The fifth lot sent [assigned] the Aserite tribe into [its] inheritance; whose borders are described. First, the Western, in a certain part, from the North to the South, by a measuring-cord drawn [stretched] (v. 25). Then the Southern, from the East to the West (v. 27). Thirdly, the Eastern, from the South to the North (v. 28). Fourthly, the Northern, from the East to the West, [in] the same v. 28 — because those two limits, the eastern and the northern, are explained together, as [if] by one circuit [turning]. But at last, more perfectly, the western limit is shown (v. 29): from Sidon (concerning which, ch. 11) as far as “Aczib” — where the same limit [was] begun before — and thence as far as “Rohob,” which (Judg. 1) by the 70 is called “ἔρεώ [ereṓ].” So indeed Arias and Masius [have it]; but if we consult the tables of Adrichomius and the common pictures [maps], these limits can scarcely be applied, in the order already stated, to the cities [that are] barely named in the text, so that rather some cities seem heaped together from everywhere, by which — even if not by straight lines — in some manner the borders of this tribe are defined. But the cities recounted [are] 22 (v. 29), where “Acziba” is, which by other writers — as by Pliny (bk. 5, ch. 19) — is called “Ecdippa,” “at the ninth milestone [from] Ptolemais for those going to Tyre,” says St. Jerome (On Places); and some think this [is] signified [in] Gen. 38:5 in the Hebrew, when [it] is said [that] Judah was in “Cezib” when his Canaanite wife bore him a son, Selam. And so, more or less, [render] the 70 — except that they render [it that] she [was] there, and bore her sons in that place: “αὐτὴ ἦν ἐν χασβί, ἡνίκα ἔτεκεν αὐτούς [autē ēn en chasbi, hēnika eteken autous]” [“she was in Chasbi when she bore them”]. But our Interpreter, considering [that] in the word “Cazab” there is a force of lying and frustrating [deceiving], translated: “she ceased to bear any more.” Again (v. 26), from “Sihor” & “Labanah,” very nearly all [commentators] wish the copulative particle ”&” [to be] removed, because [it] is not in the Hebrew; yet [it] is also read in the 70 — but with the former name corrupted, thus: “τῷ σιὼν καὶ λαβανάθ [tō siōn kai labanath].” But [those] who read simply “Sihor Labanaah” bring forward various explanations of it. The first: [that so is called] Ptolemais, which [was] formerly “Ace,” says Pliny in the same place; or “haco,” as [it] is in the Hebrew (Judg. 1:31) — concerning which [see] in the Harmony of the Maccabees, p. 660; but I [have said] more in the Century to the Germans, epistle 36 [of] Lipsius. The second: [that it] is the river which above (q. 6) we called “glass-bearing.” For since “Schichor” is wont, in Scripture, to signify the Nile, this river seems similar to it in blackness, because [it is] nearly always turbid with mud and earth — because [it] is very shallow, and yet, in Josephus, nearly a hundred cubits wide. But [the parts] which are deeper, the same [are] clearer, as the word “mischoah” indicates (Ezekiel 34:18). Now “Libnath,” among the Hebrews, signifies “Crystal.” But this river carries down glass-[sand], as the Nile [carries down] mud [and] sand — so that [it] seems “a certain little crystalline, or crystal-bearing, Nile,” says Masius. The third: [that] “Sihor” indeed is a river, but [that] “Libnath” is “white”
(col. 1199)
[…continued from col. 1198.] but [that] “Libnath” is a “white” promontory, which Pliny — in the cited place — hands down [as] situated next to that same river and to the city Ptolemais. And therefore here [too] no mention of a city is made, because [it] is sufficiently signified by the promontory, or by this river. Concerning “Chabul” (v. 28), I [have] spoken [at] 1 Kings ch. 19:13. “Cana” in the same verse is to be understood [as] “the greater” — for that [other is] “the lesser,” in which the Lord made wine out of water (John 2). “Abran” in that place is written by some “Hebron”; and [it] can be so written — yet the Hebrew letters [are] other than in Hebron, Caleb’s city, concerning which above (ch. 14). But since “Sidon,” and its offspring “Tyre,” are ascribed to this Aserite tribe, [there] is a little dissertation [question] whether [the tribe] in fact ever possessed these cities? And most deny [it]. [They] are called “great and fortified cities,” because [they] were such both by nature and by art. And only to signify this, the Interpreter used a superlative (v. 29).