The lot for the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families was to the border of Edom, even to the wilderness of Zin southward, at the uttermost part of the south.
Parallel Translations
-
The lot for the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families was to the border of Edom, even to the wilderness of Zin southward, at the uttermost part of the south.
-
This then was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families; even to the border of Edom the wilderness of Zin southward was the uttermost part of the south coast.
-
And the lot for the tribe of the children of Judah according to their families was unto the border of Edom, even to the wilderness of Zin southward, at the uttermost part of the south.
Cross-references (5)
Passages linked to Joshua 15:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Numbers 26:55-56 Notwithstanding, the land shall be divided by lot. According to the names of the tribes of their fathers they shall inherit. According to the lot shall their inheritance be divided between the more and the fewer.”
- Numbers 33:36-37 They traveled from Ezion Geber, and encamped at Kadesh in the wilderness of Zin. They traveled from Kadesh, and encamped in Mount Hor, in the edge of the land of Edom.
- Numbers 34:3-5 then your south quarter shall be from the wilderness of Zin along by the side of Edom, and your south border shall be from the end of the Salt Sea eastward. Your border shall turn about southward of the ascent of Akrabbim, and pass along to Zin; and it shall pass southward of Kadesh Barnea; and it shall go from there to Hazar Addar, and pass along to Azmon. The border shall turn about from Azmon to the brook of Egypt, and it shall end at the sea.
- Joshua 14:2 by the lot of their inheritance, as Yahweh commanded by Moses, for the nine tribes, and for the half-tribe.
- Ezekiel 47:19 “The south side southward shall be from Tamar as far as the waters of Meriboth Kadesh, to the brook, to the great sea. This is the south side southward.
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (22 sources)
Historical commentary, presented as a primary source — not an endorsement.
Private notes
Saved on this device only — never synced or sent anywhere.
John Calvin 1540 · Public Domain 1. I have already premised, that I would not…
1. I have already premised, that I would not be very exact in delineating the site of places, and in discussing names, partly because I admit that I am not well acquainted with topographical or chorographic science, and partly because great labor would produce little fruit to the reader; nay, perhaps the greater part of readers would toil and perplex themselves without receiving any benefit. With regard to the subject in hand, it is to be observed, that the lot of the tribe of Judah not only falls on elevated ground, the very elevation of the territory, indicating the dignity of the future kingdom, but a similar presage is given by its being the first lot that turns up. What had already been obtained by arms, they begin to divide. The names of the ten tribes are cast into the urn. Judah is preferred to all the others. Who does not see that it is raised to the highest rank, in order that the prophecy of Jacob may be fulfilled? Then within the limits here laid down, it is well known that there were rich pastures, and vineyards celebrated for their productiveness and the excellence of their wines. In this way, while the lot corresponds with the prophecy of Jacob, it is perfectly clear that it did not so happen by chance; the holy patriarch had only uttered what was dictated by the Spirit.
If any are better skilled in places, a more minute investigation will be pleasant and useful to them. But lest those who are less informed feel it irksome to read unknown names, let them consider that they have obtained knowledge of no small value, provided they bear in mind the facts to which I have briefly and summarily adverted — that the tribe of Judah was placed on elevated ground, that it might be more conspicuous than the others, until the scepter should arise from it — and that a region of fruitful vineyards and rich pastures was assigned to his posterity — and, finally, all this was done, in order that the whole people might recognize that there was nothing of the nature of chance in the turning up of a lot, which had been foretold three centuries before. Besides, it is easy for the unlearned to infer from the long circuit described, that the territory thus allocated to one tribe was of great extent. For although some diminution afterwards took place, its dominions always continued to be the largest.
Read full note →
It is necessary, however, to bear in mind what I formerly observed, that nothing else was determined by the lot than that the boundary of the children of Judah was to be contiguous to the land of Edom and the children of Sin, and that their boundary, in another direction, was to be the river of Egypt and the Mediterranean Sea — that those who had been selected to divide the country proceeded according to the best of their judgment, in proportioning the quantity of territory allotted to the number of their people, without extending their boundaries any farther — and that they followed the same method in other cases, as vicinity or other circumstances demanded.
Any error into which they fell, did not at all affect the general validity of their decision. For as they were not ashamed partly to recall any partition that might have been made without sufficient consideration, so the people in their turn, while they acknowledged that they had acted in the matter with the strictest good faith and honesty, submitted the more willingly to whatever they determined. Thus, notwithstanding any particular error, their general arrangements received full effect.
It will be worth while to make one remark on the city Jebus, whose name was afterwards Jerusalem. Although it had been already chosen, by the secret counsel of God, for his sanctuary, and the seat of the future kingdom, it however continued in the possession of the enemy down to the time of David. In this long exclusion from the place on which the sanctity, excellence, and glory of the rest of the land were founded, there was a clear manifestation of the divine curse inflicted to punish the people for their sluggishness: since it was virtually the same as if the land had been deprived of its principal dignity and ornament. But on the other hand, the wonderful goodness of God was conspicuous in this, that the Jebusites who, from the long respite which had been given them, seemed to have struck their roots most deeply, were at length torn up, and driven forth from their secure position.
John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Jos 15:1 [This] then was the lot of the…
Jos 15:1 [This] then was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families; [even] to the border of Edom the wilderness of Zin southward [was] the uttermost part of the south coast.
Ver. 1. This then was the lot of the tribe, &c.] The lot came forth, up, or out {Jos 19:1; Jos 19:10; Jos 19:17} of the bosom, lap, {Pro 16:33} pot, or some other vessel in use for that purpose; for the manner of this lottery is not expressed: but that it was solemnly done with fasting and prayer premised, is probable; {Jdg 20:26 Act 1:24} and that it was ordered by a divine providence, is certain. {Pro 16:33} And hence it was that Judah’s lot came out first, and fell out in the best part of the land: to show that God had a purpose to exalt that tribe above the rest.
John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Matthew Poole 1685 · Public Domain For the general understanding of this business, it must…
For the general understanding of this business, it must be known,
1. That this work of casting lots was transacted with great seriousness and solemnity, in God’s presence, with prayer and appeal to him for the decision of the matter.
Read full note →
2. That although an exact survey of this land was not taken till Jos 18:4,5, yet there was, and must needs be, a general description of it, and a division thereof into nine parts and a half; which as far as they could guess, were equal either in quantity or in quality.
3. That the lot did not at this time so peremptorily and unchangeably determine each tribe, that their portion could neither be increased nor diminished; as is manifest, because after Judah’s lot was fixed, Simeon’s lot was taken out of it, Jos 19:9, though after the land was more distinctly known and surveyed, Jos 18, it is likely the bounds were more certain and fixed.
4. That the lot determined only in general what part or quarter of the land belonged to each tribe, but left the particulars to be determined by Joshua and Eleazar, &c. For the manner of this lottery, it is probably conceived that there were two urns or pots, into one of which were put the names of all the tribes, each in a distinct paper, and into the other the names of each portion described; then Eleazar, or some other person, drew out first the name of one of the tribes out of one pot, and then the name of one portion out of the other pot, and that portion was appropriated to that tribe; and so in the rest. And with respect to these pots, in the bottom of which the papers lay, these lots are oft said to come up, or come forth. The lot of the tribe of the children of Judah came out first by God’s disposition, as a note of his preeminency above his brethren. Edom lay south-east from Judah’s portion.
Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Matthew Henry 1710 · Public Domain Judah and Joseph were the two sons of Jacob…
Judah and Joseph were the two sons of Jacob on whom Reuben's forfeited birth-right devolved. Judah had the dominion entailed on him, and Joseph the double portion, and therefore these two tribes were first seated, Judah in the southern part of the land of Canaan and Joseph in the northern part, and on them the other seven did attend, and had their respective lots as appurtenances to these two; the lots of Benjamin, Simeon, and Dan, were appendant to Judah, and those of Issachar and Zebulun, Naphtali and Asher, to Joseph. These two were first set up to be provided for, it should seem, before there was such an exact survey of the land as we find afterwards, Jos 18:9. It is probable that the most considerable parts of the northern and southern countries, and those that lay nearest to Gilgal, and which the people were best acquainted with, were first put into two portions, and the lot was cast upon them between these two principal tribes, of the one of which Joshua was, and of the other Caleb, who was the first commissioner in this writ of partition; and, by the decision of that lot, the southern country, of which we have an account in this chapter, fell to Judah, and the northern, of which we have an account in the two following chapters, to Joseph. And when this was done there was a more equal dividend (either in quantity or quality) of the remainder among the seven tribes. And this, probably, was intended in that general rule which was given concerning this partition (Num 33:54), to the more you shall give the more inheritance, and to the fewer you shall give the less, and every man's inheritance shall be where his lot falleth; that is, "You shall appoint two greater portions which shall be determined by lot to those more numerous tribes of Judah and Joseph, and then the rest shall be less portions to be allotted to the less numerous tribes." The former was done in Gilgal, the latter in Shiloh.
In these verses, we have the borders of the lot of Judah, which, as the rest, is said to be by their families, that is, with an eye to the number of their families. And it intimates that Joshua and Eleazar, and the rest of the commissioners, when they had by lot given each tribe its portion, did afterwards (it is probable by lot likewise) subdivide those larger portions, and assign to each family its inheritance, and then to each household, which would be better done by this supreme authority, and be apt to give less disgust than if it had been left to the inferior magistrates of each tribe to make that distribution. The borders of this tribe are here largely fixed, yet not unalterably, for a good deal of that which lies within these bounds was afterwards assigned to the lots of Simeon and Dan. 1. The eastern border was all, and only, the Salt Sea, Jos 15:5. Every sea is salt, but this was of an extraordinary and more than natural saltness, the effects of that fire and brimstone with which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed in Abraham's time, whose ruins lie buried in the bottom of this dead water, which never either was moved itself or had any living thing in it. 2. The southern border was that of the land of Canaan in general, as will appear by comparing Jos 15:1-4 with Num 34:3-5. So that this powerful and warlike tribe of Judah guarded the frontiers of the whole land, on that side which lay towards their old sworn enemies (though their two fathers were twin-brethren), the Edomites. Our Lord therefore, who sprang out of Judah, and whose the kingdom is, shall judge the mount of Esau, Oba 1:21. 3. The northern border divided it from the lot of Benjamin. In this, mention is made of the stone of Bohan a Reubenite (Jos 15:6), who probably was a great commander of those forces of Reuben that came over Jordan, and died in the camp at Gilgal, and was buried not far off under this stone. The valley of Achor likewise lies upon this border (Jos 15:7), to remind the men of Judah of the trouble which Achan, one of their tribe, gave to the congregation of Israel, that they might not be too much lifted up with their services. This northern line touched closely upon Jerusalem (Jos 15:8), so closely as to include in the lot of this tribe Mount Zion and Mount Moriah, though the greater part of the city lay in the lot of Benjamin. 4. The west border went near to the great sea at first (Jos 15:12), but afterwards the lot of the tribe of Dan took off a good part of Judah's lot on that side; for the lot was only to determine between Judah and Joseph, which should have the north and which the south, and not immovably to fix the border of either. Judah's inheritance had its boundaries determined. Though it was a powerful warlike tribe, and had a great interest in the other tribes, yet they must not therefore be left to their own choice, to enlarge their possessions at pleasure, but must live so as that their neighbours might live by them. Those that are placed high yet must not think to be placed alone in the midst of the earth.
Matthew Henry's Commentary on the Whole Bible (1708–1710) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Gill 1763 · Public Domain This then was the lot of the tribe of…
This then was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families,.... The land of Canaan was divided by lot to the several tribes, and the tribe of Judah had its lot first; of the manner of casting lots; see Gill on Num 26:55; It seems as if the lot was first cast for the tribes of Judah and Joseph, when the former had the southern, and the latter the northern part of the land for their portion, which was done in Gilgal; after this lots were cast in Shiloh for the other seven tribes, who had the land divided among them, which lay between Judah and Joseph, or between the southern and northern parts of the land, see Jos 18:1, &c. and it seems that not only the land was divided to the tribes by lot, but that the portion of land which belonged to each tribe was divided in the same way to the several families and households belonging thereunto; as is here suggested, with respect to the tribe of Judah, whose lot reached
even to the border of Edom; or Idumea, which lay to the south of the land of Canaan:
Read full note →
the wilderness of Zin southward was the uttermost part of the south coast; the same with Kadesh, and lay upon the borders of Edom; see Num 33:36.
John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.
John Wesley 1765 · Public Domain The bounds of the inheritance of Judah, ver. 1-12.…
The bounds of the inheritance of Judah, ver. 1-12. The assignment of Hebron to Caleb and his family, ver. 13-19. The cities of Judah, ver. 20-63.
The lot - For the general understanding of this, it must be known
Read full note →
1. That casting lots was transacted with great seriousness and solemnity, in God's presence, with prayer and appeal to him for the decision of the matter.
2. That although exact survey of this land was not taken 'till chap. xviii, 4, 5, yet there was, and must needs be a general description of it, and a division thereof into nine parts and an half; which, as far as they could guess, were equal either in quantity or quality.
3. That the lot did not at this time so unchangeably determine each tribe, that their portion could neither be increased or diminished; as is manifest, because after Judah's lot was fixed, Simeon's lot was taken out of it, chap. xix, 9, though after the land was more distinctly known and surveyed, it is likely the bounds were more certain and fixed.
4. That the lot determined only in general what part of the land belonged to each tribe, but left the particulars to be determined by Joshua and Eleazar. For the manner of this, it is probably conceived, that there was two pots, into one of which were put the names of all the tribes, each in a distinct paper, and into the other the names of each portion described; then Eleazar or some other person, drew out first the name of one of the tribes out of one pot, and then the name of one portion out of the other, and that portion was appropriated to that tribe. And with respect to these pots, in the bottom of which the papers lay, these lots are often said to come up, or come forth. Of Judah - Whose lot came out first by God's disposition, as a note of his preeminency above his brethren. Of Edom - Which lay southeast from Judah's portion. Judah and Joseph were the two sons of Jacob, on whom Reuben's forfeited birthright devolved. Judah had the dominion entailed upon him, and Joseph the double portion. Therefore these two tribes are first seated: and on them the other seven attended.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain The lot of the tribe of Judah described, 1.
CHAPTER XV
The lot of the tribe of Judah described, 1.
Read full note →
Their south border, 2-4.
Their east border, 5-11.
Their west border, 12.
Caleb's conquest, 13-15.
Promises his daughter to the person who should take
Kirjath-sepher, 16.
Othniel his kinsman renders himself master of it, and gets
Achsah to wife, 17.
Her request to her father to get a well watered land, which
is granted, 18, 19.
The cities of the tribe of Judah are enumerated, 20-63.
NOTES ON CHAP. XV
Verse 1. This then was the lot of the tribe of - Judah] The geography of the sacred writings presents many difficulties, occasioned by the changes which the civil state of the promised land has undergone, especially for the last two thousand years. Many of the ancient towns and villages have had their names so totally changed, that their former appellations are no longer discernible; several lie buried under their own ruins, and others have been so long destroyed that not one vestige of them remains. On these accounts it is very difficult to ascertain the situation of many of the places mentioned in this and the following chapters. But however this may embarrass the commentator, it cannot affect the truth of the narrative. Some of the principal cities in the universe, cities that were the seats of the most powerful empires, are not only reduced to ruins, but so completely blotted out of the map of the world that their situation cannot be ascertained. Where is Babylon? Where are Nineveh, Carthage, Thebes, Tyre, Baalbec, Palmyra, and the so far-famed and greatly celebrated TROY? Of the former and the latter, so renowned by historians and poets, scarcely a vestige, properly speaking, remains; nor can the learned agree on the spot once occupied by the buildings of those celebrated cities! Should this circumstance invalidate the whole history of the ancient world, in which they made so conspicuous a figure? And can the authenticity of our sacred historian be impaired, because several of the places he mentions no longer exist? Surely no: nor can it be called in question but by the heedless and superficial, or the decidedly profane. Although some of the cities of the holy land are destroyed, and it would be difficult to ascertain the geography of several, yet enough remain, either under their ancient names, or with such decisive characteristics, that through their new names their ancient appellatives are readily discernible.
It is natural to suppose that the division mentioned here was made after an accurate survey of the land, which might have been made by proper persons accompanying the conquering army of the Israelites. Nine tribes and a half were yet to be accommodated, and the land must be divided into nine parts and a half. This was no doubt done with the utmost judgment and discretion, the advantages and disadvantages of each division being carefully balanced. These were the portions which were divided by lot; and it appears that Judah drew the first lot; and, because of the importance and pre-eminence of this tribe, this lot is first described.
By their families] It is supposed that the family divisions were not determined by lot. These were left to the prudence and judgment of Joshua, Eleazar, and the ten princes, who appointed to each family a district in proportion to its number, c., the general division being that alone which was determined by the lot.
To the border of Edom] The tribe of Judah occupied the most southerly part of the land of Canaan. Its limits extended from the extremity of the Dead Sea southward, along Idumea, possibly by the desert of Sin, and proceeding from east to west to the Mediterranean Sea, and the most eastern branch of the river Nile, or to what is called the river of Egypt. Calmet very properly remarks, that Joshua is particular in giving the limits of this tribe, as being the first, the most numerous, most important that which was to furnish the kings of Judea; that in which pure religion was to be preserved, and that from which the Messiah was to spring.
Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Joseph Benson 1811 · Public Domain Jos 15:1. This then was the lot — For…
Jos 15:1. This then was the lot — For the general understanding of this business of casting lots, it must be observed, 1st, That it was transacted with great seriousness and solemnity, in God’s presence, with prayer and appeal to him for the decision of the matter. 2d, That although an exact survey of this land was not taken till afterward, Jos 18:4-5; yet there was, and must needs be, a general description of it, and a division thereof into nine parts and a half; which, as far as they could guess, were equal either in quantity or quality. 3d, That the lot did not at this time so unchangeably determine the portion of each tribe that it could neither be increased nor diminished, as is manifest; because, after Judah’s lot was fixed, Simeon’s lot was taken out of it, Jos 19:9. 4th, That the lot determined only in general what part of the land belonged to each tribe, but left the particulars to be determined by Joshua and Eleazar. For the manner of this, it is probably conceived, that there were two urns, into one of which were put the names of all the tribes, each in a distinct paper, and into the other the names of each portion described; then Eleazar, or some other person, drew out first the name of one of the tribes out of one urn, and then the name of one portion out of the other, and that portion was appropriated to that tribe. And with respect to these urns, in the bottom of which the papers lay, these lots are often said to come up, or come forth.
Of Judah — Whose lot came out first by God’s disposition, as a note of his pre-eminency above his brethren. To the border of Edom — Which lay south-east from Judah’s portion. Judah and Joseph were the two sons of Jacob on whom Reuben’s forfeited birthright devolved. Judah had the dominion entailed upon him, and Joseph the double portion. Therefore these two tribes are first appointed; and on them the other seven attended. By their families — The lot, it appears, determined only the right of each tribe to such or such a portion of the general division of the country. Joshua, Eleazar, and the rest of the commissioners, when they had thus given each tribe its province, by lot, did afterward (and it is probable by lot likewise) subdivide those larger portions, and assign to each family its inheritance, and then to each household; which would be better done by this supreme authority, and in a way less apt to give disgust, than if it had been left to the inferior magistrates of each tribe to make that distribution.
Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Albert Barnes 1834 · Public Domain The inheritance of the tribe of Judah is described…
The inheritance of the tribe of Judah is described first by its general boundaries on all four sides Jos 15:1-12; then reference is again made, for the sake of completeness, to the special inheritance of Caleb which lay within these boundaries Jos 15:13-20; and lastly a list of the towns is given Josh. 15:21-63. Consult the marginal references.
Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.
Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary 1859 · Public Domain Sin, or Sina, (ver. 3,) bordering upon Idumea, where…
Sin, or Sina, (ver. 3,) bordering upon Idumea, where the city of Cades-barne was situated, Numbers xiii. 22. It is now impossible to ascertain the precise situation of all the place mentioned in Scripture, as the land of Chanaan has been subject to so many changes. But this inconvenience attends all ancient geography. If those who attempt to unravel such labyrinths in profane authors, deserve praise, much more do those who do their utmost to explain the difficulties of sacred history. It was once very necessary to have the limits of the tribes marked out with precision, that, at the return from captivity, they might occupy their own. Now we may be satisfied if we can point out some of the places of the greatest importance. The limits of the tribe of Juda are specified with particular care, on account of the dignity and power of that tribe, which was to give kings to all the land, and a Messias to the world, as well as to preserve the true religion. The greatest part of the southern regions of Chanaan fell to their share, from the Dead Sea, by Idumea, to the Nile, and as far north as Jerusalem and the torrent of Cedron. (Calmet)
George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures 1864 · Public Domain Division of West Palestine among the Nine and a…
SECTION SECOND
Division of West Palestine among the Nine and a Half Tribes remaining. Appointment of the Cities of Refuge, and the Cities of the Levites
Read full note →
Joshua 15-21
1. Territory of the Tribe of Judah
Joshua 15
a. Its Boundaries
Jos_15:1-12
1This then was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families; even to the border of Edom, the wilderness of Zin southward was the uttermost part of the south coast. 2And their south border was from the shore [end] of the salt sea, from the bay [Heb. tongue] that looketh southward: 3And it went out to the south side to [of] Maaleh [the ascent of] Acrabbim, and passed along to Zin, and ascended up on the south side unto [of] Kadesh-barnea, and passed along to 4Hezron, and went up to Adar, and fetched a compass to Karkaa: From thence it [and] passed toward Azmon, and went out unto the river [water-course] of Egypt; and the goings out of that [the] coast [border] were1 at the2 sea; this shall be your south coast [border].
5And the east border was the salt sea, even unto the end of the Jordan: and their [the] border in the north quarter was from the bay [tongue] of the sea, at the uttermost part [the end] of the Jordan: 6And the border went up to Beth-hogla, and passed along by the north of Beth-arabah; and the border went up to the stone of Bohan the son of Reuben: 7And the border went up toward Debir from the valley of Achor, and so northward looking [and turned northward] toward Gilgal, that is before the going up to Adummim, which is on the south side of the river [water-course]: and the border passed toward the waters of En-shemesh [Sun-spring], and the goings out thereof were at En-rogel [Fullers-spring]: 8 And the border went up by [into] the valley of the son of Hinnom, unto the south side of the Jebusite; the same is Jerusalem: and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of the giants [Rephaim] northward: 9And the border was drawn3 from the top of the hill [mountain] unto the fountain of the water of Nephtoah, and went out to the cities of mount Ephron; and the border was drawn to Baalah, which is Kirjath-jearim: 10And the border compassed [took a compass] from Baalah westward unto mount Seir, and passed along unto the side of mount Jearim (which is Chesalon) on the north side [Fay, more exactly: to the side northward of Har-jearim, that is Chesalon], and went down to Beth-shemesh, and passed on to Timnah: 11And the border went out unto the side of Ekron northward: and the border was drawn to Shicron, and passed along to mount Baalah, and went out unto Jabneel; and the goings out of the border were at the sea.
12And the west [prop. sea] border was to [or at] the great sea, and the coast thereof. This is the coast [border] of the children of Judah round about, according to their families.
b. Caleb’s Possession. His Daughter Achsah. Conclusion to Jos_15:1-12
Jos_15:13-20. Comp. Jos_14:6-15; Jdg_1:10-15
13And unto Caleb the son of Jephunneh he gave a part among the children of Judah, according to the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah] to Joshua, even the city of Arba [Kirjath-arba, Jos_14:15] the father of Anak, which city is Hebron. 14And Caleb drove thence the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, and Ahiman, and Talmai, the children [sons] of Anak. 15And he went up thence to the inhabitants of Debir: and the name of Debir before was Kirjath-sepher [Book-city, comp. Jos_15:49]. 16And Caleb said, He that smiteth Kirjath-sepher, and taketh it, to him will I give Achsah 17my daughter to wife. And Othniel, the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it: and he gave him Achsah his daughter to wife. 18And it came to pass, as she came unto him [came in], that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and she lighted 19off her [the] ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wouldest thou? Who answered [And she said], Give me a blessing; for thou hast given me4 a south land [prop. a land of the south-country]; give me also springs of water: and he gave her the upper springs, and the nether springs. 20This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Judah according to their families.
c. Catalogue of the Cities of the Tribe of Judah
Jos_15:21-63
α. Cities in the South
Jos_15:21-32
21And the uttermost cities5 of the tribe of the children [sons] of Judah toward 22the coast [border] of Edom southward were Kabzeel, and Eder, and Jagur, And 23 24Kinah, and Dimonah, and Adadah, And Kedesh, and Hazor, and Ithnan, Ziph, and Telem, and Bealoth, 25And Hazor, Hadattah [Hazor-hadattah], and Kerioth, 26 27and Hezron [Kerioth-hezron] which is Hazor, Amam, and Shema, and Moladah, 28And Hazar-gaddah, and Heshmon, and Beth-palet, And Hazar-shual, and Beer-sheba, 29and Bizjoth-jah, Baalah, and Iim, and Azem, 30And Eltolad, and Chesil, 31and Hormah, And Ziklag, and Madmannah, and Sansannah, 32And Lebaoth, and Shilhim, and Ain, and Rimmon: all the cities are twenty and nine, with [and] their villages.
β. Cities in the Lowland
Jos_15:33-47
33 34And in the valley [lowland], Eshtaol, and Zoreah, and Ashnah, And Zanoah, and En-gannim, Tappuah, and Enam, 35Jarmuth, and Adullam, Socoh, and Azekah, 36And Sharaim, Adithaim, and Gederah, and Gederothaim; fourteen cities with [and] their villages:
37Zenan, and Hadashah, and Migdalgad, 38And Dilean, and Mizpeh, and Jok, 39theel, Lachish, and Bozkath, and Eglon, 40And Cabbon, and Lahmam,6 and Kithlish, 41And Gederoth, Beth-dagon, and Naamah, and Makkedah; sixteen cities with [and] their villages:
42 43 44Libnah, and Ether, and Ashan, And Jiphtah, and Ashnah, and Nezib, And Keilah, and Achzib, and Mareshah; nine cities with [and] their villages:
45Ekron, with [and] her towns [Heb. daughters], and her villages: 46From Ekron even unto the sea [or, and westward], all that lay near [by the side of] 47Ashdod, with [and] their villages: Ashdod with [omit: with] her towns and her villages; Gaza, with her towns [daughters] and her villages, unto the river [water-course] of Egypt, and the great sea7 and the border thereof.
γ. Cities on the Mountain
Jos_15:48-60
48And in the mountains [prop. on the mountain], Shamir, and Jattir, and Socoh, 49And Dannah, and Kirjath-sannah, which is Debir, 50And Anab, and Eshtemoh, and Anim, 51And Goshen, and Holon, and Giloh; eleven cities with [and] their villages:
52 53Arab, and Dumah, and Eshean, And Janum,8 and Beth-tappuah, and Aphekah, 54And Humtah, and Kirjath-arba (which is Hebron) and Zior; nine cities with [and] their villages:
55Maon, Carmel, and Ziph, and Juttah, 56And Jezreel, and Jokdeam, and Zanoah, 57Cain, Gibeah, and Timnah; ten cities with [and] their villages. 58Halhul, Beth-zur, and Gedor, 59And Maarath, and Beth-anoth, and Eltekon; six cities with [and] their villages:9
60Kirjath-baal (which is Kirjath-jearim) and Rabbah; two cities with [and] their villages.
δ. Cities in the Wilderness
Jos_15:61-63
61In the wilderness, Beth-arabah, Middin, and Secacah, 62And Nibshan, and the city of Salt, and En-gedi; six cities with [and] their villages.
63As for the Jebusites the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the children [sons] of Judah could not drive them out; but the Jebusites dwell with the children [sons] of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The beginning of the account concerning the division of Palestine having been given in Jos_15:1-6 of the preceding chapter, we find the continuation of it in Jos_15:1 and onward. The enumeration of names which now follows, embracing five chapters in all, with only three interruptions (chaps. Jos_15:3-19; Jos_17:3-18; Jos_18:1-10) and those instructive, is extremely valuable for the geography of Palestine. It suggests a comparison with Homer’s catalogue of ships, Il. ii. 484 ff. For the cartographic presentation of the places named the maps of Kiepert, Van de Velde, and Menke may be consulted. [Osborne’s Wall-map, also, and the maps accompanying Robinson’s Researches]. In Joshua 15 we have given us the province of the tribe of Judah, (a) its bounds (Jos_15:1-12); (b) Caleb’s possession (Jos_15:13-19); (c) a list of the cities (Jos_15:20-63).
a. Jos_15:1-12. Its Boundaries, Jos_15:1. And there was the lot of the tribe of the sons of Judah, according to their families: toward (אֶל not על) the border of Edom, (toward) the wilderness of Zin, southward, in (מִן as Gen_2:8; Gen_11:2) the extreme south;i.e. the territory of the tribe of Judah embraced the most southern part of the land, so that, as Keil rightly supposes, it touched Edom in the east and in the south had the wilderness of Zin as its border. The position of this wilderness is determined, from Num_20:1; Num_27:14; Num_33:36, by that of Kadesh-barnea concerning which we have already spoken, on Jos_14:6. According to this view, the wilderness of Zin also must be sought in the Arabah, and according to Num_13:26, should have formd the northern part of the wilderness of Paran. Cf. the Articles Zin and Paran in Winer, ii. 135 and 192 [and in the Dict. of the Bible].—The general account of the position of the land of Judah is followed (Jos_15:2-12) by the more particular description of the boundaries; and first, the south border is drawn (Jos_15:2-4) so as to coincide in general with Num_34:3-5.
Jos_15:2. Its starting-point is the end of the Salt sea, more exactly still, the tongue which turns southward. “This tongue is the south (more accurately southernmost) part of the Dead Sea, below the promontory which stretches far into the sea west of Kerah (Robinson, ii. 231–234), and extending quite to the southern point at the so-called salt-mountain, and salt-morass from which the border of Judah began” (Keil). The Salt-mountain (Kaschm Usdum), and salt-swamp are accurately given on Kiepert’s Map.
From this point the border runs in a tolerably direct course toward the south, as we learn from Jos_15:3 which says: It went out toward the south side of the ascent of Acrabbim. On Acrabbim comp. Jos_11:17. If the mountain Acrabbim is the same as the Bald mountain, mentioned Jos_11:17; Jos_12:7, as a south boundary, this height (Knobel: ascent) of Acrabbim would be a pass in this Bald mountain. Knobel who rejects the identity of the Bald and Acrabbim mountains, believes that the latter was the steep pass es-Sufah, S. W. of the Dead Sea, which view is indicated by Menke on his map, while Kiepert’s sketch supports our opinion. From this south-side of the hill of Acrabbim, the border goes over toward Zin, i.e. perhaps a definite place (Keil) or mountain (Knobel) in the wilderness of Zin and deriving its name therefrom. Thence it went up to the side of Kadesh-barnea, and passed along to Hezron,…. and went out at the water-course of Egypt, and the goings out of the border were at the sea. In other words: The border went constantly southward to Kadesh-barnea (Num_34:3). South of Kadesh it turned toward the west, since it came out finally at the torrent of Egypt (comp. Jos_13:3) and at the sea. Hezron (Jos_15:25 with the addition “that is Hazor”) Adar, Karkaa, Azmon, are to us unknown places. The torrent of Egypt was spoken of Jos_13:3. The sea is evidently the Mediterranean sea. Ruins of considerable cities are still met with in these regions then allotted to the tribe of Judah (Robinson, i. 290, 318; ii. 591 f.).
Jos_15:4. This shall be your south border. The jussive is to be explained, as Masius and Keil observe, by reference to Num_32:2.
Next, in Jos_15:5 a, the east border is given: the salt sea in all its extent from south to north, to the end of the Jordan,i.e. to its embouchure at the Dead Sea.
Jos_15:5 b–11. North Border. This went forth from the northern tongue of the sea at the mouth of the Jordan, and is given a second time, Jos_18:15-19, as the south line of Benjamin.
Jos_15:6. It went up toward Beth-hogla, a boundary point between Judah and Benjamin, belonging to the latter, perhaps the same as the threshing floor of Atad and Abel-mizraim (mourning of the Egyptians) Gen_1:10, between Jericho and the Jordan, discovered again by Robinson, ii. 268 in Ain Hadschla, (cf. von Raumer, p. 177). From Beth-Hogla it passed on northwardly to Beth-Arabah, which is ascribed now to Judah (Jos_15:61), now to Benjamin (Jos_18:22), and lay (Jos_15:61) in the wilderness at the north end of the Dead Sea; and went up to the stone of Bohan, the son of Reuben. This stone of Bohan “must from the עָלָה and יָרד, Jos_18:17, have lain nearer the mountain, that is, more to the west or southwest” (Knobel). Keil seeks it on the same grounds “nearer the mountain,” and declines any more exact determination. Further conjectures see in Knobel, p. 415.
Jos_15:7. From the stone of Bohan it went up toward Debir which lay in the vicinity of Gilgal, to be distinguished evidently from the Canaanitish royal city conquered by Joshua near Hebron (Jos_10:29; Jos_10:38; Jos_12:13; Jos_15:15; Jos_15:49; Jos_21:5; 1 Chron. 7:58),—from the valley of Achor, Jos_7:26. Now it turned northward toward Gilgal, that is before the going up to Adummim, which is on the south side of the water-course. Keil supposes this Gilgal not to be the place of encampment mentioned Jos_4:19, because here “its position is determined with reference to another place than Jericho.” This reason would have force only if “the other place,” the ascent of Adummim, could not be shown to have been in the same region. But so long ago as the time of Jerome, he observes that the ascent of Adummim (now Galaat el Demm) (Ritter, xv. 493 [Gage’s transl. iii. 10], Tobler, Denkwürdigkeiten, p. 698), lay on the road from Jerusalem: “est autem confinium tribus Judœ et Benjamini, descendentibus ab Ælia ubi et castellum militum situm est, ob auxilia viatorum.” He has in mind, as we may suppose, since from the context Luk_10:30 flits before him, the road from Jerusalem to Jericho. But Gilgal lay near Jericho, according to Jos_4:19 being itself not a city but a larger circuit, whence, Jos_18:17, we read of גלילו̇ת. The watercourse is the Wady Kelt, south of Riha. Further particulars see in Knobel, pp. 416, 417. With this view von Raumer also agrees, comp. pp. 198 with 169.
The border now goes to the Sun-spring as in Jos_18:17. “That is the present Ain el-Hodh, or Apostles’ Spring, three-quarters of an hour northeast of Jerusalem, the only spring on the road to Jericho. Seetzen, ii. p. 273, Tobler, Topographie, etc., ii. p. 398 ff.” (Knobel). From the Sun-spring it went (see the side map to Map iii. in Menke) in a southwest direction (conversely Jos_18:7) to the Fullers’ Spring (עינ רגל, Spies’ Spring would be עֵינ מרַגֵּל, cf. Gen_13:9 ff.; Jos_6:22). This spring is mentioned again, 2Sa_17:17; 1Ki_1:9. It is the present deep and copious Well of Job (von Raumer, p. 307), or of Nehemiah, on the south side of Jerusalem, where the valleys of Kidron and Hinnom unite (Robinson, i. 354–491; Tobler, ii. p. 50 ff.)” (Knobel). Furrer (p. 57) says concerning it: “Somewhat south of the gardens (p. 56) which spread themselves in the moderately broad valley formed by the junction of the ravines of Hinnom and Kidron together with the Tyropœon, we come to an old well, called En Rogel in the O. T., at the present time, Job’s Well. Although it is more than one hundred feet deep [Robinson, one hundred and fifty feet], it overflows, upon a long continuance of rainy weather, which is regarded in Jerusalem as a joyful occurrence, indicating a good year. The over flow meanwhile lasts but a short time. I struck the water at a depth of twenty-eight feet…… The scenery about the fountain is very attractive. The hills rise high on the east and west. To the north one sees the spurs of Zion and Moriah, but little of the city walls. Southward the eye follows the course of the valley to its turn toward the southeast. There a declivity of the mountain with its olive trees and beautiful green fields formed a very pleasing back-ground.”10
Jos_15:8. From En-rogel the border went up into the valley of the son of Hinnom, on the south side of the Jebusite, that is Jerusalem. The direction accordingly runs southwest on the south side of Jerusalem, where the valley mentioned lies. It is noted also, Jos_18:16; Neh_11:30, as a border between Judah and Benjamin. It was the place where, after Ahaz, the horrible sacrifice of children was offered (2Ki_23:10; 2Ch_28:3; 2Ch_33:6; Jer_7:31; Jer_19:2; Jer_19:6; Jer_32:35). The man from whom it derived its name is as little known as Bohan the son of Reuben (Jos_15:6). On account of the offerings to Moloch, the valley became “a symbol of Hell, the name of which, γεέννα (Chald. נְּחִנָּם, in whichםנֹּחִ־יגֵּ is perceptibly audible) is thence derived, cf. Mat_5:22, εἰς τὴν γέενναν το͂υ πυρός. Hitzig and Böttcher (apud Winer, i. 492) dispute the common view that the valley was named after a person, Hinnom, and take חִנֹּם as an appellative = moaning, wailing; certainly a very appropriate designation of the scene of the sacrifice of so many innocent victims. This hypothesis falls in well with Kethib, 2Ki_23:10, נּי בני ח׳.—יְבוּסִי “for the complete expression עִיר הָיבוּסִי, Jdg_19:11. Jerusalem is in the same connection, called also וְבוּם, Jdg_19:11; 1Ch_11:4” (Knobel). All in the time before David. So Bethel was earlier called Luz (Gen_28:19), Bethlehem Ephrath, Gen_35:16; Mic_5:1. Out of the valley of Hinnom the border now ascended to the top of the mountain that lieth before the valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the end of the valley of giants northward. The mountain on which the border went up lies according to this statement west of the vale of Hinnom and at the north end of the vale of Rephaim. This vale of Rephaim is one which extends in a southwest direction from Jerusalem to Mar Elias, one hour long, a half hour wide, fertile (Isa_17:5), and still well cultivated, a valley-plain (עֶמֶק) not properly a vale (עֵי ,בּקְעָה) “spacious enough to serve as a camp for an army (2Sa_5:18; 2Sa_5:22; 2Sa_23:13; 1Ch_11:5),” named after the old gigantic race of Canaanites, the Rephaim, from whom sprang Og king of Bashan (Jos_12:4). “It is bounded on the north by a slight rock-ridge, which constitutes the border of the valley of Hinnom, Winer, ii. 332; Robinson, i. 324; Tobler, ii. 401 ff.) That is the mountain which is here meant.
Jos_15:9. From the summit of this mountain, the line was drawn (תָּאר, related to תּוּר, to go around, from which תּאַר, outline, form, shape of the body, 1Sa_28:14) to the fountain of the water of Nephtoah. This fountain of the water of Nephtoah, i.e. Liftah, one hour northwest of Jerusalem, irrigates a strip of smiling gardens, and its excellent water is carried also to Jerusalem (Dieterici, Reisebilder, ii. p. 221 f.; Tobler, ii. 258 ff. apud Knobel) Valentiner, p. 95, observes: “Liftah numbers its fighting men by hundreds, and provides Jerusalem, among other things, with water from its copious fountain. From its position it is doubtless to be regarded as the fountain of Nephtoah, from which the dividing line between Judah and Benjamin ran on to the cities of Mount Ephron. This latter must not be confounded with Ephraim, which lay further north, Jos_15:9; Jos_18:15.” From this fountain it ran as Valentiner, with reference to our passage, correctly states, up to the cities of Mount Ephron, and was drawn to Baalah, which is Kirjath-jearim This mount Ephron is not elsewhere mentioned. It was certainly between Liftah and Kureyet el-Enab, therefore probably the prominent ridge, on which stand the places Soba, Kartal, Kulonieh, etc., and near which the road from Jerusalem to Joppa runs, Robinson, ii. 328 ff.” (Knobel). Baala, that is, Kirjath-jearim, one of the cities marked in Jos_9:17; Jos_18:25-26; Ezr_2:25; Neh_7:29, as belonging to Gibeon, “now Kureyet el-Enab, three hours northwest of Jerusalem, see Jos_15:60,” (Knobel). The border still followed constantly a northwest course.
Jos_15:10. Now, however, it took a compass (bent around, נָסַבּ) from Baala westward unto mount Seir. This mount Seir must not be mistaken for the Edomite mountain (Gen_32:3; Num_24:18; Deu_2:4-5; Deu_2:29; Jos_24:4); rather the mountain range is intended which runs in a southwest direction as far as the Wady Surar. The name has perhaps been preserved in Sairah, Robinson, ii. 363” (Winer, ii. 443). Cf. also Robinson, Later Bibl. Res., p. 155, who gives the height of the ridge as one thousand five hundred feet above the level of the sea.
Passed along to the side of mount Jearim (which is Chesalon) towards the north. Chesalon, probably, now Kesla (Robinson, ii. 363, more definitely, Later Bibl. Res. p. 154), was called also Har-jearim = mountain of forests, as Baala or Kirjath-jearim, = city of forests, or forest-town. The region appears therefore to have been earlier thickly covered with woods. Thence the border went down to Beth-shemesh, and passed on to Timnah. Beth-shemesh = house of the sun, here under this name as a border town of Judah; Jos_19:41, called Ir-shemesh and counted as a border town of Dan; according to Jos_21:9; Jos_21:16; 1 Chron. 7:59, a city of the priests, known especially from the narrative concerning the ark of the covenant, 1Sa_6:9-20. Robinson (3:17–20) found, “to the west of the village Ain Schems, on the plateau of a low swell or mound, between the Surar on the north and a smaller Wady on the south, the manifest traces of an ancient site. Here are the vestiges of a former extensive city consisting of many foundations, and the remains of ancient walls of hewn stone…… Both the name and the position of this spot seem to indicate the site of the ancient Beth-shemesh of the Old Testament,” comp. Later Bibl. Res., p. 153; also, Furrer, p. 187–211, especially 198–201. Timnah, or Timnatha (Jos_19:43) belonging to Dan, now Tibneh, west of Beth-shemesh (Furrer, p. 200), the home of Samson (Jdg_14:1-4). In the vineyards of Timnah, without anything in his hand he killed the lion (Jdg_14:5-6).
Jos_15:11. Now the boundary, following a northwest course, went out unto the side of Ekron northward,i.e. to a point lying in the vicinity of Ekron north of this Philistine city. Then it was drawn to Shicron (Socreir, Sugheir; Knobel, p. 419), and passed along to mount Baala. This mount Baala is probably, as Keil and Knobel also suppose, “the short line of hills running almost parallel with the coast, which Robinson observed west of Ekron (Akir), iii. 22, 23. From this mount Baala the border went out unto Jabneel, and then to the sea, where its goings out were. Jabneel or Jabneh (2Ch_26:6, יבְנֶה), destroyed by Uzziah, the Jamnia so often mentioned in the books of Maccabees (1Ma_4:15; 1Ma_5:58; 1Ma_10:69; 1Ma_15:40; 2Ma_12:9). After the destruction of Jerusalem, there was here a high school of the Jews and a Sanhedrim (Reland, p. 823, after the Talmud; apud von Raumer, p. 204). It is now Jebna, “a large village on an insignificant hill west of Akir (Knobel, after Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, p. 20 f.; Wittmann’s Reisen, ii. p. 7). Another Jabneel, which is mentioned Jos_19:33, lay on Lebanon.
Jos_15:12. Gives the West Border.The great sea,i.e., the Mediterranean. The borders thereof (הַנְּבוּל), is to be explained as in Jos_13:23; Jos_13:27, cf. also Num_34:6.
b. Jos_15:13-20 (comp. Jos_14:6-15; Jdg_1:10-15). Caleb’s Possession. His daughter Achsah. Conclusion to a. Nothing is said here as in the episode, Jos_14:6-15, of any demand of Caleb, but simply Jos_15:13 that Joshua gave Hebron to Caleb, according to the command of God. On the other hand we have here, in almost literal agreement with the account in Jdg_1:10-15, the story of Achsah, whom Caleb gave as a reward for the conquest of Debir, which is not alluded to in Joshua 14.
Jos_15:13. It is stated that Joshua, according to the command of Jehovah (אֶל פִּי יי, here and Jos_17:3, with which Gesenius compares Psa_5:1; Psa_80:1, אֶל־הַנְּחִילוֹת, and also 1Sa_26:4, אֶל־נָכוֹן), gave Caleb his portion (חֵלֶק) among the children of Judah. This command must have been communicated to Joshua then, as they were dividing the land (Knobel). A complete account of the facts is wanting, for Jos_14:9, which Keil would apply here, speaks not of a command of God to Joshua but of an oath of Moses to Caleb, cf. further the explanation of Jos_14:9. Hebron is here called Kirjath-arba as in Jos_15:54; Jos_20:7; Jos_21:11; Gen_23:2; Gen_35:27 (Knobel).
Jos_15:14-19. The history of Achsah, the daughter of Caleb, is introduced with the remark that Caleb drove out of Hebron the three sons of Anak, Sheshai, Ahiman, and Talmai, descendants (יְליִדֵי) of Anak.
Jos_15:15. Thence he proceeded against the inhabitants of Debir. According to Jos_11:21, Joshua had conquered and devoted Debir. On the position of this city see on Jos_11:21. Debir before was Kirjath-sepher. Jos_15:49, the same city is called קִרְיַת־סַנָּה. On this diversity of names cf. Keil on Jos_10:38. The there quoted explanation of Bochart (Can. ii. 17) on סַנָּה: “Id Phœnicibus idem fuit quod Arabibus Sunna, lex, doctrina, jus canonicum,” suits better to קִריַת־סֵפֶר than if, as Gesenius supposes, סַנְסַנָּה=סַנָּה, ramus palmœ, and קִריַת־סַנּה therefore = palm city.
Jos_15:16. Caleb, like Saul, 1Sa_17:25, promises his daughter Achsah as a wife to whomsoever would conquer the city, which was found difficult to take. עֵכֶס=עכסְהָ signifies properly foot-chains, cf. Isa_3:18.
Jos_15:17. And Othniel, son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb, took it. So we translate,11 according to the view of the Masoretes, with Keil, Bunsen, and Winer (ii. 185) who appeal to Jdg_1:13; Jdg_3:9. Omitting the comma after Kenaz, and making “the brother” in apposition with Kenaz (Kenaz the brother) is grammatically allowable, but is not the most obvious, cf. Jdg_1:13 (Bunsen). Vulg. frater; LXX. ἀδελφοῦ. Othniel (עְָתְניאֵל = lion of God) was, according to Jdg_3:9, the first Judge of Israel, who delivered his people from the tyranny of the Mesopotamian King Chushan-rishathaim. On the allowableness of his marriage, see Michaelis, Ehegesetze Mosis, § 82, Laws of Moses, § 117.
Jos_15:18. Achsah had not gone with the rest into the war, but had remained with her father probably in Hebron. As now she came to Debir to become Othniel’s wife, She moved him (וַתְסִיתֵהוּ from סוּת or סִית not used in Kal, perhaps “to be excited,” then in Hiphil, “to incite;” so here and Jdg_1:14; 2Ch_18:2; in particular, “to tempt to something wrong,” Deu_13:7; Isa_36:8; Jer_38:22, and often) to ask of her father a field (Jdg_1:14 more definitely the field which belonged to Debir), and lighted off (וַתִּצִנַח from the rare צָנַח cognate with צָנַצ, Jdg_1:14; Jdg_4:21 = to sink down, to go under; LXX: και ἐβόησεν ἐκ το͂υ ὄνου; Vulg.: “suspiravitque ut sedebat in asino.” This translation of the LXX. followed by the Vulg., raises the conjecture that the LXX., instead of the unusual וַתִּצְנַח, read וַתִּצעַק) from the ass. “Whether Othniel followed her is not said. She herself proceeded further, and on approaching her father she sprang from the ass and humbled herself before him (Knobel). So did Rebecca also at her first meeting with Isaac (Gen_24:64). Caleb perceived that she had something unusual to present to him, and asked: What is to thee?What wouldest thou? or what dost thou wish?
Jos_15:19. And she said: Give me a blessing, בְּרָכָה, i.e., as in Gen_33:11, a gift, a present, as Gen_33:10, מִנְתָה is used instead of it. This gift should consist in springs of water, since Caleb had given her toward the south country (נֶגֶב, comp. Jos_10:40). It is to be noted, first, that here Debir is reckoned as belonging to the Negeb, while the city in Jos_15:49 is counted to the mountain; probably, as Knobel suggests, because the region was like the Negeb. Besides, the Negeb begins, at least, in that section. Secondly,מַיּם גֻּלּוֹת occurs only here and Jdg_1:15, and is explained either “water springs” (Bunsen: Wasserstrudel, whirlpool or eddy), as Gesenius and Keil prefer, or, according to Bertheau and Knobel, who quote Zec_4:2-3; Ecc_12:6; 1Ki_7:41, “water-holders,” inclosed fountains, which גַּל, Son_4:12, should also mean. We venture not to decide, but certainly hold the translation “water springs” in a poetically colored passage, to be finer than the transfer of “water-holders.” Neither can we exactly approve Bunsen’s “Wasserstrudel.” Thirdly, we notice that Achsah names the springs instead of the fields which were watered by them, in order doubtless “to express the direct antithesis to the נֶגֶב:” perhaps also from feminine shrewdness and cunning, that she might not directly bring out her proper wish. That gardens and fields in Palestine are even to the present day watered from springs and cisterns is well known, cf. what was said above on Jos_15:7, also Son_2:6; Robinson, i. 541; ii. 285; iii. 95.
And he gave her the upper springs and the lower springs. Caleb responds to the wish of his daughter, and gives her higher and lower springs, that is, higher and lower fields watered by springs. How large this possession was cannot be determined. Finally let us remark, in passing, that Handel, in his Oratorio of Joshua, brings forward Othniel and Achsah as chief personages.
Jos_15:20 Belongs as a conclusion to Jos_15:1-12. Its position shows that Jos_15:13-19 were inserted. So also Keil: “the 20th verse contains the subscription or conclusion to the first division of our chapter, with which the description of the bounds of the inheritance of Judah closes.”
c. List of the Cities of the Tribe of Judah. From Jos_15:21 on follow the names of the cities of the tribe of Judah, and a. the cities in the south country (Jos_15:21-32); β. the cities in the lowland (Jos_15:33-47);γ. the cities on the mountain (Jos_15:48-60); δ. the cities in the wilderness (Jos_15:61-62). The whole is concluded with a notice (Jos_15:63) concerning the Jebusites.
a. Jos_15:21-32. Cities in the South Country. Jos_15:21, מִקְצֶה, at the extremity or end; מִן, as in Jos_15:1. In the south-country, מִנֶּגֶב; cf. Jos_10:40. The enumeration begins within the Negeb at the east, as Jos_15:2 ff. in giving the boundaries. First we have nine cities named and connected by the copula, which Luther in his translation omits, while the LXX. and Vulg. have it. Kabzeel or Jekabzeel (יְקַבְצְאֵלNeh_11:25 = which God gathers) was the birth-place of Benaiah one of David’s heroes, 2Sa_23:30. Eder, Jagur, not to be made out.
Jos_15:22. Kinah, “Perhaps the place of the Kenites who settled in the territory of Arad, Num_10:32” (Knobel).
Dimona = Dibon, Neh_11:25. “Probably the ruins ed-Dheib, northeast of Arad (Van de Velde, Mem. 252),” Knobel.
Adah. = Sudeid (Rob. ii. 474). The country here is hilly and cut up by small ravines, but without steep declivities, and sparsely covered with a thin and now dried up growth of grass. (Rob. l. c.)
Jos_15:23. Kedesh, Hazor, Kadesh-barnea and Hezron (Jos_15:3), Ithnan—unknown.
Jos_15:24. A second group of five cities follows, a pentapolis. Ziph, perhaps = Kuseifeh (Rob. ii. 191, 195), southwest of Arad. Another Ziph lies on the mountain, Jos_15:55.—Telem we, after the example of Kimchi, with von Raumer (p. 222) and Knobel, regard = טְלָאִים, where Saul mustered his army before he moved against the Amalekites (1Sa_15:4). The position, in the Negeb, suits this view. When Keil (Com. on Josh, in h. 1.) objects to this assumption that the words טֶלֶם (oppression) and טְלָאִים (young lambs), came from two quite different roots; it is a sufficient answer to say, with Gesenius, that one of the names may be altered (perhaps by corrupt pronunciation), which is easily possible with names of places. Supposing this, it is more probable that טֶלֶם is derived from the longer טְלָאים than the reverse.
Bealoth = Bealoth-beer, Ramath-negeb, Ramoth-negeb (Jos_19:8), on the road toward Hebron, marked on Menke’s map.
Jos_15:25. Hazor-hadata, ח׳חֶדָתָּה = New Hazor, since חָדָשׁ=חַדַת). Perhaps Hudhairah (Rob. App. p. 114).
Kerioth-hezron, which is Hazor. Against the Masoretes, but with the LXX. and Syr., we join קְרִ וֹת and חֶצְרוֹן in one name, as Reland, Maurer, Keil, and Knobel have done. In favor of this the analogy of Kirjath-arba (Jos_15:13) and Kirjath-jearim (Jos_15:9) adduced by Maurer, is of decisive weight. “Possibly the place Kuryatein north of Arad (Rob. ii. 472),” (Knobel).
Jos_15:26. Third group, consisting again, like the first, of nine cities,—Amam, unknown.
Shema, a place of the Simeonites; Jos_19:2 associated with Beer-shaba and Moladah; שֶׁבַצ, probably the same name, as בּ and מ are often interchanged.
Moladah, according to Jos_19:2 likewise a place belonging to Simeon, now Milh (Rob. ii. pp. 619, 621). “Moladah was at a later period inhabited by the sons of Judah who returned from the exile (Neh_11:25-26). Probably identical with Malatha, an Idumean fortress (Joseph. Ant. xviii. 6, 2); often named in the Onom.” (von Raumer, p. 214). It lies on the road to Hebron, northwest of Baalath-beer. Robinson found here two wells about forty feet in depth, and walled around with good mason-work, one of them seven and a half feet, and the other five feet in diameter. The water appeared to be not good, but the Arabs of the Tiyahah watered their animals here as did the Kudeirât at Beer-sheba (Rob. l. c. note). On the plain lying near the wells to the south, the stones of a ruined town, or large village, are scattered over a space of nearly half a mile square, all unhewn. These wells and ruins in all probability mark the site of Moladah of the O. T., the Malatha of the Greeks and Romans (Rob. ubi sup.). On the etymological difficulty in deriving Milh from Moladah or Malatha, cf. the foot-note, p. 621.
Jos_15:27. Hazor-gadah, Heshmon, Beth-palat, unknown.
Jos_15:28. Hazor-shual (חַצר שׁוּעַל = Fox-yard; [Gesen. village of Jackals], cf. the Lex. under חצר for other like compounds), a place of the Simeonites, Jos_19:3; 1Ch_4:28, inhabited, like Moladah and Shema, after the exile, by men of Judah, Neh_11:27. Possibly Th’aly (Rob. iii. App. 114).
Beer-sheba, בְּאר שֶׁבַע, i.e. “well of seven, meaning the seven lambs which Abraham sacrificed when he made a covenant with Abimelech (Gen_21:28-32).” So von Raumer, p. 176. Others, e.g. Ges., explain, with reference to Gen_26:30, by puteus jurisjurandi, well of the oath, making שׁבוּעָה = שֶׁבַצ. Hitzig again (ubi sup. p. 26) in another way; “if the wilderness between Pelusium and Gaza extends for the distance of seven days’ journey, Beershaba (properly, Bir sib) signifies “well of the seven day camel” (which has borne the seven days’ thirst)—in the Arabic; and Arabs carry (Gen_37:25) into Egypt, on the backs of camels, the costly productions of Gilead.” Lange (Com. on Gen_21:28 ff.) would not press the antithesis between “seven-well” and “oath-well.” “The form designates it as the seven wells, but the seven designates it as in fact the well of the oath.” In this view שׁבצ is taken as = seven, but at the same time it commemorates that נִשִׁבַּע, to swear, means primarily to “seven one’s self” “to confirm by seven.” Cf. Herod. iii. 8, according to whom seven things were chosen among the Arabians for the confirmation of an oath. Beer-sheba is very often mentioned in the history of the patriarchs (Gen_21:14; Gen_21:28-33; Gen_22:19; Gen_26:23; Gen_28:10; Gen_46:1). According to the passage before us it belonged to Judah; from Jos_19:2, 1Ch_4:28, it was ascribed also to Simeon. It is often named in the formula “from Dan to Beersheba” (Jdg_20:1; 2Sa_17:11; 2Ch_30:5). At present it is called Bir es-seba, on the north side of the Wady es-Seba, close on its banks, where two wells now bear this name (Robinson, i. 300–303). These two wells lie at some distance from each other, are round and walled up in a very firm and permanent manner, and furnish clear and excellent water in great abundance. The ruins on some low hills north of the well probably indicate the existence there formerly of a small and straggling city (Robinson, ubi sup.). Euseb.: κώμη μεγίστη. Hieron.: vicus grandis.
Bizjothah—undeterminable.
Jos_15:29. The names of 13 places are added, which lay to the west and southwest. Baala = Deir el-Belah (Robinson, iii. App. p. 118), some hours southwest of Gaza on the north border of the Negeb with a great forest of palm trees, and remnants of marble pillars (Ritter, 16. 41, 42 [Gage’s Trans. i.30, 31]). The considerable plantation of date-palms at this place is remarkable from the fact that here alone in Palestine the dates still ripen; here, therefore, we pass the north limit of date culture (Ritter l.c.).
Ijim, “or עַיִּים, as we may judge from, ̓Αυείμ in the LXX. Cod. Alex., is passed over in the enumeration of Simeonite cities Jos_19:1 ff. and may have been not of much importance” (Knobel). The site cannot now be determined.
Ezem also belonging, like Baala, to the Simeonites (Jos_19:3) = Abdeh, a place of very considerable ruins on a ridge of rocks, and once strong, עֶצֶם = firmness, strength (Knobel).
Jos_15:30. Eltolad, later given likewise to Simeon, Jos_19:4. In 1Ch_4:29 it is called merely Tholad (Keil). This also remains undiscovered.
Chesil, כְּסִיל. According to Job_9:9; Job_38:31; Amo_5:8, כּ׳ is a constellation in the heavens, probably Orion. Since the place is named Jos_19:4; 1Ch_4:30; כְּתוּל and כְּתוּאֵל, since further 1Sa_30:27, “the same place is manifestly” called בֵּית־אֵל, it must have been the seat of a sanctuary as Knobel rightly conjectures. May not, as the name indicates, that very constellation of Orion (Chesil) have been worshipped here, especially as Jerome reports (Vit. Hilar, ep. 25, ap. Robinson, i. p. 298) that the inhabitants had worshipped Venus and the Morning Star? True, the morning star is mentioned and not Orion, but Jerome hardly had so exact information. At all events, worship of the stars then existed, and that is the main thing. Probably Chesil is = Elusa, where in pre-Islamite times a sanctuary of Arabic tribes existed (comp. Tuch, Zeitschrift der deutsch-morgenl. Ges., iii. p. 194 f. ap. Knobel). Elusa lies five and a half hours south of Beer-sheba (comp. Robinson, i. pp. 296–298). Horma “or Zephat, now Sepata, two and a half hours southwest of Chalaza; see Num_14:45” (Knobel).
Jos_15:31. Ziklag, later belonging to Simeon, Jos_19:5; 1 Chr. 5:30. Familiar from the history of David (1Sa_27:6; 1Sa_30:1; 2Sa_1:1; 2Sa_4:10; 1Ch_13:1). Perhaps Tel el-Hasy, northeast of Gaza (von Raumer, p. 225), from which one has an extensive view, westward to the sea, in the east toward the mountains of Hebron, northward to mount Ephraim, and southward to the plains of Egypt (Ritter, xvi. 133 [Gage, iii. 246, 247]). Knobel seeks Ziklag to the southwest of Milh, where a place, Gasludh, lies on the road to Abdeh (Robinson, ii. 621), some hours east of Sepata. The etymology of Ziklag (צִקְלַנ ,צִיקְלַג) is doubtful; perhaps, as Gesen. supposes, from צִי קְלַק, wilderness of destruction.
Madmanna = Minyay or Minnieh, south of Gaza (Robinson, iii. 287 f.), on the route of the pilgrims during the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries.
Sansanna—unknown. The name signifies “palm-branch.” Instead of Madmanna and Sansanna, elsewhere Beth-markaboth (“Wagon-house,” Knobel, Keil) and Hazar-suza or Susim (“Horse-yard,” Knobel; “Horse-village,” Keil) are mentioned (Jos_19:3) as cities of the Simeonites. Are they possibly stations of wagons and horses, as Knobel conjectures?
Jos_15:32. Lebaoth or Beth-lebaoth, belonging to the Simeonites, Jos_19:6; in 1Ch_4:31, the name of the place is Beth Birei. Perhaps Lebhem, eight hours south of Gaza.
Shilhim, called, Jos_19:6, Saruhen (שָׁרוּהֵן), a place of the Simeonites, 1Ch_4:31 = el-Scheriat, about midway between Gaza and Beer-sheba; a scene of ruins (Van de Velde, Narrative, ii. p. 144, and Mem. p. 113, apud Knobel).
Ain, Rimmon, in Jos_19:7; 1Ch_4:32; Neh_11:29, treated as one place. Rimmon is discovered in the ruins Um er-Rumamim, about three hours north of Beer-sheba. Only about thirty minutes south of it is the well el-Khulweilifeh, with remains of buildings (Robinson, iii. 8), on the road from Hebron to Gaza. Compare, further, Knobel on this verse.
All the cities twenty-nine and their villages. There are not twenty-nine but thirty-six, namely, (1) group first, 9; (2) group second, 5; (3) group third, 9; (4) group fourth, 13 = 36. So indeed the Syriac reads. Since, however, all the other ancient versions have twenty-nine, the Syriac probably gives a “critical correction.” The matter is capable of the simple explanation that the original ancient list had only twenty-nine cities, but later, as even Keil concedes, “a supplementary hand added still others without altering the sum total to correspond.”
β. Jos_15:33-47. Cities in the Lowland. Jos_15:33. In the lowland. See Jos_10:40. It only needs to be remarked here that the foot-hills (אַשֵׁדוֹת) mentioned Jos_10:40; Jos_11:16 are here reckoned in with the lowland. They are designated also as the land of Goshen, as was explained, Jos_10:40, (Jos_11:16), and form the east border of the Shephelah of Judah. The places mentioned by the author are arranged in three groups. The first of these (Jos_15:33-36) lies in the northeast part of the lowland.
Eshtaol and Zorea mentioned in reverse order, Jos_19:41; Jdg_13:25; Jdg_16:31. Here ascribed to Judah, there to Dan. Eshtaol is the present Um-Eschteiyeh (Robinson, ii. 342). Zorea was Samson’s home (Jdg_13:2), visited in modern times by Robinson (Later Bibl. Res. p. 153), Tobler (Dritte Wanderung, p. 150) and Furrer (p. 200). The prospect from the summit of Zorea is, according to Robinson’s statement, beautiful and very extensive, especially toward Beth-shemesh. The well, the fields, the mountains, the women who bore water, all transported the travellers back into the earliest times, when in all probability the mother of Samson in the same manner came to the well, and laboriously carried her water-jar home. Between Zoreah and Eshtaol Samson was buried in his father Manoah’s tomb (Jdg_16:31.)
Ashna, unknown. Knobel would read אַשְׁוָה after ̓́Ασσα of the LXX. Cod. Vat.
Jos_15:34. Sanoah, now Sanna, not far from Zorea (Robinson, ii. 343) to the southeast. “The other, Zanoah, on the mountain, Jos_15:56, has not yet been discovered by modern explorers” (Keil).
En-gannim, Tappuah, unknown. Enam, mentioned Gen_38:14; Gen_38:21; perhaps Beth-anan, Tobler, p. 137 (Knobel).
Jos_15:35. Jarmuth, a Canaanitish capital (Jos_12:11, comp. Jos_10:3-27). Since יַרְמוּת, as Knobel observes = רָמָה ,רֶמֶת, Jos_19:21, and therefore, judging from the meaning of these words, lay upon a height, the modern Jarmuk (Robinson, ii. 344), which stands on a hill, and exhibits cisterns and remains of buildings of high antiquity, may be regarded as ancient Jarmuth.
Adullam. Probably Deir Dubban, two hours north of Beit Jibrin, where are great and remarkable caves, fully described by Robinson (ii. 353 f.). He does not decide whether they are natural or artificial. The circumstance that they are very regularly hewn out leads us to conclude that they are of artificial origin, which, however, may well have been in part natural, since the mountain of Judah is cavernous. [Robinson seems to indicate no doubt at all of the purely artificial character of the caves, only questioning whether the “pits” through which they are entered “are natural or artificial.” Their object also was to him quite a puzzle.—Tr.]
Socho, and Azeka, lay near Ephes-dammim (Damun), 1Sa_17:1. Azeka has been already mentioned (Jos_10:10 f.) Goliath’s battle with David took place between Azeka and Socho (1Sa_17:1 ff.). Socho, now Shuweikeh, but not to be confounded with Socho on the mountain (Jos_15:48), which is also called Shuweikeh, lies about seventeen miles southwest of Jerusalem on the Wady Sumt, whose beautiful vale Robinson (ii. 349 f.) regards as the terebinth-vale (“valley of Elah”), celebrated for the combat between David and the giant (von Raumer, p. 222).
Jos_15:36. Sharaim, “according to 1Sa_17:52, westward of Socho and Azeka = Tel Sakarieh and Kefr Sakarieh” (Knobel). The dual form of the name indicates two villages out of which the ancient Sharaim may have already grown, and properly signifies “two doors.” Adithaim, unknown; a dual form again.
Gedera, הַגְּדֵרָה with the article, properly, “the wall.” In Jos_12:13 the king of גֶּדֶר (walled place) is mentioned. Probably the same place. Whether Gederoth also (Jos_15:41) is the same, as Knobel would have it, is to me doubtful. Different towns might naturally be called simply walled places. We may compare frequent elements of modern names, Burg, Ville, House, etc. Another related name is גְּדוֹר, Jos_15:58.
Gederothaim is omitted by the LXX. If we follow them, as Winer (ii. 471) and Knobel do, we make out only fourteen cities according to the sum total given, otherwise fifteen, as above thirty-six instead of twenty-nine.
Jos_15:37-41. Second Group. It includes sixteen cities, lying “south” and “west” of the first, Jos_15:37. Zenan, probably indentical with Zaanan (Mic_1:11); perhaps Chirbet es-Senat.
Hadashah. “The smallest place in Judah, with only fifty dwellings (Mischn. Erubin, pp. 5, 6”), Knobel. Not identical with Adasa, north of Jerusalem. Von Raumer has entirely omitted the little place.
Migdal-gad = Tel Iedeideh, after which the Wady Iedeideh is named (Tobler, p. 124 f.)
Jos_15:38. Dilean, perhaps Beit Dula (Tobler, p. 150). Mizpeh. We have already found a land of Mizpeh on Hermon, Jos_11:3-8, where the name was explained and its frequent occurrence noticed. The most celebrated place of the name is yet to be mentioned, Jos_18:26. The one before us is possibly the present Tel es-Safieh (Robinson, ii. 363) on a low hill, “but lying sufficiently above the surrounding country to be seen at the distance of some hours in every direction;” called in the Middle Ages Alba specula or Alba custodia [Blanchegarde], a castle, in the vicinity of which some romantic adventures of Richard Cœur de Lion are reported to have taken place. These are enumerated by Robinson (ubi sup. p. 366).
Joktheel, perhaps Keitulaneh (Robinson, iii. App. 126), where are ruins.
Jos_15:39. Lachish, according to Jos_10:3 ff.; Jos_12:11, a Canaanitish capital, later, like many of these cities, fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch_11:9). Here Amaziah died (2Ki_14:19). Sennacherib besieged Lachish, and moved from hence to Libnah (Isa_36:2; Isa_37:8). Nebuchadnezzar also contended against the royal city of chariots (Mic_1:13), which had become a beginning of sin to the daughter of Zion, doubtless through temptation to idolatry (Jer_34:7). The position is questionable. Robinson (ii. p. 388) decided against Um Lakis, which suits as far as the name is concerned, partly because the trifling remains give no indication of a once fortified and strong city, and partly because the position does not agree with what is known of the ancient city. He is followed by Knobel, who thinks he has recognized Lachish in Zukkarijeh, two and a half hours southwest of Beit Jibrin. On the other hand von Raumer, Keil, and Van de Velde on his map, unite upon Um Lakis as the ancient city, mainly on the ground that Eglon, mentioned here in the same verse, and confidently recognized by Robinson (ii. 392) in Ajalan, was again, according to his own statement (ubi sup. 389) only three quarters of an hour distant from Um Lakis. We likewise adopt this latter view. Eglon has been already named Jos_10:1 ff. Jos_10:36.—Bozkath, perhaps Tubukah (Robinson, ii. pp. 388, 648), spelled Tubaka by Van de Velde and Knobel.
Jos_15:40. Cabbon = Kubeibeh, two and a-half hours east of Ajlon (Eglon), upon a stony barren height. So Knobel supposes, and the name certainly sounds like; but Robinson observes very moderately that “there seemed to be nothing to mark it particularly as an ancient site” (p. 394).
Lachmas, LXX.: Λαμάς; Vulg.: Leheman; hence Luther: Lehmam. The LXX. support the reading לַחְמם, the Vulg. goes back to the other reading, לַחְמַם. The correctness of the latter is favored by the circumstance that Tobler (Dritte Wanderung, p. 129) has actually found south of Beit Jibrin, a place of ruins, el-Lahem.
Kithlish, undetermined. To compare Tell Kilkis or Chilchis, not far from Kubeibeh, as Knobel does, would be somewhat rash, since in this case (1) a transposition of the ל, (2) a change of ת into כ must be assumed, which is not so easy to suppose as the more frequent interchange of ל and מ.
Jos_15:41. Gederoth, comp. Jos_15:36.—Bethdagon and Naamah and Makkedah,—a tripolis. Beth-dagon to be distinguished from the border-town of Asher mentioned Jos_19:27, now Beth-Dejan between Joppa (Jaffa) and Lydda (Lod, Ludd), on a knoll to the left of the road (Furrer, p. 10), but according to Tobler (Nazareth nebst Anhang der vierten Wanderung, p. 306), on the right. The name indicates the Philistine worship of Dagon. Naamah cannot be made out. Makkedah, already spoken of more than once (Jos_10:10; Jos_10:16 ff.) in the account of the battle of Gibeon, also Jos_12:16, was a royal city of the Canaanites, according to the Onom., three hours east of Eleutheropolis (assuming that this statement of the Onom. does not rest, as Keil, on Jos_10:10, supposes, on an error, and mean west instead of east). This would be, and so Knobel takes it, about the region of Terkumieh, or, if east be understood as = southeast, of Morak. Both places lie at the foot of the mountain of Judah.—Sixteen cities and their villages. In this instance there are actually sixteen.
Jos_15:42-44. Third Group, “further south, embracing nine places.” Libnah, conquered by Joshua (Jos_10:29-30), a Canaanite capital (Jos_12:15), later a city of the Levites (Jos_21:13; 1Ch_6:57), according to the Onom., Libna in regione Eleutheropolitana. Robinson (ii. p. 389) could find no trace of it. Knobel conjectures that it may be the ruins Hora-Hawara (Robinson, iii. App. 115), discovered by Seetzen (3:31), because the Arab, hawara, like לבנה, signifies “white,” and therefore this is the Arab. translation of the Hebrew name (comp. similar examples, Jos_15:28-36). But we cannot accept this acute hypothesis. For, although in the Negeb, where Tel Hora stands on Van de Velde’s Map, on the road leading north from Beer-sheba, “the Arabic designation of the cities may have been introduced early” (p. 425), so that the names were formally translated, still we have not yet, at least among the cities of Judah, found a single example of this kind. Nay, what specially concerns the case before us, the Arabic geographers in the Middle Ages, as Knobel himself informs us, are still acquainted with a Libna [spelled Lobna] in Palestine, e.g. Maraszid, iii. p. 5, Jakut, Moscht, p. 379.
Ether and Ashan; afterwards belonging to Simeon, Jos_19:7; 1Ch_4:32. Prabobly to be sought in the south, toward the Negeb.
Jos_15:43. Jiphta and Ashnah and Nezib, undeterminable.
Jos_15:44. Kegila, according to the Onom., eight miles from Eleutheropolis toward Hebron; rescued by David from the hand of the Philistines (1Sa_23:5), but ungratefully treacherous toward him (1Sa_23:12). On Kiepert’s Map, Jedna [Rob., iii. App. 117] or Idhna, about southwest of Terkumieh, in accordance with the statement of the Onom. Knobel maintains, on the contrary, that Κεειλά, Ceila, or, ̓Εχεγά of the Onom. now Kila (Tobler, p. 151), belongs here, and finds Kegila rather in the ruins called Khugaleh ([Jughaleh?] Robinson, iii. App. 115), in the south of the Jebel el-Chalil (Robinson writes el-Khulil). The similarity of the name speaks for this position in the plain, which suits also with רַד, 1Sa_23:4.
Achzib, or כְּזִיב, is also mentioned Mic_1:14; Gen_38:5, in the plain. Perhaps Kesaba, Kussabeh (Robinson, ii. 391), a place with springs, and with ruins in the vicinity.
Maresha, likewise fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch_11:8). The scene of Asa’s victory (2Ch_14:9-13), home of an otherwise unknown prophet Eliezer (2Ch_20:37), afterward Marissa (πόλις δυνατή, Joseph. Ant.Jos_14:5; Jos_14:3; Joshua 13, 9), mentioned in the contests of the Maccabees (1Ma_5:65-68), restored by Gabinius, destroyed by the Parthians. Robinson supposes (Jos_2:4) that Eleutheropolis (Betogabris, Beit Jibrin), arose after this destruction of Maresha, and was built out of its materials. Its foundation walls he thinks he found one and a half hours south of Beit Jibrin. With this Tobler agrees (pp. 129, 142 f.), who mentions a place of ruins, Marasch, twenty-four minutes from Beit Jibrin, marked also on Van de Velde’s Map as the ancient Maresha. Knobel seeks it four hours south of Beit Jibrin, where lies a place Mirsim (Robinson, iii. App. p. 117). Improbable. Maresha is, at all events, distinct from Moresheth-gath, the home of the prophet Micah (comp. von Raumer, p. 215, Rob. ii. 4).—Nine cities and their villages. The number is correct again, as at Jos_15:41.
Jos_15:45-47. Fourth Group. This includes the Philistine cities, Ekron, which Jos_19:40 is ascribed to Dan, Ashdod and Gaza, and their daughters, and their villages. But according to Jos_15:11 the border of Judah runs north of Ekron, toward the sea, and so includes the Philistine cities. Of “daughters” i.e. subject cities, no mention has been made in the preceding lists, while here the statement of number at the close of the several groups is wanting. The section is, accordingly, a manifest addition from some other source, as Ewald (Gesch. ii. p. 258), Bertheau (Komm. Zum Buche d. Richt. p. 28), Knobel (p. 419), with perfect right maintain. Zealously to deny this, as Keil does (Com. on Josh. in loc.) we regard as perfectly unnecessary, especially as Keil himself (Jos_15:32) cannot help assuming a “supplementary hand.” If a supplement is anywhere possible, then certainly also “a later addition,” since both come substantially to the same result. Besides, it is also “very striking,” as Keil himself says (l. c.), that Gath and Ashkelon are here wanting, whereas in Jos_13:3, they are mentioned, and that too, as cities which had their own princes, and so cannot be reckoned among the “daughters” of the rest. Verses 45–47, therefore, make the impression not only of an addition, but still more definitely that of a fragmentary addition. For the rest we refer to the explanation already given Jos_13:3 of the position of the several places, which, after wars renewed through centuries, were first conquered by the Israelites in the age of the Maccabees. Comp. Knobel’s excursus [?] on this passage.
γ. Jos_15:48-60. Cities on the Mountain, Jos_15:48-51. First Group, wholly in the south, embracing eleven cities.—On the mountain. See Jos_10:40.—Shamir, perhaps Um Schaumereh (Robinson, iii. App. p. 115).—Jattir, a priests’ city (Jos_21:14; 1Ch_6:57), probably Attir (Rob. ii. 194, 625).—Socho, different from Socho in the lowland (Jos_15:35), but like that now called Suweikeh (Robinson, ii. 195), about ten miles S. S. W. from Hebron (von Raumer, p. 222).
Dannah, passed over by von Raumer. Perhaps, in Knobel’s judgment, we are to read דַּענָה = הָנִה = Zannte, the last inhabited place on the southwest part of the mountain, five hours south of Hebron (Robinson [Zanuta], ii. 626, iii. App. 116).—Kirjath-Sannah, that is Debir. Concerning this, see on Jos_10:38, and also Jos_15:15 here.
Jos_15:50. Anab, “a home of Anakim (Jos_11:21), still existing under the old name east of Thabarieh, (Seetzen, iii. 6, Robinson, ii. 195)” (Knobel). It has, according to Robinson, a small tower.
Eshtemoh, situated very high, according to Schubert, 2225 feet above the sea. A city of the priests, Jos_21:14; now Semua, a considerable village, which Robinson saw (ii. 196) from Thabarieh. Around it (ii. 626) are broad valleys, “not susceptible of much tillage, but full of flocks and herds all in fine order.” The travellers halted among the olive trees in the moist southern valley. At several places in the village they saw remains of walls built of large stones, beveled around the edges, but left rough between, some of which were more than ten feet long. Eshtemoh, or Eshtemoa (אֶשְׁתְּמוֹעַ), appears from the extent of these walls to have been, as Robinson judges, a spacious town. It once received from David a part (1Sa_30:28) of the booty from the Amalekites.
Anim, probably the present Ghuwein (von Raumer, p. 171, Knobel), south of Semua. So Wilson (i. 354 ap. von Raum. against Robinson, who regards Ghuwein as Ain, ver 32).
Jos_15:51. Goshen, not determined.—Holon, a priests’ city (Jos_21:15; 1Ch_6:58 [Hilen]), not yet discovered.—Giloh, birthplace of Ahithophel (2Sa_15:12), where the traitor against David hanged himself (2Sa_17:23).—Eleven cities. The number is correct.
Jos_15:52-54. Second Group, north of the first, west of the third group. See Menke’s Map.
Jos_15:52. Arab, omitted by von Raumer; perhaps, as Knobel thinks, Husn el Ghurab near Semua (Robinson, i. 312). This is very questionable, since Robinson only heard from the Arabs of a ruin el-Ghurab, but did not see it.
Dumah,דּוּמָה, LXX.: Ρουμά, stated in the Onom. to have been seventeen miles from Eleutheropolis (Beit Jibrin), now Daumeh, a ruined village, not far from Hebron in the Wady Dilbeh (Robinson, i. 314). In Isa_21:11 Dumah is the proper name of an Ishmaelite tribe in Arabia, with which comp. Gen_25:14.
Eshean (אֶשְׁעָן), elsewhere not mentioned. Since the Cod. Vat. of the LXX. has Σομά, we might read with Knobel, after 1Ch_2:43 f.שְׁמע, and compare the place of ruins Simir (Robinson, iii. App. p. 114), south of Daumeh. Von Raumer has passed over this place also, as being unrecognizable. Keil likewise.
Jos_15:53. Janum. On the reading comp. the foot-note on the text. Not discovered.
Beth-tappua not to be confounded (a) with Tappuah in the lowland (Jos_15:34), (b) with the En Tappuah mentioned Jos_17:7, which was assigned to Manasseh. The name of both towns refers to fruit culture, since תַּכּוּחַ (from יָפַת, to emit odors) signifies apple (Son_7:9; Pro_25:11), or apple-tree12 (Son_2:3; Son_8:5). Robinson found apples and pears in the neighborhood of Gophna, now Jifna [Jufna], (Robinson, iii. 77–80), four and one half hours north of Jerusalem. Comp. also von Raumer, p. 100. Beth-tappuah would thus be = apple-house. The name has been preserved in Taffuh, a place about two hours west of Hebron. It still lies (Robinson, ii. 428) “in the midst of olive-groves and vineyards with marks of industry on every side.” This circumstance favors our interpretation of the name, since where olive trees and vines flourish apple trees can and could be produced. Knobel, on the contrary, explains תַּפּוּחַ, from טָפַח and צָפַח, by “extent,” “breadth,” “surface,” and adduces, in support of this interpretation of the name, the fact that both our Beth-tappuah and En-tappuah (Jos_17:7) lay in a plain. To sustain our view, which von Raumer also gives (p. 181), we may adduce the analogy of Bethphage בֵּית־פַּגֵּא, Chald. for the Heb. בֵּית־פַּג (Son_2:13), = Fig-house.
Apheka not the same as Aphek (Jos_12:18; Jos_13:4), which lay in the plain not far from Jezreel (1Sa_29:1; 1Ki_20:26; 1Ki_20:30), where Saul was slain by the Philistines, Benhadad the Syrian by the Israelites; but on Mount Judah, near Hebron, “probably between Hebron and Tuffah” (Keil). Against the opinion of von Raumer (p. 172) that the battle of 1Sa_4:1 may have taken place here, comp. Thenius on that passage. Aphek on the mountain of Judah has not yet been discovered. The frequent occurrence of the name אְַפֵק or אְַפִיק (Jdg_1:31), or הקָפֵאֲ here, is explained, as in the case of גֶּדֶר ,גּדֵרָה ,גְּדוֹר, from the meaning of the word which signifies strength, and then Fort, Burg (see Gesen.). It is derived from אָפַק, to be strong.
Jos_15:54. Humtah, not yet found. The name (חֻמְטָה) appears to be related to חֹמֶט, Lev_11:30, LXX. σᾶιρα, Vulg. lacerta, probably a species of lizard (Gesen.). Lizards are mentioned by Seetzen (pp. 446–448) ap. von Raumer (p. 105). There are such still in Palestine [Tristram, pp. 495, 536], and a place might be named after this creature just as well as after the fox or jackal (Hazor-shual, Jos_15:28).
Kirjath Arba, that is, Hebron. See Jos_15:13. Comp. besides, the more particular account of this city on Jos_10:36.
Zior. The name is perhaps retained, as Knobel suggests, in that of the ridge Tughra near Hebron (see Rosenm. Zeitschr. der D. M. G. xi. p. 56). There are nine of the cities as stated.
Jos_15:55-57. Third Group. East and northeast of the first, (Knobel: northward; but see Menke’s Map) and southeast (Knobel: east) of the second.
Maon, now Main, “without doubt the Maon of Nabal (Robinson, 2. 194; 1Sa_25:2). It stood on the summit of a conical rock (Robinson, p. 193), which is crowned with ruins of no great extent. David kept himself in the wilderness of Maon (1Sa_23:24 ff; 1Sa_25:2).
Carmel, a name familiar in the history of Saul (1Sa_15:12), of David (1Sa_25:2; 1Sa_25:5; 1Sa_25:7; 1Sa_25:40; 1Sa_27:3), of Uzziah (2Ch_26:10); in Roman times a castle (Robinson, p. 198) with a garrison. It appears in the history of King Amalrich in the Middle Ages, a. d. 1172 (Robinson, p. 199). Now called Kurmul, with vast ruins from antiquity and the Middle Ages.
Ziph. When its inhabitants proved treacherous toward David (1Sa_23:19; 1Sa_26:1; Psa_54:2), he removed (1Sa_23:14-15; 1Sa_23:19 ff.) from the wilderness of this name to the wilderness of Maon. Rehoboam fortified the city, whose ruins, according to Robinson (ii. 191), “lie on a low hill or ridge between two small Wadies which commence here and run toward the Dead Sea.” Now called Zif, about one and three fourth hours southeast of Hebron (von Raumer, p. 222). Not to be confounded with Ziph, Jos_15:24.
Juttah (יוּטּֽה), according to Jos_21:16, a priest-city, now Jutta (Robinson, I. c.), “having the appearance of a large, modern Mohammedan town” (p. 628). It was, probably, according to the conjecture first proposed by Reland (Palœst. p. 870), adopted by Bachiene, Rosenmüller (and also by Robinson), the abode of the priest Zachariah, the πόλις ’Ιούδα (Luk_1:39). Reland supposes (Robinson, ii. 628, note) that π. ̓Ιούα has been changed by error of the text, or softer pronunciation (comp. von Raumer, p. 208, Anm. p. 222).
Jos_15:56. Jezreel (יִזְרְעֵאל, “whom or what, God plants”), different from the Jezreel in the plain of Esdraelon (Jos_17:16), and mentioned elsewhere only as the home of Ahinoam, the second wife of David (not reckoning Michal whom Saul, 1Sa_25:44, gave to Shalti). Not to be identified. Jokdeam and Zanoah, likewise undiscovered, and not elsewhere named.
Jos_15:57. Cain (הַקַּיִן with the art. prop. “the lance”), perhaps Jukin (Robinson, 2. 190), as Knobel proposes (p. 437), “a Mohammedan Makâni (station, grave), where they say Lot stopped after his flight from Sodom” (Robinson, l. c.).
Gibeah (גִּבְעָה = hill), a very common name of place (Jos_18:28, Gibeah in the tribe of Benjamin, Gibeah of Saul, 1Sa_11:4; 1Sa_13:2; 1Sa_15:2, and often, besides Gibeah in the tribe of Ephraim, Jos_24:33). It shares with the topographical names כֶּבַע (Jos_18:24; Jos_21:17), and גִּבְעְוֹ (Jos_10:2; Jos_11:19), and also that of the “judgment hall,” Γαββαθᾶ, Joh_19:13, the derivation from the same root גַּבַה (to be high, to be arched) and signification. Robinson (Jos_2:14) believes that in the village of Jeba (Jebah) in the Wady el-Musurr, southwest of Bethlehem, he had “with little doubt” discovered again Gibeah of Benjamin. This Gibeah is also, in his view, probably the Gabatha of Eusebius and Jerome, twelve Roman miles from Eleutheropolis. Von Raumer agrees with him, while Keil and Knobel differ, on the grounds that this place lies without the district of this division of cities, and that the similarity of name proves nothing, since this, as just now shown, very often recurs elsewhere. Indeed, Robinson himself (3. 151), as Keil points out, found another village, Jebak, north of Shechem! For these reasons we also side with the two latter interpreters. Perhaps our Gibeah is (although we cannot assert this, with the certainty which Knobel expresses), one of the viculi called Gabaa and Gabatha, contra orientalem plagam Daromœ, in the Onom.s. v. Gabathon.
Timnah, to be carefully distinguished from Timnah between Beth-shemesh and Ekron (Jos_15:10; Jos_19:43; Judges 14; Jdg_15:1-6), but certainly identical (so von Raumer, p. 224, and Knobel, p. 437, against Keil, in loc.) with Timnah (Gen_38:12-14), to which Judah went up to his sheep-shearers. Not yet discovered. On Mount Ephraim lay (חֶרֶס תִּמִנַת), Jos_19:50; Jos_24:30. The name (from מָנָה) signifies “portion assigned,” Gesen. There are ten cities as stated.
Jos_15:58-59. Fourth Group. This lies north of the second and third. Halhul, still called Halhul or Hulhul, in a well cultivated region, and chief city of a district. Beautiful fields and vineyards are seen there (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res., p. 281), and also many cows and goats. Noticeable is Robinson’s remark: “The identity of no ancient site is more undisputed, though it seems not to have been recognized before our former journey” (l. c. comp. Bibl. Res. 1. 319). The place lies north of Hebron on the way to Jerusalem (comp. also Valentiner, Das heilige Land, p. 38).
Beth-zur, now Beit-Sur (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 276 f.), whose principal relic is a ruined tower, of which only one side is left. The place appears to have been small but very strong, according to Josephus (Ant. xiii. 5, 6), the strongest fortress in all Judæa. It is frequently mentioned in the First Book of Maccabees (1Ma_4:29; 1Ma_4:61; 1Ma_6:7; 1Ma_6:26; 1Ma_6:31 f., 1Ma_6:49 f.; 1Ma_9:52, etc.), seldom in the O. T. (2Ch_11:7; Neh_3:16). Here, according to an old tradition found in the Onom., Philip (Act_8:26-40) baptized the Eunuch (von Raumer, p. 182.)
Gedor, referred to, 1Ch_12:7, as the home of Joelah and Zebadiah, two followers of David; now Jedur, “on the brow of a high mountain ridge” (Robinson, ii. 338), about northwest of the road between Hebron and Jerusalem; a small ruin marked by one tree (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 276 f.).
Verse 59. Maarath, unknown. Beth-anoth (בֵּ׳ת־עֲנוֹת, house of answers, of Echo, Gesen.), distinct from בֵּית־ענָה in the tribe of Naphtali, Jos_19:38; Jdg_1:33, now Beit Ainun, with ruins which Wolcott visited in 1842. Robinson (Later Bibl. Res. p. 280 f.) saw it from Er Rameh. Elthekon not discovered.
Fifth Group. According to the addition of the LXX. which Jerome also has, on Mic_5:2. “Certainly,” says Knobel rightly, “this is no invention of the LXX. but a translation of the original text, which therefore lay more complete before them. Otherwise a large piece of the mountain of Judah with numerous places would be passed over, which, considering the completeness of the author elsewhere, has not the slightest probability. The gap in the Masoretic text originated with a transcriber who having read the וחצריתן, Jos_15:59, supposed he had read the וחצריתן at the end of this division.” To this view Keil also assents, while he refers to the naive opinion of Jerome, that the words had probably been rejected by the Jews from malice (malitia), “ne Christus de tribu Juda ortus videretur,” against which Clericus, “quite rightly” objected, “Non video cur a Judœis propterea erasa essent, cum sit alias in V. T. sat frequens mentio Bethlehemi Davidis patriœ.” Menke also follows this view on his map, while Maurer on the other hand, and Bunsen, declare against the addition. The former—since the LXX. in this book have allowed themselves many additions as well as omissions and arbitrary changes—thinks most probably “eos totum hoc comma ex loco quocunque alio, proprio Marte huc transtulisse.” The possibility of such a proceeding need not be denied; but here, as Keil and Knobel rightly urge, our Masoretic text presents a manifest hiatus which is excellently filled up by the addition of the LXX. Bunsen says: “The forms of many of these names are decidedly not Hebrew; besides, except Tecoah and Bethlehem, not one of the cities is elsewhere mentioned in the O. T. We have, therefore, here an old Aramaic gloss, which some MSS. afterwards received into the text.” Reply: The first reason proposed by Bunsen is an assertion without proof; and the second has no weight, because very many of the cities mentioned in this chapter are named nowhere else in the O. T., e.g. Jos_15:56, Jokdeam and Zanoah; Jos_15:54, Humtah; Jos_15:53, Jamun; Jos_15:43, Nezib, etc. We, therefore, regard the addition of the LXX. as a highly valuable complement to the Masoretic text, serving to fill up the catalogue of the cities. In an English translation it would read: Tekoa and Ephrata (that is Bethlehem), and Phagor and Aitam (Aitan), and Kulon and Tatami (Tatam), and Soresh (Thobesh), and Karem and Gallim, and Baither (Theter), and Manocho; eleven cities and their villages.
Tekoah (תְּקוֹע), two hours south of Bethlehem, the home of the prophet Amos (Jos_1:1), who is said to have been buried here; fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch_11:6), and elsewhere mentioned in the O. T., e.g.2Sa_14:2; Jer_6:1; Neh_3:5; Neh_3:27; now Tekuah (Robinson, 2. 182–184 [Tristram, p. 406]), on a hill covered with ruins; which agrees with Jer_6:1. Concerning the neighboring Frankenberg (Frank Mountain), which the Franks are reported to have held for forty years after the loss of Jerusalem, comp. von Raumer’s “Excursus,” p. 223.
Ephratah (i.e. Bethlehem). Both names are applied, Rth_4:11; Mic_5:1, unquestionably to the city now before us, Bethlehem-Judah (Jdg_17:7; Jdg_17:9; Jdg_19:1-2; 1Sa_17:12; Rth_1:1-2). It was different from the Bethlehem in the tribe of Zebulun (Jos_19:15); but whether this Bethlehem-Ephratah can be meant Gen_35:16; Gen_35:19. is doubtful, comp. Lange’s Com. on Gen. p. 569. The name בֵּית־לֶחֶם = house of bread, bread-house (Winer, 1. 172) is clear; אֶפְרַת also, or אֶפְרָהָה, is without difficulty derived from פָּרָה, with which the related אֶפְרַים may be compared. In this view א׳ would be = “the fruitful,” “a name,” as Lange remarks (ubi sup.), “which corresponds with the added name Bethlehem.” Besides the place is, as may be seen from Ruth, Joshua 2. and from the descriptions of modern travellers, really fruitful. Thus Furrer relates: “The nearer we approached Bethlehem, the better cultivated we found the fields. … . But surprisingly lovely was to us the sight of the Wady Charubeh, the valley above which, high in the south, lies the little town of Bethlehem, two thousand seven hundred and four feet above the sea. There olive and fig trees were growing in rich abundance. Vineyards spread themselves out on the northwestern slope, whose watch-towers gently reminded us of long past times.” Bethlehem is now called Beit-Lahm, that is, house of flesh, and is inhabited, since 1834, almost exclusively by Christians, of whom Tobler thinks, there may be three thousand. The remaining three hundred inhabitants are Mohammedans. There are no Jews there. The historical importance of Bethlehem as David’s city (Rth_4:11; 1Sa_16:4; 1Sa_17:12; 1Sa_17:15; 1Sa_20:6; 1Sa_20:28; Mic_5:1), and as the birthplace of Christ (Mat_2:1 ff.; Luk_2:4; Luk_2:15) is well known. Further particulars concerning the place see in Seetzen, 2:37 ff.; Robinson, 2. 157–163; Tobler, Topographie von Jerusalem, ii. 464; and Bethlehem in Palästina, p. 2 ff.; Furrer, Wanderung en durch Palästina, p. 167 ff.; Valentiner, Das heil. Land, p. 28 ff.; von Raumer, p. 313 ff.; Ritter, Erdkunde, xvi. p. 284 ff. [Gage’s transl. 3:339–50].
Phagor, now Faghur between Hebron and Bethlehem, west of the road (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 275, Tobler, Dritte Wanderung, p. 91 ff.).
Aitam (עָיטָם) mentioned 2Ch_11:6, among the cities fortified by Rehoboam, immediately after Bethlehem. The name is still preserved in the Wady and Ain Attar between Bethlehem and Faghur, in Tobler, ubi sup. p. 88 ff. (Knobel). Once, in Solomon’s time, a pleasant place with gardens, and perhaps also with a pleasure palace of the king (Furrer, p. 177, Anm. 1).
Kulon, now Kulonieh or Kalonieh, lying high above the pilgrim road to Jerusalem (Furrer, p. 141). The moderately extensive ruins of ancient Kulon which Hitzig, Sepp, Van Osterzee (Lange’s Comm. on Luke, Jos_24:13), Furrer, and apparently also Tobler (Nazareth in Paläst. u. s. w. pp. 316, 319), understand to be the Emmaus of the N. T. “lie near the bottom of the valley whose loveliness is very beautifully described by Furrer. “A copious spring,” he says, “concealed under an overarching rock, by a double outlet irrigated gardens, in which numerous almond trees with pink blossoms gleamed through the dark green foliage of the orange-trees. Up the surrounding slopes, vineyards and rows of olive trees rose by a succession of terraces. The prospect extends not far in any direction; but its seclusion heightens the charm of the happy, pleasant vale” (p. 142). The distance from Jerusalem is about one and a half hours.
Tatami, or Tatam, is not identified, nor Gallim; for the Gallim named, Isa_10:30; 1Sa_25:44, lay north of Jerusalem in Benjamin (Knobel).
Sores, now Saris, “on a proud hill” (Furrer, p. 139), up which terraces of olive-trees ascend, four hours west of Jerusalem (comp. also Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 154 ff.).
Karem, now Ain Karem, three quarters of an hour west of Jerusalem (Furrer, p. 210), with a splendid cloister, whose garden walls are overhung by tall cypress-trees, in the midst of a landscape which surprises the traveller by its loveliness and beauty (Robinson, 2. 141–157, Later Bibl. Res. p. 271 f., Tobler, Topog. 2. 344 ff).
Beither, now Better, southwest of Jerusalem (Furrer, p. 191), situated high up on a mountain side above fine green terraces, surrounded with olive and fig trees; mentioned, Son_2:17, where the חָרֵי בֶתֶר are best explained as mountains of Bether. בֶּתֶר signifies part, piece, Gen_15:10; Jer_34:18-19. Cognate is בִּתְרוֹן, prob. mountain defile, 2Sa_2:29. בִּתְרוֹן ,בֶּתֶר is what we technically call terrain coupé (a country cut up, broken country). Of this character is the country about Bether (Furrer, p. 192).
Manocho, according to Knobel’s highly probable conjecture = מָנחַת, 1Ch_8:6, to which place Benjamites were carried from Geba.
Jos_15:60. Sixth Group, northwest of the fifth, embracing only two cities. Kirjath-jearim, Jos_15:9. As was there remarked, this place was = to Kureyet el-Enab, three hours northwest of Jerusalem. “The old ‘city of the woods’ has become in modern times the ‘city of wine,’ ” as Robinson (ii. 335) interprets the ancient and the present name. People from Kirjath-jearim once brought up the ark from Beth-shemesh (1Sa_6:21; 1Sa_7:1-2). Of the vineyards some still exist, according to Valentiner, p. 19, on the east side of the place. Rabba, not to be identified.
δ. Jos_15:61-62. Cities in the Wilderness. The wilderness of Judah bordered in the east on the Dead Sea, in the south on the Negeb, on the territory of the third, fourth, and fifth groups of cities (westward) on Mount Judah (see Menke’s map, iii.), in the north on the border line of the tribe of Judah as given Jos_15:6-7. This whole region is with good reason designated as a wilderness (מִדְבּֽר), since, with the exception of En-gedi and certain spots where springs occur, it is a wild, barren, “frightful” (Furrer, p. 149) solitude. Thus the neighborhood of the Cloister of Mar Saba, e.g. wears the appearance of terrible desolation and loneliness. “In vain the eye searches far and near for some green thing to cover the weather-worn chalk rock of the gullied mountain. In summer the intolerable heat blazes upon the naked rocks, and the winter rains rush down from the heights to no profit” (Furrer, p. 161). The roads through this wilderness, on which the starry heavens look down at night with wondrous beauty (Furrer, u. s.), lead frequently to steep precipices; sometimes so abruptly down the rocks that it needs all the sagacity and practice of the animals not to fall (Furrer, p. 149). In this solitude David once spent his time (1Sa_23:24; Psa_63:1; Psa_54:2), here John the Baptist preached (Mat_3:1) here Christ was tempted (Mat_4:1; Mar_2:12-13; Luk_4:1). Comp. further, Knobel, p. 440; Robinson, ii. 187, 202 ff., 474 ff.; von Schubert, iii. pp. 94, 96, 102 ff.; Seetzen, ii. p. 220 ff.; von Raumer, p. 47.
Jos_15:61-62. Beth-arabah, Jos_15:6. Probably Kaffr Hajla (Knobel). Middin, Secacah, Nibshan, not mentioned elsewhere, unknown.
The city, of Salt (Ir-hamelah, עיר־הַמֶּלַת), LXX.: ἡ πόλις τῶν ἁλῶν. Vulg.: civitas salis. Luther: Salzstadt [Salt city]. Probably near the valley of Salt where the Edomites suffered several defeats (Knobel), and so, tolerably far south, comp. 2Sa_8:13; Psa_60:2; 2Ki_14:7; 1Ch_18:12; 2Ch_25:11; and so Robinson, ii. 483.
En-gedi (אֶיּן־גּדִי, Goat-fountain), now Ain Jidy, on the west side of the Dead Sea, with a rich, warm (81° F., Robinson, ii. 210), sweet spring of water (Furrer, p. 159), which once refreshed palms and balsam-shrubs. “The Canticles sing (Jos_1:14) of a ‘cluster of the Hennah’13 from the vineyards of En-gedi. Here flourishes the giant Asclepias, which bears the fruit so famous under the name of Apples of Sodom” (Furrer, p. 159). The vegetation is tropical. By the fountain are the remains of various edifices apparently ancient, although the spot where the old city stood appears to have been further down (Robinson, ii. 216). Here David tarried, 1Sa_24:2. Whether Hazezon-Tamar (Gen_14:7; comp. 2Ch_20:2) was the same place as En-gedi, is doubtful; von Raumer (p. 188) and Keil are in favor of the supposition, Knobel (on this verse) is against it.
Jos_15:63. A passing statement that the children of Judah were not able to drive out the Jebusites. The same verse is repeated, Jdg_1:21, with the difference only that, instead of the children of Judah, the children of Benjamin are named, to whom, according to Jos_18:28, the place was allotted. See more on Jos_18:28. On the importance of this verse for determining the date of the composition of our book, see the Introd. § 2.
Footnotes:
[1]The Kethib והיה, although we cannot allowably express it as a sing in the translation, is to be retained in the text rather than the needless Keri וְהָיוּ. Comp. Jos_11:2. Ewald’s Lehrg. § 306, a.
[2][Jos_15:1.—This verse would read more exactly as follows: And there was the lot for the tribe of the sons of Judah according to their families: toward the border of Edom, the wilderness of Zin southward, in the extreme south.—Tr.]
[3][Ver.9.—Gesenius inclines to the meaning “stretched” “extended,” for תָּאַר in the Kal and Piel; and so De Wette, Fay, and others translate; but as Fürst and Winer (Simonis) approve in these conjugations the definition “mark off,” defisire, which all admit to be the sense of the Piel, there seems to be no necessity for changing the English version.—Tr.]
[4][Jos_15:19.—נְתַתָּני. Since the suf. י cannot well be taken as a dat. but only as an acc., many have understood אֶרֶץ ה׳ adverbially, “into a land,” etc. So Fay, following Knobel: Nach dem Mittagslande hast du mich gegeben. So also the LXX.: ὅτι εἰς γῆν Νάγεβ δεδωκάς με; but the Vulgate more simply regards this as a case where the verb of giving governs two accusatives; terram australem et torrentem dedisti mihi. Gesen. Lex. s. v. נָתַן p. 703, 1. Witt this agree De Wette, Maurer, Keil, Zunz.—Tr.]
[5][Ver 21.—And the cities were, in [or from] the extremity of the tribe of the sons of Judah, toward the border of Edom, in the south-country: Kabzeel, etc.—Tr.]
[6]Numerous Codd. and Editions read לַחְמַם (Lahmas) instead of לַחְמַם.
[7]So according to the Keri הַנָּדוֹל, while the Kethib would have it written הַגְּבוּל. On the reading of the Kethib, comp. Jos_15:12.
[8]So the Keri וְיָנוּם the Kethib reads וְיָנִים, hence Bunsen: Janim. We stand by the reading of the Masoretes with the LXX. (Ιανούμ), Vulg. (Janum), Luther, and De Wette.
[9]Between verses 59 and 60 the LXX. have (A B E X) the addition: Θεκὼ καὶ ’́Εφρατα (αὕτη ἐστί Βεθλεέμ) καί φαγὼρ, και ’Αιτάμ (Αἰτάν in Cod. Vat.) και Κουλὸν καὶ Ταταμὶ (Τατάμ in cod. Vat.) καί Σωρής (Θωβής in Cod. Vat.) και Καρὲμ καὶ Γαλλὶμ καὶ Βαιθὴρ (Θεθήρ in Cod. Vat.) καὶ Μανοχώ. πόλεις ἕνδεκα καὶ αἱ κῶμαι αὐτῶν.) See further on this in the Exegetical notes.
[10][A full account of this spring (called there “Well of the Messengers”) is given in Gage’s Ritter, iv. 145–148.—Tr.]
[11][Punctuation in English can but imperfectly serve the purpose here of the nominative ending as distinct from that of the genitive, in German, to indicate that brother is in apposition with Othniel, thus making the latter Caleb’s brother.—Tr.]
[12][Tristram (Land of Israel, p. 609 f.) strenuously maintains that the Apricot is the apple of Scripture.—Tr.]
[13][Dict. of the Bible, art. “Camphire.”—Tr.]
Lange's Commentary on the Holy Scriptures (Critical, Doctrinal, and Homiletical), ed. John Peter Lange, English translation edited by Philip Schaff (1864–1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Daniel D. Whedon 1874 · Public Domain ORIGINAL LOT OF JUDAH, Jos_15:1-63.
ORIGINAL LOT OF JUDAH, Jos_15:1-63.
[The tribe of Judah received the first allotment, and a very disproportionate share of the Land of Promise, for its territory embraced nearly the half of western Palestine. This original lot, however, was afterwards diminished by assigning a part of it to Simeon. Jos_19:1. The original borders, districts, and cities of Judah are detailed with great minuteness in this chapter, and to a much greater extent than those of any other tribe. Grove suggests that “this may be due either to the fact that the lists were reduced to their present form at a later period, when the monarchy resided with Judah, and when more care would naturally be bestowed on them than on those of any other tribe; or to the fact that the territory was more important, and more thickly covered with towns and villages, than any other part of Palestine.” — Smith’s Bib. Dict. Many and great were the prophetic blessings pronounced on Judah by his father. Gen_49:8-12. He was to be the pride and glory of his brethren, the mighty conqueror, whose symbol was the lion, and whose pre-eminence was represented by the sceptre and the ruler’s staff, never to depart “until Shiloh come.” The same prophetic blessing also characterized his section of the Promised Land. “The elevation of the hills and tablelands of Judah is the true climate of the vine, and at Hebron, according to the Jewish tradition, was its primeval seat. He bound ‘his foal unto the vine, and his ass’s colt unto the choice vine; he washed his garments in wine, and his clothes in the blood of grapes.’ Gen_49:11. A vineyard on a hill of olives, with the ‘fence,’ and the ‘stones gathered out,’ and the ‘tower in the midst of it,’ is the natural figure which, both in the prophetical and evangelical records, represents the kingdom of Judah. Isa_5:1; Mat_21:33. The vine was the emblem of the nation on the coins of the Maccabees, and in the colossal cluster of golden grapes which overhung the porch of the second temple.” — Stanley.
Read full note →
1. Even to the border of Edom — The latter part of this verse should be rendered, to the border of Edom the wilderness of Zin southward from the extremity of Teman. Teman was a district in the land of Edom, and lay, perhaps, not far southeast of the Dead Sea. Its position, however, is unknown. The sense of the whole verse is: Judah’s lot extended into the extreme south, bordering on Edom and the desert of Zin. The Edomites occupied the mountainous region directly south of the Dead Sea, and the wilderness of Zin was the desert tract extending westward from this, in which lay Kadesh. See on Num_20:1; Num_33:36.
Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges 1878 · Public Domain Ch. Jos_15:1-12. Boundaries of the Tribe of Judah
Ch. Jos_15:1-12. Boundaries of the Tribe of Judah
1. the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah] In this Chapter we have (a) the boundaries of the tribe of Judah (Jos_15:1-12); (b) Caleb’s possession (Jos_15:13-19); (c) a list of the cities of Judah (Jos_15:20-63). “The lot of the tribe” = the lot which was drawn or fell to them.
Read full note →
even to the border of Edom] i. e. the territory of Judah extended to Edom on the east, and was bounded on the south by the wilderness of Zin, or that part of the wilderness of Paran, in which Kadesh-barnea was situated.
1. Zenan = Zaanan (Mic_1:11), site unknown; 2. Hadashah, site unknown; 3. Migdal-gad, site unknown; 4. Dilean, site unknown; 5. Mizpeh, not the Mizpeh of Benjamin (ch. Jos_18:26); 6. Joktheel, site unknown; 7. Lachish (see above Jos_10:3); 8. Bozkath, uncertain; 9. Eglon (see above, Jos_10:3); 10. Cabbon; 11. Lahmam; 12. Kithlish; 13. Gederoth, all undetermined; 14. Beth-dagon, indicating by its name the Philistine worship of Dagon; 15. Naamah, undetermined; 16. Makkedah, a royal city of the Canaanites, already spoken of Jos_10:16.
1. Libnah, conquered by Joshua, see above, Jos_10:29-30; 2. Ether, and 3. Ashan, see 1Ch_4:32; 4. Jiphtah; 5. Ashnah, sites unknown; 6. Nezib = the modern Nûsib; 7. Keilah, to the north of Nezib, the modern Kila; this was the town (a) which David rescued from the attack of the Philistines (1Sa_23:7); (b) which became the repository of the sacred ephod after the massacre of the priests at Nob (1Sa_23:6); (c) which David left, warned of the intention of the inhabitants to deliver him to Saul (1Sa_23:13); 8. Achzib, see Gen_38:5; Mic_1:14; 9. Mareshah, afterwards fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch_11:8), and the scene of the victory of king Asa (2Ch_14:9-13). It was subsequently called Maresa, and was famous in the contests of the Maccabees (1Ma_5:65-68). It was restored by the Roman general Gabinius, and destroyed by the Parthians. The modern name is Merash.
1. Ekron, see ch. Jos_13:3, with her towns, or rather “daughter towns”, and villages; 2. Ashdod, with her “daughter towns” and villages, see above, ch. Jos_11:21; Joshua 3. Gaza, with her “daughter towns” and villages, see above, ch. Jos_10:41; as far as the “river of Egypt,” see above, Jos_13:3, and “the great sea.”
1. Shamir, still unknown; 2. Jattir, probably the modern ’Attîr, 10 miles south of Hebron; 3. Socoh, not Shocoh in “the Lowland,” but like it now called Suweikeh; 4. Dannah, still unknown; 5. Kirjath-sannah, i.e. Debir, see above, Jos_10:38, Jos_15:15; Joshua 6. Anab, a town of the Anakims (ch. Jos_11:21), still existing under its old name; 7. Eshtemoh, one of the places frequented by David and his followers during his life as an outlaw (1Sa_30:28). Now Semua, seven miles south of Hebron; 8. Anim, close to Eshtemoa, nine miles south of Hebron; 9. Goshen, not determined; 10. Holon, a priest’s city (1Ch_6:58); 11. Giloh, the site of which has not yet been discovered, but it was (a) the birthplace of Ahithophel (2Sa_15:12); (b) and the place where the traitor hanged himself (2Sa_17:23).
1. Arab; 2. Dumah, a ruined village not far from Hebron, now Ed-Daumeh; 3. Eshean, site unknown; 4. Janum, not discovered; 5. Beth-tappuah = “House of Apples.” The name has been preserved in Tefffûh, a place about 5 miles west of Hebron; 6. Aphekah, not the Aphek of ch. Jos_12:18, Jos_13:4, but on the mountains of Judah; 7. Hum-tah, not yet discovered; 8. Kirjath-Arba, see above, Jos_14:15, Jos_15:13; Joshua 9. Zior, unknown.
1. Maon, to the east of Eshtemoa, now Main; here David hid himself during his life as an outlaw (1Sa_23:24), and here he met Nabal, the churl (1Sa_25:2); 2. Carmel (Kurmul), a name familiar in the history (a) of Saul (1Sa_15:12); (b) of David (1Sa_25:2; 1Sa_25:5; 1Sa_25:7); (c) of Uzziah (2Ch_26:10); 3. Ziph (Tell Zif), about five miles south-east of Hebron, where (a) David hid himself (1Sa_23:19; Psalms 54. title); which (b) Rehoboam fortified (2Ch_11:8); 4. Juttah, west of Ziph, now Yǔtta, a priests’ city (ch. Jos_21:16); 5. Jezreel, the home of Ahinoam the second wife of David (1Sa_25:43); 6, Jokdeam; 7. Zanoah, these places are undiscovered, and not elsewhere named; 8. Cain, likewise unknown; 9. Gibeah = “hill,” a very common name; 10. Timnah, not the Timnah between Beth-shemesh and Ekron (Jos_15:10), but the place whither Judah went up to his sheep-shearing (Gen_38:12-14).
1. Halhul, still called Hûlhûl, north of Hebron, on the way to Jerusalem, in a well-cultivated region of fields and vineyards; 2. Beth-zur, to the north of Halhul, now Beit Sur, fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch_11:7), and one of the strongest fortresses afterwards in all Judæa (1Ma_4:29; 1Ma_4:61; 1Ma_6:7; 1Ma_6:26); 3. Gedor, north-west of Beth-zur, now Jedûr; see 1Ch_12:7, on the brow of a high mountain, north-west of the road between Jerusalem and Hebron; 4. Maarath, unknown; 5. Beth-anoth = “house of Echo” (Gesenius), now Beit Ainûn; 6. Eltekon, site unknown.
1. Kirjath-baal = Kirjath-jearim, see above, Jos_15:9; Joshua 2. Rabbah, unknown.
The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers 1878 · Public Domain (1) This then was the lot.—Rather, And the lot…
XV.
(1) This then was the lot.—Rather, And the lot came to the tribe of Judah. We might perhaps better begin this section with the last sentence of Joshua 14, and read thus: “And the land had rest from war; and the lot fell to the tribe of Judah (i.e., the tribe of Judah received its allotment), according to their families.”
Read full note →
The question arises at this point how the position of the tribes of Judah, Ephraim, and Manasseh was determined. As to the remaining seven, see Note on Jos_18:5-10. It is noticeable that Hebron appears to have been promised to Caleb (Jos_14:12), and Shechem assigned to Joseph by Jacob (Gen_48:21-22; Jos_24:32). Did not this necessarily bring the tribe of Judah into the south, the neighbourhood of Hebron, and Ephraim (with his brother Manasseh) into the centre of the country?
A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Pulpit Commentary 1880 · Public Domain The lot of the tribe of the children of…
THE LOT OF JUDAH.
The lot of the tribe of the children of Judah. The first twelve verses of this chapter define the boundaries of Judah. With it compare Num_34:3-5, which gives the southern border of the Israelitish territory, corresponding closely with this account of the southern border of Judah. The word tribe here is, as might be expected from the context hfm and not fbV Even to the border of Edom. The literal translation, which makes the passage clearer, is, "the border of Edom, the wilderness of Zin towards the dry region (hBgn) from the extreme limit of the south myte. The latter of these words, derived from ymiy "right hand," being the position of the south when regarded from the point of view of a man looking eastward, denotes the southward direction. (see above, Jos_12:2) The former word has reference to the physical conditions of the country, its heat and dryness. The LXX does not attempt to translate the former word and has evidently vdeQmi for hxqmi. The wilderness of Zin. Not to be confounded with the wilderness of Sin. (Exo_16:1; cf. Num_34:11) This wilderness was on the border of Edom. (Num_20:1 Num_27:14) Thence the border of Judah (which here includes the small portion afterwards allotted to Simeon) extended to the utmost limits of the south. (see Jos_19:1, Jos_19:9) A wall of mountains extends southwestward from the southern extremity of the Dead Sea, and formed the natural boundary of Judaea.
Read full note →
Vers. 1-63. The inheritance of Judah.
This chapter does not suggest much matter for homiletic treatment. The chief points to be noticed are
a. the fulfilment of the prophecy of the pre-eminence of Judah uttered by Jacob, (Gen_49:8-12) due no doubt originally to the pre-eminence of Judah for gentleness and justice above all his brethren except Joseph;
b. the picture of filial and parental affection in the family of Caleb, as evinced by the manner in which Achsah made her request, and the readiness with which, being a reasonable one, it was granted;
c. the valour of Othniel, fitting him for his future eminence as a deliverer and judge of Israel; and
1. the want of faith, noticed more particularly elsewhere, which, while cities of such importance as are here enumerated had been given by God into the hand of Judah, this tribe did not appropriate to itself the promise, and the Philistine cities became the sorest thorns in their sides of all their surrounding enemies. We may add
2. that Caleb"s behaviour to Achsah supplies us with an illustration of the text, "If ye, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more shall your heavenly Father give good things to them that ask Him". (Mat_7:11)
The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Biblical Illustrator 1887 · Public Domain This then was the lot of . . .…
Jos_15:1-12
This then was the lot of . . . Judah.
Read full note →
The inheritance of Judah
Judah was the imperial tribe, and it was fitting that he should be planted in a conspicuous territory. Judah and the sons of Joseph seem to have obtained their settlements not only before the other tribes, but in a different manner.. They did not obtain them by lot, but apparently by their own choice and by early possession. Judah was not planted in the heart of the country. That position was gained by Ephraim and Manasseh, the children of Joseph, while Judah obtained the southern section. The territory of Judah was not pre-eminently fruitful; it was not equal in this respect to that of Ephraim and Manasseh. It had some fertile tracts, but a considerable part of it was mountainous and barren. It was of four descriptions--the hill country, the valley or low country, the south, and the wilderness. The hill country, says Dean Stanley, is the part of Palestine which best exemplifies its characteristic scenery; the rounded hills, the broad valleys, the scanty vegetation, the villages and fortresses, sometimes standing, more frequently in ruins, on the hill tops; the wells in every valley, the vestiges of terraces whether for corn or wine. (W. G. Blaikie.)
The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary 1892 · Public Domain Jos_15:1. This verse states the position of the lot…
THE INHERITANCE OF JUDAH
CRITICAL NOTES.—
Read full note →
Jos_15:1. This verse states the position of the lot of Judah in relation to the whole of Canaan; it was in the extreme south of the land. In Jos_15:2-4 we have given the particulars of the southern border of the southern lot.
Jos_15:2. Their south border] Compare Num_34:3-5. The bay that looketh southward] Marg.=“the tongue.” “This tongue is the southernmost portion of the Dead Sea, reaching from the peninsula, which runs out a great distance into the sea on the west of Kerek (Robinson ii. 216, sqq.), to the south point of the sea by the so-called Salt-hill and Salt-marsh. At this point the boundary of Judah commenced.” [Keil.]
Jos_15:3. To Maaleh-Acrabbim] Lit., “The acclivity of scorpions;” marg., “The going up to Acrabbim.” Robinson concluded that the range of cliffs, a few miles south of the Dead Sea, was the place indicated. The remaining places named in this verse are unknown, though Hezron is mentioned in Jos_15:25, as being the same as Hazor.
Jos_15:4. Azmon Unknown: the name occurs also in Num_34:4-5. The “river” or “torrent of Egypt” is thought to be the Wady el Arish. At the Sea] The Mediterranean Sea; the southern border thus extending from the “tongue” of the Dead Sea to the Wady el Arish, on the coast of the Mediterranean. Robinson says that ruins of cities are still to be found as far south as is indicated by this line of boundary, in what was subsequently known as part of the desert.
Jos_15:5. The Salt Sea, unto the end of Jordan] That is, the eastern boundary extended from the southernmost point of the Dead Sea, to the mouth of the Jordan. Their border in the north] This was from near the mouth of the Jordan, on the north-east, to Jabneel, not far from the coast of the Mediterranean, and thence to the sea itself. The particulars of this boundary line extend to the close of Jos_15:11, and are given with more fulness of detail than those of even the southern boundary. This was the more necessary on account of adjoining tribes on this border.
Jos_15:6. Up to Beth-Hogla] Discovered by Robinson, near to Gilgal, about two miles westward from the Jordan, and about four miles north of the Dead Sea. It is now called Ain Hadjla. Though a frontier town, it belonged to the lot of Benjamin (chap. Jos_18:19; Jos_18:21). By the north of Beth-Arabah] By this it would seem that this place was at first allotted to Judah. This, in Jos_15:61, is said to have been the case. Yet, in chap. Jos_18:22, we learn that it was subsequently given to the tribe of Benjamin. The stone of Bohan] Thought to have stood upon the side of the mountains. It was so called after a Reubenite, who possibly may have distinguished himself in some manner in this neighbourhood soon after the crossing of the Jordan.
Jos_15:7. Debir] There were two other places of this name; Debir, near Hebron, also called Kirjath-Sepher, and a Debir on the east of Jordan, near Mahanaim (chap. Jos_13:26). Gilgal that is before the going up to Adummim] “The valley of Achor must be the Wady Kelt. Up that wady the line ran toward Debir (somewhere near the Khan Hudrur, near which is Wady Dabor). Then it turned northward to Gilgal (‘Geliloth’ in chap. Jos_18:17), which is opposite the going up to Adummim. This latter place is identified with Kalaat ed-Dem on the north of the Jerusalem and Jericho road, where the soil is red. Adummim signifies red. This Gilgal (or Gehloth), therefore, is a place near this spot, and not the Gilgal where Israel encamped down in the Arabah or Ghor.’ [Crosby.] With this also agrees Keil, but Von Raumer, Fay, and others, think the Gilgal to be the place of the first encampment. The river, or “torrent,” is, of course, not the Jordan, but the Wady Kelt, or, as in chap. Jos_16:1, “the water of Jericho.” En-Shemesh]=“The spring,” or “fountain, of the sun;” below Bethany, on the road to Jericho. En-Rogel] Cf. chap. Jos_18:16; 2Sa_17:17; 1Ki_1:9. “In more modern times, a tradition, apparently first recorded by Brocardus, would make En-Rogel the well of Job or Nehemiah (Bir Eyub), below the junction of the valleys of Kedron and Hinnom, and south of the pool of Siloam. Against this general belief some strong arguments are urged by Dr. Bonar, in favour of identifying En-Rogel with the ‘fountain of the Virgin,’ ’Ain Umm ed-Daraj—the perennial source from which the pool of Siloam is supplied.” [Smith’s Bib. Dic.].
Jos_15:8. The valley of the son of Hinnom] This is the first mention in Scripture of the valley which afterwards became so notorious as the scene of a most revolting form of idolatry (cf. 2Ch_28:3; 2Ch_33:6, etc.), and which came to be known as a symbol of hell. Valley of the Giants] Lit. = “of the Rephaim.” This valley lies on the south-west of Jerusalem.
Jos_15:9. The water of Nephtoah] Now Liftah. “Liftah numbers its fighting men by hundreds, and provides Jerusalem, among other things, with water from its copious fountains.” [Valentiner.] Mount Ephron] Only mentioned here. Thought to be the high ridge between Liftah and Kuryet el-Enab, the modern name of Baalah. or Kirjath-jearim, next mentioned. This latter place was one of the cities formerly belonging to Gibeon (chap. Jos_9:17).
Jos_15:10. Mount Seir … Mount Jearim, etc. “Mount Seir is the high ridge on which is Saris. Mount Jearim, or Chesalon (on Mount Jearim), is now Kesla, on the lofty summit between Wady Ghurah and Wady Ismain. Beth-Shemesh is now Ain Shems. Timnath, conspicuous in Samson’s history, is Tibneh, where one looks out on the Philistine plain.” [Crosby.]
Jos_15:11. Ekron] Cf. on chap. Jos_13:3. Nothing is known of Shieron. Mount Baalah] A short ridge of hills on the west of Ekron, noticed by Robinson. Jabneel] Elsewhere = Jabneh (2Ch_26:6), and frequently alluded to in Maccabees. Robinson supposed that from Jabneel the boundary proceeded in a direct line to the sea, others think that it may have followed the course of the adjacent valley.
Jos_15:12. The west border] This, like the opposite boundary on the east, being formed throughout by sea-coast, is thus briefly indicated.
Jos_15:13-16. And unto Caleb, etc.] Cf. on chap. Jos_14:6-15. Compare, also, Jdg_1:10-20. Keil contends that neither of these passages is copied from the other, but that both were compiled from a common document of an earlier date.
Jos_15:17. Othniel the son of Kenaz, the brother of Caleb] “The Masorites, by their pointing (both here and in Jdg_1:13; Jdg_3:9), make Othniel the brother of Caleb. This would make Achsah marry her uncle, which Keil asserts was not forbidden in the law. It seems, however, to be against the spirit of Lev_18:14. Moreover, it is unlikely that Caleb would have a brother so young as to be a judge of Israel for forty years after Joshua’s death (Jdg_3:11). I prefer, therefore, to take the word ‘brother’ to refer to Kenaz, the younger brother of Caleb, whose son was Othniel. Kenaz would be a family name repeated in Othniel’s father.” [Crosby.]
Jos_15:20. This is the inheritance] Keil and Fay make this verse to be the concluding formula to the first division of the chapter, but it seems more natural to read it as introductory to the catalogue of cities which follows.
Jos_15:21-32. The cities of the Negeb, or south] Thirty-six names are given, and in Jos_15:32 the number of the cities is said to be twenty-nine. It has been contended by some, that several of the names are double; by others, that additional names are added to the list by some later writer, who omitted altering the number given as the total; while others have sought to reconcile the discrepancy by suggestions still more remote and unlikely. In the utter absence of positive evidence of alteration by any later writer, the tendency of the German critics to imagine an additional author cannot but be regretted. Such a view ought to be more than a speculation. Till reasons be given for some other course, the opinion that the number “twenty-nine” is a transcriber’s error is as good as any other, while it is less cumbrous, and thus more natural.
Jos_15:21-23. Kabzeel … Dimonah] Kabzeel may be the Jekabzeel of Neh_11:25; cf., also, 2Sa_23:2. Dimonah is thought to be the same as Dibon of Neh_11:25. Of the remaining cities of this group, nothing is known.
Jos_15:24-25. Ziph, and Telem, and Bealoth] These are unknown. Hazor-Hadattah = “New Hazor.” Kerioth-Hezron is also to be read as a compound name. The sites are not known.
Jos_15:26-28. Amam, etc.] Amam is unknown. Shema, said by Capellus and Reland to be the Sheba of chap. Jos_19:2, where it is again mentioned with Moladah. Moladah was afterwards assigned to Simeon (cf., also, Neh_11:26). It is thought to be the modern el-Milh, about four miles from Tel Arad, and nine east of Beersheba. The places named in Jos_15:27 are unknown. The same remark applies to Hazar-Shual, and Bizjothjab. Beer-sheba = “well of seven,” or “well of the oath,” referring to the oath of Abraham on setting apart the seven lambs for Abimelech (Gen_21:28-32. Compare, also, Gen_26:26-33). The modern name is Bir es-Seba.
Jos_15:29-32 Baalah, Iim, etc.] Little, or nothing, is known of the first five places named in this group Baalah, however, must be distinguished from Kirjath-jearim as named in Jos_15:9-10 of this chapter. Hormah; cf. on chap. Jos_12:14. Ziklag became famous as the residence of David, to whom it was given by Achish. Notwithstanding so many notices of this place, the site is uncertain. With the exception of being mentioned elsewhere, and perhaps in some cases under other names, these remaining cities of the south are unknown.
Jos_15:33-47. The cities of the Shephelah, or lowlands] Several of these have been noticed under other chapters, and others which are unknown may be passed over. As several cities in the Negeb were afterwards allotted to Simeon (chap. Jos_19:1-9), so some in this district were subsequently assigned to Dan (chap. Jos_19:40-48).
Jos_15:33. Eshtaol and Zoreah] Generally mentioned together. Memorable in connection with the life of Samson, and as the burial-place on himself and his father. By a comparison of chaps. Jos_13:25, Jos_18:12, both places were evidently near to each other and to Kirjath-jearim.
Jos_15:34. Zanoah] Robinson places it on the eastern side of the ruins of Zoreah, identifying it with the modern Zannah.
Jos_15:35. Jarmuth, etc.] Cf. on chaps. Jos_10:3; Jos_10:10, Jos_12:15. Socoh] Identified by Robinson in Shuweikeh. Near to Azekah (1Sa_17:1), fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch_11:7), and taken by the Philistines in the time of Ahaz. There was another place of this name in the mountains, which is also called Shuweikeh (cf. Jos_15:48).
Jos_15:36. Gederah and Gederothaim] Marg. =“or” Gederothaim. The LXX. omit the latter name, with whom agree Winer and Knobel. thus making the number of cities in this group to be “fourteen.”
Jos_15:37. Zenan] Thought to be the Zaanan of Mic_1:11.
Jos_15:38. Mizpeh] There were several places bearing this descriptive name (cf. on chap. Jos_11:3).
Jos_15:39. Lachish … Eglon] Cf. on chap. Jos_10:3. “Bozkath, the birth-place of the mother of Josiah (2Ki_22:1), stood somewhere near to these two cities.” [Keil.]
Jos_15:42. Makkedah] Cf. on chap. Jos_10:10.
Jos_15:43. Nezib] Thought by Robinson to be Beit Nusib, in the Wady Sur.
Jos_15:44. Keilah, etc.] Famous in the life of David (1 Samuel 23); mentioned also in Neh_3:17-18. “Achzib, mentioned here and Mic_1:14, was probably identical with Chezib, Gen_38:5 … Mareshah was fortified by Rehoboam (2Ch_11:8; cf., also Mic_1:15; 2Ch_14:9; 2Ch_20:37), and is frequently mentioned in later times.” [Keil.]
Jos_15:45-47. Ekron, etc.] Cf. under chaps. Jos_13:3, Jos_11:22.
Jos_15:48-60. The cities in the mountains] Many of these also are either little known, or have not been identified.
Jos_15:48. Jattir] Now ’Attir, about ten miles south of Hebron. Afterwards given to the priests (chap. Jos_21:13). It was one of the cities to whose elders David made presents, when he resided in Ziklag (1Sa_30:27).
Jos_15:49. Kirjath-Sannah] Cf. on chaps. Jos_10:38, Jos_15:7.
Jos_15:50. Anab, etc.] A former abode of the Anakim. Robinson speaks of it as still retaining its name, and as among the hills near to Shoco and Eshtemoah, about ten miles S.S.W. of Hebron.
Jos_15:52-54. Arab, and Dumah, etc.] These cities, forming the second group of this division, were all to the north of those named in the four verses preceding. Aphekah, it is thought by some, is not the same as the Aphek of chap. Jos_12:18, on which see note.
Jos_15:55-57. Maon, Carmel, etc.] Maon =Maîn, on a conical hill, about seven miles S.S.E. of Hebron. Cf., for associations, 1Sa_23:24-25; 1Sa_25:2. Carmel (now Kurmul), close to Maon, on the north. Cf. 1Sa_15:12; 1Sa_27:3. This must have been the place made famous by Uzziah’s husbandry and vines (2Ch_26:10). Ziph is now Tel Zîf. It was famous as a refuge of David (1Sa_23:14-15; 1Sa_26:2). Juttah, which still bears its ancient name, is between Ziph and Carmel. Jezreel only occurs again in 1Sa_25:43. Of the remaining cities of this group, little or nothing is known.
Jos_15:58-59. Halhul, Bethzur, etc.] These six cities were still more to the north. The three mentioned first, retain their former names. Following Jos_15:59, a group of eleven cities is given by the LXX., which, it is supposed, have been accidentally omitted from the Hebrew text.
Jos_15:61-62. The cities in the wilderness] By “the wilderness” is meant “the eastern slope of the mountain region, which is bare and rugged to the Dead Sea, and including so much of the Jordan plain as appertained to Judah. It was all a barren region, except in small oases by fountains.” [Crosby.]
Jos_15:61. Beth-Arabah] Cf. Jos_15:6. The three places which follow are not mentioned elsewhere, and are unknown.
Jos_15:62. The City of Salt] Robinson concluded that this stood in the Salt Valley at the southern end of the Dead Sea. Engedi] =Goat-fountain; now Aim Jidy, originally Hazazon-Tamar (Gen_14:7; 2Ch_20:2), so called, Josephus thought, on account of its palm groves. Its neighbourhood is celebrated as a refuge of David (1Sa_24:1-3), and as remarkable for its vineyards (Son_1:14).
Jos_15:63. The children of Judah at Jerusalem] For remarks on this, as indicating the time at which the book of Joshua was written, see below.
OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE PARAGRAPHS
Jos_15:1-12.—THE GENERAL POSITION OF THE TRIBE OF JUDAH IN THE LAND
“It is to be observed that the lot of the tribe of Judah not only falls on elevated ground, the very elevation of the territory indicating the dignity of the future kingdom, but a similar presage is given by its being the first lot that turns up. Judah is preferred to all others. Who does not see that it is raised to the highest rank, in order that the prophecy of Jacob may be fulfilled? Then, within the limits here laid down, it is well known that there were rich pastures, and vineyards celebrated for their productiveness and the excellence of their wines. In this way, while the lot corresponds with the prophecy of Jacob, it is perfectly clear that it did not so happen by chance; the holy patriarch had only uttered what was dictated by the Spirit.” [Calvin.]
Jos_15:13-14.—DIVINE PROMISES IN RELATION TO HUMAN EFFORT AND HUMAN STEADFASTNESS
These verses, with the four that follow, were probably inserted by the author of this book to give unity and completeness to the narrative respecting Caleb. As we learn by Jdg_1:1-16, the taking of Hebron was not till “after the death of Joshua.” In order that it might be seen that Caleb’s valour was no mere boast, and that the promise of Jehovah was sure to the man who trusted it, the fall of the city is related here.
I. God’s promises are given to the man who has a heart to use them. The “thing that the Lord said unto Moses” (chap. Jos_14:6) is here said to have become also “the commandment of the Lord to Joshua.” No such promise was given to the ten spies. It was to the man who believed that the walled city and the giant garrison were as nothing before the word of Jehovah, that the word of Jehovah came. The promises are always in the Scriptures; no man ever makes one of them his promise, who does not read with faith.
II. God’s promises are not given to promote our rest, but to provoke us to conflict. They are not to supersede our efforts, but to shew us the necessity of effort. They are not spoken to induce slothfulness, but to stir us to action. Joshua seems to have lived for about seventeen years after the time of conceding Caleb’s request, as narrated in the previous chapter. We must not suppose that during this time Caleb was idle, or that he feared the encounter to which he stood pledged. His whole life forbids that. It is rather to be concluded that with his usual magnanimity he gave his continued services to assist Joshua in bringing others into their inheritance before he sternly set himself to seek an entrance into his own.
III. God’s usual way in His promises is not to make our difficulties less, but our strength more. When Caleb advanced to Hebron, the Anakim were still there. Men cry to the Lord, “Lead me in a plain path, because of mine enemies,” and that prayer, doubtless, has been often answered. But the method of the Lord is usually not to diminish enemies, but to increase faith and strength. He replies: “As thy day is, so shall thy strength be;” and not, “As thy strength is, so shall thy day be.” To the great man who wanted less of the thorn and more of peace, the Divine voice merely answered,” My grace is sufficient for thee.” Hence the Bible is not a continued panorama of green pastures and still waters, but often shews stern battle-fields and glorious victories.
IV. God’s promises are worthy of our trust, not only in the day of peace, but in the time of actual conflict. Caleb had said the thing which was in his heart when he made his report to Moses, and exclaimed of Canaan, “We are well able to overcome it;” forty-five years later, when he made his request to Joshua, his faith was still firm (chap. Jos_14:12); but no less did this good man believe in his God in the day when he led his brethren to attack the fastness of Hebron, and slew the sons of Anak. God’s promises are not merely something to make the day of peace more peaceful, but stars, which no cloud of unbelief should be suffered to hide, intended to shine out upon us and guide us to victory in the otherwise dark night of actual conflict. “The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death.” In view of that stern foe, while it is somewhere in the distance, God’s promise brings peace; the noble host of the believing dead bear witness, with no conspicuous exception, that “the things which the Lord hath said” are equally sufficient when death actually comes. In the days of his health and strength, David sang with a sweetness that has thrilled through all the generations since, “Though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for Thou art with me:” in the days when he stood in the actual presence of the last enemy, the aged hand had not lost its former cunning with the harp, the sweet singer of Israel had forfeited nothing of his old sweetness, and the believing heart had been robbed by the veritable presence of its foe of none of its younger faith: “These be the last words of David.… Although my house be not so with God, yet He hath made with me an everlasting covenant, ordered in all things, and sure; for this is all my salvation and all my desire, although He make it not to grow.” The promise which is sufficient to the believing man in the day of his strength and peace, is equally sufficient in the day of his weakness and death.
Jos_15:15-19.—OTHNIEIS CONQUEST OF DEBIR.
Debir, or Kirjath-Sepher, has already been briefly noticed under chap. Jos_10:38. Why it was called “the city of the oracle,” or “the city of the book,” is unknown. Nor has the site of the city been yet determined. Some have identified it with Dewîr-ban, on the hills which stand on the north side of the Wady Nunkûr, about three miles west of Hebron. In this direction, according to Schwarz, there is also a Wady Dibir. Van de Velde, however, placed Debir at Dilbeh, about six miles south-west of Hebron, which seems more in harmony with the order of arrangement in Jos_15:48-50. In any case Debir must be held to have been sufficiently near to Hebron to have made its possession by an enemy uncomfortable to Caleb. Hence the attack, which is proposed as soon as Hebron is taken.
The narrative of the taking of Debir is scarcely suitable for the purposes of a public discourse, at least not on ordinary occasions, nor by sentimental preachers. Nor can the verses be pleaded as having any authority beyond that which may be found in the conduct of an honourable man like Caleb. The following analysis is given principally as marking certain traits of character in those concerned, which should nevertheless be estimated in view of the then existing opinions as to a father’s rights in giving his daughter in marriage.
I. The spirit which influenced Caleb in the disposal of Achsah. He sought to unite her to a man
(1) honourable for his zeal and energy,
(2) conspicuous for his bravery,
(3) and willing to use his strength in the way of the Lord’s commandments.
(4) It seems likely also that Caleb sought to unite his daughter to one who was in a social station akin to her own. The promise was not to the man who should first enter Kirjath-Sepher. This may have been the nature of the similar promise at the siege of Jerusalem, under David, although it seems by no means certain that, even in this instance, David did not refer to the captain who should first bring his company into Jebus, and smite the garrison. He should be chief captain. (Cf. 2Sa_5:8; 1Ch_11:6.) However this may have been, Caleb’s promise ran, “He that smiteth Kirjath-Sepher, and taketh it, to him,” etc. No man single-handed could “smite and take” a fortified city; and thus the promise probably refers to the leaders of the army who were under Caleb. This view has also the advantage that it does not exhibit to us an honourable man like Caleb putting up his daughter as the object of a wretched scramble, where a mere accident of a stumble or a wound might decide whose she should be. Possibly there were but few of the commanders under Caleb officially qualified to lead one or more divisions of the army against Debir; and, of these, Othniel might first have volunteered, or he only might have volunteered to lead the attack. Any way, out of regard for Achsah, Othniel was one who offered to conduct the assault, and he succeeded. It is simply hideous to think of a good man like Caleb putting up his child, with all her future happiness at stake, as a reward to any man who, in the degrading and miserable scramble of an army, might first enter the city. The case so generally quoted, 1Sa_17:25, is not parallel to this supposition, and even if it were, Caleb was not Saul.
II. The harmony between the father and the daughter.
1. Achsah accorded with her father’s will and with the custom of the age. There can be no doubt but that, at this period, a father was held to have an absolute right to the disposal of his daughter’s hand (cf. Gen_29:18-28; Exo_21:7-11; 1Sa_17:25, etc.); it does not follow, however, that a father would not consult his daughter’s wishes.
2. She had confidence in her father’s love, notwithstanding her recognition of his authority. She asked for a larger dowry (Jos_15:19). On leaving her father, to cleave to her husband, we thus find her seeking her husband’s interest.
3. Her father cheerfully responded to her request. The confidence which was bold to ask, was met by an affection which was pleased to bestow.
III. The honourable character in which this brief history introduces Othniel. He comes before us as a man of courage, willing to risk his life for the woman he loved. He is seen to perhaps even more advantage in not preferring the request which Achsah prompted him to make. He may have refused to comply with his wife’s wishes. The history does not actually say this; it merely shews that Achsah made her request herself. Othniel was bold enough to fight; he seems to have been too manly to have allowed himself to ask for this addition to what was, probably, already a just and good inheritance. He was brave enough to do battle against Debir; he was not mean enough to beg. If Achsah needed a larger dowry, such a request would come better from herself. These features are well in harmony with the dignity to which Othniel afterwards rose, and with the way in which he seems to have acquitted himself as the first of the judges of Israel.
Jos_15:63.—THE DATE AT WHICH THE BOOK OF JOSHUA WAS WRITTEN.
On this verse Keil remarks as follows:—“The author closes the catalogue of the cities with the historical announcement, that the children of Judah could not drive the Jebusites out of Jerusalem, and that the Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day. This statement applies to the interval between Joshua and David, to the period after the death of Joshua, when the children of Judah had already once taken and burnt this city, which stood upon the borders of their territory (Jdg_1:8), but were still unable to maintain it, and were therefore obliged, as were also the children of Benjamin, to whom Jerusalem was allotted, to occupy it in common with the Jebusites, whom they could not expel. The statement undoubtedly presupposes the period after Joshua, but it does not involve a contradiction either to chap. Jos_18:28, or Jdg_1:21; for it is not said here that Jerusalem belonged to the tribe of Judah, or that the children of Judah alone had set up a claim to it, to the exclusion of Benjamin.”
Although the verse seems undoubtedly to require a time after the death of Joshua for its insertion here, it still more emphatically claims to have been written prior to the time when David overcame the Jebusites, and henceforth reigned in Jerusalem. After that event, this veres could certainly not have been written. Fay, who more or less fully adopts the view of Knobel (who places the “Jehovist” author of this book as late as “the last years of Hezekiah”), studiously avoids saying anything about the verse, excepting that it is “important for determining the date of the composition of the book.” He refers his readers to his “Introduction, § 2,” where the only notice taken of the passage is in half a line quoted from Keil, and he further says, under this verse, “See more on Jos_18:28,” where he says about it nothing whatever. It is much to be regretted that when the importance of the verse had been admitted, the direction in which its important testimony bears was not also acknowledged.
THE INABILITY OF JUDAH TO DRIVE OUT THE JEBUSITES
I. The inability which comes through unbelief. Why could not Judah drive out the Jebusites? Had not God promised to be with the Israelites in their conflicts? Was the Lord’s arm shortened, that it could not save? We cannot think this for a moment. God had repeatedly spoken to His people as though they were not only responsible for giving battle, but also responsible for getting the victory (Exo_23:27-33; Exo_34:11-12; Deu_7:17-24, etc.). Only unbelief, coming from conscious sin, or as a weak distrust of God, could have made Judah feel that they were unequal to this task. Is not our unbelief equally manifest now, when we decline work to which God has bidden us, on the ground that we are unable to perform it?
II. Unbelief working fear and inaction. The men of Judah had already been victorious in part. They had overcome and destroyed at least the lower half of the city (Jdg_1:8). It needed only that they should continue their struggle, and, according to the Divine promise, they must have taken the upper city also. They could not, however, bring themselves to believe that God would give the fortress of the Jebusites into their hands. When God fails our hearts, our hearts may well fail before our enemies. When faith departs, fear necessarily enters in its place. Thus zeal departs also, and inaction and indifference follow.
III. Fear and inaction resulting in continued shame and suffering. The Israelites had to suffer nearly four centuries of insult and humiliation from the Jebusites. As a crowning exhibition of their scorn, they manned the walls with the lame and the blind, and bade David dispossess them if he could (2Sa_5:6). The work which the men of Benjamin and Judah failed to do at first, had to be done, after all. It is ever thus; unbelief delivers us from little of our work ultimately, and so long as it delays our work, is continually fruitful both of shame and pain. It is he who hearkens to his Lord’s commandments, and obeys, who finds that his peace flows like a river.
The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.
J. R. Dummelow 1909 · Public Domain The Assignment of the Territory
The Assignment of the Territory
It has been noticed that there are many incidental features in this narrative which point to a contemporary document. Thus in the lot of Judah we have a full description, both of the frontier-lines (Jos_15:1-12), and also of the chief cities contained within them (Jos_15:21-62): and the same is true of Benjamin (Jos_18:11-28). But these are the tribes which seem to have conquered their territory soonest and most completely. Ephraim and Manasseh, on the contrary, have only their boundaries mentioned without any list of cities (16). As a matter of fact, the children of Joseph seem to have had more difficulties with the Canaanites (Jos_17:12, Jos_17:16, cp. Jdg_1:27); than had Judah and Benjamin. Again, Simeon (Jos_19:1-9) and Dan (Jos_19:40-48) have no boundaries mentioned, only cities, because they originally settled in the territory of Judah and Benjamin. Finally, the accounts of the territory of the remaining tribes, Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, Naphtali (Jos_19:10-39), are defective, as is natural if at the date when the document was originally drawn up, these territories were not yet completely conquered: cp. Jdg_1:30-33. But if the document be strictly contemporary, it must be regarded as closing with Jos_19:46.
Read full note →
The Lot of Judah
1-12. The boundaries of Judah's lot. There is a valuable descriptive note on this section and on Jos_15:20-63 in Black's Commentary on 'Joshua' in the Smaller Cambridge Bible.
2-4. The S. Frontier. This coincides, of course, with the S. Frontier of the whole land as given in Num_34:3-5.
4. The river of Egypt] RV 'brook of Egypt,' not the Nile, but the Wâdy el Arish: cp. Jos_15:47.
5. The E. Frontier, viz. the Dead Sea.
5-11. The N. Frontier. Cp. the account in Jos_18:15-20 of the S. Frontier of Benjamin. This is by far the most complicated of the four frontiers, but its line can be fairly well traced. It leaves the Jordan some 4 m. N. of the Dead Sea, and runs W., then SW. past Jerusalem, W. again near Bethlehem, and NW. as it descends to the maritime plain.
7. Debir] This cannot be the same as the Debir of Jos_11:21; Jos_15:15, Jos_15:49. Perhaps the reading here should be 'toward the wilderness.' The going up to (RV 'the ascent of) Adummim] This was the steep pass on the road from Jericho to Jerusalem. Enrogel] a spring near Jerusalem which supplies the Pool of Siloam.
8. Valley of the giants] RV 'vale of Rephaim,' SW. of Jerusalem.
9. Kirjath-jearim] 7 m. NW. of Jerusalem.
10. Mount Seir] in Judah, distinct from the Mt. Seir in Edom. Beth-shemesh Timnah] in Dan.
11. Jabneel] on the coast, known later as Jamnia (cp. 1Ma_4:15; 2Ma_12:8), in later days a famous seat of Jewish learning.
12. The W. Frontier, viz. the Mediterranean. Practically, however, the Philistines held the coast for many centuries.
13-19. The inheritance of Caleb. This passage is repeated in Jdg_1:10-15, where, however, the expulsion of the Anakim from Hebron, attributed (Jos_11:21-23) to Joshua and Israel, and here (cp. Jos_14:12) to Caleb, is ascribed more vaguely to Judah. For further instances of parallels or quasi-parallels, with the book of Judges see on Jos_15:63; Jos_19:47; Jos_24:28.
13. Caleb] = 'dog.' He seems to have been of Edomite origin (Jos_14:6). He was by no means a solitary instance of an alien adopted into the tribe of Judah. In the ancestry of David himself we find the Canaanitess Rahab and the Moabitess Ruth. Father of Anak] LXX has 'metropolis of Anak': see on Jos_14:15.
15. Debir] see on Jos_10:38.
17. Othniel] (='Lion of God'). For his subsequent career see Jdg_3:9-11.
20-62. The cities of Judah.
20-32. Cities in the Negeb, or 'south country': see on Gen_12:9.
33-47. Cities in the Shephelah, or 'lowland' (not as AV 'valley'): the fertile undulating tract between the central ridge and the maritime plain.
48-60. Cities in the 'Mountain,' i.e. the rocky backbone of Judah, the limestone watershed between the Mediterranean and the Dead Sea. Mt. Ephraim is its continuation northwards.
59. LXX inserts here a list of 11 cities (including Tekoa and 'Ephrata which is Bethlehem') which seems to have dropped out of the Massoretic text.
61, 62. Cities in the 'Wilderness,' i.e. the steep and barren slopes between the Mountain and the Dead Sea eastward.
63. The Jebusites dwell with the children of Judah at Jerusalem unto this day] The parallel passage in Jdg_1:21 has 'Benjamin' for 'Judah,' which may be an earlier form. At first sight this v. seems to belong to a time anterior, or at latest to the time when David (2Sa_5:6.) captured from the Jebusites the citadel of Zion. But that capture did not mean expulsion, as is clear from the later incident of Araunah (2Sa_24:16 cp. 1Ch_21:15; Cp. also the mention of Jebusites as late as Zec_9:7); and in a sense it may be true that Judahite and Jebusite only began to live together in Jerusalem when David made it his capital, though Jdg_1:21 may represent an earlier state of things.
J. R. Dummelow, A Commentary on the Holy Bible (Macmillan, 1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Arno C. Gaebelein 1922 · Public Domain 3. The Portion of Judah
3. The Portion of Judah
CHAPTER 15
Read full note →
1. The south-border of Judah’s portion (Jos 15:1-4)
2. The eastern and northern border (Jos 15:5-11)
3. The western border (Jos 15:12)
4. Caleb’s conquest (Jos 15:13-19)
5. Inheritance according to families (Jos 15:20-63)
This is a chapter which contains many names; nearly one hundred and fifty are recorded. With the help of a good concordance, or dictionary of Hebrew names, the English meaning may be ascertained. However, many of these names may be derived from different roots and have therefore a different meaning, while the meaning of others is rather obscure. For the reason already stated we cannot follow the possible meaning and application of these names. The lesson, however, is that the Lord distributed the inheritance to His people and placed them as it pleased Him. He knew their faithfulness and their ability, and accordingly they received their portion. And we, too, as members of His body, receive our portion and inheritance from Himself, “dividing to every man severally as He will” (1Co 12:11).
Caleb’s conquest is of additional interest. In the previous chapter we learned of his faith and how he honored the Lord. He acknowledged that the Lord had kept him alive; by His mercy he had been spared (Jos 14:10). He claimed His portion, and in humility of faith he expected success and victory. He gets Hebron, which means “communion.” The application in spiritual lines is interesting. Faith longs for Hebron, for communion. But the giants, the Anakim, are there, to keep away from real communion with God. They must be dispossessed. Caleb drove out the three sons of Anak. Their names are Sheshai, which means “my fine linen,” reminding us of our own righteousness (Shesh is the Hebrew word used for the fine linen in the tabernacle. In this way we get “Sheshai,” my fine linen); Ahiman, the meaning of this word is “who is my brother?” which may be applied to pride of desent; Talmai, the third son of Anak, means “abounding in furrows,” the pride of achievement. Pride in different forms is the hindrance to real communion with God. Pride has to be dethroned in the heart and in the life of His people. Only as we follow the Lord wholly, as Caleb did, shall we conquer and enjoy our Hebron in the Lord Jesus Christ. And he also had Debir (Oracle--the voice speaking); Kirjath-sepher means “city of the book.” Thus Hebron, communion, is closely linked with the written Word and the voice which speaks there. And in Achsah, Caleb’s daughter, we have another side of faith represented. When Caleb said unto her, “What wouldest thou?” she answered, “Give me a blessing, for thou hast given me a south land; give me also springs of water. And he gave her the upper springs and the nether springs.” It is faith which asks much and receives much.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The Boundaries of Judah.
The Boundaries of Judah.
v. 1. This, then, was the lot of the tribe of the children of Judah by their families, as it was drawn from the urn or as it fell upon casting; even to the border of Edom, the land be longing to the Edomites, south of the Dead Sea, the Wilderness of Zin southward was the uttermost part of the south coast. The territory of Judah thus extended to the very edge of the great desert in which the people had spent so many weary years.
Read full note →
v. 2. And their south border was from the shore of the Salt Sea, the Dead Sea, from the bay that looketh southward, the swampy tongue or branch of the Dead Sea toward the southwest;
v. 3. and it went out to the south side to Maaleh-acrabbim, where the country rises to the foothills of the mountains which form the boundary of the wilderness, and passed along to Zin, either a city or a mountain in the Wilderness of Zin, and ascended up on the south side unto Kadesh-barnea, Num 34:3, and passed along to Hezron, turning to the west after passing Kadesh, and went up to Adar, and fetched a compass to Karkaa;
v. 4. from thence it passed toward Azmon, and went out unto the river of Egypt, Num 34:4-5; and the goings out of that coast were at the sea, the boundary followed this brook or river to the Mediterranean Sea; this shall be your south coast.
v. 5. And the east border was the Salt Sea, even unto the end, the mouth, of Jordan. And their border in the north quarter, on the north side, was from the bay of the sea at the uttermost part of Jordan, just where it entered the Dead Sea;
v. 6. and the border went up to Bethhogia, between Jericho and the Jordan, and passed along by the north, that is, northwardly, of Betharabah, not far from the northwest end of the Dead Sea; and the border went up to the stone of Bohan, the son of Reuben, toward the west or southwest;
v. 7. and the border went up toward Debir, in the neighborhood of Gilgal, from the Valley of Achor, where Achan was executed, Jos 7:26, and so northward, looking toward Gilgal, that is before the going up to Adummim, which is on the south side of the river, of a small watercourse coming down from the neighborhood of Jerusalem; and the border passed toward the waters of Enshemesh, the sun-spring, some two or three miles northeast of Jerusalem, and the goings out thereof were at Enrogel, the fullers’ spring on the south side of Jerusalem, at the junction of the Kidron and the Hinnom valleys;
v. 8. and the border went up, almost due west, by the valley of the son of Hinnom unto the south side of the Jebusite, just below the city of Jerusalem; the same is Jerusalem; and the border went up to the top of the mountain that lieth before the Valley of Hinnom westward, which is at the tend of the Valley of the Giants northward, a rocky ridge overlooking the fertile valleys;
v. 9. and the border was drawn, brought around, bent, from the top of the hill unto the fountain of the water of Nephtoah, one hour northwest of Jerusalem, and went out to the cities of Mount Ephron, a prominent ridge, and the border was drawn to Baalah, which is Kirjath-jearim, three hours northwest of Jerusalem;
v. 10. and the border compassed from Baalah westward unto Mount Seir, a small range of hills, and passed along unto the side of Mount Jearim, which is Chesalon, on the north side, toward the north, a wooded hill, now called Kesia, and went down, on the other side of the mountain, to Bethshemesh, and passed on to Timnah, later the home of Samson, Jdg 14:1-4;
v. 11. and the border went out unto the side of Ekron, the Philistine city, a small line of hills running parallel with the coast, and went out unto Jabneel, the small Philistine town of Jabneh; and the goings out of the border were at the sea.
v. 12. And the west border was to the Great Sea, the Mediterranean Sea, and the coast thereof, from Jabneh to the river of Egypt. This is the coast of the children of Judah round about according to their families. It was a large and rich territory, well suited for the governing tribe in Israel.
Paul E. Kretzmann, Popular Commentary of the Bible (1921–1924) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
unfoldingWord translationNotes 2017 · CC BY-SA 4.0 This is the name of the wilderness area. (See:…
Zin
This is the name of the wilderness area. (See: How to Translate Names)
Read full note →
from the end of the Salt Sea, from the bay that faces to the south
"from the bay that faces south at the end of the Salt Sea." These two phrases refer to the same location. The second phrase clarifies the point at which the southern border begins.
from the bay that faces to the south
"from the bay that extends to the south" or "from the southern bay"
bay
smaller part of the sea that extends into the land
translationWords
assign
tribe
Judah
clan
Edom
desert
Salt Sea
unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.
Tyndale Open Study Notes 2022 · CC BY-SA 4.0 15:1-63 Judah’s tribal allotment is described in greater detail…
15:1-63 Judah’s tribal allotment is described in greater detail than that of the other tribes. The failures of Judah’s elder brothers (Gen 34:25-31; 35:22) put him in line to receive the mantle of leadership. Thus, the tribe of Judah received a central geographical position among the tribes, guaranteeing its leadership in the nation (Gen 49:8-12; Deut 33:7).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.