1. And the lot fell to the tribe of Manasse (for he is the firstborn of Joseph): to Machir, the firstborn of Manasse, the father of Galaad, who was a warlike man, and had the possession of Galaad and Basan; 2. and to the rest of the children of Manasse according to their families — to the children of Abiezer, and the children of Helec, and the children of Israel, and the children of Seche, and the children of Hepher, and the children of Semida: these are the male children of Manasse the son of Joseph, by their kindreds. 3. But to Salphaad, the son of Hepher, the son of Galaad, the son of Machir, the son of Manasse, there were no sons, but only daughters, whose names are these: Maala, and Noa, and Hegla, and Melcha, and Thersa. 4. And they came in the presence of Eleazar the priest, and of Joshua the son of Nun, and of the princes, saying: The Lord commanded by the hand of Moses that a possession should be given us in the midst of our brethren. And he gave them, according to the commandment of the Lord, a possession in the midst of the brethren of their father. 5. And there fell ten portions to Manasse, besides the land of Galaad and Basan beyond the Jordan. 6. For the daughters of Manasse possessed an inheritance in the midst of his sons. And the land of Galaad fell to the lot of the [rest of the] sons of Manasse that remained. 7. And the border of Manasse was from Aser, [to] Machmethath, which looketh toward Sichem; and it goeth out to the right hand, by the inhabitants of the Fountain of Taphua. 8. For the land of Taphua had fallen to the lot of Manasse, [but Taphua itself] is by the borders of Manasse, [belonging to] the children of Ephraim. 9. And the border goeth down to the valley of reeds, to the south of the torrent of the cities of Ephraim, which are in the midst of the cities of Manasse: the border of Manasse is on the north of the torrent, and the going-out thereof reacheth to the sea; 10. so that the possession of Ephraim is on the south, and that of Manasse on the north, and the sea is the border of both; and they are joined together in the tribe of Aser on the north, and in the tribe of Issachar on the east. 11. And the inheritance of Manasse [reached] into Issachar and into Aser: Bethsan and its villages, and Jeblaam with its villages, and the inhabitants of Dor with their towns; the inhabitants also of Endor with their villages; and likewise the inhabitants of Thenac with their villages, and the inhabitants of Mageddo with their villages, and the third part of the city of Nopheth. 12. Neither could the children of Manasse overthrow these cities, but the Chanaanite began to dwell in his land. 13. But after the children of Israel were grown strong, they subdued the Chanaanites, and made them their tributaries, and they did not slay them. 14. And the children of Joseph spoke to Joshua, and said: Why hast thou given me [but] one lot and one portion to possess, whereas I am of so great a multitude, and the Lord hath blessed me? 15. And Joshua said to them: If thou be a great people, go up into the woodland, and cut down room for thyself in the land of the Pherezite and the Raphaim, because the possession of Mount Ephraim is too narrow for thee. 16. And the children of Joseph answered him: We cannot go up to the mountains, for the Chanaanites that dwell in the low lands — in which are situated Bethsan with its towns, and Jezrael possessing the midst of the valley — have chariots of iron. 17. And Joshua said to the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasse: Thou art a great people, and of great strength; thou shalt not have one lot only, 18. but thou shalt pass to the mountain, and shalt cut down, and clear thyself room to dwell in; and thou mayest proceed farther, when thou hast overthrown the Chanaanite — who, as thou sayest, has iron chariots, and is very strong.
COMMENTARY
Four parts of this chapter seem [to be]. In the first, it is explained to which heads of the Manassite families the Cisjordanian inheritance of this tribe was given, from v. 1 to 7. In the second, by what borders that inheritance is circumscribed, to v. 12. In the third, how the Manassites behaved toward the Canaanites (vv. 12 & 13). In the fourth, a certain complaint of the same [Joseph tribes] is set forth before Joshua, concerning which from v. 14 to the end. In the first
(col. 1169)
In the first [part] these [things] can be noted. 1. The inheritance of this tribe was given to Manassites of two kinds. Some were beyond the Jordan — concerning whom above (ch. 13), and here briefly, when it is said (v. 1) [that] Machir, and his firstborn Galaad, a very warlike man, occupied there the land Galaaditis of his own name, and likewise Basan. Others [were] on this side [of] the Jordan, in Canaan; and these were [named] from v. 2 — from his [Machir’s] grandsons, the sons of [his] sons, who [were] six males — namely of Abiezer, Chelek, Esriel, Sechem, Chepher, and Schemida. But because the son of the penultimate [Chepher] was the only Salphaad, and to this one [there were] no male sons, but five daughters (v. 3), it comes about that in place of one Chepher are placed the portions of those daughters — which [portion], although (in respect of both [their] father and grandfather) it was, like [that] of those others, single, yet because, according to their number, it was afterward divided into five parts, [therefore] all the parts of the Cisjordanian Manassites together are said (v. 5) [to be] ten: of which five [were] given to the sons of Abiezer, Chelek, Esriel, Sechem, and Semida, but five to the daughters of Salphaad, who [were] the same granddaughters of Chepher. But these five [daughters’ portions] joined together obtained no more than [the equivalent of] one of the former five [portions]. And this is the truest and readiest exposition of those ten cords [portions] which are mentioned (v. 5) — [rather] than [the one] which R. Isaiah (to the “ten fictitious hipparchies [divisions],” to [persons] long since dead) [and] other Rabbis (in Baba Bathra, ch. 8) very ineptly drew.
2. But why [it] was said immediately (v. 1), “(for he, Manasse, is the firstborn of Joseph)” — the cause [is] (says Masius), I think, that the Reader may observe [that], by that casting of the lot, Jacob’s judgment [was] excellently confirmed (Gen. 48:14). But that one [Masius] renders the Hebrew particle “ci [ki]” as “autem [but/now],” whereas [it is] rather a causal mark, and means “because,” “for,” as our [Vulgate] and the 70 render; but Junius and Tremellius render “because,” and say [it] is added so that [there] be a reason why two portions are attributed to Manasse by the law [of] Deut. 21:17. Not [that] which is read (Gen. 48:18 & following), [that] Ephraim [was] preferred before Manasse — this [is] not to be referred to a transfer of the primogeniture [birthright], but to the prophetic blessing of the offspring. But that [is said] against the opinion of all, and by [a forced] interpretation, as is taught there. Better, therefore, is [it] answered by Arias, [that] this was now said for this reason — that two wonderful [things] might be signified in this tribe. One is, that it was so populous, and so widely scattered both on this side and beyond the Jordan. The other, that after Ephraim, it becomes master of this its Cisjordanian part. For the cause of both is, that Manasse was the firstborn of Joseph (who had been called “a growing [son]” by [his] father Jacob, Gen. 49:22), and that nonetheless Ephraim [was] preferred before him by the same Jacob (Gen. 48:16 & 19). And this exposition too — as to the former [point] — the cited Masius praises.
3. But the history of those Salphaadite [daughters], to which [reference] is here made, is [in] Num. 27 & 36.
In the second part these [things] too can be noted. 1. The text describes the eastern limit of this tribe (v. 7), by proceeding from the northern part, toward the south, from the city Aser as far as the city Machmatha — which was directly opposite to the city Sichem, yet a little more southern than that [Sichem]. But [that] “Aser” [is] taken for a city, not for a tribe — Arias and Masius rightly judge, although Radak took [it] for the tribe. 2. But from the city Machmatha, toward the right [south], proceeding to the west, or to the Mediterranean sea (vv. 7, 9 & 10), [there] occurs the fountain of Taphua (v. 7), and the valley of reeds, concerning which [in] the foregoing chapter; and so the southern limit of this tribe is had [to be] the same, namely, which was the northern [limit] of the Ephraimite tribe. But the text admonishes (v. 8) [that] the city Taphua belonged to the Ephraimites, but its land or territory, with its townships and villages, to the Manassites. For the cord or line which, from the south, encircled either that valley or that reedy torrent, gave [it] to the Manassites themselves — [yet] the cities which lay adjacent to this valley or torrent (on the southern side) [were] of these [Ephraimites]. For this the Hebrew signifies (v. 9), which in the Latin [is] thus to be understood: “The border of the valley of reeds descends to the south,” or [to] the southern side of the torrent itself; “and it is the border of those cities which, although they be in the midst [of the Manasseh cities], yet are of Ephraim itself.” So that, word for word, [it] can be rendered more clearly: “those cities are of the Ephraimites, in the midst of the cities of Manasse.” 3. The western limit of each tribe is in some way indicated (v. 10), from south to north. For the side of the Mediterranean sea bounds each; and each is, in some way, co-terminous [with] the Aserite tribe, at Mount Carmel, near the city Dor. I said “in some way,” because the Ephraimite lot does not reach there by itself, but only through its brother-tribe the Manassite, since both are Josephine. 4. Each, in a like manner, reaches from the eastern part to the Issacharite tribe (same v. 10). 5. The Manassite tribe itself had, in the two already-named co-terminous tribes, some 7 cities and villages — namely: 1. Bethsam, which [is] also Scythopolis; 2. Jeblaam; 3. Dor; 4. Endor; 5. Thenac; 6. Mageddo; 7. Nepheth — but “tertiated,” or its third part, as [it is] in our text, and in the Greek 70, “τὸ τρίτον τῆς Μαφετά [to triton tēs Mapheta]” [the third part of Mapheta], or rather “ναφετά [naphetá].” Masius, however, here (& above ch. 11) thinks [it] is not a city, but a tract and region — so that, [with] the interpreter Arias who subscribed to him, for “the third part of the city” [it] should be written, from the Hebrew, “the trinity or triplicity of Nepheth,” or of the region. Symmachus renders [it] “three shores of the Phoenician sea.” I adhere to our Interpreter and the 70, since [there] is nothing firm from elsewhere. Abulensis, however, will [have it] that this [was] of the Manassites’ inheritance not in those tribes, but [held] beside those tribes — p. 79. 6. In these verses, these [things] are almost all [said] by prolepsis, concerning these cities, and the northern borders of the Manassites.
In the third part, [things] are narrated — also “προληπτικῶς [prolēptikōs, ‘by anticipation’]” — [that] which [is] to be said [in commenting on] Judg. 1:27, just as above (ch. 16, last v.). In the commentary on that place, Masius would seem to graze somewhat certain Catholic dogmas, were he not perspicuously discerned [to be] rather noting and reprehending the vices of morals.
In the fourth part, finally, these [things are] to be noted. 1. [That] the Manassites alone complained, Radak and certain other Jews think; but [that], together with them, [there] were the Ephraimites [too], not only do our Interpreters teach — Abulensis, Arias, Masius — but the whole context itself, especially v. 17. 2. [That] these tribes complained immediately after the attempted — but not completed — expulsion of the Canaanites, R. Moses of Gerona [Nachmanides] thinks. But since [it] was done only after Joshua’s death (as was said in the upper part of the chapter), [it is] to be judged [that] that narration concerning the Canaanites not expelled [was] placed there by prolepsis. For while Joshua [was] living and surviving, those [Canaanites] would never have been tolerated by that greatest [leader], even with tribute and levy. But Masius thinks [that], after the casting-of-lots of the other tribes (concerning which [in] the following chapter) [was] made, this complaint [was] raised. But I would think [it was] rather before; and [that] this very [complaint] was Joshua’s occasion of rebuking the sloth of all the tribes (next chapter). For [it] seems [that] first Ephraim and Manasse [were] placed in their possession; then [they] dwelt in it for some while; [and] then at last [they] came to Joshua, complaining about their straits. 3. [That] which I said of Joshua, and [which] the text says, I think — [with] Abulensis — [is] to be taken by Synecdoche. For [that] they laid down the complaint not before Joshua alone, but before Eleazar too, and the princes set over this division. 4. They complained [that] the possession of [but] one tribe [was] given to them — not because both Josephine tribes were reckoned for only one, nor because [they were] enclosed by single borders [as] one tribe, as it were,
(col. 1171)
circumscribed; nor, finally, because the portions attributed to them (as [those] of one tribe) [were] narrow — but because both together now obtained no more, in the [otherwise] ample portions given (empty, quiet, and freed from the old Canaanites), than if they were one tribe, or than would suffice for one tribe — as [is] manifest from Joshua’s own answers. 5. By “mountain” (v. 18) some understand a single mountain — and that, either of Gelboe (as R. Isaiah), or [of] Ephraim; others understand, generally, the mountainous region. And so our interpreter (v. 16), Masius, [and] Abulensis. For the Josephine tribes, like the Judaic, were mountainous. 6. The Hebrew text (as [in] vv. 16 & 18) seems very intricate. And therefore both the Rabbis and our expositors try variously to disentangle it and render it plain. Our Interpreter indeed did not [do] this felicitously — [rather, while] rendering word for word, in whom that [phrase], “and thou mayest proceed farther,” expresses [that] which in the Hebrew is: “And the goings-out of it shall be thine, [namely] of the mountain or of the forest.” 7. Concerning the Raphaim, Abulensis discourses here (q. 4). But [about those] dispersed elsewhere, and about the iron and scythed chariots, [it] will be said [on] Judg. ch. 1.
8. Here the nature of querulous [complaining] men [is] to be observed. [1.] For [they] generally lay the blame of the matter of which they complain upon others, when it cleaves in themselves — and indeed sometimes with some pretext of piety, so that they may show a just cause of complaining for themselves. “A people — I am many,” say these, “or I am of a great multitude, and the Lord has greatly blessed me, so that I am of so great and so illustrious a number.” 2. [They] exaggerate their merits. 3. All the evils which seem to them to be, they augment: as these [augment] the straits of the land, and the strength and armor of the Canaanites. 9. All [these things] Joshua turns back against complainers of this kind, so that — [even] from the [things] which they say — they may be led away from crying out, and be of a more equitable mind. 10. The same true Joshua, CHRIST JESUS, both does [this] now with us, and will do [it] one day in the final judgment. For someone is vexed, and says — either before his superiors, or in his heart: “I am such-and-such, so-and-so-great; I ought to be honored thus and thus by these and those; I ought to enjoy these and those conveniences; these and those privileges ought to be granted to me.” [But Christ answers:] “If thou art such-and-such, so-and-so-great, why dost thou not do this and that? why dost thou not use thy talents? why hast thou grown so torpid? why hast thou not put them out at interest?” (Matt. 25). 11. God does not will to give all [things] to the idle: the hand [is] also to be applied to the work; the mountains [are] to be ascended; the groves [are] to be cleared; the forest [is] to be cut down; the house [is] to be built; the Raphaim [are] to be attacked; the enemies’ scythes, swords, and all terrors [are] to be undergone and overcome — as Origen beautifully teaches here (homily 22), who, among other [things, says] thus: “Let us cleanse the forest which is in us; and — cutting down from our very selves the useless and unfruitful trees — let us make there new-cleared fields, which we always renew, and from which we may take fruit thirtyfold, and sixtyfold, and a hundredfold.” These [things] correspond to the former: [as to] cutting down the unfruitful trees, these [are] the commands which the Lord Jesus describes to us in the Gospels (Matt. 3). And how is it not true, that the shadow preceded, and the truth followed? 12. Excellent is Joshua’s faith, who — relying on God’s promises — promises the Josephites [that] it certainly will be, that they will possess the whole region, if they but strive a little with the forces and opportunities which the Lord gave them. 13. Outstanding too [is] the same [Joshua’s] integrity and severity, who — although he was of the tribe of Ephraim — yet stopped [his] ears to the complaints of his [own] tribesmen, [and] yielded nothing to them. Nay, [he] even gravely and seriously rebukes and chastises them — but so, again, prudently and moderately, that he showed them both [that] their complaints [were] unjust, and [showed them] likewise the easiness of satisfying [their] wishes and desires.