history, we conclude that this is just what we would h ave expected in a contemporary document. Joshua 15,

16 assigns a definite portion to Judah; ch. 17 to Ephraim and half Manasseh, about which, however, they

complain as being partly occupied by Canaanites whom they dared not attack (vs.16). Hence in their case

there is no register of cities. On the other hand, the lot of Benjamin, being between Judah and Joseph

(18:11), was completely occupied, and the register is complete. The territories of Simeon and Dan have no

boundary mark, only a register of cities, b ecause they really formed part of the territories of Judah and

Ephraim. Lastly, the defectiveness in the description of the other tribal lots arises from so much of the

country being still in the hands of the Canaanites. It is evident that such a register could not have dated

from a later period, when the tribes were in full possession, but must be the original register of Joshua.

Even these words (14:12): "Now therefore give me this mountain, where of Jehovah spake in that day;"

do not necessarily imply that that "mountain" was actually assigned to Caleb on "that day."

It is difficult to arrive at a certain conclusion, whether at Kadesh districts were actually assigned to Caleb

and to Joshua, or to Caleb alone, or whether the choice of districts was accorded to both, or to one of them.

The reader will infer our conclusion from the text.

"Caleb, the son of Jephunneh the Kenazite," that is, a son of Kenaz, who was a descendant of Hezron,

the son of Pharez, a grandson of Judah (1 Chronicles 2:5, 18). The name "Kenaz" seems to have been rather

marked in the family, as it recurs again later, 1 Chronicles 4:15. Caleb was the chieftain or head of one of "the

houses of fathers" in Judah, and to the presence of this his "house" - not of the whole tribe - refer the words

(Joshua 14:6): "Then the children of Judah came unto Joshua."

In this sense the words must be understood (Joshua 14:7): "I brought word again, as it was in mine

heart," that is, according to my conscientious conviction. Similarly the exp ression (ver. 8): "but I wholly

followed the Lord," means, that his allegiance to the Lord was not shaken either by the evil report of the

other spies, or by the murmuring and threatening of the people.

It seems to have taken place after the death of Joshua, and is recorded in Judges 1:11, etc.

It is not easy to decide whether Othniel was the son of Kenaz, who was a younger brother of Caleb, or

whether he was himself Caleb's younger brother (Judges 3:9). The punctuation of the Masorethists is in

favor of the latter view, nor was the marriage of an uncle with his niece contrary to the Mosaic law.

Two other critical remarks may here find a place. 1. Our present Hebrew text seems incomplete between

Joshua 15:59 and 60. Here the LXX. insert, no doubt from a more perfect MS., a list of other eleven cities,

among them Bethlehem. 2. The closing notice of ver. 63 helps us to fix the date of the Book of Joshua.

Ephraim numbered 32,500 and half Manasseh 26,350 men capable of bearing arms (Numbers 26:34, 37), or,

both together, 58,850, while Judah numbered 76,500, and even Dan and Issachar respectively 64,400 and

The Authorized Version renders the last clause of ver. 18: "though they have iron chariots, and though

they be strong." The true rendering is not "though," but "for." Most commentators regard this as an irony,

implying that it needed such strong tribes as the sons of Joseph! But I regard it as rather a covert appeal to

their faith - "just because it is so, ye shall drive them out."

Shiloh means rest.

So literally.