Commentary on Joshua - Keil & Delitzsch - David Cox

Keil and Delitzsch <strong>Commentary</strong> on the Old Testament
points; naaqowd , pointed, speckled (Gen 30:32ff.). Hence the rendering of the LXX,
eurootioo'n ; Theod. , bebroome'noi ; Luther schimmlicht , mouldy; whereas the
rendering adopted by Aquila is epsathuroome'nos ; by Symmachus , ka'poros , i.e.,
adustus, torridus; and by the Vulgate, in frusta comminuti , i.e., crumbled.
Joshua 9:6-7
And they went to Joshua unto the camp at Gilgal, and said unto him, and to the
men of Israel, We be come from a far country: now therefore make ye a league
with us.
Having made these preparations, they went to the Israelitish camp at Gilgal (Jiljilia),
introduced themselves to the men of Israel ( 'iysh (OT:376), in a collective sense, the
plural being but little used, and only occurring in Prov 8:4; Isa 53:3, and Ps 141:4) as
having come from a distant land, and asked them to make a league with them. But the
Israelites hesitated, and said to the Hivites, i.e., the Gibeonites who were Hivites, that
they might perhaps be living in the midst of them (the Israelites), i.e., in the land of
Canaan, which the Israelites already looked upon as their own; and if so, how could
they make a league with them? This hesitation on their part was founded upon the
express command of God, that they were not to make any league with the tribes of
Canaan (Ex 23:32; 34:12; Num 33:55; Deut 7:2, etc.). In reply to this the Gibeonites
simply said, "We are thy servants" (v. 8), i.e., we are at thy service, which, according
to the obsequious language common in the East, was nothing more than a phrase
intended to secure the favour of Joshua, and by no means implied a readiness on their
part to submit to the Israelites and pay them tribute, as Rosenmüller, Knobel , and
others suppose; for, as Grotius correctly observes, what they wished for was "a
friendly alliance, by which both their territory and also full liberty would be secured
to themselves." The Keri wayo'mer (OT:559) (v. 7) is nothing more than a critical
conjecture, occasioned not so much by the singular 'iysh (OT:376), which is
frequently construed in the historical writings as a collective noun with a plural verb,
as by the singular suffix attached to bªqirªbiy (OT:7130), which is to be explained on
the ground that only one of the Israelites (viz., Joshua) was speaking as the
http://207.44.232.113/~bible/comment/ot/k&d/josh/jos49.html (1 of 2) [13/08/2004 01:17:39 p.m.]