expression il:-('l,r, of e,U mee,uing, even if Joseph led to the cession of Romo of the ;'1))' hscl not the article. Thus De,n ce,n towns northward of the Wady Ifonrih only barn nppronrhcd towards Joppe,, but by Manasseh to Ephraim, M1tnasseh re. r.n.nnot lrnve rNtchcd it. Aud it will be ob- ceiviug compensation by receiving Dcth- sen·ed in eh. xix. 4(i, in accordance with this shean, lbleam, Dor, Endor, Taanach, and ,·ie,Y, thitt the outgoings of the Danite border Megiddo from Issachar and Asher. The ,ne 110/ said to have been the sea. Next, it possession of Beth-shean by Manasseh may ,rnnld seem that the Ataroth of ver. 2 be due to the fact that the bol1llda1·y of (not of ·ver. 7) arnl Atflroth - addar are Manasseh rnn along the chain of moun- either the s:ime place or close together, and tains bordering the great plain of Esd.ro.elon that the prescnl verse gives a small portion until it almost reached the Jordan. Ad'. of the south-eastern bonndarv as far as ditional reasons for ente1t11ining these Bcth-horon. "11)· the bolllldary is not opinions will be given in the following trace,l out fmther (" the author only gives notes. On the east side was Ataroth- the western part of the southern border, addar. It is hardly possible to avoid and lea Yes out the eastern," Knobel) we can- the conclusion that a passage has been not tell, but the natural translation of ver. 6 omitted here by the transcriber. If so, is, " and the western border ran to :rifich- it must have been at a very early period, metbah on the north" (so Knobel). There since the LXX, shows no sign of it, save was so small a portion of Ephuim on the that some copies add " and Geze,r," But sea thn t the line of the Wady Ranah in a this is probably added from ver. 3, and is north-easterly direction to :rifichmethah, in no sense an eastern border. near Shechem, might be called a western, Ver. 6.-And the border went out towards as it certainly was a north-western, border. the sea. Or, " and the western border." On Then the bonier deflected (::li;I~) and ran in a the north side. Or," northward." Appa- t;outh-westerlv direction to Jericho. Manas- rently a line is drawn from the sea, which seh seems to ·ha rn been bounded by Asher (ver. 3) is given as the termination of the on the north and Issachar on the east, from southern boundary to Michmethah, near the borders of Asher to Michmethah, and Shechem (eh. xvii. 7). Knobel thinks that its western b01rndar.v the sea from the Wady Michmethah (the signification of which is Ka.nab to the neighbourhood of Dor. It perhapB hiding-place) was upon the water- seems impossible, with the distinct state- shed, and thus served as a dividing-point. ment that Dor was in Asher (eh. xvii. 11)- Went about. Rather, deflected. The border it could hardly have been in lssachar-and ran m a north-easterly direction to Mich- that Carmel was part of its western border methah. It then bent back and ran in a (eh, xix. ~G), to thrust a wedge of Zebulnn south-easterly direction to Jericho. between M=asseh and Asher, as Mr. Con- Ver. 7.-Ata.roth. Another Ataroth, on der has done. The invention of an Asher- the n-0rthern border of Ephmim. The ham-Michmethah must not be allowed to name, which signifies C1'0wns, is a common set aside the plain statement (eh. xvii. 10) . one (see Nnm, xxxii. 3, 34, 35; 1 Chron. ii. that x!anasseh impinged (YJ!:l) upon Asher 54). Came to Jericho. Or perhaps skfrted in a northerly direction - that is, was Jericho. The word used (see note on ver. 5) bonnfod on the north by that tribe. Then, is akin to the Latin pango and our impinge. as Asher was the northern, so it would Ver. 8.-The border went out from Tap- seem from the passage just cited that puah westward. This would seem to be a Issachar was, as has been suggested, the more minute description of the border line eastern boundary, and that lssachar was drawn from the sea to Michmethah above. bounded by the Jordan eastward, Manasseh Tappuah seems to have been near Mich- westward, and by Ephraim to the south- methah, and on the border (eh. xvii. 8) of west, and some distance further south than Manasseh. According to Knobel, Tappuah is usually supposed, Yet eh. xv:ii. 11 must signifies plain, which is a little incon- not be forgotten in fixing the boundary of sistent with his idea that Michmethah, close Issachar (see note on eh. xix. 17-23). Its by, was the water-shed. Tappuah elsewhere northern border, comprehending Jezreel, signifies apple. Unto the river Kana.h. The and bounded by Tabor, was thrust in wmter-bound torrent Kanah, so named between ZPbulun and Naphtali. Tabor from its reeds and canes, formed the border was evidently the border of these three between Ephraim and Manasseh. And the tribes. It is with much diffidence that goings out (literally, extremities) thereof I venture to offer these suggestions, were at the sea. This is the only possible but they appear to have the sanction of interpretation of the passage, in spite of the plain statements of the sacred writer. the obscurity caused by the same word being It would •eem as though the comparative used for " sea " and " west. 11 smallness of the territory e.ssigned to Ver. 9.-And tile sepa.rate cities. Lite. OH, XVI, 1-10.] THE BOOK OF JOSHUA. 1!59
mlly, and the cities di,vided ~ff. The word Issachar and Zebulun, by the arrangement " wero," in our version, ia misplaced. It we are considering. It would naturally be should be read thus : "And there were able, by its position and these circum- cities ilivided off and nsaigned to the tribe of stances, to combine together the rest of the Epbraim iu the midst of the inheritance ol tribe against the somewhat overbearing the sons of Manasseh" (see note on ver. 5). attitude of the tribe of .Judah (see 2 Sam. This !act, together with the compensation xix. 43). giv~n to Mnnasaeh, may serve to explain 10. And they dra;ve not out. The the cohesion of the ten tribes in opposition Ephraimites soon grew slack in the fulfil- to Judnh. The boundaries of the latter ment of the Divine command. There is a tribe were more strictly defined, her attitude distinction, apparently, between this passage more exclusive. We may almost discern and eh. xv. 63. There the tribe of .Judah this in the prominence given to Judah in was unable to drive out the Jebusites from the present book. Ephraim, already enraged their stronghold, and no mention is made at the passing away of the pre-eminence of tribute. Here the Ephraimites seem from itself, which had not merely been pre- deliberately to have preferred the easier task dicted, but, as Judg. viii. 1-3 and xii. 1 of reducing the Canaanites to tribute to the sbow, had been actually enjoyed, was closely sterner and more difficult task of destroying allied to Manasseh, and Manasseh to them utterly.