Commentary on Joshua - Keil & Delitzsch - David Cox

Keil and Delitzsch <strong>Commentary</strong> on the Old Testament
conjectures that it is to be found in the ruins upon Tell Khuraibeh , opposite to the
north-west corner of the lake of Huleh, the situation of which would suit Hazor quite
well, as it is placed between Ramah and Kedesh in Josh 19:35-36 (see Bibl. Res. p.
364).
On the other hand, the present ruins of Huzzur or Hazireh , where there are the
remains of large buildings of a very remote antiquity (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 62), with
which Knobel identifies Hazor, cannot be thought of for a moment, as these ruins,
which are about an hour and a quarter to the south-west of Yathir, are so close to the
Ramah of Asher (Josh 19:29) that Hazor must also have belonged to Asher, and could
not possibly have been included in the territory of Naphtali. There would be more
reason for thinking of Tell Hazûr or Khirbet Hazûr , on the south-west of Szafed (see
Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 81); but these ruins are not very ancient, and only belong to an
ordinary village, and not to a town at all. Madon is only mentioned again in Josh
12:19, and its situation is quite unknown. Shimron , called Shimron-meron in Josh
12:20, was allotted to the tribe of Zebulun (ch. 19:15), and is also unknown.
For Meron cannot be connected, as Knobel supposes, with the village and ruins of
Marôn , not far from Kedesh, on the south-west (see Rob. Pal. iii. p. 371), or Shimron
with the ruins of Khuraibeh , an hour to the south of Kedesh; as the territory of
Zebulun, to which Shimron belonged, did not reach so far north, and there is not the
slightest ground for assuming that there were two Shimrons, or for making a
distinction between the royal seat
http://207.44.232.113/~bible/comment/ot/k&d/josh/jos65.html (2 of 2) [13/08/2004 01:17:59 p.m.]