1. And the lot of the children of Joseph fell from the Jordan, over against Jericho and the waters thereof, on the east: the wilderness which goeth up from Jericho to the mountain of Bethel; 2. and goeth out from Bethel to Luza; and passeth the border of Archi, to Ataroth, 3. and goeth down westward, by the border of Jephleti, unto the borders of Beth-horon the nether, and to Gazer; and the countries of it are ended by the great sea; 4. and Manasses and Ephraim, the children of Joseph, possessed it. 5. And the border of the children of Ephraim was according to their kindreds; and their possession, toward the east, was Ataroth-addar, unto Beth-horon the upper. 6. And the confines go out unto the sea; but Machmethath looketh to the north, and goeth round the borders eastward into Thanath-selo, and passeth along, on the east side, to Janoe. 7. And it goeth down from Janoe into Ataroth and Naaratha, and cometh to Jericho, and goeth out to the Jordan. 8. From Taphua it passeth on toward the sea into the valley of reeds, and the goings-out thereof are at the most salt sea. This is the possession of the tribe of the children of Ephraim by their families. 9. And there were cities set apart for the children of Ephraim in the midst of the possession of the children of Manasse, and their villages. 10. And the children of Ephraim slew not the Chanaanite who dwelt in Gazer; and the Chanaanite dwelt in the midst of Ephraim, until this day, [as] a tributary.
(col. 1165)
COMMENTARY
From Genesis 49, and from other [things] here before mentioned, it is established [that] the two sons of Joseph, Ephraim and Manasse, were adopted by Jacob into the number of his [own] sons — so that both of them should approach the inheritance no otherwise than the other sons of Jacob, and should be reckoned not so much [as] his grandsons as [his] sons; and [so that] both should be heads of [their] posterity, or of their tribes, like the other sons and Patriarchs — whereas otherwise they would have been only one head, if they had succeeded only [to] their own Father Joseph, who, like the rest of the brothers, was one. The portions, therefore, of these two tribes — propagated from those two [sons] — in the promised land, are described in these two chapters, and indeed in a twofold [way]. First, generally, in the first four verses of ch. 16. Then singly [in detail], in the remaining verses of each chapter — but so that [at] ch. 16, v. 4, Ephraim’s lot is completed, [and at] ch. 17, Manasse’s. And generally indeed the Southern limit of the soil and dominion of both tribes together is shown, by progressing from east to west — namely, from that part of the Jordan which [is] near Jericho, and is directly opposite it, up to the Mediterranean sea; by drawing thence, to here, a cord or line through those Jericho-waters afterward celebrated by Elisha’s miracle (2 Kings ch. 2), through the wilderness — which wilderness (as [pleases] the Chaldee), or lot (as pleases Arias more), or line, ascends to Mount Bethel, between Bethel and Luza, through Archi-ataroth (which the Chaldee, dividing the word, partitions into two places), beside Iephleh, and through Beth-horon the nether, and the city Gazer. Then the border in which that line ends is that very “great sea” concerning which [was treated in] the foregoing chapter, question 2. But in the singular [detailed] description of the parts, these [things] can be noted.
I. This particular portion between those two Josephine tribes seems to Masius not [to have been] made before the other tribes received by lot their own several possessions. To Abulensis (q. 2) and others, [it] seems otherwise. And Masius himself subjoins: “but [it] is of no great importance whether they divided the inheritance privately among themselves at once, or afterward, which in common they had received by one lot, as I said.”
II. Two “Beth-horon” cities are here indicated in that tribe of Ephraim — the nether, which [is] more southern and more western (v. 3), and the upper, which [is] more northern and more eastern (v. 5).
III. Of the same Ephraimite tribe is indicated: 1. The breadth, from south to north (v. 5), and its space between the line which passes through the southern Ataroth-addar, and the line which [passes] through the northern Beth-horon the upper. But that “it avails against [contra] the east” [means] “toward the east”: so two famous cities on the eastern side of this [tribe] are signified — but one southern, the other northern, as I said. 2. The northern breadth is indicated, from east to west, in a threefold [way]. For first [there] is placed, as a certain common border, the named city Beth-horon the upper; and from it [one] proceeds (v. 6) toward the west, so that the confines or borders end in the Mediterranean sea — the city Machmethah, however, being left and, as it were, secluded toward the north. Then from the same Beth-horon the border goes round (or is bent back), and that begun northern cord proceeds toward the east, into six eastern cities — of which the last, and most eastern, is Jericho — until [one] has come to the Jordan itself (v. 7). Thirdly: [it] is completed, or rather explained, in v. 8, where from Beth-horon the upper the line had been indicated toward the west. For this [line] proceeds through Thaphna and the valley of reeds, up to the same Mediterranean sea.
IV. In that description of the northern breadth [there] are, in the Latin books indeed, two errors. One (v. 6): “circuit terminos [it goes round the borders],” for “circuit terminus [the border goes round].” The other (v. 8), into which verse crept that [word] “most-salt [salsissimum].” And both those corrections are perceived from the Hebrew and Greek.
V. For “valley of reeds,” or [a valley] which abounds in reeds, some render “the river or torrent of the reed [Canna]” — because the Hebrew word “nachal” signifies both “valley” and “torrent,” as it is rendered in both ways (following ch. 17, v. 9). But when it is called “a reedy valley,” [it is] likewise [that] which is signified by some to abound [in reeds]. Masius depicts this torrent; and others think the same [is] that torrent “Carith,” near which Elias hid (1 Kings 17). But others [think it is] that which, in Judith ch. 7, in the Greek copies, is called “Machmour,” as I noted it in that place (p. 289) — as if [it] were a black torrent or river, of which kind those waters generally are, in which (or from which) [grow] the reed-beds. For [they] are mostly stagnant, muddy, and torpid, so that for that reason [it] seems less rightly rendered “river.” But the Seventy — “χελκανά [chelkana],” the first syllable of the former name being omitted — retained the Hebrew words, and, as it were, put [it as] either one city, or some one place.
VI. “Separated cities” (v. 9). In the Hebrew [they] are called “cities of separations,” and [are] expounded in two ways: 1. Cities which separate the Manassites from the Ephraimites — and so by Tremellius and Junius [they] are rendered “boundary cities.” 2. Cities which are set apart — and this [is] better, not only on account of the Latin text, but the Greek too, in which [it is] “αἱ πόλεις αἱ ἀφωρισμέναι [hai poleis hai aphōrismenai]” [“the cities that are set apart”]. And why [should the] boundary or border cities [be] placed rather in the Manassite tribe than in the Ephraimite itself? For the boundary of each is a [common] boundary. But “separated” is said in two ways — either, namely, because [they were] separately designated to the Ephraimites (as Masius renders [it]), or [because they are those] which are disjoined from the already-enumerated cities of the Ephraimites — and so Arias: “This reading,” he says, “has an annotation, or emphasis,” and indicates — besides those cities which had fallen to the Ephraimites in [their] own region, divided [off] from [their] Manassite brothers — certain others [that were], even then, handed over to them by a diligent and accurate consignment, with [their] hamlets and villages. And the same sense is Masius’s in the commentary — which Caietanus too embraces: “Understand,” he says, “that some cities of Ephraim were in the midst of Manasse not as to ownership, but as to site. For [they] were not taken away from Manasse and given to Ephraim, but [they] are described [as] situated between the borders of Manasse on this side and that” — as seems to be made manifest in the following chapter. The same seemed [right] also to Lyranus, whom Abulensis rejects by no reasoning — [Abulensis] bringing forward this opinion, which [is] less probable: [that] the cities of Ephraim were surrounded by the Manassite tribe, namely as to the northern and eastern side. But in that way all the interior tribes are surrounded by some other [tribe]; nor is [it] explained why those cities were called [cities] “of separations.”
VII. Of the Ephraimite tribe, in [the matter of] killing — or expelling, and destroying — the Canaanites (as the Hebrew and Greek text have, v. 10): either the counsel [policy], or else — against Exod. ch. 23:32, [and] Deut. 7:2 — the sin, is again explained,
(col. 1167)
…will be explained again (Judg. 1:29). And something similar is inserted by the 70 (below, ch. 19, before v. 49) — before they treat of the Joshuan [Dan’s] portion, [namely, that] they had crossed over to the Lesem [Laish] expedition; and that [the 70] explains concerning exorcists, and more [fully to] the Christians: Origen (homily 24). But [as to that] which is here added, “until this day,” [it] already occurred above rather often. Here only [it is] to be noted [that] the 70 in a certain way indicate that day [to] have been in Solomon’s time. Whence one might not ineptly gather, either [that] this book [was] written at that time, or rather — as [was] touched [in] prolegomenon 2 — [that] these little additions [were] then made. So indeed they [the 70 have it]: “καὶ κατῴκει ὁ Χαναναῖος ἐν τῷ Ἐφραὶμ ἕως τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης, ἕως ἀνέβη Φαραὼ βασιλεὺς Αἰγύπτου, καὶ ἔλαβεν αὐτὴν Γαζέρ, καὶ ἐνέπρησεν αὐτὴν ἐν πυρί, καὶ τοὺς Χαναναίους καὶ τοὺς Φερεζαίους τοὺς κατοικοῦντας ἐν Γαζὲρ ἐξεκέντησαν, καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτὴν Φαραὼ ἐν φερνῇ τῇ θυγατρὶ αὐτοῦ” [kai katōkei ho Chananaios en tō Ephraim heōs tēs hēmeras tautēs, heōs anebē Pharaō basileus Aigyptou, kai elaben autēn Gazer, kai eneprēsen autēn en pyri, kai tous Chananaious kai tous Pherezaious tous katoikountas en Gazer exekentēsan, kai edōken autēn Pharaō en phernē tē thygatri autou] — [“and the Canaanite dwelt in Ephraim until this day, until Pharaoh, king of Egypt, went up and took it, [namely] Gazer, and burned it with fire; and they slew the Canaanites and the Pherezites dwelling in Gazer; and Pharaoh gave it [as] a dowry to his daughter”]. [= 1 Kings 9:16.] And this is [that] which Origen touches in homily 22.