  was  invincible  with  the  help  of  the  Lord,  had  been 
beaten,  and  therefore  the  Lord  must  have  withdrawn  His  help. 
In  the  deepest  grief,  with  their  clothes  rent  (see  at  Lev.  x.  6)  and 
ashes  upon  their  heads,  they  fell  down  before  the  ark  of  the  Lord 
(yid.  Num.  xx.  6)  until  the  evening,  to  pour  out  their  grief  before 
the  Lord.  Joshua's  prayer  contains  a  complaint  (ver.  7)  and  a 
question  addressed  to  God  (vers.  8,  9).  The  complaint,  "  Alas,  O 
Lord  Jehovah,  wherefore  hast  Thou  brought  this  people  over  Jordan, 
to  deliver  us  into  the  hand  of  the  Amorites,  to  destroy  us  ?"  almost 
amounts  to  murmuring,  and  sounds  very  much  like  the  complaint 
which  the  murmuring  people  brought  against  Moses  and  Aaron  in 
the  desert  (Num.  xiv.  2,  3)  ;  but  it  is  very  different  from  the 
murmuring  of  the  people  on  that  occasion  against  the  guidance  of 
God  ;  for  it  by  no  means  arose  from  unbelief,  but  was  simply  the 
bold  language  of  faith  wrestling  with  God  in  prayer, — faith  which 
could  not  comprehend  the  ways  of  the  Lord, — and  involved  the 
most  urgent  appeal  to  the  Lord  to  carry  out  His  work  in  the  same 
glorious  manner  in  which  it  had  been  begun,  with  the  firm  conviction 
that  God  could  neither  relinquish  nor  alter  His  purposes  of  grace. 
The  words  which  follow,  "  Would  to  God  that  we  had  been  content 
(see  at  Deut.  i.  5)  to  remain  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan,"  assume 
on  the  one  hand,  that  previous  to  the  crossing  of  the  river  Israel 
had  cherished  a  longing  for  the  possession  of  Canaan,  and  on  the 


78  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

other  hand,  that  this  longing  might  possibly  have  been  the  cause  of 
the  calamity  which  had  fallen  upon  the  people  now,  and  therefore 
express  the  wish  that  Israel  had  never  cherished  any  such  desire, 
or  that  the  Lord  had  never  gratified  it.  (On  the  unusual  form 
rmyn  for  Fnaijn,  see  Ges.  §  63,  anm.  4,  and  Ewald,  §  41,  b.)  The 
inf.  abs.  "i^yn  (with  the  unusual  i  in  the  final  syllable)  is  placed  for 
the  sake  of  emphasis  after  the  finite  verb,  as  in  Gen.  xlvi.  4,  etc. 
The  Amorites  are  the  inhabitants  of  the  mountains,  as  in  Gen.  xlvi. 
4,  etc. — Vers.  8,  9.  The  question  which  Joshua  addresses  to  God 
he  introduces  in  this  way  :  "  Pray  (^  contracted  from  ^V"^),  Lord, 
what  shall  I  say  ?"  to  modify  the  boldness  of  the  question  which 
follows.  It  was  not  because  he  did  not  know  what  to  say,  for  he 
proceeded  at  once  to  pour  out  the  thoughts  of  his  heart,  but  because 
he  felt  that  the  thought  which  he  was  about  to  utter  might  involve 
a  reproach,  as  if,  when  God  permitted  that  disaster,  He  had  not 
thought  of  His  own  honour ;  and  as  he  could  not  possibly  think 
this,  he  introduced  his  words  with  a  supplicatory  inquiry.  What 
he  proceeds  to  say  in  vers.  8,  9,  does  not  contain  two  co-ordinate 
clauses,  but  one  simple  thought :  how  would  God  uphold  His  great 
name  before  the  world,  when  the  report  that  Israel  had  turned  their 
back  before  them  should  reach  the  Canaanites,  and  they  should 
come  and  surround  the  Israelites,  and  destroy  them  without  a  single 
trace  from  off  the  face  of  the  earth.1  In  the  words,  "  the  Canaanites 
and  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  land"  there  is  involved  the  thought 
that  there  were  other  people  living  in  Canaan  beside  the  Canaan- 
ites, e.g.  the  Philistines.  The  question,  "  What  xoilt  Thou  do  with 
regard  to  Thy  great  nameV  signifies,  according  to  the  parallel 
passages,  Ex.  xxxii.  11,  12,  Num.  xiv.  13  sqq.,  Deut.  ix.  28,  "  How 
wilt  Thou  preserve  Thy  great  name,  which  Thou  hast  acquired 
thus  far  in  the  sight  of  all  nations  through  the  miraculous  guidance 
of  Israel,  from  being  misunderstood  and  blasphemed  among  the 
heathen?"  ("  what  wilt  Thou  do  V  as  in  Gen.  xxvi.  29). 

Vers.  10-15.  The  answer  of  the  Lord,  which  was  addressed  to 
Joshua  directly  and  not  through  the  high  priest,  breathed  anger 
against  the  sin  of  Israel.    The  question,  "  Wherefore  liest  thou  upon 

1  Calovius  has  therefore  given  the  correct  interpretation :  "  When  they  have 
destroyed  our  name,  after  Thou  hast  chosen  us  to  be  Thy  people,  and  brought 
us  hither  with  such  great  wonders,  what  will  become  of  Thy  name  ?  Our  name 
is  of  little  moment,  but  wilt  Thou  consult  the  honour  of  Thine  own  name,  if 
Thou  destroy  est  us  ?  For  Thou  didst  promise  us  this  land  ;  and  what  people 
is  there  that  will  honour  Thy  name  if  ours  should  be  destroyed  ?  " 


CHAP.  VII.  10-15.  79 

thy  face  V  ("  fallest,"  as  in  Deut.  xxl.  1)  involved  the  reproof  that 
Joshua  had  no  reason  to  doubt  the  fidelity  of  the  Lord.  Instead 
of  seeking  for  the  cause  of  the  calamity  in  God,  he  ought  to  seek 
it  in  the  sin  of  the  people. — Ver.  11.  Israel  had  sinned,  and  that 
very  grievously.  This  is  affirmed  in  the  clauses  which  follow,  and 
which  are  rendered  emphatic  by  the  repetition  of  D2  as  an  expression 
of  displeasure.  The  sin  of  one  man  was  resting  as  a  burden  upon  the 
whole  nation  in  the  manner  explained  above  (on  ver.  1).  This  shi 
was  a  breach  of  the  covenant,  being  a  transgression  of  the  obligation 
into  which  the  people  had  entered  in  their  covenant  with  the  Lord, 
to  keep  His  commandments  (Ex.  xix.  8,  xxiv.  7)  ;  yea,  it  was  a  grasp- 
ing at  the  ban,  and  a  theft,  and  a  concealment,  and  an  appropriation 
of  that  which  was  stolen  to  their  own  use.  The  first  three  clauses 
describe  the  sin  in  its  relation  to  God,  as  a  grievous  offence ;  the 
three  following  according  to  its  true  character,  as  a  great,  obstinate, 
and  reckless  crime.  "  They  have  put  it  among  their  oion  stuff'''' 
(house  furniture),  viz.  to  use  and  appropriate  it  as  their  own  pro- 
perty. As  all  that  had  been  stolen  was  a  property  consecrated  to 
the  Lord,  the  appropriation  of  it  to  private  use  was  the  height  of 
wickedness. — Ver.  12.  On  account  of  this  sin  the  Israelites  could 
not  stand  before  their  foes,  because  they  had  fallen  under  the  ban 
(cf.  chap.  vi.  18).  And  until  this  ban  had  been  removed  from 
their  midst,  the  Lord  would  not  help  them  any  further. — Vers. 
13-15.  Joshua  was  to  take  away  this  ban  from  the  nation.  To 
discover  who  had  laid  hands  upon  the  ban,  he  was  to  direct  the  people 
to  sanctify  themselves  for  the  following  day  (see  at  chap.  iii.  5), 
and  then  to  cause  them  to  come  before  God  according  to  their 
tribes,  families,  households,  and  men,  that  the  guilty  men  might  be 
discovered  by  lot ;  and  to  burn  whoever  was  found  guilty,  with  all 
that  he  possessed.  3")i??,  "  to  come  near"  sc.  to  Jehovah,  i.e.  to  come 
before  His  sanctuary.  The  tribes,  families,  households,  and  men, 
formed  the  four  classes  into  which  the  people  were  organized.  As 
the  tribes  were  divided  into  families,  so  these  again  were  subdivided 
into  houses,  commonly  called  fathers'  houses,  and  the  fathers' 
houses  again  into  men,  i.e.  fathers  of  families  (see  the  remarks  on 
Ex.  xviii.  25,  26,  and  my  Bibl.  Archaeology,  §  140).  Each  of 
these  was  represented  by  its  natural  head,  so  that  we  must  picture 
the  affair  as  conducted  in  the  following  manner :  in  order  to  dis- 
cover the  tribe,  the  twelve  tribe  princes  came  before  the  Lord;  and 
in  order  to  discover  the  family,  the  heads  of  families  of  the  tribe 
that  had  been  taken;  and  so  on  to  the  end,  each  one  in  turn  being 


flO  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

subjected  to  the  lot.  For  although  it  is  not  distinctly  stated  that 
the  lot  was  resorted  to  in  order  to  discover  who  was  guilty,  and 
that  the  discovery  was  actually  made  in  this  way,  this  is  very  evi- 
dent from  the  expression  renSpjHefa  (which  the  Lord  taketh),  as  this 
was  the  technical  term  employed,  according  to  1  Sam.  xiv.  42,  to 
denote  the  falling  of  the  lot  upon  a  person  (see  also  1  Sam.  x.  20). 
Moreover,  the  lot  was  frequently  resorted  to  in  cases  where  a  crime 
could  not  be  brought  home  to  a  person  by  the  testimony  of  eye- 
witnesses (see  1  Sam.  xiv.  41,  42 ;  Jonah  i.  7 ;  Prov.  xviii.  18),  as 
it  was  firmly  believed  that  the  lot  was  directed  by  the  Lord  (Prov. 
xvi.  33).  In  what  manner  the  lot  was  cast  we  do  not  know.  In 
all  probability  little  tablets  or  potsherds  were  used,  with  the  names 
written  upon  them,  and  these  were  drawn  out  of  an  urn.  This 
may  be  inferred  from  a  comparison  of  chap,  xviii.  11  and  xix.  1, 
with  xviii.  6,  10,  according  to  which  the  casting  of  the  lot  took 
place  in  such  a  manner  that  the  lot  came  tip  (»"w,  chap,  xviii.  11, 
xix.  10 ;  Lev.  xvi.  9),  or  came  out  (&«£,  chap.  xix.  1,  xvii.  24 ; 
Num.  xxxiii.  54).  E"1/]?  "'S???,  the  person  taken  in  (with)  the  ban, 
i.e.  taken  by  the  lot  as  affected  with  the  ban,  was  to  be  burned  with 
fire,  of  course  not  alive,  but  after  he  had  been  stoned  (ver.  25). 
The  burning  of  the  body  of  a  criminal  was  regarded  as  heightening 
the  punishment  of  death  (via1.  Lev.  xx.  14).  This  punishment  was 
to  be  inflicted  upon  him,  in  the  first  place,  because  he  had  broken 
the  covenant  of  Jehovah ;  and  in  the  second  place,  because  he  had 
wrought  folly  in  Israel,  that  is  to  say,  had  offended  grievously 
against  the  covenant  God,  and  also  against  the  covenant  nation. 
"  Wrought  folly ;"  an  expression  used  here,  as  in  Gen.  xxxiv.  7,  to 
denote  such  a  crime  as  was  irreconcilable  with  the  honour  of  Israel 
as  the  people  of  God. 

Vers.  16-26.  Execution  of  the  Command. — Vers.  16-18.  Dis 
covery  of  the  guilty  man  through  the  lot.  In  ver.  17  we  should 
expect  "the  tribe"  (shebet)  or  "the  families"  (mishpachoth)  of 
Judali,  instead  of  "  the  family."  The  plural  mishpachoth  is  adopted 
in  the  LXX.  and  Vulgate,  and  also  to  be  met  with  in  seven  MSS.  j 
but  this  is  conjecture  rather  than  the  original  reading.  Mishpachah 
is  either  used  generally,  or  employed  in  a  collective  sense  to  denote 
all  the  families  of  Judah.  There  is  no  ground  for  altering  W}2&  (man 
by  man)  into  D^n?  (house  by  house)  in  ver.  17,  according  to  some 
of  the  MSS.;  the  expression  "man  by  man"  is  used  simply  because 
it  was  the  representative  men  who  came  for  the  lot  to  be  cast,  not 
only  in  the  case  of  the  fathers'  houses,  but  in  that  of  the  families  also. 


CHAP.  VII.  16-26.  81 

— Ver.  19.  When  Aclian  had  been  discovered  to  be  the  criminal, 
Joshua  charged  him  to  give  honour  and  praise  to  the  Lord,  and  to 
confess  without  reserve  what  he  had  done.  It  is  not  ironically,  or 
with  dissimulation,  that  Joshua  addresses  him  as  "  my  son,"  but 
with  "sincere  paternal  regard."1  "  Give  glory  to  the  Lord:"  this 
is  a  solemn  formula  of  adjuration,  by  which  a  person  was  sum- 
moned to  confess  the  truth  before  the  face  of  God  (cf.  John  ix. 
24).  u  And  give  Him  praise:"  the  meaning  is  not,  "make  confes- 
sion," but  give  praise,  as  Ezra  x.  11  clearly  shows.  Through  a 
confession  of  the  truth  Achan  was  to  render  to  God,  as  the 
Omniscient,  the  praise  and  honour  that  were  due. — Vers.  20,  21. 
Achan  then  acknowledged  his  sin,  and  confessed  that  he  had 
appropriated  to  himself  from  among  the  booty  a  beautiful  Baby- 
lonish cloak,  200  shekels  of  silver,  and  a  tongue  of  gold  of  50 
shekels  weight.  The  form  i"iN")X1  is  not  to  be  abbreviated  into  K^KJ, 
according  to  the  Keri,  as  the  form  is  by  no  means  rare  in  verbs  n"^. 
" A  Babylonish  cloak"  (lit.  a  cloak  of  Shinar,  or  Babylon)  is  a 
costly  cloak,  artistically  worked,  such  as  were  manufactured  in 
Babylon,  and  distributed  far  and  wide  through  the  medium  of 
commerce.2  Two  hundred  shekels  of  silver  was  about  £25.  "A 
tongue  of  gold  "  (according  to  Luther,  "  ornaments  made  in  the 
shape  of  tongues")  was  certainly  a  golden  ornament  in  the  form  of  a 
tongue,  the  use  of  which  is  unknown ;  it  was  of  considerable  size, 
as  it  weighed  50  shekels,  i.e.  13,700  grains.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  suppose  that  it  was  a  golden  dagger,  as  many  do,  simply  because 
the  ancient  Romans  gave  the  name  lingula  to  an  oblong  dagger 
formed  in  the  shape  of  a  tongue.  Achan  had  hidden  these  things 
in  the  ground  in  the  midst  of  his  tent,  and  the  silver  "  under  it" 
i.e.  under  these  things  (the  suffix  is  neuter,  and  must  be  understood 
as  referring  to  all  the  things  with  the  exception  of  the  silver).  The 
Babylonish  cloak  and  the  tongue  of  gold  were  probably  placed  in 

1  To  these  remarks  Calvin  also  adds  :  "  This  example  serves  as  a  lesson  to 
judges,  that  when  punishing  crimes  they  should  moderate  their  rigour,  and  not 
lose  all  the  feelings  of  humanity  ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  whilst  merciful 
they  should  not  be  careless  or  remiss." 

2  Plinius  h.  n.  viii.  48 :  Colores  diversos  picturse  vestium  intexere  Babylon 
maxime  celebravit  et  nomen  imposuit.  (See  Heeren  Ideen,  i.  2,  pp.  205  sqq.,  and 
Movers  Phönizier,  ii.  3,  pp.  258  sqq.)  The  Sept.  rendering  is  -^tM  s-o/x/a«, 
i.e.  a  Babylonian  cloak  ornamented  with  pictures.  It  is  called  v!/A»j  because 
it  was  cut  smooth,  and  noix-l^n  because  it  was  covered  with  coloured  figures, 
either  of  men  or  animals,  sometimes  woven,  at  other  times  worked  with  the 
needle  (Fischer  de  vers,  grase,  lior.  V.  T.  pp.  87-8). 

F 


82  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

a  chest ;  at  any  rate  they  would  be  carefully  packed  up,  and  the 
silver  was  placed  underneath.  The  article  in  vfl«^  which  occurs 
twice,  as  it  also  does  in  chap.  viii.  33,  Lev.  xxvii.  33,  Micah  ii.  12, 
is  probably  to  be  explained  in  the  manner  suggested  by  Heng- 
stenberg, viz.  that  the  article  and  noun  became  so  fused  into  one, 
that  the  former  lost  its  proper  force. — Vers.  22,  23.  Joshua  sent 
two  messengers  directly  to  Achan's  tent  to  fetch  the  things,  and 
when  they  were  brought  he  had  them  laid  down  before  Jehovah, 
i.e.  before  the  tabernacle,  where  the  whole  affair  had  taken  place. 
P*sn,  here  and  in  2  Sam.  xv.  24,  signifies  to  lay  down  (synonymous 
with  MB?),  whilst  the  Hiphil  form  is  used  for  pouring  out. — Vers. 
24,  25.  Then  Joshua  and  all  Israel,  i.e.  the  whole  nation  in  the 
person  of  its  heads  or  representatives,  took  Achan,  together  with 
the  things  which  he  had  purloined,  and  his  sons  and  daughters,  his 
cattle,  and  his  tent  with  all  its  furniture,  and  brought  them  into 
the  valley  of  Achor,  where  they  stoned  them  to  death  and  then 
burned  them,  after  Joshua  had  once  more  pronounced  this  sentence 
upon  him  in  the  place  of  judgment :  "  How  hast  thou  troubled  us" 
(13^  as  in  chap.  vi.  18,  to  bring  into  trouble)  !  "  The  Lord  will 
trouble  thee  this  day."  It  by  no  means  follows  from  the  expression 
"stoned  him"  in  ver.  25,  that  Achan  only  was  stoned.  The 
singular  pronoun  is  used  to  designate  Achan  alone,  as  being  the 
principal  person  concerned.  But  it  is  obvious  enough  that  his 
children  and  cattle  were  stoned,  from  what  follows  in  the  very  same 
verse  :  "  They  burned  them  (the  persons  stoned  to  death,  and  their 
things)  with  fire,  and  heaped  up  stones  upon  them."  It  is  true  that 
in  Deut.  xxiv.  16  the  Mosaic  law  expressly  forbids  the  putting  to 
death  of  children  for  their  fathers'  sins ;  and  many  have  imagined, 
therefore,  that  Achan's  sons  and  daughters  were  simply  taken  into 
the  valley  to  be  spectators  of  the  punishment  inflicted  upon  the 
father,  that  it  might  be  a  warning  to  them.  But  for  what  reason, 
then,  were  Achan's  cattle  (oxen,  sheep,  and  asses)  taken  out  along 
with  him !  Certainly  for  no  other  purpose  than  to  be  stoned  at 
the  same  time  as  he.  The  law  in  question  only  referred  to  the 
punishment  of  ordinary  criminals,  and  therefore  was  not  applicable 
at  all  to  the  present  case,  in  which  the  punishment  was  com- 
manded by  the  Lord  himself.  Achan  had  fallen  under  the  ban 
by  laying  hands  upon  what  had  been  banned,  and  consequently 
was  exposed  to  the  same  punishment  as  a  town  that  had  fallen 
away  to  idolatry  (Deut.  xiii.  16,  17).  The  law  of  the  ban  was 
founded  upon  the  assumption,  that  the  conduct  to  be  punished  was 


CHAP.  VIII.  1-29.  83 

not  a  crime  of  which  the  individual  only  was  guilty,  but  one  in 
which  the  whole  family  of  the  leading  sinner,  in  fact  everything 
connected  with  him,  participated.  Thus,  in  the  case  before  us,  the 
things  themselves  had  been  abstracted  from  the  booty  by  Achan 
alone ;  but  ho  had  hidden  them  in  his  tent,  buried  them  in  the 
earth,  which  could  hardly  have  been  done  so  secretly  that  his  sons 
and  daughters  knew  nothing  of  it.  By  so  doing  he  had  made  his 
family  participators  in  his  theft ;  they  therefore  fell  under  the  ban 
along  with  him,  together  with  their  tent,  their  cattle,  and  the  rest  of 
their  property,  which  were  all  involved  in  the  consequences  of  His 
crime.  The  clause  E^Xli  Dnfc  vppn  does  not  refer  to  the  stoning 
as  a  capital  punishment,  but  to  the  casting  of  stones  upon  the  bodies 
after  they  were  dead  and  had  been  burned,  for  the  purpose  of 
erecting  a  heap  of  stones  upon  them  as  a  memorial  of  the  disgrace 
(yid.  chap.  viii.  29 ;  2  Sam.  xviii.  17). — In  ver.  26,  the  account  of 
the  whole  affair  closes  with  these  two  remarks  :  (1)  That  after  the 
punishment  of  the  malefactor  the  Lord  turned  from  the  fierceness 
of  His  anger  ;  and  (2)  That  the  valley  in  which  Achan  suffered 
his  punishment  received  the  name  of  Aclior  (troubling)  with  special 
reference  to  the  fact  that  Joshua  had  described  his  punishment  as 
well  as  Achan's  sin  as  "UJJ  (troubling :  see  ver.  25),  and  that  it 
retained  this  name  down  to  the  writer's  own  time.  With  regard  to 
the  situation  of  this  valley,  it  is  evident  from  the  word  vJW  in  ver. 
24  that  it  was  on  higher  ground  than  Gilgal  and  Jericho,  probably 
in  one  of  the  ranges  of  hills  that  intersect  the  plain  of  Jericho,  and 
from  chap.  xv.  7,  where  the  northern  border  of  the  possessions  of 
Judah  is  said  to  have  passed  through  this  valley,  that  it  is  to  be 
looked  for  to  the  south  of  Jericho.  The  only  other  places  in  which 
there  is  any  allusion  to  this  event  are  Hos.  ii.  17  and  Isa.  Ixv.  10. 

CONQUEST  OF  AI.      BLESSINGS  AND  CURSES  UPON  GERIZIM  AND 
EBAL. — CHAP.  VIII. 

Vers.  1-29.  Conquest  and  Burning  of  Ai. — Vers.  1,  2. 
After  the  ban  which  rested  upon  the  people  had  been  wiped  away, 
the  Lord  encouraged  Joshua  to  make  war  upon  Ai,  promising  him 
that  the  city  should  be  taken,  and  giving  him  instructions  what  to 
do  to  ensure  the  success  of  his  undertaking.  With  evident  allusion 
to  Joshua's  despair  after  the  failure  of  the  first  attack,  the  Lord 
commences  with  these  words,  "  Fear  not,  neither  be  thou  dismayed'' 
(as  in  Deut.  i.  21,  xxxi.  8),  and  then  commands  him  to  go  agaiust 


84  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Ai  with  all  the  people  of  war.  By  "  all  the  people  of  war  "  we  are 
hardly  to  understand  all  the  men  out  of  the  whole  nation  who  were 
capable  of  bearing  arms  ;  but  as  only  a  third  of  these  were  contri- 
buted by  the  two  tribes  and  a  half  to  cross  over  into  Canaan  and 
take  part  in  the  war  (see  p.  32),  the  other  tribes  also  are  not  likely 
to  have  levied  more  than  a  third,  say  about  160,000,  which  would 
form  altogether  an  army  of  about  200,000  men.  But  even  such  an 
army  as  this  seems  out  of  all  proportion  to  the  size  of  Ai,  with  its 
12,000  inhabitants  (ver.  25).  On  the  other  hand,  however,  we 
must  bear  in  mind  that  the  expression  "  all  the  people  of  war" 
simply  denotes  the  whole  army,  in  contrast  with  the  advice  of  the 
spies  that  only  a  portion  of  the  army  should  be  sent  (chap.  vii.  3), 
so  that  we  are  not  warranted  in  pressing  the  word  "  all "  too 
absolutely  ;x  and  also  that  this  command  of  God  was  not  given  with 
reference  to  the  conquest  of  Ai  alone,  but  applied  at  the  same  time 
to  the  conquest  of  the  whole  land,  which  Joshua  was  not  to  attempt 
by  sending  out  detachments  only,  but  was  to  carry  out  with  the 
whole  of  the  force  at  his  command,  n^  to  go  up,  is  applied  to 
the  advance  of  an  army  against  a  hostile  town,  independently 
of  the  question  whether  the  town  was  situated  upon  an  eminence 
or  not,  as  every  town  that  had  to  be  taken  was  looked  upon  as  a 
height  to  be  scaled,  though  as  a  fact  in  this  instance  the  army  had 
really  to  ascend  from  Jericho  to  Ai,  which  was  situated  up  in 
the  mountains.  (On  ver.  16,  see  chap.  vi.  2.)  "  His  land"  is  the 
country  round,  which  belonged  to  the  town  and  was  under  its  king. 
— Ver.  2.  Joshua  was  to  do  the  same  to  Ai  and  her  king  as  he  had 
already  done  to  Jericho  and  her  king,  except  that  in  this  case  the 
conquerors  were  to  be  allowed  to  appropriate  the  booty  and  the 
cattle  to  themselves.  In  order  to  conquer  the  town,  he  was  to  lay 
an  ambush  behind  it.2  3}fc,  a  collective  noun,  signifying  the  persons 
concealed  in  ambush  ;  IHKO  (ver.  9),  the  place  of  ambush.  "  Behind 
it"  i.e.  on  the  west  of  the  town. 

Vers.  3-13.  Accordingly  Joshua  set  out  with  all  the  people  of 
Avar  against  Ai,  and  selected  30,000  brave  men,  and  sent  them  out 
in  the  night,  with  instructions  to  station  themselves  as  an  ambuscade 

1  "  As  we  have  just  before  seen  how  their  hearts  melted,  God  consulted  their 
weakness,  by  putting  no  heavier  burden  upon  them  than  they  were  able  to  bear, 
until  they  had  recovered  from  their  alarm,  and  hearkened  readily  to  His  com- 
mands."—  Calvin. 

2  The  much  agitated  question,  whether  it  could  be  worthy  of  God  to  employ 
Stratagem  in  war,  to  which  different  replies  have  been  given,  has  been  answered 


CHAP.  VIII.  3-13.  85 

behind  the  town,  and  at  no  great  distance  from  it.  As  the  distance 
from  Gilgal  to  Ai  was  about  fifteen  miles,  and  the  road  runs  pretty 
straight  in  a  north-westerly  direction  from  Jericho  through  the 
Wady  Faran,  the  detachment  sent  forward  might  easily  accomplish 
the  distance  in  a  night,  so  as  to  arrive  on  the  western  side  of  Ai 
before  the  break  of  day.  They  were  then  to  hold  themselves  in 
readiness  to  fight.  He  (Joshua)  himself  would  approach  the  town 
with  the  people  of  war  that  remained  with  him  ;  and  if  the  inha- 
bitants of  Ai  should  come  out  against  him  as  they  did  before,  they 
would  flee  before  them  till  they  had  drawn  them  quite  away  from 
their  town  (ver.  5).  This  was  to  be  expected  ;  u  for  they  will  say, 
They  flee  before  us,  as  at  the  first :  and  we  will  flee  before  them " 
(ver.  6).  When  this  was  done,  the  warriors  were  to  come  forth 
from  their  ambush,  fall  upon  the  town,  and  set  it  on  fire  (vers.  7,  8). 
Having  been  sent  away  with  these  instructions,  the  30,000  men 
went  into  ambush,  and  posted  themselves  "  between  Bethel  and  Ai, 
on  the  west  side  of  Ai"  (ver.  9),  i.e.,  according  to  Strauss,  in  the 
Wady  es  Suweinit,  to  the  north-west  of  Ai,  where  it  forms  almost 
a  perpendicular  wall,  near  to  which  the  ruins  of  Chai  are  to  be 
found,  though  "  not  near  enough  to  the  rocky  wady  for  it  to  be 
possible  to  look  down  its  almost  perpendicular  wall "  (Hitter,  Erdk. 
xvi.  p.  528).  Joshua  remained  for  the  night  in  the  midst  of  the 
people,  i.e.  in  the  camp  of  that  portion  of  the  army  that  had  gone 
with  him  towards  Ai;  not  in  Gilgal,  as  Knobel  supposes. — Ver.  10. 
The  next  morning  he  mustered  the  people  as  early  as  possible,  and 
then  went,  with  the  elders  of  Israel,  "  before  the  people  of  Ai." 
The  elders  of  Israel  are  not  "  military  tribunes,  who  were  called 
elders  because  of  their  superiority  in  military  affairs,"  as  Masius 
supposes,  but,  as  in  every  other  case,  the  heads  of  the  people,  who 
accompanied  Joshua  as  counsellors. — Ver.  11.  The  whole  of  the 
people  of  war  also  advanced  with  him  to  the  front  of  the  town,  and 
encamped  on  the  north  of  Ai,  so  that  the  valley  was  between  it 
(im,  as  in  chap.  iii.  4)  and  Ai.  This  was  probably  a  side  valley 
branching  off  towards  the  south  from  the  eastern  continuation  of 
the  Wady  es  Suweinit. — In  vers.  12,  13,  the  account  of  the  prepara- 

quite  correctly  by  Calvin.  "  Surely,"  he  says,  "  wars  are  not  carried  on  by 
striking  alone  ;  but  they  are  considered  the  best  generals  who  succeed  through 
art  and  counsel  more  than  by  force.  .  .  .  Therefore,  if  war  is  lawful  at  all,  it  is 
beyond  all  controversy  that  the  way  is  perfectly  clear  for  the  use  of  the  custo- 
mary arts  of  warfare,  provided  there  is  no  breach  of  faith  in  the  violation  of 
treaty  or  truce,  or  in  any  other  way." 


86  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

tions  for  the  attack  is  rounded  off  by  a  repetition  of  the  notice  as  to 
the  forces  engaged,  and  in  some  respects  a  more  exact  description 
of  their  disposition.  Joshua,  it  is  stated  in  ver.  12,  took  about  5000 
men  and  placed  them  in  ambush  between  Bethel  and  Ai,  on  the 
west  of  the  town.  As  the  place  where  this  ambuscade  was  posted 
is  described  in  precisely  the  same  terms  as  that  which  was  occupied, 
according  to  ver.  9,  by  the  30,000  men  who  were  sent  out  to  form 
an  ambuscade  in  the  night  before  the  advance  of  the  main  army 
against  Ai  (for  the  substitution  of  "tJie  city"  for  Ai  cannot  possibly 
indicate  a  difference  in  the  locality),  the  view  held  by  the  majority 
of  commentators,  that  ver.  12  refers  to  a  second  ambuscade,  which 
Joshua  sent  out  in  addition  to  the  30,000,  and  posted  by  the  side  of 
them,  is  even  more  than  questionable,  and  is  by  no  means  raised 
into  a  probability  by  the  expression  to^JTriK  {Eng.  "  their  liers  in 
wait ")  in  ver.  13.  The  description  of  the  place,  "  on  the  west  of 
the  city,"  leaves  no  doubt  whatever  that  "their  liers  in  wait"  are 
simply  the  ambuscade  (3"}N)  mentioned  in  ver.  12,  which  was  sent 
out  from  the  whole  army,  i.e.  the  ambuscade  that  was  posted  on  the 
west  of  the  town.  3£y  signifies  literally  the  lier  in  wait  (Ps.  xlix.  5), 
from  Spy,  insidiari,  and  is  synonymous  with  T\k.  The  meaning 
which  Gesenius  and  others  attach  to  the  word,  viz.  the  rear  or 
hinder  part  of  the  army,  cannot  be  sustained  from  Gen.  xlix.  19. 
If  we  add  to  this  the  fact  that  ver.  13a  is  obviously  nothing  more 
than  a  repetition  of  the  description  already  given  in  ver.  11  of  the 
place  where  the  main  army  was  posted,  and  therefore  bears  the 
character  of  a  closing  remark  introduced  to  wind  up  the  previous 
account,  we  cannot  regard  ver.  12  as  anything  more  than  a  repe- 
tition of  the  statements  in  vers.  3,  9,  and  can  only  explain  the 
discrepancy  with  regard  to  the  number  of  men  who  were  placed  in 
ambush,  by  supposing  that,  through  a  copyist's  error,  the  number 
which  was  expressed  at  first  in  simple  letters  has  in  one  instance 
been  given  wrongly.  The  mistake,  however,  is  not  to  be  found  in 
the  5000  (ver.  12),  but  in  the  30,000  in  ver.  3,  where  n  has  been 
confounded  with  h.  For  a  detachment  of  5000  men  would  be  quite 
sufficient  for  an  ambuscade  that  had  only  to  enter  the  town  after 
the  soldiers  had  left  it  in  pursuit  of  the  Israelites,  and  to  set  it  on 
fire,  whereas  it  hardly  seems  possible  that  30,000  men  should  have 
been  posted  in   ambush  so  near  to  the  town.1 — In  ver.  13a,  Dl>n 

1  We  need  have  no  hesitation  in  coming  to  the  conclusion  that  there  is  a 
mistake  in  the  number  given  in  ver.  3,  as  the  occurrence  of  such  mistakes  in 
the  historical  books  is  fully  established  by  a  comparison  of  the  numbers  given 


CHAP.  VIII.  14-23.  87 

(the  people)  is  to  be  taken  as  the  subject  of  the  sentence :  "  The 
vfople  had  set  all  the  host,  that  xoas  on  the  north  of  the  city,  and  its 
ambuscade  on  the  icest  of  the  city?'  In  the  night,  namely  the  night 
before  the  army  arrived  at  the  north  of  the  town,  Joshua  went 
through  the  midst  of  the  valley,  which  separated  the  Israelites  from 
the  town,  so  that  in  the  morning  he  stood  with  all  the  army  close 
before  the  town. 

Vers.  14-23.  When  the  king  of  Ai  saw  the  Israelites,  he  hurried 
out  in  the  morning  against  them  to  battle  at  the  (previously) 
appointed  place  ("ttfiß?,  in  locum  condictum,  as  in  1  Sam.  xx.  35) 
before  the  steppe  (Arabah,  not  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  but  the 
steppe  or  desert  of  Bethaven  ;  see  at  chap.  vii.  2),  as  he  knew  nothing 
of  the  ambuscade  behind  the  town. — Ver.  15.  But  the  Israelites  let 
them  beat  them,  and  fled  along  the  desert  (of  Bethaven). — Vers. 
16,  17.  And  all  the  people  in  the  town  were  called  together  to 
pursue  the  Israelites,  and  were  drawn  away  from  the  town,  so  that 
not  a  man,  i.e.  not  a  single  soldier  who  could  take  part  in  the  pursuit, 
remained  either  in  Ai  or  the  neighbouring  town  of  Bethel,  and  the 
town  stood  open  behind  them.  It  is  evident  from  ver.  17  that  the 
inhabitants  of  Bethel,  which  was  about  three  hours'  journey  from 
Ai,  took  part  in  the  battle,  probably  in  consequence  of  a  treaty 
which  the  king  of  Ai  had  made  with  them  in  the  expectation  of 
a  renewed  and  still  stronger  attack  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites. 
Nothing  further  is  known  upon  this  point ;  nor  can  anything  be 
inferred  from  the  fact  that  the  king  of  Bethel  is  included  in  the 
list  of  the  kings  slain  by  Joshua  (chap.  xii.  16).  Consequently,  we 
cannot  decide  whether  the  Bethelites  came  to  the  help  of  the  Aites 

in  the  books  of  Samuel  and  Kings  with  those  in  the  books  of  Chronicles,  and  is 
admitted  by  every  commentator.  In  my  earlier  commentary  on  Joshua,  I 
attempted  to  solve  the  difficulty  by  the  twofold  assumption  :  first,  that  ver.  12 
contains  a  supplementary  statement,  in  which  the  number  of  the  men  posted  in 
ambush  is  given  for  the  first  time  ;  and  secondly,  that  the  historian  forgot  to 
notice  that  out  of  the  30,000  men  whom  Joshua  chose  to  make  war  upon  Ai, 
5000  were  set  apart  to  lie  in  ambush.  But,  on  further  examination  of  the  text, 
I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  second  assumption  is  irreconcilable  with 
the  distinct  words  of  ver.  3,  and  feel  obliged  to  give  it  up.  On  the  other  hand, 
I  still  adhere  to  the  conviction  that  there  is  not  sufficient  ground  either  for  the 
assumption  that  vers.  12,  13,  contain  an  old  marginal  gloss  that  has  crept  into 
the  text,  or  for  the  hypothesis  of  Ewald  and  Knobel,  that  these  verses  were 
introduced  by  the  last  editor  of  the  book  out  of  some  other  document.  The 
last  hypothesis  amounts  to  a  charge  of  thoughtlessness  against  the  latest  editor, 
which  is  hardly  reconcilable  with  the  endeavour,  for  which  he  is  praised  in  other 
places,  to  reconcile  the  discrepancies  in  the  different  documents. 


88  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

for  the  first  time  on  the  day  of  the  battle  itself,  or,  what  is  more 
probable,  had  already  sent  men  to  Ai,  to  help  to  repulse  the  ex- 
pected attack  of  the  Israelites  upon  that  town. — Vers.  18,  19.  At 
the  command  of  God  Joshua  now  stretched  out  the  javelin  in  his 
hand  towards  the  town.  At  this  sign  the  ambuscade  rose  hastily 
from  its  concealment,  rushed  into  the  town,  and  set  it  on  fire. 
p-pszi  HD3  signifies  to  stretch  out  the  hand  with  the  spear.  The 
object  T,  which  is  missing  (cf.  vers.  19,  2Q),  may  easily  be  supplied 
from  the  apposition  T£?  ">  ?.'*$•  The  raising  of  the  javelin  would 
probably  be  visible  at  a  considerable  distance,  even  if  it  was  not 
provided  with  a  small  flag,  as  both  earlier  and  later  commentators 
assume,  since  Joshua  would  hardly  be  in  the  midst  of  the  flying 
Israelites,  but  would  take  his  station  as  commander  upon  some 
eminence  on  one  side.  And  the  men  in  ambush  would  have 
scouts  posted  to  watch  for  the  signal,  which  had  certainly  been 
arranged  beforehand,  and  convey  the  information  to  the  others. — 
Vers.  20,  21.  The  men  of  Ai  then  turned  round  behind  them,  being 
evidently  led  to  do  so  by  the  Israelites,  who  may  have  continued 
looking;  round  to  the  town  of  Ai  when  the  signal  had  been  xjiven 
by  Joshua,  to  see  whether  the  men  in  ambush  had  taken  it  and  set 
it  on  fire,  and  as  soon  as  they  saw  that  this  had  been  done  began  to 
offer  still  further  resistance  to  their  pursuers,  and  to  defend  them- 
selves vigorously  against  them.  On  looking  back  to  their  town 
the  Aites  saw  the  smoke  of  the  town  ascending  towards  heaven : 
"  and  there  were  not  hands  in  them  to  flee  hither  and  thither"  i.e.  they 
were  utterly  unable  to  flee.  "  Hands"  as  the  organs  of  enterprise 
and  labour,  in  the  sense  of  "  strength,"  not  "  room,"  for  which  we 
should  expect  to  find  ürb  instead  of  Dna.  There  is  an  analogous 
passage  in  Ps.  lxxvi.  6,  "  None  of  the  men  of  might  have  found 
their  hands."  For  the  people  that  fled  to  the  wilderness  (the 
Israelitish  army)  turned  against  the  pursuers  (the  warriors  of  Ai), 
or,  as  is  added  by  way  of  explanation  in  ver.  21,  when  Joshua  and 
all  Israel  saw  the  town  in  the  hands  of  the  ambuscade,  and  the 
smoke  ascending,  they  turned  round  and  smote  the  people  of  Ai ; 
and  (ver.  22)  these  {i.e.  the  Israelites  who  had  formed  the  ambus- 
cade) came  out  of  the  town  to  meet  them.  "  These"  {Eng.  the 
other),  as  contrasted  with  "  the  people  that  fled  "  in  ver.  20,  refers 
back  to  "  the  ambush"  in  ver.  19.  In  this  way  the  Aites  were  in 
the  midst  of  the  people  of  Israel,  who  came  from  this  side  and  that 
side,  and  smote  them  to  the  last  man.  "  So  that  they  let  none  of 
them  remain:''  as  in  Num.  xxi.  35  and  Deut.  iii.  3,  except  that  in 


CHAP.  VIII.  24-35.  89 

this  case  it  is  strengthened  still  further  by  Bvfifl,  "  or  escape." — Ver. 
23.  The  king  of  Ai  was  taken  alive  and  brought  to  Joshua. 

Vers.  24-29.  When  all  the  men  of  Ai,  who  had  come  out  to 
pursue  the  Israelites,  had  been  slain  upon  the  field  (namely)  in  the 
desert,  all  Israel  returned  to  Ai  and  smote  it  (the  town,  i.e.  the  in- 
habitants), so  that  on  that  day  there  fell  of  men  and  women  12,000, 
all  the  people  of  Ai :  for  Joshua  did  not  draw  back  his  hand,  which 
had  been  stretched  out  with  the  javelin,  till  all  the  inhabitants  of 
Ai  were  smitten  with  the  ban,  i.e.  put  to  death  ;  according  to  the 
common  custom  of  war,  that  the  general  did  not  lower  the  war- 
signal  till  the  conflict  was  to  cease  (see  Suidas  in  X^^ieia,  and 
Lipsius  de  militia,  Rom.  iv.  dial.  12). — Ver.  27.  Only  the  cattle 
and  the  rest  of  the  booty  the  conquerors  retained  for  themselves, 
according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  (ver.  2). — Yer.  28.  Joshua  had 
the  town  burnt  down  and  made  into  a  heap  of  rubbish  for  ever. — ■ 
Ver.  29.  He  had  the  king  of  Ai  hanged  upon  a  tree,  i.e.  put  to 
death,  and  then  suspended  upon  a  stake  (see  Num.  xxv.  4)  until 
the  evening ;  but  at  sunset  he  had  him  taken  down  (in  accordance 
with  Deut.  xxi.  22,  23),  and  thrown  at  the  entrance  of  the  town- 
gate,  and  a  heap  of  stones  piled  upon  him  (as  in  the  case  of  Achan, 
chap.  vii.  26). 

Vers.  30-35.  Blessings  and  Cueses  upon  Gepjzim  and 
Ebal. — After  the  capture  of  Ai,  Israel  had  gained  so  firm  a  foot- 
ing in  Canaan  that  Joshua  was  able  to  carry  out  the  instructions  of 
Moses  in  Deut.  xxvii.,  that,  after  crossing  the  Jordan,  he  was  to 
build  an  altar  upon  Mount  Ebal  for  the  setting  up  of  the  covenant. 
The  fulfilment  of  these  instructions,  according  to  the  meaning  of 
this  solemn  act,  as  a  symbolical  setting  up  of  the  law  of  the  Lord 
to  be  the  invariable  rule  of  life  to  the  people  of  Israel  in  the  land 
of  Canaan  (see  at  Deut.  xxvii.),  was  not  only  a  practical  expression 
of  thanksgiving  on  the  part  of  the  covenant  nation  for  its  entrance 
into  this  land  through  the  almighty  assistance  of  its  God,  but  also 
a  practical  acknowledgment,  that  in  the  overthrow  of  the  Canaan- 
ites  thus  far  it  had  received  a  strong  pledge  of  the  conquest  of 
the  foes  that  still  remained  and  the  capture  of  the  whole  of  the 
promised  land,  provided  only  it  persevered  in  covenant  faithful- 
ness towards  the  Lord  its  God.  The  account  of  this  transaction 
is  attached,  it  is  true,  to  the  conquest  of  Ai  by  the  introduction, 
"  Then  Joshua  built"  etc.  (ver.  30) ;  but  simply  as  an  occurrence 
which  had  no  logical  connection  with  the  conquest  of  Canaan  and 


f)0  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

the  defeat  of  its  kings.  The  particle  TS  (sequ.  imperf.)  is  used,  for 
example,  in  cases  where  the  historian  either  wishes  to  introduce 
contemporaneous  facts,  that  do  not  cany  forward  the  main  course 
of  the  history,  or  loses  sight  for  the  time  of  the  strictly  historical 
sequence  and  simply  takes  note  of  the  occurrence  of  some  particular 
event  (vid.  Eivald,  §  136,  b.).  The  assertion  of  modern  critics,  which 
Knobel  repeats,  that  this  account  is  out  of  place  in  the  series  of 
events  as  contained  in  chap,  vi.-xii.,  is  so  far  correct,  that  the  pro- 
mulgation of  the  law  and  the  renewal  of  the  covenant  upon  Ebal 
form  no  integral  part  of  the  account  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan ; 
but  it  by  no  means  proves  that  this  section  has  been  interpolated 
by  the  Jehovist  from  his  first  document,  or  by  the  last  editor  of 
this  book  from  some  other  source,  and  that  what  is  related  here 
did  not  take  place  at  the  time  referred  to.  The  circumstance  that, 
according  to  chap,  vi.-viii.  29,  Joshua  had  only  effected  the  con- 
quest of  Jericho  in  the  south  of  the  land  from  Gilgal  as  a  base,  and 
that  even  in  chap.  ix.  and  x.  he  was  still  engaged  in  the  south,  by 
no  means  involves  the  impossibility  or  even  the  improbability  of 
a  march  to  Shechem,  which  was  situated  further  north,  where  he 
had  not  yet  beaten  the  Canaanites,  and  had  not  effected  any  con- 
quests. The  distance  from  Ai  to  Shechem  between  Gerizim  and 
Ebal  is  about  thirty  miles  in  a  straight  line.  Robinson  made  the 
journey  from  Bireh  (Beeroth)  to  Sichern  on  mules  in  eleven  and  a 
half  hours,  and  that  not  by  the  most  direct  route  (Pal.  iii.  pp.  81-2), 
and  Ai  was  not  more  than  an  hour  to  the  south  of  Beeroth  ;  so  that 
Joshua  could  have  gone  with  the  people  from  Ai  to  Gerizim  and 
Ebal  in  two  days  without  any  excessive  exertion.  Now,  even  if 
the  conquests  of  the  Israelites  had  not  extended  further  north  than 
Ai  at  that  time,  there  was  no  reason  why  Joshua  should  be  deterred 
from  advancing  further  into  the  land  by  any  fear  of  attack  from 
the  Canaanites,  as  the  people  of  war  who  went  with  him  would  be 
able  to  repulse  any  hostile  attack ;  and  after  the  news  had  spread  of 
the  fate  of  Ai  and  Jericho,  no  Canaanitish  king  would  be  likely  to 
venture  upon  a  conflict  with  the  Israelites  alone.  Moreover,  Shechem 
had  no  king,  as  we  may  gather  from  the  list  of  the  thirty-one  kings 
who  were  defeated  by  Joshua.  To  the  further  remark  of  Knobel, 
that  "  there  was  no  reason  for  their  hurrying  with  this  ceremony, 
and  it  might  have  been  carried  out  at  a  later  period  in  undisturbed 
security,"  we  simply  reply,  that  obedience  to  the  command  of  God 
was  not  a  matter  of  such  indifference  to  the  servant  of  the  Lord  as 
Knobel  imagines.     There  was  no  valid  reason  after  the  capture  of 


CHAP.  VIII.  30-35.  91 

Ai  for  postponing  any  longer  the  solemn  ceremony  of  setting  np 
the  law  of  Jehovah  which  had  been  enjoined  by  Moses ;  and  if  we 
consider  the  reason  for  this  solemnity,  to  which  we  have  already 
referred,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Joshua  would  proceed  without 
the  least  delay  to  set  up  the  law  of  the  Lord  in  Canaan  as  early  as 
possible,  even  before  the  subjugation  of  the  whole  land,  that  he  might 
thereby  secure  the  help  of  God  for  further  conflicts  and  enterprises. 
The  account  of  this  religious  solemnity  is  given  very  briefly.  It 
presupposes  an  acquaintance  with  the  Mosaic  instructions  in  Deut. 
xxvii.,  and  merely  gives  the  leading  points,  to  show  that  those 
instructions  were  carefully  carried  out  by  Joshua.  Of  the  three 
distinct  acts  of  which  the  ceremony  consisted,  in  the  book  of  Deu- 
teronomy the  setting  up  of  the  stones  with  the  law  written  upon 
them  is  mentioned  first  (Deut.  xxvii.  2-4),  and  then  (vers.  5-7) 
the  building  of  the  altar  and  the  offering  of  sacrifice.  Here,  on 
the  contrary,  the  building  of  the  altar  and  offering  of  sacrifice  are 
mentioned  first  (vers.  30,  31),  and  then  (ver.  32)  the  writing  of 
the  law  upon  the  stones  ;  which  was  probably  the  order  actually 
observed. — In  ver.  30  Jehovah  is  called  "  the  God  of  Israel"  to 
show  that  henceforth  no  other  god  was  to  be  worshipped  in  Canaan 
than  the  God  of  Israel.  On  Mount  Ebal,  see  at  Deut.  xi.  29  and 
xxvii.  4. — Ver.  31.  "  As  Moses  commanded :"  namely,  Deut.  xxvii. 
5.  "  As  it  is  loritten  in  the  book  of  the  law  of  Moses:"  viz.  in  Ex. 
xx.  22  (25).  On  the  presentation  of  burnt-offerings  and  slain- 
offerings,  see  at  Deut.  xxvii.  6,  7. — In  ver.  32  nothing  is  mentioned 
but  the  writing  of  the  law  upon  the  stones ;  all  the  rest  is  pre- 
supposed from  Deut.  xxvii.  2  sqq.,  to  which  the  expression  "  the 
stones"  refers.  "  Copy  of  the  law:"  as  in  Deut.  xvii.  18;  see  the 
explanation  at  Deut.  xxvii.  3.  In  connection  with  the  third  part 
of  the  ceremony,  the  promulgation  of  the  law  with  the  blessing 
and  cursing,  the  account  of  the  Mosaic  instructions  given  in  Deut. 
xxvii.  11  sqq.  is  completed  in  ver.  33  by  the  statement  that  "all 
Israel,  and  their  elders  (i.e.  with  their  elders),  and  shoterim,  and 
judges"  stood  on  both  sides  of  the  ark  before  the  Levitical  priests, 
the  stranger  as  well  as  the  native,  i.e.  without  any  exception,  one 
half  (i.e.  six  tribes)  towards  Mount  Ebal,  and  the  other  half  towards 
Mount  Gerizim.  For  further  remarks,  see  at  Deut.  xxvii.  11  sqq. 
"As  Moses  commanded  to  bless  the  people  before:"  i.e.  as  he  had 
previously  commanded.  The  fact  that  the  thought  itself  does  not 
suit  the  context  is  quite  sufficient  to  show  that  the  explanation  given 
by  many  commentators,  viz.  that  they  were  to  commence  with  the 


92  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

blessings,  is  incorrect.  But  if,  on  the  other  hand,  we  connect  the 
word  "  before"  with  the  principal  verb  of  the  sentence,  "  com- 
manded," the  meaning  will  be  that  Moses  did  not  give  the  command 
to  proclaim  the  blessings  and  cursings  to  the  people  for  the  first 
time  in  connection  with  these  instructions  (Deut.  xxvii.),  but  had 
done  so  before,  at  the  very  outset,  namely,  as  early  as  Deut.  xi.  29. 
— Ver.  34.  "  And  afterwards  (after  the  people  had  taken  the  place 
assigned  them)  he  read  to  them  all  the  words  of  the  law"  i.e.  he  had 
the  law  proclaimed  aloud  by  the  persons  entrusted  with  the  procla- 
mation of  the  law,  viz.  the  Levitical  priests.  &Oj^  lit.  to  call  out  or 
proclaim,  then  in  a  derivative  sense  to  read,  inasmuch  as  reading 
aloud  is  proclaiming  (as,  for  example,  in  Ex.  xxiv.  7).  The  words 
"  the  blessing  and  the  curse"  are  in  apposition  to  "  all  the  words  of 
the  law"  which  they  serve  to  define,  and  are  not  to  be  understood 
as  relating  to  the  blessings  in  Deut.  xxviii.  1-14,  and  the  curses  in 
Deut.  xxvii.  15-26  and  xxviii.  15-68.  The  whole  law  is  called 
"  the  blessing  and  the  curse"  with  special  reference  to  its  contents, 
inasmuch  as  the  fulfilment  of  it  brings  eo  ipso  a  blessing,  and  the 
transgression  of  it  eo  ipso  a  curse.  In  the  same  manner,  in  Deut. 
xi.  26,  Moses  describes  the  exposition  of  the  whole  law  in  the 
steppes  of  Moab  as  setting  before  them  blessing  and  cursing.  In 
ver.  35  it  is  most  distinctly  stated  that  Joshua  had  the  whole  law 
read  to  the  people  ;  whilst  the  expression  "  all  Israel,"  in  ver.  33, 
is  more  fully  explained  as  signifying  not  merely  the  congregation 
in  its  representatives,  or  even  the  men  of  the  nation,  but  "  all  the 
congregation  of  Israel,  with  the  women,  and  the  little  ones,  and 
the  strangers  that  were  in  the  midst  of  it." 

Nothing  is  said  about  the  march  of  Joshua  and  all  Israel  to 
Gerizim  and  Ebal.  All  that  we  know  is,  that  he  not  only  took  with 
him  the  people  of  war  and  the  elders  or  heads  of  tribes,  but  all  the 
people.  It  follows  from  this,  however,  that  the  whole  of  the  people 
must  have  left  and  completely  vacated  the  camp  at  Gilgal  in  the 
valley  of  the  Jordan.  For  if  all  Israel  went  to  the  mountains  of 
Gerizim  and  Ebal,  which  were  situated  in  the  midst  of  the  land, 
taking  even  the  women  and  children  with  them,  it  is  not  likely  that 
they  left  their  cattle  and  other  possessions  behind  them  in  Gilgal, 
exposed  to  the  danger  of  being  plundered  in  the  meantime  by  the 
Canaanites  of  the  southern  mountains.  So  again  we  are  not  in- 
formed in  what  follows  (chap.  ix.  sqq.)  in  which  direction  Joshua 
and  the  people  went  after  these  solemnities  at  Ebal  and  Gerizim 
were  over.     It  is  certainly  not  stated  that  he  went  back  to  Gilgal 


CHAP.  VIII.  30-35.  93 

in  the  Jordan  valley,  and  pitched  his  tent  again  on  the  old  site. 
No  doubt  we  find  Gilgal  still  mentioned  as  the  encampment  of 
Israel,  not  only  in  chap.  ix.  6,  x.  6,  9,  15,  43,  but  even  after  the 
defeat  and  subjugation  of  the  Canaanites  in  the  south  and  north, 
when  a  commencement  was  made  to  distribute  the  land  (chap.  xiv. 
6).  But  when  it  is  asked  whether  this  Gilgal  was  the  place  of 
encampment  on  the  east  of  Jericho,  which  received  its  name  from 
the  circumcision  of  the  whole  nation  which  took  place  there,  or  the 
town  of  Gilgal  by  the  side  of  the  terebinths  of  Moreh,  which  is 
mentioned  in  Deut.  xi.  30,  and  by  which  Moses  defines  the  situation 
of  Gerizim  and  Ebal,  this  question  cannot  be  answered  unhesitat- 
ingly according  to  the  traditional  view,  viz.  in  favour  of  the  en- 
campment in  the  Jordan  valley.  For  when  not  only  the  army,  but 
all  the  people  with  their  wives  and  children,  had  once  proceeded 
from  the  Jordan  valley  to  the  mountains  of  Gerizim  and  Ebal,  we 
cannot  imagine  any  reason  why  Joshua  should  go  back  again  to  the 
plain  of  Jericho,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  extreme  corner  of  Canaan  on 
the  east,  for  the  purpose  of  making  that  the  base  of  his  operations 
for  the  conquest  and  extermination  of  the  Canaanites.  And  there 
is  just  as  much  improbability  in  the  assumption,  that  after  Joshua 
had  not  only  defeated  the  kings  of  southern  Canaan,  who  had 
allied  themselves  with  Adonizedek  of  Jerusalem  in  the  battle 
fought  at  Gibeon  (chap,  x.),  but  had  also  overthrown  the  kings 
of  northern  Canaan,  who  were  allied  with  Jabin  of  Hazor  at  the 
waters  of  Merom  above  the  Sea  of  Galilee  (chap,  xi.),  he  should 
return  again  to  Gilgal  in  the  Jordan  valley,  and  there  quietly 
encamp  with  all  the  people,  and  commence  the  distribution  of  the 
land.  The  only  thing  that  could  bring  us  to  assent  to  such 
extremely  impx'obable  assumptions,  would  be  the  fact  that  there  was 
no  other  Gilgal  in  all  Canaan  than  the  encampment  to  the  east  of 
Jericho,  which  received  the  name  of  Gilgal  for  the  first  time  from 
the  Israelites  themselves.  But  as  the  other  Gilgal  by  the  side  of 
the  terebinths  of  Moreh — i.e.  the  present  JiljiUa,  which  stands  upon 
an  eminence  on  the  south-west  of  Shiloh  at  about  the  same  distance 
from  Jerusalem  as  from  Sichern — was  a  well-known  place  even 
in  Moses'  days  (Deut.  xi.  30),  and  from  its  situation  on  a  lofty 
ridge,  from  which  you  can  see  the  great  lowlands  and  the  sea 
towards  the  west,  the  mountains  of  Gilead  towards  the  east,  and 
far  away  in  the  north-east  even  Ilermon  itself  (Rob.  Pal.  iii.  p. 
81),  was  peculiarly  well  adapted  for  a  place  of  encampment,  from 
which  Joshua  could  carry  on  the  conquest  of  the  land  toward  both 


94  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

the  north  and  south,  we  can  come  to  no  other  conclusion  than 
that  this  Gilgal  or  Jiljilia  was  the  Gilgal  mentioned  in  chap.  ix.  6, 
x.  6,  9,  15,  43,  and  xiv.  6,  as  the  place  where  the  Israelites  were 
encamped.  We  therefore  assume,  that  after  the  setting  up  of 
the  law  on  Gerizim  and  Ebal,  Joshua  did  not  conduct  the  people 
with  their  wives  and  children  back  again  to  the  camp  which  they 
had  left  in  the  Jordan  valley  on  the  other  side  of  Jericho,  but 
chose  the  Gilgal  which  was  situated  upon  the  mountains,  and  only 
seven  hours'  journey  to  the  south  of  Sichern,  as  the  future  place  of 
encampment,  and  made  this  the  central  point  of  all  his  further 
military  operations ;  and  that  this  was  the  place  to  which  he  returned 
after  his  last  campaign  in  the  north,  to  commence  the  division 
of  the  conquered  land  among  the  tribes  of  Israel  (chap.  xiv.  6), 
and  where  he  remained  till  the  tabernacle  was  permanently  erected 
at  Shiloh,  when  the  further  distribution  was  carried  on  there  (chap, 
xviii.  1  sqq.).  This  view,  which  even  Van  de  Velde  (Memoir,  p. 
316)  has  adopted  as  probable,  is  favoured  still  further  by  the  fact 
that  this  Gilgal  or  Jiljilia,  which  is  still  a  large  village,  is  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  subsequent  history  of  Israel,  not  only  in  2  Kings 
ii.  1  and  iv.  38,  as  the  seat  of  a  school  of  the  prophets  in  the  time 
of  Elijah  and  Elisha,  and  in  Hos.  iv.  15,  ix.  15,  xii.  12,  Amos  iv.  4, 
v.  5,  as  a  place  which  was  much  frequented  for  the  purpose  of 
idolatrous  worship ;  but  even  at  an  earlier  date  still,  namely,  as  one 
of  the  places  where  Samuel  judged  the  people  (1  Sam.  vii.  16),  and 
as  the  place  where  he  offered  sacrifice  (1  Sam.  x.  8  ;  cf.  xiii.  7-9), 
and  where  he  gathered  the  people  together  to  confirm  the  monarchy 
of  Saul  (1  Sam.  xi.  14, 15),  at  a  time  when  the  tabernacle  at  Shiloh 
had  ceased  to  be  the  only  national  sanctuary  of  Israel,  on  account 
of  the  ark  having  been  taken  away.  Gilgal  had  no  doubt  acquired 
this  significance  along  with  Bethel,  which  had  been  regarded  as  a 
holy  place  ever  since  the  time  of  Jacob,  from  the  fact  that  it  was 
there  that  Joshua  had  established  the  camp  of  Israel  with  the  ark 
of  the  covenant,  until  the  land  was  divided,  and  Shiloh  was  ap- 
pointed as  the  site  for  the  national  sanctuary. 

STRATAGEM  OF  THE  GIBEONITES,  AND  THEIR  CONSEQUENT 
PRESERVATION. — CHAP.  IX. 

The  victorious  advance  of  the  Israelites  in  the  land  induced 
the  kings  of  Canaan  to  form  a  common  league  for  the  purpose  of 
resisting  them.     But,  as  frequently  happens,  the  many  kings  and 


CHAP.  IX.  1,  2.  95 

lords  of  the  towns  and  provinces  of  Canaan  were  not  all  united,  so 
as  to  make  a  common  and  vigorous  attack.  Before  the  league  had 
been  entered  into,  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeon,  one  of  the  largest 
towns  in  the  central  part  of  Canaan,  together  with  the  smaller 
neighbouring  towns  that  were  dependent  upon  it,  attempted  to 
anticipate  the  danger  which  threatened  them  by  means  of  a  strata- 
gem, and  to  enter  into  a  friendly  alliance  with  the  Israelites.  And 
they  succeeded,  inasmuch  as  Joshua  and  the  elders  of  the  congre- 
gation of  Israel  fell  into  the  snare  that  was  laid  for  them  by  the 
ambassadors  of  the  Gibeonites,  who  came  to  the  camp  at  Gilgal, 
and  made  the  desired  treaty  with  them,  without  inquiring  of  the 
Lord.  "  This  account,"  as  0.  v.  Geriach  says,  "  is  a  warning  to  the 
Church  of  God  of  all  ages  against  the  cunning  and  dissimulation 
of  the  world,  which  often  seeks  for  a  peaceable  recognition  on  the 
part  of  the  kingdom  of  God,  and  even  for  a  reception  into  it, 
whenever  it  may  be  its  advantage  to  do  so." 

Vers.  1,  2,  form  the  introduction  to  chaps,  ix.-xi.,  and  corre- 
spond to  the  introduction  in  chap.  v.  1.  The  news  of  the  miracu- 
lous passage  of  the  Israelites  through  the  Jordan  had  thrown  all 
the  kings  of  Canaan  into  such  despair,  that  they  did  not  venture 
to  make  any  attack  upon  Israel.  But  they  gradually  recovered 
from  their  first  panic,  partly,  no  doubt,  in  consequence  of  the 
failure  of  the  first  attack  of  the  Israelites  upon  Ai,  and  resolved  to 
join  together  in  making  war  upon  the  foreign  invaders."  The  kings 
of  Canaan  did  this  when  they  heard,  sc.  what  Israel  had  hitherto 
undertaken  and  accomplished,  not  merely  "  what  Joshua  had  done 
to  Jericho  and  Ai"  (Knob el)  :  that  is  to  say,  all  the  kings  across 
the  Jordan,  i.e.  in  the  country  to  the  west  of  the  Jordan  (IIH'j!  "*5?j 
as  in  chap.  v.  1),  viz.  "  upon  the  mountains"  (not  only  the  moun- 
tains of  Judah,  as  in  chap.  x.  40,  xi.  16,  etc.,  but  all  the  mountains 
which  run  throughout  the  whole  length  of  Canaan,  as  in  Deut.  i.  7 
and  Num.  xiii.  17  :  see  the  explanation  of  the  latter  passage)  ;  "  in 
the  lowlands"  (shephelah,  the  low-lying  country  between  the  moun- 
tains and  the  sea-coast,  which  is  simply  intersected  by  small  ranges 
of  hills  ;  see  at  Deut.  i.  7)  ;  "  and  on  all  the  coast  of  the  Great  Sea 
towards  Lebanon"  i.e.  the  narrow  coast  of  the  Mediterranean  S  sa 
from  Joppa  up  to  the  Ladder  of  Tyre  (see  at  Deut.  i.  7).  The 
different  tribes  of  the  Canaanites  are  also  mentioned  by  name,  as 
in  chap.  iii.  10,  except  that  the  Girgashites  are  omitted.  These 
gathered  themselves  together  to  fight  with  Joshua  and  Israel  with 
one  mouth,  or  with  one  accord  (1  Kings  xxii.  13). 


96  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Vers.  3-5.  But  the  inhabitants  of  a  republic,  which  included 
not  only  Gibeon  the  capital,  but  the  towns  of  Chephirah,  Beeroth, 
and  Kirjath-jearim  also,  acted  differently  from  the  rest.  Gibeon 
(Taßdwv,  Gabaon,  LXX.  Vulg.)  was  larger  than  Ai,  being  one 
of  the  royal  cities  (chap.  x.  2),  and  was  inhabited  by  Hivites,  who 
were  a  brave  people  (chap.  x.  7,  xi.  19).  It  was  afterwards  allotted 
to  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  and  set  apart  as  a  Levitical  town  (chap, 
xviii.  25,  xxi.  17).  After  the  destruction  of  Nob  by  Saul,  the  taber- 
nacle was  removed  thither,  and  there  it  remained  till  the  building 
of  Solomon's  temple  (1  Chron.  xvi.  39,  xxi.  29  ;  1  Kings  iii.  4,  5 ; 
2  Chron.  i.  3  sqq.).  According  to  Josephus,  it  was  forty  or  fifty 
stadia  from  Jerusalem,  and  judging  from  its  name  was  built 
upon  a  hill.  It  is  to  be  found  in  the  modern  Jib,  two  good  hours' 
journey  to  the  north-west  of  Jerusalem,  a  village  of  moderate 
size,  on  a  long  chalk  hill  which  overlooks  a  very  fertile,  well  culti- 
vated plain,  or  rather  a  basin,  consisting  of  broad  valleys  and 
plains,  and  rises  like  a  vineyard,  in  the  form  of  separate  terraces 
{Strauss,  Sinai,  p.  332).  The  remains  of  large  massive  buildings 
of  great  antiquity  are  still  to  be  seen  there,  also  some  fountains, 
and  two  large  subterraneous  reservoirs  (vid.  Rob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  136). 
When  the  Gibeonites  heard  of  the  fate  of  Jericho  and  Ai,  they 
also  did  (something)  with  stratagem.  In  the  expression  Hon  D3 
("  they  also")  there  is  a  reference  implied  to  what  Joshua  had 
done  at  Jericho  and  Ai ;  not,  however,  to  the  stratagem  resorted  to 
in  the  case  of  Ai,  as  such  an  allusion  would  not  apply  to  Jericho. 
They  set  out  as  ambassadors  :  VVtMP,  from  TO,  which  occurs  in  every 
other  instance  in  the  form  of  a  noun,  signifying  a  messenger  (Prov. 
xiii.  17,  etc.).  In  the  Hithpael  it  means  to  make  themselves 
ambassadors,  to  travel  as  ambassadors.  The  translators  of  the 
ancient  versions,  however,  adopted  the  reading  5nsTt?V.,  they  provided 
themselves  with  food  ;  but  this  was  nothing  more  than  a  conjecture 
founded  upon  ver.  12,  and  without  the  slightest  critical  value. 
'1  hey  also  took  "  old  sacks  upon  their  asses,  and  old  mended  wine- 
skins" DVT)'xl?j  from  "ny,  lit.  bound  together,  is  very  characteristic. 
There  are  two  modes  adopted  in  the  East  of  repairing  skins  when 
torn,  viz.  inserting  a  patch,  or  tying  up  the  piece  that  is  torn  in  the 
form  of  a  bag.  Here  the  reference  is  to  the  latter,  which  was  most 
in  harmony  with  their  statement,  that  the  skins  had  got  injured 
upon  their  long  journey.  Also  "  old  mended  sandals  upon  their 
feet,  and  old  clothes  upon  them  (upon  their  bodies)  ;  and  all  the  bread 
of  their  provisions  had  become  dry  and  quite  mouldy"     DHjM,  lit. 


CHAP.  IX.  6-15.  97 

furnished  with  points ;  Ilp3,  pointed,  speckled  (Gen.  xxx.  32  sqq.). 
Hence  the  rendering  of  the  LXX.,  evpwTiwv ;  Theod.,  ßeßpw/xevot ; 
Luther  schimmlicht,  mouldy  ;  whereas  the  rendering  adopted  by 
Aquila  is  i-ty-advpoofievos ;  by  Symmachus,  Kinropos,  i.e.  adustus, 
torridus ;  and  by  the  Vulgate,  in  frusta  comminuti,  i.e.  crumbled. 

Vers.  6-15.  Having  made  these  preparations,  they  went  to  the 
Israelitish  camp  at  Gilgal  (Jiljilia),  introduced  themselves  to  the 
men  of  Israel  (B^K,  in  a  collective  sense,  the  plural  being  but  little 
used,  and  only  occurring  in  Prov.  viii.  4,  Isa.  liii.  3,  and  Ps.  cxli.  4) 
as  having  come  from  a  distant  land,  and  asked  them  to  make  a 
league  with  them.  But  the  Israelites  hesitated,  and  said  to  the 
Hivites,  i.e.  the  Gibeonites  who  were  Hivites,  that  they  might  per- 
haps be  living  in  the  midst  of  them  (the  Israelites),  i.e.  in  the  land  of 
Canaan,  which  the  Israelites  already  looked  upon  as  their  own ;  and 
if  so,  how  could  they  make  a  league  with  them?  This  hesitation 
on  their  part  was  founded  upon  the  express  command  of  God,  that 
they  were  not  to  make  any  league  with  the  tribes  of  Canaan  (Ex. 
xxiii.  32,  xxxiv.  12  ;  Num.  xxxiii.  55  ;  Deut.  vii.  2,  etc.).  In  reply 
to  this  the  Gibeonites  simply  said,  "  We  are  thy  servants"  (ver.  8), 
i.e.  we  are  at  thy  service,  which,  according  to  the  obsequious  lan- 
guage common  in  the  East,  was  nothing  more  than  a  phrase  in- 
tended to  secure  the  favour  of  Joshua,  and  by  no  means  implied  a 
readiness  on  their  part  to  submit  to  the  Israelites  and  pay  them 
tribute,  as  Rosenmüller,  Knobel,  and  others  suppose ;  for,  as  Grotius 
correctly  observes,  what  they  wished  for  was  "  a  friendly  alliance, 
by  which  both  their  territory  and  also  full  liberty  would  be  secured 
to  themselves."  The  Keri  1?NS1  (ver.  7)  is  nothing  more  than  a 
critical  conjecture,  occasioned  not  so  much  by  the  singular  C'N, 
which  is  frequently  construed  in  the  historical  writings  as  a  collec- 
tive noun  with  a  plural  verb,  as  by  the  singular  suffix  attached  to 
*2nj?3,  which  is  to  be  explained  on  the  ground  that  only  one  of  the 
Israelites  (viz.  Joshua)  was  speaking  as  the  mouthpiece  of  all  the 
rest.  The  plural  nox'l  is  used,  because  Joshua  spoke  in  the  name 
of  the  people. — Ver.  8.  To  the  further  question  put  by  Joshua, 
where  they  had  come  from,  the  Gibeonites  replied,  "  From  a  vi  ry 
distant  land  have  thy  servants  come,  because  of  the  name  of  Jehovah 
thy  God,"  or  as  they  themselves  proceed  at  once  to  explain  :  u  for 
we  have  heard  the  fame  (fama)  of  Ilim,  and  all  that  lie  did  in  Egypt, 
and  to  Sihon  and  Og,  the  two  kings  of  the  Amorites."  They  very 
wisely  say  nothing  about  the  miracles  connected  with  the  crossing 
of  the  Jordan  and  the  taking  of  Jericho,  since,  "  as  the  inhabit- 

G 


98  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

ants  of  a  very  far  distant  region,  they  could  not  have  heard  any- 
thing about  things  that  had  occurred  so  lately,  even  by  report" 
(Masius). — Vers.  11  sqq.  When  these  tidings  reached  them,  they 
were  sent  off  by  the  elders  (the  leaders  of  the  republic)  and  the 
inhabitants  of  the  land  to  meet  the  Israelites,  that  they  might  offer 
them  their  service,  and  form  an  alliance  with  them.  In  confirma- 
tion of  this,  they  point  to  their  dried  provisions,  and  their  torn  and 
mended  skins  and  clothes. — Vers.  14,  15.  The  Israelites  suffered 
themselves  to  be  taken  in  by  this  pretence.  "  The  men  (the  elders 
of  Israel)  took  of  their  provisions ;  but  they  did  not  ask  the  mouth 
of  the  Lord."  Instead  of  inquiring  the  will  of  the  Lord  in  this 
matter  through  the  Urim  and  Thummim  of  the  high  priest  (Num. 
xxvii.  21),  they  contented  themselves  with  taking  some  of  the  bread 
that  was  shown  them,  and  tasting  it ;  as  if  the  dry  mouldy  bread 
furnished  a  safe  guarantee  of  the  truth  of  the  words  of  these 
foreign  ambassadors.  Some  commentators  regard  their  taking  of 
their  provisions  as  a  sign  of  mutual  friendship,  or  of  the  league 
which  they  made ;  but  in  that  case  their  eating  with  them  would 
at  any  rate  have  been  mentioned.  Among  the  Arabs,  simply  eating 
bread  and  salt  with  a  guest  is  considered  a  sign  of  peace  and  friend- 
ship.— Ver.  15.  So  Joshua  made  (granted)  them  peace  (yid.  Isa. 
xxvii.  5),  and  concluded  a  covenant  with  them  (a^,  in  their 
favour),  to  let  them  live ;  and  the  princes  of  the  congregation  sware 
unto  them.  Letting  them  live  is  the  only  article  of  the  league  that 
is  mentioned,  both  because  this  was  the  main  point,  and  also  with 
special  reference  to  the  fact  that  the  Gibeonites,  being  Canaanites, 
ought  properly  to  have  been  destroyed.  It  is  true  that  Joshua  and 
the  princes  of  the  congregation  had  not  violated  any  express  com- 
mand of  God  by  doing  this ;  for  the  only  thing  prohibited  in  the 
law  was  making  treaties  with  the  Canaanites,  which  they  did  not 
suppose  the  Gibeonites  to  be,  whilst  in  Deut.  xx.  11,  where  wars 
with  foreign  nations  (not  Canaanites)  are  referred  to,  permission  is 
given  to  make  peace  with  them,  so  that  all  treaties  with  foreign 
nations  are  not  forbidden.  But  they  had  failed  in  this  respect,  that, 
trusting  to  the  crafty  words  of  the  Gibeonites,  and  to  outward 
appearances  only,  they  had  forgotten  their  attitude  to  the  Lord 
their  God,  who  had  promised  to  His  congregation,  in  all  important 
matters,  a  direct  revelation  of  His  own  will. 

Vers.  16-27.  Three  days  after  the  treaty  had  been  concluded, 
the  Israelites  discovered  that  they  had  been  deceived,  and  that 
their  allies  dwelt  among  them  (see  ver.  7).     They  set  out  therefore 


CHAP.  IX.  16-27.  99 

to  deal  with  the  deceivers,  and  reached  their  towns  Gibeon,  Che- 
phirah,  Beeroth,  and  Kirjath-jearim  on  the  third  day.  Chephirah, 
which  was  afterwards  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  along  with 
Gibeon  and  Beeroth,  and  was  still  inhabited  after  the  captivity 
(chap,  xviii.  25,  26 ;  Ezra  ii.  25  ;  Neh.  vii.  29),  is  to  be  seen  in  the 
ruins  of  Kefir,  an  hour's  journey  to  the  east  of  Yalo,  in  the  moun- 
tains, and  three  hours  to  the  west  of  Gibeon  (see  Bob.  Bibl.  Res. 
p.  146,  and  Van  de  Velde,  Memoir,  pp.  303-4).  Beeroth,  B-npcod, 
according  to  Eusebius  (Onom.  s.  v.)  a  hamlet  near  Jerusalem,  and 
seven  miles  on  the  road  to  Nicopolis  (it  should  read  Neapolis),  was 
in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (2  Sam.  iv.  2),  and  still  exists  in  the 
large  village  of  Birch,  which  is  situated  upon  a  mountain  nine 
Roman  miles  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem  in  a  stony  and  barren 
district,  and  has  still  several  springs  and  a  good  well,  besides 
the  remains  of  a  fine  old  church  of  the  time  of  the  Crusades  (see 
Bob.  Pal.  ii.  pp.  130  sqq. ;  Seetzen,  R.  ii.  pp.  195-6).  Kirjath- 
jearim,  also  called  Kiijath-baal  (chap.  xv.  60),  Baalah  (chap.  xv. 
9),  and  Baal-Jehuda  (2  Sam.  vi.  2),  was  allotted  to  the  tribe  of 
Judah.  It  stood  upon  the  boundary  between  Judah  and  Benjamin 
(chap.  xv.  60,  xviii.  15) ;  and  the  ark  remained  there,  after  it  had 
been  sent  back  by  the  Philistines,  until  the  time  of  David  (1  Sam. 
vii.  2  ;  2  Sam.  vi.  2  ;  1  Chron.  xiii.  5,  6).  According  to  the 
Onom.,  s.  v.  Kapiadiapelfi  and  BaaK,  it  was  nine  or  ten  Roman 
miles  from  Jerusalem,  on  the  road  to  Diospolis  (Lydda),  and  is 
probably  to  be  seen  in  the  present  Kuryet  el  Enab,  a  considerable 
village  with  a  large  number  of  olive  trees,  figs,  pomegranates,  and 
vineyards,  from  the  last  of  which  the  old  "  town  of  the  forests"  has 
received  the  more  modern  name  of  "  town  of  the  vine"  (see  Bob. 
Pal.  ii.  p.  335,  and  Bibl.  Res.  pp.  156-7  ;  and  Seetzen,  ii.  p.  Go). 
These  towns,  which  formed  one  republic  with  Gibeon,  and  were 
governed  by  elders,  were  at  so  short  a  distance  from  Gilgal  (Jiljilia), 
that  the  Israelites  could  reach  it  in  one  or  two  days.  The  expression 
"  on  the  third  day"  is  not  at  variance  with  this;  for  it  is  not  stated 
that  Israel  took  three  days  to  march  there,  but  simply  that  they 
arrived  there  on  the  third  day  after  receiving  the  intelligence  of  the 
arrival  of  the  ambassadors. — Ver.  18.  "  The  Israelites  smote  them 
not"  sc.  with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  " because  the  princes  of  the 
congregation  had  sworn  to  them"  sc.  to  let  them  live  (ver.  15) J  but, 
notwithstanding  the  murmuring  of  the  congregation,  they  declared 
that  they  might  not  touch  them  because  of  their  oath.  "  This  (sc. 
what  we  have  sworn)  ice  will  do  to  than,  and  Id  them  live  pW,  inf. 


100  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

abs.  with  special  emphasis  instead  of  the  finite  verb),  lest  wrath  come 
upon  us  because  of  the  oath."  Wrath  (sc.  of  God),  a  judgment  such 
as  fell  upon  Israel  in  the  time  of  David,  because  Saul  disregarded 
this  oath  and  sought  to  destroy  the  Gibeonites  (2  Sam.  xxi.  1  sqq.). 
But  how  could  the  elders  of  Israel  consider  themselves  bound 
by  their  oath  to  grant  to  the  Gibeonites  the  preservation  of  life 
which  had  been  secured  to  them  by  the  treaty  they  had  made,  when 
the  very  supposition  upon  which  the  treaty  was  made,  viz.  that  the 
Gibeonites  did  not  belong  to  the  tribes  of  Canaan,  was  proved  to  be 
false,  and  the  Gibeonites  had  studiously  deceived  them  by  pretending 
that  they  had  come  from  a  very  distant  land  ?  As  they  had  been 
absolutely  forbidden  to  make  any  treaties  with  the  Canaanites,  it 
might  be  supposed  that,  after  the  discovery  of  the  deception  which 
had  been  practised  upon  them,  the  Israelitish  rulers  would  be  under 
no  obligation  to  observe  the  treaty  which  they  had  made  with  the 
Gibeonites  in  full  faith  in  the  truth  of  their  word.  And  no  doubt 
from  the  stand-point  of  strict  justice  this  view  appears  to  be  a  right 
one.  But  the  princes  of  Israel  shrank  back  from  breaking  the  oath 
which,  as  is  emphatically  stated  in  ver.  19,  they  had  sworn  by  Jehovah 
the  God  of  Israel,  not  because  they  assumed,  as  Hauff  supposes,  "that 
an  oath  simply  regarded  as  an  outward  and  holy  transaction  had  an 
absolutely  binding  force,"  but  because  they  were  afraid  of  bringing 
the  name  of  the  God  of  Israel  into  contempt  among  the  Canaanites, 
which  they  would  have  done  if  they  had  broken  the  oath  which  they 
had  sworn  by  this  God,  and  had  destroyed  the  Gibeonites.  They 
were  bound  to  observe  the  oath  which  they  had  once  sworn,  if  only 
to  prevent  the  sincerity  of  the  God  by  whom  they  had  sworn  from 
being  rendered  doubtful  in  the  eyes  of  the  Gibeonites ;  but  they  were 
not  justified  in  taking  the  oath.  They  had  done  this  without  asking 
the  mouth  of  Jehovah  (ver.  14),  and  thus  had  sinned  against  the 
Lord  their  God.  But  they  could  not  repair  this  fault  by  breaking 
the  oath  which  they  had  thus  imprudently  taken,  i.e.  by  committing 
a  fresh  sin  ;  for  the  violation  of  an  oath  is  always  sin,  even  when 
the  oath  has  been  taken  inconsiderately,  and  it  is  afterwards  dis- 
covered that  what  was  sworn  to  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  will 
of  God,  and  that  an  observance  of  the  oath  will  certainly  be  hurtful 
(viel.  Ps.  xv.  4).1     By  taking  an  oath  to  the  ambassadors  that  they 

1  "  The  binding  power  of  an  oath  ought  to  be  held  so  sacred  among  us,  that 
we  should  not  swerve  from  our  bond  under  any  pretence  of  error,  even  though 
we  had  been  deceived  :  since  the  sacred  name  of  God  is  of  greater  worth  than 
all  the  riches  of  the  world.     Even  though  a  person  should  have  sworn  therefore 


CHAP.  IX.  16-27.  101 

would  let  the  Gibeonites  live,  the  princes  of  Israel  had  acted 
unconsciously  in  violation  of  the  command  of  God  that  they  were 
to  destroy  the  Canaanites.  As  soon  therefore  as  they  discovered 
their  error  or  their  oversight,  they  were  bound  to  do  all  in  their 
power  to  ward  off  from  the  congregation  the  danger  which  might 
arise  of  their  being  drawn  away  to  idolatry — the  very  thing  which 
the  Lord  had  intended  to  avert  by  giving  that  command.  If  this 
could  by  any  possibility  be  done  without  violating  their  oath,  they 
were  bound  to  do  it  for  the  sake  of  the  name  of  the  Lord  by  which 
they  swore  ;  that  is  to  say,  while  letting  the  Gibeonites  live,  it  was 
their  duty  to  put  them  in  such  a  position,  that  they  could  not 
possibly  seduce  the  Israelites  to  idolatry.  And  this  the  princes  of 
Israel  proposed  to  do,  by  granting  to  the  Gibeonites  on  the  one  hand 
the  preservation  of  their  lives  according  to  the  oath  they  had  taken, 
and  on  the  other  hand  by  making  them  slaves  of  the  sanctuary. 
That  they  acted  rightly  in  this  respect,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that 
their  conduct  is  never  blamed  either  by  the  historian  or  by  the 
history,  inasmuch  as  it  is  not  stated  anywhere  that  the  Gibeonites, 
after  being  made  into  temple  slaves,  held  out  any  inducement  to 
the  Israelites  to  join  in  idolatrous  worship,  and  still  more  from  the 
fact,  that  at  a  future  period  God  himself  reckoned  the  attempt  of 
Saul  to  destroy  the  Gibeonites,  in  his  false  zeal  for  the  children  of 
Israel,  as  an  act  of  blood-guiltiness  on  the  part  of  the  nation  of  Israel 
for  which  expiation  must  be  made  (2  Sam.  xxi.  1  sqq.),  and  conse- 
quently approved  of  the  observance  of  the  oath  which  had  been 
sworn  to  them,  though  without  thereby  sanctioning  the  treaty  itself. 
— Ver.  21.  The  princes  declared  again  most  emphatically,  "  They 
shall  liver  Thus  the  Gibeonites  became  hewers  of  wood  and  drawers 
of  water  to  the  congregation,  as  the  princes  had  said  to  them,  i.e. 
had  resolved  concerning  them.  This  resolution  they  communicated 
to  the  congregation  at  the  time,  using  the  expression  VIT  {let  them 
live)  ;  but  the  historian  has  passed  this  over  at  ver.  21a,  and  instead 
of  mentioning  the  resolution  proceeds  at  once  to  describe  its  execu- 
tion.— Vers.  22,  23.  Joshua  then  summoned  the  Gibeonites,  charged 
them  with  their  deceit,  and  pronounced  upon  them  the  curse  of 

without  sufficient  consideration,  no  injury  or  loss  will  release  him  from  hifl 
oath."  This  is  the  opinion  expressed  by  Calvin  with  reference  to  Ps.  xv.  1  ; 
yet  for  all  that  he  regards  the  observance  of  their  oath  on  the  part  of  the  princes 
of  Israel  as  a  sin,  because  he  limits  this  golden  rule  in  the  most  arbitrary 
manner  to  private  affairs  alone,  and  therefore  concludes  that  the  Israelites  were 
not  bound  to  observe  this  "  wily  treaty." 


102  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

eternal  servitude  :  "  There  shall  not  he  cut  off  from  you  a  servant"  i.e. 
ye  shall  never  cease  to  be  servants,  ye  shall  remain  servants  for  ever 
(vid.  2  Sam.  iii.  29  ;  1  Kings  ii.  4),  "  and  that  as  hewers  of  wood 
and  drawers  of  waters  for  our  God's  house."  This  is  a  fuller  defini- 
tion of  the  expression  "  for  all  the  congregation"  in  ver.  21.  The 
Gibeonites  were  to  perform  for  the  congregation  the  slaves'  labour 
of  hewing  wood  and  drawing  water  for  the  worship  of  the  sanctuary, 
— a  duty  which  was  performed,  according  to  Deut.  xxix.  10,  by  the 
lowest  classes  of  the  people.  In  this  way  the  curse  of  Noah  upon 
Canaan  (Gen.  ix.  25)  was  literally  fulfilled  upon  the  Hivites  of  the 
Gibeonitish  republic.  —  Vers.  24,  25.  The  Gibeonites  offered  this 
excuse  for  their  conduct,  that  having  heard  of  the  command  of  God 
which  had  been  issued  through  Moses,  that  all  the  Canaanites  were 
to  be  destroyed  (Deut.  vii.  1,  xx.  16,  17),  they  had  feared  greatly 
for  their  lives,  and  readily  submitted  to  the  resolution  which 
Joshua  made  known  to  them. — Vers.  26,  27.  "And  so  did  he 
unto  them,  and  delivered  them  out  of  the  hand  of  the  children  of 
Israel,  that  they  slew  them  not.  He  made  them  hewers  of  wood  and 
drawers  of  water  for  the  congregation,  and  indeed  for  the  altar  of  the 
Lord,"  (assigning  them)  "  to  the  place  which  God  woidd  choose" 
viz.  for  the  altar.  Dipsrr?S  (to  the  place)  is  grammatically  de- 
pendent upon  DpriM  (he  "gave  them").  It  by  no  means  follows, 
however,  that  Joshua  sent  them  there  at  that  very  time,  but  simply 
that  he  sentenced  them  to  service  at  the  altar  in  the  place  which 
would  be  chosen  for  the  sanctuary.  From  the  words  "unto  this 
day,"  it  no  doubt  follows,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the  account  was 
written  after  the  fact  had  taken  place ;  but,  on  the  other  hand,  it 
also  follows  from  the  future  "in^.  (should,  or  shall  choose),  that  it 
was  written  before  the  place  was  definitely  fixed,  and  therefore 
before  the  building  of  Solomon's  temple. 

VICTORY  AT  GIBEON,  AND  CONQUEST  OP  SOUTHERN  CANAAN. — 

CHAP.  X. 

Vers.  1-5.  The  report  that  Joshua  had  taken  Ai,  and  put  it, 
like  Jericho,  under  the  ban,  and  that  the  Gibeonites  had  concluded 
a  treaty  with  Israel,  filled  Adonizedek  the  king  of  Jerusalem  with 
alarm,  as  Gibeon  was  a  large  town,  like  one  of  the  king's  towns, 
even  larger  than  Ai,  and  its  inhabitants  were  brave  men.  He 
therefore  joined  with  the  kings  of  Hebron,  Jarmuth,  Lachish,  and 
Eglon,  to  make  a  common  attack  upon  Gibeon,  and  punish  it  for 


CHAP.  X.  1-5.  103 

its  alliance  with  the  Israelites,  and  at  the  same  time  to  put  a  check 
upon  the  further  conquests  of  Israel.  Adonizedeh,  i.e.  lord  of  rio-ht- 
eousness,  is  synonymous  with  Melchizedek  (king  of  righteousness), 
and  was  a  title  of  the  Jebusite  kings,  as  Pharaoh  was  of  the  Egyp- 
tian. Jerusalem,  i.e.  the  founding  or  possession  of  peace,  called 
Salem  in  the  time  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xiv.  18),  was  the  proper  name 
of  the  town,  which  was  also  frequently  called  by  the  name  of  its 
Canaanitish  inhabitants  Jehus  (Judg.  xix.  10,  11 ;  1  Chron.  xi.  4), 
or  "city  of  the  Jebusites"  (Ir-Jebusi,  Judg.  xix.  11),  sometimes 
also  in  a  contracted  form,  Jebusi  QüÜtn,  chap,  xviii.  16,  28,  xv.  8; 
2  Sam.  v.  8).1  On  the  division  of  the  land  it  was  allotted  to  the 
tribe  of  Benjamin  (chap,  xviii.  28) ;  but  being  situated  upon  the 
border  of  Judah  (chap.  xv.  8),  it  was  conquered,  and  burned  bv 
the  sons  of  Judah  after  the  death  of  Joshua  (Judg.  i.  8).  It  was 
very  soon  taken  again  and  rebuilt  by  the  Jebusites,  whom  the  sons 
of  Judah  were  unable  to  destroy  (Judg.  xv.  63,  xix.  12),  so  that 
both  Benjaminites  and  Judahites  lived  there  along  with  the  Jebu- 
sites (Judg.  i.  21,  xv.  63)  ;  and  the  upper  town  especially,  upon  the 
summit  of  Mount  Zion,  remained  as  a  fortification  in  the  possession 
of  the  Jebusites,  until  David  conquered  it  (2  Sam.  v.  6  sqq.),  made 
it  the  capital  of  his  kingdom,  and  called  it  by  his  own  name,  "  the 
city  of  David,"  after  which  the  old  name  of  Jebus  fell  into  disuse. 
Hebron,  the  town  of  Arba  the  Anakite  (chap.  xiv.  15,  etc. ;  see  at 
Gen.  xxiii.  2),  was  twenty-two  Roman  miles  south  of  Jerusalem,  in 
a  deep  and  narrow  valley  upon  the  mountains  of  Judah,  a  town  of 
the  greatest  antiquity  (Num.  xiii.  22),  now  called  el  Khalil,  i.e.  the 
friend  (of  God),  with  reference  to  Abraham's  sojourn  there.  The 
ruins  of  an  ancient  heathen  temple  are  still  to  be  seen  there,  as 
well  as  the  Haram,  built  of  colossal  blocks,  which  contains,  accord- 
ing to  Mohammedan  tradition,  the  burial-place  of  the  patriarchs 
(see  at  Gen.  xxiii.  17).  Jarmuth,  in  the  lowlands  of  Judah  (chap. 
xv.  35 ;  Neh.  xi.  29),  according  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Jermns)  a  hamlet, 
Jermucha  ('lep/xo^co?),  ten  Roman  miles  from  Eleutheropolis,  on 
the  road  to  Jerusalem,  is  the  modern  Jarmuk,  a  village  on  a  lofty 
hill,  with  the  remains  of  walls  and  cisterns  of  a  very  ancient  date, 
the  name  of  which,  according  to  Van  de  Velde  (Mem.  pp.  115-6), 
is  pronounced  Tell  'Armuth  by  the  Arabs  (see  Rob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  344). 
Lachish,  in   the    lowlands  of    Judah  (chap.  xv.  39),  was  fortified 

1  In  our  English  version,  we  have  the  Hebrew  word  itself  simply  transposed 
in  Joshua  xviii.  16,  28;  whilst  it  is  rendered  "the  Jebusite"  in  chap.  xv.  8, 
and  "  the  Jebusites  "  in  2  Sam.  v.  8. — Tr 


104  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

by  Kehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi.  9),  and  besieged  by  Sennacherib  and 
Nebuchadnezzar  (2  Kings  xviii.  14,  xix.  8 ;  Jer.  xxxiv.  7),  and  was 
still  inhabited  by  Jews  after  the  return  from  the  captivity  (Neh. 
xi.  30).  It  is  probably  to  be  found  in  Urn  Lakis,  an  old  place 
upon  a  low  round  hill,  covered  with  heaps  of  small  round  stones 
thrown  together  in  great  confusion,  containing  relics  of  marble 
columns ;  it  is  about  an  hour  and  a  quarter  to  the  west  of  Ajlun, 
and  seven  hours  to  the  west  of  Eleutheropolis.1  Eglon  :  also  in 
the  lowlands  of  Judah  (chap.  xv.  39).  The  present  name  is  Ajldn, 
a  heap  of  ruins,  about  three-quarters  of  an  hour  to  the  east  of  Um 
Lakis  (see  Rob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  392,  and  Van  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  308). 
In  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Eglon)  it  is  erroneously  identified  with  Odollam ; 
whereas  the  situation  of  Agla,  "  at  the  tenth  stone,  as  you  go  from 
Eleutheropolis  to  Gaza"  (Onom.  s.  v.  Bndakat/j,,  Bethagla),  suits 
Eglon  exactly. — Ver.  5.  These  five  kings  marched  against  Gibeon 
and  besieged  the  town.  The  king  of  Jerusalem  headed  the  expe- 
dition, as  his  town  was  so  near  to  Gibeon  that  he  was  the  first  to 
fear  an  attack  from  the  Israelites. 

Vers.  6-11.  The  Gibeonites  then  sent  to  Joshua  to  the  camp 
at  Gilgal,  and  entreated  him  to  come  to  his  help  as  speedily  as 
possible.  "  Slack  not  thy  hand  from  thy  servants"  i.e.  withhold  not 
thy  help  from  us.  The  definition  appended  to  "  the  kings  of  the 
Amorites "  ("  that  dwelt  in  the  mountains ")  is  to  be  understood  a 
potiori,  and  does  not  warrant  us  in  drawing  the  conclusion,  that 
all  the  towns  mentioned  in  ver.  3  were  in  the  mountains  of  Judah. 
The  Amorites  who  dwelt  in  the  mountains  were  the  strongest  of 
all  the  Canaanites. — Ver.  7.  In  accordance  with  this  petition  Joshua 
advanced  from  Gilgal  (?JW,  not  went  up)  with  all  the  people  of  war, 
even  (vav.  expl.)  all  the  men  of  valour. — Ver.  8.  The  Lord  then 
renewed  the  assurance  of  His  help  in  this  particular  war,  in  which 
Joshua  was  about  to  fight  for  the  first  time  with  several  allied  kings 
of  Canaan  (cf.  chap.  ii.  24,  vi.  2,  viii.  1,  18). — Ver.  9.  Joshua  came 

1  It  is  true  that  Robinson  disputes  the  identity  of  Urn  Lakis  with  the  ancient 
Lachish  (Pal.  ii.  p.  388),  but  "  not  on  any  reasonable  ground"  {Van  de  Velde, 
Mem.  p.  320).  The  statement  in  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Lochis),  that  it  was  seven 
Roman  miles  to  the  south  of  Eleutheropolis,  cannot  prove  much,  as  it  may  easily 
contain  an  error  in  the  number,  and  Robinson  does  not  admit  its  authority  even 
in  the  case  of  Eglon  (Pal.  ii.  p.  392).  Still  less  can  KnobeVs  conjecture  be 
correct,  that  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  old  place  called  Sukkarijeh,  two  hours  and 
a  half  to  the  south-west  of  Beit  Jibrin  (Eleutheropolis),  as  Sukkarijeh  is  on  the 
east  of  Ajlun,  whereas,  according  to  vers.  31-36,  Lachish  is  to  be  sought  for 
ou  the  west  of  Eglon. 


CHAP.  X.  6-11.  105 

suddenly  upon  them  (the  enemy),  as  he  had  marched  the  whole  night 
from  Gilgal,  i.e.  had  accomplished  the  entire  distance  in  a  night. 
Jiljilia  is  fully  fifteen  miles  from  el-Jib. — Ver.  10.  "  Jehovah  threw 
them  into  confusion,"  as  He  had  promised  in  Ex.  xxiii.  27,  and  in 
all  probability,   judging  from  ver.  11,  by  dreadful   thunder  and 
lightning  {viel.  1  Sam.  vii.  10;  Ps.  xviii.  15,  cxliv.  6:  it  is  different 
in  Ex.  xiv.  24).     "  Israel  smote  them  in  a  great  slaughter  at  Gibeon, 
and  pursued  them  by  the  way  of  the  ascent  of  Bethhoron,"  i.e.  Upper 
Bethhoron  (Beit   Ur,  el-Foka),  which  was  nearest  to  Gibeon,  only 
four  hours  distant  on  the  north-west,  on  a  lofty  promontory  between 
two  valleys,  one  on  the  north,  the  other  on  the  south,  and  was 
separated  from  Lower  Bethhoron,  which  lies  further  west,  by  a 
long  steep  pass,  from  which  the  ascent  to  Upper  Bethhoron  is  very 
steep  and  rocky,  though  the  rock  has  been  cut  away  in  many  places 
now,  and  a  path  made  by  means  of  steps  (see  Rob.  Pal.  iii.  p.  59). 
This  pass  between  the  two  places  leads  downwards  from  Gibeon 
towards  the  western  plain,  and  was  called  sometimes  the  ascent,  or 
going  up  to  Bethhoron,  and  sometimes  the  descent,  or  going  down 
from  it  (ver.  11),  äväßacns  ko\  /caraßaats  Baidcopcov  (1  Mace.  iii. 
16,  24).      Israel  smote  the  enemy  still  further,  "to  Azekah  and 
Makkedah"  so  far  wrere  they  pursued  and  beaten  after  the  battle 
(cf.  vers.  16,  21).     If  we  compare  ver.  11,  according  to  which  the 
enemy  was  smitten,  from  Bethhoron  to  Azekah,  by  a  violent  fall  of 
hail,  it  is  very  evident  that  the  two  places  were  on  the  west  of  Beth- 
horon.    And  it  is  in  perfect  harmony  with  this  that  we  find  both 
places  described  as  being  in  the  lowland  ;  Azekah  in  the  hill-country 
between  the  mountains  and  the  plain  (chap.  xv.  35),  Makkedah  in 
the  plain  itself   (chap.  xv.  41).     Azekah,  which  was  fortified  by 
Rehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi.  9),  besieged  by  Nebuchadnezzar  (Jer.  xxxiv. 
7),  and  still  inhabited  after  the  captivity  (Neh.  xi.  30),  was  not  far 
from  Socoh,  according  to  chap.  xv.  35  ;  whilst  sideways  between  the 
two  was  Ephes-dammim  (1  Sam.  xvii.  1).      Van  de  Velde  has  dis- 
covered the  latter  in  the  ruins  of  Damüm,  about  an  hour's  journey 
east  by  south  from  Beit  Nettif  (Mem.  p.  290),  and  consequently 
imagines  that  Azekah  is  to  be  found  in  the  village  of  Ahbek,  which 
stands  upon  a  lofty  mountain-top  a  mile  and  a  half  to  the  north 
of  Damüm,  and  about   four  or  five  miles  n.n.e.   of  Shuweikeh, 
supposing  this  to  be  Aphek.     The   statement  in  the   Onom.  (.--.  v. 
'A&fcd),  avd/xecrov  'EXevOepo-rrokew  teal  AlXias,  agrees  witli  this. 
Makkedah  is  described  in  the  Onom.  as  being  eight  Roman  miles  to 
the  east  of  Eleutheropolis,  and  hence  Knobel  supposes  it  to  have 


106  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

been  near  Terkumieh,  or  Morah ;  but  he  is  wrong  in  his  supposition, 
as  in  that  case  it  would  have  been  in  the  hill-country  or  upon  the 
mountains,  whereas  it  was  one  of  the  towns  in  the  plain  (chap.  xv. 
41).  Van  de  Veldes  conjecture  (p.  332)  is  a  much  more  probable 
one,  viz.  that  it  is  to  be  found  in  Summeil,  a  considerable  village  on 
an  eminence  in  the  plain,  with  a  large  public  well  110  feet  deep 
and  11  feet  in  diameter,  with  strongly  built  walls  of  hewn  stones, 
where  there  is  also  part  of  an  old  wall,  which  to  all  appearance 
must  formerly  have  belonged  to  a  large  square  castle  built  of  unce- 
mented  stones,  resembling  in  some  respects  the  oldest  foundation 
wall  of  Beit  Jibrin  (Bob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  368).  It  is  two  hours  and  a 
half  to  the  north-west  of  Beit  Jibrin,  and  there  Van  de  Velde  dis- 
covered the  large  cave  (see  at  ver.  16),  which  Robinson  has  not 
observed  (see  his  Journey  through  Syria  and  Palestine). — Ver.  11. 
The  large  stones  which  the  Lord  threw  upon  the  flying  foe  at  the 
slope  of  Bethhoron  were  hail-stones  (see  Isa.  xxx.  30),  not  stone- 
hail,  or  a  shower  of  stones,  but  a  terrible  hail-storm,  in  which  hail 
fell  upon  the  foe  in  pieces  as  large  as  stones  (see  Wisd.  xlvi.  6), 
and  slew  a  greater  number  of  them  than  the  swords  of  the  Israel- 
ites. This  phenomenon,  which  resembled  the  terrible  hail  in  Egypt 
(Ex.  ix.  24),  was  manifestly  a  miraculous  occurrence  produced  by 
the  omnipotent  power  of  God,  inasmuch  as  the  hail-stones  slew  the 
enemy  without  injuring  the  Israelites,  who  were  pursuing  them. 
By  this  the  Israelites  were  to  be  made  to  see  that  it  was  not  their 
own  power,  but  the  supernatural  help  of  their  God,  which  had  given 
them  the  victory ;  whilst  the  enemy  discovered  that  it  was  not  only 
the  people  of  Israel,  but  the  God  of  Israel,  that  had  devoted  them 
to  destruction. 

Vers.  12-15.  In  firm  reliance  upon  the  promise  of  God  (ver.  8), 
Joshua  offered  a  prayer  to  the  Lord  during  the  battle,  that  He 
would  not  let  the  sun  go  down  till  Israel  had  taken  vengeance  upon 
their  foes ;  and  the  Lord  hearkened  to  the  prayer  of  His  servant, 
and  the  sun  hastened  not  to  go  down  till  the  defeat  of  the  Amorites 
was  accomplished.  This  miraculous  victory  was  celebrated  by  the 
Israelites  in  a  war-song,  which  was  preserved  in  the  "  book  of  the 
Righteous."  The  author  of  the  book  of  Joshua  has  introduced  the 
passage  out  of  this  book  which  celebrates  the  mighty  act  of  the 
Lord  for  the  glorification  of  His  name  upon  Israel,  and  their  foes 
the  Amorites.  It  is  generally  admitted,  that  vers.  12-15  contain  a 
quotation  from  the  "  book  of  Jasher,"  mentioned  in  ver.  13.  This 
quotation,  and  the  reference  to  the  work  itself,  are  analogous  to  the 


CHAP.  X.  12-15.  107 

notice  of  "  the  book  of  the  wars  of  the  Lord,"  in  Num.  xxi.  14, 
and  to  the  strophes  of  a  song  which  are  there  interwoven  with  the 
historical  narrative  ;  the  object  being,  not  to  confirm  the  historical 
account  by  referring  to  an  earlier  source,  but  simply  to  set  forth 
before  other  generations  the  powerful  impression  which  was  made 
upon  the  congregation  by  these  mighty  acts  of  the  Lord.  The 
"  booh  of  Jasher"  i.e.  book  of  the  upright,  or  righteous  man,  that 
is  to  say,  of  the  true  members  of  the  theocracy,  or  godly  men.  "IB'* 
(Jasher,  the  righteous)  is  used  to  denote  the  genuine  Israelite,  in 
the  same  sense  as  in  Num.  xxiii.  10,  where  Balaam  calls  the  Israel- 
ites "  the  righteous,"  inasmuch  as  Jehovah,  the  righteous  and 
upright  one  (Deut.  xxxii.  4),  had  called  them  to  be  His  people,  and 
to  walk  in  His  righteousness.  In  addition  to  this  passage,  the 
"  book  of  the  righteous  (Jasher)"  is  also  mentioned  in  2  Sam.  i.  18, 
as  a  work  in  which  was  to  be  found  David's  elegy  upon  Saul  and 
Jonathan.  From  this  fact  it  has  been  justly  inferred,  that  the  book 
was  a  collection  of  odes  in  praise  of  certain  heroes  of  the  theocracy, 
with  historical  notices  of  their  achievements  interwoven,  and  that 
the  collection  was  formed  by  degrees ;  so  that  the  reference  to  this 
work  is  neither  a  proof  that  the  passage  has  been  interpolated  by  a 
later  hand,  nor  that  the  work  was  composed  at  a  very  late  period. 
That  the  passage  quoted  from  this  work  is  extracted  from  a  song 
is  evident  enough,  both  from  the  poetical  form  of  the  composition 
and  also  from  the  parallelism  of  the  sentences.  The  quotation, 
however,  does  not  begin  with  "i^N'l  (and  he  said)  in  ver.  12 b,  but 
with  nn  ÜV2  (in  the  day  when  the  Lord  delivered)  in  ver.  12a,  and 
vers.  13  and  14  also  form  part  of  it ;  so  that  the  title  of  the  book 
from  which  the  quotation  is  taken  is  inserted  in  the  middle  of  the 
quotation  itself.  In  other  cases,  unquestionably,  such  formulas  of 
quotation  are  placed  either  at  the  beginning  (as  in  Num.  xxi.  14, 
27  ;  2  Sam.  i.  18),  or  else  at  the  close  of  the  account,  which  is 
frequently  the  case  in  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles ;  but  it 
by  no  means  follows  that  there  were  no  exceptions  to  this  rule, 
especially  as  the  reason  for  mentioning  the  original  sources  is  a 
totally  different  one  in  the  books  of  Kings,  where  the  works  cited  are 
not  the  simple  vouchers  for  the  facts  related,  but  works  containing 
fuller  and  more  elaborate  accounts  of  events  which  have  only  been 
cursorily  described.  The  poetical  form  of  the  passage  in  ver.  13 
also  leaves  no  doubt  whatever  that  vers.  13  and  14  contain  the 
words  of  the  old  poet,  and  are  not  a  prose  comment  made  by  the 
nistorian  upon  the  poetical  passage  quoted.     The  only  purely  his- 


108  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

torical  statement  is  ver.  15  ;  and  this  is  repeated  in  ver.  43,  at  the 
close  of  the  account  of  the  wars  and  the  victory.  But  this  literal 
repetition  of  ver.  15  in  ver.  43,  and  the  fact  that  the  statement,  that 
Joshua  returned  with  all  the  people  to  the  camp  at  Gilgal,  antici- 
pates the  historical  course  of  the  events  in  a  very  remarkable 
manner,  render  it  highly  probable,  if  not  absolutely  certain,  that 
ver.  15  was  also  taken  from  the  book  of  the  righteous. 

In  the  day  when  Jehovah  delivered  up  the  Amorites  to  the 
children  of  Israel  ("  before,"  as  in  Deut.  ii.  31,  33,  etc.),  Joshua 
said  before  the  eyes  (i.e.  in  the  presence)  of  Israel,  so  that  the 
Israelites  were  witnesses  of  his  words  (yid.  Deut.  xxxi.  7)  :  "  Sun, 
stand  still  (wait)  at  Gibeon ;  and,  Moon,  in  the  valley  of  Ajalon." 
DE^,  to  be  silent,  to  keep  one's  self  quiet  or  still,  to  wait  (1  Sam.  xiv. 
9).  The  address  to  the  sun  and  moon  implies  that  they  both  of  them 
stood,  or  were  visible  in  the  heavens  at  the  time  ;  and  inasmuch  as 
it  was  spoken  to  the  Lord,  involves  a  prayer  that  the  Lord  and 
Creator  of  the  world  would  not  suffer  the  sun  and  moon  to  set  till 
Israel  had  taken  vengeance  upon  its  foes.  This  explanation  of  the 
prayer  is  only  to  be  found,  it  is  true,  in  the  statement  that  the 
sun  and  moon  stood  still  at  Joshua's  word ;  but  we  must  imagine  it 
as  included  in  the  prayer  itself,  ""ia  without  an  article,  when  used 
to  denote  the  people  of  Israel,  is  to  be  regarded  as  a  poetical 
expression.  In  the  sequel  (ver.  136)  the  sun  only  is  spoken  of : 
"  and  the  sun  stood  still  in  the  midst  of  heaven,  and  hasted  not  to  go 
down  about  a  whole  day?  The  poetical  word  fix,  to  press  or  hurry, 
is  founded  upon  the  idea  that  the  sun  runs  its  course  like  a  strong 
man,  with  vigour,  and  without  weariness  or  cessation  (Ps.  xix.  6,  7). 
It  follows  from  this,  that  Joshua  merely  prayed  for  the  day  to  be 
lengthened,  i.e.  for  the  setting  of  the  sun  to  be  delayed ;  and  that 
he  included  the  moon  (ver.  12),  simply  because  it  was  visible  at  the 
time.  But  even  if  this  is  the  case,  we  are  not  therefore  to  conclude, 
as  C.  v.  Lapide,  Clericus,  and  others  have  done,  that  Joshua  spoke 
these  words  in  the  afternoon,  when  the  sun  was  beginning  to  set, 
and  the  moon  had  already  risen.  The  expression  0*OB>n  WEI,  "  in 
the  half"  i.e.  the  midst,  "  of  the  sky"  is  opposed  to  this  view,  and 
still  more  the  relative  position  of  the  two  in  the  sky,  the  sun  at 
Gibeon  and  the  moon  in  the  valley  of  Ajalon,  i.e.  in  the  fine  broad 
basin  on  the  north  side  of  Yah  (see  at  chap.  xix.  42),  the  present 
Merj  Ihn  Omeir  (Rob.  iii.  pp.  63,  64),  which  is  four  hours'  journey 
to  the  west  of  Gibeon.  As  Joshua  smote  the  enemy  at  Gibeon, 
and  they  fled  to  the  south-west,  he  was  no  doubt  on  the  west  of 


CHAP.  X.  12-15.  109 

Gibeon  when  he  commanded  the  sun  and  moon  to  stand  still  ;  and 
therefore  from  his  point  of  view  the  sun  would  be  in  the  east  when 
it  stood  over  Gibeon,  and  the  moon  in  the  far  west  when  it  stood 
over  the  valley  of  Ajalon.  But  that  could  only  be  the  case  before 
noon,  a  few  hours  after  sunrise,  when  the  moon  had  not  yet  set  in 
the  western  sky.  In  all  probability  the  battle  took  place  quite 
early  in  the  morning,  as  Joshua  had  marched  from  Gilgal  the  night 
before,  and  fell  quite  suddenly  upon  the  enemy  (ver.  9).  But  after 
the  conflict  had  lasted  for  some  hours,  and  Joshua  began  to  be 
anxious  lest  he  should  be  unable  to  overcome  the  enemy  before 
night  came  on,  he  addressed  the  prayer  to  the  Lord  to  lengthen  out 
the  day,  and  in  a  short  time  saw  his  prayer  so  far  fulfilled,  that  the 
sun  still  stood  high  up  in  the  sky  when  the  enemy  was  put  to  flight. 
We  take  for  granted  that  these  words  were  spoken  by  Joshua  before 
the  terrible  hail-storm  which  fell  upon  the  enemy  in  their  flight, 
when  they  were  near  Bethhoron,  which  is  about  two  hours  from 
Gibeon,  and  smote  them  to  Azekah.  There  is  nothing  to  prevent 
our  assuming  this.  The  fact,  that  in  the  historical  account  the 
hail  is  mentioned  before  the  desire  expressed  by  Joshua  and  the 
fulfilment  of  that  desire,  may  be  explained  on  the  simple  ground, 
that  the  historian,  following  the  order  of  importance,  relates  the 
principal  incident  in  connection  with  the  battle  first,  before  proceed- 
ing to  the  special  point  to  be  cited  from  the  book  of  the  righteous. 
D^DPI  Di'Gj  "  towards  (about,  or  as  it  were)  a  whole  day"  neither 
signifies  "  when  the  day  was  ended"  ( Clericus),  nor  "  as  it  usually 
does  when  the  day  is  perfected  or  absolutely  finished"  (Rosenmiiller) ; 
but  the  sun  did  not  hasten  or  press  to  go  down,  delayed  its  setting, 
almost  a  whole  day  ("  day"  being  the  time  between  sunrise  and 
sunset). 

What  conception  are  we  to  form  of  this  miraculous  event  ?  It 
is  not  stated  that  the  sun  actually  stood  still  in  one  spot  in  the 
heavens, — say,  for  instance,  in  the  zenith.  And  if  the  expression, 
"  the  sun  stood  still  in  the  midst  of  heaven,"  which  is  added  as  an 
explanation  of  Bfajlj  is  so  pressed  as  to  mean  that  the  sun  was 
miraculously  stopped  in  its  course,  this  is  hardly  reconcilable  with 
Nin^  f«  üb,  "  it  hasted  not  to  go  down,"  as  these  words,  if  taken 
literally,  merely  denote  a  slower  motion  on  the  part  of  the  sun,  as 
many  of  the  Rabbins  have  observed.  All  that  is  clearly  affirmed  in 
vers.  12  and  13  is,  that  at  Joshua's  word  the  sun  remained  standing 
in  the  sky  for  almost  a  whole  day  longer.  To  this  there  is  added, 
in  ver.  14,  "  There  was  no  day  like  that  before  it,  or  after  if,  thai 


\S 


110  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Jehovah  hearkened  to  the  voice  of  a  man  ;  for  Jehovah  fought  for 
Israel."  This  expression  must  not  be  pressed  too  far,  as  the  analo- 
gous passages  ("  there  was  none  like  him,"  etc.)  in  2  Kings  xviii.  5 
and  xxiii.  25  clearly  show.  They  merely  express  this  thought: 
no  other  day  like  this,  which  God  so  miraculously  lengthened,  ever 
occurred  either  before  or  afterwards.  So  much,  therefore,  is  obvious 
enough  from  the  words,  that  the  writer  of  the  old  song,  and  also 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Joshua,  who  inserted  the  passage  in  his 
narrative,  were  convinced  that  the  day  was  miraculously  prolonged. 
At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  it  is  not  stated 
that  God  lengthened  that  day  at  the  request  of  Joshua  almost  an 
entire  day,  or  that  He  made  the  sun  stand  still  almost  a  whole  day, 
but  simply  that  God  hearkened  to  the  voice  of  Joshua,  i.e.  did  not 
permit  the  sun  to  go  down  till  Israel  had  avenged  itself  upon  its 
enemies.  This  distinction  is  not  without  importance :  for  a  mira- 
culous prolongation  of  the  day  would  take  place  not  only  if  the 
sun's  course  or  sun's  setting  was  delayed  for  several  hours  by  the 
omnipotent  power  of  God,  and  the  day  extended  from  twelve  to 
eighteen  or  twenty  hours,  but  also  if  the  day  seemed  to  Joshua  and 
all  Israel  to  be  miraculously  prolonged ;  because  the  work  accom- 
plished on  that  day  was  so  great,  that  it  would  have  required  almost 
two  days  to  accomplish  it  without  supernatural  aid.  It  is  not  easy 
to  decide  between  these  two  opposite  views ;  in  fact,  it  is  quite  im- 
possible if  we  go  to  the  root  of  the  matter.  When  we  are  not  in 
circumstances  to  measure  the  length  of  the  day  by  the  clock,  it  is 
very  easy  to  mistake  its  actual  length,  especially  in  the  midst  of 
the  pressure  of  business  or  work.  The  Israelites  at  that  time  had 
neither  sun-clocks  nor  any  other  kind  of  clock;  and  during  the  con- 
fusion of  the  battle  it  is  hardly  likely  that  Joshua,  or  any  one  else 
who  was  engaged  in  the  conflict,  would  watch  the  shadow  of  the 
sun  and  its  changes,  either  by  a  tree  or  any  other  object,  so  as  to 
discover  that  the  sun  had  actually  stood  still,  from  the  fact  that  for 
hours  the  shadow  had  neither  moved  nor  altered  in  length.  Under 
such  circumstances,  therefore,  it  was  quite  impossible  for  the  Israel- 
ites to  decide  whether  it  was  in  reality,  or  only  in  their  own  imagi- 
nation, that  the  day  was  longer  than  others.  To  this  there  must 
be  added  the  poetical  character  of  the  verses  before  us.  When 
David  celebrates  the  miraculous  deliverance  which  he  had  received 
from  the  Lord,  in  these  words,  "  In  my  distress  I  called  upon  the 
Lord.  .  .  .  He  heard  my  voice  out  of  His  temple.  .  .  .  He  bowed 
the  heavens  also,  and  came  down.  .  .  .  He  sent  from  above,  He  took 


CHAP.  X.  12-15.  Ill 

me,  He  drew  me  out  of  many  waters"  (Ps.  xviii.  7-17),  who  would 
ever  think  of  interpreting  the  words  literally,  and  supposing  them 
to  mean  that  God  actually  came  down  from  the  sky,  and  stretched 
out  His  hand  to  draw  David  out  of  the  water?     Or  who  would 
understand  the  words  of  Deborah,  "  They  fought  from  heaven,  the 
stars  in  their  courses  fought  against  Sisera"  (Judg.  v.  20),  in  their 
literal  sense?     The  truthfulness  of  such  utterances  is  to  be  sought 
for  in  the  subjective  sphere  of  religious  intuition,  and  not  in  a 
literal  interpretation  of  the  words.     And  it  may  be  just  the  same 
with  these  verses,  without  their  actual  contents  being  affected,  if 
the  day  was  merely  subjectively  lengthened, — that  is  to  say,  in  the 
religious  conviction  of  the  Israelites.     But  even  if  the  words  reallv 
affirmed  that  a  miraculous  and  objective  lengthening  of  the  day  did 
actually  take  place,  we  should  have  no  reason  whatever  for  ques- 
tioning the  credibility  of  the  statement.   All  the  objections  that  have 
been  raised  with  reference  to  the  reality  or  possibility  of  such  a 
miracle,  prove  to  have  no  force  when  we  examine  the  subject  more 
closely.     Thus,  for  example,  the  objection  that  the  annals  of  the 
other  nations  of  the  earth  contain  no  account  of  any  such  miracle, 
which  must  have  extended  over  the  whole  world,  loses  all  its  sieni- 
ficance  from  the  simple  fact  that  there  are  no  annals  in  existence 
belonging  to  other  nations  and  reaching  back  to  that  time,  and  that 
it  is  altogether  doubtful  whether  the  miracle  would  extend  far 
beyond  the  limits  of  Palestine.     Again,  an  appeal  to  the  unchange- 
ableness  of  the  motions  of  the  stars  according  to  eternal  and  un- 
changeable laws,  is  not  adapted  to  prove  the  impossibility  of  such  a 
miracle.     The  eternal  laws  of  nature  are  nothing  more  than  pheno- 
mena, or  forms  of  manifestation,  of  those  divine  creative  powers, 
the  true  character  of  which  no  mortal  has  ever  fathomed.     And 
does  not  the  almighty  Creator  and  Upholder  of  nature  and  all  its 
forces  possess  the  power  so  to  direct  and  govern  the  working  of 
these  forces,  as  to  make  them  subservient  to  the  realization  of  His 
purposes  of  salvation?     And  lastly,  the  objection  that  a  sudden 
stoppage  of  the  revolution  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis  would  have 
dashed  to  pieces  all  the  works  of  human  hands  that  were  to  be 
found  upon  its  surface,  and  hurled  the  earth  itself,  with  its  satellite 
the  moon,  out  of  their  orbits,  cannot  prove  anything,  because  it 
leaves  out  of  sight  the  fact  that  the  omnipotent  hand  of  God,  which 
not  only  created  the  stars,  but  gave  them  the  power  to  revolve  with 
such  regularity  in  their  orbits  as  long  as  this  universe  endures,  mid 
which  upholds  and  governs  all  things  in  heaven  and  on  earth,  is 


112  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

not  too  short  to  guard  against  any  such  disastrous  consequences  as 
these.  But  to  this  we  may  add,  that  even  the  strictest  and  most 
literal  interpretation  of  the  words  does  not  require  us  to  assume,  as 
the  fathers  and  earlier  theologians  did,  that  the  sun  itself  was 
miraculously  made  to  stand  still,  but  simply  supposes  an  optical 
stopping  of  the  sun  in  its  course, — that  is  to  say,  a  miraculous  sus- 
pension of  the  revolution  of  the  earth  upon  its  axis,  which  would 
make  it  appear  to  the  eye  of  an  observer  as  if  the  sun  itself  were 
standing  still.  Knobel  is  by  no  means  warranted  in  pronouncing 
this  view  of  the  matter  an  assumption  at  variance  with  the  text. 
For  the  Scriptures  speak  of  the  things  of  the  visible  world  as  they 
appear ;  just  as  we  speak  of  the  sun  as  rising  and  setting,  although 
we  have  no  doubt  whatever  about  the  revolution  of  the  earth. 
Moreover,  the  omnipotence  of  God  might  produce  such  an  optical 
stoppage  of  the  sun,  or  rather  a  continuance  of  the  visibility  of  the 
sun  above  the  horizon,  by  celestial  phenomena  which  are  altogether 
unknown  to  us  or  to  naturalists  in  general,  without  interfering  with 
the  general  laws  affecting  the  revolution  of  the  heavenly  bodies. 
Only  we  must  not  attempt,  as  some  have  done,  to  reduce  the 
whole  miracle  of  divine  omnipotence  to  an  unusual  refraction  of 
the  light,  or  to  the  continuance  of  lightning  throughout  the  whole 
night. 

Vers.  16-27.  The  five  kings  fled  and  hid  themselves  in  the  cave 
that  was  at  Makkedah.  When  they  were  discovered  there,  Joshua 
ordered  large  stones  to  be  rolled  before  the  entrance  to  the  cave, 
and  men  to  be  placed  there  to  watch,  whilst  the  others  pursued  the 
enemy  without  ceasing,  and  smote  their  rear  (vid.  Deut.  xxv.  18), 
and  prevented  their  entering  into  their  cities.  He  himself  remained 
at  Makkedah  (ver.  21).— Vers.  20,  21.  When  the  great  battle  and 
the  pursuit  of  the  enemy  were  ended,  and  such  as  remained  had 
reached  their  fortified  towns,  the  people  returned  to  the  camp  to 
Joshua  at  Makkedah  in  peace,  i.e.  without  being  attacked  by  any- 
body. "  There  pointed  not  (a  dog)  its  tongue  against  the  sons  of 
Israel,  against  any  one"  (see  at  Ex.  xi.  7).  K^SSp  is  in  apposition  to 
?VF$\  ^.i?,  and  serves  to  define  it  more  precisely.  It  is  possible, 
however,  to  regard  the  b  as  a  copyist's  error,  as  Houbigant  and 
Maurer  do,  in  which  case  &K  would  be  the  nominative  to  the  verb. 
— Vers.  22-27.  Joshua  then  commanded  the  five  kings  to  be  fetched 
out  of  the  cave,  and  directed  the  leaders  of  the  army  to  set  their 
feet  upon  the  necks  of  the  kings ;  and  when  this  had  been  done, 
he  ordered  the  kings  to  be  put  to  death,  and  to  be  hanged  upon 


CHAP.  X.  28-39.  113 

trees  until  the  evening,  when  their  bodies  were  to  be  thrown  into 
the  cave  in  which  they  had  concealed  themselves.  Of  course  this 
did  not  take  place  till  the  day  after  the  battle,  as  the  army  could 
not  return  from  their  pursuit  of  the  foe  to  the  camp  at  Makkedah 
till  the  night  after  the  battle ;  possibly  it  did  not  take  place  till  the 
second  day,  if  the  pursuit  had  lasted  any  longer.  In  ver.  24,  u  all 
the  men  of  Israel"  are  all  the  warriors  in  the  camp.  W3?nn,  with  n 
artic,  instead  of  the  relative  pronoun  (see  Ges.  §109;  Ew.  §  331,  b.)  ; 
and  the  ending  XI  for  !|  or  pi,  as  in  Isa.  xxviii.  12  (see  Ew.  §  190,  b.). 
The  fact  that  the  military  leaders  set  their  feet  at  Joshua's  com- 
mand upon  the  necks  of  the  conquered  kings,  was  not  a  sign  of 
barbarity,  which  it  is  necessary  to  excuse  by  comparing  it  with  still 
greater  barbarities  on  the  part  of  the  Canaanites,  as  in  Judg.  i.  7, 
but  was  a  symbolical  act,  a  sign  of  complete  subjugation,  which  was 
customary  in  this  sense  even  in  the  Eastern  empire  (see  Bynams  de 
calceis,  p.  318,  and  Constant.  Porphyrogen  de  cerimon.  aula?  Byzant. 
ii.  19).  It  was  also  intended  in  this  instance  to  stimulate  the 
Israelites  to  further  conflict  with  the  Canaanites.  This  is  stated 
in  the  words  of  Joshua  (ver.  25)  :  "  Fear  not,  nor  be  dismayed  (rid. 
chap.  i.  9,  viii.  1)  ;  for  thus  shall  the  Lord  do  to  all  your  enemies." 
On  the  putting  to  death  and  then  hanging,  see  chap.  viii.  29  and 
Deut.  xxi.  22,  23.  The  words  'W  «3*»J  (ver.  21b)  are  generally 
understood  as  signifying,  that  after  the  bodies  of  the  kings  had  been 
cast  into  the  cave,  the  Israelites  placed  large  stones  before  the 
entrance,  just  as  in  other  cases  heaps  of  stones  were  piled  upon  the 
graves  of  criminals  that  had  been  executed  (vid.  chap.  vii.  25),  and 
that  these  stones  remained  there  till  the  account  before  us  was 
written.  But  this  leaves  the  words  Dvy  *iy  unexplained,  as  DVJJ 
never  occurs  in  any  other  case  where  the  formula  "  until  this  day" 
is  used  with  the  simple  meaning  that  a  thing  had  continued  to  the 
writer's  own  time,  ffll  Di»n  Dyy  expresses  the  thought  that  the  day 
referred  to  was  the  very  same  day  about  which  the  author  was 
writing,  and  no  other  (see  chap.  v.  11 ;  Gen.  vii.  13,  xvii.  23;  Ex. 
xii.  17,  etc.).  If,  therefore,  it  has  any  meaning  at  all  in  the  present 
instance,  we  must  connect  the  whole  clause  with  the  one  preceding, 
and  even  construe  it  as  a  relative  clause :  "  where  they  (the  kings) 
had  hidden  themselves,  and  they  (the  Israelites)  had  placed  large 
stones  at  the  mouth  of  the  cave  until  that  very  day"  (on  which  the 
kings  were  fetched  out  and  executed). 

Vers.  28-39.  Further  prosecution  of  the  victory,  by  the  con- 
quest of  the  fortified  towns  of   the  south,  into  which  those  who 

H 


114  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA 

escaped  the  sword  of  the  Israelites  had  thrown  themselves. — Ver.  28. 
On  the  same  day  on  which  the  five  kings  were  impaled,  Joshua 
took  Makkedah  (see  at  ver.  10),  and  smote  the  town  and  its  king 
with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  banning  the  town  and  all  the  persons 
in  it,  i.e.  putting  all  the  inhabitants  to  death  (many  mss.  and  some 
editions  adopt  the  reading  AHN  for  DAN,  as  in  Ver.  37),  taking  the 
cattle  and  the  property  in  the  town  as  booty,  as  in  the  case  of  Ai 
(chap.  viii.  27,  28),  and  treating  its  king  like  the  king  of  Jericho, 
who  was  suspended  upon  a  stake,  to  judge  from  chap.  viii.  2,  29, 
although  this  is  not  stated  in  chap.  vi. — Vers.  29,  30.  From  Mak- 
kedah he  went  with  all  Israel,  i.e.  all  the  men  of  war,  against  Libnah, 
and  after  effecting  the  conquest  of  it,  did  just  the  same  as  he  had 
done  to  Makkedah.  Libnah  was  one  of  the  towns  of  the  plain  or 
of  the  hill-country  of  Judah  (chap.  xv.  42)  ;  it  was  allotted  to  the 
priests  (chap.  xxi.  13),  revolted  from  Judah  in  the  reign  of  Joram 
(2  Kings  viii.  22),  and  was  besieged  by  Sennacherib  (Isa.  xxxvii.  8). 
It  is  to  be  sought  on  the  north-west  of  Lachish,  not  on  the  south 
as  Knob  el  erroneously  infers  from  Isa.  xxxvii.  8.  According  to  the 
Onom.  (s.  v.  Lebna),  it  was  at  that  time  villa  in  regione  Eleuthero- 
politatia,  guce  appellator  Lobna.  It  has  not  been  discovered  yet ; 
but  according  to  the  very  probable  conjecture  of  V.  de  Velde  (Mem. 
p.  330),  the  ruins  of  it  may  perhaps  be  seen  upon  the  hill  called 
Arak  el  Menshiyeh,  about  two  hours  to  the  west  of  Beit  Jibrin.1 — 
Vers.  31,  32.  Lachish,  i.e.  Urn  Lakis  (see  at  ver.  3),  shared  the  same 
fate. — Ver.  33.  Joshua  also  smote  the  king  of  Gezer,  who  had  come 
with  his  people  to  the  help  of  Lachish,  and  left  no  one  remaining. 
Nothing  is  said  about  the  capture  of  the  town  of  Gezer.  According 
to  chap.  xvi.  10  and  Judg.  i.  29,  it  was  still  in  the  possession  of  the 
Canaanites  when  the  land  was  divided,  though  this  alone  is  not 
sufficient  to  prove  that  Joshua  did  not  conquer  it,  as  so  many  of  the 
conquered  towns  were  occupied  by  the  Canaanites  again  after  the 
Israelites  had  withdrawn.  But  its  situation  makes  it  very  probable 
that  Joshua  did  not  conquer  it  at  that  time,  as  it  was  too  much  out 
of  his  road,  and  too  far  from  Lachish.  Gezer  (LXX.  Tdt,ep,  in 
1  Chron.  xiv.  16  Ta%npd,  in  1  Mace.  TaQpa  or  TaC/xpa  plur.,  in 

1  Knobcl  is  decidedly  wrong  in  his  supposition,  that  Libnah  is  to  be  seen  in 
the  considerable  ruins  called  Hora,  which  lie  in  the  plain  (Seetzen  and  V.  de 
Ytlde)  and  are  called  Hawara  by  Robinson.  He  founds  his  conjecture  upon 
the  fact  that  the  name  signifies  white,  and  is  the  Arabic  translation  of  the 
Hubrew  name.  But  Hora  is  only  two  hours  and  a  half  to  the  north  of  Beersheba, 
and  is  not  in  the  plain  at  all,  but  in  the  Negeb. 


CHAP.  X.  28-39.  115 

Joseplius  Td&pa,  Ant.  vii.  4,  1,  viii.  6,  1,  and  also  rdSapa,  v.  1,  22, 
xii.  7,  4)  was  on  the  southern  boundary  of  Ephraim  (chap.  xvi.  3), 
and  was  given  up  by  that  tribe  to  the  Levites  (chap.  xvi.  9,  10, 
xxi.  20,  21.  It  is  very  frequently  mentioned.  David  pursued 
the  Philistines  to  Gezer  (Gazer),  after  they  had  been  defeated  at 
Gibeon  or  Geba  (2  Sam.  v.  25  ;  1  Chron.  xiv.  IG).  At  a  later 
period  it  was  conquered  by  Pharaoh,  and  presented  to  his  daughter, 
who  was  married  to  Solomon  ;  and  Solomon  built,  i.e.  fortified  it 
(1  Kings  ix.  16,  17).  It  was  an  important  fortress  in  the  wars  of 
the  Maccabees  (1  Mace.  ix.  52 ;  2  Mace.  x.  32 ;  cf.  1  Mace.  iv.  15, 
vii.  45,  xiii.  53,  xiv.  34,  xv.  28,  35).  According  to  the  Onom. 
(s.  v.  Gazer),  it  was  four  Roman  miles  to  the  north  of  Nicopolis,  i.e. 
Anwas,  and  was  called  Ta^dpa.  This  is  not  only  in  harmony  with 
chap.  xvi.  3,  according  to  which  the  southern  border  of  Ephraim 
ran  from  Lower  Bethhoron  to  Gezer,  and  then  on  to  the  sea,  but 
also  with  all  the  other  passages  in  which  Gezer  is  mentioned,1  and 
answers  very  well  to  the  situation  of  el  Kubab,  a  village  of  con- 
siderable size  on  a  steep  hill  at  the  extreme  north  of  the  mountain 

1  The  statement  in  1  Mace.  vii.  45,  that  Judas  Maccabseus  pursued  the  army 
of  Nicanor,  which  had  been  beaten  at  Adasa,  for  a  day's  journey,  as  far  as 
Gazera  ("  a  day's  journey  from  Adasa  into  Gazera"),  is  perfectly  reconcilable 
with  the  situation  of  el  Kubab;  for,  according  to  Joseplius  (Ant.  xii.  10,  5), 
Adasa  was  thirty  stadia  from  Bethhoron,  and  Bethhoron  is  ten  miles  to  the 
west  of  Kubab  (measuring  in  a  straight  line  upon  the  map) ;  so  that  Judas  pur- 
sued the  enemy  fifteen  miles, — a  distance  which  might  very  well  be  called  "  a 
day's  journey,"  if  we  consider  that  the  enemy,  when  flying,  would  not  always 
take  the  straightest  road,  and  might  even  make  a  stand  at  intervals,  and  BO 
delay  their  pursuers.  Still  less  do  the  statement  in  1  Mace.  xiv.  34,  that  Simon 
fortified  Joppa  on  the  sea,  and  Gazara  on  the  border  of  Ashdod,  the  combina- 
tion of  Joppa,  Gazara,  and  the  tower  that  is  in  Jerusalem  (1  Mace.  xv.  28, 
35),  and  the  fact  that  the  country  of  Gadaris,  with  the  town  of  Gadara,  occurs 
between  Joppa  and  Jamnia  in  Strabo  xvi.  759,  warrant  us  in  making  a  dis- 
tinction between  Gazara  (Gezer)  and  the  place  mentioned  in  the  On 
Grimm  does  (on  1  Mace.  iv.  15),  and  identifying  it  with  the  village  of  Jazür, 
an  hour  and  a  half  from  Jaffa,  although  Arvieux  calls  this  village  Gesst  r.  The 
objections  of  Van  de  Velde  against  the  identity  of  Kubab  and  Gazer  are  with- 
out any  force.  It  does  not  necessarily  follow  from  the  expression  "  went  up," 
that  Lachish  stood  on  higher  ground  than  Gezer,  as  going  up  often  Big 
nothing  more  than  making  a  hostile  attack  upon  a  fortification.  And  no  im- 
portance can  be  attached  to  the  conjecture,  that  with  the  great  distance  of 
Kubab  from  Urn  Lakis,  the  king  of  Gezer  would  have  come  to  the  help  of  the 
kings  of  Makkedah  and  Libnah,  who  were  much  nearer  and  were  attacke  1  Brat, 
as  the  circumstances  which  determined  his  conduct  are  too  thoroughly  unknown 
to  us,  for  it  to  be  possible  to  pronounce  an  opinion  upon  the  subject  with  any 
certainty. 


116  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA 

chain  which  runs  to  the  north-west  of  Zorea,  and  slopes  off  towards 
the  north  into  the  broad  plain  of  Merj  el  Omeir,  almost  in  the 
middle  of  the  road  from  Ramleh  to  Yalo.  For  this  village,  with 
which  Van  Semden  identifies  Gezer  {Van  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  315), 
was  exactly  four  Roman  miles  north  by  west  of  Anwas,  according 
to  Robinsons  map,  and  not  quite  four  hours  from  Akir  (Ekron), 
the  most  northerly  city  of  the  Philistines ;  so  that  Josephus  (Ant. 
vii.  4,  1)  could  very  properly  describe  Gazara  as  the  frontier  of  the 
territory  of  the  Philistines.  Robinson  discovered  no  signs  of  anti- 
quity, it  is  true,  on  his  journey  through  Kubab,  but  in  all  proba- 
bility he  did  not  look  for  them,  as  he  did  not  regard  the  village 
as  a  place  of  any  importance  in  connection  with  ancient  history 
(Bibl.  Res.  pp.  143-4). 

Vers.  34,  35.  From  Lachish  Joshua  proceeded  eastwards  against 
Eglon  (Ajlan,  see  ver.  3),  took  the  town,  and  did  to  it  as  he  had 
done  to  Lachish. — Vers.  36,  37.  From  Eglon  he  went  up  from  the 
lowland  to  the  mountains,  attacked  Hebron  and  took  it,  and  did  to 
this  town  and  its  king,  and  the  towns  belonging  to  it,  as  he  had 
already  done  to  the  others.  The  king  of  Hebron  cannot  of  course 
be  the  one  who  was  taken  in  the  cave  of  Makkedah  and  put  to 
death  there,  but  his  successor,  who  had  entered  upon  the  govern- 
ment while  Joshua  was  occupied  with  the  conquest  of  the  towns 
mentioned  in  vers.  28-35,  which  may  possibly  have  taken  more 
than  a  year.  "  All  the  cities  thereof"  are  the  towns  dependent  upon 
Hebron  as  the  capital  of  the  kingdom. — Vers.  38,  39.  Joshua  then 
turned  southwards  with  all  Israel  {i.e.  all  the  army),  attacked  Debir 
and  took  it,  and  the  towns  dependent  upon  it,  in  the  same  manner 
as  those  mentioned  before.  Debir,  formerly  called  Kirjath-sepher, 
i.e.  book  town,  7roXt9  ypafi/xdrcov  (LXX.  chap.  xv.  15 ;  Judg.  i.  11), 
and  Kirjath-sanna,  i.e.  in  all  probability  the  city  of  palm  branches 
(chap.  xv.  49),  was  given  up  by  Judah  to  the  priests  (chap.  xxi.  15). 
It  stood  upon  the  mountains  of  Judah  (chap.  xv.  49),  to  the  south 
of  Hebron,  but  has  not  yet  been  certainly  discovered,  though  V.  de 
Velde  is  probably  correct  in  his  supposition  that  it  is  to  be  seen  in 
the  ruins  of  Dilbeh,  on  the  peak  of  a  hill  to  the  north  of  Wacly 
Dilbeh,  and  on  the  road  from  Dhoberiyeh  to  Hebron,  about  two 
hours  to  the  south-west  of  the  latter.  For,  according  to  Dr  Stewart, 
there  is  a  spring  at  Dilbeh,  the  water  of  which  is  conducted  by  an 
aqueduct  into  the  Birket  el  Dilbeh,  at  the  foot  of  the  said  hill, 
which  would  answer  very  well  to  the  upper  and  lower  springs  at 
Debir,  if  only  Debir  might  be  placed,  according  to  chap.  xv.  19,  so 


CHAP.  X.  40-43.  117 

far  towards  the  north.1  Moreover,  not  very  long  afterwards,  prob- 
ably daring  the  time  when  the  Israelites  were  occupied  with  the 
subjugation  of  northern  Canaan,  Hebron  and  Debir  were  taken 
again  by  the  Canaanites,  particularly  the  Anakites,  as  Joshua  had 
not  entirely  destroyed  them,  although  he  had  thoroughly  cleared 
the  mountains  of  Judah  of  them,  but  had  left  them  still  in  the 
towns  of  the  Philistines  (chap.  xi.  21,  22).  Consequently,  when 
the  land  was  divided,  there  were  Anakites  living  in  both  Hebron 
and  Debir ;  so  that  Caleb,  to  whom  these  towns  were  given  as  his 
inheritance,  had  first  of  all  to  conquer  them  again,  and  to  extermi- 
nate the  Anakites  (chap.  xiv.  12,  xv.  13-17  :  cf.  Judg.  i.  JO-13).2 

Vers.  40-43.  Summary  of  the  Conquest  of  the  whole  of  Southern 
Canaan. — In  the  further  prosecution  of  his  victory  over  the  five 
allied  kings,  Joshua  smote  the  whole  land,  i.e.  the  whole  of  the 
south  of  Canaan  from  Gibeon  onwards,  in  all  its  districts,  namely 

1  Knobel  imagines  that  Debir  is  to  be  found  in  the  modern  village  of  Dho- 
heriyeli  (Dhabarije),  five  hours  to  the  south-west  of  Hebron,  on  the  south-west 
border  of  the  mountains  of  Judah,  upon  the  top  of  a  mountain,  because,  in 
addition  to  the  situation  of  this  village,  which  is  perfectly  reconcilable  with 
chap.  xv.  49,  there  are  remains  of  a  square  tower  there  (according  to  Kraffl,  a 
Roman  tower),  which  point  to  an  ancient  fortification  (vid.  Rob.  Pal.  i.  pp.  308 
sqq.  ;  Ritter,  Erdk.  xvi.  pp.  202  sqq.),  and  because  the  name,  which  signifies 
"  placed  behind  the  back,"  agrees  with  Debir,  the  hinder  part  or  back  (?),  and 
Kirjath-sepker,  if  interpreted  by  the  Arabic  words,  which  signify  "  extremitas, 
margo,  ora."  But  both  reasons  prove  very  little.  The  meanings  assigned  to 
Debir  and  Kirjath-sepher  are  improbable  and  arbitrary.  Moreover,  it  has  not 
been  shown  that  there  are  any  springs  near  Dhoberiyeh,  such  as  there  were  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Debir  (chap.  xv.  19  sqq.).  The  view  held  by  Rosenmüller, 
and  adopted  by  Bansen,  with  regard  to  the  situation  of  Debir, — namely,  that  it 
was  the  same  as  the  modern  Idwirbän  or  Dewirbän,  an  hour  and  a  quarter  to 
the  west  of  Hebron,  because  there  is  a  large  spring  there  with  an  abundant 
supply  of  excellent  water,  which  goes  by  the  name  of  Ain  Nunkür, — is  also  quite 
untenable  ;  for  it  is  entirely  at  variance  with  chap.  xv.  49,  according  to  which 
Debir  was  not  on  the  west  of  Hebron,  but  upon  the  mountains  to  the  south,  and 
rests  entirely  upon  the  erroneous  assumption  that,  according  to  ver.  38  (3"'s1, 
lie  turned  round),  as  Joshua  came  from  Eglon,  he  conquered  Hebron  first,  and 
after  the  conquest  of  this  town  turned  back  to  Debir,  to  take  it  also.  But  2VJ 
does  not  mean  only  to  turn  round  or  turn  back  :  it  signifies  turning  generally  ; 
and  it  is  very  evident  that  this  is  the  sense  in  which  it  is  used  in  ver.  38,  since, 
according  to  chap.  xv.  49,  Debir  was  on  the  south  of  Hebron. 

2  By  this  simple  assumption  we  get  rid  of  the  pretended  contradictions, 
winch  neological  critics  have  discovered  between  chap.  x.  36-39  on  the  one 
hand,  and  chap.  xi.  21,  22,  and  xiv.  12,  xv.  13-17  on  the  other,  and  on  account 
of  which  Knobel  would  assign  the  passages  last  named  to  a  different  docu- 
ment.    On  the  first  conquest  of  the  land  by  Joshua,  Masius  observes  that  "  in 


118  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

the  mountains  (chap.  xv.  48),  the  Negeb  (the  south  land,  chap.  xv. 
21),  the  lowlands  (chap.  xv.  33),  and  the  slopes,  i.e.  the  hill  region 
(chap.  xii.  8,  and  comm.  on  Num.  xxi.  15),  and  all  the  kings  of  these 
different  districts,  banning  every  living  thing  (nOBÄ"73  ==  Bfcjv3, 
vers.  28,  30,  i.e.  all  the  men  ;  vid.  Deut.  xx.  16),  as  Jehovah  had 
commanded,  viz.  Num.  xxxiii.  51  sqq. ;  Deut.  vii.  1,  2,  xx.  16. 
He  smote  them  from  Kadesh-barnea,  on  the  southern  boundary  of 
Canaan  (chap.  xv.  3  ;  see  at  Num.  xii.  16),  to  Gaza  (see  at  Gen. 
x.  9),  and  all  the  country  of  Goshen,  a  different  place  from  the 
Goshen  of  Egypt,  deriving  its  name  in  all  probability  from  the 
town  of  Goshen  on  the  southern  portion  of  the  mountains  (chap, 
xv.  51).  As  the  line  "from  Kadesh-barnea  to  Gaza"  defines  the 
extent  of  the  conquered  country  from  south  to  north  on  the  western 
side,  so  the  parallel  clause,  "  all  the  country  of  Goshen,  even  unto 
Gibeon"  defines  the  extent  from  south  to  north  on  the  eastern  side. 
There  is  no  tenable  ground  for  the  view  expressed  by  Knobel,  which 
rests  upon  very  uncertain  etymological  combinations,  that  the  land 
of  Goshen  signifies  the  hill  country  between  the  mountains  and  the 
plain,  and  is  equivalent  to  nn^X. — Ver.  42.  All  these  kings  and 
their  country  Joshua  took  "  once"  i.e.  in  one  campaign,  which 
lasted,  however,  a  considerable  time  (cf.  chap.  xi.  18).  He  was  able 
to  accomplish  this,  because  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel  fought  for 
Israel  (see  ver.  14).  After  this  he  returned  with  the  army  to  the 
camp  at  Gilgal  (Jiljilia,  see  p.  93  ;  cf.  ver.  15). 

DEFEAT  OF  THE  KINGS  OF  NORTHERN  CANAAN.      SUBJUGATION  OF 
THE  WHOLE  LAND. — CHAP.  XI. 

Vers.  1-15.  The  War  in  Northern  Canaan. — Vers.  1-3. 
On  receiving  intelligence  of  what  had  occurred  in  the  south,  the 
king  of  Hazor  formed  an  alliance  with  the  kings  of  Madon, 
Shiinron,  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 

this  expedition  Joshua  ran  through  the  southern  region  with  an  armed  band, 
in  too  hurried  a  manner  to  depopulate  it  entirely.  All  that  he  needed  was  to 
strike  such  terror  into  the  hearts  of  all  through  his  victories,  that  no  one  should 
henceforth  offer  any  resistance  to  himself  and  to  the  people  of  God.  Those 
whom  he  pursued,  therefore,  he  destroyed  according  to  the  commands  of  God, 
not  sparing  a  single  one,  but  he  did  not  search  out  every  possible  hiding-place 
in  which  any  could  be  concealed.  This  was  left  as  a  gleaning  to  the  valour  of 
each  particular  tribe,  when  it  should  take  possession  of  its  own  inheritance." 


CHAP.  XI.  1-3.  119 

all  the  kingdoms  of  northern  Canaan  (ver.  10).  Hazor,  which 
Joshua  conquered  and  burned  to  the  ground  (vers.  10,  11),  was 
afterwards  restored,  and  became  a  capital  again  (Judg.  iv.  2  ; 
1  Sam.  xii.  9)  ;  it  was  fortified  by  Solomon  (1  Kings  ix.  15),  and 
taken  by  Tiglath-Pileser  (2  Kings  xv.  29).  It  belonged  to  the 
tribe  of  Naphtali  (chap.  xix.  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  chap.  xix.  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  (chap.  xix.  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 
Hazür  or  Khirbet  Hazür,  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  chap.  xii.  19,  and  its  situation  is  quite 
unknown.  Shimron,  called  Shimron-meron  in  chap.  xii.  20,  was 
allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Zebulun  (chap.  xix.  15),  and  is  also  un- 
known. For  Meron  cannot  be  connected,  as  Knobel  supposes,  with 
the  village  and  ruins  of  Maron,  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  Asher  (chap.  xix.  25),  is  also 
unknown,  and  is  neither  to  be  sought,  as  Robinson  supposes  (Bibl. 
Res.  p.  55),  in  the  ruins  of  Kesdf,  which  lie  even  farther  north  than 
Abel  (AMI),  in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  and  therefore  much  too  far 


120  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

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  chap.  xix.  25). — Ver.  2.  Jabin  also  allied  himself  with  the 
kino-s  of  the  north  "  upon  the  mountains"  i.e.  the  mountains  of 
Naphtali  (chap.  xx.  7),  and  "  in  the  Arabah  to  the  south  of  Chinne- 
reth"  (chap.  xix.  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.  Awpos),  was 
allotted  to  the  Manassites  in  the  territory  of  Asher  (chap.  xvii.  11 ; 
cf.  xix.  26),  and  taken  possession  of  by  the  children  of  Joseph 
(1  Chron.  vii.  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"  (chap.  xii.  23;  1  Kings  iv.  11). — Ver.  3.  "Namely,  with 
the  Canaanites  on  the  east  and  west,  the  Amorites"  and  other  tribes 
dwelling  upon  the  mountains  (vid.  chap.  iii.  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  Ayün  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). 

Vers.  4-9.  These  came  out  with  their  armies,  a  people  as  nume- 
rous as  the  sand  by  the  sea-shore  (vid.  Gen.  xxii.  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  (Meirurn  in  the 
Arabic  version)  answers  to  Meirom,  a  village  whose  name  is  also 
pronounced  Meirurn,  a  celebrated  place  of  pilgrimage  among  the 


CHAP.  XI.  6-9.  121 

Jews,  because  Ilillel,  Shammai,  Simeon  ben  Jochai,  and  otlier 
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.  73  sqq.).  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 
of  Merom,"  as,  according  to  Joseph  us  (Ant.  v.  1,  18),  "these  kings 
encamped  at  Berothe  (de.  Bell.  Jud.  xx.  G,  and  Vit.  37,  '  Merotli),  a 
city  of  Upper  Galilee,  not  far  from  Kedese." l 

Vers.  6  sqq.  On  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,2  as 
in  chap.  viii.  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.  xlix.  6)  and  burn  their  chariots,  ^ix  before  JHJ 
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). — Vers.  7,  8.  With  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  chap.  xix.  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 

1  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.  111.  p.  262),  (1) 
from  the  statement  made  by  Joseplius  (Ant.  v.  5,  1),  that  Hazor  was  above  the 
Lake  of  Samochonitis,  it  being  taken  for  granted  without  further  reason  that 
the  battle  occurred  at  Hazor,  and  (2)  from  the  supposed  similarity  in  the  mean- 
ing of  the  names,  viz.  that  Samochonitis  is  derived  from  an  Arabic  word  signify- 
ing to  be  high,  and  therefore  means  the  same  as  Merom  (height),  though  here 
again  the  zere  is  disregarded,  and  Merom  is  arbitrarily  identified  with  Mumm. 

2  "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  timos 
before.'1— Calvin. 


122  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

houses  (see  Rob.  Pal.  iii.  p.  415,  and  Movers,  Phönizier,  ii.  1,  pp.  86 
sqq.).  Misrephothmaim  (mentioned  also  at  chap.  xiii.  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,  smel ting-huts,  or  glass-huts  (see  Ges.  Thes.  p.  1341),  is 
a  collection  of  springs,  called  Ain  Mesherß,  at  the  foot  of  the  pro- 
montory to  which  with  its  steep  pass  the  name  of  Has  el  NaMmra 
is  given,  the  scala  Tyriorum  or  Passepoulain  of  the  Crusaders  (see 
V.  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  335,  and  Ritter,  Erdk.  xvi.  p.  807).  nap  nyp3 
(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  (ver.  3). — Ver.  9.  Joshua  carried  out  the  com- 
mand of  the  Lord  with  regard  to  the  chariots  and  horses. 

Vers.  10-15.  After  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.  a?n~?y  niipyn  (ver.  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.  xxx.  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  D?fl  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  ver.  15,  "as  Jehovah  com- 
manded His  servant  Moses"  (cf.  Num.  xxxiii.  52  sqq. ;  Deut.  vii.  1 
sqq.,  xx.  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  (vers.  16-23). 
"9"r  "^D  *S  he  put  not  away  a  word,  i.e.  left  nothing  undone. 

Vers.  16-23.  Retrospective  View  of  the  Conquest  of 
the  whole  L and.— Vers.  16,  17.  Joshua  took  all  this  land, 
namely,  those  portions  of  Southern  Canaan  that  have  already  been 
mentioned  in  chap.  x.  40,  41 ;  also  the  Arabah,  and  the  mountains 
of  Israel  and  its  lowlands  (see  ver.  2),  i.e.  the  northern  part  of  the 
land  (in  the  campaign  described  in  vers.  1-15),  that  is  to  say, 
Canaan  in  all  its  extent,  "from  the  bald  mountain  which  goeth  up  to 


CHAP.  XI.  16-23.  123 

Sei?'"  in  the  south,  "  to  Baal-gad,  in  the  valleij  of  Lebanon  under 
Hermon."  The  "  bald  mountain"  (Ualak),  which  is  mentioned 
here  and  in  chap.  xii.  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  Aznzimeh  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. 
lxv.  11),  also  called  Baal-hermon  in  Judg.  iii.  3  and  1  Chron.  v. 
23,  is  not  Baalbek,  but  the  Paneas  or  Caesarea  Philippi  of  a  later 
time,  the  present  Banjas  (see  at  Num.  xxxiv.  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  Kalaih  (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  Bekda,  between  Lebanon  and  Antilibanus,  but  the  valley  at 
the  foot  of  the  southern  slope  of  Jebel  Sheik  (Hermon). — Vers.  18 
sqq.  Joshua  made  war  with  the  kings  of  Canaan  along  time ;  judg- 
ing from  chap.  xiv.  7,  10,  as  much  as  seven  years,  though  Josephus 
(Ant.  v.  1,  19)  speaks  of  five  (see  at  chap.  xiv.  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"  (ver.  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 
(Ex.  iv.  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  was  the  will  of  the  Lord,  but  acted  in 
opposition  to  it  (see  at  chap.  ix.  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 


124  /HE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

shown  mercy  to  some  of  them  of  their  own  accord,  though  in  oppo 
sition  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." 

In  vers.  21,  22,  the  destruction  of  the  Anakites  upon  the  moun- 
tains of  «Tudah  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  (chap.  x.).  This  sup- 
plement 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.  xiii.  28,  31  sqq.,  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,  Gath, 
and  Ashdod.  "At  that  time"  points  back  to  the  "long  time," 
mentioned  in  ver.  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  chap.  xv.  14,  they  afterwards 
returned."  (On  the  Anakim,  see  at  Num.  xiii.  22.)  They  had 
their  principal  settlement  upon  the  mountains  in  Hebron  (el  Khulil, 
see  chap.  x.  3),  Debir  (see  at  chap.  x.  38),  and  Anab.  The  last 
place  (Anab),  upon  the  mountains  of  Judah  (chap.  xv.  50),  has  been 
preserved  along  with  the  old  name  in  the  village  of  Anab,  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  chap.  xvii.  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.1     Gaza,  Gath,  and  Ashdod  were  towns 

1  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 


CHAP.  XL  16-2.3.  125 

of  the  Philistines ;  of  these  Gaza  and  Ashclod  were  allotted  to  the 
tribe  of  Judah  (chap.  xv.  47),  but  were  never  taken  possession  of 
by  the  Israelites,  although  the  Philistines  were  sometimes  subject 
to  the  Israelites  (see  at  chap.  xiii.  3). — With  ver.  23a,  "  thus  Jos/ma 
took  the  whole  land"  etc.,  the  history  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan  by 
Joshua  is  brought  to  a  close ;  and  ver.  236,  "  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  chap, 
xii.  is  simply  an  appendix  to  the  first  part. 

The  taking  of  the  xohole  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, 

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  after- 
wards 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  settle- 
ments should  be  called  the  mountains  of  Judah  ;  and  the  mountains  where  all 
the  rest  of  Israel  was  encamped,  where  the  "  children  of  Israel  "  were  gat  lined 
together,  be  called  the  mountains  of  Israel,  and,  as  that  particular  district 
really  belonged  to  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  the  mountains  of  Ephraim  also  ?  (chap. 
xix.  50,  xx.  7  ;  also  xxiv.  30.) 


126  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

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  divid- 
ing 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  (Ex.  xxiii.  28-30 ;  cf.  Deut.  vii.  22). 
Looking  at  this  promise,  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  chap.  xiii. 
1-6,  xvii.  14  sqq.,  xviii.  3,  xxiii.  5,  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  dis- 
tribution of  the  land  for  an  inheritance  to  the  Israelites  took  place 
"according  to  their  divisions  by  their  tribes.,,  OipPhO  denote  the 
division  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel  into  families,  fathers'  houses, 
and  households  ;  and  is  so  used  not  only  here,  but  in  chap.  xii. 
7  and  xviii.  10.  Compare  with  this  1  Chron.  xxiii.  6,  xxiv.  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, 
bo  that  the  peaceable  task  of  distributing  the  land  by  lot  could 


CHAP.  XII.  1-6.  127 

now    be  proceeded   with  (yid.  chap.  xiv.   15;    Judg.  iii.    11,   30, 
v.  31). 

LIST  OF  THE  KINGS  SLAUGHTERED  BY  THE  ISRAELITES. 

CHAP.  XII. 

In  the  historical  account  of  the  wars  of  Joshua  in  the  south 
and  north  of  Canaan,  the  only  kings  mentioned  by  name  as  having 
been  conquered  and  slain  by  the  Israelites,  were  those  who  had 
formed  a  league  to  make  war  upon  them ;  whereas  it  is  stated  at 
the  close,  that  Joshua  had  smitten  all  the  kings  in  the  south  and 
north,  and  taken  possession  of  their  towns  (chap.  x.  40,  xi.  17).  To 
complete  the  account  of  these  conquests,  therefore,  a  detailed  list  is 
given  in  the  present  chapter  of  all  the  kings  that  were  slain,  and 
not  merely  of  those  who  were  defeated  by  Joshua  in  the  country  on 
this  side  of  the  Jordan,  but  the  two  kings  of  the  Amorites  who  had 
been  conquered  by  Moses  are  also  included,  so  as  to  give  a  complete 
picture  of  all  the  victories  which  Israel  had  gained  under  the  omni- 
potent help  of  its  God. 

Vers.  1-6.  List  of  the  kings  whom  the  Israelites  smote,  and 
whose  land  they  took,  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan, — namely,  the 
land  by  the  brook  Arnon  (Mojeb  ;  see  Num.  xxi.  13)  to  Hermon 
(Jebel  es  Sheikh,  Deut.  iii.  8),  and  the  whole  of  the  eastern  Arabah 
(the  valley  of  the  Jordan  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  river). — Vers. 
2,  3.  On  Sihon  and  his  kingdom,  see  Num.  xxi.  24 ;  Deut.  ii.  36, 
iii.  16,  17.  "  Aroer  on  the  Arnon  :"  the  present  ruins  of  Araayr, 
on  the  northern  bank  of  the  Mojeb  (see  Num.  xxxii.  34).  ?ri3n  Tjini, 
"  and  (from)  the  middle  of  the  valley  onwards ;"  i.e.,  according  to 
the  parallel  passages  in  chap.  xiii.  9,  16,  and  Deut.  ii.  36,  from 
the  town  in  the  Arnon  valley,  the  city  of  Moab  mentioned  in 
Num.  xxii.  36,  viz.  Ar  or  Areopolis  (see  at  Num.  xxi.  15)  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Aroer,  which  is  mentioned  as  the  exclusive  ter- 
minus a  quo  of  the  land  taken  by  the  Israelites  along  with  the 
inclusive  terminus  Aroer.  "  Ilalf-Gilead,"  i.e.  the  mountainous 
district  on  the  south  side  of  the  Jabbok  (see  at  Deut.  iii.  10),  "to 
the  river  Jabbok,"  i.e.  the  upper  Jabbok,  the  present  Nahr  Amman 
(see  at  Num.  xxi.  24).— Ver.  3.  "  And  (over)  the  Arabah,  etc., 
Sihon  reigned,"  i.e.  over  the  eastern  side  of  the  Ghor,  between  the 
Sea  of  Galilee  and  the  Dead  Sea  (sec  at  Deut.  iii.  17).  "  By  the 
-»•ay  to  Bethjeshhnoth,  and  totvards  the  south  below  the  slopes  </ 
ttsgah'-   (see  at  Num.  xxi.  15  and  xxvii.  12),  i.e.  to  the  north- 


128  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

eastern  border  of  the  desert  by  the  Dead  Sea  (see  at  Num.  xxii.  1). 

Vers.  4,  5.  "  And  the  territory  of  Og"  sc.  they  took  possession  of 

(ver.  1).  On  Og,  vid.  Deut.  iii.  11 ;  and  on  his  residences,  Ash- 
taroth  (probably  to  be  seen  in  Tell  Ashtereh)  and  Edrei  (now  Draa 
or  Dera),  see  at  Gen.  xiv.  5  and  Num.  xxi.  33.  On  his  territory, 
see  Deut.  iii.  10,  13,  14. — Ver.  6.  These  two  kings  were  smitten 
by  Moses,  etc. :  vid.  Num.  xxi.  21  sqq.,  and  xxxii.  33  sqq. 

Vers.  7-24.  List  of  the  thirty-one  kings  of  Canaan  whom 
Joshua  smote  on  the  western  side  of  the  Jordan,  "from  Baal-gad, 
in  the  valley  of  Lebanon,  to  the  bald  mountain  that  goeth  up  towards 
Seir"  (see  chap.  xi.  17).  This  land  Joshua  gave  to  the  other 
tribes  of  Israel.  (On  the  different  parts  of  the  land,  see  at  chap, 
ix.  1,  x.  40,  and  xi.  2.) — Vers.  9  sqq.  The  different  kings  are  given 
in  the  order  in  which  they  were  defeated:  Jericho  (chap.  vi.  1); 
Ai  (chap.  vii.  2)  ;  Jerusalem,  Hebron,  Jarmuth,  Lachish,  and 
Eglon  (chap.  x.  3) ;  Gezer  (chap.  x.  33)  ;  and  Debir  (chap.  x.  38). 
Those  given  in  vers.  136  and  14  are  not  mentioned  by  name  in 
chap.  x.  Geder,  possibly  the  same  as  Gedor  upon  the  mountains 
of  Judah  (chap.  xv.  58),  which  has  been  preserved  under  the  old 
name  of  Jedur  (Rob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  186,  and  Bibl.  Res.  p.  282). 
Ilormah  (i.e.  banning)  was  in  the  south  of  Judah  (chap.  xv.  30), 
and  was  allotted  to  the  Simeonites  (chap.  xix.  4).  It  was  called 
Zephath  by  the  Canaanites  (Judg.  i.  17  ;  see  at  Num.  xxi.  3),  was 
on  the  southern  slope  of  the  mountains  of  the  Amalekites  or 
Amorites,  the  present  ruins  of  Sepdta,  on  the  western  slope  of  the 
table-land  of  Rakhma,  two  hours  and  a  half  to  the  south-west  of 
Khalasa  (Elusa :  see  Ritter,  Erdk.  xiv.  p.  1085).  Arad,  also  in  the 
Negeb,  has  been  preserved  in  Tell  Arad  (see  at  Num.  xxi.  1). 
Libnah  (see  at  chap.  x.  29).  Adullam,  which  is  mentioned  in 
chap.  xv.  35  among  the  towns  of  the  plain  between  Jarmuth  and 
Socoh,  was  in  the  neighbourhood  of  a  large  cave  in  which  David 
took  refuge  when  flying  from  Saul  (1  Sam.  xxii.  1 ;  2  Sam.  xxiii. 
13).  It  was  fortified  by  Rehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi.  7),  and  is  men- 
tioned in  2  Mace.  xii.  38  as  the  city  of  Odollam.  The  Onomast. 
describes  it  as  being  ten  Roman  miles  to  the  east  of  Eleutheropolis ; 
but  this  is  a  mistake,  though  it  has  not  yet  been  discovered.  So 
far  as  the  situation  is  concerned,  Deir  Dubbdn  would  suit  very 
well,  a  place  about  two  hours  to  the  north  of  Beit  Jibrin,  near  to  a 
large  number  of  caves  in  the  white  limestone,  which  form  a  kind  of 
labyrinth,  as  well  as  some  vaulted  grottos  (see  Rob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  353, 
and  Van  de  Velde,  Reise,  pp.  162—3).    Makkedah:  possibly  Summeil 


CHAP.  XII.  7-24.  129 

(see  at  chap.  x.  10).  Bethel,  i.e.  Beitin  (see  chap.  viii.  17).  The 
situation  of  the  towns  which  follow  in  vers.  17  and  18  cannot  be 
determined  with  certainty,  as  the  names  Tappuach,  Aphek,  and 
Hefer  are  met  with  again  in  different  parts  of  Canaan,  and  Las- 
saron does  not  occur  again.  But  if  we  observe,  that  just  as  from 
ver.  10  onwards  those  kings'-towns  are  first  of  all  enumerated, 
the  capture  of  which  has  already  been  described  in  chap,  x.,  and 
then  in  vers.  15  and  16  certain  other  towns  are  added  which  had 
been  taken  in  the  war  with  the  Canaanites  of  the  south,  so  likewise 
in  vers.  19  and  20  the  capitals  of  the  allied  kings  of  northern 
Canaan  are  given  first,  and  after  that  the  other  towns  that  were 
taken  in  the  northern  war,  but  had  not  been  mentioned  by  name  in 
chap.  xi. :  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  the  four  towns  in 
vers.  17  and  18  are  to  be  classed  among  the  kings'-towns  taken  in 
the  war  with  the  king  of  Jerusalem  and  his  allies,  and  therefore 
are  to  be  sought  for  in  the  south  of  Canaan  and  not  in  the  north. 
Consequently  we  cannot  agree  with  Van  de  Velde  and  Knobel  in 
identifying  Tappuach  with  En-Tappuach  (chap.  xvii.  7),  and  look- 
ing for  it  in  Atüf,  a  place  to  the  north-east  of  Nablus  and  near  the 
valley  of  the  Jordan  ;  we  connect  it  rather  with  Tappuach  in  the 
lowlands  of  Judah  (chap.  xv.  34),  though  the  place  itself  has  not 
yet  been  discovered.  liefer  again  is  neither  to  be  identified  witli 
Gath-hepher  in  the  tribe  of  Zebulun  (chap.  xix.  13),  nor  with 
Chafaraim  in  the  tribe  of  Issachar  (chap.  xix.  19),  but  is  most 
probably  the  capital  of  the  land  of  Hefer  (1  Kings  iv.  10),  and  to 
be  sought  for  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Socoh  in  the  plain  of  Judah. 
Aphek  is  probably  the  town  of  that  name  not  far  from  Ebenezer 
(1  Sam.  iv.  1),  where  the  ark  was  taken  by  the  Philistines,  and  is 
most  likely  to  be  sought  for  in  the  plain  of  Judah,  though  not  in 
the  village  of  Ahbek  (Rob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  343)  ;  but  it  has  not  yet  been 
traced.  Knobel  imagines  that  it  was  Aphek  near  to  Jezreel  (1 
Sam.  xxix.  1),  which  was  situated,  according  to  the  Onom.,  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Endor  (1  Sam.  xxix.  1 ;  1  Kings  xx.  26,  30)  ; 
but  this  Aphek  is  too  far  north.  Lassaron  only  occurs  here,  ami 
hitherto  it  has  been  impossible  to  trace  it.  Knobel  supposes  it  to  be 
the  place  called  Saruneh,  to  the  west  of  the  lake  of  Tiberias,  and 
conjectures  that  the  name  has  been  contracted  from  Lassaron  by 
aphaeresis  of  the  liquid.  This  is  quite  possible,  if  only  we  could 
look  for  Lassaron  so  far  to  the  north.  Bachiennc  and  Rosenmüller 
imagine  it  to  be  the  village  of  Sharon  in  the  celebrated  plain  <>f  that 
name,  between  Lydda  and  Arsuf.— Vers.  19,  20.  Madon,   II 

I 


130  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Shimron-meron,  and  Achshaph  (see  at  chap.  xi.  1). — Ver.  21.  Taa- 
nach,  which  was  allotted  to  the  Manassites  in  the  territory  of  Issachar, 
and  given  up  to  the  Levites  (chap.  xvii.  11,  xxi.  25),  but  was  not 
entirely  wrested  from  the  Canaanites  (Judg.  i.  27),  is  the  present  Tell 
Taenak,  an  hour  and  a  quarter  to  the  south-east  of  Lejun,  a  flat  hill 
sown  with  corn  ;  whilst  the  old  name  has  been  preserved  in  the  small 
village  of  Tadnak,  at  the  south-eastern  foot  of  the  Tell  (see  Van  de 
Velde,  i.  p.  269,  and  Rob.  Pal.  iii.  p.  156). — Megiddo,  which  was  also 
allotted  to  the  Manassites  in  the  territory  of  Issachar,  though  without 
the  Canaanites  having  been  entirely  expelled  (chap.  xvii.  11;  Judg. 
i.  27),  was  fortified  by  Solomon  (1  Kings  ix.  15),  and  is  also  well 
known  as  the  place  were  Ahaziah  died  (2  Kings  ix.  27),  and  where 
Josiah  was  beaten  and  slain  by  Pharaoh  Necho  (2  Kings  xxiii.  29, 
30;  2  Chron.  xxxv.  20  sqq.).  Robinson  has  shown  that  it  was 
preserved  in  the  Legio  of  a  later  time,  the  present  Lejun  (Pal.  iii. 
pp.  177  sqq. ;  see  also  Bibl.  Res.  p.  116). — Ver.  22.  Kedesh,  a  Levi- 
tical  city  and  city  of  refuge  upon  the  mountains  of  Naphtali  (chap, 
xix.  37,  xx.  7,  xxi.  32),  the  home  of  Barak  (Judg.  iv.  6),  was  con- 
quered and  depopulated  by  Tiglath-Pileser  (2  Kings  xv.  29),  and 
was  also  a  well-known  place  after  the  captivity  (1  Mace.  xi.  61  sqq.). 
It  is  now  an  insignificant  village,  still  bearing  the  ancient  name, 
to  the  north-west  of  the  lake  of  Huleh,  or,  according  to  Van  de 
Velde  (Heise,  ii.  p.  355),  nothing  but  a  miserable  farmstead  upon 
a  Tell  at  the  south-west  extremity  of  a  well-cultivated  table-land, 
with  a  large  quantity  of  antiquities  about,  viz.  hewn  stones,  relics 
of  columns,  sarcophagi,  and  two  ruins  of  large  buildings,  with  an 
open  and  extensive  prospect  on  every  side  (see  also  Rob.  Bibl.  Pes. 
pp.  367  sqq.).  Jokneam,  near  Carmel,  was  a  Levitical  town  in  the 
territory  of  Zebulun  (chap.  xix.  11,  xxi.  34).  Van  de  Velde  and 
Robinson  (Bibl.  Pes.  p.  114)  suppose  that  they  have  found  it  in 
Tell  Kaimon,  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Wady  el  Milh,  at  the 
north-west  end  of  a  chain  of  hills  running  towards  the  south-east ; 
this  Tell  being  200  feet  high,  and  occupying  a  very  commanding 
situation,  so  that  it  governed  the  main  pass  on  the  western  side  of 
Esdraelon  towards  the  southern  plain.  Kaimon  is  the  Arabic  form 
of  the  ancient  Kafificovd,  Cimana,  which  Eusebius  and  Jerome 
describe  in  the  Onom.  as  being  six  Pom  an  miles  to  the  north  of 
Legio,  on  the  road  to  Ptolemais. — Ver.  23.  Dor:  see  chap.  xi.  2. 
Gilgal :  the  seat  of  the  king  of  the  Goijim  (a  proper  name,  as  in 
Gen.  xiv.  1),  in  all  probability  the  same  place  as  the  villa  nomine 
Galgulis  mentioned  in  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Gelgel)  as  being  six  Roman 


CHAP.  XIII- XXIV.  131 

miles  to  the  north  of  Antipatris,  which  still  exists  in  the  Moslem 
village  of  Jiljule  (now  almost  a  ruin  ;  see  Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  p.  136), 
although  this  village  is  only  two  miles  E.S.E.  of  Kefr  Saba,  the 
ancient  Antipatris  (see  Ritter,  Erdk.  xvi.  pp.  568—9).  Thirza,  the 
capital  of  the  kings  of  Israel  down  to  the  time  of  Omri  (1  Kings 
xiv.  17,  xv.  21,  33,  xvi.  6  sqq.),  is  probably  the  present  Talluza,  an 
elevated  and  beautifully  situated  place,  of  a  considerable  size,  sur- 
rounded by  large  olive  groves,  two  hours  to  the  north  of  Shechem 
(see  Rob.  Bibl.  Ees.  p.  302,  and  Van  de  Velde,  ii.  p.  294). 


II.— DIVISION  OF  THE  LAND  OF  CANAAN  AMONG  THE  TRIBES  OF 

ISRAEL. 

Chap,  xiii.-xxiv. 

The  distribution  of  the  conquered  land  among  the  Israelites  is 
introduced  by  the  command  of  the  Lord  to  Joshua  to  enter  upon 
this  work,  now  that  he  was  old,  although  different  portions  of  land 
were  still  unconquered  (chap.  xiii.  1-7)  ;  and  to  this  there  is  ap- 
pended a  description  of  the  land  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  which 
had  already  been  conquered  and  divided  among  the  two  tribes  and 
a  half  (chap.  xiii.  8-33).  The  distribution  of  the  land  on  this  side 
among  the  nine  tribes  and  a  half  is  related  in  its  historical  order ; 
so  that  not  only  are  the  territories  assigned  by  lot  to  the  different 
tribes  described  according  to  their  respective  boundaries  and  towns, 
but  the  historical  circumstances  connected  with  the  division  and 
allotting  of  the  land  are  also  introduced  into  the  description.  These 
historical  accounts  are  so  closely  connected  with  the  geograpltiad. 
descriptions  of  the  territory  belonging  to  the  different  tribes,  that 
the  latter  alone  will  explain  the  course  pursued  in  the  distribution  of 
the  land,  and  the  various  ways  in  which  the  different  territories  are 
described  (see  the  remarks  on  chap.  xiv.  1).  For  example,  in  the 
account  of  the  inheritance  which  fell  to  the  lot  of  the  tribes  of 
Judah  and  Benjamin,  not  only  are  the  boundaries  most  carefully 
traced,  but  the  towns  are  also  enumerated  one  by  one  (chap.  xv. 
and  xviii.  11-28);  whereas  in  the  tribe  of  Joseph  (Ephraim  and 
half  Manasseh)  the  list  of  the  towns  is  altogether  wanting  (chap. 
xvi.  and  xvii.) ;  and  in  the  possessions  of  the  other  tribes,  cither 
towns  alone  are  mentioned,  as  in  the  case  of  Simeon  and  Dan 


132  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

(chap.  xix.  1-9,  40-48),  or  the  boundaries  and  towns  are  mixed  up 
too-ether,  but  both  of  them  given  incompletely,  as  in  the  case  of 
Zebulun,  Issachar,  Asher,  and  Naphtali  (chap.  xix.  10-16,  17-23, 
24-31,  32-39).  This  incompleteness,  particularly  in  the  territories 
of  the  tribes  mentioned  last,  may  be  explained  from  the  fact,  that 
in  northern  Canaan  there  were  still  very  many  tracts  of  land  in  the 
hands  of  the  Canaanites,  and  the  Israelites  had  not  acquired  a 
sufficiently  exact  or  complete  knowledge  of  the  country,  either 
through  Joshua's  campaign  in  the  north,  or  through  the  men  who 
were  sent  out  to  survey  the  northern  land  before  it  was  divided 
(chap,  xviii.  4—9),  to  enable  them  to  prepare  a  complete  account  of 
the  boundaries  and  towns  at  the  very  outset.  In  the  same  way,  too, 
we  may  explain  the  absence  of  the  list  of  towns  in  the  case  of  the 
tribes  of  Ephraim  and  half  Manasseh, — namely,  from  the  fact  that 
a  large  portion  of  the  territory  assigned  to  the  tribe  of  Joseph  was 
still  in  the  possession  of  the  Canaanites  (yid.  chap.  xvii.  14-18)  ; 
whilst  the  omission  of  any  account  of  the  boundaries  in  the  case 
of  Simeon  and  Dan  is  attributable  to  the  circumstance  that  the 
former  received  its  inheritance  within  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  the 
latter  between  Judah  and  Ephraim,  whilst  the  space  left  for  the 
Danites  was  so  small,  that  Ephraim  and  Judah  had  to  give  up  to 
them  some  of  the  towns  in  their  own  territory.  Thus  the  very 
inequality  and  incompleteness  of  the  geographical  accounts  of  the 
possessions  of  the  different  tribes  decidedly  favour  the  conclusion, 
that  they  are  the  very  lists  which  were  drawn  up  at  the  time  when 
Joshua  divided  the  land.  There  is  nothing  to  preclude  this  suppo- 
sition in  the  fact  that  several  towns  occur  with  different  names, 
e.g.  Beth-shemesh  and  Ir-shemesh  (chap.  xv.  10,  xix.  41,  xxi.  16), 
Madmannah  and  Beth-marcaboth,  Sansanna  and  Hazar-msa  (chap, 
xv.  31,  xix.  5),  Skilchim  and  Sharuchen  (chap.  xv.  32,  xix.  6), 
Remeth  and  Jarmuth  (chap.  xix.  21,  xxi.  29),  or  in  other  smaller 
differences.  For  variations  of  this  kind  may  be  sufficiently  ex- 
plained from  the  fact  that  such  places  were  known  by  two  different 
names,  which  could  be  used  promiscuously ;  whilst  in  other  cases 
the  difference  in  the  name  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  a  different 
mode  of  writing  or  pronouncing  it :  e.g.  Kattah  and  Kartah  (chap. 
xix.  15,  xxi.  34),  Eshtemoh  and  Eshtemoa  (chap.  xv.  50,  xxi.  14), 
Baalah  and  Balah  (chap.  xv.  29,  xix.  3)  ;  or  simply  in  the  contrac- 
tion of  a  composite  name,  such  as  Ramoth  in  Gilead  for  Ramoth- 
mizpeh  (chap.  xxi.  36,  xiii.  26)  ;  Bealoth  and  Baalath-beer  (chap.  xv. 
24,  xix.  8),  Lebaoth  and  Beth-lebaoth  (chap.  xv.  32,  xix.  6),  Hammaih 


CHAP.  XIII.  1-7.  133 

and  Ilammoth-dor  (chap.  xix.  35,  xxi.  32).  If  the  author,  on  the 
other  hand,  had  drawn  from  later  sources,  or  had  simply  given  the 
results  of  later  surveys,  as  Knobel  supposes,  there  can  be  no  doubt 
that  much  greater  uniformity  would  be  found  in  the  different  lists.1 

COMMAND  OF  GOD  TO  DIVIDE  THE  LAND  OF  CANAAN.  DESCRIP- 
TION OF  THE  TERRITORY  OF  THE  TWO  TRIBES  AND  A  HALF. 
— CHAP.  XIII. 

Vers.  1—14.  Introduction  to  the  Division  of  the  Land. 
— Vers.  1-7.  Command  of  the  Lord  to  Joshua  to  distribute  the 
land  of  Canaan  by  lot  among  the  nine  tribes  and  a  half.  Ver.  1 
contains  only  the  commencement  of  the  divine  command ;  the  con- 
clusion follows  in  ver.  7.  Vers.  2-6  form  a  parenthesis  of  several 
clauses,  defining  the  last  clause  of  ver.  1  more  fully.  When  Joshua 
had  grown  old,  the  Lord  commanded  him,  as  he  was  advanced  in 
years,  and  there  was  still  much  land  to  be  taken,  to  divide  "  this 
land"  i.e.  the  whole  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  for  an  inheritance  to 

1  The  arguments  employed  by  Knobel  in  support  of  his  assertion,  consist  on 
the  one  hand  of  inconclusive  and  incorrect  assertions,  and  are  founded  on  the 
other  hand  upon  arbitrary  assumptions.  In  the  first  place,  for  example,  he 
asserts  that  "  a  large  number  of  towns  are  omitted  from  the  lists,  which  were 
within  the  boundaries  mentioned  and  were  in  existence  in  the  very  earliest 
times,  viz.  in  the  south,  Tamar  (Gen.  xiv.  7),  Arad  (Num.  xxi.  1),  Atbach, 
Kachal,  Aroer,  and  Siphamoth  (1  Sam.  xxx.  28  sqq.),  Gerar  (Gen.  xx.  26)  ;  in 
the  Shephelah,  Gaza,  Askalon,  Gath,  Ashdod,  Jabne,  and  Joppa  (see  chap.  xv. 
45  sqq.);  in  Benjamin,  Michmash  and  Nob  (1  Sam.  xiii.  2  sqq.,  xxii.  19);  in  the 
north,  Aphek,  Lassaron,  Madon,  Shimron-meron,  and  Merom  (chap.  xi.  5,  xii. 
18-20),  as  well  as  Meroz  and  A jjalou  (Judg.  v.  23,  xii.  12) ;  and  these  with  other 
places  would  assuredly  not  be  wanting  here,  if  Joshua  and  his  associates  had 
distributed  the  towns  as  well  as  the  land,  and  furnished  our  author  with  the 
lists."  But  it  would  be  difficult  to  bring  forward  the  proofs  of  this,  since  Knobel 
himself  acknowledges  that  there  are  gaps  in  the  lists  which  have  come  down  to 
us,  some  of  which  can  be  proved  to  be  the  fault  of  the  copyists, — such,  for 
example,  as  the  want  of  a  whole  section  after  chap.  xv.  19  and  xxi.  .'35.  More- 
over, the  Philistine  towns  of  Ashdod  and  Gaza  are  really  mentioned  in  chap.  xv. 
46,  and  the  others  at  all  events  hinted  at;  whereas  Knobel  first  of  all  arbi- 
trarily rejects  chap.  xv.  45-47  from  the  text,  in  order  that  he  may  afterwards 
be  able  to  speak  of  it  as  omitted.  Again,  with  many  of  the  places  mentioned 
as  omissions,  such  as  Atbach,  Kachal,  Siphamoth,  etc.,  it  is  very  questi  »liable 
whether  they  were  towns  at  all  in  Joshua's  time,  or,  at  all  events,  such  towns 
as  we  should  expect  to  find  mentioned.  And  lastly,  not  only  are  DO  e.it:d>gues 
of  towns  given  at  all  in  the  case  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh,  but  we  have  only 
imperfect  catalogues  in  the  case  of  Zebulun,  Asher,  and  Naphtali  ;  and,  as  wo 


134  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

the  nine  tribes  and  a  half,  and  promised  him  at  the  same  time  that 
He  would  drive  out  the  Canaanites  from  those  portions  of  the  land 
that  were  not  yet  conquered  (ver.  6).  The  words  "grown  old  and 
come  into  years"  (vid.  Gen.  xxiv.  1,  xviii.  11,  etc.)  denote  advanced 
age  in  its  different  stages  itp  to  the  near  approach  of  death  (as, 
for  example,  in  chap,  xxiii.  1).  Joshua  might  be  ninety  or  a  hun- 
dred years  old  at  this  time.  The  allusion  to  Joshua's  great  age 
serves  simply  to  explain  the  reason  for  the  command  of  God.  As 
he  was  already  old,  and  there  still  remained  much  land  to  be  taken, 
he  was  to  proceed  to  the  division  of  Canaan,  that  he  might  accom- 
plish this  work  to  which  he  was  also  called  before  his  death ;  whereas 
he  might  very  possibly  suppose  that,  under  existing  circumstances, 
the  time  for  allotting  the  land  had  not  yet  arrived. — In  vers.  2-6 
the  districts  that  were  not  yet  conquered  are  enumerated  separately. 
— Vers.  2,  3.  All  the  circles  of  the  Philistines  (geliloth,  circles  of 
well-defined  districts  lying  round  the  chief  city).  The  reference 
is  to  the  five  towns  of  the  Philistines,  whose  princes  are  mentioned 
in  ver.  3.  "  And  all  Geshuri:"  not  the  district  of  Geshur  in  Perasa 

have  already  observed,  this  incompleteness  and  these  gaps  can  be  satisfactorily 
explained  from  the  historical  circumstances  under  which  the  allotment  of  the 
land  took  place.  Secondly,  Knobel  also  maintains,  that  "  Joshua's  conquests 
did  not  extend  to  the  Lebanon  (chap.  xiii.  4,  5),  and  yet  the  author  mentions 
towns  of  the  Asherites  there  (chap.  xix.  28,  30)  :  Bethel  was  not  taken  till  after 
the  time  of  Joshua  (Judg.  i.  22  sqq.),  and  this  was  also  the  case  with  Jerusalem 
(Judg.  i.  8),  and  in  the  earliest  times  of  the  judges  they  had  no  Hebrew  in- 
habitants (Judg.  xix.  12),  yet  the  author  speaks  of  both  places  as  towns  of  the 
Benjamites  (chap,  xviii.  22,  28)  ;  Jericho  and  Ai  were  lying  in  ruins  in  Joshua's 
time  (chap.  vi.  24,  viii.  28),  yet  they  are  spoken  of  here  as  towns  of  Benjamin 
that  had  been  rebuilt  (chap,  xviii.  21,  23)  ;  it  is  just  the  same  with  Hazor  in 
Naphtali  (chap.  xi.  13,  xix.  36)  ;  and  according  to  Judg.  i.  1,  10  sqq.,  Hebron 
and  Debir  also  were  not  conquered  till  after  Joshua's  time."  But  all  this  rests 
(1)  upon  the  false  assumption,  that  the  only  towns  which  Joshua  distributed  by 
lot  among  the  tribes  of  Israel  were  those  which  he  permanently  conquered, 
whereas,  according  to  the  command  of  God,  he  divided  the  whole  land  among 
the  Israelites,  whether  it  was  conquered  or  not;  (2)  upon  the  erroneous  opinion, 
that  the  towns  which  had  been  destroyed,  such  as  Jericho,  Ai,  and  Hazor,  were 
allotted  to  the  Israelites  as  "  rebuilt,"  whereas  there  is  not  a  word  about  this 
in  the  text.  It  is  just  the  same  with  the  arguments  used  by  Knobel  in  proof 
of  the  composition  of  chap,  xiii.-xxi.  from  three  different  documents.  The 
material  discrepancies  have  been  forced  upon  the  text,  as  we  shall  see  when  we 
come  to  an  explanation  of  the  passages  in  question  ;  and  the  verbal  differences 
prove  nothing  more  than  that  the  geographical  account  of  the  boundaries  and 
towns  contains  no  allusion  to  the  priesthood,  to  sacrifice,  or  to  certain  other 
tnings  which  no  one  would  think  of  looking  for  here. 


CHAP.  XIII.  1-7.  135 

(vers.  11, 13,  xii.  5  ;  Deut.  iii.  14),  but  the  territory  of  the  Geshurites, 
a  small  tribe  in  the  south  of  Philistia,  on  the  edge  of  the  north- 
western portion  of  the  Arabian  desert  which  borders  on  Egypt ;  it  is 
only  mentioned  again  in  1  Sam.  xxvii.  8.     The  land  of  the  Philis- 
tines and  Geshurites  extended  from  the  Sichor  of  Egypt  (on  the 
south)  to  the  territory  of  Ekron  (on  the  north).     Sichor  (Sihor),  lit. 
the  black  river,  is  not  the  Nile,  because  this  is  always  called  "iNTt 
(the  river)  in  simple  prose  (Gen.  xli.  1,  3 ;  Ex.  i.  22),  and  was  not 
"before  Egypt,"   i.e.  to  the  east  of   it,   but  flowed  through  the 
middle  of  the  land.     The   "  Sichor  before  Egypt "  was  the  brook 
{nachal)  of  Egypt,  the  'Pivo/copovpa,  the  modern   Wady  el  Arish, 
which  is  mentioned  in  chap.  xv.  4,  47,  etc.,  as  the  southern  border 
of  Canaan  towards  Egypt  (see  at  Num.  xxxiv.  5).     Ekron  i^Appa- 
Ktev,  LXX.),   the  most  northerly  of  the  five  chief  cities  of  the 
Philistines,  was  first  of  all  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Judah  (chap.  xv. 
11,  45),  then  on  the  further  distribution  it  was  given  to  Dan  (chap. 
xix.  43)  ;  after  Joshua's  death  it  was  conquered  by  Judah  (Judg. 
i.  18),  though  it  was  not  permanently  occupied.     It  is  the  present 
Akir,  a  considerable  village  in  the  plain,  two  hours  to  the  south- 
west of  Ramlah,  and  on  the  east  of  Jamnia,  without  ruins  of  any 
antiquity,  with  the  exception  of  two  old  wells  walled  round,  which 
probably  belong  to  the  times  of  the  Crusaders  (see  Rob.  Pal.  iii. 
p.  23).     "  To  the   Canaanites  is  reckoned  (the  territory  of  the)  five 
lords  of  the  Philistines"  i.e.  it  was  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the 
land  of  Canaan,  and  allotted  to  the  Israelites  like  all  the  rest.    This 
remark  was  necessary,  because  the  Philistines  were  not  descendants 
of  Canaan  (see  at  Gen.  x.  14),  but  yet  were  to  be  driven  out  like 
the  Canaanites  themselves  as  being  invaders  of  Canaanitish  terri- 
tory (cf.  Deut.  ii.  23).     *3*1D,  from  pD,  the  standing  title  of  the 
princes  of  the  Philistines  (vid.  Judg.  iii.  3,  xvi.  5  sqq. ;   1  Sam.  v. 
8),  does  not  mean  kings,  but  princes,  and  is  interchangeable  with 
Dnb'  (cf.  1  Sam.  xxix.  6  with  vers.  4,  9).     At  any  rate,  it  was  the 
native  or  Philistian  title  of  the  Philistine  princes,  though  it  is  not 
derived  from  the  same  root  as  Sar,  but  is  connected  with  seren,  curia 
rotce,  in  the  tropical  sense  of  princeps,  for  which  the  Arabic  fur- 
nishes several  analogies  (see   Ges.  Thes.  p.  972).     The  capitals  of 
these  five  princes  were  the  following.    Azzah  {Gaza,  i.e.  the  strong)  : 
this  was  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Judah  and  taken  by  the  Judaeans 
(chap.  xv.  47  ;  Judg.  i.  18),  but  was  not  held  long.     It  is  at  the 
present  time  a  considerable  town  of  about  15,000  inhabitants,  with 
the  old  name  of  Ghazzeh,  about  an  hour  from  the  sea,  and  with  a 


136  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

seaport  called  Majuma ;  it  is  the  farthest  town  of  Palestine  towards 
the  south-west  (see  Rob.  Pal.  ii.  pp.  374  sqq. ;  Ritter,  Erdk.  xvi. 
pp.  35  sqq. ;  Stark,  Gaza,  etc.,  pp.  45  sqq.).  Ashdod  (  Aforos, 
Azotus) :  this  was  also  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Judah  (chap.  xy. 
46,  47),  the  seat  of  Dagon-worship,  to  which  the  Philistines  carried 
the  ark  (1  Sam.  v.  1  sqq.).  It  was  conquered  by  Uzziah  (2  Chron' 
xxvi.  6),  was  afterwards  taken  by  Tartan,  the  general  of  Sargon 
(Isa.  xx.  1),  and  was  besieged  by  Psammetichus  for  twenty- nine 
years  (Herod,  ii.  157).  It  is  the  present  Esdud,  a  Mahometan 
village  with  about  a  hundred  or  a  hundred  and  fifty  miserable  huts, 
upon  a  low,  round,  wooded  height  on  the  road  from  Jamnia  to 
Gaza,  two  miles  to  the  south  of  Jamnia,  about  half  an  hour  from 
the  sea  (yid.  Rob.  i.  p.  368).  Ashkalon:  this  was  conquered  by 
the  Judaeans  after  the  death  of  Joshua  (Judg.  i.  8,  9) ;  but  shortly 
afterwards  recovered  its  independence  (yid.  Judg.  xiv.  19;  1  Sam. 
vi.  17).  It  is  the  present  Askuldn  on  the  sea-shore  between  Gaza 
and  Ashdod,  five  hours  to  the  north  of  Gaza,  with  considerable  and 
widespread  ruins  (see  v.  Raum.  pp.  173-4;  Ritter,  xvi.  pp.  69  sqq.). 
Gath  (rid) :  this  was  for  a  long  time  the  seat  of  the  Rephaites, 
and  was  the  home  of  Goliath  (chap.  xi.  22;  1  Sam.  xvii.  4,  23; 
2  Sam.  xxi.  19  sqq. ;  1  Chron.  xx.  5  sqq.) ;  it  was  thither  that  the 
Philistines  of  Ashdod  removed  the  ark,  which  was  taken  thence 
to  Ekron  (1  Sam.  v.  7-10).  David  was  the  first  to  wrest  it  from 
the  Philistines  (1  Chron.  xviii.  1).  In  the  time  of  Solomon  it  was 
a  royal  city  of  the  Philistines,  though  no  doubt  under  Israelitish 
supremacy  (1  Kings  ii.  39,  v.  1).  It  was  fortified  by  Rehoboam 
(2  Chron.  xi.  8),  was  taken  by  the  Syrians  in  the  time  of  Joash 
(2  Kings  xii.  18),  and  was  conquered  again  by  Uzziah  (2  Chron. 
xxvi.  6 ;  Amos  vi.  2) ;  but  no  further  mention  is  made  of  it,  and 
no  traces  have  yet  been   discovered1   (see  Rob.  ii.  p.  420,  and  v. 

1  According  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Geth),  it  was  a  place  five  Roman  miles  from 
Eleutheropolis  towards  Diospolis,  whereas  Jerome  (on  Micah  i.)  says :  "  Gath 
was  near  the  border  of  Judsea,  and  on  the  road  from  Eleutheropolis  to  Gaza ;  it 
is  still  a  very  large  village;"  whilst  in  the  commentary  on  Jer.  xxv.  he  says: 
"  Gath  was  near  to  and  conterminous  with  Azotus,"  from  which  it  is  obvious 
enough  that  the  situation  of  the  Philistine  city  of  Gath  was  altogether  unknown 
to  the  Fathers.  Hitzig  and  Knobel  suppose  the  Buiroyxfipct  of  Ptolemy  (v.  16, 
6),  Betogabri  in  Tab.  Peuting.  ix.  e.  (the  Eleutheropolis  of  the  Fathers,  and  the 
present  Beit  Jibrin,  a  very  considerable  ruin),  to  be  the  ancient  Gath,  but  this 
opinion  is  only  founded  upon  very  questionable  etymological  combinations ; 
whereas  Thenius  looks  for  it  on  the  site  of  the  present  Deir  Dubban,  though 
without  any  tenable  ground. 


CHAP.  XIII.  1-7.  137 

Raumer,  Pal.  pp.  191-2).  "  And  the  Avvites  (Avvseans)  towards 
the  south?  Judging  from  Deut.  ii.  23,  the  Avvim  appear  to  have 
belonged  to  those  tribes  of  the  land  who  were  already  found  there 
by  the  Canaanites,  and  whom  the  Philistines  subdued  and  destroyed 
when  they  entered  the  country.  They  are  not  mentioned  in  Gen. 
x.  15-19  among  the  Canaanitish  tribes.  At  the  same  time,  there 
is  not  sufficient  ground  for  identifying  them  with  the  Geshurites 
as  Ewald  does,  or  with  the  Anakites,  as  Bertheau  has  done.  More- 
over, it  cannot  be  decided  whether  they  were  descendants  of  Ham 
or  Shem  (see  Stark.  Gaza,  pp.  32  sqq.).  |EW??  (from,  or  on,  the 
south)  at  the  commencement  of  ver.  4  should  be  attached  to  ver.  3, 
as  it  is  in  the  Septuagint,  Syriac,  and  Vulgate,  and  joined  to  CU'n 
(the  Avvites).  The  Avvgeans  dwelt  to  the  south  of  the  Philistines, 
on  the  south-west  of  Gaza.  It  gives  no  sense  to  connect  it  with 
what  follows,  so  as  to  read  "  towards  the  south  all  the  land  of  the 
Canaanites ;"  for  whatever  land  to  the  south  of  Gaza,  or  of  the 
territory  of  the  Philistines,  was  still  inhabited  by  Canaanites,  could 
not  possibly  be  called  "  all  the  land  of  the  Canaanites."  If,  how- 
ever, we  were  disposed  to  adopt  the  opinion  held  by  Masius  and 
Rosenmüller,  and  understand  these  words  as  relating  to  the  southern 
boundaries  of  Canaan,  "  the  possessions  of  the  king  of  Arad  and 
the  neighbouring  petty  kings  who  ruled  in  the  southern  extremity 
of  Judsea  down  to  the  desert  of  Paran,  Zin,  Kadesh,"  etc.,  the 
fact  that  Arad  and  the  adjoining  districts  are  always  reckoned  as 
beloneincp  to  the  Negeb  would  at  once  be  decisive  against  it  (com- 
pare  chap.  xv.  21  sqq.  with  chap.  x.  40,  xi.  16,  also  Num.  xxi.  1). 
Moreover,  according  to  chap.  x.  40,  41,  and  xi.  16,  17,  Joshua  had 
smitten  the  whole  of  the  south  of  Canaan  from  Kadesh-barnea  to 
Gaza  and  taken  it;  so  that  nothing  remained  unconquered  there, 
which  could  possibly  have  been  mentioned  in  this  passage  as  not 
yet  taken  by  the  Israelites.  For  the  fact  that  the  districts,  which 
Joshua  traversed  so  victoriously  and  took  possession  of,  were  not 
all  permanently  held  by  the  Israelites,  does  not  come  into  considera- 
tion here  at  all.  If  the  author  had  thought  of  enumerating  all 
these  places,  he  would  have  had  to  include  many  other  districts  as 
well. 

Beside  the  territory  of  the  Philistines  on  the  south-west,  there 
still  remained  to  be  taken  (vers.  4,  5)  in  the  north,  "  all  the  land  of 
the  Canaanites"  i.e.  of  the  Phoenicians  dwelling  on  the  coast,  and 
"  the  caves  which  belonged  to  the  Sido7iians  unto  Aphek."  Mearah  (the 
cave)  is  the  present  Mugr  Jezzin,  i.e.  care  of  Jezzin,  on  the  east  of 


138  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Sidon,  in  a  steep  rocky  wall  of  Lebanon,  a  hiding-place  of  the 
Druses  at  the  present  time  (see  at  Num.  xxxiv.  8  ;  also  F.  v.  Richter, 
Wallfahrten  in  Morgenland,  p.  133).    Apheh,  or  Aphik,  was  allotted 
to  the  tribe  of  Asher  (chap.  xix.  30 ;  Judg.  i.  31)  ;  it  was  called 
"Aüaica  by  the  Greeks  ;  there  was  a  temple  of  Venus  there,  which 
Constantine  ordered  to  be  destroyed,  on  account  of  the  licentious 
nature  of  the  worship  {Euseb.  Vita  Const,  iii.  55).    It  is  the  present 
Afka,  a  small  village,  but  a  place  of  rare  beauty,  upon  a  terrace  of 
Lebanon,  near  the  chief  source  of  the  river  Adonis  (Nahr  Ibrahim), 
with  ruins  of  an  ancient  temple  in  the  neighbourhood,  surrounded 
by  oroves  of  the  most  splendid  walnut  trees  on  the  north-east  of 
Beirut  (see  0.  F.  v.  Richter,  pp.  106-7  ;  Rob.  Bibl.  Kes.  p.  663 ; 
and  V.  de  Velde,  Reise,  ii.  p.  398).     "  To  the  territory  of  the  Amo- 
rites  :"  this  is  obscure.     We  cannot  imagine  the  reference  to  be  to 
the  territory  of  Og  of  Bashan,  which  was  formerly  inhabited  by 
Amorites,  as  that  did  not  extend  so  far  north ;  and  the  explanation 
given  by  Knobel,  that  farther  north  there  were  not  Canaanites,  but 
Amorites,  who  were  of  Semitic  origin,  rests  upon  hypotheses  which 
cannot  be  historically  sustained. — Ver.  5.  There  still  remained  to 
be  taken  (2)  "  the  land  of  the  Giblites"  i.e.  the  territory  of  the 
population  of  Gebal  (1  Kings  v.  32  ;  Ezek.  xxvii.  9),  the  Bgblos 
of  the  classics,  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  to  the  north  of  Beirut, 
called  Jebail  by  the  Arabs,  and  according  to  Edrisi  (ed.  Jaubert, 
i.  p.  356),  "a  pretty  town  on  the  sea-shore,  enclosed  in  good  walls, 
and  surrounded  by  vineyards  and  extensive  grounds  planted  with 
fruit  trees"  (see  also  Abulfed.  Tab.  Syr.  p.  94).     It  is  still  a  town 
with  an  old  wall,  some  portions  of  which  apparently  belong  to  the 
time  of  the   Crusades   (see  Burckhardt,   Syr.  p.  296,   and  Ritter, 
Erdk.  xvii.  pp.  60  sqq.).1    "  And  all  Lebanon  toward  the  mnrising :" 
i.e.  not  Antilibanus  {Knobel),  but  the  Lebanon  which  is  to  the  east 
of  the  territory  of  Gebal,  u  from  Baal-gad  under  Mount  Hermon" 
i.e.  Paneas  Banjas  at  the  foot  of  Hermon  (see  at  chap.  xi.  17), 
"  unto  the  entering  in  to  Hamath"  i.e.  as  far  up  as  the  territory  of 
the  kingdom  of  Hamath,  with  the  capital  of  the  same  name  on  the 
Orontes  (see  at  Num.  xxxiv.  8).     Lastly,  there  still  remained  (3) 
"  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  mountains,  from  Lebanon  to  Misrephoth- 
maim"  i.e.  the  promontory  of  Nakura  (see  at  chap.  xi.  8),  namely 
" all  the  Sidonians"  i.e.  all  the  Phoenicians  who  dwelt  from  Lebanon 
southwards,  from  the  boundary  of  the  territory  of  Hamath  down 

1  The  evidence  adduced  by  Movers  (Phönizier,  ii.  1,  p.  103),  that  the  Giblites 
did  not  belong  to  the  Canaanites,  has  more  plausibility  than  truth. 


CHAP.  XIII.  8-14.  139 

to  the  promontory  of  Naknra.  According  to  ancient  usage,  the 
Sidonians  stand  for  the  Phoenicians  generally,  as  in  Homer,  on 
account  of  Sidon  heing  the  oldest  capital  of  Phoenicia  (see  Ges.  on 
Is.  i.  pp.  724  sqq.).  All  these  the  Lord  would  root  out  before  Israel, 
and  therefore  Joshua  was  to  divide  the  whole  of  northern  Canaan, 
which  was  inhabited  by  Phoenicians,  among  the  Israelites.  "  Only 
divide  thou  it  by  lot  for  an  inheritance"  etc.  P"],  only,  i.e.  although 
thou  hast  not  yet  taken  it.  rarij  to  cause  it  to  fall,  here  used  with 
reference  to  the  lot,  i.e.  to  divide  by  lot.  "  Fulfil  thy  duty  in  the 
distribution  of  the  land,  not  even  excepting  what  is  still  in  the  firm 
grasp  of  the  enemy  ;  for  I  will  take  care  to  perform  what  I  have 
promised.  From  this  we  may  learn  to  rely  so  perfectly  upon  the 
word  of  God,  when  undertaking  any  duty,  as  not  to  be  deterred  by 
doubts  or  fears"  {Calvin). 

Vers.  8-14.  To  the  command  of  God  to  divide  the  land  on  this 
side  the  Jordan  among  the  nine  tribes  and  a  half  (ver.  7),  the 
historian  appends  the  remark,  that  the  other  two  tribes  and  a  half 
had  already  received  their  inheritance  from  Moses  on  the  other 
side  (ver.  8).  This  he  proceeds  to  describe  in  its  full  extent  (vers. 
9-13),  and  then  observes  that  the  tribe  of  Levi  alone  received  no 
landed  inheritance,  according  to  the  word  of  the  Lord  (ver.  14). 
After  this  he  gives  a  description  in  vers.  15-33  of  the  land  assigned 
by  Moses  to  each  of  the  two  tribes  and  a  half.1  The  remark  in 
ver.  8  is  so  closely  connected  with  what  precedes  by  the  expression 
"  with  whom"  (lit.  with  it),  that  this  expression  must  be  taken  as 
somewhat  indefinite :  "  with  whom,"  viz.  with  half  Manasseh,  really 
signifying  with  the  other  half  of  Manasseh,  with  which  the  Reuben- 
ites  and  Gadites  had  received  their  inheritance  (see  Num.  xxxii. 
and  Deut.  iii.  8-17).  The  last  words  of  ver.  8,  "  as  Moses  the 
servant  of  Jehovah  gave  them"  are  not  a  tautological  repetition  of 
the  clause  "  which  Moses  gave  them,"  but  simply  affirm  that  these 
tribes  received  the  land  given  them  by  Moses,  in  the  manner  com- 
manded by  Moses,  without  any  alteration  in  his  arrangements.  The 
boundaries  of  the  land  given  in  vers.  9-13  really  agree  with  those 
given  in  chap.  xii.  2-5  and  Deut.  iii.  8,  although  the  expression 

1  KnoleVs  remark,  that  vers.  8-14  anticipate  the  following  section  (vera. 
15-33)  in  an  unsuitable  manner,  rests  upon  a  thorough  misunderstanding  of  tlio 
whole;  for  the  account  of  the  division  of  the  land  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan 
among  the  two  tribes  and  a  half  (vers.  15-33)  could  not  be  introduced  in  a  mora 
appropriate  manner  than  by  a  description  of  the  circumference  of  the  land  and 
of  its  principal  parts  (vers.  9-13). 


140  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

varies  in  some  respects.  The  words  of  ver.  9,  "  the  city  that  is  in 
the  midst  of  the  river"  i.e.  the  city  in  the  valley,  viz.  Ar,  are  more 
distinct  than  those  of  chap.  xii.  2,  "  and  from  the  middle  of  the 
river."  "  All  the  plain"  is  the  Amoritish  table-land,  a  tract  of  land 
for  the  most  part  destitute  of  trees,  stretching  from  the  Arnon  to 
Heshbon,  and  towards  the  north-east  to  Rabbath-Ammän  (see  at 
Deut.  iii.  10),  which  is  called  in  Num.  xxi.  20  the  field  of  Moab, 
Medeba,  now  called  Medaba  (see  at  Num.  xxi.  30).  Dibon,  now  a 
ruin  called  Dibdn,  to  the  north  of  Arnon  (see  at  Num.  xxi.  20). — Ver. 
10,  as  in  chap.  xii.  2. — Ver.  11.  Gilead  is  the  whole  country  of  that 
name  on  both  sides  of  the  Jabbok  (see  at  chap.  xii.  2  and  Deut.  iii. 
10),  the  present  Belka  and  Jebel  Ajlun,  for  the  description  of  which 
see  the  remarks  at  Num.  xxxii.  1.  "  The  territory  of  the  Geshur- 
ites  and  Maachathites"  is  referred  to  in  chap.  xii.  5  as  the  boundary 
of  the  kingdom  of  Og,  and  in  Deut.  iii.  14  as  the  boundary  of  the 
land  which  was  taken  by  Jair  the  Manassite  ;  here  it  is  included  in 
the  inheritance  of  the  tribes  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan,  but  it 
was  never  really  taken  possession  of  by  the  Israelites,  and  (accord- 
ing to  ver.  13)  it  had  probably  never  been  really  subject  to  king 
Og.  The  other  notices  in  vers.  11  and  12  are  the  same  as  in  chap. 
xii.  4,  5. — Ver.  14.  The  tribe  of  Levi  was  to  receive  no  land,  but 
the  firings  of  Jehovah,  i.e.  the  offerings,  including  the  tithes  and 
first-fruits  (Lev.  xxvii.  30-32,  compared  with  Num.  xviii.  21-32), 
were  to  be  its  inheritance ;  so  that  the  God  of  Israel  himself  is 
called  the  inheritance  of  Levi  in  ver.  33  as  in  Num.  xviii.  20,  to 
which  the  words  "  as  He  said  unto  them"  refer  (see  the  commen- 
tary on  Num.  xviii.  20). 

Vers.  15-33.  The  Possessions  of  the  Two  Tribes  and  a 
Half. — Vers.  15-23.  The  tribe  of  Reuben  received  its  inheritance 
in  the  south — namely,  the  territory  from  Aroer  in  the  Arnon  valley, 
and  from  Ar  in  that  valley,  onwards,  and  the  plain  (table-land)  by 
Medeba  (see  ver.  9),  with  Heshbon  the  capital  and  her  towns,  i.e. 
the  towns  dependent  upon  it,  in  the  plain.  Heshbon,  almost  in  the 
centre  between  the  Arnon  and  the  Jabbok,  was  situated  upon  the 
border  of  the  inheritance  of  the  Reubenites,  and  was  ceded  to  the 
Gadites,  who  gave  it  up  to  the  Levites  (chap.  xxi.  39  ;  1  Chron.  vi. 
66  :  see  at  Num.  xxxii.  37).  Dibon,  called  Dibon  of  Gad  in  Num. 
xxxiii.  45,  because  the  Gadites  had  built,  i.e.  fortified  it,  was  on  the 
south  of  Heshbon,  only  an  hour  from  Aroer,  on  the  Arnon  (ver.  9). 
Bamoth-baal,  also  called  Bamoth  simply  (Num.  xxi.  20 ;  Isa.  xv.  2), 


CHAP.  XIII.  15-23.  141 

is  to  be  sought  for  on  the  Jebel  Attarus  (see  at  Num.  xxi.  20). 
It  was  thence  that  Balaam  saw  the  end  of  the  Israelitish  camp 
(Num.  xxii.  41).  Bethbaal-meon,  the  present  ruin  of  Myun,  three- 
quarters  of  an  hour  s.e.  of  Heshbon  (see  at  Num.  xxxii.  38).  Jahza, 
where  Sihon  was  defeated,  was  to  the  east  of  Medeba,  according  to 
the  Onom. ;  and  Dibon  was  on  the  border  of  the  desert  (see  at  Num. 
xxi.  23).  Kedemoth,  on  the  border  of  the  desert,  to  the  north-west 
of  Kalaat  Balua,  is  to  be  sought  on  the  northern  bank  of  the 
Balua,  or  upper  Arnon  (see  at  Num.  xxi.  13).  Mephaath,  where 
there  was  a  garrison  stationed  (according  to  the  Onom?)  as  a  defence 
against  the  inhabitants  of  the  desert,  is  to  be  sought  for  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Jahza,  with  which  it  is  always  associated  (Jer. 
xlviii.  21).  Kedemoth  and  Mephaath  were  given  up  to  the  Levites 
(chap.  xxi.  37  ;  1  Chron.  vi.  64). — Vers.  19,  20.  Kirjathaim,  where 
Chedorlaomer  defeated  the  Emim,  is  probably  to  be  found  in  the 
ruins  of  et-Teym,  half  an  hour  to  the  west  of  Medaba  (see  at  Gen. 
xiv.  5).  Sibmah  (Num.  xxxii.  38),  according  to  Jerome  (on  Isa. 
xvi.  8),  only  500  paces  from  Heshbon,  appears  to  have  hopelessly 
disappeared.  Zereth-hashachar,  i.e.  splendor  aurora,  which  is  only 
mentioned  here,  was  situated  "  upon  a  mountain  of  the  valley." 
According  to  ver.  27,  the  valley  was  the  Jordan  valley,  or  rather 
(according  to  Gen.  xiv.  3,  8)  the  vale  of  Siddim,  a  valley  running 
down  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Dead  Sea.  Seetzen  conjectures 
that  the  town  referred  to  is  the  present  ruin  of  Sard,  on  the  south 
of  Zerka  Maein. — Beth-peor,  opposite  to  Jericho,  six  Roman  miles 
higher  than  (to  the  east  of)  Libias :  see  at  Num.  xxiii.  28.  The 
"  slopes  of  Pisgah"  (chap.  xii.  3 ;  Deut.  iii.  17)  :  to  the  south  of  the 
former,  on  the  north-eastern  shore  of  the  Dead  Sea  (see  at  Num. 
xxvii.  12).  Beth-jeshimoth  (chap.  xii.  3),  in  the  Ghor  el  Seisaban, 
on  the  north-east  side  of  the  Dead  Sea  (see  at  Num.  xxii.  1).  In 
ver.  21a,  the  places  which  Reuben  received  in  addition  to  those 
mentioned  by  name  are  all  summed  up  in  the  words,  "  and  all  the 
(other)  towns  of  the  plain,  and  all  the  kingdom  of  Sihon,,t  sc.  so  far 
as  it  extended  over  the  plain.  These  limitations  of  the  words  are 
implied  in  the  context :  the  first  in  the  fact  that  towns  in  the  plain 
are  mentioned  in  ver.  17  ;  the  second  in  the  fact  that,  according  to 
ver.  27,  "the  rest  of  the  kingdom  of  Sihon,"  i.e.  the  northern 
portion  of  it,  was  given  to  the  Gadites.  The  allusion  to  binon 
induced  the  author  to  mention  his  defeat  again  ;  see  at  Num.  \x\i., 
where  the  five  Midianitish  vassals  who  were  slain  with  Sihon  are 
noticed  in   ver.  8,   and  the  death  of   Balaam   is  also  mentioned. 


142  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

"  Dukes  of  Sihon,"  properly  vassals  of  Sihon ;  Q^DJ  does  not  signify 
anointed,  however,  but  means  literally  poured  out,  i.e.  cast,  moulded, 
enfeoffed.  The  word  points  to  the  "  creation  of  a  prince  by  the 
communication  or  pouring  in  of  power"  (Gusset,  s.v.). — Ver.  23. 
"And  (this)  was  the  boundary  of  the  sons  of  Reuben,  the  Jordan  and 
its  territory"  i.e.  the  Jordan,  or  rather  land  adjoining  it.  The 
meaning  is,  that  the  territory  of  Reuben,  viz.  with  the  places  men- 
tioned last  (ver.  20),  reached  to  the  territory  of  the  Jordan  ;  for  so 
far  as  the  principal  part  was  concerned,  it  was  on  the  east  of  the 
Dead  Sea,  as  it  only  reached  from  the  Anion  to  Heshbon,  i.e.  up 
to  the  latitude  of  the  northern  extremity  of  the  Dead  Sea.  "  The 
towns  and  their  villages."  l->n,  farm  premises,  used,  as  in  Lev.  xxv. 
31,  to  denote  places  not  enclosed  by  a  wall. 

Vers.  24-28.  Inheritance  of  the  tribe  of  Gad. — This  tribe 
received  Jaezer  (probably  es  Szyr :  see  at  Num.  xxi.  32)  and  "  all 
the  towns  of  Gilead,"  i.e.  of  the  southern  half  of  Gilead,  which 
belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Sihon ;  for  the  northern  half,  which 
belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Og,  was  given  to  the  Manassites 
(ver.  31),  "and  the  half  of  the  land  of  the  sons  of  Ammon,  to  Aroer 
before  Rabbah,"  i.e.  that  portion  of  the  land  of  the  Ammonites 
between  the  Arnon  and  the  Jabbok,  which  the  Amorites  under 
Sihon  had  taken  from  the  Ammonites,  namely,  the  land  on  the  east 
of  Gilead,  on  the  western  side  of  the  upper  Jabbok  (Nahr  Amman : 
Deut.  ii.  37,  iii.  16 ;  cf.  Judg.  xi.  13) ;  for  the  land  of  the  Am- 
monites, i.e.  the  land  which  they  still  held  in  the  time  of  Moses,  on 
the  eastern  side  of  Nahr  Amman,  the  Israelites  were  not  allowed  to 
attack  (Deut.  ii.  19).  Aro'er  before  Rabbah,  i.e.  Amman  (see  Deut. 
iii.  11),  is  Aroer  of  Gad,  and  must  be  distinguished  from  Aroer  of 
Reuben  on  the  Arnon  (ver.  16).  It  is  only  mentioned  again  in 
Judg.  xi.  33  and  2  Sam.  xxi  v.  5,  and  was  situated,  according  to 
2  Sam.,  in  the  valley  of  Gad,  that  is  to  say,  in  a  wady  or  valley 
through  which  Gesenius  supposes  an  arm  of  the  Jabbok  to  have 
flowed,  and  Thenius  the  Jabbok  itself,  though  neither  of  them  has 
sufficient  ground  for  his  conjecture.  It  is  also  not  to  be  identified 
with  the  ruin  of  Ayra  to  the  south-west  of  Szalt,  as  this  is  not  in  a 
wady  at  all ;  but  in  all  probability  it  is  to  be  sought  for  to  the  north- 
east of  Rabbah,  in  the  Wady  Nahr  Amman,  on  the  side  of  the 
Kalat  Zerka  Gadda,  the  situation  of  which  suits  this  verse  and 
2  Sam.  xxiv.  5  very  well,  and  may  easily  be  reconciled  with  Judg. 
xi.  33. — In  ver.  26  the  extent  of  the  territory  of  Gad  is  first  of 
all  described  from  north  to  south :  viz.  from  Heshbon  (see  ver.  17) 


CHAP.  XIII.  24-28.  143 

to  Rimath-mizpeh,  or  Ramoth  in  Gilead  (chap.  xx.  8),  probably  on 
the  site  of  the  present  Szalt  (see  at  Deut.  iv.  43),  "  and  Betonim" 
probably  the  ruin  of  Batneh,  on  the  mountains  which  bound  the 
Ghor  towards  the  east  between  the  Wady  Shaib  and  Wady  Ajlun, 
in  the  same  latitude  as  Szalt  (V.  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  298)  ;  and  then, 
secondly,  the  northern  boundary  is  described  from  west  to  east, 
11  from  Mahanaim  to  the  territory  of  Lidbir."  Mdhanaim  (double- 
camp  :  Gen.  xxxii.  2),  which  was  given  up  by  Gad  to  the  Levites 
(chap.  xxi.  30),  in  which  Ishbosheth  was  proclaimed  king  (2  Sam. 
ii.  8,  9),  and  to  which  David  fled  from  Absalom  (2  Sam.  xvii.  24, 
27  ;  1  Kings  ii.  8),  is  not  to  be  sought  for,  as  Knobel  supposes,  in 
the  ruins  of  Meysera,  to  the  south  of  Jabbok,  four  hours  and  a  half 
from  Szalt,  but  was  on  the  north  of  the  Jabbok,  since  Jacob  did 
not  cross  the  ford  of  the  Jabbok  till  after  the  angel  had  appeared 
to  him  at  Mahanaim  (Gen.  xxxii.  3,  23).  It  was  in  or  by  the 
valley  of  the  Jordan  (according  to  2  Sam.  xviii.  23,  24),  and  has 
probably  been  preserved  in  the  ruins  of  Mahneh,  the  situation  of 
which,  however,  has  not  yet  been  determined  (see  at  Gen.  xxxii.  3). 
Lidbir  is  quite  unknown  ;  the  lamed,  however,  is  not  to  be  taken  as 
a  prefix,  but  forms  part  of  the  word.  J.  I).  Michaelis  and  Knobel 
suppose  it  to  be  the  same  as  Lo-debar  in  2  Sam.  ix.  4,  5,  xvii.  27,  a 
place  from  which  provisions  were  brought  to  David  at  Mahanaim 
on  his  flight  from  Absalom,  and  which  is  to  be  sought  for  on  the 
east  of  Mahanaim. — Ver.  27.  On  the  north,  the  territory  of  Gad 
seems  to  have  extended  to  the  Jabbok,  and  only  to  have  stretched 
beyond  the  Jabbok  at  Mahanaim,  which  formed  the  boundary  of 
half-Manasseh,  according  to  ver.  30.  In  the  valley  of  the  Jordan, 
on  the  other  hand,  the  boundary  reached  to  the  Sea  of  Galilee. 
"  The  valley "  is  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  or  the  Arabah  from 
"Wady  Hesbän  above  the  Dead  Sea  up  to  the  Sea  of  Galilee,  along 
the  east  side  of  the  Jordan,  which  belonged  to  the  kingdom  of  Sihon 
(chap.  xii.  3  ;  Deut.  iii.  17).  The  northern  boundary  of  the  tribe 
of  Reuben  must  have  touched  the  Jordan  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
the  Wady  Hesbän.  In  the  Jordan  valley  were  Beth-haram,  the 
future  Libias,  and  present  er  Rameh  (see  at  Num.  xxxii.  36) ;  / 
nimra.  according  to  the  Onom.  five  Roman  miles  to  the  north,  the 
present  ruin  of  Nimrein  (see  at  Num.  xxxii.  30) ;  Succour  according 
to  the  Onom.  trans  Jordanem  in  parte  Scythopolcos  (see  at  Gen. 
xxxiii.  17);  Zaphon  {i.e.  north),  probably  not  far  from  the  southern 
extremity  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee.  "  The  red  of  the  kingd<  m  of  Stfon,' 
the  other  part  having  been  given  to  the  Reubenites  (ver.  21). 


144  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Vers.  29-31.  The  territory  of  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh  ex- 
tended from  Mahanaim  onwards,  and  embraced  all  Bashan,  with 
the  sixty  Jair  towns  and  the  (northern)  half  of  Gilead  (see  the 
comm.  on  Deut.  iii.  13-15). — Yer.  32  is  the  concluding  formula. 
(For  the  fact  itself,  see  Num.  xxxiv.  14,  15.) — Ver.  33  is  a  repeti- 
tion of  ver.  14. 


COMMENCEMENT  OF  THE  DIVISION  OF  THE  LAND  OF  CANAAN. 
INHERITANCE  OF  CALEB. — CHAP.  XIV. 

Vers.  1-5  form  the  heading  and  introduction  to  the  account  of 
the  division  of  the  land  among  the  nine  tribes  and  a  half,  which 
reaches  to  chap,  xix.,  and  is  brought  to  a  close  by  the  concluding 
formula  in  chap.  xix.  51.  The  division  of  the  land  of  Canaan 
according  to  the  boundaries  laid  down  in  Num.  xxxiv.  2-12  was 
carried  out,  in  accordance  with  the  instructions  in  Num.  xxxiv. 
16-29,  by  the  high  priest  Eleazar,  Joshua,  and  ten  heads  of  fathers' 
houses  of  the  nine  tribes  and  a  half,  whose  names  are  given  in 
Num.  xxxiv.  18-28.  "  By  the  lot  of  their  inheritance"  i.e.  by  casting 
lots  for  it :  this  is  dependent  upon  the  previous  clause,  "  which  they 
distributed  for  inheritance  to  them."  "  As  the  Lord  commanded 
through  Moses"  (Num.  xxvi.  52-56,  xxxiii.  54,  and  xxxiv.  13),  "to 
the  nine  tribes  and  a  half"  (this  is  also  dependent  upon  the  clause 
"which  they  distributed  for  inheritance"). — Vers.  3,  4.  So  many 
tribes  were  to  receive  their  inheritance,  for  the  two  tribes  and  a  half 
had  already  received  theirs  from  Moses  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Jordan,  and  the  tribe  of  Levi  was  not  to  receive  any  land  for  an 
inheritance.  According  to  this,  there  seem  to  be  only  eight  tribes 
and  a  half  to  be  provided  for  (2^  +  1  +  8^=12);  but  there  were 
really  nine  and  a  half,  for  the  sons  of  Joseph  formed  two  tribes  in 
consequence  of  the  adoption  of  Ephraim  and-  Manasseh  by  the 
patriarch  Jacob  (Gen.  xlviii.  5).  But  although  the  Levites  were 
to  have  no  share  in  the  land,  they  were  to  receive  towns  to  dwell 
in,  with  pasture  adjoining  for  their  cattle ;  these  the  other  tribes 
were  to  give  up  to  them  out  of  their  inheritance,  according  to  the 
instructions  in  Num.  xxxv.  1-8  (see  the  notes  upon  this  passage). 

So  far  as  the  division  of  the  land  itself  was  concerned,  it  was  to 
be  distributed  by  lot,  according  to  Num.  xxvi.  52  sqq. ;  but,  at  the 
same  time,  the  distribution  was  carried  out  with  such  special  regard 
to  the  relative  sizes  of  the  different  tribes,  that  the  more  numerous 
tribe  received  a  larger  share  of  the  land  than  one  that  Avas  not  so 


CHAP.  XIV.  1-5.  145 

numerous.     This  could  only  be  accomplished,  however,  by  their 
restricting  the  lot  to  the  discrimination  of  the  relative  situation  of 
the  different  tribes,  and  then  deciding  the  extent  and  boundaries  of 
their  respective  possessions  according  to  the  number  of  families  of 
which  they  were  composed.1     The  casting  of  the  lots  was  probably 
effected,  as  the  Rabbins  assumed,  by  means  of  two  urns,  one  filled 
with  slips  having  the  names  of  the  tribes  upon  them  ;  the  other,  with 
an  equal  number,  representing  separate  divisions  of  the  land  :  so  that 
when  one  slip,  with  a  name  upon  it,  was  taken  out  of  one  urn, 
another  slip,  with  a  division  of  the  land  upon  it,  was  taken  from  the 
other.     The  result  of  the  lot  was  accepted  as  the  direct  decree  of 
God  ;  "  for  the  lot  was  not  controlled  in  any  way  by  the  opinion, 
or  decision,  or  authority  of  men"  (Calvin).     See  the  fuller  remarks 
at  Num.  xxvi.  56.     In  the  account  of  the  casting  of  the  lots,  the 
first  fact  which  strikes  us  is,  that  after  the  tribes  of  Judah  and 
Joseph  had  received  their  inheritance,  an  interruption  took  place, 
and  the  camp  was  moved  from  Gilgal  to  Shiloh,  and  the  taber- 
nacle erected  there  (chap,  xviii.  1-9)  ;  after  which  the  other  tribes 
manifested  so  little  desire  to  receive  their  inheritance,  that  Joshua 
reproved  them  for  their  indolence  (chap,  xviii.  3),  and  directed  them 
to  nominate  a  committee  of  twenty-one  from  their  own  number, 
whom  he  sent  out  to  survey  the  land  and  divide  it  into  seven  parts ; 
and  it  was  not  till  after  this  had  been  done  that  the  casting  of  the 
lots  was  proceeded  with,  and  each  of  these  seven  tribes  received  its 
inheritance.     The  reason  for  this  interruption  is  not  given ;  and  the 
commentators  have  differed  in  their  opinions  as  to  the  cause  (see 
KeiVs  former  Comm.  on  Joshua,  pp.  347  sqq.).     The  following 
appears  to  be  the  most  probable  supposition.    When  Joshua  received 
the  command  from  the  Lord  to  divide  the  land  among  the  tribes, 
they  made  an  approximative  division  of  the  land  into  nine  or  ten 
parts,  according  to  the  general  idea  of  its  extent  and  principal 
features,  which  they  had  obtained  in  connection  with  the  conquest 

1  "  This  was  the  force  of  the  lot :  there  were  ten  lots  cast  in  such  a  manner 
as  to  decide  that  some  were  to  be  next  to  the  Egyptians,  some  to  have  the  sea- 
coasts,  some  to  occupy  the  higher  ground,  and  some  to  settle  in  tlio  valleys. 
When  this  was  done,  it  remained  for  the  heads  of  the  nation  to  determine  the 
boundaries  of  their  different  territories  according  to  some  equitable  standard. 
It  was  their  place,  therefore,  to  ascertain  how  many  thousand  heads  there  were 
in  each  tribe,  and  then  to  adjudicate  a  larger  or  smaller  space  according  to  the- 
size  of  the  tribe"  (Calvin).  Or,  as  Clericus  observes  (Num.  xxvi.  52),  "  the  lot 
seems  to  have  had  respect  to  the  situation  alone,  and  not  to  the  extent  of  terri- 
tory at  all." 

K 


146  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

of  the  country,  and  then  commenced  distributing  it  without  any- 
more minute  survey  or  more  accurate  measurement,  simply  fixing 
the  boundaries  of  those  districts  which  came  out  first  according 
to  the  size  of  the  tribes  upon  whom  the  lots  fell.     As  soon  as  that 
was-^done,  these  tribes  began  to  move  off  into  the  territory  allotted 
to  them,  and  to  take  possession  of  it.     The  exact  delineation  of  the 
boundaries,  however,  could  not  be  effected  at  once,  but  required  a 
longer  time,  and  was  probably  not  finally  settled  till  the  tribe  had 
taken  possession  of  its  land.     In  this  manner  the  tribes  of  Judah, 
Ephraim,  and  half  Manasseh  had  received  their  inheritance  one 
after  another.     And  whilst  they  were  engaged  in  taking  possession, 
Shiloh  was  chosen,  no  doubt  in  accordance  with  divine  instructions, 
as  the  place  where  the  tabernacle  was  to  be  permanently  erected ; 
and  there  the  sanctuary  was  set  up,  the  whole  camp,  of  course, 
removing  thither  at  the  same  time.     But  when  the  casting  of  the 
lots  was  about  to  be  continued  for  the  remainder  of  the  tribes,  they 
showed  no  great  desire  for  fixed  abodes,  as  they  had  become  so 
accustomed  to  a  nomad  life,  through  having  been  brought  up  in  the 
desert,  that  they  were  much  more  disposed  to  continue  it,  than  to 
take  possession  of  a  circumscribed  inheritance, — a  task  which  would 
require  more  courage  and  exertion,  on  account  of  the  remaining 
Canaanites,  than  a  life  in  tents,  in  which  they  might  wander  up  and 
down  in  the  land  by  the  side  of  the  Canaanites,  and  supply  their 
wants  from  its  productions,  as  Abraham,  Isaac,  and  Jacob  had  for- 
merly done,  since  the  Canaanites  who  were  left  were  so  weakened  by 
the  war  that  the  Israelites  had  no  occasion  for  a  moment's  anxiety 
about  them,  provided  they  did  not  attempt  to  expel  or  to  extermi- 
nate them.     But  Joshua  could  not  rest  contented  with  this,  if  he 
would  remain  faithful  to  the  charge  which  he  had  received  from 
the  Lord.     He  therefore  reproved  these  tribes  for  their  tai'diness, 
and  commanded  them  to  take  steps  for  continuing  the  casting  of 
lots  for  the  land.     But  as  the  tribe  of  Joseph  had  expressed  its 
dissatisfaction  with  the  smallness  of  the  inheritance  allotted  to  it, 
and  by  so  doing  had  manifested  its  cowardice,  which  prevented  it 
from  attacking  the  Canaanites  who  were  still  left  in  the  territory 
that  had  fallen  to  their  lot,  Joshua  may  possibly  have  had  his  eyes 
opened  in  consequence  to  the  fact  that,  if  the  casting  of  lots  was 
continued  in  the  manner  begun,  and  with  nothing  more  than  an 
approximative  definition  of  the  different  portions  of  the  land,  there 
was  a  possibility  of  still  greater  dissatisfaction  arising  among  the 
other  tribes,  since  some  of  them  at  any  rate  would  be  sure  to  receive 


CHAP.  XIV.  6-15.  147 

portions  of  the  land  in  which  the  Canaanites  were  more  numerous 
and  still  stronger  than  in  the  possessions  of  Ephraim.  He  therefore 
gave  orders,  that  before  the  casting  of  lots  was  proceeded  with 
any  further,  the  rest  of  the  land  should  be  carefully  surveyed  and 
divided  into  seven  districts,  and  that  a  statement  of  the  result  should 
be  laid  before  him,  that  these  seven  districts  might  be  divided  by  lot 
among  the  seven  tribes.  This  survey  of  the  land  no  doubt  very 
clearly  showed  that  what  remained,  after  deducting  the  possessions 
of  Judah  and  Joseph,  was  too  small  for  the  remaining  seven  tribes, 
in  proportion  to  what  had  been  already  divided.  Moreover,  it  had 
also  been  discovered  that  Judah's  share  was  larger  than  this  tribe 
required  (chap.  xix.  9).  Consequently  it  was  necessary  that  certain 
partial  alterations  should  be  made  in  the  arrangements  connected 
with  the  first  division.  The  lot  itself  could  not  be  pronounced 
invalid  when  it  had  once  been  cast,  as  its  falling  was  regarded  as 
the  decision  of  God  himself,  and  therefore  it  was  impossible  to 
make  a  fresh  division  of  the  whole  land  among  all  the  tribes.  The 
only  thing  that  could  be  done  was  to  leave  the  two  tribes  in  those 
districts  which  had  fallen  to  them  by  lot  (chap,  xviii.  5),  but  to  take 
certain  parts  of  their  territory  for  the  other  tribes,  which  would 
leave  the  lot  in  all  its  integrity,  as  the  lot  itself  had  not  determined 
either  the  size  or  the  boundaries.  This  will  serve  to  explain  both 
the  interruption  to  the  casting  of  the  lots,  which  had  been  com- 
menced at  Gilgal,  and  also  the  peculiar  manner  in  which  it  was 
continued  at  Shiloh. 

Vers.  6-15.  Caleb's  Inheritance. — Vers.  6  sqq.  Before  the 
casting  of  the  lots  commenced,  Caleb  came  to  Joshua  along  with 
the  sons  of  Judah,  and  asked  for  the  mountains  of  Hebron  for  his 
possession,  appealing  at  the  same  time  to  the  fact,  that  forty-five 
years  before  Moses  had  promised  it  to  him  on  oath,  because  he  had 
not  discouraged  the  people  and  stirred  them  up  to  rebellion,  as  the 
other  spies  that  were  sent  from  Kadesh  to  Canaan  had  done,  but 
had  faithfully  followed  the  Lord.1  This  occurred  at  Gilgal,  where 
1  The  grounds  upon  which  Knobel  follows  Maurer  and  others  in  aiBrming 
that  this  account  does  not  belong  to  the  so-called  Elohist,  but  is  merely  a 
fragment  taken  from  the  first  document  of  the  Jehovist,  are  formed  partly 
from  misinterpretations  of  particular  verses  and  partly  from  baseless  assump- 
tions. To  the  former  belongs  the  assertion,  that,  according  to  vers.  8,  12, 
Joshua  was  not  one  of  the  spies  (see  the  remarks  on  ver.  8)  ;  to  the  latter  the 
assertion,  that  the  Elohist  does  not  represent  Joshua  as  dividing  the  land,  or 
Caleb  as  receiving  so  large  a  territory  (see  on   the  contrary,  however,  the 


148  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

the  casting  of  the  lots  was  to  take  place.  Caleb  was  not  "  the  head 
of  the  Judahites,"  as  Knobel  maintains,  but  simply  the  head  of  a 
father's  house  of  Judah,  and,  as  we  may  infer  from  his  surname, 
u  the  Kenizzite"  or  descendant  of  Kenaz  ("  the  Kenizzite"  here 
and  Num.  xxxii.  12  is  equivalent  to  "son  of  Kenaz,"  ch.  xv.  17, 
and  Judg.  i.  13),  head  of  the  father's  house  which  sprang  from 
Kenaz,  i.e.  of  a  subdivision  of  the  Judahite  family  of  Hezron  ; 
for  Caleb,  the  brother  of  Jerahmeel  and  father  of  Achzah,  ac- 
cording to  1  Chron.  ii.  42  (cf.  1  Chron.  ii.  49),  was  the  same 
person  as  Caleb  the  descendant  of  Hezron  mentioned  in  1  Chron. 
ii.  18.  From  the  surname  "the  Kenizzite"  we  are  of  course  not 
to  understand  that  Caleb  or  his  father  Jephunneh  is  described  as  a 
descendant  of  the  Canaanitish  tribe  of  Kenizzites  (Gen.  xv.  19)  ;  but 
Kenaz  was  a  descendant  of  Hezron,  the  son  of  Perez  and  grandson  of 
Judah  (1  Chron.  ii.  5,  18,  25),  of  whom  nothing  further  is  known 
Consequently  it  was  not  the  name  of  a  tribe,  but  of  a  person,  and, 
as  we  may  see  from  1  Chron.  iv.  15,  where  one  of  the  sons  of 
Caleb  is  called  Kenaz,  the  name  was  repeated  in  the  family.  The 
sons  of  Judah  who  came  to  Joshua  along  with  Caleb  were  not  the 
Judahites  generally,  therefore,  or  representatives  of  all  the  families 
of  Judah,  but  simply  members  or  representatives  of  the  father's 
house  of  Judah  which  took  its  name  from  Kenaz,  and  of  which 
Caleb  was  the  head  at  that  time.  Caleb  reminded  Joshua  of  the 
word  which  the  Lord  had  spoken  concerning  them  in  Kadesh- 
barnea,  i.e.  of  the  promise  of  God  that  they  should  both  of  them 
enter  the  land  of  Canaan  (Num.  xiv.  24,  30),  and  then  proceeded 
to  observe  (ver.  7)  :  "  When  I  vms  forty  years  old,  and  was  sent  by 
Moses  as  a  spy  to  Canaan,  I  brought  back  an  answer  as  it  was  in  my 
mind"  i.e.  according  to  the  best  of  my  convictions,  without  fear  of 
man  or  regard  to  the  favour  of  the  people. — Ver.  8.  Whereas  the 
other  spies  discouraged  the  people  by  exaggerated  reports  concern- 
ing the  inhabitants  of  Canaan,  he  had  followed  the  Lord  with 
perfect  fidelity  (Num.  xiii.  31-33).  He  had  not  been  made  to 
waver  in  his  faithfulness  to  the  Lord  and  His  promises  either  by 
the  evil  reports  which  the  other  spies  had  brought  of  the  land,  or 
by  the  murmuring  and  threats  of  the  excited  crowd  (see  Num.  xiv. 
6-10).  "  My  brethren'''  (ver.  8)  are  the  rest  of  the  spies,  of  course 
with  the  exception  of  Joshua,  to  whom  Caleb  was  speaking.1   V'DJpn, 

exposition  of  ver.  13),  as  well  as  the  enumeration  of  all  kinds  of  words  which 
are  said  to  be  foreign  to  the  Elohistic  document. 

1  That  Joshua  was  not  included  was  evident  from  this  circumstance  alone. 


CHAP.  XIV.  6-15.  149 

for  *DDPI  (see  Ges.  §  75,  anm.  17,  and  Ewald,  §  142,  a.),  from 
HDD  =  DDD  (see  chap.  ii.  11). — Ver.  9.  Jehovah  swore  at  that  time, 
that  the  land  upon  which  his  (Caleb's)  foot  had  trodden  should  be 
an  inheritance  for  him  and  his  sons  for  ever.  This  oath  is  not 
mentioned  in  Num.  xiv.  20  sqq.,  nor  yet  in  Deut.  i.  35,  36,  where 
Moses  repeats  the  account  of  the  whole  occurrence  to  the  people. 
For  the  oath  of  Jehovah  mentioned  in  Num.  xiv.  21,  24,  viz.  that 
none  of  the  murmuring  people  should  see  the  land  of  Canaan,  but 
that  Caleb  alone  should  come  thither  and  his  seed  should  possess  it, 
cannot  be  the  one  referred  to,  as  the  promise  given  to  Caleb  in  this 
oath  does  not  relate  to  the  possession  of  Hebron  in  particular,  but 
to  the  land  of  Canaan  generally,  "  the  land  which  Jehovah  had 
sworn  to  their  fatliers."  We  must  assume,  therefore,  that  in  addi- 
tion to  what  is  mentioned  in  Num.  xiv.  24,  God  gave  a  special 
promise  to  Caleb,  which  is  passed  over  there,  with  reference  to  the 
possession  of  Hebron  itself,  and  that  Joshua,  who  heard  it  at  the 
time,  is  here  reminded  of  that  promise  by  Caleb.  This  particular 
promise  from  God  was  closely  related  to  the  words  with  which 
Caleb  endeavoured  to  calm  the  minds  of  the  people  when  they  rose 
up  against  Moses  (Num.  xiii.  30),  viz.  by  saying  to  them,  "  We  are 
well  able  to  overcome  it,"  notwithstanding  the  Anakites  who  dwelt 
in  Hebron  and  had  filled  the  other  spies  with  such  great  alarm  on 
account  of  their  gigantic  size.  With  reference  to  this  the  Lord 
had  promised  that  very  land  to  Caleb  for  his  inheritance.  Upon 
this  promise  Caleb  founded  his  request  (vers.  10-12)  that  Joshua 
would  give  him  these  mountains,  of  which  Joshua  had  heard  at 
that  time  that  there  were  Anakites  and  large  fortified  cities  there, 
inasmuch  as,  although  forty-five  years  had  elapsed  since  God  had 
spoken  these  words,  and  he  was  now  eighty-five  years  old,  he  was 
quite  as  strong  as  he  had  been  then.  From  the  words,  "The  Lord 
hath  kept  me  alive  these  forty-five  years,"  Theodoret  justly  infers, 
that  the  conquest  of  Canaan  by  Joshua  was  completed  in  seven 
years,  since  God  spake  these  words  towards  the  end  of  the  second 
year  after  the  exodus  from  Egypt,  and  therefore  thirty-eight  years 
before  the  entrance  into  Canaan.     The  clause  'Ul  *|?n  "WW  (ver.  10) 

and  consequently  it  is  a  complete  perversion  on  the  part  of  Knobel  to  argue, 
that  because  the  expression  is  a  general  one,  i.e.  because  Joshua  is  not  cxj  ; 
excepted  by  name,  therefore  he  cannot  have  been  one  of  the  spi 
mention  the  fact  that  the  words   "  concerning  me  and  thee"  in  ver.  6,  aro 
sufficient  to  show  to  any  one  acquainted  with  the  account  in  Num.  ziu.,  xiv., 
that  Joshua  was  really  one  of  them. 


150  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

is  also  dependent  upon  '131  B^nx  Pit:  viz.  "these  forty-five  yearn 
that  Israel  has  wandered  in  the  desert"  (on  this  use  of  "i^'N,  see 
Ewald,  §  331,  c).  The  expression  is  a  general  one,  and  the  years 
occupied  in  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  during  which  Israel  had  not 
vet  entered  into  peaceful  possession  of  the  promised  land,  are 
reckoned  as  forming  part  of  the  years  of  wandering  in  the  desert. 
As  another  reason  for  his  request,  Caleb  adds  in  ver.  11 :  "/  am 
still  as  strong  to-day  as  at  that  time ;  as  my  strength  vms  then,  so  is 
it  now  for  war,  and  to  go  out  and  in"  (see  Num.  xxvii.  17). — Ver. 
12.  "  The  mountain"  according  to  the  context,  is  the  mountainous 
region  of  Hebron,  where  the  spies  had  seen  the  Anakites  (Num. 
xiii.  22,  28).  The  two  clauses,  in  ver.  12,  beginning  with  ^3  are 
not  to  be  construed  as  subordinate  to  one  another,  but  are  co- 
ordinate clauses,  and  contain  two  distinct  motives  in  support  of  his 
petition  :  viz.  "  for  thou  heardest  in  that  day"  sc.  what  Jehovah  said 
to  me  then,  and  also  "for  (because)  the  Anakites  are  there  ;"  .  .  . 
"perhaps  Jehovah  is  with  me  (""fix  for  ^S,  see  Ges.  §  103,  1,  anm. 
1,  and  Ewald,  §  264,  b.),  and  I  root  them  out"  (vid.  chap.  xv.  14). 
The  word  "perhaps"  does  not  express  a  doubt,  but  a  hope  or 
desire,  or  else,  as  Masius  says,  "  hope  mixed  with  difficulty ;  and 
whilst  the  difficulty  detracts  from  the  value,  the  hope  stimulates , 
the  desire  for  the  gift." — Ver.  13.  Then  Joshua  blessed  Caleb,  i.e. 
implored  the  blessing  of  God  upon  his  undertaking,  and  gave  him 
Hebron  for  an  inheritance.  Hebron  is  mentioned  as  the  chief 
city,  to  which  the  surrounding  country  belonged ;  for  Caleb  had 
asked  for  the  mountains  (ver.  9),  i.e.  the  mountainous  country  with 
and  around  Hebron,  which  included,  for  example,  the  fortified 
town  of  Debir  also  (chap.  xv.  15). — Ver.  14.  This  inheritance,  the 
historian  adds,  was  awarded  to  Caleb  because  he  had  followed  the 
God  of  Israel  with  such  fidelity. — In  ver.  15  there  follows  another 
notice  of  the  earlier  name  of  Hebron  (see  at  Gen.  xxiii.  2).  The 
expression  CJS?  (before),  like  the  words  "  to  this  day,"  applies  to 
the  time  when  the  book  was  composed,  at  which  time  the  name 
Kirjath-arba  had  long  since  fallen  into  disuse;  so  that  it  by  no 
means  follows  that  the  name  Hebron  was  not  so  old  as  the  name 
Kirjath-arba,  which  was  given  to  Hebron  for  the  first  time  when 
it  was  taken  by  Arba,  "  the  great  man  among  the  Anakites,"  i.e. 
the  strongest  and  most  renowned  of  the  Anakites  (vid.  chap.  xv. 
13).  The  remark,  "  and  the  land  had  rest  from  war"  is  repeated 
again  at  the  close  of  this  account  from  chap.  xi.  23,  to  show  that 
although  there  were  Anakites  still  dwelling  in  Hebron  whom  Caleb 


CHAP.  XV.  1-12.  151 

hoped  to  exterminate,  the  work  of  distributing  the  land  by  lot  was 
not  delayed  in  consequence,  but  was  carried  out  in  perfect  peace 

INHERITANCE  OF  TUE  TRIBE  OF  JUDAH. — CHAP.  XV. 

Under  the  superintending  providence  of  God,  the  inheritance 
which  fell  to  the  tribe  of  Judah  by  lot  was  in  the  southern  part  of 
Canaan,  where  Caleb  had  already  received  his  inheritance,  so  that 
he  was  not  separated  from  his  tribe.  The  inheritance  of  Judah  is 
first  of  all  described  according  to  its  boundaries  (vers.  1-12)  ;  then 
for  the  sake  of  completeness  it  is  stated  once  more  with  regard  to 
Caleb,  that  he  received  Kirjath-arba  for  his  inheritance,  and  took 
possession  of  it  by  expelling  the  Anakites  and  conquering  Debir 
(vers.  13-20);  and  after  this  a  list  is  given  of  the  towns  in  the 
different  parts  (vers.  21-63). 

Vers.  1-12  —Boundaries  of  the  inheritance  of  the  tribe  of  Judah. 
— Ver.  1.  Its  situation  in  the  land.  "  And  there  was  (i.e.  fell,  or 
came  out;  cf.  chap.  xvi.  1,  xix.  1)  the  lot  to  the  tribe  of  Judah  accord- 
ing to  its  families  to  the  frontier  of  Edom  (see  at  Num.  xxxiv.  3),  to 
the  desert  of  Zin  southward,  against  the  extreme  south"  {lit.  from  the 
end  or  extremity  of  the  south),  i.e.  its  inheritance  fell  to  it,  so  that 
it  reached  to  the  territory  of  Edom  and  the  desert  of  Zin,  in  which 
Kadesh  was  situated  (see  at  Num.  xiii.  21),  on  the  extreme  south 
of  Canaan. — Vers.  2-4.  The  southern  boundary.  This  was  also 
the  southern  boundary  of  the  land  of  Israel  generally,  and  coin- 
cided with  the  southern  boundary  of  Canaan  as  described  in  Num. 
xxxiv.  3-5.  It  went  out  "  from  the  end  of  the  salt  sea,  namely, 
from  the  tongue  which  turneth  to  the  south,"  i.e.  from  the  southern 
point  of  the  Dead  Sea,  which  is  now  a  salt  marsh. — Vers.  3,  4. 
Thence  it  proceeded  "  to  the  southern  boundary  of  the  ascent  of 
Akrabbim,"  i.e.  the  row  of  lofty  whitish  cliffs  which  intersects  the 
Arabah  about  eight  miles  below  the  Dead  Sea  (see  at  Num. 
xxxiv.  4),  "  and  passed  across  to  Zin,"  i.e.  the  Wady  Murreh  (see 
at  Num.  xiii.  21),  "  and  went  up  to  the  south  of  Kadesh-barnea" 
i.e.  by  Ain  Kudes  (see  at  Num.  xx.  IG),  "and  passed  over  to 
Hezron,  and  went  up  to  Adar,  and  turned  to  Karkaa,  and  went  over 
to  Azmon,  and  went  out  into  the  brook  of  Egypt,"  i.e.  the  Y\  ady  -  ' 
Arish.  On  the  probable  situation  of  Hezron,  Adar,  Karkaa,  and 
Azmon,  see  at  Num.  xxxiv.  4,  5.  "  And  the  outgoings  of  the  boun- 
dary were  to  the  sea"  (the  Mediterranean).  The  Wady  el  Arish,  a 
marked  boundary,  takes  first  of  all  a  northerly  and  then  a  north- 


152  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

westerly  course,  and  opens  into  the  Mediterranean  Sea  (see  Pent, 
xol.  ii.  p.  58).  "^'7  in  the  singular  before  the  subject  in  the  plural 
must  not  be  interfered  with  (see  Ewald,  §  316,  a.). — The  words 
"  this  shall  be  your  south  coast"  point  back  to  the  southern  boun- 
dary of  Canaan  as  laid  down  in  Num.  xxxiv.  2  sqq.,  and  show  that 
the  southern  boundary  of  the  tribe-territory  of  Judah  was  also  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  land  to  be  taken  by  Israel. — Ver.  5a. 
"  The  eastern  boundary  was  the  salt  sea  to  the  end  of  the  Jordan" 
i.e.  the  Dead  Sea,  in  all  its  length  up  to  the  point  where  the  Jordan 
entered  it. 

In  vers.  55-11  we  have  a  description  of  the  northern  boundary, 
which  is  repeated  in  chap,  xviii.  15-19  as  the  southern  boundary 
of  Benjamin,  though  in  the  opposite  direction,  namely,  from  west 
to  east.  It  started  "  from  the  tongue  of  the  (salt)  sea,  the  end  (i.e. 
the  mouth)  of  the  Jordan,  and  went  up  to  Beth-hagla," — a  border 
town  between  Judah  and  Benjamin,  which  was  afterwards  allotted 
to  the  latter  (chap,  xviii.  19,  21),  the  present  Ain  Hajla,  an  hour 
and  a  quarter  to  the  south-east  of  Riha  (Jericho),  and  three-quar- 
ters of  an  hour  from  the  Jordan  (see  at  Gen.  1.  11,  note), — "  and 
went  over  to  the  north  side  of  Beth-arabah,"  a  town  in  the  desert  of 
Judah  (ver.  61),  afterwards  assigned  to  Benjamin  (chap,  xviii.  22), 
and  called  Ha-arabah  in  chap,  xviii.  18,  about  twenty  or  thirty 
minutes  to  the  south-west  of  Ain  Hajla,  in  a  "  level  and  barren 
steppe "  (Seetzen,  E.  ii.  p.  302),  with  which  the  name  very  well 
agrees  (see  also  Rob.  Pal.  ii.  pp.  268  sqq.).  "  And  the  border  went 
up  to  the  stone  of  Bohan,  the  son  of  Reuben."  The  expression 
"  went  up "  shows  that  the  stone  of  Bohan  must  have  been  on 
higher  ground,  i.e.  near  the  western  mountains,  though  the  opposite 
expression  "  went  down"  in  chap,  xviii.  17  shows  that  it  must  have 
been  by  the  side  of  the  mountain,  and  not  upon  the  top.  According 
to  chap,  xviii.  18,  19,  the  border  went  over  from  the  stone  of 
Bohan  in  an  easterly  direction  "  to  the  shoulder  over  against  (Beth) 
Arabah  northwards,  and  went  down  to  (Beth)  Arabah,  and  then 
went  over  to  the  shoulder  of  Beth-hagla  northwards"  i.e.  on  the 
north  side  of  the  mountain  ridge  of  Beth-arabah  and  Beth-hagla. 
Tins  ridge  is  "  the  chain  of  hills  or  downs  which  runs  from  Kasr 
Hajla  towards  the  south  to  the  north  side  of  the  Dead  Sea,  and  is 
called  Katar  Hhadije,  i.e.  a  row  of  camels  harnessed  together." — 
Ver.  7.  The  boundary  ascended  still  farther  to  JDebir  from  the 
valley  of  Achor.  JDebir  is  no  doubt  to  be  sought  for  by  the  Wady 
Daber,  which  runs  down  from  the  mountains  to  the  Dead  Sea 


CHAP.  XV.  1-12.  153 

to  the  south  of  Kasr  Hajla,  possibly  not  far  from  the  rocky  grotto 
called  Choret  ed  Daher,  between  the  Wady  es  Sidr  and  the  Khan 
Chadrur  on  the  road  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho,  about  half-way 
between  the  two.      On  the  valley  of  Achor  see  at  chap.  vii.  24. 
Then   "it  turned  northioards  to  Gilgal,   opposite  to  the  ascent  of 
Adummim  south  of  the  brook."      Gilgal,  which  must  not  be  con- 
founded,  as  it  is   by  Knobel,  with   the   first   encampment  of  the 
Israelites   in    Canaan,  viz.  the    Gilgal  between   Jericho   and  the 
Jordan,  is  called  Gel'doth  in  chap,  xviii.  17.     The  situation  of  this 
place,   which    is  only  mentioned  again  in  Judg.  iii.  19,  and  was 
certainly  not  a  town,  probably  only  a  village  or  farm,  is  defined 
more  precisely  by  the  clause  "  opposite  to  the  ascent  of  Adummim." 
Maaleh  Adummim,  which  is  correctly  explained  in  the  Onom.  (s.  v. 
Adommini)  as  avdßaais  irvp'paiv,  ascensus  rufforum,  "  was  formerly 
a  small  villa,  but  is  now  a  heap  of  ruins,  which  is  called  even  to 
the  present  day  Maledomim — on  the  road  from  ^Elia  to  Jericho" 
{Toiler).     It  is  mentioned  by  ancient  travellers  as  an  inn  called  a 
terra  ruff  a,  i.e.  "the  red  earth;"  terra  russo,  or  "the  red  house." 
By  later  travellers  it  is  described  as  a  small  place  named  Adomim, 
being  still  called  "  the  red  field,  because  this  is  the  colour  of  the 
ground ;  with  a  large  square  building  like  a  monastery  still  stand- 
ing there,  which  was   in  fact  at  one  time  a  fortified   monastery, 
though  it  is  deserted  now"  (Arvieux,  Merk.  Nachr.  ii.  p.  154).     It 
is  the  present  ruin  of  Kalaat  el  Dem,  to  the  north  of  the  road  from 
Jerusalem  to  Jericho,  or  Kalaat  ed  Domm,  near  the  Khan  Chadrur. 
Gilgal,  or  Geliloth  (circle),  was  probably  the  "small  round  valley" 
or  "field  of  Adommim"  of  which  Pococlce  speaks  as  being  at  the 
foot  of  the  hill  on  which  the  deserted  inn  was  standing  (viz.  ed 
Domm;  see  Pococke,  Reise  ins  Morgenland,  ii.  p.  46).     The  valley 
(nachal,  rendered  river)  to  the  south  of  which  Gilgal  or  the  ascent 
of  Adummim  lay,  and  which  was  therefore  to  the  north  of  these 
places,  may  possibly  be  the  Wady  Kelt,  or  the  brook  of  Jericho  in 
the  upper  part  of  its  course,  as  we  have  only  to  go  a  quarter  or  half 
an  hour  to  the  east  of  Khan  Chadrur,  when  a  wide  and  splendid 
prospect  opens  towards  the  south  across  the  Wady  Kelt  as  tar  as 
Taiyibeh  ;  and  according  to  Van  de  Velde  s  map,  a  brook-valley  runs 
in  a  northerly  direction  to  the  Wady  Kelt  on   the  north-east  of 
Kalaat  ed  Dem.     It  is  probable,  however,  that  the  reference  is  to 
some  other  valley,  of  which  there  are  a  great  many  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood.     The  boundary  then  passed  over  to  the  water  of   En 
Shemesh  (sun-fountain),  i.e.  the  present  Apostle's  Well,  .1///  el  Hodh 


154  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

or  Bir  el  Kliot,  below  Bethany,  and  on  the  road  to  Jericho  {Tobler, 
Topogr.  v.  Jerus.  ii.  pp.  398,  400 ;  Van  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  310), 
and  then  ran  out  at  the  fountain  of  Rogel  (the  spies),  the  present 
deep  and  copious  fountain  of  Job  or  Nehemiah  at  the  south-east 
corner  of  Jerusalem,  below  the  junction  of  the  valley  of  Hinnom 
and  the  valley  of  Jehoshaphat  or  Kedron  valley  (see  Rob.  Pal.  i. 
p.  491,  and  Tobler,  Topogr.  v.  Jerus.  ii.  pp.  50  sqq.). — Ver.  8.  It 
then  went  up  into  the  more  elevated  valley  of  Ben-hinnom,  on  the 
south  side  of  the  Jebusite  town,  i.e.  Jerusalem  (see  at  chap.  x.  1), 
and  still  farther  up  to  the  top  of  the  mountain  which  rises  on  the 
west  of  the  valley  of  Ben-hinnom,  and  at  the  farthest  extremity  of 
the  plain  of  Rephaim  towards  the  north.  The  valley  of  Ben-hin- 
nom, or  Bne-hinnom  (the  son  or  sons  of  Hinnom),  on  the  south  side 
of  Mount  Zion,  a  place  which  was  notorious  from  the  time  of  Ahaz 
as  the  seat  of  the  worship  of  Moloch  (2  Kings  xxiii.  10;  2  Chron. 
xxviii.  3,  xxxiii.  6;  Jer.  vii.  31,  etc.),  is  supposed  to  have  derived 
its  name  from  a  man  who  had  possessions  there,  but  of  whom 
nothing  further  is  known  (see  Robinson,  Pal.  i.  pp.  402  sqq.).  The 
plain  of  Rephaim  (LXX.  yrj  'Pacpaeiv,  in  2  Sam.  v.  18,  22,  xxiii.  13 
Koi\ci<;  ro)v  Tirdvcov),  probably  named  after  the  gigantic  race  of 
Rephaim,  and  mentioned  several  times  in  2  Sam.  as  a  battle-field,  is 
on  the  west  of  Jerusalem,  and  is  separated  from  the  edge  of  the 
valley  of  Ben-hinnom  by  a  small  ridge  of  rock.  It  runs  south- 
wards to  Mar  Elias,  is  an  hour  long,  half  an  hour  broad,  and  was 
very  fertile  (Isa.  xvii.  5)  ;  in  fact,  even  to  the  present  day  it  is  care- 
fully cultivated  (see  Rob.  Pal.  i.  p.  323 ;  Tobler,  Topogr.  v.  Jerus. 
ii  pp.  401  sqq.).  It  is  bounded  on  the  north  by  the  mountain  ridge 
already  mentioned,  which  curves  westwards  on  the  left  side  of  the 
road  to  Jaffa.  This  mountain  ridge,  or  one  of  the  peaks,  is  "  the 
mountain  on  the  west  of  the  valley  of  Hinnom,"  at  the  northern  end 
of  the  plain  referred  to. — Ver.  9.  From  this  mountain  height  the 
boundary  turned  to  the  fountain  of  the  waters  of  Nephtoah,  i.e., 
according  to  Van  de  Velde  s  Mem.  p.  336,  the  present  village  of 
Liftah  (nun  and  lamed  being  interchanged,  according  to  a  well- 
known  law),  an  hour  to  the  north-west  of  Jerusalem,  where  there 
is  a  copious  spring,  called  by  the  name  of  Samuel,  which  not  only 
supplies  large  basons,  but  waters  a  succession  of  blooming  gardens 
{Tobler,  Topogr.  v.  Jerus.  ii.  pp.  758  sqq. ;  Dieterici,  Reisebilder,  ii. 
pp.  221-2).  It  then  "went  out  to  the  towns  of  Mount  Ephraim" 
which  is  not  mentioned  again,  but  was  probably  the  steep  and  lofty 
mountain  ridge  on  the  west  side  of  the  Wady  Beit  Ilanina  (Tere- 


CHAP.  XV.  1-12.  155 

binth  valley),  upon  which  Kulonia,  a  place  which  the  road  to  Joppa 
passes,  Kastal  on  a  lofty  peak  of  the  mountain,  the  fortress  of 
Milane,  Sola,  and  other  places  stand  (Seetzen,  R.  ii.  pp.  64,  65 ; 
Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  p.  158).  The  boundary  then  ran  to  Baala,  i.e. 
Kirjath-jearim,  the  modern  Kureyet  el  Enab,  three  hours  to  the 
north-west  of  Jerusalem  (see  at  chap.  ix.  17). — Ver.  10.  From  this 
point  "  the  boundary  (which  had  hitherto  gone  in  a  north-westerly 
direction)  turned  westiaards  to  Mount  Seir,  and  went  out  to  the 
shoulder  northwards  (i.e.  to  the  northern  side)  of  Ilar-jearim,  that 
is  Chesalon,  and  went  doion  to  Beth-shemesh,  and  passed  over  to 
Timnahr  Mount  Seir  is  the  ridge  of  rock  to  the  south-west  of 
Kureyet  el  Enab,  a  lofty  ridge  composed  of  rugged  peaks,  with  a 
wild  and  desolate  appearance,  upon  which  Saris  and  Miskir  are 
situated  (Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  p.  155).  Chesalon  is  the  present  Kesla 
on  the  summit  of  a  mountain,  an  elevated  point  of  the  lofty  ridge 
between  Wady  Ghurdb  and  Ismail,  south-west  of  Kureyet  el  Enab 
(Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  p.  154).  Beth-shemesh  (i.e.  sun-house),  a  priests' 
city  in  the  territory  of  Judah  (chap.  xxi.  16;  1  Chron.  vi.  44),  is 
the  same  as  Ir-shemesh  (chap.  xix.  41),  a  place  on  the  border  of 
Dan,  where  the  ark  was  deposited  by  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  vi. 
9  sqq.),  and  where  Amaziah  was  slain  by  Joash  (2  Kings  xiv.  11, 
12  ;  2  Chron.  xxv.  21).  It  was  conquered  by  the  Philistines  in  the 
time  of  Ahaz  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  18).  According  to  the  Onom.  it 
was  ten  Roman  miles,  i.e.  four  hours,  from  Eleutheropolis  towards 
Nicopolis.  It  is  the  present  Ain  Shems,  upon  a  plateau  in  a  splen- 
did situation,  two  hours  and  a  half  to  the  south-west  of  Kesla  (Rob. 
Pal.  iii.  p.  17  ;  Bibl.  Res.  p.  153).  Timnah,  or  Timnatah,  belonged 
to  Dan  (chap.  xix.  43) ;  and  it  was  thence  that  Samson  fetched  his 
wife  (Judg.  xiv.  1  sqq.).  It  is  the  present  Tibneh,  three-quarters 
of  an  hour  to  the  west  of  Ain  Shems  (Rob.  Pal.  i.  p.  344).— Ver. 
11.  Thence  "  the  border  went  out  towards  the  north-west  to  the 
shoulder  of  Ekron  (Akir :  see  at  chap.  xiii.  3),  then  bent  to  Shichrorij 
passed  over  to  Mount  Baalah,  and  went  out  to  Jabneeir  Shichron 
is  possibly  Sugheir,  an  hour  to  the  south-west  of  Jebna  (Knobel). 
But  if  this  is  correct,  the  mountain  of  Baalah  cannot  be  the  short 
range  of  hills  to  the  west  of  Akir  which  runs  almost  parallel  with 
the  coast  (Rob.  Pal.  iii.  p.  21),  as  Knobel  supposes;  but  must  be  a 
mountain  on  the  south  side  of  the  Wady  Surar,  since  the  boundary 
had  already  crossed  this  wady  between  Ekron  and  Shichron. 
Jabneel  is  the  Philistine  town  of  Jabneh,  the  walls  of  which  were 
demolished  by  Uzziah  (2  Chron.  xxvi.  G),  a  place  frequently  men- 


156  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

tioned  in  the  books  of  Maccabees  as  well  as  by  Josephus  under  the 
name  of  Jarmiia.  It  still  exists  as  a  good-sized  village,  under  the 
name  of  Jebnah,  upon  a  small  eminence  on  the  western  side  of 
Nahr  Rubin,  four  hours  to  the  south  of  Joppa,  and  an  hour  and  a 
half  from  the  sea  (Rob.  Pal.  iii.  p.  22).  From  Jabneh  the  boun- 
dary went  out  to  the  (Mediterranean)  Sea,  probably  along  the 
course  of  the  great  valley,  i.e.  the  Nahr  Rubin,  as  Robinson  supposes 
(Pal.  ii.  p.  343).  The  western  boundary  was  the  Great  Sea,  i.e. 
the  Mediterranean. 

Vers.  13-19.  The  account  of  the  conquest  of  the  inheritance, 
which  Caleb  asked  for  and  received  before  the  lots  were  cast  for 
the  land  (chap.  xiv.  6-15),  by  the  extermination  of  the  Anakites 
from  Hebron,  and  the  capture  of  the  fortified  town  of  Debir,  is 
repeated  with  very  slight  differences  in  Judg.  i.  10-15,  in  the 
enumeration  of  the  different  conflicts  in  which  the  separate  tribes 
engaged  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  in  order  to  secure  actual  pos- 
session of  the  inheritance  which  had  fallen  to  them  by  lot,  and  is 
neither  copied  from  our  book  by  the  author  of  the  book  of  Judges, 
nor  taken  from  Judges  by  the  author  of  Joshua ;  but  both  of  them 
have  drawn  it  from  one  common  source,  upon  which  the  accounts 
of  the  conquest  of  Canaan  contained  in  the  book  of  Joshua  are  gene- 
rally founded. — Ver.  13.  As  an  introduction  to  the  account  of  the 
conquest  of  Hebron  and  Debir,  the  fact  that  they  gave  Caleb  his 
portion  among  the  sons  of  Judah,  namely  Hebron,  is  first  of  all 
repeated  from  chap.  xiv.  13.  1^3  impers.,  they  gave,  i.e.  Joshua 
(chap.  xiv.  13).  The  words  "  according  to  the  command  of  Jehovah 
to  Joshua"  are  to  be  explained  from  chap.  xiv.  9-12,  according  to 
which  Jehovah  had  promised,  in  the  hearing  of  Joshua,  to  give 
Caleb  possession  of  the  mountains  of  Hebron,  even  when  they 
were  at  Kadesh  (chap.  xiv.  12).  The  "  father  of  Anak"  is  the 
tribe  father  of  the  family  of  Anakites  in  Hebron,  from  whom  this 
town  received  the  name  of  Kirjath-arba ;  see  at  Num.  xiii.  22  and 
Gen.  xxiii.  2. — Ver.  14.  Thence,  i.e.  out  of  Hebron,  Caleb  drove 
(V?),  i>e-  rooted  out :  cf.  Ö*,  Judg.  i.  10)  the  three  sons  of  Anak, 
i.e.  families  of  the  Anakites,  whom  the  spies  that  were  sent  out 
from  Kadesh  had  already  found  there  (Num.  xiii.  22).  Instead  of 
Caleb,  we  find  the  sons  of  Judah  (Judasans)  generally  mentioned 
in  Judg.  i.  10  as  the  persons  who  drove  out  the  Anakites,  according 
to  the  plan  of  the  history  in  that  book,  to  describe  the  conflicts  in 
which  the  several  tribes  engaged  with  the  Canaanites.  But  the 
one  does  not  preclude  the  other.     Caleb  did  not  take  Hebron  as  an 


CHAP.  XV.  13-19.  157 

individual,  but  as  the  head  of  a  family  of  Judasans,  and  with  their 
assistance.  Nor  is  there  any  discrepancy  between  this  account  and 
the  fact  stated  in  chap.  xi.  21,  22,  that  Joshua  had  already  con- 
quered Hebron,  Debir,  and  all  the  towns  of  that  neighbourhood, 
and  had  driven  out  the  Anakites  from  the  mountains  of  Judah, 
and  forced  them  back  into  the  towns  of  the  Philistines,  as  Knobel 
fancies.  For  that  expulsion  did  not  preclude  the  possibility  of  the 
Anakites  and  Canaanites  returning  to  their  former  abodes,  and 
taking  possession  of  the  towns  again,  when  the  Israelitish  army  had 
withdrawn  and  was  engaged  in  the  war  with  the  Canaanites  of  the 
north  ;  so  that  when  the  different  tribes  were  about  to  settle  in  the 
towns  and  districts  allotted  to  them,  they  were  obliged  to  proceed 
once  more  to  drive  out  or  exterminate  the  Anakites  and  Canaanites 
who  had  forced  their  way  in  again  (see  the  remarks  on  chap.  x.  38, 
39,  p.  117,  note). — Vers.  15,  16.  From  Hebron  Caleb  went  against 
the  inhabitants  of  Debir,  to  the  south  of  Hebron.  This  town, 
which  has  not  yet  been  discovered  (see  at  chap.  x.  38),  must  have 
been  very  strong  and  hard  to  conquer ;  for  Caleb  offered  a  prize  to 
the  conqueror,  promising  to  give  his  daughter  Achzah  for  a  wife 
to  any  one  that  should  take  it,  just  as  Saul  afterwards  promised  to 
give  his  daughter  to  the  conqueror  of  Goliath  (1  Sam.  xvii.  25,  xviii. 
17). — Ver.  17.  Othniel  took  the  town  and  received  the  promised 
prize.  Othniel,  according  to  Judg.  iii.  9  the  first  judge  of  the 
Israelites  after  Joshua's  death,  is  called  3;>3  TW  UP  J3,  i.e.  either 
"  the  son  of  Kenaz  (and)  brother  of  Caleb,"  or  "  the  son  of  Kenaz 
the  brother  of  Caleb."  The  second  rendering  is  quite  admissible 
(comp.  2  Sam.  xiii.  3,  32,  with  1  Chron.  ii.  13),  but  the  former  is 
the  more  usual ;  and  for  this  the  Masorites  have  decided,  since  they 
have  separated  achi  Caleb  from  ben-Kenaz  by  a  tiphchah.  And  this 
is  the  correct  one,  as  "  the  son  of  Kenaz"  is  equivalent  to  "  the 
Kenizzite"  (chap.  xiv.  6).  According  to  Judg.  i.  13  and  iii.  9, 
Othniel  was  Caleb's  younger  brother.  Caleb  gave  him  his  daughter 
for  a  wife,  as  marriage  with  a  brother's  daughter  was  not  forbidden 
in  the  law  (see  my  Bibl.  Archäol.  ii.  §  107,  note  14).— Vers.  18,  19. 
When  Achzah  had  become  his  wife  ("  as  she  came,"  i.e.  mi  her 
coming  to  Othniel,  to  live  with  him  as  wife),  she  urged  him  to  ask 
her  father  for  a  field.  "  A  field:"  in  Judg.  i.  14  we  find  "  the 
field,"  as  the  writer  had  the  particular  field  in  his  mind.  Tins  was 
not  "the  field  belonging  to  the  town  of  Debir"  (Knobel),  f<>r 
Othniel  had  no  need  to  ask  for  this,  as  it  naturally  went  with  the 
town,  but  a  piece  of  land  that  could  be  cultivated,  or,  as  is  shown 


1  58  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

in  what  follows,  one  that  was  not  deficient  in  springs  of  water. 
What  Othniel  did  is  not  stated,  but  only  what  Achzah  did  to  attain 
her  end,  possibly  because  her  husband  could  not  make  up  his  mind 
to  present  the  request  to  her  father.  She  sprang  from  the  ass  upon 
which  she  had  ridden  when  her  father  brought  her  to  Othniel.  njv? 
which  only  occurs  again  in  Judg.  iv.  21,  and  in  the  parallel  passage, 
Judg.  i.  14,  is  hardly  connected  with  JUS,  to  be  lowly  or  humble 
(Ges.)  ;  the  primary  meaning  is  rather  that  suggested  by  Fürst, 
to  force  one's  self,  to  press  away,  or  further ;  and  hence  in  this 
case  the  meaning  is,  to  spring  down  quickly  from  the  animal  she 
had  ridden,  like  ?S3  in  Gen.  xxiv.  64.  Alighting  from  an  animal  was 
a  special  sign  of  reverence,  from  which  Caleb  inferred  that  his 
daughter  had  some  particular  request  to  make  of  him,  and  there- 
fore asked  her  what  she  wanted :  u  What  is  to  thee  ?"  or,  "  Wliat  loilt 
thou?"  She  then  asked  him  for  a  blessing  (as  in  2  Kings  v.  15) ; 
"  /or,"  she  added,  "  thou  hast  given  me  into  barren  land."  2J3H  jn» 
(rendered  a  south  land)  is  accus,  loci;  so  that  negeb  is  not  to  be 
taken  as  a  -proper  name,  signifying  the  southernmost  district  of 
Canaan  (as  in  ver.  21,  etc.),  but  as  an  appellative,  "the  dry  or  arid 
land,"  as  in  Ps.  cxxvi.  4.  "  Give  me  springs  of  water"  i.e.  a  piece  of 
land  with  springs  of  water  in  it.  Caleb  then  gave  her  the  "  upper 
springs  and  lower  springs :"  this  was  the  name  given  to  a  tract  of 
land  in  which  there  were  springs  on  both  the  higher  and  lower 
ground.  It  must  have  been  somewhere  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Debir,  though,  like  the  town  itself,  it  has  not  yet  been  found. — 
Ver.  20  contains  the  closing  formula  to  vers.  1-19,  i.e.  to  the  de- 
scription of  the  territory  of  Judah  by  its  boundaries  (yid.  chap, 
xviii.  20). 

In  vers.  21-63  there  follows  a  list  of  the  towns  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah,  arranged  in  the  four  districts  into  which  the  land  was 
divided,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  soil,  viz.  the  south-land 
(negeb),  the  lowland  (shephelah)  on  the  Mediterranean  Sea,  the 
mountains,  and  the  desert  of  Judah. 

Vers.  21-32.  The  towns  in  the  south  land. — Negeb  (south-land) 
was  the  name  given  to  the  southernmost  district  of  Canaan  in  its 
full  extent,  from  the  Arabah,  at  the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea, 
right  across  to  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean,  and  from  the 
southern  border  of  Canaan,  as  described  in  vers.  2-4,  as  far  north 
as  Wady  Sheriah,  below  Gaza,  on  the  western  side,  and  up  to  the 
mountains  and  desert  of  Judah  on  the  east,  stretching  across  the 
wadys  of  es  Seba,  Müh,  and  Ehdeib,  above  which  that  part  of 


CHAP.  XV.  21-25.  159 

Palestine  commences  where  rain  is  more  abundant,  and  to  which, 
as  we  have  already  observed  at  Num.  xiii.  17,  the  Negeb  formed  a 
kind  of  intermediate  link  between  the  fertile  land  and  the  desert. 
It  was  a  line  of  steppe-land,  with  certain  patches  here  and  there 
that  admitted  of  cultivation,  but  in  which  tracts  of  heath  prevailed, 
for  the  most  part  covered  with  grass  and  bushes,  where  only  grazing 
could  be  carried  on  with  any  success.  The  term  which  Eusebius 
and  Jerome  employ  for  Negeb  in  the  Onom.  is  Daromas,  but  they 
carry  it  farther  northwards  than  the  Negeb  of  the  Old  Testament 
(see  Reland,  Pal.  111.  pp.  185  sqq.).  The  numerous  towns  mentioned 
in  vers.  21-32  as  standing  in  the  Negeb,  may  none  of  them  have 
been  large  or  of  any  importance.  In  the  list  before  us  we  find  that, 
as  a  rule,  several  names  are  closely  connected  together  by  the  copula 
vav,  and  in  this  way  the  whole  may  be  divided  into  four  separate 
groups  of  towns. 

Vers.  21-23.  First  group  of  nine  places. — Ver.  21.  The  towns 
"from"  i.e.  at  "  the  end  of  the  tribe-territory  of  Judah,  towards  the 
territory  of  Edom."  Kabzeel :  the  home  of  the  hero  Benaiah  (2  Sam. 
xxiii.  20),  probably  identical  with  Jekabzeel,  which  is  mentioned  in 
Neh.  xi.  25  in  connection  with  Dibon,  but  has  not  been  discovered. 
This  also  applies  to  Eder  and  Jagur. — Ver.  22.  Kinah  :  also  un- 
known. Knob  el  connects  it  with  the  town  of  the  Kenites,  who 
settled  in  the  domain  of  Arad,  but  this  is  hardly  correct ;  for  with 
the  exception  of  Judg.  i.  16,  where  the  Kenites  are  said  to  have 
settled  in  the  south  of  Arad,  though  not  till  after  the  division  of  the 
land,  the  Kenites  are  always  found  in  the  western  portion  of  the 
Negeb  (1  Sam.  xv.  6,  xxvii.  10,  xxx.  29),  whereas  Kinah  is  un- 
questionably to  be  looked  for  in  the  east.  Dimonah,  probably  the 
same  as  Dibon  (Neh.  xi.  25) ;  possibly  the  ruins  of  el  Dheib,  on  the 
south  side  of  the  wady  of  the  same  name,  to  the  north-east  of 
Arad  (V.  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  252),  although  Robinson  (Pal.  ii.  p.  473) 
writes  the  name  Ehdeib.  Adadah  is  quite  unknown. — Vor.  23. 
Kedesh,  possibly  Kadesh-barnea  (ver.  3).  Ilazor  might  then  bo 
Hezron,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Kadesh-barnea  (ver.  3).  Ithnan 
is  unknown. 

Vers.  24,  25.  Second  group  of  five  or  six  places. — Of  these, 
Ziph  and  Telem  are  not  met  with  again,  unless  Telem  is  the  same 
as  Telaim,  where  Saul  mustered  his  army  to  go  against  the 
Amalekites  (1  Sam.  xv.  4).  Their  situation  is  unknown.  There 
was  another  Ziph  upon  the  mountains  (see  ver.  55).  Knobcl  sup- 
poses the  one  mentioned  here  to  be  the  ruins  of  Kweifeh,  to  the 


160  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

south-west  of  Arad  {Rob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  620).  Ziph  would  then  be 
contracted  from  Cezlph ;  but  the  contraction  of  Achzib  (chap.  xix. 
29)  into  Zib  does  not  present  a  corresponding  analogy,  as  in  that 
case  the  abbreviated  form  is  the  later  one,  whereas  in  the  case  of 
Ziph  a  lengthening  of  the  name  must  have  taken  place  by  the 
addition  of  a  K.  Bealoth,  probably  the  same  as  the  Simeonitish 
Baaloth-beer  (chap.  xix.  8),  which  is  called  Baal  simply  in  1  Chron. 
iv.  33,  and  which  was  also  called  Ramath-negeb  (chap.  xix.  8)  and 
Ramoth-negeb  (1  Sam.  xxx.  27).  It  is  not  to  be  identified  with 
Baalath,  however  (chap.  xix.  45  ;  1  Kings  ix.  18),  as  V.  de  Velde 
supposes  (Reise,  ii.  pp.  151-2).  Knobel  fancies  it  may  be  the 
ridge  and  place  called  Kubbet  el  Bard,  between  Milh  and  Kurnub 
(Rob.  ii.  p.  617)  ;  but  Baul  and  Baal  are  very  different.  Hazor 
Hadatta  (Chazor  Chadathali),  i.e.  new  Hazor,  might  be  the  ruins 
of  el  Hudhaira  on  the  south  of  Jebel  Khulil  (Rob.  Appendix). 
Kenoth  was  supposed  by  Robinson  (Pal.  ii.  p.  472,  and  Appendix) 
to  be  the  ruins  of  el  Kuryetein,  on  the  north-east  of  Arad  and  at 
the  foot  of  the  mountains,  and  with  this  V.  de  Velde  agrees.  Reland 
(Pal.  p.  708)  connects  the  following  word  Hezron  with  Kenoth,  so 
as  to  read  Kenoth-hezron,  i.e.  Hezron's  towns,  also  called  Hazor. 
This  is  favoured  by  the  Sept.  and  Syriac,  in  which  the  two  words 
are  linked  together  to  form  one  name,  and  probably  by  the  Chaldee 
as  well,  also  by  the  absence  of  the  copula  vav  (and)  before  Hezron, 
which  is  not  omitted  anywhere  else  throughout  this  section,  except 
at  the  beginning  of  the  different  groups  of  towns,  as,  for  example, 
before  Ziph  in  ver.  24,  and  Amam  in  ver.  2<o,  and  therefore 
ought  to  stand  before  Hezron  if  it  is  an  independent  town.  The 
Masoretic  pointing  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  decisive  proof  of  the 
contrary. 

Vers.  26-28.  Third  group  of  nine  towns. — Ver.  26.  Amam  is 
not  mentioned  again,  and  is  quite  unknown.  Shema,  which  is 
called  Sheba  in  chap.  xix.  2,  and  is  mentioned  among  the  towns  of 
the  Simeonites  between  Beersheba  and  Moladah,  is  supposed  by 
Knobel  to  be  the  ruins  of  Sadwe  (Saweh)  between  Milh  and  Beer- 
sheba (see  V.  de  Velde,  ii.  p.  148).  Molada,  which  was  given  to  the 
Simeonites  (chap.  xix.  2 ;  1  Chron.  iv.  28)  and  was  still  inhabited 
by  Jews  after  the  captivity  (Neh.  xi.  26),  was  the  later  MaXaSa, 
an  Idumasan  fortress  (Josephus,  Ant.  xviii.  6,  2),  which  Eusebius 
and  Jerome  describe  as  being  twenty  Roman  miles,  i.e.  eight  hours, 
to  the  south  of  Hebron  on  the  road  to  Aila  (Elath).  It  has  been 
identified  by  Robinson  (Pal.  ii.  p.  621)  in  the  ruins  of  el  Milh,  by 


CHAP.  XV.  29-32.  161 

the  Wady  Malath  or  Malahh.—Vev.  27.  Ilazar-gaddah,  Ileshmon, 
and  Beth-palet  have  not  yet  been  identified.  The  last  of  the  three 
is  mentioned  again  in  Neh.  xi.  26,  by  the  side  of  Molada,  as  still 
inhabited  by  Judasans. — Ver.  28.  Ilazar-shual,  i.e.  fox-court,  which 
was  assigned  to  the  Simeonites  (chap.  xix.  3)  and  still  inhabited 
after  the  captivity  (Neh.  xi.  27),  answers,  so  far  as  the  name  is 
concerned,  to  the  ruins  of  Thdh/  (Rob.  Pal.  iii.  App.).  Beersheba, 
which  was  a  well-known  place  in  connection  with  the  history  of 
the  patriarchs  (Gen.  xxi.  14  sqq.,  xxii.  19,  etc.),  and  is  frequently 
mentioned  afterwards  as  the  southern  boundary  of  the  land  of 
Israel  (Judg.  xx.  1 ;  2  Sam.  xvii.  11,  etc.),  was  also  given  up  to 
the  Simeonites  (chap.  xix.  2),  and  still  inhabited  after  the  captivity 
(Neh.  xi.  27).  It  is  the  present  Bir  es  Seba  on  the  Wady  es  Seba 
(see  at  Gen.  xxi.  31).     Bizjothjah  is  unknown. 

Vers.  29-32.  The  four  groups  of  thirteen  towns  in  the  western 
portion  of  the  Negeb. — Ver.  29.  Baalah,  which  was  assigned  to 
the  Simeonites,  is  called  Balah  in  chap.  xix.  3,  and  BWiah  in  1 
Chron.  iv.  29.  Knobel  identifies  it  with  the  present  Deir  Belah, 
some  hours  to  the  south-west  of  Gaza  (Rob.  iii.  App. ;  Ritter,  Erdk. 
xvi.  pp.  41,  42)  ;  but  it  cannot  have  been  so  far  to  the  west,  or  so 
near  the  coast  as  this.  Iim  (or  Ivvim,  according  to  the  Auet'fj,  of 
the  LXX.)  is  probably  the  ruins  of  Beit-auwa  (Rob.  iii.  App.). 
Azem,  which  was  also  given  up  to  the  Simeonites  (chap.  xix.  3;  1 
Chron.  iv.  29),  is  supposed  by  Knobel  to  be  Eboda,  the  present 
Abdeh,  eight  hours  to  the  south  of  Elusa,  a  considerable  mass  of 
ruins  on  a  ridge  of  rock  (Rob.  i.  p.  287),  because  the  name  signifies 
firmness  or  strength,  which  is  also  the  meaning  of  the  Arabic  name 
— a  very  precarious  reason. — Ver.  30.  Eltolad,  which  was  given  to 
the  Simeonites  (chap.  xix.  4),  and  is  called  Tolad,  (without  the 
Arabic  article)  in  1  Chron.  iv.  29,  has  not  been  discovered. 
Chesil,  for  which  the  LXX.  have  Bai6>]\,  is  probably,  as  Reland 
supposes,  simply  another  name,  or  as  Knobel  suggests  a  corrupt 
reading,  for  Bethul  or  Bethuel,  which  is  mentioned  in  chap.  xix.  1 
and  1  Chron.  iv.  30,  between  Eltolad  and  Hormah,  as  a  town  of 
the  Simeonites,  and  the  same  place  as  Beth-el  in  1  Sam.  xxx.  27. 
As  this  name  points  to  the  seat  of  some  ancient  sanctuary,  and 
there  was  an  idol  called  Khalasa  worshipped  by  the  Aral'-  before 
the  time  of  Mahomet,  and  also  because  Jerome  observes  (vita  II dar. 
c.  25)  that  there  was  a  temple  of  Venus  at  Elusa,  in  which  the 
Saracens  worshipped  Lucifer  (see  Tuch,  Deutsch.  Morgen!.  Ztschr. 
iii.  pp.  194  sqq.),  Knobel  supposes  Bethul  (Chesil)  to  he  Elusa,  a 

L 


162  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

considerable  collection  of  ruins  five  hours  and  a  half  to  the  south 
of  Beersheba  (see  Rob.  i.  p.  296)  :  assuming  first  of  all  that  the 
name  el  Khulasa,  as  the  Arabs  called  this  place,  was  derived  from 
the  Mahometan  idol  already  referred  to;  and  secondly,  that  the 
Saracen  Lucifer  mentioned  by  Jerome  was  the  very  same  idol  whose 
image  and  temple  Janhari  and  Kamus  call  el  Khalasa.  Hormali : 
i.e.  Zephoth,  the  present  Sepata  (see  at  chap.  xii.  14).  Ziklag,  which 
was  assigned  to  the  Simeonites  (chap.  xix.  5  ;  1  Chron.  iv.  30),  burnt 
down  by  the  Amalekites  (1  Sam.  xxx.  1  sqq.),  and  still  inhabited 
after  the  captivity  (Neh.  xi.  28),  is  supposed  by  Rowland  to  be  the 
ancient  place  called  Asluj  or  Kasluj,  a  few  hours  to  the  east  of 
Zepata,  with  which  Knobel,  however,  in  a  most  remarkable  manner, 
identifies  the  Asluj  to  the  south-west  of  Milh  on  the  road  to  Abdeh, 
which  is  more  than  thirty-five  miles  distant  (see  Rob.  Pal.  ii.  p. 
621).  Both  places  are  too  far  to  the  south  and  east  to  suit  Ziklag, 
which  is  to  be  sought  for  much  farther  west.  So  far  as  the  situa- 
tion is  concerned,  the  ruins  of  Tell  Sheriah  or  Tell  Mellala,  one  of 
which  is  supposed  by  V.  de  Velde  to  contain  the  relics  of  Ziklag, 
would  suit  much  better  ;  or  even,  as  Ritter  supposes  (Erdk.  xvi.  pp. 
132-3),  Tell  el  Hasy,  which  is  half  an  hour  to  the  south-west  of 
Ajlan,  and  in  which  Felix  Fabri  found  the  ruins  of  a  castle  and 
of  an  ancient  town,  in  fact  of  the  ancient  Ziklag,  though  Robinsori 
(i.  pp.  389  sqq.)  could  discover  nothing  that  indicated  in  any  way 
the  existence  of  a  town  or  building  of  any  kind.  Madmannah  and 
Sansannah  cannot  be  traced  with  any  certainty.  Madmannah, 
which  is  confounded  in  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Medemena)  with  Madmena, 
a  place  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem  mentioned  in  Isa.  x.  31,  though 
elsewhere  it  is  correctly  described  as  Menois  oppidum  jiurta  civitatem 
Gazam,  has  probably  been  preserved  in  the  present  Miniay  or 
Minieh,  to  the  south  of  Gaza.  Sansannah,  Knobel  compares  with 
the  Wady  Suni,  mentioned  by  Robinson  (i.  p.  299),  to  the  south  of 
Gaza,  which  possibly  received  its  name  from  some  town  in  the 
neighbourhood.  But  in  the  place  of  them  we  find  Beth-marcaboth 
(i.e.  carriage-house)  and  Hazar-susa  (i.e.  horse-court)  mentioned  in 
chap.  xix.  5  and  1  Chron.  iv.  31  among  the  towns  of  the  Simeon- 
ites, which  Reland  very  properly  regards  as  the  same  as  Mad- 
mannah and  Sansannah,  since  it  is  very  evident  from  the  meaning 
of  the  former  names  that  they  were  simply  secondary  names,  which 
were  given  to  them  as  stations  for  carriages  and  horses. — Ver.  32. 
Lebaoth,  one  of  the  Simeonite  towns,  called  Beth-lebaoth  (i.e. 
lion-house)  in  chap.  xix.  6,  and  Beth-birei  in  1  Chron.  iv.  31,  has 


CHAP.  XV.  29-32.  163 

not  been  discovered  yet.  Shilchim,  called  Sharuclen  in  chap.  xix. 
6,  and  Shaaraim  in  1  Chron.  iv.  31,  may  possibly  have  been  pre- 
served in  Tell  Sheriah,  almost  half-way  between  Gaza  and  Beer- 
sheba  (V.  de  Velde,  ii.  p.  154).  Ain  and  Rimmon  are  given  as 
Simeonite  towns,  and  being  written  without  the  copula,  are  treated 
as  one  name  in  chap.  xix.  7  and  1  Chron.  iv.  32,  although  they  are 
reckoned  as  two  separate  towns  in  chap.  xix.  7.  But  as  they  were 
also  called  En  Rimmon  after  the  captivity,  and  are  given  as  one 
single  place  in  Neh.  xi.  29,  they  were  probably  so  close  too-ether 
that  in  the  course  of  time  they  grew  into  one.  Rimmon,  which  is 
mentioned  in  Zech.  xiv.  10  as  the  southern  boundary  of  Judah, 
probably  the  Eremmon  of  the  Onom.  ("  a  very  large  village  of  the 
Judasans,  sixteen  miles  to  the  south  of  Eleutheropolis  in  Daroma  "), 
was  probably  the  present  ruin  called  Um  er  Rummanim,  four  hours 
to  the  north  of  Beersheba  (Rob.  iii.  p.  8).  Not  more  than  thirty 
or  thirty-five  minutes  distant  from  this,  between  Tell  Khuweilifeh 
{Rob.  iii.  p.  8)  or  Chewelfeh  ( V.  de  Velde)  and  Tell  Hhora,  you  find 
a  large  old  but  half-destroyed  well,  the  large  stones  of  which  seem 
to  belong  to  a  very  early  period  of  the  Israelitish  history  (V.  de 
Velde,  ii.  p.  153).  This  was  mentioned  as  a  very  important  drink- 
ing-place  even  in  the  lifetime  of  Saladin,  whilst  to  the  present  day 
the  Tiyalah  Arabs  water  their  flocks  there  (see  Rob.  iii.  p.  8).  To 
all  appearance  this  was  Ain  (see  V.  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  344).  "  All 
the  cities  were  twenty  and  nine,  and  their  villages."  This  does  not 
agree  with  the  number  of  towns  mentioned  by  name,  which  is  not 
twenty-nine,  but  thirty-six  ;  so  that  the  number  twenty-nine  is 
probably  an  error  of  the  text  of  old  standing,  which  has  arisen 
from  a  copyist  confounding  together  different  numeral  letters  that 
resembled  one  another.1 

1  Some  commentators  and  critics  explain  this  difference  on  the  supposition 
that  originally  the  list  contained  a  smaller  number  of  names  (only  twenty- 
nine),  but  that  it  was  afterwards  enlarged  by  the  addition  of  several  other 
places  by  a  different  hand,  whilst  the  number  of  the  whole  was  left  just  as  it 
was  before.     But  such  a  conjecture  presupposes  greater  thoughtlessness  on  the 
part  of  the  editor  than  we  have  any  right  to  attribute  to  the  author  of  our 
book.     If  the  author  himself  made  these  additions  to  his  original  souro 
IIävernick  supposes,  or  the  Jehovist  completed  the  author's  list  from  his  » 
document,  as  Knobel  imagines,  either  the  one  or  the  other  would  certainly  have 
altered  the  sum  of  the  whole,  as  he  has  not  proceelcl   in  so  thought) 
manner  in  any  other  case.     The  only  way  in  which  this  conjecture  could  be 
defended,  would  be  by  supposing,  as  /.  D.  Michaelis  and  others  have  done,  that 
the  names  added  were  originally  placed  in  the  margin,  and  thai  these  mar- 
ginal glosses  were  afterwards  interpolated  by  some  thuu-lnleis  copyist  into  the 


164  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Vers.  33-47.  Towns  in  the  lowland  or  shephelah. — The  lowland 
(shephelah),  which  is  generally  rendered  rj  irehirrj  in  the  Sept.,' 
rarely  to  irehtov  (Deut.  i.  7),  but  which  is  transferred  as  a  proper 
name  t)  2ecf)T]\d  in  Obad.  19,  Jer.  xxxii.  44,  xxxiii.  13,  as  well  as 
in  1  Mace.  xii.  38,  where  even  Luther  has  Sephela,  is  the  name 
given  to  the  land  between  the  mountains  of  Judah  and  the  Medi- 
terranean Sea, — a  broad  plain  of  undulating  appearance,  intersected 
by  heights  and  low  ranges  of  hills,  with  fertile  soil,  in  which  corn 
fields  alternate  Avith  meadows,  gardens,  and  extensive  olive  groves. 
It  is  still  tolerably  well  cultivated,  and  is  covered  with  villages, 
which  are  situated  for  the  most  part  upon  the  different  hills. 
Towards  the  south,  the  shephelah  was  bounded  by  the  Negeb 
(ver.  21)  ;  on  the  north,  it  reached  to  Ramleh  and  Lydda,  or  Dios- 
polis,  where  the  plain  of  Sharon  began, — a  plain  which  extended 
as  far  as  Carmel,  and  was  renowned  for  the  beauty  of  its  flowers. 
Towards  the  east  the  hills  multiply  and  shape  themselves  into  a  hilly 
landscape,  which  forms  the  intermediate  link  between  the  moun- 
tains and  the  plain,  and  which  is  distinguished  from  the  shephelah 
itself,  in  chap.  x.  40  and  xii.  8,  under  the  name  of  Ashedoth,  or 
slopes,  whereas  here  it  is  reckoned  as  forming  part  of  the  shephelah. 
This  hilly  tract  is  more  thickly  studded  with  villages  than  even  the 
actual  plain.  (See  Mob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  363,  and  iii.  p.  29.)  The  towns 
in  the  shephelah  are  divided  into  four  groups. 

Vers.  33-36.  The  ßrst  group  contains  the  towns  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  hilly  region  or  slopes,  which  are  reckoned  as  forming 
part  of  the  lowland  :  in  all,  fourteen  towns.  The  most  northerly 
part  of  this  district  was  given  up  to  the  tribe  of  Dan  on  the  second 
division  (chap.  xix.  41  sqq.).  Eshtaol  and  Zoreah,  which  were 
assigned  to  the  tribe  of  Dan  (chap.  xix.  41),  and  were  partly  in- 

text.  But  this  conjecture  is  also  rendered  improbable  by  the  circumstance  that, 
in  the  lists  of  towns  contained  in  our  book,  not  only  do  other  differences  of  the 
same  kind  occur,  as  in  ver.  36,  where  we  find  only  fourteen  instead  of  fifteen, 
and  in  chap.  xix.  6,  where  only  thirteen  are  given  instead  of  fourteen,  but  also 
differences  of  the  very  opposite  kind, — namely,  where  the  gross  sum  given  is 
larger  than  the  number  of  names,  as,  for  example,  in  chap.  xix.  15,  where  only 
five  names  are  given  instead  of  twelve,  and  in  chap.  xix.  38,  where  only  sixteen 
are  given  instead  of  nineteen,  and  where  it  can  be  shown  that  there  are  gaps  in 
the  text,  as  towns  are  omitted  which  the  tribes  actually  received  and  ceded  to 
the  Levites.  If  we  add  to  this  the  fact  that  there  are  two  large  gaps  in  our 
Masoretic  text  in  chap.  xv.  59,  60,  and  xxi.  35,  which  proceed  from  copyists, 
and  also  that  many  errors  occur  in  the  numbers  given  in  other  historical  books 
of  the  Old  Testament,  we  are  not  warranted  in  tracing  the  differences  in  ques- 
tion to  any  other  cause  than  errors  in  the  text. 


CHAP.  XV.  33-36.  1G5 

habited  by  Danites  (Judg.  xiii.  25,  xviii.  2,  8,  11)  and  partly  by 

families  of  Judah,  who  had  gone  out  from  Kirjath-jearim  (1  Chron. 

ii.  53,  iv.   2),  probably  after  the  removal  of  the  GOO  Danites  to 

Laish-Dan  (chap.  xix.  47  ;  Judg.  xviii.),  were  situated,  according 

to  the   Onom.  (s.  v.  Esthaul  and  Saara),  ten  Roman  miles  to  the 

north  of  Eleutheropolis,  on  the  road  to  Nicopolis.    Zoreah,  the  home 

of  Samson,  who  was  buried  between  Zoreah  and  Eshtaol  (Judg. 

xiii.  2,  xvi.  31),  was  fortified  by  Rehoboam,  and  still  inhabited  by 

Judseans  after  the  captivity  (2  Chron.  xi.  10  ;  Neh.  xi.  2'.))  ;  it  has 

been  preserved  in  the  ruins  of  Surd,  at  the  south-western  end  of 

the  mountain  range  which  bounds  the  Wady  es  Surar  on  the  north 

(Rob.   ii.   p.  341,  and  Bibl.  lies.  p.  153).     Eshtaol  has  probably 

been  preserved  in  Urn  Eshieiyeh,  to  the  south-west  (Rob.  ii.  p.  342). 

Ashnah  is  possibly  to  be  read  Ashvah,  according  to  the  LXX.,  Cod. 

Vat.  (^'Aaaa).     In  that  case  it  might  resemble  a  town  on  the  east 

of  Zorea  (Tobler,  p.  180),  as  Knobel  supposes. — Ver.  34.  Zanoah 

was  still  inhabited  by  Judseans  after  the  captivity  (Neh.  xi.  30, 

iii.  13),  and  is  the  present  Zanua,  not  far  from  Zoreah,  towards  the 

east  (see  Rob.  ii.  p.  343).   Engannim  and  Tappuah  are  still  unknown. 

Enam,  the  same  as  Enaim  (Gen.  xxxviii.  14  :  rendered  "  an  open 

place"),  on  the  road  from  Adullam  to  Timnah  on  the  mountains 

(ver.   57),   has  not  yet  been  discovered. — Ver.  35.  Jarmuth,  i.e. 

Jarmük;  see  chap.  x.  3.    Adullam  has  not  yet  been  discovered  with 

certainty  (see   at  chap.   xii.   15).     Socoh,  which   was  fortified  by 

Rehoboam,  and  taken  by  the  Philistines  in  the  reign   of  Ahaz 

(2  Chron.  xi.  7,  xxviii.  18),  is  the  present  Shuweikeh  by  the  Wady 

Sumt,  half  an  hour  to  the  south-west  of  Jarmük,  three  hours  and  a 

half  to  the  south-west  of  Jerusalem  (see  Rob.  ii.  pp.  343,  349). 

The   Onom.  (s.  v.  Socoh)  mentions  two  viculi  named  Sochoth,  one 

upon  the  mountain,  the  other  in  the  plain,  nine  Roman  miles  from 

Eleutheropolis  on  the  road  to  Jerusalem.     On  Azekah,  see  at  chap. 

x.  10. — Ver.  36.  Sharaim,  which  was  on  the  west  of  Socoh  and 

Azekah,  according  to  1   Sam.  xvii.  52,  and  is  called  Satcapiji  or 

Zapyapeip,  in  the  Sept.,  is  probably  to  be  sought  fur  in  the  present 

Tell  Zakariya  and  the  village  of  Kefr  Zakariya  opposite,  between 

which  there  is  the  broad  deep  valley  called  Wady  Sumt,  which  ifl 

only  twenty  minutes  in  breadth  (Rob.  ii.  p.  350).     This  is  the  more 

probable  as  the  Hebrew  name  is  a  dual.     Aditkaim  is  unknown. 

Gederah  is  possibly  the  same  as  the  Gederoth  which  was  taken  by 

the  Philistines  in  the  time  of  Ahaz  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  L8),  and  the 

Gedrus  of  the   Onom.  (s.  v.  Gcedur,  or  Gahcdur),  ten  Roman  miles 


166  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

to  the  south  of  Diospolis,  on  the  road  to  Eleutheropolis,  as  the 
Gederoth  in  ver.  41  was  in  the  actual  plain,  and  therefore  did  not 
stand  between  Diospolis  and  Eleutheropolis.  Gederothaim  is  sup- 
posed by  Winer,  Knobel,  and  others,  to  be  an  ancient  gloss.  This 
is  possible  no  doubt,  but  it  is  not  certain,  as  neither  the  omission  of 
the  name  from  the  Sept.,  nor  the  circumstance  that  the  full  number 
of  towns  is  given  as  fourteen,  and  that  this  is  not  the  number 
obtained  if  we  reckon  Gederothaim,  can  be  adduced  as  a  decisive 
proof,  since  this  difference  may  have  arisen  in  the  same  manner  as 
the  similar  discrepancy  in  ver.  32. 

Vers.  37-41.  The  second  group,  containing  the  towns  of  the 
actual  plain  in  its  full  extent  from  north  to  south,  between  the  hilly 
region  and  the  line  of  coast  held  by  the  Philistines  :  sixteen  towns 
in  all. — Ver.  37.  Zenan,  probably  the  same  as  Zaanan  (Micah  i.  11), 
is  supposed  by  Knobel  to  be  the  ruins  of  Chirbet-es- Senat,  a  short 
distance  to  the  north  of  Beit-jibrin  (Tobler,  Dritte  Wand.  p.  124). 
Hadashali,  according  to  the  Mishnah  Erub.  v.  vi.  the  smallest  place 
in  Judah,  containing  only  fifty  houses,  is  unknown,  and  a  different 
place  from  the  Adasa  of  1  Mace.  vii.  40,  45,  and  Joseph.  Ant.  xii. 
10,  5,  as  this  was  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem  (Onom.). — Migdal-gad 
is  unknown.  Knobel  supposes  it  to  be  the  small  hill  called  Jedeideh, 
with  ruins  upon  it,  towards  the  north  of  Beit-jibrin  (V.  de  Velde, 
P.  ii.  pp.  162,  188). — Ver.  38.  Dilean  is  unknown  ;  for  Bet  Dnla, 
three  full  hours  to  the  east  of  Beit-jibrin,  with  some  relics  of  anti- 
quity {Tobler,  pp.  150-1),  with  which  Knobel  identifies  it,  is  upon 
the  mountains  and  not  in  the  plain.  Mizpeh,  i.e.  specula,  a  different 
place  from  the  Mizpeh  of  Benjamin  (chap,  xviii.  26),  was  on  the 
north  of  Eleutheropolis,  according  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Maspha), 
and  therefore  may  possibly  be  the  castle  Alba  Specula,  or  Alba 
Custodia  of  the  middle  ages,  the  present  Tell  es  Saphieh,  in  the 
middle  of  the  plain  and  upon  the  top  of  a  lofty  hill,  from  which 
there  is  an  extensive  prospect  in  all  directions  (see  Rob.  ii.  p.  363). 
Joktheel  has  possibly  been  preserved  in  the  ruins  of  Keitulaneh 
(Rob.  Pal.  iii.  App.),  which  are  said  to  lie  in  that  neighbourhood. — 
Ver.  39.  Lachish,  i.e.  Urn  Lakis  (see  at  chap.  x.  3).  Bozkath  is 
unknown  :  according  to  Knobel,  it  may  possibly  be  the  ruins  of 
Tubakah,  on  the  south  of  Urn  Lakis  and  Ajlan  (Rob.  ii.  pp.  388, 
648).  Eglon,  i.e.  Ajlan;  see  at  chap.  x.  3. — Ver.  40.  Cabbon, 
probably  the  heap  of  ruins  called  Kubeibeh  or  Kebeibeh,  "  which 
must  at  some  time  or  other  have  been  a  strong  fortification,  and 
have  formed  the  key  to  the  central  mountains  of  Judah"  (V.  de 


CHAP.  XV.  42-44.  167 

Velde,  R.  ii.  p.  156),  and  which  lie  to  the  south  of  Beit-jibrin,  and 
two  hours  and  a  half  to  the  east  of  Ajlan  (Bob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  394). 
Lachmas :  according  to  Knob  el  a  corruption  of  Lachmam,  which  is 
the  reading  given  in  many  mss.  and  editions,  whilst  the  Vulgate 
has  Leheman,  and  Luther  (and  the  Eng.  Ver.)  Lahmam.  Kuobel 
connects  it  with  the  ruins  of  el  Lahem  to  the  south  of  Beit-jibrin 
(Tobler).  Kithlish  (Chitlis)  is  unknown,  unless  it  is  to  be  found 
in  Tell  Chilchis,  to  the  S.S.E.  of  Beit-jibrin  (V.  de  Velde,  R.  ii. 
p.  157). — Ver.  41.  Gederoth,  Beth-dagon,  and  Naamah  have  not 
yet  been  traced.  The  village  mentioned  in  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Beth- 
dagon)  as  grandis  vicus  Capher-dagon,  and  said  to  lie  between 
Diospolis  and  Jamnia,  the  present  Beit-dejan  (Rob.  iii.  p.  30),  was 
far  beyond  the  northern  boundary  of  the  tribe  of  Judah.  Mak- 
kedah  :  see  at  chap.  x.  10. 

Vers.  42-44.  The  third  group,  consisting  of  the  towns  in  the 
southern  half  of  the  hilly  region  :  nine  towns. — Ver.  42.  Libnah  : 
see  at  chap.  x.  29.  Ether  and  Ashan,  which  were  afterwards  given 
to  the  Simeonites  (chap.  xix.  7),  and  are  probably  to  be  sought  for 
on  the  border  of  the  Negeb,  have  not  yet  been  discovered.  The 
conjecture  that  Ether  is  connected  with  the  ruins  of  Attarah  (Rob. 
iii.  App.)  in  the  province  of  Gaza,  is  a  very  uncertain  one.  Ashan, 
probably  the  same  as  Kor-ashan  (1  Sam.  xxx.  30),  became  a  priests' 
city  afterwards  (1  Chron.  vi.  44;  see  at  chap.  xxi.  IG). — Ver.  43. 
Jiphtah,  Ashnah,  and  Nezib  have  not  yet  been  traced.  Beit-nesib, 
to  the  east  of  Beit-jibrin  on  the  Wady  Sur  (Rob.  ii.  p.  344,  and  iii. 
p.  13),  the  Neesib  of  the  Onom.,  seven  Roman  miles  to  the  east  of 
Eleutheropolis,  does  not  suit  this  group  so  far  as  its  situation  is 
concerned,  as  it  lies  within  the  limits  of  the  first  group. — Ver.  44. 
Keilah,  which  is  mentioned  in  the  history  of  David  (1  Sam.  xxiii.), 
and  then  again  after  the  captivity  (Neh.  iii.  17),  is  neither  the 
Keetka,  Ceila  of  the  Onom.,  on  the  east  of  Eleutheropolis,  the  present 
Kila  (Tobler,  Dritte  Wand.  p.  151),  which  lies  upon  the  mountains 
of  Judah  ;  nor  is  it  to  be  found,  as  Knobel  supposes,  in  the  ruins  of 
Jugaleh  (Rob.  iii.  App.),  as  they  lie  to  the  south  of  the  mountains 
of  Hebron,  whereas  Keilah  is  to  be  sought  for  in  the  shephelah,  or 
at  all  events  to  the  west  or  south-west  of  the  mountains  of  Hebron. 
Achzib  (Micah  i.  14),  the  same  as  Chesib  (Gen.  xxxviii.  5),  has 
been  preserved  in  the  ruins  at  Kwsdbeh,  a  place  with  a  fountain 
(Rob.  ii.  p.  391),  i.e.  the  fountain  of  Kesaba,  about  five  hoars  Bouth 
by  west  from  Beit-jibrin.  Mareshah,  which  was  fortified  by  Reho- 
boam  (2  Chron.  xi.  8 ;  cf.  Micah  i.  15),  and  was  the  place  where 


168  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Asa  defeated  Zerah  the  Ethiopian  (2  Chroi.  xiv.  9),  the  home  of 
Eliezer  (2  Chron.  xx.  37),  and  afterwards  the  important  town  of 
Marixsa  (see  v.  Raumer,  Pal.  pp.  211-12),  was  between  Hebron  and 
Ashdod,  since  Judas  Maceabseus  is  represented  in  1  Mace.  v.  65-68 
(where  the  reading  should  be  Maplaaav  instead  of  ^apidpetav, 
according  to  Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  8,  6)  as  going  from  Hebron  through 
Marissa  into  the  land  of  the  Philistines,  and  turning  to  Ashdod. 
According  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Mareshah),  it  was  lying  in  ruins  in 
the  time  of  Eusebius,  and  was  about  two  Roman  miles  from  Eleu- 
theropolis, — a  description  which  applies  exactly  to  the  ruins  of 
Maresh,  twenty-four  minutes  to  the  south  of  Beit-jibrin,  which 
Robinson  supposes  for  this  reason  to  be  Maresa  (Rob.  ii.  p.  422), 
whereas  Knobel  finds  it  in  Beit-mirsim,  a  place  four  hours  to  the 
south  of  Beit-jibrin.1 

Vers.  45-47.  The  fourth  group,  consisting  of  the  towns  of  the 
Philistine  line  of  coast,  the  northern  part  of  which  was  afterwards 
given  up  to  the  tribe  of  Dan  (chap.  xix.  43),  but  which  remained 
almost  entirely  in  the  hands  of  the  Philistines  (see  at  chap.  xiii.  3). 
— Ver.  45.  Ekron,  i.e.  Akir  (see  chap.  xiii.  3).  "  Her  daughters 
are  the  other  towns  of  the  principality  of  Ekron  that  were  dependent 
upon  the  capital,  and  B^n  the  villages  and  farms. — Ver.  46.  Judah 
was  also  to  receive  "  from  Ekron  westwards  all  that  lay  on  the  side  of 
Ashdod  and  their  (i.e.  Ekron's  and  Ashdod's)  villages."  The  different 
places  in  this  district  are  not  given,  because  Judah  never  actually 
obtained  possession  of  them. — Ver.  47.  Ashdod,  now  Esdüd,  and 
Gaza,  now  Ghuzzeh :  see  at  chap.  xiii.  3.    Also  "  the  daughter  towns 

1  Knobel  founds  his  opinion  partly  upon  2  Chron.  xiv.  9,  according  to  which 
Mareshah  was  in  the  valley  of  Zephatah,  which  is  the  bason-like  plain  at  Mirsim, 
and  partly  upon  the  fact  that  the  Onom.  also  places  Moraste  on  the  east  (south- 
east) of  Eleutheropolis  ;  and  Jerome  (ad  Mich.  i.  1)  describes  Morasthi  as  haud 
grandem  viculum  juxta  Eleutheropolin,  and  as  sepulcrum  quondam  Micheas  pro- 
phetas  nunc  ecclesiam  (ep.  108  ad  Eustoch.  §  14)  ;  and  this  ecclesia  is  in  all 
probability  the  ruins  of  a  church  called  Santa  Hanneh,  twenty  minutes  to  the 
south-east  of  Beit-jibrin,  and  only  ten  minutes  to  the  east  of  Marash,  which 
makes  the  assumption  a  very  natural  one,  that  the  Maresa  and  Morasthi  of  the 
fathers  are  only  different  parts  of  the  same  place,  viz.  of  Moreseth-gath,  the  home 
of  Micah  (Micah  i.  1, 14  ;  Jer.  xxvi.  18).  But  neither  of  these  is  decisive.  The 
valley  of  Zephatah  might  be  the  large  open  plain  which  Robinson  mentions 
(ii.  p.  355)  near  Beit-jibrin  ;  and  the  conjecture  that  Morasthi,  which  Euseb. 
and  Jer.  place  irpog  ävurohoig,  contra  orientem  Eleutheropoleos,  is  preserved  in 
the  ruins  which  lie  in  a  straight  line  towards  the  south  from  Beit-jibrin,  and 
are  called  Marash,  has  not  much  probability  in  it. 

2  There  is  no  force  in  the  reasons  adduced  by  Ewald,  Bertheau,  and  Knobel, 


CHAP.  XV.  48-60.  169 

and  villages,  unto  the  brook  of  Egypt  (Wady  el  A  risk  :  see  ver.  4), 
and  the  great  sea  with  its  territory"  i.e.  the  tract  of  land  lying 
between  Gaza  and  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean.  Gatli  and 
Askalon  are  not  mentioned,  because  they  are  both  of  them  included 
in  the  boundaries  named.  Askalon  was  between  Ashdod  and  Gaza, 
by  the  sea-coast  (see  at  chap.  xiii.  3),  and  Gath  on  the  east  of  Ekron 
and  Ashdod  (see  chap.  xiii.  3),  so  that,  as  a  matter  of  course,  it  was 
assigned  to  Judah. 

Vers.  48-60.  The  towns  on  the  mountains  are  divided  into  five, 
or  more  correctly,  into  six  groups.  The  mountains  of  Judah,  which 
rise  precipitously  from  the  Negeb,  between  the  hilly  district  on  the 
west,  which  is  reckoned  as  part  of  the  shephelah,  and  the  desert  of 
Judah,  extending  to  the  Dead  Sea  on  the  east  (ver.  61),  attain  the 
height  of  3000  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea,  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  Hebron,  and  run  northwards  to  the  broad  wady  of  Beit-hanina, 
above  Jerusalem.  They  are  a  large  rugged  range  of  limestone  moun- 
tains, with  many  barren  and  naked  peaks,  whilst  the  sides  are  for 
the  most  part  covered  with  grass,  shrubs,  bushes,  and  trees,  and  the 
whole  range  is  intersected  by  many  very  fruitful  valleys.  Josephus 
describes  it  as  abounding  in  corn,  fruit,  and  wine ;  and  to  the 
present  day  it  contains  many  orchards,  olive  grounds,  and  vine- 
yards, rising  in  terraces  up  the  sides  of  the  mountains,  whilst  the 
valleys  and  lower  grounds  yield  plentiful  harvests  of  wheat,  millet, 
and  other  kinds  of  corn.  In  ancient  times,  therefore,  the  whole  of 
this  district  was  thickly  covered  with  towns  (see  Rob.  ii.  pp.  185, 
191-2,  and  C.  v.  Raumer,  Pal.  pp.  45  sqq.). 

for  regarding  these  verses  as  spurious,  or  as  a  later  interpolation  from  a  different 
source.  For  the  statement,  that  the  "  Elohist"  merely  mentions  those  towns 
of  which  the  Hebrews  had  taken  possession,  and  which  they  held  either  par- 
tially or  wholly  in  his  own  day,  and  also  that  his  list  of  the  places  belonging  to 
Judah  in  the  shephelah  never  goes  near  the  sea,  are  assertions  without  the  least 
foundation,  which  are  proved  to  be  erroneous  by  the  simple  fact,  that  according 
to  the  express  statement  in  ver.  12,  the  Mediterranean  Sea  formed  the  western 
boundary  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  ;  and  according  to  chap.  xiii.  6,  Joshua  was  to 
distribute  by  lot  even  those  parts  of  Canaan  which  had  not  yet  been  conquer«  i 
The  difference,  however,  which  actually  exists  between  the  verses  before  aa  and 
the  other  groups  of  towns,  namely,  that  in  this  case  the  "  towns"  (or  daughters) 
are  mentioned  as  well  as  the  villages,  and  that  the  towns  are  not  Bammed  up  at 
the  end,  may  be  sufficiently  explained  from  the  facts  themselves,  nam.  ly,  from 
the  circumstance  that  the  Philistine  cities  mentioned  were  capitals  of  small 
principalities,  which  embraced  not  only  villages,  but  also  small  towns,  and  far 
that  very  reason  did  not  form  connected  groups,  like  the  towns  of  the  uthur 
districts. 


170  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Vers.  48-51.  The  first  group  consists  of  eleven  towns  on  the 
south-west  of  the  mountains. — Ver.  48.  Shamir  has  probably  been 
preserved  in  the  ruins  of  Urn  Shaumerah,  mentioned  by  Robinson 
(iii.  App.),  though  the  situation  of  these  ruins  has  not  yet  been  pre- 
cisely determined.  Jattir,  which  was  given  up  to  the  priests  (chap. 
xxi.  14),  and  is  mentioned  again  in  1  Sam.  xxx.  27,  is  described  in 
the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Jether)  as  a  large  place  inhabited  by  Christians, 
twenty  miles  from  Eleutheropolis,  in  interiori  Daroma  juxta  Mala- 
tha?i, — a  description  which  suits  the  ruins  of  Attir,  in  the  southern 
portion  of  the  mountains  (see  Rob.  ii.  p.  194 ;  called  Ater  by  Seetzen, 
R.  iii.  p.  6).  Socoh,  two  hours  N.W.  of  this,  the  present  Shuweikeh 
(Rob.  ii.  p.  104),  called  Sueche  by  Seetzen  (R.  iii.  p.  29),  a  village 
about  four  hours  from  Hebron. — Ver.  49.  Dannah  (Sept.,  Syr., 
Renna)  is  unknown.  Knobel  imagines  that  Dannah  should  be 
Danah,  for  Deanah,  plur.  Deanoth,  which  would  then  be  suggestive 
of  Zanute,  the  last  inhabited  place  upon  the  mountains,  five  hours 
from  Hebron,  between  Shuweikeh  and  Attir  (see  Rob.  ii.  p.  626  ; 
Seetzen,  iii.  pp.  27,  29).  Kirjath-sannah,  or  Debir,  has  not  been 
traced  (see  at  chap.  x.  38). — Ver.  50.  Anab,  on  the  north-east  of 
Socoh  (see  at  chap.  xi.  21).  Eshtemoh,  or  Eshtemoa,  which  was 
ceded  to  the  priests  (chap.  xxi.  14 ;  1  Chron.  vi.  42),  and  is  men- 
tioned again  in  1  Sam.  xxx.  28,  1  Chron.  iv.  17,  19,  is  the  present 
Semua,  an  inhabited  village,  with  remains  of  walls,  and  a  castle  of 
ancient  date,  on  the  east  of  Socoh  (Rob.  ii.  pp.  194,  626  ;  Seetzen, 
iii.  28  ;  and  v.  Schubert,  R.  ii.  p.  458).  Anim,  contracted,  accord- 
ing to  the  probable  conjecture  of  Wilson,  from  Ay  anim  (fountains), 
a  place  still  preserved  in  the  ruins  of  the  village  of  el  Ghuwein,  on 
the  south  of  Semua,  though  Robinson  erroneously  connects  it  with  Ain 
(ver.  32  :  see  Rob.  Pal.  ii.  p.  626). — Ver.  51.  Goshen,  Holon,  and 
Giloh,  are  still  unknown.  On  Goshen,  see  at  chap.  x.  41.  Holon  was 
given  up  to  the  priests  (chap.  xxi.  15  ;  1  Chron.  vi.  43)  ;  and  Giloh 
is  mentioned  in  2  Sam.  xv.  12  as  the  birth-place  of  Ahithophel. 

Vers.  52-54.  The  second  group  of  nine  towns,  to  the  north  of 
the  former,  in  the  country  round  Hebron. — Ver.  52.  Arab  is  still 
unknown  ;  for  we  cannot  connect  it,  as  Knobel  does,  with  the  ruins 
of  Husn  el  Ghurab  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Semua  (Rob.  i.  p.  312), 
as  these  rums  lie  within  the  former  group  of  towns.  Duma,  accord- 
ing to  Eusebius  the  largest  place  in  the  Daromas  in  his  time,  and 
seventeen  miles  from  Eleutheropolis,  is  probably  the  ruined  village 
of  Daumeh,  by  the  Wady  Dilbeh  (Rob.  i.  p.  314),  which  is  fourteen 
miles  in  a  straight  line  to  the  south-east  of  Eleutheropolis  according 


CHAP.  XV.  55-57.  171 

to  the  map.  Esau  (Esliean)  can  hardly  be  identified  with  Asar» 
(1  Chron.  iv.  32),  as  Van  de  Velde  supposes,  but  is  more  likely  Kor- 
asan  (1  Sam.  xxx.  30).  In  that  case  we  might  connect  it  with  (he 
ruins  of  Khiersah,  on  the  north-west  of  Daumeh,  two  hours  and  a 
half  to  the  south-west  of  Hebron  {Rob.  iii.  p.  5).  As  the  Septua- 
gint  reading  is  Ho/xd,  Knobel  conjectures  that  Eshean  is  a  corrupt 
reading  for  Shema  (1  Chron.  ii.  43),  and  connects  it  with  the  ruins 
of  Simla,  on  the  south  of  Daumeh  (Seetzen,  iii.  28,  and  Rob.  iii.  App.). 
— Ver.  53.  Janum  is  still  unknown.  Betli-tappuali  has  been  pre- 
served in  the  village  of  Teffuli,  about  two  hours  to  the  west  of 
Hebron  {Rob.  ii.  p.  428).  ApJteka  has  not  been  discovered. — Ver.  54. 
Ilumtah  is  also  unknown.  Kirjath-arba,  or  Hebron :  see  at  chap. 
x.  3.  Zlor  has  also  not  been  traced  ;  though,  "  so  far  as  the  name 
is  concerned,  it  might  have  been  preserved  in  the  heights  of  Tugra, 
near  to  Hebron"  (Knobel). 

Vers.  55-57.  The  third  group  of  ten  towns,  to  the  east  of  both 
the  former  groups,  towards  the  desert. — Ver.  55.  Maon,  the  home 
of  Nabal  (1  Sam.  xxv.  2),  on  the  border  of  the  desert  of  Judah, 
which  is  here  called  the  desert  of  Maon  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  25),  has  been 
preserved  in  Tell  Main,  on  a  conical  mountain  commanding  an  exten- 
sive prospect,  east  by  north  of  Semua,  three  hours  and  three-quarters 
to  the  s.S.E.  of  Hebron  (Rob.  ii.  p.  193).  Carmel,  a  town  and 
mountain  mentioned  in  the  history  of  David,  and  again  in  the  time 
of  Uzziah  (1  Sam.  xv.  12,  xxv.  2  sqq. ;  2  Chron.  xxvi.  10).  In 
the  time  of  the  Romans  it  was  a  large  place,  with  a  Roman  garrison 
(0)i07n.),  and  is  the  present  Kurmid,  on  the  north-west  of  Maon, 
where  there  are  considerable  ruins  of  a  very  ancient  date  (Rob.  ii. 
pp.  196  sqq.).  Ziph,  in  the  desert  of  that  name,  to  which  David 
fled  from  Saul  (1  Sam.  xxiii.  14  sqq.,  xxvi.  2,  3),  was  fortified  by 
Rehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi.  8),  and  has  been  preserved  in  the  ruins 
upon  the  hill  Ziph,  an  hour  and  three-quarters  to  the  south-cast  of 
Hebron  (Rob.  ii.  p.  191).  Juttah,  which  was  assigned  to  the  pi 
(chap.  xxi.  16),  and  was  a  viens  prcegrandis  Jiuhvorum  in  tin1  time 
of  the  fathers  (Onom.  s.  v.  Jethan),  was  eighteen  Roman  miles  to 
the  south  (south-east)  of  Eleutheropolis,  and  is  the  present  Jutta  <>r 
Jitta,  a  large  Mahometan  place  with  ruins,  an  hour  and  three- 
quarters  to  the  south  of  Hebron  (Seetzen,  iii.  p.  8  ;  A'  b.  ii.  pp.  I91j 
628).— Ver.  56.  Jezreel,  the  home  of  Ahinoam  (1  Sam.  xxv.  43, 
xxvii.  3,  etc.),  a  different  place  from  the  Jezreel  in  the  plain  of 
Esdraelon,  has  not  yet  been  discovered.  This  also  applies  to  Jok- 
deam  and  Zanoah,  which  are  only  met  with  here. — Ver.  57.   ( 


172  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

(Hakkain)  is  possibly  the  same  as  Jukin,  on  the  south-east  of  Hebron 
(Rob.  ii.  p.  449).  Gibeah  cannot  be  the  Gabatha  near  Bethlehem, 
mentioned  in  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Gabathon),  or  the  Gibea  mentioned 
by  Robinson  (ii.  p.  327),  i.e.  the  village  of  Jeba,  on  a  hill  in  the 
Wady  el  Musurr,  as  this  does  not  come  within  the  limits  of  the 
present  group  ;  it  must  rather  be  one  of  the  two  places  (Gebaa  and 
Gebatha)  described  as  viculi  contra  orientalem  plagam  Daromo?, 
though  their  situation  has  not  yet  been  discovered.  Timnah,  pro- 
bably the  place  already  mentioned  in  Gen.  xxxvhi.  12  sqq.,  has  not 
been  discovered. 

Vers.  58,  59.  The  fourth  group  of  six  towns,  on  the  north  of 
Hebron  or  of  the  last  two  groups. — Halhul,  according  to  the  Onom. 
(s.  v.  Elul)  a  place  near  Hebron  named  Alula,  has  been  preserved 
in  the  ruins  of  Halhul,  an  hour  and  a  half  to  the  north  of  Hebron 
{Rob.  i.  p.  319,  ii.  p.  186,  and  Bibl.  Res.  p.  281).  Beth-zur, 
which  was  fortified  by  Rehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi.  7),  and  is  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  time  of  the  Maccabees  as  a  border  defence  against 
the  Idumaeans  (1  Mace.  iv.  29,  61,  etc.),  was  twenty  (?  fifteen) 
Roman  miles  from  Jerusalem,  according  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Beth- 
zur),  on  the  road  to  Hebron.  It  is  the  present  heap  of  ruins  called 
Beit-zur  on  the  north-west  of  Halhül  (Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  pp.  276-7  ; 
Ritter,  Erdk.  xvi.  pp.  236,  267-8).  Gedor,  the  ruins  of  Jedur,  an 
hour  and  a  half  to  the  north-west  (Rob.  ii.  p.  338 ;  Bibl.  Res. 
pp.  282-3). — Ver.  59.  Maarath  and  Eltekon  have  not  yet  been  dis- 
covered. Beth-anoth  (probably  a  contraction  of  Beth-ay anoth)  has 
been  discovered  by  Wolcott  in  the  ruins  of  Beit-anum,  on  the  east 
of  Halhül  (Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  p.  279  ;  cf.  Pal.  ii.  p.  18(5). 

Between  vers.  59  and  60,  the  fifth  group  of  towns  given  in  the 
Septuagint  is  wanting  in  the  Masoretic  text.  This  group  lay  to 
the  north  of  the  fourth,  and  reached  as  far  as  Jerusalem.  It  com- 
prised a  district  in  which  even  now  there  are  at  least  fifteen  places 
and  ruins,  so  that  we  have  not  an  arbitrary  interpolation  made  by 
the  LXX.,  as  Jerome  assumed,  but  rather  a  gap  in  the  Hebrew 
text,  arising  from  the  fact  that  an  ancient  copyist  passed  by  mistake 
from  the  word  l?*]^  in  ver.  59  to  the  same  word  at  the  close  of 
the  missing  section.  In  the  Alexandrian  version  the  section  reads 
as  follows  in  Cod.  Al.  and  Vat.  :  Ge/cco  Kai  'EtypaOd,  avTrj  earl 
Bat9\€e/x,  Kal  ^aycop  real  Alrav  Kal  KovXov  teal  Tara/u,  Kai  Qu>ßn<i 
(Cod.  AI.  X &)/??)<?)  Kal  KapefA  Kal  TaXe/j,  Kal  ©e07jp  (Cod.  AL 
Baißijp)  Kal  WLavoyw,  7roXet?  evheKa  Kal  al  Koo/iat,  avTcov. —  Theko, 
the  well-known  Tekoah,  the  home  of  the  wise  woman  and  of  the 


CHAP.  XV.  60.  173 

prophet  Amos  (2  Sam.  xiv.  2  ;  Amos  i.  1),  was  fortified  by  Reho- 
boam,  and  still  inhabited  after  the  captivity  (2  Chron.  xi.  6  ;  Nell, 
iii.  5,  27).  It  is  the  present  Tekua,  on  the  top  of  a  mountain  covered 
with  ancient  ruins,  two  hours  to  the  south  of  Bethlehem  (Rob.  ii. 
pp.  181-184  ;  Toller,  Denkbl.  aus  Jerus.  pp.  682  sqq.).  FjJiratah, 
i.e.  Bethlehem,  the  family  seat  of  the  house  of  David  (Ruth  i.  1, 
iv.  11  ;  1  Sam.  xvi.  4,  xvii.  12  sqq.;  Micah  v.  2),  was  fortified  by 
Eehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi.  6),  and  is  a  place  frequently  mentioned. 
It  was  the  birth-place  of  Christ  (Matt.  ii.  1  sqq. ;  Luke  ii.  4),  and 
still  exists  under  the  ancient  name  of  Beit-la  Inn,  two  hours  to  the 
south  of  Jerusalem  (Seetzen,  ii.  pp.  37  sqq.;  Rob.  ii.  pp.  159  sqq. ; 
Toiler,  Topogr.  v.  Jerus.  ii.  pp.  464  sqq.).  Bethlehem  did  not  receive 
the  name  of  Ephralah  for  the  first  time  from  the  Calebite  family 
of  Ephrathites  (1  Chron.  ii.  19,  50,  iv.  4),  but  was  known  by  that 
name  even  in  Jacob's  time  (Gen.  xxxv.  19,  xlviii.  7).  Phagor, 
which  was  near  to  Bethlehem  according  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Fogor), 
and  is  also  called  Phaora,  is  the  present  Faghur,  a  heap  of  ruins  to 
the  south-west  of  Bethlehem  (Rcb.  Bibl.  Res.  p.  275).  Aetan  was 
fortified  by  Rehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi.  6),  and  has  been  preserved  in 
the  Wady  and  Ain  Attan  between  Bethlehem  and  Faghur  (Toller, 
dritte  Wand.  pp.  88,  89).  Kuhn,  the  present  village  of  Kulomeh, 
an  hour  and  a  half  west  by  north  from  Jerusalem  on  the  road  to 
Ramleh  (see  Rol.  ii.  p.  146;  Bibl.  Res.  p.  158  :  it  is  called  Kolony 
by  Seetzen,  ii.  p.  64).  Tatam  cannot  be  traced.  Sores  (for  Tholes 
appears  to  be  only  a  copyist's  error)  is  probably  Saris,  a  small 
village  four  hours  to  the  east  of  Jerusalem,  upon  a  ridge  on  the 
south  of  Wady  Aly  (Rol.  Bibl.  Res.  pp.  154-5).  Karem,  now  Ain 
Karim,  a  large  flourishing  village  two  hours  to  the  west  of  Jeru- 
salem, with  a  Franciscan  convent  dedicated  to  John  the  Baptist  in 
the  middle,  and  a  fountain  (Rol.  ii.  p.  141;  Bibl.  Res.  p.  271). 
Golem,  a  different  place  from  the  Gallim  on  the  north  of  Jeru- 
salem (Isa.  x.  30),  has  not  yet  been  discovered.  Baither,  now  a 
small  dirty  village  called  Bettir  or  Bittir,  with  a  beautiful  spring, 
and  with  gardens  arranged  in  terraces  on  the  western  slope  of  the 
Wady  Bittir,  to  the  south-west  of  Jerusalem  (Rol.  Bibl.  Res.  p. 
266).  Manocho,  possibly  the  same  place  as  Manachat  (1  Chron. 
viii.  6),  has  not  been  found. 

Ver.  60.  The  sixth  group  of  only  two  towns,  to  the  west  <>f 
Jerusalem,  on  the  northern  border  of  the  tribe  of  Judah. —  Kirjathr 
baal,  or  Kirjath-jearim,  the  present  Kureyet  el  EikiJ>  ;  see  :it  ver.  '.'. 
and  chap.  ix.  17.    Rallah  (Ila-rallah,  the  great)  is  quite  unknown. 


174  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Vers.  61,  62.  The  towns  in  the  desert  of  Judah,  which  ran 
along  the  Dead  Sea  from  the  northern  border  of  J  udah  (vers.  6,  7) 
to  Wady  Fikreh  on  the  south,  and  reached  to  the  districts  of  Maon, 
Ziph,  Tekoah,  and  Bethlehem  towards  the  west.  This  tract  of 
land  is  for  the  most  part  a  terrible  desert,  with  a  soil  composed  of 
chalk,  marl,  and  limestone,  and  with  bald  mountains  covered  with 
flint  and  hornstone,  and  without  the  slightest  trace  of  vegetation  on 
the  side  bordering  on  the  Dead  Sea  (see  v.  Schubert,  Reise,  iii. 
pp.  94,  96;  Rob.  ii.  pp.  202,  475,  477).  Yet  wherever  there  are 
springs  even  this  desert  is  covered  with  a  luxuriant  vegetation,  as 
far  as  the  influence  of  the  water  extends  (Seetzen,  ii.  pp.  249,  258) ; 
and  even  in  those  parts  which  are  now  completely  desolate,  there  are 
traces  of  the  work  of  man  of  a  very  ancient  date  in  all  directions 
{Rob.  ii.  p.  187).  Six  towns  are  mentioned  in  the  verses  before 
us.  Beth-arabah :  see  at  ver.  6.  Middin  and  Secaca  are  unknown. 
According  to  Knobel,  Middin  is  probably  the  ruins  of  Mird  or 
Mardeh,  to  the  west  of  the  northern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea  (Rob.  ii. 
p.  270). — Ver.  62.  Nibsan,  also  unknown.  The  city  of  salt  (salt 
town),  in  which  the  Edomites  sustained  repeated  defeats  (2  Sam. 
viii.  13;  Ps.  lx.  2 ;  2  Kings  xiv.  7;  1  Chron.  xviii.  12;  2  Chron. 
xxv.  11),  was  no  doubt  at  the  southern  end  of  the  Dead  Sea,  in  the 
Salt  Valley  (Rob.  ii.  p.  483).  Engedi,  on  the  Dead  Sea  (Ezek. 
xlvii.  10),  to  which  David  also  fled  to  escape  from  Saul  (1  Sam. 
xxiv.  1  sqq.),  according  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Engaddi)  a  vicus  prce- 
grandis,  the  present  Ain-Jidi,  a  spring  upon  a  shelf  of  the  high 
rocky  coast  on  the  west  of  the  Dead  Sea,  with  ruins  of  different 
ancient  buildings  (see  Seetzen,  ii.  pp.  227-8 ;  Rob.  ii.  pp.  214  sqq. ; 
Lynch,  pp.  178-9,  199,  200). — In  ver.  63  there  follows  a  notice 
to  the  effect  that  the  Judseans  were  unable  to  expel  the  Jebusites 
from  Jerusalem,  which  points  back  to  the  time  immediately  after 
Joshua,  when  the  Judseans  had  taken  Jerusalem  and  burned  it 
(Judg.  i.  8),  but  were  still  unable  to  maintain  possession.  This 
notice  is  not  at  variance  with  either  chap,  xviii.  28  or  Judg.  i.  21, 
since  it  neither  affirms  that  Jerusalem  belonged  to  the  tribe  of 
Judah,  nor  that  Judah  alone  laid  claim  to  the  possession  of  the 
town  to  the  exclusion  of  the  Benjamites  (see  the  explanation  of 
Judg.  i.  8). 


CHAP.  XVI.  1-4.  175 

INHERITANCE  OF  THE  TRIBE  OF  JOSEPH. — CHAP.  XVI.  XVII. 

The  descendants  of  Joseph  drew  one  lot,  that  the  inheritance 
of  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh  might  not  be  separated  from  that  of 
the  tribe  of  Ephraim.  But  the  territory  was  immediately  divided 
between  the  two  separate  tribes  of  the  children  of  Joseph,  Ephraim 
receiving  the  southern  portion  of  the  land  that  had  fallen  to  it  bv 
lot,  and  half  Manasseh  the  northern.  Accordingly  we  find  the 
southern  boundary  of  the  whole  territory  described  first  of  all  in 
chap.  xvi.  1-4,  both  the  boundary  which  separated  it  from  the  tribe 
of  Benjamin  (chap,  xviii.  11  sqq.),  and  that  which  divided  it  from 
Dan  (chap.  xix.  40  sqq.)  ;  then  the  territory  of  Ephraim  is  given, 
with  a  minute  description  of  the  northern  boundary  (chap.  xvi. 
5-10)  ;  and  finally  the  territory  assigned  to  the  families  of  Manasseh 
(chap.  xvii.  1-13),  without  any  precise  delineation  of  its  northern 
boundaries,  all  that  is  stated  being  that  the  Manassites  touched 
Asher  and  Issachar  towards  the  north,  and  also  received  some 
scattered  towns  with  their  villages  in  the  territory  of  both  those 
tribes  (chap.  xvii.  10,  11).  To  this  there  is  appended  in  vers. 
14-18  the  complaint  of  the  children  of  Joseph  concerning  the 
inheritance  that  had  fallen  to  them. 

Chap.  xvi.  1-4.  Territory  of  the  Tribe  of  Joseph. — Ver.  1.  "  And 
there  came  out  the  lot  of  the  children  of  Joseph  from  Jordan  by 
Jericho."  "  The  lot  came  out,"  viz.  from  the  urn  (cf.  chap.  xix.  1, 
17,  24).  The  expression  "  came  up"  is  used  in  the  same  sense  in 
chap,  xviii.  11.  The  connection  of  these  two  words  with  the  rest 
of  the  sentence,  "from  Jordan  by  Jericho"  may  be  explained  on 
the  supposition  that  the  lot  which  came  out  of  the  urn  determined 
the  inheritance  that  fell  to  the  tribe,  so  that  we  might  paraphrase 
the  verse  in  this  manner:  "There  came  out  the  lot  to  the  children 
of  Joseph,  namely,  the  inheritance,  which  goes  out  from,  or  whose 
boundary  commences  at,  the  Jordan  by  Jericho,"  i.e.  from  that  part 
of  the  Jordan  which  is  opposite  to  Jericho,  and  which  is  still  more 
precisely  defined  by  the  additional  clause,  "by  the  water  of  Jericho 
eastward."  The  water  of  Jericho  is  the  present  fountain  oi 
Sultan,  half  an  hour  to  the  north-west  of  Riha,  the  only  large  foun- 
tain in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jericho,  whose  waters  spread  over  the 
plain,  and  form  a  small  brook,  which  no  doubt  flows  in  the  rainy 
season  through  the  Wady  Kelt  into  the  Jordan  (see  R  b.  ii.  pp. 
283-4  ;  Tobler,  Topogr.  v.  Jerus.  ii.  pp.  558-9).  "  T/te  wildei 
is  in  opposition  to  "  the  lot,"  so  that  the  sense  is,  "  namely,  the  & 


176  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

going  up  from  Jericho  to  the  mountains  to  Beth  ?£."  According  to 
chap,  xviii.  12,  the  reference  is  to  the  desert  of  Beth-aven,  which 
was  on  the  east  of  Bethel,  between  the  Wady  Suwar  (Tuwar)  and 
Mutyah  (see  at  chap.  vii.  2).  Towards  the  east  this  desert  ter 
minates  with  the  Jebel  Kuruntul  (Quarantana)  on  the  north-west 
of  Jericho,  where  it  descends  precipitously  into  the  valley  of  the 
Jordan,  or  v.  v.,  where  it  rises  out  of  the  Jordan  valley.  According 
to  chap,  xviii.  12,  the  same  boundary  went  up  by  the  shoulder  of 
Jericho  towards  the  north,  i.e.  along  the  northern  range  of  moun- 
tains by  Jericho,  which  cannot  be  any  other  than  the  "  conspicuous 
double  height,  or  rather  group  of  heights,"  in  front  of  the  mountain 
of  Quarantana,  at  the  eastern  foot  of  which  lies  the  fountain  of  Ain 
es  Sultan  (Rob.  ii.  p.  284).  In  all  probability,  therefore,  the  boun- 
dary ran  up  towards  the  north-west,  from  the  Sultan  fountain  to 
Ain  Duk,  and  thence  in  a  westerly  direction  across  to  Abu  Seba 
(along  which  road  Robinson  had  a  frightful  desert  on  his  right 
hand:  Pal.  ii.  p.  310),  and  then  again  towards  the  north-west  to 
Beitin  (Bethel),  according  to  chap,  xviii.  13,  along  the  southern 
shoulder  (or  side)  of  Luz,  i.e.  Bethel. — Ver.  2.  "  And  it  went  out 
from  Bethel  to  Luz."  Bethel  is  distinguished  from  Luz  in  this 
passage,  because  the  reference  is  not  to  the  town  of  Bethel,  which 
was  called  Luz  by  the  Canaanites  (vid.  Gen.  xxviii.  19),  but  to  the 
southern  range  of  mountains  belonging  to  Bethel,  from  which  the 
boundary  ran  out  to  the  town  of  Luz,  so  that  this  town,  which  stood 
upon  the  border,  was  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (chap,  xviii. 
22).  From  this  point  the  boundary  went  over  "  to  the  territory  of 
the  Arkite  to  Ataroth"  We  know  nothing  further  about  the  Arkite 
than  that  David's  friend  Hushai  belonged  to  that  family  (2  Sam. 
xv.  32,  xvi.  16;  1  Chron.  xxvii.  33).  Ataroth,  called  Ataroth-Adar 
in  chap,  xviii.  13,  was  not  the  present  village  of  Atära,  an  hour  and 
a  half  to  the  south  of  Jiljilia  (Rob.  iii.  p.  80),  as  I  once  supposed, 
but  the  ruins  of  Atära,  three-quarters  of  an  hour  to  the  south  of 
Bireh  (Beeroth,  Rob.  ii.  p.  314),  with  which  the  expression  "  de- 
scended" in  chap,  xviii.  13  perfectly  harmonizes.  Consequently  the 
boundary  was  first  of  all  drawn  in  a  south-westerly  direction  from 
Beitin  to  Bireh  (chap,  xviii.  25),  and  then  southwards  to  Atarah. 
— Ver.  3.  From  this  point  "  it  went  down  toestward  to  the  territory 
of  the  Japhletites  to  the  territory  of  lower  Beth-horon"  or,  according 
to  chap,  xviii.  13,  "  to  the  mountain  (or  range)  which  is  on  the  south 
by  lower  Beth-horon."  The  Japhletite  is  altogether  unknown,  as 
the  Asherite  of  this  name  cannot  possibly  be  thought  of  (1  Chron. 


CHAP.  XVI.  5-10.  177 

vii.  32,  33).  Lower  Beth-horon  is  the  present  Beit-Ur  Tachta,  a 
village  upon  a  low  ridge.  It  is  separated  from  Upper  Beth-horon, 
which  lies  farther  east,  by  a  deep  wady  (see  at  chap.  x.  10,  and 
Bob.  iii.  p.  59).  "And  to  Gezer,"  which  was  probably  situated 
near  the  village  of  el  Kuhab  (see  at  chap.  x.  33).  "  And  the  goings 
out  thereof  are  at  the  sea"  (the  Mediterranean),  probably  running 
towards  the  north-west,  and  following  the  Wady  Muzeireh  to  the 
north  of  Japho,  which  was  assigned  to  the  Danites,  according  to 
chap.  xix.  46. — Ver.  4.  The  territory  commencing  at  the  boundar- 
lines  mentioned  was  allotted  to  Ephraim  and  Manasseh  as  theii 
inheritance. 

Vers.  5-10.  Territory  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  according  to  its 
families. — Ver.  5.  "  The  border  of  their  inheritance  xcas  from  the 
east  Atroth-addar  and  (along  the  line)  to  Upper  Beth-horon" — a 
brief  description  of  the  southern  boundary,  which  is  more  minutely 
described  in  vers.  1-3.  Upper  Beth-horon  is  mentioned  here  instead 
of  Lower  Beth-horon  (ver.  3).  This  makes  no  difference,  however, 
as  the  two  places  stood  quite  close  to  one  another  (see  at  chap.  x.  10). 
In  vers.  6-8  the  northern  boundary  of  Ephraim  is  given,  namely, 
from  the  middle,  or  from  "a  central  point  near  the  watershed" 
(Knobel),  first  towards  the  east  (vers.  6  and  7),  and  then  towards 
the  west  (ver.  8).  The  eastern  half  of  the  northern  boundary  went 
ilBJ,  i.e.  when  regarded  from  the  west,  or  looked  at  towards  the  west, 
to  the  north  side  of  Michmethah.  According  to  chap.  xvii.  7,  this 
place  was  before  Shechem,  and  therefore  in  any  case  it  was  not  far 
from  it,  though  it  has  not  been  discovered  yet.  Knobel  supposes  it 
to  have  been  on  the  site  of  the  present  Kabate  (Seetzen,  ii.  p.  166), 
Kubatiyeh,  an  hour  and  a  half  to  the  south  of  Jenin  (Rob.  iii.  154), 
assuming  that  Michmethah  might  also  have  been  pronounced  Che- 
mathah,  and  that  b  may  have  been  substituted  for  m.  But  Kabate 
is  six  hours  to  the  north  of  Shechem,  and  therefore  was  certainly 
not  "  before  Shechem"  (chap.  xvii.  7).  It  then  turned  "eastward 
to  Taanath-shiloh"  (Trjvaö  Xrfkai,  LXX.),  according  to  the  Onoi/i. 
(s.  v.  Thenath)  ten  Roman  miles  from  Neapolis  (Sichern),  on  the 
way  to  the  Jordan,  most  probably  the  Thena  of  Ptol.  (v.  16,  5),  the 
present  Tana,  Ain  Tana,  a  heap  of  ruins  on  the  south-east  o\ 
Nabulus,  where  there  are  large  cisterns  to  be  found  (see  Rob.  Bibl. 
Res.  p.  295  ;  Ritter,  Erdk.  xv.  p.  471).  And  "  then  went  hu  on  the 
east  to  Janoah"  (i.e.  Jano  in  Acrabittena  regione,  twelve  Roman 
miles  from  Neapolis:  Onom.),  the  present  ruins  of  Janün,  a  numer- 
able village,  with  extensive  ruins  of  great  antiquity,  about  three 

M 


178  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

hours  to  the  south-east  of  Nabulus,  three-quarters  of  an  hour  to  the 
north-east  of  Akrabeh  (Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  p.  297  ;  Van  de  Velde,  R.  ii. 
p.  268). — Ver.  7.  From  Janoah  the  boundary  went  down  "  to 
Ataroth and Naarath."  Ataroth,  a  different  place  from  the  Ataroth 
or  Atroth-addar  mentioned  in  vers.  3  and  5,  is  apparently  to  be 
sought  for  on  the  eastern  slope  of  the  mountains  by  the  side  of  the 
Ghor,  judging  from  the  expression  "went  down  ;"  but  it  has  not 
yet  been  discovered.  Naarath,  probably  the  same  as  Naaran,  in 
eastern  Ephraim  (1  Chron.  vii.  28),  is  described  in  the  Onom. 
(s.  v.  Naaratha)  as  viculus  Judceorum  Naorath,  five  Roman  miles  (i.e. 
two  hours)  from  Jericho,  probably  on  the  north-east.  The  boun- 
dary line  then  touched  Jericho,  i.e.  the  district  of  Jericho,  namely 
on  the  north  side  of  the  district,  as  Jericho  was  allotted  to  the  tribe 
of  Benjamin  (chap,  xviii.  21).  At  this  point  it  also  coincided  with 
the  southern  boundary  of  the  tribe  of  Joseph  (ver.  1)  and  the 
northern  boundary  of  Benjamin  (chap,  xviii.  12). — Ver.  8.  The 
western  half  of  the  northern  boundary  went  from  Tappuah  west- 
wards to  the  Cane-brook,  and  terminated  at  the  sea.  Tappuah,  called 
En-tappuah  in  chap.  xvii.  7,  as  the  southern  boundary  of  Manas- 
seh,  which  is  there  described,  and  which  ran  from  Michmethah  to 
En-tappuah,  coincides  with  the  northern  boundary  of  Ephraim, 
must  not  be  identified  with  the  royal  town  of  that  name  mentioned 
in  chap.  xii.  17,  and  therefore  was  not  Kefr  Kud  (Caper  cota),  on 
the  west  of  Jenin  (Ginäa).  This  place  was  so  far  to  the  north, 
viz.  seven  hours  to  the  north  of  Nabulus,  that  the  boundary  from 
Michmethah,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Shechem  (Nabulus)  onwards, 
would  have  run  from  south  to  north  instead  of  in  a  westerly  direc- 
tion. Still  less  can  En-tappuah  be  found,  as  Van  de  Velde  sup- 
poses, in  the  old  well  of  the  deserted  village  of  Atüf,  five  hours  to 
the  east  of  Nabulus.  It  must  have  been  to  the  west  of  Shechem ; 
but  it  has  not  yet  been  discovered,  as  the  country  to  the  west  of 
Nabulus  and  Sebastieh  has  "not  been  examined"  (Van  de  Velde). 
The  Cane-brook  is  no  doubt  the  brook  of  that  name  mentioned 
by  Bohad.  (tita  Salad,  pp.  191,  193) ;  only  it  is  not  quite  clear 
"  whether  the  Abu  Zabura  is  intended,  or  a  brook  somewhat  far- 
ther south,  where  there  is  still  a  Nahr  el  Kassab." — Ver.  9.  The 
tribe  of  Ephraim  also  received  some  scattered  towns  in  the  territory 
of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh,  in  fact  all  those  towns  to  which  Tappuah 
belonged,  according  to  chap.  xvii.  8,  with  the  dependent  villages.1 — 

1  The  reason  why  the  Ephraimites  received  scattered  towns  and  villages  in 
the  tribe-territory  of  Manasseh,  is  supposed  by  Calvin,  Masius,  and  others,  to 


CHAP.  XVII.  1-13.  179 

Ver.  10.  From  Gezer,  however  (see  ver.  3),  they  could  not  drive 
out  the  Canaanites,  so  that  they  still  dwelt  among  the  Ephraimites> 
but  were  reduced  to  a  state  of  serfdom.  This  notice  resembles  the 
one  in  chap.  xv.  63,  and  is  to  be  interpreted  in  the  same  way. 

Chap.  xvii.  1-13.  The  inheritance  of  Manasseh  on  this  side  of 
the  Jordan  Was  on  the  north  of  Ephraim. — Vers.  lb-G.  Before 
proceeding  to  the  more  detailed  description  of  the  inheritance,  the 
historian  thinks  it  necessary  to  observe  that  the  Manassites  received 
a  double  inheritance.  This  remark  is  introduced  with  the  words 
"  for  he  uias  the  first-born  of  Joseph?  On  this  account,  in  addition 
to  the  territory  already  given  to  him  in  Gilead  and  Bashan,  lie 
received  a  second  allotment  of  territory  in  Canaan  proper.  With 
the  word  *P2n?  (for  Machir)  the  more  minute  account  of  the  divi- 
sion of  the  Manassites  commences.  '121  "^n?  is  first  of  all  written 
absolutely  at  the  beginning  of  the  sentence,  and  then  resumed  in 
\p  \-H  :  "  to  Machir,  the  first-born  of  Manasseh  .  .  .  to  him  were 
Gilead  and  Bashan  assigned,  because  he  was  a  man  of  war"  i.e.  a 
warlike  man,  and  had  earned  for  himself  a  claim  to  the  inheritance 
of  Gilead  and  Bashan  through  the  peculiar  bravery  which  he  had 
displayed  in  the  conquest  of  those  lands.  By  Machir,  however,  we 
are  not  to  understand  the  actual  son  of  Manasseh,  but  his  family ; 
and  Wan  ^X  does  not  mean  "  father  of  Gilead,"  but  lord  (possessor) 
of  Gilead,  for  Machir's  son  Gilead  is  always  called  iy?3  without 
the  article  (yid.  chap.  xvii.  3 ;  Num.  xxvi.  29,  30,  xxvii.  1,  xxxvi.  1 ; 
1  Chron.  vii.  17),  whereas  the  country  of  that  name  is  just  as 
constantly  called  "wan  (see  ver.  1,  the  last  clause,  ver.  5,  chap.  xiii. 
11,  31  ;  Num.  xxxii.  40  ;  Deut.  iii.  10  sqq.).  "  And  there  came,  i.e. 
the  lot  fell  (the  lot  is  to  be  repeated  from  ver.  1),  to  the  other 
descendants  of  Manasseh  according  to  their  families"  which  are  then 
enumerated  as  in  Num.  xxvi.  30-32.  "  These  are  the  male  descend- 
ants of  Manasseh."  WOV}  must  not  be  altered,  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  it  is  preceded  and  followed  by  Dnnian ;  it  is  evidently  used 
deliberately  as  an  antithesis  to  the  female  descendants  of  Manasseh 
mentioned  in  ver.  3. — Vers.  3  sqq.  Among  the  six  families  of 
Manasseh  (ver.  2),  Zelophehad,  a  descendant  of  Hephcr,  left  no 
son  ;  but  he  had  five  daughters,  whose  names  are  given  in  ver.  ;) 

have  been,  that  after  the  boundaries  had  been  arranged,  on  comparing  the  ter- 
ritory allotted  to  each  with  the  relative  numbers  of  the  two  tribes,  it  was  found 
tnat  Ephraim  had  received  too  small  a  possession.  This  is  quite  possible;  ;it 
the  same  time  there  may  have  been  other  reasons  which  we  cannot  diaooTer  now, 
as  precisely  the  same  thing  occurs  iu  the  case  of  Manasseh  (chap.  xvii.  11). 


180  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

(as  in  Num.  xxvi.  33,  xxvii.  1,  xxxvi.  10).  These  daughters  had 
petitioned  Moses  for  a  separate  portion  in  the  promised  land,  and 
their  request  had  been  granted  (Num.  xxvii.  2  sqq.,  compared  with 
chap,  xxxvi.).  They  therefore  came  before  the  committee  appointed 
for  dividing  the  land  and  repeated  this  promise,  which  was  at  once 
fulfilled.  Consequently  there  were  ten  families  of  Manasseh  who 
had  received  portions  by  the  side  of  Ephraim,  five  male  and  five 
female.  "  And  (ver.  5)  there  fell  the  measurements  of  Manasseh 
(as)  few,"  i.e.  ten  portions  were  assigned  to  the  Manassites  (on  the 
west  of  the  Jordan),  beside  the  land  of  Gilead,  because  (as  is  again 
observed  in  ver.  6)  the  daughters  of  Manasseh,  i.e.  of  Zelophehad 
the  Manassite,  received  an  inheritance  among  his  sons  (i.e.  the  rest 
of  the  Manassites). 

Vers.  7-13.  Boundaries  and  extent  of  the  inheritance  of  the  ten 
families  of  Manasseh. — Vers.  7-10a,  the  southern  boundary,  which 
coincides  with  the  northern  boundary  of  Ephraim  described  in 
chap.  xvi.  6-8,  and  is  merely  given  here  with  greater  precision 
in  certain  points.  It  went  "  from  Asher  to  Michmethah,  before 
Shechem."  Asher  is  not  the  territory  of  the  tribe  of  Asher,  but  a 
distinct  locality ;  according  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Asher)  a  place  on 
the  high  road  from  Neapolis  to  Scythopolis,  fifteen  Roman  miles 
from  the  former.  It  is  not  to  be  found,  however,  in  the  ruins  of 
Tell  Urn  el  Aschera  (V.  de  Velde)  or  Tell  Urn  Ajra  (Rob.  Bibl. 
Res.  pp.  310,  327),  an  hour  to  the  south  of  Beisan,  as  Knobel 
supposes,  but  in  the  village  of  Yasir,  where  there  are  magnificent 
ruins,  about  five  hours  and  ten  minutes  from  Nabulus  on  the  road 
to  Beisan  (V.  de  Velde,  Mem.  pp.  237,  289  ;  R.  ii.  p.  295).  Mich- 
methah, before  Shechem,  is  still  unknown  (see  chap.  xvi.  6).  Shechem 
was  founded  by  the  Hivite  prince  Shechem  (Gen.  xxxiii.  18),  and 
is  frequently  mentioned  in  the  book  of  Genesis.  It  stood  between 
Ebal  and  Gerizim,  was  given  up  by  Ephraim  to  the  Levites,  and 
declared  a  free  city  (city  of  refuge  :  chap.  xxi.  21,  xx.  7).  It 
was  there  that  the  ten  tribes  effected  their  separation  from  Judah 
(1  Kings  xii.  1  sqq.),  and  Jeroboam  resided  there  (1  Kings  xii.  25). 
In  later  times  it  was  the  chief  city  of  the  country  of  Samaria,  and 
the  capital  of  the  Samaritans  (John  iv.  5)  ;  and  the  name  of 
Neapolis,  or  Flavia  Neapolis,  from  which  the  present  Nabulus  or 
Nablus  has  come,  was  given  to  it  in  honour  of  Vespasian  (see  v. 
Raumer,  Pal.  pp.  161  sqq.).  From  this  point  the  boundary  went 
pö»iT7K  (i.e.  either  "  to  the  right  side"  the  south  side,  or  to  Yamiii)} 
"  to  the  inhabitants  of  En-tappuah?    Whether  Yamin  is  an  appella- 


CHAP.  XVII.  7-13.  181 

tive  or  a  proper  name  is  doubtful.  But  even  if  it  be  the  name  of 
a  place,  it  is  quite  certain  that  it  cannot  be  the  village  of  Yamön, 
an  hour  to  the  south-east  of  Taanuk  (Rob.  iii.  pp.  161.  167,  etc.), 
as  this  is  much  too  far  north,  and,  judging  from  ver.  11,  belonged 
to  the  territory  of  Asher.  In  the  case  of  En-tappuah,  the  inha- 
bitants are  mentioned  instead  of  the  district,  because  the  district 
belonged  to  Manasseh,  whilst  the  town  on  the  border  of  Manasseh 
was  given  to  the  Ephraimites.  The  situation  of  the  town  has  not  yet 
been  discovered  :  see  at  chap.  xvi.  8.  From  this  point  the  boundary 
ran  down  to  the  Cane-brook  (see  chap.  xvi.  8),  namely  to  the  south 
side  of  the  brook.  "  These  towns  were  assigned  to  Ephraim  in  the 
midst  of  the  towns  of  Manasseh,  and  (but)  the  territory  of  Manasseh 
was  on  the  north  of  the  brook."  The  only  possible  meaning  of  these 
words  is  the  following  :  From  Tappuah,  the  boundary  went  down 
to  the  Cane-brook  and  crossed  it,  so  that  the  south  side  of  the  brook 
really  belonged  to  the  territory  of  Manasseh  ;  nevertheless  the  towns 
on  this  south  side  were  allotted  to  Ephraim,  whilst  only  the  territory 
to  the  north  of  the  brook  fell  to  the  lot  of  the  Manassites.  This  is 
expressed  more  plainly  in  ver.  10a  :  "  To  the  south  (of  the  brook  the 
land  came)  to  Ephraim,  and  to  the  north  to  Manasseh."  In  ver. 
10b  the  northern  and  eastern  boundaries  are  only  briefly  indicated  : 
"  And  they  (the  Manassites)  touched  Asher  towards  the  north,  and 
Issachar  towards  the  east"  The  reason  why  this  boundary  was  not 
described  more  minutely,  was  probably  because  it  had  not  yet  been 
fixed.  For  (ver.  11)  Manasseh  also  received  towns  and  districts  in 
(within  the  territory  of)  Issachar  and  Asher,  viz.  Beth-shean,  etc. 
Beth-shean,  to  the  wall  of  which  Saul's  body  was  fastened  (1  Sam. 
xxxi.  10  sqq. ;  2  Sam.  xxi.  12),  was  afterwards  called  Scythopolis. 
It  was  in  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  where  the  plain  of  Jezreel  slopes 
off  into  the  valley  ;  its  present  name  is  Beisan,  a  place  where  there 
are  considerable  ruins  of  great  antiquity,  about  two  hours  from  the 
Jordan  (yid.  Seetzen,  ii.  pp.  162  sqq.;  Bob.  iii.  p.  174;  Bibl.  Res. 
p.  325  ;  v.  Raumer,  Pal.  pp.  150-1).  This  city,  with  its  daughter 
towns,  was  in  the  territory  of  Issachar,  which  was  on  the  east  ft 
Manasseh,  and  may  have  extended  a  considerable  distance  towards 
the  south  along  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  as  the  territory  oi 
Manasseh  and  Ephraim  did  not  run  into  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  ; 
but  Asher  (Yasir)  is  mentioned  in  ver.  7  as  the  most  easterly  place 
in  Manasseh,  and,  according  to  chap.  xvi.  6,  7,  the  eastern  boundary 
of  Ephraim  ran  down  along  the  eastern  edge  of  the  mountains  as 
far  as  Jericho,  without  including  the  Jordan  valley.     At  the  same 


182  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

time,  the  Ghor  on  the  western  side  of  the  Jordan  below  Beisan,  as 
far  as  the  plain  of  Jericho,  was  of  no  great  value  to  any  tribe,  as 
this  district,  according  to  Josephus  (de  Bell.  Jud.  iv.  8,  2,  and  iii. 
10,  7),  was  uninhabited  because  of  its  barrenness.  The  other 
towns,  Iblearn,  etc.,  with  the  exception  of  Endor  perhaps,  were  in 
the  territory  of  Asher,  and  almost  all  on  the  south-west  border  of 
the  plain  of  Esdraelon.  Iblearn,  called  Bileam  in  1  Chron.  vi.  55 
(70),  a  Levitical  town  (see  at  chap.  xxi.  25),  was  not  very  far  from 
Megiddo  (2  Kings  ix.  27),  and  has  probably  been  preserved  in  the 
ruins  of  Khirbet-Belameh,  half  an  hour  to  the  south  of  Jenin  ; 
according  to  Schultz,  it  is  the  same  place  as  Belamon,  Belmen,  or 
Belthem  (Judith  iv.  4,  vii.  3,  viii.  3).  With  1KT  ^f  mm)  the  con- 
struction changes,  so  that  there  is  an  anacolouthon,  which  can  be 
explained,  however,  on  the  ground  that  ?  ^J}  niay  not  only  mean 
to  be  assigned  to,  but  also  to  receive  or  to  have.  In  this  last  sense 
nKl  is  attached.  The  inhabitants  are  mentioned  instead  of  the 
towns,  because  the  historian  had  already  the  thought  present  in  his 
mind,  that  the  Manassites  were  unable  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites 
from  the  towns  allotted  to  them.  Dor  is  the  present  Tortura  (see 
at  chap.  xi.  2).  Endor,  the  home  of  the  witch  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  7), 
four  Roman  miles  to  the  south  of  Tabor  (Onom.),  at  present  a 
village  called  Endor,  on  the  northern  shoulder  of  the  Duhy  or 
Little  Hermon  (see  Bob.  iii.  p.  225  ;  Bibl.  Res.  p.  340).  Taanach 
and  Megiddo,  the  present  Taanuk  and  Lejun  (see  at  chap.  xii.  21). 
The  three  last  towns,  with  the  places  dependent  upon  them,  are 
connected  more  closely  together  by  nsan  new,  the  three-hill- 
country,  probably  because  they  formed  a  common  league. — Vers. 
12,  13.  The  Manassites  were  unable  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites 
from  these  six  towns,  and  the  districts  round  ;  but  when  they  grew 
stronger,  they  made  them  tributary  slaves  (cf.  chap.  xvi.  10). 

Vers.  14-18.  Complaint  of  the  Descendants  of  Joseph  respecting 
the  inheritance  allotted  to  them. — Ver.  14.  As  the  descendants  of 
Joseph  formed  two  tribes  (Ephraim  and  Manasseh),  they  gave 
utterance  to  their  dissatisfaction  that  Joshua  had  given  them 
("  me"  the  house  of  Joseph,  ver.  17)  but  one  lot,  but  one  portion 
(??[?,  a  measure,  then  the  land  measured  off),  for  an  inheritance, 
although  they  were  a  strong  and  numerous  people.  "  So  far  hath 
Jehovah  blessed  me  hitherto."  "ie>xny,  to  this  (sc.  numerous  people), 
is  to  be  understood  de  gradu;  »13"TP,  hitherto,  de  tempore.  There 
was  no  real  ground  for  this  complaint.  As  Ephraim  numbered 
only  32,500  and  Manasseh  52,700  at  the  second  census  in  the  time 


CHAP.  XVII.  14-18.  18S 

of  Moses  (Num.  xxvi.),  and  therefore  Ephraim  and  half  Manasseh 
together  did  not  amount  to  more  than  58,000  or  59,000,  this  tribe 
and  a  half  were  not  so  strong  as  Judah  with  its  76,500,  and  were 
even  weaker  than  Dan  with  its  04,400,  or  Issachar  with  its  64,300 
men,  and  therefore  could  not  justly  lay  claim  to  more  than  the 
territory  of  a  single  tribe.  Moreover,  the  land  allotted  to  them 
was  in  one  of  the  most  fertile  parts  of  Palestine.  For  although  as 
a  whole  the  mountains  of  Ephraim  have  much  the  same  character 
as  those  of  Judah,  yet  the  separate  mountains  are  neither  so  runted 
nor  so  lofty,  there  being  only  a  few  of  them  that  reach  the  height 
of  2500  feet  above  the  level  of  the  sea  (see  Ritter,  Erdk.  xv.  pp. 
475  sqq. ;  V.  de  Velde,  Mem.  pp.  177  sqq.)  ;  moreover,  they  are 
intersected  by  many  broad  valleys  and  fertile  plateaux,  which  are 
covered  with  fruitful  fields  and  splendid  plantations  of  olives,  vines, 
and  fig  trees  (see  Rob.  iii.  p.  78,  Bibl.  Res.  pp.  290  sqq. ;  Seetzen, 
ii.  pp.  165  sqq.,  190  sqq.).  On  the  west  the  mountains  slope  off 
into  the  hill  country,  which  joins  the  plain  of  Sharon,  with  its 
invariable  fertility.  "  The  soil  here  is  a  black  clay  soil  of  un- 
fathomable depth,  which  is  nearly  all  ploughed,  and  is  of  such 
unusual  fertility  that  a  cultivated  plain  here  might  furnish  an 
almost  unparalleled  granary  for  the  whole  land.  Interminable 
fields  full  of  wheat  and  barley  with  their  waving  ears,  which  were 
very  nearly  ripe,  with  here  and  there  a  field  of  millet,  that  was 
already  being  diligently  reaped  by  the  peasants,  presented  a  glorious 
sight"  (Ritter,  Erdk.  xvi.  pp.  567-8). — Ver.  15.  Joshua  therefore 
sent  them  back  with  their  petition,  and  said,  "  If  thou  art  a  strong 
people,  go  up  into  the  toood  and  cut  it  away"  i.e.  make  room  for 
houses,  fields,  and  meadows,  by  clearing  the  forests,  "  in  the  land  of 
the  Perizzites  and  Rephaim,  if  the  mountain  of  Ephraim  is  too 
•narrow  for  theeV  The  name  "  mountain  of  Ephraim"  is  used  here 
:n  a  certain  sense  proleptically,  to  signify  the  mountain  which 
received  its  name  from  the  tribe  of  Ephraim,  to  which  it  had  only 
just  been  allotted.  This  mountain,  which  is  also  called  the  moun- 
tain of  Israel  (chap.  xi.  16,  21),  was  a  limestone  range  running 
from  Kirjath-jearim,  where  the  mountains  of  Judah  terminate 
at  chap.  xi.  21),  to  the  plain  of  Jezreel,  and  therefore  embracing 
the  greater  part  of  the  tribe-territory  of  Benjamin.  The  wood, 
which  is  distinguished  from  the  mountain  of  Ephraim,  and  is  also 
described  in  ver.  18  as  a  mountainous  land,  is  either  the  mountain- 
ous region  extending  to  the  north  of  Yasir  as  far  as  the  mountains 
of  Gilboa,  and  lying  to  the  west  of  Beisan,  a  region  which  has  not 


184  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

yet  been  thoroughly  explored,  or  else,  as  Knobel  supposes,  "  the 
broad  range  of  woody  heights  or  low  woody  hills,  by  which  the 
mountains  of  Samaria  are  connected  with  Carmel  on  the  north- 
west (Rob.  iii.  p.  189),  between  Taanath  and  Megiddo  on  the  east, 
and  Caesarea  and  Dor  on  the  west."  Possibly  both  may  be  intended, 
as  the  children  of  Joseph  were  afraid  of  the  Canaanites  in  Beisan 
and  in  the  plain  of  Jezreel  (ver.  16).  The  Rephaim  were  dwelling 
there,  a  tribe  of  gigantic  stature  (see  at  Gen.  xiv.  5),  also  the 
Perizzites  (see  at  Gen.  xiii.  7). — Ver.  16.  The  children  of  Joseph 
replied  that  the  mountain  (allotted  to  them)  would  not  be  enough 
for  them  («SO,  as  in  Num.  xi.  22  ;  Zech.  x.  10) ;  and  that  all  the 
Canaanites  who  dwelt  in  the  land  of  the  plain  had  iron  chariots, 
both  those  in  Beth-shean  and  its  daughter  towns,  and  those  in  the 
valley  of  Jezreel.  p£V?T!)«>  the  land  of  the  plain  or  valley  land, 
includes  both  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  near  Beisan,  and  also  the 
plain  of  Jezreel,  which  opens  into  the  Jordan  valley  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Beisan  (Bob.  iii.  p.  173).  The  plain  of  Jezreel,  so 
called  after  the  town  of  that  name,  is  called  the  "great  field  of 
Esdrelom"  in  Judith  i.  4,  and  to  /xija  irehlov  by  Josephus.  It  is 
the  present  Merj  (i.e.  pasture-land)  Ibn  Aamer,  which  runs  in  a 
south-westerly  direction  from  the  Mediterranean  Sea  above  Carmel, 
and  reaches  almost  to  the  Jordan.  It  is  bounded  on  the  south  by 
the  mountains  of  Carmel,  the  mountain-land  of  Ephraim  and  the 
range  of  hills  connecting  the  two,  on  the  north  by  the  mountains  of 
Galilee,  on  the  west  by  the  southern  spurs  of  the  Galilean  high- 
land, and  on  the  east  by  the  mountains  of  Gilboa  and  the  Little 
Hermon  (Jebel  Duhy).  Within  these  boundaries  it  is  eight  hours 
in  length  from  east  to  west,  and  five  hours  broad ;  it  is  fertile 
throughout,  though  very  desolate  now  (see  v.  Raumer,  Pal.  iii.  pp. 
39  sqq.).  "  Iron  chariots"  are  not  scythe  chariots,  for  these  were 
introduced  by  Cyrus,  and  were  unknown  to  the  Medes,  Persians, 
and  Arabians,  i.e.  to  the  early  Asiatics  before  his  time  (Xen.  Cyr. 
vi.  1,  27,  30),  as  well  as  to  the  ancient  Egyptians  (see  Wilkinson, 
Manners  and  Customs,  i.  p.  350) ;  they  were  simply  chariots  tipped 
with  iron,  just  as  the  Egyptian  war-chariots  were  made  of  wood 
and  strengthened  with  metal  nails  and  tips  (Wilkinson,  pp.  342, 
348). — Vers.  17,  18.  As  the  answer  of  the  children  of  Joseph 
indicated  cowardice  and  want  of  confidence  in  the  help  of  God, 
Joshua  contented  himself  with  repeating  his  first  reply,  though 
more  fully  and  with  the  reasons  assigned.  "  Thou  art  a  strong 
people,  and  hast  great  power;  there  loill  not  be  one  lot  to  thee:"  i.e. 


CHAP.  XVIII.  1.  185 

because  thou  art  a  numerous  people  and  endowed  with  Strength, 
there  shall  not  remain  one  lot  to  thee,  thou  canst  and  wilt  ex- 
tend thine  inheritance.  "  For  the  mountain  will  be  thine,  for  it 
is  forest,  and  thou  wilt  hew  it  out,  and  its  goings  out  will  become 
thine"  By  the  mountain  we  are  not  to  understand  the  mountains 
of  Ephraim  which  were  assigned  to  the  Ephraimitea  by  the  lot,  but 
the  wooded  mountains  mentioned  in  ver.  15,  which  the  children  of 
Joseph  were  to  hew  out,  so  as  to  make  outlets  for  themselves. 
"  The  outgoings  of  it"  are  the  fields  and  plains  bordering  upon  the 
forest.  For  the  Canaanites  who  dwelt  there  (ver.  15)  would  be 
driven  out  by  the  house  of  Joseph,  just  because  they  had  iron 
chariots  and  were  strong,  and  therefore  only  a  strong  tribe  like 
Joseph  was  equal  to  the  task.  "  Not  one  of  the  tribes  of  Israel 
is  able  to  fight  against  them  (the  Canaanites)  because  they  are 
strong,  but  you  have  strength  enough  to  be  able  to  expel  them 
(Rashi). 

THE  TABERNACLE  SET  UP  AT  SHILOH.  SURVEY  OF  THE  LAND 
THAT  HAD  STILL  TO  BE  DIVIDED.  INHERITANCE  OF  THE 
TRIBE  OF  BENJAMIN. — CHAP.  XVIII. 

Ver.  1.  The  Tabernacle  set  up  at  SniLOii. — As  soon  as 
the  tribe  of  Ephraim  had  received  its  inheritance,  Joshua  com- 
manded the  whole  congregation  to  assemble  in  Shiloh,  and  there 
set  up  the  tabernacle,  in  order  that,  as  the  land  was  conquered,  the 
worship  of  Jehovah  might  henceforth  be  regularly  observed  in 
accordance  with  the  law.  The  selection  of  Shiloh  as  the  site  for 
the  sanctuary  was  hardly  occasioned  by  the  fitness  of  the  place  for 
this  purpose,  on  account  of  its  being  situated  upon  a  mountain  in 
the  centre  of  the  land,  for  there  were  many  other  places  that  would 
have  been  quite  as  suitable  in  this  respect ;  the  reason  is  rather  to 
be  found  in  the  name  of  the  place,  viz.  Shilch,  i.e.  rest,  which 
called  to  mind  the  promised  Shiloh  (Gen.  xlix.  10),  and  therefore 
appeared  to  be  pre-eminently  suitable  to  be  the  resting-place  of  the 
sanctuary  of  the  Lord,  where  His  name  was  to  dwell  in  Israel, 
until  He  should  come  who  was  to  give  true  rest  to  His  people  as  the 
Prince  of  Peace.  In  any  case,  however,  Joshua  did  not  follow  his 
own  judgment  in  selecting  Shiloh  for  this  purpose,  but  acted  in 
simple  accordance  with  the  instructions  of  God,  as  the  Lord  had 
expressly  reserved  to  himself  the  choice  of  the  place  where  Elia 
name  should  dwell  (Deut.  xii.  11).    Shiloh,  according  to  the  Onom., 


186  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

was  twelve  Eoman  miles  or  five  hours  to  the  south  of  Neapolis 
(Nablus),  and  about  eight  hours  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem  ;  at 
present  it  is  a  heap  of  ruins,  bearing  the  name  of  Seilun  (see  Bob. 
iii.  p.  85).  The  tabernacle  continued  standing  at  Shiloh  daring 
the  time  of  the  judges,  until  the  ark  of  the  covenant  fell  into  the 
hands  of  the  Philistines,  in  the  lifetime  of  Eli,  when  the  holy  tent 
was  robbed  of  its  soul,  and  reduced  to  the  mere  shadow  of  a  sanc- 
tuary. After  this  it  was  removed  to  Nob  (1  Sam.  xxi.  2)  ;  but  in 
consequence  of  the  massacre  inflicted  by  Saul  upon  the  inhabitants 
of  this  place  (1  Sam.  xxii.  19),  it  was  taken  to  Gibeon  (1  Kings  iii. 
4 :  see  Keil,  Bibl.  Arch.  i.  §  22).  From  this  time  forward  Shiloh 
continued  to  decline,  because  the  Lord  had  rejected  it  (Ps.  lxxviii. 
60 ;  Jer.  vii.  12,  xxvi.  6).  That  it  was  destroyed  by  the  Assyrians, 
as  Knobel  affirms,  is  not  stated  in  the  history. 

Vers.  2-10.  Survey  of  the  Land  that  had  yet  to  be 
divided. — Ver.  2.  After  the  tabernacle  had  been  set  up,  the 
casting  of  the  lots  and  division  of  the  land  among  the  other  seven 
tribes  were  to  be  continued ;  namely  at  Shiloh,  to  which  the  con- 
gregation.had  removed  with  the  sanctuary. — Vers.  3,  4.  But,  for  the 
reasons  explained  in  chap.  xiv.  1,  these  tribes  showed  themselves 
u  slack  to  go  to  possess  the  land  which  the  Lord  had  given  them"  i.e. 
not  merely  to  conquer  it,  but  to  have  it  divided  by  lot,  and  to  enter 
in  and  take  possession.  Joshua  charged  them  with  this,  and  directed 
them  to  appoint  three  men  for  each  of  the  seven  tribes,  that  the} 
might  be  sent  out  to  go  through  the  land,  and  describe  it  according 
to  the  measure  of  their  inheritance.  "  According  to  their  inheritance" 
i.e.  with  special  reference  to  the  fact  that  seven  tribes  were  to  receive 
it  for  their  inheritance.  The  description  was  not  a  formal  measure- 
ment, although  the  art  of  surveying  was  well  known  in  Egypt  in 
ancient  times,  and  was  regularly  carried  out  after  the  annual  inun- 
dations of  the  Nile  (Herod,  ii.  109  ;  Strabo,  xvii.  787  ;  Diod.  Sic.  i. 
69) ;  so  that  the  Israelites  might  have  learned  it  there.  But  303 
does  not  mean  to  measure ;  and  it  was  not  a  formal  measurement 
that  was  required,  for  the  purpose  of  dividing  the  land  that  yet 
remained  into  seven  districts,  since  the  tribes  differed  in  numerical 
strength,  and  therefore  the  boundaries  of  the  territory  assigned  them 
could  not  be  settled  till  after  the  lots  had  been  cast.  The  meaning 
of  the  word  is  to  describe ;  and  according  to  ver.  9,  it  was  chiefly  to 
the  towns  that  reference  was  made :  so  that  the  description  required 
by  Joshua  in  all  probability  consisted  simply  in  the  preparation  of 


CHAP.  XVIII.  11-20.  187 

lists  of  the  towns  in  the  different  parts  of  the  land,  with  an  account 
of  their  size  and  character ;  also  with  "  notices  of  the  quality  and 
condition  of  the  soil;  what  lands  were  fertile,  and  what  they  pro- 
duced ;  where  the  country  was  mountainous,  and  where  it  was  level ; 
which  lands  were  well  watered,  and  which  were  dry ;  and  any  other 
things  that  would  indicate  the  character  of  the  soil,  and  facilitate  a 
comparison  between  the  different  parts  of  the  land"  {Rosenmüller). 
The  reasons  which  induced  Joshua  to  take  steps  for  the  first  time 
now  for  securing  a  survey  of  the  land,  are  given  in  chap.  xiv.  1. 
The  men  chosen  for  the  purpose  were  able  to  carry  out  their  task 
without  receiving  any  hindrance  from  the  Canaanites.  For  whilst 
the  latter  were  crushed,  if  not  exterminated,  by  the  victories  which 
the  Israelites  had  gained,  it  was  not  necessary  for  the  twenty-one 
Israelitish  men  to  penetrate  into  every  corner  of  the  land,  and  every 
town  that  was  still  inhabited  by  the  Canaanites,  in  order  to  accom- 
plish their  end. — Vers.  5,  6.  "  And  divide  it  into  seven  parts"  viz. 
for  the  purpose  of  casting  lots.  Judah,  however,  was  still  to  remain 
in  its  land  to  the  south,  and  Ephraim  in  its  territory  to  the  north. 
The  seven  portions  thus  obtained  they  were  to  bring  to  Joshua,  that 
he  might  then  cast  the  lot  for  the  seven  tribes  "  before  the  Lord," 
i.e.  before  the  tabernacle  (chap.  xix.  51). — Ver.  7.  There  were  only 
seven  tribes  that  had  still  to  receive  their  portions  ;  for  the  tribe  of 
Levi  was  to  receive  no  portion  in  the  land  (vid.  chap.  xiii.  xiv.),  and 
Gad,  Reuben,  and  half  Manasseh  had  received  their  inheritance 
already  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan. — Vers.  8,  9.  Execution  of 
this  command. — Ver.  10.  Joshua  finishes  the  casting  of  the  lots  at 
Shiloh. 

Vers.  11-28.  Inheritance  of  the  Tribe  of  Benjamin. — 
Vers.  11-20.  Boundaries  of  the  inheritance. — Ver.  11.  The  terri- 
tory of  their  lot  (i.e.  the  territory  assigned  to  the  Benjaminites  by 
lot)  came  out  (through  the  falling  out  of  the  lot)  between  the  sons 
of  Judah  and  the  sons  of  Joseph. — Vers.  12,  13.  The  northern 
boundary  ("  the  boundary  towards  the  north  side")  therefore  coin- 
cided with  the  southern  boundary  of  Ephraim  as  far  as  Lower 
Beth-horon,  and  has  already  been  commented  upon  in  the  exposition 
of  chap.  xvi.  1-3.  The  western  boundary  follows  in  ver.  14.  At 
Beth-horon  the  boundary  curved  round  and  turned  southwards  on 
the  western  side,  namely  from  the  mountain  before  (in  front  of) 
Beth-horon  southwards ;  and  "  the  goings  out  thereof  iv  ere  at  Kirj.ith- 
baal,  which  is  Kirjath-jearim,"  the  town  of  the  Judacans  mentioned 


188  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA- 

in  chap.  xv.  60,  the  present  Kureyet  el  Enab  (see  at  chap.  ix.  17). — 
Vers.  15-19.  "  As  for  the  southern  boundary  from  the  end  of  Kirjath- 
jearim  onwards,  the  (southern)  boundary  went  out  on  the  west  (i.e.  it 
started  from  the  west),  and  went  out  (terminated)  at  the  fountain  of 
the  water  of  NephtoahV  Consequently  it  coincided  with  the  northern 
boundary  of  Judah,  as  described  in  chap.  xv.  5-9,  except  that  it  is 
given  there  from  east  to  west,  and  here  from  west  to  east  (see  at 
chap.  xv.  5-9).  In  the  construction  ?^?n  vnix^ifi,  the  noun  ?W3n  is 
in  apposition  to  the  suffix:  the  outgoings  of  it,  namely  of  the  border 
(see  Ewald,  §  291,  b.). — Ver.  20.  The  eastern  boundary  was  the 
Jordan. 

Vers.  21-28.  The  totons  of  Benjamin  are  divided  into  two 
groups.  Theßrst  group  (vers.  21-24)  contains  twelve  towns  in  the 
eastern  portion  of  the  territory.  Jericho  :  the  present  Rika  (see  at 
chap.  ii.  1).  Beth-hoglah,  now  Ain  Hajla  (see  chap.  xv.  6).  Emek- 
Keziz :  the  name  has  been  preserved  in  the  Wady  el  Kaziz,  on  the 
road  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho,  on  the  south-east  of  the  Apostle's 
Well  (see  Van  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  328). — Ver.  22.  Beth-arabah  :  see 
at  chap.  xv.  6.  Zemaraim,  probably  the  ruins  of  es  Sumrah,  on  the 
road  from  Jerusalem  to  Jericho,  to  the  east  of  Khan  Hadhur,  on 
Van  de  Velde  s  map.  Bethel:  now  Beitin  (see  chap.  vii.  2). — Ver.  23. 
Avvim  (i.e.  ruins)  is  unknown.  Phara  has  been  preserved  in  the 
ruins  of  Eara,  on  Wady  Fara,  three  hours  to  the  north-east  of 
Jerusalem,  and  the  same  distance  to  the  west  of  Jericho.  Ophrah 
is  mentioned  again  in  1  Sam.  xiii.  17,  but  it  is  a  different  place  from 
the  Ophrah  of  Gideon  in  Manasseh  (Judg.  vi.  11,  24,  viii.  27). 
According  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  ApJira),  it  was  a  /cebfir)  'A^pj'jX  in  the 
time  of  Eusebius  (Jer.  vicus  Effreni),  five  Roman  miles  to  the  east  of 
Bethel ;  and  according  to  Van  de  Velde,  v.  Raumer,  and  others,  it  is 
probably  the  same  place  as  Ephron  or  Ephrain,  which  Abijah  took 
from  Jeroboam  along  with  Jeshanah  and  Bethel  (2  Chron.  xiii.  19), 
also  the  same  as  EpJwaim,  the  city  to  which  Christ  went  when  He 
withdrew  into  the  desert  (John  xi.  54),  as  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Ephron) 
speaks  of  a  villa  prcegrandis  Ephrosa  nomine  ('E^pat/j,  in  Euseb.), 
although  the  distance  given  there,  viz.  twenty  Roman  miles  to  the 
north  of  Jerusalem,  reaches  far  beyond  the  limits  of  Benjamin. — 
Ver.  24.  Chephar-haammonai  and  Ophni  are  only  mentioned  here, 
and  are  still  unknown.  Gaba,  or  Geba  of  Benjamin  (1  Sam.  xiii.  16  ; 
1  Kings  xv.  22),  which  was  given  up  to  the  Levites  (chap.  xxi.  17 ; 
1  Chron.  vi.  45),  was  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Ramah  (1  Kings  xv. 
22,    2  Chron.  xvi.  6).     It  is  mentioned  in  2  Kings  xxiii.  8,  Zech. 


CHAP.  XVIII.  21-28.  189 

xiv.  10,  as  the  northern  boundary  of  the  kingdom  of  Judah,  and 
was  still  inhabited  after  the  captivity  (Neh.  vii.  30).  It  is  a  different 
place  from  Gibea,  and  is  not  to  be  found,  as  I  formerly  supposed, 
in  the  Moslem  village  of  Jibia,  by  the  Wady  el  Jib,  between 
Beitin  and  Sinjil  (Rob.  iii.  p.  80),  but  in  the  small  village  of  «71  ba, 
which  is  lying  half  in  ruins,  and  where  there  are  relics  of  antiquity, 
three-quarters  of  an  hour  to  the  north-east  of  er-Kam  (Ruinah),  and 
about  three  hours  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem,  upon  a  height  from 
which  there  is  an  extensive  prospect  (yid.  Bob.  ii.  pp.  113  sqq.).  This 
eastern  group  also  included  the  two  other  towns  Anathoth  and 
Almon  (chap.  xxi.  18),  which  were  given  up  by  Benjamin  to  the 
Levites.  Anathoth,  the  home  of  the  prophet  Jeremiah  (Jer.  i.  1, 
xi.  21  sqq.),  which  was  still  inhabited  by  Benjaminites  after  the 
captivity  (Neh.  xi.  32),  is  the  present  village  of  Anäta,  where  tlier 
are  ruins  of  great  antiquity,  an  hour  and  a  quarter  to  the  north 
of  Jerusalem  (Rob.  ii.  pp.  109  sqq.).  Almon,  called  Allemeth  in 
1  Chron.  vi.  45,  has  been  preserved  in  the  ruins  of  Almit  (Rob. 
Bibl.  Res.  pp.  287  sqq.),  or  el-Mid  (Tobler,  Denkbl.  p.  631),  on  the 
south-east  of  Anäta.— Vers.  25-28.  The  second  group  of  fourteen 
towns  in  the  western  portion  of  Benjamin. — Ver.  25.  Gibeon,  the 
present  Jib  :  see  at  chap.  ix.  3.  Ramah,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Gibeah  and  Geba  (Judg.  xix.  13;  Isa.  x.  29;  1  Kings  xv.  17; 
Ezra  ii.  26),  most  probably  the  Ramah  of  Samuel  (1  Sam.  i.  19, 
ii.  11,  xxv.  1,  xxviii.  3),  is  the  present  village  of  er-Rdm,  upon 
a  mountain  with  ruins  between  Gibeon  and  Geba,  half  an  hour 
to  the  west  of  the  latter,  two  hours  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem 
(see  Rob.  ii.  p.  315).  Beeroth,  the  present  Birch  :  see  at  chap. 
ix.  17. — Ver.  26.  Mizpeh,  commonly  called  Mizpah,  where  the  war 
with  Benjamin  was  decided  upon  (Judg.  xx.  xxi.),  and  where 
Samuel  judged  the  people,  and  chose  Saul  as  king  (1  Sam.  \  ii.  5 
sqq.,  x.  17),  was  afterwards  the  seat  of  the  Babylonian  governor 
Gedaliah  (2  Kings  xxv.  23;  Jer.  xl.  6  sqq.).  According  to  the 
Onom.  ($.  v.  Massepha),  it  was  near  Kirjath-jearim,  and  Robinson 
(ii.  p.  139)  is  no  doubt  correct  in  supposing  it  to  be  the  present 
Samvil  (i.e.  prophet  Samuel),  an  hour  and  a  quarter  to  the  east  oi 
Kureyet  Enab  (Kirjath-jearim),  two  hours  to  the  north-west  ol 
Jerusalem,  half  an  hour  to  the  south  of  Gibeon,  a  place  which  Man. Is 
like  a  watch-tower  upon  the  highest  point  in  the  who) 
and  with  a  mosque,  once  a  Latin  church,  which  is  believed  alike 
by  Jews,  Christians,  and  Mahometans  to  cover  the  tomb  of  the 
prophet  Samuel  (see  Rob.  ii.  pp.  135  sqq.).   Ckephirah,  i.e.  Kefir  . 


190  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

at  chap.  ix.  17.  Mozali  is  only  mentioned  here,  and  is  still  unknown 
Ver.  27.  This  also  applies  to  Rekem,  Irpeel,  and  Taralah. — Ver.  28 
Zelah,  the  burial-place  of  Saul  and  his  family  (2  Sam.  xxi.  14),  is 
otherwise  unknown.  Gibeath  or  Gibeah,  i.e.  Gibeah  of  Benjamin, 
which  was  destroyed  by  the  other  tribes  of  Israel  in  the  time  of  the 
judges,  on  account  of  the  flagrant  crime  which  had  been  committed 
there  (Judg.  xix.  xx.),  is  also  called  Gibeah  of  Saul,  as  being  the 
home  and  capital  of  Saul  (1  Sam.  x.  26,  xi.  4,  etc.),  and  was  situated, 
according  to  Judg.  xix.  13  and  Isa.  x.  29,  between  Jerusalem  and 
Ramah,  according  to  Josephus  (Bell.  Jud.  v.  2,  1,  8)  about  twenty 
or  thirty  stadia  from  Jerusalem.  These  statements  point  to  the  Tell 
or  Tuleil  el  Phul,  i.e.  bean-mountain,  a  conical  peak  about  an  hour 
from  Jerusalem,  on  the  road  to  er-Ram,  with  a  large  heap  of  stones 
upon  the  top,  probably  the  ruins  of  a  town  that  was  built  of  unhewn 
stones,  from  which  there  is  a  very  extensive  prospect  in  all  direc- 
tions {Rob.  ii.  p.  317).  Consequently  modern  writers  have  very 
naturally  agreed  in  the  conclusion,  that  the  ancient  Gibeah  of  Ben- 
jamin or  Saul  was  situated  either  by  the  side  of  or  upon  this  Tell  (see 
Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  p.  286;  Strauss,  Sinai,  etc.,  p.  331,  ed.  6;  v.  Raumer, 
Pal.  p.  196).  Kirjath  has  not  yet  been  discovered,  and  must  not 
be  confounded  with  Kirjath-jearim,  which  belonged  to  the  tribe  of 
Judah  (ver.  14 ;  cf.  chap.  xv.  60). 

INHERITANCE  OF  THE  TRIBES  OF  SIMEON,  ZEBULUN,  ISSACHAR, 
ASHER,  NAPHTALI,  AND  DAN. — CHAP.  XIX. 

Vers.  1-9.  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  (ver.  9).  Thus  the 
curse  pronounced  upon  Simeon  by  Jacob  of  dispersion  in  Israel 
(Gen.  xlix.  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  (vers.  2-6)  consisting  of  thirteen  or  fourteen 
towns,  all  situated  in  the  Negeb  (or  south  country)  ;  the  second 
(ver.  7)  of  four  towns,  two  of  which  were  in  the  Negeb  and  two  in 
the  shephelah.  All  these  eighteen  towns  have  already  been  enu- 
merated among  the  towns  of  Judah  (chap.  xv.  26-32,  42),  and  are 
mentioned  again  in  1  Chron.  iv.  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 


CHAP.  XIX.  10-16.  191 

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  chap.  xv.  32,  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. — Ver.  2.  Beersheha :  see  at  chap.  xv. 
28.  Sheba  is  wanting  in  the  Chronicles,  but  has  no  doubt  been 
omitted  through  a  copyist's  error,  as  Shema  answers  to  it  in  chap, 
xv.  26,  where  it  stands  before  Moladah  just  as  Sheba  does  here. 
— On  the  names  in  vers.  3-6a,  see  the  exposition  of  chap.  xv. 
28-32. — The  sum  total  given  in  ver.  65,  viz.  thirteen  towns,  does 
not  tally,  as  there  are  fourteen  names.  On  these  differences,  see 
the  remarks  on  chap.  xv.  32  (p.  163,  the  note). — Ver.  7.  Ain 
and  Rimmon  were  in  the  south  land  (chap.  xv.  32),  Ether  and 
Ashan  in  the  lowlands  (chap.  xv.  42). — Vers.  8,  9.  In  addition 
to  the  towns  mentioned,  the  Simeonites  received  all  the  villages 
round  about  the  towns  to  Baalath-beer,  the  Bamah  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  1  Chron.  iv.  33,  and  is  probably  the  same  as 
Bealoth  in  chap.  xv.  24,  though  its  situation  has  not  yet  been  deter- 
mined (see  at  chap.  xv.  24).  It  cannot  be  identified,  however, 
with  Bannet  el  Khulil,  an  hour  to  the  north  of  Hebron,  which 
Boediger  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  Bama  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  ver.  44. 

Vers.  10-16.  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  (ver. 
27),  by  Naphtali  on  the  north  and  north-east  (ver.  i'-h,  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  Butluuj)  the  fitya 


192  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

irehiov  above  Nazareth  called  Asocliis  in  Joseph,  vita,  §  41,  45  (see 
Rob.  iii.  p.  189,  Bibl.  Kes.  pp.  105  sqq. ;  Ritter,  Erdk.  xvi.  pp.  742, 
758-9). — Ver.  10.  "  And  Hie  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  direc- 
tion in  ver.  11,  and  in  an  easterly  direction  in  ver.  12,  in  the  same 
manner  as  in  chap.  xvi.  6.  Unfortunately,  Sarid  cannot  be  deter- 
mined with  certainty.  KnobeVs  opinion  is,  that  the  name,  which 
signifies  "hole"  or  "incision,"  after  the  analogy  of  T^,  perforavit, 
and  En's?,  incidit,  does  not  refer  to  a  town,  but  to  some  other  loca- 
lity, 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 
prcecipitii  upon  V.  de  Veldes  map  (so  called  from  Luke  iv.  29). — 
Ver.  11.  From  this  point  "the  border  went  up  westivards,  namely 
to  Marala,  and  touched  Dabbasheth,  and  still  farther  to  the  brook  of 
Jokneam"  If  Jokneam  of  Carmel  has  been  preserved  in  the  Tell 
Kaiman  (see  at  chap.  xii.  22),  the  brook  before  Jokneam  is  pro- 
bably the  Wady  el  Müh,  on  the  eastern  side  of  which,  near  the 
point  where  it  opens  into  the  plain,  stands  Kaimün,  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.  Ees.  p.  114,  and  V.  de  Velde,  i.  p.  249).  Here  the 
boundaries  of  Zebulun  and  Asher  met  (ver.  27).  Marala  and 
Dabbasheth  are  to  be  sought  for  between  Kaimün  and  Sarid.  The 
Cod.  Vat.  has  MayeXSd  instead  of  MapiXd.  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  n?j?l  :  Tnfcyiy  is  rendered 
'EaeheKjcoXa, — 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  prwcipitii,  though  neither  of  these 
travellers  visited  the  place,  or  has  given  us  any  minute  description 
of  it.  Its  situation  upon  a  mountain  would  suit  Marala,  to  which 
the  boundary  went  up  from  Sarid.  In  the  case  of  Dabbasheth,  the 
name,  which  signifies  "lump"  (see  Isa.  xxx.  6),  points  to  a  moun- 
tain.    Upon  this  Knobel  has  founded  the  conjecture  that  Gibeah 


CHAP.  XIX.  10-16.  193 

or  Giheath  took  the  place  of  this  uncommon  word,  and  that  this 
is    connected   with  the   Gabathon    of  the    Onom.   (juxta   campum 
Legionis),  the  present  Jebdta  between  Mejeidil  and  Kaimun,  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. 
Ees.  p.  116,  and  Ritter,  ut  sup.). — Ver.  12.  "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  Kimchis  explanation  lurnbi  Taboris 
(French,  les  ßatics),  was  at  any  rate  a  place  on  the  side  of  Tabor, 
possibly  the  same  as  Kesidloth  in  ver.  18,   as  Masius  and  others 
suppose,  and  probably  the  same  place  as  the  Xaloth  of  Joseplius 
(Bell.  Jud.  iii.  3,  1),  which  was  situated  in  the  "great  plain,"  and 
the  vicus  Chasalus  of  the  Onom.  (juxta  montem  Thabor  in  campes- 
tribus),  i.e.  the  present  village  of  Iksdl  or  Ksdl,  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  (chap.  xxi.  28  ;  1  Chron.  vi.  57),  called  JJabaritta 
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  Ilepha  or  Haifa 
(Khaifa)  on  the  Mediterranean,  and  near  to  Carmel  (Rel.  Pal.  p. 
82G,  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  ami 
Dabrath  are  correct,  Japhia  must  be  sought  for  on   the  cast  of 
Deburieh. — Ver.  13.  "From  thence  it  went  over  towards  the  east  to 
the  sun-rising  to  Gath-hepher,  to  Eth-hazin,  and  went  out  to  Rimmon, 
which   is  marked  of  to  Neah."      Gatli-hepher,  the   home  of    the 
prophet  Jonah  (2  Kings  xiv.  25),  was  "  hand  grandis  viculus  Geth" 
in  the  time  of  Jerome  (see  jwol.  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 

N 


194  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

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  (chap.  xxi.  35 ;  1  Chron.  vi.  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  "IKTI,  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  (ver.  27),  as  Knobel  supposes.— Ver.  14.  "  And  the  boundary 
turned  round  it  (round  Rimmon),  on  the  north  to  Chanuathon,  and 
the  outgoings  thereof  ivere  the  valley  of  Jiphtah-el."  Judging  from 
the  words  3D3  and  |iSä?ö,  this  verse  apparently  gives  the  north-west 
boundary,  since  the  last  definition  in  ver.  13,  "  to  Gath-hepher,"  etc., 
points  to  the  eastern  boundary.  Jiphtah-el  answers  no  doubt  to  the 
present  Jefdt,  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  104  sqq.).  Consequently 
the  valley  of  Jiphtah-el,  at  which  Zebulun  touched  Asher  (ver.  27), 
is  probably  "  no  other  than  the  large  Wady  Abilin,  which  takes  its 
rise  in  the  hills  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Jefät"  (Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  p. 
107).  And  if  this  be  correct,  Channathon  (LXX.  yEvva8(od)  is 
probably  Cana  of  Galilee,  the  home  of  Nathanael  (John  ii.  1,  11, 
iv.  46,  xxi.  2),  the  present  Kana  el  Jelil,  between  Rummaneh  and 
Yefät,  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). — Ver.  15.  The  towns  of  Zebulun  were  the  following. 
Kattath,  probably  the  same  as  Kitron,  which  is  mentioned  in 
Judg.  i.  30  in  connection  with  Nahalol,  but  which  is  still  unknown. 
Nehalal)  or  Nahalol  (Judg.  i.  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 
chap.  xi.  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 
(Judg.  xii.  8),  has  been  preserved  under  the  old  name  in  a  miser- 


CHAP.  XIX.  17-23.  195 

able  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  vers.  11-14,  as,  after  deducting  Chisloth-tabor 
and  Dab  rath,  which  belonged  to  Issachar,  the  names  Sarid,  Mara- 
lah,  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  0*1??!  VH1  (vrn),  e.g.  chap,  xviii.  21,  xv.  21.  And,  in 
the  second  place,  it  is  not  a  probable  thing  in  itself,  that,  with  the 
exception  of  the  five  towns  mentioned  in  ver.  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 
(chap.  xxi.  34),  are  actually  wanting.  Under  these  circumstances, 
it  is  a  natural  conclusion  that  there  is  a  gap  in  the  text  here,  just 
as  in  chap.  xv.  59  and  xxi.  36. 

Vers.  17-23.  The  Inheritance  of  Issachar. — In  this  in- 
stance 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 
chap.  xvii.  16,  and  Bitter,  Erdk.  xvi.  pp.  689  sqq.),  and  was  bounded 
on  the  south  by  Manasseh,  on  the  west  by  Manasseh  and  Asher,  on 
the  north  by  Zebulun,  and  farther  east  by  Naphtali  also,  and  on 
the  east  by  the  Jordan. — Ver.  18.  "  And  their  boundary  was  towards 
Jezreel"  i.e.  their  territory  extended  beyond  Jezreel.  Jezreel,  the 
summer  residence  of  Ahab  and  his  house  (1  Kings  xviii.  45,  46, 
etc.),  was  situated  upon  a  mountain,  with  an  extensive  and  splendid 
prospect  over  the  large  plain  that  was  called  by  its  name.  It  was 
afterwards  called  Esdraela,  a  place  described  in  the  Onom.  I 
Jezreel)  as  standing  between  Scythopolis  and  Legio ;  it  is  the  pre- 
sent Zerin,  on  the  north-west  of  the  mountains  of  Gilboa  (see 
Seetzen,  ii.  pp.  155-6;  Rob.  ill.  pp.  161  sqq.;    Van  de  Velde,  U.  ii. 


196  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

pp.  320  sqq.).  Chesulloth,  possibly  the  same  as  Cldsloih-tdbor  (see 
at  ver.  12).  Sunem,  the  home  of  Abishag  (1  Kings  i.  3-15,  etc.), 
also  mentioned  in  1  Sam.  xxviii.  4  and  2  Kings  iv.  8,  was  situated, 
according  to  the  Onom.,  five  Roman  miles  (two  hours)  to  the  south 
of  Tabor ;  it  is  the  present  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.  170  sqq. ;  Van  de  Velde,  R.  ii.  p.  323). — 
Ver.  19.  Uaphraim,  according  to  the  Onom..  (s.  v.  Aphrairn)  villa 
Affaraa,  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  Lejun  {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  'Pevdd  and  'AppaviO,  maintains  that  the  read- 
ing should  be  Archanath,  to  which  Araneh  on  the  north  of  Jenin 
in  the  plain  corresponds  (Seetzen,  ii.  p.  156;  Bob.  iii.  p.  157).  But 
the  circumstance  that  the  Cod.  Al.  has  two  names  instead  of  one 
makes  its  reading  very  suspicious. — Ver.  20.  Harabbit  is  supposed 
by  Knobel  to  be  Araboneh,  on  the  north-east  of  Aräneh,  at  the 
southern  foot  of  Gilboa  (Rob.  iii.  p.  157).  Kishion,  which  was 
given  up  to  the  Levites  (chap.  xxi.  28)  and  is  erroneously  written 
Kedesh  in  1  Chron.  vi.  57,  is  unknown.  This  also  applies  to  Abez 
or  Ebez,  which  is  never  mentioned  again. — Ver.  21.  Remeth,  for 
which  Jarmuth  stands  in  the  list  of  Levitical  towns  in  chap.  xxi.  29, 
and  Ramoth  in  1  Chron.  vi.  58,  is  also  unknown.1  En-gannim, 
which  was  also  allotted  to  the  Levites  (chap.  xxi.  29 ;  also  1  Chron. 
v.  58,  where  it  is  called  Anem),  has  been  associated  by  Robinson 
(iii.  p.  155)  with  the  Tcvala  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 

1  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  impos- 
sible, but  it  is  improbable.  For  this  Mahometan  village  evidently  derived  its 
name  from  the  fact  that  it  has  the  appearance  of  a  fortification  when  seen  from 
a  distance  (see  Ritter,  Erdk.  xv.  p.  422).  The  name  has  nothing  in  common 
therefore  with  the  Hebrew  Remeth,  and  the  travellers  quoted  by  him  say 
nothing  at  all  about  the  ru;r,s  wWh  he  mentions  in  connection  with  Wezar 
(V7usar). 


CHAP.  XIX.  17-23  197 

and  orchards,  which  are  watered  by  a  copious  spring  (see  Seetzen, 
ii.  pp.  156  sqq.)  ;  "  unless  perhaps  the  place  referred  to  is  the  heap 
of  ruins  called  Urn  el  Ghanim,  on  the  south-east  of  Tabor,  men- 
tioned 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-had  or  Kadd  near  Gilboa,  mentioned  by  Seetzen  (ii. 
p.  159)  and  Robinson  (iii.  p.  157). — Ver.  22.  "  And  the  bounds  </ 
touched  Tabor,  Sahazim,  and  Beth-shemesh"  Tabor  is  not  the  moun- 
tain of  that  name,  but  a  town  upon  the  mountain,  which  was  given 
to  the  Levites,  though  not  by  Issachar  but  by  Zebulun  (1  Chron. 
vi.  62),  and  was  fortified  afresh  in  the  Jewish  wars  (Josephus, 
Bell.  Jud.  iv.  1,  8).  In  this  passage,  however,  it  appears  to  be 
reckoned  as  belonging  to  Issachar,  since  otherwise  there  are  not 
sixteen  cities  named.  At  the  same  time,  as  there  are  several  dis- 
crepancies between  the  numbers  given  and  the  names  actually 
mentioned,  it  is  quite  possible  that  in  this  instance  also  the  number 
sixteen  is  incorrect.  In  any  case,  Tabor  was  upon  the  border  of 
Zebulun  (ver.  12),  so  that  it  might  have  been  allotted  to  this  tribe. 
There  are  still  the  remains  of  old  walls  and  ruins  of  arches,  houses, 
and  other  buildings  to  be  seen  upon  Mount  Tabor;  and  round  the 
summit  there  are  the  foundations  of  a  thick  wall  built  of  large  and 
to  a  great  extent  fluted  stones  (see  Rob.  iii.  pp.  453  sqq. ;  Seetzen, 
ii.  p.  148 ;  Buckingham,  Syr.  i.  pp.  83  sqq.).  The  places  which 
follow  are  to  be  sought  for  on  the  east  of  Tabor  towards  the  Jordan, 
as  the  boundary  terminated  at  the  Jordan.  Sachazim  (Shahazimah) 
Knobel  connects  with  el  Hazetheh,  as  the  name,  which  signifies 
heights,  points  to  a  town  situated  upon  hills ;  and  el  Ilazetiich  stands 
upon  the  range  of  hills,  bounding  the  low-lying  land  of  Ard  el 
Ilamma,  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  bands  of 
the  Canaanites  (Judg.  i.  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  Beisein.  It  is  pro- 
bable that  the  eastern  portion  of  the  northern  boundary  of  Issuclmr, 
towards  Naphtali,  ran  in  a  north-easterly  direction  from  Tabor 
through  the  plain  to  Kefr  Sabt,  and  thence  to  the  .Ionian  along  the 
Wady  Bessum.     It  is  not  stated  how  far  the  territory  of  Issachar 


198  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

ran  down  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  (see  the  remarks  on  chap.  xvii. 
11,  p.  182). 

Vers.  24-31.  The  Inheritance  of  Asher. — Asher  received 
its  territory  along  the  Mediterranean  Sea  from  Carmel  to  the 
northern  boundary  of  Canaan  itself.  The  description  commences 
with  the  central  portion,  viz.  the  neighbourhood  of  Acco  (ver.  25), 
going  first  of  all  towards  the  south  (vers.  26,  27),  and  then  to  the 
north  (vers.  28,  30). — Ver.  25.  The  territory  of  the  Asherites  was 
as  follows.  Helkath,  which  was  given  up  to  the  Levites  (chap.  xxi. 
31,  and  1  Chron.  vi.  75,  where  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  emi- 
nence, 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.  Barvat:  Bathne)  a  vicus  Bethbeten, 
eight  Roman  miles  to  the  east  of  Ptolemais,  has  not  yet  been  found. 
Achshaph  is  also  unknown  (see  at  chap.  xi.  1).  The  Onom.  (s.  v. 
Achsapli)  says  nothing  more  about  its  situation  than  that  it  was  in 
tribu  Aser,  whilst  the  statement  made  s.  v.  Acsaph  QAfcaaty),  that 
it  was  villula  Chasalus  (kcojuh]  '.EfaSou«?),  eight  Roman  miles  from 
Diocassarea  ad  radicem  montis  Thabor,  leads  into  the  territory  of 
Zebulun. — Ver.  26.  Alammalech  has  been  preserved,  so  far  as  the 
name  is  concerned,  in  the  Wady  Malek  or  Malik  (Rob.  Bibl.  Res. 
p.  110),  which  runs  into  the  Kishon,  since  in  all  probability  the 
wady  was  named  after  a  place  either  near  it  or  within  it.  Amad 
is  supposed  by  Knobel  to  be  the  present  Haifa,  about  three  hours  to 
the  south  of  Acre,  on  the  sea,  and  this  he  identifies  with  the  syca- 
more 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.  722  sqq.).  In  support  of  this 
he  adduces  the  fact  that  the  Hebrew  name  resembles  the  Arabic 
noun  for  sycamore, — an  argument  the  weakness  of  which  does  not 
need  to  be  pointed  out.  Misheal  was  assigned  to  the  Levites  (chap. 
xxi.  30,  and  1  Chron.  vi.  74,  where  it  is  called  MashaP).  Accord- 
ing 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  westioards,  and  to  Shihor-lib?iath"  Carmel  (i.e.  fruit-field), 
which  has  acquired  celebrity  from  the  history  of  Elijah  (1  Kings 


CHAP.  XIX.  24-31.  199 

xviii.  17  sqq.),  is  a  wooded  mountain  ridge  which  stretcnes  in  a 
north-westerly  direction  on  the  southern  side  of  the  Kishon,  and 
projects  as  a  promontory  into  the  sea.  Its  name,  "  fruit-field,"  is 
well  chosen  ;  for  whilst  the  lower  part  is  covered  with  laurels  and 
olive  trees,  the  upper  abounds  in  figs  and  oaks,  and  the  whole  moun- 
tain is  full  of  the  most  beautiful  flowers.  There  are  also  many 
caves  about  it  (vid.  v.  Räumer,  Pal.  pp.  43  sqq. ;  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  Carmelj  where  Asher  was  bounded  by  Manasseh  (chap. 
xvii.  10),  i.e.  to  the  south  of  Dor,  which  the  Manassites  received 
in  the  territory  of  Asher  (chap.  xvii.  11);  it  is  therefore  in  all 
probability  the  Nahr  Zerha,  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  shilior  (black)  and 
libnath  (white). — Ver.  27.  From  this  point  the  boundary  "  turned 
towards  the  east,"  probably  following  the  river  Libnath  for  a  short 
distance  upwards,  "  to  Beth-dagon,"  which  has  not  yet  been  dis- 
covered, 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  Nchiel,  and  xcent  out  on 
the  left  to  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  Abilin  (ver.  14).  Here  therefore  the 
eastern  boundary  of  Asher,  which  ran  northwards  from  Wady 
Zerka  past  the  western  side  of  Issachar  and  Zebulun,  touched  the 
north-west  corner  of  Zebulun.  The  two  places,  Beth-emelc  and 
Nehiel  (the  latter  possibly  the  same  as  Neah  in  ver.  13),  which 
were  situated  at  the  south  of  the  valley  of  Jiphtah-el,  have  not 
been  discovered ;  they  may,  however,  have  been  upon  the  border 
of  Zebulun  and  yet  have  belonged  to  Asher.  Cabul,  the  Kco/x-n 
XaßcoXco  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  Vehle,  R.  i.  p. 
218). 

In  vers.  28-30  the  towns  and  boundaries  in  the  northern  part  of 
the  territory  of  Asher,  on  the  Phoenician  frontier,  are  given,  and 
the  Phoenician  cities  Sidon,  Tyre,  and  Achzib  are  mentioned  aa 
marking  the  boundary.  First  of  all  we  have  four  towns  in  ver.  28, 
reaching  as  far  as  Sidon,  no  doubt  in  the  northern  district  of  Asher. 
Ebron  has  not  yet  been  traced.     As  Abdon  occurs  among  the  towns 


200  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

which  Asher  gave  up  to  the  Levites  (chap.  xxi.  30 ;  1  Chron.  vi.  59), 
and  in  this  verse  also  twenty  MSS.  have  the  reading  Abdon,  many 
writers,  like  Reland  (Pal.  p.  514),  regard  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  (Judg.  i.  31)  are  wanting,  Abdon  may  also 
have  been  omitted.  But  we  cannot  attach  any  importance  to  the 
reading  of  the  twenty  mss.,  as  it  may  easily  have  arisen  from  chap. 
xxi.  30 ;  and  in  addition  to  the  Masoretic  text,  it  has  against  it  the 
authority  of  all  the  ancient  versions,  in  which  the  reading  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  resem- 
blance in  their  names.  On  the  supposition,  however,  that  Abdon 
is  not  the  same  as  Ebron,  Van  de  Veldes  conjecture  is  a  much  more 
natural  one;  namely,  that  it  is  to  be  found  in  the  ruins  of  Abdeh, 
on  the  Wady  Kurn,  to  the  north  of  Acca.  Rehob  cannot  be  traced. 
The  name  occurs  again  in  ver.  30,  from  which  it  is  evident  that 
there  were  two  towns  of  this  name  in  the  territory  of  Asher  (see  at 
ver.  30).  Schultz  and  Van  de  Velde  connect  it  with  the  village  of 
Hamid  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.  KnobeVs  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  Kdna,  not  far 
from  Tyre  (Rob.  iii.  p.  384),  but  must  have  been  farther  north,  and 
near  to  Sidon,  though  it  has  not  yet  been  discovered.  For  the 
supposition  that  it  is  connected  with  the  existing  place  called  Ain 
Kanieh  (Rob.  iii.  App. ;  Ritter,  xvii.  pp.  94  and  703),  on  the  north 
of  Jezzin,  is  overthrown  by  the  fact  that  that  place  is  too  far  to  the 
east  to  be  thought  of  in  this  connection ;  and  neither  Robinson  nor 
Ritter  makes  any  allusion  to  "  Ain  Kana,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 


CHAP.  XIX.  21-31.  201 

Jurjera,  six  hours  to  the  south-east  of  Sidon,"  which  Knobel  men- 
tions without  quoting  his  authority,  so  that  the  existence  of  such  a 
place  is  very  questionable.      On  Sidon,  now  Saida,  see  at  chap.  xi. 
8. — Ver.  29.  "  And  the  boundary  turned  (probably  from  the  terri- 
tory of  Sidon)  to  Ramali,  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  beauti- 
ful and  fertile  plain  (see  Ritter,  Erdk.  xvii.  p.  320,  and  Movers, 
Phönizier,  ii.  1,  pp.  118  sqq.).     "  And  the  boundary  turned  to  Ilosah, 
and  the  outgoings  thereof  were  at  the  sea,  by  the  side  of  the  district  of 
Achzib."     Ilosah  is  unknown,  as  the  situation  of  Kausah,  near  to 
the  Rameh  already  mentioned  (Rob.  BibL  Res.  p.  61),  does  not  suit 
in  this  connection.     ??rra,  lit.  from  the  district,  i.e.  by  the  side  of  it. 
Achzib,  where  the  Asherites  dwelt  with  the  Canaanites  (Judg.  i. 
31,  32),  is  the  Ekdippa  of  the  Greeks  and  Romans,  according  to  the 
Onom.  (s.  v.  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  ver.    30  three   separate   towns  are  mentioned,    which  were 
probably  situated   in   the  eastern  part  of  the  northern  district  of 
Asher,  whereas  the  border  towns  mentioned  in   vers.   28   and  29 
describe  this  district  in  its  western  half.      Ununah  (LXX.  'A^xa) 
may  perhaps  have  been  preserved  in  Kefr  Ammeih,  upon  the  Leba- 
non, to  the  south  of  Hainmana,  in  the  district  of  Jurd  (Rob.  in.  App.; 
Ritter,  xvii.  p.  710).     Aphek  is  the  present  Afka  (see  at  chap.  xiii.  4) 
Rehob  cannot  be  traced  with  certainty.    If  it  is  Hub,  as  Knobel  sup- 
poses, 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.  187  sqq.,  and  Ritter,  xvii.  p. 
791).     The  number  "  twenty-two  towns  and  their  villages'"  <l^±  do! 
tally,  as  there  are  twenty-three  towns  mentioned  in  vers.  — *  * '  30,   it 
we  include  Sidon,  Tyre,  and  Achzib,  according  to  Judg.  i.  31,  32. 
The  only  way  in  which  the  numbers  can  be  made  to  agree  is  to 
reckon  Nehiel  (ver.  27)  as  identical  with  Neah  (ver.  13).     But  tin; 
point  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty,  as  the  Asherites  received 


202  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

other  towns,  such  as  Acco  and  Aclaph,  which  are  wanting  in  this 
list,  and  may  possibly  have  simply  fallen  out. 

Vers.  32-39.  The  Inheritance  of  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  vers.  33  and  34  the  boundary  lines  are  given  :  viz. 
in  ver.  33  the  western  boundary  towards  Asher,  with  the  northern 
and  eastern  boundaries :  in  ver.  34  the  southern  boundary  ;  but 
with  the  uncertainty  which  exists  as  to  several  of  the  places 
named,  it  cannot  be  traced  with  certainty. — Ver.  33.  "  Its  boun- 
dary teas  (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  Judg.  iv.  11,  the  oak-forest  (allon :  see 
the  remarks  on  Gen.  xii.  6)  at  Zaanannim  was  near  Kedesh,  on 
the  north-west  of  Lake  Huleh.  There  are  still  many  oaks  in  that 
neighbourhood  (Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  p.  38ti)  ;  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 
IJeir-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  ;  Burckhardf,  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  Jam- 
mune,  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.  304  sqq.),  where  there  are  still  considerable  ruins  of  a  very  early 
date  to  be  found,  especially  the  ruins  of  an  ancient  temple  and  a 
celebrated  place  of  pilgrimage,  with  which  the  name  u  God's  build- 
ino-"  agrees.  And  lastly,  he  associates  Lakkum  with  the  mountains 
of  Lokham,  as  the  northern  part  of  Lebanon  on  the  Syrian  moun- 
tains, from  the  latitude  of  Laodicea  to  that  of  Antioch  on  the 
western  side  of  the  Orontes,  is  called  by  the  Arabian  geographers 
Isztachri,  Abidfeda,  and  others.  So  far  as  the  names  are  concerned, 
these  combinations  seem  appropriate  enough,  but  they  are  hardly 
tenable.     The  resemblance  between  the  names  Lakkum  and  Lokham 


CHAP.  XIX.  32-39.  203 

is  only  in  appearance,  as  the  Hebrew  name  is  written  with  p  and 
the  Arabic  with  3.     Moreover,  the  mountains  of  Lokham  are  much 
too  far  north  for  the  name  to  be  adduced  as  an  explanation  of 
Lakkum.     The  interpretation  of  Adami  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  deter- 
mined at  present.     The  Jordan,  where  the  boundary  of  Asher  ter- 
minated,  was   no  doubt   the  upper  Jordan,   or  rather  the  Ndhr 
Ilasbany,  one  of  the  sources  of  the  Jordan,  which  formed,  together 
with  the  Huleh  lake  and  the  Jordan  itself,  between  Lake  Iluleh 
and  the  Sea  of  Tiberias,  and  down  to  the  point  where  it  issues  from 
the  latter,  the  eastern  boundary  of  Asher. — Ver.   34.    From   the 
Jordan  below  the  Lake  of  Tiberias,  or  speaking  more  exactly,  from 
the  point  at  which  the  Wady  Bessum  enters  the  Jordan,  "  the  boun- 
dary (of  Asher)  turned  westwards  to  Asnoth-tabor,  and  went  thence 
out  to  Hulkok"    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  ver.  22)  to  Asnoth- 
tabor,  i.e.,  according  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Azanoth),  a  vicus  ad  r< 
?>em  JDioca?sareo3  pertinens  in  campestribus,  probably  on  the  south- 
east of  Dioca?sarea,  i.e.  Sepphoris,  not  far  from  Tabor,  to  which  the 
boundary  of  Issachar  extended  (ver.  22).     Huhkoh  has  not  yet  been 
traced.    Robinson  (Bibl.  Res.  p.  <S2)  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  Yakuk,  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  /■</  the 
Jordan  toward  the  sun-rising  or  east."     "The  Jordan"  is  in  a;  po- 
sition to  "Judah,"  in  the  sense  of  "Judah  of  the  Jordan,"   like 
«Jordan  of  Jericho"  in  Num.  x.xii.  1,  xxvi.  3,  etc.     The  Mason  tic- 
pointing,  wlrch  separates  these  two  words,  was  founded  upon  -nie 


204  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

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  (1  Chron.  ii.  5,  21,  22);  whereas  in 
chap.  xiii.  30,  and  Num.  xxxii.  41,  he  is  reckoned  contra  morem, 
i.e.  against  the  rule  laid  down  in  Num.  xxxvi.  7,  as  a  descendant 
of  Manasseh,  on  account  of  his  descent  from  Machir  the  Manassite, 
on  his  mother's  side.1 

Vers.  35  sqq.  The  fortified  towns  of  Naphtali  were  the  following. 
Ziddim :  unknown,  though  Knobel  suggests  that  "  it  may  possibly 
be  preserved  in  Chhbet  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  (=  ~^9)>  a  heap  of  ruins  at  the  southern  end  of  the  lake 
(Rub.  iii.  p.  263),  the  place  which  Josephus  calls  Tariclieo?.  (see 
Reland,  p.  1026), — a  very  doubtful  combination  !  Hammafh  (i.e. 
thermos),  a  Levitical  town  called  Hammoth-dor  in  chap.  xxi.  32, 
and  Hammon  in  1  Chron.  vi.  61,  was  situated,  according  to  state- 
ments 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  fcdofxr)  'A/jL/jlcioik;  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Tiberias, 
a  place  with  warm  baths  (Jos.  Ant.  xviii.  2,  3  ;  Bell.  Jud.  iv.  1,  3). 
There  are  warm  springs  still  to  be  found  half  an  hour  to  the  south 
of  Tabaria,  which  are  used  as  baths  (Burckhardt,  Syr.  pp.  573-4  ; 
Rob.  iii.  pp.  258  sqq.).  Rakkath  (according  to  the  Talrn.  and  Rabb. 
ripa  littus)  was  situated,  according  to  rabbinical  accounts,  in  the 
immediate  neighbourhood  of  Hammath,  and  was  the  same  place  as 
Tiberias ;  but  the  account  given  by  Josephus  (Ant.  xviii.  2,  3  ;  cf. 
Bell.  Jud.  ii.  9,  1)  respecting  the  founding  of  Tiberias  by  Herod  the 
tetrarch  is  at  variance  with  this;  so  that  the  rabbinical  statements 
appear  to  have  no  other  foundation  than  the  etymology  of  the  name 

1  See  C.  v.  Raumer''s  article  on  "  Judaea  on  the  east  of  Jordan,"  in  TholucJc's 
litt.  Anz.  1834,  Nos.  I  and  2,  and  his  Palästina,  pp.  233  sqq.  ed.  4  ;  and  for  the 
arbitrary  attempts  that  had  been  made  to  explain  the  passage  by  alterations  of 
the  text  and  in  other  ways,  see  Rosenmüller' 's  Bibl.  Alterthk.  ii.  1,  pp.  301-2  ;  and 
Keifs  Comin,  on  Joshua,  pp.  438-9. 


CHAP.  XIX.  35-39.  205 

JRakkath.  Chinnereth  is  given  in  the  Targums  as  ^p"1^,  "|Di:,,JJ  "1D133 
i.e.  revvrjadp.  According  to  Josephus  (Bell.  Jud.  iii.  10,  8),  this 
name  was  given  to  a  strip  of  land  on  the  shore  of  the  Sea  of  Galilee, 
which  was  distinguished  foi  its  natural  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  (Burch- 
hardt,  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  (Deut.  iii.  17)  or 
Chinneroth  (chap.  xi.  2),  and  the  lake  alone  the  name  of  "  Sea  of 
Chinnereth,"  or  "  Sea  of  Chinneroth"  (chap.  xii.  3,  xiii.  27  ;  Num. 
xxxiv.  11). — Ver.  36.  Adamah  is  unknown.  Knobel  is  of  opinion, 
that  as  Adamah  signifies  red,  the  place  referred  to  may  possibly  be 
Mas  el  Ahmar,  i.e.  red-head,  on  the  north  of  Safed  (Rob.  iii.  p.  370 ; 
Bibl.  Res.  p.  69).  Ramah  is  the  present  Rameh  (Ramca),  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).  Razor  has  not  yet  been  traced 
with  certainty  (see  at  chap.  xi.  1). — Ver.  37.  Kedesh  (see  at  chap. 
xii.  2).  Edrei,  a  different  place  from  the  town  of  the  same  name 
in  Bashan  (chap.  i.  2,  4),  is  still  unknown.  En-hazor  is  probably 
to  be  sought  for  in  Tell  Hazur  and  Ain  Ilazur,  which  is  not  very 
far  distant,  on  the  south-west  of  Rameh,  though  the  ruins  upon 
Tell  Ilazur  are  merely  the  ruins  of  an  ordinary  village,  with  one 
single  cistern  that  has  fallen  to  pieces  (Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  pp.  80,  81). — 
Ver.  38.  Jireon  (Iron)  is  probably  the  present  village  of  Jarun,  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.  1  •">•">)• 
Migdal-el,  so  far  as  the  name  is  concerned,  might  be  Magdala  (Matt. 
xv.  39),  on  the  western  shore  of  the  Lake  of  Gennesareth,  between 
Capernaum  and  Tiberias  (Rob.  iii.  pp.  279  sqq.)  ;  the  only  difficulty 
is,  that  the  towns  upon  this  lake  have  already  been  mentioned  in 
ver.  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  uam«  -  ; 
whereas  it  has  against  it  not  only  the  situation  of  the  village,  which 


206  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

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  Cliorem  and  Kerum,  not  to 
mention  the  fact  that  the  accents  separate  Chor  em  from  Migdal-el, 
whilst  the  omission  of  the  copula  (vav)  before  Chorein  cannot  have 
any  weight,  as  the  copula  is  also  wanting  before  Zer  and  Rakkath. 
Cliorem  and  Beth-anath  have  not  yet  been  discovered.  From  the 
latter  place  Naphtali  was  unable  to  expel  the  Canaanites  (Judg.  i. 
33).  Beth-shemesh,  a  different  place  from  the  town  of  the  same 
name  in  Issachar  (ver.  22),  is  also  still  unknown.  The  total  number 
of  towns  is  given  as  nineteen,  whereas  only  sixteen  are  mentioned 
by  name.  It  is  hardly  correct  to  seek  for  the  missing  places  among 
the  border  towns  mentioned  in  vers.  33  and  34,  as  the  enumeration 
of  the  towns  themselves  is  introduced  by  l-pD  "njn  in  ver.  35,  and 
in  this  way  the  list  of  towns  is  separated  from  the  description  of  the 
boundaries.  To  this  we  may  add,  that  the  town  of  Karthan  or 
Kirjathaim,  which  Naphtali  gave  up  to  the  Levites  (chap.  xxi.  32  ; 
1  Chron.  vi.  61),  does  not  occur  either  among  the  border  towns  or 
in  the  list  of  towns,  from  which  we  may  see  that  the  list  of  towns 
is  an  imperfect  one. 

Vers.  40-48.  The  Inheritance  of  the  Tribe  of  Dan. — 
This  fell  to  the  west  of  Benjamin,  between  Judah  and  Ephraim, 
and  was  formed  by  Judah  giving  up  some  of  its  northern  towns, 
and  Ephraim  some  of  its  southern  towns,  to  the  Danites,  so  as  to 
furnish  them  with  a  territory  proportionate  to  their  number.  It 
was  situated  for  the  most  part  in  the  lowland  (shephelali),  includ- 
ing, however,  the  hill  country  between  the  Mediterranean  and  the 
mountains,  and  extended  over  a  portion  of  the  plain  of  Sharon,  so 
that  it  belonged  to  one  of  the  most  fruitful  portions  of  Palestine. 
The  boundaries  are  not  given,  because  they  could  be  traced  from 
those  of  the  adjoining  territories. — Ver.  41.  From  Judah  the 
families  of  Dan  received  Zorea  and  Eshtaol  (see  at  chap.  xv.  33), 
and  Ir-shemesh,  also  called  Beth-shemesh  (1  Kings  iv.  9),  on  the 
border  of  Judah  (see  chap.  xv.  10)  ;  but  of  these  the  Danites  did 
not  take  possession,  as  they  were  given  up  by  Judah  to  the  Levites 
(chap.  xxi.  16:  see  at  chap.  xv.  10).  Saalabbin,  or  Saalbim,  which 
remained  in  the  hands  of  the  Canaanites  (Judg.  i.  35),  is  frequently 
mentioned  in  the  history  of  David  and  Solomon  (2  Sam.  xxiii.  32  ; 
1  Chron.  xi.  33  ;  1  Kings  iv.  9).  It  may  possibly  be  the  present 
Selbit  {Rob.  iii.  App. ;  Bibl.  Res.  p.  144),  some  distance  to  the  north 


CHAP.  XIX.  40-48.  207 

of  the  three  places  mentioned  (KnobeV).     Ajalon,  which  was  also 
not  taken  from  the  Canaanites  (Judg.  i.  35),  was  assigned  to  the 
Levites  (chap.  xxi.  24 ;  1  Chron.  vi.  54).     It  is  mentioned  in  the 
wars  with  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  xiv.  31 ;   1  Chron.  viii.  13),  was 
fortified  by  Rehoboam  (2  Chron.  xi.  10),  and  was  taken   by  the 
Philistines   from   King  Ahaz  (2  Chron.  xxviii.  18).     It  has  been 
preserved  in  the  village  of    Yah  (see  at  chap.  x.  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). — Ver.  43.  Elon. 
which   is   mentioned  again  in  1  Kings  iv.  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  chap.  xv.  10,  11). — Ver. 
44.  Eltekeli  and  Gibbethon,  which  were  allotted  to  the  Levites  (chap. 
xxi.  23),  have  not  yet  been  discovered.     Under  the  earliest  kings 
of  Israel,  Gibbethon  was  in  the  hands  of  the  Philistines  (1  Kings  xv. 
27,  xvi.  15,  17).    Baalath  was  fortified  by  Solomon  (1  Kings  ix.  18). 
According  to  Josephus   (Ant.  viii.  6,  1),   it  was   "  Baleth  in  the 
neighbourhood  of  Geser ;"  probably  the  same  place  as  Baalah,  on  the 
border  of  Judah  (chap.  xv.  11). — Ver.  45.  Jehud  has  probably  been 
preserved   in  the  village  of  Jehudieh  (Iludieh),  two  hours  to  the 
north  of  Ludd  (Diospolis),  in  a  splendidly  cultivated  plain  {!>,  .■/- 
gren,  R.  iii.  p.  162  ;  Bob.  iii.  p.  45,  and  App.).     Beue-berak,  the 
present  Ibn  Abrak,  an  hour  from  Jehud  (Scholz,  R.  p.  256).    Gafh- 
rimmon,  which  was  given  to  the  Levites  (chap.  xxi.  24  ;  1  Chron. 
vi.  54),  is  described  in  the  Onorn.  (s.  v.)  as  villa  pnvgrandis  in  duo- 
decimo milliario  Diospoleos  pergentibus  Eleutheropolin, — a  statement 
which  points  to  the  neighbourhood  of  Thimnah,  though  it  has  not 
yet  been  discovered. — Ver.  46.  Me-jarkon,  i.e.  aquce  ßavediuis,  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  plac<  a 
in   the  environs  of  Joppa.      Consequently  Joppa  itself    dees   not 
appear  to  have  belonged  to  the  territory  of  Dan,  although,  accord- 
ing to  Judg.  v.  17,  the  Danites  must  have  had  possession  of  this 
town.     Japho,  the  well-known  port  of  Palestine  (2  Chron.  ii.  15; 
Ezra  iii.  7  ;  Jonah  i.  3),  which  the  Greeks  called  'IÜtttti]  (Joppa), 
the  present  Jaffa  (see  v.  Raumer,  Pal.  pp.  20  1   5,  and  Ritter,  Erdk. 
xvi.  pp.  574  sqq.). — Ver.  47.  Besides  this  inheritance,  the  Danites 


208  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

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 
(Judg.  i.  34,  35,  xviii.  2).  For  further  particulars  concerning  this 
conquest,  see  Judg.  xviii.  Leshem  or  Laish  (Judg.  xviii.  7,  27),  i.e. 
Dan,  which  the  Onom.  describes  as  viculus  quarto  a  Paneade  mil- 
Uario  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  (1  Kings  xii.  29,  30, 
etc.)  ;  and  it  is  frequently  mentioned  as  the  northernmost  city  of  the 
Israelites,  in  contrast  with  Beersheba,  which  was  in  the  extreme 
south  of  the  land  (Judg.  xx.  1 ;  1  Sam.  iii.  20 ;  2  Sam.  iii.  10 :  see 
also  Ritter,  Erdk.  xv.  pp.  207  sqq.). 

Vers.  49—51.  Conclusion  of  the  Distribution  of  the  Land. — Vers. 
49,  50.  When  the  land  was  distributed  among  the  tribes  according 
to  its  territories,  the  Israelites  gave  Joshua  an  inheritance  in  the 
midst  of  them,  according  to  the  command  of  Jehovah,  namely  the 
town  of  Timnath-serah,  upon  the  mountains  of  Ephraim,  for  which 
he  asked,  and  which  he  finished  building ;  and  there  he  dwelt  until 
the  time  of  his  death  (chap.  xxiv.  30  ;  Judg.  ii.  9).  "  According 
to  the  word  of  the  Lord"  (lit.  "  at  the  mouth  of  Jehovah")  does  not 
refer  to  a  divine  oracle  communicated  through  the  high  priest,  but 
to  a  promise  which  Joshua  had  probably  received  from  God  at  the 
same  time  as  Caleb,  viz.  in  Kadesh,  but  which,  like  the  promise 
given  to  Caleb,  is  not  mentioned  in  the  Pentateuch  (see  at  chap, 
xv.  13,  xiv.  9).  Timnath-serah,  called  Timnath-heres  in  Judg.  ii.  9, 
must  not  be  confounded  with  Timnah  in  the  tribe  of  Dan  (ver.  43, 
chap.  xv.  10),  as  is  the  case  in  the  Onom.  It  has  been  preserved  in 
the  present  ruins  and  foundation  walls  of  a  place  called  Tibneh, 
which  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.  562  sqq.,  and  Rob.  Bibl.  Res. 
p.  141). — Ver.  51.  Closing  formula  to  the  account  of  the  distri- 
bution of  the  land,  which  refers  primarily  to  chap,  xviii.  1  sqq.,  as 
the  expression  "  in  Shiloh"  shows,  but  which  also  includes  chap, 
ziv.— xvii. 


CHAP.  XX.  209 

SELECTION  OF  CITIES  OF  REFUGE,  OR  FREE  CITIES. — CHAP.  XX. 

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


210  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

APPOINTMENT  OF  TOWNS  FOR  THE  PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES. 

CHAP.  XXI. 

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

Vers.  4—8.  Number  of  the  cities  which  the  different  families  of 
Levi  received  from  each  tribe.  The  tribe  of  Levi  was  divided  into 
three  branches, — the  Gershonites,  the  Kohathites,  and  the  Merar- 
ltes  (see  Num.  iii.  and  Ex.  vi.  16-19).  The  Kohathites  again  were 
divided  into  the  four  families  of  Amram,  Izhar,  Hebron,  and 
Uzziel  (Ex.  vi.  18)  ;  and  the  family  of  Amram  into  two  lines,  con- 
sisting of  the  descendants  of  Moses  and  Aaron  (Ex.  vi.  20).  The 
priesthood  was  committed  to  the  line  of  Aaron  (Num.  xviii.  1-7)  ; 
but  the  other  descendants  of  Amram,  i.e.  the  descendants  of  Moses, 
were  placed  on  a  par  with  the  other  descendants  of  Levi,  and 
numbered  among  the  simple  Levites  (Num.  iii. ;  1  Chron.  v.  27- 
vi.  34).  The  towns  in  which  the  different  families  of  Levi  were  to 
dwell  were   determined  by  lot ;  but  in  all  probability  the  towns 


CHAP.  XXI.  4-8.  211 

which  each  tribe  was  to  give  up  to  them  were  selected  first  of  all, 
so  that  the  lot  merely  decided  to  which  branch  of  the  Levites  each 
particular  town  was  to  belong. — Ver.  4.  The  first  lot  came  out  for 
the  families  of  Kohath,  and  among  these  again  for  the  sons  of 
Aaron,  i.e.  the  priests.  They  received  thirteen  towns  from  the 
tribes  of  Judah,  Simeon,  and  Benjamin.  "  This  did  not  happen 
by  chance  ;  but  God,  according  to  His  wonderful  counsel,  placed 
them  just  in  that  situation  which  He  had  determined  to  select  for 
His  own  temple"  (Calvin). — Ver.  5.  The  rest  of  the  Kohathites, 
i.e.  the  descendants  of  Moses,  Izhar,  Hebron,  and  Uzziel,  received 
ten  towns  from  Ephraim,  Dan,  and  half  Manasseh. — Ver.  6.  The 
Gershonites  received  thirteen  towns  from  Issachar,  Asher,  Naphtali, 
and  half  Manasseh  in  Bashan. — Ver.  7.  The  Merarites  received 
twelve  towns  from  Reuben,  Gad,  and  Zebulun. 

The  number  of  towns  thus  assigned  to  the  Levites  will  not 
appear  too  large,  if  we  consider,  (1)  that  judging  from  the  number 
of  towns  in  so  small  a  land,  the  greater  part  of  them  cannot  have 
been  very  large ;  (2)  that  the  Levites  were  not  the  sole  possessors 
of  these  towns,  but  simply  received  the  number  of  dwelling-houses 
which  they  actually  required,  with  meadow  land  for  their  cattle  in 
the  suburbs  of  the  towns,  whilst  the  rest  of  the  space  still  belonged 
to  the  different  tribes ;  and  (3)  that  if  the  23,000  males,  the 
number  of  the  Levites  at  the  second  census  which  was  taken  in 
the  steppes  of  Moab,  were  distributed  among  the  thirty-five  towns, 
it  would  give  657  males,  or  1300  male  and  female  Levites  for 
every  town.  On  the  other  hand,  offence  has  been  taken  at  the 
statement,  that  thirteen  towns  were  given  up  to  the  priests  ;  and 
under  the  idea  that  Aaron  could  hardly  have  had  descendants 
enough  in  Joshua's  time  from  his  two  sons  who  remained  alive  to 
fill  even  two  towns,  to  say  nothing  of  thirteen,  the  list  has  been  set 
down  as  a  document  which  was  drawn  up  at  a  much  later  date 
(3faurer,  etc.).  But  any  one  who  takes  this  ground  not  only  attri- 
butes to  the  distribution  commission  the  enormous  shortsightedness 
of  setting  apart  towns  for  the  priests  merely  to  meet  their  existing 
wants,  and  without  any  regard  to  the  subsequent  increase  which 
would  take  place  in  their  numbers,  but  he  also  forms  too  large  an 
estimate  of  the  size  of  the  towns,  and  too  small  an  estimate  oi  the 
number  of  the  priests.  Moreover,  it  was  never  intended  that  the 
towns  should  be  filled  with  priests'  families;  and  the  number  of 
priests  alive  at  that  time  is  not  mentioned  anywhere.  Bui  it'  we 
bear  in  mind  that  Aaron  died  in  the  fortieth  year  of  the  journeys 


212  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

of  the  Israelites,  at  the  age  of  123  years  (Num.  xxxiii.  38),  and 
therefore  was  eighty-three  years  old  at  the  time  of  the  exodus  from 
Egypt,  his  descendants  might  have  entered  upon  the  fourth  genera- 
tion seven  years  after  his  death.  Now  his  two  sons  had  twenty-four 
male  descendants,  who  were  the  founders  of  the  twenty-four  classes 
instituted  by  David  (1  Chron.  xxiv.).  And  if  we  only  reckon  six 
males  to  each  of  the  next  generations,  there  would  be  144  in  the 
third  generation,  who  would  be  between  the  ages  of  twenty-five  and 
thirty-five  when  the  distribution  of  the  land  took  place,  and  who 
mi  cht  therefore  have  had  864  male  children  living  at  that  time ;  so 
that  the  total  number  of  males  in  the  families  of  the  priests  might 
have  amounted  to  more  than  1000,  that  is  to  say,  might  have  con- 
sisted of  at  least  200  families. 

Vers.  9-42.  Names  of  the  Levitical  Towns.1 — Vers.  9-19.  The 
priests'  towns  :  (a)  in  Judah  and  Simeon  (vers.  9-16)  ;  (b)  in  Ben- 
jamin (vers.  17—19). — Vers.  9  sqq.  In  the  tribe  of  Judah  the 
priests  received  Kirjath-arba,  or  Hebron,  with  the  necessary  pas- 
turage round  about  the  town  (see  Num.  xxxv.  2),  whilst  the  field 
of  the  town  with  the  villages  belonging  to  it  remained  in  the  hands 
of  Caleb  and  his  family  as  their  possession  (chap.  xiv.  12  sqq.). — 
Ver.  13  contains  a  repetition  of  ver.  11,  occasioned  by  the  paren- 
thetical remark  in  ver.  12.  They  also  received  Libnah  in  the 
lowland  (see  chap.  xv.  42,  x.  29) ;  Jattir  (chap.  xv.  48),  Eshtemoah 

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


CHAP.  XXI.  &-42.  213 

(chap.  xv.  50),  ITolon  (chap.  xv.  51),  and  Debir  (chap.  xv.  15,  49, 
x.  38)  on  the  mountains  of  Judah ;  Ain,  for  which  we  should  read 
Aslian  (1  Chron.  vi.  44;  cf.  chap.  xv.  42),  in  the  tribe  of  Simeon 
(chap.  xix.  7) ;  Juttah  on  the  mountains  (chap.  xv.  55)  ;  and  Beth- 
shemesh  in  the  lowland  (chap.  xv.  10). — Vers.  17  sqq.  In  the 
tribe  of  Benjamin  they  received  Gibeon  (see  chap.  ix.  3),  Geba 
(chap,  xviii.  24),  also  Anathoth  and  Almon,  which  are  missing  in 
the  list  of  the  towns  of  Benjamin  (see  at  chap,  xviii.  24). — Vera. 
20-42.  Toicns  of  the  Levites.— Vers.  20-26.  The  other  Kohathites 
received  four  towns  from  the  tribe  of  Ephraim  (vers.  21,  22),  four 
from  Dan  (vers.  23,  24),  and  two  from  the  half  tribe  of  Manasseh 
on  this  side  of  the  Jordan  (ver.  25).  From  Ephraim  they  received 
Shechem  (see  chap.  xvii.  7),  Gezer  (chap.  x.  33),  Kibzaim — for 
which  we  find  Jochneam  in  1  Chron.  vi.  68,  possibly  a  different 
name  for  the  same  place,  which  has  not  yet  been  discovered — and 
Beth-horon,  whether  Upper  or  Lower  is  not  stated  (see  chap.  x.  10). 
From  Dan  they  received  Elthekeh  and  Gibbethon  (chap.  xix.  44), 
Ajalon  and  Gath-rimmon  (chap.  xix.  42,  45).  From  half  Manasseh 
they  received  Taanach  (chap.  xvii.  11,  xii.  21)  and  Gath-rimmon — 
this  is  evidently  a  copyist's  error,  occasioned  by  the  wandering  of  the 
eye  to  the  previous  verse,  for  Bileam  (1  Chron.  vi.  70),  i.e.  Jibleam 
(chap.  xvii.  11). — Ver.  26.  Thus  they  received  ten  towns  in  all. — 
Vers.  27-33.  The  Gerslionites  received  two  towns  from  eastern 
Manasseh:  Golan  (chap.  xx.  8;  Deut.  iv.  43),  and  Beeshterah. 
Beeshterah  (contracted  from  Beth-eshterah,  the  house  of  Astarte), 
called  Ashtaroth  in  1  Chron.  vi.  56,  may  possibly  have  been  the 
capital  of  king  Og  (Ashtaroth-kamaim,  Gen.  xiv.  5),  if  not  one  of 
the  two  villages  named  Astaroth,  which  are  mentioned  by  Eusebius 
in  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Astharoth-  karnaim),  and  are  described  by 
Jerome  as  duo  castella  in  Batancca,  novem  inter  se  millibus  separata 
inter  Adaram  et  Abilam  civitates,  though  Adara  and  Abila  are  too 
indefinite  to  determine  the  situation  with  any  exactness.  At  any 
rate,  the  present  Busra  on  the  east  of  the  ITauran  cannot  be  thought 
of  for  a  moment ;  for  this  was  called  Boacropa  or  Boaoppa,  >.>•.  •  nV3, 
in  ancient  times,  as  it  is  at  the  present  day  (see  1  Mace.  v.  26,  and 
Joseph.  Ant.  xii.  8,  3),  and  was  corrupted  into  Bostra  by  the  Greeks 
and  Romans.  Nor  can  it  be  the  present  Kul'at  Bustra  on  the  north 
of  Banyas  upon  a  shoulder  of  the  Ilermon,  where  there  are  the 
ruins  of  a  magnificent  building,  probably  a  temple  of  ancient  date 
(Burckhardt,  Syr.  pp.  93,  94 ;  Rob.  Bibb  Res.  pp.  -11  I- 1 5 ),  a  a  A 
supposes,  sin?e  the  territory  of  the  Israelites  did  not  reach  so  far  north, 


214  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

the  land  conquered  by  Joshua  merely  extending  to  Baal-gad,  i.e. 
Banyas,  at  the  foot  of  the  Hermon  (see  chap.  xi.  17),  and  the  land 
to  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  or  Bashan,  only  to  the  Hermon  itself,  or 
more  correctly,  merely  to  the  districts  of  Geshuri  and  Maacah  at  the 
south-eastern  border  of  the  Hermon  (see  at  Deut.  iii.  8, 14). — Vers. 
28,  29.  From  Issachar  they  received  four  towns :  Kishon  (chap.  xix. 
20),  Dabrath  (chap.  xix.  12),  Jarmuth  =  Remeth  (see  chap.  xix.  21), 
and  En-gannim  (chap.  xix.  21,  or  Anem,  1  Chron.  vi.  73). — Vers. 
30,  31.  From  Asher  they  received  four  towns :  Mishal  or  Masai 
(chap.  xix.  26;  cf.  1  Chron.  vi.  74),  Abdon  (chap.  xix.  28),  Hel- 
kath  (chap.  xix.  25,  called  Hukok  in  1  Chron.  vi.  75,  probably 
a  copyist's  error),  and  Re.hob  (chap.  xix.  28). — Ver.  32.  From 
Naphtali  they  received  three  towns :  Kedesh  (chap.  xix.  37  and 
xii.  22),  Hammoth-dor  (called  Hammath  in  chap.  xix.  35,  and 
Ham.rn.on  in  1  Chron.  vi.  76),  and  Kartan  (contracted  from  Kartain 
for  Kirjathaim,  1  Chron.  vi.  76;  like  Dothan  in  2  Kings  vi.  13, 
from  Dothain  in  Gen.  xxxvii.  17).  Kartan  is  not  mentioned  among 
the  towns  of  Naphtali  in  chap.  xix.  33  sqq. ;  according  to  Knobel 
it  may  possibly  be  Katanah,  a  place  with  ruins  to  the  north-east 
of  Safed  {Van  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  147).— Ver.  33.  They  received 
thirteen  towns  in  all. — Vers.  34-40.  The  Merarites  received  twelve 
towns.  From  the  tribe  of  Zebulun  they  received  four :  Jokneam 
(chap.  xix.  11  :  see  at  chap.  xii.  22),  Kartah  and  Dimnah,1  which 
are  not  mentioned  among  the  towns  of  Zebulim  in  chap.  xix.  11  sqq., 
and  are  unknown,  and  Nahalal  (chap.  xix.  15). — Vers.  36,  37.  From 
Reuben  they  received  four :  Bezer  (chap.  xx.  8  :  see  Deut.  iv.  43), 
Jahza,  Kedemoth,  and  Mepliaath  (chap.  xiii.  18).2 — Vers.  38,  39. 
From  Gad  they  received  four  towns :  Ramoth  in  Gilead,  and 
Malianaim  (see  at  chap.  xiii.  26),  Heshbon  (chap.  xiii.  17)  and  Jaezer 
(chap.  xiii.  25  :  see  at  Num.  xxi.  32). — Ver.  40.  They  received 

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

2  72.  Jacob  ben  Cliajim  has  omitted  vers.  36  and  37  from  his  Rabbinical  Bible 
of  the  year  1525  as  spurious,  upon  the  authority  of  Kimchi  and  the  larger 
Masora ;  but  upon  insufficient  grounds,  as  these  verses  are  to  be  found  in  many 
good  mss.  and  old  editions  of  an  earlier  date  than  1525,  as  well  as  in  all  the 
ancient  versions,  and  could  not  possibly  have  been  wanting  from  the  very  first, 
since  the  Merarites  received  twelve  towns,  which  included  the  four  that  belonged 
to  Reuben.  In  those  MSS.  in  which  they  are  wanting,  the  omission  was,  no 
doubt,  a  copyist's  error,  occasioned  by  the  öu.oton'Kivröv  (see  de  Rossi  variat 
lectt.  ad  h.  I.,  and  /.  77.  Michaelis'  Note  to  his  Hebrew  Bible). 


CHAP.  XXI.  43-45.  215 

twelve  towns  in  all. — In  vers.  41  and  42  the  list  of  the  Levitical 
towns  is  closed  with  a  statement  of  their  total  number,  and  also  with 
the  repetition  of  the  remark  that  "  these  cities  were  every  one  with 
their  suburbs  round  about  them."  'D1  "Vj;  "Vy;  city  city,  i.e.  everv 
city,  with  its  pasture  round  about  it. 

Vers.  43-45  form  the  conclusion  to  the  account  of  the  division 
of  the  land  in  chap,  xiii.-xxi.,  which  not  only  points  back  to  chap, 
xi.  23,  but  also  to  chap.  i.  2-fi,  and  connects  the  two  halves  of  our 
book  together.  By  the  division  of  Canaan  anions  the  tribes  of 
Israel,  the  promise  which  Joshua  had  received  from  God  after  the 
death  of  Moses  was  fulfilled  (chap.  i.  2  sqq.).  The  Lord  had  given 
Israel  the  whole  land  which  He  had  sworn  to  the  fathers  (Gen. 
xii.  7,  xv.  18,  compared  with  Josh.  i.  3,  4);  and  they  had  now 
taken  possession  of  it  to  dwell  therein. — Ver.  44.  He  had  also  pro- 
cured them  rest  round  about,  as  lie  had  sworn  to  their  fathers, 
inasmuch  as  not  a  man  of  all  their  enemies  stood  against  them. 
The  expression  "  gave  them  rest,"  etc.,  points  back  to  Deut.  xii. 
9,  10,  and  refers  to  all  the  divine  promises  of  the  Pentateuch  which 
assured  the  Israelites  of  the  peaceable  possession  of  Canaan,  such  as 
Ex.  xxxiii.  14,  Deut.  iii.  20,  etc.  No  enemy  had  been  able  to  with- 
stand them,  as  the  Lord  had  promised  Joshua  (chap.  i.  5).  "  The 
Lord  delivered  all  their  enemies  into  their  hand."  It  is  true  the 
Canaanites  were  not  all  exterminated ;  but  those  who  were  left  had 
become  so  powerless,  that  they  could  neither  accomplish  nor  attempt 
anything  against  Israel,  so  long  as  the  Israelites  adhered  faithfully 
to  their  God,  or  so  long  as  Joshua  and  the  elders  who  were  his 
contemporaries  were  alive  (Judg.  ii.  6  sqq.),  because  the  Lord  had 
overwhelmed  them  with  fear  and  terror  before  the  Israelites.1 — 
Ver.  45.  Of  all  the  good  words  which  the  Lord  had  spoken  to  the 
house  of  Israel  not  one  had  fallen,  i.e.  remained  unfulfilled  (Num. 
vi.  12);  all  had  come  to  pass  (vid.  chap,  xxiii.  14).  3itfn  "lyjn  <  a 
relates  to  the  gracious  promises  of  God  with  regard  to  the  peaceful 
possession  of  Canaan,  which  formed  the  basis  of  all  the  salvation 
promised  to  Israel,  and  the  pledge  of  the  fulfilment  of  all  the  further 

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


216  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

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

RETURN  OF  THE  TWO  TRIBES  AND  A  HALF  TO  THEIR  OWN 
INHERITANCE. — CHAP.  XXII. 

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

1  "With  reference  to  this  apparent  discrepancy  between  the  promises  of  God 
and  the  actual  results,  Calvin  observes,  that  "  in  order  to  remove  every  appear- 
ance of  discrepancy,  it  is  right  to  distinguish  well  between  the  clear,  unwavering, 
and  certain  fidelity  of  God  in  the  fulfilment  of  His  promises,  and  the  weakness 
and  indolence  of  the  people,  which  caused  the  blessings  of  God  to  slip  from 
their  hands.  Whatever  war  the  people  undertook,  iu  whatever  direction  they 
carried  their  standards,  there  was  victory  ready  to  their  hand ;  nor  was  there 
anything  to  retard  or  prevent  the  extermination  of  all  their  enemies  except  their 
own  slothfulness.  Consequently,  although  they  did  not  destroy  them  all,  so  aa 
to  empty  the  land  for  their  own  possession,  the  truth  of  God  stood  out  as  dis- 
tinctly as  if  they  had  ;  for  there  would  have  been  no  difficulty  in  their  accom- 
plishment of  all  that  remained  to  be  done,  if  they  had  only  been  disposed  to 
grasp  the  victories  that  were  ready  to  their  hand. ' 


CHAP.  XXII.  1-8.  217 

for  the  conquest  of  Canaan  (chap.  i.  12  sqq.),  their  dismission  to 
their  home  very  properly  forms  the  conclusion  to  the  history  of  the 
conquest  of  this  land  by  the  Israelites.  We  might  therefore  assume, 
without  in  any  way  contradicting  the  words  of  the  text,  that  these 
auxiliaries  had  been  dismissed  immediately  after  the  war  was  ended. 
Even  in  that  case,  the  account  of  their  dismission  would  stand  in 
its  proper  place,  "since  it  was  only  right  that  the  history  itself, 
which  relates  to  the  conquest  and  possession  of  the  land,  should  be 
fully  completed  before  any  other  narratives,  or  any  casual  occur- 
rences which  took  place,  were  introduced  to  break  the  thread" 
{Liyhtfoot,  App.  i.  p.  42).  On  the  other  hand,  however,  the  cir- 
cumstance that  the  two  tribes  and  a  half  were  dismissed  from 
Shiloh,  where  the  tribes  assembled  for  the  first  time  during  the 
casting  of  the  lots,  favours  the  conclusion  that  the  dismission  did 
not  take  place  till  after  the  lots  had  been  cast ;  that  is  to  say,  con- 
temporaneously with  the  advance  of  the  other  tribes  into  their  pos- 
sessions.— Vers.  2,  3.  Joshua  acknowledged  that  they  had  done  all 
that  they  were  under  any  obligation  to  do  towards  Moses  and  him- 
self (Num.  xxxii.  20  sqq.;  Josh.  i.  16,  17).  "  Kept  the  charge  of 
the  commandment"  i.e.  observed  what  had  to  be  observed  in  relation 
to  the  commandment  of  the  Lord  (see  at  Lev.  viii.  35  and  Gen. 
xxvi.  5). — Ver.  4  points  back  to  chap.  i.  15.  "  Unto  your  tents" 
for  to  your  homes, — an  antiquated  form  of  expression,  as  in  Dent, 
xvi.  7,  Judg.  vii.  8,  etc. — Ver.  5.  Remembering,  however,  the 
changeableness  of  the  human  heart,  Joshua  appends  to  the  acknow- 
ledgment of  their  fidelity  in  the  performance  of  their  duty  the 
pressing  admonition,  to  continue  still  to  observe  the  law  of  Moses 
faithfully,  to  walk  in  the  ways  of  the  Lord  and  serve  Him  with  the 
whole  heart,  which  was  simply  a  repetition  of  what  Moses  had  im- 
pressed in  a  fatherly  way  upon  the  hearts  of  the  people  (see  Dent. 
iv.  4,  29,  vi.  5,  x.  12,  xi.  13,  etc.). — Ver.  6.  Thus  Joshua  dismissed 
them  with  blessings. — In  ver.  7,  the  writer,  for  the  sake  of  clear- 
ness, refers  again  to  the  fact  that  only  half  of  Manasseh  had 
received  its  inheritance  from  Moses  in  Bashan,  whereas  the  other 
had  received  its  inheritance  through  Joshua  on  the  west  of  the 
Jordan  (cf.  chap.  xiv.  3,  and  xviii.  7).  To  us  such  repetitions 
appear  superfluous;  but  they  are  closely  connected  with  thecopious 
breadth  of  the  early  historical  style  of  the  Hebrews,  which  abounded 
in  repetitions.  The  verb  JTi:  (gave)  wants  its  object,  InffW  or  IrDTO, 
which  may  easily  be  supplied  from  the  context.  This  interpolation 
involved  a  further  repetition  of  the  fact,  that  Joshua  also  dismissed 


218  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

them  (the  Manassites  of  the  other  side)  with  a  blessing,  in  order  that 
the  words  might  be  appended  with  which  Joshua  dismissed  the  two 
tribes  and  a  half  to  their  homes,  namely,  the  admonition  to  share  the 
rich  booty  which  they  had  accumulated  with  their  brethren  at  home, 
in  accordance  with  the  instructions  which  Moses  had  given  them 
with  reference  to  the  war  with  the  Midianites  (Num.  xxxi.  25  sqq.). 
Vers.  9-12.  On  the  way  home,  when  the  two  tribes  and  a  half 
had  reached  the  border  of  Canaan,  they  built  a  large  conspicuous 
altar  iu  the  district  of  the  Jordan,  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  i.e.  on  this 
side  of  the  Jordan  :  "  a  great  altar  to  see  to,"  i.e.  one  which  caught 
the  eye  on  account  of  its  size,  since  it  was  to  serve  for  a  memorial 
(vers.  24  sqq.).  The  definition  appended  to  Shiloh,  "  in  the  land  of 
Canaan"  (ver.  9),  serves  to  bring  out  the  antithesis  "  into  the  land 
of  Gilead"  by  which  we  are  to  understand  the  whole  of  the  country 
to  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  as  in  Num.  xxxii.  29,  Deut.  xxxiv.  1, 
Judg.  v.  17,  etc.  TnNJ,  both  in  the  form  and  meaning  the  same  as 
in  Num.  xxxii.  30,  made  possessors,  i.e.  settled  down.  £H*n  ni?v3, 
the  circles  of  the  Jordan,  is  synonymous  with  HD5?  "l??  m  Gen.  xiii. 
10,  and  signifies  that  portion  of  the  Ghor  which  was  upon  the 
western  side  of  the  Jordan. — Vers.  11,  12.  The  Israelites  (on  this 
side)  heard  that  the  tribes  in  question  had  built  the  altar  "  opposite 
to  the  land  of  Canaan"  (lit.  in  the  face  or  in  front  of  the  land  of 
Canaan),  "ny-?^  u  at  the  opposite  region  of  the  children  of  Israel" 
(two  descriptions  which  may  be  explained  on  the  supposition  that 
the  name  of  Canaan  is  used  in  a  restricted  sense,  the  valley  of  the 
Jordan  being  expressly  excepted,  and  Canaan  considered  as  only 
extending  to  the  valley  of  the  Jordan).  When  they  heard  this,  the 
whole  congregation  (in  its  heads  and  representatives)  assembled  at 
Shiloh,  to  go  up,  i.e.  with  the  intention  of  going,  to  make  war 
against  them.  The  congregation  supposed  that  the  altar  had  been 
built  as  a  place  for  sacrifice,  and  therefore  regarded  it  as  a  wicked 
violation  of  the  commandment  of  God  with  regard  to  the  unity  of 
the  sacrificial  altar  (Lev.  xvii.  8,  9  ;  Deut.  xii.  4  sqq.),  which  they 
ought  to  punish  according  to  the  law  in  Deut.  xiii.  13  sqq.  This  zeal 
was  perfectly  justifiable,  and  even  praiseworthy,  as  the  altar,  even 
if  not  erected  as  a  place  for  sacrifice,  might  easily  be  abused  to  that 
purpose,  and  thus  become  an  occasion  of  sin  to  the  whole  nation. 
In  any  case,  the  two  tribes  and  a  half  ought  not  to  have  erected 
such  a  building  without  the  consent  of  Joshua  or  of  the  high  priest.1 

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


CHAP.  XXII.  13-20.  219 

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

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


220  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

to-day  ye  turn  away  from  the  Lord  again"  and  aie  about  to  bring 
His  wrath  upon  the  -whole  congregation  again  through  a  fresh 
rebellion. — Ver.  19.  "  And  truly"  the  speaker  continued,  "if  the 
land  of  your  possession  should  be  unclean"  sc.  so  that  you  think  it 
necessary  to  have  an  altar  in  the  neighbourhood  to  expiate  your 
sins  and  wipe  away  your  uncleannesses,  u  pass  over  into  the  land  of 
JehoraK s  possession,  where  His  dwelling-place  stands,  and  settle  in 
the  midst  of  us  ('settle,'  as  in  Gen.  xxxiv.  10);  but  do  not  rebel 
against  Jehovah  nor  against  us,  by  building  an  altar  beside  the  (one) 
altar  of  Jehovah  our  God"  "HE  is  construed  first  of  all  with  2,  and 
then  with  the  accusative ;  the  only  other  place  in  which  the  latter 
occurs  is  Job  xxiv.  13. — Ver.  20.  He  finally  reminded  them  of  the 
sin  of  Achan,  how  that  had  brought  the  wrath  of  God  upon  the 
whole  congregation  (chap,  vii.);  and,  moreover,  Achan  was  not  the 
only  man  who  had  perished  on  account  of  the  sin,  but  thirty-six 
men  had  fallen  on  account  of  it  at  the  first  attack  upon  Ai  (chap, 
vii.  5).  The  allusion  to  this  fact  is  to  be  understood  as  an  argu- 
ment a  minori  ad  majus,  as  Masius  has  shown.  "  If  Achan  did 
not  perish  alone  when  he  committed  sacrilege,  but  God  was  angry 
with  the  whole  congregation,  what  think  ye  will  be  the  conse- 
quence if  ye,  so  great  a  number,  commit  so  grievous  a  sin  against 
God?" 

Vers.  21—29.  In  utter  amazement  at  the  suspicion  expressed  by 
the  delegates  of  the  congregation,  the  two  tribes  and  a  half  affirm 
with  a  solemn  oath,  that  it  never  entered  into  their  minds  to  build 
an  altar  as  a  place  of  sacrifice,  to  fall  away  from  Jehovah.  The 
combination  of  the  three  names  of  God — El,  the  strong  one  ; 
Elohim,  the  Supreme  Being  to  be  feared ;  and  Jehovah,  the  truly 
existing  One,  the  covenant  God  (ver.  22) — serves  to  strengthen  the 
invocation  of  God,  as  in  Ps.  1.  1  ;  and  this  is  strengthened  still 
further  by  the  repetition  of  these  three  names.  God  knows,  and 
let  Israel  also  know,  sc.  what  they  intended,  and  what  they  have 
done.  The  EX  which  follows  is  the  usual  particle  used  in  an  oath. 
"  Verily  (it  was)  not  in  rebellion,  nor  in  apostasy  from  Jehovah"  sc. 
that  this  was  done,  or  that  we  built  the  altar.  "  Mayst  Thou  not 
help  us  to-day,"  sc.  if  we  did  it  in  rebellion  against  God.  An  appeal 
addressed  immediately  to  God  in  the  heat  of  the  statement,  and 
introduced  in  the  midst  of  the  asseveration,  which  was  meant  to 
remove  all  doubt  as  to  the  truth  of  their  declaration.  The  words 
which  follow  in  ver.  23,  "  that  we  have  built"  etc.,  continue  the 
oath  :  If  we  have  done  this,  to  build  us  an  altar,  to  turn  away  from 


CHAP.  XXII.  21-29.  221 

the  Lord,  or  to  offer  thereon  burnt-offering,  meat-offering,  or  peace- 
offering,  may  Jehovah  himself  require  it  iy^j\,  as  in  Deut.  xviii.  19 ; 
cf.  1  Sam.  xx.  16).  Another  earnest  parenthetical  adjuration,  as 
the  substance  of  the  oath,  is  continued  in  ver.  24.  "  But  truly 
(yb  DX1,  with  an  affirmative  signification)  from  anxiety,  for  a  reason 
(lit.  on  account  of  a  thing)  have  we  done  this,  thinking  (""3*6,  since 
we  thought)  in  time  to  come  your  sons  might  say  to  our  sons,  What 
have  ye  to  do  ivith  Jehovah,  the  God  of  Israel  ?"  i.e.  He  does  not 
concern  you  ;  He  is  our  God.  "  Jehovah  has  made  the  Jordan  a 
boundary  between  us  and  your  sons ;  ye  have  no  part  in  Jehovah. 
Thus  your  sons  might  make  our  sons  cease  to  fear  Jehovah,"  i.e.  might 
make  them  desist  from  the  worship  of  Jehovah  (for  the  infinitive 
form  N4!^  instead  of  the  abbreviated  form  NT?  used  in  1  Sam.  xviii. 
29,  there  are  analogies  in  P^  in  Ezek.  xxiv.  3,  and  P^'V,  Eccl.  v.  11, 
whereas  HK*V  is  the  only  form  used  in  the  Pentateuch).  There  was 
some  reason  for  this  anxiety.  For,  inasmuch  as  in  all  the  promises 
and  laws  Canaan  alone  (the  land  on  this  side  of  the  Jordan,  Num. 
xxxiv.  1-12)  is  always  mentioned  as  the  land  which  Jehovah  would 
give  to  His  people  for  their  inheritance,  it  was  quite  a  possible 
thing  that  at  some  future  time  the  false  conclusion  might  be  drawn 
from  this,  that  only  the  tribes  who  dwelt  in  Canaan  proper  were 
the  true  people  of  Jehovah. — Vers.  26  sqq.  "  So  we  thought,  ice  will 
make  ourselves  to  build  an  altar  (an  expression  derived  from  the 
language  of  ordinary  life,  for  '  we  will  build  ourselves  an  altar'), 
not  for  burnt-offevhigs  and  slain-offerlngs ;  but  it  shall  be  a  witness 
between  us  and  you,  and  between  our  generations  after  us,  that  we 
may  perform  the  service  of  Jehovah  before  His  face  (i.e.  before  the 
tabernacle  in  which  Jehovah  was  enthroned),  with  our  burnt-offer- 
ings, slain-offerings,  and  peace-offerings," — in  order,  as  they  repeat 
in  ver.  276  from  vers.  24,  25,  that  they  might  not  be  denied  a  part 
in  Jehovah  in  time  to  come.  For  if  it  should  so  happen  in  time  to 
come,  that  this  should  be  said  to  them  and  to  their  descendants, 
they  would  say  (or  reply),  "  Behold  the  copy  of  the  altar  of  Jehovah, 
which  our  fathers  made,  not  for  burnt-offerings"  etc.  (ver.  286,  a--  in 
vers.  2Gb,  27a).  For  this  reason  they  had  built  the  altar  according 
to  the  pattern  of  the  altar  before  the  tabernacle,  and  that  not  in 
their  own  land,  but  on  the  western  side  of  the  Jordan,  where  the 
dwelling-place  of  Jehovah  was  standing,  as  a  witness  that  they 
worshipped  one  and  the  same  God  with  the  tribes  on  this  side. — 
Ver.  29.  The  speakers  conclude  with  an  expression  of  horror  at  the 
thought  of  rebelling  against  Jehovah.     USD  vh  nHty   -far  be  ii 


222  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

from  us  away  from  Him  QSXSO  =  nfrT'ö}  1  Sam.  xxlv.  7,  xxvi.  11  , 
1  Kings  xxi.  3),  to  rebel  against  Jehovah"  etc. 

Vers.  30-34.  This  explanation  pleased  the  delegates  of  the  con- 
gregation, so  that  Phinehas  bore  this  testimony  to  the  tribes  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan  :  "  Now  (to-day)  we  perceive  that  Jehovah  is  in 
the  midst  of  us ;  because  ("^*$j  quod,  as  in  Gen.  xxxi.  49,  etc.)  ye 
have  not  committed  this  unfaithfulness  towards  Jehovah,  since  Q&, 
then,  if  ye  had  only  this  intention)  ye  have  saved  the  children  of 
Israel  out  of  the  hand  of  Jehovah"  i.e.  preserved  them  from  His 
judgments. — Vers.  32,  33.  They  then  returned  to  Canaan  and 
informed  the  congregation.  And  the  thing  pleased  them,  so  that 
they  praised  the  Lord,  sc.  for  having  kept  their  brethren  on  the 
other  side  from  rebellion,  and  they  thought  no  more  of  going  to 
war  against  them,  or  laying  waste  the  land  of  the  tribes  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan. — Ver.  34.  The  Reubenites  and  Gadites  (half 
Manasseh  is  omitted  in  vers.  33,  34,  for  the  sake  of  brevity)  called 
the  altar  "witness  is  it  between  us  that  Jehovah  is  God"  (*3  intro- 
duces the  words).  This  is  at  once  a  name  and  an  explanation, 
namely  in  this  sense  :  they  gave  the  altar  the  name  of  "  witness 
between  us"  because  it  was  to  be  a  witness  that  they  also  acknow- 
ledged and  worshipped  Jehovah  as  the  true  God. 

joshcta's  farewell  and  death. — chap,  xxiii.  xxiv. 

After  the  division  of  the  land  among  the  tribes,  Joshua  had 
withdrawn  to  Timnath-serah,  on  the  mountains  of  Ephraim  (chap. 
xix.  50),  to  spend  the  last  days  of  his  life  there  in  the  quiet  enjoy- 
ment of  his  own  inheritance.  But  when  the  time  of  his  departure 
from  the  earth  was  drawing  near,  remembering  the  call  which  he 
had  received  from  the  Lord  (chap.  i.  6-8),  he  felt  constrained 
to  gather  the  people  together  once  more  in  the  persons  of  their 
representatives,  to  warn  them  most  earnestly  of  the  dangers  of 
apostasy  from  the  Lord,  and  point  out  the  evils  that  would  follow 
(chap,  xxiii.)  ;  and  then  after  that,  in  a  solemn  assembly  of  the 
nation  at  Shechem,  to  review  the  abundant  mercies  which  the 
Lord  had  conferred  upon  Israel  from  the  calling  of  Abraham  to 
that  day,  that  he  might  call  upon  them  to  remain  stedfast  and 
faithful  in  the  worship  of  their  God,  and  then  solemnly  renew  the 
covenant  with  the  Lord.1 

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


CHAP.  XXIII.  1,  2.  223 

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

regarded  as  sufficiently  careful  if  he  merely  thought  of  the  interests  of  Ins 
children  up  to  the  time  of  his  own  death,  and  did  not  extend  his  thoughtful- 
ness  on  their  behalf  still  further,  and  as  far  as  was  in  his  power  endeavour  to 
provide  for  their  welfare  when  he  himself  should  be  (had  ;  so  good  rulers  i  ught 
to  look  forward  that  they  may  not  only  leave  behind  them  a  well-orgl 
state,  but  may  also  strengthen  and  secure  its  existence  for  a  long  time  to  come." 
— Calvin  (with  special  reference  to  2  Pet.  i.  13-15). 


224  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

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

Vers.  26-13.  Joshua  commenced  his  address  by  reminding 
them  of  the  greatest  manifestations  of  grace  which  they  had  re- 
ceived from  the  Lord,  namely,  by  referring  to  what  the  Lord  had 
done  to  all  these  nations  (the  Canaanites)  before  them,  when  He 
fought  for  Israel,  as  Moses  had  promised  them  (Deut.  i.  30  and  iii. 
22). — Ver.  3.  "  Before  you"  sc.  smiting  and  driving  them  away. 
— Ver.  4.  He  (Joshua)  had  now  divided  by  lot  among  the  tribes 
of  Israel  as  their  inheritance  these  still  remaining  (Canaanitish) 
nations,  as  the  Lord  had  commanded  (chap.  xiii.  6,  7),  " from 
Jordan  and  further  all  the  nations,  which  1  have  exterminated  {i.e. 
which  Joshua  had  destroyed  when  Canaan  was  taken),  and  the  great 
sea  (for  '  to  the  great  sea')  in  the  west."  The  breadth  of  the  land 
of  Canaan  is  here  given  in  a  peculiar  manner,  the  terminus  a  quo 
being  mentioned  in  the  first  clause,  and  the  terminus  ad  quern 
(though  without  the  preposition  *W)  in  the  second ;  and  through  the 
parallelism  which  exists  between  the  clauses,  each  clause  is  left  to 
be  completed  from  the  other.  So  that  the  whole  sentence  would 
read  thus:  "  All  these  nations  which  remain  .  .  .from  Jordan  to 
the  great  sea,  also  all  the  nations  which  I  have  cut  off  from  Jordan, 
and  to  the  great  sea  westward." — Ver.  5.  For  the  Lord  would  drive 
all  these  still  remaining  nations  before  the  Israelites,  and  cut  them 
off,  and  give  the  Israelites  their  land  for  a  possession,  as  He  had 
promised  (chap.  xiii.  6 ;  cf.  Ex.  xxiii.  23  sqq.).  ^n,  as  in  Deut. 
vi.  19,  ix.  4 ;  and  the  form  0?;^  with  Chateph-kametz,  on  account 
of  the  weakness  of  the  n,  as  in  Num.  xxxv.  20.  Britr»',  as  jn  chap. 
i.  15. — Vers.  6  sqq.  Only  let  them  be  strong,  i.e.  be  brave,  to  keep 
the  law  of  Moses  without  fail  (cf.  chap.  i.  7),  to  enter  into  no 
fellowship  with  these  remaining  nations  (&Ö3,  to  enter  into  close 
intimacy  with  a  person ;  see  ver.  12),  and  not  to  pay  reverence  to 
their  gods  in  any  way,  but  to  adhere  stedfastly  to  the  Lord  their 
God  as  they  had  hitherto  done.  To  make  mention  of  the  names  of 
the  idols  (Ex.  xxiii.  13),  to  swear  by  them,  to  serve  them  (by  sacri- 
fices), and  to  bow  down  to  them  (to  invoke  them  in  prayer),  are 
the  four  outward  forms  of  divine  worship  (see  Deut.  vi.  13,  x.  20). 
The  concluding  words,  "as  ye  have  done  unto  this  day,"  which 
express  a  reason  for  persevering  in  the  attachment  they  had 
hitherto  shown  to  Jehovah,  "  do  not  affirm  that  the  Israelites  had 
hitherto  done  all  these  things  fully  and  perfectly ;  for  who  does 
not  know  how  few  mortals  there  are  who  devote  themselves  to  God 


CHAP.  XXIII.  14-16.  225 

"with  all  the  piety  and  love  which  He  justly  demands  ?  But 
because  the  nation  as  a  whole  had  kept  the  laws  delivered  to  them 
by  Moses,  during  the  time  that  the  government  had  been  in  the 
hands  of  Joshua,  the  sins  of  individual  men  were  left  out  of  sight 
on  this  occasion"  (Masius). — Vers.  9,  10.  For  this  reason  the  Lord 
had  driven  out  great  and  strong  nations  before  the  Israelites,  so 
that  no  one  was  able  to  stand  before  them.  The  first  hemistich 
points  to  the  fulfilment  of  Deut.  iv.  38,  vii.  1,  ix.  1,  xi.  23  ;  the 
second  to  that  of  Deut.  vii.  24,  xi.  25.  öflNl  is  placed  at  the 
beginning  absolutely. — In  ver.  10a,  the  blessing  of  fidelity  to  the 
law  which  Israel  had  hitherto  experienced,  is  described,  as  in  Deut. 
xxxii.  30,  upon  the  basis  of  the  promise  in  Lev.  xxvi.  7,  8,  and 
Deut.  xxviii.  7,  and  in  ver.  106  the  thought  of  ver.  Zb  is  repeated. 
To  this  there  is  attached,  in  vers.  11-13,  the  admonition  to  take 
heed  for  the  sake  of  their  souls  (cf.  Deut.  iv.  15),  to  love  the  Lord 
their  God  (on  the  love  of  God  as  the  sum  of  the  fulfilment  of  the 
law,  see  Deut.  vi.  5,  x.  12,  xi.  13).  For  if  they  turned,  i.e.  gave 
up  the  faithfulness  they  had  hitherto  displayed  towards  Jehovah, 
and  attached  themselves  to  the  remnant  of  these  nations,  made 
marriages  with  them,  and  entered  into  fellowship  with  them,  which 
the  Lord  had  expressly  forbidden  (Ex.  xxxiv.  12-16;  Deut.  vii. 
3),  let  them  know  that  the  Lord  their  God  would  not  cut  off  these 
nations  before  them  any  more,  but  that  they  would  be  a  snare  and 
destruction  to  them.  This  threat  is  founded  upon  such  passages  of 
the  law  as  Ex.  xxiii.  33,  Deut.  vii.  16,  and  more  especially  Num. 
xxxiii.  55.  The  figure  of  a  trap,  which  is  employed  here  (see  Ex. 
x.  7),  is  still  further  strengthened  by  ns,  a  snare  (cf.  Isa.  viii.  14, 
15).  Shotet,  a  whip  or  scourge,  an  emphatic  form  of  the  word 
derived  from  the  poel  of  IZftW,  only  occurs  here.  "  Scourges  i?i  your 
sides,  arid  thorns  in  your  eyes"  (see  Num.  xxxiii.  55).  Joshua 
crowds  his  figures  together  to  depict  the  misery  and  oppression 
which  would  be  sure  to  result  from  fellowship  with  the  Canaanites, 
because,  from  his  knowledge  of  the  fickleness  of  the  people,  and 
the  wickedness  of  the  human  heart  in  its  natural  state,  he  could 
foresee  that  the  apostasy  of  the  nation  from  the  Lord,  which  Moses 
had  foretold,  would  take  place  but  too  quickly;  as  it  actually  did. 
according  to  Judg.  ii.  3  sqq.,  in  the  very  next  generation.  The 
words  "  until  ye  perish"  etc.,  resume  the  threat  held  out  by  Moses 
in  Deut.  xi.  17  (cf.  chap,  xxviii.  21  sqq.). 

Vers.  14-16.  In  the  second  part  of  his  address  Joshua  sums 
up  briefly  and  concisely  the  leading  thoughts  of  the   first    part, 

P 


226  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

giving  greater  prominence,  however,  to  the  curse  which  would 
follow  apostasy  from  the  Lord. — Ver.  14.  Now  that  Joshua  was 
going  the  way  of  all  the  earth  (all  the  inhabitants  of  the  earth), 
i.e.  going  to  die  (1  Kings  ii.  2),  the  Israelites  knew  with  all  the 
heart  and  all  the  soul,  i.e.  were  fully  convinced,  that  of  all  the  good 
words  (gracious  promises)  of  God  not  one  had  failed,  but  all  had 
come  to  pass  (vid.  chap.  xxi.  45).  But  it  was  just  as  certain  that 
the  Lord  would  bring  upon  them  every  evil  word  that  He  spake 
through  Moses  (Lev.  xxvi.  14-33;  Deut.  xxviii.  15—68,  and  xxix. 
14—28),  if  they  transgressed  His  covenant.  "  The  evil  word"  is 
the  curse  of  rejection  (Deut.  xxx.  1,  15).  "  Until  He  have  de- 
stroyed:" see  Deut.  vii.  24,  and  xxviii.  48.  The  other  words  as 
in  ver.  135.  If  they  went  after  other  gods  and  served  them,  the 
wrath  of  the  Lord  would  burn  against  them,  and  they  would  be 
quickly  destroyed  from  the  good  land  which  He  had  given  them 
(vid.  Deut.  xi.  17). 

Chap.  xxiv.  1-28.  Kenewal  of  the  Covenant  at  the  na- 
tional Assembly  in  Shechem. — Ver.  1.  Joshua  brought  his 
public  ministry  to  a  close,  as  Moses  had  done  before  him,  with  a 
solemn  renewal  of  the  covenant  with  the  Lord.  For  this  solemn 
act  he  did  not  choose  Shiloh,  the  site  of  the  national  sanctuary,  as 
some  MSS.  of  the  LXX.  read,  but  Shechem,  a  place  which  was 
sanctified  as  no  other  was  for  such  a  purpose  as  this  by  the  most 
sacred  reminiscences  from  the  times  of  the  patriarchs.  He  there- 
fore summoned  all  the  tribes  of  Israel,  in  their  representatives  (their 
elders,  etc.,  as  in  chap,  xxiii.  2),  to  Shechem,  not  merely  because  it 
was  at  Shechem,  i.e.  on  Gerizim  and  Ebal,  that  the  solemn  estab- 
lishment of  the  law  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  to  which  the  renewal  of 
the  covenant,  as  a  repetition  of  the  essential  kernel  of  that  solemn 
ceremony,  was  now  to  be  appended,  had  first  taken  place,  but  still 
more  because  it  was  here  that  Abraham  received  the  first  promise 
from  God  after  his  migration  into  Canaan,  and  built  an  altar  at  the 
time  (Gen.  xii.  6,  7)  ;  and  most  of  all,  as  Hengstenberg  has  pointed 
out  (Diss.  ii.  p.  12),  because  Jacob  settled  here  on  his  return  from 
Mesopotamia,  and  it  was  here  that  he  purified  his  house  from  the 
strange  gods,  burying  all  their  idols  under  the  oak  (Gen.  xxxiii.  19, 
xxxv.  2,  4).  As  Jacob  selected  Shechem  for  the  sanctification  of 
his  house,  because  this  place  was  already  consecrated  by  Abraham 
as  a  sanctuary  of  God,  so  Joshua  chose  the  same  place  for  the 
renewal  of   the  covenant,    because    this   act   involved  a  practical 


CHAP.  XXIV.  2-15.  227 

renunciation  on  the  part  of  Israel  of  all  idolatry.  Joshua  expressly 
states  this  in  ver.  23,  and  reference  is  also  made  to  it  in  the  account 
in  ver.  26.  "  The  exhortation  to  be  faithful  to  the  Lord,  and  to 
purify  themselves  from  all  idolatry,  could  not  fail  to  make  a  deep 
impression,  in  the  place  where  the  honoured  patriarch  had  done  the 
very  same  things  to  which  his  descendants  were  exhorted  here.  The 
example  preached  more  loudly  in  this  spot  than  in  any  other" 
{Hengstenberg).  u  And  they  placed  themselves  before  God."  From 
the  expression  "  before  God,"  it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  ark 
had  been  brought  to  Shechem,  or,  as  Knobel  supposes,  that  an  altar 
was  erected  there,  any  more  than  from  the  statement  in  ver.  20 
that  it  was  "  by  the  sanctuary  of  the  Lord."  For,  in  the  first  place, 
"  before  God"  (Elohim)  is  not  to  be  identified  with  "  before 
Jehovah,"  which  is  used  in  chap,  xviii.  6  and  xix.  51  to  denote  the 
presence  of  the  Lord  above  the  ark  of  the  covenant ;  and  secondly, 
even  "  before  Jehovah"  does  not  always  presuppose  the  presence  of 
the  ark  of  the  covenant,  as  Hengstenberg  has  clearly  shown.  "  Before 
God"  simply  denotes  in  a  general  sense  the  religious  character  of 
an  act,  or  shows  that  the  act  was  undertaken  with  a  distinct  refer- 
ence to  the  omnipresent  God ;  and  in  the  case  before  us  it  may  be 
attributed  to  the  fact  that  Joshua  delivered  his  exhortation  to  the 
people  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  and  commenced  his  address  with 
the  words,  "  Thus  saith  Jehovah." 1 

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

1  "  It  is  stated  that  they  all  stood  before  God,  in  order  that  the  Banctity  and 
religious  character  of  the  assembly  may  be  the  more  distinctly  Bhown.  And 
there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  name  of  God  was  solemnly  invoked  by  Joshua, 
and  that  he  addressed  the  people  as  in  the  sight  of  God,  so  thai  each  one  might 
feel  for  himself  that  God  was  presiding  over  all  that  was  transacted  then»,  and 
that  they  were  not  engaged  in  any  merely  privat.;  affair,  but  were  entering  into 
a  sacred  and  inviulablu  compact  with  (Jud  himself." — Calvin. 


228  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Israel.  The  first  practical  proof  of  the  grace  of  God  towards 
Israel,  was  the  calling  of  Abraham  from  his  idolatrous  associations, 
and  his  introduction  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  where  the  Lord  so 
multiplied  his  seed,  that  Esau  received  the  mountains  of  Seir  for 
his  family,  whilst  Jacob  went  into  Egypt  with  his  sons.1  The 
ancestors  of  Israel  dwelt  "from  eternity"  i.e.  from  time  imme- 
morial, on  the  other  side  of  the  stream  (the  Euphrates),  viz.  in 
Ur  of  the  Chaldees,  and  then  at  Haran  in  Mesopotamia  (Gen.  xi. 
28,  31),  namely  Terah,  the  father  of  Abraham  and  Nahor.  Of 
Terah's  three  sons  (Gen.  xi.  27),  Nahor  is  mentioned  as  well  as 
Abraham,  because  Rebekah,  and  her  nieces  Leah  and  Rachel,  the 
tribe-mothers  of  Israel,  were  descended  from  him  (Gen.  xxii.  23, 
xxix.  10,  16  sqq.).  And  they  (your  fathers,  Terah  and  his  family) 
served  other  gods  than  Jehovah,  who  revealed  himself  to  Abraham, 
and  brought  him  from  his  father's  house  to  Canaan.  Nothing 
definite  can  be  gathered  from  the  expression  "  other  gods,"  with 
reference  to  the  gods  worshipped  by  Terah  and  his  family ;  nor  is 
there  anything  further  to  be  found  respecting  them  throughout  the 
whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  We  simply  learn  from  Gen.  xxxi.  19, 
34,  that  Laban  had  terapliim,  i.e.  penates,  or  household  and  oracular 
gods.2  The  question  also,  whether  Abraham  was  an  idolater  before 
his  call,  which  has  been  answered  in  different  ways,  cannot  be 
determined  with  certainty.  We  may  conjecture,  however,  that  he 
was  not  deeply  sunk  in  idolatry,  though  he  had  not  remained 
entirely  free  from  it  in  his  father's  house ;  and  therefore  that  his 
call  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  a  reward  for  his  righteousness  before 
God,  but  as  an  act  of  free  unmerited  grace. — Vers.  3,  4.  After  his 

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

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

,  by  the  later  Rabbins. 


CHAP.  XXIV.  2-15.  229" 

call,  God  conducted  Abraham  through  all  the  land  of  Canaan  (see 
Gen.  xii.),  protecting  and  shielding  him,  and  multiplied  his  seed, 
giving  him  Isaac,  and  giving  to  Isaac  Jacob  and  Esau,  the  ancestors 
of  two  nations.  To  the  latter  lie  gave  the  mountains  of  Seir  for  a 
possession  (Gen.  xxxvi.  6  sqq.),  that  Jacob  might  receive  Canaan 
for  his  descendants  as  a  sole  possession.  But  instead  of  mentioning 
this,  Joshua  took  for  granted  that  his  hearers  were  well  acquainted 
with  the  history  of  the  patriarchs,  and  satisfied  himself  with  men- 
tioning the  migration  of  Jacob  and  his  sons  to  Egypt,  that  he  might 
pass  at  once  to  the  second  great  practical  proof  of  the  mercy  of 
God  in  the  guidance  of  Israel,  the  miraculous  deliverance  of  Israel 
out  of  the  bondage  and  oppression  of  Egypt. — Vers.  5-7.  Of  this 
also  he  merely  mentions  the  leading  points,  viz.  first  of  all,  the 
sending  of  Moses  and  Aaron  (Ex.  iii.  10  sqq.,  iv.  14  sqq.),  and 
then  the  plagues  inflicted  upon  Egypt.  "  / smote  Egypt"  i.e.  both 
land  and  people.  *\ti  is  used  in  Ex.  vii.  27  and  xii.  23,  27,  in  con- 
nection with  the  plague  of  frogs  and  the  slaying  of  the  first-born  in 
Egypt.  The  words  which  follow,  "  according  to  that  which  I  did 
among  them,  and  afterward  I  brought  you  out"  point  back  to  Ex.  iii. 
20,  and  show  that  the  Lord  had  fulfilled  the  promise  given  to  Moses 
at  his  call.  He  then  refers  (vers.  6,  7)  to  the  miraculous  deliver- 
ance of  the  Israelites,  as  they  came  out  of  Egypt,  from  Pharaoh 
who  pursued  them  with  his  army,  giving  especial  prominence  to  the 
crying  of  the  Israelites  to  the  Lord  in  their  distress  (Ex.  xiv.  10), 
and  the  relief  of  that  distress  by  the  angel  of  the  Lord  (Ex.  xiv. 
19,  20).  And  lastly,  he  notices  their  dwelling  in  the  wilderness 
"  many  days"  i.e.  forty  years  (Num.  xiv.  33). — Vers.  8-10.  The 
third  great  act  of  God  for  Israel  was  his  giving  up  the  Amorites 
into  the  hands  of  the  Israelites,  so  that  they  were  able  to  conquer 
their  land  (Num.  xxi.  21-35),  and  the  frustration  of  the  attack 
made  by  Balak  king  of  the  Moabites,  through  the  instrumentality 
of  Balaam,  when  the  Lord  did  not  allow  him  to  curse  Israel,  but 
compelled  him  to  bless  (Num.  xxii.-xxiv.).  Balak  "  warred  against 
Israel"  not  with  the  sword,  but  with  the  weapons  of  the  curs,',  or 
animo  et  voluntate  (Vatabl.).  "  I  would  not  hearken  unto  Balaam, 
i.e.  would  not  comply  with  his  wish,  but  compelled  him  to  submit 
to  my  will,  and  to  bless  you ;  "  and  delivered  you  out  of  his  (Balak  s) 
hand,"  when  he  sought  to  destroy  Israel  through  the  medium  <>t 
Balaam  (Num.  xxii.  G,  11).— Vers.  11-13.  The  last  and  greatest 
benefit  which  the  Lord  conferred  upon  the  Israelites,  was  His 
leading  them  by  miracles  of  His  omnipotence  across  the  Jurdau 


230  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

into  Canaan,  delivering  the  "  lords  (or  possessors)  of  Jericho?  not 
a  the  rulers,  i.e.  the  king  and  his  heroes,"  as  Knobel  maintains  (see 
2  Sam.  xxi.  12  ;  1  Sam.  xxiii.  11,  12  ;  and  the  commentary  on 
Judg.  ix.  6),  "  and  all  the  tribes  of  Canaan  into  their  hand?  and 
sending  hornets  before  them,  so  that  they  were  able  to  drive  out  the 
Canaanites,  particularly  the  two  kings  of  the  Amorites,  Sihon  and 
Og,  though  "  not  with  their  sword  and  their  bow"  (vid.  Ps.  xliv.  4) ; 
i.e.  it  was  not  with  the  weapons  at  their  command  that  they  were 
able  to  take  the  lands  of  these  two  kings.  On  the  sending  of 
hornets,  as  a  figure  used  to  represent  peculiarly  effective  tei'rors,  see 
at  Ex.  xxiii.  28,  Deut.  vii.  20.  In  this  way  the  Lord  gave  the 
land  to  the  Israelites,  with  its  towns  and  its  rich  productions  (vine- 
yards and  olive  trees),  without  any  trouble  on  their  part  of  weari- 
some cultivation  or  planting,  as  Moses  himself  had  promised  them 
(Deut.  vi.  10,  11). — Vers.  14,  15.  These  overwhelming  manifesta- 
tions of  grace  on  the  part  of  the  Lord  laid  Israel  under  obligations 
to  serve  the  Lord  with  gratitude  and  sincerity.  "  Now  therefore 
fear  the  Lord  (1X"V  for  iVtVj  pointed  like  a  verb  r\"b,  as  in  1  Sam.  xii. 
24,  Ps.  xxxiv.  10),  and  serve  Him  in  sincerity  and  in  truth?  i.e.  with- 
out hypocrisy,  or  the  show  of  piety,  in  simplicity  and  truth  of  heart 
(vid.  Judg.  ix.  16,  19).  "  Put  away  the  gods  (Elohim  =  the  strange 
gods  in  ver.  23)  which  your  fathers  served  on  the  other  side  of  the 
Euphrates  and  in  Egypt."  This  appeal  does  not  presuppose  any 
gross  idolatry  on  the  part  of  the  existing  generation,  which  would 
have  been  at  variance  with  the  rest  of  the  book,  in  which  Israel  is 
represented  as  only  serving  Jehovah  during  the  lifetime  of  Joshua. 
If  the  people  had  been  in  possession  of  idols,  they  would  have  given 
them  up  to  Joshua  to  be  destroyed,  as  they  promised  to  comply  with 
his  demand  (vers.  16  sqq.).  But  even  if  the  Israelites  were  not 
addicted  to  gross  idolatry  in  the  worship  of  idols,  they  were  not 
altogether  free  from  idolatry  either  in  Egypt  or  in  the  desert.  As 
their  fathers  were  possessed  of  teraphim  in  Mesopotamia  (see  at 
ver.  2),  so  the  Israelites  had  not  kept  themselves  entirely  free  from 
heathen  and  idolatrous  ways,  more  especially  the  demon-worship  of 
Egypt  (comp.  Lev.  xvii.  7  with  Ezek.  xx.  7  sqq.,  xxiii.  3,  8,  and 
Amos  v.  26)  ;  and  even  in  the  time  of  Joshua  their  worship  of 
Jehovah  may  have  been  corrupted  by  idolatrous  elements.  This 
admixture  of  the  pure  and  genuine  worship  of  Jehovah  with  idola- 
trous or  heathen  elements,  which  is  condemned  in  Lev.  xvii.  7  as 
the  worship  of  Seirim,  and  by  Ezekiel  (I.  c.)  as  the  idolatrous  wor- 
ship of  the  people  in  Egypt,  had  its  roots  in  the  corruption  of  the 


CHAP.  XXIV.  16-25.  231 

natural  heart,  through  which  it  is  at  all  times  led  to  make  to  itself 
idols  of  mammon,  worldly  lusts,  and  other  impure  thoughts  and 
desires,  to  which  it  cleaves,  without  being  able  to  tear  itself  entirely 
away  from  them.  This  more  refined  idolatry  might  degenerate  in 
the  case  of  many  persons  into  the  grosser  worship  of  idols,  so  that 
Joshua  had  ample  ground  for  admonishing  the  people  to  put  awav 
the  strange  gods,  and  serve  the  Lord. — Ver.  15.  But  as  the  true 
worship  of  the  living  God  must  have  its  roots  in  the  heart,  and 
spring  from  the  heart,  and  therefore  cannot  be  forced  by  prohi- 
bitions and  commands,  Joshua  concluded  by  calling  upon  the 
representatives  of  the  nation,  in  case  they  were  not  inclined  ("  if  it 
seem  evil  unto  you")  to  serve  Jehovah,  to  choose  now  this  day  the 
gods  whom  they  would  serve,  whether  the  gods  of  their  fathers  in 
Mesopotamia,  or  the  gods  of  the  Amorites  in  whose  land  they  were 
now  dwelling,  though  he  and  his  house  would  serve  the  Lord. 
There  is  no  necessity  to  adduce  any  special  proofs  that  this  appeal 
was  not  intended  to  release,  them  from  the  obligation  to  serve 
Jehovah,  but  rather  contained  the  strongest  admonition  to  remain 
faithful  to  the  Lord. 

Vers.  16-25.  The  people  responded  to  this  appeal  by  declaring, 
with  an  expression  of  horror  at  idolatry,  their  hearty  resolution  to 
serve  the  Lord,  who  was  their  God,  and  had  shown  them  such  great 
mercies.  The  words,  "  that  brought  us  up  and  our  fathers  out  of 
the  land  of  Egypt,  out  of  the  house  of  bondage,"  call  to  mind  the 
words  appended  to  the  first  commandment  (Ex.  xx.  2  ;  Dent.  v.  6), 
which  they  hereby  promise  to  observe.  With  the  clause  which 
follows,  "  who  did  those  great  signs  in  our  sight,"  etc.,  they  declare 
their  assent  to  all  that  Joshua  had  called  to  their  mind  in  vers.  3-13. 
"  We  also"  (ver.  18),  as  well  as  thou  and  thy  house  (ver.  15). — 
Vers.  19-21.  But  in  order  to  place  most  vividly  before  the  minds 
of  the  people  to  what  it  was  that  they  bound  themselves  by  this 
declaration,  that  they  might  not  inconsiderately  vow  what  they 
would  not  afterwards  observe,  Joshua  adds,  "  Ye  cannot  serve  Je- 
hovah," sc.  in  the  state  of  mind  in  which  ye  are  at  present,  or  "  by 
your  own  resolution  only,  and  without  the  assistance  of  divine  grace, 
without  solid  and  serious  conversion  from  all  idols,  and  without  true 
repentance  and  faith"  (J.  H.  Michaelis).  For  Jehovah  is  "  a  holy 
God,"  etc.  Elohim,  used  to  denote  the  Supreme  Being  (see  at  Gen. 
ii.  4),  is  construed  with  the  predicate  in  the  plural.  On  the  holinesa 
of  God,  see  the  exposition  of  Ex.  xix.  6.  On  the  expression  "a 
jealous  God"  see  Ex.  xx.  5  ;  and  on  JWfcfr  *&*,  Ex.  xxiii.  21.     The 


232  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

only  other  place  in  which  the  form  Ni3p  is  used  for  N3j?  is  Nah.  i.  2. 
11  If  ye  forsake  the  Lord  and  serve  strange  gods,  He  will  turn  (i.e. 
assume  a  different  attitude  towards  you)  and  do  you  hurt,  after  He 
has  done  you  good,"  i.e.  He  will  not  spare  you,  in  spite  of  the  bless- 
ings which  He  has  conferred  upon  you.  JHH  is  used  to  denote  the 
judgments  threatened  in  the  law  against  transgressors. — Yer.  21. 
The  people  adhered  to  their  resolution.  &6,  minime,  as  in  chap.  v. 
14,  i.e.  we  will  not  serve  other  gods,  but  Jehovah. — Vers.  22,  23. 
Upon  this  repeated  declaration  Joshua  says  to  them,  "  ye  are  wit- 
nesses against  yourselves"  i.e.  ye  will  condemn  yourselves  by  this 
your  own  testimony  if  ye  should  now  forsake  the  Lord,  u  for  ye 
yourselves  have  chosen  you  Jehovah  to  serve  Him;"  whereupon 
they  answer  B*7J?,  "  witnesses  are  we  against  ourselves"  signifying 
thereby,  "  we  profess  and  ratify  once  more  all  that  we  have  said" 
{Rosenmüller).  Joshua  then  repeated  his  demand  that  they  should 
put  away  the  strange  gods  from  within  them,  and  incline  their  hearts 
(entirely)  to  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel.  tDf]i?3  "l#J  ^00]  ^ 
might  mean  the  foreign  gods  which  are  in  the  midst  of  you,  i.e. 
among  you,  and  imply  the  existence  of  idols,  and  the  grosser  forms 
of  idolatrous  worship  in  the  nation  ;  but  2lp3  also  signifies  "  within," 
or  "in  the  heart,"  in  which  case  the  words  refer  to  idols  of  the 
heart.  That  the  latter  is  the  sense  in  which  the  words  are  to  be 
understood  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  although  the  people  ex- 
pressed their  willingness  to  renounce  all  idolatry,  they  did  not  bring 
any  idols  to  Joshua  to  be  destroyed,  as  was  done  m  other  similar 
cases,  viz.  Gen.  xxxv.  4,  and  1  Sam.  vii.  4.  Even  if  the  people 
had  carried  idols  about  with  them  in  the  desert,  as  the  prophet 
Amos  stated  to  his  contemporaries  (Amos  v.  26;  cf.  Acts  vii.  43), 
the  grosser  forms  of  idolatry  had  disappeared  from  Israel  with  the 
dying  out  of  the  generation  that  was  condemned  at  Kadesh.  The 
new  generation,  which  had  been  received  afresh  into  covenant  with 
the  Lord  by  the  circumcision  at  Gilgal,  and  had  set  up  this  cove- 
nant at  Ebal,  and  was  now  assembled  around  Joshua,  the  dying 
servant  of  God,  to  renew  the  covenant  once  more,  had  no  idols  of 
wood,  stone,  or  metal,  but  only  the  "  figments  of  false  gods,"  as 
Calvin  calls  them,  the  idols  of  the  heart,  which  it  was  to  put  away, 
that  it  might  give  its  heart  entirely  to  the  Lord,  who  is  not  content 
with  divided  affections,  but  requires  the  whole  heart  (Deut.  vi.  5,  6). 
— Vers.  24,  25.  On  the  repeated  and  decided  declaration  of  the 
people,  "  the  Lord  our  God  will  we  serve,  and  to  His  voice  will  we 
hearken,"  Joshua  completed  the  covenant  with  them  that  day.    This 


CHAP.  XXIV.  26-28.  233 

conclusion  of  a  covenant  was  really  a  solemn  renewal  of  the  cove- 
nant made  at  Sinai,  like  that  which  took  place  under  Moses  in  the 
steppes  of  Moab  (Deut.  xxviii.  69).  "  And  set  them  a  statute  and 
right  at  Shechem,""  sc.  through  the  renewal  of  the  covenant.  These 
words  recall  Ex.  xv.  25,  where  the  guidance  of  Israel  to  bitter  water, 
and  the  sweetening  of  that  water  by  the  means  which  the  Lord 
pointed  out  to  Moses,  are  described  as  setting  a  statute  and  right  for 
Israel,  and  then  explained  by  the  promise,  that  if  they  would  hearken 
to  the  voice  of  Jehovah,  He  would  keep  them  from  all  the  diseases 
of  Egypt.  And  in  accordance  with  this,  by  the  renewal  of  the 
covenant  at  Shechem,  there  were  set  for  Israel  a  p'r\,  i.e.  a  statute, 
which  bound  the  people  to  a  renewed  and  conscientious  mainten- 
ance of  the  covenant,  and  a  BÖB^  or  right,  by  virtue  of  which  they 
might  expect  on  this  condition  the  fulfilment  of  all  the  covenant 
mercies  of  the  Lord. 

Vers.  26-28.  All  these  things  (n|«n  tram  are  not  merely  the 
words  spoken  on  both  sides,  but  the  whole  ceremony  of  renewing 
the  covenant)  Joshua  wrote  in  the  law-book  of  God,  i.e.  he  wrote 
them  in  a  document  which  he  placed  in  the  law-book  of  Moses,  and 
then  set  up  a  large  stone,  as  a  permanent  memorial  of  what  had 
taken  place,  on  the  spot  where  the  meeting  had  been  held,  "  under 
the  oak  that  was  in  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah"  As  ^i?*?2  neither 
means  "  at  the  sanctuary,"  nor  near  the  sanctuary,  nor  "  in  the 
place  where  the  sanctuary  was  set  up;"  the  "  sanctuary  of  Jehovah" 
cannot  signify  "  the  ark  of  the  covenant,  which  had  been  brought 
from  the  tabernacle  to  Shechem,  for  the  ceremony  of  renewing 
the  covenant."  Still  less  can  we  understand  it  as  signifying  the 
tabernacle  itself,  since  this  was  not  removed  from  place  to  place  for 
particular  sacred  ceremonies;  nor  can  it  mean  an  altar,  in  which 
an  oak  could  not  possibly  be  said  to  stand ;  nor  some  other  illegal 
sanctuary  of  Jehovah,  since  there  were  none  in  Israel  at  that  time. 
The  sanctuary  of  Jehovah  under  the  oak  at  Shechem  was  nothing 
else  than  the  holy  place  under  the  oak,  where  Abraham  had  for- 
merly built  an  altar  and  worshipped  the  Lord,  and  where  Jacob 
had  purified  his  house  from  the  strange  gods,  which  he  buried  under 
this  oak,  or  rather  terebinth  tree  (Gen.  xii.  6,  7,  xxxv.  2,  4).  This  is 
the  explanation  adopted  by  Masius,  J.  D.  Michaelis,  and  Hengstenberg 
(Diss.  ii.  p.  12).  In  ver.  27  Joshua  explains  to  the  people  the 
meaning  of  the  stone  which  he  had  set  up.  The  stone  would  be  a 
witness  against  the  people  if  they  should  deny  their  God.  As  a 
memorial  of  what  had  taken  place,  the  stone  had  heard  all  the  word« 


234  TUE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

which  the  Lord  had  addressed  to  Israel,  and  could  bear  witness 
against  the  people,  that  they  might  not  deny  their  God.  "  Deny 
your  God"  viz.  in  feeling,  word,  or  deed. — Ver.  28.  Joshua  then 
dismissed  the  people,  each  one  to  his  inheritance.  He  had  done 
all  that  was  in  his  power  to  establish  the  people  in  fidelity  to  the 
Lord. 

Vers.  29-33.  Death  and  Burial  of  Joshua  and  Eleazar 
— With  the  renewal  of  the  covenant  Joshua  had  ended  his  vocation. 
He  did  not  formally  lay  down  his  office,  because  there  was  no  im- 
mediate successor  who  had  been  appointed  by  God.  The  ordinary 
rulers  of  the  congregation  were  enough,  when  once  they  were 
settled  in  Canaan,  viz.  the  elders  as  heads  and  judges  of  the  nation, 
together  with  the  high  priest,  who  represented  the  nation  in  its 
relation  to  God,  and  could  obtain  for  it  the  revelation  of  the  will 
of  God  through  the  right  of  the  Urim  and  Thummim.  In  order 
therefore  to  bring  the  history  of  Joshua  and  his  times  to  a  close, 
nothing  further  remained  than  to  give  an  account  of  his  death,  with 
a  short  reference  to  the  fruit  of  his  labours,  and  to  add  certain  other 
notices  for  which  no  suitable  place  had  hitherto  presented  itself. — • 
Vers.  29,  30.  Soon  after  these  events  (vers.  1-28)  Joshua  died,  at 
the  age  of  110,  like  his  ancestor  Joseph  (Gen.  1.  26),  and  was  buried 
in  his  hereditary  possessions  at  Timnath-serah,  upon  the  mountains 
of  Ephraim,  to  the  north  of  Mount  Gaash.  Timnath-serah  is  still 
in  existence  (see  at  chap.  xix.  50).  Mount  Gaash,  however,  has  not 
been  discovered. — Ver.  31.  Joshua's  labours  had  not  remained  with- 
out effect.  During  his  own  lifetime,  and  that  of  the  elders  who 
outlived  him,  and  who  had  seen  all  that  the  Lord  did  for  Israel,  all 
Israel  served  the  Lord.  "  The  elders"  are  the  rulers  and  leaders 
of  the  nation.  The  account  of  the  burial  of  Joseph's  bones,  which 
the  Israelites  had  brought  with  them  from  Egypt  to  Canaan  (Ex. 
xiii.  19),  is  placed  after  the  account  of  Joshua's  death,  because  it 
could  not  have  been  introduced  before  without  interrupting  the  con- 
nected account  of  the  labours  of  Joshua ;  and  it  would  not  do  to 
pass  it  over  without  notice  altogether,  not  only  because  the  fact  of 
their  bringing  the  bones  with  them  had  been  mentioned  in  the  book 
of  Exodus,  but  also  because  the  Israelites  thereby  fulfilled  the  promise 
given  by  their  fathers  to  Joseph  when  he  died.  The  burial  of 
Joseph  in  the  piece  of  field  which  Jacob  had  purchased  at  Shechem 
(vid.  Gen.  xxxiii.  19)  had  no  doubt  taken  place  immediately  after  the 
division  of  the  land,  when  Joseph's  descendants  received  Shechem 


CHAP.  XXIV.  29-33.  235 

and  the  field  there  for  an  inheritance.     This  piece  of  field,  however, 
they  chose  for  a  burial-place  for  Joseph's  bones,  not  only  because 
Jacob  had  purchased  it,  but  in  all  probability  chiefly  because  Jacob 
had  sanctified  it  for  his  descendants  by  building  an   altar  there 
(Gen.  xxxiii.  20).     The  death  and  burial  of  Eleazar,  who  stood  by 
Joshua's  side  in  the  guidance  of  the  nation,  are  mentioned  last  of 
all  (ver.  33).     When  Eleazar  died,  whether  shortly  before  or  shortly 
after  Joshua,  cannot  be  determined.     He  was  buried  at  Gibeah  of 
Phinehas,  the  place  which  was  given  to  him  upon  the  mountains 
of  Ephraim,  i.e.  as  his  inheritance.      Gibeath  Phinehas,  i.e.  hill  of 
Phinehas,  is  apparently  a  proper  name,  like  Gibeah  of  Saul  (1  Sam. 
xv.  34,  etc.).     The  situation,  however,  is  uncertain.     According  to 
Eusebius   (Onom.  s.  v.   Taßaas),  it  was  upon   the  mountains   of 
Ephraim,  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  and  was  at  that  time  a  place 
named  Gabatha,  the  name  also  given  to  it  by  Josephus  (Ant.  v.  1,  29), 
about  twelve  Roman  miles  from  Eleutheropolis.     This  statement  is 
certainly  founded  upon  an  error,  at  least  so  far  as  the  number  twelve 
is  concerned.     It  is   a  much  more  probable  supposition,  that  it  is 
the  Levitical  town  Geba  of  Benjamin,  on  the  north-east  of  Ramah 
(chap,  xviii.  24),  and  the  name  Gibeah  of  Phinehas  might  be  ex- 
plained on  the  ground  that  this  place  had  become  the  hereditary 
property  of  Phinehas,  which  would  be  perfectly  reconcilable  with 
its  selection  as  one  of  the  priests'  cities.     As  the  priests,  for  example, 
were  not  the  sole  possessors  of  the  towns  ceded  to  them  in  the  pos- 
sessions of  the  different  tribes,  the  Israelites  might  have  presented 
Phinehas  with  that  portion  of  the  city  which  was  not  occupied  by 
the  priests,  and  also  with  the  field,  as  a  reward  for  the  services 
he  had  rendered  to  the  congregation  (Num.  xxv.  7  sqq.),  just  as 
Caleb  and  Joshua  had  been  specially  considered ;  in  which  case 
Phinehas    might    dwell   in   his   own   hereditary   possessions   in   a 
priests'  city.     The  situation,  "upon  the  mountains  of  Ephraim/' 
is  not   at  variance  with  this  view,  as  these  mountains  extended, 
according  to  Judg.  iv.  5,  etc.,  far  into  the  territory  of  Benjamin 
(see   at  chap.   xi.   21).     The  majority  of  commentators,   down  to 
Knobel,  have  thought  the  place  intended  to  be  a  Gibeah  in  the  tribe 
of  Ephraim,  namely  the  present  Jeeb  or  Jibia,  by  the  A\  ady  Jib, 
on  the  north  of  Guphna,  towards  Neapolis  (Sichern :  see  Rob.  Pal. 
iii.  p.  80),  though  there  is  nothing  whatever  to  favour  this  except 
the  name. 

With  the  death  of  Eleazar  the  high  priest,  the  contemporary  of 
Joshua,  the  times  of  Joshua  came  to  a  close,  so  that  the  account  of 


236  THE  BOOK  OF  JOSHUA. 

Eleazar's  death  formed  a  very  fitting  termination  to  the  book.  In 
some  MSS.  and  editions  of  the  Septuagint,  there  is  an  additional 
clause  relating  to  the  high  priest  Phinehas  and  the  apostasy  of  the 
Israelites  after  Joshua's  death ;  but  this  is  merely  taken  from  Judg. 
ii.  6,  11  sqq.  and  iii.  7, 12  sqq.,  and  arbitrarily  appended  to  the  book 
of  Joshua. 


THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 


INTRODUCTION. 

CONTENTS  AND  CHARACTER,   ORIGIN  AND   SOURCES,   OF   THE 
BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

HE  book  of  Judges,  headed  Shophetim  in  the  Hebrew 
Bibles,  and  Kpirai  in  the  Alexandrian  version,  and  called 
liber  Judicum  in  the  Vulgate,  contains  the  history  of  the 
Israelitish  theocracy  for  a  period  of  about  350  years, 
from  the  death  of  Joshua  to  the  death  of  Samson,  or  to  the  time  of 
the  prophet  Samuel.  It  may  be  divided  according  to  its  contents 
into  three  parts:  (1)  an  introduction  (chap,  i.-iii.  6);  (2)  the  history 
of  the  several  judges  (chap.  iii.  7-xvi.  31) ;  and  (3)  a  twofold  appendix 
(chap,  xvii.-xxi.).  In  the  Introduction  the  prophetic  author  of  the 
book  first  of  all  takes  a  general  survey  of  those  facts  which  exhibited 
most  clearly  the  behaviour  of  the  Israelites  to  the  Canaanites  who 
were  left  in  the  land  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  and  closes  his  survey 
with  the  reproof  of  their  behaviour  by  the  angel  of  the  Lord  (chap. 
i.  1-ii.  5).  He  then  describes  in  a  general  manner  the  attitude 
of  Israel  to  the  Lord  its  God  and  that  of  the  Lord  to  His  people 
during  the  time  of  the  judges,  and  represents  this  period  as  a  con- 
stant alternation  of  humiliation  through  hostile  oppression,  when 
the  nation  fell  away  from  its  God,  and  deliverance  out  of  the 
power  of  its  enemies  by  judges  whom  God  raised  up  and  endowed 
with  the  power  of  His  Spirit,  whenever  the  people  returned  to  the 
Lord  (chap.  ii.  6 — lii.  6).  This  is  followed  in  the  body  of  the  work 
(chap.  iii.  7-xvi.  31)  by  the  history  of  the  several  oppressions  of 
Israel  on  the  part  of  foreign  nations,  with  the  deliverance  effected 
by  the  judges  who  were  raised  up  by  God,  and  whose  deeda  are 
for  the  most  part  elaborately  described  in  chronological  order,  and 
introduced  by  the  standing  formula,  "And  the  children  of  Israel 


238  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

did  evil  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,"  etc. ;  or,  "  And  the  children  of 
Israel  again  did  evil  (added  to  do  evil),"  etc.  They  are  arranged 
in  six  historical  groups :  (1)  the  oppression  by  the  Mesopotamian 
king,  Chushan-rishathaim,  with  the  deliverance  from  this  oppres- 
sion through  Othniel  the  judge  (chap.  iii.  7-11) ;  (2)  the  oppression 
by  the  Moabitish  king  Eglon,  with  the  deliverance  effected  through 
Ehud  the  judge  (chap.  iii.  12-30),  and  the  victory  achieved  by 
Shamgar  over  the  Philistines  (chap.  iii.  31)  ;  (3)  the  subjugation  of 
Israel  by  the  Canaanitish  king  Jabin,  and  the  deliverance  effected 
through  the  prophetess  Deborah  and  Barak  the  judge  (chap,  iv.), 
with  Deborah's  song  of  victory  (chap,  v.) ;  (4)  the  oppression  by 
the  Midianites,  and  the  deliverance  from  these  enemies  through  the 
judge  Gideon,  who  was  called  to  be  the  deliverer  of  Israel  through 
an  appearance  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  (chap,  vi.-viii.),  with  the 
history  of  the  three  years'  reign  of  his  son  Abimelech  (chap,  ix.), 
and  brief  notices  of  the  two  judges  Tola  and  J  air  (chap.  x.  1-5) ; 
(5)  the  giving  up  of  the  Israelites  into  the  power  of  the  Ammonites 
and  Philistines,  and  their  deliverance  from  the  Ammonitish  oppres- 
sion by  Jephthah  (chap.  x.  6-xii.  7),  with  brief  notices  of  the  three 
judges  Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon  (chap.  xii.  8-15)  ;  (6)  the  oppres- 
sion by  the  Philistines,  with  the  account  of  the  life  and  deeds  of 
Samson  the  judge,  who  began  to  deliver  Israel  out  of  the  power  of 
these  foes  (chap,  xiii.-xvi.).  To  this  there  are  added  two  appendices 
in  chap,  xvii.-xxi. :  viz.  (1)  the  account  of  the  worship  of  images  by 
the  Ephraimite  Micah,  and  the  transportation  of  that  worship  by 
the  Danites  to  Laish-Dan  (chap.  xvii.  xviii.)  ;  and  (2)  the  infamous 
conduct  of  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeah,  and  the  war  of  revenge  which 
was  waged  by  the  congregation  of  Israel  against  the  tribe  of  Ben- 
jamin as  a  punishment  for  the  crime  (chap,  xix.-xxi.).  Both  these 
events  occurred  in  the  earliest  part  of  the  period  of  the  judges,  as 
we  may  gather,  in  the  case  of  the  first,  from  a  comparison  of  chap, 
xviii.  1  with  chap.  i.  34,  and  in  that  of  the  second  from  a  com- 
parison of  chap.  xx.  28  with  Josh.  xxii.  13  and  xxiv.  33 ;  and  they 
are  merely  placed  at  the  end  of  the  book  in  the  form  of  appendices, 
because  they  could  not  well  be  introduced  into  the  six  complete 
historical  tableaux;  although,  so  far  as  the  facts  themselves  are 
concerned,  they  are  intimately  connected  with  the  contents  and  aim 
of  the  book  of  Judges,  inasmuch  as  they  depict  the  religious  and 
moral  circumstances  of  the  times  in  the  most  striking  manner  in 
two  pictures  drawn  from  life.  The  relation  in  which  the  three 
parts   stand  to  one  another,  therefore,  is  this :   the  introduction 


INTRODUCTION.  239 

depicts  the  basis  on  which  the  deeds  of  the  judges  were  founded, 
and  the  appendices  furnish  confirmatory  evidence  of  the  spirit 
of  the  age  as  manifested  in  those  deeds.  The  whole  book,  how- 
ever, is  pervaded  and  ruled  by  the  idea  distinctly  expressed  in 
the  introduction  (chap.  ii.  1-3,  11-22),  that  the  Lord  left  those 
Canaanites  who  had  not  been  exterminated  by  Joshua  still  in  the 
land,  to  prove  to  Israel  through  them  whether  it  would  obey  His 
commandments,  and  that  He  chastised  and  punished  His  people 
through  them  for  their  disobedience  and  idolatry ;  but  that  as  soon 
as  they  recognised  His  chastening  hand  in  the  punishment,  and 
returned  to  Him  with  penitence  and  implored  His  help,  lie  had 
compassion  upon  them  again  in  His  gracious  love,  and  helped  them 
to  victory  over  their  foes,  so  that,  notwithstanding  the  repeated  acts 
of  faithlessness  on  the  part  of  His  people,  the  Lord  remained  ever 
faithful  in  His  deeds,  and  stedfastly  maintained  His  covenant. 

We  must  not  look  to  the  book  of  Judges,  therefore,  for  a  com- 
plete history  of  the  period  of  the  judges,  or  one  which  throws  light 
upon  the  development  of  the  Israelites  on  every  side.  The  character 
of  the  book,  as  shown  in  its  contents  and  the  arrangement  of  the 
materials,  corresponds  entirely  to  the  character  of  the  times  over 
which  it  extends.  The  time  of  the  judges  did  not  form  a  new  stage 
in  the  development  of  the  nation  of  God.  It  was  not  till  the  time 
of  Samuel  and  David,  when  this  period  was  ended,  that  a  new  stage 
began.  It  was  rather  a  transition  period,  the  time  of  free,  unfettered 
development,  in  which  the  nation  was  to  take  root  in  the  land  pre- 
sented to  it  by  God  as  its  inheritance,  to  familiarize  itself  with  the 
theocratic  constitution  given  to  it  by  the  Mosaic  law,  and  by  means 
of  the  peculiar  powers  and  gifts  conferred  upon  it  by  God  to  acquire 
for  itself  that  independence  and  firm  footing  in  Canaan,  within  the 
limits  of  the  laws,  ordinances,  and  rights  of  the  covenant,  which 
Jehovah  had  promised,  and  the  way  to  which  He  had  prepared 
through  the  revelations  He  had  made  to  them.  This  task  could  be 
accomplished  without  any  ruler  directly  appointed  by  the  Lord. 
The  first  thing  which  the  tribes  had  to  do  was  to  root  out  such 
Canaanites  as  remained  in  the  land,  that  they  might  not  only  estab- 
lish themselves  in  the  unrestricted  and  undisputed  possessioo  and 
enjoyment  of  the  land  and  its  productions,  but  also  avert  the  danger 
which  threatened  them  on  the  part  of  these  tribes  of  being  led  away 
to  idolatry  and  immorality.  The  Lord  had  promised  them  Hia 
help  in  this  conflict,  if  they  would  only  walk  in  His  commandments. 
The  maintenance  of  civil  order  and  the  administration  of  justice 


V 


240  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

were  in  the  hands  of  the  heads  of  tribes,  families,  and  households ; 
and  for  the  relation  in  which  the  congregation  stood  to  the  Lord  its 
God,  it  possessed  the  necessary  organs  and  media  in  the  hereditary 
priesthood  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  whose  head  could  inquire  the  will 
of  God  in  all  cases  of  difficulty  through  the  right  of  the  Urim,  and 
make  it  known  to  the  nation.  Now  as  long  as  the  generation, 
which  had  seen  the  wonderful  works  of  the  Lord  in  the  time  of 
Joshua,  was  still  living,  so  long  did  the  nation  continue  faithful  to 
the  covenant  of  its  God,  and  the  tribes  maintain  a  successful  con- 
flict with  the  still  remaining  Canaanites  (chap.  i.  1-20,  22-25).  But 
the  very  next  generation,  to  which  those  mighty  acts  of  the  Lord 
were  unknown,  began  to  forget  its  God,  to  grow  weary  and  lax  in 
its  conflicts  with  the  Canaanites,  to  make  peace  with  them,  and  to 
mix  up  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  the  jealous  and  holy  God,  with  the 
worship  of  Baal  and  Astarte,  the  Canaanitish  deities  of  nature,  and 
even  to  substitute  the  latter  in  its  place.  With  the  loss  of  love  and 
V  fidelity  to  the  Lord,  the  bond  of  unity  which  formed  the  tribes  into 
one  congregation  of  Jehovah  was  also  broken.  The  different  tribes 
began  to  follow  their  own  separate  interests  (yid.  chap.  v.  15-17, 
23,  viii.  5-8),  and  eventually  even  to  oppose  and  make  war  upon 
one  another ;  whilst  Ephraim  was  bent  upon  securing  to  itself  the 
headship  of  all  the  tribes,  though  without  making  any  vigorous 
efforts  to  carry  on  the  war  with  the  oppressors  of  Israel  (yid.  chap, 
viii.  1  sqq.,  xii.  1-6).  Consequently  Israel  suffered  more  and  more 
from  the  oppression  of  heathen  nations,  to  which  God  gave  it  up 
as  a  chastisement  for  its  idolatry ;  and  it  would  have  become  alto- 
gether a  prey  to  its  foes,  had  not  the  faithful  covenant  God  taken 
compassion  upon  it  in  its  distress  as  often  as  it  cried  to  Him,  and 
sent  deliverers  (D^Knc,  chap.  iii.  9,  15 ;  cf.  Neh.  ix.  27)  in  those 
judges,  after  whom  both  the  age  in  question  and  the  book  before  us 
i  are  called.  There  are  twelve  of  these  judges  mentioned,  or  rather 
thirteen,  as  Deborah  the  prophetess  also  judged  Israel  (chap.  iv.  4) ; 
but  there  are  only  eight  (Othniel,  Ehud,  Shamgar,  Deborah  and 
Barak,  Gideon,  Jephthah,  and  Samson),  who  are  described  as  per- 
forming acts  by  which  Israel  obtained  deliverance  from  its  oppressors. 
Of  the  other  five  (Tolah,  Jair,  Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon)  we  are 
merely  told  that  they  judged  Israel  so  many  years.  The  reason 
for  this  we  are  not  to  seek  in  the  fact  that  the  report  of  the  heroic 
deeds  of  these  judges  had  not  been  handed  down  to  the  time  when 
our  book  was  written.  It  is  to  be  found  simply  in  the  fact  that 
these  judges  waged  no  wars  and  smote  no  foes. 


INTRODUCTION.  241 

The  judges  (sliophetim)  were  men  who  procured  justice  or  riHit 
for  the  people  of  Israel,  not  only  by  delivering  them  out  of  the 
power  of  their  foes,  but  also  by  administering  the  laws  and  rights 
of  the  Lord  (chap.  ii.  16-19).  Judging  in  this  sense  was  different 
from  the  administration  of  civil  jurisprudence,  and  included  the 
idea  of  government  such  as  would  be  expected  from  a  king.  Thus 
in  1  Sam.  viii.  5,  6,  the  people  are  said  to  have  asked  Samuel  to 
give  them  a  king  "  to  judge  us,"  to  procure  us  right,  i.e.  to  govern 
us ;  and  in  2  Kings  xv.  5  Jotham  is  said  to  have  judged,  i.e.  governed 
the  nation  during  the  illness  of  his  father.  The  name  given  to  these 
men  (sliophetim,  judges)  was  evidently  founded  upon  Deut.  xvii.  9 
and  xix.  17,  where  it  is  assumed  that  in  after-times  there  would  be 
a  shophet,  who  would  stand  by  the  side  of  the  high  priest  as  the 
supreme  judge  or  leader  of  the  state  in  Israel.  The  judges  them- 
selves corresponded  to  the  ZiKaarai  of  the  Tyrians  (Josephus,  c.  Ap. 
i.  21)  and  the  Svffetes  of  the  Carthaginians  (qui  stimulus  Poenis  est 
magistrates,  Liv.  Hist,  xxvii.  37,  and  xxx.  7),  with  this  difference, 
however,  that  as  a  rule  the  judges  of  Israel  were  called  directly  by 
the  Lord,  and  endowed  with  miraculous  power  for  the  conquest  of 
the  enemies  of  Israel;  and  if,  after  delivering  the  people  from 
their  oppressors,  they  continued  to  the  time  of  their  death  to  preside 
over  the  public  affairs  of  the  whole  nation,  or  merely  of  several  of 
its  tribes,  yet  they  did  not  follow  one  another  in  a  continuous  line 
and  unbroken  succession,  because  the  ordinary  administration  of 
justice  and  government  of  the  commonwealth  still  remained  in  the 
hands  of  the  heads  of  the  tribes  and  the  elders  of  the  people,  whilst 
occasionally  there  were  also  prophets  and  high  priests,  such  as 
Deborah,  Eli,  and  Samuel  (chap.  iv.  4  ;  1  Sam.  iv.  18,  vii.  15),  in 
whom  the  government  was  vested.  Thus  "  Othniel  delivered  the 
children  of  Israel,"  and  "  judged  Israel,"  by  going  out  to  war, 
smiting  Chushan-rishathaim,  the  Aramaean  king,  and  giving  the 
land  rest  for  forty  years  (chap.  iii.  9-11)  ;  and  the  same  with  Ehud 
and  several  others.  On  the  other  hand,  Shamgar  (chap.  iii.  31) 
and  Samson  (chap,  xiii.-xvi.)  are  apparently  called  judges  of  Israel, 
simply  as  opponents  and  conquerors  of  the  Philistines,  without  their 
having  taken  any  part  in  the  administration  of  justice.  Others, 
ao-ain,  neither  engaged  in  war  nor  gained  victories.  No  warlike 
deeds  are  recorded  of  Tola;  and  yet  it  is  stated  in  chap.  x.  1, 
that  "  he  rose  up  after  Abimelech  to  deliver  Israel  (Ttn^TlN  >T'n:  )j 
and  judged  Israel  twenty-three  years  ;"  whilst  of  his  successor  .lair 
nothing  more  is  said,   than  that    "  he  judged   Israel   twenty-two 

Q 


242  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

years."  Both  of  these  had  delivered  and  judged  Israel,  not  by 
victories  gained  over  enemies,  but  by  placing  themselves  at  the  head 
of  the  tribes  over  whom  Gideon  had  been  juJge,  at  the  termination 
of  the  ephemeral  reign  of  Abimelech,  and  by  preventing  the  recur- 
rence of  hostile  oppression,  through  the  influence  they  exerted,  as 
well  as  by  what  they  did  for  the  establishment  of  the  nation  in  its 
fidelity  to  the  Lord.  This  also  applies  to  Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon, 
who  followed  Jephthah  in  direct  succession  (chap.  xii.  8-15).  Of 
these  five  judges  also,  it  is  not  stated  that  Jehovah  raised  them  up 
or  called  them.  In  all  probability  they  merely  undertook  the 
government  at  the  wish  of  the  tribes  whose  judges  they  were ; 
whilst  at  the  same  time  it  is  to  be  observed,  that  such  cases  as  these 
did  not  occur  until  the  desire  for  a  king  had  begun  to  manifest 
itself  throughout  the  nation  (chap.  viii.  22,  23). 

But  if  all  the  judges  did  not  fight  against  outward  enemies  of 
Israel,  it  might  appear  strange  that  the  book  of  Judges  should  close 
with  the  death  of  Samson,  without  mentioning  Eli  and  Samuel,  as 
both  of  them  judged  Israel,  the  one  forty  years,  the  other  for  the 
whole  of  his  life  (1  Sam.  iv.  18,  vii.  15).  But  Eli  was  really  high 
priest,  and  what  he  did  as  judge  was  merely  the  natural  result  of 
his  office  of  high  priest ;  and  Samuel  was  called  to  be  the  prophet 
of  the  Lord,  and  as  such  he  delivered  Israel  from  the  oppression  of 
the  Philistines,  not  with  the  sword  and  by  the  might  of  his  arm, 
like  the  judges  before  him,  but  by  the  power  of  the  word,  with 
which  he  converted  Israel  to  the  Lord,  and  by  the  might  of  his 
prayer,  with  which  he  sought  and  obtained  the  victory  from  the 
Lord  (1  Sam.  vii.  3-10)  ;  so  that  his  judicial  activity  not  only  sprang 
out  of  his  prophetic  office,  but  was  continually  sustained  thereby. 
The  line  of  actual  judges  terminated  with  Samson ;  and  with  his 
death  the  office  of  judge  was  carried  to  the  grave.  Samson  was 
followed  immediately  by  Samuel,  whose  prophetic  labours  formed 
the  link  between  the  period  of  the  judges  and  the  introduction  of 
royalty  into  Israel.  The  forty  years  of  oppression  on  the  part  of 
the  Philistines,  from  which  Samson  began  to  deliver  Israel  (chap, 
xiii.  1,  5),  were  brought  to  a  close  by  the  victory  which  the  Israel- 
ites gained  through  Samuel's  prayer  (1  Sam.  vii.),  as  will  be  readily 
seen  when  we  have  determined  the  chronology  of  the  period  of  the 
judges,  in  the  introductory  remarks  to  the  exposition  of  the  body  of 
the  book.  This  victory  was  not  gained  by  the  Israelites  till  twenty 
years  after  Eli's  death  (comp.  1  Sam.  vii.  2  with  vi.  1  and  iv.  18). 
Consequently  of  the  forty  years  during  which  Eli  judged  Isx-ael  as 


INTRODUCTION.  243 

high  priest,  only  the  last  twenty  fell  within  the  time  of  the  Philis- 
tine oppression,  the  first  twenty  before  it.  But  both  Samuel  and 
Samson  were  born  during  the  pontificate  of  Eli ;  for  when  Samson's 
birth  was  foretold,  the  Philistines  were  already  ruling  over  Israel 
(Judg.  xiii.  5).  The  deeds  of  Samson  fell  for  the  most  part  within 
the  last  twenty  years  of  the  Philistine  supremacy,  i.e.  not  only  in 
the  interval  between  the  capture  of  the  ark  and  death  of  Eli  and 
the  victory  which  the  Israelites  achieved  through  Samuel  over  these 
foes,  which  victory,  however,  Samson  did  not  live  to  see,  but  also  in 
the  time  when  Samuel  had  been  accredited  as  a  prophet  of  Jehovah, 
and  Jehovah  had  manifested  himself  repeatedly  to  him  byword  at 
Shiloh  (1  Sam.  iii.  20,  21).  Consequently  Samuel  completed  the 
deliverance  of  Israel  out  of  the  power  of  the  Philistines,  which 
Samson  had  commenced. 

The  book  of  Judges,  therefore,  embraces  the  whole  of  the 
judicial  epoch,  and  gives  a  faithful  picture  of  the  political  develop- 
ment of  the  Israelitish  theocracy  during  that  time.  The  author 
writes  throughout  from  a  prophet's  point  of  view.  He  applies  the 
standard  of  the  law  to  the  spirit  of  the  age  by  which  the  nation 
was  influenced  as  a  whole,  and  pronounces  a  stern  and  severe  sen- 
tence upon  all  deviations  from  the  path  of  rectitude  set  before  it  in 
the  law.  The  unfaithfulness  of  Israel,  which  went  a  whoring  again 
and  again  after  Baal,  and  was  punished  for  its  apostasy  from  the 
Lord  with  oppression  from  foreign  nations,  and  the  faithfulness  of 
the  Lord,  who  sent  help  to  the  people  whenever  it  returned  to  Him 
in  its  oppression,  by  raising  up  judges  who  conquered  its  enemies, 
are  the  two  historical  factors  of  those  times,  and  the  hinges  upon 
which  the  history  turns.  In  the  case  of  all  the  judges,  it  is  stated 
that  they  judged  "  Israel,"  or  the  "  children  of  Israel  ;"  although 
it  is  very  obvious,  from  the  accounts  of  the  different  deliverances 
effected,  that  most  of  the  judges  only  delivered  and  judged  those 
tribes  who  happened  to  be  oppressed  and  subjugated  by  their  enemies 
at  a  particular  time.  The  other  tribes,  who  were  spared  by  this  or 
the  other  hostile  invasion,  did  not  come  into  consideration  in  refer- 
ence to  the  special  design  of  the  historical  account,  namely,  to 
describe  the  acts  of  the  Lord  in  the  government  of  His  people,  any 
more  than  the  development  of  the  religious  and  social  life  of  indi- 
vidual members  of  the  congregation  in  harmony  with  the  law  ; 
inasmuch  as  the  congregation,  whether  in  whole  or  in  part,  was 
merely  fulfilling  its  divinely  appointed  vocation,  so  long  as  it 
observed  the  law,  and  about  this  there  was  nothing  special  to  be 


244  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

related  (see  the  description  given  of  the  book  of  Judges  in  Hengsten- 
berg,  Diss,  on  the  Pentateuch,  vol.  ii.  pp.  16  sqq.). 

Lastly,  if  we  take  a  survey  of  the  gradual  development  of  Israel 
during  the  times  of  the  judges,  we  may  distinguish  three  stages  in 
the  attitude  of  the  Lord  to  His  constantly  rebelling  people,  and  also 
in  the  form  assumed  by  the  external  and  internal  circumstances 
of  the  nation :  viz.  (1)  the  period  from  the  commencement  of  the 
apostasy  of  the  nation  till  its  deliverance  from  the  rule  of  the 
Canaanitish  king  Jabin,  or  the  time  of  the  judges  Othniel,  Ehud, 
and  Shamgar,  Deborah  and  Barak  (chap,  iii.-v.) ;  (2)  the  time  of 
the  Midianitish  oppression,  with  the  deliverance  effected  by  Gideon, 
and  the  government  which  followed,  viz.  of  Abimelech  and  the  judges 
Tola  and  Jair  (chap,  vi.-x.  5) ;  (3)  the  time  of  the  Ammonitish 
and  Philistine  supremacy  over  Israel,  with  the  judges  Jephthah, 
Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon  on  the  one  hand,  and  that  of  Samson  on 
the  other  (chap.  x.  6-xvi.  31).  Three  times,  for  example,  the  Lord 
threatens  His  people  with  oppression  and  subjugation  by  foreign 
nations,  as  a  punishment  for  their  disobedience  and  apostasy  from 
Him  :  viz.  (1)  at  Bochim  (chap.  ii.  1-4)  through  the  angel  of  the 
Lord;  (2)  on  the  invasion  of  the  Midianites  (chap.  vi.  7-10), 
through  the  medium  of  a  prophet;  and  (3)  at  the  commencement 
of  the  Ammonitish  and  Philistine  oppression  (chap.  x.  10-14).  The 
first  time  He  threatens,  "  the  Canaanites  shall  be  as  thorns  in  your 
sides,  and  their  gods  shall  be  a  snare  to  you"  (chap.  ii.  3) ;  the 
second  time,  "  I  delivered  you  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Egyptians, 
and  out  of  the  hand  of  all  that  oppressed  you ;  I  said  unto  you,  I 
am  Jehovah,  your  God ;  fear  not  the  gods  of  the  Amorites :  but 
ye  have  not  hearkened  to  my  voice"  (chap.  vi.  9,  10);  the  third 
time,  "  Ye  have  forsaken  me  and  served  other  gods  :  wherefore  I 
will  deliver  you  no  more ;  go  and  cry  unto  the  gods  which  ye  have 
chosen  ;  let  them  deliver  you  in  the  time  of  your  tribulation  "  (chap. 
x.  13,  14).  These  threats  were  fulfilled  upon  the  disobedient 
nation,  not  only  in  the  fact  that  they  fell  deeper  and  deeper  under 
the  oppression  of  their  foes,  but  by  their  also  becoming  disjointed 
and  separated  more  and  more  internally.  In  the  first  stage,  the 
oppressions  from  without  lasted  a  tolerably  long  time :  that  of 
Chushan-rishathaim  eight  years  ;  that  of  Eglon  the  Moabite, 
eighteen ;  and  that  of  the  Canaanitish  king  Jabin,  as  much  as 
twenty  years  (chap.  iii.  8,  14,  iv.  3).  But,  on  the  other  hand,  after 
the  first,  the  Israelites  had  forty  years  of  peace ;  after  the  second, 
eighty ;  and  after  the  third,  again  forty  years   (chap.  iii.  11,  30,  v. 


INTRODUCTION.  245 

31).  Under  Othniel  and  Ehud  all  Israel  appears  to  have  risen 
against  its  oppressors;  but  under  Barak,  Reuben  and  Gilead,  Dan 
and  Asher  took  no  part  in  the  conflict  of  the  other  tribes  (chap.  v. 
15-17).  In  the  second  stage,  the  Midianitish  oppression  lasted,  it 
is  true,  only  seven  years  (chap.  vi.  1),  and  was  followed  by  forty 
years  of  rest  under  Gideon  (chap.  viii.  28)  ;  whilst  the  three  years' 
government  of  Abimelech  was  followed  by  forty-five  years  of  peace 
under  Tola  and  Jair  (chap.  x.  2,  3)  ;  but  even  under  Gideon  the 
jealousy  of  Ephraim  was  raised  to  such  a  pitch  against  the  tribes 
who  had  joined  in  smiting  the  foe,  that  it  almost  led  to  a  civil 
war  (chap.  viii.  1-3),  and  the  inhabitants  of  Succoth  and  Penuel 
refused  all  assistance  to  the  victorious  army,  and  that  in  so  insolent 
a  manner  that  they  were  severely  punished  by  Gideon  in  conse- 
quence (chap.  viii.  4-9, 14-17)  ;  whilst  in  the  election  of  Abimelech 
as  king  of  Shechem,  the  internal  decay  of  the  congregation  of  Israel 
was  brought  still  more  clearly  to  light  (chap.  ix.).  Lastly,  in  the 
third  stage,  no  doubt,  Israel  was  delivered  by  Jephthah  from  the 
eighteen  years'  bondage  on  the  part  of  the  Ammonites  (chap.  xi. 
8  sqq.),  and  the  tribes  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  as  well  as  the 
northern  tribes  of  the  land  on  this  side,  enjoyed  rest  under  the 
judges  Jephthah,  Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon  for  thirty-one  years 
(chap.  xii.  7,  9,  11,  14)  ;  but  the  Philistine  oppression  lasted  till 
after  Samson's  death  (chap.  xiii.  5,  xv.  20),  and  the  internal  decay 
increased  so  much  under  this  hostile  pressure,  that  whilst  the 
Ephraimites,  on  the  one  hand,  commenced  a  war  against  Jephthah, 
and  sustained  a  terrible  defeat  at  the  hands  of  the  tribes  on  the  east 
of  the  Jordan  (chap.  xii.  1-6),  on  the  other  hand,  the  tribes  who 
were  enslaved  by  the  Philistines  had  so  little  appreciation  of  the 
deliverance  which  God  had  sent  them  through  Samson,  that  the 
men  of  Judah  endeavoured  to  give  up  their  deliverer  to  the  Philis- 
tines (chap.  xv.  9-14).  Nevertheless  the  Lord  not  only  helped  the 
nation  again,  both  in  its  distress  and  out  of  its  distress,  but  came 
nearer  and  nearer  to  it  with  His  aid,  that  it  might  learn  that  its  help 
was  to  be  found  in  God  alone.  The  first  deliverers  and  judges  He 
stirred  up  by  His  Spirit,  which  came  upon  Othniel  and  Ehud,  and 
filled  them  with  courage  and  strength  for  the  conquest  of  their  foes. 
Barak  was  summoned  to  the  war  by  the  prophetess  Deborah,  and 
inspired  by  her  with  the  courage  to  undertake  it.  Gideon  was 
called  to  be  the  deliverer  of  Israel  out  of  the  severe  oppression  of 
the  Midianites  by  the  appearance  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  and  the 
victory  over  the  innumerable  army  of  the  foe  was  given  by  thu 


246  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Lord,  not  to  the  whole  of  the  army  which  Gideon  summoned  to  the 
battle,  but  only  to  a  small  company  of  300  men,  that  Israel  might 
not  "  vaunt  themselves  against  the  Lord,"  and  magnify  their  own 
power.  Lastly,  Jephthah  and  Samson  were  raised  up  as  deliverers 
out  of  the  power  of  the  Ammonites  and  Philistines  ;  and  whilst 
Jephthah  was  called  by  the  elders  of  Gilead  to  be  the  leader  in  the 
war  with  the  Midianites,  and  sought  through  a  vow  to  ensure  the 
assistance  of  God  in  gaining  a  victory  over  them,  Samson  was  set 
apart  from  his  mother's  womb,  through  the  appearance  of  the  angel 
of  the  Lord,  as  the  Nazarite  who  was  to  begin  to  deliver  Israel  out 
of  the  power  of  the  Philistines.  At  the  same  time  there  was  given 
to  the  nation  in  the  person  of  Samuel,  the  son  for  whom  the  pious 
Hannah  prayed  to  the  Lord,  a  Nazarite  and  prophet,  who  was  not 
only  to  complete  the  deliverance  from  the  power  of  the  Philistines 
which  Samson  had  begun,  but  to  ensure  the  full  conversion  of  Israel 
to  the  Lord  its  God. 

With  regard  to  the  origin  of  the  book  of  Judges,  it  is  evident 
v/  from  the  repeated  remark,  "  In  those  days  there  was  no  king  in 
Israel,  every  man  did  that  which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes"  (chap, 
xvii.  6,  xxi.  25;  cf.  chap,  xviii.  1,  xix.  1),  that  it  was  composed  at 
a  time  when  Israel  was  already  rejoicing  in  the  benefits  connected 
with  the  kingdom.  It  is  true  this  remark  is  only  to  be  found  in  the 
appendices,  and  would  have  no  force  so  far  as  the  date  of  compo- 
sition is  concerned,  if  the  view  held  by  different  critics  were  well- 
founded,  viz.  that  these  appendices  were  added  by  a  later  hand. 
But  the  arguments  adduced  against  the  unity  of  authorship  in  all 
three  parts,  the  introduction,  the  body  of  the  work,  and  the  appen- 
dices, will  not  bear  examination.  Without  the  introduction  (chap, 
i.  X — ili-  6)  the  historical  narrative  contained  in  the  book  would  want 
a  foundation,  which  is  absolutely  necessary  to  make  it  intelligible ; 
and  the  two  appendices  supply  two  supplements  of  the  greatest  im- 
portance in  relation  to  the  development  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  in  the 
time  of  the  judges,  and  most  intimately  connected  with  the  design 
and  plan  of  the  rest  of  the  book.  It  is  true  that  in  chap,  i.,  as  well 
as  in  the  two  appendices,  the  prophetic  view  of  the  history  which 
prevails  in  the  rest  of  the  book,  from  chap.  ii.  11  to  chap.  xvi.  31, 
is  not  distinctly  apparent ;  but  this  difference  may  be  fully  explained 
from  the  contents  of  the  two  portions,  which  neither  furnish  the 
occasion  nor  supply  the  materials  for  any  such  view, — like  the 
account  of  the  royal  supremacy  of  Abimelech  in  chap,  ix.,  in  which 
the  so-called  "  theocratical  pragmatism"  is  also  wanting.     But,  on 

j 


INTRODUCTION.  247 

the  other  hand,  all  these  portions  are  just  as  rich  in  allusions  to  the 
Mosaic  law  and  the  legal  worship  as  the  other  parts  of  the  book,  so 
that  both  in  their  contents  and  their  form  they  would  be  unintel- 
ligible apart  from  the  supremacy  of  the  law  in  Israel.  The  dis- 
crepancies which  some  fancy  they  have  discovered  between  chap. 
i.  8  and  chap.  i.  21,  and  also  between  chap.  i.  19  and  chap.  iii.  3, 
vanish  completely  on  a  correct  interpretation  of  the  passages  them- 
selves. And  no  such  differences  can  be  pointed  out  in  language 
or  style  as  would  overthrow  the  unity  of  authorship,  or  even  render 
it  questionable.  Even  Stäkelin  observes  (spez.  Einl.  p.  77) :  "  I 
cannot  find  in  chap,  xvii.-xxi.  the  (special)  author  of  chap,  i.-ii.  5  ; 
and  the  arguments  adduced  by  Bertheau  in  favour  of  this,  from 
modes  of  expression  to  be  found  in  the  two  sections,  appear  to  me 
to  be  anything  but  conclusive,  simply  because  the  very  same  modes 
of  expression  occur  elsewhere  :  n3i:*?  PXi"1  in  Ex.  ii.  21 ;  )nn  in  Num. 
x.  29;  T3  RU,  Josh.  x.  30,  xi.  8,'jiidg.  vi.  1,  xi.  21;  nft&  \TQ, 
Gen.  xxix.  28,  xxx.  4,  9,  xxxiv.  8,  etc. ;  Jin  *&  nan,  Num.  xxi.  24, 
Dent.  xiii.  16,  Josh.  viii.  24,  x.  28,  30,  32,  etc.  Undoubtedly 
'*3  ?X^  only  occurs  in  Judg.  i.  1  and  the  appendix,  and  never  earlier ; 
but  there  is  a  similar  expression  in  Num.  xxvii.  21  and  Josh.  ix.  14, 
and  the  first  passage  shows  how  the  mode  of  expression  could  be 
so  abbreviated.  I  find  no  preterites  with  1,  used  in  the  place  of  the 
future  with  5  in  Judg.  i. ;  for  it  is  evident  from  the  construction 
that  the  preterite  must  be  used  in  vers.  8,  16,  25,  etc. ;  and  thus  the 
only  thing  left  that  could  strike  us  at  all  is  the  idiom  B>K3  ns".", 
which  is  common  to  both  sections,  but  which  is  too  isolated,  and 
occurs  again  moreover  in  2  Kings  viii.  12  and  Ps.  lxxiv.  7."  But 
even  the  "peculiar  phrases  belonging  to  a  later  age,"  which  Stalielin 
and  Bertheau  discover  in  chap,  xvii.-xxi.  do  not  furnish  any  tenable 
proof  of  this  assertion.  The  phrase  "  from  Dan  to  Beersheba,"  in 
chap.  xx.  1,  was  formed  after  the  settlement  of  the  Danites  in 
Laish-Dan,  which  took  place  at  the  commencement  of  the  time  of 
the  judges.  D^tW  xL''3,  in  chap.  xxi.  23,  is  also  to  be  found  in  Ruth 
i.  4;  and  the  others  either  occur  again  in  the  books  of  Samuel,  or 
have  been  wrongly  interpreted. 

We  have  a  firm  datum  for  determining  more  minutely  the  time 
when  the  book  of  Judges  was  written,  in  the  statement  in  chap.  i. 
21,  that  the  Jebusites  in  Jerusalem  had  not  been  rooted  oul  by  tin- 
Israelites,  but  dwelt  there  with  the  children  of  Benjamin  "  mit» 
this  day."  The  Jebusites  remained  in  possession  of  Jerusalem,  <>r 
of  the  citadel  Zion,  or  the  upper  town  of  Jerusalem,  until  the  time 


248  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

when  David  went  against  Jerusalem  after  the  twelve  tribes  had 
acknowledged  him  as  king,  took  the  fortress  of  Zion,  and  made  it 
the  capital  of  his  kingdom  under  the  name  of  the  city  of  David 
(2  Sam.  v.  6-9 ;  1  Chron.  xi.  4-9).  Consequently  the  book  was 
written  before  this  event,  either  during  the  first  seven  years  of  the 
reign  of  David  at  Hebron,  or  during  the  reign  of  Saul,  under  whom 
the  Israelites  already  enjoyed  the  benefits  of  a  monarchical  govern- 
ment, since  Saul  not  only  fought  with  bravery  against  all  the 
enemies  of  Israel,  and  "  delivered  Israel  out  of  the  hands  of  them 
that  spoiled  them"  (1  Sam.  xiv.  47,  48),  but  exerted  himself  to 
restore  the  authority  of  the  law  of  God  in  his  kingdom,  as  is  evident 
from  the  fact  that  he  banished  the  wizards  and  necromancers  out 
of  the  land  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  9).  The  talmudical  statement  therefore 
in  Bava-bathra  (f.  145  and  15a),  to  the  effect  that  Samuel  was  the 
author  of  the  book,  may  be  so  far  correct,  that  if  it  was  not  written 
by  Samuel  himself  towards  the  close  of  his  life,  it  was  written  at  his 
instigation  by  a  younger  prophet  of  his  school.  More  than  this  it 
is  impossible  to  decide.  So  much,  however,  is  at  all  events  certain, 
that  the  book  does  not  contain  traces  of  a  later  age  either  in  its 
contents  or  its  language,  and  that  chap,  xviii.  30  does  not  refer  to 
the  time  of  the  captivity  (see  the  commentary  on  this  passage). 

With  regard  to  the  sources  of  which  the  author  made  use,  unless 
we  are  prepared  to  accept  untenable  hypotheses  as  having  all  the 
validity  of  historical  facts,  it  is  impossible  to  establish  anything 
more  than  that  he  drew  his  materials  not  only  from  oral  tradition, 
but  also  from  written  documents.  This  is  obvious  from  the  exact- 
ness of  the  historical  and  chronological  accounts,  and  still  more  so 
from  the  abundance  of  characteristic  and  original  traits  and  expres- 
sions that  meet  the  reader  in  the  historical  pictures,  some  of  which 
are  very  elaborate.  The  historical  fidelity,  exactness,  and  vividness 
of  description  apparent  in  every  part  of  the  book  are  only  to  be 
explained  in  a  work  which  embraces  a  period  of  350  years,  on  the 
supposition  that  the  author  made  use  of  trustworthy  records,  or 
the  testimony  of  persons  who  were  living  when  the  events  occurred. 
This  stands  out  so  clearly  in  every  part  of  the  book,  that  it  is 
admitted  even  by  critics  who  are  compelled  by  their  own  dogmatical 
assumptions  to  deny  the  actual  truth  or  reality  of  the  miraculous 
parts  of  the  history.  With  regard  to  the  nature  of  these  sources, 
however,  we  can  only  conjecture  that  chap.  i.  and  xvii.-xxi.  were 
founded  upon  written  accounts,  with  which  the  author  of  the  book 
of  Joshua  was  also  acquainted ;  and  that  the  accounts  of  Deborah 


CHAP.  1.  1-11.  j.  219 

and  Barak,  of  Gideon,  and  of  the  life  of  Samson,  were  taken  from 
different  writings,  inasmuch  as  these  sections  are  distinguished  from 
one  another  by  many  peculiarities.  (Further  remarks  on  this  subject 
will  be  found  in  the  exposition  itself.) 


EXPOSITION. 


I.— ATTITUDE  OF  ISRAEL  TOWARDS  THE  CANAANITES,  AND 
TOWARDS  JEHOVAH  ITS  GOD. 

Chap.  i._iii.  6. 

hostilities  between  iskael  and  the  canaanites  after 
Joshua's  death. — chap.  i.  i_ii.  5. 

After  the  death  of  Joshua  the  tribes  of  Israel  resolved  to  con- 
tinue the  war  with  the  Canaanites,  that  they  might  exterminate  them 
altogether  from  the  land  that  had  been  given  them  for  an  inherit- 
ance. In  accordance  with  the  divine  command,  Judali  commenced 
the  strife  in  association  with  Simeon,  smote  the  king  of  Bezek, 
conquered  Jerusalem,  Hebron  and  Debir  upon  the  mountains, 
Zephath  in  the  south  land,  and  three  of  the  chief  cities  of  the 
Philistines,  and  took  possession  of  the  mountains;  but  was  unable 
to  exterminate  the  inhabitants  of  the  plain,  just  as  the  Benjaminites 
were  unable  to  drive  the  Jebusites  out  of  Jerusalem  (vers.  1-21). 
The  tribe  of  Joseph  also  conquered  the  city  of  Bethel  (vers.  22—26)  ; 
but  from  the  remaining  towns  of  the  land  neither  the  Manassites, 
nor  the  Ephraimites,  nor  the  tribes  of  Zebulun,  Asher,  and  Naph- 
tali  expelled  the  Canaanites:  all  that  they  did  was  to  make  them 
tributary  (vers.  27—33).  The  Danites  were  actually  forced  back 
by  the  Amorites  out  of  the  plain  into  the  mountains,  because  the 
latter  maintained  their  hold  of  the  towns  of  the  plain,  although  the 
house  of  Joseph  conquered  them  and  made  them  tributary  (vers. 
34-36).  The  angel  of  the  Lord  therefore  appeared  at  Bochim,  and 
declared  to  the  Israelites,  that  because  they  had  not  obeyed  the 
command  of  the  Lord,  to  make  no  covenant  with  the  Canaanites, 
the  Lord  would  no  more  drive  out  these  nations,  but  would  cause 
them  and  their  gods  to  become  a  snare  to  them  (chap.   ii.   1-Ö). 


250  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

From  this  divine  revelation  it  is  evident,  on  the  one  hand,  that  the 
failure  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  had  its  roots  in  the  negligence 
of  the  tribes  of  Israel ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  that  the  accounts  of 
the  wars  of  the  different  tribes,  and  the  enumeration  of  the  towns 
in  the  different  possessions  out  of  which  the  Canaanites  were  not 
expelled,  were  designed  to  show  clearly  the  attitude  of  the  Israelites 
to  the  Canaanites  in  the  age  immediately  following  the  death  of 
Joshua,  or  to  depict  the  historical  basis  on  which  the  development 
of  Israel  rested  in  the  era  of  the  judges. 

Vers.  1-7.  With  the  words  "  Note,  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  it 
came  to  p>ass"  the  book  of  Judges  takes  up  the  thread  of  the  history 
where  the  book  of  Joshua  had  dropped  it,  to  relate  the  further 
development  of  the  covenant  nation.  A  short  time  before  his  death, 
Joshua  had  gathered  the  elders  and  heads  of  the  people  around 
him,  and  set  before  them  the  entire  destruction  of  the  Canaanites 
through  the  omnipotent  help  of  the  Lord,  if  they  would  only  adhere 
with  fidelity  to  the  Lord ;  whilst,  at  the  same  time,  he  also  pointed 
out  to  them  the  dangers  of  apostasy  from  the  Lord  (Josh,  xxiii.). 
Remembering  this  admonition  and  warning,  the  Israelites  inquired, 
after  Joshua's  death,  who  should  begin  the  war  against  the  Canaan- 
ites who  still  remained  to  be  destroyed ;  and  the  Lord  answered, 
"  Judah  shall  go  up  :  behold,  I  have  delivered  the  land  into  his  hand" 
(vers.  1,  2).  nirvzi  ?$V,  to  ask  with  Jehovah  for  the  purpose  of 
obtaining  a  declaration  of  the  divine  will,  is  substantially  the  same 
as  Dnixn  BSBtoa  W  (Num.  xxvii.  21),  to  inquire  the  will  of  the 
Lord  through  the  TJrim  and  Thummim  of  the  high  priest.  From 
this  time  forward  inquiring  of  the  Lord  occurs  with  greater 
frequency  (vid.  chap.  xx.  23,  27  ;  1  Sam.  x.  22,  xxii.  10,  xxiii.  2, 
etc.),  as  well  as  the  synonymous  expression  "ask  of  Elohim"  in 
chap,  xviii.  5,  xx.  18  ;  1  Sam.  xiv.  37,  xxii.  13  ;  1  Chron.  xiv.  10 ; 
whereas  Moses  and  Joshua  received  direct  revelations  from  God. 
The  phrase  'OyiSrrPX  PPJP,  «go  up  to  the  Canaanites,"  is  defined 
more  precisely  by  the  following  words,  "  to  fight  against  them ;"  so 
that  n?j?  is  used  here  also  to  denote  the  campaign  against  a  nation 
(see  at  Josh.  viii.  1),  without  there  being  any  necessity,  however, 
for  us  to  take  ?K  in  the  sense  of  ?V.  ""^nro  Toy  signifies  "  to  go  up 
in  the  beginning"  i.e.  to  open  or  commence  the  war;  not  to  hold  the 
commandership  in  the  war,  as  the  Sept.,  Vulgate,  and  others  render 
it  (see  chap.  x.  18,  where  önpnp  ?rp  is  expressly  distinguished  from 
being  the  chief  or  leader).  Moreover,  ^  does  not  mean  who  ?  i.e. 
what  person,  but,  as  the  answer  clearly  shows,  what  tribe?     Now  a 


CHAP.  I.  1-7.  251 

tribe  could  open  the  war,  and  take  the  lead  at  the  head  of  the  other 
tribes,  but  could  not  be  the  commander-in-chief.  In  the  present 
instance,  however,  Judah  did  not  even  enter  upon  the  war  at  the 
head  of  all  the  tribes,  but  simply  joined  with  the  tribe  of  Simeon  to 
make  a  common  attack  upon  the  Canaanites  in  their  inheritance. 
The  promise  in  ver.  2b  is  the  same  as  that  in  Josh.  vi.  2,  viii.  1,  etc. 
"  The  land"  is  not  merely  the  land  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Judah, 
or  Judah's  inheritance,  as  Bertheau  supposes,  for  Judah  conquered 
Jerusalem  (ver.  8),  which  had  been  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Benjamin 
(Josh,  xviii.  28),  but  the  land  of  Canaan  generally,  so  far  as  it  was 
still  in  the  possession  of  the  Canaanites  and  was  to  be  conquered  by 
Judah.  The  reason  why  Judah  was  to  commence  the  hostilities  is 
not  to  be  sought  for  m  t}ie  fact  that  Judah  was  the  most  numerous 
of  all  the  tribes  (Rosenmüller),  but  rather  in  the  fact  that  Judah 
had  already  been  appointed  by  the  blessing  of  Jacob  (Gen.  xlix.  8 
sqq.)  to  be  the  champion  of  his  brethren. — Ver.  3.  Judah  invited 
Simeon  his  brother,  i.e.  their  brother  tribe,  to  take  part  in  the 
contest.  This  epithet  is  applied  to  Simeon,  not  because  Simeon  and 
Judah,  the  sons  of  Jacob,  were  the  children  of  the  same  mother, 
Leah  (Gen.  xxix.  33,  35),  but  because  Simeon's  inheritance  was 
within  the  territory  of  Judah  (Josh.  xix.  1  sqq.),  so  that  Simeon 
was  more  closely  connected  with  Judah  than  any  of  the  other 
tribes.  "  Come  up  with  me  into  my  lot  (into  the  inheritance  that 
has  fallen  to  me  by  lot),  that  we  may  fight  against  the  Canaanites, 
and  I  likewise  will  go  with  thee  into  thy  lot.  So  Simeon  went  with 
him,"  i.e.  joined  with  Judah  in  making  war  upon  the  Canaanites. 
This  request  shows  that  Judah's  principal  intention  was  to  make 
war  upon  and  exterminate  the  Canaanites  who  remained  in  his  own 
and  Simeon's  inheritance.  The  different  expressions  employed, 
come  up  and  go,  are  to  be  explained  from  the  simple  fact  that  the 
whole  of  Simeon's  territory  was  in  the  shephelah  and  Ncgeb,  whereas 
Judah  had  received  the  heart  of  his  possessions  upon  the  mountains. 
Ver.  4.  "And  Judah  went  up,"  sc.  against  the  Canaanites,  to 
make  war  upon  them.  The  completion  of  the  sentence  is  supplied 
by  the  context,  more  especially  by  ver.  2.  So  far  as  the  Bense  ia 
concerned,  Rosenmüller  has  given  the  correct  explanation  ot  ?V% 
"Judah  entered  upon  the  expedition  along  with  Simeon."  u  And 
they  smote  the  Canaanites  and  the  Perizzites  in  Bezek,  10,000  men. 
The  result  of  the  war  is  summed  up  briefly  in  these  words;  and 
then  in  vers.  5-7  the  capture  and  punishment  of  the  hostile  king 
Adoni-bezeh   is  specially  mentioned  as  being  the  most   important 


252  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

event  in  the  war.  The  foe  is  described  as  consisting  of  Canaanites 
and  Perizzites,  two  tribes  which  have  been  already  named  in  Gen. 
xiii.  7  and  xxxiv.  30  as  representing  the  entire  population  of  Canaan, 
"  the  Canaanites  "  comprising  principally  those  in  the  lowlands  by 
the  Jordan  and  the  Mediterranean  (yid.  Num.  xiii.  29  ;  Josh.  xi.  3), 
and  "  the  Perizzites  "  the  tribes  who  dwelt  in  the  mountains  (Josh, 
xvii.  15).  On  the  Perizzites,  see  Gen.  xiii.  7.  The  place  mentioned, 
Bezek,  is  only  mentioned  once  more,  namely  in  1  Sam.  xi.  8,  where 
it  is  described  as  being  situated  between  Gibeah  of  Saul  (see  at 
Josh,  xviii.  28)  and  Jabesh  in  Gilead.  According  to  the  Onom. 
(s.  v.  Bezek),  there  were  at  that  time  two  places  very  near  together 
both  named  Bezek,  seventeen  Roman  miles  from  Neapolis  on  the 
road  to  Scythopolis,  i.e.  about  seven  hours  to  the  north  of  Nabulus 
on  the  road  to  Beisan.  This  description  is  perfectly  reconcilable 
with  1  Sam.  xi.  8.  On  the  other  hand,  Clericus  (ad  h.  L),  Posen- 
müller, and  v.  Raumer  suppose  the  Bezek  mentioned  here  to  have 
been  situated  in  the  territory  of  Judah ;  though  this  cannot  be 
proved,  since  it  is  merely  based  upon  an  inference  drawn  from  ver. 
3,  viz.  that  Judah  and  Simeon  simply  attacked  the  Canaanites  in 
their  own  allotted  territories, — an  assumption  which  is  very  uncertain. 
There  is  no  necessity,  however,  to  adopt  the  opposite  and  erroneous 
opinion  of  Bertheau,  that  the  tribes  of  Judah  and  Simeon  com- 
menced their  expedition  to  the  south  from  the  gathering-place  of 
the  united  tribes  at  Shechem,  and  fought  the  battle  with  the 
Canaanitish  forces  in  that  region  upon  this  expedition  ;  since 
Shechem  is  not  described  in  Josh.  xxiv.  as  the  gathering-place  of 
the  united  tribes,  i.e.  of  the  whole  of  the  military  force  of  Israel, 
and  the  battle  fought  with  Adoni-bezek  did  not  take  place  at  the 
time  when  the  tribes  prepared  to  leave  Shiloh  and  march  to  their 
own  possessions  after  the  casting  of  the  lots  was  over.  The  simplest 
explanation  is,  that  when  the  tribes  of  Judah  and  Simeon  prepared 
to  make  war  upon  the  Canaanites  in  the  possessions  allotted  to  them, 
they  were  threatened  or  attacked  by  the  forces  of  the  Canaanites 
collected  together  by  Adoni-bezek,  so  that  they  had  first  of  all  to 
turn  their  arms  against  this  king  before  they  could  attack  the 
Canaanites  in  their  own  tribe-land.  As  the  precise  circumstances 
connected  with  the  occasion  and  course  of  this  war  have  not  been 
recorded,  there  is  nothing  to  hinder  the  supposition  that  Adoni- 
bezek  may  have  marched  from  the  north  against  the  possessions  of 
Benjamin  and  Judah,  possibly  with  the  intention  of  joining  the 
Canaanites  in  Jebus,  and  the  Anakim  in  Hebron  and  upon  the 


CHAP.  I.  8-15.  2i>3 

mountains  in  the  south,  and  then  making  a  combined  attack  upon 
the  Israelites.  This  might  induce  or  even  compel  Judah  and  Simeon 
to  attack  this  enemy  first  of  all,  and  even  to  pursue  him  till  they 
overtook  him  at  his  capital  Bezek,  and  smote  him  with  all  his  army. 
Adoni-bezek,  i.e.  lord  of  Bezek,  is  the  official  title  of  this  king, 
whose  proper  name  is  unknown. 

In  the  principal  engagement,  in  which  10,000  Canaanites  fell, 
Adoni-bezek  escaped  ;  but  he  was  overtaken  in  his  flight  (vers.  6,  7), 
and  so  mutilated,  by  the  cutting  off  of  his  thumbs  and  great  toes, 
that  he  could  neither  carry  arms  nor  flee.  With  this  cruel  treat- 
ment, which  the  Athenians  are  said  to  have  practised  upon  the 
captured  ^Egynetes  (JElian,  var.  hist.  ii.  9),  the  Israelites  simply 
executed  the  just  judgment  of  retribution,  as  Adoni-bezek  was 
compelled  to  acknowledge,  for  the  cruelties  which  he  had  inflicted 
upon  captives  taken  by  himself.  "  Seventy  kings,"  he  says  in 
ver.  7,  "  with  the  thumbs  of  their  hands  and  feet  cut  off,  were  gather- 
ing under  my  table.  As  I  have  done,  so  God  hath  requited  me." 
WBftO  .  .  .  nürm,  Ut  «  cut  in  the  thumbs  of  their  hands  and  feet" 
(see  Ewald,  Lehrb.  §  284,  c).  The  object  to  D'B^D,  "gathering 
up"  (viz.  crumbs),  is  easily  supplied  from  the  idea  of  the  verb  itself. 
Gathering  up  crumbs  under  the  table,  like  the  dogs  in  Matt.  xv. 
27,  is  a  figurative  representation  of  the  most  shameful  treatment 
and  humiliation.  u  Seventy  "  is  a  round  number,  and  is  certainly  an 
exaggerated  hyperbole  here.  For  even  if  every  town  of  importance 
in  Canaan  had  its  own  king,  the  fact  that,  when  Joshua  conquered 
the  land,  he  only  smote  thirty-one  kings,  is  sufficient  evidence  that 
there  can  hardly  have  been  seventy  kings  to  be  found  in  all  Canaan. 
It  appears  strange,  too,  that  the  king  of  Bezek  is  not  mentioned  in 
connection  with  the  conquest  of  Canaan  under  Joshua.  Bezek 
was  probably  situated  more  on  the  side  towards  the  valley  of  the 
Jordan,  where  the  Israelites  under  Joshua  did  not  go.  Possibly, 
too,  the  culminating  point  of  Adoni-bezek's  power,  when  he  con- 
quered so  many  kings,  was  before  the  arrival  of  the  Israelites  in 
Canaan,  and  it  may  at  that  time  have  begun  to  decline ;  so  that  he 
did  not  venture  to  undertake  anything  against  the  combined  forces 
of  Israel  under  Joshua,  and  it  was  not  till  the  Israelitish  tribes 
separated  to  go  to  their  own  possessions,  that  he  once  more  tried 
the  fortunes  of  war  and  was  defeated.  The  children  of  Judah  took 
him  with  them  to  Jerusalem,  where  he  died. 

Vers.  8-15.  After  his  defeat,  Judah  and  Simeon  went  against 
Jerusalem,  and  conquered  this  city  and  smote  it,  i.e.  its  inhabitants. 


254  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES 

with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  or  without  quarter  (see  Gen.  xxxiv.  26), 
and  set  the  city  on  fire.  E'Ka  ty?wf  to  set  on  fire,  to  give  up  to  the 
flames,  only  occurs  again  in  chap.  xx.  48,  2  Kings  viii.  12,  and 
Ps.  lxxiv.  7.  Joshua  had  already  slain  the  king  of  Jerusalem  and 
his  four  allies  after  the  battle  at  Gibeon  (Josh.  x.  3,  18-26),  but 
had  not  conquered  Jerusalem,  his  capital.  This  was  not  done  till 
after  Joshua's  death,  when  it  was  taken  by  the  tribes  of  Judah  and 
Simeon.  But  even  after  this  capture,  and  notwithstanding  the 
fact  that  it  had  been  set  on  fire,  it  did  not  come  into  the  sole  and 
permanent  possession  of  the  Israelites.  After  the  conquerors  had 
advanced  still  farther,  to  make  war  upon  the  Canaanites  in  the 
mountains,  in  the  Negeb,  and  in  the  shephelah  (vers.  9  sqq.),  the 
Jebusites  took  it  again  and  rebuilt  it,  so  that  in  the  following  age  it 
was  regarded  by  the  Israelites  as  a  foreign  city  (chap.  xix.  11,  12). 
The  Benjamin ites,  to  whom  Jerusalem  had  fallen  by  lot,  were  no 
more  able  to  drive  out  the  Jebusites  than  the  Judseans  had  been. 
Consequently  they  continued  to  live  by  the  side  of  the  Benjaminites 
(chap.  i.  21)  and  the  Judseans  (Josh  xv.  63),  who  settled,  as  time 
rolled  on,  in  this  the  border  city  of  their  possessions  ;  and  in  the 
upper  town  especially,  upon  the  top  of  Mount  Zion,  they  established 
themselves  so  firmly,  that  they  could  not  be  dislodged  until  David 
succeeded  in  wresting  this  fortress  from  them,  and  made  the  citv  of 
Zion  the  capital  of  his  kingdom  (2  Sam.  v.  6  sqq.).1 — Vers.  9  sqq. 
After  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem,  the  children  of  Judah  (together 
with  the  Simeonites,  ver.  3)  went  down  into  their  own  possessions, 
to  make  war  upon  the  Canaanites  in  the  mountains,  the  Negeb,  and 
the  shephelah  (see  at  Josh.  xv.  48,  xxi.  33),  and  to  exterminate 
them.  They  first  of  all  conquered  Hebron  and  Debir  upon  the 
mountains  (vers.  10-15),  as  has  already  been  related  in  Josh.  xv. 

1  In  this  way  we  may  reconcile  in  a  very  simple  manner  the  different 
accounts  concerning  Jerusalem  in  Josh.  xv.  63,  Judg.  i.  8,  21,  xix.  11  sqq., 
I  Sam.  xvii.  54,  and  2  Sam.  v.  vi.,  without  there  being  the  slightest  necessity 
to  restrict  the  conquest  mentioned  in  this  verse  to  the  city  that  was  built  round 
Mount  Zion,  as  Josephus  does,  to  the  exclusion  of  the  citadel  upon  Zion  itself ; 
or  to  follow  Bertheau,  and  refer  the  account  of  the  Jebusites  dwelling  by  the 
children  of  Judah  in  Jerusalem  (Josh.  xv.  63)  to  a  time  subsequent  to  the 
conquest  of  the  citadel  of  Zion  by  David, — an  interpretation  which  is  neither 
favoured  by  the  circumstance  that  the  Jebusite  Araunah  still  held  some  pro- 
perty there  in  the  time  of  David  (2  Sam.  xxiv.  21  sqq.),  nor  by  the  passage  in 
1  Kings  ix.  20  sqq.,  according  to  which  the  descendants  of  the  Amorites, 
Hittites,  Perizzites,  Hivites,  and  Jebusites  who  still  remained  in  the  land  were 
made  into  tributary  bondmen  by  Solomon,  and  set  to  work  upon  the  buildings 
that  he  had  in  hand. 


CHAP.  I.  16.  255 

14-19  (see  the  commentary  on  this  passage).  The  forms  fl^y  and 
rvnnn  (ver.  15),  instead  of  rrt%  and  ni'nnn  (Josh.  xv.  19),  are  in 
the  singular,  and  are  construed  with  the  plural  form  of  the  feminine 
rri?5,  because  this  is  used  in  the  sense  of  the  singular,  u  a  spring " 
(see  Ewald,  §  318,  a.). 

Ver.  16.  The  notice  respecting  the  Kenites,  that  they  went  up 
out  of  the  palm-city  with  the  children  of  Judah  into  the  wilderness 
of  Judah  in  the  south  of  Arad,  and  dwelt  there  with  the  Judaeans, 
is  introduced  here  into  the  account  of  the  wars  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah,  because  this  migration  of  the  Kenites  belonged  to  the  time 
between  the  conquest  of  Debir  (vers.  12  sqq.)  and  Zephath  (ver. 
17)  ;  and  the  notice  itself  was  of  importance,  as  forming  the  inter- 
mediate link  between  Num.  x.  29  sqq.,  and  the  later  allusions  to 
the  Kenites  in  Judg.  iv.  11,  v.  24,  1  Sam.  xv.  0,  xxvii.  10,  xxx. 
29.  "  The  children  of  the  Kenite"  i.e.  the  descendants  of  Ilobab, 
the  brother-in-law  of  Moses  (compare  chap.  iv.  11,  where  the  name 
is  given,  but  ]]?  occurs  instead  of  ^i?,  with  Num.  x.  29),  were 
probably  a  branch  of  the  Kenites  mentioned  in  Gen.  xv.  19  along 
with  the  other  tribes  of  Canaan,  which  had  separated  from  the 
other  members  of  its  own  tribe  before  the  time  of  Moses  and 
removed  to  the  land  of  Midian,  where  Moses  met  with  a  hospitable 
reception  from  their  chief  Eeguel  on  his  flight  from  Egypt.  These 
Kenites  had  accompanied  the  Israelites  to  Canaan  at  the  request  of 
Moses  (Num.  x.  29  sqq.)  ;  and  when  the  Israelites  advanced  into 
Canaan  itself,  they  had  probably  remained  as  nomads  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  the  Jordan  near  to  Jericho,  without  taking  any  part  in 
the  wars  of  Joshua.  But  when  the  tribe  of  Judah  had  exterminated 
the  Canaanites  out  of  Hebron,  Debir,  and  the  neighbourhood,  after 
the  death  of  Joshua,  they  went  into  the  desert  of  Judah  with  the 
Judaeans  as  they  moved  farther  towards  the  south  ;  and  going  to 
the  south-western  edge  of  this  desert,  to  the  district  on  the  south  of 
Arad  (Tell  Arad,  see  at  Num.  xxi.  1),  they  settled  there  on  the 
border  of  the  steppes  of  the  Negeb  (Num.  xxxiii.  40).  "  The  }>ahn- 
city"  was  a  name  given  to  the  city  of  Jericho,  according  to  chap. 
iii.  13,  Dent,  xxxiv.  3,  2  Chron.  xxviii.  15.  There  is  no  ground 
whatever  for  thinking  of  some  other  town  of  this  name  in  the 
desert  of  Arabia,  near  the  palm-forest,  cfroivucoov,  of  Diod.  Sic.  (iii. 
42)  and  Strabo  (p.  77G),  as  Clericus  and  Beriheau  suppose,  even  it' 
it  could  be  proved  that  there  was  any  such  town  in  the  neighbour- 
hood, ife,  "then  he  went  (the  branch  of  the  Kenites  just  referred 
to)  and  dwelt  with  the  people"  (of  the  children  of  Judah),  that  is  to 


256  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

say,  with  the  people  of  Israel  in  the  desert  of  Judah.     The  subject 
to  ^1  is  *J*£,  the  Kenite,  as  a  tribe. 

Vers.  17-21.  Remaining  Conquests  of  the  combined  Tribes  of 
Judah  and  Simeon. — Ver.  17.  Zephath  was  in  the  territory  of 
Simeon.  This  is  evident  not  only  from  the  fact  that  Hormah 
(Zephath)  had  been  allotted  to  the  tribe  of  Simeon  (compare  Josh. 
xix.  4  with  chap.  xv.  30),  but  also  from  the  words,  "Judah  went 
with  Simeon  his  brother,"  which  point  back  to  ver.  3,  and  express 
the  thought  that  Judah  went  with  Simeon  into  his  territory  to 
drive  out  the  Canaanites  who  were  still  to  be  found  there.  Going 
southwards  from  Debir,  Judah  and  Simeon  smote  the  Canaanites 
at  Zephath  on  the  southern  boundary  of  Canaan,  and  executed  the 
ban  upon  this  town,  from  which  it  received  the  name  of  Hormah, 
i.e.  banning.  The  town  has  been  preserved  in  the  ruins  of  Sepdta, 
on  the  south  of  Khalasa  or  Elusa  (see  at  Josh.  xii.  14).  In  the 
passage  mentioned,  the  king  of  Hormah  or  Zephath  is  named 
among  the  kings  who  were  slain  by  Joshua.  It  does  not  follow 
from  this,  however,  that  Joshua  must  necessarily  have  conquered 
his  capital  Zephath  ;  the  king  of  Jerusalem  was  also  smitten  by 
Joshua  and  slain,  without  Jerusalem  itself  being  taken  at  that  time. 
But  even  if  Zephath  were  taken  by  the  Israelites,  as  soon  as  the 
Israelitish  army  had  withdrawn,  the  Canaanites  there  might  have 
taken  possession  of  the  town  again ;  so  that,  like  many  other  Canaan- 
itish  towns,  it  had  to  be  conquered  again  after  Joshua's  death  (see 
the  commentary  on  Num.  xxi.  2,  3).  There  is  not  much  proba- 
bility in  this  conjecture,  however,  for  the  simple  reason  that  the 
ban  pronounced  by  Moses  upon  the  country  of  the  king  of  Arad 
(Num.  xxi.  2)  was  carried  out  now  for  the  first  time  by  Judah  and 
Simeon  upon  the  town  of  Zephath,  which  formed  a  part  of  it.  If 
Joshua  had  conquered  it,  he  would  certainly  have  executed  the  ban 
upon  it.  The  name  Hormah,  which  was  already  given  to  Zephath 
in  Josh.  xv.  30  and  xix.  4,  is  no  proof  to  the  contrary,  since  it  may 
be  used  proleptically  there.  In  any  case,  the  infliction  of  the  ban 
upon  this  town  can  only  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  Moses  had 
pronounced  the  ban  upon  all  the  towns  of  the  king  of  Arad. — Ver. 
18.  From  the  Negeb  Judah  turned  into  the  shephelah,  and  took  the 
three  principal  cities  of  the  Philistines  along  the  line  of  coast,  viz. 
Gaza,  Askelon,  and  Ekron,  with  their  territory.  The  order  in 
which  the  names  of  the  captured  cities  occur  is  a  proof  that  the 
conquest  took  place  from  the  south.  First  of  all  Gaza,  the  southern- 
most of  all  the  towns  of  the  Philistines,  the  present  Guzzeh;  then 


CHAP.  I.  17-21.  257 

Askelon  (Ashdtin),  which  is  five  hours  to  the  north  of  Gaza  ;  and 
lastly  Ekron,  the  most  northerly  of  the  five  towns  of  the  Philis- 
tines, the  present  Akir  (see  at  Josh.  xiii.  3).  The  other  two, 
Ashdod  and  Gath,  do  not  appear  to  have  been  conquered  at  that 
time.  And  even  those  that  were  conquei-ed,  the  Judaeans  were 
unable  to  hold  long.  In  the  time  of  Samson  they  were  all  of 
them  in  the  hands  of  the  Philistines  again  (see  chap.  xiv.  19,  xvi. 
1  sqq. ;  1  Sam.  v.  10,  etc.). — In  ver.  19  we  have  a  brief  summary 
of  the  results  of  the  contests  for  the  possession  of  the  land. 
"Jehovah  was  with  Judah  ;"  and  with  His  help  they  took  possession 
of  the  mountains.  And  they  did  nothing  more  ;  "for  the  inhabitants 
of  the  plain  they  were  unable  to  exterminate,  because  they  had  iron 
chariots."  SJ^n  has  two  different  meanings  in  the  two  clauses  : 
first  (^T5),  to  seize  upon  a  possession  which  has  been  vacated  by 
the  expulsion  or  destruction  of  its  former  inhabitants  ;  and  secondlv 
(^"[in^  with  the  accusative,  of  the  inhabitants),  to  drive  or  exter- 
minate them  out  of  their  possessions, — a  meaning  which  is  derived 
from  the  earlier  signification  of  making  it  an  emptied  possession 
(see  Ex.  xxxiv.  24;  Num.  xxxii.  21,  etc.).  "  The  mountain'  here 
includes  the  south-land  (the  Negeb),  as  the  only  distinction  is  between 
mountains  and  plain.  "  The  valley"  is  the  shephelah  (ver.  9). 
C;,Hinp  N7,  he  was  not  (able)  to  drive  out.  The  construction  may 
be  explained  from  the  fact  that  fc6  is  to  be  taken  independently 
here  as  in  Amos  vi.  10,  in  the  same  sense  in  which  JSN  before  the 
infinitive  is  used  in  later  writings  (2  Chron.  v.  11  ;  Esther  iv.  2, 
viii.  8 ;  Eccl.  iii.  14 :  see  Ges.  §  132-3,  anm.  1 ;  Ewald,  §  237,  e.). 
On  the  iron  chariots,  i.e.  the  chariots  tipped  with  iron,  see  at  Josh, 
xvii.  16. — To  this  there  is  appended,  in  ver.  20,  the  statement  that 
"  they  gave  Hebron  unto  Caleb"  etc.,  which  already  occurred  in 
Josh.  xv.  13,  14,  and  was  there  explained;  and  also  in  ver.  21  the 
remark,  that  the  Benjaminites  did  not  drive  out  the  Jebusites  who 
dwelt  in  Jerusalem,  which  is  so  far  in  place  here,  that  it  shows,  on 
the  one  hand,  that  the  children  of  Judah  did  not  bring  Jerusalem 
into  the  undisputed  possession  of  the  Israelites  through  this  con- 
quest, and,  on  the  other  hand,  that  it  was  not  their  intention  to 
diminish  the  inheritance  of  Benjamin  by  the  conquest  of  Jerusalem, 
and  they  had  not  taken  the  city  for  themselves.  For  further 
remarks,  see  at  ver.  8. 

The  hostile  attacks  of  the  other  tribes  upon  the  Canaanitea  who 
remained  in  the  land  are  briefly  summed  up  in  vers.  22-36.  Of 
these  the  taking  of  Bethel  is  more  fully  described  in  vers.  22-26. 

R 


258  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Besides  this,  nothing  more  is  given  than  the  list  of  the  towns  in  the 
territories  of  western  Manasseh  (vers.  27,  28),  Ephraim  (ver.  29), 
Zebulun  (ver.  30),  Asher  (vers.  31,  32),  Naphtali  (ver.  33),  and 
Dan  (vers.  34,  35),  out  of  which  the  Canaanites  were  not  exter- 
minated by  these  tribes.  Issachar  is  omitted;  hardly,  however, 
because  that  tribe  made  no  attempt  to  disturb  the  Canaanites,  as 
Bertheau  supposes,  but  rather  because  none  of  its  towns  remained 
in  the  hands  of  the  Canaanites. 

Vers.  22-26.  Like  Judah,  so  also  ("they  also,"  referring  back 
to  vers.  2,  3)  did  the  house  of  Joseph  (Ephraim  and  western 
Manasseh)  renew  the  hostilities  with  the  Canaanites  who  were  left 
in  their  territory  after  the  death  of  Joshua.  The  children  of 
Joseph  went  up  against  Bethel,  and  Jehovah  was  with  them,  so 
that  they  were  able  to  conquer  the  city.  Bethel  had  indeed  been 
assigned  to  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (Josh,  xviii.  22),  but  it  was 
situated  on  the  southern  boundary  of  the  tribe-land  of  Ephraim 
(Josh.  xvi.  2,  xviii.  13)  ;  so  that  the  tribe  of  Joseph  could  not  tole- 
rate the  Canaanites  in  this  border  town,  if  it  would  defend  its  own 
territory  against  them,  and  purge  it  entirely  of  them.  This  is  a 
sufficient  explanation  of  the  fact  that  this  one  conquest  is  men- 
tioned, and  this  only,  without  there  being  any  necessity  to  seek  for 
the  reason,  as  Bertheau  does,  in  the  circumstance  that  the  town  of 
Bethel  came  into  such  significant  prominence  in  the  later  history  of 
Israel,  and  attained  the  same  importance  in  many  respects  in  rela- 
tion to  the  northern  tribes,  as  that  which  Jerusalem  attained  in 
relation  to  the  southern.  For  the  fact  that  nothing  more  is  said 
about  the  other  conquests  of  the  children  of  Joseph,  may  be  ex- 
plained simply  enough  on  the  supposition  that  they  did  not  succeed 
in  rooting  out  the  Canaanites  from  the  other  fortified  towns  in 
their  possessions ;  and  therefore  there  was  nothing  to  record  about 
any  further  conquests,  as  the  result  of  their  hostilities  was  merely 
this,  that  they  did  not  drive  the  Canaanites  out  of  the  towns  named 
in  vers.  27,  29,  but  simply  made  them  tributary.  TW,  they  had  it 
explored,  or  spied  out.  "Wl  is  construed  with  3  here,  because  the 
spying  laid  hold,  as  it  were,  of  its  object.  Bethel,  formerly  Luz, 
now  Beitin:  see  at  Gen.  xxviii.  19  and  Josh.  vii.  2. — Ver.  24. 
And  the  watchmen  {i.e.  the  spies  sent  out  to  explore  Bethel)  saw  a 
man  coming  out  of  the  town,  and  got  him  to  show  them  the 
entrance  into  it,  under  a  promise  that  they  would  show  him  favour, 
i.e.  would  spare  the  lives  of  himself  and  his  family  (see  Josh.  ii. 
12,  13)  ;  whereupon   they  took  the  town  and  smote  it  withouf 


CHAP.  I.  27,  28.  250 

quarter,  according  to  the  law  in  Deut.  xx.  16,  17,  letting  none  but 
the  man  and  his  family  go.  By  "  the  entrance  into  the  city"  we  are 
not  to  understand  the  gate  of  the  town,  but  the  way  or  mode  by 
which  they  could  get  into  the  town,  which  was  no  doubt  fortified. 
— Ver.  26.  The  man  whom  they  had  permitted  to  go  free,  went 
with  his  family  into  the  land  of  the  Ilittites,  and  there  built  a  town, 
to  which  he  gave  the  name  of  his  earlier  abode,  viz.  Luz.  The 
situation  of  this  Luz  is  altogether  unknown.  Even  the  situation  of 
the  land  of  the  Hittites  cannot  be  more  precisely  determined  ;  for 
we  find  Hittites  at  Hebron  in  the  times  of  Abraham  and  Moses 
(Gen.  xxiii.),  and  also  upon  the  mountains  of  Palestine  (Num. 
xiii.  29),  and  at  a  later  period  in  the  north-east  of  Canaan  on  the 
borders  of  Syria  (1  Kings  x.  29).  That  the  Ilittites  were  one  of 
the  most  numerous  and  widespread  of  the  tribes  of  the  Canaanites, 
is  evident  from  the  fact  that,  in  Josh.  i.  4,  the  Canaanites  generally 
are  described  as  Hittites. 

Vers.  27,  28.  Manasseh  did  not  root  out  the  Canaanites  from 
the  towns  which  had  been  allotted  to  it  in  the  territory  of  Asher 
and  Issachar  (Josh.  xvii.  11),  but  simply  made  them  tributary. 
'U1  {KK'-n^-nx  Bfc-rtn  l6,  considered  by  itself,  might  be  rendered  : 
"  Manasseh  did  not  take  possession  of  Bethshean"  etc.  But  as  we 
find,  in  the  further  enumeration,  the  inhabitants  of  the  towns  men- 
tioned instead  of  the  towns  themselves,  we  must  take  C,_)in  in  the 
sense  of  rooting  out,  driving  out  of  their  possessions,  which  is  the 
only  rendering  applicable  in  ver.  28  ;  and  thus,  according  to  a  very 
frequent  metonymy,  must  understand  by  the  towns  the  inhabitants 
of  the  towns.  "  Manasseh  did  not  exterminate  Bethshean"  i.e.  the 
inhabitants  of  Bethshean,  etc.  All  the  towns  mentioned  here  have 
already  been  mentioned  in  Josh.  xvii.  11,  the  only  difference  being, 
that  they  are  not  placed  in  exactly  the  same  order,  and  that  Endor 
is  mentioned  there  after  Dor ;  whereas  here  it  has  no  doubt  fallen 
out  through  a  copyist's  error,  as  the  Manassites,  according  to 
Josh.  xvii.  12,  13,  did  not  exterminate  the  Canaanites  from  all  the 
towns  mentioned  there.  The  change  in  the  order  in  which  the 
towns  occur — Taanach  being  placed  next  to  Bethshean,  whereas  in 
Joshua  Bethshean  is  followed  by  Ibleam,  which  is  placed  last  but 
one  in  the  present  list — may  be  explained  on  the  supposition,  that 
in  Josh.  xvii.  11,  Endor,  Taanach,  and  Megiddo  are  placed  to- 
gether, as  forming  a  triple  league,  of  which  the  author  of  our  book 

i        i  •       f 
has  taken  no  notice.     Nearly  all  these  towns  were  in  the  plain  <>t 

Jezreel,   or  in   the   immediate   neighbourhood   of   the  great   com- 


260  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

mercial  roads  which  ran  from  the  coast  of  the  Mediterranean  to 
Damascus  and  central  Asia.  The  Canaanites  no  doubt  brought  all 
their  strength  to  bear  upon  the  defence  of  these  roads  ;  and  in  this 
their  war-chariots,  against  which  Israel  could  do  nothing  in  the 
plain  of  Jezreel,  were  of  the  greatest  service  (see  ver.  19  ;  Josh, 
xvii.  16).  For  further  particulars  respecting  the  situation  of  the 
different  towns,  see  at  Josh.  xvii.  11.  Dor  only  was  on  the  coast  of 
the  Mediterranean  (see  at  Josh.  xi.  2),  and  being  a  commercial 
emporium  of  the  Phoenicians,  would  certainly  be  strongly  fortified, 
and  very  difficult  to  conquer. — Ver.  28.  As  the  Israelites  grew 
strong,  they  made  serfs  of  the  Canaanites  (see  at  Gen.  xlix.  15). 
When  this  took  place  is  not  stated  ;  but  at  all  events,  it  was  only 
done  gradually  in  the  course  of  the  epoch  of  the  judges,  and  not 
for  the  first  time  during  the  reign  of  Solomon,  as  Bertheau  sup- 
poses on  the  ground  of  1  Kings  ix.  20-22  and  iv.  12,  without  con- 
sidering that  even  in  the  time  of  David  the  Israelites  had  already 
attained  the  highest  power  they  ever  possessed,  and  that  there  is 
nothing  at  variance  with  this  in  1  Kings  iv.  12  and  ix.  20-22.  For 
it  by  no  means  follows,  from  the  appointment  of  a  prefect  by 
Solomon  over  the  districts  of  Taanach,  Megiddo,  and  Bethshean 
(1  Kings  iv.  12),  that  these  districts  had  only  been  conquered  by 
Solomon  a  short  time  before,  when  we  bear  in  mind  that  Solomon 
appointed  twelve  such  prefects  over  all  Israel,  to  remit  in  regular 
order  the  national  payments  that  were  required  for  the  maintenance 
of  the  regal  court.  Nor  does  it  follow,  that  because  Solomon 
employed  the  descendants  of  the  Canaanites  who  were  left  in  the 
land  as  tributary  labourers  in  the  erection  of  his  great  buildings, 
therefore  he  was  the  first  who  succeeded  in  compelling  those 
Canaanites  who  were  not  exterminated  when  the  land  was  con- 
quered by  Joshua,  to  pay  tribute  to  the  different  tribes  of  Israel. 

Vers.  29-35.  Ephraim  did  not  root  out  the  Canaanites  in  Gezer 
(ver.  29),  as  has  already  been  stated  in  Josh.  xvi.  10. — Ver.  30. 
Zebulun  did  not  root  out  the  Canaanites  in  Kitron  and  Nahalol. 
Neither  of  these  places  has  been  discovered  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  15). 
— Ver.  31.  Asher  did  not  root  out  those  in  Acco,  etc.  Acco :  a 
seaport  town  to  the  north  of  Carmel,  on  the  bay  which  is  called  by 
its  name  ;  it  is  called  Alee  by  Josephus,  Diod.  Sic,  and  Pliny,  and 
was  afterwards  named  Ptolemais  from  one  of  the  Ptolemys  (1  Mace. 
v.  15,  21,  x.  1,  etc.;  Acts  xxi.  7).  The  Arabs  called  it  Akka,  and 
this  was  corrupted  by  the  crusaders  into  Acker  or  Acre.  During 
the  crusades  it  was  a  very  flourishing   maritime  and  commercial 


CHAP.  I.  36.  261 

town  ;  but  it  subsequently  fell  into  decay,  and  at  the  present  time 
has  a  population  of  about  5000,  composed  of  Mussulmans,  Druses, 
and  Christians  (see  C.  v.  Raumer,  Pal.  p.  119;  Rob.  Bibl.  Res.; 
and  Ritter,  Erdk.  xvi.  pp.  725  sqq.).  Sidon,  now  Saida  :  see  at 
Josh.  xi.  8.  Achlab  is  only  mentioned  here,  and  is  not  known. 
Aclizib,  i.e.  Ecdippa  :  see  at  Josh.  xix.  29.  Helbah  is  unknown. 
Aphek  is  the  present  Afkah :  see  Josh.  xiii.  4,  xix.  30.  Rehob  is 
unknown  :  see  at  Josh.  xix.  28,  30.  As  seven  out  of  the  twenty- 
two  towns  of  Asher  (Josh.  xix.  30)  remained  in  the  hands  of  the 
Canaanites,  including  such  important  places  as  Acco  and  Sidon,  it 
is  not  stated  in  ver.  32,  as  in  vers.  29,  30,  that  "  the  Canaanites 
dwelt  among  them,"  but  that  "  the  Asherites  dwelt  among  the 
Canaanites,"  to  show  that  the  Canaanites  held  the  upper  hand. 
And  for  this  reason  the  expression  "  they  became  tributaries"  (vers. 
30,  35,  etc.)  is  also  omitted. — Ver.  33.  Naphtali  did  not  root  out 
the  inhabitants  of  Beth-shemesh  and  Beth-anath,  two  fortified  towns, 
the  situation  of  which  is  still  unknown  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  38)  ;  so 
that  this  tribe  also  dwelt  among  the  Canaanites,  but  did  not  make 
them  tributary. — Vers.  34,  35.  Still  less  were  the  Danites  able  to 
drive  the  Canaanites  out  of  their  inheritance.  On  the  contrary, 
the  Amorites  forced  Dan  up  into  the  mountains,  and  would  not 
suffer  them  to  come  down  into  the  plain.  But  the  territory  allotted 
to  the  Danites  was  almost  all  in  the  plain  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  40). 
If,  therefore,  they  were  forced  out  of  that,  they  were  almost 
entirely  excluded  from  their  inheritance.  The  Amorites  em- 
boldened themselves  (see  at  Deut.  i.  5)  to  dwell  in  Ilar-cheres, 
Ajalon,  and  Shaalbim.  On  the  last  two  places  see  Josh.  xix.  42, 
where  Ir-shemesh  is  also  mentioned.  This  combination,  and  still 
more  the  meaning  cf  the  names  Har-cheres,  i.e.  sun-mountain,  and 
Ir-shemesh,  i.e.  sun-town,  make  the  conjecture  a  very  probable  one, 
that  Ilar-cheres  is  only  another  name  for  Ir-sliemesh,  i.e.  the  present 
Ain  Shems  (see  at  Josh.  xv.  10,  and  Rob.  Pal.  iii.  pp.  17,  18).  Tin's 
pressure  on  the  part  of  the  Amorites  induced  a  portion  of  the 
Danites  to  emigrate,  and  seek  for  an  inheritance  in  the  in  nth  oi 
Palestine  (see  chap,  xviii.).  On  the  other  hand,  the  Amorites  were 
gradually  made  tributary  by  the  powerful  tribes  of  Ephraim  and 
Manasseh,  who  bounded  Dan  on  the  north.  "  The  hand  of  the  house 
of  Joseph  lay  heavy,"  sc.  upon  the  Amorites  in  the  towns  already 
named  on  the  borders  of  Ephraim.  For  the  expression  itself,  comp. 
1  Sam.  v.  6  ;  Ps.  xxxii.  4. 

Ver.  36.  In  order  to  explain  the  supremacy  of  the  Amorites  in 


262  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

the  territory  of  Dan,  a  short  notice  is  added  concerning  their 
extension  in  the  south  of  Palestine.  "  The  territory  of  the  Amorites 
was"  i.e.  extended  (viz.  at  the  time  of  the  conquest  of  Canaan  by 
the  Israelites),  "  from  the  ascent  of  Akrabbim,  from  the  rock  onivards 
and  farther  up."  Maaleh-Akrabbim  (ascensus  scorpiorum)  was  the 
sharply  projecting  line  of  cliffs  which  intersected  the  Ghor  below 
the  Dead  Sea,  and  formed  the  southern  boundary  of  the  promised 
land  (see  at  Num.  xxxiv.  4  and  Josh.  xv.  2,  3).  VTB^Oj  from  the 
rock,  is  no  doubt  given  as  a  second  point  upon  the  boundary  of  the 
Amoritish  territory,  as  the  repetition  of  the  JO  clearly  shows,  not- 
withstanding the  omission  of  the  copula  \  V?®?,  the  rock,  is  sup- 
posed by  the  majority  of  commentators  to  refer  to  the  city  of  Petra, 
the  ruins  of  which  are  still  to  be  seen  in  the  Wady  Musa  (see 
Burckhardt,  Syr.  pp.  703  sqq. ;  Rob.  Pal.  ii.  pp.  573  sqq.,  iii.  653), 
and  which  is  distinctly  mentioned  in  2  Kings  xiv.  7  under  the  name 
of  y?EH,  and  in  Isa.  xvi.  1  is  called  simply  V?0.  Petra  is  to  the  south- 
east of  the  Scorpion  heights.  Consequently,  with  this  rendering 
the  following  word  ""W^J  (and  upward)  would  have  to  be  taken  in 
the  sense  of  ulterius  (and  beyond),  and  Rosenmiiller's  explanation 
would  be  the  correct  one  :  "  The  Amorites  not  only  extended  as 
far  as  the  town  of  Petra,  or  inhabited  it,  but  they  even  carried  their 
dwellings  beyond  this  towards  the  tops  of  those  southern  mountains." 
But  a  description  of  the  territory  of  the  Amorites  in  its  southern 
extension  into  Arabia  Petreea  does  not  suit  the  context  of  the  verse, 
the  object  of  which  is  to  explain  how  it  was  that  the  Amorites  were 
in  a  condition  to  force  back  the  Danites  out  of  the  plain  into  the 
mountains,  to  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  it  is  questionable  whether 
the  Amorites  ever  really  spread  so  far,  for  which  we  have  neither 
scriptural  testimony  nor  evidence  of  any  other  kind.  On  this 
ground  even  Bertheau  has  taken  fwö)  as  denoting  the  direction 
upwards,  i.e.  towards  the  north,  which  unquestionably  suits  the 
usage  of  n?J?a  as  well  as  the  context  of  the  passage.  But  it  is  by 
no  means  in  harmony  with  this  to  understand  PE>n  as  referring  tc 
Petra ;  for  in  that  case  we  should  have  two  boundary  points  men- 
tioned, the  second  of  which  was  farther  south  than  the  first.  Now 
a  historian  who  had  any  acquaintance  with  the  topography,  would 
never  have  described  the  extent  of  the  Amoritish  territory  from 
south  to  north  in  such  a  way  as  this,  commencing  with  the  Scorpion 
heights  on  the  north,  then  passing  to  Petra,  which  was  farther 
south,  and  stating  that  from  this  point  the  territory  extended 
farther  towards  the  north.     If  JTWi  therefore  refers  to  the  exten- 


CHAP.  II.  1-5.  2G3 

sion  of  the  territory  of  the  Amorites  in  a  northerly  direction,  the 
expression  "  from  the  rock"  cannot  be  understood  as  relating  to 
the  city  of  Petra,  but  must  denote  some  other  locality  well  known 
to  the  Israelites  by  that  name.  Such  a  locality  there  undoubtedly 
was  in  the  rock  in  the  desert  of  Zin,  which  had  become  celebrated 
through  the  events  that  took  place  at  the  water  of  strife  (Num.  xx. 
8,  10),  and  to  which  in  all  probability  this  expression  refers.  The 
rock  in  question  was  at  the  south-west  corner  of  Canaan,  on  the 
southern  edge  of  the  Reikhma  plateau,  to  which  the  mountains  of 
the  Amorites  extended  on  the  south-west  (comp.  Num.  xiv.  25,  44, 
45,  with  Deut.  i.  44).  And  this  would  be  very  appropriately  men- 
tioned here  as  the  south-western  boundary  of  the  Amorites,  in  con- 
nection with  the  Scorpion  heights  as  their  south-eastern  boundary, 
for  the  purpose  of  giving  the  southern  boundary  of  the  Amorites  in 
its  full  extent  from  east  to  west. 

Chap.  ii.  1—5.  The  Angel  of  the  Lord  at  Boclnm. — To  the  cur- 
sory survey  of  the  attitude  which  the  tribes  of  Israel  assumed 
towards  the  Canaanites  who  still  remained  in  their  inheritances, 
there  is  appended  an  account  of  the  appearance  of  the  angel  of  the 
Lord,  who  announced  to  the  people  the  punishment  of  God  for 
their  breach  of  the  covenant,  of  which  they  had  been  guilty  through 
their  failure  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites.  This  theophany  is 
most  intimately  connected  with  the  facts  grouped  together  in  chap. 
i.,  since  the  design  and  significance  of  the  historical  survey  given 
there  are  only  to  be  learned  from  the  reproof  of  the  angel ;  and 
since  both  of  them  have  the  same  aphoristic  character,  being  re- 
stricted to  the  essential  facts  without  entering  minutely  into  any  of 
the  attendant  details,  very  much  is  left  in  obscurity.  This  applies 
more  particularly  to  the  statement  in  ver.  1«,  "  Then  the  angel  of 
Jehovah  came  up  from  Gilgal  to  Bochim."  The  "  angel  of  Jehovah  " 
is  not  a  prophet,  or  some  other  earthly  messenger  of  Jehovah, 
either  Phinehas  or  Joshua,  as  the  Targums,  the  Rabbins,  Berlheau, 
and  others  assume,  but  the  angel  of  the  Lord  who  is  of  one  essence 
with  God.  In  the  simple  historical  narrative  a  prophet  is  never 
called  Maleach  Jehovah.  The  prophets  are  always  called  either 
&MJ  or  N"1^  C;,,K,  as  in  chap.  vi.  8,  or  else  "man  of  God,"  as  in 
1  Kings  xH.  22,  xiii.  1,  etc. ;  and  Hag.  i.  13  and  Mai.  iii.  1  cannot 
be  adduced  as  proofs  to  the  contrary,  because  in  both  these  passages 
the  purely  appellative  meaning  of  the  word  Mal?  ach  is  established 
beyond  all  question  by  the  context  itself.  Moreover,  no  prophet 
ever  identifies  himself  so  entirely  with  God  as  the  angel  of  Jehovah 


264  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

does  here.  The  prophets  always  distinguish  between  themselves 
and  Jehovah,  by  introducing  their  words  with  the  declaration 
"  *hus  saith  Jehovah,"  as  the  prophet  mentioned  in  chap.  vi.  8  is 
said  to  have  done.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  affirmed  that  no  angel 
mentioned  in  the  historical  books  is  ever  said  to  have  addressed  the 
whole  nation,  or  to  have  passed  from  one  place  to  another.  But 
even  if  it  had  been  a  prophet  who  was  speaking,  we  could  not 
possibly  understand  his  speaking  to  the  whole  nation,  or  "to  all 
the  children  of  Israel,"  as  signifying  that  he  spoke  directly  to  the 
600,000  men  of  Israel,  but  simply  as  an  address  delivered  to  the 
whole  nation  in  the  persons  of  its  heads  or  representatives.  Thus 
Joshua  spoke  to  "all  the  people"  (Josh.  xxiv.  2),  though  only  the 
elders  of  Israel  and  its  heads  were  assembled  round  him  (Josh, 
xxiv.  1).  And  so  an  angel,  or  "the  angel  of  the  Lord,"  might 
also  speak  to  the  heads  of  the  nation,  when  his  message  had  refer- 
ence to  all  the  people.  And  there  was  nothing  in  the  fact  of  his 
coming  up  from  Gilgal  to  Bochim  that  was  at  all  at  variance  with 
the  nature  of  the  angel.  When  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to 
Gideon,  it  is  stated  in  chap.  vi.  11  that  he  came  and  sat  under  the 
terebinth  at  Ophra ;  and  in  the  same  way  the  appearance  of  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  at  Bochim  might  just  as  naturally  be  described 
as  coming  up  to  Bochim.  The  only  thing  that  strikes  us  as  pecu- 
liar is  his  coming  up  "  from  Gilgal."  This  statement  must  be 
intimately  connected  with  the  mission  of  the  angel,  and  therefore 
must  contain  something  more  than  a  simply  literal  notice  concern- 
ing his  travelling  from  one  place  to  another.  We  are  not  to  conclude, 
however,  that  the  angel  of  the  Lord  came  from  Gilgal,  because  this 
town  was  the  gathering-place  of  the  congregation  in  Joshua's  time. 
Apart  altogether  from  the  question  discussed  in  pp.  92  sqq.  as  to  the 
situation  of  Gilgal  in  the  different  passages  of  the  book  of  Joshua, 
such  a  view  as  this  is  overthrown  by  the  circumstance  that  after 
the  erection  of  the  tabernacle  at  Shiloh,  and  during  the  division  of 
the  land,  it  was  not  Gilgal  but  Shiloh  which  formed  the  gathering- 
place  of  the  congregation  when  the  casting  of  the  lots  was  finished 
(Josh,  xviii.  1,  10).  We  cannot  agree  with  H.  Witsius,  therefore, 
who  says  in  his  Miscell.  ss.  (i.  p.  170,  ed.  1736)  that  "he  came  from 
that  place,  where  he  had  remained  for  a  long  time  to  guard  the 
camp,  and  where  he  was  thought  to  be  tarrying  still;"  but  must 
rather  assume  that  his  coming  up  from  Gilgal  is  closely  connected 
with  the  appearance  of  the  angel-prince,  as  described  in  Josh.  v.  13, 
to  announce  to  Joshua  the  fall  of  Jericho  after  the  circumcision  of 


chap.  ir.  1-5.  2G5 

the  people  at  Grilgal.  Just  as  on  that  occasion,  when  Israel  had 
just  entered  into  the  true  covenant  relation  to  the  Lord  by  circum- 
cision, and  was  preparing  for  the  conquest  of  Canaan,  the  angel  of 
the  Lord  appeared  to  Joshua  as  the  prince  of  the  army  of  Jehovah, 
to  ensure  him  of  the  taking  of  Jericho ;  so  here  after  the  entrance 
of  the  tribes  of  Israel  into  their  inheritances,  when  they  were  begin- 
ning to  make  peace  with  the  remaining  Canaanites,  and  instead  of 
rooting  them  out  were  content  to  make  them  tributary,  the  angel 
of  the  Lord  appeared  to  the  people,  to  make  known  to  all  the  chil- 
dren of  Israel  that  by  such  intercourse  with  the  Canaanites  they 
had  broken  the  covenant  of  the  Lord,  and  to  foretell  the  punishment 
which  would  follow  this  transgression  of  the  covenant.  By  the  fact, 
therefore,  that  he  came  up  from  Gilgal,  it  is  distinctly  shown  that 
the  same  angel  who  gave  the  whole  of  Canaan  into  the  hands  of  the 
Israelites  when  Jericho  fell,  had  appeared  to  them  again  at  Bochiin, 
to  make  known  to  them  the  purposes  of  God  in  consequence  of 
their  disobedience  to  the  commands  of  the  Lord.  How  very  far  it 
was  from  being  the  author's  intention  to  give  simply  a  geographical 
notice,  is  also  evident  from  the  fact  that  he  merely  describes  the 
place  where  this  appearance  occurred  by  the  name  which  was  given 
to  it  in  consequence  of  the  event,  viz.  Bochim,  i.e.  weepers.  The 
situation  of  this  place  is  altogether  unknown.  The  rendering  of 
the  LXX.,  iirl  top  K\av6/jLwva  teal  eVl  Bai6>}\  koX  eVt  rbv  olkov 
'IapaijX,  gives  no  clue  whatever ;  for  rbv  K\av6 [xoiva  merely  arises 
from  a  confusion  of  0*33  with  B*K53  in  2  Sam.  v.  23,  which  the 
LXX.  have  also  rendered  RXavO/jLwv,  and  eVt  rbv  BaiOlfk.  k.t.\.  is 
an  arbitrary  interpolation  of  the  translators  themselves,  who  supposed 
Bochim  to  be  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Bethel,  "  in  all  probability 
merely  because  they  thought  of  Allon-bachuth,  the  oak  of  weeping, 
at  Bethel,  which  is  mentioned  in  Gen.  xxxv.  8"  (Bertlicau).  With 
regard  to  the  piska  in  the  middle  of  the  verse,  see  the  remarks  on 
Josh.  iv.  1.  In  his  address  the  angel  of  the  Lord  identifies  himself 
with  Jehovah  (as  in  Josh.  v.  14  compared  with  vi.  2),  by  describing 
himself  as  having  made  them  to  go  up  out  of  Egypt  and  brought 
them  into  the  land  which  He  sware  unto  their  fathers.  There  is 
something  very  striking  in  the  use  of  the  imperfect  nvlfN  in  the 
place  of  the  perfect  (cf.  chap.  vi.  8),  as  the  substance  of  the  address 
and  the  continuation  of  it  in  the  historical  tense  K^KI  and  1DNJ  require 
the  preterite.  The  imperfect  is  only  to  be  explained  on  the  suppo- 
sition that  it  is  occasioned  by  the  imperf.  consec.  winch  follows 
immediately  afterwards  and  reacts  through  its  proximity.     "  I  will 


266  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

not  break  my  covenant  for  ever"  i.e.  will  keep  what  I  promised  when 
making  the  covenant,  viz.  that  I  would  endow  Israel  with  blessings 
and  salvation,  if  they  for  their  part  would  observe  the  covenant 
duties  into  which  they  had  entered  (see  Ex.  xix.  5  sqq.),  and  obey 
the  commandments  of  the  Lord.  Among  these  was  the  command- 
ment to  enter  into  no  alliance  with  the  inhabitants  of  that  land,  viz. 
the  Canaanites  (see  Ex.  xxiii.  32,  33,  xxxiv.  12,  13,  15,  16;  Deut. 
vii.  2  sqq. ;  Josh,  xxiii.  12).  "  Destroy  their  altars ;"  taken  verbatim 
from  Ex.  xxxiv.  13,  Deut.  vii.  5.  The  words  "and  ye  have  not 
hearkened  to  my  voice'''  recall  to  mind  Ex.  xix.  5.  "  What  have  ye 
done"  (TiNrnDj  literally  "  what  is  this  that  ye  have  done")  sc.  in 
sparing  the  Canaanites  and  tolerating  their  altars? — Ver.  3.  "And 
I  also  have  said  to  you:"  these  words  point  to  the  threat  already 
expressed  in  Num.  xxxiii.  55,  Josh,  xxiii.  13,  in  the  event  of  their 
not  fulfilling  the  command  of  God,  which  threat  the  Lord  would 
now  fulfil.  From  the  passages  mentioned,  we  may  also  explain  the 
expression  S^yb  D3^  vni,  they  shall  be  in  your  sides,  i.e.  thorns  in 
your  sides.  BV:)>7  is  an  abbreviated  expression  for  D^l-ff  ^T?z?  m 
Num.  xxxiii.  55,  so  that  there  is  no  necessity  for  the  conjecture 
that  it  stands  for  B^V?.  The  last  clause  of  ver.  3  is  formed  after 
Ex.  xxiii.  33. — Vers.  4,  5.  The  people  broke  out  into  loud  weeping 
on  account  of  this  reproof.  And  since  the  weeping,  from  which 
the  place  received  the  name  of  Bochim,  was  a  sign  of  their  grief  on 
account  of  their  sin,  this  grief  led  on  to  such  repentance  that  "  they 
sacrificed  there  unto  the  Lord"  no  doubt  presenting  sin-offerings 
and  burnt-offerings,  that  they  might  obtain  mercy  and  the  forgive- 
ness of  their  sins.  It  does  not  follow  from  this  sacrifice,  however, 
that  the  tabernacle  or  the  ark  of  the  covenant  was  to  be  found  at 
Bochim.  In  any  place  where  the  Lord  appeared  to  His  people, 
sacrifices  might  be  offered  to  Him  (see  chap.  vi.  20,  26,  28,  xiii.  16 
sqq. ;  2  Sam.  xxiv.  25,  and  the  commentary  on  Deut.  xii.  5).  On 
the  other  hand,  it  does  follow  from  the  sacrifice  at  Bochim,  where 
there  was  no  sanctuary  of  Jehovah,  that  the  person  who  appeared 
to  the  people  was  not  a  prophet,  nor  even  an  ordinary  angel,  but 
the  angel  of  the  Lord,  who  is  essentially  one  with  Jehovah. 


CHAP.  II.  6-10.  2 07 

CONDUCT  OF  ISRAEL  TOWARDS  THE  LORD,  AND  TREATMENT  OF 
ISRAEL  BY  THE  LORD,  IN  THE  TIME  OF  THE  JUDGES.— CHAP. 
II.  6-III.  6. 

The  attitude  which  the  Israelites  assumed  towards  the  Canaan- 
ites  who  were  left  in  their  possessions,  contained  the  germ  of  the 
peculiar  direction  given  to  the  development  of  the  nation  of  God  in 
the  times  of  the  judges.  To  exhibit  the  course  of  this  development 
in  its  most  general  principles,  the  age  which  commenced  after 
Joshua's  death  is  characterized  as  a  period  of  constant  alternation 
between  idolatry  and  consequent  subjugation  by  foreign  nations 
as  a  punishment  from  God  for  the  transgression  of  His  covenant 
on  the  one  hand,  and  return  to  God  after  receiving  chastisement 
and  consequent  deliverance  by  judges  expressly  raised  up  by  God 
for  that  purpose  on  the  other.  In  this  way  the  righteousness  of 
the  holy  God  is  displayed  so  clearly  in  the  punishment  of  the 
rebellious,  and  the  mercy  of  the  faithful  covenant  God  in  His 
forgiveness  of  the  penitent,  that  the  history  of  Israel  at  that  time 
exhibits  to  us  an  example  of  the  divine  holiness  and  righteousness 
on  the  one  hand,  and  of  His  grace  and  mercy  on  the  other,  as 
displayed  in  the  church  of  God  of  all  times,  as  a  warning  for  the 
ungodly  and  for  the  consolation  of  the  righteous. 

Vers.  6-10.  The  account  of  this  development  of  the  covenant 
nation,  which  commenced  after  the  death  of  Joshua  and  his  con- 
temporaries, is  attached  to  the  book  of  Joshua  by  a  simple  repeti- 
tion of  the  closing  verses  of  that  book  (Josh.  xxiv.  28-31)  in  vers. 
(i-lO,  with  a  few  unimportant  differences,  not  only  to  form  a  link 
between  Josh.  xxiv.  and  Judg.  ii.  11,  and  to  resume  the  thread 
of  the  history  which  was  broken  off  by  the  summary  just  given 
of  the  results  of  the  wars  between  the  Israelites  and  Canaanites 
(Bertheau),  but  rather  to  bring  out  sharply  and  clearly  the  contrast 
between  the  age  that  was  past  and  the  period  of  the  Israelitish 
history  that  was  just  about  to  commence.  The  vav  consec.  attached 
to  n^tih  expresses  the  order  of  thought  and  not  of  time.  The 
apostasy  of  the  new  generation  from  the  Lord  (vers.  10  sqq.)  was 
a  necessary  consequence  of  the  attitude  of  Israel  to  the  Canaanites 
who  were  left  in  the  land,  as  described  in  chap.  i.  1-ii.  5.  This 
thought  is  indicated  by  the  raw  consec.  in  P&Bh ;  so  that  the  meaning 
of  vers.  6  sqq.  as  expressed  in  our  ordinary  phraseology  would  be 
as  follows:  Now  when  Joshua  had  dismissed  the  people,  and  the 
children  of  Israel  had  gone  every  one  to  his  own  inheritance  to  take 


268  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

possession  of  the  land,  the  people  served  the  Lord  as  long  as  Joshua 
and  the  elders  who  survived  him  were  alive  ;  but  when  Joshua  was 
dead,  and  that  generation  (which  was  contemporaneous  with  him) 
had  been  gathered  to  its  fathers,  there  rose  up  another  generation 
after  them  which  knew  not  the  Lord,  and  also  (knew  not)  the  work 
which  He  had  done  to  Israel.  On  the  death  and  burial  of  Joshua, 
see  at  Josh.  xxiv.  29,  30.  "  Gathered  unto  their  fathers"  corresponds 
to  "gathered  to  his  people"  in  the  Pentateuch  (Gen.  xxv.  8,  17, 
xxxv.  29,  xlix.  29,  33,  etc.:  see  at  Gen.  xxv.  8).  They  "knew  not 
the  Lord"  sc.  from  seeing  or  experiencing  His  wonderful  deeds, 
which  the  contemporaries  of  Joshua  and  Moses  had  seen  and  ex- 
perienced. 

In  the  general  survey  of  the  times  of  the  judges,  commencing 
at  ver.  11,  the  falling  away  of  the  Israelites  from  the  Lord  is 
mentioned  first  of  all,  and  at  the  same  time  it  is  distinctly  shown 
how  neither  the  chastisements  inflicted  upon  them  by  God  at  the 
hands  of  hostile  nations,  nor  the  sending  of  judges  to  set  them  free 
from  the  hostile  oppression,  availed  to  turn  them  from  their  idolatry 
(vers.  11-19).  This  is  followed  by  the  determination  of  God  to 
tempt  and  chastise  the  sinful  nation  by  not  driving  away  the 
remaining  Canaanites  (vers.  20-23) ;  and  lastly,  the  account  con- 
cludes with  an  enumeration  of  the  tribes  that  still  remained,  and  the 
attitude  of  Israel  towards  them  (chap.  iii.  1—6). 

Vers.  11-19.  Repeated  falling  away  of  the  People  from  the  Lord. 
— Vers.  11-13.  The  Israelites  did  what  was  evil  in  the  eyes  of  the 
Lord  (what  was  displeasing  to  the  Lord)  ;  they  served  Baalim. 
The  plural  Baalim  is  a  general  term  employed  to  denote  all  false 
deities,  and  is  synonymous  with  the  expression  "other  gods"  in  the 
clause  "  other  gods  of  the  gods  of  the  nations  round  about  them" 
(the  Israelites).  This  use  of  the  term  Baalim  arose  from  the  fact 
that  Baal  was  the  chief  male  deity  of  the  Canaanites  and  all  the 
nations  of  Hither  Asia,  and  was  simply  worshipped  by  the  different 
nations  with  peculiar  modifications,  and  therefore  designated  by 
various  distinctive  epithets.  In  ver.  12  this  apostasy  is  more 
minutely  described  as  forsaking  Jehovah  the  God  of  their  fathers, 
to  whom  they  were  indebted  for  the  greatest  blessing,  viz.  their 
deliverance  out  of  Egypt,  and  following  other  gods  of  the  heathen 
nations  that  were  round  about  them  (taken  verbatim  from  Deut.  vi. 
14,  and  xiii.  7,  8),  and  worshipping  them.  In  this  way  they  pro- 
voked the  Lord  to  anger  (cf.  Deut.  iv.  25,  ix.  18,  etc.). — Ver.  13. 
Thus  they  forsook  Jehovah,  and  served  Baal  and  the  Asthartes.    In 


CHAP.  II.  11-19.  269 

this  case  the  singular  Baal  is  connected  with  the  plural  Ashtaroth, 
because  the  male  deities  of  all  the  Canaanitish  nations,  and  those 
that  bordered  upon  Canaan,  were  in  their  nature  one  and  the  same 
deity,  viz.  Baal,  a  sun-god,  and  as  such  the  vehicle  and  source  of 
physical  life,  and  of  the  generative  and  reproductive  power  of 
nature,  which  was  regarded  as  an  effluence  from  its  own  being  (see 
Movers,  Relig.  der  Phönizier,  pp.  184  sqq.,  and  J.  G.  Müller  in 
Herzog's  Cyclopaedia).  Ashtaroth,  from  the  singular  Ashtoreth, 
which  only  occurs  again  in  1  Kings  xi.  5,  33,  and  2  Kings  xxiii. 
13,  in  connection  with  the  Sidonian  Astharte,  was  the  general 
name  used  to  denote  the  leading  female  deity  of  the  Canaanitish 
tribes,  a  moon-goddess,  who  was  worshipped  as  the  feminine  prin- 
ciple of  nature  embodied  in  the  pure  moon-light,  and  its  influence 
upon  terrestrial  life.  It  corresponded  to  the  Greek  Aphrodite, 
whose  celebrated  temple  at  Askalon  is  described  in  Herod,  i.  105. 
In  chap.  iii.  7,  Asheroth  is  used  as  equivalent  to  Ashtaroth,  which 
is  used  here,  chap.  x.  6 ;  1  Sam.  vii.  4,  xii.  10.  The  name 
Asheroth1  was  transferred  to  the  deity  itself  from  the  idols  of  this 
goddess,  which  generally  consisted  of  wooden  columns,  and  are 
called  Asherim  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  13,  Deut.  vii.  5,  xii.  3,  xvi.  21.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  word  Ashtoreth  is  without  any  traceable  ety- 
mology in  the  Semitic  dialects,  and  was  probably  derived  from 
Upper  Asia,  being  connected  with  a  Persian  word  signifying  a 
star,  and  synonymous  with  ^Aarpodp^q,  the  star-queen  of  Sabseism 
(see  Ges.  Thes.  pp.  1083-4  ;  Movers,  p.  606  ;  and  Müller,  ut  sup.). 
With  regard  to  the  nature  of  the  Baal  and  Astharte  worship, 
into  which  the  Israelites  fell  not  long  after  the  death  of  Joshua, 
and  in  which  they  continued  henceforth  to  sink  deeper  and  deeper, 
it  is  evident  from  the  more  precise  allusions  contained  in  the 
history  of  Gideon,  that  it  did  not  consist  of  direct  opposition  to  the 
worship  of  Jehovah,  or  involve  any  formal  rejection  of  Jehovah, 
but  that  it  was  simply  an  admixture  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
with  the  heathen  or  Canaanitish  nature-worship.  Not  only  was 
the  ephod  which  Gideon  caused  to  be  made  in  his  native  town  of 
Ophrah,  and  after  which  all  Israel  went  a  whoring  (chap.  viii.  27), 
an  imitation  of  the  high  priest's  ephod  in  the  worship  of  Jehovah  ; 
but  the  worship  of  Baal-berith  at  Shechem,  after  which  the  Israel- 
ites went  a  whoring  again  when  Gideon  was  dead  (chap.  viii.  33), 
was  simply  a  corruption  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  in  which  Baal 
was  put  in  the  place  of  Jehovah  and  worshipped  in  a  similar  way, 
1  Rendered  groves  in  the  English  version.— Tr. 


270  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

as  we  may  clearly  see  from  chap.  ix.  27.  The  worship  of  Jehovah 
could  even  be  outwardly  continued  in  connection  with  this  idola- 
trous worship.  Just  as  in  the  case  of  these  nations  in  the  midst  of 
which  the  Israelites  lived,  the  mutual  recognition  of  their  different 
deities  and  religions  was  manifested  in  the  fact  that  they  all  called 
their  supreme  deity  by  the  same  name,  Baal,  and  simply  adopted 
some  other  epithet  by  which  to  define  the  distinctive  peculiarities 
of  each  ;  so  the  Israelites  also  imagined  that  they  could  worship 
the  Baals  of  the  powerful  nations  round  about  them  along  with 
Jehovah  their  covenant  God,  especially  if  they  worshipped  them 
in  the  same  manner  as  their  covenant  God.  This  will  serve  to 
explain  the  rapid  and  constantly  repeated  falling  away  of  the 
Israelites  from  Jehovah  into  Baal-worship,  at  the  very  time  when 
the  worship  of  Jehovah  was  stedfastly  continued  at  the  tabernacle 
in  accordance  with  the  commands  of  the  law.  The  Israelites 
simply  followed  the  lead  and  example  of  their  heathen  neighbours. 
Just  as  the  heathen  were  tolerant  with  regard  to  the  recognition  of 
the  deities  of  other  nations,  and  did  not  refuse  to  extend  this  recog- 
nition even  to  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel,  so  the  Israelites  were 
also  tolerant  towards  the  Baals  of  the  neighbouring  nations,  whose 
sensuous  nature-worship  was  more  grateful  to  the  corrupt  heart  of 
man  than  the  spiritual  Jehovah-religion,  with  its  solemn  demands 
for  sanctification  of  life.  But  this  syncretism,  which  was  not  only 
reconcilable  with  polytheism,  but  actually  rooted  in  its  very  nature, 
was  altogether  irreconcilable  with  the  nature  of  true  religion.  For 
if  Jehovah  is  the  only  true  God,  and  there  are  no  other  gods 
besides  or  beside  Him,  then  the  purity  and  holiness  of  His  nature 
is  not  only  disturbed,  but  altogether  distorted,  by  any  admixture  of 
His  worship  with  the  worship  of  idols  or  of  the  objects  of  nature, 
the  true  God  being  turned  into  an  idol,  and  Jehovah  degraded 
into  Baal.  Looking  closely  into  the  matter,  therefore,  the  mixture 
of  the  Canaanitish  worship  of  Baal  with  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
was  actually  forsaking  Jehovah  and  serving  other  gods,  as  the 
prophetic  author  of  this  book  pronounces  it.  It  was  just  the  same 
with  the  worship  of  Baal  in  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  which 
was  condemned  by  the  prophets  Hosea  and  Amos  (see  Hengsten- 
berg, Christology,  i.  pp.  168  sqq.,  Eng.  trans.). — Vers.  14,  15.  On 
account  of  this  idolatrous  worship,  the  anger  of  the  Lord  burned 
against  Israel,  so  that  He  gave  them  up  into  the  hands  of  spoilers 
that  spoiled  them,  and  sold  them  into  the  hands  of  their  enemies. 
D^Db?  from  nDt£  alternated  with  DD^  in  HUB*,  to  plunder.    This  word 


CHAP.  II.  11-19.  271 

is  not  met  with  in  the  Pentateuch,  whereas  "Oö,  to  sell,  occurs  in 
Deut.  xxxii.  30,  in  the  sense  of  giving  helplessly  up  to  the  foe. 
"  They  could  no  longer  stand  before  their  enemies"  as  they  had  done 
under  Joshua,  and  in  fact  as  long  as  Israel  continued  faithful  to 
the  Lord ;  so  that  now,  instead  of  the  promise  contained  in  Lev. 
xxvi.  7,  8,  being  fulfilled,  the  threat  contained  in  Lev.  xxvi.  17  was 
carried  into  execution.  "  Whithersoever  they  went  out"  i.e.  in  every 
expedition,  every  attack  that  they  made  upon  their  enemies,  "  the 
hand  of  Jehovah  was  against  them  for  evil,  as  He  had  said'"'  (Lev. 
xxvi.  17,  36  ;  Deut.  xxviii.  25),  and  "had  sworn  unto  them."  There 
is  no  express  oath  mentioned  either  in  Lev.  xxvi.  or  Deut.  xxviii.  ; 
it  is  implied  therefore  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  or  in  virtute  ver- 
borum,  as  Seb.  Schmidt  affirms,  inasmuch  as  the  threats  themselves 
were  words  of  the  true  and  holy  God.  1NO  D[6  1W,  "  a>ul  it 
became  to  them  very  narrow"  i.e.  they  came  into  great  straits. — 
Vers.  16,  17.  But  the  Lord  did  not  rest  content  with  this.  He  did 
still  more.  "  lie  raised  up  judges  who  delivered  them  out  of  the 
hand  of  their  plunderers"  to  excite  them  to  love  in  return  by  this 
manifestation  of  His  love  and  mercy,  and  to  induce  them  to  repent. 
But  " they  did  not  hearken  even  to  their  judges"  namely,  so  as  not 
to  fall  back  again  into  idolatry,  which  the  judge  had  endeavoured 
to  suppress.  This  limitation  of  the  words  is  supported  by  the 
context,  viz.  by  a  comparison  of  vers.  18,  19. — "But  ("3  after  a 
negative  clause)  they  went  a  whoring  after  other  gods  (for  the 
application  of  this  expression  to  the  spiritual  adultery  of  idolatrous 
worship,  see  Ex.  xxxiv.  15),  and  turned  quickly  away  (vid.  Ex. 
xxxii.  8)  from  the  way  which  their  fathers  walked  in,  to  hearken  to 
the  commandments  of  the  Lord"  i.e.  from  the  way  of  obedience  to 
the  divine  commands.  "  They  did  not  so"  (or  what  was  right)  sc. 
as  their  fathers  under  Joshua  had  done  (cf.  ver.  7). — Vers.  18,  10. 
"  And  when  the  Lord  raised  them  up  judges,  and  was  with  the  judge, 
and  delivered  them  out  of  the  hand  of  their  enemies  all  the  days  of 
the  judge  (i.e.  as  long  as  the  judge  was  living),  because  the  Lord 
had  compassion  upon  their  sighing,  by  reason  of  them  that  opprt 
them,  and  vexed  them  (prfl  only  occurs  again  as  a  verb  in  Joel  ii. 
8) :  it  came  to  pass  when  the  judge  was  dead,  that  they  returned  and 
acted  more  corruptly  than  tin  ir  fathers"  i.e.  they  turned  again  to 
idolatry  even  more  grievously  than  their  fathers  had  dene  under 
the  previous  judges.  "  They  did  not  let  fall  from  their  d<  ,  ,  • 
they  did  not  cease  from  their  evil  deeds,  and  "from  their  stiff- 
necked  way."     nL"'p,  hard,  is  to  be  understood  as  in   Ex.  xxxii.  (J  and 


272  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

xxxiii.  3,  where  Israel  is  called  a  hard-necked  people  which  did  not 
bend  under  obedience  to  the  commandments  of  God. 

Vers.  20—23.  Chastisement  of  the  rebellious  Nation. — Vers.  20, 
21.  On  account  of  this  idolatry,  which  was  not  only  constantly 
repeated,  but  continued  to  grow  worse  and  worse,  the  anger  of  the 
Lord  burned  so  fiercely  against  Israel,  that  He  determined  to 
destroy  no  more  of  the  nations  which  Joshua  had  left  when  he  died, 
before  the  people  that  had  broken  His  covenant.  In  order  to  set 
forth  this  divine  purpose  most  distinctly,  it  is  thrown  into  the  form 
of  a  sentence  uttered  by  God  through  the  expression  '\X\  "löfcW.  The 
Lord  said,  "  Because  this  people  has  transgressed  my  covenant,  .  .  . 
I  also  will  no  longer  keep  my  covenant  promise  (Ex.  xxiii.  23,  27 
sqq.,  xxxiv.  10  sqq.),  and  will  no  more  drive  out  any  of  the  remain- 
ing Canaanites  before  them"  (see  Josh,  xxiii.  13). — Ver.  22.  The 
purpose  of  God  in  this  resolution  was  "  to  prove  Israel  through 
them  (the  tribes  that  were  not  exterminated),  whether  they  (the 
Israelites)  would  keep  the  way  of  the  Lord  to  walk  therein  (cf.  Deut. 
viii.  2),  as  their  fathers  did  keep  it,  or  not."  HiD3  jyo?  is  not  de- 
pendent upon  the  verb  3TJ?,  as  Studer  supposes,  which  yields  no 
fitting  sense ;  nor  can  the  clause  be  separated  from  the  preceding 
one,  as  Bertheau  suggests,  and  connected  as  a  protasis  with  ver.  23 
(this  would  be  a  thoroughly  unnatural  construction,  for  which  Isa. 
xlv.  4  does  not  furnish  any  true  parallel)  ;  but  the  clause  is  attached 
in  the  simplest  possible  manner  to  the  main  thought  in  vers.  20,  21, 
that  is  to  say,  to  the  words  "  and  He  said"  in  ver.  20  :  Jehovah 
said,  i.e.  resolved,  that  He  would  not  exterminate  the  remaining 
nations  any  further,  to  tempt  Israel  through  them.  The  plural  D3, 
in  the  place  of  the  singular  ^2,  which  the  foregoing  ip/H  requires,  is 
to  be  regarded  as  a  constructio  ad  sensum,  i.e.  to  be  attributed  to 
the  fact,  that  keeping  the  way  of  God  really  consists  in  observing 
the  commandments  of  God,  and  that  this  was  the  thought  which 
floated  before  the  writer's  mind.  The  thought  expressed  'in  this 
verse,  that  Jehovah  would  not  exterminate  the  Canaanites  before 
Israel  any  more,  to  try  them  whether  they  would  keep  His  com- 
mandments, just  as  He  had  previously  caused  the  people  whom  He 
brought  out  of  Egypt  to  wander  in  the  wilderness  for  forty  years 
with  the  very  same  intention  (Deut.  viii.  2),  is  not  at  variance  with 
the  design  of  God,  expressed  in  Ex.  xxiii.  29,  30,  and  Deut.  vii.  22, 
not  to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  all  at  once,  lest  the  land  should 
become  waste,  and  the  wild  beasts  multiply  therein,  nor  yet  with 
the  motive  assigned  in  chap.  iii.  1,  2.     For  the  determination  not 


CHAP.  III.  1-6.  273 

to  exterminate  the  Canaanites  in  one  single  year,  was  a  different 
thing  from  the  purpose  of  God  to  suspend  their  gradual  extermina- 
tion altogether.  The  former  purpose  had  immediate  regard  to  the 
well-being  of  Israel ;  the  latter,  on  the  contrary,  was  primarily 
intended  as  a  chastisement  for  its  transgression  of  the  covenant, 
although  even  this  chastisement  was  intended  to  lead  the  rebellious 
nation  to  repentance,  and  promote  its  prosperity  by  a  true  conver- 
sion to  the  Lord.  And  the  motive  assigned  in  chap.  ii.  2  is  in 
perfect  harmony  with  this  intention,  as  our  explanation  of  this 
passage  will  clearly  show. — Ver.  23.  In  consequence  of  this  reso- 
lution, the  Lord  let  these  tribes  (those  mentioned  in  chap.  iii.  3) 
remain  at  rest,  i.e.  quietly,  in  the  land,  without  exterminating  them 
rapidly.  The  expression  "in»,  hastily,  quickly,  i.e.  according  to  the 
distinct  words  of  the  following  clause,  through  and  under  Joshua, 
appears  strange  after  what  has  gone  before.  For  what  is  threatened 
in  ver.  21  is  not  the  suspension  of  rapid  extermination,  but  of  any 
further  extermination.  This  threat,  therefore,  is  so  far  limited  by 
the  word  "  hastily,"  as  to  signify  that  the  Lord  would  not  extermi- 
nate any  more  of  these  nations  so  long  as  Israel  persisted  in  its 
idolatry.  But  as  soon  as  and  whenever  Israel  returned  to  the  Lord 
its  God  in  true  repentance,  to  keep  His  covenant,  the  Lord  would 
recall  His  threat,  and  let  the  promised  extermination  of  the  Canaan- 
ites go  forward  again.  Had  Israel  not  forsaken  the  Lord  its  God 
so  soon  after  Joshua's  death,  the  Lord  would  have  exterminated 
the  Canaanites  who  were  left  in  the  land  much  sooner  than  He  did, 
or  have  carried  out  their  gradual  extermination  in  a  much  shorter 
time  than  was  actually  the  case,  in  consequence  of  the  continual 
idolatry  of  the  people. 

Chap.  iii.  1-6.  Nations  which  the  Lord  left  in  Canaan:  with  a 
repetition  of  the  reason  why  this  was  done. — Ver.  1.  The  reason, 
which  has  already  been  stated  in  chap.  ii.  22,  viz.  "  to  prove  Israel 
by  them,"  is  still  further  elucidated  here.  In  the  first  place  (ver.  1), 
PN"ib",-nx  is  more  precisely  defined  as  signifying  "  all  those  who  //"</ 
not  known  all  the  tears  of  Canaan"  sc.  from  their  own  observation 
and  experience,  that  is  to  say,  the  generation  of  the  Israelites  which 
rose  up  after  the  death  of  Joshua.  For  "  the  wars  of  Canaan"  were 
the  wars  which  were  carried  on  by  Joshua  with  the  almighty  help 
of  the  Lord  for  the  conquest  of  Canaan.  The  whole  thought  is 
then  still  further  expanded  in  ver.  2  as  follows  :  "  only  (for  ao  other 
purpose  than)  that  the  succeeding  generations  (the  generations  which 
followed  Joshua  and  his  contemporaries)  of  the  children  of  Israel, 

S 


274  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

that  He  (Jehovah)  might  teach  them  war,  only  those  who  had  not 
known  them  (the  wars  of  Canaan)."  The  suffix  attached  to  t&V~]\ 
refers  to  "  the  wars  of  Canaan,"  although  this  is  a  feminine  noun, 
the  suffix  in  the  masculine  plural  being  frequently  used  in  connec- 
tion with  a  feminine  noun.  At  first  sight  it  would  appear  as  though 
the  reason  given  here  for  the  non-extermination  of  the  Canaanites 
was  not  in  harmony  with  the  reason  assigned  in  chap.  ii.  22,  which 
is  repeated  in  ver.  4  of  the  present  chapter.  But  the  differences 
are  perfectly  reconcilable,  if  we  only  give  a  correct  explanation  of 
the  two  expressions,  "  learning  war,"  and  the  "  wars  of  Canaan." 
Learning  war  in  the  context  before  us  is  equivalent  to  learning  to 
make  war  upon  the  nations  of  Canaan.  Joshua  and  the  Israelites 
of  his  time  had  not  overcome  these  nations  by  their  own  human 
power  or  by  earthly  weapons,  but  by  the  miraculous  help  of  their 
God,  who  had  smitten  and  destroyed  the  Canaanites  before  the 
Israelites.  The  omnipotent  help  of  the  Lord,  however,  was  only 
granted  to  Joshua  and  the  whole  nation,  on  condition  that  they 
adhered  firmly  to  the  law  of  God  (Josh.  i.  7),  and  faithfully 
observed  the  covenant  of  the  Lord  ;  whilst  the  transgression  of  that 
covenant,  even  by  Achan,  caused  the  defeat  of  Israel  before  the 
Canaanites  (Josh.  vii.).  In  the  wars  of  Canaan  under  Joshua, 
therefore,  Israel  had  experienced  and  learned,  that  the  power  to 
conquer  its  foes  did  not  consist  in  the  multitude  and  bravery  of  its 
own  fighting  men,  but  solely  in  the  might  of  its  God,  which  it  could 
only  possess  so  long  as  it  continued  faithful  to  the  Lord.  This 
lesson  the  generations  that  followed  Joshua  had  forgotten,  and  con- 
sequently they  did  not  understand  how  to  make  war.  To  impress 
this  truth  upon  them, — the  great  truth,  upon  which  the  very  exist- 
ence as  well  as  the  prosperity  of  Israel,  and  its  attainment  of  the 
object  of  its  divine  calling,  depended ;  in  other  words,  to  teach  it  by 
experience,  that  the  people  of  Jehovah  could  only  fight  and  conquer 
in  the  power  of  its  God, — the  Lord  had  left  the  Canaanites  in  the 
land.  Necessity  teaches  a  man  to  pray.  The  distress  into  which 
the  Israelites  were  brought  by  the  remaining  Canaanites  was  a 
chastisement  from  God,  through  which  the  Lord  desired  to  lead 
back  the  rebellious  to  himself,  to  keep  them  obedient  to  His  com- 
mandments, and  to  train  them  to  the  fulfilment  of  their  covenant 
duties.  In  this  respect,  learning  war,  i.e.  learning  how  the  congre- 
gation of  the  Lord  was  to  fight  against  the  enemies  of  God  and  of 
His  kingdom,  was  one  of  the  means  appointed  by  God  to  tempt 
Israel,  or  prove  whether  it  would  listen  to  tne  commandments  of 


chap.  in.  1-«.  275 

God  (ver.  4),  or  would  walk  in  the  ways  of  the  Lord.  If  Israel 
should  so  learn  to  war,  it  would  learn  at  the  same  time  to  keep  the 
commandments  of  God.  But  both  of  these  were  necessary  for  the 
people  of  God.  For  just  as  the  realization  of  the  blessings  promised 
to  the  nation  in  the  covenant  depended  upon  its  hearkening  to  the 
voice  of  the  Lord,  so  the  conflicts  appointed  for  it  were  also  neces- 
sary, just  as  much  for  the  purification  of  the  sinful  nation,  as  for 
the  perpetuation  and  growth  of  the  kingdom  of  God  upon  the 
earth. — Ver.  3.  The  enumeration  of  the  different  nations  rests  upon 
Josh.  xiii.  2-6,  and,  with  its  conciseness  and  brevity,  is  only  fully 
intelligible  through  the  light  thrown  upon  it  by  that  passage.  The 
five  princes  of  the  Philistines  are  mentioned  singly  there.  Accord- 
ing to  Josh.  xiii.  4  sqq.,  "  all  the  Canaanites  and  the  Sidonians 
and  the  Hivites"  are  the  Canaanitish  tribes  dwelling  in  northern 
Canaan,  by  the  Phoenician  coast  and  upon  Mount  Lebanon. 
"  The  Canaanites  :"  viz.  those  who  dwelt  aloii£  the  sea-coast  to  the 
south  of  Sidon.  The  Hivites :  those  who  were  settled  more  in  the 
heart  of  the  country,  "  from  the  mountains  of  Baal-hcrmon  up  to 
the  territory  of  Hamath."  Baal-hermon  is  only  another  name  for 
Baal-gad,  the  present  Banjas,  under  the  Ilermon  (cf.  Josh.  xiii.  5). 
When  it  is  stated  still  further  in  ver.  4,  that  "  they  were  left  in 
existence  (i.e.  were  not  exterminated  by  Jo>hua)  to  prove  Israel  by 
them,"  we  are  struck  with  the  fact,  that  besides  the  Philistines, 
only  these  northern  Canaanites  are  mentioned  ;  whereas,  according 
to  chap,  i.,  many  towns  in  the  centre  of  the  land  were  also  left  in 
the  hands  of  the  Canaanites,  and  therefore  here  also  the  Canaanites 
were  not  yet  exterminated,  and  became  likewise  a  snare  to  the 
Israelites,  not  only  according  to  the  word  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
(chap.  ii.  3),  but  also  because  the  Israelites  who  dwelt  among  these 
Canaanitish  tribes  contracted  marriages  with  them,  and  served  their 
gods.  This  striking  circumstance  cannot  be  set  aside,  as  Bertheau 
supposes,  by  the  simple  remark,  that  "  the  two  lists  (that  of  the 
countries  which  the  tribes  of  Israel  did  not  conquer  after  Joshua's 
death  in  chap,  i.,  and  the  one  given  here  of  the  nations  which 
Joshua  had  not  subjugated)  must  correspond  on  the  whole,"  sine1 
the  correspondence  referred  to  really  does  not  exist.  It  can  only 
be  explained  on  the  ground  that  the  Canaanites  who  were  left  in 
the  different  towns  in  the  midst  of  the  land,  acquired  all  their  power 
to  maintain  their  stand  against  Israel  from  the  simple  fact  that  tin- 
Philistines  on  the  south-west,  and  several  whole  tribes  of  Canaanites 
in  the  north,  had  been  left  by  Joshua  neither  exterminated  nur 


276  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

even  conquered,  inasmuch  as  they  so  crippled  the  power  of  the 
Israelites  by  wars  and  invasions  of  the  Israelitish  territory,  that 
they  were  unable  to  exterminate  those  who  remained  in  the  different 
fortresses  of  their  own  possessions.  Because,  therefore,  the  power  to 
resist  the  Israelites  and  oppress  them  for  a  time  resided  not  so  much 
in  the  Canaanites  who  were  dwelling  in  the  midst  of  Israel,  as  in 
the  Philistines  and  the  Canaanites  upon  the  mountains  of  Lebanon 
who  had  been  left  unconquered  by  Joshua,  these  are  the  only  tribes 
mentioned  in  this  brief  survey  as  the  nations  through  which  the 
Lord  would  prove  His  people. — Vers.  5,  6.  But  the  Israelites  did 
not  stand  the  test.  Dwelling  in  the  midst  of  the  Canaanites,  of 
whom  six  tribes  are  enumerated,  as  in  Ex.  iii.  8,  17,  etc.  (see  at 
Deut.  vii.  1),  they  contracted  marriages  with  them,  and  served  their 
gods,  contrary  to  the  express  prohibition  of  the  Lord  in  Ex.  xxxiv. 
16,  xxiii.  24,  and  Deut.  vii.  3,  4. 


II.— HISTORY  OF  THE  PEOPLE  OF  ISRAEL  UNDER  THE  JUDGES. 
Chap.  hi.  7-xvi.  si. 

In  order  that  we  may  be  able  to  take  a  distinct  survey  of  the 
development  of  the  Israelites  in  the  three  different  stages  of  their 
history  during  the  times  of  the  judges,  the  first  thing  of  import- 
ance to  be  done  is  to  determine  the  chronology  of  the  period  of 
the  judges,  inasmuch  as  not  only  have  greatly  divergent  opinions 
prevailed  upon  this  point,  but  hypotheses  have  been  set  up,  which 
endanger  and  to  some  extent  directly  overthrow  the  historical 
character  of  the  accounts  which  the  book  of  Judges  contains.1  If 
we  take  a  superficial  glance  at  the  chronological  data  contained  in 

1  Rud.  Chr.  v.  Bennigsen,  for  example,  reckons  up  fifty  different  calculations, 
and  the  list  might  be  still  further  increased  by  the  addition  of  both  older  and 
more  recent  attempts  (see  Winer,  Bibl.  Real-~Worterb.  ii.  pp.  327-8).  Lepsius 
(Chronol.  der  Mg.  i.  315-6,  365  sqq.  and  377-8)  and  Bunsen  (JEgypten,  i.  pp. 
209  sqq.  iv.  318  sqq.,  and  Bibelwerk,  i.  pp.  ccxxxvii.  sqq.),  starting  from  the 
position  maintained  by  Ewald  and  Bertheau,  that  the  chronological  data  of  the 
book  of  Judges  are  for  the  most  part  to  be  regarded  as  round  numbers,  have 
sought  for  light  to  explain  the  chronology  of  the  Bible  in  the  darkness  of  the 
history  of  ancient  Egypt,  and  with  their  usual  confidence  pronounce  it  an  indis- 
putable truth  that  the  whole  of  the  period  of  the  Judges  did  not  last  longer  than 
from  169  to  187  years. 


CHAP.  III.  7-XVI.  31.  277 

the  book,  it  appears  a  very  simple  matter  to  make  the  calculation 
required,  inasmuch  as  the  duration  of  the  different  hostile  oppres- 
sions, and  also  the  length  of  time  that  most  of  the  judges  held  their 
office,  or  at  all  events  the  duration  of  the  peace  which  they  secured 
for  the  nation,  are  distinctly  given.  The  following  are  the  numbers 
that  we  find  : — 

1.  Oppression  by  Chushan-rishathaim  .         .     (chap.  iii.  8),     .      8  years. 

Deliverance  by  Othniel,  and  rest  .         .     (chap.  iii.  11),  .     40 

2.  Oppression  by  the  Moabites    ....     (chap.  iii.  14),  .     18 

Deliverance  by  Ehud,  and  rest    .         .         .     (chap.  iii.  30),  .     80 

3.  Oppression  by  the  Canaanitish  king  Jabiu        .     (chap.  iv.  3),     .     20 
Deliverance  by  Deborah  and  Barak,  and  rest    (chap.  v.  31),    .     40 


Oppression  by  the  Midianites 
Deliverance  by  Gideon,  and  rest 
Abimelech's  reign 
Tola,  judge         . 
Jair,  judge  . 


(chap.  vi.  1),     .  7 

(chap.  viii.  28),  .  40 

(chap.  ix.  22),   .  3 

(chap.  x.  2),      .  23 

(chap.  x.  3),      .  22 


Total,     .  301  years. 

5.  Oppression  by  the  Ammonites         .         .         .     (chap.  x.  8),      .  18  ,, 

Deliverance  by  Jephthah,  who  judged  Israel    (chap.  xii.  7),    .  6  ,, 

Ibzan,  judge (chap.  xii.  9),    .  7  ,, 

Elon,  judge (chap.  xii.  11),  .  10  ,, 

Abdon,  judge (chap.  xii.  14),  .  8  ,, 

6.  Oppression  by  the  Philistines           .         .         .     (chap.  xiii.  1),    .  40  ,, 

At  this  time  Samson  judged  Israel  for  20  years  (chap.  xv.  20 ; 

xvi.  31). 


Total,     .  390  years. 
For  if  to  this  we  add  (a)  the  time  of  Joshua,  which  is  not  distinctly 

mentioned,  and  .         .         .         .         .         .         .         .  20      ,, 

(b.)  The  time  during  which  Eli  was  judge  (1  Sam.  iv.  18),      .         .  40      ,, 


We  obtain    .  450  years.1 
And  if  we  add  still  further — 
(c.)  The  times  of  Samuel  and  Saul  combined,  .         .         .         .     40      ,, 

(d.)  The  reign  of  David  (2  Sam.  v.  4  ;  1  Kings  ii.  11),    .         .         .     40     „ 
(e.)  The  reign  of  Solomon  to  the  building  of  the  temple  (1  Kings  vi.  1),    3      ,, 


The  whole  time  from  the  entrance  of  Israel  into  Canaan  to  the 
building  of  the  temple  amounted  to 581 


1  The  earlier  chronologists  discovered  a  confirmation  of  this  as  the  length  of 
time  that  the  period  of  the  judges  actually  lasted  in  Acts  xiii.  20,  where  Paul  in 
his  speech  at  An tioch  in  Pisidia  says,  according  to  the  textus  receptus,  "  After 
that  lie  gave  unto  them  judges  about  the  space  of  four  hundred  and  fifty  yeara 


278  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Or  if  we  add  the  forty  years  spent  in  the  wilderness,  the  time 
that  elapsed  between  the  exodus  from  Egypt  and  the  building  of 
the  temple  was  573  years.  But  the  interval  was  not  so  long  as 
this ;  for,  according  to  1  Kings  vi.  1,  Solomon  built  the  house  of 
the  Lord  in  the  480th  year  after  the  children  of  Israel  came  out  of 
Egypt,  and  in  the  fourth  year  of  his  reign.  And  no  well-founded 
objections  can  be  raised  as  to  the  correctness  and  historical  credi- 
bility of  this  statement.  It  is  true  that  the  LXX.  have  "  the  440th 
year"  instead  of  the  480th ;  but  this  reading  is  proved  to  be  erroneous 
by  Aquila  and  Symmaclius,  who  adopt  the  number  480  in  common 
with  all  the  rest  of  the  ancient  versions,  and  it  is  now  almost  unani 
mously  rejected  (see  Ewald,  Gesch.  ii.  p.  479).  In  all  probability 
it  owed  its  origin  to  an  arbitrary  mode  of  computing  the  period 
referred  to  by  reckoning  eleven  generations  of  forty  years  each 
(see  Ed.  Preuss;  die  Zeitrechnung  der  LXX.  pp.  78  sqq.).  On 
the  other  hand,  the  number  480  of  the  Hebrew  text  cannot  rest 
upon  a  mere  reckoning  of  generations,  since  the  year  and  month  of 
Solomon's  reign  are  given  in  1  Kings  vi.  1 ;  and  if  we  deduct  this 
date  from  the  480,  there  remain  477  or  476  years,  which  do  not  form 
a  cyclical  number  at  all.1     Again,  the  exodus  of  Israel  from  Egypt 

until  Samuel  the  prophet."  The  discrepancy  between  this  verse  and  the  state- 
ment in  1  Kings  vi.  1,  that  Solomon  built  the  temple  in  the  four  hundred  and 
eightieth  year  after  the  children  of  Israel  were  come  out  of  Egypt,  many  have 
endeavoured  to  remove  by  a  remark,  which  is  correct  in  itself,  viz.  that  the 
apostle  merely  adopted  the  traditional  opinion  of  the  Jewish  schools,  which  had 
been  arrived  at  by  adding  together  the  chronological  data  of  the  book  of  Judges, 
without  entering  into  the  question  of  its  correctness,  as  it  was  not  his  intention 
to  instruct  his  hearers  in  chronology.  But  this  passage  cannot  prove  anything 
at  all ;  for  the  reading  given  in  the  led.  rec.  is  merely  founded  upon  Cod.  Cant. 
and  Laud.,  and  the  text  of  Matthsei ;  whilst  the  oldest  reading  not  only  accord- 
ing to  the  Codd.  Ah,  Vat.,  Ephr.  S.  rescr.,  but  according  to  the  Cod.  Sinait.  ed. 
Tischendorf  and  several  minuscida,  as  well  as  the  Copt.  Sahid.  Arm.  Vers,  and 
Vulg.,  is,  x,xl  x.xds'Auv  'iöi/Yi  exr«  iv  yr\  ~X.ctva.oiu  x.ccrtx.'hnpouo^yiatv  avrolg  T'/jw  yyu 
cturcju  ug  'ijiutv  nrpccicoaioig  xxi  TrevTqx.ovTct,  x.a.1  fcsrol  tccvtcc  sliazev  x,pirdg  'tug 
lupovvß.  t.  wp.  This  text  is  rendered  thus  in  the  Vulgate :  et  destruens  gentes 
septem  in  terra  Chanaan  sorte  distribuit  eis  terram  eorum  quasi  post  quadrin- 
gentos  et  quinquaginta  annos:  et  post  hsec  dedit  judices  usque  ad  Samuel  pro- 
pheiam,  and  can  hardly  be  understood  in  any  other  sense  than  this,  that  Paul 
reckoned  450  as  the  time  that  elapsed  between  the  call  of  Abraham  (or  the 
birth  of  Isaac)  and  the  division  of  the  land,  namely  215  -f-  215  (according  to 
the  Alex,  reading  of  Ex.  xii.  40  :  see  the  comm.  on  this  passage)  -4-  40  =  470, 
or  about  450. 

1  Bertheau  has  quite  overlooked  this  when  he  endeavours  to  make  the  480 
years  from  the  exodus  to  the  building  of  the  temple  into  a  cyclical  number,  and 


CHAP.  III.  7-XVI.  31.  270 

was  an  "  epoch-making"  event,  which  was  fixed  in  the  recollection 
of  the  people  as  no  other  ever  was,  so  that  allusions  to  it  run  through 
the  whole  of  the  Old  Testament.  Moreover,  the  very  fact  that  it 
does  not  tally  with  the  sum  total  of  the  numbers  in  the  book  of 
Judges  is  an  argument  in  favour  of  its  correctness ;  whereas  all  the 
chronological  calculations  that  differ  from  this  bring  us  back  to 
these  numbers,  such,  for  example,  as  the  different  statements  of 
Josephus,  who  reckons  the  period  in  question  at  592  years  in  Ant. 
viii.  3,  1,  and  on  the  other  hand,  at  G12  years  in  Ant.  xx.  10  and 
c.  Ap.  ii.  2.1  Lastly,  it  may  easily  be  shown  that  there  are  several 
things  assumed  in  this  chronological  survey  which  have  no  founda- 
tion in  the  text.  This  applies  both  to  the  assumed  succession  of 
the  Ammonitish  and  Philistine  oppressions,  and  also  to  the  intro- 
duction of  the  forty  years  of  Eli's  life  as  judge  after  or  in  addition 
to  the  forty  years  that  the  Philistines  ruled  over  Israel. 

The  current  view,  that  the  forty  years  of  oppression  on  the  part 
of  the  Philistines  did  not  commence  till  after  the  death  of  Jephthah 
or  Abdon,  is  apparently  favoured,  no  doubt,  by  the  circumstance, 
that  this  oppression  is  not  described  till  after  the  death  of  Abdon 
(chap.  xii.  15),  and  is  introduced  with  the  usual  formula,  "  And  the 

appeals  in  support  of  this  to  1  Chron.  vi.  35  sqq.  (cf.  v.  29  sqq.),  where  twelve 
generations  are  reckoned  from  Aaron  to  Ahimaaz,  the  contemporary  of  David. 
But  it  is  perfectly  arbitrary  on  his  part  to  include  Ahimaaz,  who  was  a  boy  in 
the  time  of  David  (2  Sam.  xv.  27,  36,  xviii.  19,  22,  27  Bqq.),  as  the  re]  i 
tative  of  a  generation  that  was  contemporaneous  with  David  ;  whereas  it  was  not 
Ahimaaz,  but  his  father  Zadok,  i.e.  the  eleventh  high  priest  from  Aaron,  who 
anointed  Solomon  as  king  (1  Kings  i.  39,  ii.  35),  and  therefore  there  had  been 
only  eleven  high  priests  from  the  exodus  to  the  building  of  the  temple.  If 
therefore  this  period  was  to  be  divided  into  generations  of  forty  years  each  on 
the  ground  of  the  genealogies  in  the  Chronicles,  there  could  only  be  eleven  gene- 
rations counted,  and  this  is  just  what  the  LXX.  have  done. 

1  Josephus  adds  together  the  numbers  which  occur  in  the  book  of  Judges. 
Reckoning  from  the  invasion  of  Chushan-rishathaim  to  the  forty  years1  oppres- 
sion of  the  Philistines  (inclusive),  these  amount  to  390  years,  if  we  regard  Sam- 
son's twenty  years  as  forming  part  of  the  Philistine  oppression,  or  to  -I  m  years 
if  they  are  reckoned  separately.  Let  us  add  to  this  the  forty  years  of  the  journey 
through  the  wilderness,  the  twenty-five  years  which  Josephus  assigns  to  Joshua 
(Ant.  v.  1,  29),  the  forty  years  of  Eli,  the  twelve  years  which  he  allots  to 
Samuel  before  the  election  of  Saul  as  king  (vi.  18,  5),  and  the  forty  yean 
which  he  reckons  to  Samuel  and  Saul  together,  and  lastly,  the  forty  and  a  half 
years  of  David's  reign  and  the  four  years  of  Solomon's  up  to  the  time  when 
the  temple  was  built,  and  we  obtain  40  +  25  +  40  -4-  12  4-  40  4-  40*  +  4  = 
20H  years  ;  and  these  added  to  390  make  591$,  or  added  to  410  they  amount 
to  611  years. 


280  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

children  of  Israel  did  evil  again  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord,"  etc. 
(chap.  xiii.  1).  But  this  formula,  taken  by  itself,  does  not  furnish 
any  certain  proof  that  the  oppression  which  it  introduces  did  not 
take  place  till  after  what  has  been  already  described,  especially  in 
the  absence  of  any  more  definite  statement,  such  as  the  clause  intro- 
duced into  chap.  iv.  1,  "  when  Ehud  was  dead,"  or  the  still  more 
definite  remark,  that  the  land  had  rest  so  many  years  (chap.  iii. 
11,  30,  v.  31;  cf.  chap.  viii.  32).  Now  in  the  case  before  us, 
instead  of  any  such  statement  as  to  time,  we  find  the  general  remark 
in  chap.  x.  6  sqq.,  that  when  the  Israelites  sank  into  idolatry  again, 
Jehovah  sold  them  into  the  hands  of  the  Philistines,  and  into  the 
hands  of  the  children  of  Amnion  ;  and  after  this  there  simply 
follows  an  account  of  the  oppression  on  the  part  of  the  Ammonites, 
and  the  eventual  deliverance  effected  by  Jephthah  (chap.  x.  8- 
xii.  7),  together  with  an  enumeration  of  three  judges  who  succeeded 
Jephthah  (chap.  xii.  8-15)  ;  but  we  learn  nothing  further  about  the 
oppression  on  the  part  of  the  Philistines  which  is  mentioned  in  chap. 
x.  7.  When,  therefore,  it  is  still  further  related,  in  chap.  xiii.  1, 
that  the  Lord  delivered  the  Israelites  into  the  hand  of  the  Philis- 
tines forty  years,  this  cannot  possibly  refer  to  another  oppression  on 
the  part  of  the  Philistines  subsequent  to  the  one  noticed  in  chap, 
x.  7  ;  but  the  true  explanation  must  be,  that  the  historian  proceeds 
here  for  the  first  time  to  describe  the  oppression  noticed  in  chap. 
x.  7,  and  introduces  his  description  with  the  formula  he  generally 
adopted :  "  And  the  children  of  Israel  did  evil  again  in  the  sight  of 
the  Lord,"  etc.  The  oppression  itself,  therefore,  commenced  at  the 
same  time  as  that  of  the  Ammonites,  and  continued  side  by  side 
with  it ;  but  it  lasted  much  longer,  and  did  not  come  to  an  end  till 
a  short  time  before  the  death  of  Elon  the  judge.  This  is  confirmed 
beyond  all  doubt  by  the  fact,  that  although  the  Ammonites  crossed 
the  Jordan  to  fight  against  Judah,  Benjamin,  and  Ephraim,  it  was 
chiefly  the  tribes  of  Israel  who  dwelt  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan 
that  were  oppressed  by  them  (chap.  x.  8,  9),  and  that  it  was  only 
by  these  tribes  that  Jephthah  was  summoned  to  make  war  upon 
them,  and  was  elected  as  their  head  and  prince  (chap.  xi.  5-11), 
and  also  that  it  was  only  the  Ammonites  in  the  country  to  the  east 
of  the  Jordan  whom  he  subdued  then  before  the  Israelites  (chap.  xi. 
32,  33).  From  this  it  is  very  evident  that  Jephthah,  and  his  suc- 
cessors Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon,  were  not  judges  over  all  Israel, 
and  neither  fought  against  the  Philistines  nor  delivered  Israel  from 
the  oppression  of  those  enemies  who  invaded  the  land  from  the 


CHAP.  III.  7- XVI.  81.  281 

south-west ;  so  that  the  omission  of  the  expression,  "  the  land  had 
rest,"  etc.,  from  chap.  xi.  and  xii.,  is  very  significant.1 

But  if  the  Ammonitish  and  Philistine  oppressions  occurred  at 
the  same  time,  of  course  only  one  of  them  must  be  taken  into 
account  in  our  chronological  calculations  as  to  the  duration  of  the 
period  of  the  judges ;  and  the  one  selected  must  be  the  one  to  the 
close  of  which  the  chronological  data  of  the  next  period  are  imme- 
diately appended.  But  this  is  not  the  case  with  the  account  of  the 
Ammonitish  oppression,  of  the  deliverance  effected  by  Jephthah, 
and  of  the  judges  who  succeeded  him  (Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon), 
because  the  chronological  thread  of  this  series  of  events  is  broken 
off  with  the  death  of  Abdon,  and  is  never  resumed  again.  It  is  so, 
however,  with  the  Philistine  oppression,  which  is  said  to  have  lasted 
forty  years,  though  the  termination  of  it  is  not  given  in  the  book  of 
Judges.  Samson  merely  began  to  deliver  Israel  out  of  the  power 
of  the  Philistines  (chap.  xiii.  5),  but  did  not  accomplish  their  com- 
plete deliverance.     He  judged  Israel  for  twenty  years  in  the  days 

1  Even  Hitzig,  who  denies  that  the  oppression  of  the  Philistines  was  contem- 
poraneous with  that  of  the  Ammonites,  is  obliged  to  acknowledge  that  "it  is 
true,  the  author  first  of  all  disposed  very  properly  of  the  Ammonitish  war  before 
entering  into  the  details  of  the  war  with  the  Philistines,  with  which  it  had  no 
connection,  and  which  was  not  brought  to  a  close  so  soon."  When  therefore, 
notwithstanding  this,  he  adduces  as  evidence  that  they  were  not  contem- 
poraneous, the  fact  that  "  according  to  the  context,  and  to  all  analogy  (cf.  chap, 
iv.  1,  iii.  11,  12),  the  author  intends  to  write,  in  chap.  xiii.  1,  that  after  the 
death  of  Abdon,  when  there  was  no  judge  in  Israel,  the  nation  fell  back  into  its 
former  lawlessness,  and  as  a  punishment  was  given  up  to  the  Philistines,"  a  more 
careful  study  of  the  passages  cited  (chap.  iv.  1,  iii.  11,  12)  will  soon  show  that 
the  supposed  analogy  does  not  exist  at  all,  since  the  expression,  "the  land  had 
rest,"  etc.,  really  occurs  in  both  instances  (see  chap.  iii.  11  and  81),  whereas 
it  is  omitted  before  chap.  xiii.  1.  The  still  further  assertion,  however,  that  tin- 
account  of  the  Philistine  war  ought  to  have  followed  immediately  upon  that  of 
the  war  with  the  Ammonites,  if  the  intention  was  to  describe  this  with  equal 
fulness,  has  no  force  whatever.  If  neither  Jephthah  nor  the  three  judges  who 
followed  him  bad  anything  to  do  with  the  Philistines,  if  they  merely  judged  the 
tribes  that  were  oppressed  and  threatened  by  the  Ammonites,  it  was  natural 
that  everything  relating  to  them  should  be  attached  to  the  account  of  the  defeat 
of  the  Ammonites,  in  order  that  there  might  be  no  unnecessary  separation  of 
what  was  so  intimately  connected  together.  And  whilst  these  objections  are  t  bus 
proved  to  have  no  force,  the  objection  raised  to  the  contemporaneous  occurrence 
of  the  two  oppressions  is  wrecked  completely  upon  the  distinct  Btatemenl  in 
chap.  x.  7,  that  Jehovah  sold  the  Israelites  into  the  hands  of  the  Philistines  an  1 
Ammonites,  which  Hitzig  can  only  get  over  by  declaring,  without  the  slightest 
foundation,  that  the  words  "into  the  hands  of  the  Philistines"  are  spurious, 
simply  because  they  stand  in  the  way  of  his  own  assumption. 


282  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

of  the  Philistines,  i.e.  during  the  oppression  of  the  Philistines  (chap, 
xv.  20)  ;  consequently  the  twenty  years  of  his  labours  must  not  be 
tak  en  into  account  in  the  chronology  of  the  period  of  the  judges, 
in  asmuch  as  they  are  all  included  in  the  forty  years  of  the  Philis- 
lin  es'  rule.  At  the  death  of  Samson,  with  which  the  book  of  Judges 
closes,  the  power  of  the  Philistines  was  not  yet  broken;  and  in 
chap.  iv.  of  the  first  book  of  Samuel  we  find  the  Philistines  still 
fio-htinff  against  the  Israelites,  and  that  with  such  success  that  the 
Israelites  were  defeated  by  them,  and  even  lost  the  ark  of  the 
covenant.  This  war  must  certainly  be  a  continuation  of  the  Philis- 
tine oppression,  to  which  the  acts  of  Samson  belonged,  since  the 
termination  of  that  oppression  is  not  mentioned  in  the  book  of 
Judges ;  and  on  the  other  hand,  the  commencement  of  the  oppression 
referred  to  in  1  Sam.  iv.  9  sqq.  is  not  given  in  the  book  of  Samuel. 
Consequently  even  Hitzig  supports  the  view  which  I  have  expressed, 
that  the  forty  years'  supremacy  of  the  Philistines,  noticed  in  Judg. 
xiii  1,  is  carried  on  into  the  book  of  Samuel,  and  extends  to  1  Sam. 
vii.  3, 7,  and  that  it  was  through  Samuel  that  it  was  eventually  brought 
to  a  termination  (1  Sam.  vii.  10  sqq.).  But  if  this  is  established, 
then  the  forty  years  during  which  Eli  was  judge  cannot  have 
followed  the  Philistine  oppression  and  the  deeds  performed  by 
Samson,  and  therefore  must  not  be  reckoned  separately.  For  since 
Eli  died  in  consequence  of  the  account  of  the  capture  of  the  ark  by 
the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  iv.  18),  and  seven  months  (1  Sam.  vi.  1) 
an  d  twenty  years  elapsed  after  this  catastrophe  before  the  Philis- 
tines were  defeated  and  humiliated  by  Samuel  (1  Sam.  vii.  2),  only 
the  last  half  of  the  forty  years  of  Eli's  judicial  life  falls  within  the 
forty  years  of  the  Philistine  rule  over  Israel,  whilst  the  first  half 
coincides  with  the  time  of  the  judge  Jair.  Eli  himself  was  not  a 
judge  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word.  He  was  neither  commander 
of  the  army,  nor  secular  governor  of  the  nation,  but  simply  the 
high  priest ;  and  in  this  capacity  he  administered  the  civil  law  in  the 
supreme  court,  altogether  independently  of  the  question  whether 
there  was  a  secular  governor  at  the  time  or  not.  After  the  death 
of  Eli,  Israel  continued  for  more  than  twenty  years  utterly  prostrate 
un  der  the  yoke  of  the  Philistines.  It  was  during  this  period  that 
Samson  made  the  Philistines  feel  the  power  of  the  God  of  Israel, 
though  he  could  not  deliver  the  Israelites  entirely  from  their 
oppression.  Samuel  laboured  at  the  same  time,  as  the  prophet  of 
the  Lord,  to  promote  the  inward  and  spiritual  strength  of  Israel, 
and  that  with  such  success,  that  the  people  came  to  Mizpeh  at  his 


CHAP.  III.  7-XVI.  31.  283 

summons,  and  there  put  away  the  strange  gods  that  they  had  hitherto 
worshipped,  and  worshipped  the  Lord  alone ;  after  which  the  Lord 
hearkened  to  Samuel's  prayer,  and  gave  them  a  complete  victory 
over  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  vii.  2-11).  After  this  victory,  which 
was  gained  not  very  long  after  the  death  of  Samson,  Samuel  under- 
took the  supreme  government  of  Israel  as  judge,  and  eventually  at 
their  own  desire,  and  with  the  consent  of  God,  £ave  them  a  kin"-  in 
the  person  of  Saul  the  Benjaminite.  This  was  not  till  Samuel  himself 
was  old,  and  had  appointed  as  his  successors  in  the  office  of  judge 
his  own  sons,  who  did  not  walk  in  their  father's  ways  (1  Sam. 
viii.-x.).  Even  under  Saul,  however,  Samuel  continued  to  the  very 
end  of  his  life  to  labour  as  the  prophet  of  the  Lord  for  the  well- 
being  of  Israel,  although  he  laid  down  his  office  of  judge  as  soon  as 
Saul  had  been  elected  king.  He  announced  to  Saul  how  lie  had 
been  rejected  by  God  on  account  of  his  disobedience;  he  anointed 
David  as  king;  and  his  death  did  not  occur  till  after  Saul  had 
begun  to  be  troubled  by  the  evil  spirit,  and  to  plot  for  David's  life 
(1  Sam.  xxv.  1),  as  we  may  learn  from  the  fact  that  David  fled  to 
Samuel  at  Ramah  when  Saul  resolved  to  slay  him  (1  Sam.  xix.  18). 
How  long  Samuel  judged  Israel  between  the  victory  gained  at 
Ebenezer  (1  Sam.  vii.)  and  the  election  of  Saul  as  king  of  [srael,  is 
not  stated  in  the  Old  Testament,  nor  even  the  length  of  Saul's 
reign,  as  the  text  of  1  Sam.  xiii.  1  is  corrupt.  But  we  shall  not  be 
very  far  from  the  truth,  if  we  set  down  about  forty  years  as  tin- 
time  covered  by  the  official  life  of  Samuel  as  judge  after  that  event 
and  the  reign  of  Saul,  and  reckon  from  seventeen  to  nineteen  years 
as  the  duration  of  Samuel's  judgeship,  and  from  twenty  to  twenty- 
two  as  the  length  of  Saul's  reign.  For  it  is  evident  from  the 
accounts  that  we  possess  of  the  lives  and  labours  of  Samuel  and 
Saul,  that  Saul  did  not  reign  forty  years  (the  time  given  by  Paul 
in  Acts  xiii.  21,  according  to  the  traditional  opinion  current  in  the 
Jewish  schools),  but  at  the  most  from  twenty  to  twenty-two  ;  and 
this  is  now  pretty  generally  admitted  (see  at  1  Sam.  xiii.  1).  When 
David  was  chosen  king  of  Judah  at  Hebron  after  the  death  of 
Saul,  he  was  thirty  years  old  (2  Sam.  v.  1-4),  and  can  hardly  have 
been  anointed  king  by  Samuel  at  Bethlehem  before  the  age  of 
twenty.  For  though  his  father  Jesse  was  still  living,  and  he  him- 
self was  the  youngest  of  Jesse's  eight  sons,  and  was  feeding  the 
flock  (1  Sam.  xvi.  6-12),  and  even  after  this  is  still  described  as 
"IJH  (1  Sam.  xvii.  42,  55),  Jesse  was  JPT  (an  old  man)  at  the  time 
(1  Sam.  xvii.  12),  at  any  rate  sixty  years  old  or  more,  so  that  his 


284  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

eldest  son  might  be  forty  years  old,  and  David,  the  youngest,  as 
much  as  twenty.  For  1JÖ  was  not  only  applied  to  a  mere  boy,  but 
to  a  young  man  approaching  twenty ;  and  the  keeping  of  sheep  was 
not  merely  a  task  performed  by  shepherd  boys,  but  also  by  the 
grown-up  sons  of  a  family,  among  whom  we  must  certainly  reckon 
David,  since  he  had  already  contended  with  lions  and  bears  in  the 
steppe,  and  slain  these  beasts  of  prey  (1  Sam.  xvii.  34-36),  and 
shortly  afterwards  was  not  only  recommended  to  king  Saul  by  his 
courtiers,  as  "  a  mighty  valiant  man,  and  a  man  of  war,  and  wise  in 
speech,"  to  cheer  up  the  melancholy  king  by  his  playing  upon  the 
harp  (1  Sam.  xvi.  18),  but  also  undertook  to  fight  with  the  giant 
Goliath  (1  Sam.  xvii.),  and  was  placed  in  consequence  over  the 
men  of  war,  and  was  afterwards  made  captain  of  a  thousand,  and 
betrothed  to  his  daughter  Michal  (1  Sam.  xviii.  5,  13,  17  sqq.). 
But  if  David  was  anointed  by  Samuel  at  the  age  of  about  twenty 
years,  Saul  could  not  have  reigned  more  than  ten  years  after  that 
time,  as  David  was  made  king  at  the  age  of  thirty.  And  he  cannot 
have  reigned  much  longer  before  that  time.  For,  apart  from  the 
fact  that  everything  which  is  related  of  his  former  wars  and  deeds 
could  easily  have  occurred  within  the  space  of  ten  years,  the  circum- 
stance that  Samuel  lived  till  the  last  years  of  Saul's  reign,  and  died 
but  a  few  years  before  Saul's  death  (1  Sam.  xxv.  1),  precludes  the 
assumption  that  he  reigned  any  longer  than  that.  For  Samuel  was 
already  so  old  that  he  had  appointed  his  sons  as  judges,  whereupon 
the  people  desired  a  king,  and  assigned  as  the  reason,  that  Samuel's 
sons  did  not  walk  in  his  ways  (1  Sam.  viii.  1-4),  from  which  it  is 
very  evident  that  they  had  already  filled  the  office  of  judge  for 
some  considerable  time.  If  we  add  to  this  the  fact  that  Samuel 
was  called  to  be  a  prophet  before  the  death  of  Eli,  and  therefore 
was  no  doubt  twenty-five  or  thirty  years  old  when  Eli  died,  and 
that  twenty  years  and  seven  months  elapsed  between  the  death  of 
Eli  and  the  defeat  of  the  Philistines,  so  that  Samuel  may  have  been 
about  fifty  years  old  at  that  time,  and  that  he  judged  the  people 
from  this  time  forward  till  he  had  become  an  old  man,  and  then 
gave  the  nation  a  king  in  the  person  of  Saul,  we  cannot  assign 
more  than  forty  years  as  the  interval  between  the  defeat  of  the 
Philistines  and  the  death  of  Saul,  without  attributing  to  Samuel  an 
age  of  more  than  ninety  years,  and  therefore  we  cannot  reckon 
more  than  forty  or  thirty-nine  years  as  the  time  that  intervened 
between  the  installation  of  Samuel  in  his  office  as  judge  and  the 
commencement  of  the  reign  of  Saul. 


CHAP.  III.  7-XVI.  31.  285 

According  to  this,  the  chronology  of  the  times  of  the  judges 
may  be  arranged  as  follows  : — 

a.  From  the  oppression  of  Chushan-rishathaim  to  the  death  of  Jair 

the  judge  (vid.  p.  277), 

b.  Duration  of  the  Philistine  oppression, 

c.  Judgeship  of  Samuel  and  reign  of  Saul, 

d.  David's  reign  (7£  and  33  years), 

e.  Solomon's  reign  to  the  building  of  the  temple, 


301  years. 
40       „ 

39  „ 

40  „ 
3      „ 


423  years. 

a.  The  wandering  in  the  desert,      .  .  .  .  .40 

b.  The  time  between  the  entrance  into  Canaan  and  the  division  of 

the  land,         .......         7 

c.  From  the  division  of  Canaan  to  the  invasion  of  Chushan-risha- 

thaim,  .  .  .  .  .  .  .       10      ,, 


480  years. 

These  numbers  are  as  thoroughly  in  harmony  with  1  Kings  vi.  1, 
and  also  with  the  statement  made  bv  Jephthah  in  his  negotiations 
with  the  king  of  the  Ammonites,  that  Israel  dwelt  in  Heshbon  and 
the  cities  along  the  bank  of  the  Arnon  for  three  hundred  years 
(Judg.  xi.  26),  as  we  could  possibly  expect  so  general  a  statement 
in  round  numbers  to  be.  For  instance,  as  the  chronological  data 
of  the  book  of  Judges  give  301  years  as  the  interval  between 
the  invasion  of  Chushan-risliathaini  and  the  commencement  of 
the  Ammonitish  oppression,  and  as  only  about  ten  years  elapsed 
between  the  division  of  Canaan,  after  which  the  tribes  on  the  east 
of  the  Jordan  first  established  themselves  firmly  in  Gilead,  and  the 
invasion  of  Chushan,  the  Israelites  had  dwelt  310  years  in  the  land 
on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan  at  the  time  of  Jephthah's  negotia- 
tions with  the  Ammonites,  or  at  the  most  328,  admitting  that  these 
negotiations  may  possibly  not  have  taken  place  till  towards  the  end 
of  the  eighteen  years'  oppression  on  the  part  of  the  Ammonites,  so 
that  Jephthah  could  appeal  with  perfect  justice  to  the  fact  that 
they  had  been  in  possession  of  the  land  for  300  years. 

This  statement  of  Jephthah,  however,  furnishes  at  the  sun,' 
time  an  important  proof  that  the  several  chronological  data  con- 
tained in  our  book  are  to  be  regarded  as  historical,  and  also  that 
the  events  are  to  be  reckoned  as  occurring  successively;  so  that  we 
have  no  right  to  include  the  years  of  oppression  in  the  years  ot 
as  is  frequently  done,  or  to  shorten  the  whole  period  from  I  >thniel 
to  Jephthah  by  arbitrary  assumptions  of  synchronisms,  in  direct 
opposition  to  the  text.     This  testimony  removes  all  foundation  Prom 


286  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

the  hypothesis  that  the  number  forty  which  so  frequently  occurs  is 
a  so-called  round  number,  that  is  to  say,  is  nothing  more  than  a 
number  derived  from  a  general  estimate  of  the  different  periods 
according  to  generations,  or  cyclical  periods.  For  if  the  sum  total 
of  the  different  chronological  notices  tallies  on  the  whole  with  the 
actual  duration  of  the  period  in  question  as  confirmed  by  this  testi- 
mony, the  several  notices  must  be  regarded  as  historically  true,  and 
that  all  the  more  because  the  greater  part  of  these  data  consist  of 
such  numbers  as  6,  8,  18,  20,  22,  23,  which  can  neither  be  called 
round  nor  cyclical.  Moreover,  the  purely  cyclical  significance  of 
the  number  forty  among  the  Israelites  must  first  of  all  be  proved. 
Even  Ewald  (Gesch.  ii.  pp.  480,  481)  most  justly  observes,  that  "it 
is  very  easy  to  say  that  the  number  forty  was  a  round  number  in 
the  case  of  different  nations ;  but  this  round  number  must  first  of 
all  have  had  its  origin  in  life,  and  therefore  must  have  had  its 
limited  application."  If,  however,  we  look  more  closely  at  the 
different  occasions  on  which  the  space  of  forty  years  is  mentioned, 
between  the  exodus  from  Egypt  and  the  building  of  the  temple,  we 
shall  find  that  at  any  rate  the  first  and  last  passages  contain  very 
definite  notices  of  time,  and  cannot  possibly  be  regarded  as  contain- 
ing merely  round  or  cyclical  numbers.  In  the  case  of  the  forty 
years'  wandering  in  the  wilderness,  this  is  placed  beyond  the  reach 
of  doubt  by  the  fact  that  even  the  months  are  given  of  both  the 
second  and  fortieth  years  (Num.  x.  11,  xx.  1 ;  Deut.  i.  3),  and  the 
intervening  space  is  distinctly  stated  to  have  been  thirty-eight  years 
(Deut.  ii.  14).  And  the  forty  years  that  David  is  said  to  have 
reigned  also  give  the  precise  number,  since  he  reigned  seven  and 
a  half  years  at  Hebron,  and  thirty-three  at  Jerusalem  (2  Sam.  v. 
4,  5  ;  1  Kings  ii.  11).  Between  these  two  extreme  points  we 
certainly  meet  with  the  number  forty  five  times  :  viz.  forty  years 
of  rest  under  Othniel  (Judg.  iii.  11),  the  same  under  Barak  and 
Deborah  (chap.  v.  31),  and  the  same  again  under  Gideon  (chap, 
viii.  28)  ;  also  forty  years  of  oppression  by  the  Philistines  (chap, 
xiii.  1),  and  the  forty  years  that  Eli  was  judge  (1  Sam.  iv.  18)  ; 
and  in  addition  to  these,  we  find  eighty  years  of  rest  after  Ehud's 
victory  (Judg.  iii.  30).  But  there  are  also  twelve  or  thirteen 
passages  in  which  we  find  either  odd  numbers,  or  at  all  events 
numbers  that  cannot  be  called  cyclical  or  round  (viz.  Judg.  iii.  8, 
14,  iv.  3,  vi.  1,  ix.  22,  x.  2,  3,  iii.  7,  9,  11,  14,  xv.  20,  xvi.  31). 
What  is  there  then  to  justify  our  calling  the  number  forty  cyclical 
or  round  %    Is  it  the  impossibility  or  improbability  that  in  the  course 


CHAP.  III.  7-XVI.  31.  287 

of  253  years  Israel  should  have  had  rest  from  hostile  oppression  on 
three  occasions  for  forty  years,  and  on  one  for  eighty  ?  Is  there 
anything  impossible  in  this?  Certainly  not.  Is  there  even  an 
improbability  1  If  there  be,  surely  improbabilities  have  very  often 
been  perfectly  true.  And  in  the  case  before  us,  the  appearance 
itself  loses  all  significance,  when  we  consider  that  although  if  we 
take  entire  years  the  number  forty  is  repeated,  yet  it  cannot  be 
taken  so  literally  as  that  we  are  to  understand  that  entire  years  are 
intended  every  time.  If  David's  reign  is  reckoned  as  forty  years 
in  2  Sam.  v.  4,  although,  according  to  ver.  5,  he  reigned  seven  years 
and  six  months  in  Hebron  and  thirty-three  years  in  Jerusalem,  it 
may  also  be  the  case  that,  although  forty  years  is  the  number  given 
in  the  book  of  Judges,  the  period  referred  to  may  actually  have 
been  only  thirty-nine  years  and  a  half,  or  may  have  been  forty  and 
a  half.  To  this  must  be  added  the  fact  that  the  time  during  which 
the  war  with  the  enemy  lasted  is  also  included  in  the  years  of  rest ; 
and  this  must  always  have  occupied  several  months,  and  may  some- 
times have  lasted  even  more  than  a  year.  Now,  if  we  give  all  these 
circumstances  their  due  weight,  every  objection  that  can  be  raised 
as  to  the  correctness  and  historical  credibility  of  the  chronological 
data  of  the  book  of  Judges  vanishes  away,  whilst  all  the  attempts 
that  have  been  made  to  turn  these  data  into  round  or  cyclical 
numbers  are  so  arbitrary  as  to  need  no  special  refutation  whatever.1 

1  The  principal  representatives  of  this  hypothesis  are  Eiv aid  and  his  pupil 
Bertheau.     According  to  Ewald  (Gesch.  ii.  pp.  473  sqq.).  the  twelve  judges 
from  Othniel  to  Samson  form  the  historical  groundwork  of  the  book,  although 
there  are  distinct  traces  that  there  were  many  more  such  rulers,  because  it  was 
only  of  these  that  any  reminiscences  had  been  preserved.     When,  therefore, 
after  the  expiration  of  the  whole  of  this  period,  the  desire  arose  to  bring  out 
into  distinct  prominence  the  most  important  points  connected  with  it,  the  fu 
thing  that  was  done  was  to  group  together  these  twelve  judges,  with  such  brief 
remarks  as  we  find  in  the  case  of  five  of  them  (Tola,  Jair,  Ibzun,  Elon,   and 
Abdon)  in  chap.  x.  1-5  and  xii.  8-15.     In  their  case,  too,  the  precise  tin 
given,  so  far  as  it  could  be  still  remembered.     But,  independently  of  this,  the 
attempt  was  also  made  to  connect  the  order  of  the  many  alternations  of  war  and 
peace  during  these  Lsu  years  which  occurred,  according  to  1  Kings  vi.  1,  between 
the  exodus  from  Egypt  and  the  building  of  Solomon's  temple,  \<>  certain  grand 
and  easily  remembered  divisions;  and  for  this  the  number  forty  at 
sented  itself.    For  since,  according  to  the  oldest  traditions,  l.-r.e  :  spenl  forty 
years  in  the  wilderness,  and  since  David  also  reigned  forty  years,  it  might 
be  regarded  as  a  suitable  thing  to  divide  the  whole  into  twelve  equal  pan 
to  assign  to  each  forty  years  a  great  hero  and  some  striking  event  :  e.g.  (\) 
Moses  and  the  wilderness;  (2)  Joshua  and  the  prosperous  rule  of  the  > 
(3)  the  war  with  Chushan-rishathaim,  and  Othniel  ;    (4)   the   Moabites  and 


288  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

The  historical  character  of  the  chronological  data  of  the  book  of 
Judges  being  thus  established,  we  obtain  a  continuous  chronology 
for  the  history  of  the  Israelitish  nation,  as  we  may  see  from  the 
following  survey,  to  which  we  append  a  calculation  of  the  years 
before  Christ : — 

Ebud ;  (5)  the  Aramaeans  and  Jair ;  (6)  the  Canaanites  under  Jabin,  and 
Deborah ;  (7)  the  Midianites  and  Gideon  ;  (8)  Tola,  with  whose  opponents  we 
are  not  acquainted ;  (9)  the  Ammonites  and  Philistines,  or  Jephthah  and 
Samson  ;  (10)  the  Philistines  and  Eli ;  (11)  Samuel  and  Saul ;  (12)  David. 
"  Finally,  then,  these  twelve  judges  from  Othniel  to  Samson  were  necessarily- 
connected  with  this  different  mode  of  reckoning,  so  that  the  several  numbers, 
as  well  as  the  order  in  which  the  judges  occur,  which  show  so  evidently  (?)  that 
the  last  editor  but  one  compiled  the  section  extending  from  chap.  iii.  to  xvi.  out 
of  a  great  variety  of  sources,  must  have  been  the  resultant  of  many  changes." 
But  Ewald  looks  in  vain  for  any  reason  for  this  "  must."  And  the  question 
starts  up  at  once,  how  could  the  idea  ever  have  entered  any  one's  mind  of 
dividing  these  480  years,  from  the  exodus  to  the  building  of  the  temple,  among 
the  twelve  judges  in  this  particular  manner  ;  that  to  all  the  judges,  concerning 
whom  it  was  not  known  how  long  their  period  of  labour  lasted,  forty  years  each 
were  assigned,  when  it  was  known  that  Israel  had  wandered  forty  years  in  the 
wilderness,  that  Joshua  had  governed  forty  years  with  the  elders,  and  Samuel 
and  Saul  together  had  ruled  for  the  same  time,  and  David  also,  so  that  there 
only  remained  for  the  judges  from  Othniel  to  Samson  480 — 4  X  40,  i.e.  only  320 
years,  or,  deducting  the  first  three  or  four  years  of  Solomon's  reign,  only  317 
or  316  years?  These  years,  if  divided  among  twelve  judges,  would  give  only 
twenty-six  or  twenty-seven  years  for  each.  Or  how  did  they  come  to  allot 
eighty  years  to  Ehud,  and  only  twenty-two  to  Jair  and  twenty-three  to  Tola, 
if  the  two  latter  had  also  conquered  the  hostile  oppressors  of  Israel?  And 
lastly,  why  was  Shamgar  left  without  any,  when  he  delivered  Israel  from  the 
Philistines  ?  To  these  and  many  other  questions  the  author  of  this  hypothesis 
is  unable  to  give  any  answer  at  all ;  and  the  arbitrary  nature  of  his  mode  of 
manufacturing  history  is  so  obvious,  that  it  is  unnecessary  to  waste  words  in 
proving  it.  It  is  no  better  with  Bertheau's  hypothesis  (Judg.  pp.  xvi.  sqq.). 
According  to  this  hypothesis,  out  of  the  twelve  generations  from  Moses  to  David 
which  he  derives  from  1  Chron.  vi.  35  sqq.,  only  six  (or  240  years)  belong  to 
the  judges  from  Othniel  to  Samson.  These  have  been  variously  reckoned.  One 
calculation  takes  them  as  six  generations  of  forty  years  each  ;  another  reckons 
them  more  minutely,  adopting  smaller  numbers  which  were  assigned  to  the 
twelve  judges  and  the  son  of  Gideon.  But  six  generations  and  twelve  judges 
could  not  be  combined  in  any  other  way  than  by  assigning  twenty  years  to  each 
judge.  Now  there  was  not  a  single  judge  who  judged  Israel  for  twenty  years, 
with  the  exception  of  Samson.  And  the  total  number  of  the  years  that  they 
judged  is  not  240,  but  296  years  (40  +  80  +  40  +  40  +  23  +  22  +  6  +  7  +  10 
+  8  +  20  +  a;).  Consequently  we  do  not  find  any  trace  throughout  the  book, 
that  the  period  of  the  judges  was  reckoned  as  consisting  of  six  generations  of 
forty  years  each.  (Compare  with  this  a  more  elaborate  refutation  by  Bachtnann, 
pp.  3  sqq.). 


CHAP.  III.  7-XVI.  31. 


289 


Chronological  Survey  of  the  Principal  Events  from  the  Exodus 
to  the  Building  of  Solomon's  Temple. 


The  Principal  Events. 

Dura- 
tion. 

Years  befere  the 
Birth  of  Christ 

Exodus  of  Israel  from  Egypt, 

.... 

— 

1492 

The  law  given  at  Sinai, 

. 

— 

1492—1491 

Death  of  Aaron  and  Moses  in 

the  fortieth  year  of  the 

wandering  in  the  desert,     . 

40 

1453 

Conquest  of  Canaan  by  Joshua,     .... 

7 

1452—1445 

From  the  division  of  the  land  to  the  invasion   of 

Chushan-rishathaim, 

10 

1445—1435 

Death  of  Joshua,  . 

. 

— 

c.  1442 

Wars  of  the  tribes  of  Israel  wi 

th  the  Canaanites,    . 

— 

1442  onwards 

War  of  the  congregation  with  Benjamin, 

— 

c.  1436 

Oppression  by  Chushan-rishathaim, 

8 

1435—1427 

Deliverance  by  Othniel,  and  rest,  .... 

40 

1427—1387 

Oppression  by  the  Moabites, 

. 

18 

1387—1369 

Deliverance  by  Ehud,  and  rest,      .... 

80 

1369—1289 

Victory  of  Shamgar  over  the  Philistines, 

— 

Oppression  by  Jabin,     . 

. 

20 

1289—1269 

Deliverance  by  Deborah  and  Barak,  and  rest, 

40 

1269—1229 

Oppression  by  the  Midianites, 

. 

7 

1229—1222 

Deliverance  by  Gideon,  and  rest,    .... 

.       40 

1222—1182 

Rule  of  Abimelech, 

3 

1182—1179 

Tola,  judge, 

23 

1179—1156 

Jair,  judge,  .... 

.       22 

1156—1134 

Eli,  high  priest  and  judge  forty  years,    . 

1154—1114 

After  repeated  apostasy,  oppression 

(a)  In  the  East. 

(h)  In  the  West. 

By  the  Ammonites  18  years, 

By  the  Philistines,  . 

40 

1134—1094 

from  1134  to  1116  B.c. 

Loss  of  the  ark, 

— 

c.  1114 

Jephthah  judge  6  years, 

Samson's  deeds, 

— 

1116—1096 

from  1116  to  1110  B.C. 

Samuel's  prophetic  laboui 

fS,      — 

1114  onwards 

Ibzan  judge  7  years, 

Defeat  of  the  Philistines, 

— 

1094 

from  1110  to  1103  B.C. 

Samuel,  judge, 

.        19 

1094—1075 

Elon  judge  10  years, 

Saul,  king, 

.       20 

1075—1055 

from  1103  to  1093  B.c. 

David  king  at  Hebron, 

7 

1055—1048 

Abdon  judge  8  years, 

,,        ,,     at  Jerusalem 

33 

1048—1015 

from  1093  to  1085  B.c. 

Solomon's    reign    to    th 

e 

building  of  the  temple 

,         3 

1015—1012 

Total,       1480  :  yean. 


290  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES 

All  that  is  required  to  establish  our  calculation  as  to  the  period 
of  the  judges,  is  to  justify  our  estimate  of  ten  years  as  the  time 
that  intervened  between  the  division  of  the  land  and  the  invasion 
by  Chushan-rishathaim,  since  the  general  opinion,  founded  upon 
the  statement  of  Josephus  (Ant.  v.  1,  29),  that  Joshua  was  arpa- 
Tiffos  of  the  nation  for  twenty-five  years  after  the  death  of  Moses, 
and  (vi.  5,  4)  that  his  death  was  followed  by  a  state  of  anarchy 
for  eighteen  years,  is  that  it  was  at  least  thirty-five  years.  But 
Josephus  at  all  events  ought  not  to  be  appealed  to,  as  he  had  no 
other  sources  of  information  with  regard  to  the  earlier  portion  of 
the  Israelitish  history  than  the  Old  Testament  itself ;  and  he  so 
frequently  contradicts  himself  in  his  chronological  statements,  that 
no  reliance  can  be  placed  upon  them  even  in  cases  where  their  in- 
correctness cannot  be  clearly  proved.  And  if  we  consider,  on  the 
other  hand,  that  Joshua  was  an  old  man  when  the  two  great  cam- 
paigns in  the  south  and  north  of  Canaan  were  over,  and  in  fact  was 
so  advanced  in  years,  that  God  commanded  him  to  divide  the  land, 
although  many  districts  were  still  unconquered  (Josh.  xiii.  1  sqq.), 
in  order  that  he  might  finish  this  part  of  his  calling  before  his  death, 
there  is  very  little  probability  that  he  lived  for  twenty-five  years 
after  that  time.  The  same  words  are  used  to  describe  the  last  days 
of  his  life  in  chap,  xxiii.  1,  that  had  previously  been  employed  to 
describe  his  great  age  (chap.  xiii.  1  sqq.).  No  doubt  the  statement 
in  chap,  rxiii.  1,  to  the  effect  that  "  many  days  after  that  the  Lord 
had  given  reit  unto  Israel  from  all  their  foes,"  Joshua  called  together 
the  representatives  of  the  nation,  to  renew  the  covenant  of  the 
nation  with  the  Lord  before  his  death,  when  taken  in  connection 
with  the  statement  in  chap.  xix.  50,  that  he  built  the  city  of  Timnath- 
serah,  which  the  tribes  had  given  him  for  an  inheritance  after  the 
distribution  of  the  land  by  lot  was  over,  and  dwelt  therein,  proves 
very  clearly  that  there  were  certainly  "  many  days"  {Eng.  Ver.  "  a 
long  time")  between  the  division  of  the  land  and  the  death  of 
Joshua.  But  this  is  so  comparative  a  term,  that  it  hardly  embraces 
more  than  two  or  three  years.  And  Joshua  might  build,  i.e.  fortify 
Timnath-serah,  and  dwell  therein,  even  if  he  only  lived  for  two 
or  three  years  after  the  division  of  the  land.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  appears  to  have  been  a  longer  interval  than  the  seven  or  eight 
years  allowed  in  our  reckoning  between  the  death  of  Joshua  and 
the  invasion  of  Chushan ;  since  it  not  only  includes  the  defeat  of 
Adoni-bezek,  the  capture  of  Jerusalem,  Hebron,  and  other  towns, 
by  the  tribes  of  Judah  and  Simeon  (chap.  i.  1-14),  and  the  con- 


CHAP.  III.  7-XVI.  3L  291 

quest  of  Bethel  by  the  tribe  of  Joseph  (chap.  i.  22  sqq.),  but  also 
the  war  of  the  congregation  with  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (chap, 
xix.-xxi.).  But  it  is  only  in  appearance  that  the  interval  allowed  is 
too  short.  All  these  events  together  would  not  require  many  years, 
but  might  very  well  have  occurred  within  the  space  of  about  five 
years.  And  it  is  quite  possible  that  the  civil  war  of  the  Israelites 
might  have  been  regarded  by  king  Chushan-rishathaim  as  a  favour- 
able opportunity  for  carrying  out  his  design  of  making  Israel  tribu- 
tary to  himself,  and  that  he  took  advantage  of  it  accordingly.  The 
very  fact  that  Othniel  delivered  Israel  from  this  oppression,  after 
it  had  continued  for  eight  years,  precludes  us  from  postponing  the 
invasion  itself  to  a  longer  period  after  the  death  of  Joshua.  For 
Othniel  was  not  Caleb's  nephew,  as  many  suppose,  but  his  younger 
brother  (see  at  Josh.  xv.  17).  Now  Caleb  was  eighty-five  years 
old  when  the  distribution  of  the  land  commenced  (Josh.  xiv.  10)  ; 
so  that  even  if  his  brother  Othniel  was  thirty,  or  even  forty  years 
younger,  he  would  still  be  fifty-five,  or  at  any  rate  forty-five  years 
old,  when  the  division  of  the  land  commenced.  If  the  statements 
of  Josephus  were  correct,  therefore,  Othniel  would  have  been 
ninety-one  years  old,  or  at  any  rate  eighty-one,  when  he  defeated 
the  Aramaean  king  Chushan-rishathaim ;  whereas,  according  to 
our  calculation,  he  would  only  have  been  fifty  or  sixty  years  old 
when  Debir  was  taken,  and  sixty-three  or  seventy-three  when 
Chushan  was  defeated.  Now,  even  if  we  take  the  lower  number  as 
the  correct  one,  this  would  be  a  sufficiently  great  age  for  such  a 
warlike  undertakino;,  especially  when  we  consider  that  Othniel  lived 
for  some  time  afterwards,  as  is  evident  from  the  words  of  chap, 
iii.  11,  "  And  the  land  had  rest  forty  years :  and  Othniel  the  son  of 
Kenaz  died,"  though  they  may  not  distinctly  affirm  that  he  did  not 
die  till  the  termination  of  the  forty  years'  rest. 

The  fact  that  Caleb's  younger  brother  Othniel  was  the  first 
judge  of  Israel,  also  upsets  the  hypothesis  which  Bertheau  has 
founded  upon  a  mistaken  interpretation  of  chap.  ii.  11-iii.  6,  that  a 
whole  generation  of  forty  years  is  to  be  reckoned  between  the  death 
of  Joshua  and  the  invasion  of  Chushan,  and  also  the  misinterpreta- 
tion of  chap.  ii.  7,  10  (cf.  Josh.  xxiv.  31),  according  to  which  the 
sinful  generation  did  not  grow  up  until  after  Joshua  and  all  the 
elders  who  lived  a  long  time  after  him  were  dead, — an  interpretation 
which  has  no  support  in  chap.  ii.  7,  since  ^.ns  D'W  '^''ixn  does  not 
mean  "  to  live  long  after  a  person,"  but  simply  "  to  survive  him." 
The  "  other  generation  which  knew  not  the  Lord,"  etc.,  that  arose 


292  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

after  the  death  of  Joshua  and  the  elders  who  outlived  him,  was  not 
a  different  generation  from  the  succeeding  generations,  which  were 
given  up  to  the  power  of  their  foes  on  account  of  their  apostasy 
from  the  Lord,  but  the  younger  generation  generally,  which  took 
the  place  of  the  older  men  who  had  seen  the  works  of  the  Lord 
under  Joshua ;  in  other  words,  this  is  only  a  comprehensive  ex- 
pression for  all  the  succeeding  generations  who  forgot  Jehovah 
their  God  and  served  Baalim.  So  much  may  be  said  in  vindication 
of  our  calculations  as  to  the  period  of  the  judges. 

I.  TIMES  OF  THE  JUDGES  :  OTHNIEL  ;  EHUD  AND  SHAMGAR  , 
DEBORAH  AND  BARAK. — CHAP.  III.  7-V. 

In  this  first  stage  of  the  times  of  the  judges,  which  embraces  a 
period  of  206  years,  the  Israelites  were  oppressed  by  hostile  nations 
on  three  separate  occasions  :  first  of  all  by  the  Mesopotamian  king 
Chushan-rishathaim,  whom  they  were  obliged  to  serve  for  eighteen 
years,  until  Othniel  brought  them  deliverance,  and  secured  them 
rest  for  forty  years  (chap.  iii.  7-11)  ;  secondly  by  the  Moabitish 
king  Eglon  for  eighteen  years,  until  Ehud  slew  this  king  and  smote 
the  Moabites,  and  so  humiliated  them,  that  the  land  had  rest  for 
eighty  years  (chap.  iii.  12-30),  whilst  Shamgar  also  smote  a  host  of 
Philistines  during  the  same  period  (chap.  iii.  31) ;  and  lastly  by  the 
Canaanitish  king  Jabin  of  Hazor,  who  oppressed  them  heavily  for 
twenty  years,  until  Barak  gathered  an  army  together  at  the  sum- 
mons of  Deborah  the  prophetess  and  with  her  assistance,  and  com- 
pletely defeated  the  foe  (chap.  iv.).  After  this  victory,  which 
Deborah  celebrated  in  a  triumphal  song,  the  land  had  rest  again 
for  forty  years  (chap.  v.). 

Oppression  of  Israel  by  Chushan-rishathaim,  and  Deliverance  by 
Othniel. — Chap.  iii.  7-11. 

Vers.  7,  8.  The  first  chastisement  which  the  Israelites  suffered 
for  their  apostasy  from  the  Lord,  is  introduced  with  the  same 
formula  which  had  been  used  before  to  describe  the  times  of  the 
judges  generally  (chap.  ii.  11, 12),  except  that  instead  of  '""nx  12TJM 
("  they  forsook  the  Lord")  we  have  here  'M"fl&?  ^?^?5  ("  they  forgot 
the  Lord  their  God")  from  Deut.  xxxii.  18  (cf.  1  Sam.  xii.  9),  and 
Asheroth  (rendered  "groves")  instead  of  Ashtaroth  (see  at  chap.  ii. 
13).  As  a  punishment  for  this  apostasy,  the  Lord  sold  them  (chap, 
ii.  14)  into  the  hand  of   Chushan-rishathaim,  the  king  of  Meso- 


CHAP.  III.  9-11.  293 

potamia,  whom  they  were  obliged  to  serve  for  eight  years.  All 
that  we  know  about  this  king  of  Mesopotamia  is  what  is  recorded 
here.  His  name,  Chushan-risliathaim,  is  probably  only  a  title  which 
was  given  to  him  by  the  Israelites  themselves.  Itishathaim  signifies 
"  double  wickedness"  and  the  word  was  rendered  as  an  appellative 
with  this  signification  in  the  Targums  and  the  Syriac  and  Arabic 
versions.  Cliushan  is  also  formed  as  an  adjective  from  Cush,  and 
may  denote  the  Cushites.  According  to  M.  v.  Niebuhr  (Gesch. 
Assurs  u.  Babels,  p.  272),  the  rulers  of  Babylon  at  that  time 
(1518-1273)  were  Arabs.  "  Arabs,  however,  may  have  included 
not  only  Shemites  of  the  tribe  of  Joktan  or  Ishmael,  but  Cushites 
also."  The  invasion  of  Canaan  by  this  Mesopotamian  or  Baby 
Ionian  king  has  a  historical  analogy  in  the  campaign  of  the  five 
allied  kings  of  Shinar  in  the  time  of  Abraham  (Gen.  xiv.). 

Vers.  9-11.  In  this  oppression  the  Israelites  cried  to  the  Lord 
for  help,  and  He  raised  them  up  JPB'iö,  a  deliverer,  helper,  namely 
the  Kenizzite  Othniel,  the  younger  brother  and  son-in-law  of  Caleb 
(see  at  Josh.  xv.  17).  "  The  Spirit  of  Jehovah  came  upon  him" 
The  Spirit  of  God  is  the  spiritual  principle  of  life  in  the  world  of 
nature  and  man  ;  and  in  man  it  is  the  principle  both  of  the  natural 
life  which  we  receive  through  birth,  and  also  of  the  spiritual  life 
which  we  receive  through  regeneration  (vid.  Auberlen,  Geist  des 
Menschen,  in  Herzog's  Cycl.  iv.  p.  731).  In  this  sense  the  ex- 
pressions "  Spirit  of  God"  (Elohim)  and  u  Spirit  of  the  Lord" 
(Jehovah)  are  interchanged  even  in  Gen.  i.  2,  compared  with  Gen. 
vi.  3,  and  so  throughout  all  the  books  of  the  Old  Testament ;  the 
former  denoting  the  Divine  Spirit  generally  in  its  supernatural 
causality  and  power,  the  latter  the  same  Spirit  in  its  operations 
upon  human  life  and  history  in  the  working  out  of  the  plan  of 
salvation.  In  its  peculiar  operations  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  mani- 
fests itself  as  a  spirit  of  wisdom  and  understanding,  of  counsel  and 
might,  of  knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of  the  Lord  (Isa.  xi.  2).  The 
communication  of  this  Spirit  under  the  Old  Testament  was  gene- 
rally made  in  the  form  of  extraordinary  and  supernatural  Influence 
upon  the  human  spirit.  The  expression  employed  to  denote  this  is 
usually  '"  TVtl  Y?V  *1W]  ("  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  came  upon  him  :" 
thus  here,  chap.  xi.  29;  1  Sam.  xix.  20,  23;  2  Chron.  xx.  11 ;  Num. 
xxiv.  2).  This  is  varied,  however,  with  the  expressions  (n?f -f)  n?>T} 
«  rm  xty  (chap.  xiv.  6,  19,  xv.  14  ;  1  Sam.  x.  10,  xi.  6,  xvi.  13) 
and  'smx  n&lb  '"  rm,  «  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  clothed  the  man" 
(chap.  vi'.  34  ;1  Chron.  xii.  18  ;  2  Chron.  xxiv.  20).     Of  these  the 


294  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

former  denotes  the  operations  of  the  Divine  Spirit  in  overcoming 
the  resistance  of  the  natural  will  of  man,  whilst  the  latter  repre- 
sents the  Spirit  of  God  as  a  power  which  envelopes  or  covers  a 
man.  The  recipients  and  bearers  of  this  Spirit  were  thereby 
endowed  with  the  power  to  perform  miraculous  deeds,  in  which  the 
Spirit  of  God  that  came  upon  them  manifested  itself  generally  in 
the  ability  to  prophesy  (vid.  1  Sam.  x.  10,  xix.  20,  23  ;  1  Chron 
xii.  18  ;  2  Chron.  xx.  14,  xxiv.  20),  but  also  in  the  power  to  work 
miracles  or  to  accomplish  deeds  which  surpassed  the  courage  and 
strength  of  the  natural  man.  The  latter  was  more  especially  the 
case  with  the  judges ;  hence  the  Chaldee  paraphrases  "  the  Spirit 
of  Jehovah"  in  chap.  vi.  34  as  the  "  spirit  of  might  from  the 
Lord ;"  though  in  the  passage  before  us  it  gives  the  erroneous 
interpretation  n&MJ  nn,  "  the  spirit  of  prophecy."  Kimchi  also 
understands  it  as  signifying  "  the  spirit  of  bravery,  under  the 
instigation  of  which  he  was  able  fearlessly  to  enter  upon  the  war 
with  Chushan."  But  we  are  hardly  at  liberty  to  split  up  the  dif- 
ferent powers  of  the  Spirit  of  God  in  this  manner,  and  to  restrict 
its  operations  upon  the  judges  to  the  spirit  of  strength  and  bravery 
alone.  The  judges  not  only  attacked  the  enemy  courageously  and 
with  success,  but  they  also  judged  the  nation,  for  which  the  spirit 
of  wisdom  and  understanding  was  indispensably  necessary,  and  put 
down  idolatry  (chap.  ii.  18,  19),  which  they  could  not  have  done 
without  the  spirit  of  knowledge  and  of  the  fear  of  the  Lord.  "  And 
he  judged  Israel  and  went  out  to  war."  The  position  of  t3btJ>*1  before 
n?0P??  K-W  does  not  warrant  us  in  explaining  DSD'*!  as  signifying 
"  he  began  to  discharge  the  functions  of  a  judge,"  as  Rosenmüller 
has  done  :  for  BBK>  must  not  be  limited  to  a  settlement  of  the  civil 
disputes  of  the  people,  but  means  to  restore  right  in  Israel,  whether 
towards  its  heathen  oppressors,  or  with  regard  to  the  attitude  of  the 
nation  towards  the  Lord.  "  And  the  Lord  gave  Chushan-rishathaim 
into  his  hand  (cf.  chap.  i.  2,  iii.  28,  etc.),  and  his  hand  became  strong 
over  him ;"  i.e.  he  overcame  him  (cf.  chap.  vi.  2),  or  smote  him,  so 
that  he  was  obliged  to  vacate  the  land.  In  consequence  of  this 
victory,  the  land  had  rest  from  war  (cf.  Josh.  xi.  23)  forty  years. 
"  And  then  Othniel  died :"  the  expression  1W1  with  i  consee.  does 
not  necessarily  imply  that  Othniel  did  not  die  for  forty  years,  but 
simply  that  he  died  after  rest  had  been  restored  to  the  laud. 


CHAP.  III.  12-30.  295 

Oppression  of  Israel  by  Eglon,  and  Deliverance  by  Ehud; 
Shamgars  heroic  Deeds. — Chap.  iii.  12—31. 

In  vers.  12-30  the  subjugation  of  the  Israelites  by  Eglon,  the 
king  of  the  Moabites,  and  their  deliverance  from  this  bondage,  are 
circumstantially  described.     First  of  all,  in  vers.  12-14,  the  sub- 
jugation.     When   the  Israelites  forsook  the  Lord   again  (in  the 
place  of  'U1  jnrrnx  .  .  ,  vLMjn,  ver.  7,  we  have  here  the  appropriate 
expression  jnn  rrib'j;?  .  .  .  130*1,  they  added  to  do,  i.e.  did  again,  evil, 
etc.,  as  in  chap.  iv.  1,  x.  6,  xiii.  1),  the  Lord  made  Eglon  the 
king  of  the  Moabites  strong  over  Israel.     ?1?  P]T},  to  give  a  person 
strength  to  overcome  or  oppress  another.     *3   by,  as  in  Deut.  xxxi. 
17,  instead  of  the  more  usual  "WN  by  (cf.  Jcr.  iv.  28 ;  Mai.  ii.  14  ; 
Ps.  exxxix.  14).     Eglon   allied   himself  with  the  Ammonites  and 
Amalekites,  those  arch-foes  of  Israel,  invaded  the  land,  took  the 
palm-city,  i.e.  Jericho  (see  at  chap.  i.  IG),  and  made  the  Israelites 
tributary  for  eighteen  years.     Sixty  years  had  passed  since  Jerichc 
had  been  burnt  by  Joshua.     During  that  time  the  Israelites  had 
rebuilt  the  ruined  city,  but  they  had  not  fortified  it,  on  account  of 
the  curse  pronounced  by  Joshua  upon  any  one  who  should  restore 
it  as  a  fortress  ;  so  that  the  Moabites  could  easily  conquer  it,  and 
using  it  as  a  base,  reduce  the  Israelites  to  servitude. — Ver.  15.  But 
when  the  Israelites  cried  to  the  Lord  for  help,  He  set  them  free 
through    the    Benjaminite    Ehud,    whom    lie  raised    up    as    their 
deliverer.     Ehud  was  "  the  son  of  Gera."     This  probably  means 
that  he  was  a  descendant  of  Gera,  since  Gera  himself,  according  to 
1  Chron.  viii.  3,  was  a  son  of  Bela  the  son  of  Benjamin,  and  there- 
fore was  a  grandson  of  Benjamin  ;  and  Shimei  the  contemporary 
of  David,  a  man  belonging  to  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  is  also  called 
a  son  of  Gera  in  2  Sam.  xvi.  5,  xix.  17.     At  the  same  time,  it  is 
possible  that  the  name  Gera  does  not  refer  to  the  same  person  in 
these  different  passages,  but  that  the  name  was  repeated  again  and 
again  in  the  same  family.     "  A  man  shut  icith  regard  to  his  right 
//and"  i.e.  hindered  in  the  use  of  Lis  right  hand,  not  necessarily 
crippled,  but  in  all  probability  disabled  through  want  of  use  from 
his  youth  upwards.    That  the  expression  does  not  moan  crippled,  is 
confirmed  by  the  fact  that  it  is  used  again  in  connection  with  the 
700  brave  slingers  in  the  army  of  the  Benjaminites  in  chap.  xx.  16, 
and    it  certainly   cannot   be  supposed   that   they   wore   all   actual 
cripples.      So  much  is  certain,   however,   that  it  does  not  mean 
dfKborepoSi^iO'i,   qui  utraque  manu  pro  dextera   utebatur  (LXX., 


296  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Vulg.),  since  "IBK  signifies  damit  (shut)  in  Ps.  lxix.  16.  It  is 
merely  with  reference  to  what  follows  that  this  peculiarity  is  so 
distinctly  mentioned. — The  Israelites  sent  a  present  by  him  to  king 
Eglon.  i*V3  does  not  mean  in,  but  through,  his  hand,  i.e.  through 
his  intervention,  for  others  were  actually  employed  to  carry  the 
present  (ver.  18),  so  that  Ehud  merely  superintended  the  matter. 
Minchah,  a  gift  or  present,  is  no  doubt  a  euphemism  for  tribute, 
as  in  2  Sam.  viii.  2,  6,  1  Kings  v.  1. — Ver.  16.  Ehud  availed  him- 
self of  the  opportunity  to  approach  the  king  of  the  Moabites  and 
put  him  to  death,  and  thus  to  shake  off  the  yoke  of  the  Moabites 
from  his  nation.  To  this  end  he  provided  himself  with  a  sword, 
which  had  two  edges  (WS  from  na,  like  VK>,  Deut.  xxii.  1,  from 
nb),  a  cubit  long  (""?3,  air.  Xey.,  signified  primarily  a  staff,  here  a 
cubit,  according  to  the  Syriac  and  Arabic ;  not  u  a  span,"  o-iriöa/xi], 
LXX.),  and  "  did  gird  it  under  his  raiment  upon  his  right  thigh." 
— Ver.  17.  Provided  with  this  weapon,  he  brought  the  present  to 
king  Eglon,  who — as  is  also  mentioned  as  a  preparation  for  what 
follows — was  a  very  fat  man. — Vers.  18,  19.  After  presenting  the 
gift,  Ehud  dismissed  the  people  who  had  carried  the  present  to  their 
own  homes;  namely,  as  we  learn  from  ver.  19,  after  they  had  gone 
some  distance  from  Jericho.  But  he  himself  returned  from  the 
stone-quarries  at  Gilgal,  sc.  to  Jericho  to  king  Eglon.  Ev'DSri  }E 
refers  to  some  place  by  Gilgal.  In  Deut.  vii.  25,  Isa.  xxi.  9,  Jer. 
viii.  19,  pesilim  signifies  idols.  And  if  we  would  retain  this  mean- 
ing here,  as  the  LXX.,  Vulg.,  and  others  have  done,  we  must 
assume  that  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Gilgal  there  were  stone  idols 
set  up  in  the  open  air, — a  thing  which  is  very  improbable.  The 
rendering  "  stone  quarries,"  from  ?D3,  to  hew  out  stones  (Ex.  xxxiv. 
1,  etc.),  which  is  the  one  adopted  in  the  Chaldee,  and  by  Rashi  and 
others,  is  more  likely  to  be  the  correct  one.  Gilgal  cannot  be  the 
Gilgal  between  Jericho  and  the  Jordan,  which  was  the  first  en- 
campment of  the  Israelites  in  Canaan,  as  is  commonly  supposed, 
since  Ehud  passed  the  Pesilim  on  his  flight  from  the  king's 
dwelling-place  to  the  mountains  of  Ephraim  (vers.  26,  27);  and  we 
can  neither  assume,  as  Bertheau  does,  that  Eglon  did  not  reside  in 
the  conquered  palm-city  (Jericho),  but  in  some  uncultivated  place 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Jordan,  nor  suppose  that  after  the 
murder  of  Eglon  Ehud  could  possibly  have  gone  from  Jericho  to 
the  Gilgal  which  was  half  an  hour's  journey  towards  the  east,  for 
the  purpose  of  escaping  by  a  circuitous  route  of  this  kind  to  Seirah 
in  the  mountains  of  Ephraim,  which  was  on  the  north-west  of 


CHAP.  ill.  12-30.  297 

Jericho.  Gilgal  is  more  likely  to  be  Geliloth,  which  was  on  the 
west  of  Jericho  opposite  to  the  ascent  of  Adummim  (Kaalat  ed 
Dom),  on  the  border  of  Judah  and  Benjamin  (Josh,  xviii.  17),  and 
which  was  also  called  Gilgal  (Josh.  xv.  7).  Having  returned  to 
the  king's  palace,  Ehud  sent  in  a  message  to  him :  "  /  have  a  secret 
word  to  thee,  0  king.1"  The  context  requires  that  we  should 
understand  "  he  said"  in  the  sense  of  "  he  had  him  told"  (or  bade 
say  to  him),  since  Ehud  himself  did  not  go  in  to  the  king,  who  was 
sitting  in  his  room,  till  afterwards  (ver.  20).  In  consequence 
of  this  message  the  king  said  :  Dn,  lit.  be  silent  (the  imperative  of 
no?)  ;  here  it  is  a  proclamation,  Let  there  be  quiet.  Thereupon  all 
who  were  standing  round  (viz.  his  attendants)  left  the  room,  and 
Ehud  went  in  (ver.  20).  The  king  was  sitting  "  in  his  upper  room 
of  cooling  alone."  The  "room  of  cooling"  (Luther,  Sommerlaube, 
summer-arbour)  was  a  room  placed  upon  the  flat  roof  of  a  house, 
which  was  open  to  the  currents  of  air,  and  so  afforded  a  cool 
retreat,  such  as  are  still  met  with  in  the  East  (vid.  Shaw,  pp.  188-9). 
Then  Ehud  said,  "  A  word  of  God  I  have  to  thee  ;"  whereupon  the 
king  rose  from  his  seat,  from  reverence  towards  the  word  of  God 
which  Ehud  pretended  that  he  had  to  deliver  to  him,  not  to  defend 
himself,  as  Bertheau  supposes,  of  which  there  is  not  the  slightest 
intimation  in  the  text. — Vers.  21,  22.  But  when  the  king  stood  up, 
Ehud  drew  his  sword  from  under  his  garment,  and  plunged  it  so 
deeply  into  his  abdomen  that  even  the  hilt  followed  the  blade,  and 
the  fat  closed  upon  the  blade  (so  that  there  was  nothing  to  be  seen 
of  it  in  front,  because  he  did  not  draw  the  sword  again  out  of  hia 
body),  and  the  blade  came  out  between  the  legs.  The  last  words 
have  been  rendered  in  various  ways.  Luther  follows  the  Chaldee 
and  Vulgate,  and  renders  it  "  so  that  the  dirt  passed  from  him," 
taking  the  air.  \ey.  n:'xhQ  as  a  composite  noun  from  CHS,  stercus, 
and  i"nt£  jecit.  But  this  is  hardly  correct,  as  the  form  of  the  word 
nrichQ,  and  its  connection  with  KSJ,  rather  points  to  a  noun,  PV'")?> 
with  n  local.  The  explanation  given  by  Gesenius  in  his  Thes.  and 
Heb.  lex.  has  much  more  in  its  favour,  viz.  interstitium  pedum,  the 
place  between  the  legs,  from  an  Arabic  word  signifying  pedes 
dissitos  habuit,  used  as  a  euphemism  for  anus,  podex.  The  subject 
to  the  verb  is  the  blade.1 — Ver.   23.    As  soon   as  the   deed   was 

1  At  any  rate  the  rendering  suggested  by  Ewald,  "  Ehud  went  into  the 
open  air,  or  into  the  enclosure,  the  space  in  front  of  the  Alija,"  is  untenable, 
for  the  simple  reason  that  it  is  perfectly  irreconcilable  with  the  next  clause, 
M  Ehud  went  forth,"  etc.  (consequently  Fr.  Böttcher  proposes  to  erase  thL» 


298  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

accomplished,  Ehud  went  out  into  the  porch  or  front  hall,  shut  the 
door  of  the  room  behind  him  (i"W?,  not  behind  himself,  but  literally 
round  him,  i.e.  Eglon  ;  cf.  Gen.  vii.  16,  2  Kings  iv.  4)  and  bolted 
it  (this  is  only  added  as  a  more  precise  explanation  of  the  previous 
verb). — Vers.  24,  25.  When  the  servants  of  Eglon  came  (to  enter 
in  to  their  lord)  after  Ehud's  departure  and  saw  the  door  of  the 
upper  room  bolted,  they  thought  "  surely  (J\X,  lit.  only,  nothing 
but)  he  covers  his  feet"  (a  euphemism  for  performing  the  necessi- 
ties of  nature ;  cf.  1  Sam.  xxiv.  3),  and  waited  to  shaming  (cf.  2 
Kings  ii.  17,  viii.  11),  i.e.  till  they  were  ashamed  of  their  long 
waiting  (see  at  chap:  v.  28).  At  length  they  opened  the  door  with 
the  key,  and  found  their  lord  lying  dead  upon  the  floor. 

Ehujl's  conduct  must  be  judged  according  to  the  spirit  of  those 
times,  when  it  was  thought  allowable  to  adopt  any  means  of  destroy- 
ing the  enemy  of  one's  nation.  The  treacherous  assassination  of  a 
hostile  king  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  an  act  of  the  Spirit  of  God, 
and  therefore  is  not  set  before  us  as  an  example  to  be  imitated. 
Although  Jehovah  raised  up  Ehud  as  a  deliverer  to  His  people 
when  oppressed  by  Eglon,  it  is  not  stated  (and  this  ought  particu- 
larly to  be  observed)  that  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  came  upon  Ehud, 
and  still  less  that  Ehud  assassinated  the  hostile  kins  under  the  im- 
pulse  of  that  Spirit.  Ehud  proved  himself  to  have  been  raised  up 
by  the  Lord  as  the  deliverer  of  Israel,  simply  by  the  fact  that  he 
actually  delivered  his  people  from  the  bondage  of  the  Moabites,  and 
it  by  no  means  follows  that  the  means  which  he  selected  were  either 
commanded  or  approved  by  Jehovah. — Vers.  26  sqq.  Ehud  had 
escaped  whilst  the  servants  of  Eglon  were  waiting,  and  had  passed 
the  stone  quarries  and  reached  Seirah.  Seirah  is  a  place  that  is 
never  mentioned  again ;  and,  judging  from  the  etymology  (the 
hairy),  it  was  a  wooded  region,  respecting  the  situation  of  which  all 
that  can  be  decided  is,  that  it  is  not  to  be  sought  for  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Jericho,  but  "upon  the  mountains  of  Ephraim"  (ver. 
27).  For  when  Ehud  had  come  to  Seirah,  he  blew  the  trumpet 
"  upon  the  mountains  of  Ephraim"  to  announce  to  the  people  the 
victory  that  was  placed  within  their  reach  by  the  death  of  Eglon, 
and  to  summon  them  to  war  with  the  Moabites,  and  then  went 
down  from  the  mountain  into  the  plain  near  Jericho ;  "  and  he  was 
before  them"  i.e.  went  in  front  as  their  leader,  saying  to  the  people, 

clause  from  the  text,  -without  any  critical  authority  whatever).  For  if  Ehud 
were  the  subject  to  the  verb,  the  subject  would  necessarily  have  been  mentioned, 
as  it  really  is  in  the  next  clause,  ver.  23a. 


CHAP.  III.  31.  299 

"  Follow  me ;  for  Jehovah  has  given  your  enemies  the  Moabites  into 
your  hand"  Then  they  went  down  and  took  (i.e.  took  possession  of) 
the  fords  near  Jericho  (see  at  Josh.  ii.  7),  3XiE?,  either  "from  the 
Moabites"  or  "towards  Moab"  and  let  no  one  (of  the  Moabites)  cross 
over,  i.e.  escape  to  their  own  land. — Ver.  29.  Thus  they  smote  at 
that  time  about  10,000  Moabites,  all  fat  and  powerful  men,  i.e.  thf 
whole  army  of  the  enemy  in  Jericho  and  on  this  side  of  the  Jordan, 
not  letting  a  man  escape.  The  expression  "  at  that  time"  seems  to 
imply  that  they  did  not  destroy  this  number  in  one  single  engage 
ment,  but  during  the  whole  course  of  the  war. — Ver.  30.  Thus 
Moab  was  subdued  under  the  hand  of  Israel,  and  the  land  had  rest 
for  eighty  years. 

Ver.  31.  After  him  (Ehud)  was,  i.e.  there  rose  up,  Shamgar  the 
son  of  Anath.  He  smote  the  Philistines,  who  had  probably  invaded 
the  land  of  the  Israelites,  six  hundred  men,  with  an  ox-goad,  so  that 
he  also  (like  Othniel  and  Ehud,  vers.  9  and  15)  delivered  Israel. 
1p2n  "IDpO,  air.  Xey.,  signifies,  according  to  the  Rabbins  and  the 
ancient  versions,  an  instrument  with  which  they  trained  and  drove 
oxen ;  and  with  this  the  etymology  agrees,  as  "!Ev  is  used  in  IIos. 
x.  11  and  Jer.  xxxi.  18  to  denote  the  training  of  the  young  ox. 
According  to  Rashi,  "ip|  1D?Ö  is  the  same  as  I3"n>  ßovfcevrpov,  in 
1  Sam.  xiii.  21.  According  to  Maundrell  in  Paulus  Samml.  der 
me?*hc.  Reisen  nach  d.  Or.  i.  p.  139,  the  country  people  in  Palestine 
and  Syria  use  when  ploughing  goads  about  eight  feet  long  and  six 
inches  in  circumference  at  the  thick  end.  At  the  thin  end  they 
have  a  sharp  point  to  drive  the  oxen,  and  at  the  other  end  a  small 
hoe,  to  scrape  off  any  dirt  that  may  stick  to  the  plough.  Shamgar 
may  have  smitten  the  Philistines  with  some  such  instrument  as  this, 
just  as  the  Edonian  prince  Lycurgus  is  described  by  Homer  (II. 
vi.  135)  as  putting  Dionysius  and  the  Bäcchantines  to  flight  with  a 
ßovTfKi]^.  Nothing  is  recorded  about  the  descent  of  Shamgar,  either 
here  or  in  the  Song  of  Deborah,  in  chap.  v.  6.  The  heroic  (hid 
recorded  of  him  must  be  regarded,  as  0.  v.  Gerlach  affirms,  as 
"  merely  the  result  of  a  holy  inspiration  that  suddenly  burst  forth 
within  him,  in  which  he  seized  upon  the  first  weapon  that  came  t«>  liis 
hand,  and  put  to  flight  the  enemy  when  scared  by  a  terror  for  God, 
just  as  Samson  did  on  a  later  occasion."  For  he  does  not  seem  to 
have  secured  for  the  Israelites  any  permanent  victory  over  the 
Philistines.  Moreover,  he  is  not  called  judge,  nor  is  the  period  of 
his  labours  taken  into  account,  but  in  chap.  iv.  1  the  renewed 
apostasy  of  Israel  from  the  Lord  is  dated  from  the  death  of  Ehud. 


300  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Oppression  of  Israel  by  Jabin,  and  Deliverance  by  Deborah  and 
Barak. — Chap.  iv.  and  v. 

This  fresh  oppression  of  the  Israelites,  and  the  glorious  victory 
which  they  obtained  over  Sisera,  Jabin' s  general,  through  the  judge 
Deborah  and  the  heroic  warrior  Barak,  are  so  fully  described  in 
Deborah's  triumphal  song  in  chap,  v.,  that  this  song  may  be  re- 
garded as  a  poetical  commentary  upon  that  event.  It  by  no  means 
follows  from  this  fact,  however,  that  the  historical  account  in  chap, 
iv.  was  first  of  all  founded  upon  the  ode,  and  was  merely  intended 
to  furnish  an  explanation  of  the  song  itself.  Any  such  assumption 
is  overthrown  by  the  fact  that  the  prose  account  in  chap.  iv.  con- 
tains, as  even  Bertheau  acknowledges,  some  historical  details  which 
we  look  for  in  vain  in  the  song,  and  which  are  of  great  assistance  in 
the  interpretation  of  it.  All  that  we  can  infer  with  any  probability 
from  the  internal  connection  between  the  historical  narrative  and 
the  Song  of  Deborah  is,  that  the  author  of  our  book  took  both  of 
them  from  one  common  source;  though  the  few  expressions  and 
words  which  they  contain,  such  as  ■"^O^  in  ver.  18,  rn^n  in  ver.  21, 
WE'D  in  ver.  6,  and  DHM  in  ver.  15,  do  not  throw  any  light  upon  the 
source  from  which  they  were  derived.  For,  with  the  exception  of 
the  first,  which  is  not  met  with  again,  the  whole  of  them  occur  in 
other  passages, — the  second  in  chap.  i.  14  and  Josh.  xv.  18,  the  third 
in  the  same  sense  in  chap.  xx.  37,  and  the  fourth  in  Ex.  xiv.  24 
and  Josh.  x.  10.  And  it  by  no  means  follows,  that  because  in  the 
passages  referred  to,  "  D'fP  is  found  in  close  association  with  songs 
or  poetical  passages"  (Berilieait),  the  word  itself  must  be  borrowed 
from  the  same  source  as  the  songs,  viz.  from  the  book  of  Jasher 
(Josh.  x.  13).  For  Dpn  is  found  in  the  same  signification  in  1  Sam. 
vii.  10,  Ex.  xxiii.  27,  and  Deut.  ii.  15,  where  we  look  in  vain  for 
any  songs ;  whilst  it  always  occurs  in  connection  with  the  account  of 
a  miraculous  overthrow  of  the  foe  by  the  omnipotent  power  of  God. 

Chap.  iv.  TJie  Victory  over  Jabin  and  Ids  General  Siseiw. — Vers. 
1-3.  As  the  Israelites  fell  away  from  the  Lord  again  when  Ehud 
was  dead,  the  Lord  gave  them  into  the  hand  of  the  Canaanitish 
king  Jabin,  who  oppressed  them  severely  for  twenty  years  with  a 
powerful  army  under  Sisera  his  general.  The  circumstantial  clause, 
"  when  Ehud  was  dead,"  places  the  falling  away  of  the  Israelites 
from  God  in  direct  causal  connection  with  the  death  of  Ehud  on 
the  one  hand,  and  the  deliverance  of  Israel  into  the  power  of  Jabin 
on  the  other,  and  clearly  indicates  that  as  long  as  Ehud  lived  he 


CHAP.  IV.  4-11.  301 

kept  the  people  from  idolatry  (of.  chap.  ii.  18,  19),  and  defended 
Israel  from  hostile  oppressions.  Joshua  had  already  conquered  one 
king,  Jabin  of  Ilazor,  and  taken  his  capital  (Josh.  xi.  1,  10).  The 
king  referred  to  here,  who  lived  more  than  a  century  later,  bore  the 
same  name.  The  name  Jabin,  "  the  discerning,"  may  possibly  have 
been  a  standing  name  or  title  of  the  Canaanitish  kings  of  Ilazor,  as 
Abimelech  was  of  the  kings  of  the  Philistines  (see  at  Gen.  xxvi.  8). 
He  is  called  "  king  of  Canaan,"  in  distinction  from  the  kings  of 
other  nations  and  lands,  such  as  Moab,  Mesopotamia,  etc.  (chap.  iii. 
8, 12),  into  whose  power  the  Lord  had  given  up  His  sinful  people. 
Ilazor,  once  the  capital  of  the  kingdoms  of  northern  Canaan,  was 
situated  over  (above  or  to  the  north  of)  Lake  Huleh,  in  the  tribe  of 
Naphtali,  but  has  not  yet  been  discovered  (see  at  Josh.  xi.  1). 
Sisera,  the  general  of  Jabin,  dwelt  in  Ilarosheth  of  the  Goyim,  and 
oppressed  the  Israelites  most  tyrannically  {mightily :  cf.  chap.  viii. 
1,  1  Sam.  ii.  16)  for  twenty  years  with  a  force  consisting  of  900 
chariots  of  iron  (see  at  Josh.  xvii.  IG).  The  situation  of  Ilarosheth, 
which  only  occurs  here  (vers.  2,  13,  16),  is  unknown ;  but  it  is  cer- 
tainly to  be  sought  for  in  one  of  the  larger  plains  of  Galilee,  possibly 
the  plain  of  Buttauf,  where  Sisera  was  able  to  develop  his  forces, 
whose  strength  consisted  chiefly  in  war-chariots,  and  to  tyrannize 
over  the  land  of  Israel. 

Vers.  4-11.  At  that  time  the  Israelites  were  judged  by  Deborah, 
a  prophetess,  the  wife  of  Lapidoth,  who  dwelt  under  the  Deborah- 
palm  between  Ramali  (er  Earn:  see  at  Josh,  xviii.  25)  and  Bethel 
(Beitin:  see  at  Josh.  vii.  2)  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  upon  the 
mountains  of  Ephraim.  Deborah  is  called  HJWU  n^  on  account  of 
her  prophetic  gift,  like  Miriam  in  Ex.  xv.  20,  and  Ilulda  the  wife 
of  Shallum  in  2  Kings  xxii.  14.  This  gift  qualified  her  to  judge 
the  nation  (the  participle  nasb>  expresses  the  permanence  of  the  act 
of  judging),  i.e.  first  of  all  to  settle  such  disputes  among  the  people 
themselves  as  the  lower  courts  were  unable  to  decide,  and  which 
ought  therefore,  according  to  Deut.  xvii.  8,  to  be  referred  to  the 
supreme  judge  of  the  whole  nation.  The  palm  where  she  sat  in 
judgment  (cf.  Ps.  ix.  5)  was  called  after  her  the  Deborali-\^\\\\\. 
The  Israelites  went  up  to  her  there  to  obtain  justice.  The  expres- 
sion "  came  up"  is  applied  here,  as  in  Deut.  xvii.  8,  to  the  place  of 
justice,  as  a  spiritual  height,  independently  of  the  fact  that  the 
place  referred  to  here  really  stood  upon  an  eminence. — Vers.  6  sqq. 
But  in  order  to  secure  the  rights  of  her  people  against  their  outward 
foes  also,  she  summoned  Barak  the  son  of  Abinoam  from  Kedesh, 


302  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

in  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  on  the  west  of  the  Huleh  lake  (see  at  Josh, 
xii.  22),  and  made  known  to  him  the  commands  of  the  Lord :  "  Up 
and  draw  to  Mount  Tabor,  and  take  with  thee  10,000  men  of  the 
children  of  Naphtali  and  Zebulun ;  and  I  will  draw  to  thee  into  the 
brook-valley  of  Kishon,  Sisera  the  captain  of  Jabin's  army,  and  his 
chariots,  and  his  multitude  (his  men  of  war),  and  give  him  into  thy 
handy  fi3^ö  has  been  explained  in  different  ways.  Seb.  Schmidt, 
Clericus,  and  others  supply  ]~)$>J]  or  "isiß'n,  draw  with  the  trumpet 
(cf.  Ex.  xix.  13,  Josh.  vi.  5),  i.e.  blow  the  trumpet  in  long-drawn 
tones,  upon  Mount  Tabor,  and  regard  this  as  the  signal  for  conven- 
ing the  people;  whilst  Hengstenberg  (Diss.  ii.  pp.  76,  77)  refers  to 
Num.  x.  9,  and  understands  the  blowing  of  the  horn  as  the  signal 
by  which  the  congregation  of  the  Lord  made  known  its  need  to 
Him,  and  appealed  to  Him  to  come  to  its  help.  It  cannot  indeed 
be  proved  that  the  blowing  of  the  trumpet  was  merely  the  means 
adopted  for  convening  the  people  together ;  in  fact,  the  use  of  the 
following  ^RlVfoj  in  the  sense  of  draw,  is  to  be  explained  on  the 
supposition  that  n^ö  is  used  in  a  double  sense.  "  The  long-drawn 
notes  were  to  draw  the  Lord  to  them,  and  then  the  Lord  would 
draw  to  them  Sisera,  the  captain  of  Jabin's  army.  Barak  first  calls 
the  helper  from  heaven,  and  then  the  Lord  calls  the  enemy  upon 
earth."  Nevertheless  we  cannot  subscribe  to  this  explanation,  first  of 
all  because  the  supposed  ellipsis  cannot  be  sustained  in  this  connec- 
tion, when  nothing  is  said  about  the  blowing  of  a  trumpet  either  in 
what  precedes  or  in  what  follows ;  and  secondly,  because  Num.  x.  9 
cannot  be  appealed  to  in  explanation,  for  the  simple  reason  that  it 
treats  of  the  blowing  of  the  silver  trumpets  on  the  part  of  the  priests, 
and  they  must  not  be  confounded  with  the  shopharoth.  And  the  use 
made  of  the  trumpets  at  Jericho  cannot  be  transferred  to  the  passage 
before  us  without  some  further  ground.  We  are  disposed  therefore 
to  take  the  word  T^'9  in  the  sense  of  draw  (intransitive),  i.e.  proceed 
one  after  another  in  a  long-drawn  train  (as  in  chap.  xx.  37  and  Ex. 
xii.  21),  referring  to  the  captain  and  the  warriors  drawing  after 
him ;  whilst  in  ver.  7  it  is  to  be  translated  in  the  same  way,  though 
with  a  transitive  signification.  Mount  Tabor,  called  'Iraßupiov  by 
the  Greeks  (see  LXX.  Hos.  v.  1),  the  mountain  of  Christ's  trans- 
figuration according  to  an  early  tradition  of  the  church,  the  present 
Jebel  et  Tur,  is  a  large  truncated  cone  of  limestone,  which  is  almost 
perfectly  insulated,  and  rises  to  the  height  of  about  a  thousand  feet, 
on  the  north-eastern  border  of  the  plain  of  Jezreel.  The  sides  of 
the  mountain  are  covered  with  a  foiest  of  oaks  and  wild  pistachios, 


CHAP.  IV.  4-11.  303 

and  upon  its  flat  summit,  which  is  about  half  an  hour  in  circum- 
ference, there  are  the  remains  of  ancient  fortifications  (see  Robinson, 
Pal.  iii.  pp.  211  sqq.,  and  v.  Raumer,  Pal.  pp.  37,  38).  The  words 
"  and  take  with  thee  10,000  men"  are  not  to  be  understood  as  sis- 
nifying  that  Barak  was  to  summon  the  people  together  upon  the 
top  of  Mount  Tabor,  but  the  assembling  of  the  people  is  pre- 
supposed ;  and  all  that  is  commanded  is,  that  he  was  to  proceed  to 
Mount  Tabor  with  the  assembled  army,  and  make  his  attack  upon 
the  enemy,  who  were  encamped  in  the  valley  of  Kishon,  from  that 
point.  According  to  ver.  10,  the  army  was  collected  at  Kedesh  in 
Naphtali.  Nachal  Kishon  is  not  only  the  brook  Kishon,  which  is 
formed  by  streams  that  take  their  rise  from  springs  upon  Tabor 
and  the  mountains  of  Gilboa,  flows  in  a  north-westerly  direction 
through  the  plain  of  Jezreel  to  the  Mediterranean,  and  empties 
itself  into  the  bay  of  Acca,  and  which  is  called  Mukatta  by  the 
natives  (see  Rob.  iii.  pp.  472  sqq.,  and  v.  Raumer,  pp.  39,  50),  but 
the  valley  on  both  sides  of  the  brook,  i.e.  the  plain  of  Jezreel  (see 
at  Josh.  xvii.  IG),  where  the  greatest  battles  have  been  fought  for 
the  possession  of  Palestine  from  time  immemorial  down  to  the 
most  recent  times  (see  v.  Räumer,  pp.  40  sqq.). — Vers.  8  sqq. 
Barak  replied  that  he  would  not  go  unless  she  would  go  with  him — 
certainly  not  for  the  reason  suggested  by  Bertheau,  viz.  that  he 
distrusted  the  divine  promise  given  to  him  by  Deborah,  but  because 
his  mistrust  of  his  own  strength  was  such  that  he  felt  too  weak  to 
carry  out  the  command  of  God.  He  wanted  divine  enthusiasm  for 
the  conflict,  and  this  the  presence  of  the  prophetess  was  to  infuse 
into  both  Barak  and  the  army  that  was  to  be  gathered  round  him. 
Deborah  promised  to  accompany  him,  but  announced  to  him  as  the 
punishment  for  this  want  of  confidence  in  the  success  of  his  under- 
taking, that  the  prize  of  victory — namely,  the  defeat  of  the  hostile 
general — should  be  taken  out  of  his  hand;  for  Jehovah  would  sell 
(i.e.  deliver  up)  Sisera  into  the  hand  of  a  woman,  viz.,  according  to 
vers.  17  sqq.,  into  the  hand  of  Jael.  She  then  went  with  him  to 
Kedesh,  where  Barak  summoned  together  Zebulun  and  Naphtali, 
i.e.  the  fighting  men  of  those  tribes,  and  went  up  with  10,000  men 
in  his  train  ("  at  his  feet,"  i.e.  after  him,  ver.  14  ;  cf.  Ex.  xi.  8  and 
Deut.  xi.  6)  to  Tabor  ("went  up:"  the  expression  is  used  here  to 
denote  the  advance  of  an  army  against  a  place).  Kedesh)  where 
the  army  assembled,  was  higher  than  Tabor.  Pl'f,  Hiphil  with  an-., 
to  call  together  (cf.  2  Sam.  xx.  4,  5).  Before  the  engagement 
with  the  foe  is  described,  there  follows  in  ver.  11a  statement  that 


304  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Heber  the  Kenite  had  separated  himself  from  his  tribe,  the  children 
of  Hobab,  who  led  a  nomad  life  in  the  desert  of  Judah  (chap.  i.  16), 
and  had  pitched  his  tents  as  far  as  the  oak  forest  at  Zaanannim 
(see  at  Josh.  xix.  33)  near  Kedesh.  This  is  introduced  because  of 
its  importance  in  relation  to  the  issue  of  the  conflict  which  ensued 
(vers.  17  sqq.).  TIM  with  Kametz  is  a  participle,  which  is  used  in 
the  place  of  the  perfect,  to  indicate  that  the  separation  was  a  per- 
manent one. 

Vers.  12-16.  As  soon  as  Sisera  received  tidings  of  the  march 
of  Barak  to  Mount  Tabor,  he  brought  together  all  his  chariots  and 
all  his  men  of  war  from  Harosheth  of  the  Goyim  into  the  brook- 
valley  of  the  Kishon.  Then  Deborah  said  to  Barak,  "  Up ;  for  this 
is  the  day  in  which  Jehovah  hath  given  Sisera  into  thy  hand.  Yea 
(X?n,  nonne,  as  an  expression  indicating  lively  assurance),  the  Lord 
goeth  out  before  thee"  sc.  to  the  battle,  to  smite  the  foe ;  whereupon 
Barak  went  down  from  Tabor  with  his  10,000  men  to  attack  the 
enemy,  according  to  chap.  v.  19,  at  Taanach  by  the  water  of  Megiddo. 
— Ver.  15.  "And  the  Lord  discomfited  Sisera,  and  all  his  chariots, 
and  all  his  army,  with  the  edge  of  the  sword  before  Barak.'"  Dn*1, 
as  in  Ex.  xiv.  24  and  Josh.  x.  10,  denotes  the  confounding  of 
the  hostile  army  by  a  miracle  of  God,  mostly  by  some  miraculous 
phenomenon  of  nature:  see,  besides  Ex.  xiv.  24,  2  Sam.  xxii.  15, 
Ps.  xviii.  15,  and  cxliv.  6.  The  expression  DW  places  the  defeat 
of  Sisera  and  his  army  in  the  same  category  as  the  miraculous 
destruction  of  Pharaoh  and  of  the  Canaanites  at  Gibeon ;  and  the 
combination  of  this  verb  with  the  expression  "  with  the  edge  of  the 
sword"  is  to  be  taken  as  constructio  pragnans,  in  this  sense :  Jehovah 
threw  Sisera  and  his  army  into  confusion,  and,  like  a  terrible 
champion  fighting  in  front  of  Israel,  smote  him  without  quarter. 
Sisera  sprang  from  his  chariot  to  save  himself,  and  fled  on  foot ; 
but  Barak  pursued  the  routed  foe  to  Harosheth,  and  completely 
destroyed  them.  "  All  Sisera! 's  army  fell  by  the  edge  of  the  sword; 
there  remained  not  even  to  one"  i.e.  not  a  single  man. 

Vers.  17—22.  Sisera  took  refuge  in  the  tent  of  Jael,  the  wife  of 
Heber  the  Kenite,  to  escape  the  sword  of  the  Israelites,  as  king 
Jabin  lived  at  peace  with  the  house  of  Heber,  i.e.  with  this  branch 
of  the  Kenites. — Ver.  18.  Jael  received  the  fugitive  into  her  tent 
in  the  usual  form  of  oriental  hospitality  (i^d,  as  in  Gen.  xix.  2,  3, 
to  turn  aside  from  the  road  and  approach  a  person),  and  covered 
him  with  a  covering  (n^Dt?,  air  Xey.,  covering,  or  rug),  that  he 
might  be  able  to  sleep,  as  he  was  thoroughly  exhausted  with  his 


CHAP.  IV.  17-22.  305 

flight. — Ver.  19.  On  his  asking  for  water  to  drink,  as  he  was  thirsty 
C^DV,  defective  form  for  ^NOV),  she  handed  him  milk  from  her 
bottle,  and  covered  him  up  again.  She  gave  him  milk  instead  of 
water,  as  Deborah  emphatically  mentions  in  her  song  in  chap.  v. 
25,  no  doubt  merely  for  the  purpose  of  giving  to  her  guest  a  friendly 
and  hospitable  reception.  When  Josejihus  affirms,  in  his  account  of 
this  event  (Ant.  v.  5,  4),  that  she  gave  him  milk  that  was  already 
spoiled  (ßc€(j^6opo<;  iför)),  i.e.  had  turned  sour,  and  R.  Tanchum  sup- 
poses that  such  milk  intoxicated  the  weary  man,  these  are  merely 
later  decorations  of  the  simple  fact,  and  have  no  historical  worth 
whatever. — Ver.  20.  In  order  to  be  quite  sure,  Sisera  entreated  his 
hostess  to  stand  before  the  door  and  turn  any  one  away  who  miHit 
come  to  her  to  seek  for  one  of  the  fugitives.  "iby  is  the  imperative 
for  ^py,  as  the  syntax  proves  that  the  word  cannot  be  an  infinitive. 
The  anomaly  apparent  in  the  use  of  the  gender  may  be  accounted 
for  on  the  ground  that  the  masculine  was  the  more  general  form, 
and  might  therefore  be  used  for  the  more  definite  feminine.  There 
are  not  sufficient  grounds  for  altering  it  into  ^V,  the  inf.  abs. 
Whether  Jael  complied  with  this  wish  is  not  stated  ;  but  in  the 
place  of  anything  further,  the  chief  fact  alone  is  given  in  ver.  21, 
namely,  that  Jael  took  a  tent-plug,  and  went  with  a  hammer  in  her 
hand  to  Sisera,  who  had  fallen  through  exhaustion  into  a  deep  sleep, 
and  drove  the  plug  into  his  temples,  so  that  it  penetrated  into  the 
earth,  or  the  floor.  The  words  *1JW  D^nrxini  are  introduced  as 
explanatory  of  the  course  of  the  events  :  "  but  he  was  fallen  into 
a  deep  sleep,  and  exhausted,"  i.e.  had  fallen  fast  asleep  through 
exhaustion.  "  And  so  he  died."  Hbjl  is  attached  as  a  consequence 
to  '131  n^TVi  . .  .  yj?J1Fn,  whereas  *\V*)  belongs  to  the  parenthetical  clause 
DTi:  tvini.  This  is  the  explanation  adopted  by  Rosenmüller,  and 
also  in  the  remark  of  Kimchi:  "  the  words  ^y'l  D*nj  indicate  the 
reason  why  Sisera  neither  heard  Jael  approach  him,  nor  was  con- 
scious of  the  blow  inflicted  upon  him."  For  the  combination  of 
ftfn  with  nk'l,  "  then  he  became  exhausted  and  died,"  which  Stud. 
and  Bertheau  support,  does  not  give  any  intelligible  thought  at  all. 
A  man  who  has  a  tent-peg  driven  with  a  hammer  into  his  temples, 
so  that  the  peg  passes  through  his  head  into  the  ground,  does  not 
become  exhausted  before  he  dies,  but  dies  instantaneously.  And 
*ljn,  from  fjiy,  equivalent  to  v\*V  (.Ter.  iv.  31),  or  *|g),  and  written 
with  Patach  in  the  last  syllable,  to  distinguish  it  from  spjf,  v<>l>irt\ 
has  no  other  meaning  than  to  be  exhausted,  in  any  of  the  passages 
in  which  it  occurs  (see  1  Sam.  xiv.  28,  31  ;  2  Sam.  xxi.  15).     The 

u 


306  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

rendering  adopted  by  the  LXX.,  ia/coTcoOr),  cannot  be  grammati- 
cally sustained. — Ver.  22.  When  Barak,  who  was  in  pursuit  of 
Sisera,  arrived  at  Jael's  tent,  she  went  to  meet  him,  to  show  him 
the  deed  which  she  had  performed.  Thus  was  Deborah's  prediction 
to  Barak  (ver.  9)  fulfilled.  The  Lord  had  sold  Sisera  into  the  hand 
of  a  woman,  and  deprived  Barak  of  the  glory  of  the  victory. 
Nevertheless  the  act  itself  was  not  morally  justified,  either  by  this 
prophetic  announcement,  or  by  the  fact  that  it  is  commemorated  in 
the  song  of  Deborah  in  chap.  v.  24  sqq.  Even  though  there  can 
be  no  doubt  that  Jael  acted  under  the  influence  of  religious  enthu- 
siasm for  the  cause  of  Israel  and  its  God,  and  that  she  was  prompted 
by  religious  motives  to  regard  the  connection  of  her  tribe  with 
Israel,  the  people  of  the  Lord,  as  higher  and  more  sacred,  not  only 
than  the  bond  of  peace,  in  which  her  tribe  was  living  with  Jabin 
the  Canaanitish  king,  but  even  than  the  duties  of  hospitality,  which 
are  so  universally  sacred  to  an  oriental  mind,  her  heroic  deed  cannot 
be  acquitted  of  the  sins  of  lying,  treachery,  and  assassination,  which 
were  associated  with  it,  by  assuming,  as  Calovius,  Buddeus,  and  others 
have  done,  that  when  Jael  invited  Sisera  into  her  tent,  and  promised 
him  safety,  and  quenched  his  thirst  with  milk,  she  was  acting  with 
perfect  sincerity,  and  without  any  thought  of  killing  him,  and  that 
it  was  not  till  after  he  was  fast  asleep  that  she  was  instigated  and 
impelled  instinctu  Dei  arcano  to  perform  the  deed.  For  Jehovah, 
the  God  of  Israel,  not  only  abhors  lying  lips  (Pro v.  xii.  22),  but 
hates  wickedness  and  deception  of  every  kind.  It  is  true,  He 
punishes  the  ungodly  at  the  hand  of  sinners ;  but  the  sinners  whom 
He  employs  as  the  instruments  of  His  penal  justice  in  carrying  out 
the  plans  of  His  kingdom,  are  not  instigated  to  the  performance  of 
wicked  deeds  by  an  inward  and  secret  impulse  from  Him.  God 
had  no  doubt  so  ordered  it,  that  Sisera  should  meet  with  his  death 
in  Jael's  tent,  where  he  had  taken  refuge  ;  but  this  divine  purpose 
did  not  justify  Jael  in  giving  to  the  enemy  of  Israel  a  hospitable 
reception  into  her  tent,  making  him  feel  secure  both  by  word 
and  deed,  and  then  murdering  him  secretly  while  he  was  asleep. 
Such  conduct  as  that  was  not  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  of 
God,  but  the  fruit  of  a  heroism  inspired  by  flesh  and  blood ;  and 
even  in  Deborah's  song  (chap.  v.  24  sqq.)  it  is  not  lauded  as  a 
divine  act. 

Vers.  23,  24.  "  So  God  subdued  at  that  time  Jabin  the  lung  of 
Canaan  before  the  children  of  Israel ;  and  the  hand  of  the  Israelites 
became  heavier  and  heavier  in  its  pressure  upon  him,  until  tliey  had 


CHAP.  V.  807 

destroyed  him"  n^pi  ijf[>fj  »  .  .  TJ  p&fl),  «  the  hand  .  .  .  increased 
more  and  more,  becoming  heavy."  ^n,  used  to  denote  the  progress 
or  continual  increase  of  an  affair,  as  in  Gen.  viii.  3,  etc.,  is  con- 
nected with  the  infinitive  absolute,  and  with  the  participle  of  the 
action  concerned.  n^j5  is  the  feminine  participle  of  ntfy  like  7T&  in 
Gen.  xxvi.  13  (see  Ges.  §  131,  3,  Anm.  3).  The  overthrow  of  Jabin 
and  his  rule  did  not  involve  the  extermination  of  the  Canaanites 
generally. 

Deboralis  Song  of  Victory. — Chap.  v. 

This  highly  poetical  song  is  so  direct  and  lively  an  utterance  of 
the  mighty  force  of  the  enthusiasm  awakened  by  the  exaltation  of 
Israel,  and  its  victory  over  Sisera,  that  its  genuineness  is  generally 
admitted  now.  After  a  general  summons  to  praise  the  Lord  for 
the  courage  with  which  the  people  rose  up  to  fight  against  their 
foes  (ver.  2),  Deborah  the  singer  dilates  in  the  first  section  (vers. 
3-11)  upon  the  significance  of  the  victory,  picturing  in  lively  colours 
(1)  the  glorious  time  when  Israel  was  exalted  to  be  the  nation  of 
the  Lord  (vers.  3-5)  ;  (2)  the  disgraceful  decline  of  the  nation  in 
the  more  recent  times  (vers.  6-8)  ;  and  (3)  the  joyful  turn  of 
affairs  which  followed  her  appearance  (vers.  9-11).  After  a  fresh 
summons  to  rejoice  in  their  victory  (ver.  12),  there  follows  in  the 
second  section  (vers.  13-21)  a  lively  picture  of  the  conflict  and 
victory,  in  which  there  is  a  vivid  description  (a)  of  the  mighty 
gathering  of  the  brave  to  battle  (vers.  13-1 5a) ;  (b)  of  the  cowardice 
of  those  who  stayed  away  from  the  battle,  and  of  the  bravery  with 
which  the  braver  warriors  risked  their  lives  in  the  battle  (vers. 
15&-18)  ;  and  (c)  of  the  successful  result  of  the  conflict  (vers. 
19-21).  To  this  there  is  appended  in  the  third  section  (vers. 
22-31)  an  account  of  the  glorious  issue  of  the  battle  and  the  vic- 
tory :  first  of  all,  a  brief  notice  of  the  flight  and  pursuit  of  the  foe 
(vers.  22-24)  ;  secondly,  a  commemoration  of  the  slaying  of  Sisera 
by  Jael  (vers.  24-27)  ;  and  thirdly,  a  scornful  description  of  the 
disappointment  of  Sisera's  mother,  who  was  counting  upon  a  large 
arrival  of  booty  (vers.  28-30).  The  song  then  closes  with  the  hope, 
founded  upon  this  victory,  that  all  the  enemies  of  the  Lord  might 
perish,  and  Israel  increase  in  strength  (ver.  31a).  The  whole  song, 
therefore,  is  divided  into  three  leading  sections,  each  «>f  which  again 
is  arranged  in  three  somewhat  unequal  strophes,  the  first  and  Becond 
sections  being  introduced  by  a  summons  to  the  praise  <>t  God  (vers. 
2,  12),  whilst  the  third  closes  with  an  expression  of  hope,  drawn 


308  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

from  the  contents  of  the  whole,  with  regard  to  the  future  prospects 
of  the  kingdom  of  God  (ver.  31a). 

Ver.  1.  The  historical  introduction  ("  Then  sang  Deborah  and 
Barak  the  son  of  Abinoam  on  that  day,  saying")  takes  the  place  of 
a  heading,  and  does  not  mean  that  the  song  of  Deborah  and  Barak 
which  follows  was  composed  by  them  jointly,  but  simply  that  it 
was  sung  by  them  together,  in  commemoration  of  the  victory.  The 
poetess  or  writer  of  the  song,  according  to  vers.  3,  7,  and  12,  was 
Deborah.  The  song  itself  opens  with  a  summons  to  praise  the 
Lord  for  the  willing  and  joyful  rising  up  of  His  people. 

Ver.  2.   That  the  strong  in  Israel  showed  themselves  strong, 
That  the  people  willingly  offered  themselves, 
Praise  ye  the  Lord! 

The  meaning  of  JHB  and  nijns  is  a  subject  of  dispute.  Accord- 
ing to  the  Septuagint  rendering,  and  that  of  Tlieodot.,  ev  ra>  ap^aadat. 
apXVyovs  &  'Itrpa^X,  many  give  it  the  meaning  to  begin  or  to  lead, 
and  endeavour  to  establish  this  meaning  from  an  Arabic  word 
signifying  to  find  one's  self  at  the  head  of  an  affair.  But  this  mean- 
ing cannot  be  established  in  Hebrew.     JTiS  has  no  other  meaning 

Ö  -T  Ö 

than  to  let  loose  from  something,  to  let  a  person  loose  or  free 
(see  at  Lev.  x.  6) ;  and  in  the  only  other  passage  where  nijHQ  occurs 
(Deut.  xxxii.  42),  it  does  not  refer  to  a  leader,  but  to  the  luxuriant 
growth  of  the  hair  as  the  sign  of  great  strength.  Hence  in  this 
passage  also  rrtjna  literally  means  comati,  the  hairy  ones,  i.e.  those 
who  possessed  strength ;  and  JH3,  to  manifest  or  put  forth  strength. 
The  persons  referred  to  are  the  champions  in  the  fight,  who  went 
before  the  nation  with  strength  and  bravery.  The  preposition  3 
before  JpS  indicates  the  reason  for  praising  God,  or  rather  the 
object  with  which  the  praise  of  the  Lord  was  connected.  'Ul  J^SB, 
literally  "  in  the  showing  themselves  strong."  The  meaning  is,  "  for 
the  fact  that  the  strong  in  Israel  put  forth  strength."  ^n?,  to 
prove  one's  self  willing,  here  to  go  into  the  battle  of  their  own  free 
will,  without  any  outward  and  authoritative  command.  This  intro- 
duction transports  us  in  the  most  striking  manner  into  the  time  of 
the  judges,  when  Israel  had  no  king  who  could  summon  the  nation 
to  war,  but  everything  depended  upon  the  voluntary  rising  of  the 
strong  and  the  will  of  the  nation  at  large.  The  manifestation  of 
this  strength  and  willingness  Deborah  praises  as  a  gracious  gift  of 
the  Lord.  After  this  summons  to  praise  the  Lord,  the  first  part  of 
the  song  opens  with  an  appeal  to  the  kings  and  princes  of  the  earth 
to  hear  what  Deborah  has  to  proclaim  to  the  praise  of  God. 


CHAP.  V.  3-5.  309 

Ver.  3.  Hear,  ye  kings  ;  give  ear,  ye  princes ! 
I,  to  the  Lord  will  I  sing, 
Will  sing  praise  to  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel. 

4.  Lord,  when  Thou  wentest  out  from  Seir, 
When  Thou  marchedst  out  of  the  fields  of  EJora, 
The  earth  trembled,  and  the  heavens  also  dropped  ; 
The  clouds  also  dropped  water. 

5.  The  mountains  shook  before  the  Lord, 

Sinai  there  before  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel. 

The  "  kings  and  princes"  are  not  the  rulers  in  Israel,  for  Israel 
had  no  kings  at  that  time,  but  the  kings  and  princes  of  the  heathen 
nations,  as  in  Ps.  ii.  2.  These  were  to  discern  the  mighty  acts  of 
Jehovah  in  Israel,  and  learn  to  fear  Jehovah  as  the  almighty  God. 
For  the  song  to  be  sung  applies  to  Him,  the  God  of  Israel.  IDT, 
yjrdWeiv,  is  the  technical  expression  for  singing  with  an  instru- 
mental accompaniment  (see  at  Ex.  xv.  2). — Vers.  4,  5.  To  give 
the  Lord  the  glory  for  the  victory  which  had  been  gained  through 
His  omnipotent  help  over  the  powerful  army  of  Sisera,  and  to  fill 
the  heathen  with  fear  of  Jehovah,  and  the  Israelites  with  love  and 
confidence  towards  Him,  the  singer  reverts  to  the  terribly  glorious 
manifestation  of  Jehovah  in  the  olden  time,  when  Israel  was 
accepted  as  the  nation  of  God  (Ex.  xix.).  Just  as  Moses  in  his 
blessing  (Deut.  xxxiii.  2)  referred  the  tribes  of  Israel  to  this  mighty 
act,  as  the  source  of  all  salvation  and  blessing  for  Israel,  so  the 
prophetess  Deborah  makes  the  praise  of  this  glorious  manifestation 
of  God  the  starting-point  of  her  praise  of  the  great  grace,  which 
Jehovah  as  the  faithful  covenant  God  had  displayed  to  His 
people  in  her  own  days.  The  tacit  allusion  to  Moses'  blessing  is 
very  unmistakeable.  But  whereas  Moses  describes  the  descent 
of  the  Lord  upon  Sinai  (Ex.  xix.),  according  to  its  gracious  sig- 
nificance in  relation  to  the  tribes  of  Israel,  as  an  objective  fact 
(Jehovah  came  from  Sinai,  Deut.  xxxiii.  2),  Deborah  clothes  the 
remembrance  of  it  in  the  form  of  an  address  to  God,  to  bring  out 
the  thought  that  the  help  which  Israel  had  just  experienced  was  a 
renewal  of  the  coming  of  the  Lord  to  His  people.  Jehovah's  going 
out  of  Seir,  and  marching  out  of  the  fields  of  Edom,  is  to  be  inter- 
preted in  the  same  sense  as  His  rising  up  from  Seir  (Deut.  xxxiii. 
2).  As  the  descent  of  the  Lord  upon  Sinai  is  depicted  there  as  a 
rising  of  the  sun  from  the  east,  so  the  same  descent  in  a  black 
cloud  amidst  thunder,  lightning,  fire,  and  vapour  of  smoke  (Ex. 
xix.  IG,  18),  is  represented  here  with  direct  allusion  to  these  pheno- 
mena as  a  storm  rising  up  from  Seir  in  the  east,  in  which  the  Lord 


310  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

advanced  to  meet  His  people  as  they  came  from  the  west  to  Sinai. 
Before  the  Lord,  who  came  down  upon  Sinai  in  the  storm  and 
darkness  of  the  cloud,  the  earth  shook  and  the  heaven  dropped,  or, 
as  it  is  afterwards  more  definitely  explained,  the  clouds  dropped 
with  water,  emptied  themselves  of  their  abundance  of  water  as  they 
do  in  the  case  of  a  storm.  The  mountains  shook  (vB,  Niplial  of 
/vT,  dropping  the  reduplication  of  the  ?  =  1PH,  Isa.  Lxiii.  19,  Ixiv.  2), 
even  the  strong  rocky  mountain  of  Sinai,  which  stood  out  so 
distinctly  before  the  eyes  of  the  singer,  that  she  speaks  of  it  as 
"  this  Sinai,"  pointing  to  it  as  though  it  were  locally  near.  David's 
description  of  the  miraculous  guidance  of  Israel  through  the  desert 
in  Ps.  Ixviii.  8,  9,  is  evidently  founded  upon  this  passage,  though  it 
by  no  means  follows  from  this  that  the  passage  before  us  also  treats 
of  the  journey  through  the  desert,  as  Clericus  supposes,  or  even  of 
the  presence  of  the  Lord  in  the  battle  with  Sisera,  and  the  victory 
which  it  secured.  But  greatly  as  Israel  had  been  exalted  at  Sinai 
by  the  Lord  its  God,  it  had  fallen  just  as  deeply  into  bondage  to 
its  oppressors  through  its  own  sins,  until  Deborah  arose  to  help  it 
(vers.  6-8). 

Ver.  6.  In  the  days  of  Shamgar,  the  son  of  Anath, 
In  the  days  of  Jael,  the  paths  kept  holiday, 
And  the  wanderers  of  the  paths  went  crooked  ways. 

7.  The  towns  in  Israel  kept  holiday,  they  kept  holiday, 
Until  that  I,  Deborah,  arose, 

That  I  arose  a  mother  in  Israel. 

8.  They  chose  new  gods  ; 
Then  was  war  at  the  gates : 

Was  there  a  shield  seen  and  a  spear 
Among  forty  thousand  in  Israel  ? 

The  deep  degradation  and  disgrace  into  which  Israel  had  sunk 
before  the  appearance  of  Deborah,  through  its  falling  away  from 
the  Lord  into  idolatry,  forms  the  dark  reverse  of  that  glorification 
at  Sinai.  Although,  after  Ehud,  Shamgar  had  also  brought  help  to 
the  people  against  their  enemies  by  a  victory  over  the  Philistines 
(chap.  iii.  31),  and  although  Jael,  who  proved  herself  a  heroine  by 
slaying  the  fugitive  Sisera,  was  then  alive,  things  had  got  to  such  a 
pitch  with  Israel,  that  no  one  would  venture  upon  the  public  high 
roads.  There  are  no  good  grounds  for  the  conjecture  that  Jael 
was  a  different  person  from  the  Jael  mentioned  in  chap.  iv.  17 
sqq.,  whether  a  judge  who  is  not  further  known,  as  Ewald  supposes, 
or  a  female  judge  who  stood  at  the  head  of  the  nation  in  these 
unhappy  times  (Bertheau).     ™n"]$i  «"!$,  lit.  "  the  paths  ceased"  sc. 


CHAP.  V.  6-8.  311 

to  be  paths,  or  to  be  trodden  by  men.  nfcJMTU  Wh,  "  those  who  went 
upon  paths"  or  beaten  ways,  i.e.  those  who  were  obliged  to  under- 
take journeys  for  the  purpose  of  friendly  intercourse  or  trade, 
notwithstanding  the  burden  of  foreign  rule  which  pressed  upon  the 
land ;  such  persons  went  by  " twisted  paths"  i.e.  by  roads  and 
circuitous  routes  which  turned  away  from  the  high  roads.  And 
the  Jina,  i.e.  the  cultivated  land,  with  its  open  towns  and  villages, 
and  with  their  inhabitants,  was  as  forsaken  and  desolate  as  the 
public  highways.  The  word  perazon  has  been  rendered  judge  or 
guidance  by  modern  expositors,  after  the  example  of  Teller  and 
Gesenius ;  and  in  ver.  11  decision  or  guidance.  But  this  meaning. 
which  has  been  adopted  into  all  the  more  recent  lexicons,  has 
nothing  really  to  support  it,  and  does  not  even  suit  our  verse,  into 
which  it  would  introduce  the  strange  contradiction,  that  at  the  time 
when  Shamgar  and  Jael  were  judges,  there  were  no  judges  in 
Israel.  In  addition  to  the  Septuagint  version,  which  renders  the 
word  Suvarol  in  this  verse  (i.e.  according  to  the  Cod.  Vat.,  for  the 
Cod.  Al.  has  cjipd^cov),  and  then  in  the  most  unmeaning  way  adopts 
the  rendering  av^rjaov  in  ver.  11,  from  which  we  may  clearly  see  that 
the  translators  did  not  know  the  meaning  of  the  word,  it  is  common 
to  adduce  an  Arabic  word  which  signifies  segregavit,  discrevit  rem 
ab  aids,  though  it  is  impossible  to  prove  that  the  Arabic  word  ever 
had  the  meaning  to  judge  or  to  lead.  All  the  old  translators,  as 
well  as  the  Rabbins,  have  based  their  rendering  of  the  word  upon 
"PS,  inhabitant  of  the  flat  country  (Deut.  iii.  .5,  and  1  Sain.  vi.  18), 
and  nips,  the  open  flat  country,  as  distinguished  from  the  towns 
surrounded  by  walls  (Ezek.  xxxviii.  11;  Zech.  ii.  8),  according  to 
which  tfPS,  as  the  place  of  meeting,  would  denote  both  the  culti- 
vated land  with  its  unenclosed  towns  and  villages,  and  also  the 
population  that  was  settled  in  the  open  country  in  unfortified 
places, — a  meaning  which  also  lies  at  the  foundation  of  the  word  in 
Hab.  iii.  14.  Accordingly,  Luther  has  rendered  the  word  Bauern 
(peasants).  VOgtf  nV  for  Hnpp  "1KW  IV.  The  contraction  of  IBta 
into  tr,  with  Dagesh  following,  and  generally  pointed  with  Seghol, 
but  here  with  Patach  on  account  of  the  p,  which  is  closely  related 
to  the  gutturals,  belongs  to  the  popular  character  of  the  song,  and 
is  therefore  also  found  in  the  Song  of  Solomon  (chap.  i.  12,  ii.  7, 
17,  iv.  6).  It  is  also  met  with  here  and  there  in  simple  prose 
(Judg.  vi.  17,  vii.  12,  viii.  2G) ;  but  it  was  only  in  the  literature  of 
the  time  of  the  captivity  and  a  still  later  date,  that  it  found  its  way 
more  and  more  from  the  language  of  ordinary  conversation  into 


312  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

that  of  the  Scriptures.     Deborah  describes  herself  as  "  a  mother  in 
Israel,"  on  account  of  her  having  watched  over  her  people  with 
maternal  care,  just  as  Job  calls  himself  a  father  to  the  poor  who 
had  been  supported  by  him  (Job  xxix.  16 ;  cf.  Isa.  xxii.  21). — Ver. 
8  describes  the  cause  of  the  misery  into  which  Israel  had  fallen. 
CtTin  DwK  is  the  object  to  "ina^  and  the  subject  is  to  be  found  in 
the  previous  term  Israel.      Israel  forsook  its   God  and   Creator, 
and  chose  new  gods,  i.e.  gods  not  worshipped  by  its  fathers  {vid. 
Deut.  xxxii.  17).     Then  there  was  war  (Dr6,  the  construct  state 
of  on?,  a  verbal  noun  formed  from  the  Piel,  and  signifying  con- 
flict or  war)  at  the  gates  ;  i.e.  the  enemy  pressed  up  to  the  very 
gates  of  the  Israelitish  towns,  and  besieged  them,  and  there  was 
not  seen  a  shield  or  spear  among  forty  thousand  in  Israel,  i.e.  there 
were  no  warriors  found  in  Israel  who  ventured  to  defend  the  land 
against  the  foe.     OX  indicates  a  question  with  a  negative  reply 
assumed,  as  in  1  Kings  i.  27,  etc.     Shield  and  spear  (or  lance)  are 
mentioned  particularly  as  arms  of  offence  and  defence,  to  signify 
arms  of  all  kinds.     The  words  are  not  to  be  explained  from  1  Sam. 
xiii.  22,  as  signifying  that  there  were  no  longer  any  weapons  to  be 
found  among  the  Israelites,  because  the  enemy  had  taken  them 
away  ("  not  seen"  is  not  equivalent  to  "  not  found"  in  1  Sam.  xiii. 
22) ;  they  simply  affirm  that  there  were  no  longer  any  weapons  to 
be  seen,  because  not  one  of  the  40,000  men  in  Israel  took  a  weapon 
in  his  hand.     The  number  40,000  is  not  the  number  of  the  men 
who  offered  themselves  willingly  for  battle,  according  to  ver.  2 
{Bertheau)  ;  for  apart  from  the  fact  that  they  did  not  go  unarmed 
into  the  battle,  it  is  at  variance  with  the  statement  in  chap.  iv.  6,  10, 
that  Barak  went  into  the  war  and  smote  the  enemy  with  only 
10,000  men.     It  is  a  round  number,  i.e.  an  approximative  state- 
ment of  the  number  of  the  warriors  who  might  have  smitten  the 
enemy  and  delivered  Israel  from  bondage,  and  was  probably  chosen 
with  a  reference  to  the  40,000  fighting  men  of  the  tribes  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan,  who  went  with  Joshua  to  Canaan  and  helped 
their  brethren  to  conquer  the  land  (Josh.  iv.  13).     Most  of  the 
more  recent  expositors  have  given  a  different  rendering  of  ver.  8. 
Many  of  them  render  the  first  clause  according  to  the  Peshito  and 
Vulgate,  "  God  chose  something  new"  taking  Elohim  as  the  subject, 
and  chadashim  (new)  as  the  object.     But  to  this  it  has  very  pro- 
perly been  objected,  that,  according  to  the  terms  of  the  song,  it  was 
not  Elohim  but  Jehovah  who  effected  the  deliverance  of  Israel,  and 
that  the  Hebrew  for  new  things  is  not  CBhrj,  but  niBnn  (Isa.  xiii. 


CHAP   V.  9-11.  313 

9,  xlviii.  6),  or  nehn  (Isa.  xliii.  19  ;  Jcr.  xxxi.  22).  On  these 
grounds  Ewald  and  Bertlie.au  render  Elohim  "judges"  (they  chose 
new  judges),  and  appeal  to  Ex.  xxi.  6,  xxii.  7,  8,  where  the  autho- 
rities who  administered  justice  in  the  name  of  God  are  called 
Elohim.  But  these  passages  are  not  sufficient  by  themselves  to 
establish  the  meaning  "judges,"  and  still  less  to  establish  the  ren- 
dering "  new  judges"  for  Elohim  chadashim.  Moreover,  according 
to  both  these  explanations,  the  next  clause  must  be  understood  as 
relating  to  the  specially  courageous  conflict  which  the  Israelites  in 
their  enthusiasm  carried  on  with  Sisera  ;  whereas  the  further  state- 
ment, that  among  40,000  warriors  who  offered  themselves  willingly 
for  battle  there  was  not  a  shield  or  a  lance  to  be  seen,  is  irreconcil- 
ably at  variance  with  this.  For  the  explanation  suggested,  namely, 
that  these  warriors  did  not  possess  the  ordinary  weapons  for  a 
well-conducted  engagement,  but  had  nothing  but  bows  and  swords, 
or  instead  of  weapons  of  any  kind  had  only  the  staffs  and  tools  of 
shepherds  and  husbandmen,  is  proved  to  be  untenable  by  the  simple 
fact  that  there  is  nothing  at  all  to  indicate  any  contrast  between 
ordinary  and  extraordinary  weapons,  and  that  such  a  contrast  is 
altogether  foreign  to  the  context.  Moreover,  the  fact  appealed  to, 
that  TN  points  to  a  victorious  conflict  in  vers.  13,  19,  22,  as  well  as 
in  ver.  11,  is  not  strong  enough  to  support  the  view  in  question,  as 
IN  is  employed  in  ver.  19  in  connection  with  the  battle  of  the  kings 
of  Canaan,  which  was  not  a  successful  one,  but  terminated  in  a 
defeat. 

The  singer  now  turns  from  the  contemplation  of  the  deep  degra- 
dation of  Israel  to  the  glorious  change  which  took  place  as  soon  as 
she  appeared : — 

Ver.  9.  My  heart  inclines  to  the  leaders  of  Israel ; 

To  those  who  offered  themselves  willingly  in  the  nation.     Praise  yo 
the  Lord ! 

10.  Ye  that  ride  upon  white  asses; 
Ye  that  sit  upon  coverings, 

And  that  walk  in  the  way,  reflect! 

11.  With  the  voice  of  the  archers  among  drawers  (of  water), 
There  praise  ye  the  righteous  acts  of  the  Lord, 

The  righteous  acts  in  His  villages  in  Israel. 

Then  the  people  of  the  Lord  went  down  to  the  gates ! 

We  must  supply  the  subst.  verb  in  connection  with  ?  Wj  u  Mi 
heart  is  (sc.  inclined)  towards  the  leaders  of  Israel,"  i.e.  feels  itself 
drawn  towards  them.  ?\>p  for  Ppino  (ver.  14),  the  determining  one, 
i.e.  the  commander  or  leader  in  war:  as  in  Deut.  xxxiii.  21.     The 


314  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

leaders  and  willing  ones  are  first  of  all  to  praise  the  Lord  for  having 
crowned  their  willingness  with  victory. — Ver.  10.  And  all  classes  of 
the  people,  both  high  and  low,  have  reason  to  join  in  the  praise. 
Those  who  ride  upon  white,  i.e.  white-spotted  asses,  are  the  upper 
classes  generally,  and  not  merely  the  leaders  (cf.  chap.  x.  4,  xii.  14). 
irfif,  lit.  dazzling  white ;  but  since  there  are  no  asses  that  are  per- 
fectly white,  and  white  was  a  colour  that  was  highly  valued  both  by 
Hebrews  and  Arabs,  they  applied  the  term  white  to  those  that  were 
only  spotted  with  white.  Those  who  sit  upon  coverings  (plO  from 
1ft,  a  covering  or  carpet,  with  the  plural  termination  f»,  which  is  to 
be  regarded  as  a  poetical  Chaldaism)  are  the  rich  and  prosperous ; 
and  those  who  walk  on  the  way,  i.e.  travellers  on  foot,  represent 
the  middle  and  lower  classes,  who  have  to  go  about  and  attend 
to  their  affairs.  Considered  logically,  this  triple  division  of  the 
nation  is  not  a  very  exact  one,  as  the  first  two  do  not  form  a  true 
antithesis.  But  the  want  of  exactness  does  not  warrant  our  fusing 
together  the  middle  term  and  the  first,  and  understanding  by  middin 
either  saddles  or  saddle-cloths,  as  Ewald  and  Bertheau  have  done ; 
for  saddle-cloths  are  still  further  from  forming  an  antithesis  to 
asses,  so  that  those  who  ride  upon  white  asses  could  be  distinguished, 
as  the  upper  classes  and  leaders,  from  those  who  sit  upon  saddles,  or 
are  "  somewhat  richer."  Moreover,  there  is  no  reason  for  regarding 
these  three  classes  as  referring  simply  to  the  long  line  of  warriors 
hastening  from  the  victory  to  the  triumphal  fete.  On  the  contrary, 
all  classes  of  the  people  are  addressed,  as  enjoying  the  fruits  of  the 
victory  that  had  been  obtained  :  the  upper  classes,  who  ride  upon  their 
costly  animals ;  the  rich  resting  at  home  upon  their  splendid  carpets ; 
and  the  poor  travellers,  who  can  now  go  quietly  along  the  high-road 
again  without  fear  of  interruption  from  the  foe  (ver.  6).  WW  is 
rendered  "  sing"  by  many ;  but  this  rendering  cannot  be  sustained 
from  Ps.  cv.  2  and  cxlv.  5,  and  it  is  not  necessary  in  the  verse 
before  us,  since  the  well-established  meaning  of  the  word  "ponder," 
reflect,  sc.  upon  the  acts  of  the  Lord,  is  a  perfectly  suitable  one. — 
Ver.  11.  The  whole  nation  had  good  reason  to  make  this  reflec- 
tion, as  the  warriors,  having  returned  home,  were  now  relating  the 
mighty  acts  of  the  Lord  among  the  women  who  were  watering  their 
flocks,  and  the  people  had  returned  to  their  towns  once  more.  This 
is  in  all  probability  the  idea  of  the  obscure  verse  before  us,  which 
has  been  interpreted  in  such  very  different  ways.  The  first  clause, 
which  has  no  verb,  and  cannot  constitute  a  sentence  by  itself,  must 
be  connected  with  the  following  clause,  and  taken  as  an  anakolouthon, 


CHAP.  V.  9-11.  315 

as  13rV  Dtf>  does  not  form  a  direct  continuation  of  the  clause  com- 
mencing with  ?ipp.  After  the  words  "from  the  voice  of  the  archers." 
we  should  expect  the  continuation  "  there  is  heard,'"  or  "  there 
sounds  forth  the  praise  of  the  acts  of  the  Lord."  Instead  of  that, 
the  construction  that  was  commenced  is  relinquished  at  isrrt  Dt?? 
and  a  different  turn  is  given  to  the  thought.  This  not  only  seems 
to  offer  the  simplest  explanation,  but  the  only  possible  solution  of 
the  difficulty.  For  the  explanation  that  JO  is  to  be  taken  as  signi- 
fying "away  from,"  as  in  Num.  xv.  24,  etc.,  in  the  sense  of  "  far 
from  the  voice  of  the  archers,  among  the  watering  women,"  does  not 
suit  the  following  word  DC',  "there,"  at  all.  It  would  be  necessary 
to  attribute  to  JO  the  meaning  "  no  more  disquieted  by,"  a  meaning 
which  the  preposition  could  not  possibly  have  in  this  clause.  D"VV~p 
are  not  sharers  in  the  booty,  for  PVH  simply  means  to  cut,  to  cut  in 
pieces,  to  divide,  and  is  never  applied  to  the  sharing  of  booty,  for  which 
P?n  is  the  word  used  (via1,  ver.  30;  Ps.  lxviii.  13  ;  Isa.  ix.  2).  H?D? 
is  to  be  regarded,  as  the  Rabbins  maintain,  as  a  denom.  from  J'n,  to 
hold  an  arrow,  signifying  therefore  the  shooter  of  an  arrow.  It  was 
probably  a  natural  thing  for  Deborah,  who  dwelt  in  Benjamin,  to 
mention  the  archers  as  representatives  of  warriors  generally,  since 
this  was  the  principal  weapon  employed  by  the  Benjaminites  (see 
1  Chron.  viii.  40,  xii.  2;  2  Chron.  xiv.  7,  xvii.  17).  The  tarrying 
of  the  warriors  among  the  drawers  of  water,  where  the  flocks  and 
herds  were  being  watered,  points  to  the  time  of  peace,  when  the 
warriors  were  again  occupied  with  their  civil  and  domestic  affairs. 
M1V  is  a  simple  aorist.  nsr^  lit.  to  repeat,  then  to  relate,  or  praise. 
"  The  righteousness  of  Jehovah"  i.e.  the  marvellous  acts  of  the  Lord 
in  and  upon  Israel  for  the  accomplishing  of  His  purposes  of  sal- 
vation, in  which  the  righteousness  of  His  work  upon  earth  was 
manifested  (cf.  1  Sam.  xii.  7,  Mieah  vi.  5).  WHO  fiSpTt  has  been 
rendered  by  modern  expositors,  either  "  the  righteous  acts  of  His 
guidance  or  of  His  decision"  (Ewald  and  Bertheau),  or  "  the 
righteous  acts  of  His  commanders,"  or  "the  benefits  towards  His 
princes  (leaders)  in  Israel"  (Ros.  and  others).  But  neither  of  these 
can  be  sustained.  We  must  take  flHB  here  in  just  the  same  sense 
as  in  ver.  7  ;  the  country  covered  with  open  towns  and  villages, 
together  with  their  inhabitants,  whom  Jehovah  had  delivered  from 
the  hostile  oppression  that  had  rested  upon  them,  by  means  of  the 
victory  obtained  over  Sisera.  After  that  victory  the  people  of  the 
Lord  went  down  again  to  their  gates,  from  the  mountains  and  hiding- 
places  in  which  they  had  taken  refuge  from  their  foes  (vers.  6,  7), 


316  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES- 

returning  again  to  the  plains  of  the  land,  and  the  towns  that  were 
now  delivered  from  the  foe. 

Ver.  12  forms  the  introduction  to  the  second  part,  viz.  the 
description  of  the  conflict  and  the  victory.  Throwing  herself  into 
the  great  event  which  she  is  about  to  commemorate,  Deborah  calls 
upon  herself  to  strike  up  a  song,  and  upon  Barak  to  lead  off  his 
prisoners : 

Ver.  12.  Awake,  awake,  Deborah ! 

Awake,  awake,  utter  a  song ! 

Eise  up,  Barak,  and  lead  captive  thy  captives,  0  son  of  Abinoam ! 

*W  has  the  tone  upon  the  last  syllable  on  the  first  two  occasions, 
to  answer  to  the  rapid  summoning  burst  of  the  Lord  in  the  opening 
address  (Bertheau).  ^t?  ri3E>,  to  lead  away  captives,  as  the  fruit 
of  the  victory;  not  merely  to  lead  in  triumph.  On  the  form  H3E^ 
with  Chateph-patach,  see  Ewald,  §  90,  b.  In  the  next  three  strophes 
of  this  part  (vers.  13-21)  the  progress  of  the  conflict  is  described; 
and  in  the  first  two  the  part  taken  in  the  battle  by  the  different 
tribes  (vers.  13-15a,  and  156-18). 

Ver.  13.  Then  came  down  a  remnant  of  nobles  of  the  nation  ; 
Jehovah  came  down  to  me  among  the  heroes. 
14.  Of  Ephraim,  whose  root  in  Amalek; 

Behind  thee  Benjamin  among  thy  peoples. 
From  Machir  came  down  leaders, 

And  from  Zebulun  marchers  with  the  staff  of  the  conductor. 
15a.  And  princes  in  Issachar  with  Deborah, 
And  Issachar  as  well  as  Barak, 
Driven  into  the  valley  through  his  feet. 

Looking  back  to  the  commencement  of  the  battle,  the  poetess 
describes  the  streaming  of  the  brave  men  of  the  nation  down  from 
the  mountains,  to  fight  the  enemy  with  Barak  and  Deborah  in  the 
valley  of  Jezreel ;  though  the  whole  nation  did  not  rise  as  one  man 
against  its  oppressors,  but  only  a  remnant  of  the  noble  and  brave  in 
the  nation,  with  whom  Jehovah  went  into  the  battle.  In  ver.  13  the 
Masoretic  pointing  of  TV  is  connected  with  the  rabbinical  idea  of 
the  word  as  the  fut.  apoc.  of  rTTl :  tl  then  (now)  will  the  remnant  ride 
over  the  glorious"  i.e.  the  remnant  left  in  Israel  over  the  stately  foe ; 
"  Jehovah  rules  for  me  (or  through  me)  over  the  heroes  in  Sisera'3 
army,"  which  Luther  has  also  adopted.  But,  as  Schnurr,  has  main- 
tained, this  view  is  decidedly  erroneous,  inasmuch  as  it  is  altogether 
irreconcilable  with  the  description  which  follows  of  the  marching  of 
the  tribes  of  Israel  into  the  battle.     TP  is  to  be  understood  in  the 


CHAP.  V.  13-15.  317 

same  sense  as  VTV  in  ver.  14,  and  to  be  pointed  as  a  perfect  TV.1 
"  There  came  down"  sc.  from  the  mountains  of  the  land  into  the 
plain  of  Jezreel,  a  remnant  of  nobles.  D^^HX?  is  used  instead  of  a 
closer  subordination  through  the  construct  state,  to  bring  out  the 
idea  of  THB>  into  greater  prominence  (see  Ewald,  §  292).  Dy  is  in 
apposition  to  Ü*T"»K?,  and  not  to  be  connected  with  the  following 
word  nJfPj  as  it  is  by  some,  in  opposition  to  the  accents.  The 
thought  is  rather  this :  with  the  nobles  or  among  the  brave  Jehovah 
himself  went  against  the  foe.  v  is  a  dat.  commodi,  equivalent  to 
"  for  my  joy/'— Ver.  14.  "  From  (*3D,  poetical  for  J?)  Ephraim" 
sc.  there  came  fighting  men ;  not  the  whole  tribe,  but  only  nobles 
or  brave  men,  and  indeed  those  whose  roots  were  in  Amalek,  i.e. 
those  who  were  rooted  or  had  taken  root,  i.e.  had  settled  and  spread 
themselves  out  upon  the  tribe-territory  of  Ephraim,  which  had  for- 
merly been  inhabited  by  Amalekites,  the  mount  of  the  Amalekites, 
mentioned  in  chap.  xii.  15  (for  the  figure  itself,  see  Isa.  xxvii.  6, 
Ps.  lxxx.  10,  and  Job  v.  3).  "  Behind  thee,"  i.e.  behind  Ephraim, 
there  followed  Benjamin  among  thy  (Ephraim's)  people  (D^osy,  a 
poetical  form  for  Q^y,  in  the  sense  of  hosts).  Benjamin  lived 
farther  south  than  Ephraim,  and  therefore,  when  looked  at  from 
the  stand-point  of  the  plain  of  Jezreel,  behind  Ephraim;  "but  he 
came  upon  the  scene  of  battle,  either  in  subordination  to  the  more 
powerful  Ephraimites,  or  rushing  on  with  the  Ephraimitish  hosts" 
{Bertheau).  "  From  Machir"  i.e.  from  western  Manasseh,  there 
came  down  leaders  (see  at  ver.  9),  sc.  with  warriors  in  their  train. 
Machir  cannot  refer  to  the  Manassite  family  of  Machir,  to  which 
Moses  gave  the  northern  part  of  Gilead,  and  Bashan,  for  an  inherit- 
ance (comp.  Josh.  xvii.  1  with  xiii.  29-31),  but  it  stands  poetically 
for  Manasseh  generally,  as  Machir  was  the  only  son  of  Manasseh, 
from  whom  all  the  Manassites  were  descended  (Gen.  1.  23  ;  Num. 
xxvi.  29  sqq.,  xxvii.  1).  The  reference  here,  however,  is  simply 
to  that  portion  of  the  tribe  of  Manasseh  which  had  received  its 
inheritance  by  the  side  of  Ephraim,  in  the  land  to  the  west  of  the 
Jordan.  This  explanation  of  the  word  is  required,  not  only  by  the 
fact  that  Machir  is  mentioned  after  Ephraim  and  Benjamin,  and 

1  The  Cod.  At.  of  the  LXX.  contains  the  correct  rendering,  tgts  Kctrißv 
x.arü'hti^^x.  In  the  Targum  also  TV  is  correctly  translated  nru,  descendit, 
although  the  germs  of  the  rabbinical  interpretation  are  contained  in  the  para- 
phrase of  the  whole  verse  :  tunc  descendit  unus  ex  exercitu  Israel  et  frcyit  fortilu- 
dinem  fortium  gentium.  Ecce  mm  ex  fortitudine  manus  corum  fuit  hoc;  sed 
Dominus  frer/it  ante  populum  suum  fortitudinem  virorum  osorum  eorum. 


318  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

before  Zebulun  and  Issachar,  but  still  more  decidedly  by  the  intro- 
duction of  Gilead  beyond  Jordan  in  connection  with  Reuben,  in  ver. 
17,  which  can  only  signify  Gad  and  eastern  Manasseh.  Hence  the 
two  names  Macliir  and  Gilead,  the  names  of  Manasseh's  son  and 
grandson,  are  poetically  employed  to  denote  the  two  halves  of  the 
tribe  of  Manasseh ;  Machir  signifying  the  western  Manassites,  and 
Gilead  the  eastern.  "  From  Zebulun  marchers  (J\&®,  to  approach  in 
long  processions,  as  in  chap.  iv.  6)  with  the  staff  of  the  conductor." 
"iDD,  writer  or  numberer,  was  the  technical  name  given  to  the 
musterer-general,  whose  duty  it  was  to  levy  and  muster  the  troops 
(2  Kings  xxv.  19 ;  cf.  2  Chron.  xxvi.  11) ;  here  it  denotes  the 
military  leader  generally. — Ver.  1  ha.  *']|>,  "  my  princes,1"  does  not 
furnish  any  appropriate  meaning,  as  neither  Deborah  nor  Barak 
was  of  the  tribe  of  Issachar,  and  it  is  not  stated  anywhere  that  the 
Issacharites  gathered  round  Deborah  as  their  leader.  The  reading 
^  (stat.  consir.),  adopted  by  the  old  versions,  must  be  taken  as  the 
correct  one,  and  the  introduction  of  the  preposition  3  does  not  pre- 
clude this  (compare  g3fl3  «TO,  2  Sam.  i.  21,  and  Ewald,  §  289,  b.). 
oy,  which  is  used  to  denote  an  outward  equality,  as  in  1  Sam. 
xvii.  42,  and  is  substantially  the  same  as  the  J3  which  follows  ("  just 
as"),  is  construed  without  3  in  the  first  clause,  as  in  Ps.  xlviii.  6. 
ppjQ :  into  the  valley  of  Jezreel,  the  plain  of  Kishon.  V7J"13  iw",  as 
in  Job  xviii.  8,  to  be  sent  off,  i.e.  incessantly  impelled,  through  his 
feet ;  here  it  is  applied  to  an  irresistible  force  of  enthusiasm  for  the 
battle.     The  nominative  to  fw  is  Issachar  and  Barak. 

Ver.  15  b.  At  the  brooks  of  Reuben  were  great  resolutions  of  heart. 

16.  Why  remainest  thou  between  the  hurdles, 
To  hear  the  piping  of  the  flocks  ? 

At  the  brooks  of  Reuben  were  great  projects  of  heart. 

17.  Gilead  rests  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan ; 
And  Dan  .  .  .  why  tarries  he  by  ships  ? 
Asher  sits  on  the  shore  of  the  sea, 

And  by  his  bays  he  reposes. 

18.  Zebulun,  a  people  that  despises  its  soul  even  to  death, 
And  Naphtali  upon  the  heights  of  the  field. 

In  this  strophe  Deborah  first  of  all  mentions  the  tribes  which 
took  no  part  in  the  conflict  (vers.  155-17),  and  then  returns  in  ver. 
18  to  the  Zebulunites,  who  staked  their  life  along  with  Naphtali  for 
the  deliverance  of  Israel  from  the  yoke  of  the  enemy.  The  enu- 
meration of  the  tribes  who  remained  at  a  distance  from  the  conflict 
commences  with  Reuben  (vers,  lbb  and  16).  In  this  tribe  there 
did  arise  a  lively  sympathy  with  the  national  elevation.     They  held 


CHAP.  V.  15-18.  319 

meetings,  passed  great  resolutions,  but  it  led  to  no  practical  result ; 
and  at  length  they  preferred  to  remain  quietly  at  home  in  their 
own   comfortable  pastoral  life.     The  meaning  brooks  for  flfe^B  is 
well  established  by  Job  xx.  17,  and  there  is  no  reason  whatever  for 
explaining  the  word  as  equivalent  to  flwB,  «"IWBD,  divisions  (2  Chron. 
xxxv.  5,  12;  Ezra  vi.  18).     The  territory  of  Reuben,  which  was 
celebrated  for  its  splendid  pastures,  must  have  abounded  in  brooks. 
The  question,  Why  sätest  thou,  or  remainedst  thou  sitting  between 
the  hurdles?  i.e.  in  the  comfortable  repose  of  a  shepherd's  life,  is 
an  utterance  of  amazement;  and  the  irony  is  very  apparent  in  the 
next  clause,  to  hear  the  bleating  of  the  flocks,  i.e.  the  piping  of  the 
shepherds,   instead  of  the  blast  of  the  war-trumpets. — Ver.    17. 
Gilead,  Dan,  and  Asher  took  no  part  at  all.      By  Gilead,  the  tribes 
of  Gad  and  half  Manasseh  are  intended.      The  use  of  the  term 
"»yp|in  to  denote  the  whole  of  the  territory  of  the  Israelites  on  the 
east  of  the  Jordan  probably  gave  occasion  to  this,  although  1P3 
(without  the  article)  does  not  refer  to  the  land  even  here,  but  refers 
primarily  to  the  grandson  of  Manasseh,  as  the  representative  of  his 
family  which  dwelt  in  Gilead.     (For  further  remarks,  see  at  ver. 
14.)     Dan  also  did  not  let  the  national  movement  disturb  it  in  its 
earthly  trade  and  commerce,    "113,  to  keep  one's  self  in  a  place,  is  con- 
strued here  with  the  accusative  of  the  place,  as  in  Ps.  cxx.  5.    The 
territory  of  Dan  included  the  port  of  Joppa  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  46), 
where  the  Danites  probably  carried  on  a  trade  with  the  Phoenicians. 
Asher  also  in  his  land  upon  the  coast  did  not  allow  himself  to  be 
disturbed  from  his  rest,  to  join  in  the  common  war  of  its  nation. 
WW  *]in  is  used,  as  in  Gen.  xlix.  13,  for  the  shore  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean Sea.     D^BD,  dir.  A-ey.,  literally  a  rent,  and  hence  applied 
to  a  bay,  as  an  incision  made  in  the  sea-shore. — Ver.  18.  Zebulun 
and  Naphtali  acted  quite  differently.     Zebulun  showed  itself  as  a 
people  that  despised  its  life  even  to  death,  i.e.  that  sacrificed  its 
life  for  the  deliverance  of  its  fatherland.    Naphtali  did  the  same  in 
its  mountain  home.      The  two  tribes  had  raised  10,000  fighting 
men  at  Barak's  call  (chap.  iv.  10),  who  constituted  at  any  rate  the 
kernel  of  the  Israelitish  army. 

If  we  run  over  the  tribes  enumerated,  it  seems  strange  that  the 
tribes  of  Judah  and  Simeon  are  not  mentioned  either  among  those 
who  joined  in  the  battle,  or  among  those  who  staved  away.  The 
only  way  in  which  this  can  be  explained  is  on  the  supposition  that 
these  two  tribes  were  never  summoned  by  Barak,  either  becansa 
they  were   so  involved  in  conflict  with  the  Philistines,  that  they 


320  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

were  unable  to  render  any  assistance  to  the  northern  tribes  against 
their  Canaanitish  oppressors,  as  we  might  infer  from  chap.  iii.  31, 
or  because  of  some  inward  disagreement  between  these  tribes  and 
the  rest.  But  even  apart  from  Judah  and  Simeon,  the  want  of 
sympathy  on  the  part  of  the  tribes  that  are  reproved  is  a  sufficient 
proof  that  the  enthusiasm  for  the  cause  of  the  Lord  had  greatly 
diminished  in  the  nation,  and  that  the  internal  unity  of  the  con- 
gregation was  considerably  loosened. 

In  the  next  strophe  the  battle  and  the  victory  are  described : — 

Ver.  19.  Kings  came,  .  .  .  they  fought ; 
The  kings  of  Canaan  fought 
At  Taanaeh,  at  the  waters  of  Megiddo. 
A  piece  of  silver  they  did  not  take. 

20.  From  heaven  they  fought, 

The  stars  from  their  courses  fought  against  Sisera. 

21.  The  brook  of  Kishon  swept  them  away, 

The  brook  of  the  olden  time,  the  brook  Kishon. 
Go  on,  my  soul,  in  strength ! 

The  advance  of  the  foe  is  described  in  few  words.  Kings  came 
on  and  fought.  They  were  the  kings  of  Canaan,  since  Jabin,  like 
his  ancestor  (Josh.  xi.  1  sqq.),  had  formed  an  alliance  with  other 
kings  of  northern  Canaan,  who  went  to  the  battle  under  the  com- 
mand of  Sisera.  The  battle  took  place  at  Taanaeh  (see  at  Josh, 
xii.  21),  by  the  water  of  Megiddo,  the  present  Lejun  (see  at  Josh, 
xii.  21),  i.e.  by  the  brook  Kishon  (cf.  chap.  iv.  7).  Taanaeh  and 
Megiddo  were  not  quite  five  miles  apart,  and  beside  and  between 
them  there  were  several  brooks  which  ran  into  the  southern  arm  of 
the  Kishon,  that  flowed  through  the  plain  to  the  north  of  both  these 
towns.  The  hostile  kings  went  into  the  battle  with  the  hope  of 
slaying  the  Israelites  and  making  a  rich  capture  of  booty.  But 
their  hopes  were  disappointed.  They  could  not  take  with  them  a 
piece  of  silver  as  booty.  J?X3,  which  generally  signifies  booty  or 
gain,  is  probably  to  be  taken  here  in  its  primary  sense  of  frustum, 
from  J?¥3,  to  cut  off  or  cut  in  pieces,  a  "  piece  of  silver,"  equivalent 
to  a  single  piece  of  valuable  booty. — Ver.  20.  For  not  only  did  the 
Israelites  fight  against  them,  but  the  powers  of  heaven  also.  "  From 
heaven"  is  more  minutely  defined  by  "the  stars  from  their  courses." 
These  words  explain  the  statement  in  chap.  iv.  15,  "  the  Lord  dis- 
comfited Sisera;"  though  in  our  opinion  not  so  clearly  as  to  enable 
us  to  define  more  precisely  the  natural  phenomenon  by  which  God 
threw  the  enemy  into  confusion.  In  all  probability  we  have  to 
think  of  a  terrible  storm,  with  thunder  and  lightning  and  hail,  or 


CHAP.  V.  22-24.  321 

the  sudden  bursting  of  a  cloud,  which  is  poetically  described  as 
though  the  stars  of  heaven  had  left  their  courses  to  fight  for  the 
Lord  and  His  kingdom  upon  earth.— Ver.  21.  The  kings  of  Canaan 
could  do  nothing  against  these  powers.  They  were  smitten ;  the 
brook  Kishon  washed  them  (i.e.  their  corpses)  away.  The  meaning 
"  to  wash  away"  is  well  established  by  the  dialects  and  the  context 
though  the  verb  itself  only  occurs  here.  As  the  battle  was  fought 
between  Taanach  and  Megiddo,  i.e.  to  the  south  of  the  brook 
Kishon,  and  the  smitten  foe  fled  towards  the  north,  many  of  them 
met  with  their  death  in  the  waves  of  the  brook,  which  was  flowing 
over  its  banks  at  the  time.  The  brook  is  called  DWlp  hn:}  i.e.  the 
brook  of  the  old  world  or  the  olden  time  (according  to  the  LX  X. 
Cod.  Vat.  %eLfMippov<;  ap^aioyv),  as  the  stream  that  had  been  flowing 
from  time  immemorial,  and  not,  as  the  Chaldee  interprets  it,  the 
stream  that  had  been  celebrated  from  olden  time  on  account  of 
the  mighty  acts  that  had  been  performed  there.  The  meaning 
suggested  by  Ewald  and  others,  "  brook  of  attacks,  or  slaughters," 
is  not  well  sustained,  although  CHj?  is  sometimes  used  to  denote  a 
hostile  encounter.  The  last  clause  interrupts  the  description  of  the 
slaughter  and  the  victory.  Borne  away  by  the  might  of  the  acts  to  be 
commemorated,  Deborah  stimulates  her  soul,  i.e.  herself,  to  a  vigorous 
continuation  of  her  song.  TH?  is  jussive,  and  T'y  an  accusative 
governed  by  the  verb,  in  strength,  vigorously;  for  she  had  still  to 
celebrate  the  glorious  results  of  the  victory.  This  is  done  in  the 
third  part  of  the  song  (vers.  22-31),  the  first  strophe  of  which 
(vers.  22-24)  describes  in  brief  drastic  traits  the  flight  of  the  foe, 
and  the  treatment  of  the  fugitives  by  the  people  of  the  land. 

Ver.  22.  Then  did  the  hoofs  of  the  horses  stamp 

With  the  hunting,  the  hunting  of  his  strong  ones. 

23.  Curse  ye  Meroz,  saith  the  angel  of  the  Lord ; 
Curse  ye,  curse  ye  the  inhabitants  thereof  ! 
Because  they  came  not  to  the  help  of  Jehovah, 
To  the  help  of  Jehovah  among  the  mighty. 

24.  Blessed  before  women  be  Jael, 
The  wife  of  Heber  the  Kenite, 
Blessed  before  women  in  the  tent ! 

The  war-chariots  of  the  enemy  hunted  away  in  the  wildest 
flio-ht  (ver.  22).  The  horses  stamped  the  ground  with  the  con- 
tinuous hunting  or  galloping  away  of  the  warriors.  n^rn,  the 
huntino-  (cf.  "WW,  Nah.  iii.  2).  The  repetition  of  the  word  expn 
the  continuance  or  incessant  duration  of  the  same  thing  (see  Ewald, 
§  313,  a.).     BT3N>  strong  ones,  are  not  the  horses,  but  the  warriors 

x 


322  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

in  the  war-chariots.  The  suffix  refers  to  DID,  which  is  used  collec- 
tively. The  mighty  ones  on  horses  are  not,  however,  merely  the 
Canaanitish  princes,  such  as  Sisera,  as  Ewald  maintains,  but  the 
warriors  generally  who  hunted  away  upon  their  war-chariots. — 
Ver.  23.  The  enemy,  or  at  all  events  Sisera,  might  have  been 
destroyed  in  his  flight  by  the  inhabitants  of  Meroz ;  but  they  did 
not  come  to  the  help  of  the  Israelites,  and  brought  down  the  curse 
of  God  upon  themselves  in  consequence.  That  this  is  the  thought 
of  ver.  23  is  evident  from  the  context,  and  more  especially  from  the 
blessing  pronounced  upon  Jael  in  ver.  24.  The  situation  of  Meroz, 
which  is  not  mentioned  again,  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty 
Wilson  and  v.  Raumer  imagine  that  it  may  be  Kefr  Musr  on  the 
south  of  Tabor,  the  situation  of  which  at  all  events  is  more  suit- 
able than  Marussus,  which  was  an  hour  and  a  half  to  the  north  of 
Beisan,  and  which  Rabbi  Schwarz  supposed  to  be  Meroz  (see  V.  de 
Velde,  Mem.  p.  334).  The  curse  upon  the  inhabitants  of  this 
place  is  described  as  a  word  or  command  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord, 
inasmuch  as  it  was  the  angel  of  the  Lord  who  fought  for  Israel 
at  Megiddo,  as  the  revealer  of  the  invisible  God,  and  smote  the 
Canaanites.  Deborah  heard  from  him  the  words  of  the  curse 
upon  the  inhabitants  of  Meroz,  because  they  did  not  come  to  help 
Jehovah  when  He  was  fighting  with  and  for  the  Israelites.  "  Among 
the  heroes"  or  mighty  men,  i.e.  associating  with  the  warriors  of 
Israel. — Ver.  24.  Jael  behaved  altogether  differently,  although  she 
was  not  an  Israelite,  but  a  woman  of  the  tribe  of  the  Kenites, 
which  was  only  allied  with  Israel  (see  chap.  iv.  11,  17  sqq.).  For 
her  heroic  deed  she  was  to  be  blessed  before  women  (}0  as  in  Gen. 
iii.  14,  literally  removed  away  from  women).  The  "  women  in  the 
tent"  are  dwellers  in  tents,  or  shepherdesses.  This  heroic  act  is 
poetically  commemorated  in  the  strophe  which  follows  in  vers. 
25-27. 

Ver.  25.  He  asked  water,  she  gave  him  milk  ; 

She  handed  him  cream  in  the  dish  of  nobles. 

26.  She  stretched  out  her  hand  to  the  plug, 

And  her  right  hand  to  the  workmen's  hammer, 

And  hammered  Sisera,  broke  his  head, 

And  dashed  in  pieces  and  pierced  his  temples. 

27.  Between  her  feet  he  bowed,  he  fell,  he  lay  down  : 
Between  her  feet  he  bowed,  he  fell : 

Where  he  bowed,  there  he  fell  down  dead. 

Assuming  that  the  fact  itself  is  well  known,  Deborah  does  not 
think  it  necessary  to  mention  Sisera's  name  in  ver.  25.     ""Won, 


CHAP.  V.  28-30.  323 

which  generally  signifies  thick  curdled  milk,  is  used  here  as  synony- 
mous with  3?n?  in  the  sense  of  good  superior  milk.  ^SD  is  only  used 
hex*e  and  in  chap.  vi.  38,  and  signifies  a  bowl  or  vessel  for  holding 
liquids  (see  Arab.,  Chald.,  and  Talm.;  also  Bochart,  Ilieroz.  i.  pp.  625 
sqq.,  ed.  Ros.).  The  dish  of  nobles  is  a  fine  costly  bowl,  such  as  they 
are  accustomed  to  hand  to  noble  guests.  The  whole  verse  is  simply 
intended  to  express  the  thought,  that  Jael  had  given  to  her  guest 
Sisera  a  friendly  reception,  and  treated  him  honourably  and  hospi- 
tably, simply  in  order  to  make  him  feel  secure. — Ver.  2Q.  u  //■  r 
hand"  i.e.  the  left  hand,  as  is  shown  by  the  antithesis,  u  her  right 
hand,"  which  follows.  On  the  form  n^np^rij  the  third  pers.  fern, 
sing,  with  H3  attached,  to  distinguish  it  the  more  clearly  from  the 
second  pers.,  see  the  remarks  on  Ex.  i.  10.  B^pipy  fi^L1,  hammer 
or  mallet  of  the  hard  workers,  is  a  large  heavy  hammer.  For  the 
purpose  of  depicting  the  boldness  and  greatness  of  the  deed,  the 
words  are  crowded  together  in  the  second  hemistich  :  D?n,  to  hammer, 
or  smite  with  the  hammer ;  PHD,  air.  \€y.,  to  smite  in  pieces,  smite 
through ;  }*n£>,  to  smite  or  dash  in  pieces ;  ^n,  to  pierce  or  bore 
through.  The  heaping  up  of  the  words  in  ver.  27  answers  the 
same  purpose.  They  do  not  "  express  the  delight  of  a  satisfied 
thirst  for  revenge,"  but  simply  bring  out  the  thought  that  Sisera, 
who  was  for  years  the  terror  of  Israel,  was  now  struck  dead  with  a 
single  blow.  JTO  "1B>K3,  at  the  place  where  he  bowed,  there  he  fell 
WB*,  overpowered  and  destroyed.  In  conclusion,  the  singer  refers 
once  more  in  the  last  strophe  (vers.  28-30)  to  the  mother  of  Sisera, 
as  she  waited  impatiently  for  the  return  of  her  son,  and  foreboded 
his  death,  whilst  the  prudent  princesses  who  surrounded  her  sought 
to  cheer  her  with  the  prospect  of  a  rich  arrival  of  booty. 

Ver.  28.  Through  the  window  there  looks  out  and  cries  aloud 
The  mother  of  Sisera,  through  the  lattice  work, 
Why  does  his  chariot  delay  its  coming  ? 
"Why  tarry  the  steps  of  his  team  ? 

29.  The  wise  of  her  princesses  reply  : 

— But  she  repeats  her  words  to  herself — 

30.  Surely  they  are  finding  and  sharing  booty  : 
A  maiden,  two  maidens  to  the  head  of  a  man, 
Booty  of  variegated  cloths  for  Sisera  ; 

Booty  of  variegated  cloths,  garments  worked  in  divers  colours, 
A  variegated  cloth,  two  garments  worked  in  divers  colours  for  his  neck 
as  booty. 

Sisera's  mother  looks  out  with  impatience  for  the  return  of  her 
son,  and  cries  aloud  out  of  the  window,  Why  is  he  never  coming?— 


324  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

foreboding  the  disastrous  result  of  the  war.  S^Fl,  air.  \ey.,  signifies 
to  cry ;  in  Aramasan  it  is  used  for  jf*in  and  \p_,  to  denote  a  loud 
joyful  cry ;  here  it  evidently  signifies  a  loud  cry  of  anxiety.  For 
the  repeated  question,  Why  does  his  chariot  delay  its  coming  ?  is 
evidently  expressive  of  anxiety  and  alarm.  The  form  ViriKj  perf. 
Piel  for  VinK,  may  be  attributed  to  the  influence  of  the  aleph, 
which  favours  the  seghol  sound,  like  VDW  in  Gen.  xxx.  39.  The 
combination  of  Vrii33"iD  *£>$[&,  "  steps  of  his  chariots,"  cannot  be 
explained,  as  it  is  by  Bertheau,  on  the  ground  that  the  word  söJ?a, 
as  a  general  expression  for  intermittent  movement,  might  also  be 
applied  to  the  jerking  of  the  wheels  in  rolling,  but  simply  on  the 
supposition  that  ni33"10,  as  a  synonym  for  13*1,  is  used  for  the  horses 
yoked  to  the  chariot  in  the  sense  of  team,  like  33")  in  2  Sam.  viii.  4, 
x.  18,  etc. — Ver.  29.  The  princesses  in  attendance  upon  Sisera's 
mother  sought  to  console  her  with  the  remark,  that  Sisera  would  have 
to  gather  together  rich  booty,  and  that  his  return  was  delayed  in 
consequence.  In  the  expression  "  the  wisest  of  her  princesses"  (see 
Ges.  §  119,  2),  the  irony  is  very  obvious,  as  the  reality  put  all  their 
wise  conjectures  to  shame,  ^yri,  third  pers.  plur.  fern,  for  fWJyri. 
The  second  hemistich  of  ver.  29  contains  a  clause  inserted  as  a 
parenthesis.  K11?""5!^  is  adversative  :  "  but  she ;"  *1N  is  only  an  em- 
phatic copula ;  the  antithesis  lies  in  the  emphatic  change  of  subject 
indicated  by  KTl.  nniSN  3>K>nj  lit.  to  bring  back  her  words,  i.e.  to 
repeat.  Fl?  is  used  in  a  reflective  sense,  "  to  herself."  The  mean- 
ing is :  But  Sisera's  mother  did  not  allow  herself  to  be  quieted  by 
the  words  of  her  wise  princesses  ;  on  the  contrary,  she  kept  repeat- 
ing the  anxious  question,  Why  does  Sisera  delay  his  coming  ?  In 
ver.  30  there  follows  the  answer  of  the  wise  princesses.  They 
imagine  that  Sisera  has  been  detained  by  the  large  amount  of  booty 
which  has  to  be  divided.  N<>l!,  nonne,  is  he  not,  in  the  sense  of  lively 
certainty.  They  will  certainly  discover  rich  booty,  and  divide  it. 
Dn'ij  uterus,  for  puella.  "  A  girl  (or  indeed  probably)  two  girls  to 
the  head  of  the  man"  i.e.  for  each  man.  Ö^V,  coloured  things, 
cloths  or  clothes.  n^i?"!,  worked  stuff,  or  garments  worked  in  divers 
colours  (see  the  remarks  on  Ex.  xxvi.  36),  is  attached  without  the 
vav  cop.  to  U^JQifj  and  is  also  dependent  upon  ??B5\  The  closing 
words,  7>W  ^N?-P,  "for  the  necks,"  or  (as  the  plural  is  also  fre- 
quently used  to  signify  a  single  neck,  e.g.  Gen.  xxvii.  16,  xlv.  14) 
"for  the  neck  of  the  booty,"  do  not  give  any  appropriate  sense,  as  7?W 
neither  signifies  animals  taken  as  booty  nor  the  taker  of  booty.  The 
idea,  however,  that  7?&  is  used  for  ??&  t^K,  like  ?pn  in  2  Sam.  xii.  4 


CHAP.  VI.-X.  5.  325 

for  $?  B*K,  viator,  and  «jnn  in  Prov.  xxiii.  28  for  «|nn  &*f  seems 
inadmissible,  since  ??&  has  just  before  been  used  three  times  in  its 
literal  sense.  There  is  just  the  same  objection  to  the  application  of 
7?W  to  animals  taken  as  booty,  not  to  mention  the  fact  that  they 
Mould  hardly  have  thought  of  having  valuable  cloths  upon  the  necks 
of  animals  taken  as  booty.  Consequently  the  only  explanation  that 
remains,  is  either  to  alter  *lKw  into  VlKW  or  P"1K«£,  or  else  to 
change  77Ü  into  MSJ>,  the  royal  spouse.  In  the  former  case,  9*0 
would  have  to  be  taken  as  in  apposition  to  DTiDjri  jnv  :  a  variegated 
cloth,  two  worked  in  divers  colours  for  his  (Sisera'sj  neck  as  booty, 
as  the  LXX.  have  rendered  it  (ra  rpa^r'jXw  avrov  cr/cvXa).  Ewald 
and  Bertheau  decide  in  favour  of  the  second  alteration,  and  defend 
it  on  the  ground  that  77Ü  might  easily  find  its  way  into  the  text  as 
a  copyist's  error  for  ?}V,  on  account  of  bbv  having  been  already 
written  three  times  before,  and  that  we  cannot  dispense  with  some 
such  word  as  ?)V  here,  since  the  repetition  of  7?W  three  times,  and 
the  threefold  use  of  ?,  evidently  show  that  there  were  three  dif- 
ferent kinds  of  people  among  whom  the  booty  was  to  be  distributed  ; 
and  also  that  it  was  only  a  fitting  thing  that  Sisera  should  set  apart 
one  portion  of  the  booty  to  adorn  the  neck  of  his  wife,  and  that 
the  wisest  of  the  noble  ladies,  when  mentioning  the  booty,  should 
not  forget  themselves. 

Ver.  31a.  So  shall  all  Thine  enemies  perish,  0  Jehovah  ! 

But  let  those  who  love  Him  be  like  the  rising  of  the  sun  in  its  strength. 

This  forms  the  conclusion  of  the  song.  J3,  so,  refers  to  the 
whole  of  the  song :  just  in  the  same  manner  as  Sisera  and  his 
warriors.  The  rising  of  the  sun  in  its  strength  is  a  striking  image 
of  the  exaltation  of  Israel  to  a  more  and  more  glorious  unfolding 
of  its  destiny,  which  Deborah  anticipated  as  the  result  of  this 
victory.  With  the  last  clause,  "  And  the  land  had  rest  forty  years" 
(cf.  chap.  iii.  11,  30,  viii.  28),  the  account  of  this  event  is  brought 
to  a  close. 

II.    THE  TIMES  OF  GIDEON  AND   HIS  FAMILY,  AND  OF  THE  JUDGES 
TOLA  AND  JAIR. — CHAP.  VI.-X.  Ö. 

In  this  second  stage  of  the  period  of  the  judges,  which  did  not 
extend  over  an  entire  century  (only  ninety-five  years),  Israel  was 
only  punished  for  its  apostasy  from  the  Lord,  it  is  true,  with  a  seven 
years'  oppression  by  the  Midianites ;  but  the  misery  which  these 
enemies,  who  allied  themselves  with  Amalekites  and  other  Arabian 


326  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

hordes,  brought  upon  both  land  and  people,  so  far  surpassed  the 
pressure  of  the  previous  chastisements,  that  the  Israelites  were 
obliged  to  take  refuge  from  the  foe  in  ravines,  caves,  and  strong- 
holds of  the  mountains.  But  the  more  heavily  the  Lord  punished 
His  rebellious  nation,  the  more  gloriously  did  He  set  forth  His 
nearness  to  help,  and  also  the  way  which  would  lead  to  a  lasting 
peace,  and  to  true  deliverance  out  of  every  trouble,  in  the  manner 
in  which  He  called  and  fitted  Gideon  to  be  its  deliverer,  and  gave 
him  the  victory  over  the  innumerable  army  of  the  hostile  hordes, 
with  only  300  chosen  warriors.  But  the  tendency  to  idolatry  and 
to  the  worship  of  Baal  had  already  become  so  strong  in  Israel,  that 
even  Gideon,  that  distinguished  hero  of  God,  who  had  been  so 
marvellously  called,  and  who  refused  the  title  of  king  when  offered 
to  him  from  genuine  fidelity  to  the  Lord,  yielded  to  the  temptation 
to  establish  for  himself  an  unlawful  worship,  in  a  high-priestly 
ephod  which  had  been  prepared  for  his  use,  and  thus  gave  the 
people  an  occasion  for  idolatry.  For  this  reason  his  house  was 
visited  with  severe  judgments,  which  burst  upon  it  after  his  death, 
under  the  three  years'  reign  of  his  son  Abimelech ;  although,  not- 
withstanding the  deep  religious  and  moral  depravity  which  was 
manifested  in  the  doings  of  Abimelech,  the  Lord  gave  His  people 
rest  for  forty-five  years  longer  after  the  death  of  Abimelech  under 
two  judges,  before  He  punished  their  apostasy  with  fresh  hostile 
oppressions. 

The  history  of  Gideon  and  his  family  is  related  very  fully, 
because  the  working  of  the  grace  and  righteousness  of  the  faithful 
covenant  God  was  so  obviously  displayed  therein,  that  it  contained 
a  rich  treasure  of  instruction  and  warning  for  the  church  of  the 
Lord  in  all  ages.  The  account  contains  such  an  abundance  of 
special  notices  of  separate  events  and  persons,  as  can  only  be 
explained  on  the  supposition  that  the  author  made  use  of  copious 
records  wThich  had  been  made  by  contemporaries  and  eye-witnesses 
of  the  events.  At  the  same  time,  the  separate  details  do  not 
contain  any  such  characteristic  marks  as  will  enable  us  to  discover 
clearly,  or  determine  with  any  certainty,  the  nature  of  the  source 
or  sources  which  the  author  employed.  The  only  things  peculiar 
to  this  narrative  are  the  use  of  the  prefix  tj>  for  l^N,  not  only  in 
reports  of  the  sayings  of  the  persons  engaged  (chap.  vi.  17),  but 
also  in  the  direct  narrative  of  facts  (chap.  vii.  12,  viii.  26),  and  the 
formula  n^'3?  njTP  Wl  (chap.  vi.  34),  which  only  occurs  again  in 
1  Chron.  xii.  18,  2  Chron.  xxiv.  20.     On  the  other  hand,  neither 


chap.  vi.  l-io.  327 

the  interchange  of  ha-Elohim  (chap.  vi.  36,  39,  vii.  14)  and  Elohim 
(chap.  vi.  40,  viii.  3,  ix.  7,  9,  13,  23,  56,  57)  with  Jehovah,  nor 
the  use  of  the  name  Jerubbaal  for  Gideon  (chap.  vi.  32,  vii.  1, 
viii.  29,  ix.  1,  2,  5,  16,  19,  24,  28),  nor  lastly  the  ahsence  of  the 
"  theocratical  pragmatism"  in  chap,  ix.,  contains  any  proof  of  the 
nature  of  the  source  employed,  or  even  of  the  employment  of  two 
different  sources,  as  these  peculiarities  are  founded  upon  the  con- 
tents and  materials  of  the  narrative  itself.1 

Oppression  of  Israel  by  the  Midianites,  and  call  of  Gideon  to  he 
their  Deliverer. — Chap.  vi.  1-32. 

Vers.  1-10.  Reneived  Apostasy  of  the  Nation,  and  its  Punish- 
ment.— Ver.  1.  As  the  Israelites  forsook  Jehovah  their  God  again, 
the  Lord  delivered  them  up  for  seven  years  into  the  hands  of  the 
Midianites.  The  Midianites,  who  were  descendants  of  Abraham 
and  Keturah  (Gen.  xxv.  2),  and  had  penetrated  into  the  grassy 
steppes  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  country  of  the  Moabites  and 

1  Even  Bertheau,  who  infers  from  these  data  that  two  different  sources  were 
employed,  admits  that  ha-Elohim  in  the  mouth  of  the  Midianites  (chap.  vii.  14) 
and  Elohim  in  Jotham's  fable,  where  it  is  put  into  the  mouth  of  the  1 1 
nothing  at  all,  because  here,  from  the  different  meanings  of  the  divine  names, 
the  author  could  not  have  used  anything  but  Elohim.  But  the  Bame  difference  is 
quite  as  unmistakeable  in  chap.  viii.  3,  ix.  7,  23,  56,  57,  since  in  tin-,'  pac 
either  the  antithesis  of  man  and  God,  or  the  idea  of  supernatural  causality, 
made  it  most  natural  for  the  author  to  use  the  genera]  n;une  of  God  even  if  it 
did  not  render  it  absolutely  necessary.  There  remain,  therefore,  only  chap. 
vi.  20,  36,  39,  40,  where  the  use  of  ha-Elohim  ami  Elohim  instead  of  Jehovah 
may  possibly  have  originated  with  the  source  made  use  of  by  the  author.  ( >n 
the  other  hand,  the  name  Jerulhaal,  which  Gideon  received  in  consequence  of 
the  destruction  of  the  altar  of  Baal  (chap.  vi.  32),  is  employed  with  conscious 
reference  to  its  origin  and  meaning,  not  only  in  chap.  vii.  1,  viii.  29,  35,  but 
also  throughout  chap,  ix.,  as  we  may  see  more  e  pecially  in  chap.  ix.  16,  19,  28. 
And  lastly,  even  the  peculiarities  of  chap.  ix. — namely,  that  the  names  Jehovah 
and  Gideon  do  not  occur  there  at  all,  and  that  many  historical  circumstances 
are  related  apparently  without  any  link  of  connection,  and  torn  away  from  some 
wider  context,  which  might  have  rendered  them  intelligible,  and  without  which 
very  much  remains  obscure — do  not  prove  that  the  author  drew  these  incidents 
from  a  different  source  from  the  rest  of  the  history  of  Gideon, — such,  for 
example,  as  a  more  complete  history  of  the  town  of  Shechem  and  its  rulers  in 
the  time  of  the  judges,  as  Bertheau  imagines.  For  these  peculiarities  may  be 
explained  satisfactorily  enough  from  the  intention  so  clearly  expressed  in  chap. 
viii.  34,  35,  and  ix.  57,  of  showing  how  the  ingratitude  of  the  Israelites  towards 
Gideon,  especially  the  wickedness  of  the  Snechemites,  who  helped  to  murder 
Gideon's  sons  to  gratify  Abimelech,  was  punished  by  God.  And  no  other 
peculiarities  can  be  discovered  that  could  possibly  establish  a  diversity  of  sources. 


328  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Ammonites  (see  at  Num.  xxii.  4),  had  shown  hostility  to  Israel 
even  in  the  time  of  Moses,  and  had  been  defeated  in  a  war  of 
retaliation  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites  (Num.  xxxi.).  But  they 
had  afterwards  recovered  their  strength,  so  that  now,  after  an 
interval  of  200  years,  the  Lord  used  them  as  a  rod  of  chastise- 
ment for  His  rebellious  people.  In  vers.  1,  2,  6,  they  alone  are 
mentioned  as  oppressors  of  Israel ;  but  in  vers.  3,  33,  and  chap, 
vii.  12,  the  Amalekites  and  children  of  the  east  are  mentioned  in 
connection  with  them,  from  which  we  may  see  that  the  Midianites 
were  the  principal  enemies,  but  had  allied  themselves  with  other 
predatory  Bedouin  tribes,  to  make  war  upon  the  Israelites  and 
devastate  their  land.  On  the  Amalekites,  those  leading  enemies 
of  the  people  of  God  who  had  sprung  from  Esau,  see  the  notes  on 
Gen.  xxxvi.  12  and  Ex.  xvii.  8.  "  Children  of  the  east "  (see  Job 
i.  3)  is  the  general  name  for  the  tribes  that  lived  in  the  desert  on 
the  east  of  Palestine,  "like  the  name  of  Arabs  in  the  time  of 
Josephus  (in  Ant.  v.  6,  1,  he  calls  the  children  of  the  east  men- 
tioned here  by  the  name  of  Arabs),  or  in  later  times  the  names  of 
the  Nabatasans  and  Kedarenes "  (Bertheau).  Hence  we  find  in 
chap.  viii.  10,  that  all  the  enemies  who  oppressed  the  Israelites  are 
called  "  children  of  the  east." — Vers.  2-5.  The  oppression  of  Israel 
by  Midian  and  its  allies.  Their  power  pressed  so  severely  upon  the 
Israelites,  that  before  (or  because  of)  them  the  latter  "  made  them 
the  ravines  which  are  in  the  mountains,  and  the  caves,  and  the  strong- 
holds" sc.  which  were  to  be  met  with  all  over  the  land  in  after  times 
(viz.  at  the  time  when  our  book  was  written),  and  were  safe  places 
of  refuge  in  time  of  war.  This  is  implied  in  the  definite  article 
before  Hiinjip  and  the  following  substantives.  The  words  "  they 
made  them  "  are  not  at  variance  with  the  fact  that  there  are  many 
natural  caves  to  be  found  in  the  limestone  mountains  of  Palestine. 
For,  on  the  one  hand,  they  do  not  affirm  that  all  the  caves  to  be 
found  in  the  land  were  made  by  the  Israelites  at  that  time ;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  nt'>y  does  not  preclude  the  use  of  natural  caves  as 
places  of  refuge,  since  it  not  only  denotes  the  digging  and  making 
of  caves,  but  also  the  adaptation  of  natural  caves  to  the  purpose 
referred  to,  i.e.  the  enlargement  of  them,  or  whatever  was  required 
to  make  them  habitable.  The  anr.  \ey.  fliirui?  does  not  mean  "  light 
holes  "  (Bertheau),  or  "  holes  with  openings  to  the  light,"  from  "inj, 
in  the  sense  of  to  stream,  to  enlighten  (Rashi,  Kimchi,  etc.),  but  is 
to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  " mountain  ravines"  hollowed  out  by 
torrents  (from  "inj,  to  pour),  which  the  Israelites  made  into  hiding- 


chap.  vi.  l-io.  329 

places,  ninyo,  fortresses,  mountain  strongholds.  These  ravines, 
caves,  and  fortresses  were  not  merely  to  serve  as  hiding-places  for 
the  Israelitish  fugitives,  but  much  more  as  places  of  concealment 
for  their  possessions  and  necessary  supplies.  For  the  Midianites, 
like  genuine  Bedouins,  thought  far  more  of  robbing  and  plunder- 
ing and  laying  waste  the  land  of  the  Israelites,  than  of  exterminat- 
ing the  people  themselves.  Herodotus  (i.  17)  says  just  the  same 
respecting  the  war  of  the  Lydian  king  Alyattes  with  the  Milesians. 
— Vers.  3,  4.  When  the  Israelites  had  sown,  the  Midianites  and 
their  allies  came  upon  them,  encamped  against  them,  and  destroyed 
the  produce  of  the  land  (the  fruits  of  the  field  and  soil)  as  far  as 
Gaza,  in  the  extreme  south-west  of  the  land  ("  till  thou  come,"  as 
in  Gen.  x.  19,  etc.).  As  the  enemy  invaded  the  land  with  their 
camels  and  flocks,  and  on  repeated  occasions  encamped  in  the 
valley  of  Jezreel  (ver.  33),  they  must  have  entered  the  land  on  the 
west  of  the  Jordan  by  the  main  road  which  connects  the  countries 
on  the  east  with  Palestine  on  the  west,  crossing  the  Jordan  near 
Beisan,  and  passing  through  the  plain  of  Jezreel ;  and  from  this 
point  they  spread  over  Palestine  to  the  sea-coast  of  Gaza.  "  They 
left  no  sustenance  (in  the  shape  of  produce  of  the  field  and  soil)  in 
Israel,  and  neither  sheep,  nor  oxen,  nor  asses.  For  they  came  on 
with  their  flocks,  and  their  tents  came  like  grasshoppers  in  multitude. 
The  Chethibh  HÖ*  is  not  to  be  altered  into  *KM,  according  to  the 
Keri  and  certain  Codd.  If  we  connect  örPTHNl  with  the  previous 
words,  according  to  the  Masoretic  pointing,  we  have  a  simple 
asyndeton.  It  is  more  probable,  however,  that  Dn^nxi  belongs  to 
what  follows:  u  And  their  tents  came  in  such  numbers  as  grass- 
hoppers" HS,  lit.  like  a  multitude  of  grasshoppers,  in  such  abun- 
ance.  "  Tims  they  came  into  the  land  to  devastate  it." — Ver.  6. 
The  Israelites  were  greatly  weakened  in  consequence  (75*,  the 
imperf.  Niphal  of  SWf,  so  that  in  their  distress  they  cried  to  the 
Lord  for  help. — Vers.  7-10.  But  before  helping  them,  the  Lord 
sent  a  prophet  to  reprove  the  people  for  not  hearkening  to  the 
voice  of  their  God,  in  order  that  they  might  reflect,  and  might 
recognise  in  the  oppression  which  crushed  them  the  chastisement 
of  God  for  their  apostasy,  and  so  be  brought  to  sincere  repentance 
and  conversion  by  their  remembrance  of  the  former  miraculous 
displays  of  the  grace  of  God.  The  Lord  God,  said  the  prophet  to 
the  people,  brought  you  out  of  Egypt,  the  house  of  bondage,  and 
delivered  you  out  of  the  hand  of  Egypt  (Ex.  xviii.  9),  and  out  of 
the  hand  of  all  your  oppressors  (see  chap.   ii.  18,  iv.  3,  x.  12;, 


330  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

whom  He  drove  before  you  (the  reference  is  to  the  Amorites  and 
Canaanites  who  were  conquered  by  Moses  and  Joshua) ;  but  ye 
have  not  followed  His  commandment,  that  ye  should  not  worship 
the  gods  of  the  Amorites.  The  Amorites  stand  here  for  the 
Canaanites,  as  in  Gen.  xv.  16  and  Josh.  xxiv.  15 

Vers.  11-32.  Call  of  Gideon  to  be  the  Deliverer  of  Israel. — As 
the  reproof  of  the  prophet  was  intended  to  turn  the  hearts  of  the 
people  once  more  to  the  Lord  their  God  and  deliverer,  so  the 
manner  in  which  God  called  Gideon  to  be  their  deliverer,  and 
rescued  Israel  from  its  oppressors  through  his  instrumentality,  was 
intended  to  furnish  the  most  evident  proof  that  the  help  and  salva- 
tion of  Israel  were  not  to  be  found  in  man,  but  solely  in  their  God. 
God  had  also  sent  their  former  judges.  The  Spirit  of  Jehovah 
had  come  upon  Othniel,  so  that  he  smote  the  enemy  in  the  power 
of  God  (chap.  iii.  10).  Ehud  had  put  to  death  the  hostile  king  by 
stratagem,  and  then  destroyed  his  army ;  and  Barak  had  received 
the  command  of  the  Lord,  through  the  prophetess  Deborah,  tö 
deliver  His  people  from  the  dominion  of  their  foes,  and  had  carried 
out  the  command  with  her  assistance.  But  Gideon  was  called  to 
be  the  deliverer  of  Israel  through  an  appearance  of  the  angel  of  the 
Lord,  to  show  to  him  and  to  all  Israel,  that  Jehovah,  the  God  of 
the  fathers,  was  still  near  at  hand  to  His  people,  and  could  work 
miracles  as  in  the  days  of  old,  if  Israel  would  only  adhere  to  Him 
and  keep  His  covenant.  The  call  of  Gideon  took  place  in  two 
revelations  from  God.  First  of  all  the  Lord  appeared  to  him  in 
the  visible  form  of  an  angel,  in  which  He  had  already  made  himself 
known  to  the  patriarchs,  and  summoned  him  in  the  strength  of  God 
to  deliver  Israel  out  of  the  hand  of  the  Midianites  (vers.  11-24). 
He  then  commanded  him,  in  a  dream  of  the  night,  to  throw  down 
his  father's  altar  of  Baal,  and  to  offer  a  burnt-offering  to  Jehovah 
his  God  upon  an  altar  erected  for  the  purpose  (vers.  25-32).  In 
the  first  revelation  the  Lord  acknowledged  Gideon  ;  in  the  second 
He  summoned  Gideon  to  acknowledge  Him  as  his  God. 

Vers.  11-24.  Appearance  of  the  Angel  of  the  Lord. — Ver.  11. 
The  angel  of  the  Lord,  i.e.  Jehovah,  in  a  visible  self-revelation 
in  human  form  (see  vol.  i.  pp.  185  sqq.),  appeared  this  time  in  the 
form  of  a  traveller  with  a  staff  in  his  hand  (ver.  21),  and  sat  down 
"  under  the  terebinth  which  (was)  in  Ophrah,  that  (belonged)  to 
Joash  the  Abi-ezriteV  It  was  not  the  oak,  but  Ophrah,  that  be- 
longed to  Joash,  as  we  may  see  from  ver.  24,  where  the  expression 
"  Ophrah  of  the  Abi-ezrite"  occurs.   According  to  Josh.  xvii.  2  and 


CHAP.  VI.  11-24.  331 

1  Chron.  vii.  18,  Abiezerxvus  a  family  in  the  tribe  of  Manasseh,  and 
according  to  ver.  15  it  was  a  small  family  of  that  tribe.  Joash  was 
probably  the  head  of  the  family  at  that  time,  and  as  such  was  the 
lord  or  owner  of  Ophrah,  a  town  (chap.  viii.  27;  cf.  ix.  5)  which  was 
called  "Ophrah  of  the  Abi-ezrite,"  to  distinguish  it  from  Ophrah  in 
the  tribe  of  Benjamin  (Josh,  xviii.  23).  The  situation  of  the  town 
has  not  yet  been  determined  with  certainty.  Josephus  (Ant.  v.  6,  5 ) 
calls  it  Ephran.  Van  de  Velde  conjectures  that  it  is  to  be  found  in 
the  ruins  of  Erfai,  opposite  to  Akrabeh,  towards  the  s.E.,  near  the 
Mohammedan  "YVely  of  Abu  Kharib,  on  the  s.w.  of  Janun  (Mem. 
pp.  337-8),  close  to  the  northern  boundary  of  the  tribe-territory  of 
Ephraim,  if  not  actually  within  it.  By  this  terebinth  tree  was 
Gideon  the  son  of  Joash  "  knocking  out  wheat  in  the  icine-j>ress." 
E3n  does  not  mean  to  thresh,  but  to  knock  with  a  stick.  The  wheat 
was  threshed  upon  open  floors,  or  in  places  in  the  open  field  that 
were  rolled  hard  for  the  purpose,  with  threshing  carriages  or  thresh- 
ing shoes,  or  else  with  oxen,  which  they  drove  about  over  the 
scattered  sheaves  to  tread  out  the  grains  with  their  hoofs.  Only 
poor  people  knocked  out  the  little  corn  that  they  had  gleaned  with 
a  stick  (Ruth  ii.  17),  and  Gideon  did  it  in  the  existing  times  of 
distress,  namely  in  the  pressing-tub,  which,  like  all  wine-presses, 
was  sunk  in  the  ground,  in  a  hole  that  had  been  dug  out  or  hewn  in 
the  rock  (for  a  description  of  cisterns  of  this  kind,  see  Rob.  Bibl.  Res. 
pp.  135-6),  "  to  make  the  icheat  fly"  (i.e.  to  make  it  safe)  ufrom  the 
Midianites"  (D^n  as  in  Ex.  ix.  20).— -Ver.  12.  While  he  was  thus 
engaged  the  angel  of  the  Lord  appeared  to  him,  and  addressed  him 
in  these  words :  "  Jehovah  (is)  with  thee,  thou  brave  hero."  This 
address  contained  the  promise  that  the  Lord  would  be  with  Gideon, 
and  that  he  would  prove  himself  a  mighty  hero  through  the  strength 
of  the  Lord.  This  promise  was  to  be  a  guarantee  to  him  of  strengt li 
and  victory  in  his  conflict  with  the  Midianites. — Ver.  13.  But 
Gideon,  who  did  not  recognise  the  angel  of  the  Lord  in  the 
man  who  was  sitting  before  him,  replied  doubtingly,  "  Pray,  sir, 
if  Jehovah  is  with  us,  why  has  all  this  befallen  us?" — words  which 
naturally  recall  to  mind  the  words  of  Deut.  xxxi.  17,  "Arc  not 
these  evils  come  upon  us  because  our  God  is  not  among  as  I 
"  And  where"  continued  Gideon,  " are  all  His  miracles,  of  which 
our  fathers  have  told  us?  .  .  .  But  now  Jehovah  hath  forsaken  im, 
and  delivered  us  into  the  hands  of  the  Midianites."  Qideon  may 
have  been  reflecting,  while  knocking  the  wheat,  upon  the  misery 
of  his  people,  and  the  best  means  of  delivering  them  from  the 


332  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

oppression  of  the  enemy,  but  without  being  able  to  think  of  any 
possibility  of  rescuing  them.  For  this  reason  he  could  not  under- 
stand the  address  of  the  unknown  traveller,  and  met  his  promise 
with  the  actual  state  of  things  with  which  it  was  so  directly  at 
variance,  namely,  the  crushing  oppression  of  his  people  by  their 
enemies,  from  which  he  concluded  that  the  Lord  had  forsaken 
them  and  given  them  up  to  their  foes. — Ver.  14.  "  Then  Jehovah 
turned  to  him  and  said,  Go  in  this  thy  strength,  and  deliver  Israel 
from  the  hand  of  Midian.  Have  not  I  sent  thee?"  The  writer 
very  appropriately  uses  the  name  Jehovah  here,  instead  of  the 
angel  of  Jehovah ;  for  by  his  reply  the  angel  distinctly  mani- 
fested himself  as  Jehovah,  more  especially  in  the  closing  words, 
"Have  not  I  sent  thee?"  (^ü!,  in  the  sense  of  lively  assurance), 
which  are  so  suggestive  of  the  call  of  Moses  to  be  the  deliverer  of 
Israel  (Ex.  iii.  12).  " In  this  thy  strength"  i.e.  the  strength  which 
thou  now  hast,  since  Jehovah  is  with  thee — Jehovah,  who  can  still 
perform  miracles  as  in  the  days  of  the  fathers.  The  demonstrative 
"  this"  points  to  the  strength  which  had  just  been  given  to  him 
through  the  promise  of  God. — Ver.  15.  Gideon  perceived  from 
these  words  that  it  was  not  a  mere  man  who  was  speaking  to  him. 
He  therefore  said  in  reply,  not  "pray  sir"  (T^),  but  "pray,  Lord" 
(^1S,  i.e.  Lord  God),  and  no  longer  speaks  of  deliverance  as 
impossible,  but  simply  inquires,  with  a  consciousness  of  his  own 
personal  weakness  and  the  weakness  of  his  family,  "  Whereby  (with 
what)  shall  I  save  Israel  ?  Behold,  my  family  {lit.  '  thousand,' 
equivalent  to  mishpachah:  see  at  Num.  i.  16)  is  the  humblest  in 
Manasseh,  and  I  am  the  least  in  my  father  s  house  (my  family)." — 
Ver.  16.  To  this  difficulty  the  Lord  replies,  "/  will  be  xoith  thee 
(see  Ex.  iii.  12,  Josh.  i.  5),  and  thou  wilt  smite  the  Midianites  as 
one  man"  i.e.  at  one  blow,  as  they  slay  a  single  man  (see  Num. 
xiv.  15). — Vers.  17  sqq.  As  Gideon  could  no  longer  have  any  doubt 
after  this  promise  that  the  person  who  had  appeared  to  him  was 
speaking  in  the  name  of  God,  he  entreated  him  to  assure  him  by  a 
sign  (niK,  a  miraculous  sign)  of  the  certainty  of  his  appearance. 
"  Do  a  sign  that  thou  art  speaking  with  me"  i.e.  that  thou  art  really 
God,  as  thou  affirmest.  nriXK',  for  nrix  "i^'x,  is  taken  from  the  lan- 
guage of  ordinary  life.  At  the  same  time  he  presents  this  request : 
"Depart  not  hence  till  I  (go  and)  come  to  thee,  and  bring  out  my 
offering  and  set  it  before  thee"  and  the  angel  at  once  assents. 
Minchah  does  not  mean  a  sacrifice  in  the  strict  sense  (ßvcria,  sacri- 
ßcium),  nor  merely  a  "  gift  of  food,"  but  a  sacrificial  gift  in  the 


CHAP.  VL  11—21.  333 

sense  of  a  gift  presented  to  God,  on  the  acceptance  of  which  lie 
hoped  to  receive  the  sign,  which  would  show  whether  the  person 
who  had  appeared  to  him  was  really  God.  This  sacrificial  gift 
consisted  of  such  food  as  they  were  accustomed  to  set  before  a 
guest  whom  they  wished  especially  to  honour.  Gideon  prepared  a 
kid  of  the  goats  (nyy  is  used  to  denote  the  preparation  of  food,  as 
in  Gen.  xviii.  7,  8,  etc.),  and  unleavened  cakes  of  an  ephah  (about 
22i  lbs.)  of  meal,  and  brought  the  flesh  in  a  basket  and  the  broth 
in  a  pot  out  to  the  terebinth  tree,  and  placed  it  before  him. — Vers. 
20,  21.  The  angel  of  the  Lord  then  commanded  him  to  lay  the  flesh 
and  the  cakes  upon  a  rock  close  by,  and  to  pour  the  broth  upon  it ; 
that  is  to  say,  to  make  use  of  the  rock  as  an  altar  for  the  offering 
to  be  presented  to  the  Lord.  When  he  had  done  this,  the  angel 
touched  the  food  with  the  end  of  his  staff,  and  fire  came  out  of  the 
rock  and  consumed  the  food,  and  the  angel  of  the  Lord  vanished 
out  of  Gideon's  sight.  "  This  rock,"  i.e.  a  rocky  stone  that  was 
lying  near.  The  departure  of  the  angel  from  his  eyes  is  to  be 
regarded  as  a  sudden  disappearance ;  but  the  expression  does  not 
warrant  the  assumption  that  the  angel  ascended  to  heaven  in  this 
instance,  as  in  chap.  xiii.  19,  20,  in  the  flame  of  the  sacrifice. — 
Ver.  22.  In  this  miracle  Gideon  received  the  desired  sign,  that  the 
person  who  had  appeared  to  him  was  God.  But  the  miracle  filled 
his  soul  with  fear,  so  that  he  exclaimed,  "  Alas,  Lord  Jehovah  '.  /'<  r 
to  this  end  have  I  seen  the  angel  of  the  Lord  face  to  face."  ^'"W  nnx 
mrf  is  an  exclamation,  sometimes  of  grief  on  account  of  a  calamity 
that  has  occurred  (Josh  vii.  7),  and  sometimes  of  alarm  caused  by 
the  foreboding  of  some  anticipated  calamity  (Jer.  i.  6,  iv.  10,  xxxii. 
17  ;  Ezek.  iv.  14,  etc.).  Here  it  is  an  expression  of  alarm,  viz.  fear 
of  the  death  which  might  be  the  necessary  consequence  of  his 
seeing  God  (see  Ex.  xx.  16  (19),  and  the  remarks  on  Gen.  xvi.  13). 
The  expression  which  follows,  " for  to  this  end"  serves  to  account 
for  the  exclamation,  without  there  being  any  necessity  to  assume 
an  ellipsis,  and  supply  "  that  I  may  die."  J3"vlp3  is  always  used  in 
this  sense  (see  Gen.  xviii.  .5,  xix.  8,  xxxiii.  10,  etc.). — Vers.  2.')>,  24. 
But  the  Lord  comforted  him  with  the  words,  "  Peace  to  tliu  ; 
not:  thou  wilt  not  die."  These  words  were  not  spoken  by  the  angel 
as  he  vanished  away,  but  were  addressed  by  God  to  Gideon,  after 
the  disappearance  of  the  angel,  by  an  inward  voice.  In  gratitude 
for  this  comforting  assurance,  Gideon  built  an  altar  to  the  Lord, 
which  he  called  Jehovah-shalom,  "  the  Lord  is  peace."  The  inten- 
tion of  this  altar,  which  was  preserved  "  unto  this  day,"  i.e.  till  the 


334  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

time  when  the  book  of  Judges  was  composed,  is  indicated  in  the 
name  that  was  given  to  it.  It  was  not  to  serve  as  a  place  of  sacri- 
fice, but  to  be  a  memorial  and  a  witness  of  the  revelation  of  God 
which  had  been  made  to  Gideon,  and  of  the  proof  which  he  had 
received  that  Jehovah  was  peace,  i.e.  would  not  destroy  Israel  in 
wrath,  bui  cherished  thoughts  of  peace.  For  the  assurance  of  peace 
which  He  had  given  to  Gideon,  was  also  a  confirmation  of  His 
announcement  that  Gideon  would  conquer  the  Midiauites  in  the 
strength  of  God,  and  deliver  Israel  from  its  oppressors. 

The  theophany  here  described  resembles  so  far  the  appearance 
of  the  angel  of  the  Lord  to  Abram  in  the  grove  of  Mamre  (Gen. 
xviii.),  that  he  appears  in  perfect  human  form,  comes  as  a  traveller, 
and  allows  food  to  be  set  before  him  ;  but  there  is  this  essential 
difference  between  the  two,  that  whereas  the  three  men  who  came 
to  Abraham  took  the  food  that  was  set  before  them  and  ate  thereof, 
— that  is  to  say,  allowed  themselves  to  be  hospitably  entertained  by 
Abraham, — the  angel  of  the  Lord  in  the  case  before  us  did  indeed 
accept  the  minchah  that  had  been  made  ready  for  him,  but  only  as 
a  sacrifice  of  Jehovah  which  he  caused  to  ascend  in  fire.  The 
reason  for  this  essential  difference  is  to  be  found  in  the  different 
purpose  of  the  two  theophanies.  To  Abraham  the  Lord  came  to 
seal  that  fellowship  of  grace  into  which  He  had  entered  with  him 
through  the  covenant  that  He  had  made :  but  in  the  case  of  Gideon 
His  purpose  was  simply  to  confirm  the  truth  of  His  promise,  that 
Jehovah  would  be  with  him  and  would  send  deliverance  through 
him  to  His  people,  or  to  show  that  the  person  who  had  appeared  to 
him  was  the  God  of  the  fathers,  who  could  still  deliver  His  people 
out  of  the  power  of  their  enemies  by  working  such  miracles  as  the 
fathers  had  seen.  But  the  acceptance  of  the  minchah  prepared  for 
Him,  as  a  sacrifice  which  the  Lord  himself  caused  to  be  miracu- 
lously consumed  by  fire,  showed  that  the  Lord  would  still  graciously 
accept  the  prayers  and  sacrifices  of  Israel,  if  they  would  but  for- 
sake the  worship  of  the  dead  idols  of  the  heathen,  and  return  to 
Him  in  sincerity.  (Compare  with  this  the  similar  theophany  in 
chap,  xiii.) 

Vers.  25-32.  Gideon  set  apart  as  the  Deliverer  of  his  People. — In 
order  to  be  able  to  carry  out  the  work  entrusted  to  him  of  setting 
Israel  free,  it  was  necessary  that  Gideon  should  first  of  all  purify 
his  father's  house  from  idolatry,  and  sanctify  his  own  life  and 
labour  to  Jehovah  by  sacrificing  a  burnt-offering. — Ver.  25.  "  In 
iliat  night?  i.e.  the  night  following  the  day  on  which  the  Lord 


CHAP.  VI.  25-32  335 

appeared  to  him,  God  commanded  him  to  destroy  his  father's 
Baal's  altar,  with  the  asherah-idol  upon  it,  and  to  build  an  altar  to 
Jehovah,  and  offer  a  bullock  of  his  father's  upon  the  altar.  "  Take 
the  ox-bullock  which  belongs  to  thy  father,  and  indeed  the  second 
bullock  of  seven  years,  and  destroy  the  altar  of  Baal,  which  belongs 
to  thy  father,  and  throw  down  the  asherah  upon  it."  According  to 
the  general  explanation  of  the  first  clauses,  there  arc  two  oxen 
referred  to  :  viz.  first,  his  father's  young  bullock  ;  and  secondly,  an 
ox  of  seven  years  old,  the  latter  of  which  Gideon  was  to  sacrifice 
(according  to  ver.  2G)  upon  the  altar  to  be  built  to  Jehovah,  and 
actually  did  sacrifice,  according  to  vers.  27,  28.  But  in  what 
follows  there  is  no  further  allusion  to  the  young  bullock,  or  the 
first  ox  of  his  father;  so  that  there  is  a  difficulty  in  comprehending 
for  what  purpose  Gideon  was  to  take  it,  or  what  use  he  was  to 
make  of  it.  Most  commentators  suppose  that  Gideon  sacrificed 
both  of  the  oxen, — the  young  bullock  as  an  expiatory  offering  for 
himself,  his  father,  and  all  his  family,  and  the  second  ox  of  seven 
years  old  for  the  deliverance  of  the  whole  nation  (see  Seb.  Schmidt). 
Bertheau  supposes,  on  the  other  hand,  that  Gideon  was  to  make  use 
of  both  oxen,  or  of  the  strength  they  possessed  for  throwing  down 
or  destroying  the  altar,  and  (according  to  ver.  2G)  for  removing  the 
n?^P  and  the  HTtPKn  »Sg  to  the  place  of  the  new  altar  that  was  to 
be  built,  but  that  he  was  only  to  offer  the  second  in  sacrifice  to 
Jehovah,  because  the  first  was  probably  dedicated  to  Baal,  and  there- 
fore could  not  be  offered  to  Jehovah.  But  these  assumptions  arc  both 
of  them  equally  arbitrary,  and  have  no  support  whatever  from  the 
text.  If  God  had  commanded  Gideon  to  take  two  oxen,  lie  would 
certainly  have  told  him  what  he  was  to  do  with  them  both.  But 
as  there  is  only  one  bullock  mentioned  in  vers.  20-28,  we  must 
follow  Tremell.  and  others,  who  understand  ver.  25  as  meaning  that 
Gideon  was  to  take  only  one  bullock,  namely  the  young  bullock  of 
his  father,  and  therefore  regard  '&  '&  ^n  "121  as  a  more  precise 
definition  of  that  one  bullock  (vav  being  used  in  an  explanatory 
sense,  "and  indeed,"  as  in  Josh.  ix.  27,  x.  7,  etc.).  This  bullock  is 
called  "the  second  bullock,"  as  being  the  second  in  age  among  the 
bullocks  of  Joash.  The  reason  for  choosing  this  second  oi 
bullocks  of  Joash  for  a  burnt-offering  is  to  be  found  no  doubt  in 
its  age  (seven  years),  which  is  mentioned  here  simply  on  account  oi 
its  significance  as  a  number,  as  there  was  no  particular  age  pre- 
scribed in  the  law  for  a  burnt-offering,  that  is  to  say,  because  the 
seven  years  which  constituted  the  age  of  the  bullock  contained  an 


336  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

inward  allusion  to  the  seven  years  of  the  Midianitish  oppression. 
For  seven  years  had  God  given  Israel  into  the  hands  of  the  Midian- 
ites  on  account  of  their  apostasy;  and  now,  to  wipe  away  this  sin, 
Gideon  was  to  take  his  father's  bullock  of  seven  years  old,  and 
offer  it  as  a  burnt-offering  to  the  Lord.  To  this  end  Gideon  was 
first  of  all  to  destroy  the  altar  of  Baal  and  of  the  asherah  which  his 
father  possessed,  and  which,  to  judge  from  vers.  28,  29,  was  the 
common  altar  of  the  whole  family  of  Abiezer  in  Ophrah.  This 
altar  was  dedicated  to  Baal,  but  there  was  also  upon  it  an  asherah, 
an  idol  representing  the  goddess  of  nature,  which  the  Canaanites 
worshipped ;  not  indeed  a  statue  of  the  goddess,  but,  as  we  may 
learn  from  the  word  rn3,  to  hew  down,  simply  a  wooden  pillar  (see 
at  Deut.  xvi.  21).  The  altar  therefore  served  for  the  two  principal 
deities  of  the  Canaanites  (see  Movers,  Phönizier,  i.  pp.  566  sqq.). 
Jehovah  could  not  be  worshipped  along  with  Baal.  Whoever 
would  serve  the  Lord  must  abolish  the  worship  of  Baal.  The  altar 
of  Baal  must  be  destroyed  before  the  altar  of  Jehovah  could  be 
built.  Gideon  was  to  build  this  altar  u  upon  the  top  of  this  strong- 
hold^ possibly  upon  the  top  of  the  mountain,  upon  which  the  fortress 
belonging  to  Ophrah  was  situated,  ^"lyEfl,  "with  the  preparation ;" 
the  meaning  of  this  word  is  a  subject  of  dispute.  As  H33  occurs 
in  1  Kings  xv.  22  with  3,  to  denote  the  materials  out  of  which  (i.e. 
with  which)  a  thing  is  built,  Stud,  and  Berth,  suppose  that  maaracah 
refers  to  the  materials  of  the  altar  of  Baal  that  had  been  destroyed, 
with  which  Gideon  was  to  build  the  altar  of  Jehovah.  Stud,  refers 
it  to  the  stone  foundation  of  the  altar  of  Baal ;  Bertheau  to  the 
materials  that  were  lying  ready  upon  the  altar  of  Baal  for  the 
presentation  of  sacrifices,  more  especially  the  pieces  of  wood.  But 
this  is  certainly  incorrect,  because  maaracah  does  not  signify  either 
building  materials  or  pieces  of  wood,  and  the  definite  article  attached 
to  the  word  does  not  refer  to  the  altar  of  Baal  at  all.  The  verb  "i\"]V  is 
not  only  very  frequently  used  to  denote  the  preparation  of  the  wood 
upon  the  altar  (Gen.  xxii.  9  ;  Lev.  i.  7,  etc.),  but  is  also  used  for 
the  preparation  of  an  altar  for  the  presentation  of  sacrifice  (Num. 
xxiii.  4).  Consequently  maaracah  can  hardly  be  understood  in  any 
other  way  than  as  signifying  the  preparation  of  the  altar  to  be 
built  for  the  sacrificial  act,  in  the  sense  of  build  the  altar  with  the 
preparation  required  for  the  sacrifice.  This  preparation  was  to 
consist,  according  to  what  follows,  in  taking  the  wood  of  the 
asherah,  that  had  been  hewn  down,  as  the  wood  for  the  burnt- 
offering  to  be  offered  to  the  Lord  by  Gideon.     I"1"1^?  *SS  are  n°t 


CHAP    VI.  25-32.  337 

trees,  but  pieces  of  wood  from  the  asherah  (that  was  hewn  clown). 

Ver.  27.  Gideon  executed  this  command  of  God  witli  ten  men  of 
his  servants  during  the  night,  no  doubt  the  following  night,  because 
lie  was  afraid  to  do  it  by  day,  on  account  of  his  family  (his  father's 
house),  and  the  people  of  the  town.— Vers.  28,  29.  But  on  the 
following  morning,  when  the  people  of  the  town  found  the  altar  of 
Baal  destroyed  and  the  asherah  upon  it  hewn  down,  and  the  bullock 
sacrificed  upon  the  (newly)  erected  altar  (the  bulloek  would  not  be 
entirely  consumed),  they  asked  who  had  done  it,  and  soon  learned 
that  Gideon  had  done  it  all.  The  accusative  "2E;n  nt-n  ns  i.s  croverned 
by  the  Ilophal  n?jm  (for  Tr?V^  see  Ges.  s.  63,  Anm.  4),  according  to 
a  construction  that  was  by  no  means  rare,  especially  in  the  earlier 
Hebrew,  viz.  of  the  passive  with  riK  (see  at  Gen.  iv.  18).  "  They 
asked  and  sought"  sc.  for  the  person  who  had  done  it;  "and  tht  u 
said,"  either  those  who  were  making  the  inquiry,  according  to  a 
tolerably  safe  conjecture,  or  the  persons  who  were  asked,  and 
who  were  aware  of  what  Gideon  had  done. — Vers.  30,  31.  But 
when  they  demanded  of  Joash,  "  Brbig  out  (give  out)  thy  son, 
that  he  may  die"  he  said  to  all  who  stood  round,  "  Will  ye,  ye, 
fight  for  Baal,  or  ivill  ye  save  him?  ('ye'  is  repeated  with  special 
emphasis).  Whoever  shall  fight  for  him  (Baal),  shall  be  put  to 
death  till  the  morning"  "ip'sn  ry?  till  the  (next)  morning,  is  not 
to  be  joined  to  flOVj  in  the  sense  of  "  very  speedily,  before  the 
dawning  day  shall  break"  (Bertheaii), — a  sense  which  is  not  to  be 
found  in  the  words  :  it  rather  belongs  to  the  subject  of  the 
clause,  or  to  the  whole  clause  in  the  sense  of,  Whoever  shall 
fight  for  Baal,  and  seek  to  avenge  the  destruction  of  his  altar  by 
putting  the  author  of  it  to  death,  shall  be  put  to  death  himself ; 
let  us  wrait  till  to-morrow,  and  give  Baal  time  to  avenge  the  insult 
which  he  has  received.  "If  he  he  God,  let  him  fight  for  himself; 
for  they  have  destroyed  his  altar,"  and  have  thereby  challenged  his 
revenue.  Gideon's  daring  act  of  faith  had  inspired  his  father  Joash 
with  believing  courage,  so  that  he  took  the  part  of  his  son,  and  left 
the  whole  matter  to  the  deity  to  decide.  If  Baal  were  really  God, 
he  might  be  expected  to  avenge  the  crime  that  had  been  committed 
against  this  altar.— Ver.  32.  From  this  fact  Gideon  received  the 
name  of  Jerubhaal,  i.e.  "  let  Baal  fight  (or  decide),"  since  they  said, 
"  Let  Baal  fight  against  him,  for  he  has  destroyed  hi*  al/ar."  ■  VSV  is 
formed  from  3*1}  =  3nj  or  3MJ  and  fe  This  surname  very  Boon 
became  an  honourable  title  for  Gideon.  When,  for  example,  it 
became  apparent  to  the  people  that  Baal  could  not  do  him  any 

Y 


338  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

harm,  Jerubbaal  became  a  Baal-fighter,  one  who  had  fought  against 
Baal.  In  2  Sam.  xi.  21,  instead  of  Jerubbaal  we  find  the  name 
Jerubbesheth,  in  which  Besheth  =  Bosheih  is  a  nickname  of  Baal, 
which  also  occurs  in  other  Israelitish  names,  e.g.  in  Ishbosheth  (2 
Sam.  ii.  8  sqq.)  for  Eshbaal  (1  Chron.  viii.  33,  ix.  39).  The  name 
Jerubbaal  is  written  'lepoßdaX  by  the  LXX.,  from  which  in  all 
probability  Philo  of  Byblus,  in  his  revision  of  Sanchuniathon,  has 
formed  his  'IepofxßaXos,  a  priest  of  the  god  'leva. 

Gideon! s  Victory  over  the  Midianites. — Chap.  vi.  33— viii.  3. 

Chap.  vi.  33-40.  Equipment  of  Gideon  for  the  Battle. 
— When  the  Midianites  and  their  allies  once  more  invaded  the 
land  of  Israel,  Gideon  was  seized  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  so  that 
he  gathered  together  an  army  from  the  northern  tribes  of  Israel 
(vers.  33-35),  and  entreated  God  to  assure  him  by  a  sign  of  gain- 
ing the  victory  over  the  enemy  (vers.  36-40). — Vers.  33  sqq.  The 
enemy  gathered  together  again,  went  over  (viz.  across)  the  Jordan 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Beisan  (see  at  chap.  vii.  24  and  viii.  4), 
and  encamped  in  the  valley  of  Jezreel  (see  at  Josh.  xvii.  16). 
"And  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  came  upon  Gideon"  (n^?^,  clothed, 
i.e.  descended  upon  him,  and  laid  itself  around  him  as  it  were 
like  a  coat  of  mail,  or  a  strong  equipment,  so  that  he  became 
invulnerable  and  invincible  in  its  might :  see  1  Chron.  xii.  18, 
2  Chron.  xxiv.  20,  and  Luke  xxiv.  49).  Gideon  then  blew 
the  trumpet,  to  call  Israel  to  battle  against  the  foe  (see  chap.  iii. 
27) ;  "  and  Abiezer  let  itself  be  summoned  after  him."  His  own 
family,  which  had  recognised  the  deliverer  of  Israel  in  the  fighter 
of  Baal,  who  was  safe  from  Baal's  revenge,  was  the  first  to  gather 
round  him.  Their  example  was  followed  by  all  Manasseh,  i.e.  the 
Manassites  on  the  west  of  the  Jordan  (for  the  tribes  on  the  east  of 
the  Jordan  took  no  part  in  the  war),  and  the  neighbouring  tribes 
of  Zebulun  and  Naphtali  on  the  north,  which  had  been  summoned 
by  heralds  to  the  battle.  "  They  advanced  to  meet  them:"  i.e.  to 
meet  the  Manassites,  who  were  coming  from  the  south  to  the  battle, 
to  make  war  upon  the  enemy  in  concert  with  them  and  under  the 
guidance  of  Gideon.     n?J?  is  used  to  denote  their  advance  against 

D  TT  O 

the  enemy  (see  at  Josh.  viii.  2),  and  not  in  the  sense  of  going  up, 
since  the  Asherites  and  Naphtalites  would  not  go  up  from  their 
mountains  into  the  plain  of  Jezreel,  but  could  only  go  down. — Vers. 
36  sqq.  But  before  Gideon  went  into  the  battle  with  the  assembled 
army,  he  asked  for  a  sign  from  God  of  the  success  of  his  under- 


CHAP.  VI.  33-40.  339 

taking.     "  If  Thou"  he  said  to  God,  " art  saving  Israel  through  my 
hand,  as  Thou  hast  said,  behold,  I  lay  this  fleece  of  wool  upon  the 
floor;  if  there  shall  be  dew  upon  the  fleece  only,  and  dryness  upon  all 
the  earth  (round  about),  1  know  (by  this)  that  Thou  wilt  save"  etc. 
"•9*3  ™,  the  shorn  of  the  wool;  i.e.  the  fleece,  the  wool  that  had 
been  shorn  off  a  sheep,  and  still  adhered  together  as  one  whole 
fleece.     The  sign  which  Gideon  asked  for,  therefore,  was  that  God 
would  cause  the  dew  to  fall  only  upon  a  shorn  fleece,  which  he 
would  spread  the  previous  night  upon  the  floor,  that  is  to  say,  upon 
some  open  ground,  and  that  the  ground  all  round  might  not  be 
moistened  by  the  dew. — Ver.  38.  God  granted  the  sign.     "And 
so  it  came  to  pass;   the   next  morning,   Gideon  pressed  the  fleece 
together  ("it)  from  lit),  and  squeezed  (p?*  from  HVD)  dew  out  of  the 
fleece  a  vessel  fill  of  water"  (Ni?p  as  in  Num.  xxii.  18,  and  i'SD  as 
in  chap.  v.  25).     So  copiously  had  the  dew  fallen  in  the  night  upon 
the  fleece  that  was  exposed;  whereas,  as  we  may  supply  from  the 
context,  the  earth  all  round  had  remained  dry. — Vers.  39,  40.  But 
as  this  sign  was  not  quite  a  certain  one,  since  wool  generally  attracts 
the  dew,  even  when  other  objects  remain  dry,  Gideon  ventured  to 
solicit  the  grace  of  God  to  grant  him  another  sign  with  the  fleece, 
— namely,  that  the  fleece  might  remain  dry,  and  the  ground  all 
round  be  wet  with  dew.     And  God  granted  him  this  request  also. 
Gideon's  prayer  for  a  sign  did  not  arise  from  want  of  faith  in  the 
divine  assurance  of  a  victory,  but  sprang  from  the  weakness  of  the 
flesh,  which  crippled  the  strength  of  the  spirit's  faith,  and  often 
made  the  servants  of  God  so  anxious  and  despondent,  that  God  had 
to  come  to  the  relief  of  their  weakness  by  the  manifestation  of  His 
miraculous  power.     Gideon  knew  himself  and  his  own  strength, 
and  was  well  aware  that  his  human  strength  was  not  sufficient  for 
the  conquest  of  the  foe.     But  as  the  Lord  had  promised  him  His 
aid,  he  wished  to  make  sure  of  that  aid  through  the  desired  ßign.1 
And  "the  simple  fact  that  such  a  man  could  obtain  the  most  daring 
victory  was  to  be  a  special  glorification  of  God"'  (0.  r.  GerlacK). 
The  si<m  itself  was  to  manifest  the  strength  of  the  divine  assistance 
to  his  weakness  of  faith.     Dew  in  the  Scriptures  is  a  symbol  of  the 

1  "  From  .all  these  things,  the  fact  that  1  Q  and  heard  the  angel  of 

Jehovah,  and  that  he  had  been  taught  by  fire  out  of  the  rock,  by  thedisa]  : 
ance  of  the  angel,  by  the  vision  of  the  night,  and  by  (he  words  address  1  to 
him  there,  Gideon  did  indeed  believe  that  GOD  both  could  and  would  deliver 
Israel  through  his  instrumentality;  but  this  faith  was  o<  I  pi  ice  I  al     •<   •  raway 
from  the  conllict  of  the  flesh  by  which  it  was  tested      And  it  is  DOt  Strange  that 


340  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

beneficent  power  of  God,  which  quickens,  revives,  and  invigorates 
the  objects  of  nature,  when  they  have  been  parched  by  the  burning 
heat  of  the  sun's  rays.  The  first  sign  was  to  be  a  pledge  to  him  of 
the  visible  and  tangible  blessing  of  the  Lord  upon  His  people,  the 
proof  that  He  would  grant  them  power  over  their  mighty  foes  by 
whom  Israel  was  then  oppressed.  The  woollen  fleece  represented 
the  nation  of  Israel  in  its  condition  at  that  time,  when  God  had 
given  power  to  the  foe  that  was  devastating  its  land,  and  had  with- 
drawn His  blessing  from  Israel.  The  moistening  of  the  fleece  with 
the  dew  of  heaven  whilst  the  land  all  round  continued  dry,  was  a 
sign  that  the  Lord  God  would  once  more  give  strength  to  His 
people  from  on  high,  and  withdraw  it  from  the  nations  of  the  earth. 
Hence  the  second  sign  acquires  the  more  general  signification,  "  that 
the  Lord  manifested  himself  even  in  the  weakness  and  forsaken 
condition  of  His  people,  while  the  nations  were  flourishing  all 
around"  (0.  v.  Gerl.)  ;  and  when  so  explained,  it  served  to  confirm 
and  strengthen  the  first,  inasmuch  as  it  contained  the  comforting 
assurance  for  all  times,  that  the  Lord  has  not  forsaken  His  church, 
even  when  it  cannot  discern  and  trace  His  beneficent  influence,  but 
rules  over  it  and  over  the  nations  with  His  almighty  power. 

Chap.  vii.  1-8.  Mustering  of  the  Army  that  Gideon  had 
collected. — Ver.  1.  When  Gideon  had  been  assured  of  the  help 
of  God  by  this  double  sign,  he  went  to  the  battle  early  the  next 
morning  with  the  people  that  he  had  gathered  around  him.  The 
Israelites  encamped  above  the  fountain  of  Harod,  i.e.  upon  a  height 
at  the  foot  of  which  this  fountain  sprang ;  but  the  camp  of  Midian 
was  to  him  (Gideon)  to  the  north  of  the  hill  Moreh  in  the  valley 
(of  Jezreel :  see  chap.  vi.  33).  The  geographical  situation  of  these 
two  places  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty.  The  fountain  of 
Harod  is  never  mentioned  again,  though  there  is  a  place  of  that 
name  referred  to  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  25  as  the  home  of  two  of  David's 
heroes ;  and  it  was  from  this,  no  doubt,  that  the  fountain  was  named. 
The  hill  Moreh  is  also  unknown.  As  it  was  by  the  valley  (of 
Jezreel),  we  cannot  possibly  think  of  the  grove  of  Moreh  at  Shechem 

it  rose  to  its  greatest  height  when  the  work  of  deliverance  was  about  to  be  per- 
formed. Wherefore  Gideon  with  his  faith  sought  for  a  sign  from  God  against 
the  more  vehement  struggle  of  the  flesh,  in  order  that  his  faith  might  be  the 
more  confirmed,  and  might  resist  the  opposing  flesh  with  the  greater  force. 
And  this  petition  for  a  sign  was  combined  with  prayers  for  the  strengthening 
of  his  faith." — Seb.  Schmidt. 


CHAP.  VII.  1-8.  341 

(Gen.  xii.  6  ;  Deut.  xi.  30).1— Vers.  2,  3.  The  army  of  the  Israelites 
amounted  to  32,000  men  (ver.  4),  but  that  of  the  Midianites  and 
*heir  allies  was  about  135,000  (chap.  viii.  10),  so  that  they  were 
greatly  superior  to  the  Israelites  in  numbers.  Nevertheless  the 
Lord  said  to  Gideon,  "  The  people  that  are  with  thee  are  too  many  for 
me  to  give  Midian  into  their  hands,  lent  Israel  vaunt  themselves  against 
me,  saying,  My  hand  hath  helped  me."  31  followed  by  \q  is  to  be 
understood  as  a  comparative.  Gideon  was  therefore  to  have  a  pro- 
clamation made  before  all  the  people:  "  Whosoever  is  fearful  and 
despondent,  let  him  turn  and  go  back  from  Mount  Gilead."  The  tnr. 
\ey.  "lBlf,  judging  from  the  Arabic,  which  signifies  to  plait,  viz.  h:u*i:, 
ropes,  etc.,  and  the  noun  n^B*,  a  circle  or  circuitous  orbit,  probably 
signifies  to  twist  one's  self  round ;  hence  in  this  instance  to  return  in 
windings,  to  slink  away  in  bypaths.  The  expression  "from  Mount 
Gilead,'"  however,  is  very  obscure.  The  mountain  (or  the  moun- 
tains) of  Gilead  was  on  the  eastern  side  of  the  Jordan ;  but  the 
Israelitish  army  was  encamped  in  or  near  the  plain  of  Jezreel,  in 
the  country  to  the  west  of  the  Jordan,  and  had  been  gathered  from 
the  western  tribes  alone;  so  that  even  the  inadmissible  rendering, 
Let  him  turn  and  go  home  to  the  mountains  of  Gilead,  would  not 
give  any  appropriate  sense.  The  only  course  left  therefore  is  either 
to  pronounce  it  an  error  of  the  text,  as  Clericus  and  Bertheau  have 
done,  and  to  regard  "Gilead"  as  a  mistake  for  "Gilboa,"  or  to 
conclude  that  there  was  also  a  mountain  or  mountain  range  named 
Gilead  by  the  plain  of  Jezreel  in  western  Palestine,  just  as,  accord- 
ing to  Josh.  xv.  10,  there  was  a  mountain,  or  range  of  mountains, 
called  Seir,  in  the  territory  of  Judali,  of  which  nothing  further 
is  known.  The  appeal  which  Gideon  is  here  directed  to  make  to 
the  army  was  prescribed  in  the  law  (Deut.  xx.  8)  for  every  war 

1  Bertheau  endeavours  to  settle  the  position  of  the  place  from  our  know  1 
of  the  country,  which  is  for  the  most  part  definite  enough.     Starting  with  the 
assumption  that  the  fountain  of  Harod  cannot  be  any  other  than  the  "foun- 
tain in  Jezreel"  mentioned  in  1  Sam.  xxix.  1,   where  Saul  and  the   I  I 
encamped  at  Gilboa  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  -1)  to  fight  against  the  Philiatinea  who 
posted  at  Shunem,  a  place  on  the  western  slope  of  the  so-called  Little  Bermon, 
he  concludes  that  the  fountain  of  Ilnrod  must  be  the  present  Ain  Jalud,  and  the 
hill  of  Moreh  the  Little  Bermon  itself.    These  combinations  are  certainly  possible, 
for  we  have  nothing  definite  to  oppose  to  them;  still  they  are  wry  uncertain, 
as  they  simply  rest  upon  the  very  doubtful  assumption  thai  the  only  fountain 
in  the  plain  of  Jezreel  was  the  celebrated  fountain  called  Ain  Jalud,  and  are 
hardly  reconcilable  with  the  account  given  of  the  route  which  was  taken  by  the 
defeated  Midianites  (vers.  25  sqq.  and  chap.  viii.  1). 


342  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

in  which  the  Israelites  should  be  engaged,  and  its  general  object 
was  to  fortify  the  spirit  of  the  army  by  removing  the  cowardly  and 
desponding.  But  in  the  case  before  us  the  intention  of  the  Lord 
was  to  deprive  His  people  of  all  ground  for  self-glorification.  Hence 
the  result  of  the  appeal  was  one  which  Gideon  himself  certainly 
did  not  expect, — namely,  that  more  than  two-thirds  of  the  soldiers 
gathered  round  him — 22,000  men  of  the  people — turned  back,  and 
only  10,000  remained. — Ver.  4.  But  even  this  number  was  regarded 
by  the  Lord  as  still  too  great,  so  that  He  gave  to  Gideon  the  still 
further  command,  "  Bring  them  (the  10,000  men)  down  to  the 
water"  i.e.  the  waters  formed  from  the  fountain  of  Harod,  " and  I 
will 'purify  them  for  thee  there  (^O-f,  separate  those  appointed  for  the 
battle  from  the  rest  of  the  army  ;  the  singular  suffix  refers  to  &$>}), 
and  say  to  thee,  This  shall  go  with  thee,  and  that"  i.e.  show  thee  each 
individual  who  is  to  go  with  thee  to  the  battle,  and  who  not. — Vers. 
5,  6.  Gideon  was  to  divide  the  people  by  putting  all  those  who 
should  lick  the  water  with  their  tongue  as  a  dog  licketh  into  one 
class,  and  all  those  who  knelt  down  to  drink  into  another,  and  so 
separating  the  latter  from  the  former.  The  number  of  those  who 
licked  the  water  into  their  mouth  with  their  hand  amounted  to  300, 
and  all  the  rest  knelt  down  to  drink.  "  To  lick  with  their  hand  to 
their  mouth"  i.e.  to  take  the  water  from  the  brook  with  the  hollow 
of  their  hand,  and  lap  it  into  the  mouth  with  their  tongue  as  a  dog 
does,  is  only  a  more  distinct  expression  for  "  licking  with  the  tongue." 
The  300  men  who  quenched  their  thirst  in  this  manner  were 
certainly  not  the  cowardly  or  indolent  who  did  not  kneel  down  to 
drink  in  the  ordinary  way,  either  from  indolence  or  fear,  as  Josephus, 
Theodoret,  and  others  supposed,  but  rather  the  bravest, — namely 
those  who,  when  they  reached  a  brook  before  the  battle,  did  not 
allow  themselves  time  to  kneel  down  -and  satisfy  their  thirst  in  the 
most  convenient  manner,  but  simply  took  up  some  water  with  their 
hands  as  they  stood  in  their  military  accoutrements,  to  strengthen 
themselves  for  the  battle,  and  then  proceeded  without  delay  against 
the  foe.  By  such  a  sign  as  this,  Bertheau  supposes  that  even  an 
ordinary  general  might  have  been  able  to  recognise  the  bravest  of 
his  army.  No  doubt :  but  if  this  account  had  not  been  handed 
down,  it  is  certain  that  it  would  never  have  occurred  to  an  ordinary 
or  even  a  distinguished  general  to  adopt  such  a  method  of  putting 
the  bravery  of  his  troops  to  the  test ;  and  even  Gideon,  the  hero 
of  God,  would  never  have  thought  of  diminishing  still  further 
through  such  a  trial  an  army  which  had  already  become  so  small, 


CHAP.  VII.  '-8.  343 

or  of  attempting  to  defeat  an  army  of  more  than  100,000  men  by 
a  few  hundred  of  the  bravest  men,  if  the  Lord  himself  had  not 
commanded  it. 

Whilst  the  Lord  was  willing  to  strengthen  the  feeble  faith  of 
Gideon  by  the  sign  with  the  fleece  of  wool,  and  thus  to  raise  him 
up  to  full  confidence  in  the  divine  omnipotence,  lie  also  required 
of  him,  when  thus  strengthened,  an  attestation  (if  his  faith,  by  the 
purification  of  his  army,  that  he  might  give  the  whole  glory  to  Him, 
and  accept  the  victory  over  that  great  multitude  from  lli<  hand 
alone. — Ver.  7.  After  his  fighting  men  had  been  divided  into  a 
small  handful  of  300  men  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  large  host  of 
9700  on  the  other,  by  the  fulfilment  of  the  command  of  God,  the 
Lord  required  of  him  that  he  should  send  away  the  latter,  u  every 
man  to  his  place,"  i.e.  to  his  own  home,  promising  that  He  would 
save  Israel  by  the  300  men,  and  deliver  the  Midianites  into  their 
hand.  The  promise  preceded  the  command,  to  render  it  easier  to 
Gideon  to  obey  it.  u  All  the  people"  after  taking  out  the  300  men, 
that  is  to  say,  the  9700  that  remained. — Ver.  8.  "  So  they  (the 
300  picked  men)  took  the  provision  of  the  people  in  their  hand,  end 
their  (the  people's)  trumpets  (the  suffix  points  back  to  Dyn,  the 
people)  ;  and  all  the  men  of  Israel  (the  9700)  he  had  8t 
one  to  his  tents,  i.e.  to  his  home  (see  at  Deut.  xvi.  7),  and  the  three 
hundred  men  he  had  kept  by  himself ;  hut  the  camp  of  the  Midianites 
was  below  to  him  in  the  valley."  These  words  bring  the  prepara- 
tions for  the  battle  to  a  close,  and  the  last  clause  introduces  the 
ensuing  conflict  and  victory.  In  the  first  clause  W?n  (the  people) 
cannot  be  the  subject,  partly  because  of  the  actual  sense,  since  the 
300  warriors,  who  are  no  doubt  the  persons  intended  (ef.  ver.  L6), 
cannot  be  called  "  the  people,"  in  distinction  from  "  all  the  nun  of 
Israel,"  and  partly  also  because  of  the  expression  ~y.rr,K,  which 

would  be  construed  in  that  case  without  any  article  in  violati I 

the  ordinary  rule.  "We  must  rather  read  nyn  rn>'_ris,  as  the  LX  X. 
and  the  Chaldee  have  done.  The  300  men  took  the  provision  of 
the  people,  i.e.  provision  for  the  war,  from  the  people  who  had  been 
sent  away,  and  the  war-trumpets  ;  so  that  every  one  of  the  300  had 
a  trumpet  now,  and  as  the  provision  of  the  people  was  also  probably 
kept  in  vessels  or  pitchers  (caddim:  ver.  16),  a  jug  a-  well.  rI  he 
subject  to  Vlp*  is  to  be  taken  from  the  first  clause  of  the  seventh 
verse.  The  sentences  which  follow  from  HhlTE  Ti»  are  circum- 
stantial clauses,  introduced  to  bring  out  distinctly  the  situation  in 
whi.:h  Gideon  was  now  placed.    3  pwn,  the  opposite  of  fW,  to  send 


344  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

away,  signifies  to  hold  fast,  to  keep  back  or  by  himself,  as  in  Ex. 
ix.  2.  )b,  to  him,  Gideon,  who  was  standing  by  the  fountain  of 
Harod  with  his  300  men,  the  situation  of  Midian  was  underneath 
in  the  valley  (see  ver.  1,  and  chap.  vi.  33). 

Vers.  9-22.  Gideon's  Battle  and  Victory. — Vers.  9-lla. 
The  following  night  the  Lord  commanded  Gideon  to  go  down  to 
the  camp  of  the  enemy,  as  He  had  given  it  into  his  hand  (the 
perfect  is  used  to  denote  the  purpose  of  God  which  had  already 
been  formed,  as  in  chap.  iv.  14).  But  in  order  to  fill  him  with 
confidence  for  such  an  enterprise,  which  to  all  human  appearance 
was  a  very  rash  one,  God  added,  "  If  thou  art  afraid  to  go  down,  go 
thou  with  thine  attendant  Purah  dovm  to  the  camp,  and  thou  wilt 
hear  what  they  say,  and  thy  hands  ivill  thereby  become  strong."  The 
meaning  of  the  protasis  is  not,  If  thou  art  afraid  to  go  down  into 
the  camp  of  the  enemy  alone,  or  to  visit  the  enemy  unarmed,  take 
Purah  thine  armour-bearer  with  thee,  to  make  sure  that  thou  hast 
weapons  to  use  (Bertheau)  ;  for,  apart  from  the  fact  that  the  addi- 
tion "  unarmed"  is  perfectly  arbitrary,  the  apodosis  u  thou  wilt 
see,"  etc.,  by  no  means  agrees  with  this  explanation.  The  meaning 
is  rather  this  :  Go  with  thy  300  men  into  (2)  the  hostile  camp  to 
smite  it,  for  I  have  given  it  into  thy  hand ;  but  if  thou  art  afraid 
to  do  this,  go  down  with  thine  attendant  to  (?S)  the  camp,  to  ascer- 
tain the  state  and  feeling  of  the  foe,  and  thou  wilt  hear  what  they 
say,  i.e.,  as  we  gather  from  what  follows,  how  they  are  discouraged, 
have  lost  all  hope  of  defeating  you,  and  from  that  thou  wilt  gather 
courage  and  strength  for  the  battle.  On  the  expression  "  thine 
hands  shall  be  strengthened"  see  2  Sam.  ii.  7.  The  expression  which 
follows,  njnsa  ^71$,  is  not  a  mere  repetition  of  the  command  to  go 
down  with  his  attendant  to  the  hostile  camp,  but  describes  the  result 
of  the  stimulus  given  to  his  courage  :  And  then  thou  wilt  go  fear- 
lessly into  the  hostile  camp  to  attack  the  foe.  n.^n??  T£  (vers.  9, 
11)  is  to  be  distinguished  from  naflBiT?«  TJJ  in  ver.  10.  The  former 
signifies  to  go  down  into  the  camp  to  smite  the  foe ;  the  latter,  to 
go  down  to  the  camp  to  reconnoitre  it,  and  is  equivalent  to  the 
following  clause :  "  he  went  to  the  outside  of  the  camp." — Vers. 
11&-14.  But  when  Gideon  came  with  his  attendant  to  the  end  of 
the  armed  men  (chamushim,  as  in  Josh.  i.  14,  Ex.  xiii.  18)  in  the 
hostile  camp,  and  the  enemy  were  lying  spread  out  with  their  camels 
in  the  valley,  an  innumerable  multitude,  he  heard  one  (of  the 
fighting  men)  relate  to  his  fellow  (i.e.  to  another)  a  dream  which  he 


CHAP.  VII.  9-22.  345 

had  had  :  "  Behold  a  cake  of  barley  bread  was  rolling  into  the  camp 
of  Midian,  and  it  came  to  the  tent  and  smote  it,  so  that  it  fell  and 
turned  upwards,  and  the  tent  lay  along."  Then  the  other  replied, 
ft  This  is  nothing  else  than  the  sxoord  of  Gideon  the  son  of  Joash  ihe 
Israelite:  God  hath  given  Midian  and  all  the  camp  into  his  hand." 
"  The  end  of  fighting  men"  signifies  the  outermost  or  foremost  of 
the  outposts  in  theenemy's  camp,  which  contained  not  only  fighting 
men,  but  the  whole  of  the  baggage  of  the  enemy,  who  had  Invaded 
the  land  as  nomads,  with  their  wives,  their  children,  and  their  flocks. 
In  ver.  12,  the  innumerable  multitude  of  the  enemy  is  described 
once  more  in  the  form  of  a  circumstantial  clause,  as  in  chap.  vi.  5, 
not  so  much  to  distinguish  the  fighting  men  from  the  camp  gene- 
rally, as  to  bring  out  more  vividly  the  contents  and  meaning  of  the 
following  dream.  The  comparison  of  the  enemy  to  the  sand  by  the 
sea-side  recalls  Josh.  xi.  4,  and  is  frequently  met  with  (see  Gen.  xxii. 
17,  xxxii.  13  ;  1  Sam.  xiii.  5).  With  the  word  Rlw  in  ver.  13,  the 
thread  of  the  narrative,  which  was  broken  off  by  the  circumstantial 
clause  in  ver.  12,  is  resumed  and  earned  further.  The  air.  Xey.  L'"'->" 
(Keri,  ?y¥)  is  rendered  cake,  placenta,  by  the  early  translators  :  see 
Ges.  Thes.  p.  1170.  The  derivation  of  the  word  has  been  disputed, 
and  is  by  no  means  certain,  as  7?^  c^ocs  n°t  giye  anv  suitable  mean- 
ing, either  in  the  sense  of  to  ring  or  to  be  overshadowed,  and  the 
meaning  to  roll  (Ges.  I.e.)  cannot  be  philologically  sustained;  whilst 
n?Xj  to  roast,  can  hardly  be  thought  of,  since  this  is  merely  used  to 
denote  the  roasting  of  flesh,  and  n^p  was  the  word  commonly  applied 
to  the  roasting  of  grains,  and  even  "  the  roasted  of  barley  bread" 
would  hardly  be  equivalent  to  subcinericcu*  panis  ex  hordes »  (1 
"  The  tent,"  with  the  definite  article,  is  probably  the  principal  tent 
in  the  camp,  i.e.  the  tent  of  the  general.  "&??,  upwards,  so  that 
the  bottom  came  to  the  top.  "  The  tent  lay  along,"  or  the  tent  fell, 
lay  in  ruins,  is  added  to  give  emphasis  to  the  words.  "  This  is 
nothing  if  not,"  i.e.  nothing  but.  The  cake  of  bread  which  had 
rolled  into  the  Midianitish  camp  and  overturned  the  tent,  signifies 
nothing  else  than  the  sword  of  Gideon,  i.e.  Gideon,  who  is  bursting 
into  the  camp  with  his  sword,  and  utterly  destroying  it. 

This  interpretation  of  the  dream  was  certainly  a  natural  one 
under  the  circumstances.  Gideon  is  especially  mentioned  simply 
as  the  leader  of  the  Israelites;  whilst  the  loaf  of  barley  bread, 
which  was  the  food  of  the  poorer  classes,  is  to  be  regarded  as 
strictly  speaking  the  symbol  of  Israel,  which  was  bo  des] 
amono-  the  nations.     The  rising  of  the  Israelites  under  Gideon  had 


346  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

not  remained  a  secret  to  the  Midianites,  and  no  doubt  filled  them 
with  fear ;  so  that  in  a  dream  this  fear  might  easily  assume  the 
form  of  the  defeat  or  desolation  and  destruction  of  their  camp  by 
Gideon.  And  the  peculiar  form  of  the  dream  is  also  psychologi- 
cally conceivable.  As  the  tent  is  everything  to  a  nomad,  he  might 
very  naturally  picture  the  cultivator  of  the  soil  as  a  man  whose  life 
is  all  spent  in  cultivating  and  baking  bread.  In  this  way  bread 
would  become  almost  involuntarily  a  symbol  of  the  cultivator  of 
the  soil,  whilst  in  his  own  tent  he  would  see  a  symbol  not  only  of 
his  mode  of  life,  but  of  his  freedom,  greatness,  and  power.  If  we 
add  to  this,  that  the  free  pastoral  tribes,  particularly  the  Bedouins 
of  Arabia,  look  down  with  pride  not  only  upon  the  poor  tillers  of 
the  soil,  but  even  upon  the  inhabitants  of  towns,  and  that  in  Pales- 
tine, the  land  of  wheat,  none  but  the  poorer  classes  feed  upon  barley 
bread,  we  have  here  all  the  elements  out  of  which  the  dream  of  the 
Midianitish  warrior  was  formed.  The  Israelites  had  really  been 
crushed  by  the  Midianites  into  a  poor  nation  of  slaves.  But  whilst 
the  dream  itself  admits  of  being  explained  in  this  manner  in  a  per- 
fectly natural  way,  it  acquires  the  higher  supernatural  character  of 
a  divine  inspiration,  from  the  fact  that  God  not  only  foreknew  it, 
but  really  caused  the  Midianite  to  dream,  and  to  relate  the  dream 
to  his  comrade,  just  at  the  time  when  Gideon  had  secretly  entered 
the  camp,  so  that  he  should  hear  it,  and  discover  therefrom,  as  God 
had  foretold  him,  the  despondency  of  the  foe.  Under  these  circum- 
stances, Gideon  could  not  fail  to  regard  the  dream  as  a  divine 
inspiration,  and  to  draw  the  assurance  from  it,  that  God  had  cer- 
tainly given  the  Midianites  into  his  hands. — Yers.  15-18.  When 
therefore  he  had  heard  the  dream  related  and  interpreted,  he  wor- 
shipped, praising  the  Lord  with  joy,  and  returned  to  the  camp  to 
attack  the  enemy  without  delay.  He  then  divided  the  300  men 
into  three  companies,  i.e.  three  attacking  columns,  and  gave  them 
all  trumpets  and  empty  pitchers,  with  torches  in  the  pitchers  in  their 
hands.  The  pitchers  were  taken  that  they  might  hide  the  burning 
torches  in  them  during  their  advance  to  surround  the  enemy's  camp, 
and  then  increase  the  noise  at  the  time  of  the  attack,  by  dashing 
the  pitchers  to  pieces  (ver.  20),  and  thus  through  the  noise,  as  well 
as  the  sudden  lighting  up  of  the  burning  torches,  deceive  the  enemy 
as  to  the  strength  of  the  army.  At  the  same  time  he  commanded 
them,  "  See  from  me,  and  do  likeicise" — a  short  expression  for,  As 
ye  see  me  do,  so  do  ye  also  (15,  without  the  previous  3,  or  *^'N3,  as 
in  chap.  v.  15  ;  see  Ewald,  §  260,  a.), — "  I  blow  the  trumpet,  I  and 


CHAP.  VII.  9-22.  347 

all  who  are  with  me;  ye  also  How  the  trumpets  round  about  the  entire 
camp,"  which  the  300  men  divided  into  three  companies  were  to 
surround,  "  and  say,  To  the  Lord  and  Gideon."  According  to  rar. 
20,  this  war-cry  ran  fully  thus  :  "  Sword  to  (for)  the  Lord  and 
Gideon."  This  addition  in  ver.  20,  however,  does  not  warrant  us 
in  inserting  "  chereb"  (sword)  in  the  text  here,  as  some  of  the 
early  translators  and  mss.  have  done.1 — Ver.  19.  Gideon  then  pro- 
ceeded with  the  100  who  were  with  him,  i.e.  the  company  which  was 
led  by  himself  personally,  to  the  end  of  the  hostile  camp,  at  tl it- 
beginning  of  the  middle  watch,  i.e.  at  midnight.  C:N"i  is  an  accusa- 
tive defining  the  time:  see  Ges.  §  118,  2,  and  Ewald,  §  204,  a.  The 
only  other  watch  that  is  mentioned  in  the  Old  Testament  beside 
the  middle  night-watch,  is  the  morning  night-watch  (Ex.  xiv.  2  I  j 
1  Sam.  xi.  11),  from  which  it  has  been  correctly  inferred,  that  tin- 
Israelites  divided  the  nicht  into  three  night-watches.  The  division 
into  four  watches  (Matt.  xiv.  25  ;  Mark  vi.  48)  was  first  adopted 
by  the  Jews  from  the  Romans.  "  They  (the  Midianites)  had  only 
(just)  posted  the  watchmen  (of  the  middle  watch)," — a  circumstan- 
tial clause,  introduced  to  give  greater  distinctness  to  the  situation. 
When  the  first  sentries  were  relieved,  and  the  second  posted,  so  that 
they  thought  they  might  make  quite  sure  of  their  night's  rest  once 
more,  Gideon  and  his  host  arrived  at  the  end  of  the  camp,  and,  as 
we  must  supply  from  the  context,  the  other  two  hosts  at  two  ether 
ends  of  the  camp,  who  all  blew  their  trumpets,  breaking  the  pitchers 
in  their  hands  at  the  same  time.  The  inf.  abs.  P23t,  as  a  continua- 
tion of  the  finite  verb  ^VpT\\  indicates  that  the  fact  was  contempo- 
raneous with  the  previous  one  (see  Ewald,  §  351,  c). — A  er.  20. 
According  to  the  command  which  they  had  received  (ver.  17),  the 
other  two  tribes  followed  his  example.     "  Then  the  three  compa 

1  Similar  stratagems  to  the  one  adopted  by  Gideon  here  are  recorded  by 
Polytenus  (Strateg.  ii.  c.  37)  of  Dicetas,  at  the  taking  of  Hersea,  and  by  Plu- 
tarch (Fabius  Max.  c.  G)  of  Hannibal,  when  he  was  surrounded  and  completely 
shut  in  by  Fabius  Maximus.  An  example  from  modern  history  is  given  by 
Niebuhr  (Beschr.  von  Arabien,  p.  304).  About  the  middle  of  the  eighteenth 
century  two  Arabian  chiefs  were  fighting  for  the  tmamate  of  Oman.  One  of 
them,  Bel- Arab,  besieged  the  other,  Achmed  ben  Said,  with  four  or  five  thousand 
men,  in  a  small  castle  on  the  mountain.  But  the  latter  alipped  out  <■(  the  castle, 
collected  together  several  hundred  men,  gave  «very  Boldiera  ign  up  in  his  head, 
that  they  might  be  able  to  distinguish  friends  from  foes,  and  senl  small 
panics  to  all  the  passes.  Every  one  had  a  trumpet  to  blow  si  a  given 
and  thus  create  a  noise  at  the  same  time  on  every  side.  Tin-  whole  of  the 
opposing  army  was  thrown  in  this  way  into  disorder,  sin  md  ail  the 

passes  occupied,  and  imagined  the  hostile  army  to  be  as  great  as  the  noise. 


348  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

blew  the  trumpets,  broke  the  pitchers,  and  held  the  torches  in  their  left 
hands,  and  the  trumpets  in  their  right  to  blow,  and  cried,  Sword  to  the 
Lord  and  Gideon  !  A  nd  they  stood  every  one  in  his  place  round 
about  the  camp"  sc.  without  moving,  so  that  the  Midianites  neces- 
sarily thought  that  there  must  be  a  numerous  army  advancing 
behind  the  torch-bearers.  'U1  Y~N,  "  and  the  whole  army  ran"  i.e. 
there  began  a  running  hither  and  thither  in  the  camp  of  the  enemy, 
who  had  been  frightened  out  of  their  night's  rest  by  the  unexpected 
blast  of  the  trumpets,  the  noise,  and  the  war-cry  of  the  Israelitish 
warriors ;  "  and  they  (the  enemy)  lifted  up  a  cry  (of  anguish  and 
alarm),  and  caused  to  fly"  (carried  off),  sc.  their  tents  (i.e.  their 
families)  and  their  herds,  or  all  their  possessions  (cf.  chap.  vi.  11, 
Ex.  ix.  20).  The  Chethibh  10"^  is  the  original  reading,  and  the 
Ken  1EW  a  bad  emendation. — Ver.  22.  Whilst  the  300  men  blew 
their  trumpets,  "  Jehovah  set  the  sword  of  one  against  the  other,  and 
against  the  whole  camp"  i.e.  caused  one  to  turn  his  sword  against 
the  other  and  against  all  the  camp,  that  is  to  say,  not  merely  man 
against  man,  but  against  every  one  in  the  camp,  so  that  there  arose 
a  terrible  slaughter  throughout  the  whole  camp.  The  first  clause, 
"  and  the  three  hundred  blew  the  trumpets"  simply  resumes  the 
statement  in  ver.  20,  "  the  three  companies  blew  the  trumpets,"  for 
the  purpose  of  appending  to  it  the  further  progress  of  the  attack, 
and  the  result  of  the  battle.  Bertheau  inserts  in  a  very  arbitrary 
manner  the  words,  "  the  second  time."  His  explanation  of  the 
next  clause  ("  then  the  300  fighting  men  of  Gideon  drew  the  sword 
at  Jehovah's  command,  every  man  against  his  man")  is  still  more 
erroneous,  since  it  does  violence  to  the  constant  usage  of  the  ex- 
pression 'injrn  t^K  (see  1  Sam  xiv.  20,  2  Chron.  xx.  23,  Isa.  iii.  5, 
Zech.  viii.  10).  "  And  all  the  camp  of  the  Midianites  fled  to  Beth- 
shittah  to  Zeredah,  to  the  shore  of  Abel-meholah,  over  Tabbath."  The 
situation  of  these  places,  which  are  only  mentioned  here,  with  the 
exception  of  Abel-meholah,  the  home  of  Elisha  (1  Kings  xix.  16, 
iv.  12),  has  not  yet  been  determined.  According  to  the  Syriac,  the 
Arabic,  and  some  of  the  MSS.,  we  should  read  Zeredathah  instead 
of  Zererathah,  and  Zeredathah  is  only  another  form  for  Zarthan 
(comp.  1  Kings  vii.  46  with  2  Chron.  iv.  17).  This  is  favoured 
by  the  situation  of  Zarthan  in  the  valley  of  the  Jordan,  probably 
near  the  modern  Kurn  Sartabeh  (see  p.  46),  inasmuch  as  in  all 
probability  Beth-shittah  and  Abel-meholah  are  to  be  sought  for  in 
the  valley  of  the  Jordan  ;  and  according  to  ver.  24,  the  enemy  fled 
to  the  Jordan.    Beth-shittah,  i.e.  acacia-house,  is  not  the  same  place 


CHAP.  VII.  23-VIII.  3.  319 

as  the  village  of  Shutta  mentioned  by  Rohlnson  (iii.  p.  219),  since 
this  village,  according  to  Van  de  Veldes  map,  was  to  the  north  of 
Gilboa.  For  although  Shutta  is  favoured  by  the  circumstance, 
that  from  a  very  ancient  time  there  was  a  road  runnine  from 
Jezreel  along  the  valley,  between  the  so-called  Little  Harmon 
(Duhy)  and  the  mountains  of  Gilboa,  and  past  Beisan  to  tin- 
Jordan;  and  the  valley  of  Jalud,  on  the  northern  side  of  which 
Shutta  was  situated,  may  be  regarded  as  the  opening  of  the  plain 
of  Jezreel  into  the  valley  of  the  Jordan  (see  v.  Räumer,  Pal.  p.  41, 
and  Rob.  iii.  p.  170)  ;  and  v.  Raumer  conjectures  from  this,  that 
"  the  flight  of  the  Midianites  was  apparently  directed  to  Eethsean, 
on  account  of  the  nature  of  the  ground," — this  assumption  is  r<  D- 
dered  very  questionable  by  the  fact  that  the  flying  foe  did  not  cross 
the  Jordan  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Beisan,  but  much  farther  to  the 
south,  viz.,  according  to  chap.  viii.  4,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Succoth, 
which  was  on  the  south  side  of  the  Nahr  Zerka  (Jabbok).  From 
this  we  are  led  to  conjecture,  that  they  were  not  encamped  in  the 
north-eastern  part  of  the  plain  of  Jezreel,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Jezreel  (Zerin)  and  Shunem  (Solam),  but  in  the  south-eastern  part 
of  this  plain,  and  that  after  they  had  been  beaten  there  they  fled 
southwards  from  Gilboa,  say  from  the  district  of  Ginsea  (Jenin)  to 
the  Jordan.  In  this  case  we  have  to  seek  for  Abel-shittah  en  the 
south-east  of  the  mountains  of  Gilboa,  to  the  north  of  Zeredathah 
(Zarthan).  From  this  point  they  fled  on  still  farther  to  the  u  shore 
of  Abel-meholah."  nab  does  not  mean  boundary,  but  brink;  here 
the  bank  of  the  Jordan,  like  VT?J]  n2V"  in  2  Kings  ii.  13.  The 
bank  or  strand  of  Abel-meholah  is  that  portion  of  the  western  bank 
of  the  Jordan  or  of  the  Ghor,  above  which  Abel-meholah  was 
situated.  According  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  'AßeXfiaeXat,  AbelmatUa), 
this  place  was  in  the  Aulon  (or  Ghor),  ten  Roman  miles  tu  the  south 
of  Scythopolis  (Beisan),  and  was  called  at  that  time  Bi]0fiait\ä  or 
Bethaula.  According  to  this  statement,  Abel-mcholah  would  have 
to  be  sought  for  near  Churbct  es  Shuk,  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the 
Wady  Maleh  (see  V.  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  280).  And  lastly.  Tabbath 
must  have  been  situated  somewhere  to  the  south  of  Abel-meholah. 

Ver.  23-chap.  viii.  3.  Pursuit  of the  Enemy  as  far  as  the  Jordan, 
— Ver.  23.  As  soon  as  the  Midianites  had  been  put  to  flight,  the 
Israelitish  men  of  Naphtali,  Asher,  and  Manasseh,  let  themselves 
be  convened  for  the  purpose  of  pursuing  them  :  i.e.  the  men  of 
these  tribes,  whom  Gideon  had  sent  away  before  the  battle,  and 
who  were  on  their  way  home,  could  be  summoned  back  again  in 


350  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

a  very  short  time  to  join  in  the  pursuit  of  the  flying  foe.  The 
omission  of  Zebulun  (chap.  vi.  35)  is,  in  all  probability,  simply  to 
be  attributed  to  the  brevity  of  the  account. — Vers.  24,  25.  In 
order  to  cut  off  the  retreat  of  the  enemy  who  was  flying  to  the 
Jordan,  Gideon  sent  messengers  into  the  whole  of  the  mountains 
of  Ephraim  with  this  appeal  to  the  Ephraimites,  "  Come  down  (from 
your  mountains  into  the  lowlands  of  the  Jordan)  to  meet  Midian, 
and  take  the  waters  from  them  to  Bethbarah  and  the  Jordan"  sc.  by 
taking  possession  of  this  district  (see  chap.  iii.  28).  "  T7te  waters" 
mentioned  before  the  Jordan  and  distinguished  from  it,  must  have 
been  streams  across  which  the  flying  foe  would  have  to  cross  to 
reach  the  Jordan,  namely,  the  different  brooks  and  rivers,  such  as 
Wady  Malehf  Fyadh,  Jamel,  Tubas,  etc.,  which  flowed  down  from 
the  eastern  side  of  the  mountains  of  Ephraim  into  the  Jordan,  and 
ran  through  the  Ghor  to  Bethbarah.  The  situation  of  Bethbarah 
is  unknown.  Even  Eusebius  could  say  nothing  definite  concerning 
the  place;  and  the  conjecture  that  it  is  the  same  as  Bethabara, 
which  has  been  regarded  ever  since  the  time  of  Origen  as  the 
place  mentioned  in  John  i.  28  where  John  baptized,  throws  no  light 
upon  the  subject,  as  the  situation  of  Bethabara  is  also  unknown, 
to  say  nothing  of  the  fact  that  the  identity  of  the  two  names  is 
very  questionable.  The  Ephraimites  responded  to  this  appeal  and 
took  possession  of  the  waters  mentioned,  before  the  Midianites, 
who  could  only  move  slowly  with  their  flocks  and  herds,  were  able 
to  reach  the  Jordan.  They  then  captured  two  of  the  princes  of 
the  Midianites  and  put  them  to  death :  one  of  them,  Oreb,  i.e.  the 
raven,  at  the  rock  Oreb ;  the  other,  Zeeb,  i.e.  the  wolf,  at  the  wine- 
press of  Zeeb.  Nothing  further  is  known  about  these  two  places. 
The  rock  of  Oreb  is  only  mentioned  again  in  Isa.  x.  26,  when  the 
prophet  alludes  to  this  celebrated  victory.  So  much,  however,  is 
evident  from  the  verse  before  us,  viz.  that  the  Midianites  were 
beaten  by  the  Ephraimites  at  both  places,  and  that  the  two  princes 
fell  there,  and  the  places  received  their  names  from  that  circum- 
stance. They  were  not  situated  in  the  land  to  the  east  of  the 
Jordan,  as  Gesenius  (on  Tsa.  x.  26),  Rosenmüller,  and  others  infer 
from  the  fact  that  the  Ephraimites  brought  the  heads  of  Oreb  and 
Zeeb  to  Gideon  JTTv  ^äjfö  (ver.  25),  but  on  the  western  side  of  the 
Jordan,  where  the  Ephraimites  had  taken  possession  of  the  waters 
and  the  Jordan  in  front  of  the  Midianites.  TP&  ">?)??  does  not 
mean  "  from  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan,"  but  simply  u  on  the 
other  side  of  (beyond)  the  Jordan"  as  in  Josh.  xiii.  32,  xviii.  7,  1 


CHAP.  VIII.  1-12.  351 

Kings  xiv.  15 ;  and  the  statement  here  is  not  that  the  Ephraimites 
brought  the  heads  from  the  other  side  to  Gideon  on  the  west  of  the 
river,  but  that  they  brought  them  to  Gideon  when  lie  was  in  the 
land  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan.  This  explanation  of  the  words  is 
required  by  the  context,  as  well  as  by  the  foregoing  remark,  «  they 
pursued  Midian,"  according  to  which  the  Ephraimites  continued 
the  pursuit  of  the  Midianites  after  slaying  these  princes,  and  also 
by  the  complaint  brought  against  Gideon  by  the  Ephraimites, 
which  is  not  mentioned  till  afterwards  (chap.  viii.  1  sqq.),  that  he 
had  not  summoned  them  to  the  war.  It  is  true,  this  is  given  before 
the  account  of  Gideon's  crossing  over  the  Jordan  (chap.  viii.  1 ). 
but  in  order  of  time  it  did  not  take  place  till  afterwards,  and,  as 
Berthcau  has  correctly  shown,  the  historical  sequence  is  somewhat 
anticipated. 

Chap.  viii.  1-3.  When  the  Ephraimites  met  with  Gideon,  after 
they  had  smitten  the  Midianites  at  Oreb  and  Zeeb,  and  were 
pursuing  them  farther,  they  said  to  him,  "  What  is  the  tiling  that 
thou  hast  done  to  us  (i.e.  what  is  the  reason  for  your  having  done 
this  to  us),  not  to  call  us  when  thou  wentest  forth  to  make  war  upon 
Midian'?  And  they  did  chide  with  him  sharply"  less  from  any  dis- 
satisfied longing  for  booty,  than  from  injured  pride  or  jealousy, 
because  Gideon  had  made  war  upon  the  enemy  and  defeated  them 
without  the  co-operation  of  this  tribe,  which  was  striving  for  the 
leadership.  Gideon's  reply  especially  BUggests  the  idea  of  injur..! 
ambition  :  "  Wliat  have  I  now  done  like  you?"  i.e.  as  if  1  hail  done 
as  great  things  as  you.  "Is  nut  the  gleaning  of  Ephraim  l><tt>r  than 
the  vintage  of  AhiezerV  The  gleaning  of  Ephraim  is  the  victory 
gained  over  the  flying  Midianites.  Gideon  declares  this  to  be 
better  than  the  vintage  of  Abiezer,  i.e.  the  victory  obtained  by  him 
the  Abiezrite  with  his  300  men,  because  the  Ephraimites  had  slain 
two  Midianitish  princes.  The  victory  gained  by  the  Ephraimites 
must  indeed  have  been  a  very  important  one,  as  it  is  mentioned  by 
Isaiah  (x.  26)  as  a  great  blow  of  the  Lord  upon  Midian.  u And 
what  could  I  do  like  you  V  i.e.  could  I  accomplish  such  gnat  '\wA<, 
as  you?  "  Then  their  anger  turned  away  from  Aim."  Wi,  the 
breathing  of  the  nose,  snorting,  hence  "  anger"  as  in  I -a.  I 

Pursuit  of  the  Midianites.     Other  Acts  of  Gideon  ;  hie  *  \j ■■ 
as  Judge. — Chap.  viii.  1   35. 

Vers.  4-12.  Pursuit  and  complete  Overthbo*   OF  the 

MIDIANITES. — That  the  Midianites  whom   God   had  delivered  into 


352  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

his  hand  might  be  utterly  destroyed,  Gideon  pursued  those  who 
had  escaped  across  the  Jordan,  till  he  overtook  them  on  the  eastern 
boundary  of  Gilead  and  smote  them  there. — Vers.  4,  5.  When 
he  came  to  the  Jordan  with  his  three  hundred  men,  who  were 
exhausted  with  the  pursuit,  he  asked  the  inhabitants  of  Succoth 
for  loaves  of  bread  for  the  people  in  his  train.  So  far  as  the 
construction  is  concerned,  the  words  from  "13'y  to  ^Sfni  form  a 
circumstantial  clause  inserted  as  a  parenthesis  into  the  principal 
sentence,  and  subordinate  to  it :  "  When  Gideon  came  to  the  Jordan, 
passing  over  he  and  the  three  hundred  men  .  .  .  then  he  said  to  the 
men  of  Succoth"  " Exhausted  and  pursuing"  i.e.  exhausted  with 
pursuing.  The  vav  is  explanatory,  lit.  "  and  indeed  pursuing,"  for 
"  because  he  pursued."  The  rendering  ireLvwvres  adopted  by  the 
"LXX.  in  the  Cod.  Alex,  is  merely  an  arbitrary  rendering  of  the 
word  CS^n,  and  without  any  critical  worth.  Gideon  had  crossed 
the  Jordan,  therefore,  somewhere  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Succoth. 
Succoth  was  upon  the  eastern  side  of  the  valley  of  the  Jordan 
(Josh.  xiii.  27),  not  opposite  to  Bethshean,  but,  according  to  Gen. 
xxxiii.  17,  on  the  south  side  of  the  Jabbok  (Zerka). — Ver.  6.  The 
princes  of  Succoth,  however,  showed  so  little  sympathy  and  nation- 
ality of  feeling,  that  instead  of  taking  part  in  the  attack  upon  the 
enemies  of  Israel,  they  even  refused  to  supply  bread  to  refresh 
their  brethren  of  the  western  tribes  who  were  exhausted  with  the 
pursuit  of  the  foe.  They  said  (the  sing.  ">0^*?  may  be  explained 
on  the  ground  that  one  spoke  in  the  name  of  all :  see  Ewald,  § 
319,  a.),  "  Is  the  fist  of  Zebah  and  Zalmunna  already  in  thy  hand 
(power),  that  we  should  give  thine  army  bread ?"  In  these  words 
there  is  not  only  an  expression  of  cowardice,  or  fear  of  the  ven- 
geance which  the  Midianites  might  take  when  they  returned  upon 
those  who  had  supported  Gideon  and  his  host,  but  contempt  of  the 
small  force  which  Gideon  had,  as  if  it  were  impossible  for  him  to 
accomplish  anything  at  all  against  the  foe ;  and  in  this  contempt 
they  manifested  their  utter  want  of  confidence  in  God. — Ver.  7. 
Gideon  threatened  them,  therefore,  with  severe  chastisement  in 
the  event  of  a  victorious  return.  "  If  Jehovah  give  Zebah  and 
Zalmunna  into  my  hand,  1  will  thresh  your  flesh  (your  body)  with 
desert  thorns  and  thistles."  The  verb  K*n,  constructed  with  a  double 
accusative  (see  Ewald,  §  283,  a.),  is  used  in  a  figurative  sense :  "  to 
thresh,"  in  other  words,  to  punish  severely.  "Thorns  of  the  desert" 
are  strong  thorns,  as  the  desert  is  the  natural  soil  for  thorn-bushes. 
The  air.  \ey.  D^PI?  also  signifies  prickly  plants,  according  to  the 


CHAP.  VIII.  4-12  353 

early  versions  and  the  Rabbins,  probably  "  such  as  grow  upon 
stony  ground"  (Bertheau).  The  explanation  "threshing  machines 
with  stones  or  flints  underneath  them,"  which  was  suggested  by 
J.  D.  Michaelis  and  Celsius,  and  adopted  by  Gesenius,  cannot  ]«' 
sustained. — Vers.  8,  9.  The  inhabitants  of  Pnuel  on  the  north 
bank  of  the  Jabbok  (see  at  Gen.  xxxii.  21  sqq.)  behaved  in  the 
same  churlish  manner  to  Gideon,  and  for  this  he  also  threatened 
them  :  "  If  I  return  in  peace"  i.e.  unhurt,  u  I  will  destroy  this  tovh  /•" 
(probably  the  castle  of  Pnuel).— Vers.  10-12.  The  Midianitish 
kings  were  at  Karhor  with  all  the  remnant  of  their  army,  about 
fifteen  thousand  men,  a  hundred  and  twenty  thousand  having 
already  fallen.  Gideon  followed  them  thither  by  the  road  of  the 
dwellers  in  tents  on  the  east  of  Nuhah  and  Jogbeha ;  and  falling 
upon  them  unawares,  smote  the  whole  camp,  which  thought  itself 
quite  secure,  and  took  the  two  kings  prisoners,  after  discomfiting 
all  the  camp.  The  situation  of  Karhor,  which  is  only  mentioned 
here,  cannot  be  determined  with  certainty.  The  statement  of 
Eusebius  and  Jerome  (Onom.  s.  v.  Kap/ta,  Carcar},  that  it  was  the 
castle  of  Carcaria,  a  day's  journey  from  Petra,  is  decidedly  wrong, 
since  this  castle  is  much  too  far  to  the  south,  as  Gesenius  (Tins.  p. 
1210)  has  shown.  Karhor  cannot  have  been  very  far  from  Nobah 
and  Jogbeha.  These  two  places  are  probably  preserved  in  the 
ruins  of  Nowahis  and  Jebeiha,  on  the  north-west  of  Amman 
(Rabbath-ammon ;  see  at  Num.  xxi.  31).  Now,  as  Burckhardi 
(Syr.  p.  G12)  also  mentions  a  ruin  in  the  neighbourhood,  called 
Karhagheisch,  on  the  left  of  the  road  from  Szalt  to  Amman,  and 
at  the  most  an  hour  and  a  half  to  the  north-west  of  Amman, 
Knobel  (on  Num.  xxxii.  42)  is  inclined  to  regard  this  ruin  as 
Karhor.  If  this  supposition  could  be  proved  to  be  correct,  Gideon 
would  have  fallen  upon  the  camp  of  the  enemy  from  the  north-east 
For  "the  way  of  the  dwellers  in  tents  on  the  east  of  Nt  bah  und 
Jogbeha"  cannot  well  be  any  other  than  the  way  which  ran  to  the 
east  of  Nobah  and  Jogbeha,  past  the  most  easterly  frontier  city  of 
the  Gadites,  to  the  nomads  wdio  dwelt  in  the  desert.  Bv^K3  ^-"f  ? 
has  the  article  attached  to  the  governing  noun,  which  may  eaaüy 
be  explained  in  this  instance  from  the  intervening  preposition. 
The  passive  participle  p3B>  has  an  intransitive  force  (see  Euxtld,  § 
149,  a.).  The  verb  T"inn  in  the  circumstantial  clause  acquires  the 
force  of  the  pluperfect  from  the  context.  When  he  had  startled 
the  camp  out  of  its  security,  having  alarmed  it  by  his  unexpected 
attack,  he  succeeded  in  taking  the  two  kings  prisoners. 

z 


354  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Vers.  13-21.  Punishment  of  the  Towns  of  Succoth  and 
Pnuel,  and  Execution  of  the  captured  Kings  of  Midian. 

— Vers.  13,  14.  Gideon  returned  victorious  from  the  war,  n?yopö 
d1^Üj  "from  by  the  ascent  (or  mountain  road)  of  Hecheres"  a  place 
in  front  of  the  town  of  Succoth,  with  which  we  are  not  acquainted. 
This  is  the  rendering  adopted  by  the  LXX.,  the  Peshito,  and  the 
Arabic ;  but  the  rest  of  the  early  translators  have  merely  guessed  at 
the  meaning.  The  Chaldee,  which  has  been  followed  by  the  Rabbins 
and  Luther,  has  rendered  it  "  before  sunset,"  in  utter  opposition  to 
the  rules  of  the  language;  for  although  cheres  is  a  word  used 
poetically  to  denote  the  sun,  n?J?0  cannot  mean  the  setting  of  the 
sun.  Aquila  and  Symmachus,  on  the  other  hand,  confound  D^n 
with  D'nn. — Gideon  laid  hold  of  a  young  man  of  the  people  of 
Succoth,  and  got  him  to  write  down  for  him  the  princes  and  elders 
(magistrates  and  rulers)  of  the  city, — in  all  seventy-seven  men. 
3hO»1  *n?SBty  is  a  short  expression  for  "  he  asked  him  the  names  of 
the  princes  and  elders  of  the  city,  and  the  boy  wrote  them  down." 
lvK,  lit.  to  him,  i.e.  for  him. — Vers.  15, 16.  Gideon  then  reproached 
the  elders  with  the  insult  they  had  offered  him  (ver.  6),  and  had 
them  punished  with  desert  thorns  and  thistles.  "  Men  of  Succoth" 
(vers.  15a  and  166)  is  a  general  expression  for  "elders  of  Succoth" 
(ver.  16a) ;  and  elders  a  general  term  applied  to  all  the  represen- 
tatives of  the  city,  including  the  princes.  Vlfc  Ensnn  ^VK,  with 
regard  to  whom  ye  have  despised  me.  "HSW  is  the  accusative  of  the 
more  distant  or  second  object,  not  the  subject,  as  Stud,  supposes. 
"  And  he  taught  the  men  of  Succoth  (i.e.  caused  them  to  know,  made 
them  feel,  punished  them)  with  them  (the  thorns)."  There  is  no 
good  ground  for  doubting  the  correctness  of  the  reading  jnsl.  The 
free  renderings  of  the  LXX.,  Vulg.,  etc.,  are  destitute  of  critical 
worth ;  and  Bertheau's  assertion,  that  if  it  were  the  Hiphil  it  would 
be  written  ini"1,  is  proved  to  be  unfounded  by  the  defective  writing 
in  Num.  xvi.  5,  Job  xxxii.  7. — Ver.  17.  Gideon  also  inflicted  upon 
Pnuel  the  punishment  threatened  in  ver.  9.  The  punishment 
inflicted  by  Gideon  upon  both  the  cities  was  well  deserved  in  all 
respects,  and  was  righteously  executed.  The  inhabitants  of  these 
cities  had  not  only  acted  treacherously  to  Israel  as  far  as  they  could, 
from  the  most  selfish  interests,  in  a  holy  conflict  for  the  glory  of  the 
Lord  and  the  freedom  of  His  people,  but  in  their  contemptuous 
treatment  of  Gideon  and  his  host  they  had  poured  contempt  upon 
the  Lord,  who  had  shown  them  to  be  His  own  soldiers  before  the 
eyes  of  the  whole  nation  by  the  victory  which  He  had  given  them 


CHAP.  VIII.  22-32.  355 

over  the  innumerable  army  of  the  foe.  Having  been  called  by  the 
Lord  to  be  the  deliverer  and  judge  of  Israel,  it  was  Gideon's  duty 
to  punish  the  faithless  cities. — Vers.  18-21.  After  punishing  these 
cities,  Gideon  repaid  the  two  kings  of  Midian,  who  had  been  taken 
prisoners,  according  to  their  doings.  From  the  judicial  proceedings 
instituted  with  regard  to  them  (vers.  18,  19),  we  learn  that  these 
kings  had  put  the  brothers  of  Gideon  to  death,  and  apparently  not 
in  open  fight ;  but  they  had  murdered  them  in  an  unrighteous  and 
cruel  manner.  And  Gideon  made  them  atone  for  this  with  their 
own  lives,  according  to  the  strict  jus  talio?iis.  nb*K,  in  ver.  18,  does 
not  mean  where?  but  "in  what  condition,  of  what  form,  were  the 
men  whom  ye  slew  at  Tabor?"  i.e.  either  in  the  city  of  Tabor  or  at 
Mount  Tabor  (see  chap.  iv.  6,  and  Josh.  xix.  22).  The  kings 
replied :  "As  thou  so  they"  (those  men),  i.e.  they  were  all  as  stately 
as  thou  art,  "every  one  like  the  form  of  kings  son*."  inx,  one,  for 
every  one,  like  "inx  Vh&  in  2  Kings  xv.  20,  or  more  frequently  Bhj 
alone.  As  the  men  who  had  been  slain  were  Gideon's  own  brothers, 
he  swore  to  those  who  had  done  the  deed,  i.e.  to  the  two  kings,  u  As 
truly  as  Jehovah  liceth,  if  ye  had  let  them  live  I  should  not  have  />ut 
you  to  death;"  and  then  commanded  his  first-born  son  Jether  to  slay 
them,  for  the  purpose  of  adding  the  disgrace  of  falling  by  the  hand 
of  a  boy.  "But  the  hoy  drew  not  his  sword  from  fear,  became  he 
was  yet  a  hoy."  And  the  kings  then  said  to  Gideon,  "  Rise  thou 
and  stab  us,  for  as  the  man  so  is  his  strength,"  i.e.  such  strength  das 
not  belong  to  a  boy,  but  to  a  man.  Thereupon  Gideon  slew  them, 
and  took  the  little  moons  upon  the  necks  of  their  camels  as  booty. 
"  The  little  moons"  were  crescent-shaped  ornaments  of  silver  or  gold, 
such  as  men  and  women  wore  upon  their  necks  (see  ver.  26,  and 
Isa.  iii.  18),  and  which  they  also  hung  upon  the  necks  of  camels, — 
a  custom  still  prevalent  in  Arabia  (see  Schröder,  de  vestitu  mul.hebr. 
pp.  39,  40,  and  Wellsted,  Reisen  in  Arab.  i.  p.  209). 

Vers.  22-32.  Gideon's  remaining  Acts,  and  Death.— Vera. 
22,  23.  As  Gideon  had  so  gloriously  delivered  [srael  from  the  severe 
and  long  oppression  on  the  part  of  the  Midianites,  the  Israelites 
offered  him  an  hereditary  crown.  "  The  men  of  Israel"  were  hardly 
all  the  twelve  tribes,  but  probably  only  the  northern  tribes  of  the 
western  part  of  the  land  already  mentioned  in  chap.  vi.  35,  who  bad 
suffered  the  most  severely  from  the  Midianitish  oppression,  and  bad 
been  the  first  to  gather  round  Gideon  to  make  an  attack  upon  the 
foe.    The  temptation  to  accept  the  government  i  i  Israel  w  as  resisted 


356  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

by  this  warrior  of  God.  u  Neither  I  nor  my  son  shall  rule  over  you; 
Jehovah  shall  rule  over  you"  was  his  reply  to  this  offer,  containing 
an  evident  allusion  to  the  destination  and  constitution  of  the  tribes 
of  Israel  as  a  nation  which  Jehovah  had  chosen  to  be  His  own 
possession,  and  to  which  He  had  just  made  himself  known  in  so 
conspicuous  a  manner  as  their  omnipotent  Ruler  and  King.  This 
refusal  of  the  regal  dignity  on  the  part  of  Gideon  is  not  at  variance 
with  the  fact,  that  Moses  had  already  foreseen  the  possibility  that 
at  some  future  time  the  desire  for  a  king  would  arise  in  the  nation, 
and  had  given  them  a  law  for  the  king  expressly  designed  for  such 
circumstances  as  these  (Deut.  xvii.  14  sqq.).  For  Gideon  did  not 
decline  the  honour  because  Jehovah  was  King  in  Israel,  i.e.  because 
he  regarded  an  earthly  monarchy  in  Israel  as  irreconcilable  with 
the  heavenly  monarchy  of  Jehovah,  but  simply  because  he  thought 
the  government  of  Jehovah  in  Israel  amply  sufficient,  and  did 
not  consider  either  himself  or  his  sons  called  to  found  an  earthly 
monarchy. — Vers.  24  sqq.  Gideon  resisted  the  temptation  to  put  an 
earthly  crown  upon  his  head,  from  true  fidelity  to  Jehovah  ;  but  he 
yielded  to  another  temptation,  which  this  appeal  on  the  part  of  the 
people  really  involved,  namely,  the  temptation  to  secure  to  himself 
for  the  future  the  position  to  which  the  Lord  had  called  and  exalted 
him.  The  Lord  had  called  him  to  be  the  deliverer  of  Israel  by 
visibly  appearing  in  His  angel,  and  had  not  only  accepted  the  gift 
which  he  offered  Him,  as  a  well-pleasing  sacrifice,  but  had  also 
commanded  him  to  build  an  altar,  and  by  offering  an  atoning  burnt- 
sacrifice  to  re-establish  the  worship  of  Jehovah  in  his  family  and 
tribe,  and  to  restore  the  favour  of  God  to  His  people  once  more. 
Lastly,  the  Lord  had  made  His  will  known  to  him  again  and  again ; 
whilst  by  the  glorious  victory  which  He  had  given  to  him  and  to 
his  small  band  over  the  powerful  army  of  the  foe,  He  had  confirmed 
him  as  His  chosen  servant  to  be  the  deliverer  and  judge  of  Israel. 
The  relation  which  Gideon  thus  sustained  to  the  Lord  he  imagined 
that  he  ought  to  preserve ;  and  therefore,  after  declining  the  royal 
dignity,  he  said  to  the  people,  "  /  toill  request  of  you  one  request, 
that  ye  give  me  every  one  the  ring  that  he  has  received  as  booty." 
This  request  the  historian  explains  by  adding  the  remark:  "for 
they  (the  enemy)  had  golden  rings,  for  they  were  Ishmaelites"  from 
whom  therefore  the  Israelites  were  able  to  get  an  abundance  of 
rings  as  booty.  Ishmaelites  is  the  general  name  for  the  nomad 
tribes  of  Arabia,  to  whom  the  Midianites  also  belonged  (as  in  Gen. 
xxxvii.  25). — Vers.  25,  26.  This  request  of  Gideon's  was  cheer- 


CHAP.  VIII.  22-32.  357 

fully  fulfilled :  "  They  spread  out  the  cloth  (brought  for  collecting 
the  rings),  and  threw  into  it  every  one  the  ring  that  he  had  received  as 
booty."  Simlah,  the  upper  garment,  was  for  the  most  part  only  a 
large  square  piece  of  cloth.  The  weight  of  these  golden  rings 
amounted  to  1700  shekels,  i.e.  about  50  lbs.,  (i?  *i:6)  separate  from, 
i.e.  beside,  the  remaining  booty,  for  which  Gideon  had  not  asked, 
and  which  the  Israelites  kept  for  themselves,  viz.  the  little  moons, 
the  ear-pendants  (netiphoth,  lit.  little  drops,  probably  pearl-ehaped 
ear-drops  :  see  Isa.  iii.  19),  and  the  purple  clothes  which  were  worn 
by  the  kings  of  Midian  (i.e.  which  they  had  on),  and  also  apart 
from  the  neck-bands  upon  the  necks  of  their  camels.  Instead  of 
the  anakoth  or  necklaces  (ver.  26),  the  saharonim,  or  little  moons 
upon  the  necks  of  the  camels,  are  mentioned  in  ver.  21  as  the 
more  valuable  portion  of  these  necklaces.  Even  at  the  present 
day  the  Arabs  are  accustomed  to  ornament  the  necks  of  these 
animals  "  with  a  band  of  cloth  or  leather,  upon  which  small  shells 
called  cowries  are  strung  or  sewed  in  the  form  of  a  crescent.  The 
sheiks  add  silver  ornaments  to  these,  which  make  a  rieh  booty  in 
time  of  war"  (Wellsted,  Reise,  i.  p.  209).  The  Midianitish  kings 
had  their  camels  ornamented  with  golden  crescents.  This  abun- 
dance of  golden  ornaments  will  not  surprise  us,  when  we  consider 
that  the  Arabs  still  carry  their  luxurious  tastes  for  such  things  to  a 
very  great  excess.  Wellsted  (i.  p.  224)  states  that  "the  women  in 
Oman  spend  considerable  amounts  in  the  purchase  of  silver  orna- 
ments, and  their  children  are  literally  laden  with  them.  I  have  some- 
times counted  fifteen  ear-rings  upon  each  side;  and  the  head,  breast, 
arms,  and  ankles  are  adorned  with  the  same  profusion."  As  the 
Midianitish  army  consisted  of  130,000  men,  of  whom  15,000  only 
remained  at  the  commencement  of  the  last  engagement,  the  Israelites 
may  easily  have  collected  5000  golden  rings  or  even  more,  which 
might  weich  1700  shekels. — Ver.  27.  "  And  i xideon  made  it  inl 
ephod"  i.e.  used  the  gold  of  the  rings  obtained  from  the  booty  for 
making  an  ephod.  There  is  no  necessity,  however,  to  anderstand 
this  as  signifying  that  1700  shekels  or  50  lbs.  of  gold  had  been  used 
for  the  ephod  itself,  but  simply  that  the  making  of  the  ephod  was 
accomplished  with  this  gold.  The  word  ephod  does  not  signify 
an  image  of  Jehovah,  or  an  idol,  as  Gesenius  and  others  maintain, 
but  the  shoulder-dress  of  the  high  priest,  no  doubt  including  the 
choshen  belonging  to  it,  with  the  Urim  and  Thummim,  as  in  1  Sam. 
xiv.  3,  xxi.  10,  xxiii.  G,  9,  etc.  The  material  for  this  was  worked 
throughout  with  gold  threads;  and  in  addition  to  that  there  were 


358  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

precious  stones  set  in  gold  braid  upon  the  shoulder-pieces  of  the 
ephod  and  upon  the  choshen,  and  chains  made  of  gold  twist  for 
fastening  the  choshen  upon  the  ephod  (see  Ex.  xxviii.  6-30).  Now, 
if  50  lbs.  of  gold  could  not  be  used  for  these  things,  there  were  also 
fourteen  precious  stones  to  be  procured,  and  the  work  itself  to  be 
paid  for,  so  that  50  lbs.  of  gold  might  easily  be  devoted  to  the  pre- 
paration of  this  state  dress.  The  large  quantity  of  gold,  therefore, 
does  not  warrant  us  in  introducing  arbitrarily  into  the  text  the 
establishment  of  a  formal  sanctuary,  and  the  preparation  of  a  golden 
image  of  Jehovah  in  the  form  of  a  bull,  as  Bertheau  has  done,  since 
there  is  no  reference  to  ^DS  or  H3DÖ,  as  in  chap.  xvii.  xviii. ;  and 
even  the  other  words  of  the  text  do  not  point  to  the  founding  of  a 
sanctuary  and  the  setting  up  of  an  image  of  Jehovah.1  The  ex- 
pression which  follows,  ink  Jin,  does  not  affirm  that  "  he  set  it  up," 
but  may  also  mean,  "  he  kept  it  in  his  city  of  Ophrah."  Wi}  is  never 
used  to  denote  the  setting  up  of  an  image  or  statue,  and  signifies 
not  only  to  put  up,  but  also  to  lay  down  (e.g.  chap.  vi.  37),  and  to 
let  a  thing  stand,  or  leave  behind  (Gen.  xxxiii.  15).  The  further 
remark  of  the  historian,  "  and  all  Israel  went  thither  a  whoring  after 
it,  and  it  became  a  snare  to  Gideon  and  his  house,"  does  not  pre- 
suppose the  founding  of  a  sanctuary  or  temple  in  Ophrah,  and  the 
setting  up  of  a  golden  calf  there.  In  what  the  whoring  of  Israel 
after  the  ephod,  i.e.  the  idolatry  of  the  Israelites  with  Gideon's 
ephod  which  was  kept  in  Ophrah,  consisted,  cannot  be  gathered  or 
determined  from  the  use  of  the  ephod  in  the  worship  of  Jehovah 
under  the  Mosaic  law.  "  The  breastplate  upon  the  coat,  and  the 
holy  lot,  were  no  doubt  used  in  connection  with  idolatry"  (Oehler), 
and  Gideon  had  an  ephod  made  in  his  town  of  Ophrah,  that  he  might 
thereby  obtain  revelations  from  the  Lord.  We  certainly  are  not 
for  a  moment  to  think  of  an  exposure  of  the  holy  coat  for  the  people 
to  worship.  It  is  far  more  probable  that  Gideon  put  on  the  ephod 
and  wore  it  as  a  priest,  when  he  wished  to  inquire  and  learn  the 
will  of  the  Lord.  It  is  possible  that  he  also  sacrificed  to  the  Lord 
upon  the  altar  that  was  built  at  Ophrah  (chap.  vi.  24).  The  motive 
by  which  he  was  led  to  do  this  was  certainly  not  merely  ambition, 

1  Oehler  has  correctly  observed  in  Herzog's  Cyclopaedia,  that  Bertheau  acts 
very  arbitrarily  when  he  represents  Gideon  as  setting  up  the  image  of  a  bull, 
as  Jeroboam  did  afterwards,  since  there  is  nothing  to  sustain  it  in  the  account 
itself.  Why  cannot  Gideon  have  worshipped  without  any  image  of  Jehovah, 
with  the  help  of  the  altar  mentioned  in  chap.  vi.  24,  which  was  a  symbol  of 
Jehovah's  presence,  and  remained  standing  till  the  historian's  own  time  ? 


CHAP.  VIII.  22-32.  359 

as  Bertheau  supposes,  impelling  the  man  who,  along  with  his  fol- 
lowers, had  maintained  an  independent  attitude  towards  the  tribe 
of  Ephraim  in  the  war  itself  (chap.  viii.  1  sqq.),  to  act  indepen- 
dently of  the  common  sanctuary  of  the  congregation  which  was 
within  the  territory  of  Ephraim,  and  also  of  the  office  of  the  high 
priest  in  the  time  of  peace  as  well.  For  there  is  not  the  slightest 
trace  to  be  found  of  such  ambition  as  this  in  anything  that  lie  did 
during  the  conflict  with  the  Midianites.  The  germs  of  Gideon's 
error,  which  became  a  snare  to  him  and  to  his  house,  lie  unquestion- 
ably deeper  than  this,  namely,  in  the  fact  that  the  high-priesthood 
had  probably  lost  its  worth  in  the  eyes  of  the  people  on  account  of  the 
worthlessness  of  its  representatives,  so  that  they  no  longer  regarded 
the  high  priest  as  the  sole  or  principal  medium  of  divine  revelation  : 
and  therefore  Gideon,  to  whom  the  Lord  had  manifested  himself 
directly,  as  He  had  not  to  any  judge  or  leader  of  the  people  since 
the  time  of  Joshua,  might  suppose  that  he  was  not  acting  in  viola* 
tion  of  the  law,  when  he  had  an  ephod  made,  and  thus  provided 
himself  with  a  substratum  or  vehicle  for  inquiring  the  will  of  the 
Lord.  His  sin  therefore  consisted  chiefly  in  his  invading  the  pre- 
rogative of  the  Aaronic  priesthood,  drawing  away  the  people  from 
the  one  legitimate  sanctuary,  and  thereby  not  only  undermining  the 
theocratic  unity  of  Israel,  but  also  giving  an  impetus  t<>  the  rel 
of  the  nation  into  the  worship  of  Baal  after  his  death.  This  -in 
became  a  snare  to  him  and  to  his  house. 

The  history  of  Gideon  is  concluded  in  vers.  28-32. — Vcr.  28. 
The  Midianites  had  been  so  humiliated  that  they  lifted  up  their 
head  no  more,  and  the  land  of  Israel  had  rest  forty  years  «  in  the 
days  of  Gideon,"  i.e.  as  long  as  Gideon  lived. — Vera,  i".1  sqq.  Before 
the  account  of  his  death,  a  few  other  notices  respecting  his  family 
are  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  preparing  the  way  for  the  follow- 
ing history  of  the  doings  of  his  sons,  in  which  the  sin  of  Gideon 
came  to  a  head,  and  the  judgment  burst  upon  his  house.  uAnd 
Jerubbaal,  the  son  of  Joash,  went  and  dwelt  in  his  house."  Both  the 
word  "?(?%  which  simply  serves  to  bring  out  the  fact  more  vividly 
(see  the  remarks  on  Ex.  ii.  1),  and  also  the  choice  of  the  name 
Jerubbaal,  merely  serve  to  give  greater  prominence  to  the  change, 
from  the  heat  of  the  war  against  the  Midianites  to  the  quirt  retire- 
ment of  domestic  life.  Instead  of  accepting  the  crown  that  \\a< 
offered  him  and  remaining  at  the  head  of  the  nation,  the  celebrated 
Baal-fighter  retired  into  private  life  again.  In  addition  to  the 
seventy  sons  of  his  many  wives,  there  was  a  son  born  to  him  by  a 


360  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

concubine,  who  lived  at  Shechem  and  is  called  his  maid-servant  in 
chap.  ix.  18,  and  to  this  son  he  gave  the  name  of  Abimelech,  i.e. 
king's  father.  iöB'TlK  Dt^l  is  not  the  same  as  siE>K>"T)Ni  N"lp,  to  give  a 
person  a  name,  but  signifies  to  add  a  name,  or  give  a  surname  (see 
Neh.  ix.  7,  and  Dan.  v.  12  in  the  Chaldee).  It  follows  from  this, 
that  Abimelech  received  this  name  from  Gideon  as  a  cognomen 
answering  to  his  character,  and  therefore  not  at  the  time  of  his 
birth,  but  when  he  grew  up  and  manifested  such  qualities  as  led  to 
the  expectation  that  he  would  be  a  king's  father. — Ver.  32.  Gideon 
died  at  a  good  old  age  (see  Gen.  xv.  15,  xxv.  8),  and  therefore  also 
died  a  peaceful  death  (not  so  his  sons ;  see  chap,  ix.),  and  was 
buried  in  his  father's  grave  at  Ophrah  (chap.  vi.  11). 

Vers.  33-35  form  the  introduction  to  the  history  of  Gideon's 
sons. — Yer.  33.  After  Gideon's  death  the  Israelites  fell  once  more 
into  the  Baal-worship  which  Gideon  had  rooted  out  of  his  father's 
city  (chap.  vi.  25  sqq.),  and  worshipped  Baal-berith  as  their  God. 
Baal-berith,  the  covenant  Baal  (equivalent  to  El-berith,  the  cove- 
nant god,  chap.  ix.  46),  is  not  Baal  as  the  god  of  covenants,  but, 
according  to  Gen.  xiv.  13,  Baal  as  a  god  in  covenant,  i.e.  Baal 
with  whom  they  had  made  a  covenant,  just  as  the  Israelites  had 
their  faithful  covenant  God  in  Jehovah  (see  Movers,  Phöniz.  i.  p. 
171).  The  worship  of  Baal-berith,  as  performed  at  Shechem  ac- 
cording to  chap.  ix.  46,  was  an  imitation  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah, 
an  adulteration  of  that  worship,  in  which  Baal  was  put  in  the 
place  of  Jehovah  (see  Hengstenberg,  Dissertations  on  the  Penta- 
teuch, vol.  ii.  p.  81). — Vers.  34,  35.  In  this  relapse  into  the  worship 
of  Baal  they  not  only  forgot  Jehovah,  their  Deliverer  from  all  their 
foes,  but  also  the  benefits  which  they  owed  to  Gideon,  and  showed 
no  kindness  to  his  house  in  return  for  all  the  good  which  he  had 
shown  to  Israel.  The  expression  Jerubbaal- Gideon  is  chosen  by 
the  historian  here,  not  for  the  purely  outward  purpose  of  laying 
express  emphasis  upon  the  identity  of  Gideon  and  Jerubbaal  (Ber- 
theau),  but  to  point  to  what  Gideon,  the  Baal-fighter,  had  justly 
deserved  from  the  people  of  Israel. 

Judgment  upon  the  House  of  Gideon,  or  Abimelectis  Sins  and  End. 

— Chap.  ix. 

After  the  death  of  Gideon,  Abimelech,  his  bastard  son,  opened 
a  way  for  himself  to  reign  as  king  over  Israel,  by  murdering  his 
brethren  with  the  help  of  the  Shechemites  (vers.  1-6).  For  this 
grievous  wrong  Jotham,  the  only  one  of  Gideon's  seventy  sons  who 


CHAP.  IX.  1-6.  3G1 

escaped  the  massacre,  reproached  the  citizens  of  Shechem  in  a 
parable,  in  which  he  threatened  them  with  punishment  from  God 
(vers.  7-21),  which  first  of  all  fell  upon  Shechem  within  a  very 
short  time  (vers.  22-49),  and  eventually  reached  Abimelech  himself 
(vers.  50-57). 

Vers.  1-6.  Having  gone  to  Shechem,  the  home  of  his  mother 
(chap.  viii.  31),  Abimelech  applied  to  his  mother's  brothers  and  the 
whole  family  (all  the  relations)  of  the  father's  house  of  his  mother, 
and  addressed  them  thus :  "  Speak,  I  pray  you,  in  the  ears  of  all 
the  lords  of  Shechem"  i.e.  speak  to  them  publicly  and  solemnly. 
D;?tf  j?S?>  the  lords,  i.e.  the  possessors  or  citizens  of  Shechem 
(compare  ver.  46  with  ver.  49,  where  TM?  vjn  is  interchangeable 
with  71)Ü  HMK;  also  chap.  xx.  5,  and  Josh.  xxiv.  11)  :  they  are  not 
merely  Canaanitish  citizens,  of  whom  there  were  some  still  living 
in  Shechem  according  to  ver.  28,  but  all  the  citizens  of  the  town  ; 
therefore  chiefly  Israelites.  "  What  is  better  for  y<>u,  thai 
men  rule  over  you,  all  the  sons  of  Jerubbaal,  or  (only)  one  man  (  '.< . 
Abimelech)  ?  and  remember  that  I  am  your  ßesh  and  bone"  (blood 
relation,  Gen.  xxix.  14).  The  name  "  sons  of  Jerubbaal,"  i.e.  of 
the  man  who  had  destroyed  the  altar  of  Baal,  was  just  as  little 
adapted  to  commend  the  sons  of  Gideon  to  the  Shechemites,  who 
were  devoted  to  the  worship  of  Baal,  as  the  remark  that  seventy 
men  were  to  rule  over  them.  No  such  rule  ever  existed,  or  was 
even  aspired  to  by  the  seventy  sons  of  Gideon.  Bui  Abimelech 
assumed  that  his  brothers  possessed  the  same  thirst  for  ruling  as  lie 
did  himself;  and  the  citizens  of  Shechem  might  he  all  the  i 
ready  to  put  faith  in  his  assertions,  since  the  distinction  which 
Gideon  had  enjoyed  was  thoroughly  adapted  to  secure  a  prominent 
place  in  the  nation  for  his  sons. — Ver.  3.  When  lii->  mother's 
brethren  spake  to  the  citizens  of  Shechem  concerning  him.  ue. 
respecting  him  and  his  proposal,  their  heart  turned  to  Abimelech. 
— Ver.  4.  They  gave  him  seventy  shekels  of  silver  from  the  house 
of  Baal-berith,  i.e.  from  the  treasury  of  the  temple  that  was  dedi- 
cated to  the  covenant  Baal  at  Shechem,  as  temple  treasures  wi  re 
frequently  applied  to  political  purposes  (see  1  Kings  xv.  18).  ^  ith 
this  money  Abimelech  easily  hired  light  and  desperate  men,  who 
followed  him  (attached  themselves  to  him)  ;  and  with  their  help  lie 
murdered  his  brethren  at  Ophrah,  seventy  men,  with  the  exception 
of  Jotham  the  youngest,  who  had  hidden  himself.  The  Dumber 
seventy,  the  total  number  of  his  brethren,  is  reduced  by  :! 
tion   mentioned   immediately  afterwards   to   sixty-nine  who  were 


362  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

really  put  to  death,  p^,  empty,  i.e.  without  moral  restraint.  TH&, 
lit.  gurgling  up,  boiling  over  ;  figuratively,  hot,  desperate  men. 
"  Upon  (against)  one  stone"  that  is  to  say,  by  a  formal  execution : 
a  bloody  omen  of  the  kingdom  of  the  ten  tribes,  which  was  after- 
wards founded  at  Shechem  by  the  Ephraimite  Jeroboam,  in  which 
one  dynasty  overthrew  another,  and  generally  sought  to  establish 
its  power  by  exterminating  the  whole  family  of  the  dynasty  that 
had  been  overthrown  (see  1  Kings  xv.  27  sqq.,  2  Kings  x.  1  sqq.). 
Even  in  Judah,  Athaliah  the  worshipper  of  Baal  sought  to  usurp 
the  government  by  exterminating  the  whole  of  the  descendants  of 
her  son  (2  Kings  xi.).  Such  fratricides  have  also  occurred  in  quite 
recent  times  in  the  Mohammedan  countries  of  the  East. — Ver.  6. 
"  Then  all  the  citizens  of  Shechem  assembled  together,  and  all  the 
house  of  Millo,  and  made  Abimelech  king  at  the  memorial  terebinth 
at  Shechem."  Millo  is  unquestionably  the  name  of  the  castle  or 
citadel  of  the  town  of  Shechem,  which  is  called  the  tower  of 
Shechem  in  vers.  46-49.  The  word  Millo  (Chaldee  ^n^p)  signifies 
primarily  a  rampart,  inasmuch  as  it  consisted  of  two  walls,  with  the 
space  between  them  filled  with  rubbish.  There  was  also  a  Millo 
at  Jerusalem  (2  Sam.  v.  9  ;  1  Kings  ix.  15).  "  All  the  house  of 
Millo  "  are  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  castle,  the  same  persons  who 
are  described  in  ver.  46  as  "  all  the  men  (baale)  of  the  tower." 
The  meaning  of  3^0  |vS  is  doubtful.  2Sfö,  the  thing  set  up,  is  a 
military  post  in  Isa.  xxix.  3  ;  but  it  may  also  mean  a  monument  or 
memorial,  and  here  it  probably  denotes  the  large  stone  set  up  as  a 
memorial  at  Shechem  under  the  oak  or  terebinth  (see  Gen.  xxxv. 
4).  The  inhabitants  of  Shechem,  the  worshippers  of  Baal-berith, 
carried  out  the  election  of  Abimelech  as  king  in  the  very  same 
place  in  which  Joshua  had  held  the  last  national  assembly,  and  had 
renewed  the  covenant  of  Israel  with  Jehovah  the  true  covenant 
God  (Josh.  xxiv.  1,  25,  26).  It  was  there  in  all  probability  that 
the  temple  of  Baal-berith  was  to  be  found,  namely,  according  to 
ver.  46,  near  the  tower  of  Shechem  or  the  citadel  of  Millo. 

Vers.  7-21.  When  Jotham,  who  had  escaped  after  the  murder, 
was  told  of  the  election  which  had  taken  place,  he  went  to  the  top 
of  Mount  Gerizim,  which  rises  as  a  steep  wall  of  rock  to  the  height 
of  about  800  feet  above  the  valley  of  Shechem  on  the  south  side  of 
the  city  {Rob.  iii.  p.  96),  and  cried  with  a  loud  voice,  "Hearken  to 
me,  ye  lords  of  Shechem,  and  God  will  also  hearken  to  you."  After 
this  appeal,  which  calls  to  mind  the  language  of  the  prophets,  he 
uttered  aloud  a  fable  of  the  trees  which  wanted  to  anoint  a  king 


CHAP.  IX.  7-21.  303 

over  them, — a  fable  of  true  prophetic  significance,  and  the  earliest 
with  which  we  are  acquainted  (vers.  8-15).  To  the  appeal  which 
is  made  to  them  in  succession  to  become  king  over  the  trees,  the 
olive  tree,  the  fig  tree,  and  the  vine  all  reply:  Shall  we  give  up  our 
calling,  to  bear  valuable  fruits  for  the  good  and  enjoyment  cf  God 
and  men,  and  soar  above  the  other  trees  ?  The  briar,  however,  to 
which  the  trees  turn  last  of  all,  is  delighted  at  the  unexpected 
honour  that  is  offered  it,  and  says,  "  Will  ye  in  truth  anoint  me 
king  over  you  ?  Then  come  and  trust  in  my  sliadoic  ;  but  if  not,  1,  t 
fire  go  out  of  the  briar  and  consume  the  cedars  of  Lebanon."  Tin- 
rare  form  nai?D  {Chethib,  vers.  8,  12)  also  occurs  in  1  Sam.  xxviii. 
8,  Isa.  xxxii.  11,  Ps.  xxvi.  2:  see  Ewald,  §  228,  b.).  S&B  (ver. 
10)  is  also  rare  (see  Ewald,  §  226,  b.).  The  form  Wjnn  (vera.  9, 
11,  13),  which  is  quite  unique,  is  not  "  Hophal  or  Hipkil,  com- 
pounded of  "Ijjnn  or  'innn"  {Ewald,  §  51,  c),  for  neither  the 
Hophal  nor  the  Hiphil  of  Tin  occurs  anywhere  else;  but  it  is  a 
simple  Kal,  and  the  obscure  o  sound  is  chosen  instead  of  the  a  sound 
for  the  sake  of  euphony,  i.e.  to  assist  the  pronunciation  of  the  gut- 
tural syllables  which  follow  one  after  another.  The  meaning  of  the 
fable  is  very  easy  to  understand.  The  olive  tree,  fig  tree,  and  vine 
do  not  represent  different  historical  persons,  such  as  the  judges 
Othniel,  Deborah,  and  Gideon,  as  the  Rabbins  affirm,  but  in  a 
perfectly  general  way  the  nobler  families  or  persons  who  bring 
forth  fruit  and  blessing  in  the  calling  appointed  them  by  God,  und 
promote  the  prosperity  of  the  people  and  kingdom  in  a  manner  that 
is  well-pleasing  to  God  and  men.  Oil,  figs,  and  wine  were  the 
most  valuable  productions  of  the  land  of  Canaan,  whereas  the  briar 
was  good  for  nothing  but  to  burn.  The  noble  fruit-trees  would 
not  tear  themselves  from  the  soil  in  which  they  had  been  planted 
and  had  borne  fruit,  to  soar  (JW,  float  about)  above  the  trees,  Le. 
not  merely  to  rule  over  the  trees,  but  obire  et  circumagi  in  ■ 
eorum  curandis.  J?U  includes  the  idea  of  restlessness  and  insecurity 
of  existence.  The  explanation  given  in  the  Berleb.  Bible,  "  S\  e 
have  here  what  it  is  to  be  a  king,  to  reign  or  be  lord  over  many 
others,  namely,  veiy  frequently  to  do  nothing  else  than  float  about 
in  such  restlessness  and  distraction  of  thoughts.  Peelings,  :md  de- 
sires, that  very  little  good  or  sweet  fruit  ever  falls  to  the  ground, ' 
if  not  a  truth  without  exception  so  far  as  royalty  is  concerned,  is 
at  all  events  perfectly  true  in  relation  to  what  Abimelech  aimed 
at  and  attained,  to  be  a  king  by  the  will  of  the  people  and  not 
by  the  grace  of  God.     "Wherever  the  Lord  docs  not  found   tlio 


364  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

monarchy,  or  the  king  himself  does  not  lay  the  foundations  of  his 
government  in  God  and  the  grace  of  God,  he  is  never  anything 
but  a  tree,  moving  about  above  other  trees  without  a  firm  root  in  a 
fruitful  soil,  utterly  unable  to  bear  fruit  to  the  glory  of  God  and 
the  good  of  men.  The  expression  "  all  the  trees'"'  is  to  be  carefully 
noticed  in  ver.  14.  "  All  the  trees"  say  to  the  briar,  Be  king  over 
us,  whereas  in  the  previous  verse  only  "  the  trees"  are  mentioned. 
This  implies  that  of  all  the  trees  not  one  was  willing  to  be  king 
himself,  but  that  they  were  unanimous  in  transferring  the  honour 
to  the  briar.  The  briar,  which  has  nothing  but  thorns  upon  it, 
and  does  not  even  cast  sufficient  shadow  for  any  one  to  lie  down  in 
its  shadow  and  protect  himself  from  the  burning  heat  of  the  sun,  is 
an  admirable  simile  for  a  worthless  man,  who  can  do  nothing  but 
harm.  The  words  of  the  briar,  "  Trust  in  my  shadow"  seek  refuge 
there,  contain  a  deep  irony,  the  truth  of  which  the  Shechemites 
were  very  soon  to  discover.  "And  if  not"  i.e.  if  ye  do  not  find 
the  protection  you  expect,  fire  will  go  out  of  the  briar  and  consume 
the  cedars  of  Lebanon,  the  largest  and  noblest  trees.  Thorns 
easily  catch  fire  (see  Ex.  xxii.  5).  The  most  insignificant  and  most 
worthless  man  can  be  the  cause  of  harm  to  the  mightiest  and  most 
distinguished. 

In  vers.  16-20  Jotham  gives  the  application  of  his  fable,  for 
there  was  no  necessity  for  any  special  explanation  of  it,  since  it  was 
perfectly  clear  and  intelligible  in  itself.  These  verses  form  a  long 
period,  the  first  half  of  which  is  so  extended  by  the  insertion  of 
parentheses  introduced  as  explanations  (vers.  17,  18),  that  the 
commencement  of  it  (ver.  16)  is  taken  up  again  in  ver.  19a  for  the 
purpose  of  attaching  the  apodosis.  "  If  ye  have  acted  in  truth  and 
sincerity,  and  (i.e.  when  ye)  made  Abimelech  king ;  if  ye  have  done 
well  to  Jerubbaal  and  his  house,  and  if  ye  have  done  to  him  according 
to  the  doing  of  his  hands  .  .  .  as  my  father  fought  for  you  .  .  .  but  ye 
have  risen  up  to-day  against  my  father  s  house,  and  have  slain  .  .  .  if 
(I  say)  ye  have  acted  in  truth  and  sincerity  to  Jerubbaal  and  his 
house  this  day  :  then  rejoice  in  Abimelech.  .  .  ."  it?£>J  "i\yWi}}  to  throw 
away  his  life,  i.e.  expose  to  death.  1$M?,  " from  before  him"  serves 
to  strengthen  the  Tr?fy  Jotham  imputes  the  slaying  of  his  brothers 
to  the  citizens  of  Shechem,  as  a  crime  which  they  themselves  had 
committed  (ver.  18),  because  they  had  given  Abimelech  money  out 
of  their  temple  of  Baal  to  carry  out  his  designs  against  the  sons  of 
Jerubbaal  (ver.  4).  In  this  reproach  he  had,  strictly  speaking, 
already  pronounced  sentence  upon  their  doings      When,  therefore, 


CHAP.  IX.  22-24.  3RJ 

he  proceeds  still  further  in  ver.  19,  "If  ye  have  acted  in  troth 
towards  Jerubbaal  .  .  .  then  rejoice,"  etc.,  this  turn  contains  tlio 
bitterest  scorn  at  the  faithlessness  manifested  towards  Jerubbaal. 
In  that  case  nothing  could  follow  but  the  fulfilment  of  the  threat 
and  the  bursting  forth  of  the  fire.  In  carrying  out  this  point  the 
application  goes  beyond  the  actual  meaning  of  the  parable  itself. 
Not  only  will  fire  go  forth  from  Abimelech  and  consume  the  lords 
of  Shechem  and  the  inhabitants  of  Millo,  but  fire  will  also  go  forth 
from  them  and  devour  Abimelech  himself.  The  fulfilment  of  this 
threat  was  not  long  delayed,  as  the  following  history  shows  (vera. 
23  sqq.). — Ver.  21.  But  Jotham  fled  to  Beer,  after  charging  the 
Shechemites  with  their  iniquity,  and  dwelt  there  before  his  brother 
Abimelech  ("  before,"  i.e.  u  for  fear  of." — Jerome).  Beer  in  all  pro- 
bability is  not  the  same  place  as  Beeroth  in  the  tribe  of  Benjamin 
(Josh.  ix.  17),  but,  according  to  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Bjjpd),  a  place 
eight  Roman  miles  to  the  north  of  Eleutheropolis,  situated  in  the 
plain;  at  present  a  desolate  village  called  el  Bireh,  near  the  mouth 
of  the  Wady  es  Surär,  not  far  from  the  former  Beth-shemesh  (/.'■ 
Pal.  ii.  p.  132). 

Vers.  22-24.  Abimelech's  reign  lasted  three  years.  "i"'>\  from 
"W,  to  govern,  is  used  intentionally,  as  it  appears,  in  the  place  of 
3pD*1,  because  Abimelech's  government  was  not  a  monarchical 
reign,  but  simply  a  tyrannical  despotism.  "  Over  Israel,"  that  is  to 
say,  not  over  the  whole  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel,  but  only  over 
a  portion  of  the  nation,  possibly  the  tribes  of  Ephraim  and  half 
Manasseh,  which  acknowledged  his  sway. — Vers,  23,  24.  Then  (!>>d 
sent  an  evil  spirit  between  Abimelech  and  the  citizens  of  Shechem, 
so  that  they  became  treacherous  towards  him.  "  .1//  evil  8piritn  is 
not  merely  "an  evil  disposition,"  but  an  evil  demon,  which  produced 
discord  and  strife,  just  as  an  evil  spirit  came  upon  Saul  (1  Sam. 
xvi.  14,  15,  xviii.  10)  ;  not  Satan  himself,  but  a  supernatural  spiri- 
tual power  which  was  under  his  influence.  This  evil  spirit  God 
sent  to  punish  the  wickedness  of  Abimelech  and  tin-  Shechemites. 
Elohim,  not  Jehovah,  because  the  working  of  the  divine  justice  is 
referred  to  here.  "  That  the  wickedness  to  the  seventy  sons  of  Jerub- 
baal might  come,  and  their  blood  (the  blood  of  these  sous  that  had 
been  shed),  to  lay  it  upon  Abimelech."  "And  their  bit  od"  is  only 
a  more  precise  definition  of  "the  wickedness  to  the  seventy  sons  ;" 
and  "to  lay  it"  is  an  explanation  of  the  expression  "  might  come." 
The  introduction  of  WOT,  however,  brings  an  anakolouthon  into  the 
construction,  since  the  transitive  DVJ'  presupposes  Elohim  as  the 


366  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

subject  and  DOT  as  the  object,  whereas  the  parallel  D»n  is  the 
subject  to  the  intransitive  Nto?  :  that  the  wickedness  might  come, 
and  that  God  might  lay  the  blood  not  only  upon  Abirnelech, 
the  author  of  the  crime,  but  also  upon  the  lords  of  Shechem,  who 
had  strengthened  his  hands  to  slay  his  brethren ;  had  supported 
him  by  money,  that  he  might  be  able  to  hire  worthless  fellows  to 
execute  his  crime  (vers.  4,  5). 

Vers.  25-29.  The  faithlessness  of  the  Shechemites  towards 
Abimelech  commenced  by  their  placing  Hers  in  wait  for  him  (i^, 
dat.  incomrn.,  to  his  disadvantage)  upon  the  tops  of  the  mountains 
(Ebal  and  Gerizim,  between  which  Shechem  was  situated),  who 
plundered  every  one  who  passed  by  them  on  the  road.  In  what 
way  they  did  harm  to  Abimelech  by  sending  out  liers  in  wait  to 
plunder  the  passers-by,  is  not  very  clear  from  the  brevity  of  the 
narrative.  The  general  effect  may  have  been,  that  they  brought  his 
government  into  discredit  with  the  people  by  organizing  a  system 
of  robbery  and  plunder,  and  thus  aroused  a  spirit  of  discontent  and 
rebellion.  Possibly,  however,  these  highway  robbers  were  to  watch 
for  Abimelech  himself,  if  he  should  come  to  Shechem,  not  only  to 
plunder  him,  but,  if  possible,  to  despatch  him  altogether.  This  was 
made  known  to  Abimelech.  But  before  he  had  put  down  the 
brigandage,  the  treachery  broke  out  into  open  rebellion. — Ver.  26. 
Gaal,  the  son  of  Ebed,  came  to  Shechem  with  his  brethren,  "ny 
with  3,  to  pass  over  into  a  place.  Who  Gaal  was,  and  whence  he 
came,  we  are  not  informed.  Many  of  the  mss.  and  early  editions, 
e.g.  the  Syriac  and  Arabic,  read  "  son  of  Eber,"  instead  of  "  son 
of  Ebed."  Judging  from  his  appearance  in  Shechem,  he  was  a 
knight-errant,  who  went  about  the  country  with  his  brethren,  i.e. 
as  captain  of  a  company  of  freebooters,  and  was  welcomed  in 
Shechem,  because  the  Shechemites,  who  were  dissatisfied  with  the 
rule  of  Abimelech,  hoped  to  find  in  him  a  man  who  would  be  able 
to  render  them  good  service  in  their  revolt  from  Abimelech.  This 
may  be  gathered  from  the  words  "  and  the  lords  of  Shechem  trusted 
in  him? — Yer.  27.  At  the  vintage  they  prepared  Dv^?n,  "praise- 
offerings,"  with  the  grapes  which  they  had  gathered  and  pressed, 
eating  and  drinking  in  the  house  of  their  god,  i.e.  the  temple  of 
Baal-berith,  and  cursing  Abimelech  at  these  sacrificial  meals,  prob- 
ably when  they  were  excited  with  wine.  Dy^n  signifies,  according 
to  Lev.  xix.  24,  praise-offerings  of  the  fruits  which  newly-planted 
orchards  or  vineyards  bore  in  the  fourth  year.  The  presentation 
of  these  fruits,  by  which  the  vineyard  or  orchard  was  sanctified  to 


CHAP.  IX.  25-20.  367 

the  Lord,  was  associated,  as  we  may  learn  from  the  passage  before 
us,  with  sacrificial  meals.  The  Shechemites  held  a  similar  festival 
in  the  temple  of  their  covenant  Baal,  and  in  his  honour,  to  that 

which  the  law  prescribes  for  the  Israelites  in  Lev.  xix.  23-25. 

Vers.  28,  29.  At  this  feast  Gaal  called  upon  the  Shechemites  to 
revolt  from  Abimelech.  "  Who  is  Abimelech,"  he  exclaimed,  "and 
who  Shechem,  that  we  serve  him?  Is  he  not  the  son  of  Jerubbaal,  and 
Zebul  his  officer  ?  Serve  the  men  of  Hamor,  the  father  of  Shechem  '. 
and  why  should  ice,  we  serve  him  (Abimelech)  ?"  The  meaning  of 
these  words,  which  have  been  misinterpreted  in  several  different 
ways,  is  very  easily  seen,  if  we  bear  in  mind  (1)  that  *0  (who  is  ?) 
in  this  double  question  cannot  possibly  be  used  in  two  different  and 
altogether  opposite  senses,  such  as  "  how  insignificant  or  contemp- 
tible is  Abimelech,"  and  "  how  great  and  mighty  is  Shechem,"  but 
that  in  both  instances  it  must  be  expressive  of  disparagement  and 
contempt,  as  in  1  Sam.  xxv.  10;  and  (2)  that  Gaal  answers  his  own 
questions.  Abimelech  was  regarded  by  him  as  contemptible,  nut 
because  he  was  the  son  of  a  maid-servant  or  of  very  low  birth,  nor 
because  he  was  ambitious  and  cruel,  a  parricide  and  the  murderer 
of  his  brethren  (RosenmiiUer),  but  because  he  was  a  son  of  Jerub- 
baal, a  son  of  the  man  who  destroyed  the  altar  of  Baal  at  Shechem 
and  restored  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  for  which  the  Shechemites 
themselves  had  endeavoured  to  slay  him  (chap.  vi.  27  sqq.).  So 
also  the  meaning  of  the  question,  Who  is  Shechem  !  may  be 
gathered  from  the  answer,  "  and  Zebul  his  officer."  The  use  of 
the  personal  "'O  (who)  in  relation  to  Shechem  may  be  explained  on 
the  ground  that  Gaal  is  speaking  not  so  much  of  the  city  aa  of  its 
inhabitants.  The  might  and  greatness  of  Shechem  did  not  consist 
in  the  might  and  authority  of  its  prefect,  Zebul,  who  had  been 
appointed  by  Abimelech,  and  whom  the  Shechemites  had  no  need 
to  serve.  Accordingly  there  is  no  necessity  either  for  the  arbitrary 
paraphrase  of  Shechem,  given  in  the  Sept.,  viz.  vio<;  Svxeji  (son  of 
Shechem);  or  for  the  perfectly  arbitrary  assumption  of  Berti, 
that  Shechem  is  only  a  second  name  for  Abimelech,  who  was  a 
descendant  of  Shechem;  or  even  for  the  solution  proposed  bj  R 
müller,  that  Zebul  was  "a  man  of  low  birth  and  obscure  origin," 
which  is  quite  incapable  of  proof.  To  Zebul,  that  one  man  whom 
Abimelech  had  appointed  prefect  of  the  city,  Gaal  opposes  "the 
menofllamor,  the father  of  Shechem,"  as  those  whom  the  Shechem- 
ites should  serve  (i.e.  whose  followers  they  should  b  I.  Hamor 
was  the  name  of  the  Ilivite  prince  who  had  founded  the  city  of 


368  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Shechem  (Gen.  xxxiii.  19,  xxxiv.  2  ;  compare  Josh.  xxlv.  32).  The 
"  men  of  Hamor "  were  the  patricians  of  the  city,  who  "  derived 
their  origin  from  the  noblest  and  most  ancient  stock  of  Hamor  " 
{Rosenmüller).  Gaal  opposes  them  to  Abimelech  and  his  represen- 
tative Zebul.1  In  the  last  clause,  u  why  should  we  serve  him " 
(Abimelech  or  his  officer  Zebul)  ?  Gaal  identifies  himself  with  the 
inhabitants  of  Shechem,  that  he  may  gain  them  fully  over  to  his 
plans. — Ver.  29.  "  0  that  this  people"  continued  Gaal,  " were  in 
my  hand"  i.e.  could  I  but  rule  over  the  inhabitants  of  Shechem, 
"  then  would  I  remove  (drive  away)  Abimelech."  He  then  exclaimed 
with  regard  to  Abimelech  (?  "T?N,  as  in  ver.  545,  Gen.  xx.  13,  etc.), 
"  Increase  thine  army  and  come  out !  "  Heated  as  he  was  with  wine, 
Gaal  was  so  certain  of  victory  that  he  challenged  Abimelech  boldly 
to  make  war  upon  Shechem.  Hsn,  imper.  Piel  with  Seghol.  HKV? 
imperative,  with  n—  of  motion  or  emphasis. 

Vers.  30-45.  This  rebellious  speech  of  Gaal  was  reported  to 
Abimelech  by  the  town-prefect  Zebul,  who  sent  messengers  to  him 
rrcnrOj  either  with  deceit  (n^"!^  from  n^),  i.e.  employing  deceit, 
inasmuch  as  he  had  listened  to  the  speech  quietly  and  with  ap- 
parent assent,  or  " in  Tormah"  the  name  of  a  place,  !"1£H^  being  a 
misspelling  for  no"iK  =  novis  (ver.  41).  The  Sept.  and  Chaldee  take 
the  word  as  an  appellative  =  ev  tcpv<f)r},  secretly ;  so  also  do  Rashi 
and  most  of  the  earlier  commentators,  whilst  R.  Kimchi  the  elder 
has  decided  in  favour  of  the  second  rendering  as  a  proper  name. 
As  the  word  only  occurs  here,  it  is  impossible  to  decide  with  cer- 
tainty in  favour  of  either  view.  DVW  D3H,  behold  they  stir  up  the 
city  against  thee  (^"JS  from  "Wf  in  the  sense  of  TJX). — Ver.  32.  At 
the  same  time  he  called  upon  Abimelech  to  draw  near,  with  the 
people  that  he  had  with  him,  during  the  night,  and  to  lie  in  wait  in 
the  field  (^1^,  to  place  one's  self  in  ambush),  and  the  next  morning  to 
spread  out  with  his  army  against  the  town ;  and  when  Gaal  went 
out  with  his  followers,  he  was  to  do  to  him  u  as  his  hand  should 
find,"  i.e.  to  deal  with  him  as  he  best  could  and  would  under  the 
circumstances.     (On  this  formula,  see  at  1  Sam.  x.  7,  xxv.  8.) — 

1  Bertheau  maintains,  though  quite  erroneously,  that  serving  the  men  of 
Hamor  is  synonymous  with  serving  Abimelech.  But  the  very  opposite  of  this 
is  so  clearly  implied  in  the  words,  that  there  cannot  be  any  doubt  on  the 
question.  All  that  can  be  gathered  from  the  words  is  that  there  were  remnants 
of  the  Hivite  (or  Canaanitish)  population  still  living  in  Shechem,  and  therefore 
that  the  Canaanites  had  not  been  entirely  exterminated, — a  fact  which  would 
sufficiently  explain  the  revival  of  the  worship  of  Baal  there. 


CHAP.  IX.  30-45.  3G(J 

Ver.  34.  On  receiving  tins  intelligence,  Abimelech  rose  up  during 
the  night  with  the  people  that  were  with  him,  i.e.  with  such  troops 
as  he  had,  and  placed  four  companies  ("heads"  as  in  chap.  vii.  16) 
in  ambush  against  Shechem. — Vers.  35,  36.  When  Gaa]  went  out 
in  the  morning  with  his  retinue  upon  some  enterprise,  which  is  not 
more  clearly  defined,  and  stood  before  the  city  gate,  Abimelech  rose 
up  with  his  army  out  of  the  ambush.  On  seeing  this  people,  Gaal 
said  to  Zebul  (who  must  therefore  have  come  out  of  tin-  city  ■with 
him)  :  "Behold,  people  come  down  from  the  tops  of  the  mountains." 
Zebul  replied,  for  the  purpose  of  deceiving  him  and  making  him 
feel  quite  secure,  "  Thou  höhest  upon  the  shadow  of  the  mountain»  a» 
men.'" — Ver.  37.  But  Gaal  said  again,  " Behold,  people  a  me  down 
from  the  navel  of  the  land"  i.e.  from  the  highest  point  of  the  sur- 
rounding country,  "and  a  croicd  comes  by  the  way  of  the  wi& 
terebinths" — a  place  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Shechem  that  is  not 
mentioned  anywhere  else,  and  therefore  is  not  more  precisely 
known. — Ver.  38.  Then  Zebul  declared  openly  against  Gaal,  ami 
reproached  him  with  his  foolhardy  speech,  whilst  Abimelech  was 
drawing  nearer  with  his  troops:  "  Where  U  thy  mouth  nmr  witli 
which  thou  said st,  Who  is  Abimelech?  Is  not  this  the  people  that 
thou  hast  despised?  Go  out  now  and  fight  with  him  .'"-  Vers.  39 
sqq.  Then  Gaal  went  out  "before  the  citizens  of  Shechem  :"  i.e.  not 
at  their  head  as  their  leader,  which  is  the  meaning  of  \JDp  in  Gen. 
xxxiii.  3,  Ex.  xiii.  21,  Num.  x.  35,  etc., — for,  according  to 
33-35,  Gaal  had  only  gone  out  of  the  town  with  his  own  retinue, 
and,  according  to  vers.  42,  43,  the  people  of  Shechem  did  not  go 
out  till  the  next  day, — but  "in  the  sight  of  the  lords  of  Shechem," 
so  that  they  looked  upon  the  battle.  But  the  battle  ended  un- 
fortunately for  him.  Abimelech  put  him  to  flight  (v"  as  in  L 
xxvi.  36),  and  there  fell  many  slain  up  to  the  gate  of  the  city,  into 
which  Gaa]  had  fled  with  his  followers. — Ver.  41.  Abimelech  did 
not  force  his  way  into  the  city,  but  remained  (2"'\  lit.  sat  down) 
with  his  army  in  Arumah,  a  place  not  mentioned  again,  which  vi  as 
situated,  according  to  ver.  42,  somewhere  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Shechem.  It  cannot  possibly  have  been  the  place  called  'Pov/jm 
■fj  fcal*Apip.a  in  the  Onom.  of  Eusebius,  which  was  named  T.^f/x? 
in  his  day,  and  was  situated  in  tin-  neighbourhood  of  Diospolis  (or 
Lydda).  Zebul,  however,  drove  Gaal  and  bis  brethren  I  I.e.  Ins 
retinue)  out  of  Shechem.— Vers.  42-4.").  The  next  day  the  people 
of  Shechem  went  into  the  field,  apparently  not  to  make  war  upon 
Abimelech,   but   to  work   in   the  field,   possibly   to   continue  the 

2  A 


370  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

vintage.  But  when  Abimelech  was  informed  of  it,  lie  divided  the 
people,  i.e.  his  own  men,  into  three  companies,  which  he  placed  in 
ambush  in  the  field,  and  then  fell  upon  the  Shechemites  when  they 
had  come  out  of  the  city,  and  slew  them. — Ver.  44.  That  is  to  say, 
Abimelech  and  the  companies  with  him  spread  themselves  out  and 
took  their  station  by  the  city  gate  to  cut  off  the  retreat  of  the 
Shechemites  into  the  city,  whilst  the  other  two  companies  fell 
upon  all  who  were  in  the  field,  and  slew  them. — Ver.  45.  Thus 
Abimelech  fought  all  that  day  against  the  city  and  took  it ;  and 
having  slain  all  the  people  therein,  he  destroyed  the  city  and 
strewed  salt  upon  it.  Strewing  the  ruined  city  with  salt,  which 
only  occurs  here,  was  a  symbolical  act,  signifying  that  the  city  was 
to  be  turned  for  ever  into  a  barren  salt  desert.  Salt  ground  is  a 
barren  desert  (see  Job  xxxix.  6,  Ps.  cvii.  34). 

Vers.  46-49.  When  the  inhabitants  of  the  castle  of  Shechem 
("lords  of  the  tower  of  Shechem"  =  "all  the  house  of  Millo," 
ver.  6)  heard  of  the  fate  of  the  town  of  Shechem,  they  betook 
themselves  to  the  hold  of  the  house  (temple)  of  the  covenant  god 
(Baal-berith),  evidently  not  for  the  purpose  of  defending  them- 
selves there,  but  to  seek  safety  at  the  sanctuary  of  their  god  from 
fear  of  the  vengeance  of  Abimelech,  towards  wdiom  they  also  had 
probably  acted  treacherously.  The  meaning  of  the  word  O'HVj 
which  answers  to  an  Arabic  word  signifying  arx,  palatium,  omnis 
structura  elatior,  cannot  be  exactly  determined,  as  it  only  occurs 
again  in  1  Sam.  xiii.  6  in  connection  with  caves  and  clefts  of  the 
rock.  According  to  ver.  49,  it  had  a  roof  which  could  be  set  on 
fire.  The  meaning  "  tower  "  is  only  a  conjecture  founded  upon 
the  context,  and  does  not  suit,  as  JTnv  is  distinguished  from  THJO. — 

7  7  -      »t  o  t;  • 

Ver.  47.  As  soon  as  this  was  announced  to  Abimelech,  he  went 
with  all  his  men  to  Mount  Zalmon,  took  hatchets  in  his  hand,  cut 
down  branches  from  the  trees,  and  laid  them  upon  his  shoulders,  and 
commanded  his  people  to  do  the  same.  These  branches  they  laid 
upon  the  hold,  and  set  the  hold  on  fire  over  them  (the  inhabitants 
of  the  tower  who  had  taken  refuge  there),  so  that  all  the  people  of 
the  tower  of  Shechem  (about  one  thousand  persons)  perished,  both 
men  and  women.  Mount  Zalmon,  which  is  mentioned  again  in  Ps. 
lxviii.  15,  was  a  dark,  thickly-wooded  mountain  near  Shechem, — 
a  kind  of  "  Black  Forest,"  as  Luther  has  rendered  the  name.  The 
plural  kardumoth,  "  axes,"  may  be  explained  on  the  ground  that 
Abimelech  took  axes  not  only  for  himself  but  for  his  people  also. 
to  m  a  relative  sense,  as  in  Num.  xxiii.  3  (see  Ewald,  §  331,  b.). 


CHAP.  IX.  50-X.  5.  37] 

Vers.  50-57.  At  length  the  fate  predicted  by  Jotham  (ver.  20) 
overtook  Abimelech.— Vers.  50,  51.  He  went  from  Sheehem  to 
Thebez,  besieged  the  town,  and  took  it.  Tliebez,  according  to  the 
Onom.  thirteen  miles  from  Neapolis  (Sheehem)  on  the  road  to 
Scythopolis  (Beisan),  has  been  preserved  in  the  large  village  of 
Tubas  on  the  north  of  Sheehem  (see  Rob.  Pal.  iii.  p.  156,  and  BibL 
Res.  p.  305).  This  town  possessed  a  strong  tower,  in  which  men 
and  women  and  all  the  inhabitants  of  the  town  took  refuge  and 
shut  themselves  in.  But  when  Abimelech  advanced  to  the  tower 
and  drew  near  to  the  door  to  set  it  on  fire,  a  woman  threw  a  mill- 
stone down  upon  him  from  the  roof  of  the  tower  and  smashed  his 
skull,  whereupon  he  called  hastily  to  the  attendant  win.  carried  his 
weapons  to  give  him  his  death-blow  with  his  sword,  that  men 
might  not  say  of  him  "a  woman  slew  him."  331 .  ~^2,  the  upper 
millstone  which  was  turned  round,  lapis  vector  (see  Deut.  xxiv.  6). 
P"iri:  from  f'S"),  with  a  toneless  i,  possibly  to  distinguish  it  from  ]"r\ 
(from  pn).  W?{p3,  an  unusual  form  for  frl/3/3,  which  is  found  in  the 
edition  of  Norzi  (Mantua,  1742). — Ver.  55.  After  the  death  of 
Abimelech  his  army  was  dissolved.  'SJHfe^  B*K  are  the  Israelites 
who  formed  Abimelech's  army.  In  vers.  56,  07,  the  historian 
closes  this  account  with  the  remark,  that  in  this  manner  God 
recompensed  Abimelech  and  the  citizens  of  Sheehem,  who  had 
supported  him  in  the  murder  of  his  brothers  (ver.  2),  according  tu 
their  doings.  After  the  word  "rendered"  in  vex.  50  we  most 
supply  "upon  his  head,"  as  in  ver.  57.  Thus  Jotham's  curse  was 
fulfilled  upon  Abimelech  and  upon  the  Shecheinitcs,  who  had  made 
him  king. 

The  Judges  Tola  and  Jair. — Chap.  x.  1-5. 

Of  these  two  judges  no  particular  deeds  are  mentioned,   no 
doubt  because  they  performed  none. — Vers.  1,  2.   Tola  arose  after 
Abimelech's  death  to  deliver  Israel,  and  judged  Israel  twenty-three 
years  until  his  death,  though  certainly  not  all  the  [sraelites  of  the 
twelve  tribes,  but  only  the  northern  and  possibly  also  ti. 
tribes,  to  the  exclusion  of  Judah,  Simeon,  and   Benjamin,  as  ; 
southern  tribes  neither  took  part  in  Gideon's  war  of  freedom  nor 
stood  under  Abimelech's  rule.     To  explain  the  clause  "  Hu 
to  defend '(or  save)  Israel]*  when  nothing  bad  been  said  about  any 
fresh  oppression  on  the  part  of  the  foe,  we  need  not  assume,  :i> 
Rosenmüllcr  does,  "that  the  Israelites  had  been  constantly  harassed 
by  their  neighbours,  who  continued  to  suppress  the   liberty  Ol    the 


372  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Israelites,  and  from  whose  stratagems  or  power  the  Israelites  were 
delivered  by  the  acts  of  Tola ;"  but  Tola  rose  up  as  the  deliverer 
of  Israel,  even  supposing  that  he  simply  regulated  the  affairs  of 
the  tribes  who  acknowledged  him  as  their  supreme  judge,  and  suc- 
ceeded by  his  efforts  in  preventing  the  nation  from  falling  back 
into  idolatry,  and  thus  guarded  Israel  from  any  fresh  oppression  on 
the  part  of  hostile  nations.  Tola  was  the  son  of  Puah,  the  son  of 
Dvdo,  of  the  tribe  of  Issachar.  The  names  Tola  and  Puah  are 
already  met  with  among  the  descendants  of  Issachar,  as  founders 
of  families  of  the  tribe  of  Issachar  (see  Gen.  xlvi.  13,  Num.  xxvi. 
23,  where  the  latter  name  is  written  ^)S),  and  they  were  afterwards 
repeated  in  the  different  households  of  these  families.  Dodo  is  not 
an  appellative,  as  the  Sept.  translators  supposed  (vibs  TrarpaSiX^ov 
auTov),  but  a  proper  name,  as  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  9  (Keri),  24,  and 
1  Chron.  xi.  12.  The  town  of  Shamir,  upon  the  mountains  of 
Ephraim,  where  Tola  judged  Israel,  and  was  afterwards  buried, 
was  a  different  place  from  the  Shamir  upon  the  mountains  of  Judah, 
mentioned  in  Josh  xv.  48,  and  its  situation  (probably  in  the  terri- 
tory of  Issachar)  is  still  unknown. — Vers.  3  sqq.  After  him  Jair 
the  Gileadite  (born  in  Gilead)  judged  Israel  for  twenty-two  years. 
Nothing  further  is  related  of  him  than  that  he  had  thirty  sons  who 
rode  upon  thirty  asses,  which  was  a  sign  of  distinguished  rank  in 
those  times  when  the  Israelites  had  no  horses.  They  had  thirty 
cities  (the  second  Q^I?  in  ver.  4  is  another  form  for  D"1"]^,  from  a 
singular  "VJJ  =  "VV,  a  city,  and  is  chosen  because  of  its  similarity  in 
sound  to  V"?y.,  asses).  These  cities  they  were  accustomed  to  call 
Havvoth-jair  unto  this  day  (the  time  when  our  book  was  written),  in 
the  land  of  Gilead.  The  DH7  before  Wipl  is  placed  first  for  the  sake 
of  emphasis,  "  even  these  they  call"  etc.  This  statement  is  not  at 
variance  with  the  fact,  that  in  the  time  of  Moses  the  Manassite 
Jair  gave  the  name  of  Havvoth-jair  to  the  towns  of  Bashan  which 
had  been  conquered  by  him  (Num.  xxxii.  41 ;  Deut.  iii.  14)  ;  for 
it  is  not  affirmed  here,  that  the  thirty  cities  which  belonged  to  the 
sons  of  Jair  received  this  name  for  the  first  time  from  the  judge 
Jair,  but  simply  that  this  name  was  brought  into  use  again  by  the 
sons  of  Jair,  and  was  applied  to  these  cities  in  a  peculiar  sense. 
(For  further  remarks  on  the  Havvoth-jair,  see  at  Deut.  iii.  14.)  The 
situation  of  Camon,  where  Jair  was  buried,  is  altogether  uncertain. 
Josephus  (Ant.  v.  6,  6)  calls  it  a  city  of  Gilead,  though  probably 
only  on  account  of  the  assumption,  that  it  would  not  be  likely  that 
Jair  the  Gileadite,  who  possessed  so  many  cities  in  Gilead,  should 


chap.  x.  6-i8.  373 

be  buried  outside  Gilead.  But  this  assumption  is  a  very  question- 
able one.  As  Jair  judged  Israel  after  Tola  the  Issacharite,  the 
assumption  is  a  more  natural  one,  that  he  lived  in  Canaan  proper 
Yet  Iieland  (Pal.  ill.  p.  679)  supports  the  opinion  that  it  was  in 
Gilead,  and  adduces  the  fact  that  Polybius  (Hist.  v.  7<>,  \-J)  men- 
tions a  town  called  Ka/iovi>,  by  the  side  of  1  Vila  and  Gefrun,  as 
having  been  taken  by  Antiochus.  On  the  other  hand,  Em  ■ 
and  Jerome  (in  the  Onom.)  regard  our  Camon  as  being  the  sai 
the  Kcofj,r)  Kafifxoiva  iv  ra  fxeydXa)  7reS/ro,  six  Roman  miles  to  the 
north  of  Leijio  (Lejim),  on  the  way  tu  Ptolemais,  which  would  bo 
in  the  plain  of  Jezreel  or  Esdraelon.  This  is  no  doubt  applicable 
to  the  KvafJLwp  of  Judith  vii.  o  ;  but  whether  it  also  applies  to  our 
Camon  cannot  be  decided,  as  the  town  is  not  mentioned  again. 

III.  PERIOD  OF  OPPRESSION  BY  THE  AM. MOM  I 'E8   \M>  PHILISTINES. 
— CIIAr.  X.  6-XVI. 

The  third  stage  in  the  period  of  the  judges,  which  extended 
from  the  death  of  Jair  to  the  rise  of  Samuel  as  a  prophet,  was  a 
time  of  deep  humiliation  for  Israel,  since  the  Lord  gave  uj>  His 
people  into  the  hands  of  two  hostile  nations  at  the  same  time,  on 
account  of  their  repeated  return  to  idolatry  :  so  that  the  Ammi  I 
invaded  the  land  from  the  east,  and  oppressed  the  Israelites  severely 
for  eighteen  years,  especially  the  tribes  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan  ; 
whilst  the  Philistines  came  from  the  west,  and  extended  their 
dominion  over  the  tribes  on  this  side,  and  brought  them  more  and 
more  firmly  under  their  yoke.  It  is  true  that  Jephthah  delivered 
his  people  from  the  oppression  of  the  Ammonites,  in  tip-  power  of 
the  Spirit  of  Jehovah,  having  first  of  all  secured  the  help  of  G 
through  a  vow,  and  not  only  smote  the  Ammonites,  but  completely 
subdued  them  before  the  Israelites.  But  the  Philistine  oppression 
lasted  forty  years;  for  although  Samson  inflicted  heavy  blows  upon 
the  Philistines  again  and  again,  and  made  them  feel  the  Buperior 
power  of  the  God  of  Israel,  he  was  nevertheless  not  in  a  condition  to 
destroy  their  power  and  rule  over  Israel.  This  was  left  tor  Samuel  t<> 
accomplish,  after  he  had  con  verteil  the  people  to  the  Lord  their  God. 

Israels  renewed  Apostasy  and  consequent  Punishment,- - 
Chap.  x.  6-18. 

As  the  Israelites  forsook  the  Lord  their  God  again,  and  1 
the  gods  of  the  surrounding  nations,  the  Lord  gave  them  up  to  the 


374  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

power  of  the  Philistines  and  Ammonites,  and  left  them  to  groan 
for  eighteen  years  under  the  severe  oppression  of  the  Ammonites, 
till  the j  cried  to  Him  in  their  distress,  and  He  sent  them  deliver- 
ance through  Jephthah,  though  not  till  He  had  first  of  all  charged 
them  with  their  sins,  and  they  had  put  away  the  strange  godr. 
This  section  forms  the  introduction,  not  only  to  the  history  of 
Jephthah  (chap.  xi.  1-xii.  7)  and  the  judges  who  followed  him,  viz. 
Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon  (chap.  xii.  8-15),  but  also  to  the  history  of 
Samson,  who  began  to  deliver  Israel  out  of  the  power  of  the  Philis- 
tines (chap,  xiii.-xvi.).  After  the  fact  has  been  mentioned  in  the 
introduction  (in  ver.  7),  that  Israel  was  given  up  into  the  hands  of 
the  Philistines  and  the  Ammonites  at  the  same  time,  the  Ammon- 
itish  oppression,  which  lasted  eighteen  years,  is  more  particularly 
described  in  vers.  8,  9.  This  is  followed  by  the  reproof  of  the 
idolatrous  Israelites  on  the  part  of  God  (vers.  10-16) ;  and  lastly, 
the  history  of  Jephthah  is  introduced  in  vers.  17,  18,  the  fuller 
account  being  given  in  chap.  xi.  Jephthah,  who  judged  Israel  for 
six  years  after  the  conquest  and  humiliation  of  the  Ammonites 
(chap.  xii.  7),  was  followed  by  the  judges  Ibzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon, 
who  judged  Israel  for  seven,  ten,  and  eight  years  respectively,  that 
is  to  say,  for  twenty-five  years  in  all ;  so  that  Abdon  died  forty-nine 
years  (18  +  6+25)  after  the  commencement  of  the  Ammonitish 
oppression,  i.e.  nine  years  after  the  termination  of  the  forty  years' 
rule  of  the  Philistines  over  Israel,  which  is  described  more  particu- 
larly in  chap.  xiii.  1,  for  the  purpose  of  introducing  the  history  of 
Samson,  who  judged  Israel  twenty  years  under  that  rule  (chap.  xv. 
20,  xvi.  31),  without  bringing  it  to  a  close,  or  even  surviving  it.  It 
was  only  terminated  by  the  victory  which  Israel  achieved  under 
Samuel  at  Ebenezer,  as  described  in  1  Sam.  vii. 

Vers.  6-16.  In  the  account  of  the  renewed  apostasy  of  the 
Israelites  from  the  Lord  contained  in  ver.  6,  seven  heathen  deities 
are  mentioned  as  being  served  by  the  Israelites :  viz.,  in  addition  to 
the  Canaanitish  Baals  and  Astartes  (see  at  chap.  ii.  11,  13),  the 
gods  of  Aram,  i.e.  Syria,  who  are  never  mentioned  by  name ;  of 
Sidon,  i.e.,  according  to  1  Kings  xi.  5,  principally  the  Sidonian  or 
Phoenician  Astarte ;  of  the  Moabites,  i.e.  Chemosh  (1  Kings  xi.  33), 
the  principal  deity  of  that  people,  which  was  related  to  Moloch  (see 
at  Num.  xxi.  29) ;  of  the  Ammonites,  i.e.  Milcom  (1  Kings  xi.  5,  33) 
or  Moloch  (see  at  Lev.  xviii.  21)  ;  and  of  the  Philistines,  i.e.  Dagon 
(see  at  chap.  xvi.  23).  If  we  compare  the  list  of  these  seven  deities 
with  vers.  11  and  12,  where  we  find  seven  nations  mentioned  out 


CHAP.  X.  6-16.  37  Ö 

of  whose  hands  Jehovah  had  delivered  Israel,  the  correspondence 
between  the  number  seven  in  these  two  cases  and  the  significant 
use  of  the  number  are  unmistakeable.  Israel  had  balanced  the 
number  of  divine  deliverances  by  a  similar  number  of  idols  which 
it  served,  so  that  the  measure  of  the  nation's  iniquity  was  filled  ap 
in  the  same  proportion  as  the  measure  of  the  delivering  grace  of 
God.  The  number  seven  is  employed  in  the  Scriptures  as  the  stamp 
of  the  works  of  God,  or  of  the  perfection  created,  or  to  be  created,  by 
God  on  the  one  hand,  and  of  the  actions  of  men  in  their  relation  to 
God  on  the  other.  The  foundation  for  this  was  the  creation  of  the 
world  in  seven  days. — On  ver.  7,  see  chap.  ii.  13,  14.  The  Ammonites 
are  mentioned  after  the  Philistines,  not  because  they  did  not  oppress 
the  Israelites  till  afterwards,  but  for  purely  formal  reasons,  viz. 
because  the  historian  was  about  to  describe  the  oppression  of  tin« 
Ammonites  first.  In  ver.  8  the  subject  is  the  "children  of  Amnion.*' 
as  we  may  see  very  clearly  from  ver.  9.  "  They  (the  Ammonites) 
ground  and  crushed  the  Israelites  in  the  same  year,"1  i.e.  the  year  in 
which  God  sold  the  Israelites  into  their  hands,  or  in  which  they 
invaded  the  land  of  Israel.  )Ti  and  Y'f]  are  synonymous,  and  are 
simply  joined  together  for  the  sake  of  emphasis,  whilst  the  latter 
calls  to  mind  Dent,  xxviii.  33.  The  duration  of  this  oppression  is 
then  added:  u  Eighteen  years  (they  crushed)  all  the  I 
dwelt  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan  in  the  land  of  the  Amort 
i.e.  of  the  two  Amoritish  kings  Sihon  and  Og,  who  (dwelt)  in 
Gilead.  Gilead,  being  a  more  precise  epithet  for  the  land  of  the 
Amorites,  is  used  here  in  a  wider  sense  to  denote  the  whole  of  the 
country  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  so  far  as  it  had  been  taken  from 
the  Amorites  and  occupied  by  the  Israelites  (as  in  Num.  xxxii.  29, 
Deut.  xxxiv.  1:  see  at  Josh.  xxii.  9). —  Ver.  9.  They  also  crossed 
the  Jordan,  and  made  war  even  upon  Judah,  Benjamin,  and  the 
house  of  Ephraim  (the  families  of  the  tribe  of  Ephraim),  by  which 
Israel  was  brought  into  great  distress.  "Wfl,  as  in  chap.  ii.  15. — 
Vers.  10-14.  "When  the  Israelites  cried  in  their  distress  to  the  Lord, 
"  We  have  sinned  against  Thee,  namely,  that  we  havi  fo  taken  our 
God  and  served  the  Baals"  the  Lord  first  of  all  reminded  them  of 
the  manifestations  of  His  grace  (vers.  11,  12),  and  then  pointed 
out  to  them  their  faithless  apostasy  and  the  worthlessness  of  their 

idols  (vers.  13, 14).     »31,  "  and  indeed  that"  describes  the  sin  I v 

minutely,  and  there  is  no  necessity  to  remove  it  from  the  text,— an 
act  which  is  neither  wan-anted  by  its  absence  from  Beveral  U88.  nor 
bv  its  omission  from  the  Sept.,  the  Syriac,  and  the  Vulgate.    BaaUm 


376  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES 

is  a  general  term  used  to  denote  all  the  false  gods,  as  in  chap.  iL 
11.  This  answer  on  the  part  of  God  to  the  prayer  of  the  Israelites 
for  help  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  having  been  given  through  an 
extraordinary  manifestation  (theophany),  or  through  the  medium 
of  a  prophet,  for  that  would  certainly  have  been  recorded ;  but  it 
was  evidently  given  in  front  of  the  tabernacle,  where  the  people 
had  called  upon  the  Lord,  and  either  came  through  the  high  priest, 
or  else  through  an  inward  voice  in  which  God  spoke  to  the  hearts 
of  the  people,  i.e.  through  the  voice  of  their  own  consciences,  by 
which  God  recalled  to  their  memories  and  impressed  upon  their 
hearts  first  of  all  His  own  gracious  acts,  and  then  their  faithless 
apostasy.  There  is  an  anakoloutlion  in  the  words  of  God.  The  con- 
struction which  is  commenced  with  EOlyßp  is  dropped  at  'Ul  D\rfTS1 
in  ver.  12  ;  and  the  verb  ^J?^1"1}  which  answers  to  the  beginning  of 
the  clause,  is  brought  up  afterwards  in  the  form  of  an  apodosis 
with  D?nx  nytyixi .  "  Did  I  not  deliver  you  (1)  from  the  Egyptians 
(cf .  Ex.  i.-xiv.)  ;  (2)  from  the  Amorites  (cf.  Num.  xxi.  3)  ;  (3)  from 
the  Ammonites  (who  oppressed  Israel  along  Math  the  Moabites  in 
the  time  of  Ehud,  chap.  iii.  12  sqq.) ;  (4)  from  the  Philistines 
(through  Shamgar:  see  1  Sam.  xii.  9,  where  the  Philistines  are 
mentioned  between  Sisera  and  Moab) ;  (5)  from  the  Sidonians 
(among  whom  probably  the  northern  Canaanites  under  Jabin  are 
included,  as  Sidon,  according  to  chap,  xviii.  7,  28,  appears  to  have 
exercised  a  kind  of  principality  or  protectorate  over  the  northern 
tribes  of  Canaan) ;  (6)  from  the  Amalekites  (who  attacked  the 
Israelites  even  at  Horeb,  Ex.  xvii.  8  sqq.,  and  afterwards  invaded 
the  land  of  Israel  both  with  the  Moabites,  chap.  iii.  13,  and  also 
with  the  Midianites,  chap.  vi.  3) ;  and  (7)  from  the  Midianites  ?" 
(see  chap.  vi.  vii.).  The  last  is  the  reading  of  the  LXX.  in  Cod 
Al.  and  Vat.,  viz.  MaSla/x;  whereas  Aid.  and  Compl.  read  Xavaav, 
also  the  Vulgate.  In  the  Masoretic  text,  on  the  other  hand,  we 
have  Maon.  Were  this  the  original  and  true  reading,  we  might 
perhaps  think  of  the  Mehunim,  who  are  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xxvi. 
7  along  with  Philistines  and  Arabians  (cf.  1  Chron.  iv.  41),  and 
are  supposed  to  have  been  inhabitants  of  the  city  of  Maan  on  the 
Syrian  pilgrim  road  to  the  east  of  Petra  {Burchhardt,  Syr.  pp.  734 
and  1035:  see  Ewald,  Gesch.  i.  pp.  321,  322).  But  there  is  very 
little  probability  in  this  supposition,  as  we  cannot  possibly  see  how 
so  small  a  people  could  have  oppressed  Israel  so  grievously  at  that 
time,  that  the  deliverance  from  their  oppression  could  be  mentioned 
here ;  whilst  it  would  be  very  strange  that  nothing  should  be  said 


CHAP.  X.  17,   18.  377 

about  the  terrible  oppression  of  the  Midianites  and  the  wonderful 
deliverance  from  that  oppression  effected  by  Gideon.  Consequently 
the  Septuagint  {Mahiafx)  appears  to  have  preserved  the  original 
text. — Ver.  13.  Instead  of  thanking  the  Lord,  however,  fort] 
deliverances  by  manifesting  true  devotednesa  to  Him,  Esrael  had 
forsaken  Him  and  served  other  gods  (see  chap.  ii.  13).-— Vers.  1  I 
sqq.  Therefore  the  Lord  would  nol  save  them  any  more.  They 
might  get  help  from  the  gods  whom  they  had  cIim.mh  for  themselves. 
The  Israelites  should  now  experience  what  Moses  had  foretold  in 
his  song  (Deut.  xxxii.  37,  38).  This  divine  threat  had  its  proper 
effect.  The  Israelites  confessed  their  sins  submitted  thoroughly 
to  the  chastisement  of  God,  and  simply  prayed  for  salvation;  nor 
did  they  content  themselves  with  merely  promising,  they  put  away 
the  strange  gods  and  served  Jehovah,  i.e.  they  devoted  themselves 
again  with  sincerity  to  His  service,  and  so  were  seriously  converted 
to  the  living  God.  "Then  was  His  (Jehovah's)  soul  impatient 
(nypn,  as  in  Num.  xxi.  4)  because  of  the  troubles  of  Israel;*'  i.e. 
Jehovah  could  no  longer  look  down  upon  the  misery  of  [srael ;  He 
was  obliged  to  help.  The  change  in  the  purpose  of  God  do< 
imply  any  changeableness  in  the  divine  nature;  it  simply  concerns 
the  attitude  of  God  towards  His  people,  or  the  manifestation  of  the 
divine  love  to  man.  In  order  to  bend  the  sinner  at  all,  the  love  of 
God  must  withdraw  its  helping  hand  and  make  men  feel  the  con- 
sequences of  their  sin  and  rebelliousness,  that  they  may  forsake  their 
evil  ways  and  turn  to  the  Lord  their  God.  When  thi>  end  has  : 
attained,  the  same  divine  love  manifests  itself  as  pitying  and  help- 
ing grace.  Punishments  and  benefits  flow  from  the  love  of  G 
and  have  for  their  object  the  happiness  and  well-being  of  men. 

Vers.  17,  18.  These  verses  form  the  introduction  to  the  account 
of  the  help  and  deliverance  sent  by  (Jod.  and  describe  the  prepara- 
tion made  by  Israel  to  fight  against  its  oppressors.  The  Ammonites 
"let  themselves  be  called  together"  i.e.  assembled  together  I  pjWf?,  as 
in  chap.  vii.  23),  and  encamped  in  Gilead,  i.e.  in  that  portion  of 
Gilead  of  which  they  had  taken  possession.  For  the  Israelit«  . 
the  tribes  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan  (according  to  ver.  L8  and  chap. 
xi.  29),  also  assembled  together  in  Gilead  and  encamped  al  .1/ 
i.e.  Ramath-mizpeh  or  Ramoth  in  Gilead  (Josh.  sin*.  26,  xx.  8), 
probably  on  the  site  of  the  present  Szalt  (see  atJDeut.  iv.  43,  an  I 
the  remarks  in  the  Commentary  on  the  Tent.  vol.  i.  p.  300),  and 
resolved  to  look  round  for  a  man  who  could  begin  the  war,  and  to 
make  him  the  head  over  all  the  inhabitants  of  Gilead  (the  tribes  of 


378  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Israel  dwelling  in  Perea).  The  "princes  of  Gilead"  are  in  apposi- 
tion to  "  the  people"  "The  people,  namely,  the  princes  of  Gilead," 
i.e.  the  heads  of  tribes  and  families  of  the  Israelites  to  the  east  of 
the  Jordan.  "Head"  is  still  further  defined  in  chap.  xi.  6,  11, 
as  " captain"  or  " head  and  captain" 

Jephthah  elected  as  Prince ;  Negotiations  with  the  Ammonites ; 
Victory,  Vow,  and  Office  of  Judge.1 — Chap,  xi.-xii.  7. 

Vers.  1—11.  Election  or  Jephthah  as  Prince  and  Judge 
OF  Israel. — Vers.  1-3.  The  account  begins  with  his  descent  and 
early  mode  of  life.  "  Jephthah  (LXX.  'Ie<f)dd)  the  Gileadite  was 
a  brave  hero"  (see  chap.  vi.  12,  Josh.  i.  14,  etc.) ;  but  he  was  the 
son  of  a  harlot,  and  was  begotten  by  Gilead,  in  addition  to  other 
sons  who  were  born  of  his  wife.  Gilead  is  not  the  name  of  the 
country,  as  Bertheau  supposes,  so  that  the  land  is  mythically  per- 
sonified as  the  forefather  of  Jephthah.  Nor  is  it  the  name  of 
the  son  of  Machir  and  grandson  of  Manasseh  (Num.  xxvi.  29),  so 
that  the  celebrated  ancestor  of  the  Gileadites  is  mentioned  here 
instead  of  the  unknown  father  of  Jephthah.  It  is  really  the  proper 
name  of  the  father  himself ;  and  just  as  in  the  case  of  Tola  and 
Puah,  in  chap.  x.  1,  the  name  of  the  renowned  ancestor  was  repeated 
in  his  descendant.  We  are  forced  to  this  conclusion  by  the  fact 
that  the  wife  of  Gilead,  and  his  other  sons  by  that  wife,  are  men- 
tioned in  ver.  2.     These  sons  drove  their  half-brother  Jephthah  out 

1  On  the  nature  of  the  sources  from  which  the  author  drew  this  tolerably- 
elaborate  history  of  Jephthah,  all  that  can  be  determined  with  certainty  is,  that 
they  sprang  from  some  contemporary  of  this  judge,  since  they  furnish  so  clear 
and  striking  a  picture  of  his  life  and  doings.  Bertheau  s  hypothesis,  that  the 
section  extending  from  chap.  xi.  12  to  ver.  28  is  founded  upon  some  historical 
work,  which  is  also  employed  in  Num.  xxi.,  Deut.  ii.  iii.,  and  here  and  there  in 
the  book  of  Joshua,  has  really  no  other  foundation  than  the  unproved  assump- 
tion that  the  Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Joshua  were  written  towards  the  close 
of  the  period  of  the  kings.  For  the  marked  agreement  between  Jephthah's 
negotiations  with  the  king  of  the  Ammonites  concerning  the  possession  of  the 
land  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  the  account  given  in  the  Pentateuch,  especially 
in  Num.  xx.  xxi.,  may  be  explained  very  simply  and  very  perfectly,  on  the 
supposition  that  the  author  possessed  the  Pentateuch  itself.  And  the  account 
which  is  wanting  in  the  Pentateuch,  namely,  that  Israel  petitioned  the  king  of 
Moab  also  for  permission  to  go  through  his  land  (ver.  17),  may  have  been  added 
from  oral  tradition,  as  those  glorious  victories  gained  by  Israel  under  Moses  were 
celebrated  in  verse  by  contemporaneous  poets  (see  Num.  xxi.  14,  17,  27)  ;  and 
this  certainly  contributed  not  a  little  to  keep  alive  the  memory  of  those  event« 
in  the  nation  for  centuries  long. 


CHAP.  XI.  1-11.  379 

of  the  house  because  of  his  inferior  birth,  that  lie  might  not  share 
with  them  in  the  paternal  inheritance  ;  just  as  Ishmael  and  the  sons 
of  Keturah  were  sent  away  by  Abraham,  that  they  might  not  inherit 
along  with  Isaac  (Gen.  xxi.  10  sqq.,  xxv.  6).—-Ver.  3.  Jephthah 
departed  from  his  brothers  into  the  land  of  Tob,  i.e.,  according  to 
2  Sam.  x.  6,  8,  a  district  in  the  north-cast  of  Perea,  on  the  bordi  r 
of  Syria,  or  between  Syria  and  Amnionitis,  called  Tcoßiov  in  1  Mace. 
v.  13,  or  more  correctly  Tovßiv,  according  to  2  Mace.  xii.  1  7.  where 
loose  men  gathered  round  him  (cf.  chap.  ix.  4),  and  "went  out  with 
him,"  viz.  upon  warlike  and  predatory  expeditions  like  the  I  '•  di  rains. 
— Vers.  4-6.  But  when  the  Ammonites  made   war   upon   Israel 
some  time  afterwards,  the  elders  of  Gilead   (=  "  the   princes   of 
Gilead,"  chap.  x.  18)   went  to  fetch  Jephthah  out  of  the  hind  of 
Tob,  to  make  this  brave  warrior  their  leader.     In  ver.  4  the  account 
of  the  war  between  the  Ammonites  and  Israel,  which  is  mentioned 
in  chap.  x.  17,  is  resumed,  and  its  progress  ander  Jephthah  is  then 
more  fully  described.     "  In  process  of  time"  (^'J?,  <*  diebiu,  i.e. 
after  the  lapse  of  a  long  period,  which  cannot  be  more  precisely 
defined),  sc.  after  the  expulsion  of  Jephthah  from  his  home 
chap.  xiv.  8,  xv.  1,  Josh,  xxiii.  1).     T'tp  signifies  a  loader  in  war 
(Josh.  x.  24),  and  is  therefore  distinguished  in  ver.  11  from  L'\sn.  a 
chief  in  peace  and  war. — Yer.  7.  Jephthah  expressed  to  the  el 
his  astonishment  that  they  had  formerly  hated  and  expelled  him, 
and  now  came  to  him  in  their  distress,  sc.  to  make  him  their  I  a 
in  time  of  war.     Thus  he  lays  his  expulsion  upon  the  shoulders  of 
the  elders  of  Gilead,  although  it  was  only  by  his  brethren  that  he 
had  been  driven  away  from  his  father's  house,  inasmuch  as  they 
had  either  approved  of  it,  or  at  all  events  had  not  interfered  as 
magistrates  to   prevent   it.     We   cannot   indeed    infer    from    this 
reproach,  that  the  expulsion  and  disinheriting  of  Jephthah  was  a 
legal  wrong;  but  so  much  at  all  events  is  implied,   namely,   that 

Jephthah  looked  upon  the  thing  as  a  wrong  that  had  been  d< to 

him,  and  found  the  reason  in  the  hatred  of  his  brethren.  The 
Mosaic  law  contained  no  regulation  upon  this  matter,  since  the  rale 
laid  down  in  Deut.  xxi.  15-17  simply  applied  to  the  sons  of  diffe- 
rent wives,  and  not  to  a  son  by  a  harlot. — Ver.  8.  The  elders  replied, 
"  Tlierefore  ($,  because  we  have  formerly  done  thee  wrong)  wt  hoc* 
now  come  to  thee  again  to  make  thee  our  head,  if  thou  com4  '  with  M 
andfightest  against  the  Ammonites:'  The  clan--  ""~\  MOTS}  and 
n«m.  which  are  formally  co-ordinate,  are  logically  to  he  subordinated 
to  one  another,  the  first  two  expressing  the  condition,  the  third  the 


380  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

consequence,  in  this  sense,  "  If  thou  go  with  us  and  fight,  .  .  .  thou 
shalt  be  head  to  us,  namely,  to  all  the  inhabitants  of  Gilead,"  i.e.  to  the 
two  tribes  and  a  half  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan. — Ver.  9.  Jephthah 
assented  to  this  :  "  If  y&  wHl  take  me  back  to  make  war  upon  the  Am- 
monites, and  Jehovah  shall  give  them  up  to  me  (lit.  '  before  me,'  as  in 
Josh.  x.  12,  Deut.  ii.  31,  etc.),  I  will  be  your  head.1"  "  I"  is  emphatic 
as  distinguished  from  ye;  and  there  is  no  necessity  to  regard  the 
sentence  as  a  question,  with  which  the  expression  in  ver.  10,  "  accord 
ing  to  thy  words,"  which  presuppose  an  affirmative  statement  on  the 
part  of  Jephthah,  and  not  a  question,  would  be  altogether  irrecon- 
cilable.— Ver.  10.  The  elders  promised  this  on  oath.  "  Jehovah 
be  hearing  between  us,"  i.e.  be  hearer  and  judge  of  the  things  con- 
cerning which  we  are  negotiating ;  "  truly  according  to  thy  word  so 
will  we  do"  (N«5  DK,  a  particle  used  in  connection  with  an  oath). — 
Ver.  11.  Then  Jephthah  went  with  the  elders  of  Gilead,  "  and  the 
people  (i.e.  the  inhabitants  of  Gilead)  made  him  head  and  captain, 
and  Jephthah  spoke  all  his  words  before  Jehovah  at  Mizpeh ;"  i.e.  he 
repeated  in  a  solemn  assembly  of  the  people,  before  God  at  Mizpeh, 
the  conditions  and  obligations  under  which  he  would  accept  the 
honour  conferred  upon  him.  "  Before  Jehovah"  does  not  necessarily 
presuppose  the  presence  of  the  ark  at  Mizpeh ;  nor  can  we  possibly 
assume  this,  since  the  war  was  resolved  upon  primarily  by  the 
eastern  tribes  alone,  and  they  had  no  ark  at  all.  It  merely  affirms 
that  Jephthah  performed  this  act,  looking  up  to  God,  the  omni- 
present head  of  Israel.  Still  less  do  the  words  warrant  the  assump- 
tion that  there  was  an  altar  in  Mizpeh,  and  that  sacrifices  were 
offered  to  confirm  the  treaty,  of  which  there  is  not  the  slightest 
indication  in  the  text.  "  '  Before  Jehovah'  implies  nothing  more 
than  that  Jephthah  confirmed  all  his  words  by  an  oath  "  (^Hengsten- 
berg,  Diss.  ii.  pp.  35,  36). 

Vers.  12-28.  Jephthah's  Negotiations  with  the  King  of 
TnE  Ammonites. — Ver.  12.  Before  Jephthah  took  the  sword,  he 
sent  messengers  to  the  king  of  the  Ammonites,  to  make  complaints 
to  him  of  his  invasion  of  the  land  of  the  Israelites.  "  What  have 
we  to  do  with  one  another  ('  what  to  me  and  thee?'  see  Josh.  xxii. 
24,  2  Sam.  xvi.  10),  that  thou  hast  come  to  me  to  fight  against  my 
land?"  Jephthah's  ambassadors  speak  in  the  name  of  the  nation  ; 
hence  the  singulars  "  me"  and  "  my  land." — Ver.  13.  The  king  of 
the  Ammonites  replied,  that  when  Israel  came  up  out  of  Egypt, 
they  had  taken  away  his  land  from  the  Arnon  to  the  Jabbok  (on 


CHAP.  XI.  12-28,  381 

the  north),  and  to  the  Jordan  (on  the  west),  and  demanded  that 
they  should  now  restore  these  lands  in  peace.  The  plural  p~x 
(them)  refers  ad  sensum  to  the  cities  and  places  in  the  land  in 
question.  The  claim  raised  by  the  king  of  the  Ammonites  has  one 
feature  in  it,  which  appears  to  have  a  certain  colour  of  justice.  The 
Israelites,  it  is  true,  had  only  made  war  upon  the  two  kings  of  the 
Amorites,  Sihon  and  Og,  and  defeated  them,  and  taken  possession 
of  their  kingdoms  and  occupied  them,  without  attacking  the  Am- 
monites and  Moabites  and  Edomites,  because  God  had  forbidden 
their  attacking  these  nations  (Dent.  ii.  5,  9,  19);  but  one  portion 
of  the  territory  of  Sihon  had  formerly  boon  Moabitish  and  Ainmon- 
itish  property,  and  had  been  conquered  by  the  Amorites  and  occu- 
pied by  them.  According  to  Num.  x.xi.  2G,  Sihon  had  made  war 
upon  the  previous  king  of  Moab,  and  taken  away  all  his  land  as  far 
as  the  Arnon  (see  the  comm.  on  this  passage).  And  although  it  is 
not  expressly  stated  in  the  Pentateuch  that  Sihon  had  extended  his 
conquests  beyond  Moabitis  into  the  land  of  the  Ammonites,  which 
was  situated  to  the  east  of  Moab,  and  had  taken  a  portion  of  it  from 
them,  this  is  pretty  clearly  indicated  in  Josh.  xiii.  25,  since,  accord- 
ing to  that  passage,  the  tribe  of  Gad  received  in  addition  to  Jaezer 
and  all  the  towns  of  Grilead,  half  the  land  of  the  children  of 
Amnion,  namely,  the  land  to  the  east  of  Gilead,  on  the  western  side 
of  the  upper  Jabbok  (Nahr  Amman  :  see  at  Josh.  xiii.  26).1-  Vers. 
14,  15.  Jephthah  then  sent  ambassadors  again  to  explain  to  him 
the  true  state  of  the  case,  namely,  that  [srael  had  neither  taken 
away  the  land  of  Moab  nor  the  laud  of  the  Ammonites.  A-  a  proof 
of  this,  Jephthah  adduced  the  leading  facts  connected  with  the 
journey  of  the  Israelites  through  the  desert  of  Arabia  to  ( lanaan,  by 

1  The  explanation  which  Masius  gives  of  this  passage  I  Eatenus  /"'«;•>  sursum 
in  Galaaditidem  exporrectam  jacuissi  Gaditarum  hsereditatem,  quatentu  dimidia 
Ammonitarum  ditto  Galaaditidem  <d>  Oriente  ambiebat)  is  not  sufficiently  in 
keeping  with  the  words,  an!  too  unnatural,  to  be  n  .  ird<  I  as  it  is  by 

Reland  (Pal.  ill.  p.  105)  and  Hengstenberg  (Dissertations  on  the  Pentateuch,  ii. 
p.  29);  and  the  reasons  assign -1  by  M.em-,  \iz.  "  tli.it  the  Israelites  were  pro- 
hibited from  occupying  the  land  of  the  Ammonites,"  and  "  the  Ammonil 
not  mentioned  in  Num.  xxi.  26,"  are  too  weak  to  establish  anything. 
latter  is  an  argumentum  e  silentio,  which  1-         ■    ignificance  when  we  bear  in 
mind,  that  even  the  allusion  to  the  land  of  the  Moabi  es  in  Nam.  xxi.  ! 
only  occasioned  by  the  prominence  given  to  Heshbon,  and  the  |  tying 

founded  upon  its  fall.     But  the  prohibition  against   taking  the  land  ol 
Ammonites  from  them  bad  just  as  much  force  in  relation  to  the  land  • 
Moabites,  and  simply  referred  to  Buch  land  as  these  tribes  still  |  in   Iba 

time  of  Moses,  and  not  to  that  which  the  Amorites  had  taken  from  them. 


382  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

which  this  assertion  was  confirmed,  in  exact  agreement  with  the 
accounts  of  the  Pentateuch  respecting  the  matter  in  dispute.—  - 
Vers.  16,  17.  On  leaving  Egypt,  Israel  passed  through  the  desert 
to  the  Red  Sea,  and  came  to  Kadesh  (Num.  xx.  1).  They  then 
sent  messengers  to  the  king  of  Edom,  to  obtain  permission  to  pass 
through  his  land  ;  and  this  the  king  of  Edom  refused  (Num.  xx. 
14-21).  They  also  sent  to  the  king  of  Moab,  who  sent  back  a 
similar  refusal.  The  embassy  to  the  king  of  Moab  is  not  mentioned 
in  the  Pentateuch,  as  it  had  no  direct  bearing  upon  the  further 
course  of  the  Israelites  (see  Pentateuch,  vol.  iii.  p.  132,  note  2). 
"  And  Israel  abode  in  Kadesh"  (word  for  word,  as  in  Num.  xx.  lb), 
and  "  then  passed  through  the  desert,'"  namely  to  Mount  Hor,  then 
down  the  Arabah  to  the  Red  Sea,  and  still  farther  past  Oboth  to 
Ijje-abarim  in  the  desert  (Num.  xx.  22-xxi.  11).  In  this  way 
they  went  round  the  land  of  Edom  and  the  land  of  Moab  (2D^,  like 
23D  in  Num.  xxi.  4) ;  and  came  from  the  east  to  the  land  of  Moab 
(i.e.  along  the  eastern  boundary,  for  Ijje-abarim  was  situated 
there,  according  to  Num.  xxi.  11)  ;  and  encamped  on  the  other  side 
of  the  Arnon  (Num.  xxi.  13),  i.e.  on  the  upper  course  of  the  Anion 
where  it  still  flows  through  the  desert  (see  Pent.  iii.  p.  144).  On 
this  march,  therefore,  they  did  not  enter  the  territory  of  Moab,  as 
the  Arnon  formed  the  boundary  of  Moab,  i.e.  the  boundary  between 
Moab  and  the  territory  of  the  Amorites  (Num.  xxi.  13). — Vers. 
19-22  are  almost  verbatim  the  same  as  Num.  xxi.  21-25.  Israel 
then  sent  messengers  to  Sihon  the  king  of  the  Amorites  at  Heshbon, 
to  ask  permission  to  pass  through  his  land.  "  Into  my  place,"  i.e. 
into  the  land  of  Canaan,  that  Jehovah  has  appointed  for  me.  But 
Sihon  "  trusted  not  Israel  to  pass  through  his  land,"  i.e.  he  did  not 
trust  to  the  assurance  of  Israel  that  they  only  wanted  to  pass 
peaceably  through  his  land,  but  supposed  the  petition  to  cover  an 
intention  to  take  forcible  possession  of  it.  (In  Num.  xxi.  23  we 
have  JHJ  &6  instead  of  PDKfl  K?.)  He  did  not  confine  himself,  there- 
fore, to  a  refusal  of  the  permission  they  asked  for,  but  collected  his 
men  of  war,  and  marched  against  the  Israelites  to  the  desert  as  far 
as  Jahza,  on  the  east  of  Medeba  and  Dibon  (see  at  Num.  xxi.  23), 
and  fought  with  them.  But  he  was  defeated,  and  lost  all  his  land, 
from  the  Arnon  (Mojeb)  on  the  south  to  the  Jabbok  (Zerka)  on 
the  north,  and  from  the  desert  on  the  east  to  the  Jordan  on  the 
west,  of  which  the  Israelites  took  possession. — Vers.  23,  24.  From 
these  facts  Jephthah  drew  this  simple  but  indisputable  conclusion  : 
"  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel  has  rooted  out  the  Amorites  before  His 


CHAP.  XI.  12-28.  883 

people  Israel,  and  thou  wilt  take  possession  of  it  (viz.  the  land  of  the 
Amorites)."  The  suffix  to  WBhVI  refers  to  ,_)bxn,  the  Amorites 
i.e.  their  land.  The  construction  of  KHJ  with  the  accusative  of  the 
people  (as  in  Dent.  ii.  12,  21,  22,  ix.  1)  may  be  explained  on  the 
simple  ground,  that  in  order  to  take  possession  of  a  countrv,  it  is 
necessary  first  of  all  to  get  the  holders  of  it  into  pour  power. 
Jephthah  then  proved  still  further  how  unwarrantable  the  claim  of 
the  king  of  the  Ammonites  was,  and  said  to  him  (ver.  24),  -  h  it 
not  the  fact  fibn,  nonne),  that  what  thy  <jod  Chemosh  gives  thee  for  a 
jyossession,  ofthat  thou  takest  possession ;  und  all  that  JehovaJi  mal  es 
ownerless  before  us,  of  that  we  take  possession?"  —  an  appeal  the 
validity  of  which  could  not  be  disputed.  For  Chemosh,  see  at  Num. 
xxi.  29.  The  verb  cnin  combines  the  three  meanings  :  to  drive 
out  of  a  possession,  to  deprive  of  a  possessor,  and  tu  rive  for  a 
possession;  inasmuch  as  it  is  impossible  to  give  a  land  fur  a  pos- 
session without  driving  away  or  exterminating  its  former  posset 
— Ver.  25.  But  not  contenting  himself  with  this  conclusive  deduc- 
tion, Jephthah  endeavoured  to  remove  the  lost  appearance  of  right 
from  the  king's  claim  by  a  second  and  equally  conclusive  argument. 
(i  And  now  art  thou  better  than  Balak  son  of  Zippor,  the  hing  •  f 
Moab  ?  Did  he  strive  (ah,  inf.  abs.  of  a,"i  or  2T\)  with  Isrcu  I,  or 
did  he  fight  against  them?"  By  the  repetition  of  ~"i"i  (ver.  25,  cf. 
Ver.  23),  the  new  argument  is  attached  to  the  previous  one,  as  a 
second  deduction  from  the  facts  already  described.  Balak,  the 
king  of  the  Moabites,  had  indeed  bribed  Balaam  to  destroy  [srael 
by  his  curses;  but  he  did  so  not  so  much  with  the  intention  of 
depriving  them  of  the  territory  of  the  Amorites  which  they  had 
conquered,  as  from  the  fear  that  the  powerful  Israelites  might  also 
conquer  his  still  remaining  kingdom.  Balak  had  neither  made  war 
upon  Israel  on  account  of  the  territory  which  they  had  conquered 
from  the  Amorites,  nor  had  he  put  forward  any  claim  to  it  as  his 
own  property,  which  he  certainly  might  have  done  with  some 
appearance  of  justice,  as  a  largo  portion  of  it  hail  formerly  belong«  d 
to  the  Moabites  (see  Num.  xxi.  26  ami  the  cumin,  on  this  | 
If  therefore  Balak  the  king  of  the  Moabites  never  thought  of 
looking  upon  this  land  as  bring  .-till  his  property,  or  of  asking  it 
back  from  the  Israelites,  the  king  of  the  Ammonites  had  no  right 
whatever  to  lay  claim  to  the  land  i>(  (iilead  as  belonging  to  him,  or 
to  take  it  away  from  the  Israelites  by  force,  especially  after  the 
lapse  of  300  years.  "  As  Israel  dm  lis  in  Heshl  .  •  •  •  and  mi  all 
the  cities  l>u  the  side  of  the  .  1  rnon  for  ihn  e  hundn  J  years,  why  ham  ye 


384  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

not  taken  away  (these  towns  and  lands)  within  that  time"  (i.e.  during 
these  300  years)  ?  If  the  Ammonites  had  had  any  right  to  it,  they 
oufdit  to  have  asserted  their  claim  in  Moses'  time.  It  was  much 
too  late  now,  after  the  expiration  of  300  years.  For  "  if  no  pre- 
scriptive right  is  to  be  admitted  on  account  of  length  of  time,  and 
if  long  possession  gives  no  title,  nothing  would  ever  be  held  in 
safety  by  any  people,  and  there  would  be  no  end  to  wars  and  dis- 
sension" (Clericus).  On  Heshbon  and  its  daughters,  see  at  Num. 
xxi.  25.  Aroer  ("liJHV,  another  form  for  ^V^V,  or  possibly  only  a 
copyist's  error)  is  Aroer  of  Gad,  before  Rabbah  (Josh.  xiii.  25),  and 
is  to  be  sought  for  in  the  Wady  Nahr  Amman,  on  the  north-east  of 
Amman  (see  at  Josh.  I.  c),  not  Aroer  of  Reuben,  on  the  border  of 
the  valley  of  Arnon  (Num.  xxxii.  34 ;  Deut.  ii.  36,  iv.  48  ;  Josh, 
xii.  2,  xiii.  9).  This  is  evident  from  the  fact,  that  it  is  distinguished 
from  "  all  the  cities  on  the  side  ("H*  ty,  see  at  Num.  xxxiv.  3)  of 
the  Arnon,"  which  included  Aroer  of  Reuben.  Aroer  of  Gad, 
with  its  daughter  towns,  was  probably  Ammonitish  territory  before 
the  time  of  Sihon.  On  the  300  years,  a  round  number  that  comes 
very  near  the  reality,  see  the  Chronol.  p.  285. — Ver.  27.  After 
Jephthah  had  adduced  all  that  could  be  said,  to  prove  that  the 
Israelites  were  the  rightful  possessors  of  the  land  of  Gilead,1  he 
closed  with  these  words  :  "  /  (i.e.  Israel,  whose  cause  Jephthah  was 
pleading)  have  not  sinned  against  thee,  but  thou  doest  me  wrong  in  that 
thou  makest  war  against  me.  Let  Jehovah  the  Judge  be  judge  this 
day  (now)  between  the  children  of  Israel  and  the  children  of  Ammon? 
God  should  decide  between  the  two  nations,  by  giving  the  victory 
in  war  to  the  side  whose  cause  was  the  just  one. — Ver.  28.  But  the 
king  of  the  Ammonites  did  not  hearken  to  the  words  of  Jephthah 
"  which  he  had  sent  to  him,"  i.e.  had  instructed  his  messengers  to 
address  to  him  ;  so  that  it  was  necessary  that  Jehovah  should 
decide  for  Israel  in  battle. 

Vers.  29-33.  Jephthah's  Victory  over  the  Ammonites. 
— As  the  negotiations  with  the  king  of  the  Ammonites  were  fruit- 
less, Jephthah  had  no  other  course  left  than  to  appeal  to  the  sword. 
— Ver.  29.  In  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  which  came  upon 
him  (see  chap.  iii.  10),  he  passed  through  Gilead  (the  land  of  the 
tribes  of  Reuben  and  Gad  between  the  Arnon  and  the  Jabbok) 

1  "  Jephthah  urged  everything  that  could  be  pleaded  in  support  of  their  pre- 
scriptive right :  possession,  length  of  time,  the  right  of  conquest,  and  undisputed 
occupation. "—  Rosenmüller. 


CHAP.  XI.  29-33.  385 

and  Manasseh  (northern  Gilead  and  Bashan,  which  the  half  tribe 
of  Manasseh  had  received  for  a  possession),  to  gather  together  an 
army  to  battle,  and  then  went  with  the  assembled  army  to  Mizpeh- 
Gilead,  i.e.  Ramoth-mizpeh,  where  the  Israelites  had  already  en- 
camped before  his  call  (chap.  x.  17),  that  he  might  thence  attack 
the  Ammonites.     "DJ?  (to  pass  over)  with  an  accusative  signifies  to 
come  over  a  person  in  a  hostile  sense. — Vers.  30,  31.  Before  com- 
mencing the  war,   however,  he  vowed  a  vow  to  the  Lord:   "  //* 
Thou  givest  the  Ammonites  into  my  hand,  he  who  cometh  to  meet  me 
out  of  the  doors  of  my  house,  when  I  return  safely  (in  peace,  shalom) 
from  the  Ammonites,  shall  belong  to  the  Lord,  and  I  u-ill  offer  him 
for  a  burnt-offering.'"      By  the  words  "itrx  NYvn,  "he  that  goeth 
out,"   even   if  Jephthah  did  not  think  "only  of  a  man,  or  i 
more  definitely  still  of  some  one  of  his  household,"  he  certainly 
could  not  think  in  any  case  of  a  head  of  cattle,  or  one  of  his 
flock.     "Going  out  of  the  doors  of  his  house  to  meet  him"  is  an 
expression  that  does  not  apply  to  a  herd  or  flock  driven  out  of  the 
stall  just  at  the  moment  of  his  return,  or  to  any  animal  that  might 
possibly  run  out  to  meet  him.     For  the  phrase  fl^P?  ^  is  only 
applied  to  men  in  the  other  passages  in  which  it  occurs.1     More- 
over, Jephthah  no  doubt  intended  to  impose  a  very  difficult  vow 
upon  himself.     And  that  would  not  have  been  the  case  if  lie  hail 
merely  been  thinking  of  a  sacrificial  animal.     Even  without  any 
vow,   he  would  have   offered,   not  one,  but  many  sacrifices  after 
obtaining  a  victory.2     If  therefore  he  had  had  an  animal  sacrifice 
in  his  mind,  he  would  certainly  have  vowed  the  best  of  his  flocks 
From  all  this  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  Jephthah  must  have  b©  D 
thinking  of  some  human   being  as  at  all  events  included   in   his 
vow;  so  that  when  he  declared  that  he  would  dedicate  that  which 
came  out  of  his  house  to  meet  him,  the  meaning  of  the  vow  cannot 

1  Augustine  observes  in  his  Qutsst.  xlix.  in  /.  Jxtd.:  "He  <ü'l  net  vom  in 
these  words  that  he  would  offer  some  sheep,  which  he  might  present  «is  a  holo- 
caust, according  to  the  law.  For  it  is  not,  and  was  not,  a  customary  thing  for 
sheep  to  come  out  to  meet  a  victorious  general  returning  from  the  war.  Nor 
did  he  say,  I  will  offer  as  a  holocaust  rrhatcver  shall  come  out  <>f  the  '1""rs  of 
my  house  to  meet  me  ;  but  he  says,  '  T7/.oever  comes  out,  I  will  offer  km  ;' 
that  there  can  be  no  doubt  whatever  that  he  had  then  a  human  being  in  his 
mind." 

2  "What  kind  of  vow  would  it  be  if  some  great  prince  or  general  Bhonld  nj, 
'0  God,  if  Thou  wilt  give  me  this  victory,  the  first  calf  thai  n  hall 
be  Thine  1'  Parturiunt  monies,  nascetur  ridiculus  mu.<  .'"— //<///*<  r,  dubia  MS. 
p.  356. 

2B 


386  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

have  been  any  other  than  that  he  would  leave  the  choice  of  the 
sacrifice  to  God  himself.  "  In  his  eagerness  to  smite  the  foe,  and 
to  thank  God  for  it,  Jephthah  could  not  think  of  any  particular 
object  to  name,  which  he  could  regard  as  great  enough  to  dedicate 
to  God;  he  therefore  left  it  to  accident,  i.e.  to  the  guidance  of 
God,  to  determine  the  sacrifice.  He  shrank  from  measuring  what 
was  dearest  to  God,  and  left  this  to  God  himself"  (P.  Cassel  in 
Herzogs  Real-encycl.).  Whomsoever  God  should  bring  to  meet 
him,  he  would  dedicate  to  Jehovah,  and  indeed,  as  is  added  after- 
wards by  way  of  defining  it  more  precisely,  he  would  offer  him 
to  the  "Lord  as  a  burnt-offering.  The  1  before  VPfly83  is  to  be 
taken  as  explanatory,  and  not  as  disjunctive  in  the  sense  of  "  or," 
which  1  never  has.  But  whether  Jephthah  really  thought  of  his 
daughter  at  the  time,  cannot  be  determined  either  in  the  affirmative 
or  negative.  If  he  did,  he  no  doubt  hoped  that  the  Lord  would 
not  demand  this  hardest  of  all  sacrifices. — Vers.  32,  33.  After 
seeking  to  ensure  the  help  of  the  Lord  by  this  vow,  he  went 
against  the  Ammonites  to  fight  against  them ;  and  the  Lord 
delivered  them  into  his  hand,  so  that  Jephthah  smote  them  in  a 
very  great  slaughter  u  from  Aroer  (or  Nahr  Amman  ;  see  ver.  26) 
to  the  neighbourhood  of  ('till  thou  come  to;'  see  at  Gen.  x.  19) 
Minnith,  (conquering  and  taking)  twenty  cities,  and  to  Abel 
Keramim  (of  the  vineyards)."  Minnith,  according  to  the  Onom. 
(s.  v.  Mennith),  was  a  place  called  Manith  in  the  time  of  Eusebius, 
four  Roman  miles  from  Heshbon  on  the  road  to  Philadelphia,  with 
which  the  account  given  by  Buckingham  of  the  ruins  of  a  large 
city  a  little  to  the  east  of  Heshbon  may  be  compared  (see  v.  Raum. 
Pal.  p.  265).  The  situation  of  Abel  Keramim  (plain  of  the  vine- 
yards :  Luther  and  Eng.  Ver.)  cannot  be  determined  with  the  same 
certainty.  Eusebius  and  Jerome  mention  two  places  of  this  name 
(Onom.  s.  v.  Abel  vinearum),  a  villa  Abela  vinetis  consita  (kw^it] 
d/i7re>  otyopos  "AßeX)  seven  Roman  miles  from  Philadelphia,  and  a 
civitas  nomine  Abela  vini  fertilis  twelve  Roman  miles  to  the  east 
of  Gadara,  and  therefore  in  the  neighbourhood  of  the  Mandhur. 
Which  of  the  two  is  referred  to  here  remains  uncertain,  as  we 
have  no  precise  details  concerning  the  battle.  If  the  northern 
Abela  should  be  meant,  Jephthah  would  have  pursued  the  foe 
first  of  all  towards  the  south  to  the  neighbourhood  of  Heshbon, 
and  then  to  the  north  to  the  border  of  Bashan.  Through  this 
victory  the  Ammonites  were  completely  subdued  before  the 
Israelites. 


CHAP.  XI.  34-40.  387 

Vers.  34-40.   Jepiitiiah's  Vow.— Vers.  34,  35.  When  the 
victorious  hero  returned  to  Mizpeh,  his  daughter  came  out  to  meet 
him  " with  timbrels  and  in  dances"  i.e.  at  the  head  of  a  company  of 
women,  who  received  the  conqueror  with  joyous  music  and  dances 
(see  at  Ex.  xv.  20)  :  "  and  she  was  the  only  one ;  he  had  neither  son 
nor  daughter  beside  her"     WBD  cannot  mean  ex  se,  no  other  child 
of  his  own,  though  he  may  have  had  children  that  his  wives  had 
brought   him   by  other  husbands;    but   it   stands,   as   the  greater 
Masora  has  pointed  it,  for  i^QC,  "besides  her,"  the  daughter  just 
mentioned, — the  masculine   being  used  for  the   feminine   as  the 
nearest   and   more   general   gender,   simply   because   the    idea  of 
"child"  was  floating  before  the  author's  mind.     At  such  a  meeting 
Jephthah  was  violently  agitated.     Tearing  his  clothes  (as  a  sign  of 
his  intense  agony  ;  see  at  Lev.  x.  6),  he  exclaimed,  "  0  my  dough 
thou  hast  brought  me  very  low  ;  it  is  thou  who  troublest  me"  (lit. 
thou  art  among  those  who  trouble  me,  thou  belongest  to  their  class, 
and  indeed  in  the  fullest  sense  of  the  word  :  this  is  the  meaning 
of  the  so-called  2  essentia? :  see  Ges.  Lehrgeb.  p.  838,  and  such 
passages  as    2  Sam.  xv.   31,    Ps.   liv.  6,  lv.  19,  etc.)  :   "  /  hove 
opened  my  mouth  to  the  Lord  (i.e.  have  uttered  a  tow  to   Him: 
compare  Ps.  lxvi.  14  with  Num.  xxx.  3  sqq.,  Deut,  xxiii.  23,  2  1 ), 
and  cannot  turn  it"  i.e.  revoke  it. — Ver.  3G.  The  daughter,  observing 
that  the  vow  had  reference  to  her  (as  her  father  in  fact  had,  no 
doubt,  distinctly  told  her,  though  the  writer  has  passed  this  over 
because  he  had  already  given  the  vow  itself  in  ver.  31),  replied, 
"Do  to  me  as  has  gone  out  of  thy  mouth  (i.e.  do  to  me  what  thou 
hast  vowed),  since  Jehovah  has  procured  the  vengeance  upon  thine 
enemies  the  Ammonites."    She  then  added  (ver.  37),  "  Let  this  thing 
be  done  for  me  (equivalent  to,  Let  this  only  be  granted  me);  let 
me  alone  two  months  and  I  will  go"  i.e.  only  give  me  two  month 
go,  "that  I  may  go  down  to  the  mountains  {i.e.  from  Mizpeh,  which 
stood  upon  an  eminence,  to  the  surrounding  mountains  and  their 
valleys)  and  bewail  my  virginity,   I  and  my  friended      Dvtfia 
not  mean  "youth"  (D^JJJ),  but  the  condition  of  virginity  <         1 
xxi.  13).    The  Kethibh  Wjn  k  a  less  common  form  of  Vfon    A 
—Ver.  38.  The  father  granted  this  request.— Ver.  39.  At  the 
of  two  months  she  returned  to  her  father  again,  "  her 

the  vow  that  he  had  vowed,  cud  she  knew  no  m  tn."     In  consequ»  ace 
of  this  act  of  Jephthah  and  his  daughter.  " 
(&  standing  custom)  in  Israel:/,  '■■■'•  lM) 

die  daughters  of  Israel  go  to  praise  the  daughb  '.     thah   the 


388  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Gileadite  four  days  in  the  year."  nan  does  not  mean  Oprjveiv,  to 
lament  or  bewail  (LXX.,  Chald.,  etc.),  but  to  praise,  as  R. 
Tanchum  and  others  maintain. 

With  regard  to  Jephthdlis  vow,  the  view  expressed  so  distinctly 
by  Josephus  and  the  Chaldee  was  the  one  which  generally  pre- 
vailed in  the  earlier  times  among  both  Rabbins  and  fathers  of  the 
church,  viz.  that  Jephthah  put  his  daughter  to  death  and  burned 
her  upon  the  altar  as  a  bleeding  sacrifice  to  Jehovah.  It  was  not 
till  the  middle  ages  that  Mos.  and  Dav.  Kimchi  and  certain  other 
Rabbins  endeavoured  to  establish  the  view,  that  Jephthah  merely 
dedicated  his  daughter  to  the  service  of  the  sanctuary  of  Jehovah 
in  a  lifelong  virginity.  And  lastly,  Ludov.  Cappellus,  in  his 
Diatriba  de  voto  Jephtce,  Salm.  1683  (which  has  been  reprinted  in 
his  JVotce  critic,  in  Jud.  xi.,  and  the  Critici  Sacri,  torn,  i.),  has  ex- 
pressed the  opinion  that  Jephthah  put  his  daughter  to  death  in 
honour  of  the  Lord  according  to  the  law  of  the  ban,  because 
human  beings  were  not  allowed  to  be  offered  up  as  burnt-sacrifices. 
Of  these  different  opinions  the  third  has  no  foundation  in  the  text 
of  the  Bible.  For  supposing  that  Jephthah  had  simply  vowed  that 
on  his  return  he  would  offer  to  the  Lord  whatever  came  to  meet 
him  out  of  his  house,  with  such  restrictions  only  as  were  involved 
in  the  very  nature  of  the  case, — viz.  offering  it  as  a  burnt-offering 
if  it  were  adapted  for  this  according  to  the  law ;  and  if  it  were  not, 
then  proceeding  with  it  according  to  the  law  of  the  ban, — the 
account  of  the  fulfilment  of  this  vow  would  certainly  have  defined 
with  greater  precision  the  manner  in  which  he  fulfilled  the  vow 
upon  his  daughter.  The  words  "  he  did  to  her  his  vow  which  he 
had  vowed,"  cannot  be  understood  in  any  other  way  than  that  he 
offered  her  as  n?ty,  i.e.  as  a  burnt-offering,  to  the  Lord.  Moreover, 
the  law  concerning  the  ban  and  a  vow  of  the  ban  could  not  possibly 
give  any  individual  Israelite  the  right  to  ban  either  his  own  child 
or  one  of  his  household  to  the  Lord,  without  opening  a  very  wide 
door  to  the  crime  of  murder.  The  infliction  of  the  ban  upon  any 
man  presupposed  notorious  wickedness,  so  that  burnt-offering  and 
ban  were  diametrically  opposed  the  one  to  the  other.  Consequently 
the  other  two  views  are  the  only  ones  which  can  be  entertained, 
and  it  is  not  easy  to  decide  between  them.  Although  the  words 
"  and  I  offer  him  as  a  burnt-offering  "  appear  to  favour  the  actual 
sacrifice  so  strongly,  that  Luther's  marginal  note,  "some  affirm  that 
he  did  not  sacrifice  her,  but  the  text  is  clear  enough,"  is  perpetually 
repeated  with  peculiar  emphasis ;  yet,  on  looking  more  closely  into 


CHAP.  XI.  34-40.  389 

the  matter,  we  find  insuperable  difficulties  in  the  way  of  the  literal 
interpretation  of  the  words.  Since  N£  "lgfa  N>i5n  cannot  be  taken 
impersonally,  and  therefore  when  Jephthah  uttered  his  vow,  he 
must  at  any  rate  have  had  the  possibility  of  some  human  being 
coming  to  meet  him  in  his  mind;  and  since  the  two  clauses  "  he 
shall  be  the  Lords"  and  "I  will  offer  him  up  for  a  burnt-offering" 
cannot  be  taken  disjunctively  in  such  a  sense  as  this,  it  shall  either 
be  dedicated  to  the  Lord,  or,  if  it  should  be  a  sacrificial  animal,  I 
will  offer  it  up  as  a  burnt-offering,  but  the  second  clause  simply 
contains  a  more  precise  definition  of  the  first, — Jephthah  must  at 
the  very  outset  have  contemplated  the  possibility  of  a  human 
sacrifice.  Yet  not  only  were  human  sacrifices  prohibited  in  the 
law  under  pain  of  death  as  an  abomination  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah 
(Lev.  xviii.  21,  xx.  2-5;  Deut.  xii.  31,  xviii.  10),  but  they  were 
never  heard  of  among  the  Israelites  in  the  early  times,  and  were 
only  transplanted  to  Jerusalem  by  the  godless  kings  Ahaz  and 
Manasseh.1  If  Jephthah  therefore  vowed  that  he  would  offer  a 
human  sacrifice  to  Jehovah,  he  must  either  have  uttered  his  vow- 
without  any  reflection,  or  else  have  been  thoroughly  depraved  in  a 
moral  and  religious  sense.  But  what  we  know  of  this  brave  hero 
by  no  means  warrants  any  such  assumptions.  His  acts  do  not 
show  the  slightest  trace  of  impetuosity  and  rashness,  lie  does  not 
take  to  the  sword  at  once,  but  waits  till  his  negotiations  with  the 
king  of  the  Ammonites  have  been  without  effect.  Nor  does  he 
utter  his  vow  in  the  midst  of  the  confusion  of  battle,  so  that  \\.- 
might  fancy  he  had  made  a  vow  in  the  heat  of  the  conflict  without 
fully  weighing  his  words,  but  he  uttered  it  before  he  set  out  against 
the  Ammonites  (see  vers.  30  and  32).  So  far  as  the  religious  train- 
ing of  Jephthah  was  concerned,  it  is  true  that  he  had  led  the  life 
of  a  freebooter  during  his  exile  from  his  country  and  home,  and 
before  his  election  as  the  leader  of  the  Israelites;  but  the  analogous 
circumstances  connected  with  David's   life   preclude   us  from   iu- 

1  "Human  sacrifices  do  not  even  belong  to  heathenism  generally, 
the  darkest  night  of  heathenism.     They  only  occur  among  the  B  nations  which 
are  the  most  thoroughly  depraved  in  a  moral  ami  reli  "ar^ 

of  Hengstenberg  (Diss.  iii.  p.  118)  cannot  beset  aside  by   I 
prxp.  ev.  iv.  16;  Baur,  Symb.  ii.  2,  pp.  293  sqq.  ;   Lasaulx,  Sühnopfer  dec 
Griechen  und  Römer,  1841,  pp.  8-12;  GJiillany,  die  Menschenopfer  der 
Hebräer,  1842,  pp.  107  sqq.,  as  Kurtz  supposes,  Bince  the  uncritical  chai 
of  the  proofs  collected  together  in  these  writings  is  wry  obvious  on  ■ 
inspection,  and  Eiuebitu  has  simply  taken  his  examples  from  Porphyry,  and 
other  writings  of  a  very  recent  date. 


390  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

ferring  either  moral  depravity  or  religious  barbarism  from  this. 
When  David  was  obliged  to  fly  from  his  country  to  escape  from 
Saul,  he  also  led  a  life  of  the  same  kind,  so  that  all  sorts  of  people 
came  to  him,  not  pious  and  virtuous  people,  but  all  who  were  in 
distress  and  had  creditors,  or  were  embittered  in  spirit  (1  Sam. 
xxii.  2)  ;  and  yet,  even  under  these  circumstances,  David  lived  in 
the  law  of  the  Lord.  Moreover,  Jephthah  was  not  destitute  of  the 
fear  of  God.  This  is  proved  first  of  all  by  the  fact,  that  when  he 
had  been  recalled  from  his  exile  he  looked  to  Jehovah  to  give  him 
the  victory  over  the  Ammonites,  and  made  a  treaty  with  the  elders 
of  Gilead  "before  Jehovah"  (vers.  9  and  10);  and  also  by  the 
fact,  that  he  sought  to  ensure  the  help  of  God  in  war  through  the 
medium  of  a  vow.  And  again,  we  have  no  right  to  attribute  to 
him  any  ignorance  of  the  law.  Even  if  Kurtz  is  correct  in  his 
opinion,  that  the  negotiations  with  the  king  of  the  Ammonites, 
which  show  the  most  accurate  acquaintance  with  the  Pentateuch, 
were  not  carried  on  independently  and  from  his  own  knowledge  of 
the  law,  and  that  the  sending  of  messengers  to  the  hostile  king  was 
resolved  upon  in  the  national  assembly  at  Mizpeh,  with  the  priests, 
Levites,  and  elders  present,  so  that  the  Levites,  who  knew  the 
law,  may  have  supplied  any  defects  in  his  own  knowledge  of  the 
law  and  of  the  early  history  of  his  people ;  a  private  Israelite  did 
not  need  to  study  the  whole  of  the  law  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  to 
make  himself  master  of  the  whole,  in  order  to  gain  the  knowledge 
and  conviction  that  a  human  sacrifice  was  irreconcilable  with  the 
substance  and  spirit  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah,  and  that  Jehovah 
the  God  of  Israel  was  not  a  Moloch.  And  again,  even  if  we  do 
not  know  to  what  extent  the  men  and  fathers  of  families  in  Israel 
were  acquainted  and  familiar  with  the  contents  of  the  Mosaic  law, 
the  opinion  is  certainly  an  erroneous  one,  that  the  Israelites  derived 
their  knowledge  of  the  law  exclusively  from  the  public  reading 
of  the  law  at  the  feast  of  tabernacles  in  the  sabbatical  year,  as 
enjoined  in  Deut.  xxxi.  10  sqq. ;  so  that  if  this  public  reading, 
which  was  to  take  place  only  once  in  seven  years,  had  been 
neglected,  the  whole  nation  would  have  been  left  without  any 
instruction  whatever  in  the  law.  The  reason  for  this  Mosaic 
precept  was  a  totally  different  one  from  that  of  making  the  people 
acquainted  with  the  contents  of  the  law  (see  the  commentary  on 
this  passage).  And  again,  though  we  certainly  do  not  find  the 
law  of  the  Lord  so  thoroughly  pervading  the  religious  conscious- 
ness of  the  people,  received  as  it  were  in  succum  et  sanguinem,  in 


CHAP.  XI.  34-40.  391 

the  time  of  the  judges,  that  they  were  able  to  resist  the  bewitching 
power  of  nature-worship,  but,  on  the  contrary,  we  find  them  re- 
peatedly falling  away  into  the  worship  of  Baal ;  yet  we  discover 
no  trace  whatever  of  human  sacrifices  even  in  the  case  of  those 
who  went  a  whoring  after  Baalim.  And  although  the  theocratical 
knowledge  of  the  law  seems  to  have  been  somewhat  corrupted  even 
in  the  case  of  such  men  as  Gideon,  so  that  this  judge  had  an  un- 
lawful ephod  made  for  himself  at  Ophrah ;  the  opinion  that  the 
Baal-worship,  into  which  the  Israelites  repeatedly  fell,  was  asso- 
ciated with  human  sacrifices,  is  one  of  the  many  erroneous  id 
that  have  been  entertained  as  to  the  development  of  the  religions 
life  not  only  among  the  Israelites,  but  among  the  Canaanites,  and 
which  cannot  be  supported  by  historical  testimonies  or  facts.  That 
the  Canaanitish  worship  of  Baal  and  Astarte,  to  which  the  Israelites 
were  addicted,  required  no  human  sacrifices,  is  indisputably  evident 
from  the  fact,  that  even  in  the  time  of  Ahab  and  his  idolatrous 
wife  Jezebel,  the  daughter  of  the  Sidonian  king  Ethbaal,  who 
raised  the  worship  of  Baal  into  the  national  religion  in  the  kingdom 
of  the  ten  tribes,  persecuting  the  prophets  of  Jehovah  and  putting 
them  to  death,  there  is  not  the  slightest  allusion  to  human  sacrifices. 
Even  at  that  time  human  sacrifices  were  regarded  by  the  Israelites 
as  so  revolting  an  abomination,  that  the  two  kings  of  [srael  who 
besieged  the  king  of  the  Moabites — not  only  the  godly  Jehoshaphat, 
but  Jehoram  the  son  of  Ahab  and  Jezebel — withdrew  at  oner  and 
relinquished  the  continuance  of  the  war,  when  the  king  of  the 
Moabites,  in  the  extremity  of  his  distress,  sacrificed  his  son  as  a 
burnt-offering  upon  the  wall  (2  Kings  iii.  26,  27).  With  such 
an  attitude  as  this  on  the  part  of  the  Israelites  towards  human 
sacrifices  before  the  time  of  Ahaz  and  Manasseh,  who  introduce. 1 
the  worship  of  Moloch  into  Jerusalem,  we  cannot,  without  farther 
evidence,  impute  to  Jephthah  the  offering  of  a  bloody  human 
sacrifice,  the  more  especially  as  it  is  inconceivable,  with  the  dia- 
metrical opposition  between  the  worship  of  Jehovah  and  the 
worship  of  Moloch,  that  God  should  have  chosen  a  worshipper  of 
Moloch  to  carry  out  His  work,  or  a  man  who  was  capable  of 
vowinfr  and  offering  a  human-being  sacrifice.  The  nun  whom 
God  chose  as  the  recipients  of  His  revelation  of  mercy  and  the 
executors  of  His  will,  and  whom  He  endowed  with  His  Spirit 
judges  and  leaders  of  His  people,  were  no  doubt  affect  1  with 
infirmities,  faults,  and  sins  of  many  kinds,  so  that  they  could  fall 
to  a  very  great  depth  ;  but  nowhere  is  it  Btated  that  the  Spirit  uf 


392  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

God  came  upon  a  worshipper  of  Moloch  and  endowed  him  with 
His  own  power,  that  he  might  be  the  helper  and  saviour  of  Israel. 
We  cannot  therefore  regard  Jephthah  as  a  servant  of  Moloch, 
especially  when  we  consider  that,  in  addition  to  what  has  already 
been  said,  the  account  of  the  actual  fulfilment  of  his  vow  is  appa- 
rently irreconcilable  with  the  literal  interpretation  of  the  words 
!"6ijJ  WWpyni  as  signifying  a  bleeding  burnt-offering.  We  cannot 
infer  anything  with  certainty  as  to  the  mode  of  the  sacrifice,  from 
the  grief  which  Jephthah  felt  and  expressed  when  his  only  daughter 
came  to  meet  him.  For  this  is  quite  as  intelligible,  as  even  the 
supporters  of  the  literal  view  of  these  words  admit,  on  the  supposition 
that  Jephthah  was  compelled  by  his  vow  to  dedicate  his  daughter 
to  Jehovah  in  a  lifelong  virginity,  as  it  would  be  if  he  had  been 
obliged  to  put  her  to  death  and  burn  her  upon  the  altar  as  a  burnt- 
offering.  But  the  entreaty  of  the  daughter,  that  he  would  grant 
her  two  months'  time,  in  order  that  she  might  lament  her  virginity 
upon  the  mountains  with  her  friends,  would  have  been  marvellously 
out  of  keeping  with  the  account  that  she  was  to  be  put  to  death  as 
a  sacrifice.  To  mourn  one's  virginity  does  not  mean  to  mourn 
because  one  has  to  die  a  virgin,  but  because  one  has  to  live  and 
remain  a  virgin.  But  even  if  we  were  to  assume  that  mourning 
her  virginity  was  equivalent  to  mourning  on  account  of  her  youth 
(which  is  quite  untenable,  as  DWI3  is  not  synonymous  with  E'r)W?), 
"  it  would  be  impossible  to  understand  why  this  should  take  place 
upon  the  mountains.  It  would  be  altogether  opposed  to  human 
nature,  that  a  child  who  had  so  soon  to  die  should  make  use  of  a 
temporary  respite  to  forsake  her  father  altogether.  It  would  no 
doubt  be  a  reasonable  thing  that  she  should  ask  permission  to  enjoy 
life  for  two  months  longer  before  she  was  put  to  death  ;  but  that 
she  should  only  think  of  bewailing  her  virginity,  when  a  sacrificial 
death  was  in  prospect,  which  would  rob  her  father  of  his  only  child, 
would  be  contrary  to  all  the  ordinary  feelings  of  the  human  heart. 
Yet,  inasmuch  as  the  history  lays  special  emphasis  upon  her  bewail- 
ing her  virginity,  this  must  have  stood  in  some  peculiar  relation  to 
the  nature  of  the  vow.  When  a  maiden  bewails  her  virginity,  the 
reason  for  this  can  only  be  that  she  will  have  to  remain  a  bud  that 
has  not  been  allowed  to  unfold  itself,  prevented,  too,  not  by  death, 
but  by  life"  (P.  Cassel,  p.  473).  And  this  is  confirmed  by  the 
expression,  to  bewail  her  virginity  "  upon  the  mountains."  "  If  life 
had  been  in  question,  the  same  tears  might  have  been  shed  at 
home.     But  her  lamentations  were  devoted  to  her  virginity,  and 


CHAP.  XI.  34-10.  393 

such  lamentations  could  not  be  uttered  in  the  town,  and  in  the 
presence  of  men.     Modesty  required  the  solitude  of  the  mountains 
for  these.     The  virtuous  heart  of  the  maiden  docs  not  open  itself 
in  the  ears  of  all;  but  only  in  sacred  silence  does  it  pour  out  its 
lamentations  of  love"  (P.  Cassel,  p.  470).     And  so,  again,  the  still 
further  clause  in  the  account  of  the  fulfilment  of  the  vow,  "and 
she  knew  no  man,"  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  assumption  of  :i 
sacrificial  death.     This  clause  would  add  nothing  to  the  description 
in  that  case,  since  it  was  already  known  that  she  was  a  virgin.    The 
words  only  gain  their  proper  sense  if  we  connect  them  with   tin- 
previous  clause,  he  "  did  with  her  according  to  the  vow  which  he 
had  vowed,"  and  understand  them  as  describing  -what  the  daughter 
did  in  fulfilment  of  the  vow.     The  father  fulfilled  his  vow  upon 
her,  and  she  knew  no  man;  i.e.  he  fulfilled  the  vow  through  the 
fact  that  she  knew  no  man,  but  dedicated  her  life  to  the  Lord,  as  ;i 
spiritual  burnt-offering,  in  a  lifelong  chastity.     It  was  this  willing- 
ness of  the  daughter  to  sacrifice  herself  which  the  daughters  of 
Israel  went  every  year  to  celebrate, — namely,  upon  the  mountains 
whither  her  friends  had  gone  with  her  to  lament  her  virginity,  and 
which  they  commemorated  there  four  days  in  the  year.     And  the 
idea  of  a  spiritual  sacrifice  is  supported  not  only  by  the  words,  but 
also   most   decisively  by  the  fact  that  the   historian  describes  the 
fulfilment  of  the  vow  in  the  words  "he  did  to  her  according  to  his 
vow,"  in  such  a  manner  as  to  lead  to  the  conclusion  that  he  regarded 
the  act  itself  as  laudable  and  good.    But  a  prophetic  historian  could 
never  have  approved  of  a  human  sacrifice  ;  and  it  is  evident  that 
the  author  of  the  book  of  Judges  does  not  conceal  what  was  blame- 
able  even  in  the  judges  themselves,  from  his  remarks  concerning 
the  conduct  of  Gideon  (chap.  viii.  27),  which  was  only  a  very  small 
offence  in  comparison  with  the  abomination  of  a  human  sacrifice. 
To  this  we  have  to  add  the  difficulties  connected  with  such  an  act. 
The  words  "he  did  to  her  according  to  his  vow"  presuppose  un- 
doubtedly that  Jephthah  offered  his  daughter  as  ~.,>  to  Jehovah. 
But  burnt-offerings,  that  is  to  say  bleeding  burnt-offerings,  in  which 
the  victim  was  slaughtered  and  burnt  upon  the  altar,  could  onlv  be 
offered  upon  the  lawful  altar  at  the  tabernacle,  or  before  the  ark, 
through  the  medium  of  the  Levitical  priests,  unless  the  sacrifice 
itself  had  been  occasioned  by  some  extraordinary  manifestation  i  I 
God;  and  that  we  cannot  for  a  moment  think  of  here.      But  is  it 
credible  that  a  priest  or  the  priesthood  should  have  consented  to 
offer  a  sacrifice  upou  the  altar  of  Jehovah  which  was  denounced  iu 


31)4  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

the  law  as  the  greatest  abomination  of  the  heathen  ?  This  difficulty 
cannot  be  set  aside  by  assuming  that  Jephthah  put  his  daughter  to 
death,  and  burned  her  upon  some  secret  altar,  without  the  assistance 
and  mediation  of  a  priest ;  for  such  an  act  would  not  have  been 
described  by  the  prophetic  historian  as  a  fulfilment  of  the  vow  that 
he  would  offer  a  burnt-offering  to  the  Lord,  simply  because  it  would 
not  have  been  a  sacrifice  offered  to  Jehovah  at  all,  but  a  sacrifice 
slaughtered  to  Moloch.1 

All  these  circumstances,  when  rightly  considered,  almost  compel 
us  to  adopt  the  spiritual  interpretation  of  the  words  "  offer  as  a 
burnt-offering."  It  is  true  that  no  exactly  corresponding  parallel- 
isms can  be  adduced  from  the  Old  Testament  in  support  of  the 
spiritual  view  ;  but  the  germs  of  this  view,  as  met  with  in  the 
Psalms  and  the  writings  of  the  prophets,  are  contained  in  the 
demand  of  God  addressed  to  Abraham  to  offer  Him  his  only  son 
Isaac  as  a  burnt-offering,  when  compared  with  the  issue  of  Abra- 
ham's temptation, — namely,  that  God  accepted  his  willingness  to 
offer  up  his  son  as  a  completed  sacrifice,  and  then  supplied  him 
with  a  ram  to  offer  up  as  a  bleeding  sacrifice  in  the  place  of  his  son. 
As  this  fact  teaches  that  what  God  demands  is  not  a  corporeal  but 
a  spiritual  sacrifice,  so  the  rules  laid  down  in  the  law  respecting  the 
redemption  of  the  first-born  belonging  to  the  Lord,  and  of  persons 
vowed  to  Him  (Ex.  xiii.  1,  13  ;  Num.  xviii.  15,  16 ;  Lev.  xxvii. 
1  sqq.),  show  clearly  how  the  Israelites  could  dedicate  themselves 
and  those  who  belonged  to  them  to  the  Lord,  without  burning  upon 
the  altar  the  persons  who  were  vowed  to  Him.  And  lastly,  it  is 
evident,  from  the  perfectly  casual  reference  to  the  women  who 

1  AuherlerCs  remarks  upon  this  subject  are  very  good.  "  The  history  of 
Jephthah's  daughter,"  he  says,  "  would  hardly  have  been  thought  worth  pre- 
serving in  the  Scriptures  if  the  maiden  had  been  really  offered  in  sacrifice  ;  for, 
in  that  case,  the  event  would  have  been  reduced,  at  the  best,  into  a  mere  family 
history,  without  any  theocratic  significance,  though  in  truth  it  would  rather 
have  been  an  anti-theocratic  abomination,  according  to  Deut.  xii.  31  (cf.  chap, 
xviii.  9,  Lev.  xviii.  21,  xx.  1-5).  Jephthah's  action  would  in  that  case  have 
stood  upon  the  same  platform  as  the  incest  of  Lot  (Gen.  xix.  30  sqq.),  and 
would  owe  its  adoption  into  the  canon  simply  to  genealogical  considerations,  or 
others  of  a  similar  kind.  But  the  very  opposite  is  the  case  here  ;  and  if,  from 
the  conclusion  of  the  whole  narrative  in  chap.  xi.  39,  40,  the  object  of  it  is 
supposed  to  be  simply  to  explain  the  origin  of  the  feast  that  was  held  in  honour 
of  Jephthah's  daughter,  even  this  would  tell  against  the  ordinary  view.  In  the 
eye  of  the  law  the  whole  thing  would  still  remain  an  abomination,  and  the 
canonical  Scriptures  would  not  stoop  to  relate  and  beautify  an  institution  so 
directly  opposed  to  the  law." 


CHAP.  XII.  1-7.  305 

ministered  at  the  tabernacle  (Ex.  xxxviii.  8  ;  1  Sam.  ii.  22),  that 
there  were  persons  in  Israel  who  dedicated  their  lives  to  the  Lord 
at  the  sanctuary,  by  altogether  renouncing  the  world.  And  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  Jcphthah  had  such  a  dedication  as  this  in  his 
mind  when  he  uttered  his  vow  ;  at  all  events  in  case  the  Lord,  to 
whom  he  left  the  appointment  of  the  sacrifice,  should  demand  the 
offering  up  of  a  human  being.  The  word  iw  does  not  involve  the 
idea  of  burning,  like  our  word  burnt-offering,  but  simply  that  of 
going  up  upon  the  altar,  or  of  complete  surrender  to  the  Lord. 
n?iy  is  a  whole  offering,  as  distinguished  from  the  other  sacrifices, 
of  which  only  a  part  was  given  up  to  the  Lord.  When  a  virgin, 
therefore,  was  set  apart  as  a  spiritual  npiy,  it  followed,  as  a  matter 
of  course,  that  henceforth  she  belonged  entirely  to  the  Lord  :  that 
is  to  say,  was  to  remain  a  virgin  for  the  remainder  of  her  days. 
The  fact  that  Nazarites  contracted  marriages,  even  such  as  were 
dedicated  by  a  vow  to  be  Nazarites  all  their  lives,  by  no  means 
warrants  the  conclusion  that  virgins  dedicated  to  the  Lord  by  a 
vow  were  also  free  to  marry  if  they  chose.  It  is  true  that  we  learn 
nothing  definite  from  the  Old  Testament  with  regard  to  this  si>iri- 
tual  sacrificial  service  ;  but  the  absence  of  any  distinct  statements 
upon  the  subject  by  no  means  warrants  our  denying  the  fact. 
Even  with  regard  to  the  spiritual  service  of  the  women  at  the 
tabernacle  we  have  no  precise  information  ;  and  we  should  not  have 
known  anything  about  this  institution,  if  the  women  themselves 
had  not  offered  their  mirrors  in  the  time  of  Moses  to  make  the  holy 
laver,  or  if  we  had  not  the  account  of  the  violation  of  such  women 
by  the  sons  of  Eli.  In  this  respect,  therefore,  the  remarks  of 
Cleiicus,  though  too  frequently  disregarded,  are  very  true  :  "  It 
was  not  to  be  expected,  as  I  have  often  observed,  that  so  small  a 
volume  as  the  Old  Testament  should  contain  all  the  customs  of  the 
Hebrews,  and  a  full  account  of  all  the  things  that  were  done  among 
them.  There  are  necessarily  many  things  alluded  to,  therefore, 
which  we  do  not  fully  understand,  simply  because  they  are  not 
mentioned  elsewhere." 

Chap.  xii.  1-7.   JEPnTnAii's  War  with  THE  EPHBAIMITES, 
and  Office  of  Judge. — Ver.  1.   The  jealousy  of  the  tribe  of 

Ephraim,  which  was  striving  after  the  leadership,  had  already 
shown  itself  in  the  time  of  Gideon  in  such  a  way  that  nothing 
but  the  moderation  of  that  judge  averted  open  hostilities.  And 
now  that  the  tribes  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  had  conquered  the 


396  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Ammonites  under  the  command  of  Jephthah  without  the  co-opera- 
tion of  the  Ephraimites,  Ephraim  thought  it  necessary  to  assert  its 
claim  to  take  the  lead  in  Israel  in  a  very  forcible  manner.  The 
Ephraimites  gathered  themselves  together,  and  went  over  ""^-f. 
This  is  generally  regarded  as  an  appellative  noun  (northward)  ; 
but  in  all  probability  it  is  a  proper  name,  "  to  Zaphon"  the  city 
of  the  Gadites  in  the  Jordan  valley,  which  is  mentioned  in  Josh, 
xiii.  27  along  with  Succoth,  that  is  to  say,  according  to  a  statement 
of  the  Gemara,  though  of  a  very  uncertain  character  no  doubt, 
'A/MaOovs  (Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  13,  5,  xiv.  5,  4;  Bell.  Jud.  i.  4,  2 ; 
Reland,  Pal.  pp.  308  and  559-60),  the  modern  ruins  of  Amata  on 
the  Wady  Bajib  or  Ajlun,  the  situation  of  which  would  suit  this 
passage  very  well.  They  then  threatened  Jephthah,  because  he 
had  made  war  upon  the  Ammonites  without  them,  and  said,  "  We 
will  burn  thy  house  over  thee  with  fire."  This  arrogance  and  threat 
Jephthah  opposed  most  energetically.  He  replied  (vers.  2,  3),  "  A 
man  of  strife  have  I  been,  I  and  my  people  on  the  one  hand,  and  the 
children  of  Ammon  on  the  other,  very  greatly"  i.e.  I  and  my  people 
had  a  severe  conflict  with  the  Ammonites.  "  Then  I  called  you, 
but  ye  did  not  deliver  me  out  of  their  hand ;  and  when  I  saw  that 
thou  (Ephraim)  didst  not  help  me,  I  put  my  life  in  my  hand"  (i.e.  I 
risked  my  own  life  :  see  1  Sam.  xix.  5,  xxviii.  21,  Job  xiii.  14. 
The  Kethibh  nob^K  comes  from  DB» :  cf.  Gen.  xxiv.  33),  "  and  1 

t  :  -  t  // 

went  against  the  Ammonites,  and  Jehovah  gave  them  into  my  hand." 
Jephthah's  appeal  to  the  Ephraimites  to  fight  against  the  Ammon- 
ites is  not  mentioned  in  chap,  xi.,  probably  for  no  other  reason  than 
because  it  was  without  effect.  The  Ephraimites,  however,  had  very 
likely  refused  their  co-operation  simply  because  the  Gileadites  had 
appointed  Jephthah  as  commander  without  consulting  them.  Con- 
sequently the  Ephraimites  had  no  ground  whatever  for  rising  up 
against  Jephthah  and  the  Gileadites  in  this  haughty  and  hostile 
manner ;  and  Jephthah  had  a  perfect  right  not  only  to  ask  them, 
"  Wherefore  are  ye  come  up  against  me  now  (lit.  'this  day'),  to  fight 
against  me  ?  "  but  to  resist  such  conduct  with  the  sword. — Yer.  4. 
He  therefore  gathered  together  all  the  men  (men  of  war)  of  Gilead 
and  smote  the  Ephraimites,  because  they  had  said,  "  Ye  Gileadites 
are  fugitives  of  Ephraim  in  the  midst  of  Ephraim  and  Manasseh? 
The  meaning  of  these  obscure  words  is  probably  the  following: 
Ye  Gileadites  are  a  mob  gathered  together  from  Ephraimites  that 
have  run  away  ;  "ye  are  an  obscure  set  of  men,  men  of  no  name, 
dwelling   in   the  midst  of  two  most  noble  and  illustrious  tribes" 


CHAP.  XII.  8-15  397 

{Rosenmüller).  This  contemptuous  speech  did  not  apply  to  the 
tribes  of  Reuben  and  Gad  as  such,  but  simply  to  the  warriors  whom 
Jephthah  had  gathered  together  out  of  Gilead.  For  the  words  are 
not  to  be  rendered  erepti  Ephraim,  "  the  rescued  of  Ephraim,"  as 
they  are  by  Seb.  Schmidt  and  Stud.,  or  to  be  understood  as  referring 
to  the  fact  that  the  Gileadites  had  found  refuge  with  the  Ephraim- 
ites  during  the  eighteen  years  of  oppression  on  the  part  of  the 
Ammonites,  since  such  an  explanation  is  at  variance  with  the  use 
of  the  word  ByS,  which  simply  denotes  a  fugitive  who  has  escaped 
from  danger,  and  not  one  who  has  sought  and  found  protection 
with  another.  The  Ephraimites  had  to  pay  for  this  insult  offered 
to  their  brethren  by  a  terrible  defeat. — Ver.  5.  When  the  Gileadites 
had  beaten  the  Ephraimites,  they  took  the  fords  of  the  Jordan 
before  the  Ephraimites  (or  towards  Ephraim  :  see  chap.  iii.  28,  vii. 
24),  to  cut  off  their  retreat  and  prevent  their  return  to  their  homes. 
And  "  ichen  fugitives  of  Ephraim  wanted  to  cross,  the  men  of  Gilead 
asked  them,  Art  thou  Ephrathi"  i.e.  an  Ephraimite?  And  if  he  said 
no,  they  made  him  pronounce  the  word  Shibboleth  (a  stream  or 
flood,  as  in  Ps.  Ixix.  3,  16  ;  not  an  ear  of  corn,  which  is  quite  unsuit- 
able here)  ;  "and  if  he  said,  Sibboleth,  not  taking  care  to  pronounce 
it  correctly,  they  laid  hold  of  him  and  put  him  to  death  at  the  fords  of 
the  Jordan."  In  this  manner  there  fell  at  that  time,  i.e.  during  the 
whole  war,  42,000  Ephraimites.  The  "fugitives  of  Ephraim''''  were 
the  Ephraimites  who  had  escaped  from  the  battle  and  wished  to 
return  home.  The  expression  is  used  here  in  its  ordinary  sense, 
and  not  with  the  contemptuous  sense  in  which  the  Ephraimites  had 
used  it  in  ver.  4.  From  this  history  we  learn  quite  casually  that 
the  Ephraimites  generally  pronounced  sh  (shin)  like  s  (sameeh). 
P3n  is  used  elliptically  for  27  pan,  to  direct  his  heart  to  anything,  pay 
heed  (compare  1  Sam.  xxiii.  22,  1  Chron.  xxviii.  2,  with  2  Chron. 
xii.  14,  xxx.  19). — Ver.  7.  Jephthah  judged  Israel  six  years,  though 
most  probably  only  the  tribes  on  the  east  of  the  Jordan.  "When 
he  died,  he  was  buried  in  one  of  the  towns  of  Gilead.  The  plural 
lyh)  "nyzi  is  used  quite  indefinitely,  as  in  Gen.  xiii.  12,  Neh.  vi.  2, 
etc.  (see  Ges.  Lehrgeb.  p.  665),  simply  because  the  historian  did 
not  know  the  exact  town. 

The  Judges  lbzan,  Elon,  and  Abdon. — Chap.  xii.  8-15. 

Of  these  three  judges  no  particular  deeds  are  related,  just  as  in 
the  case  of  Tola  and  Jair  (see  the  remarks  on  chap.  x.  1).  But  it 
certainly  follows  from  the  expression  Vin«  Dte&J  (vers   8,  11,  13) 


398  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

that  they  were  one  after  another  successors  of  Jephthah,  and  there- 
fore that  their  office  of  judge  also  extended  simply  over  the  tribes 
on  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  and  perhaps  the  northern  tribes  on  this 
side. — Vers.  8,  9.  lbzan  sprang  from  Bethlehem, — hardly,  however, 
the  town  of  that  name  in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  as  Josephus  affirms 
(Ant.  v.  7,  13),  for  that  is  generally  distinguished  either  as  Beth- 
lehem "of  Judah"  (chap.  xvii.  7,  9  ;  Ruth  i.  2  ;  1  Sam.  xvii.  12), 
or  Bethlehem  Ephratah  (Micah  v.  1),  but  probably  Bethlehem  in 
the  tribe  of  Zebulun  (Josh.  ix.  15).  He  had  thirty  sons  and  thirty 
daughters,  the  latter  of  whom  he  sent  away  rwnn  (out  of  his  house), 
i.e.  gave  them  in  marriage,  and  brought  home  thirty  women  in  their 
places  from  abroad  as  wives  for  his  sons.  He  judged  Israel  seven 
years,  and  was  buried  in  Bethlehem. — Yers.  11,  12.  His  successor 
was  Elon  the  Zebulunite,  who  died  after  filling  the  office  of  judge 
for  ten  years,  and  was  buried  at  Aijalon,  in  the  land  of  Zebulun. 
This  Aijalon  has  probably  been  preserved  in  the  ruins  of  Jaluny 
about  four  hours'  journey  to  the  east  of  Akka,  and  half  an  hour 
to  the  s.s.w.  of  Mejdel  Kerun  (see  V.  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  283). — 
Vers.  13-15.  He  was  followed  by  the  judge  Abdon,  the  son  of  Hillel 
of  Pirathon.  This  place,  where  Abdon  died  and  was  buried  after 
holding  the  office  of  judge  for  eight  years,  was  in  the  land  of 
Ephraim,  on  the  mountains  of  the  Amalekites  (ver.  15).  It  is  men- 
tioned in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  30  and  1  Chron.  xi.  31  as  the  home  of  Benaiah 
the  hero ;  it  is  the  same  as  $apa0a)  (read  $apa6div)  in  1  Mace.  ix. 
50,  and  Joseph.  Ant.  xiii.  1,  3,  and  has  been  preserved  in  the  village 
of  Feräta,  about  two  hours  and  a  half  to  the  S.S.W.  of  Nabulus  (see 
Rob.  Bibl.  Res.  p.  134,  and  V.  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  340).  On  the 
riding  of  his  sons  and  daughters  upon  asses,  see  at  chap.  x.  4. 

Samson's  Life,  and  Conflicts  with  the  Philistines. — Chap,  xiii.-xvi. 

Whilst  Jephthah,  in  the  power  of  God,  was  delivering  the  tribes 
on  the  east  of  the  Jordan  from  the  oppression  of  the  Ammonites, 
the  oppression  on  the  part  of  the  Philistines  continued  uninter- 
ruptedly for  forty  years  in  the  land  to  the  west  of  the  Jordan 
(chap.  xiii.  1),  and  probably  increased  more  and  more  after  the 
disastrous  war  during  the  closing  years  of  the  high-priesthood  of 
Eli,  in  which  the  Israelites  suffered  a  sad  defeat,  and  even  lost  the 
ark  of  the  covenant,  which  was  taken  by  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  iv.). 
But  even  during  this  period,  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel  did  not 
leave  himself  without  witness,  either  in  the  case  of  His  enemies 
the  Philistines,  or  in  that  of  His  people  Israel.     The  triumphant 


chap,  xin.-xvi.  399 

delight  of  the  Philistines  at  the  capture  of  the  ark  was  soon  changed 
into  great  and  mortal  terror,  when  Dagon  their  idol  had  fallen 
down  from  its  place  before  the  ark  of  God  and  was  lying  upon  the 
threshold  of  its  temple  with  broken  head  and  arms ;  and  the  inha- 
bitants of  Ashdod,  Gath,  and  Ekron,  to  which  the  ark  was  taken, 
were  so  severely  smitten  with  boils  by  the  hand  of  Jehovah,  that 
the  princes  of  the  Philistines  felt  constrained  to  send  the  ark,  which 
brought  nothing  but  harm  to  their  people,  back  into  the  land  of 
the  Israelites,  and  with  it  a  trespass-offering  (1  Sam.  v.  vi.).  At 
this  time  the  Lord  had  also  raised  up  a  hero  for  His  people  in  the 
person  of  Samson,  whose  deeds  were  to  prove  to  the  Israelites  and 
Philistines  that  the  God  of  Israel  still  possessed  the  power  to  help 
His  people  and  smite  His  foes. 

The  life  and  acts  of  Samson,  who  was  to  begin  to  deliver  Israel 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  Philistines,  and  who  judged  Israel  for 
twenty  years  under  the  rule  of  the  Philistines  (chap.  xiii.  5  and  xv. 
20),  are  described  in  chap,  xiii.-xvi.  with  an  elaborate  fulness  which 
seems  quite  out  of  proportion  to  the  help  and  deliverance  which  he 
brought  to  his  people.  His  birth  was  foretold  to  his  parents  by  an 
appearance  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  and  the  boy  was  set  apart  as 
a  Nazarite  from  his  mother's  womb.  When  he  had  grown  up,  the 
Spirit  of  Jehovah  began  to  drive  him  to  seek  occasions  for  showing 
the  Philistines  his  marvellous  strength,  and  to  inflict  severe  blows 
upon  them  in  a  series  of  wonderful  feats,  until  at  length  he  was 
seduced  by  the  bewitching  Delilah  to  make  known  to  her  the 
secret  of  his  supernatural  strength,  and  was  betrayed  by  her  into 
the  power  of  the  Philistines,  who  deprived  him  of  the  sight  of  his 
eyes,  and  compelled  him  to  perform  the  hardest  and  most  degraded 
kinds  of  slave-labour.  From  this  he  was  only  able  to  escape  by 
bringing  about  his  own  death,  which  he  did  in  such  a  manner  that 
his  enemies  were  unable  to  triumph  over  him,  since  he  killed  more 
of  them  at  his  death  than  he  had  killed  during  the  whole  of  his 
life  before.  And  whilst  the  small  results  that  followed  from  the 
acts  of  this  hero  of  God  do  not  answer  the  expectations  thai  might 
naturally  be  formed  from  the  miraculous  announcement  of  bis 
birth,  the  nature  of  the  acts  which  he  performed  appears  still 
to  be  such  as  we  should  expect  from  a  hero  impelled  by  the  Spirit 
of  God.  His  actions  not  only  bear  the  stamp  of  adventure,  fool- 
hardiness,  and  wilfulness,  when  looked  at  outwardly,  but  they  are 
amiost  all  associated  with  love  affairs;  so  that  it  looks  as  if  Samson 
had  dishonoured   and  fooled   away  the  gift  entrusted   to  him,   by 


400  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

making  it  subservient  to  his  sensual  lusts,  and  thus  had  prepared 
the  way  for  his  own  ruin,  without  bringing  any  essential  help  to  his 
people.  "  The  man  who  carried  the  gates  of  Gaza  up  to  the  top 
of  the  mountain  was  the  slave  of  a  woman,  to  whom  he  frivolously 
betrayed  the  strength  of  his  Nazarite  locks.  These  locks  grew 
once  more,  and  his  strength  returned,  but  only  to  bring  death  at 
the  same  time  to  himself  and  his  foes"  (Ziegler).  Are  we  to  dis- 
cern in  such  a  character  as  this  a  warrior  of  the  Lord?  Can 
Samson,  the  promised  son  of  a  barren  woman,  a  Nazarite  from  his 
birth,  be  the  head  and  flower  of  the  judges  ?  We  do  not  pretend 
to  answer  these  questions  in  the  affirmative ;  and  to  justify  this  view 
we  start  from  the  fact,  which  Ewald  and  Diestel  both  admit  to  be 
historical,  that  the  deep  earnest  background  of  Samson's  nature  is 
to  be  sought  for  in  his  Nazarite  condition,  or  rather  that  it  is  in 
this  that  the  distinctive  significance  of  his  character  and  of  his  life 
and  deeds  as  judge  all  culminates.  The  Nazarite  was  not  indeed 
what  Bertheau  supposes  him  to  have  been,  "  a  man  separated  from 
human  pursuits  and  turmoil;"  but  the  significance  of  the  Nazarite 
condition  was  to  be  found  in  a  consecration  of  the  life  to  God, 
which  had  its  roots  in  living  faith,  and  its  outward  manifestations 
negatively,  in  abstinence  from  everything  unclean,  from  drinking 
wine,  and  even  from  fruit  of  the  vine  of  every  description,  and 
positively,  in  wearing  the  hair  uncut.  In  the  case  of  Samson  this 
consecration  of  the  life  to  God  was  not  an  act  of  his  own  free 
will,  or  a  vow  voluntarily  taken ;  but  it  was  imposed  upon  him  by 
divine  command  from  his  conception  and  birth.  As  a  Nazarite, 
i.e.  as  a  person  vowed  to  the  Lord,  he  was  to  begin  to  deliver  Israel 
out  of  the  hand  of  the  Philistines ;  and  the  bodily  sign  of  his  Naza- 
rite condition — namely,  the  hair  of  his  head  that  had  never  been 
touched  by  the  scissors — was  the  vehicle  of  his  supernatural  strength 
with  which  he  smote  the  Philistines.  In  Samson  the  Nazarite, 
however,  not  only  did  the  Lord  design  to  set  before  His  people 
a  man  towering  above  the  fallen  generation  in  heroic  strength, 
through  his  firm  faith  in  and  confident  reliance  upon  the  gift  of 
God  committed  to  him,  opening  up  before  it  the  prospect  of  a  renewal 
of  its  own  strength,  that  by  this  type  he  might  arouse  such  strength 
and  ability  as  were  still  slumbering  in  the  nation ;  but  Samson  was 
to  exhibit  to  his  age  generally  a  picture  on  the  one  hand  of  the 
strength  which  the  people  of  God  might  acquire  to  overcome  their 
strongest  foes  through  faithful  submission  to  the  Lord  their  God, 
and  on  the  other  hand  of  the  weakness  into  which  they  had  sunk 


CHAP.  XIII.-XVI.  401 

through  unfaithfulness  to  the  covenant  and  intercourse  with  the 
heathen.  And  it  is  in  this  typical  character  of  Samson  and  his  deeds 
that  we  find  the  head  and  flower  of  the  institution  of  judge  in  Israel. 

The  judges  whom  Jehovah  raised  up  in  the  interval  between 
Joshua  and  Samuel  were  neither  military  commanders  nor  gover- 
nors of  the  nation  ;  nor  were  they  authorities  instituted  by  God  and 
invested  with  the  government  of  the  state.  Thev  were  not  even 
chosen  from  the  heads  of  the  nation,  but  were  called  by  the  Lord 
out  of  the  midst  of  their  brethren  to  be  the  deliverers  of  the  nation, 
either  through  His  Spirit  which  came  upon  them,  or  through  pro- 
phets and  extraordinary  manifestations  of  God  ;  and  the  influence 
which  they  exerted,  after  the  conquest  and  humiliation  of  the  foe 
and  up  to  the  time  of  their  death,  upon  the  government  of  the 
nation  and  its  affairs  in  general,  was  not  the  result  of  any  official 
rank,  but  simply  the  fruit  and  consequence  of  their  personal  ability, 
and  therefore  extended  for  the  most  part  only  to  those  tribes  to 
whom  they  had  brought  deliverance  from  the  oppression  of  their 
foes.  The  tribes  of  Israel  did  not  want  any  common  secular  ruler 
to  fulfil  the  task  that  devolved  upon  the  nation  at  that  time  (see  p. 
240).  God  therefore  raised  up  even  the  judges  only  in  times  of 
distress  and  trouble.  For  their  appearance  and  work  were  simply 
intended  to  manifest  the  power  which  the  Lord  could  confer  upon 
His  people  through  His  Spirit,  and  were  designed,  on  the  one  hand, 
to  encourage  Israel  to  turn  seriously  to  its  God,  and  by  holding 
fast  to  His  covenant  to  obtain  the  power  to  conquer  all  its  foes ; 
and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  alarm  their  enemies,  that  they  might  not 
attribute  to  their  idols  the  power  which  they  possessed  to  subjugate 
the  Israelites,  but  might  learn  to  fear  the  omnipotence  of  the  true 
God.  This  divine  power  which  was  displayed  by  the  judges  cul- 
minated in  Samson.  When  the  Spirit  of  God  came  upon  him,  he 
performed  such  mighty  deeds  as  made  the  haughty  Philistines  feel 
the  omnipotence  of  Jehovah.  And  this  power  he  possessed  by 
virtue  of  his  condition  as  a  Nazarite,  because  he  had  been  vowed 
or  dedicated  to  the  Lord  from  his  mother's  womb,  so  long  as  he 
remained  faithful  to  the  vow  that  had  been  imposed  upon  him. 

But  just  as  his  strength  depended  upon  the  faithful  observance 
of  his  vow,  so  his  weakness  became  apparent  in  his  natural  cha- 
racter, particularly  in  his  intrigues  with  the  daughters  of  the 
Philistines;  and  in  this  weakness  there  was  reflected  the  natural 
character  of  the  nation  generally,  and  of  its  constant,  disposition  to 
fraternize  with   the   heathen.      Love   to  a   Philistine    woman    in 

2  C 


402  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Timnath  not  only  supplied  Samson  with  the  first  occasion  to 
exhibit  his  heroic  strength  to  the  Philistines,  but  involved  him  in  a 
series  of  conflicts  in  which  he  inflicted  severe  blows  upon  the  uncir- 
cumcised.  This  impulse  to  fight  against  the  Philistines  came  from 
Jehovah  (chap.  xiv.  4),  and  in  these  conflicts  Jehovah  assisted  him 
with  the  power  of  His  Spirit,  and  even  opened  up  a  fountain  of 
water  for  him  at  Lehi  in  the  midst  of  his  severe  fight,  for  the 
purpose  of  reviving  his  exhausted  strength  (chap.  xv.  19).  On  the 
other  hand,  in  his  intercourse  with  the  harlot  at  Gaza,  and  his  love 
affair  with  Delilah,  he  trod  ways  of  the  flesh  which  led  to  his 
ruin.  In  his  destruction,  which  was  brought  about  by  his  forfeiture 
of  the  pledge  of  the  divine  gift  entrusted  to  him,  the  insufficiency 
of  the  judgeship  in  itself  to  procure  for  the  people  of  God  supre- 
macy over  their  foes  became  fully  manifest ;  so  that  the  weakness 
of  the  judgeship  culminated  in  Samson  as  well  as  its  strength. 
The  power  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  bestowed  upon  the  judges  for  the 
deliverance  of  their  people,  was  overpowered  by  the  might  of  the 
flesh  lusting  against  the  spirit. 

This  special  call  received  from  God  will  explain  the  peculiarities 
observable  in  the  acts  which  he  performed, — not  only  the  smallness 
of  the  outward  results  of  his  heroic  acts,  but  the  character  of 
adventurous  boldness  by  which  they  were  distinguished.  Although 
he  had  been  set  apart  as  a  Nazarite  from  his  mother's  womb,  he 
was  not  to  complete  the  deliverance  of  his  people  from  the  hands 
of  the  Philistines,  but  simply  to  commence  it,  i.e.  to  show  to  the 
people,  by  the  manifestation  of  supernatural  heroic  power,  the  possi- 
bility of  deliverance,  or  to  exhibit  the  strength  with  which  a  man 
could  slay  a  thousand  foes.  To  answer  this  purpose,  it  was  necessary 
that  the  acts  of  Samson  should  differ  from  those  of  the  judges  who 
fought  at  the  head  of  military  forces,  and  should  exhibit  the  stamp 
of  confidence  and  boldness  in  the  full  consciousness  of  possessing 
divine  and  invincible  power. 

But  whilst  the  spirit  which  prevailed  in  Israel  during  the  time 
of  the  judges  culminated  in  the  nature  and  deeds  of  Samson  both 
in  its  weakness  and  strength,  the  miraculous  character  of  his  deeds, 
regarded  simply  in  themselves,  affords  no  ground  for  pronouncing 
the  account  a  mere  legend  which  has  transformed  historical  acts 
into  miracles,  except  from  a  naturalistic  point  of  view,  which 
rejects  all  miracles,  and  therefore  denies  a  priori  the  supernatural 
working  of  the  living  God  in  the  midst  of  His  people.  The  formal 
character  of  the  whole  of  the  history  of  Samson,  which  the  oppo 


CHAP.  XIII.-XVI.  403 

nents  of  the  biblical  revelation  adduce  for  the  further  support  of 
this  view,  does  not  yield  any  tenable  evidence  of  its  correctness- 
The  external  rounding  off  of  the  account  proves  nothing  more  than 
that  Samson's  life  and  acts  formed  in  themselves  a  compact  and 
well-rounded  whole.  But  the  assertion,  that  "  well-rounded  circum- 
stances form  a  suitable  framework  for  the  separate  accounts,  and 
that  precisely  twelve  acts  are  related  of  Samson,  which  are  united 
into  beautiful  pictures  and  narrated  in  artistic  order"  (IJeitheau), 
is  at  variance  with  the  actual  character  of  the  biblical  account.  In 
order  to  get  exactly  twelve  heroic  acts,  Bertheau  has  to  fix  the 
stamp  of  a  heroic  act  performed  by  Samson  himself  upon  the 
miraculous  help  which  he  received  from  God  through  the  opening 
up  of  a  spring  of  water  (chap.  xv.  18,  19),  and  also  to  split  up  a 
closely  connected  event,  such  as  his  breaking  the  bonds  three  times, 
into  three  different  actions.1  If  we  simply  confine  ourselves  to  the 
biblical  account,  the  acts  of  Samson  may  be  divided  into  two  parts. 
The  first  (chap.  xiv.  and  xv.)  contains  those  in  which  Samson 
smote  the  Philistines  with  gradually  increasing  severity ;  the  second 
(chap,  xvi.)  those  by  which  he  brought  about  his  own  fall  and  ruin. 
These  are  separated  from  one  another  by  the  account  of  the  time 
that  his  judgeship  lasted  (chap.  xv.  20),  and  this  account  is  briefly 
repeated  at  the  close  of  the  whole  account  (chap.  xvi.  31).  The 
first  part  includes  six  distinct  acts  which  are  grouped  together  iu 
twos  :  viz.  (1  and  2)  the  killing  of  the  lion  on  the  way  to  Timnath, 
and  the  slaughter  of  the  thirty  Philistines  for  the  purpose  of  paying 
for  the  solution  of  his  riddle  with  the  clothes  that  he  took  off  them 
(chap,  xiv.)  ;  (3  and  4)  his  revenge  upon  the  Philistines  by  burning 
their  crops,  because  his  wife  had  been  given  to  a  Philistine,  and 
also  by  the  great  slaughter  with  which  he  punished  them  for  having 

1  On  these  grounds,  L.  Diestel,  in  the  article  Samson  in  Herzoges  Cycl.,  has 
rejected  Bertheau's  enumeration  as  unsatisfactory ;  and  also  the  division  pro- 
posed by  Ewald  into  five  acts  with  three  turns  in  each,  because,  in  order  to 
arrive  at  this  grouping,  Eu-ald  is  not  only  obliged  to  refer  the  general  state- 
ment in  chap.  xiii.  25,  "  the  Spirit  of  God  began  to  drive  Samson,"  to  somo 
heroic  deed  which  is  not  described,  but  has  also  to  assume  that  in  the  case  of 
one  act  (the  carrying  away  of  the  gates  of  Gaza)  the  last  t  of  the 

legend  are  omitted  from  the  present  account,  although  in  all  the  I 
follows  Ewald's  view  almost  without  exception.     The  views  advanced  by  I 
and  Bertheau  form  the  foundation  of  RoskoJJTs  Monograph,    "the  legend  of 
Samson  in  its  origin,  form,  and  signification,  and  the  Legend  of  Bercul 
which  the  legend  of  Samson  is   regarded  as  au  Israelitiah  form  of   that  of 
Hercules. 


404  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

burned  his  father-in-law  and  wife  (chap.  xv.  1-8) ;  (5  and  6)  the 
bursting  of  the  cords  with  which  his  countrymen  had  bound  him 
for  the  purpose  of  delivering  him  up  to  the  Philistines,  and  the 
slaying  of  1000  Philistines  with  the  jaw-bone  of  an  ass  (chap.  xv. 
9-19).  The  second  part  of  his  life  comprises  only  three  acts :  viz. 
(1)  taking  off  the  town  gates  of  Gaza,  and  carrying  them  away 
(chap.  xvi.  1-3)  ;  (2)  breaking  the  bonds  with  which  Delilah 
bound  him  three  separate  times  (chap.  xvi.  4-14)  ;  and  (3)  his 
heroic  death  through  pulling  down  the  temple  of  Dagon,  after  he 
had  been  delivered  into  the  power  of  the  Philistines  through  the 
treachery  of  Delilah,  and  had  been  blinded  by  them  (chap.  xvi. 
15-31).  In  this  arrangement  there  is  no  such  artistic  shaping  or 
rounding  off  of  the  historical  materials  apparent,  as  could  indicate 
any  mythological  decoration.  And  lastly,  the  popular  language  of 
Samson  in  proverbs,  rhymes,  and  a  play  upon  words,  does  not 
warrant  us  in  maintaining  that  the  popular  legend  invented  this 
mode  of  expressing  his  thoughts,  and  put  the  words  into  his  mouth. 
All  this  leads  to  the  conclusion,  that  there  is  no  good  ground  for 
calling  in  question  the  historical  character  of  the  whole  account  of 
Samson's  life  and  deeds.1 

Chap.  xiii.  Birth  of  Samson. — Ver.  1.  The  oppression  of  the 
Israelites  by  the  Philistines,  which  is  briefly  hinted  at  in  chap.  x.  7, 
is  noticed  again  here  with  the  standing  formula,  "  And  the  children 
of  Israel  did  evil  again  in  the  sight  of  the  Lord"  etc.  (cf .  chap.  x.  6, 
iv.  1,  iii.  12),  as  an  introduction  to  the  account  of  the  life  and  acts 
of  Samson,  who  began  to  deliver  Israel  from  the  hands  of  these 
enemies.  Not  only  the  birth  of  Samson,  but  the  prediction  of  his 
birth,  also  fell,  according  to  ver.  5,  within  the  period  of  the  rule  of 
the  Philistines  over  Israel.  Now,  as  their  oppression  lasted  forty 
years,  and  Samson  judged  Israel  for  twenty  years  during  that 

1  No  safe  or  even  probable  conjecture  can  be  drawn  from  the  character  of 
the  history  before  us,  with  reference  to  the  first  written  record  of  the  life  of 
Samson,  or  the  sources  which  the  author  of  our  book  of  Judges  made  use  of  for 
this  portion  of  his  work.     The  recurrence  of  such  expressions  as  $>rP  followed 

"T 

by  an  infinitive  (chap.  xiii.  5,  25,  xvi.  19,  22),  iflB  (chap.  xiv.  15,  xvi.  5), 
p^H  (chap.  xiv.  17,  xvi.  16,  etc.),  upon  which  Bertlieau  lays  such  stress,  arises 
from  the  actual  contents  of  the  narrative  itself.  The  same  expressions  also 
occur  in  other  places  where  the  thought  requires  them,  and  therefore  they  form 
no  such  peculiarities  of  style  as  to  warrant  the  conclusion  that  the  life  of 
Samson  was  the  subject  of  a  separate  work  (Ewald),  or  that  it  was  a  fragment 
taken  from  a  larger  history  of  the  wars  of  the  Philistines  (Bertheau). 


CHAP.  XIII.  2-7  405 

oppression  (chap.  xv.  20,  xvi.  31),  he  must  have  commenced  his 
judgeship  at  an  early  age,  probably  before  the  completion  of  his 
twentieth  year ;  and  with  this  the  statement  in  chap,  xiv.,  that  his 
marriage  with  a  Philistine  woman  furnished  the  occasion  for  his 
conflicts  with  these  enemies  of  his  people,  fully  agrees.  The  end  of 
the  forty  years  of  the  supremacy  of  the  Philistines  is  not  given  in 
this  book,  which  closes  with  the  death  of  Samson.  It  did  not  ter- 
minate till  the  great  victory  which  the  Israelites  gained  over  their 
enemies  under  the  command  of  Samuel  (I  Sam.  vii.).  Twenty 
years  before  this  victory  the  Philistines  had  sent  back  the  ark  which 
they  had  taken  from  the  Israelites,  after  keeping  it  for  seven  months 
in  their  own  land  (1  Sam.  vii.  2,  and  vi.  1).  It  was  within  these 
twenty  years  that  most  of  the  acts  of  Samson  occurred.  His  first 
affair  with  the  Philistines,  however,  namely  on  the  occasion  of  his 
marriage,  took  place  a  year  or  two  before  this  defeat  of  the  Israelites, 
in  which  the  sons  of  Eli  were  slain,  the  ark  fell  into  the  hands  of 
the  Philistines,  and  the  high  priest  Eli  fell  from  his  seat  and  broke 
his  neck  on  receiving  the  terrible  news  (1  Sam.  iv.  18).  Conse- 
quently Eli  died  a  short  time  after  the  first  appearance  of  Samson 
(see  p.  282). 

Vers.  2-7.  Whilst  the  Israelites  were  given  into  the  hands  of 
the  Philistines  on  account  of  their  sins,  and  were  also  severely 
oppressed  in  Gilead  on  the  part  of  the  Ammonites,  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  appeared  to  the  wife  of  Manoah,  a  Danite  from  Zorea,  i.e. 
Sui'a,  on  the  western  slope  of  the  mountains  of  Judah  (see  at  Josh, 
xv.  33).  Mishpachath  JJani  (the  family  of  the  Dankes)  is  used 
interchangeably  with  shebet  Dani  (the  tribe  of  the  Danites:  see 
chap,  xviii.  2,  11,  and  xviii.  1,  30),  which  may  be  explained  on  this 
ground,  that  according  to  Num.  xxvi.  42,  43,  all  the  Danites  formed 
but  one  family,  viz.  the  family  of  the  Shuhamites.  The  angel  of 
the  Lord  announced  to  this  woman,  who  was  barren,  "  Thou  wilt 
conceive  and  bear  a  son.  And  now  beware,  drink  no  wine  or  strong 
drink,  and  eat  nothing  unclean:  for,  behold,  thou  wilt  conceive  and 
bear  a  son,  and  no  razor  shall  come  upon  his  head;  for  n  vowed  man 
of  God  (Nazb')  will  the  boy  be  from  his  mother's  womb"  i.e.  his 
whole  life  long,  "to  the  day  of  his  deatli,"  as  the  angel  expressly 
affirmed,  according  to  ver.  7.  The  three  prohibitions  which  the 
angel  of  the  Lord  imposed  upon  the  woman  were  the  three  things 
which  distinguished  the  condition  of  a  Nazarite  (see  at  Num.  vi.  1  8, 
and  the  explanation  given  there  of  the  Nazarite  vow).  The  only 
other  thing  mentioned  in  the  Mosaic  law  is  the  warning  against 


406  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

defilement  from  contact  with  the  dead,  which  does  not  seem  to  have 
been  enforced  in  the  case  of  Samson.  When  the  angel  added  still 
further,  "  And  he  (the  Nazarite)  will  begin  to  deliver  Israel  out  of 
the  hand  of  the  Philistines"  he  no  doubt  intended  to  show  that  his 
power  to  effect  this  deliverance  would  be  closely  connected  with  his 
condition  as  a  Nazarite.  The  promised  son  was  to  be  a  Nazarite 
all  his  life  long,  because  he  was  to  begin  to  deliver  Israel  out  of  the 
power  of  his  foes.  And  in  order  that  he  might  be  so,  his  mother 
was  to  share  in  the  renunciations  of  the  Nazarite  vow  during  the 
time  of  her  pregnancy.  Whilst  the  appearance  of  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  contained  the  practical  pledge  that  the  Lord  still  acknow- 
ledged His  people,  though  He  had  given  them  into  the  hands  of 
their  enemies ;  the  message  of  the  angel  contained  this  lesson  and 
warning  for  Israel,  that  it  could  only  obtain  deliverance  from  its 
foes  by  seeking  after  a  life  of  consecration  to  the  Lord,  such  as  the 
Nazarites  pursued,  so  as  to  realize  the  idea  of  the  priestly  character 
to  which  Israel  had  been  called  as  the  people  of  Jehovah,  by 
abstinence  from  the  delicice  carnis,  and  everything  that  was  unclean, 
as  being  emanations  of  sin,  and  also  by  a  complete  self-surrender  to 
the  Lord  (see  Pentateuch,  vol.  iii.  p.  38). — Vers.  6,  7.  The  woman 
told  her  husband  of  this  appearance :  "  A  man  of  God"  she  said 
(lit.  the  man  of  God,  viz.  the  one  just  referred  to),  "  came  to  me,  and 
his  appearance  %vas  like  the  appearance  of  the  angel  of  God,  very 
terrible ;  and  1  ashed  him  not  whence  he  teas,  neither  told  he  me 
his  name"  etc.  "  Man  of  God"  was  the  expression  used  to  denote 
a  prophet,  or  a  man  who  stood  in  immediate  intercourse  with  God, 
such  as  Moses  and  others  (see  at  Deut.  xxxiii.  1).  "  Angel  of  God" 
is  equivalent  to  "  angel  of  the  Lord"  (chap.  ii.  1,  vi.  11),  the  angel 
in  whom  the  invisible  God  reveals  himself  to  men.  The  woman 
therefore  imagined  the  person  who  appeared  to  her  to  have  been 
a  prophet,  whose  majestic  appearance,  however,  had  produced  the 
impression  that  he  was  a  superior  being ;  consequently  she  had  not 
ventured  to  ask  him  either  his  name  or  where  he  came  from. 

Vers.  8-20.  Being  firmly  convinced  of  the  truth  of  this  an- 
nouncement, and  at  the  same  time  reflecting  upon  the  obligation 
which  it  imposed  upon  the  parents,  Manoah  prayed  to  the  Lord 
that  He  would  let  the  man  of  God  whom  He  had  sent  come  to 
them  again,  to  teach  them  what  they  were  to  do  to  the  boy  that 
should  be  born,  i.e.  how  they  should  treat  him.  TO*D,  according  to 
the  Keri  *l?sn,  is  a  participle  Pual  with  the  D  dropped  (see  Ewald, 
§  169,  b.).     This  prayer  was  heard.     The  angel  of  God  appeared 


CHAP.  XIII.  8-20.  407 

once  more  to  the  woman  when  she  was  sitting  alone  in  the  field 
without  her  husband. — Vers.  10,  11.  Then  she  hastened  to  fetch  her 
husband,  who  first  of  all  inquired  of  the  person  who  had  appeared, 
"  Art  thou  the  man  who  said  to  the  woman"  (sc.  what  has  been  related 
in  vers.  3-5)  %  And  when  this  was  answered  in  the  affirmative,  he 
said  still  further  (ver.  12),  "  Should  thy  word  then  come  to  pass, 
what  will  be  the  manner  of  the  hoy,  and  his  doing?"  The  plural 
T"^  is  construed  ad  sensum  with  a  singular  verb,  because  the  words 
form  one  promise,  so  that  the  expression  is  not  to  be  taken  distri- 
butively,  as  Rosenmüller  supposes.  This  also  applies  to  ver.  17. 
Mishpat,  the  right  belonging  to  the  boy,  i.e.  the  proper  treatment 
of  him. — Vers.  13,  14.  The  angel  of  the  Lord  then  repeated  the 
instructions  which  he  had  already  given  to  the  woman  in  ver.  4, 
simply  adding  to  the  prohibition  of  wine  and  strong  drink  the 
caution  not  to  eat  of  anything  that  came  from  the  vine,  in  accord- 
ance with  Num.  vi.  3. — Ver.  15.  As  Manoah  had  not  yet  recognised 
in  the  man  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  as  is  observed  by  way  of  explana- 
tion in  ver.  16,  he  wished,  like  Gideon  (chap.  vi.  18),  to  give  a 
hospitable  entertainment  to  the  man  who  had  brought  him  such 
joyful  tidings,  and  therefore  said  to  him,  "  Let  us  detain  thee,  and 
prepare  a  kid  for  thee."  The  construction  TP3?  nfe>M  is  a  pregnant 
one  :  "  prepare  and  set  before  thee."  On  the  fact  itself,  see  chap. 
vi.  19. — Ver.  16.  The  angel  of  the  Lord  replied,  "If  thou  wilt 
detain  me  (sc.  that  I  may  eat),  I  will  not  eat  of  thy  food  (?3N  with  3, 
to  eat  thereat,  i.e.  thereof,  as  in  Ex.  xii.  43,  Lev.  xxii.  11) ;  but  if 
thou  wilt  prepare  a  burnt-offering  for  Jehovah,  then  offer  it" — Ver. 
17.  Manoah  then  asked  his  name:  *!ÖB>  ^p,  lit.  "  Wlio  is  thy  nam,  .'" 
*D  inquires  after  the  person  ;  no,  the  nature  or  quality  (see  Ewald, 
§  325,  a.).  "  For  if  thy  word  come  topass,  ice  will  do  thee  honour" 
This  was  the  reason  why  he  asked  after  his  name.  133,  to  honour 
by  presents,  so  as  to  show  one's  self  grateful  (see  Num.  xxii.  17,  37, 
xxiv.  11). — Ver.  18.  The  angel  replied,  "  Why  askest  thou  then  aft,  r 
my  name?  truly  it  is  wonderful"  Tha  Kethibh  sK?t  is  the  adjectival 
form  "WS  from  N?s,  for  which  the  Keri  has  vB,  the  pausal  form  of 
*^B  (from  the  radical  n?3  =  x?Q).  The  word  therefore  ifl  not  the 
proper  name  of  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  but  expresses  the  character 
of  his  name  ;  and  as  the  name  simply  denotes  the  nature,  it  expr 
the  peculiarity  of  his  nature  also.  It  is  to  be  understood  in  an  abso- 
lute sense — "absolutely  and  supremely  wonderful"  (Seb.  Schmidt) — 
as  a  predicate  belonging  to  God  alone  (compare  the  term  "  Wonder- 
ful"  in  Isa.  ix.  6),  and  not  to  be  toned  down  as  it  is  by  JJoiheuu, 


408  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

who  explains  it  as  signifying  "neither  easy  to  utter  nor  easy  to 
comprehend." — Vers.  19,  20.  Manoah  then  took  the  kid  and  the 
minchah,  i.e.,  according  to  Num.  xv.  4  sqq.,  the  meat-offering  be- 
longing to  the  burnt-offering,  and  offered  it  upon  the  rock,  which 
is  called  an  altar  in  ver.  20,  because  the  angel  of  the  Lord,  who  is 
of  one  nature  with  God,  had  sanctified  it  as  an  altar  through  the 
miraculous  acceptance  of  the  sacrifice,  filthy?  **??'?,  "  and  wonder- 
fully (miraculously)  did  he  act"  (^Y^n  followed  by  the  infinitive 
with  ?  as  in  2  Chron.  xxvi.  15).  These  words  form  a  circumstantial 
clause,  which  is  not  to  be  attached,  however,  to  the  subject  of  the 
principal  clause,  but  to  Hin''? :  "  Manoah  offered  the  sacrifice  to  the 
Lord,  whereupon  He  acted  to  do  wonderfully,  i.e.  He  performed  a 
wonder  or  miracle,  and  Manoah  and  his  wife  saw  it"  (see  Ewald, 
Lehrb.  §  341,  b.,  p.  724,  note).  In  what  the  miracle  consisted 
is  explained  in  ver.  20,  in  the  words,  u  when  the  flame  went  up 
toward  heaven  from  off  the  altar ;"  that  is  to  say,  in  the  fact  that  a 
flame  issued  from  the  rock,  as  in  the  case  of  Gideon's  sacrifice 
(chap.  vi.  21),  and  consumed  the  sacrifice.  And  the  angel  of  the 
Lord  ascended  in  this  flame.  When  Manoah  and  his  wife  saw 
this,  they  fell  upon  their  faces  to  the  earth  (sc.  in  worship),  because 
they  discovered  from  the  miracle  that  it  was  the  angel  of  the  Lord 
who  had  appeared  to  them. 

Vers.  21-25.  From  that  time  forward  the  Lord  did  not  appear 
to  them  again.  But  Manoah  was  afraid  that  he  and  his  wife  should 
die,  because  they  had  seen  God  (on  this  belief,  see  the  remarks  on 
Gen.  xvi.  13  and  Ex.  xxxiii.  20).  His  wife  quieted  his  fears,  how- 
ever, and  said,  "  Jehovah  cannot  intend  to  kill  us,  as  He  has  accepted 
our  sacrifice,  and  has  shown  us  all  this"  (the  twofold  miracle).  "And 
at  this  time  He  has  not  let  us  see  such  things  as  these."  J1JJ3,  at  the 
time  in  which  we  live,  even  if  such  things  may  possibly  have  taken 
place  in  the  hoary  antiquity. — Ver.  24.  The  promise  of  God  was 
fulfilled.  The  boy  whom  the  woman  bare  received  the  name  of 
Samson.  f\WVW  (LXX.,  Sa^cov)  does  not  mean  sun-like,  hero  of 
the  sun,  from  W®V  (the  sun),  but,  as  Josephus  explains  it  (Ant.  v. 
8,  4),  Icr^ypo^,  the  strong  or  daring  one,  from  Dit^p^,  from  the 
intensive  form  D^P^',  from  &9^,  in  its  original  sense  to  be  strong 
or  daring,  not  "  to  devastate."  T[B>  is  an  analogous  word  :  lit.  to 
be  powerful,  then  to  act  powerfully,  to  devastate.  The  boy  grew 
under  the  blessing  of  God  (see  1  Sam.  ii.  21). — Ver.  25.  When  he 
had  grown  up,  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  began  to  thrust  him  in  the 
camp  of  Dan.     DJJ£>,  to  thrust,  denoting  the  operation  of  the  Spirit 


CHAP.  XIV.  1-9.  409 

of  God  within  him,  which  took  possession  of  him  suddenly,  and 
impelled  him  to  put  forth  supernatural  powers.  Mahaneh-Dan,  the 
camp  of  Dan,  was  the  name  given  to  the  district  in  which  the 
Danites  who  emigrated,  according  to  chap,  xviii.  12,  from  the 
inheritance  of  their  tribe,  had  pitched  their  encampment  behind, 
i.e.  to  the  west  of,  Kirjath-jearim,  or  according  to  this  verse,  between 
Zorea  and  Eshtaol.  The  situation  cannot  be  determined  precisely, 
as  the  situation  of  Eshtaol  itself  has  not  been  discovered  yet  (see 
at  Josh.  xv.  33).  It  was  there  that  Samson  lived  with  his  parents, 
judging  from  chap.  xvi.  31.  The  meaning  of  this  verse,  which 
forms  the  introduction  to  the  following  account  of  the  acts  of 
Samson,  is  simply  that  Samson  was  there  seized  by  the  Spirit  of 
Jehovah,  and  impelled  to  commence  the  conflict  with  the  Philis- 
tines. 

Chap.  xiv.  Samson's  First  Transactions  with  the  Phi- 
listines.— Vers.  1-9.  At  Tibnath,  the  present  Tihne,  an  hour's 
journey  to  the  south-west  of  Sur'a  (see  at  Josh.  xv.  10),  to  which 
Samson  had  gone  down  from  Zorea  or  Mahaneh-Dan,  he  saw  a 
daughter  of  the  Philistines  who  pleased  him  ;  and  on  his  return  he 
asked  his  parents  to  take  her  for  him  as  a  wife  (nP?,  to  take,  as  in 
Ex.  xxi.  9). — Vers.  3,  4.  His  parents  expressed  their  astonishment 
at  the  choice,  and  asked  him  whether  there  was  not  a  woman  among 
the  daughters  of  his  brethren  (i.e.  the  members  of  his  own  tribe), 
or  among  all  his  people,  that  he  should  want  to  fetch  one  from  the 
Philistines,  the  uncircumcised.  But  Samson  repeated  his  request, 
because  the  daughter  of  the  Philistines  pleased  him.  The  aversion 
of  his  parents  to  the  marriage  was  well  founded,  as  such  a  marriage 
was  not  in  accordance  with  the  law.  It  is  true  that  the  only 
marriages  expressly  prohibited  in  Ex.  xxxiv.  16  and  Deut.  vii.  3,  4, 
are  marriages  with  Canaanitish  women;  but  the  reason  assigned  for 
this  prohibition  was  equally  applicable  to  marriages  with  daughters 
of  the  Philistines.  In  fact,  the  Philistines  are  reckoned  among  the 
Canaanites  in  Josh.  xiii.  3  upon  the  very  same  ground.  But 
Samson  was  acting  under  a  higher  impulse,  whereas  his  parents 
did  not  know  that  it  was  from  Jehovah,  i.e.  that  Jehovah  had  so 
planned  it;  " for  Samson  was  seeking  an  opportunity  on  account  of 
the  Philistines"  i.e.  an  occasion  to  quarrel  with  them,  because,  as  is 
afterwards  added  in  the  form  of  an  explanatory  circumstantial 
clause,  the  Philistines  had  dominion  over  Israel  at  thai  time. 
rUKfo,  air.  Xey.,  an  opportunity  (cf.  niKrin,  2  Kings  v.  7). — Vers.  5,  6. 


410  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

"When  Samson  went  down  with  his  parents  to  Timnath,  a  young 
lion  came  roaring  towards  him  at  the  vineyards  of  that  town.  Then 
the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  came  upon  him,  so  that  he  tore  the  lion  in 
pieces  as  a  kid  is  torn  (lit.  "  like  the  tearing  in  pieces  of  the  kid"), 
although  he  had  nothing,  i.e.  no  weapon,  in  his  hand.  David,  when 
a  shepherd,  and  the  hero  Benaiah,  also  slew  lions  (1  Sam.  xvii.  34, 
35 ;  2  Sam.  xxiii.  20)  ;  and  even  at  the  present  day  Arabs  some- 
times kill  lions  with  a  staff  (see  Winer,  Bibl.  R.  W.  Art.  Löwe). 
Samson's  supernatural  strength,  the  effect  of  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah, 
which  came  upon  him,  was  simply  manifested  in  the  fact  that  he 
tore  the  lion  in  pieces  without  any  weapon  whatever  in  his  hand. 
But  he  said  nothing  about  it  to  his  parents,  who  were  not  eye- 
witnesses of  the  deed.  This  remark  is  introduced  in  connection 
with  what  follows. — Ver.  7.  When  he  came  to  Timnath  he  talked 
with  the  girl,  and  she  pleased  him.  He  had  only  seen  her  before 
(ver.  1)  ;  but  now  that  his  parents  had  asked  for  her,  he  talked 
with  her,  and  found  the  first  impression  that  he  had  received  of  her 
fully  confirmed. — Ver.  8.  When  some  time  had  elapsed  after  the 
betrothal,  he  came  again  to  fetch  her  (take  her  home,  marry  her), 
accompanied,  as  we  learn  from  ver.  9,  by  his  parents.  On  the  way 
"  he  turned  aside  (from  the  road)  to  see  the  carcase  of  the  lion ;  and 
behold  a  swarm  of  bees  was  in  the  body  of  the  lion,  also  honey"  The 
word  n<?Sö,  which  only  occurs  here,  is  derived  from  PB3,  like  irrcö/xa 
from  iriirrco,  and  is  synonymous  with  ^733,  cadaver,  and  signifies  not 
the  mere  skeleton,  as  bees  would  not  form  their  hive  in  such  a  place, 
but  the  carcase  of  the  lion,  which  had  been  thoroughly  dried  up 
by  the  heat  of  the  sun,  without  passing  into  a  state  of  putrefaction. 
"  In  the  desert  of  Arabia  the  heat  of  a  sultry  season  will  often 
dry  up  all  the  moisture  of  men  or  camels  that  have  fallen  dead, 
within  twenty-four  hours  of  their  decease,  without  their  passing  into 
a  state  of  decomposition  and  putrefaction,  so  that  they  remain  for 
a  long  time  like  mummies,  without  change  and  without  stench" 
{Rosenmüller,  Bibl.  Althk.  iv.  2,  p.  424).  In  a  carcase  dried  up  in 
this  way,  a  swarm  of  bees  might  form  their  hive,  just  as  well  as  in 
the  hollow  trunks  of  trees,  or  clefts  in  the  rock,  or  where  wild  bees 
are  accustomed  to  form  them,  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  bees 
avoid  both  dead  bodies  and  carrion  (see  Bochart,  Hieroz.  ed.  Ros.  iii. 
p.  355). — Ver.  9.  Samson  took  it  (the  honey)  in  his  hands,  ate  some 
of  it  as  he  went,  and  also  gave  some  to  his  father  and  mother  to  eat, 
but  did  not  tell  them  that  he  had  got  the  honey  out  of  the  dead  body 
of  the  lion  ;  for  in  that  case  they  would  not  only  have  refused  to 


CHAP.  XIV.  10-20.  411 

eat  il  as  being  unclean,  but  would  have  been  aware  of  the  fact, 
which  Samson  afterwards  took  as  the  subject  of  the  riddle  that  he 
proposed  to  the  Philistines.  FTT1,  to  tread,  to  tread  down  ;  hence  to 
get  forcible  possession  of,  not  to  break  or  to  take  out,  neither  of 
which  meanings  can  be  established.     The  combination  of  rm  and 

/  °  TT 

VS3"?N  is  a  pregnant  construction,  signifying  to  obtain  possession  of 
and  take  into  the  hands. 

Vers.  10-20.  Samsons  Wedding  and  Riddle.— Yer.  10.  When 
his  father  had  come  down  to  the  girl  (sc.  to  keep  the  wedding,  not 
merely  to  make  the  necessary  preparations  for  his  marriage),  Sam- 
son prepared  for  a  feast  there  (in  Timnath),  according  to  the 
usual  custom  (for  so  used  the  young  men  to  do). — Ver.  11.  "  And 
when  they  saw  him,  they  fetched  thirty  friends,  and  they  were  with 
him."  The  parents  or  relations  of  the  bride  are  the  subject  of  the 
first  clause.  They  invited  thirty  of  their  friends  in  Timnath  to 
the  marriage  feast,  as  "  children  of  the  bride-chamber"  (Matt.  ix. 
15),  since  Samson  had  not  brought  any  with  him.  The  reading 
DrriiOS  from  nx~i  needs  no  alteration,  though  Bertlteau  would  rend 
DriN"i3  from  N"V,  in  accordance  with  the  rendering  of  the  LXX. 
(Cod.  Al.)  and  of  Josephus,  ev  ra>  (poßeiaßac  avTov<;.  Fear  of 
Samson  would  neither  be  in  harmony  with  the  facts  themselves, 
nor  with  the  words  ins  Vrn,  "  they  were  with  him,'"  which  it  is  felt 
to  be  necessary  to  paraphrase  in  the  most  arbitrary  manner  "  they 
watched  him." — Yer.  12.  At  the  wedding  feast  Samson  said  to  the 
guests,  "  /  will  give  you  a  riddle.  If  you  show  it  to  me  during  the 
seven  days  of  the  meal  (the  wedding  festival),  and  guess  it,  I  will 
give  you  thirty  sedinim  (<riv86ve<;,  tunicce,  i.e.  clothes  worn  next  to 
the  skin)  and  thirty  changes  of  garments  (costly  dresses,  that  were 
frequently  changed  :  see  at  Gen.  xlv.  22)  ;  but  if  ye  cannot  show  it 
to  me,  ye  shall  give  me  the  same  number  of  garments."  The  custom 
of  proposing  riddles  at  banquets  by  way  of  entertainment  is  also 
to  be  met  with  among  the  ancient  Grecians.  (For  proofs  from 
Athenodus,  Pollux,  Gellius,  see  Bochart,  Ilieroz.  P.  ii.  1.  ii.  c.  12  ; 
and  K.  0.  Müller,  Doner,  ii.  p.  392).  As  the  guests  consented  to 
this  proposal,  Samson  gave  them  the  following  riddle  (ver.  11): 
"  Out  of  the  eater  came  forth  meat,  and  out  of  the  strong  came  forth 
sweetness."  This  riddle  they  could  not  show,  i.e.  solve,  for  three 
days.  That  is  to  say,  they  occupied  themselves  for  throe  days  in 
trying  to  find  the  solution  ;  after  that  they  let  the  matter  rest  until 
the  appointed  term  was  drawing  near. — Ver.  15.  On  the  seventh 
day  they  said  to  Samson's  wife,  "  Persuade  thy  husband  to  show  ua 


412  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES 

the  riddle"  sc.  through  thee,  without  his  noticing  it,  "  lest  we  burn 
tine  and  thy  father  s  house  with  fire.  Have  ye  invited  us  to  make  us 
poor ;  is  it  not  so  V  In  this  threat  the  barbarism  and  covetousness 
of  the  Philistines  came  openly  to  light.  UBhvfl  without  Metheg  in 
the  \  is  the  inf.  Kal  of  BHJ,  to  make  poor, — a  meaning  derived 
from  inheriting,  not  the  Piel  of  EH*  =  S5TI,  to  be  poor.  N?n,  nonne, 
strengthens  the  interrogative  clause,  and  has  not  the  signification 
"  here"  =  D?n.  Samson's  wife,  however,  wept  over  him,  i.e.  urged 
him  with  tears  in  her  eyes,  and  said,  "  Thou  dost  but  hate  me,  and 
lovest  me  not ;  thou  hast  put  forth  a  riddle  unto  the  children  of  my 
people  (my  countrymen),  and  hast  not  shown  it  to  me."  n^1r}  is 
from  Tin.  Samson  replied,  that  he  had  not  even  shown  it  to  his 
father  and  mother,  uand  shall  I  show  it  to  thee?" — Ver.  17.  "  Thus 
his  wife  wept  before  him  the  seven  days  of  the  banquet."  This  state- 
ment is  not  at  variance  with  that  in  ver.  15,  to  the  effect  that  it 
was  only  on  the  seventh  day  that  the  Philistine  young  men  urged 
her  with  threats  to  entice  Samson  to  tell  the  riddle,  but  may  be 
explained  very  simply  in  the  following  manner.  The  woman  had 
already  come  to  Samson  every  day  with  her  entreaties  from  simple 
curiosity ;  but  Samson  resisted  them  until  the  seventh  day,  when 
she  became  more  urgent  than  ever,  in  consequence  of  this  threat 
on  the  part  of  the  Philistines.  And  "  Samson  showed  it  to  her, 
because  she  lay  sore  upon  him ;"  whereupon  she  immediately  be- 
trayed it  to  her  countrymen. — Ver.  18.  Thus  on  the  seventh  day, 
before  the  sun  went  down  (HDin  =  Dnn,  chap.  viii.  13  ;  Job.  ix.  7, 
with  a  toneless  ah,  sl  softening  down  of  the  feminine  termination  : 
see  Ewald,  §  173,  A.),  the  men  of  the  city  (i.e.  the  thirty  young 
men  who  had  been  invited)  said  to  Samson,  "  What  is  sweeter 
than  honey,  and  what  stronger  than  a  lion?"  But  Samson  saw 
through  the  whole  thing,  and  replied,  "  If  ye  had  not  ploughed 
with  my  heifer,  ye  had  not  hit  upon  (guessed)  my  riddle" — a  pro- 
verbial saying,  the  meaning  of  which  is  perfectly  clear. — Ver.  19. 
Nevertheless  he  was  obliged  to  keep  his  promise  (ver.  12).  Then 
the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  came  upon  him.  He  went  down  to  Ash- 
kelon,  slew  thirty  men  of  them,  i.e.  of  the  Ashkelonites,  took  their 
clothes  (ntevn,  exuvioe :  see  2  Sam.  ii.  21),  and  gave  the  changes  of 
garments  to  those  who  had  shown  the  riddle.  This  act  is  described 
as  the  operation  of  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  which  came  upon  Samson, 
because  it  showed  to  the  Philistines  the  superior  power  of  the  servants 
of  Jehovah.  It  was  not  carnal  revenge  that  had  impelled  Samson 
to  the  deed.     It  was  not  till  the  deed  itself  was  done  that  his  anger 


CHAP.  XV.  1-8.  413 

was  kindled  ;  and  even  then  it  was  not  against  the  Philistines,  to 
whom  he  had  been  obliged  to  pay  or  give  the  thirty  garments,  but 
against  his  wife,  who  had  betrayed  his  secret  to  her  countrymen, 
so  that  he  returned  to  his  father's  house,  viz.  without  his  wife. — 
Ver.  20.  "  And  Samsons  wife  ivas  given  to  his  friend,  whom  he  had 
chosen  as  a  friend."  JHO  is  no  doubt  to  be  understood  here  in  the 
sense  of  "the  friend  of  the  bridegroom"  (John  iii.  29),  6  vvfj-faycoyo? 
(LXX.),  the  conductor  of  the  bride, — namely,  one  of  the  thirty 
companions  (ver.  10),  whom  Samson  had  entrusted  with  this  office  at 
the  marriage  festival.  The  faithlessness  of  the  Philistines  towards 
the  Israelites  was  no  doubt  apparent  here ;  for  even  if  Samson 
went  home  enraged  at  the  treacherous  behaviour  of  his  wife,  with- 
out taking  her  with  him,  he  did  not  intend  to  break  the  marriage 
tie,  as  chap.  xv.  1,  2  clearly  shows.  So  that  instead  of  looking 
at  the  wrong  by  which  Samson  felt  himself  aggrieved,  and  trying 
to  mitigate  his  wrath,  the  parents  of  the  woman  made  the  breach 
irreparable  by  giving  their  daughter  as  a  wife  to  his  companion. 

Chap.  xv.  Further  Acts  of  Samson. — Vers.  1-8.  His  revenge 
upon  the  Philistines. — Ver.  1.  Some  time  after,  Samson  visited  his 
wife  in  the  time  of  the  wheat  harvest  with  a  kid, — a  customary 
present  at  that  time  (Gen.  xxxviii.  17), — and  wished  to  go  into  the 
chamber  (the  women's  apartment)  to  her;  but  her  father  would  not 
allow  him,  and  said,  "  /  thought  thou  hatedst  her,  and  therefore  gave 
her  to  thy  friend  (chap.  xiv.  20)  :  behold  Iter  younger  sister  is  fairer 
than  she;  let  her  he  thine  in  her  stead" — Ver.  3.  Enraged  at  this 
answer,  Samson  said  to  them  (i.e.  to  her  father  and  those  around 
him),  "  Now  am  I  blameless  before  the  Philistines,  if  I  do  evil  to 
them"  n|33  with  \0,  to  be  innocent  away  from  a  person,  i.e.  before 
him  (see  Num.  xxxii.  22).  Samson  regarded  the  treatment  which 
he  had  received  from  his  father-in-law  as  but  one  effect  of  the 
disposition  of  the  Philistines  generally  towards  the  Israelites,  and 
therefore  resolved  to  avenge  the  wrong  which  he  had  received  from 
one  member  of  the  Philistines  upon  the  whole  nation,  or  at  all 
events  upon  the  whole  of  the  city  of  Timnath. — Vers.  4,  5.  Be 
therefore  went  and  caught  three  hundred  shualim,  i.e.  jackals, 
animals  which  resemble  foxes  and  are  therefore  frequently  classed 
among  the  foxes  even  by  the  common  Arabs  of  the  present  day 
(see  Niebnhr,  Beschr.  v.  Arab.  p.  16G).  Their  European  nam.'  is 
derived  from  the  Persian  schaghal.  These  animals,  which  are  still 
found  in   great  quantities  at  Joppa,  Gaza,  and  in  Galilee,  herd 


414  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

together,  and  may  easily  be  caught  (see  Rosenmüller,  Bibl.  Althk. 
iv.  2,  pp.  155  sqq.).  He  then  took  torches,  turned  tail  to  tail,  i.e. 
toupled  the  jackals  together  by  their  tails,  putting  a  torch  between 
the  two  tails,  set  the  torches  on  fire,  and  made  the  animals  run  into 
the  fields  of  standing  corn  belonging  to  the  Philistines.  Then  he 
burned  "from  the  shocks  of  wheat  to  the  standing  grain  and  to  the 
olive  gardens"  i.e.  the  shocks  of  wheat  as  well  as  the  standing  corn 
and  the  olive  plantations.  JVT  E"}3  are  joined  together  in  the  con- 
struct state. — Ver.  6.  The  Philistines  found  out  at  once,  that  Samson 
had  done  them  this  injury  because  his  father-in-law,  the  Timnite, 
had  taken  away  his  wife  and  given  her  to  his  companion.  They 
therefore  avenged  themselves  by  burning  her  and  her  father, — 
probably  by  burning  his  house  down  to  the  ground,  with  its  occu- 
pants within  it,  —  an  act  of  barbarity  and  cruelty  which  fully 
justified  Samson's  war  upon  them. — Ver.  7.  Samson  therefore 
declared  to  them,  "  If  ye  do  such  things,  truly  ("'S)  when  I  have 
avenged  myself  upon  you,  then  will  I  cease,"  i.e.  I  will  not  cease  till 
I  have  taken  vengeance  upon  you. — Ver.  8.  "  Then  he  smote  them 
hip  and  thigh  (lit.  l  thigh  upon  hip ;'  ?V  as  in  Gen.  xxxii.  12),  a 
great  slaughter."  pitJ>,  thigh,  strengthened  by  TlV"''^  *s  a  second 
accusative  governed  by  the  verb,  and  added  to  define  the  word 
DriiK  more  minutely,  in  the  sense  of  "on  hip  and  thigh;"  whilst 
the  expression  which  follows,  fyi~U  ^3*?,  is  added  as  an  adverbial 
accusative  to  strengthen  the  verb  sJ5-  Smiting  hip  and  thigh  is 
a  proverbial  expression  for  a  cruel,  unsparing  slaughter,  like  the 
German  "  cutting  arm  and  leg  in  two,"  or  the  Arabic  "  war  in 
thigh  fashion  "  (see  Bertheau  in  loc).  After  smiting  the  Philistines, 
Samson  went  down  and  dwelt  in  the  cleft  of  the  rock  Etam.  There 
is  a  town  of  Etam  mentioned  in  2  Chron.  xi.  6,  between  Bethlehem 
and  Tekoah,  which  was  fortified  by  Rehoboam,  and  stood  in  all 
probability  to  the  south  of  Jerusalem,  upon  the  mountains  of  Judah. 
But  this  Etam,  which  Robinson  (Pal.  ii.  168)  supposes  to  be  the 
village  of  Urtas,  a  place  still  inhabited,  though  lying  in  ruins,  is 
not  to  be  thought  of  here,  as  the  Philistines  did  not  go  up  to  the 
mountains  of  Judah  (ver.  9),  as  Bertheau  imagines,  but  simply 
came  forward  and  encamped  in  Judah.  The  Etam  of  this  verse  is 
mentioned  in  1  Chron.  iv.  32,  along  with  Ain  Eimmon  and  other 
Simeonitish  towns,  and  is  to  be  sought  for  on  the  border  of  the 
Negeb  and  of  the  mountains  of  Judah,  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Khuweilifeh  (see  V.  de  Velde,  Mem.  p.  311).  The  expression  "he 
went  down "  suits  this  place  very  well,  but  not  the  Etam  on  the 


CHAP.  XV.  9-17.  415 

mountains  of  Judah,  to  which  he  would  have  had  to  go  up,  and  not 
down,  from  Timnath. 

Vers.  9-17.  Samson  is  delivered  up  to  the  Philistines,  and  smites 
them  with  the  jaw-bone  of  an  Ass. — Ver.  9.  The  Philistines  came 
("  went  up,"  denoting  the  advance  of  an  army :  see  at  Josh.  viii.  1) 
to  avenge  themselves  for  the  defeat  they  had  sustained  from 
Samson  ;  and  having  encamped  in  Judah,  spread  themselves  out  in 
Lechi  (Lehi).  Lechi  (w,  in  pause  TO,  i.e.  a  jaw),  which  is  probably 
mentioned  again  in  2  Sam.  xxiii.  11,  and,  according  to  ver.  17, 
received  the  name  of  Pamath-lechi  from  Samson  himself,  cannot  be 
traced  with  any  certainty,  as  the  early  church  tradition  respecting 
the  place  is  utterly  worthless.  Van  de  Velde  imagines  that  it  is  to 
be  found  in  the  flattened  rocky  hill  el  Lechieh,  or  Lekieh,  upon 
which  an  ancient  fortification  has  been  discovered,  in  the  middle  of 
the  road  from  Tell  Khewelfeh  to  Beersheba,  at  the  south-western 
approach  of  the  mountains  of  Judah. — Vers.  10  sqq.  When  the 
Juda^ans  learned  what  was  the  object  of  this  invasion  on  the  part 
of  the  Philistines,  three  thousand  of  them  went  down  to  the  cleft  in 
the  rock  Etam,  to  bind  Samson  and  deliver  him  up  to  the  Philis- 
tines. Instead  of  recognising  in  Samson  a  deliverer  whom  the 
Lord  had  raised  up  for  them,  and  crowding  round  him  that  they 
might  smite  their  oppressors  with  his  help  and  drive  them  out  of 
the  land,  the  men  of  Judah  were  so  degraded,  that  they  cast  this 
reproach  at  Samson :  "  Knoivest  thou  not  that  the  Philistines  rule  over 
us  ?  Wherefore  hast  thou  done  this  (the  deed  described  in  ver.  8)  ? 
We  have  come  down  to  bind  thee,  and  deliver  thee  into  the  hand  of  the 
Philistines."  Samson  replied,  "  Swear  to  me  that  ye  will  not  fall 
upon  me  yourselves"  V^  with  3,  to  thrust  at  a  person,  fall  upon 
him,  including  in  this  case,  according  to  ver.  13,  the  intention  ut" 
killing. — Ver.  13.  "When  they  promised  him  this,  he  let  them  bind 
him  with  two  new  cords  and  lead  him  up  (into  the  camp  of  the 
Philistines)  out  of  the  rock  (i.e.  the  cleft  of  the  rock). — Ver.  11. 
But  when  he  came  to  Lechi,  and  the  Philistines  shouted  with  joy 
as  they  came  to  meet  him,  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah  came  upon  him, 
(l  and  the  cords  on  his  arms  became  like  tow  that  had  been  burnt  with 
fire,  and  his  fetters  melted  from  his  hands"  The  description  I 
up  to  a  poetical  parallelism,  to  depict  the  triumph  which  Samson 
celebrated  over  the  Philistines  in  the  power  of  the  Spirit  of  Jehovah. 
■ — Ver.  15.  As  soon  as  he  was  relieved  of  his  bands,  lie  seized  upon 
a  fresh  jaw-bone  of  an  ass,  which  he  found  there,  and  smote  there- 
with a  thousand  men.     He  himself  commemorated  this  victory  iu  a 


416  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

short  poetical  strain  (ver.  16)  :  "  With  the  ass's  jaw-bone  a  heap, 
two  heaps  ;  with  the  ass's  jaw-bone  I  smote  a  thousand  men"  The 
form  of  the  word  *Üün  =  Höh  is  chosen  on  account  of  the  resem- 
blance to  "lion,  and  is  found  again  at  1  Sam.  xvi.  20.  How  Samson 
achieved  this  victory  is  not  minutely  described.  But  the  words  "  a 
heap,  two  heaps,"  point  to  the  conclusion  that  it  did  not  take  place 
in  one  encounter,  but  in  several.  The  supernatural  strength  with 
which  Samson  rent  asunder  the  fetters  bound  upon  him,  when  the 
Philistines  thought  they  had  him  safely  in  their  power,  filled  them 
with  fear  and  awe  as  before  a  superior  being,  so  that  they  fled,  and 
he  pursued  them,  smiting  one  heap  after  another,  as  he  overtook 
them,  with  an  ass's  jaw-bone  which  he  found  in  the  way.  The 
number  given,  viz.  a  thousand,  is  of  course  a  round  number  signi- 
fying a  very  great  multitude,  and  has  been  adopted  from  the  song 
into  the  historical  account. — Yer.  17.  When  he  had  given  utterance 
to  his  saying,  he  threw  the  jaw-bone  away,  and  called  the  place 
Ramath-lechi,  i.e.  the  jaw-bone  height.  This  seems  to  indicate  that 
the  name  Lechi  in  ver.  9  is  used  proleptically,  and  that  the  place 
first  received  its  name  from  this  deed  of  Samson. 

Vers.  18-20.  The  pursuit  of  the  Philistines,  however,  and  the 
conflict  with  them,  had  exhausted  Samson,  so  that  he  was  very 
thirsty,  and  feared  that  he  might  die  from  exhaustion ;  for  it  was 
about  the  time  of  the  wheat-harvest  (ver.  1),  and  therefore  hot 
summer  weather.  Then  he  called  to  the  Lord,  "  Thou  hast  through 
(T3)  Thy  servant  given  this  great  deliverance ;  and  now  I  shall  die 
for  thirst,  and  fall  into  the  hand  of  the  uncircumcised  /"  From  this 
prayer  we  may  see  that  Samson  was  fully  conscious  that  he  was 
fighting  for  the  cause  of  the  Lord.  And  the  Lord  helped  him  out 
of  this  trouble.  God  split  the  hollow  place  at  Lechi,  so  that  water 
came  out  of  it,  as  at  Horeb  and  Kadesh  (Ex.  xvii.  6,  and  Num.  xx. 
8,  11).  The  word  ^'n?*?,  which  is  used  in  Prov.  xxvii.  22  to  signify 
a  mortar,  is  explained  by  rabbinical  expositors  as  denoting  the 
socket  of  the  teeth,  or  the  hollow  place  in  which  the  teeth  are  fixed, 
like  the  Greek  oX/jllo-kos,  mortariolum,  according  to  Pollux,  Onom. 
ii.  c.  4,  §  21.  Accordingly  many  have  understood  the  statement 
made  here,  as  meaning  that  God  caused  a  fountain  to  flow  miracu- 
lously out  of  the  socket  of  a  tooth  in  the  jaw-bone  which  Samson 
had  thrown  away,  and  thus  provided  for  his  thirst.  This  view  is 
the  one  upon  which  Luther's  rendering,  "  God  split  a  tooth  in 
the  jaw,  60  that  water  came  out,"  is  founded,  and  it  has  been 
voluminously  defended  by  Bochart  (Hieroz.  1.  ii.  c.  15).     But  the 


CHAP.  XVI.  41V 

expression  *nb  -it?K,  « the  maktesh  which  is  at  Leehi,"  is  opposed  to 
this  view,  since  the  tooth-socket  in  the  jaw-bone  of  the  ass  would 
be  simply  called  *rfcn  Bta  or  »nb  IW30  ;  and  so  is  also  the  remark 
that  this  fountain  was  still  in  existence  in  the  historian's  own  time. 
And  the  article  proves  nothing  to  the  contrary,  as  many  proper 
names  are  written  with  it  (see  Ewald,  §  277,  c).  Consequently  we 
must  follow  Josephus  (Ant.  v.  8),  who  takes  vnsvn  as  the  name 
given  to  the  opening  of  the  rock,  which  was  cleft  by  God  to  let 
water  flow  out.  "  If  a  rocky  precipice  bore  the  namo  of  jaw-bone 
(lechi)  on  account  of  its  shape,  it  was  a  natural  consequence  of  this 
figurative  epithet,  that  the  name  tooth-hollow  should  be  given  to  a 
hole  or  gap  in  the  rock"  (Stucle?-).  Moreover,  the  same  name, 
Maktesh,  occurs  again  in  Zeph.  i.  11,  where  it  is  applied  to  a  locality 
in  or  near  Jerusalem.  The  hollow  place  was  split  by  Elohlm, 
although  it  was  to  Jeltovah  that  Samson  had  prayed,  to  indicate 
that  the  miracle  was  wrought  by  God  as  the  Creator  and  Lord  of 
nature.  Samson  drank,  and  his  spirit  returned,  so  that  he  revived 
again.  Hence  the  fountain  received  the  name  of  En-hakkore,  "  the 
crier's  well  which  is  at  Lechi,"  unto  this  day.  According  to  the 
accents,  the  last  clause  does  not  belong  to  'r&a  (in  Lechi),  but  to 
"131  fcO|5  (he  called,  etc.).  It  received  the  name  given  to  it  unto  this 
day.  This  implies,  of  course,  that. the  spring  itself  was  in  existence 
when  our  book  was  composed. — In  ver.  20  the  account  of  the 
judicial  labours  of  Samson  are  brought  to  a  close,  with  the  remark 
that  Samson  judged  Israel  in  the  days  of  the  Philistines,  i.e.  during 
their  rule,  for  twenty  years.  What  more  is  recurded  of  him  in 
chap.  xvi.  relates  to  his  fall  and  ruin  ;  and  although  even  in  this 
he  avenged  himself  upon  the  Philistines,  he  procured  no  furthe:' 
deliverance  for  Israel.  It  is  impossible  to  draw  any  critical  con- 
clusions from  the  position  in  which  this  remark  occurs,  as  to  a 
plurality  of  sources  for  the  history  of  Samson, 

Chap.  xvi.  Samson's  Fall  and  Death. — Samson's  judicial 
labours  reached  their  highest  point  when  he  achieved  his  great 
victory  over  the  Philistines  at  Lechi.  Just  as  his  love  to  the 
daughter  of  a  Philistine  had  furnished  him  with  the  occasion 
designed  by  God  for  the  manifestation  of  his  superiority  to  the 
uncircumcised  enemies  of  Israel,  so  the  degradation  of  that  love 
into  sensual  lust  supplied  the  occasion  for  his  fall  which  is  related 
in  this  chapter.  "Samson,  when  strong  and  brave,  strangled  a 
lion ;  but  he  could  not  strangle  his  own  lovo.     lie  burst  the  fetters 

2  D 


418  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

of  his  foes,  but  not  the  cords  of  his  own  lusts.  He  burned  up  the 
crops  of  others,  and  lost  the  fruit  of  his  own  virtue  when  burning 
with  the  flame  enkindled  by  a  single  woman."  (Ambros.  Apol.  ii., 
David,  c.  iii.) 

Vers.  1-3.  His  heroic  deed  at  Gaza. — Samson  went  to  Gaza 
in  the  full  consciousness  of  his  superiority  in  strength  to  the 
Philistines,  and  there  went  in  unto  a  harlot  whom  he  saw.  For 
Gaza,  see  Josh.  xiii.  3.  ?N  Ni2  [s  use^  m  the  same  sense  as  in 
Gen.  vi.  4  and  xxxviii.  16.  It  is  not  stated  in  this  instance,  as  in 
chap.  xiv.  4,  that  it  was  of  the  Lord. — Ver.  2.  When  this  was  told 
to  the  Gazites,  they  surrounded  him  (the  object  to  the  verb  is  to 
be  supplied  from  the  following  word  \b)  and  laid  wait  for  him  all 
night  at  the  city  gate,  but  they  kept  themselves  quiet  during  the 
night,  saying,  "  Till  the  dawning  ("NX,  infin.)  of  the  morning"  sc. 
we  can  wait,  "  then  will  we  kill  him.'"  For  this  construction,  see 
1  Sam.  i.  22.  The  verb  *IJ*1,  "  it  was  told "  (according  to  the 
LXX.  and  Chald.:  cf.  Gen.'xxii.  20),  or  «31*3,  "they  said,"  is 
wanting  before  P^JP?,  and  must  have  fallen  out  through  a  copyist's 
error.  The  verb  ^"üQnn  has  evidently  the  subordinate  idea  of  giving 
themselves  up  to  careless  repose ;  for  if  the  watchmen  who  were 
posted  at  the  city  gate  had  but  watched  in  a  regular  manner,  Sam- 
son could  not  have  lifted  out  the  closed  gates  and  carried  them 
away.  But  as  they  supposed  that  he  would  not  leave  the  harlot 
before  daybreak,  they  relied  upon  the  fact  that  the  gate  was  shut, 
and  probably  fell  asleep. — Ver.  3.  But  at  midnight  Samson  got 
up,  and  "  laying  hold  of  the  folding  wings  of  the  city  gate,  as  well 
as  the  two  posts,  tore  them  out  of  the  ground  with  his  herculean 
strength,  together  with  the  bar  that  fastened  them,  and  carried 
them  up  to  the  top  of  the  mountain  which  stands  opposite  to 
Hebron."  *j>? "?J?  merely  means  in  the  direction  towards,  as  in  Gen. 
xviii.  16,  and  does  not  signify  that  the  mountain  was  in  the  front 
of  Hebron  or  in  the  immediate  neighbourhood  (see  Deut.  xxxii.  49, 
where  Mount  Nebo,  which  was  on  the  other  side  of  the  Jordan, 
and  at  least  four  geographical  miles  from  Jericho,  is  said  to  have 
been  over  against  it,  and  the  same  expression  is  employed).  The 
distance  from  Gaza  to  Hebron  was  about  nine  geographical  miles. 
To  the  east  of  Gaza  there  is  a  range  of  hills  which  runs  from  north 
to  south.  The  highest  of  them  all  is  one  which  stands  somewhat 
isolated,  about  half  an  hour  to  the  south-east  of  the  town,  and  is 
called  el  Montar  from  a  wely  which  is  found  upon  the  top  of  it. 
From  this  hill  there  is  a  splendid  prospect  over  the  whole  of  the 


CHAP.  XVI.  4-21.  4 1  9 

surrounding  country.  Hebron  itself  is  not  visible  from  this  hill, 
but  the  mountains  of  Hebron  are.  According  to  an  ancient  tradi- 
tion, it  was  to  the  summit  of  this  hill  that  Samson  carried  the  city 
gates  ;  and  both  Robinson  (Pal.  ii.  377)  and  V.  de  Velde  regard  this 
tradition  as  by  no  means  improbable,  although  the  people  of  Gaza 
are  not  acquainted  with  it.  "The  city  gate  of  the  Gaza  of  that 
time  was  probably  not  less  than  three-quarters  of  an  hour  from  the 
hill  el  Montar ;  and  to  climb  this  peak  with  the  heavy  gates  and 
their  posts  and  bar  upon  his  shoulders  through  the  deep  sand  upon 
the  road,  was  a  feat  which  only  a  Samson  could  perform  "  ( V.  de 
Velde). 

Vers.  4-21.  Samson  and  Delilah. — Ver.  4.  After  this  successful 
act,  Samson  gave  himself  up  once  more  to  his  sensual  lusts.  Ib- 
fell  in  love  with  a  woman  in  the  valley  of  Sorek,  named  Delilah 
(i.e.  the  weak  or  pining  one),  to  whose  snares  he  eventually  suc- 
cumbed. With  reference  to  the  valley  of  Sorek,  Eusebius  affirms 
in  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Hcopijx),  that  there  was  a  village  called  Bapi'yx 
(I.  Kacpap  o-toprfy  according  to  Jerome)  near  Zorea,  and  eV  opioid  (I. 
ßopeloi?  according  to  Jerome,  who  has  ad  septentrionalem  plagam)  ; 
and  also  (s.  v.  Hcopyj/c)  that  this  place  was  near  to  Eshtaol.  Conse- 
quently the  Sorek  valley  would  have  to  be  sought  for  somewhere 
in  the  neighbourhood  of  Samson's  birthplace  (chap.  xiii.  1),  and 
the  dwelling-place  of  his  family  (ver.  31). — Ver.  5.  The  princes 
of  the  Philistines  offered  Delilah  a  considerable  sum  (they  would 
give  her  one  thousand  and  one  hundred  shekels  of  silver  each,  i.e 
a  thousand  shekels  or  more :  cf.  chap.  xvii.  2)  if  she  would  per- 
suade Samson,  and  bring  out  from  him  "whereby  his  strength  was 
great,"  and  whereby  they  could  overpower  and  bind  him,  iflisp, 
to  bend  him,  i.e.  to  oppress  him.  The  Philistine  princes  thought 
that  Samson's  supernatural  strength  arose  from  something  external, 
which  he  wore  or  carried  about  with  him  as  an  amulet.  There  was 
a  certain  truth  at  the  foundation  of  this  heathen  superstition,  inas- 
much as  this  gift  of  divine  grace  was  really  bound  up  with  the 
possession  of  a  corporeal  pledge,  the  loss  of  which  was  followed  by 
the  immediate  loss  of  the  gift  of  God  (see  at  ver.  17). — Ver.  6. 
Allured  by  the  reward  in  prospect,  Delilah  now  sought  to  get  from 
him  the  secret  of  his  strength.  But  he  deceived  her  three  times  1  J 
false  statements.  He  first  of  all  said  to  her  (ver.  7),  "  If  they  bound 
me  with  strings  that  have  not  been  dried,  I  should  be  weak  and  Wee 
one  of  the  men"  (i.e.  like  any  other  man).  W  signifies  a  sin.w  or 
string,  e.g.  a  bow-string,  Ps.  xi.  2,  and   in   the  different  dialects 


420  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

either  a  bow-string  or  the  string  of  a  harp  or  guitar.  As  a  dis- 
tinction is  made  here  between  the  DviJV  and  the  DTihl?  in  ver.  11, 
the  strings  intended  here  are  those  of  catgut  or  animal  sinew.  The 
number  seven  is  that  of  a  divine  act,  answering  to  the  divine  power 
which  Samson  possessed. — Vers.  8,  9.  When  Delilah  told  this  to 
the  princes  of  the  Philistines,  they  brought  the  seven  strings 
required,  and  Delilah  bound  Samson  with  them.  "And  the  spy 
sat  in  the  room  (J7*?,  dat.  com.,  lit.  'to  her,'  i.e.)  to  help  her"  namely, 
without  Samson  knowing  it,  as  Delilah  had  certainly  not  told  him 
that  she  should  betray  the  secret  of  his  strength  to  the  Philistines. 
He  was  there,  no  doubt,  that  he  might  be  at  hand  and  overpower 
the  fettered  giant  as  soon  as  it  became  apparent  that  his  strength 
was  gone.  She  then  cried  out  to  him,  "  Philistines  upon  thee, 
Samson!"  And  he  snapped  the  strings  as  one  would  snap  a  cord 
of  tow  "when  it  smells  fire,"  i.e.  is  held  to  the  fire. — Vers.  10-12. 
The  second  deception  :  Samson  had  himself  bound  with  new  cords, 
which  had  not  yet  been  used  for  any  purpose,  and  these  also  he 
burst  from  his  arms  like  a  thread. — Vers.  13  and  14.  The  third 
deception  :  "  If  thou  weavest  together  the  seven  locks  of  my  hair  with 
the  warp.  And  she  drove  it  in  with  the  plug."  These  words  are 
difficult  to  explain,  partly  because  several  technical  terms  are  used 
which  have  more  than  one  meaning,  and  partly  because  the  account 
itself  is  contracted,  both  Samson's  advice  and  her  fulfilment  of  it 
being  only  given  in  a  partial  form,  so  that  the  one  has  to  be  com- 
pleted from  the  other.  In  ver.  19,  the  only  other  passage  in  which 
niapno  occurs,  it  no  doubt  means  the  plaits  into  which  Samson's 
long  flowing  hair  was  plaited.  FDE"??  only  occurs  here  (vers.  13 
and  14),  and  probably  means  the  woven  cloth,  or  rather  what  was 
still  upon  the  loom,  the  warp  of  the  cloth,  Slaafia  (LXX.). 
Accordingly  the  meaning  of  the  verse  would  be  this  :  If  thou 
weavest  the  seven  plaits  of  my  hair  along  with  the  warp  upon  the 
loom.  The  commentators  are  all  agreed  that,  according  to  these 
words,  there  must  be  something  wanting  in  the  account,  though 
they  are  not  of  one  opinion  as  to  whether  the  binding  of  Samson 
is  fully  given  here,  and  all  that  has  to  be  supplied  is  the  clause 
"  Then  shall  I  be  weak"  etc.  (as  in  vers.  7  and  11),  or  whether 
the  words  *jrtTs3  yprirn  add  another  fact  which  was  necessary  to  the 
completeness  of  the  binding,  and  if  so,  how  these  words  are  to  be 
understood.  In  Bertheaus  opinion,  the  words  "and  she  thrust 
with  the  plug "  probably  mean  nothing  more  than  that  she  made  a 
noise  to  wake  the  sleeping  Samson,  because  it  is  neither  stated  here 


CHAP.  XVI.  4-21.  421 

that  she  forced  the  plug  into  the  wall  or  into  the  earth  to  fasten 
the  plaits  with  (LXX.,  Jerome),  nor  that  her  thrusting  with  the 
plug  contributed  in  any  way  to  the  further  fastening  of  the  hair. 
These  arguments  are  sound  no  doubt,  but  they  do  not  prove  what 
is  intended.  When  it  is  stated  in  ver.  146,  that  "  he  tore  out  the 
weaver's  plug  and  the  cloth,"  it  is  certainly  evident  that  the  plug 
served  to  fasten  the  hair  to  the  cloth  or  to  the  loom.  Moreover, 
not  only  would  any  knocking  with  the  plug  to  waken  Samson 
with  the  noise  have  been  altogether  superfluous,  as  the  loud  cry, 
"Philistines  upon  thee,  Samson,"  would  be  amply  sufficient  for 
this ;  but  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  a  fact  with  so  little 
bearing  upon  the  main  facts  would  be  introduced  here  at  all. 
We  come  therefore  to  the  same  conclusion  as  the  majority  of 
commentators,  viz.  that  the  words  in  question  are  to  be  understood 
as  referring  to  something  that  was  done  to  fasten  Samson  still 
more  securely.  1JTW1  —  jixn  irvn  (ver.  14)  does  not  mean  the 
roller  or  weaver's  beam,  to  which  the  threads  of  the  warp  were 
fastened,  and  round  which  the  cloth  was  rolled  when  finished,  as 
Bertheau  supposes,  for  this  is  called  D*f\fc  "ifaD  in  1  Sam.  xvii.  7  ; 
nor  the  enrddn  of  the  Greeks,  a  flat  piece  of  wood  like  a  knife, 
which  was  used  in  the  upright  loom  for  the  same  purpose  as  our 
comb  or  press,  viz.  to  press  the  weft  together,  and  so  increase  the 
substance  of  the  cloth  (Braun,  de  vestitu  Sacerd.  p.  253)  ;  but  the 
comb  or  press  itself  which  was  fastened  to  the  loom,  so  that  it 
could  only  be  torn  out  by  force.  To  complete  the  account,  there- 
fore, we  must  supply  between  vers.  13  and  14,  "And  if  thou 
fastenest  it  (the  woven  cloth)  with  the  plug  (the  weaver's  comb),  I 
shall  be  weak  like  one  of  the  other  men  ;  and  she  wove  the  seven 
plaits  of  his  hair  into  the  warp  of  the  loom."  Then  follows  in  ver. 
14,  "  and  fastened  the  cloth  with  the  weavers  comh."  There  is  no 
need,  however,  to  assume  that  what  has  to  be  supplied  fell  out  in 
copying.  We  have  simply  an  ellipsis,  such  as  we  often  meet 
with.  When  Samson  was  wakened  out  of  his  sleep  by  the  cry  of 
"Philistines  upon  thee,"  he  tore  out  the  weaver's  comb  and  the 
warp  (sc.)  from  the  loom,  with  his  plaits  of  hair  that  had  been 
woven  in.  The  reference  to  his  sleeping  warrants  the  assumption 
that  Delilah  had  also  performed  the  other  acts  of  binding  while  he 
was  asleep.  We  must  not  understand  the  account,  however,  as 
implying  that  the  three  acts  of  binding  followed  close  upon  one 
another  on  the  very  same  day.  Several  days  may  very  probably 
have  elapsed  between  them.     In  this  third  deception  Samson  had 


422  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

already  gone  so  far  in  his  presumptuous  trifling  with  the  divine 
gift  entrusted  to  him,  as  to  suffer  the  hair  of  his  head  to  be 
meddled  with,  though  it  was  sanctified  to  the  Lord.  "  It  would 
seem  as  though  this  act  of  sin  ought  to  have  brought  him  to  reflec- 
tion. But  as  that  was  not  the  case,  there  remained  but  one  short 
step  more  to  bring  him  to  thorough  treachery  towards  the  Lord  " 
(0.  v.  Gerlach). 

This  last  step  was  very  speedily  to  follow. — Ver.  15.  After  this 
triple  deception,  Delilah  said  to  him,  u  How  canst  thou  say,  I  love 
thee,  as  thine  heart  is  not  with  me"  (i.e.  not  devoted  to  me)  ? — Ver. 
16.  With  such  words  as  these  she  plagued  him  every  day,  so  that 
his  soul  became  impatient  even  to  death  (see  chap.  x.  16).  The 
a7T.  \ey.  fvN  signifies  in  Aramaean,  to  press  or  plague.  The  form 
is  Piel,  though  without  the  reduplication  of  the  b  and  Chateph- 
patach  tinder  (see  Ewald,  §  90,  b.). — Ver.  17.  "  And  he  showed  her 
all  his  heart,"  i.e.  he  opened  his  mind  thoroughly  to  her,  and  told 
her  that  no  razor  had  come  upon  his  head,  because  he  was  a 
Nazarite  from  his  mother's  womb  (cf.  chap.  xiii.  5,  7).  "  If  I 
should  be  shaven,  my  strength  would  depart  from  me,  and  I  should  be 
weak  like  all  other  men." — Ver.  18.  When  Delilah  saw  (i.e.  per- 
ceived, namely  from  his  words  and  his  whole  behaviour  while 
making  this  communication)  that  he  had  betrayed  the  secret  of 
his  strength,  she  had  the  princes  of  the  Philistines  called  :  "  Come 
up  this  time,  .  .  .  for  he  had  revealed  to  her  all  his  heart."  This 
last  clause  is  not  to  be  understood  as  having  been  spoken  by 
Delilah  to  the  princes  themselves,  as  it  is  by  the  Masorites  and 
most  of  the  commentators,  in  which  case  H?  would  have  to  be 
altered  into  v ;  but  it  contains  a  remark  of  the  writer,  introduced 
as  an  explanation  of  the  circumstance  that  Delilah  sent  for  the 
princes  of  the  Philistines  now  that  she  was  sure  of  her  purpose. 
This  view  is  confirmed  by  the  word  VV\  (came  up)  which  follows, 
since  the  use  of  the  perfect  instead  of  the  imperfect  with  vav 
consec.  can  only  be  explained  on  the  supposition  that  the  previous 
clause  is  a  parenthetical  one,  which  interrupts  the  course  of  the 
narrative,  and  to  which  the  account  of  the  further  progress  of  the 
affair  could  not  be  attached  by  the  historical  tense  (w?!!).1  The 
princes  of  the  Philistines  came  up  to  Delilah  on  the  receipt  of  this 

1  The  Keri  reading  vj  arose  simply  from  a  misunderstanding,  although  it  is 
found  in  many  mss.  and  early  editions,  and  is  without  any  critical  worth.  The 
Masorites  overlooked  the  fact  that  the  main  point  is  all  that  is  related  of  the 
message  of  Delilah  to  the  princes  of  the  Philistines,  namely  that'  they  were  to 


CHAP.  XVI.  4-21.  423 

communication,  bringing  the  money,  the  promised  reward  of  her 
treachery  (ver.  5),  in  their  hands.— Ver.  19.  "  Then  she  made  him 
sleep  upon  her  knees,  and  called  to  the  man,"  possibly  the  man  lying 
in  wait  (vers.  9  and  12),  that  she  might  not  be  alone  with  Samson 
when  cutting  off  his  hair;  and  she  cut  off  the  seven  plaits  of  his 
hair,  and  began  to  afflict  him,  as  his  strength  departed  from  him 
now. — Ver.  20.  She  then  cried  out,  "Philistines  upon  thee,  Samson!" 
And  he  awaked  out  of  his  sleep,  and  thought  ("said,"  i.e.  to  him- 
self), "  I  will  go  away  as  time  upon  time  (this  as  at  other  times),  and 
shake  myself  loose"  sc.  from  the  fetters  or  from  the  hands  of  the 
Philistines ;  "  but  he  knew  not  that  Jehovah  had  departed  from  him." 
These  last  words  are  very  important  to  observe  in  order  to  form  a 
correct  idea  of  the  affair.  Samson  had  said  to  Delilah,  "  If  my 
hair  were  cut  off,  my  strength  would  depart  from  me"  (ver.  17). 
The  historian  observes,  on  the  other  hand,  that  "Jehovah  had 
departed  from  him."  The  superhuman  strength  of  Samson  did 
not  reside  in  his  hair  as  hair,  but  in  the  fact  that  Jehovah  was  with 
or  near  him.  But  Jehovah  was  with  him  so  long  as  he  maintained 
his  condition  as  a  Nazarite.  As  soon  as  he  broke  away  from  this 
by  sacrificing  the  hair  which  he  wore  in  honour  of  the  Lord, 
Jehovah  departed  from  him,  and  with  Jehovah  went  his  strength.1 
— Ver.  21.  The  Philistines  then  seized  him,  put  out  his  eyes,  and 
led  him  to  Gaza  fettered  with  double  brass  chains.  The  chains  are 
probably  called  nechushtaim  (double  brass)  because  both  hands  or 
both  feet  were  fettered  with  them.  King  Zedekiah,  when  taken 
prisoner  by  the  Chaldeans,  was  treated  in  the  same  manner  (2 
Kings  xxv.  7).  There  Samson  was  obliged  to  turn  the  mill  in  the 
prison,  and  grind  corn  (the  participle  jnb  expresses  the  continuance 
of  the  action).     Grinding  a  handmill  was  the  hardest  and  lowest 

come  this  time,  and  that  the  rest  can  easily  be  supplied  from  the  context. 
Studer  admits  how  little  "by}  suits  that  view  of  the  clause  which  the  A',  ri 
reading  *f?  requires,  and  calls  it  "  syntactically  impossible."  He  proposes, 
however,  to  read  ^J?»l,  without  reflecting  that  this  reading  is  also  nothing  more 
than  a  change  which  is  rendered  necessary  by  the  alteration  of  n?  into  *?,  and 

has  no  critical  value. 

1  "  Samson  was  strong  because  he  was  dedicated  to  God,  as  long  as  he 
preserved  the  signs  of  his  dedication.  But  as  soon  as  he  lost  those  signs,  In-  fell 
into  the  utmost  weakness  in  consequence.  The  whole  of  Samson's  misfortune 
came  upon  him,  therefore,  because  he  attributed  to  himself  some  portion  of 
what  God  did  through  him.  God  permitted  him  to  lose  his  strength,  that  he 
might  learn  by  experience  how  utterly  powerless  he  was  without  the  help  of 
God.     We  have  no  better  teachers  than  our  own  infirmities."— Berleb.  Bible. 


424  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

kind  of  slave  labour  (compare  Ex.  xi.  5  with  xii.  29) ;  and  both 
Greeks  and  Romans  sentenced  their  slaves  to  this  as  a  punishment 
(see  Od.  xx.  105  sqq.,  vii.  103-4;  Terent.  Phorm.  ii.  1,  19,  Andr. 
i.  2,  29),  and  it  is  still  performed  by  female  slaves  in  the  East  (see 
Chardin  in  Harmars  Beob.  üb.  d.  Orient,  iii.  64). 

Vers.  22-31.  Samson  s  Misery,  and  his  Triumph  in  Death. — 
Ver.  22.  The  hair  of  his  head  began  to  grow,  as  he  was  shaven. 
In  the  word  "i^N?,  as  (from  the  time  when  he  was  shaven),  there  is 
an  indication  that  Samson  only  remained  in  his  ignominious  cap- 
tivity till  his  hair  began  to  grow  again,  i.e.  visibly  to  grow.  What 
follows  agrees  with  this. — Vers.  23,  24.  The  captivity  of  this 
dreaded  hero  was  regarded  by  the  Philistines  as  a  great  victory, 
which  their  princes  resolved  to  celebrate  with  a  great  and  joyous 
sacrificial  festival  in  honour  of  their  god  Dagon,  to  whom  they 
ascribed  this  victory.  "  A  great  sacrifice"  consisting  in  the  offering 
up  of  a  large  number  of  slain  sacrifices.  "  And  for  joy"  viz.  to 
give  expression  to  their  joy,  i.e.  for  a  joyous  festival.  Dagon,  one 
of  the  principal  deities  of  the  Philistines,  was  worshipped  at  Gaza 
and  Ashdod  (1  Sam.  v.  2  sqq.,  and  1  Mace.  x.  83),  and,  according 
to  Jerome  on  Isa.  xlvi.  1,  in  the  rest  of  the  Philistine  towns  as  well. 
It  was  a  fish-deity  (pn,  from  ir\,  a  fish),  and  in  shape  resembled 
the  body  of  a  fish  with  the  head  and  hands  of  a  man  (1  Sam.  v.  4). 
It  was  a  male  deity,  the  corresponding  female  deity  being  Atargatis 
(2  Mace.  xii.  26)  or  Derceto,  and  was  a  symbol  of  water,  and  of  all 
the  vivifying  forces  of  nature  which  produce  their  effects  through 
the  medium  of  water,  like  the  Babylonian  '{ISd/ccov,  one  of  the 
four  Oannes,  and  the  Indian  Vishnu  (see  Movers,  Phöniz.  i.  pp.  143 
sqq.,  590  sqq.,  and  J.  G.  Midler  in  Herzog's  Cycl.). — Ver.  24. 
All  the  people  took  part  in  this  festival,  and  sang  songs  of  praise 
to  the  god  who  had  given  the  enemy,  who  had  laid  waste  their 
fields  and  slain  many  of  their  countrymen,  into  their  hands. — 
Vers.  25  sqq.  When  their  hearts  were  merry  (2iD',)  inf.  of  2W), 
they  had  Samson  fetched  out  of  the  prison,  that  he  might  make 
sport  before  them,  and  "  put  him  between  the  pillars"  of  the  house 
or  temple  in  which  the  triumphal  feast  was  held.  Then  he  said  to 
the  attendant  who  held  his  hand,  "  Let  me  loose,  and  let  me  touch 
the  pillars  upon  which  the  house  is  built,  that  I  may  lean  upon  it." 
^B^n  is  the  imperative  Iliphil  of  the  radical  verb  WW,  which  only 
occurs  here  ;  and  the  Keri  substitutes  the  ordinary  form  t^pn  from 
K^O.  "  But  the  house"  adds  the  historian  by  way  of  preparation 
for  what  follows,  "  was  filled  with  men  and  women :  all  the  princes 


CHAP.  XVI.  22-31.  425 

of  the  Philistines  also  were  there ;  and  upon  the  roof  were  about  three 
thousand  men  and  women,  who  feasted  their  eyes  with  Samson's 
sports"  (nx"i  with  3?  used  to  denote  the  gratification  of  lookin«-). — 
Ver.  28.  Then  Samson  prayed  to  Jehovah,  "Lord  Jehovah,  re- 
member me,  and  only  this  time  make  me  strong,  0  God,  that  I  may 
avenge  myself  (with)  the  revenge  of  one  of  my  two  eyes  upon  the 
Philistines,"  i.e.  may  take  vengeance  upon  them  for  the  loss  of 
only  one  of  my  two  eyes  ("WE,  without  Dagesh  lene  in  the  T):  see 
Ewald,  §  267,  b.), — a  sentence  which  shows  how  painfully  he  felt 
the  loss  of  his  two  eyes,  "  a  loss  the  severity  of  which  even  the 
terrible  vengeance  which  he  was  meditating  could  never  outweigh " 
(Bertheau). — Vers.  29,  30.  After  he  had  prayed  to  the  Lord  for 
strength  for  this  last  great  deed,  he  embraced  the  two  middle  pillars 
upon  which  the  building  was  erected,  leant  upon  them,  one  with 
his  right  hand,  the  other  with  the  left  (viz.  embracing  them  with 
his  hands,  as  these  words  also  belong  to  FlbT1),  and  said,  "  Let  my 
soul  die  ivith  the  Philistines."  lie  then  bent  (the  two  pillars)  with 
force,  and  the  house  fell  upon  the  princes  and  all  the  people  who 
were  within.  So  far  as  the  fact  itself  is  concerned,  there  is  no 
ground  for  questioning  the  possibility  of  Samson's  bringing  down 
the  whole  building  with  so  many  men  inside  by  pulling  down  two 
middle  columns,  as  we  have  no  accurate  acquaintance  with  the 
style  of  its  architecture.  In  all  probability  we  have  to  picture  this 
temple  of  Dagon  as  resembling  the  modern  Turkish  kiosks,  namelv 
as  consisting  of  a  "  spacious  hall,  the  roof  of  which  rested  in  front 
upon  four  columns,  two  of  them  standing  at  the  ends,  and  two 
close  together  in  the  centre.  Under  this  hall  the  leading  men  of 
the  Philistines  celebrated  a  sacrificial  meal,  whilst  the  people  were 
assembled  above  upon  the  top  of  the  roof,  which  was  surrounded  by 
a  balustrade"  (Faber,  Archäol.  der  Hebr.  p.  444,  cf.  pp.  436-7  ; 
and  Shaw,  Reisen,  p.  190).  The  ancients  enter  very  fully  into  the 
discussion  of  the  question  whether  Samson  committed  suicide  or 
not,  though  without  arriving  at  any  satisfactory  conclusion.  0.  v. 
G erlach,  however,  has  given  the  true  answer.  "  Samson's  deed," 
lie  says,  "was  not  suicide,  but  the  act  of  a  hero,  who  sees  that  it  is 
necessary  for  him  to  plunge  into  the  midst  of  his  enemies  with  the 
inevitable  certainty  of  death,  in  order  to  effect  the  deliverance  of  his 
people  and  decide  the  victory  which  he  has  still  to  achieve.  Samson 
would  be  all  the  more  certain  that  this  was  the  will  of  the  Lord, 
when  he  considered  that  even  if  he  should  deliver  himself  in  any 
other  wav  cut  of  the  hands  of  the  Philistines,  he  would  always  carry 


426  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

about  with  him  the  mark  of  his  shame  in  the  blindness  of  his  eyes, — 
a  mark  of  his  unfaithfulness  as  the  servant  of  God  quite  as  much  as 
of  the  double  triumph  of  his  foes,  who  had  gained  a  spiritual  as  well 
as  a  corporeal  victory  over  him."  Such  a  triumph  as  this  the  God 
of  Israel  could  not  permit  His  enemies  and  their  idols  to  gain.  The 
Lord  must  prove  to  them,  even  through  Samson's  death,  that  the 
shame  of  his  sin  was  taken  from  him,  and  that  the  Philistines  had 
no  cause  to  triumph  over  him.  Thus  Samson  gained  the  greatest 
victory  over  his  foes  in  the  moment  of  his  own  death.  The  terror 
of  the  Philistines  when  living,  he  became  a  destroyer  of  the  temple 
of  their  idol  when  he  died.  Through  this  last  act  of  his  he  vindi- 
cated the  honour  of  Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel,  against  Dagon  the 
idol  of  the  Philistines.  "  The  dead  which  he  slew  at  his  death  icere 
more  than  they  which  he  slew  in  his  life." — Ver.  31.  This  terrible 
blow  necessarily  made  a  powerful  impression  upon  the  Philistines, 
not  only  plunging  them  into  deep  mourning  at  the  death  of  their 
princes  and  so  many  of  their  countrymen,  and  the  destruction  of 
the  temple  of  Dagon,  but  filling  them  with  fear  and  terror  at  the 
omnipotence  of  the  God  of  the  Israelites.  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  is  conceivable  enough  that  the  brethren  and  relatives  of 
Samson  were  able  to  come  to  Gaza,  and  fetch  away  the  body  of  the 
fallen  hero,  to  bury  it  in  his  father's  grave  between  Zorea  and 
Eshtaol  (see  chap.  xiii.  25). — In  conclusion,  it  is  once  more  very 
appropriately  observed  that  Samson  had  judged  Israel  twenty  years 
(cf.  chap.  xv.  20). 


III.— IMAGE-WORSHIP  OF  MICAH  AND  THE  DANITES;  INFAMOUS 
CONDUCT  OF  THE  INHABITANTS  OF  GIBEAH ;  VENGEANCE 
TAKEN  UPON  THE  TRIBE  OF  BENJAMIN. 

Chap,  xvii.-xxt. 

The  death  of  Samson  closes  the  body  of  the  book  of  Judges, 
which  sets  forth  the  history  of  the  people  of  Israel  under  the  judges 
in  a  continuous  and  connected  form.  The  two  accounts,  which 
follow  in  chap,  xvii.-xxi.,  of  the  facts  mentioned  in  the  heading  are 
attached  to  the  book  of  Judges  in  the  form  of  appendices,  as  the 
facts  in  question  not  only  belonged  to  the  times  of  the  judges,  and 
in  fact  to  the  very  commencement  of  those  times  (see  p.  238),  but 
furnished  valuable  materials  for  forming  a  correct  idea  of  the  actual 


chap,  xvii.-xxi.  427 

character  of  this  portion  of  the  Israelitish  history.  The  first  appen- 
dix (chap.  xvii.  xviii.) — viz.  the  account  of  the  introduction  of  image- 
worship,  or  of  the  worship  of  Jehovah  under  the  form  of  a  molten 
image,  by  the  Ephraimite  Micah,  and  of  the  seizure  of  this  image 
by  the  Danites,  who  emigrated  from  their  own  territory  when  upon 
their  march  northwards,  and  the  removal  of  it  to  the  city  of  Laish- 
Dan,  which  was  conquered  by  them — shows  us  how  shortly  after 
the  death  of  Joshua  the  inclination  to  an  idolatrous  worship  of 
Jehovah  manifested  itself  in  the  nation,  and  how  this  worship,  which 
continued  for  a  long  time  in  the  north  of  the  land,  was  mixed  up 
from  the  very  beginning  with  sin  and  unrighteousness.  The  second 
(chap,  xix.-xxi.) — viz.  the  account  of  the  infamous  act  which  the 
inhabitants  of  Gibeah  attempted  to  commit  upon  the  Levite  who 
stayed  there  for  the  night,  and  which  they  actually  did  perform 
upon  his  concubine,  together  with  its  consequences,  viz.  the  war  of 
vengeance  upon  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  which  protected  the  crimi- 
nals— proves,  on  the  one  hand,  what  deep  roots  the  moral  corrup- 
tions of  the  Canaanites  had  struck  among  the  Israelites  at  a  very 
early  period,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  how  even  at  that  time  the 
congregation  of  Israel  as  a  whole  had  kept  itself  free  and  pure, 
and,  mindful  of  its  calling  to  be  the  holy  nation  of  God,  had  endea- 
voured with  all  its  power  to  root  out  the  corruption  that  had  already 
forced  its  way  into  the  midst  of  it. 

These  two  occurrences  have  no  actual  connection  with  one 
another,  but  they  are  both  of  them  narrated  in  a  very  elaborate 
and  circumstantial  manner;  and  in  both  of  them  we  not  only  find 
Israel  still  without  a  king  (chap.  xvii.  6,  xviii.  1,  and  xix.  1,  xxi. 
25),  and  the  will  of  God  sought  by  a  priest  or  by  the  high 
priest  himself  (chap,  xviii.  5,  6,  xx.  18,  23,  27),  but  the  same  style 
of  narrative  is  adopted  as  a  whole,  particularly  the  custom  of 
throwing  light  upon  the  historical  course  of  events  by  the  introduc- 
tion of  circumstantial  clauses,  from  which  we  may  draw  the  con- 
clusion that  they  were  written  by  the  same  author.  On  the  other 
hand,  they  do  not  contain  any  such  characteristic  marks  as  could 
furnish  a  certain  basis  for  well-founded  conjectures  concerning 
the  author,  or  raise  Bertheaus  conjecture,  that  he  was  the  same 
person  as  the  author  of  chap.  i.  1-ii.  5,  into  a  probability.  Fdr 
the  frequent  use  of  the  perfect  with  1  (compare  chap.  xx.  17,  33, 
37,  38,  40,  41,  48,  xxi.  1,  15,  with  chap.  i.  8,  IG,  21,  25,  etc.)  can 
be  fully  explained  from  the  contents  themselves;  and  the  notion 
that  the  perfect  is  used  here  more  frequently  for  the   historical 


428  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

imperfect  with  vav  consec.  rests  upon  a  misunderstanding  and  mis- 
interpretation of  the  passages  in  question.  The  other  and  not  very 
numerous  expressions,  which  are  common  to  chap,  xvii.-xxi.  and 
chap,  i.,  are  not  sufficiently  characteristic  to  supply  the  proof  required, 
as  they  are  also  met  with  elsewhere :  see,  for  example,  B^a  rw 
(chap.  i.  8,  xx.  48),  which  not  only  occurs  again  in  2  Kings  viii. 
12  and  Ps.  lxxiv.  7,  but  does  not  even  occur  in  both  the  appen- 
dices, B'SB  *\~\&  being  used  instead  in  chap,  xviii.  27.  So  much, 
however,  may  unquestionably  be  gathered  from  the  exactness  and 
circumstantiality  of  the  history,  viz.  that  the  first  recorder  of  these 
events,  whose  account  was  the  source  employed  by  the  author  of 
our  book,  cannot  have  lived  at  a  time  very  remote  from  the  occur- 
rences themselves.  On  the  other  hand,  there  are  not  sufficient 
grounds  for  the  conjecture  that  these  appendices  were  not  attached 
to  the  book  of  the  Judges  till  a  later  age.  For  it  can  neither  be 
maintained  that  the  object  of  the  first  appendix  was  to  show  how 
the  image-worship  which  Jeroboam  set  up  in  his  kingdom  at  Bethel 
and  Dan  had  a  most  pernicious  origin,  and  sprang  from  the  image- 
worship  of  the  Ephraimite  Micah,  which  the  Danites  had  estab- 
lished at  Laish,  nor  that  the  object  of  the  second  appendix  was  to 
prove  that  the  origin  of  the  pre-Davidic  kingdom  (of  Saul)  was 
sinful  and  untheocratic,  i.e.  opposed  to  the  spirit  and  nature  of 
the  kingdom  of  God,  as  Auberlen  affirms  (Theol.  Stud.  u.  Kr. 
1860).  The  identity  of  the  golden  calf  set  up  by  Jeroboam  at  Dan 
with  the  image  of  Jehovah  that  was  stolen  by  the  Danites  from 
Micah  the  Ephraimite  and  set  up  in  Laish-Dan,  is  precluded  by 
the  statement  in  chap,  xviii.  31  respecting  the  length  of  time  that 
this  image-worship  continued  in  Dan  (see  the  commentary  on  the 
passage  itself).  At  the  most,  therefore,  we  can  only  maintain, 
with  0.  v.  Gerlachj  that  "  both  (appendices)  set  forth,  according  to 
the  intention  of  the  author,  the  misery  which  arose  during  the  wild 
unsettled  period  of  the  judges  from  the  want  of  a  governing,  regal 
authority."  This  is  hinted  at  in  the  remark,  which  occurs  in  both 
appendices,  that  at  that  time  there  was  no  king  in  Israel,  and  every 
one  did  what  was  right  in  his  own  eyes  (chap.  xvii.  6,  xxi.  25). 
This  remark,  on  the  other  hand,  altogether  excludes  the  time  of  the 
falling  away  of  the  ten  tribes,  and  the  decline  of  the  later  kingdom, 
and  is  irreconcilable  with  the  assumption  that  these  appendices 
were  not  added  to  the  book  of  the  Judges  till  after  the  division  of 
the  kingdom,  or  not  till  the  time  of  the  Assyrian  or  Babylonian 
captivity. 


chap  xvii.  l-io.  429 


IMAGE-WORSHIP  OF  MICAH   THE   EPHRAIMITE,  AND    ITS   REMOVAL 
TO  LAISn-DAN. — CHAP.  XVII.  XVIII. 

Chap.  xvii.  Micah's  Image-worship. — The  account  of  the 
image-worship  which  Micah  established  in  his  house  upon  the 
mountains  of  Ephraim  is  given  in  a  very  brief  and  condensed 
form,  because  it  was  simply  intended  as  an  introduction  to  the 
account  of  the  establishment  of  this  image-worship  in  Laish-Dan 
in  northern  Palestine.  Consequently  only  such  points  are  for  the 
most  part  given,  as  exhibit  in  the  clearest  light  the  sinful  origin 
and  unlawful  character  of  this  worship. 

Vers.  1-10.  A  man  of  the  mountains  of  Ephraim  named  Micah 
(irriro,  vers.  1,  4,  then  contracted  into  ^Tü,  vers.  5,  8,  etc.),  who 
set  up  this  worship  for  himself,  and  "  respecting  whom  the  Scrip- 
tures do  not  think  it  worth  while  to  add  the  name  of  his  father,  or 
to  mention  the  family  from  which  he  sprang"  (Berleb.  Bible),  had 
stolen  1100  shekels  of  silver  (about  £135)  from  his  mother.  This  is 
very  apparent  from  the  words  which  he  spoke  to  his  mother  (ver.  2)  : 
"  The  thousand  and  hundred  shekels  of  silver  which  xcere  taken  from 
thee  (the  singular  nfpp  refers  to  the  silver),  about  which  thou  cursedst 
and  spakest  of  also  in  mine  ears  {i.e.  didst  so  utter  the  curse  that 
among  others  I  also  heard  it),  behold,  this  silver  is  with  me ;  I  have 
taken  it."  H?X  to  swear,  used  to  denote  a  malediction  or  curse  (cf. 
rPNTip,  Lev.  v.  1).  He  seems  to  have  been  impelled  to  make  this 
confession  by  the  fear  of  his  mothers  curse.  But  his  mother 
praised  him  for  it, — "  Blessed  be  my  son  of  Jehovah" — partly  because 
she  saw  in  it  a  proof  that  there  still  existed  a  germ  of  the  fear  of 
God,  but  in  all  probability  chiefly  because  she  was  about  to  dedicate 
the  silver  to  Jehovah  ;  for,  when  her  son  had  given  it  back  to  her, 
she  said  (ver.  3),  "  I have  sanctified  the  silver  to  the  Lord  from  mu 
hand  for  my  son,  to  make  an  image  and  molten  work"  The  perfect 
"•riKHpn  is  not  to  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  the  pluperfect,  "  I  had 
sanctified  it,"  but  is  expressive  of  an  act  just  performed  :  I  have 
sanctified  it,  I  declare  herewith  that  I  do  sanctify  it.  "  And  noio  I 
give  it  back  to  thee"  namely,  to  appropriate  to  thy  house  of  God. — 
Yer.  4.  Hereupon — namely,  when  her  son  had  given  her  back  the 
silver  ("  he  restored  the  silver  unto  his  mother"  is  only  a  repetition 
of  ver.  3a,  introduced  as  a  link  with  which  to  connect  the  appro- 
priation of  the  silver) — the  mother  took  200  shekels  and  gave  them 
to  the  goldsmith,  who  made  an  image  and  molten  work  of  them, 
which  were  henceforth  in  Micah's  house.     The  200  shekels  were 


430  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

not  quite  the  fifth  part  of  the  whole.  What  she  did  with  the  rest 
is  not  stated ;  but  from  the  fact  that  she  dedicated  the  silver  gene- 
rally, i.e.  the  whole  amount,  to  Jehovah,  according  to  ver.  3,  we 
may  infer  that  she  applied  the  remainder  to  the  maintenance  of  the 
image-worship.1  Pesel  and  massecah  (image  and  molten  work)  are 
joined  together,  as  in  Deut.  xxvii.  15.  The  difference  between  the 
two  words  in  this  instance  is  very  difficult  to  determine.  Pesel 
signifies  an  idolatrous  image,  whether  made  of  wood  or  metal. 
Massecah,  on  the  other  hand,  signifies  a  cast,  something  poured; 
and  when  used  in  the  singular,  is  almost  exclusively  restricted  to 
the  calf  cast  by  Aaron  or  Jeroboam.  It  is  generally  connected 
with  «y,  but  it  is  used  in  the  same  sense  without  this  definition  (e.g. 
Deut.  ix.  12).  This  makes  the  conjecture  a  very  natural  one,  that 
the  two  words  together  might  simply  denote  a  likeness  of  Jehovah, 
and,  judging  from  the  occurrence  at  Sinai,  a  representation  of 
Jehovah  in  the  form  of  a  molten  calf.  But  there  is  one  obstacle  in 
the  way  of  such  a  conjecture,  namely,  that  in  chap,  xviii.  17,  18, 
massecah  is  separated  from  pesel,  so  as  necessarily  to  suggest  the  idea 
of  two  distinct  objects.  But  as  we  can  hardly  suppose  that  Micah's 
mother  had  two  images  of  Jehovah  made,  and  that  Micah  had  both 
of  them  set  up  in  his  house  of  God,  no  other  explanation  seems 
possible  than  that  the  massecah  was  something  belonging  to  the 
pesel,  or  image  of  Jehovah,  but  yet  distinct  from  it, — in  other  words, 
that  it  was  the  pedestal  upon  which  it  stood.  The  pesel  was  at  any 
rate  the  principal  thing,  as  we  may  clearly  infer  from  the  fact  that 
it  is  placed  in  the  front  rank  among  the  four  objects  of  Micah's 
sanctuary,  which  the  Danites  took  with  them  (chap,  xviii.  17,  18), 
and  that  in  chap,  xviii.  30,  31,  the  pesel  alone  is  mentioned  in  con- 
nection with  the  setting  up  of  the  image-worship  in  Dan.  Moreover, 
there  can  hardly  be  any  doubt  that  pesel,  as  a  representation  of 
Jehovah,  was  an  image  of  a  bull,  like  the  golden  calf  which  Aaron 
had  made  at  Sinai  (Ex.  xxxii.  4),  and  the  golden  calves  which 
Jeroboam  set  up  in  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  and  one  of  which  was  set 
up  in  Dan  (1  Kings  xii.  29). — Ver.  5.  His  mother  did  this,  because 

1  There  is  no  foundation  for  Bertheau's  opinion,  that  the  200  shekels  were 
no  part  of  the  1100,  but  the  trespass-money  paid  by  the  son  when  he  gave  his 
mother  back  the  money  that  he  had  purloined,  since,  according  to  Lev.  v.  24, 
when  a  thief  restored  to  the  owner  any  stolen  property,  he  was  to  add  the  fifth 
of  its  value.  There  is  no  ground  for  applying  this  law  to  the  case  before  us, 
simply  because  the  taking  of  the  money  by  the  son  is  not  even  described  as  a 
theft,  whilst  the  mother  really  praises  her  son  for  his  open  confession. 


CHAP.  XVII.  7-13.  4;U 

her  son  Micah  had  a  house  of  God,  and  had  had  an  ephod  and 
teraphim  made  for  himself,  and  one  of  his  sons  consecrated  to 
officiate  there  as  a  priest.  fU»D  &>l&n  (the  man  Micah)  is  therefore 
placed  at  the  head  absolutely,  and  is  connected  with  what  follows 
by  X?:  "  As  for  the  man  Micah,  there  was  to  him  (he  had)  a  house 
of  God."  The  whole  verse  is  a  circumstantial  clause  explanatory 
of  what  precedes,  and  the  following  verbs  L'Ti,  K?EN,  and  WV  are 
simply  a  continuation  of  the  first  clause,  and  therefore  to  be  rendered 
as  pluperfects.  Micah's  beth  Elohim  (house  of  God)  was  a  domestic 
temple  belonging  to  Micah's  house,  according  to  chap,  xviii.  15-18. 
Tn?  **?*?>  to  fiM  tne  hand,  i.e.  to  invest  with  the  priesthood,  to  insti- 
tute as  priest  (see  at  Lev.  vii.  37).  The  ephod  was  an  imitation  of 
the  high  priest's  shoulder-dress  (see  at  chap.  viii.  27).  The  teraphim 
were  images  of  household  gods,  penates,  who  were  worshipped  as 
the  givers  of  earthly  prosperity,  and  as  oracles  (see  at  Gen.  x.xxi. 
19). — In  ver.  6  it  is  observed,  in  explanation  of  this  unlawful  con- 
duct, that  at  that  time  there  was  no  king  in  Israel,  and  every  one 
did  what  was  right  in  his  own  eyes. 

Vers.  7-13.  Appointment  of  a  Levite  as  Priest. — Vers.  7  sqq. 
In  the  absence  of  a  Levitical  priest,  Micah  had  first  of  all  appointed 
one  of  his  sons  as  priest  at  his  sanctuary.  He  afterwards  found  a 
Levite  for  this  service.  A  young  man  from  Bethlehem  in  Judah, 
of  the  family  of  Judah,  who,  being  a  Levite,  stayed  (13)  there  (in 
Bethlehem)  as  a  stranger,  left  this  town  to  sojourn  "  at  the  place 
which  he  should  ßnd"  sc.  as  a  place  that  would  afford  him  shelter 
and  support,  and  came  up  to  the  mountains  of  Ephraim  to  Micah's 
house,  "  making  his  journey,"  i.e.  upon  his  journey.  (On  the  use 
of  the  inf.  constr.  with  ?  in  the  sense  of  the  Latin  gerund  in  do,  see 
Ewald,  §  280,  d.)  Bethlehem  was  not  a  Levitical  town.  The  young 
Levite  from  Bethlehem  was  neither  born  there  nor  made  a  citizen 
of  the  place,  but  simply  "  sojourned  there,"  i.e.  dwelt  there  tem- 
porarily as  a  stranger.  The  further  statement  as  to  his  descent 
(jnishpachath  Judah)  is  not  to  be  understood  as  signifying  that  he 
was  a  descendant  of  some  family  in  the  tribe  of  Judah,  but  simply 
that  he  belonged  to  the  Levites  who  dwelt  in  the  tribe  of  Judah, 
and  were  reckoned  in  all  civil  matters  as  belonging  to  that  tribe. 
On  the  division  of  the  land,  it  is  true  that  it  was  only  to  the  priests 
that  dwelling-] daces  were  allotted  in  the  inheritance  of  this  tribe 
(Josh.  xxi.  9-19),  whilst  the  rest  of  the  Levites,  even  the  non- 
priestly  members  of  the  family  of  Kohath,  received  their  dwelling- 
places  among  the  other  tribes  (Josh.  xxi.  20  sqq.).     At  the  same 


432  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

time,  as  many  of  the  towns  which  were  allotted  to  the  different 
tribes  remained  for  a  long  time  in  the  possession  of  the  Canaanites, 
and  the  Israelites  did  not  enter  at  once  into  the  full  and  undisputed 
possession  of  their  inheritance,  it  might  easily  so  happen  that 
different  towns  which  were  allotted  to  the  Levites  remained  in 
possession  of  the  Canaanites,  and  consequently  that  the  Levites 
were  compelled  to  seek  a  settlement  in  other  places.  It  might  also 
happen  that  individuals  among  the  Levites  themselves,  who  were 
disinclined  to  perform  the  service  assigned  them  by  the  law,  would 
remove  from  the  Levitical  towns  and  seek  some  other  occupation 
elsewhere  (see  also  at  chap,  xviii.  30). 1 — Ver.  10.  Micah  made  this 
proposal  to  the  Levite  :  "  Dwell  with  me,  and  become  my  father  and 
priest ;  I  will  give  thee  ten  shekels  of  silver  yearly,  and  fitting  out 
with  clothes  and  maintenance."  2X,  father,  is  an  honourable  title 
given  to  a  priest  as  a  paternal  friend  and  spiritual  adviser,  and  is 
also  used  with  reference  to  prophets  in  2  Kings  vi.  21  and  xiii.  14, 
and  applied  to  Joseph  in  Gen.  xlv.  8.  ^®%  for  the  days,  sc.  for 
which  a  person  was  engaged,  i.e.  for  the  year  (cf.  1  Sam.  xxvii.  7, 
and  Lev.  xxv.  29).  "  And  the  Levite  went,"  i.e.  went  to  Micah's 
house.  This  meaning  is  evident  from  the  context.  The  repetition 
of  the  subject,  "  the  Levite,"  precludes  our  connecting  it  with  the 
following  verb  ?*tf*l. — In  vers.  11-13  the  result  is  summed  up.  The 
Levite  resolved  (see  at  Deut.  i.  5)  to  dwell  with  Micah,  who  treated 
him  as  one  of  his  sons,  and  entrusted  him  with  the  priesthood  at  his 
house  of  God.  And  Micah  rejoiced  that  he  had  got  a  Levite  as 
priest,  and  said,  "  Now  I  know  that  Jehovah  will  prosper  me."  This 
belief,  or,  to  speak  more  correctly,  superstition,  for  which  Micah  was 
very  speedily  to  atone,  proves  that  at  that  time  the  tribe  of  Levi 
held  the  position  assigned  it  in  the  law  of  Moses ;  that  is  to  say, 
that  it  was  regarded  as  the  tribe  elected  by  God  for  the  performance 
of  divine  worship. 

Chap,  xviii.  The  Image-worship  removed  to  Laish-Dan. 

1  There  is  no  reason,  therefore,  for  pronouncing  the  words  miiT  nnSK^SO 
(of  the  family  of  Judah)  a  gloss,  and  erasing  them  from  the  text,  as  Houbigant 
proposes.  The  omission  of  them  from  the  Cod.  Vat.  of  the  LXX.,  and  from  the 
Syriac,  is  not  enough  to  warrant  this,  as  they  occur  in  the  Cod.  Al.  of  the  LXX., 
and  their  absence  from  the  authorities  mentioned  may  easily  be  accounted  for 
from  the  difficulty  which  was  felt  in  explaining  their  meaning.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  impossible  to  imagine  any  reason  for  the  interpolation  of  such  a 
gloss  into  the  text. 


chap,  xviii.  l-io.  433 

■ — Vers.  1-10.  Spies  sent  out  by  the  tribe  of  Dan,  to  seek  for  a  place 
suitable  for  a  settlement,  and  their  success. — Ver.  1.  This  took 
place  at  a  time  when  Israel  had  no  king,  and  the  tribe  of  the  Danites 
sought  an  inheritance  for  themselves  to  dwell  in,  because  until  that 
day  no  such  portion  had  fallen  to  them  among  the  tribes  as  an 
inheritance.  To  the  expression  n^s:  i6  (had  not  fallen)  we  must 
supply  !"6n3  as  the  subject  from  the  previous  clause;  and  n^mn 
signifies  in  the  character  of  a  nachalah,  i.e.  of  a  possession  that  could 
be  transmitted  as  hereditary  property  from  father  to  son.  ^23,  to 
fall,  is  used  with  reference  to  the  falling  of  the  lot  (vid.  Num. 
xxxiv.  2,  Josh.  xiii.  6,  etc.).  The  general  statement,  that  as  yet 
no  inheritance  had  fallen  to  the  tribe  of  Dan  by  lot,  has  its  limita- 
tion in  the  context.  As  the  Danites,  according  to  ver.  2,  sent  out 
five  men  from  Zorea  and  Eshtaol,  and,  according  to  ver.  11,  six 
hundred  men  equipped  for  fight  went  out  to  Laisli,  which  the  spies 
had  discovered  to  be  a  place  well  fitted  for  a  settlement,  and  had 
settled  there,  it  is  very  evident  from  this  that  the  Danites  were  not 
absolutely  without  an  inheritance,  but  that  hitherto  they  had  not 
received  one  sufficient  for  their  wants.  The  emigrants  themselves 
were  already  settled  in  Zorea  and  Eshtaol,  two  of  the  towns  that 
had  fallen  to  the  tribe  of  Dan  by  lot  (Josh.  xix.  41).  Moreover, 
the  six  hundred  equipped  Danites,  who  went  out  of  these  towns, 
were  only  a  very  small  part  of  the  tribe  of  Danites,  which  numbered 
64,400  males  of  twenty  years  old  and  upwards  at  the  last  census 
(Num.  xxvi.  43).  For  a  tribe  of  this  size  the  land  assigned  by 
Joshua  to  the  tribe  of  Dan,  with  all  the  towns  that  it  contained,  was 
amply  sufficient.  But  from  chap.  i.  34  we  learn  that  the  Amorites 
forced  the  Danites  into  the  mountains,  and  would  not  allow  them 
to  come  down  into  the  plain.  Consequently  they  were  confined 
to  a  few  towns  situated  upon  the  sides  or  tops  of  the  mountain-, 
which  did  not  supply  all  the  room  they  required.  Feeling  them- 
selves too  weak  to  force  back  the  Canaanites  and  exterminate  them, 
one  portion  of  the  Danites  preferred  to  seek  an  inheritance  for 
themselves  somewhere  else  in  the  land.  This  enterprise  ami  emi- 
gration are  described  in  vers.  2  sqq.  The  time  cannot  be  determined 
with  perfect  certainty,  as  all  that  can  be  clearly  inferred  from  ver. 
12,  as  compared  with  chap.  xiii.  25,  is,  that  it  took  place  some  time 
before  the  days  of  Samson.  Many  expositors  have  therefore 
assigned  it  to  the  period  immediately  following  the  defeat  of  Jabin 
by  Barak  (chap.  iv.  24),  because  it  was  not  till  after  the  overthrow 
of  this  powerful  king  of  the  Canaanites  that  conquests  were  possible 

2  K 


434  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

in/  the  north  of  Canaan,  and  the  tribe  of  Dan  at  that  time  still 
remained  in  ships  (chap.  v.  17),  so  that  it  had  not  yet  left  the 
territory  assigned  it  by  the  sea-shore  (Josh.  xix.).  But  these  argu- 
ments have  neither  of  them  any  force;  for  there  is  nothing  sur- 
prising in  the  fact  that  Danites  should  still  be  found  by  the  sea- 
shore in  the  time  of  Deborah,  even  if  Danite  families  from  Zorea 
and  Eshtaol  had  settled  in  Laish  long  before,  seeing  that  these 
emigrants  formed  but  a  small  fraction  of  the  whole  tribe,  and  the 
rest  remained  in  the  possessions  assigned  them  by  Joshua.  More- 
over, the  strengthening  of  the  force  of  the  Canaanites,  and  the 
extension  of  their  dominion  in  the  north,  did  not  take  place  till  150 
years  after  Joshua,  in  the  days  of  Jabin ;  so  that  long  before  Jabin 
the  town  of  Laish  may  have  been  conquered  by  the  Danites,  and 
taken  possession  of  by  them.  In  all  probability  this  took  place 
shortly  after  the  death  of  Joshua,  as  we  may  infer  from  ver.  30 
(see  the  exposition  of  this  verse). — Ver.  2.  To  spy  out  and  explore 
the  land  for  the  object  mentioned,  the  Danites  sent  out  five  brave 
men  "  out  of  their  (the  Danites')  ends"  i.e.  from  their  whole  body 
(vid.  1  Kings  xii.  31,  xiii.  33,  and  the  commentary  on  Gen.  xix.  4). 
They  came  up  to  the  mountains  of  Ephraim,  and  as  far  as  Micah's 
house,  where  they  passed  the  night. — Vers.  3-6.  When  they  were 
at  Micah's  house  &nd  recognised  the  voice  of  the  young  Levite,  i.e. 
heard  his  voice,  and  perceived  from  his  dialect  that  he  was  not  a 
native  of  these  mountains,  they  turned  aside  there,  sc.  from  the  road 
into  the  house,  near  to  which  they  rested,  and  asked  him,  "  Who 
brought  thee  hither,  and  what  doest  thou  at  this  place?  what  hast  thou 
to  do  here?"  When  he  told  them  his  history  ("thus  and  thus,"  lit. 
according  to  this  and  that ;  cf.  2  Sam.  xi.  25,  1  Kings  xiv.  5),  they 
said  to  him,  "  Ask  God,  we  pray  thee,  that  we  may  learn  whether 
our  way  will  he  prosperous."  crpxa  PNK>,  used  for  asking  the  will  of 
God,  as  in  chap.  i.  1,  except  that  here  the  inquiry  was  made  through 
the  medium  of  the  imitation  of  the  ephod  and  the  worship  of  an 
image.  And  he  said  to  them,  sc.  after  making  inquiry  of  the  divine 
oracle,  "  Go  in  peace;  straight  before  Jehovah  is  your  way"  i.e.  it  is 
known  and  well-pleasing  to  Him  (vid.  Prov.  v.  21,  Jer.  xvii.  16). — 
Ver.  7.  Thus  the  five  men  proceeded  to  Laish,  which  is  called 
Leshem  in  Josh.  xix.  47,  and  was  named  Dan  after  the  conquest 
by  the  Danites, — a  place  on  the  central  source  of  the  Jordan,  the 
present  Tell  el  Kadi  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  47), — and  saw  the  people  of 
the  town  dwelling  securely  after  the  manner  of  the  Sidonians,  who 
lived  by  trade  and  commerce,  and  did  not  go  out  to  war.     nati'i»  is 


CHAP.  XVIII.  11-29.  435 

the  predicate  to  DJ?n~nN,  and  the  feminine  is  to  be  explained  from 
the  fact  that  the  writer  had  the  population  before  his  mind  (see 
Ewald,  §  174,  b.);  and  the  use  of  the  masculine  in  the  following 
words,  nüh1)  t3pb>,  which  are  in  apposition,  is  not  at  variance  with 
this.  The  connection  of  flinty  with  ^3"^,  which  Bertheau  revives 
from  the  earlier  commentators,  is  opposed  to  the  genius  of  the 
Hebrew  language,  nttin  Epb*,  "  living  quietly  and  safely  there." 
'Ul  DvJCTpXl,  "  and  no  one  who  seized  the  government  to  himself  did 
any  harm  to  them  in  the  land."  Ey?1?,  to  shame,  then  to  do  an 
injury  (1  Sam.  xxv.  7).  "UW  Qy3ö,  shaming  with  regard  to  a 
thing,  i.e.  doing  any  kind  of  injury.  IXJjf,  dominion,  namely  tyran- 
nical rule,  from  "VtV,  imperio  coercere.  The  rendering  "  riches"  (6n- 
aavpos,  LXX.),  which  some  give  to  this  word,  is  founded  simply 
upon  a  confounding  of  "ivy  with  "ivix.  vrv  does  not  mean  "  to 
possess,"  but  "to  take  possession  of,"  and  that  by  force  (as  in 
1  Kings  xxi.  18).  "And  they  were  far  from  the  Sidonians"  so  that 
in  the  event  of  a  hostile  invasion  they  could  not  obtain  any  assist- 
ance from  this  powerful  city.  Grotius  draws  the  very  probable 
conclusion  from  these  words,  that  Laish  may  have  been  a  colony  of 
the  Sidonians.  "And  they  had  nothing  to  do  with  (other)  men"  i.e. 
they  did  not  live  in  any  close  association  with  the  inhabitants  of 
other  towns,  so  as  to  be  able  to  obtain  assistance  from  any  other 
quarter. — Vers.  8,  9.  On  their  return,  the  spies  said  to  their  fellow- 
citizens,  in  reply  to  the  question  DAK  no,  "  What  have  you  accom- 
plishedV  "  Up,  let  us  go  up  against  them  (the  inhabitants  of  Laish), 
for  the  land  is  very  good,  and  ye  are  silent"  i.e.  standing  inactive 
(1  Kings  xxii.  3  ;  2  Kings  vii.  9).  "  Be  not  slothful  to  go  .(to  proceed 
thither),  to  come  and  take  possession  of  the  land!" — Ver.  10.  "  When 
ye  arrive,  ye  will  come  to  a  secure  people  (i.e.  a  people  living  in  care- 
less security,  and  therefore  very  easy  to  overcome)  ;  and  the  land 
is  broad  on  both  sides  (i.e.  furnishes  space  to  dwell  in,  and  also  to 
extend:  vid.  Gen.  xxxiv.  21,  1  Chron.  iv.  40)  ;  for  God  has  given 
it  into  your  hand."  They  infer  this  from  the  oracular  reply  they 
had  received  from  the  Levite  (ver.  6).  "  A  place  where  there  is  no 
want  of  anything  that  is  in  the  land  (of  Canaan)." 

Vers.  11-29.  Removal  of  Six  Hundred  Danites  to  Laish — 
Robbery  of  Micali  s  Images — Conquest  of  Baish,  and  Settlement  there. 
— Vers.  11,  12.  In  consequence  of  the  favourable  account  of  the 
spies  who  returned,  certain  Danites  departed  from  Zorea  and 
Eshtaol,  to  the  number  of  600  men,  accoutred  with  weapons  of 
war,  with  their  families  and  their  possessions  in  cattle  and  goods  (see 


436  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

ver.  21),  and  encamped  by  the  way  at  Kirjath-jearim  (i.e.  Kuriyet 
Enab ;  see  Josh.  ix.  17),  in  the  tribe  territory  of  Judah,  at  a  place 
which  received  the  permanent  name  of  Mahaneh  Dan  (camp  of 
Dan)  from  that  circumstance,  and  was  situated  behind,  i.e.  to  the 
west  of,  Kirjath-jearim  (see  at  chap.  xiii.  25).  The  fact  that  this 
locality  received  a  standing  name  from  the  circumstance  described, 
compels  us  to  assume  that  the  Danites  had  encamped  there  for  a 
considerable  time,  for  reasons  which  we  cannot  determine  from  our 
want  of  other  information.  The  emigrants  may  possibly  have  first 
of  all  assembled  here,  and  prepared  and  equipped  themselves  for 
their  further  march. — Ver.  13.  From  this  point  they  went  across 
to  the  mountains  of  Ephraim,  and  came  to  Micah's  house,  i.e.  to  a 
place  near  it. — Ver.  14.  Then  the  five  men  who  had  explored  the 
land,  viz.  Laish  (Laish  is  in  apposition  to  H^?j  the  land),  said  to 
their  brethren  (tribe-mates),  "  Know  ye  that  in  these  houses  (the 
village  or  place  where  Micah  dwelt)  there  are  an  ephod  and  tera- 
phim,  and  image  and  molten  work  (see  at  chap.  xvii.  4,  5)  ?  and  now 
know  what  ye  will  do"  The  meaning  of  these  last  words  is  very 
easily  explained :  do  not  lose  this  opportunity  of  obtaining  a  worship 
of  our  own  for  our  new  settlement. — Ver.  15.  Then  they  turned 
from  the  road  thither,  and  went  to  the  house  of  the  young  Levite, 
the  house  of  Micah,  and  asked  him  (the  Levite)  concerning  his 
health,  i.e.  saluted  him  in  a  friendly  manner  (see  Gen.  xliii.  27, 
Ex.  xviii.  7,  etc.). — Ver.  16.  The  600  men,  however,  placed  them- 
selves before  the  door. — Ver.  17.  Then  the  five  spies  went  up,  sc. 
into  Micah's  house  of  God,  which  must  therefore  have  been  in  an 
upper  room  of  the  building  (see  2  Kings  xxiii.  12,  Jer.  xix.  13), 
and  took  the  image,  ephod,  etc.,  whilst  the  priest  stood  before  the 
door  with  the  600  armed  men.  With  the  words  'U1  8X3  the  narra- 
tive passes  from  the  aorist  or  historical  tense  w»1  into  the  perfect. 
u  The  perfects  do  not  denote  the  coming  and  taking  on  the  part  of 
the  five  men  as  a  continuation  of  the  previous  account,  but  place 
the  coming  and  taking  in  the  same  sphere  of  time  as  that  to  which 
the  following  clause,  '  and  the  priest  stood,'  etc.,  belongs"  (Bertheau). 
But  in  order  to  explain  what  appears  very  surprising,  viz.  that  the 
priest  should  have  stood  before  the  gate  whilst  his  house  of  God  was 
being  robbed,  the  course  which  the  affair  took  is  explained  more 
clearly  afterwards  in  vers.  18,  19,  in  the  form  of  a  circumstantial 
clause.  Consequently  the  verbs  in  these  verses  ought  to  be  ren- 
dered as  pluperfects,  and  the  different  clauses  comprised  in  one 
period,  ver.  18  forming  the  protasis,  and  ver.  19  the  apodosiö. 


CHAP.  XVIII.  11-29.  437 

"  Namely,  when  those  (five)  men  had  come  into  Micalis  house,  and 
had  taken  the  image  of  the  ephod,  etc.,  and  the  priest  had  said  to 
them.  What  are  ye  doing  ?  they  had  said  to  him,  Be  silent,  lay  thy 
hand  upon  thy  mouth  and  go  with  us,  and  become  a  father  and 
priest  to  us  (see  chap.  xvii.  10).  Is  it  better  to  be  a  priest  to  the 
house  of  a  single  man,  or  to  a  tribe  and  family  in  Israel?"  The 
combination  "ris^n  ?D2  (the  ephod-pesel),  i.e.  the  image  belonging 
to  the  ephod,  may  be  explained  on  the  ground,  that  the  use  of  the 
ephod  as  a  means  of  ascertaining  the  will  of  God  presupposes  the 
existence  of  an  image  of  Jehovah,  and  does  not  prove  that  the 
ephod  served  as  a  covering  for  the  pesel.  The  priest  put  on  the 
ephod  when  he  was  about  to  inquire  of  God.  The  is  in  the  second 
question  is  different  from  EN,  and  signifies  "  or  rather"  (see  Gen. 
xxiv.  55),  indicating  an  improvement  upon  the  first  question  (see 
Ewald,  §  352,  a.).  Consequently  it  is  not  a  sign  of  a  later  usage 
of  speech,  as  Bertheau  supposes.  The  word  nriBBWI  (unto  a  family) 
serves  as  a  more  minute  definition  or  limitation  of  ^?^?  (to  a  tribe). 
— Ver.  20.  Then  was  the  priest's  heart  glad  (merry;  cf.  chap.  xix. 
6,  9,  Ruth  iii.  7),  and  he  took  the  ephod,  etc.,  and  came  amongst 
the  people  (the  Danites).  The  first  clause  of  this  verse  is  attached 
to  the  supplementary  statement  in  vers.  18,  19,  for  the  purpose 
of  linking  on  the  further  progress  of  the  affair,  which  is  given  in 
the  second  clause ;  for,  according  to  ver.  17,  the  priest  could  only 
receive  the  ephod,  etc.,  into  his  charge  from  the  hands  of  the 
Danites,  since  they  had  taken  them  out  of  Micah's  God's  house. — 
Ver.  21.  The  600  Danites  then  set  out  upon  their  road  again  and 
went  away ;  and  they  put  the  children,  the  cattle,  and  the  valuable 
possessions  in  front,  because  they  were  afraid  of  being  attacked  by 
Micah  and  his  people  from  behind.  ^D,  "  the  little  ones,"  includes 
both  women  and  children,  as  the  members  of  the  family  who  were 
in  need  of  protection  (see  at  Ex.  xii.  37).  ITO23  is  literally  an 
adjective,  signifying  splendid  ;  but  here  it  is  a  neuter  substantive  : 
the  valuables,  not  the  heavy  baggage.  The  600  men  had  emigrated 
with  their  families  and  possessions. — Vers.  22,  23.  The  two  clauses 
of  ver.  22  are  circumstantial  clauses  :  "  When  they  (the  600)  had 
got  to  some  distance  from  Micalis  house,  and  the  men  ivho  icere  in 
the  houses  by  Micalis  house  were  called  together,  and  had  overtaken 
the  Danites,  they  (i.e.  Micah  and  his  people,  whom  he  had  called 
together  from  the  neighbourhood  to  pursue  the  emigrants)  called  to 
the  Danites  ;  and  they  turned  their  faces,  and  said  to  Micah,  What  is 
to  thee  (what  is  the  matter),  that  thou  hast  gathered  together?" — 


438  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Vers.  24,  25.  And  when  he  replied,  "  Ye  have  taken  away  my  gods 
which  I  made,  and  the  priest,  and  have  departed ;  what  is  there  still 
to  me  (what  have  I  left)  ?  and  how  can  ye  say  to  me,  What  is  to 
thee  ?"  they  ordered  him  to  be  silent,  lest  he  should  forfeit  his  life  : 
11  Let  not  thy  voice  be  heard  among  us,  lest  men  of  savage  disposition 
(®P.?.  *3?  as  m  2  Sam.  xvii.  8)  should  fall  upon  thee  (yid.  chap.  xv. 
12,  viii.  21,  etc.),  and  thou  shouldst  not  save  thy  life  and  that  of  thy 
household"  i.e.  shouldst  bring  death  upon  thyself  and  thy  family. 
nriBDSl  is  also  dependent  upon  J3. — Ver.  26.  Then  the  Danites  went 
their  way ;  but  Micah,  seeing  that  they  were  stronger  than  he, 
turned  back  and  returned  home. — Vers.  27,  28.  And  they  (the 
Danites)  had  taken  what  Micah  had  made,  i.e.  his  idols  and  his 
priest,  and  they  fell  upon  Laish  (?V  N13,  to  come  over  a  person,  to 
fall  upon  him,  as  in  Gen.  xxxiv.  25),  a  people  living  quietly  and 
free  from  care  (yid.  ver.  7),  smote  them  with  the  edge  of  the  sword 
(see  at  Gen.  xxxiv.  26),  and  burned  down  the  city  (cf.  Josh.  vi.  24), 
as  it  had  no  deliverer  in  its  isolated  condition  (ver.  28a ;  cf.  ver.  7). 
It  was  situated  u  in  the  valley  which  stretches  to  Beth-rehob."  This 
valley  is  the  upper  part  of  the  Huleh  lowland,  through  which  the 
central  source  of  the  Jordan  (Leddari)  flows,  and  by  which  Laish- 
Dan,  the  present  Tell  el  Kadi,  stood  (see  at  Josh.  xix.  47).  Beth- 
rehob  is  most  probably  the  same  place  as  the  Behob  mentioned  in 
Num.  xiii.  21,  and  the  Beth-rehob  of  2  Sam.  x.  6,  which  is  there 
used  to  designate  a  part  of  Syria,  and  for  which  Behob  only  is  also 
used  in  ver.  8.  Bobinson  (Bibl.  Res.  pp.  371  sqq.)  supposes  it  to 
be  the  castle  of  Hunin  or  Honin,  on  the  south-west  of  Tell  el  Kadi ; 
but  this  is  hardly  correct  (see  the  remarks  on  Num.  xiii.  21,  Pent, 
vol.  iii.  p.  88).  The  city,  which  lay  in  ashes,  was  afterwards  re- 
built by  the  Danites,  and  called  Dan,  from  the  name  of  the  founder 
of  their  tribe ;  and  the  ruins  are  still  to  be  seen,  as  already  affirmed, 
on  the  southern  slope  of  the  Tell  el  Kadi  (see  Bob.  Bibl.  Res.  pp. 
391-2,  and  the  comm.  on  Josh.  xix.  47). 

Vers.  30,  31.  Establishment  of  the  Image-worship  in  Dan. — 
After  the  rebuilding  of  Laish  under  the  name  of  Dan,  the  Danites 
set  up  the  pesel  or  image  of  Jehovah,  which  they  had  taken  with 
them  out  of  Micah's  house  of  God.  "  And  Jehonathan,  the  son  of 
Gershom,  the  son  of  Moses,  he  and  his  sons  were  priests  to  the  tribe 
of  the  Danites  till  the  day  of  the  captivity  of  the  land."  As  the 
Danites  had  taken  the  Levite  whom  Micah  had  engaged  for  his 
private  worship  with  them  to  Dan,  and  had  promised  him  the 
priesthood  (vers.  19  and  27),  Jehonathan  can  hardly  be  any  other 


CHAP.  XVIII.  30,  31.  43$ 

than  this  Levite.  He  was  a  son  of  Gershom,  the  son  of  Moses 
(Ex.  11.  22,  xviii.  3;  1  Chron.  xxiii.  14,  15).  Instead  of  nEfc-ja,  our 
Masoretic  text  has  n$jp~p  with  a  hanging  3.  With  regard  to  this 
reading,  the  Talmud  (Baba  bathr.  f.  lOdb)  observes:  "Was  he 
a  son  of  Gershom,  or  was  he  not  rather  a  son  of  Moses?  as  it  is 
written,  the  sons  of  Moses  were  Gershom  and  Eliezer  (1  Chron. 
xxiii.  14),  bnt  because  he  did  the  deeds  of  Manasseh  (the  idolatrous 
son  of  Hezekiah,  2  Kings  xxi.)  the  Scripture  assigns  him  to  the 
family  of  Manasseh."  On  this  Rabbabar  bar  Channa  observes, 
that  "  the  prophet  (i.e.  the  author  of  our  book)  studiously  avoided 
calling  Gershom  the  son  of  Moses,  because  it  would  have  been 
ignominious  to  Moses  to  have  had  an  ungodly  son  ;  but  he  calls  him 
the  son  of  Manasseh,  raising  the  3,  however,  above  the  line,  to  show 
that  it  might  either  be  inserted  or  omitted,  and  that  he  was  the  son 
of  either  H^3D  (Manasseh)  or  Wo  (Moses), — of  Manasseh  through 
imitating  his  impiety,  of  Moses  by  descent"  (cf.  Buxtorfi  Tiber,  p. 
171).  Later  Rabbins  say  just  the  same.  R.  Tanchum  calls  the 
writing  Menasseh,  with  a  hanging  nun,  a  D'HQiD  pipJI,  and  speaks  of 
ben  Mosheh  as  Kethibh,  and  ben  Menasseh  as  Keri.  Ben  Mosheh  is 
therefore  unquestionably  the  original  reading,  although  the  other 
reading  ben  Menasseh  is  also  very  old,  as  it  is  to  be  found  in  the 
Targums  and  the  Syriac  and  Sept.  versions,  although  some  Coda1. 
of  the  LXX.  have  the  reading  viov  Mcoüarj  (vid.  Kennic.  dissert, 
gener.  in  V.  T.  §  21).1  Jerome  also  has  ßlii  Moysi.  At  the  same 
time,  it  does  not  follow  with  certainty  from  the  reading  ben 
Gershom  that  Jehonathan  was  actually  a  son  of  Gershom,  as  ben 
frequently  denotes  a  grandson  in  such  genealogical  accounts, 
unknown  fathers  being  passed  over  in  the  genealogies.  There  is 
very  little  probability  of  his  having  been  a  son,  for  the  simple 
reason,  that  if  Jehonathan  was  the  same  person  as  Micah's  high 
priest — and  there  is  no  ground  for  doubting  this — he  is  described 
as  "TW  in  chap.  xvii.  7,  xviii.  3,  15,  and  therefore  was  at  any  rate  a 
young  man,  whereas  the  son  of  Gershom  and  grandson  of  Moses 
would  certainly  have  passed  the  age  of  youth  by  a  few  years  after 
the  death  of  Joshua.  This  Jehonathan  and  his  sons  performed 
the  duties  of  the  priesthood  at  Dan  pKH  T\\bi  tfr~iy.  This  state- 
ment is  obscure.  H5??  n^?  can  hardly  mean  anything  else  than  the 
carrying  away  of  the  people  of  the  land  into  exile,  that  is  to  say,  of 

1  These  two  readings  of  the  LXX.  seem  to  be  fused  together  in  the  text 
given  by  T/teoduret  (quxst.  xxvi.):  'luvdcdccv  ydcp  (fno'»  vtog  'Mxi/ocaaij,  viov  Ytpa&if* 
viov  Njv/, 


440  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

the  inhabitants  of  Dan  and  the  neighbourhood  at  least,  since  n^3  is 
the  standing  expression  for  this.  Most  of  the  commentators  suppose 
the  allusion  to  be  to  the  Assyrian  captivity,  or  primarily  to  the 
carrying  away  by  Tiglath-Pileser  of  the  northern  tribes  of  Israel, 
viz.  the  population  of  Gilead,  Galilee,  and  the  tribe  of  Naphtali,  in 
the  midst  of  which  Laish-Dan  was  situated  (2  Kings  xv.  29).  But 
the  statement  in  ver.  31,  "  And  they  set  them  up  Micalis  graven 
image,  which  he  made,  all  the  time  that  the  house  of  God  was  in 
Shiloh"  is  by  no  means  reconcilable  with  such  a  conclusion.  We 
find  the  house  of  God,  i.e.  the  Mosaic  tabernacle,  which  the  con- 
gregation had  erected  at  Shiloh  in  the  days  of  Joshua  (Josh,  xviii. 
1),  still  standing  there  in  the  time  of  Eli  and  Samuel  (1  Sam.  i.  3 
sqq.,  iii.  21,  iv.  3) ;  but  in  the  time  of  Saul  it  was  at  Nob  (1  Sam. 
xxi.),  and  during  the  reign  of  David  at  Gibeon  (1  Chron.  xvi.  39, 
xxi.  29).  Consequently  "  the  house  of  God  "  only  stood  in  Shiloh  till 
the  reign  of  Saul,  and  was  never  taken  there  again.  If  therefore 
Micah's  image,  which  the  Danites  set  up  in  Dan,  remained  there 
as  long  as  the  house  of  God  was  at  Shiloh,  Jonathan's  sons  can 
only  have  been  there  till  Saul's  time  at  the  longest,  and  certainly 
cannot  have  been  priests  at  this  sanctuary  in  Dan  till  the  time  of 
the  Assyrian  captivity.1  There  are  also  other  historical  facts  to  be 
considered,  which  render  the  continuance  of  this  Danite  image- 
worship  until  the  Assyrian  captivity  extremely  improbable,  or 
rather  preclude  it  altogether.  Even  if  we  should  not  lay  any  stress 
upon  the  fact  that  the  Israelites  under  Samuel  put  away  the 
Baalim  and  Astartes  in  consequence  of  his  appeal  to  them  to  turn 
to  the  Lord  (1  Sam.  vii.  4),  it  is  hardly  credible  that  in  the  time 
of  David  the  image-worship  should  have  continued  at  Dan  by  the 
side  of  the  lawful  worship  of  Jehovah  which  he  restored  and 
organized,  and  should  not  have  been  observed  and  suppressed  by 
this  king,  who  carried  on  repeated  wars  in  the  northern  part  of  his 
kingdom.  Still  more  incredible  would  the  continuance  of  this 
image-worship  appear  after  the  erection  of  Solomon's  temple,  when 
all  the  men  of  Israel,  and  all  the  elders  and  heads  of  tribes,  came  to 
Jerusalem,  at  the  summons  of  Solomon,  to  celebrate  the  consecra- 
tion of  tins  splendid  national  sanctuary  (1  Kings  v.-vii.).  Lastly, 
the  supposition  that  the  image-worship  established  by  the  Danites 

1  The  impossibility  of  reconciling  the  statement  as  to  time  in  ver.  31  with 
the  idea  that  "  the  captivity  of  the  land"  refers  to  the  Assyrian  captivity,  is 
admitted  even  by  Bleek  (Einl.  p.  349),  who  adopts  Houbiganfs  conjecture,  viz. 
piNH  Di^a,  "  the  carrying  away  of  the  ark." 


CHAP.  XVIII.  30,  81.  441 

at  Dan  still  continued  to  exist,  is  thoroughly  irreconcilable  with 
the  fact,  that  when  Jeroboam  established  the  kingdom  of  the  ten 
tribes  he  had  two  golden  calves  made  as  images  of  Jehovah  for 
the  subjects  of  his  kingdom,  and  set  up  one  of  them  at  Dan,  and 
appointed  priests  out  of  the  whole  nation  who  were  not  of  the  sons 
of  Levi.  If  an  image-worship  of  Jehovah  had  been  still  in  exist- 
ence in  Dan,  and  conducted  by  Levitical  priests,  Jeroboam  would 
certainly  not  have  established  a  second  worship  of  the  same  kind 
under  priests  who  were  not  Levitical.  All  these  difficulties  pre- 
clude our  explaining  the  expression,  "  the  day  of  the  captivity  of 
the  land,"  as  referring  to  either  the  Assyrian  or  Babylonian  cap- 
tivity. It  can  only  refer  to  some  event  which  took  place  in  the 
last  years  of  Samuel,  or  the  first  part  of  the  reign  of  Saul.  David 
Kimchi  and  many  others  have  interpreted  the  expression  as  relating 
to  the  carrying  away  of  the  ark  by  the  Philistines,  for  which  the 
words  «jjnfe^O  *li23  i"6a  are  used  in  1  Sam.  iv.  21,  22  (e.g.  Ileng Stern- 
berg, Beitr.  vol.  ii.  pp.  153  sqq. ;  Hävernich,  Einl.  ii.  1,  p.  109  ;  0. 
v.  Gerlach,  and  others).  With  the  carrying  away  of  the  ark  of 
the  covenant,  the  tabernacle  lost  its  significance  as  a  sanctuary  of 
Jehovah.  We  learn  from  Ps.  lxxviii.  59-64  how  the  godly  in 
Israel  regarded  that  event.  They  not  only  looked  upon  it  as  a 
casting  away  of  the  dwelling-place  of  God  at  Shiloh ;  but  in  the 
fact  that  Jehovah  gave  up  His  might  and  glory  (i.e.  the  ark)  into 
captivity,  they  discerned  a  surrender  of  the  nation  into  the  full 
power  of  its  foes  which  resembled  a  carrying  away  into  captivity. 
For,  apart  altogether  from  the  description  in  Ps.  lxxviii.  62-64,  we 
may  infer  with  certainty  from  the  account  of  the  tyranny  which 
these  foes  still  exercised  over  the  Israelites  in  the  time  of  Saul  (1 
Sam.  xiii.  19-23),  that,  after  this  victory,  the  Philistines  may  have 
completely  subjugated  the  Israelites,  and  treated  them  as  their 
prisoners.  We  may  therefore  affirm  with  Hengstenberg,  that  "  the 
author  looked  upon  the  whole  land  as  carried  away  into  captivity 
in  its  sanctuary,  which  formed  as  it  were  Hs  kernel  and  essence." 
If,  however,  this  figurative  explanation  of  Hy*0  ^'?  should  not  be 
accepted,  there  is  no  valid  objection  to  our  concluding  that  the  words 
refer  to  some  event  with  which  we  have  no  further  acquaintance, 
in  which  the  city  of  Dan  was  conquered  by  the  neighbouring 
Syrians,  and  the  inhabitants  carried  away  into  captivity.  For  it  is 
evident  enough  from  the  fact  of  the  kings  of  Zoba  being  mentioned, 
in  1  Sam.  xiv.  47,  amonjr  the  different  enemies  of  Israel  against 
whom  Saul  carried  on  war,  that  the  Syrians  also  invaded  Israel  in 


442  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

the  time  of  the  Philistine  supremacy,  and  carried  Israelites  away 
out  of  the  conquered  towns  and  districts.  The  Danite  image- 
worship,  however,  was  probably  suppressed  and  abolished  when 
Samuel  purified  the  land  and  people  from  idolatry,  after  the  ark 
had  been  brought  back  by  the  Philistines  (1  Sam.  ii.  sqq.). 

WAR   OF    THE   CONGREGATION  WITH  THE  TRIBE  OF  BENJAMIN  ON 
ACCOUNT  OF  THE  CRIME  AT  GIBEAH. — CHAP.  XIX.  XX. 

This  account  belongs  to  the  times  immediately  following  the 
death  of  Joshua,  as  we  may  see  from  the  fact  that  Phinehas,  the 
son  of  Eleazar,  the  contemporary  of  Joshua,  was  high  priest  at 
that  time  (chap.  xx.  28).  In  chap.  xix.  we  have  an  account  of  the 
infamous  crime  committed  by  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeah,  which 
occasioned  the  war ;  in  chap.  xx.  the  war  itself ;  and  in  chap.  xxi. 
an  account  of  what  was  afterwards  done  by  the  congregation  to 
preserve  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  which  was  almost  annihilated  by 
the  war. 

Chap.  xix.  Infamous  Crime  of  the  Inhabitants  of 
Gibeah. — Vers.  1-14.  At  the  time  when  there  was  no  king  in 
Israel,  a  Levite,  who  sojourned  (i.e.  lived  outside  a  Levitical 
town)  in  the  more  remote  parts  of  the  mountains  of  Ephraim, 
took  to  himself  a  concubine  out  of  Bethlehem  in  Judah,  who 
proved  unfaithful  to  him,  and  then  returned  to  her  father's  house. 
D^QK~~in  ''riST,  the  hinder  or  outermost  parts  of  the  mountains  of 
Ephraim,  are  the  northern  extremity  of  these  mountains ;  according 
to  ver.  18,  probably  the  neighbourhood  of  Shiloh.  Ivy  rUTPl,  "  she 
played  the  harlot  out  beyond  him"  i.e.  was  unfaithful  to  her  husband, 
"and  then  went  away  from  him"  back  to  her  father's  house. — Vers. 
3,  4.  Some  time  afterwards,  namely  at  the  end  of  four  months 
(D^'-in  nyaiK  is  in  apposition  to  Ö*öJ,  and  defines  more  precisely  the 
ffOJj  or  days),  her  husband  went  after  her,  "  to  speak  to  her  to  the 
heart"  i.e.  to  talk  to  her  in  a  friendly  manner  (see  Gen.  xxxiv.  3), 
and  to  reconcile  her  to  himself  again,  so  that  she  might  return ; 
taking  with  him  his  attendant  and  a  couple  of  asses,  for  himself 
and  his  wife  to  ride  upon.  The  suffix  attached  to  to^Dr  refers  to 
nziPj  "  to  bring  back  her  heart,"  to  turn  her  to  himself  again.  The 
Keri  FQHftj  is  a  needless  conjecture.  "  And  she  brought  him  into 
her  fathers  house,  and  her  father  received  his  son-in-law  with  joy, 
and  constrained  him  (iirpflT,  lit.  held  him  fast)  to  remain  there  three 


CHAP.  XIX.  1-14.  443 

day*"  It  is  evident  from  this  that  the  Levite  had  succeeded  in 
reconciling  his  wife. — Vers.  5  sqq.  Also  on  the  fourth  day,  when 
he  was  about  to  depart  in  the  morning,  the  Levite  yielded  to  the 
persuasion  of  his  father-in-law,  that  he  would  first  of  all  strengthen 
his  heart  again  with  a  bit  of  bread  (pb  TJJD  as  in  Gen.  xviii.  5  ;  the 
imperative  form  with  o  is  unusual) ;  and  then  afterwards,  whilst 
they  were  eating  and  drinking,  he  consented  to  stay  another  night. 
— Ver.  7.  When  he  rose  up  to  go,  his  father-in-law  pressed  him  ; 
then  he  turned  back  (^B^l  is  quite  in  place,  and  is  not  to  be  altered 
into  3B"tj  according  to  the  LXX.  and  one  Heb.  Cod.),  and  remained 
there  for  the  night. — Ver.  8.  And  even  in  the  morning  of  the  fifth 
day  he  suffered  himself  to  be  induced  to  remain  till  the  afternoon. 
^npnnrin  Js  an  imperative,  "  Tarry  till  the  day  turns,"  i.e.  till  mid-day 
is  past. — Vers.  9,  10.  When  at  length  he  rose  up,  with  his  concubine 
and  his  attendant,  to  go  away,  the  father  entreated  his  daughter 
once  more  :  "  Behold  the  day  has  slackened  to  become  evening,  spend 
the  night  here  I  Behold  the  declining  of  the  day,  spend  the  night 
here"  etc.  nun  inf.  of  njn^  to  bend,  incline.  The  interchange  of 
the  plural  and  singular  may  be  explained  from  the  simple  fact  that 
the  Levite  was  about  to  depart  with  his  wife  and  attendant,  but 
that  their  remaining  or  departing  depended  upon  the  decision  of 
the  man  alone.  But  the  Levite  did  not  consent  to  remain  any 
longer,  but  set  out  upon  the  road,  and  came  with  his  companions 
to  before  Jebus,  i.e.  Jerusalem,  which  is  only  two  hours  from 
Bethlehem  (compare  Rob.  Pal.  ii.  375  with  379).  riDrny,  to  before 
Jebus,  for  the  road  from  Bethlehem  to  Shiloh  went  past  Jerusalem. 
— Vers.  11  sqq.  But  as  the  day  had  gone  far  down  when  they  were 
by  Jebus  ("n,  third  pers.  perf,  either  of  TV  with  *  dropped  like 
PlWj  in  2  Sam.  xxii.  41  for  ^J1™,  or  from  TT1  in  the  sense  of  TV), 
the  attendant  said  to  his  master,  "  Come,  let  us  turn  aside  into  this 
Jebusite  city,  and  pass  the  night  in  it."  But  his  master  was  un- 
willing to  enter  a  city  of  the  foreigners  (^33  is  a  genitive),  where 
there  were  none  of  the  sons  of  Israel,  and  would  pass  over  to 
Gibeah.  "  Come  Qi?  =  T\27}  Num.  xxiii.  13),  we  will  draio  near  to 
one  of  the  places  (which  he  immediately  names),  and  pass  the  night 
in  Gibeah  or  Ramah"  These  two  towns,  the  present  Jeba  and 
er  Ram,  were  not  a  full  hour's  journey  apart,  and  stood  opposite 
to  one  another,  only  about  two  and  a  half  or  three  hours  from 
Jerusalem  (see  at  Josh,  xviii.  25,  28). — Ver.  14.  Then  they  went 
forward,  and  the  sun  went  down  upon  them  as  they  were  near  (at) 
Gibeah  of  Benjamin. 


444  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

Vers.  15-30.  And  they  turned  aside  thither  to  pass  the  night 
in  Gibeah ;  and  he  (the  Levite)  remained  in  the  market-place  of 
the  town,  as  no  one  received  them  into  his  house  to  pass  the  night. 
— Vers.  16  sqq.  Behold,  there  came  an  old  man  from  the  field, 
who  was  of  the  mountains  of  Ephraim,  and  dwelt  as  a  stranger  in 
Gibeah,  the  inhabitants  of  which  were  Benjaminites  (as  is  observed 
here,  as  a  preliminary  introduction  to  the  account  which  follows). 
When  he  saw  the  traveller  in  the  market-place  of  the  town,  he 
asked  him  whither  he  was  going  and  whence  he  came  ;  and  when 
he  had  heard  the  particulars  concerning  his  descent  and  his  journey, 
he  received  him  into  his  house.  SJ?n  ^K  '*  JV2TTIK1  (ver.  18),  "  and 
I  walk  at  the  house  of  Jehovah,  and  no  one  receives  me  into  his  house" 
(Seb.  Schm.,  etc.);  not  "  I  am  going  to  the  house  of  Jehovah"  (iüos., 
Berth.,  etc.),  for  riK  7]pn  does  not  signify  to  go  to  a  place,  for  which 
the  simple  accusative  is  used  either  with  or  without  n  local.  It 
either  means  "  to  go  through  a  place"  (Deut.  i.  19,  etc.),  or  "  to  go 
with  a  person,"  or,  when  applied  to  things,  "  to  go  about  with  any- 
thing" (see  Job  xxxi.  5,  and  Ges.  Thes.  p.  378).  Moreover,  in  this 
instance  the  Levite  was  not  going  to  the  house  of  Jehovah  (i.e.  the 
tabernacle),  but,  as  he  expressly  told  the  old  man,  from  Bethlehem 
to  the  outermost  sides  of  the  mountains  of  Ephraim.  The  words 
in  question  explain  the  reason  why  he  was  staying  in  the  market- 
place. Because  he  served  at  the  house  of  Jehovah,  no  one  in 
Gibeah  would  receive  him  into  his  house,1  although,  as  he  adds  in 
ver.  19,  he  had  everything  with  him  that  was  requisite  for  his 
wants.  "  We  have  both  straw  and  fodder  for  our  asses,  and  bread  and 
wine  for  me  and  thy  maid,  and  for  the  young  man  with  thy  servants. 
No  want  of  anything  at  all"  so  as  to  cause  him  to  be  burdensome 
to  his  host.  By  the  words  "  thy  maid "  and  "  thy  servants "  he 
means  himself  and  his  concubine,  describing  himself  and  his  wife, 
according  to  the  obsequious  style  of  the  East  in  olden  times,  as 
servants  of  the  man  from  whom  he  was  expecting  a  welcome. — 
Ver.  20.  The  old  man  replied,  "  Peace  to  thee,"  assuring  him  of 
a  welcome  by  this  style  of  greeting  ;  "  only  all  thy  wants  upon  me," 
i.e.  let  me  provide  for  them.  Thus  the  friendly  host  declined  the 
offer  made  by  his  guest  to  provide  for  himself.  "  Only  do  not  pass 
the  night  in  the  market-place." — Ver.  21.  He  then  took  him  into 

1  As  Seb.  Schmidt  correctly  observes,  "  the  argument  is  taken  from  the 
indignity  shown  him :  the  Lord  thinks  me  worthy  to  minister  to  Him,  as  a 
Levite,  in  His  house,  and  there  is  not  one  of  the  people  of  the  Lord  who  thinks 
me  worthy  to  receive  his  hospitality." 


CHAP.  XIX.  15-30.  445 

his  house,  mixed  fodder  for  his  asses  (?i^  from  ??3,  a  denom.  verb 
from  ?v2,  to  make  a  mixture,  to  give  fodder  to  the  beasts),  and 
waited  upon  his  guest  with  washing  of  feet,  food,  and  drink  (see 
Gen.  xviii.  4  sqq.,  xix.  2). — Ver.  22.  Whilst  they  were  enjoying 
themselves,  some  worthless  men  of  the  city  surrounded  the  house, 
knocking  continuously  at  the  door  (pB^ftrij  a  form  indicative  of 
gradual  increase),  and  demanding  of  the  master  of  the  house  that 
he  would  bring  out  the  man  who  had  entered  his  house,  that  they 
might  know  him, — the  very  same  demand  that  the  Sodomites  had 
made  of  Lot  (Gen.  xix.  6  sqq.).  The  construct  state  /2Jy3-*J3  'BÖN 
is  used  instead  of  'b^33  OTA«  (Deut.  xiii.  14,  etc.),  because  hyhl  »» 
is  regarded  as  one  idea :  people  of  worthless  fellows.  Other  cases 
">f  the  same  kind  are  given  by  Ewald,  Lehrb.  §  289,  c. — Vers.  23 
sqq.  The  old  man  sought,  as  Lot  had  done,  to  defend  his  guests 
from  such  a  shameful  crime  by  appealing  to  the  sacred  rights  of 
hospitality,  and  by  giving  up  his  own  virgin  daughter  and  the 
concubine  of  his  guest  (see  the  remarks  on  Gen.  xix.  7,  8).  n^9?j 
folly,  used  to  denote  shameful  licentiousness  and  whoredom,  as  in 
Gen.  xxxiv.  7  and  Deut.  xxii.  21.  örriK  W,  "  humble  them."  The 
masculine  is  used  in  ÜJViH  and  Dr6  as  the  more  general  gender, 
instead  of  the  more  definite  feminine,  as  in  Gen.  xxxix.  9,  Ex.  i. 
21,  etc. — Vers.  25  sqq.  But  as  the  people  would  not  listen  to  this 
proposal,  the  man  (no  doubt  the  master  of  the  house,  according  to 
ver.  24)  took  his  (the  guest's)  concubine  (of  course  with  the  con- 
sent of  his  guest)  and  led  her  out  to  them,  and  they  abused  her  the 
whole  night.  It  is  not  stated  how  it  was  that  they  were  satisfied 
with  this ;  probably  because  they  felt  too  weak  to  enforce  their 
demand.  3  ??yfln,  to  exercise  his  power  or  wantonness  upon  a 
person  (see  Ex.  x.  2). — Ver.  26.  When  the  morning  drew  on  (i.e. 
at  the  first  dawn  of  day),  the  woman  fell  down  before  the  door  of 
the  house  in  which  n^rtlN,  "  her  lord,"  i.e.  her  husband,  was,  and  lay 
there  till  it  was  light,  i.e.  till  sunrise. — Ver.  27.  There  her  husband 
found  her,  when  he  opened  the  house-door  to  go  his  way  (having 
given  up  all  thought  of  receiving  her  back  again  from  the  bar- 
barous crowd),  "  lying  before  the  house-door,  and  her  hands  upon  the 
threshold"  (i.e.  with  outstretched  arms),  and  giving  no  answer  to  his 
word,  having  died,  that  is  to  say,  in  consequence  of  the  ill-treatment 
of  the  night.  He  then  took  the  corpse  upon  his  ass  to  carry  it  to 
his  place,  i.e.  to  his  home. — Ver.  29.  As  soon  as  he  arrived  there, 
he  cut  up  the  body,  according  to  its  bones  (as  they  cut  slaughtered 
animals  in  pieces :  see  at  Lev.  i.  6),  into  twelve  pieces,  and  sent 


446  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

them  (the  corpse  in  its  pieces)  into  the  whole  of  the  territory  of 
Israel,  i.e.  to  all  the  twelve  tribes,  in  the  hope  that  every  one  who 
saw  it  would  say  :  No  such  thing  has  happened  or  been  seen  since 
the  coming  up  of  Israel  out  of  Egypt  until  this  day.  Give  ye  heed 
to  it  (ID^  for  27  WW) ;  make  up  your  minds  and  say  on,  i.e.  decide 
how  this  unparalleled  wickedness  is  to  be  punished.  Sending  the 
dissected  pieces  of  the  corpse  to  the  tribes  was  a  symbolical  act,  by 
which  the  crime  committed  upon  the  murdered  woman  was  placed 
before  the  eyes  of  the  whole  nation,  to  summon  it  to  punish  the 
crime,  and  was  naturally  associated  with  a  verbal  explanation  of 
the  matter  by  the  bearer  of  the  pieces.  See  the  analogous  proceed- 
ing on  the  part  of  Saul  (1  Sam.  xi.  7),  and  the  Scythian  custom 
related  by  Lucian  in  Toxaris,  c.  48,  that  whoever  was  unable  to 
procure  satisfaction  for  an  injury  that  he  had  received,  cut  an  ox 
in  pieces  and  sent  it  round,  whereupon  all  who  were  willing  to  help 
him  to  obtain  redress  took  a  piece,  and  swore  that  they  would  stand 
by  him  to  the  utmost  of  their  strength.  The  perfects  "löW  —  rvrn 
(ver.  30)  are  not  used  for  the  imperfects  c.  vav  consec.  ">ON*l  —  Wl, 
as  Hitzig  supposes,  but  as  simple  perfects  (perfecta  conseq.),  ex- 
pressing the  result  which  the  Levite  expected  from  his  conduct ; 
and  we  have  simply  to  supply  "lbs?  before  nvn,  which  is  often 
omitted  in  lively  narrative  or  animated  conversation  (compare,  for 
example,  Ex.  viii.  5  with  Judg.  vii.  2).  The  perfects  are  used  by  the 
historian  instead  of  imperfects  with  a  simple  vav,  which  are  com- 
monly employed  in  clauses  indicating  intention,  "  because  what  he 
foresaw  would  certainly  take  place,  floated  before  his  mind  as  a 
thing  already  done  "  (Rosenmüller).  The  moral  indignation,  which 
the  Levite  expected  on  the  part  of  all  the  tribes  at  such  a  crime 
as  this,  and  their  resolution  to  avenge  it,  are  thereby  exhibited  not 
merely  as  an  uncertain  conjecture,  but  a  fact  that  was  sure  to 
occur,  and  concerning  which,  as  chap.  xx.  clearly  shows,  he  had  not 
deceived  himself. 

Chap.  xx.  War  with  Benjamin  on  the  part  of  all  the 
other  Tribes. — The  expectation  of  the  Levite  was  fulfilled.  The 
congregation  of  Israel  assembled  at  Mizpeh  to  pass  sentence  upon 
Gibeah,  and  formed  the  resolution  that  they  would  not  rest  till  the 
crime  was  punished  as  it  deserved  (vers.  1-10).  But  when  the 
Benjaminites  refused  to  deliver  up  the  offenders  in  Gibeah,  and 
prepared  to  offer  resistance,  the  other  tribes  began  to  make  war 
upon  Gibeah  and  Benjamin  (vers.  11-19),  but  were  twice  defeated 


chap.  xx.  l-ii.  447 

by  the  Benjaminites  with  very  great  loss  (vers.  20-28).  At  length, 
however,  they  succeeded  by  an  act  of  stratagem  in  taking  Gibeah 
and  burning  it  to  the  ground,  and  completely  routing  the  Ben- 
jaminites, and  also  in  putting  to  death  all  the  men  and  cattle  that 
they  found  in  the  other  towns  of  this  tribe,  and  laying  the  towns  in 
ashes,  whereby  the  whole  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  was  annihilated, 
with  the  exception  of  a  very  small  remnant  (vers.  29-48). 

Vers.  1-11.  Decree  of  the  Congregation  concerning  Gibeah. — 
Vers.  1,  2.  All  the  Israelites  went  out  (rose  up  from  their  dwelling- 
places)  to  assemble  together  as  a  congregation  like  one  man ;  all 
the  tribes  from  Dan,  the  northern  boundary  of  the  land  (i.e.  Dan- 
laish,  chap,  xviii.  29),  to  Beersheba,  the  most  southerly  town  of 
Canaan  (see  at  Gen.  xxi.  31),  and  the  land  of  Gilead,  i.e.  the 
inhabitants  of  the  land  to  the  east  of  the  Jordan,  "  to  Jehovah  at 
Mizpeh"  in  Benjamin,  i.e.  the  present  Nebi-samwil,  in  the  neigh- 
bourhood of  Kirjath-jearim,  on  the  western  border  of  the  tribe 
of  Benjamin  (see  at  Josh,  xviii.  26).  It  by  no  means  follows  with 
certainty  from  the  expression  "  to  Jehovah"  that  there  was  a  sanc- 
tuary at  Mizpeh,  or  that  the  ark  of  the  covenant  was  taken  thither, 
but  simply  that  the  meeting  took  place  in  the  sight  of  Jehovah,  or 
that  the  congregation  assembled  together  to  hold  a  judicial  court, 
which  they  held  in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  analogous  to  the  expres- 
sion el-Elohim  in  Ex.  xxi.  6,  xxii.  7.  It  was  not  essential  to  a 
judicial  proceeding  that  the  ark  should  be  present.  At  this  assembly 
the  pinnoth  (the  corner-pillars)  of  the  whole  nation  presented  them- 
selves, i.e.  the  heads  and  fathers  as  the  supports  of  the  congregation 
or  of  the  state  organism  (yid.  1  Sam.  xiv.  38,  Isa.  xix.  13),  even 
of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel,  four  hundred  thousand  men  on  foot, 
drawing  the  sword,  i.e.  armed  foot  soldiers  ready  for  battle. — Ver. 
3.  "  The  Benjaminites  heard  that  the  children  of  Israel  (the  rest  of 
the  Israelites,  the  eleven  tribes)  had  come  vp  to  Mizpeh ;"  but  they 
themselves  were  not  found  there.  This  follows  from  the  fact  that 
nothing  is  said  about  the  Benjaminites  coming,  and  still  more  clearly 
from  ver.  13,  where  it  is  stated  that  the  assembled  tribes  sent  men  to 
the  Benjaminites,  after  holding  their  deliberations  and  forming  their 
resolutions,  to  call  them  to  account  for  the  crime  that  had  been 
committed  in  the  midst  of  them.  Consequently  the  question  with 
which  the  whole  affair  was  opened,  "  Say,  how  did  this  wicked  deed 
take  place?"  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  addressed  to  the  two  parties, 
the  inhabitants  of  Gibeah  or  the  Benjaminites  and  the  Levite 
(Bertheau),  but  as  a  summons  to  all  who  were  assembled  to  relate 


448  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

what  any  one  knew  respecting  the  occurrence. — Vers.  4—7.  Then 
the  Levite,  the  husband  of  the  murdered  woman,  described  the 
whole  affair.  *^V^>}  Y^?j  the  owners  or  citizens  of  Gibeah  (see  at 
chap.  ix.  2).  "Me  they  intended  to  hill:"  the  Levite  draws  this 
conclusion  from  what  had  happened  to  his  wife  ;  the  men  of  Gibeah 
had  not  expressed  any  such  intention  in  chap.  xix.  22.  "All  the 
country  (lit.  field)  of  the  inheritance  of  Israel"  i.e.  all  the  land  of 
the  Israelites,  nat  is  applied  to  the  vice  of  lewdness,  as  in  Lev. 
xviii.  17,  which  was  to  be  punished  with  death.  '131  D3?  ton,  u  give 
yourselves  (D??  is  dat.  comm.)  word  and  counsel  here"  i.e.  make  up 
your  minds  and  pass  sentence  (yid.  2  Sam.  xvi.  20).  D;>[j,  here, 
where  you  are  all  assembled  together. — Ver.  8.  Then  all  the  people 
rose  up  as  one  man,  saying,  "  We  will  not  any  of  us  go  into  his  tent, 
neither  will  we  any  of  us  return  to  his  house"  sc.  till  this  crime  is 
punished.  The  sentence  follows  in  ver.  9  :  "  This  is  the  thing  that 
we  will  do"  i.e.  this  is  the  way  in  which  we  will  treat  Gibeah : 
"  against  it  by  lot"  {sc.  we  will  act).  The  Syriac  gives  the  sense 
correctly — We  will  cast  lots  upon  it ;  but  the  LXX.  quite  erro- 
neously supply  ävaßvao/jueOa  (we  will  go  up)  ;  and  in  accordance 
with  this,  many  expositors  connect  the  words  with  ver.  10  in  the 
following  sense  :  "  We  will  choose  one  man  out  of  every  ten  by  lot, 
to  supply  the  army  with  the  necessary  provision  during  the  expedi- 
tion." This  is  quite  a  mistake,  because  in  this  way  a  subordinate 
point,  which  only  comes  into  consideration  in  connection  with  the 
execution  of  the  sentence,  would  be  made  the  chief  point,  and  the 
sentence  itself  would  not  be  given  at  all.  The  words  "  against  it 
by  lot"  contain  the  resolution  that  was  formed  concerning  the  sinful 
town,  and  have  all  the  enigmatical  brevity  of  judicial  sentences, 
and  are  to  be  explained  from  the  course  laid  down  in  the  Mosaic 
law  with  regard  to  the  Canaanites,  who  were  to  be  exterminated, 
and  their  land  divided  by  lot  among  the  Israelites.  Consequently 
the  meaning  is  simply  this :  "  Let  us  proceed  with  the  lot  against 
Gibeah,"  i.e.  let  us  deal  with  it  as  with  the  towns  of  the  Canaanites, 
conquer  it,  lay  it  in  ashes,  and  distribute  its  territory  by  lot.  In 
ver.  10  a  subordinate  circumstance  is  mentioned,  which  was  neces- 
sary to  enable  them  to  carry  out  the  resolution  that  had  been  made. 
As  the  assembled  congregation  had  determined  to  keep  together 
for  the  purpose  of  carrying  on  war  (ver.  8),  it  was  absolutely 
necessary  that  resources  should  be  provided  for  those  who  were 
actively  engaged  in  the  war.  For  this  purpose  they  chose  one  man 
in  every  ten  "  to  fetch  provision  for  the  people"  ÜXS2?  T)Svy?}  "  that 


CHAP.  XX.  12-19.  449 

they  might  do  on  their  coming  to  Gibeah  of  Benjamin  according  to  all 
the  folly  which  had  been  done  in  Israel,"  i.e.  might  punish  the 
wickedness  in  Gibeah  as  it  deserved. — Ver.  11.  Thus  the  men  of 
Israel  assembled  together  against  Gibeah,  united  as  one  man. 
Q,")?C!)  lit-  as  comrades,  simply  serves  to  strengthen  the  expression 
"as  one  man."  With  this  remark,  which  indicates  briefly  the 
carrying  out  of  the  resolution  that  was  adopted,  the  account  of  the 
meeting  of  the  congregation  is  brought  to  a  close ;  but  the  actual 
progress  of  the  affair  is  really  anticipated,  inasmuch  as  what  is 
related  in  vers.  12-21  preceded  the  expedition  in  order  of  time. 

Vers.  12-19.  Before  the  tribes  of  Israel  entered  upon  the  war, 
they  sent  men  to  all  the  tribes  of  Benjamin,  who  were  to  demand 
that  the  culprits  in  Gibeah  should  be  given  up  to  be  punished,  that 
the  evil  might  thus  be  exterminated  from  Israel,  according  to  the 
law  in  Deut.  xxii.  22  as  compared  with  chap.  xiii.  6  and  xvii.  12. 
"  The  tribes  of  Benjamin"  are  the  same  as  "  the  families  of  Ben- 
jamin:" the  historian  pictured  to  himself  the  different  divisions  of 
the  tribe  of  Benjamin  as  warlike  powers  about  to  carry  on  a  war 
with  the  other  tribes  of  Israel.  The  word  shebet  (tribe)  is  used  in 
a  different  way  in  Num.  iv.  18.  But  the  Benjaminites  would  not 
hearken  to  the  voice  of  their  brethren,  the  other  tribes  of  Israel. 
The  Keri  (sons  of  Benjamin)  is  a  needless  alteration,  since  Ben- 
jamin may  be  construed  with  the  plural  as  a  collective  term.  By 
refusing  this  just  demand  on  the  part  of  the  other  tribes,  the 
Benjaminites  took  the  side  of  the  culprits  in  Gibeah,  and  compelled 
the  congregation  to  make  war  upon  the  whole  tribe. — Vers.  14 
sqq.  Both  sides  now  made  their  preparations.  The  Benjaminites 
assembled  together  at  Gibeah  out  of  their  different  towns,  and 
"  were  mustered  26,000  men  drawing  the  sword,  beside  the  inhabitants 
of  Gibeah  they  were  mustered,  700  "picked  men"  (^pann^  with  the 
reduplication  dropped,  like  the  Ilothpael  in  Num.  i.  47).  "  Out  of 
all  this  people  there  were  700  picked  men,  lamed  in  the  right  hand, 
all  these  (were)  slinging  with  a  stone  (hitting)  at  a  hairs  breadth 
without  fail"  These  statements  are  not  quite  clear.  Since,  ac- 
cording to  the  distinct  words  of  ver.  16,  the  700  slingers  with  their 
left  hands  were  "  out  of  the  whole  people,"  i.e.  out  of  the  whole 
number  of  fighting  men  mentioned  in  ver.  16,  they  cannot  be  the 
same  as  the  700  chosen  men  referred  to  in  ver.  15,  notwithstanding 
the  similarity  in  the  numbers  and  the  expression  "  chosen  men." 
The  obscurity  arises  chiefly  from  the  word  VipQnn  in  ver.  15,  which 
is  separated  by  the  Masoretic  accents  from  'E  JOK^  and  connected 

2F 


450  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

with  the  previous  words  :  "  Beside  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeah  they 
(the  men  of  the  towns  of  Benjamin)  were  mustered?  On  the 
other  hand,  the  earlier  translators  took  the  clause  as  a  relative  one : 
"  Beside  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeah,  who  were  mustered  700  men." 
And  this  seems  absolutely  necessary,  because  otherwise  the  follow- 
ing words,  "  700  picked  men,"  would  stand  without  any  connection  ; 
whilst  we  should  certainly  expect  at  least  to  find  the  cop.  vav,  if 
these  700  men  were  not  inhabitants  of  Gibeah.  But  even  if  Vpsnn 
should  be  taken  as  a  simple  repetition  of  VipSrW,  according  to  the 
analogy  of  Deut.  iii.  5  and  1  Kings  v.  30,  the  statement  which 
follows  could  not  be  understood  in  any  other  way  than  as  referring 
to  the  number  of  the  fighting  men  of  Gibeah.  There  is  something 
striking  too  in  the  fact  that  only  Benjaminites  "  out  of  the  cities" 
are  mentioned,  and  that  emphasis  is  laid  upon  this  by  the  repetition 
of  the  expression  "  out  of  the  cities"  (vers.  14,  15).  Some  have 
inferred  from  this,  that  the  Benjaminites  as  the  rulers  had  settled 
in  the  towns,  whilst  the  Canaanites  who  had  been  subdued  settled 
as  dependants  in  the  villages  (Bertheau)  ;  or  that  the  Benjaminites 
had  formed  military  brotherhoods,  the  members  of  which  lived 
unmarried  in  the  towns,  and  that  this  may  possibly  account  for  the 
abominable  crime  to  which  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeah  were  addicted, 
and  in  relation  to  which  the  whole  tribe  took  their  part  (O.  v. 
Gerlach).  But  such  inferences  as  these  are  extremely  uncertain,  as 
the  cities  may  be  mentioned  a  potiori  for  all  the  places  inhabited  by 
this  tribe.  There  is  another  difficulty  in  the  numbers.  According 
to  vers.  14,  15,  the  total  number  of  the  fighting  men  of  Benjamin 
amounted  to  26,000  and  700,  without  reckoning  Gibeah.  But, 
according  to  the  account  of  the  battle,  25,100  were  slain  (ver.  35), 
viz.  18,000  in  the  principal  engagement,  5000  as  a  gleaning,  and 
2000  in  the  pursuit,  i.e.  25,000  men  in  all  (vers.  44-46),  and  only 
600  were  left,  who  fled  into  the  desert  to  the  rock  Bimmon  (ver. 
47).  According  to  these  accounts,  the  whole  tribe  would  have 
contained  only  25,100  +  600  =  25,700  fighting  men,  or  25,000  + 
600  =  25,600.  Accordingly,  in  ver.  15,  the  LXX.  (Cod.  Al. 
etc.)  and  Vulgate  give  only  25,000  men ;  whilst  the  rest  of  the 
ancient  versions  have  26,000,  in  agreement  with  the  Masoretic  text. 
Josephus  (Ant.  v.  2,  10)  also  gives  the  number  of  fighting  men 
in  Benjamin  as  25,600,  of  whom  600  were  splendid  slingers ;  but 
he  has  merely  taken  the  numbers  from  vers.  44-47.  Now,  although 
mistakes  do  frequently  occur  in  the  numbers  given,  it  is  a  most 
improbable  supposition  that  we  have  a  mistake  of  this  kind  (26,000 


CHAP.  XX.  20-28.  45 1 

for  25,000)  in  the  instance  before  us,  since  even  the  latter  number 
would  not  agree  with  vers.  44  sqq. ;  and  the  assumption,  that  in 
vers.  35  and  44  sqq.  we  have  an  account  of  all  the  Benjaminites 
who  fell,  finds  no  support  whatever  in  the  history  itself.  In  the 
verses  referred  to  we  have  simply  a  statement  of  the  number  of 
Benjaminites  who  fell  in  the  defeat  which  they  sustained  on  the 
third  day,  whereas  the  victories  which  they  gained  on  the  first  and 
second  days  could  hardly  have  been  obtained  without  some  loss  on 
their  part ;  on  the  contrary,  we  may  confidently  assume  that  they 
would  not  lose  less  than  a  thousand  men,  though  these  are  not 
mentioned  in  the  brief  account  before  us.  The  other  difference 
between  ver.  35  and  vers.  44—46,  viz.  that  25,100  are  given  in  the 
one  and  25,000  in  the  other,  may  be  explained  on  the  simple 
assumption  that  we  have  only  the  full  thousands  mentioned  in  the 
latter,  whilst  the  exact  number  is  given  in  the  former.  "  Left- 
handed :"  see  at  chap.  iii.  15. — Vers.  17,  18.  The  forces  of  the 
other  tribes  amounted  when  numbered  to  400,000  men.  These 
numbers  (26,000  Benjaminites  and  400,000  Israelites)  will  not 
appear  too  great  if  we  consider  that  the  whole  of  the  congregation 
of  Israel  took  part  in  the  war,  with  the  simple  exception  of  Jabesh 
in  Gilead  (chap.  xxi.  8),  and  that  in  the  time  of  Moses  the  twelve 
tribes  numbered  more  than  600,000  men  of  twenty  years  old  and 
upwards  (Num.  xxvi.),  so  that  not  much  more  than  two-thirds  of 
the  whole  of  the  fighting  men  went  out  to  the  war. — Ver.  18. 
Before  opening  the  campaign  the  Israelites  went  to  Bethel,  to 
inquire  of  God  which  tribe  should  commence  the  war,  i.e.  should 
fight  at  the  head  of  the  other  tribes  (on  the  fact  itself,  see  chap.  i. 
1)  ;  and  God  appointed  the  tribe  of  Judah,  as  in  chap.  i.  2.  They 
went  to  Bethel,1  not  to  Shiloh,  where  the  tabernacle  was  standing, 
because  that  place  was  too  far  from  the  seat  of  war.  The  ark  of 
the  covenant  was  therefore  brought  to  Bethel,  and  Phinehas  the 
high  priest  inquired  of  the  Lord  before  it  through  the  Urim  and 
Thummim  (vers.  27,  28).  Bethel  was  on  the  northern  boundary 
of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin,  and  was  consecrated  to  this  purpose 
before  any  other  place  by  the  revelations  of  God  which  had  been 
made  to  the  patriarch  Jacob  there  (Gen.  xxviii.  and  xxxv.). — Ver. 
19.  Thus  equipped,  the  Israelites  proceeded  against  Gibeah. 

Vers.  20-28.  As  soon  as  the  Israelites  had  posted  themselves  at 
Gibeah  in  battle  array  (nE>rra  7]ny,  to  put  in  a  row,  or  arrange  the 
war  or  conflict,  i.e.  to  put  themselves  in  battle  array,  1  Sam.  iv.  2, 
1  Rendered  "  the  house  of  God"  in  the  English  version. — Tr. 


452  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

xvii  2,  etc.),  the  Benjaminites  came  out  and  destroyed  22,000  men 
of  Israel  upon  that  day.  ny~iN  Wffifrl,  to  destroy  to  the  earth,  i.e.  to 
lay  dead  upon  the  ground. — Ver.  22.  Notwithstanding  this  terrible 
overthrow,  the  people  strengthened  themselves,  and  prepared  again 
for  battle,  "  at  the  same  place"  where  they  had  made  ready  on  the 
first  day,  "  seeking  out  of  pure  vainglory  to  wipe  out  the  stains 
and  the  disgrace  which  their  previous  defeat  had  brought  upon 
them"  (Berleb.  Bible). — Ver.  23.  But  before  renewing  the  conflict 
they  went  up  to  Bethel,  wept  there  before  Jehovah,  i.e.  before  the 
sanctuary  of  the  ark,  where  Jehovah  was  present  in  the  midst  oi 
His  people,  enthroned  between  the  cherubim,  until  the  evening, 
and  then  inquired  of  the  Lord  (again  through  the  high  priest), 
"  Shall  I  again  draw  near  to  war  with  the  children  of  Benjamin  my 
brother "  (i.e.  renew  the  war  with  him)  ?  The  answer  ran  thus  : 
"  Advance  against  him.'" — Vers.  24,  25.  But  on  the  second  day  also 
the  Benjaminites  brought  18,000  of  them  to  the  ground.  "  The 
second  day"  is  not  the  day  following  the  first  engagement,  as  if  the 
battles  had  been  fought  upon  two  successive  days,  but  the  second 
day  of  actual  fighting,  which  took  place  some  days  after  the  first , 
for  the  inquiry  was  made  at  Bethel  as  to  the  will  of  God  between 
the  two  engagements. — Vers.  26  sqq.  After  this  second  terrible 
overthrow,  "  the  children  of  Israel"  (i.e.  those  who  were  engaged  in 
the  war),  and  "  all  the  people"  i.e.  the  rest  of  the  people,  those 
members  of  the  congregation  who  were  not  capable  of  bearing  arms, 
old  men  and  women,  came  to  Bethel,  to  complain  to  the  Lord  of 
their  misfortune,  and  secure  His  favour  by  fasting  and  sacrifices. 
The  congregation  now  discovered,  from  this  repeated  defeat,  that 
the  Lord  had  withdrawn  His  grace,  and  was  punishing  them. 
Their  sin,  however,  did  not  consist  in  the  fact  that  they  had  begun 
the  war  itself, — for  the  law  in  Deut.  xxii.  22,  to  which  they  them- 
selves had  referred  in  ver.  13,  really  required  this, — but  rather  in 
the  state  of  mind  with  which  they  had  entered  upon  the  war,  their 
strong  self-consciousness,  and  great  confidence  in  their  own  might 
and  power.  They  had  indeed  inquired  of  God  (Elohim)  who  should 
open  the  conflict ;  but  they  had  neglected  to  humble  themselves 
before  Jehovah  the  covenant  God,  in  the  consciousness  not  only  of 
their  own  weakness  and  sinfulness,  but  also  of  grief  at  the  moral 
corruption  of  their  brother-tribe.  It  is  certainly  not  without  sig- 
nificance, that  in  ver.  18  it  is  stated  that  "  they  asked  God"  (y8W[ 
D^ipKi^  i.e.  they  simply  desired  a  supreme  or  divine  decision  as  to 
the  question  who  should  lead  the  van  in  the  war ;  whereas,  after 


CHAP.  XX.  29-48.  453 

the  first  defeat,  they  wept  before  Jehovah,  and  inquired  of  Jehovah 
(ver.  23),  the  covenant  God,  for  whose  law  and  right  they  were 
about  to  contend.  But  even  then  there  were  still  wanting  the 
humility  and  penitence,  without  which  the  congregation  of  the  Lord 
could  not  successfully  carry  on  the  conflict  against  the  ungodly. 
The  remark  in  ver.  22,  "  The  people  felt  (show ed)  themselves  strong, 
and  added  (continued)  to  set  in  array  the  war"  is  thoroughly  ex- 
pressive of  the  feeling  of  the  congregation.  They  resolved  upon 
the  continuance  of  the  war,  in  the  full  consciousness  of  their 
superior  power  and  numerical  strength  ;  and  it  was  not  till  after- 
wards that  they  complained  to  the  Lord  of  their  misfortune,  and 
inquired  whether  they  should  renew  the  conflict.  The  question 
was  followed  by  a  corresponding  answer  on  the  part  of  God,  "  Go 
up  against  him"  which  certainly  sanctioned  the  continuance  of  the 
war,  but  gave  no  promise  as  to  the  result,  because  the  people, 
thinking  that  they  might  be  certain  of  success,  had  not  inquired 
about  that  at  all.  It  was  not  till  after  the  second  severe  defeat, 
when  22,000  and  18,000,  the  tenth  part  of  the  whole  army,  had 
fallen,  that  they  humbled  themselves  before  the  Lord.  They  not 
only  wept  because  of  the  calamity  which  had  befallen  them,  but 
fasted  the  same  day  before  the  Lord,  —  the  fasting  being  the 
manifest  expression  of  the  bending  of  the  heart  before  God, — 
and  offered  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offerings.  The  shelamim 
here  are  not  thank-offerings,  but  supplicatory  offerings,  presented 
to  implore  the  gracious  assistance  of  God,  and  to  commemorate 
the  enjoyment  of  fellowship  with  the  Lord,  through  the  sacrificial 
meal  associated  with  this  sacrifice  (as  in  chap.  xxi.  4,  1  Sam.  xiii. 
9,  2  Sam.  xxiv.  25). — Vers.  27,  28.  Having  made  these  prepara- 
tions, they  inquired  of  the  Lord  whether  they  should  continue  the 
war,  and  received  this  reply  :  "  Go  up  (against  Benjamin)  ;  for 
to-morrow  I  will  give  it  into  thy  hand"  (Y]*j  the  hand  of  the  con- 
gregation carrying  on  the  war).  To  this  the  supplementary  remark 
is  appended,  that  the  ark  of  the  covenant  was  at  Bethel  in  those 
days,  and  the  high  priest  served  before  it.  The  expression  "  in 
those  days"  implies  that  the  ark  of  the  covenant  was  only  tempo- 
rarily at  Bethel,  and  therefore  had  been  brought  thither  from  the 
tabernacle  at  Shiloh  during  this  war. 

Vers.  29-48.  The  Victory  on  the  Third  Days  Engagement. — Ver. 
29.  The  account  of  this  commences  with  the  most  important  point, 
so  far  as  their  success  was  concerned :  Israel  set  liers  in  wait  (troops 
in  ambush)  round  about  Gibeah. — Ver.  30.  They  then  advanced 


454  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

as  on  the  former  occasions; — Vers.  31,  32.  The  Benjaminites  came 
out  again  to  meet  the  people  (of  Israel),  and  were  drawn  away  from 
the  town  (the  perfect  'ipflpn  without  i  is  subordinate  to  the  preced- 
ing verb,  and  defines  more  precisely  the  advance  itself,  whilst  the 
mode  in  which  they  were  drawn  away  from  the  town  is  not  described 
more  fully  till  vers.  32,  33),  and  began  to  smite  the  beaten  of  the 
people  (who  pretended  to  fly)  as  formerly  upon  the  roads  (where 
two  roads  part),  of  which  one  led  up  to  Bethel  and  the  other  to 
Gibeah,  into  the  field  (Gibeah  is  the  town  at  which  the  battle  took 
place,  that  is  to  say,  somewhere  in  the  neighbourhood,  so  that  a  road 
might  easily  run  from  the  field  of  battle  towards  the  town  into  the 
field),  "  about  (sc.  putting  to  death)  thirty  men  of  Israel"  This 
statement  introduces  the  more  precise  definition  of  the  Qy^n. — 
Ver.  32.  Then  the  Benjaminites  supposed  that  Israel  was  beaten  by 
them  as  before  ;  but  the  Israelites  said  :  We  will  flee,  and  draw  it 
(the  tribe  of  Benjamin)  away  from  the  town  to  the  roads  (the  high- 
roads mentioned  in  ver.  31).  On  the  Dagesh  dirimens  in  in^jpri^ 
see  Ewald,  §  92,  c. — Ver.  33.  Carrying  out  this  plan,  "  all  the  men 
of  Israel  rose  up  from  their  place,"  i.e.  left  the  place  they  had 
occupied,  drew  back,  "  arid  set  themselves  in  battle  array"  in  Baal- 
thamar,  i.e.  palm-place,  which  still  existed,  according  to  the  Onom.y 
in  the  time  of  Eusebius,  as  a  small  place  in  the  neighbourhood  of 
Gibeah,  bearing  the  name  of  Bethamar.  While  this  was  going  on, 
the  ambush  of  Israel  broke  forth  from  its  position  "  from  the  plains 
of  Geba."  The  air.  Xey.  fT^O,  from  nny  to  strip,  denotes  a  naked 
region  destitute  of  wood.  V^i  is  the  masculine  form  for  "W??,  and 
jn?"'"ny?2>0  a  more  precise  definition  of  iöipBtt.  This  rendering, 
which  is  the  one  given  in  the  Targum,  certainly  appears  the 
simplest  explanation  of  a  word  that  has  been  rendered  in  very 
different  ways,  and  which  the  LXX.  left  untranslated  as  a  proper 
name,  Mapaayaße.  The  objection  raised  to  this,  viz.  that  a  naked 
level  country  was  not  a  place  for  an  ambush,  has  no  force,  as  there 
is  no  necessity  to  understand  the  words  as  signifying  that  the  tree- 
less country  formed  the  actual  hiding-place  of  the  ambush ;  but  the 
simple  meaning  is,  that  when  the  men  broke  from  their  hiding-place, 
they  came  from  the  treeless  land  towards  the  town.  The  rendering 
given  by  Bashi,  Trem.,  and  others,  "  on  account  of  the  stripping  of 
Gibeah,"  is  much  less  suitable,  since,  apart  from  the  difficulty  of 
taking  \i?  in  different  senses  so  close  together,  we  should  at  least 
expect  to  find  "CVH  (the  city)  instead  of  Jtta. — Ver.  34.  Through 
the  advance  of  the  ambush  there  came  10,000  picked  men  of  all 


CHAP.  XX.  29-48.  455 

Israel  "  from  opposite  to  Gibeah"  (who  now  attacked  in  the  rear 
the  Benjaminites  who  were  pursuing  the  flying  army  of  Israel)  ; 
"  and  the  contest  became  severe,  since  they  (the  Benjaminites)  did  not 
hioio  that  the  calamity  was  coming  upon  them." — Ver.  35.  And 
Jehovah  smote  Benjamin  before  Israel  (according  to  His  promise 
in  ver.  28),  so  that  the  Israelites  destroyed  of  Benjamin  on  that 
day  twenty  and  five  thousand  and  an  hundred  men  [i.e.  twenty-five 
thousand  and  upwards). 

This  was  the  result  of  the  battle,  which  the  historian  gives  at 
once,  before  entering  more  minutely  into  the  actual  account  of  the 
battle  itself.  He  does  this  in  vers.  36-4G  in  a  series  of  explanations, 
of  which  one  is  attached  to  the  other,  for  the  most  part  in  the  form 
of  circumstantial  clauses,  so  that  it  is  not  till  ver.  46  that  he  again 
comes  to  the  result  already  announced  in  ver.  35.1 — Ver.  36.  The 
Benjaminites,  for  instance,  saw  (this  is  the  proper  rendering  of 
*SO»1  with  vav  consec,  which  merely  indicates  the  order  of  thought, 
not  that  of  time)  that  they  were  beaten,  and  the  men  of  Israel 
vacated  the  field  before  Benjamin  (Dipö  }nj?  to  give  place  by  falling 
back  and  flying),  because  they  relied  upon  the  ambush  which  they 
had  placed  against  Gibeah.  The  Benjaminites  did  not  perceive 
this  till  the  ambush  fell  upon  their  rear.  But  the  ambush  itself,  as 
is  added  in  ver.  37  by  way  of  further  explanation,  hastened  and 
fell  (fell  as  quickly  as  possible)  into  Gibeah,  and  went  thither  and 
smote  the  whole  town  with  the  edge  of  the  sword.  To  this  there  is 
added  the  further  explanation  in  ver.  38  :  "  And  the  arrangement 
of  the  Israelites  with  the  ambush  'was  this  :  multiply,  to  cause  smoke- 
rising  to  ascend  (i.e.  cause  a  great  cloud  of  smoke  to  ascend)  out  of 
the  city."  The  only  objection  that  can  be  raised  to  this  view  of 
2"in,  as  the  imperative  Hiphil  of  H2"i?  is  the  suffix  Ö—  attached  to 
Drnpjnpj  since  this  is  unsuitable  to  a  direct  address.  This  suffix  can 
only  be  explained  by  supposing  that  there  is  an  admixture  of  two 
constructions,  the  direct  appeal,  and  the  indirect  explanation,  that 
they  were  to  cause  to  ascend.  If  this  be  not  admitted,  however,  we 
can  only  follow  Studer,  and  erase  the  suffix  as  an  error  of  the  pen 
occasioned  by  the  following  word  J"iKb>E> ;  for  the  other  course  sug- 

1  The  opinions  expressed  by  De  Wette,  etc.,  tiat  ver.  35  is  spurious,  and  by 
Bertheau,  that  vers.  36-46  contain  a  different  account  of  the  battle,  simply 
prove  that  they  have  overlooked  this  peculiarity  in  the  Hebrew  mode  of  writing 
history,  viz.  that  the  general  result  of  any  occurrence  is  given  as  early  as 
possible,  and  then  the  details  follow  afterwards ;  whilst  these  critics  have  not 
succeeded  in  adducing  even  apparent  differences  in  support  of  their  opinions. 


456  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

gested  by  Bertheau,  namely  that  2in  should  be  struck  out  as  a  gloss, 
is  precluded  by  the  circumstance  that  there  is  no  possible  way  of 
explaining  the  interpolation  of  so  apparently  unsuitable  a  word  into 
the  text.  It  certainly  stood  in  the  text  used  by  the  LXX.,  though 
they  have  most  foolishly  confounded  2"in  with  TVTi}  and  rendered  it 
fid^aipa. — Yer.  39.  "  And  the  men  of  Israel  turned  in  the  battle :" 
that  is  to  say,  as  is  afterwards  more  fully  explained  in  vers.  39,  40, 
in  the  form  of  a  long  new  circumstantial  clause,  whilst  Benjamin 
had  begun  to  smite,  etc.  (repeated  from  vers.  31,  32),  and  the  cloud 
(nxb'On  ==  }Btyn  riK^D,  ver.  38)  had  begun  to  ascend  out  of  the  city  as 
a  pillar  of  smoke,  and  Benjamin  turned  back,  and  behold  the  whole 
city  ascended  towards  heaven  (in  smoke),  Israel  turned  (fighting) 
and  Benjamin  was  terrified,  for  it  saw  that  misfortune  had  come 
upon  it  (see  ver.  34).  In  ver.  41a,  the  thread  of  the  narrative, 
which  was  interrupted  by  the  long  circumstantial  clause,  is  again 
resumed  by  the  repetition  of  "and  the  men  of  Israel  turned" — 
Yer.  42.  The  Benjaminites  "  now  turned  (flying)  before  the  Israelites 
to  the  way  of  the  desert"  i.e.  no  doubt  the  desert  which  rises  from 
Jericho  to  the  mountains  of  Bethel  (Josh.  xvi.  1).  They  fled 
therefore  towards  the  north-east ;  but  the  battle  had  overtaken 
(reached  or  seized)  them,  and  those  out  of  the  towns  (had  perished). 
The  difficult  expression  Q^VH?  it^Ü,  of  which  very  different,  and 
for  the  most  part  arbitrary,  explanations  have  been  given,  can  only 
be  in  apposition  to  the  suffix  attached  to  the  verb:  "Benjamin,  and 
in  fact  those  who  had  come  to  the  help  of  Gibeah  out  of  the  towns 
of  Benjamin"  (see  vers.  14, 15),  i.e.  all  the  Benjaminites.  The  fol- 
lowing words,  "Ü1  D'TPnt^  are  a  circumstantial  clause  explanatory 
of  the  previous  clause,  '3in  nonpsrn  ;  "  since  they  (the  men  of  Israel) 
destroyed  him  (Benjamin)  in  the  midst  of  it."  The  singular  suffix 
13iri3  does  not  refer  to  Benjamin,  as  this  would  yield  no  sense  at  all, 
but  to  the  preceding  words,  "  the  way  of  the  desert"  (see  ver.  45). — 
In  ver.  43  the  account  is  continued  by  three  perfects  attached  to  one 
another  without  a  copula :  "  they  enclosed  (hedged  round)  Benjamin, 
pursued  him;  at  the  place  of  rest  they  trod  him  down  to  before  Gibeah 
eastwards."  nrwö  is  not  used  adverbially  in  the  sense  of  "  quietly," 
which  would  not  give  any  fitting  meaning,  but  is  an  accus,  loci,  and 
signifies  place  of  rest,  as  in  Num.  x.  33.  The  notice  u  to  before 
Gibeah"  refers  to  all  three  verbs. — Yer.  44.  In  this  battle  there  fell 
of  Benjamin  18,000  men,  all  brave  men.  The  fix  before  <"1?N"''3  is 
not  a  preposition,  "  with"  (as  the  LXX.,  Cod.  AL,  and  Bertheau 
render  it),  but  a  sign  of  the  accusative.     It  serves  to  show  that  the 


CHAP.  XX.  29-48.  457 

thought  which  follows  is  governed  by  the  principal  clause,  u  so  far 
as  all  these  were  concerned,  they  were  brave  men." — Ver.  45.  The  re- 
mainder fled  to  the  desert,  to  the  rock  (of  the  place)  Rimmon,  which 
is  described  in  the  Onom.  (s.  v.  Remmon)  as  a  vicus  fifteen  Roman 
miles  to  the  north  of  Jerusalem.  It  has  been  preserved  in  the 
village  of  Rummon,  which  stands  upon  and  around  the  summit  of  a 
conical  limestone  mountain,  and  is  visible  in  all  directions  (Rob. 
Pal.  ii.  p.  113).  "  And  they  (the  Israelites)  smote  as  a  gleaning  upon 
the  roads  5000  men"  <?iy,  to  have  a  gleaning  of  the  battle,  i.e.  to 
smite  or  slay,  as  it  were,  as  a  gleaning  of  the  principal  battle  (yid. 
Jer.  vi.  9).  Mesilloth  are  the  high-roads  mentioned  in  ver.  31. 
u  And  pursued  them  to  Gideom,  and  smote  of  them  2000  more."  The 
situation  of  Gideom,  which  is  only  met  with  here,  is  not  precisely 
known  ;  but  it  must  have  been  somewhere  between  Gibeah  and 
Rimmon,  as  the  rock  Rimmon,  according  to  ver.  47,  afforded  a  safe 
place  of  refuge  to  the  fugitives. — Ver.  46.  On  the  total  number  of 
the  slain,  see  the  remarks  on  ver.  15. — In  ver.  47  the  statement 
already  made  in  ver.  45  with  regard  to  the  flight  is  resumed  ;  and 
it  is  still  further  related,  that  500  men  reached  the  rock  Rimmon, 
and  dwelt  there  four  months,  i.e.  till  the  occurrence  described  in 
chap.  xxi.  13  sqq. — Ver.  48.  The  Israelites  turned  (from  any  further 
pursuit  of  the  fugitive  warriors  of  Benjamin)  to  the  children  of 
Benjamin,  i.e.  to  such  of  the  people  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin  as 
were  unarmed  and  defenceless,  and  smote  them  with  the  edee  of 
the  sword,  "from  the  town  (or  towns)  onwards,  men  to  cattle  (i.e. 
men,  women,  children,  and  cattle),  to  every  one  who  was  found ;" 
i.e.  they  cut  down  men  and  cattle  without  quarter,  from  the  towns 
onwards  even  to  those  who  were  found  elsewhere.  NSD3n~?2  *TJJ  (to 
all  that  was  found)  corresponds  to  "Vyo  (from  the  city),  and  Dnp 
nonzny  (men  to  beast)  serves  as  a  more  precise  definition  of  the 
"Pp  (city)  :  everything  that  was  in  the  city,  man  and  beast.  Ehp  is 
pointed  wrongly  for  Dflö,  men,  the  reading  in  several  mss.  and  most 
of  the  early  editions  (see  Deut.  ii.  34,  iii.  6).  They  also  set  fire  to 
all  the  towns  that  were  met  with,  i.e.  all  without  exception.  Thus 
they  did  the  same  to  the  Benjaminites  as  to  the  Canaanites  who 
were  put  under  the  ban,  carrying  out  the  ban  with  the  strictest 
severity. 


458  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

PRESERVATION  OF  THE  TRIBE  OF  BENJAMIN — THE  REMNANT 
PROVIDED  WITH  WIVES. — CHAP.  XXI. 

Through  the  extraordinary  severity  with  which  the  tribes  of 
Israel  had  carried  on  the  war  against  Benjamin,  this  tribe  had  been 
reduced  to  600  men,  and  thus  brought  very  near  to  extermination. 
Such  a  conclusion  to  the  sanguinary  conflict  went  to  the  heart  of 
the  congregation.  For  although,  when  forming  the  resolution  to 
punish  the  unparalleled  wickedness  of  the  inhabitants  of  Gibeah 
with  all  the  severity  of  the  law,  they  had  been  urged  on  by  nothing 
else  than  the  sacred  duty  that  was  binding  upon  them  to  root  out 
the  evil  from  their  midst,  and  although  the  war  against  the  whole 
tribe  of  Benjamin  was  justified  by  the  fact  that  they  had  taken  the 
side  of  the  culprits,  and  had  even  received  the  approval  of  the 
Lord ;  there  is  no  doubt  that  in  the  performance  of  this  resolution, 
and  the  war  that  was  actually  carried  on,  feelings  of  personal 
revenge  had  disturbed  the  righteous  cause  in  consequence  of  the 
defeat  which  they  had  twice  sustained  at  the  hands  of  the  Ben- 
jaminites,  and  had  carried  away  the  warriors  into  a  war  of  exter- 
mination which  was  neither  commanded  by  the  law  nor  justified  by 
the  circumstances,  and  had  brought  about  the  destruction  of  a  whole 
tribe  from  the  twelve  tribes  of  the  covenant  nation  with  the  excep- 
tion of  a  small  vanishing  remnant.  When  the  rash  deed  was  done, 
the  congregation  began  most  bitterly  to  repent.  And  with  repent- 
ance there  was  awakened  the  feeling  of  brotherly  love,  and  also  a 
sense  of  duty  to  provide  for  the  continuance  of  the  tribe,  which 
had  been  brought  so  near  to  destruction,  by  finding  wives  for  those 
who  remained,  in  order  that  the  small  remnant  might  grow  into  a 
vigorous  tribe  again. 

Vers.  1-14.  The  proposal  to  find  wrives  for  the  six  hundred 
Benjaminites  who  remained  was  exposed  to  this  difficulty,  that  the 
congregation  had  sworn  at  Mizpeh  (as  is  supplemented  in  ver.  1  to 
the  account  in  chap.  xx.  1—9)  that  no  one  should  give  his  daughter 
to  a  Benjaminite  as  a  wife. — Vers.  2,  3.  After  the  termination  of 
the  war,  the  people,  i.e.  the  people  who  had  assembled  together  for 
the  war  (see  ver.  9),  went  again  to  Bethel  (see  at  chap.  xx.  18,  26), 
to  weep  there  for  a  day  before  God  at  the  serious  loss  which  the 
war  had  brought  upon  the  congregation.  Then  they  uttered  this 
lamentation  :  "  Why,  0  Lord  God  of  Israel,  is  this  come  to  pass  in 
Israel,  that  a  tribe  is  missing  to-day  from  Israel  ?"  This  lamentation 
involved  the  wish  that  God  might  show  them  the  way  to  avert  the 


CHAP.  XXI.  1-14.  459 

threatened  destruction  of  the  missing  tribe,  and  build  up  the  six 
hundred  who  remained,  To  give  a  practical  expression  to  this  wish, 
they  built  an  altar  the  next  morning,  and  offered  burnt-offerings  and 
supplicatory  offerings  upon  it  (see  at  chap.  xx.  26),  knowing  as  they 
did  that  their  proposal  would  not  succeed  without  reconciliation  to 
the  Lord,  and  a  return  to  the  fellowship  of  His  grace.  There  is 
something  apparently  strange  in  the  erection  of  an  altar  at  Bethel, 
since  sacrifices  had  already  been  offered  there  during  the  war  itself 
(chap.  xx.  26),  and  this  could  not  have  taken  place  without  an  altar. 
Why  it  was  erected  again,  or  another  one  built,  is  a  question  which 
cannot  be  answered  with  any  certainty.  It  is  possible,  however,  that 
the  first  was  not  large  enough  for  the  number  of  sacrifices  that  had 
to  be  offered  now. — Ver.  5.  The  congregation  then  resolved  upon  a 
plan,  through  the  execution  of  which  a  number  of  virgins  were 
secured  for  the  Benjaminites.  They  determined  that  they  would 
carry  out  the  great  oath,  which  had  been  uttered  when  the  national 
assembly  was  called  against  such  as  did  not  appear,  upon  that  one 
of  the  tribes  of  Israel  which  had  not  come  to  the  meeting  of  the 
congregation  at  Mizpeh.  The  deliberations  upon  this  point  were 
opened  (ver.  5)  with  the  question,  "  Who  is  he  ivho  did  not  come 
up  to  the  meeting  of  all  the  tribes  of  Israel,  to  Jehovah?"  In  expla- 
nation of  this  question,  it  is  observed  at  ver.  5,  "  For  the  great  oath 
was  uttered  upon  him  that  came  not  up  to  Jehovah  to  Mizpeh  :  he 
shall  be  put  to  death."  We  learn  from  this  supplementary  remark, 
that  when  important  meetings  of  the  congregation  were  called,  all 
the  members  were  bound  by  an  oath  to  appear.  The  meeting  at 
Mizpeh  is  the  one  mentioned  in  chap.  xx.  1  sqq.  The  "  great 
oath"  consisted  in  the  threat  of  death  in  the  case  of  any  that  were 
disobedient.  To  this  explanation  of  the  question  in  ver.  5a,  the 
further  explanation  is  added  in  vers.  6,  7,  that  the  Israelites  felt 
compassion  for  Benjamin,  and  wished  to  avert  its  entire  destruc- 
tion by  procuring  wives  for  such  as  remained.  The  word  'OrilW  in 
ver.  6  is  attached  to  the  explanatory  clause  in  ver.  5b,  and  is  to  be 
rendered  as  a  pluperfect:  "And  the  children  of  Israel  had  shown 
themselves  compassionate  towards  their  brother  Benjamin,  and  said, 
A  tribe  is  cut  off  from  Israel  to-day ;  what  shall  we  do  to  them,  to 
those  that  remain  with  regard  to  wives,  as  zee  have  sworn?"  etc. 
(compare  ver.  1).  The  two  thoughts — (1)  the  oath  that  those  who 
had  not  come  to  Mizpeh  should  be  punished  with  death  (ver.  5b), 
and  (2)  anxiety  for  the  preservation  of  this  tribe  which  sprang  from 
compassion  towards  Benjamin,  and  was  shown  in  their  endeavour  to 


4G0  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

provide  such  as  remained  with  wives,  without  violating  the  oath  that 
none  of  them  would  give  them  their  own  daughters  as  wives — formed 
the  two  factors  which  determined  the  course  to  be  adopted  by  the 
con  cremation.  After  the  statement  of  these  two  circumstances,  the 
question  of  ver.  ha,  "  Who  is  the  one  (only  one)  of  the  tribes  of  Israel 
which"  etc.,  is  resumed  and  answered  :  "  Behold,  there  came  no  one 
into  the  camp  from  Jabesh  in  Gilead,  into  the  assembly  T  ^^  is 
used  in  vers.  8,  5,  in  a  more  general  sense,  as  denoting  not  merely 
the  tribes  as  such,  but  the  several  subdivisions  of  the  tribes. — Ver. 
9.  In  order,  however,  to  confirm  the  correctness  of  this  answer, 
which  might  possibly  have  been  founded  upon  a  superficial  and 
erroneous  observation,  the  whole  of  the  (assembled)  people  were 
mustered,  and  not  one  of  the  inhabitants  of  Jabesh  was  found  there 
(in  the  national  assembly  at  Bethel).  The  situation  of  Jabesh  in 
Gilead  has  not  yet  been  ascertained.  This  town  was  closely  be- 
sieged by  the  Ammonite  Nahash,  and  was  relieved  by  Saul  (1  Sam. 
xi.  1  sqq.),  on  which  account  the  inhabitants  afterwards  showed 
themselves  grateful  to  Saul  (1  Sam.  xxxi.  8  sqq.).  Josephus  calls 
Jabesh  the  metropolis  of  Gilead  (Ant.  vi.  5,  1).  According  to  the 
Onom.  (s.  v.  Jabis),  it  was  six  Roman  miles  from  Pella,  upon  the 
top  of  a  mountain  towards  Gerasa.  Robinson  (Bibl.  Res.  p.  320) 
supposes  it  to  be  the  ruins  of  ed  Deir  in  the  Wady  Jabes. — Vers. 
10  sqq.  To  punish  this  unlawful  conduct,  the  congregation  sent 
12,000  brave  fighting  men  against  Jabesh,  with  orders  to  smite 
the  inhabitants  of  the  town  with  the  edge  of  the  sword,  together 
with  their  wives  and  children,  but  also  with  the  more  precise 
instructions  (ver.  11),  "  to  ban  all  the  men,  and  women  who  had 
known  the  lying  with  man  "  (i.e.  to  slay  them  as  exposed  to  death, 
which  implied,  on  the  other  hand,  that  virgins  who  had  not  lain 
with  any  man  should  be  spared).  The  fighting  men  found  400 
such  virgins  in  Jabesh,  and  brought  them  to  the  camp  at  Shiloh 
in  the  land  of  Canaan,  onix  (ver.  12)  refers  to  the  virgins,  the 
masculine  being  used  as  the  more  common  genus  in  the  place  of 
the  feminine.  Shiloh,  with  the  additional  clause  "  in  the  land  of 
Canaan,"  which  was  occasioned  by  the  antithesis  Jabesh  in  Gilead, 
as  in  Josh.  xxi.  2,  xxii.  9,  was  the  usual  meeting-place  of  the  con- 
gregation, on  account  of  its  being  the  seat  of  the  tabernacle.  The 
representatives  of  the  congregation  had  moved  thither,  after  the 
deliberations  concerning  Jabesh,  which  were  still  connected  with 
the  war  against  Benjamin,  were  concluded. — Ver.  13.  The  con- 
gregation then  sent  to  call  the  Benjaminites,  who  had  taken  refuge 


CHAP.  XXI.  15-25.  461 

upon  the  rock  Rimmon,  and  gave  them  as  wives,  when  they  returned 
(sc.  into  their  own  possessions),  the  400  virgins  of  Jabesh  who  had 
been  preserved  alive.  "  But  so  they  sufficed  them  not"  (|3,  so,  i.e., 
in  their  existing  number,  400  :  Bertheau).  In  this  remark  there 
is  an  allusion  to  what  follows. 

Vers.  15-25.  Of  the  six  hundred  Benjaminites  who  had  escaped, 
there  still  remained  two  hundred  to  be  provided  with  wives.  To 
these  the  congregation  gave  permission  to  take  wives  by  force  at  a 
festival  at  Shiloh.  The  account  of  this  is  once  more  introduced, 
with  a  description  of  the  anxiety  felt  by  the  congregation  for  the 
continuance  of  the  tribe  of  Benjamin.  Vers.  15,  16,  and  18  are 
only  a  repetition  of  vers.  6  and  7,  with  a  slight  change  of  expres- 
sion. The  "  breach  (jperez)  in  the  tribes  of  Israel "  had  arisen  from 
the  almost  complete  extermination  of  Benjamin.  "  For  out  of 
Benjamin  is  (every)  woman  destroyed"  viz.  by  the  ruthless  slaughter 
of  the  whole  of  the  people  of  that  tribe  (chap.  xx.  48).  Conse- 
quently the  Benjaminites  who  were  still  unmarried  could  not  find 
any  wives  in  their  own  tribe.  The  fact  that  four  hundred  of  the 
Benjaminites  who  remained  were  already  provided  with  wives  is 
not  noticed  here,  because  it  has  been  stated  just  before,  and  of 
course  none  of  them  could  give  up  their  own  wives  to  others. — 
Ver.  17.  Still  Benjamin  must  be  preserved  as  a  tribe.  The  elders 
therefore  said,  "  Possession  of  the  saved  shall  be  for  Benjamin"  i.e. 
the  tribe-land  of  Benjamin  shall  remain  an  independent  possession 
for  the  Benjaminites  who  have  escaped  the  massacre,  so  that  a 
tribe  may  not  be  destroyed  out  of  Israel.  It  was  necessary,  there- 
fore, that  they  should  take  steps  to  help  the  remaining  Benjaminites 
to  wives.  The  other  tribes  could  not  give  them  their  daughters,  on 
account  of  the  oath  which  has  already  been  mentioned  in  vers.  1 
and  lb  and  is  repeated  here  (ver.  18).  Consequently  there  was 
hardly  any  other  course  open,  than  to  let  the  Benjaminites  seize 
upon  wives  for  themselves.  And  the  elders  lent  them  a  helping 
hand  by  offering  them  this  advice,  that  at  the  next  yearly  festival 
at  Shiloh,  at  which  the  daughters  of  Shiloh  carried  on  dances  in 
the  open  air  (outside  the  town),  they  should  seize  upon  wives  for 
themselves  from  among  these  daughters,  and  promising  them  that 
when  the  thing  was  accomplished  they  would  adjust  it  peaceably 
(vers.  19-22).  The  "feast  of  Jehovah"  which  the  Israelites  kept 
from  year  to  year,  was  one  of  the  three  great  annual  festivals, 
probably  one  which  lasted  seven  days,  either  the  passover  or  the 
feast  of  tabernacles, — most  likely  the  former,  as  the  dances  of  the 


462  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

daughters  of  Shiloh  were  apparently  an  imitation  of  the  dances  of 
the  Israelitish  women  at  the  Red  Sea  under  the  superintendence  of 
Miriam  (Ex.  xv.  20).  The  minute  description  of  the  situation  of 
Shiloh  (ver.  19),  viz.  "  to  the  north  of  Bethel,  on  the  east  of  the 
road  which  rises  from  Bethel  to  Shechem,  and  on  the  south  of 
Lebonah"  (the  present  village  of  Lubban,  on  the  north-west  of 
Seilun  :  see  Rob.  Pal.  iii.  p.  89),  serves  to  throw  light  upon  the 
scene  which  follows,  i.e.  to  show  how  the  situation  of  Shiloh  was 
peculiarly  fitted  for  the  carrying  out  of  the  advice  given  to  the 
Benjaminites ;  since,  as  soon  as  they  had  issued  from  their  hiding- 
places  in  the  vineyards  at  Shiloh,  and  seized  upon  the  dancing 
virgins,  they  could  easily  escape  into  their  own  land  by  the  neigh- 
bouring high-road  which  led  from  Bethel  to  Shechem,  without 
being  arrested  by  the  citizens  of  Shiloh. — Ver.  20.  The  Kethibh 
W?  in  the  singular  may  be  explained  on  the  ground  that  one  of 
the  elders  spoke  and  gave  the  advice  in  the  name  of  the  others. 
eiDn  in  ver.  21  and  Ps.  x.  9,  to  seize  hold  of,  or  carry  off  as  prey 
—  ^lOp- — Ver.  22.  "  And  when  the  fathers  or  brethren  of  the  virgins 
carried  off,  come  to  us  to  chide  with  us,  we  (the  elders)  will  say  to 
them  (in  your  name),  Present  them  to  us  (orris  as  in  ver.  12) ;  for 
we  did  not  receive  every  one  his  wife  through  the  war  (with  Jabesh)  ; 
for  ye  have  not  given  them  to  them ;  now  would  ye  be  guilty."  The 
words  "  Present  them  to  us,"  etc.,  are  to  be  understood  as  spoken  in 
the  name  of  the  Benjaminites,  who  were  accused  of  the  raid,  to  the 
relatives  of  the  virgins  who  brought  the  complaint.  This  explains 
the  use  of  the  pronoun  in  the  first  person  in  Wian  and  WflpP,  which 
must  not  be  altered  therefore  into  the  third  person.1  The  two 
clauses  commencing  with  *2  are  co-ordinate,  and  contain  two  points 
serving  to  enforce  the  request,  "  Present  them,"  etc.  The  first  is 
pleaded  in  the  name  of  the  Benjaminites ;  the  second  is  adduced,  as 
a  general  ground  on  the  part  of  the  elders  of  the  congregation,  to 
pacify  the  fathers  and  brothers  making  the  complaint,  on  account 
of  the  oath  which  the  Israelites  had  taken,  that  none  of  them  would 
give  their  daughters  as  wives  to  the  Benjaminites.     The  meaning 

1  One  circumstance  which  is  decisive  against  this  alteration  of  the  text  ia, 
that  the  Seventy  had  the  Masoretic  text  before  them,  and  founded  their  trans- 
lation upon  it  {i"hti]aot.rt  i]fi7v  xvrx;,  Vtl  oiix  l'höt.ßof/,iu  dvyp  yviicUKcc  etürou  tu  rv 
voKipa).  The  different  rendering  of  Jerome  given  in  the  Vulgate — miseremini 
eorwn!  non  enim  rapuerunt  eas  jure  bellantium  atque  victorum — is  nothing  but  an 
unfortunate  and  unsuccessful  attempt  to  get  rid  of  the  difficulties  connected 
with  the  readings  in  the  text. 


CHAP.  XXI.  15-25.  463 

is  the  following :  Ye  may  have  your  daughters  with  the  Benjaminites 
who  have  taken  them  by  force,  for  ye  have  not  given  them  volun- 
tarily, so  as  to  have  broken  your  oath  by  so  doing.  In  the  last 
clause  J")JQ  has  an  unusuai  meaning :  "  at  the  time "  (or  now),  i.e. 
in  that  case,  ye  would  have  been  guilty,  viz.  if  ye  had  given  them 
voluntarily.  —  Ver.  23.  The  Benjaminites  adopted  this  advice. 
They  took  to  themselves  wives  according  to  their  number,  i.e.  two 
hundred  (according  to  ver.  12,  compared  with  chap.  xx.  47),  whom 
they  caught  from  the  dancing  daughters  of  Shiloh,  and  returned 
with  them  into  their  inheritance,  where  they  rebuilt  the  towns  that 
had  been  reduced  to  ashes,  and  dwelt  therein. 

In  vers.  24  and  25,  the  account  of  this  event  is  brought  to  a 
close  with  a  twofold  remark:  (1)  that  the  children  of  Israel,  i.e.  the 
representatives  of  the  congregation  who  were  assembled  at  Shiloh, 
separated  and  returned  every  man  into  his  inheritance  to  his  tribe 
and  family  ;  (2)  that  at  that  time  there  was  no  king  in  Israel,  and 
every  man  was  accustomed  to  do  what  was  right  in  his  own  eyes. 
Whether  the  fathers  or  brothers  of  the  virgins  who  had  been 
carried  off  brought  any  complaint  before  the  congregation  concern- 
ing the  raid  that  had  been  committed,  the  writer  does  not  state, 
simply  because  this  was  of  no  moment  so  far  as  the  history  was 
concerned,  inasmuch  as,  according  to  ver.  22,  the  complaint  made 
no  difference  in  the  facts  themselves.1  With  the  closing  remark  in 
ver.  25,  however,  with  which  the  account  returns  to  its  commence- 
ment in  chap.  xix.  1,  the  prophetic  historian  sums  up  his  judgment 
upon  the  history  in  the  words,  "  At  that  time  every  man  did  what 
was  right  in  his  own  eyes,  because  there  was  no  king  in  Israel,"  in 
which  the  idea  is  implied,  that  under  the  government  of  a  king, 
who  administered  right  and  justice  in  the  kingdom,  such  things 
could  not  possibly  have  happened.  This  not  only  refers  to  the 
conduct  of  the  Israelites  towards  Benjamin  in  the  war,  the  severity 
of  which  was  not  to  be  justified  (see  p.  458),  but  also  to  their  con  • 
duct  towards  the  inhabitants  of  Jabesh,  as  described  in  chap.  xxi.  5 
sqq.  The  congregation  had  no  doubt  a  perfect  right,  when  all  the 
people  were  summoned  to  deliberate  upon  important  matters  affecting 

1  "No  doubt  the  fathers  and  brothers  of  the  virgins  demanded  them  both 
from  the  Benjaminites  themselves,  and  also  from  the  elders  of  Israel,  or  at  any 
rate  petitioned  that  the  Benjaminites  might  be  punished  :  but  the  elders  replied 
as  they  had  said  that  they  should ;  and  the  persons  concerned  were  satisfied 
with  the  answer,  and  so  the  affair  was  brought  to  a  peaceable  termination." — 
Sei.  Schmidt. 


464  THE  BOOK  OF  JUDGES. 

the  welfare  of  the  whole  nation,  to  utter  the  "  great  oath  "  against 
such  as  failed  to  appear,  i.e.  to  threaten  them  with  death  and  carry 
out  this  threat  upon  such  as  were  obstinate ;  but  such  a  punishment 
as  this  could  only  be  justly  inflicted  upon  persons  who  were  really 
guilty,  and  had  rebelled  against  the  congregation  as  the  supreme 
power,  and  could  not  be  extended  to  women  and  children  unless 
they  had  also  committed  a  crime  deserving  of  death.  But  even  if 
there  were  peculiar  circumstances  in  the  case  before  us,  which  have 
been  passed  over  by  our  author,  who  restricts  himself  simply  to 
points  bearing  upon  the  main  purpose  of  the  history,  but  which 
rendered  it  necessary  that  the  ban  should  be  inflicted  upon  all  the 
inhabitants  of  Jabesh,  it  was  at  any  rate  an  arbitrary  exemption  to 
spare  all  the  marriageable  virgins,  and  one  which  could  not  be 
justified  by  the  object  contemplated,  however  laudable  that  object 
might  be.  This  also  applies  to  the  oath  taken  by  the  people,  that 
they  would  not  give  any  of  their  daughters  as  wives  to  the  Ben- 
jaminites,  as  well  as  to  the  advice  given  by  the  elders  to  the  re- 
maining two  hundred,  to  carry  off  virgins  from  the  festival  at 
Shiloh.  However  just  and  laudable  the  moral  indignation  may 
have  been,  which  was  expressed  in  that  oath  by  the  nation  generally 
at  the  scandalous  crime  of  the  Gibeites,  a  crime  unparalleled  in 
Israel,  and  at  the  favour  shown  to  the  culprits  by  the  tribe  of 
Benjamin,  the  oath  itself  was  an  act  of  rashness,  in  which  there 
was  not  only  an  utter  denial  of  brotherly  love,  but  the  bounds  of 
justice  were  broken  through.  When  the  elders  of  the  nation  came 
to  a  better  state  of  mind,  they  ought  to  have  acknowledged  their 
rashness  openly,  and  freed  themselves  and  the  nation  from  an  oath 
that  had  been  taken  in  such  sinful  haste.  "  Wherefore  they  would 
have  acted  far  more  uprightly,  if  they  had  seriously  confessed 
their  fault  and  asked  forgiveness  of  God,  and  given  permission  to 
the  Benjaminites  to  marry  freely.  In  this  way  there  would  have 
been  no  necessity  to  cut  off  the  inhabitants  of  Jabesh  from  their 
midst  by  cruelty  of  another  kind"  (Buddeus).  But  if  they  felt 
themselves  bound  in  their  consciences  to  keep  the  oath  inviolably, 
they  ought  to  have  commended  the  matter  to  the  Lord  in  prayer, 
and  left  it  to  His  decision  ;  whereas,  by  the  advice  given  to  the 
Benjaminites,  they  had  indeed  kept  the  oath  in  the  letter,  but  had 
treated  it  in  doed  and  truth  as  having  no  validity  whatever. 


THE  BOOK  OF  KÜTH.1 


INTRODUCTION. 

CONTENTS,  CHARACTER,  AND  ORIGIN  OF  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 


HE  book  of  Ruth  (Pov6)  introduces  us  to  the  family 
life  of  the  ancestors  of  king  David,  and  informs  us, 
in  a  simple  and  attractive  form  of  historical  narrative, 
and  one  in  harmony  with  the  tender  and  affectionate 
contents,  how  Ruth  the  Moabitess,  a  daughter-in-law  of  the  Beth- 
lehemite  Elimelech,  of  the  family  of  Judah,  who  had  emigrated 
with  his  wife  and  his  two  sons  into  the  land  of  Moab  on  account  of 
a  famine,  left  father  and  mother,  fatherland  and  kindred,  after  the 
death  of  her  husband,  and  out  of  childlike  affection  to  her  Israelitish 
mother-in-law  Naomi,  whose  husband  had  also  died  in  the  land  of 
Moab,  and  went  with  her  to  Judah,  to  take  refuge  under  the  wings 
of  the  God  of  Israel  (chap,  i.) ;  and  how,  when  there,  as  she  was 
going  in  her  poverty  to  glean  some  ears  of  corn  in  the  field  of  a 
wealthy  man,  she  came  apparently  by  accident  to  the  field  of  Boaz, 
a  near  relation  of  Elimelech,  and  became  acquainted  with  this 
honourable  and  benevolent  man  (chap,  ii.) ;  how  she  then  sought 
marriage  with  him  by  the  wish  of  her  mother-in-law  (chap,  iii.),  and 
was  taken  by  him  as  a  wife,  according  to  the  custom  of  Levirate 
marriage,  in  all  the  ordinary  legal  forms,  and  bare  a  son  in  this 
marriage,  named  Obed.  This  Obed  was  the  grandfather  of  David  \s 
(chap.  iv.  1-17),  with  whose  genealogy  the  book  closes  (chap.  iv. 
18-22). 

1  The  book  of  Ruth  does  not  indeed  belong  to  the  prophetical  books  of 
history  so  far  as  its  historical  character  is  concerned,  and  even  in  the  Hebrew 
canon  it  is  placed  among  the  hagiographa ;  but  as  its  contents  directly  follow 
upon  those  of  the  book  of  Judges,  it  seemed  advisable  to  place  the  exposition 
immediately  after  that  of  Judges. 

2G 


466  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

In  this  conclusion  the  meaning  and  tendency  of  the  whole 
narrative  is  brought  clearly  to  light.  The  genealogical  proof  of 
the  descent  of  David  from  Perez  through  Boaz  and  the  Moabitess 
Ruth  (chap.  iv.  18-22)  forms  not  only  the  end,  but  the  starting- 
point,  of  the  history  contained  in  the  book.  For  even  if  we  should 
not  attach  so  much  importance  to  this  genealogy  as  to  say  with 
Auberlen  that  "  the  book  of  Ruth  contains,  as  it  were,  the  inner 
side,  the  spiritually  moral  background  of  the  genealogies  which  play 
so  significant  a  part  even  in  the  Israelitish  antiquity;"  so  much  is 
unquestionably  true,  that  the  book  contains  a  historical  picture  from 
the  family  life  of  the  ancestors  of  David,  intended  to  show  how  the 
ancestors  of  this  great  king  walked  uprightly  before  God  and  man 
in  piety  and  singleness  of  heart,  and  in  modesty  and  purity  of  life. 
"  Ruth,  the  Moabitish  great-great-grandmother  of  David,  longed 
for  the  God  and  people  of  Israel  with  all  the  deepest  earnestness  of 
her  nature,  and  joined  herself  to  them  with  all  the  power  of  love ; 
and  Boaz  was  an  upright  Israelite,  without  guile,  full  of  holy  reve- 
rence for  every  ordinance  of  God  and  man,  and  full  of  benevolent 
love  and  friendliness  towards  the  poor  heathen  woman.  From  such 
ancestors  was  the  man  descended  in  whom  all  the  nature  of  Israel  was 
to  find  its  royal  concentration  and  fullest  expression  "  (Äuberlen). 
But  there  is  also  a  Messianic  trait  in  the  fact  that  Ruth,  a  heathen 
woman,  of  a  nation  so  hostile  to  the  Israelites  as  that  of  Moab  was, 
should  have  been  thought  worthy  to  be  made  the  tribe-mother  of 
the  great  and  pious  king  David,  on  account  of  her  faithful  love  to 
the  people  of  Israel,  and  her  entire  confidence  in  Jehovah,  the  God 
of  Israel.  As  Judah  begat  Perez  from  Tamar  the  Canaanitish 
woman  (Gen.  xxxviii.),  and  as  Rahab  was  adopted  into  the  congre- 
gation of  Israel  (Josh.  vi.  25),  and  according  to  ancient  tradition 
was  married  to  Salmon  (Matt.  i.  5),  so  the  Moabitess  Ruth  was 
taken  by  Boaz  as  his  wife,  and  incorporated  in  the  family  of  Judah, 
from  which  Christ  was  to  spring  according  to  the  flesh  (see  Matt. 
i.  3,  5,  where  these  three  women  are  distinctly  mentioned  by  name 
in  the  genealogy  of  Jesus). 

The  incidents  described  in  the  book  fall  within  the  times  of  the 
judges  (chap.  i.  1),  and  most  probably  in  the  time  of  Gideon  (see 
at  chap.  i.  1) ;  and  the  book  itself  forms  both  a  supplement  to  the 
book  of  Judges  and  an  introduction  to  the  books  of  Samuel,  which 
give  no  account  of  the  ancestors  of  David.  So  far  as  its  contents 
are  concerned  it  has  its  proper  place,  in  the  Septuagint,  the  Vul- 
gate, the  Lutheran  and  other  versions,  between  the  book  of  Judges 


INTRODUCTION.  467 

and  those  of  Samuel.  In  the  Hebrew  Codex,  on  the  contrary,  it 
is  placed  among  the  hagiographa,  and  in  the  Talmud  (baba  bathr. 
f.  lib)  it  is  even  placed  at  the  head  of  them  before  the  Psalms ; 
whilst  in  the  Hebrew  mss.  it  stands  among  the  five  megilloih :  Can- 
ticles, Ruth,  Lamentations,  Ecclesiastes,  Esther.  The  latter  position 
is  connected  with  the  liturgical  use  of  the  book  in  the  synagogue, 
where  it  was  read  at  the  feast  of  weeks ;  whilst  its  place  among  the 
hagiographa  is  to  be  explained  from  the  principle  upon  which  the 
general  arrangement  of  the  Old  Testament  canon  was  founded, — 
namely,  that  the  different  books  were  divided  into  three  classes 
according  to  the  relation  in  which  their  authors  stood  to  God  and 
to  the  theocracy,  and  the  books  themselves  in  their  contents  and 
spirit  to  the  divine  revelation  (see  Keil,  Lehrbuch  der  Einleitung, 
§  155).  The  latter  is  therefore  to  be  regarded  as  the  original  classi- 
fication, and  not  the  one  in  the  Septuagint  rendering,  where  the 
original  arrangement  has  unquestionably  been  altered  in  the  case  of 
this  and  other  books,  just  because  this  principle  has  been  overlooked.1 

1  Many  critics  of  the  present  day,  indeed,  appeal  to  the  testimony  of  Josephus 
and  the  earlier  fathers  as  favouring  the  opposite  view,  viz.  that  the  book  of 
Euth  was  originally  placed  at  the  close  of  the  book  of  Judges,  to  which  it  formed 
an  appendix.  Josephus  (c.  Ap.  i.  8)  reckons,  as  is  well  known,  only  twenty- 
two  books  of  the  Old  Testament ;  and  the  only  way  by  which  this  number  can 
be  obtained  is  by  joining  together  the  books  of  Judges  and  Ruth,  so  as  to  form 
one  book.  Again,  Melito  of  Sardes,  who  lived  in  the  second  century,  and  took 
a  journey  into  Palestine  for  the  purpose  of  obtaining  correct  information  con- 
cerning the  sacred  writings  of  the  Jews  (jcoou.  rou  dpidfiou  xxl  QTvoiot  t'/iv  t«|/v 
thv),  places  Ruth  after  Judges  in  the  list  which  has  been  preserved  by  Eusebius 
(h.  e.  iv.  26),  but  does  not  give  the  number  of  the  books,  as  Berlheau  erroneously 
maintains,  nor  observes  that  "Judges  and  Ruth  form  one  book  under  the  name 
of  Sho/etim."  This  is  first  done  by  Origen  in  his  list  as  given  by  Eusebius  (h.  e. 
vi.  25),  where  he  states  that  the  Hebrews  had  twenty-two  (vlixoyxovs  ßtßhovs, 
and  then  adds  in  the  case  of  Ruth,  vetp>  uvtois  h  tvl  "SuQsrlft.  Ruth  occupies  the 
same  place  in  the  lists  of  the  later  Greek  fathers,  as  in  Rufinus  (Expos,  in  Symb. 
Apost.)  and  Jerome  (in  Prolog.  Gal.),  the  latter  of  whom  makes  this  remark  on 
the  book  of  Judges,  Et  in  eundem  compingunt  Ruth,  quia  in  diebus  Judicum 
facta  ejus  narratur  historia ;  and  after  enumerating  the  twenty  -two  books  of 
the  Old  Testament,  adds,  Quanquam  nonnulli  Ruth  et  Kinoih  inter  Hagiographa 
scriptitent  et  hos  libros  in  suo  putent  numero  supputandos,  etc.  But  all  these  tes- 
timonies prove  nothing  more  than  that  the  Hellenistic  Jews,  who  made  use  of 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  Greek  rendering  of  the  LXX.,  regarded  the  book  of 
Ruth  as  an  appendix  of  the  book  of  Judges,  and  not  that  the  book  of  Ruth  ever 
followed  the  book  of  Judges  in  the  Hebrew  canon,  so  as  to  form  one  book.  The 
reduction  of  the  sacred  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  to  twenty-two  is  nothing 
more  than  the  product  of  the  cabbalistic  and  mystical  numbers  wrought  out  by 
the  Hellenistic  or  Alexandrian  Jews.      If  this  numbering  bad  been  the  original 


4  68  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

The  book  of  Ruth  is  not  a  mere  (say  a  third)  appendix  to  the 
book  of  Judges,  but  a  small  independent  work,  which  does  indeed 
resemble  the  two  appendices  of  the  book  of  Judges,  so  far  as  the 
incidents  recorded  in  it  fall  within  the  period  of  the  Judges,  and 
are  not  depicted  in  the  spirit  of  the  prophetic  view  of  history ;  but, 
on  the  other  hand,  it  has  a  thoroughly  distinctive  character  both 
in  form  and  contents,  and  has  nothing  in  common  with  the  book 
of  Judges  either  in  style  or  language :  on  the  contrary,  it  differs 
essentially  both  in  substance  and  design  from  the  substance  and 
design  of  this  book  and  of  its  two  appendices,  for  the  simple  reason 
that  at  the  close  of  the  history  (chap.  iv.  17),  where  Obed,  the  son 

one,  the  Hebrew  Jews  would  never  have  increased  the  number  to  twenty-four, 
since  the  Hebrew  alphabet  never  contained  twenty-four  letters.  Josephus,  how- 
ever, is  not  a  witness  with  regard  to  the  orthodox  opinions  of  the  Hebrew  Jews, 
but  was  an  eclectic  and  a  Hellenist,  who  used  the  Old  Testament  in  the  Septuagint 
version  and  not  in  the  original  text,  and  who  arranged  the  books  of  the  Old 
Testament  in  the  most  singular  manner.  The  fathers,  too,  with  the  exception 
of  Jerome,  whenever  they  give  any  account  of  their  inquiries  among  the  Jews 
with  regard  to  the  number  and  order  of  the  books  accepted  by  them  as  canonical, 
never  give  them  in  either  the  order  or  number  found  in  the  Hebrew  canon,  but 
simply  according  to  the  Septuagint  version,  which  was  the  only  one  that  the 
Christians  understood.  This  is  obvious  in  the  case  of  Melito,  from  the  fact  that 
he  reckons  Buai'hiiuv  rioaxpoc.  and  Y\.u,poi,~hifKop.kvuv  Ivo,  and  places  Daniel  between 
the  twelve  minor  prophets  and  Ezekiel.  We  find  the  same  in  Origen,  although 
he  gives  the  Hebrew  names  to  the  different  books,  and  states  in  connection 
with  the  four  books  of  Kings  and  the  two  books  of  Paralipomena,  that  the 
Hebrews  named  and  numbered  them  differently.  Lastly,  it  is  true  that  Jerome 
arranges  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testament  in  his  Prol.  Gal.  according  to  the 
three  classes  of  the  Hebrew  canon  ;  but  he  endeavours  to  bring  the  Hebrew  mode 
of  division  and  enumeration  as  much  as  possible  into  harmony  with  the  Sep- 
tuagint numbering  and  order  as  generally  adopted  in  the  Christian  Church,  and 
to  conceal  all  existing  differences.  You  may  see  this  very  clearly  from  his 
remarks  as  to  the  number  of  these  books,  and  especially  from  the  words,  Porro 
quinque  litterx  dupllces  apud  Hebrseos  sunt,  Caph,  Mem,  Nun,  Pe,  Sade  .... 
Unde  et  quinque  a  plerisque  libri  duplices  existimantur,  Samuel,  Melachim,  Dibre 
Hajamim,  Esdras,  Jeremias  cum  Kinoth,  i.e.  Lamentaüonibus  suis.  For  the 
plerique  who  adopt  two  books  of  Samuel,  Kings,  and  Chronicles,  are  not  Hebrew 
but  Hellenistic  Jews,  as  the  Hebrew  Jews  did  not  divide  these  writings  in  their 
canon  into  two  books  each,  but  this  mode  of  dividing  them  was  first  introduced 
into  the  Hebrew  Bibles  by  Dan.  Bomberg  from  the  Septuagint  or  Vulgate.  The 
further  remark  of  this  father,  quanquam  nonnulli  Ruth  et  Kinoth  inter  hagiographa 
scriptitent,  etc.,  is  also  to  be  estimated  in  the  same  way,  and  the  word  nonnulli  to 
be  attributed  to  the  conciliatory  efforts  of  Jerome.  And  lastly,  his  remark  con- 
cerning the  connection  between  the  book  of  Ruth  and  that  of  Judges  is  not  to  be 
regarded  as  any  evidence  of  the  position  which  this  book  occupied  in  the  Hebrew 
canon,  but  simply  as  a  proof  of  the  place  assigned  it  by  the  Hellenistic  Jews. 


INTRODUCTION.  469 

of  Boaz  and  Kuth,  is  described  as  the  grandfather  of  David,  and 
still  more  clearly  in  the  genealogy  of  Perez,  which  is  brought  down 
to  David  (chap.  iv.  18-22),  the  book  passes  beyond  the  times  of  the 
Judges.  In  this  simple  fact  the  author  very  plainly  shows  that  his 
intention  was  not  to  give  a  picture  of  the  family  life  of  pious 
Israelites  in  the  time  of  the  judges  from  a  civil  and  a  religious 
point  of  view,  but  rather  to  give  a  biographical  sketch  of  the  pious 
ancestors  of  David  the  king. 

The  origin  of  the  book  of  Ruth  is  involved  in  obscurity.  From 
its  contents,  and  more  especially  from  the  object  so  apparent  in  the 
close  of  the  book,  it  may  be  inferred  with  certainty  that  it  was  not 
written  earlier  than  the  time  of  David's  rule  over  Israel,  and  indeed 
not  before  the  culminating  point  of  the  reign  of  this  great  king. 
There  would  therefore  be  an  interval  of  150  to  180  years  between 
the  events  themselves  and  the  writing  of  the  book,  during  which 
time  the  custom  mentioned  in  chap.  iv.  7,  of  taking  off  the  shoe  in 
acts  of  trade  and  barter,  which  formerly  existed  in  Israel,  may  have 
fallen  entirely  into  disuse,  so  that  the  author  might  think  it  neces- 
sary to  explain  the  custom  for  the  information  of  his  contempo- 
raries. We  have  not  sufficient  ground  for  fixing  a  later  date,  say 
the  time  of  the  captivity ;  and  there  is  no  force  in  the  arguments 
that  have  been  adduced  in  support  of  this  (see  my  Lehrb.  der  Einl. 
§  137).  The  discovery  that  words  and  phrases  such  as  FlwiO 
(chap.  iii.  7,  8,  14),  D^jMSi  BHB  (chap.  iii.  9),  rnj?p,  chance  (chap.  ii. 
3),  either  do  not  occur  at  all  or  only  very  rarely  in  the  earlier 
writings,  simply  because  the  thing  itself  to  which  they  refer  is  not 
mentioned,  does  not  in  the  least  degree  prove  that  these  words 
were  not  formed  till  a  later  age.  The  supposed  Chaldaisms,  how- 
ever,— namely  the  forms  'HUyfi  and  T\?^l^  (chap.  ii.  8,  21),  J^rtfj^ 
(chap.  ii.  9),  Vttpb,  WT1J,  srn3^  (chap,  iii.'  3,  4),  Klo  for  mö  (chap. 
i.  20),  or  the  use  of  }\f?,  and  of  the  air.  \ey.  ]iV  (chap.  i.  13),  etc., — 
we  only  meet  with  in  the  speeches  of  the  persons  acting,  and  never 
where  the  author  himself  is  narrating  ;  and  consequently  they  fur- 
nish no  proofs  of  the  later  origin  of  the  book,  but  may  be  simply 
and  fully  explained  from  the  fact,  that  the  author  received  these 
forms  and  words  from  the  language  used  in  common  conversation  in 
the  time  of  the  judges,  and  has  faithfully  recorded  them.  We  are 
rather  warranted  in  drawing  the  conclusion  from  this,  that  he  did 
not  derive  the  contents  of  his  work  from  oral  tradition,  but  made 
use  of  written  documents,  with  regard  to  the  origin  and  nature  of 
which,  however,  nothing  certain  can  be  determined. 


470  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

EXPOSITION. 

RUTH  GOES  WITH  NAOMI  TO  BETHLEHEM. — CHAP.  I. 

In  the  time  of  the  judges  Elimelech  emigrated  from  Bethlehem 
in  Judah  into  the  land  of  Moab,  along  with  his  wife  Naomi,  and 
his  two  sons  Mahlon  and  Chilion,  because  of  a  famine  in  the  land 
(vers.  1,  2).  There  Elimelech  died ;  and  his  two  sons  married 
Moabitish  women,  named  Orpah  and  Ruth.  But  in  the  course  of 
ten  years  they  also  died,  so  that  Naomi  and  her  two  daughters-in- 
law  were  left  by  themselves  (vers.  3-5).  When  Naomi  heard  that 
the  Lord  had  once  more  blessed  the  land  of  Israel  with  bread,  she 
set  out  with  Orpah  and  Ruth  to  return  home.  But  on  the  way  she 
entreated  them  to  turn  back  and  remain  with  their  relations  in  their 
own  land ;  and  Orpah  did  so  (vers.  6-14).  But  Ruth  declared 
that  she  would  not  leave  her  mother-in-law,  and  went  with  her  to 
Bethlehem  (vers.  15-22). 

Vers.  1-5.  Elimeleclis  Emigration  (vers.  1,  2). — By  the  word 
W  the  following  account  is  attached  to  other  well-known  events 
(see  at  Josh.  i.  1)  ;  and  by  the  definite  statement,  u  in  the  days  when 
judges  judged"  it  is  assigned  to  the  period  of  the  judges  generally. 
"  A  famine  in  the  land"  i.e.  in  the  land  of  Israel,  and  not  merely  in 
the  neighbourhood  of  Bethlehem.  The  time  of  this  famine  cannot 
be  determined  with  certainty,  although  it  seems  very  natural  to 
connect  it,  as  Seb.  Schmidt  and  others  do,  with  the  devastation  of 
the  land  by  the  Midianites  (Judg.  vi.)  ;  and  there  are  several  things 
which  favour  this.  For  example,  the  famine  must  have  been  a  very 
serious  one,  and  not  only  have  extended  over  the  whole  of  the  land 
of  Israel,  but  have  lasted  several  years,  since  it  compelled  Elimelech 
to  emigrate  into  the  land  of  the  Moabites ;  and  it  was  not  till  ten 
years  had  elapsed,  that  his  wife  Naomi,  who  survived  him,  heard 
that  Jehovah  had  given  His  people  bread  again,  and  returned  to 
her  native  land  (vers.  4,  5).  Now  the  Midianites  oppressed  Israel 
for  seven  years,  and  their  invasions  were  generally  attended  by  a 
destruction  of  the  produce  of  the  soil  (Judg.  vi.  3,  4),  from  which 
famine  must  necessarily  have  ensued.  Moreover,  they  extended 
their  devastations  as  far  as  Gaza  (Judg.  vi.  4).  And  although  it 
by  no  means  follows  with  certainty  from  this,  that  they  also  came 
into  the  neighbourhood  of  Bethlehem,  it  is  still  less  possible  to  draw 
the  opposite  conclusion,  as  Bertheau  does,  from  the  fact  they  en- 


CHAP.  I.  1-5.  471 

camped  in  the  valley  of  Jezreel  (Judg.  vi.  33),  and  were  defeated 
there  by  Gideon,  namely,  that  they  did  not  devastate  the  mountains 
of  Judah,  because  the  road  from  the  plain  of  Jezreel  to  Gaza  did 
not  lie  across  those  mountains.  There  is  just  as  little  force  in  the 
other  objection  raised  by  Bertheau,  namely,  that  the  genealogical  list 
in  chap.  iv.  18  sqq.  would  not  place  Boaz  in  the  time  of  Gideon,  but 
about  the  time  of  the  Philistian  supremacy  over  Israel,  since  this 
objection  is  founded  partly  upon  an  assumption  that  cannot  be 
established,  and  partly  upon  an  erroneous  chronological  calculation. 
For  example,  the  assumption  that  every  member  is  included  in  this 
chronological  series  cannot  be  established,  inasmuch  as  unimportant 
members  are  often  omitted  from  the  genealogies,  so  that  Obed  the 
son  of  Boaz  might  very  well  have  been  the  grandfather  of  Jesse. 
And  according  to  the  true  chronological  reckoning,  the  birth  of 
David,  who  died  in  the  year  1015  B.c.  at  the  age  of  seventy,  fell  in 
the  year  1085,  i.e.  nine  or  ten  years  after  the  victory  gained  by 
Samuel  over  the  Philistines,  or  after  the  termination  of  their  forty 
years'  rule  over  Israel,  and  only  ninety-seven  years  after  the  death 
of  Gideon  (see  the  chronological  table,  p.  289).  Now  David  was 
the  youngest  of  the  eight  sons  of  Jesse.  If  therefore  we  place  his 
birth  in  the  fiftieth  year  of  his  father's  life,  Jesse  would  have  been 
born  in  the  first  year  of  the  Philistian  oppression,  or  forty-eight 
years  after  the  death  of  Gideon.  Now  it  is  quite  possible  that 
Jesse  may  also  have  been  a  younger  son  of  Obed,  and  born  in  the 
fiftieth  year  of  his  father's  life;  and  if  so,  the  birth  of  Obed  would 
fall  in  the  last  years  of  Gideon.  From  this  at  any  rate  so  much 
may  be  concluded  with  certainty,  that  Boaz  was  a  contemporary  of 
Gideon,  and  the  emigration  of  Elimelech  into  the  land  of  Moab 
may  have  taken  place  in  the  time  of  the  Midianitish  oppression. 
"  To  sojourn  in  the  fields  of  Moab"  i.e.  to  live  as  a  stranger  there. 
The  form  *$&  (vers.  1,  2,  22,  and  chap.  ii.  6)  is  not  the  construct 
state  singular,  or  only  another  form  for  nib»,  as  Bertheau  maintains, 
but  the  construct  state  plural  of  the  absolute  O^",  which  does  not 
occur  anywhere,  it  is  true,  but  would  be  a  perfectly  regular  forma- 
tion (comp.  Isa.  xxxii.  12,  2  Sam.  i.  21,  etc.),  as  the  construct  state 
singular  is  written  rnfe>  even  in  this  book  (ver.  6  and  chap.  iv.  3). 
The  use  of  the  singular  in  these  passages  for  the  land  of  the 
Moabites  by  no  means  proves  that  Hfe*  must  also  be  a  singular, 
but  may  be  explained  from  the  fact  that  the  expression  "  the  field 
(=  the  territory)  of  Moab"  alternates  with  the  plural,  "  the  fields 
of  Moab."— Vers.  2,  3.  DWSS,   the  plural  of  WBK,  an  adjective 


472  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

formation,  not  from  Ö)nö8,  as  in  Judg.  xii.  5,  but  from  rnSX  (Gen. 
xlviii.  7)  or  nrnDK  (chap.  iv.  11,  Gen.  xxxv.  19),  the  old  name  for 
Bethlehem,  Ephrathite,  i.e.  sprung  from  Bethlehem,  as  in  1  Sam. 
xvii.  12.  The  names — Elimelech,  i.e.  to  whom  God  is  King ;  Naomi 
("•öW,  a  contraction  of  n^ÖJQ,  LXX.  Noofifieiv,  Vulg.  Noemi),  i.e. 
the  gracious ;  Machlon,  i.e.  the  weakly ;  and  Chilion,  pining — are 
genuine  Hebrew  names ;  whereas  the  names  of  the  Moabitish 
women,  Orpah  and  Ruth,  who  were  married  to  Elimelech's  sons, 
cannot  be  satisfactorily  explained  from  the  Hebrew,  as  the  meaning 
given  to  Orpah,  "  turning  the  back,"  is  very  arbitrary,  and  the 
derivation  of  Ruth  from  W},  a  friend,  is  quite  uncertain.  Accord- 
ing to  chap.  iv.  10,  Euth  was  the  wife  of  the  elder  son  Mahlon. 
Marriage  with  daughters  of  the  Moabites  was  not  forbidden  in  the 
law,  like  marriages  with  Canaanitish  women  (Deut.  vii.  3)  ;  it  was 
only  the  reception  of  Moabites  into  the  congregation  of  the  Lord 
that  was  forbidden  (Deut.  xxiii.  4). — Ver.  5.  "  Thus  the  woman 
(Naomi)  remained  left  (alone)  of  her  two  sons  and  her  husband." 

Vers.  6-14.  After  the  loss  of  her  husband  and  her  two  sons,  Naomi 
rose  up  out  of  the  fields  of  Moab  to  return  into  the  land  of  Judah,  as 
she  had  heard  that  Jehovah  had  visited  His  people,  i.e.  had  turned 
His  favour  towards  them  again  to  give  them  bread.  From  the  place 
where  she  had  lived  Naomi  went  forth,  along  with  her  two  daughters- 
in-law.  These  three  went  on  the  way  to  return  to  the  land  of  Judah. 
The  expression  "  to  return,"  if  taken  strictly,  only  applies  to  Naomi, 
who  really  returned  to  Judah,  whilst  her  daughters-in-law  simply 
wished  to  accompany  her  thither. — Vers.  8  sqq.  "  On  the  way,"  i.e. 
when  they  had  gone  a  part  of  the  way,  Naomi  said  to  her  two  daugh- 
ters-in-law, "  Go,  return  each  one  to  her  mother s  house" — not  her 
father's,  though,  according  to  chap.  ii.  11,  Ruth's  father  at  any  rate 
was  still  living,  but  her  mother's,  because  maternal  love  knows  best 
how  to  comfort  a  daughter  in  her  affliction.  "  Jehovah  grant  you  that 
ye  may  find  a  resting-place,  each  one  in  the  house  of  her  husband"  i.e. 
that  ye  may  both  be  happily  married  again.  She  then  kissed  them, 
to  take  leave  of  them  (vid.  Gen.  xxxi.  28).  The  daughters-in-law, 
however,  began  to  weep  aloud,  and  said,  "  We  will  return  with  thee 
to  thy  people."  ^  before  a  direct  statement  serves  to  strengthen  it, 
and  is  almost  equivalent  to  a  positive  assurance. — Ver.  11.  Naomi 
endeavoured  to  dissuade  them  from  this  resolution,  by  setting  before 
them  the  fact,  that  if  they  went  with  her,  there  would  be  no  hope 
of  their  being  married  again,  and  enjoying  the  pleasures  of  life  once 
more.     "  Have  I  yet  so?is  in  my  womb,  that  they  may  be  your  hus- 


CHAP.  I.  6-14.  473 

hands  tn  Her  meaning  is :  I  am  not  pregnant  with  sons,  upon  whom, 
as  the  younger  brothers  of  Mahlon  and  Chilion,  there  would  rest  the 
obligation  of  marrying  you,  according  to  the  Levirate  law  (Deut. 
xxv.  5 ;  Gen.  xxxviii.  8).  And  not  only  have  I  no  such  hope  as 
this,  but,  continues  Naomi,  in  vers.  12,  13,  I  have  no  prospect  of 
having  a  husband  and  being  blessed  with  children  :  "for  I  am  too 
old  to  have  a  husband;"  yea,  even  if  I  could  think  of  this  altogether 
improbable  thing  as  taking  place,  and  assume  the  impossible  as 
possible ;  "  if  I  should  say,  I  have  hope  (of  having  a  husband),  yea, 
if  I  should  have  a  husband  to-night,  and  should  even  bear  sons,  would 
ye  then  wait  till  they  were  grown,  woxdd  ye  then  abstain  from  having 
husbands  ?"  The  *3  (if)  before  W}ÖS  refers  to  both  the  perfects 
which  follow.  |W  is  the  third  pers.  plur.  neuter  suffix  }H  with  the 
prefix  ?,  as  in  Job  xxx.  24,  where  fn  is  pointed  with  seghol,  on 
account  of  the  toned  syllable  which  follows,  as  here  in  pause  in  ver. 
9 :  lit.  in  these  things,  in  that  case,  and  hence  in  the  sense  of  there- 
fore =  |?£,  as  in  Chaldee  (e.g.  Dan.  ii.  6,  9,  24,  etc.).  HMBn  (vid. 
Isa.  lx.  4,  and  Ewald,  §  195,  a.),  from  }JJ?  air.  \ey.  in  Hebrew,  which 
signifies  in  Aramaean  to  hold  back,  shut  in  ;  hence  in  the  Talmud 
n^V,  a  woman  who  lived  retired  in  her  own  house  without  a  hus- 
band. Naomi  supposes  three  cases  in  ver.  12,  of  which  each  is 
more  improbable,  or  rather  more  impossible,  than  the  one  before  ; 
and  even  if  the  impossible  circumstance  should  be  possible,  that  she 
should  bear  sons  that  very  night,  she  could  not  in  that  case  expect 
or  advise  her  daughters-in-law  to  wait  till  these  sons  were  grown  up 
and  could  marry  them,  according  to  the  Levirate  law.  In  this  there 
was  involved  the  strongest  persuasion  to  her  daughters-in-law  to 
give  up  their  intention  of  going  with  her  into  the  land  of  Judah, 
and  a  most  urgent  appeal  to  return  to  their  mothers'  houses,  where, 
as  young  widows  without  children,  they  would  not  be  altogether 
without  the  prospect  of  marrying  again.  One  possible  case  Naomi 
left  without  notice,  namely,  that  her  daughters-in-law  might  be  able 
to  obtain  other  husbands  in  Judah  itself.  She  did  not  hint  at  this, 
in  the  first  place,  and  perhaps  chiefly,  from  delicacy  on  account  of 
the  Moabitish  descent  of  her  daughters-in-law,  in  which  she  saw 
that  there  would  be  an  obstacle  to  their  being  married  in  the  land  of 
Judah  ;  and  secondly,  because  Naomi  could  not  do  anything  herself 
to  bring  about  such  a  connection,  and  wished  to  confine  herself 
therefore  to  the  one  point,  of  making  it  clear  to  her  daughters  that 
in  her  present  state  it  was  altogether  out  of  her  power  to  provide 
connubial  and  domestic  happiness  for  them  in  the  land  of  Judah. 


474  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

She  therefore  merely  fixed  her  mind  upon  the  different  possibilities 
of  a  Levirate  marriage.1  VÜ3  ?X,  "  not  my  daughters"  i.e.  do  not 
go  with  me ;  "for  it  has  gone  much  more  bitterly  with  me  than  with 
you"  11*?  relates  to  her  mournful  lot.  D3E>  is  comparative,  " before 
you ;"  not  "  it  grieveth  me  much  on  your  account,"  for  which 
ÜT7V  would  be  used,  as  in  2  Sam.  i.  26.  Moreover,  this  thought 
would  not  be  in  harmony  with  the  following  clause  :  "  for  the  hand 
of  the  Lord  has  gone  out  against  me,"  i.e.  the  Lord  has  sorely 
smitten  me,  namely  by  taking  away  not  only  my  husband,  but  also 
my  two  sons. — Ver.  14.  At  these  dissuasive  words  the  daughters- 
in-law  broke  out  into  loud  weeping  again  (!"Ufrri  with  the  N  dropped 
for  nJXtfri,  ver.  9),  and  Orpah  kissed  her  mother-in-law,  and  took 
leave  of  her  to  return  to  her  mother's  house ;  but  Ruth  clung  to  her 
(pTi  as  in  Gen.  ii.  24),  forsaking  her  father  and  mother  to  go  with 
Naomi  into  the  land  of  Judah  (viel.  chap.  ii.  11). 

Vers.  15-22.  To  the  repeated  entreaty  of  Naomi  that  she  would 
follow  her  sister-in-law  and  return  to  her  people  and  her  God,  Ruth 
replied :  "  Entreat  me  not  to  leave  thee,  and  to  return  away  behind 
thee  :  for  whither  thou  goest,  I  will  go;  and  where  thou  stay  est,  I  will 
stay ;  thy  people  is  my  people,  and  thy  God  my  God  I  ivhere  thou 
diest,  I  will  die,  and  there  will  I  be  buried.     Jehovah  do  so  to  me,  and 

1  The  objections  raised  by  /.  B.  Carpzov  against  explaining  vers.  12  and  13 
as  referring  to  a  Levirate  marriage, — namely,  that  this  is  not  to  be  thought  of, 
because  a  Levirate  marriage  was  simply  binding  upon  brothers  of  the  deceased 
by  the  same  father  and  mother,  and  upon  brothers  who  were  living  when  he 
died,  and  not  upon  those  born  afterwards, — have  been  overthrown  by  Bertheau  as 
being  partly  without  foundation,  and  partly  beside  the  mark.  In  the  first  place, 
the  law  relating  to  the  Levirate  marriage  speaks  only  of  brothers  of  the  deceased, 
by  which,  according  to  the  design  of  this  institution,  we  must  certainly  think  of 
sons  by  one  father,  but  not  necessarily  of  sons  by  the  same  mother.  Secondly, 
the  law  does  indeed  expressly  require  marriage  with  the  sister-in-law  only  of  a 
brother  who  should  be  in  existence  when  her  husband  died,  but  it  does  not  dis- 
tinctly exclude  a  brother  born  afterwards ;  and  this  is  the  more  evident  from  the 
fact  that,  according  to  the  account  in  Gen.  xxxviii.  11,  this  duty  was  binding 
upon  brothers  who  were  not  grown  up  at  the  time,  as  soon  as  they  should  be  old 
enough  to  marry.  Lastly,  Naomi  merely  says,  in  ver.  12a,  that  she  was  not  with 
child  by  her  deceased  husband ;  and  when  she  does  take  into  consideration,  in 
vers.  12&  and  13,  the  possibility  of  a  future  pregnancy,  she  might  even  then  be 
simply  thinking  of  an  alliance  with  some  brother  of  her  deceased  husband,  and 
therefore  of  sons  who  would  legally  be  regarded  as  sons  of  Elimelech.  When 
Carpzov  therefore  defines  the  meaning  of  her  words  in  this  manner,  "  I  have 
indeed  no  more  children  to  hope  for,  to  whom  I  could  marry  you  in  time,  and  I 
have  no  command  over  others,"  the  first  thought  does  not  exhaust  the  meaning 
of  the  words,  and  the  last  is  altogether  foreign  to  the  text. 


CHAP.  I.  15-22.  475 

more  also  (lit.  and  so  may  He  add  to  do)  !  Death  alone  shall  divide 
between  me  and  thee"  The  words  *pD*  ■  .  •  '»  W  n*3  are  a  fre- 
quently recurring  formula  in  connection  with  an  oath  (cf.  1  Sam. 
iii.  17,  xiv.  44,  xx.  13,  etc.),  by  which  the  person  swearing  called 
down  upon  himself  a  severe  punishment  in  case  he  should  not  keep 
his  word  or  carry  out  his  resolution.  The  following  ^  is  not  a 
particle  used  in  swearing  instead  of  DX  in  the  sense  of  "  if,"  equi- 
valent to  "surely  not,"  as  in  1  Sam.  xx.  12,  in  the  oath  which 
precedes  the  formula,  but  answers  to  otl  in  the  sense  of  quod  intro- 
ducing the  declaration,  as  in  Gen.  xxii.  16,  1  Sam.  xx.  13,  1  Kings 
ii.  23,  2  Kings  iii.  14,  etc.,  signifying,  I  swear  that  death,  and 
nothing  else  than  death,  shall  separate  us.  Naomi  was  certainly 
serious  in  her  intentions,  and  sincere  in  the  advice  which  she  gave 
to  Kuth,  and  did  not  speak  in  this  way  merely  to  try  her  and  put 
the  state  of  her  heart  to  the  proof,  "  that  it  might  be  made  manifest 
whether  she  would  adhere  stedfastly  to  the  God  of  Israel  and  to 
herself,  despising  temporal  things  and  the  hope  of  temporal  pos- 
sessions" (Seb.  Schmidt).  She  had  simply  the  earthly  prosperity  of 
her  daughter-in-law  in  her  mind,  as  she  herself  had  been  shaken 
in  her  faith  in  the  wonderful  ways  and  gracious  guidance  of  the 
faithful  covenant  God  by  the  bitter  experience  of  her  own  life.1 
With  Ruth,  however,  it  was  evidently  not  merely  strong  affection 
and  attachment  by  which  she  felt  herself  so  drawn  to  her  mother- 
in-law  that  she  wished  to  live  and  die  with  her,  but  a  leaning  of  her 
heart  towards  the  God  of  Israel  and  His  laws,  of  which  she  herself 
was  probably  not  yet  fully  conscious,  but  which  she  had  acquired 
so  strongly  in  her  conjugal  relation  and  her  intercourse  with  her 
Israelitish  connections,  that  it  was  her  earnest  wish  never  to  be 
separated  from  this  people  and  its  God  (cf.  chap.  ii.  11). — Ver.  18. 
As  she  insisted  strongly  upon  going  with  her  (T^nn,  to  stiffen 
one's  self  firmly  upon  a  thing),  Naomi  gave  up  persuading  her  any 
more  to  return. — Ver.  19.  So  they  two  went  until  they  came  to 
Bethlehem.  When  they  arrived,  the  whole  town  was  in  commo- 
tion on  their  account  (D'nri,  imperf.  Niph.  of  Din,  as  in  1  Sam.  iv.  5, 
1  Kings  i.  45).  They  said,  "Is  this  Naomi?"  The  subject  to 
npnxn  is  the  inhabitants  of  the  town,  but  chiefly  the  female  portion 

1  "  She  thought  of  earthly  things  alone ;  and  as  at  that  time  the  Jews  almost 
universally  were  growing  lax  in  the  worship  of  God,  so  she,  having  spent  ten 
years  among  the  Moabites,  thought  it  of  little  consequence  whether  they  adhered 
to  the  religion  of  their  fathers,  to  which  they  had  been  accustomed  from  their 
infancy,  or  went  over  to  the  Jewish  religion." — Carpzov. 


476  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

of  the  inhabitants,  who  were  the  most  excited  at  Naomi's  return. 
This  is  the  simplest  way  of  explaining  the  use  of  the  feminine  in  the 
verbs  rU")öXJi  and  n3fiO|?FI.  In  these  words  there  was  an  expression 
of  amazement,  not  so  much  at  the  fact  that  Naomi  was  still  alive, 
and  had  come  back  again,  as  at  her  returning  in  so  mournful  a  con- 
dition, as  a  solitary  widow,  without  either  husband  or  sons ;  for  she 
replied  (ver.  20),  "  Call  me  not  Naomi  (i.e.  gracious),  but  Marah" 
(the  bitter  one),  i.e.  one  who  has  experienced  bitterness,  "for  the 
Almighty  has  made  it  very  bitter  to  me.  I,  I  went  away  full,  and 
Jehovah  has  made  me  come  back  again  empty.  Why  do  ye  call  me 
Naomi,  since  Jehovah  testifies  against  me,  and  the  Almighty  has 
afflicted  me?"  "  Full"  i.e.  rich,  not  in  money  and  property,  but  in 
the  possession  of  a  husband  and  two  sons ;  a  rich  mother,  but  now 
deprived  of  all  that  makes  a  mother's  heart  rich,  bereft  of  both 
husband  and  sons.  "  Testified  against  me"  by  word  and  deed  (as 
in  Ex.  xx.  16,  2  Sam.  i.  16).  The  rendering  "He  hath  humbled 
me"  (LXX.,  Vulg.,  Bertheau,  etc.)  is  incorrect,  as  nay  with  2  and 
the  construct  state  simply  means  to  trouble  one's  self  with  anything 
(Eccl.  i.  13),  which  is  altogether  unsuitable  here. — With  ver.  22 
the  account  of  the  return  of  Naomi  and  her  daughter-in-law  is 
brought  to  a  close,  and  the  statement  that  "  they  came  to  Bethlehem 
in  the  time  of  the  barley  harvest"  opens  at  the  same  time  the  way 
for  the  further  course  of  the  history.  i"9$n  is  pointed  as  a  third 
pers.  perf.  with  the  article  in  a  relative  sense,  as  in  chap.  ii.  6  and 
iv.  3.  Here  and  at  chap.  ii.  6  it  applies  to  Ruth  ;  but  in  chap. 
iv.  3  to  Naomi.  n^n?  the  masculine,  is  used  here,  as  it  frequently 
is,  for  the  feminine  »"13^  as  being  the  more  common  gender.  The 
harvest,  as  a  whole,  commenced  with  the  barley  harvest  (see  at 
Lev.  xxiii.  10,  11). 

EUTH  GLEANS  IN  THE  FIELD  OF  EOAZ. — CHAP.  II. 

Ruth  went  to  the  field  to  glean  ears  of  corn,  for  the  purpose  of 
procuring  support  for  herself  and  her  mother-in-law,  and  came  by 
chance  to  the  field  of  Boaz,  a  relative  of  Naomi,  who,  when  he 
heard  that  she  had  come  with  Naomi  from  Moabitis,  spoke  kindly 
to  her,  and  gave  her  permission  not  only  to  glean  ears  in  his  field 
and  even  among  the  sheaves,  but  to  appease  her  hunger  and  thirst 
with  the  food  and  drink  of  his  reapers  (vers.  1-16),  so  that  in  the 
evening  she  returned  to  her  mother-in-law  with  a  plentiful  glean- 
ing, and  told  her  of  the  gracious  reception  she  had  met  with  from 


CHAP.  II.  1-7.  477 

this  man,  and  then  learned  from  her  that  Boaz  was  a  relation  of 
her  own  (vers.  17-23). 

Vers.  1-7.  The  account  of  this  occurrence  commences  with  a 
statement  which  was  necessary  in  order  to  make  it  perfectly  intelli- 
gible, namely  that  Boaz,  to  whose  field  Ruth  went  to  glean,  was  a 
relative  of  Naomi  through  her  deceased  husband  Elimelech.  The 
Kethibh  JH"1»  is  to  be  read  JFJ^?,  an  acquaintance  (cf.  Ps.  xxxi.  12, 
lv.  14).  The  Ken  V]^  is  the  construct  state  of  Vjiö,  lit.  acquaint- 
anceship, then  an  acquaintance  or  friend  (Prov.  vii.  4),  for  which 
fljniö  occurs  afterwards  in  chap.  iii.  2  with  the  same  meaning. 
That  the  acquaintance  or  friend  of  Naomi  through  her  husband 
was  also  a  relation,  is  evident  from  the  fact  that  he  was  "  of  the 
family  of  Elimelech."  According  to  the  rabbinical  tradition,  which 
is  not  well  established  however,  Boaz  was  a  nephew  of  Elimelech. 
The  p  before  ntS^S  is  used  instead  of  the  simple  construct  state, 
because  the  reference  is  not  to  the  relation,  but  to  a  relation  of  her 
husband ;  at  the  same  time,  the  word  into  has  taken  the  form  of 
the  construct  state  notwithstanding  this  ?  (compare  Ewald,  §  292,  a., 
with  §  289,  b.).  ^n  "VQJI  generally  means  the  brave  man  of  war 
(Judg.  vi.  12,  xi.  1,  etc.)  ;  but  here  it  signifies  a  man  of  property. 
The  name  Boaz  is  not  formed  from  W  *&,  in  whom  is  strength,  but 
from  a  root,  tt?3?  which  does  not  occur  in  Hebrew,  and  signifies 
alacrity. — Vers.  2,  3.  Ruth  wished  to  go  to  the  field  and  glean  at 
(among)  the  ears,  i.e.  whatever  ears  were  left  lying  upon  the 
harvest  field  (cf.  ver.  7),  "IK'S  "inx,  behind  him  in  whose  eyes  she 
should  find  favour.  The  Mosaic  law  (Lev.  xix.  9,  xxiii.  22,  com- 
pared with  Deut.  xxiv.  19)  did  indeed  expressly  secure  to  the  poor 
the  right  to  glean  in  the  harvest  fields,  and  prohibited  the  owners 
from  gleaning  themselves ;  but  hard-hearted  farmers  and  reapers 
threw  obstacles  in  the  way  of  the  poor,  and  even  forbade  their 
gleaning  altogether.  Hence  Ruth  proposed  to  glean  after  him  who 
should  generously  allow  it.  She  carried  out  this  intention  with  the 
consent  of  Naomi,  and  chance  led  her  to  the  portion  of  the  field 
belonging  to  Boaz,  a  relation  of  Elimelech,  without  her  knowing 
the  owner  of  the  field,  or  being  at  all  aware  of  his  connection  with 
Elimelech.  iTTpp  np^  lit,  «  aer  chance  chanced  to  hit  upon  the  field." 
— Vers.  4  sqq.  When  Boaz  came  from  the  town  to  the  field,  and 
had  greeted  his  reapers  with  the  blessing  of  a  genuine  Israelite, 
"Jehovah  be  with  yon"  and  had  received  from  them  a  corresponding 
greeting  in  return,  he  said  to  the  overseer  of  the  reapers,  "  Whose 
damsel  is  this  ?"  to  which  he  replied,  "It  is  the  ^[oabitish  damsel  who 


478  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

came  back  with  Naomi  from  the  fields  of  Moab,  and  she  has  said 
(asked),  Pray,  I  will  glean  (i.e.  pray  allow  me  to  glean)  and  gather 
among  the  sheaves  after  the  reapers,  and  has  come  and  stays  (here) 
from  morning  till  now ;  her  sitting  in  the  house  that  is  little."  TXO,  lit. 
a  conjunction,  here  used  as  a  preposition,  is  stronger  than  p,  "  from 
then"  from  the  time  of  the  morning  onwards  (see  Ewald,  §  222,  c). 
It  is  evident  from  this  answer  of  the  servant  who  was  placed  over 
the  reapers,  (1)  that  Boaz  did  not  prohibit  any  poor  person  from 
gleaning  in  his  field ;  (2)  that  Ruth  asked  permission  of  the  over- 
seer of  the  reapers,  and  availed  herself  of  this  permission  with 
untiring  zeal  from  the  first  thing  in  the  morning,  that  she  might 
get  the  necessary  support  for  her  mother-in-law  and  herself  ;  and 
(3)  that  her  history  was  well  known  to  the  overseer,  and  also  to 
Boaz,  although  Boaz  saw  her  now  for  the  first  time. 

Vers.  8-16.  The  good  report  which  the  overlooker  gave  of  the 
modesty  and  diligence  of  Ruth  could  only  strengthen  Boaz  in  his 
purpose,  which  he  had  probably  already  formed  from  his  affection 
as  a  relation  towards  Naomi,  to  make  the  acquaintance  of  her 
daughter-in-law,  and  speak  kindly  to  her.  With  fatherly  kind- 
ness, therefore,  he  said  to  her  (vers.  8,  9),  "Dost  thou  hear,  my 
daughter  f  (i.e.  '  thou  hearest,  dost  thou  not  ?  '  interrogatio  blande 
afiirmat ;)  go  not  to  reap  in  another  field,  and  go  not  away  from  here, 
and  keep  so  to  my  maidens  (i.e.  remaining  near  them  in  the  field). 
Thine  eyes  (directed)  upon  the  field  which  they  reap,  go  behind  them 
(i.e.  behind  the  maidens,  who  probably  tied  up  the  sheaves,  whilst 
the  men-servants  cut  the  corn).  /  have  commanded  the  young  men 
not  to  touch  thee  (to  do  thee  no  harm) ;  and  if  thou  art  thirsty  (n*?-f, 
from  Htt¥  =  N)p¥ :  see  Ewald,  §  195,  b.),  go  to  the  vessels,  and  drink 
of  what  the  servants  draw." — Ver.  10.  Deeply  affected  by  this 
generosity,  Ruth  fell  upon  her  face,  bowing  down  to  the  ground  (as 
in  1  Sam.  xxv.  23,  2  Sam.  i.  2 ;  cf.  Gen.  xxiii.  7),  to  thank  him 
reverentially,  and  said  to  Boaz,  "  Why  have  I  found  favour  in  thine 
eyes,  that  thou  regardest  me,  who  am  only  a  stranger?"  *^??j  to 
look  at  with  sympathy  or  care,  to  receive  a  person  kindly  (cf.  ver. 
19). — Vers.  11,  12.  Boaz  replied,  "Everything  has  been  told  me 
that  thou  hast  done  to  (HX,  prep,  as  in  Zech.  vii.  9,  2  Sam.  xvi.  17) 
thy  mother-in-law  since  the  death  of  thy  husband,  that  thou  hast  left 
thy  father  and  thy  mother,  and  thy  kindred,  and  hast  come  to  a  people 
that  thou  knewest  not  heretofore"  (hast  therefore  done  what  God 
commanded  Abraham  to  do,  Gen.  xii.  1).  "  The  Lord  recompense 
thy  work,  and  let  thy  reward  be  perfect  (recalling  Gen.  xv.  1)  from 


CHAP.  II.  8-16.  479 

the  Lord  the  God  of  Israel,  to  whom  thou  hast  come  to  seek  refuge 
under  His  wings  /"  For  this  figurative  expression,  which  is  derived 
from  Deut.  xxxii.  11,  compare  Ps.  xci.  4,  xxxvi.  8,  lvii.  2.  In 
these  words  of  Boaz  we  see  the  genuine  piety  of  a  true  Israelite. 
— Ver.  13.  Ruth  replied  with  true  humility,  "  May  I  find  favour 
in  thine  eyes ;  for  thou  hast  comforted  me,  and  spoken  to  the  heart  of 
thy  maiden  (see  Judg.  xix.  3),  though  I  am  not  like  one  of  thy 
maidens"  i.e.  though  I  stand  in  no  such  near  relation  to  thee,  as  to 
have  been  able  to  earn  thy  favour.  In  this  last  clause  she  restricts 
the  expression  "thy  maiden."  Carpzov  has  rightly  pointed  this 
out :  "  But  what  am  I  saying  when  I  call  myself  thy  maiden  ? 
since  I  am  not  worthy  to  be  compared  to  the  least  of  thy  maidens." 
The  word  N^fttN  is  to  be  taken  in  an  optative  sense,  as  expressive  of 
the  wish  that  Boaz  might  continue  towards  her  the  kindness  he 
had  already  expressed.  To  take  it  as  a  present,  "  I  find  favour" 
(Clericus  and  Bertheau),  does  not  tally  with  the  modesty  and  humi- 
lity shown  by  Ruth  in  the  following  words. — Ver.  14.  This  un- 
assuming humility  on  the  part  of  Ruth  made  Boaz  all  the  more 
favourably  disposed  towards  her,  so  that  at  meal-time  he  called  her 
to  eat  along  with  his  people  (n?  without  Mappik,  as  in  Num.  xxxii. 
42,  Zech.  v.  11  ;  cf.  Ewald,  §  94,  b.  3).  "Dip  thy  morsel  in 
the  vinegar?  Chomez,  a  sour  beverage  composed  of  vinegar  (wine 
vinegar  or  sour  wine)  mixed  with  oil;  a  very  refreshing  drink, 
which  is  still  a  favourite  beverage  in  the  East  (see  Rosenmüller,  A. 
and  N.  Morgenland,  iv.  p.  68,  and  my  Bibl.  Archäologie,  ii.  p.  16). 
"  And  he  reached  her  parched  corn."  The  subject  is  Boaz,  who, 
judging  from  the  expression  "  come  hither,"  either  joined  in  the 
meal,  or  at  any  rate  was  present  at  it.  v|5  are  roasted  grains  of 
wheat  (see  at  Lev.  ii.  14,  and  my  Bibl.  Arch.  ii.  p.  14),  which  are 
still  eaten  by  the  reapers  upon  the  harvest  field,  and  also  handed  to 
strangers.1  Boaz  gave  her  an  abundant  supply  of  it,  so  that  she 
was  not  only  satisfied,  but  left  some,  and  was  able  to  take  it  home 
to  her  mother  (ver.  18). — Vers.  15,  16.  When  she  rose  up  to  glean 
again  after  eating,  Boaz  commanded  his  people,  saying,  "  She  may 

1  Thus  Robinson  (Pal.  ii.  p.  394)  gives  the  following  description  of  a  harvest 
scene  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Kubeibeh  :  "In  one  field  nearly  two  hundred 
reapers  and  gleaners  were  at  work,  the  latter  being  nearly  as  numerous  as  tho 
former.  A  few  were  taking  their  refreshment,  and  offered  us  some  of  their 
'  parched  corn.'  In  the  season  of  harvest,  the  grains  of  wheat  not  yet  fully 
dry  and  hard,  are  roasted  in  a  pan  or  on  an  iron  plate,  and  constitute  a  very 
palatable  article  of  food  ;  this  is  eaten  along  with  bread,  or  instead  of  it." 


480  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

also  glean  beticeen  the  sheaves  (which  was  not  generally  allowed),  and 
■ye  shall  not  shame  her  (do  her  any  injury,  Judg.  xviii.  7) ;  and  ye 
shall  also  draw  out  of  the  bundles  for  her,  and  let  them  lie  (the  ears 
drawn  out),  that  she  may  glean  them,  and  shall  not  scold  her"  sc.  for 
picking  up  the  ears  that  have  been  drawn  out.  These  directions 
of  Boaz  went  far  beyond  the  bounds  of  generosity  and  compassion 
for  the  poor ;  and  show  that  he  felt  a  peculiar  interest  in  Ruth, 
with  whose  circumstances  he  was  well  acquainted,  and  who  had 
won  his  heart  by  her  humility,  her  faithful  attachment  to  her 
mother-in-law,  and  her  love  to  the  God  of  Israel, — a  fact  important 
to  notice  in  connection  with  the  further  course  of  the  history. 

Vers.  17-23.  Thus  Ruth  gleaned  till  the  evening  in  the  field  ; 
and  when  she  knocked  out  the  ears,  she  had  about  an  ephah  (about 
20-25  lbs.)  of  barley. — Ver.  18.  This  she  brought  to  her  mother- 
in-law  in  the  city,  and  "  drew  out  (sc.  from  her  pocket,  as  the 
Chaldee  has  correctly  supplied)  what  she  had  left  from  her  suffi- 
ciency" i.e.  of  the  parched  corn  which  Boaz  had  reached  her  (ver. 
14). — Ver.  19.  The  mother  inquired,  "  Where  hast  thou  gleaned 
to-day,  and  where  wroughtest  thou?"  and  praised  the  benefactor, 
who,  as  she  conjectured  from  the  quantity  of  barley  collected  and 
the  food  brought  home,  had  taken  notice  of  Ruth :  "  blessed  be  he 
that  did  take  knowledge  of  thee!"  When  she  heard  the  name  of 
the  man,  Boaz,  she  saw  that  this  relative  of  her  husband  had  been 
chosen  by  God  to  be  a  benefactor  of  herself  and  Ruth,  and  ex- 
claimed, "  Blessed  be  he  of  the  Lord,  that  he  has  not  left  off  (with- 
drawn) his  favour  towards  the  living  and  the  dead!"  On  Vnpn  Dry 
see  Gen.  xxiv.  27.  This  verb  is  construed  with  a  double  accusative 
here  ;  for  nx  cannot  be  a  preposition,  as  in  that  case  fix»  would  be 
used  like  EJ?ö  in  Gen.  I.e.  "  The  living"  etc.,  forms  a  second  object: 
as  regards  (with  regard  to)  the  living  and  the  dead,  in  which  Naomi 
thought  of  herself  and  Ruth,  and  of  her  husband  and  sons,  to  whom 
God  still  showed  himself  gracious,  even  after  their  death,  through 
His  care  for  their  widows.  In  order  to  enlighten  Ruth  still  further 
upon  the  matter,  she  added,  "  Tlte  man  (Boaz)  is  our  relative,  and 
one  of  our  redeemers."  He  "  stands  near  to  us,"  sc.  by  relationship. 
137X3,  a  defective  form  for  W?K),  which  is  found  in  several  MSS.  and 
editions.  On  the  significance  of  the  goel,  or  redeemer,  see  at  Lev. 
xxv.  26,  48,  49,  and  the  introduction  to  chap.  iii. — Ver.  21.  Ruth 
proceeded  to  inform  her  of  his  kindness :  *3  Dil,  "  also  (know)  that 
he  said  to  me,  Keep  with  my  people,  till  the  harvest  is  all  ended." 
The   masculine   B^W?,   for  which  we  should  rather  expect  the 


ciiap.  in.  481 

feminine  fliiW  in  accordance  with  vers.  8,  22,  23,  is  quite  in  place 
as  the  more  comprehensive  gender,  as  a  designation  of  the  reapers 
generally,  both  male  and  female ;  and  the  expression  y  "IK'S  in  this 
connection  in  the  sense  of  my  is  more  exact  than  the  possessive 
pronoun :  the  people  who  belong  to  my  house,  as  distinguished 
from  the  people  of  other  masters. — Ver.  22.  Naomi  declared  her- 
self fully  satisfied  with  this,  because  Ruth  would  be  thereby  secured 
from  insults,  which  she  might  receive  when  gleaning  in  strange 
fields.  "  That  they  meet  thee  not"  lit.  "that  they  do  not  fall  upon 
thee."  3  WB  signifies  to  fall  upon  a  person,  to  smite  and  ill-treat 
him. — Ver.  23.  After  this  Ruth  kept  with  the  maidens  of  Boaz 
during  the  whole  of  the  barley  and  wheat  harvests  gleaning  ears  of 
corn,  and  lived  with  her  mother-in-law,  sc.  when  she  returned  in 
the  evening  from  the  field.  In  this  last  remark  there  is  a  tacit 
allusion  to  the  fact  that  a  change  took  place  for  Ruth  when  the 
harvest  was  over. 

RUTH  SEEKS  FOR  MARRIAGE  WITH  BOAZ. — CHAP.  III. 

After  the  harvest  Naomi  advised  Ruth  to  visit  Boaz  on  a 
certain  night,  and  ask  him  to  marry  her  as  redeemer  (vers.  1-5). 
Ruth  followed  this  advice,  and  Boaz  promised  to  fulfil  her  request, 
provided  the  nearer  redeemer  who  was  still  living  would  not  perform 
this  duty  (vers.  6-13),  and  sent  her  away  in  the  morning  with  a 
present  of  wheat,  that  she  might  not  return  empty  to  her  mother- 
in-law  (vers.  14-18).  To  understand  the  advice  which  Naomi  gave 
to  Ruth,  and  which  Ruth  carried  out,  and  in  fact  to  form  a  correct 
idea  of  the  further  course  of  the  history  generally,  we  must  bear 
in  mind  the  legal  relations  which  came  into  consideration  here. 
According  to  the  theocratical  rights,  Jehovah  was  the  actual  owner 
of  the  land  which  He  had  given  to  His  people  for  an  inheritance ; 
and  the  Israelites  themselves  had  merely  the  usufruct  of  the  land 
which  they  received  by  lot  for  their  inheritance,  so  that  the  existing 
possessor  could  not  part  with  the  family  portion  or  sell  it  at  his  will, 
but  it  was  to  remain  for  ever  in  his  family.  When  any  one  there- 
fore was  obliged  to  sell  his  inheritance  on  account  of  poverty,  and 
actually  did  sell  it,  it  was  the  duty  of  the  nearest  relation  to  redeem 
it  as  goel.  But  if  it  should  not  be  redeemed,  it  came  back,  in  the 
next  year  of  jubilee,  to  its  original  owner  or  his  heirs  without  com- 
pensation. Consequently  no  actual  sale  took  place  in  our  sense  of 
the  word,  but  simply  a  sale  of  the  yearly  produce  till  the  year  of 

i  E 


482  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

jubilee  (see  Lev.  xxv.  10,  13-16,  24-28).  There  was  also  an  old 
customary  right,  which  had  received  the  sanction  of  God,  with 
certain  limitations,  through  the  Mosaic  law, — namely,  the  custom  of 
Levirate  marriage,  or  the  marriage  of  a  brother-in-law,  which  we 
meet  with  as  early  as  Gen.  xxxviii.,  viz.  that  if  an  Israelite  who 
had  been  married  died  without  children,  it  was  the  duty  of  his 
brother  to  marry  the  widow,  that  is  to  say,  his  sister-in-law,  that 
he  might  establish  his  brother's  name  in  Israel,  by  begetting  a  son 
through  his  sister-in-law,  who  should  take  the  name  of  the  deceased 
brother,  that  his  name  might  not  become  extinct  in  Israel.  This 
son  was  then  the  legal  heir  of  the  landed  property  of  the  deceased 
uncle  (cf.  Deut.  xxv.  5  sqq.).  These  two  institutions  are  not  con- 
nected together  in  the  Mosaic  law ;  nevertheless  it  was  a  very 
natural  thing  to  place  the  Levirate  duty  in  connection  with  the 
right  of  redemption.  And  this  had  become  the  traditional  custom. 
Whereas  the  law  merely  imposed  the  obligation  of  marrying  the 
childless  widow  upon  the  brother,  and  even  allowed  him  to  renounce 
the  obligation  if  he  would  take  upon  himself  the  disgrace  connected 
with  such  a  refusal  (see  Deut.  xxv.  7-10) ;  according  to  chap.  iv.  5 
of  this  book  it  had  become  a  traditional  custom  to  require  the 
Levirate  marriage  of  the  redeemer  of  the  portion  of  the  deceased 
relative,  not  only  that  the  landed  possession  might  be  permanently 
retained  in  the  family,  but  also  that  the  family  itself  might  not  be 
suffered  to  die  out. 

In  the  case  before  us  Elimelech  had  possessed  a  portion  at 
Bethlehem,  which  Naomi  had  sold  from  poverty  (chap.  iv.  3)  ;  and 
Boaz,  a  relation  of  Elimelechr  was  the  redeemer  of  whom  Naomi 
hoped  that  he  would  fulfil  the  duty  of  a  redeemer, — namely,  that  he 
would  not  only  ransom  the  purchased  field,  but  marry  her  daughter- 
in-law  Ruth,  the  widow  of  the  rightful  heir  of  the  landed  possession 
of  Elimelech,  and  thus  through  this  marriage  establish  the  name 
of  her  deceased  husband  or  son  (Elimelech  or  Mahlon)  upon  his 
inheritance.  Led  on  by  this  hope,  she  advised  Ruth  to  visit  Boaz, 
who  had  shown  himself  so  kind  and  well-disposed  towards  her, 
during  the  night,  and  by  a  species  of  bold  artifice,  which  she 
assumed  that  he  would  not  resist,  to  induce  him  as  redeemer  to 
grant  to  Ruth  this  Levirate  marriage.  The  reason  why  she  adopted 
this  plan  for  the  accomplishment  of  her  wishes,  and  did  not  appeal 
to  Boaz  directly,  or  ask  him  to  perform  this  duty  of  affection  to 
her  deceased  husband,  was  probably  that  she  was  afraid  lest  she 
should  fail  to  attain  her  end  in  this  way,  partly  because  the  duty  of 


CHAP.  III.  1-5.  483 

a  Levirate  marriage  was  not  legally  binding  upon  the  redeemer, 
and  partly  because  Boaz  was  not  so  closely  related  to  her  husband 
that  she  could  justly  require  this  of  him,  whilst  there  was  actually 
a  nearer  redeemer  than  he  (chap.  iii.  12).  According  to  our 
customs,  indeed,  this  act  of  Naomi  and  Ruth  appears  a  very  objec- 
tionable one  from  a  moral  point  of  view,  but  it  was  not  so  when 
judged  by  the  customs  of  the  people  of  Israel  at  that  time.  Boaz, 
who  was  an  honourable  man,  and,  according  to  chap.  iii.  10,  no 
doubt  somewhat  advanced  in  years,  praised  Ruth  for  having  taken 
refuge  with  him,  and  promised  to  fulfil  her  wishes  when  he  had 
satisfied  himself  that  the  nearer  redeemer  would  renounce  his  right 
and  duty  (chap.  iii.  10,  11).  As  he  acknowledged  by  this  very 
declaration,  that  under  certain  circumstances  it  would  be  his  duty 
as  redeemer  to  marry  Ruth,  he  took  no  offence  at  the  manner  in 
which  she  had  approached  him  and  proposed  to  become  his  wife. 
On  the  contrary,  he  regarded  it  as  a  proof  of  feminine  virtue  and 
modesty,  that  she  had  not  gone  after  young  men,  but  offered  herself 
as  a  wife  to  an  old  man  like  him.  This  conduct  on  the  part  of  Boaz 
is  a  sufficient  proof  that  women  might  have  confidence  in  him  that 
he  would  do  nothing  unseemly.  And  he  justified  such  confidence. 
"The  modest  man,"  as  Bertheau  observes,  "even  in  the  middle  of 
the  night  did  not  hesitate  for  a  moment  what  it  was  his  duty  to  do 
with  regard  to  the  young  maiden  (or  rather  woman)  towards  whom 
he  felt  already  so  strongly  attached;  he  made  his  own  personal 
inclinations  subordinate  to  the  traditional  custom,  and  only  when 
this  permitted  him  to  marry  Ruth  was  he  ready  to  do  so.  And  not 
knowing  whether  she  might  not  have  to  become  the  wife  of  the 
nearer  goe'l,  he  was  careful  for  her  and  her  reputation,  in  order 
that  he  might  hand  her  over  unblemished  to  the  man  who  had  the 
undoubted  right  to  claim  her  as  his  wife." 

Vers.  1-5.  As  Naomi  conjectured,  from  the  favour  which  Boaz 
had  shown  to  Ruth,  that  he  might  not  be  disinclined  to  marry  her 
as  goe'l,  she  said  to  her  daughter-in-law,  "  My  daughter,  I  must 
seek  rest  for  thee,  that  it  may  be  well  with  thee"  In  the  question 
t^DS  K?n,  the  word  t6n  is  here,  as  usual,  an  expression  of  general 
admission  or  of  undoubted  certainty,  in  the  sense  of  "  Is  it  not 
true,  I  seek  for  thee  ?  it  is  my  duty  to  seek  for  thee."  HUE  =  nrw» 
(chap.  i.  9)  signifies  the  condition  of  a  peaceful  life,  a  peaceful 
and  well-secured  condition,  "  a  secure  life  under  the  guardian  care 
of  a  husband"  {Rosenmüller).  "  And  now  is  not  Boaz  our  relation, 
with  whose  maidens  thou  wast  ?    Behold,  he  is  winnowing  the  barley 


484  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

floor  (barley  on  the  threshing-floor)  to-night"  i.e.  till  late  in  the 
night,  to  avail  himself  of  the  cool  wind,  which  rises  towards  evening 
(Gen.  iii.  8),  for  the  purpose  of  cleansing  the  corn.  The  threshing- 
floors  of  the  Israelites  were,  and  are  still  in  Palestine,  made  under 
the  open  heaven,  and  were  nothing  more  than  level  places  in  the 
field  stamped  quite  hard.1 — Vers.  3,  4.  "  Wash  and  anoint  thyself 
(riDD,  from  ^D  =  ■J]?^),  and  put  on  thy  clothes  (thy  best  clothes),  and 
go  down  (from  Bethlehem,  which  stood  upon  the  ridge  of  a  hill)  to 
the  threshing-floor ;  let  not  thyself  be  noticed  by  the  man  (Boaz)  till 
he  has  finished  eating  and  drinking.  A  nd  when  he  lies  down,  mark 
the  place  where  he  will  sleep,  and  go  (when  he  has  fallen  asleep)  and 
uncover  the  place  of  his  feet,  and  lay  thyself  down ;  and  he  will  iell 
thee  what  thou  shalt  do." — Ver.  5.  Ruth  promised  to  do  this.  The 
vN,  which  the  Masorites  have  added  to  the  text  as  Keri  non  scrip- 
turn,  is  quite  unnecessary.  From  the  account  which  follows  of  the 
carrying  out  of  the  advice  given  to  her,  we  learn  that  Naomi  had 
instructed  Ruth  to  ask  Boaz  to  marry  her  as  her  redeemer  (cf. 
ver.  9). 

Vers.  6-13.  Ruth  went  accordingly  to  the  threshing-floor  and 
did  as  her  mother-in-law  had  commanded ;  i.e.  she  noticed  where 
Boaz  went  to  lie  down  to  sleep,  and  then,  when  he  had  eaten  and 
drunken,  and  lay  down  cheerfully,  at  the  end  of  the  heap  of  sheaves 
or  corn,  and,  as  we  may  supply  from  the  context,  had  fallen  asleep, 
came  to  him  quietly,  uncovered  the  place  of  his  feet,  i.e.  lifted  up 
the  covering  over  his  feet,  and  lay  down. — Ver.  8.  About  midnight 
the  man  was  startled,  namely,  because  on  awaking  he  observed  that 
there  was  some  one  lying  at  his  feet ;  and  he  "  bent  himself " 
forward,  or  on  one  side,  to  feel  who  was  lying  there,  "  and  behold 
a  woman  was  lying  at  his  feet."  VTpjnp  is  accus,  loci. — Ver.  9.  In 
answer  to  his  inquiry,  "  Who  art  thou?"  she  said,  "  I  am  Ruth, 
thine  handmaid;  spread  thy  wing  over  thine  handmaid,  for  thou  art 
a  redeemer?  ^3  is  a  dual  according  to  the  Masoretic  pointing,  as 
we  cannot  look  upon  it  as  a  pausal  form  on  account  of  the  position 
of  the  word,  but  it  is  most  probably  to  be  regarded  as  a  singular ; 
and  the  figurative  expression  is  not  taken  from  birds,  which  spread 
their  wings  over  their  young,  i.e.  to  protect  them,  but  refers, 
according  to  Deut.  xxiii.  1,  xxvii.  20,  and  Ezek.  xvi.  8,  to  the  wing, 
i.e.  the  corner  of  the  counterpane,  referring  to  the  fact  that  a  man 

1  "  A  level  spot  is  selected  for  the  threshing-floors,  which  are  then  constructed 
near  each  other,  of  a  circular  form,  perhaps  fifty  feet  in  diameter,  merely  by 
beating  down  the  earth  hard." — Robinson,  Pal.  ii.  p.  277. 


CHAP.  III.  6-13.  485 

spreads  this  over  his  wife  as  well  as  himself.  Thus  Ruth  entreated 
Boaz  to  marry  her  because  he  was  a  redeemer.  On  this  reason  for 
the  request,  see  the  remarks  in  the  introduction  to  the  chapter. — 
Ver.  10.  Boaz  praised  her  conduct :  "  Blessed  be  thou  of  the  Lord, 
my  daughter  (see  chap.  ii.  20)  ;  thou  hast  made  thy  later  love  better 
than  the  earlier,  that  thou  hast  not  gone  after  young  men,  whether  poor 
or  rich."  Ruth's  earlier  or  first  love  was  the  love  she  had  shown  to 
her  deceased  husband  and  her  mother-in-law  (comp.  chap.  ii.  11, 
where  Boaz  praises  this  love)  ;  the  later  love  she  had  shown  in  the 
fact,  that  as  a  young  widow  she  had  not  sought  to  win  the  affec- 
tions of  young  men,  as  young  women  generally  do,  that  she  might 
have  a  youthful  husband,  but  had  turned  trustfully  to  the  older 
man,  that  he  might  find  a  successor  to  her  deceased  husband, 
through  a  marriage  with  him,  in  accordance  with  family  custom 
(vid.  chap.  iv.  10).  "  And  now,"  added  Boaz  (ver.  11),  "  my 
daughter,  fear  not ;  for  all  that  thou  say  est  I  will  do  to  thee  :  for  the 
whole  gate  of  my  people  (i.e.  all  my  city,  the  whole  population  of 
Bethlehem,  who  go  in  and  out  at  the  gate  :  see  Gen.  xxxiv.  24, 
Deut.  xvii.  2)  knoweth  that  thou  art  a  virtuous  woman"  Conse- 
quently Boaz  saw  nothing  wrong  in  the  fact  that  Ruth  had  come 
to  him,  but  regarded  her  request  that  he  would  marry  her  as 
redeemer  as  perfectly  natural  and  right,  and  was  ready  to  carry  out 
her  wish  as  soon  as  the  circumstances  would  legally  allow  it.  He 
promised  her  this  (vers.  12,  13),  saying,  "  And  now  truly  I  am  a 
redeemer ;  but  there  is  a  nearer  redeemer  than  I.  Stay  here  this  night 
(or  as  it  reads  at  the  end  of  ver.  13,  '  lie  till  the  morning'),  and  in 
the  morning,  if  he  will  redeem  thee,  well,  let  him  redeem;  but  if  it  does 
not  please  him  to  redeem  thee,  I  will  redeem  thee,  as  truly  as  Jehovah 
liveth."  DS  ^  (Kethibh,  ver.  12),  after  a  strong  assurance,  as  after 
the  formula  used  in  an  oath,  "  God  do  so  to  me,"  etc.,  2  Sam.  iii.  35, 
xv.  21  (Kethibh),  and  2  Kings  v.  20,  is  to  be  explained  from  the 
use  of  this  particle  in  the  sense  of  nisi,  except  that,  =  only :  "  only 
I  am  redeemer,"  equivalent  to,  assuredly  I  am  redeemer  (cf.  Ewald, 
§  356,  b.).  Consequently  there  is  no  reason  whatever  for  removing 
the  DN  from  the  text,  as  the  Masorites  have  done  (in  the  Keri)} 
Ruth  was  to  lie  till  morning,  because  she  could  not  easily  return  to 
1  What  the  ~>  majusc.  in  ij^>  signifies,  is  uncertain.  According  to  the  smaller 
Masora,  it  was  only  found  among  the  eastern  (i.e.  Palestinian)  Jews.  Conse- 
quently Hiller  (in  his  Arcanum  Keri  et  Ctibh,  p.  163)  conjectures  that  they 
used  it  to  point  out  a  various  reading,  viz.  that  137  should  be  the  reading  here. 
But  this  is  hardly  correct. 


486  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

the  city  in  the  dark  at  midnight;  but,  as  is  shown  in  ver.  14,  she 
did  not  stay  till  actual  daybreak,  but  "  before  one  could  knoio 
another,  she  rose  up,  and  he  said  (i.e.  as  Boaz  had  said),  It  must 
not  be  known  that  the  woman  came  to  the  threshing-floor."  For  this 
would  have  injured  the  reputation  not  only  of  Ruth,  but  also  of 
Boaz  himself. — Ver.  15.  He  then  said,  "Bring  the  cloak  that  thou 
hast  on,  and  lay  hold  of  it"  (to  hold  it  open),  and  measured  for  her 
six  measures  of  barley  into  it  as  a  present,  that  she  might  not  go 
back  empty  to  her  mother-in-law  (ver.  17).  nnSD»,  here  and  Isa. 
iii.  22,  is  a  broad  upper  garment,  pallium,  possibly  only  a  large 
shawl.  "  As  the  cloaks  worn  by  the  ancients  were  so  full,  that  one 
part  was  thrown  upon  the  shoulder,  and  another  gathered  up  under 
the  arm,  Ruth,  by  holding  a  certain  part,  could  receive  into  her 
bosom  the  corn  which  Boaz  gave  her"  (Schroder,  De  vestit.  mul. 
p.  264).  Six  (measures  of)  barley  :  the  measure  is  not  given. 
According  to  the  Targum  and  the  Rabbins,  it  was  six  seahs  =  two 
ephahs.  This  is  certainly  incorrect ;  for  Ruth  would  not  have  been 
able  to  carry  that  quantity  of  barley  home.  When  Boaz  had 
given  her  the  barley  he  measured  out,  and  had  sent  her  away,  he 
also  went  into  the  city.  This  is  the  correct  rendering,  as  given  by 
the  Chaldee,  to  the  words  "Vyn  tfcW ;  though  Jerome  referred  the 
words  to  Ruth,  but  certainly  without  any  reason,  as  N3J  cannot 
stand  for  N2n.  This  reading  is  no  doubt  found  in  some  of  the 
MSS.,  but  it  merely  owes  its  origin  to  a  mistaken  interpretation  of 
the  words. — Vers.  16-18.  When  Ruth  returned  home,  her  mother- 
in-law  asked  her,  "  Who  art  thouV'  i.e.  as  what  person,  in  what 
circumstances  dost  thou  come  ?  The  real  meaning  is,  What  hast 
thou  accomplished  ?  Whereupon  she  related  all  that  the  man  had 
done  (cf.  vers.  10-14),  and  that  he  had  given  her  six  measures  of 
barley  for  her  mother.  The  Masorites  have  supplied  vK  after  ">EN, 
as  at  ver.  5,  but  without  any  necessity.  The  mother-in-law  drew 
from  this  the  hope  that  Boaz  would  now  certainly  carry  out  the 
matter  to  the  desired  end.  "  Sit  still"  i.e.  remain  quietly  at  home 
(see  Gen.  xxxviii.  11),  "  till  thou  hearest  how  the  affair  turn  out," 
namely,  whether  the  nearer  redeemer  mentioned  by  Boaz,  or  Boaz 
himself,  would  grant  her  the  Levirate  marriage.  The  expression 
"  fall,"  in  this  sense,  is  founded  upon  the  idea  of  the  falling  of  the 
lot  to  the  ground ;  it  is  different  in  Ezra  vii.  20.  "  For  the  man 
will  not  rest  unless  he  has  carried  the  affair  to  an  end  this  day." 
DN"^,  except  that,  as  in  Lev.  xxii.  6,  etc.  (see  Ewald,  §  356,  &.). 


CHAP.  IV.  1-5.  487 


BOAZ  MARRIES  RUTH. — CHAP.  IV. 

To  redeem  the  promise  he  had  given  to  Ruth,  Boaz  went  the 
next  morning  to  the  gate  of  the  city,  and  calling  to  the  nearer 
redeemer  as  he  passed  by,  asked  him,  before  the  elders  of  the  city, 
to  redeem  the  piece  of  land  which  belonged  to  Elimelech  and  had 
been  sold  by  Naomi ;  and  if  he  did  this,  at  the  same  time  to  marry 
Ruth,  to  establish  the  name  of  the  deceased  upon  his  inheritance 
(vers.  1-5).  But  as  he  renounced  the  right  of  redemption  on 
account  of  the  condition  attached  to  the  redemption  of  the  field, 
Boaz  undertook  the  redemption  before  the  assembled  people,  to- 
gether with  the  obligation  to  marry  Ruth  (vers.  6-12).  The 
marriage  was  blessed  with  a  son,  who  became  the  father  of  Jesse, 
the  father  of  David  (vers.  13-17).  The  book  closes  with  a  genea- 
logical proof  of  the  descent  of  David  from  Perez  (vers.  18-22). 

Vers.  1-5.  "Boaz  had  gone  up  to  the  gate,  and  had  sat  doivn 
there."  This  circumstantial  clause  introduces  the  account  of  the 
further  development  of  the  affair.  The  gate,  i.e.  the  open  space 
before  the  city  gate,  was  the  forum  of  the  city,  the  place  where  the 
public  affairs  of  the  city  were  discussed.  The  expression  "  went 
up  "  is  not  to  be  understood  as  signifying  that  Boaz  went  up  from 
the  threshing-floor  where  he  had  slept  to  the  city,  which  was 
situated  upon  higher  ground,  for,  according  to  chap.  iii.  15,  he  had 
already  gone  to  the  city  before  he  went  up  to  the  gate ;  but  it  is  to 
be  explained  as  referring  to  the  place  of  justice  as  an  ideal  eminence 
to  which  a  man  went  up  (vid.  Deut.  xvii.  8).  The  redeemer,  of 
whom  Boaz  had  spoken — that  is  to  say,  the  nearer  relation  of 
Elimelech — then  went  past,  and  Boaz  requested  him  to  come  near 
and  sit  down.  tid  as  in  Gen.  xix.  2,  etc. :  "  Sit  down  here,  such  a 
one.""  ^ß?N  ^ö,  any  one,  a  certain  person,  whose  name  is  either 
unknown  or  not  thought  worth  mentioning  (cf.  1  Sam.  xxi.  3,  2 
Kings  vi.  8).  Boaz  would  certainly  call  him  by  his  name ;  but  the 
historian  had  either  not  heard  the  name,  or  did  not  think  it  neces- 
sary to  give  it. — Ver.  2.  Boaz  then  called  ten  of  the  elders  of  the 
city  as  witnesses  of  the  business  to  be  taken  in  hand,  and  said  to 
the  redeemer  in  their  presence,  "  The  piece  of  field  which  belonged 
to  our  brother  (i.e.  our  relative)  Elimelech  (as  an  hereditary  family 
possession),  Naomi  has  sold,  and  I  have  thought  (lit.  1 1  said,'  sc.  to 
myself;  cf.  Gen.  xvii.  17,  xxvii.  41),  i"  will  open  thine  ear  (i.e 
make  it  known,  disclose  it)  :  get  it  before  those  who  sit  here,  and 
(indeed)  before  the  elders  of  my  people"   As  the  field  had  been  sold 


488  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

to  another,  getting  it  (n:j?)  could  only  be  accomplished  by  virtue  of 
the  right  of  redemption.  Boaz  therefore  proceeded  to  say,  "  If 
thou  wilt  redeem,  redeem ;  but  if  thou  wilt  not  redeem,  tell  me,  that  I 
may  know  it:  for  there  is  not  beside  thee  (any  one  more  nearly 
entitled)  to  redeem,  and  I  am  (the  next)  after  thee."  D'O^ri  is 
rendered  by  many,  those  dwelling,  and  supposed  to  refer  to  the 
inhabitants  of  Bethlehem.  But  we  could  hardly  think  of  the  in- 
habitants generally  as  present,  as  the  word  "before"  would  require, 
even  if,  according  to  ver.  9,  there  were  a  number  of  persons  present 
besides  the  elders.  Moreover  they  would  not  have  been  mentioned 
first,  but,  like  "  all  the  people "  in  ver.  9,  would  have  been  placed 
after  the  elders  as  the  principal  witnesses.  On  these  grounds,  the 
word  must  be  taken  in  the  sense  of  sitting,  and,  like  the  verb  in  ver. 
2,  be  understood  as  referring  to  the  elders  present ;  and  the  words 
"  before  the  elders  of  my  people  "  must  be  regarded  as  explanatory. 
The  expression  ?SW  (third  pers.)  is  striking,  as  we  should  expect  the 
second  person,  which  is  not  only  found  in  the  Septuagint,  but  also 
in  several  codices,  and  is  apparently  required  by  the  context.  It  is 
true  that  the  third  person  may  be  defended,  as  it  has  been  by  Seb. 
Schmidt  and  others,  on  the  assumption  that  Boaz  turned  towards 
the  elders  and  uttered  the  words  as  addressed  to  them,  and  therefore 
spoke  of  the  redeemer  as  a  third  person  :  "  But  if  he,  the  redeemer 
there,  will  not  redeem."  But  as  the  direct  appeal  to  the  redeemer 
himself  is  resumed  immediately  afterwards,  the  supposition,  to  our 
mind  at  least,  is  a  very  harsh  one.  The  person  addressed  said,  "  / 
will  redeem."  Boaz  then  gave  him  this  further  explanation  (ver. 
5) :  "  On  the  day  that  thou  buyest  the  field  of  the  hand  of  Naomi, 
thou  buyest  it  of  the  hand  of  Ruth  the  Moabitess,  of  the  wife  of  the 
deceased  (Mahlon,  the  rightful  heir  of  the  field),  to  set  up  (that 
thou  mayest  set  up)  the  name  of  the  deceased  upon  his  inheritance." 
From  the  meaning  and  context,  the  form  TCOp  must  be  the  second 
pers.  masc. ;  the  yod  at  the  end  no  doubt  crept  in  through  an  error 
of  the  pen,  or  else  from  a  1,  so  that  the  word  is  either  to  be  read 
TPy\>  (according  to  the  Keri)  or  faVjjj?,  "  thou  buyest  it."  So  far  as 
the  fact  itself  was  concerned,  the  field,  which  Naomi  had  sold  from 
want,  was  the  hereditary  property  of  her  deceased  husband,  and 
ought  therefore  to  descend  to  her  sons  according  to  the  standing 
rule  of  right ;  and  in  this  respect,  therefore,  it  was  Ruth's  property 
quite  as  much  as  Naomi's.  From  the  negotiation  between  Boaz 
and  the  nearer  redeemer,  it  is  very  evident  that  Naomi  had  sold  the 
field  which  was  the  hereditary  property  of  her  husband,  and  was 


CHAP.  IV.  1-5.  489 

lawfully  entitled  to  sell  it.  But  as  landed  property  did  not  descend 
to  wives  according  to  the  Israelitish  law,  but  only  to  children,  and 
when  there  were  no  children,  to  the  nearest  relatives  of  the  hus- 
band (Num.  xxvii.  8-11),  when  Elimelech  died  his  field  properly 
descended  to  his  sons;  and  when  they  died  without  children,  it 
ought  to  have  passed  to  his  nearest  relations.  Hence  the  question 
arises,  what  right  had  Naomi  to  sell  her  husband's  field  as  her  own 
property  ?  The  Rabbins  suppose  that  the  field  had  been  presented 
to  Naomi  and  Ruth  by  their  husbands  (yid.  Seiden,  de  success,  in 
bona  def.  c.  15).  But  Elimelech  could  not  lawfully  give  his  heredi- 
tary property  to  his  wife,  as  he  left  sons  behind  him  when  he  died, 
and  they  were  the  lawful  heirs ;  and  Mahlon  also  had  no  more  right 
than  his  father  to  make  such  a  gift.  There  is  still  less  foundation 
for  the  opinion  that  Naomi  was  an  heiress,  since  even  if  this  were 
the  case,  it  would  be  altogether  inapplicable  to  the  present  affair, 
where  the  property  in  question  was  not  a  field  which  Naomi  had 
inherited  from  her  father,  but  the  field  of  Elimelech  and  his  sons. 
The  true  explanation  is  no  doubt  the  following  :  The  law  relating 
to  the  inheritance  of  the  landed  property  of  Israelites  who  died 
childless  did  not  determine  the  time  when  such  a  possession  should 
pass  to  the  relatives  of  the  deceased,  whether  immediately  after  the 
death  of  the  owner,  or  not  till  after  the  death  of  the  widow  who 
was  left  behind  {yid.  Num.  xxvii.  9  sqq.).  No  doubt  the  latter 
was  the  rule  established  by  custom,  so  that  the  widow  remained  in 
possession  of  the  property  as  long  as  she  lived  ;  and  for  that  length 
of  time  she  had  the  right  to  sell  the  property  in  case  of  need,  since 
the  sale  of  a  field  was  not  an  actual  sale  of  the  field  itself,  but 
simply  of  the  yearly  produce  until  the  year  of  jubilee.  Consequently 
the  field  of  the  deceased  Elimelech  would,  strictly  speaking,  have 
belonged  to  his  sons,  and  after  their  death  to  Mahlon' s  widow, 
since  Chilion's  widow  had  remained  behind  in  her  own  country 
Moab.  But  as  Elimelech  had  not  only  emigrated  with  his  wife 
and  children  and  died  abroad,  but  his  sons  had  also  been  with  him 
in  the  foreign  land,  and  had  married  and  died  there,  the  landed 
property  of  their  father  had  not  descended  to  them,  but  had 
remained  the  property  of  Naomi,  Elimelech's  widow,  in  which 
Ruth,  as  the  widow  of  the  deceased  Mahlon,  also  had  a  share. 
Now,  in  case  a  widow  sold  the  field  of  her  deceased  husband  for 
the  time  that  it  was  in  her  possession,  on  account  of  poverty,  and  a 
relation  of  her  husband  redeemed  it,  it  was  evidently  his  duty  not 
only  to  care  for  the  maintenance  of  the  impoverished  widow,  but  if 


490  THE  BOOK  OF  EUTH. 

she  were  still  young,  to  marry  her,  and  to  let  the  first  son  born  of 
such  a  marriage  enter  into  the  family  of  the  deceased  husband  of 
his  wife,  so  as  to  inherit  the  redeemed  property,  and  perpetuate  the 
name  and  possession  of  the  deceased  in  Israel.  Upon  this  right, 
which  was  founded  upon  traditional  custom,  Boaz  based  this  con- 
dition, which  he  set  before  the  nearer  redeemer,  that  if  he  redeemed 
the  field  of  Naomi  he  must  also  take  Ruth,  with  the  obligation  to 
marry  her,  and  through  this  marriage  to  set  up  the  name  of  the 
deceased  upon  his  inheritance. 

Vers.  6-13.  The  redeemer  admitted  the  justice  of  this  demand, 
from  which  we  may  see  that  the  thing  passed  as  an  existing  right 
in  the  nation.  But  as  he  was  not  disposed  to  marry  Ruth,  he  gave 
up  the  redemption  of  the  field. — Ver.  6.  "/  cannot  redeem  it  for 
myself,  lest  I  mar  mine  own  inheritance?  The  redemption  would 
cost  money,  since  the  yearly  produce  of  the  field  would  have  to  be 
paid  for  up  to  the  year  of  jubilee.  Now,  if  he  acquired  the  field 
by  redemption  as  his  own  permanent  property,  he  would  have 
increased  by  so  much  his  own  possessions  in  land.  But  if  he  should 
marry  Ruth,  the  field  so  redeemed  would  belong  to  the  son  whom 
he  would  beget  through  her,  and  he  would  therefore  have  parted 
with  the  money  that  he  had  paid  for  the  redemption  merely  for  the 
son  of  Ruth,  so  that  he  would  have  withdrawn  a  certain  amount  of 
capital  from  his  own  possession,  and  to  that  extent  have  detracted 
from  its  worth.  "Redeem  thou  for  thyself  my  redemption,"  i.e.  the 
field  which  I  have  the  first  right  to  redeem. — Vers.  7,  8.  This 
declaration  he  confirmed  by  what  was  a  usual  custom  at  that  time 
in  renouncing  a  right.  This  early  custom  is  described  in  ver.  7, 
and  there  its  application  to  the  case  before  us  is  mentioned  after- 
wards. "  Now  this  was  (took  place)  formerly  in  Israel  in  redeeming 
and  exchanging,  to  confirm  every  transaction :  A  man  took  off  his 
shoe  and  gave  it  to  another,  and  this  was  a  testimony  in  Israel." 
From  the  expression  "formerly,"  and  also  from  the  description 
given  of  the  custom  in  question,  it  follows  that  it  had  gone  out  of 
use  at  the  time  when  our  book  was  composed.  The  custom  itself, 
which  existed  among  the  Indians  and  the  ancient  Germans,  arose 
from  the  fact  that  fixed  property  was  taken  possession  of  by  tread- 
ing upon  the  soil,  and  hence  taking  off  the  shoe  and  handing  it  to 
another  was  a  symbol  of  the  transfer  of  a  possession  or  right  of 
ownership  (see  the  remarks  on  Deut.  xxv.  9  and  my  Bibl.  Archäol. 
ii.  p.  66).  The  Piel  D'i?  is  rarely  met  with  in  Hebrew ;  in  the  present 
instance  it  was  probably  taken  from  the  old   legal   phraseology. 


CHAP.  IV.  13-17  491 

The  only  other  places  in  which  it  occurs  are  Ezek.  xiii.  6,  Ps.  cxix 
28,  106,  and  the  book  of  Esther,  where  it  is  used  more  frequently 
as  a  Chaldaism. — Vers.  9,  10.  After  the  nearest  redeemer  had 
thus  renounced  the  right  of  redemption  with  all  legal  formality, 
Boaz  said  to  the  elders  and  all  the  (rest  of  the)  people,  "  Ye  are 
witnesses  this  day,  that  I  have  acquired  this  day  all  that  belonged  to 
Elimelech,  and  to  Mahlon  and  Chilion  (i.e.  the  field  of  Elimelech, 
which  was  the  rightful  inheritance  of  his  sons  Mahlon  and  Chilion), 
at  the  hand  of  Naomi ;  and  also  Ruth  the  Moahitess,  the  wife  of 
Mahlon,  I  have  acquired  as  my  xoife,  to  raise  up  the  name  of  the 
deceased  upon  his  inheritance,  that  the  name  of  the  deceased  may  not 
be  cut  off  among  his  brethren  and  from  the  gate  of  his  people"  (i.e. 
from  his  native  town  Bethlehem ;  cf.  chap.  iii.  11).  On  the  fact 
itself,  see  the  introduction  to  chap.  iii. ;  also  the  remarks  on  the 
Levirate  marriages  at  Deut.  xxv.  5  sqq. — Ver.  11.  The  people  and 
the  elders  said,  "  We  are  witnesses"  and  desired  for  Boaz  the  blessing 
of  the  Lord  upon  this  marriage.  For  Boaz  had  acted  as  unselfishly 
as  he  had  acted  honourably  in  upholding  a  laudable  family  custom 
in  Israel.  The  blessing  desired  is  the  greatest  blessing  of  marriage : 
"  The  Lord  make  the  woman  that  shall  come  into  thine  house  (the 
participle  HS2  refers  to  what  is  immediately  about  to  happen)  like 
Rachel  and  like  Leah,  ivhich  two  did  build  the  house  of  Israel 
("  build  "  as  in  Gen.  xvi.  2,  xxx.  3)  ;  and  do  thou  get  power  in 
Ephratah,  and  make  to  thyself  a  name  in  Bethlehem"  ??n  ntvy  does 
not  mean  "get  property  or  wealth,"  as  in  Deut.  viii.  17,  but  get 
power,  as  in  Ps.  lx.  14  (cf.  Prov.  xxxi.  29),  sc.  by  begetting  and 
training  worthy  sons  and  daughters.  "  Make  thee  a  name"  literally 
"  call  out  a  name."  The  meaning  of  this  phrase,  which  is  only 
used  here  in  this  peculiar  manner,  must  be  the  following  :  "  Make 
to  thyself  a  well-established  name  through  thy  marriage  with  Ruth, 
by  a  host  of  worthy  sons  who  shall  make  thy  name  renowned." — 
Ver.  12.  u  May  thy  house  become  like  the  house  of  Perez,  whom 
Tamar  bore  to  Judah"  (Gen.  xxxviii.).  It  was  from  Perez  that 
the  ancestors  of  Boaz,  enumerated  in  vers.  18  sqq.  and  1  Chron.  ii. 
5  sqq.,  were  descended.  As  from  Perez,  so  also  from  the  seed 
which  Jehovah  would  give  to  Boaz  through  Ruth,  there  should 
grow  up  a  numerous  posterity. 

Vers.  13-17.  This  blessing  began  very  speedily  to  be  fulfilled. 
When  Boaz  had  married  Ruth,  Jehovah  gave  her  conception,  and 
she  bare  a  son. — Ver.  14.  At  his  birth  the  women  said  to  Naomi, 
"  Blessed  be  the  Lord,  who  hath  not  let  a  redeemer  be  wanting  to  thee 


492  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

to-day."  This  redeemer  was  not  Boaz,  but  the  son  just  born.  They 
called  him  a  redeemer  of  Naomi,  not  because  he  would  one  day 
redeem  the  whole  of  Naomi's  possessions  (Carpzov,  Posenmüller, 
etc.),  but  because  as  the  son  of  Ruth  he  was  also  the  son  of  Naomi 
(ver.  17),  and  as  such  would  take  away  the  reproach  of  childless- 
ness from  her,  would  comfort  her,  and  tend  her  in  her  old  age,  and 
thereby  become  her  true  goel,  i.e.  her  deliverer  (Bertheau).  "  And 
let  his  name  be  named  in  Israel"  i.e.  let  the  boy  acquire  a  celebrated 
name,  one  often  mentioned  in  Israel. — Ver.  15.  "  And  may  the  boy 
come  to  thee  a  refresher  of  the  soul,  and  a  nourisher  of  thine  old  age ; 
for  thy  daughter-in-law,  who  loveth  thee  (who  hath  left  her  family, 
her  home,  and  her  gods,  out  of  love  to  thee),  hath  born  him ;  she  is 
better  to  thee  than  seven  sons."  Seven,  as  the  number  of  the  works 
of  God,  is  used  to  denote  a  large  number  of  sons  of  a  mother  whom 
God  has  richly  blessed  with  children  (yid.  1  Sam.  ii.  5).  A  mother 
of  so  many  sons  was  to  be  congratulated,  inasmuch  as  she  not  only 
possessed  in  these  sons  a  powerful  support  to  her  old  age,  but  had 
the  prospect  of  the  permanent  continuance  of  her  family.  Naomi, 
however,  had  a  still  more  valuable  treasure  in  her  mother-in-law, 
inasmuch  as  through  her  the  loss  of  her  own  sons  had  been  supplied 
in  her  old  age,  and  the  prospect  was  now  presented  to  her  of 
becoming  in  her  childless  old  age  the  tribe-mother  of  a  numerous 
and  flourishing  family. — Ver.  16.  Naomi  therefore  adopted  this 
grandson  as  her  own  child ;  she  took  the  boy  into  her  bosom,  and 
became  his  nurse. — Ver.  17.  And  the  neighbours  said,  "  A  son  is 
born  to  Naomi"  and  gave  him  the  name  of  Obed.  This  name  was 
given  to  the  boy  (the  context  suggests  this)  evidently  with  refe- 
rence to  what  he  was  to  become  to  his  grandmother.  Obed,  there- 
fore, does  not  mean  "servant  of  Jehovah"  (Targum),  but  "the 
serving  one"  as  one  who  lived  entirely  for  his  grandmother,  and 
would  take  care  of  her,  and  rejoice  her  heart  (0.  v.  Gerlach,  after 
Josephus,  Ant.  v.  9,  4).  The  last  words  of  ver.  17,  "he  is  the  father 
of  Jesse,  the  father  of  David,"  show  the  object  which  the  author 
kept  in  view  in  writing  down  these  events,  or  composing  the  book 
itself.  This  conjecture  is  raised  into  a  certainty  by  the  genealogy 
which  follows,  and  with  which  the  book  closes. 

Vers.  18-20.  "These  are  the  generations  of  Perez"  i.e.  the  families 
descended  from  Perez  in  their  genealogical  order  (toledoth :  see  at 
Gen.  ii.  4).  The  genealogy  only  goes  back  as  far  as  Perez,  because 
he  was  the  founder  of  the  family  of  Judah  which  was  named  after 
him  (Num.  xxvi.  20),  and  to  which  Elimelech  and  Boaz  belonged. 


CHAP.  IV.  18-20.  493 

Perez,  a  son  of  Judah  by  Tamar  (Gen.  xxxviii.  29),  begat  Hezrom, 
who  is  mentioned  in  Gen.  xlvi.  12  among  the  sons  of  Judah  who 
emigrated  with  Jacob  into  Egypt,  although  (as  we  have  shown  in 
our  comm.  on  the  passage)  he  was  really  born  in  Egypt.  Of  this  son 
Ram  (called  Aram  in  the  Sept.  Cod.  AL,  and  from  that  in  Matt.  i.  3) 
nothing  further  is  known,  as  he  is  only  mentioned  again  in  1  Chron. 
ii.  9.  His  son  Amminadab  was  the  father-in-law  of  Aaron,  who 
had  married  his  daughter  (Ex.  vi.  23),  and  the  father  of  Nahesson 
(Nahshon),  the  tribe-prince  of  the  house  of  Judah  in  the  time  of 
Moses  (Num.  i.  7,  ii.  3,  vii.  12).  According  to  this  there  are  only 
four  or  five  generations  to  the  430  years  spent  by  the  Israelites 
in  Egypt,  if  we  include  both  Perez  and  Nahesson  ;  evidently  not 
enough  for  so  long  a  time,  so  that  some  of  the  intermediate  links 
must  have  been  left  out  even  here.  But  the  omission  of  unim- 
portant members  becomes  still  more  apparent  in  the  statement 
which  follows,  viz.  that  Nahshon  begat  Salmah,  and  Salmah  Boaz, 
in  which  only  two  generations  are  given  for  a  space  of  more  than 
250  years,  which  intervened  between  the  death  of  Moses  and  the 
time  of  Gideon.  Salmah  (new  or  NO???,  1  Chron.  ii.  11)  is  called 
Salmon  in  ver.  21 ;  a  double  form  of  the  name,  which  is  to  be 
explained  from  the  fact  that  Salmah  grew  out  of  Salmon  through 
the  elision  of  the  n,  and  that  the  terminations  an  and  on  are  used 
promiscuously,  as  we  may  see  from  the  form  n*"}B>  in  Job  xli.  18 
when  compared  with  Pt~!^  in  1  Kings  xxii.  34,  and  fFVt}  in  1  Sam. 
xvii.  5,  38  (see  Ewald,  §  163-4).  According  to  the  genealogy  of 
Christ  in  Matt.  i.  5,  Salmon  married  Rahab ;  consequently  he  was 
a  son,  or  at  any  rate  a  grandson,  of  Nahshon,  and  therefore  all  the 
members  between  Salmon  and  Boaz  have  been  passed  over.  Again, 
the  generations  from  Boaz  to  David  (vers.  21,  22)  may  possibly  be 
complete,  although  in  all  probability  one  generation  has  been  passed 
over  even  here  between  Obed  and  Jesse  (see  p.  471).  It  is  also 
worthy  of  notice  that  the  whole  chain  from  Perez  to  David  consists 
of  ten  links,  five  of  which  (from  Perez  to  Nahshon)  belong  to  the 
430  years  of  the  sojourn  in  Egypt,  and  five  (from  Salmon  to  David) 
to  the  476  years  between  the  exodus  from  Egypt  and  the  death 
of  David.  This  symmetrical  division  is  apparently  as  intentional 
as  the  limitation  of  the  whole  genealogy  to  ten  members,  for  the 
purpose  of  stamping  upon  it  through  the  number  ten  as  the  seal  of 
completeness  the  character  of  a  perfect,  concluded,  and  symmetrical 
whole. 

The  genealogy  closes  with  David,   an  eviuent  proof  that  the 


494  THE  BOOK  OF  RUTH. 

book  was  intended  to  give  a  family  picture  from  the  life  of  the 
pious  ancestors  of  this  great  and  godly  king  of  Israel.  But  for  us 
the  history  which  points  to  David  acquires  a  still  higher  significa- 
tion, from  the  fact  that  all  the  members  of  the  genealogy  of  David 
whose  names  occur  here  are  also  found  in  the  genealogy  of  Jesus 
Christ.  "  The  passage  is  given  by  Matthew  word  for  word  in  the 
genealogy  of  Christ,  that  we  may  see  that  this  history  looks  not  so 
much  to  David  as  to  Jesus  Christ,  who  was  proclaimed  by  all  as 
the  Saviour  and  Redeemer  of  the  human  race,  and  that  we  may 
learn  with  what  wonderful  compassion  the  Lord  raises  up  the  lowly 
and  despised  to  the  greatest  glory  and  majesty"  (Brentius). 


THE  EZvD. 


ÖTDRRAY  AND  GIBB,  PRINTERS,  EDINBURGH. 


Date  Due 


QLTll fr*» 


Mt*¥*t* 


^•p^wtftiw 


...HLMHWimrr-- 


-y^*- 


<Tl5 


«*»v