Chapter Seventeen

1–6. The generations of the tribe of Manasseh that received a lot in the land west of the Jordan. 7–13. The boundaries of the lot of the half-tribe of Manasseh and the cities belonging to it in the lots of the tribes of Issachar and Asher. 14–18. The complaint of the tribe of Ephraim and the half-tribe of Manasseh about the insufficiency of the lot given to them.

Joshua 17:1. And the lot fell to the tribe of Manasseh, since he was the firstborn of Joseph. To Machir, the firstborn of Manasseh, the father of Gilead, who was mighty in war, fell Gilead and Bashan. Since the tribe of Manasseh had already received a lot in the land east of the Jordan (Josh 13:29-30), therefore the biblical writer, speaking of the allotment of this tribe with a new lot in the land west of the Jordan, explains why it was given and who exactly received it. The reason is indicated by the words “since he was the firstborn of Joseph.” By virtue of his birthright, which gave him the right to a double portion of the inheritance (Deut 21:15-17), a double lot is given to Manasseh. In the land east of the Jordan, the lot fell to Machir, the firstborn of Manasseh, distinguished by bravery which he displayed in the conquest of Gilead (Num 32:39). He is called the “father of Gilead” in the sense of the ruler of this country 161.

Joshua 17:2. There fell lots also to the other sons of Manasseh, by their families: to the sons of Abiezer, to the sons of Helek, to the sons of Asriel, to the sons of Shechem, to the sons of Hepher, and to the sons of Shemida. These were the male descendants of Manasseh son of Joseph, by their families. Joshua 17:3. But Zelophehad son of Hepher son of Gilead son of Machir son of Manasseh had no sons, but only daughters. The names of his daughters were: Mahlah, Noah, Hoglah, Milcah, and Tirzah. Joshua 17:4. They came before the priest Eleazar and Joshua son of Nun and the rulers, and they said, “The Lord commanded Moses to give us an inheritance among our brothers.” So according to the command of the Lord, he gave them an inheritance among the brothers of their father. Joshua 17:5. And there fell ten shares to Manasseh, besides the land of Gilead and Bashan, which are on the other side of the Jordan; Joshua 17:6. For the daughters of Manasseh received an inheritance among his sons, and the land of Gilead fell to the rest of the sons of Manasseh. In the land west of the Jordan, the other five descendants of Manasseh received their lots by their families, which are enumerated here, as in Num 26:30-33, and moreover, five daughters of Zelophehad from the family of Hepher. The daughters of Zelophehad, who had no sons, were given a lot according to the command of Moses and all the community (Num 27:1-11). Thus, the tribe of Manasseh, numbering 10 families, received 10 shares in Canaan, of which 5, given to the daughters of Zelophehad, together constituted one share that belonged to the family of Zelophehad.

Joshua 17:7. The boundary of Manasseh went from Asher to Michmethath, which is east of Shechem. Then the boundary goes east to the inhabitants of En-tappuah. The southern boundary of the half-tribe of Manasseh coincided with the northern boundary of Ephraim, as is evident from the name of the same cities indicated in Josh 16:8. It went from Asher, the name of a city which according to Eusebius is indicated in 15 Roman miles from Neapolis (Shechem) on the way to Scythopolis (present Bethsan); its location is indicated in the present village of Yasir or Teiazir in five and a half hours’ journey to the northeast of Shechem. From the city of Asher the boundary went “to Michmethath, which is east of Shechem” (concerning its location, see Josh 16:6), – then “to the inhabitants of En-tappuah.” East – in the Hebrew text “hayyamin,” which the LXX took as a proper city name Iamin, as translated in the Slavonic Bible, while blessed Jerome and other Greek translators (Aquila and Symmachus) translated it εὶς δεξιὰ – “to the east.” This latter translation was apparently recognized as correct by Eusebius of Caesarea, as is evident from the fact that he made no geographic indications to the name “Iamin,” but instead limited himself to a reference to the translation of Aquila and Symmachus. Meanwhile, some of the modern commentators (Knobel) consider the location of Iamin to be the present village of Iamon, an hour’s journey to the southeast of Phanach (concerning its location, see Josh 17:11), in the Jezreel Valley. What is unclear in the words “to the inhabitants of En-tappuah” is that instead of a city, a mountain or a locality in general, inhabitants (according to the Hebrew text “yosevey”) are indicated as a boundary point. The difficulty this raises is eliminated in the LXX by taking the mentioned Hebrew word as the name of a city (Ἰασσιβ according to the Vatican manuscript, Ἰασῆφ according to the Alexandrian manuscript) Iasif (Slavonic Bible), whose location is, however, presently unknown.

Joshua 17:8. The land of Tappuah belonged to Manasseh, but the city of Tappuah on the boundary of Manasseh belonged to the sons of Ephraim. In speaking of Tappuah, the biblical writer indicates that the land belonging to it was within the boundaries of the half-tribe of Manasseh and geographically should have belonged to it, but in fact this city was in the possession of the tribe of Ephraim and was, consequently, one of the cities mentioned in Josh 16:9.

Joshua 17:9. From there the boundary descends to the stream of Kanah, with the southern side of the stream. These cities of Ephraim lie among the cities of Manasseh. The boundary of Manasseh is on the north side of the stream and ends at the sea. Joshua 17:10. What is to the south belongs to Ephraim, and what is to the north belongs to Manasseh. The sea is their boundary. They meet Asher on the north, and Issachar on the east. From Tappuah the boundary descended to the aforementioned stream of Kanah (Josh 16:8) and went along its southern side, the cities on which, lying within the boundaries of the half-tribe of Manasseh, in fact belonged to Ephraim; then the boundary went along the northern side of the stream and ended at the sea. This brief description of the boundary is supplemented by the following explanation, that what lay to the south of the named stream belonged to the tribe of Ephraim, and what lay to the north of it was possessed by the half-tribe of Manasseh. The northern and eastern boundaries of the latter are indicated even more briefly: “They meet Asher on the north, and Issachar on the east.”

Joshua 17:11. Within Issachar and Asher, Manasseh had Beth-shan and its settlements, Ibleam and its settlements, and the inhabitants of Dor and its settlements, the inhabitants of En-dor and its settlements, the inhabitants of Taanach and its settlements, the inhabitants of Megiddo and its settlements, and a third part of Napheth [with its villages]. This brief description of the boundaries of the half-tribe of Manasseh is supplemented by the biblical writer with an enumeration of cities that were in the lots of the tribes of Issachar and Asher but belonged to the half-tribe of Manasseh. As to which cities these were and how many there were, the Hebrew text and the earliest lists of the Greek translation LXX give different indications. The following cities are indicated identically in both: 1) Bethshan, which was situated in the Jordan Valley, in one and a half hours’ journey from the Jordan, on the road from Damascus to Egypt; in later times (Jdt 3:10) it bore the name Scythopolis; its location, covered with extensive ruins, bears at present the name Beisan (a description of its ruins is in The Holy Land, II, p. 387); 2) “the inhabitants of Dor,” concerning its location see Josh 11:2-3; 3) “the inhabitants of Megiddo,” concerning its location Josh 12:21. The names of other cities Ibleam with its villages, En-dor and Taanach, as read here in the Hebrew text, are absent in the Vatican manuscript and the first two are absent in the Alexandrian, in which are found only, as a supplement to the Vatican manuscript, the words καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Τανακ καὶ τὰς κώμας αὐτῆς – “and the inhabitants of Tanach and her villages.” In later Greek manuscripts the number of cities is read here the same as in the present Hebrew text; evidently it was supplemented on its basis. The original form of the LXX translation, as it is preserved in the Vatican manuscript and partly in the Alexandrian, has special significance here, as it opens the way to explaining the words that follow the enumeration of cities in the Hebrew text: “shelosh tannafet,” which by literal translation means “three heights” (the word “nafet” is used only in this place). The explanation of this expression presents great difficulties because in the preceding words, in relation to which it serves, evidently, as a conclusion, not three but six cities are enumerated. Those guided exclusively by the Hebrew text explain this number three in the sense that from the named 6 cities it refers to the three last: En-dor, Taanach, and Megiddo, but the text gives no basis for this. Since according to the Vatican manuscript only three cities are read in this place 162, the expression “three heights” or “three regions” 163, appears sufficiently clear, so that this translation of the mentioned Hebrew expression might be recognized as the most corresponding to its rendering 164. As for the other cities mentioned in the present Hebrew text, Ibleam was located in the Jezreel Valley, probably at the place of the present Beleameh, as are now called the spring and near it the ruins, some ten versts to the south of Jezreel; En-dor on the northern slope of Little Hermon, at the place of the present village of Evdur; concerning Taanach see Josh 12:21. Of these cities Ibleam and Taanach are named in Judg 1:27 among the cities from which the sons of Manasseh did not drive out the Canaanites; hence, probably, the names of these cities were transferred into the Hebrew text (Josh 17:11); the name of the third – En-dor, – absent here in the LXX, is not recognized as original in the Hebrew text by some of its supporters because of its absence in Judg 1:27 according to the Hebrew text; they see in it only an alteration of the preceding name: Dor 165.

Joshua 17:12. Yet the sons of Manasseh could not take possession of these cities, but the Canaanites persisted in living in this land. Joshua 17:13. However, when the sons of Israel became strong, they subjected the Canaanites to forced labor, but did not drive them out completely. The half-tribe of Manasseh was unable, from these named cities at the beginning of its settlement in the lot given to it, by its own power to drive out the Canaanites living in them, and later, when it had gathered strength, did not do so because it found it more advantageous to have the Canaanites living in them as tributaries. Thus, these cities remained for a long time Canaanite in their population, as was, for example, Bethshan at the end of the reign of Saul, whose body together with three of his sons was hung by the Philistines after the battle on Mount Gilboa on the walls of this city (1 Sam 31:10), confident that the shame of the Israelite king would find full sympathy in the inhabitants of this city.

Joshua 17:14. The sons of Joseph said to Joshua: “Why have you given us only one portion as our inheritance, when we are such a numerous people, since the Lord has blessed us so greatly? To the account of how the tribe of Ephraim and the half-tribe of Manasseh received their lot and how they made use of the cities they received, the biblical writer appends the description of an event belonging to this later period, and remarkable in that it displayed a special character of the descendants of Joseph. This event was precisely the expression before Joshua of their discontent with the one lot they received as not corresponding to their numerous population. In essence, this complaint had no foundation and was unjust. In reality, these one and a half tribes were not so numerous as to require a larger lot. According to the last census (Num 26:1-2) the tribe of Ephraim had 32,000 adult males, all of Manasseh had 52,700, half of it, therefore, could have had about 26,000, and in total they could consist of 58,000, while the tribe of Judah had 76,000, the tribe of Dan 64,400, and besides, the lot they received presented, though generally mountainous, but a very fertile strip of land due to the fact that the mountains in it were not very high and rocky, but interspersed with plateaus and valleys watered by numerous springs, and the Saron plain stretching on the western side of the Ephraimite mountains (from Carmel to Jaffa) was distinguished by unusual fertility, which this locality has preserved until the present day. Under such circumstances the declaration of the mentioned tribes was an expression only of their self-conceit and arrogance, which the Ephraimites demonstrated repeatedly in subsequent times, to the detriment of the general national life (Judg 8:1, etc.). This time the claims of the house of Ephraim did not lead to sad consequences thanks to the wise treatment of them by Joshua.

Joshua 17:15. Joshua replied to them, “If you are a numerous people, go up to the forest and clear ground there for yourselves in the land of the Perizzites and Rephaim, since the hill country of Ephraim is too narrow for you. In responding to his tribesmen, he does not prove the injustice of their demand; he takes into account their reference to their numerous population and the implied strength along with it, but from this makes a completely different conclusion, which directed their activity not toward the expansion of their lot at the expense of adjacent lands, but toward the best possible utilization of what they had received. He advises them to confirm their words with deeds and expand their lot through the expulsion of the Canaanites remaining in it. By “forests in the land of the Perizzites and Rephaim” are understood, in all probability, wooded areas within the lot of these tribes themselves, not outside it, since the clearing of forest beyond the boundary of this lot would have been an intrusion into the possession of other tribes. If these forests in the words of Joshua differ from the “hill country of Ephraim,” this shows only that the latter name was applied not to the entire lot of these tribes, but only to its main part, distinguished especially by its mountainous character and settled by Ephraimites. However, in the Vatican and Alexandrian manuscripts the words “in the land of the Perizzites and Rephaim” are not read; in later Greek manuscripts they passed from Origen’s Hexapla, as shown by the asterisk with which they are marked in some of these manuscripts 166.

Joshua 17:16. The sons of Joseph said, “The hill country is not enough for us. Yet all the Canaanites who live in the plain have chariots of iron, both those in Beth-shan and its settlements and those in the Valley of Jezreel. The “sons of Joseph,” that is, the Ephraimites and Manassites, continued, however, to insist that the hill country of Ephraim was still insufficient for them, even if, following Joshua’s advice, they should clear the wooded areas. The Greco-Slavonic translation of the opening words of this verse οὐκ ἀρκέσει ἡμῖν τὸ ὄρος τὸ Εφραιμ – “the mountain of Ephraim is not sufficient for us” presents the most accurate rendering of them from the Hebrew 167. In confirmation of this they pointed to the iron chariots of the Canaanites as an insurmountable obstacle to occupying the plains, which constituted the best part of the Canaanite land. In particular, they pointed to the war chariots of the Canaanites living in Bethshan (Josh 17:11) and in the vast Jezreel plain, presenting the most fertile strip in Canaanite land, which the Canaanites defended with all their might. To expel the Canaanites, who continued to occupy the most fertile localities, they felt themselves unable, not having such advanced weapons, and therefore had to limit themselves to the worse – relatively – part of the lot given to them, which in this case proved insufficient for them. In this declaration of the Ephraimites and Manassites, self-conceit changes to faint-heartedness; in it there is clearly evident lack of confidence in their own strength, lack of courage, not to mention reliance on higher aid.

Joshua 17:17. But Joshua said to the house of Joseph, to Ephraim and Manasseh, “You are a numerous people and have great power. You shall not have only one lot, Joshua 17:18. but the hill country shall be yours. Although it is a forest, you shall clear it and it shall be yours to its farthest border. For you shall drive out the Canaanites, though they have chariots of iron and though they are strong. And this declaration could not, of course, incline Joshua to increase the lot of his fellow tribesmen. The struggle with the Canaanites remaining in their lot presented, of course, great difficulty, which the other tribes later experienced (Judg 1:19), but this difficulty could not be insurmountable after the main strength of the Canaanites had been broken. One needed to counter it with the full exertion of forces that these tribes possessed and with irresistible courage and confidence in success. To this Joshua pointed the “house of Joseph” 10, addressing it with the words: “You are a numerous people and have great power. You shall not have only one lot.” The hope expressed in these last words for the expansion of the lot, Joshua reveals then with greater specificity, foretelling to his tribesmen that they will fully possess the lot given to them including the wooded areas and their “outgoings” (in Hebrew “totzotav”), that is, the plains which end the mountains, and that they will drive out the Canaanites from their lot, despite their iron chariots. * * * Manasseh. This understanding of this expression is based on the particular feature of the Hebrew text that the name Gilead is used here with the article “haggilead,” while when Gilead is understood as the proper name of the son of Machir, it is used without the article, as in Josh 17:3 or Num 26:29. In the ancient Vatican manuscript Josh 17 reads: Καὶ ἔσται Μανασση ἐν Ισσαχαρ καὶ ἐν Ασηρ. Βαιθσαν καὶ αἱ κῶμαι αὐτῶν καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Δωρ καὶ τὰς κώμας αὐτῆς καὶ τοὺς κατοικοῦντας Μαγεδδω καὶ τὰς κώμας αὐτῆς καὶ τὸ τρίτον τῆς Μαφετα καὶ τὰς κώμας αὐτῆς. “Tresregiones”. Field. Origenis Hexapl. True, according to the LXX it is translated differently, through τὸ τρίτον τγς Μαφετὰ (in the Vatican manuscript) or Ναφετα (in the Alexandrian and other manuscripts), which means “and the third part of Napheth.” But there is no basis for insisting on the exclusive accuracy of this translation, accepted also by blessed Jerome (tertia pars urbis Nopheth), given the difficulty of imagining a city divided into three parts such that one of them belonged to one tribe and the others to another or two others. It is remarkable that the Ostrog correctors were not satisfied with the Greco-Slavonic translation “the third part of Napheth” and added to it: “three regions” (V. K. Lebedev, 311), which represents a new translation of the mentioned Hebrew expression. Dillmann. Die Bucher Numeri… Iosua, 545. Field. Origenis Hexapl. The Hebrew verb “matzah” used in this place is understood, as one must think, in the sense of “to be sufficient,” as in some other places, for example, in Num 11:22: “to be enough.” The further words of the Hebrew text: “Ephraim and Manasseh” – are not read in the Vatican and Alexandrian manuscripts.