The sixth lot fell to the Nephtalite tribe, and decreed to it [its] inheritance, around which [are its] borders. 1. The Eastern, which is shown from the North toward the South by cities (v. 35). But since these [cities] are situated nearly along the Jordan, [it] comes about that the Jordan itself — from its own rising and source, as far as [where] it flows into the sea of Genesareth — is rightly called the Eastern limit. Masius would gladly add to it also the shore of this sea itself, as far as the city Tiberias — but without any authority, unless one please to grant him Abulensis, when, at v. 34 of this chapter, he says [that] “in the junction [overlapping] of the lot of Issachar, the lot of Nephtali reaches as far as the place where the lot of Judah is joined to the Jordan.” But [Abulensis] speaks very obscurely, and indeed against Josephus — whom (q. 6) I said ascribes these spaces to the Zabulonite tribe. Nor is the city “Lakkoum” or “Leccum” placed beyond the mouth [outlet] by which the Jordan is poured into the Genesaritic lake. 2. The Southern limit is from the East to the West (v. 34) — the same, namely, which was the Northern limit for the Zabulonites; but here [it is] indicated by two cities which are in the Nephtalite tribe itself. 3. The Western limit is [that] which was the eastern [limit] of the Aserites, [in] the same v. 34; where [as to] what is added, “And in Juda at the Jordan toward the rising of the sun,” [it] has a twofold exposition. One: [that] the Nephtalite tribe is co-terminous with Judah, on [its] eastern side, and that indeed immediately [directly]. And this conflicts with those [things] which the text said above, when [it] asserted [that] the tribe of Benjamin reaches as far as the Jordan (ch. 18:12 & 20), likewise the tribe of Manasseh (ch. 16) & Ephraim (ch. 17). The other exposition is, that the Nephtalite [tribe] is co-terminous with the Judaic tribe mediately [indirectly] — which again is said in two ways. First: [so] that [the part] of the river Jordan which is intercepted [lies] between each tribe is very small, and therefore — by that common dictum of the Philosophers, which the Jurisconsults [lawyers] also hold — those tribes seem to differ [be distant] from each other [by] nothing. And thus that small [portion] of the intercepted Jordan would indeed be attributed to the already-named tribes — Benjaminite, Manassite, & Ephraimite — but the whole Genesaritic side would, in that manner, be granted to the Nephtalite tribe; which [is] denied. Secondly: [so] that the Jordan indeed [lies] much interposed between Judaea and the tribe Nephtali, and that [this space] is held by the Zabulonite, Issacharite, and other already-mentioned tribes — but [that the two are] joined by an easy and convenient [access], either by navigation through the Jordan’s channel, or by a journey along its shore; and [so that] the Nephtalite [tribe] becomes, in a manner, neighboring and allied to the Judaic tribe. And although Masius gives the sea of Genesareth to this Nephtalite [tribe], yet in this way he explains that place, twice, [on] pp. 297, 298 — and Montanus following him. For the text seems to wish to indicate [that] this Nephtalite tribe is indeed the farthest toward the North, yet enjoys every advantage, from this — that [it] had an easy and ready road to almost all the tribes, and [that it] would rejoice in all the conveniences and opportunities of men, through friendly and brotherly commerce. 4. The Northern limit is not so much expressed in the text as hinted [at] (v. 33): “Lebanon,” or “Anti-Lebanon.” Yet [there] are not lacking [those] who extend this limit farther, so that in it [there] be included also “Damascus, Abila, Chalcis, Palmyra, Emesa,” and other most-noble cities toward the Euphrates (concerning which [see] Zosimus in [the Life of] “Aurelian”). But truly the enclosure [territory] of this tribe would have been much larger than [that] of Judah — which their multitudes, compared among themselves, utterly refuse [reject] (Num. 26). For the Jews [of Judah] were seventy-six thousand five hundred (v. 22); but the Nephtalites [were] forty-five thousand four hundred (v. 50).
Furthermore, in this tribe [there] were 19 cities (v. 38). But more will seem [to be there], if the proper names in the text are gathered, and [if] those [cautions] are not observed which, once and again before, I gave concerning numbers and names of this kind. Certainly “Saanim” (v. 33) for some is a city; for others [it] is an appellative [common] noun, which the Chaldee [paraphrast] (Judg. 4:11) interprets “a stagnant and watery plain.” The Greeks indeed (for in the 70 [it] is “βεσεμιΐν [besemiïn]”) [render it as] “resting [ones],” as [if] they would say [that] this and the prior name “Elon” [mean] “the oak of the resting”; Masius [renders it] “wandering and migrating [ones],” so that there was an oak-grove of theirs [of the migrants] there. But “Adami,” in the same verse, seems to some to be the same as [the place] which [comes] a little after, “Edemah” (v. 35); and again the same with that which was placed at “Sarthan” (ch. 3:6). But then the Nephtalite lot would have to be extended beyond the sea of Genesareth to the South; or certainly “Sarthan” [would have to be] dragged beyond the same sea to the North; and therefore [Masius] more cautiously makes those [to be] different cities, and even quite separated in place — [so does] Adrichomius. But “Neceb,” since the Hebrew “ha” is prefixed to it, some render “toward the South”; but Masius follows our Interpreter, so that [it] be a mark which signifies [that] “Neceb” and “Adami” are the same. For “Ser” (v. 35), the 70 read “Sor,” because [they] translated [it] “Tyre.” In the same place, “Cenereth” is thought, by Masius and Arias, to be a city, from which — on account of [its] nearness, by some change of letters — the sea [is] called “Genesareth.” But this could be true, if [what] some say [is right]: [that] “Tiberias” was called “Cinereth”; but not if this [Cinereth] be one [and the same] Nephtalite [city]. “Hemath” is said by St. Jerome (on the Prophet Amos) [to be] “twofold”: “the greater,” which is Antioch; and “the lesser,” which is Epiphania. But Masius adds a “third,” and makes “Rebla,” or “Reblata,” twofold. Of these [there is] frequent mention in the Scriptures: Num. 13:22, 2 Kings 23:33, Jer. 49, Zech. 9.
(col. 1201)