« PoprzedniaDalej »
to the latter part of the 13th verse, it should be remarked, been such a terror to the spies had been conquered by that it is chiefly the manner in which it has been translated Joshua. It is not an additional expedition, different from that gives it the appearance of a historical statement made those mentioned in verses 16-18, that is referred to, but by the author. It is in fact, however, merely a poetical merely part of those protracted warlike operations specially iteration or intensification, as will appear from the follow emphasised. The expression, ' at that time,' refers to the ing rendering of the 13th verse, omitting the reference to long time mentioned in verse 18. the book of Jasher :-'And the sun waited and the moon stayed until the people had avenged themselves upon their NOTE 17, p. 594.-It has been too easily taken for enemies. Yea, the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, granted that the Anakim were of a different race from and hasted not to go down as it were a whole day.'
the Canaanites; that they belonged to the original inhabi. We have thought it due to our readers to state the tants of the land, who were dispossessed and rooted out by above view of the passage under consideration, accom the more recent Canaanites; and that those who remained panied with the chief of those arguments which have been here and there, at the time of Moses and Joshua, were advanced in its support. Whether they may be able to merely the scattered fragments of a once great people, adopt it or not, they will at all events perceive that it is There is really no evidence that the Anakim were a in entire harmony with that spirit of reverence with which distinct people. Mention is made invariably of only three the Scriptures ought to be regarded. If the honour due | individuals (or families): sons of Anak, for example, in to the Word of God requires us to believe implicitly its Numbers xiii. 22: ‘And they ascended by the south, and statements, it no less requires that we should earnestly | came unto Hebron, where Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai, endeavour to ascertain what its statements really are. If the children of Anak, were.' (See also Joshua xv. 14; we neglect this latter duty, the Scriptures may become a Judges i. 10). 'Let us consider now,' says Kurtz, quoted curse to us, instead of—what they are designed by God by Keil in his Commentar, 'the appellative signification of to be—a blessing. In such a spirit have we sought to the word Anakim-that is, long-necked, men of longconduct the above inquiry. The question has not been, stretched necks--giants; let us reflect further, that in the whether we are to believe what the Word of God says, case of the Anakim who are described to us, the name and but what in fact it does say; not whether we are to stature correspond; and let us, lastly, remember, that in believe in the miracle it narrates, but whether it intends every case where they are spoken of in a deliberate to narrate a miracle at all. It is only the latter question historical statement--the description of them by the spies which has been discussed in the preceding observations ; (Numb. xiii. 27, seq.) cannot be so regarded-inention is and whether the view therein contained is to be adopted | made always of only single individual giants or families of or rejected, must be determined by exegesis. The whole giants (Numb. xii. 22; Jos. xiv. 15; xy. 14; Judges i. 10: question is simply one of interpretation. (See on this 2 Sam. xxi. 15-23; 1 Chron. xx. 4-8); and we will be point a review of Keil's Commentary on Joshua, in the compelled to adopt the view, that the name Anakim is Foreign Evangelical Review, No. 2, August 1852.)
rather appellative than Gentile, and that the giant-races
of the mountain of Judah were only particular families NOTE 16, p. 592.--The distinction here implied, and in and tribes of the race of the wide-spread and powerful verse 21 formally expressed, between the mountains of Amorites, distinguished from all other tribes and families Judah and the mountains of Israel, is alleged by the of that people by the size of their bodies.' rationalistic critics to have arisen first in the times of David and Solomon, or rather after the separation under NOTE 18, p. 594.-The statement in this verse seems Rehoboam. In that case, it would follow, either that the to be inconsistent with those contained in subsequent book of Joshua was composed long after the events chapters of Joshua, from which it appears that there still narrated took place, or that it was subjected to interpola- | remained many portions of the land in the possession of the tion after it had been composed. But the assertion is not Canaanites (see xüi. 1-6; xvii. 14-18; xvii. 3; xxii. 5, 12). true. The germ of the distinction and opposition between This seeming discrepancy is one of the arguments adduced Judah and Israel appears so early as the time of Jacob, by the rationalistic critics, to prove that the book of Joshua and is exhibited in the blessings pronounced by him upon consists of two distinct and often conflicting divisions, his children. But the distinction between the mountains written by different authors. Some have sought to evade of Judah and Israel indicated in the text, is fully explained the difficulty by the remark, that when it is said that by the relations of the tribes in the time of Joshua, with Joshua took the whole land, according to all that the out going back to patriarchal times, as is well shewn in Lord said unto Moses, we must not press the word 'whole' the following quotation from König in Keil's Commentar : | so as to mean every part of the land without exception. - Whilst Judah enters into its possession in the south (see It is quite true that we ought not to press the expression Joshua xv.), all the tribes are still at Gilgal; and when at so far as to make it signify that the Canaanites were a later period Ephraim and Manasseh have entered upon literally exterminated, all their kings slain, or every city, their possession, the whole of Israel yet encamps in great and small, taken. But such general language as is Shiloh, beyond the borders of Judah; the two parts being employed in verse 23, could not be employed with propriety separated from each other by the territory as yet unap if such very important exceptions were to be made as propriated, which afterwards fell to the lot of Benjamin. are those which are noticed in the passages above referred Moreover, the Altar, the Tabernacle, and the Ark of the to. In the face of such extensive exceptions, we must Covenant, abide in the midst of Joseph and of the remain- escape from the apparent contradiction, not by limiting ing tribes yet assembled in the camp at Shiloh. Was it the meaning of the word 'whole,' but by determining the not inevitable, that the idea of an opposition between sense of the word 'took,' and of the clause, according to Judah on the one side, and the rest of Israel, in which all that the Lord said unto Moses.' What, then, in point the double tribe of Joseph, and in it again Ephraim, was of fact, had hitherto been accomplished? In one expedipredominant, on the other, should become more and more tion, Joshua, with the host of Israel, had utterly routed prevalent. ... And what was more natural, than that the and ruined at Gibeon the armies of the kings of the south; mountains where the children of Judah had their seat slain the kings themselves; taken and partly destroyed should be called the mountains of Judah, and those their chief cities; and, in fact, so thoroughly demolished where the rest of Israel encamped should be called the his southern foes, that they had no longer power to offer mountains of Israel, and also more particularly still, as resistance. In a second expedition against the kings of being Ephraim's possession, the mountain of Ephraim ?' | the north, who had been alarmed and roused by the
We may remark here, in regard to verse 21, which disasters that had happened in the south, the leader of seems to come in rather awkwardly, and, in fact, has the Israelites achieves a like triumph, discomfiting their been regarded as an interpolation, that it seems to have hosts at the waters of Merom; slaying Jabin, king of been inserted by the author from a desire to draw parti- | Hazor, and 'the head of all those kingdoms;' burning cular attention to the fact, that even the giants who had | Hazor with fire, and utterly destroying all the royal cities. It might be said, therefore, with propriety, because it was long a force might appear against them, which it would need literally true, that Joshua had taken the whole land in a all their available strength to resist. Their enemies, indeed, strategical point of view; because, though there were were for the present thoroughly quelled; dismay bad many cities yet in the possession of the Canaanites, yet seized the hearts of the people of Canaan. But it was the latter were quite powerless, and utterly unable to take possible, though in fact it did not happen, that the latter the field against their triumphant enemies. In fact, the might recover from their panic after a time, and effect a war, viewed as a war carried on by the whole of Israel strong combination against the common enemy. This against the nations of Canaan, had come to an end, since being so, a prudent general would not rashly disperse his the latter had been so reduced that there was no enemy forces all at once, but would rather act on the plan of worthy of opposition from the united forces of the Israelites. sending out a division to accomplish the work of conquest The enemies that now remained must be dealt with by in a part of the country where a single tribe would be detachments; they were incapable of combination, and sufficient, and which it was important to occupy as soon were separately too insignificant to be an object worthy of | as possible ; keeping meanwhile the main body of the attack to the whole army. Indeed, it would have been forces together at head-qnarters, in order to be able to madness to have kept such an immense force marching meet every emergency. Before applying these views to hither and thither through the land, searching out the rem- the facts of the case regarding the allotment, we must nants of those hostile nations in their isolated retreats : such first of all give some explanations regarding the manner work could only be done by detached portions of the army. | in which the lot was taken. There are three possible It was now necessary, therefore, even in a strategical ways in which the lot might have been taken. Accordpoint of view, to divide the army into detachments, and ing to any one of these, it was necessary that the land send them into different parts of the country, in order should have been previously divided into ten parts, in to oppress or root out their enemies in detail. But this order that at least the localities might be known for division of the people to form, as it were, separate armies, which lots were to be drawn. This division of the land was not a thing yet to be done, for it already existed in the was necessarily of a rude and merely preliminary characnatural division into tribes. And as for the division of ter, as no regular survey had yet been made; all the the land into corresponding parts, for the purposes of knowledge of Canaan possessed by the Israelites being carrying on the war, that would be accomplished in the derived solely from their casual observations whilst dividing of it for the purpose of possession ; at the same engaged in their warlike expeditions. The exact extent time that a powerful motive would be supplied for pro and limits of these ten portions could only be determined secuting the operations against the enemy, by making after the various tribes had entered into possession, for of the part of the country to be cleared of the Canaanites course, although the lot might determine which tribe should coincide in the case of each tribe with that which had receive this or that portion, it could not fix more definitively been assigned to it as its own inheritance.
than before the limits of the latter. Hence, in order to The time had now arrived, therefore, when the allotment comply with the law in Numbers xxvi. 53-56—that the of the land for possession should be proceeded with; and extent of inheritance should bear a proportion to the accordingly it is stated in the present passage, that Joshua numbers of the inhabitants-it was necessary to make a gave the land 'for an inheritance unto Israel according re-adjustment subsequently, as we shall shew more parto their divisions by their tribes.' This division of the ticularly afterwards. According to the first of the three land, sammarily noticed here, forms the principal subject possible ways of casting the lots, the names of the tribes of the remaining portion of the book. The clause, 'accord. were cast into an urn, and then whatever name came out, ing to all that the Lord said unto Moses,' has been held | the tribe to which it belonged had the privilege of choosing by some to refer to Numbers xxxiv., where the boundaries | any portion that it preferred. On this method, the lot of the promised land are laid down; whilst others think determined merely the priority of choice. Those who hold that reference is made to Exodus xxiii. 29-30, and Deut. this view bring forward in proof of it, that previous to the vii. 22, where it is stated that God would drive out their allotment Caleb had obtained Hebron as his portion, so enemies only by little and little. Most probably it is a that unless the above method were employed, Caleb might general reference to all the passages in the Pentateuch have been isolated from his brethren of the tribe of Judah. referring to the extent and conquest of Canaan. For, in This objection, however, ceases to have force when we truth, Joshua had conquered, in the sense above explained, reflect that the disposal of the lot belonged to the Lord, the whole land in its full extent, so that he might now and was not an affair of chance. But, moreover, it appears divide all Canaan between the twelve tribes, in order that to us that the giving of Hebron to Caleb as his portion, they might separately drive out their enemies ‘little by is not narrated in historical order. It is one of those little,' as the Lord had said unto Moses. (See Note 19.) | incidents which are recorded more for the sake of some
| peculiar interest with which they are invested, than NOTE 19, p. 603. It is no solution of the difficulties because of their importance in the regular chain of connected with the allotment of the land to say, as is done events. Chapter xiv. is in a manner introductory in the text, that there were two distributions ; for, in fact, to the account of the division of the land which the precise point of the difficulty is how to account for the follows. In the 5th verse, it is remarked quite generally : division not having been accomplished at one time. It 'As the Lord commanded Moses, so the children of seems to us that we shall most readily find an answer to Israel did, and they divided the land.' Here, then, if the this question, if we keep constantly in view the military | writer of our book preferred to narrate the incident which situation of the people (see on this point Note 18). We follows apart from the dry details of the division, here, observed in the note referred to, that now the war as be immediately on the back of this general announcement, an tween all Canaan and all Israel was at an end, hostilities excellent opportunity for his purpose occurred, where must now be carried on by detachments against the inha indeed the historical order would not be violated, inasmuc bitants of different parts of the country. Now, therefore, as the fact of the division of the land is stated previously. was the time for the division of the land for inheritance The first method, therefore, is not required in order to amongst the tribes. How, then, might we expect the allot explain any difficulty, and certainly it is in itself objectionment to proceed, supposing it made in subordination to able. The scope which it would give to the individual will military considerations ? Would the land be divided by of the tribes, would be sure to engender discontent, the lot, and the tribes be dispersed, all at once, to take pos repression of which was one of the principal purposes to session each of its own section, by force if necessary; or be served by the use of the lot, viewed as an appeal to would the distribution proceed gradually, only one or per God to determine. According to the second view, a partihaps two lots being disposed of at a time? The latter cular portion of the land was selected by Joshua, or some method, we apprehend, was the one adopted. Although other proper authority, to be assigned by lot. The tribe there was no enemy to face them any longer, yet it was not to which it should belong was determined by the drawing of absolutely impossible, nay not even very improbable, that ere | the name of a tribe from the urn in which the names were contained. The advantage supposed to be gained by this and Jacob. In course of time it became evident that the method is, that thus we can then explain how Judah and power of the Canaanites had been thoroughly broken in Ephraim and Manasseh came to be the parts of the the great wars, and the people ceased at length to be in the country first allotted, as it was desirable on military grounds least degree apprehensive of an attack from them. By that they should be. This, however, is again a rational degrees, therefore, they spread themselves abroad over the istic reason, for if we believe that God. disposed the lot, unoccupied country, neither troubled by nor giving much then we can also easily believe that he so disposed it trouble to the native inhabitants (see chap. xviii. 1-3). Thus, as to suit the circumstances in which the Israelites were when the tribes of Judah and Joseph had taken possession placed, and make that portion be first occupied whose of their territory, and the time had arrived for proceeding occupation was in the first place most desirable. The further with allotment, it had become evident that no second method is also open, though to a less extent than fear need be entertained any longer of the Canaanites, and the first, to the objection that it would leave one of the there was therefore no longer any reason for keeping the contingent elements to the disposal of man, and so give tribes together; the remainder of the land might be occasion for discontent.
divided at once. But, meanwhile, the experience acquired * According to the third and preferable method, there from the previous settlement, had shewn that it was desirwere two urns, into one of which were put the names able first of all to determine more definitely the extent of the tribes, whilst into the other were put the descrip and boundaries of the land that remained. Ephraim had tions of the ten divisions of the land. Out of these urns found his possession too little, and had requested and were drawn successively one name and one division, from obtained more (chap. xvii. 14). The tribe of Judah had, which the lot and the possessor at once appeared. There on the contrary, obtained too much; so that the tribe of is one fact in the history of the division of the land which Simeon subsequently had their portion assigned to them it is difficult to account for, if we suppose that the second out of that of Judah. These facts shewed the desirablemethod was followed, but which is perfectly consistent with ness of a regular survey of the land, which was therefore the third. We refer to the circumstance, that the terri immediately set about (chap. xviii. 4-9). The survey being tory of Benjamin was not disposed of along with that of made, and the results recorded, the land was divided Judah and Joseph. If the territory to be balloted for amongst the seven remaining tribes, as it is related in was selected by Joshua on military grounds, we are chapters xviii, and xix. We may here remark, that the unable to assign a reason why the territory of Benjamin objurgatory tone of Joshua's speech in chap. xviii. 3, was not included in the first allotment. We cannot but implies that the seven tribes were not anxious to obtain believe that Joshua would have selected precisely those regular possession of the land, but were content to lead portions of the land to be first occupied which were first | the unsettled life of nomades, as they had done in the disposed of by lot. These parts of the country were the desert. Instead of wearying for the time when their lots best known and the most thoroughly subdued; and though should be drawn, it seems to have been necessary to stir occupying a large portion of the land of Canaan, yet the most | them up to take any interest in the matter at all. important parts of the territory included in them were not far distant from the camp at head-quarters, which was NOTE 20, p. 624.—The following reasons for the choice situated in the centre on the mount of Ephraim. But of Shechem as the scene of the transaction related in chapthese reasons were just as applicable to the territory of ter xxiv. seem to be satisfactory:-1. The present renewal Benjamin as to that of the two other tribes, and no cause of the covenant between God and the people was but a can be assigned why it should not have been included in repetition of the solemn transaction on Ebal and Gerizim, the first allotment if that matter depended on Joshua. So narrated in chapter viii. 30-35. It was natural and soon, however, as we suppose the lot to have been taken, suitable, therefore, to select the same spot (Shechem was according to the third method, the difficulty disappears, for situated in the valley between the two summits), when the the omission of Benjamin is referred to the counsels of God, | object for which the Israelites assembled thither on either which it is not necessary that we should understand. occasion was the same. 2. The associations by which the
In every case, then, whichever of these methods we may | place was connected with Jacob, their common progenitor, regard as the one actually adopted, we cannot but observe seem to have had an influence in the choice of a locality. that the parts of the land first allotted were determined | Here Jacob renounced idols, and resolved, along with his with reference to the military situation of the Israelites, family, to worship only the living God. "Then Jacob said viewed as endeavouring to establish themselves in an unto his household, and to all that were with him, Put away cnemy's country. The portions of Judah, Ephraim, and the strange gods that are among you, and be clean, and Manasseh, having been determined, these tribes would change your garments. And they gave unto Jacob all the proceed immediately to enter upon their possession. | strange gods which were in their hand, and all t This, however, could not be accomplished in a day; it rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under would require a considerable time to occupy the various the oak which was by Shechem,' Gen. xxxv. 2, 4. In Joshua towns, together with the country parts, and to fix properly xxiv. 23, we find almost a literal repetition of the words the limits of the land which each tribe would require for which Jacob addressed to his household, which strongly its accommodation. Whilst this process was going on, the suggests that the leader of Israel had the example of the tabernacle and the camp were transferred to Shiloh, the latter in his mind. The statement that the Israelites prelatter place, doubtless, having been selected according to a sented themselves before the Lord,' does not necessarily divine intimation. Meanwhile, also, the other tribes seem imply that the ark had been transferred from Shiloh to to have relapsed into a nomadic manner of life, wandering Shechem. The phrase, before the Lord,' merely denotes about amongst the inhabitants as did the patriarchs Isaac | the religious character of the transaction.
END OF VOL. I.
EDINBURGH: PRINTED BY W. AND R. CHAMBERS.