Question VI. Of what limits [borders] and cities does the tribe of Zabulon consist?

The third [lot], in the latter division, fell to the tribe of Zabulon; whose limits are delineated in the text — or rather, sketched [outlined] — in this order and manner. The western limit (v. 11), proceeding from the South toward the North, is from the city “Sarid” as far as the torrent — [the torrent] which is over against the city “Jeconam.” But this torrent, Masius reckons, is the “Belus,” in which [is] that which by Strabo (bk. 16) is called “ὕαλῖτις ἄμμος [hyalitis ammos]” [“glassy sand”] — that is, sand, from which glass is made, in which the Sidonians, and other neighboring [peoples], greatly excelled (as Strabo narrates in the same place); so much so that, in those parts, a certain very rich tyrant, Firmus, is said to have faced [lined] a house with glass squares [panels] — bitumen and other cements [being] inserted — as Vopiscus the Syracusan [relates] in his Life. “The river Pagida, or Belus,” says Pliny (bk. 5, ch. 19), “mingling sands fertile of glass with [its] small shore.” The southern limit, proceeding from the West toward the East, is from “Sarid” as far as the city “Remmon” (v. 12 & 13), where after Remmon [there] are set “Amthar & Noa”; but these [two] now seem to constitute the eastern limit, from the South to the North, from Remmon to Noa; and lastly [there] is the northern limit, from the East to the West, from Noa as far as the torrent (of which above), namely into the valley “Jephthael,” as far as the Mediterranean sea. Thus Arias and Masius elicit and determine these limits, more or less, from this chapter; others otherwise — as Adrichomius; and of the ancients, Josephus extends them as far as the sea of Genesareth [Gennesaret], toward the East, so that the eastern limit is that sea. “I,” says Masius, “cannot approve this, because [there] is no mention either of the Jordan or of Genesara in the text. For truly [the writer], who described [it], would not have left so noble a limit unmentioned.” Yet various causes [move] writers to speak sometimes in this manner rather than in another; and therefore I would not reject Josephus’s opinion by this one argument alone, [the one] drawn from negation and silence — especially since [the text] pointed out that sea or lake [as] very near, by way of “Japhia” & “Remmon.” And [there is] a little land interposed between these cities and that sea, which is said [to have been] allotted to another tribe.

But twelve cities of Zabulon are handed down (v. 15); yet in the text [there] seem to be recounted many more, namely:

And in the Hebrew [there] seems to be added, further, (v. 11) twice “Phaga.” For this name our [Interpreter] rendered the first [time] “it reacheth [pervenit],” just as also below (v. 22, 26, & 34), twice. Then, since here — after “Debbaseth” — [it] is repeated in the Hebrew, [our Interpreter] understood the same, and continued [it] by “as far as [usque].” But in the 70, these cities are numbered [as] twenty:

[It is] to be said, first, [that] certain cities are here enumerated which are beside, not within, the Zabulonian limits. For “Dabereth” below (expressly, ch. 21) is said to be of the Issacharite tribe, and is given from it to the Levites. And concerning “Hanathon” (v. 14) [it] can be doubted whether, to the North, [it] is included within the same limits, or [is] left outside. Secondly: concerning certain Hebrew words [it] is doubtful whether [they] are proper names of places, or whether their common [generic] meaning is to be taken. And this indeed [was] the view of our Interpreter concerning “Phaga”; [and] of Symmachus, the Chaldee Paraphrast, Rashi, Radak, & Masius concerning “Amthar” (whom Arias therefore also praises). And again, our Interpreter sufficiently expressed, by “the East” or “the eastern quarter,” that which (v. 12 & 13) in the Hebrew is “cedmah, mitzrachah schemesch”; but thence, as [if] a proper name, “βαθσαμύς [bathsamýs]” or “βαιθσαμύς [baithsamýs]” [was] formed in the 70. Thirdly: [it] is to be held, that also — which was said at ch. 15, and again afterward — [that] sometimes the more renowned townships and villages are named, which nevertheless are outside the number of the cities. Fourthly: all confess [that], in the Greek, names of this kind [are] either corrupted by the copyists, or deliberately left in Hebrew [form] by the 70 themselves, and, as it were, obscured. Fifthly: as in the other tribes before, the nomenclature of not always all the cities

(col. 1197)

[…continued from col. 1196.] [the nomenclature] of all the cities [is] not always made [i.e. not all cities are always named]; so neither in Zabulon. For a city of it was the renowned “Cetron” (Judg. 1:30), and yet [it is] here omitted. Sixthly: if all these names were compared one-by-one among themselves, [some] would be found which differ indeed in sound, but [are] the same in meaning — as “Bethlehem” & “βαιθμάν [baithmán]” (for that [first] is “house of bread,” this [second] “house of manna,” or “house of the best bread,” and as it were heavenly); “ἐσεδίκ [esedík]” & “σεδδίκ [seddík]”; [some] would also be found whose sound and letters [are] changed — as “ἰεριχώ [ierichṓ]” for “ἰεδδικώ [ieddikṓ],” “συμοών [symoṓn]” for “σεμερών [semerṓn],” “ναβαάλ [nabáal]” for “νααλάλ [naalál]”; [and] others which [are] briefly compounded from several [words] — as “γαιφαήλ [gaiphaḗl]” from the Hebrew “γεί [gei]” or “γαί [gai]” [valley], “ἰφδάχ [iphdách],” [and] “ήλ [ēl],” that is, “the valley of Jephthael.” And the same [is] the account of the other names, [which are] to be examined, in the other tribes too. But [it] is enough to have pointed a finger, as it were, at these [matters]. For a more accurate disquisition of all these [things] is deliberately left to those Topographers whom I praised before. Two [things] here would remain to be asked. First: “How, in Jacob’s testament, is Zabulon said [to be] about to extend as far as Sidon — and yet [there is] here no mention of Sidon?” Second: “Why did Zabulon obtain [his] lot before Issachar, [although] born the younger from the same Lia [Leah]?” (Gen. 30:18 & 20, and again ch. 35:25). And this latter indeed seems too obscure for the divine secret to be unraveled — [a difficulty] preserved not only here, but in Jacob’s testament itself (Gen. 49:13 & 14). But that [first point] is plain enough. For although no mention of “Sidon” is here made, yet its borders are so bounded that [it] easily appears [that] that tribe was neighboring to Sidon, and [that it] could set out to that city, by land and sea, most conveniently and expeditiously, do business there, and seek huge gain. And therefore Moses said (Deut. 33:18): “Rejoice, Zabulon, in thy going out” — [the tribe] which, namely, will be for thee most opportune [suited] for traveling, sailing, and trading; just as, on the contrary, Issachar — about to take great pleasure from his quiet and leisure in [his] tents — is added [paired with him], concerning whom [something] is now to be said.