The lot came out for the children of Joseph from the Jordan at Jericho, at the waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness, going up from Jericho through the hill country to Bethel.
Parallel Translations
-
The lot came out for the children of Joseph from the Jordan at Jericho, at the waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness, going up from Jericho through the hill country to Bethel.
-
And the lot of the children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto the water of Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho throughout mount Beth-el,
-
And the lot for the children of Joseph went out from the Jordan at Jericho, at the waters of Jericho on the east, going up from Jericho through the hill-country to the wilderness, even to Beth-el.
Cross-references (4)
Passages linked to Joshua 16:1 in the Treasury of Scripture Knowledge, ordered by reader-vote popularity; verse text shown in World English Bible.
- Joshua 18:12 Their border on the north quarter was from the Jordan. The border went up to the side of Jericho on the north, and went up through the hill country westward. It ended at the wilderness of Beth Aven.
- Joshua 8:15 Joshua and all Israel made as if they were beaten before them, and fled by the way of the wilderness.
- 2 Kings 2:19-21 The men of the city said to Elisha, “Behold, please, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees; but the water is bad, and the land is barren.” He said, “Bring me a new jar, and put salt in it.” Then they brought it to him. He went out to the spring of the waters, and threw salt into it, and said, “Yahweh says, ‘I have healed these waters. There shall not be from there any more death or barren wasteland.’ ”
- Joshua 15:61 In the wilderness, Beth Arabah, Middin, Secacah,
Cross-references from openbible.info (CC BY 4.0)
Explain this verse (23 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. And the lot of the children of Joseph…
1. And the lot of the children of Joseph fell, etc The sacred writer first states what the lot was which fell to the two children of Joseph, and then describes the lot of Ephraim. It is strange, however, that when the half of the tribe of Manasseh had already been settled beyond the Jordan, more words are employed in describing the remaining half than in describing the whole of the inheritance of the tribe of Ephraim, though the latter was the more populous, and justly claimed for itself a larger territory. But the longer detail given concerning the posterity of Manasseh is owing to particular circumstances. First, the writer repeats how a settlement had been given them without lot in the country of Basan. Secondly, he mentions the ratification by Joshua of the command which Moses had given by divine authority in regard to the daughters of Selophead. Seeing, then, there was no doubt in regard to the boundaries of Ephraim, and there was no danger of dispute, their allocation is only briefly glanced at.
But here a new question arises. When the right of primogeniture had passed from Manasseh to Ephraim, how did the posterity of that tribe which had precedence in rank obtain their cities among the children of Manasseh? For theirs seems in this way to have been the inferior condition. My explanation is this, When the portion of Manasseh was too extensive in proportion to the amount of population, a calculation was made, and certain cities were deducted to complete the just share of the tribe of Ephraim; not that they were mixed up with the children of Manasseh, to hold their dwellings among them by a precarious tenure, but their boundaries were merely extended in the direction of the Manassites whom a narrower possession might suffice.
Read full note →
In the end of the chapter, Ephraim is severely censured for his effeminacy in not having expelled the Canaanites from Gezer. For had they proceeded in a manly and hearty manner to make good their right to the land which had fallen to them by lot, the victory was in their hands. There would have been no temerity in the attempt, since the decision of the lot was as valid as if the Lord himself had stretched forth his hand from heaven. But their disgraceful sloth is more clearly expressed and their culpability greatly heightened by the fact, that they made tributaries of those with whom it was not lawful to enter into any kind of arrangement. Seeing, then, God had distinctly forbidden his people to transact business of any kind with those nations, and least of all to enter into pactions with them, stipulating for their pardon and safety, the Ephraimites sinned much more grievously in exacting tribute than if they had tolerated them without paction.
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.
Geneva Bible translators 1599 · Public Domain That is, to Ephraim and his children: for Manasseh’s…
That is, to Ephraim and his children: for Manasseh’s portion followeth.
Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain.
John Trapp 1656 · Public Domain Jos 16:1 And the lot of the children of…
Jos 16:1 And the lot of the children of Joseph fell from Jordan by Jericho, unto the water of Jericho on the east, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho throughout mount Bethel,
Ver. 1. And the lot of the children of Joseph.] See Jos 15:1.
Read full note →
From Jordan by Jericho.] On the north of Canaan, as Judah’s had fallen on the south: that these two strongest tribes might be as bulwarks to both sides of the kingdom. So in their march through the wilderness, in their several companies or brigades, God put a strong tribe to two weak tribes, as Judah to Issachar and Zebulon, &c. See Isa 26:1; Isa 40:11.
Unto the water of Jericho.] Afterwards made no less famous than wholesome by Elisha’s healing of them. {2Ki 2:21}
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 Of Joseph, i.e. of Ephraim, and the half tribe…
Of Joseph, i.e. of Ephraim, and the half tribe of Manasseh, which are here put together in one; not because they had but one lot, for Ephraim had one here, Jos 16:5, and Manasseh another, Jos 17:1; but because in these first verses he speaks of them in common, and of the south border, which seems to be the same, either wholly or in a great part; and then he comes to the particular description of their several portions. It is here further remarkable, that God so disposed of these lots, that they came forth in decent and due order; Judah’s first, to whom the sovereignty was promised; and then Joseph’s, who succeeded Reuben in the other privilege of the birth-right, the double portion, 1Ch 5:1,2.
The water of Jericho; of which see 2Ki 2:19-22. The wilderness that goeth up from Jericho; the wilderness of Beth-aven, as appears by comparing Jos 18:12, which speaks of the very same border which was on the south of Ephraim, and on the north of Benjamin.
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 Though Joseph was one of the younger sons of…
Though Joseph was one of the younger sons of Jacob, yet he was his eldest by his most just and best beloved wife Rachel, was himself his best beloved son, and had been the greatest ornament and support of his family, kept it from perishing in a time of famine, and had been the shepherd and stone of Israel, and therefore his posterity were very much favoured by the lot. Their portion lay in the very heart of the land of Canaan. It extended from Jordan in the east (Jos 16:1) to the sea, the Mediterranean Sea, in the west, so that it took up the whole breadth of Canaan from side to side; and no question the fruitfulness of the soil answered the blessings both of Jacob and Moses, Gen 49:25, Gen 49:26, and Deu 33:13, etc. The portions allotted to Ephraim and Manasseh are not so particularly described as those of the other tribes; we have only the limits and boundaries of them, not the particular cities in them, as before we had the cities of Judah and afterwards those of the other tribes. For this no reason can be assigned, unless we may suppose that Joshua being himself of the children of Joseph they referred it to him alone to distribute among them the several cities that lay within their lot, and therefore did not bring in the names of their cities to the great council of their princes who sat upon this affair, by which means it came to pass that they were not inserted with the rest in the books.
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 And the lot of the children of Joseph fell,....…
And the lot of the children of Joseph fell,.... Or, "went out" (a); of the pot or urn, this being the next lot that was drawn to that of Judah, the government being Judah's, and the birthright Joseph's, Ch1 5:2; and by his children are here meant the tribe of Ephraim, and the tribe of Manasseh: or the line and border according to the lot went forth
from Jordan by Jericho unto the water of Jericho on the east; by which it appears, that this was the southern border of the lot; for the tribe of Benjamin, in which Jericho was, lay between Judah and Ephraim, and the border began at Jordan, where it flowed near Jericho, and proceeded to a water which belonged to that city, and is generally thought to be the waters Elisha healed, Kg2 2:19,
Read full note →
to the wilderness that goeth up throughout Mount Bethel; this was the wilderness of Bethaven, Jos 18:12; Jarchi interprets it of the border that went up through Mount Bethel; which is true, and so might the wilderness also, for which the Targum is express; mention is made of a mountain on the east of Bethel, Gen 12:8.
(a) "et egressa est", Pagninus, Montanus; "exivit", Piscator.
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 lot of Ephraim and Manasseh, ver. 1-4. Of…
The lot of Ephraim and Manasseh, ver. 1-4. Of Ephraim in particular, ver. 5-10
Children of Joseph - That is, of Ephraim, and the half tribe of Manasseh, which are here put together in one; because in these first verses he speaks of them in common; and then of their several portions.
John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.
Adam Clarke 1810 · Public Domain Borders of the children of Joseph, 1-4.
CHAPTER XVI
Borders of the children of Joseph, 1-4.
Read full note →
The borders of the Ephraimites, 5-9.
The Canaanites dwell tributary among them, 10.
NOTES ON CHAP. XVI
Verse 1. The children of Joseph] Ephraim and Manasseh, and their descendants. The limits of the tribe of Ephraim extended along the borders of Benjamin and Dan, from Jordan on the east to the Mediterranean on the west.
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 16:1. The lot of the children of Joseph…
Jos 16:1. The lot of the children of Joseph — That is, of Ephraim, and that half of the tribe of Manasseh which was not yet provided for, Jos 16:4. One cannot but observe the providence of God in bringing up their lot next to Judah’s. For as he had the prerogative of being made the chief of all Jacob’s children, (Gen 49:10,) so Joseph had that privilege of the firstborn, a double portion, transferred to his family. And therefore they have their inheritance assigned them before any of the other tribes except Judah.
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 To the wilderness - Strike out “to,” for the…
To the wilderness - Strike out “to,” for the word is in apposition to “lot.” The wilderness is Jos 18:12 “the wilderness of Bethaven.”
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 Joseph. The double portion is given to him, as…
Joseph. The double portion is given to him, as Ruben forfeited his birth-right. (Chaldean) (Worthington) --- Waters; or the celebrated fountain, which renders the territory so fruitful, and which was made sweet, by Eliseus casting salt into it, 4 Kings ii. 19. --- Wilderness of Bethaven, chap. xviii. 12., and viii. 14. (Calmet) --- Which, is not to be referred to wilderness, but to the word lot. (Masius; Menochius)
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 2. The Territory of the Tribes of Ephraim and…
2. The Territory of the Tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh
Joshua 16, 17
Read full note →
a. Its Boundaries
Jos_16:1-4
1And the lot of [for] the children [sons] of Joseph fell [came out] from [the] Jordan by Jericho, unto [at] the water of Jericho, on the east, to the wilderness which 2goeth up from Jericho throughout [on] Mount Beth-el, And goeth [and it went] out from Beth-el to Luz, and passeth [passed] along unto the border of Archi [the 3Archite] to Ataroth, And goeth [went] down westward to the coast [border] of Japhleti [the Japhletite], unto the coast [border] of Beth-horon the nether, and to 4Gezer: and the goings out thereof are [were] at the sea. So [And] the children [sons] of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance [possession].
b. Portion of the Tribe of Ephraim.
Jos_16:5-10
5And the border of the children [sons] of Ephraim [was] according to their families was thus [omit: was thus]: even [and] the border of their inheritance [possession] on the east side was Ataroth-addar, unto Beth-horon the upper; 6And the border went out toward the sea to Michmethah on the north side [so De Wette; Keil, and Fay: from Michmethah, northward]; and the border went about eastward unto Taanath-shiloh, and passed by it on the east [eastward] to Janohah. 7And it went down from Janohah to Ataroth, and to Naarath, and came to [struck or touched] Jericho, and went out at [the] Jordan. 8The border went out [went] from Tappuah westward unto the river [water-course of] Kanah; and the goings out thereof were at the sea. This is the inheritance [possession] of the tribe of the children [sons] of Ephraim by their families. 9And1 the separate cities for the children [sons] of Ephraim were among the inheritance of the children [sons] of Manasseh, all the cities with their villages. 10And they drave not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer: but the Canaanites dwell among the Ephraimites unto this day, and serve under tribute [and they became tributary servants; LXX.: κὰι ἐγένοντο ὑπόφοροι δοῦλοι].
c. Portion of the Tribe of Manasseh.
Chapter Jos_17:1-13
1There was also a lot [And there was the lot] for the tribe of Manasseh; for he was the first-born of Joseph; to wit, for Machir the first-born of Manasseh, the father of Gilead: [,] because he was a man of war, [;] therefore [and] he had Gilead and Bashan. 2There was also [And there was] a lot for the rest of the children [sons] of Manasseh by their families; for the children [sons] of Abiezer, and for the children [sons] of Helek, and for the children [sons] of Asriel, and for the children [sons] of Shechem, and for the children [sons] of Hepher, and for the children [sons] of Shemida: these were the male children of Manasseh the son of Joseph by their families. 3But [And] Zelophehad, the son of Hepher, the son of Gilead, the son of Machir, the son of Manasseh, had no sons, but daughters: and these are the names of his daughters, Mahlah, and Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. 4And they came near before Eleazar the priest, and before Joshua the son of Nun, and before the princes, saying, The Lord [Jehovah] commanded Moses to give us an inheritance [a possession] among our brethren: therefore [and] according to the commandment of the Lord [Jehovah] he gave them an inheritance [a possession] among the brethren of their father. 5And there fell ten portions to Manasseh, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which were on the other side [of the] Jordan; 6Because the daughters of Manasseh had an inheritance [possession] among his sons: and the rest of Manasseh’s sons had the land of Gilead.
7And the coast [border] of Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethah, that lieth before Shechem; and the border went along on the right hand [De Wette: towards the south] unto the inhabitants of En-tappuah. 8Now [omit: now] Manasseh had the land of Tappuah: but Tappuah on the border of Manasseh belonged to the children of Ephraim: 9And the border descended unto the river [water-course of] Kanah [reeds; hence = Reed-brook], southward of the river [water-course]. These cities2 of Ephraim are among the cities of Manasseh: the coast [border] of Manasseh also was on the north side of the river [water-course], and the out-goings of it were at the sea: 10Southward it [the land] was Ephraim’s, and northward it was Manasseh’s, and the sea is [was] his border; and they met together in [touched, or struck upon] Asher on the north, and in [upon] Issachar on the east. 11And Manasseh had in Issachar and in Asher, Beth-shean and her towns [daughters], and Ibleam and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of Dor and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of En-Dor and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of Taanach and her towns [daughters], and the inhabitants of Megiddo and her towns [daughters], even three countries [Gesen., Fay: the three heights, i.e. the three cities situated on heights. See the exegetical explanations. LXX.: καὶ το τρίτον τῆς Νοφεθ. Vulg.: tertia pars. Luther: the third part of Napheth. De Wette: three 12portions of country (drei Landschaften); Bunsen: die Dreilandschaft]. Yet [And] the children of Manasseh could not drive out the inhabitants of [could not conquer] 13those cities; but [and] the Canaanites would dwell in that land. Yet [And] it came to pass, when the children of Israel were waxen [became] strong, that they put the Canaanites to tribute [made the Canaanites tributary servants]; but did not utterly drive them out, [De Wette, Fay: aber vertreiben thaten sie sie nicht; nearly the same as “but drive them out they did not do;” to express: וְהוֹרֵשׁ לאֹ הוֹרִישׁוּ].
d. Complaint of the Sons of Joseph on Account of an insufficient Possession
Jos_17:14-18
14And the children [sons] of Joseph spake unto Joshua, saying, Why hast thou given me but one lot and one portion to inherit [as a possession], seeing I am a great people, forasmuch as [in so far as, עַד־אֲשֶׁר] the Lord [Jehovah] hath blessed me hitherto? 15And Joshua answered [said to] them, If thou be a great people, then [omit: then] get thee up to the wood-country [forest], and cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the giants [Rephaim], if mount Ephraim be too narrow for thee. 16And the children [sons] of Joseph said, The hill [mountain] is not enough for us: and all the Canaanites that dwell in the land of the valley have chariots of iron, both they who are of [in] Beth-shean and her towns 17[daughters], and they who are of [in] the valley of Jezreel. And Joshua spake unto the house of Joseph, even to Ephraim and to Manasseh, saying, Thou art a 18great people and hast great power, thou shalt not have one lot only: But the [a] mountain shall be thine; for it is a wood [forest], and thou shalt cut it down: and the out-goings of it [its outrunners, spurs] shall be thine: for thou shalt [wilt] drive out the Canaanites, though [for] they have iron chariots, and though they be [for they are] strong.
EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL
The two chapters, sixteen and seventeen, belong together, since they contain the statements concerning the territory of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh, the sons of Joseph (Gen_41:50-52; Gen_46:20; Gen_48:5 ff.). The united inheritance of the two tribes includes a fruitful, for the most part, and pleasant country lying in the midst of western Palestine. It extends from the Jordan, and the eastern declivities of mount Ephraim (which are much less rough than the land of Judah), across to the seashore which borders the beautiful plain of Sharon. Of this entire district Ephraim received the southern portion, Manasseh (strictly speaking only the half-tribe of Manasseh, comp. Jos_13:29 ff.) the northern. Ephraim only, and he for a narrow space, touched the Jordan. See the often mentioned and very clear Map iii. of Menke’s Bibel Atlas, and also Kiepert’s Wall Map. On the quality of the land comp. Robinson, iii., lect. xiv.; Ritter, xvi. 566 ff. [Gage’s transl. 4:293–332]; von Raumer, pp. 42–45; Furrer, pp. 211–246; Robinson, Phys. Geog. pp. 34–42 [Stanley, Sin. and Pal ch. v.].
a. Jos_16:1-4. Boundaries of the Entire Province. Jos_16:1. The lot came out, namely, from the urn. Bunsen rightly observes: “From the ambiguity of the word ‘lot,’ the passage might perhaps be paraphrased thus: ‘The lot was drawn for the children of Joseph and to them fell,’ ” etc.
From the Jordan by Jericho,3 at the water of Jericho on the east. The water of Jericho is the fountain of Elisha (2Ki_2:19-22), now Ain es-Sultan, whose waters are diffused over the plain (Robinson, ii. 283 ff.). It gurgles forth beautifully from under the rocks, and forms, at the foot of the hill from which it comes, a beautiful basin of water densely surrounded by oleanders and reeds (Furrer, p. 150. [Stanley, Sin. and Pal. p. 300, et ibid. Van de Velde, in a note]). Somewhat to the north of this, the still larger fountain of Dûk is met with, the waters of which, led along in canals, formerly turned several mills in the vicinity (Robinson, Furrer, [Stanley]). The border began at the lower Jordan, and went thence to the fountain of Elisha. This, accordingly, the region of the Jordan opposite Jericho, is its eastern starting point or, more correctly, place. Hence it passed into the wilderness which goes up if from Jericho on the mountain of Beth-el. The region intended here is what in Jos_18:12 is called the wilderness of Beth-aven, which city appears from Jos_7:2. to have lain east of Beth-el. On the mountain of Beth-el. “בהר which the Masoretes separate from בּית־אל is yet, and notwithstanding the LXX., Chald., and Arab. versions repeat this view, undoubtedly to be connected with בית־אל, according to 1Sa_13:2, and to be pointed בְּחַר. So the Vulg.: ad montem Bethel, and Syriac” (Keil). The mountain about Bethel is meant.
Jos_16:2. And it went out (the border) from Beth-el to Luz. Hebr. וַיָּצָא מִבּית־אֵל לוּזָּה. The words must either be translated, as we have done, with the LXX., Luther, De Wette, [Eng. vers.] Keil, Bunsen, in which case Beth-el stands, as Bunsen also supposes, for mountain of Beth-el; or, as Knobel among others prefers: “and it went out from Bethel-luzah.” In this translation Knobel (1) follows in Jos_16:1, the Masoretic pointing בְּחָר, (2) assumes in Jos_16:2 a union of the old and new names, “quite contrary to the usage of our author, who, when a city had two names places one after the other connected by היא, as he does e.g. (Jos_18:13) in the case even of Beth-el and Luz” (Keil). Other examples are Jos_15:14; Jos_15:49; Jos_15:54 (Joshua 16:59, LXX.), 60. See more concerning Beth-el and Luz on Jos_18:12-13. From Luz, i.e. Beth-el (Jos_18:13), it went, and on the south side of this city (Jos_18:13), unto the border of the Archite to Ataroth. Hushai was an Archite (2Sa_15:32; 2Sa_16:16; 1Ch_27:33). Where his possession lay is to be determined from Ataroth, concerning which see on Jos_18:13.
Jos_16:3. Thence it went down westward to the border of the Japhletite, unto the border of Beth-horon, the nether, and to Gezer; and the goings out thereof were at (or, toward) the sea. The border followed from Bethel toward Ataroth a northerly, then a southwestern, and finally a decidedly western course (see the map). The Japhletite (הַיַּפְלֵטִי), only here as a patronymic; the prop. name יַפְלֵט (whom He, i.e. God saves, Gesen.), 1Ch_7:32-33. On Beth-horon comp. partly Jos_10:10, partly Jos_18:13. Gezer (גֶזֶר), as the seat of a Canaanite king mentioned already Jos_10:33; Jos_12:12; according to Jos_21:21; 1Ch_6:52, a city of the priests; not yet discovered by modern travellers. Knobel seeks the city northwest of Beth-horon, where Menke has introduced the name. Comp. also von Raumer, p. 191, and his map, where he also has placed it northwest of Beth-horon.
Jos_16:4. “North of the line indicated Ephraim and Manasseh took their possession.” It is therefore only the south line of both tribes, which is at the same time the north line of Benjamin, and as such is given in inverse order as before mentioned, in Jos_18:12-13.
b. Jos_16:5-10. The Province of the Tribe of Ephraim. Jos_16:5. The south border is first given. Ataroth-addar appears as the starting-point, identical, according to Jos_18:13, with our Ataroth, Jos_16:2. Assuming this, “the author notices only the western half of the south border, and omits the eastern half,” for Beth-horon, whether the upper as here, to the lower as mentioned in Jos_16:2, lies west, or more accurately still, southwest of Ataroth-addar. We might, it is true, and Knobel proposes this as an alternative, read עַטָרוֹת, and understand the Ataroth mentioned Jos_16:7, which would then make the eastern part of the south border to be drawn. But in that case, ותָאַר or וְעָבַר would, it seems to us, be inserted between the two names. The first supposition therefore appears preferable, according to which we are to understand that the south border of Ephraim in its western half is specified from Ataroth-addar to Beth-horon. But even thus we have not, if we compare Jos_16:3, this western half of the line at all complete; for from Jos_16:3, the border proceeds still to Gezer, nay even to the sea. And the LXX. have here after Beth-horon καὶ Γάζαρα. Perhaps this, as well as what is mentioned besides, Jos_16:3, has here fallen out. At all events we have, as Jos_16:6 will show, to deal with a corrupt text, in which the first words of Jos_16:6 to and including הַיָּמָה might easily have formed the conclusion of ver 5, to which they would admirably suit. [Verse 5 would thus end—Beth-horon, the upper; and the border went out to the sea]. Then the south border at least of Ephraim, from Ataroth-addar to the sea, would be completely given.
Jos_16:6. Keil says, in reference to this verse: “With Jos_16:6 I know as little as my predecessors how to begin. It would appear that Jos_16:6-8 should give the northern boundary of the land of Ephraim, and that from a central point, in Jos_16:6-7 toward the east, then in Jos_16:8 toward the west,” as analogous to which, Knobel, who shares this view, adduces the south boundary of Zebulun, Jos_19:10-12, and the division of the places of Benjamin, Jos_18:21-28, as also the west border of Naphtali, Jos_19:33 ff. “In this view, however,” as Keil further remarks, “the first clause of Jos_16:6 is perfectly inexplicable, and must be corrupt.” Perhaps there originally stood “on the north the border went out from Michmethah, for according to Jos_17:7, the border of Manasseh went ‘from Asher to Michmethah.’ ” It seems to us still better to assume that it originally stood:
וַיָצָא הַגְּבוּל הַיָּמָה
מִמִּכְמְתָה מִצָפוֹן.
If that were so it is obvious that the twice recurring וַיָּצָא הַגּבוּל הַיָּמָה (namely, at the end of Jos_16:5, and at the beginning of Jos_16:6), must have fallen away once. Let us now by this extension of Keil’s very appropriate correction restore the text, and we gain a reading at least in some degree acceptable, by which (1) Jos_16:5 receives a good ending, and (2) Jos_16:6 an intelligible beginning, and the whole would mean thus: And the border went out seaward, i.e. toward the west, from Michmethah on the north side, i.e. north of Michmethah. Michmethah (LXX.: Μαχθώθ) lay according to Jos_17:7, east from Shechem. See further on Jos_17:7. Thus we should have given the starting-point of the eastern half of the northern boundary of Ephraim, as lying north of Michmethah in the west of the land. But then, it proceeds, the border went about eastward unto Taanath-shiloh, and passed by it on the east to Janohah.Taanath-shiloh, now Tana, Ain Tana, a place of ruins, southeast of Nablus (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 2954). Janoah, “according to the Onom. s. v. Ἰανώ, Janon, twelve miles, i.e. near three hours east of Neapolis, now a ruin, Janun, somewhat over two hours southeast of Nablus, Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 297” (Knobel). The border, accordingly, went from Michmethah to Janohah in a southeast direction, as Menke has indicated.
Jos_16:7. From Janohah it went down to Ataroth, and to Naarath, and came to (struck) Jericho, and went out at the Jordan. Keil holds this Ataroth to be the same as Ataroth, Jos_16:2, Ataroth-addar (Jos_16:5; Jos_18:13), thus making it the Atara discovered by Robinson (iii. 80, not that mentioned ii. 315), one and a half hours southwest of Jiljilieh, as Robinson himself also believes. Knobel explains that our Ataroth here in Jos_16:7 cannot be identified, but must certainly, from יָרַד have lain nearer the Jordan, possibly one of the two Ataroths which the Onom., s. h. v., refers to in the district of Jerusalem. We shall come upon the question again, Jos_18:13. Naarath = Naaran, 1Ch_7:28, in the east of Ephraim. Onom.: “Naorath villa, in quinto milliario Jerichus,” i.e. two hours from Jericho (Keil, Knobel, von Raumer, p. 215). Struck Jericho, i.e. the territory of Jericho which city, according to Jos_18:21, belonged to the tribe of Benjamin. The border of Ephraim thus touched the northern side of this territory, comp. Jos_18:12.
Jos_16:8. Now follows the western half of the north border of Ephraim, described as follows: From Tappuah the border goes (יֵלֵךְ) westward to the water-course of Kanah, and the goings out thereof were at [to] the sea. Tappuah, distinct from the Tappuah (Jos_15:34) and Beth-tap-puah (Jos_15:53), in Judah, concerning the etymology of which we have already spoken; the residence of a Canaanite king (Jos_12:24). Its site is doubtful. Knobel: “Probably Kefr Kud with its important well, by which the great road from Beisan and Zerin passes toward Ramleh (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 121 ff.) as in the Roman times a military road passed from Cesaræa to Scythopolis past Capercota (Tab. Peuting. ix. f., in Menke, Map vi. where an extract from the Tab. Peuting. is found”). The fact that the place is called (Jos_17:7) עֵין ת׳, while Kefr Kud has a valuable well, would seem to favor the identity of the two places; but it may be maintained on the other hand, (1) that Kefr Kud lies too far north on the border of Manasseh toward Issachar, while it should lie on the border of Manasseh toward Ephraim (see Menke’s Map viii. compared with Map iii); (2) that the old name does not at all appear in the present name Kefr Kud. This is true rather of the present Belad (land) Tafua northeast of Shechem, toward which von Raumer, though not without hesitation, inclines. We hear of a land of Tappuah in Jos_17:8 as the district belonging to En-tappuah. Van de Velde (Mem. p. 357) holds it to be Atuf, four hours E. N. E. of Shechem. Very improbable. Hence we decide for Belad Tafua, against which Keil brings the objection, that this opinion does not agree with the אֶל־הַיָּמִין (ch Jos_17:7), and therefore he concludes that here also the text is corrupt. See further on Jos_17:7, where we must at all events return again to this passage. Water-course of Kana (Reed-brook), see Jos_17:9.
Jos_16:9. To this province belong also the cities separated in the land of Manasseh for the children of Ephraim, of which, however, only Tappuah is mentioned Jos_17:8. Instead of the elsewhere “unheard of” מִבְדָּלוֹת, Knobel proposes to read נִבְדָּלוֹת: Gesen. מֻבְדָּלוֹת. Maurer and Keil regard it as a substantive formed after the analogy of מִספָּתוֹת ,מִדְרָךְ, and other words. Maurer translates loca selecta. To me the change of Chireq into Kibbuts, as proposed by Gesen., appears the most simple, and thus we have a part. Hophal.
Jos_16:10. An addition similar to Jos_15:63. They became tributary servants (עֹבֵד וַיְהִי־לְמַם). In Gen_49:15 the same expression is used concerning Issachar. According to 1Ki_9:16, Pharaoh, in the beginning of the reign of Solomon, took Gezer, burned the city and drove out of it the Canaanites. Hence the LXX. add to our verse: ́Ἓως ἀνέβη φαραὼ βασιλεὺς Ἀιγύπτου καὶ ἔλαβεν ἀυτὴν (ΑΕΧ. τὴν πόλιν) καὶ ἐνέπρησεν αὐτὴν ἐν πυρί και τοὺς φερεζαίους, καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας εν Γάζερ ἐξεκέντησαν (ΑΕΧ. εξεκέςτησεν) καὶ ἔδωκεν ἐν φερνῇ τῇ θυγατρὶ αὐτοῦ. Manifestly transferred ad libitum from 1Ki_9:16. Knobel, Gen_49:15, translates מַס־עֹבֵד, er ward zu Frohn des Arbeiters, i.e. he fell under tributary labor, as he himself further on explains. Lange, more poetically and more clearly: “He is become subject to tributary service.” We render the phrase here in prose, with De Wette “subject to tributary service.” The common rendering: “subject to tribute” which Bunsen still retains, gives the erroneous idea that the Canaanites had to pay a tribute in money, like the tributary states in the Turkish empire. The expression is used elsewhere, with the exception of Gen_49:15, “of the Canaanites who became subject to the Hebrews (as Jos_17:13; 1Ki_9:21; Jdg_1:28; Jdg_1:33), and of prisoners taken in war whom the Hebrews made slaves (Deu_20:11; Isa_31:8)” (Knobel). Comp. also Keil on Kings, pp. 44 and 67 [Germ.].
c. Jos_17:1-13. Portion of the Tribe of Manasseh. The description of this province by its boundaries, beginning Jos_17:7, is preceded by some genealogical notices concerning the families of the tribe. Of these that of Machir had already received its territory beyond the Jordan.
Jos_17:1. And there was the lot for the tribe of Manasseh. After it had fallen to Ephraim, Manasseh’s turn came. These introductory words refer only to the country allotted to this tribe west of the Jordan (Jos_17:7-13). This lay north of the possession of Ephraim in a fertile and beautiful region.
For he was the first-born of Joseph,Gen_41:51; Gen_48:14. Keil: “the כִּי is not to be pressed, and the whole remark is made only with reference to the following genealogical statements.” Better Knobel: “Wherefore (because he was Joseph’s first-born) he received yet a possession in Canaan also, the land of the fathers, God’s land.” למָכִיר is placed first and is afterwards taken up by לוֹ after וַיְהִי, thus: “To Machir. … (and) to him fell Gilead and Bashan.” Why is stated in the parenthetical clause, “because he was a man of war,” Num_32:29 ff. This portion of the tribe, the author would have us understand, had nothing to receive west of the Jordan. They had their part already on the east side.
Jos_17:2. The other sons of Manasseh follow, to whom the lot fell in west Palestine. They are mentioned in Num_26:30-32, where instead of אֲבִיעֵזֶר stands אִיעֵזֶר. By an error of transcription, as Keil conjectures, the ב appears to have fallen out. Instead of זְכָרִים to read נוֹתָרִים, as Knobel proposes, is not justifiable; rather, since in genealogies בְּנֵי may indicate all (male and female) posterity, while here, in what follows, female descendants also are mentioned, the זְכָרִים is added for perspicuity” (Keil).
Jos_17:3. It had been stated also in Num_26:33 that Zelophehad,5 the son of Hepher, had no sons but only daughters. Zelophehad himself, according to Num_27:3, had died in the wilderness, but the daughters declare it an injustice (Num_27:4) that their father’s name should perish, and that too when he had not been of those that rose up against the Lord in the company of Korah. Moses agrees with them, and at their request grants their wish, an inheritance among their brothers. By this the name of Zelophehad was preserved, which could not have been the case without the possession of an estate to which the name of the original proprietor attached. The law which governed the case is found in Num_27:8-11 (compared with Num_36:6-10), occasioned by this occurrence. They were accordingly heir daughters, comp. Knobel on Num_27:1 ff.
Jos_17:4. Now, since the land was divided, they claim their right, appealing to the command of God through Moses. Eleazar and Joshua without objection immediately promise what they desire.
Jos_17:5-6. “According to this the inheritance coming to the Manassites had to be divided into ten parts, since the male posterity fell into five families, and so received five parts, while the sixth family, that of Hepher, was divided again into five families, through his grand-daughters, the five daughters of Zelophehad, who married men of the other families of their paternal tribe (Num_36:1-10), and received each her special share of the land” (Keil). Because, therefore, the daughters, as heirs, obtained their possession among the male descendants of Manasseh, the inheritance in western Palestine must need be divided into ten parts, while the land of Gilead went to the remaining Manassites. The genealogy is for the rest by no means clear. Comp. Knobel on Num_26:29-34; Keil on Jos_17:1 of this chapter.
Jos_17:7-13. Portion of the Western Branch of the Tribe of Manasseh. The author gives the boundary again from east to west, as in the case of Judah (Jos_15:2 ff.), the sons of Joseph (Jos_16:1 ff.) and Benjamin (Jos_18:12 ff.). So the author of the Apocalypse also names the gates of the New Jerusalem, beginning from the east (Rev_21:13), and Ezekiel designates the several tribe divisions in like manner from east to west (Eze_48:1 ff.).
And the border of Manasseh was from Asher to Michmethah, that lieth before Shechem; and the border went along on [toward] the right hand unto the inhabitants of En-tappuah. What border is meant, the north or south? Knobel thinks the former, Keil and Bunsen the south border. The starting-point lies unquestionably in the east. Asher (אָשֵׁר), fifteen Roman miles from Shechem toward Bethshean (Scythopolis), perhaps Teyasir (Robinson, Later Bibl. Res. p. 306 f.), or Jafir (Van de Velde, ii. 295, apud. von Raumer, p. 148). This however is not certain, but only so far sure that Asher is to be sought, according to the statement of the Onom., on the road from Shechem to Bethshean, hence in the eastern part of the territory of Manasseh.
Thence the border goes to Michmethah which we have already met with at Jos_16:5. This Michmethah (מִכְמְתָה, perhaps “hiding-place,” from כָּמַת, Gesen.) lay, as our passage would indicate, before, i.e. according to the customary use of עַל־פְּנֵי, east or northeast of Shechem, unless, as Knobel assumes, עַל־פְּנֵי is to be taken here in reference to a more remote distance = מוּל, Deu_11:30. In this case, Kubatijeh (on Menke’s Map viii. written Kabatijeh) or Kabaat (Buckingham, Syria, i. p. 453), Kabate in Seetzen (ii. p. 166), lying exactly north of Shechem, on the road from Shechem to Jenin would in his view offer itself for comparison. The etymological relationship of the two words is thus established by Knobel: “מ doubtless is to be regarded, with the LXX. as the plural of a sing. מִכְמְתָה, for which they may probably have used also כְּמָתָה (see on Jos_12:18). Then, since m and b are frequently interchanged (see on Jos_3:16), the present name of the place agrees, etc.” Against this we would oppose the following considerations: (1) It appears to us that the operation by which the relationship between the names Michmethah and Kubatijeh, or Kabaat, or Kabate, is attempted to be proved, is an exceedingly violent one. (2) In Deu_11:30מוּל does indeed stand for a northwest direction, but it is precisely מוּל that stands there, meaning, in a quite general way, over against, and not the more definite עַל־פְּנֵי concerning which Knobel himself admits that in geographical statements it is “certainly for the most part to the east,”—precisely in the same way, Knobel might have added, as is the case with לִפְנֵי (Gen_23:17; Gen_25:18; Deu_32:49). (3) If Michmethah is to be sought so far north, then Jos_16:6, where it is brought in to determine the north border of Ephraim which lies south of Manasseh, is inexplicable. Rather may it be said, that (a) the statement of this passage: אשר על־פני שכם and (b) the proximity indicated, Jos_16:6, of Taanath-shiloh, which is now recognized in Ain Tana [?], go to show that Michmethah is to be looked for east or northeast of Shechem, perhaps, also, on the road to Bethshean, where Kiepert, indeed (on the large map, 3d and most recent edition, 1866), although with a mark of interrogation, and Menke (Map iii.) have inserted the name. But if this is correct we have here not the north border of Manasseh, hut the south, the same which is given, Jos_16:5 ff., as the north boundary of Ephraim; and there lies before us precisely the same case of the double registry of the same line as between our two tribes and Benjamin (Jos_16:1-4 compared with Jos_18:12-13) on one side, and between Judah and Benjamin (Jos_15:5 ff; Jos_18:15 ff.) on the other. But as regards the north border of Manasseh, it as well as the east border is given in common for both tribes in the second half of Jos_17:10.
Shechem, שְׁכֶם, now Nablus or Nabulus, having, like Jerusalem, Gibeon, and Jericho, had several names between the times of the patriarchs and of Christ (Gen_12:6; Joh_4:5), lies on the watershed (שְׁכֶם = back) between the Mediterranean and the Jordan Valley (Furrer, pp. 237, 238), in a lovely, richly favored valley between Ebal and Gerizim, surrounded by gardens in which nature has prodigally scattered her richness (Furrer, p. 234). See the fresh and beautiful description in Furrer, p. 230 ff.; comp. further, von Raumer, p. 161 ff.; Rob. iii. p. 95 ff. [Tristram, 141 ff.; Stanley, S. & P., 229 ff.]. Shechem has at present about eight thousand inhabitants. From Michmethah the border went to the right (אֶל־הַיָּמין) unto the inhabitants of en-Tappuah. According to this, en-Tappuah or Tappuah (Jos_16:8) lay south of Michmethah, and hence also south or southwest of Shechem. But Balad Tafuah (comp. on Jos_16:8) lies rather northeast of Shechem. How then should the border go thence toward the right, i.e., southwardly? May not, perhaps, an escape be found from the obscurity (undeniably very great6) of this passage in the fact that it reads, not unto en-Tappuah, but only unto the inhabitants of Tappuah? Although then Tappuah itself had lain northeast of Shechem, we might still imagine that the territory of this royal city of the Canaanites (Jos_12:17) had stretched toward the south or southwest. With Knobel, who everywhere here supposes that he has the north boundary line before him, it all goes beautifully. For him the line runs from Asher to Kubatijeh, from Kubatijeh to Jamun (יָמִין, in spite of the article, is taken as a proper name = Yamon, Rob. iii. pp. 161, 167), and from Jamun to Kefr Kud. But we repeat, that we are not now concerned with the north limit of Manasseh, but its southern, toward Ephraim. [So Mr. Grove, also, Dict. of the Bible, art. “Manasseh,” p. 1770 c, although he thinks it doubtful whether the portions of Ephraim and Manasseh were intended to be effectually separated, and that, if they were, no clear line of division can now be made out.—Tr.]
Jos_17:8. Another notice of Tappuah, purporting that the land of Tappuah went to Manasseh, the city to Ephraim. The latter possessed, according to Jos_16:9, still other places in Manasseh. Kiepert has inserted Tappuah on the map northwest of Shechem and Michmethah, but with a mark of interrogation. Menke assigns it the same position, perhaps with reference to the brook of reeds mentioned (Jos_16:8), which we here find again in Jos_17:9.
Jos_17:9. And the border descended unto the watercourse Kanah, southward of the watercourse. In Jos_16:8, it reads: From Tappuah the border goes westward toward the Reed-brook, and its out-goings were at the sea. Keil supposes this brook to be the Abu Zabura, which Knobel also mentions at first, although he immediately afterward refers to the Nahr el-Kassab. Von Raumer decides for the latter (p. 51) with greater positiveness, because the old name Reed-brook has been preserved in Nahr el-Kassab. But Nahr el-Kassab is the same stream which on Kiepert’s wall-map appears as Nahr el-Falik (Van de Velde: Falaik), which Kiepert with von Raumer holds to be the Reed-brook (brook of Cana). The border extended south of the brook to the sea, i.e., the Mediterranean sea (הַיָּמָה Jos_16:8), which Jerome strangely regards as being the mare salsissimum!
These cities belonged to Ephraim among the cities of Manasseh. Thus Jos_16:9 is more exactly defined, “These cities.” Which cities? It is indeed said further: “and the border of Manasseh was north of the brook,” but the definition is made no clearer thereby. The sense can hardly be other than what Masius long ago expressed: “Funiculus, qui discernabat fratrum istorum possessiones, ambiebat ille quidem torrentem Cannosum (נחל קנה) a meridie atque eum attribuebat Manassensibus; verumtamen urbes, quœ illi torrenti ab austro adjacebant, etsi essent reipsa intra Manassensium positœ terminos, nihilominus jure fuerunt Ephraimitarum; quœ vero a septentrione torrentis exstabant, eas obtinebant Manassenses.” For in Jos_17:10 we read still more plainly: “Southward (from the brook it, the land, was) Ephraim’s, and northward (of the same) it was Manasseh’s; and the sea was his border (toward the west). Knobel would, according to Jos_16:9, read בְּנֵי for עָרֵי; but this is not strictly necessary.
Jos_17:10. South of the Reed-brook the land is here said to have belonged to Ephraim, north of it to Manasseh, a boundary line as simple as could be. Knobel here comes into perplexity, out of which he would escape by supposing that the north border of Manasseh cuts through the Reed-brook, while the north border of Ephraim comes to it, so that the territory of Manasseh there formed a point!—And the sea was his border. Both divisions had the sea on the west, one (Ephraim) south of the Reed-brook, the other (Manasseh) north of it. The account of the north boundary for both in common follows (comp. Jos_16:1 ff.). They struck upon (יִפְגְּעוּן) Asher on the north, i.e., on the north side (Jos_19:26). The description of the province concludes with the eastern limit; on Issachar on the east (Jos_19:17). The two tribes were bounded, therefore, (1) on the east by Issachar; (2) on the north by Asher; (3) on the west by the sea; (4) on the south by Benjamin and Dan. Between them they had a division line which is twice referred to, (a) Jos_16:6 ff., (b) in our chapter, Jos_17:7-10; but unfortunately in neither place with such clearness as marks the description e.g. of the boundary between Judah and Benjamin (Jos_15:8 ff.). A separate border of Manasseh on the north, such as Knobel assumes, we cannot find given in the text.
Jos_17:11-13. Six cities are enumerated which Manasseh received beyond his own country, in Issachar and Asher, without, however, being able to expel the Canaanites from them. At a later period having become stronger, they were content to make them tributary servants (Jos_17:13). The same report is found again (Jdg_1:27 ff.), where, however, Endor is omitted.
The word בָּנוֹת reminds us of Jos_15:47. Knobel7 finds here the second document of the Jehovist.
Jos_17:11. Beth-shean (בֵּית־שְׁאָן, i.e., house of rest, now Beisan,—”in an expansion of the Jordan Valley, which is bounded on the west by the low ridge of Mount Gilboa. At the present day ruins of an ancient Roman theatre are found here, but only about seventy or eighty miserable buts for the two hundred actual inhabitants. It stands about four hours from Tiberias, on the road from Jerusalem to Damascus” (von Raumer, p. 150; Rob. iii. 174 ff.). The Philistines hung on its walls the dead body of Saul (1Sa_31:10). It was afterward called Scythopolis (see Herod, i. 104–106, in regard to the origin of the name). From the summit of Gilboa, two thousand two hundred feet high, Furrer (p. 260) saw a green plain lying at his feet on the east, out of which rose the black tents of the Bedouin camps, like dark patches, on the green. The plain extends downward to the Jordan, and he was able to follow its picturesque windings to a considerable distance. “There, not far from the river,” Furrer proceeds, “Beisan must lie, although I could not discern it—the ancient Bethshean on whose walls the Philistines once hung the dead body of Saul.” [Comp. Tristram’s account of Beisan, p. 504 ff.]
Ibleam, where Ahaziah was mortally wounded (2Ki_9:27), a Levitical city (Jos_21:25), perhaps, as Knobel supposes, Jelameh, Jelamah between Zerin and Jenin (Rob. iii. 161). The accusative (וְאֶת־ישְׁבֵי דאֹר) which follows is remarkable, since the sentence had begun with וַיְהִי לְ. It is most simply explained by a change of construction, perhaps occasioned by the fact that לְהוֹרִישׁ, which governs the accusative, is used in verse 12; to which may be added that in Jdg_1:27, the whole statement begins with וְלאֹ־הוֹרִישׁ. Nor should it be overlooked, that instead of the cities the inhabitants whom Manasseh could not drive out are mentioned.
Dor, Jos_11:2; Jos_12:23.
En-dor (עֵין דּוֹר), four Roman miles south of Tabor, according to the Onom. (von Raumer, p. 125), near the northern slope of the Jebel Dachi (Duhy, little Hermon), which rises in “yellow nakedness” over against Tabor (Furrer, p. 308; Rob. p. 171 f.). Endor was the abode of the “woman with a familiar spirit,” whom Saul consulted (1Sa_28:9), but is also celebrated (Psa_83:11) as the scene of the victory in which the Midianites were destroyed. In the parallel passage (Jdg_1:27 ff.) Endor is not mentioned. Taanach, Jos_12:21. Megiddo, Jos_12:21.
The three heights (שְׁלשֶׁת הַנָּפֶת; LXX., τὸ τρίτον τῆς Νόφεθ; Vulg., tertia pars urbis Naphet). What is intended is the three cities lying on hills: Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo, a Tripolis of mountain cities in distinction from the places on the plain: Bethshean, Ibleam, and Dor. The author might have called the latter also a שְׁלשֶׁת, a שְׁלשֶׁת הַשׁפֵלָה, using שְׁפֵלָה in the general sense of “plain,” and not in the definite geographical signification which in this book it everywhere bears, as e.g., in Jos_15:33.
Jos_17:12. “The Manassites, however, were not in a condition to expel the population from the cities named, so that the Canaanites, according to their will and pleasure, dwelt in this district” (Knobel). The will and pleasure is right vividly expressed by the plastic וַיּוֹאֶל (Jos_7:7; Exo_2:21).
Jos_17:13. But when the Israelites became strong (חְָזקוּ) they made the Canaanites tributary servants (comp. Jos_10:10), but drive them out they did not. We allow ourselves this translation, after the example of De Wette, to indicate in English something of the effect of the emphatic והוֹרֵשׁ לאֹ הוֹרִישׁוֹ.
d. Jos_17:14-18. Complaint of the Children of Joseph that their Possession is insufficient. “An old, original fragment, and a beautiful, historical trait in the character of Joshua. The unselfish Joshua was himself of Ephraim, Num_13:8; Num_13:16” (Bunsen). As the history of Achsah (Jos_15:13-19), occurring in the midst of the boundary descriptions of Judah, and catalogues of its cities, makes a very refreshing impression on the laborious explorer of these records, so this narrative awakens similar emotions. The children of Joseph, i.e., probably the patriarchs of the tribe, came complaining before their fellow-tribesman Joshua, to whom they had trusted for a better guardianship of their interests. “Why,” they ask, “hast thou given me but one lot and one portion, as a possession, when I am a great people, in so far as Jehovah hath blessed me hitherto.” Joshua, by no means disposed to grant special favors to his own tribe, demands of them to use their strength, to go up into the forest, to clear it out, and establish for themselves new abodes there among the Perizzites and the Rephaim. When they (Jos_17:16) show little inclination to this course, and at the same time intimate that they cannot spread themselves further in the plain because of the formidableness of the Canaanites who dwell there, Joshua (Jos_17:17) still remains firm. In both his replies (Jos_17:15; Jos_17:17) he betrays a touch of irony, as if he would say: Yes, it is true, thou art a numerous people, and hast great strength, and oughtest therefore to have more than one share. But seek to procure this second portion thyself! Rely on thy own power! Cut down the forest! Behold thou wilt drive out the Canaanites; it is precisely thy task to conquer those that have iron chariots and are mighty; no other tribe can do it.” Of the manner in which Ewald (ii. 315–317, 2d [Germ.] ed.) treats this narrative, we shall have occasion to speak further on.
Jos_17:14. As here, so also Jos_16:1 ff; Jos_17:10, the children of Joseph are taken together. They are regarded as one tribe, so to speak, the tribe of Joseph, as Rev_7:8. Comp. also passages like Amo_6:6; Psa_77:16; Psa_78:67; Psa_80:2; Psa_81:6; Eze_37:16; Eze_37:19.
One lot and one portion. “גּוֹרָל and חֶבֶל are synonymous and combined for greater emphasis. גּוֹרָל is the lot which is cast; חֶבֶל the measuring line, then the measured inheritance” (Keil). Comp. also Jos_17:5.
So far as (עַד־אֲשֶׁר; not as Gesenius would have it, עַל־אֲשֶׁר; de gradu, Maurer) Jehovah hath blessed me hitherto (עַד־כֹה, de tempore, Maurer). A quite peculiar blessing had been promised to Joseph (Gen_49:25-26; Deu_33:13-17.
Jos_17:15. Joshua’s answer. Get thee up intothe forest. The forest of the mountain of Ephraim and of its out-goings (Jos_17:18) is meant. That Mount Ephraim (mountain of Israel, Jos_11:16-21) was then covered with woods, is clear from 1Sa_14:25; 2Sa_18:6. Even the forest at Bethel, 2Ki_2:23-24, probably belonged (Winer, ii. 675) to the forest of Ephraim. And even at the present day, according to the uniform testimony of travellers, the heights of Mount Ephraim, forming the northern portion of the mountainous country between the plain of Jezreel and the wilderness of the south (von Raumer, p. 42), are more rich in vegetation than that part of the same mountain which belonged to Judah Especially is this the case with its spurs toward the northwest and northeast. On the northwest a forest-covered hill joins itself to Mount Ephraim connecting the latter with Carmel, that most beautiful, and greenest of all the mountains of Canaan. On the northeast Mount Gilboa, where Saul and Jonathan fell in the contest with the Philistines (1Sa_28:4; 1Sa_31:1-8; 2Sa_1:6-20), constitutes its off-shoot toward the Jordan. On the road from the hamlet of Jelbon, in which word the old name is preserved, Eurrer (p. 260) ascended the mountain by a lofty slope which was in places clothed with a dense oak thicket. A small forest of low oak trees is mentioned by the same traveller as standing on the right of the road from Nazareth to Carmel (p. 280). Without doubt it is the same woods which Schultz describes (Reise in das gelobte Land, pp. 249, 250), since he also notices the “crisp eastern oaks.” Robinson (iii. p. 189 f.) speaks of “a wide strip of low woody heights” by which Carmel is joined on the southwest with the mountains of Samaria. We find woods therefore partly on Mount Ephraim itself, partly on its off-shoots.
At the very foot of this forest, however, on the northwest spur of Mount Ephraim, the children of Joseph had had cities in the plain assigned to them, namely, Taanach, and Megiddo (Dor lay further west on the sea) in the plain of Jezreel (Jos_17:11). Ibleam and Bethshean also (Jos_17:11) lay west and east of Mount Gilboa, being spoken of again in Jos_17:16. Knobel (p. 450) says: “Whether the author thinks also of the Little Hermon lying further north, and so refers to Endor, is doubtful,” and we not only share his doubt but go a step further and consider it quite improbable, since Robinson (iii. p. 171) speaks of that mountain as “a desert, shapeless mass,” and Furrer (p. 308) notices the “yellow nakedness” of the Jebel Duhy, or Dachi.
Cut down for thyself there in the land of the Perizzites and of the Rephaim, if Mount Ephraim is too narrow (אָץ here in a different sense from Jos_10:13). Cornel. a Lapide (in Keil, p. 411 f.) long ago hit upon the thought that here and in Jos_17:18, by the forest the Perizzites and the Rephaim were to be understood, thus assuming that there was a metaphor. He says: “Est metaphora, terram enim a Chananœis occupatam vocat sylvam, eo quod sicut sylva exscindi debet, ut locus arari possit; sic exscindendi erant Pherizœi, ut eorum terram occuparent Josephitœ.”
Him Ewald follows, as Keil has pointed out, when he represents the import of Jos_17:15 in the following manner: “not at a loss for the answer, he (Joshua) replied: ‘if they were so numerous (and Mount Ephraim as hitherto occupied by them too small) then they need only move into the forest (i.e. into the thickly settled and cultivated plain) and laboriously cut down for themselves there the tall, profitable trees.’ In other words they should enter the plain surrounding the mountain on which they dwelt, where, however, the ‘Perizzites and Rephaim’ (that is, the enemy) still lay in dense masses, whom the tribe (instead of envying other tribes their inheritance), ought themselves long ago to have destroyed and so to have doubled their possession.” A purely arbitrary explanation, which may be pardoned to old Cornelius a Lapide, but so much the less readily to Ewald, as he arrogates too much to himself, when, with well-known dogmatism, he says (p. 315, note 2): “Already the LXX. failed to understand this ancient passage, hard to be comprehended by reason of its ‘biting scorn’ (sic!), and still less have the moderns understood it.” Wherein the fault of the LXX. consists in this respect, we are unable, after repeated comparison of the original with their version, to discover, unless in the fact that the LXX. venture to render עֲלֵה (quite properly in our humble opinion) by ἀνάβηθι, while Ewald prefers to make of it march into the plain. Of the “biting scorn” of Joshua we will presently speak again.
Jos_17:16. The sons of Joseph answer, that the mountain really will not suffice for them, while the Canaanites in the valley-land (בְּאֶרֶץ־הָעֵמֶק) have iron chariots. They appear as if they had not heard a syllable of going up into the forest.
Is not enough. Here נִמִצָא is used as in Zec_10:10; Num_11:22 (Knobel and Keil). LXX.: οὐχ ἀρκέσει, according to the correct text, instead of ἀρέσκει. Comp. also LXX., Num_11:22. The iron chariots of the Canaanites were greatly feared by the Israelites, and were “the main reason why the Hebrews could not establish themselves in the plains (Jos_11:4; Jdg_1:19; Jdg_4:3; 1Sa_13:5). Israel adopted this species of weapons not until the time of David and Solomon (2Sa_8:4; 1Ki_5:6; 1Ki_9:19; 1Ki_10:26)” (Knobel). That the Canaanites had these iron chariots did not hinder the children of Joseph from “occupying the forest region” (Keil), but the plain, as Knobel rightly perceived, since the “chariot-cavalry” (Winer, ii. 671), very dangerous in the plains, could not well get on in the mountain, as the passage of Vegetius (Mil. iii. 24), cited by Winer, shows: “Quadrigœ falcatœ ut primo magnum intulere terrorem, ita postmodum fuere derisui. Nam difficile currus falcatus planum semper invenit campum et levi impedimento detinetur, unoque afflicto aut vulnerato equo decipitur.”
Jos_17:17. Joshua does not allow them to slip out, but holds fast to his declaration already made, the sense of which has been exhibited above.
Jos_17:18. Continuation.A mountain shall be thine, for it is a forest. The mountain of Ephraim is meant. This mountain should fall to the lot of the strong and able house of Joseph, because it was adapted to them as being woodland to be cleared up by them. As the result of this clearing the one lot should become two, as it were, to which Joshua plainly points, Jos_17:17.
Thou shalt cut it down, and the out-goings (תֹּצאֹתָיו) of it shall be thine. We cannot with Knobel understand the sense of these words so that according to Jos_17:15, the one of these out-goings or spurs, the northwestern one, toward Carmel, and according to this verse the other, northeastern, Gilboa, were to be granted in addition to what they had received; for in this case Joshua would have made a concession to his fellow tribesmen, and so broken the point of the whole transaction. Rather, the sons of Joseph have indeed Mount Ephraim proper, as they themselves say (Jos_17:16), already in possession, and, in the vicinity of those two spurs to the northwest and northeast, the cities mentioned in Jos_17:11 had been allotted. If now they have not room enough, they should, partly on Mount Ephraim, and partly on the heights which rose above those cities, in the territory of the Perizzites and Rephaim, cut down the woods and so make themselves new abodes, as, modest in his claims, Joshua himself did (Jos_19:50). To convince and encourage them Joshua adds:—
For thou wilt drive out the Canaanites, for they have iron chariots, for they are strong. “Male Dathius, alii, quamvis currus ferreos habeunt et potentes sint.כִּיsignificat nam. Sensus: hanc ipsam ob causam, quod currus ferreos habent et potentes sunt, vos, Ephraimitœ et Manassitœ, eos aggrediamini, quippe qui estis populus numerosus et potens” (Jos_17:17). So Maurer, and De Wette, Keil, Knobel likewise. When the LXX. render the last words: כִּי חָזָק הוּא by σὺ γὰρ ὑπερισχύεις αὐτοῦ, they either read: כִּי חָזָק אַתָּחִ, or, which is to me more likely, allow themselves a variation. The Vulg. translates very freely: “Et poteris ultra procedere, cum subverteris Chananœum, quern dicis ferreos habere currus et esse fortissimum.”
At this place we may appropriately return to Ewald’s account of the transaction. He comments on Jos_17:16-18, thus: “but when to this sharp answer” (he means the decision of Joshua given in Jos_17:15), “they go on to reply that, ‘that did not suit, that the mountain was enough for them, since the Canaanites living in the plain had the dangerous iron chariots.’ Joshua carries still further the figure of forest and mountain, even to the uttermost, and, in order to finish the matter with one blow, turns off the importunate petitioners who desire much and yet, out of vain fear, will not exert themselves to obtain their wish, by the still more pointed insult (sic!) that ‘they should by all means, since they were a very numerous and strong tribe, have not merely one lot! Rather should they, besides the mountain which they already possessed, and yet did not truly possess, have also another, namely, that forest, which they would have first with bitter toil to clear off and make useful, i.e. the Canaanites, whom to subdue in spite of, and indeed precisely on account of, their mighty armor, and to render serviceable was their second portion yet to be acquired; and in this, fear and trembling would be of no avail!’ A biting sarcasm, worthy of a Samson! And so the most ancient legend, as it appears in this narrative, conceived of Joshua also as the hero who contended by his humiliating wit against the presumption of the men of his tribe,—a true man of the people, in the best sense of the word.”
Against this, aside from what we have already said in opposition to the figurative interpretation of the forest and mountain, two remarks are appropriate: (1) Jos_17:16 is treated quite arbitrarily when Ewald, in his note, p. 316, writes: “In Jos_17:16, לא is, against the Masora, to be separated as ‘no!’ and יִמְצָא to be written.” Thus he would bring out exactly the opposite sense, namely, that the mountain was enough for them, although the sons of Joseph, in Jos_17:14, complain of that very thing, that their district was too small for so numerous a people; (2) the more “pointed insult,” which Ewald, resting on Jos_17:17-18 puts into the mouth of Joshua, presupposes that his answer in Jos_17:15 also was pointed, and moreover a pointed insult, as indeed he finds in the whole passage nothing but biting mockery (p. 315, note 2). Fine irony, a noble humor, we also recognize in the replies of Joshua as well in Jos_17:15 as in Jos_17:17-18, but between this and “biting mockery” there is a great difference. Irony is morally allowable, mockery and insult not. He who employs the latter is a bad man, and will never be regarded as “a true man of the people in the best sense of the word,” which the most ancient myth is here said to have made Joshua. Joshua was certainly a true people’s man; certainly our author will, in this old, precious narrative, so represent him, but as a people’s man who has gained his popularity not through sharp and sharper sarcasms, but through his unselfishness and noble preëminence. For, that any one should have become a favorite by insulting mockery, would no more occur in Joshua’s time than in ours. We must, therefore, deny the biting scorn which Ewald here scents out. Malicious teazing lay far enough remote from so noble a hero as Joshua. He knew nothing of it.
HOMILETICAL AND PRACTICAL
The narrative, Jos_17:14-18, can, on the one hand, be employed to show Joshua as a pattern of an unselfish, noble, and prudent popular leader and statesman; and, on the other, to set home his decision toward the house of Joseph, as an impressive lesson to all at the present day who desire everything from the state, but would themselves put forth the least possible exertion. So in reference to the age in general; but the passage admits of an individual application also to all idle men who will not labor, for instance, in new founded colonies, where a sermon on this text would, under certain circumstances, be very much in place.
Starke: That is the way with the covetous man, that the more he has the more he desires to have, and cannot but grudge his neighbor what belongs to him. One should be content with that which God gives. Those who are appointed to the duty of distributing goods and lands, however faithfully they may perform the service, yet commonly get no great thanks therefor.
An original remark occurs in the Bibl. Tub. on Jos_17:15 : It is a duty of the magistrate, among others, this, namely, for the benefit of the inhabitants when there are many of them, to prepare the yet uncultivated land for cultivation, that the people may derive from it so much the more revenue and support.
Lange: So it goes also with many an insincere combatant in the kingdom of God, that they would fain have many spiritual gifts but without a strife.
Kramer: Prayer, labor, and trust in God must go together, Psa_127:2.
[Matt. Henry: Many wish for larger possessions, who do not cultivate and make the best of what they have, think they should have more talents given them, who do not trade with those with which they are intrusted. Most people’s poverty is the effect of their idleness; would they dig they need not beg.—Tr.]
Footnotes:
[1]Perhaps the connection of this verse, and its own meaning may best be represented thus: Jos_16:8. This is the possion. . … Jos_16:9. And [also] the cities which were separated for the sons of Ephraim in the midst of the possession the sons of Manasseh, etc.—Tr.]
[2][Jos_16:9. These cities had Ephraim in the midst of the cities of Manasseh. And the border of Manasseh was on the north side of the water-course.—Tr.]
[3][Mr. Grove, in the Dict, of the Bible (e g. 1:752 b, note) repeatedly says that יַרְדֵּן יְרִיחוֹ should be rendered simply “Jordan-Jericho,” and that “by” or near, has no business there. This is strange, since the natural sense of the words in such connection is much rather “Jericho-Jordan,” the “Jordan of Jericho,” i.e. that part of the Jordan which touches upon the territory of Jericho” (Knobel on Num_22:1). Comp. Stanley (Sin. and Pal. p. 292, n. 6). This is most conveniently expressed as in the English Version.—Tr.]
[4]Robinson expressly denies the probability that Ain Tana is the ancient Taanath-shiloh]
[5] צְלָפְחַד, hence properly to be written in Eng. Zelophchad, not Zelophehad.
[6][Cf. Grove in Dict. of Bible, art. “Michmethah.”]
[7][Knobel’s supposition is better, namely, that הָיַה לְ is there felt to be equivalent to receive, possess, have.—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 OUTLINE OF JOSEPH’S LOT, Jos_16:1-4.
OUTLINE OF JOSEPH’S LOT, Jos_16:1-4.
[Chapters 16 and 17 belong together, and describe the allotment made to the house of Joseph, composed of the two powerful tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. “We are so familiar,” says Stanley, “with the supremacy of the tribe of Judah, that we are apt to forget that it was of comparatively recent date. For more than four hundred years — a period equal in length to that which elapsed between the Norman Conquest and the Wars of the Roses — Ephraim, with its two dependent tribes of Manasseh and Benjamin, exercised undisputed pre-eminence. Joshua, the first conqueror; Gideon, the greatest of the judges, whose brothers were ‘as the children of kings,’ and whose children all but established hereditary monarchy in their own line; Saul, the first king, belonged to one or the other of these three tribes.
Read full note →
“It was not till the close of the first period of Jewish history that God ‘refused the tabernacle of Joseph, and chose not the tribe of Ephraim: but chose the tribe of Judah, even the Mount Zion which he loved.’ Psa_78:67. That haughty spirit which could brook no equal or superior, which chafed against the rise even of the kindred tribe of Manasseh, in the persons of Gideon and Jephthah, (Jdg_8:1; Jdg_12:1,) and yet more against the growing dominion of Judah in David and Solomon, till it threw off the yoke altogether and established an independent kingdom, would naturally claim, and could not rightly be refused, the choicest portion of the land. ‘Blessed of the Lord be his land; for the precious things of heaven, for the dew, and for the deep that coucheth beneath, and for the precious fruits brought forth by the sun, and for the precious things put forth by the moon, and for the chief things of the ancient mountains, and for the precious things of the lasting hills, and for the precious things of the earth and the fulness thereof, and for the good will of him that dwelt in the bush, let the blessing come upon the head of Joseph.’ If Judah was the wild lion that guarded the south, and couched in the fastness of Zion, so Ephraim was to be the more peaceful but not less powerful buffalo, who was to rove the rich vales of Central Palestine, and defend the frontier of the north. ‘His glory is like the firstling of his bullock, and his horns are like the horns of unicorns, (buffaloes;) with them shall he push the people together to the ends of the earth, and they are the ten thousands of Ephraim, and they are the thousands of Manasseh.’” Deu_33:13-17.
1. Children of Joseph — That is, Ephraim and the western half of Manasseh. Their lots were first drawn together that these brothers might be contiguous, but there was a subsequent division of their joint territory.
The lot… fell — Hebrew, went forth; that is, from the urn in which the lots were cast. See note on Jos_13:6. “It is remarkable that of the whole inheritance assigned to the children of Joseph only the southern boundary is given. But this may be explained partly on the ground that this double tribe had no definite boundary on the north, but merely had a number of cities allotted to them within the line which formed the boundary of Asher and Issachar, (Jos_17:10-11,) and partly from the fact that the Josephites did not expel the Canaanites from the northern part of the territory assigned them, but only gradually brought them into subjection and dwelt among them. Hence the limits of their land in this direction were not always the same; and at one time, when they expressed some discontent at the portion allotted to them, Joshua told them that they might enlarge their possessions if they could drive out the Canaanites. Jos_17:12-18.” — Keil.
From Jordan by Jericho — Literally, Jordan of Jericho; that is, a part of the Jordan directly opposite Jericho, and which might therefore be regarded as belonging especially to Jericho.
The water of Jericho — This has been commonly understood of the fountain Es Sultan, a mile northwest of Riha, and probably the scene of Elisha’s miracle. 2Ki_2:19-22. As the border ran on the north side of Jericho, (Jos_18:12,) and on the east of the wilderness, (for so the Hebrew should here be rendered,) it seems to have turned northward from the water of Jericho, and went up so far as to include in Benjamin’s territory Zemaraim, the modern Es Sumra, about five miles north of Jericho. Accordingly we understand this border between Ephraim and Benjamin to have commenced at a point of the Jordan directly opposite Jericho, perhaps at the mouth of Wady Nawaimeh, and, running westward, fetched a curve near Jericho and its great fountain, thence, passing northward along the eastern side of the wilderness that stretches east of Beth-el, it went up to Es Sumrah, and then passed westward to Ophni, the modern Jifna, which was also assigned to Benjamin. Jos_18:24.]
The wilderness — The wild region of country that lies on the east of Beth-el, and is called in Jos_18:12, the wilderness of Beth-aven.
Mount Beth-el — The mountain range on which Beth-el was situated.
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_16:1-4. The Lot of the Children of Joseph
Ch. Jos_16:1-4. The Lot of the Children of Joseph
1. the lot of the children of Joseph] Having described the inheritance of the royal tribe of Judah, the Author proceeds to relate the distribution of the descendants of the great house of Joseph.
Read full note →
fell] Heb. went forth, i.e. “came out of the urn or chest.” See above, ch. Jos_7:16, and Jos_14:2.
from Jordan by Jericho] We have first the southern boundary, which coincided for part of its length with the northern boundary of Benjamin. It began at the Jordan, at the port, or reach, exactly opposite to Jericho. Compare for the expression, above ch. Jos_13:32, and below Jos_20:8.
unto the water of Jericho] From this point it ran to “the water of Jericho,” i.e. to the one brook, which is found in the neighbourhood of Jericho. It rises at the fountain Ain es Sultân, the waters of which were healed by Elisha (2Ki_2:19), and flows into the Jordan.
to the wilderness that goeth up] i.e. by one of the ravines, the Wâdy Harith or Wâdy Suweinît, to the wilderness or uncultivated waste hills (Midbah), to the mountains in the vicinity of Bethel.
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 INHERITANCE OF JOSEPH—i.e., of Ephraim and Manasseh (Jos_16:1 to…
XVI.
INHERITANCE OF JOSEPH—i.e., of Ephraim and Manasseh (Jos_16:1 to Jos_18:1, inclusive).
Read full note →
(1) The lot of the children of Joseph.—The order of precedence among the tribes of Israel was always Judah first and the sons of Joseph second. In the words of 1Ch_5:2, “Judah prevailed above his brethren, and of him came the chief ruler; but the birthright was Joseph’s.” Accordingly in the division of the land of Canaan under Joshua, there are three successive stages: first, the settlement of the tribe of Judah in the strongholds of the south of Palestine; secondly, the establishment of Ephraim and Manasseh in the centre of the country, and in some strong positions towards the north; thirdly, the settlement of the remaining tribes, so as to fill up the gaps left between Judah and Joseph, and also upon the outskirts of their territory, so as to be, as it were, under the shadow of their wings.
In the inheritance of Ephraim and Manasseh we observe some features which distinguish this description from that of Judah’s inheritance in Joshua 15. The boundaries of the territory are given, but there is no catalogue of cities. There is also another peculiarity: the tribe of Ephraim is interlocked with the tribe of Manasseh, and the tribe of Manasseh again with Issachar and Asher, by the possession of cities in the territory of these other tribes.
(1-3) Comp. Jos_18:12-14. The south border of Joseph was the north border of Benjamin. (See Conder’s Bible Handbook, p. 260, and Ordnance Map, sheets 14, 15, and 18)
Archi is ’Ain ’Arîk (sheet 14).
Ataroth is Ed-Dârieh (sheet 18).
Japhleti is not identified.
Beth-horon is Beit ’Ur.
Gezer is Tell Jezer.
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 Fell. Literally came forth, i.e. , out of the…
THE INHERITANCE OF EPHRAIM AND MANASSEH.
Fell. Literally came forth, i.e. , out of the urn. The water of Jericho. "This is the present fountain of Sultan, half an hour to the west of Ribs, the only large fountain in the neighbourhood of Jericho, whose waters spread over the plain and form a small brook" (or small stream, according to Von Schubert)," which flows in the rainy season through the Wady Kelt into the Jordan" (Keil and Delitzsch). This spring, which rises amid the nebek trees and the wheat fields, "springs from the earth at the eastern base of a little knoll; the water is sweet, clear, and agreeable, neither cold nor warm" (Ritter). It flows, he adds, into a basin nine feet broad, in which many fish may be seen playing. This border coincides with the northern border of Benjamin. (see Jos_18:11-20) Ritter mentions another spring, nearer to the Kuruntul or Quarantania range, and adds that, "under the wise management of an efficient government, and with the security of the district from the depredations of predatory savages, the oasis of Jericho might unquestionably resume the paradisaical aspect it once bore." To the wilderness. Or, by or along the wilderness. The Hebrew requires some preposition to be supplied. This wilderness is the same as that spoken of as the wilderness of Bethaven in Jos_18:12. Throughout Mount Bethel. The Vulgate has, "to Mount Bethel." The LXX renders, "unto the hill country unto Bethel." The Hebrew may be rendered, "along the hill country unto Bethel". (see Jos_18:12) The Syriac renders, "up to the mountain which goeth unto Bethel;" but we must understand this of a range of mountains, and then we can identify the border with the double rocky ridge which stretches from the Mons quarantania, of which we have already heard, (Jos 2) and from the pool of Ain es Sultan, just mentioned, as far as Bethel.
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 The lot of . . . Joseph.
Jos_16:1-10
The lot of . . . Joseph.
Read full note →
The inheritance of Joseph
Next to Judah, the most important tribe was Joseph; that is, the double tribe to which his two sons gave names, Ephraim and Manasseh. In perpetual acknowledgment of the service rendered by Joseph to the family, by keeping them alive in the famine, it was ordained by Jacob that his two sons should rank with their uncles as founders of tribes (Gen_48:5). It was also prophetically ordained by Jacob that Ephraim, the younger son, should take rank before Manasseh (Gen_48:19). The privilege of the double portion, however, remained to Manasseh as the elder son. Hence, in addition to his lot in Gilead and Bashan, he had also a portion in Western Palestine. But Ephraim was otherwise the more important tribe; and when the separation of the two kingdoms took place, Ephraim often gave his name to the larger division. And in the beautiful prophetic vision of Ezekiel, when the coming reunion of the nation is symbolised, it is on this wise (Eze_37:16-17). The superiority allotted to Ephraim was not followed by very happy results; it raised an arrogant spirit in that tribe. The delimitation of the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh is not easy to follow, particularly in the A.V., which not only does not translate very accurately, but uses some English expressions of uncertain meaning. The R.V. is much more helpful, correcting both classes of defects in its predecessor. Yet even the R.V. sometimes leaves us at a loss. It has been supposed, indeed, that some words have dropped out of the text. Moreover, it has not been found possible to ascertain the position of all the places mentioned. The portion of the land occupied by Ephraim and Manasseh is, however, on the whole, very clearly known, just as their influence on the history of the country is very distinctly marked. In point of fact, the lot of Joseph in Western Palestine was, in many respects, the most desirable of any. It was a fertile and beautiful district. It embraced the valley of Shechem, the first place of Abrahams sojourn, and reckoned by travellers to be one of the most beautiful spots, some say the most beautiful spot, in Palestine. Samaria, at the head of another valley celebrated for its glorious beauty, and for its fatness or fertility (Isa_28:1), was at no great distance. Tirzah, a symbol of beauty, in the Song of Solomon (Son_6:4) was another of its cities, as was also Jezreel, a lovely position for a capital city. On the other hand, this portion of the country laboured under the disadvantage of not having been well cleared of its original inhabitants. The men of Ephraim did not exert themselves as much as the men of Judah. This is apparent from what is said in verse 10, and also from Joshuas answer to the request of Ephraim for more land (Jos_17:15-18). In the definition of boundaries we have first a notice applicable to Joshua as a whole, then specifications applicable to Ephraim and Manasseh respectively. The southern border is delineated twice with considerable minuteness, and its general course, extending from near the Jordan at Jericho, past Bethel and Luz, and down the pass of Bethhoron to the Mediterranean, is clear enough. The border between Ephraim and Manasseh is not so clear, nor the northern border of Manasseh. It is further to be remarked that, while we have an elaborate statement of boundaries, we have no list of towns in Ephraim and Manasseh such as we have for the tribe of Judah. This gives countenance to the supposition that part of the ancient record has somehow dropped out. We find, however, another statement about towns which is of no small significance. At verse 9 we find that several cities were appropriated to Ephraim that were situated in the territory of Manasseh. And in like manner several cities were given to Manasseh which were situated in the tribes of Issachar and Asher. Of these last the names are given (Jos_17:11). They were Bethshean, Ibleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and Megiddo. Some of them were famous in after-history. Bethshean was the city to whose wail the body of Saul and his sons were fixed after the fatal battle of Gilboa; Ibleam was in the neighbourhood of Naboths vineyard (2Ki_9:25; 2Ki_9:27); Endor was the place of abode of the woman with a familiar spirit whom Saul went to consult; Taanach was the battlefield of the kings of Canaan whom Barak defeated, and of whom Deborah sang (Jdg_5:19). As for Megiddo, many a battle was fought in its plain. We can only conjecture why these cities, most of which were in Issachar, were given to Manasseh. They were strongholds in the great plain of Esdraelon, where most of the great battles of Canaan were fought. For the defence of the plain it seemed important that these places should be held by a stronger tribe than Issachar. Hence they appear to have been given to Manasseh. But, like Ephraim, Manasseh was not able to hold them at first. Undoubtedly these sons of Joseph occupied a position which gave them unrivalled opportunities of benefiting their country. But with the exception of the splendid exploit of Gideon, a man of Manasseh, and his little band, we hear of little in the history that redounded to the credit of Josephs descendants. Nobility of character is not hereditary. Sometimes nature appears to spend all her intellectual and moral wealth on the father and almost to impoverish the sons. And sometimes the sons live on the virtues of their fathers, and cannot be roused to the exertion or the sacrifice needed to continue their work and maintain their reputation. (W. G. Blaikie, D. D.)
.
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_16:1-4. The lot of the children of Joseph] Although…
THE INHERITANCE OF THE CHILDREN OF JOSEPH
CRITICAL NOTES.
Read full note →
Jos_16:1-4. The lot of the children of Joseph] Although Jacob had adopted the sons of Joseph to be as his own children (Gen_48:5), and prophesied concerning them as the heads of two distinct tribes in Israel, yet in the chapter of tribal blessings he had spoken of them under the one name of Joseph (Gen_49:22-26) Moses. also, though recognising the division into the two tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh. had likewise given them a single blessing in the name of their common father (Deu_33:13-17). Thus the one lot for the two tribes was almost anticipated by these prophecies. As Calvin suggested, “the admirable counsel of God arranged that the brothers should be neighbours to each other.” As the situation of the two tribes was designated by a common lot, and an intermingling of territory is spoken of in Jos_16:9, it seems more two chapters should be treated as one.
Jos_16:1. Fell] Lit., “came forth;” i.e., “came out of the urn, or chest,” says Clericus, whom Keil follows, in opposition to the opinion of Rosenmüller, that the reference is to the land, which “came out from Jordan,” etc. The water of Jericho] The fountain now known as Ain es-Sultan, to the overflowing of which the neighbouring plain owes so much of its ferility. Here Elisha wrought his miracle of “healing the waters” (2Ki_2:19-22). Dr. Robinson placed the site of the first Jericho by this fountain of Elisha, and that of the late Jericho by the opening of the Wady Kelt. The wilderness that goeth up from Jericho] This is the wilderness of Bethaven (chap. Jos_7:2; Jos_18:12).
Jos_16:2. From Bethel to Luz] Knobel, and others, rendering the words as a composite noun, read “from Bethel-Luzah.” Keil understands the sense to be, “from the mountains of Bethel, from which the boundary-line proceeded to the city of Luz. i.e., to Bethel itself.” Undoubtedly, from the way is which they are invariably mentioned as one place, Lus should not be put, as by Crosby, “three and a half miles west of Bethel.” But cf. below, Dr. Cassel’s remarks on Jdg_1:22. The borders of Archi to Ataroth] “The border of the Archite.” The Archites or Erechites, in Canaan, may have been descended from some settlers from the Erech of Nimrod (Gen_10:10), in the land of Babylonia. “David’s friend,” or “companion,” Hushai the Archite, is the subject of the only further reference which is made to this name (2Sa_15:32; 2Sa_16:16; 1Ch_27:33). Ataroth, according to Robinson, is the modern Atara, about four miles south of Jiljilia, and must be distinguished from the ruins of Atara, near to er Ram. The latter is mentioned in Jos_16:7, while the former is named again as Ataroth-addar in Jos_16:5 and in chap. Jos_18:13.
Jos_16:3. Beth-horon the nether] The lower Beth-horon is now Beit-ûr, at Tachta. In common with Gezer (cf. on chap. Jos_10:33) it was afterwards given to the Kohathites (chap. Jos_21:21-22).
Jos_16:4. So the children of Joseph, etc.] Thus the southern boundary only is given, “which, in chap. Jos_18:12-13, is repeated as the northern border of Benjamin.
Jos_16:5-8. The border of the children of Ephraim, etc.] These verses contain a description which seems involved in inextricable confusion. This is perhaps, principally owing to three things: the places named are few, and thus far apart, marking, probably, some of the extreme positions; the sites of the places are nearly all unknown; and further, the inter-tribal line between these brother tribes seems to have been very complex, and, owing to the intermingling named in Jos_16:9, may have been, at places, hardly capable of clear description in a brief record. Added to this, it is possible that some attempts may have been made by copyists to make the text clearer, these resulting eventually in greater obscurity than ever. Some such process may account for the utterly incomprehensible opening clause of Jos_16:6; or, as between Jos_16:5-10, a passage may have been left out between Jos_16:5-6, rendering what follows uninintelligible.
Jos_16:9. The separate cities] These were possibly so assigned, in order that by the intermingling of the two tribes the bond of brotherhood might be perpetuated.
OUTLINES AND COMMENTS ON THE PARAGRAPHS
CHAPTER 16.—Jos_16:1.—THE PRECEDENCE OF EPHRAIM
As between these “children of Joseph,” Ephraim takes precedence of Manasseh. Though, as the elder son, Manasseh is named first in Jos_16:4, yet the lot of Ephraim stands first in the record, and occupies the more important position in the land. This is as Jacob had prophesied it should be (Gen_48:13-20). The ancient scene of the blessing of Joseph’s children, when compared with their inheritance as shewn here, is instructive. Joseph had opposed Jacob, but Jacob was right and Joseph wrong. Putting together the circumstances of Jacob’s prophecy, and the sequel which the history here begins to reveal, the following thoughts are suggested:
I. God’s special presence and guidance sometimes vouchsafed to the dying, not imaginary, but real. It does not appear that dying Jacob had received any particular promise that God would especially direct him in giving his prophetic blessings. Jacob assumed that it was so. The dying do not care for proofs and arguments. They simply believe, and thus speak. Jacob did not trouble himself with any explanation. He did not even claim God’s special teaching. He merely answered to Joseph’s objection, “I know it, my son, I know it;” and then, in the calmness of a man fully assured, went on with his blessing. Jacob believed that God was directing him. “By faith Jacob, when he was dying, blessed both the sons of Joseph” (Heb_11:21). Jacob had no great precedent for conduct like this. Dying Moses could look back and see how God had honoured Jacob’s trust, but Jacob could look back on nothing similar. He simply felt that God was with him, and was guiding him so unerringly, that the knowledge of his pious son Joseph must not be suffered, for a moment, to break in upon his own confidence. Jacob was not deceived. The history which begins in this appointment of the lots, goes on to assert through many generations that it was indeed God who had set Ephraim before Manasseh, though the elder son “also should be great.” Is not God thus present with His dying servants now, if not for prophecy, yet for support? He Himself has said, “When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee.”
II. God’s special guidance of His servants in death sufficiently realized to enable their faith to overcome all obstacles. Take into consideration the circumstances by which Jacob was surrounded, and it will be seen that it was no light matter for him to persist in his trust.
1. There was the difficulty of getting away from Egypt. Would that be suffered by the Egyptians? Would the Israelites, settled in the fat land of Goshen, unanimously care to leave?
2. There was the task of overcoming the Canaanites. Jacob had lived among them during great part of his life, and must have well known of those cities “walled up to heaven,” and inhabited here by the Rephaim, there by the Anakim.
3. There was the division of the tribe of Joseph into two tribes. How was that to be brought about? Was Israel to have thirteen tribes? If not, which son was to give place? and how was he to be induced to give place?
4. Then there was the supremacy of Ephraim. Would not this be contested, even as Jacob’s own supremacy over Esau? Thus, in addition to the opposition of Joseph, and the weakness imposed by the presence of death, these things stood confronting the aged patriarch’s faith. He did not so much as speak of them as making the issue doubtful. He felt God to be so manifestly with him, that no amount of obstacles could present any measure of difficulty. So sufficient is God’s presence in the hour of His people’s need.
III. The special guidance of God in even the weak and dying, transcending physical strength and mental vigour. Joseph was strong, and Jacob was weak; the son could see, but the father’s eyes were dim with age; the younger man’s faculties and powers of mental perception were in the very pride of maturity, while the elder man was feeling throughout his entire frame the decay which precedes dissolution; yet Jacob was right, and Joseph was in error. The guidance of God in the feeblest is better than human perception at its best. Even the blind err not when the Lord leads them. The cultivated intellect of Joseph fails to discern the future of his children; the divinely taught, though decaying mind of Jacob, not only reads the centuries to come, but does not so much as think of the possibility of any mistake.
IV. The special guidance of God surpassing the ordinary spiritual apprehensions of an unusually faithful and pious life. Jacob’s life had been one full of grave mistakes. He had obtained the birthright of his brother through deep craft and oft-repeated lies. He may fairly be regarded as the prototype of commercial sharpness and cunning. He bargained with men, and even bargained with God. He assumed a demeanour of great moderation with Laban, depending on trickery to make the seeming moderation far more profitable than any open arrangement. His life was a long negotiation in the interest of himself. It had been eminently a life of self-seeking. Yet with all these “evil days,” as he himself terms them, Jacob had believed unquestioningly in God. God had ever been his refuge in his times of distress, and, apparently, never forgotten in his times of prosperity. Nevertheless, the life of Jacob stands out in dark and painful contrast to the life of Joseph. Joseph had shewn the same ardent belief in God, and had testified to the beauty of his faith by the excellence of his fidelity. The story of Jacob’s life is stained throughout, while that of Joseph comes down to us in an almost unsullied purity. For all this, in the instance before us, Jacob is unerringly right, and Joseph is wrong. “The secret of the Lord is with them that fear him.” “The pure in heart see God.” This is the ordinary rule of life and it is in no way shaken by this exception. God seems to teach us again, here that no man must rely on his purity. Fidelity is one thing, infallibility another. God sometimes corrects the judgment of His most faithful servants through those whose lives are far inferior. This also is well, lest pride become the heritage of piety. Again, it should be remembered that the special teaching of God through the weak is far more unerring than the discernment of the most spiritual of minds momentarily left to themselves.
V. The superior wisdom of God’s guidance waiting for the vindication of time. If not vindicated at the time, it was vindicated by time. Joseph quietly submitted to his father’s strong assurance. He offered no further remonstrance. Joseph may even have believed that it would be as his father had declared. Of this, nothing is said. When nearly two hundred and fifty years had passed, God began to confirm the words of Jacob by providing in another manner for the tribe of Levi, and in these appointments of the lots of Joseph’s children. The vision which God gives may tarry, yet it is for “an appointed time.” Divine proofs are never hastened, and ultimately they never fail.
Jos_16:2.—THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN BETHEL AND LUZ
The following excellent note by Dr. Cassel deals with three passages which have often been found difficult to harmonise with the statement, “Bethel, which is Luz,” frequently occurring elsewhere:
(1) with the obscure phrase “from Bethel to Luz,” in this verse;
(2) with the difficulty in chapter Jos_18:13; Jos_18:22, where, while Bethel is said to belong to Benjamin, the border of that tribe is stated to be south of Luz;
(3) and finally, with the representation in Jdg_1:22-25, in which the children of Joseph are seen taking and occupying what might appear to be a city of Benjamin.
“As Jebus and Jerusalem are always identified, so it is everywhere remarked of Bethel, that it was formerly Luz; and as Jebus indicated particularly the fortress, Jerusalem the city,—although the latter name embraced both,—so a similar relation must be assumed to have existed between Bethel and Luz. Otherwise the border of Benjamin could not have run south of Luz (Jos_18:13), while nevertheless Bethel was reckoned among the cities of Benjamin (Jos_18:22). This assumption, moreover, explains the peculiar phraseology of Jos_18:13 : ‘And the border went over from thence toward Luz’ (after which we expect the usual addition, ‘which is Bethel;’ but that which does follow is,) ‘on the south side of Luz, which is Bethel.’ It explains likewise the mention (Jos_16:2) of the border ‘from Bethel to Luz,’ i.e., between Bethel and Luz. The latter was evidently a fortress, high and strong, whose city descended along the mountain slope. When Jacob erected his altar, it must have been on this slope or in the valley. One name designated both fortress and city, but this does not militate against their being distinguished from each other. Bethel belonged to two tribes in a similar manner as Jerusalem. The capture of Luz by Joseph would not have been told in a passage which treats of the conflicts of the individual tribes in their own territories, if that fortress had not belonged to the tribes of Joseph. By the conquest of Luz, Joseph secured the possession of Bethel, since both went by that name, just as David, when he had taken the fortress of the Jebusites, was for the first time master of Jerusalem. This deed is related as contrasting with the conduct of Benjamin (Jdg_1:21). Benjamin did nothing to take the fortress of Zion: Joseph went up to Luz, and God was with him (Jdg_1:22). This remark had been impossible, if, as has been frequently assumed, the tribe of Joseph had arbitrarily appropriated to itself the city which had been promised to Benjamin. The view of ancient Jewish expositors, who assume a Bethel in the valley and one on the mountain, does not differ from that here suggested. Robinson seems to have established the position of the ancient Bethel near the present Beitîn, where scattered ruins occupy the surface of a hill-point. A few minutes to the north-east, on the highest spot of ground in the vicinity, are other ruins, erroneously supposed to be Ai by the natives: these also, perhaps, belonged to Bethel. It cannot, however, be said that until Robinson this position was entirely unknown. Eshtori ha-Parchi, who in his time found it called Bethai, the I having fallen away, was evidently acquainted with it. In another work of the fourteenth century, the then current name of Bethel is said to be Bethin.” [Cassel, Lange’s Com.]
Jos_16:10.—THE WEAKNESS AND INCONSISTENCY OF UNBELIEF.
I. A stronghold thought by God’s people to be too strong for them to subdue, notwithstanding Divine promises to the contrary.
II. A stronghold which, it is pretended, cannot be overcome, and yet is put under tribute.
III. A stronghold too strong for unbelieving men who might have had the help of omnipotence, and presently taken by foreign idolaters, and given to the nation. (Cf. 1Ki_9:16.)
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 Lot of Joseph
The Lot of Joseph
Chs. 16, 17 describe the territories of Ephraim and the W. half of Manasseh. Vv. 1-4 of Joshua 16 give the general frontiers of the combined tribes, the rest of the chapter (Jos_16:5-10) the frontiers of Ephraim as distinct from W. Manasseh. The territory allotted to the two tribes comprised the central and most fertile part of Palestine. The S. border ran from Jericho through Bethel to Beth-horon and the sea; and the N. border from Mt. Carmel, along the S. border of the Plain of Esdraelon to the Jordan.
Read full note →
1. RV 'the lot went out from the Jordan at Jericho, at the waters of Jericho on the east, even the wilderness, going up from Jericho through the hill-country to Bethel.'
2. From Beth-el to Luz] see on Gen_28:19.
6. The border between Ephraim and Manasseh passed from Jericho westward to Michmethah near Shechem (Jos_17:7), and thence to the river Kanah which falls into the Mediterranean N. of Joppa.
9. RV 'together with the cities which were separated for the children of Ephraim in the midst of the inheritance of the children of Manasseh.'
10. Serve under tribute] The Canaanite had to take up the forced service of a labourer: cp. Jos_17:13 and Jdg_1:28, Jdg_1:33, Jdg_1:35.
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 4. The Portion of Ephraim
4. The Portion of Ephraim
CHAPTER 16
Read full note →
1. The lot for the children of Joseph (Jos 16:1-4)
2. Ephraim’s portion (Jos 16:5-9)
3. Ephraim’s failure (Jos 16:10)
A wonderful lot was that of Joseph, beginning at Jordan, the river of death, up to Bethel, which means “the house of God.” Then the portion of Ephraim comes first. Ephraim with the blessed inheritance to be “doubly fruitful” (the meaning of Ephraim) fails. “They drove not out the Canaanites that dwelt in Gezer.” Josephus, the Jewish historian, remarks on this: “They grew effeminate as to fighting any more against their enemies, but applied themselves to the cultivation of the land, which producing them great plenty and riches, they indulged in luxury and pleasure.” No doubt this tradition is correct. How this has been repeated in Christendom! What Ephraim became, joined to idols, we read in the prophet Hosea.
Arno C. Gaebelein, The Annotated Bible (1913–1922) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.
Paul E. Kretzmann 1924 · Public Domain The General Boundaries of the Sons of Joseph
The General Boundaries of the Sons of Joseph
v. 1. And the lot of the children of Joseph fell, came out from the urn or was drawn to give the boundaries, from Jordan by Jericho, that part of the Jordan Valley which touches upon the territory of Jericho, unto the water of Jericho on the east, the Fountain of Elisha, between Jericho and the Jordan, to the wilderness that goeth up from Jericho throughout Mount Bethel, toward the northwest.
Read full note →
v. 2. And (the boundary) goeth out from Bethel, from this mountain, to Luz, for the ancient name of the city is still used at times, and passeth along unto the borders of Archi to Ataroth, southwestward and then south,
v. 3. and goeth down westward to the coast of Japhleti, or, of the Japhletite, unto the coast of Beth-horon the nether, located on a slight elevation below Upper Beth-horon, and to Gezer, still farther to the west; and the goings out thereof are at the sea, the place not being so exactly located as in the case of Judah.
v. 4. So the children of Joseph, Manasseh and Ephraim, took their inheritance, their territory being located north of this line, and that of Benjamin between their possession and that of Judah.
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 the tribe of Joseph
the tribe of Joseph
The "tribe of Joseph" consisted of the tribes of Joseph's two sons, Manasseh and Ephraim. Since half of the tribe of Manasseh had settled east of the Jordan, this phrase refers to the tribe of Ephraim and the other half of the tribe of Manasseh. AT: "the tribe of Ephraim and the other half of the tribe of Manasseh" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)
Read full note →
Luz ... Ataroth
These are the names of places. (See: How to Translate Names)
Arkites
This is the name of a people group. (See: How to Translate Names)
translationWords
assign
tribe
Joseph (OT)
Jordan River
Jericho
fountain
desert
Bethel
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 16:1–17:18 Joseph had two sons,Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen 41:50-52).…
16:1–17:18 Joseph had two sons,Manasseh and Ephraim (Gen 41:50-52). Half of Manasseh’s descendants had received their inheritance east of the Jordan River. The tribe of Ephraim and the rest of the tribe of Manasseh now received their allotments. This brought the total number of allotments to twelve and fulfilled the blessing Jacob had pronounced upon Joseph (Gen 49:22-26). Like Judah in the south, Joseph’s tribes exercised leadership from their central position in the north.
16:1 Jericho was assigned to the tribe of Benjamin (18:21).
Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.