Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Judges 1:27 - 1:36
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Jdg_1:27-36
[Jdg_1:29.—The å here connects Ephraim with Manasseh, Jdg_1:27 : Ephraim also was guilty of not driving out.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:29.— áְּ÷ִøְáּåֹ : lit. “in the midst of them.” Cf. Jdg_1:16; Jdg_1:21; Jdg_1:30; Jdg_1:32-33.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:30.—The “neither” ought to be omitted here and also in Jdg_1:31; Jdg_1:33. Manasseh and Ephraim are coupled together, cf. notes 1 and 2; but from this point each tribe is treated separately: “Zebulun did not drive out,” etc.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:34.— åַéִּìְçֲöåּ : to press, to push. From this word Bachm. infers that Dan had originally taken more of his territory than he now held.—Tr.]
And the Canaanite consented to continue to dwell. Wherever åéּåֹàֶì occurs, it seems necessary to take it as expressing acquiescence in offered proposals and conditions. In this sense it is to be taken Exo_2:21, where Moses consents to enter into the family of Jethro. Upon the proposals made by Micah to the Levite (Jdg_17:11), the latter consents to remain with him. David willingly acquiesces in the proposal to wear the armor of Saul, but finds himself as yet unaccustomed to its use. Manasseh was too weak to expel the inhabitants of these cities. He therefore came to an understanding with them. He proposed that they should peaceably submit themselves. Unwilling to leave the fine country which they occupied, and seeing that all the Canaanites round about had been overpowered, they acceded to the proposition.
Jdg_1:28. When Israel was strong, they made the Canaanite tributary. The narrator generalizes what he has said of Manasseh, and applies it to all Israel. The Canaanite, wherever he was not driven out, but “consented” to remain, was obliged to pay tribute. This lasted, of course, only so long as Israel had strength enough to command the respect of the subject people. Similar relations between conquerors and conquered are of frequent occurrence in history. The inhabitants of Sparta, the Periæki, were made tributary by the victorious immigrant Dorians, and even after many centuries, when Epaminondas threatened Sparta, were inclined to make common cause with the enemy (Manso, Sparta, iii. i. 167). According to Mohammedan law, the unbeliever who freely submits himself, retains his property, but is obliged to pay poll-tax and ground-rent (cf. Tornauv, Das Mosl. Recht, p. 51). When the Saxons had vanquished the Thuringian nobility, and were not sufficiently numerous to cultivate the land, “they let the peasantry remain,” says the Sachsenspiegel (iii. 44), and took rent from them (cf. Eichhorn, Deutsche Staats und Rechtsg., § 15). The treatment which the Israelitish tribes now extended to the Canaanites, was afterwards, in the time of their national decay, experienced by themselves (cf. my History of the Jews in Ersch & Gruber, II. xxvii. 7, etc.). The word îַí , by which the tribute imposed is designated, evidently means ground-rent, and is related to the Sanskrit mâdmetior, to measure. Another expression for this form of tribute is the Chaldee îִãָּä (Ezr_4:20), for which elsewhere îִðְãָּä appears (Ezr_4:13). The Midrash (Ber. Rabba, p. 57, a), therefore, rightly explains the latter as îִãַּú äָàָøֶõ , ground-rent. The terms mensura and mensuraticum, in mediæval Latin, were formed in a similar manner. The Arabic ëøâֹ , Talmudic ëøâä , also, as Hammer observes (Länderverwalt des Chalifats, p. 119), mean tribute and corn.
[But did not drive them out. Bertheau: “ åְäåֹøֵéùׁ ìàֹÎäåֹøִéùׁåֹ : the emphatic expression by means of the infinitive before the finite verb, we regard as indicative of an implied antithesis; but, although Israel, when it became strong, had the power to execute the law of Moses to destroy the Canaanites, it nevertheless did not destroy them.”—Tr.]
Jdg_1:29. And Ephraim did not drive out the Canaanite that dwelt in Gezer. The situation of Gezer may be exactly determined from Jos_16:3. The border of Ephraim proceeds from Lower Beth-horon, by way of Gezer, to the sea. Now, since the position of Beth-horon is well ascertained (Beit ’Ur et-Tatha), the border, running northwest, past Ludd, which belonged to Benjamin, must have touched the sea to the north of Japho, which likewise lay within the territory of Benjamin. On this line, four or five miles east of Joppa, there still exists a place called Jesôr (Jazour Yazûr), which can be nothing else than Gezer, although Bertheau does not recognize it as such (p. 41; nor Ritter, xvi. 127 [Gage’s Transl. iii. 245]). It is not improbable that it is the Gazara of Jerome (p. 137, ed. Parthey), in quarto milliario Nicopoleos contra septentrionem, although the distance does not appear to be accurately given. The Ganzur of Esthor ha-Parchi (ii. 434), on the contrary, is entirely incorrect. The position of Gezer enables us also to see why Ephraim did not drive out the inhabitants. The place was situated in a fine, fertile region. It is still surrounded by noble corn-fields and rich orchards. The agricultural population of such fruitful regions were readily permitted to remain for the sake of profit, especially by warlike tribes who had less love and skill for such peaceful labors than was possessed by Issachar.
Jdg_1:30. Zebulon did not drive out the inhabitants of Kitron nor the inhabitants of Nahalol. This statement will only confirm the remarks just made. There is no reason for contradicting the Talmud (Megilla, 6 a), when it definitely identifies Kitron with the later Zippori, Sepphoris, the present Seffûrieh. As the present village still lies at the foot of a castle-crowned eminence, and as the Rabbinic name Zippori (Tsippori, from öִôּåֹø , “a bird, which hovers aloft”) indicates an elevated situation, the ancient name ÷ִèְøåֹï (from òָèַø=÷ָèַø ) may perhaps be supposed to describe the city as the “mountain-crown” of the surrounding district. The tribe of Zebulon, it is remarked in the Talmud, need not commiserate itself, since it has Kitron, that is, Sepphoris, a district rich in milk and honey. And in truth Seffûrieh does lie on the southern limit of the beautiful plain el-Buttauf, the present beauty and richness of which, as last noted by Robinson (ii. 336), must formerly have been much enhanced by cultivation. In connection with this, it will also be possible to locate Nahalol more definitely. Philologically, it is clearly to be interpreted “pasture” (Isa_7:19). It answers perhaps to the later Abilîn, a place from which a wady somewhat to the northwest of Seffûrieh has its name. For this name comes from Abel, which also means pasture. This moreover suggests the explanation why from just these two places the Canaanites were not expelled. They both became tributary, and remained the occupants and bailiff’s of their pastures and meadows.
Jdg_1:31-32. Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Accho, Zidon, Ahlab, Achzib, Helbah, Aphik, Rehob. The whole history of Israel can be nothing else than a fulfilling of the spirit of the Mosaic law. The division of the land of Canaan is a part of this fulfillment. This division therefore cannot have respect only to the territory already acquired, but must proceed according to the promise. The boundaries of the land destined for Israel were indicated by Moses. The territories which they circumscribe must be conquered. Whatever part is not gained, the failure is the fault of Israel itself. The boundaries indicated, were the outlines of a magnificent country. Splendid coast-lands, stately mountains, wealthy agricultural districts, rich in varieties of products and beauty, inclosed by natural, boundaries. The whole sea-coast with its harbors—Phænicia not excepted—was included; the northeastern boundary was formed by the desert, and lower down by the river. The border lines of the land of Israel, drawn Numbers 34, are based upon the permanent landmarks which it offers; they are accurate geographical definitions, obtained from the wandering tribes of the land. It seems to me that it is only from this point of view that the hitherto frequently mistaken northern boundary of the land, as given Num_34:7-9, can be correctly made out. “And this shall be your north border,” it is there said: “from the great sea ye shall take Mount Hor as your landmark; thence follow the road as far as Hamath; and the border shall end in Zedad: thence it goes on to Ziphron, and ends in Hazarenan.” The range of Mount Casius, whose southernmost prominence lifts itself up over Laodicea (the present Ladikieh), forms the natural northern boundary of Phænicia. This is the reason why on coins Laodicea was called àí áëðòï , the “Beginning of Canaan,” as it might be translated. It is therefore also from the foot of this range that the northern boundary of Israel sets out. The name Mount Hor is simply the ancient equivalent of Mount Casius and also of the later Jebel Akra, which latter term furnishes a general designation for every mountain since the Greek Akra was explained by the Arabic Jebel. From the foot of this mountain ancient caravan roads (suggested by ìְáàֹ çְîָú ) lead to Hamath, and from Hamath to the desert. At present, as in the time of the geographer Ptolemy, who indicated their course, these roads pass over Zedad, at the western entrance of the desert, the modern Sudud (Ritter, xvi. 5 [Gage’s Transl. iii. 175]; xvii. 1443, etc.). Thence the border went southward till it ended in Hazar-enan, the last oasis, distinguished by fertile meadows and good water (Enan), where the two principal roads from Damascus and Haleb to Palmyra meet, and where the proper Syrian desert in which Palmyra (Tadmor) is situated begins. The name Cehere on the Tabula Peutingeriana, Zoaria (for the Goaria of Ptolemy), at present Carietein, Kuryetein (Ritter, xvii. 1457, etc.), may remind us of Hazor.
Tadmor itself did not lay beyond the horizon of Israelitish views. Whithersoever David and Solomon turned their steps, they moved everywhere within the circle of original claims. Israel was not to conquer in unbridled arbitrariness; they were to gain those districts which God had promised them. Conquest, with them, was fulfillment. The eastern border has the same natural character. From Hazar-enan it runs to Shepham, along the edge of the desert to Riblah (the present Ribleh) “on the east side of Ain” (Rob. iii. 534), along the range of Antilebanon, down the Jordan to the Dead Sea. These remarks it was necessary to make here where we must treat of the territories of Asher and Naphtali, the northwestern and northeastern divisions of Israel. For it must be assumed that Asher’s territory was considered to extend as far up as Mount Hor,—that the whole coast from Accho to Gabala was ascribed to him. This coast-region Asher was not sufficiently strong and numerous to command. The division of the land remained ideal nowhere more than in the case of the Phœnician cities. Nowhere, consequently, was the remark of Jdg_1:32 more applicable: “the Asherite dwelt among the inhabitants of the land;” whereas elsewhere the Canaanites dwelt among Israel, though even that was against the Mosaic commands. Nor can it be supposed that the seven cities expressly named were the only ones out of which Asher did not expel the Canaanites. For who can think that this had been done in the case of Tyre, the “fortified city” (Jos_19:29)? The names are rather to be considered as those of townships and metropolitan cities, so that when Zidon is mentioned other cities to the south and north are included as standing under Sidonian supremacy. The express mention of Tyre, in Jos_19:29, is due to the fact that the passage was giving the course of the boundaries. For the same reason, Joshua 19 is not a complete enumeration of places; for of the seven mentioned here, two at least (Accho and Ahlab) are wanting there. That Accho cannot have been accidentally overlooked, is evident from the fact that the border is spoken of as touching Carmel, and that mention is made of Achzib. The relation of Asher to the Phœnician territory was in general the following: A number of places (Jos_19:30 speaks of twenty two) had been wholly taken possession of by the tribe. Outside of these, the Asherites lived widely scattered among the inhabitants, making no attempts to drive them out. The seven cities mentioned above, especially those on the coast, are to be regarded as districts in which they dwelt along with the Canaanites. We have no reason for confining these to the south of Sidon. On the contrary, Esthor ha-Parchi (ii. 413–415) was right in maintaining that cities of the tribe of Asher must be acknowledged as far north as Laodicea. The statements in Joshua for the most part mention border-places of districts farther inland, in which the tribe dwelt, and from which the boundary line ran westward to the sea. Thus, at one time the line meandered ( ùָׁá ) to Zidon (Jdg_19:28); then it came back, and ran toward Tyre (Jdg_1:29). Not till the words, “the ends were at the sea, îֵçֵáֶì àַëְæִéáָä ,” do we get a sea-boundary from north to south. I translate this phrase, “from Chebel towards Achzib:” it includes the whole Phœnician tract. True, the whole enumeration implies that most of the places lay farther south than Zidon, in closer geographical connection with the rest of Israel. But places higher up are also named, for the very purpose of indicating the ideal boundaries. Among these are the places mentioned Jdg_1:30, two of which again appear in our passage. Asher did not drive out the inhabitants of Accho (Ptolemais, the present Akka), but dwelt among them. To the north of this was Achzib (Ecdippa, the present ez-Zib). They dwelt with the inhabitants of Zidon in their dominion. They did not expel the inhabitants of Aphik (Apheca), on the Adonis river (Ritter, xvii. 553, etc.), notwithstanding the ancient idolatry there practiced, on account of which, evidently, it is mentioned. Rehob, since it is here named, must have been a not unimportant place. The Syrian translation of Rehob is ôìèéúà , ôìèéà , paltia, paltusa (platea). This accounts for the fact that the Greeks and Romans speak of an ancient Paltos, otherwise unknown (Ritter, xvii. 890), and of which the present Beldeh may still remind us. Hitherto, this has escaped attention. It was remarked above that the sea-boundary is drawn, Joshua 19, “from Chebel to Achzib.” With this Chebel the çֶìְáָּä (Chelbah, E. V. Helbah), probably to be read çֶáְìָä (Cheblah), of our passage, may perhaps be identified. It is the Gabala of Strabo and Pliny, the Gabellum of the crusaders, the present Jebele, which lies to the north of Paltos, and below Laodicea, and in Phœnician times was the seat of the worship of the goddess Thuro (Ritter, xvii. 893; Movers, ii. 1, 117 ff.). There is but one of the seven cities of which we have not yet spoken, namely, Ahlab, named along with Achzib. It is very probable that this is Giscala, situated in the same latitude with Achzib, but farther inland. In Talmudic times the name of this place was Gush Chaleb; at present there is nothing but the modern name el-Jish to remind us of it.
Jdg_1:33. Naphtali did not drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shemesh and Beth-anath. The names of both these places allude to an idolatrous worship, and are also found in the tribe of Judah. The name of Beth-anath ( áֵּéú òֲðָú ), “House of Echo,” from òִðָä , “to answer,” indicates that its situation was that of the present Bâniâs, the ancient Paneas. The inscriptions on the grotto called Panium, still point to the echo. One of them is dedicated to the “echo-loving” ( öéëåíÞ÷ῳ ) Pan. The love of Pan for the nymph Echo was a widely-spread myth. Another inscription tells of a man who dedicated a niche ( êüã÷çí ) to the Echo (Commentary on Seetzen’s Reisen, iv. 161, 162). The introduction in Greek times of Pan worship in Bâniâs, is moreover also explained by the fact that the name Bethanas (th), required only an easy popular corruption to make it Paneas Robinson (Bib. Res. iii. 409) has again taken up the view, already rejected by Ritter (xvii. 229), which identifies Paneas with the repeatedly occurring Baal-gad, and which on closer inspection is simply impossible. Jos_11:17 says of Baal-gad that it lay in the Bikath ( áִּ÷ְòַú ) Lebanon, under Mount Hermon. Jos_12:7 speaks of it simply as Baal-gad in the Bikath Lebanon. The valley thus spoken of is none other than the Buka’a, i.e. “Hollow Syria.” There is no other hollow region that could be thus indicated. The further determination tachath har Chermon indicates, quite consistently with the meaning of tachath, which frequently combines the signification of “behind” with that of “under,” the Lebanon valley behind Mount Hermon, i.e. on the northern base of Hermon, for on its southern base there can be no Lebanon valley. This alone would suffice to transfer Baal-gad to the Buka’a. But in Jos_13:5 a Lebanon is spoken of “east of Baal-gad under Mount Hermon.” Now, a Lebanon east of Baal-gad there can be only if Baal-gad lies in the Buka’a; and there being a Lebanon on the east, only the northern base of Mount Hermon can be meant by the phrase “under Mount Hermon” (cf. below, on Jdg_3:3). Now, although there ought to be no doubt that Baal-gad lay in the “Hollow,” yet, the addition “under Mount Hermon” cannot have been made without a reason. It was intended to distinguish Baal-gad from Baal-bek, which latter, since it lies in the northern part of the Buka’a, could not properly be said to lie on the northern base of Hermon. We scarcely need to hesitate, therefore, to recognize in Baal-gad the position of the later Chalcis (d Libanuma) whose site is marked by fountains and temple-ruins. “The temple which stands on the summit of the northernmost hill, belongs evidently to an older and severer style of architecture than those at Baalbek. Its position is incomparable” (Ritter, xvii. 185; Hob. iii. 492, etc.).
Besides the inhabitants of Beth-anath, the tribe of Naphtali failed to drive out those of Beth-shemesh also. There was a celebrated place of the same name in Judah, and still another, unknown one in Issachar. Concerning the tribe of Naphtali also the remark is made that they dwelt among the Canaanites, the inhabitants of the land. Their assigned boundaries likewise went far up to the north. They inclosed Cœlo-Syria, as was already remarked. The peculiar mode in which Beth-shemesh is here spoken of, along with Beth-anath, is doubtless intended to point it out as a remarkable seat of idol worship, whose people nevertheless Israel did not expel, but only rendered tributary. The most celebrated place of the north was the temple-city in the “Hollow,”—Beth-shemesh, as later Syrian inhabitants still called it,—Baalbek as we, following the prevailing usage of its people, Heliopolis as the Greeks, named it. The Egyptian Heliopolis also bore the name Beth-shemesh, House of the Sun. Baalbek answers to the name Baalath, to which, as to Tadmor, Solomon extended his wisdom and his architecture.
Jdg_1:34-35. And the Amorite crowded the sons of Dan into the mountains. The domains of the tribe of Dan lay alongside of those of Benjamin, between Judah on the south and Ephraim on the north. They should have reached to the sea; but the warlike dwellers on the western plain, provided with the appliances of military art, had resisted even Judah. The plain which we are here told the sons of Dan could not take, seems to have been the magnificent and fertile Merj Ibn Omeir, which opens into the great western plain. This may be inferred from the remark in Jdg_1:35 : “The Amorite consented to remain on Mount Heres, in Aijalon, and in Shaalbim.” This plain, as Robinson (iii. 144) accurately observes, reaches to the base of the steep mountain wall, on the top of which Sàris is the first place met with. It must be this mountain land that is meant by Mount Heres. Southward of it is the ridge on which Yâlo lies, which is justly considered to be the ancient Aijalon. Perhaps no place answers more closely to the Shaalbim of our passage, than Amwâs (Emmaus, Nicopolis), twenty minutes distant from the conical Tell Latrôn. It is evident that ùַׁòַìְáִéí has nothing to do with ùׁåּòָì , “fox,” but belongs to the Chaldaic ùְׁìַë , “to connect,” ùְׁìַá , “steps,” to which the Hebrew òָðַá corresponds The position of Amwâs is “on the gradual declivity of a rocky hill,” with an extensive view of the plain (Bob. iii.146), “where,” as Jerome says, “the mountains of Judah begin to rise.” When Jerome speaks of a tower called Selebi, he probably refers to the neighboring castle Latrôn.
The sons of Dan were not only unable to command the plain, but also on some points of the hill-country they suffered the inhabitants to remain. Har Heres ( äַø çֶøֶí ) means the “mountain of the Sun;” but the attempts to bring its position into connection with Ain Shems cannot succeed, since that lies much farther south, in the valley. Heres was the name of the mountain chain which at Beth-horon enters the territory of Ephraim, and on which Joshua was buried. Possibly, the name Sârîs or Soris contains a reminiscence of it. This explains the remark, that “the hand of the sons of Joseph became powerful and made the Amorites tributary.” That which was impossible for the tribe of Dan, Ephraim from their own mountains performed.
Jdg_1:36. The border of the Amorite remained from the Scorpion-terrace, from Sela and onward. This peculiar statement is explained by the composition of the whole tableau presented by the first chapter. It had been unfolded how far the tribes of Israel had performed the task appointed by Moses, by taking the territories whose borders he had indicated. For this reason, it had been stated concerning all the tribes, what they had not yet taken, or had not yet wholly nationalized. Neither the eastern, nor the northern and western boundaries had been hitherto fully realized. Only the southern border had been held fast. This line, as drawn Num_34:3 ff., actually separated Israel and the heathen nations. Jdg_1:36 is, as it were, a citation from the original Mosaic document. After beginning the sentence by saying “and the border of the Amorite went from Akrabbim and Sela,” it is brought to a sudden close by the addition åְîַòְìָä , “and onward, because it is taken for granted that the further course of the border to the “Brook of Egypt” is known from the determinations of Moses as recorded in Numbers. There it was said, “Your border shall go to the south of Maaleh Akrabbim (at the southern extremity of the Dead Sea), pass through Zin, and its end shall be to the south of Kadesh-barnea.” Here, the statement is somewhat
more exact, inasmuch as the border is prolonged from Akrabbim eastward to Sela, i.e. Petra. From Akrabbim westward it proceeds along the already indicated route, over Kadesh-barnea, Hazar-addar, and Azmon, to the “Brook of Egypt” (Wady el-Arîsh, Rhinocorura). This course the writer deemed sufficiently indicated by the words “and onward.”
Thus we have it explained why so many undertakings of Christians and of the church fail, even while the truth is still confessed. The word of God has not lost its power; but the people who have it on their tongues do not thoroughly enter into its life. The fear of God is still ever the beginning of wisdom; but it must not be mixed with the fear of men. Preaching is still ever effective; but respect to tribute and profitable returns must not weaken it. Perfect obedience has still ever its victory; but that which does not belong to God comes into judgment, even though connected with Christian matters. Israel still confessed God, though it allowed the tribes of Canaan to remain; but nominal service vice is not enough. When confession and life do not agree, the life must bear the consequences.
Starke: We men often do not at all know how to use aright the blessings which God gives, but abuse them rather to our own hurt.—The same: Our corrupt nature will show mercy only there where severity should be used, and on the other hand is altogether rough and hard where gentleness might be practiced.—The same: Self-conceit, avarice, and self-interest can bring it about that men will unhesitatingly despise the command of God. When human counsels are preferred to the express word and command of God, the result is that matters grow worse and worse.
[Scott: The sin [of the people in not driving out the Canaanites] prepared its own punishment, and the love of present ease became the cause of their perpetual disquiet.
Henry: The same thing that kept their fathers forty years out of Canaan, kept them now out of the full possession of it, and that was unbelief.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[Jdg_1:27.—So Dr. Cassel. But the position of the verb at the beginning of the sentence suggests a contrast with what precedes: the House of Joseph took Luz; but drive out the inhabitants of Beth-shean Manasseh (a member of the House of Joseph) did not do. Cf. next note.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:29.—The å here connects Ephraim with Manasseh, Jdg_1:27 : Ephraim also was guilty of not driving out.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:29.— áְּ÷ִøְáּåֹ : lit. “in the midst of them.” Cf. Jdg_1:16; Jdg_1:21; Jdg_1:30; Jdg_1:32-33.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:30.—The “neither” ought to be omitted here and also in Jdg_1:31; Jdg_1:33. Manasseh and Ephraim are coupled together, cf. notes 1 and 2; but from this point each tribe is treated separately: “Zebulun did not drive out,” etc.—Tr.]
[Jdg_1:34.— åַéִּìְçֲöåּ : to press, to push. From this word Bachm. infers that Dan had originally taken more of his territory than he now held.—Tr.]
[On this identification of the brook Kanah, cf. Grove in Smith’s Bib. Dict., s. v. “Kanah, the River.”—Tr.]
Its magnificent position is also celebrated in the Talmud, Erubin, 19 a; cf. Ketuboth, 112 a. See below on Judges 4.
[According to Bachmann, Knobel had already proposed this identification. Keil, after Schultz, suggests Khirbet-Belameh, half an hour south of Jenîn.—Tr.]
Levy (Phönizische Inschriften, i. 35) thought that he read this Dor on a Sidonian inscription together with Joppa. It is very doubtful whether he has found any one to agree with him.
[On the derivation and radical idea of the word îַí , opinions are very much divided. There is no unanimity even as to the usage of the word. Keil (on 1Ki_4:6, Edinb. ed. 1857) asserts that it “nowhere signifies vectigal, tribute, or socage, but in all places only serf or socager.” But the better view seems to be that although it is some times used concretely for socagers or bond-servants, (cf. 1 Kgs 5:27 (1Ki_5:13)), yet its proper and usual meaning is tribute-service Out of the twenty-three instances in which the word occurs, there is not one in which it can be shown that it means tribute in money or products; while it is abundantly evident that in many cases it does mean compulsory labor, personal service. What kind of service the Israelites here required of the Canaanites does not appear. It may have been labor on public works, or assistance rendered at certain times to the individual agriculturist. This appears at least as probable as Bachmann’s suggestion that perhaps “the Canaanite merchants” were expected to furnish certain “commercial supplies and services.” Our author’s view in favor of “ground-rent,” cannot be said to derive the support of analogy from his historical references. For as Bachmann justly remarks, “the case in which the conquerors of a country leave the earlier population in possession of their lands on condition of paying ground-rent, is the reverse of what takes place here, where a people, themselves agriculturists, take personal possession of the open country, and concede a few cities to the old inhabitants.” It is probable, however, that the situation varied considerably in different localities, cf. Jdg_1:31 f. and Jdg_1:34.—Tr.]
Wetzstein (Hauran, p. 88) writes: “Of Ziphron (Arab. Zifrân) wide-spread ruins are yet existing. According to my inquiries, the place lies fourteen hours N. E. of Damascus, near the Palmyra road. It has not yet, I think, been visited by any traveller.” It is impracticable here to enter into further geographical discussions, but the opinion of Keil (on Num_34:7-9), who rejects the above determination, cannot be accepted as decisive, if for no other reason on account of the general idea by which he is evidently influenced.
The Targum also translates øְçֹá by ôְּìèְéåּúָà not only when used as a common noun (cf. Buxtorf, Lex. Chald., p. 1740), but also in proper names, as Rehoboth Tr. Gen_10:11.
1Ki_9:18. Others refer this to Baalath in the tribe of Dan. Cf. Keil on Jos_19:44, and on 1Ki_9:18.
Compare the Syrian ùìáà , “anfractus inter duos montes.” Cf. Castelli p. 912.
[Bachmann: “That the House of Joseph used its greater strength not to exterminate the Amorite cities, but only to render them tributary, thus benefitting itself more than the tribe of Dan, sets forth the unsatisfactory nature of their assistance, and conveys a just reproach. Meanwhile, however, it seems that the subjugation of the Amorite by the House of Joseph was so far at least of use to Dan as to enable them to reach the coast, in partial possession of which, at least, we find the tribe in Jdg_5:17.” But cf. our author in loc.—Tr.]
[The foregoing paragraph, rendered somewhat obscure by its brevity, was explained by the author, in reply to some inquiries, as follows: “I endeavored to show that the idea of the passage is, that the original boundary lines of Israel, as drawn by Moses, had nowhere been held against the Amorite, i. e. the original inhabitants, except only in the south. Everywhere else, the inhabitants of Canaan, especially the Amorite, had thus far prevented the Israelites from taking full possession of the land; but in the south the boundary between Israel and the Amorite remained as drawn by Moses, in Num_34:3. I would ask that in connection with this the remarks under Jdg_1:31-32, be considered. The whole first chapter is an exposition of the fact that Israel had not yet attained to complete possession of Canaan. It is a spiritual-geographical picture of what Israel had not yet acquired, and what nevertheless it should possess.” In other words, Dr. Cassel’s idea is, that the main thought of Judges 1. may be expressed in two sentences: 1. On the west, north, and east Israel did not actually realize the assigned boundary lines between itself and the original inhabitants—the term Amorite being used in the wider sense it sometimes has. Cf. Gage’s Ritter, ii. 125. 2. On the south, the Mosaic line was made good, and continued to be held. The first of these sentences is expressed indirectly, by means of illustrative instances, in Jdg_1:4-35; the second, by direct and simple statement, in Jdg_1:36. In that verse, the narrative which in Jdg_1:9 set out from Judah on its northward course, returns to its starting-point, and completes what might be called its tour of boundary inspection, by remarking that the southern boundary (known as southern by the course ascribed to it) corresponded to the Mosaic determinations. Jdg_1:36, therefore, connects itself with the entire previous narrative, and not particularly with Jdg_1:34-35.
This explanation labors, however, under at least one very serious difficulty. It assumes that in the expression “border of the Amorite,” the gen. is an adjective gen., making the phrase mean the Amoritish (Canaanitish) border, just as we speak of the “Canadian border,” meaning the border of the U. S. over against Canada. But in expressions of this kind, the gen. is always the genitive of the possessor, so that the border of the Amorite, Ammonite, etc., indicates the boundary of the land held by the Amorite, Ammonite, etc. It seems necessary, therefore, with Bertheau, Keil, Bachmann, etc., to read this verse in connection with Jdg_1:34-35, and to and in it a note of the extent of territory held by the Amorite. The question then arises, how it is to be explained. We take for granted that the Maaleh Akrabbim of this verse is the same as that in Num_34:4 (a line of cliffs, a few miles below the Dead Sea, dividing the Ghôr from the Arabah, see Rob. 2:120), and is not, as some have thought, to be sought in the town Akrabeh, a short distance S. E. of Nâbulus (Rob. 3:296). The other point mentioned is äַíֶּìַò , the Rock. Commentators generally take this to be Petra, in Arabia Petræa; but the difficulties in the way of this view are insurmountable. In the first place we never hear of Amorites (take it in the wider or narrower sense) so far south as Petra, in the midst of the territories of Edom. In the next place, îַòְìָä means upward, i. e. under the geographical conditions of this verse, northward (Dr. Cassel’s onward, i. e. downward to the sea, could scarcely be defended). Now, a line running from Akrabbim to Petra, and thence northward, would merely return on its own track, and would after all leave the Amorite territories undefined on just that side where a definition was most needed because least obvious, namely, the southern. It seems, therefore, altogether preferable (with the Targ., Kurtz, Hist. O. Cov. 3:239, Keil, and Bachm.) to take äַíֶּìַò as an appellative, and to find in it a second point for a southern boundary line. Kurtz and Keil identify it with “the (well-known) rock” at Kadesh (the Kudes of Rowlands, cf. Williams, Holy City, 1:463 ff.), from which Moses caused the water to flow, Num_20:8. Bachmann prefers the “bald mountain that ascends toward Seir” (Jos_11:17), whether it be the chalk-mountain Madurah (Rob. 2:179), or, what he deems more suitable, the northern wall of the Azâzimat mountains, with its masses of naked rock. In the vast confusion that covers the geography of this region, the most that can be said, is, that either view would serve this passage. In either case we get a line running from Akrabbim on the east in a westerly direction. From this southern boundary the Amorite territories extended “upwards.”
But when? Manifestly not at the time of which Judges 1. treats, cf. Jdg_1:9-19. The statement refers to the time before the entrance of Israel into Canaan, and is probably intended to explain the facts stated in Jdg_1:34-35, by reminding the reader of the originally vast power of the Amorite It was not to be wondered at that an enemy once so powerful and widely diffused should still assert his strength in some parts of his former domain. Cf Bachmann.—Tr.]