Commentary on Joshua - Keil & Delitzsch - David Cox

Keil and Delitzsch <strong>Commentary</strong> on the Old Testament
Verse 23. Kedesh , possibly Kadesh-barnea (v. 3). Hazor might then be Hezron, in
the neighbourhood of Kadesh-barnea (v. 3). Ithnan is unknown.
Verse 24-25. Second group of five or six places. - Of these, Ziph and Telem are not
met with again, unless Telem is the same as Telaim , where Saul mustered his army to
go against the Amalekites (1 Sam 15:4). Their situation is unknown. There was
another Ziph upon the mountains (see v. 55). Knobel supposes the one mentioned
here to be the ruins of Kuseifeh , to the south-west of Arad ( Rob. Pal. ii. p. 620). Ziph
would then be contracted from Ceziph; but the contraction of Achzib (Josh 19:29)
into Zib does not present a corresponding analogy, as in that case the abbreviated
form is the later one, whereas in the case of Ziph a lengthening of the name must
have taken place by the addition of a D. Bealoth , probably the same as the
Simeonitish Baaloth-beer (Josh 19:8), which is called Baal simply in 1 Chron 4:33,
and which was also called Ramath-negeb (Josh 19:8) and Ramoth-negeb (1 Sam
30:27).
It is not to be identified with Baalath , however (Josh 19:45; 1 Kings 9:18), as V. de
Velde supposes (Reise, ii. pp. 151-2). Knobel fancies it may be the ridge and place
called Kubbet el Baul , between Milh and Kurnub ( Rob. ii.
p. 617); but Baul and Baal are very different. Hazor Hadatta ( Chazor Chadathah ),
i.e., new Hazor, might be the ruins of el Hudhaira on the south of Jebel Khulil ( Rob.
Appendix). Kenoth was supposed by Robinson (Pal.
ii. p. 472, and Appendix) to be the ruins of el Kuryetein , on the north-east of Arad
and at the foot of the mountains, and with this V. de Velde agrees. Reland (Pal. p.
708) connects the following word Hezron with Kenoth , so as to read Kenoth-hezron ,
i.e., Hezron's towns, also called Hazor. This is favoured by the Sept. and Syriac , in
which the two words are linked together to form one name, and probably by the
Chaldee as well, also by the absence of the copula vav ( and ) before Hezron, which
is not omitted anywhere else throughout this section, except at the beginning of the
different groups of towns, as, for example, before Ziph in v. 24, and Amam in v. 26,
and therefore ought to stand before Hezron if it is an independent town. The
Masoretic pointing cannot be regarded as a decisive proof of the contrary.
http://207.44.232.113/~bible/comment/ot/k&d/josh/jos94.html (1 of 3) [13/08/2004 01:18:36 p.m.]