Lange Commentary - Joshua 16:1 - 17:18

Online Resource Library

Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | Download

Lange Commentary - Joshua 16:1 - 17:18


(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)

This Chapter Verse Commentaries:

2. The Territory of the Tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh

Joshua 16, 17

a. Its Boundaries

Jos_16:1-4

1And the lot of [for] the children [sons] of Joseph fell [came out] from [the] Jordan by Jericho, unto [at] the water of Jericho, on the east, to the wilderness which 2goeth up from Jericho throughout [on] Mount Beth-el, And goeth [and it went] out from Beth-el to Luz, and passeth [passed] along unto the border of Archi [the 3Archite] to Ataroth, And goeth [went] down westward to the coast [border] of Japhleti [the Japhletite], unto the coast [border] of Beth-horon the nether, and to 4Gezer: and the goings out thereof are [were] at the sea. So [And] the children [sons] of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance [possession].

b. Portion of the Tribe of Ephraim.

Jos_16:5-10

5And the border of the children [sons] of Ephraim [was] according to their families was thus [omit: was thus]: even [and] the border of their inheritance [possession] on the east side was Ataroth-addar, unto Beth-horon the upper; 6And the border went out toward the sea to Michmethah on the north side [so De Wette; Keil, and Fay: from Michmethah, northward]; and the border went about eastward unto Taanath-shiloh, and passed by it on the east [eastward] to Janohah. 7And it went down from Janohah to Ataroth, and to Naarath, and came to [struck or touched] Jericho, and went out at [the] Jordan. 8The border went out [went] from Tappuah westward unto the river [water-course of] Kanah; and the goings out thereof were at the sea. This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Ephraim by their families. 9And the separate cities for the children [sons] of Ephraim were among the inheritance of the children [sons] of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages. 10And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute [and they became tributary servants; LXX.: êὰé ἐãÝíïíôï ὑðüöïñïé äïῦëïé ].

c. Portion of the Tribe of Manasseh.

Chapter Jos_17:1-13

1There was also a lot [And there was the lot] for the tribe of Manasseh; for he was the first-born of Joseph; to wit, for Machir the first-born of Manasseh, the father of Gilead: [,] because he was a man of war, [;] therefore [and] he had Gilead and Bashan. 2There was also [And there was] a lot for the rest of the children [sons] of Manasseh by their families; for the children [sons] of Abiezer, and for the children [sons] of Helek, and for the children [sons] of Asriel, and for the children [sons] of Shechem, and for the children [sons] of Hepher, and for the children [sons] of Shemida: these were the male children of Manasseh the son of Joseph by their families. 3But [And] Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 4And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The Lord [Jehovah] commanded Moses to give us an inheritance [a possession] among our brethren: therefore [and] according to the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah] he gave them an inheritance [a possession] among the brethren of their father. 5And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which were on the other side [of the] Jordan; 6Because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance [possession] among his sons: and the rest of Manasseh’s sons had the land of Gilead.

7And the coast [border] of Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethah, that lieth before Shechem; and the border went along on the right hand [De Wette: towards the south] unto the inhabitants of En-tappuah. 8Now [omit: now] Manasseh had the land of Tappuah: but Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim: 9And the border descended unto the river [water-course of] Kanah [reeds; hence = Reed-brook], southward of the river [water-course]. These cities of Ephraim are among the cities of Manasseh: the coast [border] of Manasseh also was on the north side of the river [water-course], and the out-goings of it were at the sea: 10Southward it [the land] was Ephraim’s, and northward it was Manasseh’s, and the sea is [was] his border; and they met together in [touched, or struck upon] Asher on the north, and in [upon] Issachar on the east. 11And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher, Beth-shean and her towns [daughters], and Ibleam and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of Dor and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of En-Dor and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of Taanach and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns [daughters], even three countries [Gesen., Fay: the three heights, i.e. the three cities situated on heights. See the exegetical explanations. LXX.: êáὶ ôï ôñßôïí ôῆò Íïöåè . Vulg.: tertia pars. Luther: the third part of Napheth. De Wette: three 12portions of country (drei Landschaften); Bunsen: die Dreilandschaft]. Yet [And] the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of [could not conquer] 13those cities; but [and] the Canaanites would dwell in that land. Yet [And] it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen [became] strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute [made the Canaanites tributary servants]; but did not utterly drive them out, [De Wette, Fay: aber vertreiben thaten sie sie nicht; nearly the same as “but drive them out they did not do;” to express: åְäåֹøֵùׁ ìàֹ äåֹøִéùׁåּ ].

d. Complaint of the Sons of Joseph on Account of an insufficient Possession

Jos_17:14-18

14And the children [sons] of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit [as a possession], seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as [in so far as, òַãÎàֲùֶׁø ] the Lord [Jehovah] hath blessed me hitherto? 15And Joshua answered [said to] them, If thou be a great people, then [omit: then] get thee up to the wood-country [forest], and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants [Rephaim], if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee. 16And the children [sons] of Joseph said, The hill [mountain] is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of [in] Beth-shean and her towns 17[daughters], and they who are of [in] the valley of Jezreel. And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art a 18great people and hast great power, thou shalt not have one lot only: But the [a] mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood [forest], and thou shalt cut it down: and the out-goings of it [its outrunners, spurs] shall be thine: for thou shalt [wilt] drive out the Canaanites, though [for] they have iron chariots, and though they be [for they are] strong.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

The two chapters, sixteen and seventeen, belong together, since they contain the statements concerning the territory of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph (Gen_41:50-52; Gen_46:20; Gen_48:5 ff.). The united inheritance of the two tribes includes a fruitful, for the most part, and pleasant country lying in the midst of western Palestine. It extends from the Jordan, and the eastern declivities of mount Ephraim (which are much less rough than the land of Judah), across to the seashore which borders the beautiful plain of Sharon. Of this entire district Ephraim received the southern portion, Manasseh (strictly speaking only the half-tribe of Manasseh, comp. Jos_13:29 ff.) the northern. Ephraim only, and he for a narrow space, touched the Jordan. See the often mentioned and very clear Map iii. of Menke’s Bibel Atlas, and also Kiepert’s Wall Map. On the quality of the land comp. Robinson, iii., lect. xiv.; Ritter, xvi. 566 ff. [Gage’s transl. 4:293–332]; von Raumer, pp. 42–45; Furrer, pp. 211–246; Robinson, Phys. Geog. pp. 34–42 [Stanley, Sin. and Pal ch. v.].

a. Jos_16:1-4. Boundaries of the Entire Province. Jos_16:1. The lot came out, namely, from the urn. Bunsen rightly observes: “From the ambiguity of the word ‘lot,’ the passage might perhaps be paraphrased thus: ‘The lot was drawn for the children of Joseph and to them fell,’ ” etc.

From the Jordan by Jericho, at the water of Jericho on the east. The water of Jericho is the fountain of Elisha (2Ki_2:19-22), now Ain es-Sultan, whose waters are diffused over the plain (Robinson, ii. 283 ff.). It gurgles forth beautifully from under the rocks, and forms, at the foot of the hill from which it comes, a beautiful basin of water densely surrounded by oleanders and reeds (Furrer, p. 150. [Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 300, et ibid. Van de Velde, in a note]). Somewhat to the north of this, the still larger fountain of Dûk is met with, the waters of which, led along in canals, formerly turned several mills in the vicinity (Robinson, Furrer, [Stanley]). The border began at the lower Jordan, and went thence to the fountain of Elisha. This, accordingly, the region of the Jordan opposite Jericho, is its eastern starting point or, more correctly, place. Hence it passed into the wilderness which goes up if from Jericho on the mountain of Beth-el. The region intended here is what in Jos_18:12 is called the wilderness of Beth-aven, which city appears from Jos_7:2. to have lain east of Beth-el. On the mountain of Beth-el. áäø which the Masoretes separate from áּéúÎàì is yet, and notwithstanding the LXX., Chald., and Arab. versions repeat this view, undoubtedly to be connected with áéúÎàì , according to 1Sa_13:2, and to be pointed áְּçַø . So the Vulg.: ad montem Bethel, and Syriac” (Keil). The mountain about Bethel is meant.

Jos_16:2. And it went out (the border) from Beth-el to Luz. Hebr. åַéָּöָà îִáּéúÎàֵì ìåּæָּä . The words must either be translated, as we have done, with the LXX., Luther, De Wette, [Eng. vers.] Keil, Bunsen, in which case Beth-el stands, as Bunsen also supposes, for mountain of Beth-el; or, as Knobel among others prefers: “and it went out from Bethel-luzah.” In this translation Knobel (1) follows in Jos_16:1, the Masoretic pointing áְּçָø , (2) assumes in Jos_16:2 a union of the old and new names, “quite contrary to the usage of our author, who, when a city had two names places one after the other connected by äéà , as he does e.g. (Jos_18:13) in the case even of Beth-el and Luz” (Keil). Other examples are Jos_15:14; Jos_15:49; Jos_15:54 (Joshua 16:59, LXX.), 60. See more concerning Beth-el and Luz on Jos_18:12-13. From Luz, i.e. Beth-el (Jos_18:13), it went, and on the south side of this city (Jos_18:13), unto the border of the Archite to Ataroth. Hushai was an Archite (2Sa_15:32; 2Sa_16:16; 1Ch_27:33). Where his possession lay is to be determined from Ataroth, concerning which see on Jos_18:13.

Jos_16:3. Thence it went down westward to the border of the Japhletite, unto the border of Beth-horon, the nether, and to Gezer; and the goings out thereof were at (or, toward) the sea. The border followed from Bethel toward Ataroth a northerly, then a southwestern, and finally a decidedly western course (see the map). The Japhletite ( äַéַּôְìֵèִé ), only here as a patronymic; the prop. name éַôְìֵè (whom He, i.e. God saves, Gesen.), 1Ch_7:32-33. On Beth-horon comp. partly Jos_10:10, partly Jos_18:13. Gezer ( âֶæֶø ), as the seat of a Canaanite king mentioned already Jos_10:33; Jos_12:12; according to Jos_21:21; 1Ch_6:52, a city of the priests; not yet discovered by modern travellers. Knobel seeks the city northwest of Beth-horon, where Menke has introduced the name. Comp. also von Raumer, p. 191, and his map, where he also has placed it northwest of Beth-horon.

Jos_16:4. “North of the line indicated Ephraim and Manasseh took their possession.” It is therefore only the south line of both tribes, which is at the same time the north line of Benjamin, and as such is given in inverse order as before mentioned, in Jos_18:12-13.

b. Jos_16:5-10. The Province of the Tribe of Ephraim. Jos_16:5. The south border is first given. Ataroth-addar appears as the starting-point, identical, according to Jos_18:13, with our Ataroth, Jos_16:2. Assuming this, “the author notices only the western half of the south border, and omits the eastern half,” for Beth-horon, whether the upper as here, to the lower as mentioned in Jos_16:2, lies west, or more accurately still, southwest of Ataroth-addar. We might, it is true, and Knobel proposes this as an alternative, read òַèָøåֹú , and understand the Ataroth mentioned Jos_16:7, which would then make the eastern part of the south border to be drawn. But in that case, åúָàַø or åְòָáַø would, it seems to us, be inserted between the two names. The first supposition therefore appears preferable, according to which we are to understand that the south border of Ephraim in its western half is specified from Ataroth-addar to Beth-horon. But even thus we have not, if we compare Jos_16:3, this western half of the line at all complete; for from Jos_16:3, the border proceeds still to Gezer, nay even to the sea. And the LXX. have here after Beth-horon êáὶ ÃÜæáñá . Perhaps this, as well as what is mentioned besides, Jos_16:3, has here fallen out. At all events we have, as Jos_16:6 will show, to deal with a corrupt text, in which the first words of Jos_16:6 to and including äַéָּîָä might easily have formed the conclusion of ver 5, to which they would admirably suit. [Verse 5 would thus end—Beth-horon, the upper; and the border went out to the sea]. Then the south border at least of Ephraim, from Ataroth-addar to the sea, would be completely given.

Jos_16:6. Keil says, in reference to this verse: “With Jos_16:6 I know as little as my predecessors how to begin. It would appear that Jos_16:6-8 should give the northern boundary of the land of Ephraim, and that from a central point, in Jos_16:6-7 toward the east, then in Jos_16:8 toward the west,” as analogous to which, Knobel, who shares this view, adduces the south boundary of Zebulun, Jos_19:10-12, and the division of the places of Benjamin, Jos_18:21-28, as also the west border of Naphtali, Jos_19:33 ff. “In this view, however,” as Keil further remarks, “the first clause of Jos_16:6 is perfectly inexplicable, and must be corrupt.” Perhaps there originally stood “on the north the border went out from Michmethah, for according to Jos_17:7, the border of Manasseh went ‘from Asher to Michmethah.’ ” It seems to us still better to assume that it originally stood:

åַéָöָà äַâְּáåּì äַéָּîָä

îִîִּëְîְúָä îִöָôåֹï .

If that were so it is obvious that the twice recurring åַéָּöָà äַâּáåּì äַéָּîָä (namely, at the end of Jos_16:5, and at the beginning of Jos_16:6), must have fallen away once. Let us now by this extension of Keil’s very appropriate correction restore the text, and we gain a reading at least in some degree acceptable, by which (1) Jos_16:5 receives a good ending, and (2) Jos_16:6 an intelligible beginning, and the whole would mean thus: And the border went out seaward, i.e. toward the west, from Michmethah on the north side, i.e. north of Michmethah. Michmethah (LXX.: Ìá÷èþè ) lay according to Jos_17:7, east from Shechem. See further on Jos_17:7. Thus we should have given the starting-point of the eastern half of the northern boundary of Ephraim, as lying north of Michmethah in the west of the land. But then, it proceeds, the border went about eastward unto Taanath-shiloh, and passed by it on the east to Janohah.Taanath-shiloh, now Tana, Ain Tana, a place of ruins, southeast of Nablus (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 295). Janoah, “according to the Onom. s. v. Ἰáíþ , Janon, twelve miles, i.e. near three hours east of Neapolis, now a ruin, Janun, somewhat over two hours southeast of Nablus, Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 297” (Knobel). The border, accordingly, went from Michmethah to Janohah in a southeast direction, as Menke has indicated.

Jos_16:7. From Janohah it went down to Ataroth, and to Naarath, and came to (struck) Jericho, and went out at the Jordan. Keil holds this Ataroth to be the same as Ataroth, Jos_16:2, Ataroth-addar (Jos_16:5; Jos_18:13), thus making it the Atara discovered by Robinson (iii. 80, not that mentioned ii. 315), one and a half hours southwest of Jiljilieh, as Robinson himself also believes. Knobel explains that our Ataroth here in Jos_16:7 cannot be identified, but must certainly, from éָøַã have lain nearer the Jordan, possibly one of the two Ataroths which the Onom., s. h. v., refers to in the district of Jerusalem. We shall come upon the question again, Jos_18:13. Naarath = Naaran, 1Ch_7:28, in the east of Ephraim. Onom.:Naorath villa, in quinto milliario Jerichus,i.e. two hours from Jericho (Keil, Knobel, von Raumer, p. 215). Struck Jericho, i.e. the territory of Jericho which city, according to Jos_18:21, belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. The border of Ephraim thus touched the northern side of this territory, comp. Jos_18:12.

Jos_16:8. Now follows the western half of the north border of Ephraim, described as follows: From Tappuah the border goes ( éֵìֵêְ ) westward to the water-course of Kanah, and the goings out thereof were at [to] the sea. Tappuah, distinct from the Tappuah (Jos_15:34) and Beth-tap-puah (Jos_15:53), in Judah, concerning the etymology of which we have already spoken; the residence of a Canaanite king (Jos_12:24). Its site is doubtful. Knobel: “Probably Kefr Kud with its important well, by which the great road from Beisan and Zerin passes toward Ramleh (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 121 ff.) as in the Roman times a military road passed from Cesaræa to Scythopolis past Capercota (Tab. Peuting. ix. f., in Menke, Map vi. where an extract from the Tab. Peuting. is found”). The fact that the place is called (Jos_17:7) òֵéï ú× , while Kefr Kud has a valuable well, would seem to favor the identity of the two places; but it may be maintained on the other hand, (1) that Kefr Kud lies too far north on the border of Manasseh toward Issachar, while it should lie on the border of Manasseh toward Ephraim (see Menke’s Map viii. compared with Map iii); (2) that the old name does not at all appear in the present name Kefr Kud. This is true rather of the present Belad (land) Tafua northeast of Shechem, toward which von Raumer, though not without hesitation, inclines. We hear of a land of Tappuah in Jos_17:8 as the district belonging to En-tappuah. Van de Velde (Mem. p. 357) holds it to be Atuf, four hours E. N. E. of Shechem. Very improbable. Hence we decide for Belad Tafua, against which Keil brings the objection, that this opinion does not agree with the àֶìÎäַéָּîִéï (ch Jos_17:7), and therefore he concludes that here also the text is corrupt. See further on Jos_17:7, where we must at all events return again to this passage. Water-course of Kana (Reed-brook), see Jos_17:9.

Jos_16:9. To this province belong also the cities separated in the land of Manasseh for the children of Ephraim, of which, however, only Tappuah is mentioned Jos_17:8. Instead of the elsewhere “unheard of” îִáְãָּìåֹú , Knobel proposes to read ðִáְãָּìåֹú : Gesen. îֻáְãָּìåֹú . Maurer and Keil regard it as a substantive formed after the analogy of îִñôָּúåֹú , îִãְøָêְ , and other words. Maurer translates loca selecta. To me the change of Chireq into Kibbuts, as proposed by Gesen., appears the most simple, and thus we have a part. Hophal.

Jos_16:10. An addition similar to Jos_15:63. They became tributary servants ( òֹáֵã åַéְäִéÎìְîַí ). In Gen_49:15 the same expression is used concerning Issachar. According to 1Ki_9:16, Pharaoh, in the beginning of the reign of Solomon, took Gezer, burned the city and drove out of it the Canaanites. Hence the LXX. add to our verse: ́ Ἓùò ἀíÝâç öáñáὼ âáóéëåὺò Ἀéãýðôïõ êáὶ ἔëáâåí ἀõôὴí ( ÁÅ× . ôὴí ðüëéí ) êáὶ ἐíÝðñçóåí áὐôὴí ἐí ðõñß êáé ôïὺò öåñåæáßïõò , êáὶ ôïὺò êáôïéêïῦíôáò åí ÃÜæåñ ἐîåêÝíôçóáí ( ÁÅ× . åîåêÝòôçóåí ) êáὶ ἔäùêåí ἐí öåñíῇ ôῇ èõãáôñὶ áὐôïῦ . Manifestly transferred ad libitum from 1Ki_9:16. Knobel, Gen_49:15, translates îַñÎòֹáֵã , er ward zu Frohn des Arbeiters, i.e. he fell under tributary labor, as he himself further on explains. Lange, more poetically and more clearly: “He is become subject to tributary service.” We render the phrase here in prose, with De Wette “subject to tributary service.” The common rendering: “subject to tribute” which Bunsen still retains, gives the erroneous idea that the Canaanites had to pay a tribute in money, like the tributary states in the Turkish empire. The expression is used elsewhere, with the exception of Gen_49:15, “of the Canaanites who became subject to the Hebrews (as Jos_17:13; 1Ki_9:21; Jdg_1:28; Jdg_1:33), and of prisoners taken in war whom the Hebrews made slaves (Deu_20:11; Isa_31:8)” (Knobel). Comp. also Keil on Kings, pp. 44 and 67 [Germ.].

c. Jos_17:1-13. Portion of the Tribe of Manasseh. The description of this province by its boundaries, beginning Jos_17:7, is preceded by some genealogical notices concerning the families of the tribe. Of these that of Machir had already received its territory beyond the Jordan.

Jos_17:1. And there was the lot for the tribe of Manasseh. After it had fallen to Ephraim, Manasseh’s turn came. These introductory words refer only to the country allotted to this tribe west of the Jordan (Jos_17:7-13). This lay north of the possession of Ephraim in a fertile and beautiful region.

For he was the first-born of Joseph,Gen_41:51; Gen_48:14. Keil: “the ëִּé is not to be pressed, and the whole remark is made only with reference to the following genealogical statements.” Better Knobel: “Wherefore (because he was Joseph’s first-born) he received yet a possession in Canaan also, the land of the fathers, God’s land.” ìîָëִéø is placed first and is afterwards taken up by ìåֹ after åַéְäִé , thus: “To Machir. … (and) to him fell Gilead and Bashan.” Why is stated in the parenthetical clause, “because he was a man of war,” Num_32:29 ff. This portion of the tribe, the author would have us understand, had nothing to receive west of the Jordan. They had their part already on the east side.

Jos_17:2. The other sons of Manasseh follow, to whom the lot fell in west Palestine. They are mentioned in Num_26:30-32, where instead of àֲáִéòֵæֶø stands àִéòֵæֶø . By an error of transcription, as Keil conjectures, the á appears to have fallen out. Instead of æְëָøִéí to read ðåֹúָøִéí , as Knobel proposes, is not justifiable; rather, since in genealogies áְּðֵé may indicate all (male and female) posterity, while here, in what follows, female descendants also are mentioned, the æְëָøִéí is added for perspicuity” (Keil).

Jos_17:3. It had been stated also in Num_26:33 that Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, had no sons but only daughters. Zelophehad himself, according to Num_27:3, had died in the wilderness, but the daughters declare it an injustice (Num_27:4) that their father’s name should perish, and that too when he had not been of those that rose up against the Lord in the company of Korah. Moses agrees with them, and at their request grants their wish, an inheritance among their brothers. By this the name of Zelophehad was preserved, which could not have been the case without the possession of an estate to which the name of the original proprietor attached. The law which governed the case is found in Num_27:8-11 (compared with Num_36:6-10), occasioned by this occurrence. They were accordingly heir daughters, comp. Knobel on Num_27:1 ff.

Jos_17:4. Now, since the land was divided, they claim their right, appealing to the command of God through Moses. Eleazar and Joshua without objection immediately promise what they desire.

Jos_17:5-6. “According to this the inheritance coming to the Manassites had to be divided into ten parts, since the male posterity fell into five families, and so received five parts, while the sixth family, that of Hepher, was divided again into five families, through his grand-daughters, the five daughters of Zelophehad, who married men of the other families of their paternal tribe (Num_36:1-10), and received each her special share of the land” (Keil). Because, therefore, the daughters, as heirs, obtained their possession among the male descendants of Manasseh, the inheritance in western Palestine must need be divided into ten parts, while the land of Gilead went to the remaining Manassites. The genealogy is for the rest by no means clear. Comp. Knobel on Num_26:29-34; Keil on Jos_17:1 of this chapter.

Jos_17:7-13. Portion of the Western Branch of the Tribe of Manasseh. The author gives the boundary again from east to west, as in the case of Judah (Jos_15:2 ff.), the sons of Joseph (Jos_16:1 ff.) and Benjamin (Jos_18:12 ff.). So the author of the Apocalypse also names the gates of the New Jerusalem, beginning from the east (Rev_21:13), and Ezekiel designates the several tribe divisions in like manner from east to west (Eze_48:1 ff.).

And the border of Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethah, that lieth before Shechem; and the border went along on [toward] the right hand unto the inhabitants of En-tappuah. What border is meant, the north or south? Knobel thinks the former, Keil and Bunsen the south border. The starting-point lies unquestionably in the east. Asher ( àָùֵׁø ), fifteen Roman miles from Shechem toward Bethshean (Scythopolis), perhaps Teyasir (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 306 f.), or Jafir (Van de Velde, ii. 295, apud. von Raumer, p. 148). This however is not certain, but only so far sure that Asher is to be sought, according to the statement of the Onom., on the road from Shechem to Bethshean, hence in the eastern part of the territory of Manasseh.

Thence the border goes to Michmethah which we have already met with at Jos_16:5. This Michmethah ( îִëְîְúָä , perhaps “hiding-place,” from ëָּîַú , Gesen.) lay, as our passage would indicate, before, i.e. according to the customary use of òַìÎôְּðֵé , east or northeast of Shechem, unless, as Knobel assumes, òַìÎôְּðֵé is to be taken here in reference to a more remote distance = îåּì , Deu_11:30. In this case, Kubatijeh (on Menke’s Map viii. written Kabatijeh) or Kabaat (Buckingham, Syria, i. p. 453), Kabate in Seetzen (ii. p. 166), lying exactly north of Shechem, on the road from Shechem to Jenin would in his view offer itself for comparison. The etymological relationship of the two words is thus established by Knobel: “ î doubtless is to be regarded, with the LXX. as the plural of a sing. îִëְîְúָä , for which they may probably have used also ëְּîָúָä (see on Jos_12:18). Then, since m and b are frequently interchanged (see on Jos_3:16), the present name of the place agrees, etc.” Against this we would oppose the following considerations: (1) It appears to us that the operation by which the relationship between the names Michmethah and Kubatijeh, or Kabaat, or Kabate, is attempted to be proved, is an exceedingly violent one. (2) In Deu_11:30 îåּì does indeed stand for a northwest direction, but it is precisely îåּì that stands there, meaning, in a quite general way, over against, and not the more definite òַìÎôְּðֵé concerning which Knobel himself admits that in geographical statements it is “certainly for the most part to the east,”—precisely in the same way, Knobel might have added, as is the case with ìִôְðֵé (Gen_23:17; Gen_25:18; Deu_32:49). (3) If Michmethah is to be sought so far north, then Jos_16:6, where it is brought in to determine the north border of Ephraim which lies south of Manasseh, is inexplicable. Rather may it be said, that (a) the statement of this passage: àùø òìÎôðé ùëí and (b) the proximity indicated, Jos_16:6, of Taanath-shiloh, which is now recognized in Ain Tana [?], go to show that Michmethah is to be looked for east or northeast of Shechem, perhaps, also, on the road to Bethshean, where Kiepert, indeed (on the large map, 3d and most recent edition, 1866), although with a mark of interrogation, and Menke (Map iii.) have inserted the name. But if this is correct we have here not the north border of Manasseh, hut the south, the same which is given, Jos_16:5 ff., as the north boundary of Ephraim; and there lies before us precisely the same case of the double registry of the same line as between our two tribes and Benjamin (Jos_16:1-4 compared with Jos_18:12-13) on one side, and between Judah and Benjamin (Jos_15:5 ff; Jos_18:15 ff.) on the other. But as regards the north border of Manasseh, it as well as the east border is given in common for both tribes in the second half of Jos_17:10.

Shechem, ùְׁëֶí , now Nablus or Nabulus, having, like Jerusalem, Gibeon, and Jericho, had several names between the times of the patriarchs and of Christ (Gen_12:6; Joh_4:5), lies on the watershed ( ùְׁëֶí = back) between the Mediterranean and the Jordan Valley (Furrer, pp. 237, 238), in a lovely, richly favored valley between Ebal and Gerizim, surrounded by gardens in which nature has prodigally scattered her richness (Furrer, p. 234). See the fresh and beautiful description in Furrer, p. 230 ff.; comp. further, von Raumer, p. 161 ff.; Rob. iii. p. 95 ff. [Tristram, 141 ff.; Stanley, S. & P., 229 ff.]. Shechem has at present about eight thousand inhabitants. From Michmethah the border went to the right ( àֶìÎäַéָּîéï ) unto the inhabitants of en-Tappuah. According to this, en-Tappuah or Tappuah (Jos_16:8) lay south of Michmethah, and hence also south or southwest of Shechem. But Balad Tafuah (comp. on Jos_16:8) lies rather northeast of Shechem. How then should the border go thence toward the right, i.e., southwardly? May not, perhaps, an escape be found from the obscurity (undeniably very great) of this passage in the fact that it reads, not unto en-Tappuah, but only unto the inhabitants of Tappuah? Although then Tappuah itself had lain northeast of Shechem, we might still imagine that the territory of this royal city of the Canaanites (Jos_12:17) had stretched toward the south or southwest. With Knobel, who everywhere here supposes that he has the north boundary line before him, it all goes beautifully. For him the line runs from Asher to Kubatijeh, from Kubatijeh to Jamun ( éָîִéï , in spite of the article, is taken as a proper name = Yamon, Rob. iii. pp. 161, 167), and from Jamun to Kefr Kud. But we repeat, that we are not now concerned with the north limit of Manasseh, but its southern, toward Ephraim. [So Mr. Grove, also, Dict. of the Bible, art. “Manasseh,” p. 1770 c, although he thinks it doubtful whether the portions of Ephraim and Manasseh were intended to be effectually separated, and that, if they were, no clear line of division can now be made out.—Tr.]

Jos_17:8. Another notice of Tappuah, purporting that the land of Tappuah went to Manasseh, the city to Ephraim. The latter possessed, according to Jos_16:9, still other places in Manasseh. Kiepert has inserted Tappuah on the map northwest of Shechem and Michmethah, but with a mark of interrogation. Menke assigns it the same position, perhaps with reference to the brook of reeds mentioned (Jos_16:8), which we here find again in Jos_17:9.

Jos_17:9. And the border descended unto the watercourse Kanah, southward of the watercourse. In Jos_16:8, it reads: From Tappuah the border goes westward toward the Reed-brook, and its out-goings were at the sea. Keil supposes this brook to be the Abu Zabura, which Knobel also mentions at first, although he immediately afterward refers to the Nahr el-Kassab. Von Raumer decides for the latter (p. 51) with greater positiveness, because the old name Reed-brook has been preserved in Nahr el-Kassab. But Nahr el-Kassab is the same stream which on Kiepert’s wall-map appears as Nahr el-Falik (Van de Velde: Falaik), which Kiepert with von Raumer holds to be the Reed-brook (brook of Cana). The border extended south of the brook to the sea, i.e., the Mediterranean sea ( äַéָּîָä Jos_16:8), which Jerome strangely regards as being the mare salsissimum!

These cities belonged to Ephraim among the cities of Manasseh. Thus Jos_16:9 is more exactly defined, “These cities.” Which cities? It is indeed said further: “and the border of Manasseh was north of the brook,” but the definition is made no clearer thereby. The sense can hardly be other than what Masius long ago expressed: “Funiculus, qui discernabat fratrum istorum possessiones, ambiebat ille quidem torrentem Cannosum ( ðçì ÷ðä ) a meridie atque eum attribuebat Manassensibus; verumtamen urbes, quœ illi torrenti ab austro adjacebant, etsi essent reipsa intra Manassensium positœ terminos, nihilominus jure fuerunt Ephraimitarum; quœ vero a septentrione torrentis exstabant, eas obtinebant Manassenses.” For in Jos_17:10 we read still more plainly: “Southward (from the brook it, the land, was) Ephraim’s, and northward (of the same) it was Manasseh’s; and the sea was his border (toward the west). Knobel would, according to Jos_16:9, read áְּðֵé for òָøֵé ; but this is not strictly necessary.

Jos_17:10. South of the Reed-brook the land is here said to have belonged to Ephraim, north of it to Manasseh, a boundary line as simple as could be. Knobel here comes into perplexity, out of which he would escape by supposing that the north border of Manasseh cuts through the Reed-brook, while the north border of Ephraim comes to it, so that the territory of Manasseh there formed a point!—And the sea was his border. Both divisions had the sea on the west, one (Ephraim) south of the Reed-brook, the other (Manasseh) north of it. The account of the north boundary for both in common follows (comp. Jos_16:1 ff.). They struck upon ( éִôְâְּòåּï ) Asher on the north, i.e., on the north side (Jos_19:26). The description of the province concludes with the eastern limit; on Issachar on the east (Jos_19:17). The two tribes were bounded, therefore, (1) on the east by Issachar; (2) on the north by Asher; (3) on the west by the sea; (4) on the south by Benjamin and Dan. Between them they had a division line which is twice referred to, (a) Jos_16:6 ff., (b) in our chapter, Jos_17:7-10; but unfortunately in neither place with such clearness as marks the description e.g. of the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Jos_15:8 ff.). A separate border of Manasseh on the north, such as Knobel assumes, we cannot find given in the text.

Jos_17:11-13. Six cities are enumerated which Manasseh received beyond his own country, in Issachar and Asher, without, however, being able to expel the Canaanites from them. At a later period having become stronger, they were content to make them tributary servants (Jos_17:13). The same report is found again (Jdg_1:27 ff.), where, however, Endor is omitted.

The word áָּðåֹú reminds us of Jos_15:47. Knobel finds here the second document of the Jehovist.

Jos_17:11. Beth-shean ( áֵּéúÎùְׁàָï , i.e., house of rest, now Beisan,—”in an expansion of the Jordan Valley, which is bounded on the west by the low ridge of Mount Gilboa. At the present day ruins of an ancient Roman theatre are found here, but only about seventy or eighty miserable buts for the two hundred actual inhabitants. It stands about four hours from Tiberias, on the road from Jerusalem to Damascus” (von Raumer, p. 150; Rob. iii. 174 ff.). The Philistines hung on its walls the dead body of Saul (1Sa_31:10). It was afterward called Scythopolis (see Herod, i. 104–106, in regard to the origin of the name). From the summit of Gilboa, two thousand two hundred feet high, Furrer (p. 260) saw a green plain lying at his feet on the east, out of which rose the black tents of the Bedouin camps, like dark patches, on the green. The plain extends downward to the Jordan, and he was able to follow its picturesque windings to a considerable distance. “There, not far from the river,” Furrer proceeds, “Beisan must lie, although I could not discern it—the ancient Bethshean on whose walls the Philistines once hung the dead body of Saul.” [Comp. Tristram’s account of Beisan, p. 504 ff.]

Ibleam, where Ahaziah was mortally wounded (2Ki_9:27), a Levitical city (Jos_21:25), perhaps, as Knobel supposes, Jelameh, Jelamah between Zerin and Jenin (Rob. iii. 161). The accusative ( åְàֶúÎéùְׁáֵé ãàֹø ) which follows is remarkable, since the sentence had begun with åַéְäִé ìְ . It is most simply explained by a change of construction, perhaps occasioned by the fact that ìְäåֹøִéùׁ , which governs the accusative, is used in verse 12; to which may be added that in Jdg_1:27, the whole statement begins with åְìàֹÎäåֹøִéùׁ . Nor should it be overlooked, that instead of the cities the inhabitants whom Manasseh could not drive out are mentioned.

Dor, Jos_11:2; Jos_12:23.

En-dor ( òֵéï ãּåֹø ), four Roman miles south of Tabor, according to the Onom. (von Raumer, p. 125), near the northern slope of the Jebel Dachi (Duhy, little Hermon), which rises in “yellow nakedness” over against Tabor (Furrer, p. 308; Rob. p. 171 f.). Endor was the abode of the “woman with a familiar spirit,” whom Saul consulted (1Sa_28:9), but is also celebrated (Psa_83:11) as the scene of the victory in which the Midianites were destroyed. In the parallel passage (Jdg_1:27 ff.) Endor is not mentioned. Taanach, Jos_12:21. Megiddo, Jos_12:21.

The three heights ( ùְׁìùֶׁú äַðָּôֶú ; LXX., ôὸ ôñßôïí ôῆò Íüöåè ; Vulg., tertia pars urbis Naphet). What is intended is the three cities lying on hills: Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo, a Tripolis of mountain cities in distinction from the places on the plain: Bethshean, Ibleam, and Dor. The author might have called the latter also a ùְׁìùֶׁú , a ùְׁìùֶׁú äַùׁôֵìָä , using ùְׁôֵìָä in the general sense of “plain,” and not in the definite geographical signification which in this book it everywhere bears, as e.g., in Jos_15:33.

Jos_17:12. “The Manassites, however, were not in a condition to expel the population from the cities named, so that the Canaanites, according to their will and pleasure, dwelt in this district” (Knobel). The will and pleasure is right vividly expressed by the plastic åַéּåֹàֶì (Jos_7:7; Exo_2:21).

Jos_17:13. But when the Israelites became strong ( çְָæ÷åּ ) they made the Canaanites tributary servants (comp. Jos_10:10), but drive them out they did not. We allow ourselves this translation, after the example of De Wette, to indicate in English something of the effect of the emphatic åäåֹøֵùׁ ìàֹ äåֹøִéùׁåֹ .

d. Jos_17:14-18. Complaint of the Children of Joseph that their Possession is insufficient. “An old, original fragment, and a beautiful, historical trait in the character of Joshua. The unselfish Joshua was himself of Ephraim, Num_13:8; Num_13:16” (Bunsen). As the history of Achsah (Jos_15:13-19), occurring in the midst of the boundary descriptions of Judah, and catalogues of its cities, makes a very refreshing impression on the laborious explorer of these records, so this narrative awakens similar emotions. The children of Joseph, i.e., probably the patriarchs of the tribe, came complaining before their fellow-tribesman Joshua, to whom they had trusted for a better guardianship of their interests. “Why,” they ask, “hast thou given me but one lot and one portion, as a possession, when I am a great people, in so far as Jehovah hath blessed me hitherto.” Joshua, by no means disposed to grant special favors to his own tribe, demands of them to use their strength, to go up into the forest, to clear it out, and establish for themselves new abodes there among the Perizzites and the Rephaim. When they (Jos_17:16) show little inclination to this course, and at the same time intimate that they cannot spread themselves further in the plain because of the formidableness of the Canaanites who dwell there, Joshua (Jos_17:17) still remains firm. In both his replies (Jos_17:15; Jos_17:17) he betrays a touch of irony, as if he would say: Yes, it is true, thou art a numerous people, and hast great strength, and oughtest therefore to have more than one share. But seek to procure this second portion thyself! Rely on thy own power! Cut down the forest! Behold thou wilt drive out the Canaanites; it is precisely thy task to conquer those that have iron chariots and are mighty; no other tribe can do it.” Of the manner in which Ewald (ii. 315–317, 2d [Germ.] ed.) treats this narrative, we shall have occasion to speak further on.

Jos_17:14. As here, so also Jos_16:1 ff; Jos_17:10, the children of Joseph are taken together. They are regarded as one tribe, so to speak, the tribe of Joseph, as Rev_7:8. Comp. also passages like Amo_6:6; Psa_77:16; Psa_78:67; Psa_80:2; Psa_81:6; Eze_37:16; Eze_37:19.

One lot and one portion. âּåֹøָì and çֶáֶì are synonymous and combined for greater emphasis. âּåֹøָì is the lot which is cast; çֶáֶì the measuring line, then the measured inheritance” (Keil). Comp. also Jos_17:5.

So far as ( òַãÎàֲùֶׁø ; not as Gesenius would have it, òַìÎàֲùֶׁø ; de gradu, Maurer) Jehovah hath blessed me hitherto ( òַãÎëֹä , de tempore, Maurer). A quite peculiar blessing had been promised to Joseph (Gen_49:25-26; Deu_33:13-17.

Jos_17:15. Joshua’s answer. Get thee up intothe forest. The forest of the mountain of Ephraim and of its out-goings (Jos_17:18) is meant. That Mount Ephraim (mountain of Israel, Jos_11:16-21) was then covered with woods, is clear from 1Sa_14:25; 2Sa_18:6. Even the forest at Bethel, 2Ki_2:23-24, probably belonged (Winer, ii. 675) to the forest of Ephraim. And even at the present day, according to the uniform testimony of travellers, the heights of Mount Ephraim, forming the northern portion of the mountainous country between the plain of Jezreel and the wilderness of the south (von Raumer, p. 42), are more rich in vegetation than that part of the same mountain which belonged to Judah Especially is this the case with its spurs toward the northwest and northeast. On the northwest a forest-covered hill joins itself to Mount Ephraim connecting the latter with Carmel, that most beautiful, and greenest of all the mountains of Canaan. On the northeast Mount Gilboa, where Saul and Jonathan fell in the contest with the Philistines (1Sa_28:4; 1Sa_31:1-8; 2Sa_1:6-20), constitutes its off-shoot toward the Jordan. On the road from the hamlet of Jelbon, in which word the old name is preserved, Eurrer (p. 260) ascended the mountain by a lofty slope which was in places clothed with a dense oak thicket. A small forest of low oak trees is mentioned by the same traveller as standing on the right of the road from Nazareth to Carmel (p. 280). Without doubt it is the same woods which Schultz describes (Reise in das gelobte Land, pp. 249, 250), since he also notices the “crisp eastern oaks.” Robinson (iii. p. 189 f.) speaks of “a wide strip of low woody heights” by which Carmel is joined on the southwest with the mountains of Samaria. We find woods therefore partly on Mount Ephraim itself, partly on its off-shoots.

At the very foot of this forest, however, on the northwest spur of Mount Ephraim, the children of Joseph had had cities in the plain assigned to them, namely, Taanach, and Megiddo (Dor lay further west on the sea) in the plain of Jezreel (Jos_17:11). Ibleam and Bethshean also (Jos_17:11) lay west and east of Mount Gilboa, being spoken of again in Jos_17:16. Knobel (p. 450) says: “Whether the author thinks also of the Little Hermon lying further north, and so refers to Endor, is doubtful,” and we not only share his doubt but go a step further and consider it quite improbable, since Robinson (iii. p. 171) speaks of that mountain as “a desert, shapeless mass,” and Furrer (p. 308) notices the “yellow nakedness” of the Jebel Duhy, or Dachi.

Cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim, if Mount Ephraim is too narrow ( àָõ here in a different sense from Jos_10:13). Cornel. a Lapide (in Keil, p. 411 f.) long ago hit upon the thought that here and in Jos_17:18, by the forest the Perizzites and the Rephaim were to be understood, thus assuming that there was a metaphor. He says: “Est metaphora, terram enim a Chananœis occupatam vocat sylvam, eo quod sicut sylva exscindi debet, ut locus arari possit; sic exscindendi erant Pherizœi, ut eorum terram occuparent Josephitœ.”

Him Ewald follows, as Keil has pointed out, when he represents the import of Jos_17:15 in the following manner: “not at a loss for the answer, he (Joshua) replied: ‘if they were so numerous (and Mount Ephraim as hitherto occupied by them too small) then they need only move into the forest (i.e. into the thickly settled and cultivated plain) and laboriously cut down for themselves there the tall, profitable trees.’ In other words they should enter the plain surrounding the mountain on which they dwelt, where, however, the ‘Perizzites and Rephaim’ (that is, the enemy) still lay in dense masses, whom the tribe (instead of envying other tribes their inheritance), ought themselves long ago to have destroyed and so to have doubled their possession.” A purely arbitrary explanation, which may be pardoned to old Cornelius a Lapide, but so much the less readily to Ewald, as he arrogates too much to himself, when, with well-known dogmatism, he says (p. 315, note 2): “Already the LXX. failed to understand this ancient passage, hard to be comprehended by reason of its ‘biting scorn’ (sic!), and still less have the moderns understood it.” Wherein the fault of the LXX. consists in this respect, we are unable, after repeated comparison of the original with their version, to discover, unless in the fact that the LXX. venture to render òֲìֵä (quite properly in our humble opinion) by ἀíÜâçèé , while Ewald prefers to make of it march into the plain. Of the “biting scorn” of Joshua we will presently speak again.

Jos_17:16. The sons of Joseph answer, that the mountain really will not suffice for them, while the Canaanites in the valley-land ( áְּàֶøֶõÎäָòֵîֶ÷ ) have iron chariots. They appear as if they had not heard a syllable of going up into the forest.

Is not enough. Here ðִîִöָà is used as in Zec_10:10; Num_11:22 (Knobel and Keil). LXX.: ïὐ÷ ἀñêÝóåé , according to the correct text, instead of ἀñÝóêåé . Comp. also LXX., Num_11:22. The iron chariots of the Canaanites were greatly feared by the Israelites, and were “the main reason why the Hebrews could not establish themselves in the plains (Jos_11:4; Jdg_1:19; Jdg_4:3; 1Sa_13:5). Israel adopted this species of weapons not until the time of David and Solomon (2Sa_8:4; 1Ki_5:6; 1Ki_9:19; 1Ki_10:26)” (Knobel). That the Canaanites had these iron chariots did not hinder the children of Joseph from “occupying the forest region” (Keil), but the plain, as Knobel rightly perceived, since the “chariot-cavalry” (Winer, ii. 671), very dangerous in the plains, could not well get on in the mountain, as the passage of Vegetius (Mil. iii. 24), cited by Winer, shows: “Quadrigœ falcatœ ut primo magnum intulere terrorem, ita postmodum fuere derisui. Nam difficile currus falcatus planum semper invenit campum et levi impedimento detinetur, unoque afflicto aut vulnerato equo decipitur.”

Jos_17:17. Joshua does not allow them to slip out, but holds fast to his declaration already made, the sense of which has been exhibited above.

Jos_17:18. Continuation.A mountain shall be thine, for it is a forest. The mountain of Ephraim is meant. This mountain should fall to the lot of the strong and able house of Joseph, because it was adapted to them as being woodland to be cleared up by them. As the result of this clearing the one lot should become two, as it were, to which Joshua plainly points, Jo