Commentary on Joshua - Keil & Delitzsch - David Cox
Share Embed Flag
Download ePaper

Commentary on Joshua - Keil & Delitzsch - David Cox

Commentary on Joshua - Keil & Delitzsch - David Cox Commentary on Joshua - Keil & Delitzsch - David Cox

davidcox.com.mx
from davidcox.com.mx More from this publisher
22.08.2013 Views

Keil and Delitzsch ong>Commentaryong> on the Old Testament The king of Dor in the coast of Dor, one; the king of the nations of Gilgal, one; Dor: see Josh 11:2. Gilgal: the seat of the king of the Goyim (a proper name, as in Gen 14:1), in all probability the same place as the villa nomine Galgulis mentioned in the Onom. ( s. v. Gelgel ) as being six Roman miles to the north of Antipatris, which still exists in the Moslem village of Jiljule (now almost a ruin; see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 136), although this village is only two miles E.S.E. of Kefr Sâba, the ancient Antipatris (see Ritter , Erdk. xvi. pp. 568-9). Thirza , the capital of the kings of Israel down to the time of Omri (1 Kings 14:17; 15:21,33; 16:6ff.), is probably the present Talluza, an elevated and beautifully situated place, of a considerable size, surrounded by large olive groves, two hours to the north of Shechem (see Rob. Bibl. Res. p. 302, and Van de Velde , ii. p. 294). II. DIVISION OF THE LAND OF CANAAN AMONG THE TRIBES OF ISRAEL. Ch. 13-24. The distribution of the conquered land among the Israelites is introduced by the command of the Lord to Joshua to enter upon this work, now that he was old, although different portions of land were still unconquered (Josh 13:1-7); and to this there is appended a description of the land on the east of the Jordan which had already been conquered and divided among the two tribes and a half (Josh 13:8-33). The distribution of the land on this side among the nine tribes and a half is related in its historical order; so that not only are the territories assigned by lot to the different tribes described according to their respective boundaries and towns, but the historical circumstances connected with the division and allotting of the land are also introduced into the description. These historical accounts are so closely connected with the geographical descriptions of the territory belonging to the different tribes, that the latter alone will explain the course pursued in the distribution of the land, and the various ways in which the different territories are described (see the remarks on Josh 14:1). http://207.44.232.113/~bible/comment/ot/k&d/josh/jos74.html (1 of 2) [13/08/2004 01:18:11 p.m.]

Keil and Delitzsch ong>Commentaryong> on the Old Testament For example, in the account of the inheritance which fell to the lot of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin, not only are the boundaries most carefully traced, but the towns are also enumerated one by one (ch. 15 and Josh 18:11-28); whereas in the tribe of Joseph (Ephraim and half Manasseh) the list of the towns is altogether wanting (ch. 16 and 17); and in the possessions of the other tribes, either towns alone are mentioned, as in the case of Simeon and Dan (Josh 19:1-9,40-48), or the boundaries and towns are mixed up together, but both of them given incompletely, as in the case of Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali (Josh 19:10-17-24-32-39 ). This incompleteness, particularly in the territories of the tribes mentioned last, may be explained from the fact, that in northern Canaan there were still very many tracts of land in the hands of the Canaanites, and the Israelites had not acquired a sufficiently exact or complete knowledge of the country, either through Joshua's campaign in the north, or through the men who were sent out to survey the northern land before it was divided (Josh 18:4-9), to enable them to prepare a complete account of the boundaries and towns at the very outset. In the same way, too, we may explain the absence of the list of towns in the case of the tribes of Ephraim and half Manasseh-namely, from the fact that a large portion of the territory assigned to the tribe of Joseph was still in the possession of the Canaanites (vid., Josh 17:14-18); whilst the omission of any account of the boundaries in the case of Simeon and Dan is attributable to the circumstance that the former received its inheritance within the tribe of Judah, and the latter between Judah and Ephraim, whilst the space left for the Danites was so small, that Ephraim and Judah had to gave up to them some of the town in their own territory. Thus the very inequality and incompleteness of the geographical accounts of the possessions of the different tribes decidedly favour the conclusion, that they are the very lists which were drawn up at the time when Joshua divided the land. There is http://207.44.232.113/~bible/comment/ot/k&d/josh/jos74.html (2 of 2) [13/08/2004 01:18:11 p.m.]

<strong>Keil</strong> and <strong>Delitzsch</strong> <str<strong>on</strong>g>Commentary</str<strong>on</strong>g> <strong>on</strong> the Old Testament<br />

For example, in the account of the inheritance which fell to the lot of the tribes of<br />

Judah and Benjamin, not <strong>on</strong>ly are the boundaries most carefully traced, but the towns<br />

are also enumerated <strong>on</strong>e by <strong>on</strong>e (ch. 15 and Josh 18:11-28); whereas in the tribe of<br />

Joseph (Ephraim and half Manasseh) the list of the towns is altogether wanting (ch.<br />

16 and 17); and in the possessi<strong>on</strong>s of the other tribes, either towns al<strong>on</strong>e are<br />

menti<strong>on</strong>ed, as in the case of Sime<strong>on</strong> and Dan (Josh 19:1-9,40-48), or the boundaries<br />

and towns are mixed up together, but both of them given incompletely, as in the case<br />

of Zebulun, Issachar, Asher, and Naphtali (Josh 19:10-17-24-32-39 ). This<br />

incompleteness, particularly in the territories of the tribes menti<strong>on</strong>ed last, may be<br />

explained from the fact, that in northern Canaan there were still very many tracts of<br />

land in the hands of the Canaanites, and the Israelites had not acquired a sufficiently<br />

exact or complete knowledge of the country, either through <strong>Joshua</strong>'s campaign in the<br />

north, or through the men who were sent out to survey the northern land before it was<br />

divided (Josh 18:4-9), to enable them to prepare a complete account of the boundaries<br />

and towns at the very outset.<br />

In the same way, too, we may explain the absence of the list of towns in the case of<br />

the tribes of Ephraim and half Manasseh-namely, from the fact that a large porti<strong>on</strong> of<br />

the territory assigned to the tribe of Joseph was still in the possessi<strong>on</strong> of the<br />

Canaanites (vid., Josh 17:14-18); whilst the omissi<strong>on</strong> of any account of the<br />

boundaries in the case of Sime<strong>on</strong> and Dan is attributable to the circumstance that the<br />

former received its inheritance within the tribe of Judah, and the latter between Judah<br />

and Ephraim, whilst the space left for the Danites was so small, that Ephraim and<br />

Judah had to gave up to them some of the town in their own territory. Thus the very<br />

inequality and incompleteness of the geographical accounts of the possessi<strong>on</strong>s of the<br />

different tribes decidedly favour the c<strong>on</strong>clusi<strong>on</strong>, that they are the very lists which<br />

were drawn up at the time when <strong>Joshua</strong> divided the land. There is<br />

<br />

http://207.44.232.113/~bible/comment/ot/k&d/josh/jos74.html (2 of 2) [13/08/2004 01:18:11 p.m.]

logo

products

Resources

Company

Terms of service
Privacy policy
Cookie policy
Cookie settings
Imprint
Change language
Made with love in Switzerland
© 2024 Yumpu.com all rights reserved

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!