1 MOABITE
try beyond it. Of the valuable district of the high- lands they were not allowed to retain entire posses^ion. The warlike Amorites— either forced from their original seats on the west, or perhaps lured over by the increas- ing prosperity of the young nation — crossed the Jordan and overran the richer portion of the territory on the north, driving Moab back to his original position behind the natural bulwark of the Anion. The plain of the Jordan valley, the hot and humid atmosphere of which had perhaps no attraction for the Amoritish mountain- eers, appears to have remained in the power of jMoab. When Israel reached the boundary of the country, this contest had only very recently occurred. Silion, the Amoritish king under whose command Heshbon had been taken, was still reigning there — the baUads com- memorating the event were still fresh in the popular mouth (Numb, xxi, 27-30).
Of these events, which extended over a period, ac- cording to the received Bible chronology, of not less than 500 years, from the destruction of Sodom to the arrival of Israel on the borders of the Promised Land, we obtain the above outline only from the fragments of ancient documents, which are found embedded in the records of Numbers and Deuteronomy (Numb, xxi, 26- 30; Deut.ii, 10,11).
The position into which the Moabites were driven by the incursion of the Amorites was a very circumscribed one, in extent not so much as half that which tbey had lost. But on the other hand its position was much more secure, and it was well suited for the occupation of a people whose disposition was not so warlike as that of their neighbors. It occupied the southern half of the high table-lands which rise above the eastern side of the Dead Sea. On every side it was strongly fortified by nature. On the north was the tremendous chasm of the Anion. On the west it was limited by the preci- pices, or more accurately the cliffs, which descend almost perpendicularly to the shore of the lake, and are inter- sected only by one or two steep and narrow passes. Lastly, on the south and east it was protected by a half- circle of hills, which open only to allow the passage of a branch of the Anion and another of the torrents which descend to the Dead Sea.
It will be seen from the foregoing description that the territory' occupied by IMoab at the period of its greatest extent, before the invasion of the Amorites, di- vided itself naturally into three distinct and independ- ent portions. Each of these portions appears to have had its name, by which it is almost invariably designat- ed. (1) The enclosed "corner" or canton south of the Arnon was the "field of Moab" (Ruth i, 1, 2, 6, etc.). (2) The more open rolling country north of the Arnon, opposite Jericho, and up to the hills of Gilead, was the "land of Moab" (Deut. i, 5; xxxii, 49, etc.). (3) The sunk district in the tropical depths of the Jordan valley, taking its name from that of the great valley itself— the Arabah — was the Arboth-Moab, the dry regions — in the A. V. very incorrectly rendered the " plains of Moab" (Numb, xxii, 1, etc.).
II. Connectiomcith the Israelites. — Outside of the hills, which enclosed the " field of Moab," or IMoab proper, on the south-cast, and which are at present called the Jebel Uru-Karaiyeh and Jebel el-Tarfuyeh, lay the vast past- ure-grounds of the waste, uncultivated countiy, or "Mid- bar," which is described as " facing Moab" on the east (Numb, xxi, 11). Through this latter district Israel appears to have approached the Promised Land. Some communication had evidently taken place, though of what nature it is impossible clearly to ascertain. For while in Deut. ii, 28, 29 the attitude of the Moabites is mentioned as friendly, this seems to be contradicted by the statement of xxiii, 4; while in Judg. xi, 17, again, Israel is said to have sent from Kadesh asking permis- sion to pass through IMoab — a permission which, like Edom, Moab refused. At any rate, the attitude perpet- uated by the provisions of Deut. xxiii, 3 — a provision maintained in full force by the latest of the Old-Tes-
MOABITE
392
MOABITE
lament reformers (Neh. xiii; 1, 2, 23)— is one of hostil- ity. See Nolileke, Die A malekitm, etc. (Gott. 1864), p, 3.
1. But whatever the communication may hav? been, the result was tliat Israel did not traverse Moab, but, turning to the riiflit, passed outside the mountains througli the "wilderness," by tlic east side of the ter- ritory above described (Deut. ii, 8; Judg. xi, 18), and linaliy took up a position in the country north of the Arnon, from which Moab had so lately been ejected. Here the lieail-cpiarters of the nation remained for a considerable time while the conquest of Baslian was tak- ing effect. It was during this period that the visit of lialaam took place. The whole of the country cast of the .Jordan, with the exception of the one little corner occui>ied by Moab, was in possession of the invaders, and altiioiigh at the period in question the main body had descended from the upper level to the plains of Shittim, the Arboth-Moab, in the Jordan valley, yet a great number must have remained on the upper level, and the towns up to the very edge of the ravine of the Arnon were still occupied by their settlements (Numb. xxi, 24 ; Judg. xi, 2G). It was a situation full of alarm for a nation which had already suffered so severely. In his extremity the Moabitish king, Ualak — whose father Zippor was doubtless the chieftain who had lost his life in the encounter wifli Sihon (Numb, xxi, 2G) — a])pealed to the Miilianites for aid (Xumb.xxii, 2-4). With a nietaphor highly appropriate both to his mouth and to the ear of the pastoral tribe he was addressing, he ex- claims that " this people will lick up all round about us as the ox licketh up the grass of the field." What rela- tion existed between 3Ioab and Jlidian we do not know, but there are various indications that it was a closer one than would arise merely from their common descent from Terah. The tradition of the Jews {Tarr/um I'seu- do-Jomilhun on Numb, xxii, 4) is that up to this time the two had been one nation, with kings taken alter- nately from each, and that Balak was a ^lidianite. This, however, is in contradiction to the statements of Genesis as to the origin of each people. The whole story of Balaams visit and of the subsequent events, both in the original narrative of Numbers and in the remark- able statement of Jephthah — whose words as addressed to Ammonites must be accepted as literally accurate — bears out the inference already drawn from the earlier history as to the pacific character of Jloab.